SDMS DocID 000222039 Health Consultation
GLUE FACTORY POND/RUMFORD RIVER
FOXBOROUGH, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
JUNE 25, 2001
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: A Note of Explanation
An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material.
In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation 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.
You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at 1-888-42ATSDR or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION
GLUE FACTORY POND/RUMFORD RIVER
FOXBOROUGH, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared by:
Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment Massachusetts Department of Public Health Under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1
BACKGROUND 1
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 1
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA 2
DISCUSSION 4
ATSDR CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE 6
CONCLUSIONS 6
RECOMMENDATIONS 7
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN 7
REFERENCES 8
TABLES 11
FIGURES 13
ATSDR PLAIN LANGUAGE GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TERMS 17
Appendix A 25 Statement of Issues
In June 1999, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) completed a health consultation for the Rumford River and the adjacent abandoned Hatheway and Patterson facility in Mansfield, Massachusetts (see Appendix A). At that time, MDPH made a series of recommendations including that the public not consume fish in the Rumford River from the dam below Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir (see Figure 1). In response to one of MDPH's recommendations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently tested the fish from Glue Factory Pond and submitted these results to MDPH for evaluation. The fish tested were white sucker, yellow perch, white perch, and largemouth bass. EPA requested an evaluation of these data to determine whether the existing freshwater fish consumption advisory for the Rumford River should be extended to the north to include Glue Factory Pond. MDPH has completed this Health Consultation under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Background
One of MDPH's recommendations in the June 1999 health consultation was that fish from Glue Factory Pond be tested as a precautionary measure because it was unclear whether there might be an upstream source of dioxin to the river and whether the dam at Glue Factory Pond is an adequate barrier to upstream fish migration.
Site Description and History
In October 1998, MDPH issued a provisional fish consumption advisory recommending that all persons should refrain from consuming fish caught in the Rumford River, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, or Norton Reservoir (MDPH 1998a). When MDPH issues a public health fish consumption advisory, the usual policy is to first obtain fish tissue sampling data for the water body of concern. In this particular case, MDPH believed that it would be a proactive and prudent public health measure to issue a provisional advisory without waiting for results of fish tissue sampling. Also, EPA had informed MDPH that fish from the Rumford River would be tested for dioxin before the 1999 fishing season. MDPH noted that the provisional advisory would be revisited once fish sampling data became available. Thus, in October 1998 signs with the advisory were printed and posted at access points to the river and these ponds (Leite 2000). MDPH later provided comments on EPA's proposed fish screening study in Fulton Pond (MDPH 1998b).
In June 1999, MDPH completed a Health Consultation for the Rumford River Site in Mansfield, Massachusetts. For that Health Consultation, MDPH reviewed environmental data for fish, water, surface soil, and surface sediment that were submitted by EPA in February 1999 following a number of months of interagency planning (e.g., fish survey protocol development). The Health Consultation concluded that the concentrations of dioxin in fish in the Rumford River from below Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir constituted a public health hazard. Therefore, based on these data and information about the Hatheway & Patterson Company (H&P) site, a final public health fish consumption advisory was issued by MDPH for a section of the Rumford River from Glue Factory Pond Dam to the Norton Reservoir, including Fultan, Kingman, and Cabot ponds. MDPH also recommended additional fish testing for dioxin in Norton Reservoir and Glue Factory Pond.
In response to MDPH recommendations, in September 1999, EPA, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), Roy F. Weston, Inc. Supeifund Technical Assessment and Response Team, and Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) personnel, and a representative of the Town of Foxboro Conservation Commission participated in collecting fish samples from Glue Factory Pond and samples of surface sediment (from 0-3 inch depth) from the Rumford River and Glue Factory Pond (see Figure 2).
Environmental Data
In follow-up to MDPH's recommendation, seven fish samples (i.e., six composites of three fish each and one single sample) representing four different species of fish were collected from Glue Factory Pond and analyzed for dioxin. The fish species in these samples were white sucker, yellow perch, white perch, and largemouth bass. The fish were collected using 2-hour gill nets in combination with electroshock equipment from the MDFW boat. The fish samples were analyzed for dioxins using EPA Method 1613 Revision B, September 15, 1997, and Roy F. Weston's Region I Modified Method 1613B Special Technical Instructions Analysis of Dioxins (PCDD/PCDF) according to EPA Method 1613B (no revision date) (CAS 2000a).
Four surface sediment samples were collected from four different locations and analyzed for dioxin and pentachlorophenol (PCP). The samples were analyzed for dioxin using EPA Method 8290 Revision 0, September 1994, and Roy F. Weston's Region I Modified Method 8290 Special Technical Instructions Analysis of Dioxins (PCDD/PCDF) according to EPA Method 8290 (no revision date) (CAS 2000b). The samples were analyzed for PCP according to the Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work OLM03.1 for PCP (Weston 1999). The sample locations were the south bank of Glue Factory Pond, the northeast bank of Glue Factory Pond, downstream from Glue Factory Pond on the Rumford River, and the midpoint between the Hatheway and Patterson Site and Fulton Pond on the Rumford River (see Figure 2).
Health assessors use a variety of health-based screening values, called comparison values, to help decide whether compounds detected at a site might need further evaluation. These comparison values include environmental media evaluation guides (EMEGs), reference dose media evaluation guides (RMEGs), cancer risk evaluation guides (CREGs), maximum contaminant levels for drinking water (MCLs), and other applicable standards. These comparison values have been scientifically peer reviewed or were derived from scientifically peer-reviewed values and published by ATSDR and/or EPA. EMEG and RMEG values are used to evaluate the potential for noncancer health effects. CREG values assess the potential for carcinogenic effects.
One composite sample (three fish per composite) each of yellow perch, white perch, and largemouth bass were analyzed as whole fish rather than fillets, with detectable concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ)1 ranging from 0.03 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) to 0.15 ng/kg (see Table 1). Since these samples were evaluated as whole fish, data pertaining to them were not evaluated. Whole fish would be collected mainly for assessing ecological impacts (e.g., toxicologic risks to birds). These types of potential impacts will be considered by other appropriate agencies involved in this project. In the four composite fish fillet samples of three fish each (i.e., a total of 12 individual fish) collected from Glue Factory Pond, the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ ranged from approximately 0.0015 ng/kg to 0.081 ng/kg, with an average concentration of 0.036 ng/kg. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD results for both the composite fillets and whole fish samples were non-detect.
Of the four surface sediment samples collected for this sampling effort, all had detectable concentrations of dioxin and two had detectable concentrations of PCP (see Table 2). The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ ranged from 0.130 ng/kg to 553 ng/kg, with three of the samples ranging from approximately 0.130 ng/kg to 4.98 ng/kg. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were detected in two samples at 0.4 ng/kg and 35 ng/kg (see Table 2). The two sediment samples from the pond were considerably lower than the two samples taken from the river where the existing fish consumption advisory is currently in effect. This portion of the river was previously evaluated and recommendations were made as part of the June 1999 Health Consultation. The concentrations of PCP were 5 micrograms per kilogram (jxg/kg) and 460 ng /kg. It should be noted that the results from all samples were estimated quantities because the concentrations reported by the laboratory were below the lowest standard. The concentrations of PCP were less than all available comparison values and thus was not present at levels of health concern. One detection of dioxin (i.e., 553 ng/kg) taken from a sample location downstream from Bleachery on the Rumford River exceeded a health- based comparison value for soil exposure to children. This is a conservative evaluation because health concerns from exposure to sediment would be expected to be less than those from soil. In addition, this sample was taken from an area along the river that contained no structural deterrents, like fences, but was overgrown with vegetation and showed no signs of human use (e.g., fishing equipment, beverage cans) (Haworth 2001). Therefore, there would be no opportunities for exposure to dioxin.
1 TEQ represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for mixtures of dioxin-like chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs). Discussion
The term "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 TEQ. Because it is based on the relative estimated 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 1998). On Tables 1 and 2, the levels of dioxin in samples are shown as the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ.
Dioxins are not intentionally manufactured but are formed in the manufacturing process of all chlorophenols, such as PCP. The main environmental sources of dioxins are wood preservatives, herbicides, germicides, pulp and paper manufacturing plants, products from wood burning (in the presence of chlorine) and incineration of municipal and certain industrial wastes and medical wastes, transformer/capacitor fires involving PCBs, exhaust from automobiles that use leaded gasoline, chemical wastes from improper disposal, products from coal combustion, and chimney soot from residential wood burning stoves (EPA 1994).
ATSDR has developed a Minimal Risk Level (MRL) for TCDD of 1x10 9 mg/kg/day, or 1 picogram per kilogram per day (pg/kg/day) (ATSDR 1998). This was based on an LOAEL for developmental effects in rhesus monkeys. This MRL is similar to what ATSDR has estimated as a background exposure level of approximately 0.7 pg/kg/day for TCDD. ATSDR notes that the primary route of exposure to dioxin compounds for the general population is the food supply (e.g., fish), which is the main contributor to the background exposure. EPA has estimated that more than 90% of human body burdens of dioxins are derived from foods (EPA 1994). Considering exposure to all CDD and chlorinated dibenzofuran congeners, the background exposure level increases to as much as 2.75 pg/kg/day (ATSDR 1998). Currently, the federal health agencies are evaluating the need for a dioxin reference dose (RfD), which is the estimated amount of a compound that humans are exposed to on a daily basis that is not likely to cause harm (Pohl 2001). If an RfD for dioxin is developed that is different from ATSDR's present MRL, MDPH will evaluate any changes that the RfD may have on "the conclusions of this health consultation.
The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in fish from Glue Factory Pond (0.036 ng/kg on average) are lower than mean background levels for fish tissue (approximately 1 ng/kg) (EPA 1994; ATSDR 1998). Adults who eat fish from this pond at the average rate of daily fish consumption for the country (17.5 grams of fish per day, g/d, or 4.4 ounces per week) (EPA 2000) would be exposed to approximately 0.009 picograms of dioxin per kilogram body weight per day (pg/kg/d), which is below ATSDR's chronic MRL for dioxin of 1 pg/kg/d. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a typical serving size of fish is between three and six ounces (FDA 2001). Avid adult recreational fishers (i.e., people who consume 142.4 g/d of fish) (EPA 2000) would be exposed to approximately 0.07 pg/kg/day, which is also below the MRL. Because of their lower body weight, exposures relative to body weight would be higher for children than for adults. The estimated dioxin exposures for children consuming fish at the average rate and at the consumption rate of avid recreational fishermen would be 0.06 pg/kg/day and 0.5 pg/kg/day, respectively. Both of these estimated exposures for children fall below ATSDR's MRL for dioxin.
With regard to cancer concerns, the EPA has determined that TCDD is a "probable human carcinogen" based on sufficient animal and limited or inadequate evidence in human studies. IARC has classified TCDD as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) (ATSDR 1998). The concentrations of dioxin detected in the fish sampled were below health comparison values and the average background level for fish tissue. Cancer risks for both children and adults (average and heavy fish consumers) did not indicate that opportunities for exposure to dioxin levels detected in the fish would result in unusual cancer concerns. Therefore, the concentrations of dioxin found in the fish from Glue Factory Pond do not constitute a public health hazard and no public health fish consumption advisory is necessary for the pond.
In the June 1999 Health Consultation, MDPH recommended that fish from Glue Factory Pond be tested as a precautionary measure because it was unclear whether there might be an upstream source of dioxin to the river and whether the dam at Glue Factory Pond is an adequate barrier to upstream fish migration. These new data indicate that there does not appear to be a significant upstream source of dioxin affecting fish in the Glue Factory Pond impoundment of the Rumford River and that based on these results and on the fact that these fish are considered lower (i.e., less than reported background levels) in concentration than downstream fish, fish do not appear to be migrating upstream past the dam at Glue Factory Pond.
The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ detected in the two surface sediment samples from Glue Factory Pond (approximately 1.26 ng/kg and 0.130 ng/kg) did not exceed health-based screening values. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ detected in one of the two surface sediment samples downstream from Glue Factory Pond (downstream from Bleachery on the Rumford River) exceeded a health-based screening value for children. This sample was taken from an area along the river that contained no structural deterrents, like fences, but was overgrown with vegetation and showed no signs of human use (e.g., fishing equipment, beverage cans) (Haworth 2001). Hence, it is not expected that there would be opportunities for exposure to dioxins.
PCP was not detected in surface sediment samples collected from Glue Factory Pond. The PCP concentration in surface sediment detected in two samples collected for this health consult from two downstream locations in Rumford River did not exceed health- based screening values for PCP in soil. ATSDR requires that one of five conclusion categories be used to summarize findings of health consultation. These categories are: 1) Urgent Public Health Hazard, 2) Public Health Hazard, 3) Indeterminate Public Health Hazard, 4) No Apparent Public Health Hazard, 5) No Public Health Hazard. A category is selected from site specific conditions such as the degree of public health hazard based on the presence and duration of human exposure, contaminant concentration, the nature of toxic effects associated with site related contaminants, presence of physical hazards, and community health concerns. Based on ATSDR criteria, ATSDR would classify Goodrich Pond as a "No Apparent Public Health Hazard" based on the levels of dioxins in fish tissue collected from the pond.
ATSDR Child Health Initiative
ATSDR and MDPH, through ATSDR's Child Health Initiative, recognize that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand special emphasis in communities faced with contamination of their environment. Children are at a greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposure to hazardous substances emitted from waste sites. They are more likely exposed because they play outdoors and because they often bring food into contaminated areas. 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 critical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions, housing decisions, and access to medical care.
MDPH evaluated the likelihood of exposures to contaminants for children in the previous section.
Conclusions
1. The concentrations of dioxin in fish samples collected as part of his follow-up sampling effort from Glue Factory Pond are not at levels of health concern. No modification of the current MDPH public health fish consumption advisory for the Rumford River is necessary based on these new environmental data. If an RfD for dioxin is developed that is different from ATSDR's present MRL, MDPH will evaluate any changes that the RfD may have on the conclusions of this health consultation.
2. Th concentratione s of dioxins and PCP in surface sediment samples collected from Glue Factory Pond are not at levels of health concern.
3. Th concentratione s of dioxins and PCP in surface sediment samples collected from Rumford River from a location downstream of the Bleachery and at the midpoint between the HP site and Fulton Pond are either not at levels of health concern or are inaccessible, and hence, do not represent an exposure concern.
4. While dioxins and PCP were detected, concentrations of these environmental contaminants in Glue Factory Pond do not indicate levels of health concern. It is possible that the detections of dioxins reflect likely background levels.
Recommendations
1. If EPA collects additional environmental data or information for the Rumford River and its impoundments, this information should be reviewed by MDPH.
2. If a Rfn D for dioxin is developed that is different from ATSDR's present MRL, MDPH will evaluate any changes that the RfD may have on the conclusions of this health consultation.
Public Health Action Plan
Upon request, MDPH will review any additional environmental data or fish tissue data that are collected for the Rumford River and its impoundments. MDPH believes that this would be helpful in improving the characterization of opportunities of exposure. References
ATSDR (1994) Toxicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, May 1994.
ATSDR (1998) Toxicological Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins. U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.
CAS (2000a) Letter from Janine Bartels and Louis Macri, Colombia Analytical Services, to Christine Clark, EPA, re: WA No. 01-99-3-02, Task No. 2, TDF No. 537, Case No. 0298F/SDG No. D00192, Colombia Analytical Services- Houston, TX, Rumford River, Mansfield, MA, Dioxin/Furan: 7/Fish Tissue/000192, D00193, D00194, D00195, D00196, D00197, D00198, I/Aqueous Equipment Blank/000199, 1/PE/D00200 (CARP 1), on January 13, 2000 (Revised January 20, 2000).
CAS (2000b) Letter from Dan Wielandt and Louis Macri, Colombia Analytical Services, to Christine Clark, EPA, re: WA No.: 01-00-4-02, Task No.: 2, TDF No. 087A, Case No.: 0298F/SDG No.: D00181, Colombia Analytical Services- Houston Texas, Rumford River, Mansfield, MA, Dioxin/Furan: 4/Soil/D00181, D00182, D00183, D00184, 1 Aqueous Equipment Blank/000185, 2/PE/D00187 (PC00998), D00188 (PC00796), on January 31, 2000 (Revised March 14, 2000).
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 (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 (2000) Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Vol 1. EPA 823-R-95-007, Washington, DC.
FDA (2001) Consumer Advisory: An Important Message for Pregnant Women and Women of Childbearing Age Who May Become Pregnant About the Risks of Mercury in Fish, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, March 2001.
Haworth, Richard, EPA (personal communication, 2001)
Leite, Scott, Mansfield Health Department (personal communication, 2000) MDPH (1998a) Letter from Elaine Krueger, Bureau of Environmental 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, EPA, re: Rumford River Fish Screening Study, on December 1, 1998.
Pohl, Hanah, ATSDR (personal communication, 2001).
Weston (1999) Letter from Linda Sulkowski and Paul F. Killian, Roy F. Weston, to Christine Clark, EPA, re: Case No. 0298F; Sample Delivery Group (SDG) No. D00181_OA, Colombia Analytical Services, Rumford River Site, Foxboro/Mansfield, Massachusetts, PCP: 4/Soil/Sediment/D00181-D00184 (No Field Duplicates), I/Aqueous Equipment Blank/000185, I/Soil PE/D00185, I/Soil PE/D00186, CERCLIS No. None, TDD No. 99-09-0004, PCS No. 7448-00 This document was prepared by the Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. If you have any questions about this document, please contact Suzanne K. Condon, Assistant Commissioner, 7th Floor, 250 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.
10 o \o £? en u o ** o
4_l ^^ H-> 0 co o^ c. II |j £ 8 5 0
OJ ON o i—H c^ I1 P!> 0-. 8 ^ o
H-) .S § •*—' ^ ? -C o S a O g 0
1-1 0> ft) ^_, *—* v^ £ o m oo 5 g Fi a o^ 00 ^ o
"OJQ S o 2i c r^j fn ^^ f u Q Q 1 Q Q O 1 U U o H H H t/5 o
o Glossar y ATSD R ATSD R Glossar y sampl e quantitatio n Se e Se e O i s th e
§
§ 2 Terms . 111 oo
c 3 Healt h numerica l valu e 73 O "S intermediat e exposure . intermediat e exposure . limit . t o a n t o a n Environmenta l associate d o f detectio n
c3 a n Guid e '>< Guid e 2 bu t no Se e n i s n nthese s r , o ntitatio n limit . O o o o o 03 "O 0 W5 o I/I m 3 (4-H en ex T3 cr CU £'% 1 -8 f U o •3 N "rt £ "« 1 pH 0 4—t "c3 £ c3 5 o 13 IL> W 4—> w •5 c OH wa s a n Medi a H numer i U (X Evaluati o /S «< *aM f •a CQ PL, fN Ec c 1 0) o equivalent s cj -S u 2 1 4—> 3 ,3 8-Tetrachlorodi b O , O [^ g> & associate d X 8 o 1 compoun d 00 ^ , 7 0 C 4—* e e i xicit y vironmenta l Medi a Environmenta l vironmenta l Environmenta l nce r Ris k o V""! rt P O .c jr en o c *•*—t c *^, 03 2 Z Z H H S ri H 0 W o U ^^ a ^ B o Q Q Q Q ex 13 p C U o ex C 00 c o^o o 00 00 o E 'S r~-" o .2 en s 3 C , u Q (N Q cs o Figures 13 £ S 2 •I fr GO I | s I S SAMPLE LOCATION MAP RUMFORD RIVER SITE w> f IBM** w: fowe MORSE STREET/GLUE FACTORY POND 99-09-C005 I BUTTERWORTH \ 10/4/99 FOX90RO/MANSFIEXD. MASSACHUSETTS rut R:\980ao004\nG2 RGURE2 ATSDR PLAIN LANGUAGE GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TERMS Revised-15Dec99 Absorption: How a chemical enters a person's blood after the chemical has been swallowed, has come into contact with the skin, or has been breathed in. Acute Exposure: Contact with a chemical that happens once or only for a limited period of time. ATSDR defines acute exposures as those that might last up to 14 days. Additive Effect: A response to a chemical mixture, or combination of substances, that might be expected if the known effects of individual chemicals, seen at specific doses, were added together. Adverse Health Effect: A change in body function or the structures of cells that can lead to disease or health problems. Antagonistic Effect: A response to a mixture of chemicals or combination of substances that is less than might be expected if the known effects of individual chemicals, seen at specific doses, were added together. ATSDR: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR is a federal health agency in Atlanta, Georgia that deals with hazardous substance and waste site issues. ATSDR gives people information about harmful chemicals in their environment and tells people how to protect themselves from coming into contact with chemicals. Background Level: An average or expected amount of a chemical in a specific environment. Or, amounts of chemicals that occur naturally in a specific-environment. Biota: Used in public health, things that humans would eat - including animals, fish and plants. CAP: See Community Assistance Panel. Cancer: A group of diseases which occur when cells in the body become abnormal and grow, or multiply, out of control Carcinogen: Any substance shown to cause tumors or cancer in experimental studies. CERCLA: See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Chronic Exposure: A contact with a substance or chemical that happens over a long period of time. ATSDR considers exposures of more than one year to be chronic. 17 Completed Exposure Pathway: See Exposure Pathway. Community Assistance Panel (CAP): A group of people from the community and health and environmental agencies who work together on issues and problems at hazardous waste sites. Comparison Value: (CVs) Concentrations or the amount of substances in air, water, food, and soil that are unlikely, upon exposure, to cause adverse health effects. Comparison values are used by health assessors to select which substances and environmental media (air, water, food and soil) need additional evaluation while health concerns or effects are investigated. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): CERCLA was put into place in 1980. It is also known as Superfund. This act concerns releases of hazardous substances into the environment, and the cleanup of these substances and hazardous waste sites. ATSDR was created by this act and is responsible for looking into the health issues related to hazardous waste sites. Concern: A belief or worry that chemicals in the environment might cause harm to people. Concentration: How much or the amount of a substance present in a certain amount of soil, water, air, or food. Contaminant: See Environmental Contaminant. Delayed Health Effect: A disease or injury that happens as a result of exposures that might have occurred far in the past. Dermal Contact: A chemical getting onto your skin, (see Route of Exposure). Dose: The amount of a substance to which a person might be exposed, usually on a daily basis. Dose is often explained as "amount of substance(s) per body weight per day". Dose / Response: The relationship between the amount of exposure (dose) and the change in body function or health that result. Duration: The amount of time (days, months, years) that a person is exposed to a chemical. 18 Environmental Contaminant: A substance (chemical) that gets into a system (person, animal, or the environment) in amounts higher than that found in Background Level, or what would be expected. Environmental Media: Usually refers to the air, water, and soil in which chemcials of interest are found. Sometimes refers to the plants and animals that are eaten by humans. Environmental Media is the second part of an Exposure Pathway. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The federal agency that develops and enforces environmental laws to protect the environment and the public's health. Epidemiology: The study of the different factors that determine how often, in how many people, and in which people will disease occur. Exposure: Coming into contact with a chemical substance.(For the three ways people can come in contact with substances, see Route of Exposure.) Exposure Assessment: The process of finding the ways people come in contact with chemicals, how often and how long they come in contact with chemicals, and the amounts of chemicals with which they come in contact. Exposure Pathway: A description of the way that a chemical moves from its source (where it began) to where and how people can come into contact with (or get exposed to) the chemical. ATSDR defines an exposure pathway as having 5 parts: 1. Source of Contamination, 2. Environmental Media and Transport Mechanism, 3. Point of Exposure, 4. Route of Exposure, and 5. Receptor Population. When all 5 parts of an exposure pathway are present, it is called a Completed Exposure Pathway. Each of these 5 terms is defined in this Glossary. Frequency: How often a person is exposed to a chemical over time; for example, every day, once a week, twice a month. Hazardous Waste: Substances that have been released or thrown away into the environment and, under certain conditions, could be harmful to people who come into contact with them. 19 Health Effect: ATSDR deals only with Adverse Health Effects (see definition in this Glossary). Indeterminate Public Health Hazard: The category is used in Public Health Assessment documents for sites where important information is lacking (missing or has not yet been gathered) about site-related chemical exposures. Ingestion: Swallowing something, as in eating or drinking. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure). Inhalation: Breathing. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure). LOAEL: Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level. The lowest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that has caused harmful health effects in people or animals. Malignancy: See Cancer. MRL: Minimal Risk Level. An estimate of daily human exposure by a specified route and length of time — to a dose of chemical that is likely to be without a measurable risk of adverse, noncancerous effects. An MRL should not be used as a predictor of adverse health effects. NPL: The National Priorities List. (Which is part of Superfund.) A list kept by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the most serious, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country. An NPL site needs to be cleaned up or is being looked at to see if people can be exposed to chemicals from the site. NOAEL: No Observed Adverse Effect Level. The highest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that did not cause harmful health effects in people or animals. No Apparent Public Health Hazard: The category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites where exposure to site-related chemicals might have occurred in the past or is still occurring but the exposures are not at levels expected to cause adverse health effects. No Public Health Hazard: The category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites where there is evidence of an absence of exposure to site-related chemicals. PHA: Public Health Assessment. A report or document that looks at chemicals at a hazardous waste site and tells if people could be harmed from coming into contact with those chemicals. The PHA also tells if possible further public health actions are needed. 20 Plume: A line or column of air or water containing chemicals moving from the source to areas further away. A plume can be a column or clouds of smoke from a chimney or contaminated underground water sources or contaminated surface water (such as lakes, ponds and streams). Point of Exposure: The place where someone can come into contact with a contaminated environmental medium (air, water, food or soil). For examples: the area of a playground that has contaminated dirt, a contaminated spring used for drinking water, the location where fruits or vegetables are grown in contaminated soil, or the backyard area where someone might breathe contaminated air. Population: A group of people living in a certain area; or the number of people in a certain area. PRP: Potentially Responsible Party. A company, government or person that is responsible for causing the pollution at a hazardous waste site. PRP's are expected to help pay for the clean up of a site. Public Health Assessments): SeePHA. Public Health Hazard: The category is used in PHAs for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of chronic, site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects. Public Health Hazard Criteria: PHA categories given to a site which tell whether people could be harmed by conditions present at the site. Each are defined in the Glossary. The categories are: • Urgent Public Health Hazard • Public Health Hazard • Indeterminate Public Health Hazard • No Apparent Public Health Hazard • No Public Health Hazard Receptor Population: People who live or work in the path of one or more chemicals, and who could come into contact with them (See Exposure Pathway). Reference Dose (RfD): An estimate, with safety factors (see safety factor) built in, of the daily, life-time exposure of human populations to a possible hazard that is not likely to cause harm to the person. 21 Route of Exposure: The way a chemical can get into a person's body. There are three exposure routes: - breathing (also called inhalation), - eating or drinking (also called ingestion), and - or getting something on the skin (also called dermal contact). Safety Factor: Also called Uncertainty Factor. When scientists don't have enough information to decide if an exposure will cause harm to people, they use "safety factors" and formulas in place of the information that is not known. These factors and formulas can help determine the amount of a chemical that is not likely to cause harm to people. SARA: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986 amended CERCLA and expanded the health-related responsibilities of ATSDR. CERCLA and SARA direct ATSDR to look into the health effects from chemical exposures at hazardous waste sites. Sample Size: The number of people that are needed for a health study. Sample: A small number of people chosen from a larger population (See Population). Source of Contamination: The place where a chemical comes from, such as a landfill, pond, creek, incinerator, tank, or drum. Contaminant source is the first part of an Exposure Pathway. Special Populations: People who might be more sensitive to chemical exposures because of certain factors such as age, a disease they already have, occupation, sex, or certain behaviors (like cigarette smoking). Children, pregnant women, and older people are often considered special populations. Statistics: A branch of the math process of collecting, looking at, and summarizing data or information. Superfund Site: See NPL. Survey: A way to collect information or data from a group of people (population). Surveys can be done by phone, mail, or in person. ATSDR cannot do surveys of more than nine people without approval from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Synergistic Effect: A health effect from an exposure to more than one chemical, where one of the chemicals worsens the effect of another chemical. The combined effect of the chemicals acting together are greater than the effects of the chemicals acting by themselves. 22 Toxic: Harmful. Any substance or chemical can be toxic at a certain dose (amount). The dose is what determines the potential harm of a chemical and whether it would cause someone to get sick. Toxicology: The study of the harmful effects of chemicals on humans or animals. Tumor: Abnormal growth of tissue or cells that have formed a lump or mass. Uncertainty Factor: See Safety Factor. Urgent Public Health Hazard: This category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of short-term (less than 1 year), site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects and require quick intervention to stop people from being expose 23 Certification The Health Consultation for Glue Factory/Rumford River, Foxborough, Bristol, Massachusetts was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the federal 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 initiated. Roberta Erlwein, MPH Technical Project Officer Superfund Site Assessment Branch (SSAB) Division of Health Assesment and Consulttion (DHAC) ATSDR The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC), ATSDR, has reviewed this health consultation and concurs with its findings. Richard E. Gillig^M.C. Section Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR 24 Appendix A Health Consultation 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 econcentrations 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 Foxborough, 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 •' Vandy Pond is called Smith Pond on some maps. the 1980s, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) required HP to install groundwater extraction wells to stop discharges 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 and covered heavily contaminated soils with asphalt and/or gravel (EPA, 1998). Dioxin is a common impurity in pentachlorophenol, one of the wood preservatives used at the HP facility (ATSDR, 1994). Therefore, in 1998, MDEP collected environmental samples from the HP property for dioxin analysis. Dioxin was found in sediments, soils, river water, groundwater, and free product. As a result of these findings, MDEP requested additional 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 consuming fish caught in the river and downstream ponds. Two of these ponds, Fulton Pond and Cabot Pond, were annually stocked with trout by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) (MDEP, 1998). Therefore, MDEP requested MDFW to refrain from stocking Fulton and Cabot ponds until EPA had analyzed more environmental samples from the river, including samples offish tissue (MDEP, 1998b; EPA, 1998). MDFW and MDEP also requested that MDPH consider issuing a provisional fish consumption advisory for the Rumford River for the following reasons: 1. Dioxin compounds had been identified in surface water and near the HP property. Dioxin compounds have a high potential for bioconcentration in fish. 2. It was no feasiblt e to obtain fish tissue sampling data in a timely way because of the limited availability of laboratory resources nationwide 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 tissue sampling data for the water body of concern. In this particular case, MDPH believed that it would be a proactive and prudent public health measure to issue a provisional advisory without waiting for results offish tissue sampling. Also, MDPH anticipated that fish from the Rumford River would be tested for dioxin before the 1999-fishing season. Therefore, in October 1998, MDPH issued a provisional fish consumption advisory recommending that all persons should refrain from consuming fish caught in the Rumford River, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, and Norton Reservoir (MDPH, 1998a). MDPH noted that the provisional advisory would be revisited once fish sampling data became available. Signs with the advisory were printed and posted at access points to the river and these ponds (Scott Leite, Mansfield Health Agent, pers. com.). MDPH later provided comments on EPA's proposed fish screening study in Fulton Pond (MDPH, 1998b). Environmental Data In October and November 1998, EPA collected samples of surface soil (from 0-3 inches depth), water, surface sediment (from 0-3 inches depth), and fish from the Rumford River Site (EPA, 1999; Figure 2). On the HP property, most environmental 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 taken from three locations: (1) upstream of the HP property, (2) the point where free product from the HP property has intermittently discharged to the 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. The term "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, 1998). On Tables 1-4, the levels of dioxin in environmental 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 are often considered together because of their similar chemical structure and the fact that individual PAH compounds are rarely found alone. Benzo[a]pyrene is the most carcinogenic of the PAHs. On Tables 1-4, the levels of PAHs are expressed as the sum of the concentrations of 17 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 TEQ) and PCP in the river water and sediments were highest on the HP property (3260 ng/kg dioxin and 51 mg/kg* PCP in sediments) (Tables 1 and 2). Downstream in Fulton and Kingman ponds, the concentrations of these two compounds in river water and sediments were either below detection or less than health-based screening levels for residential soils. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in sediments upstream of the HP property (27.3 ng/kg) was higher than its concentration in the downstream ponds (approximately 1 ng/kg). The difference between the dioxin sediment concentrations at the upstream sampling site and the downstream ponds may reflect the fact that these ponds were dredged in the past, or that sediments from the river do not accumulate in the shallow perimeter areas of the pond that were sampled. Alternatively, this difference could indicate that there might be another source of dioxin to the river upstream of the HP property. Regardless, the concentrations of dioxin in upstream sediments were similar to estimates of dioxin background levels for sediments in North America and Europe (3.9-34.9 ng/kg) (EPA, 1994). The measured concentrations of arsenic and chromium in river sediments were within expected background concentrations for the eastern United States (Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984; MDEP, 1995). In two of the three sediment samples, the concentrations of total PAHs (19.0-34.6 mg/kg) were higher than those found in pristine sites (e.g., 0.018-0.160 mg/kg for deep ocean sediments), and slightly higher than levels for areas near Metropolitan Boston (e.g., 0.16-8.5 mg/kg for sediments in Massachusetts Bay) (Windsor and Kites, 1979). The concentration of total PAHs in the third sediment sample, which was collected from the HP property at the point where free product appears to have been discharging to the river, was lower than in the other two but this result should be considered uncertain. The analytical method detection limits for this sample were higher than normal (greater than 8 mg/kg per compound) possibly because of interference by the free product in the sample. Soil On the HP property, the concentrations of dioxin, arsenic, and chromium in surface soils were elevated above background levels and health-based 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). Measured PCP concentrations were less than screening values for residential soils. One soil sample was also collected from Robinson Park on Fulton Pond in Mansfield (Table 3). The measured concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ and PCP in this sample (2.3 ng/kg and 0.12 mg/kg, ' ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram 4 respectively) were less than health-based screening values for residential properties (50 ng/kg and 6 mg/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. However, these data can provide information on specific locations within this area where there may be opportunities for exposure to contaminants. The specific questions posed by EPA will be discussed separately to the extent that the available data permit. EPA Question 1: Should the provisional advisory against consuming fish from the Rumford River, Fulton Pond, Kingman Pond, Cabot Pond, and Norton Reservoir be made permanent? The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ in fish from Fulton Pond (27.3 ng/kg on average) are higher than mean background levels for fish tissue (approximately 1 ng/kg) (EPA, 1994; ATSDR, 1998). People who eat fish from this pond at the average rate of daily fish consumption for the country (6.5 grams of fish per day, g/d) (EPA, 1995) would be exposed to approximately 2.5 picograms of dioxin per kilogram body weight per day (pg/kg/d) which is higher than ATSDR's chronic Minimum Risk Level of 1 pg/kg/d. Avid recreational fishers (i.e., people who consume 140 g/d of fish) (EPA, 1995) could be exposed to dioxin at levels more than fifty times greater than the Minimum Risk Level. Because of their lower body weight, exposures relative to body weight would be higher for children than for adults. Therefore, the concentrations of dioxin found in the fish from Fulton Pond constitute a public health hazard and a regular MDPH public health fish consumption advisory is warranted. The testing results also clearly demonstrate that fish collected in areas in the vicinity of the HP property have high levels of dioxin. According to 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 ri ver that are likely to be reached 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 fish can migrate downstream from the HP property at least as far as Norton Reservoir (Richard Keller, MDFW, pers. com.). Therefore, the public health fish consumption advisory for the Rumford River should extend from below Glue Factory Pond to and including Norton Reservoir (Figure 1). The design of the fish screening study was to test the worst-case areas (i.e., Fulton Pond) first to determine if additional testing was necessary. Because the testing results from Fulton Pond confirmed suspicions of dioxin contamination in fish tissue, additional fish testing from downstream areas (including Norton Reservoir) is recommended to confirm the extent of this contamination. MDPH also recommends that fish from Glue Factory Pond be tested as a precautionary measure because it is unclear whether there might be an upstream source of dioxin to the river and whether the dam at Glue Factory Pond is an adequate barrier to upstream fish migration. EPA Question 2: Do the concentrations 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? One soil sample was collected from Robinson Park just south of Fulton Pond in Mansfield (Figure 2) and analyzed for dioxin and PCP. Robinson Park is a 100-meter-long and 50-meter-wide picnic area that is used for recreational activities in the summer by children. The soil sample was taken from a location 50 feet from the river out of concern that the Rumford River may have flooded the park and deposited contaminated sediments in the picnic area. The concentrations of dioxin and PCP in the soil sample were less than health-based screening values for residential properties. Because only one soil sample was available for the park, we also examined 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. Finally, the limited environmental data provided to MDPH are not sufficient to evaluate past conditions on the site. It is possible that opportunities for exposure to contaminants might have been higher in the past, especially if the site was frequently accessed. To evaluate these past exposures, more extensive characterization of the contamination and historical uses of the site would be required. ATSDR Child Health Initiative ATSDR and MDPH, through ATSDR's Child 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 environment). 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 critical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions, housing decisions, and access to medical care. MDPH evaluated the opportunities for exposure to contaminants for children in the previous section. 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. Recommendations 1. Signs confirming the public health fish consumption 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 happy to assist with the design of this posting. Persons (e.g. local health officials, fisheries and wildlife officials) familiar with the likely fishing locations along this water body should be consulted with regard to optimal placement of signs. 2. MDFW should permanently discontinue fish stocking of water bodies in the area covered by the fish advisory (e.g., Fulton and Cabot ponds). 3. Because the testing results from Fulton Pond confirmed suspicions of dioxin contamination in fish tissue, additional fish testing from downstream areas (primarily Norton Reservoir) is recommended to confirm the extent of this contamination. MDPH also recommends that fish from Glue Factory Pond be tested as a precautionary measure because it is unclear whether there might be an upstream source of dioxin to the river and whether the dam at Glue Factory Pond is an adequate barrier to upstream fish migration. 4. Th perimetee r of the HP property should be inspected for areas where it is possible to enter the property. All breaches in the existing fence should be fixed immediately to ensure that access to the property is well restricted and that warning signs are clearly visible. 5. MDPH believes that measures should be taken to investigate, and prevent the intermittent release of free product from the HP property to prevent additional public health concerns from developing and to protect fishers who are not aware of or do not heed the fish consumption advisory. 6. 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. 10 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 (SSAB) 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) Toxicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, May 1994. ATSDR (1995) Toxicological 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) Letter from Elaine Krueger, Bureau of Environmental 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 Boerngen, 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 Windsor, J.G., and Hites, R.A. (1979) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine sediments and Nova Scotia soils, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 43: 27-33. 13 APPENDIX A Health assessors use a variety of health comparison values to help decide whether compounds may need further evaluation: Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (EMEG), Reference Dose Media Evaluation 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 comparison 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 i o •s! o o t— ( 3 M o «£i o ^ § CO .c II II H II n ^ " li ll (A O o o O a ' •rj a: u C S si = U tf Val 1 1 1 1 30 0 1 ill 0. 3 n " ll » = 1