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

HEALTH CONSULTATION

Evaluation of Health Concerns Associated with
Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond

FORT DEVENS
AYER, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS


INTRODUCTION

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is evaluating possible public healthhazards from potential exposure to environmental contaminants at the Fort Devens site in Devens,Massachusetts. ATSDR has prepared this health consultation in response to community members'concerns about the past, current, and future potential for contaminants from the Fort Devens site tocause harm to people using Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond. This health consultation addresses two specific concerns:

  • Could persons be exposed to harmful levels of contaminants in Grove Pond or PlowShop Pond surface water or sediment?

  • Could persons be exposed to harmful levels of contaminants when eating fish fromGrove Pond or Plow Shop Pond?

Following careful review of available environmental monitoring data and exposure information for theponds, ATSDR findings are that past uses of Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond, including eating fishand contact with surface water and sediment, posed no apparent public health hazard. As aprecautionary measure, ATSDR recommends that people continue to follow the "catch and releasefishing only and no swimming" advisory posted at each pond.

ATSDR reviewed current information from the Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Office atFort Devens, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP), and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because community concerns are an important aspect of thepublic health assessment process, ATSDR also consulted residents about their health concerns.ATSDR is preparing a separate public health assessment that will review site-wide environmentalinformation and public health concerns.

Both nontechnical discussions of site-related public health issues as well as some technical analyses ofexposure dose calculations are discussed in this health consultation. To acquaint readers withterminology used in this report, a list of comparison values, a list of abbreviations, and a glossary areincluded in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. In addition, Appendix D presents the methods andassumptions used to estimate exposures and support some of the report's conclusions. All figures andtables appear at the end of the health consultation.

For more information on ATSDR or this report, you may call the agency toll free at: 1-800-447-1544. Please mention the Fort Devens site when you call.


BACKGROUND

Fort Devens Site Description

The Fort Devens site is a former military base located 35 miles northwest of Boston, Massachusetts.The site covers approximately 9,311 acres in the towns of Ayer, Harvard, Lancaster, and Shirley. AsFigure 1 indicates, Fort Devens is divided into three functionally distinct parts: the Main Post, the NorthPost, and the South Post (Fort Devens, 1995a).

Fort Devens was established in 1917 as Camp Devens, a temporary training camp for militarypersonnel. By 1931, the camp had become a permanent installation, known as Fort Devens, for thetraining and induction of military personnel and the processing of military equipment. More recently,Fort Devens has "demobilized" and "out processed" equipment assigned to Army units in NewEngland.

In support of its mission, the Army conducted operations (e.g., storage and distribution of fuel oil,maintenance of vehicles and air crafts, photographic processing, and landfilling) that caused accidentalreleases of chemicals to the surrounding soil. Some of these chemicals, including volatile organiccompounds (VOCs), explosive compounds, fuels, and, perhaps, inorganic compounds (e.g., arsenic)moved through the soil into the underlying groundwater (BRAC, 1996).

In 1989, EPA placed Fort Devens on the National Priorities List of sites identified for possible long-term remedial response because of groundwater contamination. Today, the post is largely inactive. It isundergoing cleanup with MADEP and EPA oversight. Large portions of the post were transferred tothe local redevelopment authority, Massachusetts Government Land Bank, in 1996. With statelegislative approval, these portions will eventually be transferred to the local community for economicdevelopment and reuse (MADEP, 1998; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., 1994). The military will retainthe South Post for training.

Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond

Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond are shallow water bodies located along Fort Devens' northernboundary (see Figure 2). Grove Pond is a 60-acre pond that receives inflowing water from Balch Pondand Cold Spring Brook. Water from Grove Pond flows through a stone arch culvert beneath a railroadcauseway and into Plow Shop Pond. Plow Shop Pond, the smaller of the two ponds (30 acres),receives most of its water from the upstream Grove Pond. Water from Plow Shop Pond eventuallydischarges from a dam at the northwest corner of the pond to Nonacoicus Brook, which flows about 1mile north before joining the Nashua River (ABB, 1995).

Land use surrounding the ponds is diverse. Property along Grove Pond includes a mix of residential(along the northern shore), recreational (Pirone Park), and industrial, including an active railyard and aformer tannery. The tannery operated between the mid-1900s and the 1960s in the northeast corner ofGrove Pond (east of the railroad). Until 1953, the tannery reportedly discharged much of its processwastewater into Grove Pond, often with little or no treatment. Plow Shop Pond is largely surroundedby industrial property. Over the years, the industrial uses included railroad operations to the east, anindustrial park to the north, and Fort Devens' Shepley's Hill Landfill area to the west and southwest(ABB, 1995).

Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond may have been used in the past for recreational activities, but today,little, if any, swimming or subsistence fishing occurs at either pond (ADPW, 1998). In 1992, the Armyposted an advisory at Plow Shop Pond recommending that people not swim and eat pond fish. TheArmy took this precautionary measure because of concerns about contaminants in pond sediment andthe possibility that these contaminants were accumulating in fish (ATSDR, 1992). Following this action,ATSDR advocated that similar precautions be followed for uses of the adjacent Grove Pond (ATSDR,1992). It should be noted that people can still enjoy catch and release fishing at either pond.

In informing the community about the advisory, the Army coordinated outreach with other agencies(e.g., ATSDR, Massachusetts Department of Public Health [MDPH], MADEP, EPA, and local boardsof health) and abutting landowners, including the B & M railroad. As one important aspect of theoutreach effort, the advisory was posted at key access points to each pond. Over the years, however,vandals have removed some signs, leaving the ponds inadequately posted. During recent visits to theponds, ATSDR staff noted that at least two of the original signs remain in place.

Acknowledging the need for continued posting of the advisory, the EPA will provide replacement signs,and the Ayer Department of Public Works and the Devens Commerce Center will maintain the signsalong the ponds (Ayer DPW, 1998). In addition to the postings, information on these advisories (and allMassachusetts fish consumption advisories) is summarized and distributed with Massachusetts fishing licenses.


DISCUSSION

In this section, ATSDR evaluates whether community members have been (past), are (current) or could be (future) exposed to harmful levels of chemicals in Grove Pond or Plow Shop Pond surface water/sediment or fish. Figure 3 describes the conservative exposure evaluation process used by ATSDR. As the figure indicates, ATSDR considers how people might come into contact with, or be exposed, to contaminated media. Specifically, ATSDR determines whether an exposure could occur through ingestion, dermal (skin) contact with contaminated media, or inhalation of vapors, and also considers the likely length (duration) and frequency of the exposure.

If exposure was or is possible, ATSDR then considers whether chemicals were or are present at levelsthat might be harmful to people. ATSDR does this by screening the concentration of contaminants in anenvironmental medium against health-based comparison values. Comparison values are concentrationsthat health scientists have determined are not likely to cause adverse effects, even when assuming veryconservative/safe exposure scenarios. Because comparison values are not thresholds of toxicity,environmental levels that exceed comparison values would not necessarily produce adverse healtheffects. Rather, if a chemical is found in the environment at levels exceeding its correspondingcomparison value, ATSDR further evaluates exposure variables and the toxicology of the contaminant.ATSDR emphasizes that regardless of the level of contamination, a public health hazard exists only ifpeople come in contact with, or are otherwise exposed to, harmful levels of contaminated media.

The following section evaluates two concerns raised by community members about Grove Pond andPlow Shop Pond. Following each concern, ATSDR describes in greater detail relevant environmentaldata and whether a public health hazard exists.

Concern: Could persons be exposed to harmful levels of contaminants in Grove Pond or Plow Shop Pond surface water or sediment?

A "catch and release fishing only and no swimming" advisory is posted at both ponds. As a result of theadvisory, recreational activities that would allow significant contact with surface water and sediment arenot likely to be occurring now, nor are they expected to occur in the future (U.S. F&W, 1993). Peoplemay have used the ponds in the past for swimming, and some individuals may continue to wade alongthe shoreline. Because of concerns about potential exposure to contaminants via dermal contact,ATSDR reviewed environmental monitoring data to determine whether contaminants were or arepresent in surface water or sediment at levels that might affect public health.

Review of the Surface Water and Sediment Quality Data

The Army conducted several rounds of surface water and shallow sediment sampling from the interiorand along the shore of the ponds to characterize the environmental conditions of the pond. Sampleswere analyzed for metals, and selected samples were analyzed for pesticides, polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Tables 1 and 2 identify contaminant concentrations that were measured in the surface water andsediment, respectively.(1) Table 2 also indicates the level of contaminants in the sediment along the GrovePond shoreline at Pirone Park, specifically. ATSDR examined sampling data for Grove Pond and PlowShop Pond and compared this information against current comparison values to identify contaminantspresent in high concentrations.

As the surface water results indicate, most contaminants were either not detected or detected at concentrations safely below ATSDR or EPA comparison values for drinking water. Arsenic and manganese were detected but infrequently or at concentrations only slightly above comparison values.

Of the compounds analyzed in sediment, metals, including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and zinc, reached levels greater than ATSDR's comparison values for soil. For Grove Pond, the highest levels were generally found near the former tannery, suggesting that the tannery site is a likely source of metal contamination. In contrast, the distribution of metals in Plow Shop Pond sediment varies by chemical, and potential sources of metal contamination in this pond include Shepley's Hill Landfill (e.g., arsenic, barium, iron, and manganese) and inflow from Grove Pond (e.g., iron and manganese) (ABB, 1995). Much lower concentrations were detected along the shoreline of Pirone Park.

PAHs were also detected in sediment, but they were not nearly so widespread nor in as high concentration as metals. Most PAHs were located near the railroad corridor and are likely associated with railroad activities (ABB, 1995). Concentrations of individual PAHs were generally comparable to the comparison value (0.1 parts per million [ppm]) for the PAH compounds, benzo(a)pyrene.(2) Other tested compounds (i.e., PCBs, pesticides) were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below comparison values.

Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards

Past Exposures: No exposures are likely to have occurred in the past at levels of public health concern.The highest levels of contaminants were detected in pond sediment near the tannery and in the middle of the pond, but much lower levels were found in publicly accessible areas (shoreline along Pirone Park). The likelihood is remote, however, that swimmers were actually exposed to highly contaminated sediment frequently or for extended periods because 1) the highest levels of contaminants were located in an area not easily accessible by the public or at water depths (8 to 10 feet) that preclude lengthy contact and 2) sediment contacting the skin would have been washed away quickly by surrounding water. Therefore, exposure, if any, most likely was intermittent and brief, and not of public health consequence.

Current and Future Exposures: There are no indications that people use or will use the ponds for recreation in ways that would result in significant dermal contact with either surface water or sediment (i.e., swimming). Some community members have expressed concern, however, about exposure to contaminants while wading along the shoreline. In general, low of levels of contaminants were found in pond surface water and in sediment along the shoreline of Pirone Park. In response to community concern, ATSDR further evaluated this exposure pathway.

When evaluating the exposure, ATSDR estimated how much of a particular metal a person may contact and absorb. To do this, ATSDR developed exposure doses for dermal contact with sediment based on conservative or "safe" scenarios. This required making assumptions about what type of activities might occur; how often the activities might occur (exposure frequency); how long the activities typically may continue (exposure duration); and the characteristics of persons doing these activities (e.g., age, sex, weight). In estimating exposure doses for dermal contact, ATSDR assumed that individuals were exposed to the maximum concentration of contaminants detected in sediment taken in a publicly accessible area--that is, Grove Pond's shoreline at Pirone Park. As mentioned, much lower concentrations of contaminants were detected in sediment along the shoreline of Pirone Park than elsewhere.

ATSDR evaluated possible exposure via dermal contact assuming that people were exposed to the maximum detected concentration along the shoreline. It should also be noted that the chemicals found in the sediment are not readily absorbed through the skin, and would have to be present in very high concentrations to pose health effects via this exposure route. Appendix D describes the methods and assumptions used in ATSDR's evaluation in greater detail. In this appendix, ATSDR also compares noncancer exposure dose estimates (Table D-1) and cancer risk estimates (Table D-2) against ATSDR health guidelines for noncancer and cancer effects. The results of the comparison indicate that estimated exposure doses were all below ATSDR health guidelines. Also, the cancer risk estimates suggest that human exposure to the level of contaminants in shoreline sediment is not likely to lead to the development of cancer. Therefore, the contaminant levels in sediment are not harmful to adults or children who may wade along the shoreline, even when assuming people contact the sediment frequently (i.e., 140 days a year) over a long period of time (i.e., up to 30 years).

On the basis of its evaluation, ATSDR concludes that no exposures are likely to have occurred in the past (swimming and wading), are believed to be occurring now (wading), nor are they expected to occur in the future (wading) at levels of health concern.

Concern: Could persons be exposed to harmful levels of contaminants when eating fish from Grove Pond or Plow Shop Pond?

As mentioned previously, a "catch and release fishing only and no swimming" advisory is posted at both ponds. People who follow the recommendations in the advisory are minimizing their exposure, if any, to any possible contaminants in freshwater fish. Subsequent to the advisory being posted in 1992, fish monitoring data for Plow Shop Pond and Grove Pond have become available for ATSDR review. In the discussion that follows, ATSDR presents its evaluation of these data to determine whether contaminant concentrations, if any, in fish indicate a public health concern or that additional measures need to be taken.

Review of Fish Monitoring Data

Since the ponds were posted with the advisory, the Army and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected fish samples from the Plow Shop Pond and Grove Pond, respectively (Fort Devens, 1995b; U.S. F&W, 1993; 1997). The fish samples (fillet and reconstructed whole body samples) were analyzed for metals, pesticides (i.e., 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene [DDD], 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane [DDE]), and PCBs.(3)

Tables 3 and 4 provide the fish sampling results for Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond, respectively.ATSDR reviewed these sampling data to determine what chemicals, if any, had actually accumulated infish. As the results indicate, metals, PCBs, and pesticides were detected in the pond fish samples.ATSDR compared the concentrations to available health-based Food and Drug Administration (FDA)action levels or tolerance levels (see Tables 3 and 4). (Massachusetts has adopted these health-basedlevels as the basis for issuing fish consumption advisories.) Action or tolerance levels are available formercury, PCB, and some pesticides (e.g., DDD and DDE) only, however. As Tables 3 and 4 indicate,mercury exceeded its FDA action level (1 milligram per kilogram [mg/kg] ) in a few fish samples caughtfrom the ponds, while concentrations of other compounds (i.e., PCBs, DDD, and DDE) were all safely below their respective FDA action or tolerance level.

Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards

Past Exposures: No public health hazard is likely associated with consumption of fish in the past.Although mercury was detected at concentrations greater than the FDA action level, exposure to theseconcentrations will not necessarily produce adverse health effects. To further evaluate potentialexposure, ATSDR compared estimated exposure doses to health-based guidelines, such as ATSDR'sminimal risk levels or EPA's reference dose (see Table D-3) and developed cancer risk estimates(Table D-4) for mercury and chemicals without an FDA action or tolerance level. Without knowingspecific fish consumption patterns in the community, ATSDR assumed that an individual ate an averageamount of freshwater fish (one 8-ounce fish meal a month for an adult and one 4-ounce fish meal amonth for a child) containing the maximum concentration of a contaminant detected in fish from eitherpond. A further description of the methods and assumptions used in developing exposure doses andcancer risk estimates is presented in Appendix D.

As Tables D-3 and D-4 in Appendix D indicate, exposure doses and/or cancer risk estimatesdeveloped for arsenic, cadmium, manganese, selenium, zinc are below or just slightly higher than currenthealth guidelines or below "acceptable" cancer risk ranges. Because of the conservative assumptionsused in estimating exposure doses, these values do not indicate a health concern. Therefore, ATSDRconsiders that these contaminants are not likely to cause health effects or lead to the development ofcancer.

The estimated dose for a child exposed to mercury slightly exceeds the MRL. The exposure dose,however, probably overestimates the actual exposure a child might have received because thelikelihood that a child consumed the most contaminated fish frequently or for extended periods isremote. As noted, with the exception of a few samples of largemouth bass, most mercuryconcentrations were below the FDA action level. Rather, an individual who consumed moderateamounts of Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond fish in a varied diet probably has not been exposed tohigh levels of mercury associated with adverse health effects.

Mercury found in Grove Pond and Plow Shop fish is probably associated with the low-level mercury-contaminated sediment found near the tannery and the railroad area. It should also be noted, however,that mercury is a widespread problem in Massachusetts freshwater rivers, ponds, and lakes. As aprecautionary measure, MDPH issued a statewide advisory in September 1994 to urge pregnantwomen not to eat fish caught from freshwater bodies in Massachusetts because of the potential harmfuleffects of mercury on the fetus (MDPH, 1995).

Current and Future Exposures: No public health hazards are likely to be occurring now, nor are theyexpected to occur because an advisory recommends that people not eat fish caught at either pond.Some metals, such as mercury, are persistent in the environment and their levels in fish may haveincreased over time since the initial fish sampling. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, people shouldcontinue to follow the recommendations in the advisory until additional data suggest otherwise.

ATSDR concludes that likely past exposures via consumption of Grove Pond and Plow ShopPond fish would not be expected to result in adverse health effects. As a precautionary measure,people can best protect themselves by continuing to follow the recommendations in the advisory.


ATSDR CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE

ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more sensitive than adults to environmentalexposure in communities faced with contamination of their water, soil, air, or food. This sensitivity is aresult of the following factors: (1) children are more likely to be exposed to certain media like soil whenthey play outdoors; (2) children are shorter and therefore may be more likely to breathe dust, soil, andvapors close to the ground; and (3) children are smaller than adults and therefore may receive a higherdose of chemical exposure relative to their body weight. Children also can sustain permanent damage ifexposed to toxic substances during critical growth stages. ATSDR is committed to evaluating children'sspecial interests at sites such as Fort Devens as part of the Child Health Initiative.

ATSDR identified no situations in which children are likely to be exposed to chemicalcontaminants associated with Grove Pond or Plow Shop Pond if they follow the precautionscurrently recommended in the Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond advisory. ATSDR based its conclusion on the following factors:

  • Children are urged to refrain from swimming in Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond, butany limited use like wading is unlikely to cause harmful effects. Sediment quality samplingof these ponds indicate that metals and PAHs most likely related to the industry around thepond exist. As a precautionary measure, an advisory suggests that people do not swim in eitherGrove Pond and Plow Shop Pond. Exposure to contaminants, if any, that might occur duringwading is likely brief and infrequent and not likely to lead to health effects.

  • Children are urged to refrain from eating Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond fish. ATSDRrecommends that children do not eat freshwater fish from either pond. Children who do notheed this warning could be exposed to mercury, which can be harmful to the developingnervous system. The mercury contamination in the fish is likely from a number of sources, including a former tannery.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of its evaluation of available environmental information and discussions withrepresentatives from EPA, MADEP, and the Army, ATSDR has reached the following conclusions:

  • Exposures, if any, to contaminants in Grove Pond or Plow Shop Pond are limited andunlikely to cause a public health hazard. No significant exposure has occurred, is occurringnow, nor is expected in the future. A "no swimming" advisory has been posted at each pondto advise people against swimming there. Elevated levels of contaminants have been measuredin pond sediment but not in the surface water. Any brief and infrequent contact with the ponds' sediment at public access areas (e.g., Pirone Park) is unlikely to produce adverse health effects.

  • Consumption of Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond fish may pose a health concern forcertain individuals not adhering to the fish consumption advisory. Some Grove Pond andPlow Shop Pond fish contain elevated levels of mercury. Mercury in fish likely originates fromvarious sources that may include the former tannery. An advisory has been posted urgingpeople not to eat fish caught from Plow Shop Pond and Grove Pond at any time. ATSDRconcludes that by following the precautions, people, particularly young children and pregnant women, can reduce their potential for exposure to mercury.

  • ATSDR concludes that Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond currently pose no apparent public health hazard as long as individuals follow the precautions outlined in the advisory.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the conclusions drawn in this health consultation, ATSDR has identified the following actions thatare necessary to reduce any potential health hazards associated with use of Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond near Fort Devens:

  • Continue to characterize contamination in the ponds, particularly in the northwest cove ofGrove Pond near the former tannery, and, if necessary, take appropriate measures protectiveof public health. EPA is currently conducting additional sampling of the surface water andsediment of each pond. If new data generated by these activities indicate that a potential health hazard exists, ATSDR will reevaluate the conclusions in the health consultation.

  • Continue to support the current advisory and maintain the signs at the pond, particularly duringfishing and swimming seasons. EPA will provide replacement signs, and the Ayer Department of Public Works and the Devens Commerce Center will maintain signs at key access points (e.g., boat ramps, Pirone Parks, public landings) along Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond.

REFERENCES

ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB). 1995. Fort Devens feasibility study for Group 1A sites.Draft Plow Shop Pond and Grove Pond sediment evaluation. Volume I. Sections 1.0-8.0. October1995.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992. Letters to local boards of healthand abutting landowners. RE: Recommendation for "Catch and Release Fishing Only" and "NoSwimming" Posting of Plow Shop and Grove Ponds. December 1992.

ATSDR. 1998. ATSDR Public Availability Session. Ayer, Massachusetts. March 1998.

Ayer Department of Public Works (Ayer DPW). 1998. Meeting at Ayer Department of Public Workswith representatives from ATSDR, Environmental Protection Agency, Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection, and Devens Commerce Commission. October 15, 1998.

Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Offices (BRAC). 1996. Cleanup Plan. Fort Devens, FortDevens, Massachusetts. September 1996.

Fort Devens. 1995a. Fort Devens community relations plan for environmental restoration 1995Update. May 1995.

Fort Devens. 1995b. Record of decision. Shepley's Hill Landfill operable unit areas of contamination 4,5, & 18. Fort Devens, Massachusetts. September 1995.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 1998. Personal communicationwith John Regan, Central Regional Office. July 1998.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH). 1995. Fish consumption advisories for mercuryin freshwater fish. Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Presented to the Committee on HealthEffects. May 1995.

PACE. 1998. Personal communication from People of Ayer Concerned About the Environment toATSDR. March 26, 1998.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. F&W). 1993. Concentrations of mercury and other environmentalcontaminants in fish from Grove Pond, Ayer Massachusetts. September 1993.

U.S. F&W. 1997. Letter from Kenneth Carr, Acting Supervisor of U.S. Fish & Wildlife New EnglandField Office, to Dennis Gagne, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RE: Review of the draft PlowShop Pond and Grove Pond sediment evaluation. January 22, 1997. 1993.

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 1994. Devens Reuse Plan. Fort Devens, Massachusetts. November 14, 1994.


FIGURES

Fort Devens
Figure 1. Fort Devens

Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond
Figure 2. Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond

ATSDR's Exposure Evaluation Process
Figure 3. ATSDR's Exposure Evaluation Process


TABLES

Table 1.

Summary of Contaminants in Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond Surface Water
Contaminant Surface Water Concentrations (ppb) ATSDR's Comparison Values (ppb)
Non-Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Grove Pond Plow Shop Pond Adult Child
Range Frequency Range Frequency
Metals
Arsenic < 2.56 - 3.94 1/6 2.99 - 6.84 13/13 10 EMEG 3 EMEG (0.02)
Cadmium nd 0/6 nd 0/13 20 EMEG 7 EMEG ---
Chromium < 6.02 - 39.8 2/6 < 4.47 0/13 100 MCL --- ---
Lead < 1.26 - 3.04 2/6 nd 0/13 --- --- ---
Manganese 39.9 - 1,000 6/6 7.81 - 139 13/13 200 RMEG 50 RMEG ---
Mercury nd 0/6 nd 0/13 --- --- ---
Zinc nd 0/6 nd 0/13 10,000 EMEG 3,000 EMEG ---

Source: ABB, 1995.

Key: EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide; MCL = EPA's maximum contaminant level; RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide;--- = not available; nd = analyte not detected; < = less than the value shown.

Table 2.

Summary of Contaminants in Grove Pond and Plow Shop Pond Sediment
Contaminant Concentration Range (ppm) Comparison Values (ppm)
Noncarcinogenic Carcinogenic
Grove Pond 1 Grove Pond near Pirone Park 2 Plow Shop Pond 3 Adult Child
Range Frequency Range Frequency Maximum Frequency
Metals
Arsenic 4.16 - 1,300 41/41 9.23 - 110 7/7 3,200 63/63 200 EMEG 20 EMEG 0.5
Beryllium 0.5 - 3.12 2/41 nd 0/7 2.72 8/63 4,000 RMEG 300 RMEG 0.2
Cadmium < 0.7 - 110 2/41 < 0.7 - 23.3 3/7 60.2 21/63 500 EMEG 40 EMEG ---
Chromium < 4.05 - 49,800 40/41 35.3 - 2,680 7/7 10,000 60/63 4,000 RMEG 400 RMEG ---
Lead 3.21 - 1,760 12/41 11.4 - 232 7/7 1,000 62/63 --- --- ---
Manganese 14.4 - 1,730 41/41 145 - 792 7/7 54,800 59/63 4,000 RMEG 300 RMEG ---
Mercury < 0.5 - 220 34/41 <0.05 - 2.18 6/7 250 58/63 1,000 EMEG 100 EMEG ---
Zinc < 8.03 - 755 40/41 125 - 482 7/7 743 39/63 200,000 EMEG 20,000 EMEG ---
PAHs4 < 0.1 - 5 20/41 < 0.1 - 0.8 1/7 0.1 - 4.3 3/13 --- --- 0.1

Source: ABB, 1995.
1 Monitoring data from 1992 - 1995.
2 Data subset includes samples (GRD-16x to GRD-22x) collected along the shoreline of Grove Pond at Pirone Park in 1995.
3 Data from the 1991 RI, the 1992-1993 SRI, and the 1994 PSP sediment evaluation. Only the maximum concentrations were presented for the RI and PSP data.
4 The values represent the highest recorded concentration for an individual PAH. Pyrene was detected in the highest levels. A comparison value for benzo(a)pyrene of 0.1 ppm was used.

Key: PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide; RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide; < = less than the value shown; --- = not available; nd = analyte not detected.

Table 3.

Summary of Contaminants in Grove Pond Fish
Contaminant Contaminant Concentrations (mg/kg) Comparison Value
(mg/kg)
Largemouth Bass
(Reconstructed Wholebody Samples) 1
Brown Bullhead
(Reconstructed Wholebody Samples) 1
Bluegill
(Wholebody Samples)
Range Frequency Range Frequency Range Frequency
Metals
Cadmium 0.03 - 0.88 3/10 0.01 - 0.19 2/8 0.05 - 0.24 10/10 no value
Lead 0.14 - 4.32 4/10 0.18 - 1.12 3/8 0.16 - 1.38 10/10 no value
Mercury 0.10 - 1.13 10/10 0.01 - 0.14 6/8 0.08 - 0.24 10/10 1 FDA action level
Selenium 0.22 - 0.51 10/10 0.13 - 0.39 3/8 0.27 - 0.38 10/10 no value
Zinc 11.0 - 16.4 10/10 10.0 - 20.5 8/8 16.7 - 26.3 10/10 no value
PCBs 0.10 - 0.43 10/10 ND - 0.12 2/8 ND - 0.21 10/10 2 FDA tolerance level
Pesticides
DDD 0.02 - 0.11 10/10 ND - 0.05 7/8 0.01 - 0.07 10/10 5 FDA action level
DDE 0.05 - 0.25 10/10 0.01 - 0.10 8/8 0.02 - 0.13 10/10 5 FDA action level

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1993.

1 Contaminant concentrations in reconstructed wholebody samples are presented because they were generally greater than concentrations detected in fillet samples.
Key: mg/kg = milligram per kilogram; DDD = 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane; DDT = 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene; FDA = Food and Drug Administration.

Table 4.

Summary of Contaminants in Plow Shop Pond Fish
Contaminant Contaminant Concentrations (mg/kg) Comparison Value
(mg/kg)
Largemouth Bass and Brown Bullhead
(Fillet Samples)
Bluegill
(Wholebody Samples)
Range Frequency Range Frequency
Metals
Arsenic 0.09 - 0.15 2/10 1.3 1/5 no value
Lead ---   0.16 1/5 no value
Manganese 0.3 1/10 39.1 - 94.7 5/5 no value
Mercury 0.12 - 4 8/10 0.19 - 0.54 5/5 1 FDA action level
Selenium 0.11 - 0.2 10/10 0.42 - 0.67 5/5 no value
Zinc 3.4 - 6.1 10/10 22.2 - 29.6 5/5 no value
Pesticides
DDE 0.015 - 0.031 2/10 0.0121 - 0.0129 2/5 5 FDA action level

Source: Fort Devens, 1995b.

Key: ppb = parts per billion; mg/kg = milligram per kilogram; DDE = 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene; FDA = Food and Drug Administration ;
--- = not available.


APPENDIX A: LIST OF COMPARISON VALUES

Comparison values represent media-specific contaminant concentrations that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation to determine the possibility of adverse public health effects. The conclusion that a contaminant exceeds the comparison value does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects.

Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)

CREGS are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than oneexcess cancer in a million (10-6) persons exposed over their lifetime. ATSDR's CREGs are calculatedfrom EPA's cancer potency factors (CPFs).

Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)

EMEGs are based on ATSDR minimal risk levels (MRLs) that consider body weight and ingestionrates. An EMEG is an estimate of daily human exposure to a chemical (in mg/kg/day) that is likely to bewithout noncarcinogenic health effects over a specified duration of exposure to include acute,intermediate, and chronic exposures.

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)

The MCL is the drinking water standard established by EPA. It is the maximum permissible level of acontaminant in water that is delivered to the free-flowing outlet. MCLs are considered protective ofpublic health over a lifetime (70 years) for individuals consuming 2 liters of water per day.

Reference Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs)

ATSDR derives RMEGs from EPA's oral reference doses. The RMEG represents the concentration inwater or soil at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse noncarcinogenic effects.


APPENDIX B: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABS absorption factor
AF adherence factor
AT averaging time
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BW body weight
CF conversion factor
CPF cancer potency factor
CREG ATSDR's cancer risk evaluation guide
DDD 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane
DDE 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene
EF exposure frequency
ED exposure duration
EMEG ATSDR's environmental media evaluation guide
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FI fraction ingested
IR ingestion rate
kg kilogram
MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MDPH Massachusetts Department of Public Health
MCL EPA's maximum contaminant level
MRL ATSDR's minimal risk level
mg/kg milligrams of contaminants per kilogram
mg/kg/day milligrams of contaminant per kilogram per day
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
RfD EPA's reference dose
RMEG ATSDR's reference dose media evaluation guide
SA surface area
VOCs volatile organic compounds


APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

Comparison Values:
Estimated contaminant concentrations in specific media that are not likely to cause adverse health effects, given a standard daily ingestion rate and standard body weight. The comparison values are calculated from the scientific literature available on exposure and health effects.


Concentration:
The amount of one substance dissolved or contained in a given amount of another. Forexample, sea water contains a higher concentration of salt than fresh water.


Contaminant:
Any substance or material that enters a system (the environment, human body, food, etc.) where it is not normally found.


Dose:
The amount of a substance to which a person is exposed. Dose often takes body weight into account.


Environmental Contamination:
The presence of hazardous substances in the environment. From the public health perspective, environmental contamination is addressed when it potentially affects the health and quality of life of people living and working near the contamination.


Exposure:
Contact with a chemical by swallowing, by breathing, or by direct contact (such as through the skin or eyes). Exposure may be short term (acute) or long term (chronic).


Health Consultation:
A response to a specific question or request for information pertaining to a hazardous substance or facility (which includes waste sites). It often contains a time-critical element that necessitates a rapid response; therefore, it is a more limited response than an assessment.


Ingestion:
Swallowing (such as eating or drinking). Chemicals can get in or on food, drink, utensils, cigarettes, or hands where they can be ingested. After ingestion, chemicals can be absorbed into the blood and distributed throughout the body.


Media:
Soil, water, air, plants, animals, or any other parts of the environment that can contain contaminants.


Minimal Risk Level (MRL):
An MRL is defined as an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (noncancer) over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are derived when reliable and sufficient data exist to identify the target organ(s) of effect or the most sensitive health effect(s) for a specific duration via a given route of exposure. MRLs are based on noncancer health effects only. MRLs can be derived for acute, intermediate, and chronic duration exposures by the inhalation and oral routes.


No Apparent Public Health Hazard:
This public health conclusion category is used for sites where human exposure to contaminated media is occurring or has occurred in the past, but the exposure is below a level of health hazard. This category is used when exposures do not exceed an ATSDR chronic MRL or other comparable value, data are available for all environmental media to which humans are being exposed, and there are no community-specific health outcome data to indicate that the site has had an adverse impact on human health.


Potentially Exposed:
The condition where valid information, usually analytical environmental data, indicates the presence of contaminant(s) of a public health concern in one or more environmental media contacting humans (i.e., air, drinking water, soil, food chain, surface water), and there is evidence that some of those persons have an identified route(s) of exposure (i.e., drinking contaminated water, breathing contaminated air, having contact with contaminated soil, or eating contaminated food).


Parts per Billion (ppb)/ Parts per Million (ppm) :
Units commonly used to express low concentrations of contaminants. As example of each, one part per billion (ppb) of trichloroethylene (TCE) equals one drop of TCE mixed in a competition-size swimming pool and one part per million (ppm) equals one ounce of trichloroethylene (TCE) in one million ounces of water.


Reference dose:
The value used by EPA as an estimate of daily exposure (mg/kg/day) to the general human population (including sensitive populations) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of harmful effects during a lifetime of exposure.


Risk:
In risk assessment, the probability that something will cause injury, combined with the potential severity of that injury.


Route of Exposure:
The way in which a person may contact a chemical substance. For example, drinking(ingestion) and bathing (skin contact) are two different routes of exposure to contaminants that may be found in water.


Volatile organic compounds (VOCs):
Substances containing carbon and different proportions of other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, sulfur, or nitrogen; these substances easily become vapors or gases. A significant number of the VOCs are commonly used as solvents (paint thinners, lacquer thinner, degreasers, and dry cleaning fluids).

APPENDIX D: ESTIMATED EXPOSURES AND HEALTH EFFECTS

Estimates of Human Exposure Doses and Determination of Health Effects

Deriving Exposures Doses

ATSDR estimated the human exposure doses dermal contact with Grove Pond sediment along PironePark and ingestion of fish. Deriving exposure doses requires evaluating the concentrations of thecontaminants to which people may have been exposed and how often and how long exposure to thosecontaminants occurred. Together, these factors help influence the individual's physiological response tochemical contaminant exposure and potential noncancer (noncarcinogenic) or cancer (carcinogenic)outcomes. In the absence of exposure specific information, ATSDR applied several conservativeexposure assumptions to define site-specific exposures as accurately as possible for area residents.

Evaluating Potential Health Hazards

The estimated exposure doses are used to evaluate potential noncancer and cancer effects associatedwith chemicals of concern. When evaluating noncancer effects, ATSDR uses standard toxicity values,including ATSDR's minimal risk levels (MRLs) and EPA's reference doses (RfDs), to determinewhether adverse effects will occur. The chronic MRLs and RfDs are estimates of daily human exposureto a substance that are unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects over a specified duration. ATSDRcompares estimated exposure doses to conservative guidelines such as MRLs or RfDs for eachcontaminant. If the exposure dose is greater than the MRL or RfD, then a possibility exists fornoncancer effects to occur.

To evaluate cancer effects, ATSDR sometimes uses cancer potency factors (CPFs) that define therelationship between oral exposure doses and the increased likelihood of developing cancer over alifetime. The CPFs are developed using data from animal or human studies and often requireextrapolation from high exposure doses administered in animal studies to the lower exposure levelstypical of human exposure to environmental contaminants. CPFs represent the upper-bound estimate ofthe probability of developing cancer at a defined level of exposure; therefore, they tend to be veryconservative (i.e., overestimate the actual risk) in order to account for a number of uncertainties in thedata used in the extrapolation.

ATSDR estimated the potential for cancer to occur using the following equation. (The estimatedexposure doses and CPF values for the contaminants of concern are incorporated into the equation):

Lifetime Cancer Risk = Estimated exposure dose (mg/kg/day) x CPF (mg/kg/day)-1

Although no risk of cancer is considered acceptable, it is impossible to achieve a zero cancer risk. Consequently, ATSDR often uses a range of 10-4 to 10-6 estimated lifetime cancer risk (or 1 new casein 10,000 to 1,000,000 exposed persons), based on conservative assumptions about exposure, todetermine the likelihood of excess cancer resulting from this exposure.

In addition to estimating the likelihood of noncancer and cancer effects, ATSDR reviewed the literatureto evaluate possible health effects associated with exposure at the doses/concentrations estimated forthe pathway described above.

Estimated Exposure Doses From Contact With Grove Pond Sediment at Pirone Park

Metal concentrations measured in Grove Pond sediment at Pirone Park exceeded ATSDR comparisonvalues for soil. To determine whether exposure to contaminants in the sediment may be related toadverse health effects, if any, ATSDR estimated exposure doses for adults and children contactingsediment containing the highest measured levels detected at Pirone Park.

In estimating to what extent people might be exposed to contaminants, ATSDR used "conservative"assumptions about possible human exposure and the associated health effects. ATSDR assumed that anadult or child contacted the most contaminated Grove Pond sediment at Pirone Park while wading.ATSDR also used higher levels than actually expected about how often people contacted the sediment.These assumptions allow ATSDR to estimate the highest possible exposure dose and determine thecorresponding health effects. Although ATSDR does not expect that most people at the park wereexposed to the highest (most conservative) levels of contamination, the "conservative" estimates areused to protect public health.

ATSDR used the following equation to estimate human exposure doses for dermal contact with sediment:

Estimated Exposure Dose equals Conc. times CF times SA times ABS times AF times EF times ED divided by BW times AT

where:
Conc. = Maximum contaminant concentration in the sediment near Pirone Park (ppm)
CF = Conversion factor: 10-6
SA = Skin surface area available for contact (cm2/event):
-For exposure to feet only: adult male (M) = 1,310 cm2 and child = 334 cm2
ABS = Absorption factor= 1% for dermal exposure (EPA, 1995a)
AF = Skin to soil adherence factor = 0.6 mg/cm2-event (EPA, 1992)
EF = Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events per year of exposure:
1 event/day x 7 days/week x 20 weeks/year or 140 events per year
ED = Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 6 years
BW = Body weight (kg): adult = 70 kg (154 pounds); child = 10 kg (22 pounds)
AT = Averaging time, or the time period over which cumulative exposures are averaged 30 years x 365 days/year or 6 years x 365 days/year) for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects )

Assumptions for Estimating Human Exposure Dose:

  • ATSDR assessed exposure to contaminants from dermal contact with sediment usingan approach similar to that described for surface water. That is, absorbed doses ratherthan intake were estimated as the amount of contaminant actually absorbed into thebody rather than the amount that comes into contact with the outer skin. A dermalabsorption factor (ABS-dermal) was used to approximate how much of thecontaminant contacting the body is actually absorbed. The ABS-dermal valuesrepresent the percent of the contaminant concentration contacted.

  • The surface skin area (SA) available for contact per exposure event was assumed to bethe 50th percentile values for feet for adult males and children (2 to 3 years of age)(EPA, 1995).

  • The amount of sediment adherence to skin (the adherence factor, AF) per exposureevent was assumed to be 0.6 mg/cm2, the midpoint of the range recommended by EPA for dermal exposure to soil (EPA, 1992).

  • ATSDR reviewed local climatologic data to estimate the period of seasonal activity.ATSDR used a 20-week period--or the length of time average air temperatures meetor exceed 70 degrees--to approximate this period (NOAA, 1997).

  • The averaging time (AT) for noncancer effects was assumed to be 30 years for 365days/year (or 10,950 days) or 6 years for 365 days/year (or 2,190 days). It wasassumed to be 70 years for 365 days/year (or 25,550 days) for cancer effects basedon an average lifetime of 70 years (EPA, 1995b).

Determination of Human Health Effects

As Table D-1 indicates, the exposure doses estimated by ATSDR for dermal contact withsediment by adults and children were considerably lower than the MRL or RfD; therefore,noncancer effects for this pathway of exposure are not expected.

Because arsenic and beryllium are classified as carcinogens, ATSDR estimated the lifetimecancer risk from dermal contact with sediment containing the maximum concentration of thesechemicals. Based on these estimated cancer risks presented in Table D-2, ATSDR does notexpect that contact with sediment containing arsenic or beryllium will result in an increased likelihood of developing cancer.

Estimated Exposure Doses for Ingestion of Fish

ATSDR used the following equation to estimate exposure doses for ingestion of Grove Pond and PlowShop Pond fish:

Estimated Exposure Dose equals Conc. times IR times FI times EF times ED divided by BW times AT

where:
Conc = Maximum concentration in fish (mg/kg)
IR = Ingestion rate: 0.0065 kg/day (approximately one 8-ounce meal per month), average consumption of fish and shellfish from estuarine and freshwater by the general U.S. population (EPA, 1989). Because a child likely eat smaller fish meals, ATSDR assumed that a child eats a one 4-ounce meal per month.
FI = Fraction ingested from contaminant source (assumed 100%)
EF = Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events: 365 days per year
ED = Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 6 years
BW = Body weight (kg): adult = 70 kg (154 pounds); child = 10 kg (22 pound)
AT = Averaging time, or the time period over which cumulative exposures are averaged 30 years x 365 days/year or 6 years x 365 days/year) for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects )

Determination of Human Health Effects

Using maximum detected concentrations and other conservative assumptions about exposure,the doses estimated for ingestion of fish containing either arsenic, cadmium, manganese,selenium, and zinc are lower or very similar to the corresponding MRL or RfD (see Table D-3). The estimated dose for a child exposed to mercury exceeds the MRL, but only by a factorof 2. Conservative assumptions (e.g., maximum concentration) allow ATSDR to estimate thehighest possible exposure dose, even though ATSDR does not expect that most people wereexposed to the highest levels each time they ate fish. Based on these estimates, even whenconsidering the highest levels detected in fish, exposures are very unlikely to lead to noncancer effects.

Because arsenic is classified as a human carcinogen, ATSDR estimated the lifetime cancer riskassociated with consumption of fish containing the detected concentration of arsenic and usingvery conservative assumptions about exposure. The cancer risk was approximately 8 x 10-5, or8 new cancer cases in 100,000 exposed persons (see Table D-4). Therefore, ATSDR doesnot expect that ingestion of fish containing arsenic will result in an increased likelihood of developing cancer.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Volume 1.Human health evaluation manual (part A). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/540/1-89-001.December 1989.

EPA. 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Office of Health andEnvironmental Assessment. INTERIM Report. 1992.

EPA. 1995a. Assessing Dermal Exposure. Region III Technical Guidance Manual Risk Assessment.Office of Superfund Programs. December 1995.

EPA. 1995b. Exposure Factors Handbook-Final Report. Office of Health and EnvironmentalAssessment. 1995.

NOAA. 1997. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Monthly summary of localclimatological data. National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, NC.

Table D-1.

Estimated Exposure Doses--Noncancer Effects Dermal Contact with Grove Pond Sediment at Pirone Park
Contaminant Maximum Detected Contaminant Concentration (ppm) Estimated Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day) Health Guideline Chronic Oral
(mg/kg/day)
Basis for Health Guideline
Adult Child
Arsenic 110 0.000005 0.000009 0.0003 RfD
Beryllium 88.2 0.000004 0.000007 0.005 RfD
Cadmium 23.3 0.000001 0.000002 0.0002 MRL
Chromium 2,680 0.0001 0.0002 0.005 RfD
Manganese 793 0.00003 0.000006 0.05 MRL
Mercury 2.18 0.00000009 0.0000002 0.00051 MRL
Zinc 482 0.00002 0.00004 0.3 MRL

1 The MRL for mercury is currently under review.

Key: ppb=parts per billion; mg/kg/day=milligrams contaminant per kilogram body weight per day; MRL=minimal risk level; RfD=reference dose; ma = not available.

Table D-2.

Estimated Exposure Doses--Cancer Effects Dermal Contact with Grove Pond Sediment at Pirone Park
Contaminant Maximum Detected Contaminant Concentration (ppm) Estimated Exposure Dose - Cancer
(mg/kg/day)
CPF Lifetime Cancer Risk 1
Arsenic 110 0.000002 1.5 3 x 10--6
Beryllium 88.2 0.000002 4.3 9 x 10--6

1 Lifetime Cancer Risk = estimated dose (cancer) x CPF.

Key: CPF = cancer potency factor; ppb=parts per billion; mg/kg/day=milligrams contaminant per kilogram body weight per day.

Table D-3.

Estimated Exposure Doses--Noncancer Effects Ingestion of Fish
Contaminant Maximum Detected Contaminant Concentration (ppm) Estimated Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day) Health Guideline Chronic Oral (mg/kg/day) Basis for Health Guideline
Adult Child
Arsenic 1.3 0.0001 0.00041 0.0003 RfD
Cadmium 0.88 0.00008 0.00031 0.0002 MRL
Manganese 94.7 0.009 0.03 0.05 MRL
Mercury 4 0.0004 0.0011 0.00052 MRL
Selenium 0.67 0.00006 0.0004 0.005 MRL
Zinc 29.6 0.003 0.02 0.3 MRL

1 Because of the conservative assumptions used in estimating the exposure doses, the slightly higher values do not indicate a health concern.
2 The MRL for mercury is currently under review.

Key: ppm=parts per million; mg/kg/day=milligrams contaminant per kilogram body weight per day; MRL=minimal risk level; RfD=reference dose.

Table D-4.

Estimated Exposure Doses--Cancer Effects Ingestion of Fish
Contaminant Maximum Detected Contaminant Concentration (ppm) Estimated Exposure Dose - Cancer
(mg/kg/day)
CPF Lifetime Cancer Risk 1
Arsenic 1.3 0.00005 1.5 8 x 10--5

1 Lifetime Cancer Risk = estimated dose (cancer) x CPF.

Key: CPF = cancer potency factor; ppb=parts per billion; mg/kg/day=milligrams contaminant per kilogram body weight per day.


1. Table 2 summarizes information on contaminants that exceeded comparison values only.
2. Though likely not of health concern, it should be noted that detection levels for some of the individual PAHs were slightly higher (up to 0.8 ppm) than ATSDR's comparison value for benzo(a)pyrene.
3. Some samples were "reconstructed" using the fillet and the partial body sample. The concentration for the reconstructed whole body sample is the sum of the fillet concentration and the partial body sample concentration divided by the total body weight.




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. #