HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Health Assess. Report - 3/6/2006The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Department of Public Health
Center for Environmental Health
Environmental Toxicology Program
MITT ROMNEY 250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619
GOVERNOR
KERRY HEALEY LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
TIMOTHY R. MURPHY
SECRETARY
PAUL 7. COTE, JR.
COMMISSIONER
March 6, 2006
Scott Leite
Mansfield Board of Health
6 Park Row
Mansfield, MA 02048
Dear Mr. Leite,
Enclosed please find a copy of our public health assessment report entitled "Hatheway and
Patterson Company." As you know, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH),
Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Environmental Toxicology Program (ETP) developed
this health assessment as part of the Department's requirements under a cooperative agreement
with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that requires that a public
health assessment be completed for any site proposed or listed as a federal "Superfund" site. The
site was formerly used as a wood treatment facility and the primary compounds of concern are
arsenic, pentachlorophenol, and dioxins. The health assessment evaluates available
environmental data for the site for public health concerns, as well as available cancer incidence
data for Mansfield.
MDPH concluded that in the past, this site posed public health concerns for past employees and
trespassers, as well as members of the public who may have consumed fish from the Rumford
River and its impoundments (Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds). Institutional measures, such
as covering contaminated areas of the property and the removal of arsenic -contaminated soil off -
site at adjacent residences, have been undertaken by the environmental regulatory agencies to
minimize opportunities for exposure. Evidence of trespassing was noted by ETP staff during
several site inspections, despite efforts to deter such activity. Concerns remain for contaminants
migrating off -site via groundwater and the Rumford River that could potentially impact
residences (e.g., basement flooding and/or seepage) and downstream fish. In 1999, MDPH
issued a public health fish consumption advisory for several water bodies, including the Rumford
River that is still in place at this time.
MDPH and ASTDR consider the site a public health hazard under both past and current
conditions. MDPH recommends further characterization of groundwater flow by environmental
regulatory agencies and intervention to prevent further discharge of groundwater contaminants in
the Rumford River. Also, MDPH recommends periodic inspection of institutional controls,
elimination of physical hazards at the site, and additional downstream fish testing (e.g., Norton
Reservoir).
We have enclosed a copy of the document and a public health fact sheet for your office and will
also be providing copies for the public to the Mansfield Public library.
If you have any questions, please call us at (617) 624-5757.
Sincerely,
Elaine T. Krueger, Dire v
Environmental Toxicology Program
Center for Environmental Health
cc: Suzanne K. Condon, Associate Commissioner, MDPH/CEH
Martha J. Steele, Deputy Director, MDPH/CEH
David Lederer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England
Millie Garcia-Surrette, Deputy Regional Director, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection — Southeast Regional Office
Mark Tisa, Assistant Director, Department of Fish and Game — Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife
George W. Young, Jr., Health Agent, Foxborough Health Department
William Sweet, Senior Regional Representative, ATSDR Region I
Enclosures
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Department of Public Health -
250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619
MITT ROMNEY
.GOVERNOR
KERRY HEALEY
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
TIMOTHY R. MURPHY
SECRETARY
PAULJ. COTE, JR.
COMMISSIONER
Hatheway & Patterson Site
Mansfield, Massachusetts
Questions & Answers
1. Why was aPublic Health Assessment (PHA) conducted for the Hatheway &
Patterson site?
The Hatheway & Patterson (H&P) site, formerly used as a wood treatment facility, was
proposed for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on September 13, 2001. When a site is proposed for listing, the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is required by federal law
to conduct a public health assessment for the site. The Massachusetts Department of
Public Health (MDPH) has a cooperative agreement with the ATSDR to conduct public
health assessments at NPL and other sites in Massachusetts. The H&P public health
assessment evaluates available environmental data for the H&P site to determine
potential public health implications.
2. Where is the Hatheway & Patterson site?
The H&P site is located in Mansfield, Massachusetts at 15-35 County Street and occupies
approximately 44 acres in'a mixed residential and industrial area. The H&P property is
bordered by wooded areas and wetlands, and is divided into quadrants by an active
freight railroad, the former Consolidated Rail Corp. (CONRAIL) and the Rumford River.
3. Why was the site added to the NPL (National Priority List)?
Releases of dioxins from the facility into the Rumford River have impacted fisheries and
wetlands, and releases of arsenic, chromium, and pentachlorophenol on soil pose or
posed a threat to trespassers and nearby residents.
H&P 2/2/06
4. What areas of the H&P site are most contaminated?
The most contaminated areas were in soil on the H&P property in the northeast quadrant
where the wood treatment (process area) occurred, in the southeast central area, and in
fish from the Rumford River.
5. Did the site pose health concerns in the past to the public?
Opportunities for exposure in the past indicate that the site posed health concerns for past
employees and trespassers, as well as the public that may have consumed fish from the
Rumford River and its impoundments (Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds). Populations
that could have had opportunities for exposure to compounds in surface soil in the past
include H&P employees before the facility shut down in 1993, and other workers, such as
those who installed the groundwater treatment in 1973, as well as trespassers on the site,
particularly children and teenagers.
6. Does the site currently pose public health concerns?
Protective measures, such as covering areas contaminated with high levels of arsenic,
posting warning signs and installing a barbed wire fence around the perimeter of the site,
have been undertaken to minimize opportunities for exposure on and around the site.
However, MDPH staff has observed evidence of trespassing on the site (e.g., graffiti,
broken bottles).
There are concerns that in the future, contaminants may migrate off -site in groundwater
to neighborhoods adjacent to the site and seep into basements or private wells.
7. What health concerns are associated with contaminants on this site?
Arsenic, chromium, PCP, and dioxin are all considered probable or possible human
carcinogens. The cancer types most strongly associated with at least one of these
contaminants are liver, lung, bladder, or kidney cancer, as well as non-Hodgkins's
lymphoma (NHL). However, such health concerns are associated with long-term, daily
exposure to maximum levels of contaminants —most likely associated with occupational
exposure or exposure prior to remedial efforts on the site. It should be noted that such
exposures at this site are currently unlikely.
8. Have cancer incidence data for Mansfield been evaluated in relation to this site?
H&P 2/2/06
Yes. Because of past exposure concerns, MDPH reviewed the geographic distribution of
five cancer types (previously mentioned) in Mansfield for the years 1995 - 2000 (the
years available) from the Massachusetts Cancer Registry. The results did not suggest an
unusual pattern of diagnoses relative to the H&P site. In general,.the incidence of the five
types of cancers reviewed occurred about as often as would be expected.
9. Are children more at risk?
Children are at a greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposure to hazardous
substances emitted from waste sites. They are more likely to be exposed because they
play outdoors and often bring food into contaminated areas. Because of their smaller
stature, they are also more likely to breathe and ingest dust and soil, and also breathe
heavy vapors close to the ground, which may result in higher doses of contaminant
exposure. For these reasons, children should be reminded frequently not to trespass on
this site.
10. What water bodies are affected by the site?
MDPH evaluated health concerns related to fish consumption in two previous health
consultations that formed the basis of the current MDPH fish consumption advisory for
the Rumford River, its impoundments (i.e., Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds) and
Norton Reservoir. Fish from Norton Reservoir, as well as Cabot Pond have not been
evaluated to date, and no barrier exists between the Rumford River and these downstream
water bodies. Thus, testing of downstream fish by environmental regulatory agencies as
recommended in previous health consultations is still necessary.
11. Have private wells in the area been impacted by the H&P site?
The Mansfield Board of Health conducted a well water survey in September and October
of 1992 involving residents of adjacent areas (Highland Avenue, Morrow Street and
Chauncy Street). Of the 20 homes surveyed, 13 responded. All respondents reported that
they were connected to town water. One resident reported having a private well designed
for lawn watering, but he reported that he had not used it at the time the survey was
conducted. The nearest public drinking water supply in Mansfield is approximately 1.2
miles east-northeast, up -gradient of the H&P property. The Rumford River and Norton
Reservoir are not drinking water supplies.
H&P 2/2/06
12. Are there concerns about future impacts to private wells?
As indicated previously, if contaminants migrate off -site, private wells could be impacted
in the future. Consequently, MDPH recommends further characterization of groundwater
flow and quality in the area (see recommendations in question #15).
13. What are the public health implications of this site?
Based on the review of environmental data at this site, MDPH and ATSDR consider this
site a Public Health Hazard under both past and current conditions.
14. What can I do to protect myself and my family?
Abide by warnings not to trespass on the property. In addition to chemical contaminants
on -site, there are physical hazards such as an open pit and rotting wood on bridges.
Review MDPH's fish consumption advisory (e.g., signs posted near Fulton Pond in
Mansfield), and do not eat fish from the Rumford River and its impoundments, including
the Norton Reservoir.
If you live in the neighborhood adjacent to the site and have concerns about
contamination from groundwater in your private wells or basement, contact your local
board of health, MDPH or environmental regulatory officials for technical assistance.
15. Does MDPH recommend further environmental testing by environmental
regulatory agencies at the H&P site?
• MDPH recommends further characterization of groundwater flow by
environmental regulatory agencies and intervention to prevent additional
discharge of groundwater contaminants into the river.
• MDPH also recommends periodic inspection of institutional controls and the
elimination of physical hazards on the site by environmental regulatory agencies.
• Additional fish testing downstream of the site should be undertaken by
environmental regulatory agencies to determine the extent of contamination.
MDPH will, upon request by environmental officials, evaluate additional
environmental data to assess public health implications.
H&P 2/2/06
16. What types of public involvement has been provided in the PHA process?
In January 2004, MDPH released the H&P document as a draft public health assessment
for public comment. The public was notified by MDPH of the document's availability
for comment through local newspapers. This document addresses the comments received
in writing and serves as the final public health assessment. Responses to comments may
be found in Appendix A of the H&P Public Health Assessment.
17. Who shall I contact if I have public health concerns related to the H&P site
or the Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory?
For additional questions or concerns, contact the Environmental Toxicology Program or
Environmental Education and Outreach Program at MDPH's Center for Environmental
Health at (617) 624-5757. Visit the Center's website for more information at
hitp://Nvww.n,iass.gov/dph/ceh.
H&P 2/2/06