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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

ELECTROSONICS/SPOFFORD PLACE (FORMER)
CHESTERFIELD, CHESHIRE COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE


VI. CONCLUSIONS

Based on all available information, DHHS concludes that, although some exposures may becurrently occurring, the exposures are not at levels expected to cause long-term, adverse healtheffects. Therefore, the site does not currently pose a public health hazard. Since there areopportunities for exposure but adverse health effects from these exposures are unlikely, DHHS hascategorized current conditions at the site as No Apparent Public Health Hazard according to ATSDRhazard classification system. However, site remediation is needed because, in the future, changesin the land use or a large flood of Partridge Brook could increase exposure to site contaminants atlevels that could cause adverse health effects.

The Former Electro-Sonics site was a Public Health Hazard in the past because groundwatercontamination with VOCs resulted in significant exposures for two residential wells (No. 3 was notat levels high enough to cause adverse effects). The most serious exposures were for the residentsusing water from Residential Well Nos. 1 and 2, where exposure to vinyl chloride, TCE and 1,1-dichloroethylene could potentially cause a low to moderate theoretical risk of cancer.

Again, the estimates of exposure and risk of cancer is a conservative estimate, i.e., it is an exampleof the highest degree of possible exposure (based on well monitoring data). Calculation of cancerrisk is based on the most recent literature, and may be based on partly on animal exposures. Therefore, an increase of cancer is a potential risk. The actual risk for any one person getting canceris probably lower than the calculated risk.

DHHS identified four possible completed exposure pathways at the Former Electro-Sonics site. Three of these pathways occurred in the past only. Conclusions regarding each pathway as well asother site-related issues are listed below.

Completed Exposure Pathways

1. Children or adults who wade or play in the brook (the area of the brook adjacent to the northernparcel of the site) could be exposed to elevated concentrations of chromium and other chemicals;however, these exposures are not expected to affect their health.

2. Former employees of Electro-Sonics may have been exposed to high levels of metals in the soilin the earthen basement of Building No. 2; however, it is presumed that workers did not spent largeamounts of time in the basement and these exposures should not result in long-term health effects.

3. Former employees of Electro-Sonics may have been exposed to VOCs in the air of the basementof Building No. 2; however, these exposures would not have been high enough to result in long-termhealth effects.

4. Residents using Residential Well Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been exposed to VOCs in the drinkingwater from these wells. (see above for more details on the public health implications of exposure)

Potential Exposure Pathways

5. People who trespass on the site could be exposed to waste from the former subsurface leach fieldand alleyway; the gravel cap currently prevents exposure, but there is potential for erosion that couldexpose contaminated soil. There also may be other contamination which has not been characterized

6. The contamination in the subsurface leach field and alleyway is near Partridge Brook. Additionally, there is uncharacterized contamination from previous oil spills. A flood could washthe contaminated material into the brook and carry them to the nearby Connecticut River.

7. Exposures for workers to water from the site supply well could not be evaluated. It does notappear that hand washing would result in an exposure resulting in adverse health effects. It is notknown if workers engage in other activities that would result in further exposure.

Eliminated Exposure Pathways

8. There are no known current exposures to site contaminants in nearby residential well water. Residents near the site had charcoal aeration filtration systems installed on their wells. Well waterwas tested after installation of filters; contamination of these wells was eliminated.

9. Access to the basement of Building No. 2 is blocked. Neither workers in the building nortrespassers can enter this area.

10. Workers in Building No. 2 have been informed of the high levels of contamination in the sitesupply well. They have been advised not to drink water from this well.

11. There is no evidence that the undeveloped southern parcel of the former Electro-Sonics site iscontaminated. Therefore, it is unlikely that people who walk on this property would not be exposedto any contaminants from the site.

12. Local groundwater hydrology and the deep water table is such that there is little likelihood of VOCs migrating from the water table into residences.


VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. People should be discouraged from walking on the area of the northern parcel of the site. "NOTRESSPASSING" signs should be posted in the northern parcel to prevent people from crossingover the area of the former subsurface leach field and in the alleyway between Building Nos. 1 and2.

2. A visible advisory should be posted (if not already) in Building No. 2, warning of the high levelsof contamination in the well water. Even though workers currently do not drink this water, andexposures through hand washing and bathroom use is well below comparison values, workers shouldbe advised of the high levels of contamination.

3. Wells without filtration systems but with future potential for contamination should be testedperiodically to ensure that contaminants are not at levels above their comparison values.


VIII. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The purpose of the Public Health Action Plan is to ensure that this Public Health Assessment notonly identifies any current and potential exposure pathways and related health hazards, but alsoprovides a plan of action to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting fromexposures to hazardous substances in the environment. The first section of the Public Health ActionPlan contains a description of completed and ongoing actions taken to mitigate environmentalcontamination. In the second section there is a list of additional public health actions that areplanned for the future.

(A) Completed or Ongoing Actions

1. Between 1992 and 2001, a series of environmental investigations characterized the nature andextent of contamination at the site.

2. In 2001, DES placed a gravel cover over in the area between Building Nos. 1 and 2. This was inresponse to odors coming from recent soil test pits.

3. Beginning in 1999, DES tested up to 26 residential wells in the vicinity of the site and periodicallyre-tests wells in the area. Wells with contamination were fitted with charcoal aeration filtrationsystems. Wells were re-tested after the treatment systems were installed.

(B) Planned Actions

1. EPA is working with DES on a cleanup strategy for the site.

2. DHHS will review new data for the site and provide health advice to EPA and DES whennecessary.

3. DHHS will provide residents affected by contaminated well water with information aboutoccupational physicians. An occupational physician may be able to determine if someone exposedto VOCs will suffer any future adverse health effects.

4. DHHS will attempt to locate residents who moved away and may have consumed contaminatedwater from the wells with the highest levels of contamination. These individuals will be given thesame information as those currently living near the site.

5. DHHS will advise the residents of Spofford Village of contamination in Partridge Brook near anddownstream from Electro-Sonics. It may be possible that there is additional contamination not characterized in the Public Health Assessment document.


IX. PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

Report Authors

Todd C. Hudson, Environmental Health Risk Analyst
Melinda Carpenter, Assistant State Epidemiologist
Gayle Bagley, Health Promotion Advisor

Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health
Office of Community and Public Health
New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

ATSDR Technical Project Officer

Gregory Ulirsch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-32
Atlanta, Georgia 30333

ATSDR Regional Representative

LCDR Gary D. Perlman MPH
ATSDR New England Regional Representative
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBT)
Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023


X. REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990a. Toxicological profile forcadmium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990b. Toxicological profile for 1,1-dichloroethane. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta,Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1994. Toxicological profile forcopper. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. Toxicological profile for 1,2-dichloroethylene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta,Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997a. Toxicological profile fortrichloroethylene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta,Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997b. Volatile organic compoundsin drinking water and adverse pregnancy outcomes, interim report, United States Marine CorpsBase, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, PublicHealth Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997c. Toxicological profile for vinylchloride. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999a. Toxicological profile for lead. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999b. Toxicological profile for zinc. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999c. National exposure registry,trichlroethylene (TCE) sub-registry, baseline through follow-up 3, Technical Report. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. Toxicological profile forchromium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta,Georgia.

Barton HA and Clewell HJ. 2000. Evaluating noncancer effects of trichoroethylene: dosimetry,mode of action, and risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 108(Suppl. 2): 323-334.

Bove FJ, et al. 1995. Public drinking water contamination and birth outcomes. Am J Epidemiol141:850-862.

Bradley LJN, Magee BH, Allen SL. 1994. Background levels of polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAH) and selected metals in New England urban soils. J Soil Contam, 3(4):349-361.

Burg JR and Gist GL. 1999. Health effects of environmental contaminant exposure: an intrafilecomparison of the trichloroethylene sub-registry. Arch Environ Health 54(4):231-241.

Cohn P, et al. 1994. Drinking water contamination and the incidence of leukemia and non-Hodgkinslymphoma. Environ Health Perspect 102:556-561.

Goldberg SJ, et al. 1990. An association of human congenital cardiac malformations and drinkingwater contaminants. J Am Coll Cardiol 16(1):155-164.

Hofman HT, Birnstiel H, Jobst P. 1970. Inhalation toxicity of 1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethane. ArchPharmakol 266:360-361.

Herren-Freund SL, Pereira MA. 1986. Carcinogenicity of by-products of disinfection in mouse andrat liver. Environ Health Perspect 69:59-65.

Klaunig JE, Ruth RJ, Pereira MA. 1986. Carcinogenicity of chlorinated methane and ethanecompounds administered in drinking water to mice. Environ Health Perspect 69:89-95.

Lash LH, et al. 2000. Metabolism of trichoroethylene. Environ. Health Perspect 108(Supp. 2):177-200.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1997. Woburn childhood leukemia follow-up study. Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment, Boston, Massachusetts.

Maxwell NI, DE Burmaster, Ozonoff D. 1991. Trihalomethanes and maximum contaminant levels:the significance of inhalation and dermal exposures to chloroform in household water. RegulToxicol Pharmacol 14:297-312.

National Toxicology Program. 2000. Report on Carcinogens, 9th Edition. Available online at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/NewHomeRoc/AboutRoC.html .

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 1998. Risk characterization andmanagement plan (RCMP). Concord, New Hampshire.

Pastino GM, Yap WY, Carroquino M. Human variability and susceptibility to trichoroethylene.Environ Health Perspect 108(Suppl. 2):201-214.

Plaa GL, Larsen RE. 1965. Relative nephrotoxic properties of chlorinated methane, ethane andethylene derivatives in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 7: 37-44.

Quast JF, McKenna MJ, Rampy LW, et al. 1986. Chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study on inhaledvinylidene chloride in rats. Fund Appl Toxicol 6:105-144.

Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS). 1994. Toxicity summary for 1,1-dichloroethane. Prepared for the Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Restoration Program, Oak Ridge,Tennessee.

Sanborn, Head and Associates. 2001. Supplemental site investigation, former Electro-Sonics site,Chesterfield (Spofford Village), New Hampshire. Concord, New Hampshire.

U.S. Environmental protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual, part B. Office of Research and Development, U.S.Environmental protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Reference Dose: Description and Use inHealth Risk Assessments. Integrated Risk Information System, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html

Wartenberg D, Reyner D, and Scott CS. 2000. Trichoroethylene and cancer: epidemiologicevidence. Environ Health Perspect 108(Suppl. 2):161-176.


CERTIFICATION

The Public Health Assessment for the Electro-Sonics Site was prepared by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the Public Health Assessment was began.

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


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

Alan W. Yarbrough
for Roberta Erlwein
Chief, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


APPENDIX A: TABLES

Table 1.

Age distribution for the town of Chesterfield (Based on 2000 Census).
Age (years) Persons Percentage
less than 51775.0
5 to 1981723.0
20 to 64216161.0
65 to 843469.8
85 and greater411.2
total3,542100


Table 2.

Number of years lived in current residence for Chesterfield residents (Based on 2000 Census)
Years Living in Home Percent of Population
1 year

12 %

3 to 5 years

25 %

6 to 10 years

17 %

11 to 20 years

22%

21 to 30 years

13%

31+ years

11 %


Table 3.

Summary of soil-gas analysis from former leach field between Building Nos. 1, 2 and 4
ANALYTE Concentrations in µg/m3
SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 SG-6 SG-7 SG-8 SG-9 SG-10 SG-11
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 970 88 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0*
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 410 77 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 5.0*
Benzene 3.2* 3.2* 3.2* 4.0* 4.0* 16 16 3.2* 3.2* 3.2*
1,1-Dichloroethane 33 21 51 25 26 440 230 32 120 4.0*
1,2-Dichloroethane 4.1* 4.1* 4.1* 4.1* 4.1* 4.1* 4.1* 4.1* 4.1* 4.1*
1,1-Dichloroethylene 4.0* 8.1 4.0* 4.0* 11 130 17 4.0* 4.0* 4.0*
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 27000 17 31 4.0* 4.0* 4.0* 4.0* 6.4 4.0* 4.0*
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 4.0* 4.0* 4.0* 4.0* 4.0* 6.8 4.0* 4.0* 4.8 4.0*
Ethylbenzene 340 7 4.0* 4.0* 2.2* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4*
Methylene Chloride 7.1* 7.1* 7.1* 7.1* 7.1* 7.1* 7.1* 7.1* 7.1* 7.1*
Tetrachloroethylene 130 100 440 110 140 1600 1100 77 680 300
Toluene 95 9 4.0* 5 2.9* 6.9 8.5 3.8* 3.8* 3.8*
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 80 410 3200 840 880 4800 5000 620 1600 2700
Trichloroethylene 5500 350 380 110 170 960 1400 410 540 94
Vinyl Chloride 12 3.0* 3.0* 3.0* 2.6* 2.6* 2.6* 2.6* 2.6* 2.6*
Xylene (m,p-) 280 20 4.0* 4.0* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4*
Xylene (o-) 210 19 4.0* 4.0* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4* 4.4*

* Indicates that the analyte was undetected at specified reporting limit.
Indicates that analyte value was obtained from a diluted analysis.


Table 4.

Summary of test pit sample analysis, from former leach field between Building Nos. 1, 2 and 4
Analyte Concentrations (ppm)
Test Pit No. 1 Test Pit No. 2 Test Pit No. 3
2.5 feet 5.0 feet 2.0 feet 5.0 feet 2.0 feet 3.0 feet
sec-butylbenzene 0.22 0.09 <0.05 <0.05 0.16 0.11
p-isopropyltoluene 0.38 0.16 0.10 <0.05 3.2 2.5
n-propylbenzene 0.09 <0.05 <0.05 0.12 0.13 <0.06
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.31 0.62 0.12 <0.05 5.4 3.1
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.64 0.41 0.07 <0.05 5.5 3.7
chlorobenzene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.06
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 0.09 <0.05 0.30 0.10 <0.06 <0.06
napthalene <0.30 1.1 <0.30 <0.30 2.9 2.7
iso-propylbenzene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.07 <0.06
tetrachloroethylene 0.20 0.37 0.57 0.78 0.83 0.12
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.13 2.6 0.59 0.63 0.23 0.08
trichloroethylene 0.11 0.16 1.7 0.36 0.19 <0.06
m,p-xylene 0.12 0.08 <0.05 0.06 <0.06 <0.06
o-xylene <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 0.16 0.10


Table 5.

Summary of sediment samples taken from Partridge Brook in 1999. Samples were taken from the stream section adjacent to the north parcel of the site. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Chemical Max .Conc. (ppm) Background Comparison Value (ppm) Exposure
Noncancer Source Cancer Source Dose Value Source
total cyanide 0.9 NA 1000 RMEG Child          
cadmium 3.0 1.9 10 EMEG Child, Chronic          
chromium 3900 33 230 RBC Residential*     1.67x10-05 3.0x10-3 RfD
copper 1300 22 3100 RBC Residential          
lead 230 54 400 PRG Residential          
nickel 20 24 1000 RMEG Child          
zinc 120 98 1000 EMEG Child, Chronic          
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.16 NA 22000 RBC Residential          
Trichloroethylene 0.08 NA 2 CREG          

* Risk-Based Concentration, a health-based comparison value developed by EPA Region IV.
Preliminary Remediation Goal, a health-based value developed by EPA Region IX


Table 6.

Summary of sediment samples taken from Partridge Brook in 2000.
Chemical Max. Conc. (ppm) Background Comparison Value (ppm)
Noncancer Source Cancer Source
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.190 NA RBC Residential 3900 NA NA
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.260 NA RBC Residential 3900 NA NA
p-isopropyltoluene 0.140 NA PCL Sediment* 73000 NA NA

* Protective Concentration Level, a health-based comparison value developed by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.


Table 7a.

Maximum detected levels of analytes from the site supply well. Comparison values, estimated doses and minimal risk levels are included. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Compound Max. Conc.
(g/L)
Comparison Value ADD*
Max. Conc.
MRL (mg/kg/day)
Value Source Value Source
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 660 61 RBC, Tap Water 3.2x10-6 3x10-1 MRL, Intermediate
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 41 120 RBC, Tap Water      
dichloropropane 1.5 0.16 RBC, Tap Water 7.35x10-8 9.0x10-2 MRL, Chronic
ethylbenzene 5 3.3 RBC, Tap Water      
isopropylbenzene 5 660 RBC, Tap Water      
methylene chloride 12 4.1 RBC, Tap Water 2.21x10-7 6x10-2 EPA RfD
naphthalene 13 700 RMEG, Adult      
tetrachloroethylene 200 400 RMEG, Adult 5.6x10-5 1.0x10-2 EPA RfD
toluene 16 7000 RMEG, Adult      
1,1,1-trichloroethane 3300 3200 RBC, Tap Water 3.14x10-4 2.8x10-1 EPA RfD
1,1,2-trichloroethane 6 0.19 RBC, Tap Water 2.82x10-7 4.0x10-3 EPA RfD
trichloroethylene 1100 0.09 CREG 9.71x10-5 3.0x10-3 EPA RfD
vinyl chloride 300 0.03 CREG 7.7x10-6 2.0x10-5 MRL, Chronic
o-xylene 7 12000 RBC, Tap Water      
m,p-xylenes 1.8 12000 RBC, Tap Water      

* Average Daily Dose, measured in mg/kg/day, based on exposure through hand washing.


Table 7b.

Maximum detected levels of analytes from the site supply well. Comparison values, estimated doses and minimal risk levels are included. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Compound Max. Conc.
(g/L)
Comparison Value ADD* (mg/kg/day)
Max. Conc.
MRL (mg/kg/day)
Value Source Value Source
acetone 10 10000 RMEG, Adult      
sec-butylbenzene 2 240 RBC, Tap Water      
tert-butylbenzene 0.51 240 RBC, Tap Water      
p-isopropyltoluene 1 70 MEG, Tap Water      
n-propylbenzene 3 240 RBC, Tap Water      
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 3 12 RBC, Tap Water      
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 1.8 12 RBC, Tap Water      
benzene 8 0.6 CREG      
chloroethane 130 3.6 RBC, Tap Water 3.7x10-6 4.0x10-1 EPA RfD
chloroform 1.2 6 CREG      
1,1-dichloroethane 5200 800 RBC, Tap Water 2.07x10-4 1.0x10-1 EPA Rfd
1,2-dichloroethane 7 0.4 CREG 1.66x10-7 9.1x10-2 EPA RfD
1,1-dichloroethylene 570 0.06 CREG 2.24x10-5 9.0x10-3 MRL, Chronic

* Average Daily Dose, measured in mg/kg/day, based on exposure through hand washing.
Maximum Exposure Guideline, Developed by the Maine Department of Human Services.


Table 8.

Maximum detected levels of analytes from Residential Well No. 1. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Comparison Value Concentration in Well
Max. Conc. (ppb) Comparison Value Source
chloroethane 3 3.6 Tap Water RBC
chloroform 0.63 6 CREG
1,1-dichloroethane 1600 800 Tap Water RBC
1,1-dichloroethylene 51 0.06 CREG
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 180 61 Tap Water RBC
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 0.56 120 Tap Water RBC
tetrachloroethylene 5 100 RMEG (child)
1,1,1-trichloroethane 77 3200 Tap Water RBC
trichloroethylene 53 0.09 CREG
vinyl chloride 53 0.03 CREG


Table 9.

Maximum detected levels of analytes from Residential Well No. 2. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Comparison Value Concentration in Well
Max. Conc. (ppb) Comparison Value Source
carbon disulfide 1.8 1000 RMEG (child)
chloroethane 1.8 3.6 Tap Water RBC
chloroform 0.54 6 CREG
1,1-dichloroethane 300 800 Tap Water RBC
1,1-dichloroethylene 9.1 0.06 CREG
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 39 61 Tap Water RBC
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 1.5 120 Tap Water RBC
1,1,1-trichloroethane 5.5 3200 Tap Water RBC
trichloroethylene 51 0.09 CREG
vinyl chloride 35 0.03 CREG


Table 10.

Maximum detected levels of analytes from Residential Well No. 3. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Comparison Value Concentration in Well
Max. Conc. (ppb) Comparison Value Source
1,1-dichloroethane 23 800 Tap Water RBC
1,1-dichloroethylene 0.55 0.06 CREG
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 1.6 61 Tap Water RBC
trichloroethylene 0.66 0.09 CREG
vinyl chloride 0.62 0.03 CREG


Table 11.

Maximum detected levels of analytes from Residential Well No. 4. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Comparison Value Concentration in Well
Max. Conc. (ppb) Comparison Value Source
benzene 0.71 0.6 CREG
chloroform 3.1 6 CREG


Table 12.

Maximum levels of analytes in the ambient air in the basement of Building No. 2. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Chemical Max. Conc. (g/m3) Comparison Value
Noncancer Source Cancer Source
Dichloroethane (1,1-) 3.1 510 RBC    
Dichloroethylene (1,1-) 0.77 0.036 RBC 0.02 CREG
Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2) 5.2 37 RBC    
methylene chloride 150 300 Intermediate EMEG    
tetrachloroethylene 1.1 40 Chronic EMEG    
toluene 130 308 Chronic EMEG    
trichloroethane (1,1,1-) 29 700 Intermediate EMEG    
trichloroethylene 26 100 Intermediate EMEG    


Table 13a.

Maximum levels of analytes in the surface soil in the basement of Building No. 2. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Chemical Max. Conc. (ppm) Background Comparison Value (ppm)
Noncancer Source Cancer Source
total cyanide 3.8 NA 10000 RMEG Adult    
arsenic 17 12 200 Chr. EMEG Adult 0.05 CREG
cadmium 81 1.9 100 Chr. EMEG Adult    
chromium 81 33 6100 RBC Industrial    
copper 4500 22 82000 RBC Industrial    
lead 30000 54 400 PRG Residential    
mercury 0.2 0.33 23 PRG Industrial    
nickel 78 24 10000 RMEG Adult    
zinc 1400 98 200000 Chr. EMEG Adult    
1,1-dichloroethylene 0.12 NA 6000 Chr. EMEG Adult    
methylene chloride 0.070 NA 760 RBC Industrial    
1,1-dichloroethane 0.12 NA 200000 RBC Industrial    
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 2.2 NA 200000 Int. EMEG Adult    
1,1,1-trichloroethane 3.4 NA 570000 RBC Industrial    
trichloroethylene 10 NA 2000 Adult RMEG    
toluene 0.07 NA 10000 Int. EMEG Adult    
perchlorethylene 0.18 NA 7000 RMEG Adult    


Table 13b.

Maximum levels of analytes in the surface soil in the basement of Building No. 2. Highlighted compounds indicate that the maximum concentration was above the comparison value.
Chemical Max. Conc. (ppm) Background Comparison Value (ppm)
Noncancer Source Cancer Source
naphthalene 1.4 NA 10000 Int. EMEG Adult    
benzo[a]anthracene 0.2 NA 7.8 RBC Ind.    
benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 NA 0.78 RBC Ind. 0.1 CREG
benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.3 NA 7.8 RBC Ind.    
chrysene 0.3 NA 780 RBC Ind.    
fluoranthene 0.4 NA 82000 RBC Ind.    
pyrene 0.5 NA 20000 Adult RMEG    


Table 14a.

Estimated exposures, for both adults and children, to VOCs in residential well water (35 years). Highlighting indicates an exposure that was above the Health Guidelines Comparison Value.
Compound Maximum Concentration (ppb) Estimated Exposure*, 9 years (mg/kg/day) Health Guidelines Comparison Value (mg/kg/day) Source
Well No. 1 Well No. 2 Well No. 3 Well No. 1 Well No. 2 Well No. 3
1,1-dichloroethane 1,600 NA NA 1.13x10-2 NA NA 1.00x10-1 EPA RfD
1.38x10-2
1,1-dichloroethylene 51 9.1 0.55 3.59x10-4 6.91x10-5 3.87x10-6 9.00x10-3 MRL, Chronic
4.41x10-4 7.87x10-5 4.76x10-6
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 180 NA NA 1.27x10-3 NA NA 1.00x10-2 EPA RfD
1.56x10-3
trichloroethylene 53 51 0.66 3.73x10-4 3.59x10-4 4.65x10-6 3.00x10-3 EPA RfD
4.59x10-4 4.41x10-4 5.71x10-6
vinyl chloride 53 35 0.62 3.73x10-4 2.97x10-4 4.37x10-6 2.00x10-5 MRL, Chronic
4.59x10-4 3.03x10-4 5.36x10-6

* Exposure estimate for all routes of exposure; estimation derived according to Maxwell et al. (1991).
Exposure dose for a 70 kg adult drinking 2 liters of water per day.
Exposure dose for a 28 kg child drinking 1 liter of water per day.


Table 14b.

Estimated exposures, for both adults and children, to VOCs in residential well water (9 years). Highlighting indicates an exposure that was above the Health Guidelines Comparison Value.
Compound Maximum Concentration (ppb) Estimated Exposure*, 35 years (mg/kg/day) Health Guidelines Comparison Value (mg/kg/day) Source
Well No. 1 Well No. 2 Well No. 3 Well No. 1 Well No. 2 Well No. 3
1,1-dichloroethane 1,600 NA NA 4.38x10-2 NA NA 1.00x10-1 EPA RfD
4.87x10-2
1,1-dichloroethylene 51 9.1 0.55 1.40x10-3 2.49x10-4 1.51x10-5 9.00x10-3 MRL, Chronic
1.55x10-3 2.77x10-4 1.67x10-5
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 180 NA NA 4.93x10-3 NA NA 1.00x10-2 EPA RfD
5.48x10-3
trichloroethylene 53 51 0.66 1.45x10-3 1.40x10-3 1.81x10-5 3.00x10-3 EPA RfD
1.61x10-3 1.55x10-3 2.01x10-5
vinyl chloride 53 35 0.62 1.45x10-3 9.59x10-4 1.70x10-5 2.00x10-5 MRL, Chronic
1.61x10-3 1.07x10-3 1.89x10-5

* Exposure estimate for all routes of exposure; estimation derived according to Maxwell et al. (1991).
Exposure dose for a 70 kg adult drinking 2 liters of water per day.
Exposure dose for a 28 kg child drinking 1 liter of water per day, for 17 years, and for a 70kg adult drinking 2 liters of water per day, for 18 years.


APPENDIX B: FIGURES

Intro Map
Figure 1. Intro Map


APPENDIX C: NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Public Health Assessment
Former Electro-Sonics Facility
Chesterfield, Cheshire County, New Hampshire


ATSDR Logo N.H. Department of Public Health logo

Community Needs Assessment
Site: Former Electro-Sonics
Spofford Village-Chesterfield, NH

We are asking residents, and former residents, who live near the Former Electro-Sonics site to complete this form. This will help us identify any health concerns you may have. Please limit your questions about the site to human health topics. For example, we are not able to address issues such as property values or effects on pets.

This survey is strictly CONFIDENTIAL. The data will be gathered in a report and no names or personal information will be used.

THANK YOU for taking the time to complete this survey so that we may better serve you in the future.

If you are interested in being on our mailing list, please provide your name and address below.

Name:______________________________________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________________

Telephone: (home) ___________________ (work) ____________________________

Email:_______________________________

  1. How long have you lived at this address? __________________________

  2. Is this a seasonal home? Yes No
    If yes, how long do you stay each year? ______________

  3. Do you have young children (6 years old or younger) who live with you? Yes No

  4. How would you like to receive news about the Former Electro-Sonics site? (Check all that apply.)

    Telephone
    Mail
    Newspapers (which one(s)?) ______________ )
    Cable/TV
    Community meeting
    Other


  5. Do you or does anyone in your home...

    walk on or around the Former Electro-Sonics site property Yes No
    play or wade in the stream Yes No
    eat fish from the stream Yes No
    use the stream for other purposes Yes No
    Describe: _________________________    
    walk in the woods around the site Yes No


  6. Have you seen any thing near or on the Former Electro-Sonics Site that could cause you harm?
    (E.g. fence children can climb, chemical spills, unsafe buildings, etc.)


    No
    Yes      If yes, please describe: _____________________________

    ________________________________________________________

    ________________________________________________________

  7. Do you feel outdoor activities near the site are putting you at risk? (E.g. swimming, gardening,
    fishing)

    No
    Yes,  please describe what activities: _________________________

    ________________________________________________________

    ________________________________________________________

  8. Have you smelled odors coming from the site?

    No
    Yes    If yes, please describe the odor and when it occurs: _________

    ________________________________________________________

    ________________________________________________________

  9. What is your general feeling about this site? (Please check one.)

    It does not affect my health.
    It does affect my health.
    I am not sure.

  10. What is your level of interest in this site? (Please check one.)

    Very interested
    Somewhat interested
    Not interested

  11. Do you have any other health-related questions or concerns about the Former Electro-Sonics site
    that you would like us to discuss in the Public Health Assessment?

    _______________________________________________________________________

    _______________________________________________________________________

    _______________________________________________________________________

    The Department of Health & Human Services can provide physicians with information about the
    potential health problems linked to previously disposed of chemicals at the site. Would you like
    your physician to be added to our mailing list?


    Physician Name________________________________________________

    Address______________________________________________________

    Telephone:____________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Please feel free to call us at (603) 271-4664 or toll-free in New Hampshire at (800) 852-3345 extension 4664. You may also write to us at:

NHDHHS, Bureau of Health Risk Assessment
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
Fax: (603)271-3991
Email: healthrisk@dhhs.state.nh.us
Internet: http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/dhhs/hlthriskassess/default.htm

Deadline for mailing survey:   August 2, 2002



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. #