Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

HEALTH CONSULTATION

(EXPOSURE INVESTIGATION)

Mile Run Brook Downstream of Rhodia, Incorporated

RHODIA, INCORPORATED
(a/k/a RHONE-POULENC CHEMICAL COMPANY
NEW BRUNSWICK, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY


I. OBJECTIVE

In 2000, the Edison Wetlands Association, Inc. (EWA) petitioned the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the initiation of a Public Health Consultation on the Rhodia (formerly Rhone-Poulenc) Incorporated site, New Brunswick, Middlesex County. Rhodia Inc. was a manufacturer of intermediate specialty chemicals used in the formulation of fragrances, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. The EWA alleged that discharges and seeps (i.e., free product discharge) from the Rhodia Inc. site into the Mile Run Brook presented a public health hazard to the surrounding community.

Under a cooperative agreement with the ATSDR, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) prepared a Health Consultation for the Rhodia Inc. site (ATSDR 2002). The NJDHSS and ATSDR concluded that contaminants detected in soil and surface water of the Mile Run Brook posed No Apparent Public Health Hazard. However, this determination was based on limited off-site data that was provided as part of the EWA petition to the ATSDR. A recommendation of the Health Consultation was that in order to further evaluate possible off-site contamination, additional environmental samples be collected from the Mile Run Brook downstream of the Rhodia Inc. site in areas accessible to the public.

The objective of this Exposure Investigation was to evaluate health risks associated with potential surface soil and water contamination along the Mile Run Brook downstream of the Rhodia Inc. Areas along the brook having the highest potential for public access and exposure were given the highest consideration for environmental sample selection.


II. BACKGROUND

Site History Summary and Previous Activities

The Rhodia Inc. site was a chemical manufacturing facility located at 298 Jersey Avenue, New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The 15 acre property is situated in a light industrial zoned area. Rhodia Inc. manufactured a number of specialty chemicals for use in the formulation of fragrances, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. Four chemicals that were site specific to Rhodia Inc. operations included camphor, camphene, coumarin, and cumene. The Rhodia Inc. site is traversed by the Mile Run Brook, which is about 10 to 15 feet wide and divides the property roughly in half. The Mile Run Brook runs approximately 1,700 feet within the Rhodia Inc. property boundary and flows in a northerly direction, ultimately discharging into the Raritan River about two miles north of the site.

Over the years a number of environmental problems (e.g., chemical spills and discharges to the soil and/or groundwater) were documented at the Rhodia Inc. site. Other incidents included odor problems (described as chemical, sewer, and a vanilla-like smell) and the improper handling and storage of chemicals.

In May 1986, Rhodia Inc. entered into an agreement to sell approximately five acres of its property. This triggered an investigation of the site in accordance with the Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA) legislation in effect at that time, and subsequently in accordance with the Industrial Site Remediation Act (ISRA) established in 1993. Since that time, the Rhodia Inc. site has remained under investigation by the NJDEP and a number of administrative consent orders have been issued. Results of environmental monitoring of the site identified a number of areas of concern including underground storage tank areas, various spill areas, the storm sewer system, drum storage areas, and deep groundwater. On April 15, 2002 Rhodia Inc. ceased production activities and on May 31, 2002, it closed the facility. Several on-site buildings have been demolished down to the slab. Remedial efforts of the site are ongoing.

The New Jersey Community Water Watch (NJCWW), a student chapter of the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, has sponsored volunteer trash cleanups of the Mile Run Brook. The NJCWW also has streamwalkers who visually monitor the brook for potential illegal discharges. Concerns about contamination of the Mile Run Brook and the safety of volunteers performing trash cleanups led the NJCWW to contact the Edison Wetlands Association (EWA) in 1999. The EWA is involved with the Raritan River Project, which serves to control pollutants entering the Raritan River. Subsequent to NJCWW's request for assistance, the EWA performed limited soil sampling along the banks of the Mile Run Brook immediately adjacent to and downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site. Results indicated elevated levels of metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Camphor was also detected in surface water samples.

In 2000, the EWA petitioned the ATSDR alleging that sources of contamination to the Mile Run Brook originating from the Rhodia Inc. site act as continuing sources of contamination to soil and surface water. In response to the petition, the NJDHSS, in cooperation with the ATSDR, conducted a Health Consultation of the Rhodia Inc. site (ATSDR 2002). The purpose of the Health Consultation was to evaluate potential exposures to contaminants detected in environmental samples collected by the EWA. The results of the Health Consultation concluded that off-site soils and surface water posed No Apparent Public Health Hazard. However, this determination was based on limited off-site data provided by the EWA. A recommendation of the Health Consultation was to obtain additional environmental samples along the Mile Run Brook downstream of the Rhodia Inc. site.


III. METHODS

Target Population

There are approximately 35,000 individuals residing within a one mile radius of the site (ATSDR 2002).Areas along the Mile Run Brook are accessible to the public and may constitute an attraction particularly among children.

Environmental Sampling

In cooperation with the ATSDR, EWA, and the New Brunswick Environmental Commission, three out of seven initially proposed locations downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site were selected for environmental sampling (see Table 1 and Figure 1). These locations (i.e., numbers 1, 2, and 5) were designated as having the highest potential for public exposure, particularly among children, due to ease of access. On July 8, 2002, the NJDHSS collected six surface water and six surface soil samples from the Mile Run Brook. Samples were collected in accordance with procedures described in the 1999 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Field Sampling Procedures Manual.

Chemical Analysis

Samples were analyzed by ATSDR contract laboratories (Data Chem, Salt Lake City, Utah; Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas) in accordance with NJDHSS Environmental and Chemical Laboratories Standard Operating Procedures. The analytical methods employed are presented in Table 2. Funding for laboratory analysis was provided by the ATSDR.

Surface water samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (including cumene, camphene, camphor, coumarin and PCBs), and metals (including mercury). Surface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs (including cumene, camphene, camphor, coumarin, and PCBs), and metals (including mercury).

Site Visit

On December 02, 2003, a site visit of the Mile Run Brook in the vicinity of the Rhodia Inc. site was conducted. Present were Steven Miller, Tariq Ahmed, and Julie Petix of the NJDHSS; Donna Caputo, New Brunswick Environmental Commission; and James Campbell, Superintendent of the City of New Brunswick Parks and Shade Trees. The site visit commenced at 11:10 am. Weather conditions were windy with snow flurries, and temperatures in the mid 30s. Each of the three locations along the Mile Run Brook where environmental samples were collected for the Exposure Investigation were reevaluated to confirm exposure assumptions (e.g., accessibility of the Mile Run Brook to children of an age range most likely to play at the brook) used in the calculation of exposure doses.

For the Exposure Investigation, Ms. Caputo discussed an informal survey of area residents regarding the Mile Run Brook. The results of this survey, along with familiarity of the area, were used in determining sample locations and frequency of children playing along the Mile Run Brook. With the exception of a few areas, the Mile Run Brook is generally inaccessible to children due to steep banks and culverts. However, it was estimated that children may play near the Mile Run Brook along the Hamilton Garden Apartments with a frequency of approximately once every two weeks. Additionally, further downstream (vicinity of Lorain Street), Mr. Campbell stated that older children cross the Mile Run Brook as a short cut to Buccleuch Park. Ms. Caputo stated that city public works employees were informed of and currently implement recommendations made in the 2002 Health Consultation regarding the use of personal protective clothing when removing trash and debris from the Mile Run Brook; county employees responsible for maintenance of culverts also routinely wear boots and gloves when performing their work activities.

The NJDHSS also contacted the NJCWW regarding recent cleanup activities of the Mile Run Brook. According to the NJCWW, volunteers who perform cleanup activities of the Mile Run Brook wear protective gloves and boots.


IV. RESULTS

Surface Water

Surface water samples collected from the Mile Run Brook were analyzed for 38 VOCs. Three VOCs (acetone, chloroform, and methylene chloride) were detected in samples collected from all three sample locations; toluene was detected at one sample location (see the Appendix, Table A1). Maximum surface water contaminant concentrations were 4.5 micrograms of acetone per liter of water (µg/L); 1.8 µg/L chloroform; 1.6 µg/L methylene chloride; and 0.27 µg/L toluene. Since methylene chloride is considered a common laboratory contaminant and was found in method blanks, it was not included in further evaluation. No SVOCs were detected in any of the samples collected from the Mile Run Brook.

Surface water samples collected from the Mile Run Brook were analyzed for 27 metals; results are presented in the Appendix, Table A2.

Surface Soils

Surface soil samples collected along the Mile Run Brook were analyzed for 70 SVOCs. Cumene was detected at sample locations 1 (38 milligrams of cumene per kilogram of soil or mg/kg) and 5 (18, 24, and 25 mg/kg). Camphor was also detected (67 mg/kg) at sample location 5. PCBs (Aroclor 1248) were detected in all samples at concentrations ranging from 0.117 to 1.06 mg/kg; the highest concentration was detected at location 5. Fifteen PAHs were detected at all three sample locations (0.3 - 1.8 mg/kg) along the Mile Run Brook. Complete results are presented in the Appendix, Table A3.

Surface soil samples collected from the Mile Run Brook were analyzed for 27 metals; results are presented in the Appendix, Table A4.


V. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

For the purpose of this Exposure Investigation, the NJDHSS evaluated potential health risks to area residents, particularly children, associated with contamination of the Mile Run Brook downstream of the Rhodia Inc. site. Routes of exposure evaluated were incidental ingestion of contaminants in surface water and soil of the Mile Run Brook (Table 3).

As a first step in the evaluation of health hazards associated with completed exposure pathways, the maximum concentration of each contaminant detected was compared to an established environmental guideline value. For contaminants that exceeded these "screening" values, site-specific conditions were evaluated to determine likely exposure scenarios for a given exposure pathway. Based on the site-specific exposure scenario, an exposure dose was estimated and compared with a health guideline value. It should be noted that the environmental guideline values utilized for assessing the public health impact of surface water contamination are very conservative as they were developed for potable drinking water supplies rather than the incidental ingestion of non-potable surface waters.

ATSDR generally considers dermal exposures to be a minor contributor to the overall exposure dose relative to the contribution from ingestion (ATSDR 2002). As such, dermal exposures were not evaluated for this Exposure Investigation.

Environmental Guideline Comparison

Contaminants in Surface Water

VOCs - Since the route of exposure to contaminants detected in the Mile Run Brook surface water is through incidental ingestion, New Jersey Maximum Contaminant Levels (NJMCLs) were selected as the environmental guideline values (see Table 4). If a NJMCL was not available, ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEG) or Reference Media Evaluation Guides (RMEG) were selected as the screening value. EMEGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that are not expected to result in adverse non-carcinogenic health effects. RMEGs represent the concentration in water or soil at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse non-cancer health effects. NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9B) were also provided for comparison purposes.

Of the 38 VOCs analyzed, only acetone, chloroform, and toluene were detected in the surface water samples. The maximum concentration of these contaminants were below their corresponding environmental guideline value and were not selected for further evaluation of potential health effects.

Metals - Surface water samples collected from the Mile Run Brook were analyzed for 27 metals including mercury; minimum, maximum and average concentrations of metals detected are presented in Table 5. Where the NJMCL was not available, EMEG, RMEG or USEPA Region 3 Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) were used as the screening value. RBCs are contaminant concentrations corresponding to a fixed level of risk (i.e., a Hazard Index of 1, or lifetime excess cancer risk of one in one million, whichever results in a lower contaminant concentration) in water, air, biota, and soil. The maximum concentrations of aluminum, barium, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, strontium, and zinc detected in the Mile Run Brook surface water were below their corresponding environmental guideline value; no metals were selected for further evaluation of potential health effects.

Environmental guideline values were not available for calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. These metals occur naturally in the soil and are dissolved in surface water (Viessman and Hammer 1998). They are not known to be associated with any adverse health effects at the maximum concentrations detected (calcium, 29,000 µg/L; magnesium, 9,500 µg/L; potassium, 4,500 µg/L; sodium, 26,000 µg/L). Phosphorus was detected in the surface water samples of the Mile Run Brook in the form of inorganic salt and organic matter (Appendix, Table A2). Typically, phosphorus is considered the limiting nutrient in most surface waters and is responsible for enhanced biological growth. At the maximum concentration detected (140 µg/L), no adverse health effects are expected.

Contaminants in Soil

SVOCs - Maximum concentrations of SVOCs detected in soil and their respective environmental guideline values are presented in Table 6. Where the RMEG or Region 3 RBC is unavailable, the New Jersey Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria (RDCSCC) was used for comparison purposes. RDCSCCs are general site-specific cleanup criteria based on human health impacts. With the exception of several PAHs (benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene and indeno[1,2,3-c,d]anthracene) and PCBs (Aroclor 1248), the concentrations of SVOCs were below environmental guideline values. The above PAHs and PCBs were retained for further evaluation. Since environmental guideline values are unavailable for acenapthylene, phenanthrene and benzo[g,h,i]perylene, they were also retained for further evaluation.

Metals - Maximum concentrations of metals detected in soil and their corresponding environmental guideline values are presented in Table 7. All were below the environmental guideline values and, as such, adverse health effects are not expected. Environmental guideline values for calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are not available. As previously stated, these metals occur naturally in soil and are not known to have adverse health effects at the maximum concentrations detected (see the Appendix, Table A4).

Health Guideline Comparison

Non-Cancer Health Effects

The evaluation of potential non-cancer health effects for selected contaminants (see Table 6) was performed by comparing child and adult exposure doses with health guideline values. When available, the ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (MRL) was used as the health guideline value. An MRL is an estimate of the daily exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which an adverse, non-cancer health effect is not likely to occur. Exposure doses were calculated using the following formula:

Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day) equals C times IR times EF divided by BW

where:

mg/kg/day = milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of body weight per day;
C = concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg);
IR = soil ingestion rate (kg/day);
EF = exposure factor; and,
BW = body weight (kg)

whereas exposure factor =

number of days of exposure per year × the number of years of exposure
days per year × number of years exposed

Assumptions used to calculate site-specific exposure doses for children and adults were as follows:

Exposed Population Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) No. of Days of Exposure Per Year* No. of Years Exposed* Body Weight (kg)
Child 200 104 days (2x per week) 10 21
Adult 100 104 days (2x per week) 10 70

*Although it was estimated that children may play near the Mile Run Brook once every two weeks, an exposure duration of two times per week for a 10 year period was used to be both conservative and consistent with the petitioned Health Consultation (ASTDR 2002).

No health guideline values, including MRLs, are available for the PAHs benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene and indeno[1,2,3-c,d]anthracene, which were selected for further evaluation. USEPA reference doses (RfD and oral RfD, or RfDo) are available, however, for the PAHs acenaphthene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and fluorene, which were previously eliminated for further evaluation. The reference dose is an estimate of a daily exposure (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable level of risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. In order to gain perspective and to assess non-cancer health effects, all PAHs detected in samples collected along the Mile Run Brook were included in the evaluation and are listed in Table 8. ATSDR lowest adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were also provided for acenaphthene, benzo[a]pyrene, fluoranthene, and fluorene. LOAELs are defined as the lowest tested dose of a substance reported to cause adverse health effects in people or animals.

As shown in Table 8, PAH exposure dose ranges calculated for children and adults are 10-7 to 10-6 mg/kg/day and 10-9 to 10-7 mg/kg/day, respectively. The highest child exposure dose calculated for fluoranthene (9.22 x10-6 mg/kg/day) is eight orders of magnitude lower than its LOAEL. The calculated child oral exposure dose for benzo[a]pyrene is also eight orders of magnitude lower than the corresponding LOAEL. Since the remaining exposure doses are less than that calculated for fluoranthene, ingestion of soil containing acenaphthylene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, indeno[1,2,3-c,d]anthracene, and phenanthrene are not expected to cause non-cancer adverse health effects. This determination takes into account that PAHs have similar physical, chemical, and toxicological characteristics. Background concentrations of PAHs in typical United States urban soils are also provided in Table 8 (ATSDR 2003). With the exception of benzo[a]pyrene, the maximum PAH concentrations detected along the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site are near the lower limit of respective concentration ranges reported for urban soils.

Child and adult exposure doses for PCBs (Aroclor 1248) were calculated using site-specific exposure assumptions (see Table 8). Since a MRL was not available for Aroclor 1248, the RfDo for Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1254 were used for comparison purposes. Calculated exposure doses for both children and adults were determined to be lower than the corresponding RfDo. Adverse non-cancer health effects associated with PCB exposures at the maximum concentrations detected in the samples collected along the Mile Run Brook are unlikely.

Cancer Health Effects

The site-specific lifetime excess cancer risk (LECR) indicates the cancer potential of contaminants. LECR estimates are usually expressed in terms of excess cancer cases in an exposed population. For example, ATSDR considers estimated cancer risks of less than one additional cancer case among one million persons exposed as insignificant or "no increased risk" (expressed exponentially as 10-6). Similarly, one additional cancer case among 100,000 persons exposed would be considered to pose "no apparent increased risk" (10-5); one additional case among 10,000 persons exposed would be considered as a "low increased risk" (10-4); one additional cancer case among 1,000 persons exposed would be considered as a "moderate increased risk" (10-3); and for one additional cancer case in 100 persons exposed, there would be a "high increased risk" (10-2).

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) cancer class for the contaminants detected along the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site is presented in Table 9. Cancer classes are defined as follows:

1 = Known human carcinogen
2 = Reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen
3 = Not classified

The USEPA has developed a relative potency estimate approach for PAHs (USEPA 1993). Using this approach, the cancer potency of carcinogenic PAHs can be estimated based on their relative potency with reference to benzo[a]pyrene. For each of the carcinogenic PAHs, the benzo[a]pyrene equivalence was calculated by multiplying the maximum concentration detected with the cancer potency factor. The total benzo[a]pyrene equivalence was then obtained by summing each of the individual benzo[a]pyrene equivalences (see Table 9).

Estimated exposure doses for cancer health effects were calculated using the following formula:

Cancer Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day) equals C times IR times EF divided by BW

where:

C = concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg)
IR = soil ingestion rate (kg/day)
EF = exposure factor
BW = body weight (kg)

whereas exposure factor =

number of days of exposure per year × the number of years of exposure
days per year × number of years exposed

The assumptions used to calculate site-specific exposure doses for children and adults were the same as described previously for non-cancer health effects.The LECR for children and adults was calculated by multiplying the exposure dose by the cancer slope factor as shown in Table 9. The cancer slope factor is defined as the slope of the dose-response curve obtained from animal and/or human cancer studies and is expressed as the inverse of the daily exposure dose, i.e., (mg/kg/day)-1. Based on the maximum concentrations detected along the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site, the calculated LECRs for children and adults indicated that there is no increased risk from PAH exposures.

The LECR for PCBs (Aroclor 1248) was also calculated for children and adults; results indicated that that there is no increased cancer risk from PCB exposures (see Table 9).


VI. CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of this Exposure Investigation, the NJDHSS and the ATSDR have determined that there is currently No Apparent Public Health Hazard associated with exposures to surface water and soil of the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site. This determination was based on environmental sampling conducted by the NJDHSS and ATSDR in July 2002 and assumes that concentrations of contaminants detected are representative of exposures that may occur in publicly accessible areas along the Mile Run Brook. Non-cancer and cancer health effects were evaluated for children and adults. Based on site-specific exposure assumptions, results indicated that there is no health risk. Community volunteers performing annual cleanup activities of the Mile Run Brook would have much less exposure compared to estimated daily adult exposure doses.

However, it is important to note that there are contaminants along the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site. Despite the implementation of interim remedial measures, portions of the Rhodia Inc. site remain highly contaminated and NJDEP oversight continues. Changes in existing site conditions or future remedial measures, therefore, may result in the release of contaminants off-site.


VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

Although exposure to the Mile Run Brook surface water and soil does not indicate a health risk to children and adults, the Rhodia Inc. site itself remains contaminated (ATSDR 2002). Until on-site remediation (with NJDEP oversight) is complete, remedial activities should be conducted in a manner such that off-site transport of contaminants, via the Mile Run Brook, does not occur.


VIII. REFERENCES

ATSDR 2002. Petitioned Health Consultation: Rhodia Incorporated. US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA, July 8, 2002.

ATSDR 2003. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.

Viessman, W., Jr. and Hammer, M. J. 1998. Water Supply and Pollution Control, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Menlo Park, CA.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

ATSDR Preparers of Report:

Tariq Ahmed, Ph.D., P.E.
Research Scientist II

Julie R. Petix, M.P.H., C.P.M., H.O.
Health Assessment Project Manager

Steven M. Miller, Ph.D.
Environmental Scientist II


ATSDR Regional Representatives:

Arthur Block
Senior Regional Representative

Leah T. Escobar, R.S.
Associate Regional Representative


ATSDR Technical Project Officer:

Gregory V. Ulirsch, M.S.
Technical Project Officer
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


Any questions concerning this document should be directed to:

Julie R. Petix, M.P.H., C.P.M., H.O.
Health Assessment Project Manager
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
Division of Epidemiology, Environmental and Occupational Health
Consumer and Environmental Health Services
3635 Quakerbridge Road
P.O. Box 369
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0369


Dr. Bruce Eric Wilcomb
April 10, 1946 - February 14, 2003

The Preparers of the Report would like to dedicate the Mile Run Brook Exposure Investigation to the memory of Dr. Bruce Wilcomb. Dr. Wilcomb, who served as a Research Scientist for the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services since 1988, prepared the workplan for the investigation and worked diligently to ensure that environmental sampling and analysis was conducted in strict accordance with scientific standards and protocols. During the preparation of the report, Bruce became ill. Approximately one month later, he departed this life, with his devoted wife Patricia at his hospital bedside.

A Vietnam veteran and Bronze Star recipient, Bruce received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Maine, a Master's degree from the University of Texas at Austin. Educated as a chemist, he was an invaluable resource on chemicals and provided assistance to hundreds of New Jerseyans concerned with pesticide use in their homes. He was a member of the Department's hazardous incident emergency response team, a policy advisor on radiation matters, and represented the Department on the Weapons of Mass Destruction Advisory Committee.

In addition to his academic credentials, he was retired as a Lieutenant Colonel from the New Jersey National Guard Reserves and was a long time member of the Chemical Corps Regimental Association and the New Jersey National Guard Officers Association. He was also an avid Boston Red Sox fan and amateur genealogist who successfully traced his lineage to this country's early colonial period. He is sadly and greatly missed.


CERTIFICATION

This Exposure Investigation was prepared by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It has been produced in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time this evaluation was begun.

Gregory V. Ulirsch
Technical Project Officer
Superfund Site Assessment Branch (SSAB)
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC)
ATSDR

The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC), ATSDR, has reviewed this Health Consultation and concurs with its findings.

Lisa C. Hayes
for Roberta Erlwein
Team Leader, SSAB, DHAC


Proposed (Nos. 1 through 7) and actual (Nos. 1, 2, and 5 environmental sample locations along the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia, Inc. site
Figure 1. Proposed (Nos. 1 through 7) and actual (Nos. 1, 2, and 5 environmental sample locations along the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia, Inc. site


TABLES

Table 1. Location of surface water and soil samples collected along the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site.

Location No. Street Address Comments
1 between Rhodia Inc. (298 Jersey Avenue) and Sandford Street, adjacent to Jersey Avenue location nearest to the Rhodia Inc. site
2 intersection of French and Sandford Streets approximately 0.25 miles downstream from Rhodia Inc. site
5 between Brookside Avenue and Hamilton Street, on the Hamilton Street side approximately 0.75 miles downstream from Rhodia Inc. site near Douglas Garden Apartments and Hamilton Garden Apartments


Table 2. USEPA laboratory method used to analyze surface water and soil samples.

Medium Analyte USEPA Laboratory Method(s)
surface water VOCs1 8260B (GC/MS2)
PCBs3 8270 (GC/MS)
metals (excluding mercury) 6010B (ICP4 emission)
mercury 7471A (cold vapor atomic absorption)

soil

SVOC (excluding PCBs) SW-846; 8270
PCBs SW-846; 8082
metals (excluding mercury) 6010B (ICP emission)
mercury 7471A (cold vapor atomic absorption)

1Volatile Organic Compounds
2Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
3Polychlorinated Biphenyls
4Inductively Coupled Plasma


Table 3. Exposure pathways evaluated for the Mile Run Brook downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site.

Pathway Name Environmental Medium Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population
soil soil Mile Run Brook and its banks incidental ingestion; dermal absorption nearby residents (including children); city and county employees; community volunteers who may clean trash and debris from the brook
surface water surface water Mile Run Brook incidental ingestion; dermal absorption nearby residents (including children); city and county employees; community volunteers who may clean trash and debris from the brook


Table 4. Mile Run Brook surface water downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site: comparison of maximum detected VOC concentrations with environmental guideline values.

Contaminant Min. Detected Conc. (µg/L) Max. Detected Conc. (µg/L) Average Detected Conc. (µg/L) NJ Maximum Contaminant Level
(µg/L)
ATSDR Environmental Guideline Value (µg/L) NJDEP Surface Water Quality Criteria
(µg/L)
Retained for Further Evaluation
Adult Child
Acetone 3 4.5 3.65 NA1 30,000 (RMEG2) 9,000 (RMEG) NA No
Chloroform 0.6 1.8 1.2 80 400 (EMEG3) 100 (EMEG) 5.67 (hc4) No
Toluene 0.27 0.27 0.27 1,000 7,000 (RMEG) 2,000 (RMEG) 7,440 (h5) No

1Not Available
2RMEG - Reference Media Evaluation Guide
3EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
4hc - cancer effect-based human health criteria
5h - non-cancer effect-based human health criteria


Table 5. Mile Run Brook surface water downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site: comparison of maximum detected metal concentrations with environmental guideline values.

Contaminant Min. Detected Conc. (µg/L) Max. Detected Conc. (µg/L) Average Detected Conc. (µg/L) NJ Maximum Contaminant Level
(µg/L)
ATSDR Guideline Value (µg/L) USEPA Reg. 3 RBC1 (µg/L) NJDEP Surface Water Quality Criteria (µg/L) Retained for Further Evaluation
Adult Child
Aluminum 39 54 45.0 NA2 NA NA 3,700 NA No
Barium 77 89 85.8 2,000 2,000 (EMEG3) 700 (EMEG) NA 2,000 (h4) No
Copper 8.5 9.3 8.9 1,300 NA NA 1,500 NA No
Iron 170 320 225.0 NA NA NA 1,100 NA No
Lithium 6.4 7.7 6.9 NA NA NA 730 NA No
Manganese 27 51 36.3 NA 2,000 (RMEG5) 500 (RMEG) NA 100 (h) No
Strontium 190 210 197.5 NA 20,000 (RMEG) 6,000 (RMEG) NA NA No
Zinc 15 19 17.0 NA 10,000 (EMEG) 3,000 (EMEG) NA NA No

1USEPA Region 3 Risk Based Concentration
2Not Available
3EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
4h - non-cancer effect-based human health criteria
5RMEG - Reference Media Evaluation Guide


Table 6. Mile Run Brook surface soil downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site: comparison of maximum detected SVOC concentrations with environmental guideline values.

Contaminant Min. Detected Conc. (mg/kg) Max. Detected Conc. (mg/kg) Average Detected Conc. (mg/kg) RMEG1 (mg/kg) USEPA Reg. 3 RBC2 (mg/kg) RDCSCC3 (mg/kg) Retained for Further Evaluation
Adult Child
Cumene 0.018 0.038 0.026 70,000 5,000 7,800 (N)4 7,800 No
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.021 0.032 0.026 NA5 NA 27 (C)6 570 No
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.018 0.019 0.0185 60,000 5,000 7,000 (N) 5,100 No
4-Methylphenol 0.02 0.28 0.15 NA NA 390 (N) 2,800 No
Camphor 0.067 0.067 0.067 NA NA NA 10,000 No
Napthalene 0.026 0.17 0.083 10,000 1,000 1,600 (N) 230 No
Benzoic Acid 0.12 0.41 0.24 1,000,000 200,000 310,000 (N) NA No
2-Methylnapthalene 0.044 0.092 0.069 NA NA 1,600 (N) NA No
Dibenzofuran 0.029 0.19 0.104 NA NA 160 (N) NA No
Diethylphthalate 0.052 0.052 0.052 600,000 40,000 63,000 (N) 10,000 No
Carbazole 0.029 0.34 0.173 NA NA 32 (C) NA No
Di-n-butylphthalate 0.029 0.074 0.054 70,000 5,000 NA 5,700 No
Butylbenzylphthalate 0.032 0.89 0.45 100,000 10,000 16,000 (N) 1,100 No
Di-n-octylphthalate 0.017 0.12 0.068 NA NA 1,600 (N) 1,100 No
PCBs (Aroclor 1248) 0.0009 1.06 0.363 NA NA 0.32 (C) 0.49 Yes
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Acenaphthene 0.04 0.2 0.132 40,000 3,000 4,700 (N) 3,400 No
Acenaphthylene 0.029 0.12 0.071 NA NA NA NA Yes
Anthracene 0.046 0.55 0.24 200,000 20,000 23,000 (N) 10,000 No
Benzo[a]anthracene 0.39 1.9 1.20 NA NA 0.87 (C) 0.9 Yes
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.3 1.8 1.02 NA NA 0.087 (C) 0.66 Yes
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.57 2.8 1.78 NA NA 0.87 (C) 0.9 Yes
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.13 0.82 0.45 NA NA NA NA Yes
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.44 1.9 1.13 NA NA 8.7 (C) 0.9 No
Chrysene 0.43 2.4 1.39 NA NA 87 (C) 9 No
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.04 0.2 0.106 NA NA 0.087 (C) 0.66 Yes
Fluoranthene 0.52 3.4 2.20 30,000 2,000 3,100 (C) 2,300 No
Fluorene 0.017 0.31 0.15 30,000 2,000 3,100 (C) 2,300 No
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d] anthracene 0.18 0.9 0.51 NA NA 0.87 (C) 0.9 Yes
Phenanthrene 0.25 3 1.56 NA NA NA NA No
Pyrene 1 8.6 4.35 20,000 2,000 2,300 (N) 1,700 No

1RMEG - Reference Media Evaluation Guide;
2USEPA Region 3 Risk Based Concentration;
3New Jersey Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria;
4N - non-cancer effects;
5Not Available;
6C - cancer effects


Table 7. Mile Run Brook surface soil downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site: comparison of maximum detected metal concentrations with environmental guideline values.

Contaminant Min. Detected Conc. (mg/kg) Max. Detected Conc. (mg/kg) Average Detected Conc. (mg/kg) ATSDR Env. Guideline Value (mg/kg) USEPA Reg. 3 RBC1 (mg/kg) RDCSCC2 (mg/kg) Retained for Further Evaluation
Adult Child
Aluminum 6,600 7,800 7,383 NA NA 78,000 (N)3 NA No
Arsenic 6.9 6.9 6.9 200 (RMEG4) 20 (RMEG) 0.43 (C)5 20 No
Barium 48 180 112.5 50,000 (RMEG) 4,000 (RMEG) 5,500 (N) 700 No
Beryllium 0.51 0.85 0.625 1,000 (EMEG6) 100 (EMEG) 160 (N) 2.0 No
Cadmium 0.78 3.3 1.83 100 (EMEG) 10 (EMEG) 39 (N) 39.0 No
Chromium 28 54 44.33 2,0007 1,000,0008 (RMEG) 2007 80,0008 (RMEG) 120,0007 (N)
230,0008 (N)
120,000
[Cr(III)]
No
Cobalt 11 17 14.83 NA NA 1,600 (N)   No
Copper 100 220 143.33 NA NA 3,100 (N) 600 No
Iron 16,000 23,000 18,666 NA NA 23,000 (N) NA No
Lead 110 360 203 NA NA NA 400 No
Lithium 13 26 17.33 NA NA 1,600 (N) NA No
Manganese 170 590 286 40,000 (RMEG) 3,000 (RMEG) 11,000 (N) NA No
Mercury 0.22 0.97 0.378 NA NA NA 14 No
Nickel 21 32 26.66 10,000 (RMEG) 1,000 (RMEG) 1,600 (N) 250 No
Phosphorus 280 640 421.66 NA NA NA NA No9
Selenium 4.5 8.8 6.025 4,000 (EMEG) 300 (EMEG) 390 (N) 63 No
Silver 0.53 0.8 0.6325 4,000 (RMEG) 300 (RMEG) 390 (N) 110 No
Strontium 11 24 16.33 400,000 (RMEG) 30,000 (RMEG) 47,000 (N) NA No
Vanadium 17 27 21.66 NA NA 550 (N) 370 No
Zinc 200 350 285 200,000 (EMEG) 20,000 (EMEG) 23,000 (N) 1,500 No

1USEPA Region 3 Risk Based Concentration;
2New Jersey Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria;
3 N - non-cancer effects
4RMEG - Reference Media Evaluation Guide;
5C - cancer effects;
6Environmental Media Evaluation Guide;
7RMEG for Cr(III);
8RMEG for Cr(VI)
9Phosphorus occurs as constituent of various salts found in the soil; there are no health effects associated with phosphorus in this form.


Table 8. Mile Run Brook surface soil downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site: comparison of calculated exposure dose with non-cancer health guideline values.

Contaminant Max. Conc. (mg/kg) Retained after Env. Guideline Eval. Exposure Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Health Guideline Value
(mg/kg/day)
LOAEL5 Urban Background Soil Concentration (mg/kg)
Child1 Adult2 USEPA RfD3 USEPA Reg. 3 RfDo4
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Acenaphthene 0.2 No 5.42 x 10-7 9.39 x 10-9 NA6 0.06 175 NA
Acenaphthylene 0.12 Yes 3.25 x 10-7 5.63 x 10-9 NA NA NA NA
Anthracene 0.55 No 1.49 x 10-6 2.58 x 10-8 0.3 NA NA NA
Benzo[a]anthracene 1.9 Yes 5.15 x 10-6 8.92 x 10-8 NA NA NA 0.169 - 59
Benzo[a]pyrene 1.8 Yes 4.88 x 10-6 8.45 x 10-8 NA NA 120 0.165 - 0.22
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 2.8 Yes 7.59 x 10-6 1.31 x 10-7 NA NA NA 15 - 62
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.82 Yes 2.22 x 10-6 3.85 x 10-8 NA NA NA 0.9 - 47
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.9 No 5.15 x 10-6 8.92 x 10-8 NA NA NA NA
Chrysene 2.4 No 6.51 x 10-6 1.12 x 10-7 NA NA NA NA
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.2 Yes 5.42 x 10-7 9.39 x 10-9 NA NA NA NA
Fluoranthene 3.4 No 9.22 x 10-6 1.59 x 10-7 0.04 NA 125 NA
Fluorene 0.31 No 8.41 x 10-7 1.45 x 10-8 0.04 NA 125 NA
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)anthracene 0.9 Yes 2.44 x 10-6 4.22 x 10-8 NA NA NA NA
Phenanthrene 3 Yes 8.14 x 10-6 1.40 x 10-7 NA NA NA NA
Pyrene 8.6 No 2.33 x 10-5 4.03 x 10-7 NA NA NA NA
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1248 1.06 Yes 2.87 x 10-6 4.97 x 10-8 NA 0.000077
0.000058
NA NA

1Child Exposure Scenario: 200 mg/day ingestion rate, twice per week exposure frequency, 10 years exposure duration, and 21 kg body weight
2Adult Exposure Scenario: 100 mg/day ingestion rate, once per month exposure frequency, 10 years exposure duration, and 70 kg body weight
3USEPA Oral Reference Dose (Rfd)
4USEPA Region 3 Reference Dose Oral (Rfdo)
5Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
6Not Available
7USEPA Reg. 3 Rfdo for Aroclor 1016
8USEPA Reg. 3 Rfdo for Aroclor 1254


Table 9. Mile Run Brook surface soil downstream from the Rhodia Inc. site: calculated lifetime excess cancer risk (LECR) for the maximum concentrations detected of SVOCs.

Contaminant Max. Conc. (mg/kg) DHHS Cancer Class1 Potency Factor2 BaP Equiv. (mg/kg) Total BaP Equiv. (mg/kg) Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day) Cancer Slope
(mg/kg/d)-1
LECR5
Child3 Adult4 Child Adult
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Acenaphthylene 0.12 3 NA6  NA 3.27 1.27 x 10-6 2.19 x 10-8 7.3 9.27 x 10-6 1.60 x 10-7
Benzo[a]anthracene 1.9 2 0.1 0.19
Benzo[a]pyrene 1.8 2 1 1.8
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 2.8 2 0.1 0.28
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.82 3  NA NA
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.2 2 5 1
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1248 1.06  2 -7 - - 4.12 x 10-7 7.11 x 10-9 2 8.24 x 10-7 1.42 x 10-8

1Department of Health and Human Services Cancer Class
2Cancer potency factor relative to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP)
3Child exposure scenario: 200 mg/day ingestion rate, twice per week exposure frequency, 21 kg body weight and 10 year exposure duration
4Adult exposure scenario: 100 mg/day ingestion rate, once per month exp. frequency and 70 kg body weight and 10 year exposure duration
5Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk
6Not Available
7- Not Applicable

Next Section     Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #