PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORPORATION
EDISON TOWNSHIP, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Table 1. On-Site Surface Soil Contamination; Chemical Insecticide Site.
| COMPOUND |
Concentration
|
|
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
|
| Pesticides/PCBs (ug/kg) | ||
|
Chlordane |
61,278
|
2,944.4
|
| 4-4-DDT |
6,900,000
|
85,059.8
|
| 4-4-DDD |
2,200,000
|
24,955.9
|
| 4-4-DDE |
122,220
|
3,787
|
| Dieldrin |
17,038
|
967.7
|
| Alpha-BHC |
45,000,000
|
922,139.8
|
| Beta-BHC |
1,000
|
201.2
|
| Delta-BHC |
860
|
202.2
|
| Gamma-BHC |
23,000,000
|
479,443.1
|
| Herbicides (ug/kg) | ||
| 2,4-D |
2,500
|
345.9
|
| 2,4,5-T |
3,310
|
344.5
|
| Silvex |
3,100
|
284.1
|
| Dinoseb |
380,000
|
82,618.1
|
| Inorganics (mg/kg) | ||
|
Antimony |
498
|
97.2
|
| Arsenic |
8,010
|
644.9
|
| Cadmium |
177
|
9.9
|
| Chromium |
51.8
|
15.5
|
| Lead |
1,980
|
103.5
|
| Mercury |
72
|
3.1
|
| Nickel |
44
|
13
|
| Zinc |
1,040
|
139.6
|
| Dioxins/Furans (ug/kg) | ||
|
2,3,7,8-TCDD |
1.38
|
0.25
|
| Tetra CDD (Total) |
7.3
|
0.39
|
| Penta CDD (Total) |
6.36
|
0.45
|
| Hexa CDD (Total) |
12
|
0.73
|
| Hepte CDD (Total) |
49.9
|
4.27
|
| 2,3,7,8-TCDF |
23.7
|
0.75
|
| Tetra CDF (Total) |
79.1
|
1.76
|
| Penta CDF (Total) |
50.6
|
1.41
|
| Hexa CDF (Total) |
26
|
1.41
|
| Hepte CDF (Total) |
41.4
|
3.22
|
| Base/Neutral Acid Extractables (ug/kg) | ||
|
Phenol |
29,000
|
8,940
|
| 2-Chlorophenol |
25,000
|
24,000
|
| 1,2-Dichlorobenzene |
3,700
|
590.7
|
| 2,4-Dichlorophenol |
700,000
|
107,127.7
|
| 2,2,4-Trichlorobenzene |
9,200
|
1,259.7
|
| 2-Metnaphthalene |
24,000
|
2,822.4
|
| 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol |
5,600
|
2,262.5
|
| Fluorene |
12,000
|
1,420.4
|
| Pentachlorophenol |
14,000
|
1,823.1
|
| Phenanthrene |
12,000
|
640.6
|
| Pyrene |
18,000
|
747.3
|
| Volatile Organics (ug/kg) | ||
| Methylene Chloride |
180
|
144.6
|
| Acetone |
800
|
229.8
|
| Chloroform |
31
|
4.6
|
| 2-Butanone |
820
|
223.2
|
| 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone |
66
|
25.3
|
| Tetrachloroethene |
56
|
10.4
|
| Toluene |
23
|
6.6
|
| Chlorobenzene |
42
|
13.1
|
| Total Xylenes |
1,100
|
74.4
|
Data taken from Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report;
Ebasco Services Inc., March 1990.
Table 2. On-Site/Off-Site Soil Boring Contamination; Chemical
Insecticide Site.
| COMPOUND |
On-Site
|
Off-Site
|
||
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
|
| Pesticides/PCBs (ug/kg) | ||||
| Alpha-BHC |
330,000
|
34,753.6
|
31
|
31
|
| Beta-BHC |
205
|
86.7
|
42
|
42.5
|
| Delta-BHC |
1,900
|
488
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Gamma-BHC |
450,000
|
54,102.6
|
20
|
20
|
| Dieldrin |
17,000
|
1,801.1
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Endrin |
611
|
226
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-4-DDE |
42,000
|
2,950
|
2.6
|
2.6
|
| 4-4-DDD |
2,200,000
|
92,297.3
|
360
|
60.5
|
| 4-4-DDT |
2,200,000
|
124,485.8
|
240
|
47.9
|
| Chlordane |
39,000
|
7,683
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Herbicides (ug/kg) | ||||
| 2,4-D |
910
|
185.2
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2,4,5-T |
820
|
102.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Silvex |
84
|
14.9
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Dinoseb |
100,000
|
11,834.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Inorganics (mg/kg) | ||||
|
Antimony |
111
|
25
|
180
|
84.5
|
| Arsenic |
3,420
|
309.8
|
24.4
|
6.1
|
| Barium |
450
|
71.5
|
284
|
69.9
|
| Beryllium |
5.2
|
1.7
|
4.8
|
1.1
|
| Cadmium |
71
|
5.5
|
6
|
2.9
|
| Chromium |
128
|
23.2
|
196
|
21.6
|
| Lead |
110
|
16.6
|
80
|
18.3
|
| Mercury |
3.3
|
0.5
|
0.6
|
0.3
|
| Nickel |
119
|
22.8
|
108
|
20.8
|
| Thallium |
0.4
|
0.2
|
17
|
11.1
|
| Vanadium |
137
|
28.7
|
61
|
26.2
|
| Dioxins (ug/kg) | ||||
|
2378-TCDD |
1.76
|
0.21
|
ND
|
ND
|
| TETRA CDD (Total) |
2.07
|
0.16
|
0.022
|
0.012
|
| PENTA CDD (Total) |
0.25
|
0.13
|
0.011
|
0.006
|
| HEXA CDD (Total) |
3.8
|
0.21
|
0.061
|
0.023
|
| 1234678-HpCDD |
8.19
|
0.35
|
0.196
|
0.072
|
| HEPTE CDD (Total) |
14.6
|
0.81
|
0.452
|
0.169
|
| OCTA CDD (Total) |
56.9
|
8.33
|
17.956
|
4.803
|
| Furans (ug/kg) | ||||
|
2378-TCDF |
0.32
|
0.05
|
0.007
|
0.004
|
| TETRA CDF (Total) |
1.6
|
0.16
|
0.013
|
0.007
|
| PENTA CDF (Total) |
1.71
|
0.13
|
0.024
|
0.010
|
| HEXA CDF (Total) |
4.14
|
0.34
|
0.045
|
0.014
|
| 1234678-HpCDF |
3.32
|
0.28
|
0.254
|
0.100
|
| HEPTA CDF (Total) |
10.7
|
0.93
|
0.289
|
0.137
|
| OCTA CDF |
11.5
|
1.56
|
0.005
|
0.005
|
| Base/Neutral Acid Extractables (ug/kg) | ||||
| Benzoic Acid |
880
|
245.4
|
2,700
|
1,570
|
| Phenol |
380
|
160.5
|
130
|
130
|
| 2-Chlorophenol |
220
|
100.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 1,4-Dichlorobenzene |
1,400
|
14.1
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 1,2-Dichlorobenzene |
980
|
237.4
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2-Nitrophenol |
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2,4-Dimethylphenol |
2,000
|
2,000
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2,4-Dichlorophenol |
3,400
|
527.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene |
2,200
|
504.3
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Naphthalene |
44,000
|
6,821.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-Chloroaniline |
110
|
98
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2-Methylnaphthalene |
140,000
|
11,857.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol |
280
|
92.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2,4-Dinitrophenol |
4,000
|
1,954
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-Nitrophenol |
2,500
|
918.3
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Dibenzofuran |
6,700
|
3,600
|
78
|
78
|
| Diethylphthalate |
46
|
45
|
200
|
51
|
| Fluorene |
7,800
|
3,290
|
150
|
105
|
| 4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol |
1,600
|
656.7
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Pentachlorophenol |
18,000
|
2,357.9
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Phenanthrene |
3,300
|
643.4
|
1,600
|
453.7
|
| Benzo[a]pyrene |
1,400
|
650
|
1,700
|
925.0
|
| Volatile Organics (ug/kg) | ||||
| Vinyl Chloride |
8
|
8
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Acetone |
24,000
|
6,791.6
|
4,400
|
1,470.6
|
| Methylene Chloride |
29
|
29
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Carbon Disulfide |
200
|
41.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene |
25
|
8.1
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Chloroform |
6.8
|
3.1
|
7
|
3
|
| 1,2-Dichloroethane |
620
|
78.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2-Butanone |
1,100
|
217.8
|
110
|
34.8
|
| Trichloroethene |
23
|
23
|
3
|
2.5
|
| Benzene |
120
|
21.4
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Tetrachloroethene |
7,500
|
1,575.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Chlorobenzene |
2,100
|
277.2
|
2
|
2
|
| Ethylbenzene |
59,000
|
8,561.0
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Total xylenes |
260,000
|
38,394.3
|
ND
|
ND
|
* = New Jersey or USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level;
NA = Not Available;
ND = Not DetectedData Taken from Draft Final Remedial Investigation report;
Ebasco Services Inc., March 1990.
Table 3. On-Site/Off-Site Surface-water Contamination; Chemical
Insecticide Site.
| COMPOUND |
On-Site
|
Off-Site
|
||
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
|
| Pesticides/PCBs (ug/L) | ||||
| Alpha-BHC |
1.8
|
1.8
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
| Beta-BHC |
0.5
|
0.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Gamma-BHC |
1.2
|
1.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
| Aldrin |
0.6
|
0.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Dieldrin |
0.3
|
0.3
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-4-DDE |
0.3
|
0.3
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-4-DDD |
0.6
|
0.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-4-DDT |
2.5
|
2.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Hebicides (ug/L) | ||||
| Silvex |
0.3
|
0.3
|
5
|
5
|
| Dinoseb |
16,000
|
7,996
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Inorganics (ug/L) | ||||
| Antimony |
55
|
55
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Arsenic |
1,680
|
456.4
|
6.4
|
4.8
|
| Barium |
217
|
84.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Chromium |
31
|
16.1
|
90
|
68.3
|
| Vanadium |
287
|
140.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Dioxins/Furans (ng/L) | ||||
| 2,3,7,8-TCDF |
0.24
|
0.2
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Tetra-CDF |
0.24
|
0.2
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Octa-CDF |
0.74
|
0.7
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Base/Neutral Acid Extractables (ug/L) | ||||
| 1,2-Dichlorobenzene |
2
|
2
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Volatile Organics (ug/L) | ||||
| Chloroform |
4.4
|
4.4
|
8.4
|
8.4
|
| Trichloroethene |
ND
|
ND
|
7.8
|
7.8
|
| Tetrachloroethene |
ND
|
ND
|
4.3
|
3.4
|
ND = Not Detected
Data taken from Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report;
Ebasco Services Inc., March 1990.
Table 4. On-Site/Off-Site Sediment Contamination; Chemical
Insecticide Site.
| COMPOUND |
On-Site
|
Off-Site
|
||
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
|
| Pesticides/PCB's (ug/kg) | ||||
| Alpha-BHC |
590,000
|
66,812
|
12
|
12
|
| Beta-BHC |
200
|
96.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Gamma-BHC |
250
|
94.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Heptachlor Epoxide |
110
|
82
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Dieldrin |
1,900
|
722.6
|
63
|
31.4
|
| 4-4-DDE |
52,000
|
11,890.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-4-DDD |
470,000
|
55,656.6
|
470
|
116.1
|
| 4-4-DDT |
820,000
|
76,759.3
|
74
|
43.3
|
| Arochlor 1248 |
420
|
420
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Arochlor 1260 |
ND
|
ND
|
10,000
|
9,950
|
| Herbicides (ug/kg) | ||||
| 2,4-D |
1,500
|
710
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2,4,5-T |
1,230
|
444.7
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Silvex |
130
|
89.4
|
20
|
16
|
| Dinoseb |
51,000
|
51,000
|
ND
|
ND
|
|
Inorganics (mg/kg) |
||||
|
Antimony |
62
|
32.7
|
14
|
10.9
|
| Arsenic |
2,660
|
578.3
|
79
|
24.5
|
| Cadmium |
21
|
7
|
9.4
|
3.6
|
| Chromium |
39
|
15.1
|
133
|
46.4
|
| Lead |
1,170
|
224.1
|
1,130
|
213.2
|
| Mercury |
0.7
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
| Nickel |
143
|
18.8
|
38
|
22.4
|
| Zinc |
552
|
208.1
|
1,840
|
662.2
|
| Dioxins (ug/kg) | ||||
| 2,3,7,8-TCDD |
0.76
|
0.39
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Tetra CDD (Total) |
0.79
|
0.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Penta CDD (Total) |
0.5
|
0.19
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Hexa CDD (Total) |
1.72
|
0.7
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Hepta CDD) (Total) |
28.5
|
5.87
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Octa TCDD (Total) |
83.7
|
21.6
|
1.1
|
0.63
|
| Furans (ug/kg) | ||||
| 2,3,7,8-TCDF |
2.91
|
0.95
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Tetra CDF (Total) |
9.06
|
2.75
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Penta CDF (Total) |
4.27
|
1.82
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Hexa CDF (Total) |
9.6
|
3.27
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Hepta CDF (Total) |
20.2
|
7.13
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Octa CDF (Total) |
37.7
|
12.3
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Base/Neutral Acid Extractables (ug/kg) | ||||
| 1,4-Dichlorobenzene |
2,900
|
2,900
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 1,2-Dichlorobenzene |
1,400
|
870
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 2,2,4-Trichlorobenzene |
2,900
|
2,900
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Anthracene |
190
|
95.5
|
48,000
|
12,468.3
|
| Phenanthrene |
5,900
|
909
|
5,200
|
1,570
|
| Benzo(a)Anthracene |
470
|
470
|
4,800
|
1,825
|
| Di-N-Butylphthalate |
2,100
|
1,214.4
|
4,300
|
2,118.6
|
| Fluoranthrene |
650
|
407.5
|
5,800
|
2,237.8
|
| Pyrene |
480
|
326
|
4,500
|
1,652.5
|
| Volatile Organics (ug/kg) | ||||
| Methylene Chloride |
4
|
3
|
3
|
2.9
|
| Acetone |
150
|
150
|
5
|
5
|
| 1,2-Dichloroethane |
5
|
5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Benzene |
30
|
24.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Tetrachloroethene |
2
|
2
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Toluene |
52
|
31.5
|
3,100
|
563.4
|
| Chlorobenzene |
1,100
|
301.2
|
ND |
ND
|
ND = Not Detected
Data Taken from Final Draft Remedial Investigation Report;
Ebasco Services Inc., March 1990.
Table 5. On-Site/Off-Site Groundwater Contamination; Chemical
Insecticide Site.
| COMPOUND |
On-Site
|
Off-Site
|
MCL*
|
||
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
||
| Pesticides/PCBs (ug/L) | |||||
| Alpha-BHC |
3400
|
103.8
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
NA
|
| Beta-BHC |
82
|
21.1
|
33
|
16.5
|
NA
|
| Delta-BHC |
1100
|
49.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Gamma-BHC |
1400
|
75.5
|
0.6
|
0.1
|
4
|
| Dieldrin |
55
|
4.2
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 4-4-DDE |
58
|
6.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Endrin |
230
|
115
|
ND
|
ND
|
0.2
|
| 4-4-DDD |
2300
|
282.6
|
0.8
|
0.5
|
NA
|
| 4-4-DDT |
2100
|
224.1
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
NA
|
| Chlordane |
88
|
45.7
|
ND
|
ND
|
0.5
|
|
Herbicides (ug/L) |
|||||
| 2,4-D |
590
|
87.2
|
3
|
1.9
|
100
|
| 2,4,5-T |
636
|
59.7
|
3.6
|
1.4
|
NA
|
| Silvex |
49
|
4.3
|
0.7
|
0.3
|
10
|
| Dinoseb |
2700
|
1055.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
7
|
| Inorganics (ug/L) | |||||
|
Antimony |
86
|
839
|
ND
|
ND
|
70
|
| Arsenic |
89200
|
7355
|
63
|
21.9
|
50
|
| Barium |
1980
|
314
|
701
|
342.1
|
1000
|
| Beryllium |
63
|
13
|
37
|
8.4
|
1
|
| Cadmium |
1840
|
90.7
|
13
|
8.8
|
10
|
| Chromium |
855
|
79.8
|
227
|
43.7
|
50
|
| Lead |
543
|
63.3
|
136
|
25.2
|
50
|
| Mercury |
47
|
9.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
2
|
| Nickel |
1560
|
189.7
|
414
|
102.9
|
100
|
| Thallium |
25
|
13.4
|
ND
|
ND
|
2
|
| Vanadium |
1980
|
167.8
|
246
|
48.5
|
NA
|
| Dioxins/Furans (ng/L) | |||||
| HEPTA CDD (Total) |
4
|
4
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| OCTA CDD |
20.2
|
8.06
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| HEPTA CDF (Total) |
4
|
4
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| OCTA CDF |
5.4
|
3.67
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Base/Neutral Acid Extractables (ug/L) | |||||
| Phenol |
150
|
39.3
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 2-Chlorophenol |
69
|
20
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 1,4-Dichlorobenzene |
50
|
17.2
|
ND
|
ND
|
75
|
| 1,2-Dichlorobenzene |
79
|
28.1
|
130
|
45
|
600
|
| 2-Nitrophenol |
11
|
9
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 2,4-Dimethylphenol |
20
|
14.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 2,4-Dichlorophenol |
1300
|
251
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 2,2,4-Trichlorobenzene |
410
|
47.9
|
ND
|
ND
|
8
|
| Naphthalene |
710
|
144.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 4-Chloroaniline |
500
|
226
|
30
|
30
|
NA
|
| 2-Methylnaphthalene |
2900
|
296.9
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol |
92
|
34.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 2,4-Dinitrophenol |
710
|
263.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 4-Nitrophenol |
360
|
119.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Dibenzofuran |
150
|
15.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Diethylphthalate |
110
|
29.1
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Fluorene |
260
|
24.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| 4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol |
110
|
54
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Pentachlorophenol |
490
|
117.9
|
ND
|
ND
|
0.1
|
| Phenanthrene |
130
|
34.4
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Volatile Organics (ug/L) | |||||
| Vinyl Chloride |
94
|
30.9
|
ND
|
ND
|
2
|
| Chloroethane |
11
|
10
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Methylene Chloride |
7
|
4.4
|
ND
|
ND
|
2
|
| Carbon Disulfide |
2500
|
485.8
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene |
380
|
115.4
|
3
|
2.5
|
10
|
| Chloroform |
8.5
|
5.3
|
11
|
6
|
NA
|
| 1,2-Dichloroethane |
890
|
250.2
|
ND
|
ND
|
2
|
| 2-Butanone |
2000
|
898.6
|
ND
|
ND
|
NA
|
| Trichloroethene |
85
|
22.8
|
180
|
57.1
|
1
|
| Benzene |
360
|
44.4
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
| Tetrachloroethene |
160
|
32.2
|
91
|
86
|
1
|
| Chlorobenzene |
180
|
63.1
|
6
|
3.7
|
4
|
| Ethylbenzene |
910
|
236.9
|
ND
|
ND
|
700
|
| Total xylenes |
8200
|
931.7
|
ND
|
ND
|
44
|
* = New Jersey or USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level;
NA = Not Available
ND = Not DetectedData Taken from Draft Final Remedial Investigation report;
Ebasco Services Inc., March 1990.
Table 6. On-Site Air Contamination, Total Particulates;
Chemical Insecticide Site.
| Compound |
Maximum
|
Average
|
| Pesticides/PCB's (ng/m3) | ||
| Alpha-BHC |
0.34
|
0.27
|
| 4-4-DDE |
0.9
|
0.27
|
| 4-4-DDD |
0.49
|
0.19
|
| 4-4-DDT |
4.25
|
1.27
|
| Dioxins/Furans (pg (10-12)/m3) | ||
| TCDD (Total) |
0.021
|
0.015
|
| PCDD (Total) |
0.030
|
0.022
|
| HpCDD (Total) |
0.292
|
0.284
|
| OCDD |
1.198
|
0.967
|
| TCDF (Total) |
0.170
|
0.098
|
| PCDF (Total) |
0.109
|
0.081
|
| HpCDF (Total) |
0.168
|
0.145
|
| OCDF |
0.268
|
0.186
|
Data taken from final Draft Remedial Investigation Report;
Ebasco Services Inc., March 1990.
Table 7. Residual Structure Contamination: Asphalt (Roadway)
and Wipe Sample (Concrete Foundation) Contamination, Chemical Insecticide Site.
| Compound |
Asphalt (ug/kg)
|
Wipe Samples (ug/ft.2)
|
||
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
Maximum
|
Average
|
|
| Pesticide/PCB's | ||||
| Alpha-BHC |
1,200
|
527.5
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Gamma-BHC |
670
|
450
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Aldrin |
230
|
230
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-4-DDE |
38,000
|
6,873.1
|
2,900
|
243.7
|
| 4-4-DDD |
410
|
410
|
ND
|
ND
|
| 4-4-DDT |
86,000
|
14,815.4
|
800
|
72.9
|
| Chlordane |
ND
|
ND
|
800
|
800
|
| Herbicides | ||||
| 2,4-D |
23,200
|
4,557.3
|
17
|
17
|
| 2,4,5-T |
13,100
|
2,289.3
|
40
|
22.8
|
| Silvex |
640
|
142.2
|
ND
|
ND
|
| Dioxins/Furans | ||||
| 2,3,7,8-TCDD |
6.11
|
2.03
|
*
|
*
|
| Tetra CDD (Total) |
6.11
|
2.03
|
10.7
|
3.1
|
| Hexa CDD (Total) |
0.83
|
0.45
|
91.0
|
35.9
|
| 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD |
17.5
|
4.62
|
*
|
*
|
| Hepta CDD (Total) |
28.8
|
7.65
|
842
|
129.3
|
| Octa CDD (Total) |
132.8
|
23
|
2,690
|
290.6
|
| Penta CDD (Total) |
0.36
|
0.19
|
10.8
|
4.9
|
| 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF |
0.12
|
0.12
|
*
|
*
|
| Tetra CDF (Total) |
ND
|
ND
|
53.5
|
8.5
|
| Penta CDF (Total) |
ND
|
ND
|
133
|
21.4
|
| Hexa CDF (Total) |
2.54
|
0.83
|
334
|
46.3
|
| 1234678-HpCDF |
2.09
|
0.95
|
*
|
*
|
| Hepta CDF (Total) |
9.02
|
2.10
|
301
|
57.7
|
| Octa CDF (Total) |
13.5
|
5.85
|
330
|
77.1
|
ND = Not Detected
* = Specific isomer data not available; included in total congener value.
Data taken from Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report;
Ebasco Services Inc., March 1990.
Figure 2. Detailed Site Location Map
Figure 3. Current On-Site Conditions
Figure 4. Mill Brook Watershed Map
CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORPORATION
Edison Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
For the Public Comment Period:
October 21, 1991 - November 20, 1991
Introduction
The New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) conducted a public comment period for the Preliminary Public Health Assessment for the Chemical Insecticide Corporation (CIC) site from October 21, 1991 through November 15, 1991. The Preliminary Public Health Assessment document was placed in local repositories to facilitate commentary and reaction by the public at large. Additionally the Preliminary Public Health Assessment was circulated to the Edison Township Department of Health and Human Resources (EDHHR) on October 7, 1991 for the purpose of soliciting commentary by the Edison Township Health Officer.
This response summary represents those comments and reactions to the health assessment document received during the public comment period. In some cases similar commentary was received from various sources, while other concerns were specific to individuals or groups. Comments and concerns have been grouped by content and are followed by the consequent response.
Contamination of Off-Site Areas
Respondents expressed a primary concern to the NJDOH regarding the possibility of off-site contamination which has not been detected by the remedial investigation. Respondents inquired whether there was sufficient data to describe the nature and extent of possible site-related soil contamination in the Edison Glen/Edison Woods areas, and of sediment contamination associated with the unnamed creek and the Mill Brook. In both cases (soils and sediments), questions arose as to whether contaminants which might be found posed a health threat to residents of the area. Generally, residents felt there was insufficient off-site sampling of soils and sediments, and additional sampling was necessary to demonstrate these areas to be free of contamination. Respondents also inquired about the sites impact upon the deep (Brunswick) aquifer, and the possibility of off-site migration of fugitive dusts.
Response:
The Preliminary Public Health Assessment for the CIC site was based upon data which were presented in the Remedial Investigation report (March 1990). The NJDOH and the ATSDR have reviewed the existing data and concluded the primary public health concern associated with the CIC site at the present time is surface water run-off. Respondents concerns about possible contamination of off-site soil, off-site sediments, and the deep aquifer have been communicated to the USEPA under whose jurisdiction such investigation would occur. If the USEPA concludes additional data is necessary to further characterize the site and conducts additional sampling of off-site areas, the NJDOH and the ATSDR will review all available information and re-evaluate, if necessary, the public health implications of the CIC site.
Buried Munitions
Respondents inquired about the possibility of buried munitions existing on the CIC site and in immediately adjacent areas.
Response:
It is known that the N.J. Fulgent Company occupied the property prior to the CIC and manufactured flares and other incendiary devices during the Second World War. The USEPA has confirmed that a minor explosion occurred on-site during the installation of a monitoring well. This fact notwithstanding, geophysical investigations of the site conducted during the Remedial Investigation have not confirmed the presence of deflagrating or explosive materials. Specifically, nitroaromatic compounds, indicative of explosive mixtures, were not detected. However, the USEPA is continuing to ascertain whether such a hazard exists at the CIC site. If an explosive hazard is found to exist on or in the environs of the site, the NJDOH and the ATSDR will review the public health implications of the situation with the USEPA and the EDHHR. Additionally, if necessary, the NJDOH and the ATSDR will revise the physical hazards and recommendations sections of the health assessment to address conditions at the site.
Exposure Pathways
The USEPA and the Edison Department of Health And Human Resources have indicated that information contained in the Exposure Pathways section of the Public Comment Draft of the CIC Preliminary Public Health Assessment was erroneous.
Response:
Specifically, 2,3,7,8 TCDD was not detected in the air filter sampling performed for the bakeries in the Metroplex complex as indicated in the Public Comment Draft of the health assessment for CIC. The ATSDR Health Consultation which was referenced in the health assessment, and from which this information was drawn, reported concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the filter samples. After verification with the USEPA Remedial Project Manager and the Edison Township Health Officer, it was determined that in actuality these figures represented detection limits for this compound (0.28 - 0.65 ppb.). The Exposure Pathways section of the health assessment has been revised to reflect this corrected information. However, off-site transport of fugitive dusts during soil disturbing activity remains as a potential concern at the CIC site due to the proximity of residential areas and sensitive commercial operations.
On-Site Septic System
Respondents inquired regarding the public health implications of the remnants of the septic system present on the CIC property.
Response:
As noted in the Preliminary Public Health Assessment, a septic system may present a physical hazard to trespassers on the CIC site depending upon the physical condition and/or mechanical stability of the system. However, this hazard is minimal since the CIC site has been effectively secured against unauthorized access.
Available evidence suggests that CIC may have utilized the septic system to receive septic and industrial wastes during its operational period. This practice would have likely contributed to groundwater contamination associated with the site. The nature and extent of groundwater contamination associated with the CIC site has been documented in the Remedial Investigation report, and may be the focus of additional characterization by USEPA. Existing groundwater data have been evaluated during the health assessment and potential human exposure pathways associated with contaminated groundwater have been addressed. The on-site septic system does not represent an unique human exposure pathway, but rather represents a contributing factor to the overall condition of groundwater contamination associated with the CIC site.
Remedial Activities
Respondents inquired regarding the potential for exposure to on-site contaminants as a result of the impending remedial activities at the CIC site.
Response:
The potential for exposures resulting from soil disturbing remedial activities have been recognized by the USEPA. The USEPA is responsible for designing and implementing a remedial plan which minimizes the potential for human exposure and accomplishes remedial objectives in a fashion consistent with preserving the health and safety of area residents. Specific details of the remedial action plan are available from USEPA. The NJDOH and the ATSDR, as well as the EDHHS, actively reviewed the CIC remedial workplan to insure that public health concerns are addressed during remedial planning and implementation of remedial activities.
Health Outcome Data
1) Respondents inquired regarding the review of health outcome data for individuals utilizing the Metroplex parking lot.
Response:
Although surface-water runoff to the drainage ditch and the adjacent Metroplex parking lot during precipitation events was identified as a potential exposure pathway, analysis of health outcome data for the individuals utilizing the parking lot was not recommended in the health assessment. As was noted in the Preliminary Public Health Assessment, databases available for review (cancer and adverse pregnancy outcome registries) would not be expected to yield useful information under the existing circumstances of this exposure pathway. Existing databases correlate health outcomes with place of residence, and thus would be of no value in evaluating individuals from various locations who utilize the parking lot for a limited time each day. The USEPA has conducted a risk assessment of the surface runoff present in the Metroplex parking area (October; 1991). This risk assessment has been reviewed by the NJDOH and the ATSDR. Information provided by USEPA indicated that the short term exposures which could be experienced by individuals in the parking lot area (i.e. dermal contact with water during a storm event) would not be expected to cause adverse health effects. However, the NJDOH and the ATSDR recognize that changes in site conditions may effect levels of contamination contained in surface water runoff. Should conditions change at the CIC site where acute (short-term) exposures to site contaminants pose a health hazard, the NJDOH and the ATSDR will re-evaluate this exposure pathway, and if necessary, provide appropriate follow-up activities or investigations.
2) Respondents inquired regarding the results of the investigation conducted in 1969 by the NJDOH Pesticide Project describing the occupational exposure of CIC workers to pesticides and other compounds manufactured by the company at the time.
Response:
This study was part of an overall investigation of occupational exposure to pesticides at numerous manufacturing facilities across the state. NJDOH records (Letter: Frank J. Marshall; Principal Industrial Hygienist NJDOH, to Arnold M. Livingston August 8, 1969) of the investigation indicate that no adverse health effects from exposure to pesticides were reported among CIC employees. Additionally, the results of individual medical screening were referred to the plant physician for individual follow-up. The study concluded that there was no evidence which indicated that employees were receiving harmful exposures to compounds manufactured at the CIC plant.
3) Respondents inquired regarding the feasibility of a general "health study" for the CIC site.
Response:
Based upon available site data and documented completed human exposure pathways, the Chemical Insecticide Corporation site is not presently being considered for follow-up health study or investigation. If additional information or data become available which indicate a change in the nature or extent of site-related contamination, the ATSDR and the NJDOH will review the consequent human exposure pathways and, if necessary, reconsider the conclusions and recommendations of the health assessment including the applicability of additional follow-up health activities and investigation.
