Health Consultation
SDMS DocID 000225309
RUMFORD RIVER SITE
MANSFIELD, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
JUNE 16,1999
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 HEALTH CONSULTATION
RUMFORD RIVER SITE
MANSFIELD, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared by:
Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment Massachusetts Department of Public Health Under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Background
Statement of Issues
In February 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted environmental data from the Rumford River Site to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) (EPA, 1999). EPA requested the MDPH review these data and make recommendations regarding the potential for adverse health effects for people with opportunities for exposure to contaminated media (e.g., water, soils, fish tissue) at the site. While not limiting the scope of MDPH's evaluation, EPA requested responses to four specific questions about the immediate public health concerns for the site:
1. Should the provisional advisory against consuming fish from-the Rumford River, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, and Norton Reservoir be made permanent? 2. Do th concentratione s of chemicals in the soil sample from Robinson Park in Mansfield indicate that opportunities for exposure to soils in the park would result in adverse health effects? 3. Do th concentratione s of chemicals in the surface soil samples from the Hatheway and Patterson Company property indicate that opportunities for exposure could result in adverse health effects? 4. Do th concentratione s of chemicals in the sediment and water samples from the Rumford River indicate that opportunities for exposure could result in adverse health effects? MDPH completed this health consultation through its cooperative agreement with the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Site Description and History
The Rumford River originates in Sharon, Massachusetts, at Wolomolopoag Pond. As it flows south, the river passes through Gavins Pond, Vandy Pond1, and Glue Factory Pond in Fpxborough, and Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, and Cabot Pond in Mansfield (Figure 1). One and a half miles- downstream of Cabot Pond, the river has been impounded to form Norton Reservoir in Norton. Downstream of Norton Reservoir, the Rumford River flows southeast and becomes the Threemile River, which eventually merges with the Taunton River at the Taunton-Dighton border. The Taunton River discharges to the Atlantic Ocean at Mount Hope Bay in Fall River.
Between Glue Factory Pond in Foxborough and Fulton Pond in Mansfield, the Rumford River flows through the abandoned Hatheway and Patterson Company (HP) property (Figure 2). On this property, a wood preserving facility operated from 1953 until 1993. Several different chemical mixtures were used in the production process including fluoro-arsenate-phenol salts, chromated copper arsenate salts, and solutions of pentachlorophenol in fuel oil, mineral spirits, and water. A portion of the property was used to apply chemicals to raw lumber. Treated lumber was laid out to dry over much of the rest of the property (EPA, 1998). The property is bisected by a freight railroad.
Beneath the site, there are areas where free product consisting of oil and other chemicals used in production are ponded on top of the water table (Chris Gill, Resource Control Inc., pers. com.). In
1 Vandy Pond is called Smith Pond on some maps. DEC.-12'00(TUE) 16:29 DEP / SERO TEL:5089476557 P. 009
a the 1980s, the Massachusetts Department of I&vironmental Protection (MDEP) required HP to install groundwater extraction wells to stop discflargei s of this free product to the river (Scott Sayers, MDEP, pers. com.). After the company declared bankruptcy in 1993, EPA removed thousands of gallons of chemicals from tanks on the property id covered heavily contaminated soils with asphalt and/or gravel (EPA, 1998).
Dioxin is a common impurity in pentachloroph tool, one of the wood preservatives used at the HP facility (ATSDR, 1994). Therefore, in 1998, collected environmental samples from the HP property for dioxin analysis. Dioxin was found iit ediments, soils, river water, groundwater, and free product. As a result of these findings, MDEP rec iiested addilional assistance from EPA for removal actions (MDEP, 1998a).
Because of the high potential for dioxin to accumulate in the tissues of fish, its detection in the river raised concerns about the safety of consuminigff h caught in the river and downstream ponds. Two of these ponds, Fulton Pond and Cabot Pond, ifc annually stocked with trout by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) (MpEP , 1998). Therefore, MDEP requested MDFW to refrain from stocking Fulton and Cabot ponds ui til EPA had analyzed more environmental samples from the river, including samples of fish tissuetMDEP, 1998b; EPA, 1998).
MDFW and MDEP also requested that consider issuing a provisional fish consumption advisory for the Rumford River for the follow! jg reasons: 1 . Dioxin compounds had been identified |nsurfac e water and near the HP property. Dioxin compounds have a high potential for bi {concentration in fish. 2. It was not feasible to obtain fish tissue sampling data in a timely way because of the limited availability of laboratory resources ptionwide for these analyses and the technical requirements involved in the analysis.
When MDPH issues a public health fish consumption advisory, the usual policy is to first obtain fish (issue sampling data for the water body of concern . In this particular case, MDPH believed thai it would be a proactive and prudent public heal {: measure to issue a provisional advisory without waiting for results of fish tissue sampling. Also IDPH anticipated that fish from the Rumford River would be tested for dioxin before the 1999-fi season. Therefore, in October 1998. MDPH issued a provisional fish consumption advisory jecommending that all persons should retrain from consuming fish caught in the Rumford River,F 'ton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, and Norton Reservoir (MDPK, I998a). MDPH noted that fe provisional advisory would be revisited once fish sampling data became available, Signs with the sidvisory were printed and posted at access points to the river and these ponds (Scott Leite, Mansfie llHealth Agent, pers. com.). MDPH later provided comments on EPA's proposed fish screening s jdy in Fulton Pond (MDPH, 1998b).
Environmental Data
In October and November 1998, RPA collecte ['samples of surface soil (from 0-3 inches depth), water, surface sediment (from 0-3 inches depth Jbnd fish from the Rumford River Site (EPA, 1999; Figure 2). On the HP property, most enyironm |jtal samples were taken from areas with suspected contamination. Samples from downstream water bodies were from shallow regions around the perimeter.
Surface .sediment and water samples were la) :|h from three locations: (1) upstream of the HP property, (2) the point where free product from fe HP property has intermittently discharged to the
DEC 12 '00 16:35 5089476557 PfiGE. 09 river, and (3) Fulton Pond. These samples were analyzed for dioxin, pentachlorophenol, metals, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls. Additional sediment and water samples were taken from the HP property, Fulton Pond, and Kingman Pond and were analyzed for dioxin, pentachlorophenol, and, in most cases, metals.
Six samples of surface soil were collected from areas of the HP property where treated wood was formerly left to dry, hence contamination of soils was expected. These samples were analyzed for dioxin, pentachlorophenol, semi-volatile organic compounds, and metals. Another soil sample was collected from Robinson Park near Fulton Pond and analyzed for dioxin and pentachlorophenol.
Seven fish samples were collected from Fulton Pond and analyzed for dioxin, pentachlorophenol, and inorganic arsenic using methods described in EPA (1998). The fish species in these samples were white sucker, yellow perch, white perch, chain pickerel, and largemouth bass. Only a few top-level predator species (e.g., largemouth bass) and besides white sucker no other fatty-feeder species (e.g., carp) were able to be collected for analysis because these species were found to be scarce in the pond (EPA, 1998; Rich Haworth, EPA,pers.com.). Fulton Pond is the first impoundment downstream of the HP property and, hence, is more likely to accumulate contaminants released from the HP property in its sediments than the other downstream ponds. Therefore, levels of contaminants in fish tissue were expected to be highest between the HP property and Fulton Pond (EPA, 1998). However, it is important to note that the sediments of Fulton, Kingman, and Cabot ponds were dredged between the late 1970s and 1987, which may have removed some of the accumulated contaminants from these water bodies (Richard Keller, MDFW', pers. com.).
Health assessors use a variety of health-based screening values to help decide whether compounds detected at a site may need further evaluation (Appendix A). These screening values have been scientifically peer-reviewed and published by ATSDR or EPA. All of the screening values are derived to represent the concentration below which continuous exposures are not expected to result in adverse health effects. If the concentration of a chemical is less than its screening value, adverse health effects are not expected. Conversely, if the concentration of a chemical is higher than a screening value, it does not necessarily mean that adverse health effects are expected, rather opportunities for exposure to that chemical should be further evaluated.
Five compounds or classes of compounds were detected in the environmental samples at concentrations higher than health-based screening levels: dioxin, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pentachlorophenol (PCP), arsenic, and chromium. PCP, arsenic, and chromium were major ingredients of wood preservatives used at the HP facility (EPA, 1998). Dioxin is a common impurity in PCP (ATSDR, 1994). PAHs are produced by combustion, and hence are ubiquitous in the environment (ATSDR, 1995). The measured concentrations of these compounds of concern are summarized in Tables 1-4.
Th&tenn "dioxin" stands for a class of 210 organic compounds called chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans that exhibit a similar chemical structure. Seventeen of these compounds are considered to have dioxin-like toxicity by EPA (EPA, 1989). One of the most toxic of these is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). The toxicity of all the 17 dioxin-like compounds combined is expressed by the 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity Equivalents (TEQ). Because it is based on the relative toxicity of each compound with respect to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ can be compared with health-based screening levels established for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ATSDR, TEL:5089476557 P. 008 DEC.-12'OOITUE) 16-.29 DEP / SERO
1998). On Tables 1-4, the levels of dioxin in er|/ironmental samples are shown as the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. PAHs are another class of compounds that ail1 often considered together because of their similar chemical structure and the fact that inditfdual PAH compounds are rarely found alone. Benzo[a]pyrene is the most carcinogenic of lie PAHs. On Tables 1-4, the levels of PAHs are expressed as the sum of the concentrations of |7 PAH compounds and as the benzo[a]pyrene TEQ of the mixture (ATSDR, 1995; EPA, 1993).
Sediment and Water
Concentrations of dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1Q) and PCP in the river water and sediments were highest on the HP property (3260 ng/kg dioxi id 51 mg/kg* PCP in sediments) (Tables 1 and 2). Downstream in Fulton and Kingman ponds, the ;ntrations of these two compounds in river water and sediments were either below detection or 1 |ss than health-based screening levels for residential soils. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediments upstream of the HP property (27.3 ng/kg) was higher than its concentration in downstream ponds (approximately 1 ng/kg). The difference between the dioxin sediment con Orations at the upstream sampling site and the downstream ponds may reflect the fact that lh ponds were dredged in the past, or mat sediments from the river do not accumulate in the shall perimeter areas of the pond that were sampled, Alternatively, this difference could indicate ['•there might be another source of dioxin to the river upstream of the HP property. Regardless, the fncentrations of dioxin in upstream sediments were similar to estimates of dioxin background levels sediments in North America and Europe (3.9-34.9 ng/kg) (EPA, 1994).
The measured concentrations of arsenic and irriium in river sediments were within expected background concentrations for the eastern Uni States (Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984; MDEP, 1995). In two of the three sediment samples, e concentrations of total PAHs (19.0-34.6 mg/kg) were higher man those found in pristine sites 0 ;., 0.018-0.160 mg/kg for deep ocean sediments), and slightly higher than levels for areas near MI ilitan Boston (e.g., 0.16-8.5 mg/kgfor sediments in Massachusetts Bay) (Windsor and Kites, 1 . The concentration of total PAHs in the third sediment sample, which was collected from the property at the point where free product appears to have been discharging to the river, was lo< than in the other two but this result should be considered uncertain. The analytical method de ion limits for this sample were higher than normal (greater than 8 mg/kg per compound) possibly of interference by the free product in the sample. Soil
On the HP property, die concentrations of dio in, arsenic, and chromium in surface soils were elevated above background levels and health-baad screening values (Table 3). The concentrations of total PAHs at these locations (2.06 mg/kg on average) were similar to background levels for rural areas (0.13-1.7 mg/kg) (ATSDR, 1995): Measijied PCP concentrations were less than screening values for residential soils.
m- Onesoil sample was alsotrollected from Robinsofc Park on Fulton Pond in Mansfield (Table 3). The measured concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ nd PCP in this sample (2.3 ng/kg and 0.12 mg/kg,
* ng/kc =• lunograms per kilogram; me/kg «= mil grams per kilogram
5089476557 PAGE.08 DEC 12 '00 16:35 respectively) were less than health-based screening values for residential properties (50 ng/kg and 6 rag/kg, respectively). Mean background levels for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in soils from North America and Europe are estimated to be 8-9 ng/kg (EPA, 1994).
Fish
In the seven fish collected from Fulton Pond, the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ and PCP averaged 27.3 ng/kg and 0.46 mg/kg, respectively (Table 4). Arsenic was not detected in any of the fish samples. For dioxin, these concentrations were higher than the background fish tissue concentrations in North America of approximately 1 ng/kg (EPA, 1994; ATSDR, 1998). There were no apparent differences between the different fish species with respect to the measured concentrations of PCP and dioxin in the fish tissue.
Site Visit
On March 10, 1999, staff from MDPH visited the Rumford River Site with representatives from MDEP, EPA, and the Mansfield Health Department. During this visit, the following observations were made: • The facility on the HP property is currently not operating and access to the property is restricted by metal fencing. However, MDEP staff have seen trespassers on the property and other evidence that people can get on the property (e.g., a campfire ring, broken fences, vandalism of buildings). One of the smaller gates to the property was unlocked and open on the day of the site visit • The groundwater extraction wells that formerly collected free product from the groundwater on the HP property before it reached the river are not operating. An oily sheen was observed on water near the abandoned wells during the site visit. Also, after disturbing river sediment with a stick, a sheen was observed to rise to the surface. In the areas where treated lumber was laid out to dry, there is no vegetation. • Downstream of the HP property, the houses along Morrow Street and Highland Avenue abut the river (Figure 2). However, access to the river from these houses is restricted because there are fences along both banks of the river. At the end of these streets, the river flows into an underground culvert and emerges downstream at West Church Street. There is limited access to the river where it passes under West Church and High streets. Therefore, the first easy public access to the river downstream of the HP property is at Fulton Pond. • Robinson Park is a small picnic area on the south side of Fulton Pond (Figure 2). The entire park is approximately 100 meters long and 50 meters wide. There are picnic tables, a small bridge over the river, and a small pool filled with river water. In the summer, the town holds activities in this park. The soil sample was taken approximately 50 feet from the river in an area that was damp at the time of sampling, presumably from river flooding. The sampling area appeared to be undisturbed, although nearby areas have recently been dug up. • Signs advertising the provisional fish consumption advisory were posted at most access points to the river and downstream ponds.
Discussion
The environmental data submitted to MDPH by EPA cover a large area consisting of the 40-acre HP property, one mile of the Rumford River, Fulton Pond, and Kingman Pond. Because of the size of this area, it is not known how representative these limited environmental data are for the entire area. DEC.-12'00(TUE) 16:28 DEP / SERO TEL:5089476557 P. 007
However, these data can provide information on 1pecific locations within this area where there may be opportunities for exposure to contaminants. Th [specific questions posed by EPA will be discussed separately to the extent that the available data permit
EPA Question 1: Should the provisional Ivisory against consuming fish from the Rumford River, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cab The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in fikh from Fulton Pond (27.3 ng/kg on average) are higher than mean background levels for.fish tis ie (approximately 1 ng/kg) (EPA, 1994; ATSDR, 1998). People who eat fish from this pond at t' ie average rate of daily fish consumption for the country (6.5 grams of fish per day, g/d) (EP/ij 1995) would be exposed to approximately 2.5 picograms of dioxin per kilogram body weight! r day (pg/kg/d) which is higher than ATSDR's chronic Minimum Risk Level of I pg/kg/d. AvidSrecrealional fishers (i.e., people who consume 140 g/d of fish) (EPA, 1995) could be exposed to di tin at levels more than fifty times greater than the Minimum Risk Level. Because of their lower bo y weight, exposures relative to body weight would be higher for children than for adults. Therefore. ithe concentrations of dioxin found in the fish from Fulton Pond constitute a public health hazard a regular MDPH public health fish consumption advisory is warranted. The testing results also clearly demonstrate fish collected in areas in the vicinity of the HP property have high levels of dioxin. According > MDFW, there are no barriers to fish migrating to downstream ponds or parts of the river, Consequently, the fish consumption advisory should extend to all sections of the river that are likely to be re ached by fish from the HP property. Upstream of the HP property, the first barrier to fish migration according to MDFW is the dam below Glue Factory Pond in Foxborough. MDFW also believes that sh can migrate downstream from the HP property at least as far as Norton Reservoir (Richard Kell ;, MDFW.pers. com.). Therefore, the public health fish consumption advisory for the Rumford Riv ir should extend from below Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir (Figure 1). The design of die fish screening study was to 1st the worst-case areas (i.e., Fulton Pond) first to determine if additional testing was necessary, Begause the testing results from Fulton Pond confirmed suspicions of dioxin contamination in fish tiss , additional fish testing from downstream areas (including Norton Reservoir) is recommended confirm the extent of this contamination. MDPH also recommends that fish from Glue Factory P EPA Question 2: Do the concentrations |F chemicals in the soil sample from Robinson Park in Mansfield indicate that opportunitiei for exposure to soils in the park would result in adverse health effects? One soil sample was collected from Robinson pirk just south of Fulton Pond in Mansfield (Figure 2) and analyzed for dioxin and PCP. Robinson l|ark is a 100-meter-long and 50-meter-wide picnic area that is used foriecroational activities in the si |mmer by children. The soil sample was taken from a location 50 feet from the river out of concern jiat the Rumford River may have flooded the park and deposited contaminated sediments in the pi flhic area. The concentrations of dioxin and PCP in the soil imple were less than health-based screening values forresidential properties. Because only one soil Jimple was available for the park, we also examined DEC 12 '00 16=35 5089476557 PRGE.07 the results for sediment samples from adjacent Fulton Pond. Flooding of the park by the Rumford River could deposit sediments on the park grounds. In that case, we would expect the soil concentrations in Robinson Park to be less than or equal to the sediment concentrations in Fulton Pond. Concentrations of dioxin and PCP in the four sediment samples from Fulton Pond were also below health-based screening values for residential soils. Thus, the available data indicate that opportunities for exposure in the park would not be of health concern. EPA Questions 3 and 4: Do the concentrations of chemicals in the surface soil samples from the Hatheway and Patterson Company property or the sediment and water samples from the Rumford River indicate that opportunities for exposure could result in adverse health effects? Across the southern portion of the HP property, the soil concentrations of dioxin, arsenic, and chromium are greater than health-based screening levels for residential areas. Within this area, the location of greatest concern for environmental exposures is where free product containing dioxin appears to have been intermittently discharging to the river (Figure 2). Therefore, while contamination throughout the site is of concern, opportunities for exposures at this location are expected to represent worst-case conditions. It is possible for residents from nearby Highland Avenue to access this worst-case area by walking upstream along the banks of the river and around the edge of a fence. Daily contact with the water, sediments, and soils at this location for over a year could pose a public health hazard. However, under current conditions, it is unlikely that anyone would trespass on the property and spend time exclusively at this worst-case location on a daily basis for a sustained time. While trespassers on the property have been witnessed, it appears that site access is intermittent and not limited to just the worst-case area. Therefore, under current use conditions, it is unlikely that opportunities for exposure would result in health concerns. However, if the use of the property changes (e.g., redevelopment), the physical characteristics of the property change (e.g., increased discharge of free product), or the conditions of institutional controls (e.g., fences) deteriorate, then the contamination on the HP property may pose a public health hazard in the future depending on the extent to which opportunities for exposure increase. Furthermore, the history of dioxin discharge to the river from the HP property appears to be the likely source of dioxin in fish tissue found in Fulton Pond, which does present a public health hazard to fishers who do not heed or are not aware of the fish consumption advisory for the Rumford River and downstream water bodies. Uncertainties Should free product containing dioxin continue to intermittently discharge into the river, the levels of contamination in the river water, sediments, and fish could increase in the future. Therefore, to prevent additional public health concerns from developing, MDPH believes that measures should be taken to investigate and prevent the release of this free product from the HP property. In the area where free product may be discharging to the river, the sediment concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ range from 1,300 to 3,260 ng/kg. Yet, in a sample from 500-1000 feet farther downstream, they have fallen to 13.1 ng/kg. Only this one sediment sample has been collected from the river below the point where free product may be discharging but before Fulton Pond. Hence, the downstream extent of the area of elevated dioxin contamination is unclear. MDPH recommends that additional testing of sediments below the HP property be performed to delineate the area of greatest concern for dioxin exposures under current conditions. DEC. -12'00(TUB) 16:28 DEP / SERO TEL: 5089476557 P. 006 Finally, the limited environmental data provi led to MDPH are not sufficient to evaluate past conditions on the site. It is possible that ppportui ities for exposure to contaminants might have been higher in the past, especially if the site was freq jtently accessed. To evaluate these past exposures. more extensive characterizatio n of the contaminajaon andhistorical uses of the site would be required. ATSDR Child Health Initiative ATSDR and MDPH, through ATSD'R's Ch} d Health Initiative, recognize that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand special emphasis when evaluating opportunities for exposures to environmental contaminants, Children are at a greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposure to hazardous substances emitted from waste sites, They are more likely to be exposed for several reasons (e.g., they play outdoors more often than adults, increasing the likelihood that they will come into contact with chemicals in the environmel it). Because of their smaller stature, they may breathe dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground, Children are also smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if certain toxic exposures occur during criit$:a l growth stages. Most importantly, children depend CODmpjetel y on adults for risk identification and nujjjiagement dec:isions , housing decisions, and access to medical care. MDPH evaluated the opportunities for exposure tj> contaminants for children in the previous section. DEC 12 '00 16:34 5089476557 PAGE.06 Conclusions 1. The concentrations of dioxin in fish in the Rumford River from below Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir constitute a public health hazard. Therefore, based on these data and information about the HP site, a regular public health fish consumption advisory should be issued by MDPH in follow-up to the provisional advisory issued by MDPH in October 1998. The full extent of this advisory should be confirmed by means of additional fish testing for dioxin in Norton Reservoir and Glue Factory Pond. 2. The limited environmental data that are available (i.e., one soil sample and four sediment samples from Fulton Pond) do not indicate that opportunities for exposures in Robinson Park on the south shore of Fulton Pond in Mansfield would be of health concern. 3. Considering the current use conditions of the HP property (e.g., trespassing), the available data do not indicate that opportunities for exposure to contaminants in the water, soils, and sediments on the HP property would likely result in adverse health effects. However, if the use of the property changes (e.g., redevelopment), the physical characteristics of the property change (e.g., increased discharge of free product), or the conditions of institutional controls (e.g., fences) deteriorate, then the contamination on the HP property may pose a public health hazard in the future depending on the extent to which opportunities for exposure increase. Furthermore, the dioxin that has discharged into the river from the HP property appears to be the likely source of dioxin in fish tissue found in Fulton Pond, which does present a public health hazard to individuals who may eat the fish. 4. Th levele s of contamination in the river water, sediments, and fish could increase in the future if discharge to the river of free product containing dioxin continues. Furthermore, the extent of dioxin contamination in the river below the HP property is uncertain due to the limited environmental sampling that has been performed. DEC. -12'00(TUE) 16:28 DEP / SERO TEL:508947655? P. 005 Recommendations 1. Signs confirming the public health fish c msumption advisory should be posted at access points along the Rumford River from the dam below Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir. MDPH would'be happ to assist with the design of this posting. Persons (e.g. local health officials, fisheries and ildlife officials) familiar with the likely fishing locations along this water body should b consulted with regard to optimal placement of signs. 2. MDFW should permanently discontinue f sh stocking of water bodies in the area covered by the fish advisory (e.g., Fulton and Cabot iionds). 3. Because the testing results from Fulton Pq id confirmed suspicions of dioxin contamination in fish tissue, additional fish testing from bwnstream areas (primarily Norton Reservoir) is recommended to confirm the extent of thi; :onlamination. MDPH also recommends.that fish from Glue Factory Pond be tested as a pre ;auitionar y measure because it is unclear whether there might be an u]ipstrea m source of diox n to the river and whether the dam at Glue Factory Pond is an adequate barrier to upstream f ih migration. The perimeter of the HP property'should ; inspected for areas where it is possible to enter the property. AH breaches in the existing ence should be fixed immediately to ensure that access to the property is well restricted ai d that warning signs are clearly visible. MDPH believes that measures should be taken to investigate and prevent the intermittent release of free product from the HP prop srty to prevent additional public health concerns from developing and to protect1 fishers who are not aware of or do not heed the fish consumption advisory. MDPH recommends that additional tesrin of sediments below the HP property be performed to delineate the area of greatest concern 1 >r dioxin exposures under current conditions. 10 DEC 12 '00 16:34 5089476557 PW3E.05 CERTIFICATION The Health Consultation for the Rumford River Site was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Health 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 Health Consultation was begun. Roberta Erlwein, MPH Technical Project Officer Superfund Site Assessment Branch (SS AB) Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC) ATSDR The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this Health Consultation and concurs with its findings. Richard E. Section Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR 11 References ATSDR (1994) lexicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, May 1994. ATSDR (1995) lexicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, August 1995. ATSDR (1998) Toxicological Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, September 1997. EPA (1989) Interim procedures for estimating risks associated with exposures to mixtures of chlorinated dibenzo p-dioxins and dibenzofurans and 1989 update, EPA/625/3-89/016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1989. EPA (1993) Provisional guidance for quantitative risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, EPA/600/R-93/089, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 1993 EPA (1994) Estimating exposure to dioxin-like compounds, Volume II: Properties, sources, occurrence, and background exposures, External Review Draft, EPA/600/6-88/005Cb, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1994. EPA (1995) Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories, EPA 823-R-95-007, • Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1995. EPA (1998) Fish Screening Study, Rumford River Site, Mansfield, Massachusetts, prepared by Rich Haworth, On-Scene Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts, November 1998. EPA (1999) Letter from Richard Haworth, On-Scene Coordinator, USEPA, to Martha Steele, Deputy Director, MDPH-BEHA, on February 16,1999 re: Rumford River Site, Mansfield, MA. MDEP (1995) Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization, Interim Final Policy, WSC/ORS-95-141, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA, July 1995. MDEP (1998a) Letter from Gerard Martin, Chief, Site Management and Permitting Section, MDEP/SERO to David Mclntyre, Acting Branch Chief, Site Evaluation and response, USEPA, on September 23,1998, re: Request for EPA Assistance. MDEP (1998b) Letter from Gerard Martin, Chief, Site Management and Permitting Section, MDEP-SERO to Steve Hurley, Southeast District Fisheries Manager, MDFW, on September 23, 1998, re: Request to postpone stocking. MDPH (1998a) LetterfromElaine Krueger, Bureau ofEnvironmental Health Assessment, MDPH, to Scott Leite, Health Agent, Mansfield Board of Health, on October 19,1998. MDPH (1998b) Memo from Kevin Purdy, Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment, MDPH, to Rich Haworth, USEPA, re: Rumford River Fish Screening Study, on December 1, 1998. Shacklette, H.T., and Boemgen, J.G. (1984) Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1984. 12 DEC.-12'00(TUE) 16:28 DEP / SERO TEL:5089476557 P. 004 Windsor, J.G., and Kites, R.A. (1979) Polycyclic aiomatit hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine sedimenis and Nova Scotia soils, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acffljj 43: 27-33. 13 DEC 12 '00 16:34 CM APPENDIX A Health assessors usea variety of health comparison values to help decide whether compounds may need further evaluation: Environmental MediaEvaluation Guide (EMEG), Reference Dose MediaEvaluation Guide (RMEG), and Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG). These comparison values have been scientifically peer-reviewed and published by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). EMEG and RMEG values are used to evaluate the potential for non-cancer health effects. CREG values provide information on the potential for carcinogenic effects. If the concentration of a chemical exceeds a health compari son value, adverse health effects are not necessarily expected. Rather, these comparison values help in selecting compounds for further consideration. For example, if the concentration of a chemical in a medium (i.e., air, water, or soil) is greater than the EMEG for that medium, the potential for exposure to the compound should be further evaluated for the specific situation to determine whether non-cancer health effects may be possible. Conversely, if the concentration is less than the EMEG, it is unlikely that exposure would result in non-cancer health effects. EMEG values are derived for different durations of exposure. Acute EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting less than 14 days. Intermediate EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting between 14 days and 1 year. Chronic EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting longer than 1 year. CREG and RMEG values are derived assuming a lifetime duration of exposure. All the comparison values (i.e., CREG, EMEG, RMEG) are derived assuming opportunities for exposure in a residential setting. 14 o O . P . «n o O CQ II C D ^ O o "H 1 o S IK •O T» c> 3 ^w 3] en I gj S 1 S S en s en "I 9. x.^^ ,-s o • •feeO § s en m o\ vq ID S o\ 0 to d 31 Note s 5S a, c OU H U i Q CM S r DEC.-12'00(TUE) 16 = 27 DEP / SERO TEL:5089476557 P. 002 • ' •»*» & | S S d « i K 3 u ^> i! -C •S -a G ^1 r ^ 00 \= "3u . B \o : u 3 ^ —• d fc n x 1 ^x i ° "8 g el Whol e 1 o U k^ B « M S i E is .s Ov .8 oIfl .5*8 £ m (M ^ o f? "> CH >0 o a B •g-f t 0 S ri d 43 11 o E '0 I U X d 1 3 a* •s V 1g u li li 1. H° « P c CO O a o oo h O ^ ^ ill 8« •o o o "^ X co u n IB *n p l'i 1 ™ =3 . "f m o> C7\ 4 -^ ^~ trt en 1U ^•a5 C3 en ^T Tf O I J £ ^ ^ "3 S •3 if s^. C ^"^ g 00 E E 3 e B ^ o "M <; So s S Z Z d Z -| T3 JO o s -g S S oo u i•af :| 6 m a g s d 4 a a ii 1 8 J i -a CO ^ \o S o 3 i fr< E _ t 0? .£ r. _^ t^ 0 o\ 4 1 PQ £ 1 oo ^ *jj u fi "2 •dr k \ "^ ^j 2 ^ O ^^ [1 "o 1 TJJ BJ 3 O H c c »» t< 4 •1 : 3 1 •R \ S § Q C §. C Ihi s •« i Sutn i ^e^ 8 1 4 : _c fo r jj _* .S °° .3 .5 °° 'I? ^ ^ 1 15 Compound s Dioxt n 1 2,3.7.8-TCD D Tabl e Pentachlorop h Arseni c ^nrpmiom.. . a, d Pentachlorop h 'o^ a, {-• Note s 60 1 CO 'fie Q H DEC 12 '00 16:33 S089476557 PW3E.02 = E o . £•&! j= is | s a atio n tio n e.g. , c lo c te c s i n d e £ hi s 4-J ||-if t h f o o § °«ot: •s o y j= o i t 1 Di e i* ^ & I ff*1 e tha n sedimen i •8 ndard. . he r IIP oncentrati o i n •s «3 g ° o « S t» ? Ill .2 h e isss 82§| b o S «3 0 ne-ha l •B-S*" ^ .5? o ?> « j= « "e o o t> S I r! •3 gi£** g s .sj f £-8 - . I 0) 3 O 0) CO - c O o0 -Oc 2o 5>» O (0 •» 2 O c •o CO o m D) 1 O JQ g I o: CD "E ,2 •o ,1 05 ~at 01 t£ UNION SIHELI COMMUTER RAIL The Former Hatheway & Patterson Company Property 250 500 1000 FEET 5= APPROXIMATE SCALE SAMPLE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. LEGEND SURFACE WATER HAMMERS tESOdB/SONSULTMnS FUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM FLOW DIRECTION DRAWN « I DATE C. SKLANEY | 02/15/99 PROPERTY LINE I 8\nG2 I FIGURE 2 . *^ 06 ca 1 °^^ S 5 "O in g I"a en 0 i 1 S o\ o\ 1 ! •| 1 1 •a B /-^s S~N 1 Q *o en *o 0^ d en 1 B **^ 00 ^^ O d p ^H "3 $ ^H i S S £ 11 § ^ E 3 i •o 8 p p cs g en f-H d 'i en 2 | g i •I C>l « U* en O oo o\ oo rr S 1 en 06 1 fl ~ ~* " ^ CO ' 1 ca