• Home
• About ATSDR
• Press Room
• A-Z Index
• Glossary
• Employment
• Contact Us
• CDC

ATSDR en Español

Search:

Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search

---

Find a Publication

1. ATSDR > Public Health Assessments & Consultations

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL
JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

Table 14. Completed Exposure Pathways

Table 14. Completed Exposure Pathways, continued

Table 15. Potential Exposure Pathways

Table 16. Parameters Used for Ingestion Dose Calculations
for Hypothetical Individuals

Table 16. Parameters Used for Ingestion Dose Calculations
for Hypothetical Individuals, continued

Table 17. Parameters Used for Inhalation Dose Calculations
for Hypothetical Individuals

Table 18. Parameters Used for Dermal Dose Calculations
for Hypothetical Individuals

Table 19. Constants Used for Dose Calculations

Table 20. Contaminants Violating Secondary Drinking Water Standards

mg/l - milligrams per liter
ND - not detected

C. Acronyms

Commonly Used Acronyms

ATSDR	Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry - An organization within the federal Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for conducting public health assessments at NPL sites. In Florida, this responsibility has been delegated to FHRS.
BESD	Bio-Environmental Services Division - The branch of the City of Jacksonville's government that investigates pollution problems within the city limits.
CERCLA	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act - A federal law passed in 1980 and amended in 1986 that created a trust fund, known as "Superfund", to investigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
CPHU	County Public Health Unit - Often known as the county health department. The CPHU is associated with FHRS, and is responsible for investigating contamination in private drinking water wells.
CREG	Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide - The contaminant concentration that is estimated to result in no more than one excess cancer per one million persons exposed over a lifetime.
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - The federal agency responsible for pollution control, including the investigation and cleanup of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
FCDS	Florida Cancer Data System - A FHRS program operated by the University of Miami School of Medicine that covers all cancers reported in Florida between 1981 and 1987.
FDER	Florida Department of Environmental Regulation - The state agency responsible for pollution control, including the investigation and cleanup of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
FHRS	Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services - The state agency responsible for investigating public health issues and running public health programs.
FS	Feasibility Study - An EPA study that establishes cleanup criteria and identifies cleanup alternatives at a NPL site, based on the results of the remedial investigation.
JCACW	Jacksonville Citizens Against Contaminated Water - A group organized by residents living near site to voice community concerns to government officials.
HARP	Health Activities Recommendation Panel - A group within ATSDR that reviews public health assessments determines the need for specific follow-up health actions.
IARC	International Agency for Research on Cancer - An organization that evaluates the cancer risk from exposure to different chemicals.
IRIS	Integrated Risk Information System - An EPA computer database containing toxicological information. This database is updated monthly.
MRL	Minimal Risk Level - An estimate of the daily dose of a contaminant below which non-cancer illnesses are unlikely to occur. ATSDR develops MRL values through its research programs.
NOAEL	No Observed Adverse Effects Level -The highest experimental dose or exposure level at which there is no statistically or biologically significant increase in adverse effects.
NPL	National Priorities List - EPA's list of the most serious abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, identified for clean up using CERCLA monies. These sites are also known as "Superfund" sites and are said to be on the "Superfund list".
NTP	National Toxicology Program - An organization within the federal Department of Health and Human Services that evaluates the cancer risk from exposure to different chemicals.
pH	A number indicating how acidic or caustic a substance is; the lower the pH, the more acidic the substance.
PRP	Potentially Responsible Party - An individual or company potentially responsible for, or contributors to, the contamination problems at a NPL site.
RfD	Reference Dose - An estimate of the daily dose of a contaminant below which non-cancer illnesses are unlikely to occur. EPA develops RfD values through its research programs.
RI	Remedial Investigation - An EPA study that identifies the nature and extent of hazardous waste contamination at a NPL site.
RI/FS	Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - The combined investigative and analytical studies that identify the nature and extent of hazardous waste contamination at a NPL site, and proposes cleanup alternatives.
ROD	Record of Decision - An EPA document that explains which cleanup alternative will be used at a NPL site, based on information generated during the RI/FS.
TRI	Toxics Release Inventory - A summary of chemical releases to the environment reported by industries to EPA.
VOCs	Volatile Organic Compounds - Organic chemical compounds that evaporate easily into the air. In sample data, these compounds are most often found within groups called "purgeables". In this document, VOCs are commonly referred to as "solvents".

D. Public Comments

Summary of Public Comments and Florida HRS Responses
Draft Public Health Assessment

From October 19-21, 1994, we sent 24 copies of the draft Hipps Road Landfill Public Health Assessment to community leaders, government officials, the PRP, the document repository, and a local grocery store for document access and public review. On November 17, 1994, we held a public meeting to present the findings of the draft public health assessment and to gather the public's comments on the draft document. To announce this meeting, we included a meeting announcement/health assessment fact sheet in the front of each document copy we distributed, and community leaders delivered 900 fact sheets to nearby residences. In addition, FHRS' public information staff contacted media representatives in Jacksonville and, on November 17, the Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville) published a story about the draft health assessment and announced the meeting. Approximately 80 adults attended the public meeting, 24 of whom gave comments on both health-related and nonhealth-related issues. We also solicited public comments by mail through December 16. As of December 23, we had received nine written responses, mostly from area residents. The following is a summary of the public's comments (in bold) and our responses:

1. One resident commented that landfill operation began in 1967, not 1965. This had been established in one of the court cases involving the landfill. Another resident commented that not all of the houses on site were demolished - some were moved to other locations. Another individual recommended a few other minor, factual changes to the text.

   Thank you for the comments; we have made appropriate corrections in the text. Because the first comment involves a date change, it also lessens the exposure period and our estimates for increased cancer risk. Therefore, we have changed the information in Tables 16-18 to reduce the number of years of potential exposure.

2. One resident commented that children used to swim in the cypress pond, but no longer do so.

   Thank you for this correction. We have changed the text in Conclusion #6 and reduced the recommended sampling frequency in Recommendation #6 to reflect this fact.

3. Several residents reported health problems from present-day exposure to their private well water. These problems include: nausea, diarrhea, headaches, burning eyes while showering, cataracts, ear problems, sinus problems, thyroid disease, blood poisoning, bad nerves, liver problems, skin rashes, itching skin, allergies, back problems, difficulty healing after surgery, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and other health problems. Many residents are worried that their children's drinking and bathing in this water will harm their health.

   We have added burning eyes while showering, itching skin, blood poisoning, and difficulty healing after surgery to the health problems listed in the text. The other health problems were already reported.

   We have not been able to identify any potential health problems in children or adults from present-day exposure to the groundwater. The Duval County Public Health Unit (CPHU) periodically monitors private wells in the community to ensure the water meets primary drinking water standards.

4. One resident questioned the safety of the air stripper. When living next to the air stripper, this individual had headaches, sinus problems, and eye irritation whenever the air stripper operated. After this person moved to a home farther away from the air stripper, these symptoms persisted but to a lesser degree. This person had not experienced these problems prior to air stripper installation, and has not experienced them since it has been down for repairs. This individual wanted HRS staff to be aware of these effects, even though the HRS analysis found the air stripper was unlikely to harm a person's health.

   Although we did not find the emissions from the air stripper were likely to harm health, we've recommended that water going into the air stripper continue to be monitored to allow us to identify potential public health problems, should they develop in the future. We have asked EPA to share with us the sample data they've gathered since the trial run. We will re-evaluate these data if any contaminant concentrations measured exceed those measured during the trial run of the air stripper.

   We have added eye irritation to the health problems listed in the text. The other health problems were already reported.

5. A few residents questioned the cancer risk evaluation in the health assessment, believing the risk estimates to be much too low.

   We, too, are concerned about the numbers of illnesses, especially cancers, in the community. When we did this assessment, we erred on the side of protecting public health when we made our estimates. We did this by evaluating only the highest contaminant concentrations for evaluation and using the maximum exposure period that was reasonable. In other words, we always erred on the side of public health and estimated the worst case exposure. The greatest increased cancer risk we estimated for any one contaminant is 1 in 1,000. Nevertheless, we do not know all there is to know about cancer-causing chemicals, nor how all of the chemicals the community was exposed to interact. This is one reason we have recommended ATSDR perform some kind of health follow-up study. Other reasons are: our analysis indicates health problems, including cancer, could occur in the community; and, there is a large number of reported illnesses.

6. One individual strongly disagreed with the methodology of the public health assessment, stating "the overall philosophical approach and methodology presented in the Draft PHA are fundamentally flawed." In particular, this individual believed the health assessment was too conservative in using worst-case assumptions, particularly by using maximum concentrations for each chemical; contradicted EPA guidelines in its use of worst-case assumptions, which is likely to result in a substantial overestimate of a potential problem; and contradicted ATSDR guidelines in its use of screening values (EMEGs) to predict health effects.

   As explained in the text (Public Health Implications Section, Uncertainty in Health Assessments), we did not have sufficient sampling data to know if the maximum values reported were the maximum values the residents were actually exposed to, nor did we have adequate geologic and sample data to predict peak values. We decided to err on the side of protecting public health by using maximum measured values in our analysis. We cannot know if the resulting risk estimates truly are upper-bound estimates. Nevertheless, we believe the risk of illness is unlikely to be larger than the risk we have estimated, and may be smaller. Our decisions and conclusions show that a public health assessment requires the use of scientific and professional judgement; we understand readers may not agree with all of our judgements.

   The confusion between EPA risk assessments and public health assessments is understandable. An EPA risk assessment is used to support the selection of cleanup activities at a Superfund site. A public health assessment is a mechanism to assess any current or future public health impacts from the release of hazardous substances into the environment, provide the community with information on the public health implications of a specific site, identify those populations for whom further health actions or studies are needed, and make recommendations for actions needed to protect public health. In the public health assessment, we acknowledge the uncertainties of our assumptions and estimates (Public Health Implications Section, Uncertainty in Health Assessments) which may lead to an under- or over-estimate of the risk of illness, largely because of gaps in the data. We cannot know the magnitude or direction of our presumed errors without evaluating the very data that are missing.

   The statement about our using EMEGs (or other comparable values) as predictors of health effects is incorrect. In accordance with ATSDR guidelines and as described in the text (Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards Section), we used ATSDR's standard comparison values to select contaminants of concern for further evaluation. The individual making the comment may be confused because when we selected one contaminant of concern in one medium, we reported that contaminant in all other media. This is why some contaminants of concern are below their comparison values for a particular medium in Tables 4-12. Careful examination of these tables will show each contaminant of concern to be above its standard comparison value in at least one of these tables, or to have no standard comparison values for initial screening. In addition, all readers should note that the draft public health assessment underwent ATSDR technical review before being released as a public draft document.

7. One resident asked about the physician education program conducted at St. Vincent's hospital in September 1994 and wanted to know how residents could find out the names of doctors who were interested in treating people who had been exposed to chemicals.

   Information about the physician education program can be obtained from HRS by contacting:
   
   

   Ms. Julia Winter
   HRS/HSET
   1317 Winewood Boulevard
   Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
   (904) 488-3385

8. Many residents had questions and comments about the proposed follow-up health study. Suggestions about the type of study residents would like to see include: a study of the incidence of learning disabilities, cancer, and other health problems reported in the community in comparison with the incidence of these problems in a nonexposed community, a biomedical study of the health of past and present community residents, and a tracking of the health problems identified within the community in the present and in the future.

   If ATSDR accepts the recommendation for a follow-up health study, HRS and ATSDR plan to meet with residents early in 1995 to discuss the options available and the community's needs for a health study.

9. One resident asked about testing for radiation in water and soil.

   EPA has not sampled the groundwater or soil for radioactivity. HRS has recommended radionuclides be measured in future water samples. The Duval CPHU recently began measuring radionuclides in the private well samples they collect from the Hipps Road area. So far, those sample results have come back negative. If radionuclides are found in the groundwater in the future, HRS will evaluate the need for testing surface water and soil for radioactivity.

10. A few residents had questions about the adequacy of past sampling around the landfill. Specifically, why was most of the sampling confined to the areas northeast of the site?

    Because groundwater near the site generally flows to the northeast, EPA has focused their sampling and cleanup efforts northeast of the site. However, we don't believe contaminant movement in directions west, east, or south of the site has been fully described. We also don't believe enough surface soil, surface water, or sediment samples have been collected around the site. Therefore, in the health assessment, we have recommended EPA conduct additional sampling to further investigate potential environmental contamination around the site.

11. One resident was concerned that contaminant plume boundaries had not changed since they were first delineated years ago.

    In 1989, site contractors collected information needed to delineate the boundaries of the contaminant plume, northeast of the site, in order to design the cleanup system (Golder 1990). We do not have the hydrogeological expertise to evaluate whether or not the contaminant plume boundaries have moved significantly since these data were evaluated; this issue is best addressed by EPA.

12. One resident questioned the purpose and effectiveness of the clay cap. Another resident was concerned the site contractor had damaged the cap by driving heavy vehicles on it.

    The clay cap has three purposes. First, because the cap covers the fill material, it prevents these materials from being blown or washed off site. Second, the cap prevents the mounding of contaminated groundwater over the fill material, which subsequently can cause contaminants to flow away from the landfill in all directions. Third, because the cap keeps rainfall out of the fill material, it prevents downward movement of contaminants into the groundwater. However, the cap will not prevent contaminants, already dissolved in the groundwater, from flowing horizontally away from the site. We do not know if the landfill cap has been damaged; it is EPA's responsibility to ensure the cap is periodically checked and remains intact.

13. A couple of people commented on the landfill's contents. One individual requested HRS to recommend a more complete source determination be made of the landfill's contents, so that proper sampling and cleanup can ensue.

    From a public health standpoint, contaminants found on site become important only if there is a point of human exposure to them. We believe that as long as the cap remains intact, the groundwater monitoring around the site continues, and EPA collects the additional environmental samples we have recommended, we will have adequate information to assess the potential public health threat from the site. Therefore, our findings do not support an additional need for further characterization of the landfill contents at this time. In the health assessment, we have recommended future uses of the site be restricted to those compatible with the remaining contamination. If site uses were to become incompatible, in terms of potential human exposure, we would consider recommending further site characterization work be performed. For example, if a developer wanted to build homes on the site in the near future, we would likely recommend a complete source determination be conducted for the site. We do not have the expertise to evaluate whether or not further site characterization is needed to adequately clean up the site; this issue is best addressed by EPA.

14. One individual reported difficulty in obtaining recent site documents from EPA, and requested HRS's help in obtaining recent sampling data.

    We have requested recent sampling information from EPA and will share whatever data we obtain with the public, upon request.

15. Several residents had questions about testing of their private well water.

    The Duval CPHU is responsible for testing private wells in the Hipps Road area. Nearby residents should call the Duval CPHU, at 630-3272, if they want to have their well water tested. Presently, there is no charge for the sampling or analyses. It takes several weeks to get the water sample results back from the laboratory in Jacksonville.

16. Many residents had questions about when hookup to city water on their streets would occur. Others had comments about the high cost of hookup.

    The community leaders have information about the schedule for bringing city water to the Hipps Road neighborhood and the availability of financial assistance for residents unable to pay for hookup.

17. One resident asked about current activities at the site.

    The air stripper has been shut down since September because of filtration problems in one of the holding ponds. The construction equipment and materials are on site to fix the filtration problem.

    Table of Contents

    • Home
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • e-Government
    • FOIA
    • Contact Us
    
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
    Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348 

    

    
    Department of Health and Human Services