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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

MOHAWK TANNERY SITE
NASHUA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE


VI. CONCLUSIONS

Based on all available information, DHHS concludes that, although some exposures may beoccurring currently, the exposures are not at levels expected to cause long-term, adversehealth effects. Therefore, the site does not currently pose a public health hazard. Since thereare opportunities for exposure but adverse health effects from these exposures are unlikely,DHHS has categorized current conditions at the site as No Apparent Public Health Hazardaccording to ATSDR's hazard classification system. However, site remediation is neededbecause, in the future, changes in the land use or a large flood of the Nashua River couldincrease exposures to levels that could potentially cause adverse health effects.

DHHS identified 10 possible exposure pathways at the Mohawk Tannery site. Conclusionsregarding each pathway as well as other site-related issues are listed below.

Completed Exposure Pathways

  1. People who trespass on the site could be exposed to low concentrations of dioxin andother contaminants in the open lagoon (Area I); however, these exposures are notexpected to affect their health.

  2. People who swim or wade in the section of the Nashua River near the site would beexposed to elevated concentrations of chromium and other contaminants, but theseexposures would not cause adverse health effects.

  3. People who eat fish from the Nashua River near the site would be exposed to lowconcentrations of dioxins in the fish tissue. As long as fish from this area are not alarge portion of a person's diet, these exposures will not cause adverse health effects.

  4. Odors near the site are likely caused by hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, andammonia in the air. Exposures to these compounds, while a nuisance, are unlikely toresult in long-term, serious, adverse health effects. However, sensitive individuals(e.g., asthmatics) may have experienced acute symptoms, such as nausea, headaches,cough, wheezing, and eye-nose-throat irritation, from past exposures when the odorswere very strong. If the sludges in Areas I and II are disturbed, EPA and DES planto control hydrogen sulfide gas emissions to prevent the strong odors from recurring.

Potential Exposure Pathways

  1. If the site were redeveloped in the future for residential housing or as a park,exposures to dioxin in the buried sludges could potentially result in adverse healtheffects for future users of the site.

  2. Exposures for workers at businesses currently operating out of the former tannerybuilding could not be evaluated. No sampling data are available for the section of thesite used by the businesses.

  3. The waste lagoons in Areas I and II are within the 100 year floodplain of the NashuaRiver. A 100-year flood could wash the contaminated sludges into the river and carrythem downstream into downtown Nashua. This would significantly increaseopportunities for exposure to the site contaminants.

Eliminated Exposure Pathways

  1. There are no exposures to site contaminants in drinking water. Residents near the sitereceive drinking water from the municipal supply or from private wells that have notbeen affected by the site contamination. Contaminated groundwater beneath the siteflows away from the nearby residences.

  2. There is no evidence that the undeveloped southern parcel of the Mohawk Tannerysite was used in the tanning process or for waste disposal. Therefore, people whowalk on this property would not be exposed to any contaminants from the site.

  3. The asbestos-containing material (ACM) in the landfill at the end of Intervale Streetis completely covered by soil so there are no exposures to the asbestos. DES inspectsthis landfill for integrity every 2 years.

Physical Hazards

  1. The tank in the clarifier facility, the debris in the collapsed portion of the mainbuilding, and the open lagoon in Area I are physical hazards for trespassers on thesite.

Cancer Rates in the Community and City

  1. A risk ratio analysis for all cancer types combined found there to be no statisticallysignificant increased risk of cancer for the community in the census tracts around theMohawk Tannery.

  2. For the city of Nashua as a whole, a Standard Morbidity Ratio analysis found that therates of several types of cancer were slightly higher than expected, particularly forfemales in the sixth decade of life and older. The standard morbidity ratios that werestatistically elevated fell within the low risk/weak association category (SMR rangeof 1.5 to 2.51).

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. The site should continue to be fenced and gated to impede access by trespassers. Thefront gate to the site should be kept locked and access controlled when businesses usethe site.

  2. Soils above disposal areas and near former tanning operations should be tested formetals, semi-volatile organic compounds, and any other suspected site contaminantsto confirm that there are currently no significant exposures to contaminants in soilfor onsite workers and others.

  3. Concentrations of total and hexavalent chromium should be measured throughout thesite.

  4. If sludges in Areas I and II are disturbed, hydrogen sulfide gases should be controlledto prevent offsite exposures and nuisance odors.

  5. Residential use or other public uses of the site (e.g., as a park) should not occurbefore the sludges in Areas I and II, as well as any other contamination present on thesite, have been remediated.

  6. Sludge from Areas I and II should be removed as soon as possible to prevent releasesduring a 100-year flood.

  7. Any private drinking water wells at risk for contamination from the site should beidentified and tested as a prudent precaution.

  8. Inspections of the asbestos landfill at the end of Intervale Street should be continuedevery 2 years.

  9. Barriers to accessing the clarifier facility should be maintained to prevent peoplefrom falling into the clarifier tank.

  10. The physical hazards and weathering asbestos material in the collapsed portion of themain building should be eliminated as soon as possible.

  11. The physical hazard of the open lagoon in Area I should be addressed as soon aspossible.

  12. Although unrelated to the Mohawk Tannery site, the Nashua Public HealthDepartment should be notified about the slightly elevated rates of certain cancers inthe city as a whole.

VIII. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The purpose of the Public Health Action Plan is to ensure that this Public Health Assessmentnot only identifies any current and potential exposure pathways and related health hazards,but also provides a plan of action to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effectsresulting from exposures to hazardous substances in the environment. The first section of thePublic Health Action Plan contains a description of completed and ongoing actions taken tomitigate environmental contamination. In the second section there is a list of additionalpublic health actions that are planned for the future.

(A) Completed or Ongoing Actions

  1. Between 1985 and 2000, a series of environmental investigations characterized thenature and extent of contamination at the site.

  2. In 1986, ATSDR prepared a Health Consultation for EPA regarding the health risksfrom exposure to dioxins on the site. ATSDR concluded that there was no healththreat from dioxin exposure for workers who passed through the contaminated siteto reach the neighboring property.

  3. In May 2000, EPA proposed the Mohawk Tannery site for the National PrioritiesList.

  4. In October 2000 through January 2001, EPA completed a Time-Critical RemovalAction to abate obvious hazards at the site.

  5. In March 2001, DHHS prepared a Health Consultation for EPA which evaluated thesludge characterization data from 2000. DHHS concluded that people whotrespassed on the site would be exposed to contaminants in the sludge in Area I butthat this exposure would not affect a person's health.

(B) Planned Actions

  1. EPA will conduct a Non-Time Critical Removal Action to address hazards posed bythe sludges in the various disposal areas around the site.

  2. EPA will complete a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study to select a remedy forcleaning up the remaining contamination on the site and evaluate off-site impactssuch as the Nashua River.

  3. DES will test any private wells near the site if requested.

  4. DHHS will notify the Nashua Public Health Department of the city-wide cancer rates for Nashua.

  5. DHHS will review new data for the site and provide health advice to EPA and DESas necessary.

IX. PREPARERS OF REPORT

Report Authors

Phil Trowbridge, Environmental Health Risk Analyst
Stephanie Miller, Assistant State Epidemiologist
Kerran Vigroux, Health Promotion Advisor
Dennis Pinski, Supervisor

Bureau of Health Risk Assessment
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

Greg Ulirsch

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

ATSDR Regional Representatives

William Sweet, Ph.D., DABT, Senior Regional Representative

Office of Regional Operations, Region I
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023


X. REFERENCES

  1. GZA (1985). Phase I Hydrogeologic Study, Granite State Leathers, Inc. Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc., Manchester, NH. April 1985.

  2. GZA (1985b). Phase II Hydrogeologic Study, Granite State Leathers, Inc. Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc., Manchester, NH. October 29, 1985.

  3. NHDPHS (1986). Memorandum from Scott Doane to John Minichiello regarding GSL Dioxin Analysis Results. N.H. Division of Public Health Services, Office of Waste Management, Concord NH. June 10, 1986.

  4. NHDPHS/USFWS (1986). Risk Assessment of Furan Contaminated Fish in theNashua River, Nashua, NH. N.H. Division of Public Health Services, EnvironmentalHealth Risk Assessment Unit, Concord, NH and U.S. Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, NH. Joint Report PHS/FWS 87-2. 1986.

  5. NUS (1987). Preliminary Assessment, Mohawk Tannery, Nashua, NH. NUS Corporation, Field Investigation Team, Bedford, MA. July 31, 1987.

  6. Weston (1989). Site Investigation for Mohawk Tannery Site, Nashua, NH. Roy F.Weston, Inc., Technical Assistance Team, Region I. July 1989.

  7. NHDES (1993). Expanded Site Inspection, Mohawk Tannery Site, Nashua, NH. N.H.Department of Environmental Services, Concord NH. December 29, 1993.

  8. NHDES (1996). Final Site Inspection Prioritization Report, Mohawk Tannery, Nashua NH. N.H. Department of Environmental Services, Concord NH. November 1996.

  9. Weston (1999). Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Report for the MohawkTannery Site, Nashua, NH. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Superfund Technical Assessmentand Response Team, Burlington, MA. October 1999.

  10. NHDES and USEPA (2000). HRS Documentation Record. N.H. Department ofEnvironmental Services, Waste Management Division, Concord, NH and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, MA. May 1, 2000.

  11. NHDES (2000). Memorandum from John Splendore regarding Mohawk Tannery BProposed Sampling Plan for Additional Data Collection. N.H. Department ofEnvironmental Services, Waste Management Division, Concord, NH. July 10, 2000.

  12. GeoSyntec (2001). Preliminary Sludge Characterization Investigation, MohawkTannery, Nashua, NH. GeoSyntec Consultants, Acton, MA. January 2001.

  13. EPA (2001). Memorandum from Gilberto Irizarry to John Splendore regardingMohawk Tannery Site. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston MA.January 11, 2001.

  14. TRC (1977). Evaluation of Odor Problems at Granite State Leather Inc.'s Tanneryin Nashua, NH. The Research Corporation of New England, Weathersfield CT.December 1977.

  15. EPA (2000). NPL Site Narrative at Listing, Mohawk Tannery, Nashua NH.Environmental Protection Agency, Boston MA. May 11, 2000.

  16. ATSDR (1986). Memorandum from Jeffrey Lybarger to Marilyn DiSirio regardingGranite State Leather Facility, Nashua NH. Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, Atlanta GA. July 7, 1986.

  17. DHHS (2001). Health Consultation, Evaluation of Sludge in Areas I and II, MohawkTannery Site, Nashua, Hillsborough County. New Hampshire Department of Healthand Human Services, Bureau of Health Risk Assessment, Concord, NH. March2001.

  18. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Contaminated Sites RiskCharacterization and Management Policy. Concord, NH. January 1998.

  19. EPA (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human HealthEvaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.December 1989.

  20. EPA (1997). Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/C-99/001. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. August1997.

  21. EPA (1979). Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines andStandards, Leather Tanning and Finishing, Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-79/016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water and Waste Management, Washington DC. July 1979.

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

  23. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile forChromium. Atlanta, Georgia. September 2000.

  24. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile forArsenic. Atlanta, Georgia. September 2000.

  25. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile forPentachlorphenol, Draft for Public Comment. Atlanta, Georgia. August 1999.

  26. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile forChlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins. Atlanta, Georgia. December 1998.

  27. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile forHydrogen Sulfide. Atlanta, Georgia. July 1999.

  28. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for MethylMercaptan. Atlanta, Georgia. September 1992.

  29. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile forAmmonia. Atlanta, Georgia. 1990.

  30. National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, 9th Edition. National Instituteof Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. 2000.

  31. EPA (2000). Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, SAB Review Draft. EPA/600/P-00/001Bg. National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. September 2000.

  32. Van den Berg et al. (1998). Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs,and PCDFs for Humans and Wildlife. Environ. Health Perspect., 106(12): 775-792.1998.

  33. EPA (1995). Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in FishAdvisories, Volume 1. EPA 823-R-95-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Water, Washington DC. September 1995.

  34. MDPH (1995). Public Health Assessment, Industriplex Site, Woburn MA.Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental HealthAssessment, Boston, MA. December 26, 1995.

  35. HSDB (2001). Hazardous Substance Data Base. Available online at:http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov .

  36. NIOSH (2001). NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, Online Version. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Available online at:http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html .

  37. CTDPH (1997). Fact Sheet on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Gases andReproductive Health and the Danbury Landfill. Connecticut Department of PublicHealth, Hartford, CT. January 1997.

  38. Campbell DE, Stevens MS. Cancer in New Hampshire 1997. Hanover, NH. NewHampshire State Cancer Registry, July 1999.

  39. Ries LAG, et al.. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1997. National CancerInstitute. Bethesda, MD 2000.

  40. American Cancer Society (2000). Cancer Facts & Figures - 2000. U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services. Atlanta, GA. 2000.

  41. McKinnell Robert et al. The Biological Basis of Cancer. Cambridge University Press1998. pgs. 79-114.

  42. Brownson R. et al. Chronic Disease Epidemiology and Control Second Edition. American Public Health Association 1998. pg. 335-340.

  43. United States Census Bureau. "American FactFinder 2000.- Nashua, NH 1990Census Data". http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet

  44. Suketami T and Tetsuo Kuroishi. "Epidemiology of Pancreatic Cancer." Seminarsin Surgical Oncology 1998; 15:3-7.

  45. Falk, Roni. "Pancreas" National Cancer Institute Cancer Rates and Risks 2000http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/riskstoc.html .

  46. National Institutes of Health. Global Initiative for Asthma. January 1995; NHLBIPub. 95-3659.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TABLES

Table 1.

Concentrations of chemicals in sludge from onsite disposal areas.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Antimony mg/kg 5.37 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 20 RMEG
Arsenic mg/kg 35.6 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 0.5 CREG
Barium mg/kg 34 NA 1, App. F 4000 RMEG
Beryllium mg/kg 1.07 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 50 EMEG
Cadmium mg/kg 1.92 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 10 EMEG
Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 18 Area II 12 200 RMEG1
Chromium (total) mg/kg 31,000 Area II 12 80,000 RMEG1
Copper mg/kg 257 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 3100 RBC
Cyanide mg/kg 0.69 NA 1, App. F 1000 RMEG
Lead mg/kg 323 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 400 EPA
Mercury mg/kg 1.57 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 20 EMEG
Nickel mg/kg 29.9 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 1000 RMEG
Selenium mg/kg 4.56 Area I 6, Tables 1-3 300 EMEG
Silver mg/kg 1.4 NA 1, App. F 300 RMEG
Zinc mg/kg 247 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 20000 EMEG
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 16 Area I 12 500 RMEG
1,2- Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 23 Area I 6, Tables 1-3 5000 RMEG
1,3- Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 1.6 Area II 12 70 RBC
1,4- Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 1.9 Area II 12 27 RBC
3- Methylpentane mg/kg 0.033 Area II 6, Tables 1-3 4700 RBC2
Acetone mg/kg 3.6 Area IV 2, App. G 5000 RMEG
Benzene mg/kg 0.09 Area VI 2, App. G 10 CREG
Carbon Disulfide mg/kg 0.24 NA 1, App. F 5000 RMEG
Chlorobenzene mg/kg 0.21 Area V 2, App. G 1000 RMEG
Chloroform mg/kg 0.017 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 100 CREG
Dimethyl disulfide mg/kg 0.065 NA 1, App. F 5000 RMEG3
Methyl ethyl ketone mg/kg 0.78 Area IV 2, App. G 30000 RMEG
Methylene chloride mg/kg 0.29 Area IV 2, App. G 90 CREG
Tetrachloroethene mg/kg 0.38 Area IV 2, App. G 12 RBC
Toulene mg/kg 9.3 Area IV 2, App. G 10000 RMEG
2- Chloronaphthalene mg/kg 0.16 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 4000 RMEG
2- Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 8.1 Area I 6, Tables 1-3 1600 RBC
Anthracene mg/kg 0.26 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 20000 RMEG
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.45 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 1 CREG4
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.54 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 0.1 CREG
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.39 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 1 CREG4
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.5 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 10 CREG4
Flouranthene mg/kg 1.4 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 2000 RMEG
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 2.4 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 1 CREG4
Naphthalene mg/kg 0.13 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 1000 RMEG
Phenanthrene mg/kg 1.3 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 1000 RMEG5
Pyrene mg/kg 0.82 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 2000 RMEG
2,4,5- Trichlorophenol mg/kg 16 Area I 12 5,000 RMEG
2,4,6- Trichlorophenol mg/kg 140 Area II, VI 2, App. G 60 CREG
2,4- Dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.11 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 200 RMEG
4- Methylphenol mg/kg 930 Area I 6, Tables 1-3 390 RBC
Alkyl substituted phenol mg/kg 77 NA 1, App. F 390 RBC6
Pentachlorophenol mg/kg 510 Area VI 2, App. G 6 CREG
Phenol mg/kg 50 Area II 2, App. G 30000 RMEG
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate mg/kg 23 Area VI 6, Tables 1-3 50 CREG
Butylbenzyl phthalate mg/kg 0.17 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 10000 RMEG
Di-n-butyl phthalate mg/kg 0.12 Area VII 6, Tables 1-3 5000 RMEG
Dioxin TEQ ng/kg 4,598 Area II 12 50 EMEG

NA = Not Available
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium used for total chromium measurements. RMEG for hexavalent chromium used for hexavalent chromium measurements.
2. RBC for hexane. There are no comparison values for 3-methylpentane.
3. RMEG for carbon disulfide. There are no comparison values for dimethyl disulfide.
4. CREG for benzo(a)pyrene adjusted using the appropriate Toxic Equivalency Factor.
5. RMEG for naphthalene. There are no comparison values for phenanthrene.
6. RBC for 4-methylphenol. There are no comparison values for alkyl substituted phenols.
7. This table does not include data from the dioxin in soil tests in 1986 because congener-specific results were not reported.
8. Tests of the sludge from 1975 were not included because they were reported as "mg/L".
9. This table does not include "Tentatively Indentified Compounds" from the Weston investigation in 1989 [6].
10. If there were no comparison values for a chemical, a comparison value for a structurally-similar compound was used because structually-smiliar compounds are expected to have similar toxic properties.
11. Compounds shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 2.

Concentrations of chemicals in sludge from the Clarifier unit.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Arsenic mg/kg 15 Clarifer 13 0.5 CREG
Barium mg/kg 4.8 Clarifer 9 4000 RMEG
Cadmium mg/kg 0.1 Clarifer 9 10 EMEG
Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 250 Clarifer 13 200 RMEG1
Chromium (total) mg/kg 31,000 Clarifer 13 80,000 RMEG1
Lead mg/kg 5.3 Clarifer 9 400 EPA
Mercury mg/kg 0.04 Clarifer 9 20 EMEG
Selenium mg/kg ND (0.05) Clarifer 9 300 EMEG
Silver mg/kg 0.4 Clarifer 9 300 RMEG
Toluene mg/kg 0.8 Clarifer 9 10000 RMEG
Naphthalene mg/kg 0.12 Clarifer 9 1000 RMEG
Pyrene mg/kg 0.08 Clarifer 9 2000 RMEG
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate mg/kg 18 Clarifer 9 50 CREG
Dioxin TEQ ng/kg 73 Clarifer 13 50 EMEG

NA = Not Available.
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium used for total chromium measurements. RMEG for hexavalent chromium used for hexavalent chromium measurements.
2. If there were no comparison values for a chemical, a comparison value for a structurally-similar compound was used because structurally-similar compounds are expected to have similar toxic properties.
3. Compounds shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 3.

Concentrations of chemicals in drummed wastes.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Arsenic mg/kg ND (6.8) --- 9 0.5 CREG
Barium mg/kg 308 Drum 008 9 4000 RMEG
Cadmium mg/kg 3.4 Drum 001 9 10 EMEG
Chromium (total) mg/kg 328 Drum 008 9 80,000 RMEG1
Lead mg/kg 63.5 Drum 008 9 400 EPA
Mercury mg/kg ND (0.1) --- 9 20 EMEG
Selenium mg/kg ND (2) --- 9 300 EMEG
Silver mg/kg 9.6 Drum 008 9 300 RMEG
Chloromethane mg/kg 0.16 Drum 008 9 49 RBC
Benzene mg/kg 0.22 Drum 006 9 10 CREG
Toluene mg/kg 300 Drum 006 9 10000 RMEG
Ethylbenzene mg/kg 960 Drum 006 9 5000 RMEG
Xylenes mg/kg 19000 Drum 006 9 100000 RMEG
Styrene mg/kg 2400 Drum 006 9 10000 RMEG
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 210 Drum 006 9 1600 RBC
Naphthalene mg/kg 1100 Drum 003 9 1000 RMEG
Hexachloroethane mg/kg 0.021 Drum 008 9 50 CREG
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg 0.13 Drum 008 9 9 CREG
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg 0.016 Drum 008 9 300 RMEG
4-chlorophenyl-phenyl ether mg/kg 7 Drum 003 9 16000 RBC2
4-bromophenyl-phenyl ether mg/kg 5 Drum 003 9 16000 RBC2
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg 0.51 Drum 008 9 0.4 CREG
Pentachlorophenol mg/kg 28 Drum 004 9 6 CREG
Diethylphthalate mg/kg 6 Drum 003 9 40000 RMEG
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate mg/kg 13 Drum 006 9 50 CREG
Butylbenzyl phthalate mg/kg 8200 Drum 003 9 10000 RMEG
Di-n-butyl phthalate mg/kg 36 Drum 003 9 5000 RMEG

NA = Not Available
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium.
2. RBC for ethyl ether. There are no comparison values for 4-chlorophenyl-phenyl ether or 4-bromophenyl-phenyl ether.
3. If there were no comparison values for a chemical, a comparison value for a structurally-similar compound was used because structurally-similar compounds are expected to have similar toxic properties.
4. Compounds shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 4.

Concentrations of chromium in surface soils in Area II.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Chromium (total) mg/kg 1800 Area II 13 80,000 RMEG1

NA = Not Available.
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium.


Table 5.

Concentrations of chemicals in surface water from the Nashua River near the site.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Arsenic ug/L 2 R-2, R-3 2, App. G 0.02 CREG
Barium ug/L ND (100) --- 2, App. G 700 RMEG
Cadmium ug/L ND (1) --- 2, App. G 2 EMEG
Chromium ug/L ND (1-10) --- 2, App. G 20,000 RMEG1
Lead ug/L ND (1-50) --- 2, App. G 15 MCL
Mercury ug/L ND (0.2) --- 2, App. G 3 EMEG
Selenium ug/L ND (2) --- 2, App. G 50 EMEG
Silver ug/L 60 R-1 2, App. G 50 RMEG
Methylene chloride ug/L 9 R-3 2, App. G 5 CREG

NA = Not Available.
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium.
2. Compounds shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 6.

Concentrations of chemicals in effluent being discharged to the Nashua River (3/6/81).
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Antimony ug/L ND (100) --- 8, Ref. 25 6 LTHA
Arsenic ug/L ND (2) --- 8, Ref. 25 0.02 CREG
Beryllium ug/L ND (10) --- 8, Ref. 25 40 EMEG
Cadmium ug/L ND (5) --- 8, Ref. 25 2 EMEG
Chromium ug/L 9,150 Effluent 8, Ref. 25 20,000 RMEG1
Copper ug/L ND (50) --- 8, Ref. 25 1500 RBC
Lead ug/L ND (100) --- 8, Ref. 25 15 MCL
Mercury ug/L ND (0.2) --- 8, Ref. 25 3 EMEG
Nickel ug/L ND (50) --- 8, Ref. 25 100 LTHA
Selenium ug/L ND (2) --- 8, Ref. 25 50 EMEG
Silver ug/L ND (10) --- 8, Ref. 25 50 RMEG
Thallium ug/L ND (100) --- 8, Ref. 25 0.5 LTHA
Zinc ug/L 132 Effluent 8, Ref. 25 3000 EMEG
Cyanide ug/L ND (20) --- 8, Ref. 25 200 LTHA
Total Phenols ug/L 2500 Effluent 8, Ref. 25 4000 LTHA2
Methylene chloride ug/L 177 Effluent 8, Ref. 25 5 CREG
Phenol ug/L 90 Effluent 8, Ref. 25 4000 LTHA
Pentachlorophenol ug/L ND (25) --- 8, Ref. 25 0.3 CREG

NA = Not Available.
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium.
2. LTHA for phenol.
3. If there were no comparison values for a chemical, a comparison value for a structurally-similar compound was used because structurally-similar compounds are expected to have similar toxic properties.
4. Compounds shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 7.

Concentrations of chemicals in Nashua River sediments near the site.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Cadmium mg/kg 18.7 SED-5-R 7 10 EMEG
Chromium (total) mg/kg 313 SED-3-R 7 80,000 RMEG1
Lead mg/kg 163 SED-5-R 7 400 EPA
Pentachlorophenol mg/kg ND(0.4) --- 7 6 CREG

NA = Not Available
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium.
2. Compounds shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 8.

Concentrations of chemicals in sediment from the concrete effluent pipe.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Cadmium mg/kg 3.5 SP-1 7 10 EMEG
Chromium mg/kg 3,290 SP-1 7 80,000 RMEG1
Lead mg/kg 22 SP-1 7 400 EPA
Pentachlorophenol mg/kg ND(9.6) SP-1 7 6 CREG

NA = Not Available
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for trivalent chromium.


Table 9.

Concentrations of dioxin in fish from the Nashua River (1986).
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
TCDD ng/kg ND (6.1) --- 4 NA  
PeCDD ng/kg ND (11) --- 4 NA  
HxCDD ng/kg ND (15) --- 4 NA  
HpCDD ng/kg ND (130) --- 4 NA  
OCDD ng/kg ND (350) --- 4 NA  
TCDF (Tetrahydrofurans) ng/kg 71 Station 2 4 0.21 RBC1
PeCDF ng/kg ND (10) --- 4 NA  
HxCDF ng/kg ND (14) --- 4 NA  
HpCDF ng/kg ND (71) --- 4 NA  
OCDF ng/kg ND (570) --- 4 NA  

NA = Not Available.
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD adjusted by the Toxic Equivalence Factor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
2. Individual dioxin congeners were not identified. The reported values are for congener groups.
3. Compound shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 10.

Concentrations of chemicals in groundwater beneath the site.
Compound Units Maximum Location Reference Comp. Source
Arsenic ug/L 1000 GZ-6 2, App. H 0.02 CREG
Barium ug/L ND (100) --- 2, App. H 700 RMEG
Cadmium ug/L ND (1) --- 2, App. H 2 EMEG
Chromium ug/L 70 TP-4 1, App. E 20,000 RMEG1
Lead ug/L 100 GZ-9 2, App. H 15 MCL
Mercury ug/L 0.9 GZ-14 2, App. H 3 EMEG
Selenium ug/L 58 GZ-9 2, App. H 50 EMEG
Silver ug/L 60 GZ-1 2, App. H 50 RMEG
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 6 TP-2 1, App. E 200 LTHA
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 86 GZ-10 2, App. H 0.4 CREG
Chlorobenzene ug/L 59 GZ-9 2, App. H 100 LTHA
Chloroform ug/L 48 GZ-11 2, App. H 6 CREG
Tetrachloroethene ug/L 250 TP-25 1, App. E 1.1 RBC
Trichloroethene ug/L 30 TP-2 1, App. E 1.6 RBC
2,4-Dimethylphenol ug/L Trace (10) GZ-6/13 2, App. H 730 RBC
4-Nitrophenol ug/L Trace (22) GZ-2 2, App. H 290 RBC
3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol ug/L Trace (10) GZ-6 2, App. H 500 RMEG2
Phenol ug/L Trace (20) GZ-13 2, App. H 4000 LTHA

NA = Not Available.
ND (value) = Not Detected with a method detection limit of the value in parentheses.

1. RMEG for hexavalent chromium.
2. RMEG for m-cresol. There are no comparison values for 3-methyl-4-chlorophenol.
3. If there are no comparison values for a chemical, a comparison value for a structurally-similar compound was used because structurally-similar compounds are expected to have similar toxic properties.
4. Compounds shown in bold type have concentrations greater than comparison values.


Table 11.

Estimated maximum exposures to contaminants in sludges for trespassers on the site.
Compound Concentration Exposure Comparison Value
  (mg/kg) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) Source
Chromium (hexavalent) 250 7.E-05 3.00E-03 RfD1
Pentachlorophenol 510 1.E-04 1.00E-03 MRL
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 140 4.E-05 NA2  
4-Methylphenol (p-cresol) 930 3.E-04 5.00E-03 RfD (HEAST)
Dioxin TEQ 4,598 1.E-09 1.00E-09 MRL
Arsenic 35.6 1.E-05 3.00E-04 MRL
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.54 1.E-07 NA2  
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.4 7.E-07 NA2  
Naphthalene 1100 3.E-04 2.00E-02 RfD
Hexachlorobenzene 0.51 1.E-07 2.00E-05 MRL

NA = Not Available.

1. RfD for hexavalent chromium.
2. No comparison value for non-cancer health effects. At the exposure level shown, no significant cancer risk is expected using upper-bound cancer potency factors from EPA.
3. Exposures for trespassers assume a body weight of 40 kg, a soil ingestion rate of 100 mg/d, and exposure 2 days/week for the five warm months of the year.


Table 12.

Estimated maximum exposures to contaminants in Nashua River water and sediments.
Compound Concentration Exposure Comparison Value
  Sediment Water Sediment Water Total Value Source
  (mg/kg) (ug/L) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)  
Arsenic NA 2 0.0E+00 2.7E-06 2.7E-06 3.0E-04 MRL
Chromium (total) 3290 9150 9.0E-04 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.5E+00 RfD1
Cadmium 18.7 ND 5.1E-06 0.0E+00 5.1E-06 2.0E-04 MRL
Silver NA 60 0.0E+00 8.2E-05 8.2E-05 5.0E-03 RfD
Methylene chloride NA 177 0.0E+00 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 2.0E-01 MRL

NA = Not Available.
ND = Not Detected.

1. RfD for trivalent chromium.
2. Exposures for swimmers/waders assume a body weight of 40 kg, a sediment ingestion rate of 100 mg/d, a water ingestion rate of 0.5 L/d, and exposure 2 days/week for the five warm months of the year.


Table 13.

Estimated maximum exposures to dioxin in Nashua River fish.
Compounds Concentration Exposure Comparison Value
  (ng/kg) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) Source
TCDF1 71 7.7E-09 1.0E-08 MRL2

1. TCDF = Tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran congener group.
2. There is no MRL for TCDF. The MRL listed is the MRL for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (1E-09 mg/kg-d) divided by the Toxic Equivalence Factor for TCDF (0.1).
3. Exposure from eating fish from the river assumes a body weight of 60 kg and a fish consumption rate of 6.5 g/day.



Table 14.

Cancer Types (1993-1997).
  Nashua, NH State of NH
(excluding Nashua)
SEER Data
  Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Bladder 230 13.7 2,998 13.7 21,793 11.7
Buccal Cavity & Pharynx 99 5.9 1,355 6.2 11,242 6
Kidney and Renal Pelvis 93 5.5 1,099 5 10,711 5.7
Leukemias 86 5.1 1,197 5.5 12,266 6.5
Liver 32 1.9 330 2.5 3,795 2
Lung and Bronchus 575 34.3 7,989 36.5 65,266 34.7
Multiple Myeloma 36 2.1 544 2.5 4,942 2.6
Non-Hodgkin s Lymphoma 152 9.1 1,885 8.6 19,514 10.4
Pancreas 94 5.6 1,119 5.1 10,381 5.5
Rectum 168 10.0 2,098 9.6 14,550 7.7
Stomach 73 4.4 795 3.6 7,206 3.8
Thyroid 40 2.4 466 2.1 6,334 3.4
Total 1,678 100 21,875 100 188,000 100


Table 15.

Cancer Incidence within 1/2 Mile of Mohawk Tannery (Risk Ratio Analysis) (1993-1997).
Type of Cancer Observed RR (95% CI - Lower) (95% CI - Upper)
All Cancers Within
1/2 Mile Radius
8 1.54 0.77 3.07


Table 16.

Cancer Incidence in Nashua, New Hampshire (1993 - 1997).
Type of Cancer Expected Observed SMR (95% CI - Lower) (95% CI - Upper)
Rectal          
*male 27 42 1.55 1.12 2.10
*female 17 32 1.89 1.29 2.66
Pancreatic          
male 16 14 0.85 0.47 1.43
*female 13 23 1.80 1.14 2.70
Lung          
male 122 142 1.16 0.98 1.37
*female 79 119 1.50 1.24 1.80
Kidney          
*male 22 34 1.54 1.07 2.15
female 12 16 1.39 0.79 2.25
Thyroid          
male 6 6 0.93 0.34 2.03
female 19 11 0.58 0.29 1.03
Non-Hodgkin's Disease          
male 30 37 1.22 0.86 1.69
female 28 36 1.31 0.92 1.81
Leukemias          
male 22 17 0.78 0.45 1.25
female 13 18 1.37 0.81 2.16
Stomach          
male 15 10 0.67 0.32 1.24
female 6 11 1.77 0.88 3.17
Bladder          
male 52 62 1.19 0.91 1.52
*female 14 31 2.16 1.47 3.06
Buccal Cavity & Pharynx          
male 26 23 0.88 0.56 1.32
*female 11 19 1.76 1.06 2.74
Multiple Myeloma          
male 7 11 1.59 0.79 2.84
female 6 5 0.86 0.28 2.00
Liver          
male 8 8 0.97 0.42 1.91
*female 3 8 2.51 1.08 4.94

* Statistically significant at 95% CI


APPENDIX B: FIGURES

Intro Map
Figure 1. Intro Map


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. #