Health Consultation, Rumford River Site
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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).