PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
EASTLAND WOOLEN MILL
CORINNA, PENOBSCOTT COUNTY, MAINE
The Eastland Woolen Mill (EWM) site is located in Corinna, Maine. The site consists of a former woolen mill complex and several nearby areas where contamination from the mill is believed to be present. Chemicals used in past operations have contaminated the site with chlorinated benzenes and other contaminants. The former processing buildings have been removed, and several areas of the site have been subject to past and ongoing cleanup activities.
On the basis of available information, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has made the following conclusions about the Eastland Woolen Mill site:
ATSDR has made the following recommendations about the Eastland Woolen Mill site:
The Eastland Woolen Mill (EWM) site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) on April 23, 1999 and listed on the NPL on July 22, 1999 [1]. In this public health assessment, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluates the public health significance of the site as mandated by Congress. ATSDR has reviewed available environmental data and community health concerns to determine whether adverse health effects are possible. In addition, this public health assessment recommends actions to prevent, reduce, or further identify the possibility for site-related adverse health effects.
This public health assessment is differentiated from EPA's Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment in several ways. Both documents assess risk to human health from exposure to site contaminants using similar evaluation methods, especially in assessing exposure. However, ATSDR's public health assessment determines the qualitative implications of present and past exposures to site contaminants and identifies the public health actions that should be taken to prevent or minimize those exposures. EPA's risk assessment determines quantitative risk for present and future exposures to facilitate selection of appropriate remedial actions, especially site cleanup levels.
The following site description comes in part from the EWM Baseline Risk Assessment (February 2002) and the Feasibility Study Report (May 2002) [2,3] The EWM site is located in the town of Corinna, Maine, approximately 25 miles northwest of Bangor (Figure 1). The site consists of a former woolen mill complex and several nearby areas where contamination from the mill is believed to be present, including Moosehead Mill and a location where EWM materials were disposed called the "Old Dump" site. EPA has split the site in two operable units. OU1 consists of the site of the EWM complex buildings, including groundwater, soils, and stream areas where contaminated sediment removal has already occurred. OU2 includes surface water, sediments, and streambeds downstream of the removal area and also includes Moosehead Mill and the Old Dump.
The EWM was built over the East Branch of the Sebasticook River (EBSR), with the river running through the mill building, and reportedly began operating in 1909 [2]. Eastland took ownership of the mill in the 1930s, manufacturing wool yarn and fabrics until the fall of 1996, when the company declared bankruptcy and closed the mill. Most of the former mill complex was demolished in 2000 and 2001.
Figure 1. Eastland Woolen Mill NPL Site, Corinna, Maine
The release of chlorinated benzenes and other hazardous substances from the
mill resulted in significant contamination of soils and groundwater beneath and
adjacent to the mill [2,3]. This contamination occurred from the discharge of
wastewater 
from the mill's fabric dyeing operations, chemical spills inside the
mill buildings, and leaks from the mill's underground storage tanks.
Contaminants from the site have migrated several miles down the EBSR into
sediments, floodplain soils, and groundwater adjacent to the river.
The groundwater contamination in Corinna was discovered in 1983 when a Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) employee noticed that the water in a local restaurant across the street from the mill had a strange taste and odor [2,3]. Subsequent sampling and analysis of the restaurant's well water revealed that the well was contaminated with chlorinated benzenes (mono-, di-, and tri-). Further testing of nearby water supply wells revealed that 5 of the wells along Main Street contained chlorinated benzenes at levels above drinking water standards. Eastland arranged for installation of granular activated carbon filters at these 5 locations. Eastland also initiated a quarterly sampling program, under the oversight of the MEDEP, to insure effective operation of the filters and to identify other wells which might become contaminated. By 1988, testing of wells at private residences and local businesses revealed 11 locations with chlorobenzene levels warranting the installation of carbon filters. Groundwater contamination was detected up to 800 feet from the mill.
Since 1999, EPA has been conducting a non-time critical removal action (NTCRA), or early cleanup, at the EWM site [3,4]. The goal of the early cleanup is to remove the source of contamination in site soils, thereby reducing the amount of contamination that is migrating into groundwater and into the EBSR.
The basic components of the removal action and current status are:
Also, in 1999, EPA began field activities at the site related to the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the site [3,4]. The RI/FS provides detailed information and data regarding the nature and extent of contamination from the EWM in groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soils.
The RI for the four major areas of contamination is now complete [4]. The key results for these areas follow:
As indicated on Figure 2, the EWM site is located in the town of Corinna, which has a population of 2,145, based on the 2000 census [5]. The population of Corinna is about 98% White with the rest being African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian. Approximately 642 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site.
The EWM was built over the EBSR, with the river running through the mill building, in the center of Corinna's downtown [2,3]. The surrounding area is currently a mix of businesses and residences. Redevelopment of this area could include retail, commercial/industrial, residential, and recreational uses such as a park. The EBSR is used for fishing, wading, swimming and other recreational activities downstream of the former mill site.
Groundwater in the Corinna area is found in the shallow overburden and deeper bedrock aquifers [2,3]. These aquifers in the former EWM site area are heavily contaminated with chlorinated benzenes and other site contaminants. The residences and businesses in the area with the contaminated groundwater now obtain their drinking water from a municipal water system; however, they previously used water from the contaminated bedrock aquifer. Residences and businesses outside of the groundwater contamination area continue to obtain their drinking water from wells installed in the bedrock aquifer. EPA has indicated that long-term monitoring of these wells is planned and that some limited sampling may be done in 2003.
The primary source for the data evaluated in this public health assessment was the Baseline Risk Assessment for the EWM site [2], which included data from the 1999-2001 EWM Site Remedial Investigation and data from Non-Time Critical Removal Actions (NTCRAs) performed in 2000 and 2001. The EWM Site Remedial Investigation Report and the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 were also used [6,7,8].
ATSDR visited the Corinna area to better understand the physical and geographic setting of the site.1 We also met with community members and local, state, federal officials to learn more about the site and the health concerns of the community.
In this section of the public health assessment, ATSDR (1) evaluates available environmental sampling data for the EWM site and determines which site contaminants are of potential health concern, (2) identifies pathways by which persons may be exposed to the contaminants of concern (COCs) from the site, and (3) evaluates the public health implications of those exposures. More details about the evaluation process can be found in Appendix A.
ATSDR selects COCs by comparing contaminant concentrations in specific environmental media (e.g., soil, water, air) at the site with health-based comparison values. When the concentration of a contaminant detected at the site exceeds a comparison value, the contaminant is selected for further evaluation in the public health assessment. See Appendix A for more information about ATSDR comparison values.
Identification of a COC does not imply that people will experience adverse health effects. Instead, it indicates that the contaminant will be further evaluated using site-specific exposure conditions to determine whether people are at risk of experiencing adverse health effects. This depends on the frequency and length which people come in contact with the contaminants as well as the level of contamination. Regardless of the level of contamination, a public health hazard can exist only if people actually come into contact with, that is, are exposed to, the contaminated media.
ATSDR evaluates pathways by which persons may be exposed to contaminants of concern by examining the following five elements: (1) a source of contamination; (2) an environmental medium through which contaminants are transported; (3) a point of exposure (i.e., a place where people come into contact with contaminated media); (4) a route of human exposure (i.e., how contaminants enter the body); and (5) an exposed population. An exposure pathway is considered complete if all five elements are present. If one or more elements is not proven, the pathway is considered potential. If one or more elements is proven not to exist, the pathway is incomplete.
ATSDR identified several exposure pathways which are summarized in Table B1 in Appendix B. Not all exposures related to the EWM site are significant enough to cause adverse health effects. The potential for adverse health effects as a result of human exposures at the EWM is evaluated in the following sections.
Completed Exposure Pathways, Contaminants of Concern, and Toxicological Evaluation
The private wells at residences and businesses in the downtown Corinna area were found to be contaminated with chlorinated benzenes and other site-related contaminants in 1983 [2]. The historical sampling data show high levels of chlorinated benzenes in supply wells close to the mill with lower levels extending away from the mill primarily to the northeast and southwest. The 7 contaminants found above a comparison value in private wells are identified in Table 1.
Table 1. Contaminants Detected Above Comparison Values in Private Wells
| Chemical | Range* of time-averaged concentrations in ppb†* | #E/#D‡ | Comparison Value (CV) in ppb | Source of CV |
| Benzene | ND§ - 454 | 27/35 | 0.6 | CREG¶ |
| Chlorobenzene | ND - 9,000 | 62/148 | 200 | RMEG** |
| 1,2-Dichlorobenzene | ND - 3,015 | 26/157 | 900 | RMEG |
| 1,3-Dichlorobenzene | ND - 1,160 | 3/136 | 600 | LTHA†† |
| 1,4-Dichlorobenzene | ND - 4,300 | 64/154 | 75 | LTHA |
| 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | ND - 565 | 42/108 | 40 | LTHA |
| 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | ND - 2,335 | 64/147 | 100 | RMEG |
| * Range =
range of the means for the individual wells sampled † ppb = parts per billion ‡ #E/#D = number of detects exceeding comparison value/total number of detects. ATSDR calculated the mean levels for every contaminant, using the highest mean for exposure dose calculations. § ND = non-detected ¶ CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide ** RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide †† LTHA = Lifetime health advisory |
||||
Exposure to these contaminants in well water could have occurred through drinking (ingesting) them; breathing them through evaporation from water during bathing, showering, dishwashing; and absorbing them through the skin while showering or bathing. Exposures may have occurred for up to 40 years based on reports that chlorinated benzenes were first used in the mill's fabric dyeing operations in the 1950s or early 1960s [3]. ATSDR assumes that all exposures through drinking contaminated water ceased by 1995 when clean water from a public water supply was provided to all those with contaminated wells. For 10 of the contaminated wells, exposure was reduced in the mid-1980s by fitting the wells with activated carbon filters. The private well pathway is considered to be a past exposure pathway because exposure to contaminants from private wells is no longer occurring. The conclusion that current and future exposures are not occurring is based on the following assumptions: (1) groundwater monitoring and predictive groundwater modeling have identified all contaminated wells, (2) people with contaminated wells continue to have access to and use clean water, and (3) remediation in conjunction with institutional controls is successful in eventually reducing contamination in groundwater to safe levels.
We used conservative default assumptions to calculate exposure doses for the COCs in Table 1. For child dose, we assumed a 1-year-old weighing 10 kilograms (kg) drank 1 liter of water with the highest mean concentration for a contaminant per day [7].2 For adults and for evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed that adults weighing 70 kg drank 2 liters of water with the highest mean concentration for a contaminant per day for 40 years. These doses were multiplied by 2 to account for additional dermal and inhalation exposure to volatile compounds during showering [9]. The estimated past exposure doses were higher than applicable cancer and noncancer health guidelines. The following paragraphs include a discussion of possible health effects.
Benzene - The estimated child and adult doses were calculated to be about 10-30 times higher than the reference dose generally considered safe. However, the estimated doses were 30-100 times smaller than the dose shown to cause mild effects on the nervous system and liver in toxicological studies of rodents [10]. Noncancer health effects are considered unlikely from this exposure. However, benzene is a known carcinogen and contributes to cancer risk (see Cancer Risk section below).
Chlorobenzene - The estimated child and adult doses were calculated to be about 25-90 times higher than the reference dose generally considered safe. However, the estimated doses were 30-100 times smaller than the dose shown to cause microscopic changes in the liver in toxicological studies of dogs [11]. Noncancer health effects are considered unlikely from this exposure. Chlorobenzene is not classified as a human carcinogen.
Dichlorobenzenes - The estimated child and adult doses are slightly higher than the range generally accepted as safe. All the doses were hundreds of times smaller than no adverse effect levels seen in toxicological studies [12]. Noncancer health effects are considered unlikely from this exposure. 1,4-dichlorobenzene is a possible human carcinogen and may contribute to cancer risk (see Cancer Risk section below).
Trichlorobenzenes - The estimated child and adult doses were calculated to be about 10-50 times higher than the reference dose generally considered safe. However, the estimated doses were 30-150 times smaller than the dose shown to cause no adverse effects in toxicological studies [13]. Noncancer health effects are considered unlikely from this exposure. Trichlorobenzenes are not classified as human carcinogens.
Cancer Risk - Of the above COCs, benzene is known to cause leukemia (cancer of the blood-forming organs), and 1,4-dichlorobenzene is linked with kidney and liver cancers in animals [10,12]. Drinking water containing the highest mean concentrations of benzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene over the entire 40-year period possible would have increased a person's risk of cancer by a moderate to high amount.
To summarize, past exposures to contaminants through the private well pathway were not likely to lead to noncancer health effects. However, people who regularly drank highly contaminated water over the 40-year period had a moderate to high increased risk of developing cancer.
On the basis of available information, no one is currently drinking the water, and any continuing use of this water for nondrinking purposes is expected to occur infrequently. No health effects are expected from such use.
EWM site (Including Main EWM Complex, Building 14 and the Underground Storage Tank Area)
The soils at the Former EWM site were contaminated with benzene and various chlorinated benzenes both at the surface and below the surface [6]. Significant exposures are not currently occurring because the surface contamination at these locations was removed during the NTCRA. However, workers on the site may have been exposed to contaminants before the cleanup, so ATSDR considers the soil exposure pathway to be a past completed pathway.
In general, soil samples obtained from the surface (0-3 inches) provide the best information when evaluating people's exposure to soil. However, the available data were mostly from subsurface soil borings taken to characterize the nature and extent of contamination. Since no past surface sampling was available, we estimated exposures using the maximum subsurface concentration found in soil and reported in the RI. Because the contaminants apparently filtered down through the surface soils towards the bedrock, the use of subsurface contaminant concentrations should give a conservative estimate of past surface concentrations. Currently, the actual surface contaminant concentrations would likely be lower than the maximums used here, because some of the volatile contaminants would evaporate from the soil. The maximum values detected in subsurface soils above comparison values are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Contaminants Detected Above Comparison Values in EWM Soils
| Chemical | Maximum Concentration (mg/kg* or ppm†) |
Comparison Value (mg/kg or ppm) |
Source of CV |
| Benzene | 15 | 10 | CREG¶ |
| Chlorobenzene | 1,800 | 1,000 | RMEG‡ |
| 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | 2,000 | 500 | RMEG (for 1,2,4-) |
| 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 12,000 | 500 | RMEG |
| * mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram † ppm = parts per million, equal to milligrams per kilogram ¶ CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide ‡ RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide |
|||
Public Health Implications
Conservative assumptions were used to calculate exposure doses for the COCs in Table 2. For each contaminant, we assumed that an adult worker weighing 70 kilograms (kg) would consume 50 g of soil containing the maximum concentration for 250 days a year. For evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed that this exposure would occur for 40 years. The calculated doses for each contaminant in Table 2 were much lower than applicable cancer and noncancer health guidelines. Therefore, the soil exposure pathway did not contribute significantly to the workers' overall risk of health effects.
Old Dump Site
Soil at the Old Dump site is contaminated with organic materials, pesticides, and heavy metals [6]. The soil here represents a completed present and past exposure pathway, because adolescents and adults may breathe in, accidentally swallow, or contact contaminants in surface soil during recreational activities. The only data available were soil borings from 0 - 17 feet which are not best for evaluating the possibility of health effects from exposure to the top few inches of soil. However, on the basis of this limited data, occasional recreational use of the site is not expected to result in any health effects. The lead level in the soil could pose a risk to young children if they spent most of their time on the site (for example, if the site was developed for residential use). We consider it unlikely that the site would be developed without further characterization and/or cleanup.
While the mill was operating, workers, especially those who worked in the fabric finishing operations, were exposed to coal-tar derivative dyes, dye aids containing chlorinated benzenes, and other process chemicals, including caustics, acid, and ammonia. According to anecdotal information, workers had direct contact with dyes; their exposed skin was colored according to the dye currently in use3. Also, use of personal protective equipment in the past was generally not common. We can assume that workers had direct contact with or breathed in the volatile process chemicals used.
Both immediate and long-term health effects are possible from worker exposure to process chemicals such as those used at EWM in the past [2,6]. Unfortunately, little information on the specific chemical identities and amounts used in EWM processes was available, so only general conclusions can be made. Inhalation of high levels of the volatile organic chemicals4 used in the mill process is associated with various health effects, including blood problems; liver, kidney, or nervous system effects; and lung and eye irritation. Long-term exposure effects may include increased risk of cancer associated with the use of benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and coal-tar derivative dyes.
Possible Health Consequences from Worker Exposures
Here is a brief summary of the health consequences possible from prolonged exposure to benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and coal-tar derivative dyes. There is insufficient information to determine if workers were exposed long enough and to sufficient levels for any of these effects to occur. The information on benzene, chlorobenzene, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene is excerpted from the Public Health Statements in the ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for these chemicals while the information on coal-tar derivative dyes was compiled from three sources [14-16].
Benzene
Benzene causes problems in the blood [10]. People who breathe benzene for long periods may experience harmful effects in the tissues that form blood cells, especially the bone marrow. These effects can disrupt normal blood production and cause a decrease in important blood components. A decrease in red blood cells can lead to anemia. Reduction in other components in the blood can cause excessive bleeding. Blood production may return to normal after exposure to benzene stops. Excessive exposure to benzene can be harmful to the immune system, increasing the chance for infection and perhaps lowering the body's defense against cancer.
Exposure to benzene may be harmful to the reproductive organs [10]. Some women workers who breathed high levels of benzene for many months had irregular menstrual periods. When examined, these women showed a decrease in the size of their ovaries. However, exact exposure levels were unknown, and the studies of these women did not prove that benzene caused these effects. It is not known what effects exposure to benzene might have on the developing fetus in pregnant women or on fertility in men. Studies with pregnant animals show that breathing benzene has harmful effects on the developing fetus. These effects include low birth weight, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage.
Benzene can cause cancer of the blood-forming organs [10]. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene is a known carcinogen. The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) has determined that benzene is carcinogenic to humans, and the EPA has determined that benzene is a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels of benzene in the air can cause cancer of the blood-forming organs. This condition is called leukemia. Exposure to benzene has been associated with development of a particular type of leukemia called acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Chlorobenzene
Workers exposed to high levels of chlorobenzene complained of headaches, numbness, sleepiness, nausea, and vomiting [11]. However, it is not known if chlorobenzene alone was responsible for these health effects since the workers may have also been exposed to other chemicals at the same time. Mild to severe depression of functions of parts of the nervous system is a common response to exposure to a wide variety of industrial solvents.
In animals, exposure to high concentrations of chlorobenzene affects the brain, liver, and kidneys [11]. Unconsciousness, tremors and restlessness have been observed. The chemical can cause severe injury to the liver and kidneys. Data indicate that chlorobenzene does not affect reproduction or cause birth defects. Studies in animals have shown that chlorobenzene can produce liver nodules, providing some but not clear evidence of cancer risk.
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Inhaling the vapor or dusts of 1,4-dichlorobenzene at very high concentrations can be very irritating to a person's lungs [12]. It may also cause burning and tearing of the eyes, coughing, difficult breathing, and an upset stomach. There are some medical reports of patients who have developed some health effects, such as dizziness, headaches, and liver problems as a result of very high levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene in the home5. However, these were reports of extremely high usage of 1,4-dichlorobenzene products, and the persons continued to use the products for months or even years, even though they felt ill. There are also cases of people who have eaten 1,4-dichlorobenzene products regularly for long periods (months to years) because of its sweet taste. This has caused skin blotches and problems with red blood cells, such as anemia. Workers breathing high levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (80-l60 ppm) have reported painful irritation of the nose and eyes.
In laboratory animals, breathing or eating 1,4-dichlorobenzene can cause harmful effects in the liver, kidneys, and blood [12]. Rats and mice given oral doses of 1,4-dichlorobenzene in lifetime studies had increased rates of liver cancer when compared with animals that did not receive 1,4-dichlorobenzene.
We do not definitely know if 1,4-dichlorobenzene plays a role in the development of cancer in humans [12]. Based on animal data, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and EPA have all determined that 1,4-dichlorobenzene is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The EPA has determined that 1,4-dichlorobenzene is a possible human carcinogen.
There is no reliable evidence that suggests that 1,4-dichlorobenzene affects reproduction in humans [12].
Coal-Tar Derivative Dyes
We were unable to identify information that described the health effects that might occur from exposure to coal tar derivative dyes. There is information on health effects from exposure to coal tar which will be summarized here [14-16]. This information may not be directly applicable to the exposure of EWM workers to coal tar derivative dyes because coal tars are complex and variable combinations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, heterocyclic oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds [14]. For example, analyses of PAHs in four coal tar samples revealed 2- to 20-fold differences in concentration of selected PAHs among the samples. Benzo(a)pyrene, the most potent carcinogen of the PAHs, varied from non-detectable to 6.4 %. We were unable to identify any information on the specific composition of the dyes used at EWM other than that they were derived from coal tars.
Coal tar is considered a human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and EPA [15,16]. There is good evidence from human exposures that coal tar causes skin cancer, especially on the scrotum, through skin contact [15]. There is also good evidence that inhalation of coal tar fumes causes lung cancer. There is also some indication that inhalation of coal tar fumes may cause cancers of the oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, stomach, skin, and bladder, and leukemia.
Skin exposure to coal tar is linked to dermal irritation, burning, erythema (abnormal redness of the skin), dry peeling skin on the face and neck with irritation, and folliculitis (inflammation of the hair follicles) on the forearms in several worker studies [14,16]. Workers using coal tar exhibited mild to moderate pulmonary restrictive and obstructive deficits, including obstructive lung disease.
In summary, worker exposures, especially those who worked in the fabric finishing operations, likely contributed the greatest to the past risk of health effects from mill operations because workers had the most opportunity for exposure to the chemicals at EWM. However, the risk cannot be specified because not enough information on exposure length, concentration of the chemical exposed to, and, for the coal tar derivative dyes, the specific chemical composition of the dyes exists.
Sediment/Floodplain Soil Exposure Pathway
Sediments in the EBSR downstream from the former EWM site are contaminated with chlorinated benzenes, PAHs, dieldrin, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium [6]. The floodplain soils along EBSR are contaminated with PAHs, dioxins, dieldrin, arsenic, chromium, and lead at a number of places downstream of the site. Tables 3 and 4 show contaminants detected above soil comparison values in sediments and floodplain soil, respectively.
Sediments and floodplain soil constitute a past and present completed exposure pathway, because people who wade or play in or along the river may be exposed to contaminants through incidental ingestion and dermal contact. EPA has excavated heavily contaminated river sediment and underlying soils near the EWM, significantly reducing the potential human exposure to contaminants in river sediments. Exposure to contaminants in sediments downstream of the removal area and in the floodplain soils may continue unless these sediments and soils are also excavated.
Public Health Implications
We used conservative assumptions to calculate exposure doses for swimmers and fishers for the COCs in Tables 3 and 4. For child dose, we assumed that a 10-year old child weighing 36 kg swam 24 days out of the year and accidentally swallowed 100 milligrams of sediment or soil with the maximum contaminant concentration each time. For adults and for evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed adults weighing 70 kg fished or swam 52 days of year and accidentally swallowed 50 mg of sediment or soil containing the maximum contaminant concentration each time. For evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed that this exposure would occur for 40 years. We also calculated exposure from dermal absorption by child swimmers and adult swimmers and fishers, and children playing in contaminated mud, using default soil-to skin adherence factors and absorption values. The children playing in mud scenario refers to children who become essentially covered in mud - assumed to happen very infrequently (4 times a year). The calculated doses for each of the contaminants in Tables 3 and 4 were lower than applicable noncancer health guidelines, and the excess cancer risk from carcinogenic contaminants was not elevated. Therefore, no health effects are expected from exposure to contaminants in the sediment/floodplain pathway.
Table 3. Contaminants Detected Above Soil Comparison Values in River Sediment
| Chemical | Maximum Concentration (mg/kg* or ppm†) |
Comparison Value (mg/kg or ppm) |
Source |
| 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenes | 2,000 | 500 | RMEG (for 1,2,4-) |
| 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenes | 8,200 | 500 | RMEG‡ |
| Benzo[a]anthracene | 5.6 | 0.9 | EPA SSL§ |
| Benzo[a]pyrene | 4.9 | 0.1 | CREG¶ |
| Benzo[b]fluoranthene | 4.7 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | 1.5 | 0.09 | EPA SSL |
| Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | 3.8 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| Dieldrin | 1 | 0.04/3 | CREG/EMEG** |
| Arsenic | 54 | 0.5/20 | CREG/RMEG |
| Cadmium | 56.3 | 10 | EMEG** |
| Chromium | 414 | 200 | RMEG |
| * mg/kg
= milligrams per kilogram † ppm = parts per million, equal to milligrams per kilogram ‡ RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide § EPA SSL = EPA soil screening levels ¶ CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide ** EMEG = Environmental media evaluation guide Source: [7] |
|||
Table 4. Contaminants Detected Above Soil Comparison Values
in Floodplain Soil
| Chemical | Maximum Concentration (mg/kg* or ppm†) |
Comparison Value (mg/kg or ppm) |
Source |
| Benzo[a]anthracene | 4.4 | 0.9 | EPA SSL‡ |
| Benzo[a]pyrene | 4.2 | 0.1 | CREG§ |
| Benzo[b]fluoranthene | 6.5 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | 1.8 | 0.09 | EPA SSL |
| Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | 5.6 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| Dieldrin | 2.3 | 0.04/3 | CREG/EMEG¶ |
| Arsenic | 31 | 0.5/20 | CREG/EMEG |
| Chromium | 670 | 200 | RMEG** |
| Lead | 658 | 400 | EPA SSL |
| *mg/kg
= milligrams/kilogram † ppm = parts per million ‡ EPA SSL = EPA soil screening level § CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide ¶ EMEG = Environmental media evaluation guide ** RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide Source: [7] |
|||
Surface Water Exposure Pathway
While the mill was in operation, process wastewater was discharged to the river from the dye kettles [6]. It can be assumed that these discharges contained chlorinated benzenes from the dye aid and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the coal-tar derivative dye. In addition, spills of dye and other process chemicals contributed contaminants to the surface water in the river. People who waded or played in the river downstream of the mill, especially when the dye kettles were emptied, were likely to be exposed to contaminants through skin contact, accidental swallowing of contaminated water, or breathing chemicals evaporating from the water. Therefore, the surface water exposure is a completed past exposure pathway.
Surface water samples collected from the EBSR in 1999 showed low but detectable levels of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzenes, and trichlorobenzenes [6]. None of the concentrations measured were higher than comparison values. Therefore, no health effects are expected from current exposure to surface water.
Public Health Implications
A rough estimate of past contaminant levels in the surface water is given by measurements in 1988 of the mill's wastewater (influent to the Corinna sewage treatment plant) showing 1,2-dichlorobenzene around 5,500 ppb and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene around 800 ppb.[17] These values are lower than the maximum concentrations detected in the private well pathway. Because exposure through surface water was occasional, no adverse health effects are expected from past exposure to these contaminants.
No information is available to estimate levels of dye or other process chemicals released to the surface water in the past. The coal-tar derivative based dyes are suspected of causing cancer after long-term exposures to high levels. People occasionally exposed to surface water would not have enough cumulative exposure to increase the risk of cancer. Workers exposed to the dye probably were at increased risk for cancer; however the contribution from the surface water pathway would be minimal compared to direct occupational exposures at the mill. Likewise, while we cannot speculate about possible health effects of other process chemicals, the contribution of the surface water pathway to overall past exposures appears minimal.
In 2001, EPA conducted a fish tissue sampling program to identify human health risk from eating fish from the EWM area [2,6]. Perch, small and largemouth bass, brown bullhead catfish, and suckers were collected from Corundel Lake, which is upstream from the former EWM site, several locations in the EBSR downstream between the site and Sebasticook Lake, and from Sebasticook Lake. These fish were analyzed for chlorinated benzenes, PAHs, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, and metals.
The EPA sampling found that some perch and largemouth bass caught in the EBSR had mercury and dioxin levels that would represent a health concern if an individual ate at least 27 half-pound meals a year of these species [2,6].6 However, these contaminant concentrations are similar to those measured in background locations, suggesting that this contamination is not site-related.
It is difficult to quantify cumulative risk or speculate on interactions between chemicals because so little is known about the exact chemicals and amounts used in the process. However, it is important to note that, although the pathways are treated separately in the preceding sections, many people would have been exposed through multiple pathways. For example, an occupationally-exposed worker may have also lived near the mill and fished or waded in the river. As discussed above, occupational exposures and drinking contaminated well water appear to be the major contributors to overall risk. Any exposure through additional pathways would slightly increase that risk.
Past Potential Exposure Pathways
In the past, people who lived or worked near the mill were likely exposed to chlorinated benzenes released from the mill into the air, especially when the mill emptied its dye kettles.
The extent of these past exposures is not known because air sampling was not conducted routinely in the past (while the mill was operating), and, therefore, data regarding the ambient levels of contaminants do not exist. Therefore, ATSDR cannot evaluate the significance of past exposures to chlorinated benzenes released from the mill to the air.
Exposure to contaminants released into the air from soils/sediments during excavation is also possible. However, EPA is taking measures to minimize such releases and is monitoring the ambient air around the excavation areas to ensure that contaminants levels are not a threat to human health. Therefore, exposure to contaminants during the excavation of soils/sediments should not occur at levels of health concern.
Evaluation of Health Outcome Data
Health outcome data (HOD) may give a more thorough evaluation of the public health implications of a given exposure. HOD may include mortality information (e.g., the number of people dying from a certain disease) or morbidity information (e.g., the number of people in an area getting a certain disease or illness). The review is most effective when (1) a completed human exposure pathway exists, (2) contaminant levels are high enough to result in measurable health effects, (3) enough people are affected for the health effect to be measured, and (4) a database is available to identify disease rates for populations of concern.
Completed exposure pathways existed at the EWM site, and contaminant levels in drinking water, and probably the mill environment, were high enough to result in increased cancer risk. We contacted the Maine Cancer Registry (MCR) about the feasibility of reviewing data in the state cancer registry.7 The MCR indicated that they can evaluate data down to the zip code level. The zip code for Corinna has about 2,200 people in it, according to the 2000 census. As indicated on Figure 2, there are about 700 people within one mile of EWM, so an evaluation by MCR would include many more people than those who may have been exposed in the past. Based on ATSDR's discussions with EPA during our 1999 site visit, probably less than half of these 700 actually drank contaminated water. Therefore, an evaluation of cancer rates among those potentially exposed to EWM contaminants is not possible because you would be trying to identify possible site-related health effects of about 300 exposed individuals in a population of over 2,000. However, an evaluation of cancer rates in the Corinna zip code would provide useful information on cancer for residents in Corinna. MCR agreed to perform this evaluation. The results are provided in Appendix C beginning on page 38.
The summary results from the MCR report were:
"The investigation reviewed individual types of cancer to determine if there was a higher rate in Corinna than in the state of Maine. Cancer data from 1983 through 1998 was included in the analysis. The results indicate that the cancer rates in Corinna were not statistically significantly higher than the rates in Maine."
The readers of MCR's report need to be aware that it is an evaluation of the actual occurrence of cancer in the Corinna area while in this public health assessment the estimated risk of cancer from exposure to a specific chemical is calculated. The MCR report identifies the actual number of cancer cases in the Corinna area. The cancer risk numbers reported in this document are somewhat hypothetical estimates of what might have occurred.
People who drank contaminated water from private wells over several years have an increased risk of cancer. In addition, past exposures of former workers to dyes and other chemicals used in the textile manufacturing process could have increased their risk of cancer, although we do not know enough about the past exposures to give a quantitative estimate of risk. Because past exposures were high enough to increase the risk of adverse health effects, ATSDR classifies the site as a past public health hazard.
On the basis of the available data, no appreciable ongoing exposures are occurring because residents were provided uncontaminated drinking water and EPA removed easily-accessed contaminated soil and sediment near the former mill complex. In addition, current exposure to contaminants in areas that have not been cleaned yet are too small to result in adverse health effects. Therefore, ATSDR classifies the site as a current no apparent public health hazard.
ATSDR Children's Health Concerns
ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more vulnerable to environmental exposure than adults in communities faced with contamination of their water, soil, air, or food. This vulnerability is a result of the following factors: (1) children are more likely to be exposed to certain media (e.g., surface soil) because they play outdoors and have more hand-to-mouth behaviors; (2) children are more likely to come into contact with dust, soil, and vapors close to the ground; and (3) children tend to receive higher doses of chemical exposure due to their lower body weight. Children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occur as a result of these factors during critical growth stages. ATSDR is committed to evaluating the special interests of children at the EWM site.
We considered risk to children in evaluating past exposures at the EWM site. Anecdotal reports indicated that children were occasionally present in the mill or on the mill property while the mill was operating in the 1950s and 1960s. However, these visits were infrequent and visiting children were most likely not directly exposed to process chemicals. Thus, their exposure at EWM was not likely to be as great as that of the adult workers. Children at the EWM (past or present) are not more likely than adults to either be exposed to contaminants or to develop health effects.
On November 16, 1999, ATSDR staff participated in two meetings with the public in the American Legion Hall in Corinna regarding the EWM NPL site. ATSDR staff conducted a public availability session to allow area residents to discuss their health concerns about the EWM site. In the evening, ATSDR, EPA, MEDEP, and the Town of Corinna conducted a public meeting to provide an update on the site and for ATSDR to discuss the EWM PHA and the community's health concerns.
The public health concerns expressed by area residents at these meetings follow:
Response
Some of the COCs ATSDR identified in this PHA are known to cause cancer. However, they are associated with blood, liver, and kidney cancers, and are not known to be linked to brain, bone, or lung cancer. We did not have information on all the chemicals used in the process and therefore cannot comment on their associated cancer risks. As discussed in the Health Outcome Data section, the Maine Cancer Registry did review cancer registry data for the Corinna zip code at the request of ATSDR. The results of that review, presented in Appendix C, indicated that Corinna does not have higher rates of cancer compared to the state of Maine as a whole.
Response
Some of the residential wells in Corinna have been tested by EPA; the owners of wells found to be contaminated have been notified and provided with a clean water source. EPA installed groundwater monitoring wells and used the data from these wells in conjunction with the data from wells known to be contaminated to determine the extent of groundwater contamination. Groundwater usage restrictions and mechanisms to manage usage are being developed.
On September 25, 2003, ATSDR and MCR held a meeting with Corinna residents at Corinna Fire House Annex as part of the release of the Eastland Woolen Public Health Assessment. John Crellin of ATSDR reviewed the public health assessment process then discussed the results of the Eastland Woolen Mill PHA. Castine Verrill of MCR described the results of the cancer evaluation that MCR conducted of the Corinna area. Questions raised and information provided by the public attending the meeting were:
Response
Yes, it would be appropriate that such a follow-up evaluation should be done. This conclusion was reached after a discussion of latency periods indicating that a gap or latency period of more than 25 years has been observed between the exposure to a chemical and the onset of cancer caused by that exposure. These sorts of latency periods have been documented in exposures to asbestos and arsenic.
Response
ATSDR was unable to provide specific information on the cancer risk that former workers might experience because there were no data on the levels of workplace chemicals that the workers were exposed to.
Response
Our calculations indicate that an individual would have to be exposed to an additional 3 - 4 milligrams of 1,4-dichlorobenzene per day to raise the estimated risk of cancer by that amount.
Response
There are no specific screening tests that would help detect the cancers or other health effects that might be associated with the chemicals used at the Eastland Woolen Mill. Former workers should be examined by their doctor as appropriate for their age.
The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for the EWM site contains a description of actions that have been or will be taken by ATSDR and other government agencies at the site. The purpose of the PHAP is to ensure that this PHA not only identifies public health hazards associated with the site, but also provides a plan of action to prevent or minimize the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to site-related hazardous substances.
Actions Completed
Actions Ongoing and Planned
ATSDR will reevaluate and expand the PHAP as needed. New environmental, toxicological, or health outcome data may determine the need for additional actions at this site.
This public health assessment (PHA) was available for public review and comment
at the Stewart Free Library and the Town Manager's office at 8 Levi Stewart Drive
in Corinna, Maine and the EPA New England Records Center at One Congress
Street in Boston, Mass. from September 17, 2003 to December 1, 2003. The
document was also available for viewing or downloading from the Corinna Web
site: http://www.cattailpress.com/ .
The public comment period was announced in local newspapers. The public health assessment was sent to members of the executive committee of SCCE; the Corinna Town Manager; and staff in the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Bureau of Health, Maine Cancer Registry, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Comments were received from SCCE. They can be found in Appendix D beginning on page 42, along with ATSDR's responses to them.
Preparers of Report8
John R. Crellin, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Epidemiologist
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Jill J. Dyken, Ph.D., P.E.
Environmental Health Scientist
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Community Involvement9
Dawn O'Connor
Community Involvement Specialist
Community Involvement Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Regional Representatives10
Gary D. Perlman, MPH
Regional Representative
William Sweet, PhD, DABT
Senior Regional Representative
Office of Regional Operations
ATSDR Region I
Boston, MA
.....Next Section Table
of Contents
