DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Wealth Service

V.^ $ f*1 Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease RegistryAtlanta GA 30333

(913) 551-7692August 25, 1994

Dennis Grams, P. E.Regional AdministratorU. S. Environmental Protection Agency726 Minnesota AvenueKansas City, Kansas 66101

Dear Mr. Grams:

Enclosed is a copy of the August 19, 1994 Public HealthAssessment, prepared by the Iowa Department of Health under acooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, for the following site:

SHAW AVENUE DUMPCHARLES CITY, FLOYD COUNTY, IOWA

CERCLIS NO.: IAD980630560

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact anyof the Regional staff at (913) 551-7531.

Sincerely yours,

Denise Jbrdan-IzaguirreSenior Regional RepresentativeAgency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, Region VII

Enclosure

cc: Max M. Howie, Jr., ATSDR/DHAC/RIMB E56Gail Godfrey, DHAC/FPB E-56Brad Cudal, MD IDOH

S00101029SUPERFUND RECORDS

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

SHAW AVENUE DUMP

CHARLES CITY, FLOYD COUNTY, IOWA

CERCLISNO. IAD980630560

Prepared by

Iowa Department of Public HealthUnder Cooperative Agreement with the

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION

This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6), and in accordance withour implementing regulations 42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document ATSDR has collected relevant health data,environmental data, and community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local healthand environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate.

In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required byCERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30 day publiccomment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appendedthe document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessmentprocess for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency's opinion, indicates a need torevise or append the conclusions previously issued.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.......................................David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D., AdministratorBarry L. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator

Division of Health Assessment and Consultation............................................. Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE, DirectorJuan J. Reyes, Deputy Director

Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch..................................................Edward J. Skowronski, Acting Chief

Federal Facilities Assessment Branch..........................................................................Sandra G. Isaacs, Acting Chief

Petitions Response Branch..................................................................................... Cynthia M. Harris, Ph.D., Chief

Superfiind Site Assessment Branch.............................................................. Sharon Williams-Flectwood, Ph.D., Chief

Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch.............................................Max M. Howie, Jr., Chief

Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.

Additional copies of this report are available from:National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia

(703) 487-4650

ATSDR PublicHealth Assessment

ATSDR developed this fact sheet to provide information about its Public Health Assessments — a termthat can be confusing. A Public Health Assessment is not the same thing as a medical exam or acommunity health study. It can sometimes lead to those things, as well as to other public healthactivities. ATSDR hopes this fact sheet is helpful to you in understanding what a Public HealthAssessment is. You may have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or need more information aboutATSDR and its activities. A contact person is listed at the end of the fact sheet.

What is ATSDR?

'Cf,VlATSDR is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a federal public health ^ ***"<**•agency. ATSDR is part of the Public Health Service in the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services. ATSDR is not a regulatory agency like the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Created by Superfund legislation in 1980. ATSDR's mission is to prevent exposureand adverse human health effects and diminished quality of life associated withexposure to hazardous substances from waste sites, unplanned releases, and othersources of pollution present in the environment. Through its programs — includingsurveillance, registries, health studies, environmental health education, and applied substance-specificresearch — and by working with other federal, state, and local government agencies, ATSDR acts to protect publichealth.

What is a Public Health Assessment?

An ATSDR Public Health Assessment reviews available information about hazardous substances at a site andevaluates whether exposure to them might cause any harm to people. ATSDR conducts a Public HealthAssessment for every site on or proposed for the National Priorities List (the NPL, also known as the Superfundlist).

Public Health Assessments consider —

13 what the levels (or "concentrations") of hazardous substances areH whether people might be exposed to contamination and how (through "exposure

pathways" such as breathing air, drinking or contacting water, contacting or eating soil,or eating food)

H what harm the substances might cause to people (or the contaminants' loxic'rty")@ whether working or living nearby might affect people's healthH other dangers to people, such as unsafe buildings, abandoned mine shafts, or other

physical hazards

To make those determinations, ATSDR looks at three primary sources of information —

13 environmental data, such as information about the contaminants and how peoplecould come in contact with them

m health data, including available information on communitywide rates of illness,disease, and death compared with national and state rates

M community concerns, such as reports from the public about how the site affects theirhealth or quality of life

How Are Public Health Assessments Used?

ATSDR's Public Health Assessments identify health studies or other public health actions—such as communityenvironmental health education—that might be needed. They advise federal, state, and local agencies on actionsto prevent or reduce people's exposure to hazardous substances.

How Is the Community Involved in a Public Health Assessment?

The community plays a key role in a Public Health Assessment and any activity that may follow. Throughout thePublic Health Assessment, ATSDR talks with people living or working near the site—action groups, local leaders,and health professionals, among other community members—about what they know about the site and their site-related health concerns. Community health concerns are addressed in every Public Health Assessment for everysite.

Two-way communication between the public and ATSDR is vital to every Public Health Assessment. For thatreason, ATSDR has many ways to give and receive information and involve the community in its activities,such as—

U Public Availability Sessions where community members can meet individually withATSDR staff.

El Public Meetings so community members can express ideas in a larger forum.M Community Assistance Panels, or CAPs, which work to inform ATSDR about

community concerns and health information and, in turn, to inform the communityabout ATSDR activities and the status of the Public Health Assessment.

H Other communication channels, such as contact with local community groups,political leaders, and health professionals, as well as articles in local newspapers andstories on television and radio.

M Before the Public Health Assessment is finished, it is available in the community duringthe Public Comment Period. The Public Comment Period lets the community tellATSDR how well the Public Health Assessment addresses their concerns. ATSDRresponds to the public's comments in the final Public Health Assessment.

Fact sheets are available on Public Health Advisories, Health Consultations, Community AssistancePanels, and other A TSDR activities. If you want to know more about A TSDR, or if you have healthconcerns or information to share about ways people might have been or might now be exposed tohazardous substances, please contact the person listed below.

For more information, call or write:

Community Involvement SpecialistATSDR-Division of Health Assessment and Consultation1600 Clifton Road, NE (E32)Atlanta, Georgia 3033324-hour, toll-free message service1-800-447-4784, then 329-1175

Please Recycle March 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A. Site Description and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3B. Site Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6D. Health Outcome Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A. On-site Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8B. Off-site Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15D. Physical and Other Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

PATHWAYS ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15A. Completed Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15B. Potential Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18A. Toxicological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

PREPARERS OF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

APPENDICES-FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

SUMMARY

The Shaw Avenue Dump Site is 24 acres located approximately 500 feet east of the CedarRiver in southeastern Charles City. Charles City owns the site and operates it as a municipalwaste dump. The northern dump site property contains two areas used from 1949 to 1953 todispose of arsenic-contaminated solid waste. Salsbury Laboratories generated this waste inthe production of animal pharmaceuticals. Salsbury discharged contaminated liquid wastes tothe Charles City wastewater treatment plant. Sludge from the plant was placed in waste cellslocated in the northern site area.

The northern disposal area is no longer in use and is covered with soil and vegetation.Approximately 1,000 feet north of the site is a high school. Students use a playground and astadium located within 500 feet of the northern waste disposal cells. The Charles Citymunicipal water supply system is within two miles upgradient of the site and serves 8,778people.

Sludge was also deposited in undefined areas of the site's southern half. One home, located1,500 feet southeast of the site, has a private well that residents use for their drinking water.That well is not contaminated. In the past, residents who drank water from two otheroff-site private wells were exposed to small amounts of cadmium and manganese. However,it is unlikely that short-term or long-term health effects will result from past exposuresbecause of the low levels of cadmium and manganese detected in the these wells. Presentlythese wells are inactive and are no longer used for drinking water purposes. Exposurescould also occur from migration of contaminants into private wells already in existence andnew wells constructed in a plume of contamination. However, since the chemical fill andsoils on-site have been excavated and removed, the source of continued groundwatercontamination has been eliminated. The contamination already in the groundwater shouldnow decrease.

The Cedar River flows southeasterly through Charles City, then west of the site, separatingthe Shaw Avenue Dump site from another National Priorities List site, LaBounty. The riveris used for recreational fishing, swimming, and canoeing. A private pond is located betweenthe site and the Cedar River. If the pond is, or becomes, contaminated, people could beexposed to contaminants from eating fish or from swimming in the pond.

Based on the information reviewed, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) and the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) have concluded that this sitewas a public health hazard prior to the excavation and removal of contaminated soils on-site.Currently, the site is considered to be an indeterminate public health hazard becausecontaminated groundwater may still enter drinking water wells and information on otherpossible exposure pathways is missing. Evaluation of additional information is necessary toassess the likelihood of any future impact on public health.

The data and information in the Shaw Avenue Dump Public Health Assessment have beenevaluated by ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) for follow-up

health actions. Based on the available information, there are no indications that illness ordisease has resulted from exposures to area residents exposed to site-related contaminants.There is concern, however, that residents close to the site who may be using private wellscould be exposed to contaminants at levels of health concern if contaminants migrate to thewells. Therefore, HARP has determined that a community health education programdirected at these potential private well users is indicated. Community health education willalso serve to update the community on remediation activities at the site. If additional databecome available, ATSDR and IDPH will reevaluate this site for any indicated follow-uphealth actions.

The Public Health Action Plan for the Shaw Avenue Dump site contains a description ofactions to be taken by ATSDR at and in the vicinity of the site subsequent to the completionof this public health assessment. The purpose of the Public Health Action Plan is to ensurethat this public health assessment not only identifies public health hazards, but provides aplan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting fromexposure to hazardous substances in the environment. The public health actions to beimplemented by IDPH and ATSDR are as follows:

1. A community health education program will be conducted by IDPH forresidents using private wells close to the site about the possible health effectsfrom site contaminants and actions to reduce exposures should their wellsbecome contaminated.

2. IDPH plans to update this public health assessment when information supporting theEnvironmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Record of Decision (ROD) is available.

3. ATSDR and IDPH will evaluate any additional information relevant to this siteas it becomes available to determine whether further follow-up health actionsare indicated.

BACKGROUND

A. Site Description and History

The Shaw Avenue Dump Site is located approximately 500 feet east of the Cedar River alongthe southeast edge of Charles City, in Floyd County, Iowa (Figure 1, Appendices). Thedump site consists of approximately 24 acres and is bordered by Shaw Avenue Road/MiniGolf property on the northeast, the Charles City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) andits property on the southeast, an area of woods, which separates the Cedar River from thesite on the south and west, and the Iowa Terminal Railroad tracks on the north (Figure 2).The southeast border of the site is part of the chain-linked fencing that surrounds the WWTPand the east central border is barbed wire fencing. The northeastern most portion of the sitecontains the only identified chemical fill area. It is partially surrounded with chain-linkedfencing. The terrain slopes from the northeast to the south/southwest.

The northeastern portion of the site was purchased by Charles City in 1899. The middle andsouthwestern portions were acquired in 1953 and 1964, respectively. Municipal disposaloperations began sometime prior to 1949, when construction debris, trees, and leaves weredisposed at the southwestern (referred to as the "southern" waste disposal area) and centralportions of the site (Figure 3). Biological sludge from the Charles City WWTP was disposedin undisclosed locations of the site from 1949 to 1964, and open burning of WWTP materialoccurred at the dump until the mid 1980s.

Sludge material originating from solid wastes was generated by a chemical batch processingof arsenic and organic compounds used in the production of animal pharmaceuticals fromSolvay Animal Health, Inc. (SAH), formerly known as Salsbury Laboratories, Inc.,(1949-1953). Solid and liquid chemical waste sludge was disposed between 1949-1964 intrenches in the northeastern (referred to as "northern" waste disposal cells) half of the dump(Figure 3). An estimated 14,000-28,000 cubic feet (Hickok, 1981) of sludge material weredisposed between 1949-1953 in that area, but no analysis of the solid-sludge waste material isavailable. An estimated 10,000 tons of liquid waste sludge were received from SAH anddisposed at the site between 1949-1964. Analytical data for the liquid-sludge material are notavailable (17). According to information contained in the Remedial Investigation/FeasibilityStudy (RI/FS), an underground petroleum storage tank is also located somewhere in thenortheastern portion of the site.

Currently, Charles City uses the dump for disposal of lime sludge generated from the city'sWWTP. The lime sludge is disposed in trenches near the central portion of the site. Thisarea has been subject to: state and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)RI/FS s and risk assessments (RA). The RI and RA help identify and quantify the extent ofcontamination to the environment and assess the risk of human exposure to possiblecontaminants. A FS helps EPA determine which remedial alternative is most economicallyand technically suited to adequately protect public health and the environment.

The site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 5, 1985, and waslisted on the NPL on July 22, 1987. Field work for the RI was completed in June 1990.The RA report was completed in April 1991. The FS report was completed in June 1991.

EPA released a Proposed Plan for the Shaw Avenue Dump Site for public comment on July12, 1991. It identified preferred remedial or clean-up alternatives for the site. The publiccomment period on the Proposed Plan ran from July 12, 1991, to August 12, 1991. ARecord of Decision (ROD) for the site was signed by EPA, Region VJJ, on September 26,1991. The ROD gave final authorization for specific procedures that can or will beimplemented for the site's clean-up. It addressed EPA's recommended alternatives forremediating contaminated soil, chemical fill areas, and contaminated groundwater. Thepreferred clean-up alternative for the chemical fill areas and surrounding contaminated soiland groundwater included:

• in-situ, or in the soil, fixation/stabilization of the contaminated material.

• installation of a low permeability cap on the soil surface to protect the integrityof the fixated/stabilized material.

• removal of groundwater contaminants by extracting water and chemicallyprecipitating the contaminants out of the water.

• sending decontaminated water to the Charles City WWTP for further treatmentand disposal into the storm-water system.

This remedy would have resulted in hazardous substances remaining on-site. EPA was toconduct a review of data in five years from the start of remedial actions to ensure thatadequate protection of human health and the environment was maintained. If specific testingfor the stabilization/fixation treatment on the chemical fill and contaminated soil wasineffective, the soil and waste material would have been excavated and removed to aResource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) approved landfill.

During the public meeting conducted by EPA, residents of Charles City did not favor thepreferred alternatives presented. The City Council passed a resolution stating the cityfavored excavating the chemical fill and surrounding contaminated soil and disposing of it atan off-site landfill. To address contaminated groundwater, the city favored continuation ofgroundwater monitoring and evaluating the issue of whether the groundwater will requireremediation after a five-year review. The city's concerns centered around the possibility offuture remediation being required if the source materials were left on site as well aslimitations on future use of the site.

A removal action was performed at the site from April 15 to May 14, 1992. The chemicalfill and contaminated soil were excavated and disposed at two separate hazardous wastetreatment/disposal facilities.

A Preliminary Health Assessment for the Shaw Avenue Dump Site, published May 16, 1990,categorized the site as a potential public health concern because of risk to human healthfrom: possible exposure to hazardous substances through direct ingestion of groundwater;inadvertent ingestion of surface soil and surface water; inhalation of fugitive dust; andinhalation of volatile organic compounds from secondary household use of groundwater. Thehealth assessment addressed the environmental contaminants and their associated healtheffects from available data. On-site and off-site subsurface soil contaminants of concernwere arsenic, cadmium, noncarcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), andcarcinogenic PAHs. On-site and off-site groundwater contaminants of concern were arsenic,cadmium, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), and 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA).Off-site surface water contained arsenic at 14 /xg/L hi a sand pit between the site and theCedar River. It is not known whether the sand pit is part of the off-site pond area discussedin that health assessment.

B. Site Visit

On January 7, 1992, IDPH staff and the Floyd County Emergency Response Coordinatorvisited the Shaw Avenue Dump site. Areas of special interest were the northern wastedisposal cells, southern waste dump area, off-site and on-site monitoring well locations,off-site private well locations, and the surrounding land and building structures within 0.5miles of the site boundary (as defined in the RI/FS). Access to these areas was notrestricted.

The site narrows as it stretches from the southwest to the northeast. Railroad tracks extendalong the entire northern boundary of the site. On the northwest side of the site, a pond liesbetween the railroad tracks and the Cedar River. Shaw Avenue intersects with the site-access road on the east side of the site. There is no fencing along the northeast boundary,although the northern waste cell was partially isolated by chain-linked fencing (figure 3). Afence borders the east central and southeast boundary of the site. The WWTP is located nextto the southeast boundary and is surrounded by a chain-linked fence. One area near asuspected central waste disposal cell is used by city employees to dump snow (figure 3). Nosigns were visible anywhere to warn the public that the landfill is closed and containshazardous waste.

Off-site areas visited included two residences with private wells located southeast of the site'sboundary. A personal interview was conducted with the residents of one property with awell that had been tested for contamination. Test results were negative and no further actionwas taken to determine if any associated health problems existed. Two private wells thatwere contaminated, but no longer used, were not observed (17). Therefore, IDPH cannotdetermine if the wells were properly abandoned to prevent future use of the wells.

IDPH visited a petroleum storage tank farm (referenced in the RI/FS) that is north of thesite. Above-ground petroleum storage tanks had recently been removed. A new buildinghad recently been completed in the area where the above-ground tanks had been. According

to information in the RI/FS and a discussion with the Floyd County emergency responsecoordinator, an underground petroleum storage tank may still be located somewhere in thenorthern portion of the site.

Other areas of special interest included an off-site pond northwest of the site (figure 2). Thepond is approximately one to two acres in size and is protected from surface water runoff bya soil berm under the railroad tracks. The pond is situated approximately 100 feet northwestof the railroad tracks.

As of June 6, 1994, the site has undergone only one change. The chemical fill was removedin May 1992. Otherwise, the site remains the same.

C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use

Demographics

The population of Charles City, Iowa, during the 1980 Census, was 8,778. A largeresidential area is situated within one mile north of the site and a high school is locatedapproximately 1,000 feet north of the site. A playground and football stadium are within500 feet of the disposal cells at the northern end of the site.

Land Use

Land uses surrounding and within the city limits of Charles City are crop farming, orchardfanning, livestock grazing, quarry and sand pit operations, and industry that is mostlyconfined to urban areas. Farming activities are conducted on the west side of Shaw Avenue,adjacent to the site, and industries operate farther west and north of the Cedar River. Anursery, within a block east/northeast of the site, uses land to grow ornamental trees andshrubs. Directly across the river from the site is another NPL site, LaBounty Landfill.

Natural Resource Use

The upgradient municipal water supply system is situated two miles north of the northwestside of the site and has two primary wells (185 feet) that draw groundwater from the CedarValley Aquifer and one secondary well (1,305 feet) which draws from the Jordan Aquifer.All residences within a half mile of the site, except the one interviewed during the site visit,are believed to have access to water from the municipal water system. Some private wellshave been identified in areas upgradient of the site (Figure 6). IDPH does not know howthose wells are used. Site contamination should not affect those wells.

Charles City area residents use the Cedar River for recreational fishing, swimming, andcanoeing. A small private pond (as discussed earlier) is located less than 100 feet from thenorthwestern edge of the site's boundary and may be used by residents for fishing and

swimming.

D. Health Outcome Data

Using state health databases, special studies, or other relevant health outcome databases, itmay be possible to determine whether certain health effects are higher than expected in areassurrounding hazardous waste sites. Iowa maintains three health databases: Cancer Registry,infant mortality database, and a birth defects registry.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

EPA conducted a public meeting in Charles City on July 24, 1991. At this meeting,representatives from EPA, IDPH, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), andATSDR presented information and answered questions about the site and the alternativeremedial actions under consideration. Residents interviewed by IDPH staff reported noknowledge of any health problems experienced as a result of contamination at the site.However, the residents did want to be notified if any health risks were identified duringfuture site investigations. There were no specific health concerns voiced by the communityduring this public meeting.

Copies of this public health assessment were made available for public review under a noticepublished in the Charles City Press on October 5-7, 1992. A 30-day public comment periodfrom October 5 through November 4, 1992, was conducted regarding the public healthassessment findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Written and oral comments wererequested, and no comments were received from the public. Comments received from thesite remedial project manager, EPA Region VII, were addressed and incorporated in thisfinal document. As of August 1994, no new concerns have been expressed to county or statehealth officials. When site conditions change and this document is updated, IDPH willinvestigate possible community concerns that may arise when the new data are available.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

Tables in this section provide a list of the contaminants of concern at the Shaw AvenueDump Site prior to the removal action. Their listing does not imply that a health threatexists. An evaluation of contaminants in subsequent sections determines whether exposure tocontaminants has public health significance. IDPH and ATSDR select the contaminants ofconcern based on the following factors: (1) concentrations of contaminants on and off thesite, (2) field data quality, laboratory data quality, and sample design, (3) comparison ofsite-related concentrations with background concentrations, (4) comparison of site-relatedconcentrations with health assessment comparison values for noncarcinogenic andcarcinogenic endpoints and other appropriate values, and (5) community health concerns.

Activities conducted as part of the Remedial Investigations (RI) were conducted in twophases. The activities conducted included environmental sampling of surface soil, subsurface

soil, and groundwater within and outside the site's boundaries. On-site and off-site surfacesoil sampling locations are shown in Figure 4 of the appendices, and on-site and off-sitesubsurface soil and monitoring well sampling locations are shown in Figures 5 and 5.1.Tables I and n list on-site contaminants of concern found in chemical fill, subsurface soil,and groundwater. Table m and Table IV list off-site contaminants of concern found insurface and subsurface soil and in groundwater. Concentrations of contaminants arecompared with media-specific guides to select contaminants of concern. Comparison valuesinclude Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides(CREGs), and Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs). Other comparisonvalues may include EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or other relevant guides.

EMEGs are media-specific values developed by ATSDR to serve as an aid in selectingcontaminants of concern for further evaluation for potential health impacts that may resultfrom exposure to the contaminant present in the environment. EMEGs are not used to selectcarcinogenic compounds as contaminants of concern. RMEGs are derived from EPAReference doses and are also used to select contaminants of concern based onnoncarcinogenic health effects. CREGs, which are calculated from EPA cancer slopefactors, are used to select carcinogenic contaminants of concern for further evaluation.EPA's MCL is the amount of a contaminant that is allowed in a public drinking watersupply. The level is established with consideration for health implications and the technologyavailable to reduce contamination to that level. If no comparison values are available for acontaminant, the contaminant is usually selected for further evaluation.

A. On-site Contamination

The following is a narrative of site conditions that existed prior to the removal actionsundertaken at the site on April 15 to May 14, 1992. Post-removal soil sampling data will beevaluated when available and this document will be updated to reflect that evaluation.

Chemical Fill:

The heaviest chemical contamination, defined as chemical fill, was verified at the northerndisposal cell. The location of chemical fill at the site was identified from the installation of90 exploratory boreholes and three test pits in the northeastern and central areas of the site.Chemical fill consisted of moist black, yellow, green, and orange sludge. Black chemical fillwas the most abundant. The other chemical fills were found in smaller amounts. Chemicalfill was encountered from two to six feet below the surface, with a thickness ranging from0.5 to 9.5 feet. Total volume was calculated to be approximately 370 cubic yards or 10,000cubic feet. Concentration ranges of contaminants of concern are listed in Table I.

Table I

ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SOIL/CHEMICAL FILL AREA (mg/kg) (17)

ContaminantSubsurfaceSoil

ChemicalFill

ComparisonValues

AntimonyArsenicCadmiumLead

1,1-Dichloroethene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzeneToluene

Nitrobenzene2-Nitroaniline*Benzo(a)Anthracene*Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene*Chrysene*Benzo(b)Fluoranthene*Benzo(k)Fluoranthene*Benzo(a)Pyrene*Indeno( 1,2,3-CD)pyrene*Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

BCV1

14-350BCVND

BCVBCVBCVBCV

NDND9451100940.95-85824721

438-16,20031,5001-264,00092-1,30031-711

0.078J-0.210.021-0.510.062J-0.150.046J-0.79

1,900350-95,000NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

20 RMEG15 RMEG10 EMEGNA

1.2 CREG12 CREG24 CREG

10,000 RMEG

25 RMEGNANANANANANANANANA

mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram.!BCV - Below comparison value.ND - Not Detected.NA - Not available.J - The numerical value is an estimated quantity.* - Denotes carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide.CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide.EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide.

Subsurface Soil:

Subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed from three boreholes (BH5a, BH5b,BH5c) and four monitoring well locations (MW2, MW4, MW6, MW9). Monitoring welllocations were used to sample the soil while well drilling operations were underway.Subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed from five boreholes (BH89, BH90,BH91, BH93, BH95) and three monitoring well locations (MW1, MW12, MW15a). Soilsamples were collected from each geologic stratum identified while drilling into the aquiferof each borehole and monitoring well. Arsenic was detected in subsurface soil (350 mg/kg)in borehole BH5c at depths of 3 to 4.3 feet.

Elevated levels of various semivolatile compounds were found in subsurface soil samples.Eight different carcinogenic PAHs were found in two boreholes and two monitoring wellsoils sampled (BH5a, BH5c, MW1, & MW15a). The highest semivolatile concentrationswere found in borehole BH5c at a depth of 3 to 5 feet. Contaminants of concern are listedin Table I.

Groundwater:

On-site groundwater contaminants of concern are listed in Table n. Contaminants detectedinclude various inorganic, semivolatile, and volatile compounds. Monitoring wells MW12Aand MW8A and boreholes BH21 and BH41 are located within the local perched alluvium.Only one semivolatile compound (2-Nitroaniline or ortho-nitroanaline) was detected in waterfrom MW8 at a maximum concentration of 1,600 /ig/L. (Nitroanilines are yellowish,crystalline substances used as dye intermediates, gasoline additives, rubber antioxidants, andin the production of pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals (18)).

Inorganic contaminants were detected in water from MW1A and IB, MW3, MW3A, MW8,MW15, MW15A and MW15B (see Figure 5). Arsenic was detected at extremely elevatedlevels in well MW8. However, MW8 taps leachate rather than groundwater. All samplesfor metal analyses were field filtered using a 0.45 micron filter. Samples collected forcyanide analysis were not filtered. Unfiltered samples would have been preferred overfiltered samples, because unfiltered samples are more representative of what people actuallydrink. Volatile compounds were detected in on-site groundwater from MW1, MW1A andIB, MW3, and MW8. Volatile compounds normally found in petroleum (such as benzene,toluene, and xylene) were also detected in the monitoring well water. Volatile compoundcontaminants were also detected at their highest levels in MW8 (leachate).

10

TABLEnON-SITE GROUNDWATER (/ig/L) (17)

Contaminant Monitoring WellsComparisonValues

(filtered):ArsenicCadmiumManganese

2-Nitroaniline

Vinyl Chloride1,1 -Dichloroethene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzeneToluene

10 - 23,0005 - 520J

15 - 1,430

154- 1,600

115-30J5-28J1.300J2,6001

3 RMEG2 EMEG50 RMEG

NA

0.02 CREG0.06 CREG0.61 CREG1.2 CREG2,000 RMEG

- micrograms per liter.E - Estimated minimum concentration.J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity.MCL - EPA Maximum Contaminant Level.RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide.EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide.CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide.

B. Off-site Contamination

Surface/Subsurface Soil:

Forty-four surface soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from thirty-six surfacesampling locations (Figure 4). The sampling depths of surface soil samples were notspecified; therefore, IDPH does not know if the samples were collected within the top 3inches of soil, which is ATSDR's definition of surface soil. Composite samples that werecollected included some on-site soil as well as off-site soil. Arsenic was detected in surfacesoil at a maximum concentration of 12 mg/kg (Table HI) at the most northern sampling

11

location in area 1 (Figure 4). Arsenic concentrations were found in all composite samplestaken.

Arsenic, found at various locations, is also the only off-site subsurface soil contaminant ofconcern. The highest level of arsenic was found in a composite subsurface soil sample at39.3 mg/kg collected from MW12 (Table HI). MW12 is east of the chemical fill area andapproximately 300 feet east of the site boundary (Figure 5). Arsenic was detected off site,adjacent to the site's east boundary (MW9) and north of the site (MW2, MW4A, andMW6A).

TABLEm

OFF-SITE SURFACE/SUBSURFACE SOIL (MG/KG) (17)

COMPARISONCONTAMINANT SUBSURFACE SOIL SURFACE SOIL VALUE

ARSENIC 6.4-39J* 1.7-12* 15 EMEG

mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram.J - The numerical value is an estimated quantity.* - Composite sample.EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide.

Groundwater:

Contaminants of concern in off-site groundwater include inorganic, semivolatile, and volatilecompounds. The highest concentration of arsenic was detected in water from MW6 at 2,740/ig/L, and the lowest concentration was detected in water from MW6A and MW8A atapproximately 10 /tg/L. MW6 and MW6A are located approximately 50 to 75 feet north ofthe site boundary, and MW8A is located on the east edge of the site boundary.

During the RI/FS, cadmium was detected off-site in water from MW6, MW10, MW14 and

12

in two private wells, B (back) and F (front) that, at one time, served one household on ShawAvenue. The highest off-site sample was detected in monitoring well MW6 at approximately60 jig/L.

On January 8, 1990, wells B and F, which are southeast of the site and tap the unconfinedUpper Cedar Valley aquifer, contained cadmium at 6.9 /ig/L and 5.1 /tg/L, respectively.The county representative speculated that both of the private wells were less than 50 feetdeep; however, one well may actually be 73 feet deep may extend into the bedrocklimestone. The residence where B and F are located was connected to municipal water inJune 1983. However, wells B and F may still be operational.

Manganese was detected in all on-site and off-site wells except MW1, MW10, MW11, andMW14. The highest concentration of manganese contamination was found off-site in MW13at 3,120 ̂ g/L. Off-site concentrations of manganese exceeded on-site concentrations bymore than 50 percent. A petroleum storage tank farm was located immediately southeast ofMW13. Therefore, manganese contamination in that well may be due to another source,such as leaking or mishandling of the petroleum storage tanks that were located nearby.(Manganese was used as an octane enhancing substance (antiknock agent) in unleadedgasoline from the 1970s to September 1978. It has been used in leaded gasoline since 1985to compensate for reduced amounts of lead.) Additionally, manganese is naturally abundantin groundwater in the area at concentrations ranging from 350-2,000 ppm.

The only semivolatile contaminant found off-site was 2-Nitroaniline which was detected inMW6 at a concentration of 120

During the RI/FS, volatile compounds were detected off-site in groundwater from MW2,MW2A, MW6, and MW13. According to the RI/FS, the source of the volatile compoundsin the off-site well nest (MW2 and MW2A) is attributed to the Shaw Avenue Site. Benzene,toluene, and xylene (BTX) were detected in wells MW6 and MW13. The highest levelsdetected off-site were all in well MW13 with benzene at 3,180 jig/L, toluene at 2,170 /*g/L,and xylene at 1,610 ̂ ig/L. BTX compounds were also detected in well MW6, butconcentrations of xylene in MW6 did not exceed the comparison value.

Surface Water and Sediments:

Two surface water monitoring stations (Figure 2) have been established on the Cedar River.One station is up-stream of the site and the other is down-stream. The down-stream stationis located where some groundwater from the southern area of the site may discharge;however, no stations are established to capture areas where groundwater from the northernportion of the site discharges. Arsenic was detected in down-stream samples at levels belowcomparison values. No sediment data were available. No samples were collected from thepond that is between the site and the Cedar River.

13

TABLE IVOFF-SITE GROUNDWATER (jtg/L) (17)

Contaminant Monitoring WellsComparisonValues

(filtered):ArsenicCadmiumManganese

2-Nitroaniline

10-2,7405.1-60J16-3,120

92J-120

3 RMEG2 EMEG50 RMEG

NA

Vinyl Chloride1 , 1 -Dichloroethene1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 , 1 ,2-TrichloroethaneBenzeneToluene

39-4085.7-1667-45J6-65740E-3,1801,200E-2,170

0.02 CREG0.06 CREG0.38 CREG0.61 CREG1.2 CREG2,000 RMEG

- micrograms per liter.E - Estimated minimum concentration.J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity.NA - Not available.EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide.RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide.CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide.

Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI):

IDPH searched the EPA compiled TRI database from 1988 through 1989 to identify facilitiesthat may have contributed to the soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination inproximity to the Shaw Avenue Dump Site. Industries with 10 or more full-time employeesare required by law to submit to the TRI estimated annual releases (emission rates) of toxicchemicals to the environment (air, water, land, or underground injection). TRI did notcontain any information on releases of contaminants for the Charles City area (Floyd County)that could affect site conditions.

14

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

A representative from Conestoga-Rovers and Associates was contracted by EPA to reviewthe quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) criteria used in chemical analyses andhandling of environmental samples. No problems were reported.

IDPH assumes that information provided in the referenced documents was prepared fromQA/QC directed chain-of-custody procedures, laboratory procedures, and data reporting.The validity of the analyses and conclusions of this public health assessment are dependenton the availability and reliability of referenced information.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

No physical hazards are present on the site.

PATHWAYS ANALYSIS

The environmental and human components that lead to possible human exposure areevaluated in this section. IDPH determines whether people have been exposed tocontaminants from the site in the past, are now exposed to contaminants, and whether theycould be exposed to contaminants in the future. An exposure pathway consists of thefollowing elements: a source of contamination, transportation of the contaminant through anenvironmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposedpopulation. IDPH also evaluates an exposure pathway as completed, potential, or eliminated.In a completed exposure pathway, all elements exist, and exposure from a contaminant hasoccurred in the past, is occurring, or is likely to occur in the future. In a potential exposurepathway, at least one of the above elements has not been identified or confirmed, but it mayexist. Potential exposure pathways indicate that exposure from a contaminant may haveoccurred in the past, may be occurring, or may occur in the future. An exposure pathwaycan be eliminated if one or more of the elements is missing and will likely never exist.

A. Completed Exposure Pathways

Groundwater:

Hydrogeologic conditions at the site include a local perched aquifer at the northeastern endoverlying an unconfined aquifer which extends into the southwestern (floodplain) portion ofthe site. Both of these aquifers overlie an unconfined upper bedrock aquifer. The localperched aquifer is identified from extensive silt and cky deposits and low bedrock hydrologicconductivity. In the southwestern portion of the site, the unconfined aquifer is directlyconnected to the Cedar River. On a larger scale, aquifers beneath the site are the UpperCedar Valley Aquifer and the Lower Cedar Valley Aquifer, separated by the ChickashawShale formation. Monitoring wells located at the northeastern end of the site are affected by

15

a perched aquifer, and monitoring wells in other areas of the site would most commonly beaffected by the unconfined aquifer located throughout the rest of the site (Figure 5).Monitoring wells MW12A and MW8A and boreholes BH21 and BH41 are located within thelocal perched alluvium.

Groundwater flow within the Cedar Valley Aquifer is normally toward the Cedar River(Figure 7), although during high river stages the flow direction will reverse and the aquiferwill be recharged by the Cedar River. Flow direction in the Upper Cedar Valley Aquifer istypically west to northwest in the northern portions of the site, to the west/southwest at thesouthwestern portion, and to the south along the southeastern portion of the site. Undernormal conditions, both hydrologic gradients ultimately flow towards the Cedar River.

In 1954, water from a private well became yellowish in color. No data are available todetermine the location of the well and if the change in color was a result of contaminationfrom the site. However, the residents stopped using the water and began using the municipalwater supply in 1954.

Cadmium contamination, associated with the site chemical fill, has leached into groundwateron site and migrated southward into private wells (wells B and F). Manganese was alsofound in the private wells. Manganese is naturally occurring in the area, but higher levelswere found in some monitoring wells on site. Manganese in the private wells may havemigrated from the site, but the levels are similar to background levels. The contaminatedwells are no longer used as a potable water supply.

Residents who drank water from private wells B and F (located southeast of the site) wereexposed to low levels of cadmium and manganese. Cadmium was detected at a maximum of6.9 /xg/L. The maximum manganese concentrations were 17 /xg/L and 109 /xg/L,respectively. Residents who used wells B and F for drinking water were exposed tocadmium and manganese through ingestion of the contaminated water. An exact number ofpeople who used the wells is not known; however, both wells served one residence.

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

Chemical Fill/Subsurface Soil:

Moderate to high levels of inorganic and semivolatile compounds were found in soil nearchemical fill at the site's northeastern edge (Table I). Arsenic and polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs) (Table I) contaminated subsurface soil throughout the site. The areasof highest contamination have been excavated and removed from the site; however, pastoperations at the site may have resulted in exposures.

In the past, people working or living near the site may have been exposed to windblowncontaminated dust particles as disposal operations took place. People who worked around the

16

chemical fill area may have been exposed to contaminated dust generated by construction ormovement of soil in and around the fill area. Exposures were possible through inhalationand ingestion of contaminated soil particles. Also, on-site workers may have come intodirect (skin) contact with contaminants. No data are available to evaluate possible exposuresto off-site residents and workers from windblown particulates. People who worked on thesite may have been exposed to arsenic ranging from 350 parts per million (ppm) up to264,000 ppm. Prior to the excavation of contaminated soils, people who worked near thechemical fill may have been exposed to high levels of other contaminants, too (see Table I).No information is available on how many people, if any, actually came into contact with on-site subsurface soils or the chemical fill.

Groundwater:

Public water is available in the area, but some private wells have been identified in thecommunity around the site (Figure 6). The wells identified appear to be upgradient of thesite or no longer used for drinking water. One private well that may be downgradient of thesite is still used for drinking water. No contamination has been found in that well to date.Future land use could result in development of areas downgradient of the site. Ifdevelopment occurs, private wells could be used rather than the public water supply.Residents who drink water from wells located hydrologically down-gradient of the site (in theCedar Valley Aquifer) may be exposed to groundwater contaminants from the site ifcontaminants migrate to those wells or if wells are drilled into the contaminant plume. Ifcontaminated well water is used for drinking water and for household purposes such ascooking and bathing, exposures would occur through ingestion and skin contact, as well asinhalation of volatile contaminants. Groundwater contaminants are listed in Tables n and IV.

Surface Water

A pond is located down-gradient of the site between the site and the Cedar River.Transportation of contaminants from the site through the groundwater to the pond area ispossible. However, surface water run-off from the site to the pond area is diverted by a soilberm that underlies the existing railroad tracks. People who swim in the pond could beexposed to contaminants through dermal contact and incidental ingestion if the pond containscontaminants. No data are available on the pond water or sediments.

The Cedar River flows from north to south west of the site, and from west to east south ofthe site. Transportation of contaminants from the site through the groundwater to the CedarRiver is likely. Directly across the Cedar River, to the northwest, lies the Labounty LandfillSite (Figures 1 and 2). This site could also affect the Cedar River as groundwater flow onthe Labounty site is toward the Cedar River. People who swim or wade in the river couldbe exposed to contaminants through dermal contact and incidental ingestion of anycontaminants that may be in the river. Small quantities of arsenic were detected in the Cedar

17

River; however, levels were below comparison values when sampled. Although the riverwould likely dilute any contaminants entering the system, some contaminants could settle andconcentrate in sediments. The sampling station locations on the river are not adequate toassess the entire stretch of the river that could be affected by the site.

Biota:

Transportation of contaminants through groundwater from the site to the pond and to theCedar River is possible. Small amounts of arsenic were found in the Cedar River. No dataare available on the pond water and sediments. Some site contaminants can accumulate infish if they are present in the water or sediments. If fish or other edible biota arecontaminated, people who consume those fish or other aquatic organisms could be exposed tocontaminants in the organisms. No fish data are available.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

A. Toxicological Evaluation

In this section, we discuss the health effects in persons exposed to specific contaminants,evaluate state and local databases, and address specific community health concerns. Toevaluate health effects, ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) forcontaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. The MRL is an estimate of dailyhuman exposure to a contaminant below which noncancer, adverse health effects are unlikelyto occur. MRLs are developed for each route of exposure, such as ingestion and inhalation,and for the length of exposure, such as acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 to 364days), and chronic (greater than 365 days). ATSDR presents these MRLs in ToxicologicalProfiles. The chemical-specific profiles provide information on health effects, environmentaltransport, human exposure, and regulatory status. EPA has developed a Reference Dose(RfD) that also estimates a daily exposure to a contaminant that may result in noncancer,adverse health effects. The Toxicological Profiles and other references used in thepreparation of this public health assessment are listed in the reference section of this report.

Residents who drank water from off-site private wells B and F were exposed to relativelysmall amounts of cadmium and manganese.

Cadmium

The levels of cadmium detected in off-site private wells B and F were 6.9 /*g/L and 5.1/*g/L, respectively (17). Exposure to those levels ceased when the people began using thepublic water supply (17). In children, a chronic oral exposure to 6.9 /zg/L of cadmiumwould result in a dose that approximately equals the current chronic MRL for effects otherthan cancer. For an adult, ingestion of the maximum level found in a private well would notresult in a dose that exceeds the MRL (3).

18

The kidney is the primary organ to be affected from exposure to low levels of ingestedcadmium. However, the estimated exposure is below the level that is known to cause kidneydamage in humans (3). Currently, no evidence exists linking ingestion of cadmium withcarcinogenic effects in animals or humans (3).

Manganese

The maximum manganese concentration found in private well water was 109 jtg/L.Exposure to manganese stopped when residents began using the public water supply.Manganese is an essential trace element for humans. It plays an important role in manyenzyme systems (13). The main problem with manganese in drinking water is theundesirable taste and discoloration of water (15). The maximum levels detected in privatewells would result in a dose for children that would exceed EPA's RfD, although that level isbelow what is usually taken into the body through a normal diet (20). That level would notresult in a dose for an adult that would exceed the RfD. The RfD is derived byincorporating uncertainty factors and may result in an estimate with uncertainty spanning anorder of magnitude (20). Because the maximum levels detected in private wells is below thenormal diet intake, adverse health effects are not likely to occur through ingesting themanganese. If a child who is very sensitive to manganese, and perhaps is exposed to highlevels of manganese through other sources, adverse, non-cancer health effects may occur.

Exposures to levels much higher than those detected in wells may result in weakness, stiffmuscles, and trembling hands (20). Although inconclusive, animal data suggest thatmanganese is not likely a human carcinogen (20).

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

No adverse health outcomes have been identified as a result of exposure to site contaminants.Therefore, no health outcome data evaluation is necessary at this time. Should any adversehealth outcomes be reported in the future, a review of the databases will be conducted at thattime.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

As of August 1994, no community health concerns have been expressed to IDPH. A publicmeeting was held in 1991, but no one expressed health concerns at that time. Residents haveexpressed an interest in being notified should investigations identify exposures that may needfollow-up health actions or present a risk to their health. No comments or concerns werereceived when this document was released for public comment from October 5 throughNovember 4, 1992. IDPH plans to provide information on site contaminants to private wellusers if their wells are in danger of becoming contaminated. Area residents will be notifiedof any health risks identified during subsequent investigations. IDPH will investigate anycommunity concerns that may arise when new data are evaluated and this document isupdated.

19

CONCLUSIONS

ATSDR and IDPH have concluded, based on the information reviewed, that the site posed apublic health hazard prior to the excavation and removal of contaminated soils and chemicalfill on site. Currently, the site is an indeterminate public health hazard. Post-removalsampling data need to be reviewed when available. Data on some potential exposurepathways are lacking.

Future exposures are possible if wells are drilled into the contaminant plume. Public wateris available in the area, but some private wells are still used. Most wells that are still in useare upgradient of the site and not expected to contain contamination from the site. At leastone well may still be used that is down-gradient of the site but is not presently contaminated.Wells that are contaminated and are no longer used may not have been properly abandonedto prevent future use of the wells.

The pond between the site and the Cedar River might be contaminated as a result ofcontaminated groundwater discharge. If area residents swim or fish in the pond they mightbe exposed to contaminants. Information on the type and concentration of contaminants inpond water and sediments is needed to evaluate the status of the pond. Also, moreinformation is needed on how people use the pond.

Contaminated groundwater discharges into the Cedar River when flow conditions are normalor low. Areas where contaminants likely discharge, especially from the northern portion ofthe site, have not been sampled. One down-stream sample, collected from a location thatmay capture some of the groundwater flowing from the southern portion of the site,contained arsenic at levels below comparison values. Further characterization of the river isneeded to evaluate possible exposures.

20

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prevent/Cease/Reduce Exposure Recommendations:

1. Implement controls in areas of known groundwater contamination to prevent futureuse of contaminated groundwater for drinking water supplies until remediation hasreduced contaminant concentrations to below levels of health concern.

2. Take the necessary actions to prevent any exposure to local populations from sitecontaminants should additional soil remediation activities be necessary.

3. Continue monitoring down-gradient private wells that are still in use. If wells that areno longer in use have not been properly abandoned, consider doing so to preventpossible future exposures.

Site Characterization Recommendations:

1. Determine how people use the pond located between the site and the Cedar River. Ifpeople use the pond, sample the water and sediments to determine if people could beexposed to contaminants. If people eat fish from the pond, determine if contaminantsare present in the sediments and water that could be accumulated in the fish.

2. Better characterize possible contamination in Cedar River water and sediments.Sampling locations should be selected to reflect areas of likely groundwater dischargefrom the site.

Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP)

The data and information in the Shaw Avenue Dump Public Health Assessment have beenevaluated by HARP for follow-up health actions. Based on the available information, thereare no indications that illness or disease has resulted from exposures to area residentsexposed to site-related contaminants. There is concern, however, that residents close to thesite who may be using private wells could be exposed to contaminants at levels of healthconcern if contaminants migrate to the wells. Therefore, HARP has determined that acommunity health education program directed at these potential private well users isindicated. Community health education will also serve to update the community onremediation activities at the site. If additional data become available, ATSDR and the IowaDepartment of Public Health will reevaluate this site for any indicated follow-up healthactions.

21

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The Public Health Action Plan for the Shaw Avenue Dump site contains a description ofactions to be taken by ATSDR or other agencies at and in the vicinity of the site subsequentto the completion of this public health assessment. The purpose of the Public Health ActionPlan is to ensure that this public health assessment not only identifies public health hazards,but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effectsresulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. The public healthactions to be implemented by IDPH and ATSDR are as follows:

1. A community health education program will be conducted by IDPH forresidents using private wells close to the site about the possible health effectsfrom site contaminants and actions to reduce exposures should their wellsbecome contaminated.

2. IDPH plans to update this public health assessment when information supportingEPA's ROD is available.

3. ATSDR and IDPH will evaluate any additional health information or datarelevant to this site as they become available to determine whether otherfollow-up health actions are indicated.

22

PREPARERS OF REPORT

Iowa Department of Public Health/Health Assessment Team

Russell Currier, DVM, MPHEnvironmental EpidemiologistIowa Department of Public Health

Richard Welke, BAEnvironmental SpecialistIowa Department of Public Health

Brad V. Cudal, M.D.Environmental SpecialistIowa Department of Public Health

Arlene M. JacobEnvironmental SpecialistIowa Department of Public Health

ATSDR Regional Representative

David A. ParkerRegional RepresentativeRegion VHOffice of Regional Operations

ATSDR Technical Project Officer

Gail D. GodfreyEnvironmental Health ScientistDivision of Health Assessmentand Consultation

23

CERTIFICATION

The Shaw Avenue Dump Public Health Assessment has been prepared by the IowaDepartment of Public Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodologyand procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was initiated.

Technical Project Officer/^PS, ^PB, DHAC

The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this publichealth assessment and concurs with its findings.

Rdbert C. Williams, P.E., DElfDirector, DHAC, ATSDR

24

REFERENCES

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Arsenic. Atlanta: March 1989. Publication No. ATSDR/TP-88/02.

2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Benzene. Atlanta: May 1989. ATSDR/TP-88-03.

3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Cadmium. Atlanta: March 1989. Publication No. ATSDR/TP-88/08.

4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological ProfileforChrysene. Atlanta: March 1990. Publication No. ATSDR/TP-88/11.

5. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Di(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate. Atlanta: April 1989. Publication No.ATSDR/TP-88/15.

6. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Lead. Atlanta: June 1990. Publication No. ATSDR/TP-88/17.

7. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Nitrobenzene. Atlanta: December 1990. Publication No. ATSDR/TP-90/19.

8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Atlanta: December 1990. Publication No.ATSDR/TP-90/20.

9. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/Iowa Department of PublicHealth, Preliminary Health Assessment for Shaw Avenue Dump Site, Charles City,Iowa. CERCLIS No. IAD980630560. May 16, 1990.

10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profilefor Toluene. Atlanta: December 1989. Publication No. ATSDR/TP-89/23.

11. Baseline Risk Assessment, Shaw Avenue Site, Charles City, Iowa. September 1990.Prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Ref. No. 2227(10).

12. Baseline Risk Assessment (Draft), Shaw Avenue Site, Charles City, Iowa, March 15,1991. Prepared by B&W Waste Science and Technology Corp. TES 9, WorkAssignment No. C07049.

13. Casarett & Doull's Toxicology, The Basic Science of Poisons. 4th Edition (1991),

25

pp. 623-672.

14. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Shaw Avenue Dump Site, StateAbandoned or Uncontrolled Site Registry, Site Information Package, 1989, IDNR.

15. National Research Council. Drinking Water and Health, Washington, D. C.,National Academy of Sciences, 1977. pp. 209-215.

16. Record of Decision, Shaw Avenue Dump, Charles City, Iowa. September 26, 1991.Prepared by the Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region Vn.

17. Remedial Investigation (RI) Report, Vols. I, n, & HI, Shaw Avenue Dump Site,Charles City, Iowa, June 29, 1990. Prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates.

18. Sittig, M. 1985. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens,Second Edition.

19. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health AssessmentGuidance Manual. Atlanta, GA.: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,March 1992; DHHS, (PHS).

20. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile forManganese, Draft, U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, February 1991.

26

APPENDICES

Figure 1. Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 2. Site Boundary and Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 3. Suspected Waste Cell Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 4. Surface Soil Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 5. Monitoring Well Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 5.1 Borehole Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 6. Private Well Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 7. Bedrock Flow Path Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

27

SITE LOCATION

M I N N E S O T A

.. CHARLESCIT

WATERLOO\ DUBUOUE

DES MOINES DAVENPORT

CHARLES

La BOUNTYSITE

SOLVAY ANIMALHEALTH

<$>

SHAW AVENUESITE

CHARLES CITYW.W.TP

CRA

figure 1SITE LOCATION

Shew Avenue Site2227-13/03/90-4-0 28

SITE BOUNDARY AND CHARACTERIZATION

LoBOUNTY LANDFILL /

WASTEWATtHTREATMENT PV>WTSHAW

AVENUESITE

APPROXIMATESITE BOUNDARY

STN 12 ^CEDAR RIVER MONITORING \sSTATIONSURFACE WATER GRAB SAMPLELOCATION

WASTEWATER SAMPLE LOCATION

aSTN 12

McDONNEULSTATION3.3 MILESDOWNSTREAM

A

figure 2.SURFACE WATER AND WASTEWATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS

Shaw Avenue Site Rl/FS1J3.7-13/03/90-^0 29

Suspected Waste Cell Location Map

5) o <;<= P£<<o

<-> i,

UJI—u

CO

30

Surface Soil Sampling Locations

Monitoring Well Locations

in

01

Uj I)

o c

O2o:O

O

Jtorehole Locations

33

PRIVATE WELL LOCATIONST*Vr-; 1 p1 J *̂*̂ %••"-#iv ,\Hte ^^^v-^At5]a^^%M^

1

1

rtlGHLANOYr u D m f* C

0' 500'

jrm-irn'i'iTn ',-r^o ••(:r$S£2

PRIVATE WELL LOCATIONAPPROX. BOUNDARY OFSHAW AVENUE LANDFILL

NOTE: ALL RESIDENCES WITHINCITY LIMITS ARE ONMUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY

CRA

figurePRIVATE WELL LOCATIONSShaw Avenue Site RI/FS

2227-13/03/90-4-034

Bedrock Flow Path Units.

35