PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
AMERICAN BEMBERG PLANT
ELIZABETHTON, CARTER COUNTY, TENNESSEE
APPENDIX A
SITE MAPS AND TABLES
List of Figures
List of Tables
TABLE 1 Summary -- Comparison Value Information
Public health evaluation comparison values used in this assessment include the following:
TABLE 2: Contamination, On-Site Surficial Materials, Principally Soils -- Contaminants Considered for Detailed Public Health Impact Evaluation
NOTE: Samples were taken within site boundary. Samples were principally soils, but in the BIC building and lagoon and landfill areas, samples possibly include soil-like materials (e.g. sediment, debris, waste).
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
Areas C, D, A** |
||||||
| Closed Lagoon, Closed Landfill, & Vicinity | Former Ball field Vicinity | BIC Building, Basement | Around Existing Bemberg Buildings |
Toward Site Periphery |
Background (Surface and Subsurface) | |||
| Number of Samples | 18 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 2 | ||
| Contaminants |
Note: Samples were not all analyzed for the same constituents |
|
||||||
| Value | Source | |||||||
| Arsenic | 96 | 80 | 70 | 19 | 6.4 | CNPS*** | 0.5 | CREG |
| Barium | CNPS*** | CNPS*** | 9,500 | CNPS*** | CNPS*** | CNPS | 4,000 | RMEG |
| Cadmium | ND | ND | 167 | CNPS | ND**** | CNPS | 40 | EMEG |
| Copper | 5485 | CNPS | 105,000 | 5100 | CNPS | CNPS | 2,000 | Estimated |
| Lead | CNPS | CNPS | 10,000 | 800 | CNPS | CNPS | 400 | Estimated |
| Manganese | 1186 | 1400 | 10,000 | 730 | 2,300 | CNPS | 300 | RMEG |
| Mercury | CNPS | CNPS | 78 | CNPS | CNPS | CNPS | 2 | Estimated |
| PCBs (1254) | ND | ND | 31 | CNPS | ND | ND | 0.4 1 |
CREG EMEG |
| PAHs (Potent) Benzo-a-pyrene Dibenzo-a,h-anthracene |
0.37 0.36 |
ND ND |
9.5 2.7 |
0.23 CNPS |
ND ND |
ND ND |
0.1 0.09 residential 0.78 industrial |
CREG EPA Soil screening values |
| PAHs (Less Potent) Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene Ideno(g,h,i,)pyrene |
ND 2.1 CNPS |
ND CNPS ND |
20.6 24 55 |
CNPS CNPS CNPS |
ND ND ND |
ND ND ND |
0.9 residential 7.8 industrial |
EPA Soil screening values |
| * Some sample locations are approximate because
some source documents provided indefinite location descriptions. ** Only one sample taken in Area A *** CNPS = Concentration Not Potentially Significant. The concentration(s) detected is not potentially significant to public health. The maximum concentration is shown in the table if the maximum value found in any sample at a given location is greater than the comparison value for that contaminant. **** ND = Not detected above laboratory quantitation limits PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide Estimated = evaluation guide estimated by ATSDR staff EPA Soil Screening value = values EPA established for soil to protect against excessive migration from soil to groundwater and air |
||||||||
Table 3: Summary -- Completed Exposure Pathways
| PATHWAY NAME: | Process chemicals, wastes, soils (on site) Bemberg Operations | Soils (on site) after Bemberg operations | Air (on site) during Bemberg operations |
Air (off site) during Bemberg operations |
| Source: | Bemberg | Bemberg | Bemberg | Bemberg |
| Medium: | Chemicals, wastes, soils |
Surface soils | Air | Air |
| Exposure Point: | On site | On site | On site | Off site |
| Exposure Route: | Skin contact, incidental ingestion, inhalation | Skin contact, incidental ingestion, inhalation | Inhalation | Inhalation |
| Likely Exposed Population: | Plant and other workers, trespassers | Plant and other workers, trespassers, former recreational users | Plant and other workers, visitors, trespassers |
Nearby residents, nearby workers |
| Exposure Period: | Past | Past, present, future | Past | Past |
| Contaminants potentially of public health interest | Table 2 | Table 2 | No relevant data | No relevant data |
| Evaluation Comments: | See Toxicologic Discussion section | See Toxicologic Discussion section | No sampling data, cannot be evaluated | No sampling data, cannot be evaluated |
| NOTE: THE PRESENCE OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY IN THIS LIST DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE EXPOSURE IS (OR WAS) SUBSTANTIVE OR THAT AN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR OR HAS OCCURRED. | ||||
Table 3: (Continued) Summary -- Completed Exposure Pathways
| PATHWAY NAME: | River sediment (off site) | Fish (off site) | Surface water (off site) |
| Source: | Bemberg, possibly others upstream and downstream | Bemberg, possibly others upstream and downstream | Bemberg, possibly others upstream and downstream |
| Medium: | Sediment | Aquatic biota | Surface water |
| Exposure Point: | On and off site | Off site | Off site |
| Exposure Route: | Skin contact, incidental ingestion | Ingestion | Skin contact
Incidental ingestion |
| Receptor Population: | Shoreline users, fishermen, swimmers | Area fishermen | Shoreline users, fishermen, swimmers |
| Exposure Period: | Past, present, future | Past, present, future | Past, present, future |
| Contaminants potentially of public health interest | Table 2 | copper, arsenic, cadmium, PCBs | Table 2 |
| Evaluation Comments: | Exposure and concentrations are below levels of health concern. | Concentrations in fish reported in 1983 15 miles downstream and associated exposure are below levels of health concern. No sampling data are available for nearby fish. Termination of plant discharges and also 1990's river water and sediment data indicate there is very little likelihood that fish being caught now containe any significant site contaminants. | Past ammonia exposure and concentrations cannot be evaluated. For other chemicals, exposure and concentrations are below levels of health concern. |
| NOTE: THE PRESENCE OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY IN THIS LIST DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE EXPOSURE IS (OR WAS) SUBSTANTIVE OR THAT AN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR OR HAS OCCURRED. | |||
Table 4: Summary -- Potential Exposure Pathway
| NAME OF PATHWAY | Reuse of Area B Buildings | River water (off site) | Groundwater - Potential Future Source of Public Water within 1 Mile of Site |
| Source: | Bemberg | Bemberg 's releases to river during operations, and possibly other sources | State employee is concerned that Bemberg might be a contaminant source |
| Medium/Media: | Potentially contaminated residual process materials, dust, debris, soil-like materials, and building components | The Johnson City municipal drinking water. | Groundwater |
| Potential Exposure Point: | In buildings being reused | Homes, businesses | Wherever public water is used |
| Potential Exposure Route: | Principally incidental ingestion, inhalation | Principally incidental ingestion | Principally ingestion, inhalation |
| Potentially Exposed Population: | Workers | Municipal water users | City residents, workers |
| Exposure Period: | Past (since Bemberg shutdown) Current Future |
Past (Principally during Bemberg operations) | Potential Future |
| Contaminants potentially of public health interest | Table 2 | Possibly ammonia, copper | Table 2 |
| Evaluation Comments: | Potentially contaminated materials could be present if remediation is not initiated before or during building reuse. See Toxicologic Evaluation section. | Can not determine whether drinking water supplies were affected in the past if the treatment facility was then unable to cope with episodic contaminant releases to river water. | Site-related public exposure should not occur. Could occur only if contaminants migrate to source, and if source is developed for supply, and if regulatory agencies do not test water and, if contaminated, do not either terminate use or require treatment or remediation. |
| NOTE: THE PRESENCE OF A POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY IN THIS LIST DOES NOT IMPLY THAT A POTENTIAL EXPOSURE IS SUBSTANTIVE OR THAT AN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT HAS OCCURRED OR WILL OCCUR. | |||
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ATSDR made the public health assessment available for public review and comment in the local library for a 30-day period ending January 10, 1999. The public comment period was announced in newspapers and through radio. In addition, the public health assessment was sent to several individuals and government groups. Page numbers mentioned in this appendix refer to pagination in the public comment version of the document.
A state employee comments that the public health assessment does not mention
that a potential public water source (groundwater) exists within 1 mile
of the site and is expected to produce about 1.5 million gallons of potable
water per day, with a maximum of 6 to 8 million gallons of water per day.
| Response: | The document has been changed to address that potential source. ATSDR does not believe that exposure or health effects will occur. Any potential new water source should be chemically analyzed before it is developed for use, and all public water supplies have to be analyzed periodically while being used. If the water is shown to be contaminated by site-related or other chemicals, regulatory agencies should require appropriate treatment and/or remediation. |
A state employee comments that fish evaluated 15 miles downstream do not
constitute a representative sample of fish in proximity of the site, and
recommends that fish should be evaluated for subsistence and recreational
consumption for a sample that is more representative of the site.
| Response: |
ATSDR agrees that fish evaluated 15 miles downstream are not necessarily representative of fish in proximity of the site. However, ATSDR believes that sampling of the fish near the site is not warranted. During early Bemberg operations, some industrial wastes and wastewater were discharged into the water without treatment, and fish kills occurred. It is possible that fish then being consumed contained some site-related chemicals, which were then conveyed to people that ate them. Sampling data are not available for fish near the site for that time period, hence the potential for that exposure cannot be evaluated. For the latter part of the plant's operations, wastes were handled on site in a lagoon and landfill, and a wastewater plant treated effluent discharged to the river. Bemberg stopped production and discharges more than 20 years ago. An adjacent rayon plant, which treated its effluent in that plant, also has terminated operations. Thus, there are no ongoing rayon processing discharges. Several river water and sediment samples taken in 1991 do not show elevated contamination. These factors lead us to conclude that there is very little likelihood that fish being caught now contain any significant site contaminants. Thus, fish sampling is not warranted. |
A state employee commented that there is approximately 140,000 cubic yards
of copper sulfate in the former landfill which has not been addressed in
the public health assessment.
| Response: |
The document will be modified to clarify this issue. The second paragraph of Page 2 says that the landfill was closed and capped with soil in 1984 in accordance with regulatory requirements. That same paragraph says that the lagoon was closed and filled with soil in 1984 in accordance with requirements. The first full paragraph of Page 3 states that the city will allow only surface-type uses within the closed landfill and pond areas (e.g., no basements or excavation) because of underlying contaminated material. ATSDR does not believe that exposure to copper sulfate (or any other materials) in the landfill or health effects are likely to occur. Because of the closure methods and the city's commitments to allow only surface-type future development within the landfill and lagoon areas, ATSDR believes that humans are not likely to come in direct contact with the buried waste material. Current public water supplies are not likely to be affected by any waste releases to underlying site groundwater. Should site releases migrate to any current source of drinking water, or to the potential water source addressed in Comment 1, ATSDR believes that regulatory-mandated testing of water supplies, and treatment (or remediation, if required) should protect the public from exposure and health consequences. |
