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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

CALLAHAN MINING CORPORATION
BROOKSVILLE (CAPE ROSIER), HANCOCK COUNTY, MAINE


SUMMARY

Callahan Mining Corporation site is on the Cape Rosier peninsula, near Harborside Village inthe town of Brooksville, Maine. The site is a former zinc/copper open-pit mine operated adjacentto and beneath Goose Pond (also known as Goose Pond Estuary), on the Cape Rosier peninsula.Goose Pond was dammed and drained during operations to allow the mining to take place. Thesite was contaminated by metals from the open-pit mining operation and residual chemicals frommining separations processes. Since the mine ceased operations in 1972, dams preventing waterfrom entering Goose Pond have been removed, and the pit is currently under water. Elevatedlevels of heavy metals, including cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc, have been measured insurface water, sediments, biota , soil, and waste piles on site.

On the basis of available information, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) has made the following conclusions about the Callahan Mining Corporation site:

  • The site contains physical hazards and elevated levels of heavy metals. Physical hazards could cause injury to people visiting the site.
  • Because of the low frequency and duration of likely exposures, people exposed to heavymetals and other contaminants in the soil, tailings, waste rock, surface water, andsediments are not expected to experience adverse health effects. We might modify thisconclusion based on further environmental data collected during the remedialinvestigation process.
  • Several contaminants found at the site are known to accumulate in biota. Currently, notenough information exists on potential contaminant levels in Goose Pond and GooseCove biota to fully determine whether adverse health effects are possible from eating fishor shellfish collected from these areas. The very limited available mussels data have beenevaluated in this document. People who occasionally eat mussels from Goose Cove arenot likely to experience health effects due to contaminants associated with the CallahanMining Corporation site. However, collecting or eating shellfish (including clams,mussels, and oysters) from Goose Pond, Goose Cove, and other nearby areas is bannedbecause of elevated levels of metals and other pollution.

ATSDR has made the following recommendations about the Callahan Mining Corporation site:

  • ATSDR recommends that property owners discourage access to the site by using signageand barriers until physical hazards are removed and cleanup activities are complete.
  • ATSDR recommends that the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MaineDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP), or other relevant agencies conduct moreextensive biota sampling to determine concentrations of heavy metals in fish andshellfish tissues in Goose Pond, Goose Cove and, if determined to be appropriate, inwaters adjacent to Goose Cove. Adequate background sampling should be conducted todetermine the naturally occurring concentrations of heavy metals in the Brooksville area.
  • ATSDR recommends that the Holbrook Island Sanctuary ranger and Brooksville andMaine State police increase vigilance to ensure that people follow the shellfish ban and to other fish advisories applicable near the site.

PURPOSE AND HEALTH ISSUES

The Callahan Mining Corporation was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) onSeptember 13, 2001, and listed on September 5, 2002. ATSDR is required by Congress toconduct public health assessments on all sites proposed for the NPL. In this public healthassessment, ATSDR evaluates the public health significance of the Callahan Mining Corporationsite. ATSDR reviewed available environmental data, potential exposure scenarios, andcommunity 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.


BACKGROUND

Site Description

This site description includes information from various site documents [1,2,3,4]. The CallahanMining Corporation site comprises approximately 150 acres and is on the Cape Rosier peninsula,near Harborside Village in the town of Brooksville, Maine. The site extends into Goose Pond(also known as Goose Pond Estuary) to the east, and is adjacent to private properties to thesouth, west, and north.

Limited underground mining occurred at the site from the late 1800s through the 1900s. TheCallahan Mining Corporation operated the site as a zinc and copper open-pit mine from 1968through 1972. Goose Pond was drained to mine the ore deposit with an open pit by dammingGoose Falls, the seawater entrance on the north end of the site. The freshwater entrance to thepond on the south end of the site was also dammed. Goose Falls separates Goose Pond andGoose Cove at the north end of the site. Goose Cove is a cove off of the southern portion ofPenobscot Bay. Figure 1 is a site sketch that includes the Callahan Mining Corporation site,Goose Pond, Goose Cove, and Goose Falls [5]. The fresh water that would normally flow intoGoose Pond was diverted through a drainage ditch into Weir Cove, and the remaining water waspumped from Goose Pond.

A number of areas involved in the mining operations exist in the developed portion of the site.Each of these areas is briefly discussed in the following text. The developed portion of the siteincludes a tailings pond of approximately 11 acres that received waste rock materials andchemical products used during the ore-milling process (removal of the metals from the rock).Two waste rock dumps, containing approximately 5 million tons of waste rock removed duringmining activities, are also present at the site. During mining activities, a circular open pitmeasuring 600 feet in diameter and 320 feet deep was created on the site. This pit has beencovered with water since the site was re-flooded in the 1970s. Dyer Cove, in the central-westportion of Goose Pond, was used as a settling pond and received water pumped from the open-pit mine during active mining operations. A number of buildings and a building foundation arepresent at the site. These buildings were previously used for milling operations. Four abandoned underground storage tanks near the metals building were removed in 1987. Figure 1 shows a sketch of the Callahan Mining Corporation site [5].

Site Sketch
Figure 1. Site Sketch

Demographics

The Callahan Mining Corporation site is in a sparsely populated area of coastal Maine. Figure 2 shows the demographic information for the population within a 1-mile radius of the site. About73 year-round residents, including 3 children under 6 years of age, live within a 1-mile radius ofthe site. The population is white except for one Asian/Pacific Islander. According to EPAofficials, the local population doubles during the summer months.

Land and Natural Resource Use

The Callahan Mining Corporation site is in a rural, coastal setting and contains large rock anddebris piles. Overall, only sparse vegetation is present along the surface of the site. The site is a groundwater discharge area and borders the west shore of Goose Pond. The east shore of GoosePond is bordered by the Holbrook Island Sanctuary State Park, which is managed by Maine'sBureau of Parks and Lands and overseen by the Holbrook Island Sanctuary Corporation trust.Private property makes up the west, north, and south boundaries of the Callahan MiningCorporation site. More than 100 sensitive environments are located within 15 miles of the site.Most of these areas have been designated as sensitive environments because of seabird nestingand feeding. Available data show that surface water and sediment in Goose Pond have beenimpacted by heavy metals contamination associated with mining activities at the CallahanMining Corporation site.

The towns of Brooksville, Castine, and Isleboro are within 4 miles of the site. All residentswithin 3 miles of the site, including those in Brooksville and Isleboro, get their drinking waterfrom private groundwater wells. In 1995, approximately 38 people were drinking groundwaterfrom private wells within a half-mile radius of the site; within a 3-mile radius 769 people weredrinking from private wells. A public water district uses both groundwater and surface water tosupply drinking water to a population of about 1,100 in the town of Castine, approximately 4 miles from the site [1].


DISCUSSION

Data Used

The data evaluated in this document came from the following sources:

  • sampling of soil, tailings and waste rock piles, surface water, and sediment by the Maine DEP in 1999 [6];
  • sampling of surface water, seeps, and drinking water wells by the Maine DEP from 1986to 1994 [1];
  • sampling of soil and sediment by the Maine DEP in 1994 [1]; and
  • sampling of mussels from Goose Cove for heavy metals analysis by the Maine DEP (L.Doggett, unpublished data).

Demographic Statistics
Figure 2. Demographic Statistics

The conclusions reached in this document are based on the data available at the time and mightbe modified based on the results of additional samples that will be collected during the remedialinvestigation process.

ATSDR visited the site to better understand the physical setting of the site and its relationship tothe people living and working nearby. (1) The visit included a tour of Goose Pond (open-pit andsettling basin areas), abandoned buildings, the waste rock pile, and the tailings pond. During the site visit, the following observations were made:

  • The site was accessible to the public; no fence was present.
  • The nearest residence was adjacent to the site and approximately 1,000 feet from thewaste piles.
  • Roads led up to the main waste rock pile and around the tailings pond.
  • Evidence of trespassing was apparent at several locations throughout the site (e.g.,campfire debris, cigarette boxes, beverage cans and bottles, shotgun shells, and claypigeons).
  • A number of physical hazards were apparent, including large concrete piles and metalrods from abandoned buildings and large, steep piles of sharp rocks.
  • The tailings pond was not covered with water. Cattails and short grasses were growing on the tailings pond. The tailings were very fine, suggesting they might produce dust in dry conditions.
  • The particle size of waste rock was relatively large.
  • During the rainy conditions of the site visit, water ran off the tailings pile and tailings pond and entered Goose Pond.
  • A fishing net seen near the water on the northern side of the site indicated that somefishing or shellfish collecting might occur at the site.

ATSDR met with residents during a public meeting about the site. (2) The residents expressedmany health concerns, which are discussed in the Community Health Concerns section of thisdocument. In addition, community members provided the following information aboutcommunity use of the site:

  • People swim and boat in the waters of the site.
  • Young adults access the site to meet/gather with friends. Since the landowner and localpolice have started watching the site more closely, this might occur less often.
  • The community occasionally gathers on the top of the waste rock piles for events such as July 4th fireworks. Some residents said they went to the site once every couple of years.
  • Residents said that people would not bring very small children to the site, except maybe to the "sand dune" [possibly referring to the waste rock pile].
  • Fish and shellfish are collected on and near the site. Residents said that shellfish are eaten from Goose Pond despite the shellfish advisory.
  • There were reports of commercial soft shell clam harvesting and scallop dragging taking place in Goose Pond.
  • Mine shafts are on the properties of homes near the site.

Evaluation Process

The process by which ATSDR evaluates the possible health impact of contaminants issummarized here and described in more detail in Appendix A. The first step involves screeningthe available data for contaminants of concern (COCs). ATSDR uses comparison values (CVs)to determine which chemicals to examine more closely. CVs are concentrations of chemicals inthe environment (air, water, or soil) below which no adverse human health effects should occur.Exceeding a CV does not mean that health effects will occur, just that more evaluation is needed.ATSDR also considers sampling location and data quality; exposure probability, frequency, andduration; and community health concerns in determining which chemicals to evaluate further.

If a chemical contaminant is selected for further evaluation, the next step is to identify whichchemicals and exposure situations could be a health hazard. Child and adult exposure doses arecalculated for COCs in site media (e.g., soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, fish orshellfish). Exposure doses are the estimated amounts of a contaminant that people come incontact with under specified exposure situations. These exposure doses are compared toappropriate health guidelines for that chemical. Health guideline values are considered safedoses; that is, health effects are unlikely below this level. If the exposure dose for a chemical isgreater than the health guideline, then the exposure dose is compared to known health effectlevels identified in ATSDR's toxicological profiles. If the COC is a carcinogen, the cancer risk isalso estimated. These comparisons are the basis for stating whether the exposure is a healthhazard.

Exposure Pathways and Contaminants of Concern

The following sections describe the various ways people could come into contact with contaminants at the site. Each of these ways is called an exposure pathway. Appendix B summarizes the possible exposure pathways for the Callahan Mining Corporation site. If people are unlikely to be exposed to contaminants in a given pathway, then that pathway will not be evaluated further for human health risks.

Soil / Waste Ingestion Pathway

People trespassing on the site could come into contact with tailings or waste rock in the waste piles or soil contaminated by these wastes. People could get particles of waste or soil on their skin, or they might accidentally eat or breathe in the particles. Soil, tailings, and waste rock from the site have all been sampled and analyzed for contaminants. In our initial screening, we conservatively assumed that people would contact the tailings and waste rock as much as they would the soil. Because the maximum levels of contaminants were similar for these materials, we combined soil, tailings, and waste rock into one exposure pathway. Table 1 lists the contaminants found in on-site soil and waste materials at levels above soil CVs.

Table 1.

Soil, Tailings, and Waste Rock Contaminants Above Soil Comparison Values
Contaminant Concentration Range in parts per million (ppm) Frequency of Detection / Total Comparison Value (CV) in ppm CV Source1
Arsenic 54 - 100 3 / 3 20 / 0.5 2 EMEG3 / CREG4
Cadmium ND5 - 150 21 / 28 10 EMEG
Copper 80 - 110,000 28 / 28 2,900 R9 PRG6
Lead 120 - 9,100 28 / 28 400 SSL7
Mercury 0.1 - 7 24 / 24 5 RMEG8
Source: [1]
1
These comparison values are described in Appendix B.
2
The first number is the EMEG and the second is the CREG.
3 EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide.
4
CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
5 ND = not detected.
6 R9 PRG = EPA Region 9 preliminary remediation goal.
7
SSL = EPA soil screening level.
8
RMEG = reference media evaluation guide.

We then calculated exposure doses for the COCs in Table 1. The worst case was assumed to be a10-year-old child (36.3 kilogram (kg) average weight [7]) contacting the average concentrationof each contaminant 104 days a year (twice a week). This assumption will likely overestimatethe calculated exposure doses because of the climate of coastal Maine. Standard default valuesand professional judgment were used to estimate the amount of contaminant taken in throughincidental ingestion (accidental swallowing), inhalation (breathing), and dermal (skin) contactfor each day. The exposure dose estimated through this procedure was compared with healthguideline values and toxicologic information for the COC. To evaluate the risk for cancer, weassumed adults weighing 70 kg would be exposed to the average concentration of eachcontaminant for 104 days a year for 30 years. The following sections describe this evaluation forthe COCs from Table 1.

Arsenic

A review of the available data shows that exposure of children or adults to arsenic in soil,tailings, or waste rock at the site is not likely to result in adverse health effects. This conclusionis based on available toxicologic data and conservative assumptions about exposure, as describedbelow.

Ingesting or breathing low levels of inorganic arsenic for a long time can cause skin changes(such as the appearance of small "corns" or "warts" on the palms, soles, and torso), as well aschanges in blood chemistry and neurologic and cardiovascular effects [8]. ATSDR's minimalrisk level (MRL) of 0.0003 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) was developed on thebasis of a human study that did not report any health effects at an arsenic dose of 0.0008mg/kg/day [8]. This concentration is known as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL).The lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for chronic arsenic exposure by ingestionwas 0.014 mg/kg/day; at this concentration, skin changes were observed [8]. Compared withincidental ingestion, breathing in arsenic in contaminated dust does not appreciably contribute tototal exposure. Uptake of arsenic through skin contact increases the dose by about 25% overincidental ingestion alone. Direct skin effects from dermal exposure to arsenic have beenobserved only at levels hundreds of times greater than those for ingestion [8].

Estimated exposure doses were calculated for exposure of adults and children to the averagearsenic concentration in soil, tailings, or waste rock. The estimated dose included exposure fromingestion, inhalation of dust, and dermal contact. For adults, the estimated dose of 0.0002mg/kg/day was lower than ATSDR's MRL of 0.0003 mg/kg/day, indicating that no adversehealth effects are expected [8]. For children, the dose estimate of 0.0005 mg/kg/day for childrenexceeds the MRL. However, the child dose is lower than the NOAEL of 0.0008 mg/kg/day forhumans, so no adverse health effects are expected [8].

Arsenic is a known carcinogen, and it has been associated with liver, kidney, lung, andespecially skin cancer [8]. Most studies on ingestion of arsenic and cancer have shown effects atexposure doses at or above 0.01 mg/kg/day [8]. The exception is one human study that reportedan increase in lung cancer at an exposure dose of approximately 0.001 mg/kg/day [8]. Theseeffect levels are two to three orders of magnitude greater than the estimated long-term arsenicexposure dose at the site. No increase in the incidence of cancer is expected among peopleexposed for many years to arsenic in soil, tailings, or waste rock at the site.

Cadmium

A review of the available data shows that exposure of children or adults to cadmium in soil,tailings, or waste rock at the site is not likely to result in adverse health effects. This conclusionis based on available toxicological data and conservative assumptions about exposure, asdescribed below.

The primary target organ for cadmium toxicity is the kidney [9]. Other noncancer health effectsassociated with exposure to cadmium include gastrointestinal irritation and musculoskeletaleffects such as osteoporosis [9]. ATSDR's MRL of 0.0002 mg/kg/day is based on a human studywith a NOAEL of 0.0021 mg/kg/day, and animal studies have shown effect levels ranging from0.01-1 mg/kg/day [9]. There are no studies demonstrating direct health effects from dermalcontact with cadmium [9].

Estimated exposure doses were calculated for exposure of adults and children to the averagecadmium concentration in soil, tailings, or waste rock. The estimated dose included exposurefrom ingestion, inhalation of dust, and dermal contact. However, inhalation of fugitive dust didnot contribute significantly to the total cadmium exposure dose. For adults, the estimated dose of0.00008 mg/kg/day was lower than ATSDR's MRL of 0.0002 mg/kg/day, indicating that noadverse health effects are expected [9]. For children, the dose estimate of 0.00024 mg/kg/dayslightly exceeds the MRL. However, the child dose is much lower than the NOAEL of 0.0021mg/kg/day, so no adverse health effects are expected [9].

Long-term inhalation exposure to cadmium, particularly as a fume, is associated with anincreased incidence of lung cancer. Cadmium is considered a probable human carcinogen forinhalation [9]. However, the calculated inhalation exposure doses for cadmium at the site werethousands of times smaller than the effect levels observed in animal studies, indicating that theincreased risk of cancer is not appreciable [9]. Studies have not indicated whether ingestion ordermal exposure to cadmium causes cancer [9].

Copper

A review of the available data shows that exposure of children or adults to copper in soil,tailings, or waste rock at the site is not likely to result in adverse health effects. Significantexposures of copper can cause nausea and other gastrointestinal problems [10]. However, theaverage concentration of copper at the site would result in an intake less than half the tolerableupper intake level, defined as the highest level of daily nutrient intake that is likely to pose norisks of adverse health effects to almost all persons in the general population [11]. In addition,copper is not classified as a cancer-causing agent [10]. Therefore, no adverse health effects areexpected from exposure to copper in soil, tailings, or waste rock at the site.

Lead

Exposure to lead in soil, tailings, or waste rock on this site is unlikely to result in health effects.This is based on the average levels of lead detected and the assumption that older children onlyoccasionally contact soil materials on the site. If young children (less than 6 years old) had dailycontact with the waste piles, the lead could pose a health hazard. However, it is unlikely that asmall child would be playing on the site long enough to ingest appreciable amounts of dirt. Olderchildren (and adults) are less vulnerable to lead in the soil than small children because theygenerally ingest less soil and less lead is absorbed into their bodies [12].

In general, the level of lead in a person's blood, typically measured in micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL), gives a good indication of recent exposure to lead and also correlates well with health effects. If we use the most protective correlation between blood lead levels and soil concentration found in epidemiologic studies (a 0.0068-µg/dL increase in blood lead level per parts per million [ppm] of lead in soil) and the average lead concentration measured in soil, then children exposed daily to this soil could increase their blood lead levels by 13 µg/dL [12]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers children to have elevated lead levels if the amount of lead in the blood is 10 µg/dL or above. Some studies have indicated that lead levels less than 10 µg/dL in children's blood might be associated with small decreases in IQ and slightly impaired hearing and growth. Any increase in blood lead level from exposure to soil, tailings, or waste rock at the site is likely to be much smaller than 13 µg/dL. This is because the exposure of children, if any, to contaminated soils at the site is likely to be very infrequent and of short duration, and the correlation used to calculate the 13 µg/dL value is based on studies where children were exposed to lead regularly and frequently in a residential setting.

Animal data indicate that lead is a probable human carcinogen [12]. However, the animal studieswere based on very high doses of lead and are difficult to compare to low-level environmentalexposures, such as at those present at the site. Because no cancer slope factor (a value used topredict the increased risk of cancer for low chemical exposures) exists for lead, it is impossibleto quantitatively evaluate carcinogenic risk.

Mercury

No health effects are expected from exposure to mercury in soil, tailings, or waste rock at thesite. Exposure doses calculated for children and adults were below the health guideline [13].

Surface Water Pathway

Water from surface runoff on-site comes in contact with the waste material and might contribute contaminants to Goose Pond and Goose Cove. No use of this water for drinking water purposes was identified, but people who wade or swim in surface waters on the site will get surface water on their skin and might accidentally ingest some of the surface water. Table 2 lists the contaminants found in surface water and seeps onsite at levels above drinking water CVs.

Table 2.

Surface Water / Seep Contaminants Detected Above Drinking Water Comparison Values
Contaminant Concentration Range in parts per billion (ppb) Frequency of Detection / Total Comparison Value (CV) in ppb CV Source1
Cadmium ND2 - 65 22 / 25 2 EMEG3
Lead ND - 104 15 / 25 15 AL4
Zinc ND - 16,300 20 / 21 3,000 EMEG3
Dioctyl adipate ND - 260 1 / 13 6,000 / 305 RMEG6 / CREG7
Dioctyl phthalate ND - 100 1 / 13 100 / 38 EMEG3 / CREG7
Butane thiol ND - 5 1 / 13 None9 -
o,o-Diethyl-s-ethyl phosphorothioate ND - 14 7 / 13 None9 -
o,o-Diethyl-s-methyl phosphorothioate ND - 18 5 / 12 None9 -
o,o-Diethyl phosphorodithioic acid ND - 10 1 / 11 None9 -
o,o-s-Triethyl dithiophosphate ND - 13 1 / 13 None9 -
Source: [1]
1
These comparison values are described in Appendix A.
2
ND = not detected.
3 EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide.
4
AL = EPA action level.
5
The first number is the RMEG and the second is the CREG.
6
RMEG = reference media evaluation guide.
7
CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
8
The first number is the EMEG and the second is the CREG.
9
No comparison value available.

We then calculated exposure doses for the COCs in Table 2. The worst case was assumed to be a1-year-old (10 kg average weight [7]) contacting the average concentration of each contaminant60 days out of the year (5 days a week for the 3 summer months). Standard default values andprofessional judgment were used to estimate the amount of contaminant taken in throughincidental ingestion (accidental swallowing) and dermal (skin) contact during wading andswimming. The exposure dose estimated through this procedure was compared with healthguideline values and toxicologic information for the COC. To evaluate the risk for cancer, weassumed adults weighing 70 kg would be exposed to the average concentration of eachcontaminant for 60 days a year for 30 years. The following sections describe this evaluation forthe COCs listed in Table 2.

Cadmium

A review of the available information shows that adverse noncancer or cancer health effects arenot expected to a result from exposure of children or adults to cadmium while wading orswimming in surface water at the site. The estimated doses are 0.00014 and 0.00066 mg/kg/dayfor adults and children, respectively. Only the child dose is slightly higher than ATSDR's MRLof 0.0002 mg/kg/day. However, the child dose is much lower than the NOAEL of 0.0021mg/kg/day, so no adverse health effects are expected [9]. Also, cadmium is not considered acarcinogen through the ingestion or dermal routes of exposure. Therefore, no adverse cancer ornoncancer health effects are expected through exposure to cadmium via the surface waterpathway.

Lead

The average concentration of lead in surface water at the site (10 parts per billion (ppb)) is lowerthan the EPA action level of 15 ppb. Therefore, no adverse health effects are expected fromexposure to lead via the surface water pathway.

Zinc

A review of the available information shows that adverse non-cancer or cancer health effects arenot expected to result from exposure of children or adults to zinc while wading or swimming insurface water at the site. The estimated doses are 0.034 and 0.17 mg/kg/day for adults andchildren, respectively. Both doses are lower than ATSDR's MRL of 0.3 mg/kg/day [14]. Also,zinc is not considered a carcinogen. Therefore, no adverse cancer or noncancer health effects areexpected through exposure to zinc via the surface water pathway.

Dioctyl adipate

Dioctyl adipate, also known as di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, is commonly used as a plasticizer andsolvent [15]. Dioctyl adipate was detected in only 1 of 13 samples. Estimated doses for exposureto the average concentration through wading or swimming were lower than EPA's oral referencedose (RfD) of 0.6 mg/kg/day. Dioctyl adipate is classified as a possible human carcinogen on thebasis of an increased incidence of liver tumors in female mice. However, the averageconcentration of dioctyl adipate measured in surface water at the site is too low to cause asignificantly increased risk of cancer [16]. Because of the low detection frequency combinedwith the low frequency of exposure, exposure to dioctyl adipate in surface water is notconsidered to be of concern at the site.

Dioctyl phthalate

Dioctyl phthalate, also known as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, is a colorless, oily liquid commonlyused as a plasticizer and in cosmetics and pesticides [17]. Dioctyl phthalate was detected in only1 of 13 samples. For exposure to the average concentration through wading or swimming, theestimated doses are 0.018 and 0.12 mg/kg/day for adults and children, respectively. These dosesare higher than the MRL of 0.01 mg/kg/day; however, they are much smaller than the LOAEL of3.3 mg/kg/day identified in animal studies [17]. At the LOAEL, testicular alterations wereobserved in rat pups [17]. Dioctyl phthalate is classified as a probable human carcinogen on thebasis of animal studies; however, the average concentration measured in surface water at the siteis too low to cause a significantly increased risk of cancer [16]. Because of the low detectionfrequency combined with the low frequency of exposure, exposure to dioctyl phthalate in surfacewater is not considered to be of concern at the site.

Butane Thiol

Butane thiol, also known as butyl mercaptan, is a colorless, flammable liquid with a strong odor.It is used as an odorant for natural gas and as a solvent and chemical intermediate [18]. Butanethiol was detected in only 1 of 13 samples. The available studies focus on acute effects ofinhalation of butane thiol; no health effects of ingesting or contacting butane thiol in water werefound. Because of the low detection frequency combined with the low frequency of exposure,exposure to butane thiol in surface water is not considered to be of concern at the site.

Remaining COCs

The remaining contaminants of concern from Table 2 (O,O-diethyl-S-ethyl phosphorothioate;O,O-diethyl-S-methyl phosphorothioate; O,O-diethyl phosphorodithioic acid; and O,O-S-triethyldithiophosphate) have no comparison values, and no toxicological information about them wasfound. These contaminants are likely to be process chemicals or the breakdown products ofprocess chemicals formerly used at the site. No information on potential health effects of thesepossible breakdown products was found.

Sediment Pathway

People who trespass on the site might accidentally ingest some of the sediments from the ponds or bay on the site or get the sediments on their skin. To be conservative, our initial screening assumed sediments would be contacted like soil particles. Table 3 lists the contaminants found at levels above soil CVs in the sediments on site.

Table 3.

Sediment Contaminants Detected Above Soil Comparison Values
Contaminant Concentration Range in parts per million (ppm) Frequency of Detection / Total Comparison Value (CV) in ppm CV Source1
Arsenic 8 - 270 7 / 7 20 / 0.52 EMEG3 / CREG4
Cadmium ND5 - 170 13 / 14 10 EMEG3
Lead 10 - 1,500 14 / 14 400 SSL6
Zinc 41 - 58,000 14 / 14 20,000 EMEG3
1,1-Thiobisethane ND5 - 2 1 / 1 None7 -
Source: [1]
1
These comparison values are described in Appendix A.
2
The first number is the EMEG and the second is the CREG.
3
EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide.
4
CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
5 ND = not detected.
6
SSL = EPA soil screening level.
7
No CV available.

We then calculated exposure doses for the COCs in Table 3. The worst case was assumed to be a1-year-old contacting the average concentration of each contaminant for about 60 days out of theyear. Child and adult exposure doses for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc were well belowhealth guideline values. The compound 1,1-thiobisethane is used in pesticides; however, norecognized or suspected human health hazards are associated with it [19]. Therefore, no healtheffects are expected from exposure to the sediment.

Biota Pathway

People might eat mussels, other shellfish, or fish collected from Goose Pond or Goose Cove.According to the EPA Fact Sheet on the site, a 1975 study by the Maine Department of MarineResources found elevated levels of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in biota and sediments fromGoose Cove compared to other Maine midcoastal and river locations [20].

Few fish and shellfish data are available to fully evaluate potential exposure to persons who consume fish and shellfish collected from Goose Pond or Goose Cove. However, periodicmussels sampling has been conducted in Goose Cove by the Maine DEP to evaluate the potentialfor ecologic impacts from the Callahan Mining Corporation. The available mussels data wereused to evaluate potential exposure to contaminants as a result of human consumption. Table 4 lists the contaminants detected in mussels at levels above fish consumption CVs.

Table 4.

Biota (Mussels) Contaminants Detected Above Comparison Values
Contaminant Concentration Range in parts per million (ppm) Frequency of Detection / Total Comparison Value (CV) in ppm CV Source1
Arsenic 11.9 - 16.5 4 / 4 0.002 RBC2
Cadmium 6.5 - 7.3 4 / 4 1.4 RBC2
Iron 388.4 - 456.2 4 / 4 410 RBC2
Source: [1]
1
These comparison values are described in Appendix A.
2
RBC = EPA Region 3 risk-based concentration.
Note: Chromium appeared in Table 4 in the public comment version of the PHA in error. Chromium concentrations in mussels were below the EPA RBC. Therefore, chromium has been removed from Table 4 and is not considered a contaminant of concern for mussels samples. A discussion of chromium toxicity has also been removed from the text of this section.

The latest mussels data consist of only 4 samples, each of which was a composite sample of 20mussels. We do not feel that this is enough data to make a definitive health call. However, to geta general idea of potential health impacts from eating mussels, we evaluated the limited availabledata. Because concentrations of the contaminants listed in Table 4 exceed established CVs,exposure doses were calculated for each of the contaminants. Conservative assumptions forhuman consumption of mussels caught during recreational activities were incorporated into thedose calculations. Potential exposure to children (average body weight of 16 kg) and adults (70kg) was considered. Standard default assumptions and professional judgment were used toestimate the amount of recreationally harvested mussels that people are likely to ingest. Adultswere assumed to consume, on average, 11 grams of mussels per day (or approximately twomussel meals per month with a serving size of about a third of a pound). Children were assumedto consume about half of the estimated amount of mussels consumed by adults, or about 5.6grams of mussels per day. For a conservative estimate, we assumed that 100% of a person's fishand shellfish consumption is based on ingestion of mussels from Goose Cove. However, it isvery likely that persons consume mussels from other, nonimpacted areas, and that they consumeother species besides mussels. A discussion of the results of the limited evaluation for eachcontaminant is given in the following sections. It is important to note, however, that any findingsrelated to the biota pathway in this document are based on an insufficient number of samples andtypes of species. Additional shellfish and finfish samples should be collected as part of futuresite investigations.

Advisories on fish and shellfish consumption already exist in the area. A shellfish ban iscurrently in effect for Goose Pond, Goose Cove, and other nearby areas. This advisory wasplaced because elevated metals and other contamination were detected in the area of GooseCove. The ban states that no shellfish (including clams, mussels, and oysters) should be collectedor consumed from designated areas (3). In addition, the Maine Bureau of Health has issuedwarnings about consumption of freshwater and saltwater fish because of poly-chlorinatedbiphenyl, mercury, and pesticide contamination. These warnings recommend that pregnant andnursing women, women who might get pregnant, and children under age 8 not eat any freshwaterfish from Maine's inland waters, including the Penobscot River (with the exception of 1 mealper month of brook trout or landlocked salmon). Other adults and children age 8 and older areadvised to eat no more than 2 freshwater fish meals per month according to the fish advisory(with the exception of 1 meal per week of brook trout or landlocked salmon). Consumptionguidelines for saltwater species for the general population include no more than 2 meals permonth of striped bass and bluefish and no meals of lobster tomalley. Lobster tomalley is the soft,green substance in the body cavity of the lobster. Tomalley accumulates contaminants from theenvironment. Lobster meat is generally safe (i.e., no advisories related to eating lobster meat arein place). Other fish consumption guidelines exist for pregnant women, women who are nursing,and women who might become pregnant. For more information on specific advisories, contactthe Maine Bureau of Health at (886) 292-3474 or visithttp://www.state.me.us/dhs/bohetp/index.html [21].

ATSDR recommends that persons follow the existing shellfish ban and fish advisories.Following the shellfish ban and fish advisories will reduce people's chance of being exposed tocontaminants from the site, as well as protecting them from other sources of contamination. Wedid a limited evaluation of health impacts of eating mussels because we learned that some peopledid not follow the shellfish ban. It is important to realize that the following conclusions are basedon a very limited set of data and that further sampling of shellfish and finfish near the site iswarranted.

Arsenic

Arsenic is found naturally in the environment and exists in a number of different forms. Fish andshellfish normally contain high concentrations of arsenic because of their ability to accumulatearsenic naturally present in seawater. An important consideration in the evaluation of arsenicexposure via fish consumption is that arsenic present in fish and shellfish typically exists in theorganic arsenic form, which does not appear to be harmful to humans. Organic arseniccompounds are excreted in the urine very quickly after absorption and are not associated withadverse health effects in humans. In addition, shellfish tend to accumulate arsenic from theenvironment mostly in their shells, which are not consumed by humans [7].

The mussels data available for Goose Cove are reported as "total arsenic" and do not indicatewhether arsenic is present in mussels as organic arsenic or as inorganic arsenic. Although it isideal to have arsenic data that distinguish between the presence of organic and inorganic arsenic,an evaluation was completed using the available data for total arsenic. Studies of arsenic inshellfish indicate that between 3% and 20% of total arsenic in shellfish is present in the form ofinorganic arsenic [8]. Therefore, we conservatively assumed that 80% of the arsenic in themussels collected from Goose Cove is present in the form of organic arsenic, which is notexpected to be harmful to humans.

The calculated exposure doses for exposure to inorganic arsenic via consumption of mussels are0.00052 and 0.0012 mg/kg/day for adults and children, respectively. The calculated doses exceedthe MRL and EPA RfD for arsenic ingestion of 0.00030 mg/kg/day [8]. As previously discussedin this public health assessment, the MRL and RfD of 0.00030 mg/kg/day was developed basedon a human study of exposure, via an arsenic-contaminated water supply, that did not report anyhealth effects (or the NOAEL) at an arsenic dose of 0.00080 mg/kg/day [8]. At the LOAEL of0.014 mg/kg/day, skin changes were observed [8]. Because the calculated doses are at least anorder of magnitude smaller than the LOAEL, and because conservative assumptions were madein calculating doses, it is unlikely that adverse health effects would be observed at these doses.However, the scarcity of biota data and data about consumption patterns in the area make thisconclusion uncertain. More biota tissue data are needed.

Arsenic is a known carcinogen, and it has been associated with liver, kidney, lung, andparticularly skin cancer [8]. Most studies on ingestion of arsenic and cancer have shown effectsat exposure doses at or above 0.010 mg/kg/day [8]. The concentrations of arsenic associated withthese effect levels are significantly greater than the estimated arsenic exposure dose resultingfrom mussel consumption. On the basis of the available data and the protectiveness of exposureassumptions, exposure to arsenic by eating mussels from Goose Cove does not pose a significantincreased risk for cancer.

Cadmium

The estimated doses for cadmium are 0.0011 and 0.0026 mg/kg/day for adults and children,respectively. The calculated doses for adults and children exceed ATSDR's MRL of 0.00020mg/kg/day. Toxicologic studies have indicated health effects at exposure doses of 0.010mg/kg/day, which is 10 to 20 times greater than the exposure estimated from consumption ofmussels from Goose Cove [8]. Additionally, exposure to cadmium as a result of ingestion hasnot been associated with cancer. Therefore, the available data indicate that no adverse healtheffects are expected among persons exposed to cadmium as a result of consumption of musselsfrom Goose Cove.

Iron

The calculated doses for iron exposure to adults and children who consume mussels from GooseCove are 0.072 and 0.16 mg/kg/day, respectively. The calculated doses do not exceed the EPARfD of 0.30 mg/kg/day for ingestion of iron. In addition, ingestion exposure to iron has not beenassociated with cancer. Therefore, the available data indicates that no adverse health effects are expected among persons exposed to iron as a result of consuming mussels from Goose Cove.

Potential Exposure Pathways

Drinking Water Pathway

Contaminants from the waste piles or other source areas could infiltrate into the groundwater beneath the site. If people used this groundwater for drinking, they could be exposed to contaminants. A few private drinking water wells are near the site. All samples of these wells to date show that no contaminants are present above drinking water CVs. Therefore, this pathway is not expected to lead to any adverse health effects and has been dropped from further consideration. Additional sampling of private drinking water wells has been proposed by EPA as part of the Remedial Investigation for the site. ATSDR will evaluate newly collected private well data and will prepare an update to this PHA should the conclusions for the drinking water exposure pathway change.

Air Pathway

Contaminants could volatilize from the source area. People could breathe in these contaminants or absorb them through their skin. No data exists on air contaminants from the site. On the basis of the soil, tailings, waste rock, surface water, and sediment sampling, none of the COCs are very volatile, so this pathway is considered incomplete and has been dropped from further consideration. Inhalation of contaminants as dust is considered above in the section on soil, tailings, and waste rock.

Children's Health Considerations

ATSDR recognizes that infants and children might be more vulnerable to exposures than adultsin communities faced with contamination of their air, water, soil, or food. This vulnerability is a result of the following factors:

  • Children are more likely to play outdoors and bring food into contaminated areas.
  • Children are shorter, so they are more likely to breathe dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground.
  • Children are smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight.
  • The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxicexposures occur during critical growth stages.

Because children depend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions,ATSDR is committed to evaluating their special interests at the site as part of the ATSDR ChildHealth Initiative.

The major exposure routes for children who might access the Callahan Mining Corporation siteare ingestion of soil and waste rock and tailings. Other exposure routes include dermal (or skin)contact with surface water and sediment and ingestion of surface water. Refer to the appropriatesection for discussion of the possible health effects for children to contaminants associated withthe site.

Health Outcome Data

The Superfund law requires that health outcome data be considered in a public healthassessment. Health outcome data might include mortality information (e.g., the number ofpeople dying from a certain disease) or morbidity information (e.g., the number of people in anarea getting a certain disease or illness). To thoroughly evaluate health outcome data as it relatesto a hazardous waste site, four elements are necessary: (1) the presence of a completed humanexposure pathway, (2) sufficiently high contaminant levels to result in measurable health effects,(3) sufficient number of people in the completed pathway for the health effect to be measured,and (4) a health outcome database in which disease rates for populations of concern can beidentified.

The Callahan Mining Corporation site does not meet the requirements for including anevaluation of health outcome data in a public health assessment. Although completed humanexposure pathways exist at this site, the contaminant levels, exposures, and exposed populationare not great enough to result in a meaningful evaluation of health outcome data.

Community Health Concerns

ATSDR staff attended a public meeting in Brooksville, Maine, on June 11, 2002. The meetingwas organized by EPA to discuss the Callahan Mining Corporation site. Approximately 140community members and 7 local, state, and federal officials attended the meeting. During themeeting, ATSDR discussed the public health assessment process and asked community membersto share their health concerns related to contaminants at the site. Many people providedinformation about how people in the area use the site; this information was listed in the DataUsed section of this document. Following are concerns expressed by members of the audience:

Concern: Are site contaminants responsible for cancer, including prostate cancer and leukemia,in people who lived or worked at the site?

Response: Based on the current use and contaminant concentrations at the site, an increased riskfor cancer is not expected. We do not have any information on past contaminant levels andexposures, so we cannot predict what the increased cancer risk was to workers in the past. Thepopulation around the site is not large enough to determine whether cancer rates are higher therecompared to other areas.

Concern: What is the surface film or sheen I have seen on the water of Goose Pond and thesource of the yellow, dirty-looking water in Dyer Cove?

Response: We did not see these conditions during our June visit to the site, perhaps because itwas raining. It is impossible to speculate what the source of the sheen or dirty water might be.EPA will be sampling surface water as part of the remedial investigation.

Concern: Are seals, lobsters, fish, and shellfish living in Goose Cove affected by sitecontaminants?

Response: Limited biota data are available for Goose Cove. The available mussels data indicatesthe presence of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and iron. Consumption of recreationally-caughtmussels from Goose Cove has been evaluated in this public health assessment using the limiteddata available (four composite mussels samples from Goose Cove). Our analysis did not indicatea significant health risk from eating mussels; however, more information is needed to determineunequivocally that the risk is minimal. It should be noted that a shellfish ban currently exists forGoose Pond, Goose Cove, and other nearby areas because of the presence of metals and othercontamination. ATSDR recommends that persons follow local fish and shellfish advisories.Currently, no information exists on levels of contaminants in seals, lobsters, or finfish in GoosePond and Goose Cove. ATSDR has recommended that additional fish and shellfish be collectedfrom Goose Pond, Goose Cove, and, if determined to be appropriate, waters adjacent to GooseCove to enable a full evaluation of fish and shellfish consumption pathway.

Concern: Is it safe to swim in Goose Pond? Who has the authority to determine whetherswimming is safe?

Response: ATSDR determined in this document that incidental exposure to contaminants insurface water in Goose Pond would not pose a health concern, assuming only occasional use.However, physical, biological, or other hazards might make it inappropriate for swimming. Wesuggest you check with your county government or the Maine Department of EnvironmentalProtection to find out who determines the safety of surface waters for swimming.

Concern: I am concerned that ATSDR will make recommendations that will not be carried outbecause of a lack of funding.

Response: It is possible that a lack of funds might prevent some of ATSDR's recommendations(e.g., regarding biota sampling) from being carried out. However, alternative actions exist thatwill also protect public health. For example, if the site cannot be cleaned up, restricting accesswill also prevent exposures to site contaminants. If no funds for sampling shellfish exist,enforcing the shellfish ban will be protective.

Concern: If the site is not cleaned up, how long will it take before the contaminants go awayand the site is safe?

Response: The main contaminants at the site are heavy metals, which are expected to persist inthe environment for a long time. However, the safety of the site depends on how and how muchpeople are exposed to the contaminants. In the absence of cleanup, ATSDR would makerecommendations for safe use of the site.

Concern: Can ATSDR provide health education activities to the Brooksville Elementary Schoolabout the potential risks associated with exposure at the site?

Response: We informed ATSDR's Division of Health Education and Promotion of this request.The division is working with the community to determine whether health education activities aredesired at the site.

Concern: How do I find out about Technical Assistance Grants for the Callahan MiningCorporation site?

Response: Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) are administered by EPA. Information on TAGsand other community resources is available on-line athttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/assistance/index.htm .

The Callahan Mining Corporation Public Health Assessment was available for public review andcomment from December 16, 2002 until March 15, 2003, on the Internet and at the BrooksvilleCommunity Center in Brooksville, Maine. The public comment period was announced in localnewspapers, and fact sheets announcing the availability of the public health assessment weremailed to residents near the site. The PHA was also sent to federal, state, and local officials. Thefindings of the PHA were presented by ATSDR staff at a public meeting held April 1, 2003 inBrooksville, Maine, and public comments were accepted for 1 week after the meeting. Thewritten public comments received are listed and addressed in Appendix C.

Additional community concerns voiced at the April meeting are summarized below:

Concern: When I was a child, I played every day on the flats at the site. We raced and kicked updust.

Response: We estimated the exposure of a child weighing 36 kilograms who was exposed to soilon the site for 300 days a year for 7 years. The estimated exposure doses were lower than thoseexpected to result in adverse health effects. This use of the site did not likely result in anincreased risk of adverse health effects.

Comment: Former workers at the mine site may have silicosis.

Response: Not enough information on past mine practices is available to evaluate risks to former workers at the mine.


HEALTH HAZARD CATEGORY

The contaminant levels in soil, tailings, waste rock, surface water, and sediments at the site aretoo low to cause health effects for the low frequency and duration of current exposures.Therefore, ATSDR concludes that for direct contact pathways the site poses no apparent publichealth hazard. Additional environmental sampling data or changing exposure scenarios couldalter this conclusion.

Not enough information exists to fully evaluate whether exposure to site contaminants through eating contaminated shellfish or fish from Callahan Mining Corporation NPL site could result in health effects. This pathway poses an indeterminate public health hazard.


CONCLUSIONS

  1. The site contains physical hazards and elevated levels of heavy metals. Physical hazards could cause injury to people visiting the site.

  2. Because of the low frequency and duration of likely exposures, people exposed to heavymetals and other contaminants in the soil, tailings, waste rock, surface water, andsediments are not expected to experience adverse health effects. We might modify thisconclusion based on further environmental data collected during the remedialinvestigation process.

  3. Several contaminants found at the site are known to accumulate in biota. Currently, notenough information exists on potential contaminant levels in Goose Pond and GooseCove biota to fully determine whether adverse health effects are possible from eating fishor shellfish collected from these areas. The very limited available mussels data have beenevaluated in this document. People who occasionally eat mussels from Goose Cove arenot likely to experience health effects due to contaminants associated with the CallahanMining Corporation site. However, collecting or eating shellfish (including clams,mussels, and oysters) from Goose Pond, Goose Cove, and other nearby areas is bannedbecause of elevated levels of metals and other pollution.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. ATSDR recommends that the property owners discourage access to the site by usingsignage and barriers until physical hazards are removed and cleanup activities arecomplete.

  2. ATSDR recommends that EPA, Maine DEP, or other relevant agencies conduct moreextensive biota sampling to determine concentrations of heavy metals in fish andshellfish tissues in Goose Pond, Goose Cove and, if determined to be appropriate, inwaters adjacent to Goose Cove. Adequate background sampling should be conducted todetermine the naturally occurring concentrations of heavy metals in the Brooksville area.

  3. ATSDR recommends that the Holbrook Island Sanctuary ranger and Brooksville andMaine State police increase vigilance to ensure that people follow the shellfish ban andother fish advisories applicable near the site.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The public health action plan for the Callahan Mining Corporation site contains a description ofactions that have been or will be taken at the site by ATSDR and/or other government agencies.The purpose of the plan is to ensure that this public health assessment not only identifies publichealth hazards at the site, but also outlines a plan of action to prevent or minimize the potentialfor adverse human health effects from exposure to site-related hazardous substances. ATSDRwill follow up on this plan to ensure that it is implemented.

Actions Completed

  • ATSDR conducted a site visit to verify site conditions and to gather pertinent information and data for the site.
  • ATSDR attended a public meeting to inform the community about the public healthassessment process and to gather health concerns from the site community.

Planned Actions

  • EPA will complete remedial investigation activities for the site.
  • If requested, ATSDR will work with EPA and/or Maine DEP to develop an appropriatebiota sampling plan for the site.

ATSDR will reevaluate and expand the public health action plan if needed. New environmental,toxicologic, or health outcome data or the results of implementing the above proposed actions might determine the need for additional actions at this site.


SITE TEAM

Authors of Report
Jill J. Dyken, Ph.D., P.E.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Annmarie DePasquale, M.P.H.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Regional Representative
William (Bill) Sweet
Senior Regional Representative
ATSDR Region I

Community Involvement
Dawn O'Connor
Community Involvement Specialist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Health Education
Kristina Larson, MHEd., CHES
Senior Health Education Specialist
Division of Health Education and Promotion


REFERENCES

  1. Firth J. Final site inspection prioritization for Callahan Mining Corp., Brooksville,Maine. Augusta: Maine Department of Environmental Protection; 1995.

  2. US Environmental Protection Agency. Callahan Mining Corporation HRSDocumentation Record. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency; 2001.

  3. F.M. Beck, Inc. Minesite Environmental Review, Harborside, Maine. Yarmouth (ME):F.M. Beck; 1986.

  4. Beck F.M. Marine challenges encountered by a small mine on the Maine coast (abstract).Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX; April 1970.

  5. US Environmental Protection Agency. Fact sheet on Callahan Mining Corporation.Boston (MA): US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1; 2002.

  6. US Environmental Protection Agency. Callahan Mine, Brooksville, ME, inorganic datavalidation. Boston (MA): US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1. May 2000.

  7. 1US Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure factors handbook. Washington (DC):US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development; 1999. Rpt. No.:EPA/600/C-99/001.

  8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for arsenic:update. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.

  9. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for cadmium:update. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.

  10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for copper.Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1990.

  11. Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. Dietary reference intakes forvitamin A, vitamin K, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. Washington (DC): Institute of Medicine; 2001.

  12. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for lead:update. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.

  13. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for mercury:update. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.

  14. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for zinc:update. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994.

  15. US Environmental Protection Agency. Technical fact sheet on di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate.Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Available from URL:http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-soc/di-adipa.html (accessed May 6, 2002).

  16. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System. Washington(DC): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Availablefrom URL: http://www.epa.gov/iris (accessed May 6, 2002).

  17. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: update (draft for public comment). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.

  18. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. n-Butyl mercaptan. Availablefrom URL: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pel88/109-79.html (accessed May 6, 2002).

  19. Environmental Defense Fund. Chemical scorecard for 1,1-thiobisethane (CAS No. 352-93-2). Available from URL: http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=352-93-2 (accessed May 8, 2002).

  20. US Environmental Protection Agency. Callahan Mining Corporation, Brooksville (CapeRosier). Boston (MA): US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1, Superfund Program;Revised January 15, 2001. Available from URL:http://yosemite.epa.gov/R1/npl_pad.nsf/fe76f28619343bf185256ac600507c5e/1cdd147450089bb585256aca005551e9?OpenDocument (accessed May 8, 2002).

  21. Maine Bureau of Health, Environmental Toxicology Program. The fish safe eating guidelines[for fresh water fish and ocean fish and shellfish]. Available from URL:http://www.state.me.us/dhs/etp/index.html (accessed August 6, 2002).

1. The site visit was held on June 12, 2002 and included staff from ATSDR (Jill Dyken, Annmarie DePasquale, Dawn O'Connor, and Bill Sweet), EPA (Mary Jane O'Donnell, Leslie McVickar, and Pam Harting-Barrat), and Maine DEP(Naji Akladiss).
2. The public meeting was held in the Brooksville Community Center on June 11, 2002 and included staff from ATSDR (Jill Dyken, Annmarie DePasquale, Dawn O'Connor, and Bill Sweet), EPA (Mary Jane O'Donnell, Leslie McVickar, and Pam Harting-Barrat), and Maine DEP(Naji Akladiss). Approximately 140 community members attended the meeting.
3. Based on information posted throughout the community by the Maine Department of Marine Resources. For more information, contact the South Portland Office (207) 799-3380 or the Lamoine Office (207) 667-3373.



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. #