Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Hatheway Patterson - 9/23/1998-10/4/2001
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE September 23, 1998 TRUDY COXE Secretary DAVID B. STRUHS Commissioner Mr, David McIntyre, Acting Branch Chief RE: MANSFIELD, BWSC/SMP 4-0571 Site Evaluation & Response (HER) Former Hatheway & Patterson United States Environmental Protection Agency REQUEST FOR EPA ASSISTANCE JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211 Dear Mr. McIntyre: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (the Department) is requesting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) assistance at the Former Hatheway & Patterson site located on County Road in Mansfield, Massachusetts. To date, the Department and EPA have conducted response actions at the site consisting of the removal of wood preserving chemicals from bulk storage containers, sampling activities to define the extent of soil and groundwater contamination, and the covering of highly contaminated areas with geotextile fabric and gravel to limit the accessibility of the soil in these areas. On June 11, 1998 the Department tasked one of its contractors to collect surface water, soil, and sediment samples at the site and to have the samples analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method 1613A. The results of the analyses indicate that dioxins are present in all media sampled at concentrations which may constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and/or the environment. Based on these conditions, the Department is requesting that your office consider conducting a time critical removal action to reduce the level of risk posed to the surrounding community. 20 Riverside Drive • Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 • FAX (508) 947-6557 • Telephone (508) 946-2700 Lev, Printed an Recycled Paper 2 Attached is the sample data which shows that dioxins (as 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent) are present in a surface water sample collected from the Rumford River at a concentration of 40 pg/L which exceeds the fresh water acute ambient water quality criteria concentration of 10 pg/L. In addition, elevated concentrations of dioxins were also detected in sediment samples collected from the river and from the adjacent wetland. The Rumford River flows into Fulton Pond and Cabot Pond which are managed as catchable trout ponds which are annually stocked with trout by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW). The Department has requested that the MDFW postpone the scheduled October 1998 stocking of these ponds until additional evaluation can be conducted. The Rumford River and associated wetlands continue to be impacted by light non -aqueous phase (LNAPL) product leaching into the river and wetland sediments from the site in at least two locations. A sample of this product, which was collected from a monitoring well adjacent to one of these break-out points was also found to contain very high concentrations of dioxins. The Department is requesting the EPA's assistance in this matter because the site is abandoned, the property owner is a trust with no other assets and is financially unable to conduct this work. In addition, considering staff and funding resources available to the Department at this time, it is the Department's opinion that EPA will be able to conduct a time critical response action at this site in a more timely manner. The Department is aware that the EPA is currently conducting a Remedial Site Investigation at this site pursuant to CERCLA, and in support of this effort, the Department will provide the EPA with any new information as it becomes available which can be incorporated into this site investigation when the site is rescored. The Department currently has site access and will provide any additional assistance it can to support the EPA in their removal efforts. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward to your response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact me at (508)946-2799 or Scott Sayers at the letterhead address or at (508) 946-2780. Sincerely, C94eerard M.R. Martin, Chief Site Management and Permitting Section cc: Nancy Smith, EPA Lynn Jennings, EPA JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211 DEP - Boston Attn: JayNaparstek,BWSC Harish Panchal, BWSC 3 DEP-SERO Attn: Mildred Garcia-Surette, Deputy Regional Director, BWSC Camille Connick, BWSC Data Entry Mr. John D'Agostino, Town Manager Town of Mansfield, 6 Park Row Mansfield, MA 02048-2433 Mansfield Board of Health m r n jr� I I ai y s 5� ti 3 III j, � L ITiI p ' y I 1 � 1 I I i yy Q I 1 48gg� \ I I Summary DRAFT Calculation of Hatheway and Patterson TEQs (2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent Concentrations) Samples Collected 6/11/1998 Units are parts per trillion TEQ ITEQ TEQ i SAMPLED ND=O ND= 1/2 DL I ND = DL MW-5A Groundwater 1 27937 27938 1 27939 MW-12 Product 476561 476561 476561 SW-1 Surface Water 38 40 1 42 SED-1 River Sediment i 50976 50976 50977 SED-2 Wetland Sediment 1 328770 328770 328770 SOIL-1 Surficial Soil 1 455 460 465 Comparison of Sample TEQ's with Appropriate Standards Units are parts per trillion (pg/L for water and.ng/kg for soil, sediment and product) Sample ID TEQ ND=1/2 DL Standard Concentration, Standard Reference MW-5A Groundwater 27938 0.1 MCP GW-3 MW-12 Product 476561 No Applicable Standard SW-1 Surface Water 40 10 Acute AWQC SED-1 River Sediment 50976 No Applicable Standard SED-2 Wetland Sediment I 328770 No Applicable Standard SOIL-1 Surficial Soil 460 6 MCP 6-2, GW-3 Page 1 MWSA DRAFT SAMPLE: MW-5A Groundwater 1 TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC I ND=O I ND= 1/2 DLI ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF I0.11 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11 101 1 OI 01 0.5i 0.51 1 1 I 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD I 0.51 1 0.51 O.Si 20.21 34.71 23.91 10.11 17.351 11.951 10.11 17.35i 11.95i 10.1 17.35 11.95 I � 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1i i 0.1 ; 1 0.1 i 0.11 1 0.1 ; 0.11 0.1' 674i 2211 6791 4851 231 ! 55101 590: 67.41 i 22.11 67.91 48.51 23.1 5511 591 67.41 67.4 22.1 22.1 67.91 67.9 48.5i 48.5 23.1 23.1 5511 551 59, 59 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.1' 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1 0.1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1: 444101 22701 1827501 44411 4441 4441 2271 2271 227 18275i 18275' 18275 OCDF 0.001' 2560701 256.071, 256.07' 256.07 OCDD 0,001 9905201 990.521 990.521 990.52 TCDF 0.012 2.7' 0.0271 0.02T 0.027 TCDD 0.01 8.7 01 01 0.04351 0.087 PECDF PECDD 0.05i 0.05; 14201 70.11 68.255i 68.2551 68.255 2.311 2.31' 2.31 HxCDF 0.01' 29450i 273,911 273.91 273.91 HxCDD 0.01' 127001 1 63.691 63.691 63.69 HPCDF 0.01 2103201 1636.41 1636.4 1636.4 HPCDD 0.01' 265180, 824.31 824.31 824.3 ' TOTAL: 2003632ITEQ: i 279371 279381 27939 Page 2 MW12 ®RAFT SAMPLE: MW-12 Product I TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL I CONC ND=O ND= 1/2 DL NO = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.1 1 2111 37.6i 21.11 37.61 21.1 37.61 21.1 37.6 I 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.51 0.51 0.5 1170, 1700: 43.1 5851 8501 21.551 585 850 21.551 585 850 21.55 ( 1 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF i 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.1 49550 8740 I 34240'. 4310, 148601 1 352060 22290 49551 49551 8741 8741 34241 34241 4311 4311 14861 14861 352061 352061 2229! 22291 4955 874 3424 431 1486 35206 2229 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 j 0.11 0.11 1068300 107500 I 2466540 1068301 1068301I 106830 107501 107501 10750 1 2466541 2466541 246654 1 i j 1 i OCDF 0.0011 1 4273660: 1 4273.661 4273.661 4273.66 OCDD 0.001 ! 6965590 6965.591 6965.591 6965.59 1 'I I TCDF 0.011 2450' 22.491 22.491 22.49 TCDD 1 0.01 227' 1.8941 1.8941 1.894 PECDF 0.051 23530 10331 10331 1033 PEC DD 0.051 1 3130 154.3451 154.3451 154.345 HxCDF 0.01 1012750 9159.1 ! 9159.1; 9159.1 HxCDD 0.01 i i 790840: 1 4016.3i 4016.31 4016.3 HPCDF 0.01 I 2984020 1 18082:2! 18082.2! 18082.2 HPCDD 1 0.011 i 4316360'. 1 18498.2! 18498.21 18498.2 i I j i I TOTAL: I 24504119, TEQ: 4765611 4765611 476561 Page 3 SAMPLE: Water: Rumford River Downstream of Site TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE I ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC I I ND=O I ND= 1/2 DL I ND = DL I I 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 4.2 I OI 01 0.21 0.451 0.42 0.9 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 0.91 1 I 1 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 1 01 Oi 0.251 0.251 0.5 0.5 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.51 0.51 1 I 1,5' 1 01 0.375i 0.75 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1 0.11 2:91 0.2911 0.29 0.29 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11 11 i 01 01 0.051 0.061 0.1 0.12 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1 0.11 1.21 01 0.065I 0.13 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF I 0.11 1.31 01 0.091 0.18 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD I 0.1 0.11 1.8 8.5 0.85; 0.85i 0.85 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 4.2! O1 0.211 0.42 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1! 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.11 61.81 6.181 6.181 6.18 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.1I 1.7i ; O1 22.61 0.085'1 0.17 22.61 22.6 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ! 0.1, 2261 I 1 OCDF 0.001 I 16811 0.1681 0.1681 0.168 OCDD 0.001, 17201 I.Izi 1.721 1.72 TCDF i 0.011 2.71 0.0271 0.027' 0.027 TCDD ' 0.011 0.91 O1 0.0045i 0.009 PECDF i 0.051 1 62.2! 3.11 , 3.11: 3.11 PECDD 0.051 1.5i O1 0.0375i 0.075 HxCDF 0.01 1 i 44.41 0.415i 0.4151 0.415 HxCDD 0.011 27.91 0.194 0.194• 0.194 HPCDF 0.01 1921 1.302! 1.302' 1:302 HPCDD 0.011 3441 II 1.181 1.18! 1.18 I I TOTAL: 1 2860.41 TEQ: 38I 40I 42 Page 4 SAMPLE: Sediment: River Channel at Interceptor Wall TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC I ND=O ND= 1/2 DL ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2,3,7,8-TCOD 0.1 1 27.11 19.61 1 2.71 2.711 19.6� 19.61 2.71 19.6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.5 j 891 90.7' 44.5 44.5 45.3545.351 44.5 45.35 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.51 j 197' i 98.5 98.51 98.5 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 1640', 164 1641 164 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11 604 60.4 60.41 60.4 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11 17101 1 171 1711 171 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.11 4.61 0 0.231 0.46 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.11 1 1460 1 146 1461 146 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1 0.11, i 1097), 1097 10971 1097 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1 31 33161 316 i i I 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.11 71680! 7168� 71681 7168 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1 0.11 5660: 566' 5661 566 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1 0.11 345850' 34585 345851 34585 I 1 � OCDF i 0.0011 256150' 256.15 256.151 256.15 OCDD 0.0011 i 1384180' 1384.13 1384.181 1384018 TCDF i0.01 240' 2.129 2.1291 2.129 TCDD 0.01) I 323, 3.034 3.0341 3.034 PECDF 0.051 2820! 132.015 132.0151 132.015 PECDD 0.051 1290' 54.65 54.65i 54.65 HxCDF 0.011 54910i 509.56 509.561 509.56 HxCDD 0.011 35050 194.6 194.61 194.6 HPCDF 0.011 287790I 2104.5 2104.5i 2104.5 HPCDD 1 0.011 5309701 1851.2' 1851.2! 1851.2 I I i !TOTAL: . 2996880.4 TEQ: ! 50976 509761 50977 Page 5 SED2 SAMPLE: j Sediment 2: Product Breakout Area Adjacent to MW-12 I TEQ i TEQ TEQ SAMPLE 1 ISOMER DEP TEF DL ! CONIC ! 1 ND=O I ND= 1/2 DU ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCOF 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.1 1 1041 79.5i 10.41 1 79.5i 10.41 79.5i 10.4 79.5 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 0.5 0.5 328i 627' 2090' 1641 313.5' 1045 164 313.5 1045 164 313.5 1045 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ! 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF i 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF i 1,2,3,417,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.11 136401 40801 12220: 24401 11140, 79320i 21070 1364 408 1222. 244 1114 7932' 2107 1364 408: 1222: 244 1114 7932 2107 1364 408 1222 244 1114 7932 2107 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1I 0.11 0.11 427430' 30950 2259890' 42743 3095 225989. 42743 3095: 225989 42743 3095 225989 OCDF 0.0011 973160' 973.16 973.16 773.16 OCDD 0.0011 7799920 7799.92' 7799.92' 7799.92 TCDF 0.011 1930 18.26 18.26 18.26 TCDD 0.01 1230i 11.505 11.505 11.505 PECDF 0.051 20050-. 954.75 954.75 954.75 PECDD 0.051 9950. 393 393 393 HxCDF 0.011 405080' 3727 3727' 3727 HxCDD 0.011 259770: 1482.4 1482.4 1482.4 HPCDF 0.01 1713200 12548.2' 12548.2. 12548.2 HPCDD i 0.011 3563020. 13031.3 13031.3 13031.3 1 1 I TOTAL: 17612718.5 TEQ: ' 328770' 328770' 328770 Page 6 SAMPLE: Soil 1: Near MW-9 I I TEQ TEQ j TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC I ND=O I ND= 1/2 DL i ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 5.9 01 0.2951 1.71 0.59 3.4 2,3,7,8-TCOD 1 3.4 1 01 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.511 7.81 I 01 3.S5i 1.95i 3.55i 3.9 3.55 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.51 7.1 9.2! 4.6i 4.61 4.6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5i 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1! 43.81 4.381 4.381 3.471 4.38 3.47 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11 34.7 3.471 5.61 5.6'1 5.6 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11 561 O I 1.0051 2.01 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.11 20.11 1 21 21 2 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.11 201 I 62.21 1 ! ' 6.22 6.221 6.22 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1! 1 38.7 3.22' 3.87' 3.87 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.11 12901 1291 9.57' 1291 9.57' 129 9.57 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.1 95.71 20301 i 2031 203I 203 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.11 1 OCDF 0.0011 I 26701 219701 2.67' 21.97' 2.67' 21.91 2.67 21.97 OCDD 0.0011 0.01I 4.511 0.0451 0.045i 0.045 TCDF 0.011 3.41 01 0.017 0.034 TCDD 0.051 155i 7.395, 7.395i 7.395 PECDF 15i 0.29 0.29! 0.29 PECDD 0.01 %, 11201 19.855' 9.8551 9.855 HxCDF 0.011 1 281 1.601 1.601 1.601 HxCDD 0.01i 37501 23.643� 23.6431 23.643 HPCDF 0.011 1 32901 12.6i 12.6, 12.6 HPCDD I TOTAL: 36942.91TEQ: I 1 455i 460i 465 Page 7 MA DEP Dioxin TEQ Calculator MA DEP DIOXIN TEQ CALCULATIONS Hatheway and Patterson Sample SW-1 DIOXIN ISOMER DEP Derived TEF Detection Limit Sample Concentration Calculated TEQ ND=112 DL Calculated TEQ NO Calculated TEQ ND=DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 4.2 ND 0.21 0 0.42 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 0.9 ND 0.45 0 0.9 ND 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 1 ND 0.25 0 0.5 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 1 ND 0.25 0 0.5 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 1.5 ND 0.375 0 0.75 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 2.9 0.29 0.29 0.29 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 1 ND 0.05 0 0.1 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 1.2 NO 0.06 0 0.12 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 1.3 ND 0.065 0 0.13 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 1.8 ND 0.09 0 0.18 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 8.5 0.85 0.85 0.85 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 4.2 ND 0.21 0 0.42 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.1 61.8 6.18 6.18 6.18 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.1 1.7 ND 0.085 0 0.17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 226 22.6 22.6 22.6 OCDF 0.001 168 0.168 0.168 0.168 OCDD 0.001 1720 1.72 1.72 1.72 TCDF 0.01 2.7 0.027 0.027 0.027 TCDD 0.01 0.9 ND 0 0 0 PECDF 0.05 62.2 3.11 3.11 3.11 PECDD 0.05 1.5 ND 0 0 0 HxCDF 0.01 44.4 0.415 0.415 0.415 HxCDD 0.01 27.9 0.194 0.194 0.194 HPCDF 0.01 192 1.302 1.302 1.302 HPCDD 0.01 344 1.18 1.18 1.18 TOTAL TEQ: 40.131 38.036 42.226 ND=112 DL ND=0 No=DL SAMPLE INFORMATION: See DEP W W W site for more information on MA DEP Dioxin TEQs: htip://www.state.ma.us/dep/ors/Rles2hemical.hhn Dioxin Fish Bloaccumulation Calculator Estimatetl Fish Tissue DIOXIN Sloconcentratlon Water Sample concentMlons(ng)kg) ISOMER Factor Conceelindion (TEO) (rED) (TEO) 2,3,7,8-TCOF 128,000 (is) NO M80 53760 ;3,7,8-TCDD 128,000 (1) ND 576M 115200 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 510 (3a) ND 202.5 405 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 810 (3a) ND 2025 405 1,9,3,7,8-P.000 810 (3a) ND 303.75 607.5 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 5,834 (4a) 2.9 1691sli 1691.06 1691.86 1,2,3,6,7,B-HxCDF 5,634 (4a) ND 291.7 583.4 ;3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 5,834 (4s) ND 350.04 700.08 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5,834 (4a) ND 379.21 768.42 1,$3,4,7,8-H%CDO 5.834 (4) NO 525.06 1050.12 /,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 5.834 (4a) 8.5 4955a 408.9 4958.9 1,2,3,7.8,9.HxCDO 5,834 (4a) ND 1225.14 2450.28 1,2,3,4,6,7,8.HPCDF 1,790 (5a) 61.8 11062.2 11062.2 110622 1,;3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1,790 (5a) ND 152.15 30,11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1,790 (5a) us 40454 40454 40454 OCOF 2,226 (6a) 168 373.968 373.966 373.968 OCDD 2,226 (a) 1720 082812 M28.72 3828.72 TCDF 5,840 (2a) _ 27 157b8 157.68 157.68 TCDD 5,840 (2) ND PECDF 310 (3a) 62.2 2519.1 2519.1 2519.1 PECDD 810 (3) NO HxCDF 5,834 (4a) 4 A 2421JI 2421.11 2421.11 HxcDD 5,834 (4a) 27.9 1131.796 1131196 113119E Hpfop 1.790 Set 192 M30.58 2330.58 2330.5E TOTALTEO: 161154.16 73UZ114 249266.21 References Note that the specks Mich follow are not all considered 'e lible. Actual Oaks will depend upon the TCDD equivalent concentration In the ec lbie Portion of fish. (1) ATSDR Dioxin Toxicological Profile: Fathead Minnow, following 71 day exposure. Values range from 2,500 to 128.000 (Fathead minnow). (1 a) The value for 2,3,7,&TCDD was used for this congener. (2) ATSDR Dioxin Toxicelogcal Profile: Fathead Minnow following 5 day exposure. Values range from 874(Rainbsw Trout) to 5,840(Fathead Minn.). (2a) The value for 1,3,6,&TCDD vas used forma congener. (3) ATSDR Dioxin Toxicological Profile: Rainbow Trout following 5 day exposure. (3a)The Value for 1,2,3,4,7-PeCDDwa3 used fortune congener. (4) ATSOR Dioxin Toxicological Profile: Fathead Minnow following 5 day exposure. Values rang from 1,715 ti 5,834 (fathead minnow). 1(4a) The value for 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDO was used for thes congener. (5) ATSDR Dioxin Toxicological Pmhle: Rainbow Trout fulmog 5 day exposure. Values range from 513(tamead minnow) io 1,790(Rainbow moot). (5a) The value for 1,2,3,4,6,7-HpCDO was used for this congener. (6) ATSDR Oloxin Toxicological Profile: Fathead Minnow following 5 day exposure. Values range from 34(Rainbowtrout)to>9,000(Misquitofish N an experimental lake). Ise) The value for OCDD vas used her OCDF. p u c o � x d W ly O a W W K O W N u c W N = a 3 J 0 mm W N 01 T q 9 `o m o A A, AD a m a � v v _ OI N 3 E N b y O � J U O > A, c W N H 6� K ¢ m mW m = a o J 0 'v « N v w ^' A, A, @ o — F `o m om_E x J V C AD N i ADS 3 _ N N N y C O q N i y o a Q > LL L N W J c � = a AD N W j 0 X U L U W F 3 S � ¢a w w « An a • c 7 � W i ao AD 1 y i 9 E o y aq m t u ¢ q v m > AD m u 3 AD. c o m o o E u % ) N - Q LL U U Triangle Laboratories. Inc. Case Narrative Data Flags June 22, 1998 45986A In order to assist with data interpretation, data qualifier flags are used on the final reports. Please note that all data qualifier flags are subjective and are applied as consistently as possible. Each flag has been reviewed by two independent Chemists and the impact of the data qualifier flag on the quality of the data discussed above. The most commonly used flags are: A `B' flag is used to indicate that an analyte has been detected in the laboratory method blank as well as in an associated field sample. The B' flag is used only when the concentration of analyte found in the sample is less than 20 times that found in the associated blank. This flag denotes possible contribution of background laboratory contamination to the concentration or amount of that analyte detected in the field sample. An `E' flag is used to indicate a concentration based on an analyte to internal standard ratio which exceeds the range of the calibration curve. Values which are outside the calibration curve are estimates only. An `I' flag is used to indicate labeled standards have been interfered with on the GC column by coeluting, interferent peaks. The interference may have caused the standard's area to be overestimated. All quantitations relative to this standard, therefore, may be underestimated. A `J' flag is used to indicate a concentration based on an analyte to internal standard ratio which is below the calibration curve. Values which are outside the calibration curve are estimates only. A `PR' flag is used to indicate that a GC peak is poorly resolved. This resolution problem may be seen as two closely eluting peaks without a reasonable valley between the peak tops, overly broad peaks, or peaks whose shapes vary greatly from a normal distribution. The concentrations or amounts reported for such peaks are most likely overestimated. A `Q' flag is used to indicate the presence of QC ion instabilities caused by quantitative interferences. An `RO' flag is used to indicate that a labeled standard has an ion abundance ratio that is outside of the acceptable QC limits, most likely due to a coeluting interference. This may have caused the percent recovery of the standard to be overestimated. All quantitations versus this standard, therefore, may be underestimated. An IS' flag indicates that the response of a specific PCDD/PCDF isomer has exceeded the normal dynamic range of the mass spectrometer detection system. The corresponding signal is saturated and the reported analyte concentration is a `minimum estimate'. When the `S' qualifier is used in the reporting of `totals', there is saturation of one (not Triangle Laboratories. Inc. June 22, 1998 Case Narrative 45986A necessarily from a specific isomer) or more saturated signals for a given class of compounds. Results for saturated analytes are reported as greater than the upper calibration limit. A `U' flag is used to indicate that a specific isomer cannot be resolved from a large, co - eluting interferent GC peak. The specific isomer is reported as not detected as a valid concentration cannot be determined. The calculated detection limit, therefore, should be considered an underestimated value. A `V' flag is used to indicate that, although the percent recovery of a labeled standard may be below a specific QC limit, the signal-to-noise ratio of the peak is greater than ten -to - one. The standard is considered reliably quantifiable. All quantitations derived from the standard are considered valid as well. An `X' flag is used to indicate that a polychlorodibenzofuran (PCDF) peak has eluted at the same time as the associated diphenyl ether (DPE) and that the DPE peak intensity is at least ten percent of the total PCDF peak intensity. Total PCDF values are flagged `X' if the total DPE contribution to the total PCDF value is greater than ten percent. All PCDF peaks that are significantly influenced by the presence of DPE peaks are either reported as "estimated maximum possible concentration (EMPC) values without regard to the isotopic abundance ratio, or are included in the detection limit value depending on the analytical method. TLI Project: Client Sample: 45986Cr2 Break Out Area 1613A PCDD/PCDF Analysis (c ) Analysis File: T983594 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson Sample Matrix: SOLID Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SP161V2S TLI ID: 210-85-6A Date Extracted: 07/15/98 ICal: TF5706V I Date Analyzed: 07/20/98 ConCal: TV83585 Sample Size: 1.027 g Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: 73.2 Dry Weight: 0.275 g Blank File: T983591 % Lipid: n/a GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: WK % Solids: 26.8 2,3,7,8-TCDD 79.5 0.88 25:31 1.000 _ l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 2090 1.56 29:44 1.001 _ I,2,3,4.7,8-HxCDD 11140 124 32:50 1.000 — 1,2,3,6J,8-HxCDD 79230 1.23 32:56 1.001 E_ 1.2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 21070 123 33:15 1.010 _ 1,2,3,4.6.7.8-1lpCDD 2259890 1.01 36:13 1.000 E- 1,23,4.6.749-OCDD 7799920 0.84 39:56 1.000 E- 2,3,7,8-TCDF 104 0.78 24:49 1.001 — 1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDF 328 1.41 28:42 1.000 PR_ 2,3,4,7.8-PeCDF 627 1.62 29:24 1.001 — 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 13640 127 32:09 1.000 — 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 4080 1.20 32:15 1.001 — 2,3,4,6.7,8-HxCDF 12220 1.24 32:42 0.999 PRX 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2440 1.33 33:29 1.000 X- 1,2.3,4.6.7,8-HpCDF 427430 1.09 35:09 1.000 E- 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 30950 1.10 36:41 1.000 — 1,2,3,4.6,7,8,9-OCDF 973160 0.86 40:03 1.003 QE_ Total TCDD 1230 10 — Total P--CDD 9950 10 — Total HxCDD 259770 7 E— Total HpCDD 3563020 2 E— Total TCDF 1930 12 Q— .Total PeCDF 20050 13 — Total HxCDF 405080 11 E— Total HpCDF 1713200 4 E— Page 1 of 161VJIM �101. LABS 6.11M Triangle laboratories, lne.o TLI Project: 45986Cr2 1613A PCDD/PCDF Analysis (c) Client Sample: interceptor Trench Analysis File: T983627 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson Sample Matrix: SOLID Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SP161V2S TLI ID: 210-85-5A Date Extracted: 07/15/98 ICal: TF5706V Date Analyzed: 07/22198 ConCal: TV83618 Sample Size: 1.037 g Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: 31.6 Dry Weight: 0.709 g Blank File: T983591 % Lipid: nJa GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: BJG % Solids: 68.4 Ana I yteS: 2.3.7.8-TCDD 19.6 0.75 25:13 1.001 1,2.3.7.8-PeCDD 197 1.54 29:32 1.001 1,2.3.4.7.8-HxCDD 1460 1.26 32:39 1.000 PR- 1.2,3.6.7.8-HxCDD 10970 1.23 32:45 1.001 1,2,3,7.8.9-HxCDD 3180 1.15 33:04 1.010 1.2,3,4.6.7,8-HpCDD 345850 1.02 35:59 1.000 E- 1.2.3,4.6.7,8.9-OCDD 1384180 0.92 39:40 1.001 SE- 2.3,7,8-TCDF 27.1 0.89 24:29 1.000 — 1.2,3,7.8-PeCDF 89.0 1.35 28:29 1.001 X- 2.3.4,7.8-PeCDF 90.7 1.56 29:12 1.001 — 1.2,3.4.7,8-HxCDF 1640 1.28 31:58 1.001 — l,2,3.6.7,8-HxCDF 604 1.31 32:04 1.000 — 2,3A6.7,8-HxCDF 1710 1.25 32:32 0.999 — l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 4.6 — l,2.3,4.6.7,8-HpCDF 71680 1.05 34:56 1.000 E- 1,2,3,4.7,8,9-HpCDF 5660 1.05 36:28 1.000 — 1,2,3,4,6,7.8.9-0CDF 256150 0.88 39:47 1.004 E- Totals . . ..... ......... . -.2 Total TCDD 323 6 Total PeCDD 1290 8 Total HxCDD 35050 6 E— Total HpCDD 530970 2 ToW TCDF 240 11 — Total PeCDF 2820 11 — Total HxCDF 54910 10 E— Total HpCDF 287790 4 E— Page I of 2 16[V-PSR v2.01. LARS 6.11.06 Triangle Laboratories, Inc -a I .- 1. . 1. . n n- Jnnjna _]TU Project: 45986Cr2 Client Sample: Soil near MW-9, 1613A PCDD/PCDF Analysis (c) Analysis File: . T983626 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson j Sample Matrix: SOLID Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SP161V2S TLI ID: 210-85-3A Date Extracted: 07/15/98 ICal: TF5706V Date Analyzed: 07/22/98 ConCal: TV83618 Sample Size: 1.021 g Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: 2.8 Dry Weight-. 0.992 g Blank File: T983591 % Lipid: n/a GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: BJG % Solids: 97.2 - 2.3.7.8-TCDD _ 1.2.3.7,8-PeCDD 1.2,3.4,7.8-HxCDD _ 1.2?.6.7.8-HxCDD 1 2.3.7,8.9-HxCDD - 1,2.3.4,6, 7.8-HpCDD 1 2.3.4.6. 7.8,9-OCDD - 23, 7.8-TCDF 1,2,3,7.8-PeCDF - 23.4.7.8-PeCDF 1.23 .4.7.8-HxCDF 1.2.3.6.7.8-HxCDF _ 2,3.4.6.7,8-HxCDF 1.2.3.7.8,9-HxCDF 1.2.3.4,6, 7,8-HpCDF 1.2.3.4,7,8.9-HpCDF 1,2.3.4,6,7.8.9-OCDF Totals: Total TCDD _Total PeCDD Total HxCDD -Total HpCDD Total TCDF _Total PeCDF Total HxCDF -Total HpCDF ND 3.4 _ 9.2 1.33 29:34 1.001 J_ 20.0 1.35 32:41 1.001 J_ 62.2 1.14 32:45 1.000 - 38. i 1.15 33:06 1.011 J_ 2030 1.05 36:00 1.001 - 21970 0.87 39:33 1.000 _ ND 5.9 J_ ND7.8 J_ 7.1 1.63 29:12 1.000 J_ 43.8 1.19 31:59 1.001 J_ 34.7 1.18 32:05 1.001 J_ 56.0 1.31 32:34 1.000 _ ND 20.1 J_ 1290 1.07 34:57 1.000 - 95.7 1.13 36:28 1.000 - 2670 0.89 39:44 1.005 - ND 3.4 - 15.0 2 - 281 5 - 3290 2 - 4.5 1 - 155 5 - 1120 8 - 3750 3 - Page I of 2 I6[V PM v2.01. LAU 6.11.06 Triangle Laboratories, Inca Rm r .-;+-]. n.a,.- - n,..4 977a Printed: 13:08 07/29/98 rLl Project: 45986B Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b) �lient Sample: NIW-12 Analysis File: U981543 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson ICal: UF56248 Sample Matrix: OIL Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SPMIT22S TLIID: 210-85-2A Date Extracted: 06/28/98 1st CCal: U981537 Date Analyzed: 07/09/98 End CCal: U981550 Sample Size: 1.030 g Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: n/a Dry Wei.aht: n/a Blank File: U981542 % Lipid: n/a GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: KH % Solids: n/a 2,3,7,8-TCDD 37.6 0.75 25:54 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 43.1 1.69 30:11 J- 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 14860 1.21 33:10 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 352060 1.23 33:16 E- 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxtDD 21290 1.23 33:33 E- 1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2466540 1.00 3622 SE- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8.9-OCDD 6865590 0.92 39:47 SE- 2,3,7,8-TCDF 211 0.75 25:21 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 1170 1.41 29:04 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1700 1.52 29:43 .I,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 49550 1.25 32:30 E- 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 8740 1.26 32:36 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 34240 1.25 33:03 PRE 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF EMPC 4310 X- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1068300 1.02 35:24 SE- 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 107500 1.07 36:49 E- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-0QDF 4273660 0.95 39:58 QSE Total TCDD 227 9 271 Q— Total PeCDD 3130 12 3160 Total HxCDD 790840 7 E— Total HpCDD 4316360 2 QSE Total TCDF 2460 14 2500 Q— Total PeCDF 23530 12 24050 Q— TOW HxCDF 1012750 8 1019440 QSE Total HpCDF 2984020 3 QSE Page I of 2 1.04. LARS 6.11.06 Tpi- -I - * - - -- - - - I- - _I Project: 45986A _ient Sample: Rumford River Downstream 1613A PCDD/PCDF Analysis (c) Analysis File: S983265 lient Project: Hatheway & Patterson ample Matrix: AQUEOUS Date Received: 06/13/98 -LI ID: 210-85-4A Date Extracted: 06/15/98 Date Analyzed: 06/20/98 Spike File: SP161V2S ICal: SF5606V ConCal: SV83257 ample Size: 1.000 L Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: 100.0 >rN, Weizht: n/a Blank File: S983263 % Lipid: n/a ;C Column:. DB-5 Anaivst: HLM % Solids: 0.0 ,.7.8-TCDD ND 0.9 — 3,3.7.8-PeCDD ND 1.5 — _.3. L.7.8-HxCDD ND 1'8 1.36 32:?8 1.001 — J_ 2,3.6,7.8-HxCDD 8.5 J- 3.3,7,89-HxCDD 4:2 1.08 36:13 1.000 — '.3.4,6,7,8-HpCDD 226 0.91 3950 1.000 — 2,14.6,7.8,9-ODD 1?'0 3 ND 42 J- '_.3.7.8-PeCDF ND 1.0 — 3.4.7,8-PeCDF ND 1.0 1.10 32:11 1.001 _ J_ 2,')A7,8-HxCDF 2.9 '-.3.6.7.8-HxCDF 10 . — 3A6,7,8-HxCDF ND 1 _ 2,3, i,8,9-HxCDF ND 1.3 1.06 35:10 1.000 — '.3,4.6, 7,8-HPCDF 61.8 = 2.3A7.8,9-HpCDF ND 1'7 0.89 4 0: 021 1.00: — .2.3.4.6, 7, 8, 9 -O CDF 168 Totals Copc iP4) ;. t�urnber DL- Flags ocd TCDD ND 0.9 — otal PeCDD ND 1'6 —_ ,oU HxCDD 27.9 3 -oral HpCDD 344 2 — Total TCDF 2.7 1 — Total PeCDF 62.2 2 — Total HxCDF 44.4 4 — Taa HpCDF 192 2 — Page 1 of 16IV PSA v201. LARS 6.11.06 Itianale Laboratories. Inca 1�)•d4 nF/91/98 TLI Project: 45986A 1613A FUL)L)/Vk-L)r' h111G1yJIJ lL) Client Sample: MW-5A Analysis File: S983264 Client Project: Matrix: Hatheway & Patterson AQUEOUS Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: S 66V Sample TLI ID: 210-85-1A Date Extracted: 06/15/98 ICaI: SF5606V Date Analyzed: 06/20/98 ConCal: SV83257 Sample Size: 1.040 L Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: 100.0 Dry Weight: n/a Blank File: S983263 HLM % Lipid: % Solids: n/a 0.0 GC Column: DS-5 Analyst: 2.3, 7,3-TCDD ND 1.0 1.61 29:47 — 1.001 J_ t 3'9 1.30 32:54 L000 - 2.3PeCDD 1.?.3.-At.7,7,3-HxCDD 231 1.23 32:59 1.000 — 1.2.3.6.7,8-HxCDD 5510 1.25 33:19 1.010 — 1._.3.7.39-HxCDD 590 1.03 36:15 1.000 E_ t 2.3.4.6,7,8-HpCDD 182750 0.92 39:58 1.000 E S L'_3.4.6,7,8,9-OCDD 990520 2.3,7.8-TCDF ND 10.0 1.51 28:45 1.001 — J_ 1,2.3.7,8-PeCDF 20.2 1.45 29:27 1.000 J- 2.3A,7,8-PeCDF 34.7 1.27 32:12 1.000 — 1.2.3A7,8-HxCDF 674 1.22 32:18 1.000 — 13.3.6,7•,3-HxCDF 221 1.24 32:46 0.999 — 2.3.4,6,7,8-HxCDF 679 1.25 33:33 1.000 X_ 1,2,3,7,3,9-HxCDF 485 1.07 35: 1.000 E_ 1.2.3,4,6.7.8-HpCDF 44410 1.07 36:44 1.000 - 1,23.4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2270 0.88 40:06 1.004 E— - 1.23.4,6,7,8,9-0CDF 256070 Total TCDD ND 8.7 Total PeCDD 70-1 4 — Total HxCDD 12700 7 E— Total HpCDD 265180 2 Total TCDF 44.4 5 X— X_ Total PeCDF 1420 9 E— Total HxCDF 29450 10 E— Total HpCDF 210320 4 Page 1 of 2 tyt V_M vlot. L RS 6.11. 6 Triangle Laboratories, Inca Printed: 12:48 06/21/98 801 Capitola Drive • Durham, North Carolina 27713 _ A GAn1 i l5 9NlN q o O RO R u a O W R 'Io 41 b I I el F 4 4 b.l 1" ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Govemor COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE TRUDY COXE Secretary CDAVID or STRUHS \� �.- Commissioner September 23, 1998 Mr. Steve Hurley RE: MANSFIELD, BWSC/SMP 4-0571 Southeast District Fisheries Manager Former Hatheway & Patterson Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife REOUEST TO POSTPONE STOCKING Southeast Wildlife District Office 195 Bournedale Road Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts 02532 Dear Mr. Hurley: On June 11, 1998 the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (the Department) tasked one of its contractors to collect surface water and sediment samples from the Rumford River at the Former Hatheway & Patterson site located on County Road in Mansfield, Massachusetts. These samples were analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method 1613A. The results of the analyses indicate that dioxins are present in the surface water and sediment at concentrations which may constitute a threat to public health and/or the environment. Attached is the sample data which shows that dioxins (as 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent) are present in the surface water sample collected from the Rumford River at a concentration of 40 pg/L which exceeds the fresh water acute ambient water quality criteria concentration of 10 pg/L. In addition, elevated concentrations of dioxins were also detected in sediment samples collected from the river and from the adjacent wetland. The Rumford River and associated wetlands continue to be impacted by light non - aqueous phase (LNAPL) product leaching into the river and wetland sediments from the site in at least two locations. A sample of this product, which was collected from a monitoring well adjacent to one of these break-out points was also found to contain very high concentrations of dioxins. A worst case risk screening calculation performed on the surface water sample results indicates that consumption of fish from the Rumford River is likely to present a substantial risk to human health due to the levels of dioxins present. 20 Riverside Drive • Lakeville, N[assachusetls 02347 • FAX (508) 947-6557 • Telephone (508) 946-2700 Zi Printed on Recycled Paper As you are aware, the Rumford River flows into Fulton Pond and Cabot Pond which are managed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) as catchable trout ponds. You informed me during out telephone conversation of September 17, 1998 that these ponds are annually stocked with trout during October. Based on the conditions outlined above, the Department requests that your office consider postponing the scheduled October 1998 stocking of these ponds until additional evaluation can be conducted. To accomplish this additional evaluation, the Department has requested that the EPA conduct a time critical removal action at this site to reduce the level of risk posed to the surrounding community. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward to your response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact me at (508)946-2799, or Scott Sayers at the letterhead address or at (508) 946-2780. Sincerely, Gerard M.R. Martin, Chief. Site Management and Permitting Section cc: DEP - SERO Attn: Millie Garcia-Surette, Deputy Regional Director, BWSC Data Entry Mr. John D'Agostino, Town Manager Town of Mansfield, 6 Park Row Mansfield, MA 02048-2433 Mansfield Board of Health Summary DRAFT Calculation of Hatheway and Patterson TEQs (2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent Concentrations) Samples Collected 6/11/1998 Units are parts per trillion TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLED ND=O ND= 1/2 DL ND = DL MW-5A Groundwater 27937 27938 27939 MW-12 Product 476561 476561 476561 SW-1 Surface Water 38 40 42 SED-1 River Sediment 50976 50976 50977 SED-2 Wetland Sediment 328770 328770 328770 SOIL-1 Surficial Soil 455 460 465 Comparison of Sample TEQ's with Appropriate Standards Units are parts per trillion (pg/L for water and ng/kg for soil, sediment and product) Sample ID TEQ ND=1/2 DL Standard Concentration Standard Reference MW-5A Groundwater 27938 0.1 MCP GW-3 MW-12 Product 476561 No Applicable Standard SW-1 Surface Water 40 10 Acute AWQC SED-1 River Sediment 50976 No Applicable Standard SED-2 Wetland Sediment 328770 No Applicable Standard SOIL-1 Surficial Soil 460 6 MCP S-2, GW-3 Page 1 SAMPLE:IMW-5A Groundwater TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DI_ CONC ND=O ND= 112 DL ND = DL 2.3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 10: 0 0.5 1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 1 0 0.5 1 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 20.2 10.1 10.1 10.1 2.3.4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 34.7 17.35 17.35 17.35 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 23.9 11.95 11.95 11.95 1.2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 674 67.4 67.4 67.4 1,2.3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 221 22.1 22.1 22.1 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 679 67.9 67.9 67.9 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 485 48.5 48.5 48.5 1.2,3.4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 231 23.1 23.1 23.1 1,2,3.6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 5510 551 551 551 1,2.3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 590 59 59 59 1,2.3.4,6,7,8-HpCDF OA 44410 4441 4441 4441 1,2.3,4.7,8,9-HpCDF 0.1 2270 227 227 227 1.2.3,4.6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 182750 18275 18275 18275 OCDF 0.001 256070 256.07 256.07 256.07 OCDD 0.001 990520 990.52 990.52 990.52 TCDF 0.01 2.7 0,027 0.027 0.027 TCDD 0.01 8.7 0 0 0.043E 0.087 PECDF 0.05 1420 68.255 68.255 68.255 PECDD 0.05 70.1 2.31 2.31 2.31 HxCDF 0.01 29450 273.91 273.91 273.91 HxCDD 0.01 12700 63.69 63.69 63.69 HPCDF Ul 210320 1636.4 1636.4 1636.4 HPCDD 0.01 265180 824.3 824.3 824.3 TOTAL: 2003632'TEQ: 27937 27938 27939 �� MW12 DRAFT SAMPLE: MW-12 Product TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC ND=O ND= 112 DL NO = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 211- 21.1' 21.1' 21.1 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 37.6 37.6; 37.6 37.6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.5 1170 1700 585" 850 585' 850 585 850 1,2.3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 43.1 21.SSI 21.55 21.55 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 49550: 4955: 4955 4955 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3.7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.1 0.1 8740' 34240 4310' 8741 3424 431 874 34241 431 874 3424 431 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 14860' 1486I 1486 1486 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 352060 352061 35206 35206 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 22290: 2229, 2229 2229 1.2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.1 1068300 106830' 106830 106830 1,2.34,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 0.1 107500 2466540 10750 246654' 10750 246654 10750 246654 OCDF 0.001 4273660 4273.66' 4273.66 4273.66 OCDD 0.001 6965590 6965.59' 6965.59 6965.59 TCDF 0.01 2460 22.49 22.49 22.49 TCDD 0.01 227 1.894 1.894 1.894 PECDF 0.05 23530 1033, 1033 1033 PECDD 0.05 3130 154.345 154.345 154.345 HxCDF 0.01 101275D 9159.1 9159.1 9159.1 HxCDD 0.01 790840. 4016.3, 4016.3 4016.3 HPCDF 0.01 2984020 18082.2 18082.2 1 0082.2 HPCDD 0.01 4316360 18498.2' 18498.2 18498.2 TOTAL: 24504119 TEQ: 476561 476561 476561 Page 3 SW1 I AF T SAMPLE: Surface Water: Rumford River Downstream of Site TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TE= DL CONC ND=O ND= 112 DL ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.1 1 4.2 0.91 0 0 0.21 0.45 0.42 0.9 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.5 0.75 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 1.2' 3 1.8 4.2' 2.9 8.5 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.85 0 0.29 0.05 0.06 0.065 0.09 0.85 0.21 0.29 0.1 0.12 0.13 0.18 0.85 0.42 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCD= 1,2,3A.7,8,9-HpCDF 1,2.3,416,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7 61.8 226 6.18 0 22.6 6.18 0.085 22.6 6.18 0.17 22.6 OCDF 0.001 168 0.168 0.168 0,168 OCDD 0.001 1720 1.72 1.72 1.72 I TCDF 0.01 2.7 0.027 0.027 0.027 TCDD 0.01 0.9 0 0,0045 0.009 PECDF 0.05 62.2 3.11 3.11 3.11 PECDD 0.05 1.5 0 0.037 00.075 HxCDF 0.01 44.4 0.415 0A15 0.415 HxCDD 0.01 27.9 0.194. 0.194 0.194 HPCDF 0.01 192 1.302 1.302 1.302 HPCDD 0.01 344 1.18 1.18 1.18 TOTAL: 2860.47EQ: 38 40 42 Page 4 M. SED1 DRAT 9 SAMPLE:: Sediment: River Channel at Interceptor Wall TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC ND=O ND= 112 DL ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 27.1 2.71 2,71 2.71 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 DF 0.5 89' 4.5DF 0.5 90.7 .35CDD 0.5 19T 8.5XCDF =8: "44 01 1640 64xCDF 0.1 604 0.42,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11710 171 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 4.6. 0 0.23 0.46 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 1460' 146 146 146 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 10970 1097 1097 1097 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 3160 316 316 316 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.1 71680 7168 7168 7168 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.1 5660' 566 566 566 1,2,3.4,5,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 345850 34585 34585 34585 OCDF 0.001 256150 256.15 256.15 256.15 OCDG 0.001 1384180 1384. i 8 1384.18 1384.18 TCDF 0,01 240 2.129 2.129 2.129 TCDD 0.01 323 3,034 3.034 3.034 PECDF 0.05 2820 132.015 132.015 132. 115 PECDD a 05 1290 54.65 54.65 54.65 HxCDF 0.01 54910'. 509.56 509.56 509.56 HxCDD 0.01 35050 194.6 194.6 194.6 HPCDF 0.01 287790 2104.5 2104.5 2104.5 HPCDD 0.01 530970 1851.2 1851.2 1851.2 TOTAL: 2996880.4'TEQ: 50976 50976 50977 Page 5 SED2 SAMPLE: Sediment 2: Product Breakout Area Adjacent to MW-12 TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC ND=O ND= 112 DL ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF OA 104; 10.4 10.4 10.4 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 79.5 79.5 79.5 79.5 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 328 164 164 164 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5' 627 313.5 313,5 313.5 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 2090' 1045 1045 1045 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 13640' 1364 1364 1364 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 4080' 408 408 408 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 12220 1222 1222 1222 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1' 2440! 244 24- 244 1,2,3,4,7.8-HxCDD 0.1 111401 1114 1114 1114 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 79320 7932 7932 7932 1,2,3.7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 21070, 2107 2107 2107 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.1 427430 42743 42743 42743 1,2,3,4,7,8.9-HpCDF 0.1 30950 3095 3095 3095 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 2259890 225989 225989 225989 OCDF 0.001 973160: 973.16 973.16 973.16 OCDD 0.001 77999201 7799.92 7799.92 7799.92 TCDF 0.01 1930 18.26 18.26 18.26 TCDD 0.01 1230 11,505 11.505 11.505 PECDF 0.05 20050 954.75 954.75 954.75 PECDD 0.05 9950 393 393 393 HxCDF 0.01 405080 3727 3727 3727 HxCDD 0.01 259770' 1482.4 1482.4 1482.4 HPCDF 0.01 1713200' 12548.2 12548.2 12548.2 HPCDD 0.01 3563020 13031,3 13031.3 13031.3 TOTAL: 17612718.57EQ: 328770 328770 328770 Page 6 sTm SOIL1 'RF 8 SAMPLE: Soil 1: Near MW-9 TEQ TEQ TEQ SAMPLE ISOMER DEP TEF DL CONC ND=O ND= 1/2 DL ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 5.9 0: 0.295i 0.59 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 3.4 0 1.7' 3.4 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 Z8 0 1.95! 3.9 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 7.1' 3.55 3.55 3.55 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 9.21 4.6 4.6 4.6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 43.81 4.38 4.38! 4.38 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 34.7! 3.47 3.47' 3.47 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 561 5.6 5.6 5.6 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 20.1 0 1.005: 2.01 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 20 2 21 2 1,2.3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 62.2 6.22 6.22. 6.22 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 38.7 3.87 3.87 3.87 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.1 1290: 129 129 129 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.1 95.71 9.57 9.57' 9.57 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 2030: 203 2031 203 OCDF 0.001 2670' 2.67 2.67' 2.67 OCDD 0.001 21970' 21.97 21.97' 21.97 TCDF 0.01 4.5 0.045 0.045. 0.045 TCDD 0.01 3.4 0 0.017' 0.034 PECDF 0.05 155 7.395 7.395 7.395 PECDD 0.05 15i 0.29 0.29: 0.29 HxCDF 0.01 1120 9.855 9.855 9.855 HxCDD 0.01 281' 1.601 1.601 1.601 HPCDF 0.01 3750 23.643 23.643 23.643 HPCDD 0.01 3290 12.6 12.6 12.6 TOTAL: 36942.91TEQ: 455 460 465 Page 7 MA DEP Dioxin TEQ Calculator MA DEP DIOXIN TEQ CALCULATIONS Hathaway and Patterson Sample SW-1 DIOXIN ISOMER DEP Derived TEF Detection Limit Sample Concentration Calculated TEQ ND = 112 DL Calculated TEQ ND = 0 Calculated TEQ ND = DL 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 4.2 NO 0.21 0 0.42 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 0.9 NO 0.45 0 0.9 NO 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 1 NO 0.25 0 0.5 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 1 ND 0.25 0 0.5 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 1.5 ND 0.375 0 0.75 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 2.9 0.29 0.29 0.29 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 1 NO 0.05 0 0.1 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 1.2 ND 0.06 0 0.12 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 1.3 ND 0.065 0 0.13 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 1.8 NO 0.09 0 0.18 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 8.5 0.85 0.85 0.85 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 4.2 ND 0.21 0 0.42 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.1 61.8 6.18 6.18 6.18 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.1 1.7 NO 0.085 0 0.17 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.1 226 22.6 22.6 22.6 OCDF 0.001 168 0.168 0.168 0.168 OCDD I 0.001 1720 1.72 1.72 1.72 TCDF 0.01 2.7 0.027 0.027 0.027 TCDD 0.01 0.9 NO 0 0 0 PECDF 0.05 62.2 3.11 3.11 3.11 PECDD 0.05 1.5 NO 0 0 0 HxCDF 0.01 44.4 0.415 0.415 0.415 HxCDD 0.01 27.9 0.194 0.194 0.194 HPCDF 0.01 192 1.302 1.302 1.302 HPCDD 0.01 344 1.18 1.18 1.18 i TOTAL TEQ: 40.131 38.036 42.226 ND=112 DL ND=0 ND=DL SAMPLE INFORMATION: See DEP WWW site for more information on MA DEP Dioxin TEQs: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/orsMles/chemicaLhtm rFam aeawed mxYna RlaeaT�a ,alcipaiprlre 1n14d w aSta6apl F . '.: :. ''Fs 1awe:.. -. efsl4mnS7Yxwemai 'IE(2SL -:::--:-.•. : J DIOXIN ISOMER Dioxin Fish 6ioaccumulation Calculator Estlmaled Fish Tissue aloconCidnatton water Sample CoocenNations howfou Factor Concenwhuni (TEO) (TEO) MCI rer Brmm TEpcideWvon kp=lrzox Novo NP=CI 2,3,7,8-TCDF 129.000 fiat ND 26M 537fi01 2,3,T,8-TCDD 129.000 (1) NO 57600 115200I 1,2.3,7.8-PeCOF 81c (3a) NO 202.5 4051 2,3,4,7,8-1eeCDF 810 r3a) NO 202.5 405i 1,Z3,7,BYeCDD 810 (3a) NO 303.75 W7 51 1,Z3,4,7.8-HxCDF 5.83x (4a) 19 1691a5 169126 1691.861 1.2.3,6.7,8-HxCDF 5.834 (4a) NO 291] 58341 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCOF 5.834 (4a) NO 350,N 7W O81 i.Z3,7,8,"XCDF 5.804 (4a) NO 379.21 ]5842: 1.2,3,4,7,8-HZCDO 5,83< (4) ND 525,06 10S t2l 1,Z3,6,7,84IXCDD 5.634 (4a) 25 4958.9 495&9 .958.91 1.Z3,7,8,9-HXCDO 5.83< fait ND 1225A4 2450281 1,2,3,4,6,7,&4IPCDF 1.]9C (5a) 61.a 11062.2 1106Z2 11062.2;1 1,Z3,4,7,89-HpCDF : ]9C (5a) NO 152.4.5 30C.3! 1,2.3,4,6,7,&IIpCOD 1 ]9C (5a) =6 40454 40454 4i1d5L! OCDF 222E (6a) 168 3n3fmdi 373.968 3T g68! OCDD 2.226 (6) 1720 382872 382832 3828.721 TCDF 5.841 (2a) Z' 157,68 15768 157.681 TCDD 5.84C (2) ND PECDF 810 (3a) 62— 2519.1 2519.1 ..4°_.I' PECOD 81, (3) NO HxCOF 5.83< fait ^<< 2421.11 2421.11 242L11 HxCDD 5.834 14a1 27.9 1131.796 1131796 11317961 HPCDF iJ90 (5a) 192 2330.58 2nD,58 _.3D.581 HPCDO 1 7, 15) 3ac 21122 211Z2 21:Z21 TOTAL TEa 161164.16 7304Z114 2,4KfK.21! 1O mInDL NP=o No=obi References Note that me scecles which fettow are not all con zaered-emele-. Actual N9ks will depend when the TCDD eewlyalent concentration in the edible ch nlon of flyk (1) ATSDR Dioxin ioocologKi Profile: Pamead Mmnce, folloynng 71 day exposure Values range hem 15D3n 12E 000(.Pathetic minnow). (1a) The value for 2.3.7,&TCDD was used for Ns congener. (2) ATSDR DIaxm Tox¢olo .1 PmhieFathead Morn. t::H mng 5 cay.,dddd re. Values range hom 8]<IRamoow Troth) ro 5.840 (Fathead Minnow (2a) The to. for :.3.8&TCDD vas used torths mngener. (31ATSDR Dawn Toosotogical lerome Rambay Troln follomng 5 day exposure. (Bat The value tor' 2.3.4,7-PeCDO was used forms congener (4)AT5DR Dann Tchc0lohcs Pr: ue'. Fathead Minnow following 5 day exposure values rang from !,715 m 5.334 (fameap minnow). (4a) The value for 1.2,3,4.7,�=was used for ins congener. (5) ATSDR Dtonn Toesitiogmal Profile: Rainoow Tram folloynne 5 day exposure. Values mood from 513lfarneau mmnowl to 1.790(Rambow Mhu:: (5a) The value for 1,2.3,4,6,7-HPCOD was used for Me congener (6) ATSDR Dioxin Toxxologoth Pmhle Fathead Minnow foliovnng 5 day exposure vaides mnhe hpm 3<(Ramcaw lmun to>9.0031Metaumfisn in an exxnmentai laze'. (6a) The value for CCOD was used mr OCDF -}- \ \\(\j ƒ!;Dm a!}:§@ y }\\\ jF } \\}!\ \ !Ei!|m © , »�({) \ / Triangle Laboratories, Inc. Case Narrative June 22, 1998 15986A E I I I I I I Data Flags In order to assist with data interpretation, data qualifier flags are used on the final reports. Please note that all data qualifier flags are subjective and are applied as consistently as possible. Each flag has been reviewed by two independent Chernists and the impact of the data qualifier flag on the quality of the data discussed above. The most commonly used flags are: A `B' flag is used to indicate that an analyte has been detected in the laboratory method blank as well as in an associated field sample. T'ne `B' flag is used oniv when the concentration of analyte found in the sample is less than 20 times that found in the associated blank. This flag denotes possible contribution of background laboratory contamination to the concentration or amount of that analvre detected in :he field sample. An 'E' flag is used to indicate a concentration based on an analyte to internal standard ratio which exceeds the range of the calibration curve. Values which are outside the calibration curve are estimates only. ,An 'I' flag is used to indicate labeled standards have been interfered with on the GC column by coeluting, interferem peaks. The interference may have caused the standard's area to be overestimated_ Ail quantitations relative to this standard, therefore, may be underestimated. A 'J' rlag is used to indicate a concentration based on an analyte to internal standard ratio which is below the calibration curve. Values which are outside the calibration curve are estimates only. A 'PR' flag is used to indicate that a GC peak is poorly resolved. This resolution problem may be seen as two closely eluting peaks without a reasonable valley between the peak tops, overly broad peaks, or peaks whose shapes vary greatly from a normal distribution. The concentrations or amounts reported for such peaks are most likely overestimated. A 'Q' flag is used to indicate the presence of QC ion instabilities caused by quantitative interferences. An `RO' flag is used to indicate that a labeled standard has an ion abundance ratio chat is outside of the acceptable QC limits, most likely due to a coeiuting interference. This may have caused the percent recovery of the standard to be overestimated. Aa quantitadons versus this standard, therefore, may be underestimated. An 'S' flag indicates that the response of a specific PCDDlPCDF isomer as exceeded the normal dvnamic range of the mass spectrometer detection system. The corresponding signal is saturated and the reported analvte concentration is a 'minimum _stimate'. When the `S' qualifier is used in the reporting of `totals', there is saturation of one i not Triangle Laboratories. Inc. June 22, 1998 Case Narrative 45986A necessarily from a specific isomer) or more saturated signals for a given class of compounds. Results for saturated analytes are reported as greater than the upper calibration limit. A `L' flag is used to indicate that a specific isomer cannot be resolved from a large, co - eluting interferent GC peak. The specific isomer is reported as not detected as a valid concentration cannot be determined. The calculated detection limit. therefore. should be considered an underestimated value. A `ti' flag is used to indicate that, although the percent recover-., of a labeled standard may be below a specific QC limit. the signal-to-noise ratio of the peak is greater alian ten -to - one. The standard is considered redabiv quantifiable. All quandiadons derived from the standard are considered valid as well. An 'Y' flag is used to indicate that a polychlorodibenzofuran (PCDF) peak has eluted at the same time as the associated diphenvi ether (DPE) and that :he DPE peak intensity is at least ten percent of the total PCDF peak intensity. Total PCDF values are agged 'Y' if the total DPE contribution to the total PCDF value is treater -pan ten percent. All PCDF peaks that are significandy inTluenced by the presence of DPE peaks are either reported as ''estimated maximum possible concentration (EMPQ values without regard to the isotopic abundance ratio, or are included in the detection limit value decending on <<ne analytical method. 0 TLI Project: 45986Cr2 1613A PCDD/PCDF Analysis (c) Client Sample: Break Out Area Analysis File: T983594 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson Sample Matrix: SOLID Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SP162V2S ' TLI ID: 210-85-6A Date Extracted: 07/15/98 ICal: TF5706V Date Analyzed: 07/20/98 ConCal: TV83585 Samole Size: 1.027 g Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: 73.2 Dry Weight: 0.275 a Blank File: T983591 % Lipid: n/a CC Column: DB-5 Analyst: WK '7o Solids: 26.8 Arraiyfis. Canc- {ngEkg}. i7i= Ratio RT. RRT '' Rags -2,3,7,3-TCDD 79,5 0.38 25:31 1.000 _ 12.3,7,3-PeCDD 2090 1.56 29:44 1.001 _ 1?.',4.7,3-HxCDD 11140 1: i 32:50 1.000 _ -1.2.3.6.7,3-HxCDD 79230 1.23 32:56 1.001 =- 1,2.3.7.3,9-HxCDD 21070 1 '3 33:15 1.010 '1?.3,4.6.7.3-HpCDD 2259890 i.01 '6:13 1.000 -_ 1.?.3.1.6.Z3.9-OCDD 779991-0 0.3-: :9:56 1.000 _ .2,3,-.3-TCDF 104 0.73 24:49 i.001 _ 1,2.3,7,3-PeCDF 323 1.41 28:42 LOCO PR_ 2,3A7.3-PeCDF 6Z, 1.6Z 29:24 1.001 _ 1,2.3.4.7,3-HxCDF 13640 1.3" 32:09 1.000 _ 12.3.6,7,3-HxCDF 4080 1.20 32:15 1.001 _2,1,.6,7,3-HxCDF 11"o 124 32:42 0.999 PRX 1 2 --,7,3,9-HxCDF 2440 1.33 33:29 1.000 X- 1,2.3.4,6,7,3-HpCDF 427430 1.G9 35:09 LOW E- 12,3,4,7,3,9-HpCDF 30950 1.10 36:41 1.000 _ L_,3,-t,6,7,3.9-0CDF 973160 0.36 40:03 1.003 QE_ Total TCDD 1230 10 — _.Total PeCDD 9950 10 — TotalHxCDD 25970 7 E- 'Total HpCDD 3563020 2 E- Total TCDF 1930 12 Q- -Total PeCDF 20050 13 Total HxCDF 405080 11 E_ -Totai HxCDF 1713200 4 E- Page 1 of'-7 :atvpsx2^,i.:arts s.u.oe -Triangle Laboratories, Inca 301 Capitols Drive • Durham, North Carolina 2Ti13 Printed: 10:29 07/22198 -?hone: (919) 544-5729 • Fax: (919) 544-5491 3 ^ r i TLI Project: 45986Cr2 1613A PCDD/PCDF Analysis (c) Client Sample: 1 Interceptor Trench Analysis File: T983627 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson ' Samcie MaLrix: SOLID Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SP161V2S TLI ID: 210-85-3A Date Extracted: 07/15/98 ICai: TE5706V Date Analyzed: 07/22/98 ConCal: TV83618 I Sample Size: 1.037 g Dilution Factor: n/a %?Moisture: 31.6 Dry V--ik7h1: 0.709 g Blank File: T983591 % Lioid: n/a GC CAumn: DB-5 Analyst: BJc 7� Solids: 68.4 _ inafyt=s: C'inc:. {nglkg� 4L .. #iatio RT RBT' Hans - ' -TCDD 19.6 0.75 25:13 1.001 _ -s- ?eCDD 197 - - 4 -9:32 L001 — t._._.=. .<-HsCDp 1460 =5 ?:39 1-000 PR_ 10970 _ =: 1.001 _ 3160 1.010 _ _ t ' 7.3-HxCDC :55850 ':.J� :.:a - 1.000— L_..=.5.7.3.9-=D 1384t30 0.92 '9:40 1.001 SE_ 3-'CDF '-7.1 0.39 -4:29 1.000 _ 39.0 M29 1.00t X- 7.3-?eCDF 90.7 56-9:L LOOT — t ' .=.7.3-HxCDF 1640 =3 :1:=8 1.01 t 2.'.B.?.s-HxCDF 604 -.31 32:^,4 LOW — _ 1710 -- =2 _2 0.999 — 1_'. HxCDF ND 4.6 - - L2. .'.c.-.3-HxCDF -11680 :.05 -::6 LCIGO E— l._.:.-.-.3.9-HxCDF 5660 :.JS :6:23 1.000 _ I '.?.-.5.-.3.9-OCDF 256150 0.38 39:-i 1.004 E- - i+Totals Gone 1ngRtg Nttmier L}€. F�3s.; • Total T=)D J23 6 — _ Tow ?eCDD 1290 8 — Torai'^::CDD 35050 6 — Tow HcCDD 530970 2 E— Tow TCDF 240 11 — _ Tow ? DF 2820 it — Tow HxCDF 54910 10 E- - Tow cCDF 28-790 4 — Page I of Z 61v SR ,291. _J 56.iLb — Triangle laboratories, Inc..3 _ 801 Cacrtola Drive • Durham, North Carolina 27713 Printed: 13:10 07/29/98 Phone 919) 6,LA-E729 - Fax: (919) 544-5491 . . JTLI Project: 45986Cr2 1613A PCDD/PCDF Analysis (c) Client Sample: Soil near MW-9 Analysis File: T983626 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson Samole Matrix: SOLID Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SP161V2S TLI ID: 210-85-3A Date Extracted: 07/15/98 ICai: TF5706V Date Analyzed: 07/22/98 ConCal: TV83618 — Sample Size: 1.021 g Dilution Factor: n/a %n Moisture: 2.8 Dry Weight: 0.992 g Blank File: T983591 % Lipid: n/a GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: BjG % SoHds: 97.2 _ A;;ytes E': Conc. {ngffig} QE. #�atiis ' RT RF?7 '- Hags ND 3.4 — L:._.7.3-PeCDD 9.2 1.== :9:34 L001 J_ _ 1.=._.Y,7.3-HxCDD :0.0 i.35 32:s1 L001 ?_ _ l._._ .6,7,3-HxCDD 62.2 - 32:49; 1.000 _ '.:.7,3.9-HxCDD 38.7 _= 33:06 1.011 J_ L2.:.=,6.7.3-HpCDD :030 !.OS 36:00 i 01 21970 0.37 39:33 1.000 _ _2.:.-.3-7CDF ND 5.9 _ l.2._._3-PCCDF ND 7.3 ?_ -:..=.7.3-PeCDF 7.1 -9:12 1.000 ;_ -HxCDF 13.3 1._9 31:59 1.001 J_ 1.:.?.6.7.3-HxCDF 34.7 L18 32:05 1.001 J_ .6,7.3-HxCDF Sb.O 1.3i 32:,4 1.000 l'.',.7,3.9-HxCDF ND 20.1 ?_ - L2.3.'..6,7,3-HpCDF 1390 1.0. 34:57 L000 1,2._»,7,3,9-HpCDF 95.7 L13 36:23 Lm _ 1.2.3.447.3.9-OCD17 2670 0.39 39:44 1.005 — -[;1 stars.bnc jitgtttg Fksmier. flL Fla: 'Total TCDD ND 3.4 -Total PeCDD 15.0 2 Total HxCDD 281 5 - -Tucil HpCDD 3290 2 — Totes TCDF 4.5 1 — .-Total PeCDF 1.55 5 _ Total HxCDF 1120 8 _ -ToHpCDF 31-0 3 _ Page 1 of 2 :6tV . 81101.LU 6.112M —,Triangle Laboratories, Inc.a 801 Capitola Drive • Durham, North Carolina 27713 Printed: 13:08 07/29/98 Phone: (919) 544-5729 • Fax: (919) 544-5491 TLI Project: 45986B Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b) Client Sample: MW-12 Analysis File: U981543 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson ICai: UF56248 Sample Matrix: OIL Date Received: 06/13/98 Soike File: SPMI72S TLI ID: 210-85-2A Date Extracted: 06/28/98 1St CCal: U981537 Date Analvzed: 07/09/98 End CCal: U981550 Sample Size: 1.030 a Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: n/a Dry Weight: n/a Blank File: U981542 % Lipid: n/a GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: KH % Solids: n/a krratytes. t�ac. �Pt�:; ix EMPt: Fatxr � £iags.... 2.3,7.3-TCDD 37.6 0.75 '25:54 _ ' 3,3.7.3-?eCDD 43.1 1.69 30:11 7_ ' 2 7,3-:HxCDD 14860 123 33:10 _ 1,2.3,6.7,3-HxCDD 352060 123 33:16 _ =0 i 23 33:33 E— ,2.3,7,3,9-HxCDD ' 2,3.4.6.7.3-HpCDD 2466540 1.00 SE_ -- 92 9r-7 SE_ 2.3, 7 211 0.75,3-TCDF ?� 21 — i 2.3 7,3-PeCDF 1170 1.41 :9:04 — :,',A--3-PeCDF 1700 1.52 29:43 l.2,3,'.1.3-HxCDF 49550 125 2:30 E_ _ i'.3.6.7,3-HxCDF 3740 1.26 32:36 2,3.4,6,7.8-HxCDF 34240 125 33:03 PRE 1.2,3,7.3.9-HxCDF lac 3310 X_ 1,2,3,4,6,7.3-HpCDF 1068300 1.02 35:24 SE_ 1,2.3,4,7.3,9-HpCDF 107500 1.07 36:49 E_ _ 1.2.3,4.6.7.3,9-OCDF 4273660 0.95 39:58 QSE - Total TCDD 227 9 271 Q— Total PeCDD 3130 12 3160 - ToW HxCDD 790840 7 E— _ Total HpCDD 4316360 2 QSE - Total I CDF 2460 14 2500 Q— Total P-CDF 3530 12 24050 Q- - Total HxCDF 1012750 3 L010440 QSE _ Total HxCDF 2984020 3 QSE Page I of 2 wr_psn.i.a. !.pus b.u.e6 Triangle Laboratories, Inca ?tinted: 12:36 07/10/98 801 Caoitcla Drive - Durham, North Carolina 27713 Bent Project: Hatheway &Patterson AQUEOUS Date Received: 06/13(98 Spike File: Sp SP161V2S �;,tple Matrix: 210-85-4A Date Extracted: 06/15/98 ICaI: SF5606V TLI ID: Date Analyzed: 06/20/98 ConCal: SV83257 to Size: 1.000 L Dilution Factor: n/a % Moisture: 100.0 ramp Waight: n/a Blank File: S983263 9c Lioid: n/a Cry GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: HL�I c c Solids: 0.0 Colic:. (pgfL Ql- Patio:T' REiT Fags. A rralytes . ND 0 ,7.3-TCDD PeCDD ND _.;.7.3 1.7.3-HsCDp ND 1.3 :6 2:.3 — 1.001 7_ -.,.6.-.3-HsCDD 3.5 J_ ..7.3 `)-HsCDD NO 12 1.08 1.1000 .. 2" 6 -09l -0:!=— =9::0 1.000 — l_'.:.'-b.7.3.9-OCDD -0 - vrD ; , __ J_ _.%.3-Pei DF ND LA — :.?,1.7.3-PeCDF ND 10 1.L0 ;2:!1 — LOOT J_ 2.9 ._.3.4.-.3-HxCDF 2.3.6.".3-HxCDF ND Lo — _..4,6.7.3-HxCDF ND 1.2 — _'._.7.3 9-HxCDF ND 1' 61.3 LC6 :5:10 — LOCO — _2.3.4.6.7.3-HpCDF 2.3.4.7.39-HDCDF ND 1 , 0.39 40:02 — L005 — '._'.3.-t.6.7.3,9-OCDF 168 Totals Caric L - Edumber:`: �Pgr Eli Flags:, 'TWWTCDD ND 0.9 - -wai P--CDD ND 1.5 — 7ocal HsCDD 27.9 — uL11 HsCDD 44 '- — ToW TCDF 2.7 1 — Total PeCDF 62.2- 70W1 HxCDF 44-4 4 — .70U HxCDF 192 - — ?age 1 of 2 :sivpsa am.L�as a:: '6 Triangle Laboratories. Inc., 4201 Caoitola Drive - Curham, North Carolina 2713 Printed: 12:49 06/21l98. gr`)0no 'rir" c,f .ti.7^,r . =av' =44-1491 i i^i -� TLI Project: 45986A 1613A ana.iysis �c) Client Sample: MW-5A Analysis File: S983264 Client Project: Hatheway & Patterson AQUEOUS Date Received: 06/13/98 Spike File: SP161V2S Sample Ytatrix: TLI ID: 210-85-1A Date Extracted: 06/15/98 ICal: SF5606V Date Analyzed: 06/20/98 ConCal: SV83257 Sample Size: 1.040 L Dilution Factor: n/a To Moisture: 100.0 Dry Wzivht: n/a Blank File: S983263 17o Lipid: n/a GC Column: DB-5 Analyst: HLibi % Solids: 0.0 Analytes cortc Sg9�i- i};- Ratio FiT RE?T Fags . '.3,i.3-TCDD ND r 3.9 1.0 1.61 29:47 — L.00I J_ t.'_.3.7.3-PeCDD 231 1.30 32:;4 1.000 ._ �.,2,3.4.".3-HxCDD 5510 L23 ;2:59 i.000 — !.2.3.6.7.3-HxCDD ;90 L25 33:19 L!010 — 3, ,3.9-HxCDD 132750 1.03 ?6il; L000 E_ ,._....-.6.i.3-HpCDD !�,2.3.4.6.7 A.9-OCDD 990520 0.92 39 3 000 E S TCDF ND 10.0 1S1 23:4i LC01 — J_ L2.3.7.3-PeCDF 203 1.45 29^7 1.000 J_ '3.4.i:3-PeCDF -4.7 l.'_7 32:12 1.000 23.'.i.3-HxCDF fir4 1 2 32:13 L000 — i 3.3,6.?.3-HxCDF 221 1.24 32:46 0.999 — 13,4.6.7.3-HxCDF 679 1.25 ,3;33 1.000 — C_ 1.2,3,7.3.9-HxCDF 485 1.07 :5:I2 1.000 E_ 1.2.3.4.6.7,3-HpCDF 44410 1.07 ;6:44 1.000 l,_.3.4,7,3.9-HpCDF �?70 0.33 0:06 1.004 — E_ 1,2.3.'.6.7A,9-OCDF 256070 Totals. Canc_sg1Cj,' Kumber ❑L =fags 1 Tocal TCDD ND 3.7 — Tot:il PeCDD 70.1 4 — Taal HxCDD 12700 7 — E— Toud HpCDD 265130 2 Totai TCDF-4 Y_ Y— Total PeCDF 1420 9 E_ Tutal HxCDF 29450 10 E_ Tomi HpCDF 210320 4 1 Pase I of 2 eiv_n .zm. _u+s e..: h Triangle Laboratories, Inc., j 801 Capitola Dnv.Q - Durham, North Carolina 2i r 13 Printed: 12:48 06/2?.!°8 Phone: (919) 544-5729 - Fax: (919) 544-5491 r� C lo/19/98 MON 15::32 FAX 8176245757 MUPH BEHA [a 001 Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment 260 Washington Street, 7th floor Boston, MA 02108-4619 Fax Cover Sheet DATE: 10/19/96 TO: Mr. Scoff Leite, PHONE' (508) 261-7366 Mansfield Board of Health FAX: (508) 261-1083 FROM: Elaine T. Krueger PHONE: (617) 624-5787 FAX: (617)624-5777 RE: Provisional Fish Consumption Advisory for Rumford River at al. Number of pages including cover sheet: Please find attached our Department's Provisional Fish Consumption Advisory for the Rumford River, Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds; and the Norton Reservoir. 10/19/98 HON 15:32 FAX 6176245757 HDPH BEHA 10002 1ZUMFOR RIVER; PONDS; r , RESERVOIR CONTAMINANT RELEASE Former Hatheway & Patterson site in Mansfield Possible pesticides and dioxins DO NOT EAT FISH CATCH & RELEASE For more information, contact: Massachusetts Department of Public Health: 617-624-5757 1998 10/19/98 MON 15:77 FAX 6176245757 itr>PH BEHA 0 007 PROVISIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH FISH_ CONSUMPTION AD SORY; RUMFORD RIVER: FULTON E NGMAN AND CABOTi' k'ONI)S' NORTON RESERYQIR The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (NOPH) 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 Health Fish Consumption Advisory; RECOMA'lENDATION All persons should refrain from consuming any fish caught in the Rumford 1?iver, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, or the Norton Reservoir until such time that fish testing results become available. For more information, contact: Massachusetts Deparnnent of Public Healtn Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (617) 624-5757 October, 1998 l fl � � L + Itt A a L� Y L�pa FA (104 10/19/98 M0N 15:34 FAX 6176245757 b(UPH BHHA Cb005 a 'Tn � 3 "b. � o• ro� � w � � a• •; � a '^ ,.. `a a .� ,r o C k d e ?N '� yy .Q ^� o� s F w T p � S y h C• O O .0 T w N a :: 1+ P3 d u o ro H •i a a e m 'a• H h F d a< d y a c E a o N $ 5 ro $? C c g o w m aq Can vb 3y •:z �i. �nii °•p o. .,� dne. .,`°°'; c �gdo'p `94 c xcp, 4l � Z 3. �' � '1 a « � w o°yg � �e �, � 'Oec � � y 'o ��4" m � o o u � � o •° ho � O c- vv°�e LL .°° 'v o •��' �_ m •u5 a '� °� ffi c ti L, O '�• C W M El:e a O iw, ° 0 0. w C 'cl .6 c C C S u < z.cw.• 'a s w u m w a o•«°�� n w• v m C+o e> c .cow and ye AmyEa •�• °C° 2E°_ EG army u C o O n `� r �+ o ° u Y. 9 ,c C D w o ° o w to V .Ty d g i:, � � '" t u � u � m � fa � �. e o °� �in :S � a u ? nu °' o � •� .n to K n� o usyy �A oL>b W •'-' a`�_ " v o to u c # ouo L �•ppp� u •e'' 5 i ar+ um3u$ uE of 6 a ux .0 o co�u s 3 T •.u^o pop �ed {i •uu. d ruu• a' Zu' ® m `� 3.� u m E u tin p ,o o w oar ro_ @ c u 9.5°°�:c•3 0 0 oa c S•'°^ W ?'u� uw U4'O TE�>Dw u bu o m p y. u •o a o_ o °' rod ` •N T'f]. 6 a� 3'0>�r �k3 t•�u5m5'� W d>`°�°`�, o�'•� v w > CV'c d c o B u ° N'`• S vui c d vai�xs'L�COn.`�i.�E aiSm Zw�91 �x� c N N w v L' � ii � V V � M '�^� � aL' •° ' � � N 1`3 � tYE •Sz°�'a. 'tl�yL'.2u.ro � a Q" C � ,� O U •H � � � N V rJ' ,v D C � 'JC V � � � �. � � V�9 � V An gypr+^ v O N u A G G tp e� d u y C U O Q O U �' g ro F of .0 V U 'dC v O ro �.. O 6 E O u O S a a m✓moo 6K C�.S'S�.a°o SeacH �, •a w Y O 6 U S] Qp• of L. 10 Y E QQ �TJ � � O �' � � ��'•.tl .O to '. 1. d 3 E x a Co 10 E E Eo 10/19/98 NEON 15:95 FAX 6176245757 NIDPH BF.HA The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Department of Public Health . 250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619 WIWAMF. WELD GOVERNOR ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GERAU] WHITSURN SECRETARY DAVIO H. MULLIGAN commiss1UNER SEPTEMHER 1994 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Sean Fitzpatrick (617) 624-5200 Phil"^ ITXAL i TN7'F'f3xkl FRESHWATEFFi;i}i QMS .TION ADVISORY The Massachusetts Department'of PUUblic Health today announced it is initiating an education and outreach program to alert the state's medical community about health concerns relating to the consumption of some fresh water fish by pregnant women. while the Department of public health adviser, pregnant women not to consume certain fish caught in .freshwater bodies, it recommends that pregnant women consult their physicians concerning their specific circumstances. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPHI has reviewed limited fish tissue data collected by One Department Of Mpvironmental Protection taken from freshwater bodies t_broughout the state. Because of potential health Concerns associated with exposure of the developing fetus to mercury, the MDPH offers the following recommendation: REC0MMEAH)AT10N Pregnant women should be advised of the possible health risk from eating fish from Massachusetts freshwatar bodies in order to prevent exposure of developing fetuses to mercury. This advisory does not apply to fish stocked in freshwater bodies by the State Division of Fisheries and wildlife and does not apply to farm raised freshwater fish sold 0006 10/19/98 MON 15:35 FAX 6176245757 MDPH BEHA 2007 ` commercially. At this time, the general public is not considered to be at risk from fish consumption. This recommendation is considered a precautionary measure which should be taken until such time as additional data can be analyzed. Studies are being undertaken by the state Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection (L)LP) to determine the best combination of advisory, regulatory and/or enforcement initiatives necessary to protect human health and improve nutritional status. The MOPB studies will focus on the possible effects of eating freshwater fish that may be contaminated with mercury on other special populations such as women of childbearing age, children, and infants who are breast fed. DEP will conduct additional monitoring studies to aid in assessing representative mercury levels in freshwater fish throughout Massachusetts, There are over 4,700 water bodies in Massachusetts, To date, fish have been tested from 73 of the st:ate's streams, rivers, lakes and ponds. in come, smaller tish were found,to contain negligible levels of mercury, while some large, predatory species such as bass and pickerel contained levels that may be of concern to developing fetuses according to recent scientific studies. Based on this toxicological analysis of, the Fish from this sample of water bodies, it has been determined that -mercury levels in some fresh water fish pose a possible health concern to pregnant women. in light of this evidence, albeit limited, MDPH has chosen the conservative approach of issuing this advisory. While precautions are urged for pregnant women. the Department of public Health continues to recognize the substantial benefits of fish consumption by the general population. Fish are one of the best sources of natural fatty acids which are helpful in reducing the risk of heart disease. Fish are low in 'saturated fat and high in protein. A varied diet, including fish in lieu of high fat food, will lead to improved nutrition and better health. 2 10/19/98 NON 15:36 FAX 6176245757 AIDPH BEHA 10008 Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (617) 624-5757 February 1 gge Ballarxivale Impoundmentof Shmsheen River Andover P1-LMB & EC. P3.I.M8 & DC 5 Mercury Blackstone River above Blackstone Gorge Blackstone P1 P2-C & WS WGD—s Cedar Swamp Pond Milford P1, P5 Menu Charles River (Between the South Natick Dam in Natick and the Museum of Science Dam In Boston/ Cambridge) Boston,Cambrldga, Dedham, Dover, Nat—c Needham, Newton. Watertown, Weston, k, Wellesley, Waltham Pi-C, P3-C PODS Charles Rye( (Between the South Natick Dam In Natick and the Medway Dam In Franklin and Medway) Dover, Franklin, Medfield, Medway, Millis, Natlok, Norfolk, Sherbom PI.LMG, P3-l-MB Mercury Clay Pit Pond Belmont P6 Chlordane Cochato River, Icehouse Pond and Sylvan Lake, Randolph, Holbrook, Braintree P1. P2-88 & C & AE, P4 Pesticides Concord River Concord Carlisle Bedford, Billerica P1, P2-LM8. P4 Connecticut River All towns between LoMfield and Longmeadow P1 . P2-CC: & WC & AE & Yp PODS qglcut River, Comell Pond Darlmoulh 131 P2-AE P3.LM8 PCBs, Mercu DrinliwaterRivert Indian Head River and Factory Pond(l) Hanson, Hanover, Pembroke pa Mproiry Flint Pond Galles Pond T sboro Warwick P1, PUMB, P4 P1-YP, P3-YP _MEcury Mercury Gibbs Pond Great Honing Pond Nantucket Boume� Plymouth Pi, P5 PI-SMB. P3-SMB -Dan�L— Marom Grove Pond ) 171. Devens, Ayer-- P6 Mercury Heard Pond Wayland P6 Mercury Hocomonoo Pond Westborough P6 PAHs Hooslo River N.Adams,Williametown P6 PODS Housatonic Rive ) All tons from Dalton toSheffield KP2±ns, Turtles, P085 John's Pond MaDpo P1. P5 Maroury Konkapot R1veq8) --- Sheffield New Mal - boroqL— P1 P5 Mercury Lake Boon ljus;7n� ��w— PI-LMB & E. P34kD& Lc Mara Lake Goichituate Framingham, Natick, Wayland — P1, P2-AE PODS Lake Dennison Winchendari P1-LM8, P3-LMD Mercury Lake Rohunta Lake Winthrop Ortinae, Athol, Now Salem Holfiston Pi P5 Pe Dioxin Locust Pond jL"2$boro PS Mercuy. Martins Pond — North Reading -P1. PI-LMB & BC & YP. P3-LMB & 8G& YP Mercury MaishpoeiWakeby Pond Mashim. Sandwich PI-Sma F3-SM8 Marcely Merrimack River All towns between hmsboPquh and Methuen Pi -W2 & LMS,.P3-WS & LN18 , Mercury Mlacomet Pond Nantucket Li, P2-WP. P 4 Me a Mill Pond Waftiough above GH Nichols Dam P1, P2-LMB Mill River Hopedale Pi, P5 T PODS Millers River ) Minor Lake All towns from Ervin g to Winottendon ~ FI.Devens Harvard---.-- P1, PUI & AF, P4 PI.LMB, ni_MB roiuM, PCBs Mercury Muddy River Boston, 890 lfne P1. P2-1313 & C & AF, P4 PCBs Neponset River between the Hollingsworth & Vose, Dam In Walpole and the Tilestone Dam In Boston (Hyde Pork) — All towns between Walpole and Boston (Hyde Park) PI -OR P3-63 Pces Noquoohoke Lake Offer River, within 112 Ede of Millen; Riverfornplelon. Dartmouth wrichendon Pi. P6-LMB & AE, P4 pl.�P2-ts & B8 mercury, PCBs PODS Pentucket Pond I Ge"town P1; P2-LMB & BC. P4 Mercury Pepperetl PondI Ps II, Groton 10/19/98 NON 15:37 FAX 617624.5757 WWII BEHA 00(19 filed Pond _V Plainfield "v P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mara Pbsrsb Pond 4 r Ft Oavens, AYor'���— PG Mery ry Ponbi suc Lake _ _ Pittsfield, tanesborough Pi, P34-MB P1. F 5 �� P6 see footnote (5) Mercu M_ erc4s Mercu Mercury PMft Will Pond PpflBr's Pond( Barra FL Devens Sudbury Training Mnex Ma ant Quabbin & Wachusett Reservoirs (5) New SMam, Shutesbury, Petersham. Hardwick, Were, Pelham, Beldherlown, Boylston, West Bo ston�n ' Clinton E. Brookfield, Brookfield Uxbridje-Noffhbfidge Pond Rice Ci Pond R100 CRY Pt, P2-LMB, P4 Mercu Pt, P2-C PCBs Riverdale Pond Northbrid a Pt, P5 Pt, P2-YP, P4 THE Mercu Sherman Reservoir Rowe, Monroe Snake Pond Sandwich e Pt, P2-SMB, P4 Menu Sm' Ituit Pond and Lon Pond Rochester F'1-BC &LMB, P3-13C && LMB Me Somerset Reservoir Somerset P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercu South Pond Uuacum uasit Pend Nri_g� Stud e_Brookfield, E, Brookfield Pt , P5 Mercu Sudbury Reservoir _ Marlborough, Southborough ^� 71, P2-Bass Menu Sudburyry Wve 6) All lawns between Ashl-no and Concord _ P6 _ Mercu Turner Pond Dartmouth. New Bedford Pi. P5 Pi-Ve & YP, P3 S is & YP Pt P5 P1, P6 Merar�^ Mercury Mercer6_ Merau U nNaukea _ Ahdumham UpprReservoir _ Wallis Pond Westminster Leicester Walden Pond Concord P1, P3-LMB & SMB Msrcu Warners Pond Concord PidMB, P3-LM5 _ Me W uetLake Barnstable P1.LMB,P3-LMB Merwr_v Whitehall Reservoir H Rinton P1, P2-YB, P4 Mercury_ WilletPond Wa1 la, Norwood, Westaiood Pt-LMB, P34Me Merarr�_ Advice Codes Pf Children younger than 12 years, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should not eat fsh ham this water body, Pt - spades Children younger than 12 years, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should noteat any affected fish species from this waterbody P2 . species The general public should not consume any aNeoted fish species from this water body. P3 - species The general public should remit consumption of affected fish species from this water body to two meals per month. P4 The general public should fork consumption of non -affected fish species from this waterbody to two meals per month. P5 The general public should limit consumption of all fish from this water body to two meals per month. P6 The general public should not consume any fish from Oils water body. Fish Codes AE=ameriren eel; BB�brown bullhead; B:bluegifl; BC Hack crappie; BT4rown Irani; Cacerp; CC= channel catfish; CCS week chubsudcer, CPxhain pickerel; FF-fallhsh; LMB=largemouth bass; WS=longnose sucker, LTalake trout P-pumkinseed; RT- rembow tniuf; SMB=smallmouth bass:WC=white catfish: WP-white perch; WS=white surer, YB=yetow bulhead; YPyeflow perch. Hurd Code PCB=polydtlorillaled biphenyls PAHs=pohycyn<c aromatic hydrocarbons Notes (1) Pauiay Pond Advisory has been updated (October 1995) to include the Dnnkwater River;lndian Head River between the forge Pond and the Luddam's Ford Dam, and includes Paotory Pond. 12) U.S. Army Issued advisories. (3) Fish taken hum feeder streams to the Housatonic River should W trimmed of fatty tissue prior to cooking. (4) Municipality Issued advisory. (5) Children younger than 12 years, pregnant women, and nursing women should not consume fish except for lake trout (less then 24 inches long) and salmon. All other people should not eat smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, or lake trout (greater than 24 inches Ieng); may ear unlim led amounts of salmon and lake trout (less than 24 inches long); and should lenit consumption of at Other Ouabbin and WadiuseR Reservoir fish spades to one five ounce meal per week. (6) The Sudbury River Fish Consumption Advisory pertains from Ashland to its confluence wth the AssaW and Concord Riveis and includes the Stem and Bmd(et Reservoirs in Framingham. (1) The publik: should r afrain from saline all brown MA and eats from the Millers River below the confluence vmh the Otter River. Consumption of all Other fish species tram the Miters River and fls tributaries should be rmital to two meals per month per person. Pregnant women and nursing mothers should net eat any fish from the Millers River ant 6s bributarfas'In order to prevent eWsure to infants and developing fetuses. (8) The Wonkapot River Fish Consumption Advisory pertains from Mill River to the confluence with the Housatonic River. 19, 19/99_\ MON 17:05 FAX 0176245757 NIDPH BEHA a002 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Department of Public Health 250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619 ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI GOVERNOR WILLIAM D. 04LEARY SECRETARY HOWARD 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 of a Provisional Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory that is being issued effective immediately for the Rumford River slid associated impoundments, i.e. Fulton, Kingman and Cabot ponds, and the Norton Reservoir. When the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) issues its Public Health Fish Consumption Advisories; its usual policy is to first obtain fish tissue sampling data for the 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 (DPW) asked MDPH to consider issuing a provisional fish consumption advisory for the following reasons. i) Dioxin compounds have been identified in surface water and near the former Hathe Way and Patterson sites in Mansfield. Dioxin compounds have a high potential for bioconeentration 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 nrea�ure 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 10/19/98 1ION 17:06 FAX 61762.15757 %IDPH BEHA (r3J 0tt5 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 Froshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List, as we have recently received new fish testing data from MDEP that is currently under review. Sincerely Elaine T. Krueger, Chief, Environrttental Toxicology Unit Bureau of Envirorunentai Health Assessment Cc: Interagency Cotmnittee for Fish Toxics Carol Rowan West, DEP-ORS Robert Maietta, DEP-OW'M Oscar Pancorbo, DEP-)rFS Julienne Nassif, DPH-SLI Stephanie Lentz, DPH-BEHA-EFU Richard Keller, DFW Suzanne K. Condon, Director, BERA Martha Steele, Deputy Director, BEHA Gerard Martin, DEP-SERO Steve Hurley, DFW Stephen Novick, EPA U U ct U O bhp ^ ^ ,N 3 ct r" O ct U U ct � O U ct.� O V 1 , n ct 45 O "dcn F--� �} ct ct �� U� U U •� O O�� 3 M .� ^� 4 O z 0 q cri cz p U pCt Mrn U O m by cd C) C O U U p 0 d ct U O cci un cn cn cn Ln cn a� o o o o o Cd "Cl 3 -c ;:I, U O O O N cd •� O cCUS rA ct � U N O *C' O N O.Ln Q U O 4=i U N. 14 CE U U u N z 0 0 • U O ct p Ct U � cn cn ' cr O p � � U � ct M cn 4-4 Q N cn U � N C7 ct ct cQ m ct cn a� ct bj) ' �n ' C U U ¢ 'cz ct3 ct i' u v� U U rcd V ct ct I do O O N ct ct O Off-, ct l�l O � � Ct v ct Q rr1 cn U cn 4? o ct o t N Q� Ct Ct ctct ct r r, Ct ct ct CA Q Q 4 - m m � M U ,u rninNrnr` U oQ -0 -6 r- r- 0 ,N f- N v b' m d m m' N V M U m :m Q — U U) CO U) C/) g H � U) c m m .m O 0 J yw U _.O_ O_ O_ iii O 6 N Q Q Q L. W O L co r� p, c O ,o 0 0 F+ 0 W rnc0vom 0 a ci oZ�Z:Zo r NIt ' L CC t4 Q N LO V co O. CL CO Z m N M c_ N m N �6 o N d _ N co co N N C1 .. -.� r� r� LO W �' a c-> .o ti � o > N m W m O th 0 m V H m ,0 r c0 'V O °D �V ++ — O- N_ LO M: y 11 O N M (� or O N N y W L) Co C) �' w D m IT C C L C 0 N N ..m. N ai f` (D N N O 3 m a)N -O c� m @ E a);o N m m E m:0 3 3 �V) ` 0 3 -0 cl)w m a tm J U m a :m (� co O 'O 4 U L6 -p U m V n o i` 0 o m> ro mNv)fn Q N r N r NLo i w>uo cu no0 in 2 cn co in kn U) :cn cn w N •.m b IID :O 7 M of Cq N 7 O W:N n O O'.� V N of f0 JO IO O O'n .N 7CO R N -N n N co —:O N -0 � O M �10 ,0'��i N❑ (N 0, ❑ R Z :u r ❑ : - ,o ' O'D O O.•O N O:O 0 0 � 0'. cd O (O � N :N O N M II W n M z _ j @ JO O':O O O0 '..p 0 0O p 0 0 (O O N M_m 0 O . U) Q N ;U H n : Z J E U z 7 m _JC/) -.m pj000 p.p 0?0000-0 -00 rpNp -v, °'�: UGO 0 Z ,Z Z Z Z :Z N Z IZ Z Z of Z � Z N P N Z Z ,� N r asp C z a No 0 X o IL -,,,t 0 d Q = pJJ AL i ,o 0 0 0 :o 0 0 o ;a '� � :o o o jo o .o :o o o o o 0 0 0 00 :00 0 0 0 0 -o o '.o o LL LL IL LL p am cl cl cl LL LL ,p .p JD M p 40 a p C a V. Z:S p p:p X X,X X X X X; 2.S S W LL'p U U:U S 2.2 S S 2 2 OI W 'x !� a 'p a a s ro ,� Igo m oo - 'p '.y F w co :ao n n :� M n n ro m n C6. _ 0o iao n r Ir a m :� n v �u n v e* e. �, p LL O W •p LL p _ n in M C ,M M M :v M M ri ei M of ash LL p p p ;p ic cc 0 M !M N + �N M !N N M N N N IN N N 'N u U ,p p U U iU U V I aaWW;xxaa TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS Six Park Row, Mansfield, MA 02048 November 18, 1998 Mr. Robert Curry, Health Agent Town of Norton 70 E Main Street Norton, MA 02766 Dear Bob, Enclosed are the durable signs (30) for posting of areas regarding consumption of fish relative to the dioxin release originating at the former Hatheway and Patterson site in Mansfield. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours ly, Sc ite, Health Agent The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Department of Public Health 250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619 ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI GOVERNOR JANE SWIFT LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR WILLIAM D. O'LEARY SECRETARY HOWARD K. KOH, MD, MPH COMMISSIONER Dear Angler: Please find enclosed the Massachusetts Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List, a fact sheet on mercury in freshwater fish, and a copy of the current state-wide advisory on mercury in freshwater fish. The list contains the names and status of water bodies for which freshwater fish consumption advisories have been issued in Massachusetts. Generating an advisory involves the cooperative efforts of the Departments of Public Health (MDPH), Fisheries and Wildlife, and Environmental Protection. These agencies' activities include designing fish surveys and analyzing contaminant concentrations in fish samples. Data generated from the monitoring activities are evaluated, and if significant levels of a contaminant are detected, a Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory is issued. The advisory may suggest either limiting or refraining from consumption of fish from a particular water body. In September 1994, the MDPH issued an advisory informing pregnant women about the possible health risks to the developing fetus from mercury in certain freshwater fish. The fish consumption advisory list contains the status of each water body for which an advisory has been issued. If a water body is not on the list, it may be because either an advisory was not warranted or the water body has not been sampled. Please note that we periodically update the list. If you have any questions or concerns about the advisories, please call Mike Beattie at (617) 624-5757 for follow-up assistance. Sincerely, Elaine T. Krueger, M.P.H. Chief, Environmental Toxicology Program Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment cc: Martha Steele, BEHA Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (617)624.5757 November1998 WATER BODY TOWN s FISH ADVISORY* HAZARD* Ballardvale Impoundment of Shawsheen River Andover P1-LMB & BC, P3-LMB & BC Mercury Blackstone River above Blackstone Gore Blackstone P1, P2-C & WS PCBs Cabot Pond - See Rumford River Cedar Swamp Pond Milford P1, P5 Mercury Charles River (Between the South Natick Dam in Natick and the Museum of Science Dam in Boston/ Cambridge) Boston,Cambridge, Dedham, Dover, Natick, Needham, Newton, Watertown, Weston, Wellesley, Waltham P1-C, P3-C PCBs Charles River (Between the South Natick Dam in Natick and the Medway Dam in Franklin and Medway) Dover, Franklin, Medfield, Medway, Millis, Natick, Norfolk, Sherborn P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury Chebacco Lake Essex, Hamilton P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury Clay Pit Pond Belmont P6 Chlordane Cochato River, Icehouse Pond and Sylvan Lake Randolph, Holbrook, Braintree P1, P2-BB & C & AE, P4 Pesticides Concord River Concord, Carlisle, Bedford, Billerica P1, P2-LMB, P4 Mercury Connecticut River All towns between Northfield and Longmeadow P1 , P2-CC & WC & AE & YP PCBs Co icut River, Cornell Pond Dartmouth P1, P2-AE, P3-LMB PCBs, Mercury Drinkwater River/ Indian Head River and Factory Pond(See footnote 1 Hanson, Hanover, Pembroke P6 Mercury East Brimfield Reservoir - See Quinebaug River Factory Pond - See Drinkwater River Flint Pond T n sborou h P1, P2-LMB, P4 Mercury Fulton Pond - See Rumford River Gales Pond Warwick P1-YP, P3-YP Mercury Gibbs Pond Nantucket P1, P5 Mercury Great Herring Pond Bourne, Plymouth P1-SMB, P3-SMB Mercury Grove Pond See footnote 2 Ft. Devens, Ayer P6 Mercury Heard Pond Wayland P6 Mercury Hocomonco Pond Westborough P6 PAHs Holland Pond - See Quinebaug River Hoosic River N.Adams,Williamstown P6 PCBs Housatonic River See footnote 3 All towns from Dalton to Sheffield P1, P2-Fro s, Turtles, Fish PCBs Icehouse Pond - See Cochato River Indian Head River - See Drinkwater River John's Pond Mashpee P1, P5 Mercury Kenoza Lake Haverhill P6 Mercury Kingman Pond - See Rumford River Konka of River See footnote 4 Sheffield, New Marlborough P1, P5 Mercury Lake Boon Hudson, Stow P1-LMB & BC, P3-LMB & BC Mercury Lake Cochituate Framingham, Natick, Wayland P1, P2-AE PCBs Lake Dennison Winchendon P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury * See page 3 for codes. 1 Factory Pond Advisory has been updated (October 1995) to include the Drinkwater River/Indian Head River between the Forge Pond and the Luddam's Ford Dam, and includes Factory Pond, 2 Municipality issued advisory. 3 Fish taken from feeder streams to the Housatonic River should be trimmed of fatty tissue prior to cooking. 4 The Konkapot River Fish Consumption Advisory pertains from Mill River to the confluence with the Housatonic River. WATER BODY TOWN s FISH ADVISORY* HAZARD* Lake Rohunta Orange, Athol; New Salem P1, P5 Mercury Lake WinthropHolliston P6 Dioxin Locust Pond T n sborou h P1, P5 Mercury Long Pond - See Sni ifuit Pond Martins Pond North Reading P1-LMB & BC & YP, P3-LMB & BC& YP Mercury Mashpee/Wakeby Pond Mashpee, Sandwich P1-SMB; P3-SMB Mercury Merrimack River All towns between Tyngsborough and Methuen P1-WS & LMB, P3-WS & LMB Mercury Miacomet Pond Nantucket P1, P2-WP, P4 Mercury Mill Pond Westborough above GH Nichols Dam P1, P2-LMB Mercury Mill River Hopedale P1, P5 PCBs Millers River See footnote 5 All towns from Erving to Winchendon P1, P2-BT & AE, P4 Mercury, PCBs Mirror Lake Ft.Devens, Harvard P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury Muddy River Boston, Brookline P1, P2-BB & C & AE, P4 PCBs Neponset River between the Hollingsworth & Vose Dam in Walpole and the Tilestone Dam in Boston (Hyde Park All towns between Walpole and Boston (Hyde Park) P1-BB, P3-BB PCBs No uochoke Lake Dartmouth P1, P2-LMB & AE, P4 Mercury, PCBs Norton Reservoir - See Rumford River Otter River, within 1/2 mile of Millers River Templeton, Winchendon P1, P2-WS & BB PCBs Pentucket Pond Georgetown P1, P2-LMB & BC, P4 Mercury Pepperell Pond Pepperell, Groton P1, P2-LMB, P4 Mercury Plainfield Pond Plainfield P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury Plowshc Pond See footnote 6 Ft. Devens, Aver P6 Mercury Pontoosuc Lake Pittsfield, Lanesborou h P1, P3-LMB Mercury Powder Mill Pond Barre P1, P5 Mercury Puffer's Pond (See footnote 7) Ft. Devens Sudbury Training Annex, Maynard P6 Mercury Quabbin & Wachusett reservoirs (See footnote 8) New Salem, Shutesbury, Petersham, Hardwick, Ware, Pelham, Belchertown, Boylston, West Boylston, Sterling, Clinton See footnote Mercury Quaboag Pond E. Brookfield, Brookfield P1, P2-LMB, P4 Mercury Quinebaug River, East Brimfield Reservoir, Holland Pond Brimfield, Holland P1, P5 Mercury Rice City Pond Uxbridge -Northbridge P1, P2-C PCBs Riverdale Pond Northbridge P1, P5 PCBs Rumford River downstream of the former Hatheway & Patterson site in Mansfield; Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds; Norton Reservoir See footnote 9 Mansfield, Norton P6 (See footnote) Dioxin and possible pesticides Shawsheen River - See Ballardvale Impoundment Sherman Reservoir Rowe, Monroe P1, P2-YP, P4 Mercury Snake Pond Sandwich P1, P2-SMB, P4 Mercury Sni ituit Pond and Long Pond Rochester P1-BC & LMB, P3-BC & LMB Mercury 5 The public should refrain from eating all brown trout and eels from the Millers River below the confluence with the Otter River. Consumption of all other fish species from the Millers River and its tributaries should be limited to two meals per month per person. Pregnant women and nursing mothers should not eat any fish from the Millers River and its tributaries in order to prevent exposure to infants and developing fetuses. 6 U.S. Army issued advisory. 7 U.S. Army issued advisory. 8 Children younger than 12 years, pregnant women, and nursing women should not consume fish except for lake trout (less than 24 inches long) and salmon. All other people should not eat smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, or lake trout (greater than 24 inches long); may eat unlimited amounts of salmon and lake trout (less than 24 inches long); and should limit consumption of all other Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoir fish species to one five -ounce meal per week. 9 Dioxin, which has a high potential for bioaccumulating in fish, has been detected in water samples; this is a provisional advisory issued until such time as fish testing results become available. WATER BODY TOWN s FISH ADVISORY* HAZARD* Somerset Reservoir Somerset P1-LMB,P3-LMB Mercury South Pond Quacum uasit Pond Sturbridge, Brookfield, E. Brookfield P1, P5 Mercury Sudbury Reservoir Marlborough, Southborough P1, P2-Bass Mercury Sudbury River See footnote 10 All towns between Ashland and Concord P6 Mercury Sylvan Lake - See Cochato River Texas Pond Oxford P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury Turner Pond Dartmouth, New Bedford P1, P5 - Mercury Upper Naukeag Lake Ashburnham P1-SMB & YP, P3-SMB & YP Mercury Upper Reservoir Westminster P1, P5 Mercury Wachusett Reservoir - See Quabbin Reservoir Waite Pond Leicester P1, P5 Mercury Walden Pond Concord P1, P3-LMB & SMB Mercury Warner's Pond Concord P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury We ua uet Lake Barnstable P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercury Whitehall Reservoir Ho kinton P1, P2-YB, P4 Mercur Willet Pond Walpole, Norwood, Westwood P1-LMB, P3-LMB Mercu Advice Codes P1 Children younger than 12 years, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should not eat fish from this water body. P1 - species Children younger than 12 years, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should not eat any affected fish species from this water body. P2 - species The general public should not consume any affected fish species from this water body. P3 - species The general public should limit consumption of affected fish species from this water body to two meals per month. P4 The general public should limit consumption of non -affected fish species from this water body to two meals per month. P5 The general public should limit consumption of all fish from this water body to two meals per month. P6 The general public should not consume any fish from this water body. Fish Codes AE=american eel; BB=brown bullhead; B=bluegill; BC=black crappie; BT=brown trout; C=carp; CC= channel catfish; CCS=creek chubsucker; CP=chain pickerel; FF=fallfsh; LMB=largemouth bass; LNS=longnose sucker; LT=lake trout; P=pumkinseed; RT= rainbow trout; SMB=smallmouth bass;WC=white catfish; WP=white perch; WS=while sucker; YB=yellow bullhead; YP=yellow perch. Hazard Code PCB=polychlorinated biphenyls PAHs=polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 10 The Sudbury River Fish Consumption Advisory pertains from Ashland to its confluence with the Assabet and Concord Rivers and includes the Stern and Bracket Reservoirs in Framingham. n The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Department of Public Health 250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619 t_ WILLIAM F. WELD GOVERNOR ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GERALD WHITSURN SECRETARY DAVID H. MULLIGAN COMMISSIONER SEPTEMBER 1994 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Sean Fitzpatrick (617) 624-5200 PUBLIC HEALTH INTERIM FRESHWATER FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY The Massachusetts Department of Public Health today announced it is initiating an education and outreach program to alert the state's medical community about health concerns relating to the consumption of some fresh water fish by pregnant women. While the Department of Public Health advises pregnant women not to consume certain fish caught in freshwater bodies, it recommends that pregnant women consult their physicians concerning their specific circumstances. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) has reviewed limited fish tissue data collected by the Department of Environmental Protection taken from freshwater bodies throughout the state. Because of potential health concerns associated with exposure of the developing fetus to mercury, the MDPH offers the following recommendation: RECOMMENDATION Pregnant women should be advised of the possible health risk from eating fish from Massachusetts freshwater bodies in order to prevent exposure of developing fetuses to mercury. This advisory does not apply to fish stocked in freshwater bodies by the State Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and does not apply to farm raised freshwater fish sold commercially. At this time, the general public is not considered to be at risk from fish consumption. This recommendation is considered a precautionary measure which should be taken until such time as additional data can be analyzed. Studies are being undertaken by the State Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection (DEP) to determine the best combination of advisory, regulatory and/or enforcement initiatives necessary to protect human health and improve nutritional status. The MDPH studies will focus on the possible effects of eating freshwater fish that may be contaminated with mercury on other special populations such as women of childbearing age, children, and infants who are breast fed. DEP will conduct additional monitoring studies to aid in assessing representative mercury levels in freshwater fish throughout Massachusetts. There are over 4,700 water bodies in Massachusetts. To date, fish have beer, tested from 73 of the state's streams, rivers, lakes and ponds. In some, smaller fish were found to contain negligible levels of mercury, while some large, .predatory species such as bass and pickerel contained levels that may be of concern to developing fetuses according to recent scientific studies. Based on this toxicological analysis of the fish from this sample of water bodies, it has been determined that mercury levels in some fresh water fish pose a possible health concern to pregnant women. In light of this evidence, albeit limited, MDPH has chosen the conservative approach of issuing this advisory. While precautions are urged for pregnant women, the Department of Public Health continues to recognize the substantial benefits of fish consumption by the general population. Fish are one of the best sources of natural fatty acids which are helpful in reducing the risk of heart disease. Fish are low in saturated fat and high in protein. A varied diet, including fish in lieu of high fat food, will lead to improved nutrition and better health. N p El vv,w c.nd 3 o g o $ a o v m �'°5' �'2 < o m o w, 5< o '''y A c 5 c c a �• •e w £a $, Via' 0 C o£ o a c N w cSo c " Q w N < w y m° m -ono m° a �, ti N ..m `< y 5 S p ,°„' �� °' >• .< � 5 Y y°i o 5• F m S ❑ '� ° ,2 �° a c m m o. o ,� c 5' ° c"i a- -ci m m �' a n a �' S w •? oS a o ^. O `G r Y �< C G° y '_^! 5 o N .ai w w S a w _ N. a w° O ° 3 ca, w� 3• o d `� � '� 5 S S S � w -°n � m '+. a• rn w `< a w d n o �, �_ w d a N. 5 '* °° rn° S S w 3 5' .. a c 0 CrQa$ m coo c �' vY a n d ,m„ H c; =' °° o �, N c o c5o x y `•' w � " �, 7' Y � T tiQ � w y y y' -mi m = -n w c rm � � � b'+ .< �❑ "' S. w. s m y M a a �' a• o �' a. m N � o S m ° O .a d G's• ,on rn S N Y rn� ?' N n. w o '� "� ^. 5� `° S 0. 9 c d w d" o' °Y .S.3 m< wa rnm n•Z ._vo' -�'<'oz co n ao o o P o a g .m w 5. 5m a_: w< •°o ''w tao oc o w e d� g m� w< w y y a 5 m 5 c' rn N •.n �, c �" m p^, � � w y �. � N �< ti a, W N .= N N „'3 -n a d. # < m M O w O _ N 5 `G _� o f e S -_�,' N° y a°a o c � .N � rn S o �= �, N ` 5• tz CS — 5' rn N y 3 .< = ` d °-n O ❑ `"{C ? G. t•'i °c £ 't°i o c- c ,� S N S y :E y c c£o `D a dqQ k? o ca K Cl O o rn aO ow ° E. o° 5 b 5 N o a• m �. � rn 0. rn 5 ° a 'o ° co w m w x• o 0 a°a c �0 0 0 Tq E o m o o H o S' A w° e' r c cr ^ a'o rn o a Yf " Y 00 N N 5 0? 0 .., 0� S 5 .,, O w 'G rn cw 5 0 0 0. 0"Fj- C7 o a S ._N D O N N z o o a d �• N 5' C O O C O -0w c 5 a c o 3 in rn m S'' ' y0 'o p• Ony < o a ..n '+ + < O< -• ? Y O ELM a d� w< .r�_S yC ' x ' OQ .onw .,^. ° cN o . �? y to .d ti °: 'mac v c c v m a o w °aq �'a w T `'� `< v 5 0. R o• m o- '+ 5' a ,� a w. ..o w F x �• o N° 5 ,,, N Y d C7 5 S a< o a E+r y a�� � ' w m° o 3 0 <N �• � ao n < a � �, S 13 y a°°o g a w c+'Gi a ° x •m _ 5 S_ o° o° o G El x •y f W Pa TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS Six Park Row, Mansfield, MA 02048 April 7, 1999 Dear Fishing Derby Parent, As the parent of a fishing derby participant, we would like to make you aware of the current "provisional public health advisory" issued, regarding the Rumford River and Fulton, Kingman and Cabot Ponds as well as the Norton Reservoir. The advisory was issued in October 1998, when it was first suspected that the fish in these water bodies may be contaminated with pesticides and dioxins. Study has been on going, but conclusions may not be available prior to the May 81h fishing derby. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment has recommended the following: 1. Be aware of the Provisional Public Health Advisory (printed on reverse side) 2. Catch and release all fish. Do not eat any fish. 3. As an extra precaution, wash hands thoroughly after derby. There is no danger handling fish contaminated with pesticide or dioxin, it is an internal contaminant, requiring ingestion over a period of time to be harmful to humans. Hand washing thoroughly is simply a good idea. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 508-261-7366. Yours truly, Ma;Board of Health Sco, Health Agent PROVISIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY RUMFORD RIVER; FULTON, KINGMAN, & CABOT PONDS NORTON RESERVOIR CONTAMINANT RELEASE Former Hatheway & Patterson site in Mansfield Possible pesticides and dioxins DO NOT EAT FISH CATCH & RELEASE For more information, contact: Massachusetts Department of Public Health: 617-624-5757 October, 1998 Scott Leite From: stephen spilewski [ssryaniron@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:50 AM To: superfund.docket@epa.gov; janowski.chet@epa.gov; harting-barrat.pamela@epa.gov; scott.sayers@state.ma.us; sleite@mansfieldma.com; dlewis@mansfieldma.com Subject: hatheway & patterson npl site October 24,2001 Attn: Docket Coordinator,Headquarters U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office 1200 pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC. Re: Hatheway & Patterson Site (EPA ID #MAD001006805) Mansfield, Ma. To whom it may concern, The following are my comments and concerns regarding the above -mentioned project as a proposed Superfund clean-up site: My property, 42 Howe Street Mansfield, Ma. abutts the southerly portion of the Hateway & Patterson (H&P)site for approx. 270 feet. From the former Foundry st. to the Rumford river backwash channel. Along this border, the land is an "artifical" wetland. I say artifical, because this wetland was created and/or expanded when the Rumford river was diverted and the underpasses at the railroad grade crossings were created in 1952-1958. The North Main Street underpass pumps hundreds of gallons, if not thousands in the wet season, of subsurface water and stormwater runoff a day onto the H&P site. The location of this outlet is at the southwest corner of the fenced -in portion, near the double access gate. When this pipe was originally laid from the underpass to the site, which is now the H&P site, a ditch was dug from the outfall headwall west into the woods. Through the years this ditch was never maintained, and consequently has become blocked with trees, brush, sediments and vegetation. So much so that the ditch backed -up and cut a new path which now runs to the south and along my property line then west till it empties into the backwash channel.The resulting continuous flooding of this previous woodland has now started to kill the tall trees in this area. After reading the information, site inspections and test results that have been done on the H&P site, it appears that both sub -surface and surface water runoff from the south contaminated portion of the fenced -in parcel is flowing south to southwest into the backwash channel. 1 My concern is that the southern most portion of this "artifical" wetland has never been tested.Is this portion also contaminated? It should be tested, especially at the south end of the backwash channel. What is the effect of having hundreds of gallons of water per day dumped upon the contaminated H&P site by the Town of Mansfield? I'm sure that it is increasing the contaminated water flow both above and below ground. I believe that any clean-up remedy for this site should take into consideration the stopping of the unnatural flooding of a woodland/wetland,espasally if it is contaminated. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Spilewski 42 Howe Street Mansfield, Ma. 02048 (508)339-6529 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp 2 '3�pSEO SrgrZ,S x Q 3F o= September 14, 2001 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1 1 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 1100 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-2023 Mr. John D'Agostino, Town of Mansfield Six Park Row Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. D'Agostino: Town Manager RECEIVED SEP 17 2001 TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE Enclosed is one copy of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation record for the Hatheway and Patterson Company site in Mansfield, Massachusetts. The information presented in the HRS package supports EPA's decision to propose this site for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL, or the "Superfund List"), as announced in the Federal Register on Thursday, September 13, 2001. Copies of all references cited in this HRS documentation record are available for review in the Superfund Records Center at the EPA New England offices at One Congress Street in Boston. Many of the references are also available for review at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection offices in Lakeville, Mass. Thursday's Federal Register announcement initiated a 60-day public comment period during which the public is invited to provide comments to EPA on the proposed listing. Please make this copy of the HRS documentation record available for review by any interested parties in Mansfield. Comments should be mailed (original plus three copies) to: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters US Environmental Protection Agency CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Comments must be postmarked on or before November 13, 2001. If you have any questions, may be reached at (617) 918-1436. Sincerely, t?4 EPA New England NPL Coordinator Office of Site Remediation and Restoration cc: Mr. Harish Panchal, MA DEP Boston Toll Free • 11-888-372-7341 Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov/regioni RecycledlRecyclable •Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE Hatheway and Patterson Company Mansfield, Massechusetts CERCLIS ID NO.: MAD001060805 Documentation Record Prepared For: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Region 1 Congress St. Boston, MA 02114-2023 Prepared By: DynCorp Information and Engineering Technology 6101 Stevenson Ave. Alexandria, VA 22304 July 10, 2001 SFUND-2001-0009-0002 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET Name of Site: -Hatheway and Patterson Company (HPC) EPA ID No. MAD001060805 Contact Persons Site Inspection: Paul Schrot Roy F. Weston, Inc. (781)899-9818 Documentation Record: Kenyon A. Larsen DynCorp I&ET, Inc. (703)461-2448 Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored Nancy Smith EPA, New England Region (617)918-1436 The soil exposure pathway was not scored because there are currently no resident individuals, workers, sensitive environments, or resources on or within 200 feet of sources at the site. The air pathway was not scored because there is no documented observed release to the atmosphere and scoring thepotential to release to air would not likely contribute significantly to the overall site score. Although hazardous substances attributable to the site are likely traveling via ground watertoward surface water, the overland flow/flood component ofthe surface waterpathway yields the maximum pathway score of 100. The ground water to surface water component of the surface water pathway is likely to score lower than the overland flow/flood component. July 2001 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: Hatheway and Patterson Company EPA Region: I Date Prepared: July 10, 2001 Street Address of Site: 15 County Road City, County, State, Zip Code: Mansfield, Bristol County, Massachusetts, 02048 General Location in the State: Southeastern quadrant Topographic Map: USGS 1987. Brockton, MA Quadrangle (7.5 x 15-minute series topographic map) — .Latitude: 42° 2' 17.5" North Longitude: 71° 13' 21.0" West The reference point for the latitude and longitude measurements is the confluence of the Rumford River and the +�- Conrail railroad trestle [ref. 3]. G Scores Ground Water Pathway 53.04 Surface Water Pathway 100.00 Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Air Pathway Not Scored HRS SITE SCORE 56.6 July 2001 1 S S' 1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S,,) 53.04 2813.24 (from Table 3-1, line 13) 2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 100 10000 (from Table 4-1, line 30) 2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component 0 0 (from Table 4-25, line 28) 2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (5,,.,) 100 10000 Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score. 3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S) 0 0 (from Table 5-1, line 22) 4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S.) 0 0 (from Table 6-1, line 12) 5. Total of S.I + S,w2 + S,' + S. 12813.24 6. HRS Site Score 56.6 Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root July 2001 2 TABLE 3-1 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORESHEET Factor Categories and Factors Likelihood of Release to an Aovifer Maximum Value Value Assigned 1. Observed Release 550 - 550 2. Potential to Release 2a. Containment 10 2b. Net Precipitation - 10 2c. Depth to Aquifer - 5 2d. Travel Time 35 2e. Potential to Release: [lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 3. Likelihood of Release: [higher of lines d and 2e] - 550 550 Waste Characteristics 4. Toxicity/Mobility. . a 10000 5. Hazardous Waste Quantity -a 10 - 6. Waste Characteristics 100 18 Targets 7. Nearest Well 50 5 8. Population 8a. Level I Concentrations b 0 8b. Level 11 Concentrations b 0 8c. Potential Contamination - b 437 8d. Population (lines 8a+ 8b + 8c) b 437 9. Resources 5 0 10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 0 - 11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) b 442 GROUND WATER MIGRATION SCORE FOR AN AQUIFER - 12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x l l)/82,500]` 100 53.04 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE 13. Pathway Score (S,,,), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated)` 100 53.04 'Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. °Maximum value not applicable. `Do not round to nearest integer. July 2001 TABLE 4-1 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned DRINKING WATER THREAT Likelihood of Release 1. Observed Release 550 550 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow 2a. Containment 10 2b. Runoff 25 2c. Distance to Surface Water 25 2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a x [2b + 2c]) 500 3. Potential to Release by Flood 3a. Containment (Flood) 10 3b. Flood Frequency 50 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) 500 4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c, maximum of 500) 500 5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 6. Toxicity/Persistence a 9. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 8. Waste Characteristics 100 Targets 9. Nearest Intake - 50 10. Population I on. Level I Concentrations b IOb. Level 1I Concentrations b IOc. Potential Contamination b IOd. Population (lines 10a+ 10b+ loc) b 11. Resources - 5 12. Targets (lines 9+ IOd + 11) b 13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500, maximum of 100) 100 Not Scored HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT July 2001 Likelihood of Release 14. Likelihood of Release (same value as. line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 15. Toxicity/PersistenceBioaccumulation a 5 x 108 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320 Tareets 18. Food Chain Individual 50 50 19. Population 19a. Level I Concentrations b 3 19b. Level II Concentrations b 0.03 19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination b 0.00483 19d. Population (lines 19a+ 19b+ 19c) b 3.03483 20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) b 53.03483 Human Food Chain Threat Score 21. Human Food Chain Threat Score Alines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 Factor Categories and Factors - Maximum Value Value Assigned ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT Likelihood of Release 22. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/ Bioaccumulation a 5 x 10' 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320 Targets 26. Sensitive Environments 26a. Level I Concentrations b 0 26b. Level 11 Concentrations b 50 26c. Potential Contamination b 0 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a+26b+26c) b 50 27. Targets (value from 26d) b 50 July no Environmental Threat Score 28. Environmental Threat Score ([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500, a maximum of 60) 60 60 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED 29. Watershed Score` (lines 13 + 21 + 28, a maximum of 100) 100 100 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE 30. Component Score (Ser)`, (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated, -a maximum of 100) 100 100 'Maximum= value applies to waste characteristics category. °Maximum value not applicable. `Do not round to nearest integer. July 2001 A at DynCorp �e ZIA �F ; Y S 7 TION aource: ease map is a ronion of the ropiowin / o R'lou.a.li.a uuaoran le : t9r0131(lon, mass last FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP N .ATHEWAYANDPATTERSON A H M ANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS MILES DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2000 July 2001 REFERENCES I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Hazard Ranking System, 55 FR 51533 (40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A), December 14, 1990. (136 pages) 2. EPA, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, June 1996. (24 pages) 3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 7.5 X 15 Minute Quadrangle 1:25,000 Scale Topographic Map of Brockton, MA. 1987. 4. Roy F. Weston, Inc. (START). After Action Report for the Hatheway and Patterson Site, Mansfield, Massachusetts. TDD No. 95-0610-15C. October 1995. (75 pages) 5. Roy F. Weston, Inc. (TAT). Removal Program -Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI) for Hatheway and Patterson Site, Mansfield, Massachusetts. TDD No. 01-9306-01A. August 1993. (34 pages) 6. Roy F. Weston, Inc. (START). Field Logbook for Hatheway and Patterson Site Inspection. No. 00317-S. TDD No. 98- 01-0018. 1998. (4 pages) 7. MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). Preliminary Assessment Report for Hatheway and Patterson Co., Inc., Mansfield, Massachusetts. December 1994. (26 pages) 8. Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. A Soils and Hydrogeologic Investigation. Prepared for Hatheway & Patterson Company, Inc. May 1988. (108 pages) 9. Schrot, P. (START). Public Drinking Water Supply Wells Within 4 Radial Miles of Hatheway and Patterson. November 6, 2000. (1 page) 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). National Wetlands Inventory Map for Attleboro Quadrangle, MA. undated. 11. FWS. National Wetlands Inventory Map for Mansfiejd Quadrangle, MA. undated. 12. FWS. National Wetlands Inventory Map for Norton Quadrangle, MA. undated. 13. Bird, Robert H. (Resource Control Associates, Inc.). Letter to Richard Sacchetti and Robert C. Atwood (Clean -Start Properties Unlimited, LLC), RE: Results of Dioxin Sampling and Analysis, Porter Estate, Foxborough, MA. January 31, 2001. (4 pages) 14. Wielandt, D. (Lockheed Environmental). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 0298F, SDG No. D00181. Rumford River Site. January 31, 2000. (12 pages) 15. Bartels, J (Lockheed Environmental). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 0298F, SDG No. D00192. Rumford River Site. January 13, 2000. (12 pages) 16. Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. Phase II Site Investigation. December 1989. Appendix A, B, C, J (Attachments) 17. Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. Design Report for Short -Term Measure. July 1991. (37 pages) 1.8. Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. Completion Report for Short -Term Measure. January 1992. (32 pages) 19. Penney Engineering, Inc. Monthly Monitoring Report for February, 1992. April 8, 1992. (9 pages) 20. Schrot, P. (START). Phone Conversation Record with Mr. Kurt Gaffney, Water Operations Manager of the Mansfield Water Department, RE: Public Drinking Water Sources. September 11, 2000. (3 pages) 21. MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). Database of Community Water Supplies. Printout Dated 24 July. 1995. (11 pages) July 2001 9 22. Schrot, P. (START). Phone Conversation Record with Mr. Dave Masciarelli, Water Division Supervisor of the Sharon Water Department, RE: Public Drinking Water Sources. September 18, 2000.- (7 pages) 23. Schrot, P. (START). Phone Conversation Record with Mr. Duane Knapp, Superintendent of the Norton Water Department, RE: Public Drinking Water Sources. September 11, 2000. (9 pages) 24. Schrot, P. (START). Phone Conversation Record with Mr. Wayne Southworth, Superintendent of the Easton Water Department, RE: Public Drinking Water Sources. September 18, 2000. (3 pages) 25. Foster, James P. Letter to Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control. Re: Rumford River Stream Pollution Concerns. December 20, 1972. (9 pages) 26. Schrot, P. (START). Phone Conversation Record with Mr. Warren McKay, Superintendent of the Foxborough Water Department, RE: Public Drinking Water Sources. September H, 2000. (8 pages) . 27. Frost Associates. Project Note, Hatheway and Patterson, RE: Population and Private Well Users. April 22, 1998. (9 pages) 28. Schrot, P. (START). Phone Conversation Record with Mr. Tom Shepard, U.S. Geological Survey, RE: Rumford Water Flow Rate. April 8, 1998. (1 page) 29. Schrot, P. (START). Phone Conversation Record with Mr. Tom Shepard, U.S. Geological Survey, RE: Threemile River Flow Rate. April2, 1998. (1 page) 30. Schrot, P. (START). Project Note, Hatheway and Patterson, RE: Estimated Flow Rates for Rumford River and Threemile River. June 2, 1998. (1 page) 31. MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. Division of Water Pollution Control. Publication No. 16,484-114-100-90-CR. 1990. (9 pages) 32. Fritz, J. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Project Note, Hatheway and Patterson, RE: Rare and Endangered Species Report, Hatheway and Patterson, Mansfield, MA. 1998. (3 pages) 33. Sulkowski, L. (START). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 0298F, SDG No. D00181_OA. Rumford giver Site. December 21, 1999. (12 pages) 34. Butterworth, Mandy, Roy F. Weston, to Rumford River Site File. Re: Site activities at the Rumford River Site, Mansfield, Norfolk County, MA. October 15, 1999. (9 pages) 35. Hurley, S. (Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife). Letter to Ms. Laura Ulrich, Camp,Dresser, & McKee, Inc. (CD) Federal Programs Corporation. RE: Fisheries Information. undated. (3 pages) 36. Lambert, T. (START). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 0188F, SDG No. DAF40C-I. Rumford River Site. January 28, 1999. (17 pages) 37. Lambert, T. (START). Letter to C. CLARK (EPA), RE: Case No. 0188F, SDG No. DAF44C-1. Rumford River Site. January 28, 1999. (12 pages) 38. Sulkowski, L. (START). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 0188F, SDG Bi, DAF40C_O. Rumford River Site. January 27, 1999. (22 pages) 39. Sulkowski, L. (START). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 0188F, SDG Bi, DAF44C_0. Rumford River Site. January 25, 1999. (11 pages) 40. Bartels, J. (Lockheed Environmental). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: DAS No. 0189F, SDG No. DAF40C. Rumford River Site: December 18, 1998. (30 pages) July 2001 10 41. Benoit, A. (START). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 021 IF, SDG No. DAF67C-I. Rumford River Site. February 1, 1999. (10 pages) 42. Switalski, G. (START). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: Case No. 0211F, SDG No. DAF67C_01. Rumford River Site. February 2, 1999. (9 pages) 43. Bartels, J. (Lockheed Environmental). Letter to C. Clark (EPA), RE: DAS No. 0211F, SDG No. DAF67C, Rumford River Site. February 2, 1999. (I1 pages) 44. Fritz & Sheehan Associates, Inc., U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 94-12260, U.S.A. v. William E. Haynes, Deposition of William E. Haynes taken on behalf of the Plaintiff. Deposition taken on July 26, 1995. Report stamped October 6, 1995. (79 pages) 45. ATSDR, ToxFAQs on Pentachlorophenol, CAS# 87-86-5, September 1995, accessed electronically on January 9, 2001, available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts5l.htmi. (4 pages) 46. Johnson, Barry L., Assistant Surgeon General, Congressional Testimony on Public Health Implications of Dioxins before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, June 10, 1992. (13 pages) 47. Krueger, Elaine T., Chief, Environmental Toxicology Unit, Bureau of Environmental Assessment, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to Scott Leite, Mansfield Board of Health. Letter re: Updated Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory for the Rumford River. June 30, 1999. (6 pages) 48. EPA. Wood Preserving RCRA Compliance Guide. June 1996; (117 pages) 49. Roy F. Weston, Inc., START Team. Final Site Inspection Report for Hatheway and Patterson. CERCLIS No. MASON 060805. December 1999. (79 pages) 50. Roy F. Weston, Inc., START Team. Trip Report— On -Site Reconnaissance, Hatheway & Patterson, April 10, 1998, report dated June 11, 1999. (11 pages) 51. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Analytical Data Package, Volume 1, Hatheway & Patterson Site, Mansfield, Massachusetts. Prepared for MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). August 21, 1998. (24 pages) 52. EPA. Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Directive 9200.5-162. EPA/540/R-95/128. Available from http:// www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presump/wood/Wodtreat.pdf. August 4, 1997. (20 pages) 53. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Final Soil Sampling and Field Screening, Hatheway and Patterson Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA's Emergency Response Team (ERT). Weston Work Order 03347-040-001-0053-01. December 1994. (145 pages) 54. Martin, Gerard, MADEP, to David Mcintyre, U.S. EPA. Letter re: Request for EPA Assistance on Former Hatheway and Patterson, with dioxin and furan analytical results attached. September 23, 1998. (22 pages) 55. Krueger, Elaine T., Chief, Environmental Toxicology Unit, Bureau of Environmental Assessment, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to Richard Haworth, U.S. EPA, Letter re: Regular Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory for the Rumford River. June 30, 1999. (2 pages) 56. Krueger, Elaine T., Chief, Environmental Toxicology Unit, Bureau of Environmental Assessment, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to Scott Leite, Mansfield Board of Health. Letter re: Provisional Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory for the Rumford River. October 19, 1998. (8 pages) 57. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Health Consultation for the Rumford River Site, Mansfield, Bristol County, Massachusetts, prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. June 16, 1999. (17 pages) July 2001 11 Site Summary The Hatheway and Patterson Company (HPC) site is located in a mixed residential/industrial area. The HPC property is approximately 40 acres and located at 15 County Street in Mansfield, Bristol County, Massachusetts (see Figure 1). The UPC property is bordered to the north by County Street and residential properties, to the south and west by forested and wetland areas, and to the east by T.D. Verroch, Inc, a welding and masonry supply company [refs. 3; 6, p. 2]. In the southern portion of the property, the Rumford River backwash channel flows from east to west. Palustrine forested wetlands surround the Rumford River backwash channel [ref. 11]. The property is roughly divided in half by the Rumford River, which runs north to south, and by a railroad track right-of-way, which runs east to west (see Figure 2). OperationalHistory The HPC site is a former wood preserving facility. Operations at the HPC property included preserving wood sheeting, planking, timber, piling, poles, and other wood products [ref. 7, p. 7]. HPC began wood treating operations at the property in 1953, although HPC operated at the facility since 1927. Little is known about operations between 1927 and 1953, although a portion of the property was used as a coal storage area for'locomotive engines [refs. 4, p. 5; 5 pp. 4 and 5; 16, pp. 1-1, 1-21. HPC historically used various methods and materials to treat wood on the property. From 1953 to 1958, HPC used a solution of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in fuel oil and it also used creosote to treat lumber. From 1958 to 1974 HPC continued to use PCP and also used fluoro-chrome-arsenate-phenol (FCAP) salts in water. From 1960 to 1984, PCP in mineral spirits and chromated copper -arsenate (CCA) in salts were used by HPC. CCA salts and PCP in water were used from 1984 until HPC filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations in April 1993 [refs, 4 ,p 5�5_pp. 4 and 5]. History of Contamination Problems and Stale Actions In 1971, a tar mat approximately 62 feet long and 6 inches deep was discovered by Town of Mansfield and MADEP personnel [ref. 4, p. 5]. At the end of 1972, a citizen complainted of "oily water" and dead water fowl in the Rumford River downstream of Fulton Pond [ref. 25]. The citizen walked up the Rumford River to the origin of the oily discharge and found it to be coming from two large below -ground tanks containing oil, which were part of a "...timber treatment plant on County Street in Mansfield." [ref. 25, p. 6]. The citizen described an "earthen catchment basin" that contained `oil." The oil was discharged from the catchment basin to the Rumford River via a tile train pipe [ref. 25, p. 6]. Five samples (A through E) collected in December 1972 (Sample A was Rumford River sediment and Samples B through E were from tanks) qualitatively revealed PCP contamination up to 3.66 percent by weight (Sample A) [ref. 25, pp. 3, 4, 5, and 8]. Subsequently, MADEP and the Town of Mansfield requested that HPC contain the seepage. By 1973, IIPC developed a contaminated ground water recovery trench located along the east bank of the Rumford Riverjust upstream of its confluence with the Rumford River backwash channel [ref. 4, pp. 5, 8, Figures A-4 and A-7]. Contaminated ground water was pumped by HPC from 1973 through 1976. Oily seepage was again detected in the Rumford River in 1981 by a prospective buyer of the site [ref. 4, p. 81. In 1987, UPC was issued a Notice of Noncompliance (NON) by the MADEP, which ordered that HPC conduct a soils and hydrology assessment of the site [ref. 8, p. 1]. In 1988, MADEP issued UPC a Notice of Responsibility (NOR) and in 1990, MADEP issued a Request for Short -Term Measure (STM) to address the imminent contamination of the Rumford River emanating from the site [refs. 4, p. 8; 17, p. 1-1). In 1992, the U.S. EPA's RCRA program personnel conducted inspections of the HPC facility to determine compliance with RCRA drip pad standards. Observations during these RCRA inspections determined that the drip pads were not in compliance and HPC did not possess appropriate documentation and certification for operation of the drip pads [ref. 4, p. 8]. Penny Engineering, Inc. operated the STM for UPC, which consisted of a retaining wall, sumps, and ground water treatment system located adjacent to the east bank of the Rumford River just upstream of the Rumford River backwash channel [ref. 19, Figure 1]. Penny Engineering, Inc. submitted quarterly monitoring of treated ground water that was discharged to the Rumford River [ref. 19]. In January 1993, MADEP requested that HPC perform a second STM, which called for additional site assessment followed by implementation of environmental controls designed to contain releases at the site [ref. 4, p. 81. EPA Removal Action Because wood treating solvents, chemicals, sludges, tanks, sumps and drums were abandoned by HPC on the property with no electricity or heat, conditions at the site posed a threat of hazardous substance releases. Therefore, in December 1993, EPA Region 1's Emergency Planning and Response Branch initiated a two-year removal action to address problems at the HPC site [ref. 4, p. 1]. Upon initiating the removal action, EPA discovered several process and support buildings that contained large tanks, process vessels, drums, sumps, pits, and various small containers. Outside on the property, EPA discovered three drip pads (CCA, PCP, and Dricon"), treated lumber storage areas, three above -ground tanks containing PCP, another tank containing fuel oil, three tanks containing fire retardant (Dricon'") in water, and six underground storage tanks containing various process wastes [ref. 4, p. 5]. A removal disposal summary table indicated that the following materials were left on the property by HPC [ref. 4, Table C-1]: July 2001 12 • 580 small containers containing flammable liquids, aerosols, and spent batteries; • 12 chemical -filled drums; 45,861 gallons of Dricon" liquid (from tanks T-01, T-02, T-04, and sumps/pits); • 60 drums (approximately 3,300 gallons) of waste CCA liquid from tanks T-17 to T-21; 65 drums (approximately 3,575 gallons) of liquid waste from tanks T-13, T-14, T-15, T-23, and T-29; • 62 drums (approximately 3,410 gallons) of waste sludges from tanks T-12a, T-12b, T-16, T-13, T-14, T-27, T-29, and a PCP sump; 88 drums (approximately 4,840 gallons) of waste PCP sludge from tanks T-05 and T-31 and PCP -contaminated soil/debris; 26,836 gallons of wastewater and sludges from tanks T-09, T-10, T-I1, T-26, T-30a, T-30b, T-30c, T-31, and T-32; and 10,030 gallons of waste PCP liquid from tanks T-05, T-06, and T-07. Although these materials were removed from the site and either recycled or disposed of at an approved facility, they are likely to have contributed to soil, ground water, and surface water contamination at the site prior to the removal action [ref. 4, p. 40]. Although the EPA removal action addressed direct contact threats posed by contaminated soils by covering them with asphalt or gravel, the contaminated soils still remain at the site. Only portions of the contaminated soils (evaluated as Sources 1 and 2 in this documentation record) were covered, and future hazardous substance migration to ground water and surface water is not mitigated by these covers [ref. 4, p. 1, figures A-4 to A-8]. EPA's removal action concluded in September 1995 [ref. 4, p. 40]. BRS Documentation Record Overview For IIRS scoring purposes in this documentation record, the operations of HPC have been separated into two areas: the former operations area located north of the railroad tracks; and the southern wood storage areas south of the railroad tracks. Contaminated soil in the former operations area is evaluated as Source I and contaminated soil in the southern wood storage area is evaluated as Source 2. The ground water migration pathway and the surface water migration pathway overland flow/flood component are scored in this documentation record. Acronyms and Terminolo AST Above ground storage tank ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CCA Chromated copper -arsenate - CRQL Contract Required Quantitation Limit CRDL Contract Required Detection Limit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - ERT Emergency Response Team EWD Town of Easton Water Department FCAP Fluoro-chrome-arsenate-phenol FWD Town of Foxborough Water Department - HPC Hatheway and Patterson Company HpCDD Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin HxCDD Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin HpCDF Heptachlorodibenzo furan HxCDF Hexachlorodibenzo furan MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram mg/L Milligrams per liter MSL Mean sea level MWD Town of Mansfield Water Department ng/kg Nanograms per kilogram NON Notice of Noncompliance NOR Notice of Responsibility PA Preliminary Assessment PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCP Pentachlorophenol pg/L Picograms per liter PPE Probably point of entry ppb Parts per billion ppm Parts per million RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SI Site Inspection July 2001 13 START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team SVOC Semi -volatile organic compound SWD Town of Sharon Water Department TAL Target Analyte List TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin TCDF Tetrachlorodibenzo furan µg/kg Micrograms per kilogram µg/L Micrograms per liter UST Underground storage tank VOC Volatile organic compound XRF X-ray fluorescence July 2001 14 2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Source 1: Contaminated Soil in Former Operations Area Source Type: Contaminated Soil Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site): HPC is a former wood preserving facility. Wood treating operations formerly took place north of the railroad tracks on both sides of the Rumford River, which flows northeast to southwest down the middle of the property. The far northwest comer of the property, where wood treating and storage occurred, and where the Rumford River enters the property, is included in this source. In this area of the facility, HPC preserved and stored wood products, including sheeting, planking, timber, pilings, poles and other wood products using a variety of methods and materials [ref. 7, p. 7]. Several buildings remain in the former operations area, including cylinder building numbers 1, 2, and 3, the kiln building, the mill building, the stacker building, the Dricon" building, an office, and a laboratory. The wood treating chemicals were stored in above ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) and sumps located inside and outside the former process buildings [ref. 6, p. 2-41. Three concrete drip pads also remain [ref. 4, p. 5]. RCRA inspections conducted in March 1992 revealed that the drip pads were "riddled with cracks, seams, gaps, and corroded areas in the concrete, and portions of the drip pads were not curbed or bermed" [ref. 7, p. 2-3 ]. The following methods and materials were used by HPC to preserve its wood products [ref. 7, p. 7]: From 1953 to 1958, a solution of PCP in fuel oil, as well as creosote, was used to treat (dip, not pressure -treat) lumber, allowing chemicals to drip off the wood products onto the soil [ref. 4, pp. 5, 8]. From 1958 to 1974, solutions of PCP in fuel oil and fluoro-chrome-arsenate-phenol (FCAP) salts in water were both used in a pressure treatment process. (FCAP contains 25% sodium fluoride, 25%sodium arsenate, 37.5%sodium chromate, and 12.5%2,4-dinitrophenol) [ref. 4, p. 21. • From 1960 to 1984, PCP in mineral spirits was used to pressure treat lumber [ref. 4, p. 51. • From 1974 to 1984, PCP in fuel oil and chromated copper -arsenate (CCA) salts in water were used [ref. 4, p. 5]. • From 1984 until operations ceased in 1993, solutions of CCA salts in water and PCP in water were used [ref. 4, p. 5). • Wood was also infused with a fire retardant composed of boric acid and anhydrous sodium tetraborate [ref. 7, p. 2]. EPA's Wood Preserving RCRA Compliance Guide indicates that the majority of contamination at older facilities that operated for many years before current environmental regulations and disposal options existed was caused by.poor management practices including the allowance of excess preservation called "kickback" to drip onto the ground from treated charges of wood. Kickback is wood preservative that is generated from treated wood as the wood begins to return to normal pressure after a pressure treating process (ref. 48, pp. 2-8, 4-22). When the site was abandoned in May 1993, wood -preserving products and waste were left on site [ref. 5, p. 3]. EPA's TAT contractors reported the presence of 20 55-gallon drums and eight ASTs located in various process buildings. TAT estimated that these contained a total of 45,000 gallons of preservatives with various percentages of PCP, CCA, and Dricon'. One AST contained fuel oil [ref. 5, p. 3-4]. Six USTs containing various wastes, were also present in the vicinity of cylinder buildings 1 and 2 [ref. 5, p. 1-2]. Most of the sumps in the buildings also contained water and sludge from the treatment process [ref. 4, p. 5). Observations of the 45 foot by 120 foot CCA drip pad along the northeast boundary of the site during the 1998 START investigation noted that the drip pad was stained green, typical of copper salts [ref. 6, p. 4]. The EPA removal action report states that HPC left wood -treating solvents and sludges in tanks, sumps, and drums when they abandoned the site. The site was without heat or electricity and impending freezing weather conditions posed the threat of release of these chemicals [ref. 4, p. 8]. EPA ultimately removed 82,727 gallons and 355 drums of material for disposal or reuse [ref. 4, Table C-11. During this investigation, EPA conducted a field screening analysis of arsenic in soil [ref. 4, p. 321. July 2001 15 EPA also graded several portions of the former operations area of the site to control runoff and placed temporary caps of geotextile fabric, gravel, and asphalt in areas around the mill building, the buildings for cylinders I and 2, the kiln building, the Dricon" building, tanks holding fuel oil (No. 8) and PCP (Nos. 5, 6, and 7), the contaminated areas adjacent to the CCA drip Pad, and various other areas. [ref. 4, p. 34-37). EPA also had a large portion of deteriorated pavement repaved [ref. 4, p. 37-391. Many investigations have been conducted at the site, including the. following: • In 1987, consultants for HPC prepared a Soils and Hydrogeologic Investigation (Phase I). This investigation was required in a Notice of Noncompliance (NON) letter from MADEP [ref. 8, p. 1]. • In 1988-89, consultants for HPC prepared a Phase II site investigation required in a Notice of Responsibility (NOR) letter from MADEP [ref. 16, pp. 1-1, 3-1, 3-7]. • In 1993, EPA's removal program conducted a high priority PA/SI [ref. 5). • In 1994, MADEP prepared a preliminary assessment report [ref. 7]. - In 1994, EPA's ERT prepared a Soil Sampling and Field Screening of the HPC site [ref. 53]. July 2001 16 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE 1 The following soil samples were collected during a May 1988 soils and hydrogeology investigation of the HPC site by Keystone Environmental Resources, a consultant for HPC [ref. 8, Figure 3-1]. See Figure 3-1 of Reference 8 for sample locations. HPC states that samples B-1, B-2, and B-3 show little, or no, impact from site operations [ref. 8, p. 4-2]. However, B-2 shows significantly more contamination than either B-I or B-3. Therefore, samples B-1 and B-3 will be considered background soil samples although they may be, to some degree, impacted by site operations. For certain substances that are not naturally occurring or ubiquitous, no background levels are used for comparison, despite the concentrations in samples B-1 and B-3. These substances are phenolic wood preserving compounds and their byproducts. Concentrations significantly above background and directly associated with HPC operations are noted in bold type. Hazardous Substance Background Source 1 Contaminated Samples (ppb unless otherwise specified) B-1 B-3 B-2 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-10 (8-10') (6-8-) (8-10) (6-8') (24) (64) (4-6') (6-8') (6-89 arsenic (ppm) <1.0 1.05 1.31 4.65 2.62 1.04 1.56 4.56 1.27 chromium (ppm) 5.63 6.91 37.9 8.13 9.67 44.7 9.40 6.03 15.6 Reference 8, Appendix E, p. E3 acenaphthene <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 2880 <50.0 acenaphthylene <50.0 <50.0 192 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 1490 <50:0 anthracene <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 2580 <25.0 benzo(a)pyrene <1.00 <1.00 3.79 1.01 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <1.00 benzo(k)fluoranthene <1.00 <1.00 4.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 18.8 <1.00 chrysene <7.50 <7.50 12.3 <7.50 <7.50 NR 7.95 NR 7.95 fluorene 29.5 35 47 42.2 23 25.3 22.7 5200 32.6 phenanthrene 108 122 37.0 134 48.6 46.8 49.2 12500 86.6 naphthalene <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 323 <50.0 Reference 8, Appendix E, pp. E13-E21 2,3,516-tetraclilorophenol NA NA 490 <100 1530 <10000 250 396000 650 2,4,6-trichlorophenol NA NA <100 <I00 <1000 <10000 400 105000 1270 2,4-dichlorophenol NA NA <50.0 <50.0 37800 9360 <50.0 43700 <50.0 2,4-dimethylphenol NA NA 165 <50.0 <500 5770 61 20700 131 2,4-dinitrophenol NA NA 19500 <100 3560 <10000 310 251000 <100 2-chlorophenol NA NA <50.0 <50.0 <500 96600 <50.0 139000 <50.0 2-nitrophenol NA NA <50.0 <50.0 <500 7450 <50.0 17000 <50.0 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol NA NA 205 <100 <1000 <10000 <100 167000 <100 4-nitrophenol NA NA <100 <100 <1000 <10000 <100 241000 <100 4-chloro-3-methylphenol NA NA 347 59.4 <500 7840 76.4 205000 137 pentachlorophenol NA NA <100 <100 1380 <10000 <100 343000 2760 phenol NA NA <50.0 <50.0 <500 490000 <50.0 529000 <50.0 References 8, Appendix E, pp. E4-E12 NA =Not applicable (no background needed). Substance is associated with site operations only. NR = Not reported. In December 1994, EPA's ERT finalized a soil sampling and field screening report [ref. 53]. This investigation consisted of collecting 43 soil samples from five areas at the site. Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 are situated in Source 1, while Area 5 comprises Source 2 [ref. 53, Figure 2]. Each of the 43 samples was analyzed for chromium, copper, arsenic, and lead using field portable July 2001 17 x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. Each of the 43 samples was also analyzed for PAHs and PCP using immunoassay field screening kits. To meet quality assurance objectives, 10 percent of the samples were sent to fixed laboratories for confirmatory analysis using Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and PCP/creosote compounds [ref. 53, p. 11. Field and confirmation sample analysis revealed PCP contamination greater than 5 ppm in the former operations area (Source 1) [ref. 53, p. 12]. Arsenic concentrations were greater than 30 ppm in all samples collected in the Source I area. Chromium was detected at greater than 1,000 ppm in all samples collected in the former operations area of Source 1. Copper and lead were also detected at elevated concentrations in the Source 1 area [ref. 53, p. 12]. No soil samples from Source I have been analyzed for dioxins and furans. 2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY Containment Description Release to ground water: This contaminated soil source was not intended to be a waste management unit and has come to be located here via migration, deposition, and spills. No evidence exists to indicate that a liner is present below the contaminated soil. The depth of contamination also indicates that no liner is present. Release via overland migration and/or flood: The source contains neither of the following: a maintained, engineered cover or functioning and maintained run-on control system and run-off management system. This source was not intended to be a waste management unit and has come to be located here via migration, deposition, and spills. EPA has paved and graveled various areas of the source to address imminent threat; no system has been installed to manage run-on and run-off. 2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Containment Factor Value 10 10 Insufficient information is available to estimate the hazardous constituent quantity. 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Insufficient information is available to estimate the hazardous wastestream quantity. 2.4.2.1.3 Volume Ref. 8, Appendix A 4, pp. 34-39 The contaminated soil northeast of the railroad tracks appears to be contaminated to a significant horizontal and vertical extent; however, no volume estimate is provided here because of the limited number of available data points. The vertical extent of Source I varies, but contamination has been detected at 8-10 feet below ground surface [ref. 8, Tabfe'4-2]. Extensive ground water contamination exists in the Source 1 vicinity; also indicating that soil contamination extends down to the water table in this area. However, because the volume cannot be adequately determined, the area (Tier D) measure will be used. Volume Assigned Value: 0 2.4.2.1.4 Area The area of the source is based on Figure 3-1 of Reference 8 and Figure 2 of Reference 53. Figure 2 of this documentation record also shows the sample locations used to define Source 1. The area between the samples listed in Table 1 above cannot be measured with certainty, thus the area of Source I is assigned a value of unknown, but greater than zero. Area Assigned Value: >0 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Highest value assigned from reference 1, Table 2-5: >0 July 2001 18 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Source 2: Contaminated Soil in Southern Wood Storage Area of Site Source Tyne: Contaminated Soil Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site): The southern portion of the property includes all areas southeast of the railroad tracks depicted on Figure 2. Activities, known to have taken place south of the railroad tracks include storage of treated wood and response activities conducted by HPC. Most of these activities occurred on the eastern quarter of the property, south of the railroad tracks. In this area of the facility, HPC stored treated wood products in several locations including two buildings and several uncovered areas [ref. 5, p. 2, Figure 2]. The soil in this portion of the property is contaminated with metals, phenolic compounds, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PAHs, and dioxins and furans. According to EPA's Wood Preserving RCRA Compliance Guide, wastes generated at wood preserving plants that use or formerly used chlorophenolic preservative formulations are likely to contain dioxins. The majority of contamination at older facilities that operated for many years before current environmental regulations and disposal options existed was caused by poor management practices, including the allowance of excess preservation called "kickback" to drip onto the ground from treated-chargesof wood. Kickback is wood preservative that is generated from treated wood as the wood begins to return to normal pressure after a pressure treating process [ref. 48, pp. 3-7, 2-8, and 4-22]. This document also notes that preservative drippage and process residuals may accumulate in pathways over which treated wood is transported and in treated wood storage yards including preservative that is washed off treated wood by rainwater [ref. 48, p. 4-4]. This area of the site is level because of filling activities but drops off abruptly by 10 to 20 feet to the south in a line running east -west [ref. 7, p. 2). South of this fill line is a densely wooded wetland area bounded by the Rumford River backwash channel. The extensive filling of the site included the rerouting of the Rumford River from its previous course through this area of the site to its present course to the west [ref. 5, p. 2). The HPC facility originally included only the land between County Street and the railroad tracks as far west as the Rumford River. Land west of the Rumford River was used by Penn Central Railroad for bulk chemical transfer, storage of electric/utility poles, and storage of railroad ties [ref. 8, p. 1]. HPC purchased this land in 1978: In 1981, HPC purchased the land south of the railroad, which had been used for coal storage prior to 1955 [ref. 8, p. 1]. In 1972, a tar mat was discovered on the banks of the Rumford River on the southern portion of the HPC property. It appeared to originate from the eastern bank of the Rumford River [refs. 4, p. 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 1-2; 16, p. 2-1]. HPC took efforts to control the seep using booms and sorbents, installation of a system to pump oil -contaminated ground water, and a treated plywood bulkhead to trap the seepage. In 1973 seepage appeared farther downstream and in 1974, HPC installed four recovery pits along the river [ref. 16, p. 2-1]. By 1982, the recovery system was producing only traces of oil [ref. 4, p. 8]. However, analyses of soil samples by a prospective buyer of the property revealed "oily soils and/or oily groundwater" [ref. 7, p. 7]. According to HPC's consultant Keystone, vandals shot holes in several drums of recovered oil that'were stored on the HPC property along the east bank of the Rumford River and then tipped the drums over allowing the oils to seep into the ground and the river [ref. 16, p. 2-3). . In 1990, after "oily seepage" was again reported on the Rumford River in the vicinity of the HPC property, MADEP issued a request to IIPC for a Short Tenn Measurelo address the imminent hazard to the river caused by on -site operations [ref. 7, p. 7]. Keystone conducted an investigation, sampling stained soil along the river bank and found that a major constituent of the contamination was semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) [ref. 17, p. 2-7]. UPC also collected soil samples during installation of three piezometers located along the river [ref: 17, p. 2-7]. In 1991, HPC constructed a collection trench along the eastern bank of the Rumford River; the intercepted contaminated ground water was used by HPC as process make-up water [ref. 8, p. 1-1]. During a 1993 EPA TAT investigation, EPA personnel observed a pile of contaminated soil, apparently excavated from the trench HPC dug along the Rumford River. Also during this investigation, EPA personnel observed "oily seeps" along the southern edge of the fill line and associated areas of stained soil and stressed vegetation [ref. 5, p.1-2]. EPA collected samples from the "oily seeps," the pile of contaminated soil, and stained soils adjacent to and south of the railroad right-of-way [ref. 5, p• 3]• July 2001 19 The EPA removal action report states that as part of the wood preservation process, HPC allowed chemicals to drip off the treated lumber onto underlying soils. In several portions of the southern area of the site EPA placed temporary caps of geotextile fabric and gravel, including a rectangular area next to a large bedrock outcrop, and areas adjacent to the roadway and near the former storage shed [ref. 4, p. 35]. Many investigations have been conducted to identify the extent of soil contamination in this area of the HPC site, including the following: • Keystone's 1988-89 Phase II Site Investigation required in allotice of Responsibility (NOR) letter from MADEP [ref. 16, pp. 1-1, 3-1, 3-7]• • EPA Region 1 Removal Program's 1993 PA/SI [refs. 4, p. 1; 5, p. 5]. • EPA's 1995 Emergency Removal Action (ERA) [ref. 4, p. 23). • EPA's 1998 Removal Branch sampling event (dioxin contamination assessment) [refs. 40; 49). 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE 2 The analytical results identified below come from two sampling events where soil samples were collected in the Source 2 area (contaminated soil south of the railroad tracks and east of the Rumford River). The VOCs and SVOCs in the first table are from the HPC Phase II sampling event [ref. 16), while the metals and dioxins/furans in the second table are from the 1998 EPA Removal Branch sampling event [ref. 40; 49). To identify the concentrations of hazardous substances -significantly above background, soil samples P-1 and P-2 were used to represent background levels for the non-dioxin/furan hazardous substances. The HPC Phase rI indicates that these two samples may represent concentrations associated with railroad bulk storage [ref. 16, p. 2-9]. The background sample is not used for comparison to chlorinated phenolic compounds because they are not naturally occurring and are directly associated with site operations and wastes at the site. Hazardous Background Source 2 Contaminated Soil Samples Substance (µg/kg Samples unless otherwise specified) _ SQLs have been P-1 P-2 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 PW-1 MW-8B MW-9B MW-10 MW-12 adjusted in order (8-9-) (7.5-8.4') (10-12) (5-7) (5-T) (5-T) (5-7') (5-7) (64) (4-5.5') (8-101) (0-2') (64) to account for °/n moisture 2,3,5,6- NA NA 793.5 6384.13 6035.2 10328.74 368.89 <100 <100 250.52 1081.93 <100 4079.92 tetrachlorophenol I 2,4,-dichlorophenol NA NA 975.64 <300 <300 <250 <50.0 <50.0 246.96 <50.0 225.84 1104 849.63 2,4-dimethylphenol NA NA <50 <300 <300 <250 <50.0 196.88 92.76 275.36 <50 177.60 351.21 pentachlorophenol NA NA 16937 110515 111801 95015 <100 <100 193 <100 <100 <100 <100 benzene <20 <20 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20 _ <20,0 <20 36 109 toluene <20 <20 <20.0 23.82 <20.0 <20.0 39.84 <20.0 <20 <20.0 <20 30.4 <100 xylenes <30 <30 140.37 <30.0 <30.0 <30.0 <30.0 <30.0 <30 <30.0 <30 30 3510 total PAHs ND ND 3375.10 2567.70 2011.90 1779.32 ND ND ND ND 82.41 260.46 25142.3 total copper (ppm) 8.04 16.3 11.3 14.7 12.6 11.8 13 12.8 6.33 6.35 8.19 2.13 12.2 total chromium 10.7 9.75 31.5 10.8 9.88 14.2 10.6 10.6 7.78 7.83 14.2 19.4 3.11 (ppm) total arsenic (ppm) 1.33 3.54 1.67 7.25 1.06 1.62 1.32 <1.00 <1.00 5 1.44 2.32 1.04 Reference i 16, Table 2-4, Appendix C, pp. C3-C48 NA = Not applicable (no background needed). Substance is associated with site operations only. NO = Not detected above detection limit. July 2001 20 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE 2, CONTINUED Six soil samples were collected by EPA's Removal Branch in 1998. The analytical results of these samples are provided below. Although no sample is designated as background, sample SSHP06 is impacted least by activities at HPC. Therefore, although SSHP06 may be impacted by HPC releases, it is used to compare with samples SS11P0l through SSHP05 [ref. 49]. Sample locations are shown on Figure 4 of the final SI [ref. 49). Hazardous Substance (ppb Background Sample Source 2 Contaminated Soil Samples unless otherwise specified) CRQL/ SSHP06 SSHPOI SSHP02 SSHP03 SSHPO4 SSHP05 CRDL surficial surficial surficial surficial surficia] surficial arsenic (ppm) 2 39.53 3693 23.5 1 21.7 J 82.2 J 33.2 J chromium (ppm) 2 5.7 392 12.3 91.8 162 125 copper (ppm) 5 4.8 265 224 50.2 64.2 43.0 Reference 36, T2; 37 Tl 37, Table 1 36, Table 2 37, Table 1 pentachlorophenol 830 ND 1300 340J. 480 1 ND 820 1 Reference 38, T3; 39, T1 39, Table 1 38, Table 3 39, Table I 2,3,7,8-TCDD NR ND 4.77 J 1.011 ND 1.26 J 3.52 J 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD NR 1.98 J 34.2 J ND 28.1 J 10.2 J 25.5 J 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD NR ND 79.7 J ND 70.4 J 22.81 47 J L2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD NR 12.8 J 2981 83.8 J 228 J 53 J 135 J 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD - NR ND 143 J 38.2 J 132 J 40.6 J 87.2 J 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD NR 352 J 7020 J 2370 J 3710 J 1130 J 3280 J 2,3,7,8-TCDF NR ND 2.34 J ND 1.09 J ND 2.1 J L2,3,7,8-PeCDF _ NR ND 11.9 J ND 9.321 3.33 J 9.54 J 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NR ND 8.55 J 2.85 J 5.96 J 2.571 6.75 J 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF . NR 0.4581 144 J 40.2 J 87.13 30.6 J 106 J 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF NR 6.8 J 207 J 34 J 217 J 81.81 261-1 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF NR ND 59.4 J 17.3 J 33.7 J 153 0.11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NR 157 J 2710 J 9023 1060 J 5983 24601 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF NR 15.3 J 328 J 109 J 1951 61.9 J 222 J Reference 40, Data Summary Table CRDL = Contract Required Detection Limit (for metals only). CRQL = Contract Required Quantitation Limit (for organic compounds). J - Quantitation is estimated due to factors identified in the quality control review (see reference 40, Table 1). NR - Not reported. Detection limits are only reported when the sample -specific concentrations is below its detection limit. ND - Not detected above the CRQL, CRDL, or DL. July 2001 21 2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY Containment Release to ground water: This contaminated soil source was not intended to be a waste management unit and has come to be located here via migration, deposition, and spills of wastes. No evidence exists to indicate that a liner is present below the contaminated soil. The extreme depth of contamination also indicates that no liner is present. None of the borings within the source area appear to have encountered a liner. Release via overland migration and/or flood: The source contains neither of the following: a maintained, engineered cover or functioning and maintained run-on control system and run-off management system. Although EPA has paved and graveled various areas of the source, no system has been installed to manage run-on and run-off. 2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Containment Factor Value Ref. 10 16, Table 2-4 Insufficient information is available to estimate the hazardous constituent quantity. 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Insufficient information is available to estimate the hazardous wastestream quantity. 2.4.2.1.3 Volume 10 41 pp. 34-39 The contaminated soil southeast of the railroad tracks appears to be contaminated to a significant horizontal and vertical extent; however, no volume estimate is provided here because of the limited number of available subsurface data points. The vertical extent of Source 2 varies, but has beendetectedat 8-10 feet below ground surface [ref. 8, Table 4-2]. Extensive ground water contamination exists in the Source 2 vicinity, also indicating that soil contamination extends down to the water table in this area. Because the volume of Source 2 cannot be adequately determined, the volume of Source 2 is assigned a value of zero and the area (Tier D) measure will be used. Volume Assigned Value: 0 2.4.2.1.4 Area The horizontal area of the source is based on Figure 3-1 of Reference 8 and Figure 2 of Reference 53. The samples used to define Source 2 are also depicted on Figure 2 of this documentation record. The area of Source 2 is unknown, but greater than zero. Volume Assigned Value: >0 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Highest value assigned from reference 1, Table 2-5: >0 July 2001 22 SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Source - Containment Factor Value by Pathway Source Hazardous .. Source No. HazardousConstituent Waste -Quantity Value : Quantity - Complete? -.(Y/[ Ground Water (GW) Surface Water (SW) Air (Table 34) Overland/flood (Table 4-2) . , ; GW to SWf . (Table 3-2j; Gas. (Table 6-3) Particulate (Table 6-9 I >0 N 10 10 NS NS NS 2 >0 N 10 10 NS NS NS NS = Not Scored Description of Other Possible Sources -- - - - There are several possible sources at the HPC site that have not been used for scoring in this HRS documentation record. Some of these other possible sources are described below. These hazardous substances in theses other possible sources are described in the Site Description section of this documentation record. 1. ASTs and USTs: A total of 32 above or below ground chemical or waste storage tanks were identified on the property during the Emergency Removal Action performed by EPA from December 1993 to September 1995 [ref. 4, Appendix B, Table C-1]. 2. CCA. PCP, and Dricon`' drip pads: Large drip pads were used to allow excess CCA, PCP, or Dricon" to drip onto the ground from freshly treated wood. There were separate dip pads located in the main operating area of the HPC facility for wood treated with CCA, PCP, or Dricon" [ref. 49, p. 4, Figure 3]. 3. CCA, PCP, and Dricon" sumps: The sumps were used to capture excess drippings from the treated wood placed on the drip pads. There is a sump for each of the CCA, PCP, and Dricon" drip pads. According to the EPA's removal action report, these were filled with chemicals and sludge [ref. 4, Table C-1]. 4. Drums and miscellaneous small containers: Drums containing flammable liquids, contaminated dust and debris, small containers of spent batteries, and miscellaneous chemicals were found abandoned on the site when the EPA removal team first entered. These materials were disposed of off site by the EPA removal team [ref. 4, Table C-1]. 5. Other contaminated soil: A ditch from the treating area runs south of and parallel to the railroad tracks between the railroad tracks and the bedrock outcrop. Monitoring well MW-6, located in the vicinity of this former ditch; has shown high levels of PCP [ref. 8, p. 4-12]. Upon constructing the STM trench/recovery system, BPC contractors stored a pile of approximately 4 cubic yards of "oil -stained" soil near the construction location [refs. 18, p. 2-2; 19). This pile was again observed on the site during a START site visit in April 1998 [ref. 50, p. 7). July 2001 23 3.0 GROUNDWATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Ground Water Migration Pathwav Description The site is located approximately 30 miles west of the Atlantic coast. Present topography at the site has little relief, except the bedrock outcrop in the southern half of the site, which has an elevation approximately 20 feet above the surrounding terrain, and the river channel which bisects the plant from north to south. Because the site has been extensively filled, its original topography is unknown [ref. 8, p. 2-1]. The EPC site is located within the Mohawk Division of the New England physiographic province. The State of Massachusetts is characterized, geologically, by largely unconformable, exposed metamorphic and igneous bedrock, which have been further deformed and complicated by major faults and folds. The southeastern portion of the state and part of Rhode Island are dominated by a major depositional area, the Narragansett Basin, formed in the Triassic -Jurassic period [ref. 8, p. 3-1]. The site is located in Mansfield, which lies approximately four miles south of the contact between the Narragansett Basin and the adjacent igneous bedrock of the Proterozoic. The uppermost bedrock unit in the basin, the Dighton Conglomerate, has been identified only in the southwestern section of the basin east of Mansfield. The Dighton overlies the Rhode Island Formation of the Pennsylvanian, which is the uppermost bedrock beneath the site. Faults in the underlying crystalline bedrock near the _ border of the basin trend north-northeast and their impact appears to diminish within the basin due to the depth of the overlying sedimentary formations. The east -northwest trending Mansfield Syncline lies to the south of the Hatheway and Patterson facility and has a south-southwest dip, thus exerting a gentle south-southeast dip in the Rhode Island Formation [ref. 8, p. 3-1]. The unconsolidated deposits which immediately overlie bedrock throughout much of the Narragansett Basin are composed of -till from the various glacial episodes. In some areas this till layer is approximately 15 feet thick. The glacial till is highly permeable and composed of fine to coarse sandy gravel with lenses of sand, silt, and clay. Deposition of this material in preglacial valleys has provided thick sequences of permeable material which are a major source of ground water for public water systems. Near rivers and streams, the glacial till unit has been largely eroded and replaced by recent.alluvial sand and gravel channel deposits. The near -surface deposits (sometimes overlain by fill) at the Hatheway and Patterson facility are primarily composed of these alluvial materials deposited by the Rumford River. The alluvium is sometimes underlain by a thin layer of glacial till, but frequently it is in direct contact with the underlying bedrock. The bedrock beneath the site slopes steeply from north to south at a ratio of approximately 1:8, with an anomalous outcrop south of the railroad tracks [ref. 8, pp. 3- 1, 3-2, 3-3, Figures 3-2 and 3-3]. The saturated interval was encountered during drilling at an approximate depth of 6 feet below grade, throughout the site. At those locations where bedrock was encountered at shallow depths, the saturated interval was elevated, generally 3 feet below grade. Ground water elevations in shallow monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5A, MW-6, and MW-7A) were used to determine ground water flow patterns at the site. The ground water elevations indicated that shallow ground water flows in a south/southwesterly direction in the eastern portion of the site, toward the Rumford River and the Rumford River backwash channel [ref. 8, p. 3-3 and Figure 3-41. The MADEP has reported that subsurface contamination likely flows through the former beds of the Rumford River (alluvial deposits) as indicated by seep outbreaks observed along south-central property areas, and historical outbreaks of tar mats along the Rumford River as it now passes by former riverbed flow paths. The flow course of the Rumford River has been altered several times in the past [ref. 5, p. 9]. Prior to 1850, it flowed west -to -east through the former operations area, turning southward between the current location of the Mill Building and the Cylinders No.I and 2 Building, continuing to the Rumford River backwash channel. Between 1945 and 1950, its flow was altered to its current course [ref. 8, p. 3-5]. To address imminent hazard, in 1990 the MADEP issued HPC a Request for STM. HPC's consultant installed a system to control ground water and oils migrating to the Rumford River from the oil -stained portion of the river bank [Refs. 5, p. 8; 7, p. 7, 8; 17, p. 1-1; 19, Figure 1]. In 1993, following HPC's bankruptcy filing, the ground water treatment system ceased operation. At that time, a layer of oil was detected floating on ground water in monitoring wells that had previously been clean. EPA and Penney Engineering, HPC's environmental consultant, speculate that the significant amount of water used to fight a fire at the adjacent agricultural supply facility in July 1993 affected the flow of contaminants in the ground water. It was also determined that the PCP contaminated oil was moving off the property to the southeast, into the wetlands, the Rumford River, and eventually to Fulton's Pond [Ref. 5, p. 8]. July 2001 24 GW-General Aquifer/Stratum 1 (shallowest): Alluvial/Glacial Deposits Recent alluvial sand and gravel channel deposits and glacial till comprise the uppermost stratum beneath the site. The near - surface deposits (sometimes overlain by fill) at the Hatheway and Patterson facility are composed of these alluvial materials. Site -specific geologic information generated during December of 1987 indicated that the uppermost unit generally encountered at the site is composed of various fill materials (approximately 2 feet in depth), underlain by the alluvial unit composed of sand with little to some gravel and little silt. The alluvial unit is sometimes underlain by a thin layer of till. The alluvial/glacial deposits range in depth at the site from 0 feet (at the bedrock outcrop) to more than 35 feet (MW-7B) closer to the Rumford River [Refs. 8, Appendix A;16, Appendix B]. No intervening layers exist between the alluvial/glacial deposits and the underlying bedrock aquifer [ref. 8, pp. 3-1 to 3-41. The ground water flow in this stratum is unconfined and generally to the south/southwest, parallel to the Rumford River. Flow gradients on the western side of the Rumford River were not determined due to too few measurement locations to triangulate the flow direction [ref. 8, pp.3-3, 3-4, Table 3-1, Figure 3-41. The average hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial deposits - beneath the site, as measured by contractors for HPC is 3.6 x 10' centimeters per second (cm/sec.), based on measurements from MW-2, MW-4, and MW-7A [ref 8, p. 3-4). Aquifer/Stratum 2 (deepest): Bedrock (Rhode Island Formation) The Dighton overlays the Rhode Island Formation of the Pennsylvanian, which is the uppermost bedrock beneath the site. Faults in the underlying crystalline bedrock near the border of the basin trend north-northeast and their impact appears to diminish within the basin due to the depth of the overlying sedimentary formations. The east -northwest trending Mansfield Syncline lies to the south of the HPC facility and has a south-southwest dip, thus exerting agentle south-southeast dip in the Rhode Island Formation fref. 8, p. 3-I]. Ground water in the bedrock stratum exists in faults and fissures and the bedrock has an average hydraulic conductivity of 5.66 x 10' cm/sec: [ref. 16, p. 2-2, Appendix D]. Ground water levels in the bedrock stratum are consistent with those in the overlying alluvial/glacial stratum, indicating that ground water in the bedrock and alluvial/glacial stratum act as a single hydrogeologic unit [ref. 16, Table 2-1, Figures 2-7 to 2-111. In addition, the hydraulic conductivities of the alluvial/glacial deposits (shallowest stratum) and the bedrock (deepest stratum) are within an order of magnitude [refs. 8, p. 3-4; 16, Appendix D]. Ground water contamination, attributed to the site, has also been detected in all three on -site bedrock monitoring wells [ref. 16, Table 2-6]. For HITS scoring purposes, these two stratum are evaluated as a single aquifer. July 2001 25 GW-General 3,1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE 3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE Aquifer Being Evaluated: Alluvial/Glacial/Bedrock (from this point on referred to as the alluvium/bedrock aquifer) Direct Observation An observed release by direct observation is not evaluated in this documentation record. Chemical Analvsis In November 1987, as part of a Phase I investigation required under an MAEQE notice of noncompliance, HPC's consultant, Keystone Environmental Resources (Keystone) installed monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-4, MW-5A, MW-513, MW-6, MW-7A, and MW-713 to determine potential sources areas. MW-1 was installed at a location hydraulically upgradient of the other wells, and on a lateral gradient with, and adjacent to, the wood -treating area (ref. 8, p. 3-2). In response to a Notice of Responsibility from MAEQE, Keystone performed a Phase II investigation for HPC, including the installation of 6 additional monitoring wells MW-8A, MW-813, MW-9A, MW-913, MW-10, and MW-11. In addition, Keystone installed two piezometers P-I and P-2, and an additional pump test/monitoring well, PW-1 [ref. 16, pp. 2-2, 2-3]. Although numerous sampling events document hazardous substances in the alluvium/bedrock aquifer attributed to the HPC site, the analytical results of the December 1989 Phase II Site Investigation and Preliminary Health and Environmental Assessment (Phase II Site Investigation), prepared for HPC [ref. 16] are presented below to document the observed release to the alluvium/bedrock aquifer. The Phase II Site Investigation refers to three rounds of samples collected from each monitoring well (February 6, 1989, March 2, 1989, and April 5, 1989) [ref. 16, p. 2-6]. However, results from only selected wells were provided for the February and April events [ref. 16, Appendix C]. Therefore, this documentation record will use the results from the March 2 sampling event to document an observed release to ground water by chemical analysis. Additional ground water sampling events are summarized following the Phase 11 Site Investigation results. - Background Sample: One monitoring well (MW-11) is located hydraulically upgradient of the site and is less impacted by the site. Samples collected from MW-11 do show some contamination originating from the site (e.g., total copper and total chromium); however, it reflects background conditions for most site -related hazardous substances [ref. 16, pp. 2-10, 2-19, 3-25, App. C1. MW-I is considered an observed release well because although it is slightly upgradient of the operations at the site, it is immediately adjacent to, and hydraulically lateral from, the former treating area (part of Source 1). Samples from MWA also show significant contamination attributable to the site [ref. 16, Fig. 2-1, p. 2-14]. Two of the monitoring wells used to establish the observed release by chemical analysis are entirely screened in the bedrock; MW-813 and MW-9B [ref. 16, Appendix B]. Currently, there are no upgradient or "background" wells screened in the bedrock aquifer to establish a background level for the bedrock stratum. The analytical results from these two bedrock wells are compared to the background alluvium well results for two reasonsi (I) the water levels in these wells reflect water table (unconfined) conditions similar to those in the alluvium wells; and (2) HPC's Phase R Site Investigation states that contamination in these deep bedrock wells is a result of downward migration of contamination from the site [ref. 16, p. 2-19 and Table 2-1]. The slope of bedrock/alluvium interface beneath the site makes it possible for some of the alluvium wells to be deeper than some bedrock wells (e.g., MW-7B and MW-8B) [ref. 16, Table 2-1, Figs. 2-3 and 2-4]. July 2001 26 GW-Likelihood of Release Sample ID MWA I MSL = mean sea level Stratum alluvium - Contaminated Samples: Screened Interval (feet above 171.21-161.21' Date Reference 3/2/89 16, Table 3-1, p. 3-3a. Sample ID Stratum Screened Interval (feet above MSL) Date Reference MW-1 alluvium 170.35-165.35 3/2/89 8, App. A; 16, p. 2-6 MW-2 alluvium 169.5-159.5 3/2/89 8, App, A; 16, p. 2-6 MW-3 alluvium 168.47-158.47 3/2/89 8, App. A; 16. P. 2-6 MW-4 alluvium 168.51-158.51 3/2/89 8, App. A; 16, p. 2-6 MW-5A alluvium 170.58-160.58 3/2/89 8, App. A; 16, p.2-6 MW-5B alluvium/bedrock 157.1-147.1 3/2/89 8, App. A; 16, p. 2-6 MW-6 alluvium' Unknown' 3/2/89 8, App. A MW-7A alluvium 168-158' 3/2/89 16,Fig. 2-3 MW-713 alluvium 148-1382 3/2/89 16, Fig. 2-3 MW-8A alluvium 168.56-159.56' 3/2/89 16, App. B, p. 2-6 MW-8B bedrock 149.45-139.45' 3/2/89 16, App. B, p. 2-6 MW-9A alluvium 168.83-158.83' 3/2/89 16, App. B, p. 2-6 MW-913 bedrock 125.85-115.85' 3/2/89 16, App. B, p. 2-6 MW-10 alluvium 162.79-152.79' 3/2/89 16, App. B, p. 2-6 MW-12 alluvium 168.59-158.59' 3/2/89 16, App. B, p. 2-6 Concentrations in Background and Contaminated Samples (3/89) [ref. 16] Concentrations are in µg/L, unless otherwise indicated. Concentrations meeting the observed release criteria [ref. 1, table 2-3) are shown in bold and underlined. Concentrations preceeded by a less than sign (<) are the detection limits. Hazardous Substance Bkgd Sample Contaminated Samples MW-11 MW-I MW-2 I MW-3 MW4 MW- 5A MW- 5B MW-6 MW- 7A MW- -7B MW- 8A MW- 8B MW- 9A MW- 9B MW- 10 MW- 12 arsenic (soluble) <10.0 14.7 29.0 122 <]0.0 38.2 142 214 <10.0 956 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 arsenic (total) <10.0 936 41.2 ]920 66.9 82.2 654 276 29.0 865 17.4 <10.0 16.2 <10.0 <10.0 14.5 'The monitoring well casing elevations listed in Reference 16 (Table 2-1 and Appendix B) are incorrect based on comparisons with the USGS topographic map (see ref. 3) and the well logs from the Keystone Soils and Hydrogeologic Investigation (see ref. 8, Appendix A). By comparing the elevations to Appendix A ofreference 8 and confirming the general site elevations with the topographic map, it was determined that the monitoring well casing elevations listed in Reference 16 (Table 2-1 and Appendix B) are 75.4 feet too low. The reason for this error appears to be an incorrect transcription of elevations on the well logs in Appendix B of reference 16. Therefore, the well casing elevations for those wells that only appear in reference 16 Appendix B (i.e., M W-8A to MW-12, which were installed after the Soils and Hydrogeologic Investigation) have been corrected to account for this error. Therefore, 75.4 feet has been added to each of the screen intervals in the cited reference. 2 Well logs are not available for MW-7A, MW-7B, and MW-6. Screen intervals for wells MW-7A and MW-7B are estimated based on a cross-section [ref. 16, Fig. 2-3). Reference 16 refers to MW-6 as a "shallow" well. Other "shallow" wells discussed in Reference 16 are all screened in the alluvium. Therefore, MW-6 is evaluated as an alluvium well. July 2001 27 GW-Likelihood of Release Hazardous Substance Bkgd. Sample Contaminated Sampies MW-11 MW-1 MW2 MW-3 MW-4 MW- 5A MW- 5B MW-6 1v1W- 7A MW- 7B MW- 8A MW- 8B MW- 9A MW- 911 MW- 10 MW- 12 chromium (soluble) <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 14.5 <10.0 15.3 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 40.0 <10.0 <10.0 chromium (total) 216 478 206 2890 350 1400 33.9 229 111 36.3 1590 <10.0 303 <10.0 193 481 - copper (soluble) <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 copper (total) 289 41./ 228 380 946 159 <25 62.2 83.8 <25 476 <25 537 <25 372 424 Reference 16, Tab 2-6, App. C (pp. C128, C129, and C130) Second Round Sampling acenaph- thene <2.00 - <2.00 42 18.3 <2.00 105 2.10 - - 364 6.66 - <2.00 106 <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 5.98 - 303 - acenaph- thalene <2.00 <2.00 252 12.8 <2.00 34.8 2.54 83.1 <2.00 <2.00 14.1 <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 NR 289 anthracene <0.500 <0.500 44_0 _ _ 1.30 <0.500 3.13. <0.500 15.6 <0.500 <0.500 12.0 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 22.4 benzo(a) anthracene <0.020 <0.020 3.27 NR <0.020 NR <0.020 NR NR <0.020 NR <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 NR benzo(a) pyrene <0.020 <0.020 1.35 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.751 <0.020 <0.020 1.08 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.158 - benzo(b)fl uoranthene <0.020 0.024 1.37 0.026 <0.020 0.295 <0.020 1.43 0.021 <0.020 1.34 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.679 - benzo(ghi) perylene <0.050 <0.050 2.54 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.803 <0.050 <0.050 1.23 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.336 - benzo(k)fl- uoranthene <0.020 <0.020 0.613 0.026 <0.020 0.128 <0.020 0.756 <0.020 <0.020 0.608 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.295 - chrysene <0.150 <0.150 6.08 NR <0.150 NR <0.150 NR NR <0.150 i I NR <0,150 <0.150 <0.150 <0.150 NR dibenz(ah) anthracene <0.030 <0.030 5.96 <0.030 <0.030 0.225 <0.030 0.787 <0.030 <0.030 1.69 <0.030 <0.030 <0.030 <0.030 0.847 - fluoran- thene <0.200 <0.200 18.2 NR <0.200 NR <0.200 NR NR <0.200 NR <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 NR fluorene - <0.200 <0.200 144 12.6 <0.200 46.1 0.304 157 1.01 <0.200 83.7 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 1.71 365 indeno(12 3cd)pyrene <0.050 <0.050 1.91 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.706 <0.050 <0.050 1.15 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.355 - phenan- threne <0.500 <0.500 290 46 <0.500 702 <0.500 457 0.628 <0.500 327 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 1340 pyrene <0.200 <0.200 14.7 NR <0.200 1. NR <0.200 NR NR <0.200 NR <0.200 <0.200 1 <0.200 1 <0.2001 NR Reference 16, App. C (pp. C169 to C184) Second Round Sampling 2,3,5,6- letrachloro phenol <1.00 - 17.2 <100 166 <1.00 4400 44.1 6360 <100 92.1 1190 37.1 15.1 <10.0 <100 1760 - 2,4,6-tri- chloro- phenol <1.00 <1.00 <100 155 <1.00 796 6.48 1300 <100 <10.0 237 - 9.26 <1.00 <10.0 <100 1350 - 2,4- dichloro- phenol 9.04 <0.500 <50.0 <5.00 <0.500 316 6.09 957 <50.0 <5.00 107 5.20 <0.500 <5.00 <50.0 <50.0 2,4- dimethyl- phenol <0.500 <0.500 <50.0 34.2 <0.500 250. <0.500 609 <50.0 <5.00 ]07 <0.500 <0.500 <5.00 <50.0 403 July 2001 28 GW-Likelihood of Release Hazardous Substance Bkgd. Sample Contaminated Samples MW-II MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW- 5A MW- 5B MW-6 MW- 7A MW- 7B MW- 8A MW- 8B MW- 9A MW- 9B MW- 10 MW- 12 2,4-dinitr- ophenol <1.00 <1.00F<5.00 1.00 <100 4.00 1670 <100 <10.0 1340 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <100 1270 2-chloro- phenol <0.500 <0.500.500 <50.0 <0.500 <50.0 <50.0 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.733 <5.00 <50.0 <50.0 2-nitro- phenol <0.500 <0.500.500 <50.0 <0.500 317 <50.0 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <5.00 <50.0 <50.0 4-nitro- phenol4-chloro- <1.00 <1.001.00 2260 <1.00 4460 <100 <10.0 1020 <I.00 3.06 <10.0 <100 2010 3-methyl- phenol <0.500 <0.500.500 2120 <0.500 3790 <50.0 <5.00 348 <0.500 <0.500 <5.00 <50.0 1820 pentachlor ophenol <1.00 13.4 1810 1020 <1.00 4110 46.7 17400 1090 1780 1040 7.53 - 25.9 237 <100 7850 phenol 0.613 2.38 <50.0 <5.00 <0.500 1 <50.0 1 3.96 1 <50.0 <50.0 <5.00 <5.00 1.31 1.28 <5.00 <50.0 <50.0 Reference 16, App. C (pp. C150 to C165) Second Round Sampling benzene <0.200 <0.200 <2.00 <2.00 <0.200 <2.00 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 0.662 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 -toluene <0.200 <0.200 10.8 10.8 0.382 <2.00 4.13 0.417 4.41 16.7 0.243 0208ethyl benzene <0.200 <0.200 2,60 <2.00 <0.200 <2.00 :0.200<0.200 0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 10.1 xylene <0.300 <0.300 326 46 <0.300 <3.00 0.300 7.55 0.705 <0.300 3.99 0.431 <0.300 <0.300 8.57 117 xeterence I - 16, App. C (pp. C131 to C146) Second Round Sampling NR = Not Reported MADEP Ground Water Sampling - June 1998 In June 1998, MADEP collected samples from monitoring wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-5A, MW-5B, MW-6, MW-7A, MW-8B, MW-913, MW-10, and MW-12 [ref 51, p. 24). All samples were analyzed for base/neutral acid extractables (BNAs) using EPA Method 8270, metals (total and dissolved), phenol, and other substances using various methods [ref. 51, p. 24]. Samples collected from MW-5A and MW-12 were analyzed for dioxins and furans as part of this sampling event [ref. 51, p. 8). The sample collected from MW-12 was considered `oil," as it represented product floating on the top of the aquifer [ref. 51, p. 23]. Analytical results showed extensive contamination of various substances. Selected concentrations detected in a ground water sample from MW-12 include: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at up to 37.6 parts per trillion (ppt); 2;3,7,8- tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran (TCDF) at up to 211 ppt; 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin-(HXCDD) at 14,860 pint, 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 352,060 ppt; total TCDD at 227 ppt, total TCDF at 2,460 ppt; total HxCDD at 790,840 ppt; and total heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) at 4,316,360 ppt. Additional hazardous substances detected in the ground water samples include pentachlorophenol at 1,710 pg/L in MW-5A, at 1,700 pg/L in MW-7A, and 1,220 pg/L in MW-5B; and arsenic at 363 pg/L in MW-3 and at 219 pg/L in MW-6 [ref. 51, pp. 5-9]. No samples were collected from MW-I1, the background well, during this round of sampling, therefore, these concentrations are presented to further support the observed release documented by the 1989 Phase II Site Investigation. Attribution: The hazardous substances detected at observed release concentrations in ground water are attributed to operations and sources at the HPC site. They are found in sources at the site, which were not contained against a release to ground water [see sections 2.2.2 for Sources 1 and 2]. The substances detected in the observed release by chemical analysis consist of either the constituents of wood preserving materials used at the site or substances created by the transformation of constituents used at the site [refs. 16, p. 1-2; 52, Box C; 45, p. 1]. From 1953 to 1993, HPC preserved wood products using a number of chemicals, July 2001 29 GW-Likelihood of Release including: PCP in fuel oil, creosote, fluoro-chrome-arsenate-phenol salts in water, and chromated-copper-arsenate salts in water [refs. 4, pp. 5-8; 16, pp. 1-1, 1-2; 49, p. 4]. The wood products treated at HPC were allowed to drip onto the ground or onto concrete drip pads that were found to be riddled with cracks, gaps, and corroded areas during a RCRA inspection [ref. 7, p. 8]. The former General Manager and President of HPC (from 1973 to 1993) admits in sworn testimony that PCP, CCA, and other wood treating products were allowed to drip onto bare soil throughout the entire site [ref. 44, pp. 30, 32, 61]. HPC's Phase II report concludes that "...environmental impact from plant operations has been defined to the north, by MW-1 and MWA I and to the west by MW-4" fref. 16, p. 2-19]. HPC's Phase II report further concludes that deep wells MW-713 and MW-913 indicate vertical migration attributable to the site into the lower alluvial aquifer and the upper bedrock aquifer [ref. 16, p. 2-19]. HPC also admits that the ground water contamination plume extends within the Rumford River backwash channel area [ref. 16, p. 2-19). In addition, the ground water well closest to the Rumford River and the Rumford River backwash channel (MW-10) has consistently shown contamination (including PCP and PAHs) attributable to the HPC site, indicating contaminant migration toward, and even entering, surface water [ref. 16, Figure 2-17). No other possible sources of ground water contamination in the vicinity of the site are referred to in any of the investigation reports used to prepare this documentation record. Hazardous Substances in the Observed Release Arsenic (total and soluble) Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Chromium (total and soluble) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Copper (total) Benzo(k)fluoranthene Acenaphthene Chrysene Acenaphthalene Dibenz(ah)anthracene Anthracene Fluoranthene Benzo(a)anthracene Fluorene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Phenanthrene 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol Pyrene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Pentachlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol Phenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol Benzene 2,4-Dinitrophenol Toluene 2-Chlorophenol Ethylbenzene 2-Nitrophenol Xylene 4-Nitrophenol 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol July 2001 30 GW-Likelihood of Release 3,2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY Hazardous Substance Source No. Toxicity Factor IMobility Factor Present in I Toxicity/ I Reference Value Value Observed Mobility - - Release? (Table 3-9) arsenic 1,2 10000 1 - Y 10000 2, p. B-2 chromium 1,2 10000 1 y 10000 2, p. B-5 copper 2 ... - 1 Y - ... 2, p. B-6 acenaphthene 1 10 1 Y 10 2, p. B-1 acenaphthylene 1 ,,, 1 y 2, p, B-1 anthracene 1,2 10 1 Y 10 2, p. B-2 benzo(a)anthracene 2 1000 1 Y 1000 2, p. B-2 benzo(a)pyrene 1,2 10000 1 Y 10000 2, p. B-2 benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 ... I Y ... 2, p. B-3 benzo(b)fluoranthene 2 1000 1 Y 1000 2, p. B-3 benzo(k)fluoranthene 1,2 100 1 Y 100 2, p. B-3 butylbenzyl phthalate 2 10 0.01 N 0.1 2, p. B-4 dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2 10000 1 Y 10000 2, p.B-7 dibenzofuran 2 .., 0.01 N 2, p. B-7 di-n-octyl phthalate 2 100 0.0001 N 0.01 2, p. B-7 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 1000 1 Y 1000 2, p. B-12 chrysene 1,2 10 1 Y 10 2, p. B-5 fluoraathene 2 100 I y 100 2, p. B-10 fluorene 1,2 100 I Y 100 2, p. B-10 phenanthrene 1,2 .,. 1 Y- ... 2, p. B-16 pyrene 2 100 1 Y 100 2, p. B-17 naphthalene 1 100 1 N 100 2, p. B-14 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 1 10 1 Y 10 2, p. B-19 2,4-dichlorophenol 1,2 1000 I Y 1000 2, p. B-8 2,4-dimethylphenol _ 1,2 100 1 Y 100 2, p. B-8 2,4-dinitrophenol 1 1000 I Y 1000 2, p. B-9 2-chlomphenol 1 100 1 Y 100 2, p. B-5 2-nitrophenol I I 1 Y 1 2, p. B-15 4-nitrophenol 1 1 I Y 1 2, p. B-15 4-methylphenol (aka, p-cresol) 2 100 I N 100 2, p. B-6 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol 1 100 1 N 100 2, p. B-9 4-chloro-3-methylphenol 1,2 1 1 Y 1 2, p. B-5 2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol 1,2 NA NA Y NA -- pentachlorophenol 1,2 100 1 Y - 100 2, p. B-16 phenol 1 1 1 Y I 2, p. B-16 hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2 10000 0.01 N 100 2, p. B-12 benzene 2 100 1 Y 100 2, p. B-2 toluene 2 10 1 Y 10 2, p. B-19 ethyl benzene - 10 - I Y 10 2, p. B-10 xylenes (used lowest value) 2 1 1 Y 1 2, p. B-20 July 2001 31 GW-Waste Characteristics Hazardous Substance 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NA = Not Available in reference 2. = No value listed in SCDM. Source No. Toxicity Factor Value iMobilityFactor Value Present in Observed Release? Toxicity/ Mobility I (Table 3-9) Reference 2 10000 0.0001 N 1 2, p. B-16 2 10000 0,0001 N 1 2, p. B-11 2 10000 0.0001 N 1 2, p. B-11 2 10000 0.0001 N 1 2, P. B-16 2 10000 0.0001 N 1 2, p. B-16 2 10000 0.0001 N 1 2, p. B-I 1 2 10000 0.0001 N 1 2, p. B-11 Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10000 [Ref. 1, Table 3-9] 3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity 1 contaminated soil >0 2 contaminated soil >0 Sum of Values: >0 3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10 _ Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10 [Ref. 1, Table 2-6 and section 2.4.2.2] Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 18 (Table 2-7) July 2001 32 GW-Waste Characteristics 3.3 TARGETS 3.3.1 NEAREST WELL Well ID: Cate Springs Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): potential If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: >1 - 2 Reference: 9; 20, p. 3 The Cate Springs well No. 1 is located off Maple St., east of the site by approximately 1.2 miles [ref. 20, p. 3; Figure 3 of this report]. Figure 3 of this report shows the drinking water supply wells within 4 radial miles of the HPC site [Figure 3 of this report; ref. 9]. Nearest Well Factor Value: 5 (ref. 1, Table 3-11) July 2001 33 GW-Targets 3.3.2 POPULATION 3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination Although private drinking water wells exist within 4 miles of the HPC site, these private wells have not been scored in this documentation record [ref. 27]. Four municipalities have public drinking water wells within 4 miles of the sources at the HPC site [see Figure 3 of this documentation record]. The four municipalities are the Town of Marisfield, the Town of Foxborough, the Town of Sharon, and the Town of Easton [refs. 9; 20; 21; 22; 24; 26]. Each municipality's water supply system is described below. Town of Mansfield Water Department (MWD) The water supply system for the Town of Mansfield is provided by the MWD and serves a total population of 20,400 people (6,540 service connections) (ref. 20, p. 1, 3], The system includes eight wells: 1. Cate Springs Well No. 1; 2. Albertini Well No. 2; 3. Albertini Well No. 3; 4. Witch Pond Well No. 6; 5. Dustin Well No. 7; 6. Prescott Well No. 8; 7. Prescott Well No. 9; and 8. Walsh Well No. I 1 (considered a single well -as noted by its having only one water supply ID No.-, although it consists of 42 co -located, blended wells) [ref. 20]. All of the wells draw from the alluvium/glacial aquifer (referred to as the "overburden" in the reference) and the entire system is blended prior to distribution [ref. 20]. No one well contributes greater than 40% to the overall system (the total contribution of the largest well, the Walsh Well, is only 25% of the total system) [ref. 20, p. 3]. One additional well, Albertini Well No. 4, is no longer used [ref. 20, p. 1]. All eight wells are located within 4 miles of the HPC site [ref. 20, p. 3; Figure 3]. Calculation: 20,400 people/8 wells = 2,550 people per well. Town ofFoxboroueh Water Department (FWD) The water supply system for the Town ofFoxborough is supplied by the FWD and serves a total population of approximately 16,500 people [ref. 26, p. 1]. The system includes I 1 wells (Well Nos. 1, 2a, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13) located throughout six well stations (Station Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4, and 5) [ref. 26]. Water is blended and pumped to two holding tanks, where it is gravity -fed to the system [ref. 26). All wells are screened in the "overburden" (alluvium/glacial aquifer) and no one well contributes greater than 40% to the total system [ref. 26]. All 11 FWD wells are within 4 miles of the HPC site [ref. 26; Figure 3). Calculation: 16,500 peopleA I wells = 1,500 people per well. Town of Sharon Water Department (SWD) The water supply system for the Town of Sharon is supplied by the SWD and serves approximately 16,000 to 17,000 people [ref. 22]. The system includes six wells (Well Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) [ref. 22]. No one well contributes greater than 40% to the overall system [ref. 22]. All but one well is screened to about 50 feet below ground surface, with one down to 80 feet below ground surface [ref. 22]. Other wells in the area screened at around 50 feet below ground surface are screened within the alluvium/glacial aquifer [ref. 21; 23; 26]. Three of the SWD wells (Well Nos. 5, 6, and 7) are within 4 miles of the HPC site [ref. 22; Figure 31. Calculation: 16,000 people/6 wells = 2,667 people per well. Town of Easton Water. Department (EWD) The water supply system for the Town of Easton is supplied by the EWD [ref. 24]. Although two of the EWD wells (Well Nos. 3 and 5, southeast of the site) appear to be within four miles of the site, EPA did not score them as being within the distance limit because their.exact distance from sources could not be confirmed and the additional target points for these wells would not affect the potential targets factor value [ref. 24; Figure 3]. July 2001 35 GW-Targets Aquifer or Estimated Distance -Weighted Distance Public Wells References Screened Population Value Category Depth Served [Ref. 1, Table 3-121 0-%a 0 0 0 >'/, - %a 0 0 0 >Y2-1 0 0 0 >1 -2 7,650 939 MWD Cate Spgs. #1 20 Alluvium 2,550 MWD Prescott #9 20 Alluvium 2,550 MWD Prescott 48 20 Alluvium 2,550 >2 - 3 17,550 2,122 MWD Dustin #7 20 Alluvium 2,550 FWD #1 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD #2a 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD#4 26 Alluvium. 1,500 FWD #5 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD #6 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD #7 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD #8 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD #9 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD #10 26 Alluvium 1,500 FWD #13 26 Alluvium 1,500 >3 - 4 19,701 1,306 MWD Witch Pond #6 20 Alluvium . 2,550 MWD Albertini #2 20 Alluvium 2,550 MWD Albertini #3 20 Alluvium 2,550 MWD Walsh #11 20 Alluvium 2,550 FWD #12 26 Alluvium 1,500 SWD #5 22 Alluvium 2,667 SWD #6 22 Alluvium 2,667 SWD#7 22 Alluvium 2,667 Total1 44,901 4,367 Sum of Distance -Weighted Population Values: Sum of Distance -Weighted Population Values/10: 4,367 436.7 - Potential Contamination Factor Value is rounded to the nearest integer [ref. 1, section 3.3.2.4]. Potential Contamination Factor Value: 437 July 2001 36 GW-Targets 4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT 4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Migration Path for Overland/Flood Component Overland and In -Water Segments/Target Distance Limit The UPC property is located within the Taunton River Regional Drainage Basin [ref. 16, p. 2-6, 3-6; 31, p. 811. The property is generally divided by the Rumford River into eastern and western portions [ref. 49, Figure 4]. The Rumford River flows generally north -to -south through the main UPC facility [refs. 3; 16, p. 2-6]. Two branches of the Rumford River converge near the northern -most portion of the property [ref. 31. Surface water runoff from the western and northern portions of the property flows over land into the Rumford River [ref. 16, Figures 2-14a and 2-14b]. Surface water runoff from the eastern and southern portions of the HPC property may flow directly to the Rumford River or southward into the adjacent wetlands and a shallow body of water, referred 10 as the Rumford River backwash channel [ref. 16, p. 2-6, Figure I-2]. Although the Rumford River backwash channel appears to be a stagnant body of water, it flows west anddischargesinto the Rumford River [ref. 6; 16, p. 3- 6]. At one time, catch basins located throughout the property discharged stormwater runoff to the Rumford River; however, during the on -site reconnaissance, START personnel noted that the catchbasins were clogged with debris [ref. 6, p. 41. See Figure 4 of this documentation record for an illustration of these surface water bodies. The Rumford River flows southward through Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, and Cabot Pond, and into the Norton Reservoir [ref. 3; 49, Figure 4]. On the southeast side of Norton Reservoir, the Rumford, River continues to flow southward, and is called Threemile River, approximately 7.4 miles downstream of the probably point of entry (PPE) (ref. 3). Surface water continues to flow south for approximately 7.6 miles to the end of the 15-mile surface vyater TDL located on the Threemile River, approximately 0.3 mile downstream of Route 44 in Taunton, Massachusetts [ref. 49, Figure 5]. PPEs The surface water pathway PPEs are shown on Figure 4 of this documentation record. The most upstream PPE to surface water (referred to in this documentation record as PPE -I) is located approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence of the two branches of the Rumford River immediately after they enter the HPC facility just southwest of County Street [ref. 8, Figure 1-2). PPE-2 is on the main (east) branch of the Rumford River that flows from the Glue Factory Pond, while PPE-1 is on the western branch. PPE -I and PPE-2 are located along the northern border of Source 1 [ref. 8, Figures 1-2 and 3-1; 49, Figure 2; and 53, Figure 21. It is approximately 1,500 feet (in the downstream direction) from PPE-1 totheconfluence of the Rumford River and the Rumford River backwash channel [ref. 8, Figure 1-2]. Another upstream PPE (PPE-3) is located along the wetlands surrounding the Rumford River backwash channel, approximately 1,500 feet upstream of its confluence with the Rumford River near the eastern edge of Source 2 [ref. 8, Figure 1�21. PPE-3 is located within the palustrine forested wetlands at the most upstream point likely to be impacted by Source 2 [ref. 8, Figure 1-2]. The farthest downstream PPE (PPE-4) is located just downstream from the confluence of the Rumford River and the Rumford River backwash channel. PPE-4 is the most downstream point likely to be impacted by Source 2 and is near the ground water treatment area. Many other PPEs exist between PPE-1 and PPE-4 along the Rumford River; the Rumford River backwash channel and the wetlands, where runoff from source areas is likely to enter these surface water bodies [ref. 3; 8, Figure 1-2]. The distance between PPE-1 (the farthest upstream PPE) and PPE-4 (the farthest downstream PPE) is approximately 1,500 feet [refs. 3; 8, Figure 1-2]. Although the surface water pathway HRS score is based on the overland flow/flood component of the surface water pathway, another significant contaminant migration path to the Rumford River is via ground water recharge [refs. 8, Figure 1-2; 49, p. 32, Figure 21. Rumford River Flow Near the HPC site, the course of the Rumford River has been altered several times in the past. Prior to 1850, the river allegedly flowed west to east through the former operations area of the HPC property before cutting toward the south between the current location of the Mill Building and the Cylinders No.I and 2 building [ref. 8, p. 3-5]. In 1850, to permit construction of the railroad tracks, the river was rerouted to flow to the Rumford River backwash channel. The Rumford River flow was altered to its present course, between 1945 and 1950, to allow for the construction of a major highway underpass [ref. 8, p. 3-5]. MADEP has reported that contaminants flow through the filled former riverbed sediments as evidenced by seep outbreaks observed along south-central property areas and historical outbreaks of tar mats along the Rumford River by former riverbed flow paths [refs. 7, Figure 2a, p. 7; 8, Figure 3-6]. July 2001 37 SW -General No USGS gaging stations are located along the surface water target distance limit; the flow rates are estimated for the various portions of the surface water within the 15 mile TDL. The flow rate reaches 100 cfs approximately 11.5 miles downstream of PPE-4. At several points along the TDL, the flow rate of the Rumford River was estimated using the USGS conversion factor of 1.8 cfs per square mile of drainage basin [refs. 3; 28; 29; and 30]. Approximately 7.4 miles downstream of the PPE-4, the drainage basin area is 22.3 mi'; the Rumford River at this point is estimated to flow at 40.1 cfs. Approximately 14.7 miles downstream of PPE-4, the drainage basin of the Threemile River is approximately 81.4 mi'; the flow rate at this point (near route 44) is estimated at 146.5 cfs [refs. 28; 29; and 30). Field observations indicate that the Rumford River backwash channel flow is less than 10 cfs [ref. 6); however, the HPC Phase 11 Site Assessment estimated that the flow of the Rumford River at the site is approximately 11.6 cfs [ref. 16, p. 3-6]. 4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release 4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release Direct Observation - Basis for Direct Observation: Hazardous substances released from the HPC site have caused adverse effects to fish in the Rumford River, and also to the fishery. Tissue samples from fish caught downstream from the HPC site are contaminated with dioxins and furans released from the HPC site. In response to the fish contamination, the State of Massachusetts has closed the fishery, warning anglers not to eat fish caught in the Rumford River downstream of the HPC site [refs. 55; 57]. Hazardous Substances in Release: Hazardous Substance Evidence 2,3,7,8-TCDD ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,5,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF Chemical Analysis ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fishconsumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption ATSDR Health Advisory restricting fish consumption 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 55;57 Several surface water and surface water sediment sampling events document an observed release by chemical analysis to the surface water pathway at the HPC site. In October 1998, EPA's Removal Branch collected 12 sediment and five surface water samples from the Rumford River [ref. 49, p. 371. These sampling event results are summarized in the December 1999 HPC SI [ref. 49] and the validated data are presented in References 38 and 40. In September 1999, EPA's Removal Branch again collected samples from the Rumford River, this time upstream of the UPC site in and near the Glue Factory Pond [ref. 341. Four sediment and seven fish tissue samples were collected as part of this effort and analyzed for PCP, dioxins, and furans [refs. 34; 33; 14]. Because three of these sediment samples were collected upstream of the HPC site, they are used to further establish background levels for these hazardous substances [ref. 34, Figure 2]. These sampling events documented an observed release by chemical July 2001 39 SW -Likelihood of Release analysis of various dioxins, furans and PCP. Sediment and surface water samples collected by HPC are also presented following these EPA results and further document the observed release to surface water by chemical analysis. - Background Samples for 1998/1999 EPA Removal Program Sampling [ref. 38; 40; 49; 34; 33; 14]: Sample Sample Location Sample ID Medium Depth Date Reference RRUS-S sediment north of County Rd Surface 10/16/98 38; 40, Data Tables; 49, Figure 4, pp. 37-38 RRUS-2S sediment north of County Rd Surface 10/16/98 38; 40, Data Tables; 49, Figure 4, pp. 37-38 GFPS sediment south bank of Glue 0-3" 9/29/99 34, p. I, Table 2 Factory Pond GFPN sediment northeast bank of Glue 0-3" 9/29/99 34, p. 1, Table 2 Factory Pond RRB sediment directly downstream of 0-3" 9/29/99 34, p. 1, Table 2 the bleachery on the Rumford River RRUS-W surface water north of County Rd Surface 10/16/98 38; 40, Data Tables; 49, Figure 4, pp. 37-38 RRUS-2W surface water north of County Rd Surface 10/16/98 38; 40, Data Tables; 49, Figure 4, pp. 37-38 - Contaminated Samples for 1998 EPA Removal Program Sampling [ref. 38; 40; 49]: Sample Sample Sample ID Medium Location/Distange from PPE Depth Date Reference RRHP03-W surface water Approx. 1,250 feet downstream of PPE-1, Surface 10/16/98 38; 40; 49, Figure 4, p. 37 on the HPC property about 250 feet upstream of the confluence with backwash channel. PP surface water On the east shore of Fulton Pond approx. 1 Surface 10/16/98 38; 40; 49, Figure 4, p. 37 mile downstream of PPE-1. RRKP-W surface water At the north end of Kingman Pond, approx. Surface 10/16/98 38; 40; 49, Figure 4, p. 37 1.25 miles downstream of PPE-1 RRIIP03-S sediment Approx. 1,250 feet downstream of PPE-1, Surface 10/16/98 38; 40; 49, Figure 4, p. 37 on the HPC property about 250 feet upstream of the confluence with backwash channel. RRHPOI sediment Approx. 300 feet downstream.of PPE-1, on . Surface 10/16/98 38; 40; 49, Figure 4, p. 37 the UPC property where the Rumford River bends westward. RRHP02 sediment Approx. 900 feet downstream of PPE-1, on the HPC property, just southwest of the railroad tracks. Surface 10/16/98 38; 40; 49, Figure 4, p. 37 July 2001 40 SW -Likelihood of Release a N fA N y N O h T N N vNi ^ M {0 F W F ry ] �D cQn vQi 0.' v�i. V] Q Q 6 dUl mN u to M h E3 � y) � ti M i �'. • � iF ^ rr �� � Cn K V b r� O N N a N p• .�. a �O+f O� vt O� O� M Ot r O T m 00 O V' M M R b fJ m O'J� V1 b M N Vl o V1 'Z. h r O pp W E M 3 rn M z a� g O 0 •� O� O C C 0 0 0 M O b y N to N z rn ' �We 3 $ Q w w Q g Q Q Q w w Q Q Q Q UQ UQ Q ti a x a a o oo eo o. oo t� oo v o M M V M M M V' f� M w iR2 1 clrM ClfM cIrM CIFtry rj _N � M y N � v v ^y ro w 6.O u y ltl y � N N T N 0.2 Y N v G 0 c •E o 0 0 o N y❑ tC ltl � U g V 'G N C d ate. �izziil t� Q' d N d N .D O t� 0= o6 6 O•'O O � N o E E A N 9 N y N V 6 id N U W •N .D C c o d c a _ o W W W U N n 6 0 P P 0 O N CO p U H»>zz4zU m'I �DE32Z EEO In addition to the analytical data above, HPC's Phase Il investigation documents an observed release to surface water. As part of the Phase 11 investigation, three surface water samples were collected on the Rumford River backwash and nine wetland sediment samples were collected from an areajust east of the confluence of the Rumford River and the Rumford River backwash channel [ref. 16, Figure 2-15]. Both surface water and sediment samples document an observed release by chemical analysis. - Background Samples for Phase II Investigation [ref. 161 Sample Sample Location Sample ID Medium Depth Date Reference SW-3 surface water On the Rumford River backwash channel, Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-6 approximately 350 feet upstream of its confluence pp. C198, C199 with the Rumford River. MW-10 (0-2') soil/sediment* Approximately 100 feet east of sediment sample 0-2 feet 1/17/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 24, S-5 near the wetland area. pp. C39, C43 * No background sediment samples were collected as part of the Phase II investigation. However, a surface soil/wetland sample was collected during installation ofMW-10. MW-10 is located approximately 100 feet east ofsedimeat sample S-5. Although sample MW-10 is not a "clean" background, it represents a reference level for PCP, 2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenol [ref. 49, Figure 4]. - Contaminated Samples for Phase II Investigation [ref. 16] Sample Sample Location Sample ID Medium - Depth Date Reference SW-1 surface water On the Rumford River backwash channel, Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-6 approximately 1,380 feet downstream of PPE-3 pp. C198-C200 and approximately 120 feet upstream of its confluence with the Rumford River. SW-2 surface water On the Rumford River backwash channel, Surface 4/4/89 ' 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-6 approximately 1,260 feet downstream of PPE-3 pp. CI98-C200 and approximately 240 feet upstream of its confluence with the Rumford River. S-1 sediment In the wetland area approximately 50 feet west of Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-4, the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 S-2 sediment In the wetland area approximately 10 feet west of Surface . 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-4, the Rumford River backwash.. pp. C50, C51 S-3 sediment In the wetland area approximately 50 feet east of Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-4, the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 S-4 sediment In the wetland area approximately 150 feet east of Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 24, the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 S-5 sediment In the wetland area approximately 20 feet east of Surface 4/4/89 116, Figure 2-15, Table 2-4, the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 S-6 sediment In the wetland area approximately 5 feet west of Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-4, the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 S-7 sediment In the wetland area approximately 10 feet west of Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-4, the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 S-8 sediment In the wetland area approximately 110 feet west Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15,Table 2-4, of the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 S-9 sediment In the wetland area approximately 210 feet west Surface 4/4/89 16, Figure 2-15, Table 2-4, of the Rumford River backwash. pp. C50, C51 July 2001 42 SW -Likelihood of Release Concentrations in Background and Contaminated Samples for 1989 Phase 111nvestigation [ref. 16) Hazardous Surface Sediment Contaminated Contaminated Sediment Samples (pg/kg) Substance Water Background Surface Water Background Sample Samples (pg/L) Sample (jig/kg) (pg/L) SW-3 MW-10(0-2') SW-1 SW-2 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 2,3,5,6- <1.00 <100 4.00 <1.00 366 <1278* <800* 708 469 262 1086 360 517 Tetrachlorophenol 2,4- <0.500 177.60 <0.500 <0.500 <143* <639* <400* <162* 880 233 <159* 367 <158* Dimethylphenol Pentachlorophenol 6.82 <100 1 34.7 39.3 1 5429 4920 1430 .3799 6233 1393 7905 4116 4984 Reference 16, Tables 2-4 and 2-6, Appendix C, pp. C49-053, C198-C200, Appendix J, Table E-1 Bold Concentrations listed in bold type meet the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis [ref. 1, Table 2-31. * SQLs have been adjusted to account for percent moisture. _ July 2001 43 SW -Likelihood of Release State Surface Water and Sediment Samnlin The State of Massachusetts collected surface water and sediment samples from the Rumford River on June 11, 1998 [refs. 51; 54]. These samples were analyzed for dioxins and furans using EPA Method 1613A [refs. 51, Jr. 24; 54, p. 11. The results revealed high concentrations of dioxinsandfurans in both surface water and sediment [refs. 51, pp. 8 and 9; 54, pp. 4, 5, and 6]. These results corroborate the EPA sediment and surface water sampling conducted four months later in October 1998 (see results above). Attribution The substances detected in surface water are attributable to the IIPC site. They are found in sources at the site, which were not contained against a release to surface water [see sections 2.2.2 for Sources I and 2]. The substances detected in the observed release by chemical analysis consist of either the constituents of wood preserving materials used at the site or substances created by the transformation of constituents used at the site [ref. 16, p. 1-2]. From 1953 to 1993, HPC preserved wood products using a number of chemicals, including: PCP in fuel oil, creosote, FCAP salts in water, and chromated-copper-arsenate salts in water [ref. 16, pp. 1-1, 1-2]. The wood products treated at HPC were allowed to drip onto the ground or onto concrete drip pads that were found to be riddled with cracks, gaps, and corroded areas during a RCRA inspection [ref. 7, p. 8]. The former General Manager and President of HPC (from 1973 to 1993) stated in sworn testimony that PCP, CCA, and other wood treating products were allowed to drip onto bare soil throughout the entire site [ref. 44, pp. 30, 32, 61]. -HPC's Phase II report concludes that PCP attributable to the site is present in surface water samples collected from the Rumford River backwash at levels below the proposed (at that time) EPA standard drinking water levels [ref. 16, pp. 2-6, 2-19]. HPC also stated that the ground water contamination plume extends within the Rumford River backwash channel area [ref. 16, p. 2-20). In addition, the ground water well closest to the Rumford River and the Rumford River backwash channel (MW-10) has consistently shown contamination (including PCP and PAHs) attributable to the UPC site, indicating contaminant migration toward, and into, surface water [ref. 16, Figure 2-17). In 1972, a tar mat was discovered on the banks of the Rumford River on the southern portion of the HPC property. It appeared to originate from the eastern bank of the Rumford River [refs. 4, p. 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 1-2; 16, p. 2-11. FIPC took efforts to control the seep but in 1973, seepage appeared again farther downstream [ref. 16, p. 2-1]. According to HPC's consultant Keystone, vandals shot holes in several drums of recovered oil that were stored on the HPC property along the east bank of the Rumford River and then tipped the drums over, allowing the oils to seep into the ground and the river [ref. 16, Jr. 2-3]. In 1990, after "oily seepage" was again reported on the Rumford River in the vicinity of the HPC property, Keystone sampled stained soil along the river bank and found that a major constituent of the contamination was SVOCs [refs. 7, p. 7; 17, p. 2-7]. Dioxins and furans are commonly associated with chlorophenolic compounds used in wood preserving and are present in contaminated soil on site [ref. 48, pp. 3-7, 2-8, and 4-22]. Dioxins occur as contaminants in the manufacturing process of certain chlorinated organic products such as PCP [ref. 46, pp. 3 and 8], In addition to their presence as contaminants in wood treating products, dioxins and furans can be produced by the combustion of wood treated with PCP and other chlorinated phenols [ref. 46, p. 3]. Finally, the State of Massachusetts issued a health advisory not to eat fish in the Rumford River downstream of the UPC site to Kingman Pond in 1999 [ref. 55]. This advisory, in conjunction with the ATSDR Health Consultation upon which the advisory is based, both attribute the dioxin, furan and PCP contamination in soil, ground water, surface water, sediment and fish tissue to the HPC site [refs. 55; 57, pp. 1, 2, 3]. The State's closure of the fishery due to dioxin contamination is directly attributed to UPC alone [refs. 51; 54; 55; 57]. In addition, the only other possible sources of dioxin and furan contamination are a former bleachery located upstream of the site near the Glue Factory Pond [refs. 3; 16; 34] and the Porter Estate , which received various unauthorized wastes including wastes from HPC [ref. 13, p. I]. Surface drainage runoff from both of these sites drains to the main branch of the Rumford River. Background samples sediment samples RRUS-S and RR1LJS-2S collected just upstream from the UPC site are located on this branch of the Rumford River and, therefore, account for any upstream contamination. Sediment samples GFPS, GFPN, and RRB, collected as part of the Glue Factory Pond investigation, are also used to establish background levels to account for any possible contamination originating at the former bleachery or the Porter Estate sites. In addition, EPA's removal branch collected seven fish tissue samples from the Glue Factory Pond [ref. 34, Table 1]. No dioxins, furans, or PCP were detected in any of these seven fish tissue samples, further proving that the dioxin, furan, and PCP contamination is originating, at least in part, from HPC [ref. 15]. Background surface water and sediment samples account for any migration from this possible upstream source (see section 4.1.2.1.1 of this documentation record). July 2001 44 SW -Likelihood of Release Hazardous Substances Released 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,5,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF Pentachlorophenol 2,3,5,6-Tettachlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol Surface Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550 July 2001 45 SW -Likelihood of Release 4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics 4.1.3.2.1 . Toxicity/PersistenceBioaccumulation Hazardous Substance Source No. Toxicity Factor Value Persistence Factor Value jBioaccumulation Factor Value Tosicity/Persist./ Bina I t' Reference arsenic 1,2 10000 1 5 5 x 104 2, p. B-2 chromium 1,2 10000 1 5 5 x 10' 2, p. B-5 copper 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-6 acenaphthene 2 10 1 500 5000 2, p. B-1 acenaphthylene 1 ... 1 500 ... 2, p, B-1 anthracene - 1,2 10 1 5000 5 x 104 2, p. B-2 benzo(a)anthracene 2 1000 1 50000 5 x 107 2, p. B-2 benzo(a)pyrene _ 1,2 10000 1 50000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-2 benzo(B,h,i)perylene 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-3 benzo(b)fluoranihene 2 1000 1 50000 5 x 107 2, p. B-3 benzo(k)fluoranthene 1,2 100 1 50000 5 x 106 2, p. B-3 butylbenzyl phthalate 2 10 1 500 5000 2, p. B-4 r ibenz(a,h)anthracene 2 10000 1 50000 5 x 108 2, p. B-7 dibenzofuran 2 ... 1 500 2, p, B-7 di-n-octyl phthalate 2 100 1 500 5 x 104 2, p. B-7 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 1000 1 50000 5 x 107 2, p. B-12 chrysene 1,2 - 10 1 500 5000 2, p. B-5 fluoranthene 2 100 1 5000 S x 103 2, p. B-10 fluorene 1,2 100 1 5000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-10 phenanthrene 1,2 ... 1 50 2 p B 16 pyrene 2 100 1 50 5000 2, p. B-17 naphthalene 1 100 0.4 500 2 x 104 2; p. 13-14 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 1 10 1 500 5 x 104 2, p. B-19 2,4-dichlorophenol 1,2 1000 0.0007 50 35 2, p. B-8 2,4-dimethylphenol 1,2 100 1 500 5 x 10' 2, p. B-8 2,4-dinitrophenol 1 1060 1 5 .5000 2, p. B-9 2-chlorophenol 1 100 0.4 500 2 x 104 2, p. B-5- 2-nitrophenol. 1. 1 1 5 5 2, p. B-15 4-nitrophenol 1 1 1 5 5 2, p. B-15 4-methylphenol (p-cresol) 2 100 0.4 5 200 2, p. B-6 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol 1 100 1 50 5000 2, p, B-9 4-chloro-3-methylphenol 1,2 1 1 50 50 2, p. B-5 2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol 1,2 NA NA NA NA -- pentachlorophenol 1,2 100 1 500 5 x 104 2, p. B-16 phenol 1 1 1 5 5 2, p. B-16 hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2 10000 1 5000 5 x 107 2, p. B-12 benzene 2 100 0.4 5000 2 x 10' 2, p. B-2 toluene 2 10 0.4 50 200 2, p. B-19 ethyl benzene - 10 - 0.4 50 200 2, p. B-10 xylenes (lowest of three) 2 1 0.4 50 20 2, p.'B-20 July 2001 46 SW/HFC-Waste Characteristics Hazardous Substance (Source No. I Toxicity Factor Value Persistence Factor Value I Bioaccumulation Factor Value I Toxicity/PersistJ Bioaccumulation I Reference 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 2 - 10000 1 50000 5 x 108 2, p. B-16 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2 10000 1 50000 - 5 x 108 2, p. B-11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2 10000 - 1 50000 5 x 108 2, p. B-11 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2 10000 1 50000 5 x log 2, p. B-16 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 2 10000 1 50000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-16 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2 10000 1 50000 5 x to, 2, p. B-11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2 10000 1 50000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-11 Notes: * Persistence value for (rivers) ** Bioaccumulation factor value for fresh water NA Not Available in reference 2 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value:5 x log 4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No. - Source Type Source Hazardous -Waste Quantity 1 contaminated soil >0 2 contaminated soil >0 Sum of Values:>0 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 A minimum hazardous waste quantity value of 100 was assigned because a target for the surface water pathway was subject to actual (Level I and Level II) contamination [ref. 1, section 2.4.2.2]. 4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value Maximum Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5x108 (copper, etc) Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Toxicity/Persistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10000 x 100 = IXIO` Toxicity/Persistence/HWQ Value x Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value: 1x106x 5x10° = 5x1010 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 [ref. 1, Table 2-7] July 2001 47 SW/HFC-Waste Characteristics 4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets Fulton Pond and Cabots Ponds were annually stocked with trout by the MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) as of 1994 [refs. 31; 35; 55]. Fulton Pond is a seven -acre impoundment with depths to 25 feet managed as a catchable trout pond and annually stocked with brook, brown, and rainbow trout, but also contains yellow perch, bluegill, largemouth bass, white sucker, white perch,. pumpkinseed, brown bullhead, golden shiner, black crappie, redfin pickerel, American eel, and chain pickerel [Ref. 35]. According to historical records, the Rumford River was also stocked at one time by HPC [Ref. 35]. The Rumford River is also a fishery and contains brook and rainbow trout and warm water species such as largemouth bass, chain pickerel, pumpkinseed sunfish, white and yellow perch, black crappie, and bluegill [Ref. 35]. Threemile River and the Norton Reservoir also contain fisheries [Ref. 351. Actual Human Food Chain Contamination Hazardous Substance Sample Sample IDs Distance Bioaccumulation Factor Medium from PPE -I Value Refs. 2,3,7,8-TCDD sediment RRHP02 900 ft. 50000 2, p. B-18; 40, Data Summary Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD sediment RRHP01 300 ft. 50000 2, p. B-16; RRHP02 900 ft. 40, Data Summary RRHP03-S 1,250 ft. Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD sediment RRHPOI 300 ft. 50000 2, p. B-11; RRHP02 900 ft. 40, Data Summary RRHP03-S 1,250 ft. Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD surface water RRHP03-W 1,250 ft. 5000 2, p. B-I1; 40, Data Summary Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD sediment RRHPOI 300 ft. 5000 2, p. B-11; RRHP02 900 ft. 40, Data Summary RRHP03-S 1,250 ft. Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD surface water RRHP03-W 1,250 ft. 50000 2, p. B-11; FP I mi. 40, Data Summary RRKP-W 1.25 mi. Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD sediment RRIIPOI. 300 ft. 50000 2, p. B-I1; RRBP02 900 ft. 40, Data Summary RRHP03-S 1,250 ft. Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF sediment RRHP02 900 ft. 50000 2, p. B-16; RRHPO3-S 1,250 ft. 40, Data Summary Table; 49, Figure 4 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF sediment RRHP02 900 ft. 50000 2, p. 13-16; RRHP03-S 1,250 ft. 40, Data Summary Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF surface water RRHP02 900 ft. 50000 2, p. B-11; RRHP03-S 1,250 ft. 40, Data Summary Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF surface water RRHP03-W 1,250 ft. 50000 2, p. B-I1; 40, Data Summary Table; 49, Figure 4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF surface water RRHP03-W 1,250 ft. 50000 2, p. B-11; FP 1 mi. 40, Data Summary RRKP-W 1.25 mi. Table; 49, Figure 4 July 2001 48 SW/BFC-Targets 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF sediment RRHP-02 900 ft. RRHP03-S 1,250 ft. Pentachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol - Closed Fisheries: surface water SW-01 surface water SW-02 1,380 ft' 1,260 It.' 50000 500 Soo 2, p. B-11; 40, Data Summary Table; 49, Figure 4 2, p. B-I6; 16, Table 2-6 2, p. B-16 16, Table 2-6 In October 1998, the State of Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) issued a Provisional Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory for the Rumford River and associated impoundments, i.e., Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds and the Norton Reservior [ref. 561. The reason for issuing the provisional advisory is that "[d]ioxin compounds have been identified in surface water near the former Hatheway and Patterson sites in Mansfield." A provisional advisory was issued because it was not feasible at the time 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. The MDPH felt that it was a "proactive and prudent public health measure to issue a provisional advisory without waiting for results of fish tissue sampling." [ref. 56). Following the U.S. EPA's October 1998 sampling and analysis of sediment, surface water (see observed release section above), and fish tissue samples, the MDPH, under cooperative agreement with ATSDR, issued a Health Consultation for the Rumford River Site [ref. 57]. The conclusions stated that "[t]he concentrations of dioxin in fish in the Rumford River below Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir constitute a public health hazard. Therefore, based on these data and information about the HP [Hatheway and Patterson] site, a regular public health fish consumption advisory should be issued by MDPH in follow-up to the provisional advisory issued by MDPH in October 1998." [ref._ 57]. On June 30, 1999, the MDPH issued a regular public health fish consumption advisory [ref. 55; 47]. This updated fish advisory recommends that "[a]Il persons should refrain from consuming any fish caught in the Rumford River, downstream of Glue Factory Pond, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, or Norton Reservoir." [ref. 47) The advisory attributes the dioxin contamination to the HPC site (ref. 47). This fishery closure is therefore attributed to releases of hazardous substances at the HPC site and in the observed release by chemical analysis of sediment and surface water samples. - Level I Concentrations Seven fish tissue samples were collected from Fulton Pond (FPFISH001, FPFISH002, FPFISH003, FPFISH004, FPFISH005, FPFISH006, and FPFISH007) [ref. 57, p. 3]. These fish tissue samples were analyzed for dioxins/furans (EPA Method 1613B), pentachlorophenol, and inorganic arsenic [refs. 42; 43]. Although PCP was detected in each fish tissue sample, the concentrations detected were below the CRQL [ref. 42). Dioxins and furans were detected in each of the seven fish tissue samples. Those meeting Level I concentrations are listed below [refs. 2, pp. B-53, B-60; 43]. Sample ID Hazardous Hazardous Benchmark Substance Substance Concentration Concentration (mg/kg) FPFISH001 2,3,7,8 TCDF 4.643 x 10` 2.0 x 10° FPFISH004 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 1.128 x 10-3 2.0 x 10'' FPFISH004 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 1.43 x 10"5 5.1 x 10.7 Benchmark References Cancer Risk Screening Cone 2, p. B-60; 43, Data Sum Table Cancer Risk Screening Cone 2, p. B-53; 43, Data Sum Table Cancer Risk Screening Cone 2, p. B-53; 43, Data Sum Table ' The distances for samples SW-01 and SW-02 are infect from PP&3, not PPI<I. July 2001 49 SW/BFC-Targets Most Distant Level Samole Sample ID: FPFISH 004 Distance from the probable point of entry: 1 mile Reference: 40, 41, and 43 Level I Fisheries Extent of Level I Fishery Identity of Fishery (Relative to PPE)Refs. Rumford River from PPE-1 to the 1 mile downstream of PPE-1 49, Figure 4; 43 outfall of Fulton Pond Most Distant Level II Sample Sample ID: RRKP-W Distance from the probable point of entry: 1.25 miles from PPE-1 Reference: 40, Data Summary Table Level II Fisheries Identity of Fishery. Extent of Level II Fishery Refs. (Relative to PPE or Level I Fishery) Rumford River between Fulton 0.25 mile, relative to Level I fishery 49, Figure 4; 43 (Level I fish sample) and Kingman Ponds (sediment sample RRKP-W) 4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual Sample ID: FPFISH004 and FPFISH001 Level I/Level II/or Potential: Level I Hazardous Substance: 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 50 July 2001 50 SW/HFC-Targets 4.1.3.3.2 Population 4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations Identity of Fishery Annual Production (pounds) References Human Food Chain Population Value (Table 4-18) Rumford River/Fulton Pond Closed due to HPC contamination: pre -closure 35; 40; 41 0.3 - (from PPE-1 to fish tissue stocking in spring of 1994 was 414 pounds, plus sample FPFISH004) any fish in the Rumford River upstream to PPE -I. Sum of Level I Human Food Chain Population Values: 0.3 Sum of Level I Human Food Chain Population Values x 10: 3 Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 3 4.1.3.3.2.2 Level 11 Concentrations Identity of Fishery Annual Production (pounds) References Human Food Chain Population Value (Table 4-18) Rumford River (from tissue Closed due to HPC contamination: >0 pounds 35; 40; 41 0.03 sample FPFISH004 to sediment sample RRKP-W in Kingman Pond) Sum of Level 11 Human Food Chain Population Values: 0.03 Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03 4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Identity of Annual Production Type of Average Refs. Population Dilution Weight P. x D; Fishery (pounds) Surface Water Annual Flow Value (P) (D) (Table 4-13) Body (cfs) (Table 4-18) Kingman Pond >0 lake <100 35 6.03 0.1 0.003 (downstream of RRPK-W) Rumford River >0 river <100 35 0.03 0.1 0.003 Cabot Pond 283 (stocked) .lake <100 35 0.3 0.1 0.03 Rumford River >0 river <100 35 0.03 0.1 0.003 Norton Reservoir >0 lake <100 35 0.03 0.1 0.003 Rumford River >0 river <100 35 0.03 0.1 0.003 Threemile River >0 river <100 35 0.03 0.1 0.003 Threemile River >0 river >100 35 0.03 0.01 0.0003 Sum of P; x D;: 0.0483 (Sum of P; x D;)/I0: 0.00483 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.00483 July 2001 51 SW/HFC-Targets 4.1.4.2 Environmental, Threat Waste Characteristics 4.1.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/PersistenceBioaccumulation Hazardous Substance Source No. Ecosystem y Toxicity Factor Value Persistence Factor Value Bioaccumulation Factor Value Ecos stemToxici /Per Y tY sist./ Bioaccumulation Reference arsenic 1,2 10 1 500 5000 2, p. B-2 chromium 1,2 100 1 5 500 2, p. B-5 copper 2 100 1 50000 5 x to, 2, p. B-6 acenaphthene 2 10000 1 500 5x 10' 2,p.B-1 acenaphthylene 1 ... 1 500 ... 2, p. B-1 anthracene 1,2 10000 1 5000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-2 benzo(a)anthracene 2 10000 1 50000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-2 benzo(a)pyrene 1,2 10000 1 50000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-2 benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-3 benzo(b)fluoranthene 2 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-3 benzo(k)fluoranthene 1,2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-3 butylbenzyl phthalate 2 100 1 500 5 x 104 2, p. B-4 dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-7 dibenzofuran 2 100 1 500 5 x 10' 2, p. B-7 di-n-octyl phthalate 2 ... 1 500 ... 2, p. B-7 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-12 chrysene 1,2 1000 1 5000 5 x 106 2, p. B-5 fluoranthene 2 10000 1 500 5 x 106 2, p. B-10 fluorene 1,2 1000 1 5000 5 x 106 2, p. B-10 phenanthrene 1,2 1000 1 5000 5 x 106 2, p. B-16 pyrene 2 10000 1 50 5 x 106 2, p. B-17 naphthalene 1 1000 0.4 500 2 x 10' 2, p. B-14 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 1 1000 1 50000 5 x 107 2, p. B-19 2,4-dichlorophenol 1,2 100 0.0007 500 35 2, p. B-8 2,4-dimethylphenol 1,2 100 1 Soo 3 x to' 2, p. B-8 2,4-dinitropbenol 1 10000 1 5 5 x 104 2, p. B-9 2-chlorophenol 1 100 0.4 500 2 x 104 2, p. B-5 2-nitrophenol 1 100 1 5 500 2,p.B-15 4-nitrophenol 1 100 1 500 5 x 10' 2, p. B-15 4-methylphenol (aka, p- 2 ... 0.4 5 ... 2, p. B-6 cresol) 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol 1 10000 1 50 5 x 10' 2, p. B-9 4-chloro-3-methylphenol 1,2 100 1 50 5000 2, p. B-5 2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol 1,2 NA NA pentachlorophenol 1,2 100 1 5000 5 x 10' 2, p. B-16 phenol 1 10000 1 5 5 x 10' 2, p. B-16 hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2 10000 1 50 5 x 10' 2, p. B-12 benzene 2 100 OA 500 2 x 104 2, p. B-2 July 2001 52 SW/ENV-Waste Characteristics Hazardous Substance (Source No.l Ecosystem I Toxicity Factor Value Persistence'BioaccumulationjEcosystemToxicity/ Factor Value Factor Value list./Bioaccumulation I Reference toluene 2 100 0.4 50 2000 2, p. 13-19 ethyl benzene — 100 0.4 50 2000 2, p. B-10 xylenes (lowest of o, p, m) 2 100 0.4 50 2000 2, p. B-20 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 2 10000 1 50000 5x to, 2, p. B-16 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-11 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2 10000 1 5000 5 x 107 2, p. B-I I 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-11 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-16 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 2 ... 1 50000 ... 2, p. B-16 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2 ... 1 50000 2, p. B-11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2 ... 1 50000 2, p. B-11 Notes: * Persistence value for (rivers) ** Bioaccumulation factor value for fresh water NA Not Available in reference 2 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5x 10' 4.1.4.2.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No. Son rce.T e Source Hazardous Waste Quantity_ 1 F-2 contaminated soil >0 contaminated soil >0 Sum of Values: >0 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 A minimum hazardous waste quantity value of 100 was assigned because a target for the surface water pathway was subject to actual (Level 11) contamination [ref. 1, section 2.4.2.2]. 4.1.4.2.3. Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5x 108 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: Ix 10` EcoToxicity/Persistence/11WQ Value x Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value: Ix10` x 5x10^ = 5xl6" Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 [ref. ],Table 2-7] July 2001 53 4.1.4.3 Environmental Threat Targets Level I Concentrations None observed. Most Distant Level II Sample Sample ID: RRKP-W Distance from the probable point of entry: 1.25 miles from PPE -I Reference: 40, Data Summary Table 4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments 4.1.4.3.1.2. Level II Concentrations Sensitive Environments None identified. Wetlands PPE-3 is located on the northern boundary of the palustrine wetland that surrounds the Rumford River and the Rumford River backwash channel (see Figure 4 of this documentation record). This wetland is shown on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map for the Mansfield quadrangle as "PFOI," or palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous [ref. 11). The length of this wetland is determined for HRS scoring purposes by measuring the perimeter of this entire wetland to the point downstream where the Rumford River exits the wetland as shown on the NWI map. This perimeter is approximately 1.25 miles in length [Ref. 11]. This yields an assigned wetlands value of 50 from table 4-24 of the HRS [Ref. 1). Because surface water sample RRKP-W is located downstream of this wetland, the entire wetland is scored as Level 1I. Wetland Wetland Length (miles) References adjacent to Rumford River 1.25 miles _ 3; 8, Figure 2 backwash channel from PPE-3 to confluence with the Rumford River Sum of Level II Wetland Frontages: 1.25 miles Wetlands Value (Table 4-24): 50 Sum of Level 11 Sensitive Environments Value+ Wetlands Value: 50 Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 50 4.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination Sensitive Environments Although some State designated threatened species exist within the 15-mile target distance limit, no potentially contaminated sensitive environments have been scored in this documentation record [ref. 32]. Wetlands Wetlands exist downstream of the HPC site within the 15-mile target distance limit [refs. 10; 11; 121. However, these potentially contaminated wetlands have not been scored in this documentation record. Potential Contamination Factor Value: 0 July 2001 54 DCT. 4. 2001 11,30AM OS EPA RREG, ADMiN N0.8815 P, 1 U.S. Environmental Protec One Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 Office of the Regional Adn Phone: (617) 918-1012 Fax: (617) 918.1029 PLEASE DELIVER TO: Fax No, 50$ -- W j ---4q .19 Date: Agency :rator \';okr, -DIAs�ireb j Ot yl (Y 6' �giY' Pages to Follow: a i From:' F- ak /4AI &YYA- Comments: YY) f o bC4 it yo0 l\u � �Qae4A-60s Pl�AA� M. 4. 2001 11,30AM US EPA REG, ADMIN NG, 8816 P. 2 You are Invi ell'. Come to a community update to learn about ongoing and future activities at PattersonThe Proposed Hatheway & Superfund Site Informational Meeting Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:00 p.m. Mansfield Town Hall Questions ? Chet Janowski 617-918.1324 Pam Harting-Barrat 617-918.1318 Region 1, New England DCP. 4.2001 11:'IAl US EPA RHj AR11fl 1110, 3810 P. 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency New England Region nvironme Office of the Regional Administrator 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114.2023 a! News ContactsTarnela Harting-13arrat, Office of Community Affairs, 617-918-1318 For immediate release: October 1, 2001 EPA TO HOLD OPEN HOUSE AND INFORMATIONAL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED HATHEWAX & PATTERSON SUPERFUND SITE Boston- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is hosting a public information meeting on Thursday, October 181h at 7.00 pm at the Mansfield Town Hall to discuss the current status and future clean-up activities at the proposed Hatheway & Patterson Superfand Site, The site is located at 15 County Street in Mansfield, MA. The Hatheway & Patterson site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL or Superfund) in September of 2001. The NPL is EPA's list of the of the country's most serious hazardous waste sites identified for possible long- term cleanup. The Superfund program makes public funds available to clean up listed toxic waste sites when private financing is unavailable. The proposed Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site is a 40 acre site, bisected by the Rumford River and a Consolidated Railways rail line, From 1953 to 1993, the company used the site to treat wood using solutions ofpentachlorophenol (PCP) in fuel oil, and fluorochrome-arsenate-phenol salts in water as well as chromated copper -arsenate (CCA) salts in water. Prior to utilizing the pressure treatment process, Hatheway & Patterson allowed wood -treating chemicals to drip off treated lumber onto underlying soils, This practice caused surface soils to be contaminated with copper, chronumn, arsenic and PCP in various areas of the site. The company ceased operations in April 1993 after having filed for bankruptcy in February 1993. VISIT EPA's WEB SITE HOME PAGE FOR NEWS AND INFORMATION: http://www.epa.goy/regionol