38%/,& &200(17 5(63216(
72 +($/7+ &2168/7$7,21 5(3257
(9$/8$7,21 2) &$1&(5 ,1&,'(1&( ,1 &(1686 75$&76 2) $77/(%252 $1' 125721 %5,672/ &2817< 0$66$&+86(776
6+3$&. /$1'),//
(3$ )$&,/,7< ,' 0$'
129(0%(5
3UHSDUHG E\ 0DVVDFKXVHWWV 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3XEOLF +HDOWK
&HQWHU IRU (QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK
&RPPXQLW\ $VVHVVPHQW 3URJUDP %RVWRQ 0DVVDFKXVHWWV
8QGHU &RRSHUDWLYH $JUHHPHQW ZLWK 3XEOLF +HDOWK 6HUYLFH
$JHQF\ IRU 7R[LF 6XEVWDQFHV DQG 'LVHDVH 5HJLVWU\
86 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK DQG +XPDQ 6HUYLFHV
$WODQWD *HRUJLD
)URP +HDWKHU *UDI &RRUGLQDWRU
&LWL]HQV $GYLVRU\ 6KSDFN 7HDP :RUFHVWHU 6W 1RUWRQ 0$
0DUFK
&RQWHQWV
7H[W 3DJHV
$WWDFKPHQW 3DJHV $WWDFKPHQW 3DJHV
7R 0DVVDFKXVHWWV 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3XEOLF +HDOWK
$WWQ -DQ 6XOOLYDQ
&HQWHU IRU (QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK
&RPPXQLW\ $VVHVVPHQW 3URJUDP
:DVKLQJWRQ 6WUHHW WK )ORRU %RVWRQ 0$
200.1e Shpack_Landfill_08.01_0229_a March 12 2006
Comments to MDPH on Health Consultation Report for the Shapck Landfill Dated November 16 2006
History with the of Engineers and the January 2002 At public meeting in Norton Army Corps for the US Enviromnental Protection Agency addressing cleanup plans Shpack residents concerns about possible link SuperfundfFUSRAP Site several expressed number of cancer cases between the contamination at the Shpack dump and high among
it of residents who lived nearby explained that was not the responsibility that those health issues It was matter representatives for the Corps or EPA to address Massachusetts of Public Health who would we could pursue with the Department in Norton hopefully schedule subsequent meeting of the Citizens Shpack Team February 26 2002 My first letter as coordinator Advisory of Environmental CAST to Suzanne Condon Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau of cancer Health Assessment MDPH requesting targeted public health assessment
incidence within one-mile radius of the Shpack Site
March 2002 Letter from Norton Town Manager Chris McCabe to Suzanne Condon of CASTs that the bureau conduct expressing the Board of Selectmens support request mile radius of the an assessment of cancer incidence from 1982 2001 within one
Shpack Landfill Condon the study March 11 2002 News article Attleboro Sun Chronicle says specific 2001 within one-mile radius of the Shpack requested to review cancer from 1982 to and be in or two Site will begin in next couple of weeks completed year Senator JoAnn March 14 2002 Letter supporting CASTs request from State Sprague Michael March 19 2002 Letter supporting CASTs request from State Representative
Coppola Frank March 22 2002 Letter supporting CASTs request from Congressman Barney
from entire state April 30 2002 Letter supporting CASTs request delegation Elizabeth Travis Senator JoAnn Representatives Michael Coppola Poirier Philip
Sprague from Robert Health for the May 2002 Letter supporting CASTs request Curry Agent Norton Board of Health residents and May 31 2002 News article Attleboro Sun Chronicle Concerns voiced by other health risks related to contaminants at the old legislators about cancers and Shpack to hold on June 11 dump have led the State Health department to agree public meeting of have no 2002 Quote from State Representative Michael Coppola MDPH They that needs to be ironed out problem with doing the study its just the scope of the study what should adding the state health officials have their own idea about they study
of met with sizable crowd in June 11 2002 Suzanne Condon Theresa Cassidy MDPH Atlieboro This dated Norton to discuss Phase of study of cancer in Norton report
and all of the June 2002 evaluated 23 types of cancer in the entire Town of Norton City
of Attleboro from 1994-1998.Note There was no information relative to the Shpack
Site from M1PH came to June 20 2002 News article the Norton Buzz Representatives their involvement in the next of Norton on June 1th to lay the groundwork for phase the Site cancer-rate study for the one-mile radius surrounding Shpack Superfund Cancer from Phase results were gleaned from data with the Massachusetts Registry
1994 to 1998 Juan Director Office June 25 2002 Letter from Congressman Barney Frank to Reyes Substances and Disease 1600 Clifton of Regional Operations Agency for Toxic Registry M1DPHs that includes cancer Rd Atlanta GA 30333 in support of funding request has agreed to let the MIDPH use study of the Shpack Landfill Frank quote ATSDR for which will federal funds for this project and again reiterate my support funding
studies rates in the IMMEDIATE SHPACK AREA incorporate further of cancer Frank from Julie Louise Gerberding M.D August 2002 Response to Congressman
In to MDPH will conduct an M.P.H Administrator response community concerns for tracts in Norton Attleboro during the investigation of cancer incidence data census October ATSDRs earlier work at this next fiscal year which begins 2002 MDPH existed Therefore in the future we plan site indicated that particular exposure pathways will evaluate the site to complete public health assessment PHA that thoroughly environmental data collected at the Information on cancer incidence patterns as well as
of the landfill area site will be used to conduct the public health assessment Shpack Note When
Fast forward to 2003
Probes Health Effects July 2003 The Attleboro Sun Chronicle State Shpack Dump
II of of cancer incidence the Under scrutiny in Phase MDPHs study surrounding known to be Shpack Site will be 13 cancers that could be related to contaminants already
of the bureau will be are those potentially at the site The types cancers tracking
associated with radiological contaminants including breast bone lung multiple with chemical myeloma thyroid cancers Also under scrutiny are those associated
contaminants including cancers of the bladder brain kidney liver pancreas will be Hodgkins Disease leukemia non-Hodgkins lymphoma The information site used in the bureaus comprehensive public health assessment for the Note When
Old Some July 17 2003 The Boston Globe State to Eye Cancer Rates Landfill
Residents Fear Link Quote from Suzanne Condon With public water supplies and several routes for private wells both near the landfill there were potential exposure well residents There was fair amount of opportunity for surface water run-off as as There have been ground water impacts possible skin contact or airborne exposure may 1960s and 70s that the state cancer unique cancers among residents living there in the
in tell us about cant really use that to registry established 1982 wouldnt We
it if it area It calculate cancer rate but we can make note of to see points to another health might prompt further environmental work or further investigations Note What When This November 2006 Health Consultation toxic waste at While residents have long speculated on the possible connection between
federal Sites in New that contain both Shpack one of only two Superfund England within the chemical waste and radioactive material and incidences of cancer it was only
the site active attention last year health agencies started giving
MIDPH to Garth September 12 2003 Letter from Suzanne Condon Patterson for recent letter dated August Congressman Barney Franks Offlce Thank you your of the Bureau of Environmental Health Assessments 19 2003 inquiring about the status and Attleboro CAP staff are investigation of the pattern of cancer in Norton Currently of at smaller working to complete our investigation of the pattern cancer geographic and we to levels by census tract and neighborhood within Norton Attleboro hope release the results of the investigation by the end of the calendar year Note December 2003 first will focus on It is probably also worthwhile to remind you that this report
evaluating pattern of cancers in the two communities
of in the two communities was Note That first report evaluating pattern cancers 2002 completed in 2002 and presented at the public meeting in Norton June 11 Phase of study be under public health assessment PHA is expected to prepared cooperative Environmental Protection and the agreement with ATSDR once the Agency Army at the Core her sp of Engineers and others complete an environmental investigation site Note Investigations were completed and reports issued in June 2004
Fast forward to 2006
July 31 2006 Letter from Garth Patterson to Heather Graf MDPH Cancer study review Public with will be completed and forwarded to ATSDR for final meeting MDPH forthcoming Jan December 2006 Following advice from Norton Town Manager Jim Purcell in Norton Sullivan of MDPH contacts Heather Gra.f to discuss setting up public meeting 2007 Decided December poor time better to put off until January Norton Public Heather Graf arranges to have Community Room at Library Tuesday for MIDPH News contacts January 16 2006 from 700 900 PM prepares information release schedules list of for seven press advisories with FAX Numbers recommended of elected representatives other officials from Norton Attleboro Army Corps
residents Graf list all Engineers USEPA MADEP etc CAST members on mailing
with addresses plus updated Norton street list- all residential addresses within one-mile
radius of the Shpack Site for meeting notice to addresses Advised by Ms Sullivan that Suzanne Condon wont approve mailing any without names attached even though this is the only comprehensive means of reaching
residents within the focus area and was used by MDPH for the 2002 meeting
Graf wrote guest columns for local papers sent out letters to editor to several others of house advising residents of MDPH meeting and identifying area concern streets numbers within one-mile radius of Shpack Also spoke with numerous reporters met and with Chris Wallgren Boston Globe to provide background for upcoming article
arranged for meeting announcement on local cable access channel etc MIDPH PRESS ADVISORY For Immediate Release Note No date in collaboration with the Norton and The Massachusetts Qepartment of Public Health will hold Attleboro Boards of Health and the Citizens Advisory Shpack Team CAST
2007 at 700 P.M in the Norton Public Library public meeting onTuesday January 16
Note No address for library given of is for to the findings of its evaluation The purpose of the meeting MDPH present ON TilE cancer incidence in Norton and Attleboro WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDiNG THE SHPACK LANDFILL in Conversations with Jan Sullivan Suzanne Condon may not attend public meeting Condon the date If it was going to Norton shes very busy Note Ms approved meeting accommodate her In be inconvenient we would have changed the time to phone could conversation with Jan Sullivan Graf expressed opinion that while Ms Sullivan more senior member of MDPH should be expected give the power point presentation
to handle the question answer portion of the meeting
MIDPH sends of notice that has already been January 2007 Jan Sullivan copy meeting mailed out to Heather Graf Cancer Incidence in Norton You are Invited to Attend Public Information Meeting on LANDFILL and Attleboro MA WITH FOCUS ON THE SPHACK NEIGHBORHOOD.. AT THE NORTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 68 EAST MAIN STREET NORTON MA address for Not sign Note Misspelling of Shpack and wrong on library good
relative to Calls from Norton Town Manager Health Agent to Heather Oral MDPH on 16 2007 Call to briefing in Norton being scheduled prior to public meeting January Health not Jan Sullivan who says its courtesy extended to Agents only meeting
else Graf makes clear that the Town Manager Chairman of intended for anyone she Jan 16th Board of Selectmen will also be attending Norton briefing set for 400 P.M aide to Heather Grafre January 10 2007 Call from State Rep Betty Poiriers scheduled for Jan 16th 300 P.M at the State House legislative briefing by MDPH
Landfill finished Christine January 11 2007 Boston Globe South cancer study By site have Wallgren People who live near the old Shpack landfill Superfund cleanup of than others in Norton long wondered whether they suffer higher rate cancer just Condon said Those who attend the meeting completed study has the answer Suzanne health issues that could be related to will be given considerable information about Shpack Cancer Data January 14 2007 The Sun Chronicle Shpack Due
The Brockton Enterprise State to Release Landfill Cancer Study
Note All newspapers ran similararticles
Oral checks to be sure it is set Tuesday January 16 2007 300 P.M library properly up Hall MDPH staff for 400 briefing for public meeting 345 Everyone at Town awaiting We were not expecting Ms Condon until the evening public session as we were told she was scheduled to be at the State House for 300 meeting Commute time between
Boston Norton approx one hour
MIDPH staff including Condon arrive late in Norton Gives bad impression
Jan Sullivan gives overview of report to group while Condon holds up pages of power point presentation for viewing to whatever extent possible
Note Those attending briefing expected something more professional
Actual reports are not released to attendees
January 16 2007 700 P.M MDPH Public Meeting at Norton Public Library
75 In Attendance
Request made for copies of report to be available for everyone as they sign in
Condon refuses Dont want people looking at that instead of paying attention to
what didnt for to presentation Note Consensus of opinion Condon want was anyone with the pick up the flaws with the report and take issue them during public meeting
Introduction by Heather Gra.f with recognition of elected officials present
State Senator Jim Timilty State Representatives Betty Poirier Steve DAmico
Jay Barrows and Garth Patterson from Congressman Barney Franks Office
MDPH Staff includes Christine Gorwood Jan Sullivan who will give presentation and
Suzanne Condon who will act as moderator and handle the question answer session at the end of the meeting
Note For 2002 public meeting in Norton State Rep Mike Coppola was asked to moderate due to the contentious nature of dealings with Ms Condon Comments made following this 2006 meeting were that in the interest of fairness someone other than
Condon more objective party should have been in charge again this time
January 17 2007 The Boston Globe Study Sees No Link Between Cancer Landfill
The Brockton Enterprise The Department of Public Health Determines that the Rate of Cancer Incidents Near the Shpack Landfill Were Not Out of the Norm
Suzanne Condon We dont see any unusual patterns or trends in the nature and type of cancer that would suggest that the Shpack landfill has had major impact overall Note Define major and overall The Taunton Gazette Cancer Study Jarring
Results Dont Match Reality Norton Residents Say
Suzanne Condon addressed residents concerns by stating that one of every two men and one in three women will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime
Note Most important word in Condons response is lifetime
People are living longer Certain cancers become much more prevalent with age There are better diagnostic tools for diagnosis and more individuals taking advantage of them
These and other factors account for larger number of cases being seen today
Norton Mirror Residents Question Cancer Study State Finds Normal Rates Near Former Shpack Landfill would do Condon said Faced with criticism that MIDPH did not do what they said they
but it was hard to have They would have evaluated the one-mile radius more effectively 76 some in which only half or exact population numbers since they tried to cover streets one third of the streets were included of Note No indication what streets they were looking at See page 64 Figure report Couldnt be more Delineation of Shpack Landfill Neighborhood vague
staff with streets numbers in the In 2002 and again in 2006 provided MDPH if didnt trust Town of Norton within one-mile radius of Shpack they my have MDPH with information surely the Assessors Office could provided map
in and the Town Clerks office could have given detailing addresses the focus area
them whatever census data they needed
is in this with regard to Cancer As it stands what little information given report
is so we have no idea Incidence InShpack Landfill Neighborhoods Page 45 vague
what data if any was evaluated
risk Condon said Nothing jumps off the page to suggest an environmental relevant to the How could it when the pages in this report provide nothing contamination at the Shpack Site with the Baird McGuire Also her attempt to compare the Shpack Dump property
in Holbrook is foolish
Landfill On Cancer January 21 2007 The Boston Globe Norton Neighbors Rap Study state State Finds No Link To Toxic Shpack Site At public presentation Tuesday
used for the cancer are reliable and people can trust public health officials said data study the conclusions
the tract for the study was far During the presentation Condon conceded census used
larger than the mile radius in Norton half the Town of Norton which covers 30 miles Note The CT represented square
from Heather Graf January 19 2007 Request for extension of public comment period Team Coordinator Ronald OReilly Assistant Coordinator Citizens Advisory Shpack
FAXED to Jan Sullivan MDPH Condon 30 extension January 23 2007 Memorandum from Suzanne granting day March 2007 public comment period to end 16
Personal Observations and Comments frustrated and Those in attendance at the January 2007 public meeting in Norton were indifference demonstrated Stafi especially Suzanne angered by the total by MDPH Condon who gave the impression of being master manipulator for the 2002 with fewer Only handful of people were around public meeting MDPH to realized how hard we had fought for report which would at the very least attempt the study possible link between cancer incidence in neighborhoods surrounding Shpack that had waited more than four Site and the contaminants already identified there or we
this document was to be completed in two years for MDPH to produce which supposed
years at the outside this was the same But the expectation of everyone attending meeting rather were lied to It was not that we were making false assumptions we
The newspapers didnt get it wrong which states Note MDPHs own press release for the January 2007 meeting clearly THE Evaluation of Cancer Incidence WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE SHPACK LANDFILL their notice Residents didnt misconstrue the message from MDPH own public meeting Cancer Incidence in Norton and that was mailed out clearly stated Meeting on LANDFILL NEIGHBORHOOt Attleboro MA WITH FOCUS ON THE SHPACK
in attendance It is no wonder persons were outraged the The long awaited report was not worth the paper it was printed on Which by way In of advice from the Norton Health must have been pretty precious commodity spite well attended and M1DPH should an Agent that this meeting would be very bring 35 and had to force abundant supply of reports they brought maybe copies practically
Ms Condon to put those out at the end of the meeting
This is what our tax dollars pay for
taken without staff four to Suffice to say it would not have me even any years prepare is materials that only needed to be report where 85% of the document preexisting
copied what exists of it for the most isnt even The analytical content of this report part
relevant
to deal with some of the do expect other responders Ronald OReilly Mary Soper
statistical glitches with the MDPH findings SIR and almost What struck me was the fact that based on MDPH logic including CI considered none of the statistics of cancer incidence in the two census tracts could be of observed or was too low significant because the number cases whether expected confidence for any degree of flawed the Even if the statistical basis of the report werent See OReilly Soper
conclusions are rendered meaningless due to the low sampling numbers
Condon showed to residents who Adding insult to injury was the callous indifference Ms about their which felt was related to the had the courage to speak up own cancer they Shpack Site call him who as child There was the young man battling leukemia well Mike on to the landfill on accompanied his father an employee of Texas Instruments trips weekends While his dad visited with Isadore Shpack Mark picked the dump poking
to around for bottles The dead frogs turtles he encountered there were curiosity doctor at Dana Farber asked him about kid not an ominous warning When Mikes did know were contact he may have had with certain chemicals Mike not they
at the He knows now carcinogenic contaminants prevalent Shpack Dump form of woman well call Susan recently diagnosed with an extremely rare thyroid
also felt to at the cancer exclusively linked to nuclear contamination compelled speak up its most active she meeting She not only lived in close proximity to Shpack during years did her children like so many others spent time at the dump as There were items that had been discarded which could be used by her family and other she and scrubbed treasures her kids brought home including jugs and bottles emptied out
When Susans physician questioned her about exposure to radiation she had no knowledge of the radioactive waste which was disposed of at Shpack
Suzanne Condon Associate Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public
Healths Center for Environmental Health should have expressed an interest in at least
if this one case Ms Condon should have approached Susan after the meeting and asked
MDPH staff could contact her for more information or offered Susan business card to with the contact them Days later Susan was no longer interested in dealing anyone at Mass Dept of Public Health their The impression given by Condon was that MDPH staff had done study were link the Site and standing by its validity they saw no evidence of any between Shpack cancer cases and that was that period End of story Go Home Get good nights sleep
And youll feel better in the morning Except for Mike Susan whose cases it should be noted did not even register in the MDPH report
Some observers felt that the emotions which ran so high at this meeting would simmer down afterwards They were wrong
The one and only positive result of the MDPH meeting in Norton was that it brought together people previously unknown to one another who share common interest
And reaction to the cold and calculated performance by Condon Co sparked need to
do something about it
will not be to think it safe to say that the Citizens Advisory Shpack Team party any
further requests for reports from or meetings with the Massachusetts Department of half than Public Health Two pitiful performances in four one years was more enough for us
That is not to say they wont be hearing from us again CASTs research of the Shpack dump and our involvement are no longer confined to the cleanup and future of this Superfund/FUSRAP Site We are actively engaged
in study of what the landfill was like particularly in the 1950s 1960s 1970s We
are locating people who lived in the surrounding neighborhoods when the dump was
most active and or spent any time there We are compiling reports of individuals with cancer that could be linked to contamination at or from the site And while not
trying to scare anyone we unlike the Massachusetts Department of Public Health
feel responsible for letting individuals who had some association with the site know
what carcinogenic compounds were identified there and that contact with these contaminants may put them at increased risk of developing cancer
The experiences of Mike Susan are rare when doctors ask their patients about
possible exposure to certain chemicals or radiological compounds in who as Of particular concern to us are persons now their 40s 50s were exposed children to contaminants at Shpack
See page 52 of report ATSDR CHILD HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS UNFORTUNATELY THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY MDPH THAT FOLLOWED and Review of specific diagnosis i.e. primary cancer type histology geographic with did not that an distribution for each child i.e. ages 0-19 diagnosed cancer suggest occuned children in Attleboro and Norton atypical pattern of cancer among IGNORES THE FACT OF CONSIDERABLE LATENCY PERIOD FOR MOST
CANCERS as stated on the previous page of this same report
the and could spend another ten hours and as many pages picking apart MDPH study Im sure other individuals with more knowledge of statistics or experience in the health field could no doubt do more if they had the time My own opinion is that government merit the fact that few agencies who produce sloppy work of questionable count on very people have that time
In The of the CAST recently sent out its own surveys on Cancer Incidence Vicinity Shpack
it is to note Superfund Site Of the 30 that have been returned to me so far interesting The that not one of the cases reported to me would have appeared in the MDPH Study and/or did not live in the individuals were either diagnosed prior to 1982 or qfter 2002 Census Tracts studied
will For every one case CAST is discovering that MDPH missed how many others are/or be out there but because they ye moved awqv or died will never know of the connection with the Shpack Dump
Consultation Finally Im at loss to understand the purpose of this Health
consultation is note of explanation at the front of the report tells me that an ATSDR
for information about health risks related to site in order response to specific request lead actions such use of or to prevent or mitigate exposures which may to as restricting
site replacing water supplies intensifying environmental sampling restricting access or
removing contaminated material
Note All of the above mentioned actions are already taken care of or ongoing thanks to
the sites designation under Superfund and FUSRAP
learn that At the end of the report PAGE 54 XII CONCLUSIONS
Based on this Health Consultation ATSDR has categorized the Shpack Site as an
Indeterminate Public Health Hazard Turn to page 236 of report appendix
ATSDR Glossary of Terms Indeterminate Public Health Hazard The category used.. WHEN PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF HEALTH HAZARD CANNOT BE MADE BECAUSE ThIFORMATION CRITICAL TO SUCH
DECISION IS LACKING
Might suggest you obtain copy of the RIJFS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study by ERM dated June 2004 If we wait another four or five years perhaps we can expect the P1-IA Public Health Assessment for the Shpack Site WHEN CONVENThNTLY TIlE SITE NOLONGER POSES MUCH RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP
WHAT FIND UNCONSCIONABLE IS THAT ATSDR COULD CLASSIFY THE SHPACK SITE AS POSING AN INDETERMINATE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD IN TILE PAST.. TIlE OPERATIVE WORD HERE BEING PAST CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PRELIMIN4RY HEALTH ASSESSMENT FOR THE SHIPACK LANDFILL Prepared by the
Division of Environmental Epidemiology Toxicology MDPH for ATSDR back in March 1989 Which wont bother to copy for you INSTEAD PLEASE FIND ATTACHMENT WHICH IS MY OWN BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND AT THE SHPACK SITE BASED ON VARIETY OF REPORTS
Given the circumstances currently at the site and what we expect for cleanup in the
next live years can accept the indeterminateclassilication for the present and
future but in the Past when this site riddled with radiological hot spots and full
of carcinogenic chemicals was neither secured nor properly posted with any warning signs Never
And we are talking about span of some 50 years here SEE ATTACHMENTS CONTAMINANTS LETTER TO THE EDITOR PLUS RI/FS JUNE 2004
Lest anyone criticize me for an unprofessional response and accuse me ofsounding like
one angry woman plead guilty to the anger charge have been working on Shpack
since December of 1999 and not for lack of cmvthing else to do When the Army Corps walked out on us in 2001 and when the Environmental Protection
Agency presented proposal for cover-up rather than cleanup in 2004 Ifought for
the only acceptable and long overdue remediation of the site
All things relative to Shpack concern me most recently the people who may have been
contaminated by the site take them very seriously AndI am outraged that the
Massachusetts Department ofPublic Health andATSDR have chosen to ignore them
CAST could have lobbied our legislators to pressure the aforementioned government
agencies to do more but thats been done already and in spite of their best efforts MIDPH
ATSDR still failed us
In conclusion wonder where these comments will be printed when how and by whom
they will be addressed And this question begs an answer
Heather Graf CoordinatoKf Citizens Advisory Shpack Tth 229 Worcester St Norton MA 02766 Ph 508 226 0898 FAX 508 226 2835 4cir 9çr 1j1 a1
Contaminants at the Shpack Dump Site and Attleboro Landfill Inc ALl
Identified at the Shpaçk Site where dumping occurred between 1946 1966
Includes But Not Limited to
55 gallon drums marked MC Nuclear Texas Instruments Waste Oil Degreasing Solvents Resins Precious Metal Refining Waste Uranium-234 uranium-235 uranium-238 radium-226 zirconium ashes
Volatile Organic Compounds including dichloroethylene trichioroethylene tetrachorothylene benzene
Polychlorinated biphenyl-1260 Aroclor-1260 Cyanide Vinyl Chloride
Heavy Metals including arsenic barium cadmium chromium copper lead manganese nickel zinc
November 1978 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shpack
Principal Radioactive compounds Above Background Levels Uranium 234 Uranium 235 Uranium 238 Radium-226
Note As of 2006 there was only one site in the US that would accept waste with U-235 Energy Solutions formerly Envirocare in Clive Utah
being used by the Army Corps of Engineers charged with removing all radiological waste
from the Shpack Site Increases disposal cost significantly
March 1980 Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Shpack
Elevated Levels of Heavy Metals in Soil
Lead Arsenic Chromium Copper Cadmium Nickel Zinc
November 1980 Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Shpack
Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Above EPA Maximum Concentration Level for
Drinking Water
.2 di chioroethyl ene trichloroethylene tetrachoroethylene
May 1982 US Environmental Protection Agency Shpack
Soil Groundwater Several Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants Detected
March 25 1980 GHR Engineers of New Bedford Shpack ALl
Samples Collected from 10 Observation Wells on ALl Property Peckham St Attleboro
Plus Samples of Contaminated Soil from the Older Landfill Adjacent to on Northeast side of AL Shpack Dump 15 Volatile Chemicals Were Detected in One or More Observation Wells
Eight of the Volatile Organics Vinyl Chloride Chloroform 1.2 Dichlorethylene
Trichlorethylene Tetrachlorothylene Benzene Methylene Chloride Bromodichioromethane Exceed Human Health Criteria
These Volatile Organic Compounds Are Considered to be Potential Carcinogens if
Consumed in Drinking Water Fish or Shellfish
If Chemical is Suspected of Being Human Carcinogen There is No Recognized Safe
Concentration in Drinking Water or Food Which Will Provide Absolute Protection of
Human Health Except Zero August 1989 US EPA Roy Weston Technical Assistance Team Shpack Presence of Chemicals in Surface Water Samples at Concentrations Exceeding
EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Protection of Human Health
.2 dichlorethylene benzene vinyl chloride aroctor- 1248
November 1989 US EPA Weston Technical Assistance Team Shpack Soil Samples Confirmed Presence of
Volatile Organic Compounds Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCB
March 1989 Preliminary Health Assessment for Shpack Landfill Attleboro/Norton Massachusetts Cerclis No MAD980503973
Prepared by Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Massachusetts Department of Public Health for
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ATSDR US Public Health Service
On-site contamination at the Shpack Landfill is present in groundwaterand soil contains Ground water vinyl chloride trichioroethylene trans-12-dichloroethylene tetrachioroethylene chromium barium copper nickel manganese arsenic cadmium lead polychiorinated biphenyl-1260 Aroclor-1260 radium-226 alpha particles and beta particles
Surface and subsurface soil samples contained Radium-226 uranium-234 uranium-23 uranium-23 and visual evidence of metal plating waste sludges
One meter above ground surface gamma radioactivity was detected at maximum concentration of 365 microRoentgen per hour uR/h and an average of l2uRIh
Off-site contamination is present in ground water surface water and sediments Ground the water at periphery of the site contained vinyl chloride trans-I 2-dichloroethylene benzene Aroclor- 1260 trichloroethylene arsenic manganese lead radium-226 alpha particles and beta particles
Sediment contamination detected was at the edge of Chartley Swamp bordering the site and contained radium-226 uranium-238 and uranium-235
Surface water contamination occurred at the edge of Chartley Swamp and the fire the site pond bordering and consisted of visual evidence of organic compounds as sheen on the surface of the water present but may originate from ALT
Radium-226 alpha particles and beta particles Surface soil and water contaminated ground are on-site as well as gamma radioactivity in the ambient air above the site
In addition ground water sediment and surface water are also contaminated off-site
Off-site soil contamination has not been studied
Contaminants may be transported off-site by surface runoff and by diffusion in groundwater because very small ground water gradient is present
Possible human exposure pathways include
Dermal absorption of contaminants from soil sediments ground water surface water
Ingestion of contaminants from soil sediments ground water surface water
Exposure to gamma radioactivity in the ambient air at the Shpack landfill
Dermal exposure to beta/gamma emissions near ground surface level at Shpack landfill
minute radioactive Note The most particle can be inhaled and attach itself to saliva which is swallowed resulting in two exposure pathways inhalation and ingestion
Some of the off-site contamination is likely to originate from the Attleboro landfill
In particular some of the groundwater contamination probably originates from the
Attleboro landfill
March 1989 Preliminary Health Assessment for the Shpack Landfill MIDPH contd
the Attleboro landfill Because is still an active landfill contaminated fugitive dusts and surface runoff may occur
Therefore in addition to the landfill Shpack contaminants exposure may occur to contamination originating from the Attleboro landfill by inhalation of or ingestion contaminated airborne pai-ticulates or by dermal absorption or ingestion of contaminated soils sediments
The active 23-acre Attleboro landfill located entirely within the town of Attleborr and also owned by Attleboro landfill Inc is also known to have received industrial chemical waste but no radioactive waste
The Landfill is to for Attleboro scheduled be scored placement onto the NPL in the future
February 2000 First public meeting on cleanup of Shpack Superfund/FUSRAP Site with US Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency Project managers stated
There is no evidence at this time of migration off of the Shpack Site
Migration is seen from Attleboro Landfill into the Shpack Site
Question Considering the steep slope of ALl why wouldnt there be runoff of contaminants on other sides not just in the direction of the Shpack Dump 44km -ç
dS February 23 2007 mO..C%.Q
Heather Graf Coorçlinator Citizens Advisory Shpack Team 229 Worcester St
Norton MA 02766 Ph 598 226 0898 FAX5082262835 Two Pages URGENT
To The Editor
Thanks to all who have requested and returned surveys relative to cancer incidence in the
area surrounding the Shpack Superftind Site While responses to the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health commenting on their most recent report are due by March
16 2007 our investigation will continue well past that date
Of great interest are reports have been receiving from people who may nôthave
been diagnosed with cancer but have health concerns because they had some connection with the dump These include individuals who worked for Texas Instruments or other Attleboro based firmswho dumped at Shpack residents who took their trash there and
persons who lived on Union Rd Sturdy St in Norton and Peckham St Attleboro who
are sharing memories of what the dump looked like between 1950 1980 what was
occurring there during the time period and their own activities on or near the site
Considering Isadore Shpack began accepting all manner of industrial commercial
residential waste in 1946 and continued until 1966 the dangerously toxic nature of the
dump was not discovered untill978 and the site was not properly secured or posted with
until the adequate warning signs year 2000 it is understandable that children and adults
would venture onto the property without fear for their well being
They had no knowledge of the contaminants that lay on and beneath the lands surface
and permeated the wetland areas Barrels some marked MC Nuclear or Texas Instruments gave no warning that they might contain nuclear waste Until 1978 when
student who lived nearby curious about why snails were losing their shells went on site with Geiger counter which lit up who would have suspected the dump was the resting place for uranium radium zirconium ashes and riddled with hot spots Those who
visited the site hunting trapping fishing or berry picking had no reason to believe they
were treading onto land that was also filled with dangerous chemicals VOCs -volatile
organic.cornpounds including dichlorethylene trichlorethylene tetrachlorethylene that
are known carcinogenic compounds
in and Kids the 1950s 1960s 1970s used area ponds for swimming or skating they
sledded from the Attleboro Landfill into the Shpack property or enjoyed dirt biking on the power line easement
Dump picking or scrounging was common activity for adults and children alike The digging and retrieving of bottles from the dumps surface or water areas was popular hobby The question of what these not so precious vessels contained will probably never be anwered But at least some people are now becoming aware of the risks posed to their health which might not become apparent until 15 30 years later
Recollections from residents living nearby include the constant burning of materials at the the odors and which settled in dump resulting dust smoke ftimes smog during the morning hours water runoff from the site onto nearby properties seeping into vegetable gardens and basements and rats the size of cats
With memories of the dump site itself in the 1960s come reports of dead turtles frogs snakes as well as fish who succumbed in waters covered with film Today sightings such as these would be warning sign to adults but particularly to children back then they were merely curiosity
Personally can only wonder and worry about all the people who may have come in contact with contaminants at Shpack are totally unaware of it or the possible consequences and am hampered in efforts to reach so far back in tithe
It is my hope that anyone with knowledge of the Shpack dump will contact me to share what information they may have and if those reading this are in contact with friends former or neighbors family members.who had any association with the site they will spread the word
can be reached in Norton at 508 226 0898
Heather Graf MARCH 16 2007 330 P.M To Jan Sullivan CEH CAP MASSSACHUSETfS DEPRTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 250 WASHINGTON ST FLOOR BOSTON MA 02108 FAX 617 624 5777 THREE PAGES URGENT
ADDENDUM TO COMMENT PIECE DATED MARCH 12 2007 FROM HEATHER GRAF COORDINATOR CAST NORTON MA 02766 FAX 508 226 2835 WHICH WAS SENT FROM ATLEBORO POST OFFICE OVERNIGHT/EXPRESS MAIL THuRSDAY MARCH 15 at AM
RELATWE TO NOVEMBER 16 2006 HEALTH CONSULTATION REPORT
First note that the cover page for the November 16 2006 MDPH Report as approved by ATSDR reads Health Consultation Evaluation of Cancer Incidence in Census
Tracts of Attleboro and Norton.. It is 19822002 clear that if persons reviewing this document DIDNT NOTICE THE STICKER SHPACK LANDFILL would conclude that the does they report what it purports to do The problem is that and study November 16 2006 report are not what was reauested by the Town of
Norton the Citizens Advisory Shpack Team all of our local officials state
legislators as well as Congressman Barney Frank
It does not even come close to addressing the concern of cancer incidence in
neighborhoods surrounding the Shpack Site as was expected by all concerned based on statements including press releases and meeting notices from MDPH
Other Observations
Note with to statement are regard MDPH they awaiting completion of investigations by Army Corps EPA Others
The amount of time between completion and publication of the RT/FS June 16 2004
and this November is ERM MDPH Report 16 2006 two years and five months
It is to familiar apparent me as one with the histoiy as well as the ongoing and proposed activities related the to Shpack Site that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is in class itself in by demonstrating an unwillingness to invest the time and money the Shpack Site warrants