HomeMy WebLinkAboutATSDR-Public Health Report 10/12/2005N
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND DISEASE REGISTRY
HATHEWAY AND PATTERSON COMPANY
MANSFIELD, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
EPA FACILITY ID: MADOO 1060805
OCTOBER 12, 2005
An
9;P
THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION
This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations
(42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health
concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and
potentially responsible parties, where appropriate.
In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA
section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period.
Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate.
The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional
information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency's opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously
issued.
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry ....................................................Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Administrator
Howard Frumkin, M.D., Dr.P.H., Director
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation..........................................................................William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director
Sharon Williams -Fleetwood, Ph.D., Deputy Director
Health Promotion and Community Involvement Branch ................................................ Lisa Calhoun Hayes, P.E., DEE, Acting Chief
Exposure Investigations and Consultation Branch.................................................................................. Susan M. Moore, Ph.D., Chief
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch........................................................................................................ Sandra G. Isaacs, B.S., Chief
Superfund and Program Assessment Branch.........................................................................................Richard E. Gillig, M.C.P., Chief
Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Additional copies of this report are available from:
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
(703) 605-6000
You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at
1-888-42ATSDR
or
Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
Hatheway and Patterson Company
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
HATHEWAY AND PATTERSON COMPANY
MANSFIELD, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
EPA FACILITY ID: MAD001060805
Prepared by:
Environmental Toxicology Program
Center for Environmental Health ,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Under Cooperative Agreement with the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Final Release
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................3
A.
PURPOSE.........................................................................................................................................3
B.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY...................................................................................................3
C.
SITE VISIT.......................................................................................................................................8
D.
DEMOGRAPHICS..............................................................................................................................9
E.
COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS...................................................................................................9
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
...........................................9
A.
ON -SITE CONTAMINATION............................................................................................................10
B.
OFF -SITE CONTAMINATION..........................................................................................................19
C.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)..................................................................23
D.
PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS.................................................................................................23
PATHWAYANALYSIS
......................................................................................................................24
A.
COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS.............................................................................................24
B.
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS...............................................................................................26
C.
ELIMINATED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS............................................................................................27
DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................27
A. EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS
C. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA ...............................
D. CHILD HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS ...................
..................................2 8
............................................................................36
............................................................................39
CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................40
RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................42
PUBLICHEALTH ACTION PLAN..................................................................................................43
CERTIFICATION...............................................................................................................................45
TABLES................................................................................................................................................46
FIGURES..............................................................................................................................................56
REFERENCES
73
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................78
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table I Demographic Characteristics of Mansfield
Table 2 Summary of Surface Soil (0 through 2 ft.) contaminants of concern in the SE
Quadrant.
Table 3 Summary of Surface Soil (0 through 1 ft.) contaminants of concern in the NE
Quadrant.
Table 4 Summary of Surface Soil (0 through 1 ft.) contaminants of concern in the NW
Quadrant.
Table 5 Summary of Surface Soil (0 through 1 ft.) contaminants of concern in the SW
Quadrant.
Table 6 Summary of Surface Soil (0 through 2 ft.) contaminants of concern on the H&P
property
Table 7 Summary of Off -Site Surface Soil Results at Five Residences and the
Corner of County Street North of these Residences
Table 8 Summary of compounds of concern in fish samples collected by USEPA
(September and October 2003)
m
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Hatheway and Patterson Site, Mansfield, MA
Figure 2 Rumford River and Impoundments, Hatheway and Patterson Site
Figure 3 Hatheway and Patterson Co. Property, Hatheway and Patterson Site
Figure 4 Former Operations Area (Northern Portion), Hatheway and Patterson Site
Figure 5 Northeast Quadrant (CCA and PCP Process Area): Ground Cover, Hatheway and
Patterson Site
Figure 6 Northwest Quadrant: (Dricon Process Area): Ground Cover, Hatheway and
Patterson Site
Figure 7 Southeast and Southwest Quadrants, Hatheway and Patterson Site
Figure 8 Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Soil Samples from 1989, Hatheway
and Patterson Site
Figure 9 Site Map and Ground Cover from 1993-1994 Remedial Action, Hatheway and
Patterson Site
Figure 10 Locations of Off -site Soil Samples and Excavation, Hatheway and Patterson Site
(Weston Solutions, Inc., 2004)
Figure 11 Rumford River Backwash Sampling, Hatheway and Patterson Site (Keystone
1989)
Figure 12a On- and Off -site Environmental Samples, Hatheway and Patterson Site (TRC
2004)
Figure 12b Off -site Environmental Samples, Hatheway and Patterson Site (TRC 2004)
Figure 13a On -site Environmental Samples, Hatheway and Patterson Site (TRC 2001)
Figure 13b Off -site Environmental Samples, Hatheway and Patterson Site (TRC 2001)
iv
List of Appendices
Appendix A: MDPH and ATSDR Responses to Public Comments
Appendix B: Public Health Fish Consumption Advisories:
Letter to Mansfield Board of Health Re: Provisional Public Health Fish
Consumption Advisory for Fulton, Kingman & Cabot ponds, and the Norton
Reservoir (October 19, 1998)
Letter to Mansfield Board of Health Re: Updated Public Health Fish
Consumption Advisory for Fulton, Kingman & Cabot ponds, and the Norton
Reservoir (June 30, 1999)
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory Poster (October, 1998/ Updated June 1999)
Appendix C: ATSDR Plain Language Glossary of Environmental Health Terms of
Environmental Health Terms (Revised —17 Dec 2002)
Appendix D: Site Pictures
Appendix E: Chemical -Specific Toxicity Information
Appendix F: Risk Calculations and Exposure Pathways
u
SUMMARY
The Hatheway & Patterson (H&P) property, approximately 44 acres, is located at 15 County
Street in a mixed residential/industrial area in Mansfield, Massachusetts. The Hatheway and
Patterson Company operated a wood preserving facility from 1953 to 1993, when they filed for
bankruptcy. From the 1970s through the 1990s, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MDEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required H&P to
address and take some remedial actions related to contaminated soil and seeps flowing from their
property to the Rumford River to adjacent properties and surrounding wetlands. In 1999 and
2001, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) issued two health consultations
related to contamination on -site and off -site. MDPH issued a public health fish consumption
advisory for several water bodies, including the Rumford River that is still in place at the time of
this public health assessment. In January 2004, MDPH released this 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.
The site, intersected by the Consolidated Railway rail line and the Rumford River, has been
divided into quadrants to facilitate discussion and management of remedial actions. The primary
contaminants of concern in surface soil are arsenic, chromium, pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
dioxins. The primary contaminants of concern in groundwater, sediment, surface water (i.e., the
Rumford River and its off -site impoundments) and in fish are dioxins and PCP.
The most contaminated areas, where contaminants exceeded health -based comparison values and
typical background levels, were in the northeast (NE) quadrant where the former process area
was located, and in the southeast (SE) quadrant in the River and in the central area. Maximum
concentrations of contaminants included arsenic at 1,860 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) in soil in
the NE quadrant, chromium at 1,886 mg/kg in soil in the NE quadrant, PCP at 4,900 mg/kg in
soil in the NE quadrant and dioxins at 44,951 nanograms/kg (ng/kg) in soil/sediment in the SE
quadrant.
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). Institutional measures, such as
covering areas contaminated with high levels of arseni- and other interventions, have been
undertaken to minimize opportunities for exposure. Evidence of trespassing was noted at 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. EPA recently
completed a remedial investigation that addressed data gaps in earlier investigations (e.g.,
concerning on -site soil dioxin levels) (Weston Solutions, Inc., 2004; TRC 2004). Based on the
review of environmental data at this site, the MDPH and the federal Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) considers 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 into the River. Also, MDPH recommends periodic inspection of
institutional controls and elimination of physical hazards at the site by environmental regulatory
agencies. Education and outreach activities by MDPH associated with the public health fish
consumption advisory should continue on an ongoing basis, and additional fish testing
downstream of the site should be undertaken by environmental regulatory agencies to determine
the extent of contamination.
A. Purpose
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 (66 Federal Register 47612). When a site is proposed for listing,
ATSDR is required by federal law to conduct a public health assessment for the site. The MDPH
has a cooperative agreement with the ATSDR to conduct public health assessments at NPL and
other sites in Massachusetts. This public health assessment evaluates available environmental
data for the H&P site for public health implications.
B. Site Description and History
The H&P site is located in Mansfield, Massachusetts (Figures 1 and 2), at 15-35 County Street
and occupies approximately 44 acres in a mixed residential and industrial area. The H&P
property is bordered to the north by County Street and residential properties; to the south and
west by heavily wooded areas and wetlands and another residential neighborhood; and to the east
by T.D. Verrochi Inc., a welding and masonry supply company. Before T.D Verrochi Inc.
occupied the property in 1993, Conlon and Donnelly, a feed and grain supply company, was
located east of H&P (Mansfield Assessors Office, 2002). The site is divided into quadrants by an
active freight railroad system, formerly the Consolidated Rail Corp. (CONRAIL), that runs east -
west and by the Rumford River which runs north -south (Figure 3). The southern property
boundary extends along a shallow water body referred to as the Rumford River backwash
channel. Wetlands abut the Rumford River backwash channel, and part of the southern section of
the property is in a floodplain. Beyond the Rumford River backwash, the Rumford River flows
south where Hencke Brook and Robinson Brook meet it. At this location the Rumford River is
located several yards from residential properties. It then flows through Fulton, Kingman and
Cabot Ponds in Mansfield. A mile and a half downstream of Cabot Pond, the River has been
impounded to form the Norton Reservoir (Figures 1 and 2) 10 miles from H&P in Norton (EPA
2003).
The Hatheway and Patterson Company, Inc. was a wood preserving facility that operated from
1953 to 1993, when H&P filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations (Roy F. Weston 1995).
Operations at the site included preserving wood, sheeting, planking, timber, piling, poles, and
other wood products. Historical information indicates that H&P began operating on the property
in 1927, but it is unknown what operations were conducted on the property from 1927 to 1953
(Roy F. Weston 1995). H&P used a variety of methods and materials in the process of preserving
wood, which occurred in the NE and northwest (NW) quadrants. Treated wood was stored
throughout the property, but primarily in the SE quadrant. Products used during operations
included pentachlorophenol (PCP), creosote, fluoro-chrome-arsenate-phenol (FCAP)t salts and
chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA). Wood was also infused with fire retardants, including Dricon
'Fuuoro-chrome-arsenate-phenol (FCAP) - is made of 25% sodium fluoride, 25% sodium arsenate, 37.5% sodium
chromate, and 12.5%2,4 dinitrophenol).
(boric acid and anhydrous sodium tetraborate) on the property (Roy F. Weston 1993). The
various wood -treating chemicals were stored in aboveground storage tanks, underground storage
tanks, and sumps located inside and outside of buildings in the NE and NW quadrants (see
Figure 4) (Roy F. Weston 1995).
A majority of the historical operational areas and buildings are located on the northern portion of
the property, which is referred to as the "former operations area" (DynCorp Information and
Engineering Technology 2001) (see Figure 4). The Rumford River bisects the northern portion of
the site into NE and NW quadrants. The NE quadrant contains the cylinder 03 building where
CCA processes occurred and the cylinder 01 and 02 building where PCP processes occurred
figure 4). Each process area contained storage tanks, sumps and a drip pad. The stacker building,
kiln building, a small boiler room, a wood storage area, the mill building as well as the office are
also in the NE quadrant. The NW quadrant contained the process areas for Dricon consisting of
the former cylinder 04 building, a large recovery sump, a drip pad, a laboratory, a boiler room, a
wood storage area and large tanks that once contained Dricon. To prevent or reduce contact with
contaminated soils, EPA covered most of both the NE (Figure 5) and the NW (Figure 6)
quadrants with asphalt or gravel in 1994.
Areas of the H&P property south of the railroad tracks are generally level as a result of filling
activities and were used for storing treated wood (see Figures 7 & 8). The southwest (SW)
portion of the property is mostly wooded and contained a wood storage area. Two former wood
storage buildings were located in the SE portion of the property. Much of the SE quadrant is
densely wooded, contains wetlands, and is bounded by the Rumford River backwash channel.
Extensive filling of the wetlands on the site also included the rerouting of the Rumford River
from its previous course in the eastern portion of the property to its present southerly course, also
shown in Figure 7 (Roy F. Weston 1993). Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MDEP) officials noted that geologic conditions associated with the filled riverbed
facilitate preferential contaminant flow through these filled areas. This is reportedly evident by
seep outbreaks observed along the southern central site areas, and historical outbreaks of tar mats
along the Rumford River as it now passes by former flow paths (see Figure 8) (Roy F. Weston
1993). Small portions of the SE and SW sections have been covered with gravel (see Figure 9).
History of Contamination and Remedial Actions
In 1972, the town of Mansfield and MDPH discovered a tar mat approximately 62 feet long and 6
inches deep on the southern portion of the H&P property, and residents complained of "oily
water" and dead waterfowl in Fulton Pond downstream of the Rumford River (Roy F. Weston
1995). H&P installed deep -water booms and sorbents to prevent leachate from entering the
Rumford River (MDEQE 1973). H&P in subsequent years attempted other remediation efforts,
such as a groundwater collection trench (Keystone 1988), but contamination was still evident
from the site.
In 1982, more effective cleanup methods were requested (MDEQE 1982). In May 1987,
following an on -site reconnaissance, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
0
Engineering (MDEQE)2 issued a Notice of Non-compliance to H&P (Keystone 1988) which
required H&P to complete a Phase I Initial Site Investigation3 (Phase I) (Roy F. Weston 1993)
which was conducted in November 1987 (Keystone 1988).
After a review of the Phase I report, MDEQE issued a Notice of Responsibility letter to H&P in
August 1988, which required H&P to conduct a complete Phase II Site Investigation (Phase 11), a
risk assessment, and an alternative evaluation. In addition, H&P was added to the Massachusetts
Hazardous Waste site list (MDEQE 1988). During the Phase II investigation, several drums of
recovered oil collected during groundwater pumping from the 1970s, were found. These had
been stored on the H&P property along the eastern bank of the Rumford River,4 but at some
point, vandals reportedly shot holes in the drums, tipped them over, and allowed the oils to seep
into the ground and the River (EPA 2003).
In June 1990, following a period of heavy rainfall, a "release of product along the left bank of the
Rumford River" was again reported by a resident and confirmed by MDEP, which issued a
request that H&P implement a Short Term Measure to address the imminent hazard (MDEP
1990). See Figure 7 for location of seep and the Short Term Measure. In the fall of 1990,
Keystone conducted a Short Term Measure investigation, which included sampling of the visibly
stained soil along the riverbank and reported that the major constituent of the seepage was semi -
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including PCP, and other phenols (Keystone 1991). In the
fall of 1991, H&P constructed a collection trench along the eastern bank of the Rumford River
(see Figure 7) that was designed to intercept groundwater and oils migrating to the River from
the oil -contaminated portion of the riverbank (Keystone 1992). All recaptured oil and water
recovered from this trench was reused by H&P in the plant process (Keystone 1989).
hi February 1992, Penney Engineering, hic. began monthly monitoring of the collection trench
and retrofitted the trench to include a groundwater treatment system consisting of activated
carbon canisters prior to discharging the groundwater to the Rumford River (Penney Engineering
1992). Other problems were identified by environmental regulatory agencies (Roy F. Weston
1995) and as a result, MDEP requested that H&P conduct additional assessment and
development plans for corrective action on the property. In February 1993, H&P filed for
bankruptcy protection and the H&P facility closed in May (Roy F. Weston 1993).
In June 1993, EPA Region I Emergency Planning and Response Branch (EPRB), MDEP and
Weston -TAT (Technical Assistance Team) personnel initiated a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation at the H&P property. TAT personnel reported finding: 20 55-gallon drums; eight
above -ground storage tanks located in various process buildings, containing a total of
approximately 45,000 gallons of wood -treating chemicals (e.g., PCP, CCA, DriconTM); one
above -ground storage tank (unknown volume) containing fuel oil; indoor pits and sumps with
'Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (MDEQE) is the former name of MDEP. This
change occurred in 1989 ( MDEP 2003b).
7 The Phase I Initial Site Investigation is conducted pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (MGL), Chapter 21E,
Sections 4 and 5
a J.E. Gould, of the MDEQE, wrote of concerns about "eight open 55-gallon drums of retrieved oil' ... "stored
unprotected against vandalism or spilling" (4/17/75),
water and sludge from former wood -treatment processes; and six underground storage tanks
located in the vicinity of the former cylinder 01 and 02 buildings that contained various wastes.
Weston -TAT personnel collected five surface soil samples (from a depth of 0 to 2 feet) from
areas of the H&P property suspected to have the highest levels of contamination-- two from the
NE and three from seep areas in the SE quadrants (see Figure 8). The primary contaminants
detected were PCP, two polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (i.e., pyrene and
fluoranthene), and arsenic. From these samples, EPA determined that a Removal Action was
necessary (EPA 1993).
NIDEP also discovered via monitoring well data that a PCP- and CCA-contaminated
groundwater plume was moving south into adjacent wetlands and the Rumford River backwash
channel. In addition, non -aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) was observed in monitoring wells that
had previously been free of NAPL (NIDEP 1994). However, this occurrence may have been
related to a "major fire" on July 14, 1993 at the Conlon and Donnelly grain warehouse, on the
eastern boundary of the H&P property. An estimated one million gallons of water were
discharged near the NE portion of the site, which may have caused an unusual oil migration on
and after August 26, 1993. Prior to that (on July 21), wells were gauged and did not have
significant amounts of oil (Penney Engineering 1993).
In December 1993, EPA initiated an Emergency Removal Action (Roy F. Weston 1995).
Approximately 100,000 gallons of liquid and solid wastes were removed from the site.
Laboratory analysis of the wastes indicated the presence of SVOCs, volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs), metals, dioxin and furans (Roy F. Weston 1995). Areas that exceeded 300 mg/kg5
arsenic in soil were covered with asphalt in August 1995 (Figure 9). The process areas in the NE
quadrant had the highest arsenic levels at up to 3,000 mg/kg. Emergency Removal Action
continued through September 1995 and included repair and installation of the fence (and barbed
wire) around the perimeter of the property, installation of locks on the tanks and buildings, filling
potholes and applying Petromat (a combined layer of tar and fabric) to some areas and placing
gravel along roadsides. Also, additional warning signs were posted and efforts were made to
ensure that overland water flow would be directed toward the Rumford River (Roy F. Weston
1995).
On April 10, 1998, EPA -START (Superfund Technical Assessment Response Team) personnel
conducted on -site reconnaissance of the H&P property and observed oily sheens breaking out
into the Rumford River (see Figure 8). Oily seepage was also observed on soil in the south-
central portion of the property along the southern edge of the fill line. On June 11, 1998, MDEP
contracted Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc. to collect samples that were analyzed for
dioxins and furans. The results indicated that dioxins were present in surface water (4.2
picograms per liter (pg/L)) and sediment (44,951 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg)) collected
from the Rumford River and adjacent wetlands (Clean Harbors 1998).
s Milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) = parts per million (ppm)
M
Due to the dioxin detections, MDEP requested that the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife (MDFW) postpone fish stocking of area ponds (MDEP 1998). Also in October 1998,
the Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment/Environmental Toxicology Program
(BEHA/ETP) of MDPH issued a provisional public health fish consumption advisory due to the
elevated level of dioxins identified in surface water near H&P and because dioxins have a high
potential to bioconcentrate in fish (MDPH 1999). MDPH also recommended that MDEP arrange
with EPA to design a fish sampling protocol to test fish for dioxins (MDPH 1999). On November
23, 1998, EPA Removal Branch personnel collected seven fish tissue samples downstream and
tested the fish (whole and fillets) for PCP, dioxin/furan congeners and arsenic. PCP and a total of
seven dioxin/furan congeners were detected at levels of health concern in fish tissue samples, but
no arsenic was found. Based on this information MDPH issued a public health fish consumption
advisory for the Rumford River, Fulton, Kingman and Cabot ponds, as well as the Norton
Reservoir in June 1999 and released a public health consultation for the Rumford River (MDPH
1999). Because elevated levels of dioxins were found upstream of H&P, one of MDPH's
recommendations was to test the fish from Glue Factory Pond in Foxboro. Additional samples
(seven fish and four sediment) were collected for EPA's Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation on October 15, 1999. Dioxins/f iran congeners were detected in the fish tissue.
These results and their potential threat to public health were evaluated in a second health
consultation: "Glue Factory Pond/Rumford River" (MDPH 2O01).
In the fall of 1998, the town of Mansfield worked with the EPA to obtain a Brownfields
development grant and conducted sampling to consider the feasibility of using primarily Area 2
for a parking lot for the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) and possibly part of Area
1 for an access road (Resource Controls 1997; Figure 9). At the same time efforts were
underway to propose H&P for NPL listing.
In the fall of 2001, Metcalf & Eddy and TRC Environmental Corporation, under contract with
EPA, initiated sampling of 15 existing groundwater wells, surface water/sediment sampling from
19 locations in the Rumford River, and two vernal pools (pools seasonally present in the spring).
Results indicated the presence of a ground water plume containing arsenic and PCP extending
from the process area to the Rumford River, and a possible second ground water plume
emanating from the southern portion of the site. Elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead, PCP
and dioxin were detected in sediment adjacent to the site and elevated concentrations of PCP
were detected in surface water at the site.
H&P became an NPL site on September 5, 2002 (67 Federal Register 56757).
In July and August 2003, EPA collected and analyzed 136 surface soil samples outside of the
perimeter fence on County Street and across the street (on five abutting residential properties) to
determine whether there was any off -site arsenic contamination (above MDEP's action level of
30 mg/kg) (see Figure 10). Because some samples exceeded the action level for arsenic, EPA
Removal Branch initiated an Emergency Removal Action in August 2003 to address the
contaminated soil. By September 2003, over 375 tons of soil was removed from both sides of
7
County Street (including the residential properties). Geotextile fabric was applied to the
excavated areas in order to isolate the soil below and reduce erosion. These areas were then
backfilled with clean soil (Weston Solutions, hie., April 2004).
In June 2005, EPA announced proposed clean-up plans for the site. The plans include
demolition of the all the buildings in the Operations Area and excavation of soils contaminated
with arsenic, PCP, and SVOCs. The soils will be consolidated and stored on -site under a low -
permeability cover. Soils containing dioxin and oily material will be disposed of off -site at a
licensed facility. The plans also include long term monitoring of groundwater migration.
Institutional controls will prohibit the use of site groundwater and restrict residential land uses.
EPA wants to begin demolition of the buildings in 2006.
C. Site Visit
On March 10, 1999, MDPH participated in a site visit of the Rumford River with MDEP, EPA,
and the Mansfield Health Department, including the perimeter of the H&P site. MDEP staff
described seeing trespassers on the property, as well as evidence of trespassing, such as a
campfire ring, broken fences, and vandalism. One of the smaller gates to the property was
unlocked and open. An oily sheen was observed on the River near the groundwater extraction
wells. It was noted that vegetation was absent from areas where treated lumber was dried.
Downstream of the H&P site, the River was inaccessible due to fences, but was accessible again
near Fulton Pond.
On July 1, 2002, MDPH participated in a site visit with EPA, ATSDR, the Mansfield Health
Department, and several consultants (MDPH 2002a). There are fences surrounding much of the
property, although evidence of trespassers (e.g., beer bottles, vandalism, graffiti) was found in
each of the four site quadrants. The gate at the front entrance leaves a gap large enough for
children to breach at the bottom of the gate to the ground. A 5 foot high chain link fence with
barbed wire runs the length of County Street across from the residences. However, the barbed
wire is rusted at several locations and has been pushed back in some sections, allowing
trespassers possible access to the site. Several of the buildings (e.g., Dricon building boiler
room, laboratory building, cylinder 03 building) were unlocked and accessible. The Dricon
building boiler room contained heavy equipment, which could pose a physical hazard. At the
end of the cylinder 03 building, where it meets the CCA drip pad, there is an open entrance to the
building. Before this entrance, there is a pit covered over with aging, unsafe wooden boards that
could pose a physical hazard. The Dricon sump is filled with at least 12 inches of water and is
accessible to trespassers, which is a hazard. There is a pile of wood near the sump that could be
a fire hazard. The wooden bridges that cross the Rumford River are in poor condition, with holes
and rotting sections that pose a physical hazard.
On July 19, 2005, MDPH participated in a site visit with EPA and ATSDR (MDPH 2O05).
Some evidence of trespassing and, as observed in previous site visits, remain (e.g., Dricon sump
filled with water, broken wooden bridges that cross the Rumford River, broken glass). The town
of Mansfield police and fire departments are presently using the former H&P office building and
their presence may be serving as a deterrent to trespassers. However, gaps in the boundary fence
remain, making it possible for trespassers to enter the site. See Appendix D for some photos
from this site visit.
D. Demographics
The H&P site is located within the town of Mansfield, Massachusetts. The 2000 U.S. Census
showed a population of 22,414. Within the town, the H&P site is located in U.S. Census Tract
6101. The 2000 U.S. Census showed that 5,000 individuals reside in this census tract. The sex,
race, and age breakdowns for Mansfield and U.S. Census Tract 6101 are presented in Table 1
(U.S Census 2001). According to 2000 census block data, approximately 1,000 individuals
reside within a half mile of the site.
E. Community Health Concerns
A public information meeting, sponsored by EPA was held in July 2002 to provide information
about prior environmental sampling, outline future plans for the remedial investigations, and
address community concerns (MI)PH 2002b). Community members expressed concerns about
the use of private wells for gardening, oily discharge from a culvert, and a bridge near the H&P
site where water overflows during flooding. Members of the community also expressed interest
in meeting with the EPA more frequently, in order to be informed of planned sampling, sampling
results, risk assessments, and the progress of remediation activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
To evaluate whether a site poses an existing or potential hazard to an exposed or potentially
exposed population, health assessors review all available on -site and off -site environmental
contamination data for all available media (e.g., soil, surface water, groundwater, air, and biota).
A plain language glossary of environmental health terms can be found in Appendix C.
Health assessors use a variety of health -based screening values, called comparison values, to help
decide whether compounds detected at a site might need further evaluation. These comparison
values include environmental media evaluation guides (EMEGs), reference dose media
evaluation guides (RMEGs), cancer risk evaluation guides (CREGs), maximum contaminant
levels for drinking water (MCLs), or other applicable standards. These comparison values have
been scientifically peer reviewed or derived using scientifically peer -reviewed values and are
published by ATSDR and/or EPA. The MDEP has established Massachusetts's maximum
contaminant levels (MMCL) for public drinking water supplies. EMEG, RMEG, MCL, and
MMCL values are used to evaluate the potential for noncancer health effects. CREG values
provide information on the potential for carcinogenic effects. For chemicals that do not have
these comparison values available for the medium of concern, EPA Region III risk -based
concentrations (RBCs) were used.
If the concentration of a compound exceeds its comparison value, adverse health effects are not
necessarily expected. Rather, these comparison values help in selecting compounds for further
consideration. For example, if the concentration of a chemical in a medium (e.g., soil) is greater
than the EMEG for that medium, the potential for exposure to the compound should be further
evaluated for the specific situation to determine whether noncancer health effects might be
possible. Conversely, if the concentration is less than the EMEG, it is unlikely that exposure
would result in noncancer health effects. EMEG values are derived for different durations of
exposure according to ATSDR's guidelines. Acute EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting 14
days or less. Intermediate EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting longer than 14 days to less
than one year. Chronic EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting one year or longer. CREG
values are derived assuming a life time duration of exposure. RMEG values also assume chronic
exposure. All the comparison values (i.e., CREGs, EMEGs, RMEGs, and RBCs) are derived
assuming opportunities for exposure in a residential setting.
CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than
one excess cancer in a million (10-6) persons exposed during their lifetime (70 years). ATSDR's
CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors for oral exposures or unit risk values for
inhalation exposures. These values are based on EPA evaluations and assumptions about
theoretical cancer risks at low levels of exposure.
Many metals occur naturally in the environment, and information is available in the scientific
literature on typical (background) levels at which these metals occur in soil. In addition, PAHs
and some other organic compounds are ubiquitous in the environment due to their widespread
use in many industrial, commercial, transportation, and other processes. As with metals, typical
levels of PAHs are available from the scientific literature. For this public health assessment,
metals and PAH compounds detected at the site were compared to typical background levels for
the eastern U.S. or Massachusetts. If site concentrations were within or lower than typical
background concentrations, then the metal or compound was not further evaluated in the health
assessment. For metals, the sources of background concentrations were Shacklette and Boemgen
(1984), MDEP (1995a, 2002) and the ATSDR toxicological profiles for the specific
chemical/compound under review. For PAHs, the source of typical background levels was the
ATSDR toxicological profile for PAHs (Table 5-3 in ATSDR 1995).
A summary of historical data is provided in the following discussion of on -site contamination.
Data tables are provided only for those environmental media with contaminants that have been
detected at concentrations that exceed their respective comparison values and typical background
levels.
A. On -Site Contamination
Surface soil6, subsurface soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater and fish tissue data from
environmental sampling conducted at the H&P site from 1988 through 2003 were reviewed
6 Surface soil, from an exposure perspective, is considered to be the top 3 inches of soil; however, analysis of soil
from this depth often was not available. Thus, analysis of surface soils included levels of contaminants at depths
from 0 to 2 feet.
10
(Keystone 1988, 1989; Roy F. Weston 1993, 1994; Clean Harbors 1998, Hydraulic and Water
Resources Engineers 1999; Resource Control Associates and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. 2000;
TRC 2002 and TRC 2004). Some limited environmental data for soil, sediment and surface water
as well as fish tissue collected by EPA in 1998 and 1999 were previously evaluated in two health
consultations (MDPH 1999 and MDPH 2O01).
Surface Soil/Sediment
Southeast quadrant
hi the SE quadrant there are three main sections where soils (0 to 2 feet) have been collected: the
backwash area, the south central area and the upper SE area. Each of these sections has distinct
geographical characteristics that affect the contaminants detected (see Figure 7). The backwash
area includes the Rumford River backwash channel and is characterized by wetlands, woodlands
and thick vegetation that extend towards the south central area. The south central area includes
the former location of the large wood storage building, south of the large bedrock outcrop and
several former wood storage areas (see Figure 3). The upper SE area of the SE quadrant runs
parallel to the railroad tracks and includes the former location of a smaller wood storage building
by the tracks. Contaminants of concern in surface soil from the three sections of the SE quadrant
are summarized in Table 2, but discussed separately below.
The backwash area was sampled in 1989 and involved collection of 10 surface soil samples. Nine
samples in the backwash area were collected in a grid pattern (see Figure 11) and analyzed for
SVOCs and VOCs (Keystone 1989). One soil boring (0 to 2 feet) was analyzed for SVOCs,
VOCs, and metals. Six of the 10 samples contained PCP at levels that exceeded the CREG
screening value of 6 mg/kg with a maximum concentration of 8 mg/kg. The single sample
analyzed for metals did not have concentrations that exceed typical background levels for metals.
The south central area surface soils were tested in 1993 for PCP, PAHs and metals. The samples
with the highest levels of PAHs on site (chrysene [50 mg/kg], fluoranthene [194 mg/kg], pyrene
[268 mg/kg] and PCP [18 mg/kg]) were collected along the southern edge of the fill line where
seeps had been reported (station 002 in Figure 8), and these compounds exceeded their
comparison values and typical background levels. Also the maximum concentration of arsenic
(151 mg/kg) exceeded comparison values and typical background levels (Roy F. Weston 1993).
A comprehensive surface soil investigation was conducted between 1994 and 1995, to
characterize surface soil and determine areas to cover with asphalt and gravel (Roy F. Weston
1994). Samples were screened on site for PCP and PAHs using immunoassay kits, and a field
portable X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument was used to screen for arsenic, copper and
chromium. However, since XRF overestimates the concentration of metals in soil by nearly
twice that of more quantitative laboratory analyses,' metal concentrations based on a linear
regression analysis between XRF and ICAP (Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma) data were used
to screen for arsenic, copper and chromium. Of 13 samples screened in the south central area,
' Ten percent of the samples screened for metals were sent for confirmatory analysis using EPA 6010 TAL for
metals and ten percent of the samples screened for PCP and PAHs were analyzed by GC mass spectroscopy.
arsenic (257 mg/kg; maximum) from a sample collected north of the former wood storage
building exceeded comparison values for metals. The area north of the former wood storage
building was covered with gravel (Roy F. Weston 1994; see Figure 9). In the south central area,
one soil sample was analyzed for EPA 6010 TAL (Target Analyte List) metals. It had levels of
thallium (24 mg/kg) that were less than the EPA Region M's industrial soil comparison value,
and levels of arsenic (9 mg/kg) and chromium (15 mg/kg) that did not exceed typical background
levels for metals.
In 1998, two surface soil/sediment samples (SED-2 and SOIL-1) in the south central area were
analyzed for dioxins and four surface soil samples were analyzed for metals, SVOCs and
dioxins/furans by MDEP and EPA (Clean Harbors 1998, Hydraulic and Water Resources
Engineers 1999; See Figures 12a & 13a for sample locations). The maximum concentration of
arsenic was estimated to be 369 mg/kg. The dioxin/furan levels exceeded 50 ng/kg, which is the
EMEG for children for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (tetra chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins) and the 2,3,7,8-
TCDD TEQ.B The concentration ranged from ND to 80 ng/kg for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and from 56
ng/kg to 44,951 ng/kg for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in the south central area. No SVOCs exceeded
comparison values or typical background. The seep area near MW-12 was covered with gravel
(Roy F. Weston 1995); however, product continues to seep through at this location (MDEP
2003a). In November 2002, results for four samples collected from the south central area and
analyzed for SVOCs, metals, and dioxins were below comparison levels (TRC 2004).
The upper SE area includes one surface soil sample collected in 1993 that was tested for SVOCs
and metals; it had a concentration of benzo(a)pyrene (0.4 mg/kg), which was above the CREG of
0.10 mg/kg and slightly above the typical background level of 0.165 to 0.220 mg/kg. Of 13
samples analyzed by XRF linear regression analysis (including one sample analyzed for EPA
6010 TAL metals), one sample, collected near the former wood storage building, contained the
highest levels of thallium (68 mg/kg) and chromium (470 mg/kg) detected in the SE quadrant.
These contaminants as well as arsenic at 160 mg/kg, were all above comparison values.
However, total chromium was above comparison values for hexavalent chromium, and since
hexavalent chromium is associated with the CCA process that occurred on the site, total
chromium will remain a contaminant of concern. This area was covered with gravel (Figure 9).
A sample north of the bedrock outcrop had arsenic at 284 mg/kg; however, this area was covered
with gravel (Roy F. Weston 1995). Of two samples collected in the upper south section and
analyzed for dioxins, one sample exceeded comparison values. It had a concentration of 165
ng/kg for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ, which exceeds the chronic child EMEG of 50 ng/kg. Although the
location from which this sample was taken was covered with gravel, product continues to seep
through this area. Two of four soil samples collected from the upper SE section in November
s Toxicity equivalents (TEQ) represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for mixtures of dioxin -like chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs). Since limited data on toxicity exist for many of
the CDDs and CDFs, toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) were developed and validated in animals. TEFs compare the
relative toxicity of individual congeners to that of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener is used as the basis
of the TEFs because it appears to be the most toxic of the CDDs to mammals. The TEQ is calculated by calculating
the sum of the products of the TEFs for each congener and its concentration in the mixture. Previous ATSDR
guidance included using the 2,3,7,8-TCDD comparison value of 50 ng/kg to screen for the TCDD TEQ. Recent
ATSDR guidance suggests using 1000 ng/kg, however the more conservative comparison value, 50 ng/kg, was used
for screening.
12
2002 and analyzed for metals also showed concentrations of arsenic slightly above the chronic
child EMEG of 20 mg/kg but within typical background levels (30 mg/kg and 24 mg/kg) (TRC
2004). Two of three samples analyzed for dioxins were estimated to exceed the chronic child
EMEG of 50 ng/kg for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (685 ng/kg and 79 ng/kg).
In summary, for all three parts of the SE quadrant the potential contaminants of concern are
arsenic, chromium, PCP, and dioxins. Although some PAHs exceeded screening values, the
exceedances were mainly in two of 32 samples across this quadrant. One of the samples had
benzo(a)pyrene slightly above background. The other sample was in the location that also had
elevated PCP concentrations. Hence given the low frequency of exceedances of comparison
values and the more widespread presence of PCP, PAHs were not considered primary
contaminants of concern for this area. Thallium was below EPA Region IH's industrial soil
screening value, and thus will also not be considered a contaminant of concern for this area.
Northeast quadrant
Weston screened 12 surface soil samples in the NE quadrant from the (upper) CCA process area
and the (lower) PCP process areas using XRF linear regression analysis and confirmatory
analyses to test for metals, PCP and PAHs (six samples were analyzed for SVOCs; Weston
1994). The maximum values of contaminants that exceeded comparison and background values
were arsenic (1,388 mg/kg), chromium (1,886 mg/kg), PCP (4,900 mg/kg) and thallium (67
mg/kg). Thallium was below EPA Region IH's industrial soil comparison value, and thus with
not be further discussed. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in one of six samples with a maximum
concentration of 1.8 mg/kg, which did not exceed typical background levels of up to 14 mg/kg in
urban soil and thus will not be further discussed (ATSDR 1995). As one would expect, the
highest levels of arsenic and chromium were in the CCA process areas and the highest level of
PCP was in the PCP process area. Six of the 12 samples analyzed for metals exceeded the
comparison values for hexavalent chromium and typical background levels of 1,000 mg/kg for
total chromium (Roy F. Weston 1994; Shacklette and Boerngen 1984). Analysis of four soil
samples collected in November 2002 (TRC 2004) showed concentrations of arsenic exceeding
comparison values and dioxins were estimated to exceed comparison values (soil samples from
this quadrant were not analyzed for dioxins in earlier investigations). The maximum
concentration of arsenic was 1860 mg/kg. The maximum concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ
was estimated to be 11,000 ng/kg.
In 1995, 85 surface soil samples obtained from various locations on the H&P property and from
the perimeter were collected and analyzed for arsenic to identify areas greater than 300 mg/kg9 to
pave with asphalt (MDEP 1995b). In the NE quadrant, the periphery of the process areas was
covered with gravel, and a large area behind the CCA drip pad was covered with asphalt (see
Figure 9; Roy F. Weston 1995). However, the integrity of areas covered with gravel or asphalt
may diminish over time.
The 300 mg/kg standard was the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Upper Concentration Limit (UCL) for
arsenic. The current reportable concentration for groundwater soil is 30 mg/kg for residential and industrial areas.
13
Table 3 summarizes the contaminants of concern for the NE quadrant, which include arsenic,
chromium, PCP and dioxins.
Northwest quadrant
In the NW quadrant surface soil samples were collected from two areas: a small area north of the
Rumford River along County Street and the area south of the River where Dricon (a fire
retardant) processes occurred. The contaminant that exceeded comparison values (in its
maximum concentrations) in the NW quadrant was arsenic (630 mg/kg) (Table 4; Roy F. Weston
1994). The highest concentration of arsenic (630 mg/kg) was from a sample collected at the far
west end of the NW quadrant near the tracks; it was covered with asphalt. In fact, most of the
NW quadrant, from the Dricon drip pad to the north and west property boundary was covered
with asphalt. A small area along County Street (inside the fence) within 30 feet of residential
property also had levels of arsenic (300 mg/kg) and chromium (460 mg/kg) that exceeded
comparison values and was covered (see Figure 9). Of the four samples analyzed for PCP in this
area, the maximum concentration was 1.9 mg/kg, which is below ATSDR's CREG (6 mg/kg).
Fifteen soil samples collected and analyzed for metals and dioxins in November 2002 showed
exceedances of comparison values (TRC 2004). The maximum concentration of arsenic was
62.5 mg/kg, which exceeds the chronic child EMEG of 20 mg/kg but is within typical
background levels. The maximum concentration of total chromium was 460 mg/kg, which was
above comparison values for hexavalent chromium, which is often associated with the CCA
process that occurred at the site. The maximum concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ was
estimated at 330 ng/kg, which exceeded the chronic child EMEG value (50 ng/kg).
Table 4 summarizes the contaminants of concern for the NW quadrant, which include arsenic,
chromium and dioxins.
Southwest quadrant
The SW quadrant is the smallest area and is located south of the railroad. Arsenic exceeded
comparison and background values in this quadrant (Table 5; Roy F. Weston 1994). The
maximum concentration detected was 413 mg/kg in a sample collected south of the tracks
towards the middle of the quadrant. PCP was not detected in the SW quadrant. This area was
covered with gravel. In November 2002, nine soil samples were collected and analyzed for
metals and dioxins (TRC 2004). The maximum concentration of arsenic was 15 mg/kg that is
above the CREG but below the chronic child EMEG of 20 mg/kg. The maximum concentration
of total chromium was 318 mg/kg, which was above comparison values for hexavalent
chromium, which is often associated with the CCA process that occurred at the site. The
maximum concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ was estimated at 64 ng/kg, which was above the
chronic child EMEG value (50 ng/kg).
Table 5 summarizes the contaminants of concern for the SW quadrant, which include arsenic,
chromium, and dioxin.
14
A summary table (Table 6) lists the maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern in
surface soil for each quadrant. The contaminants of concern in surface soil are arsenic,
chromium, PCP and dioxins. It is important to note that the occurrence of PAHs that exceeded
comparison values and typical background levels, were either primarily from one sample in the
SE quadrant or infrequently detected at levels just above comparison values. Similarly, thallium
was detected infrequently in all cases and was below EPA Region III's industrial soil comparison
value. Consequently PAHs and thallium will not be discussed further in this PHA.
Subsurface Soil
On December 5, 1972, five samples (i.e., one from "the embankment of the River" and four from
tanks on the H&P property) were collected and analyzed for percent PCP by weight by MDPH's
Lawrence Experimental Station (Foster 1972).10 Although the specific locations are not
identified, the highest level, 3.66% PCP by weight, was recorded for the sample from the
embankment of the Rumford River.
Twenty-nine subsurface soil samples were collected on the H&P property from 2 to 10 foot
depths, including several soil borings completed as monitoring wells (see Figure 14) (Keystone
1988; 1989). Of these 29 samples, there were three from the NW quadrant, 10 from the NE
quadrant, three from the SW quadrant and 13 from the SE quadrant. Soil samples were analyzed
for VOCs, PCP, PAHs, metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The maximum
concentrations of arsenic (140 mg/kg), and PCP (490 mg/kg) exceeded comparison values and
were from the NE quadrant process areas, where the maximum concentrations of these
compounds also occurred in surface soil on the H&P property.
In November 2002, 12 subsurface soil samples (either 1 to 4 or 4 to 10 feet deep, three samples
from each quadrant) were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and dioxins (TRC
2004). Samples exceeded the comparison values for arsenic and PCP and were .estimated to
exceed comparison values for dioxins. The maximum concentrations of arsenic (55 mg/kg) PCP
(490 mg/kg), and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (estimated at 2600 ng/kg) were all detected in samples
taken from the SE quadrant. In general, subsurface samples were considerably lower in
contaminant concentrations than the surface samples.
Groundwater
In December 1981, a third party performed percolation tests in anticipation of purchasing the
H&P property and found oily soils/groundwater. Groundwater samples were taken and analyzed
from six test wells located in the SE quadrant. PCP was identified in a sample of the oily mixture
taken from a test well located near the previous recovery operation (Fitzgerald 1982). From 1988
until 2004, six groundwater sampling events took place (Keystone 1988; Clean Harbors 1998;
TRC 2002; TRC 2004). Over 150 samples of groundwater were collected and analyzed from test
wells located in the NE, SW, and SE quadrants. The wells were sampled at varying depths and
10 The Lawrence Experiment Station is now the Wall Experiment Station and is the state's environmental laboratory
located in MDEP.
15
the analytes tested for included dioxins, metals, SVOCs, and VOCs. PCP, dioxins, arsenic,
chromium, benzene, 2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, and 2,4-
dinitrophenol were all detected at concentrations above comparison values. The maximum
concentration of PCP was 69,000 micrograms per liter (µg(L) in a sample collected from the
upper SE quadrant which is considerably higher than the MCL (1 µg/L) and the chronic child
EMEG (10 µg/L). A sample from another test well in the upper SE quadrant analyzed for
dioxins showed the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ at a concentration of 3 µg/L which
substantially exceeds the MCL of 0.00003 µg/L and the chronic child EMEG of 0.00001 µg/L for
dioxins in drinking water. The maximum concentration of arsenic (956 µg/L) was detected in a
sample collected from the central SE quadrant which also exceeded the MCL (10 µg/L), the
CREG (0.02 ppb), and the chronic child EMEG (3 µg/L). In a sample from the same quadrant,
the maximum concentration of 2,4-dinitrophenol was detected at 2, 240 µg/L which exceeded the
chronic child RMEG (20 µg/L). As noted above, other compounds were a potential concern.
The sampling event in 2003 also included the collection and analysis of groundwater samples
from six bedrock wells in the SE quadrant. Samples were analyzed for SVOCs and metals. The
concentrations of arsenic and PCP were detected above comparison levels (TRC 2004). The
highest concentration of arsenic detected was 37 µg/L and the highest concentration of PCP
detected was 3,100 µg/L.
Groundwater flow east of the Rumford River is toward the southwest and toward the River
(Resource Control Associates and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. 2000). Discharge of
groundwater to the River is evident by seeps along the banks of the River at the site. Bedrock
water table elevation contours are similar to the overburden water table contours. Based on
comparison of groundwater elevation in the bedrock/overburden monitoring well couplets
collected in 1999, the general trend across the site was thought by the environmental consultants
to be for bedrock groundwater to discharge to overburden groundwater and overburden
groundwater, in turn, to discharge to the Rumford River. However, groundwater elevations
measured in a well located in the upper SE quadrant exhibited overburden groundwater
discharging to bedrock (Keystone 1989). Subsequently, TRC concluded that insufficient data
exist for evaluation of bedrock groundwater flow direction or water quality (TRC 2002).
In summary, groundwater data collected from 1981 to 2004 revealed high concentrations of
dioxins, phenols (including PCP), arsenic, and other compounds in both overburden and bedrock
groundwater, particularly in the SE quadrant. This groundwater discharges to the Rumford River
and as noted elsewhere in this document, represents a concern for bioaccumulation in fish.
Sediment
In June 1998, one sediment sample (SED-1) was collected from the interceptor trench in the
Rumford River" (see Figure 14; Clean Harbors 1998). Analysis of interceptor trench involved
� � Sample SED-1 was one of six samples collected on June 11, 1998 and tested for dioxins: Two surface soils (SED-
2 and Soil-1), one surface water (SW-1, near SED-1), one ground water (from MW-5a) and one product (NAPL
from MW-12) (Clean Harbors 1998). Dioxin TEQs were 44,951 ng/kg in SED-2, 7,211 ng/kg in Soil-1, 4.2 pg/L in
SW-1 and 3,300 pg/L in MW-5a.
16
analysis of a solid sample for dioxins and a surface water sample analyzed for metals, base
neutral extractables (BNE), PCP and dioxins. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in the
sediment sample was 7,211 ng/kg, which far exceeds the screening value of 50 ng/kg, the child
EMEG for dioxins in soil.
Four on -site sediment samples (RRHPOI from the NW quadrant; RRHP02, RRHP03 and
RRHPSB from the SE quadrant) were collected in October and November 1998 from the River
by EPA Removal Branch and analyzed for dioxin, PCP, metals, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and
PCBs, and evaluated in the Rumford River Health Consultation in 1999 (see Figure 12a;
Hydraulic & Water Resource Engineers 1999; MDPH 1999). The compounds that exceeded
comparison values and typical background levels included 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (maximum 3,260
ng/kg in RRHP02) and PCP (maximum 51 mg/kg in RRHP03). The levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ in three on -site samples (i.e., RRHP01 at 152 ng/kg; RRHP02 at 3,260 ng/kg and RRBP03
at 1,300 ng/kg) exceeded the child EMEG of 50 ng/kg. Only RRHP03 at 51 mg/kg exceeded the
comparison values for PCP, including the CREG of 6 mg/kg, the child EMEG of 50 mg/kg, but
was well below the adult EMEG of 700 mg/kg. Nine on -site sediment samples were collected in
March 1999 from depths ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 feet and analyzed for extractable petroleum
hydrocarbons (EPHs)12 and target PAH analytes (Resource Control Associates and Vanasse
Hangen Brustlin Inc. 2000). Only PCP exceeded comparison values and was detected at a
maximum of 9.5 mg/kg.
Nine on-site13 sediment samples, three in the NW quadrant (i.e., SD-11, SD-12, SD-14) and six in
the SE quadrant (SD-3, SD-7, SD-8, SD-9, SD-10, SD-15) were collected in November 2001 at
depths ranging between 0 and 2 feet and analyzed for dioxins and farans, metals, pesticides, PCBs,
VOCs, and SVOCs (TRC 2002; see Figure 13a and 13b). Although all the sediment samples
exceeded the CREG (0.5 mg/kg) for arsenic, ranging from 1 to 21 mg/kg, and slightly above the
child EMEG of 20 mg/kg, these samples are considered within the range of background for arsenic
in soil (0.1 to 73 mg/kg) (Shacklette and Boerngen 1984). The maximum levels of contaminants
detected that exceeded comparison values were for dioxin TEQ (1,800 ng/kg) and PCP (27 mg/kg)
both from SD-9 in the Rumford River passing through the SE quadrant. One other sediment
sample (SD- 3 at 23 mg/kg) also had levels of PCP that exceeded the CREG of 6 mg/kg but not the
child EMEG for soil of 50 mg/kg. Four other on -site sediment samples (SD-7 at 50 ng/kg, SD-10
at 180 ng/kg, SD-11 at 100 ng/kg and SD-15 at 110 ng/kg) also had levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD that
exceeded the child EMEG for soil of 50 ng/kg.
In November 2002, three sediment samples were collected from the SE quadrant (by the Rumford
River backwash channel) and were analyzed for SVOCs, metals, and dioxins (TRC 2004). All
three samples exceeded the CREG for arsenic (0.5 mg/kg) but were below the chronic EMEG
12 EPHs (extractable petroleum hydrocarbons) are a subset of petroleum hydrocarbons that include three groups of
compounds: C9 to C18 (aliphatics), C19 to C36 (aliphatics) and CI to C22 (aromatics). TPH includes these three
EPH fractions plus target PAH analytes (MDEP 2003e).
" Most sediment samples collected by TRC were collected at two depths (0 to 0.5 ft and 0.5 to up to 2ft), but only
surface sample results are discussed. SD-3 was collected in the backwash area, parallel to MW-10 (but is not shown
in Figures 13a/b). The on -site samples include, SD-15, SW of the confluence of the backwash channel and the
Rumford River (in Figure 13b). It has evidence of contamination from the H&P site.
17
values for children and adults and were within typical background levels. The maximum
concentration of arsenic was estimated at 12 mg/kg. The maximum concentration of PCP and
2,3,7,8-TCDD did not exceed comparison values. The maximum concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ was estimated at 100 ng/kg which exceeds the chronic soil EMEG for children (50 ng/kg)
but not the chronic EMEG for adults (700 ng/kg). In October 2003, one sample from the SW
quadrant was analyzed for the same analytes (TRC 2004). The concentration of arsenic, 65 mg/kg,
exceeded comparison values but was within typical background levels. The maximum
concentration of PCP and 2,3,7,8-TCDD did not exceed comparison values. The maximum
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ was estimated at 200 ng/kg which exceeds the chronic
EMEG for children (50 ng/kg) but not the chronic EMEG for adults (700 ng/kg).
In summary, of these 27 on -site sediment samples, the compounds that exceeded comparison
values and typical background levels were 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in the NW and SE quadrants and
PCP in the SE quadrant. It is important to note that all these exceedances of the comparison
values for dioxins and PCP are based on exposure to soil, not sediment, and thus are conservative
since these samples were collected from sediment in the River, which typically is not as
accessible as surface soil. However, because of the high potential for dioxins to accumulate in
fish tissues, its detection in sediment samples raises concern about bioaccumulation in fish.
Surface Water
In June 1998, surface water samples were collected in the SE quadrant from the interceptor
trench (SW-1 in Figure 14), the Rumford River backwash, the bridge and the County Road
Bridge (Clean Harbors 1998). Surface water from the interceptor trench was analyzed for
dioxins, base/neutral extractables (BNE) and PCP. Samples from the Rumford River backwash
were analyzed for BNE and PCP. Surface water samples from the bridge, the County Road
bridge and interceptor trench were analyzed for metals and reported as non -detect for arsenic,
(method detection limit [MDL] 5 µg/L). The surface water sample from the interceptor trench
had a concentration of PCP at 75,000 pg/L, which greatly exceeds the MMCL of I µg/L and the
CREG of 0.3 µg/L. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ at the interceptor trench was 4.2
pg/L (the sediment sample at the interceptor trench was 7,211 ng/kg). In October 1998, MDEP
requested that MDFW postpone stocking ponds with trout due to these high levels of dioxins in
surface water and sediment from the Rumford River (on -site) and adjacent wetlands (MDEP
1998).t4
In October 1998, surface water samples were taken from the following four locations: (1)
upstream of the H&P property, (2) the point where free product from the H&P property has
intermittently discharged to the River (RRHP03), (3) Fulton Pond and (4) Kingman Pond by
EPA Removal Branch (see Figure 12a and 12b; Hydraulic Resources 1999). These samples were
analyzed for dioxin, PCP, metals, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. One sample, RRHP03,
was collected on -site. The maximum concentration of PCP detected in the on -site surface water
sample was 21 µg/L, which exceeded the MMCL of 1 µg/L. The other contaminants were
14 Calculations of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in SW-1 by MDEP was 40 pg/L, exceeding the fresh water acute ambient
water quality criteria of 10 pg/L, and prompted MDFW to postpone stocking fish in ponds downstream of the
Rumford River (MDEP 1998).
detected below comparison values for drinking water. This includes dioxin 2,3,7,8 TEQ at 3
pg/L, which was below the drinking water standard of 30 pg/L.
Seven surface water samples (SW-7, SW-8, SW-9, SW-10, SW-11, SW-12 and SW-14) were
collected from within the site boundary in November 2001(TRC 2002). Three samples were
analyzed for dioxins and furans, metals, VOCs, and SVOCs; three samples were analyzed for
metals, VOCs, and SVOCs; and one sample was tested for metals. Only PCP at 28 µg/L at SW-7
exceeded its comparison value for drinking water.
B. Off -Site Contamination
Soil
hi 1989, Keystone collected a soil boring (0 to 2 feet deep) from MW-11, located off -site near
King Street (see Figure 14). The sample was tested for SVOCs and metals. Results were below
comparison values (Keystone 1989).
In 1998, one soil sample was collected from Robinson Park on Fulton Pond and analyzed for
dioxins and PCP (see Figure 12b). The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ and PCP in this
sample (2 ng/kg and 0.1 mg/kg, respectively) were less than heath -based screening values for
residential properties (50 ng/kg and 6 mg/kg, respectively). Robinson Park is the first open space
downstream where the public can readily contact soil or sediment that might have been affected
by releases from the site.
EPA conducted an initial extent of contamination survey in April of 2003. These initial samples
included 10 samples, one outside the site's perimeter fence on the shoulder of County Street (i.e.,
a 10 foot wide strip adjacent to the property) and nine on the abutting residential properties
across County Street. In July/August 2003, EPA reported that initial investigations confirmed
the presence of arsenic in surface soil outside of the site's perimeter fence along the shoulder of
County Street and at five abutting residential properties on the other side of County Street
(Figure 10). Arsenic in surface soil on both sides of County Street were above MDEP's
regulatory action level of 30 mg/kg, which is above ATSDR's CREG of 0.5 mg/kg, and
ATSDR's chronic child EMEG of 20 mg/kg. Chromium was also present above ATSDR
comparison values on the shoulder of County Street.
Following review of these results, EPA then proceeded to plan for excavation and removal of soil
in areas that exceeded 30 mg/kg arsenic in soil. In planning for excavation, EPA proceeded with
another round of sampling in July/August of 2003. For this second round of sampling, EPA
collected and analyzed 136 pre -excavation surface soil samples (0 to 3 inches) from both
residential areas and areas outside the perimeter fence along County Street. Samples from the
residential properties were collected from the front yards and areas between the properties
(Figure 10). In deciding where to sample in the residential area, EPA considered topography and
collected samples from areas where soil contaminants from across the street would most likely
migrate and settle (e.g., front yards, low lying areas, driveways, and turnarounds) (EPA 2004b).
Of these 136 soil results, 119 results were detectable. The maximum concentration of arsenic
19
detected was 140 mg/kg in a sample collected from a low-lying area between two of the
residences tested. All of the pre -excavation sampling results were in exceedance of the CREG
for arsenic (0.5 mg/kg); however, all but two results were within known background soil levels
for arsenic (0.1-73 mg/kg) (Shacklette and Boemgen 1984). Eighty-four results exceeded the
chronic child EMEG (20 mg/kg). No results exceeded the chronic adult EMEG (200 mg/kg).
Upon review of each individual property's soil data (Table 7), the lowest arsenic levels were
detected in surface soil at a property that had a retaining wall such that the soil in the front of the
property was at a higher ground elevation relative to the neighboring properties. EPA believes
that these data suggest that the elevated arsenic levels observed on the residential side of the
County Street may have resulted from movement of dirt from the other side of County Street due
to passing traffic and snow plowing, and that overall, off -site arsenic -contaminated soil did not
migrate far from the site (EPA 2004a). Soil data for non-residential samples collected from the
east side of County Street just north of the residential properties (Figure 10 and Table 7) support
this idea as the results were even lower than the residential test results (maximum level was 21
mg/kg). South of the southernmost property is a paved parking lot (Figure 10).
In August/September 2003, EPA excavated soil in those locations on either side of County Street
where arsenic in surface soil exceeded 30 mg/kg (see Figure 10). After excavating the soil, EPA
then conducted post -excavation (subsurface) soil testing prior to adding clean soil. Ninety-three
samples were collected from the walls and floors of the residential and non-residential excavated
areas that ranged in depth from 6 inches to 2 feet. All 93 samples were analyzed for arsenic and
a subset of 22 samples were also analyzed for 20 metals. The latter were all located in the area
outside the site's perimeter fence along the shoulder of County Street. With regard to the 93
samples analyzed for arsenic, 77 results were detectable. The maximum concentration was 290
mg/kg in a sample collected at a depth of 2 feet from the west side of County Street (outside of
the site's perimeter fence). All results exceeded the CREG for arsenic (0.5 mg/kg); however, all
but three results were within known background soil levels for arsenic (0.1-73 mg/kg). Nine
results exceeded the chronic child EMEG (20 mg/kg) for arsenic. One result exceeded the
chronic adult EMEG (200 mg/kg) for arsenic. With regard to the 22 soil samples analyzed for
other metals, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper and lead were detected above ATSDR
comparison values. However, clean soil was backfilled over these areas and subsurface soil at
this depth is not readily accessible. Thus, these contaminants do not pose health concerns and
will not be further discussed (Weston Solutions, Inc., 2004).
No data were available pre -excavation for other contaminants, such as SVOCs, PAHs, and
dioxins. However, after the excavation and backfilling with clean soil, in November of 2003,
EPA sampled the two residences with the highest and lowest pre -excavation arsenic levels in
surface soil for SVOCs, PAHs, dioxins, and metals including arsenic. PAHs and dioxins were
detected above comparison values. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected on one property at 3 mg/kg,
and the TEQ of all PAHs in terms of benzo(a)pyrene was 6 mg/kg. On the other property,
benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 4 mg/kg, and the total TEQ of all PAHs in terms of
benzo(a)pyrene was 7 mg/kg. Dioxin TEQ in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected at one
property at 290 ng/kg (actual 2,3,7,8-TCDD value was 2 ng/kg), and on the other property at 170
ng/kg (actual 2,3,7,8-TCDD value was 2 ng/kg). It should be noted that PCP and chromium
were not detected above comparison values, and arsenic was detected at 17 mg/kg on one
property, and at 8 mg/kg on the other property, both above ATSDR's CREG of 0.5 mg/kg, but
below ATSDR's chronic child EMEG of 20 mg/kg and within typical background ranges for soil.
Sediment
Eight off -site sediment samples from the Rumford River at locations upstream (at RRUS in
Figure 12a) and downstream of the H&P property (including Fulton and Kingman Pond) were
collected in October and November 1998 (Hydraulic Resources 1999; Figure 12b). The samples
were analyzed for dioxin, PCP, metals, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides and PCBs, and evaluated in
the Rumford River Health Consultation in 1999. PCP was not detected and the maximum
concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (1 ng/kg) and dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (27 ng/kg) did not
exceed comparison values for residential soil.
Four off -site sediment samples were collected in September 1999, analyzed for dioxins and PCP,
and evaluated in the Glue Factory Pond/Rumford River Health Consultation in June 2001
(MDPH 2O01). PCP was detected at a maximum of 0.5 mg/kg, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected at a
maximum of 35 ng/kg, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ was detected at a maximum of 553 ng/kg
downstream from the bleachery near Glue Factory Pond on the Rumford River. The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ exceeded the screening value for soil of 50 ng/kg, the
EMEG for children, but is less than 700 ng/kg, the EMEG for adults. However, direct contact
with sediment is not likely, particularly since the area is overgrown with vegetation.
Nine off -site sediment samples, four upstream (SD-16, SD-17, SD-18 and SD-19), one across
from County St. (SD-13) and four downstream of H&P (north of Fulton Pond) (SD-1, SD-2, SD-
4 and SD-6) were collected in November 2001, at depths ranging between 0 and 2 ft and
analyzed for dioxins and furans, metals, pesticides, PCBs, VOCs, and SVOCs (TRC 2002;
Figures 13a and 13b). The maximum levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ and PCP did.not exceed the
comparison values, and no 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected, and no other compounds exceeded
comparison values.
Four off -site sediment samples were collected and analyzed for SVOCs, metals, and dioxins in
October 2003 (TRC 2004). Three of the samples were taken from Fulton Pond. The fourth
sample was collected north of the site and south of Glue Factory Pond. All four samples slightly
exceeded comparison values but were within typical background soil levels for arsenic. The
maximum concentration of arsenic was 26 mg/kg.
Surface Water
In 1998, four surface water samples were collected off -site: two upstream of the site and two
downstream in Fulton and Kingman ponds (Figure 12a and 12b; Hydraulic Water Resources
1999). Samples were analyzed for dioxins, PCP, metals, VOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. No
compound exceeded screening values for drinking water.
21
Five surface water samples were collected downstream of H&P: three north of Fulton Pond (near
Henke Brook and Robinson Brook SW-004, SW-005, SW-006), one at Fulton Pond (SW-001)
and one across from County Street (SW-014) in November 2001 (TRC 2002; Figures 13a and
13b). All five samples were analyzed for SVOCs and metals. PCP was detected at a maximum
of 11 µg/L (at S W-004), which was slightly above the chronic child EMEG of 10 µg/L, and also
at SW-001 at 1 µg/L, well below the chronic child EMEG. No other compounds exceeded
screening values.
In October 2003, six surface water samples were collected from two locations on three different
days (TRC 2004). Three of these samples were collected upstream or north of the site (and south
of Glue Factory Pond). The other three samples were collected downstream or south of the site
(and north of Fulton Pond). The samples were analyzed for SVOCs, PAHs, and metals. PCP
was detected in two of the three downstream samples at 9 µg/L and at an estimated level of 9
µg/L, which were both less than the chronic child EMEG for PCP (10 µg/L). Arsenic was not
detected in these samples. Neither PCP nor arsenic was detected in the three upstream samples.
In summary, one off -site sediment sample (at Glue Factory Pond) contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD above
soil comparison values, and no off -site sediment samples exceeded comparison values for PCP in
soil. Also, no off -site surface water sample exceeded dioxin comparison values, and one sample
at 11 µg/L slightly exceeded the PCP comparison value. Thus, contamination of sediment
appears to be primarily on -site, and contamination of surface water (from the Rumford River)
appears to be both on -site and off -site downstream or south of the site.
Fish
In June 1999, MDPH completed a health consultation for the Rumford River (MDPH 1999).
MDPH had earlier recommended that a provisional fish consumption advisory be issued in 1998,
prior to fish tissue data becoming available, based on elevated dioxin levels in fish. Analysis of
fish samples for the 1999 health consultation revealed that of the seven fish samples collected
and analyzed for arsenic, PCP and dioxins, arsenic was not detected, PCP was detected above the
EPA -generated screening value (0.33 ppm) and all of the fish samples exceeded the background
fish tissue concentrations for dioxin in North America of approximately 1 ng/kg (EPA 1994;
ATSDR, 1998). Thus, MDPH issued a regular fish consumption advisory that stated that the
public should not consume fish in the Rumford River from the dam below Glue Factory Pond in
Foxborough to and including the Norton Reservoir in Norton (MDPH 1999 and MDPH 2O01).
Because of concerns that upstream sources of dioxin might also be present, MDPH
recommended additional fish testing upstream from Glue Factory Pond. In September 1999, EPA
tested fish and sediment from Glue Factory Pond as well as sediment from the Rumford River
and submitted these results to MDPH for evaluation. MDPH issued a second health consultation
in June 2001 and determined that the concentrations of dioxin in fish sampled from Glue Factory
Pond were not at levels of health concern and that no modification of the current MDPH public
health fish consumption advisory was necessary (MDPH 2O01).
22
In September and October 2003, a total of ten fish were collected from Glue Factory Pond,
Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, and from sections of the Rumford River located on -site (south of
the former process area) and upstream of the site (south of Glue Factory Pond) (TRC 2004). The
fish from Glue Factory Pond, Fulton Pond, and Kingman Pond were filleted and analyzed for
metals, PAHs, chlorophenols, and dioxins/f trans (see Table 8). The fish from the sections of the
Rumford River were analyzed as whole fish for metals, PAHs, chlorophenols, and dioxins/furans
(see Table 8). To help decide whether compounds detected in fish may need further evaluation,
health assessors also use comparison values that were derived by using EPA methods (EPA
2000). Comparison values for non -carcinogenic health effects were derived using EPA's
reference doses (RfDs) for each compound. Comparison values for carcinogenic health effects
were derived using EPA's oral slope factor for each compound, assuming an excess lifetime
cancer risk of 1:100,000. It is also assumed that the body weight of an adult is 70 kilograms (kg),
the body weight of a child is 35 kg, and the consumption rate of fish and shellfish for the general
population is 0.0175 kilograms per day (kg/day) (or 4.4 ounces per week) and for subsistence
fishermen is 0.142'kg/day. If the concentration of a compound exceeds its comparison value,
adverse health effects are not necessarily expected. Rather, these comparison values help in
selecting compounds for further consideration. PCP was detected above comparison levels (0.33
mg/kg) in fish collected from Fulton Pond. However, the fish collected from the Rumford River
itself were analyzed as whole fish instead of fillets. This type of analysis is useful when
evaluating ecological risks rather than human health risks and hence, will not be further
evaluated for this health assessment. Regardless, the MDPH public health fish consumption
advisory currently in effect applies to the Rumford River system based on previous fish fillet
sampling. In addition, PCP detected in downstream surface water samples represents a
bioaccumulation risk for PCP in fish.
Currently, the 1999 public health fish consumption advisory remains in effect for the public not
to consume fish in the Rumford River from the dam below Glue Factory Pond in Foxborough, to
and including the Norton Reservoir in Norton. MDFW is interested in stocking fish again in the
future after health and environmental concerns for the H&P site have been addressed.
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Analysis of some PAHs, chemicals often found in gasoline/fuel, did not have a low enough MDL
(Roy F. Weston 1993). The MDL is necessary to determine the sensitivity of the method in
detecting low levels of toxic chemicals, such as dibenz(a,h)anthracene, with a CREG of 0.02
mg/kg. For these analytes, more sensitive MDLs would be desirable to evaluate their potential
health concerns. For this reason, several contaminants (i.e., PAHs) could not be completely
evaluated in this report, particularly for analysis conducted prior to 1998.
D. Physical and Other Hazards
During the July 1, 2002, MDPH personnel noted several hazards to workers and trespassers on
the property (MDPH 2002a). In between the cylinder 03 building and the CCA drip pad, and in
front of an entrance to the cylinder 03 building, there is a pit covered with wooden boards. The
boards did not appear to be able to support a person's weight. The two wooden bridges that cross
23
the Rumford River in the middle of the property had holes in them, and several of the boards
were rotting. The boiler room in the northwest section of the property was unlocked and
accessible. Some of the windows had been broken and glass was lying on the floor. Located
inside the room are the boiler, pieces of heavy equipment, and electrical switch boxes, all of
which may pose physical and electrical hazards. The Dricon sump is at least 3 feet deep and
contained at least 12 inches of standing water, which poses a physical hazard. Near the sump, is
a pile of wood that could pose a fire hazard. Past fires have occurred on site and there is
evidence that trespassing is occurring. During a more recent site visit on July 19, 2005, the
above physical and other hazards are still present.
PATHWAY ANALYSIS
To determine whether nearby residents and people on -site were, are, or could be exposed to
contaminants, an evaluation was made of the environmental and human components that lead to
human exposure. The pathway analysis consists of five elements: a source of contamination,
transport through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and
a receptor population.
Exposure to a chemical must first occur before any adverse health effects can result. Five
conditions must be met for exposure to occur. First, there must be a source of that chemical.
Second, a medium (e.g., water) must be contaminated by either the source or by chemicals
transported away from the source. Third, there must be a location where a person can potentially
contact the contaminated medium. Fourth, there must be a means by which the contaminated
medium could enter a person's body (e.g., ingestion). Finally, someone must contact the
chemical and the chemical must actually reach the target organ susceptible to the toxic effects
from that particular substance at a sufficient dose for a sufficient time for an adverse health effect
to occur (ATSDR 1993).
A completed exposure pathway exists when all of the above five elements are present. A
potential exposure pathway exists when one or more of the five elements is missing and indicates
that exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurring in the present,
or could occur in the future. An exposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the five
elements is missing and will not likely be present. The discussion that follows incorporates only
those pathways that are important and relevant to the site.
A. Completed Exposure Pathways
A completed exposure pathway existed in the past for workers and for trespassers in contact with
soil before areas of contamination were covered. Presently, opportunities for exposure exist for
trespassers on the site who come into contact with exposed soil (e.g., not covered with pavement
or vegetation) containing contaminants. A completed exposure pathway also existed in the past
and likely continues today for individuals who consume fish from the Rumford River and its
impoundments.
24
Surface Soil
Past opportunities for exposure to contaminants in surface soil at this site began around 1953,
when wood treatment operations began. Opportunities for exposure likely occurred for former
workers who handled treated wood in the northern process areas and transported wood to various
storage areas throughout the property. Additional opportunities for exposure are evident from
observations made during the July 1, 2002 site visit (MDPH 2002a; Appendix D). Thus,
opportunities for past exposure existed for workers through dermal contact with contaminants on
treated wood and possibly incidental ingestion from contact with of contaminated soils and
handling treated wood.
Past opportunities for exposure likely occurred for trespassers before areas of contamination were
paved or covered with gravel, and exist presently for areas with contaminants that exceed
comparison values for soil. Remedial actions by EPA in 1994 and 1995, reduced, but did not
eliminate, opportunities for exposure. Trespassers are still able to access the site and contact
surface soil on areas of the site not covered with asphalt or gravel and presently exceed
comparison values for surface soil. Evidence of trespassing on site includes: a 4 by 4 foot
wooden shed containing soda cans and an inverted bucket (for sitting) on the banks of the River
in the NW quadrant and graffiti and empty bottles near the bedrock outcrop in the SE quadrant
(Appendix D). These areas are near places where contaminants have been elevated. Past
opportunities for exposure to these areas existed for trespassers; however, present opportunities
for exposure are reduced by thick vegetation that limits contact (e.g., near the campfire ring and
the shed). Also, the fact that vegetation currently surrounds the campfire ring and shed and that
most of the cans observed on site were rusted, suggests that these areas, while accessible, may
not have been used recently. There is also thick vegetation in areas of the SE quadrant, along the
edge of the filled areas where the highest levels of dioxins have been detected. Thus, a
completed exposure pathway existed for trespassers in the past and exists currently at a reduced
level in areas of the site that are accessible and still have contaminants that exceed comparison
values.
Because site contaminants were detected in off -site soil samples collected in 2003 on County
Street outside of the site's perimeter fence and across the street at five abutting residences, past
opportunities for exposure were likely for County Street residents living adjacent to the H&P
site. That same year, soil was excavated in those areas where arsenic was detected at levels
exceeding MDEP's action level of 30 mg/kg.
Fish
Ponds downstream of the site were stocked with fish by the MDFW until 1998, when dioxins
were found in environmental samples taken from the River and downstream of the site.
Subsequent sampling in fish confirmed the presence of dioxins in fish. Thus, opportunities for
exposure existed in the past for those who consumed fish from the Rumford River and ponds
downstream of H&P. Although MDPH issued a public health fish consumption advisory and
MDFW stopped stocking the downstream ponds in 1998 (Appendix B; MDEP 1998),
opportunities for exposure to contaminated fish still exist for those who do not heed the advisory.
25
While signs to deter fishing are posted at some access points to the River and at ponds south of
H&P, many of the signs have faded and are illegible. Additionally, it is possible that some
individuals choose to continue to fish.
B. Potential Exposure Pathways
A potential exposure pathway existed in the past for household contacts of former H&P workers
and workers who may have tracked some contaminated soil/dust to their households. A potential
exposure pathway also existed in the past for residents and trespassers who may have had contact
with contaminated River sediment and surface water. The latter is also a potential concern in the
future if site conditions deteriorate, leading to enhanced releases to off -site sediment or surface
water. Future opportunities for exposure to contaminated soil are also possible for site workers if
proper precautions are not followed. No potential pathway for other contaminants of concern
(besides arsenic) exists in the present for the off -site residences that abut County Street across
from the site, but a potential pathway did exist for other contaminants of concern in the past. It is
impossible to quantify this pathway since samples for other contaminants were taken after soil
contaminated with arsenic was excavated and replaced with clean soil on the residential
properties in 2003. In addition, there was a potential past pathway of exposure to arsenic in
surface soil for off -site passersby on the strip of land adjacent to and outside of the perimeter
fence along County Street. However, this potential pathway was removed when soil was
removed and replaced in 2003.
Sediment
Past and present opportunities for exposure to contaminants (e.g., dioxins, PCP) in sediment may
have occurred or be occurring. However, this is unlikely because much of the site area and the
River is wetlands and has thick vegetation, briars, and poison ivy. Although access is possible,
frequent contact with sediments along the banks of the Rumford River on site appears unlikely
because access is deterred by thick vegetation, woods and a fence along most of the property
boundary. In addition, the River itself on the site is shallow and no evidence or information is
available that suggests frequent contact with the River in this area.
Surface Water
Past opportunities for exposure to contaminants in surface water (e.g., PCP) may have occurred
for trespassers on the site or off -site for residents, including children playing in the River at
locations downstream. However, contact with surface water is unlikely to have occurred more
than sporadically. On -site, the River is shallow and generally inaccessible (e.g., briars, poison
ivy). One resident provided information during the August 2002 EPA Public Information
meeting that when occasional flooding occurs, children play in the water near a bridge
downstream. However, this does not appear to be a concern at the present time, since surface
water sampling indicates that nearly all results were below comparison values for drinking water
and/or chronic child EMEGs, both on- and off -site. Future releases; however, are a potential
concern if on -site contamination in soil, sediment, and groundwater is not remediated and
depending upon long-term site conditions (e.g., future development of the site).
26
Groundwater
For nearby residents south of the site, there may have been past opportunities for exposure to
contaminants in groundwater via basement flooding events and/or seepage. Because the most
recent groundwater testing at the site continues to indicate the presence of a contaminated plume
moving south, present and future opportunities for chemical exposure via basement flooding
events and/or seepage remain a potential exposure pathway.
Subsurface Soil
There may have been past opportunities for exposure to contaminants (e.g., arsenic, PCP,
dioxins) in subsurface soil for workers on the site, particularly during construction of the
retaining wall and the groundwater treatment system. Exposure may have occurred primarily
through incidental soil ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation of soil or dust. Future exposures
to contaminated soils (surface and subsurface) might occur during site remediation activities
(e.g., excavation) if proper precautions are not followed. Data for subsurface soil were
qualitatively analyzed and found to have contaminant concentrations lower than surface soil, and
contact with these contaminants under current conditions is not likely.
It is possible that there may have been sporadic exposure opportunities for nearby residents and
passers by to off -site subsurface soil in the past as a result of certain activities (e.g., roadwork or
construction of a well, house addition). However, it would be expected that these limited
exposure opportunities would have been unlikely to have resulted in health concerns.
C. Eliminated Exposure Pathways
Drinking Water
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, or upgradient of the H&P
property. The Rumford River and Norton Reservoir are not drinking water supplies.
["Y41IRS31110
MDPH has summarized the available environmental data and exposure pathways for the H&P
site in this public health assessment. Completed exposure pathways included past and present
contact with surface soil on and off -site and consumption of fish from the Rumford River, its
impoundments (i.e., Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds) and the Norton Reservoir. The primary
27
compounds of concern at the site are arsenic, PCP, chromium and dioxins. Opportunities for
exposure to these compounds are primarily via incidental ingestion of surface soil at the site or
consumption of fish contaminated with dioxins. Because of remedial actions in the early 1990s,
and issuance of the public health fish consumption advisory in the late 1990s, opportunities for
exposure were likely to be substantially greater in the past. Chemical -specific toxicity
information for the compounds of concern (arsenic, PCP, chromium, and dioxins) is summarized
in Appendix E.
A. Evaluation of Possible Health Effects
Populations that could have had opportunities for exposure to compounds in surface soil include
H&P workers before it shut down in 1993, other workers such as those who installed the
groundwater treatment in 1973, and persons trespassing on the site, particularly children and
teens. Also, those who consume or may still be consuming contaminated fish have exposure
opportunities to contaminants in fish. The site, which encompasses about 44 acres of woodlands
and wetlands, is fenced, and several efforts have been made to maintain and repair sections of
fence that were in disrepair or damaged by felled trees. However there is a gap under a gate on
County Street, across from residences. Warning signs have been posted; yet evidence of
trespassing throughout the site (e.g., graffiti, broken bottles) has been observed by MDPH staff.
This presents on -going opportunities for exposure.
Most of the northern process areas and sections of southern property were covered with asphalt
or gravel in 1994/1995. While this intervention likely reduced opportunities for exposure
considerably, concerns remain regarding opportunities for exposure to arsenic (and possibly other
compounds) in soil that has not been covered. Of particular concern in the south central area are
opportunities for exposure to dioxins at several locations along the edge of the filled areas and in
the estimated location of the river bed (See Figures 7 and 8) where dioxin appears to have been
intermittently discharging to the River. In 1998, when dioxins were first detected, the seep area
with 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ at 44,951 ng/kg was covered with gravel; however, product is still
seeping through the gravel (MDEP 2003b). At the time of this public health assessment, thick
vegetation limited access to most areas where dioxins have been detected, reducing opportunities
for exposure to contaminated soils.
On -Site Surface Soil
Surface soil concentrations of arsenic, chromium, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ exceeded health -based
screening and background levels in all quadrants, and PCP exceeded health -based screening and
background levels in the NE and SE quadrants. Opportunities for exposure and risk calculations
for workers and trespassers (including children) are evaluated for these contaminants (Appendix
F).
W.
Non -cancer health concerns for workers15 were estimated by assuming that a worker may have
spent 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year for 40 years at the site. During that time they may have
incidentally ingested soil during site activities and also absorbed some contaminants through
their skin from direct contact with treated wood and soil. Estimated past exposure opportunities
for workers to maximum concentrations of PCP (4,900 mg/kg in the NE) and 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ (44,951 ng/kg in the SE) exceeded their respective MRLs, but did not exceed their
respective LOAELs. Estimated past exposure opportunities for workers to maximum
concentrations of chromium (1,886 mg/kg in the NE) did not exceed the EPA's chronic oral RM
for hexavalent chromium. Thus, non -cancer health effects are not likely from exposure to
maximum concentrations of PCP, chromium, or 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. The exposure opportunity
resulting from the maximum concentration of arsenic16 (1860 mg/kg), however, exceeded its
MRL and its LOAEL. Thus, it is possible that exposure to arsenic may have resulted in health
concerns (e.g., skin lesions17) for some workers in the past if they were exposed primarily to
maximum concentrations. However, since it is unlikely that individuals on this site spent time
only in the areas of maximum concentration, it is more plausible that workers may have been
exposed to average amounts of contaminants. Estimated exposure opportunities for workers to
the average concentration of arsenic (223.1 mg/kg) did not exceed the LOAEL, and thus are not
likely to result in non -cancer health concerns. Efforts to remediate areas of arsenic contamination
will also help to reduce any potential opportunities for exposure to hexavalent chromium as these
two compounds are closely associated in the CCA process.
Non -cancer health concerns were evaluated for those trespassing18 on the site. Oral exposure may
have occurred primarily through incidental ingestion of soil and dust following dermal contact
IS Exposure Dose (Contaminant Concentration) (IR) (EF) x 10-6 kg/mg
(worker) = Body Weight
Ingestion Rate = Adult: 100 mg/day
(IR)
Body Weight (adult) = 70 kg
Non -cancer (adult) (5 days/week) (50 weeks/year) (40} ears) = 0.68
Exposure Factor (40 years) (365 days/year)
16 Arsenic Max NOAEL LOAEL
Exposure Dose = (1860mg/kg) (100mg of soil/day) (0.68) x 10-6) = 0.0018 0.0003 0.00065
(worker) 70 kg mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day
17 The MRL is based the occurrence of skin lesions in humans exposed to 0.0008 mg/kg/day of arsenic in well water.
An uncertainty factor of 3 was added for human variability (ATSDR 2000a).
"Exposure Dose = (max. contaminant concentration) (IR) (EF) x 10-6)
(child trespassing) Body Weight
Non -cancer (child)
Exposure Factor = (2 days/week) (39 weeks/year)18 years) = 0.21
(EF) (18 years) (365 days/year)
Ingestion Rate (IR) = 200 mg/day
Body Weight (child) = 35 kg
we
with soil and treated wood. Estimated exposure opportunities were calculated for children (2
days per week for 39 weeks for 18 years) and for adults (2 days per week for 39 weeks for 40
years) who trespassed on the site before remediation. (However, only the more conservative
estimates for children are discussed here.) Estimated exposure for children trespassing on the site
and in contact with maximum concentrations of chromium (1,886 mg/kg) did not exceed the
EPA's chronic oral Rf) for hexavalent chromium. Estimated exposure for children trespassing
on the site and in contact with maximum concentrations of PCP (4,900 mg/kg) and 2,3,7,8-
TCDD TEQ (44,951 ng/kg) exceeded their respective NIRLs; but did not exceed their respective
LOAELs. The estimated opportunities for children exposed to the average concentration of
2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ also exceeded the MRL, but was below the LOAEL. Thus contact with
maximum concentrations of chromium, PCP and dioxin are not likely to be associated with non -
cancer health effects. The estimated exposure opportunities for children to the maximum
concentration of arsenic19 (1,860 mg/kg) before remediation, however, did exceed the LOAEL;
and thus, although unlikely, could have resulted in exposures that were of health concern (e.g.,
skin lesions [ATSDR 2000a]) under the above exposure assumptions.
With regard to cancer concerns for workers20, past opportunities for exposure estimated over 40
years to maximum concentrations of arsenic21 and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ22 presented a moderate
increased cancer risk (Ie). Exposure opportunities over 40 years to the maximum
'9 Arsenic Max.
Expo. Dose
MRL
LOAEL
Exposure Dose
0860mg/ka) (200mg/day)
(0.21) x 10-6kg(mg) = 0.00223
0.0003
0.00065
(child trespasser)
35 kg mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
20 Exposure Dose
(worker)
_
(max. contaminant concentration) (IR) (EF)
x 10-6 kg/mg
Body Weight
EF
Cancer Risk (worker)
(5 days/week) (50 weeks/year) (40 years = 0.39
(70 years) (365 days/year)
Z' Arsenic
Exposure x
OSF
Cancer Risk
Max.
Dose
Cancer (1860mg/kg)
(100mg/day)
(0.39) x10-6kg/mg
Risk =
70 kg
= 0.00104
1.5
= 0.00156
(worker)
mg/kg/d (mg/kg/day)-'
(1.56 x 10-')
"Dioxin
Exposure Dose x
OSF
Cancer Risk
Max.
Cancer Risk
= 0.000000022
_ (worker) (0.045m
kg) (100mg/day) (0.39)
x 10-6 kg/mg (2.2 x 10-')
150,000
= 0.00334
35 kg
mg/kg/d
(mg/kg/day)'
(3.34 x 10-')
30
concentration of pCP23 and average concentrations of arsenic24 and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 25 were
associated with a low increased cancer risk (10-4). However, such an exposure opportunity is
unlikely considering the conservative assumptions (i.e., contact with maximum contaminants 5
days per week over 40 years). Nonetheless, past exposure opportunities may have been at levels
associated with health concerns for workers particularly in the NE process area or the south
central area.
With regard to cancer concerns, estimated exposure opportunities for children trespassing26 on -
site prior to remediation are associated with a low increased cancer risk (104) for those who may
have had regular contact with areas of maximum concentrations of pCP27 and arsenic28, and the
23 PCP Max.
Exposure x
OSF
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk = (4900mg/kg)
(100me/dav) (0.39) x 10"6
Dose
(worker)
70 kg
= 0.00027 0.18
(mg/kg/day)-'
= 0.00491
mg/kg/day
(4.91 x 10-4)
24 Arsenic ave. (191me/ka)
(1000g/day) (0.39) x 10"6
Exposure
OSF
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk =
70 kg
Dose
(worker)
= 0.00011 x 1.5
(mg/kg/day)-'
= 0.000165
mg/kg/day
(1.65 x 104)
2s Dioxin Ave.
Exposure Dose x
OSF
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk = (0.005mg/kg)
(100mg/day) (0.39) x 10-6
(worker)
70 kg
=0.0000000028
150,000
(2.8 x 10-9)
(mg/kg/day)-'
= 0.000418
mg/kg/d
(4.18 x 10 4)
26 Exposure Dose
= (max. contaminant concentration) (IR)
(EF) x 10-6 kg/mg
(child trespasser)
Body Weight
EF for cancer
= (2 days/week) (39 weeks/year) (18
years) = 0.05
(70 years) (365 days/year)
Ingestion Rate (child)
= 200 mg/day
Body Weight (child)
= 35 kg
"PCP max.
Exposure
x OSF
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk =
(4900mP/kg) (200me/day) (0.05)
x 10"6 Dose
(child trespasser)
35 kg
0.0014
0.18
= 0.000252
mg/kg/d
(mg/kg/day)-'
(2.52 x 10)
Exposure
x OSF
Cancer Risk
28 Arsenic max.
(1860mg/kg) (200m day) (0.05)
x 10"6 Dose
Cancer Risk = (child
35 kg
trespasser)
0.00053
1.5
= 0.000795
mg/kg/d
(mg/kg/day)"' (7.95 x 10)
31
average concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ29. Estimated exposure opportunities for children in
contact with the maximum concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ,30 are associated with a
moderate increased cancer risk at 1.03 x 10-3. Again, it seems unlikely that trespassers would
have contacted only areas with maximum concentration. Thus, for children trespassing on the site
prior to remediation, the exposure opportunities seem unlikely to have resulted in unusual cancer
concerns.
Currently, it is possible for trespassers, particularly older children and teens, to access the site
through the gap under the gate along County Street, or in the south by walking upstream along
the banks of the River and around the edge of a fence. Daily contact with the sediments and soils
along the River present health concerns given the elevated levels. However, current site
conditions may mitigate this as the area where dioxin levels were highest is surrounded by thick
vegetation. Also, it is unlikely that anyone would trespass on the property and spend time
exclusively where contaminants are highest on a daily basis for a sustained time. While
trespassers on the property have been witnessed, it appears that site access is intermittent and not
limited to areas with contamination. Therefore, under current use conditions, it is unlikely that
opportunities for exposures to onsite contaminants are at levels and durations that would present
health concern. However, if the use of the property changes, such as for redevelopment, the
physical characteristics of the property change or the conditions of institutional controls of
fences, signs or the asphalt/gravel coverings deteriorate or become obsolete, then the
contamination on the H&P property may pose a public health concern in the future depending on
the extent to which opportunities for exposure increase. It should be noted that physical hazards
(e.g., demolition debris, Dricon sump filled with water) currently exist on the site and pose safety
concerns for trespassers. This is discussed further in the physical hazard section.
Off -Site Surface Soil
Off -site soil concentrations of arsenic exceeded health -based screening and background levels on
both sides of County Street. Opportunities for exposure and risk calculations for nearby residents
"Dioxin Ave. Exposure Dose x
Cancer Risk = (0 005mg[kg) (200mg/day) (0.05) x 10-'
(child trespasser) 35 kg
0.0000000014
mg/kg/d
10 Dioxin max. Exposure Dose x
Cancer Risk = (0.045mg/kg) (200mg/day) (0.21) x 10-'
(child trespasser) 35 kg
0.000000011
mg/kg/d
OSF Cancer Risk
150,000 = 0.000214
(mg/kg/day)"' (2.14 x 10-4)
OSF Cancer Risk
150,000 = 0.00171
(mg/kg/day)-' (1.71 x 10-')
32
were evaluated for arsenic (Appendix F). Non -cancer health concerns for children31 were
estimated by assuming that a child plays outside for a certain number of hours per day that varies
with the change in the seasonal temperatures (i.e., 1 hour for the winter months, 4 hours for the
summer months). During that time, children may have incidentally ingested soil and/or had
direct dermal contact with soil. Estimated past exposure opportunities for children to the
maximum concentration of arsenic detected in off -site soil (140 mg/kg) did not exceed either the
MRL or LOAEL for arsenic. 32 Thus, contact with soil with the maximum concentration of
arsenic is not likely to be associated with non -cancer health effects for arsenic. With respect to
cancer concerns for children33, past opportunities for exposure estimated over 18 years to the
maximum concentration of arsenic34 was not associated with any unusual cancer concerns.
However, since it is unlikely that residents spent time only in the area of the maximum
concentration, it is more plausible that they may have been exposed to the average amount of
arsenic detected in off -site soil (about 25 mg/kg for the set of pre -excavation soil data). Past
opportunities of exposure estimated over 18 years to the average concentration of arsenic was not
associated with any unusual cancer concerns. Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD 2 ng/kg maximum, 2,3,7,8-
TCDD TEQ 290 ng/kg maximum) and PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene 4 mg/kg maximum,
benzo(a)pyrene TEQ 7 mg/kg maximum) were also present above ATSDR comparison values on
two residential properties. However, opportunities for exposure (i.e., I hour soil contact per day
every day in the colder months and 4 hours soil contact per day every day in the warmer months)
to these maximum levels in soil in residential yards would not be expected to result in non -cancer
or cancer health concerns for children or adults.
" Exposure Dose = (max contaminant concentration) (IR) (EF) x 10-1 kpJma
(child resident) Body Weight
Non -cancer (child) _ (I hr/day X 8 mo X 30 days/mo) (4 hrs/day X 4 run. X 30 days/mo.) (18 years)
Exposure Factor (EF) (18 years) (365 days/year)
= 0.08
Ingestion Rate (child) = 200 mg/day
Body Weight (child) = 35 kg
" Arsenic Max. Exposure MRL LOAEL
Exposure Dose = (140 mg) (200mg/day) (0.08) x 10-6 Dose
(child resident) 35 kg
0.000064 0.0003 0.00065
mg/kg/d (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
33 Exposure Dose = (max contaminant concentration) (IR) (EF) x 10'6
(child resident) Body Weight
EF for cancer = (26 days/year) 08 years) = 0.02
(70 years) (365 days/year)
Ingestion Rate (child) = 200 mg/day
Body Weight (child) = 35 kg
34 Arsenic Max. Exposure X OSF Cancer Risk
Exposure Dose = (140 mg) (200mg/day) (0.02) x 10 6 Dose
(child resident) 35 kg
0.000016 1.5 = 0.000024
mg/kg/d (mg/kg/day)-' (2.4 x 10"5)
33
Surface Water
In nearly all surface water samples in which PCP was detected, the detectable concentrations
were at levels below the chronic child EMEG. Because water from the River as well as water
from the adjacent downstream water bodies through which the River flows (i.e., Fulton,
Kingman, Cabot Ponds, and Norton Reservoir) is not used for drinking water purposes nor is the
water used regularly for recreational purposes (e.g., swimming), it is unlikely to pose health
concerns as a result of exposure via oral ingestion. Although the River is not used regularly for
recreational purposes (e.g., swimming), it is possible that individuals may occasionally swim in
the water during the summer months (there is a park adjacent to the River downstream of the
site). If a child were to swim for a total of 45 minutes once a week during the warmer summer
months and assuming some water would be ingested during the swim as well as some skin
absorption of PCP, this opportunity for exposure would not present either non -cancer or cancer
health concerns (Appendix F) ss
15 Oral Ingestion
EF for non -cancer =
(0.5 day/year) (8 years) = 0.0014
(8 years) (365 days/year)
PCP Max.
Exposure Dose MRL LOAEL
Exposure Dose = (11 u /g)L
(0.1 L./day) (0.0014) x (0.001 mg✓ue) = 8.8 x 10-s 0.001 1
(child)
(17 kg) mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day
Dermal Absorption
EF for non -cancer =
(12 hrs./year) (8 years) = 0.033 hrs/day
(8 years) (365 days/year)
PCP Max.
Exposure Dose = (11 u L)(0.16 cm/hr)(9190 cmz)(0.033 hrs/day)(o.001 L/cm')(0.001 m u) _
(child) (17 kg)
Exposure Dose MRL LOAEL
3.13 x 10-' 0.001 1
mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day
Oral Ingestion
EF = (0.5 day/year) (8 years) = 0.00016
Cancer Risk (child) (70 years) (365 days/year)
PCP Max.
Exposure Dose = (11 u L) (0.1 L/day) (0.00016) x (0.001 me/ug)
(child) 17 kg
Exposure Dose OSF Cancer Risk
= 1.0x101 x 0.12 = 1.2x10'
mg/kg/day-'
Dermal Absortpion
EF = (12 hrs./year) (8 years) = 0.0038 hrs./day
Cancer Risk (child) (70 years) (365 days/year)
34
Fish
The history of dioxin and PCP discharge to the River from the H&P property appears to be the
likely source of dioxin and PCP in fish tissue found in Fulton Pond, which presents a public
health hazard to fish consumers who do not heed or are not aware of the fish consumption
advisory for the Rumford River and downstream water bodies. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD TEQ previously found in fish from Fulton Pond (27 on average) were higher than mean
background levels for fish tissue (approximately 1 ng/kg) (EPA 1994; ATSDR 1998). People
who eat fish from this pond at the average rate of daily fish consumption for the country (0.0175
kg/day (or 4.4 ounces per week) (EPA 2000) would be exposed to approximately 6.8 pg/kg/d
which is higher than ATSDR's chronic MRL of 1 pg/kg/d. Avid recreational fish consumers (i.e.,
people who consume 0.142 kg/day of fish) (EPA 2000) could be exposed to dioxin at levels more
than fifty times greater than the MRL. Because of their lower body weight, exposures relative to
body weight would be higher for children than for adults. Therefore, the concentrations of dioxin
found in the fish from Fulton Pond was determined to constitute a public health hazard, and an
MDPH public health fish consumption advisory was issued. The testing results also clearly
demonstrate that the fish collected in areas in the vicinity of the H&P property have high levels
of dioxin. According to MDFW, there are no barriers to fish migrating to downstream ponds or
sections of the River (MDPH 1999).
Upstream of the H&P property, the first barrier to fish migration according to MDFW is the dam
below Glue Factory Pond in Foxborough. Fish testing in Glue Factory Pond has indicated that
dioxin is not present at levels of health concern in that pond (MDPH 2O01). In 2003, EPA
conducted additional testing of fish from Glue Factory Pond, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, and
from sections of the Rumford River located on -site and upstream of the site. Testing of fish from
Glue Factory Pond (upstream of the H&P site) was consistent with the health consult for this
water body that was released in 2001 (MDPH 2O01). Testing of fish from Fulton Pond
(downstream of the H&P) was also generally consistent with advice previously issued by MDPH
in 1999 (MDPH 1999), and again, confirmed the need to test fish downstream as no barriers to
fish exist to prevent them from migrating downstream of the H&P site to as far as and including
Norton Reservoir.
At the time of this public health assessment, additional testing of fish from the Rumford River
system, particularly from Cabot Pond and Norton Reservoir, had not occurred. Therefore, the
public health fish consumption advisory for the Rumford River, its impoundments, and Norton
Reservoir, should be maintained. This includes the area from immediately below the dam at
(continued from previous page)
PCP Max.
Exposure Dose = 01 up_/L)(0.16 cm/hr)(9190 cmZ)(0.0038 hrs/day)(0.001 L/cm')(0.001 mg/ug)
(child) (17 kg)
Exposure Dose OSF Cancer Risk
= 3.6 x 10-6 x 0.12 = 4.O x 10-7
mg/kg/day '
35
Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir (MDPH 1999, Figure 1). Discharge from
the site to the Rumford River has been noted in the past and is still occurring at the time of this
public health assessment. This situation is one of continued concern with regard to contaminant
uptake in fish.
B. Physical Hazards
Physical hazards are a very important concern for the H&P site. As previously discussed,
portions of the site at the time of this public health assessment contain physical hazards such as
the Dricon sump filled with water, demolition debris, broken glass, and broken wooden bridges
that cross the Rumford River. These could lead to injuries to site trespassers particularly, in light
of evidence that trespassing does occur.
C. Health Outcome Data
The primary compounds of concern at the H&P site include arsenic, chromium, PCP, and dioxin.
These contaminants are all considered probable or possible human carcinogens, with cancer
types most strongly associated with at least one of these contaminants being liver, lung, bladder,
or kidney cancer, as well as non-Hodgkins's lymphoma (NHL). Thus, for purposes of this public
health assessment, readily available cancer incidence data for Mansfield for these cancer types at
the time of this health assessment were reviewed.
The observed number of cancer diagnoses reported for Mansfield residents was obtained from
the Massachusetts Cancer Registry (MCR). These individuals were Mansfield residents
diagnosed with a primary site cancer during 1995-2000 (MDPH 2O04). Residence was
determined based on the address reported to the hospital or reporting facility at the time of
diagnosis. The MCR began collecting information in Massachusetts residents diagnosed with
cancer in the state in 1982. All newly diagnosed cancer cases are required by law to be reported
in the MCR within six months of the date of diagnosis (MGL, c. 111, s.111B). The 6-year
period, 1995-2000, constitutes the period for which the most recent and complete cancer
incidence data were available at the time of this analysis. Since the release of the public
comment draft in early 2004, the MCR now has data available through 2000. Of the five cancers
examined for this report, cancer incidence rates for the period 1995-2000 are consistent with
those previously described for the period 1995-1999. Further, an evaluation of the geographical
distribution for 1995-2000 also was consistent with the 1995-2000 time period.
The term "cancer" is used to describe a variety of diseases associated with abnormal cell and
tissue growth. Primary site (location in the body where the disease originated) and histology
(tissue or cell type) classify the different cancer types. Epidemiological studies have revealed
that different types of cancer are individual diseases with separate causes, risk factors,
characteristics and patterns of survival (Bang 1996).
36
To determine whether elevated numbers of cancer cases have occurred in a community, cancer
incidence data are analyzed by age and gender to compare the observed number of cancer cases
to the number that would be expected based on the statewide cancer experience. A Standardized
Incidence Ratio (SIR) is an estimate of the occurrence of disease in a population in relation to
what might be expected if the population in question had the same cancer experience as some
larger population designated as the comparison population. Usually, the state as a whole is
selected to be the "comparison" population. Using the state of Massachusetts as a comparison
population provides a stable population base for the calculation of incidence rates. As a result of
the instability of incidence rates based on small numbers of cases, SIRS are not calculated where
fewer than five cases are observed.
An SIR is the ratio of the observed number of cancer cases to the expected number of cases
multiplied by 100. An SIR of 100 indicates that the number of cancer cases observed in the
population evaluated is equal to the number of cancer cases expected in the comparison or
"normal" population. An SIR greater than 100 indicates that more cancer cases occurred than
expected and an SIR less than 100 indicates that fewer cancer cases occurred than expected.
Accordingly, an SIR of 150 is interpreted as 50% more cases than the expected number; an SIR
of 90 indicates 10% fewer cases than expected.
Caution should be exercised, however, when interpreting an SIR. The interpretation of an SIR
depends on both the size and stability of the SIR itself. Two SIRS can have the same size but not
have the same stability. An SIR of 150 based on six observed cases and four expected cases
indicates a 50% excess in cancer, but this excess is actually two cases. Conversely, an SIR of
150 based on 600 observed cases and 400 expected cases represents the same 50% excess in
cancer, but because the SIR is based on a greater number of cases, the estimate is more stable. It
is unlikely that 200 excess cases of cancer would occur by chance alone.
In addition to calculating SIRS, the statistical significance of each SIR is also assessed. A 95%
confidence interval (95% Cl) is calculated for each SIR to determine if the observed number of
cases is significantly different from the expected number or if the difference may be due solely to
chance. A 95% CI is a method of assessing the magnitude and stability of an SIR. Specifically, a
95% Cl is the range of estimated SIR values that have a 95% probability of including the true
SIR for the population. If the 95% CI range does not include the value 100, then the study
population is significantly different from the comparison or "normal' population. Significantly
different means there is less than a 5% chance that the observed difference is the result of random
fluctuation in the number of observed cancer cases.
For example, if a confidence interval does not include 100 and the interval is above 100 (e.g.,
105-130), then this means statistically there is a significant excess in the number of cancer cases.
Similarly, if the confidence interval does not include 100 and the interval is below 100 (e.g., 45-
96), then statistically the number of cancer cases is significantly lower than expected. If the
confidence interval range includes 100 then the true SIR may be 100, and it cannot be concluded
with sufficient confidence that the observed number of cases is not a result of chance and reflects
37
a real cancer increase or decrease. Again, as a result of the instability of incidence rates based on
small numbers of cases, statistical significance is not assessed when fewer than five cases are
observed.
In addition to the range of the SIR estimates contained in the confidence interval, the width of the
confidence interval also reflects the stability of the SIR estimate. For example, a narrow
confidence interval (e.g., 103-115) allows a fair level of certainty that the calculated SIR is close
to the true SIR for the population. A wide interval (e.g., 85-450) leaves considerable doubt about
the true SIR, which could be much lower than or much higher than the calculated SIR. This
would indicate an unstable statistic.
For Mansfield as a whole, during 1995-2000, no cases of liver cancer occurred among either
males or females versus three expected. Lung cancer occurred among males close to the
expected rate during 1995-2000 (32 observed versus about 30 expected; SIR=109; 95% CI=74-
153). Among females, lung cancer occurred more often than expected (34 observed versus about
24 expected; SIR=141; 95% Cl =98-197) but this elevation was not statistically significant.
Eleven cases of bladder cancer were observed among males versus nine expected (SIR= 122;
95% CI=61-219). Three females were diagnosed with bladder cancer versus about three expected
(no SIR calculated due to the observed number being less than 5). For NHL, eleven cases were
observed among males versus about nine expected (SIR=118; 95% CI=59-212) and two cases
were observed among females versus about eight expected cases. Finally, five males were
diagnosed with kidney cancer versus about seven expected (SIR=77; 95% CI=25-180) and five
females were diagnosed with kidney cancer versus about four expected (SIR=131; 95% CI=42-
305). This elevation was not statistically significant.
A qualitative evaluation of the spatial distribution of individual diagnoses at smaller geographic
levels within the town of Mansfield (i.e., neighborhoods) was conducted using the 1995-2000 set
of cancer incidence data. Using a computerized geographic information system (ESRI 2002),
place of residence at the time of diagnosis was mapped for each individual diagnosed with
bladder cancer, kidney cancer, lung and bronchus cancer, or NHL to assess any possible
geographic concentrations of cases in relation to each other or in relation to the H&P site. The
geographic pattern was determined using a qualitative evaluation of the point pattern of cancer
diagnoses in Mansfield. Because cancer is one word that describes many different diseases, the
geographic distribution of each cancer type was evaluated separately to determine whether an
atypical pattern of any one type was occurring. For confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to
include maps showing the locations of individuals diagnosed with cancer in this report.
Review of the geographic distribution of cancer for the years 1995-2000 in Mansfield did not
reveal unusual spatial patterns of diagnoses relative to the H&P site that would suggest a
common factor (environmental or non -environmental) related to cancer diagnoses among
residents. Any patterns that were observed in the town were generally consistent with what would
be expected based on the population distribution and areas of higher population density. For
example, the majority of individuals with these cancer types were located in and around
Mansfield Center where population and housing density are greater.
W-:3
In general, the incidence of the five types of cancers reviewed here occurred about as often as
expected among Mansfield residents. For those cancer types for which SIRs were calculated, no
elevation observed was statistically significant. Thus, the observed cancer incidence pattern for
these cancer types for Mansfield as a whole did not appear to be unusual. It is also important to
note that these particular types of cancer have also been associated with behavioral factors. For
example, the most well established risk factor for lung, bladder, and kidney cancers is cigarette
smoking.
D. Child Health Considerations
ATSDR and MDPH recognize that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand
special emphasis in communities faced with contamination of their environment. Children are at
a greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposure to hazardous substances emitted from
waste sites. They are more likely exposed because they play outdoors and because they often
bring food into contaminated areas. Because of their smaller stature, they might breathe dust,
soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground. Children are also smaller, resulting in higher doses of
contaminant exposure per body weight. The developing body systems of children can sustain
permanent damage if certain toa(ic 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.
MDPH evaluated the likelihood of exposures to children for all compounds analyzed for both on
and off -site. The evaluation focused on the contaminants of concern in surface soil at the Hatheway
and Patterson site, the adjacent residential neighborhood and off -site near impoundments of the
Rumford River and contact with fish. The screening values used to assess risk were based on
exposure to children. See section A above ("Evaluation of Possible Health Effects") for a
discussion of these exposure scenarios.
39
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a review of environmental health data at the H&P site, MDPH concluded that:
1. The primary compounds above levels of health concern in soil on -site at the H&P
property are arsenic, chromium, PCP and dioxin.
2. While arsenic levels are elevated above levels of health concern in all four on -site
quadrants, the highest levels are found in the NE quadrant, which is located on County
Street. PCP is elevated above levels of health concern in the NE and SE quadrants.
Dioxin and chromium are elevated above levels of health concern in all four quadrants.
3. Public health concerns were greater in the past for workers or trespassers than they are
today largely due to institutional controls (e.g., covering of on -site arsenic -contaminated
areas with asphalt in much of the NE and NW quadrants and installation of a fence
around the perimeter of the site). If the conditions of the institutional controls should
deteriorate, opportunities for exposure at the site may increase in the future.
4. Public health concerns were greater in the past. Remedial actions for residents living
adjacent to the site or individuals going by the site on County Street (e.g., removal of
contaminated soil outside the perimeter of the fence along County Street and at abutting
residences across the street) have reduced many of these concerns.
5. Despite the presence of a fence around the perimeter of the H&P Property and periodic
efforts to maintain the fence and security measures, there are still areas where the site is
accessible. Evidence of trespassing (e.g., beer cans, graffiti) has been found on the site.
6. Physical hazards (e.g., Dricon sump filled with water, demolition debris, broken glass,
wooden bridge in disrepair) have been noted in the past and currently exist on the site.
The compounds of public health concern in fish from the Rumford River and its
impoundments (i.e., Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds) are dioxin and PCP, which is a
pesticide. This concern was evaluated in two previous health consultations that formed
the basis of the current MDPH fish consumption advisory. 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.
8. There maybe potential exposure concerns (e.g., flooding and/or seepage into basements),
warranting further characterization of groundwater, for residents of the neighborhood
south and adjacent to the H&P site from contaminated groundwater potentially flowing
from the site towards their basements.
40
9. Discharge to the Rumford River from the H&P site may be ongoing and has not been
completely prevented. As previously mentioned in the Rumford River health
consultation (ATSDR 1999) and in the Off -Site Contamination section of this public
health assessment, additional soil and sediment sampling for the Rumford River area
downstream from the site would help confirm that exposure opportunities to these media
do not present health concerns as a result of direct contact (e.g., due to recreational
activities).
ATSDR requires that one of five conclusion categories be used to summarize findings of health
consultations and public health assessments. These categories are: 1) Urgent Public Health
Hazard, 2) Public Health Hazard, 3) Indeterminate Public Health Hazard, 4) No Apparent Public
Health Hazard, 5) No Public Health Hazard. A category is selected from site -specific conditions
such as the degree of public health hazard based on the presence and duration of human
exposure, contaminant concentration, the nature of toxic effects associated with site -related
contaminants, presence of physical hazards, and community health concerns.
ATSDR would consider that under past conditions the site was a Public Health Hazard. Although
efforts have been made to remediate the site and maintain security on and around the property,
opportunities for exposure still may exist, particularly in the SE quadrant near areas where levels
of contaminants exceeded health -based comparison values. Also, environmental data have
indicated continuing migration of contaminants off -site. Physical hazards were still present on
site at the time of this public health assessment. Consequently, ATSDR would consider the site
currently as a Public Health Hazard.
41
RECOMMENDATIONS
Further characterization of groundwater flow and quality in the area should be performed
by environmental regulatory agencies. This is particularly true for areas off -site. This
characterization is needed to better assess the potential for groundwater pathways with
regard to whether nearby homes (e.g., in the backwash area on Highland Avenue, Morris
Street, and Chauncy Street, see Figure 13b) might be potentially affected, such as during
basement flooding events, or whether any private wells or garden wells could be affected
(i.e., coordinate with environmental regulatory agencies and local health officials to
increase awareness of homeowners in the neighborhood with regards to potential
groundwater concerns).
2. Intervention to prevent further discharge of contaminants from groundwater into the
River should be undertaken by environmental regulatory agencies.
3. Periodic inspection of institutional controls should be done by environmental regulatory
agencies to identify and prevent opportunities of exposure in the future (e.g., maintaining
the fence, asphalt -covered areas, etc.). Security at the site should be improved and
maintained, particularly with regard to fence access points.
4. Physical hazards (e.g., Dricon sump filled with water, demolition debris, broken glass,
wooden bridge in disrepair) should be eliminated by environmental regulatory agencies.
5. Education and outreach activities by MDPH in coordination with environmental
regulatory agencies and local health officials, associated with the public health fish
consumption advisory (e.g., periodic coordination with EPA and the Mansfield board of
health regarding the upkeep of signs) should continue on an on -going basis.
6. Because testing offish from a downstream water body (e.g., Fulton Pond) has confirmed
the presence of dioxin and PCP in fish tissue, additional fish testing by environmental
regulatory agencies from areas further downstream (e.g., Norton Reservoir) is
recommended to confirm the extent of this contamination.
7. Because discharge to the Rumford River from the H&P site may be on -going,
contaminant concentrations in various media downstream have the potential to increase.
Hence, if site conditions change (i.e, worsen) environmental regulatory agencies should
consider the need for additional environmental (e.g., soil and sediment) sampling.
42
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN
MDPH will continue to provide technical assistance to foster education and outreach
activities to raise awareness of MDPH's public health fish consumption advisory, and
other environmental health -related concerns associated with this site (e.g., fact sheets,
posters, attend community meetings).
2. MDPH will send a letter to EPA and local health officials to coordinate the posting of
new Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory signs, and to encourage EPA to plan fish
testing for downstream portions of the Rumford River (e.g., Cabot Pond), and Norton
Reservoir.
MDPH will continue, upon request, to review environmental data generated for the site,
and provide public health interpretation and advice.
4. MDPH, in collaboration with EPA, local health officials, MDEP and MDFW, reviewed
environmental data related to dioxin concerns, and issued a preliminary public health fish
consumption advisory for the Rumford River in 1998. This fish advisory was updated
and made permanent in 1999 after fish tissue data became available through EPA. The
fish advisory is posted on the MDPH Center for Environmental Health's website. MDPH
completed a health consultation for Glue Factory Pond/Rumford River in 2001 and for
the Rumford River in 1999. These documents were made available to the public. MDPH
also attended a community meeting, and performed site visits.
43
PREPARER OF PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This document was prepared by the Environmental Toxicology Program, Center for
Environmental Health of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. If you have any
questions about this document, please contact Suzanne K. Condon, Associate Commissioner,
MDPH/CEH, 7'h Floor, 250 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.
44
CERTIFICATION
The Public Health Assessment for the Hatheway and Patterson site, Mansfield, Massachusetts
was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the
federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with
approved methodology and procedures existing at the time this public health assessment was
initiated. Editorial review was completed by the Cooperative Agreement partner.
Tammie McRae, M.S.
Technical Project Officer
Cooperative Agreement Team
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
ATSDR
The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health
assessment and concurs with its findings.
Cooperative Team
DHAC, A
w CAT, DHACATSDR
45
TABLES
46
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Mansfield (2000 U.S. Census)
Mansfield
U.S. Census Tract
6101
Characteristics
Persons
%
Persons
%
Age
Under
2,154
9.6
341
6.8
5 -14
4,060
18.1
714
14.3
15-44
10,538
47
2,568
51.4
45 - 64
4,236
18.9
929
18.5
65 and over
1,426
6.3
448
8.9
Sex
male
11,175
49.9
2,480
49.6
female
11,239
50.1
2,520
50.4
Race
Persons
%
Persons
%
Not Hispanic or Latino:
22,097
98.6
4,937
98.7
White alone
20,894
93.2
4,733
94.7
Black or African American
482
2.2
85
1.7
alone
American Indian and Alaska
41
0.2
11
0.2
Native alone
Asian alone
432
1.9
65
1.3
Native Hawaiian and Other
2
0
1
0
Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
52
0.2
9
0.2
Two or more races
194
0.1
33
0.7
Hispanic or Latino:
317
1.4
63
1.3
White alone
243
1.1
41
0.8
Black or African American
7
0
0
0
alone
American Indian and Alaska
5
0
0
0
Native alone
Asian alone
0
0
0
0
Native Hawaiian and Other
2
0
2
0
Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
44
0.2
16
0.3
Two or more races
16
0
4
0
47
Table 2: Summary of surface soil (0 through 2 feet) contaminants of concern in the Southeast Quadrant.
Concentrations are listed as milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), unless otherwise noted.
Arsenic * 32/36 ND (.80)
369 J
CREG =0.5
Chronic EMEG (child) = 20
Chronic EMEG (adult) =200
Bkgd Range: <0.1-73; Mean: 7.4
_
Total Chromium 36/36 3
470
Hexavalent Chromium
i
RMEG (child)- 200
RMEG (adult)- 2,000
Trivalent Chromium
RMEG (child)- 80,000
j
RMEG (adult)- 1,000,000
j
Bkgd (Total): 1-1,000; Mean: 52
PCP 25/27 j ND (0.100)
18
CREG = 6
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700
2,3,7,8 TCDD" 10/13 ND
80
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
(ng/kg)
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
L
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1— 10 ng/kg
2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ" (ng/kg) IN13 1 3 J
44,951
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1 — 10 ng/kg
1. Eacxgrouna (Exgu) concentrations for metals for me Eastern United states from snacxtene and tsoemgen (t va4).
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
EMEG Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
J Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified during quality control.
MCP Massachusetts Contingency Plan
ND Non -detect (associated with the method detection limit, shown in parenthesis)
RBC Risk -Based Concentration (EPA Region III)
RMEG Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
ng/kg nanograms per kilogram
PCP Pentachlorophenol
TCDD Tetra -chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
< Less than
36 Results for As and Cr were obtained by BNA (base/neutral/acid) analyses (Weston 1993) and EPA 6010 Target
Analyte List (TAL) metals analysis, or by linear regression analysis of XRF and ICAP (Inductively Coupled Argon
Plasma) data (Weston 1994).
"The ATSDR action level for 2,3,7,8 TCDD in soil is 1,000 ng/kg.
38 Toxicity equivalents (TEQ) represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for mixtures of dioxin -like chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs). Since limited.data on toxicity exist for many of
the CDDs and CDFs, toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) were developed and validated in animals. TEFs compare the
relative toxicity of individual congeners to that of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener is used as the basis
of the TEFs because it appears to be the most toxic of the CDDs to mammals. The TEQ is calculated by calculating
the sum of the products of the TEFs for each congener and its concentration in the mixture.
Table 3: Summary of surface soil (0 through 1 feet) contaminants of concern in the Northeast Quadrant.
Arsenic *
16/16
5 i
1,860
Chronic EMEG (child) = 20
Chronic EMEG (adult) =200
CREG =0.5
j
Bkgd Range: <0.1-73;Mean: 7.4
Total Chromium40
12/12
10
1,886
Hexavalent Chromium
RMEG (child)- 200
RMEG (adult)- 2,000
Trivalent Chromium
RMEG (child)- 80,000
RMEG (adult)- 1,000,000
Bkgd (total): 1—1,000; Mean: 52
PCP
9/9
46
4,900
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700
CREG = 6
2,3,7,8 TCDD"t
3/5
ND
9
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
(ng/kg)
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1 —10 ng/kg
2,3,7, S TCDD TEQ42
5/5
130 J
11,000 J
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
(ng/kg)
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1— 10 ng/kg
*Background concentrations for metals for the Eastern United States from Shacklette and Boemgen (1984).
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
EMEG Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
J Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified during quality control.
MCP Massachusetts Contingency Plan
ND Non -detect (associated with the method detection limit, shown in parenthesis)
RBC Risk -Based Concentration (EPA Region 1II)
RMEG Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
mg/kg Milligram per kilogram
ng/kg Nanograms per kilogram
TCDD Tetra chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
9 See footnote 34.
40 Six of the 12 samples analyzed for metals exceeded the screening values and typical background levels of
1,000 mg/kg for total chromium (Roy F. Weston 1994; Shacklette and Boemgen 1984).
" The ATSDR action level for 2,3,7,8 TCDD in soil is 1,000 ng/kg.
"Z Toxicity equivalents (TEQ) represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for mixtures of dioxin -like chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs). Since limited„data on toxicity exist for many of
the CDDs and CDFs, toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) were developed and validated in animals. TEFs compare the
relative toxicity of individual congeners to that of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener is used as the basis
of the TEFs because it appears to be the most toxic of the CDDs to mammals. The TEQ is calculated by calculating
the sum of the products of the TEFs for each congener and its concentration in the mixture.
i.
Table 4: Summary of surface soil (0 through 1 feet) contaminants of concern in the Northwest Quadrant.
Arsenic '
18/18
26
630
Chronic EMEG (child) = 20
i
Chronic EMEG (adult) =200
CREG =0.5
j
Bkgd Range: <0.1-73;Mean: 7.4
Total Chromium
18/18
7
460
Hexavalent Chromium
RMEG (child)- 200
RMEG (adult)- 2,000
Trivalent Chromium
RMEG (child)- 80,000
RMEG (adult)- 1,000,000
Bkgd (total): 1-1,000; Mean: 52
2,3,7,8 TCDD 4
115
ND
3
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
(ng/kg)
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1-10 ng/kg
2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ0.5
515
3 J
330 J
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
(ng/kg)
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bked Ranee: 1-10 np✓kiz
*Background concentrations for metals for the Eastern United States from Shacklette and Boemgen (1984)
CREG
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
EMEG
Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
J
Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified during quality control.
MCP
Massachusetts Contingency Plan
ND
Non -detect (associated with the method detection limit, shown in parenthesis)
RBC
Risk -Based Concentration (EPA Region III)
RMEG
Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
mg/kg
Milligram per kilogram
ng/kg
Nanograms per kilogram
TCDD
Tetra chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TEQ
Toxicity Equivalents
43 See footnote 34.
'4 The ATSDR action level for 2,3,7,8 TCDD in soil is 1,000 ng/kg.
4' Toxicity equivalents (TEQ) represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for mixtures of dioxin -like chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs). Since limited, data on toxicity exist for many of
the CDDs and CDFs, toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) were developed and validated in animals. TEFs compare the
relative toxicity of individual congeners to that of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener is used as the basis
of the TEFs because it appears to be the most toxic of the CDDs to mammals. The TEQ is calculated by calculating
the sum of the products of the TEFs for each congener and its concentration in the mixture.
50
Table 5: Summary of surface soil (0 through 1 feet) contaminants of concern in the Southwest Quadrant
Arsenic *
14/14
28
413
Chronic EMEG (child) = 20
Chronic EMEG (adult) =200
CREG =0.5
Bkgd Range: <0.1-73;Mean: 7.4
Total ChroMmM41
14/14
6 i
318
Hexavalent Chromium
j
RMEG (child)- 200
RMEG (adult)- 2,000
Trivalent Chromium
RMEG (child)- 80,000 j
RMEG (adult)- 1,000,000
Bkgd (total): 1— 1,000; Mean: 52
2,3,7,8 TCDD48
0/5
ND
ND
Chronic EMEG (child) — 50 ng/kg
(ng/kg)
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1— 10 ng/kg
2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ49
5/5
1 J
64 J
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
(ng/kg)
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
2.3.7.8—TCDD Bkad Ranee: 1-10 n¢/ke
*Background concentrations for metals for the Eastern United States from Shacklette and Boemgen (1984)
CREG
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
EMEG
Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
J
Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified during quality control.
MCP
Massachusetts Contingency Plan
ND
Non -detect (associated with the method detection limit, shown in parenthesis)
RBC
Risk -Based Concentration (EPA Region III)
RMEG
Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
mg/kg
Milligram per kilogram
ng/kg
Nanograms per kilogram
TCDD
Tetra chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TEQ
Toxicity Equivalents
46 See footnote 34.
" Six of the 12 samples analyzed for metals exceeded the screening values and typical background levels of
1,000 mg/kg for total chromium (Roy F. Weston 1994; Shacklette and Boemgen 1984).
48 The ATSDR action level for 2,3,7,8 TCDD in soil is 1,000 ng/kg.
49 Toxicity equivalents (TEQ) represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for mixtures of dioxin -like chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs). Since limited,data on toxicity exist for many of
the CDDs and CDFs, toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) were developed and validated in animals. TEFs compare the
relative toxicity of individual congeners to that of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener is used as the basis
of the TEFs because it appears to be the most toxic of the CDDs to mammals. The TEQ is calculated by calculating
the sum of the products of the TEFs for each congener and its concentration in the mixture.
51
Table 6: Summary of maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern in surface
soil (0 through 2 feet) on the H&P property. For some compounds, data were not available (N/A).
a s o a a s a ® e o
Arsenic 50* 1,860 369 J 630 413 CREG =0.5
(
1 Chrome EMEG (child) = 20
Chronic EMEG (adult) =200
I !
j Bkgd Range: <0.1-73;Mean: 7.4
Total Chromium
1,886 470
! 460
_
318
1 Hexavalent Chromium
RMEG= 200-child; 2,000-adult
1
Trivalent Chromium
RMEG= 80,000-child;
RMEG=1,000,000-adult
'
Bkgd (total): 1-1,000; Mean: 52
PCP
4,900 18
2
ND
{ CREG = 6
Chronic EMEG= 50 (child);700 (adult)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
9 180 ng/kg
3
ND
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
j
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
Intermediate EMEG (child) =1,000
Intermediate EMEG (adult)=10,000
I 213,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1-10 ng/kg
2,3,7,8 TCDD
11,000J 44,951
330 J
64 J
Chronic EMEG (child) = 50 ng/kg
TEQ" (ng/l g)
ng/kg
Chronic EMEG (adult) = 700 ng/kg
Intermediate EMEG (child) =1,000
Intermediate EMEG (adult)=10,000
2,3,7,8—TCDD Bkgd Range: 1 —10 ng/kg
*Background concentrations for metals for the Eastern United States from Shacklette and Boemgen (1984)
CREG
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
EMEG
Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
J
Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified during quality control.
MCP
Massachusetts Contingency Plan
ND
Non -detect (associated with the method detection limit, shown in parentheses)
RBC
Risk -Based Concentration (EPA Region III)
RMEG
Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
mg/kg
Milligram per kilogram
ng/kg
Nanograms per kilogram
TCDD
Tetra chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TEQ
Toxicity Equivalents
50 See footnote 34
51 See note 42.
52
Table 6: Summary of maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern in surface
soil (0 through 2 feet) on the H&P property. For some compounds, data were not available (N/A)
(continued).
Several analytes found in soil, including some for which a comparison value is not available,
were eliminated from the contaminants of concern list because they were less than average or
within the range of background. Background concentrations for metals for the Eastern United
States were from Shacklette and Boemgen (1984). Estimated CREGs for PAHs are based on the
benzo(a)pyrene CREG and Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs). Background levels of PAHs are
from the PAH Toxicological Profile, Table 5-3 (ATSDR 1995).
The following analytes in. soil, with their maximum concentrations (in mg/kg), were eliminated
from each quadrant:
SE quadrant: calcium (530 mg/kg), magnesium (1,600 mg/kg), potassium (380 mg/kg) and
sodium (30 mg/kg); 2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol (2 mg/kg), dibenzofuran (0.4 J mg/kg),
fluoranthene (0.2 mg/kg), fluorene (0.4 J mg/kg), PCP (1 mg/kg), pyrene (0.2J mg/kg), antimony
(3 mg/kg), copper (265 mg/kg), lead, and thallium(68 mg/kg). Some PAHs had method detection
limits that were below comparison values (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene's CREG is 0.1 mg/kg but the
MDL was 0.4 mg/kg).
NE quadrant: calcium (1300 mg/kg), iron (28,000 mg/kg), magnesium (2300 mg/kg),
potassium (380 mg/kg) sodium (130 mg/kg), copper (875 mg/kg), and thallium (67 mg/kg);
PAHs: benzo(a)anthracene (2 mg/kg), benzo(b)fluoranthene (2 mg/kg), benzo(k) fluoranthene (2
mg/kg), indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1 mg/kg), and 2-methylnaphthalene (2 mg/kg), benzo(a)pyrene
(2 mg/kg), total petroleum hydrocarbons (34,000 mg/kg) and total PAHs (47 mg/kg).
NW quadrant: calcium (4000 mg/kg), iron (32,000 mg/kg), magnesium (2700 mg/kg), potassium
(660 mg/kg) sodium (83 mg/kg), copper (443 mg/kg) and thallium (82 mg/kg). There was no
MDL for dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene had a MDL of 1 mg/kg, not sensitive
enough for 0.1 mg/kg CREG.
SW quadrant: copper (447 mg/kg). Two samples were analyzed for PAHs, including PCP (1
mg/kg). For the following PAHs there were no MDLs: benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenzo(a,h)antbracene.
53
C
00 A
Q
N
N
09 Q
�An„
M N
M N
M
M
w a
I
q F
q[p
i
I
q F
q F
I
1
1
I
I
pp
O pp
O p
N
Ai
_
O
O 0
0 O
O
O
m
M
M
M
m
my
CDcmm
0)y
ymy
� y
O
0
C
oI
c C
O
m
C
m
C
O
O
O
O
N
O O
L O
O O
10
N
O O
LD O0
O O
m
N
N
N
N
V
d
L
`I') 0----
I I 11
,
I I I I
•
L
I" °o^
I I I I
I I I I
a ^
L
In U
L
Lt) U
L
to U
L
In v
O(�
.cD
.c'a
U
0
Oi�i
L�
L�
_
C7
_
(�j
O(D
OU
OU
I(D
U' W
wg
�U v._.v
U
W
W
C7w
w2
U
U
U` w(Dw(Dw
W�w2w�
C7w
W2
U
U
U
U
UWUWUW
UW
y
U Uww
wW
U UWW
LULIW
'c
Wm
Wm
'c
W�
W�
c
c
c
c
a
o
w
w
o
w
w
o
0
0
0
a
L
U U
2 U
L
V U
V U
L
L
L
C
O
U
U
C
o
Q C
U`
C
p C
U
U
U
U
o
UVUU
o
0
UVUV
0
s
a
_
N.
N
N
N
7
h
M
ti
M
�O
N
N
N
a
N
a.
N
V1
m
N
—
oo
�-'
ti
�
7
n
O
O
N
N
tom+
a
Q
F
Q
F
a
a
a
g
0 q
a
ro d
F
g
O q
F
Ci
O
M
N
N
M
N
N
9 y
C N hrvC
O
�
tw
b0
N
N
O
M O
N�
m o
a
N
pNp
N U N
U
U
Uz
O
c
30
a
C
c
TJ
o ro
91
A o
N
bn
0
0
b
N
�
E G
2
wa
w"W
�a
0
H
2
b
z
o
cn91
p
o
M
�Na
Ww
�w
Hi
�ok
T
b
Y
m
T
TJ
O.
•�
A
A
AA
A `�
O
O
M i
y
y
u
k
'aaF�'xF`q
� fi
C
w
cn
O00 b
0OD
N
M
M W
N v
Vl
N
N F
Pi C
b
F
a"
a
0
fi
C7
y �
O �
U
b
N
h
�
and
d .d b"un
N P4
m
a
N q .0
u td
0
r
>
F
H
w � �
.d G ti
odF
W N pj H
.E ice- w
rN� V
H
o
0 d
wz s
b�
id V a
AA o�
b
P °n
nN
U
u N
VVq ii �.,i y
4J
0P.
o
aCi .0 G
w
o
row U
a
r.a �w
0 ° o
p
� P,
off P�
0
6
> o tH
N y
Y o
V W N O 0
P,
N UJ U
X '.,...,.
' I m F o
a;
'd •= O �
O O�y � N
z
fi'�ON 0AA
yob
FIGURES
56
e%
r
r�
•
Legend
0.6
1=1M8668d1ne91ar-TOW(IS
Rivers/Streams
N
1 11 Mlles
ME Su -Boundary
— RlurB4sem
W+E
Q Site -Buildings
— - Intermittent stream
Figure 1. Hathaway & Patterson B
Houses
wstereodles
Site, Mansfield, MA
Rma'dr
Bristol. —County—
— Noddk.Counry Slreeis
r$t Trains
Welland
RNer
-
1 BEHA
�.—';
.........
..
. . . . . .. . .
... .....
... ...
rl
V
C
tof
5 Main St
d
t�x
IA I -I'
<
..................
..........
oq� .
IN.
......... ... ...
PU
t
ro
LL
. ....... . . .
CO
I
jA
I
w
z
2
Fm�w.
CONS
/
2J
t,
Q,
e
o
N
e
.
� Zzzz
� C Cw Cw
y Wig
�C ��
04
C F ��
n
0
N
a,
46
ro
0
a
0
O
z
N
o�
H
o.
w
ti
u0
w
A
Si
i
i
1-la
U,
■ LOCATION FOR SOL SAMPLES COLLECrl
4 MW BY EPAiTAT AT A DEPTH OF OZ.
`-•_•...� _ _ ROAD
PROPEA?y SOUNp�",--
RUM�„_= .
DRIP -•.
STAO BLDG)
I
STA. 004
STA. 008
■
STA: 005
••■ • ■ t
O•JOODi•0000
.•i�iiiiiii�ii'
STA. 003 EXCAVATED ILS FROM RUMFORD RIVER BANK
\, \ GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ■ 9� . 002
STA.001
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
HATHEWAY AND PATTERSON
15 COUNTY ROAD
MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSET 3
EDGE OF FILLED AREAS
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
000000000001 V6T«�
OWFICE: UNITED STATER GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP FOR THE WRENTFNMOUADR.ANGLE, PHOTOFEV180 1972,
7.6 MINUTE SERE&
Figure 8. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Soil Samples, Hatheway &
Patterson Site
a
IL-QpAra�
41E CN-
LEGEND
SAMPLE LOCATION
GAS UTILITY
PARCEL BOUNDARY;
EXCAVATION axe
UTILITY POLE NOTE: ACTUAL EXAVATION AREAS AND SAMPLE" ` ��,"v' �ti
LOCATIONS WERE LIMITED TO THE ROAD SHOULDER � _ �`�.%' ' k
THE APPEARANCE OF EXCAVATION AND SALE
50 0 50 Feet LOCATIONS ON THE ROADWAY ARE DUE TO
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN GIs AND GPS SOURCE DATA.
SAMPLE LOCATION DIAGRAM
HATHEWAY & PATTERSON REGION I SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM
15 COUNTY STREET TOO NUMBER ---FCREATE. 01
L
MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 03-07-0004 - I 2/9/2004 I
Figure 10. Locations of Off -site Soil Samples and Excavation, Hatheway & Patterson
Q;t� M7-of-- T-- nnn,,N
t
b�44,
.*I
v
J
A
F1
® -& W
JIF
65
e, 0
A �- z
h12
9 C?
9 9
co (n
>1
w
p ra iQ t)
Vr
Won <
< LLJ
(L F- <
99
2i u
0
lk,
C>
01
Z
0 C>
:2 9
th
09
q o a
0
>
R, I,
w 0 zv �o E
m 1 0 CO
il1 T 0 A
r. 003
"IN 1,41
1 0
44,9499•It.
0 2 V) V) (0 V) X.
mv, womm
w
o
IL
5" MAI
f
NW
SW-013`
oaayry MW-11
RCA-1 -
... WOOD`` \/
°o sa
CA-2
>_. MW. H x Mc
RCA-3
RCA-4
r
SW
so -a
t Y �
WOODS /
0 150 300
SCALE IN FEET
�. NE
Ca%VT y
S�fFr
c MW�
G Otp Y
nb � auk
„o
a4`�`q°4w RCA-6 CP 17
-5B MW-2�
CROP
/MvV-7A
MW-7B
8R-2
�' 'MW-A \ / MW
jrsw-09 t M,A,_C
IMW-E ��'::�•.. iit_•... SE
MW-F/ x ��
r
If,
r-, Pw-1
C/.
Y Z' MW 9A/98i
,
M W-8A r
,-D,
,-IR.
`
r,
�'
woods ,
\ 4 + RCA-8
;
t=ooz�1.% w-doe
MW 1�U ,
r
* NO7E:
SAMPLES SW-007. SW-010, AND SW-013 TO BE TESTED
FOR DIOXIN/FURAN IN ADDITION TO OTHER ANALYSIS.
LEU`END
2, GROUND WATER MONITORING SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Iti�'LL LOCATION (TO BE SAMPLED)
GROUND WATER MONITORING SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
WELL LOCATION
GEOTEXTILE/GRAVEL COVER "X. FENCE
ASPHALT COVER '� ' TREE LINE
4 — — PROPERTY BOUNDARY RAILROAD
ON —SITE SEDIMENT,
SURFACE WATER AND
GROUND WATER SAMPLING LOCATIC
HATHEWAY AND PATTERSON SITE
15 COUNTY ROAD
RCA-9
Foot M11Ia San" I
TRC 978-970 55600 521
7RC PRDJ. NO.: 02136-0310-DIX31
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-WB-0042
Figure 13a. On -site Environmental Samples, Hatheway & Patterson Site (TRC 2001)
allE FACRX2Y
RAIL
SD-017
LEGEND _ ... .
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SL!RFACE WATER $AMP;E IOCATION
—""—'"—
SURFACE WATER
�..:a
FLIiW DIRECTION
HATHEWAY AND PATTERSON
••�.• nn •�••
PROPERTr LINE
U 50V 1VOE
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN 1
THIS AREA SHOWN ON
u"'01
SEPARATEMAP SiR"El
J
y RACEWAY
K" POND
C /
PUNFOPO £ x 99pp�. Paq�.�
•�' i SW-001..pR
� N
AyENUE
M µlPNO
00
., RUMFCWD R/L[R �/
_
Booll Mills11 Sovth
th
'—� OFF SITE Feel of John Street well
SEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATER �� 978-970-5 00
LOCATIONS
HATHEWAY ANn P4TTFP nN CITE mr nn of ac _ni+n_ v:+
15 (
MANSFIELI
Figure 13b. Off -site Environmental Samples, Hatheway & Patterson Site (TRC 2001)
ASSisi\oF WE
A
i
1
z
Y
Z1
I
4
00 .
y $
00
CFI
0�
r-1
yy
6
G
.
NN
y1
p
N .
v
f
Y
�Wj'7�yy
0
o
r
x
a
o�
W�
�.
bb
REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1992. Toxicological Profile for Thallium. July, 1992. U.S. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta. GA.
ATSDR. 1993. Public Health Assessment Manual, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological profile for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. U.S. Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta. GA.
ATSDR. 1998. Toxicological profile for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. U.S. Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta. GA.
ATSDR. 2000a. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Atlanta. GA.
ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological Profile for Chromium. U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, Atlanta. GA.
ATSDR. 2001. Toxicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol. U.S. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta. GA.
Bang, K.M. 1996. Epidemiology of occupational cancer. Journal of Occupational.
Medicine. 11(3):467-85.
Clean Harbors Environmental Services, 1998. Analytical data package, Volume I,
Hatheway and Patterson Site. August 21, 1998.
DynCorp Information and Engineering Technology, 2001. (Draft) Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) Documentation Package (Volume I and II), prepared for EPA Region I,
Boston. Alexandria, VA. July 2001.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2002. ArcGIS, Arcview license, ver.
8.3, Redlands, California.
EPA. 1993. Letter from Mary Ellen Stanton (Sii2 ERS I, site investigator) to William
Haynes (Hatheway & Patterson, President). Re: Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and determination that a Removal Action is necessary. US EPA Reg.
1. August 5.
EPA 1994. Estimating exposure to dioxin -like compounds;- Volume 11: Properties,
sources, occurrence, and background exposures, External Review Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1994.
73
EPA 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories. Volume 2, Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, November 2000,
EPA 2003. Fact sheet. Hatheway & Patterson Update. July/August 2003.
EPA 2004a. (Personal communication, Frank Gardner, August 24, 2004).
EPA 2004b. (Personal communication, Frank Gardner, October 29, 2004).
Federal Register. 2001. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR 300. National
Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Proposed Rule No. 37.
September 13; 66 (178): 47612-47618.
Federal Register. 2002. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR 300. National
Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Final Rule. September 5; 67
(172): 56757-56765.
Fitzgerald, M.A. 1982. Assessment of Current Groundwater Conditions of the Rumford
River and Recommendations for Immediate and Long Tenn Solutions. Report to
Hatheway and Patterson. Prepared by M.A. Fitzgerald, Consulting Engineer. Franklin,
MA. April, 1982
Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineers — START. 1999. Final Site Inspection Report
for Hatheway and Patterson, Mansfield, Massachusetts. December 6, 1999.
Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. 1988. A Soils and Hydrogeologic Investigation.
Monroeville, PA. May, 1988.
Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. 1989. Phase H site investigation and
preliminary health and environmental assessment. Prepared for Hatheway and Patterson
Company, Mansfield, MA. December, 1989.
Keystone Environmental Resources. 1991. Design report for short-term measure.
Prepared for Hatheway and Patterson Company. Monroeville, PA. July 1991.
Keystone Environmental Resources. 1992. Completion report for short-term measure.
Prepared for Hatheway and Patterson Company, Mansfield, MA. January, 1992.
MDEP. 1990. Mark J Begley. Letter to William Haynes (Hatheway & Patterson,
President). Re: Release of product to Rumford River and Request for Short Term
Measure (STM). July 5, 1990.
74
MDEP. 1994. Preliminary Assessment Report for Hatheway & Patterson Co.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup,
Boston. December, 1994.
MDEP. 1995a. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization, Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
July, 1995.
MDEP. 1995b. Email from Julie Hutchinson (DEP-SERO) to Richard Packard (DEP-
SERO) re: EPA proposed paving H&PP. May 8, 1995.
MDEP. 1998. Letter from Gerard Martin to Steve Hurley (Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Southeast District Fisheries). Re: Request to postpone stocking.
September 23, 1998.
MDEP. 2002. Anthropogenic Background Levels in Soil. Office of Research &
Standards, MDEP. February, 2002.
MDEP. 2003a. (Personal communication, Scott Sayers, March 6, 2003).
MDEP. 2003b (Personal Communication, Brenda Chabot, March 7, 2003)
MDEQE. 1973. Letter from William Marhoffer to James Foster concerning discharge of
oil pollution to the Rumford River. January 2, 1973.
MDEQE. 1982. Letter from Walter R. Walsh (Inspector of Public Healtb/Hazardous
Waste Coordinator) to W. Haynes (Hatheway and Patterson, President). July 21, 1982.
MDEQE. 1988. Letter from Christopher Tilden (HWS Chief) to William Haynes
(Hatheway & Patterson, President) re: Notice of Responsibility (NOR) and Phase H
Investigation. August 16, 1988.
Mansfield Assessors Office. 2002. Sue Sellon, personal communication, July 23, 2002.
MDPH. 1999. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental
Health Assessment. Health Consultation: Rumford River Site, Mansfield, Bristol
County, Massachusetts.
MDPH. 2001. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental
Health Assessment. Health Consultation: Glue Factory Pond/Rumford River,
Foxborough, Bristol County, Massachusetts.
MDPH. 2002a. Hatheway and Patterson Site Visit Report, Memo to Elaine T. Krueger
fiom Michael J. Celona. August 6, 2002.
75
MDPH. 2002b. Hatheway and Patterson Public Meeting Summary, Memo to Elaine T.
Krueger from Rebecca A. Robateau. August 30, 2002.
MDPH 2O04. Massachusetts Cancer Registry. Massachusetts Department of Public
Health, Center for Health Information, Statistics, Research and Evaluation.
MDPH. 2005. Hatheway and Patterson Site Visit Report, Memo to Elaine T. Krueger
from Marian Berkowitz. July 19, 2005.
Penney Engineering, Inc. 1992. Monthly updates to MDEP-SERO on activities at
Hatheway Patterson Site, Mansfield, MA. February, 1992.
Penney Engineering, Inc. 1993. Re: Break in security/fence caused by a berm on H&P
property designed to prevent fire -related runoff from entering the river. July 19, 1993.
Resource Controls. 1997. Letter from Robert C. Atwood to Barbara Kesner Landau,
BWSC-DEP, re: MCP and Brownfrelds related issues. December 3, 1997.
Resource Control Associates and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. 2000. Brownfields Pilot
Program Preliminary Comprehensive Site Assessment of Hatheway and Patterson
Property. RCA, Pawtucket RI and VHB, Watertown, MA. Volume I. June.
Roy F. Weston, (Technical Assistance Team). 1993. Removal Program: Preliminary
Assessment/ Site Investigation for Hatheway & Patterson Site, Mansfield, Massachusetts.
TDD No. 01-9306-01A. August.
Roy F. Weston. 1994. Final Report Soil Sampling and Field Screening. USEPA Contract
#68-C4-0022 Work Assn. 0-053. December.
Roy F. Weston, Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team (START). 1995. After
action report for the Hatheway and Patterson site. December 1993 through September
1995. October.
Shacklette and Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial
materials of the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1270.
TRC Environmental Corporation and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 2002. Data Report: Hatheway
& Patterson Site, Mansfield, Massachusetts. June 4, 2002.
TRC Environmental Corporation and Metcalf & Eddy, hie. 2004. Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, Hatheway & Patterson Site, Mansfield, MA. April 2004.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001. 2000 Census Population: Characteristics of the
Population. Washington: US Department of Commerce.
76
Weston Solutions, Inc., April 2004. Removal Program After Action Report for the
Hatheway & Patterson Site, Mansfield, Bristol County, Massachusetts, August 6, 2003
through October 16, 2003.
77
APPENDICES
78
Appendix A
MDPH and ATSDR
Responses to Public Comments on Hatheway and Patterson Company Public Health
Assessment
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), Center for Environmental
Health (CEH), Environmental Toxicology Program (ETP) received and responded to one
set of comments for the Hatheway and Patterson site Public Health Assessment as
received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 office.
Comment: Text referencing activities since 1998 should be added to the Site History
section. The Site History section from the draft Remedial Investigation (RI) Report
(April 2004) by TRC Corporation should be referenced for more information on sampling
activities since 1998 as well as the After Action Report (April 2004) regarding the 2003
removal action outside the fence perimeter.
Response: The Site History section has been revised to incorporate the sampling and
soil removal activities discussed in these two reports and the reports have been added to
the Reference section of this document. From 2002 to 2003, EPA collected and analyzed
samples of soil, sediment, ground water, surface water, and fish for metals, SVOCs, and
dioxins. In earlier investigations of the H&P property, soil was not tested for dioxins
except in the SE quadrant and now this data gap has been addressed in the new data
representing soil dioxin testing for all four quadrants. Like the SE quadrant, dioxin levels
above comparison values were observed in soil samples from the other three quadrants.
Comment: Revise the entire On -Site Contamination section to reflect the
findings/new data described in the draft RI Report.
Response: The On -site Contamination section has been revised to include the
sampling data reported in the RI Report. The Discussion section of the PHA has been
revised to reflect these new data for testing done on samples of soil, sediment, ground
water, surface water, and fish. The new soil data confirmed that contamination is largely
present in the NE quadrant of the site where the wood treatment processes occurred. In
the section of the Discussion called "Evaluation of Health Effects," the maximum arsenic
in soil concentration was changed to reflect the new data from EPA; however, the results
did not affect the risk assessment calculations. Earlier investigation of the site did not
include testing of the soil (other than soil from the SE quadrant) for dioxins and now this
data gap has been addressed. Dioxin was detected at levels above the chronic child
EMEG value (50 ng/kg) in soil samples collected from the other three quadrants. Levels
were highest for the SE quadrant.
As with earlier data for groundwater, PCP and arsenic were elevated in samples from the
NE and SE quadrants. However, whether groundwater flow is in the direction of
residences and/or private wells or garden wells still needs to be clarified. The data gap
79
was noted in the Recommendations section. One of four on -site sediment samples tested
above comparison levels for arsenic but was within background soil levels for this metal.
PCP and dioxin were detected at levels above comparison values in samples of fish
collected from on -site areas of the Rumford River and also from water bodies
downstream of the site (e.g., Fulton Pond). Furthermore, after analyzing these new fish
data, it was determined that the fish advisory covering Glue Factory Pond Dam, north of
the site to as far downstream of the site as Norton Reservoir, does not need to be changed.
However, the recommendation for additional fish testing downstream of the site,
especially from Norton Reservoir, remains as the new fish data do not include data for
fish from this water body.
Comment: In the Conclusions section, item #3, the word `remedial' should be
changed to "removal."
Response: "Remedial' was changed to "soil removal."
:1
Appendix B
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisories
Letter to Mansfield Board of Health Re: Provisional Public Health Fish
Consumption Advisory for Fulton, Kingman & Cabot ponds, and the Norton
Reservoir (October 19, 1998).
Letter to Mansfield Board of Health Re: Updated Public Health Fish
Consumption Advisory for Fulton, Kingman & Cabot ponds, and the Norton
Reservoir (June 30, 1999).
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory Poster (October, 1998/ Updated June 1999).
81
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Department of Public Health
250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619
ARGEO PAULCELLUCCI
GOVERNOR
- LQAM-0w04.EARY -
OWARD K. KOH, M.D., MPH
COMMISSIONER
October 19,1998
Scott Leite, Agent
Mansfield Board of Health
50 West Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
Dear Mr. Leite_.
Enclosed please find. a copy.o£a-Provisional Public Health.Fish Consumption Advisory that is
being issued effective immediately for the Rumford River and associated impoundments, i.e.
Fulton, Kingman. and Cabot ponds, and the Norton Reservoir. When the Massachusetts
Departinen—fofpiibhc-fieaalth M ssuarits-Publiet FisirCon=Wtion Advisories; its
usual policy is to -first obtain fish tissue sampling data Wthe water body of concern. Fish tissue
sampling data are not currently available for these water bodies in Mansfield. However, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife (DFW)asked 1,1DPH-to-eoinsider-issuing-a provisional fish consumption advisory for
the following reasons:
1) Dioxin compounds have been identified in surface water and near the former Hatheway
and Patterson sites in Mansfield. Dioxin compounds have a high potential for
bioconcentration in fish.
2) It is not feasible to obtain fish tissue sampling data in a timely way because of the limited
availability of laboratory resources nationwide for these analytes and the technical
requirements involved in the analysis.
In this particular case, MDPH believes it would be a proactive and prudent public health measure
to issue a provisional advisory without waiting for results of fish tissue sampling.
We have asked the MDEP to pursue arrangements with the US. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) to obtain fish tissue sampling. We have been informed by DEP that staff from
those agencies as well as DFW are working together to develop a fish sampling protocol for
these water bodies, and DPH has requested the opportunity to review and comment on the
protocol.
We would appreciate it if you could arrange to post this important provisional advisory
information at the town offices and at the water bodies themselves. We have attached a
representative poster and will be happy to provide you with any assistance you may need in
accomplishing local notification. We would be interested in translating the provisional advisory
and posting into any languages you feel are relevant to these water bodies based on the types of
populations that you may know of that use this resource. For questions or concerns regarding
posting or health education and outreach activities, we can be reached at (617) 624-5757 for
follow-up assistance. You should know that you will soon be receiving an updated Freshwater
Fish Consumption Advisory List, as we have recently received new fish testing data from U.DEP
that is currently under review.
Sincerely
Elaine T. Krueger, Chief,
Environmental Toxicology Unit
Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment
Cc:-Interagcacy-Committee for Fish Toxics
Carol Rowan West, DEP-ORS
Robert Maietta, DEP-OWM
Oscar. Pancorbo, DEP-WES
Julienne Nassif, DPH-SLI
Stephanie Lentz, DPH-BEHA-EEU
Richard Keller, DFW
Suzanne K. Condon, Director, BEHA
Martha Steele, Deputy Director, BEHA
Gerard Martin, DEP-SERO
Steve Hurley, DFW
Stephen Novick, EPA
PROVISIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY:
RUMFORD RIVER• FULTON, K NGMAN AND CABOT PONDS;
NORTON RESERVOIR
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) has reviewed surface
water data' generated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MDEP) for the Rumford River downstream of the former Hatheway
& Patterson site in Mansfield. The Rumford River system downstream from this
site includes Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds, and the Norton Reservoir.
Dioxin compounds were detected in water samples and in other media. MDEP
and the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) have asked MDPH to consider
issuing a provisional fish consumption advisory for the following reasons.,
1) Dioxin compounds have a high potential for bioconcentration in fish.
2) It is not feasible to obtain fish sampling data in a timely way because of the
limited availability of laboratory resources nationwide for these analytes and
the technical requirements involved in the analysis.
MDPH has issued the following Provisional Public HealthFish Consumption
Advisory:
It19LKq 1131tozI� a 4
All persons should refrain from consuming any fish caught in the Rumford River,
Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, ordhe Norton Reservoir until such time
that fish testing results become available.
For more information, contact:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (617) 624-5757
October, 1998
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Department of Public Health
250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619
ANOEO PAUL CELLUCCI
nOVOMCW
JANE SWIFT
LIOOtinent QOvem "
wILuAM D. O'LEARY
semury
HowAND K. KOK MD, MPH
C0mm1e010n®r
June 30, 1999
Scott Leite, Agent
Mansfield Board of Health
50 West Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
Dear Mr. Leite:
Enclosed please find an updated Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory for the Rumford
River and associated impoundments, i.e., Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds and the Norton
Reservoir. As you recall, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) issued a
provisional advisory for these water bodies in October 1998 following review of limited
environmental sampling data (i.e., soil and surface water data from the Hathaway and Patterson
site in Mansfield). The advisory was issued as a precautionary measure in light of the
propensity of dioxin in surface water to bioconcentrate in fish and the infeasibility of obtaining
fish data in a timely manner.
Since then, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has worked closely with the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and the Massachusetts Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) to develop a fish survey protocol and conduct additional fish
sampling. MDPH provided comments to the USEPA on this protocol. Results reviewed by
MDPH following this sampling effort have confirmed the presence of dioxin in fish in this river
system at levels higher than background fish tissue concentrations for North America.
Individuals, particularly avid recreational fishers, who routinely eat fish caught from this river
could experience elevated health risks. For this reason, MDPH is issuing a regular MDPH
public health fish consumption advisory. In addition, MDPH has advised USEPA to conduct
additional fish sampling from downstream areas (i.e., Norton Reservoir) and upstream areas
(i.e., Glue Factory Pond in Foxborough). A copy of the full health consultation for the
Hathaway and Patterson site, which contains all of the details, -discussion, conclusions, and
recommendations, has been forwarded to you under separate cover.
We have enclosed with this letter an updated poster and advisory. As before, we would
appreciate it if you could arrange to post this important advisory information at the town offices
and at the water bodies themselves. We would be interested in translating the advisory and
posting into any languages you feel are relevant to these water bodies based on the types of
populations that you may know of that use these resources.
We would be happy to discuss any questions or concerns that you might have with respect to
this investigation. You may also wish to coordinate with the Norton and Foxborough boards of
health, which are also involved with this issue. Please do not hesitate to call us at 617-624-5757
if we can be. of further assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Elaine T. Krueger, Chief, Environmental Toxicology Unit
Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment
cc: Suzanne K. Condon, BEHA
Martha Steele, BEHA
Massachusetts Interagency Committee for Fish Toxics
Stephen Novick, U.S. EPA
Richard Haworth, U.S. EPA
Beth Timm, ATSDR
Gerard Martin, MDEP-SERO
Scott Sayers, MDEP-SERO
Steve Hurley, MDFW
7
_:
y
`. � ��'.
Appendix C
ATSDR Glossary of Environmental Health Terms
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a federal public
health agency with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and 10 regional offices in the United
States. ATSDR's mission is to serve the public by using the best science, taking
responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent
harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances. ATSDR is not a regulatory
agency, unlike the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is the federal
agency that develops and enforces environmental laws to protect the environment and
human health.
This glossary defines words used by ATSDR in communications with the public. It is not
a complete dictionary of environmental health terms. If you have questions or comments,
call ATSDR's toll -free telephone number, 1-888-42-ATSDR (1-888-422-8737).
Absorption
The process of taking in. For a person or 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].
EM
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.
87
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 occurs when cells in the body become abnormal and
grow or multiply out of control.
Cancer risk
A theoretical risk of 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 (more than 1 year) [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.
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 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.
m
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.
90
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
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.
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.
91
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 (ti)
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.
92
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 estimate 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].
93
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,
Milligram per square centimeter (of a surface).
mg/m'
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)
01
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, condition, or 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.
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.
95
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 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.
96
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 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 i 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 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.
97
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]
9.1
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 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.
99
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
In 1986, SARA amended 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 epidemiologic 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 which,
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).
100
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 I 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.ppa.gov/OCEPAterms/
National Center for Environmental Health (CDC)
http://www.edc.gov/nceh/dls/report/glossary.htm
National Library of Medicine
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlinepltis/dictionaries.html
101
Appendix D
Site Pictures
102
Picture 1: Northeast: The main gate. Residential houses are directly across the street.
Picture 2: Broken wooden bridge over Rumford River
103
Picture 3: Demolition debris from small building that was in the Dricon process area
Picture 4: Lagoon in the Dricon process area
104
Appendix E
Chemical -Specific Toxicity Information
In order to evaluate possible public health implications, estimates of opportunities for
exposure to compounds must be combined with what is known about the toxicity of the
chemicals. ATSDR has developed minimal risk levels (MRLs) for many chemicals. An
MRL is an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure.
MRLs are derived based on no -observed -adverse -effect levels (NOAELs) or lowest -
observed -adverse -effect levels (LOAELs) from either human or animal studies. The
LOAELs or NOAELs reflect the actual levels of exposure that are used in studies.
ATSDR has also classified LOAELs into "less serious" or "serious" effects. "Less
serious" effects are those that are not expected to cause significant dysfunction or whose
significance to the organism is not entirely clear. "Serious" effects are those that evoke
failure in a biological system and can lead to illness or death. When reliable and sufficient
data exist, MRLs are derived from NOAELs or from less serious LOAELs, if no NOAEL
is available for the study. To derive these levels, ATSDR also accounts for uncertainties
about the toxicity of a compound by applying various margins of safety to the MRL,
thereby establishing a level that is well below a level of health concern.
Arsenic
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that can be found in many kinds of rock,
particularly copper or lead containing ores. Arsenic can be found in the environment in
two different forms, organic arsenic and inorganic arsenic. The organic forms are usually
less harmful than the inorganic forms. Ingesting arsenic in soil, water, or food is the most
likely way for a person to be exposed near a waste site. Only a small amount.of arsenic
can be absorbed through the skin from contact with arsenic -contaminated soils or water.
Some areas of the country contain naturally high levels of arsenic in rock, which often
means that there are higher levels of arsenic in soil and water (ATSDR 2000a).
The definitive symptom of long-term exposure to elevated levels of arsenic include skin
abnormalities such as darkening and the appearance of corns or warts on the palms, soles,
and torso. However, there is some evidence that trace amounts of arsenic in the normal
diet may be necessary for metabolism (ATSDR 2000a). The EPA has classified arsenic
as a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence in humans. In humans, it has been
observed that skin carcinomas develop from some of the corns or warts that appear as a
result of exposure to arsenic. Large-scale epidemiological studies have been conducted in
Taiwan showing clear associations and/or dose response trends for arsenic exposure and
tumors of bladder, kidney, liver and lung (ATSDR 2000a).
105
Chromium
Chromium is a naturally occurring element that is present in the environment in several
different forms. The most common forms are chromium (0), chromium (III) (i.e., trivalent
chromium), or chromium VI (i.e., hexavalent chromium). Trivalent chromium occurs
naturally in the environment, whereas chromium (0) and hexavalent chromium are
generally produced by industrial processes. It is important to identify which form of
chromium is in the soils because trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium have
different toxicological properties. For instance, trivalent chromium is considered to be
less toxic than hexavalent chromium and is a nutrient at low levels. Chromium (0) is not
currently believed to cause a serious health risk. Total chromium is the sum of the
concentrations of trivalent and hexavalent chromium. Because total chromium can be the
sum of chromium in different oxidation states with different toxicities, and the
concentrations of each species can vary, there is no comparison value for it (ATSDR
2000b). The soil RMEGs for trivalent chromium for children and adults are 80,000 mg/kg
and 1,000,000 mg/kg, respectively. The soil RMEGs for hexavalent chromium for
children and adults are 200 mg/kg and 3,000 mg/kg, respectively.
EPA has determined that hexavalent chromium in air is a human carcinogen and that
there is insufficient information to determine whether hexavalent chromium in water or
food and trivalent chromium are human carcinogens (ATSDR 2000b).
Dioxins
TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) is one of 75 different congeners of
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs). Dioxins are not intentionally manufactured but
can be formed in the manufacturing process of chlorophenols (e.g., herbicides and
germicides). The main environmental sources of dioxins are herbicides, wood
preservatives, germicides, pulp and paper manufacturing plants, incineration of municipal
and certain industrial and medical wastes, transformer/capacitor fires involving PCBs,
exhaust from automobiles using leaded gasoline, chemical wastes from improper
disposal, coal combustion, and residential wood burning stoves.
ATSDR has developed an MRL for TCDD of 1x10.9 milligrams per kilogram per day
(mg/kg/day), or 1 picogram per kilogram per day (pg/kg/day) (ATSDR 1998). This was
based on an LOAEL for developmental effects in rhesus monkeys. This MRL is similar to
what ATSDR has estimated as a background exposure level of approximately 0.7
pg/kg/day for TCDD. ATSDR notes that the primary route of exposure to dioxin
compounds for the general population is the food supply (e.g., fish), which is the main
contributor to the background exposure. The EPA has estimated that greater than 90% of
the human body burden of dioxins is derived from foods. If one considers exposure to all
CDD and chlorinated dibenzofuran congeners, the background exposure level increases to
as much as 2.75 pg/kg/day (ATSDR 1998).
106
The EPA has determined that TCDD is a "probable human carcinogen" based on
sufficient animal and limited or inadequate evidence in human studies. IARC ha:
classified TCDD as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) (ATSDR 1998).
Pentachlorophenol(PCP)
PCP is a synthetic substance, made from other chemicals, and does not occur naturally in
the environment. At one time, it was one of the most widely used biocides in the United
States. Since 1984, the purchase and use of PCP has been restricted to certified pesticide
applicators. Before use restrictions, PCP was widely used as a wood preservative. It is
now used industrially as a wood preservative for power line poles, cross arms, fence
posts, and the like (ATSDR 2001).
PCP is produced in two forms: as pentachlorophenol itself (pure grade) or as the sodium
salt of PCP. To increase its water solubility, PCP is often manufactured and marketed as a
sodium salt. The sodium salt dissolves easily in water, but pure PCP does not. Technical
grade PCP has varying amounts of chlorinated impurities such as dichlorophenol,
trichlorophenol and is usually contaminated with dibenzo-p-dioxins (ATSDR 2001).
Chronic animal studies are only available for the oral route and mostly involved technical
grade PCP. Target organs seen in animal studies are primarily the liver and thyroid. The
ATSDR's chronic oral MRL of 0.001 milligrams per mg/kg/day is based on a LOAEL for
thyroid effects. An uncertainty factor of 1,000 was used to derive the chronic oral MRL.
ATSDR has also developed an intermediate oral MRL of 0.001 mg/kg/day. EPA
classified PCP as a Group B2--probable human carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence
of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate evidence in humans (ATSDR 2001).
107
Appendix F
Risk Calculations and Exposure Pathways
Off -Site Soil Risk Calculations
Exposure Dose = (max. contaminant concentration) (IR) (EF) x 10-6 kgLmg
(child resident) Body Weight
Non -cancer (child) _ (1 hoursr/day X 8 months X 30 days/month) (4 hours/day X 4 month X 30
Exposure Factor (EF) days/month) (I8 years)
(18 years) (365 days/year)
= 0.08
Ingestion Rate (child) = 200 mg/day
Body Weight (child) = 35 kg
Arsenic Max. Exposure MRL LOAEL
Exposure Dose = (140 mg) (200mg/day) (0.08) x 10"6 Dose
(child resident) 35 kg
0.000064 0.0003 0.00065
mg/kg/day (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
Exposure Dose = (max. contaminant concentration) (IR) (EF) x I O kg/me
(child resident) Body Weight (kg)
EF for cancer = (26 days/year) (18 years) = 0.02
(70 years) (365 days/year)
Ingestion Rate (child) = 200 mg/day
Body Weight (child) = 35 kg
Arsenic Max.
Exposure Dose = (140 mg) (200m day) (0.02) x 10-6
(child resident) 35 kg
mg = milligram
kg = kilogram
Exposure
x OSF
Cancer Risk
Dose
0.000016
1.5
= 0.000024
mg/kg/d
(mg/kg/day)-'
(2.4 x 10-5)
109
Surface Water Risk Calculations
Oral Ingestion
EF for non -cancer = (0.5 day/year) (8 years)_ = 0.0014
(8 years) (365 days/year)
PCP Max.
Exposure Dose = (11 ugV (0.1 L./day) (0.0014) x (0.001 rn ug) _
(child) (17 kg)
Exposure Dose MRL LOAEL
= 8.8 x 10.8 0.001 1
mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day
Dermal Absornhon
EF for non -cancer = (12 hours./year) (8 years) = 0.033 hours/day
(8 years) (365 days/year)
PCP Max
Exposure Dose = (11 ug/L)(0 16 cm/hour)(9190 cm2)(0 033 hours/day)(0.001 L/cm')(0 001 mg/ug) _
(child) (17 kg)
Exposure Dose MRL LOAEL
3.13 x 10 0.001 1
mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day
Oral Ingestion
EF = (0.5 day/year)(8 years) = 0.00016
Cancer Risk (child) (70 years) (365 days/year)
PCP Max.
Exposure Dose = (I I ug/L) (0.1 L/day)(0.00016) x (0.001 m /g ue)
(child) 17 kg
Exposure Dose OSF Cancer Risk
= 1.0 x 10'8 x 0.12 = 1.2 x 10_9
mg/kg/day'
Dermal Absortpion
EF = (12 hrs./year) (8 years) = 0.0038 hrs./day
Cancer Risk (child) (70 years) (365 days/year)
PCP Max
Exposure Dose = 01 ug/L)(0 16 cm/hour)(9190 crO(0 0038 hours/day(0 001 L/ern)(0 001 mg/ug)
(child) (17 kg)
Exposure Dose OSF Cancer Risk
= 3.6 x 10-6 x 0.12 = 4.0 x 10-'
nag/kg/day'
mg = milligram ug = microgram
kg = kilogram L = liter
cm = centimeter
110
y
m
Ali
t
N
y*
LL
W
N
}(
II
e$1
IL
to •
p
C
�
�
•,
Rp,
p VI
�gg
w
N
p. � Rp!� (Y
a
Q�*�.m
`I.
N q •_ H M1q
C
q
qq
LL
4
V
N M N
N
t�i
O
W
WNN ZvZ
pC
v.J lJmy.
h O
K
N
M)
W
W W
W
IU
Ifi
q
{If
�'
"
111
Ul IKOII
W
UI
H c
v
,y
t
...._..
d
g
..._....
m
..
...
g
g
g
._...
g$
..._...
«I
V1
!� IL
�
171
W
Ul
UI
�
Itl
EY� 9 V��
�1
q
ON
W
KI
IL
q
W
ry
1L
1�1
I:!
Ii1
t�!
111
ICI
1�1
It!
1�1
t�l
1�1
ISryGIS
O
Gnr
qy
Q
q
O
�qy
ytl�
yq
��
ce
wa�"{7dcminiagq'
p
W
ICI
10
IL
III
UI
1II
III
W
W
d� pm
Lb
Lfj
di
Ldh,
N
N
q
q
JJ
W
g
q
Q
K
K
J
K
O
N
O
CI
Cat
ry
CI
h
O
n
qO
p
W
w
w
o w
' F@
m
M
�•
�y
O
C+-
O
ym
Q
O
gym{
O
CMS
O
CMS
O
O
yM�
O
o
p
M
M
M
M
M
n
M1
E
R
«
�
d
e
m
sA
x
¢
'C
'C
C.
F
F
aa..
c
L
F
F
N
N
H
°A
§)e,l,R
�u0°