December 19,2002

SDMS DocID 2065651

HEALTH CONSULTATION(Soil and Soil Gas Samples)

VALMONT TCE SITE(a/k/a VALMONT INDUSTRIAL PARK)

WEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAEPA FACILITY ID: PAD982363970

Prepared by:

The Pennsylvania Department of HealthUnder Cooperative Agreement with the

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

SUMMARY

At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III (USEPA3), thePennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) working under a cooperative agreement with theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), prepared this health consultationfor the Valmont TCE Site. In response to community's health concerns, ATSDR and PADOHreviewed the on-site and off-site soil and soil gas samples and determined whether exposures tothe soil contaminants pose a public health threat. At this time, USEPA is considering a non-time-critical removal action addressing VOC-contaminated soils at the Chromatex Plant.

The approximately 7-acre Valmont TCE Site is in the Valmont Industrial Park, immediatelynorthwest of the borough of West Hazleton, Pennsylvania. In addition to the soil contaminationnear the Chromatex Plant #2, the site also consists of contaminated groundwater in the nearbyresidential neighborhood which will be addressed in future documents. Operations at the sitebegan in the early 1960s when it served as an industrial site for several enterprises, including themanufacturing of coffins and knitted fabrics. However, it was not until 1978 that ChromatexPlant #2 (one large manufacturing building on the property thought to be the major source ofcontamination), started its operations using trichloroethylene (TCE) for upholstery fabricmanufacturing. Chromatex Plant #2 discontinued the use of TCE in 1988 and subsequentlyclosed its business on March 2001.

In preparing this health consultation (HC), ATSDR/PADOH reviewed available soil and soil gasdata from the USEPA3 and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP),formerly known as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). Thechemicals of health concern that have been detected in the soil media and are evaluated in thisHC include volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)/pesticides, and metals. Because evaluation of soil gas levelsis not part of evaluating the health impact by ATSDR/PADOH, we did not utilize thatinformation for making a health determination.

Based on review of available information, ATSDR/PADOH concluded that current exposure tooff-site soil contaminants pose an indeterminate public health hazard to residents near the sitedue to lack of current off-site 0-3" soil sample data. Therefore, ATSDR/PADOH recommendsfull characterization of off-site soil media by collecting surface soils (0-3"') at the residential"Seas especially those witn nigh levels of soil gas contaminants like vinyl chloride. Iii addition,c^ent exposure^o soil contaminants pose no apparent puolic htiallh hazard lo trespassers, ̂ astexposures to oh-site and off-site soil contaminants pnsed no apparent public health hazard toresidents, workers and trespassers.

BACKGROUND

The PADOH is in the process of completing a comprehensive public health review of theValmont TCE Site which will be addressed in a document known as Public Health Assessment(PHA). A health consultation was completed in November 2002 to determine if exposure tocontaminated indoor air in residential homes pose a health threat to the residents near the site.

H.

v

The USEPA is currently undergoing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at thesite and is currently considering a non-time -critical removal action addressing VOC-contaminated soils at the Chromatex Plant. This health consultation analyzes and interprets thesoil sampling data to determine if exposures to soil contaminants pose a public health threat tothe population receptors. The interpretation, advice, and recommendation present in this reportare site-specific and are based on current available data. They should not be consideredapplicable to any other sites. Additionally, the conclusions and recommendations may change asnew information becomes available.

Demographics and Site Description

The Valmont TCE site consists of a zone of contaminated soil and groundwater near theintersection of Jaycee Drive and Deer Run Road in Hazle Township and West Hazleton, LuzerneCounty, Pennsylvania (Figures 1 and 2). The area south and west of the site, extending for abouta one-half mile radius, is an industrial park (Valmont Business Park). Though the contaminationboundaries have not been completely defined, the approximate boundaries are Route 93 and asmall shopping center on the east as well as Black Creek on the north (Figure 2). The area ofconcern is believed to cover about one-fifth square mile, and includes the Chromatex plant onJaycee Drive and at least 35 homes about 1000 feet downgradient to the northeast (Figure 3).About 150 people live in the potentially affected homes.

Various facilities operated on-site in the early 1960's. Starting in 1978, the facility was operatedby Chromatex, Incorporated, an upholstery fabric manufacturer that used TCE until June or July1988 [1]. Chromatex also maintained a 10,000 gallon underground storage tank just northwestof the building to contain emergency spillage or overflow of hazardous materials stored in theplant, and to receive floor drain waste (Figure 3). The plant ceased operations on March 2001.

The site is underlain by fractured pebbly conglomerate and sandstone of the PennsylvaniaPottsville formation. Soil cover is generally thin around the site, and outcrops are abundant andreadily visible on the topographic high points. The top inch in a representative profile is anorganic layer of partly decomposed leaf litter. The surface layer is about one inch of a very darkbrown gravelly loam. The subsurface layer is pinkish-gray gravelly sandy loam about four inchesin thickness. Soil permeability is moderate and ranges from 2 to 6 inches per hour.

Remedial and Regulatory History

In October 1987, PADER sampled home wells northeast of Chromatex Plant #2 as a result ofcomplaints from a spill of alcohols at another facility located west of the Chromatex Plant #2.TCE concentrations as high as 1,400 parts per billion (ppb) were detected, which initiated furtherinvestigation by the EPA Technical Assistance Team (TAT). TAT residential well samplingalso indicated TCE levels as high as 1,400 ppb [1]. The EPA took immediate action to removethe risk by supplying residents with bottled water. EPA subsequently provided emergencyfunding in December 1987 to oversee the installation of public water supply lines into theneighborhood. The water line installation was completed in February 1988 [1].

Between 1987 and 2002, the USEPA3 and PADEP collected various environmental media andhad them analyzed primarily for volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). Because the immediatepublic health problem at this site had been addressed with the provision of public water toresidents, activities by environmental and public health agencies at this site were then inabeyance until approximately 2000. At that time, EPA began preparing to list this site on itsNational Priorities List (NPL) to address the long term environmental cleanup concernsremaining at this site.

The site was proposed to the National Priorities List on June 14,2001, and was formally addedtothe list on September 13,2001. EPA then began coordinating plans for a RI/FS with otheragencies, including ATSDR, PADEP, and PADOH, to determine the extent of VOCcontamination in groundwater, to identify possible source areas for the contamination, and tocharacterize the local groundwater flow. PADEP subsequently developed a work plan inOctober 2001 to better define the relationship between contaminated groundwater and indoor aircontaminant concentrations inside homes.

In December 2002, an EPA contractor is recommending a non-time -critical removal actionaddressing VOC-contaminated soils at the Chromatex Plant, i.e. soil vapor extraction with off-site treatment of residuals and site excavation with off-site disposal.

Environmental Contamination History

On-Site Soil Data

On May 5,1988, seven soil samples were obtained by an EPA subcontractor and analyzedthrough the EPA Contract Laboratory Program for VOCs. As shown in Table 1, analyticalresults from three of the seven samples revealed 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and TCE. Themaximum concentration of the detected contaminants was consistently detected in the soilsample taken "below the loading dock." The exact locations of the other samples are unknown,although the other two locations that detected VOCs were located "two feet under the tank" and"above the loading dock" according to available file information [2].

In September 1993, three on-site surface soil samples (2 inches deep) and 4 subsurface soilsamples (2-4 feet deep) were submitted for laboratory analysis to the EPA central laboratory [2].The chemicals detected from this sampling event include 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-dichloroethane(1,1- DC A). On December 2000, TCE was also detected in one of three on-site soil samples [3].

In June 2002, more than 100 on-site soil samples from various locations were collected by theEPA contractor (Figure 4) and analyzed for VOCs, semi-volatiles, pesticides/PCBs, and metals[4]. Table 1 shows the selected chemicals of health concern.

ATSDR/PADOH recognizes the fact that contaminated soils attributable to the Chromatex Plant#2 property have the potential to continue to degrade groundwater quality in the vicinity of thesite as well as other underlying soils.

On-Site Soil Gas Data

In June-August 2002, an EPA contractor also collected and analyzed over a hundred on-site soilgas samples (Figure 4) [4]. This survey was performed in order to evaluate subsurface soilconditions and to identify potential contaminant source areas by measuring the total VOCconcentration in the soil gas. A third and limited soil gas survey was done in October 2002 tosupport the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) of an EPA contractor.

Off-Site Soil Data

In May 1987, samples were taken from 5 homes, down gradient, plus background, and analyzedfor VOCs. They appear to be surface samples, though this was not specified; records do notclarify the actual depth of samples. Reporting limit was 5 ppb, and all were non-detects [5].There were no off-site soil samples collected during the June 2002 round of soil sampling;however, there are plans of collecting off-site residential soils in the near future.

Off-Site Soil Gas Data

In October-November 2001, a PADEP contractor collected soil gas samples from eight (8)residence yards. In June-August 2002, an EPA contractor collected and analyzed 24 soil gassamples from 23 homes (Table 2). These soil gas surveys were performed to also evaluatesubsurface soil conditions and to identify potential contaminant source areas.

Site Visits

In 2001, PADOH representatives conducted three site visits with USEPA3 and PADEP toidentify the residents' site-related public health concerns, to discuss work by the agenciesinvolved, and to become more familiar with the community and the site. The communityresidents were concerned that exposure to site-related contaminants could have caused somediseases like Down's Syndrome or bone cancer. The nearest homes were observed to be about1000 feet from the site. It was also observed that the area around the old Chromatex Plant #2 iseasily accessible to trespassers. There are currently no plant workers on site.

In 2002, PADOH representatives visited eight (8) homes with other federal and stateenvironmental and health agencies to explain the results of indoor air samples to the communityresidents whose homes were tested, discuss household sources of indoor air pollutants, identifycommunity health concerns, and update community members on the agencies' site-relatedactivities. A previous HC addressed the indoor air levels' public health impact. Representativesalso attended the EPA-sponsored public availability session to gather additional health concernsfrom the community that will be addressed in the PHA document.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

In preparing this HC, ATSDR/PADOH reviewed and evaluated information provided in thereferenced documents. The environmental data presented in this HC are from the USEPA and

PADEP investigations, and we assumed that the quality assurance and quality control measuresdescribed in their reports were followed because documents prepared for the CERCLA programmust meet standards for quality assurance and control measures for chain-of-custody, laboratoryprocedures, and data reporting. Thus, ATSDR/PADOH relied on the information provided byUSEPA and PADEP and their contractors. The completeness and reliability of the referencedinformation determine the validity of the analyses and the conclusions drawn for this healthconsultation.

DISCUSSION

The primary public health issues evaluated in this section are the past and current exposures toVOCs and other chemicals through the contaminated on-site and off-site soil. It does not includea detailed evaluation of soil gas samples because ATSDR/PADOH does not use them inevaluating the public health impact. However, soil gas levels could contribute to the indoor airlevels of contaminants when vapor intrusion occurs.

To evaluate the potential health hazards from chemicals of health concern associated with soilcontaminants at the Valmont TCE site, the ATSDR/PADOH has assessed the risks for noncancerand cancer health effects. The health effects are related to contaminant concentration, exposurepathway, exposure frequency and exposure duration. Additionally, ATSDR/PADOH usesminimal risk levels (MRLs) and researches the scientific literature. For additional informationon the health effects evaluation process used by ATSDR/PADOH, please refer to the Appendix.

In order to properly assess the human health threat associated with exposure to contaminatedsoil,however, it is important to have the shallow surface soil (0-3 inches) data. Since we do not havesuch data, we will use the maximum level for all chemicals of health concern in the existing datafrom surface soil samples (0-6 inches or 0-12 inches) and compare it to appropriate comparisonvalues (CVs) to select a chemical for further evaluation.

In evaluating the on-site soil exposure, PADOH considered the worst-case scenarios forexposures of on-site workers and trespassers for a total exposure duration of 23 years at themaximum levels of the contaminants detected. In addition, exposure doses were determinedwith a very conservative assumption that oral ingestion equals dermal exposure and inhalation offugitive dust particles. To evaluate for the health effects, PADOH assumed that a particular70-kg employee worked for only 8 hours a day for 5 days a week in this occupational setting. Furthermore,mg/day as assumed in a residential area. Since the on-site area is primarily an industrial area,children are not expected to frequent the place; thus, exposure to these chemicals by the childrenare minimal and infrequent. Therefore, the contaminated soil is believed not to pose a healthhazard to the children.

There are no current off-site soil data. Therefore, we are unable to make any determinations asto current exposures of nearby residents from off-site soil contaminants.

On-Site Soil Contaminants

For past on-site soil samples, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA and DC A were noted as chemicals of healthconcern because TCE exceeded the ATSDR CV whereas 1,1,1,-TCA and DC A do not haveATSDR CV. Based on the assumptions previously discussed, the estimated exposure doses foreach of these chemical resulted in a calculated margin of safety greater than 1000 which meansthat harmful health effects are not expected from exposure to these low levels of chemicalsamong past Onromatex Plant #2 on-site workers and trespassers.

For current on-site soil samples collected in June 2002 , some VOCs, polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons, PCBs/pesticides, and metals have been selected as chemicals of potential healthconcern because the chemicals exceed the ATSDR CVs or there are no ATSDR CVs available.

Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)

These VOCs can come from a number of sources and are emitted by-products used in home,office, school, and arts/crafts and hobby activities. These organic compounds are alsocommonly used in the production of construction materials, furnishings, combustion fuels,consumer products, pesticides, etc. Moreover, a large variety of organic compounds areproduced from combustion of cooking and heating fuels, tobacco, etc. [6]. In an area whereliquid fuel contaminates the soil, the liquid may fill the soil pores and VOCs spread slowlythrough the soil gas when the VOC-containing liquid volatilizes.

The estimated exposure doses for TCE, DCA, cyclohexane, methyl acetate and methylcyclohexane based on the assumptions discussed previously are very low. For example, theestimated exposure dose for TCE is many times lower than the EPA's chronic oral RfD for non-cancer health effects while the calculated cancer risk ranges from about one additional cancer inevery 10,000,000 people to about three additional cancers for every 1,000,000 people.Therefore, it is unlikely that exposure to these chemicals in soil would cause harmful healtheffects in trespassers.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas,wood, garbage, or other organic substances, such as tobacco and charbroiled meat. There aremore than 100 different PAHs [7]. Studies in animals have also shown that these chemicals cancause harmful effects on skin, body fluids, and the body's system for lighting disease after bothshort- and long-term exposure. These effects have not been reported in people.

The health effects of individual PAHs are not exactly alike [8]. Benzo(a)pyrehe is the mostpotent PAH detected on site, and it is found at the concentration range of 0.043 mg/kg to 9.9mg/kg. The PADEP's current nonresidential clean-up standard for benzo(a)pyrene is 11.0mg/kg, and the other PAHs detected on-site are very much lower than the PADEP's currentnonresidential clean-up standard (Table 1).

ATSDR has not developed a chronic oral MRL for benzo[a]pyrene [9]. However, the estimatedoral exposure dose to benzo[a]pyrene based on the assumptions discussed previously results in a

margin of safety greater than 1000 which means that harmful health effects are not expected.Using the CSF of 7.3 (mg/kg/day)-l for benzo[a]pyrene, and based upon existing data, it appearsthat the current levels of benzo[a]pyrene do not pose a significant carcinogenic health threat tothe workers and trespassers because the estimated cancer risk is insignificant. Moreover, it is aprofessional judgment of ATSDR/PADOH to conclude that exposures to these levels of PAHs inthe soil are not likely to cause any adverse health effects for trespassers.

Poly chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)/Pesticides

PCBs are a group of synthetic, organic chemicals that contain 209 individual chlorinatedbiphenylcompounds (known as congeners) [10]. Aroclor-1260 was detected in only one (1) soil sampleout of 141 soil samples at a very low level of 0.0230 ppm (Table 2). The estimated dose resultsin a calculated margin of safety greater than 1000 which means that harmful health effects arenot expected.

In addition, very low levels of pesticides were detected in only one (1) or two (2) soil samplesout of 141 soil samples (Table 1). The estimated doses result in calculated margins of safetygreater than 1000 which means that harmful health effects are not expected.

Furthermore, these levels of PCB/pesticides are very much lower than the PADEP Act 2nonresidential clean-up standard as shown in Table 1. On the basis of existing data, therefore, itappears that the current levels of PCB and pesticides do not pose a health threat to trespassers.

Inorganics/Metals

Several inorganics/metals exceed comparison values only in those children who exhibit picabehavior [9]. However, children are not expected to frequent the place because the on-site area isprimarily an industrial setting; thus, exposure to these chemicals by children are minimal andinfrequent. Therefore,, ATSDR/PADOH concluded that current exposures to on-site soilcontaminants pose no public health hazard for children.

For adults, the estimated exposure doses for aluminum, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, mercury andvanadium are lower than the ATSDR chronic oral MRL, ATSDR intermediate oral MRL, or EPAchronic oral RfD. The on-site soil lead level of 111 mg/kg is below the 400 mg/kg screeninglevel used by EPA and PADEP Act 2 non-residential direct contact level of 1,000 mg/kg.Copper, manganese and thallium levels are below the PADEP Act 2 non-residential direct contactlevels of100,000 mg/kg; 190,000 mg/kg; and 200 mg/kg, respectively. Thus, ATSDR/PADOH concludedthat exposure to these chemicals do not pose .a health hazard to the trespassers who would mostprobably be at the site on an infrequent basis. However, there is a remote possibility that peoplewho are hypersensitive to some of the metals might develop allergic reactions when exposed tometals found in on-site contaminated soil.

On-Site Soil Gas Contaminants

Soil gas levels are not used by ATSDR/PADOH in evaluating public health impact. The soil gassurveys were conducted primarily to evaluate soil conditions and to identify potential contaminantsource areas. Thus, ATSDR/PADOH did not do health effects evaluation of the on-site soil gasresults for this health consult. -.

It is important to note that surface soil samples corresponded with those locations that have shownelevated soil gas readings. As shown in Table 2, several VOC were frequently detected in soilgas samples including TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, PCE, and cis-l,2,-DCE. Vinyl chloride was alsodetected at the maximum concentration of 16,000 ppbv.

Off-Site Soil Contaminants

Based on the available 1987 off-site soil data showing that contaminants were not detected,ATSDR/PADOH concludes that past exposures to residential soil posed no apparent public healththreat to the residents.

There were no off-site soil samples collected in June 2002, and we cannot safely assume that thesoil conditions from 1987-2002 have remained the same. Some Chromatex Plant #2 workershave lived in the nearby residential areas and there have been allegations of disposal of hazardoussubstances in the neighborhood itself. Thus, there is a data gap that leads ATSDR/PADOH toconclude that current exposures to residential soils pose an indeterminate threat to the residents.

Off-Site Soil Gas Contaminants

As shown in Table 2, it is significant to note the important soil gas contaminants such as vinylchloride (detected in two residential yards at a concentration of over 1,000 ppm) and TCE(detected in nine residential yards at a maximum concentration of 540 ppm). These findingswarrant further evaluation for the presence of these chemicals in residential soil, groundwater andindoor air! \ "*

Health Outcome Data Evaluation

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maintains health outcome databases including vitalstatistics and the cancer registry. These databases provide information on total mortality, cancermorbidity and birth defects. At this time, there is insufficient health outcome data to make anydeterminations about how this site may be affecting human health, and we do not have a completedata of health effects that are allegedly related to the Valmont TCE site. For example, there wasonly one case each of the following brought to our attention: Down's Syndrome, non-Hodgkin'slymphoma, stomach cancer, or bone cancer. When the actual number of cancers and birth defectsreported is small, any statistical analysis will be inaccurate or unreliable.

Child Health Initiative

ATSDR and PADOH recognize that children are especially sensitive when exposed to manycontaminants. This sensitivity is a result of the following factors: (1) children are more likely to

be exposed to certain media (e.g., soil, sediment, air, surface water or water from springs)because they play outdoors; (2) children are shorter than adults, which means they can breathdust, soil, and vapors close to the ground; and (3) children are smaller, therefore childhoodexposure results in higher doses of chemicals per body weight. Children can sustain permanentdamage if these factors lead to toxic exposure during critical growth stages. ATSDR iscommitted to evaluating their special interest at sites such as the Valmont TCE Site as part ofATSDR's Child Health Initiative.

Since the on-site area is primarily an industrial setting, children are not expected to frequent theplace; thus, exposure to these .chemicals by the children are minimal and infrequent. Therefore,ATSDRZPADOH cnn^hided that current exposures to on-site soil contaminants pose no publichealth ha7?rH for childrenr Rased on the limited off-site soil data taken in 19K7 contaminantswere non-detect and thus, adverse health effects were not expected from past off-site soilexposures in children. Since there are no current off-site soil data, we were unable to make anydeterminations as to current exposures to off-site soil contaminants in children.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

ATSDR identified community health concerns through environmental records made available tous and health concerns made by the public during the USEP A3-conducted public meeting in June2001, through home visits conducted on February 12-13, 2002, and during the public availabilitysession in July 2002 and November 2002. Community residents expressed concerns that they areliving by the chemical spill and that future health problems may occur to West Hazleton residentswhen the chemical spreads.

In addition, the community residents were concerned that the following specific health issuesmay be site-related: (1) Non-hodgkins lymphoma, (2) Multiple birth defects, (3) Bone cancer, (4)Down's syndrome, and (5) Hypersensitivity reactions. Based on our preliminary analysis usingmedical, toxicologic arid epidemiologic information, however, we do not expect these specifichealth issues to be due to the contaminants coming from the site because of the low levels of thesechemicals in the environmental media. Nevertheless, we will evaluate future data provided hv"EPA/PA1JLP to address these health concerns in future public health reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a thorough evaluation of currently available environmental information and existingactivities, ATSDR/PADOH specifically conclude the following:

1. Current exposures to contaminants in off-site residential soil pose an indeterminate publichealth hazard. ~

2. Current exposures to on-site soil is not expected to cause adverse health effects and isclassified as posing no apparent public health hazard to the workers and trespassers.

3. Past exposures to on-site and off-site soil contaminants posed no apparent public health

hazard to residents, workers and trespassers.

4. The extent of VOC contamination has not been completely defined/determined at this time,and we do not know if the soil gas contamination is due to the contaminated groundwaterplume. Thus, additional sampling data (e.g.. groundwater data) are needed to determine if the

soil gas results are related to the groundwater and/or contaminating indoor air.

RECOMMENDATION

ATSDR/PADOH recommends that the extent of Valmont TCE site contamination be fullycharacterized at the residential areas by collecting surfac<* *™] gampW rn-'V'l especially thosewith high levels of soil gas contaminants like vinyl chloride.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The public health action plan (PHA) contains a description of actions to be taken (or that havebeen taken) by ATSDR and/or other government agencies at and in the vicinity of the sitesubsequent or prior to the completion of this health consultation. The purpose of the PHAis to ensure that this health consultation not only identifies public health hazards but also providesa plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting fromexposure to hazardous substances in the environment.

Completed Actions

1. Home visits were conducted on February 12-13,2002, (with representatives fromPADOH, ATSDR, USEPA, and PADEP) as part of community outreach activitiesperformed in support of the PADEP's request to primarily explain the results of the second

round of indoor/basement air samples to the community residents. Through these visits, wewere also able to discuss household sources of indoor air pollutants, identify communityhealth concerns, and update community members on the agencies' site-related activities.

2. In July 2002, PADOH talked to community residents to gather additional health concerns.

Ongoing or Planned Actions

1. EPA is considering a non-time -critical removal action addressing VOC-contaminated soils atthe Chromatex Plant: Soil vapor extraction with of-site treatment of residuals and siteexcavation with off-site disposal.

2. The EPA is in the early stage of site evaluation, and a Remedial Investigation/FeasibilityStudy (RI/FS) is being undertaken. More environmental sampling are planned, and resultsare expected to be available later in 2002 or early 2003. The PADOH, the ATSDR, andthe EPA will work together to educate citizens about the meaning of the sample results.

3. The PADOH, the PADEP, the ATSDR, and the EPA will collaboratively evaluate future

site data as the EPA's expanded environmental sampling and investigation of the sitecontinues. If new data reveal that site conditions are different than previously thought orhave changed over time, the DOH and the ATSDR may reevaluate the conclusions andrecommendations stated in this report. -

4. The PADOH and ATSDR will conduct availability sessions regarding public healthconcerns associated with the site. These meetings will serve as a forum forcommunication of ongoing and planned activities at the Valmont TCE Site to thecommunity and for communication of community concerns to the local, state and federalenvironmental and health agencies.

5. PADOH and ATSDR will keep the community informed of its activities, respond toindividual requests for health information, and provide health education to the communityand health professionals.

REFERENCES

1. Preliminary Assessment of Valmont Site, NUS Corporation Superfund Division, August18,1988.

2. Final Expanded Site Investigation Report, Valmont Site, Halliburton NUS Corporation,January 1995.

3. Trip report for the Valmont TCE Site Hazle Township and West Hazleton, LuzerneCounty, Pennsylvania Prepared for USEPA by Tetra Tech EM, Inc., March 1,2001.

4. Electronic mail to Geroncio Fajardo, Pennsylvania Department of Health, from RomualdRoman, US EPA3, September 9, 2002.

5. Laboratory results from the Angeline Elizabeth Kirby Memorial Health Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701, November 17,1987.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental, Monitoring and Quality Assurance. Project Summary: The Total Exposure Assessment

Methodology (TEAM) Study. EPA-600-S6-87-002, 1987.

7. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile forpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Available from: URL:.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2.html. Atlanta: US Department of Health andHuman Services; 1995.

8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health statement forpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Available from: URL:http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs2.html. Atlanta: US Department of Health andHuman Services; 1995.

9. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Soil/Water/Air ComparisonValues and Health Guideline Comparison Values, 09/30/2002.

10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile forpolychlorinated biphenyls. Available from: URL,:http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2.html. Atlanta: US Department of Health andHuman Services; 2000.

Report Prepared By:

The Health Assessment ProgramPennsylvania Department of Health

Division of Environmental Health Epidemiology

Author:Geroncio C. Fajardo, MD, MBA, MSHealth Assessor/State Epidemiologist

Reviewer:Christine Brussock, MS

Program Manager

Certification

This Health Consultation for the Valmont TCE Site was prepared by the Pennsylvania

Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the federal Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology andprocedures existing at the time the health consultation was initiated.

LCDR Alan G. Parham, REHS, MPHTechnical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC

The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC), ATSDR, has reviewed this healthconsultation and concurs with its findings.

Roberta ErlweinSection Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR

FIGURES

Figure 1 - Valmont TCE Site Location Map

Figure 2 - Valmont TCE Site Location Map (Topographic)

Figure 3 - Valmont TCE Site Map (Showing Chromatex Plant #2 and Residential Areas)

Figure 4 - On Site Soil/Soil Gas Sample Locations

TABLES

HEALTH EFFECTS EVALUATION PROCESS

Health Effects Evaluation Process Used by ATSDR/PADOH

The ATSDR has developed health-based comparison values (CVs) that are chemical-specificconcentrations, which determine environmental contaminants of health concern. PADOHuses these CVs to determine which contaminants require further evaluation. These valuesinclude Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), and Reference Dose MediaEvaluation Guides (RMEGs) for noncancerous health effects and Cancer Risk EvaluationGuides (CREGs) for cancerous health effects. If environmental media guides cannot beestablished because of a lack of available health data, other comparison values may be used toselect a contaminant for further evaluation.

CVs are contaminant concentrations that are not likely to cause adverse health effects, even whenvery conservative exposure scenarios are assumed. However, environmental levels that exceedCVs will not necessarily produce adverse health effects. If a contaminant is found hi theenvironment at levels exceeding its corresponding CV, PADOH examines potential exposurevariables and the toxicology of the contaminant. It is to be emphasized that regardless of thelevel of contamination, a public health hazard exists only if people come into contact with, or areotherwise exposed to, harmful levels of contaminants in site media.

To determine the possible health effects of site-specific chemicals, the PADOH researchesscientific literature and uses the ATSDR's minimal risk levels (MRLs), the EPA's reference doses(RfDs), the EPA's Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs), and the NIOSH/OSHA guidelines/standards.MRLs are estimates of daily exposure to contaminants below which noncancerous adverse healtheffects are unlikely to occur. ATSDR MRLs are derived for continuous, 24-hour a day exposures.In many instances, inhalation exposures from a site or in home basement areas may be for lessthan 24 hours per day. Therefore, the use of air EMEGs based on MRLs to assess these situationsprovide a conservative approach for identifying air contaminants of potential health concern.RfDs are estimates (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily oralexposures, in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day), to the general public (includingsensitive groups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of noncancerous harmful effectsduring a lifetime (70 years).

When RfDs and MRLs are not available, a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) or lowestobserved adverse effect level (LOAEL) may be used to estimate levels below which no adversehealth effects (noncancerous) are expected. One approach used by health assessors is the use ofmargins of safety (MOS) calculations based on LOAELs. In general, when the MOS is greater

/ than 1000, harmful effects are not expected; when the MOS ranges from approximately 100 to1000, further toxicologic evaluation is needed; and if the MOS is less than 10, harmful effectsmight be possible, but further toxicologic evaluation may still be advisable.

Health guidelines such as MRLs and RfDs, however, do not consider the risk of developingcancer. To evaluate exposure to carcinogens, EPA has established CSFs for inhalation andingestion that define the relationship between exposure doses and the likelihood of an increasedrisk of cancer, compared with controls that have not been exposed to the chemical. Usuallyderived from animal or occupational studies, cancer slope factors are used to calculate theexposure dose likely to result in one excess cancer case per one million persons exposed over alifetime (70 years). The potential for exposure to a contaminant to cause cancer in an individualor population is evaluated by estimating the probability that an individual will develop cancerover a lifetime as the result of the exposure. This approach is based on the assumption that thereare no absolutely "safe" toxicity values for carcinogens.

Cancer risk is the likelihood, or chance, of getting cancer. The phrase "excess lifetime cancerrisk" is used because individuals have a "background risk" of about one-in-four of getting cancerfrom all other causes during their lifetime (70 years.) An excess cancer risk of"one-in-a-hundred-thousand" from a given exposure to a contaminant means that each individual

exposed to that contaminant at that level over his or her lifetime would be expected to have, atmost, a one-in-a-hundred-thousand chance (above the background chance) of getting cancer fromthat particular exposure. In order to take into account the uncertainties in science, the risknumbers used are very conservative. In actuality, the risk is probably somewhat lower thanone-in-a-hundred-thousand, and, in fact, may be zero.

Because children generally receive higher doses of contaminants than adults under similarcircumstances, the DOH uses the higher doses in forming its conclusions about the health effectsof exposures to site-related contaminants when children are known or thought to be involved (seeChild Health Initiative section). Also, readers should note that researchers conduct animalstudies using doses at levels much higher than those experienced by most people exposed tocontaminants originating from hazardous waste sites.