PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
The following discussion and data tables present the contaminants of concern for the Raymarkfacility (on-site) and the other known waste areas (off-site). Contaminants are presented by themedium in which they were found. The listing of contaminants in this section does not imply thatit will cause adverse health effects, that determination is based on the routes and duration ofexposure, and the toxicity of the contaminant and is explained in the Pathway Analysis andToxicological Implications sections.
Comparison values are used to identify contaminants that will be evaluated further. Thecomparison values are contaminant specific concentrations in specific media. These valuesinclude Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides(CREGs), and other relevant guidelines. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations basedon a one excess cancer in a million persons similarly exposed over a lifetime. MaximumContaminant Levels (MCLs) represent drinking water contaminant concentrations that EPAdeems protective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatmenttechnology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of two liters of water per day. TheEPA Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is notexpected to cause adverse health effects. Not all contaminants have comparison values.
A Remedial Investigation for the Raymark facility was complete as of April 1995. Environmentalsampling at the site has been extensive. Data for soil and groundwater were reviewed.
Soil samples collected in 1992, 1993 and 1994 as part of Phase IIA and IIB RCRA investigationat the Raymark facility have identified very high levels of contamination at or near the surface andin deeper soils. Soil borings have been used throughout the site to help define the extent of soilcontamination. Table 2 provides a list of the contaminants identified in soil at the Raymarkfacility which exceed comparison values.
Ambient air sampling for lead and asbestos has not identified these contaminants at levels ofhealth concern. Sampling was done in December 1992 and January 1993 and during drillingactivities likely to disturb contaminated soils. During the drilling activities, control measures werebeing taken to suppress any dust generation.
Groundwater monitoring wells have been installed on site. Sampling of these monitoring wellshas identified very high levels of contamination in the groundwater. In addition to asbestos, lead,and PCBs, other metals, volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile compounds have beendetected (Preliminary Summary Statistics for Groundwater Data, 1994).
|Compound||Concentration Range||Comparison Value(ppm)|
|copper||4.6 - 56,900|
|lead||1.7 - 52,700|
|aroclor 1262||.015 - 4,000||CREG 0.09 (total PCBs)|
|aroclor 1268||.0096 - 6,400||CREG 0.09 (total PCBs)|
|1,1,1 trichloroethane||.005 - 120||CREG 30|
|1,2 dichloroethene||.002 - 240|
|2-butanone||.007 - 280|
|carbon tetrachloride||6.2||CREG 5|
|tetrachloroethane||.002 - 15||CREG 10|
|trichloroethene||.001 - 3,500||CREG 60|
|2-methylnaphthalene||.096 - 75|
|benzo(a)pyrene||.80 - 1.8||CREG .1|
|benzo(b)fluoranthene||.069 - 20|
|benzo(g,h,i)perylene||.067 - 6.7|
|benzo(k)fluoranthene||.078 - 11|
|bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate||.070 - 24|
|chrysene||.078 - 21|
|di-n-butylphthalate||.072 - 300|
|dibenzo(a,h)anthracene||.93 - 5|
|dibenzofuran||.068 - 18|
|fluoranthene||.072 - 48|
|fluorene||.071 - 12|
|naphthalene||.079 - 49|
|pentachlorophenol||.1 - 6.6||CREG 6|
|m & p cresol||.070 - 9,600|
|dioxin TEF||0 - .0413|
CREG-Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG-Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
ppm-parts per million
TEF-Toxic Equivalency Factor
Soil sampling at off-site locations included grab samples at 0-3 inch depths. Site maps withsampling locations were provided for all off-site surface soil sampling activities. All samples werescreened for lead, asbestos and PCBs. These contaminants were selected because: 1.) they areindicative of Raymark waste; 2.) there are screening methods available for these contaminants;and 3.) these contaminants presented the most significant health threat. Ten percent of all thesurface soil samples were sent for confirmation through the Contract Laboratory Program. Thisalso included analysis for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, dioxin andmetals.
One of the most toxic forms of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any of the dioxinanalysis. ATSDR and CT DPH concluded that although the presence of dioxin was an overallhealth concern at a few of the commercial properties, the levels of lead, asbestos and PCBspresented the greatest threat to public health and by addressing these contaminants the risk posedby the dioxin would also be addressed.
Wooster Junior High School
In April and May 1993, 227 surface soil samples were collected from the north and south playingfield of Wooster Junior High School. The samples were screened for lead, asbestos and PCBs. ATSDR evaluated these data as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory. Contaminationwas not detected at levels of health concern in the south playing field.
In June 1993, an additional 132 surface soil samples were collected and screened for lead,asbestos, and PCBs. This was done to determine if surface soil contamination was present inareas of the school property other than the north playing field. Trace asbestos was detected in theparking lot medians. The highest concentration of lead was 525 ppm however, only two sampleshad lead above 200 ppm.
Table 3 provides a summary of the sampling events from Wooster Junior High School.
|North and South PlayingFields||4/93|
ppm-parts per million
asbestos reported in percent by volume
Wooster Park, adjacent to Wooster Junior High School was sampled. Lead levels were as high as 790 ppm, asbestos was detected as high as 60%, and PCBs were found as high as 1.75 ppm. Themost significant contamination was found in a dug out area between the stream and the bike path.
Two residential properties located near Wooster Junior High School were sampled. Contamination was not detected at levels of health concern at either property.
Short Beach Park
In April and May 1993, 190 soil samples were collected from Short Beach Park including thesoftball, little league and soccer fields. The majority of these samples were collected at surface,0-3 inches, approximately 24 samples were collected at depths greater than three inches. Thesesamples were screened for lead, asbestos and PCBs. These data were evaluated by ATSDR aspart of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June 1993, an additional 189 surface soil samples were collected from parking lot islands, playground areas, a swale area along the entrance road off of Dorne Drive and the platform tennis andbasketball court areas. The most significant contamination was identified in the basketball and platform tennis court area.
Table 4 provides a summary of the sampling events from Short Beach Park.
|little league, softball,soccer fields||4/93|
|parking lot islands, playground area,tennis/basketball courtarea||6/93||189||ND-500||ND-5%||ND-4|
ppm-parts per million
asbestos reported in percent by volume
Vacant Lot at the end of 4th/5th Avenue
In April and May 1993, 14 surface soil samples were collected from the 4th/5th Avenue/VacantLot area. Samples were screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. These data were evaluated aspart of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June and July 1993, approximately 60 surface soil samples were collected from individualparcels that make up the 4th/5th Avenue/vacant lot.
Table 5 provides a summary of the sampling events for the vacant lot at the end of 4th/5th Avenues.
ppm-parts per million
asbestos reported in percent by volume
Surface soil sampling was also conducted at 53 residential properties located adjacent to this siteon First, Third, Forth, and Fifth Avenues, Jefferson Street and Shoreline Drive. Five homes wereidentified as having surface soil contamination present at levels posing an imminent health threat. Two homes had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a health threat and 2 homeshad surface soil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
Spada and Adjacent Properties
In April and May 1993, 25 surface soil samples were collected from a few commercial propertieslocated along Ferry Boulevard and from the banks of Ferry Creek. All samples were screened forlead, asbestos, and PCBs. These data were evaluated by ATSDR as part of the May 1993 PublicHealth Advisory.
In June and July 1993 approximately 80 surface soil samples were collected from the commercialproperties along Ferry Boulevard including the Blue Goose Restaurant, Shopping Center,Housatonic Marina, Dan Perkin's Subaru, Veras Motors, Turnpike Spirits, and Ink Masters. Anempty lot at 170 Ferry Boulevard was also sampled. Contamination was not found at levels ofhealth concern at Turnpike Spirits, Ink Masters or the vacant lot at 170 Ferry Boulevard however,to date, samples have not been collected below the surface.
In June and July 1993 unpaved areas along the east and west sides of Ferry Boulevard weresampled and screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. In addition, a few additional propertiesadjacent to the commercial properties on Ferry Boulevard were sampled including the Del Buonoproperty, the Stratford Marina and Fagan's Restaurant.
Table 6 provides a summary of these sampling events.
|Ernest Spada Property||10/93||27||120-7710||ND-90%||ND-34|
|West Side Ferry Boulevard||6-93||20||60-920||trace-3%||ND|
|East Side Ferry Boulevard||6/93||26||ND-1100||ND-10%||ND-0.5|
|946 Ferry Boulevard/|
|Del Buono/vacant lot||6/93||27||ND-1860||ND-50%||ND-8|
ppm-parts per million
asbestos reported in percent by volume
Sampling was also conducted at approximately 50 residences located near the Spada/FerryBoulevard area. This sampling included homes located on Willow Street, Housatonic Avenue andStratford Avenue. Seven homes has surface soil contamination present at levels posing a healththreat, 17 homes had contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
Morgan Francis and Adjacent Properties
In April and May 1993, six surface soil samples were collected from the Morgan Francis Property. All Samples were screened for lead, asbestos, and PCBs. These samples were collected in an areabetween a gravel parking lot and Ferry Creek. These data were evaluated as part of the May1993 Public Health Advisory.
In June 1993, additional surface soil sampling was conducted to define the extent of the surfacesoil contamination. The most significant contamination was identified near Ferry Creek and alongthe back edge of the property.
Table 7 provides a summary of these sampling events.
Surface soil sampling was done at approximately 31 residential properties adjacent to the MorganFrancis area. These homes are located on Blakeman Place, Meadow Streets and East Broadway. One property had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a health threat, 13 hadsurface soil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
|Morgan Francis property||4-5/93||6||2589->10,000||50-90%||1-44|
|Morgan Francis property||6/93||46||ND-2964||ND-60%||ND-27|
|Triangle betweenSpada/Morgan Francis|
Ferry Blvd/East Broadway
|Salce/Schock Auto Body||8/93||33||ND-7395||ND-70%||ND-1.9|
ppm-parts per million
asbestos reported in percent by volume
Housatonic Boat Club/Shore Road Area
In April and May 1993, surface soil sampling was done in eleven locations at the Housatonic BoatClub property and near the entrance to the club on Shore Road. All samples were screened forlead, asbestos and PCBs. These data were evaluated as part of the May 1993 Public HealthAdvisory.
In June 1993, additional surface soil sampling was conducted on the west and east sides of ShoreRoad and near the monument to the southeast of the club. This sampling was done to furtherdefine the extent of surface soil contamination around the Boat Club and Shore Road. The mostsignificant contamination was identified on the west side of Shore Road.
In September 1993 surface soil sampling was conducted to further define the extent ofcontamination on the eastern side of Shore Road. Contamination was found at very high levels.
|Housatonic Boat Club||4-5/93||11||ND->10,000||ND-90%||ND-108|
|west sideShore Rd||6/93||14||90-630||ND-8%||ND-1|
|Shore Road HousatonicBoat Club and ShakespeareTheater||6/93||18||ND-1907||ND-30%||ND-18|
|Northeast Portion ofProperty||8/93||23||ND-3,300||ND-50%||ND-16|
|west side Shore Rd||8/93||8||70-140||ND||ND|
|east side Shore Rd||9/93||27||143-25,300||ND-50%||0.03-121|
ppm-parts per million
asbestos reported in percent by volume
Four residential properties located near the Housatonic Boat Club were sampled. One home had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
Raybestos Memorial Field and Adjacent Properties
In April and May 1993, surface soil samples were collected from residential properties locatedadjacent to the Raybestos Memorial Field. Lead on one property was as high as 150,000 ppm. These data were evaluated as part of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory. In June 1993,additional surface soil sampling was conducted on the playing field and the cement bleachers.
Table 9 provides a summary of these sampling events.
|ball field and bleachers||6/93||43||ND-340||ND-3%||ND-2|
ppm-parts per million
asbestos reported in percent by volume
Approximately 50 residential properties located adjacent to the Raybestos Memorial Field were sampled. These properties are located on Patterson Avenue, Clinton Avenue, LongbrookAvenue, Woodside Terrace, Horace Street, River Road, Peard Terrace, and Sidney Street. Onehome had surface soil contamination present at levels posing an imminent health threat. Eighthomes had surface soil contamination present at levels posing a health threat and 4 had surfacesoil contamination present at levels posing a possible health threat.
The DEP conducted a well survey to identify any private wells near known waste areas. (SeeAppendix F-Health Consultation/Private Well Survey) Fifteen private wells were identified. Fourwells were located within a one-mile radius of Wooster Junior High School, one well was locatedwithin one mile of the 4th and 5th Avenue site, one well was located within one mile of theRaymark facility, upgradient, and two wells were located between one and two miles of knownwaste areas and seven wells were located 2.5-3.5 miles from known waste areas.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted at Wooster Junior High School to determine if soilcontamination was leaching into the groundwater. Four monitoring wells, MW1-MW4, wereinstalled at Wooster Junior High School in the area which was defined as contaminated. A fifthmonitoring well was subsequently installed hydraulically upgradient from the contaminated area toreplace MW-4, which was damaged during the interim cap installation. In addition, a number ofwell points were installed. Only three of the well points yielded enough water for a groundwatersample.
In July 1993, wells MW1 through MW4 were sampled for dissolved lead and copper as well asPCBs, semi-volatile organics and asbestos. The concentrations of dissolved lead were below 0.01milligrams per liter (mg/l) and the concentrations of PCBs were below 0.0003 mg/l. There wasno detectable dissolved copper, semi-volatile organics or asbestos.
A second round of groundwater samples was collected from MW1, MW2, MW3 and MW5 inApril 1994. Samples were analyzed for dissolved copper and lead, semi-volatile organiccompounds and PCBs. No semi volatile organic compounds, dissolved lead or PCBs weredetected above instrument detection limits. Dissolved copper was detected at 0.01 mg/l in onewell.
As part of the ongoing health evaluation of residential properties, ATSDR and CT DPH requestedthat indoor dust samples be collected in homes previously determined to be an imminent healththreat or health threat because of outdoor surface soil contamination. This was arecommendation of the May 1993 Public Health Advisory. In August and September 1993, EPAcollected indoor dust samples from 17 homes, two of which were control homes used todetermine typical background concentrations of the contaminants. The samples were analyzed forasbestos, PCBs, pesticides and total metals.
EPA collected samples using a vacuum equipped with a high-efficiency particulate filter. Sampleswere collected from high-use and low-use areas. High-use area were defined as locations whereinfants and young children have access and where contact with dust was likely to occur. Low-useareas included closets and under and behind refrigerators, beds and sofas. If the volume of samplecollected from the high-use area was insufficient, the sample was combined with the low-usesample for analysis. If the combined sample was insufficient, a sample from the residents' vacuumcleaner was used instead. Table 10 lists the range of contamination detected in indoor dustsamples.
Lead was identified at levels of health concern in eleven of the homes. PCBs were identified atlevels of possible health concern in five homes and PCBs presented a health threat in one home. A Health Threat was determined if residents, especially children were exposed to contaminants at levels that could cause harmful effects. A Health Concern designation was issued for homeswhere residents, especially children, might be exposed to lead at levels that could cause a harmfuleffect. A Possible Health Threat was issued if there was the potential for exposure tocontaminants at levels that could cause harmful effects.
Indoor air sampling for asbestos was conducted at the Wooster Junior High School by the CTDPH Laboratory. This sampling was done to determine if children playing on contaminated soilhad tracked contamination in on their shoes. During this sampling, fans were used to disturb dust and make it airborne. No asbestos was found.
|SAMPLINGLOCATION**||INDOOR DUST SAMPLES/CONCENTRATION RANGE|
|LEAD ppm||total PCBs* ppm||ASBESTOS|
|High Use Areas||90.7-4,000||.2-14||ND|
|Low Use Areas||148-20,800||.2-2.3||ND|
*report all PCB species
**sampling location depended on the amount of sample collected for each area within a home
ppm-parts per million
The DEP sampled for oysters and mussels in 11 locations in the Housatonic River and FerryCreek. Samples were collected in June 1993 by dredging. Of the eleven locations sampled, nineyielded oysters and seven of these locations yielded mussels. Two locations within Ferry Creekare not naturally conducive to oysters and none were found. Samples were obtained by a randomselection. Between thirty and fifty oysters were collected from each location. The average age ofthe oysters was three years. Approximately 20 mussels were obtained for sampling. All shellfishwere analyzed for PCBs, asbestos and lead. The CT DPH and the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration performed split sampling for PCB analysis.
PCBs concentrations ranged from trace levels to 0.2 ppm with the majority of the samples wellbelow 0.1 ppm. Lead levels averaged 0.71 ppm for oysters and 1.0 ppm for mussels. Noasbestos fibers were found in any of the shellfish.
The EPA sampled fish from five inland water bodies: Beaver Dam Lake; Wooster Pond; BrewsterPond; Frash Pond; and Selby pond. These water bodies were selected due to their proximity toknown waste areas and their size and estimated fishing activity. Approximately 20 fish for two orthree species were sampled from each water body. Analysis included specific PCB aroclors(forms) and lead. Fish were also sampled for pesticides and mercury.
Table 11 presents the results of the fish sampling for each water body.
PCB concentrations ranged from 0.002 ppm in Brown Bullheads in Wooster Pond to 0.325 ppmin American Eels found in Selby Pond. Aroclor 1262, a commonly found PCB form found inRaymark waste, was the predominant PCB detected in this analysis. Chlordane was detected in afew species in three different water bodies. This contaminant is not related to Raymark waste andis likely the result of pesticide applications prior to the ban on chlordane use. Lead concentrationsranged from 0.006 ppm in largemouth bass found in Wooster Pond to 0.192 ppm in AmericanEels found in Beaver Dam Lake.
|BEAVER DAMLAKE||LARGEMOUTH BASS||20||.008||.024|
|FRASH POND||WHITE PERCH||20||.088||.022|
|SELBY POND||WHITE PERCH||8||.057||.025|
ppm-parts per million
blank box indicates contaminant was not detected
Sediment sampling was conducted at the following locations: Ferry Creek, Beaver Dam, BrewsterPond, Cooks Pond, Elm Street/Lot K, Frash Pond, Great Meadows, Housatonic Boat Club, SelbyPond, Wooster Pond, Birdseye Boat ramp and Tilo. Samples were analyzed for PCBs, volatileorganic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds and metals. Table 12 provides a summaryof these data.
|SAMPLINGLOCATION||HIGHEST PCBCONCENTRATIONppm||# SAMPLESCOLLECTED|
|Selby Pond||0.120 (aroclor 1268)||3|
|Great Meadow||0.100 (aroclor 1254)||3|
|Birdseye Boat Ramp||1.6 (aroclor 1254)||2|
|Elm Street/Lot K||32 (aroclor 1254|
2.1 (aroclor 1263)
0.52 (aroclor 1268)
|Housatonic BoatClub||6.1 (aroclor 1262)|
8.9 (aroclor 1268)
|Ferry Creek||1.5 (aroclor 1262)|
9.1 (aroclor 1268)
- ND-not detected
PPM-parts per million
Some pesticides were also detected in Brewster Pond. This is consistent with the fish data.Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in many of the sediment samples. ThePAH levels detected were not high enough to contaminate fish and present a public health risk if the fish were eaten.
Air sampling for lead and asbestos has been conducted before and during excavation activities atthe residential properties. This sampling is done during clean-up activities to ensure thatcontamination is not becoming airborne and presenting a health risk to workers or the neighboringcommunity. Neither lead nor asbestos have been detected at levels of health concern during anyof the air sampling events.
The QA/QC and general field operations for data collection and quality in the Raymarkinvestigations were reviewed. When reviewing surface soil data packages, ATSDR and CT DPHmade a number of requests if data was not complete. These recommendations included requestsfor additional samples if sampling did not appear to be representative and because detection limits were too high.
ATSDR and CT DPH have reviewed and commented on surface soil, indoor dust, ambient air andfish sampling plans. The health agencies worked with the environmental agencies to ensure thatthe data collected and analyzed as part of these investigations fulfilled the health agencies data needs.
Many of the manufacturing buildings on-site at the Raymark plant site are in poor condition andmay pose a physical hazard. In October, 1995 demolition of all the buildings at the site hadcommenced.
In this section an evaluation of whether people were, are, or could be exposed to contamination ispresented. A completed pathway exists if five elements are present:
- 1.) a source of contamination;
2.) transport through an environmental medium;
3.) a point of exposure;
4.) a route of human exposure; and
5.) an exposed population.
A potential exposure pathway exists if one of the five elements is missing but could exist. Anexposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the elements is missing and will never bepresent.
Table 13 provides an overview of the Exposure Pathways for Stratford and the five elements of each pathway.
If you are exposed to a hazardous substance, several factors determine whether harmful healtheffects will occur and the type and severity of those health effects. You can be exposed onlywhen you come into contact with the chemicals. You may be exposed by breathing the substancein the air, eating or drinking substances containing the chemical, or from skin contact with thesubstances. The dose (how much), the duration (how long), the route of exposure (breathing,eating, drinking, or skin contact), the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and yourindividual characteristics (age, sex, nutritional status, family traits, life style and state of health)determine whether a harmful health effect is likely to occur from exposure. Table 14 provides anoverview of the people most likely to be exposed to contamination in Stratford and the followingdiscussion outlines how specific groups of people were likely to be exposed.
Approximately 150 residents living in homes where surface soil was found to be contaminatedwere likely exposed to soil containing lead, asbestos and PCBs. These exposures stopped wheninterim and/or permanent remediation activities took place in 1993, 1994 and 1995.
In the past, exposures to lead, PCBs and asbestos may have occurred through ingestion ofcontaminated soils. The most significant exposures likely occurred during activities includingplaying, digging, gardening and other activities where direct contact with the soil was likely. Children are at greatest risk of exposure through ingestion because of increased hand to mouthactivities. Inhalation exposures may have occurred if soil particles and or contaminants,particularly asbestos, became airborne. While lead and asbestos are not absorbed through theskin, dermal exposure to PCBs may have occurred during direct contact with contaminated soil.
It is possible that contaminated soil was tracked indoors from shoes and pets. The residents ofhomes where contamination was found in indoor dust at levels of health concerns are likely tohave been exposed to lead and PCBs through ingestion and possibly through inhalation. Noasbestos was found in indoor dust. Young children are most likely to be exposed while playing on or near surfaces where dust may accumulate. Children often place hands and toys, that maybecome contaminated with house dust, in their mouths. Activities including dry dusting andvacuuming may have caused contamination in dust to become airborne.
EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS
|POINT OF EXPOSURE||ROUTE OFEXPOSURE||POPULATIONAT RISK OFEXPOSURE|
|Surface Soil||RaymarkWaste||surface soil||residential yards(1)|
|Indoor Dust||Contaminated Soil||dust||residential properties||ingestion|
|Ambient Air||Raymarkfacility||(air)||Raymark facility|
residential area near facility
(1) includes residential yard where surface soil was sampled and found to be contaminated
(2) Wooster Junior High School/North Playing Field, Raybestos Memorial Field, Housatonic Boat Club, Short Beach Park, Wooster park, Birds Eye Boat Ramp,Beacon Point Road
(3) Spada Area and commercial properties on Ferry Blvd. including: Blue Goose Restaurant, Shopping Center, Housatonic Marina, Dan Perkin's Subaru, VerasMotors, Morgan Francis Area, Fagan's Restaurant, Del Buono property, Stratford Marina, Salce property
(4) Raymark facility
|LOCATION and POPULATION LIKELY EXPOSED||POP. AFFECTED(ESTIMATE)||LEAD||PCBs||ASBESTOS|
|RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHSURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION||residents|
|approx. 150||surface soil|
|WOOSTER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL||school children(12-13yrs)||approx. 500/school year||surface soil||surfacesoil||surfacesoil|
|children within 1/4 mile||281|
|faculty and staff|
|RAYBESTOS MEMORIAL FIELD||ball players||past||unknown||surface soil||surfacesoil||surfacesoil|
|children within 1/4 mile||252|
|HOUSATONIC BOAT CLUB||members||270||surface soil||surfacesoil||surfacesoil|
|SHORT BEACH PARK||visitors||unknown||surface soil||surfacesoil||surfacesoil|
|SELBY AND BREWSTER POND||fish eaters||unknown||N/A||eels||N/A|
|VACANT LOT AND POND ON 4TH/5THAVENUE||population within 1/4mile||1385||surface soil|
|children within 1/4 mile||86|
|SPADA AREA/COMMERCIALPROPERTIES ON FERRY BOULEVARD||workers||unknown||surface soil||surfacesoil||surfacesoil|
|MORGAN FRANCISPROPERTY/ADJACENT AREA||workers||unknown||surface soil||surfacesoil||surfacesoil|
|RAYMARK FACILITY||workers||past||approx. 1,000||surface soil||surfacesoil||surfacesoil|
|population within 1/4mile||3310|
Approximately 150-200 public works employees are likely to have been exposed to contaminatedsoil containing lead, asbestos, and PCBs during maintenance activities at Wooster Junior HighSchool, Short Beach Park, Birdseye Boat Ramp, Beacon Point Road, and Wooster Park. Ofthese sites, the most significant contamination was found at Wooster Junior High School, northfield, with lead as high as 1797 ppm, PCBs as high as 44 ppm and asbestos as high as 30%. Interim measures have been instituted to prevent any further exposures.
Exposure to lead, asbestos and PCBs may have occurred through inhalation and ingestion ofcontaminated soils. While lead and asbestos are not absorbed through the skin, dermal exposuresto PCBs may have occurred when workers came in direct contact with contaminated soils. Lawnmowing, digging and excavation activities would have presented the most significant exposures. These exposures were likely to be intermittent in frequency occurring only when workers wereparticipating in activities at these specific areas. Some workers may also have been exposedduring covering activities performed at town sites in the early 1980's.
Children, faculty, and staff that played on the north playing field at Wooster Junior High Schoolwere likely exposed to contaminated soil containing lead as high as 1797 ppm, asbestos as high as 30% and PCBs as high as 44 ppm. This exposure stopped in 1993 when access to the northplaying field was restricted.
The most significant exposure likely occurred during sporting activities on the field that may havedisrupted surface soils. During these activities, exposure to lead, asbestos and PCBs may haveoccurred through ingestion and inhalation of contaminated soils. In addition, direct contact withsoil containing PCBs may have resulted in dermal exposure to this contaminant. An individual'sexposure to contamination varies depending on their activity in the contaminated area and thefrequency of that activity.
Members and guests of the Housatonic Boat Club may have been exposed to contaminated soilcontaining lead, greater than 10,000 ppm, asbestos as high as 90%, and PCBs as high as 108 ppm. In 1993, measures were taken to prevent any additional exposures.
In the past, exposure to these contaminants may have occurred through ingestion and inhalationof contaminated soils. People coming in direct contact with contaminated soils were also exposedto PCBs through dermal contact. Children who played in areas of contamination received themost significant exposures. In addition, landscaping, lawn mowing and maintenance of the boatclub grounds may have exposed those workers to contamination.
People who eat fish caught from Selby Pond and/or Brewster Pond may be exposed to PCBs andchlordane through the ingestion of contaminated fish. The highest average PCB level of 0.325ppm was found in American eel caught in Selby Pond. Chlordane, a pesticide unrelated toRaymark waste was detected in White catfish from Brewster Pond. The highest average level ofchlordane was 0.432 ppm.
Members of ball teams that played on Raybestos Memorial field and spectators were likelyexposed to contaminated soils containing lead, asbestos and PCBs. The field has been closedsince June 1993 to prevent additional exposures. While these exposures were intermittent, ballplayers may have been exposed to contamination through incidental ingestion and possiblythrough inhalation when contaminated soil was disturbed and dust was generated. Spectators mayhave been exposed through inhalation of contaminated dust or ingestion of contaminated soilwhile sitting in the bleachers or playing in the dirt near the bleachers.
Workers at the commercial properties on Ferry Boulevard may have been exposed to asbestos,lead and PCBs in surface soil. Interim measures have been taken to prevent any further exposureto surface soil contamination. The most significant contamination was found at the Blue GooseRestaurant, the Shopping Center, the Housatonic Marina, Dan Perkin's Subaru on FerryBoulevard and the Morgan Francis Property. Inhalation exposures may have occurred if surfacesoil became airborne; incidental ingestion may have occurred if workers got contaminated soil ontheir hands. Maintenance activities at these sites including landscaping and lawn mowing mayhave presented the greatest risk of exposure.
Residents of Stratford who visited and/or played at any of the known waste areas may have beenexposed to contaminated soil through ingestion, inhalation and direct dermal contact during theseactivities. The degree of exposure for an individual is dependent on many factors including theduration of exposure, the type of activity the individual participated in at the known waste areaand personal habits such as hand-to-mouth activities and frequency of hand washing. The mostsignificant exposures probably occurred to individuals participating in sporting activities likely todisturb surface soil. Again, children are at greatest risk because of increased hand-to-mouthactivity.
Workers at the facility were likely exposed to contaminated soils containing many compoundsincluding volatile organic compounds, lead, asbestos and PCBs. Workers who were involved inthe removal of contaminated soil for on and off-site disposal probably received the mostsignificant exposures. During these activities, workers are likely to have been exposed to lead,asbestos and PCBs through incidental ingestion and inhalation. Workers may have also beenexposed to PCBs through direct skin contact. Workers may also have been exposed to a varietyof compounds during manufacturing processes that likely required the handling of these materials and chemicals.
Contaminated soil, excavated from residential properties, is currently being stored at the Raymarkfacility. If the integrity of the soil storage area is breached or if workers are not following theapproved Health and Safety Plan which requires the use of personal protective equipment,workers on site may be exposed to contaminated soils.
While we do not have data on airborne contamination at the facility during its operation, it is verylikely that workers at the site were exposed to airborne asbestos as well as other contaminants. Information on the manufacturing processes indicate the possibility of worker exposure toairborne asbestos during transfer and mixing. In addition, solvents, which can evaporate, wereused in the manufacturing process.
It is possible that residents living near the Raymark facility were exposed to asbestos and othercontaminants during the years when the facility was in operation. No data exists to confirm this. There are, however, many anecdotal reports from residents during public meetings, of visible air contamination.
If contamination in groundwater beyond the Raymark facility property is shallow, contaminationin groundwater could volatilize and accumulate in confined spaces. We do not have enoughinformation to determine if there are residents located down gradient from the groundwatercontamination and if groundwater contamination is shallow enough to present such a concern.
People who trespass on the Raymark facility site may be exposed to contaminated soil. Exposurecould occur through direct contact with the soil, incidental ingestion and inhalation if soil particlesbecome airborne. A trespasser's exposure would vary depending on their activities at the site.
Utility workers may have been exposed to Raymark waste in the past if their work occurred inareas where Raymark waste was present. Exposure to lead, asbestos and PCBs may haveoccurred through incidental ingestion and inhalation of airborne dust. Dermal exposure to PCBsmay have occurred if there was direct skin contact with contaminated soil.
Exposure to contaminated soil may occur in the future if Raymark waste is encountered duringutility work and occupational safety and health requirements are not implemented and followed.
While citizens of Stratford have raised concerns about groundwater contamination at the Raymarkfacility, no one is or has been exposed to contaminated groundwater through ingestion. Nearly allresidents of Stratford receive public water from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Water Company. Fifteen private wells were identified during a private well user survey. These wells are not locatednear the Raymark facility or other waste locations. Section 19-13-B51m of The Public HealthCode prohibits the establishment of a private well in an area where there is access to a publicwater supply (See Appendix J). Since public water is available, no one should ever access this groundwater for potable purposes.
In this section we discuss the adverse health effects that could occur in people exposed to sitecontaminants. To understand the health effects that might be caused by a specific chemical, it ishelpful to review factors related to how the human body processes such a chemical. Thosefactors include the exposure concentration (how much) the duration of exposure (how long), theroute of exposure (breathing, eating and drinking, or skin contact), and the multiplicity ofexposure (environmental media, routes of exposure and combinations of contaminants). Onceexposure occurs, a person's individual characteristics such as age, gender, diet, general health,lifestyle, and genetics, influence how the body absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes the chemical. Together those factors determine health effects that exposed people might have.
Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos was used in more than 3000products due to its strength and resistance to heat and chemicals. Because asbestos does notevaporate, dissolve, burn or undergo reactions, it remains in the environment.
The primary route of exposure to asbestos is through inhalation. Inhalation exposure to asbestosincreases the risk of developing lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the thin membrane thatsurrounds the lung and other internal organs. Breathing air contaminated with asbestos can alsocause scarring of the lung tissue called asbestosis. It may take 10 to 30 years after the exposurefor health effects to appear.
Information on the health effects of asbestos in humans comes mostly from studies of people whowere exposed to high levels of asbestos in the work place. Inhalation studies that evaluatedseveral concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers have shown an excess cancer risk. Adversehealth outcomes associated with exposure are affected by the size of the asbestos fibers. Fibersthat range in size from 0.5 to 5 microns in diameter with a length to width ratio of 3:1 are mostlikely to be deposited in the lung.(9)
The health effects from swallowing asbestos are unclear. There is some evidence that ingestion ofasbestos fibers may lead to an increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer.(9)
Workers at Raymark Industries, Inc. are at increased risk of developing lung cancer,mesothelioma and asbestosis because of their past exposure to asbestos. In addition, somechildren and some adults that frequently played or participated in activities that disturbed soil inyards or public areas containing asbestos have an increased risk of developing mesothelioma andlung cancer.
People can be exposed to lead from swallowing soil that contains lead or breathing lead in air ordust. Lead can cause health problems in adults and children. However, children, infants, andfetuses are more sensitive to the harmful effects of lead because:
1) lead can more easily enter the brain of the developing nervous system of a child;
2) lead can transfer cross the placenta into the developing child;
3) children have more of a tendency to put soiled hands or toys in their mouths; and,
4) children absorb more lead in their body through their gastrointestinal tract.
Lead can harm the nervous system and may lead to decreased intelligence scores, attentiondeficits, slowed growth and hearing problems among children. Exposure to high levels of leadcan cause the brain and kidneys of adults and children to be badly damaged. Lead exposure inadults can cause behavior changes, decreased motor skills, and impaired concentration. Leadexposure may increase blood pressure in middle-aged men and may affect sperm or damage otherparts of the male reproductive system (10).
Pregnant women exposed to lead can experience premature delivery, decreased birth weight, and decreased neurological development and growth of the infant (14).
Lead in dust and soil have been found to be an important route of exposure to lead, however, leadin paint remains the most significant cause of elevated blood lead level among children (12,13,14). Blood lead levels are raised above background, about 5 ug/dl for every 1,000 ppm of lead in soilor dust. This estimate varies, the play habits of individuals on the contaminated soil andhand-to-mouth activities will affect the amount of contamination that one is exposed to (14). Inaddition, the chemical form of the lead may affect the amount of lead that is absorbed in the bodyonce exposure has occurred.
The amount of lead in the blood can be measured to find out if a person has been exposed to leadduring the past few months. Over time the lead is stored in bone or removed in the urine andfeces. Therefore, the blood lead test is a good indicator of more recent exposure to lead. Lead may start to harm the body at blood lead levels as low as 10 ug/dl (14).
Children who frequently played in yards or public areas contaminated with lead had an increased risk of having elevated levels of lead in their blood.
PCBs are a family of 209 man made chemicals once valued for their insulating and nonflammableproperties. These chemicals are very stable so they last a long time in the environment, are storedin fat tissue, and concentrate in the food chain.
People can be exposed to PCBs by eating contaminated soil, inhalation of contaminated dust, orby contact through the skin. Health effects of PCBs are the same for adults or children, however,children may be at greater risk from environmental soil contamination because children have agreater tendency to put soiled hands or toys in their mouths. Nursing infants are at risk becausePCBs accumulate in breast milk (11). Food, especially fish and animal fat, can be a major source of PCB exposure because PCBs accumulate in the food chain.
Exposure to PCBs has been shown to cause:
1) elevations in blood fats (eg. triglycerides, cholesterol);
2) increases in certain liver and kidney enzymes;
3) chloracne, a rash similar to acne, in humans; and,
4) and may have reproductive effects.
Animal studies indicate that ingestion of PCBs can lead to adverse immunological effects,including a decrease in antibody levels. The Department of Health and Human Services hasdetermined that PCBs maybe reasonably anticipated to be carcinogens (2,11).
Many people chronically exposed to PCBs have had no signs or symptoms of toxicity. The onlyovert sign of PCB exposure is chloracne which is likely only at high levels of exposure. PCBs can be measured in blood and fat tissue. PCB analysis of blood or fat tissue is not usuallyrecommended (16).
Some children and some adults who frequently played or worked in yards and public areascontaminated with PCBs may have an increased risk of developing cancer and liver damage due toPCB exposure. People who eat contaminated fish are also at increased risk.
Three percent of the total population of Stratford and 10% of the children in Stratford youngerthan age six participated in the voluntary blood lead screening program. Children younger thanage six represented only 27% of all participants. The participants reflect the approximate racial mix of Stratford according to the 1990 census.
Of the 1287 blood lead screening clinic participants, 10% (129) had screening blood lead levels of10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (ug/dl) or greater. Of the children younger than age6, 12% (43) had screening blood lead levels of 10 ug/dl or greater. Seventy-seven percent (99) ofthe participants with elevated screening results did have confirmatory blood tests done. Of theconfirmatory tests, a total of 13 were confirmed to be 10 ug/dl or greater. Six of the confirmedelevated blood leads were in children younger than age six. Confirmed elevated blood lead levelsrepresented less than 1% of all participants. Only 1.8% of the children who participated werefound to have blood lead levels of 10ug/dl or greater.
All of the participants with confirmed elevated blood lead levels reported visiting at least one ofthe known waste sites. Sixty one percent of the participants with confirmed elevated blood leadlevels reported visiting more than one of the known waste sites compared to 66% of theparticipants that did not have confirmed elevated blood lead levels. The screening program did not identify a higher than expected number of elevated blood leadlevels based on national statistics. The blood lead screenings were offered as a service to theresidents of Stratford to help address their concerns about whether or not they had high levels oflead in their blood. The results of the blood lead screening can not be used to determine if peoplewere exposed to Raymark waste or if Raymark waste affected people's health. The blood leadscreening was voluntary and did not represent all of those people who visited the waste areas. Inaddition, the program was offered several months after exposure to the waste was stopped (SeeAppendix K-Health Consultation/Blood Lead Screening).
Finally, there are many different sources of lead that an individual may be exposed to and the blood lead test is not specific to different sources.
The rates of cancer incidence in Stratford for 1958 to 1991 are what would be expected based onState rates for the majority of the cancer sites studied. Cancer of the brain, breast, kidney, liver,lung, rectum, testis; and non Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, and soft tissue sarcoma werestudied and were found to be similar to State cancer rates. Information on cancer cases wasgathered using the Connecticut Tumor Registry. Also, for these sites there were no noticeablepatterns in the cancer rates. The rates fluctuated near the state rates during the years studied. There were some differences in the Stratford and state rates between males and females, however,none of these differences are statistically significant.
For bladder cancer, mesothelioma, and the total of all cancer sites combined there were somedifferences in Stratford rates in comparison to State of Connecticut rates. The rate of bladdercancer among Stratford residents was 14 percent higher than the state rate. The most commonrisk factors associated with the development of bladder cancer are certain occupational exposures(including working with benzidine based dyes or workers who manufactured rubber), history offrequent bladder infections, and smoking. Some studies have also linked bladder cancer withdrinking water that has high levels of chlorination by-products.
For mesothelioma there were five more cases than would be expected based on state rates from1958 to 1991. Mesothelioma is a very rare cancer of the lining of the lung that is associated withexposure to asbestos. This tumor is most commonly linked with persons who had been exposedto asbestos at their job. While the rate of mesothelioma was higher in Stratford than the State, thenumber of cases was small.
The rate of cancer for all types or sites combined in Stratford was similar to the State ofConnecticut when added together for the 34 year study period, however, when broken into fiveyear time periods the rate of cancer seemed to increase slightly in comparison to State ratesduring this time period. For all sites combined, the cancer rate was 10 percent less than staterates at the beginning of the study period in 1958, while the cancer rate was eight percent greaterthan state rates at the end of the study period in 1991.
CT DPH also reviewed more detailed information on cancers that occurred to persons less than25 years of age. Records in the Tumor Registry were reviewed to determine if there is any typeof cancer that was more likely to be diagnosed among the younger persons. For the period 1958to 1991 there were a total of 130 cases of cancer among persons less than 25 years of age while it was expected that 107 cases would occur. While there was a 22 percent increase in the numberof cancers among younger persons there was no apparent pattern in the type of cancers thatoccurred among this age group. No one cancer type demonstrated a significant excess of cases. Since no one type of cancer was more common among this group it is less likely to indicate acommon cause (See Appendix L-Cancer Incidence Study).
The cancer incidence studies were done to determine if cancer rates in Stratford were elevatedwhen compared to State rates. The results cannot be used to determine if people were exposed toRaymark waste or if Raymark waste is causing an increase in the cancer rates.
Three years of birth defects data were evaluated. Stratford rates were compared to state rates fortwenty birth defects. No birth defect stood out as excessive in Stratford. Although slightlyelevated rates of cleft lip and palate and musculoskeletal anomalies were observed, they were notstatistically significant (See Appendix M-CT DPH Memo-Birth Defects in Stratford-1983,1985, 1986).