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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

EASTLAND WOOLEN MILL
CORINNA, PENOBSCOTT COUNTY, MAINE


SUMMARY

The Eastland Woolen Mill (EWM) site is located in Corinna, Maine. The siteconsists of a former woolen mill complex and several nearby areas wherecontamination from the mill is believed to be present. Chemicals used in pastoperations have contaminated the site with chlorinated benzenes and othercontaminants. The former processing buildings have been removed, and severalareas of the site have been subject to past and ongoing cleanup activities.

On the basis of available information, the Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR) has made the following conclusions about theEastland Woolen Mill site:

  • ATSDR did not identify any ongoing exposure which would result in health effects. Residents with contaminated wells have been provided clean water, and highly contaminated soil and sediment in the areas most likely to be accessed often have been removed. Therefore, ATSDR classifies the former EWM site as a current no apparent public health hazard


  • ATSDR considers the cleanup plan documented in the record of decision (ROD)for Operable Unit 1 (OU1) to be protective of public health. Assuming the ROD forOperable Unit 2 is also protective, and that remedial alternatives are implementedsuccessfully, health risks from potential future exposures will be minimal.

  • People who drank contaminated water from private wells over several years hadan increased risk of cancer. In addition, past exposures of former workers to processchemicals could have increased their risk of cancer, although we do not know enoughabout the past exposures to give an accurate estimate of risk. Because past exposureswere high enough to increase the risk of adverse health effects, ATSDR classifies the siteas a past public health hazard.

  • The analysis of cancer performed by the Maine Cancer Registry for 1983 - 1998in the Corinna area indicated that cancer rates were no different than for the rest ofMaine. However, the available cancer data are not detailed enough to draw specificconclusions about cancer rates in the relatively small number of people who wereexposed, including EWM workers and residents near EWM.

  • For the current situation, contaminant concentrations in the sediment/floodplainsoil and Old Dump site soil pathways are below levels of health concern. However, thelead levels would represent a health concern for children if homes were built at thislocation without any remediation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)considers future residential development of the Old Dump site unlikely.

  • Elevated mercury and dioxin concentrations in fish are not site-related, but maybe a health concern for those consuming more than 27 meals a year of perch orlargemouth bass from the East Branch of the Sebasticook River.

  • Not enough information exists to evaluate the effects of airborne releases of EWMchemicals to the surrounding area, a past potential exposure pathway.

ATSDR has made the following recommendations about the Eastland Woolen Mill site:

  • ATSDR recommends that EPA and/or Maine Department of EnvironmentalProtection (MEDEP) continue to monitor groundwater and provide clean water toresidents whose wells are contaminated.

  • In the unlikely event that the Old Dump site is developed for residential use,ATSDR recommends that EPA, MEDEP, or the developer of the site fully characterizethe soil lead levels in the area being developed and clean up to a concentration acceptable to EPA.

  • ATSDR recommends that state and local officials increase vigilance to ensure thatpeople follow applicable state fish advisories for contaminants that are not site-related.

PURPOSE AND HEALTH ISSUES

The Eastland Woolen Mill (EWM) site was proposed for inclusion on the NationalPriorities List (NPL) on April 23, 1999 and listed on the NPL on July 22, 1999[1]. In this public health assessment, the Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR) evaluates the public health significance of the site asmandated by Congress. ATSDR has reviewed available environmental data andcommunity health concerns to determine whether adverse health effects arepossible. In addition, this public health assessment recommends actions toprevent, reduce, or further identify the possibility for site-related adverse healtheffects.

This public health assessment is differentiated from EPA's Baseline Human HealthRisk Assessment in several ways. Both documents assess risk to human health fromexposure to site contaminants using similar evaluation methods, especially inassessing exposure. However, ATSDR's public health assessment determines thequalitative implications of present and past exposures to site contaminants andidentifies the public health actions that should be taken to prevent or minimize thoseexposures. EPA's risk assessment determines quantitative risk for present andfuture exposures to facilitate selection of appropriate remedial actions, especiallysite cleanup levels.


BACKGROUND

Site Description and History

The following site description comes in part from the EWM Baseline RiskAssessment (February 2002) and the Feasibility Study Report (May 2002) [2,3]The EWM site is located in the town of Corinna, Maine, approximately 25 milesnorthwest of Bangor (Figure 1). The site consists of a former woolen millcomplex and several nearby areas where contamination from the mill is believedto be present, including Moosehead Mill and a location where EWM materialswere disposed called the "Old Dump" site. EPA has split the site in two operableunits. OU1 consists of the site of the EWM complex buildings, includinggroundwater, soils, and stream areas where contaminated sediment removal hasalready occurred. OU2 includes surface water, sediments, and streambedsdownstream of the removal area and also includes Moosehead Mill and the OldDump.

The EWM was built over the East Branch of the Sebasticook River (EBSR), withthe river running through the mill building, and reportedly began operating in1909 [2]. Eastland took ownership of the mill in the 1930s, manufacturing woolyarn and fabrics until the fall of 1996, when the company declared bankruptcyand closed the mill. Most of the former mill complex was demolished in 2000 and2001.

Eastland Woolen Mill NPL Site
Figure 1. Eastland Woolen Mill NPL Site, Corinna, Maine

The release of chlorinated benzenes and other hazardous substances from themill resulted in significant contamination of soils and groundwater beneath andadjacent to the mill [2,3]. This contamination occurred from the discharge ofwastewater from the mill's fabric dyeing operations, chemical spills inside themill buildings, and leaks from the mill's underground storage tanks.Contaminants from the site have migrated several miles down the EBSR intosediments, floodplain soils, and groundwater adjacent to the river.

The groundwater contamination in Corinna was discovered in 1983 when a MaineDepartment of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) employee noticed that thewater in a local restaurant across the street from the mill had a strange taste andodor [2,3]. Subsequent sampling and analysis of the restaurant's well waterrevealed that the well was contaminated with chlorinated benzenes (mono-, di-,and tri-). Further testing of nearby water supply wells revealed that 5 of thewells along Main Street contained chlorinated benzenes at levels above drinkingwater standards. Eastland arranged for installation of granular activated carbonfilters at these 5 locations. Eastland also initiated a quarterly sampling program,under the oversight of the MEDEP, to insure effective operation of the filtersand to identify other wells which might become contaminated. By 1988, testingof wells at private residences and local businesses revealed 11 locations withchlorobenzene levels warranting the installation of carbon filters. Groundwatercontamination was detected up to 800 feet from the mill.

Since 1999, EPA has been conducting a non-time critical removal action(NTCRA), or early cleanup, at the EWM site [3,4]. The goal of the early cleanup isto remove the source of contamination in site soils, thereby reducing the amountof contamination that is migrating into groundwater and into the EBSR.

The basic components of the removal action and current status are:

  • demolish and remove the EWM buildings - completed April 2000
  • excavate contaminated soils beneath and near the building foundation and inthe EBSR channel - completed August 2001
  • permanently divert the EBSR, including rerouting Route 7 and replacingMain Street - completed August 2001
  • restore EBSR channel - completed September 2002
  • treat contaminated soils - projected completion October 2003

Also, in 1999, EPA began field activities at the site related to the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the site [3,4]. The RI/FS providesdetailed information and data regarding the nature and extent of contaminationfrom the EWM in groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soils.

The RI for the four major areas of contamination is now complete [4]. The keyresults for these areas follow:

  1. Bedrock and overburden groundwater
    • Private drinking water wells drawing from the bedrock or overburden (i.e.,the sand and soil on top of the bedrock) aquifers contain elevated levels of sitecontaminants.
    • The bedrock aquifer is heavily contaminated by chlorinated benzenes to adepth of 350 feet in some locations. This aquifer discharges contaminants to theEBSR near the EWM site. Extraction of groundwater by water supply wells tends topull contaminants away from the river.
    • The overburden aquifer is also contaminated and is discharging to the EBSRnear the EWM site.

  2. River sediments and floodplain soils of EBSR
    • Chlorinated benzenes, dieldrin, cadmium, chromium, and zinc are the site-related contaminants found in the sediment and floodplain soil tested downstreamof the site.
    • "Hot spots" of contaminants exist in sediment depositional and floodplainareas of the EBSR near Moosehead Mill and the Old Dump.

  3. Old Dump site
    • The results of the RI indicate that this area, which is about one mile south ofthe EWM complex, was used to dispose of waste from the mill.
    • There are chlorinated benzenes, pesticides, cadmium, and polyaromatichydrocarbons in the waste material and chlorinated benzenes in small portions ofthe overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath this area.

  4. EWM complex
    • Two areas of soil contaminated with chlorinated benzenes remain near theformer EWM complex. One area was so deep as to be inaccessible during earlycleanup efforts, and the other smaller area could not be cleaned up due tologistical issues with an overlying roadway. These areas present a continuingsource of contamination to the groundwater.

Demographics

As indicated on Figure 2, the EWM site is located in the town of Corinna, which hasa population of 2,145, based on the 2000 census [5]. The population of Corinna isabout 98% White with the rest being African-American, Hispanic, andAmerican Indian. Approximately 642 people live within a 1-mile radius of thesite.

Intro Map
Figure 2. Intro Map

Land and Natural Resource Use

The EWM was built over the EBSR, with the river running through the millbuilding, in the center of Corinna's downtown [2,3]. The surrounding area iscurrently a mix of businesses and residences. Redevelopment of this area couldinclude retail, commercial/industrial, residential, and recreational uses such as apark. The EBSR is used for fishing, wading, swimming and other recreationalactivities downstream of the former mill site.

Groundwater

Groundwater in the Corinna area is found in the shallow overburden and deeper bedrockaquifers [2,3]. These aquifers in the former EWM site area are heavily contaminated withchlorinated benzenes and other site contaminants. The residences and businesses in thearea with the contaminated groundwater now obtain their drinking water from amunicipal water system; however, they previously used water from the contaminatedbedrock aquifer. Residences and businesses outside of the groundwater contaminationarea continue to obtain their drinking water from wells installed in the bedrock aquifer.EPA has indicated that long-term monitoring of these wells is planned and that somelimited sampling may be done in 2003.


DISCUSSION

Data used

The primary source for the data evaluated in this public health assessment was the Baseline Risk Assessment for the EWM site [2], which included data from the 1999-2001 EWM Site Remedial Investigation and data from Non-Time Critical Removal Actions (NTCRAs) performed in 2000 and 2001. The EWM Site Remedial Investigation Report and the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 were also used [6,7,8].

ATSDR visited the Corinna area to better understand the physical and geographic setting of the site.1 We also met with community members and local, state, federal officials to learn more about the site and the health concerns of the community.

Evaluation Process

In this section of the public health assessment, ATSDR (1) evaluates available environmental sampling data for the EWM site and determines which site contaminants are of potential health concern, (2) identifies pathways by which persons may be exposed to the contaminants of concern (COCs) from the site, and (3) evaluates the public health implications of those exposures. More details about the evaluation process can be found in Appendix A.

ATSDR selects COCs by comparing contaminant concentrations in specific environmental media (e.g., soil, water, air) at the site with health-based comparison values. When the concentration of a contaminant detected at the site exceeds a comparison value, thecontaminant is selected for further evaluation in the public health assessment. SeeAppendix A for more information about ATSDR comparison values.

Identification of a COC does not imply that people will experience adverse healtheffects. Instead, it indicates that the contaminant will be further evaluated usingsite-specific exposure conditions to determine whether people are at risk ofexperiencing adverse health effects. This depends on the frequency and lengthwhich people come in contact with the contaminants as well as the level ofcontamination. Regardless of the level of contamination, a public health hazardcan exist only if people actually come into contact with, that is, are exposed to, thecontaminated media.

ATSDR evaluates pathways by which persons may be exposed to contaminants ofconcern by examining the following five elements: (1) a source of contamination;(2) an environmental medium through which contaminants are transported; (3)a point of exposure (i.e., a place where people come into contact withcontaminated media); (4) a route of human exposure (i.e., how contaminantsenter the body); and (5) an exposed population. An exposure pathway isconsidered complete if all five elements are present. If one or more elements isnot proven, the pathway is considered potential. If one or more elements isproven not to exist, the pathway is incomplete.

ATSDR identified several exposure pathways which are summarized in Table B1 inAppendix B. Not all exposures related to the EWM site are significant enough tocause adverse health effects. The potential for adverse health effects as a resultof human exposures at the EWM is evaluated in the following sections.

Completed Exposure Pathways, Contaminants of Concern, and Toxicological Evaluation

Private Well Exposure Pathway

The private wells at residences and businesses in the downtown Corinna area werefound to be contaminated with chlorinated benzenes and other site-relatedcontaminants in 1983 [2]. The historical sampling data show high levels ofchlorinated benzenes in supply wells close to the mill with lower levels extendingaway from the mill primarily to the northeast and southwest. The 7 contaminantsfound above a comparison value in private wells are identified in Table 1.

Table 1.

Contaminants Detected Above Comparison Values in Private Wells
Chemical Range* of time-averaged concentrations in ppb* #E/#D Comparison Value (CV) in ppb Source of CV
Benzene ND - 454 27/35 0.6 CREG
Chlorobenzene ND - 9,000 62/148 200 RMEG**
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND - 3,015 26/157 900 RMEG
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND - 1,160 3/136 600 LTHA
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND - 4,300 64/154 75 LTHA
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND - 565 42/108 40 LTHA
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND - 2,335 64/147 100 RMEG
* Range = range of the means for the individual wells sampled
ppb = parts per billion
#E/#D = number of detects exceeding comparison value/total number of detects. ATSDR calculated the mean levels for every contaminant, using the highest mean for exposure dose calculations.
ND = non-detected
CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide
** RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide
LTHA = Lifetime health advisory

Exposure to these contaminants in well water could have occurred through drinking (ingesting) them; breathing them through evaporation from water during bathing, showering, dishwashing; and absorbing them through the skin while showering or bathing. Exposures may have occurred for up to 40 years based on reports that chlorinated benzenes were first used in the mill's fabric dyeing operations in the 1950s or early 1960s [3]. ATSDR assumes that all exposures through drinking contaminated water ceased by 1995 when clean water from a public water supply was provided to all those with contaminated wells. For 10 of the contaminated wells, exposure was reduced in the mid-1980s by fitting the wells with activated carbon filters. The private well pathway is considered to be a past exposure pathway because exposure to contaminants from private wells is no longer occurring. The conclusion that current and future exposures are not occurring is based on the following assumptions: (1) groundwater monitoring and predictive groundwater modeling have identified all contaminated wells, (2) people with contaminated wells continue to have access to and use clean water, and (3) remediation in conjunction with institutional controls is successful in eventually reducing contamination in groundwater to safe levels.

Public Health Implications

We used conservative default assumptions to calculate exposure doses for the COCs inTable 1. For child dose, we assumed a 1-year-old weighing 10 kilograms (kg) drank 1liter of water with the highest mean concentration for a contaminant per day [7].2 Foradults and for evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed that adults weighing 70 kg drank 2 liters of water with thehighest mean concentration for a contaminant per day for 40 years. These doses weremultiplied by 2 to account for additional dermal and inhalation exposure to volatilecompounds during showering [9]. The estimated past exposure doses were higher thanapplicable cancer and noncancer health guidelines. The following paragraphs include adiscussion of possible health effects.

Benzene - The estimated child and adult doses were calculated to be about 10-30times higher than the reference dose generally considered safe. However, theestimated doses were 30-100 times smaller than the dose shown to cause mild effectson the nervous system and liver in toxicological studies of rodents [10]. Noncancerhealth effects are considered unlikely from this exposure. However, benzene is aknown carcinogen and contributes to cancer risk (see Cancer Risk section below).

Chlorobenzene - The estimated child and adult doses were calculated to be about 25-90 times higher than the reference dose generally considered safe. However, theestimated doses were 30-100 times smaller than the dose shown to cause microscopicchanges in the liver in toxicological studies of dogs [11]. Noncancer health effects areconsidered unlikely from this exposure. Chlorobenzene is not classified as a humancarcinogen.

Dichlorobenzenes - The estimated child and adult doses are slightly higher than therange generally accepted as safe. All the doses were hundreds of times smaller than noadverse effect levels seen in toxicological studies [12]. Noncancer health effects areconsidered unlikely from this exposure. 1,4-dichlorobenzene is a possible human carcinogen and may contribute to cancer risk (see Cancer Risk section below).

Trichlorobenzenes - The estimated child and adult doses were calculated to be about10-50 times higher than the reference dose generally considered safe. However, theestimated doses were 30-150 times smaller than the dose shown to cause no adverseeffects in toxicological studies [13]. Noncancer health effects are considered unlikelyfrom this exposure. Trichlorobenzenes are not classified as human carcinogens.

Cancer Risk - Of the above COCs, benzene is known to cause leukemia (cancer of theblood-forming organs), and 1,4-dichlorobenzene is linked with kidney and liver cancers inanimals [10,12]. Drinking water containing the highest mean concentrations ofbenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene over the entire 40-year period possible would haveincreased a person's risk of cancer by a moderate to high amount.

To summarize, past exposures to contaminants through the private well pathway werenot likely to lead to noncancer health effects. However, people who regularly drankhighly contaminated water over the 40-year period had a moderate to high increased riskof developing cancer.

On the basis of available information, no one is currently drinking the water, and anycontinuing use of this water for nondrinking purposes is expected to occur infrequently.No health effects are expected from such use.

Soil Exposure Pathways

EWM site (Including Main EWM Complex, Building 14 and the UndergroundStorage Tank Area)

The soils at the Former EWM site were contaminated with benzene and variouschlorinated benzenes both at the surface and below the surface [6]. Significantexposures are not currently occurring because the surface contamination at theselocations was removed during the NTCRA. However, workers on the site may havebeen exposed to contaminants before the cleanup, so ATSDR considers the soilexposure pathway to be a past completed pathway.

In general, soil samples obtained from the surface (0-3 inches) provide the best information when evaluating people's exposure to soil. However, the available data were mostly from subsurface soil borings taken to characterize the nature and extent of contamination. Since no past surface sampling was available, we estimated exposures using the maximum subsurface concentration found in soil and reported in the RI. Because the contaminants apparently filtered down through the surface soils towards the bedrock, the use of subsurface contaminant concentrations should give a conservative estimate of past surface concentrations. Currently, the actual surface contaminant concentrations would likely be lower than the maximums used here, because some of the volatile contaminants would evaporate from the soil. The maximum values detected in subsurface soils above comparison values are listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Contaminants Detected Above Comparison Values in EWM Soils
Chemical Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg* or ppm)
Comparison Value
(mg/kg or ppm)
Source of CV
Benzene 15 10 CREG
Chlorobenzene 1,800 1,000 RMEG
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 2,000 500 RMEG (for 1,2,4-)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 12,000 500 RMEG
* mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
ppm = parts per million, equal to milligrams per kilogram
CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide
RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide

Public Health Implications

Conservative assumptions were used to calculate exposure doses for the COCs in Table 2. For each contaminant, we assumed that an adult worker weighing 70 kilograms (kg) would consume 50 g of soil containing the maximum concentration for 250 days a year. For evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed that this exposure would occur for 40 years. The calculated doses for each contaminant in Table 2 were much lower than applicable cancer and noncancer health guidelines. Therefore, the soil exposure pathway did not contribute significantly to the workers' overall risk of health effects.

Old Dump Site

Soil at the Old Dump site is contaminated with organic materials, pesticides, and heavy metals [6]. The soil here represents a completed present and past exposure pathway, because adolescents and adults may breathe in, accidentally swallow, or contact contaminants in surface soil during recreational activities. The only data available were soil borings from 0 - 17 feet which are not best for evaluating the possibility of health effects from exposure to the top few inches of soil. However, on the basis of this limited data, occasional recreational use of the site is not expected to result in any health effects. The lead level in the soil could pose a risk to young children if they spent most of their time on the site (for example, if the site was developed for residential use). We consider it unlikely that the site would be developed without further characterization and/or cleanup.

Past Mill Work

While the mill was operating, workers, especially those who worked in the fabricfinishing operations, were exposed to coal-tar derivative dyes, dye aids containingchlorinated benzenes, and other process chemicals, including caustics, acid, andammonia. According to anecdotal information, workers had direct contact with dyes;their exposed skin was colored according to the dye currently in use3. Also, use ofpersonal protective equipment in the past was generally not common. We can assumethat workers had direct contact with or breathed in the volatile process chemicalsused.

Both immediate and long-term health effects are possible from worker exposure toprocess chemicals such as those used at EWM in the past [2,6]. Unfortunately, littleinformation on the specific chemical identities and amounts used in EWMprocesses was available, so only general conclusions can be made. Inhalation ofhigh levels of the volatile organic chemicals4 used in the mill process is associatedwith various health effects, including blood problems; liver, kidney, or nervoussystem effects; and lung and eye irritation. Long-term exposure effects may includeincreased risk of cancer associated with the use of benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene,and coal-tar derivative dyes.

Possible Health Consequences from Worker Exposures

Here is a brief summary of the health consequences possible from prolonged exposureto benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and coal-tar derivative dyes. Thereis insufficient information to determine if workers were exposed long enough andto sufficient levels for any of these effects to occur. The information on benzene,chlorobenzene, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene is excerpted from the Public HealthStatements in the ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for these chemicals while theinformation on coal-tar derivative dyes was compiled from three sources [14-16].

Benzene

Benzene causes problems in the blood [10]. People who breathe benzene for longperiods may experience harmful effects in the tissues that form blood cells,especially the bone marrow. These effects can disrupt normal blood production andcause a decrease in important blood components. A decrease in red blood cells canlead to anemia. Reduction in other components in the blood can cause excessivebleeding. Blood production may return to normal after exposure to benzene stops.Excessive exposure to benzene can be harmful to the immune system, increasingthe chance for infection and perhaps lowering the body's defense against cancer.

Exposure to benzene may be harmful to the reproductive organs [10]. Some womenworkers who breathed high levels of benzene for many months had irregularmenstrual periods. When examined, these women showed a decrease in the size oftheir ovaries. However, exact exposure levels were unknown, and the studies ofthese women did not prove that benzene caused these effects. It is not known whateffects exposure to benzene might have on the developing fetus in pregnant womenor on fertility in men. Studies with pregnant animals show that breathing benzenehas harmful effects on the developing fetus. These effects include low birth weight,delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage.

Benzene can cause cancer of the blood-forming organs [10]. The Department ofHealth and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene is a knowncarcinogen. The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) has determinedthat benzene is carcinogenic to humans, and the EPA has determined that benzene isa human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels of benzene in theair can cause cancer of the blood-forming organs. This condition is called leukemia.Exposure to benzene has been associated with development of a particular type ofleukemia called acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Chlorobenzene

Workers exposed to high levels of chlorobenzene complained of headaches, numbness,sleepiness, nausea, and vomiting [11]. However, it is not known if chlorobenzenealone was responsible for these health effects since the workers may have also beenexposed to other chemicals at the same time. Mild to severe depression of functionsof parts of the nervous system is a common response to exposure to a wide varietyof industrial solvents.

In animals, exposure to high concentrations of chlorobenzene affects the brain, liver,and kidneys [11]. Unconsciousness, tremors and restlessness have been observed.The chemical can cause severe injury to the liver and kidneys. Data indicate thatchlorobenzene does not affect reproduction or cause birth defects. Studies inanimals have shown that chlorobenzene can produce liver nodules, providing somebut not clear evidence of cancer risk.

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Inhaling the vapor or dusts of 1,4-dichlorobenzene at very high concentrations canbe very irritating to a person's lungs [12]. It may also cause burning and tearing ofthe eyes, coughing, difficult breathing, and an upset stomach. There are somemedical reports of patients who have developed some health effects, such asdizziness, headaches, and liver problems as a result of very high levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene in the home5. However, these were reports of extremely high usage of 1,4-dichlorobenzeneproducts, and the persons continued to use the products for months or even years, even though they felt ill. There are alsocases of people who have eaten 1,4-dichlorobenzene products regularly for long periods (months to years) because of its sweettaste. This has caused skin blotches and problems with red blood cells, such as anemia. Workers breathing high levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (80-l60 ppm) have reported painful irritation of the nose and eyes.

In laboratory animals, breathing or eating 1,4-dichlorobenzene can cause harmfuleffects in the liver, kidneys, and blood [12]. Rats and mice given oral doses of 1,4-dichlorobenzene in lifetime studies had increased rates of liver cancer when comparedwith animals that did not receive 1,4-dichlorobenzene.

We do not definitely know if 1,4-dichlorobenzene plays a role in the development ofcancer in humans [12]. Based on animal data, the Department of Health andHuman Services (DHHS), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),and EPA have all determined that 1,4-dichlorobenzene is possibly carcinogenic tohumans. The EPA has determined that 1,4-dichlorobenzene is a possible humancarcinogen.

There is no reliable evidence that suggests that 1,4-dichlorobenzene affectsreproduction in humans [12].

Coal-Tar Derivative Dyes

We were unable to identify information that described the health effects that mightoccur from exposure to coal tar derivative dyes. There is information on healtheffects from exposure to coal tar which will be summarized here [14-16]. Thisinformation may not be directly applicable to the exposure of EWM workers to coaltar derivative dyes because coal tars are complex and variable combinations ofpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, heterocyclic oxygen, sulfur,and nitrogen compounds [14]. For example, analyses of PAHs in four coal tarsamples revealed 2- to 20-fold differences in concentration of selected PAHs amongthe samples. Benzo(a)pyrene, the most potent carcinogen of the PAHs, varied fromnon-detectable to 6.4 %. We were unable to identify any information on the specificcomposition of the dyes used at EWM other than that they were derived from coaltars.

Coal tar is considered a human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program(NTP) and EPA [15,16]. There is good evidence from human exposures that coal tarcauses skin cancer, especially on the scrotum, through skin contact [15]. There is alsogood evidence that inhalation of coal tar fumes causes lung cancer. There is alsosome indication that inhalation of coal tar fumes may cause cancers of the oral cavity,larynx, esophagus, stomach, skin, and bladder, and leukemia.

Skin exposure to coal tar is linked to dermal irritation, burning, erythema (abnormalredness of the skin), dry peeling skin on the face and neck with irritation, andfolliculitis (inflammation of the hair follicles) on the forearms in several workerstudies [14,16]. Workers using coal tar exhibited mild to moderate pulmonaryrestrictive and obstructive deficits, including obstructive lung disease.

In summary, worker exposures, especially those who worked in the fabric finishingoperations, likely contributed the greatest to the past risk of health effects from milloperations because workers had the most opportunity for exposure to the chemicals atEWM. However, the risk cannot be specified because not enough information onexposure length, concentration of the chemical exposed to, and, for the coal tarderivative dyes, the specific chemical composition of the dyes exists.

Sediment/Floodplain Soil Exposure Pathway

Sediments in the EBSR downstream from the former EWM site are contaminated with chlorinated benzenes, PAHs, dieldrin, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium [6]. The floodplain soils along EBSR are contaminated with PAHs, dioxins, dieldrin, arsenic, chromium, and lead at a number of places downstream of the site. Tables 3 and 4 show contaminants detected above soil comparison values in sediments and floodplain soil, respectively.

Sediments and floodplain soil constitute a past and present completed exposurepathway, because people who wade or play in or along the river may be exposed tocontaminants through incidental ingestion and dermal contact. EPA has excavatedheavily contaminated river sediment and underlying soils near the EWM,significantly reducing the potential human exposure to contaminants in riversediments. Exposure to contaminants in sediments downstream of the removal areaand in the floodplain soils may continue unless these sediments and soils are alsoexcavated.

Public Health Implications

We used conservative assumptions to calculate exposure doses for swimmers and fishers for the COCs in Tables 3 and 4. For child dose, we assumed that a 10-year old child weighing 36 kg swam 24 days out of the year and accidentally swallowed 100 milligrams of sediment or soil with the maximum contaminant concentration each time. For adults and for evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed adults weighing 70 kg fished or swam 52 days of year and accidentally swallowed 50 mg of sediment or soil containing the maximum contaminant concentration each time. For evaluating the risk of cancer, we assumed that this exposure would occur for 40 years. We also calculated exposure from dermal absorption by child swimmers and adult swimmers and fishers, and children playing in contaminated mud, using default soil-to skin adherence factors and absorption values. The children playing in mud scenario refers to children who become essentially covered in mud - assumed to happen very infrequently (4 times a year). The calculated doses for each of the contaminants in Tables 3 and 4 were lower than applicable noncancer health guidelines, and the excess cancer risk from carcinogenic contaminants was not elevated. Therefore, no health effects are expected from exposure to contaminants in the sediment/floodplain pathway.

Table 3.

Contaminants Detected Above Soil Comparison Values in River Sediment
Chemical Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg* or ppm)
Comparison Value
(mg/kg or ppm)
Source
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenes 2,000 500 RMEG (for 1,2,4-)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenes 8,200 500 RMEG
Benzo[a]anthracene 5.6 0.9 EPA SSL
Benzo[a]pyrene 4.9 0.1 CREG
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 4.7 0.9 EPA SSL
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1.5 0.09 EPA SSL
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 3.8 0.9 EPA SSL
Dieldrin 1 0.04/3 CREG/EMEG**
Arsenic 54 0.5/20 CREG/RMEG
Cadmium 56.3 10 EMEG**
Chromium 414 200 RMEG
* mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
ppm = parts per million, equal to milligrams per kilogram
RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide
EPA SSL = EPA soil screening levels
CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide
** EMEG = Environmental media evaluation guide
Source: [7]


Table 4.

Contaminants Detected Above Soil Comparison Values in Floodplain Soil
Chemical Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg* or ppm)
Comparison Value
(mg/kg or ppm)
Source
Benzo[a]anthracene 4.4 0.9 EPA SSL
Benzo[a]pyrene 4.2 0.1 CREG
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 6.5 0.9 EPA SSL
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1.8 0.09 EPA SSL
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 5.6 0.9 EPA SSL
Dieldrin 2.3 0.04/3 CREG/EMEG
Arsenic 31 0.5/20 CREG/EMEG
Chromium 670 200 RMEG**
Lead 658 400 EPA SSL
*mg/kg = milligrams/kilogram
ppm = parts per million
EPA SSL = EPA soil screening level
CREG = Cancer risk evaluation guide
EMEG = Environmental media evaluation guide
** RMEG = Reference dose media evaluation guide
Source: [7]

Surface Water Exposure Pathway

While the mill was in operation, process wastewater was discharged to the river from the dye kettles [6]. It can be assumed that these discharges contained chlorinated benzenes from the dye aid and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the coal-tar derivative dye. In addition, spills of dye and other process chemicals contributed contaminants to the surface water in the river. People who waded or played in the river downstream of the mill, especially when the dye kettles were emptied, were likely to be exposed to contaminants through skin contact, accidental swallowing of contaminated water, or breathing chemicals evaporating from the water. Therefore, the surface water exposure is a completed past exposure pathway.

Surface water samples collected from the EBSR in 1999 showed low but detectablelevels of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzenes, and trichlorobenzenes [6]. None of theconcentrations measured were higher than comparison values. Therefore, no healtheffects are expected from current exposure to surface water.

Public Health Implications

A rough estimate of past contaminant levels in the surface water is given bymeasurements in 1988 of the mill's wastewater (influent to the Corinna sewagetreatment plant) showing 1,2-dichlorobenzene around 5,500 ppb and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene around 800 ppb.[17] These values are lower than the maximumconcentrations detected in the private well pathway. Because exposure throughsurface water was occasional, no adverse health effects are expected from pastexposure to these contaminants.

No information is available to estimate levels of dye or other process chemicalsreleased to the surface water in the past. The coal-tar derivative based dyes aresuspected of causing cancer after long-term exposures to high levels. Peopleoccasionally exposed to surface water would not have enough cumulative exposure toincrease the risk of cancer. Workers exposed to the dye probably were at increased riskfor cancer; however the contribution from the surface water pathway would beminimal compared to direct occupational exposures at the mill. Likewise, while wecannot speculate about possible health effects of other process chemicals, thecontribution of the surface water pathway to overall past exposures appears minimal.

Fish Exposure Pathway

In 2001, EPA conducted a fish tissue sampling program to identify human health riskfrom eating fish from the EWM area [2,6]. Perch, small and largemouth bass, brownbullhead catfish, and suckers were collected from Corundel Lake, which is upstreamfrom the former EWM site, several locations in the EBSR downstream between thesite and Sebasticook Lake, and from Sebasticook Lake. These fish were analyzed forchlorinated benzenes, PAHs, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, and metals.

The EPA sampling found that some perch and largemouth bass caught in the EBSRhad mercury and dioxin levels that would represent a health concern if an individualate at least 27 half-pound meals a year of these species [2,6].6 However, thesecontaminant concentrations are similar to those measured in background locations,suggesting that this contamination is not site-related.

Multiple Exposure Pathways

It is difficult to quantify cumulative risk or speculate on interactions betweenchemicals because so little is known about the exact chemicals and amounts used inthe process. However, it is important to note that, although the pathways are treatedseparately in the preceding sections, many people would have been exposed throughmultiple pathways. For example, an occupationally-exposed worker may have alsolived near the mill and fished or waded in the river. As discussed above, occupationalexposures and drinking contaminated well water appear to be the major contributorsto overall risk. Any exposure through additional pathways would slightly increase thatrisk.

Past Potential Exposure Pathways

Air

In the past, people who lived or worked near the mill were likely exposed tochlorinated benzenes released from the mill into the air, especially when the millemptied its dye kettles.

The extent of these past exposures is not known because air sampling was notconducted routinely in the past (while the mill was operating), and, therefore, dataregarding the ambient levels of contaminants do not exist. Therefore, ATSDR cannotevaluate the significance of past exposures to chlorinated benzenes released from themill to the air.

Exposure to contaminants released into the air from soils/sediments duringexcavation is also possible. However, EPA is taking measures to minimize suchreleases and is monitoring the ambient air around the excavation areas to ensurethat contaminants levels are not a threat to human health. Therefore, exposure tocontaminants during the excavation of soils/sediments should not occur at levels ofhealth concern.

Evaluation of Health Outcome Data

Health outcome data (HOD) may give a more thorough evaluation of the publichealth implications of a given exposure. HOD may include mortality information(e.g., the number of people dying from a certain disease) or morbidity information(e.g., the number of people in an area getting a certain disease or illness). The reviewis most effective when (1) a completed human exposure pathway exists, (2)contaminant levels are high enough to result in measurable health effects, (3)enough people are affected for the health effect to be measured, and (4) a database isavailable to identify disease rates for populations of concern.

Completed exposure pathways existed at the EWM site, and contaminant levels in drinking water, and probably the mill environment, were high enough to result in increased cancer risk. We contacted the Maine Cancer Registry (MCR) about the feasibility of reviewing data in the state cancer registry.7 The MCR indicated that they can evaluate data down to the zip code level. The zip code for Corinna has about 2,200 people in it, according to the 2000 census. As indicated on Figure 2, there are about 700 people within one mile of EWM, so an evaluation by MCR would include many more people than those who may have been exposed in the past. Based on ATSDR's discussions with EPA during our 1999 site visit, probably less than half of these 700 actually drank contaminated water. Therefore, an evaluation of cancer rates among those potentially exposed to EWM contaminants is not possible because you would be trying to identify possible site-related health effects of about 300 exposed individuals in a population of over 2,000. However, an evaluation of cancer rates in the Corinna zip code would provide useful information on cancer for residents in Corinna. MCR agreed to perform this evaluation. The results are provided in Appendix C beginning on page 38.

The summary results from the MCR report were:

"The investigation reviewed individual types of cancer to determine if there wasa higher rate in Corinna than in the state of Maine. Cancer data from 1983through 1998 was included in the analysis. The results indicate that the cancerrates in Corinna were not statistically significantly higher than the rates inMaine."

The readers of MCR's report need to be aware that it is an evaluation of the actualoccurrence of cancer in the Corinna area while in this public health assessment theestimated risk of cancer from exposure to a specific chemical is calculated. The MCR report identifies theactual number of cancer cases in the Corinna area. The cancer risk numbers reportedin this document are somewhat hypothetical estimates of what might have occurred.

Health Hazard

People who drank contaminated water from private wells over several years have an increased risk of cancer. In addition, past exposures of former workers to dyes and other chemicals used in the textile manufacturing process could have increased their risk of cancer, although we do not know enough about the past exposures to give a quantitative estimate of risk. Because past exposures were high enough to increase the risk of adverse health effects, ATSDR classifies the site as a past public health hazard.

On the basis of the available data, no appreciable ongoing exposures areoccurring because residents were provided uncontaminated drinking water andEPA removed easily-accessed contaminated soil and sediment near the formermill complex. In addition, current exposure to contaminants in areas that havenot been cleaned yet are too small to result in adverse health effects. Therefore,ATSDR classifies the site as a current no apparent public health hazard.

ATSDR Children's Health Concerns

ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more vulnerable toenvironmental exposure than adults in communities faced with contamination oftheir water, soil, air, or food. This vulnerability is a result of the followingfactors: (1) children are more likely to be exposed to certain media (e.g., surfacesoil) because they play outdoors and have more hand-to-mouth behaviors; (2)children are more likely to come into contact with dust, soil, and vapors close tothe ground; and (3) children tend to receive higher doses of chemical exposuredue to their lower body weight. Children can sustain permanent damage if toxicexposures occur as a result of these factors during critical growth stages. ATSDR is committed to evaluating the special interests of children at the EWMsite.

We considered risk to children in evaluating past exposures at the EWM site.Anecdotal reports indicated that children were occasionally present in the millor on the mill property while the mill was operating in the 1950s and 1960s.However, these visits were infrequent and visiting children were most likely notdirectly exposed to process chemicals. Thus, their exposure at EWM was notlikely to be as great as that of the adult workers. Children at the EWM (past orpresent) are not more likely than adults to either be exposed to contaminants orto develop health effects.

Community Health Concerns

On November 16, 1999, ATSDR staff participated in two meetings with the public inthe American Legion Hall in Corinna regarding the EWM NPL site. ATSDRstaff conducted a public availability session to allow area residents to discusstheir health concerns about the EWM site. In the evening, ATSDR, EPA,MEDEP, and the Town of Corinna conducted a public meeting to provide anupdate on the site and for ATSDR to discuss the EWM PHA and thecommunity's health concerns.

The public health concerns expressed by area residents at these meetings follow:

  1. Concern that Corinna has excessive rates of cancer, especially brain, bone, andlung cancer.
  2. Response

    Some of the COCs ATSDR identified in this PHA are known to cause cancer.However, they are associated with blood, liver, and kidney cancers, and are notknown to be linked to brain, bone, or lung cancer. We did not have information onall the chemicals used in the process and therefore cannot comment on theirassociated cancer risks. As discussed in the Health Outcome Data section, theMaine Cancer Registry did review cancer registry data for the Corinna zip code atthe request of ATSDR. The results of that review, presented in Appendix C,indicated that Corinna does not have higher rates of cancer compared to the stateof Maine as a whole.

  3. Concern that residential wells are contaminated.
  4. Response

    Some of the residential wells in Corinna have been tested by EPA; the owners ofwells found to be contaminated have been notified and provided with a clean watersource. EPA installed groundwater monitoring wells and used the data from thesewells in conjunction with the data from wells known to be contaminated todetermine the extent of groundwater contamination. Groundwater usagerestrictions and mechanisms to manage usage are being developed.

On September 25, 2003, ATSDR and MCR held a meeting with Corinna residents atCorinna Fire House Annex as part of the release of the Eastland Woolen PublicHealth Assessment. John Crellin of ATSDR reviewed the public health assessmentprocess then discussed the results of the Eastland Woolen Mill PHA. Castine Verrillof MCR described the results of the cancer evaluation that MCR conducted of theCorinna area. Questions raised and information provided by the public attending themeeting were:

  1. Because of the possible latency of cancer due to EWM related exposures, shouldn'tthere be a follow-up evaluation of the Corinna area cancer data?
  2. Response

    Yes, it would be appropriate that such a follow-up evaluation should be done. Thisconclusion was reached after a discussion of latency periods indicating that a gapor latency period of more than 25 years has been observed between the exposure toa chemical and the onset of cancer caused by that exposure. These sorts of latencyperiods have been documented in exposures to asbestos and arsenic.

  3. The report doesn't give concrete information on cancer risk of former workerswho we know were exposed to cancer-causing chemicals.
  4. Response

    ATSDR was unable to provide specific information on the cancer risk thatformer workers might experience because there were no data on the levels ofworkplace chemicals that the workers were exposed to.

  5. How much additional exposure to 1,4-dichlorobenzene (through use of mothballs,for example) would increase the cancer risk from 4 in 1,000 to 5 in 1,000?
  6. Response

    Our calculations indicate that an individual would have to be exposed to anadditional 3 - 4 milligrams of 1,4-dichlorobenzene per day to raise the estimatedrisk of cancer by that amount.

  7. Is there a possibility of any screening for cancer in Corinna residents orformer workers being done?
  8. Response

    There are no specific screening tests that would help detect the cancers or other healtheffects that might be associated with the chemicals used at the Eastland Woolen Mill.Former workers should be examined by their doctor as appropriate for their age.


CONCLUSIONS

  1. ATSDR did not identify any ongoing exposure which would result in healtheffects. Residents with contaminated wells have been provided clean water, and highlycontaminated soil and sediment in the areas most likely to be accessed often have beenremoved. Therefore, ATSDR classifies the former EWM site as a current no apparentpublic health hazard.

  2. ATSDR considers the cleanup plan documented in the record of decision (ROD)for OU1 to be protective of public health. Assuming the ROD for OU2 is also protective,and that remedial alternatives are implemented sucessfully, health risks from potential future exposures will be minimal.

  3. People who drank contaminated water from private wells over several years hadan increased risk of cancer. In addition, past exposures of former workers to processchemicals could have increased their risk of cancer, although we do not know enoughabout the past exposures to give an accurate estimate of risk. Because past exposureswere high enough to increase the risk of adverse health effects, ATSDR classifies the siteas a past public health hazard.

  4. The analysis of cancer performed by the Maine Cancer Registry for 1983 - 1998in the Corinna area indicated that cancer rates were no different than for the rest ofMaine. However, the available cancer data are not detailed enough to draw specificconclusions about cancer rates in the relatively small number of people who wereexposed, including EWM workers and residents near EWM. A follow-up evaluation ofthe cancer data for Corinna in 3 to 5 years would be useful because the full effects of past exposures of residents and workers may have yet to occur.

  5. For the current situation, contaminant concentrations in the sediment/floodplainsoil and Old Dump site soil pathways are below levels of health concern. However, thelead levels would represent a health concern for children if homes were built at thislocation without any remediation. EPA considers future residential development of theOld Dump site unlikely.

  6. Elevated mercury and dioxin concentrations in fish are not site-related, but maybe a health concern for those consuming more than 27 meals a year of perch orlargemouth bass from the EBSR.

  7. Not enough information exists to evaluate the effects of airborne releases of EWMchemicals to the surrounding area, a past potential exposure pathway.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. ATSDR recommends that EPA and/or MEDEP continue to monitor groundwaterand provide clean water to residents whose wells are contaminated.

  2. ATSDR recommends that MCR repeat in 3 - 5 years the 2003 evaluation ofcancer data for the Corinna area.

  3. In the unlikely event that the Old Dump site is developed for residential use,ATSDR recommends that EPA, MEDEP, or the developer of the site fully characterizethe soil lead levels in the area being developed and clean up to a concentration that isprotective of public health.

  4. ATSDR recommends that state and local officials increase vigilance to ensure thatpeople follow applicable state fish advisories for contaminants that are not site-related.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for the EWM site contains a description ofactions that have been or will be taken by ATSDR and other governmentagencies at the site. The purpose of the PHAP is to ensure that this PHA notonly identifies public health hazards associated with the site, but also provides aplan of action to prevent or minimize the potential for adverse human healtheffects from exposure to site-related hazardous substances.

Actions Completed

  1. EPA conducted a number of actions at the site, including insuring that everyonenear EWM had safe drinking water, and removal and/or remediation of soils andsediments, which reduced the opportunity for exposure.

  2. The MCR reviewed cancer data for smallest area they are able to evaluate--theCorinna zip code.

Actions Ongoing and Planned

  1. Actions by EPA to remove and/or remediate soils and sediments downstreamfrom the site and to treat the groundwater at the site are ongoing and planned.

  2. If the resources are available, MCR will repeat its 2003 evaluation of cancer datafor the Corinna area in 3 - 5 years.

ATSDR will reevaluate and expand the PHAP as needed. New environmental,toxicological, or health outcome data may determine the need for additional actions atthis site.


PUBLIC COMMENTS

This public health assessment (PHA) was available for public review and commentat the Stewart Free Library and the Town Manager's office at 8 Levi Stewart Drivein Corinna, Maine and the EPA New England Records Center at One CongressStreet in Boston, Mass. from September 17, 2003 to December 1, 2003. Thedocument was also available for viewing or downloading from the Corinna Website: http://www.cattailpress.com/ .

The public comment period was announced in local newspapers. The public healthassessment was sent to members of the executive committee of SCCE; theCorinna Town Manager; and staff in the Maine Department of EnvironmentalProtection, Maine Bureau of Health, Maine Cancer Registry, and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Comments were received from SCCE. They can be found in Appendix D beginningon page 42, along with ATSDR's responses to them.


SITE TEAM

Preparers of Report8

John R. Crellin, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Epidemiologist
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Jill J. Dyken, Ph.D., P.E.
Environmental Health Scientist
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


Community Involvement
9

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


Regional Representatives
10

Gary D. Perlman, MPH
Regional Representative

William Sweet, PhD, DABT
Senior Regional Representative

Office of Regional Operations
ATSDR Region I
Boston, MA


REFERENCES

  1. EPA. New England Fact Sheet - Eastland Woolen Mill. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Boston, MA: May 10, 2002. Canbe accessed at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/51dc4f173ceef51d85256adf004c7ec8/5d7a1b235a29222f8525690d0044968a?OpenDocument#photos .

  2. Harding ESE. Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. FormerEastland Woolen Mill Site. Corinna, Maine. Wakefield, MA: Harding ESE Inc.February, 2002.

  3. Harding ESE. Draft Feasibility Study Report. Operable Unit 1 - GroundwaterSource Area. Eastland Woolen Site. Corinna, Maine. Portland, ME: Harding ESEInc. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New England District. Concord,MA. May 2002.

  4. EPA. Investigation Program Complete/Early Cleanup Continues - EastlandWoolen Mill Superfund Site, Corinna, Maine. Community Update # 9. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Boston, MA: May, 2002. Can be accessedat http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/eastland/31163.pdf .

  5. U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. DP-1 Profile of GeneralDemographic Characteristics: 2000 Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1)100-Percent Data Geographic Area: Corinna town, Penobscot County, Maine.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. May 30, 2002. Can be accessed athttp://factfinder.census.gov .

  6. Harding ESE. Remedial Investigation Report. Volume I. Former Eastland WoolenMill Site. Corinna, Maine. Portland, ME: Harding ESE Inc. Prepared for U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers. New England District. Concord, MA. July 2002.

  7. Harding ESE. Remedial Investigation Report. Volume II Tables. Former EastlandWoolen Mill Site. Corinna, Maine. Portland, ME: Harding ESE Inc. Prepared forU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New England District. Concord, MA. July 2002.

  8. EPA. Record of Decision Summary, Eastland Woolen Mill, Operable Unit 1.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. EPA/ROD/R01-02/020.Washington, DC: September 2002.

  9. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/C-99/001. Washington, DC:February 1999.

  10. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1997.

  11. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Chlorobenzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1990.

  12. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1998.

  13. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Washington, DC: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. August 14, 2002. Can be accessed athttp://www.epa.gov/IRIS/subst/index.html .

  14. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Wood Creosote, Coal Tar Creosote, Coal Tar,Coal Tar Pitch, and Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles, Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2002.

  15. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition; Coal Tars and Coal Tar Pitches U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, NationalToxicology Program, December 2002

  16. NLM. Hazardous Substances Databank (HSDB). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Libraryof Medicine. August 14, 2003. Can be accessed at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov .

  17. MDEP. Hazard Ranking System Package for Eastland Woolen Mill. Augusta,ME: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) prepared for EPARegion 1, April 9, 1999.

  18. EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1, Part A. Washington,DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse. 1989 December.

  19. ATSDR. Cancer Policy Framework. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substance andDisease Registry (ATSDR). January 1993.

1 ATSDR staff (Steve Richardson, John Crellin, Perstephanie Thompson, Bill Sweet, and Susanne Simon) visited the site in November 1999. Information obtained during this visit is described in the pertinent sections of this document.
2 For every private drinking water well in the Corinna area, ATSDR calculated the mean levels for every contaminant. We used the highest mean for our exposure dose calculations.
3 This information was provided by the Sebasticook Committee for a Clean Environment (SCCE).
4 These include benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzenes, andtrichlorobenzenes.
5 Exposure to 1,4-dichlorobenzene in the home is largely through the inappropriate use of mothballs made from this chemical.
6 The number of meals is based on information provided to ATSDR by Ed Hathway, the EPA Eastland Woolen project manger in May 2002.
7 Conversation between John Crellin, ATSDR, and Castine Verrill, Maine Cancer Registry, on December 6, 2002.
8 Steve Richardson participated in the 1999 site visit and in the preliminary development of this PHA. He is no longer assigned to this site.
9 Perstephanie Thompson was the community involvement specialist originally assigned to this site and participated in the 1999 site visit.
10 Susanne Simon was the regional representative originally assigned to this site and participated in the 1999 site visit. She is no longer with ATSDR.



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. #