***FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY---Not an actual site***

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT\
\
YAKLISKE METALS AND RECLAMATION COMPANY\
NEW MINGLEWOOD COUNTY, ZARIZONA

CERCLIS No. AZ00000000001

February 2005

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.125in" height="1.15625in"}

*Prepared by:*

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Number range
CHAPTERDivision of Health Assessment and Consultation

# Foreword

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was
established by Congress in 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund
law. This law set up a fund to identify and clean up our country\'s
hazardous waste sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
individual states regulate the investigation and cleanup of the sites.

Since 1986, ATSDR has been required by law to conduct public health
assessment activities at each of the sites on the EPA National
Priorities List. The aim of these evaluations is to find out if people
are being exposed to hazardous substances and, if so, whether that
exposure is harmful and should be stopped or reduced. If appropriate,
ATSDR also conducts public health assessments when petitioned by
concerned individuals. Public health assessments are carried out by
environmental and health scientists from ATSDR and from the state,
tribal, and territorial programs with which ATSDR has cooperative
agreements. The public health assessment program allows the scientists
flexibility in the format or structure of their response to the public
health issues at hazardous waste sites. For example, a public health
assessment could be one document or it could be a compilation of several
health consultations---the structure may vary from site to site.
Whatever the form of the public health assessment, the process is not
considered complete until the public health issues at the site are
addressed.

## Exposure {#exposure .Title-Heading-2}

As the first step in the evaluation, ATSDR scientists review
environmental data to see how much contamination is at a site, where it
is, and how people might come into contact with it. Generally, rather
than collecting its own environmental sampling data, ATSDR reviews
information provided by EPA, other government agencies, businesses, and
the public. When there is not enough environmental information
available, the report will indicate what further sampling data are
needed.

The route of a contaminant's movement is called the exposure pathway,
which has five elements: (1) a source of contamination, (2) an
environmental media (such as, soil, water, or air), (3) a point of
exposure, (4) a route of human exposure, and (5) a receptor population.
The source is the place where the chemical or radioactive material was
released. The environmental media transport the contaminants. The point
of exposure is the place where persons come in contact with the
contaminated media. The route of exposure (for example, ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal contact) is the way the contaminant enters the
body. The people actually exposed are called the receptor population.

## Health Effects {#health-effects .Title-Heading-2}

If there are potential or completed exposure pathways where people have
or could come into contact with hazardous substances, ATSDR scientists
then evaluate whether these contacts may result in harmful effects.
ATSDR recognizes that children, because of their play activities and
their growing bodies, may be more vulnerable to these effects. As a
policy, unless data are available to suggest otherwise, ATSDR considers
children likely to be more sensitive and vulnerable to hazardous
substances than adults. Thus, the health impact to the children is
considered first when evaluating the health threat to a community. The
health impacts to other high-risk groups within the community (such as
the elderly, chronically ill, and people engaging in high-risk
practices) also receive special attention during the evaluation.

ATSDR uses existing scientific information, which can include the
results of medical, toxicologic, and epidemiologic studies and the data
collected in disease registries, to determine the health effects that
may result from exposures. The science of environmental health is still
developing, and sometimes scientific information on the health effects
of certain substances is not available. ATSDR identifies those types of
information gaps and documents public health actions needed in public
health assessment documents.

## Conclusions {#conclusions .Title-Heading-2}

If appropriate, this report presents conclusions about the public health
threat, if any, posed by a site. Any health threats that have been
determined for high-risk groups (such as children, the elderly,
chronically ill people, and people engaging in high-risk practices) are
summarized in the Conclusions section of the report. Recommendations are
presented on how to stop or reduce exposure. The public health action
plan describes how those recommendations will be implemented.

ATSDR is primarily an advisory agency, so its reports usually identify
what actions are appropriate to be undertaken by EPA, other responsible
parties, or the research or education divisions of ATSDR. However, if
there is an urgent health threat, ATSDR can issue a public health
advisory warning people of the danger. ATSDR can also authorize health
education or pilot studies of health effects, full-scale epidemiology
studies, exposure registries, surveillance studies or research on
specific hazardous substances.

## Community {#community .Title-Heading-2}

ATSDR also needs to learn what people in the area know about the site
and what concerns they may have about its impact on their health.
Consequently, throughout the evaluation process, ATSDR actively gathers
information and comments from the people who live or work near a site,
including residents of the area, civic leaders, health professionals,
and community groups. To ensure that the report responds to the
community's health concerns, an early version is also distributed to the
public for their comments. Comments received from the public are
addressed in the final version of the report.

## Comments {#comments .Title-Heading-2}

If, after reading this report, you have questions or comments, we
encourage you to send them to us. Letters should be addressed as
follows:

Attention: Aaron Borrelli\
Manager, ATSDR Records Center\
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry\
1600 Clifton Rd. (E-60)\
Atlanta, GA 30333

Table of Contents

[**Foreword i**](#foreword)

[Summary 1](#number-range-chaptersummary)

[I. Purpose and Health Issues 3](#i.-purpose-and-health-issues)

[II. Background 4](#ii.-background)

[II.A. Site Description and Operational History
4](#ii.a.-site-description-and-operational-history)

[II.B. Regulatory and Remedial History
5](#ii.b.-regulatory-and-remedial-history)

[II.C. ATSDR Involvement 6](#ii.c.-atsdr-involvement)

[II.D. Land Use and Demographics 7](#ii.d.-land-use-and-demographics)

[II.E. Quality Assurance and Control
8](#ii.e.-quality-assurance-and-control)

[III. Discussion 9](#iii.-discussion)

[III.A. Methodology 9](#iii.a.-methodology)

[III.B. Exposure Situations Evaluated at the YMR Site
10](#iii.b.-exposure-situations-evaluated-at-the-ymr-site)

[1. Has the quality of the water in private wells near YMR been affected
by site contamination? Is it safe to drink the water?
10](#has-the-quality-of-the-water-in-private-wells-near-ymr-been-affected-by-site-contamination-is-it-safe-to-drink-the-water)

[2. Are nearby residents or YMR workers exposed to harmful levels of
surface soil contamination?
14](#are-nearby-residents-or-ymr-workers-exposed-to-harmful-levels-of-surface-soil-contamination)

[3. Are people who use Haynes Creek for recreational and other purposes
being exposed to harmful levels of chemicals in the surface water and
sediment?
17](#are-people-who-use-haynes-creek-for-recreational-and-other-purposes-being-exposed-to-harmful-levels-of-chemicals-in-the-surface-water-and-sediment)

[4. Did past or do current air emissions from YMR, including from the
incinerator, pose a health risk?
20](#did-past-or-do-current-air-emissions-from-ymr-including-from-the-incinerator-pose-a-health-risk)

[IV. Evaluation of Health Outcome Data
21](#iv.-evaluation-of-health-outcome-data)

[V. Community Health Concerns 21](#v.-community-health-concerns)

[VI. Child Health Considerations 21](#vi.-child-health-considerations)

[VII. Conclusions 21](#vii.-conclusions)

[VIII. Recommendations 21](#viii.-recommendations)

[IX. Public Health Action Plan 21](#ix.-public-health-action-plan)

[X. Preparers of Report 21](#x.-preparers-of-report)

[XI. References 21](#xi.-references)

List of Tables

[Table 1. Exposure Pathways 21](#table-1.-exposure-pathways)

[Table 2. Chemicals Detected in Surface Water from Lake Lanier
21](#table-2.-chemicals-detected-in-surface-water-from-lake-lanier)

[Table 3. Chemicals Detected in Private Wells
21](#table-3.-chemicals-detected-in-private-wells)

[Table 4. Chemicals Detected in Surface Water from Haynes Creek
21](#table-4.-chemicals-detected-in-surface-water-from-haynes-creek)

[Table 5. Chemicals Detected in Sediment from Haynes Creek
21](#table-5.-chemicals-detected-in-sediment-from-haynes-creek)

List of Figures

[Figure 1. Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company Site Features
21](#figure-1.-yakliske-metals-and-reclamation-company-site-features)

[Figure 2. Demographics Within a 1-Mile Radius of YMR
21](#figure-2.-demographics-within-a-1-mile-radius-of-ymr-figure-2.-demographics-within-a-1-mile-radius-of-ymr)

[Figure 3. ATSDR Exposure Evaluation Process
21](#figure-3.-atsdr-exposure-evaluation-process)

[Figure 4. Location of Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Private Wells
21](#figure-4.-location-of-groundwater-monitoring-wells-and-private-wells)

[Figure 5. PCB Sample Locations 21](#figure-5.-pcb-sample-locations)

[Figure 6. Location of Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
21](#figure-6.-location-of-surface-water-and-sediment-sampling)

List of Appendices

Appendix A. ATSDR Glossary of Terms A-1

Appendix B. Estimates of Human Exposure Doses and Determination of
Health Effects B-1

Appendix C. Fact Sheets C-1

-   Petitioned Public Health Assessments

-   Arsenic ToxFAQ

-   Polychlorinated Biphenyls ToxFAQ

List of Abbreviations

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CREG cancer risk evaluation guide

CV comparison value

EMEG environmental media evaluation guide

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

MCL maximum contaminant level

MRL minimal risk level

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PHA public health assessment

PHAP Public Health Action Plan

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

RfD reference dose

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound

TCE trichloroethylene

VOC volatile organic compound

YMR Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company

ZDHS Zarizona Department of Health Services

ZEA Zarizona Environmental Agency

# Number range CHAPTERSummary

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| This        | This public health assessment (PHA) reports the        |
| section     | results of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease |
| should      | Registry's (ATSDR's) evaluation of past, present, and  |
| summarize   | future exposures to environmental contamination        |
| the most    | associated with the Yakliske Metals and Reclamation    |
| important   | Company (YMR) in New Minglewood County, Zarizona.      |
| conclusions |                                                        |
| and         | Between 1961 and 1993, YMR conducted various metals    |
| reco        | reclamation operations at the facility. The operations |
| mmendations | decreased substantially in the early 1980s, as         |
| of the PHA. | residential developments were constructed around the   |
|             | facility. Currently, an animal research facility       |
| This        | leases the YMR property. YMR's production processes    |
| section     | released various contaminants into the environment.    |
| should be   | These releases decreased considerably in the early     |
| simple,     | 1980s, when the demand for YMR's products dropped and  |
| clear, and  | the facility owners began focusing on environmental    |
| concise,    | remediation. Local community members have recently     |
| since it    | asked whether their health was affected by             |
| will be one | contaminants from YMR.                                 |
| of the most |                                                        |
| frequently  | ATSDR prepared this PHA to respond to community health |
| read        | concerns, to determine whether residents could contact |
| sections of | harmful levels of environmental contamination, and to  |
| the         | make recommendations to protect public health in the   |
| document.   | future. When preparing this PHA, ATSDR gathered and    |
|             | reviewed numerous reports, studies, and sampling data  |
| Do not      | generated by several parties, including the U.S.       |
| include any | Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Zarizona    |
| technical   | Department of Health Services (ZDHS), the Zarizona     |
| i           | Environmental Agency (ZEA), YMR and its contractors,   |
| nformation, | local community groups, universities, and private      |
| c           | researchers. Overall, ATSDR believes the available     |
| onclusions, | data are sufficient to reach conclusions about several |
| or          | community concerns.                                    |
| reco        |                                                        |
| mmendations | ATSDR concluded that some exposure situations at the   |
| that are    | YMR site pose ***public health hazards***. ATSDR's     |
| not         | findings for the four environmental health issues of   |
| addressed   | greatest concern are summarized below. Details about   |
| in the main | how ATSDR reached these conclusions are presented in   |
| body of the | this PHA.                                              |
| document.   |                                                        |
|             | -   Number range CHAPTEROff-site soil contamination    |
| Clearly     |     has been found at four residential properties      |
| present the |     along YMR's southeastern property line. Past waste |
| main        |     disposal practices contaminated surface soils on   |
| findings    |     these properties with polychlorinated biphenyls    |
| and the     |     (PCBs) at levels that could be harmful to children |
| information |     who live and play there. To prevent residents from |
| supporting  |     contacting harmful levels of soil contamination,   |
| your        |     ATSDR has recommended that YMR, under EPA and ZEA  |
| c           |     oversight, promptly remove the contamination.      |
| onclusions. |     Until these soils are removed, residents should    |
|             |     limit potentially harmful exposures by avoiding    |
| Place       |     gardening, playing in soils, and allowing pets to  |
| conclusions |     track outdoor soils into the house.                |
| in order of |                                                        |
| public      | Residents are not being exposed to on-site             |
| health      | contamination because they cannot access the site      |
| priority.   | property. Currently, workers do not frequently access  |
|             | areas that would result in frequent contact with       |
|             | contaminants. To prevent future harmful exposures, YMR |
|             | should maintain site access restrictions, post signs   |
|             | warning of soil contamination, and develop a health    |
|             | and safety plan that informs workers of the location   |
|             | and potential hazards associated with contaminated     |
|             | areas.                                                 |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| #           | -   ATSDR discovered two private wells north of YMR    |
|             |     that were contaminated with arsenic. The arsenic   |
|             |     in those wells appears to be from past use of      |
|             |     arsenic-containing pesticides on peach trees,      |
|             |     rather than from YMR. Although the contamination   |
|             |     was found soon enough that people likely have not  |
|             |     been affected, continued use of the water          |
|             |     containing arsenic at the levels found could       |
|             |     increase a person's risk of developing certain     |
|             |     cancers. For that reason, residences were          |
|             |     connected to the municipal water supply.           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Past YMR operations contaminated the groundwater that  |
|             | is directly beneath the site. However, no one is using |
|             | groundwater contaminated by YMR and YMR is taking      |
|             | measures to clean up the groundwater and to prevent    |
|             | any contaminants from migrating off site.              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   It is safe for residents, including children, to   |
|             |     contact the surface water and sediment in Haynes   |
|             |     Creek, both upstream and downstream of YMR. The    |
|             |     fence that surrounds the facility restricts access |
|             |     to the on-site portions of the creek.              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | An incinerator began destroying small quantities of    |
|             | non-hazardous waste at YMR property in 1993. Though no |
|             | information found suggests air emission rates are      |
|             | unusually elevated, no ambient air data are currently  |
|             | available to confirm this. ATSDR will reach its final  |
|             | conclusions about releases from the incinerator after  |
|             | reviewing results from an air sampling program that is |
|             | currently under way. ATSDR will address this issue in  |
|             | a separate health consultation, expected to be         |
|             | released by the end of this calendar year.             |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

#  I. Purpose and Health Issues

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| This        | In December 2003, the Agency for Toxic Substances and  |
| section     | Disease Registry (ATSDR) received a petition from a    |
| focuses the | community member to conduct a public health assessment |
| discussion  | (PHA) of the Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company   |
| for the     | (YMR) site in Yakliske, Zarizona. Area residents       |
| rest of the | expressed concern regarding past site activities and   |
| PHA by      | possible impacts on nearby neighborhoods. The major    |
| identifying | environmental health and community health concerns     |
| the main    | are:                                                   |
| issues that |                                                        |
| will be     | -   Has the quality of the water in private wells near |
| addressed.  |     YMR been affected by site contamination? Is it     |
|             |     safe to drink the water?                           |
| This        |                                                        |
| section     | -   Number range CHAPTERAre nearby residents or YMR    |
| usually     |     workers exposed to harmful levels of surface soil  |
| also        |     contamination?                                     |
| includes a  |                                                        |
| brief       | -   Are people who use Haynes Creek for recreational   |
| overview of |     and other purposes being exposed to harmful levels |
| community   |     of chemicals in the surface water and sediment?    |
| health      |                                                        |
| concerns.   | -   Did past or do current air emissions from YMR,     |
|             |     including from the incinerator, pose a health      |
| Explain     |     risk?                                              |
| what the    |                                                        |
| PHA will    | ATSDR conducted a comprehensive review of available    |
| and will    | environmental sampling data and other site information |
| not         | to address these major health concerns. Specifically,  |
| discuss.    | ATSDR examined the nature and extent of contamination  |
|             | and studied how people might have come in contact with |
| Appendix C  | site-related contaminants, both on and off site. ATSDR |
| contains a  | also addressed several other issues of concern to some |
| fact sheet  | community members, including exposure to               |
| that        | lead-contaminated soil from sandblasting a water tower |
| describes   | and to PCB-contaminated soil during gardening (see     |
| the         | Section V).                                            |
| petition    |                                                        |
| process.    | The purpose of this report is to present the findings  |
|             | of the evaluation and recommended public health        |
|             | actions.                                               |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

#  

# II. Background

## II.A. Site Description and Operational History

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| In the      | The YMR site is in Yakliske, New Minglewood County,    |
| background  | Zarizona. Webb Gin House Road borders the site to the  |
| section,    | north. Several residential neighborhoods are around    |
| only        | the perimeter of site. Haynes Creek flows across the   |
| include     | southern portion of the site. Several smaller streams  |
| pertinent   | flow into Haynes Creek on and near the YMR property.   |
| factual     | In 1993, the current site lessee installed a secure    |
| information | fence along the perimeter of the site.                 |
| that will   |                                                        |
| provide the | YMR started operations as a plating shop in 1961.      |
| context for | Early operations involved sorting and storing metal    |
| later       | products. The metal items processed on site included   |
| d           | spent transformers and empty 55-gallon waste drums,    |
| iscussions. | some of which contained trace quantities of liquid and |
| Save your   | solid residue. One operation processed waste drums     |
| inte        | containing arsenic-laden dusts (EPA 2002). Operations  |
| rpretations | occurred mostly in the facility's six buildings at the |
| for later   | southeastern corner of the property (see Figure 1).    |
| sections of |                                                        |
| the PHA.    | The primary plating operations, which included         |
|             | cleaning metal items prior to their salvage or reuse,  |
| Do not      | were conducted in Building F. One of the rooms         |
| include     | included a large sump to collect plating shop rinse    |
| information | water. The liquid wastes were discharged to unlined    |
| that is not | waste ponds (Ponds 1 and 2) west of the buildings.     |
| directly    | Periodically, water from these ponds was pumped to a   |
| relevant to | spray field, where it was discharged to the ground.    |
| the issues  | YMR dredged the ponds at least twice and disposed of   |
| being       | the sludge at an off-site landfill. Other metal wastes |
| discussed   | generated at the facility were disposed in scrap piles |
| in the PHA  | west of the ponds (EPA 2002; ZEA 1995).                |
| (e.g.,      |                                                        |
| legal       | In addition to the metal processing operations, from   |
| r           | 1968 through 1974, YMR painted radium on the dials of  |
| amification | aircraft parts. These operations took place in one     |
| for site    | small room in Building E. After the contract for this  |
| owners).    | work ended in 1975, YMR dismantled and disposed of the |
|             | entire building, including associated waste materials, |
| As should   | in a waste dump on the site (ZEA 1995). Records        |
| be done     | indicate that all waste materials in this area were    |
| throughout  | removed and sent to an approved, off-site landfill     |
| the PHA,    | (ABC 1992).                                            |
| clearly     |                                                        |
| reference   | YMR ended its metal plating operations in 1993.        |
| all         | Building F was demolished shortly thereafter, and      |
| statements  | building materials were disposed off site in an        |
| of fact.    | approved landfill (ABC 1992; Alpha 1994).              |
| Make it     |                                                        |
| clear what  | Number range CHAPTERThe industrial processes at YMR    |
| are         | generated a wide range of liquid and solid wastes.     |
| judgments   | Though the facility sent some wastes off site for      |
| and         | treatment and disposal, most wastes were disposed in   |
| opinions.   | various on-site waste management units (ZEA 1995).     |
|             | These disposal areas included waste ponds, waste       |
| Knowing the | piles, junk piles, and a spray irrigation field.       |
| chronology  | Sampling data and knowledge of past operating          |
| of site     | practices suggest that these on-site disposal areas    |
| operations  | likely contain materials contaminated with metals and  |
| can provide | selected organic compounds. Most of the on-site waste  |
| insight     | disposal areas are not clearly marked. Though a fence  |
| about       | prevents residents from coming into contact with       |
| possible    | materials in on-site disposal areas, nothing prevents  |
| en          | current workers from accessing these areas.            |
| vironmental |                                                        |
| releases    |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| exposures.  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Describing  | Only one of YMR's former operations is known to have   |
| site        | resulted in hazardous wastes disposed at off-site      |
| features,   | locations. From 1961 to 1975, YMR processed spent      |
| process     | electrical transformers in an area at the southeastern |
| operations, | corner of the facility known as the PCB Disposal Area  |
| and waste   | (see Figure 1). As part of this operation, residual    |
| handling    | fluids were removed from spent transformers. These     |
| practices   | fluids contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),     |
| provides    | primarily in a mixture known as Aroclor 1254. YMR      |
| information | employees reportedly poured much of the residual       |
| to support  | transformer fluids directly onto soils. Although most  |
| later       | disposals occurred in the southeast corner of the      |
| discussions | property, some employees reported pouring transformer  |
| on          | fluids onto soils that are now part of residential     |
| en          | properties along the facility property line. The       |
| vironmental | property line was not clearly marked at the time PCB   |
| releases    | disposal occurred. The residences of concern were      |
| and         | constructed in 1982. All PCB disposal at YMR ceased in |
| possible    | 1975, when the facility stopped accepting spent        |
| exposure    | transformers (EPA 2002).                               |
| points.     |                                                        |
|             | Since 1993, YMR has been leasing its main buildings    |
| Discuss     | (Buildings A, B, and C) for animal research purposes.  |
| past,       | The current lessee operates an incinerator to manage   |
| current,    | animal carcasses and other non-hazardous wastes.       |
| and         |                                                        |
| anticipated |                                                        |
| future      |                                                        |
| activities. |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

## II.B. Regulatory and Remedial History

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Highlight   | Starting in the 1980s, YMR conducted several site      |
| key         | investigations and voluntary remediation actions,      |
| activities  | primarily to ensure that future users of the property  |
| related to  | are not exposed to harmful levels of contamination     |
| site        | that might remain from past YMR activities. Further,   |
| inv         | environmental agencies also have been involved in      |
| estigations | addressing site-related contamination. Highlights in   |
| and site    | the regulatory and remedial history, organized by      |
| chara       | environmental medium, follow:                          |
| cterization |                                                        |
| (e.g., for  | -   *Groundwater.* After detecting groundwater         |
| Superfund   |     contamination in the vicinity of the spray         |
| sites, list |     irrigation field (YMR 1983), YMR initiated two     |
| the events  |     main actions to address the issue. First, YMR      |
| leading to  |     conducted quarterly monitoring of several          |
| placement   |     groundwater wells to determine whether             |
| on EPA's    |     contaminants were migrating off-site (ABC          |
| National    |     Environmental 1992, 2002). Second, YMR constructed |
| Priority    |     a pump-and-treat system to help prevent            |
| list).      |     contaminant migration and to eventually restore    |
|             |     groundwater quality (ABC Environmental 1992,       |
| There is no |     2002). The Zarizona Environmental Agency (ZEA) is  |
| single      |     overseeing these activities.                       |
| approach    |                                                        |
| for         | The Zarizona Department of Health Services (ZDHS) has  |
| preparing   | examined groundwater issues at off-site locations.     |
| this        | Specifically, ZDHS conducted a well survey to identify |
| section of  | and sample all private wells located downgradient from |
| PHAs. Here, | the site (ZDHS 2001, 2002). Two of the 12 private      |
| information | wells sampled contained elevated levels of some metals |
| is          | (primarily arsenic). The metals in the private well    |
| organized   | water are not believed to be associated with YMR.      |
| by medium.  | Refer to Section III.B.1 for further information on    |
| For other   | this issue.                                            |
| sites,      |                                                        |
| different   | -   *Soil.* YMR has conducted several site             |
| approaches  |     investigations and focused clean-up efforts to     |
| for         |     address contaminated soils. Activities at on-site  |
| organizing  |     locations included extensive sampling in the       |
| information |     1980s, that led to the removal of two waste piles  |
| might make  |     that contained building debris and other materials |
| more sense. |     suspected of containing radioactive contamination. |
|             |     Wastes were sent to three off-site disposal areas  |
| Those       |     in accordance with existing waste management       |
| activities  |     regulations.                                       |
| associated  |                                                        |
| with        | In 2001, YMR contractors conducted a soil screening    |
| en          | survey to identify off-site locations potentially      |
| vironmental | affected by former waste disposal practices. The study |
| releases,   | found only one waste disposal area---the PCB Disposal  |
| site        | Area---that extends off site (Melvin and Kelvin 2001). |
| inve        | YMR recently completed a follow-up surface soil        |
| stigations, | sampling study that found PCB-contaminated soils at    |
| and         | four residential properties (YMR 2002). Section        |
| remedial    | III.B.2 discusses this further.                        |
| actions are |                                                        |
| most        | -   *Surface water and sediment.* There are no         |
| pertinent.  |     specific regulatory or remedial activities to note |
|             |     for Haynes Creek and its tributaries. However,     |
| For some    |     several parties were awarded research funds to     |
| sites---    |     measure contamination levels in this watershed     |
| with        |     between the mid-1990s and 2002 (EPA 1998; Middle   |
| longer,     |     University 1998; Zarizona University 1998, 2002).  |
| more        |     Section III.B.3 of this PHA contains a summary of  |
| detailed    |     the results of those studies.                      |
| histories-- |                                                        |
| -presenting | -   *Air.* The animal research facility operates its   |
| information |     incinerator under a general, facility-wide         |
| in tabular  |     operating permit. The incinerator is exempt from   |
| format can  |     medical waste and municipal waste combustion       |
| be easier   |     regulations because it burns less than 1 ton of    |
| to read and |     waste per week, and less than 10% of the waste     |
| serves as a |     treated is classified as hospital waste or medical |
| nice        |     waste (EPA 1997). The lessee is required to keep   |
| supplement  |     records of the types of wastes burned, and ATSDR   |
| to text     |     reviewed permit requirements and the facility's    |
| d           |     records to evaluate air quality issues for this    |
| iscussions. |     site (see Section III.B.4 of this PHA).            |
|             |                                                        |
| Do not      |                                                        |
| include any |                                                        |
| information |                                                        |
| that is not |                                                        |
| directly    |                                                        |
| relevant to |                                                        |
| the issues  |                                                        |
| being       |                                                        |
| discussed   |                                                        |
| in the PHA. |                                                        |
| For other   |                                                        |
| sites, it   |                                                        |
| may not be  |                                                        |
| necessary   |                                                        |
| to include  |                                                        |
| a Remedial  |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| Regulatory  |                                                        |
| History     |                                                        |
| section in  |                                                        |
| the PHA.    |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

## II.C. ATSDR Involvement

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| In this     | In December 2003, community members petitioned ATSDR   |
| section,    | to conduct a PHA of the YMR site. Area residents       |
| briefly     | expressed concern about past site activities and       |
| describe    | possible impacts on nearby neighborhoods. To respond   |
| the         | to the petition, ATSDR conducted an initial site       |
| chronology  | scoping visit in June 2004. The purpose of the visit   |
| of ATSDR    | was to:                                                |
| involvement |                                                        |
| at the      | -   Determine whether information was available to     |
| site.       |     allow an evaluation of the site.                   |
|             |                                                        |
| Present any | -   Meet with the petitioner, community members, and   |
| conclusions |     YMR employees to collect information they have     |
| or          |     about the site and their health concerns.          |
| reco        |                                                        |
| mmendations | -   Tour the site and surrounding areas to observe     |
| made as a   |     features and site conditions to determine possible |
| result of   |     exposure pathways.                                 |
| past        |                                                        |
| activities. | -   Meet with local and state health officials and     |
|             |     representatives of EPA to collect available        |
| Depending   |     information.                                       |
| on the      |                                                        |
| level of    | ATSDR determined that a PHA was the appropriate course |
| community   | of action for this site, and the PHA process began in  |
| interest,   | 2004. ATSDR's regional representative and community    |
| the amount  | involvement staff have kept community members informed |
| of activity | of ongoing progress by distributing newsletters and    |
| and         | fact sheets. These materials were sent to more than    |
| do          | 250 community members, public officials, and the       |
| cumentation | media.                                                 |
| in the PHA  |                                                        |
| may vary,   | Additionally, ATSDR hosted a public meeting to gather  |
| ranging     | information and help focus this PHA on the issues of   |
| from        | greatest concern to the community. Through community   |
| setting up  | input, ATSDR identified both the four issues of        |
| information | greatest concern to the community and several          |
| r           | additional environmental health issues of interest.    |
| epositories | The meeting was announced in the local press, and more |
| to regular  | than 50 residents attended.                            |
| meetings    |                                                        |
| and         | ATSDR established a local records repository. Copies   |
| planning    | of ATSDR's publications, including newsletters and     |
| activities  | fact sheets, for the YMR site can be viewed at the     |
| with the    | Yakliske Public Library. For more information on the   |
| community.  | repository and ATSDR's involvement with this site,     |
|             | community members may call Georgia Wilkes, Community   |
|             | Involvement Specialist, toll free at 1-888-42-ATSDR    |
|             | (or 1-888-422-8737), e-mail ATSDR at atsdr@cdc.gov, or |
|             | visit the ATSDR Web site at                            |
|             | [www.atsdr.cdc.gov](http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/).        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

## II.D. Land Use and Demographics

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Document    | The land near the YMR site is mixed residential and    |
| land use    | industrial use, with notable development and growth    |
| and natural | within the past 20 years. When YMR first began         |
| resources   | operations in 1961, the immediate area was largely     |
| at and near | undeveloped, with farms and woodlands surrounding the  |
| the site,   | property. Since the 1980s, residential subdivisions    |
| describing  | have been built on all sides of the property,          |
| the type    | replacing most local farms. A daycare facility is east |
| and         | of the site. A residential farm cooperative for the    |
| frequency   | elderly recently opened where a large dairy farm was   |
| of          | previously located.                                    |
| activities  |                                                        |
| in the site | The 2000 Census data indicate that nearly 2,200 people |
| vicinity.   | reside within a 1-mile radius of the site (see Figure  |
|             | 2) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000). However, only     |
| Demographic | four families are known to be affected by site         |
| information | contamination. Whether others have been affected by    |
| helps       | past air emissions is still under investigation.       |
| identify    |                                                        |
| and define  |                                                        |
| the size,   |                                                        |
| chara       |                                                        |
| cteristics, |                                                        |
| locations,  |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| possible    |                                                        |
| sus         |                                                        |
| ceptibility |                                                        |
| of known    |                                                        |
| populations |                                                        |
| related to  |                                                        |
| the site.   |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| This        | Both surface water and groundwater in the area are     |
| information | used for drinking water. On the basis of a recent well |
| will        | survey, ZDHS identified 12 wells within a ½-mile       |
| support     | radius of the site, three of which are                 |
| discussions | north/northwest, or downgradient, of the YMR northern  |
| on exposure | boundary. The municipal supply, which serves most area |
| and health  | residents, draws water from Lake Lanier, which is      |
| effects     | unaffected by contamination from YMR.                  |
| presented   |                                                        |
| later in    | The main surface water feature in the area is Haynes   |
| the PHA.    | Creek, which flows from east to west across the        |
|             | southern portion of YMR (see Figure 1). No one enters  |
|             | the portion of Haynes Creek that is on site. However,  |
|             | children play in the off-site portions of the creek.   |
|             | Flow in the creek is too low to support most           |
|             | recreational uses, such as swimming, wading, or        |
|             | fishing. In fact, EPA recently concluded that fish     |
|             | ingestion is not considered to be an important pathway |
|             | for this site because there are no edible-sized fish   |
|             | in the creek (EPA 2002).                               |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

## II.E. Quality Assurance and Control

  --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  It will not always be In preparing this PHA, ATSDR reviewed and evaluated
  necessary to include  information provided in the referenced documents. Based
  this section. It      on this evaluation, ATSDR determined that the quality of
  would be important to environmental data available for the YMR site is
  include whenever we   adequate for making public health decisions. ATSDR
  need to clarify why   discusses any data limitations or data quality concerns
  we rejected data and  in the discussions that follow.
  did not use it or     
  respond to any        
  concerns about the    
  quality of the data   
  used. Regardless of   
  whether this section  
  is included, data     
  analysis should       
  evaluate data         
  quality, sampling     
  techniques, data      
  validation, and       
  sampling              
  representativeness.   

  --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------

# III. Discussion

## *III.A. Methodology*

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| In some     | ### Evaluating Exposures                               |
| cases       |   {#evaluating-exposures .Title-Heading-3 .unnumbered} |
| (especially |                                                        |
| shorter     | ATSDR's public health assessments are driven by        |
| documents), | exposure, or contact. A primary role of ATSDR is to    |
| you may     | identify exposure pathways and characterize actual     |
| choose to   | exposure situations. To accomplish this, ATSDR reviews |
| keep the    | site information about releases of contaminants from   |
| methodology | the site and evaluates how people might come in        |
| section in  | contact, or be exposed to, contaminated groundwater,   |
| the main    | soil, dust, surface water, sediment, or plants and     |
| text brief  | animals. Figure 3 illustrates ATSDR's exposure         |
| and provide | evaluation process.                                    |
| more        |                                                        |
| detailed    | For a public health hazard to exist, people must come  |
| information | in contact with contamination at levels high enough    |
| in an       | and for a long enough time to affect people's health.  |
| appendix.   | Exposure to radiation can occur by being near, and not |
|             | necessarily contacting, the radioactive material.      |
| As you      | Although, a person must be close enough to the         |
| prepare a   | radioactive substance to be exposed to the radiation.  |
| PHA, you    |                                                        |
| will make   | ### Determining which exposure situations and con      |
| many        | taminants to evaluate {#determining-which-exposure-sit |
| choices     | uations-and-contaminants-to-evaluate .Title-Heading-3} |
| about how   |                                                        |
| to organize | ATSDR scientists evaluate site-specific conditions to  |
| material    | determine whether people are being exposed to          |
| within each | site-related contaminants. If exposure is occurring or |
| section,    | is possible, ATSDR considers whether environmental     |
| how much    | contamination is present at levels that might affect   |
| detail to   | public health. ATSDR evaluates environmental           |
| provide,    | contamination using available sampling data and, in    |
| whether to  | some cases, modeling studies. ATSDR selects            |
| use a       | contaminants for further evaluation by comparing       |
| question    | environmental contaminant concentrations with          |
| -and-answer | **health-based comparison values**. ATSDR develops     |
| format in   | comparison values from available scientific literature |
| various     | concerning exposure and health effects. Comparison     |
| sections,   | values are derived for different environmental media.  |
| and so on.  | A comparison value is an estimated amount of a         |
|             | contaminant in the environment that is not expected to |
| It is       | harm anyone, no matter how people contact the          |
| important   | contaminant.                                           |
| to clearly  |                                                        |
| communicate |                                                        |
| that simply |                                                        |
| being       |                                                        |
| exposed to  |                                                        |
| a hazardous |                                                        |
| substance   |                                                        |
| does not    |                                                        |
| constitute  |                                                        |
| a hazard.   |                                                        |
| There are   |                                                        |
| many        |                                                        |
| factors     |                                                        |
| that        |                                                        |
| determine   |                                                        |
| whether     |                                                        |
| exposure to |                                                        |
| a           |                                                        |
| contaminant |                                                        |
| would       |                                                        |
| result in   |                                                        |
| harmful     |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| effects.    |                                                        |
|             |                                                        |
| Include a   |                                                        |
| concise     |                                                        |
| summary of  |                                                        |
| the         |                                                        |
| screening   |                                                        |
| analysis    |                                                        |
| process,    |                                                        |
| written in  |                                                        |
| no          |                                                        |
| n-technical |                                                        |
| terms. More |                                                        |
| detailed    |                                                        |
| d           |                                                        |
| escriptions |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| definitions |                                                        |
| can be      |                                                        |
| included in |                                                        |
| an          |                                                        |
| appendix.   |                                                        |
|             |                                                        |
| ATSDR       |                                                        |
| encourages  |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| assessors   |                                                        |
| to remain   |                                                        |
| flexible    |                                                        |
| while       |                                                        |
| fulfilling  |                                                        |
| the         |                                                        |
| re          |                                                        |
| quirements. |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Use the     | On the other hand, if a contaminant is present in the  |
| most        | environment at a level greater than the comparison     |
| appropriate | value, contact with it does not necessarily mean that  |
| si          | adverse health effects will occur. ATSDR comparison    |
| te-specific | values are contaminant concentrations many times lower |
| approach,   | than levels at which no effects were observed in       |
| based on    | studies on experimental animals or in human            |
| the         | epidemiologic studies. If contaminant concentrations   |
| knowledge,  | are above comparison values, ATSDR further evaluates   |
| ex          | the contaminant and exposure. ATSDR does this by       |
| pectations, | calculating exposure doses (see text box for           |
| and         | definition) and comparing the doses to protective      |
| information | health guideline values, including ATSDR's minimal     |
| needs of    | risk levels (MRLs) and EPA's reference doses (RfDs).   |
| your        | Estimated exposure doses that are less than health     |
| audience.   | guideline values are not considered to be of health    |
|             | concern.                                               |
| Consider    |                                                        |
| including   | If health guideline values are exceeded, ATSDR         |
| text boxes  | conducts a more in-depth analysis, studying the        |
| to          | likelihood of adverse health effects under             |
| highlight   | site-specific conditions and closely examining the     |
| key points  | scientific literature on the toxicity of the           |
| or to       | contaminant. Please see Appendix B for more details on |
| explain a   | the methods and assumptions ATSDR used to estimate     |
| key         | human exposure doses and determine health effects.     |
| concept.    |                                                        |
| Doing so    |                                                        |
| will help   |                                                        |
| the reader  |                                                        |
| better      |                                                        |
| understand  |                                                        |
| ATSDR's     |                                                        |
| assessment  |                                                        |
| process and |                                                        |
| the         |                                                        |
| scientific  |                                                        |
| basis for   |                                                        |
| the PHA     |                                                        |
| c           |                                                        |
| onclusions. |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

## III.B. Exposure Situations Evaluated at the YMR Site 

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| The         | ATSDR evaluated how people could be exposed to         |
| Discussion  | chemicals in the groundwater, soil, surface water,     |
| should      | sediment, and air. Table 1 identifies the exposure     |
| include     | pathways that have the potential for people to contact |
| narratives  | contamination and those that have been eliminated from |
| that        | further consideration. The four main environmental     |
| describe    | health questions identified by ATSDR are discussed in  |
| the         | this section.                                          |
| exposures   |                                                        |
| that may be | In addition, ATSDR evaluated several specific          |
| of greatest | environmental health issues in response to community   |
| concern.    | concerns. See Section V (Community Health Concerns) of |
| Also, it    | this PHA for ATSDR's responses to these concerns.      |
| should      |                                                        |
| clearly     |                                                        |
| state those |                                                        |
| exposures   |                                                        |
| that are    |                                                        |
| not of      |                                                        |
| public      |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| concern.    |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

### 1. Has the quality of the water in private wells near YMR been affected by site contamination? Is it safe to drink the water?

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Concisely   | Groundwater beneath YMR is contaminated; however, the  |
| state the   | groundwater beneath the site is not used and the       |
| main        | contamination has not migrated beyond the site         |
| finding and | boundary. Some private wells are northwest of the site |
| then        | in the direction of groundwater flow. Contaminants     |
| explain the | from the site have not reached those wells; however,   |
| basis for   | two of the wells contain arsenic, which is believed to |
| your        | have entered the well water from local disposal of     |
| conclusion. | arsenic-containing pesticides that were once used to   |
|             | spray peach trees on the properties. These conclusions |
| Do not use  | are based on hydrogeologic information, site           |
| the ATSDR   | environmental data, and the effectiveness of the       |
| conclusion  | on-going groundwater treatment system at the site.     |
| categories  |                                                        |
| in the      |                                                        |
| Discussion  |                                                        |
| section.    |                                                        |
| Opt for     |                                                        |
| plain       |                                                        |
| language    |                                                        |
| that        |                                                        |
| describes   |                                                        |
| the degree  |                                                        |
| of hazard,  |                                                        |
| if any.     |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Hy          | #### Site Hydrogeo                                     |
| drogeologic | logy {#site-hydrogeology .Title-Heading-4 .unnumbered} |
| conditions  |                                                        |
| will        | Hydrogeologists recognize the aquifer in the Yakliske  |
| influence   | area as a thin surficial layer, below which lies       |
| how fast    | fractured granite bedrock. Area hydrogeology is        |
| and in      | characterized as a weathered and fractured             |
| which       | "metamorphic rock system." Depth to groundwater in the |
| direction   | site vicinity ranges from 5 to 50 feet. Regional       |
| groundwater | groundwater flow is generally in a northwesterly       |
| c           | direction; however, local variations in flow direction |
| ontaminants | have been documented. For example, most of the         |
| might move, | groundwater flow in the water table is toward and into |
| and         | surface streams. While some groundwater moves deeper   |
| ultimately  | into rock fractures, not all contaminants from YMR are |
| if and how  | expected to travel far. Any metal contaminants, for    |
| c           | instance, would tend to quickly combine with existing  |
| ontaminants | geologic materials in the aquifer, likely reducing     |
| might reach | their effective movement to less than 100 meters from  |
| people.     | any source area. Solvents, on the other hand, such as  |
|             | trichloroethylene (TCE), would tend to sink, flow into |
| Consult     | the deeper fracture zone, and could migrate from the   |
| with a      | source area (USGS 1986; ABC Environmental 2002).       |
| subject     |                                                        |
| matter      |                                                        |
| expert when |                                                        |
| conducting  |                                                        |
| certain     |                                                        |
| technical   |                                                        |
| e           |                                                        |
| valuations. |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Do not      | #### Groundwat                                         |
| assume that | er Use {#groundwater-use .Title-Heading-4 .unnumbered} |
| because     |                                                        |
| municipal   | Groundwater beneath the site has never been used as a  |
| water is    | drinking water source or for any other purpose. The    |
| supplied to | buildings on the site are supplied with water from the |
| a           | safe municipal water supply. However, groundwater does |
| residential | serve as the drinking water source for some nearby     |
| area,       | residents. According to a ZDHS well survey, 12 private |
| residents   | drinking water wells are within ½ mile north of the    |
| are not     | YMR site (ZDHS 2001). Three are north/northwest of the |
| using       | YMR site (see Figure 4).                               |
| private     |                                                        |
| wells.      | Since 1940, the Yakliske Water District has provided   |
|             | drinking water to residential, commercial, and         |
| Identify    | industrial customers throughout Yakliske. The source   |
| whether     | of the municipal water supply is Lake Lanier. The lake |
| private     | has not been affected by YMR (Faulkner 1990).          |
| wells are   |                                                        |
| actively    | Since the early 1980s, the Yakliske Water District has |
| used for    | monitored the water quality in Lake Lanier on a        |
| any         | quarterly basis, near the drinking water intake line   |
| household   | (Faulkner 2003). The water is analyzed for metals,     |
| purpose,    | volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile   |
| including   | organic compounds (SVOCs). Barium, lead, and TCE were  |
| drinking    | detected, and their maximum concentrations are well    |
| and         | below ATSDR's comparison values and EPA's maximum      |
| showering,  | contaminant levels (MCLs) (see Table 2). Therefore,    |
| or perhaps  | the water from Lake Lanier is a safe drinking water    |
| just for    | source.                                                |
| outside use |                                                        |
| (e.g.,      |                                                        |
| gardening). |                                                        |
|             |                                                        |
| If other    |                                                        |
| drinking    |                                                        |
| water       |                                                        |
| sources are |                                                        |
| being used, |                                                        |
| include a   |                                                        |
| brief       |                                                        |
| statement   |                                                        |
| about the   |                                                        |
| overall     |                                                        |
| quality of  |                                                        |
| that supply |                                                        |
| or direct   |                                                        |
| the reader  |                                                        |
| on how to   |                                                        |
| obtain      |                                                        |
| additional  |                                                        |
| information |                                                        |
| about the   |                                                        |
| safety of   |                                                        |
| their       |                                                        |
| drinking    |                                                        |
| water.      |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Summaries   | #### Nature and Extent of Contamination {#nature-and   |
| of          | -extent-of-contamination .Title-Heading-4 .unnumbered} |
| en          |                                                        |
| vironmental | Groundwater quality at and near the site has been      |
| sampling    | evaluated at various times since the early 1980s.      |
| data should | Fairly extensive studies of groundwater reveal that    |
| focus on    | contaminants associated with past site operations have |
| the most    | been detected in on-site monitoring wells but have not |
| important   | migrated to off-site areas. Nearby private drinking    |
| aspects of  | water supply wells that were tested in response to     |
| the site or | community health concerns contained elevated levels of |
| issue being | some metals, though the metals are not believed to be  |
| evaluated.  | associated with YMR. An overview of sampling results   |
|             | follows.                                               |
| Focus on    |                                                        |
| describing  | ###### On-si                                           |
| whether     | te Groundwater {#on-site-groundwater .Title-Heading-6} |
| site        |                                                        |
| c           | In 1982, YMR installed four monitoring wells in the    |
| ontaminants | vicinity of the spray irrigation field (see Figure 4). |
| are         | At the time, the primary concern was the movement of   |
| reaching    | contaminants from the spray field water into the       |
| people and  | groundwater, with possible discharge of contaminated   |
| exposure    | groundwater to nearby Haynes Creek. The wells were     |
| point data. | sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals. |
|             | Initial testing revealed concentrations of TCE and     |
| A general   | some metals above ATSDR comparison values, but in      |
| discussion  | localized areas (YMR 1983).                            |
| of the      |                                                        |
| nature,     | In 1990, the site owner installed additional           |
| magnitude,  | monitoring wells to further characterize groundwater   |
| and         | conditions across the site and to evaluate whether     |
| location of | off-site areas could be threatened. Monitoring wells   |
| on-site     | were installed up and downgradient of known or         |
| co          | suspected source areas, such as the waste ponds and    |
| ntamination | past dumping areas. From 1990 to the present, these    |
| is often    | wells have been sampled quarterly for VOCs, SVOCs,     |
| helpful in  | pesticides, PCBs, and metals. TCE, trace amounts of    |
| de          | vinyl chloride, and some metals were detected in the   |
| monstrating | groundwater at and near the scrap pile and waste       |
| whether     | ponds. YMR is pumping and treating the contaminated    |
| groundwater | water to contain the small TCE plume beneath the site  |
| conditions  | and to restore groundwater quality. Site monitoring    |
| have been   | wells continue to be sampled on a quarterly basis (ABC |
| adequately  | Environmental 1992, 2002). The treatment appears to be |
| ch          | effective because site contaminants have not been      |
| aracterized | found beyond the YMR property.                         |
| and in      |                                                        |
| evaluating  | ###### Private Dri                                     |
| potential   | nking Wells {#private-drinking-wells .Title-Heading-6} |
| off-site    |                                                        |
| migration   | ZDHS sampled the 12 private wells within a ½ mile      |
| of          | north of YMR for a full suite of VOCs, SVOCs, and      |
| co          | metals. No VOCs or SVOCs were detected in any of the   |
| ntaminants. | wells. Subsequently, ZDHS conducted quarterly sampling |
|             | for metals only, focusing on wells north of the YMR    |
| If detected | site. This sampling revealed metal concentrations      |
| co          | comparable to earlier findings (ZDHS 2002).            |
| ntamination |                                                        |
| is not      | Sampling results showed elevated arsenic levels (up to |
| believed to | 87 parts per billion \[ppb\]) in two of the sampled    |
| be          | wells (see Table 3) (ZDHS 2002). Background levels of  |
| si          | arsenic in groundwater in this part of Zarizona        |
| te-related, | typically average about 1--2 ppb (ATSDR 2000a). All    |
| you should  | other detected metals were at concentrations below     |
| state so.   | ATSDR comparison values. As a measure to reduce        |
| In this     | further exposures, ZDHS recommended that the two well  |
| case, ATSDR | owners immediately begin using bottled water for       |
| still       | drinking and cooking purposes. These residences have   |
| evaluates   | since been connected to the municipal water supply.    |
| the         |                                                        |
| exposure to | The levels of arsenic in the well water were less than |
| address     | arsenic found on the site. Additionally, the           |
| specific    | hydrogeology and the pH of the groundwater limit the   |
| community   | spread of arsenic. These facts, coupled with the local |
| health      | disposal of arsenic-containing pesticides, suggest the |
| concerns.   | arsenic did not come from YMR. Nonetheless, to address |
|             | the health                                             |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| While       | concerns of residents about the quality of their       |
| detailed    | drinking water, ATSDR evaluated exposure to the        |
| analysis of | arsenic.                                               |
| source      |                                                        |
| attribution |                                                        |
| is not the  |                                                        |
| purpose of  |                                                        |
| ATSDR's     |                                                        |
| public      |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| assessment  |                                                        |
| process, an |                                                        |
| explanation |                                                        |
| such as the |                                                        |
| one here    |                                                        |
| can help    |                                                        |
| answer      |                                                        |
| community   |                                                        |
| questions.  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| This        | #### Public Health Implications  {#pu                  |
| section     | blic-health-implications .Title-Heading-4 .unnumbered} |
| describes   |                                                        |
| your        | ###### On-site                                         |
| evaluation  |  Groundwater {#on-site-groundwater-1 .Title-Heading-6} |
| of possible |                                                        |
| hazards.    | Because groundwater beneath the site is not used for   |
| This        | drinking water or any other purposes, no one is        |
| requires    | exposed to the contamination. The groundwater          |
| integrating | treatment system is effective in preventing migration  |
| the         | of contaminants and restoring groundwater quality.     |
| exposure    | Therefore, future exposure to site-related             |
| and health  | contamination in groundwater is unlikely. No one is    |
| effects     | expected to be harmed by the contaminants in the       |
| data that   | groundwater.                                           |
| have been   |                                                        |
| identified  | ###### Private Drink                                   |
| throughout  | ing Wells {#private-drinking-wells-1 .Title-Heading-6} |
| the public  |                                                        |
| health      | Although unrelated to the site, arsenic was detected   |
| assessment  | in two private wells north of YMR at concentrations up |
| process.    | to 87 ppb. Of the wells sampled, WV-001 consistently   |
|             | had the highest levels. ATSDR evaluated both acute     |
| Clearly     | (short-term) exposure and chronic (long-term) exposure |
| explain     | to the arsenic in the drinking water. For the          |
| rationale   | short-term exposure, ATSDR assumed that an adult,      |
| for         | weighing 70 kilogram (about 154 pounds), consumed two  |
| eliminated  | liters of water containing 87 ppb arsenic each day.    |
| pathways.   | For a child, ATSDR assumed that a 10-kilogram child    |
|             | (about 22 pounds) drank one liter of the contaminated  |
| The PHA     | water each day. Neither adults nor children would have |
| should      | had high enough exposures to result in noncancer       |
| clearly     | health effects.                                        |
| state all   |                                                        |
| assumptions | Because the arsenic-containing pesticides (the         |
| used in     | suspected arsenic source) were used in the area before |
| your        | the homes were built, ATSDR assumed the well water was |
| evaluation  | contaminated with arsenic from the time people began   |
| to select   | using the well water. Data collected over the last few |
| substance   | years suggest that arsenic levels in the well water    |
| conc        | varied with seasons and other geologic conditions. The |
| entrations, | average level of arsenic over the years that data are  |
| dose        | available was 54 ppb. The average level is appropriate |
| estimates,  | to use to evaluate long-term exposure.                 |
| etc.        |                                                        |
|             | Estimated chronic arsenic doses in children and adults |
| Do not      | approach levels at which observable effects have been  |
| present a   | reported in *human* studies. Therefore, drinking water |
| mini-to     | from these wells could conceivably cause harmful       |
| xicological | health effects. Appendix B describes in greater detail |
| profile     | the methods and assumptions ATSDR used to estimate     |
| with        | human exposure doses and determine health effects from |
| information | ingestion of arsenic in private wells. Appendix C      |
| that has    | contains a ToxFAQ for arsenic.                         |
| little      |                                                        |
| relevance   |                                                        |
| to the site |                                                        |
| or exposure |                                                        |
| situation   |                                                        |
| being       |                                                        |
| discussed.  |                                                        |
| Instead,    |                                                        |
| include     |                                                        |
| more        |                                                        |
| in-depth    |                                                        |
| toxicologic |                                                        |
| evaluations |                                                        |
| and dose    |                                                        |
| c           |                                                        |
| alculations |                                                        |
| in an       |                                                        |
| appendix,   |                                                        |
| as          |                                                        |
| determined  |                                                        |
| by the      |                                                        |
| information |                                                        |
| needs of    |                                                        |
| your        |                                                        |
| audience.   |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | Because of uncertainties regarding the behavior of     |
|             | arsenic at low doses and the consistent detections of  |
|             | arsenic in the tested wells, prudent public health     |
|             | practice called for reducing exposures by limiting the |
|             | ingestion of water from these wells. ZDHS informed     |
|             | residents that they should use bottled water until     |
|             | safe municipal water became available. ATSDR worked    |
|             | with ZDHS to permanently connect residences to the     |
|             | municipal water supply. See Section V (Community       |
|             | Health Concerns) for additional discussion related to  |
|             | the specific health concerns of some private well      |
|             | users.                                                 |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

### 2. Are nearby residents or YMR workers exposed to harmful levels of surface soil contamination?

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | Number range CHAPTERPast waste disposal practices at   |
|             | YMR have left surface soil contamination at multiple   |
|             | on-site areas and at four off-site residences. The     |
|             | on-site contamination is not a public health hazard to |
|             | residents because they cannot access site property. It |
|             | is not a health hazard to workers because they do not  |
|             | frequently come into contact with the affected areas.  |
|             | To prevent future harmful exposures, YMR should        |
|             | maintain site access restrictions, post signs warning  |
|             | of soil contamination, and develop a health and safety |
|             | plan that informs the current workers of the location  |
|             | and potential hazards associated with contaminated     |
|             | areas.                                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Four residential properties along YMR's southeastern   |
|             | property line have site-related contamination in their |
|             | yards. Past waste disposal practices contaminated      |
|             | surface soils at these homes with PCBs at levels that  |
|             | could be harmful to children who live and play there.  |
|             | YMR should remove surface soils from these four homes  |
|             | to eliminate this health hazard and ensure that no     |
|             | residual PCB contamination remains in the deeper       |
|             | soils. Until these soils are removed, residents should |
|             | limit potentially harmful exposures by avoiding        |
|             | gardening, playing in soils, and allowing pets to      |
|             | track outdoor soils into the house. Note that PCB      |
|             | levels in all other yards that were tested were well   |
|             | below levels of health concern.                        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | #### Exposure to On-site Surface Soils                 |
|             |  {#exposure-to-on-site-surface-soils .Title-Heading-4} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | The YMR property includes waste disposal areas, such   |
|             | as waste ponds, waste piles, junk piles, and a spray   |
|             | irrigation field. Surface soils at these areas have    |
|             | been found to contain elevated levels of numerous      |
|             | metals, primarily arsenic[^1] and mercury, and         |
|             | selected organic compounds. The presence of these      |
|             | wastes on site does not pose a hazard to residents,    |
|             | because residents cannot access site property.         |
|             | Provided YMR maintains effective site access           |
|             | restrictions, the on-site surface soil contamination   |
|             | will continue to pose no health hazard to residents.   |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| ATSDR's     | Workers at the animal research facility and            |
| mandate     | contractors, such as maintenance and landscape         |
| does not    | workers, do have access to the site. The animal        |
| include the | research employees primarily work indoors and not at   |
| health of   | any of the waste disposal areas. Therefore, their      |
| workers, as | exposure to surface soils at the waste disposal areas  |
| this falls  | thus far has been limited. Maintenance and landscape   |
| under the   | workers also have limited exposure to waste disposal   |
| purview of  | areas. However, potentially harmful exposures could    |
| agencies    | occur in the future because several waste disposal     |
| such as the | areas are not clearly marked, workers have unlimited   |
| O           | access to these areas, and many workers are not        |
| ccupational | informed of the potential hazards posed by these       |
| Safety and  | areas. YMR can prevent such harmful exposures from     |
| Health      | occurring by posting warning signs at the contaminated |
| Adm         | areas and by developing and implementing a site health |
| inistration | and safety plan. Such a plan should inform all site    |
| (OSHA).     | workers (regardless of their employer) where elevated  |
| However,    | levels of contaminants have been detected on site and  |
| ATSDR has   | what activities should be avoided in those areas until |
| limited     | cleanup has occurred.                                  |
| authority   |                                                        |
| to examine  | Community members have also expressed concern about    |
| worker      | possible radiation exposures associated with materials |
| exposures   | disposed in waste piles. This issue is addressed in    |
| related to  | Section V (Community Health Concerns).                 |
| the         |                                                        |
| en          | #### Exposure to Off-site Surface Soils                |
| vironmental | {#exposure-to-off-site-surface-soils .Title-Heading-4} |
| releases    |                                                        |
| under study | Number range CHAPTERIn 2001, YMR contractors conducted |
| (e.g.,      | a soil screening survey to identify off-site locations |
| worker      | potentially affected by former waste disposal          |
| exposure to | practices. The study found only one waste disposal     |
| c           | area---the PCB Disposal Area---that extends to         |
| ontaminated | off-site locations (Melvin and Kelvin 2001). The       |
| groundwater | contamination occurred because the site boundary line  |
| via the     | was not well-defined in the past, and disposal         |
| drinking    | extended to those areas. YMR recently completed a      |
| water       | follow-up surface soil sampling study to characterize  |
| supply or   | the nature and extent of PCB contamination in this     |
| incidental  | area (YMR 2002). In this study, YMR collected          |
| contact     | composite surface soil samples from 16 on-site         |
| with        | locations and 12 off-site locations (see Figure 5).    |
| c           | Surface soils, in this study, were considered to be    |
| ontaminated | the top inch of soil. All soil samples were analyzed   |
| soils).     | using appropriate and highly sensitive laboratory      |
| Workers     | methods for Aroclor 1254, which is the mixture of PCBs |
| could also  | that most commonly remained in the spent transformers  |
| bring       | that YMR processed.                                    |
| c           |                                                        |
| ontaminated | #### Nature and Extent of Contamination {#             |
| materials   | nature-and-extent-of-contamination-1 .Title-Heading-4} |
| home on     |                                                        |
| their       | The off-site surface soil sampling results             |
| clothes.    | characterize PCB levels to which residents might be    |
|             | exposed. In the 2002 sampling study, each off-site     |
| Provide a   | sample was a composite of surface soils taken from 20  |
| brief       | different locations at a single property. These        |
| narrative   | composite samples were taken next to fence posts, in   |
| summarizing | gardens and flower beds, and next to the foundations   |
| the         | of the houses to increase the possibility of detecting |
| available   | any possible subsurface contamination that may have    |
| en          | been brought to the surface during digging or          |
| vironmental | construction activities. Thus, the sampling program    |
| sampling    | was rather extensive in scope, and every off-site      |
| data. The   | sampling result is believed to present a reliable      |
| text may    | measure of average soil contamination levels at a      |
| include a   | given home. Further, to address a community concern,   |
| discussion  | sampling was also conducted in the Early Learning      |
| of trends   | Daycare Center's play areas, even though the daycare   |
| in the      | is not adjacent to the PCB Disposal Area.              |
| data. The   |                                                        |
| discussion  |                                                        |
| of trends   |                                                        |
| can include |                                                        |
| d           |                                                        |
| escriptions |                                                        |
| of spatial  |                                                        |
| di          |                                                        |
| stribution, |                                                        |
| "hot        |                                                        |
| spots," or  |                                                        |
| co          |                                                        |
| ncentration |                                                        |
| changes     |                                                        |
| over time.  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Present the | As Figure 5 indicates, PCB levels in off-site surface  |
| findings of | soils clearly varied from one property to the          |
| your more   | next---only four properties had detectable levels of   |
| in-depth    | PCBs, while the other properties tested, including the |
| evaluation  | daycare, had no traces of PCBs. The spatial variations |
| and outline | in PCB levels suggest that transformer fluids were     |
| the         | previously poured onto surface soils that are now part |
| information | of four residential properties. At these four          |
| you used to | properties, Aroclor 1254 concentrations in composite   |
| draw your   | samples were 27 parts per million (ppm), 30 ppm, 30    |
| c           | ppm, and 80 ppm. These concentrations all exceed       |
| onclusions. | health-based comparison values for Aroclor 1254. For   |
|             | that reason, PCBs were selected for further            |
|             | evaluation.                                            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | #### Public Health Implica                             |
|             | tions {#public-health-implications-1 .Title-Heading-4} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR estimated the amounts of Aroclor 1254 that       |
|             | residents of the four households might realistically   |
|             | ingest, based on the environmental sampling data and   |
|             | information on soil ingestion rates. Appendix B        |
|             | presents the equations and assumptions used to         |
|             | estimate exposure doses and Appendix C contains a      |
|             | ToxFAQ for PCBs. Exposure doses for children were      |
|             | found to be 20 times higher than those for adults.     |
|             | This difference results from children's higher soil    |
|             | ingestion rate and lower body weight. In other words,  |
|             | children ingest far greater amounts of soil in         |
|             | relation to their body weight than do adults. ATSDR    |
|             | compared the estimated exposure doses---for both       |
|             | children and adults---to findings from epidemiologic   |
|             | and toxicologic studies that examined harmful effects  |
|             | of exposure to Aroclor 1254.                           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR concludes that *adult residents* of the          |
|             | contaminated properties likely will not experience     |
|             | harmful health effects from ingesting soils because    |
|             | their estimated exposure levels are considerably lower |
|             | than levels found to be associated with adverse        |
|             | effects in humans and laboratory animals. *Children*,  |
|             | on the other hand, who contact contaminated areas have |
|             | estimated exposure doses comparable to those that have |
|             | caused subtle immunological and neurobehavioral        |
|             | problems in laboratory animals. Further, while the     |
|             | most likely route of exposure to PCBs in the soil      |
|             | would have been through incidental ingestion, some     |
|             | absorption through the skin might also occur,          |
|             | although, to a lesser extent than would be expected    |
|             | orally. Therefore, children's exposure to              |
|             | PCB-contaminated surface soils at the four residential |
|             | properties along YMR's southeastern property is        |
|             | considered a potential health concern. Appendix B      |
|             | discusses in detail the basis for these conclusions,   |
|             | as well as associated uncertainties.                   |
|             |                                                        |
|             | The public health hazard associated with off-site soil |
|             | contamination has existed for children residing in the |
|             | four homes since 1982, and will continue until the     |
|             | contaminated soils are removed. This hazard is limited |
|             | entirely to four residential properties; neighboring   |
|             | properties and other properties in the area do not     |
|             | contain harmful levels of soil contamination. For the  |
|             | four affected properties only, ATSDR recommends that   |
|             | YMR promptly remove contaminated soils from the front  |
|             | and back yards, under EPA and ZEA oversight. Until     |
|             | these soils are removed, residents should limit        |
|             | potentially harmful exposures by avoiding gardening,   |
|             | playing in soils, and allowing pets to track outdoor   |
|             | soils into the house. ATSDR has communicated these and |
|             | other exposure reduction measures directly to the      |
|             | property owners.                                       |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

  ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------
  Identify any data gaps   Subsurface soil samples have not been collected and
  and recommend sampling   analyzed for PCBs. Exposure to subsurface soils is less
  for                      likely to occur than exposure to the surface soils.
  [critical]{.underline}   However, if residents dig holes for gardens, fences,
  data gaps that need to   foundations, or for other reasons, people will have the
  be filled before a       potential to be exposed to the subsurface soil. To
  conclusion can be drawn. address the possibility of subsurface soil
                           contamination, YMR should conduct confirmation sampling
                           during its soil removal project to ensure that all PCB
                           contaminated soils are removed from the four properties
                           of concern, including contamination at depth.

  ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------

### 3. Are people who use Haynes Creek for recreational and other purposes being exposed to harmful levels of chemicals in the surface water and sediment?

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Use plain   | It is safe to contact the surface water and sediment   |
| language    | in Haynes Creek, upstream and downstream of YMR. None  |
| where       | of the off-site surface water and sediment samples     |
| possible to | contained harmful levels of chemicals, even for        |
| describe    | children playing in the creek. The fence that          |
| your        | surrounds the facility restricts access to the on-site |
| evaluation. | portions of the creek; therefore, on-site              |
|             | contamination in the creek is also not a health        |
|             | hazard.                                                |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | ##                                                     |
|             | ## Hydrology {#hydrology .Title-Heading-4 .unnumbered} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | The main surface water feature in the area is Haynes   |
|             | Creek, which flows from east to west across the        |
|             | southern portion of YMR. Most runoff from the site     |
|             | flows directly into the creek. The headwaters of       |
|             | Haynes Creek are located less than 2 miles upstream    |
|             | from YMR. Some runoff from YMR also flows into two     |
|             | small ephemeral tributaries of Haynes Creek; these     |
|             | tributaries flow into Haynes Creek at the western edge |
|             | of the facility. Haynes Creek is a perennial stream;   |
|             | only under extreme drought conditions has the stream   |
|             | become dry (EPA 1998).                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ####                                                   |
|             |  Haynes Creek Use {#haynes-creek-use .Title-Heading-4} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | There is no evidence of anyone accessing Haynes Creek  |
|             | where it flows on facility property. However, the      |
|             | off-site portions of the creek are accessible to       |
|             | neighborhood children, who are known to play in and    |
|             | around the creek. The flow and water depth in Haynes   |
|             | Creek are both too low to support recreational         |
|             | activities, such as boating, swimming, and fishing.    |
|             | Therefore, the greatest potential for exposure exists  |
|             | for children who periodically come in contact with     |
|             | creek water and sediment while playing and exploring   |
|             | in the area.                                           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Describe    | #### Nature and Extent of Contamination {#nature-and-e |
| the         | xtent-of-contamination-2 .Title-Heading-4 .unnumbered} |
| l           |                                                        |
| imitations, | ###### Surface Water {#surface-water .Title-Heading-6} |
| quality,    |                                                        |
| and         | Three surface water sampling investigations have been  |
| usefulness  | conducted by local universities and EPA:               |
| of the      |                                                        |
| data.       | -   In May 1998, a consultant with Middle University   |
|             |     collected four surface water samples from two      |
|             |     upstream and two downstream locations and analyzed |
|             |     the samples for pesticides and metals (Middle      |
|             |     University 1998).                                  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   In June 1998, during a site investigation, EPA     |
|             |     collected 10 surface water samples from two        |
|             |     upstream locations, six on-site locations, and two |
|             |     downstream locations. The samples were analyzed    |
|             |     for metals, VOCs, and SVOCs (EPA 1998).            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   From May 2001 to April 2002, researchers from      |
|             |     Zarizona University collected monthly surface      |
|             |     water samples from three locations in Haynes       |
|             |     Creek: one upstream of YMR, one near a former      |
|             |     process outfall on facility property, and the      |
|             |     other downstream from the facility. The samples    |
|             |     were analyzed for metals only (Zarizona University |
|             |     2002).                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Surface water samples were taken from Haynes Creek in  |
|             | the locations shown on Figure 6. All samples were      |
|             | collected, preserved, and analyzed in accordance with  |
|             | standard EPA protocol.                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ###### Sediment {#sediment .Title-Heading-6}           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Several sediment sampling investigations have been     |
|             | conducted by local universities and EPA:               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   In August 1995, a student at Zarizona University   |
|             |     collected three sediment samples from one upstream |
|             |     and two downstream locations. The samples were     |
|             |     analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals (Zarizona     |
|             |     University 1998).                                  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   In May 1998, a consultant collected four sediment  |
|             |     samples from two upstream and two downstream       |
|             |     locations and analyzed the samples for pesticides  |
|             |     and metals (Middle University 1998).               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   In June 1998, EPA conducted a site investigation   |
|             |     of the YMR site and collected 10 sediment samples  |
|             |     from two upstream locations, six on-site           |
|             |     locations, and two downstream locations. The       |
|             |     samples were analyzed for metals, VOCs, and SVOCs  |
|             |     (EPA 1998).                                        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   In April 2002, researchers from Zarizona           |
|             |     University collected sediment samples at three     |
|             |     locations in Haynes Creek: one upstream of YMR,    |
|             |     one near a former process outfall on facility      |
|             |     property, and one downstream from YMR. The samples |
|             |     were analyzed for metals only (Zarizona University |
|             |     2002).                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Sediment samples were taken from Haynes Creek in the   |
|             | locations shown on Figure 6. All samples were          |
|             | collected, preserved, and analyzed in accordance with  |
|             | standard EPA protocols. However, the 1995 data from    |
|             | Zarizona University did not undergo a formal           |
|             | validation process.                                    |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Present the | #### Public Health Implications {#publ                 |
| findings of | ic-health-implications-2 .Title-Heading-4 .unnumbered} |
| your        |                                                        |
| screening   | ##                                                     |
| analysis in | #### Surface Water {#surface-water-1 .Title-Heading-6} |
| the         |                                                        |
| Discussion  | As Table 4 shows, the detected concentrations in the   |
| section     | surface water were all safely lower than comparison    |
|             | values derived to assess *drinking water* scenarios.   |
| Remind      | As stated earlier, comparison values reflect           |
| readers     | concentrations that are much lower than those that     |
| that the    | have been observed to cause adverse health effects.    |
| comparison  | Therefore, ATSDR concludes that contact with Haynes    |
| values are  | Creek surface water does not present a public health   |
| not         | concern.                                               |
| indicators  |                                                        |
| of illness  | ###### Sediment {#sediment-1 .Title-Heading-6}         |
| or harm.    |                                                        |
| They are a  | As shown in Table 5, six metals and four volatile      |
| first step  | organics were detected in the sediment samples.        |
| in          | Arsenic was detected above its cancer screening value  |
| assessing   | (the [c]{.underline}ancer [r]{.underline}isk           |
| and         | [e]{.underline}valuation [g]{.underline}uide, or       |
| un          | CREG), but below the chronic noncancer screening value |
| derstanding | (the [e]{.underline}nvironmental [m]{.underline}edia   |
| potential   | [e]{.underline}valuation [g]{.underline}uide, or       |
| harmful     | EMEG), and mercury was detected above its comparison   |
| effects     | value in one sample. All other contaminants were found |
| posed by    | at levels safely below comparison values. Following is |
| exposure to | ATSDR's review of the health implications of           |
| site        | contacting the trace amounts of arsenic and mercury in |
| co          | Haynes Creek sediments:                                |
| ntaminants. |                                                        |
|             | *Arsenic.* Given the nature of the creek and purported |
|             | use, contact with Haynes Creek sediment is minimal and |
|             | exposure to detected arsenic concentrations (up to 5   |
|             | ppm) is not expected to result in any adverse health   |
|             | effects, even for children playing in the creek. The   |
|             | average concentration (0.4 ppm), which is more         |
|             | representative of what a person might be exposed to    |
|             | over time, is below the CREG. Also, arsenic in         |
|             | sediment is not expected to be very "bioavailable,"    |
|             | meaning that much (generally up to 80%) of the arsenic |
|             | would likely pass through the body and not be absorbed |
|             | (ATSDR 2000a). Lastly, as a point of reference, the    |
|             | CREG is lower than the average amount of arsenic found |
|             | naturally in the earth's crust (2 ppm; ATSDR 2000a).   |
|             |                                                        |
|             | *Mercury.* The sediment samples showed an area of      |
|             | elevated mercury contamination near the process        |
|             | outfall; however, there is no evidence of mercury      |
|             | migration, based on the upstream and downstream        |
|             | results (EPA 1998; Middle University 1998; Zarizona    |
|             | University 2002). No one is accessing the on-site      |
|             | portions of Haynes Creek and the off-site              |
|             | concentrations are all below the comparison value.     |
|             | Therefore, ATSDR does not expect that people,          |
|             | including children playing in the creek, would be      |
|             | exposed to harmful levels of mercury in Haynes Creek   |
|             | sediments.                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | For the reasons cited, ATSDR concludes that the        |
|             | contamination in Haynes Creek does not pose a health   |
|             | hazard to children who periodically play in the area.  |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

### 4. Did past or do current air emissions from YMR, including from the incinerator, pose a health risk?

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | Between 1993 and the present, the lessee of YMR's      |
|             | property has incinerated relatively small quantities   |
|             | of non-hazardous waste on site. Several records        |
|             | suggest that the air emission rates from the           |
|             | incinerator are not unusually elevated, and a          |
|             | monitoring program is currently being conducted to     |
|             | determine if air emissions from the incinerator cause  |
|             | potentially unhealthy levels of air pollution. ATSDR   |
|             | will review these monitoring data as soon as they      |
|             | become available and issue a brief health consultation |
|             | that comments on the measured levels of air pollution. |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Some residents have expressed concern about air        |
|             | emissions from YMR's past industrial operations. All   |
|             | available site reports indicate that YMR phased out    |
|             | its major operations as homes were being constructed   |
|             | around the site. Therefore, residents who moved into   |
|             | the homes that surround YMR had minimal, if any,       |
|             | exposure to contaminants that YMR released while its   |
|             | operations were greatest.                              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | In 1993, YMR built two medical waste incinerators for  |
|             | the animal research company that leases the property.  |
|             | The incinerators are used to destroy animal carcasses  |
|             | and other non-hazardous wastes, such as bedding, latex |
|             | gloves, and laboratory materials. No infectious or     |
|             | biological agents are used during the animal research. |
|             | Only one incinerator remains in operation; the other   |
|             | incinerator was closed and dismantled in 1998. The     |
|             | lessee is not allowed to burn more than 1 ton of waste |
|             | per week. According to the lessee's waste management   |
|             | records, the incinerator burns 300 pounds of waste per |
|             | week on average. The lessee disposes of all            |
|             | incinerator ash in an off-site landfill.               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Neither EPA nor the state has detailed information on  |
|             | air emissions from the incinerators, leaving ATSDR     |
|             | with no quantitative basis for making conclusions      |
|             | about this pathway. However, some insights about the   |
|             | incinerator operation provide comfort that unusually   |
|             | elevated air emissions have not occurred. First, the   |
|             | incinerator treats a relatively small amount of        |
|             | waste---an amount much smaller than that which         |
|             | environmental agencies choose to regulate. Second, the |
|             | incinerator does not treat hazardous waste.            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | While these observations provide some reassurance that |
|             | air emissions from the incinerators are not unusually  |
|             | elevated, ATSDR notes that these observations provide  |
|             | no quantitative insight on potential air exposures to  |
|             | contaminants from the incinerator. In response to      |
|             | growing community concerns about the incinerator       |
|             | operations, the lessee at YMR has hired a contractor   |
|             | to implement a VOC and particulate matter (PM10)       |
|             | monitoring program to measure ambient air levels at    |
|             | five monitoring locations. In addition, quarterly      |
|             | samples will be analyzed for dioxins, furans, SVOCs,   |
|             | and metals.                                            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR reviewed the sampling plan and concluded that it |
|             | should provide the information needed to determine     |
|             | whether exposures to harmful levels of substances are  |
|             | occurring. Monitoring stations were fully operational  |
|             | about a month prior to the release of this health      |
|             | assessment. ATSDR will make its final conclusion on    |
|             | air emissions from the incinerator within 3 months of  |
|             | receiving the validated ambient air monitoring data.   |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Use         | Finally, ATSDR is aware that some community members    |
| available   | have expressed concern about other air emissions       |
| information | sources at YMR, such as those that might have occurred |
| to present  | from plating, painting, and other processes. Site      |
| the         | records indicate that YMR's processing rates were      |
| community   | relatively constant from 1961 to the early 1980s,      |
| with as     | after which they rapidly declined due to external      |
| much        | market forces. The decline in these operations (and    |
| perspective | presumably their associated air emissions) occurred at |
| as          | the same time as residential development increased in  |
| possible.   | the area. Therefore, residents who moved into the      |
|             | neighborhoods that surround YMR were not exposed to    |
| Clearly     | air emissions that occurred when the facility operated |
| state what  | at its highest production levels. While no sampling    |
| you know    | data are available to quantify the exact exposure      |
| and don't   | levels that residents might have experienced from the  |
| know        | late 1980s to the present, ATSDR notes that YMR's      |
|             | operations during this time frame were minimal.        |
|             | [Number range CHAPTER]{.mark}                          |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

#  IV. Evaluation of Health Outcome Data

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| This can be | In addition to studying exposure and                   |
| a separate  | substance-specific toxicity data, ATSDR also           |
| section or  | *considers* health outcome data, such as mortality and |
| i           | morbidity data, as part of the public health           |
| ncorporated | assessment process. ATSDR evaluates the following      |
| into the    | criteria when determining if the study of health       |
| discussion  | outcome data is reasonable: (1) presence of a          |
| section.    | completed human exposure pathway, (2) great enough     |
|             | contaminant levels to result in measurable health      |
| In many     | effects, (3) sufficient people in the completed        |
| cases,      | pathway for the health effect to be measured, and (4)  |
| adequate    | a health outcome database where disease rates for      |
| data are    | populations of concern can be identified.              |
| not         |                                                        |
| available   | ATSDR identified two completed exposure pathways at    |
| to support  | YMR: exposure to arsenic in two private drinking wells |
| a health    | and contact with PCBs in off-site soils in four nearby |
| outcome     | residential yards. For both pathways, the number of    |
| data        | potentially exposed people is too few to enable a      |
| evaluation. | meaningful comparison with available health outcome    |
| In such     | databases (e.g., cancer registry data). Further, many  |
| cases, your | of the long-term effects known to be associated with   |
| narrative   | arsenic or PCB exposures (e.g., skin, immunological,   |
| should      | or neurological conditions) are not reported in        |
| clearly     | available disease registries. Therefore, the study of  |
| explain why | health outcome data was not relevant. See Section V    |
| an          | (Community Health Concerns) for further discussion on  |
| assessment  | the symptoms and other health concerns reported by     |
| is not      | community members.                                     |
| possible    |                                                        |
|             | Lastly, the presence of a completed air exposure       |
| If          | pathway remains uncertain because no measured air      |
| information | contaminant data exist. If data generated from the     |
| is          | planned air sampling program indicate harmful air      |
| unavailable | exposures may be occurring, ATSDR will re-evaluate the |
| and, as a   | appropriateness of studying health outcome data for    |
| result, no  | any identified exposed or potentially exposed          |
| conclusions | population.                                            |
| can be      |                                                        |
| drawn,      |                                                        |
| simply      |                                                        |
| state this  |                                                        |
| fact.       |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

#  V. Community Health Concerns

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Answer      | Responding to community health concerns is an          |
| specific    | essential part of ATSDR's overall mission and          |
| questions   | commitment to public health. ATSDR identified several  |
| based on    | community health concerns through the petition letter, |
| the         | the site visit, a thorough review of site documents,   |
| findings of | and subsequent meetings and correspondence with        |
| your        | community members, state and local officials, and past |
| exposure    | YMR site personnel.                                    |
| and health  |                                                        |
| effects     | ATSDR has already responded to some community members' |
| e           | concerns during the past public meeting for the site.  |
| valuations. | Following are ATSDR's responses to the community       |
|             | concerns that were expressed most frequently or those  |
| [Note to    | that community members specifically asked be           |
| p           | documented in this PHA.                                |
| articipants |                                                        |
| in ATSDR's  | 1.  Could illnesses reported by some areas residents   |
| Basic       |     be the result of drinking contaminated water?      |
| Course]{.   |                                                        |
| underline}: | Community members have expressed concern regarding the |
| Not all     | reported presence of elevated levels of arsenic in     |
| community   | private wells north of the site. Some have questioned  |
| concerns    | whether other chemicals associated with the YMR site   |
| voiced at   | are present in area wells. Some site neighbors have    |
| the field   | reported health problems, such as headaches, insomnia, |
| practicum   | gastrointestinal distress, and general weakness.       |
| are         |                                                        |
| reflected   | As described in the discussion, arsenic was detected   |
| here. It    | at elevated levels in two private wells north of the   |
| can be      | site. Arsenic was not detected or detected at very low |
| presumed    | levels in all other wells identified and tested as     |
| that,       | part of an area well survey. No harmful levels of any  |
| during the  | other substances were detected in any of the tested    |
| public      | private wells.                                         |
| meeting     |                                                        |
| after the   | The elevated levels of arsenic detected in the two     |
| initial     | private wells were high enough to raise some concern   |
| site visit, | regarding long-term exposure. For that reason,         |
| ATSDR's     | residences were connected to the municipal water       |
| health      | supply. Note, however, that estimated arsenic doses    |
| assessor    | fell below doses shown to be associated with health    |
| addressed   | effects. Further, residents who used these wells did   |
| some of the | not report any of the hallmark symptoms of chronic     |
| community   | arsenic exposure (e.g., skin lesions, peripheral       |
| concerns    | neuropathy, cancer). Therefore, ATSDR does not believe |
| that were   | that reported symptoms are likely to be associated     |
| initially   | with drinking water from affected wells.               |
| expressed.  |                                                        |
| The purpose | 2.  Are children being exposed to harmful levels of    |
| of this     |     lead in the soil as a result of the past           |
| section of  |     sandblasting at the water tower?                   |
| the sample  |                                                        |
| PHA is to   | The water tower at YMR was built in 1963, and has been |
| provide     | sandblasted at least twice during maintenance          |
| examples of | activities. A resident of the neighborhood east of the |
| the general | site was concerned that dust containing lead-based     |
| way in      | paint might have blown into the neighborhood. The      |
| which ATSDR | resident is concerned that young children may contact  |
| responds to | lead in the soil when they play outside.               |
| community   |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| concerns.   |                                                        |
|             |                                                        |
| Depending   |                                                        |
| on the      |                                                        |
| specific    |                                                        |
| issues and  |                                                        |
| si          |                                                        |
| te-specific |                                                        |
| facts,      |                                                        |
| responses   |                                                        |
| will vary   |                                                        |
| in length   |                                                        |
| and level   |                                                        |
| of detail.  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| As          | The water tower is on site about 500 feet from the     |
| throughout  | eastern facility boundary. There is very little        |
| the         | information from the first time the water tower was    |
| document,   | sandblasted and repainted (late 1970s). However, the   |
| use plain   | more recent 1998 maintenance activities were well      |
| language.   | documented. Both the New Minglewood County Health      |
| If a more   | Department and YMR officials inspected the site during |
| detailed    | the sandblasting activities to confirm that the        |
| technical   | contractors used proper containment measures (such as  |
| backup is   | covering the ground with tarps and controlling the     |
| necessary   | amount of lead-based paint residue) (Williams 1995).   |
| to support  | Further, sandblasting occurred only when the winds     |
| a response, | were calm to promote deposition beneath the water      |
| include it  | tower. However, no confirmatory soil sampling was      |
| in an       | conducted.                                             |
| appendix.   |                                                        |
|             | At ATSDR's request, the on-site contractor collected   |
| If          | four composite surface soil samples (0--6 inches)      |
| information | around the water tower and analyzed them for lead. The |
| is not      | area under the water tower was quartered and three     |
| available   | samples (one under the tank, one between the support   |
| to answer a | legs, and one about 5 feet out) were taken from each   |
| question or | quarter for the composite (QA Environmental Consulting |
| a firm      | 2004). The lead levels were only slightly elevated     |
| conclusion  | above background and were well below EPA's residential |
| cannot be   | lead hazard standard for play areas (400 ppm).         |
| made, state | Therefore, since the soil directly beneath the water   |
| so.         | tower does not contain harmful levels of lead, ATSDR   |
|             | expects that very little, if any, lead-based dust      |
| Where       | would have traveled into off-site residential          |
| possible,   | neighborhoods during the sandblasting activities.      |
| try to      |                                                        |
| address     | 3.  Have past radiation releases affected people       |
| community   |     living in residential areas near YMR?              |
| health      |                                                        |
| concerns    | Two former waste piles were suspected of containing    |
| even if the | radioactive wastes. Records indicate that all          |
| issue is    | hazardous materials were removed from the former waste |
| not related | pile area in 1986, and sent to an approved site.       |
| to the      | However, no environmental data exist to substantiate   |
| site, but   | whether all hazardous materials were indeed removed.   |
| generally   | An initial survey was conducted in 1990; however, due  |
| the focus   | to the presence of building rubble and fertilizers,    |
| is on       | which can contain elevated levels of naturally         |
| contaminant | occurring radioactive materials, the results were      |
| releases    | inconclusive (ABC Environmental 1992). Subsequently,   |
| associated  | soil samples were taken at the location of the former  |
| with the    | waste piles and tested for radionuclides (Alpha 1994;  |
| site        | ABC Environmental 2004). None of the results were      |
| itself.     | elevated above typical background levels. Therefore,   |
|             | people living near YMR are not currently being exposed |
|             | to harmful levels of radioactivity from YMR.           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | It is unknown whether radioactive wastes were present  |
|             | at the former waste piles prior to remediation.        |
|             | Because YMR was not fenced during this time, people    |
|             | could have accessed the site and contacted radioactive |
|             | contamination, if it was present.                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 4.  Are contaminants from YMR causing local well water |
|             |     to smell funny?                                    |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Contaminants from YMR are not migrating off site.      |
|             | Naturally occurring sulfates may be the source of the  |
|             | odor to the well water. Sulfur-reducing bacteria       |
|             | chemically change natural sulfates in water to         |
|             | hydrogen sulfide, which produces a "rotten egg" odor   |
|             | and taste in the water. These bacteria live in         |
|             | oxygen-deficient environments, such as deep wells,     |
|             | plumbing systems, water softeners, and water heaters.  |
|             | EPA recommends testing for hydrogen sulfide,           |
|             | corrosion, and metals in the water when an             |
|             | objectionable taste or smell occurs. For additional    |
|             | guidance about testing private drinking water wells,   |
|             | contact EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at           |
|             | 1-800-426-4791 or visit EPA's Web site:                |
|             | <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pwells1.html>.           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 5.  Is PCB contamination from YMR causing children at  |
|             |     the daycare center to be sick?                     |
|             |                                                        |
|             | The Early Learning Daycare Center is east of YMR. It   |
|             | is **NOT** in the same area where PCB contamination    |
|             | extends off site. Further, to address the concern,     |
|             | sampling was conducted in the daycare center play      |
|             | areas and PCBs were not detected.                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 6.  Was the housing complex east of YMR built on an    |
|             |     old landfill?                                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | There have been rumors of a landfill beneath the       |
|             | housing development to the east of YMR. However,       |
|             | further review of site records determined that no      |
|             | formal landfill existed in that area. YMR previously   |
|             | disposed of trash and other non-hazardous waste in a   |
|             | small trench on the eastern border of the site.        |
|             | However, the wastes were removed and the trench was    |
|             | covered with several feet of clean soil in the early   |
|             | 1980s (i.e., before the housing development was        |
|             | built). For this reason, ATSDR does not expect the     |
|             | "landfill" to be a hazard.                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 7.  **7. Are pesticides used in the past by a local    |
|             |     dairy farm affecting the health of people now      |
|             |     living and gardening in the area?**                |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR determined that no harmful exposures to          |
|             | pesticides are currently occurring because residual    |
|             | contamination has been removed from the area of        |
|             | concern. Based on a limited amount of historic         |
|             | sampling data, it is unlikely that pesticide levels    |
|             | were present in sufficient quantities in the past to   |
|             | produce adverse health effects. Even if exposures were |
|             | greater than available data suggest, the types of      |
|             | acute effects associated with chlorfenvinphos are      |
|             | reversible with no long-lasting effects expected.      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | In the late 1970s, a farm located upstream from YMR    |
|             | used pesticides containing chlorfenvinphos to control  |
|             | flies, fleas, and other external parasites on some of  |
|             | the farm animals. Drums containing residual amounts of |
|             | these pesticides were found along Haynes Creek,        |
|             | upstream of YMR. The farm owners claimed that the      |
|             | drums were empty. Some elderly residents living in the |
|             | cooperative now located where the farm once was        |
|             | reportedly have suffered from symptoms such as         |
|             | headaches, nausea, anxiousness, confusion, and         |
|             | weakness whenever they work in the community garden    |
|             | next to the creek.                                     |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | Chlorfenvinphos and some other pesticides are known to |
|             | affect the nervous system at high enough levels.       |
|             | ATSDR, therefore, searched for environmental sampling  |
|             | data to evaluate what, if any, exposures occurred in   |
|             | the area of reported concern, currently or in the      |
|             | past. Only a single data set collected from Haynes     |
|             | Creek in 1998 by a local university was identified to  |
|             | characterize past exposure conditions in which surface |
|             | water and sediment samples were analyzed for           |
|             | pesticides and metals. Chlorfenvinphos was detected at |
|             | elevated levels in creek sediments not to far from     |
|             | where the discarded drums were initially found.        |
|             | However, estimated exposure doses associated with the  |
|             | highest detected levels of chlorfenvinphos (29,000     |
|             | ppm) are about 40 times lower than those shown to      |
|             | cause adverse health effects in experimental animal    |
|             | studies. Only in cases of accidental poisonings or     |
|             | suicide attempts have mild to severe effects (e.g.,    |
|             | nausea, weakness, twitching, apprehension,             |
|             | unconsciousness) been reported in people. Therefore,   |
|             | unless people contacted much higher levels of this     |
|             | chemical than those reported in available sampling     |
|             | data, adverse acute health effects are not likely.     |
|             | Further, available medical data indicate that effects  |
|             | are reversible once exposure is stopped, and no        |
|             | evidence exists that long-term exposure to small       |
|             | amounts of chlorfenvinpos causes any other harmful     |
|             | health effects in people (ATSDR 1997).                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | In 2001, a new sewer line was installed in the area,   |
|             | requiring excavation of sediments and re-routing of    |
|             | the creek. Soil and sediments were removed and the     |
|             | area was covered with clean fill. Follow-up testing of |
|             | soil in the entire stretch of Haynes Creek upgradient  |
|             | of YMR, including garden areas, revealed no elevated   |
|             | levels of metals or pesticides. Therefore, neither     |
|             | adults nor children who might garden or play in the    |
|             | area would be expected to suffer any ill health        |
|             | effects now or in the future.                          |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 8.  Are residents exposed to PCBs when they garden?    |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Relatively extensive surface soil sampling for PCBs    |
|             | has occurred at the homes nearest YMR's former         |
|             | processing areas. Evidence of site-related PCB         |
|             | contamination has been found at four properties. The   |
|             | owners of these properties have been informed about    |
|             | this contamination and the steps they should take to   |
|             | minimize their exposures until YMR cleans up the       |
|             | contaminated soils. There is no evidence of            |
|             | site-related PCB contamination being found in any      |
|             | other homes and gardens around the YMR property.       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 9.  Were children who occasionally cut across YMR on   |
|             |     the way to school exposed to harmful levels of     |
|             |     chemicals in the soil, before YMR installed the    |
|             |     perimeter fence in 1993?                           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Even though children may have gained access to YMR     |
|             | property in the past, anecdotal evidence suggests that |
|             | children did not remain on the property for prolonged  |
|             | time periods or trespass on a regular basis.           |
|             | Therefore, the children were not exposed to            |
|             | contamination for long durations. Additionally, school |
|             | age children are not as predisposed to incidentally    |
|             | consume or come in contact with contaminated soil as a |
|             | younger child might. For the substances present in     |
|             | soil at YMR, harmful health effects are not expected   |
|             | to occur from this kind of infrequent and occasional   |
|             | exposure to contaminated surface soil.                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 10. Is it possible that contaminants previously used   |
|             |     at YMR have entered the food chain, such as local  |
|             |     plants and livestock?                              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Some residents have asked ATSDR if soil contaminants   |
|             | at YMR could have entered the food chain, whether      |
|             | through plants or livestock. This issue has been       |
|             | addressed by the animal research facility that         |
|             | currently leases YMR's property. Among the lessee's    |
|             | research projects is one that is evaluating the extent |
|             | to which certain metals and organic chemicals          |
|             | accumulate in plants and animals. This research        |
|             | (Hamilton 2003) concludes that the contamination found |
|             | at YMR is not accumulating in the food chain at levels |
|             | of health concern. ATSDR has placed copies of journal  |
|             | articles and related reports that address this issue   |
|             | in the record repository.                              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

# VI. Child Health Considerations

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| A separate  | ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more |
| discussion  | sensitive to exposures than adults in communities with |
| on child    | contamination in water, soil, air, or food. This       |
| health      | sensitivity is the result of a number of factors.      |
| con         | Children are more likely to be exposed because they    |
| siderations | play outdoors and they sometimes engage in             |
| is required | hand-to-mouth behaviors that increase their exposure   |
| in all      | potential. Children are shorter than adults, which     |
| PHAs.       | means they breathe dust, soil, and heavy vapors close  |
|             | to the ground. Children are also smaller, potentially  |
|             | resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per     |
|             | unit body weight. The developing body systems of       |
|             | children can sustain permanent damage if toxic         |
|             | exposures occur during critical growth stages. Most    |
|             | importantly, children depend completely on adults for  |
|             | risk identification and management decisions, housing  |
|             | decisions, and access to medical care. Therefore,      |
|             | ATSDR is committed to evaluating their special         |
|             | interests at sites such as the YMR.                    |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR has attempted to identify populations of         |
|             | children in the vicinity of YMR site. Approximately    |
|             | 450 children under the age of 6 years live within a    |
|             | 1-mile radius of the YMR site (U.S. Bureau of the      |
|             | Census 2000). The Early Learning Daycare Center is     |
|             | east of the site.                                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | To evaluate whether children may experience adverse    |
|             | health effects through past, current, or future        |
|             | exposures to site contaminants, ATSDR estimated the    |
|             | potential doses for children. To estimate these doses, |
|             | ATSDR used assumptions that would be protective of     |
|             | child exposures. *ATSDR concluded that exposure to     |
|             | site contamination at the YMR site does pose some      |
|             | possible public health hazards for children.* This     |
|             | conclusion is based on ATSDR's exposure evaluation and |
|             | the following information:                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Elevated arsenic levels detected in two private    |
|             |     wells would pose a potential hazard to children    |
|             |     drinking this water over the course of several     |
|             |     years (more than 10 years). It is unlikely,        |
|             |     however, that short-term (less than 3 years) use   |
|             |     of well water would pose any hazard to children.   |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   PCB-contaminated surface soils pose a public       |
|             |     health hazard to children who live at four homes   |
|             |     southeast of the YMR facility. This hazard does    |
|             |     not exist for adults, because the estimated        |
|             |     exposure doses for children are 20 times higher.   |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   The levels of chemicals detected in the off-site   |
|             |     portions of Haynes Creek are too low to be of      |
|             |     health concern for children playing in the creek.  |
|             |     Even though a localized high concentration of      |
|             |     mercury was detected in the sediments on site,     |
|             |     children are not expected to be contacting on-site |
|             |     sediments on a regular basis because a fence       |
|             |     surrounds the facility.                            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   ATSDR will evaluate whether the air exposure       |
|             |     pathway presents any unique hazards for children,  |
|             |     once sampling data for the site become available.  |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

# VII. Conclusions

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Conclusion  | On the basis of its evaluation of available            |
| statements  | environmental information, ATSDR concluded that some   |
| must be     | exposure situations at the YMR site pose ***public     |
| fully       | health hazards***. Conclusions regarding medium- and   |
| consistent  | site-specific exposures are as follows:                |
| with        |                                                        |
| information | -   At off-site locations, four homes along the        |
| presented   |     southeastern border of the facility have PCB       |
| in the PHA  |     surface soil contamination that could be harmful   |
| and should  |     to children who contact the contamination in their |
| not         |     yards. Ingestion of the contaminated soil poses a  |
| introduce   |     ***public health hazard*** for any children who    |
| any new     |     live at these four homes.                          |
| i           |                                                        |
| nformation. | -   Though not believed to be site-related, long-term  |
|             |     exposure to arsenic found in two private wells     |
| All         |     north of the site could result in adverse health   |
| conclusion  |     effects and; therefore, posed a ***past public     |
| statements  |     health hazard***. To prevent future exposures,     |
| should be   |     these residences were connected to safe municipal  |
| succinct    |     water.                                             |
| and not     |                                                        |
| repeat      | -   Exposure to contaminants released to the air from  |
| large       |     the incinerator at YMR property poses an           |
| portions of |     ***indeterminate public health hazard*** because   |
| statements  |     ATSDR does not have sufficient data to make a      |
| presented   |     decision. An air monitoring study is currently     |
| in the      |     being conducted to characterize air quality        |
| Discussion  |     impacts from the incinerator. ATSDR will evaluate  |
| section.    |     the sampling data, once they are available, to     |
|             |     determine whether the air exposure pathway         |
| When site   |     presents a hazard.                                 |
| conditions  |                                                        |
| have varied | -   Contaminants were detected in Haynes Creek.        |
| over time,  |     However, the off-site concentrations are too low   |
| it may be   |     to pose a health hazard for anyone incidentally    |
| appropriate |     contacting surface water or sediment upstream or   |
| to assign a |     downstream of YMR. Therefore, ***no apparent       |
| separate    |     public health hazard*** exists for people who come |
| conclusion  |     in contact with off-site sections of Haynes Creek. |
| category    |                                                        |
| for past,   | -   Contaminated on-site surface soils are not a       |
| current,    |     health hazard to residents because they cannot     |
| and future  |     access YMR property. The on-site contamination has |
| exposure    |     not been a health hazard to workers due to their   |
| conditions. |     limited contact with soils. Therefore, on-site     |
|             |     soil poses ***no apparent public health hazard***. |
| Determining |                                                        |
| the         | -   No exposure or hazard exists for groundwater       |
| appropriate |     beneath YMR because no one is using the            |
| hazard      |     groundwater on site. Therefore, on-site            |
| category    |     groundwater poses ***no public health              |
| requires    |     hazard***.Number range CHAPTER                     |
| p           |                                                        |
| rofessional |                                                        |
| judgment.   |                                                        |
| You need to |                                                        |
| decide what |                                                        |
| category    |                                                        |
| best        |                                                        |
| describes   |                                                        |
| site        |                                                        |
| conditions. |                                                        |
|             |                                                        |
| When        |                                                        |
| co          |                                                        |
| mmunicating |                                                        |
| c           |                                                        |
| onclusions, |                                                        |
| clearly     |                                                        |
| describe    |                                                        |
| the         |                                                        |
| essential   |                                                        |
| message of  |                                                        |
| the PHA in  |                                                        |
| plain       |                                                        |
| language,   |                                                        |
| both in     |                                                        |
| terms of    |                                                        |
| what is and |                                                        |
| is not      |                                                        |
| known,      |                                                        |
| before      |                                                        |
| presenting  |                                                        |
| the         |                                                        |
| specific    |                                                        |
| conclusion  |                                                        |
| category.   |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

#  

# VIII. Recommendations 

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Reco        | -   ATSDR recommends that Number range CHAPTERYMR      |
| mmendations |     remove PCB-contaminated soils from the four        |
| should be   |     residential properties this spring. Confirmation   |
| ordered and |     sampling is needed to ensure that all              |
| parallel    |     contamination, including potential subsurface      |
| with the    |     contamination, is removed. EPA and ZEA oversight   |
| c           |     of this removal is needed to ensure that it is     |
| onclusions. |     conducted effectively and in a manner that does    |
|             |     not cause unacceptable exposures to PCBs. Until    |
| PHA         |     this removal is completed, residents of these four |
| reco        |     properties are cautioned to reduce activities that |
| mmendations |     cause them to contact soils, such as gardening,    |
| should      |     playing, and allowing pets to access contaminated  |
| emphasize   |     areas.                                             |
| prevention  |                                                        |
| of releases | -   ATSDR recommends that the contractor implementing  |
| and         |     the ambient air sampling program inform the agency |
| prevention  |     when the program is finished and provide a copy of |
| of exposure |     the complete sampling report.                      |
| and any     |                                                        |
| precautions | -   ATSDR recommends that YMR, as property lessor,     |
| required to |     develop and implement a site health and safety     |
| ensure that |     plan that informs all workers (regardless of their |
| public      |     employer) of potential health hazards associated   |
| health is   |     with contacting contaminated soils at on-site      |
| protected.  |     waste disposal areas. YMR should also post signs   |
|             |     in the contaminated areas that warn workers to     |
| Because     |     avoid contact with the soil.                       |
| ATSDR is an |                                                        |
| advisory    |                                                        |
| agency and  |                                                        |
| not a risk  |                                                        |
| management  |                                                        |
| agency,     |                                                        |
| your        |                                                        |
| reco        |                                                        |
| mmendations |                                                        |
| may         |                                                        |
| identify    |                                                        |
| actions     |                                                        |
| that other  |                                                        |
| entities    |                                                        |
| (e.g., site |                                                        |
| owners,     |                                                        |
| state       |                                                        |
| health or   |                                                        |
| en          |                                                        |
| vironmental |                                                        |
| agencies,   |                                                        |
| as well as  |                                                        |
| divisions   |                                                        |
| within      |                                                        |
| ATSDR) will |                                                        |
| need to     |                                                        |
| take to     |                                                        |
| implement   |                                                        |
| the         |                                                        |
| recom       |                                                        |
| mendations. |                                                        |
| Be sure to  |                                                        |
| confirm     |                                                        |
| that the    |                                                        |
| indicated   |                                                        |
| entity will |                                                        |
| implement   |                                                        |
| the         |                                                        |
| reco        |                                                        |
| mmendation. |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

# IX. Public Health Action Plan

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| In the      | The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for the YMR site  |
| PHAP,       | lists important public health actions taken to date as |
| outline     | well as actions that should be taken in the future. As |
| actions or  | such, the PHAP ensures that this PHA not only          |
| activities  | identifies potential and ongoing public health         |
| that have   | hazards, but also provides a plan of action to         |
| already     | mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects from |
| been taken  | occurring in the future. The public health actions     |
| to protect  | that are completed, ongoing, and planned are listed    |
| public      | below.                                                 |
| health,     |                                                        |
| activities  | ## C                                                   |
| that are    | ompleted Actions {#completed-actions .Title-Heading-2} |
| currently   |                                                        |
| underway,   | 1.  From the early 1980s to the present, YMR conducted |
| and         |     multiple sampling investigations and removal       |
| activities  |     efforts to evaluate the nature and extent of       |
| that will   |     contamination and to ensure that the contamination |
| be          |     does not reach off-site locations.                 |
| conducted   |                                                        |
| in the      | 2.  In the 1990s, multiple parties (Zarizona           |
| future.     |     University, Middle University, EPA) conducted      |
|             |     separate studies of contamination levels in Haynes |
|             |     Creek.                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 3.  In 2001 and 2002, ZDHS identified all private well |
|             |     users in the vicinity of YMR and sampled the water |
|             |     that these wells produced.                         |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 4.  In 2002, ZDHS recommended that the two well owners |
|             |     with elevated arsenic contamination immediately    |
|             |     begin using bottled water for drinking and cooking |
|             |     purposes.                                          |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 5.  In June 2004, ATSDR conducted an initial site      |
|             |     visit to YMR to tour the site, gather              |
|             |     environmental data, and meet with the petitioner,  |
|             |     health officials, representatives of EPA, and the  |
|             |     community.                                         |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 6.  In September 2004, ATSDR held an additional public |
|             |     meeting to identify the health concerns of         |
|             |     interest to the community and to provide the       |
|             |     community progress reports on the PHA.             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 7.  In September 2004, Number range CHAPTERATSDR       |
|             |     provided health education to residents of the four |
|             |     properties on how to reduce their exposure to      |
|             |     contaminated surface soils.                        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 8.  In January 2005, residents to the north of YMR     |
|             |     were connected to the municipal water supply.      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ## Ongoing Actions {#ongoing-actions .Title-Heading-2} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 1.  YMR continues to operate the groundwater treatment |
|             |     system and the quarterly groundwater monitoring    |
|             |     plan to reduce the contamination in the water and  |
|             |     detect whether site-related contaminants have the  |
|             |     potential to migrate off site.                     |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ```{=html}                                             |
|             | <!-- -->                                               |
|             | ```                                                    |
|             | 9.  A contractor to the animal research facility       |
|             |     continues to collect air samples to help           |
|             |     characterize potential air quality impacts from    |
|             |     the site's incinerator. Preliminary data are       |
|             |     expected to be available this summer.              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ## Planned Actions {#planned-actions .Title-Heading-2} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | 1.  Number range CHAPTERThis spring, YMR, under EPA    |
|             |     and ZEA oversight, will remove PCB-contaminated    |
|             |     soils from four residential properties located     |
|             |     southeast of the site and will conduct             |
|             |     confirmation sampling to ensure that the           |
|             |     contamination has been removed.                    |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ```{=html}                                             |
|             | <!-- -->                                               |
|             | ```                                                    |
|             | 10. ATSDR will evaluate the ambient air sampling data  |
|             |     being collected by the contractor to the animal    |
|             |     research facility as soon as they become           |
|             |     available. ATSDR will publish its findings on the  |
|             |     air exposure pathway in a separate health          |
|             |     consultation, which should be issued shortly after |
|             |     the sampling data are released.                    |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

# X. Preparers of Report

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | Julie Jones, MPH\                                      |
|             | Health Assessor/Site Team Leader\                      |
|             | Division of Health Assessment and Consultation\        |
|             | Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Randy Wells, PhD\                                      |
|             | Senior Health Physicist\                               |
|             | Division of Health Assessment and Consultation\        |
|             | Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Robert Thompson\                                       |
|             | Regional Representative\                               |
|             | Division of Regional Operations\                       |
|             | Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry       |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

# Reviewers of Report {#reviewers-of-report .Title-Heading-1}

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | Georgia Wilkes\                                        |
|             | Community Involvement Specialist\                      |
|             | Division of Health Assessment and Consultation\        |
|             | Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Jerry Simczak, MPH\                                    |
|             | Supervisor\                                            |
|             | Division of Health Assessment and Consultation\        |
|             | Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry       |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

#  

# XI. References 

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Always do a | \[ABC\] ABC Environmental. 1992. Characterization of   |
| final check | disposal sites at Yakliske Metals and Reclamation      |
| to ensure   | Company. Seattle: Final report; June.                  |
| that all    |                                                        |
| text        | \[ABC\] ABC Environmental. 2002. Annual groundwater    |
| citations   | report, Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company.       |
| are         | Seattle; December.                                     |
| properly    |                                                        |
| referenced  | \[ABC\] ABC Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2004.      |
| in the      | Survey of radionuclides at the former waste piles,     |
| References  | Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company, Yakliske, ZA. |
| section.    | Seattle; January.                                      |
|             |                                                        |
| Refer to    | \[Alpha\] Alpha Environmental, Inc. 1994. Confirmation |
| ATSDR's     | sampling --- waste disposal areas, Yakliske Metals and |
| Style Guide | Reclamation Company. Raleigh; July.                    |
| (2000) for  |                                                        |
| the         | \[ATSDR\] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease      |
| preferred   | Registry. 1997. Toxicological profile for              |
| format.     | chlorfenvinphos. Atlanta: US Department of Health and  |
|             | Human Services; September 2000. Available at:          |
|             | <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp83.html>. Last |
|             | accessed 17 March 2005.                                |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[ATSDR\] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease      |
|             | Registry. 2000a. Toxicological profile for arsenic.    |
|             | Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services;   |
|             | September 2000. Available at:                          |
|             | <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2.html>. Last  |
|             | accessed 17 March 2005.                                |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[Number range CHAPTERATSDR\] Agency for Toxic         |
|             | Substances and Disease Registry. 2000b. Toxicological  |
|             | profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (update).        |
|             | Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services;   |
|             | November 2000. Available at:                           |
|             | <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html>. Last |
|             | accessed 17 March 2005.                                |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[Number range CHAPTERATSDR\] Agency for Toxic         |
|             | Substances and Disease Registry. 2001. Summary report  |
|             | for the ATSDR soil-pica workshop. Atlanta: US          |
|             | Department of Health and Human Services; March 20.     |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Bureau of the Census. 2000. Census of population,      |
|             | housing unit, area, and density. American FactFinder.  |
|             | Washington DC: US Department of Commerce; 2001.        |
|             | Available at: <http://factfinder.census.gov/>. Last    |
|             | accessed 17 March 2005.                                |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[EPA\] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.      |
|             | Dermal exposure assessment: principles and             |
|             | applications. Washington, DC: Office of Research and   |
|             | Development; 1992 January.                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[EPA\] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. New  |
|             | regulation controlling emissions from                  |
|             | hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. 1997   |
|             | September. Available at:                               |
|             | <http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/129/hmiwi/brochure.pdf>. Last  |
|             | accessed 5 March 2005.                                 |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | \[EPA\] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Site |
|             | investigation report for the Yakliske Metals and       |
|             | Reclamation Company (YMR), Yakliske, New Minglewood    |
|             | County, ZA. Revised final. October 1998.               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[EPA\] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Risk |
|             | assessment guidance for Superfund volume I: Human      |
|             | Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, supplemental         |
|             | guidance for dermal risk assessment). Interim review   |
|             | draft for public comment. Washington DC: Office of     |
|             | Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/R/99/005.     |
|             | September.                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[EPA\] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Site |
|             | summary report, Yakliske Metals and Reclamation        |
|             | Company. Revised draft. Washington DC. March.          |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Faulkner JT. 1990. September 15 memorandum to Dr.      |
|             | Robert Jones, Zarizona Department of Health Services,  |
|             | from Joe T. Faulkner, Superintendent Yakliske Water    |
|             | District concerning the municipal water system in the  |
|             | city of Yakliske.                                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Faulkner JT. 2003. November 15 memorandum to Dr.       |
|             | Robert Jones, Zarizona Department of Health Services,  |
|             | from Joe T. Faulkner, Superintendent Yakliske Water    |
|             | District concerning sampling results of the periodic   |
|             | water quality testing.                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Hamilton FS. 2003. Accumulation of metals and organic  |
|             | compounds in tissues of selected plants and ruminant   |
|             | species. Yakliske, ZA: Yakliske Animal Research        |
|             | Facility. 20 February.                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Number range CHAPTERMelvin and Kelvin Consultants.     |
|             | 2001. Soil sampling survey---Yakliske Metals and       |
|             | Reclamation Company off-site areas. Tampa. 20          |
|             | September.                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Middle University. 1998. Summary of environmental      |
|             | sampling data: Yakliske, ZA; Washington DC: collected  |
|             | 2 May.                                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | QA Environmental Consulting Corporation. 2004. Surface |
|             | soil sampling for lead contamination under YMR's water |
|             | tower. Baltimore. December.                            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | SEEP, Inc. 2002. Groundwater investigation report.     |
|             | Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company; January       |
|             | (initial report). Boston. February.                    |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[USGS\] United States Geological Service. 1986.       |
|             | Geologic conditions in central Zarizona. Washington,   |
|             | DC: USGS Publication No.: (USGS)86-1255.               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Williams A. 1995. March 16 memorandum to file from     |
|             | Andy Williams at the New Minglewood County Health      |
|             | Department concerning sandblasting activities at       |
|             | Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company.               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[YMR\] Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company. 1983. |
|             | June 14 letter report on groundwater quality prepared  |
|             | by John Foster, YMR Safety Director. New Minglewood    |
|             | County, ZA.                                            |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | \[YMR\] Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company. 1986. |
|             | December 20 soil sampling at waste disposal areas,     |
|             | Yakliski Reclamation Area, New Minglewood County, ZA.  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[Number range CHAPTERYMR\] Yakliske Metals and        |
|             | Reclamation Company. 2002. November 9 soil sampling    |
|             | investigation: summary results for PCB disposal area.  |
|             | New Minglewood County, ZA.                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[ZDHS\] Zarizona Department of Health Services. 2001. |
|             | Private Well Survey. City of Yakliske, New Minglewood  |
|             | County, ZA; July.                                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[ZDHS\] Zarizona Department of Health Services. 2002. |
|             | Sampling of private wells within ½ mile north of YMR.  |
|             | City of Yakliske, New Minglewood County, ZA;           |
|             | September.                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | \[ZEA\] Zarizona Environmental Agency. 1995.           |
|             | Preliminary site investigation, Yakliske Reclamation   |
|             | Facility. Yakliske, ZA; June.                          |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Zarizona University. 1998. November 3 memorandum from  |
|             | Gary Furtado, Zarizona University, to Dr. Robert       |
|             | Jones, Zarizona Department of Health Services,         |
|             | concerning sampling of Haynes Creek Sediments.         |
|             | Yakliske, ZA: Department of Environmental Science.     |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Zarizona University. 2002. Survey of metals            |
|             | contamination in Haynes Creek. Yakliske, ZA:           |
|             | Department of Environmental Science; November.         |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

TABLES

# Table 1. Exposure Pathways {#table-1.-exposure-pathways .Caption}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="3" rowspan="2">Pathway Name</th>
<th colspan="14">Exposure Pathway Elements</th>
<th colspan="2" rowspan="2">Time Frame for Exposure</th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th colspan="3">Source of Contamination</th>
<th colspan="3">Fate and Transport</th>
<th colspan="2">Point of Exposure</th>
<th colspan="3">Route of Exposure</th>
<th colspan="3">Potentially Exposed Population</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="19"><em><strong>Completed Pathways</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3">Private drinking water</td>
<td colspan="3">Unknown</td>
<td colspan="3">No evidence of migration of site contaminants off
site</td>
<td colspan="2">Tap water in homes that use private wells</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>Ingestion</p></li>
<li><p>Skin contact</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">Residents in the 12 homes not on the municipal water
supply</td>
<td colspan="2">Past</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">Off-site soils</td>
<td colspan="3">PCBs from discharging of transformer fluids</td>
<td colspan="3">No evidence of contamination migrating (disposal off
site occurred)</td>
<td colspan="2">Soils southeast of the facility</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>Ingestion</p></li>
<li><p>Skin contact</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">Residents of 4 homes with backyards along the
fence-line</td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Past</p>
<p>Current</p>
<p>Future</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="19"><em><strong>Potential Pathways</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Off-site sediments in Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3">Mercury residue that was pumped into Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3" rowspan="2">There is no evidence of mercury migrating
from the on-site sediments to downstream locations</td>
<td colspan="2">Off-site sediments in Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>Ingestion</p></li>
<li><p>Skin contact</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">People walking or wading in the creek</td>
<td colspan="3"><p>Past</p>
<p>Current</p>
<p>Future</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Surface water in Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3">Contaminants in the sediments that enter the water
column</td>
<td colspan="2">Downstream areas of Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>Ingestion</p></li>
<li><p>Skin contact</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">Recreational users of Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3"><p>Past</p>
<p>Current</p>
<p>Future</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">Soils at waste units on site</td>
<td colspan="3">Waste ponds, waste piles, spray irrigation field, and
other disposal areas</td>
<td colspan="3">No evidence of contamination migrating, except toward
groundwater</td>
<td colspan="2">On-site waste disposal areas</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>Ingestion</p></li>
<li><p>Skin contact</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">Workers might have limited contact with waste areas</td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Past</p>
<p>Current</p>
<p>Future</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3">Inhaling air when the facility operated</td>
<td colspan="3">Emissions from plating operations and other sources</td>
<td colspan="3">Winds carried emissions to off-site locations</td>
<td colspan="2">Locations in the immediate vicinity of the facility</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>Inhalation</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">Residents who lived in the area prior to 1993</td>
<td colspan="2">Past</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Inhaling air after the facility shut down</td>
<td colspan="3">Emissions from the incinerator and other minor
operations</td>
<td colspan="3">Winds carried emissions to off-site locations</td>
<td colspan="5">Locations in the immediate vicinity of the facility</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>Inhalation</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">Residents who lived in the area after 1993</td>
<td><p>Current</p>
<p>Future</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="19"><em><strong>Eliminated Pathways</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Contacting groundwater from the TCE plume</td>
<td colspan="3">Solvents released from a leaking drum</td>
<td colspan="3">Plume is beneath the waste pile now.</td>
<td colspan="5">None. No one uses groundwater beneath the site.</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>None</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">None</td>
<td>None</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Contacting on-site sediments in Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3">Mercury residue that was pumped into Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3">There is no evidence of mercury migrating from the
on-site sediments to downstream locations.</td>
<td colspan="5">None. No one accesses this part of Haynes Creek.</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>None</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">None</td>
<td>None</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Fish caught from Haynes Creek</td>
<td colspan="3">Mercury in the sediments that enters the aquatic food
chain</td>
<td colspan="3">Mercury may be entering the aquatic food web.</td>
<td colspan="5">None. Fish in Haynes Creek are too small to eat.</td>
<td colspan="3"><ul>
<li><p>None</p></li>
</ul></td>
<td colspan="3">None</td>
<td>None</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# Table 2. Chemicals Detected in Surface Water from Lake Lanier {#table-2.-chemicals-detected-in-surface-water-from-lake-lanier .Caption}

+----------+----------+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+
| Chemical | Range of | Av    | Fre    | F        | Co       | Type   |
|          | De       | erage | quency | requency | mparison |        |
|          | tections |       | of     | Above    | Value    |        |
|          |          | (ppb) | Dete   | Co       |          |        |
|          | (ppb)    |       | ctions | mparison | (ppb)    |        |
|          |          |       |        | Value    |          |        |
+----------+----------+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+
| Barium   | 0.1--0.5 | 0.4   | 16/40  | 0        | 700      | child  |
|          |          |       |        |          |          | RMEG   |
|          |          |       |        | 0        | 2,000    |        |
|          |          |       |        |          |          | MCL    |
+----------+----------+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+
| Lead     | 1--4     | 2.3   | 30/40  | 0        | 15       | EPA    |
|          |          |       |        |          |          | Action |
|          |          |       |        |          |          | Level  |
+----------+----------+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+
| TCE      | 0.1--0.3 | 0.2   | 8/40   | 0        | 5        | MCL    |
+----------+----------+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+

Source: Faulkner 2003

EPA -- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

MCL -- maximum contaminant level

ppb -- parts per billion

RMEG -- reference dose media evaluation guide

# Table 3. Chemicals Detected in Private Wells {#table-3.-chemicals-detected-in-private-wells .Caption}

+-------+---------+------+-------+------+------+-------+----------+
| Che   | Range   | Ave  | Freq  | Loca | F    | Compa | Type     |
| mical | of      | rage | uency | tion | requ | rison |          |
|       | Det     |      | of    | of   | ency | Value |          |
|       | ections | (    | Detec | Max  | A    |       |          |
|       |         | ppb) | tions | imum | bove | (ppb) |          |
|       | (ppb)   |      |       | D    | Co   |       |          |
|       |         |      |       | etec | mpar |       |          |
|       |         |      |       | tion | ison |       |          |
|       |         |      |       |      | V    |       |          |
|       |         |      |       |      | alue |       |          |
+-------+---------+------+-------+------+------+-------+----------+
| Ar    | 0.5--87 | 54   | 12/12 | WV   | 12   | 0.02  | CREG     |
| senic |         |      |       | -001 |      |       |          |
|       |         |      |       |      |      | 3     | C-EMEG   |
|       |         |      |       |      |      |       | (child)  |
+-------+---------+------+-------+------+------+-------+----------+
| Ca    | ND--1   | 0.5  | 4/12  | WV   | 0    | 2     | C-EMEG   |
| dmium |         |      |       | -002 |      |       | (child)  |
+-------+---------+------+-------+------+------+-------+----------+
| Lead  | 5--12   | 9    | 20/20 | WV   | 0    | 15    | EPA      |
|       |         |      |       | -001 |      |       | Action   |
|       |         |      |       |      |      |       | Level    |
+-------+---------+------+-------+------+------+-------+----------+
| Mang  | 3--29   | 11   | 12/12 | WV   | 0    | 500   | C-EMEG   |
| anese |         |      |       | -002 |      |       | (child)  |
+-------+---------+------+-------+------+------+-------+----------+
| Zinc  | 2       | 320  | 12/12 | WV   | 0    | 3,000 | C-EMEG   |
|       | 00--550 |      |       | -002 |      |       | (child)  |
+-------+---------+------+-------+------+------+-------+----------+

Source: ZDHS 2001, 2002

C-EMEG -- chronic environmental media evaluation guide

CREG -- cancer risk evaluation guide

EPA -- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ND -- non detect

ppb -- parts per billion

RMEG -- reference dose media evaluation guide

WV -- private well

# Table 4. Chemicals Detected in Surface Water from Haynes Creek {#table-4.-chemicals-detected-in-surface-water-from-haynes-creek .Caption}

+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Chemical | Range   | Av    | Fre    | Freq  | Comp   | Type      |
|          | of      | erage | quency | uency | arison |           |
|          | Det     |       | of     | Above | Value  |           |
|          | ections | (ppb) | Dete   | Compa |        |           |
|          |         |       | ctions | rison | (ppb)  |           |
|          | (ppb)   |       |        | Value |        |           |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| ***M     |         |       |        |       |        |           |
| etals*** |         |       |        |       |        |           |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Aluminum | 29--104 | 52    | 11/48  | 0     | 20,000 | I-EMEG    |
|          |         |       |        |       |        | (child)   |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Barium   | 41--79  | 62    | 12/48  | 0     | 700    | RMEG      |
|          |         |       |        |       |        | (child)   |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Copper   | 2       | 3.4   | 6/48   | 0     | 1,300  | MCL       |
|          | .2--4.0 |       |        |       |        |           |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| M        | 12--342 | 87    | 12/48  | 0     | 500    | RMEG      |
| anganese |         |       |        |       |        | (child)   |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Mercury  | 0       | 1.1   | 12/48  | 0     | 2      | MCL       |
|          | .1--1.5 |       |        |       |        | (         |
|          |         |       |        |       |        | inorganic |
|          |         |       |        |       |        | Hg)       |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| **       |         |       |        |       |        |           |
| *Organic |         |       |        |       |        |           |
| Comp     |         |       |        |       |        |           |
| ounds*** |         |       |        |       |        |           |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Diethylp | 0       | 0.9   | 2/12   | 0     | 8,000  | RMEG      |
| hthalate | .8--1.0 |       |        |       |        | (child)   |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Nap      | 1--5    | 3.2   | 4/12   | 0     | 20     | LTHA      |
| hthalene |         |       |        |       |        |           |
+----------+---------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-----------+

Sources: EPA 1998; Middle University 1998; Zarizona University 2002

I-EMEG -- intermediate environmental media evaluation guide

LTHA -- lifetime health advisory for drinking water

MCL -- maximum contaminant level

ppb -- parts per billion

RMEG -- reference dose media evaluation guide

# Table 5. Chemicals Detected in Sediment from Haynes Creek {#table-5.-chemicals-detected-in-sediment-from-haynes-creek .Caption}

+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| Chemical | Range  | Ave  | Freq  | Loca | F    | Co   | Type     |
|          | of     | rage | uency | tion | requ | mpar |          |
|          | Dete   |      | of    | of   | ency | ison |          |
|          | ctions | (    | Detec | Max  | A    | V    |          |
|          | (ppm)  | ppm) | tions | imum | bove | alue |          |
|          |        |      |       | D    | Co   |      |          |
|          |        |      |       | etec | mpar | (    |          |
|          |        |      |       | tion | ison | ppm) |          |
|          |        |      |       |      | Va   |      |          |
|          |        |      |       |      | lues |      |          |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| *Metals* |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| Arsenic  | 0.1--5 | 0.4  | 15/20 | Off  | 5    | 0.5  | CREG     |
|          |        |      |       | site |      |      |          |
|          |        |      |       |      | 0    | 20   | C-EMEG   |
|          |        |      |       |      |      |      | (child)  |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| Barium   | 7      | 112  | 20/20 | On   | 0    | 3    | RMEG     |
|          | 0--145 |      |       | site |      | ,000 | (child)  |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| Chromium | 2      | 68   | 20/20 | Off  | 0    | 80   | RMEG     |
| III      | 5--330 |      |       | site |      | ,000 | (child)  |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| Lead     | 15--52 | 22   | 15/20 | Off  | 0    | 400  | SSL      |
|          |        |      |       | site |      |      |          |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| M        | 11     | 151  | 20/20 | On   | 0    | 3    | RMEG     |
| anganese | 5--190 |      |       | site |      | ,000 | (child)  |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| Mercury  | 0.0    | 23   | 15/20 | On   | 1    | 20   | RMEG     |
|          | 5--150 |      |       | site |      |      | (child)  |
|          |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
|          |        |      |       |      |      |      | (        |
|          |        |      |       |      |      |      | mercuric |
|          |        |      |       |      |      |      | c        |
|          |        |      |       |      |      |      | hloride) |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| *Organic |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
| Co       |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
| mpounds* |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| 1,2      | 0.03   | 0.03 | 1/13  | On   | 0    | 5    | RMEG     |
| -Dichlor |        |      |       | site |      | ,000 | (child)  |
| obenzene |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| 1,4      | 0.08   | 0.08 | 1/13  | Off  | 0    | 20   | I-EMEG   |
| -Dichlor |        |      |       | site |      | ,000 | (child)  |
| obenzene |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| 1,       | 0.09   | 0.09 | 1/13  | On   | 0    | 10   | I-EMEG   |
| 2-Dichlo |        |      |       | site |      | ,000 | (child)  |
| roethane |        |      |       |      |      |      |          |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+
| 1,1,2    | 1.9    | 1.9  | 1/13  | On   | 0    | 10   | CREG     |
| -Trichlo |        |      |       | site |      |      |          |
| roethane |        |      |       |      | 0    | 200  | RMEG     |
|          |        |      |       |      |      |      | (child)  |
+----------+--------+------+-------+------+------+------+----------+

Sources: EPA 1998; Middle University 1998; Zarizona University 1998,
2002

C-EMEG -- chronic environmental media evaluation guide

CREG -- cancer risk evaluation guide

I-EMEG -- intermediate environmental media evaluation guide

ppm -- parts per million

RMEG -- reference dose media evaluation guide

SSL -- soil screening level

FIGURES

# Figure 1. Yakliske Metals and Reclamation Company Site Features {#figure-1.-yakliske-metals-and-reclamation-company-site-features .Caption}

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="8.036805555555556in"
height="6.002777777777778in"}

# Figure 2. Demographics Within a 1-Mile Radius of YMR ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.497222222222222in" height="8.40625in"}Figure 2. Demographics Within a 1-Mile Radius of YMR  {#figure-2.-demographics-within-a-1-mile-radius-of-ymr-figure-2.-demographics-within-a-1-mile-radius-of-ymr .Caption}

# Figure 3. ATSDR Exposure Evaluation Process {#figure-3.-atsdr-exposure-evaluation-process .Caption}

![](media/image4.png){width="8.879861111111111in"
height="5.592361111111111in"}

# Figure 4. Location of Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Private Wells {#figure-4.-location-of-groundwater-monitoring-wells-and-private-wells .Caption}

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="8.063888888888888in"
height="6.002777777777778in"}

# Figure 5. PCB Sample Locations {#figure-5.-pcb-sample-locations .Caption}

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="7.038888888888889in"}

# Figure 6. Location of Surface Water and Sediment Sampling {#figure-6.-location-of-surface-water-and-sediment-sampling .Caption}

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="8.01875in" height="5.995833333333334in"}

APPENDICES

# Appendix A. ATSDR Glossary of Terms {#appendix-a.-atsdr-glossary-of-terms .Title-Heading-1}

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| The entire  | The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry   |
| ATSDR       | (ATSDR) is a federal public health agency with         |
| glossary is | headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and 10 regional      |
| provided    | offices in the United States. ATSDR\'s mission is to   |
| here for    | serve the public by using the best science, taking     |
| reference   | responsive public health actions, and providing        |
| purposes.   | trusted health information to prevent harmful          |
| In a real   | exposures and diseases related to toxic substances.    |
| PHA, you    | ATSDR is not a regulatory agency, unlike the U.S.      |
| should      | Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is the    |
| remove any  | federal agency that develops and enforces              |
| terms that  | environmental laws to protect the environment and      |
| are not     | human health. This glossary defines words used by      |
| mentioned   | ATSDR in communications with the public. It is not a   |
| in the      | complete dictionary of environmental health terms. If  |
| text.       | you have questions or comments, call ATSDR\'s          |
|             | toll-free telephone number, 1-888-42-ATSDR             |
| You can add | (1-888-422-8737).                                      |
| terms that  |                                                        |
| are unique  |                                                        |
| to your     |                                                        |
| site.       |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

**Absorption**\
The process of taking in. For a person or an animal, absorption is the
process of a substance getting into the body through the eyes, skin,
stomach, intestines, or lungs.

**Acute**\
Occurring over a short time \[compare with chronic\].

**Acute exposure**\
Contact with a substance that occurs once or for only a short time (up
to 14 days) \[compare with intermediate duration exposure and chronic
exposure\].

**Additive effect**\
A biologic response to exposure to multiple substances that equals the
sum of responses of all the individual substances added together
\[compare with antagonistic effect and synergistic effect\].

**Adverse health effect**\
A change in body function or cell structure that might lead to disease
or health problems

**Aerobic**\
Requiring oxygen \[compare with anaerobic\].

**Ambient**\
Surrounding (for example, ambient air).

**Anaerobic**\
Requiring the absence of oxygen \[compare with aerobic\].

**Analyte**\
A substance measured in the laboratory. A chemical for which a sample
(such as water, air, or blood) is tested in a laboratory. For example,
if the analyte is mercury, the laboratory test will determine the amount
of mercury in the sample.

**Analytic epidemiologic study**\
A study that evaluates the association between exposure to hazardous
substances and disease by testing scientific hypotheses.

**Antagonistic effect**\
A biologic response to exposure to multiple substances that is less than
would be expected if the known effects of the individual substances were
added together \[compare with additive effect and synergistic effect\].

**Background level**\
An average or expected amount of a substance or radioactive material in
a specific environment, or typical amounts of substances that occur
naturally in an environment.

**Biodegradation**\
Decomposition or breakdown of a substance through the action of
microorganisms (such as bacteria or fungi) or other natural physical
processes (such as sunlight).

**Biologic indicators of exposure study**\
A study that uses (a) biomedical testing or (b) the measurement of a
substance \[an analyte\], its metabolite, or another marker of exposure
in human body fluids or tissues to confirm human exposure to a hazardous
substance \[also see exposure investigation\].

**Biologic monitoring**\
Measuring hazardous substances in biologic materials (such as blood,
hair, urine, or breath) to determine whether exposure has occurred. A
blood test for lead is an example of biologic monitoring.

**Biologic uptake**\
The transfer of substances from the environment to plants, animals, and
humans.

**Biomedical testing**\
Testing of persons to find out whether a change in a body function might
have occurred because of exposure to a hazardous substance.

**Biota**\
Plants and animals in an environment. Some of these plants and animals
might be sources of food, clothing, or medicines for people.

**Body burden**\
The total amount of a substance in the body. Some substances build up in
the body because they are stored in fat or bone or because they leave
the body very slowly.

**CAP** \[see Community Assistance Panel.\]

**Cancer**\
Any one of a group of diseases that occur when cells in the body become
abnormal and grow or multiply out of control.

**Cancer risk**\
A theoretical risk for getting cancer if exposed to a substance every
day for 70 years (a lifetime exposure). The true risk might be lower.

**Carcinogen**\
A substance that causes cancer.

**Case study**\
A medical or epidemiologic evaluation of one person or a small group of
people to gather information about specific health conditions and past
exposures.

**Case-control study**\
A study that compares exposures of people who have a disease or
condition (cases) with people who do not have the disease or condition
(controls). Exposures that are more common among the cases may be
considered as possible risk factors for the disease.

**CAS registry number**\
A unique number assigned to a substance or mixture by the American
Chemical Society Abstracts Service.

**Central nervous system**\
The part of the nervous system that consists of the brain and the spinal
cord.

**CERCLA** \[see Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980\]

**Chronic**\
Occurring over a long time \[compare with acute\].

**Chronic exposure**\
Contact with a substance that occurs over a long time (more than 1 year)
\[compare with acute exposure and intermediate duration exposure\]

**Cluster investigation**\
A review of an unusual number, real or perceived, of health events (for
example, reports of cancer) grouped together in time and location.
Cluster investigations are designed to confirm case reports; determine
whether they represent an unusual disease occurrence; and, if possible,
explore possible causes and contributing environmental factors.

**Community Assistance Panel (CAP)**\
A group of people from a community and from health and environmental
agencies who work with ATSDR to resolve issues and problems related to
hazardous substances in the community. CAP members work with ATSDR to
gather and review community health concerns, provide information on how
people might have been or might now be exposed to hazardous substances,
and inform ATSDR on ways to involve the community in its activities.

**Comparison value (CV)**\
Calculated concentration of a substance in air, water, food, or soil
that is unlikely to cause harmful (adverse) health effects in exposed
people. The CV is used as a screening level during the public health
assessment process. Substances found in amounts greater than their CVs
might be selected for further evaluation in the public health assessment
process.

**Completed exposure pathway** \[see exposure pathway\].

**Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA)**\
CERCLA, also known as Superfund, is the federal law that concerns the
removal or cleanup of hazardous substances in the environment and at
hazardous waste sites. ATSDR, which was created by CERCLA, is
responsible for assessing health issues and supporting public health
activities related to hazardous waste sites or other environmental
releases of hazardous substances. This law was later amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).

**Concentration**\
The amount of a substance present in a certain amount of soil, water,
air, food, blood, hair, urine, breath, or any other media.

**Contaminant**\
A substance that is either present in an environment where it does not
belong or is present at levels that might cause harmful (adverse) health
effects.

**Delayed health effect**\
A disease or an injury that happens as a result of exposures that might
have occurred in the past.

**Dermal**\
Referring to the skin. For example, dermal absorption means passing
through the skin.

**Dermal contact**\
Contact with (touching) the skin \[see route of exposure\].

**Descriptive epidemiology**\
The study of the amount and distribution of a disease in a specified
population by person, place, and time.

**Detection limit**\
The lowest concentration of a chemical that can reliably be
distinguished from a zero concentration.

**Disease prevention**\
Measures used to prevent a disease or reduce its severity.

**Disease registry**\
A system of ongoing registration of all cases of a particular disease or
health condition in a defined population.

**DOD**\
United States Department of Defense.

**DOE**\
United States Department of Energy.

**Dose (for chemicals that are not radioactive)**\
The amount of a substance to which a person is exposed over some time
period. Dose is a measurement of exposure. Dose is often expressed as
milligram (amount) per kilogram (a measure of body weight) per day (a
measure of time) when people eat or drink contaminated water, food, or
soil. In general, the greater the dose, the greater the likelihood of an
effect. An "exposure dose" is how much of a substance is encountered in
the environment. An "absorbed dose" is the amount of a substance that
actually got into the body through the eyes, skin, stomach, intestines,
or lungs.

**Dose (for radioactive chemicals)**\
The radiation dose is the amount of energy from radiation that is
actually absorbed by the body. This is not the same as measurements of
the amount of radiation in the environment.

**Dose-response relationship**\
The relationship between the amount of exposure \[dose\] to a substance
and the resulting changes in body function or health (response).

**Environmental media**\
Soil, water, air, biota (plants and animals), or any other parts of the
environment that can contain contaminants.

**Environmental media and transport mechanism**\
Environmental media include water, air, soil, and biota (plants and
animals). Transport mechanisms move contaminants from the source to
points where human exposure can occur. The environmental media and
transport mechanism is the second part of an exposure pathway.

**EPA**\
United States Environmental Protection Agency.

**Epidemiologic surveillance** \[see Public health surveillance\].

**Epidemiology**\
The study of the distribution and determinants of disease or health
status in a population; the study of the occurrence and causes of health
effects in humans.

**Exposure**\
Contact with a substance by swallowing, breathing, or touching the skin
or eyes. Exposure may be short-term \[acute exposure\], of intermediate
duration, or long-term \[chronic exposure\].

**Exposure assessment**\
The process of finding out how people come into contact with a hazardous
substance, how often and for how long they are in contact with the
substance, and how much of the substance they are in contact with.

**Exposure-dose reconstruction**\
A method of estimating the amount of people's past exposure to hazardous
substances. Computer and approximation methods are used when past
information is limited, not available, or missing.

**Exposure investigation**\
The collection and analysis of site-specific information and biologic
tests (when appropriate) to determine whether people have been exposed
to hazardous substances.

**Exposure pathway**\
The route a substance takes from its source (where it began) to its end
point (where it ends), and how people can come into contact with (or get
exposed to) it. An exposure pathway has five parts: a source of
contamination (such as an abandoned business); an environmental media
and transport mechanism (such as movement through groundwater); a point
of exposure (such as a private well); a route of exposure (eating,
drinking, breathing, or touching), and a receptor population (people
potentially or actually exposed). When all five parts are present, the
exposure pathway is termed a completed exposure pathway.

**Exposure registry**\
A system of ongoing followup of people who have had documented
environmental exposures.

**Feasibility study**\
A study by EPA to determine the best way to clean up environmental
contamination. A number of factors are considered, including health
risk, costs, and what methods will work well.

**Geographic information system (GIS)**\
A mapping system that uses computers to collect, store, manipulate,
analyze, and display data. For example, GIS can show the concentration
of a contaminant within a community in relation to points of reference
such as streets and homes.

**Grand rounds**\
Training sessions for physicians and other health care providers about
health topics.

**Groundwater**\
Water beneath the earth's surface in the spaces between soil particles
and between rock surfaces \[compare with surface water\].

**Half-life (t½)**\
The time it takes for half the original amount of a substance to
disappear. In the environment, the half-life is the time it takes for
half the original amount of a substance to disappear when it is changed
to another chemical by bacteria, fungi, sunlight, or other chemical
processes. In the human body, the half-life is the time it takes for
half the original amount of the substance to disappear, either by being
changed to another substance or by leaving the body. In the case of
radioactive material, the half life is the amount of time necessary for
one half the initial number of radioactive atoms to change or transform
into another atom (that is normally not radioactive). After two half
lives, 25% of the original number of radioactive atoms remain.

**Hazard**\
A source of potential harm from past, current, or future exposures.

**Hazardous Substance Release and Health Effects Database (HazDat)**\
The scientific and administrative database system developed by ATSDR to
manage data collection, retrieval, and analysis of site-specific
information on hazardous substances, community health concerns, and
public health activities.

**Hazardous waste**\
Potentially harmful substances that have been released or discarded into
the environment.

**Health consultation**\
A review of available information or collection of new data to respond
to a specific health question or request for information about a
potential environmental hazard. Health consultations are focused on a
specific exposure issue. Health consultations are therefore more limited
than a public health assessment, which reviews the exposure potential of
each pathway and chemical \[compare with public health assessment\].

**Health education**\
Programs designed with a community to help it know about health risks
and how to reduce these risks.

**Health investigation**\
The collection and evaluation of information about the health of
community residents. This information is used to describe or count the
occurrence of a disease, symptom, or clinical measure and to evaluate
the possible association between the occurrence and exposure to
hazardous substances.

**Health promotion**\
The process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve,
their health.

**Health statistics review**\
The analysis of existing health information (i.e., from death
certificates, birth defects registries, and cancer registries) to
determine if there is excess disease in a specific population,
geographic area, and time period. A health statistics review is a
descriptive epidemiologic study.

**Indeterminate public health hazard**\
The category used in ATSDR's public health assessment documents when a
professional judgment about the level of health hazard cannot be made
because information critical to such a decision is lacking.

**Incidence**\
The number of new cases of disease in a defined population over a
specific time period \[contrast with prevalence\].

**Ingestion**\
The act of swallowing something through eating, drinking, or mouthing
objects. A hazardous substance can enter the body this way \[see route
of exposure\].

**Inhalation**\
The act of breathing. A hazardous substance can enter the body this way
\[see route of exposure\].

**Intermediate duration exposure**\
Contact with a substance that occurs for more than 14 days and less than
a year \[compare with acute exposure and chronic exposure\].

**In vitro**\
In an artificial environment outside a living organism or body. For
example, some toxicity testing is done on cell cultures or slices of
tissue grown in the laboratory, rather than on a living animal \[compare
with in vivo\].

**In vivo**\
Within a living organism or body. For example, some toxicity testing is
done on whole animals, such as rats or mice \[compare with in vitro\].

**Lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL)**\
The lowest tested dose of a substance that has been reported to cause
harmful (adverse) health effects in people or animals.

**Medical monitoring**\
A set of medical tests and physical exams specifically designed to
evaluate whether an individual's exposure could negatively affect that
person's health.

**Metabolism**\
The conversion or breakdown of a substance from one form to another by a
living organism.

**Metabolite**\
Any product of metabolism.

**mg/kg**\
Milligram per kilogram.

**mg/cm^2^**\
Milligram per square centimeter (of a surface).

**mg/m^3^**\
Milligram per cubic meter; a measure of the concentration of a chemical
in a known volume (a cubic meter) of air, soil, or water.

**Migration**\
Moving from one location to another.

**Minimal risk level (MRL)**\
An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or
below which that substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of
harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route
of exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute,
intermediate, or chronic). MRLs should not be used as predictors of
harmful (adverse) health effects \[see reference dose\].

**Morbidity**\
State of being ill or diseased. Morbidity is the occurrence of a disease
or condition that alters health and quality of life.

**Mortality**\
Death. Usually the cause (a specific disease, a condition, or an injury)
is stated.

**Mutagen**\
A substance that causes mutations (genetic damage).

**Mutation**\
A change (damage) to the DNA, genes, or chromosomes of living organisms.

**National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
(National Priorities List or NPL)**\
EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste
sites in the United States. The NPL is updated on a regular basis.

**National Toxicology Program (NTP)**\
Part of the Department of Health and Human Services. NTP develops and
carries out tests to predict whether a chemical will cause harm to
humans.

**No apparent public health hazard**\
A category used in ATSDR's public health assessments for sites where
human exposure to contaminated media might be occurring, might have
occurred in the past, or might occur in the future, but where the
exposure is not expected to cause any harmful health effects.

**No-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL**)\
The highest tested dose of a substance that has been reported to have no
harmful (adverse) health effects on people or animals.

**No public health hazard**\
A category used in ATSDR's public health assessment documents for sites
where people have never and will never come into contact with harmful
amounts of site-related substances.

**NPL** \[see National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites\]

**Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model (PBPK model)**\
A computer model that describes what happens to a chemical in the body.
This model describes how the chemical gets into the body, where it goes
in the body, how it is changed by the body, and how it leaves the body.

**Pica**\
A craving to eat nonfood items, such as dirt, paint chips, and clay.
Some children exhibit pica-related behavior.

**Plume**\
A volume of a substance that moves from its source to places farther
away from the source. Plumes can be described by the volume of air or
water they occupy and the direction they move. For example, a plume can
be a column of smoke from a chimney or a substance moving with
groundwater.

**Point of exposure**\
The place where someone can come into contact with a substance present
in the environment \[see exposure pathway\].

**Population**\
A group or number of people living within a specified area or sharing
similar characteristics (such as occupation or age).

**Potentially responsible party (PRP)**\
A company, government, or person legally responsible for cleaning up the
pollution at a hazardous waste site under Superfund. There may be more
than one PRP for a particular site.

**ppb**\
Parts per billion.

**ppm**\
Parts per million.

**Prevalence**\
The number of existing disease cases in a defined population during a
specific time period \[contrast with incidence\].

**Prevalence survey**\
The measure of the current level of disease(s) or symptoms and exposures
through a questionnaire that collects self-reported information from a
defined population.

**Prevention**\
Actions that reduce exposure or other risks, keep people from getting
sick, or keep disease from getting worse.

**Public availability session**\
An informal, drop-by meeting at which community members can meet
one-on-one with ATSDR staff members to discuss health and site-related
concerns.

**Public comment period**\
An opportunity for the public to comment on agency findings or proposed
activities contained in draft reports or documents. The public comment
period is a limited time period during which comments will be accepted.

**Public health action**\
A list of steps to protect public health.

**Public health advisory**\
A statement made by ATSDR to EPA or a state regulatory agency that a
release of hazardous substances poses an immediate threat to human
health. The advisory includes recommended measures to reduce exposure
and reduce the threat to human health.

**Public health assessment (PHA)**\
An ATSDR document that examines hazardous substances, health outcomes,
and community concerns at a hazardous waste site to determine whether
people could be harmed from coming into contact with those substances.
The PHA also lists actions that need to be taken to protect public
health \[compare with health consultation\].

**Public health hazard**\
A category used in ATSDR's public health assessments for sites that pose
a public health hazard because of long-term exposures (greater than 1
year) to sufficiently high levels of hazardous substances or
radionuclides that could result in harmful health effects.

**Public health hazard categories**\
Public health hazard categories are statements about whether people
could be harmed by conditions present at the site in the past, present,
or future. One or more hazard categories might be appropriate for each
site. The five public health hazard categories are no public health
hazard, no apparent public health hazard, indeterminate public health
hazard, public health hazard, and urgent public health hazard.

**Public health statement**\
The first chapter of an ATSDR toxicological profile. The public health
statement is a summary written in words that are easy to understand. The
public health statement explains how people might be exposed to a
specific substance and describes the known health effects of that
substance.

**Public health surveillance**\
The ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of
health data. This activity also involves timely dissemination of the
data and use for public health programs.

**Public meeting**\
A public forum with community members for communication about a site.

**Radioisotope**\
An unstable or radioactive isotope (form) of an element that can change
into another element by giving off radiation.

**Radionuclide**\
Any radioactive isotope (form) of any element.

**RCRA** \[see Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976, 1984)\]

**Receptor population**\
People who could come into contact with hazardous substances \[see
exposure pathway\].

**Reference dose (RfD)**\
An EPA estimate, with uncertainty or safety factors built in, of the
daily lifetime dose of a substance that is unlikely to cause harm in
humans.

**Registry**\
A systematic collection of information on persons exposed to a specific
substance or having specific diseases \[see exposure registry and
disease registry\].

**Remedial investigation**\
The CERCLA process of determining the type and extent of hazardous
material contamination at a site.

**Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976, 1984) (RCRA)**\
This Act regulates management and disposal of hazardous wastes currently
generated, treated, stored, disposed of, or distributed.

**RFA**\
RCRA Facility Assessment. An assessment required by RCRA to identify
potential and actual releases of hazardous chemicals.

**RfD** \[see reference dose\]

**Risk**\
The probability that something will cause injury or harm.

**Risk reduction**\
Actions that can decrease the likelihood that individuals, groups, or
communities will experience disease or other health conditions.

**Risk communication**\
The exchange of information to increase understanding of health risks.

**Route of exposure**\
The way people come into contact with a hazardous substance. Three
routes of exposure are breathing \[inhalation\], eating or drinking
\[ingestion\], or contact with the skin \[dermal contact\].

**Safety factor** \[see uncertainty factor\]

**SARA** \[see Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act\]

**Sample**\
A portion or piece of a whole. A selected subset of a population or
subset of whatever is being studied. For example, in a study of people
the sample is a number of people chosen from a larger population \[see
population\]. An environmental sample (for example, a small amount of
soil or water) might be collected to measure contamination in the
environment at a specific location.

**Sample size**\
The number of units chosen from a population or an environment.

**Solvent**\
A liquid capable of dissolving or dispersing another substance (for
example, acetone or mineral spirits).

**Source of contamination**\
The place where a hazardous substance comes from, such as a landfill,
waste pond, incinerator, storage tank, or drum. A source of
contamination is the first part of an exposure pathway.

**Special populations**\
People who might be more sensitive or susceptible to exposure to
hazardous substances because of factors such as age, occupation, sex, or
behaviors (for example, cigarette smoking). Children, pregnant women,
and older people are often considered special populations.

**Stakeholder**\
A person, group, or community who has an interest in activities at a
hazardous waste site.

**Statistics**\
A branch of mathematics that deals with collecting, reviewing,
summarizing, and interpreting data or information. Statistics are used
to determine whether differences between study groups are meaningful.

**Substance**\
A chemical.

**Substance-specific applied research**\
A program of research designed to fill important data needs for specific
hazardous substances identified in ATSDR's toxicological profiles.
Filling these data needs would allow more accurate assessment of human
risks from specific substances contaminating the environment. This
research might include human studies or laboratory experiments to
determine health effects resulting from exposure to a given hazardous
substance.

**Superfund** \[see Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)\]

**Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)**\
In 1986, SARA amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and expanded the
health-related responsibilities of ATSDR. CERCLA and SARA direct ATSDR
to look into the health effects from substance exposures at hazardous
waste sites and to perform activities including health education, health
studies, surveillance, health consultations, and toxicological profiles.

**Surface water**\
Water on the surface of the earth, such as in lakes, rivers, streams,
ponds, and springs \[compare with groundwater\].

**Surveillance** \[see public health surveillance\]

**Survey**\
A systematic collection of information or data. A survey can be
conducted to collect information from a group of people or from the
environment. Surveys of a group of people can be conducted by telephone,
by mail, or in person. Some surveys are done by interviewing a group of
people \[see prevalence survey\].

**Synergistic effect**\
A biologic response to multiple substances where one substance worsens
the effect of another substance. The combined effect of the substances
acting together is greater than the sum of the effects of the substances
acting by themselves \[see additive effect and antagonistic effect\].

**Teratogen**\
A substance that causes defects in development between conception and
birth. A teratogen is a substance that causes a structural or functional
birth defect.

**Toxic agent**\
Chemical or physical (for example, radiation, heat, cold, microwaves)
agents that, under certain circumstances of exposure, can cause harmful
effects to living organisms.

**Toxicological profile**\
An ATSDR document that examines, summarizes, and interprets information
about a hazardous substance to determine harmful levels of exposure and
associated health effects. A toxicological profile also identifies
significant gaps in knowledge on the substance and describes areas where
further research is needed.

**Toxicology**\
The study of the harmful effects of substances on humans or animals.

**Tumor**\
An abnormal mass of tissue that results from excessive cell division
that is uncontrolled and progressive. Tumors perform no useful body
function. Tumors can be either benign (not cancer) or malignant
(cancer).

**Uncertainty factor**\
Mathematical adjustments for reasons of safety when knowledge is
incomplete. For example, factors used in the calculation of doses that
are not harmful (adverse) to people. These factors are applied to the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) or the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) to derive a minimal risk level
(MRL). Uncertainty factors are used to account for variations in
people's sensitivity, for differences between animals and humans, and
for differences between a LOAEL and a NOAEL. Scientists use uncertainty
factors when they have some, but not all, the information from animal or
human studies to decide whether an exposure will cause harm to people
\[also sometimes called a safety factor\].

**Urgent public health hazard**\
A category used in ATSDR's public health assessments for sites where
short-term exposures (less than 1 year) to hazardous substances or
conditions could result in harmful health effects that require rapid
intervention.

**Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)**\
Organic compounds that evaporate readily into the air. VOCs include
substances such as benzene, toluene, methylene chloride, and methyl
chloroform.

**Other glossaries and dictionaries:**\
Environmental Protection Agency
([http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/](http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms))\
National Center for Environmental Health (CDC)
(http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/glossary.htm)\
National Library of Medicine (NIH)
(<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html>)

**For more information on the work of ATSDR, please contact:**\
Office of Policy and External Affairs\
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry\
1600 Clifton Road, N.E. (MS E-60)\
Atlanta, GA 30333\
Telephone: (404) 498-0080

# Appendix B. Estimates of Human Exposure Doses and Determination of Health Effects {#appendix-b.-estimates-of-human-exposure-doses-and-determination-of-health-effects .Title-Heading-1}

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| The health  | The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry   |
| effects     | (ATSDR) evaluated exposures to (1) groundwater; (2)    |
| evaluation  | soil; (3) surface water and sediment in Haynes Creek;  |
| consists of | and (4) air at the Yakliske Metals and Reclamation     |
| two pieces: | Company (YMR) site. To do so, ATSDR evaluated          |
| a screening | available data to determine whether contaminants were  |
| analysis    | above ATSDR's comparison values (CVs). For those that  |
| and, at     | were, ATSDR derived exposure doses and compared them   |
| some sites, | against health-based guidelines. ATSDR also reviewed   |
| based on    | relevant toxicological data to obtain information      |
| the results | about the toxicity of contaminants of interest.        |
| of the      |                                                        |
| screening   |                                                        |
| analysis    |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| community   |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| concerns, a |                                                        |
| more        |                                                        |
| in-depth    |                                                        |
| analysis to |                                                        |
| determine   |                                                        |
| possible    |                                                        |
| public      |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| i           |                                                        |
| mplications |                                                        |
| of          |                                                        |
| si          |                                                        |
| te-specific |                                                        |
| exposures.  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Health      | ## Comparing Data to ATSDR's CVs {#comp                |
| assessors   | aring-data-to-atsdrs-cvs .Title-Heading-2 .unnumbered} |
| should      |                                                        |
| ensure that | CVs are derived using conservative exposure            |
| they are    | assumptions. CVs reflect concentrations that are much  |
| using the   | lower than those that have been observed to cause      |
| most        | adverse health effects. Thus, CVs are protective of    |
| appropriate | public health in essentially all exposure situations.  |
| and         | As a result, concentrations detected at or below       |
| up-to-date  | ATSDR's CVs are not considered to warrant health       |
| comparison  | concern. While concentrations at or below the relevant |
| values.     | CV may reasonably be considered safe, it does not      |
| ATSDR       | automatically follow that any environmental            |
| regularly   | concentration that exceeds a CV would be expected to   |
| updates its | produce adverse health effects. It cannot be           |
| en          | emphasized strongly enough that CVs are not thresholds |
| vironmental | of toxicity. The likelihood that adverse health        |
| and health  | outcomes will actually occur depends on site-specific  |
| guidelines. | conditions and individual lifestyle and genetic        |
| The most    | factors that affect the route, magnitude, and duration |
| current     | of actual exposure, and not an environmental           |
| values are  | concentration alone.                                   |
| entered     |                                                        |
| into        | For this public health assessment (PHA), ATSDR         |
| ATSDR's     | evaluated data that were collected from groundwater,   |
| Hazardous   | surface soil, surface water, sediment, biota, and air  |
| Substance   | to determine whether people were exposed to            |
| Database    | contaminant concentrations that exceeded ATSDR's CVs.  |
| (HazDat).   | Most detected contaminants fell at or below CVs and    |
| Detailed    | were not evaluated further (see Table 2 through Table  |
| information | 5). Only arsenic in groundwater and PCBs in soil were  |
| about       | detected above CVs. Contaminants that were above CVs   |
| ATSDR's     | were deemed worthy of further evaluation, prompting    |
| substan     | ATSDR to estimate exposure doses (i.e., the amount of  |
| ce-specific | chemical a person is exposed to over time) using       |
| health      | site-specific exposure assumptions.                    |
| guidelines  |                                                        |
| (MRLs) is   |                                                        |
| provided in |                                                        |
| ATSDR's     |                                                        |
| To          |                                                        |
| xicological |                                                        |
| Profiles.   |                                                        |
| Information |                                                        |
| about EPA's |                                                        |
| health      |                                                        |
| guidelines  |                                                        |
| (RfDs) is   |                                                        |
| reported in |                                                        |
| EPA's       |                                                        |
| Information |                                                        |
| Risk        |                                                        |
| Information |                                                        |
| System      |                                                        |
| (IRIS)      |                                                        |
| database:   |                                                        |
| [*http://   |                                                        |
| www.epa.gov |                                                        |
| /iris*](htt |                                                        |
| p://www.epa |                                                        |
| .gov/iris/) |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| The         | ## Deriving Exposure Doses {                           |
| drinking    | #deriving-exposure-doses .Title-Heading-2 .unnumbered} |
| water       |                                                        |
| ingestion   | ATSDR derived exposure doses for those contaminants    |
| rates used  | that were detected above ATSDR's CVs or did not have   |
| in the      | CVs. When estimating exposure doses, health assessors  |
| analysis (2 | evaluate (1) contaminant concentrations to which       |
| L/day       | people may have been exposed and (2) length of time    |
| adults; 1   | and the frequency of exposure. Together, these factors |
| L/day       | influence an individual's physiological response to    |
| children)   | chemical contaminant exposure and potential outcomes.  |
| are ATSDR   | Where possible, ATSDR used site-specific information   |
| defaults.   | about the frequency and duration of exposures. In      |
| You should  | cases where site-specific information was not          |
| evaluate    | available, ATSDR applied several conservative exposure |
| whether the | assumptions to estimate exposures for area residents.  |
| default     |                                                        |
| ingestion   | The following equation was used to estimate exposure   |
| rates are   | to contaminants in groundwater:                        |
| rep         |                                                        |
| resentative | Estimated exposure dose = [Conc. x IR x EF x           |
| of          | ED]{.underline}                                        |
| conditions  |                                                        |
| specific    | > BW x AT                                              |
| for your    |                                                        |
| site (e.g., | where:                                                 |
| climate and |                                                        |
| use         | > Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per million    |
| patterns).  | > (ppm)                                                |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > IR: Ingestion rate: adult = 2 liters per day; child  |
|             | > = 1 liter per day                                    |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events |
|             | > per year of exposure: 365 days/year                  |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which    |
|             | > exposure occurs:\                                    |
|             | > adult = 30 years; child = 6 years                    |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 10 kg        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | AT: Averaging time, or the period over which           |
|             | cumulative exposures are averaged (6 years or 30 years |
|             | x 365 days/year for noncancer effects;\                |
|             | 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | The following equation was used to estimate exposure   |
|             | to contaminants in surface soil:                       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Estimated exposure dose = [Conc. x IR x EF x           |
|             | ED]{.underline}                                        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | > BW x AT                                              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | where:                                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | > Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per million    |
|             | > (ppm)                                                |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > IR: Ingestion rate: adult = 100 milligrams (mg) per  |
|             | > day; child = 200 mg per day                          |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events |
|             | > per year of exposure: 365 days/year                  |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which    |
|             | > exposure occurs:\                                    |
|             | > adult = 30 years; child = 6 years                    |
|             | >                                                      |
|             | > BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 10 kg        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | AT: Averaging time, or the period over which           |
|             | cumulative exposures are averaged (6 years or 30 years |
|             | x 365 days/year for noncancer effects;\                |
|             | 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | ## Using Exposure Doses to Evaluate Potent             |
|             | ial Health Hazards {#using-exposure-doses-to-evaluate- |
|             | potential-health-hazards .Title-Heading-2 .unnumbered} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR performs an in-depth evaluation to determine     |
|             | whether exposures might be associated with adverse     |
|             | health effects (noncancer and cancer). As part of this |
|             | process, ATSDR examines relevant toxicologic, medical, |
|             | and epidemiologic data to determine whether estimated  |
|             | doses are likely to result in adverse health effects.  |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| This is     | ATSDR compares estimated exposure doses to standard    |
| where you   | health guideline values, including ATSDR's minimal     |
| evaluate    | risk levels (MRLs) and the U.S. Environmental          |
| and         | Protection Agency's (EPA's) reference doses (RfDs).    |
| integrate   | The MRLs and RfDs are protective estimates of daily    |
| exposure    | human exposure to a substance that are unlikely to     |
| data        | result in noncancer effects over a specified duration. |
| (si         | These chemical-specific estimates, which are intended  |
| te-specific | to serve as screening levels, are used by the ATSDR    |
| exposure    | health assessor to identify contaminants and potential |
| conditions  | health effects that are not expected to cause adverse  |
| that have   | health effects. Estimated exposure doses that are less |
| been        | than these values are not considered to be of health   |
| studied     | concern. To maximize human health protection, MRLs and |
| throughout  | RfDs have built-in uncertainty or safety factors,      |
| the public  | making these values considerably lower than levels at  |
| health      | which health effects have been observed. Therefore, if |
| assessment  | an exposure dose is much higher than the MRL or RfD,   |
| process)    | it does not necessarily follow that adverse health     |
| and         | effects will occur.                                    |
| substan     |                                                        |
| ce-specific | If health guideline values are exceeded, ATSDR         |
| health      | examines the effect levels seen in the literature and  |
| effects     | more fully reviews exposure potential to help predict  |
| data        | the likelihood of adverse health outcomes. ATSDR looks |
| (t          | at human studies, when available, as well as           |
| oxicologic, | experimental animal studies. This information is used  |
| epi         | to describe the disease-causing potential of a         |
| demiologic, | particular contaminant and compare site-specific dose  |
| and health  | estimates with doses shown to result in illness in     |
| outcome     | applicable studies (known as the margin of exposure).  |
| data).      | For cancer effects, ATSDR also reviews studies to      |
|             | determine the mode of action of a carcinogen and       |
| The output  | whether a threshold for its carcinogenicity might      |
| of the      | exist. This process enables ATSDR to weigh the         |
| analysis is | available evidence, in light of uncertainties, and     |
| a           | offer perspective on the plausibility of adverse       |
| qualitative | health outcomes under site-specific conditions.        |
| description |                                                        |
| of whether  |                                                        |
| site        |                                                        |
| exposure    |                                                        |
| conditions  |                                                        |
| are of      |                                                        |
| sufficient  |                                                        |
| nature,     |                                                        |
| frequency,  |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| magnitude   |                                                        |
| to          |                                                        |
| adversely   |                                                        |
| affect      |                                                        |
| public      |                                                        |
| health.     |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | ## Evaluation of Health                                |
|             | Hazards Associated with YMR {#evaluation-of-health-haz |
|             | ards-associated-with-ymr .Title-Heading-2 .unnumbered} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR identified several pathways that had the         |
|             | potential to lead to exposures (please refer to Table  |
|             | 1). For each of these completed and potential          |
|             | pathways, contaminant concentrations were compared to  |
|             | CVs when the data were available. Many of the          |
|             | contaminants were detected below their corresponding   |
|             | CVs. Only arsenic in groundwater and PCBs in soil were |
|             | detected above CVs. Therefore, exposure doses were     |
|             | calculated for these two pathways. More detail about   |
|             | each of the exposure pathways follows.                 |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | ### G                                                  |
|             | roundwater {#groundwater .Title-Heading-3 .unnumbered} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Estimated arsenic doses in children and adults fall    |
|             | below levels at which observable effects have been     |
|             | reported in *human* studies, but by a factor of less   |
|             | than 10. Because of uncertainties regarding the        |
|             | toxicity of arsenic at low doses and the consistent    |
|             | detections of arsenic in the tested wells, prudent     |
|             | public health practice called for reducing exposures.  |
|             | Additional perspective is provided below.              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

  --------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  The average     ATSDR evaluated both acute (short-term exposure to the
  concentration   highest detected concentration) and chronic (longer-term
  within a single exposure to the average detected concentration in the
  well is a more  most contaminated well). The average level for the
  appropriate     private well with the most elevated arsenic levels
  concentration   (WV-001) is 54 ppb. ATSDR considers this a reasonable
  for evaluating  estimate when evaluating possible long-term exposures.
  chronic health  The maximum detected concentration was 87 ppb. See Table
  effects. The    B-1.
  maximum value   
  should be       
  considered,     
  however, when   
  evaluating      
  possible acute  
  effects.        

  --------------- --------------------------------------------------------

# Table B-1. Estimated Arsenic Exposure Doses Compared to Screening Values and Observed Effect Levels {#table-b-1.-estimated-arsenic-exposure-doses-compared-to-screening-values-and-observed-effect-levels .Caption}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Exposure Situation</td>
<td rowspan="2">Exposure Concentration</td>
<td colspan="4">Estimated Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day)</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><p>MRL</p>
<p>(mg/kg/day)</p></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><p>NOAEL</p>
<p>(mg/kg/day)</p></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><p>LOAEL</p>
<p>(mg/kg/day)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Adult</td>
<td colspan="2">Child</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Acute</td>
<td colspan="2">87 ppb</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0025</td>
<td colspan="2">0.008</td>
<td colspan="2">0.005</td>
<td colspan="2">--</td>
<td>0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Chronic</td>
<td colspan="2">54 ppb</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0015</td>
<td colspan="2">0.005</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0003</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0008</td>
<td>0.014</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Consult     | Number range CHAPTERAcute doses fall below (adult) or  |
| with a      | slightly above (child) ATSDR's Number range            |
| t           | CHAPTERacute MRL of 0.005 mg/kg/day. Therefore, anyone |
| oxicologist | drinking water with even the highest level of arsenic  |
| as needed.  | detected for a short period of time would not be at    |
|             | risk for harmful effects.                              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | If an adult drank 8 glasses (2 liters) of water a day, |
|             | that person's estimated dose would be **0.0015         |
|             | mg/kg/day**, exceeding ATSDR's chronic MRL. Assuming a |
|             | child drank half that amount of water, the estimated   |
|             | child dose would be **0.0054 mg/kg/day**. To determine |
|             | whether harmful effects are possible, it is important  |
|             | now to compare the estimated dose in these adults to   |
|             | doses in human studies where harmful effects were      |
|             | observed. These doses are approximately 3 to 9 times   |
|             | lower than observed effect levels in *human* studies.  |
|             | So, what does this mean?                               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR's chronic MRL is based on a study of 40,000      |
|             | persons in Taiwan who unknowingly used groundwater     |
|             | with arsenic for roughly 45 years (ATSDR 2000a).       |
|             | Because arsenic contamination was so high, people of   |
|             | all ages experienced harmful effects to the skin       |
|             | (specifically small blotches of increased skin         |
|             | pigmentation known as hyperpigmentation and a scaly    |
|             | skin condition known as keratosis), skin cancer, and   |
|             | several types of internal cancer.[^2] The typical      |
|             | level of arsenic in drinking water was about 500 ppb,  |
|             | although some wells had as little as 50 ppb and some   |
|             | had more than 1,000 ppb. From this study, ATSDR        |
|             | selected an estimate of the lowest dose that is most   |
|             | likely to result in harmful effects. This dose is      |
|             | referred to as the lowest-observed-adverse-effect      |
|             | level (LOAEL). The LOAEL in the Chinese study was      |
|             | 0.014 mg/kg/day. The Chinese study also identified a   |
|             | dose at which no harmful effects were seen. This       |
|             | no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was 0.0008    |
|             | mg/kg/day (ATSDR 2000a).                               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | As can be seen, estimated doses for children and       |
|             | adults are 3 and 9 times, respectively, lower than the |
|             | lowest level at which harmful skin effects were        |
|             | reported in the Chinese study. This "margin of         |
|             | exposure" as it is sometimes referred to is small      |
|             | enough that some reduction of exposure is advisable.   |
|             | It is important to realize, however, that exposure has |
|             | to occur for 10 to 40 years before damage to the skin  |
|             | occurs. Knowing that 10 to 40 years of exposure is     |
|             | needed adds some uncertainty in deciding whether or    |
|             | not harmful effects might occur because ATSDR only has |
|             | information about arsenic levels in the past few       |
|             | years. Should arsenic levels in the wells go down, the |
|             | risk of harmful effects would decrease; should arsenic |
|             | levels in the wells go up, the risk of harmful effects |
|             | might be increased should the same people continue to  |
|             | drink the water for several decades. It is important   |
|             | to know that drinking the water one time, a few times, |
|             | or even for a few years is not likely to cause the     |
|             | noncancerous skin problems mentioned because the       |
|             | exposure period is too short (ATSDR 2000a).            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Regarding possible cancer effects, much uncertainty    |
|             | exists. Arsenic is classified as a known human         |
|             | carcinogen. At relatively high doses, several          |
|             | epidemiologic studies and case reports link the        |
|             | ingestion of inorganic arsenic with an increased risk  |
|             | of developing skin cancer, and possibly some internal  |
|             | cancer. However, scientists are uncertain about the    |
|             | behavior of arsenic in the body at low doses. Some     |
|             | data suggest that a person's body can safely handle a  |
|             | certain amount of arsenic before producing toxic       |
|             | effects; some believe this holds true for cancer.      |
|             | Given the uncertainties, scientists use very           |
|             | conservative models in extrapolating from observed     |
|             | effect levels to screening levels such as the slope    |
|             | factor used in deriving theoretical excess cancer      |
|             | risk.                                                  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | If one looks at drinking water studies in this country |
|             | and abroad, one generally sees that cancer effects are |
|             | not observed at arsenic concentrations at or near the  |
|             | concentrations observed in YMR private wells. Many of  |
|             | the available studies relate to non-U.S. populations   |
|             | where the reliability of exposure data is questionable |
|             | and many differences in health and nutrition make      |
|             | direct comparisons difficult. Some studies in this     |
|             | country may offer better perspective, but they are     |
|             | smaller scale and do not offer the statistical power   |
|             | of some of the studies done abroad. These studies do   |
|             | suggest that skin cancer from drinking water exposures |
|             | to arsenic is not common in this country; no increases |
|             | of skin cancer have been seen in small populations     |
|             | drinking 100 to 200 ppb arsenic in their water. These  |
|             | concentrations are higher than those detected in       |
|             | tested wells (ATSDR 2000a).                            |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             | ### Sur                                                |
|             | face Soil {#surface-soil .Title-Heading-3 .unnumbered} |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Number range CHAPTERThis section documents in detail   |
|             | ATSDR's evaluation of exposures to PCB-contaminated    |
|             | surface soils at four off-site properties at YMR.      |
|             | Overall, the estimated exposures to PCBs               |
|             | (specifically, Aroclor 1254) in both adults and        |
|             | children are lower than levels at which observable     |
|             | effects have been reported in humans and in laboratory |
|             | animals. The estimated exposure dose for children is   |
|             | less than 10 times lower than these effects levels---a |
|             | margin that is rather small, especially considering    |
|             | the uncertainties regarding the toxicity of PCBs and   |
|             | the possibility of additional absorption through the   |
|             | skin. Therefore, prudent public health practice calls  |
|             | for reducing exposures to ensure that child residents  |
|             | of the contaminated properties do not experience       |
|             | PCB-related health effects. The remainder of this      |
|             | section describes how this conclusion was reached.     |
|             | ATSDR considered the public health implications of     |
|             | exposure for three exposure durations: acute (less     |
|             | than 14 days), intermediate (between 14 days and 1     |
|             | year), and chronic (greater than 1 year). Noncancer    |
|             | outcomes are reviewed first, followed by cancer        |
|             | outcomes.                                              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | *Acute Exposures (noncancer)*. No health-based         |
|             | comparison values have been published by any source    |
|             | for short-term (or acute) exposures to PCBs.           |
|             | Similarly, no data are available on adverse health     |
|             | effects in humans following acute ingestion exposure   |
|             | to PCBs. However, more than a dozen studies of         |
|             | laboratory animals have reported harmful effects       |
|             | following acute ingestion exposures (ATSDR 2000b). The |
|             | lowest exposure level found to produce harmful effects |
|             | following acute exposures was 1.0 mg/kg/day; in this   |
|             | study, rats experienced changes in their blood         |
|             | cholesterol levels and liver weight following 4 days   |
|             | of exposure (ATSDR 2000b). Using the standard dose     |
|             | calculation equation shown above, ATSDR found that a   |
|             | child who weighs 20 pounds and lives at the most       |
|             | contaminated home would have to eat approximately 0.25 |
|             | pounds of soil per day to reach the lowest acute       |
|             | exposure dose found to be associated with harmful      |
|             | health effects. This soil ingestion rate is far        |
|             | greater than any reported in the literature, even for  |
|             | pica children (ATSDR 2001). Therefore, children who    |
|             | live in the four affected homes likely will not        |
|             | experience harmful exposures following acute exposures |
|             | to surface soils.                                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | *Intermediate exposures (noncancer)*. ATSDR's          |
|             | intermediate MRL for PCB exposure is 0.00003           |
|             | mg/kg/day, based on a laboratory animal study of       |
|             | monkeys (see Appendix A in ATSDR 2000b). In the study, |
|             | monkeys were administered PCBs orally three times a    |
|             | day via a syringe to the back of the mouth---a dosing  |
|             | method that is similar to breast-feeding exposure.     |
|             | This dosing started at birth and continued for 20      |
|             | weeks. The group of monkeys with exposure doses of     |
|             | 0.0075 mg/kg/day, when compared to those that were not |
|             | dosed with PCBs, were found to have impaired           |
|             | performance on tasks used to test for neurobehavioral  |
|             | toxicity. Therefore, 0.0075 mg/kg/day is reported as a |
|             | LOAEL for intermediate exposure to PCBs. ATSDR applied |
|             | an uncertainty factor of 300 to this LOAEL to derive   |
|             | an intermediate MRL of 0.00003 mg/kg/day. Results from |
|             | other laboratory animal studies have found PCB-related |
|             | immunologic effects and various clinical               |
|             | manifestations of toxicity (e.g., ocular effects) at   |
|             | similar exposure doses, thus providing some confidence |
|             | that the LOAEL identified for the MRL study is a       |
|             | reasonable indicator of exposure doses at which toxic  |
|             | effects might be expected to occur in laboratory       |
|             | animals.                                               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Table B-2 compares the estimated ingestion exposures   |
|             | for residents of the four properties near YMR with     |
|             | PCB-contaminated surface soils to the MRLs and LOAELs  |
|             | discussed above. The estimated exposure doses were     |
|             | calculated using the equations cited previously.       |
|             | Inputs to this equation included the highest           |
|             | property-average surface soil concentration of PCBs    |
|             | and ATSDR default exposure factors for body weight (10 |
|             | kg and 70 kg for children and adults, respectively)    |
|             | and soil ingestion rate (200 mg/day and 100 mg/day for |
|             | children and adults, respectively). These parameters   |
|             | are believed to offer reasonable accounts of actual    |
|             | ingestion exposures. As Table B-2 shows, the estimated |
|             | exposure dose for children is less than 4 times lower  |
|             | than the LOAEL for neurobehavioral toxicity, while     |
|             | exposure doses for adults are 75 times lower than this |
|             | LOAEL. In summary, the estimated exposure levels are   |
|             | lower than the lowest effect levels reported in animal |
|             | studies; however, because the estimated doses are less |
|             | than 5 times below these LOAELs, prudent public health |
|             | practice calls for action to prevent or reduce         |
|             | exposures.                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | ATSDR acknowledges that this evaluation involves some  |
|             | uncertainty. One possible source of uncertainty is the |
|             | fact that the dose calculations do not consider the    |
|             | bioavailability of PCBs in soils. Food ingestion       |
|             | studies, however, indicate that the human              |
|             | gastrointestinal tract efficiently absorbs PCBs (ATSDR |
|             | 2000b). Another source of uncertainty is the quality   |
|             | of the laboratory animal studies and the relevance of  |
|             | these studies to human toxicity. ATSDR scientists and  |
|             | external peer reviewers extensively reviewed the       |
|             | quality of the study; these individuals concluded that |
|             | the study provides an adequate basis for an MRL. Note, |
|             | though, that some laboratory studies of animals other  |
|             | than monkeys did not detect neurobehavioral deficits   |
|             | at the doses considered in the MRL; this difference    |
|             | could result from many factors (e.g., different        |
|             | exposure doses, inter-species differences, evaluation  |
|             | of different end points). Regarding the relevance of   |
|             | the study to humans, ATSDR notes that subtle           |
|             | neurobehavioral deficits have been observed in human   |
|             | populations exposed to PCBs (ATSDR 2000b). These human |
|             | studies have inherent limitations, most notably that   |
|             | they cannot attribute the observed deficits            |
|             | specifically to PCB exposure. However, the consistency |
|             | between the animal and human studies provides some     |
|             | assurance that this evaluation does not misrepresent   |
|             | the toxicity of PCBs.                                  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | *Chronic Exposures (noncancer)*. ATSDR's chronic MRL   |
|             | for PCB exposure is 0.00002 mg/kg/day, and is also     |
|             | based on a laboratory animal study of monkeys (see     |
|             | Appendix A in ATSDR 2000b). In the study, groups of    |
|             | monkeys were administered different dose levels of     |
|             | Aroclor 1254 in capsules orally for 23 months. Several |
|             | end points related to immunotoxicity were examined.    |
|             | Monkeys at all dose levels were found to have          |
|             | decreased antibody production in responses to          |
|             | challenges of sheep red blood cell antigens, while     |
|             | monkeys in the control group did not have impaired     |
|             | immune responses. Based on this finding, 0.005         |
|             | mg/kg/day (the lowest dose level) is reported as a     |
|             | LOAEL for chronic exposure to PCBs. ATSDR applied an   |
|             | uncertainty factor of 300 to this LOAEL to derive a    |
|             | chronic MRL of 0.00002 mg/kg/day. Results from other   |
|             | laboratory animal studies have found PCB-related       |
|             | immunologic effects and various clinical               |
|             | manifestations of toxicity (e.g., ocular effects) at   |
|             | similar exposure doses, thus providing some confidence |
|             | that the LOAEL identified for the MRL study is a       |
|             | reasonable indicator of exposure doses at which toxic  |
|             | effects might be expected to occur in laboratory       |
|             | animals.                                               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Table B-2 compares the estimated ingestion exposures   |
|             | for residents of the four properties near YMR with     |
|             | PCB-contaminated surface soils to the MRLs and LOAELs  |
|             | discussed above. The estimated exposure doses were     |
|             | calculated using the equations cited previously and    |
|             | are believed to offer reasonable accounts of actual    |
|             | ingestion exposures. As Table B-2 shows, the estimated |
|             | exposure dose for children is less than 3 times lower  |
|             | than the LOAEL for immunotoxicity, while exposure      |
|             | doses for adults are 50 times lower than this LOAEL.   |
|             | Based on this evaluation, it is possible that children |
|             | who live in the four homes near YMR with               |
|             | PCB-contaminated surface soils might experience immune |
|             | system effects.                                        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | This health effects evaluation does involve            |
|             | uncertainty, primarily that associated with the        |
|             | relevance of the laboratory animal study considered    |
|             | for the MRL. In April 2000, ATSDR convened an expert   |
|             | panel to review the agency's Toxicological Profile for |
|             | PCBs (see Appendix E in ATSDR 2000b). That panel       |
|             | generally agreed that the immunotoxicity study listed  |
|             | above was well conducted, examined endpoints relevant  |
|             | to humans, and serves an adequate basis for ATSDR's    |
|             | MRL. Further, ATSDR notes that multiple human studies  |
|             | have examined the potential immunotoxicity of PCBs.    |
|             | ATSDR has found that the individual human studies      |
|             | provide limited evidence of PCB immunotoxicity;        |
|             | however, ATSDR concluded that "there is a consistency  |
|             | of effects among the human studies suggesting          |
|             | sensitivity of the immune system to PCBs" (ATSDR       |
|             | 2000b). This consistency between animal and human      |
|             | studies, at least in a general sense, again provides   |
|             | some assurance that this health effects evaluation     |
|             | provides a reasonable account of the chronic toxicity  |
|             | of PCBs.                                               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | *Cancer Evaluation*. PCBs have been found to cause     |
|             | cancer in controlled studies of laboratory animals,    |
|             | but evidence for carcinogenicity in humans is less     |
|             | clear. EPA has concluded that PCBs are "probable human |
|             | carcinogens," based on sufficient animal studies, but  |
|             | inadequate information in humans. Similarly, the       |
|             | International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has |
|             | classified PCBs as "probably carcinogenic to humans,"  |
|             | based on sufficient evidence from animals and limited  |
|             | human evidence. Finally, the National Toxicology       |
|             | Program (NTP) has found PCBs to be "reasonably         |
|             | anticipated to be a carcinogen."                       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | EPA has published a cancer slope factor for Aroclor    |
|             | 1254. This factor is used to calculate theoretical     |
|             | cancer risks for purposes of identifying sites that    |
|             | require environmental clean-up. Given the limited      |
|             | evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and the          |
|             | magnitude of the theoretical cancer risk, ATSDR        |
|             | concludes that exposure to contaminated surface soils  |
|             | is not expected to cause an increase in cancer         |
|             | outcomes. Clean-up of the contaminated soils (which is |
|             | recommended due to the possibility that children might |
|             | experience noncancer outcomes) should effectively      |
|             | reduce PCB-related cancer risks to zero.               |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| ATSDR       | *Dermal Exposure*. Unlike the evaluation for           |
| generally   | incidental ingestion, dermal contact with soil is not  |
| considers   | evaluated quantitatively through deriving exposure     |
| that for    | doses. Rather, this evaluation is a qualitative        |
| most        | discussion of the potential for absorption into the    |
| exposure    | body through the skin. Considerable uncertainty exists |
| scenarios   | for quantitatively estimating dermal exposure,         |
| dermal      | especially for contact with soil, because there is     |
| exposure is | very little chemical-specific data available and the   |
| a minor     | predictive techniques have not been well validated     |
| contributor | (EPA 1992; 2001).                                      |
| to the      |                                                        |
| overall     | The dermal route of exposure can contribute to the     |
| exposure    | accumulation of PCBs in people. In vitro studies in    |
| dose. If    | human cadaver skin indicate that less than 3% of PCBs  |
| dermal      | in soil are retained in human skin and in vivo studies |
| exposures   | in Rhesus monkeys indicate that 14% of the             |
| are a       | administered dose was absorbed (ATSDR 2000b).          |
| particular  | Therefore, dermal exposure to PCBs in the soil can     |
| concern at  | lead to an increase in the overall dose. While the     |
| your site,  | amount of PCBs absorbed through the skin is difficult  |
| dermal      | to quantify, it would be expected to result in a much  |
| exposures   | lower dose than previously discussed in the incidental |
| can be      | ingestion pathway because the absorption is less       |
| qua         | efficient by the dermal route than through ingestion   |
| ntitatively | (ATSDR 2000b).                                         |
| evaluated.  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

# Table B-2. Estimated Exposure Doses to Aroclor 1254 in Surface Soil Compared to Screening Values and Observed Effect Levels {#table-b-2.-estimated-exposure-doses-to-aroclor-1254-in-surface-soil-compared-to-screening-values-and-observed-effect-levels .Caption}

+----------+---+-----------+------+------+----------+---------+---+---------+
| Exposure |   | Exposure  | E    |      | MRL      | NOAEL   |   | LOAEL   |
| S        |   | Conc      | stim |      |          |         |   |         |
| ituation |   | entration | ated |      | (mg      | (mg/    |   | (mg/    |
|          |   |           | Expo |      | /kg/day) | kg/day) |   | kg/day) |
|          |   |           | sure |      |          |         |   |         |
|          |   |           | Dose |      |          |         |   |         |
|          |   |           | (mg  |      |          |         |   |         |
|          |   |           | /kg/ |      |          |         |   |         |
|          |   |           | day) |      |          |         |   |         |
+----------+---+-----------+------+------+----------+---------+---+---------+
|          |   |           | A    | C    |          |         |   |         |
|          |   |           | dult | hild |          |         |   |         |
+----------+---+-----------+------+------+----------+---------+---+---------+
| Inte     | 8 |           | 0.   | 0    | 0.00003  | NA      | 0 |         |
| rmediate | 0 |           | 0001 | .002 |          |         | . |         |
|          | p |           |      |      |          |         | 0 |         |
|          | p |           |      |      |          |         | 0 |         |
|          | m |           |      |      |          |         | 7 |         |
|          |   |           |      |      |          |         | 5 |         |
+----------+---+-----------+------+------+----------+---------+---+---------+
| Chronic  | 8 |           | 0.   | 0    | 0.00002  | NA      | 0 |         |
|          | 0 |           | 0001 | .002 |          |         | . |         |
|          | p |           |      |      |          |         | 0 |         |
|          | p |           |      |      |          |         | 0 |         |
|          | m |           |      |      |          |         | 5 |         |
+----------+---+-----------+------+------+----------+---------+---+---------+

NA = not applicable. The laboratory animal studies selected for MRLs
(see Appendix A in ATSDR 2000b) identified LOAELs, but did not identify
NOAELs.

Appendix C. Fact Sheets

[^1]: Even though soil at YMR is contaminated with arsenic, ATSDR does
    not believe that YMR is the source of the arsenic contamination
    found in the private wells. Please see the groundwater discussion
    for additional details.

[^2]: Arsenic-induced keratosis is a skin condition found most often on
    the feet and palms. Many small depressions occur in the skin with
    small, hard, outgrowths of skin in the center of each depression.
    Keratosis can also appear as scaling skin. Hyperpigmentation of the
    skin occurs as small brown areas or blotches on the skin around the
    eyelids, temples, neck, nipples, and groin. In severe cases,
    pigmentation might cover the chest, back, and stomach. It sometimes
    appears as mottling on the skin. If mottling occurs, it is more
    frequent on the chest, back, and stomach.