The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWell Sampling for PE - 4/21/2009ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT ROUX ASSOCIATES INC ® 67 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET SUITE 101W BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01803 TEL: 781-270-6600 FAX: 781-270-9066 April 15, 2009 Mr. Gerard Martin Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 Re: Summary of Sampling - Domestic Wells for Pentaerythritol Stearns Avenue, Mansfield and Chestnut Street, Easton Dear Mr. Martin: RECEIVED APR 2 1 2009 TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux Associates), on behalf of the Town of Mansfield (TOM) and Ashland Inc. (formally Hercules Incorporated), has prepared this letter report to document the March 15, 2009 sampling of fifteen domestic water supply wells (domestic wells) in the vicinity of the former Stearns Avenue Landfill in Mansfield, Massachusetts for the presence of pentaerythritol (PE). The domestic well sampling activities are summarized below. The locations of the domestic wells are shown on Figure 1 (attached). Background In February 2006, as part of Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) investigations of RTN 4-17325 (the Site), PE was detected at a concentration of 533 mg/L in the domestic well for the home located at 494 Steams Avenue in Mansfield, Massachusetts. At that time, use of the domestic water was discontinued and the home was connected to public water. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) requested that other domestic wells in the area be identified. Based on the information provided from the Mansfield Health Department, the Easton Health Department and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), there were sixteen domestic wells identified within t/2 mile of the former Steams Avenue Landfill (Figure 1). Of these 16 domestic wells, eleven are located on Chestnut Street in Easton, three are located on Mill Street in Easton, one is located on Stearns Avenue in Mansfield, and one is suspected on Carriage House Lane in Mansfield. In February 2009, a work plan was submitted to MassDEP to sample four domestic wells to assess whether PE has impacted other known domestic wells within %2 mile of the former Stearns Avenue Landfill. This plan was verbally approved by MassDEP. On HE0015.0025M002.11M Mr. Gerard Martin April 15, 2009 Page 2 February 26, 2009, the Director of Public Health for the town of Easton requested that the fourteen domestic wells in Easton within %2 mile of the former Stearns Avenue Landfill be sampled. This modification was approved. Well Sampling Methodology Prior to the domestic well sampling, Roux Associates provided the Health Directors for the towns of Mansfield and Easton with copies of PE Fact Sheets (Appendix A) for distribution to the public. The Health Directors contacted each of the property owners and arranged for the sampling to occur on March 15, 2009. On March 15, 2009 Roux Associates sampled 15 domestic wells using the following procedures: 1. Treatment systems, if present, were removed or bypassed at each sampling locations; 2. Faucets were opened and allowed to run for a minimum of 20-minutes prior to sample collection; 3. Samples were collected directly into two unpreserved 40-m1 glass vials and immediately placed on ice in a cooler; and 4. Samples were shipped via overnight courier on March 16, 2009 to the Ashland Hercules Research Center Laboratory for PE testing. The samples were received on March 17, 2009 by the Ashland Hercules Research Center Laboratory. Well Sampling Results Water samples were analyzed at the Ashland Hercules Research Center Laboratory in Wilmington, Delaware using the analytical method that Ashland Hercules developed for this project. PE was not detected in any of the 15 samples above the laboratory reporting limit of 450 mg/L. Quality control measurements including matrix spikes, laboratory control spikes, field duplicate, and instrument calibration all met pre -established criteria and no limitations on the data were identified. A copy of the laboratory report including quality control results is included as Appendix B. These results confirm that PE concentrations are below the recommended health based guideline of 525 mg/L in all of the domestic water supplies tested. As we have discussed, MassDEP agrees that no further response actions with regard to PE are required for the Site. 1 Note that at 153 Chestnut Sheet neither Roux Associates personnel nor the owner of 153 Chestnut Street could effectively disconnect the treatment system prior to sampling. ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. HE0015.0025M002.112IL Mr. Gerard Martin April 15, 2009 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding this letter report, please contact Ian Phillips at 781- 270-6600. Sincerely, ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. Ian ips, LSP ncipal Scientist Attachments cc: John D'Agostino, Town of Mansfield Scott Leite, Mansfield Director of Public Health Wade Saucier, Easton Director of Public Health Bruce Hough, Ashland Inc. ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. HE0015.0025M002.1121L Ashland Hercules Water Technologies R 01 1 Ashland Hercules Research Center March 26, 2009 cc: S. R. Prescott - 8100/246 J. A. Graham - 8100/104 M. N. Miller — 8100/305 Document File - 8134/264 TO: B. J. Hough - Corporate SHERA - 8139/16 FROM: S. F. Nitchman — Ashland Hercules Water Technologies - 8100/107 Background An inactive landfill site in Mansfield, MA was formerly used by Hercules, Inc. (now Ashland, Inc.) to discard solid and liquid wastes generated during the production of pentaerythritol (PE) and plasticizers from 1952 to 1959. Since 1978, ground water and soil samples near the site have been periodically monitored for possible chemical contamination due to community health concerns. By state requirement, Hercules must further characterize additional samples near the former landfill site. Due to lack of a commercial lab that could perform the analyses of PE and its by-products in the various water/soil matrixes, the Research Center (RC) was asked to develop a procedure to satisfy this regulatory request.1-4 During the initial investigation in April -May, 2005, a GC analysis procedure was developed for the determination of PE and related derivatives in various soil and ground water samples removed near the landfill site.5'7 Sample preparation schemes were worked out that yielded good recoveries for mono -PE spiked control samples. The control samples consisted of clean sand and water, as well as, matrix spiked samples of the actual soil and ground water samples from the landfill area. This report summarizes the continuing development work for quantitative determination of PE in these types of environmental samples. For this study, potable water samples were collected from 16 addresses in Easton and Mansfield, MA on March 15, 2009 by Roux Associates and submitted for determination of PE concentrations. The lower limit of quantitation (LOQ) was specified to be 450-PPM PE based on the lowest calibration standard.10," Conclusions PE and related derivatives were not detected in any of the potable water samples obtained for this study. All results were below the specified LOQ of 450-PPM. A modified, direct TMS derivatization procedure worked well for these analyses. Good recoveries (-97- 104%) were obtained for the DI water control and matrix water (X34875-8-9,187 Chestnut) samples that were spiked at the specified 525-PPM concentration with the mono PE reference standard. Results of Analysis Potable Water Samples GC Results - PPM a RC Designation Sample Location- Roux Assoc. 3/15/2009 Time Sampled Mono -PE 2-PE 3-PE 4-PE? X34875-8-1 153 Chestnut 12:20 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-2 170 Chestnut 12:08 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-3 177 Chestnut 12:50 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-4 178 Chestnut 12:55 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-5 181 Chestnut 13:20 ND ND ND ND 182 Chestnut 13:05 ND ND ND ND t4875-8-6 4875-8-7 185 Chestnut 13:45 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-8 186 Chestnut 14:15 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-9 187 Chestnut 9:05 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-10 189 Chestnut 9:20 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-11 206 Chestnut 11:32 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-12 63 Mill 10:10 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-13 80 Mill 10:15 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-14 82 Mill 10:30 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-15 499 Stearns 11:25 ND ND ND ND X34875-8-16 599 Stearns 11:26 ND ND ND ND a) Not detected (ND) = <450-PPM. Mono -PE Spiked Samples Sample Type Mono PE Std. -% Recovery -PPM Theory PPM Found Blank Water Control 525 524 99.8 " 525 545 104 " 525 511 97.3 Matrix Potable Water X34875-8-9 525 535 102 525 534 102 For this fourth study, 16 additional potable water samples were collected on March 15, 2009 by the outside contractor, Roux Associates, Inc. and shipped (packed on ice) to the RC.10, 11 They were stored at -0-50C in a lab refrigerator at all times, except during sampling. The designation and descriptions of the ground water samples are provided in the preceding table along with the GC results obtained. The GC procedure was modified from the original one developed and described for the initial investigations.5, 6 An important modification included the use of a wider diameter, mega -bore (0.53-mm ID) fused -silica GC column from Quadrex with a thicker (1.0-pm) 100% methyl silicone bonded phase. The column change had improved overall peak shapes, especially that of the n-octadecane internal standard. Potable Water Samples - High purity (HP), distilled-deionized (DI) water was used for the blank control. All sample analyses were performed using a-250-300-mg sample size. The blank water control was spiked at the specified -525-PPM mono -PE concentration. It was prepared in a 50-mL volumetric flask by adding 25.64-mL of standard solution (1.0238-mg/ml concentration) of mono PE (X33883-32-1) and diluting to volume with DI water. Similarly, a matrix spike of water sample X34875-8-9 (187 Chestnut) was also prepared at -525-PPM mono-PE.10 For this work, the sample preparation scheme was modified or simplified. The water samples (-250-300-mg) were directly derivatized in 5-mL of pyridine solvent (without removing the water). Although the TMS reagent readily reacts with water, small amounts of water can be tolerated as long as an excess of TMS reagent is employed. As before, the n-C18 IS was also added by pipette (0.5-mL) as a 1.0487-mg/ml concentration in pyridine. Finally, a blend of 10:10:1, BSTFA:HMDS:TMCS, silylating reagent was then added to convert the PE to the trimethyl-silyl ether derivative. Without derivatization, PE is very difficult to analyze by GC due to its very high boiling point (>400°C) and polarity. Additional details of a typical water sample preparation are provided in the Procedures Section. Subsequent GC analysis was performed and the level of mono -PE calculated using the average experimental response factor (ERF) versus n-octadecane internal standard. The average ERF determined for the mono -PE reference standard (-98%, X33883-32-1) during this study was approximately 0.572 or essentially the same as found in the previous analyses. This ERF agreed fairly well with the calculated, theoretical response factor (TRF) of 0.6109.8 Since pure reference standards were unavailable, the same adjusted ERFs were used for the other PE derivatives (di-pentaerythritol (2-PE) and tri-pentaerythritol (3-PE), etc.). Using the average ERF and internal standard procedure was adequate because of the very linear calibration curves normally obtained for the mono -PE reference standard over a broad concentration range (-0.045-1.5-mg/mL). Also, the use of the average ERFs simplified the overall procedure in that accurate sample volumes were not required as with an external calibration technique. Good PE recoveries were obtained in the range of-97-104% for the mono -PE spiked, DI water control samples and matrix water (X34875-8-9) samples (duplicates). A blank DI water control sample was also directly TMS derivatized and analyzed to determine the background or baseline levels at the retention times for the various PE derivatives. The background peaks were all extremely small and less than the specified lower LOQ of 450-PPM (calculated as PE). Most of these trace components appeared to be due to impurities present in the TMS reagent. In fact, there was one large unknown impurity present in the TMS reagent that eluted at -19.5 minutes retention time. All of the potable water samples yielded trace components very similar to the blank water background or TMS blank. Therefore the concentrations of PE and relative derivatives were well below the specified 450-PPM LOQ and, therefore, considered "not detected (ND)." An overlay GC plot comparing the directly TMS derivatized water sample (X34875-8-9, 187 Chestnut) with a mono -PE spiked sample, the blank DI water control and TMS blank injection is provided in Figure 1. The overlay comparison of typical reference standards of mono -PE, di -PE, and tri-PE is seen in Figure 2. Please note that peak identifications were based solely on retention time by comparison with reference standards. Figure 3 shows the typical mono -PE calibration standard solution E in Pyridine at approximately 0.04515-mg/ml (-450-PPM) Procedures A modified version of Method P 22a-9a was used for the GC analysis part of the initial study. The analysis procedure was based on past work by J. M. McGuire and P. W. Powis.5 An internal standard that did not require derivatization was preferred and, therefore changed from D-mannitol to n-octadecane for more inertness. For this study, a newer Agilent 6890 GC Plus was also employed. The fused -silica GC column was changed durinV the previous analyses to improve the overall chromatography with increased sample capacity. 7 Additional details of the modified operating parameters are provided in the following table. Modified GC Operating Conditions for Method P 22a-9a Pentaerythritol Determination in Ground Water and Soil Samples Instrument HP 6890 GC Plus with SplitlS litless Injection Column 25-m x 0.53-mm ID x 1.0-pm, 100% Methyl Silicone -007-1 (Bonded Phase), Fused -Silica from Quadrex Oven Temperature Program 1) 130°C for 5 min. 2) 10°C/min to 320°C 3 Hold at 320°C for 15 min. Inlet - 1:1 Split 3000C isothermal Detector (FID) 3200C In'ectionCVolume 1.0-p1 Helium arrier Flow 3.0-mi/min. Ave. LV-28-cm/sec. , 2.79-psi Sample Preparation - In a 17-mLvial,-250-300-mg of water sample was accurately weighed. The sample was diluted with 5-mL pyridine. Then a specific amount of n- octadecane internal standard solution (n-C18 IS) in pyridine was then added by pipette to the vial (0.5-mL of 1.0487-mg/mL concentration or 0.54320-mg n-C18). Finally, 4-mL of the trimethyl silylating reagent (TMS) was added and the vial securely capped (Teflon lined) and carefully mixed. The TMS reagent consisted of a 10:10:1 blend of BSTFA:HMDS:TMCS (see reagent list). Due to the water present in the samples, the subsequent reaction with the TMS reagents is very exothermic at first and must be handled cautiously. After the initial exotherm subsides, the sample is heated at 80-85°C for at least 30-45 minutes with occasional mixing. The vial was then cooled to room temperature and a 2-mL aliquot of the clear portion of the pyridine solution transferred to an auto -sampler vial for injection into the GC using the preceding operating conditions. For the direct derivatization scheme, insoluble pyridine-HCL salts are formed by the water reacting with the TMS reagents. Therefore, the sample usually requires centrifugation to obtain a clear sample phase for analysis. Calibration - In the previous development work, the calibration curves obtained for the mono -PE reference standard versus the n-C18 IS were always found to be very linear over a wide concentration range (-0.0001-1.0-mg/mL).5,6 This greatly simplified the overall procedure by allowing the use of an average experimental response factor (ERF) for calculating the levels of PE present based on the amount of n-C18 IS added to the samples. PE levels were then calculated based on the starting weight of water used (as received basis). Accurate maintenance of sample volumes was unnecessary with the use of ERF/internal standard procedure. The average experimental response factor (ERF) determined for the mono -PE reference standard (X33883-32-1) versus n-C18 internal standard was —0.572 or essentially the same as found in previous work. A typical calibration curve obtained with the modified operating parameters is seen below using fresh calibration solutions. Typical GC Calibration of mono-Pentaervthritol Standard ( X33883-32-1) Versus n-Octadecane Internal Standard Mono-Pentaerythritol n-Octadecane Int. Std. Calibration Concentration Concentration Solution ma/ml Peak Area ma/ml Peak Area E 0.04514 108.3 0.04532 54.5 D 0.08025 216.8 0.08058 117.5 C 0.16050 443.5 0.16115 249.3 B 0.40126 1141.8 0.40288 658.7 A 0.80252 2309.4 0.80576 1344.3 GC Calibration of Mono -PE 5000 4000 3000 2000 i� a 0 -1000 - . — Conc. - mg/ml ® PE a C18 1S -- Linear (PE) — Linear (C18 IS) Mono -PE y = 2909.7x - 16.024 / R�=1 � n-C/ y = 1699.6x - 17.954 For the current work, the theoretical response factors (TRF) were also calculated for mono -PE and several of the higher derivatives (2-PE, 3-PE and 4-PE) based on their effective carbon numbers (ECN) using a computer program originally set-up by R. A. Mowery.7 The TRF of 0.6109 that was calculated for the mono -PE was slightly higher but in good agreement with the average ERF=0.572 obtained. Therefore, better estimations of the ERFs for 2-PE, 3-PE and 4-PE were also calculated using the relative TRF ratios. The calculated TRFs (as the TMS derivatives) are listed below along with the TRF ratio adjusted ERFs. Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Response Factors PE Derivative Calc. TRF TRF Ratio Calc. ERF mono -PE 0.6109 ---------------------- —0.572 2-PE 0.7091 2-PE/1-PE=1.161 —0.664 3-PE 0.7534 3-PE/1-PE=1.233 —0.705 4-PE 0.7827 4-PE/1-PE=1.281 --0.733 Reagents 1) The high purity water used in this study was obtained from the Biochem Lab's distilled, deionized, Milli-Q filtration system. 2) The mono-pentaerythritol (PE) (X33883-32-1) and di-pentaerythritol (2-PE) (X33883- 32-2) reference standards were previously obtained from MCW. The tri-PE (3-PE) reference standard (X34025-44-3) was supplied by J. J. Zhang. An overlay plot of these three reference standards is provided in Figure 4. 3) The pyridine solvent was an anhydrous, reagent grade obtained from J. T. Baker Chemical Co. 4) The trimethyl silylating (TMS) derivatizing reagents were obtained from Pierce Chemical Co. a) BSTFA - N, O-bis (Trimethylsilyl)trifluooacetamide b) HMDS — Hexamethyldisilazane c) TMCS — Trimethylchlorosilane 5) Mono-Pentaerythritol Standard Solution—102.38-mg of mono -PE reference standard (X33883-32-1) from MCW, dissolved in water in a 100-mL volumetric flask. 6) n-Octadecane Internal Standard Solution—104.87-mg dissolved in pyridine in a 100- mL volumetric flask. References 1) R. L. Maud, E-mail to S. F. Nitchman and J. A. Graham, March 23, 2005, 2:04 PM. 2) Ian Phillips of Roux Associates, Inc., E-mail to R. L. Maud, April 6, 2005, 8:45 AM. 3) Petitioned Health Assessment, Hercules Dumpsite (a/k/a Hercules Landfill) Mansfield, Bristol County, Massachusetts, www.atsdr.edc.gov/HAC/hercules/her_pl.html, March 25, 2005. 4) B. L. Carr, ERL LIMS Project Report, RES-03-0296, September 22, 2003. 5) S. F. Nitchman, LIMS Project Report, RES-05-0558, June 13, 2005. 6) S. F. Nitchman, LIMS Project Report, RES-05-0617, July 26, 2005. 7) S. F. Nitchman, LIMS Project Report, RES-06-0692, February 28, 2006. 8) J. T. Scanlon and D. E. Willis, Journal of Chromatographic Science, Vol. 23, p. 333-340, August, 1985. 9) C. C. Lynch, LIMS Project Report, RES-06-0692, MSLR No. 10393, February 23, 2006. 10) Ian Phillips of Roux Associates, Inc., E-mail to S. F. Nitchman, March 9, 2009, 10:29 AM. 11) Ian Phillips of Roux Associates, Inc., E-mail to S. F. Nitchman, March 16, 2009, 01:28 PM. 0 w 0- 2 0. L6 N co 3 3 wC+ N N L U r` E O 4-- 00 d LO 00 L 00 M LL X O a (6 O C O to a O T (6 N i O s m U) 3�a ~ � � U X 0) W N N 0a..IL N undw iu95e M _..... �i�. i a SWl 00 i v 'Pis 'Iulaueoapelo0-u ��_... E I I c c c V 12 0 o O1 0 o 3d-au 0 0 00 0 000 O O 00 N N N N = S S S W W W W N g a as w m N co 0 00E 'm'm0rn mEUy� N Nc°n ^m 'I. U 0 mm0 in wood a a�0aw a; d dad X�5co X3� � m m � LL LL LLLLQ l J AS —__ E. c N °� L3d9 � I n M O I N `� / 2 O G I W C N Daa � ry I N N I 111 0 ry N n III C t N o- 0 c c m m � tt O O O ( N 0 0 o N cc 0 000 w w w a a a Dd 0 0 rn m 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 NI Cl.) ass N Nil I N W Q Q Q N'., 1900 M °m W 001 W N' C w; (L0 LL LL LL m7. I 6 0 O O O tD N O O V o] O N �- MM MIL n E C m 7 N (D � N � U N C W N N N d >.N oaa 0 N a 'P)S 1uI eueoepelo0-u N O M 0 0 S3d ouow o 0 x w a ^ ry m N W r'? am m C0 co co O EX o E nN N � LL O. m N 4<"- FACT SHEET: PENTAERYTHRITOL (PE) General Information Pentaerythritol (PE) is used in coatings such as paints and urethanes, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, and in the production of explosives. PE, itself, is not an explosive. PE is an alcohol that readily dissolves in water. It is a stable, odorless, white powder under ordinary conditions. PE is not known to occur naturally, and can enter the environment through discharges of waste and waste water. PE does not result in reproductive, neurologic, mutagenic or developmental effects. PE is not consid- ered a cancer -causing or suspected cancer -causing compound Standards & Guidelines Exposure & Health Effects Neither the Massachusetts Department of Envi- ronmental Protection ("MassDEP") nor the The only measureable health effects from exposure to PE United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a Maximum Contaminant are soft feces or diarrhea, and flatulence. High levels of Level (MCL) or a drinking water standard for PE. acute exposure to compounds structurally similar to PE In fact no state in the country has established which are widely found in the diet may cause lactose in - such a standard. However, after PE was discov- tolerance -like symptoms (similar to those noted for PE) in ered in ground water in Mansfield, the MassDEP, some people. Chronic exposure to high levels of such com- using EPA methods, has recommended a precau- tionary health -based guideline for PE in drinking pounds also caused functional and structural kidney water of 525 milligrams per liter (mg/L). changes. Human exposure to PE can occur through inges- The MassDEP has done an extensive literature tion, inhalation, and skin contact. Ingestion of PE may search to assess potential health effects of PE. occur through the consumption of contaminated drinking The literature reviewed by MassDEP has indi- water or, for workers, through the incidental ingestion of cated that exposure to PE does not result in re- PE in its powder form. Workers may also be exposed via productive, neurologic, mutagenic or developmen- tal effects. PE is not considered a cancer -causing inhalation and accidental skin exposures to PE during or suspected cancer -causing compound by the manufacturing. For the general public, inhalation can following agencies: occur from breathing water aerosol during domestic ac- United States Environmental Protection tivities such as showering, bathing, and washing clothes Agency (EPA) and dishes. Skin exposure can also occur as a result of P United States Agency for Toxic Substances using water contaminated with PE for domestic purposes. If a person is exposed, PE does not remain in the human and Disease Registry (ATSDR) body for a long time and is excreted from the body in less National Institute Occupational Safety and than one to two days. Health (NIOSH) Occupational Safety and Health Administra- Many factors determine whether exposure to PE would tion (OSHA) result in soft feces or diarrhea. These include the dose National Toxicology Program (how much you were exposed to and the way you came in International Agency for Research on Can- contact with it). Your age, gender, diet, family traits, life- cer style and state of health also must be considered. De- pending on the factors listed above, individuals may ex- perience some effects; however, studies have shown that these effects are reversible when exposure is eliminated. a ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC HE0015.0025M002.1111AU2 FACT SHEET: PENTAERYTHRITOL (PE) General Information Pentaerythritol (PE) is used in coatings such as paints and urethanes, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, and in the production of explosives. PE, itself, is not an explosive. PE is an alcohol that readily dissolves in water. It is a stable, odorless, white powder under ordinary conditions. PE is not known to occur naturally, and can enter the environment through discharges of waste and waste water. PE does not result in reproductive, neurologic, mutagenic or developmental effects. PE is not consid- ered a cancer -causing or suspected cancer -causing compound Standards & Guidelines Exposure & Health Effects Neither the Massachusetts Department of Envi- ronmental Protection ("MassDEP") nor the The only measureable health effects from exposure to PE United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a Maximum Contaminant are soft feces or diarrhea, and flatulence. High levels of Level (MCL) or a drinking water standard for PE. acute exposure to compounds structurally similar to PE In fact no state in the country has established which are widely found in the diet may cause lactose in - such a standard. However, after PE was discov- tolerance -like symptoms (similar to those noted for PE) in ered in ground water in Mansfield, the MassDEP, using EPA methods, has recommended a precau- some people. Chronic exposure to high levels of such com- tionary health -based guideline for PE in drinking pounds also caused functional and structural kidney water of 525 milligrams per liter (mglL). changes. Human exposure to PE can occur through inges- The MassDEP has done an extensive literature tion, inhalation, and skin contact. Ingestion of PE may search to assess potential health effects of PE. occur through the consumption of contaminated drinking The literature reviewed by MassDEP has indi. water or, for workers, through the incidental ingestion of cated that exposure to PE does not result in re- PE in its powder form. Workers may also be exposed via productive, neurologic, mutagenic or developmen- tal effects. PE is not considered a cancer -causing inhalation and accidental skin exposures to PE during or suspected cancer -causing compound by the manufacturing. For the general public, inhalation can following agencies: occur from breathing water aerosol during domestic ac- United States Environmental Protection tivities such as showering, bathing, and washing clothes Agency (EPA) and dishes. Skin exposure can also occur as a result of p United States Agency for Toxic Substances using water contaminated with PE for domestic purposes. If a person is exposed, PE does not remain in the human and Disease Registry (ATSDR) body for a long time and is excreted from the body in less National Institute Occupational Safety and than one to two days. Health (NIOSH) Occupational Safety and Health Administra- tion (OSHA) Many factors determine whether exposure to PE would result in soft feces or diarrhea. These include the dose National Toxicology Program (how much you were exposed to and the way you came in International Agency for Research on Can- contact with it). Your age, gender, diet, family traits, life- cer style and state of health also must be considered. De- pending on the factors listed above, individuals may ex- perience some effects; however, studies have shown that these effects are reversible when exposure is eliminated. a ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC HE0015.0025M002.111/A112 Commonly Asked Questions & Answers: • My well has been tested and the concentration of PE is over the 525 mg/L precautionary guideline. What should I do? Concentrations at or above 525 mg/L indicate that there is the potential for soft feces or diarrhea to occur, not necessarily that they will occur. The precau- tionary health -based guideline is expected to be a concentration where no effects are observed. However, if the PE concentration in your water is above the recommended precautionary health - based drinking water guideline of 525 mg/L, the MassDEP recommends that an alternative source of drinking water be used. The MassDEP will arrange for an alternative source of drinking water for any homeowner where the concentration of PE exceeds the precautionary guideline of 525 mg/ L. • The concentration of PE in my well is over 525 mg/L but I do not drink the water. Can I use my tap water to wash my dishes and bathe? Yes. Exposure to PE can occur through both dermal contact with contaminated water and through inhalation of water aerosol containing PE. However, there are no expected effects from these types of exposures because the amount ab- sorbed is very small. •• Will exposure to PE in my domestic drinking water affect my unborn child or my ability to reproduce? No effects on the fetus, reproduction, and development have been observed in the available studies for PE. Additional Resources & Information For information related to human health risk and/or exposure, please contact: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STANDARDS One Winter Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Attn: Michael Hutcheson, Ph.D., MPH Phone: (617) 292-5998 For information related to the sample collection and testing results, please contact: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WASTE SITE CLEANUP 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 Attn: Gerard Martin, Chief - Site Management & Permitting Section Phone: (508) 946-2799 ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. 67 S. Bedford Street, Suite 101 W, Burlington, Massachusetts 01890 Attn: Ian Phillips, Licensed Site Professional Phone: (781) 270-6600 January 30, 2009 ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC HE0015.0025M002.11 VAU