Superfund Records Center SITE: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES BREAK: 1<0}*X < Q) PP..hi;»-. Health Service OTHER: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Atlanta GA 30333 Septerftl^W
Mr. Mike Hill (HSL-CAN5) Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency John F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. Hill:
Enclosed please find a copy of the September 25, 1996, Public Health Assessment on the following site prepared by the Connecticut Department of Public Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT CERCLIS NO. CTD001186618
Also enclosed please find a Reader Evaluation form. This questionnaire is designed to help us improve our communications. We would like to know if we have presented our findings clearly. Reader's responses will help us improve our reports. Please fill out the form, add your own comments, fold the form and drop it in the nearest mailbox. No postage is necessary.
If you have any questions, you may call Tina Forrester, our technical project officer, at (404) 639-0638.
Sincerely yours,
Max M. Howie, Jr. Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Enclosures
SDMS DocID 524932 RAYMARK INDUSTRIES • BLUE PHA TINA FORRESTER, TECHNICAL PROJECT OFFICER - Approved: 7*5*5 ^TCr\D OMB No. 0923-0016 Exp. Date: 7/31/98
READER EVALUATION Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
This questionnaire is designed to help us improve our communications. We would like to know if we have presented ourfindings clearly. Thankyoufor taking the time to respond.
1) Did you read the entire report? QYes QNo If not, which topics did you read about? (Check all that apply.) •Summary • Environmental Exposure • Health Effects • Conclusions/Actions •Community Concerns
2) How longdid it take you to read the report? • Less than 2 hours Q 2-4 hours • More than 4 hours
CONCLUSIONS 3) Did our report clearlysay if people have come into contactwith contamination? (Contact means to eat, drink, breathe or touch.) Check all that apply. Soil • Yes • Possible • No • Unclear Air • Yes • Possible • No • Unclear Water • Yes • Possible • No • Unclear Food Chain • Yes • Possible • No • Unclear
4) Did our report clearlysay if health effects are likelyfrom contact? Soil • Likely • Unlikely •Unclear Air •Likely • Unlikely • Unclear Water • Likely Q Unlikely • Unclear Food Chain • Likely • Unlikely • Unclear
RECOMMENDATIONS 5) Did our report clearly indicate what we recommend be done next? (Check all that apply.) • Collect more data • Restrict or reduce exposure • Health Study • Health Education • No action at this time
CONTENT 6) Does the information in the report support our conclusionsand recommendations? • Yes • No Comments:
7) Did you receive this report in the context of your job? QYes QNo If yes, was enough information provided to allow you to takeaction? • Yes • No If you needed more information, what kind? •Environmental Exposure • Health Effects
Comments:
8) Were your health questions answered in theassessment? • Yes • No If no, what questions do you have?
(Continued on back) ATSDR 10.20 8/95 9) Is there information in the report that you found confusing? (Check all that apply.) •Summary • Environmental Exposure • Health Effects • Conclusions/Actions • Community Concerns
Comments: :
10) Is there information in the report that you found unnecessary? (Check all that apply.) •Summary • Environmental Exposure • Health Effects •Conclusions/Actions • Community Concerns
Comments:
11) Which of these categories would best describe you? • 1) Concerned member of the community • 2) Government employee Q 3) Health care professional • 4) Other (please specify)
12) How did you obtain your copy of the report? • 1) Mailed to you by ATSDR. • 2) Went to the library to use thecopy filed there. • 3) Received from a friend. • 4) Other (please specify)
Are there any other comments you would like to make about the report?
Pleasefold in thirds with address on outside, tape closed, and mail back to us. No postage is required. Thank youfor responding.
Public reporting burden o! this collection of information Is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to PHS Reports Clearance Officer; ATTN; PRA (0923-0016); Hubert H. Humphrey Rm 737-F; 200 Independence Ave.. SW; Washington, DC 20201 This collection is authorized by law (42 U.S.C.9604(i)).
eecoEvo'wrepv •g'M 'peonuojjfiD 0091 9SH dojs[rew tpuejg siHHd :u»V uope){nsuo3 pue juauissassy jo uoisiaiq yCnstdag aseasja pue ssDuejsqnsDpa>i jojAouaSv S90|Ajes UBiunH pue quean )o jueuipedaa Aq pjej eg him eOejsod eeeoe vo vinviiv oues'ONiiWHad ssvioisuu 1IVIA1 A1d3d SS3NISna
OOES asn ejeAUd JOJ Aqeued sssNisna ivioiddo
AllUOIHd sAea 8Ajd jejjv wnjey S31VJLS aSliNfl 3HJ.NI eeeoe ei&ioeo 'ejueuv 0311VW dl uoijueAejd pue IOJJUOQ 9sees)G JOJ sjejueo AUVSS303N ©ojAjes Mlieen 3||qnd 33VlSOd ON S30IAU3S NVIAiriH * H11V3H JO J.N3WldVd3CI Public Health Assessment for
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT CERCLIS NO. CTD001186618 SEPTEMBER 25, 1996
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
*** % PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES
STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
CERCLIS NO. CTD001186618
Prepared by
Connecticut Department of Public Health Under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION
This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superftmd) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate.
In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency's opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D., Administrator Barry L. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE, Director Juan J. Reyes, Deputy Director
Exposure Investigations and Consultation Branch Acting Chief
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch Acting Chief
Petitions Response Branch Acting Chief
Superfund Site Assessment Branch Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Chief
Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch Max M. Howie, Jr., Chief
Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Additional copies of this report are available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia (703) 487-4650 FOREWORD
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, is an agency of the U.S. Public Health Service. It was established by Congress in 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund law. This law set up a fund to identify and clean up our country's hazardous waste sites. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the individual states regulate the investigation and clean up of the sites.
Since 1986, ATSDR has been required by law to conduct a public health assessment at each of the sites on the EPA National Priorities List. The aim of these evaluations is to find out if people are being exposed to hazardous substances and, if so, whether that exposure is harmful and should be stopped or reduced. (The legal definition of a health assessment is included on the inside front cover.) If appropriate, ATSDR also conducts public health assessments when petitioned by concerned individuals. Public health assessments are carried out by environmental and health scientists from ATSDR and from the states with which ATSDR has cooperative agreements.
Exposure: As the first step in the evaluation, ATSDR scientists review environmental data to see how much contamination is at a site, where it is, and how people might come into contact with it. Generally, ATSDR does not collect its own environmental sampling data but reviews information provided by EPA, other government agencies, businesses, and the public. When there is not enough environmental information available, the report will indicate what further sampling data is needed.
Health Effects: If the review of the environmental data shows that people have or could come into contact with hazardous substances, ATSDR scientists then evaluate whether or not there will be any harmful effects from these exposures. The report focuses on public health, or the health impact on the community as a whole, rather than on individual risks. Again, ATSDR generally makes use of existing scientific information, which can include the results of medical, toxicologic and epidemiologic studies and the data collected in disease registries. The science of environmental health is still developing, and sometimes scientific information on the health effects of certain substances is not available. When this is so, the report will suggest what further research studies are needed.
Conclusions: The report presents conclusions about the level of health threat, if any, posed by a site and recommends ways to stop or reduce exposure in its public health action plan. ATSDR is primarily an advisory agency, so usually these reports identify what actions are appropriate to be undertaken by EPA, other responsible parties, or the research or education divisions of ATSDR. However, if there is an urgent health threat, ATSDR can issue a public health advisory warning people of the danger. ATSDR can also authorize health education or pilot studies of health effects, full-scale epidemiology studies, disease registries, surveillance studies or research on specific hazardous substances.
Interactive Process: The health assessment is an interactive process. ATSDR solicits and evaluates information from numerous city, state and federal agencies, the companies responsible for cleaning up the site, and the community. It then shares its conclusions with them. Agencies are asked to respond to an early version of the report to make sure that the data they have provided is accurate and current. When informed of ATSDR's conclusions and recommendations, sometimes the agencies will begin to act on them before the final release of the report.
Community: ATSDR also needs to learn what people in the area know about the site and what concerns they may have about its impact on their health. Consequently, throughout the evaluation process, ATSDR actively gathers information and comments from the people-who live or work near a site, including residents of the area, civic leaders, health professionals and community groups. To ensure that the report responds to the community's health concerns, an early version is also distributed to the public for their comments. All the comments received from the public are responded to in the final version of the report.
Comments: If, after reading this report, you have questions or comments, we encourage you to send them to us.
Letters should be addressed as follows:
Attention: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road (E-56), Atlanta, GA 30333. TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND 1
A. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 1 Raymark Industries, Inc. Off-Site Locations Additional Site Investigations ATSDR Involvement Agency Coordination
B. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS TAKEN DURING HEALTH ASSESSMENT PROCESS 6 Interim Actions and Permanent Remedies Taken at Priority Areas Additional Sites Residential Properties Fish Advisory Voluntary Blood Lead Clinics Clinical Evaluation of Stratford Residents Clinical Evaluation of Public Works Employees Follow-up Study of Birth Weight and Selected Cancer Incidence Using Geographic Information System Technology Enhanced Site Evaluations Using Geographic Information Systems
C. DEMOGRAPHICS, LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES USE . . 11
D. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA . . . 13 Voluntary Blood Lead Screening Cancer Incidence Studies Birth Defects
E. RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS 14
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS 16
A. ON-SITE CONTAMINATION/RAYMARK FACILITY 16 Soil Ambient Air Groundwater
B. OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION 19 Surface Soil Groundwater Indoor Dust Fish and Shellfish Sediment Ambient Air
C. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 33
D. PHYSICAL HAZARDS 33
PATHWAY ANALYSIS 33
A. COMPLETED EXPOSURES 34 Residents Living in Homes Where Surface Soil was Found to be Contaminated Soil Pathway Indoor Dust Public Works Employees Soil Pathway Children, Faculty and Staff at Wooster Junior High School Soil Pathway Members of Housatonic Boat Club Soil Pathway Anglers Fish Pathway Team Members that Played on Raybestos Memorial Field Soil Pathway Workers/Spada and Morgan Francis Area Soil Pathway Stratford Residents Soil Pathway Workers at the Raymark Facility Soil Pathway
B. POTENTIAL EXPOSURES 41 Workers at the Raymark Facility Soil Pathway Ambient Air Pathway Residents Living Near the Raymark Facility Ambient Air Pathway Indoor Air Pathway Trespassers at the Raymark Facility Soil Pathway Utility Workers Soil Pathway C. ELIMINATED EXPOSURES 42 Groundwater Pathway
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS 43
A. TOXICOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS 43 Asbestos Lead Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
B. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION 46 Voluntary Blood Lead Screening Cancer Incidence Studies Birth Defects
CONCLUSIONS 48
RECOMMENDATIONS 49 Health Activities Recommendation Panel
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN 50
PREPARERS OF REPORT 53
REFERENCES 54 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Site Map 56 APPENDIX B ATSDR Public Health Advisory, May 1993 58 APPENDIX C Interagency Communication Plan 73 APPENDIX D GIS Maps 100 APPENDIX E Health Consultation-Fish, Subsistence Fishing Memo 105 APPENDIX F Health Consultation-Private Well Survey 127 APPENDIX G Citizen Question and Answers 133 APPENDIX H Fact Sheets Neighborhood Forums 139 APPENDIX I Stratford Environmental Updates 161 APPENDIX J Public Health Code/Private Wells 196 APPENDIX K Health Consultation-Blood Lead Screening 198 APPENDIX L Health Consultation-Cancer Incidence 206 APPENDIX M Memo-Birth Defects 217 APPENDIX N Response to Public Comment 219 SUMMARY
Raymark Industries, Inc. operated in Stratford, Connecticut from 1919-1989. The facility manufactured brakes, clutch parts, and other friction based products. A system of lagoons were used in an effort to capture manufacturing waste. As these lagoons filled, they were dredged and waste material was used on and off-site as fill material.
The Raymark facility site posed a public health hazard to workers because of likely exposures to soil containing many compounds including volatile organic compounds, lead, asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Workers may also have been exposed to airborne asbestos. Workers were also likely exposed to a variety of compounds during manufacturing operations that likely required the handling of these materials and chemicals. Currently the facility is closed, site access is limited and much of the area is paved thereby reducing the potential for current exposures to site contamination, however, the site poses a health threat to people who trespass at the site. In addition, a health threat could exist at the site for workers or on-site personnel if current or future activities disturb contamination and precautions are not taken to prevent exposures from occurring.
Off-site locations presented a public health hazard in the past. These included the Wooster Junior High School/north playing field, Raybestos Memorial Field, Housatonic Boat Club, Short Beach Park, Wooster Park, Birds Eye Boat Ramp. Beacon Point Road, Spada Area/Commercial properties, Morgan Francis property, Del Buono property, Stratford Marina, and Salce property. Workers and recreational users were likely exposed to lead, asbestos, and PCBs through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with contaminated surface soil. Interim actions including fencing, restricted access and covering have been taken at these locations to reduce the risk of any current or future exposures. A permanent remedy has been completed at Wooster Junior High School. Permanent remedies are being investigated for the other sites.
Some residential properties with surface soil contamination presented an imminent health threat in the past. Residents were likely exposed to lead, asbestos, and PCBs through ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with contaminated soils. No health threat currently exists at these properties. Interim measures were taken at all residential properties where waste was present prior to the excavation and removal activities. Excavation and removal, planned for all residential properties with levels of contamination posing a health threat, has been completed at the majority of the homes.
A public health threat currently exists for people who eat contaminated fish from Selby or Brewster Ponds. Elevated levels of PCBs were detected in American eels caught from Selby Pond. White catfish caught from Brewster Pond were found to have elevated levels of chlordane, a pesticide unrelated to Raymark waste. The Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) and the Stratford Health Department posted signs warning anglers about the contaminated species.
i In May 1993, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a Public Health Advisory stating that an imminent public health hazard existed from past, present and potential future exposures to Raymark waste containing lead, asbestos, and PCBs. Actions were quickly initiated to stop exposures, identify additional waste areas, and educate the public about adverse health effects associated with exposures. These activities involved the coordinated efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ATSDR, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP), CT DPH, the Stratford Health Department and the town of Stratford.
Health outcome data including the results of a voluntary blood lead screening, cancer incidence and birth defects data were reviewed. The voluntary blood lead screening program did not identify a higher than expected number of elevated blood lead levels. These results can not be used to determine if people were exposed to Raymark waste or if Raymark waste affected people's health because the participants did not represent all Stratford residents and exposure to the waste had stopped at the majority of the locations. The cancer incidence rates in Stratford between 1958 and 1991 did not vary significantly from State rates for most cancer sites studied. The rates of bladder cancer, mesothelioma and all cancer sites combined for persons less than age 25 were higher in Stratford than the State. When the rates for all tumor sites combined, for all ages, were looked at in five-year time periods, the rate of cancer increased slightly for Stratford in comparison to the State. No birth defect stood out as being excessive in Stratford for the years 1983, 1985 and 1986. These are the only three years for which birth defects data is available. The findings of these investigations can be found in the Public Health Implications section of this document.
ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) has reviewed this Health Assessment and has made the following recommendations regarding follow-up health activities. The panel determined that community health education should be continued. Future community health education efforts should focus on informing the community on the health aspects of remedial activities at the Raymark site and other off-site locations and the results of on-going health studies. The panel also determined that the collaborative efforts between ATSDR. CT DPH and the Stratford Health Department should continue with these future educational efforts. The panel determined that the need for further follow up health activities should be considered once the results of on-going studies are available for review.
ATSDR and CT DPH recommend that efforts be taken to maintain all interim measures at sites where permanent remedies have not yet taken place. Furthermore, institutional controls need to be established for areas where a permanent remediation is not possible. CT DPH and ATSDR will continue to review post-excavation sampling results and any additional sampling data that are generated during the Stratford site investigations. CT DPH and ATSDR will continue to work with the Stratford Health Department to provide timely information to the public as activities in Stratford continue.
ii BACKGROUND
A. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
Raymark Industries, Inc.
Raymark Industries, Inc. is located at 75 East Main Street in Stratford, Fairfield County, Connecticut. The site covers approximately 33 acres and is owned by Raymark Industries, Inc.. It is bounded to the north by East Main Street, to the east by East Main Street and Ferry Boulevard, to the south by Longbrook Avenue and Barnum Avenue, and to the west by an active railroad corridor (See Appendix A-Site Map).
The buildings on site cover approximately 600,000 square feet and consist of formerly used office, production, and storage buildings. From 1919 until 1989, operations at the facility included the production of brakes, clutch parts, and other friction based products. During the manufacturing process, wastes generated included lead, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), ignitable and corrosive wastes, solvents, liquid adhesives, phenolic resins, alcohol, caustic phenolic mixtures, and dioxins/furans (EPA Region I, Pollution Report and RCRA file Information).
Raymark routinely disposed of waste containing more than 60 different contaminants on the facility property and at other locations in Stratford. From 1919 to July of 1984, Raymark used a system of on-site lagoons in an effort to capture the waste lead and asbestos. Over this 65 year period, these lagoon systems were located at numerous locations on the western and central portions of the site. As the lagoons filled, they were often dredged and the material was used as fill in locations on-site and around Stratford. I P \ The Environmental Protection Agency Region I (EPA) has been involved with investigations at the Raymark Facility since 1984. In the fall of 1992, Raymark was ordered by EPA to stabilize its facility and the property; limit the potential for human contact to on-site contamination; and limit the potential for release of hazardous substances and contaminants from the site.
The site is fenced to prohibit access by the general public. Some office space at the facility was being used and the southern most building was being leased and used as a solid waste transfer station up until the summer of 1995.
Four lagoons on the site have been temporarily capped. These lagoons stopped receiving waste in 1984. One of the lagoons remained uncapped until the fall of 1994. It served as a collection basin and final discharge point for the facility's storm water runoff system. This lagoon drained into Ferry Creek, which flows south and east one half mile to the Housatonic River. Excavated waste removed from residential properties is being stored at the site. The majority of this waste is being stored in a secured and covered dome area. Some waste is also being stored in one of the buildings at the Raymark facility. In addition, contaminated soil has been placed in temporary piles outside and are covered with dust suppression foam routinely.
1 As a result of the dredging of the on-site lagoons and disposal of waste material throughout Stratford, many areas of off-site contamination have been identified and investigated. Maps in Appendix D show the location of these areas.
Off-Site Locations
Based on historical town records, fourteen known or suspected waste disposal areas in the town were identified for evaluation. These areas included: Wooster Junior HighSchool/playing fields; Raybestos Memorial Field; Morgan Francis Property on East Broadway; the Spada Property/commercial properties on Ferry Boulevard; Ferry Creek; the Housatonic Boat Club; Elm Street Lot K; the Airport Clear Zone; Forth and Fifth Avenue; the landfill on Dome Drive; Short Beach Park; Lordship Boulevard; Honeyspot Road; and Beacon Point Road. Of the fourteen waste disposal areas, eight were prioritized for evaluation. Schools, recreational areas and locations easily accessed by the public were of greatest concern. The following is a description of the eight priority sites:
Wooster Junior High School: Wooster Junior High School is located on the comer of Freeman and Lincoln Streets. It is bordered by residential areas to the east and south. Wooster Park is located to the north and west. Bmce Brook is located along the western and northern boundaries of the school property. Wooster Pond is located north of the school property. Prior to the mid 1960's, the area that is now the north playing field was a pond. During the mid to late 1960's this area was filled.
Short Beach Park: Short Beach Park is located on Dome Drive. The recreational areas including two softball fields, a little league field, a soccer field and a nine hole golf course cover approximately 50 acres. The area that is now known as Short Beach Park was a tidal wetland. Filling in this area began in the 1950's and 60's, and was actually part of the Dome Drive landfill currently located across Dome Drive. EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) reports indicate that Raymark waste was used as fill in this area during 1976-1979. The golf course and soccer fields were completed in the 1980's.
Vacant Lot/End of 4th/5th Avenue: This vacant lot is located at the end of 4th Avenue in the Lordship part of Stratford. The vacant lot covers approximately three acres and is surrounded by residential properties. A pond is located on the vacant parcel. It is believed that Raymark waste was used as fill in this area during the 1960's. A portion of this area is considered a tidal wetland by the DEP.
Spada Area/Commercial Properties on Ferry Boulevard: This area is located along Ferry Boulevard and is bisected by Ferry Creek. The eastern portion of Ferry Boulevard between Willow Avenue and Broad Street was at one time owned by Ernest Spada, a business developer, prior to its subdivision and development, thus the name Spada Properties. Commercial properties including Magic Mart, the Blue Goose Restaurant, Shopping Center, Housatonic Marina, Dan Perkin's Subaru, Veras Motors, Turnpike Spirits, and Ink Master are all located along the eastern side of Ferry Boulevard. Ferry Creek is located behind these commercial properties and
2 residential properties are located on the opposite side of the creek. Prior to the mid 1960's this area was a tidal wetland but during the mid 1960's and early 1970's this area was filled. Residential properties on Housatonic'Avenue and Willow Street were developed prior to the mid 1960's.
Morgan Francis Area: This area is located on East Broadway where it branches off from Ferry Boulevard. It is believed that waste was disposed in this area from approximately 1970-76. Ferry Creek borders this area to the east. A small tool shop is located on the property. A residential area is located to the north and west.
Lot K/Elm Street: This is an occupied private residence located on Elm Street.
Housatonic Boat Club: The Housatonic Boat Club is a private yacht club located between Shore Road and the Housatonic River. It is believed that the original shore line was located near what is now Shore Road. During the late 1960's and 70's fill was used to build up the area where the Boat Club is now located.
Ravbestos Memorial Field and some adjacent properties: This field is located adjacent to the Raymark facility and covers approximately 13 acres. The area was used as a disposal site for Raymark waste as early as the 1940's through the 1980's. In the late 1970's clean fill was used to cover the disposal area. In 1989, asbestos materials were observed on the surface during an EPA site inspection. Under EPA orders, the area beyond the outfield was capped and fenced in 1992.
Additional Site Investigations
Adjacent Areas
In addition to the eight priority areas, investigations were initiated at the remaining six areas and residential, recreational, and commercial properties located near and within the priority areas. This included the investigation of approximately 25 commercial areas, approximately ten recreational and municipal areas, and approximately 350 residential properties.
Other
In response to concerns expressed by the public in May 1993, EPA also sampled day care facilities, parks, greens, and schools regardless of their proximity to a known waste area.
ATSDR Involvement
In 1989 the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) provided EPA with health consultations for the Raymark facility property, and for 12 areas of known asbestos waste disposal. These sites were evaluated for asbestos only. ATSDR concluded that the Raymark
3 facility, Raymark Memorial Field, Stratford Square Shopping Center, Morgan Francis property, and the Spada property posed a potential health threat and recommended remedial action for airborne asbestos. ATSDR recommended monitoring and sampling programs for the Housatonic Boat Club, Beacon Point Road, Stratford Landfill, Short Beach Park, Fourth and Fifth Avenue, Honey Spot Road Extension and Wooster Junior High School Playing Field.
In February of 1992, ATSDR provided a health consultation for the Raymark facility, at the request of EPA. ATSDR concluded that the site posed a public health threat because of asbestos and PCBs.
ATSDR provided a health consultation in August 1992 regarding the removal activities being done by EPA at the Raymark Memorial Ball Field. ATSDR recommended that soil samples be collected at 0-3 inches and analyzed for lead and PCBs. In September 1992, ATSDR reviewed surface soil data for the ball field and concluded that the PCB levels did not pose a health threat because of restricted site access and the proposed covering of the area of concern.
In February 1993 the town of Stratford petitioned ATSDR for a Public Health Assessment to evaluate the human exposure risks posed by the presence of asbestos containing material at several locations within the town. This petition was accepted.
During this same month, EPA Region I requested that ATSDR evaluate dioxin analyses from soil samples collected on the Raymark facility property and to assess the potential health hazard. The results of on-going investigations at the Raymark facility revealed the presence of dioxin and fiirans beneath the surface in some areas. ATSDR concluded that the dioxin and furans at the site did not pose an imminent health threat because the surface was covered, there was restricted access to the site, and because it was an industrial setting. However, this finding prompted additional investigations of off-site areas in Stratford.
In May 1993, ATSDR reviewed screening results from the eight priority areas and issued a Public Health Advisory that concluded that an imminent public health hazard existed from past, present and potential future exposures to Raymark waste containing asbestos, lead, PCBs and other possible contaminants. In addition, ATSDR determined that a potential public health hazard may have existed due to indoor exposure. Asbestos, lead. PCBs and other possible Raymark waste contaminants may have been tracked inside residences via clothing, shoes and pets. ATSDR also concluded that the consumption of seafood caught in or near Ferry Creek may pose a health threat if Raymark waste contaminants were present at levels of health concern. ATSDR made the following recommendations in the May 1993 Public Health Advisory:
1. Dissociate the public from areas where exposure to Raymark waste at levels of health concern can occur.
2. Continue surface soil (0-3 inches) sampling/screening efforts for asbestos, lead, and PCBs in residential yards adjacent to areas where waste has been identified on or near the
4 ground surface. If contaminants are found at levels of health concern, implement measures to cease exposure.
3. Continue efforts to identify other locations where Raymark waste was used as fill material and conduct appropriate sampling and mitigation if necessary.
4. Sample interiors of homes adjacent to areas of exposed waste and/or where yard-soil screening results indicate contaminants at levels of health concern for free asbestos fibers, lead, and PCBs. If contaminants are found at levels of health concern, implement measures to cease exposure.
5. Conduct sediment sampling of Ferry Creek and its junction with the Housatonic River and seafood sampling to determine if site-related contaminants are present at levels of health concern. The sampling plan should be a cooperative effort among all agencies involved to ensure that the results can be used for public health and regulatory/enforcement purposes.
6. Conduct an area well survey to ensure that groundwater is not in use for potable purposes. If private wells are found, ensure that well users are not exposed to site-related contaminants at levels of health concern.
7. Establish controls to require soil sampling and analyses in areas of Stratford where Raymark waste material may have been placed prior to conducting any invasive activities (e.g. water line installation, sewage line installation, maintenance of buried line, construction, grading) to avoid health hazards to workers or others by bringing buried waste material to the ground surface. If necessary, all regulations for worker protection and hazardous material handling and disposal should be followed.
8. Consider the Raymark Property and other locations where Raymark waste is present at levels of health concern for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List, and/or other statutory or regulatory authorities as appropriate to characterize the areas of concern and take necessary action (See Appendix B-Public Health Advisory. May 1993).
In September 1993, ATSDR and the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) recommended a number of follow-up health activities. These recommendations were made after the review of environmental contamination at residential properties and were reviewed by ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP). These recommendations included:
1. A community health investigation should be done utilizing different exposure categories to examine either biomarkers of exposure or adverse health effects for different parts of the community. A biomarker is a test of human tissue, blood, or urine that can give some information about exposure to a chemical.
2. Cohorts of individuals who may have had higher exposure to the waste should be considered for more extensive follow-up. 3. Cases of elevated blood lead screening results should be compared to environmental sampling conducted to date.
4. Health education efforts in areas of higher exposure to the waste should be continued and expanded.
5. Further evaluation of cancer incidence data should be considered and should include: cancer among persons less than 25 years of age; cancer trends during the past 30 years; lung cancer cases; and mesothelioma cases.
6. Further evaluation of available health outcome data (such as data concerning birth defects) should be considered.
Agency Coordination
After the issuance of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory, EPA, DEP, ATSDR and the CT DPH and the Stratford Health Department expanded investigations and activities in Stratford. Emphasis was placed on the identification of new sites and the timely implementation of strategies to cease exposure and protect public health.
The environmental agencies took the lead on site investigations, environmental sampling and control measures to stop exposure. The health agencies reviewed sampling data, provided information regarding the public health implications of each area, and evaluated health outcome data.
In addition to these activities, public communication and education efforts were initiated. ATSDR provided for an on-site coordinator located within the Stratford Health Department to assist in maintaining effective lines of communication between the various agencies and the public, organize community wide informational and educational programs including meetings and fact sheets, and respond to incoming inquiries from the public.
A Medical Advisory Group was established to assist with specific medical questions posed by individuals in Stratford. In addition, this group assisted with outreach to health care professionals about the environmental contamination issues in Stratford.
An Interagency Communication Plan was developed to assist in the effective coordination and communication between the various agencies providing support in Stratford (See Appendix C- The Interagency Communication Plan).
B. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS TAKEN DURING HEALTH ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Since the issuance of the Public Health Advisory in May 1993, numerous activities have taken place to protect the public from exposure to contamination, to evaluate health outcome data and
6 to communicate potential health risks to the public. The following provides an overview of these activities. Many of these actions were recommendations from the May 1993 Public Health Advisory and the September 1993 ATSDR and CT DPH recommendations.
Interim Actions and Permanent Remedies Taken at Priority Areas
As surface soil data became available, data were submitted by EPA and DEP to ATSDR and CT DPH. Health determinations were made for each property and submitted to EPA and DEP for appropriate action. A Health Implication Statement (HIS) was issued for each property. The HIS outlined the health determination and any recommendations for reducing exposures. Four classifications were used to characterize the sites. These classifications were: Imminent Health Hazard; Health Hazard; Potential Health Hazard; and No Apparent Health Hazard. These determinations were made based on the level of the contamination, the extent of the contamination and where the contamination was located on the property.
Wooster Middle School: In April 1993 a fence was constructed around the area of contamination and the north playing field was closed to the public. In the summer of 1993 a soil, gravel and geo-textile cover was placed over the North playing field for reinforcement and separation. This cover is at least 18 inches thick and blankets approximately nine acres. A permanent remedy was completed in the fall of 1995. This involved the excavation and removal of the contamination as well as landscaping and restoration of the fields.
Short Beach Park: In May 1993. access to the contaminated areas was restricted with the use of signs and snow fences. In the fall of 1993, a soil, gravel and geo-textile cover was placed on approximately three acres of the baseball/soccer field area. This cover is at least 12 inches thick. A fence was constructed around the covered area. A similar cover was placed in the area of the paddle ball courts. The permanent remedy at this site consists of a final cap of up to 3 feet of sand, gravel and topsoil placed over the existing cover.
Morgan Francis Property: A fence was installed around the perimeter of the Morgan Francis property to restrict access to the site. The gravel parking lot and sidewalk along East Broadway was paved with approximately four inches of asphalt.
Spada Properties: Blue Goose Restaurant: During early 1994, a fence was placed along Ferry Creek and the back of this property to restrict access.
Shopping Center: A fence was installed along the eastern portion of the property to block access to Ferry Creek. Geo-textile and wood chips were placed over exposed soil in landscaped areas in the front of the property. Along the border between the Shopping Center and Housatonic Marina, exposed soil was covered with geo-textile and crushed stone.
7 Housatonic Marina: Geo-textile and wood chips were placed in the front of the property where there was exposed soil. A fence was already present to block access to Ferry Creek.
Dan Perkin's Subaru: Exposed soil in the front of the property along Ferry Boulevard was paved. A fence was placed next to the swale on the southern edge of the property. A fence already existed to block access to Ferry Creek. Geo-textile and wood chips were placed over exposed soil near the fences and on the parking lot islands.
Vacant Lot/4th/5th Avenue Area: In June 1993, a localized area of contamination was covered with clean fill. Residents living in the area have been advised to stay off this area, signs are posted to warn of environmental contamination. EPA placed additional temporary cover on this area in 1994. A permanent remedy was completed in the fall of 1995.
Lot K/EIm Street: Residents at this location were advised on reducing exposure to the waste. A removal action occurred at this location which involved the excavation of contaminated soil and removal back to Raymark.
Housatonic Boat Club: In May 1993, the town restricted the use of Shore Road. By November 1993, six inches of gravel had been placed over contamination in the boat storage area. A grass infield near the club had been paved and new cover and seed had been established closest to the club house. Crushed stone was used to cover areas along the east side of Shore Road and the landscaped island near the boat club entrance had been covered. In October 1994 fabric and compost was used along the west side of Shore Road. At this time the Town reopened Shore Road to all traffic.
Ravbestos Memorial Field: The field has been closed to restrict access to the general public. The area outside of the ballfield has been capped by EPA.
Additional Sites
In addition to the eight priority sites, additional sites were identified during sampling of adjacent properties. As these new sites were identified, interim actions were taken to prevent any additional exposures from occurring. These actions focused primarily on covering and fencing. Interim measures were selected based primarily on land use, site access, and extent of contamination.
Residential Properties
A Health Implication Statement (HIS) was issued for every residential property evaluated. The HIS outlined the health determination made for the specific property which included recommendations for further investigation and recommendations for reducing exposure, if necessary, until interim and/or permanent measures could be taken. For all residential properties classified as a Health Hazard, or Imminent Health Hazard, a representative from the health agencies and the environmental agencies, hand delivered the sampling data and the HIS and
8 answered questions from the residents. Interim measures were taken at all of these properties to stop exposure. These measures included, temporary fencing, covering, and restricted land use (i.e. no gardening, no landscaping, no digging.) I Permanent remediation of residential properties, directed by EPA, has focused on excavation and removal. As of October 1995, removal activities have occurred at approximately 45 residential properties. ATSDR and CT DPH have reviewed post excavation sampling of soil and issued Post Excavation HIS. In all cases, the post excavation sampling has cleared the properties of current health threats. For a few properties where waste had to be left in place, a future land- use notification system will be developed by the town to ensure protection of public health. Future property owners will be instructed not to breach the area(s) where waste remains. In some cases waste had to be left in place because excavation would have compromised the structural integrity of the foundation; or because of the presence of the utility line; or because the height of the water table made digging difficult.
Fish Advisory
The CT DPH and the Stratford Health Department issued warnings, posted signs and wrote fact sheets regarding fish contamination identified in Selby and Brewster Ponds. See Appendix E for the press release and fact sheets.
Voluntary Blood Lead Clinics
The Stratford Health Department offered free blood lead screening clinics from June through August of 1993. Residents concerned about exposure to lead could receive a blood lead test. Any confirmed blood lead level of 10 ug/dL or greater was followed up the Stratford Health Department. When possible, sources of lead in the persons environment were identified and recommendations were made to reduce exposure.
Clinical Evaluation of Stratford Residents
A study to investigate the health status of Stratford residents living in homes evaluated for the presence of Raymark waste in surface soil is underway. The University of Connecticut (UCONN) has been awarded funding from ATSDR to evaluate biomarkers of exposure in groups of individuals with varying degrees of risk associated with exposure to Raymark contaminants.
All persons living on residential properties where surface soil samples were taken have been asked to participate. All participants are asked to complete a questionnaire to determine general health status; have a brief medical examination; give a blood sample for lead, PCB, lipid and blood count analysis; and have a chest x-ray if over the age of 18. These data will be evaluated and compared across exposure categories defined by levels of contamination found in surface soil at the residence. The presence of a dose-response relationship will be explored for each of the biomarkers of exposure and exposure categories.
9 Clinical Evaluation of Public Works Employees
Public works employees were offered an opportunity to participate in a medical evaluation given their potential past exposure to Raymark waste at town-owned properties. These exposures may have occurred during maintenance of parks, roads, and school grounds. The medical evaluation included blood lead measurement, a medical and occupational history, and a physical examination. Efforts focused on detecting symptoms or conditions that may be related to exposure to lead, asbestos, or PCBs. Participation was voluntary and open to all current employees of the Public Works department with the exception of office staff who have no history of working in the field during their tenure with the department. Evaluation of this data has not been completed.
Follow-up Study of Birth Weight and Selected Types of Cancer Incidence using Geographic Information System Technology
ATSDR has funded CT DPH to use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology or computerized mapping to conduct a study of birth weight and selected types of cancer in relation to living near waste sites in Stratford, CT.
GIS will be used to locate the address as listed on the birth certificate for births occurring to Stratford residents between 1983 to 1992. These locations can then be used to assign environmental scores based on distance from the nearest hazardous waste location in the town. The distance from the waste, and other variables as listed on the birth certificate will be analyzed to determine if living near waste is predictive of birth weight.
Cancer cases diagnosed to Stratford residents will also be studied using GIS. Bladder cancer, mesothelioma, all tumors in individuals less than 25 years of age and testicular cancer were selected for further study because of citizen concern for that tumor site or because preliminary analysis indicated that the incidence in Stratford was higher than what would be expected based on State of Connecticut rates. The following provides a list of the tumors that will be investigated further based on earlier reviews of the tumor data.
1. Approximately 331 bladder cancer cases diagnosed between the years 1968 to 1991;
2. Sixteen mesothelioma cases diagnosed between the years 1958 to 1991;
3. Approximately 98 tumors (all tumor sites combined) occurring to individuals who are under the age of 25 that were diagnosed between the years 1968 to 1991.
4. Approximately 23 testicular cancer cases diagnosed between the years 1968 to 1991.
These follow-up GIS studies will not be able to prove that the waste caused any disease, but they will help evaluate whether or not there was an association with living near the waste and decreased birth weight or increased risk of cancer.
10 Enhanced Site Evaluations Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Stratford and CT DPH were selected by ATSDR to participate in a demonstration project with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to explore the use of GIS in the health assessment process. GIS provides a way to analyze data in relation to its geographic location. Population data were gathered from the 1990 Census; information on natural resources and roadways was obtained from the DEP; environmental sampling data were obtained from EPA; and health data were gathered by the Stratford Health Department and CT DPH.
All of these data elements were assigned geographic locations for use in analysis and map generation. ORNL collaborated with CT DPH on the information gathered, and for map generation. The GIS was found to be very useful in several areas:
1) mapping the location of the Raymark waste;
2) identification of natural resources and possible exposure pathways;
3) enumeration and identification of sensitive populations; and
4) evaluating health outcome data.
C. DEMOGRAPHICS, LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES USE
According to the 1990 census, the Town of Stratford has a population of 49,389. There are 3442 children less than age six in the town. Approximately 12% of the population are minorities. Approximately 3.5% of the total population live below the poverty level.
GIS was used to further evaluate sensitive populations around known waste sites. Sensitive populations are groups of people recognized as being more sensitive to exposure to environmental contamination. These populations include children and pregnant women. By mapping environmental contamination and census data, the populations closest to the waste areas were better identified. Maps in Appendix D represent population densities in Stratford and around the eight known waste areas. Table 1 describes the populations living within a quarter mile of the Raymark facility and eight priority areas. Minority populations are listed to help evaluate environmental equity issues.
11 Table 1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS around the RAYMARK FACILITY and EIGHT PRIORITY AREAS STRATFORD, CT
SITE TOTAL CHILDREN LESS MINORITY POPULATION THAN AGE SIX POPULATION WITHIN 1/4 MILE WITHIN 1/4 MILE WITHIN 1/4 MILE
WOOSTER JR 4150 (8.4%)* 281 (6.8%)** 176 (4.2%)** HIGH SCHOOL
RAYMARK 3310 (6.7%) 276 (8.3%) 168 (5.1%) FACILITY HOUSATONIC 2951 (6.0%) 225 (7.6%) 315 (10.7%) BOAT CLUB
SPADA 1673 (3.4%) 115 (6.9%) 111 (6.6%) PROPERTIES
MORGAN 1963 (4.0%) 140 (7.1%) 180 (9.2%) FRANCIS
SHORT BEACH 1349 (2.7%) 85 (6.3%) 69 (5.1%) PARK 4TH/5TH 1385 (2.8%) 86 (6.2%) 58 (4.2%) AVENUE VACANT LOT
LOT K/ELM ST 3454 (7.0%) 318 (9.2%) 1179 (34.1%)
RAYBESTOS 2940 (6.0%) 252 (8.6%) 152 (5.2%) MEMORIAL FIELD
•Percentages reported as percent of total population. ••Percentages reported as percent of total population living within a quarter mile of the site.
12 Children living near known waste areas are of particular concern. Children are most likely to be exposed to contamination in soil due to their increased hand to mouth activity. In addition, children are, in general, more susceptible to the adverse effects associated with exposure to environmental contamination. This is because children are still growing and developing and the body's mechanisms for processing and excreting toxic substances are not as developed.
People living, playing or working in the known waste areas are at greatest risk of exposure to contamination. A more detailed description of the populations most likely to be exposed is presented in the Exposure Pathways section.
GIS was also used to help identify land use and natural resources near the known waste sites. By mapping areas of known contamination, sensitive areas including ponds and rivers could be easily identified. In addition, GIS easily characterized land use around the known waste areas. Land use in and around the known waste areas includes residential, commercial, industrial and recreational.
The town of Stratford has 19 day care facilities, 13 public schools and 16 parks and greens.
Stratford is bordered to the south by Long Island Sound and to the East by the Housatonic River. There are 5 ponds: in Stratford. A profile of fishing in these different water bodies was evaluated and can be found in Appendix E. Subsistence fishing does occur in a number of water bodies in Stratford. The species primarily fished is the American eel. Swimming, boating and fishing occur in Long Island Sound.
Potable water in Stratford is provided by Bridgeport Hydraulic Company from the Trap Falls Reservoir located in Sheiton, CT. A private well water survey was conducted by the CT DEP to determine if anyone was using a private well for potable purposes within areas potentially affected by Raymark waste. Only 15 private wells were identified. A summary of this can be found in Appendix F.
D. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA
Voluntary Blood Lead Screening
Because lead was a primary component of the waste, one of the recommendations of the Public Health Advisory was to conduct blood lead testing among Stratford residents. As described previously, the Stratford Health Department instituted free, voluntary blood lead testing in conjunction with the CT DPH. The purpose of the blood lead screening program was to: 1) identify cases of lead poisoning so that farther investigation could occur to identify probable sources of lead, 2) provide a tool to evaluate the association between known lead risk factors and lead poisoning and 3) target prevention activities. Eleven clinics were offered for blood lead screening between June and August of 1993.
13 Cancer Incidence Studies
The CT DPH used the Connecticut Tumor Registry to gather data on the occurrence of lung, testicular and breast cancer; and non Hodgkin's Lymphoma, mesothelioma, leukemia, and soft tissue sarcoma. It is required by Connecticut law that all tumors diagnosed to Connecticut residents be reported to the CT DPH Tumor Registry. This is a population based registry that participates in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program and tabulates statistics on cancer incidence for the National Cancer Institute. The Tumor Registry has been in existence since 1935. The Tumor Registry collects data from reporting physicians, and also has an active surveillance program which reviews hospital records to ensure complete reporting of tumors. The Tumor Registry also has cooperative agreements with neighboring states so that tumors diagnosed in these states are reported to the Connecticut Tumor Registry.
Age specific cancer incidence rates were generated for Connecticut and Stratford for the 34 year period 1958-1991.
Birth Defects
The number and rate of birth defects in Stratford and the State were evaluated using data from the Connecticut Birth Defects Surveillance Program (CBDSP). Birth defects data for 1983, 1985, and 1986 were reviewed to compare the rates of specific birth defects in Stratford with Connecticut rates. These three years are the only years for which data is available. The CBDSP used information gathered from the birth certificates, death certificates, and hospital discharge data.
A summary of these studies can be found in the Health Outcome Data Evaluation section.
E. RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS
In response to the issuance of the Public Health Advisory, citizens in Stratford raised a number of concerns regarding health issues and environmental activities in town. In an effort to identify community concerns and respond to citizen concerns, a number of different initiatives have been explored. The following summarizes these efforts and the corresponding Appendices provide an overview of the questions raised by the citizens and the responses.
Public Meetings
On May 27, 1993, a public meeting was held to present the findings and conclusions of the ATSDR Public Health Advisory. More than 400 citizens of Stratford attended this meeting. Many, but not all, citizens had the opportunity to ask questions. Representatives from ATSDR, EPA, DEP, CT DPH, the Medical Advisory Committee, and the town were present. In an effort to respond to all the concerns raised by those in attendance, citizens
14 wrote their questions on index cards. Responses to these questions were prepared by the appropriate agencies and were printed in a local newspaper. A listing of the questions can be found in Appendix G.
As the environmental investigations progressed, a series of neighborhood forums were held. These meetings were organized in neighborhoods directly affected by the investigations and the activities surrounding those investigations. These meetings were smaller and provided a better forum in which to address the immediate concerns of those impacted. Representatives from the town, health and environmental agencies attended. The following is a listing of the neighborhood forums held to date: 8/19/93-4th/5th Avenue Area 8/26/93-Wooster School Area 9/1/93-Wooster School Area/Medical Issues 9/7/93 Elm Street Area 9/9/93-Morgan Francis Area 9/28/93-Clinton, Patterson Area 10/21/93-4th/5th Avenue Area 8/16/94-Sidney Street Area 9/20/94-Willow Street Area 12/10/94-Main Street Area 1/12/95-Elm Street Area 1/31/95-Stratford Avenue Area 4/8/95-Raymark Industries, Inc. 4/11/95-Raymark Industries. Inc. 6/8/95-Wooster School Area 9/13/95-Raymark Industries, Inc.
Appendix H includes fact sheets that were provided at these forums.
Data Package Delivery
For all properties where contamination was identified at levels of concern, data packages were hand delivered by representatives from the health and environmental agencies. During this time, sampling data were reviewed, the health determination was reported and residents and/or owners of the property were provided with an opportunity to ask questions. During this time, a number of citizen's concerns were responded to on an individual basis.
Citizen Advisory Council
In June 1993, the Stratford Citizens Advisory Council (SCAC) was established. The Stratford Health Department and the CT DPH encouraged the development of this citizens group and assisted in its formation. Eventually SCAC became an independent group. Membership in SCAC is voluntary and there is a current membership of approximately 14. The group established a number of goals including the dissemination of factual information to
15 the public about hazardous waste in town, ensuring that the agencies involved made Stratford a top priority, seeking out community concerns and input about the sites and the work being done and communicating this to the various agencies and assisting with community education. SCAC issued newsletters and disseminated them throughout town. Representatives from the environmental and health agencies were often invited to present updates and respond to the group's questions.
Stratford Newsletter
In June 1993, the town, EPA, DEP, ATSDR and CT DPH developed a newsletter to provide the community with information about environmental contamination and the effects on people's health. Newsletters were originally sent to all residents of Stratford and eventually a mailing list was developed. Six issues have been published (See Appendix I-Stratford Environmental Update).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
The following discussion and data tables present the contaminants of concern for the Raymark facility (on-site) and the other known waste areas (off-site). Contaminants are presented by the medium in which they were found. The listing of contaminants in this section does not imply that it will cause adverse health effects, that determination is based on the routes and duration of exposure, and the toxicity of the contaminant and is explained in the Pathway Analysis and Toxicological Implications sections.
Comparison values are used to identify contaminants that will be evaluated further. The comparison values are contaminant specific concentrations in specific media. These values include Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), and other relevant guidelines. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations based on a one excess cancer in a million persons similarly exposed over a lifetime. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent drinking water contaminant concentrations that EPA deems protective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of two liters of water per day. The EPA Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is not expected to cause adverse health effects. Not all contaminants have comparison values.
A. ON-SITE CONTAMINATION/RAYMARK FACILITY
A Remedial Investigation for the Raymark facility was complete as of April 1995. Environmental sampling at the site has been extensive. Data for soil and groundwater were reviewed.
16 Soil
Soil samples collected in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as part of Phase IIA and IIB RCRA investigation at the Raymark facility have identified very high levels of contamination at or near the surface and in deeper soils. Soil borings have been used throughout the site to help define the extent of soil contamination. Table 2 provides a list of the contaminants identified in soil at the Raymark facility which exceed comparison values.
Ambient Air
Ambient air sampling for lead and asbestos has not identified these contaminants at levels of health concern. Sampling was done in December 1992 and January 1993 and during drilling activities likely to disturb contaminated soils. During the drilling activities, control measures were being taken to suppress any dust generation.
Groundwater
Groundwater monitoring wells have been installed on site. Sampling of these monitoring wells has identified very high levels of contamination in the groundwater. In addition to asbestos, lead, and PCBs, other metals, volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile compounds have been detected (Preliminary Summary Statistics for Groundwater Data, 1994).
17 Table 2 Raymark Industries, Inc. On-Site Soil Contamination Levels
Compound Concentration Range Comparison Value (ppm) asbestos 2-25% Metals (ppm) copper 4.6 - 56,900 lead 1.7 - 52,700 PCBs (ppm) aroclor 1262 .015 - 4,000 CREG 0.09 (t«ai PCBJ) aroclor 1268 .0094 - 6,406 CREG 0.09 (total PCBs) VOCs (ppm) 1,1,1 trichloroethane .005 - 120 CREG 30 1,2 dichloroethene .002 - 240 2-butanone .007 - 280 carbon tetrachloride TT CREG 5 tetrachloroetbane .002 - 15 CREG 10 trichloroethene .001 - 3,500 CREG 60 Semi-volatile Organics (ppm) 2-methylnaphthalene .096 - 75 benzo(a)pyrene .80- 1.8 CREG .1 benzo(a)anthracene .75 -24 benzo(b)tluoranthene .069 - 20 benzo(g,h,i)perylene .067 - 6.7 benzo(k)tluoranthene .078 - 11 bis (2-ethvlhexyl) phthalate .070 - 24 chrysene .078 - 21 di-n-butvlphthalate .072 - 300 dibenzo(,a.h)anthracene .93-5 dibenzoturan .068 - 18 tluoranthene .072 - 48 tluorene .071 - 12 naphthalene .079 - 49 pentachlorophenol .1 -6.6 CREG 6 m & p cresol .070 - 9.600 Dioxins (ppm) dioxin TEF 0 - .0413
CKfcU-Cancer KUK evaluation liuxie EMEG-Environmemal Media Evaluation Guide ppnvparts per million TEF-Toxic Equivalency Factor
18 B.OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION
1 Surface Soil i Soil sampling at off-site locations included grab samples at 0-3 inch depths. Site maps with sampling locations were provided for all off-site surface soil sampling activities. All samples were screened for lead, asbestos and PCBs. These contaminants were selected because: 1.) they are indicative of Raymark waste; 2.) there are screening methods available for these contaminants; and 3.) these contaminants presented the most significant health threat. Ten percent of all the surface soil samples were sent for confirmation through the Contract Laboratory Program. This also included analysis for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, dioxin and metals.
One of the most toxic forms of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any of the dioxin analysis. ATSDR and CT DPH concluded that although the presence of dioxin was an overall health concern at a few of the commercial properties, the levels of lead, asbestos and PCBs presented the greatest threat to public health and by addressing these contaminants the risk posed by the dioxin would also be addressed.
Wooster Junior High School
In April and May 1993, 227 surface soil samples were collected from the north and south playing field of Wooster Junior High School. The samples were screened for lead, asbestos and PCBs. ATSDR evaluated these data as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory. Contamination was not detected at levels of health concern in the south playing field.
In June 1993, an additional 132 surface soil samples were collected and screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. This was done to determine if surface soil contamination was present in areas of the school property other than the north playing field. Trace asbestos was detected in the parking lot medians. The highest concentration of lead was 525 ppm however, only two samples had lead above 200 ppm.
Table 3 provides a summary of the sampling events from Wooster Junior High School.
19 Table 3 Wooster Junior High School Summary/Surface Soil Samples/Contamination Ranges
DATE # LEAD ASBESTOS PCBs of (ppm) (%) (ppm) SAMPLES North and South Playing 4/93 227 ND-1797 ND-30% ND-44 Fields 5/93 school property 6/93 132 ND-525 trace ND
>JD-not detected ppm-parts per million asbestos reported in percent by volume
Wooster Park, adjacent to Wooster Junior High School was sampled. Lead levels were as high as 790 ppm, asbestos was detected as high as 60%, and PCBs were found as high as 1.75 ppm. The most significant contamination was found in a dug out area between the stream and the bike path.
Two residential properties located near Wooster Junior High School were sampled. Contamination was not detected at levels of health concern at either property.
Short Beach Park
In April and May 1993, 190 soil samples were collected from Short Beach Park including the softball, little league and soccer fields. The majority of these samples were collected at surface, 0-3 inches, approximately 24 samples were collected at depths greater than three inches. These samples were screened for lead, asbestos and PCBs. These data were evaluated by ATSDR as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June 1993, an additional 189 surface soil samples were collected from parking lot islands, play ground areas, a swale area along the entrance road off of Dome Drive and the platform tennis and basketball court areas. The most significant contamination was identified in the basketball and platform tennis court area.
Table 4 provides a summary of the sampling events from Short Beach Park.
20 Table 4 Short Beach Park Summary/Surface Soil Samples/Contamination Ranges
DATE LEAD ASBESTOS PCBs of (ppm) (%) (ppm) SAMPLES little league, Softball, 4/93 190 ND-860 ND-15% ND-5 soccer fields 5/93 parking lot islands, play 6/93 189 ND-500 ND-5% ND-4 ground area, tennis/basketball court area vJD-not detected ppnvparu per million asbestos reported in percent by volume
Vacant Lot at the end of 4th/5th Avenue
In April and May 1993, 14 surface soil samples were collected from the 4th/5th Avenue/Vacant Lot area. Samples were screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. These data were evaluated as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June and July 1993, approximately 60 surface soil samples were collected from individual parcels that make up the 4th/5th Avenue/vacant lot.
Table 5 provides a summary of the sampling events for the vacant lot at the end of 4th/5th Avenues.
21 Table 5 Vacant Lot/End of 4th/5th Avenue Summary/Surface Soil Samples/Contamination Ranges
DATE tf LEAD ASBESTOS PCBs or (ppm) (%) (ppm) SAMPLES vacant lot 4/93 14 ND-8409 ND-80% ND-15 5/93
vacant lot/individual 6/93 60 ND-1340 ND-30% ND-14 parcels 'JD-not detected ppm-pans p«r million asbestos reported in percent by volume
Surface soil sampling was also conducted at 53 residential properties located adjacent to this site on First, Third, Forth, and Fifth Avenues, Jefferson Street and Shoreline Drive. Five homes were identified as having surface soil contamination present at levels posing an imminent health threat. Two homes had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a health threat and 2 homes had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
Spada and Adjacent Properties
In April and May 1993, 25 surface soil samples were collected from a few commercial properties located along Ferry Boulevard and from the banks of Ferry Creek. All samples were screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. These data were evaluated by ATSDR as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June and July 1993 approximately 80 surface soil samples were collected from the commercial properties along Ferry Boulevard including the Blue Goose Restaurant, Shopping Center, Housatonic Marina, Dan Perkin's Subaru, Veras Motors, Turnpike Spirits, and Ink Masters. An empty lot at 170 Ferry Boulevard was also sampled. Contamination was not found at levels of health concern at Turnpike Spirits. Ink Masters or the vacant lot at 170 Ferry Boulevard however, to date, samples have not been collected below the surface.
In June and July 1993 unpaved areas along the east and west sides of Ferry Boulevard were sampled and screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. In addition, a few additional properties adjacent to the commercial properties on Ferry Boulevard were sampled including the Del Buono property, the Stratford Marina and Fagan's Restaurant.
Table 6 provides a summary of these sampling events.
22 Table 6 Spada and Adjacent Properties Summary/Surface Soil Samples/Contamination Ranges
LOCATION DATE SAMPLE LEAD ASBESTOS PCBs #'s (ppm) (%) (ppm)
Spada Area 4-5/93 25 ND ND-90% ND-27 > 10,000
Commercial Blue Goose 6/93 14 250-3560 trace-20% ND-7 Properties/ Ferry Blvd Shopping 6/93 15 70-4329 ND-50% ND-20 Ctr
Housatonic 6/93 13 45-6196 3-50% 0.5-160 Marina Dan 6-7/93 10 80-2890 ND-75% ND-21 Perkin's Subaru
Veras 6/93 10 70-350 ND-20% 2 Motors (one samp.)
Ernest Spada Property 10/93 27 120-7710 ND-90% ND-34
West Side Ferry Boulevard 6-93 20 60-920 trace-3% ND
East Side Ferry Boulevard 6/93 26 ND-1100 ND-10% ND-0.5
946 Ferry Boulevard/ 10/93 36 780-6730 10-50% .25-0.5 Faaan's Restaurant
Del Buono/vacant lot 6/93 27 ND-1860 ND-50% ND-8
Stratford Marina 7/93 12 ND-1140 ND-5% ND-4
•JD-not detected ppm-pans per million asbestos reported in percent by volume
23 Sampling was also conducted at approximately 50 residences located near the Spada/Ferry Boulevard area. This sampling included homes located on Willow Street, Housatonic Avenue and Stratford Avenue. Seven homes has surface soil contamination present at levels posing a health threat, 17 homes had contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
Morgan Francis and Adjacent Properties
In April and May 1993, six surface soil samples were collected from the Morgan Francis Property. All Samples were screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. These samples were collected in an area between a gravel parking lot and Ferry Creek. These data were evaluated as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June 1993, additional surface soil sampling was conducted to define the extent of the surface soil contamination. The most significant contamination was identified near Ferry Creek and along the back edge of the property.
Table 7 provides a summary of these sampling events.
Surface soil sampling was done at approximately 31 residential properties adjacent to the Morgan Francis area. These homes are located on Blakeman Place, Meadow Streets and East Broadway. One property had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a health threat, 13 had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
24 Table 7 Morgan Francis and Adjacent Properties Summary/Surface Soil Samples/Contamination Ranges
LOCATION DATE if LEAD ASBESTOS PCBs of (ppm) <%> (ppm) SAMPLES Morgan Francis property 4-5/93 2589- 50-90% 1-44 > 10,000
Morgan Francis property 6/93 46 ND-2964 ND-60% ND-27
Northwest Corner 8/93 120-730 ND-2% ND
Preferred Products 6/93 16 ND-2779 ND-80% ND-14
9/93 146-327 ND 0.3-1.5
Triangle between 6/93 21 ND-500 ND-3% ND-1 Spada/Morgan Francis Ferry Blvd/East Broadway Salce/Schock Auto Body 8/93 33 ND-7395 ND-70% ND-1.9
•JD-not ilciecteu ppm-parts per million asbestos reported in percent by volume
Housatonic Boat Club/Shore Road Area
In April and May 1993, surface soil sampling was done in eleven locations at the Housatonic Boat Club property and near the entrance to the club on Shore Road. All samples were screened for lead, asbestos and PCBs. These data were evaluated as pan of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June 1993, additional surface soil sampling was conducted on the west and east sides of Shore Road and near the monument to the southeast of the club. This sampling was done to further define the extent of surface soil contamination around the Boat Club and Shore Road. The most significant contamination was identified on the west side of Shore Road.
In September 1993 surface soil sampling was conducted to further define the extent of contamination on the eastern side of Shore Road. Contamination was found at very high levels.
Table 8 provides a summary of these sampling events.
Table 8 Housatonic Boat Club/Shore Road Area Summary/Surface Soil Samples/Contamination Ranges
LOCATION DATE # LEAD ASBESTOS PCBs of PPM PPM SAMPLES
Housatonic Boat Club 4-5/93 11 ND ND-90% ND-108 > 10,000
Housatonic west side 6/93 14 90-630 ND-8% ND-1 Boat Club Shore Rd and Shore east side 6/93 80-340 trace ND-0.5 Rd Shore Rd
Shore Road Housatonic 6/93 18 ND-1907 ND-30% ND-18 Boat Club and Shakespeare Theater Northeast Portion of 8/93 23 ND-3,300 ND-50% ND-16 Property
west side Shore Rd 8/93 70-140 ND ND
east side Shore Rd 9/93 27 143 ND-50% 0.03 25,300 121
^D-noi detected ppm-pam per million asbestos reported in percent by volume
Four residential properties located near the Housatonic Boat Club were sampled. One home had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
Ravbestos Memorial Field and Adjacent Properties
In April and May 1993, surface soil samples were collected from residential properties located adjacent to the Raybestos Memorial Field. Lead on one property was as high as 150,000 ppm. These data were evaluated as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory. In June 1993, additional surface soil sampling was conducted on the playing field and the
26 cement bleachers.
Table 9 provides a summary of -these sampling events.
Table 9 Raybestos Memorial Field and Adjacent Properties Summary/Surface Soil Samples/Contamination Ranges
DATE LEAD ASBESTOS PCBs of (ppm) (%) (ppm) SAMPLES
ball field and bleachers 6/93 43 ND-340 ND-3% ND-2 SD-noi detected ppm-pans per million asbestos reported in percent by volume
Approximately 50 residential properties located adjacent to the Raybestos Memorial Field were sampled. These properties are located on Patterson Avenue, Clinton Avenue, Longbrook Avenue, Woodside Terrace, Horace Street, River Road, Peard Terrace, and Sidney Street. One home had surface soil contamination present at levels posing an imminent health threat. Eight homes had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a health threat and 4 had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
Groundwater
The DEP conducted a well survey to identify any private wells near known waste areas. (See Appendix F-Health Consultation/Private Well Survey) Fifteen private wells were identified. Four wells were located within a one-mile radius of Wooster Junior High School, one well was located within one mile of the 4th and 5th Avenue site, one well was located within one mile of the Raymark facility, upgradient, and two wells were located between one and two miles of known waste areas and seven wells were located 2.5-3.5 miles from known waste areas.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted at Wooster Junior High School to determine if soil contamination was leaching into the groundwater. Four monitoring wells, MW1-MW4, were installed at Wooster Junior High School in the area which was defined as contaminated. A fifth monitoring well was subsequently installed hydraulically upgradient from the contaminated area to replace MW-4, which was damaged during the interim cap installation. In addition, a number of well points were installed. Only three of the well points yielded enough water for a groundwater sample.
In July 1993, wells MW1 through MW4 were sampled for dissolved lead and copper as well as PCBs, semi-volatile organics and asbestos. The concentrations of dissolved lead were
27 below 0.01 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and the concentrations of PCBs were below 0.0003 me/1. There was no detectable dissolved copper, semi-volatile organics or asbestos.
A second round of groundwater samples was collected from MW1, MW2, MW3 and MW5 in April 1994. Samples were analyzed for dissolved copper and lead, semi-volatile organic compounds and PCBs. No semi volatile organic compounds, dissolved lead or PCBs were detected above instrument detection limits. Dissolved copper was detected at 0.01 mg/1 in one well.
Indoor Dust
As part of the ongoing health evaluation of residential properties, ATSDR and CT DPH requested that indoor dust samples be collected in homes previously determined to be an imminent health threat or health threat because of outdoor surface soil contamination. This was a recommendation of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory. In August and September 1993, EPA collected indoor dust samples from 17 homes, two of which were control homes used to determine typical background concentrations of the contaminants. The samples were analyzed for asbestos, PCBs, pesticides and total metals.
EPA collected samples using a vacuum equipped with a high-efficiency particulate filter. Samples were collected from high-use and low-use areas. High-use area were defined as locations where infants and young children have access and where contact with dust was likely to occur. Low-use areas included closets and under and behind refrigerators, beds and sofas. If the volume of sample collected from the high-use area was insufficient, the sample was combined with the low-use sample for analysis. If the combined sample was insufficient, a sample from the residents' vacuum cleaner was used instead. Table 10 lists the range of contamination detected in indoor dust samples.
Lead was identified at levels of health concern in eleven of the homes. PCBs were identified at levels of possible health concern in five homes and PCBs presented a health threat in one home. A Health Threat was determined if residents, especially children were exposed to contaminants at levels that could cause harmful effects. A Health Concern designation was issued for homes where residents, especially children, might be exposed to lead at levels that could cause a harmful effect. A Possible Health Threat was issued if there was the potential for exposure to contaminants at levels that could cause harmful effects.
Indoor air sampling for asbestos was conducted at the Wooster Junior High School by the CT DPH Laboratory. This sampling was done to determine if children playing on contaminated soil had tracked contamination in on their shoes. During this sampling, fans were used to disturb dust and make it airborne. No asbestos was found.
28 Table 10 Range of Indoor Dust Levels in Private Homes
SAMPLING INDOOR DUST SAMPLES/CONCENTRATION RANGE LOCATION** LEAD ppm total PCBs* ppm ASBESTOS
High Use Areas 90.7-4,000 .2-14 ND
Low Use Areas 148-20,800 .2-2.3 ND
High/Low Use 2,470-68,200 .41-1.9 ND Areas Combined
Vacuum 45.3-165 .5-1 ND report all PCB species ••sampling tocaiion depended on the amount of sample collected for each area within a home ND-not detected ppm-pans per million
Fish and Shellfish
The DEP sampled for oysters and mussels in 11 locations in the Housatonic River and Ferry Creek. Samples were collected in June 1993 by dredging. Of the eleven locations sampled, nine yielded oysters and seven of these locations yielded mussels. Two locations within Ferry Creek are not naturally conducive to oysters and none were found. Samples were obtained by a random selection. Between thirty and fifty oysters were collected from each location. The average age of the oysters was three years. Approximately 20 mussels were obtained for sampling. All shellfish were analyzed for PCBs, asbestos and lead. The CT DPH and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration performed split sampling for PCB analysis.
PCBs concentrations ranged from trace levels to 0.2 ppm with the majority of the samples well below 0.1 ppm. Lead levels averaged 0.71 ppm for oysters and 1.0 ppm for mussels. No asbestos fibers were found in any of the shellfish.
The EPA sampled fish from five inland water bodies: Beaver Dam Lake; Wooster Pond; Brewster Pond; Frash Pond; and Selby pond. These water bodies were selected due to their proximity to known waste areas and their size and estimated fishing activity. Approximately 20 fish for two or three species were sampled from each water body. Analysis included specific PCB aroclors (forms) and lead. Fish were also sampled for pesticides and mercury.
Table 11 presents the results of the fish sampling for each water body.
PCB concentrations ranged from 0.002 ppm in Brown Bullheads in Wooster Pond to 0.325
29 ppm in American Eels found in Selby Pond. Aroclor 1262, a commonly found PCB form found in Ray mark waste, was the predominant PCB detected in this analysis. Chlordane was detected in a few species in three different water bodies. This contaminant is not related to Raymark waste and is likely the result of pesticide applications prior to the ban on chlordane use. Lead concentrations ranged from 0.006 ppm in largemouth bass found in Wooster Pond to 0.192 ppm in American Eels found in Beaver Dam Lake.
30 Table 11 Fish Sampling Results
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER Average PCBs CHLORDANE LEAD SAMPLED (All Species) AVERAGE AVERAGE (ppni) (ppm) (ppm)
BEAVER DAM LARGEMOUTH BASS 20 .008 .024 LAKE AMERICAN EEL 19 .012 .229 192 WOOSTER LARGEMOUTH BASS 20 .003 118 .006 POND BROWN BULLHEAD 20 .002 122 .055
BREWSTER LARGEMOUTH BASS 20 .005 196 .015 POND BROWN BULLHEAD 20 .003 .200 .034 WHITE CATFISH .025 .432 .037 FRASH POND WHITE PERCH 20 .088 .022 AMERICAN EELS 13 .031 170 SELBY POND WHITE PERCH .057 .025 AMERICAN EELS 10 .325 113 ppm-parts per million blank box indicates contaminant was not detected
31 Sediment
Sediment sampling was conducted at the following locations: Ferry Creek, Beaver Dam, Brewster Pond, Cooks Pond, Elm Street/Lot K, Frash Pond, Great Meadows, Housatonic Boat Club, Selby Pond, Wooster Pond, Birdseye Boat ramp and Tilo. Samples were analyzed for PCBs, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds and metals. Table 12 provides a summary of these data.
Table 12 Sediment Data
SAMPLING HIGHEST PCB # SAMPLES LOCATION CONCENTRATION COLLECTED ppm
Selby Pond 0.120 (aroclor 1268) Great Meadow 0.100 (aroclor 1254)
Birdseye Boat Ramp 1.6 (aroclor 1254) Cooks Pond ND
Tilo ND Brewster Pond ND
Elm Street/Lot K 32 (aroclor 1254 2.1 (aroclor 1263) 0.52 (aroclor 1268)
Housatonic Boat 6.1 (aroclor 1262) Club 8.9 (aroclor 1268)
Ferry Creek 1.5 (aroclor 1262) 13 9.1 (aroclor 1268)
Wooster Pond ND
Frash Pond ND Some pesticides were also detected in Brewster Pond. This is consistent with the fish data. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in many of the sediment samples. The PAH levels detected were not high enough to contaminate fish and present a public health risk if the fish were eaten. 32 Ambient Air Air sampling for lead and asbestos has been conducted before and during excavation activities at the residential properties. This sampling is done during clean-up activities to ensure that contamination is not becoming airborne and presenting a health risk to workers or the neighboring community. Neither lead nor asbestos have been detected at levels of health concern during any of the air sampling events. C. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL The QA/QC and general field operations for data collection and quality in the Raymark investigations were reviewed. When reviewing surface soil data packages, ATSDR and CT DPH made a number of requests if data was not complete. These recommendations included requests for additional samples if sampling did not appear to be representative and because detection limits were too high. ATSDR and CT DPH have reviewed and commented on surface soil, indoor dust, ambient air and fish sampling plans. The health agencies worked with the environmental agencies to ensure that the data;collected and analyzed as part of these investigations fulfilled the health agencies data needs. D.PHYSICAL HAZARDS Many of the manufacturing buildings on-site at the Raymark plant site are in poor condition and may pose a physical hazard. In October, 1995 demolition of all the buildings at the site had commenced. PATHWAY ANALYSIS In this section an evaluation of whether people were, are, or could be exposed to contamination is presented. A completed pathway exists if five elements are present: 1.) a source of contamination; 2.) transport through an environmental medium; 3.) a point of exposure; 4.) a route of human exposure; and 5.) an exposed population. A potential exposure pathway exists if one of the five elements is missing but could exist. An exposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the elements is missing and will never be present. 33 Table 13 provides an overview of the Exposure Pathways for Stratford and the five elements of each pathway. If you are exposed to a hazardous substance, several factors determine whether harmful health effects will occur and the type and severity of those health effects. You can be exposed only when you come into contact with the chemicals. You may be exposed by breathing the substance in the air, eating or drinking substances containing the chemical, or from skin contact with the substances. The dose (how much), the duration (how long), the route of exposure (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and your individual characteristics (age, sex, nutritional status, family traits, life style and state of health) determine whether a harmful health effect is likely to occur from exposure. Table 14 provides an overview of the people most likely to be exposed to contamination in Stratford and the following discussion outlines how specific groups of people were likely to be exposed. A. COMPLETED EXPOSURES Residents Living in Homes Where Surface Soil was Found to be Contaminated Soil Pathway Approximately 150 residents living in homes where surface soil was found to be contaminated were likely exposed to soil containing lead, asbestos and PCBs. These exposures stopped when interim and/or permanent remediation activ ities took place in 1993, 1994 and 1995. In the past, exposures to lead, PCBs and asbestos may have occurred through ingestion of contaminated soils. The most significant exposures likely occurred during activities including playing, digging, gardening and other activities where direct contact with the soil was likely. Children are at greatest risk of exposure through ingestion because of increased hand to mouth activities. Inhalation exposures may have occurred if soil particles and or contaminants, particularly asbestos, became airborne. While lead and asbestos are not absorbed through the skin, dermal exposure to PCBs may have occurred during direct contact with contaminated soil. Indoor Dust It is possible that contaminated soil was tracked indoors from shoes and pets. The residents of homes where contamination was found in indoor dust at levels of health concerns are likely to have been exposed to lead and PCBs through ingestion and possibly through inhalation. No asbestos was found in indoor dust. Young children are most likely to be exposed while playing on or near surfaces where dust may accumulate. Children often place hands and toys, that may become contaminated with house dust, in their mouths. Activities including dry dusting and vacuuming may have caused contamination in dust to become 34 airborne. Tabic 13 PATHWAY EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS PATHWAY NAME STATUS AND TIME SOURCE ENVIRON POINT OF EXPOSURE ROUTE OF POPULATION FRAME MENTAL EXPOSURE AT RISK OF MEDIA EXPOSURE Surface Soil Raymark surface soil residential yards(I) ingestion residents completed Waste recreational areas(2) inhalation children past commercial properJ ics(3) dermal adults potential industrial sites(4) workers present recreational users future children adults Indoor Dust Contaminated dust residential properties ingestion residents completed Soil inhalation children past dermal adults potential present future Fish uncertain eel Selby Pond ingestion fish eaters completed white catfish Brewster Pond past potential present future Ambient Air Raymark (air) Raymark facility inhalation workers potential facility residential area near facility residents past children present adults future (1) itvludet residential varil where surface toil was sampled and found to be contaminated 0) Wooster Junior High School/North Haying Field. Raybestos Memorial Field, Ilousatonic Boat Club. Short Beach Park. \Vi««icr park. Ilirth P>t Boat Ramp. Beacon Point Road (3) Spada Area and commercial preterites on Perry Hlvd including: Blue Clonic Restaurant, SItupping Cenier. Ilottsaiouic Manna. Dan Peilm's Suh.nu, Vcras Minors. Morgan I'rancn Area. lagan's Restaurant. Del Buono prrgicriy. Stratford Marina. Salce property (J) Raymark facility 36 Table 14. ESTIMATED POPULATION/COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURES LOCATION and POPULATION LIKELY EXPOSED POP. AFFECTED (ESTIMATE) LEAD PCBs ASBESTOS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITH SURFACE SOIL residents appro*. 1.10 surface soil surface soil surface soil CONTAMINATION children indoor dust indoor dust WOOSTER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL school children (12-13yrs) appro*. 500/school year MI i face soil surface soil surface soil children within 1/4 mile 2X1 faculty and staff RAYBESTOS MEMORIAL FIELD ball players past unknown surface soil surface soil surface soil children within 1/4 mile 252 HOUSATONIC BOAT CLUB members 270 surface soil surface soil surface soil visitors unknown SHORT BEACH PARK unknown MI i face soil surface soil surface soil workers unknown SELBY AND BREWSTER POND fish caters unknown N/A eels N/A VACANT LOT AND POND ON 4TH/5TII AVENUE population within 1/4 mile 1.1X5 Mtrlace .soil surface soil surface soil sediment sediment sediment children within 1/4 mile Xf» SPADA AREA/COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ON FERRY workers unknown surface soil surface soil surface soil BOULEVARD visitors/shoppers MORGAN FRANCIS PROPERTY/ADJACENT AREA workers unknown surface soil surface soil surface soil trespassers unknown RAYMARK FACILITY workers past approx. l.CXX) surface soil surface soil surface soil ambient air present 5-100 population within 1/4 mile 1110 37 Public Works Employees Soil Pathway Approximately 150-200 public works employees are likely to have been exposed to contaminated soil containing lead, asbestos, and PCBs during maintenance activities at Wooster Junior High School, Short Beach Park, Birdseye Boat Ramp, Beacon Point Road, and Wooster Park. Of these sites, the most significant contamination was found at Wooster Junior High School, north field, with lead as high as 1797 ppm, PCBs as high as 44 ppm and asbestos as high as 30%. Interim measures have been instituted to prevent any further exposures. Exposure to lead, asbestos and PCBs may have occurred through inhalation and ingestion of contaminated soils. While lead and asbestos are not absorbed through the skin, dermal exposures to PCBs may have occurred when workers came in direct contact with contaminated soils. Lawn mowing, digging and excavation activities would have presented the most significant exposures. These exposures were likely to be intermittent in frequency occurring only when workers were participating in activities at these specific areas. Some workers may also have been exposed during covering activities performed at town sites in the early 1980's. Children, Faculty, and Staff at Wooster Junior High School Soil Pathway Children, faculty, and staff that played on the north playing field at Wooster Junior High School were likely exposed to contaminated soil containing lead as high as 1797 ppm, asbestos as high as 30% and PCBs as high as 44 ppm. This exposure stopped in 1993 when access to the north playing field was restricted. The most significant exposure likely occurred during sporting activities on the field that may have disrupted surface soils. During these activities, exposure to lead, asbestos and PCBs may have occurred through ingestion and inhalation of contaminated soils. In addition, direct contact with soil containing PCBs may have resulted in dermal exposure to this contaminant. An individual's exposure to contamination varies depending on their activity in the contaminated area and the frequency of that activity. 38 Members of Housatonic Boat Club Soil Pathway Members and guests of the Housatonic Boat Club may have been exposed to contaminated soil containing lead, greater than 10,OCX) ppm, asbestos as high as 90%, and PCBs as high as 108 ppm. In 1993, measures were taken to prevent any additional exposures. In the past, exposure to these contaminants may have occurred through ingestion and inhalation of contaminated soils. People coming in direct contact with contaminated soils were also exposed to PCBs through dermal contact. Children who played in areas of contamination received the most significant exposures. In addition, landscaping, lawn mowing and maintenance of the boat club grounds may have exposed those workers to contamination. Anglers Fish Pathway , People who eat fish caught from Selby Pond and/or Brewster Pond may be exposed to PCBs and chlordane through the ingestion of contaminated fish. The highest average PCB level of 0.325 ppm was found in American eel caught in Selby Pond. Chlordane, a pesticide unrelated to Raymark waste was detected in White catfish from Brewster Pond. The highest average level of chlordane was 0.432 ppm. Team Members that played on Raybestos Memorial Field Soil Pathway Members of ball teams that played on Raybestos Memorial field and spectators were likely exposed to contaminated soils containing lead, asbestos and PCBs. The field has been closed since June 1993 to prevent additional exposures. While these exposures were intermittent, ball players may have been exposed to contamination through incidental ingestion and possibly through inhalation when contaminated soil was disturbed and dust was generated. Spectators may have been exposed through inhalation of contaminated dust or ingestion of contaminated soil while sitting in the bleachers or playing in the dirt near the bleachers. 39 Workers/Spada and Morgan Francis Area Soil Pathway Workers at the commercial properties on Ferry Boulevard may have been exposed to asbestos, lead and PCBs in surface soil. Interim measures have been taken to prevent any further exposure to surface soil contamination. The most significant contamination was found at the Blue Goose Restaurant, the Shopping Center, the Housatonic Marina, Dan Perkin's Subaru on Ferry Boulevard and the Morgan Francis Property. Inhalation exposures may have occurred if surface soil became airborne; incidental ingestion may have occurred if workers got contaminated soil on their hands. Maintenance activities at these sites including landscaping and lawn mowing may have presented the greatest risk of exposure. Stratford Residents Soil Pathway Residents of Stratford who visited and/or played at any of the known waste areas may have been exposed to contaminated soil through ingestion, inhalation and direct dermal contact during these activities. The degree of exposure for an individual is dependent on many factors including the duration of exposure, the type of activity the individual participated in at the known waste area and personal habits such as hand-to-mouth activities and frequency of hand washing. The most significant exposures probably occurred to individuals participating in sporting activities likely to disturb surface soil. Again, children are at greatest risk because of increased hand-to-mouth activity. Workers at the Raymark Facility Soil Pathway Workers at the facility were likely exposed to contaminated soils containing many compounds including volatile organic compounds, lead, asbestos and PCBs. Workers who were involved in the removal of contaminated soil for on and off-site disposal probably received the most significant exposures. During these activities, workers are likely to have been exposed to lead, asbestos and PCBs through incidental ingestion and inhalation. Workers may have also been exposed to PCBs through direct skin contact. Workers may also have been exposed to a variety of compounds during manufacturing processes that likely required the handling of these materials and chemicals. 40 B. POTENTIAL EXPOSURES Workers at the Raymark Facility Soil Pathway Contaminated soil, excavated from residential properties, is currently being stored at the Raymark facility. If the integrity of the soil storage area is breached or if workers are not following the approved Health and Safety Plan which requires the use of personal protective equipment, workers on site may be exposed to contaminated soils. Ambient Air Pathway While we do not have data on airborne contamination at the facility during its operation, it is very likely that workers at the site were exposed to airborne asbestos as well as other contaminants. Information on the manufacturing processes indicate the possibility of worker exposure to airborne asbestos during transfer and mixing. In addition, solvents, which can evaporate, were used in the manufacturing process. Residents Living Near the Raymark facility Ambient Air Pathway It is possible that residents living near the Raymark facility were exposed to asbestos and other contaminants during the years when the facility was in operation. No data exists to confirm this. There are, however, many anecdotal reports from residents during public meetings, of visible air contamination. Indoor Air Pathway If contamination in groundwater beyond the Raymark facility property is shallow, contamination in groundwater could volatilize and accumulate in confined spaces. We do not have enough information to determine if there are residents located down gradient from the groundwater contamination and if groundwater contamination is shallow enough to present such a concern. 41 Trespassers at the Raymark facility site Soil Pathway People who trespass on the Raymark facility site may be exposed to contaminated soil. Exposure could occur through direct contact with the soil, incidental ingestion and inhalation if soil particles become airborne. A trespasser's exposure would vary depending on their activities at the site. Utility Workers Soil Pathway Utility workers may have been exposed to Raymark waste in the past if their work occurred in areas where Raymark waste was present. Exposure to lead, asbestos and PCBs may have occurred through incidental ingestion and inhalation of airborne dust. Dermal exposure to PCBs may have occurred if there was direct skin contact with contaminated soil. Exposure to contaminated soil may occur in the future if Raymark waste is encountered during utility work and occupational safety and health requirements are not implemented and followed. C. ELIMINATED EXPOSURES Groundwater Pathway While citizens of Stratford have raised concerns about groundwater contamination at the Raymark facility, no one is or has been exposed to contaminated groundwater through ingestion. Nearly all residents of Stratford receive public water from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Water Company. Fifteen private wells were identified during a private well user survey. These wells are not located near the Raymark facility or other waste locations. Section 19-13-B51m of The Public Health Code prohibits the establishment of a private well in an area where there is access to a public water supply (See Appendix J). Since public water is available, no one should ever access this groundwater for potable purposes. 42 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS A. TOXICOLOGIC EVALUATION In this section we discuss the adverse health effects that could occur in people exposed to site contaminants. To understand the health effects that might be caused by a specific chemical, it is helpful to review factors related to how the human body processes such a chemical. Those factors include the exposure concentration (how much) the duration of exposure (how long), the route of exposure (breathing, eating and drinking, or skin contact), and the multiplicity of exposure (environmental media, routes of exposure and combinations of contaminants). Once exposure occurs, a person's individual characteristics such as age, gender, diet, general health, lifestyle, and genetics, influence how the body absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes the chemical. Together those factors determine health effects that exposed people might have. Asbestos Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos was used in more than 3000 products due to its strength and resistance to heat and chemicals. Because asbestos does not evaporate, dissolve, burn or undergo reactions, it remains in the environment. The primary route of exposure to asbestos is through inhalation. Inhalation exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the thin membrane that surrounds the lung and other internal organs. Breathing air contaminated with asbestos can also cause scarring of the lung tissue called asbestosis. It may take 10 to 30 years after the exposure for health effects to appear. Information on the health effects of asbestos in humans comes mostly from studies of people who were exposed to high levels of asbestos in the work place. Inhalation studies that evaluated several concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers have shown an excess cancer risk. Adverse health outcomes associated with exposure are affected by the size of the asbestos fibers. Fibers that range in size from 0.5 to 5 microns in diameter with a length to width ratio of 3:1 are most likely to be deposited in the lung.(9) The health effects from swallowing asbestos are unclear. There is some evidence that ingestion of asbestos fibers may lead to an increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer.(9) Workers at Raymark Industries, Inc. are at increased risk of developing lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis because of their past exposure to asbestos. In addition, some children and some adults that frequently played or participated in activities that disturbed soil 43 in yards or public areas containing asbestos have an increased risk of developing mesothelioma and lung cancer. Lead People can be exposed to lead from swallowing soil that contains lead or breathing lead in air or dust. Lead can cause health problems in adults and children. However, children, infants, and fetuses are more sensitive to the harmful effects of lead because: 1) lead can more easily enter the brain of the developing nervous system of a child; 2) lead can transfer cross the placenta into the developing child; 3) children have more of a tendency to put soiled hands or toys in their mouths; and, 4) children absorb more lead in their body through their gastrointestinal tract. Lead can harm the nervous system and may lead to decreased intelligence scores, attention deficits, slowed growth and hearing problems among children. Exposure to high levels of lead can cause the brain and kidneys of adults and children to be badly damaged. Lead exposure in adults can cause behavior changes, decreased motor skills, and impaired concentration. Lead exposure may increase blood pressure in middle-aged men and may affect sperm or damage other parts of the male reproductive system (10). Pregnant women exposed to lead can experience premature delivery, decreased birth weight, and decreased neurological development and growth of the infant (14). Lead in dust and soil have been found to be an important route of exposure to lead, however, lead in paint remains the most significant cause of elevated blood lead level among children (12,13,14). Blood lead levels are raised above background, about 5 ug/dl for every 1,000 ppm of lead in soil or dust. This estimate varies, the play habits of individuals on the contaminated soil and hand-to-mouth activities will affect the amount of contamination that one is exposed to (14). In addition, the chemical form of the lead may affect the amount of lead that is absorbed in the body once exposure has occurred. The amount of lead in the blood can be measured to find out if a person has been exposed to lead during the past few months. Over time the lead is stored in bone or removed in the urine and feces. Therefore, the blood lead test is a good indicator of more recent exposure to lead. Lead may start to harm the body at blood lead levels as low as 10 ug/dl (14). 44 Children who frequently played in yards or public areas contaminated with lead had an increased risk of having elevated levels of lead in their blood. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) PCBs are a family of 209 man made chemicals once valued for their insulating and nonflammable properties. These chemicals are very stable so they last a long time in the environment, are stored in fat tissue, and concentrate in the food chain. People can be exposed to PCBs by eating contaminated soil, inhalation of contaminated dust, or by contact through the skin. Health effects of PCBs are the same for adults or children, however, children may be at greater risk from environmental soil contamination because children have a greater tendency to put soiled hands or toys in their mouths. Nursing infants are at risk because PCBs accumulate in breast milk (11). Food, especially fish and animal fat, can be a major source of PCB exposure because PCBs accumulate in the food chain. Exposure to PCBs has been shown to cause: 1) elevations in blood fats (eg. triglycerides, cholesterol); 2) increases in certain liver and kidney enzymes; 3) chloracne, a rash similar to acne, in humans; and, 4) and may have reproductive effects. Animal studies indicate that ingestion of PCBs can lead to adverse immunological effects, including a decrease in antibody levels. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PCBs maybe reasonably anticipated to be carcinogens (2,11). Many people chronically exposed to PCBs have had no signs or symptoms of toxicity. The only overt sign of PCB exposure is chloracne which is likely only at high levels of exposure. PCBs can be measured in blood and fat tissue. PCB analysis of blood or fat tissue is not usually recommended (16). Some children and some adults who frequently played or worked in yards and public areas contaminated with PCBs may have an increased risk of developing cancer and liver damage due to PCB exposure. People who eat contaminated fish are also at increased risk. 45 B. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION Voluntary Blood Lead Screening Three percent of the total population of Stratford and 10% of the children in Stratford younger than age six participated in the voluntary blood lead screening program. Children younger than age six represented only 27% of all participants. The participants reflect the approximate racial mix of Stratford according to the 1990 census. Of the 1287 blood lead screening clinic participants, 10% (129) had screening blood lead levels of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (ug/dl) or greater. Of the children younger than age 6, 12% (43) had screening blood lead levels of 10 ug/dl or greater. Seventy-seven percent (99) of the participants with elevated screening results did have confirmatory blood tests done. Of the confirmatory tests, a total of 13 were confirmed to be 10 ug/dl or greater. Six of the confirmed elevated blood leads were in children younger than age six. Confirmed elevated blood lead levels represented less than 1% of all participants. Only 1.8% of the children who participated were found to have blood lead levels of lOug/dl or greater. All of the participants with confirmed elevated blood lead levels reported visiting at least one of the known waste sites. Sixty one percent of the participants with confirmed elevated blood lead levels reported visiting more than one of the known waste sites compared to 66% of the participants that did not have confirmed elevated blood lead levels. The screening program did not identify a higher than expected number of elevated blood lead levels based on national statistics. The blood lead screenings were offered as a service to the residents of Stratford to help address their concerns about whether or not they had high levels of lead in their blood. The results of the blood lead screening can not be used to determine if people were exposed to Raymark waste or if Raymark waste affected people's health. The blood lead screening was voluntary and did not represent all of those people who visited the waste areas. In addition, the program was offered several months after exposure to the waste was stopped (See Appendix K-Health Consultation/Blood Lead Screening). Finally, there are many different sources of lead that an individual may be exposed to and the blood lead test is not specific to different sources. Cancer Incidence Studies The rates of cancer incidence in Stratford for 1958 to 1991 are what would be expected based on State rates for the majority of the cancer sites studied. Cancer of the brain, breast, kidney, liver, lung, rectum, testis; and non Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, and soft tissue 46 sarcoma were studied and were found to be similar to State cancer rates. Information on cancer cases was gathered using the Connecticut Tumor Registry. Also, for these sites there were no noticeable patterns in the cancer rates. The rates fluctuated near the state rates during the years studied. There were some differences in the Stratford and state rates between males and females, however, none of these differences are statistically significant. For bladder cancer, mesothelioma, and the total of all cancer sites combined there were some differences in Stratford rates in comparison to State of Connecticut rates. The rate of bladder cancer among Stratford residents was 14 percent higher than the state rate. The most common risk factors associated with the development of bladder cancer are certain occupational exposures (including working with benzidine based dyes or workers who manufactured rubber), history of frequent bladder infections, and smoking. Some studies have also linked bladder cancer with drinking water that has high levels of chlorination by products. For mesothelioma there were five more cases than would be expected based on state rates from 1958 to 1991. Mesothelioma is a very rare cancer of the lining of the lung that is associated with exposure to asbestos. This tumor is most commonly linked with persons who had been exposed to asbestos at their job. While the rate of mesothelioma was higher in Stratford than the State, the number of cases was small. The rate of cancer for all types or sites combined in Stratford was similar to the State of Connecticut when added together for the 34 year study period, however, when broken into five year time periods the rate of cancer seemed to increase slightly in comparison to State rates during this time period. For all sites combined, the cancer rate was 10 percent less than state rates at the beginning of the study period in 1958, while the cancer rate was eight percent greater than state rates at the end of the study period in 1991. CT DPH also reviewed more detailed information on cancers that occurred to persons less than 25 years of age. Records in the Tumor Registry were reviewed to determine if there is any type of cancer that was more likely to be diagnosed among the younger persons. For the period 1958 to 1991 there were a total of 130 cases of cancer among persons less than 25 years of age while it was expected that 107 cases would occur. While there was a 22 percent increase in the number of cancers among younger persons there was no apparent pattern in the type of cancers that occurred among this age group. No one cancer type demonstrated a significant excess of cases. Since no one type of cancer was more common among this group it is less likely to indicate a common cause (See Appendix L-Cancer Incidence Study). The cancer incidence studies were done to determine if cancer rates in Stratford were elevated when compared to State rates. The results cannot be used to determine if people were exposed to Raymark waste or if Raymark waste is causing an increase in the cancer rates. 47 Birth Defects Three years of birth defects data were evaluated. Stratford rates were compared to state rates for twenty birth defects. No birth defect stood out as excessive in Stratford. Although slightly elevated rates of cleft lip and palate and musculoskeletal anomalies were observed, they were not statistically significant (See Appendix M-CT DPH Memo-Birth Defects in Stratford-1983,1985, 1986)." CONCLUSIONS 1. The Raymark facility site posed a Public Health Hazard based on likely worker exposures to contaminated soil containing lead, asbestos, and PCBs and possible exposures to airborne asbestos in the past. In addition, residents living near the facility may have been exposed to airborne asbestos during facility operations. Currently much of the site is paved reducing the potential for exposure to contaminated soil. Waste stored on site is covered. Activities on the site must be monitored to ensure that exposure to contamination does not occur. A health threat exists for anyone who trespasses on the site. : 2. Currently, off site locations pose no apparent health threat due to the interim measures taken by CT DEP, EPA, the Town and the property owners to prevent exposures to the waste pending final clean-up actions. These sites include Wooster Junior High School/North Playing field, Raybestos Memorial field, Housatonic Boat Club, Short Beach Park, Wooster Park, Birds Eye Boat Ramp, Beacon Point Road, Spada Area/Commercial Properties, Morgan Francis Property, Fagan's Restaurant, Del Buono property, Stratford Marina and Salce property. These areas presented a Public Health Hazard in the past as residents, workers and recreational users were likely exposed to lead, asbestos and PCBs through ingestion and dermal exposures and possibly inhalation. 3. Residential properties that were found to have contamination present in surface soil presented an Imminent Health Hazard in the past. Residents were likely exposed to lead, asbestos and PCBs through ingestion and dermal contact with soil and possibly inhalation exposures. No health threat currently exists at these properties as interim and final measures have been implemented including the excavation and removal of contaminated soil. 4. American eels caught from Selby Pond present a health threat due to the presence of PCB contamination. Fish, particularly white catfish, caught from Brewster Pond present a health threat due to the presence of chlordane contamination, unrelated to Raymark waste. 48 5. Additional information regarding the groundwater at the Raymark facility needs to be evaluated to determine how the groundwater is migrating, the extent to which contaminated water is impacting downgradient areas and the likelihood of volatile organic compounds in the groundwater to off-gas and accumulate in structures. 6. Additional sediment data from Ferry Creek needs to be evaluated to determine the public health implications of direct contact exposures. 7. The voluntary blood lead screening program conducted by the Stratford Health Department and CT DPH during the summer of 1993 did not identify higher than expected blood lead levels. However, this blood lead screening program was voluntary and did not represent all Stratford children. Also the program was conducted several months after exposure to the waste was minimized. 8. Overall cancer incidence in Stratford was not elevated during the years 1958-1991. However, the incidence of bladder cancer was 14% higher than Connecticut rates. Mesothelioma was slightly elevated and cancer among persons less than 25 years of age was 22% higher than state rates. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Institutional controls are needed for areas where permanent remediation is not possible. This has occurred at a few residential properties because the integrity of a structure would have been compromised if excavation took place, groundwater was reached during excavation or a utility line was encountered. In addition, interim measures such as maintaining fences, temporary covers, and signs prohibiting access need to be maintained until permanent remediation takes place or institutional controls are in place. 2. ATSDR and CT DPH should continue to work with EPA and CT DEP during permanent remediation activities to ensure that measures are taken to protect public health. 3. Additional data including groundwater contamination data off-site, soil gas measurements and possibly indoor air samples of nearby structures, should be evaluated to determine the downgradient impacts of the groundwater contamination from the Raymark site and the potential for off-gassing of volatile contaminants into structures. 4. CT DPH should continue to work with the Stratford Health Department to assist with continued community education and involvement. 49 Health Activities Recommendation Panel The data and information evaluated in the public health assessment for Raymark Industries, Inc. and Related Sites, Stratford, Connecticut have been reviewed by ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) for appropriate follow-up health activities. The panel determined that community health education should be continued. Future community health education efforts should focus on informing the community on the health aspects of remedial activities at the site and the results of on-going health studies. The panel also determined that the collaborative efforts between ATSDR, the CT DPH and the Stratford Health Department should continue with these future educational efforts. The panel determined that the need for further follow up health activities should be considered once the results of the GIS study and other on-going studies are available for review. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN The Public Health Action Plan for Raymark Industries, Inc, and Related Sites contains a description of actions to be taken by ATSDR, the CT DPH and other agencies. For those actions already taken, please see the Public Health Actions Taken During Health Assessment Process section of the document. The purpose of the Public Health Action Plan is to ensure that this public health assessment not only identifies public health hazards but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposures at the site(s). Included is a commitment on the part of ATSDR and CT DPH to follow up on this plan to ensure that it is implemented. The public health actions to be implemented are as follows: 1. ATSDR and CT DPH will continue to work with EPA and CT DEP as permanent remediation activities move forward. 2. ATSDR and CT DPH will continue to review data from post-excavation activities and additional sampling data collected as part of the Raymark/Stratford investigation. 3. CT DPH will evaluate the public health implications of direct exposure to Ferry Creek sediments when the data are available. 4. CT DPH and ATSDR will continue to work with the Stratford Health Department to provide timely information to the public as activities in Stratford continue. 5. CT DPH will complete the ongoing health studies and report the findings to the Stratford Community. 50 6. The ATSDR's HARP will evaluate the results of the GIS study and other on-going studies to determine the need for additional health activities at the site. ATSDR will reevaluate and expand the Public Health Action Plan when needed. New environmental, toxicological, or health outcome data, or the results of implementing the above proposed actions may determine the need for additional actions at this site. 51 CERTIFICATION The public health assessment for the Raymark Industries, Inc., and Related sites was prepared by the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addition Services under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was initiated. Technical rrujeci umcer, ara, mad, r/n/\v^ The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC), ATSDR, has reviewed this public health assessemnt and concurs with its findings. ^fehief, SSAB, DH , 3R 52 PREPARERS OF REPORT Jennifer Carnes Kertanis Epidemiologist Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health CT Department of Public Health Diane Denis Aye Epidemiologist Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health CT Department of Public Health ATSDR Regional Representative: Susanne Simon ATSDR, EPA Region I, Boston, MA ATSDR Technical Project Officer: Greg Ulirsch ATSDR, Atlanta, GA 53 REFERENCES 1. EPA Region I, Pollution Report and RCRA file information. 2. ATSDR Public Health Advisory: Raymark Industries/Stratford Asbestos Sites, May 26, 1993. 3. ATSDR Memorandum: Health Consultation. From L. House(ATSDR Region I), to A. Sherrin (EPA Region I). March 6, 1989. 4. ATSDR Verbal health Consultation: Raymark Industries, Ind. From L. Wilder (ATSDR) to A. Wing (EPA Region I). March 3, 1993. 5. ATSDR Health Consultation: Raybestos Memorial Field. From R. Nickle (ATSDR) to A. Wing (EPA Region I). August 11, 1992. 6. ATSDR Verbal Health Consultation: Raymark Industries, Inc. From L. House (ATSDR Region I) to A. Wing (EPA Region I). March 6, 1992. 7. ATSDR Health Consultation: Residential Properties, Stratford/Raymark Sites. September 16, 1993. 8. Surface Soil Sampling Screening Results, Stratford, CT. April, 1993 through October 1994. 9. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Asbestos. ATSDR/TP-90/04. 10. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Lead. ATSDR/TP-92/12. 11. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Selected PCBs. ATSDR/TP-92/16. 12. Rabinowitz et al., "Environmental Correlated of Infant Blood Lead Levels in Boston." Environmental Research. 38, 96-107, 1985. 13. Rabinowitz, Michael B. and David C. Bellinger, "Soil Lead-Blood Lead Relationship Amons Boston Children." Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 41, 791-797, 1988." 54 14. CDC Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. October 1991. 15. Madhaven et al., "Lead in Soil: recommended Permissible Levels." Environmental Research. 49,136-142, 1989. 16. ATSDR Case Studies in Environmental Medicine Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Toxicity. ATSDR, June 1990. 17. Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared for EPA by Halliburton NUS Corporation, April 1995. 55 APPENDIX A SITE MAP 56 Areas with contaminants present at level of health hazard or imminent health hazard Pr«ev*4 frr Oil me Cufflputmf MadpllAB Ofdup of CIO and Conto* la> Mtk MtMfomnl OA M»(» Hattm! LoUnmrr. Ook Aid#*. TM State of Connecticut Contaminated Areas Department of Public Health g& and Addiction Servicer of Health Concern Aoinev tat T#J UD luMiandv mrf OImsm Aaglatiy Stratford. CT January, 1994 57 APPENDIX B ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY, MAY 1993 58 AGENCY FOR TOXIC 8UB8TANCE8 AND DISEASE REGISTRY PUBLIC HEALTH ADVI80RY FOR RAYMARX INDUSTRIES/STRATFORD ASBESTOS SITES STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT Kay 26, 1993 INTRODUCTION This Public Health Advisory is to advise the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of Connecticut, the town of Stratford, and the public of an imminent public health hazard. This hazard is associated with past, present, and potential future exposures to waste from past operations and disposal practices of the Raymark Industries facility (Raymark facility) located in Stratford, Connecticut. The known contaminants of health concern are asbestos, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This Public Health Advisory-is issued as a result of actions taken by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in response to an EPA Region I request for a health consultation, as"well as a petition request for a Public Health Assessment from the town of Stratford. ATSDR has concluded that former operations at the Raymark facility and the waste disposal practices at the facility and throughout the town of Stracford warrant the issuance of a Public Health Advisory. The areas included in.this Advisory are the Raymark facility; the 15 known locations in the town of Stratford where facility waste was used as fill material; any additional locations (yet to be identified) where the waste was used as fill material and where there is a potential for human exposure; and any locations where Raymark waste may have contaminated other areas (e.g., surface water runoff, air). Of urgent concern- are the following eight known locations where waste is present on or near the ground surface (not in order of health risk); (1) Wooster Junior High School playing field; (2) Short Beach Park recreational area; (3) 4th "and 5tf1 Avenue; (4) Spada property; (5) Morgan/Francis property; (6) Lot K/Elm Street property; (7) Housatonic Boat Club; and (8) one identified residence bordering the Raybestos Memorial Field. Based on EPA Region I, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP), and Connecticut Department of Health Services (CTDOH) surface soil screening analysis of the above-mentioned locations (April and May 1993) for asbestos, lead, and PCBs, ATSDR has determined that there is an urgent health hazard to the public associated with these locations. 59 Feasible routes of human exposure to site-related contaminants include inhalation, direct dermal contact, ingestion of waste present in the soil, and consumption of potentially contaminated area seafood. For these reasons, ATSDR recommends that actions' be taken to: 1. Dissociate the public from areas where exposure to Raymark waste at levels of health concern can occur. 2. Continue surface soil (0-3 inches) sampling/screening efforts for asbestos, lead, and PCBs in residential yards adjacent to areas where waste has been identified on or near the ground surface. If contaminants are found at levels of health concern, implement measures to cease exposure. 3. Continue efforts to identify other locations where Raymark waste was used as fill material and conduct appropriate sampling and mitigation if necessary. 4. Sample interiors of homes adjacent to areas of exposed waste and/or where yard soil screening results indicate contaminants at levels of health concern for free asbestos fibers, lead, and PCBs. If contaminants are found at levels of health concern, implement measures to cease exposure. 5. Conduct sediment sampling of Ferry Creek and its junction with the Housatonic River and seafood sampling to determine if site-related contaminants are present at levels of health concern. The sampling plan should be a cooperative effort among all agencies involved to ensure that the results can be used for public health and regulatory/enforcement purposes. 6. Conduct an area well survey to ensure that groundwater is not in use for potable purposes. If private wells are found, ensure that well users are not exposed to site- related contaminants at levels of health concern. 7. Establish controls to require soil sampling and analyses in areas of Stratford where Raymark waste material may have been placed prior to conducting any invasive activities (e.g., water line installation, sewage line installation, maintenance of buried line, construction, grading) to avoid health hazards to workers or others by bringing buried waste material to the ground surface. If waste material is found and invasive activities are necessary, all regulations for worker protection and hazardous material handling and disposal should be followed. 60 8. Consider the Raymark facility property and other locations where Raymark waste is present at levels of health concern for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List, and/or use other statutory or regulatory authorities as appropriate to characterize the areas of concern and take necessary action. BACKGROUND The town of Stratford is located on Long Island Sound between Bridgeport, Connecticut, and the Housatonic River. The 1990 census data indicated a population of approximately 50,000. In 1990, 14 percent of the population was comprised of children between 5 and 7 years of age. The community has been characterized as working class, with principal industries including manufacturing of aircraft, air conditioning, brake linings, cheese, chemicals, plastic, paper, rubber goods, electrical and machine parts, and toys. In Stratford there are two senior high schools, three middle schools, numerous grammar schools, five recreational parks, and two municipal beaches. The source of potable water for Stratford-is the Trapp Falls_ reservoir located in Trumbull (north of Stratford). It is unlikely that area groundwater is currently used for potable purposes. However, no well survey has been conducted to confirm that there are no potable water supply wells currently in use. Raymark Industries, Inc., owns and operated a facility on 75 East Main Street in Stratford, Connecticut, froml919 until September 1939 when operations ceased. The facility is 33.4 acres in size and produced brakes, clutch parts, and other friction based products.' During the manufacturing process, wastes generated included ignitable and corrosive wastes, solvents, liquid adhesives, phenolic resins, alcohol, caustic, phenolic mixtures, lead, asbestos, PCBs, and dioxins/furans [1]. On-site groundwater is known to be contaminated with solvents, mainly toluene (1]. Raymark routinely disposed of its waste on the facility property and at other locations in Stratford. From.1919 to July 1984, Raymark used a system of lagoons to attempt to capture the waste lead and asbestos. Over this 65 year period, these lagoon systems were located at numerous locations on the western and central portions of the facility. As the lagoons filled up with sludge, they were often dredged and the material was used as fill in locations around Stratford. Currently, a series of four lagoons remain on the site. Three of these four lagoons have been temporarily capped. These lagoons stopped receiving waste in 1984. Lagoon #4 remains uncapped and continues to serve as a collection basin and final discharge point for the facility's storm water runoff system. This lagoon drains into Ferry Creek, which flows south and east 0.5 miles to the Housatonic River. 6L EPA Region I has been involved with the Raymark facility since 1984. In the fall of 1992, Raymark was ordered by EPA Region I to stabilize its facility and the property; to limit the potential for human contact to on-site contamination; and to limit the potential for release of hazardous substances and contaminants from the site. Since that time, public access to the property has been restricted as long as the entrance gate remains secured; tanks have been identified, characterized and assessed; approximately 80 percent of hazardous materials have been removed from the tanks; and a study has begun to assess the potential off-site migration of contaminants via surface water runoff [1], In 1989 and 1992, ATSDR provided EPA Region I with health consultations for the Raymark facility property, and for 12 areas of known asbestos waste disposal [2, 3]. In February 1993, EPA Region I requested ATSDR to evaluate dioxin analyses from soil samples collected on the Raymark facility property and to assess the potential health hazard. The samples were composites of deep core samples. The highest level of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity equivalents was approximately 7 parts per billion (ppb) in a 0— to 10-foot composite sample [4], ATSDR determined that because access to the property was restricted and the waste was covered with pavement or a gravel cap, that no health hazard is currently posed by the presence of dioxins on the Raymark facility_[51. However, since that time, more recent EPA Region I sampling and screening analyses from potholes or. the facility property has revealed chrysotile asbestos up to 35 percent, lead up to 16,000 parts per million (ppm), and PCBs up to 240 ppm [6], EPA Region I has since directed Raymark to cover these exposed areas [6], According to EPA Region I, Raymark has complied with this request. In May of 1993, EPA Region I will have completed a Removal Action at the Raybestos Memorial Field. The effort includes covering the waste material with a temporary soil cap, posting warning signs, and fencing and vegetating the field. ATSDR has provided EPA Region I with two health consultations during this Removal_ Action [7, 8]. EPA Region I is in the process of determining if the Raybestos Memorial Field along with the Raymark facility property should be placed on their National Priorities List (NPL). For the NPL ranking process, EPA Region I has collected^sediment and soil samples outside the perimeter of Raymark facility and Raybestos Memorial Field, including the Housatonic River and Ferry Creek [9]. Sampling results outside the perimeter of the Raybestos Memorial field have revealed lead contamination up to 150,000 ppm at a 12-inch depth in a residential yard. More recent surface soil screening analyses for lead and asbestos conducted by EPA Region I have detected lead up to 7,765 ppm and 62 PCBs up to 96 ppm. Analysis for asbestos has not yet been performed for these samples. Results of sediment sampling have revealed lead up to 14,000 ppm, and PCBs up to approximately 150 ppm at a sample collected at the lagoon #4 culvert inlet into Ferry Creek. In a sediment sample collected in the Housatonic River at the mouth of Ferry Creek, lead was detected at approximately 718 ppm, and PCBs at approximately 4.6 ppm. An upstream Housatonic River sediment sample contained lead at approximately 10 ppm and PCBs below the analytical method detection limit (detection limit ranged from 42 ppb to 1.6 ppm) [9]. The Housatonic River discharges into Long Island Sound, which is utilized by the commercial seafood industry. The area of the Long Island Sound potentially impacted by site runoff is used to cultivate seed oysters. After reaching a certain size/age the oysters are moved to another location for maturation and harvesting. Although non-commercial harvesting of shellfish is prohibited, anecdotal information indicates that individuals may fish and harvest crabs and clams in the potentially affected areas. Anecdotal information also indicates that members of an Asian community residing north of Stratford harvest a bottom dwelling clam from the area of potential health concern and that these clams are a routine component of their diet. Because PCBs have been found in Ferry Creek, and dioxins and PCBs have been found on the Raymark facility property, a potential health hazard may exist from bioaccumularion of PCBs and dioxin in seafood. Lead and other site-related contaminants may also be present at levels of health concern. Since April 1993, EPA Region I, CTDEP, and CTDOH have conducted surface soil sampling and screening analyses (asbestos, lead, and ?C3s) at 8 of the 15 known locations around the town with high Dublic access and where waste material is present on the ground surface (not including screening conducted on the Raymark facility). ATSDR, EPA Region I, CTDEP, CTDOH, and the_Stratford Health Director agreed that these S locations are of highest priority because of the likelihood of public access and proximity to residential/recreational areas. EPA Region I is currently conducting laboratory analyses of surface soil samples from these locations for metals, PCBs/pesticides, dioxins/furans, and base neutral/acid "extractable compounds. These results are anticipated to be available by August 19.93, and will be evaluated by the health agencies to determine if additional public health hazards are present. Results of soil screening data along with a description of the locations are as follows (not necessarily in order of health risk) (9, 10]: 1. Wooster Junior High School Playing Fields: The north playing field consists of three baseball fields and a soccer field. The south playing field consists of two 63 baseball fields. Contaminants were not found at levels of health concern in samples collected in the south field. Chrysotile asbestos up to 30 percent, lead up to 1,797 ppm, and PCBs up to 44 ppm were found on the-north playing field. 2. Short Beach Park Recreational Area: The recreational area consists of two softball fields, a little league field, a soccer field, and a golf range. Chrysotile asbestos up to 15 percent, lead up to 860 ppm, and PCBs up to 5 ppm were found on this area. 3. 4th/5ch Avenue: This area is a vacant land parcel surrounded by residences. Chrysotile asbestos up to 80 percent, lead up to 8,409 ppm, and PCBs up to 15 ppm were found in this area. 4. Spada Property: This area is bisected by Ferry Creek. Commercial properties are located along the northwest side of the creek, residential areas are located on the opposite side. Chrysotile asbestos up to 90 percent, lead greater than 10,000 ppm (above detection limit of screening instrument), and PCBs up to 27 ppm were found on the commercial portion of the location. 5. Morgan/Francis: This location is bordered by Ferry Boulevard and East Broadway to the east, Ferry Creek to the northeast, and a residential area to the northwest. A commercial business is located on the property. Chrysotile asbestos up to 30 percent, lead up to 6,000 ppm, and PCBs up to 4 ppm were found in an area adjacent to the residences. 6. Lot K/Elm Street: This location is an occupied private residence. Chrysotile asbestos up to 90 percent, lead above 10,000 ppm, and PCBs up to 55 ppm were found in the yard. 7. Housatonic Boat Club: This boat club/marina is located between Shore Road and the Housatonic River. Raymark waste was used as a base for Shore Road. The waste also underlies a portion of the boat club property. Chrysotile asbestos up to 90 percent, lead above 10,000 ppm, and PCBs up to 108 ppm were found on the boat club property. 8. Raybestos Memorial Field: Surface soil samples were collected from one occupied residential property adjacent to the Raybestos Memorial Field and screened for lead and PCBs. Lead up to 7,765, and PCBs up to 96 ppm were found. Asbestos analysis has not yet occurred. The town of Stratford submitted a petition for a Public Health 64 Assessment to ATSDR in February 1993 [11]. ATSDR has determined that a public health assessment and a health consultation will be conducted in response to this petition. A site visit was conducted by ATSDR on April 6 and 7, 1993, with representatives of EPA Region I, U.S. Coast Guard, CTDOH, the Stratford Health Director, and the Stratford Department of Public Works [12]. At the request of EPA Region l and CTDEP, ATSDR and CTDOH have jointly reviewed all soil screening and analytical data for the eight high priority locations. These evaluations have been verbally provided to EPA Region I, the State of Connecticut, and the Stratford Health Director [13]. Based on these evaluations, the town of Stratford has attempted to restrict access to the Wooster Junior High School northern playing field, the Short Beach Park recreational area, and the Housatonic Boat Club. The CTDEP is currently in the process of designing and installation of interim covers/caps as a temporary measure to cease human exposure to contaminants at these 8 areas. CTDOH and the Stratford Health Director have initiated health education efforts for both area health professionals and the public. CTDOH and ATSDR are initiating a review of available health data to evaluate the occurrence of adverse health outcomes in the community that may be plausible from exposure to asbestos, PCBs, lead, and other contaminants that may be present from Raymark waste. BASIS FOR THE ADVISORY This Public Health Advisory is being issued based on the following: 1. An imminent public health hazard is posed from past, current, and potential future exposures via inhalation, ingestion, and direct demal contact with Raymark waste containing asbestos, lead, and PCBs.' 2. The potential for asbestos, lead, PCBs, and other possible contaminants found in Raymark waste to be carried into homes on shoes, in clothing, and from pets may pose a health hazard via ingestion and inhalation. 3. A potential public health concern is posed by consumption of seafood caught in or near Ferry Creek that may contain Raymark waste contaminants at levels of health concern. The contaminants found to date above levels of health concern are asbestos, lead, and PCBs. The most significant human exposure routes of health importance for these contaminants when they are 63 found on the ground surface are as follows: inhalation (asbestos and lead); ingestion (lead and PC3s); and dermal absorption (PCBs). Asbestos is a group of six naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Chrysotile is the fibrous form of serpentine and is the most abundant form of asbestos produced for commercial usage. Through the inhalation route of exposure, asbestos is a known human carcinogen and is one of the primary causes of mesothelioma. Mesotheliomas are tumors arising from the thin membrane surrounding internal organs. Inhalation of asbestos fibers may lead to fibrotic lung disease (asbestosis), cancer of the lung, the pleura, and the peritoneum. There is some evidence that inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers may lead to an increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer (14]. Typically, a latency period of between 10 and 30 years exists between exposure to asbestos and the occurrence of apparent health effects. In order for exposure to occur (via inhalation), the asbestos must exist as free fibers, capable of becoming airborne. The length and diameter of the asbestos fiber is a factor in determination of the adverse health outcomes of exposure. Fibers less than 0.5 microns in diameter appear to be most active in producing tumors, purportedly because they can readily penetrate into alveolar regions of the lung. Fibers longer than 5 to 10 microns appear to be most active in inducing increased risks of pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer. However, based on human epidemiological and animal studies, evidence indicates that all types of asbestos, including chrysotile, can cause cancer [14, 15]. Human inhalation studies using several concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers have shown an excess cancer risk [15]. A marked enhancement of the risk of lung carcinoma in exposed workers or populations who also smoke cigarettes has been noted in human epidemiology studies. This increase in risk may be as high as ten times or more than that of a non-smoker [14]. Exposure to lead on or near the ground surface can occur via ingestion and, if the lead becomes airborne, via inhalation. The most sensitive sub population for adverse health effects resulting from lead exposure are fetuses, infants, and young children. Factors accounting for this susceptibility include: (1) the immaturity of the blood brain barrier which allows entry of lead into the immature nervous system; (2) hand-to-mouth behavior and pica behavior (extreme hand-to-mouth activity) which leads to the consumption of lead from contaminated media; (3) enhanced gastrointestinal absorption of lead (affected by the nutritional status of the child); (4) low body weight; and (5) the ready transfer of lead across the placenta to the developing fetus [16]. These factors put children exposed to lead at a much higher risk of developing adverse health effects. #• X 00 Since lead readily crosses the placental barrier, exposure of women to lead during pregnancy results in uptake by the fetus. Prenatal exposure to lead (4-8 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl) maternal cord blood lead level) is associated with premature delivery, decreased birth weight, impaired postnatal neuro behavioral development, and decreased postnatal growth rate [16]. Information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that some adverse health effects (possible subtle neuro-behavioral deficiencies) could occur in children with blood lead levels as low as 10 ug/dl [17]. Blood lead levels are raised above background, on average, about 5 ug/dl for every 1,000 ppm of lead in soil or dust, and may increase 3 to 5 times higher depending on play habits and mouthing behavior [17]. Even lower soil levels of lead have been suggested as contributing to excessive blood lead levels in some children [18]. PCBs are environmentally persistent and concentrate upward in the food chain. The chemical stability and resistance to biodegradation of PCBs accounts for their persistence in the environment [19]. Exposure to PCBs can occur from ingestion of contaminated soil and food, inhalation of contaminated dusts, and dermal absorption. Excretion of PCBs is slow, causing bioaccumulation of the contaminant in humans even at low exposure levels. PCBs are stored in the fat of the body [19]. Fetuses and neonates are potentially more sensitive to PCBs than adults because of the contaminant distribution across the placenta and because fetuses and neonates lack enzymes which are normally found in the liver that make the breakdown and excretion of PCBs*easier. In addition, PCBs accumulate in breast milk. Exposure to PCBs has been shown to cause the following: elevations in blood fats (i.e., triglycerides, cholesterol); increases in certain liver and kidney enzymes; chloracne in humans; and may have reproductive effects. Animal studies indicate that ingestion of PCBs can lead to adverse immunological effects, including a decrease in antibody levels. The Department of Health and Human services has determined that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens [19]. Food can be a major source of PCB exposure, usually from fish and animal fat. PCBs preferentially separate from water and adsorb to sediment. PCBs bioconcentrate upward in the food chain. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates tolerances of 0.2 to 3 ppm PCBs for all foods, with a tolerance level in fish of 2 ppm. This tolerance level is intended to be used as a guideline. Lower levels of PCBS in fish are necessary for subsistence fishing populations and sensitive populations [19]. 67 CONCLUSIONS The ATSDR has determined that: 1. There is an imminent public health hazard from past, current, and potential future exposures to Raymark waste containing asbestos, lead, PCBs, and other possible contaminants. 2. A potential public health hazard is posed by indoor exposure to asbestos, lead, PCBs, and other possible Raymark waste contaminants that may have been tracked inside residences via clothing, shoes, and pets. 3. A potential public health concern is posed by consumption of seafood caught in or near Jerry Creek that may contain Raymark waste contaminants at levels of health concern. RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS The ATSDR recommends that the regulatory/enforcement agencies (EPA, CTDEP, and the town of Stratford) take the_following actions with continued cooperation and coordination with the health agencies (ATSDR, CTDOH, and the town of Stratford): 1. Dissociate the public from areas where exposure to Raymark waste at levels of health concern can occur. 2. Continue surface soil (0-3 inches) sampling/screening efforts for asbestos, lead, and PCBs in residential yards adjacent to areas where waste has been identified on or near the ground surface. If contaminants are found at levels of health concern, implement measures to cease exposure. 3. Continue efforts to identify other locations where Raymark waste was used as fill material and conduct appropriate sampling and mitigation if necessary. 4. Sample interiors of homes adjacent to areas of exposed waste and/or where yard soil screening results indicate contaminants at levels of health concern for free asbestos fibers,"lead, and PCBs. If contaminants are found at levels of health concern, implement measures to cease exposure. 5. Conduct sediment sampling of Ferry Creek and its junction with the Housatonic River and seafood sampling to determine if site-related contaminants are present at levels of health concern. The sampling plan should be a 6S cooperative effort among all agencies involved to ensure that the results can be used for public health and regulatory/enforcement purposes. 6. Conduct an area well survey to ensure that groundwater is not in use for potable purposes. If private wells are found, ensure that well users are not exposed to site- related contaminants at levels of health concern. 7. Establish controls to require soil sampling and analyses in areas of Stratford where Raymarlc waste material may have been placed prior to conducting any invasive activities (e.g., water line installation, sewage line installation, maintenance of buried line, construction, grading) to avoid health hazards to workers or others by bringing buried waste material to the ground surface. If waste material is found and invasive activities are necessary, all regulations for worker protection and hazardous material handling and disposal should be followed. 8. Consider the Raymark property and other locations where• Raymark waste is present'at levels of health concern for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List, and/or use other statutory or regulatory authorities as appropriate to characterize the areas of concern and take necessary action. ATSDR and CTDOH will continue the following actions: 1. Provide recommendations for environmental sampling to enforcement/regulatory agencies to ensure that sampling results can be used to identify appropriate public health actions and exposure mitigation. 2. Continue to evaluate environmental and other sampling data to determine if other sources of exposure to Raymark waste contaminants are of public health concern. 3. Assist the enforcement/regulatory agencies in determining whether the proposed remedies and the contingency plans during remedy implementation for the areas of concern will be protective of public health. 4. Conduct a public health assessment and continue to provide health consultations to review environmental, health outcome, and community health concern information and determine appropriate additional follow-up actions. 69 On May 19, 1993, the information in this Public Health Advisory underwent review by the ATSDR Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) and the CTDOH to determine, appropriate follow-up health activities for the potentially affected residents of Stratford. Based on HARP recommendations, ATSDR, CTDOH, and the town of Stratford, will: 1. Conduct blood lead testing to determine if pregnant women, infants, and young children who live adjacent to or frequent the locations where waste has been identified have been exposed to lead at levels of public health concern. If elevated blood leads are found, ATSDR and the CTDOH will make recommendations regarding health follow- up. ATSDR and CTDOH will coordinate with EPA Region I, CTDEP, and the town of Stratford to identify and eliminate the site-related source of lead. If the lead is from a non site-related source, ATSDR and CTDOH will coordinate with the town of Stratford to ensure that the source is eliminated. 2. Review available health data to evaluate the occurrence of adverse health outcomes in the community that may be plausible from exposure to asbestos, PCBs, lead, and other possible contaminants from Raymark waste. 3. Based on the results of the health data review, determine appropriate follow-up health actions. 4. Develop a comprehensive community health education strategy to continue community health education efforts. 5. Continue health professional education efforts to advise local health care providers and public health professionals of the nature and possible consequences of exposure to contaminants in Raymark waste. The education effort will include providing such information as the contaminants of concern, pathways and routes of exposure, symptoms of exposure, and testing and treatment, if known. For additional information, please contact the ATSDR at the following address: Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE Director, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1600 Clifton Road, NE, E-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 (404) 639-0610 70 REFERENCES 1. EPA Region I, Pollution Report and RCRA file information. 2. Verbal Health Consultation: From L. House (ATSDR Region I) to A. Wing (EPA Region I). March 6, 1992. 3. ATSDR Memorandum: Health Consultation. From L. House (ATSDR Region I), to A. Sherrin (EPA Region I). March 6, 1989. 4. Analytical data submitted to M. Hill (EPA Region I), from Lockheed Environmental Systems and Technologies. March, 1993. 5. Verbal Health Consultation: Raymark Industries, Inc. From L. Wilder (ATSDR), to A. Wing (EPA Region I). March 3, 1993. 6. Letter from A. Wing (EPA Region I), to Raymark Industries, Inc. May 3, 1993. 7. ATSDR Health Consultation: Raybestos Memorial Field. From R. Nickle (ATSDR), to S. Simon (ATSDR Region I). August 11, 1992. 8. Verbal Health Consultation: Raybestos Memorial Field. From R. Nickle (ATSDR), to A. Wing (EPA Region I). August 26, 1992. 9. Data Transmittal Letter: Site Inspection Results. From J. Anderson (EPA Region I) to S. Simon (ATSDR Region I). April 28, 1993. 10. Surface Soil Sampling Screening Results, Stratford, CT. April through Hay, 1993. 11. Petition reguest for a Public Health Assessment. From the Town of Stratford, to Dr. Barry Johnson (Assistant Administrator, ATSDR). February 3, 1993. 12. Trip Report: Raymark Asbestos Sites, April 6-8, 1993. From L. wilder (ATSDR), to R. Williams (Dir., DHAC, ATSDR). 13. Teleconference call with EPA Region I, ATSDR, CTDOH, and Stratford Health Director. May 11, 1993. 14. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Asbestos. ATSDR/TP-90/04. 15. NIOSH Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-169, December 1976. 71 16. ATSDR Draft Toxicological Profile for Lead. October 1991. 17. CDC Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. October 1991. 18. Madhaven et al. , "Lead in Soil: Recommended Permissible Levels." Environmental Research. 49, 136-142, 1989. 19. ATSDR Draft Toxicological Profile for Selected PCBs. October 1991. APPENDIX C INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN 73 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES INTERCOM.COV 5/27/94 74 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose of Interagency Communication Plan 1 B. The Overall Strategy 1 II. SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES 2 A. Support Structure 2 1. Health Agencies 3 2. Environmental Agencies. 5 B. Meetings 6 1. Stratford Interagency Workgroup 6 2. iTown Officials Briefing Meeting 7 3. Other Interagency Meetings 7 4. Neighborhood Forums 8 5. Media Breifings 8 III. AGENCIES MISSION STATEMENTS 8 A. Local 8 1. Stratford Health Department (SHD) 8 2. Stratford Town Council/Town Manager 9 3. Conservation Department 9 B. State 9 1. CTDPHAS 9 2. CTDEP 10 C. Federal 10 1. ATSDR 10 2. EPA 11 D. Other 11 1. Stratford Medical Advisory Group (SMAG) 11 2. Stratford Citizens Advisory Council (SCAC) 11 75 INTERCOM.TOC 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES IV. APPENDICES A. History and Background Information on Raymark Industries, Inc. Sites B. Key Community Concerns 1. Health Concerns 2. Sampling Concerns 3. Cleanup Concerns 4. Media Issues 5. Economic Concerns 6. NPL Listing 7. Communication Concerns C. List of Agencies 1. Local 2. State 3. Federal D. List of Support Groups 1. Stratford Medical Advisory Group (SMAG) 2. Stratford Citizens Advisory Council (SCAC) E. Map of Known Disposal Sites V. GLOSSARY 76 INTERCOM.TOC 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Interagency Communication Plan This document outlines a foundation for effective coordination and communication between the various agencies involved in the Raymark Industries, Inc. site. It identifies the Who, Where, What, When, and Why of interagency communication. Furthermore, while this document touches on some tools used to communicate with the public, there is a separate document, the Community Involvement Plan, which discusses ways agencies can and do communicate with the public. A brief history as to how the Raymark waste came to be placed on commercial, municipal, and residential properties is presented in Appendix A. The task of communicating is driven by the need to make decisions based on up-to-date information and with input from all the appropriate players. Additionally, methods or protocols should ensure that the environmental and health information is shared among the various agencies; that concurrence is achieved; and that the information is conveyed to the public in a timely and appropriate manner. As part of the interagency communication strategy key players, their roles and responsibilities are identified. Rotation of staff and the dynamics of the Stratford situation will incur changes; therefore names and'roles should be updated on a bi-monthly basis. B. The Overall strategy The goal of this plan is to facilitate coordination and communication among and between agencies involved with the Raymark Industries, Inc site. By outlining each agency's role and responsibility(ies), players begin to see where they fit into the puzzle. Update meetings are essential to allow each agency to see and discuss progress of environmental and health activities. Specifically, coordinated efforts will assist the agencies to: • coordinate their activities with each other in order to maintain schedules and minimize disruptions; • present clear, consistent messages to the public; • develop concise workplans in order to maximize efficiency and minimize duplication; and • recognize other agencies1 area of expertise and authorities. Questions and/or problems can be referred to the appropriate agency when necessary. 11 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES Environmental and health agencies are stratifed on three levels: local, state and federal. Environmental data are generated, reviewed by health agencies and then shared with other agencies when appropriate, property owners, and finally in generic"terms with the public. Health agencies provide input for both sampling and cleanup decisions. The Stratford Health Department (SHD) has been and will continue to be a central focus in all site operations and decision-making processes. To effectively develop and use a communication strategy, the concerns of the community must be understood. The Stratford community has voiced concerns..regarding several issues: • Health; • The environment; • The media portrayal of the waste problem; • The lack of government communication; • Econroic issues; • Sampling and subsequent clean-up concerns; and • The potential for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. This list, detailed in Appendix B, is by no means comprehensive; rather it attempts to highlight many of the concerns expressed by Stratford residents. Identifying some of the community's concerns has helped formulate, in part, issues that ought to be addressed in a communication plan. The next section outlines specific strategies identified to achiovo effective interagency communication; the final section lists the key players, their roles and responsibilities. Mission statements and details about each agency are included. II. SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES A. Support Structure While'this entire project is an interagency effort, there needs to be "an agency-in-charge". For all intents and purposes the SHD is identified as the lead agency. Elaine O'Keefe, SHD Director, petitioned for assistance from the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to help her department (of limited staff) deal with the contamination problem. As part of ATSDR*s emergency response, a regional representative and an environmental scientist was dispatched to provide on-site_ communication and technical assistance. As the months went on, it became apparent that a full-time project coordinator was needed to pull the agencies together while maintaining a governmental presence at the local level. Furthermore, the SHD's mission - to protect public health necessitated making sure that the agencies involved respond to community concerns, since Stratford is their backyard. 78 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES Health agencies work together with similar goals in mind: assessing the impact on public health. Environmental agencies also work together with goals of environmental assessment, remediation, and when necessary, enforcement. The following discussion stratifies support on the basis of health or environmental directive. 1. Health Agencies ATSDR and Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (CTDPHAS) have worked out joint agreements on how they will support each other in their committment to public health issues in Stratford. • ATSDR, in conjunction with CTDPHAS, will continue to evaluate environmental data for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CT Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) as requested. EPA will send the appropriate data package to the ATSDR site lead, Tammie McRae or'designee, in Atlanta and to Diane Aye of CTDPHAS. This procedure is consistent with routine requests for ATSDR health consultations from all EPA regions. Because of the on-site support provided to date by ATSDR, EPA is aware of the information ATSDR requires in a data package. • Tammie McRae, Tim Walker, and David Mellard (the Divison of Health Assessment and Consultation [DHAC] Stratford Group) will continue to provide technical support from Atlanta with on-site presence in Stratford on an as-needed basis for activities, such as attending public meetings, visiting residences with EPA. Portions of on-site support will be provided from ATSDR regional office and through the CTDPHAS. When in Atlanta, the Stratford Group will rotate on call to cover technical requests from EPA and other members of the Stratford Group in Stratford. At all * times, a team member will be available by pager so that EPA can reach ATSDR/DHAC personnel at any time. ATSDR will provide EPA and the ATSDR Regional Office with a roster that will identify the representative on call. • When requested and deemed appropriate by DHAC management, the DHAC Stratford Group will continue to provide on-site support to EPA and other agencies. The DHAC Stratford Group members will work with DHAC management and the CTDPHAS and with ATSDR Region I office representatives to determine who will attend the appropriate meetings. • ATSDR/DHAC will continue to provide on-site support to the local health department through the Raymark/Stratford Project Coordinator, Andrea Boissevain. She is currently on a 6-month contract which ends in September 1994. 79 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES The DHAC Stratford Group in conjunction with ATSDR's Region I office will review fact sheets, press releases, and newsletters from Atlanta upon request. CTDPHAS will also provide support from their community educator, Kenny Foscue, to assist DHAC and SHD in development of community-based fact sheets. ATSDR created the Stratford Strategy Team, an intra-agency group of ATSDR staff representing all programs involved in Stratford. Chaired by Dr. Maureen Lichtveld (Public Health Practice Coordinational Group), the team will elicit support from other divisions in ATSDR. ATSDR's Division of Health Eduction (DHE) will provide support for editing newsletters, educating physicians, and educating the community; DHS will provide support for evaluating follow-up health investigations; and the Division of Toxicology will provide support for toxicological research questions. EPA Region I will send ATSDR and CTDPHAS evironmental data for health evaluations. The data will be sent to Tammie McRae at ATSDR headquarters in Atlanta and to Diane Aye or Jennifer Kertanis at CTDPHAS. The EPA Regional I contact for distribution of the environmental data is David Mclntyre. Upon receipt of the data, Tammie McRae will fax a list of the data received to David Mclntyre. Upon receipt of the date, ATSDR and CTDPHAS will provide health evaluations within 3 to 4 weeks. Agencies need to coordinate with Elaine O'Keefe (SHD Director), Andrea Boissevain, and town officials to communicate environmental and human health threats to the public and to accomplish the mission to cease possible exposures to Raymark waste. CTDPHAS is responsible for evaluation of environmental sampling data and provide health consultations in cooperation with ATSDR. In addition, CTDPHAS will provide the funding mechanism for the full-time project coordinator to assist the SHD with all aspects of the Raymark Industries, Inc. site project. CTDPHAS will also provide assistance to the project coordinator in carrying out community health education activities. As noted above, the SHD serves as an essential link between the myriad of agencies and the community at large. Local citizens will oftern turn to the local health department for information and assistance in understanding the implication of the impact of the Raymark waste situation. The project coordinator (Andrea Boissevain) serves as the information link and logistics coordinator. The coordinator's responsiblities include, but are not limited to: 80 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES a) Assisting SHD in maintaining effective lines of communication between and amongst federal, state and local officials and the public; b) Organizing the various agencies and implementing community- wide informational and educational programs, including public forums and fact sheets; c) Answering incoming inquiries from the public about the Raymark waste situation in Stratford. 2. Environmental Agencies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CTDEP have performed extensive sampling and initiated several clean-ups in the Town of Stratford. These activities were initiated by the environmental agencies to mitigate the public health threat posed by the exposure of Raymark waste at several properties in Stratford. Environmental sampling has been on-going in the Stratford Community since April 1993 when the CTDEP performed initial sampling at seven areas in town .where Raymark waste was known to be exposed. Based on these results,. EPA launched a massive sampling effort to further define the extent of contamination at the seven sites at residential, commercial, and municipal properties surrounding the sites and at other locations where Raymark waste was believed to be present. Clean-up actions in Stratford have been initiated by the CTDEP in terms of providing temporary covers and access restrictions at commercial, and municipal properties and by the EPA in terms of excavating waste at residential properties. Listed below are some of the current responsibilities assumed by the environmental agencies to further abate health and environmental threats in Stratford. • EPA is the agency responsible for the current sampling of sites. ATSDR, CTDPHAS and Stratford Town Officials have provided further assistance to EPA in recommending areas to sample and prioritizing the sites. • EPA is responsible for sampling, analysis, interim and final remedial measures to clean-up/cover sites that pose a public health threat. This commitment includes the following: a) Identifying locations where Raymark waste is present; b) characterizing the extent of contamination at locations where Raymark waste is present; c) Reducing or eliminating the exposure risks to people and the environment associated with contamination presnt at the Raymark facility and other locations throughout Stratford; 81 INTERCOM.PLN 5/21/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES d) Informing and involving the Stratford community in site decisions; and e) Providing community relations assistance to agencies and coordinating communication with the media. • CTDEP is tasked with completing remedial measures for two of the municipal sites (Wooster school and Short Beach park). Interim measures, final remedial design, and implementation are included in their scope of work. CTDEP is also involved with the following: a) Conducting a town-wide well survey; and b) Providing financial assistance to the Town of Stratford for funding newsletters, lead inspections and blood lead testing. B. Meetings Meetings are one avenue where information is exchanged and ideas are discussed. The various meetings and their purpose are listed below: 1. Stratford Interagency Workgroup The interagency workgroup is composed of the following participants: EPA, ATSDR, CTDEP, CTDPHAS, and the Town of Stratford (including the Town Manager, Departments of Health, and Conservation). Appendix C contains a current list of agency contacts. • Monthly meeting of the Interagency Workgroup — The purpose is to update other interested agencies and officials on the status of the site. Other agencies include but are not limited to: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S.FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT), U.S. Coast Guard (U.S.CG) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S.COE). Currently, the meeting is sponsored and facilitated by the Town. An agenda is drafted and sent out approximately one week prior to the meeting to notify participants and to obtain any changes. Meeting notes have been provided and a telephone/FAX list to all participants. • Informal group meetings — Smaller group meetings have been formed to address specific issues, e.g. dredging and sampling for shellfish. 82 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 ; \ -r v INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES 2. Town Officials Briefing Meeting The various health and environmental agencies, and Town of Stratford participate in several regularly-scheduled meetings: • Weekly Town Officials Briefing — Purpose is for agencies to update each other on issues or activities. Representatives from each of the following agencies are requested to attend: ATSDR Atlanta, Region I; EPA; CTDEP; CTDPHAS; Town of Stratford (Health Department and Conservation Department). Meeting agendas originate out of the Stratford Health Department. The meeting is facilitated by Andrea Boissevain; highlights of the meeting are documented, printed, and distributed accordingly. • The purpose of this meeting is to discuss activities, address data evaluations and dissemination, address media issues, and collaborate on environmental and health communication and education activities in Stratford on a regular basis. 3. Other Interagency Meetings (Agency/Field Staff Meetings) The agencies may also participate in field staff meetings with other interested parties as necessary to discuss specific issues. _ It is understood that many formal and informal meetings among various agencies occur on specific issues (example health consultations, remediation designs, wetlands issues, lead screening program review, etc.). • Health Consultations — The primary review of environmental data by health agencies is conducted by ATSDR field staff and CTDPHAS representatives via conference call with ATSDR/Atlanta support. A second review is done during a meeting between ATSDR field staff and the Stratford Health Department to discuss the conclusions, recommendations, and any possible subsequent actions. • Remedial Design Work — Meetings include EPA, CTDEP, and U.S. ACE to coordinate plans for site specific design of interim and permanent remedial measures. • Stratford Strategy Team — Joint agency meetings coordinated from ATSDR, Office of the Assistant Administrator, Public Health Practice Coordination Group. Participants include ATSDR representatives from the Divisions of Toxicology, Health Education, Health Studies and Health Assessment and Consultation, and CTDPHAS representatives from the Division of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology. This team meets as needed by conference call to update both agencies on the current environmental health issues, to coordinate health activities and resources among the health agencies and divisions. 83 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES CTDEP and EPA Meeting — Weekly meeting to coordinate data needs, sampling and clean-up plans. Public Meetings (civic meetings; — A few meetings were held: 1) April - to announce the presence of dioxin at the Raymark facility and that the sampling program will start at eight sites; and 2) May - to respond to questions about the health advisory and to explain the results of the sampling, the ATSDR Health Advisory, and what would happen next. 4. Neighborhood Forums Numerous group-specific meetings have been held to address specific concerns in neighborhoods where EPA activity was visible. 5. Media Briefings Early on in the project there was an inherent need to hold weekly (even daily) press conferences or briefings. Coordinated efforts are imperative to present consistent information to the public. Press releases, often originated with EPA, require review and concurrence from health and environmental agencies. Press releases originating from any agency should be faxed to involved parties at least 24-48 hours prior to the release date. It is particularly important that town officials are alertedin advance of the release of information to the press. Other media events and information are included in the Communication Involvement Plan. III. AGENCIES MISSION STATEMENTS Each agency follows a directive outlining its mission._ For each of the local, state, and federal agencies an abbreviated mission statement has been included. In addition, staff members directly involved with the Raymark Industries, Inc. site are listed. Appendix C also contains a list of active agency staff members involved in the Raymark. This list should be updated on a bi-monthly basis to account for any changes in staffing. A. Local 1. Stratford Health Department (SHD) Mission: To promote healthy behavior and outcome among Stratford's youth and adults; to prevent communicable and infectious disease; and to protect against environmental health hazards. The director has the authority to act on any public health threat. 84 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES • Staff: Elaine O'Keefe, Director of Health and Welfare Andrea Boissevain, Raymark/Stratford Sites Coordinator Kathy Hart-Jones, Administrative Assistant 2. Stratford Town Council/Town Manager Mission: The municipal government in the Town of Stratford is a "council-manager government". The elective council governs town administration and public expenditures through an appointed town manager. Town Council members are to be kept abreast of issues relating to Raymark and the possible impact that they may have on their constituency. • Staff: Mark Barnhart, Town Manager Rudolf J. Weiss, Town Council President 10 Town Council members representing each of the 10 districts 3. Conservation Department Mission: The Stratford Conservation Department's mission is to protect, restore, and improvement of town environmental quality through the process of regulatory management, compliance, and public awareness. • Staff: Bill McCann, Administrator of Environmental Conservation B. State 1. Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (CTDPHAS) Mission: The Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health (EEOH) of CTDPHAS evaluates health risks posed by environmental and occupational chemical contaminants. EEOH1s mission is to to identify and quantify health risks posed by hazardous exposures so that the public and other governmental agencies can reduce those exposures thorugh appropriate interventions. Such interventions include public education, standard setting, regulatory actions and legislative proposals. This is often accomplished through conducting risk assesmment on particular chemicals and exposures. Epidemiological investigations and disease surveillance are other tools used to identify adverse health outcomes caused by environmental and occupational exposures. 85 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES I • Staff: Peter Galbraith, Bureau Chief Health Promotion Brian Toal, Director, Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health Diane Aye, Epidemiologist Jennifer Kertanis, Epidemiologist Kenny Foscue, Health Educator 2. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) Mission: The site remediation section of CTDEP's mission is to protect public health and the environment from the adverse effects of hazardous substances which have been released to the land and water of the state. Objectives include to evaluate, and where necessary, remediate contaminated sites giving priority to sites that pose the greatest risk to public health or the environment or are vital to economic development to the state. • Staff: Ed Parker, Director, Permitting, Enforcement & Remediation Division Mike Powers, Project Manager Adam Sullivan, Project Engineer Steve Tartaris, Project Scientist C. Federal 1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Mission: Created by Superfund legislation in 1980, ATSDR*s mission is to prevent exposure and adverse human health effects and diminished quality of life associated with exposure to hazardous substances from waste sites, unplanned releases, and other sources of pollution present in the environment. Activities include developing public health assessments, conducting health investigation, providing emergency response support, and disseminating health education material to a wide varity of audiences. • Staff: Maureen Lichtveld, OAA, Public Health Practices Group, Chief Medical Officer Tammie McRae, Environmental Health Scientist, Site Lead Tim Walker, Environmental Health Scientist David Mellard, Toxicologist Susanne Simon, Regional Representative, Region I Louise House, Senior Regional Representative, Region I Ted Bazenas, Regional Representative, Region I Theresa Ramsey, DHE, Editor Support Lynn Storck,.DHE, Editor Support 86 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYHARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mission: The mission of EPA Region .1 is to safeguard public health, welfare and the environment through the protection and improvement of New England's natural resources. In pursuit of their mission, EPA will: address issues that pose the greatest risk first; strategically execute and enforce the laws enacted by Congress; take an integrated approach in protecting air, water and land; coorperate with local, state, federal and international partners; encourage the prevention of pollution at its source; be effective stewards of the public funds; openly communicate with the public and promote environmental education; foster a skilled, dedicated culturally diverse staff; and use sound science, data and information. • Staff: Dave Mclntyre, Lead On-Scene Coordinator Alex Sherrin, On-Scene Coordinator Rich Haworth, On-Scene Coordinator Mike Hill, RCRA Facility Mgr Mike Jasinski, Remedial Project Mgr Liza Judge, Community Relations Coordinator Lee MacMichael, Enforcement Coordinator Mary Ellen Stanton, Sampling Coordinator D. Other 1. Stratford Medical Advisory Group (SMAG) Mission: SMAG was set up with assistance from the SHD and CTDPHAS. The group, chaired by Dr. Eileen Storey of the University of Connecticut's (UCONN) Section of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (SOEM), consists of several physicians that consider health effects and impacts stemming from the Raymark Industries, Inc. sites. Physicians and support staff are listed in Appendix D. Responsibilities of the group include: • To answer questions and health concerns at public meetings; • To discuss health studies and lead screening; • To advise the community and local physicians; • To mail health concern fact sheets to local physicians; and • To mail ATSDR case studies to local physicians. 2. Stratford Citizens Advisory Council (SCAC) Mission: Formed after the May 27, 1993 public meeting, SCAC consists of local area residents, Town representatives, and business owners that have been affected by or are otherwise interested in the Raymark/Stratford Sites (See Appendix E for list of members). SCAC provides assistance to the community as a voice, moderator and reviewer of environmental issues relative to the Raymark facility site and other Raymark waste site areas. 87 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES APPENDICES 88 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES APPENDIX A HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES Raymark Industries, Inc. and its predecessor, Raybestos Manhattan, Inc., operated a Stratford, CT facility on East Main Street, across from 1-95, from 1919 until September 1989. The facility produced brakes, clutch parts, and other friction-based products. Raymark's operations generated ignitable and corrosive wastes containing liquid adhesives, phenolic mixtures, as well as lead-asbestos dust and scrap materials. Raymark routinely disposed of its waste on site and in off-site locations throughout Stratford. From 1919 to July 1984, Raymark used a system of lagoons to attempt to capture the lead and asbestos wastes produced by its manufacturing process. As the lagoons filled with sludge, they were often dredged and the material was used as fill in off-site locations in Stratford and/or were covered with asphalt and often built upon at the site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stabilized and covered all the lagoons except Lagoon 4, which served as a collection basin for the storm water drain system. The storm water drained through a culvert into Ferry Creek, which flows to the Housatonic River. The Town of Stratford petitioned ATSDR to conduct a public health assessment to evaluate human exposure and potential for adverse risks associated with these off-site locations of Raymark waste. ATSDR accepted the petition and agreed to conduct a public health assessment and/or other health follow-up activities in coordination with CTDPHAS and the Stratford Health Department. In March, 1993, results from on-going environmental investigations at Raymark revealed the presence of dioxin and furans beneath the surface of some areas on-site and in some buildings. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) health consultation concluded that the dioxin and furans found on the site did not pose an immediate health threat because: 1) most of the surface is covered by asphalt and gravel; 2) the site is restricted; and 3) it is an industrial setting. It was not known, however, the extent to which any of the material had been disposed of in community sites and the extent that material contained asbestos, lead, PCB, and dioxins/furans. EPA and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) worked with ATSDR and the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (CTDPHAS) to develop a plan to investigate eight priority sites out of the fifteen known sites (See Stratford Map in Appendix E). The plan included surface soil samples and sediment/shellfish samples from Ferry Creek and Housatonic River area. 89 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYKARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES The prioritization was based on populations at risk (children and pregnant women), public access, and land use. School, recreation areas, accessible public and private properties were of concern. The eight priority sites are: • Wooster Middle School north playing field • Short Beach Park soccer field • 4th and 5th Avenue vacant lot • Morgan Francis property • Spada property • Lot K/Elm Street • Housatonic Boat Club © Raybestos Memorial Field and a few adjacent properties In May (1993), results from the screening tests indicated lead,, asbestos, and PCB were found in the soil at the surface at the eight priority sites. ATSDR issued a Public Health Advisory declaring imminent public health threats resulting from exposures to any of these eight sites. A public meeting was held by the Town and attended by over 400 people. In response, the Governor of Connecticut committed $5 million under State Superfund jurisdiction adding to the already committed $9 million from EPA for the evaluation and clean up of the Stratford sites. From June to August, 1993, EPA, CTDEP, ATSDR, and CTDPHAS expanded investigation of the extent of contamination at the eight priority sites. Sampling included all recreation fields, day care facilities, schools, and public areas in Stratford. Possible new sites were also investigated. In addition, planning for corrective actions at sites, considering interim remedial measures, and evaluating of environmental and health outcome data (e.g. cancer registry and lead screening data) were all underway. EPA set up a Stratford field command post to coordinate field activities. ATSDR provided field staff to support the environmental activities, develop health consultations on environmental sampling results, and fund a project coordinator for the comunity involvement activities at the Stratford Health Department. At present, the agencies continue to: cover/restrict access to areas identified as posing a public health threat; sample sites to determine permanent clean-up measures; plan for health studies of populations at risk; plan and implement community education programs. IVTERCOH.PLV 5f27/94 90 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES APPENDIX B KEY COMMUNITY CONCERNS To effectively develop and use a communication strategy, the concerns of the community must be understood. The Stratford community has voiced concerns regarding several issues: health; the environment; the media portrayal of the waste problem; the lack of governmental communication; economic issues; sampling and subsequent clean-up concerns; and the potential for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it attempts to highlight many of the concerns of Stratford residents that have been expressed. Identifying some of the community's concerns has helped formulate, in part, issues that can be addressed in a communication plan as well as incorporated into a strategic workplan. Many of these issues have been considered and incorporated in the interagency effort to plan and communicate with the community. 1. Health Concerns • Many residents had concerns about the possible health effects or impacts associated with asbestos, lead, and PCB contamination. Many wanted to know if they will experience or have experienced any adverse health effects. How would they recognize these effects? Who do they contact or how can they receive additional information about health effects or impacts? • Residents expressed concerns about the safety of eating shellfish, crabs, and fish in the Housatonic River. • Parents have asked for more information on blood lead levels in the community and how they compare with people who live, play, or work near the Raymark facility, and other Raymark waste areas. • Another health concern raised is whether people who have left the community or used to play on the eight priority sites will be followed up for inclusion in any health studies. • Some residents were concerned about their family's safety during cleanup activities at their residences, adjacent residences, and nearby sites. They want to know what types of safety measures will be used to prevent their exposure during cleanup activities. • Some residents challenge the very notion that a health threat exists and view the lead screening and preliminary cancer studies as evidence that there are no health threats. 91 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYKARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES 2) Sampling Concerns • Some residents not associated with the known fill areas have contacted either the EPA or other agencies involved to request that their properties be sampled. They have been referred to the Stratford Health Department (SHD) for visual evaluation to determine the need for sampling. To date, only schools, day care centers, parks and other public areas, and residences abutting or adjacent to known fill areas are being sampled. • Some residents felt that they were not given proper notice about the deployment of survey and ground penetrating radar teams sent out to their properties to detect underground objects and materials before the depth sampling teams started activities. • Some residents felt that the depth sampling teams were not listening to them regarding the locations of fill materials that were placed on their properties. • Some residents wanted to know why depth sampling was required for their property when EPA originally stated that if there were no surface soil hits, then sampling would be finished. They wanted to know why EPA has changed from the original plan and when will the EPA be finished with all of the sampling. • Some residents questioned what would be done about contamination found on their properties at depth (e.g., 5 feet). • Some residents have expressed concern that EPA doesn't seem to have a "master plan" on how to approach the environmental problem in Stratford. 3) Cleanup Concerns • Some residents were concerned about what was involved with any proposed cleanup and how it was going to be done. They wanted to know: "How clean is clean?" and "How 'complete' will the cleanup be?" Who will perform any follow-up work or monitoring if necessary? • Some residents were concerned about their family's safety during cleanup activities at their residences. They want to know what types of safety measures would be used to prevent their exposure during cleanup activities. 4) Media Issues • Portrayal of Waste Problem a) Some residents assume that the EPA and the other agencies involved with the Stratford Sites have the power to control the content of what is printed or broadcast in the media. INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 92 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES b) Some residents believe that there too much information being given to the media about the sites. A proportionate number of residents believe that there is too little information being given to the media. c) Some residents feel that the media has been concentrating predominantly on the negative aspects of the contamination situation and not on any of the positives (such as successful cleanups or areas thought to be contaminated that actually turned out not to be). d) Many residents feel that there is too much hype about the contamination issue and that the media has blown it out of proportion. They question whether or not the problem is really this bad. • Media Concerns a) Some members of the media have expressed dissatisfaction about the volume of and how often sampling results have been released. b) There seems to be some misunderstanding about EPA's protocol regarding the privacy of residential sampling data. c) The media is very interested in having access to dioxin sampling results which are not yet available to the EPA. 5) Economic Concerns • A large number of residents are concerned about the effect of the site activities on their property values and the marketability of their homes. In particular, residents feel that the value of their homes has been lowered because of the Health Advisory, sampling personnel presence, identification of contaminants, and media coverage. They were curious about the logic/basis for initiating the Health Advisory. • There has been concern by the individual residents about who would finance the cost of sampling and cleanup (if necessary). In addition, it is perceived that the ability to sell and/or obtain financing for specific homes has been impacted by the Raymark waste problem. • There is concern about any potential liability to residential owners, businesses, and the Town of Stratford for cleanup costs. • Some residents wanted to know: "What is the future of the Raymark property/facility?"; "Will the waste be stored on-site temporarily or on a more permanent basis?" . • The concern about returning the Raymark-facility property to the Stratford tax rolls looms large for many. INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 93 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION FLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES • Will there be deed restrictions placed upon residential properties? There was some concern about the stigma associated with such restrictions and the potential loss of property values. • Some residents have requested a public statement or official letter from EPA/ATSDR stating that their property is clean or has been cleaned to acceptable levels. Concern has been raised over lending institutions requiring undue soil testing of Stratford properties. • Some residents have expressed interest in having the health advisory withdrawn when the environmental public health issues have been resolved. • Some residents were concerned about who* will maintain the sites if there were any problems in the future. They were concerned that they would be held liable for this. 6) NPL Listing • Many citizens have expressed a concern about the potential listing of the Stratford Sites on the NPL. It seems that there is some confusion on this issue; residents don't recognize that the assessment and cleanup work going on at this time is actually Superfund work. They are afraid of the stigma associated with being proposed for and included on the NPL listing. 7) Communication Concerns • Some residents believe there is a lack of communication and/or consistency amongst the various groups of the governmental agencies. • Some residents have expressed that the time from sampling to receipt of results is too long. INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES APPENDIX C LIST OF AGENCIES Local: Elaine O'Keefe Health Department Bill McCann Conservation Department Mark Barnhart Town Manager Rudolf J. Weiss Town Council chairman Andrea Boissevain Project Coordinator Kathy Hart-Jones Project Assistant State: Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services fCTDPHASl Brian Toal Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health Diane Aye Epidemiologist Jennifer Kertanis Epidemiologist Kenny Foscue Health Educator CT Department of Environmental Protection fCTDEP) Mike Powers Remedial Actions Adam Sullivan Remedial Actions Steve Tartaris Remedial Actions Federal: The Aaencv for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry fATSDR) Maureen Lichtveld Stratford Strategic Team Leader Tammie McRae Stratford Site Lead David Mellard Toxicologist Tim Walker Environmental Health Scientist Susanne Simon Regional Representative Ted Bezenas Regional Representative Theresa Ramsey DHE, Editor, Environmental Update U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region I (EPA^ Dave Mclntyre Lead On-Scene Coordinator Rich Haworth On-Scene Coordinator Alex Sherrin On-Scene Coordinator Mike Hill RCRA Facility Manager Mike Jaskinski Remedial Project Manager Liza Judge Community Relations Liason Lee MacMichael Enforcement Coordinator 95 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES APPENDIX D LIST OF SUPPORT GROUPS 1. Stratford Medical Advisory Group (SMAG) Members: • University of Connecticut Health Center, Section of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Eileen Storey, MD, MPH, Clinic Director Michael Hodgson, MD, MPH Michael Grey, MD, MPH Holger Hansen, MD Marc Bayer, MD - Connecticut Poison Control Center • Yale-New Haven Hospital, Occupational and Environmental Medicine Program Mark Cullen, MD, Clinic Director Mark Russi, MD, MPH • Bridgeport Hospital Pasquale Perillie, MD - Department of Medicine Tom Shaw-Stiffel, MD - Medease (Outpatient Medical Services) • Stratford Area Physician Frank Scifo, MD - Private Practice (Internal Medicine) Support Staff: • Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services Brian Toal Kenny Foscue • Stratford Health Department Elaine O'Keefe INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 96 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYKARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES 2. Stratford Citizens Advisory Council (SCAC) (as of May 13, 1994) Janet Carlucci, Co-Chairperson Karen Krulikowski, Vice-Chairperson Helen Chagares Angela deMello, Co-Chairperson Bob Frye Lori Henderson Cindy Kaplan Clem Naples Tricia Patrikios Gene Ridolfi Judy Rozarie Linda Smith Kim Sterling Kent Wahlberg Leesa Walters Ed Ward 97 INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 FOR THE RAYMARK INDUJTRIES, INC. SITES APPENDIX E KNOWN DISPOSAL SITES STRATFORO, CI N Croon Or: £NG:N££RING DIVISION STRATFORD CONNECTICUT Scale TOWM QF STHATFOftO PLANNING AND ZONING CCV'.IISSIQN Bases MAY l»S3 INTERCOM.PLN 5/21/94 98 INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. SITES V.GLOSSARY ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CTDEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection CTDOT Connecticut Department of Transportation CTDPHAS Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services DHAC Division of Health Assessment and Consultation EEOH Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FDA United States Food and Drug Administration FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency NPL National Priorities List SHD Stratford Health Department SMAC Stratford Citizens Advisory Council SMAG Stratford Medical Advisory Group U.S. COE United States Army Corps of Engineers INTERCOM.PLN 5/27/94 99 APPENDIX D GIS MAPS 100 APPENDIX E HEALTH CONSULTATION FISH AND SHELLFISH SUBSISTENCE FISHING MEMO PRESS RELEASE-FISH DATA FACT SHEETS-PONDS \ 105 HEALTH CONSULTATION FISH AND SHELLFISH RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC STRATFORD, CT Prepared by the Connecticut Department of Public Health under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 106 BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUE In May of 1993, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a Public Health Advisory for the town of Stratford, Connecticut. Raymark Industries, Inc. operated a facility at 75 East Main Street in Stratford from 1919 to 1989. The facility produced brakes, clutch parts and other friction based products. During the manufacturing process the facility generated wastes including solvents, adhesives, lead, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins and furans. From 1919 to 1984 a system of on site lagoons was used to dispose of lead and asbestos wastes. As the on site lagoons filled up with sludge material, they were often dredged and the material was used as fill in areas throughout Stratford. ATSDR concluded in the Health Advisory that an imminent public health hazard existed in the town of Stratford due to past, present, and potential future exposure to Raymark waste containing asbestos, lead and PCBs. At the time of the Health Advisory, waste had been identified in surface soil at eight sites easily accessed by the public including a Jr. High School playing field and two other recreational sites. As part of their investigations into the distribution of Raymark waste, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) sampled fish and shellfish from various water bodies around Stratford. The CT DEP collected samples of oysters and mussels from 11 locations in the Housatonic River and nearby Ferry Creek: The EPA sampled various freshwater fish from 5 ponds around Stratford. This sampling was conducted because some of the components of Raymark waste, especially PCBs and dioxin are known to bioconcentrate in fish. Shellfish are also known to bioconcentrate metals such a lead. The oyster and mussel sampling was aimed at discovering if reported Raymark discharges to Ferry Creek had impacted shellfish in the creek or in the area where it feeds into the Housatonic River. Samples were collected in June of 1993. Shellfish were collected by dredging. Using an oyster basket, the bed of the Housatonic River was trolled for approximately 100 to 200 feet at each sample location. Samples were obtained by a random selection from the shellfish harvested at each location. Eleven locations were selected for sampling. Nine locations yielded shellfish. Two locations yielded no shellfish. These two locations, being within the mouth of Ferry Creek, are not naturally conducive to shellfish growth and this was confirmed since no shellfish were found. At each of the nine locations, approximately 30 to 50 oysters were collected, varying in age from one year to five years, with an average age of approximately three years. Please refer to Figure 1 for sample locations. Mussels were collected at seven of the nine locations that yielded shellfish. Two locations did not yield mussels. Where mussel samples were collected, approximately 20 mussels were obtained for each site. Shellfish were analyzed for a wide range of metals (lead, mercury...), asbestos and PCBs. Fish were collected from five water bodies around Stratford [Beaver Dam Lake, Wooster Pond, Brewster Pond, Frash Pond and Selby Pond (see Figure 2)]. The water bodies were selected after considering a number of factors including: proximity to known Raymark waste, size and estimated fishing activity. For each body of water, 2 or 3 species were sampled depending on availability and likely targeting by local anglers. The goal was to sample and analyze 20 individual fish of each species, from each water body. This goal was met (or almost met) for 107 7 out of 11 target species (see Table I). The fish were analyzed for a wide variety of compounds (chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin...) in addition to the chemicals of concern in Raymark waste (PCBs and lead). Asbestos was not analyzed for because it is a mineralized crystal that will not accumulate in the flesh of fish. Dioxin was not analyzed for because it is always accompanied in Raymark waste by PCBs. PCBs are believed to act as an indicator of Raymark waste. 108 TableI Stratford Fish Sampling Results LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER PCB's CIILORDANE LEAD SAMPLED (AVE-PPM) (AVE-PPM) (AVE-PPM) BEAVER DAM LAKE LARGEMOUTH BASS 20 .008 .024 AMERICAN EELS 19 .012 .229 192 WOOSTER POND LARGEMOUTH BASS 20 .003 118 .006 BROWN BULLHEAD 20 .002 122 .055 BREWSTER POND LARGEMOUTH BASS 20 .005 196 .015 BROWN BULLHEAD 20 .003 .200 .034 WHITE CATFISH .025 .432 .037 FRASH POND WHITE PERCH 20 .088 .022 AMERICAN EELS 13 .031 170 SELBY WHITE PERCH .057 .025 AMERICAN EELS 10 .325 113 * = levels at or below limit of detection of 0.002 pm. DISCUSSION Shellfish Oysters and mussels collected by the DEP were analyzed by the DPHAS laboratory. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also analyzed the samples but only for PCBs. There was generally close agreement found between analysis from both labs. PCB levels found by both laboratories ranged from trace to a maximum of 0.2 ppm. Most of the samples were well below 0.1 ppm. These levels are all well below the US FDA tolerance of 2 ppm for PCBs in shellfish. The levels found are also consistent with the low levels of PCBs found in shellfish in Connecticut and other areas of New England coastal waters (1). Recently the Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Committee proposed the use of a consensus reference dose or acceptable daily intake for PCBs of 0.05 micrograms per kilogram per day (ug/kg/day). This is an average daily dose that is felt to be protective for non-cancerous health effects such as changes in the endocrine or immunologic systems. Under this system, no restrictions are recommended for fish containing less than 0.05 ppm of PCB. Most, of the shellfish sampled fall below this protective level. The DPHAS laboratory also analyzed the shellfish for a number of metals including lead. Lead levels found were generally low (oysters 0.71 ppm, mussels 1.0 ppm). These levels are close to national averages for lead in shellfish which range up to 0.8 ppm (2). Federal agencies which have looked at the toxicity of lead have not set an acceptable daily intake (ADI) or daily reference dose (Rfd) for lead exposure because of a lack of evidence of a threshold or no effect level. However, the US EPA has calculated a "provisional tolerable total intake level" (PTTIL) to protect population groups that are sensitive to lead. For pregnant women consuming large amounts of shellfish (90th percentile) the lead level of concern would be 1.7 ppm which is higher than the levels found in the shellfish in Stratford. Therefore no adverse health effects are likely from consuming shellfish with these levels of lead. The oysters and mussels were also tested for asbestos fibers to see if they had been contaminated by that component of Raymark waste. Since shellfish are filter feeders, there is the possibility that suspended asbestos fibers could have beencaptured by the mussels or oysters. The DPHAS laboratory found no asbestos fibers in any of the shellfish sampled. Finfish The results of the finfish analysis for chosen contaminants of concern are shown in Table 1. This table lists the contaminants associated with Raymark waste (PCBs and lead) and a non site- related pesticide that was found to be somewhat elevated in some fish (Chlordane). The analysis by EPA included many other chemicals including other pesticides such as DDT, Dieldrin, Heptachlor, and Aldrin and the heavy metal mercury. These other contaminants are not listed in Table 1 because levels found were low and would not be expected to be associated with any adverse health effects. Chemicals included in table 1 were chosen for inclusion if they were related to Raymark waste or if they were found near levels that might be a health concern. 110 PCB results are presented in Table 1 as total PCBs. EPA actually analyzed for particular forms of PCBs called arochlors. The various arochlors of PCB are identified by numbers which indicate the amount of chlorine present on the PCB molecule. Included in this analysis are the following arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, 1262, 1268. The most common arochlors found in Raymark waste are 1262 and 1268. In this current sampling study the predominant PCB type found was arochlor 1262. The only water body/species category that has total PCBs at levels of significance is America eels from Selby Pond. The average PCB level for eels from this pond is 0.325 ppm. This level is above the average for PCB found in a non-random sample of Connecticut fresh water fish of 0.16 ppm (3). However, this level is far below the current FDA action level of 2 ppm. As stated previously, a group of Great Lake States have recently proposed a Health Protection Value (HPV) for PCBs in fish based primarily on non-carcinogenic health effects. Utilizing the HPV value of 0.05 ug/kg/d, they proposed the following advice categories for PCB concentration in fish tissue: 0-0.05 ppm - unlimited consumption, 0.06-0.2 ppm - 1 meal per week, 0.21-1.0ppm - 1 meal per month, 1.1-1.9ppm - 6 meals per year, greater than 1.9 ppm no consumption. Utilizing this system these eels in Selby Pond would fall into the category of one meal per month. The other species sampled in the various water bodies are well below the level requiring any advice under this system. The non-cancer health effects of PCBs have been studied in animal and human populations. The HPV proposed by the Great Lake States is based on an analysis of these studies. In animal studies PCBs have been shown to cause adverse reproductive outcomes (reduced birth weight and behavioral effects), immunologic changes, changes in the endocrin system and liver damage. In human populations high levels of PCB exposure have been associated with adverse neurological-behavioral effects in infants born to mothers exposed during pregnancy. Other developmental effects seen in infants of fish consuming women include: reduced birth weight and gestational age (length of pregnancy.) PCBs are classified by the EPA as B2 carcinogens, a probable human carcinogen. This is based primarily on animal data where particular arochlors have produced primarily liver tumors in test animals. Utilizing this animal data the EPA has calculated a cancer potency factor to help predict "upper bound" cancer risks for ingestion of fish contaminated with PCBs. If the recommended consumption rate of one meal per month for eels from Selby Pond is followed, a lifetime of exposure would result in a low increased cancer risk in the range of 1 in 10,000. The other species from Stratford with lower levels of PCBs also carry some theoretical levels of cancer risk. However, since most of these fish are below the average level of PCBs in Connecticut freshwater fish, exposure from these fish is not likely to significantly contribute to an individual's overall exposure to PCBs. Recreational anglers who may have fished for eels from Selby pond in the past may be at increased risk for PCB induced health effects. Subsistence fisherman who may consume large amounts of fish (165 grams/day or almost 1 meal per day) of a single species form a particular water body may have been at particular risk. If someone consumed eels at rates even approaching that of subsistence fisherman they would have PCB exposures far in exceedance of 111 the HPV proposed by the Great Lake States. Therefore they are ar risk for non-carcinogenic effects such as: developmental effects especially behavioral changes, immunologic effects, endocrin dysfunction and liver damage. In addition subsistence fisherman of Selby Pond eels may be at high increased risk of cancer due to PCBs possible cancer causing capabilities. The lead levels found in almost all the fish sampled are very low. The highest average level found was 0.192 ppm in eels from Beaver Dam Lake. This level is close to the average lead level found in a non-random sample of Connecticut freshwater fish of .18 ppm (3). In addition even at high consumption rates this level of contamination is not likely to significantly contribute to one's overall daily exposure to lead. All fish samples were also analyzed for mercury. Average mercury levels ranged up to 0.281 ppm. Again, these levels fall within normal levels for Connecticut fish from non-contaminated areas. Therefore, exposure to mercury of lead through fish consumption is not likely to pose a risk in Stratford. Of the other chemicals analyzed for, only the pesticide chlordane was found in any species at levels of possible concern. Chlordane was found in Brewster Pond brown bullheads at 0.2 ppm and in white catfish at 0.432 ppm. It was also found in eels from Beaver Dam Lake at 0.23 ppm. The white catfish level in Brewster Pond is above the FDA action level of 0.3 ppm. Under Connecticut's current fish consumption advisory system such a finding would result in advice to not consume any amount of this species. Chlordane is not a contaminant associated with Raymark waste. It is likely that the chlordane and other pesticides found in Stratford fish are due to the intentional applications of these pesticides in the past when they were legal. Chlordane, Dieldrin and DDT are classified as probable human carcinogens by the EPA. At the highest level found, Chlordane in white catfish from Brewster Pond could present a slight increased cancer risk of about one excess cancer per 100,000 people exposed. This is a conservative estimate based upon 30 years of exposure at an average fish consumption rate of 6.7 grams per day (g/d) or approximately 16 meals per year. The other pesticides found also carry a theoretical risk of cancer but such risks can be considered slight to negligible. For an average fish consumer these risks are generally in the range of 1 per 100,000 to 1 in a million. Chlordane exposure in animal studies has caused developmental effects on the immune system and liver damage. Neurological effects have been noted in human populations exposed to high levels of chlordane. ATSDR has established a "minimum risk level" (MRL) for chlordane based upon liver damage observed in rats. Although no subsistence fishing is believed to occur at Brewster Pond, even average consumption of bullheads could put people at risk for non cancerous effects such as liver damage with exposures exceeding ATSDR's MRL. On September 14, 1994 Representatives of the Town of Stratford conducted an informal survey of fishing activities in the various water bodies around town. They concluded that subsistence fishing is not likely occurring in most of the water bodies sampled by EPA. For this reason the cancer estimates made above are for average consumers rather than subsistence anglers. There are two possible exceptions to this. It is possible that eels from Selby Pond and Frash Pond could be a target of subsistence fisherman. This information could impact the assessment of PCBs in Selby Pond eels. If a subsistence fisherman consumed eels from the pond at an assumed maximum of 145 grams/day, the excess lifetime cancer risk estimate of about 3 in 1000 could by categorized as a high risk. 112 CONCLUSIONS Shellfish sampled in the Housatonic River did not show signs of contamination with Raymark waste. There were low levels of PCBs and metals found in the shellfish. However, most of these levels were at or below background levels for those chemicals and well below any level of health concern. Most of the finfish sampled from various water bodies did not indicate contamination with Raymark waste. The only exception to this are the eels sampled from Selby Pond. PCBs were somewhat elevated for eels in that pond. In addition the predominant type of PCBs found (1262) is one that has been found in Raymark waste. In general the levels of contaminants found in fish from Stratford ponds are not at levels that present a health concern. However, there are two exceptions to this. The eels in Selby Pond have PCBs at levels that could pose a health concern, especially for subsistence fisherman. These PCBs could pose an increased risk of cancer. They could also cause non-carcinogenic effects, especially developmental effects, in exposed fetuses if a pregnant women consumed eels from this pond. Under DPHAS's current advisory system no advice would be issued for this body of water. However under proposals by other states, advice to reduce, but not eliminate, consumption would be issued. The other contaminated species of health concern are White catfish from Brewster Pond. These fish have levels of the pesticide chlordane above the FDA action level of 0.3 ppm. Under DPHAS's current advisory system, this finding would result in advice not to consume any catfish from this pond. In addition, Largemouth Bass and Brown Bullhead from Brewster Pond had higher than background levels of chlordane but these levels were well below the FDA action level. American eels in Beaver Dam Lake also had chlordane levels above background but below the FDA action level. Since chlordane is not associated with Raymark waste, this contamination is likely due to the past practice of using chlordane to eliminate termites from around foundations of homes. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Based on the results of the fish and shellfish testing, no further widespread sampling of aquatic animals is warranted in Stratford. However, since eels from Selby Pond did contain PCBs of a type found in Raymark waste, further investigation of this pond may be warranted to identify the source. If other bottom feeding or predatory species are targets for angling efforts in Selby Pond, then they should be sampled and analyzed for PCBs. 2. The public should be informed not to consume white catfish from Brewster Pond due to chlordane contamination. 3. The DPHAS should consider some form of advisory for eels from Selby Pond. This advisory should recommend a reduced consumption rate such as one meal per month. 113 No advice is warranted for shellfish due to chemical contamination. Existing shellfish advice and closures in the Housatonic River, established due to microbiological contamination, should be followed. 114 w- Slralford. CT 115 REFERENCES 1. Characterization of Data Base on Toxic Chemical Contamination in Long Island Sound. Long Island Sound Study. January 31, 1991. B.J. Brownawell et.al. 2. Guidance Document for Lead in Shellfish. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, August 1993. 3. Unpublished Data. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1994. 116 Date: September 29, 1994 To; Margaret McDonough, EPA Region X Susanna Simon, ATSDR Region I Tammie McRae, ATSDR Atlanta From: Andrea Boiaaevain, Stratford/Raymark Proiect£$ Coordinator J „ Re: Profile of Fishing in Stratford Bin McCann (Conservation Officer) and I toured many of Stratford s fi-flhing spots to compile a "fishing profile" to aaarst EPA and ATSDR in thair riaJc aaaaasment cf the iLh consumption pathway. The following information is based on site visits made mid-morning on September 14, 1994, If anvone has further questions about this informal, please do n^hes^tate to call me at (203) 385-4090. FRASH POND Blueback Herring are knovn to run here to the Housatonic 2-3 times in the spring; herring hatchlings also run in the fall Anglers have been identified as netting thousands of this specie at the outfall area at the north end of FRASH pond, such a(ptlVlty is, ^act' illegal. Signs are posted and are clearly visible to the eye...of course that does guarantee that everyone will comply» At the time of our visit, we did not see anyone fishing, pie pond is not knovn to be frequented by boaters. The banks of the pond are steep,- except at the southern end where activity vae evident (footprint*, trash, etc.) near a silt fence ir1SJ1? disrepair. American eel is also a known specie and is believed to be fished for hy„ apeeifically Afro-Americans (residents and transients coning in from neighboring towns and cities)• Fin fish and blue crab have also been identified in FRASH Pond, The outfall flows through to the Great Meadows area. GREAT MEADOWS The Broad Creek slag area portion of Great Meadows is known as a great [blue] crabbing area, MARINE BASIN At 11:00 am when we visited this area ve encountered two separate risking parties. One group was in pursuit of "shiners" fMinidaA"j to feed to turtles. The other party was "going for the blues" Both groups were fishing off the beach and not actually in the" marine basin. The shore along the marine basin itself was well travailed, an indication that it is frequented by persons, 117 travelled, an indication that it is frequented by parsons, anglers or otherwise. This is apparently a very popular fishing The mouth of the Housatonic River is closed to shalirishing, Harvesting of mussels and clams is strictly prohibited. Oyster harvesting•is permitted/ but require depuration. SELBY FOND The narrow walkway to Selby Pond made it difficult to access the pond from Lockvood Avenue...but the path was well-worn and revealed footprints, EPA's sampling flags were still intact. A small boat was docked at a residential property dock, American eel are probably being fished in Selby Pond, CONCLUSION Based on the information gathered during our site visit, in conjunction with historical information, some subsistence fishing does occur in Stratford. The specie primarily fished is American eel. cc: Elaine O'Keefe, Director of Health and Welfare Bill McCann, Conservation Administrator Hike Jasinski, EPA Region I 118 News Release Most Stratford Fish Found Safe to Eat For More Information Contact: For Immediate Release CT DPHAS - Brian Toal 240-9022 Stratford Health Department - Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 The Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services and the Stratford Health Department have announced that most freshwater fish tested in Stratford have been found safe to eat. However, eels from Selby Pond were found to be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and their consumption should be limited to not more than one meal per month. White Catfish from Brewster Pond were also found to be contaminated with chlordane, and it is recommended that people do not eat this fish. During the past year, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPAJ sampled fish from 5 ponds (Brewster, Selby, Fresh, Wooster and Beaver Dam) as part of their investigation into the contamination associated with Raymark Waste. The results of testing found no chemicals at levels of concern in 3 out of 5 ponds. Testing also included some chemicals not associated with Raymark, including banned pesticides such as Chlordane and DDT. Chlordane was found to be elevated in fish from one pond (Brewster). Selby Pond is a small "brackish" (partially salt water) water body behind the Shakespeare Theater. Eels from this pond had polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at moderately elevated levels of about 0.3 parts per million (ppm). As a means of comparison, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "action level" for PCBs iB 2.0 ppm. FDA sets action levels for specific chemicals, like PCBs, above which fish cannot be sold cotr*nercially. 119 The PCB levels in eels from Selby Pond are well below the FDA action level for PCBe. However, they are higher than levels found in most freshwater fish in Connecticut or Stratford. They also fall into a range that would require a limited consumption advisory in some other states. For those who are concerned about PCB exposure or for those who catch and consume a large amount of eels from Selby Pond, it iB advisable to reduce the number of meals of eels consumed to no more than one meal per month. The only other chemical found in pond-caught fish at levels which may be of health concern was chlordane. Chlordane is a banned pesticide that was used in the past, mainly by homeowners for termite control. Chlordane, levels found in fish from a few of the ponds is probably due to its widespread past use. White catfish from Brewster Pond was the only species that had chlordane over the FDA action level of 0.3 ppm. Other fish sampled from Brewster Pond (Largemouth Bass and Bullhead) had levels of chlordane just below this FDA action level but their levels were much higher than those usually found in fish from waters not contaminated with chlordane. Summary and Conclusions After sampling almost 180 fish from 5 ponds, most fish in Stratford were found to be safe to eat. However, eels from Selby Pond were found to be contaminated with PCBs and their consumption should be limited. White Catfish from Brewster Pond were also found to be contaminated with chlordane. Since the level of chlordane in White Catfish exceeded the FDA limit, it is recommended that people do not eat this fish. To further reduce exposure to environmental sources of chlordane, residents should also consider reducing or eliminating eating BasB and Bullhead from Brewster Pond. > 120 Signs will be posted at Selby Pond and Brewster Pond informing the public about these warnings. If people have further questions about the warnings they can call the Stratford Health Department at 203-385-4090 or the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services at 203-240-9022. 75851 121 BEAVER DAM LAKE FISH SAMPLING RESULTS As you may know, fish sampling was conducted at Beaver Dam Lake as part of the Raymark waste investigations. The need for this type of sampling was recognized because certain contaminants found in the Raymark waste are known to accumulate in fish and may be found at levels that could pose a health threat to people who eat the fish. None of these contaminants were found at levels of concern in the fish sampled from Beaver Dam Lake. The following chart summarizes the type of fish sampled and the range of contamination that was found. , Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead are reported because these are the primary contaminants of concern inRaymark waste. SPECIES NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE SAMPLED PCB LEVELS LEAD LEVELS (PPm) (Ppm) largemouth bass 20 0.008 0.024 American eel 19 0.012 0.192 ppm = parts per million The Food and Drug Administration has set an action level of 2 ppm for PCBs in fish. Commercial fish cannot be sold if they have PCB levels greater than the action level of 2 ppm. No regulatory limits have been set for lead in fish. The levels of lead found in fish sampled from Beaver Dam Lake are similar to-the average lead levels found in a sample of Connecticut freshwater fish. The fish were analyzed for a wide variety of compounds including pesticides, lead, other heavy metals and PCBs. Asbestos was not analyzed for because it does not accumulate in the flesh of fish. If you have any questions about the fish sampling that was conducted at Beaver Dam Lake or the results of this sampling, please contact Brian Toal or Jennifer Kertanis at the Connecticut Department of Public Health at 240-9022. 122 SELBY POND FISH SAMPLING RESULTS As you may know, fish sampling was conducted at Selby Pond as part of the Raymark waste investigations. The need for this type of sampling was recognized because certain contaminants found in the Raymark waste are known to accumulate in fish and may be found at levels that could pose a health threat to people who eat the fish. People who eat a large number of eels caught from Selby Pond should consider reducing their consumption to no more than one meal per month. Signs will be posted around the pond to warn anglers. The following chart summarizes the type of fish sampled and the range of contamination that was found. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead are reported because these are the primary contaminants of concern in Raymark waste. SPECIES NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE SAMPLED PCB LEVELS LEAD LEVELS (ppm) (ppm) white perch 8 0.057 0.025 American eel 10 m 0.113 ppm = parts per million The Food and Drug Administration has set an action level of 2 ppm for PCBs in fish. Commercial fish cannot be sold if they have PCB levels greater than the action level of 2 ppm. While the level of PCBs in American eel caught from Selby Pond do not exceed this action level, a group of Great Lakes states have recently proposed a Health Protection Value for PCBs in fish based on non-cancer health effects. Under their proposed system, PCB levels ranging from 0.21-1.0 ppm would warrant an advisory limiting the number of meals to one per month. No regulatory limits have been set for lead in fish. The levels of lead found in fish sampled from Selby Pond are similar to the average lead levels found in a sample of Connecticut freshwater fish. The fish were analyzed for a wide variety of compounds including pesticides, lead, other heavy metals and PCBs. Asbestos was not analyzed for because it does not accumulate in the flesh of fish. If you have any questions about the fish sampling that was conducted at Selby Pond or the results of this sampling, please contact Brian Toal or Jennifer Kertanis at the Connecticut Department of Public Health at 240-9022. 123 FRASH POND FISH SAMPLING RESULTS As YOU may know, fish sampling was conducted at Frash Pond as part of the Raymark waste investigations. The need for this type of sampling was recognized because certain contaminants found in the Raymark waste are known to accumulate in fish and may be found at levels that could pose a health threat to people who eat the fish. None of these contaminants were found at levels of concern in the fish sampled from Frash Pond. The following chart summarizes the type of fish sampled and the range of contamination that was found. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead are reported because these are the primary contaminants of concern in Raymark waste. SPECIES NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE SAMPLED PCB LEVELS LEAD LEVELS (ppm) (ppm) white perch 20 0,088 0.022 American eel 13 0.031 0.170 ppm «* parts per million The Food and Drug Administration has set an action level of 2 ppm for PCBs in fish. Commercial fish cannot be sold if they have PCB levels greater than the action level of 2 ppm. No regulatory limits have been set for lead in fish. The levels of lead found in fish sampled from Fash Pond are similar to the average lead levels found in a sample of Connecticut freshwater fish. The fish were analyzed for a wide variety of compounds including pesticides, lead, other heavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs.) Asbestos was not analyzed for because it does not accumulate in the flesh of fish. If you have any questions about the fish sampling that was conducted at Frash Pond or the results of this sampling, please contact Brian Toal or Jennifer Kertanis at the Connecticut Department of PublicHealth at 240-9022. 124 BREWSTER POND FISH SAMPLING RESULTS As you may know, fish sampling was conducted at Brewster Pond as part of the Raymark waste investigations. The need for this type of sampling was recognized because certain contaminants found in the Raymark waste are known to accumulate in fish and may be found at levels that could pose a health threat to people who eat the fish. We recommend that people do not eat white catfish caught from Brewster Pond because of elevated levels of chlordane, a pesticide unrelated to Raymark waste. In addition, people can further reduce their exposure to chlordane by limiting their consumption of largemouth bass and brown bullheads caught from Brewster Pond. Signs will be posted around the pond to warn anglers. The following chart summarizes the type of fish sampled and the range of contamination that was found. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead are reported because these contaminants are the primary contaminants of concern in Raymark waste and chlordane is reported because of the elevated levels found in white catfish. SPECIES NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE SAMPLED PCB LEVELS CHLORDANE LEAD LEVELS (ppm) LEVELS (ppm) (ppm) largemouth bass 20 0.005 0.196 0.015 white catfish 0.025 mm 0.037 brown bullhead 20 0.003 0.200 0.034 ppm •parts per million The Food and Drug Administration has set an action level of 0.3 ppm for chlordane in fish. Commercial fish cannot be sold if they have chlordane levels greater than the action level of 0.3 ppm. Chlordane was found in Brewster Pond white catfish at 0.432 ppm, above this action level. We recommend that people do not eat white catfish caught from Brewster Pond because of the chlordane contamination. Chlordane is not a contaminant associated with Raymark waste. The presence of chlordane in the pond is likely the result of pesticide use in the past. The Food and Drug Administration has also set an action level of 2 ppm for PCBs in fish. No regulatory limits have been set for lead in fish. The levels of lead found in fish sampled from Brewster Pond are similar to the average lead levels found in a sample of Connecticut freshwater fish. The fish were analyzed for a wide variety of compounds including pesticides, lead, other heavy metals and PCBs. Asbestos was not analyzed for because it does not accumulate in the flesh of fish. If you have any questions about the fish sampling that was conducted at Brewster Pond or the results of this sampling, please contact Brian Toal or Jennifer Kertanis at the Connecticut Department of Public Health at 240-9022. 125 WOOSTER POND FISH SAMPLING RESULTS As you may know, fish sampling was conducted at Wooster Pond as part of the Raymark waste investigations. The need for this type of sampling was recognized because certain contaminants found in the Raymark waste are known to accumulate in fish and may be found at levels that could pose a health threat to people who eat the fish. None of these contaminants were found at levels of concern in the fish sampled from Wooster Pond. The following chart summarizes the type of fish sampled and the range of contamination that was found. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead are reported because these are the primary contaminants of concern in Raymark waste. SPECIES NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE SAMPLED PCB LEVELS LEAD LEVELS (PPm) (ppm) largemouth bass 20 0.003 0.006 brown bullhead 20 0.002 0.055 ppm = pans per million The Food and Drug Administration has set an action level of 2 ppm for PCBs in fish. Commercial fish cannot be sold if they have PCB levels greater than the action level of 2 ppm. No regulatory limits have been set for lead in fish. The levels of lead found in fish sampled from Wooster Pond are similar to the average lead levels found in a sample of Connecticut freshwater fish. The fish were analyzed for a wide variety of compounds including pesticides, lead, other heavy metals and PCBs. Asbestos was not analyzed for because it does not accumulate in the flesh of fish. If you have any questions about the fish sampling that was conducted at Wooster Pond or the results of this sampling, please contact Brian Toal or Jennifer Kertanis at the Connecticut Department of Public Health at 240-9022. 126 APPENDIX F HEALTH CONSULTATION PRIVATE WELL SURVEY 127 HEALTH CONSULTATION PRIVATE WELL SURVEY RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC STRATFORD, CT Prepared by the Connecticut Department of Public Health under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 128 BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUE In May of 1993, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a Public Health Advisory for the town of Stratford, Connecticut. Raymark Industries, Inc. operated a facility at 75 East Main Street in Stratford from 1919 to 1989. The facility produced brakes, clutch parts and other friction based products. During the manufacturing process the facility generated wastes including solvents, adhesives, lead, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins and fiirans. From 1919 to 1984 a system of on site lagoons was used to dispose of lead and asbestos wastes. As the on site lagoons filled up with sludge material, they were often dredged and the material was used as fill in areas throughout Stratford. ATSDR concluded in the Health Advisory that an imminent public health hazard existed in the town of Stratford due to past, present, and potential future exposure to Raymark waste containing asbestos, lead and PCBs. At the time of the Health Advisory, waste had been identified in surface soil at eight sites easily accessed by the public including a Jr. High School playing field and two other recreational sites. The Director of Health requested that a survey be conducted to identify the presence of private wells near known Raymark disposal sites. The purpose of the well survey was to: 1) identify wells within 0.5 miles of any known Raymark disposal sites: and 2) sample private wells within 0.5 miles of any Raymark waste disposal sites. Identification of private wells near the Raymark facility was of primary concern in light of groundwater contamination on-site at the facility. Groundwater monitoring at Wooster School for dissolved lead and copper, PCBs, semi-volatile organics, and asbestos were below detection limits and/or drinking water standards. After consultation with DEP and EPA there was general consensus that Raymark wastes (lead, asbestos, and PCBs) are not highly mobile in soil and are not likely to leach into groundwater to any significant extent. The groundwater monitoring at Wooster School indicates that the Raymark waste at off-site locations is not leaching into the groundwater to a significant degree. DISCUSSION The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection completed a well survey which identified private water supply sources near known Raymark disposal sites. The survey commenced by investigating all properties south of Route 15 (Merritt Parkway) in Stratford. Most residents (if not all) that are located north of Route 15 receive their water from a private well supply. The first phase of the investigation consisted of comparing street addresses to town and Bridgeport Hydraulic Company records. At the completion of this task approximately 400 potential private well addresses were identified. At this point in the survey, efforts were focused on those addresses located within one mile of any known Raymark waste disposal site. This further reduced the list to 149 potential addresses. In the next phase attempts were made to contact the property owners/occupants by telephone. Of the 149 potential addresses 14 were confirmed to have private wells, 48 were on public water and 87 could not be contacted (see attachment A and B). A well survey questionnaire was then mailed to each of the 87 addresses which could not be contacted by telephone. The questionnaires were mailed on January 17, 1994 and 11 responses were received. Of the 76 remaining addresses, 21 were returned by the post office as "no such number," 14 were returned as "vacant" and 41 provided no response. 129 Based on the results of the questionnaire, a door-to-door survey was conducted. The door-to door survey was conducted on the 41 addresses which provided no response and 5 of the remaining 76 addresses because they are located within 1/2 mile of any known Ravmark waste disposal site. Only 1 address of the 46 in the door-to-door survey was found to have an active private well. This address is located approximately 3.3 miles from any known Raymark waste disposal site. A total of fifteen addresses were identified in the survey as having an active private water supply well. Six of these addresses are located within one mile but greater than 0.5 miles of any known Raymark waste disposal location. Two are located one to two miles from Raymark waste sites and seven are located 2.5 to 3.5 miles from Raymark waste sites. One residence was identified as having an inactive private water supply well on-site. The Stratford Health Department sent out letters to the fifteen private wells located within 3.5 miles of known Raymark Waste Sites, encouraging the owners to have their wells tested for bacteriologicals, inorganics, some volatile organics, and physical characteristics. A response was received from eight of those targeted. In summary, seven reported that they are on public water, although one reported still using the well for gardening. The eighth person notified the Stratford Health Department that she had tests performed on her well. These results were within acceptable levels. CONCLUSIONS The private well survey identified fifteen active private wells located within 3.5 miles of known Raymark waste sites. Six were within a 1 mile but more than 0.5 miles of any Raymark waste sites. Four of these six wells are located within a 1 mile radius of Wooster School. No private wells were located within 0.5 miles of the Raymark facility or any of the other known waste sites. In summary, based on the location of the fifteen private wells and recent testing of groundwater from the waste sites, it is unlikely that these wells are being affected by any of the known Raymark disposal sites. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the private well survey the following recommendations are made: * The Stratford Health Department should follow-up on the remaining seven private wells within 3.5 miles of Raymark disposal sites to encourage water testing if using private well water. 130 Unable to Contact or Obtain Necessary Info Unable to Contact or Provide Information 87 Not Occupied No Phone Number Available 53 Unlisted Phone Number 7 Unreachable ' Stratford Owned 4 Bridgeport Owned 1 State of Connecticut Owned 2 US Government Owned 1 No Listed Resident 2 Unable to Provide Necessary Info 3 Phone Not in Service 1 WeifSurvey Unabtfl to Contact or Provide Information 13 •TlotOccupie r> unlisted Ph iTDnr5wcftaBI ESlFiSord O n"Bridgeport CJ State of Co n US Govern n No Listed R a Unable to P n Phone Not i 131 Potential Private Wells in Stratford Addresses within 1 mile of a known waste site 149 Confirmed Private Wells 14 Confirmed Public Water 43 Assumed Public Water (see note A) 5 Unable to Contact or Obtain Necessary Info. 87 Well Survey Distribution of Potential Well Locations 43 •Confirmed Private Weils s Confirmed Public Water • Assumed Public Water (see note A o Unable to Contact or Obtain Necess 132 APPENDIX G CITIZEN QUESTION AND ANSWERS Iinn jJ STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS STRATFORD ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND HEALTH MAY 27, 1993 Q. WHAT HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN STRATFORD? A. Lead, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been detected in soil and sediment at locations throughout Stratford. In addition, dioxin has been detected in soil at one industrial site. Lead is naturally occurring and has a wide range of uses in batteries, paint, gasoline, and metal products including pipe and solder. PCBs are a group of man-made chemicals including 209 individual compounds. Because of their insulating and nonflammable properties, PCBs were widely used as coolants and lubricants. Because they accumulate in the environment, their use was banned in 1977. Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring minerals made up of long thin fibers. Because asbestos is resistant to chemicals and heat, it was used in building materials and friction products. Asbestos does not break down in the environment. Dioxin is a contaminant produced in small amounts during the manufacture of some herbicides and germicides. It is also a by-product of combustion. Q. WHY IS THERE A HEALTH CONCERN IN STRATFORD? A. While these substances are ubiquitous and can be found in the environment throughout the State, they have been found in Stratford at levels that could cause adverse health effects. In addition, these substances have been found in areas where human exposure is likely. Q. WELL EXPOSURE TO THESE SUBSTANCES CAUSE ILLNESS OR DISEASE? A. If you are exposed to a hazardous substance, several factors determine whether harmful health effects will occur and the type and severity of those health effects. You can be exposed only when you come into contact with the chemicals. You may be exposed by breathing the substances in the air, eating or drinking substances containing the chemical, or from skin contact with the substances. The dose (how much), the duration (how long), the route of exposure (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and your individual characteristics (age, sex, nutritional status, family traits, life style and state of health) determine whether a harmful health effect is likely to occur from exposure. We are exposed to hazardous substances each day and most people have probably been exposed to asbestos, lead and PCBs. Studies have shown that the lung tissue of most people contains asbestos. Lead, dioxin and PCBs are likely to be found in blood as well. In Stratford, the most likely exposures to these substances occur when individuals come in contact with contaminated soil. People may be exposed to lead, PCBs and asbestos in the air when contaminated soil becomes airborne. PCB exposure may also occur if contaminated soil comes in contact with skin. Children may ingest soil containing lead and PCBs. In addition, because PCBs accumulate in fish, the most significant exposure to PCBs occur when people eat Phone: 150 Washington Street — Hartford, Connecticut 06106 An Equal Opportunity Employer 134 contaminated fish. Q. WHAT ARE THEHEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURETO LEAD? A. For infants and young children, lead exposure has been shown to decrease intelligence (IQ) scores, slow their growth, and cause hearing problems. These effects can interfere with successful performance in school as they get older. These health effects can happen at exposure levels once thought to be safe. Pregnant women are at increased risk due to the transfer of lead to the fetus which can cause premature birth, low birth weight and neurological damage to the child. Exposure to high levels of lead can cause the brain and kidneys of adults and children to be badly damaged. Lead exposure may increase blood pressure in middle-aged men. Lead in high levels may affect sperm or damage the male reproductive system. Lead has not been shown to cause cancer in humans. Q. WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO PCBs? A. Animal experiments have shown that some PCB mixtures produce adverse health effects that include liver damage, skin irritations, reproductive and developmental effects, and cancer. Less is known about the health effects from PCBs in humans. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer. Human studies to date show that irritations, such as acne like lesions and rashes, can occur in PCB-exposed workers. Other studies of people with occupational exposure suggest that PCBs might cause liver cancer. Reproductive and developmental effects in humans have been suggested by some studies. PCBs also accumulate in fish. Exposure to contaminated fish is the most significant route of human exposure. Q. WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS? A. Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining around the lung and other internal organs, have been seen in workers exposed to asbestos. These diseases do not appear immediately, but develop only after a number of years. Members of the public who are exposed to lower levels of asbestos may also have an increased risk of developing cancer but the risks are usually small and are difficult to measure directly. Q. WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO DIOXIN? A. In humans exposed to high levels of dioxin, chloracne, a severe skin lesion that usually occurs on the head and upper body can occur. Dioxin may cause loss of appetite, weight loss, digestive disorders and liver damage. Although not demonstrated in humans, animal studies 135 have shown that dioxin can damage the immune system. Some animal studies have also shown that exposure to dioxin during pregnancy causes birth defects in the offspring. Q. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PLAYING FOR YEARS IN AREAS CONTAMINATED WITH THESE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. HOW CAN WE KNOW IF THESE EXPOSURES HAVE OR WILL RESULT IN ILLNESS OR DISEASE? A. The relationship linking exposures to hazardous substances and a person's illness or disease is often difficult to determine. We often do not have enough information about an individual's actual exposure(s) to a specific substance or substances. Another problem is the long period of time between exposure and the development of the adverse health effects we are talking about. Often, there is not a lot of information on the health effects of low level exposures in humans. In addition, heredity, diet, other exposures and other confounding factors can influence the development of disease. These issues are best evaluated by a qualified health professional or through careful assessment by a public health office. Lead is an exception. A blood lead test is a good evaluation tool for determining past exposure and potential health effects. Once lead is in the blood, however, the body works to eliminate or store it, therefore, the blood lead test is not a good indicator of exposures that occurred a long time ago. Q. IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST THAT CAN BE DONE TO DETERMINE IF EXPOSURE TO THESE CHEMICALS HAS OCCURRED? A. There are medical tests that can be done to evaluate an individual's exposure to many of these contaminants. Some of these tests are more useful than others in determining what exposure has occurred and what the health outcome may be. The correlation between contaminant levels measured in the body and corresponding disease outcomes have not been determined for PCBs, dioxin or soil contaminated with asbestos. These correlations have been better defined for lead. Exposure to lead can be measured through a blood test. Unlike other medical tests, the blood lead test is a good tool for evaluating the potential for health effects. This method is commonly used to test children for lead poisoning. Because children are at greatest risk of lead exposure and adverse health effects, it is recommended that all children age six and under be tested for lead. In addition, if you have older children that have frequently played at sites known to have contamination, you should have them tested for lead as well. There are tests to find out if PCBs and dioxins are in the blood, body fat, and breast milk. These measurements cannot determine the exact amount you were exposed to or for how long you may have been exposed. These .tests will not indicate whether you will develop harmful health effects. Blood tests are the safest method for detecting recent, large exposures. It should be recognized that nearly everyone will have detectable levels of PCBs and dioxin in their blood, fat and breast milk. We are not currently recommending that citizens of Stratford be tested for PCBs or dioxin. Additional questions about these medical tests should be discussed with your physician. There are no simple tests to assess past exposure to asbestos. Some asbestos fibers are trapped in the lung but it is very difficult to measure how many. Chest X-rays can help to identify early signs of lung tissue damage. However, because asbestos-related lung damage does not show up until years after exposure, chest X-rays do not help assess recent exposures. Q, ARE SOME INDIVIDUALS AT GREATER RISK THAN OTHERS? A. These contaminants pose a greater risk for some populations, particularly pregnant women and children. If a pregnant woman is exposed to lead, it can be carried to the unborn child and cause premature birth, low birth weight, developmental damage and spontaneous abortion. Pregnant women, their fetuses and their children are also at greater risk from exposure to PCBs. Human and animal studies have shown slowed mental and physical development in the fetuses and children of women and animals exposed to PCBs during pregnancy. Exposure to dioxin has been shown to cause adverse reproductive effects in animals. At this time there has not been documentation of these same effects in humans. In general, children are more susceptible to the hazardous effects of these substances because of their size, stage of development, activities and diet. Young children are especially at risk from lead exposure. Children are often exposed to more lead because of their activities. For instance, they swallow lead when they put toys or objects soiled with lead containing dirt in their mouths. An additional concern with respect to children and exposure to all hazardous chemical's is the longer length of time over which disease can develop at any given intensity and duration of exposure. Q. WHAT EF MY CHILD IS FOUND TO HAVE ELEVATED LEVELS OF LEAD IN THEIR BLOOD? A. In addition to medical follow-up, it is important to find and eliminate the source of lead. The local health department is required to perform an environmental investigation for all confirmed reports of blood lead greater than or equal to 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. Because the majority of lead poisonings occur because of exposure to lead paint in the home, these investigations will always include the home as well as other potential sources such as dust, soil and water. If lead paint is found in the home, it may need to be addressed. Stratford has a lot of older homes with the potential to have lead paint. Forty-one percent of the homes in Stratford were built prior to 1950. If a child is found to have elevated lead in the blood, it may be the result of more than one source of lead. It may not be possible to determine the extent to which the different sources of lead contributed to the elevated blood lead levels. Q. WHAT IS BEING DONE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH? A. A cooperative effort involving public health, medical and environmental officials is currently underway to further identify the extent of contamination and the exposure routes. While additional environmental information is being collected, access to the areas of greatest concern has been restricted. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the U.S. Public Health Service, has been assisting in the evaluation of health risks and is likely to issue 137 a Health Advisory outlining specific follow-up health activities. The Commissioner of the Department of Health Services has established a Medical Advisory Committee. In addition, other remedial efforts are being initiated. Q. WHAT CAN RESIDENTS OFSTRATFORD DO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND CHILDREN FROM EXPOSURE? A. * Everyone should observe all warning signs posted by the Town of Stratford and the Environmental Protection Agency. * Parents should have children age six and under and older children that have frequently used the sites, known to have contamination, tested for lead and should discuss health concerns with their physician. * Parents should take special care to prevent their children from playing in contaminated areas. * No one should eat fish or shellfish from Ferry Creek adjacent to the Raymark facility. APPENDIX H FACT SHEETS NEIGHBORHOOD FORUMS i ) 139 /-\uyusi Environmental and Health Actions at Wooster School This fact sheet was developed for parents whose children go to Wooster Middle School to give you information about environmental andpublic health work related to Raymark waste. If youhave questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or needmore information, contacts are listedon the back of the fact sheet. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Issued Its Public Health Advisory on waste areas in Stratford, Wooster Middle School was listed as a high priority area, because of the imminent threat to people's health. This was because tests on surface soil (the first few inches) done last April by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed high levels of lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos on or near the ground's surface in the north playing field. People -- especially children -- were likely to come in contact with it. Also in April, the state health department tested the air inside the school. The tests showed no asbestos inside. In late June and July, DEP took more samples of subsurface soil (below the top few inches) and surface water (Bruce Brook) and groundwater (water running under the field). Altogether, 70 samples were taken from the north field, 17 from the south field, 5 from Bruce Brook, and 4 wells were sunk to monitor the groundwater. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCBs are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000, one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos would be reported as 50%. Water tests are reported as milligrams of waste per liter of water (or mg/l). A milligram is 1/1000th of a gram, or 0.00004 of an ounce — a very, very small amount. A liter is a little bit more than a quart. What Did the Tests Show? • Only the previously fenced-in area of the north field showed high levels of wastes. Six samples showed lead at levels high enough to be dangerous to small children and pregnant or breastfeeding women and their babies. • In addition to lead, asbestos and PCBs were also found. Four samples from the north field showed asbestos. Three of the four showed only trace amounts. The 140 IARI /IY> fourth showed asbestos at 20%. Only four samples showed PCBs higher than 10 ppm. All four were taken from inside the previously fenced-in area. • Several samples were also tested for dioxins. The highest level found was 11 parts per trillion. A part per trillion is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000. • Samples of the groundwater underneath the field show that the lead is not leaching (moving from the soil to the water). Tests were also run for copper, which was not found in any of the groundwater samples. PCBs were found in one sample, but the level was well within drinking water standards, meaning they should not be a health risk to people. The groundwater samples showed that PCBs, like the lead, are not moving from the soil into the water. This is confirmed by samples taken from the stream, which are also free of PCBs. • The only contaminant found in the stream and pond was lead. The levels in the stream were low, and below levels permitted In drinking water. The levels in the pond were slightly higher than drinking water standards. There is no threat to public health from lead in either the stream or the pond. DEP's evaluation of the test results shows the levels of copper and lead will not be toxic to water life. What Happens Next? At this point, no decision has been made about "final remedial measures" -- that is, permanent solutions. Environmental and health agencies continue to work on this. In the meantime,.an "interim remedial measure" -- a 15-inch thick cap -- is being put in place to eliminate the public health threat. The cap will ensure no students are exposed to waste. It is made up of a geotextile fabric put directly on top of the waste, covered with 9 inches of fill, covered with 6 inches of top soil, which is planted with grass. Construction is going smoothly, and the cap should be complete before the start of school. / PROPOSED FINISHED GRAOE ESTABLISH VEGETATIVE GRASSEO COVER ropsoit 15" TEMPORARY COVE? PET AIL NOT TO SCALE GRANULAR FILL B OUNCE NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTLE FABRIC WITH WARNING LABEL EXISTMG GRADE NeedMore Info? Stratford Health Dept. , . - ' Environmental Protection Agency Elaine OfKeefe : 385-4090 Liza' Judge 386-3810 Stratford Conservation Dept. Conn.:Dept. of Env. Protection JMI McCann - 385-4006 ,,v: Mike PoWeris :566-5486 -: 141 August 793o Health Recommendations for 3rd, 4th, and 5th Avenues This fact sheet was developed forpeople living in the area of 3rd, 4th, and 5th Avenues to give you information about environmental andpublic health work related to Raymark waste and any possible effects the waste or environmental work might have on people's health. If youhave questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or needmore information, contacts are listed on the back of the fact sheet. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued its Public Health Advisory on waste areas in Stratford, the vacant lot at 4th and 5th Avenue was listed as a high priority area, because of the imminent threat to people's health. This was because soil tests done last April by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency showed high levels of lead, polychlorinated biphenyls {PCBs), and asbestos were on or near the ground's surface and people were likely to come in contact with it. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCBs are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000, one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos would be reported as 50%. At the 4th and 5th Avenue lot, lead was found at 8,400 ppm, PCBs were found up to 15 ppm, and asbestos was as high as 80%. ATSDR, EPA, and the other agencies working in Stratford -- the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS), and Stratford Health Department -- needed to know more about exactly where the waste is, how much of it there is, and what kind of contamination it is. At the end of June, EPA took more samples of surface soil (the top few inches) at the 4th and 5th Avenue site and at homes next to the site. Altogether, 15 samples were taken at the 4th and 5th Avenue site and 9 samples were taken from each home yard. When the results came back, the health agencies reviewed them with EPA to address questions about how people's health might be affected. Together, the health agencies ranked the results in four levels: no public health threat, a possible public health threat, a public health threat, or an imminent public health threat. ATSDR and DPHAS have specific recommendations for each of the four levels, to address the level of risk to people's health. Continued on back 142 What Do the Kesuits leu Us? Based on the levels of lead, asbestos, and PCBs found, ATSDR, DPHAS, and the Stratford Health Department determined that - • Areas of the vacant lot at 4th and 5th Avenue are still an imminent public health threat. Some of the lot has been covered, but the levels of asbestos and PCBs in uncovered spots are dangerous to people who might get on the lot. Contamination was found in the yards of some nearby homes. A few of the yards have high levels of asbestos and PCBs that are an imminent threat to people, especially children. A few have slightly lower levels of contamination, but clearly still enough to be a threat to people's health. The contamination in some other yards is high enough to be a possible threat. Other yards have some contamination, but the levels are not a threat. All the property owners have been told what the levels are, what they mean for people's health, and what steps will be taken. EPA is taking soil samples from below the surface {depth sampling) on the 4th and 5th Avenue site and in yards of homes next to the site to find out if waste is deeper m the ground and if it could be harmful to people if they dig, garden, or move dirt. EPA is also doing more testing on surface soil. The health agencies will review those test results and make any needed recommendations to protect people's health. In the meantime, residents should not dig on their properties until the testing is done. To keep people from contaminated areas, EPA has put up fences. / All the property owners who had samples taken have been informed of the levels found, what they mean for people's health, and any needed actions (such as more testing or not digging or gardening). EPA and ATSDR will continue to visit homeowners whose yards have levels of waste high enough to be an imminent threat or threat to people s health. Agency staff meet with owners to explain what the test results mean, answer their questions, and discuss the next steps. To talk with others in the area, the environmental and health agencies worked with the Stratford Citizen's Advisory Council to set up this Neighborhood Forum. More Forums will follow for other neighborhoods. •^0';. NeedMore Info? Stratford Health bept^iF Environmental Protection Agency Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 , Liza Judge 617/565-34-19 • Stratford Conservation Dept. Conn. Dept. of Env. Protection ^BillWcC£hh:'385-4006 h ' Mike Powers 566-7202 Stratford Citizens Advisory Council Conn. Dept. of Pub. Health & Add. Svc. . • Eugbne Rido1fi 385-4090 v ., Brian Toal 240-9024 : Stratford Medical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Subs & Disease Reg. ijieeS^tbf^y ^7^:i366 % Susanne Simon 617/860-4619 143 September 1993 Environmental & Health Activities for the Lot K/Elm Street Area This fact sheet was developed for people living in the Elm Street area to give you information about environmentalandpublic health work related to Raymark waste and any possible effects the waste or environmental work might have onpeople's health. If you have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer orneedmore information, contacts are listed on the back. What's Bean Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued its Public Health Advisory on waste areas in Stratford, the lot designated K on Elm Street was listed as a high priority area, because of the imminent threat to people's health. This was because soil tests done last April by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency showed that high levels of lead, pofychforinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos waste were on or near the ground's surface and people were likely to come in contact with it. j Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in partsper million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCBs are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000, one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos would be reported as 50%. At Lot K, lead was found at 14,300 ppm, PCBs were found up to 74 ppm, and asbestos was as high as 30%. ATSDR, EPA, and the other agencies working in Stratford - the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS), and Stratford Health Department - needed to know more about exactly where the waste is, how much of it there is, and what kind of contamination it is. At the end of June, EPA took more samples of surface soil (the top few inches) at the Lot K site and at homes next to the site. Altogether, 12 samples were taken at the Lot K site and 8 to 10 samples were taken from each yard. When the results came back, the health agencies reviewed them with EPA to address questions about how people's health might be affected. Together, the health agencies ranked the results in four levels: no public health threat, a possiblepublic health threat, a public health threat, or an imminentpublic health threat. ATSDR and DPHAS have specific recommendations for each of the four levels, to address the level of risk to people's health. 144 Continued on back What Do the Results Tell Us? Based on the levels of lead, asbestos, and PCBs found, ATSDR, DPHAS, and the Stratford Health Department determined that • Areas of Lot K on Elm Street are still an imminent public health threat. The property is fenced and the owners have been told how to limit their exposure. EPA will begin to clean up this property within the next few weeks. This clean-up will involve excavation and removal of Raymark waste, and covering areas with clean materials. • Contamination was foundin the yards ofsome nearby homes. One property was found to be a possiblepublic health threat because of high lead levels. A few of the yards were found to have some lead at levels that do not pose a health threat. Asbestos and PCBs were detected at very low levels at two of the properties, and were not found at the remaining properties. AN the property owners have been told what their levels are, what they mean for people's health, and what steps will be taken. EPA has taken soil samples from below the surface (depth sampling) of these properties to find out if waste is deeper in the ground and if it could be harmful to people if they dig, garden, or move dirt. The health agencies are reviewing those test results and wijl make any needed recommendations to protect people's health. In the meantime, \ residents should not dig on their properties until they receive their results. All the property owners who had samples taken have been informed of the levels found, what they mean for people's health, and any needed actions (such as more testing or not digging or gardening). EPA and ATSDR will continue to visit homeowners whose yards have levels of waste high enough to be a threat to people's health. Agency staff meet with owners to explain what the test results mean, answer their questions, and discuss the next steps. To talk with others in the area, the environmental and health agencies are working together to set up this Neighborhood Forum. More Forums will follow for other neighborhoods. NeedMore Info? StratfordHealth Dept. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 Liza Judge. 380-3810 Stratford Conservation Dept Conn. Dept. of Env. Protection Bill McCann 385-4006 Mike Powers 566-7202 Stratford Citizens Advisory Council Conn. Dept. of Pub. Health & Add. Svc. Eugene Ridolfi 385-4090 Brian Toal 240-9024 StratfordMedical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Subs & Disease Reg. Dr. Eileen Storey 679-2366 Susanne Simon 617/860-4619 us September 1993 Environmental & Health Activities for the Morgan Francis Property This fact sheet was developed for people living in the area near or adjacent to the Morgan Francis property on East Broadway to give you information about environmentaland public health work related to Raymark waste and any possible effects the waste or environmental work might have on people's health. If you have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or needmore information, contacts are listed on the back. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued its Public Health Advisory on waste areas in Stratford, the Morgan Francis property was listed as a high priority area, because of the imminent threat to people's health. This was because soil tests done last April by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed that high levels of lead, polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos waste were on or near the ground's surface and people were likely to come in contact with it. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCBs are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000, one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos would be reported as 50%. lead was found at 10,000 ppm, PCBs were found at up to 44 ppm, and asbestos was as high as 90%. The agencies working in Stratford -- ATSDR, EPA, DEP, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS), and Stratford Health Department - needed to know more about exactly where the waste is, how much of it there is, and what kind of contamination it is. To meet this need, EPA took more samples of surface soil (the top few inches) at the Morgan Francis site and at homes next to the site. Altogether, 46 samples were taken at the Morgan Francis site and 6 to 10 samples were taken from each yard. When the results came back, the health agencies reviewed them with EPA to address questions about how people's health might be affected. Together, the health agencies ranked the results in four levels: no public health threat, a possible public health threat, a public health threat, or an imminentpublic health threat. ATSDR and DPHAS have specific recommendations for each of the four levels, to address the level of risk to people's health. Continued on back 146 What Do the Results Tell Us? Based on the levels of lead, asbestos, and PCBs found, ATSDR, DPHAS, and the Stratford Health Department determined that - • Because of the high levels of lead and asbestos contamination found, the Morgan Francis property is still an imminent health threat. Most of the contamination was found at the East Broadway border of the property. The property has been fenced off and the owners have been told how to limit their exposure. • Contamination was foundin the yards of some nearbyhomes. Levels of lead were found at one property at levels that pose a public health threat. The contamination at a few other properties is a possible health threat. Other properties had some contamination, but the levels are not a threat. All property owners will be told what their levels are, what they mean for people's health and what steps will be taken. What is Happening Now? The CT DEP is starting temporary remediation measures on the Morgan Francis property. These measures include the paving of roadside areas and a gravel parking lot. Additional fencing will also be installed. These measures are a short-term solution to prevent exposures to contaminants while a permanent solution is developed. At residential properties where surface testing shows a threat to public health, EPA has taken temporary measures to prevent exposure until the waste is cleaned up. These measures include placing fencing, a layer of clean soil and grass sod, or bark mulch. Before EPA begins clean-up of residential properties, a second Neighborhood Forum will be held to present the clean-up plan. EPA and ATSDR will continue to visit homeowners whose yards have levels of waste high enough to be a threat to people's health. Agency staff meet with owners to explain what the test results mean, answer their questions, and discuss the next steps. To talk with others in the area, the environmental and health agencies are working together to set up this Neighborhood Forum. More Forums will follow for other neighborhoods. jjNeedMore Inio? StratfordkeatitiDept. \yiEfivirqnmentai^ Elaine O'Keefe!>36£4090v,0'Mz'3:^d9e.^ Stratford Conservation Dept. Conn. Dept: ofEnv. Protection Bill McCann 385-4006 Mike Powers 566-7202 : Stratford Citizens Advisory Council Conn. Dept. of Pub. Health & Add. Svc. Eugene Ridolfi 385-4090 Brian Toai 240-9024 StratfordMedical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Subs & Disease Peg. Dr. Eileen Storey 679-2366 Susanne Simon 617/860-4619 September 1993 Environmental & Health Activities for the Lot K/Elm Street Area I . i This fact sheet was developed for people livingin the Elm Street area to give you information about environmental andpublic health work related to Raymark waste and any possible effects the waste or environmental work might have on people's health, if you have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or need more information, contacts are listed on the back. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued its Public Health Advisory on waste areas in Stratford, the lot designated K on Elm Street was listed as a high priority area, because of the imminent threat-to people's health. This was because soil tests done last April by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency showed that high levels of lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos waste were on or near the ground's surface and people were likely to come in contact with it. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCBs are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000, one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. i The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos would be reported as 50%. At Lot K, lead was found at 14,300 ppm, PCBs were found up to 74 ppm, and asbestos was as high as 30%. ) ATSDR, EPA, and the other agencies working in Stratford -- the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS), and Stratford Health Department -- needed to know more about exactly where the waste is, how much of it there is, and what kind of contamination it is. At the end of June, EPA took more samples of surface soil (the top few inches) at the Lot K site and at homes next to the site. Altogether, 12 samples were taken at the Lot K site and 8 to 10 samples were taken from each yard. ! When the results came back, the health agencies reviewed them with EPA to address questions about how people's health might be affected. Together, the health agencies ranked the results in four levels: no public health threat, a possible public health threat, a public health threat, or an imminent public health threat. ATSDR and DPHAS have specific recommendations for each of the four levels, to address the level of risk to people's health. 148 Continued on back What Do the Results Tell Us? Based on the levels of lead, asbestos, and PCBs found, ATSDR, DPHAS, and the Stratford Health Department determined that - Areas of Lot K on Elm Street are still an imminent public health threat. The property is fenced and the owners have been told how to limit their exposure. EPA will begin to clean up this property within the next few weeks. This clean-up will involve excavation and removal of Raymark waste, and covering areas with clean materials. Contamination was found in the yards of some nearby homes. One property was found to be a possible public health threat because of high lead levels. A few of the yards were found to have some lead at levels that do not pose a health threat. Asbestos and PCBs were detected at very low levels at two of the properties, and were not found at the remaining properties. AM the property owners have been told what their levels are, what they mean for people's health, and what steps will be taken. EPA has taken soil samples from below the surface (depth sampling) of these properties to find out if waste is deeper in the ground and if it could be harmful to people if they dig, garden, or move dirt. The health agencies are reviewing those test results and will make any needed recommendations to protect people's health. In the meantime, residents should not dig on their properties until they receive their results. All the property owners who had samples taken have been informed of the levels found, what they mean for people's health, and any needed actions (such as more testing or not digging or gardening). EPA and ATSDR will continue to visit homeowners whose yards have levels of waste high enough to be a threat to people's health. Agency staff meet with owners to explain what the test results mean, answer their questions, and discuss the next steps. To talk with others in the area, the environmental and health agencies are working together to set up this Neighborhood Forum. More Forums will follow for other neighborhoods. > NeedMore Info? Stratford Health Dept. Environmental Protection Agency Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 Liza Judge 380-3810 Stratford Conservation Dept. Conn. Dept. of Env. Protection Bill McCann 385-4006 Mike Powers 566-7202 Stratford Citizens Advisory Council Conn. Dept. of Pub. Health & Add. Svc. Eugene Ridolfi 385-4090 Brian Toal 240-9024 Stratford Medical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Subs & Disease Reg. Dr. Eileen Storey 679-2366 Susanne Simon 617/860-4619 149 August 1994 Environmental & Health Activities for Sidney Street Area This fact sheet was developed for people living on or adjacent to Sidney Street to give you information about environmental and public health work related to Raymark waste and any possible effects the waste or environmental work might have on people's health. If you have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or need more information, contacts are listed on the back. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATDSR) issued its Public Health Advisory on waste areas in Stratford, Sidney Street has been listed as a high priority area, because of the public health threat to people's health. This was because soil tests done July to December 1993 by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed that high levels of lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and asbestos waste were on or near the ground's surface and people walking on that property were likely to come in contact with it. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCB are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000, one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos would be reported as 50%. In some residential properties on Sidney Street, lead was found at 2,780 ppm, PCB were found at up to 5 ppm, and asbestos was 1%. The agencies working in Stratford -- ATSDR, EPA, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (CTDPHAS), and Stratford Health Department -- needed to know more about exactly where the waste is, how much of it there is, and what kind of contamination it is. To meet this need, EPA took samples of surface soil (the top few inches) on several properties on Sidney Street. An average of 20 samples were taken on each property between July and December 1993. When the results came back, the health agencies reviewed them with EPA to address questions about how people's health might be affected. Together, the health agencies ranked the results in four levels: no public health threat, a possible public health threat, a public health threat, or an imminent public health threat. ATSDR and DPHAS have specific recommendations for each of the four levels, to address the level of risk to people's health. Continued on back 1 150 What Do the Results Tell Us? ATSDR, DPHAS, and the Stratford Health Department determined that - • Because of the high levels of lead and PCB contamination found, three residential properties on Sidney Street are considered a public health threat. Most of the contamination was found in small, localized pockets on the properties. The properties have been marked off and the owners and tenants have been told how to limit their exposure. What is Happening Now? BPA with assistance from the Army Corps of Engineers will begin permanent cleanup measures on all three residential properties soon. These measures include excavation of contaminated areas. The waste is being trucked to the Raymark facility for temporary storage. At residential properties where surface testing shows a threat to public health, EPA has taken temporary measures to prevent exposure until the waste is cleaned up. These measures may have included placing fencing, a layer of clean soil and grass sod, or bark mulch. EPA, ATSDR and CTDPHAS will continue to visit homeowners whose yards have levels of waste high enough to be a threat to people's health. Agency staff meet with homeowners to explain what the test results mean, answer their questions, and discuss the next steps. To talk with others in the area, the environmental and health agencies are working together to set up this Neighborhood Forum. More Forums will follow for other neighborhoods. Need More Info? Stratford Health Dept. US Environmental Protection Agency Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 Liza Judge 380-6034 Stratford Conservation Dept. CT Dept. of Environmental Protection Bill McCann 385-4006 Adam Sullivan 566-5486 Stratford Citizens Advisory Council CT Dept. Public Health & Addiction Services Janet Carlucci 385-4090 Brian Toal 240-9024 Stratford Medical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry Dr. Eileen Storey 679-2366 Suzanne Simon (617) 860-4619 151 September 1994 Environmental & Health Activities for Willow Avenue Area This fact sheet was developed for people living on or adjacent to Willow Avenue to give you information about environmental and public health work related to Raymark waste and any possible effects the waste or environmental work might have on people's health. If you have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or need more information, contacts are listed on the back. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATDSR) issued its Public Health Advisorv on waste areas in Stratford, Willow Avenue was listed as a higli priority area, because ol the imminent health threat to people's health. This was because soil tests done from July to December 1993 by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed Lhat high levels of lead, polychlorinntcd biphenyls (ECU). and asbestos waste were on or near the ground's surface and people walking on any one of those properties were likely to come in contact with it. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio lhat shows the amount of waste material It) 1,000.000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCB are shown in ppm. A pan per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000. one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. Tor example, a soilSample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In lhat case, the asbestos would he rep-oned as 5(EE In some icsideiuinl properties on Willow Avenue, lead was found at 18,000 ppm. PCB were lound at up to 25 ppm. and asbestos was 75%. The agencies working in Stratford -- ATSDR, EPA. the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services tCTDPIIAS). and Stratl'otd Health Department -- needed to know more about exactly where the waste is. how much of it there is. and what kind of contamination it is. To meet this need. EPA took samples of surface soil (the top few inches) on several properties on Willow Avenue. An average of 25-30 samples were taken on each properly between July and December 1993. When the results came back, the health agencies reviewed them with EPA to address questions about how people's health might be affected. Together, the health agencies ranked the results in four levels: tin public health threat, a possible public health threat, a public health threat, or an imminent public health threat. ATSDR and DPHAS have specific recommendations for each of the four levels, to address the level of risk to people's health. Continued on back 152 What Do the Results Tell Us? ATSDR. DPHAS. and the Stratford Health Department determined that - Because of the high levels of lead and PCB contamination found, one residential property on Willow Avenue is considered an imminent health threat, while three other properties are considered a public health threat. The properties have been marked off and the owners and tenants have been told how to limit their exposure. What is Happening Now? EPA with assistance from the Army Corps of Engineers will begin permanent cleanup measures on all four residential properties soon. These measures include excavation oT contaminated areas. Hie waste is being trucked to the Raymark facility for temporary storage. At residential properties where surface testing shows a threat to public health, EPA has taken temporary measures to prevent exposure until the waste is cleaned up. I hese measures may have included placing fencing, a layer ol clean soil and grass sod, or bark mulch. EPA. ATSDR and CTDPMAS will continue to visit homeowners whose yards have levels of waste high enough to be a threat to people's health Agency stair meet with homeowners to explain what the test results mean, answer their questions, and discuss the next steps, to talk with others in the area, the environmental and health agencies are working together to set up this Neighborhood Eorum. More Eorums will follow for other neighborhoods. Need Move Info? Stratford Health Dept. US Environmental Protection Agency Elaine O'KecTe 385-4090 Johanna Hunter 380-6034 Stratford Conservation Dept. CT Dept. of Environmental Protection Bill McCann 1385-4006 Adam Sullivan 566-5486 •7-vf- 3W-' Stratford Citizens Advisory Council CT Dept. Public Health & Addiction Sendees Janet Carlueci 385-4090 Brian Toal 240-9024 Stratford Medical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry Dr. Eileen Storev 679-2366 Suzanne Simon (617) 860-4619 153 Environmental & Health Activities for Residents Near Raybestos Memorial Field This fact sheet was developed for people livingIn the area near or adjacent to the Raybestos MemorialField to give you information about environmental andpublic health work related to Raymark waste and any possible effects the waste or environmental work might have onpeople's health. If you have questions the fact sheet doesn t answer or needmore Information, contacts are listed on the back. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued its Public Health Advisory on waste areas In Stratford In May 1993, a residential area near the Raybestos Memorial Field was listed as high priority. This was based on the imminent threat to peoples's health from the presence of high levels of lead, po/ych/orinated bipheny/s (PCBs), and asbestos waste shown in November 1992 sampling by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agencies working in Stratford -- ATSDR, EPA, DEP, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS), and Stratford Health Department -• need to know mors about exactly where the waste is, how much of It there is, and what kind of contamination it is. To meet this need, EPA took more samples of surface soil (the top few inches) at homes near the Raybestos Memorial Field. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is In parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCBs are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in $10,000, one minute In two years, or one inch In 16 miles. The second way is as a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos, would be reported as 50%. At a residential property near the Field, at the surface lead was found at 7,765 ppm, PCBs were up to 96 ppm, and asbestos was as high as 70%. On the playing field and under the bleachers at Raybestos Memorial Field, lead was found at 600 ppm, PCBs were found at up to 3 ppm, and asbestos was found from 5 to 8%. When the results came back, the health agencies reviewed them with EPA to address questions about how people's health might be affected. Together, the health agencies ranked the results in four.levels; no public health threat, a possiblepublic health threat, a public health threat, or an imminentpublic health threat. ATSDR and DPHAS have specific recommendations for each of the four levels, to address the level of risk to people's health. Because the contamination at one residential property poses an imminent threat to people's health, a fence has been installed around the surface contamination to restrict access until the clean-up begins. * Continued on beck 154 What Do the Results Tell Us? Based on the levels of lead, asbestos, andI PCBs found. ATSDR, DPHAS„and the Stratford Health Department determined that » . a™-***.- w -«••'• *;r *tri" at levels that pose an Imminent threat to public health. ?o restrict access. Other residential properties have been sampled and ^ results indicate that they do not pose a public health threat. A I: propeH owners have been told what their levels are, what they mean for people health, and what steps will be taken. Sampling in June showed that levels of contaminants on the surface of the playing field area and under the bleachers pose a pubhc health threat Access to this area has been restricted by a fence. Earlier this year, finished covering a 9 acre area adjacent to the field. What Is Happening Now? EPA has taken soil samples from below the surface (depth sampling) of residential properties adjacent to the playing field to find out if waste is deeper in the ground and it it could be harmful to people if they dig, garden, or move dirt. The results of deep son sampling will be provided to homeowners as soon as possible. In the meantime, residents should not dig on their properties until they receive the results. EPA will begin to clean up the property that poses an Imminent public health threat within the next six weeks. This cfean-up will involve excavation and removal of Raymark waste, and covering areas with clean materials. All property owners who had surface samples taken have been informed of the levels found, what they mean for people's health, and any needed actions (such as more testing or not gardening}. EPA and ATSDR will continue to visit homeowners and deliver results if their yards have levels of waste high enough to be a threat to people s health. Agency staff meet with owners to explain what the test results mean, answer their questions, and discuss the next steps. To talk with other neighbors in the area, the environments and health agencies are working together to set up this Neighborhood Forum. More Forums will follow for other neighborhoods. Need More Info? StratfordHealth Dept. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 Liza Judge 380-3810 Stratford Conservation Dept. Conn. Dept. ofEnv. Protection Bill McCann 385-4006 Mike Powers 566-7202 Stratford Citizens Advisory Council Conn. Dept. of Pub. Health & Add. Sv6. Eugene Ridoifl 385-4090 Brian Toal 240-9024 t Stratford Medical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Subs & Disease Reg. Dr. Eileen Storey 679-2366 Susanna Simon 617/860-4619 155 June 1995 Environmental and Health Actions at Wooster School This fact sheet was developed for the residents of Stratford who live in the vicinity of Wooster Middle School to give you information about environmental andpublic health work related to Raymark waste. Ifyou have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer orneedmore information, contacts are listed on the back of the fact sheet. What's Been Done So Far? When the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued its Public Health Advisory on waste areas in Stratford, Wooster Middle School was listed as a high priority area because of the imminent threat to people's health. This was because tests on surface soil (the first few inches) done in April 1993 by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed high levels of lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos on or near the ground's surface in the north playing field. People -- especially children — were likely to come in contact with it. Also in April 1993, the state health department tested the air inside the school. The tests showed no asbestos inside. In late August 1993, the DEP placed an interim 18" soil cap underlain by a geotextile fabric over the north playing field to ensure that no residents or students were exposed to waste. In 1994 and 1995 soil samples were taken to find the extent of waste under the cap on the north playing field. Since the cap was installed, the DEP has collected soil samples to a depth of 12 feet from the north playing field, surface water samples from Bruce Brook, and groundwater (water running under the field). Altogether, over 150 soil samples were taken from the north field, 10 surface water samples from Bruce Brook, and 18 groundwater samples. Soil tests are reported in two ways. One is in parts per million (shortened to ppm), which is a ratio that shows the amount of waste material to 1,000,000 "parts" of soil. Lead and PCBs are shown in ppm. A part per million is the same as one ounce in nearly 42 tons, one penny in S10,000, one minute in two years, or one inch in 16 miles. The second way is a percentage of the total amount of soil. Asbestos is reported this way. For example, a soil sample might be half dirt and half asbestos. In that case, the asbestos would be reported as 50%. Water tests are reported as milligrams of waste per liter of water (or mg/I). A milligram is 1/1000th of a gram, or 0.00004 of an ounce -- a very, very small amount. A liter is a little bit more than a quart. What Did the Tests Show? Only the center area of the north field shows highlevels of wastes. Most of the samples collected from this part of the field show lead at levels below the cap high enough to be a danger to public health. 156 continuedonback • In addition to lead, asbestos and PCBs were also found in the waste material below the cap. At least half the samples from the north field show asbestos and almost all of the samples show PCBs. Both asbestos and PCBs were found at levels which are a threat to public health. > Several samples were also tested for dioxins. The highest level found was 11 parts per trillion. A part per trillion is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000. *• Samples of the groundwater underneath the field show that the lead is not leaching (moving from the soil to the water). Tests were also run for copper, which was not found in any of the groundwater samples. PCBs were found in one sample, but the level was well within drinking water standards, meaning they should not be a health risk to people. The groundwater samples showed that PCBs, like the lead, are not moving from the soil into the water. This is confirmed by samples taken from the stream, which are also free of PCBs. • The only contaminant found in the stream and pond was lead. The levels in the stream were low, and below levels permitted in drinking water. The levels in the pond were slightly higher than drinking water standards. There is no threat to public health from lead in either the stream or the pond. DEP's evaluation of the test results shows the levels of copper and lead will not be toxic to water life. What Happens Next? At this point, a decision has been made about a "final remedial measure" - that is, a permanent solution. Environmental and health agencies have agreed that the only long-term solution is to remove the waste. Site preparation is currently scheduled to begin June 12, 1995 and will include installing silt fence and construction of the entrance/access road. Construction activities will begin following the end of school on June 21,1995. Activities will include: removal and stockpiling of about 18" of clean soil from the cap; excavating and removing contaminated soils; backfilling the excavation with clean fill material; loaming the area; final grading; and, hydroseeding the entire disturbed area. After the site is stabilized any temporary erosion control measures will be removed. All construction is anticipated to be completed by the start of the new school year, however final grading and hydroseeding may extend beyond that date. auss to at —i «-tsuajswo \ CCKMAl SUtfPCt CuSn»C virtftM CAP ana aoicmc »CP1A«0(O SC Athiow CLLAMJUC tftc fm AMQ fCKSCl (»•) CCMIJMMAKQ AMO '; - * KAIAROOUat J UAKAM APPROXIMATF CROSS SECTION OF WOOSTFR MI00LF SCHOOL EXCAVATION IMI n sua) NeedMoreInfo? Stratford Health Dept. U.S. Env. Protection Agency Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 Liza Judge 380-6034 Stratford Conservation Dept. CT Dept. of Env. Protection Bill Mc Cann 385-4006 Steve Tartaris 424-3790 157 September 1995 Environmental & Health Activities for Raymark Buildings Demolition This fact sheet was developed for people living adjacent to the Raymark Industries, Inc. facility to give you information about the building demolition activities scheduled to begin this fall. If you have questions the fact sheet doesn't answer or need more information, contacts are listed on page three. What's Been Done So Far? Soil has been brought to and is stored at the Raymark Facility from 43 residential properties and the Wooster Middle School north playing field. Those piles arc currently covered with tarps or with a 90 day [red] foam. Before the soil can be leveled in preparation for cap construction, the 14 buildings on site need to be demolished. Preparations have begun for building demolition and the final stockpiling of the last of the residential soil. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing plans for the demolition and control of dust and contamination. This fact sheet addresses questions raised at an earlier neighborhood forum in July regarding health and environmental issues. CAN YOU ASSURE ME THAT CONTAMINATION, ESPECIALLY ASBESTOS, WILL NOT SPREAD DURING BUILDING DEMOLITION? Because asbestos is present at the Raymark site in soil and in buildings, common sense measures will be taken to minimize the creation of dust. This includes the safe removal of asbestos from most of the buildings. Wetting of buildings and surrounding areas will help keep dust levels low. In addition, no explosive demolition will de done — all buildings will be pulled or pushed down using heavy equipment. The brick stack is the only structure that may be imploded and not until later in the demolition phase. As another precaution, dust and contaminant sampling is being done around the entire site: 1) boundary air monitors have been stationed to collect air data at the edge of the entire site; 2) mobile air monitor stations will be moved to where the actual demolition is taking place; and 3) personal air monitors are worn by workers on site and will capture samples where dust is most likely to occur. Sampling of asbestos and other contaminants is being done to ensure that activities at the site are not generating asbestos and contaminants at levels that present a health threat to workers or nearby residents. It is important to remember that we are all exposed to low levels of asbestos in the air every day from various sources such as historic use of asbestos-lined brakes, textiles, and roofing products. Health studies have shown that the lungs of most people contain some small amounts of asbestos. 158 HOW ARE AIR SAMPLES BEING TAKEN? The perimeter air monitors at the Raymark facility, which look like birdhouses, are located at the edge of the site. Equipment is mounted on six different platforms throughout the site to test for asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total dust particles, and four separate volatile organic compounds (VOC). A mobile air monitor will be used to take samples downwind of that day's construction work. Lead, PCBs, VOCs, and the total dust samples are sent to an off-site laboratory for testing. Asbestos is analyzed on-site. Based on results found during the 10-day start-up period, asbestos will be the only contaminant sampled for the remainder of the demolition phase. Asbestos can be analyzed is two different ways - one uses phase contrast microscopy (PCM) which counts all large fibers (greater than 5 microns) including non-asbestos fibers. (One micron equals .000034 inches). The other method, which uses high powered magnification to count specifically asbestos fibers of all lengths, is called transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The PCM method can produce results within a few hours of sampling. TEM takes several days to give results. For purposes of the building demolition phase, PCM will be used because results can be provided very quickly. WHAT LEVELS ARE CONSIDERED SAFE? For both the PCM and TEM testing methods, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have recommended screening levels to EPA. They are equivalent to the level that is safe in schools during asbestos removal projects. As you might expect, this level has many safety factors built into it and is several orders of magnitude below concentrations that are likely to cause health problems. EPA and its subcontractors will use this level to determine whether work practices should be altered. When air monitoring filters are sent to the laboratory, they will be tested using the PCM method. This is a screening method that counts all fibers, including plant fibers and pollen. If more 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter are found, the sample will be tested using the TEM method. In addition, if more than .01 fibers per cubic centimeter is found of these longer fibers, work at the site will stop until the dust levels can be brought under control. The TEM method uses a stronger microscope and can distinguish asbestos fibers from plant fibers. TEM can also count the number of fibers (longer than 5 microns). PCM, which looks at all fibers will provide a screening tool. Many health studies have shown that longer asbestos fibers are more toxic than shorter fibers (less than 5 microns). WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF A PROBLEM AND WHAT HAPPENS IF CONTAMINANT LEVELS EXCEED THE "ACTION LEVELS"? Out of 235 samples tested since July 1, 1995 using the TEM method, 11 samples showed some level and lengths of asbestos fibers. Of those 11 samples, only three had significant numbers of longer fibers (more than .01 fibers per cubic centimeter). Of these three samples, two were from an active work area, while only one was from the site boundary near a soil pile. This sample, taken on August 30th, showed asbestos fibers at slightly higher than the acceptable level. 159 from asbestos fibers are known to be cumulative, indicating that health risks to neighbors are low. Even though the risk is low, wetting practices at the site were increased as a result of this one sample result. When there is an exceedance, the Stratford Health Department is notified. Work methods are assessed, and changes are made to wetting practices. During demolition, methods used to tear down the buildings may be altered if dust levels are approaching unacceptable levels. HOW CAN I CHECK ON AIR TESTING DURING DEMOLITION? EPA will hold regular press briefing during the first several weeks of the start of building demolition. Residents are invited to attend. Mailings to the local neighborhood will keep residents updated. In addition, air sampling results will be available at the library. The notebook containing the information will also provide references and an explanation about where the samples have been taken and the methods used to analyze contaminants. IF I HAVE CONCERNS WHO CAN I TALK TO? If you have any additional questions or would like assistance in understanding the information, the Stratford Health Department will continue to respond to any concerns. In addition, phone numbers are listed on the back of this fact sheet. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER DEMOLITION PROJECTS INVOLVING ASBESTOS CONTAMINATED BUILDINGS? Demolition of contaminated buildings like those at Raymark is not new. In Connecticut and across New England, several projects have been completed such as the Century Brass Company in Waterbury, CT, the Stamina Mills in Milford, New Hampshire, and Fletcher Paint in North Smithsfield, Rhode Island. Many of these have involved asbestos as a major contaminant. Demolition projects have taken place in or near residential neighborhoods and have occurred during the dry summer. Common-sense work practices and regular air testing have assured safety. Need More Info? Stratford Health Dept. US Environmental Protection Agency Elaine O'Keefe 385-4090 Liza Judge 380-6034 Stratford Conservation Dept. CT Dept. of Environmental Protection Bill McCann 385-4006 Sheila Gleason (860) 424-3767 Stratford Citizens Advisory Council CT Dept. of Public Health Janet Carlucci 385-4090 Brian Toal (860) 240-9024 Stratford Medical Advisory Group Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry Dr. Eileen Storey (860) 679-2366 Suzanne Simon (617) 860-4619 160 APPENDIX I STRATFORD ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATES 161 June 1993 STRATFORD Vol.1 No.1 ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE Dear Resident, The Town of Stratford:developedlWs newsletter:toprovide'the'cbmmunltyv: The toxic waste problem is a serious challege for our community. As the story with information about'environment continues fo unfold, fears anduncertainties have increased. We realize you tai contamination in Stratford and; have numerous concerns and questions that deserve a timely and factual any effects on people's health. You response. To that end, we arepleased to present to you information concern may have questions the newsletter ing the ongoing investigation andactivities to address this long-standing doesn't answer or need more infor problem. mation -CONTACTS are listed on page 6. This newsletter is the product of a collective effort involving town, state, and Numerous agencies, concerned federal agencies, as well as the newly formed Stratford Citizens Advisory citizens, and physicians contributed Council. This first issue includes an overview ofrecent developments and to the format and content of the responds to the major health and environmentalissues voiced by residents. newsletter, including the U:S. We encourage your active participation in thisprocess, and haveincluded a list Environmental Protection Agency of people to call for moreJnformation. (EPA), Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP), Public reactions to the discovery of exposed toxic substances in parts of town Connecticut Department of Health have been mixed. Some of our long-time residents view it as 'old news,' Services (CTDOHS), the Agency for because they have lived with the knowledge of the waste problem for many Toxic Substances and Disease years. Others have expressedanger and frustration, feeling that information Registry (ATSDR), the Stratford should have been releasedsooner and that the response has been 'too little, Citizens Advisory Council, and the too late' Others have raised concerns that the problem is being exaggerated. Stratford Medical Advisory Group. Funding for this first issue was pro To some degree, all of these viewpoints are accurate. vided by the CTDEP. Over the years, various attempts were made to cap areas where material con taining asbestos had come to the surface. Available resources were inade quate to the task of permanently addressing this problem, however, and the Citizens Unite to problem recurred and worsened when it was discoveredrecently that the Respond to Problem waste sites contained leadand PCBs in addition to the asbestos. A group of concerned individuals has We nowhave the opportunity to turn things around. With the ass/stance of formed the Stratford Citizens Advisory federal and state agencies and an initialallocation of $8 million in combined Council to address the toxic waste problem. monies, the CTDEP has begun corrective actions at the sites of greatest con The group has been meeting weekly and cern. Additional testing willbe performed to ensure that allpublic parks, has defined its mission: school facilities, playgroundsand beaches are notcontaminated. Even though 1) To serve as a link between thecommu there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, due fo the extensive use of nity and the various government agen Raymark fill In Stratford, we felt it necessary to proceed with additional testing cies involved in the problemand to hold these agencies accountable to the as a further precaution. public; Clearly, we are at a crossroads. With renewedcommitment and vigilance in 2) To help keep the media focused on the years ahead, together.we can restore the health, image, andeconomic real issues; well-being of our community and ensure that the magnitude of theproblems 3) To mobilize citizens to respond in a we face today never recur for future generations of Stratford residents. As a positive way; community we need to be equal to the task that is before us. This problemis 4) To promote effective, community-wide manageable, but it will take much hard work, as well as time and understand education about the problem. ing. An informed and involved community is essential fo the process. We sin The Advisory Council is composed of com cerely hope this newsletter series willhelp answer your questions andcon mitted community members with no politi cerns and we welcome your feedback and suggesf/ons for future issues. cal affiliations and nothing to gain but a sense of security that Stratford's problems are being addressed as quickly as possible. All those who wish to focus time and energy towards the solution of the toxic waste problem are encouraged to join the group. Elaine O'Keefe Mark S. Barnhart Rudolf J. Weiss Inquiries about the Advisory Council should Health Director Town Manager Council Chairman be directed to the Stratford Health Dept. 162 Stratford's Environmental Problem Recent Chronology of Events in 1919, Raybestos-Manhattan, later named Raymark Industries, opened a fac tory at 75 East Main Street in Stratford. The company manufactured brake parts and other asbestos-containing products. Industrial waste materials were captured in lagoons at the plant. These waste materials were offered and used as fill, mostly for wetland areas. To a large degree, Stratford's current environmental contamination problem can be traced to these practices, which occured over a period of several decades. February 1993... Town submits petition to ATSDR requesting an assessment to determine the public health risks associat ed with identified waste sites. March 1993... EPA discovers dioxins in the ground at the Raymark facility during its ongoing investigation at the plant. Concerns that dioxins may be present at off-site Raymark fill areas are raised.EPA and CTDOHS perform tests on soil sam ples collected by the CTDEP at 8 of the 15 identified Raymark fill areas. Screening tests are performed for asbestos, lead, and PC8s. Additional soil samples are sent out to be tested for dioxins and other substances. (Results are due byAugust). April 1993... Town holds a community hearing to inform the public and hear their concerns. ATSDR is called in. Wooster school test results show contam ination with lead, asbestos, and PCBs in AVE. the northern playing fields. Health agen cies agree that the southern fields may be reopened but the northern fields must remain closed. May 1993...Screening tests are completed CLUB/SHORE RC at Short Beach park. Contamination is found on the soccer field, and use of the area is restricted. Test results on remaining 6 sites show lead, PCBs, and/or asbestos. ATSDR issues a Public Health Advisory declaring imminent health threat. Arother hearing is held by the Town and attended by over 400 people. Governor Weicker commits financial aid to the town. The State provides $5 million and EPA targets another $3 million for Stratford clean-up. . June 1993...Congresswoman DeLauro and U.S. Senator lieberman visit Stratford, AREA with EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Sussman to hear local concerns. They pledge to advocate for necessary resources. EPA sends staff to continue to investigate extent of Raymark waste and conduct further testing. CTDEP begins corrective actions. LONG ISLAND SOUND 163 Environmental Issues Contamination found in Stratford Why can't you just dig up ali We know of 15 locations in Stratford where Is there danger of contamina the waste andtake it away Raymark waste was used as fill, (see map). tion of our air and water? from Stratford? Eight of the sites were tested in April and There is a potential for the contaminants In some cases it may be possible to Way of this year. These sites received the to become'airborne. EPA has conducted remove the waste. However, in some highest priority for testing because of their 17 feet thick -too public use and access. The other 7 identified air testing outside at Wooster School, the locations the waste is Housatonic Boat Club and Short Beach much to remove safely. The high levels of fill areas are in the process of being tested. Park. In all cases the air was found to be asbestos in muchof the soil means special THE 8PRIORITY SITES safe. Also, CTDOHS tested indoor air and precautions must be taken to keep conta minated dust from getting into the air. • Wooster School north playing field dust at Wooster School and found no traces of asbestos. CTDEP will test the air The decision on how to clean up the sites • Short Beach Park soccer field as they cover the areas to make sure that will be based on how best to protect peo • Vacant lot at end of 4th and 5th Avenue contaminated soil is not stirred up. ple living nearby. • Morgan/Francis property East Broadway The drinking water for homes in Stratford is almost all from the Bridgeport EPA Testing Update • Spada property, Ferry Boulevard Hydraulic Co. supply, piped from the Trap EPA will-be testing all public parks, schooi • Lot K/Elm Street property Falls Reservoir in Shelton. This water is facilities, day care centers, playgrounds, regularly tested as required by the state. • Housatonic Boat Club, Shore Road and beaches. There are several private wells in the • Properties next to Raybestos Memorial Since the beginning of June, soil sam northern part of town. Because ground Field. ples have been collected from the follow water contamination has been found at ing areas:. Lead, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls the Raymark plant, the CTDEP will do a (PCBs) were found in the soil at the surface well survey to make sure there are no Short Beach Park wells being used near the'Raymark site. (firs: 3 inches) at the 8 priority locations. Raybestos Memorial field and adjacent Also, dioxin has been found at 1 industrial properties site. Raymark Industries. The plant is not Have Ferry Creek and the Housatonic Boat Club coen and the public is not allowed on the Housatonic River been pollut grounds. ed by Raymark waste? Wooster School north playing fields The EPA is testing various areas in town to The Raymark facility did release waste Wooster Park cinpomt other spots that may contain water into Ferry Creek. Raymark waste where it is most likely that Wooster Pond and Creek* oeople could come in contact with it. If con • EPA will test the sediment and water Morgan Francis and adjacent properties tamination is found, later testing - or envi in Ferry Creek and the Housatonic ronmental sampling — will go below the top River. Academy Hill Park few inches to find out how deep the conta • Shellfish and blue crabs will be tested West Broad Street Green mination may be. This will help in making by the CTDEP this summer near where decisions about the proper clean-up method. Long Brook Park Ferry Creek flows into the Housatonic Clover Park Do we know where all the sites River. are locatedin Stratford? CTDEP Progress Report Spada and adjacent properties. High Park We know of only 15 sites. EPA's investiga Work has begumon a protective cover tion of possible new sites includes: at Short Beach Park soccer field and the Paradise Green vacant lot at 4th and 5th-Avenues. CTDEP • Reviewing wetlands filling permits, North End Park expects to finish both sites by the end of aerial photos, and other historical June. In July, temporary covers will be "Tests conducted by CTDEP information. installed at the Wooster School north play EPA is testing these samples for asbestos, • Interviewing people who may know ing fields, Housatonic Boat Club," Spada lead, and PCBs. More soil samples will be where Raymark waste was used as fill. property, Morgan/Francis property, and sent out to be tested for dioxins and Elm Street property to protect against any other substances. Health and environmen • Contacting residents who believe that exposure to the contamination. The covers tal agencies will review the results and let there may be exposed waste on consist of 3 layers, including a layer of the community know about them as soon their property. heavy plastic fabric called geotextile, as possible. approximately 6 inches of gravel, a layer Contact the Health Department if you have of soil and grass. information on where Raymark waste may Once all the areas are temporarily cov oe. ered, CTDEP will design permanent reme dies for the Short Beach Park soccer field and the north playing fields at Wooster f' School Fields. EPA and CTDEP will work jointly on long-term solutions for the remaining sites. 164 Health Issues Here are some common-sense things you How canIbe exposed? • Children should not play In contami nated areas. Parents and guardians can do. People are most likely to be exposed to should do everything they can to • If you smoke, try to quit, or at least cut • ne contaminants when they come in con make sure children stay away from down. This will help reduce your sensi tact with contaminated soil The exposure posted and fenced-off areas. Giving tivity to asbestos. can happen m several ways children ideas for other places to • A well-balanced diet helps protect • Children, and to a lesser extent adults, play will help them obey this rule. against lead. may get dirt on their hands and then • Children should wash their hands often, put their fingers in their mouths. Some especially before eating. This removes Medical Advisory Group children may eat dirt. One way you dust and dirt that can be contaminated. Works on Education can be exposed to lead, PCBs, and asbestos, is by swallowing contaminat • Try to keep children from putting things The Stratford Medical Advisory Group ed dirt. Most asbestos taken into the in their mouths. Toys may be dusty or includes local doctors from the body this way passes through the dirty. Bridgeport/Stratford area and staff from system. the University of Connecticut and Yale • Do not eat shellfish from Ferry Creek. • When dirt Is picked up by the wind, University who are nationally recognized people can breathe in lead, PCBs, and experts in occupational and environmental asbestos. health. Stratford Health Department The group has three main goals — • Also, people can get the contaminants Lead Screening Clinics on their skin. This is called dermal • To provide Information and education exposure. PCBs can be taken into the Tuesday, June 29 2-7'pm to local health care providers and the body through the skin, but lead and South End Community Center public. asbestos are not absorbed very well • To provide medical and toxicological through skin. Thursday, July 1 2-7 pm input in environmental decisions. ' People could eat fish that are contam Baldwin Center • To help plan, implement, and analyze nated with PCBs, which build up infat. any health studies that might be done. Thursday, July 8 2-7 pm Asbestos, leac. and PCBs can all cause Baldwin Center Group members have taken part in public -ealth problems The types of health meetings to provide information and educa problems depend on how long'people are Call Kathy Brennan, RN, tion, and helped develop a fact sheet for exposed, the level of contamination at 385-4056 for an appointment. local doctors. Call the Stratford Health •.hey're exposed to. and the person's sensi More clinics willbe scheduledand Department if you want a copy of the fact f/ity, or susceptibility. Children are more publicizedIn the future. sheet for yourself or your physician. sensitive than adults are to lead. Smokers The Medical Advisory Group urges peo are more sensitive to asbestos than people ple concerned about their health to first ta • A ho don't smoke. (For more information WhatifI've already been exposed? with their own physicians. Most doctors are en health effects, see pageS.) eager to respond to their patients' concerns, A number of actions are planned - and and they will seek advice from colleagues What can I do to prevent some completed — for people who may and the Medical Advisory Group as needed exposure? have been exposed. The town and state health departments have already tested :ederal, state, and local agencies are work more than 800 children, pregnant women, • -g together to prevent exposures. But and infants for lead. A special Medical you're the most important factor. People Advisory Group has been set up to help with can do several things to keep from being other follow-up health activities and to edu exposed to contamination — cate local doctors and other health care a Obey the warning signs posted by the providers about exposure, testing, and treat Town of Stratford, CTDEP, and EPA. ment. (For more information see Medical There's a good reason the signs have Advisory Group.) been put up — please pay attention to The state health department is reviewing them. health information for people who live in • All children 6 and younger should Stratford to see if certain health problems . have their blood tested for lead. for example, cancer — are more common Children older than 6, pregnant than average. This review will help the state women, and babies whose pregnant and the town find out the best ways to help mothers were often on or near the local physicians and their patients keep an sites should also be tested. The eye out for any possible health problems. Stratford Health Department and the (For more on the preliminaryresults, see CTDOHS are offering free lead testing. State Health Dept. and UConn Review (See Lead Screening Clinics) Cancer Statistics.) 165 June1993 Health Effects of Contaminants Found in Stratford Children and Lead Don't Mix Asbestos and Cancer For infants and young children, even low- Long-term exposures to high levels of level exposures to lead can cause learning asbestos in air, like the kind workers might difficulties and reduce IQ scores. It can have, has been shown to cause cancer. also slow growth and cause hearing prob Much less information exists about human lems. Pregnant women can pass lead on exposure to low levels of asbestos. High- to their babies, causing low birthweight, level exposures are known to cause lung premature birth, and nervous system prob cancer and mesothelioma (a cancer of the lems. Exposed mothers who breastfeed lining around the lungs and other organs), can also pass lead to their babies. and asbestosis, a hardening of tissue in the For both adults and children, exposure lungs. These diseases usually show up many The health effects any substance can have to high levels of lead can damage the years after exposure. depend on several things brain and kidneys, increase blood pres • First, you have to be exposed, or sure, and may damage men's sperm and Less is Known About PCBs reproductive systems. come in contact with the substance. Animal studies have shown that some PCBs • Second, there has to be enough of the can cause skin irritations, liver damage, substance to cause a health effect. developmental and reproductive effects, and possibly cancer. • Third, you have to take enough into Less is known about how PCBs may your body. affect people. We do know that PCBs can • Fourth, you have to be sensitive, or cause higher levels of blood fats (choles susceptible, to the chemical. fero/>-although we don't know what that might mean for people's health; increased We do not know if the environmental prob liver enzymes in the blood; chloracne (a lem in Stratford had an impact on residents' skin rash that looks like acne) if the dose is heaith. As more specific environmental and high enough; and they may affect people's health information becomes available, we ability to have children. hope to be able to determine if there have been any health effects. In the meantime, the following is some general information about Dioxins lead, asbestos. PC3s, and aioxin. Studies have shown that dioxins (there are several forms) can be very toxic to some animals, including effects on theimmune system, birth defects, liver and digestive problems, and liver cancer. But in people, the only effect known at this State Health Department arii'y'Conn'-Reyiefo time is chloracne and other skin problems. The CTDO.HS-and'the University ofXonnecticut:(UCohn),have.finrshed^fjetrj first, preliminary review;of canc'ef. ratesjrvStratford forthe years197V^:::,: 1990. CTDOHS used the state Junior- registry/- '• ;.V/.. a listing;,of cancer cases'iri the state -Tq'T6qk;aW se^ralJ^X"-;' kinds of'cancer: . .\7. lung cancer • leukemia \ . cancer of the testicles •soft,tissue sarcoma • breast cancer •.mesothelioma' •> • :~1' non-Hodgkfn's lyphoma (cancer of organ //h/hgsj;; Av-' The increase ^ of cases/seen in.Stratford-.was-.witWnthe'Tange^ Stratford residents were at tfiersame risk:pf7d^eJoj^ throughout Connecticut, However,svci, forIUI peoplepeuptc inin theu»c youngeryuuuyci ageaye group/hungeryipup.i/yuuycj thanwioii-j/, i5.years), '] there wereere more combined cancer case$..$een:thans^uld^ 49 were> reported, and only "33 were expected.^: -. . *'\; CTD,OHS andJ riUConri willwill looklookmore more cipse(y:doselyatthis,at this, andand wiil;aIso;i^iat;;^;wil^afeo^Q^Ciat^ cancerinformation over" r the past.;30* years.JOther:'"v'type^ ~•*-• added to the listfor reviewAwl;:.-/)':' / T A A For More Information An information display is located in the Stratford Public Library. A notebook containing fact sheets and other educa tional materials is available to view at the following locations: the Baldwin Center, South End Community Center, Wooster School, Town Clerk's office in the Town Hall and the Stratford Health Department. Factsheets and other materials are being placed in public places around town. CONTACTS Stratford Health Department Environmental Protection Agency Elaine O'Keefe Liza Judge 385-4090 617-565-3419 Stratford Conservation Department Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection BUI McCann 385-4006 Mike Powers ..." 566-7202 ... • Stratford Citizens Advisory Council Connecticut Department of Eugene Ridolfi Health Services 385-4090 Brian Toal 240-9024 .! v.. • • • Stratford Medical Advisory Group US Public Health Service, ATSDR Eileen Storey, M.D. Susanne Simon 679-2366 617-860-4619 Stratford Health Department Bulk Rate 2730 Main Street U. S. Postage Stratford, CT 06497 PAID , 'Bridgeport, CT Permit# 1184 :«• T • • * •'••"•v t-.' Si c! . 'i'-ii 1 r > • • ~ ^ -f '< --r. -:i 2 *>•;: •••• ! •' *•- ; .••• % r •. ;? ] • j,. .at • T >• £ ;:; • •- * • < . *1 •• • •' r f ' ' rj •! August 1993 STRATFORD Vol.1 No. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE The Stratford Environmental Update Protection Agency (EPA), the Connecticut , Stratford Citizen's newsletter was created to respond to commu Department of'Enyironmental Protection (DEP), nity concerns and questions about the toxic the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Advisory Council waste problem in town. The newsletter is a '• Registry (AT5DR); the ConnecticutDepartment Continues To Provide joint effort involving citizens, medical profes ' of Public Health and Addiction Services;. sionals, town officials, and the various public,v .(DPHAS), the,Stratford'Health,Department, the Info To Community health and environmentalagencies'that have' ;".Stratford Citizen's Advisory Council, andtHe• The Stratford Citizen's Advisory Council come together to work on a solution. • Stratford Medical Advisory Group.'jOEP pro (SCAC) is a group of volunteers working to Contributors include the U.S. Environmental vides funding for the newsletter'. '• speed dean up of Raymark contamination, to provide information to the larger community MESSAGE FROM THE TOWN about health and contamination issues, and to create an ongoing dialogue among govern The first Update featured backgroundinfor ATSDR and DPHAS continue to evaluate all ment agencies working in Stratford anc the mation on the environmental contamination environmental test results andoffer guidance community. problem, with a special focus on relatedhealth on action steps when healtn threats are found The group holds weekly meetings at the concerns. This issue highlights major develop EPA/ATSDR has alsoprovided fuftime staff Stratford Library. Since the publication of the ments over the past rwomonths andhas an in- assistance to the town to improve coordination last newsletter, the Citizen's Advisory Council depth look at one of the contaminants ofcon among agencies andcommunication with the has hosted guest speakers from the state cern, lead. public. health and environmental departments, the As most readers know, waste materials from To date, S 79 million has been committed for Environmental Protection Agency, and the Stratford-basedRaymark industries were used the initialcleanup - SS millionin state funds Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease as fill for severaldecades The fill contains and S M million from the federal government. Registry. The speakers provided updates or lead, asbestos, polychiorir.ated biohenyls Cleanup activities are well underway. DEP environmental testing and cleanup efforts (PC3s), and other hazardous substances Most has put protective coversin placeat Short and health information. filling was in wetlands areas. At this point. 15 Beach,the Wooster School fields, and the sites are known to be contaminated with fill vacant lot at 4th and 5th Avenues, and is On Stratford Day, June 26th, SCAC shared from Raymark. working oncleanup at other high-priority sites. a booth with the Stratford Health Department Of the 15 known sues, eight have been tar Recent news from healthscreening clinics and provided much-needed printed informa getedas high priority because of the possibility and environmental testing has largely been tion to people looking for answers to fre that peoplecould be exoosed to the contami positive offering somerelief to our community: quent questions, such as — "What kind of nation. which is at ornear tne soil's surface health effects are possible from exposure to The eight areas are: • Soil testing at parks, beaches, school asbestos?" "How can I keep my children grounds, and daycare centers did not from being exposed?" "What do Ido if I • Wooster School north playing field show any Raymark waste. think I've been exposed?" and others. * Short Beach Park soccer field * A very small number of people whose Council subcommittees are now working * vacant lot at end of 4th and 5th Avenue blood was tested for lead showed on various activities, including: * Spada property on Ferry Boulevard elevated levels. • a SCAC newsletter; • Morgan/Francis property East Broadway * Soil testing on residential properties next • a questionnaire to be published in local • Lot K/Elm Street property to waste sites shows that, in most cases, the homes are free of Raymark waste. newspapers for people who want to • Housatonic Boat Club on Shore Road anonymously advise the Stratford Healtn • So far, dioxin test results reveal very low Department about possible hazardous * a few properties next to Raybestos Memorial Field. levels of this contaminant — levels that sites so the sites can be tested; are not considered a health threat. * information packets that are being As youread through thenewsletter, you will distributed to area stores and merchants findinformation about testingand cleanup in As we continue ro make progress toward re moving risks topublic health, other issues must for their customers who may not get the top priority areas. information from other sources; and There are no simple answers or solutions to also beresolved. A centra/question is the town's listingon ERA'SNationalPriorities List, or Stratford's environmentalproblem. But we are • Neighborhood Forums,in collaboranon Suoerfund. The prospect of becoming a Super- - making steadyand significant progress toward with the government agencies, to ado-'ess the fund sitelooms largeandraises many concerns. the immediate goal of protecting public health. questions of those who live on cr near xr.cw Some of these concerns, such asliability for Tremenoous resources have beeninvested by sites. local, state, and federalagencies The EPA cleanup costs, are addressedin this issue /ATSDR field staffassemoledIn Stratfordis the Others will be addressedin futureeditions. SCAC focuses on positive actions to aodrest largest team now assigned to anyhazardous We hope the newsletter continues to serve the problems of the past and current com':--. waste sitein New England. This team, work as a helpful source of information foryou dur nity needs. If you would like to become ing with DEP. has conductedmassive soil test ing this confusing time. Your comments on actively involved in seeking solutions to all cui ing to make sure the extent of contamination this issue andsuggestions (or future newslet community's concerns, please contact the is known and the remec es chosen to eliminate ters are always welcome. Council through the Stratford Health tne hazards are the mcs: effectwe Department at 385-4090. 168 Update from the Connecticut Departmei t of EnvironmentalProtection More Than 1,500 People Have Had Progress Continues on Their Blood Screened for Lead Since June, the Stratford Health Department has held 11 clinics to screen people's biood "he Connecticut Department of for lead. At the end of July, 1,562 people • •v/ironmenta' Protection. (DE?; working with had been tested fie Environmental Protectee;-'. Agency (EPA), During the screening clinics, health care 735 made significant progress :n testing and providers draw a small amount of blooc from Cleaning up high-priority areas As this the patient's finger onto filter paper, which is "ewsleiter goes to press, testing and cleanup sent to the state laboratory to be analyzed. continue. Look for more information in the This "finger-stick* test is the most common next edition. test for lead, but it can show a false positive result - that is. it can sometimes show lead High Levels of ContaminationFoundin when it isn't there. Because of these "false positives," any child with a result of 10 or Several Areas more micrograms per deciliter of blood must Because of the concern ever chiloren being have another test to confirm the finger-stick exposed to contamination. DSP has concen screening. The second test takes blood direct trated on the Wooster School playing fields iy from a vein. and pond and stream. The Stratford Health Department is follow Extensive soil testing a; the playing fields or more of gravel and topsoil. These tempo ing up with all people whose blood lead levels shews lead at high levels m parts of the north rary covers are strong enough to last for at are 10 micrograms per deciliter or more ana 'ield. Samples of the groundwater under least two years, more than enough time to conducting home inspections for people neath the field show that the lead is not design and carry out permanent solutions. In whose second, confirming tests show blood leaching (moving from the soil to the water). the meantime, the covers keep people from lead levels of 20 or more micrograms per At this point, no decision has been made coming in contact with the waste-and prevent deciliter. Everyone tested - with either the about "final remedial measures" - that is. the waste from moving because of air or finger stick test or the second test - is being permanent solutions. Environmental and water erosion. contacted with test results and any needed nealth agencies continue to work on this. In The interim design for the Housatonic Boat follow-up. Preliminary results show that, for more the meantime, an "interim remedial measure" Club is continuing. Because this site is on the than 1,300 screening tests analyzed, about - a 15-inch thick cap - is being put in place river and could flood, designing a stable, 130 were at 10-20 micrograms per deciliter strong cover is more difficult. DEP is working :o eliminate the public health threat. Interim Only about 13 were more than 20. Of 100 measures should be comciete before the start closely with EPA, public health officials, the confirming tests lor those whose levels were of school. Army Corps ol Engineers, and its own coastal 10 or higher, 12 were confirmed as 10-20 in addition to lead, asbestos arrl PCBs wetlands experts to develop a design thai micrograms per deciliter. None of the con were also found. Four samples Iron the meets health and environmental needs and firming tests showed a levelhigher than 20. north field showed asbestos. Of 81 samples minimizes the effects on coastal resources. In addition to blood tests, people being tested for PCBs, only four were higher than To protect the public and workers, air mon screened are asked to fill out an environmental 10 parts per million All four were taken itoring is done at each construction site. exposure questionnaire. The questionnaire ask: ircm inside the recently installed interior Special attention is paid during initial construc basic questions like age, sex, and address, it also asks information about housing and about fence. The groundwater samples showed tion — when mowing is done and interim cov activities at known waste sites. that PCBs, like the lead, are not moving from ers are put in place, since these activities The local and state health agencies will the soil into the water This is confirmed by could cause dust particles to rise in the air. analyze the questionnaire information to see samples taken from the stream, which are Air monitoring has not found any contamina if there are trends in people's blood lead leve.s tion over health standards, within the actual also free of PCBs and the relationship of where they live, work, The only contaminant found in the stream work area or anywhere else on site. This or play to hazardous waste sites. The agenccs anc pond was lead. The levels in the stream means workers and the public are not at risk. will also look at the relationship between were low, and below levels permitted in To be even safer, work areas are closed to the blood lead levels and the age of people's drinking water. The levels in the pond were public. houses. Older houses often have lead-basec sLghtly higher than drinking water standards. Interim measures are slated to begin at the paint and plumbing with lead There is no threat to public health from either Morgan-Francis property in August (some the stream or the pond. DEP's evaluation of time between the 18th and 27th, depending the test results shows that aquatic life will not on weather and work schedules). The work 'CORRECTIONL;-' oe adversely impacted. will include paving roadside areas and a gravel '^In^the fir^t issue'of Stfatford v. parking lot. A chainlink fence will also be V Envlronme the Progress Made on "Interim Remedial installed to prevent people from getting on .eightltb^pnprify^slte|vfo^testing, One Measures" the rest of the property. ^jisting{$as£^^^ in addition to sampling, DEP has beenbusy ^emorj|HFieI^"iOnly ajiewdf.'the adja making sure that people's exposure to coniam Dioxin Results Back for Two Areas '':;cent^ contaminated/ not all .noted areas is prevented. Until final decisions .VoKthem^Thpse that are.contarnihated are made abouthow to dean up the areas, DEP Results from samples taken at Short Beach • are being furthertested and.the.health is taking "interim remedial measures" — that is. and the Wooster Middle School show the . issues.are being addressed.- The govern pieventing exposure by temporary covers, dioxin concentration in the soil to be minimal. ment agencies working together on this fences, and other means Thus far, test results for dioxin have been ' newsletter regret any confusion that At Short Beach Park and the 4th and 5th reported to be.at low enough levels where mayhave arisen fronvthis incomplete Avenue sites, DEP has finished the interim they do not pose a health threat. An interim description of the priority sites. covers on contaminated areas found this cover is in place at Short Beach, while the year The covers are made up of a permeable interim cover for the Wooster School is sched ceotextile material covered with 12-15 inches uled to be completed for the start of school. 169 First in a Series on Specific Contaminants Foundin Stratford Lead and Your Health Lead is found naturally in the earth's crust Read labels to see how much fat food has. ana is everywhere in the environment — in Taking.large amounts of iron, calcium, vitamin soil, water, air. plants, animals Lead is also C, and zinc does not prevent lead poisoning, common to many manufacturing processes, and could be harmful. Talk to your doctor as it was at Raymark. As the first newsletter about your diet and the right kind of vitamins explained, lead can enter your body in several and minerals you might need. ways: • Breathing it in is called inhalation. Your House Can Be Another Source of • Swallowing n is known as ingestion. Lead The most common source of lead poisoning in Regardless of how the lead gets into your children is paint chips or dust from leaded boay. most of it is stored in bone. As that paint. Leaded paint is common in older hous nacoens. lead takes the place of iron, calcium, es. Look for weathered, flaky, or chalky paint .\n:, and other healthv eiements (or Avoid heating or sanding paint that might nuuients) your bocy needs Lead 'S most rave lead, because you can create toxic oust •^aimfui to pregnant anu creastfeedmg cr fumes. If your paint is weathered, flaky, women and their babes, chilcren, and or chalky, or if you plan to repaint or reno •women of cMdbearmg age when their diets vate your house, be sure to have the paint don't have enough iron, calcium, vitamin C. tested for lead. If lead is a problem, don't anc zinc; when their ciets are nigh m fat; or try to treat it yourself. Hire a professional to when they don't nave enough food to eat avoid exposing yourself and yourfamily to Medical Advisory Group Presented lead. Health Info at Bridgeport Hospital Another household lead source is tap water from older pipes, which could have lead in Dr. Michael Grey represented the Stratforq Medical Advisory Group during a recent ^rffcke^3^» them, or newer pipes joined with lead solder. Lead-lined water coolers and fixtures are also Medical Grand Rounds at Bridgeport Hospital sources. Have your water tested for lead. Or. Grey provided physicians with information Let it run for 2-3 minutes before using it. about evaluating and treating patients possiph Never use hot tap water for baby formula or exposed to hazardous substances. He also for cooking. reviewed current issues in environmental if you have questions about lead, please call health epidemiology (the study of why and the Connecticut Department of Public Health how diseases affect populations) and how Healthy Eating Helps Protect Against and Addiction Services Lead Program at health can be affected by environmental cont Lead's Problems 566-5808. amination. A well-balanced diet helps protect against Since the last newsletter, the Medical iead If you have enough calcium, iron, zinc, Sports, Hobbies, and Work Can Be Advisory Group has helped the Stratford and vitamin C in your diet, the lead absorbed Hidden Sources of Lead Health Department evaluate the results of •n your body will be smaller On the other Sports, hobbies, or crafts you're involved in blood lead tests and assisted in developing a r-and. if fat is a large part of your diet, your questionnaire for town employees who were may increase your exposure to lead. Bullets, oocy will take m more lead. Make sure you tested for lead. fishing sinkers, lead powder, batteries, lead anc your children eat a variety of food from solder, jewelry, and artist's paints may all con The Medical Advisory Group wili meet with tne four food groups every day. tain lead. Investigate these and other recre the Stratford Citizen's Advisory Council in These are good sources of calcium, iron, ational sources of lead. Be sure to wash September. :TIC, and vitamin C your hands thoroughly after touching any items that may have lead • Calcium: mi'k; cottage cheese; cheese, in them. yogurt, green, ieafy vegetables; sardines; Your job can be another source of lead . What.Kind of Health,Problems Can canned salmon exposure. Adults who work in construction, Xead Cause?/C,\^ at foundries and radiator repair shops, as . • Fpr^hfants and young;children; even'low • Iron: raisins; spinach and other greens; painters, and in other occupations where lead /^level exposu're can cause: A poultry (without the skin); liver; lean meat; is a product or byproduct can be exposed to Learning difficulties • Lowered IQ scores eggs; iron-fortified cereal; clams, oysters, lead on the job. They also can bring lead dust • Slowed growth '• Hearing problems mussels; sardines, tuna, and other fish home on their clothing and expose their fami Pregnant women can pass lead on to • Zinc: poultry (without the skin); lean meat; lies. Use proper equipment and procedures their babies, causing; eggs; dams, oysters, mussels, and crab; at work to prevent exposures. Avoid bring . • Low birthweight -• Premature birth • dned beans and lentils, milk ana cheese; ing lead dust home by showering and/or • Nervous system problems eggs changing clothes before coming home. Fumes from industrial exhaust and leaded In addition, exposed mothers who breast • Vitamin C: fruits and fruit juices, tomatoes, gasoline can contaminate the air and soil, feed can pass lead to their babies. and potatoes (with skin) especially in areas near industries and high For both adults and children, exposure ways. To control dust from these sources, Stay away from foods high m fat like oil, lard, to high levels of lead can damage the dust and/or vacuum every day and wet mop brain putter, margarine, and fried foods. Limit and kidneys, increase blood pres with a detergent that has trisodium phos ^amburgers. fried foods, doughnuts, potato sure, and may damage men's sperm and phate (TSP). Keep children from playing in reproductive systems. .-nd corn chips, pies, cupcakes, and pastries. contaminated soil. Beware of "hidden" fat in prepared foods. 170 Superfund Addresses Nation's Oysters, Mussels Free of EPA: Average Homeowners Not Waste Problems One Site At a Time Raymark Chemicals But Likely To Be Responsible for Cleanup 8an Remains in Effect Costs EPA's efforts to find and clean up Raymark Due To Bacteria The underlying philosophy of the waste in Stratford are currently financed Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) through Superfund's emergency or short- Superfund program is that those who pro term cleanup program. Superfuna also duce hazardous waste or allow it to be finances long-term cleanups for sites included unsafely disposed of should be responsible on the National Priorities List, also known as ,mr for cleanup costs. These so-called "responsi the NPL. The NPL is the list of our nation's ble parties" generally fall into one of four most hazardous waste sites. Sites in Stratford included in ATSDR's Public Health categories. Advisory are being considered for the NPL 1. owners or operators at the time hazard NPL sues - often simply called Superfund ous substances were put on the site; Oysters and mussels from tr.e Housatomc sues - are thoroughly tested to find out the River have been found to be free cf chemical 2. the current site owner or operator; type of contamination (what chemicals anc compounds) and the extent of conternnatio contamination from the Raymark plant, 3. parties who arranged to dispose of of them ana wnere they are) -lowever, previously existing bans on shell hazardous substances on the site; or (how mucn They are studied to determine the best kind fisning in the river remain in effect because 4. transporters who chose the site and of cleanup to acdress any short- and long of cacieiia. hauled the watte there. term risk# to people's health and the environ The Connecticut Department of These categories may seem broad. But in ment. More money is set aside to test and Environmental Protection sampleo oysters most cases, EPA does not require average clean up NPL sites than emergency sites ana mussels from eight soots in the homeowners — wno may seem to fall under If sites in Stratford are proposed for the NPL, Housatomc downstream from Ferry Creek. there will be a 30-day public comment pence the first two categories - to clean up a site. Levels of lead, PCSs, anc asbestos were the for community members and local officials to in fact, these are the cnly instances in same as levels four.c in otner areas of Long let EPA know how they feel. The comment which a homeowner might be held liable for island Sound. They are very low, and not of period will be announcedm the local media cleanup: neaith concern. and in this newsletter. • When a homeowner's actions have led Unsuitable bottom conditions prevented If the sites are listed on the NPL, the public to a release or the threat of a release of garnering any shellfish in Ferry Creek. Health will be included inchoosing the long-term hazardous substances into the environ solution. EPA works to inform and involve officials issued previous advice not to eat ment. communities around Superfund sites in its snellfish from the creek. At this time, that • When a homeowner has improved the activities and welcomes public participation. acvice is unchanged. property so that it is no longer for Watch future issues of the newsletter for residential use. more information on the status of Stratford EPA Testing Shows No Public • When a homeowner uses or has used sites listing on the NPL and the Superfund Health Threat at Various Areas the property for non-residential process. EPA has been testing the soil at various pub purposes. • When a homeowner does not allow EPA lic areas in Stratford, and the health agencies ;T:OF^GE>JC!ES nave reviewed the results. Tests show that, on the property to evaluate the contam ination or clean up hazardous sub while the areas are not completely free of , ^Stratford Health'Dept.: '^385-4090 stances. contamination, there is no public health ; Stratford,Conservation.Dept.: 385-4006 threat from the levels found The areas are: As the Superfund process continues, EPA •• Connecticut DEP'566-7202 will work with property owners to address Connecticut DPHAS- ; .",240-9024 ' Birdseye School — The athletic fields these issues and ensure cleanup is accom showed no asbestos or PCBs; a few sam U.S. EPA . , ;380-3810 plished quickly and effectively to protect ples showed lead. ATSDR ' 380-3810 people's health and the environment. • Bonds Dock — Tests showed no asbestos or PCBs; a few samples showed lead. The source of the lead isn'tknown, but a pos Stratford Health Department sible source is gasoline-powered boats at 2730 Main Street Bulk Rate the boat launch. Stratford, CT 06497 U. S. Postage • Clover Field — No asbestos was found; PAID one sample showed PCBs at only 1part Bridgeport, CT per million (ppm), and a few samples Permit # 1184 showed lead. ' Longbrook Park — One sample showed a trace level of asbestos; three samples showed PCBs at one-quarter ppm, and a few samples showed lead. • Lordship School — No asbestos or PCBs were found; a few samples had lead. • Stonybrook Park — No asbestos or PCBs. A few samples found lead. Town Hall Green — No asbestos or PCBs. A few samples found lead. 171 November 1993 STRATFORD Vol.1 No. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE rate of mesothelioma was higher in The Stratford Environmental Update;: v(EPA),- the:ConnecVicutDepartmientof •• • Stratford than the state, the number of newsletter was created-to respond to' 1 Environmentai.Protection {pEP),;the ; cases was small and not considered comrhunity,concerns'ahd.qu AAgenq^forSubstancesfand£;;; statistically significant. about'the toxic waste problem In;tqwn.!i::"^D isease^Regis(ATSbR e; 1r1 The rate of cancer for all types or The.newsletter is a joint effori.ihvpivingV 'ConnecticutOepartment^fiPublic-.v:\ sites combined in Stratford was similar citizens, medical professionals) town•v Health':and Addiction:Serwesr(pPHAS)r.. to the rate for the state of Connecticut officials, and the various'public health \ the Stratford Health Department;;the . when added together for the 34-year and environmental agencies that.have/, Stratford Citizen's AdvisoryCouncil," and come together to work on a solution. _ the 5tratford;,MedicflrAdvi50ry.Group. study period; however, when broken Contributors include the U.S. DEP provides funding for the newsletter. into 5-year periods, the rate of cancer Environmental Protection Agency ' tended to increase slightly in compari son to state rates during the same time period. For all sites combined, the can State Takes Second Look at cer rate was 10% less than state rates a: the beginning of the study penoc in Stratford Cancer Rates 1958, but increased to 8% greater than A second ana!1, sis of cancers in Strat Stratford were what would be expected state rates at the end of the stucy •'c:d residents over a 34-year period based on state rates for the majority of period in 1SS1. •evealed the rates of most cancers the cancer sites studied. Cancer of the It is difficult to know what these were not elevated, including lung and brain, breast, kidney, liver, lung, rectum, data mean in relation to the presence 'iver cancer. The study, conducted by testis, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, of Raymark waste in Stratford. It is net the Connecticut Department of Public leukemia and scft tissue sarcoma were possible to determine what may have Hea't'n and Addiction Services found to be the same as state cancer caused this increasing trend or to make- •DPHAS), is good news for Stratford rates. Also, nc noticeable trends occur any associations between the develop residents who are concerned about the red m the cance-r rates for these sites. ment of cancer and any specific expo presence of i.ocustria! waste in the Differences die occur between surejor risk factor. For example, differ community and possible health effects. Stratford rates and state rates for blad ent types of cancer are really different Lung cancer is linked with exposure to der cancer, mesothelioma and the total diseases that may have a variety cf asbestos, and liver cancer, with expo of all cancer sites combined. causes-including diet, family history, sure to PCBs, both of which are pre The rate of biadder cancer among smoking, or occupation. The overall sent in the industrial waste produced Stratford residents was 14% higher increase over time cannot be linked to by Raymark Industries in Stratford. than the state rate. The most common any one cause or factor. The original review of cancer data, risk factors associated with the devel DPHAS also reviewed more detailed conducted by DPHAS in May 1993, opment of biadder cancer are certain information oncancers that occurred in 'ndicated that the average rate of sev occupational exposures (e.g., working people less than 25 years of age. eral types of cancer in Stratford was with benzidine-based dyes), history of • .-•.Records in the Tumor Registry were not different from the cancer rates in frequent bladder infections, and smok- Reviewed to determine whether any the entire state from 1971 to 1990. ing^ome^studies have alsojinkedlblad :nty'pe;of'cancer was more likely to be Further analysis has now been com der cancer: has • ^.diagnosed among younger persons. pleted to review more types of cancer high levels of chlorihationby-products. FfomJ958 to 1991, a total of 130 over a longer time period. This second It is not likely that the development of cases of cancer reported in persons less analysis also evaluates how the cancer bladder cancer is associated with the than 25 years of age, whereas 107 'ates have changed over time by look components of the Raymark waste. cases were expected to occur. ing at the rate of cancer in 5-year Excess rates of mesothelioma were Although the number of cancers in periods from 1958 to 1991. also reported. Mesothelioma is a very younger persons was 22% higher than information on the occurrence of rare cancer of the lining of the lung state rates, no apparent pattern cancer in Stratford was obtained from that is associated with exposure to emerged in the type of cancers that the DPHAS Connecticut Tumor Registry asbestos; it is most commonly found in occurred among this age group. No cn the following cancers: bladder, brain, people who have been exposed to one cancer type demonstrated a signifi breast, kidney, liver, lung, rectum, testis, asbestos at their jobs. Five more cases cant excess of cases. Because no single non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, mesothe of mesothelioma were found than type of cancer occured more frequently lioma, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma, would be expected, based on state among this group, there is no indica and all sites combined. Cancer rates in rates from 1958 to 1991. Although the tion of a common cause. 172 Update from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Keeping You Informed Progress Continues on Testing and Cleanup Who the Heck Is SCAC? which were reviewed by public health The Connecticut Department of ***** <+rmm,+- • officials, a design has been formulated MM *J"""** Environmental Protection (CTDEP), working withthe Environmental that would eliminate exposure to con Protection Agency, has concentrated on taminated fill. CTDEP met with the Housatonic Boat eliminating current exposure to contam Club representatives or -7SE22L! inated areas byimplementing "interim November 5th to discuss implementa remedial measures" — that is, prevent tion of the interim measures. The com ing exposure by providing temporary pleted work at Morgan Francis covers, fences, and other means. Property includes paving roadside areas Measures at the Wooster School and a gravel parking lot. A chair.-iink North Playing Field, which included fence has been installed to prevent peo capping and seeding the field, were ple from getting on the rest of the o'c: erty. CTDEP has been in close contact completed on August 30, before the star: of school Recently, the depart with Spada property owners to oc-.e • ment collected additional samples op and aid in the implementation c; interim measures. Thus far, plans have Stratford Citizen's from the Housatonic Boat Club to further delineate the extent of conta been formulated for three properties. Advisory Council News mination. Based on these results, Implementation is expected shortly. '/embers of the Stratford Citizen's Revisory Council (SCAC) have been very Remediation Activities: An Update from EPA 3'jsy attending nearly every neighbor •nood forum held in the past two Sampling and Results possible. Together, EPA and the U.S. Pis' months; distributing leaflets in neighbor With the extensive sampling going on and Wildlife Service are also checking hoods where meetings were to be held; in Stratford, it is often difficult to know contamination of fish in six heavily f,she attending the Stratford Medical Advisory why and where EPA is sampling. In ponds in the area. Committee meeting; participating in an June, EPA began testing the top 3 inches Superfund Steps In interagency briefing session with of soil from all properties that abut EPA's sampling and cleanup efforts in Cc.ngresswcman Rosa Detauro; and areas with nigh levels of contamination Stratford are funded by the federal compiling a history book that includes from Raymark waste. A second round Superfund program. Superfund is a copies of articles, legal actions, and a cf testing is now underway to look for dynamic law that mandates cleanup c; chronology of events pertaining to waste below 3 inches. With the help cf hazardous waste sites. Waste is already Raymark'and its toxic waste violations. Stratford officials and citizens, we peri being removed from residential yards One of our concerns is that ignoring a odically find new areas that need to be where surface levels of contamination oroblem is no solution. An open letter sampled. Before sampling on any private are high. In the future, contaminates was sent from SCAC to the Stratford property, EPA asks the permission of commercial properties and residential Star, the Bard, the New Haven Register, owners and/or tenants. We are making properties where contamination is ana the Connecticut Post, appealing to every effort to give these individuals the buried, but not at the surface, will oe the medical community to take a more results of their sampling as quickly as cleaned up. active role in educating their patients 'about toxins and possible health effects. The SCAC newsletter, published September 20th, may be found at several places including the library, the post office, the health department, and the YMCA, as well as many local stores. If ycu are not already familiar with who we are, the newsletter will help you get acquainted. The Stratford Citizen's Advisory-Council continues to meet every other Wednesday evening at 6 P.M. at the Stratford Library. If you would like to become involved in helping cur community get through this prob lem through positive action, we'd love to have you attend. 173 Asbestos and You can be exposed to asbestos from drinking fibers present in water. Your Health Fibers can enter water from natural Information deposits or piles of asbestos waste or Sources of asbestos from cement pipes used to carry water. Raymark S The public water system in Stratford is Asbestos is a group of naturally occur checked for contaminants, including rThisis the first of two article ring minerals made up of long, thin asbestos, and is safe to drink. address concerns raised by r fibers. The most common type is ^•regarding,the fate of Rayma cnrysotile. Because of its resistance to Asbestos andHealth rwasteVUnder EPA's supervis reat and chemicals, asbestos has many ' Raymark will continue with a uses. About two-thirds of all asbestos Asbestos is a known carcinogen. - ough-investigation and its M produced has been used in the con Most information about the health •Street facility, EPA-supervise struction industry—cement production, erfects of asbestos comes from study cleanup has included the foi 'Opting, plastics, insulation, and floor ing workers exposed to high levels, •"actions: '• ilng As Stratford citizens ' 174 LIST OF AGENCIES What Role Does the CTDOT Play fStratford Health Depti - 385-4090 ,Stratford Conservation Dept.. 385-4006 in Construction Projects? Connecticut DEP . 566-5486 .Connecticut DPHAS ;. . 240-9024 The Connecticut Department of for review. While maintaining the .U;S.EPA:':' •' •' 380-3810 Transportation (CTDOT) is presently public safety is important in all ATSDR 380-3821 involved in thirteen projects in vari CTDOT projects, because of ongo ous locations in the Town of ing environmental investigations in Stratford. The CTDOT's Office of the Town of Stratford, CTDOT is Environmental Compliance screens taking extra precautions in its all project sites for contamination screening procedures to before construction. If contamina ensure the health and /""/$ tion is found, the problem is referred safety of workers as /. to either the U S. Environmental well as the pub'ic —4 & Protection Agency (EPA) or the Connecticut Deoartment c: Environmental Protection (CTDEP) Stratford Health Department Bulk Rate 2730 Main Street U. S. Postage Stratford, CT 06497 PAID Bridgeport, CT Permit» 1104 If ycu want to continue to receive subsequent issues of the Stratford iSiEs* IT«ATFORO - • Environmental Update after the December issue, please complete fem*-Environments nnrwTr this coupon and mail to: lipsSS.'-55s£SS? S&'C Stratford Health Department 2730 Main Street, Jlljt Stratford, CT 06497 Q Yes! I want to continue receiving Stratford Environmental Update. ??•!* Name (please print dearly) Street City, State. Zip 175 February 1 STRATFORD Vol.1 h ENVIRONMENTAL UPDA A Message To The Community gation and the publicity surroui Nearly a year has passed since the from the sheer volume of data • the toxic phenomenon have pl< Town was confronted by the resur amassed in a matter of months, the considerable stress on all town gence of the Raymark contamination process of distributing accurate and We hope that ongoing efforts problem. Looking back over the understandable information in a timely communication flowing throuc events of this period, we have dearly fashion was further complicated by tives.such as neighborhood for made sirides in addressing both issues such as the privacy rights of and this newsletter offer some health and environmental concerns. individuals. No doubt, many of the sure of assurance that we are i Yet, we have far to go toward resolv affected residents were frustrated by progress and addressing many ing the toxic waste issue and recog the delays and the complexity of the concerns raised by citizens. nize that the final solution will take process. Similarly, we realize that the ongoing community input and com scope and intensity of the EPA investi (continued mitment to the process. As many readers will recall, the dis covery of dioxin on the grounds of the Raymark facility in the spring of 1993 and the subsequent health advisory issued by ATSDR triggered a massive investigation to assess the extent of the contamination on and around various Raymark disposal sites. Nearly 500 sites were sampled, including hundreds of private residen tial properties; This widespread test ing effort yielded an avalanche of data from EPA and DEP. All of this data had.to-be analyzed and inter-' preted by health and environmental;: specialists. Test results also had;tb.' -; be disseminated to individual proper- ty owners and others most immedi-' ately affected by the Raymark conta mination problem, as well as con- ' veyed to the general public. Aside 1 7£ iruary 1! Message to the Community clinics held in the summer showed Study (RI/FS) is underway to determine a long-term solution for the cleanup o; (continued from page 1) that of those tested, only a small num ber were elevated. Unfortunately, this the Raymark facility. One of the As interim remediation of the major does not mean that Stratford can ease options is to spread all the residential sites -including Wooster School, up its childhood lead prevention and soil over the entire Raymark property, Short Beach, and the Housatonic Boat control efforts because the majority of treat It, and cap it. EPA will present Club — was being carried out by DEP,; those who participated in the special the options for public comment in the EPA turned its attention to residential screenings offered in response to the spring. properties in proximity to known Raymark waste crisis were not in the As this newsletter goes to press, the Raymark waste sites. The outcome of most vulnerable age group; only about Town is grappling with the prospect c; this investigation has been known for' 27% of those screened were under some time. Numerous properties having an official Superfund site withir the age of 6.' were found to contain Raymark fill its borders. EPA announced January and clean-up actions are underway or. 18,-1994, that the Raymark Industries, Inc. site has been near completion in some cases." * ' proposed for inclu Because EPA decided to excavate the sion on the Superfund National waste from residential properties, stor Priorities List (NPL), The listing makns age became another critical issue. available additional federal money for What doyou do with tons of contam investigation and cleanup at the for inated soil? The immediate solution mer Raymark Industries facility anc was to store the soil at the Raymark related sites. However, being on the facility; during the summer and fall NPL also raises economic and other months, residential waste was trans issues of major concern to our commu ported there, bagged and housed in nity. Other communities are struggling specially prepared buildings. with similar issues: there are 93 pro However, the feasibility of placing all posed and final NPL sites in the New the waste at the facility remains in England region and 1,289 NPL sites question, and EPA is pursuing alterna nationwide. tives to this method. Residents have no doubt observed the Please be assured that while EPA wiii diminishing presence of the heavy be increasing its role in the clean-up c: In addition to reducing the risk of equipment and "moon-suited" figures the Raymark waste sites, the Town wis5 public exposure to the toxic sub as the winter season advances. continue to remain an active partici stances contained in Raymark waste, Although the freezing temperatures pant in the process.. Residents are DPHAS has released results of prelimi have temporarily thwarted removal encouraged to"get involved and to cal; nary studies of possible health conse activity, clean-up efforts will begin the Town Health Department with quences which have been largely reas again in the spring. Removal actions questions or concerns. Andrea suring. In review, the health data col are currently planned for numerous Boissevain, Stratford/Raymark project lected and analyzed thus far has not homes. Remediation of Lot K on Elm coordinator, will remain on staff to indicated any catastrophic health Street and the residential lot on help with communication problems effects directly attributable to Patterson has been competed; land and provide assistance with inquiries Raymark's disposal of waste off-site. "'•> scaping efforts wiil commence,in the about issues relating to the Raymark DPHAS examined the cancer cases.in spring. Cleanup at the^jfljand 5tH Industries,- Inc. site. Stratford, compared them to "state 0 ' 'Avenue residential sites is aiso well1 rates, and found that most cancers Lastly, we wish'to acknowledge the underway. • were not elevated. Stratford rates for community for its'cooperation and bladder cancer and mesothelioma During the winter lull, EPA,will contin patience in this trying time. The were higher than state rates as was ue its Engineering Evaluation/Cost Stratford Citizens Advisory Council the combined cancer rate for the Analysis or "EE/CA" to explore alter (SCAC), the Stratford Medical Advisor;. town fi;om 1958 tol991. DPHAS will native remedial methods for the resi Group, and other volunteers who continue to examine Town cancer • dential waste that has been trucked to helped with efforts like the lead rates to explain this differenced the Raymark site. In addition, the screenings this past summer deserve Results from the blood lead screening Remedial Investigation/Feasibility special thanks." Mark S. Barnhart Elaine O'Keefe Rudolf J. Weiss' Town Manager Director of Health andWelfare Council Chairman 177 Update from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Progress Continues On Clean-up DEP has concentrated on eliminating winter. DEP expects to be prepared to current exposure to contaminated implement and complete a final reme areas by implementing "interim reme dy when school is closed for summer dial measures" - that is, preventing vacation, June to August, 1994. exposure by providing temporary cov Interim remedial measures for the ers, fences, and other means. Housatonic Boat Club were complet Interim measures were completed at ed on November 24, 1993. A geotex the Wooster School North Playing tile fabric and gravel fill were used to cover the waste. Interim remedial Field on August 30, 1993. A geotex measures were also completed at tile fabric and gravel fill were used to Connecticut DEP continues to work Short Beach Park, Morgan Francis cover the waste. Additional depth with Spada property owners to pro property, and the 4th and 5th vide guidance In the implementation sampling will be conducted over the Avenue sites during the summer and of interim measures. Implementation next few months, and the results will early fall. be evaluated over the course of the is expected shortly. Update from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tions and will begin again in the includes further tests on the waste spring. The patience of residents in. ; and considers: all of these neighborhoods is greatly on-site disposal; appreciated by EPA staff vyorking* in Stratford. : " • ' off-site disposal at a location within Finding the Town of Stratford and/or at a Raymark Site commercial facility; Contamination Raymark waste from cleanups of pri . • on-site treatment to stabilize/ .. vate yards around homes has been solidify and/or use thermal des'orp loaded into lined dump trucks and tion; and taken to the Raymark facility. There, 8,000 large 1V2 -yard bags have been ..• any combination of these options. filled and temporarily stored indoors., . Costs will be analyzed for each of To reduce costs and increase the - these disposal methods. When these speed and efficiency of cleanups and evaluations are completed in late storage, EPA is switching to bulk stor summer, EPA will hold a series of SAMPLING age of the waste instead of bagging. meetings and hearings and give the Of the nearly 500 properties in Bulk storage will safely contain the Stratford community an opportunity Stratford being sampled by EPA, 50 waste, protect the public and workers to comment on their proposal. remain to be tested at the surface. on-site, and control the release of 250 properties still require testing at contaminated dust. depth. Technical Assistance ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST -RESULTS ;1 Grants (TAGs) ANALYSIS (EE/CA) FOR WASTE Half of the 500 property owners STORED AT RAYMARK In a town with a Superfundsite, the have received their surface testing EPA has begun an engineering evalua • Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) results. Most have not received the tion of permanent disposal options Program can provide funding of up to results of depth testing. for waste now being stored at the $50,000 for a community group to CLEAN-UP UPDATE Raymark facility. This evaluation .'hire a technical advisor or environ- EPA has removed Raymark waste Kmental consultant.' A consultant can •and finished landscaping recently ///assist the community by independent around a home on Patterson lyly helping them interpret and com- Avenue. Clean-up around a home on Jrvjneht on EPA's findings and proposed Elm Street was recently completed. /^clean-up actions. EPA can provide Waste is also being dug out '//' help with the TAG application. For from around some homes on Third • more information on the TAG' and Fourth Avenue. Clean-up in this -program, contact: Mike McGagh, neighborhood has stopped this - TAG Program Coordinator at month due to harsh weather condi ' (617) 223-5534. 17ft Stratford Citizens' Advisory Council StratfordStar. Thank you, Strafford help us to maintain our focus,.use our Star for doing a wonderful job of help :time more efficiently and accomplish ing to'keep us informed. And thank\ V our'short-term and long-term goals in you, concerned citizens for your contin •' a way that will benefit the entire com ued questions and comments.. • munity. • " A number of concerned citizens have As of January 1994, we have restruc-. The holidays saw a lull in our bi-weekly ."expressed an interest in getting tured Stratford Citizens' Advisory,.-.-. meetings, but not in our activities. One • - involved and becoming a part of the Council (SCAC). We have now broken, of our ongoing projects is a Question- •'^pollution solution. Unfortunately, down into committees and subcom-" and-Answer Forum that has been pub -t'time'constraints/and busy schedules mittees that are goal- and task-orient- . lished in the StratfordStar. We are •v prevent them'from being able to com- ed. The three main committees are:-" committed to finding honest, realistic mit to attendihgfour bimonthly meet answers to your questions and con • Planning and Steering Committee ings. This is yet another reason for cerns and keeping you up-to-date on that will include a host of other restructuring the council — to help Stratford's toxic waste problem that we subcommittees — The Financial these people and others get Involved. all are facing. We pose your questions Oversight Subcommittee, to name The committees and subcommittees and concerns to different governmental one; will be meeting on a more informal agencies involved -Environmental basis, at times that are convenient to • Communications Committee that Protection Agency (EPA), Agency for members of those committees. The includes our newsletter, Public Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ..1bimonthly meetings will serve to Relation's and Media Liaisori, Agency (ATSDR), Connecticut Department of •-update the Council of the activities Liaison, Liaison with the Town, Environmental Protection (DEP), and progress of the different commit research, and other communica Connecticut Department of Public tees.' For those who would like to Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS), tions functions; and become a part of the solution, please to name a few. These questions, • TAG Grant Evaluation Committee. contact us at 385-4090. together with the agencies' answers WE NEED YOU! are featured, in installments, in the We believe that this restructuring will Update from the Connecticut Department ofPublic Health andAddiction Geographic Information the screening program in comparison- to the total number of children in that, ''' Systems Used To Help area. This will allow us to determine —------,, Evaluate Blood Lead if and where additional blood lead- ..-;-;. screeningefforts should Screening Program The Stafe of'tonnecticut Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mends'that all children . . will be used to further evaluate the. of six'be-'screened for blood le'ad;^j|^'. effectiveness of the blood lead During the months of May through'; screening program offered by the August 1993, the Stratford Health Stratford Health Department. GIS is a-. ' Department offered free screenings . computerized mapping system that for blood lead due to the very high will allow us to determine where par-., levels- of lead found in soil at areas;,;:; ticipants of the screening program . - live in proximity to waste sites, easily accessed by the pubiic.;.The"': -f f •' Because the screening program was prograni was voluntary and apprbxi-;- • voluntary, it is important to know mately 1,500 Stratford residents p"ar:' where participants resided in relation ticipated. Evaluation of the blood to the known lead contamination lead results and questionnaires indi areas. In addition, we will focus on cated that residents who reported vis "populations at greater risk of lead iting sites with very high levels of lead poisoning, particularly children under in surface soil did not have blood lead the age of six. We will be able to levels'-that were higher than people evaluate how many children within a who.;'reported never visiting any.of geographic area have participated in; the contaminated sites. 179 ;February.1994?m Third in a Series on Specific Contaminants FoundIn Stratford PCBs and Your Health may be reasonably anticipated to Source of PCBs cause cancer. Most human studies involve people with occupational PCBs are a family of man-made chem exposures. These studies show PCBs icals that contain 209 individual com can cause irritations such as acnelike pounds, each with a different level of lesions and rashes, and that PCBs toxicity. PCBs were widely used as might cause liver cancer. Because coolants and lubricants in transform PCBs accumulate in fish that may be . ers, capacitors, and other electrical eaten, exposure to contaminated fish equipment because of their insulating is the most significant route of human and non-flammable properties. The exposure. manufacture and use of PCBs was banned in 1977. AmIat Risk Because of Raymark Waste? What Do We Know About the Health Effects of PCBs? Exposures to PCBs at identified waste sites have been stopped as a result of Even though PCBs have been banned, restricting access or clean-up activi the general population continues to Sampling of oysters and blue mussels ties. In the past, the most likely expo be exposed because of their presence have not indicated the presence of sures to PCBs occurred in individuals in the environment. Animal experi PCBs at levels of health concern. who came in contact with contami ments have shown that some PCB There are fish advisories for some nated soil. PCB exposure may also mixtures produce harmful health species of fish in Long Island Sound have occurred if contaminatedsoil effects that include liver damage, skin and certain inland waterways in became airborne or came in contact irritations, reproductive and develop Connecticut, due to the presence of with skin. Children may have ingest mental effects, and cancer. Less is PCBs unrelated to Raymark waste. ed soil containing PCBs. known about the health effects from Contact the Connecticut Department PCBs in humans. The U.S. As noted above, people can be of Public Health and Addiction Department of Health and Human exposed to PCBs by eating contami Services (DPHAS) at 565-8167 for Services has determined that PCBs nated fish, including shellfish. more information. Update from the StratfordMedical Advisory Group Medical Advisory Group Continues Educating Area Health Providers The Stratford Medical Advisory Group On November 2, 1993, the Medical . •• -ticipating in educational seminars. continues its efforts in educational out-. .• Advisory Group sponsored anin-service 7 r- Nine doctors responded, eight of reach to medical care providers within ' training.for Stratford public school and whom said they would be very interest Stratford. The Group includes local Visiting Nurses Association nurses. - The • ed in attending informational sessions. doctors from the Bridgeport/Stratford workshop provided an overview of Additionally, the Stratford Health area and staff from the University of environmental and occupational medi Department in conjunction with Connecticut and Vale University who cine concepts, and a summary of - the Stratford Medical Advisory Group are nationally recognized experts in health studies relating to Stratford con conducted two separate clinics for occupational and environmental health tamination. Speakers who participated Public Works employees because of and toxicology. in the half-day seminar included the fol .. the concern about potential exposure lowing: Elaine O'Keefe, Town of •to lead, asbestos, and PC8s during the / normal course of.their work. Dr. Stratford Director of Health and Michael Hodgson, occupational physi Welfare; Dr. Mark Russi, Yale " cian with the University of Connecti Occupational and Environmental cut's Occupational and Environmental Medicine Program; Louise House, Medicine Section, performed directed senior regional representative with physical exams, chest X-rays, spirome ATSDR; and Kenny Foscue, Connecticut try, and blood tests for the presence Department of Public Health and of lead and PCBs, and took a detailed Addiction Services. medical and occupational history. In addition, a specialized questionnaire The Medical Advisory Group has also was administered to gather more received responses to their mailing sent exposure information. This clinic, Approx last fall to area physicians. which was free to workers, was fund imately 295 survey questionnaires were ed by the Town. mailed, requesting feedback about par 180 June 19: Vol. 1 No. STRATFORD ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE one of the 15 identified wells have been contacted DEP's deanup Progress the Stratford Health Department. It is important T private well owners to test their water quality eve The Connecticut Department of Environmental five years. . Protection (DEP) conducted extensive sampling at the Wooster Middle School during the winter school vacations. The sampling Identified a 2-acre area of contamination at the center of the north playing field. EPA Telephone Link DEP's contractor, Metcalf and Eddy, has completed a Established study that identified the following potential cleanup alternatives: 1) a permanent cap; 2) excavation and ' • £>% As.a.fesujt of concerns expressed during off-site commercial disposal; 3) excavationanddisposal at Raymark; 4) in place stabilization;.5)a.combination: , th^v'iniei^views v for " the - Community Rei^onsjplan .lsee Community Relations of #3 and #4; and 6) excavation of waste above the Plan Developed, on page 4), EPA has set water table and disposal at Raymark. up a telephone line to enable Stratford Alternatives 1, 3, and 6 are the most technically residents1 to call EPA's Boston office achievable options that are fully protective of public without .incurring long-distance charges. health. DEP prefers alternatives 3 or 6 because When a question or concern arises about department policy favors permanent solutions, such as Raymarfrrelated cleanup activities, removing waste, rather than leaving the waste inplace. • Stratford .residents can call 380-6034 to However, after Stratford officials expressed concern leave a detailed message about the issue. that transporting contaminated soil from Wooster to An ; appropriate .EPA staff person will the Raymark facility might leave the Town potentially respond ;to the call. The line is checked liable, DEP agreed to consider postponing final action at the school until this issue is resolved. If action is daily for messages. postponed, DEP will collect additional samples and study the potential environmental impacts of alternatives 1 through 6. These options are being discussed with Town officials and will, also be Birth and Cancer Mapping discussed with the Stratford Citizens Advisory Council, Wooster School parents, and neighboring families inthe byDPHAS near future. Additionally, DEP has recently completed a survey The Connecticut Department of Public Health z that identifies residential water supplies near known Addiction Services IDPHAS) has received $80,7 Raymark disposal sites. The survey was recommended from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Dise: by the May 1993 Public Health Advisory. Street Registry (ATSDR) for the first year of a 2-year sti addresses were compared to water company records that will apply, computerized mapping techniques and Stratford Health Department files to,'determine if 'J, study birth weight and some types of cancer amc residents received water.from a well'located on their V- residents of Stratford.,Birth records and cancer reco; property. In some cases, residents were called or :'from the Connecticut Tumor Registry wilt.be mapp- visited to determine the source of their drinking water. DPHAS ..will try:to determine if .people" living n< Although most residents in the northern: section of Raymark wastesites in Stratford have an increased r town receive water from their own wells, 15 wells ^.... of having a child with a below average birth weight, were identified within one mile of any waste disposal X .are more likely to develop bladder or testicular cant area or the Raymark facility. On the basis of the . mesothelioma^or-any.type of cancer in people un location of these wells and recent\testing of ;>I25. .A •• iv: • groundwater obtained from the waste';sites, if ' is. ^.^r^This studyibuilds on two studies conducted unlikely that the wells are being affected by Known. ^summer that reviewed cancer rates and lead levels Raymark disposalsites. Residents receiving water from * Primed on Recycled Paper 181 blood among Stratford residents. Computerized Recreation Department plans to create a new Short mapping was first used to study participation in the Beach soccer field in an area south of its original blood lead screening program. The overall rate for all location. types of cancer in Stratford was not elevated. The open field along Dome Drive has been made However, bladder cancer, mesothelioma, and cancer available for limited teaching use by the golf pro. rates among younger persons were slightly higher than Although DEP and the Health Director have agreed to average State of Connecticut cancer rates. Although allow restrictedaccess because the area is covered and this study will not determinei.what:caused the cancer, ••'.there is no.immediate health concern, the field.is not it willlook at whether these people tended to live close .yet ready for full use; Any unrestricted: use could to waste sites. An evaluation of mapping findings is unnecessarily erode the grass cover.. * - Many residents have voiced concern about the expected in June 1996. barriers to Shore Road. For the time being, the Health Department believes that Shore Road should remain Health Effects Study closed forpublic healthreasons. Restricted access is an Under Way important part of DEP's short-term strategy to prevent people from disturbing areas where surface Earlier this year, ATSDR gave the University of contamination is present.. Once the final cleanup Connecticut (UCONN) and DPHAS a grant to study the solution Is In place, the read ean be re-opened. health of Stratford residents living where EPA has To solicit their opinions, the Health Department found Raymark waste. surveyed homeowners who are directly affected by the The study has two goals. The first is to determine presence of Raymark waste. Most survey participants if there is any evidence of disease relating to Raymark agreed on two points: 1) they did not want the waste waste exposure. Participants will be asked to fill out a capped if it meant that their properties would be listed questionnaire, and undergo a brief health examination on the National Priorities (Superfund) List (NPL), and 2) and laboratory tests conducted by UCONN physicians. they expressed interest in meeting other residents to The examinations will identify disease and health discuss issues pertaining to EPA activities. Town effects. The second goal is to collect information to efforts will continue to keep communication open for help identify relationships between hazardous waste those "directly affected by the waste as well as for the exposure and the health effects of exposure. The study rest of Stratford's citizens. is very importantbecause this relationship has not been Anyone with questions or information needs should well documented at hazardous waste sites before. call Andrea Boissevain at the Health Department, 385 The study is under way. The questionnaire was 4090. developed and tested, and several residents have completed the examinations..Residents are encouraged to participate. The results are expected in one year. . SuperWho?. "v.v:w. :"v. Slratford.CScerujAdvtaxy Cound For more information, contact Dr. Michael Hodgson at . PRP? NPL? ReRAVcERCLA7.EE/CA?.'.'.Confusing? UCONN at 679-2366... • • ..You bet. But EPAuse£:isuch..abb^ routinely in A Message From The Town discussing its actions;, and responsibilities in Stratford and around the nation. One of the tasks'of the Stratford Citizens Advisory • The Town continues to be actively involved in Council i(SCAC) is'::to help you wade through this addressing the toxic waste problem' in Stratford. The alphabet soup. SCAC'is a groupof Concerned residents Town Manager and members of the Town Council have who are ' investigating-.-what the ^multimillion-dollar met regularly with high-level EPA and DEP officials to Superfund cleanup,;will mean to.theijowh of Stratford discuss remediation options and progress on cleaning and its citizens. For .nearly a year;:. SCAC.has been up affected residential, commercial, and municipal playing an active role in finding solutions to theVTown's properties. Communication with residents remains a hazardous waste problem and trying to communicate priority. The Health Department will retain Andrea those solutions to the public. * •./ Boissevain as the Stratford/Raymark Project Superfund has two modes' of operation: the Coordinator, assisted by Kathy Hart-Jones (Project removal mode, which acts immediately, to protect Assistant). They will continue to provide information to people . and the environment from: Imminent; health the public and maintain open communication among all threats; and the remedialmode, which takes over after the agencies involved in the project. :: emergency measures,are complete -and.applies long in May, Ms. Boissevain accompanied . Health term solutions to problems, in the past,: thexremoval Director Elaine O'Keefe to ATSDR Headquarters in mode was not meant to last longer than 12 months or Atlanta, Georgia, to discuss a variety of .issues cost more than $2 million; the remedial mode would surrounding the Raymark waste problem. begin only after sites were placed, ori the NPli, which The area of Short Beach covered last summer by identifies and ranks hazardous waste;^ites:nationally. DEP remains closed to the public. The Parks and 182 But now Stratford has become the focus of an Residential Cleanups effort to streamline Superfund operations by combining removal and remedial modes. Consequently, EPA has Continue been moving forward more quickly here than at any EPA has completed the cleanup of five properties: other site in Superfund history. To receive the funding one each on Elm Street and Patterson Avenue, and needed for this novel approach, however, EPA must three on Third Avenue. Work continues on Third and still evaluate Stratford for NPL placement. That Fourth Avenues. Trucks hauling excavated waste use evaluation will include an assessment of potential main roads whenever possible en route to the Raymark financial liability. facility. When the trucks are loaded with waste, they The evaluation is now under way, starting with are required by law to display hazardous waste data collection from all contaminated properties. placards. Trucks travelling to and fromThird and Fourth Removal work has already begun on residential Avenues without these placards are empty or are properties and will continue. EPAhas a long-established carrying clean soil (to backfill excavations) so placards national policy of exempting the average homeowner are not required. EPA is working to ensure that from financial liability for cleanup work, so live-in hazardous waste is not escaping during transport. owners of most residential property need not worry Tires of these hauling trucks do not come in contact about personal liability unless they directly contributed to the contamination. with hazardous wastei EPA has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers After data review, EPA will sponsor a series of to complete the residential cleanups. EPA has been meetings on Superfundactivities. Tentatively scheduled working with the Corps todefine how the cleanups will for the winter of 1994, the meetings will offer a forum be done. The Corps is expected to take over cleanups for discussing such issues as long-term cleanup later this summer and will continue to bring excavated actions, remediation standards,and financial impact on waste to the Raymark facility. the community. To protect the health of homeowners and prevent Among SCAC's current concerns are the following: the need to restrict future digging or home expansions, What are the long-term plans for remediation of the EPA and the Corps will remove as much contaminated hazardous waste and the Raymark site? Where is the soil as necessary. Some low-level contamination that is final resting place for the contaminated material? What not a threat to people's health may be left in place. is the cost to the Town going to be? What is the most There may be instances when underground utilities, efficient way of making sure no residences are left with closeness to a house foundation, or other restrictions deed restrictions when the process is complete? prevent EPA from removing as much waste as is If you have suggestions, we want to hear them. needed to avoid controls on the property. EPA has And if you would like to join us in monitoring the begun discussions with Stratford officials to determine Superfund process and getting .the word out, we what controls would work best for Stratford and its welcome you. SCAC meets every other Wednesday at residents. Affected residents will be informed of any the Stratford library on Main Street. For more information, call Janet Carlucci at 377-2903 or Angie change in EPA's cleanup schedule. deMello at 386-0164. Raymark Property Cleanup Continues Under EPA's oversight, Raymark has locked and Information Available boarded up buildings at the East Main Street facility at the Library and fenced the site perimeter to limit public access and vandalism. Using EPA-approved contractors, Raymark The Stratford Public Library is an official has taken the following steps: EPA information repository for the Raymark Industries, inc. Superfund Site. At the • covered three waste lagoons (the fourth and Reference Desk, one can find most of the final lagoon will be covered this summer); material that state and federal agencies have ': -• emptied or removed tanks and containers of issued about this hazardous waste problem. . hazardous substances; In addition, a copy of each Stratford . • removed thousands of bags of asbestos, and Environmental Update and the Stratford drums andtanks containinghazardous waste; Citizens Advisory Council (SCAC) • rerouted surface water drainage to bypass newsletters and meeting minutes are the waste lagoonsand minimize movement of available for your review. We encourage contamination . into Ferry . Creek and the Stratford residents to take advantage of this Housatonic River; and resource throughout the cleanup process; ?• ' pumped contaminated groundwater to the Town sanitary sewer system for treatment. StratfordEnvironmental Update • June 1$94 3 183 Long-term activities by Raymark under EPA's solicit public feedback. EPA will then adopt a final oversight include performing a comprehensive soil and cleanup plan for the facility in the spring of 1995. groundwater investigation to determine the extent and types of contamination on its property. Testing results Community Relations Plan Developed should be completed by the end of August 1994. In addition, Raymark is conducting a study to identify EPA has been working on a Community Relations potential cleanup methods for the site. This study will Plan for Stratford. The Plan is a public document that be completed by the end of this summer. explores the concerns of Stratford residents about the Last summer, more than 8,400 "Super Sacks" of contamination and ways EPA will respond to those Raymark waste were stored in buildings at the facility. concerns. EPA met personally withresidents toidentify Along with the sacks, more than 4,000 cubic yards of these concerns. To schedule interviews, 121 people contaminated soil is stored indoors. Three buildings on were telephoned; a total of 54 people chose to the facility are available for storing excavated waste participate in35 interviews that were conducted during from residential cleanups. Air quality is monitored March, April, and May. Those interviewed included 21 inside and outside the buildings to ensure that families who live near the Raymark facility or whose contamination is not becoming airborne. soil had been tested for the presence of Raymark In July, EPA expects to begin storing Raymark waste; two members of the Stratford Town Council; waste in the Raymark parking lot. Most of this will be one town employee; one real estate agent; five owners stored in a 600-foot-long pile. The work of constructing of businesses on whose property Raymark waste was the pile will take place inside a temporary portable found; and five members of the Stratford Citizens dome which will be moved along the pile as Advisory Council. construction proceeds. Exposed sections of the pile will The information gathered from these interviews will be covered with heavy plastic. The dome will be be discussed in the Plan, which is expected to be dismantled when waste no longerneeds to be added to released in July. The Stratford Public Library will add the pile. Three waste lagoons at the western end of the Plan to its collection of public documents about the the property (identified earlier in this article on page 3) Raymark waste and cleanup (see Information Available may also be used for storage. The contaminated soil at the Library, above), at the Reference Desk., would be sprayed with water if necessary to prevent the spread of dust. At the end of each day, the lagoons would be covered and the dome closed. Air monitoring will be conducted both upwind and downwind of the LIST OF AGENCIES work area to ensure that contamination is not spread . 385-4090. into the air. ;Stratford Health Dept." .£•'385-4006 EPA is evaluating treatment and disposal methods £ Stratford Conservation'Dept. '<• Connecticut DEP.Af'\^*v; -.-,^566-5486 for both the waste being stored temporarily at Raymark • Connecticut DPHAS t'v'V "240-9024 and waste under the pavement at the facility. EPA will "'U.S. EPA • .''• H?/ -' ' •- 380-38.10 combine these results with the results of Raymark's -U.S. EPA (Boston Link)r; ". • 380-6034 studies to devise a final cleanup plan for the property.. ATSDR, Region 1 (617).860-4619 EPA anticipates proposing a cleanup plan for the Raymark facility this winter. The plan will be mailed to Stratford residents on EPA's mailing list. Meetings', hearings, and a public comment period will be held to® .y;r; :VA.. The StratfordEnvironmental Updatenewsletter was created torespond to community concerns and questions about the toxic wasteproblem in Town. The newsletteris a joint effortinvolving citizens, medicalprofessionals, Town officials, and the variouspublic health andenvironmental agencies that have come together to work on a solution. Contributors include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Connecticut Department ofPublic Health andAddiction Services (DPHAS), the StratfordHealth Department, the StratfordCitizens AdvisoryCouncil(SCAC), andthe StratfordMedicalAdvisory Group. EPA provides funding for the newsletter. StratfordEnvironmental Update - June 1994 4 184 February 1995 Vol 1 no. 6 STRATFORD ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE The Stratford Environmental Update provides Residential ^ CPlA information on the efforts of the town of Cleanup Stratford, the citizens group SCAC, and Progress New England numerous federal and state agencies dealing The U.S. Array Corps of Engineers (the with contaminated waste from the Raymark Corps), working under EPA oversight, has Industries facility in Stratford This newsletter; completed removing contaminated material from prepared as a joint effort of all parties more than half of the residential properties involved, reviews activities completed since the where Raymark waste has been identified. The last newsletter was issued in June 1994. Corps continues to excavate and truck the contaminated waste from residential properties Summer 1995 Cleanup for back to the Raymark facility. The waste is now being stored in a covered pile in the Raymark Wooster School Field facility parking lot. The Connecticut Department of To date, approximately 26,450 cubic yards of Environmental Protection (DEP) is working out contaminated soil has been removed from the final details of a cleanup plan for the residential properties and transported to the Wooster Middle School's north playing field. A Raymark facility. Nine residential properties temporary cover of 18 inches of clean soil where excavation is complete have already been currently protects the public from possible restored, as much as possible, to their original exposure to the lead, asbestos, and condition. This spring the Corps will resume polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) detected on the landscaping the remaining properties where the field. DEP anticipates completing cleanup at the onset of winter has prevented continued work, Wooster Middle School playing field during the (cont. on page 2) 1995 summer recess. Contaminated soil from recent residential cleanups is being stored in the Raymark facility parking lot under the fabric ndome" and in the covered pile shown above. The covered pile shown is about 450 feet long and contains nearly 8,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil. 185 The EPA and the Corps have had good luck with the Commercial and Municipal weather so far this year, in contrast to last winter when Properties work had to be suspended in January. The Corps will In addition to the Raymark contamination on continue to remove contaminated material from the residential properties and at the Raymark facility, approximately 12 remaining residential properties, as Raymark-related contamination must also be addressed long as weather conditions are favorable. The areas at numerous commercial, municipal and wetland where contaminated material remains to be excavated properties in Stratford. The Connecticut DEP from residential properties are: Elm Street, Fourth anticipates that, this summer, the state will clean up Avenue Extension, Housatonic Avenue Extension, one of the municipal properties; the Wooster Jr. High Housatonic Avenue, and Stratford Avenue. School's north playing field. Residential CleanupsSlatedfor 1995 Completion By the end of 1995, the EPA expects to complete Cleanup Schedule Depends on the cleanup and landscaping of residential properties Access to Raymark Facility where Raymark waste-related threats have been In October 1994, Raymark Industries, Inc. and identified. In a few cases, the EPA and the Corps have Raytech Corporation denied the EPA access to been unable to remove all contaminated material from their facility for the purpose of storing properties where Raymark waste lies below the water contaminated soil from the residential cleanups. table or too close to utilities, foundations, or other The EPA resumed the residential cleanups using a structures. In cases where contaminated material has court order that allows the EPA to continue been left in place below the ground surface, the storing contaminated soil from the residential residual contamination has been covered to prevent cleanups at the Raymark facility until further exposure. The EPA expects to talk to affected property notice from the court. owners about any restrictions on property use where contaminated material is left in place. The EPA is working with town officials to create a system that The EPA, DEP, and the town of Stratford have ensures current and future property owners are yet to work out the schedule for cleanup of other informed of. and will comply with, any necessary municipal and commercial properties. The cleanup restrictions. schedules will vary with each property due to While the EPA expects to complete residential differences in property conditions and the extent of cleanups in 1995, it is possible that more Raymark contamination in each case. In addition, the EPA and waste may be found on residential properties in the DEP expect to meet with commercial property future. The EPA's top priority will continue to be owners to discuss whether individual property owners addressing any Raymark waste found on residential will conduct the required cleanups of their properties. properties when it presents an immediate health threat. A Little Background Info... j u i. .A Ravmark Industries, Inc. owns and operated a 33.4- acre manufacturing facility that once made brakes and friction products for the automobile and other industries. From 1919 until the late 1970s Ra>mark s waste, containing hazardous substances including asbestos, lead, and PCBs, was used as fill throughout Stratford - at the Ravmark facility as well as at residences, schools, and commercial properties. , ' Since the early 1980s, Raymark has been subject to a number of legal actions under federal environmental laws. In 1987, EPA issued an order directing Raymark to determine die extent of contamination at the facility. In 1991, after Ravmark violated the order and other environmental requirements, the Department of Justice filed a complaint in Federal District Court directing Raymark to clean up the facility. In 1992, the EPA ordered Raymark to reduce immediate threats to human health and the environment at the facility. Since 1992, Raymark has reduced threats from contamination at the facility, and has nearly completed its studv of contamination on the property'. EPA will use the results of Raymark's work to develop a facility cleanup plan. S TO 186 Progress of Residential Property Cleanups Through January 31, 1995 Approx. Approximate Number of Truckloads Removed Cubic symbol = 10 truckloads Area j or 150 cubic yards Yards Removed __ Elm Street 5940 B52VC5W CC S2S ^"'£5 £2£2 £2£2 iii3eS5 £2£2 j$S3(5C3 ®2?2S £2£2 £2£? C5C3E£2 {gJSu Third Avenue 8400 02:52 ^2£2 SS £2*52 £§ ^02: 02:52 §2£2 SS £2£5 S (£302; 02:52 "-SJSS £2£2 £2£2 025S j? *52*52 £2*S £2! 0203 0302: 02E22 B^B£2 PVW Fourth Avenue 3100 53*52 *55 £22 0202£22£2 0203 0202 Fifth Avenue 1560 02 g£ 03522 53522 0203 Longbrook 230 02 Avenue Main Street 100 Patterson Avenue 870 J022023 02202 Sidney Street 550 02 020T Willow Avenue 5650 iigg gg®Ilili iii 6C3IKX3 SC:J£W (C3JE2 Woodside 50 02 Terrace Total = Approximately 26,450 cubic yards removed to date. Stratford Environmental Update • February 1995 187 Raymark Facility Cleanup Schedule While the EPA's top priority is reducing imminent April 1995 health threats in residential neighborhoods, the investigation of the Raymark facility property has also EPA releases results of proceeded. This spring, the EPA expects to release • site study four important documents on the results of studies • risk analysis regarding the Raymark facility. All reports will be • analysis of cloanup available to the public at the reference desk of the options Stratford Public Library and through the EPA in EPA holds several public Boston, MA. meetings to dlsouss cleanup options • The Remedial Investigation (RI): This document details the type and extent of L contamination; incorporating all relevant data May 1995 collected by Raymark. ERA holds • The Risk Assessment: This document evaluates the level of risk and the conditions that would a hearing to aooept lead to risk from current and future exposure to public oomment on the contaminants at the facility. proposed cleanup plan • The Feasibility Study (FS): This document evaluates options for reducing the risks associated with current or future exposure to contaminants. • The Proposed Geanup Plan: This Plan uses June 1995 information from the above three reports to recommend a cleanup plan for the Raymark EPA considers facility. This document will be mailed to everyone on the EPA's mailing list for review public comments and and comment loots final cleanup plan Following the release of the documents listed above, the EPA will hold a series of public meetings in Stratford to summarize the findings of the studies, review the EPA's recommendation for cleanup, and Fall 1995 answer questions. Once people have had a chance to hear the presentations and consider the information, the EPA will hold a public hearing to accept formal Raymark facility cleanup comments from the public on the cleanup approach for the Raymark facility. The EPA will consider all expected to begin public comments as part of its criteria for selecting the most appropriate means of protecting public health and the environment from contamination at the Ras-mark facility. various officials; they also include a fairly complete EPA to Issue collection of relevant articles from the print media - all Community Relations Plan of which are available to the public on request. The EPA representatives have met personally with SCAC is also in contact with every agency involved in many Stratford residents to identify concerns about the cleanup effort and can direct communications from Raymark contamination and the ways EPA will the public to appropriate officials. respond to those concerns. Of 121 people contacted, During the past 20 months, questions and 54 people chose to participate in interviews to help the suggestions the SCAC has forwarded have found EPA design a plan to better inform and involve citizens receptive ears. Testing and sampling techniques, as as the cleanup progresses. Those interviewed included well as minimum safety standards, have been revised. residents who live near the Raymark facility or whose Consequently, the amount of contaminated soil being soil has been tested for Raymark waste, members of the removed throughout Stratford is less than it would have Town Council, area leaders, and business owners. been. The information gathered in these interviews has In addition, following a SCAC request to each of already influenced EPA work in Stratford. The formal the town's federal elected officials, the EPA was able Community Relations Plan will outline theresults of recently to guarantee in writing that the federal the interviews and EPA plans for future community government will protect individual homeowners from involvement and communication about the Stratford economic liability, including "third party" lawsuits. (In cleanup efforts. The report will be available this spring a third party law suit at a Superfund site, a party that through the Stratford Public Library reference desk as the EPA targets as liable for cleanup costs would sue part of the Library's collection of information about the other parties to attempt to get them to pay for cleanup cleanup. as well.) Group Provides Input sought on new proposal Most recently, the SCAC has turned its attention to a Information Pipeline Siretfofd C&tns fti.isGr/ Council plan presented by three companies commonly The Stratford Citizens Advisory Council associated with the former (SCAC) continues to field questions and share Raybestos-Manhattan facility information about Superfund activity in town. The on East Main Street, source SCAC is an all-volunteer, non-aligned group formed of contaminated fill in nearly two years ago in response to a federally declared Stratford that is targeted for Public Health Advisory. The group's purpose is to federal cleanup. At a serve as an independent information pipeline between presentation to which SCAC the public and all agencies involved in the Superfund and other parties involved in cleanup. the cleanup were invited, the The SCAC has been carrying out its mission with three companies - Raymark, the help of two major benefactors, both of whom lend Raytech, and Universal support freely although they do not necessarily endorse Friction Composites - outlined a plan to privatize the the group's views: the Stratford Health Department, remaining cleanup activities in town. The SCAC looks which continues to aid the SCAC's endeavors; and the forward to hearing public reaction to that plan, and Stratford Library Association, which provides room for welcomes any questions, comments and suggestions the SCAC to meet and maintains a file of information residents may have. Anyone who wishes to contact the compiled by group members. That file, which contains SCAC about the privatization plan or any other aspect SCAC minutes, communications, and a brief history of of Superfund activity locally, may call 377-2903, events surrounding Superfund in Stratford,is available 386-0164 or 377-7488. to the public at the library reference desk. The Stratford Citizens Advisory Council meets at 6 p.m. on the second and fourth Wednesday of each Two-way dialogue gets results month in the basement conference room at the Stratford In addition to the information available at the Public Library. The group continues to host a series of library, the SCAC maintains its own files. These files guest speakers. Newcomers and observers are preserve correspondence between the group and welcome. Stratford Environmental Update - February 1995 189 stop exposure, and what work remains to protect public Health Study health. If you have questions about the Public Health Projects Continue Advisory, please call the Connecticut DPHAS at The Connecticut Department of Public Health (203) 240-9022. and Addiction Sen-ices (DPHAS) is conducting a Geographic Information System (GIS) computer mapping project to assess whether there is a correlation Local Focus between residing near a Raymark waste site and having Improves Cleanup a below-average birth weight baby or developing The Stratford Health Department, including the certain forms of cancer. The study, funded by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Raymark Project Coordinator Andrea Boissevain, have Registry (ATSDR) is expected to conclude in June been actively involved in projects and discussions 1996. A second study, undertaken by the University of aimed at focusing attention on public health and safety- Connecticut, seeks to identify relationships between issues, ensuring that the Raymark waste problem is addressed adequately as the town plans for its future. exposure to hazardous waste and the health effect The Health Department serves as a local clearinghouse resulting from that exposure. A Public Health Assessment for Raymark for information on many of the issues relating to Industries, Inc. and related sites has been drafted and Raymark waste. will be available for public comment in the spring. A Neighborhood Forums Involve Residents in Cleanup Public Health Assessment evaluates environmental Plans sampling data, community concerns and available The Stratford Health Department continues to health outcome data, such as area cancer rates, birth sponsor Neighborhood Forums to brief affected defects, and blood lead levels. The evaluation is used to residents on the schedule for cleanup in their area. determine if exposures to substances at a site may- Whenever possible, the forums are scheduled a week cause harm to people. The document provides or so prior to the start of work in each area. To date, recommendations for future action, and also outlines these forums have provided residents with specifics what has been done in Stratford to identify' sites, about the effects work will have on their daily routines. evaluate health implications and stop exposure. The At the forums, residents can raise issues direcdy to those doing the work to reduce problems before Public Health Assessment is funded by ATSDR excavation starts. through a cooperative agreement. Over the past several months, the Health Department has held two sessions that allowed Update to the 1993 residents whose properties are contaminated with Raymark waste to address questions directly to Public Health Advisory TSDR =*v involved agencies. for Stratford Addressing utility company issues In May 1993 ATSDR issued a Public Health The Health Department has drafted procedures to Advisory to the town of Stratford warning of the be used by utility companies to help them identify areas potential for exposure to asbestos, PCBs, and lead. of concern when digging in Stratford. In the Such advisories are issued when hazardous substances continuing effort to avoid problems through planning, released into the environment pose an immediate and the Health Department facilitates discussions among significant danger to people's health. Advisories are the EPA, DEP, and representatives from the gas, water, sent directly from ATSDR's administrator to the EPA's electric, and telephone companies. administrator to alert the EPA to a public health threat that needs investigation or correction. Planningfor thefuture ATSDR is aware that concern has been expressed Aware that Stratford is not alone in facing because the advisory has not been "lifted." While the hazardous waste contamination problems, several town advisory cannot be formally "lifted" or revoked, officials traveled to Nashua, New Hampshire, which ATSDR will issue an update of the Public Health has an asbestos waste problem similar to Stratford's. Advisory this spring. The document will summarize Officials met with City counterparts to discuss the roles what has been done in Stratford to identify sites, and to of municipalities in monitoring remediated waste sites. S TO Where to Call? Information Numbers With so many public and private parties Listed below are the phone numbers of working together to address the Remark waste- representatives of the parties that contribute related contamination problems, it is hard to know to this newsletter and to the overall cleanup who is ultimately in charge of the cleanup. The EPA is the lead agency overseeing all aspects of the effort. cleanup of Ravmark-related sites in Stratford. The Stratford Health Department 385-4090 EPA's Rich Cavagnero, with 15 years of experience Stratford Conservation Dept. 385-4006 in the field of hazardous waste cleanup, is now Connecticut DEP 424-3705 coordinating the cleanup as the Raymark Team Connecticut DPHAS 240-9022 Leader. This past fall, Rich replaced Dave Mclntyre, ATSDR (617) 860-4619 who has moved on to other EPA projects in New SCAC 377-2903 England. 386-0164 Anyone with questions about cleanup 377-7488 activities currently being conducted by the EPA U.S. EPA (Boston Link) 380-6034 using the Corps,can call Rich at (617) 573-5720. To avoid toll charges, you can leave a message on the "Boston link" Stratford telephone message line at 380-6034. The EPA has received only 2J calls through this system to date. If the line continues to receive little use, the service will be discontinued. The Stratford Environmental Update newsletter was Information Available created to respond to community concerns and at the Library questions about the toxic waste problem m town. Tne The Stratford Public Library is an official EPA newsletter is ajoint effort involving citizens, medical information repository for the Raymark Industries, professionals, town officials, and the various public Inc., Superfund site. At the reference desk, one can health and environmental agencies that have come find most of the material that state and federal together tofind a solution. Contributors include the agencies have issued about this hazardous waste U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the problem. In addition, a copy of SCAC newsletters Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection and meeting minutes are available for your review. (DEP), the Agencyfor Toxic Substances and Disease We encourage Stratford residents to Registry (ATSDR), the Connecticut Department of take advantage of this resource Public Health andAddiction Services (DPHAS), the throughout the cleanup process. Stratford Health Department, the Stratford Citizens Documents are also available Advisory Council (SCAC), and the StratfordMedical through the EPA in Boston. Advisory Group. The EPA providesfundingfor the newsletter. Stratford Environmental Update - February 1995 7 191 November 1995 STRATFORD Vol. 1 No. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE Final Cap to Be Built on Playing Field Adieu, Andrea..* at Short Beach Park In September, we bade a sad farewell to ; The Connecticut Department of Environmental S:Andra;|Ifti^eyaing Protection (DEP), In conjunction with the Stratford Health and Recreation Departments, is developing a Final Cap design for the playing field at Short Beach local, state, and federal agencies have tackled Park. A Final Cap of up to 3 feet of sand, gravel, and topsoil will be placed over the existing cover. In 1993, a temporary cover consisting of geotextile fabric and 12 '' to a strong local voice, her skills as a quick to 18 inches of soil and gravel was constructed over the study and organizer^'and;h^ Raymark waste. Construction began in mid-October and haVe^?pi^t&l:;;the -,^'WIth •>:, should end in mid-November. empathyi-^6od:humof^ihd':t^ct^ndrea^has.:» taken us ito task -when we needed: to ;plan. or . There will be no exposed waste at the site so no special ^communicate^betters.Contributors to this -, safety precautions will be necessary. The field will be "hewslette^ seeded and DEP and the Recreation Department expect that the field will be ready for use in 1996. Fortunately^:And^^ Stratford1 area, where she will continue.^;.:; ;i work ion:environmental and publicjh^th; Wooster School Cleanup Completed ^:projects;;:xwith1 consulting/firm, ^ Health Risk Consultants,;Inc; We wish her The excavation of Raymark waste from Wooster Middle -the best in her.future endeavors! School was completed on August 1 by the DEP. Over a 5-week period, almost 1,600 truckloads of waste (about 30,000 cubic yards) were removed from the north 43 Residential Cleanups playing field and brought back to the Raymark facility. Testing stations around the perimeter of the excavation Completed September 1 New England found no contaminants in the air during this work. . Excavation on the last residential property subject to an Backfilling the excavation with clean soil began on EPA removal action was completed in August. After a August 5 and continued through the end of August. solid 2 years of work beginning in September of 1993, Landscaping and restoration of the ball fields to their backfilling and landscapingshould be completed this fall. previous condition was recently completed. The playing A total of 64,000 cubic yards of Raymark waste was field should be ready for use in 1996. delivered back to the Raymark facility where it has been stockpiled. This waste will be used to level the facility before the cap is built. Redeveloping the Raymark Property Since the final decision was made in July to cap the Raymark property, the EPA has met regularly with the parties who are directly involved in restoring the . 192 Raymark facility to use as a future commercial Foster Wheeler is working one 10-hour shift, from 7 am development. Issues being addressed include cap and to 5:30 pm. A second shift will be added in the next few building designdetails; stormwater collection; health and months. The EPA expects the demolition will be safety of workers, now and in the future; responsibilities completed by February 1996. of each party; and scheduling necessary to complete the project. EPA, the Corps, and Foster Wheeler meet Continuing the Cleanup.... regularly with the developer's engineering consultants to ensure that the cap is protectiveand also compatible with Concurrent with demolition, additional groundwater their future development plans. sampling is being conducted at the property. Beginning on September 1, EPA began removing highly The EPA is also negotiating with the developer, Leach concentrated pockets of liquid (solvent) contamination. Family Holdings, to prepare a prospective purchaser's As demolition progresses, Foster Wheeler will be agreement, a document signed by the EPA and the compacting the piles of residential and Wooster School purchaser of a Superfund site. The agreement will soil and some demolition debris to level the property. delineate the responsibilities and limits of liability for the This will provide a stable base on which to construct the new owner and any entity that may lease a portion of the cap. The EPA anticipates completing its on-site activities property from the new owner. by the end of June 1996, assuming weather and funding are not impediments. Of the approximately $60 million estimated to complete this project, the EPA currently has $15.9 million in hand and hopes that the balance will be available after congressional actionfor fiscal year 1996. Further Sampling Planned for Ferry Creek and Groundwater In addition to' the current building demolition, capping, and removal of solvents from groundwater, the EPA plans to address other environmental issues in Stratford. Ferry Creek is being sampled because it regularly Building Demolition: received contaminated runoff from Raymark's waste lagoons. A plan to clean up Ferry Creek and, Quick But Safe potentially, properties abutting the creek is expected to be presented for public comment in fall 1996. The The EPA held neighborhood forums on July 27 and second issue is die likely spread of contaminated September 13 to explain how the Raymark facility groundwater under Raymark to properties that lie buildings would be demolished and the property between the facility and the Housatonic River. Off-site prepared for a cap. Building demolition began near East groundwater testing will begin this fall and, if necessary, Main Street on September 26 in the first of several a clean-up plan is expected to be presented for public condemned buildings. Asbestos, tanks, piping, building comment in January 1998. supports, and machinery are removed from the more structurally-sound buildings before each is demolished. New EPA Team During demolition, the buildings are sprayed with water to suppress the spread of dust and contamination. Air Rich Cavagnero, EPA's Raymark Team Leader for the testing is done at the edge of the facility to ensure that past year, has moved on to other projects. MikeJasinski, abutting properties are protected. In addition, on-site an experienced EPA site manager, has taken the helm as workers nearest the demolition wear air testing the new Raymark Team Leader. .equipment. Bait boxes have been set to control rats that may be living on the property and a plan has been Mike Hill continues as Remedial Project Manager for the developed to control excessive noise that might reach the Raymark cleanup. Art Wing continues as the Residential local neighborhood. Prior to demolition, noise levels Cleanup Coordinator. In addition to this highly measured to establish existing conditions nearby at experienced team, EPA now has an on-site Building different times of day. Demolition Coordinator, Rick Leighton. 2 193 Printed on Recycled Paper Fact sheets on the sampling results for the five ponds are Public Health Assessment available. Call the Health Department at 385-4090 or the To Become Final DPH at (860) 240-9022 to obtain copies or ask questions. Under Superfund, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is charged IS IT OK TO with conducting a public health assessment at every site POND FISH TYPE EAT? on the Superfund list. The Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) has a cooperative agreement with Brewster Pond White Catfish No ATSDR to conduct the public health assessments for Bass Reduce number sites in Connecticut. The DPH completed a draft of this Bullhead eaten document and made it available for public comment in September and October. DPH is responding to public Selby Pond Eels No more than comments and is writing a final public health assessment, once a month which will be available this month. Frash Pond All Fish Yes The public health assessment provides an overview of Wooster Pond All Fish Yes Raymark contamination areas, activities that have occurred at each of the areas, and additional activities Beaver Dam All Fish Yes that need to occur to ensure that public health is Pond protected. Citizens of Stratford are encouraged to read this document to make sure their health concerns have been addressed. SCAC Continues Work _ Stratford Citizens Advisory Courci! If you have questions about this assessment, please The Stratford Citizen's Advisory Council (SCAC) has contact Jennifer Kertanis at (860) 240-9022. been working for 2 years to serve as a politically neutral source of information about Superfund efforts in the Town of Stratford. We on the Council have opened and Fish in Two Ponds maintained an independent pipeline that funnels Are Contaminated information among private citizens, town officials, and state and federal agencies. While performing this task, After reviewing EPA fish sampling information, the we have also worked to achieve a number of goals: DPH and the Health Department determined that most freshwater fish in Stratford are safe to eat. Fish from • succeeding, through our federal legislators, to Selby, Brewster, Frash, Wooster, and Beaver Dam indemnify the residents, in writing, against Ponds were tested. Only two of the ponds, Selby and potentially catastrophic costs from third-party Brewster, were found to have problems. Warning signs lawsuits. have been posted at the two ponds. • succeeding in effecting beneficial changes in Eels from Selby Pond were contaminated with inspection and sampling methods, testing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). It is not known if this procedures, and waste removal protocol. contamination is related to runoff from Raymark waste. People should not eat more than one meal a month of • acting as a "watchdog" over various governmental eels from this pond. White catfish from Brewster Pond agencies involved by asking detailed questions and were contaminated with chlordane, which is a banned demanding answers regarding the Raymark pesticide unrelated to Raymark waste. People should not cleanup. eat this fish. It is also recommended that residents stop or reduce their consumption of bass and bullhead from • compiling a history of events surrounding the Brewster Pond as well. Raymark waste, which is used by the Health Department and the town, and is available at the Health Department for review. Stratford Environmental Update - November 1995 194 3 LIST OF AGENCIES • moderating and assisting in neighborhood forums. : Stratford Health Dept. i; 385-4090 • running a recurring Question & Answer column in :Stratford Conservation Dept. . 385-4006 the Stratford Star, creating a SCAC Keeping you : Connecticut DEP: • ;/*" (860) 424-3767 Informed newsletter, and later becoming a regular ^Connecticut DPH1."'-V :v/V"V-::;(860).240:9022 contributor to this publication. U.S. EPA -.380-3810 380-6034 (Bbston Link) One final concern: the Raymark facility is currently the : ATSDR, Region 1 (617) 860-46i9 recipient of Raymark waste from residential properties and the Wooster Middle School. We are aware that the transportation of contaminated soil from Wooster back to the Raymark facility may expose the Town of Stratford to potentially huge legal expenses that could ultimately be borne by the taxpayers. The SCAC is working toward achieving the same protection for the town from the EPA that the EPA has granted to individual homeowners. The Stratford Environmental Update newsletter Health Department Continues >vas created to respond to community concerns and questions about the toxic waste problem in Town. to Inform Stratford Residents The newsletter is a joint effort involving citizens, medical professionals, Town officials, and the The EPA will eventually complete its work in Stratford various public health and environmental agencies and it is imperative that the town take some that have come together to work on a solution. responsibility for maintaining the effectiveness of the Contributors include the U.S. Environmental EPA's cleanups. As part of that longer term Protection Agency (EPA), the Connecticut responsibility, the Health Department will assume the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), role of monitoring the remediated sites where waste has the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease been left in place. In some cases, that role will be Registry (ATSDR), the Connecticut Department of shared with the DEP. A detailed plan for the long term Public Health (DPH), the Stratford Health is being developed and will be available to affected Department, the Stratford Citizens Advisory property owners in the near future. Council (SCAC), and the Stratford Medical Advisory Group. We have worked very hard over the past 2 years to provide residents of Stratford with information regarding The EPA has provided funding for the newsletters, the many issues and phases of this incredibly complex however, the seventh Stratford Environmental project. Andrea Boissevain, our Stratford/Raymark Update is the last of this series. As events Project Coordinator, who has been with us for much of develop, EPA will produce fact sheets on issues of that time, recently completed her time on the project. concern that will be mailed to those on EPA's She provided much needed organization and liaison to Stratford mailing list. You are already on the ensure that citizen needs were heard and their concerns mailing list if you received this Update in the mail and questions addressed. While her participation is and a mailing label with your name is on it. If missed, she worked toward a smooth transition where your copy does not have a mailing label attached Health Department staff now answer Raymark-related and you want to receive information from EPA, calls directly or refer callers to the appropriate person. please fill out the form on the last page and return Under the direction of Elaine O'Keefe, the Health it to the EPA. Department will continue as the local voice...it is still our backyard! 195 4 Printed on Recycled Paper APPENDIX J PUBLIC HEALTH CODE/PRIVATE WELLS i 196 SO THE PUBLIC HEALTH CODE S«. 19-1.1-B51 l. Feb. 2y 1988 . Chap.2 Sec. 19-13-B5U Testing JM °f A-n.°"Pubiic watersupp!y we'l. the owner shall have the klS J ^'0n an 111 chlonne has t>een dissipated, for bac teriological physicaJ and sanitary chemical examination. Approval of thelocal Kii waS used6^ ^ ^ E°b^K Of hi,f.^bliC, Wa^r- Supp,y ^e"s shaJ1 ^ MmP'ed fay the state department rhomf^i °r ^director of health for bacteriological, physical and sanitary nht™^4 ,®*aminatl°n- Approval of the commissioner of health shall be ™ed.-bef0,re the We" waUr is made available for use (Effective January 12, 1971) Sec. 19-13-B51m. Well permits e 10 subsections (b) and (c) below no water supply well permit tor iftlLYh"thi't nnKr8 been demonstr®.t«d to the satts/actfon of the^irec tor of health that public sewers are available or a subsurface sewage dis 19-?3-KmtoT9 U RiMdled l" 'the 'ot. In To°o^m,rJUPPly,TelluPermit Sha11 ** P'ven fay the director of health (1) To premises used for human occupancy when a community water sun tat"twen'lvK"' '^t/^een connections orS3 pared of nrorL^ , 15 deemed available if the boundary of thf EtiMy m w the Premises is on or will be located on is within zir^y'n'r- "*"e • fr ,r ;;P™,h5 (2) To non-residential premises, where the water may be used for human t=rnUmP •°n' W * community water supply system having at least fif teen service connections^ regularly serving at least twenty-five individ uals is deemed available if the boundary of the parcel of property in which the premises is on or will be located on is within two hundred feet mea- SU/ \ mi°ng 3 sfre.et- aJley or easement, of the approved water supply. (c) The commissioner of health services, or his or herdesignee, may erant an exception tosubsection (b) above upon a finding that such exception will not adversely affect the purity and adequacy of the supply no the ervTc of the system¥ or*• it•* is•** determinedWVVWI HllilvU tllot,that: n Jhe c' wa^er system which serves the premises is unable to 10stv\ ule SU lPreTlses' ^ a r"'Pure* and ducvjudi.cadequate ausupply of water- or TZL IF CONSTMRFINN NPNMAN.. ...» L . ' )r*J construction problems warrant such action. (Effective February 2, 1988) ~SeC* I9:13-B52- Food or beverage vending machine operations. No person, firm or corporation shall operate or maintain within the uiin in«H- T'Ce-Vendi-n? machinR ofl"ered for public use which, uMtseiW^n?'^'nS°r loke.n°r by other m^ns, dispenses out replenishing (oodthe device or beverages, between either each vendingin bulk oroperation package, except with after compliance with the following requirements: P throJ?l b5yera?« and ingredients offered for sale vending machines shall be manufactured, processed and P eparedI in establishments which comply with all applicable local ^gesa3hah trt h:,W,S 8nd re^lati°n- All pncka„Adsor »n7ro.™. • d.ln compliance with the Uniform Food. Drue Cosmetic Act as to contents and source. A clearly identifiable plate or tag indicating the name and address o p t! °r;"rPOr^°Ve3p0n3ible for scrvlce shall be attached7n a coT picuous place to any vending machine in use. •c.s.aau. 197 APPENDIX K HEALTH CONSULTATION BLOOD LEAD SCREENING i f i I I I 198 i 1 HEALTH CONSULTATION BLOOD LEAD SCREENING RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC STRATFORD, CT ) Prepared by the Connecticut Department of Public Health under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 199 BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUE In May of 1993, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a Public Health Advisory for the town of Stratford, Connecticut (See Appendix A). Raymark Industries, Inc. operated a facility at 75 East Main Street in Stratford from 1919 to 1989. The facility produced brakes, clutch parts and other friction based products. During the manufacturing process the facility generated wastes including solvents, adhesives, lead, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins and furans. From 1919 to 1984 a system of on site lagoons was used to dispose of lead and asbestos wastes. As the on site lagoons filled up with sludge material, they were often dredged and the material was used as fill in areas throughout Stratford. ATSDR concluded in the Health Advisory that an imminent public health hazard existed in the town of Stratford due to past, present, and potential future exposure to Raymark waste containing asbestos, lead and PCBs. At the time of the Health Advisory, waste had been identified in surface soil at eight sites easily accessed by the public including a Jr. High School playing field and two other recreational sites. Since lead was a primary component of the waste, one of the findings of the Public Health Advisory was to conduct blood lead testing among Stratford residents. The Stratford Health Department instituted free voluntary blood lead testing in conjunction with the Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS). Because of continued widespread exposure of children to lead paint in homes, the DPHAS encourages blood lead testing for all children in Connecticut. In Stratford, the presence of lead containing waste presented a possible additional exposure to lead. The purpose of the blood lead screening program was to: 1) identify cases of lead poisoning so that further investigation could occur to identify probable sources of lead, 2) provide a tool to evaluate the association between known lead risk factors and lead poisoning and 3) to target prevention activities. Eleven clinics were offered between June and August of 1993. The clinics were advertised through local media including newspapers, radio and television. In addition, flyers were distributed throughout the town and a newsletter, sent to every household in Stratford, printed clinic schedules. During the blood lead screening clinics, capillary blood was drawn from the finger using the finger stick method. Filter paper was used to collect the sample of blood. The DPHAS Laboratory analyzed the filter paper samples for lead. Trained personnel were used for specimen collection. The finger stick/filter paper method of blood lead collection and analysis is widely accepted as an appropriate screening technique, however, this method may result in false positive results if there is contamination of the filter paper or the finger during the test. Therefore, any screening blood lead of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (ug/dL) or greater was followed for a confirmatory blood lead test that analyzed blood drawn directly from the vein. The DPHAS Laboratory consistently meets the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Proficiency Performance Evaluation for lead analysis. This evaluation is done quarterly. During the clinics, participants or their parents were asked to complete a questionnaire (See Appendix B). The questionnaire was used to gather information on the person's age, address i 200 and time lived in Stratford as well as other information regarding exposure to lead including the age of housing the participant lives in. The questionnaires were administered with the assistance of trained nurses who volunteered during the clinics. DISCUSSION During the eleven clinics, approximately 1500 Stratford residents had their blood lead levels analyzed (see Table 1). Of these, 1287 participants satisfactorily completed questionnaires and were included in this analysis. Questionnaires were satisfactorily completed if blood lead results were successfully matched to the corresponding questionnaire and respondents gave complete information regarding name, address and age. Of the 1287 participants, 342 were children less than age 6. Children in this age group are most susceptible to the adverse health effects of lead due to increased hand-to-mouth activities and increased absorption of lead. Table 1 SCREENING PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO STRATFORD POPULATION STRATFORD BLOOD LEAD POPULATION SCREENING 1990 CENSUS PARTICIPANTS* Total Population 49,389 1287 Male 23,384 602 Female 26,005 685 Total Population 3,442 342 Less than Age 6 Minority Population 4,906 179 j>csjs ^includes only those participants that completed the questionnaire **38 participants did not report their race/ethnicity Three percent of the total population of Stratford and 10% of the children in Stratford younger than age 6 participated in the voluntary blood lead screening program. Children, younger than age six, represented only 27% of all participants. The participants reflect the approximate racial mix of Stratford according to the 1990 census. Six percent of the participants reported living in Stratford for one year or less. Forty-two percent reported living in Stratford for more than one year but less than five years. Fifty-two percent reported living in Stratford for more than five years. Forty-six percent of the participants reported living in housing built prior to 1950, 42% reported living in housing built after 1950 but before 1978 and 12% reported living in housing built after 201 1978. Of the children participating in the clinic, 45% lived in homes built prior to 1950, 41% lived in housing built between 1950 and 1978 and 14% lived in housing built after 1978. Lead- based paint was widely used on the interior and exterior walls of homes through the 1940's. The manufacture and use of lead based paint declined after 1950 and was banned in 1978. Participants were asked if they had visited any of the eight known waste sites. Eleven percent reported not visiting any of the sites. Twenty-nine percent reported visiting one site, 41 % reported visiting 2 sites, 12% reported visiting 3 sites, and 7% reported visiting more than 3 sites. Of the children younger than age 6, 15% never visited any of the sites, 41% visited only 1 of the sites, 35% visited 2 of the sites, 7% visited 3 sites and 2% visited more than 3 sites. The eight sites identified in the Health Advisory include: Wooster Junior High School, Short Beach Park, 4th/5th Avenue vacant lot, Spada Property, Morgan/Francis Area, Lot K/Elm Street, Housatonic Boat Club and Raybestos Memorial Field. Table 2 BLOOD LEAD RESULTS AND AGE OF PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS LESS THAN AGE 6 Total Screened 1287 342 Screening Blood Lead 129 43 Levels Above 9 ug/dL Confirmed Blood Lead 13 Levels Greater Than 9 ug/dL Of the 1287 blood lead screening clinic participants, 10% (129) had screening blood lead levels of 10 ug/dL or greater (see Table 2). Of the children younger than age 6, 12% (43) had screening blood lead levels of 10 ug/dL or greater. Seventy-seven percent (99) of the participants with elevated screening results did have confirmatory blood tests done. Of the confirmatory tests, a total of 13, representing approximately 10% of the elevated screening results, were confirmed to be 10 ug/dL or greater. Six of the confirmed elevated blood leads were in children younger than age 6. Visits to known waste sites was looked at to see if we could find an association between the number of site visits and blood lead levels. All of the participants with confirmed elevated blood lead levels reported visiting at least one of the known waste sites. Ninety-four percent of the participants who had elevated screening blood lead levels but not elevated confirmatory blood lead tests reported visiting at least one of the known waste sites. Sixty one percent of the participants with confirmed elevated blood lead levels reported visiting more than one of the known waste sites compared to 66% of the participants that did not have confirmed elevated blood lead levels. The questionnaire did not provide any information on the number of times someone may have visited any one site or the duration of a visit. 202 Age of housing was evaluated to determine if a higher percentage of participants with elevated blood lead levels lived in older housing, likely to have lead based paint (see Table 3). Table 3 CONFIRMED BLOOD LEAD LEVELS AND AGE OF HOUSING Blood Lead Level Greater Blood Lead Level 9 ug/dL than 9 ug/dL or Lower Housing Built 1950 or 10 37 Earlier Housing Built After 1950 41 Ninety percent of the participants with confirmed elevated blood lead levels reported living in homes built prior to 1950 compared to 47% of the participants who did not have confirmed, elevated blood lead levels and who also reported living in homes built before 1950. (Two of the respondents with confirmed elevated blood lead levels did not report the age of their housing.) All six of the children with confirmed elevated blood lead levels reported living in housing built prior to 1950. CONCLUSIONS As previously stated, the first objective of the voluntary blood lead screening program was to identify people with elevated blood lead levels. This screening program was effective in doing this for those who participated. However, this voluntary screening program should not be construed to represent all Stratford residents. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, NHANES,(JAMA July 27, 1994) indicated that nationally, 8.9% of children under the age of six have blood lead levels of lOug/dL or greater. NHANES utilizes a sampling strategy to ensure that the results are reflective of the entire population. In Stratford only 1.8% of the children who participated were found to have blood lead levels of lOug/dL or greater. A major limitation of the voluntary screening program offered in Stratford is that not everyone participates and those who do participate may not be representative of the entire population of Stratford. People with elevated blood lead levels may have chosen not to participate in the screening program and/or people who frequented the waste sites most may have chosen not to participate for whatever reasons. Children under the age of six are most susceptible to the adverse effects of lead due to increased hand-to-mouth activities that expose them to lead in their environment and because children absorb more lead. Only 10% of children in this age group, in Stratford, participated in the voluntary screening clinic. It is not known whether those 10% are representative of all children 203 in Stratford that may have accessed any of the known sites. The voluntary blood lead screening program may not have identified people with elevated blood lead levels due to other factors. While other studies have demonstrated that exposure to lead in soil is known to contribute to blood lead levels, this contribution may have a seasonal effect. The clinics began in the spring when outdoor activities were just starting. During the colder winter months between November and April, it is less likely that people would be exposed to the waste because of frozen or snow covered ground conditions and reduced outdoor activities. In addition, access to the known lead contamination areas was being restricted to prevent contact with the waste. Lead has a relatively short half-life in the body, therefore, blood lead levels are representative of more recent exposures and are not likely to reflect exposures which may have occurred several months earlier. Given these limitations of the screening program, the second objective, to evaluate the association between elevated blood lead levels and sources of lead, was not conclusive. Participants who reported visiting sites with lead in surface soil did not have higher blood lead levels than people who reported never visiting any of the lead contaminated sites. It was not possible, from the information gathered from the questionnaire, to evaluate an individual's degree of exposure to the contaminants at the eight waste sites. For instance, the activity that someone engages in while on the contaminated site affects the degree of exposure they might receive. As an example, a young child who plays in the soil is at greater risk of exposure than a child who rides a bike across the same area. In addition, the number of times and length of time that someone spends on a contaminated site may also affect the degree of their exposure. No information was available regarding the duration of exposure for the individuals participating in the screening. This type of exposure information is not easily obtained and was not available for the analysis. In addition, very few cases of elevated blood lead levels were identified as part of this screening making it difficult to compare against those without elevated blood lead levels. Of the people that participated in the blood lead screening program, people with elevated blood lead levels are more likely to live in homes that were built before 1950 than people without elevated blood lead levels. That result is expected since leaded paint serves as a significant source of lead. However, this result does not eliminate the possibility that certain people have elevated blood lead because of exposure to lead in soil. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this voluntary blood lead screening program, the following recommendations are made: * All confirmed blood lead levels of 10 ug/dL or greater should be followed up. This should involve any necessary medical referral as well as environmental assessment. The local health department has responsibility for this type of follow-up to assist in the identification of the lead exposure and require abatement of lead paint if necessary. * Community education regarding lead, the health effects associated with lead poisoning, the sources of lead and the importance of blood lead screening should occur. 204 * An evaluation of the voluntary blood lead screening program would be beneficial. This evaluation should include the use of Geographic Information Systems to further identify where the participants in the blood lead screening program came from in relation to the known waste sites and whether at risk populations were represented in the voluntary screening program. 205 APPENDIX L HEALTH CONSULTATION CANCER INCIDENCE 206 HEALTH CONSULTATION CANCER INCIDENCE IN STRATFORD, CT RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC STRATFORD, CT Prepared by the Connecticut Department of Public Health under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 207 BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUE In May of 1993, ATSDR issued a Public Health Advisory for the town of Stratford, Connecticut. Raymark Industries, Inc. operated a facility at 75 East Main Street in Stratford from 1919 to 1989. The facility produced brakes, clutch parts and other friction based products. During the manufacturing process the facility generated wastes including solvents, adhesives, lead, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenols (PCB's) and dioxins and furans. From 1919 to 1984 a system of on site lagoons was used to dispose of lead and asbestos wastes. As the on site lagoons filled up with sludge material, they were often dredged and the material was used as fill in areas throughout Stratford. ATSDR concluded in the Public Health Advisory that an imminent public health hazard existed in the town of Stratford due to past, present, and potential future exposure to Raymark waste containing asbestos, lead and PCBs. At the time of the Public Health Advisory, waste had been identified in surface soil at eight sites easily accessed by the public including a Jr. High School playing field and two other recreational sites. Concern was expressed by citizens in Stratford that the presence of the waste materials in their community may be responsible for increased incidence of cancer. Specific concern focused on the perception that students who played on Wooster school fields may have been more likely to develop testicular cancer. The Stratford Director of Health requested that the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) review the available data on cancer incidence in the community to determine if Stratford was experiencing a higher than expected rate of cancer among residents. It is required by Connecticut law that all tumors diagnosed to Connecticut residents must be reported to the DPH Tumor Registry. This is a population based registry that participates in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program and tabulates statistics on cancer incidence for the National Institute of Cancer. The Tumor Registry has been in existence since 1935. The Tumor Registry collects data from reporting physicians, and also has active surveillance by reviewing hospital records to ensure complete reporting of tumors. The Tumor Registry also has cooperative agreements with neighboring states so that tumor diagnoses are reported to the Connecticut Tumor Registry. The purpose of this review of cancer incidence data is to determine if the rates of selected types of cancer in Stratford are in excess of what would be expected. This type of data review is not intended to determine what might have caused any cancer to develop. DISCUSSION Two reviews of cancer data have been completed. The first review of cancer data was done by DPH in May, 1993 and indicated that the average rate of several types of cancer in Stratford was not different than the cancer rates in the entire state during the years 1971 to 1990. A summary of the first review is presented in Table 1. Standard Incidence Ratios (SIRs) were generated for Connecticut and Stratford for the twenty 208 year period 1971 to 1990 using indirect age standardization. This method allows for the comparison of cancer rates in Stratford with cancer rates in the State of Connecticut. Age specific cancer incidence rates were calculated by dividing the number of cases identified during the period in an age group by the population in that age group according to the 1980 census. The SIR is an overall summary measure of the cancer risk. The SIR is calculated by multiplying the Connecticut cancer incidence rates by the population of the town to estimate an "expected" number of cancers in each age group. The actual (or observed) number of cases identified by the Tumor Registry are divided by the expected number to obtain the SIR. When the SIR is less than one (1.00) the risk of cancer is less than expected, when the SIR is greater than one the risk in more than expected. This method allows for the inclusion of age as a risk factor in the analysis. Age is important to consider because generally speaking the risk of cancer varies with age. The results of this first review of cancer incidence indicated that there was no over all increase of cancer occurring in Stratford. For each tumor site studied and for all sites combined the SIR is very close to one indicating no overall difference from state rates. However, for all sites combined the younger age group had a greater than expected number of cancers. For this 20 year period, 49 cancers were observed while 33 were expected to occur. 209 Table 1 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CANCER INCIDENCE IN STRATFORD IN COMPARISON TO CONNECTICUT 1971 TO 1990 OBSERVED STANDARD 95% EXPECTED INCIDENCE CONFIDENCE RATIO INTERVAL ALL SITES 4912 1.00 0.97,1.03 4901 NON HODGKIN 167 1.04 0.87,1.19 LYMPHOMA 161 LUNG - MALES 504 0.95 0.87,1.04 529 LUNG - FEMALES 269 1.03 0.91,1.15 262 MESOTHELIOMA 11 1.20 0.49,1.91 9 LEUKEMIA 138 0.98 0.82,1.15 140 BREAST 739 0.94 0.75,1.29 783 SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA 55 1.02 0.75,1.29 54 210 Further analysis has been completed to review more types of cancer, to look more carefully at cancer occurring to those less than age 25, to look further back in time, and to evaluate how the cancer rates have varied over time by looking at the rate of cancer in five year time periods from 1958 to 1991. The time period studied was extended back to 1958 to coincide with when the waste was disposed off Raymark property in Stratford. Age specific population counts were obtained from the 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 census. Age specific population counts for 1965, 1975, and 1985 were obtained by averaging the appropriate census years. Information on the occurrence of cancer in Stratford and in the State of Connecticut was obtained from the DPH, Connecticut Tumor Registry on cancer of the bladder, brain, breast, kidney, liver, lung, rectum, and testis; and non Hodgkin's lymphoma, mesothelioma, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma and all sites combined. Age and sex specific cancer incidence rates and standard incidence ratios were calculated for five year time periods 1958-1962, 1963-1967, 1968-1972, 1973-1977, 1978-1982, 1983 1987, 1988-1991 using indirect age standardization (note, 1991 is the last year that the Tumor Registry had complete data). Each of the five year SIRs for each of the tumor sites is available in a separate data package upon request. A summary of these data for the 34 year period is presented in Table 2. The overall SIRs were calculated by summing the age specific observed and expected number of tumors for each of the 5 year time periods. 211 Table 2 CANCER INCIDENCE IN STRATFORD IN COMPARISON TO CONNECTICUT 1958 TO 1991 TUMOR SITE NUMBER OF AGE 95 % CASES STANDARD CONFIDENCE OBSERVED IZED INTERVAL EXPECTED INCIDENCE RATIO ALL SITES 7467 1.01 0.99, 1.03 7394 ALL SITES 130 1.22 1.01, 1.42 LESS THAN 106.56 AGE 25 BLADDER 379 1.14 1.03, 1.26 332.3 BRAIN 108 1.00 0.81, 1.19 108.2 BREAST 1036 0.96 0.90, 1.01 1084 KIDNEY 179 1.04 0.89, 1.19 172.4 LEUKEMIA 201 0.99 0.85, 1.12 203.7 LIVER 43 0.94 0.66, 1.22 45.75 LUNG 1031 1.01 0.95, 1.08 1017 MESOTHELIOMA 16 1.41 0.72, 2.10 11.35 NON-HODGKIN 218 1.00 0.87, 1.13 LYMPHOMA 217.7 RECTUM 411 1.07 0.96, 1.17 385.8 SOFT TISSUE 89 0.99 0.78, 1.19 SARCOMA 90.2 TESTICULAR 23_ 0.79 0.47, 1.12 29 212 CONCLUSIONS The rates of cancer incidence in Stratford for 1958 to 1991 are what would be expected based on State rates for the majority of the cancer sites studied. Cancer of the brain, breast, kidney, liver, lung, rectum, testis; and non Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, and soft tissue sarcoma were studied and were found to be the same as State cancer rates. Also, for these sites there were no noticeable patterns in the cancer rates. The rates fluctuated near the state rates during the years studied. There were some differences in the SIRs between males and females, however, none of these differences are statistically significant. For bladder cancer, mesothelioma, and the total of all cancer sites combined there were some differences in Stratford rates in comparison to State of Connecticut rates. The rate of bladder cancer among Stratford residents was 14 percent higher than the state rate. The most common risk factors associated with the development of bladder cancer are certain occupational exposures (including working with benzidine based dyes), history of frequent bladder infections, smoking, and drinking water with high levels of chlorination by products. For mesothelioma there were five more cases than would be expected based on state rates from 1958 to 1991. Mesothelioma is a very rare cancer of the lining of the lung that is associated with exposure to asbestos. This tumor most commonly is linked with persons who had been exposed to asbestos at their job. While the rate of mesothelioma was higher in Stratford than the State, the number of cases was small and not considered statistically significant. The rate of cancer for all types or sites combined in Stratford was similar to the State of Connecticut when added together for the 34 year study period with the SIR only slightly greater than one (1.01). However, when broken into five year time periods the SIR's increased slightly in comparison to State rates during this time period. For all sites combined, the cancer rate was 10 percent less than state rates at the beginning of the study period in 1958, while the cancer rate was 8 percent greater than state rates at the end of the study period in 1991. These results are summarized in Table 3. In order to better assess whether a trend exists the SIRs will be recalculated using direct age standardization. 213 Table 3 ALL CANCER SITE STANDARD INCIDENCE RATIOS STRATFORD, CT IN FIVE YEAR INTERVALS FROM 1958 TO 1991 5 YEAR PERIOD OBSERVED STANDARD 95% EXPECTED INCIDENCE CONFIDENCE RATIO INTERVAL 1958-1962 590 0.90 0.83, 0.98 654 1963-1967 736 0.97 0.90, 1.04 756 1968-1972 874 0.98 0.91, 1.04 894 1973-1977 1122 1.01 0.95, 1.07 1109 1978-1982 1356 1.03 0.97, 1.08 1317 1983-1987 1464 1.01 0.96, 1.07 1443 1988-1991 1325 1.08 1.03, 1.14 1222 TOTAL 1988-1991 7425 1.01 0.99, 1.03 7394 214 DPH also reviewed more detailed information on cancers that occurred to persons less than 25 years of age. Records in the Tumor Registry were reviewed to determine if there is any type of cancer that was more likely to be diagnosed among the younger persons. For the period 1958 to 1991 there were a total of 130 cases of cancer among persons less than 25 years of age while it was expected that 107 cases would occur. While there was a 22 percent increase in the number of cancers among younger persons there was no apparent pattern in the type of cancers that occurred among this age group. No one cancer type demonstrated a significant excess of cases. Since no one type of cancer was more common among this group it is less likely to indicate a common cause. RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Recalculate SIRs using direct age standardization to evaluate whether there were trends in the cancer incidence rates. For this review of cancer statistics in Stratford indirect age standardization was used. Stratford's cancer rates were standardized to state rates. This method is good for comparing Stratford cancer incidence with the State of Connecticut cancer incidence rates and when there is a small expected number of cancer cases - such as when there is a rare cancer type being reviewed. However, in order to accurately evaluate trends in cancer incidence over time it is necessary to do direct age standardization. In direct age standardization, cancer incidence in each time period is compared to a single time period. The SIRs that are generated are only useful for analysis of trends in the incidence of cancer over the time periods studied. Because some of the expected number of cancer cases is small the suggested age groupings are <45, 45-64, 65-74, 75 +. The waste was disposed off the Raymark facility beginning in the mid 1950's. Trend analysis using direct age standardization will enable analysis of whether there were trends in the cancer incidence rates over time. 2) Evaluate the location of cancer cases in relation to the waste. ATSDR is funding a cooperative agreement with DPH to conduct a follow up health study using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology with computerized mapping to help evaluate the incidence of selected types of cancer in relation to living near waste sites in Stratford, CT. GIS can be used to locate the address of selected cancer cases. These locations can then be used to assign environmental scores based on distance from the nearest hazardous waste location in the town. The following tumor sites are recommended for further study using GIS because of citizen concern or because preliminary analysis indicated that the incidence in Stratford was higher than what would be expected based on state of Connecticut rates. a. Approximately 331 bladder cancer cases diagnosed between the years 1968 to 1991; b. sixteen mesothelioma cases diagnosed between the years 1958 to 1991; c. approximately 98 tumors (all tumor sites combined) occurring to individuals who are 215 under age 25 that were diagnosed between the years 1968 to 1991. d. approximately 23 testicular cancer cases diagnosed between the years 1968 to 1991. These follow-up GIS studies will not be able to prove that the waste caused any disease, but it will be able to evaluate whether or not there was an association with living near the waste and increased risk of cancer. This Health Consultation will be reviewed by the Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) in conjunction with the review of the Health Assessment for the Raymark Industries and Satellite sites in Stratford, CT. 216 APPENDIX M MEMO-BIRTH DEFECTS 217 MEMORANDUM To: Diane Aye, Brian Toel Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health Connecticut 8teto Department of Public Health and Addiction 8crvicon From: Holger Hansen Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics University of Connecticut School of Medicine Date: 8epteraber'12, 1993 Re; Birth defects in Stratford - 1983, 1985, 1986 This report extends 1S8S date provided earlier by, including the birth years of 1983 and 1986, the complete data base of the Connecticut Birth Defects Surveillance Program. The data are pre.ented as numbers of affected nevborns born in 1983, 1985 and 1986, end as average annuel rates per 1 ,000 live births (three-year total of affected novboms divided by three times the number of 1985 live births times 1,000; S78 live births in 8lratford and 43,390 in the rest of Connecticut). Due to seal I numbers, the 8tratford rates are subject to considerable random variation, estimated by "the 9SX confidence range (based on on approximation of the Poisson distribution used by NCHB). Stratford _Qthar_CfiHQft£ti£Vt_ •83 '8S '86 Rate Range 1983 1385 1986 Rata Anencephalus Total nevborns with hirth def.. 35 33 39 61.7 49.8-73.6 1994 2345 2430 52.0 No birth deTect stands out as particularly excessive in StratTord. The elightly elevated rates ot cleft lip and palate end of musnuloakalet.nl anomalies are not statistically significant, and neither is the total incidence of birth defects in 8tretford, compered to the rest of the state. c.c: A. 8racker, M. Grey, M. Hodgeon, E. Storey 218 APPENDIX N RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT The following lists all of the public comments received on the Public Health Assessment during the public comment period that ran from August 21st through October 6th. Comment #1: CTDPH and ATSDR found an excessive rate for mesothelioma which is generally acknowledged to be indicative of asbestos exposure. However, this rate was based on Stratford as a whole and not residents who lived near or worked at the Raymark facility. The 16 reported cases should be investigated further to see how many of them may be Raymark-related. While it is true that this epidemiological study did not find statistically significantly higher cancer incidence (except to bladder cancer) this could be simply that the Raymark effects are "diluted" in the larger all-of-Stratford database. The justification for ignoring the statistically significant higher incidence of cancers among persons less than 25 years of age because "no one type of cancer was more common" will be less than reassuring to the residents of Stratford. There is clearly still a need for more detailed epidemiological studies of cancer incidence. In September of 1993, CTDPH and ATSDR recommended: "Cohorts of individuals who may have had higher exposure to the waste should be considered for more extensive follow-up." As was shown by the epidemiology discussed above, this is vitally important to the community, but no discussions were included that indicate this work has been started, yet alone completed. Response: Page 10 of the Public Health Assessment specifically outlines the follow-up health studies that will be done using Geographic Information Systems. As indicated in the Public Health Assessment, this additional analysis will allow us to further explore the association between proximity to waste and cancer risk as opposed to the first analysis which looked at Stratford as a whole. In addition, page 9 of the document discusses the evaluation of Stratford residents with waste present in their yards and Public Works employees, two cohorts that were evaluated because they represented cohorts that may have experienced more significant exposures. Comment #2: It is unfortunate to have to point out to CTDPH and ATSDR that, despite the tone of their document, the potential serious exposures associated with off-site Raymark contaminated soil will not automatically disappear when these affected soils are redeposited on another in-town property. These soils are currently inadequately and illegally stored at the Raymark Facility. Not only does this represent a health hazard to those who must work on site, but also the surrounding community may be impacted by the dust or inadequate site security. The "space-age" foam used to cover the wastes may even encourage inquisitive trespassing! 219 Response: The Public Health Assessment clearly states that excavated soil does pose a potential health threat to workers at the facility (p. 41), residents living near the facility (p. 42) and trespassers (p. 42). The CT DPH have and continue to work very closely with EPA to assure that 1.) temporary piles are covered in such a manner as to prevent any soil from becoming airborne, and 2.) that on-site activities are occurring in such a manner as to prevent the spread of contamination off-site. These commitments are clearly outlined in Conclusion HI and Recommendation #2 of the Public Health Assessment. In addition, perimeter air monitoring is being done at the site on a daily basis to ensure that contamination is not migrating off-site at levels of health concern. Comment #3a: The Public Health Assessment neglects to mention that EPA in their April 1995 Proposed Cleanup Plan state that they will "begin additional studies to further evaluate the groundwater contamination...to identify potential groundwater cleanup options in the future, if necessary." The Public Health Assessment also failed to address the potential impacts of groundwater or LNAPL vapors which may be discharging into the basements of homeowners or businesses. Response: The Public Health Assessment does identify the groundwater contamination and the potential for volatilization into confined spaces as a potential exposure pathway (pg 42.) In addition, Conclusion #5 states that additional information regarding groundwater migration, extent of contamination and potential for off-gassing needs to be gathered. Recommendation #4 outlines these same issues and as part of the Public Health Action Plan, we commit to reviewing that additional data. Comment #3b: The potential health problems associated with solvents were not mentioned nor was the ability of solvents to mobilize otherwise relatively immobile compounds in the sub-surface. Since the purpose of the well survey was to locate and test private wells in order to evaluate potential health impacts, it is inconsistent for agencies responsible for protecting public health not to collect and analyze groundwater from these wells to state that since public water is available, no one should ever access this contaminated groundwater for potable purposes. Would the CT DPH further explain what actions it now plans to take in terms of these wells specifically, 1) if testing has been undertaken, and what results were obtained, 2) if well permits were granted whether they will now be revoked, 3) if permits were not granted, what action will be taken, 4) what warnings CT DPH has provided or will provide to the homeowners relating to this well water and 5) the technical and regulatory basis for their statement on p. 44 that "These wells are not located near the Raymark facility or other waste locations." In particular, how does "less than one mile" equate to "not near?" Response: Appendix F of the Public Health Assessment outlines the well survey methodology, the findings and the follow-up activities. The purpose of the survey was to 1.) identify wells within 0.5 miles of a known Raymark waste site, and 2.) sample any wells within 0.5 miles of a site. As stated, a total of 15 addresses were identified as 220 having an active private water supply well. Of these, none were located within 0.5 miles, six were located within one mile but greater than 0.5 miles two were located one to two miles from a site and seven were located 2.5 to 3.5 miles from any known waste site. Of the six private wells located between 0.5 and one mile, four were near Wooster School, one was near the Lordship area and 1 was near the Raymark facility but upgradient from the site. The local health department followed up with the fifteen private wells and encouraged testing. In initiating the private well survey, the agencies were most interested in determining if private wells existed near the Raymark facility. Unlike the other off-site waste locations where soil contamination is not adversely impacting groundwater, the groundwater at the facility is grossly contaminated and stated as such on page 19 of the Public Health Assessment. Comment #4: No discussion is given of the potential adverse health impacts (other than eating shellfish) of the high levels of PCBs (greater than 10 ppm) found in Ferry Creek sediments. Since this was predominantly PCB-1268 (an unusual aroclor associated with Raymark wastes), it is related to the Raymark facility. No discussion was given of whether these sediments might be exposed at low tide or might otherwise impact local residents. Response: Data available for Ferry Creek, at the time the document was written, was insufficient to evaluate the potential risks associated with direct contact with sediments. We are committed to evaluating this data. Comment #5: I am concerned about the reports in the news media involving the study of cancer rates in Stratford. To only study the data of the Town of Stratford gives a misleading result. The only way to have an accurate picture of where Stratford truly stands is to study the health data from surrounding towns (Trumbull, Bridgeport, Shelton, Milford) as well. We do not live in a vacuum. While Raymark was indeed a polluter, it also is not isolated. This entire region, for example, is affected by air pollution from New York City. If it was found that surrounding towns also had a slightly elevated number of bladder cancer incidents or the rare form of lung cancer then perhaps the problem(if there is indeed a problem) is a regional one-not something that is unique to Stratford. Response: The cancer incidence study in Stratford was initiated for two specific and focused reasons: 1.) determine if Stratford had experienced a higher than expected rate of cancers over the study time period and 2.) respond to citizens concerns regarding whether certain cancers had occurred more in Stratford residents. Both of these questions were raised in light of the Raymark environmental contamination in the town. The most significant limitation of this type of cancer analysis is it does not show cause and effect or tell us what caused the differences in cancer rates. 221 Cancer is not one disease but many diseases with different causative factors. While hereditary, dietary and environmental agents may increase an individuals risk of cancer, certain characteristics of a population of people also change the risk of disease in that group. Age, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status all contribute to cancer risk in a population. Because of this, we compare Stratford to the State as opposed to comparing it to surrounding towns. We know than the population characteristics of Bridgeport, Trumbull or Shelton are very different than the population characteristics of Stratford. When we compare Stratford to the State the differences in population characteristics are less dramatic and provide for a better comparison. 222