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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

SCOVIL INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
(a/k/a SCOVILL INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL)
WATERBURY, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT


The conclusions and recommendations in this health assessment are based on the dataand information made available to the Connecticut Department of Public Health and theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The Connecticut Department ofPublic Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry will reviewadditional information when received. The review of any additional data could changethe conclusions and recommendations listed in this document.


SUMMARY

The Scovill Industrial Landfill is located in Waterbury, New Haven County, Connecticut.The site was owned and used by the Scovill Manufacturing Company from 1919 to the mid-1970's for the disposal of ash, cinder and other waste materials generated by the facility. The site covers approximately 30 acres.

Beginning in 1941, portions of the landfilled area were subdivided and developed. The mostsignificant development activity occurred between 1950 and 1970. Today, approximately23 acres of the site are developed with commercial and multi-family residential buildings,two single family homes, paved areas and streets. The remaining seven acres areundeveloped. In 1988, excavation activities at the seven undeveloped acres, for a proposedelderly apartment complex, caused landfilled material to be brought to the surface.

In 1998, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) conducted aPhase I Environmental Site Assessment. In the Spring of 1998 the CT DEP removedcontaminated soil and additional capacitors that were brought to the surface during the earlystages of construction in 1988. In the Spring of 1999 EPA contracted with Roy F. Westonto conduct a Site Inspection which involved the collection of environmental samples.

The most likely route of potential exposure to environmental contamination is through directcontact with soils that may have become contaminated as a result of landfilling activities. This may occur through the incidental ingestion of soil that gets on hands or inhalation ofsoil particles that may become airborne. Other environmental media were sampledincluding indoor air and sediments. None of these media contained contaminants at levelsthat present a health risk.

Under current conditions and based on existing data, the site presents no apparent publichealth hazard. Most of the surface soil samples did not contain contaminants above healthcomparison values. The most commonly identified contaminants above comparison valueswere polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The levels found are not very different from levelsfound in soil in most urban areas. In addition, the potential for exposure is minimized due tograss cover and paving. There was no evidence of gardening on the site.

Soil samples collected from deeper soils, in general, had higher levels of contamination andthere are no data available for soils deeper than two feet-this presents an indeterminatepublic health hazard. If site conditions were to change, such that deeper soils became moreaccessible, people could be exposed to contamination whose concentrations and extent havenot been fully characterized. An undeveloped, seven acre portion of the site, referred to asthe Calabrese site, was found to contain very high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) in localized areas where landfilled capacitors had been damaged during excavationactivities-this represents an indeterminate public health hazard in the past. This portion ofthe site was the focus of an interim removal and capping activity in 1998. Approximatelyfour acres of the seven acre Calabrese site are currently fenced.

Site conditions should be monitored to ensure that the potential for exposure to contaminatedsoils does not increase and the site should be the focus of a more comprehensiveinvestigation to further delineate the extent of contamination.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) participated in four publicmeetings. Representatives from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CT DEP and theWaterbury Health Department were also present. During these public meetings, the CTDPH was available to respond to citizen's health concerns. Many of the early concernswere driven by the fact that there was no environmental sampling, except in the Calabreseportion of the site, prior to the 1999 Site Inspection. Residents were concerned aboutwhether similar levels of contamination were in their backyards. Many of these concernswere addressed as additional sampling was conducted. The CT DPH, in conjunction withthe Waterbury Department of Health, drafted and distributed three separate fact sheets as thesite investigation moved forward to help respond to citizens concerns. In addition, the CTDPH responded to specific questions at the public meetings. The CT DPH and ATSDRsponsored a public comment period on this document from mid-October through the end ofNovember to receive comments from the public. During the comment period, no commentswere received from the public. The CT DPH will continue to evaluate any environmentalsampling data collected from the site and work with the agencies to ensure that public health concerns and questions are addressed and answered.


PURPOSE AND HEALTH ISSUES

The purpose of this public health assessment is to review available environmental samplingdata and current site conditions to evaluate whether living and/or working on the ScovillLandfill site presents a public health hazard. As part of this evaluation, the pathways bywhich people may be exposed to environmental contamination are identified and evaluatedand community health concerns are addressed. This public health assessment is differentfrom an EPA risk assessment. Under Superfund, EPA conducts a risk assessment that willevaluate the need for environmental clean-up based on established regulatory criteria;whereas, an ATSDR public health assessment evaluates exposures at a site and determinesthe need for follow-up health actions. The Scovill Landfill site was proposed to EPA's National Priorities List (NPL), or Superfund, on May 11, 2000. This report fulfillsATSDR's Congressional mandate for conducting a public health assessment within one yearof EPA's proposing a site to the NPL.

Following the completion of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by the CT DEP inDecember 1998, it became apparent that this 30 acre area had been owned by the ScovillManufacturing Company and used for landfilling of ash and debris.[1]

Residents living on and adjacent to the site have expressed a number of concerns. Thesehave included: concern about past risks associated with playing on or visiting the Calabreseportion of the site; the safety of gardening or disturbing soils on site; the safety of drinkingwater; and, the impact of surface water runoff from the site to a public pond located inHamilton Park.


BACKGROUND

The Scovill Industrial Landfill is located in Waterbury, New Haven County, Connecticut.The site was owned and used by the Scovill Manufacturing Company from 1919 to the mid-1970's for the disposal of ash, cinder and other waste materials generated by the facility.[1] The site covers approximately 30 acres. The site includes Store Avenue, north of MeridenRoad, the southern end of Newbury Street and is bounded by Academy Avenue to the eastand Monroe Avenue to the west. (see Site Map, Appendix A) The Scovill ManufacturingCompany was located less than one mile southwest of the site.

The Scovill Manufacturing Company began operations in Waterbury around 1811,manufacturing primarily brass products including buttons, clasps and belts.[1] Thecompany also produced other metal products including: hose nozzles; lipstick cases; pens,photographic equipment and supplies, munitions, fuses, and injection molded plastics.

Beginning in 1941, portions of the landfilled area were subdivided and developed. The mostsignificant development activity occurred between 1950 and 1970.[1] Today,approximately 23 acres of the site are developed with commercial and multi-familyresidential buildings, two private residences and paved areas and streets. The remainingseven acres are undeveloped. (See Map, Appendix A)

The undeveloped 7 acre parcel is referred to as the Calabrese site. In 1988, excavationactivities for a proposed elderly apartment complex caused landfilled material to be broughtto the surface. These materials included capacitors, drums, sludge materials, metal wastesand demolition debris. Following complaints by local residents, the City of WaterburyHealth Department issued a cease and desist order requiring that no workers or companypersonnel go onto the site and restricting access to the public.[2] At this time, foundationshad already been poured. In October of 1989 and January of 1990, the CT DEP issued Orders requiring the investigation of wastes and their impacts on human health and theenvironment. Initially, Mr. Calabrese cooperated with CT DEP and hired an environmentalconsultant and had visible, leaking capacitors removed from the site. All of therequirements of these orders were not carried out and the property remained unchanged formany years.

In January of 1998, CT DEP staff identified two capacitors in soil piles during a site visit. CT DEP contractors removed these from the site in February of 1998.

On April 21, 1998 Jennifer Kertanis of CT DPH conducted a site visit at the Calabrese site. Representatives from the CT DEP and Waterbury Health Department were also present. During this site visit the following observations were made:

  • Site access was unrestricted by foot;
  • Foot and bike paths crossed the site in a number of locations;
  • A bolder blocked a potential vehicle access point on Store Avenue;
  • Footings for the abandoned construction project were present and very deep and large holes surrounded these footings;
  • There was graffiti present on the cement footings;
  • Standing water in the footing holes was discolored;
  • Piles of excavated materials were cluttered around the footing holes;
  • Within these piles were remnants of rusted drums, demolition debris, cinder blocks, and ash;
  • Two capacitors and/or parts of capacitors were seen on the surface of a waste pile;
  • Soil in some of the piles appeared to be stained; and,
  • Sampling flags were located in some of the stained soil areas where soil samples had been collected by EPA contractors.

In the Spring of 1998, the CT DEP conducted a partial remediation of the Calabrese site.These activities included the removal of 16 additional capacitors and rusted drums thatcontained nickel sludge. In addition, this site posed numerous physical hazards as theabandoned construction project left footings and dangerous holes on the property. Thefootings were backfilled and one foot of soil cover was placed over approximately 3.5 acresof the Calabrese site. A locked, chain-link fence surrounds this area of the Calabrese site torestrict access and signs are posted.

In July 1998, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Waterbury HealthDepartment developed and distributed a fact sheet summarizing what was found at theCalabrese site and what was being done to clean up the site.(See Appendix B-Site FactSheets) A public meeting was also held on August 5, 1998 to present this information toresidents and workers at the site.

In December of 1998, the CT DEP completed a Phase I Preliminary Assessment of theScovill Industrial Landfill. This review of public documents, records and files, supported thefact that the Calabrese area, as well as the 23 surrounding acres, had been used by ScovillManufacturing for a landfill. In March 1999, the CT DPH and the Waterbury HealthDepartment developed and distributed another fact sheet on the Scovill Landfill. Specialemphasis was placed on how residents could be exposed to landfilled material and how bestto reduce or avoid that exposure until such time as environmental sampling data wereavailable.(See Appendix B-Site Fact Sheets) A public meeting was also held on March 25,1999 to review the Phase I Assessment and emphasize the public health message of avoidingexposure until such time as environmental sampling data could be collected.

The Roy F. Weston, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team wasrequested by the Environmental Protection Agency Region I to perform a Site Inspection ofthe Scovill Landfill property in the Spring of 1999. The Site Inspection report provides apreliminary evaluation of site conditions to assist EPA with site prioritization.[3] Theinformation and data collected for this report is the primary source of environmentalsampling data from which this public health assessment is written.

Currently, about 316 residents live on site in thirteen apartment buildings.[3] There are alsoapproximately 50 workers who are employed by various small businesses located on thesite.[3] There are no schools located on the site. An adult daycare facility that provided care to approximately 25 clients per day with moderate to severe mental retardation was also located on-site but closed in 1999.


ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING DATA

All environmental sampling data reported here, with the exception of the historical data forthe Calabrese site, came from the Site Inspection conducted by Roy F. Weston. This SiteInspection occurred in the Spring of 1999 after removal activities at the Calabrese propertywere performed in 1998.(See Appendix C-Site Map and Sampling Locations)

Surface Soil Data Summary

Surface soil samples were collected from 41 locations within the Scovill Landfill boundary. These samples were taken from the first six inches of soil. Samples were not collected inareas of the site that are currently paved or covered by a structure. Samples were collectedfrom areas that had recently been disturbed (i.e., installation of a fence) or areas thatappeared to be stressed in some way (i.e., discolored soil, no vegetative growth). All soilsamples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organiccompounds (SVOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals and cyanide. Table 1. presents the contaminants that were identified in surface soil and the number oftimes the contaminant was found above comparison values.

Table 1.

Summary Soil Samples Collected from 0-6 Inches, Contaminants Identified Above Comparison Values
Contaminant Maximum Concentration Detected (ppm) Comparison Value (ppm) Number of Detects Above Comparison Value
benzo(a)anthracene 1.8 1 CT RSR 7
benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.7 1 CT RSR 6
benzo(a)pyrene 1.5 0.1 CREG 3
nickel 1,780 1000 RMEG child 1
chromium (not speciated) 12,900 200 RMEG child hexavalent 1
copper 27,000 2500 CT RSR 1
lead 621 500 CT RSR 1

CREG- cancer risk evaluation guide for 1x10-6 excess cancer risk established by ATSDR
RMEG- reference dose environmental media evaluation guide established by ATSDR, child indicates it was established to protect 10kg child at 200mg/day ingestion rate
CT RSR- CT Remediation Standard Regulations/Direct Exposure Criteria/Residential


Subsurface Soil Data Summary

Subsurface soil samples were collected from 41 locations within the Scovill Landfillboundary. The samples were taken from 6 to 24 inch depths. All samples were analyzed forvolatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides,polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals and cyanide. Table 2 presents the contaminantsthat were identified in deeper soil and the number of times the contaminant was found above comparison values.

Table 2.

Summary Soil Samples Collected from 6-24 inches, Contaminants Identified Above Comparison Values
Contaminant Maximum Concentration Detected (ppm) Comparison Value (ppm) Number of Detects Above Comparison Value
benzo(a)anthracene 6.2 1 CT RSR 11
benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.8 1 CT RSR 12
benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 0.1 CREG 7
Aroclor 1254 (PCB) 19 0.4 CREG (all PCBs) 1
Aroclor 1260 (PCB) 1.4 0.4 CREG (all PCBs) 1
arsenic 15.5 0.5 CREG 5
chromium (not speciated) 19,200 200 RMEG child hexavalent 1
copper 35,300 2500 CT RSR 3
lead 746 500 CT RSR 2
nickel 2,460 1000 RMEG child 1
vanadium 474 470 CT RSR 1

CREG- cancer risk evaluation guide for 1x10-6 excess cancer risk established by ATSDR
RMEG- reference dose environmental media evaluation guide established by ATSDR, child indicates it was established to protect 10kg child at 200mg/day ingestion rate
CT RSR- CT Remediation Standard Regulations/Direct Exposure Criteria/Residential

Indoor Air Sampling Summary

Indoor air sampling was conducted in six basement locations on-site using 24-hour SUMMAcanisters. These samples were incorporated into the Site Inspection at the request of theWaterbury and State Health Departments to determine if volatile organic compounds weremigrating from landfilled materials into the interior of on-site buildings. While there wereno previous soil sampling data to suggest that volatile organic compounds were present inthe landfilled material, the health departments identified indoor air sampling as a prudentmeasure to insure that indoor environments were not being impacted in this way.

Three unoccupied basement units at the Store Avenue Apartment complex, two occupiedbasement units within the LaurRay Apartment complex and one basement of a single familyhome were sampled. The air samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds and airconstituents including hexane, propane, butane, pentane, carbon dioxide, ethane, oxygen,nitrogen and methane. One sampling cannister was removed from its intended samplinglocation during the 24-hour sampling period resulting in invalid results. Results from thissampling cannister were not included in the evaluation. None of the other indoor air samplescontained any volatile organic compounds above health-based comparison values and theair constituents including carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen, were identified within typicalranges.

Historical Sampling of 7 acre Calabrese Parcel

Several soil samples have been collected from the Calabrese portion of the site in the past,prior to the 1998 removal activities. These sampling activities have generally consisted ofgrab samples of potential source materials, or materials that appeared to be questionablebased on proximity to a source, (i.e., capacitors or drums). These samples were collectedfrom the surface, however, depths were not reported. The Waterbury Health Department,the CT DEP and EPA were among those agencies that have collected this type of sampleover the years. The Calabrese portion of the site has never been sampled in anycomprehensive way.

Very high levels of PCBs (140,230 ppm) have been identified from these types of samples. In addition, elevated levels of metals including nickel, chromium, cadmium, barium andlead have been identified.


DISCUSSION - Adult and Children's Health

Exposure Pathways and Public Health Implications:

The public health implications of a site are determined by evaluating whether people at thesite have been or are being exposed to environmental contamination that may result inadverse health effects. People may be exposed to contamination through ingestion of wateror soil, inhalation of air or direct contact with soil or surface water. Whether these exposureswill make a person sick depends on the type of contaminant, the amount or concentration ofthe contaminant, the duration of exposure and the frequency of exposure. If exposure toenvironmental contamination does not occur, then the contamination does not present athreat to public health.

Exposures to environmental media at the Scovill Landfill site have been evaluated and arepresented in this section. These evaluations are based on existing data and current siteconditions. Future site conditions that include potential exposure to soils beneath the surfaceare not evaluated here-this is because the full extent and concentrations of contaminationbeneath the surface has not been characterized.

Indoor Air-Inhalation Pathway: While indoor air sampling was limited, indoor air qualitydoes not appear to be adversely impacted by landfilled materials. None of the indoor airsamples identified compounds above health-based comparison values. Indoor air quality canbecome contaminated if volatile organic compounds migrate from soil into basements and/or enclosed structures. No volatile organic compounds were identified in any of the soilsamples further supporting the indoor air findings.

Drinking Water-Ingestion Pathway: Drinking water throughout the site is provided by apublic water supply. This water comes primarily from reservoirs and is regulated andmonitored routinely. While the piping and water distribution system may lie in landfilledmaterials beneath the surface, it is unlikely that contamination could enter the system. Thepublic water supplied to residents and workers on the site is safe to use for drinking andother domestic uses. There have been incidents in which pipes have failed requiringreplacement. However, the positive pressure in the public water system would make it veryunlikely that contamination would enter the system. If precautions are not taken, there is thepotential for contamination to enter the water pipes during repair work. No private wellshave been identified within one mile of the site.

Surface Soil-Direct Contact/Incidental Ingestion: Exposure to contaminated soils throughdirect contact and/or incidental ingestion is the most likely exposure associated with site-related contamination. Surface and deeper soils have been found to contain somecontamination above health-based comparison values. Surface soils present the mostsignificant potential for exposure because soils in the top several inches are the mostaccessible. The most commonly identified compounds were polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons or PAHs. Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoroanthene and benzo(a)pyrenewere the PAHs identified in the 0-6 inch soil samples. The highest concentrations detectedwere in the range of 2-2.7 parts per million (ppm), which is above the CT Residential DirectExposure Criteria (CT soil clean up standard) of 1 ppm. The concentration of 1 ppm wasset using conservative estimates about the amount of the soil one would ingest (200milligrams per day (mg/day) for a child, 100 mg/day for an adult) and the length of time(365 days per year for 30 years) one would be exposed. Those types of exposures are notlikely for most people living or working on the Scovill site under current site conditions. Most of the Scovill site is grass covered or paved. There was no evidence of gardening onthe site and outdoor play by children appeared to be limited to common areas near theapartment complexes. In addition, while the maximum concentrations were used forevaluation purposes, maximum concentrations were not identified throughout the site and infact the majority of samples did not have concentrations above the comparison values.Exposure to these concentrations are not likely to cause adverse health effects for adults orchildren.

There was one surface soil sample that had elevated levels of nickel, chromium, copper andlead. Metals were not identified above health-based comparison values in any of the othersurface soil samples. While these concentrations are significantly above the comparisonvalues, this sample is in a heavily wooded and overgrown area, away from the residentialand commercial properties and it is unlikely that people would come in contact with the soilsin this area on a regular basis. In early December of 1999, the Calabrese fence was extendedto restrict access to this area further reducing the potential for exposure.

In the past, people who trespassed or played on the Calabrese portion of the site may havebeen exposed to elevated levels of PCBs and some metals. The most likely period ofexposure would have been from 1988 through 1998. In 1988, construction activities at thesite brought contamination to the surface. The site was not fully characterized and data gapsprohibit the determination of the potential health implications during this time. In 1998, thesurface contamination was removed, a foot of soil was placed on the site and a chain linkfence prohibits access. The most significant potential for exposure would have been topeople who actually came in direct contact with the contaminated soil while playing on thesite. The potential for adverse health effects from these exposures would vary depending onhow long one was exposed, the levels of exposure, and how one was exposed (ingestion,inhalation, skin contact.)

Deeper Soil-Direct Contact/Incidental Ingestion: In general, soil samples collected from 6-24 inches below the surface were found to have higher levels of PAHs and metals. Onesampling location, located within the fenced Calabrese portion of the site hadpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) identified at 19 ppm. There are no data available on soilsdeeper than two feet. Under current site conditions, the contamination in the deeper soil isnot a direct public health threat since it is not readily accessible. In other words, it isunlikely that current residents and workers are contacting contaminated soil at depth, on aregular and continuing basis, such that health effects from exposure would be expected. Ifinvasive soil activities were to occur, residents and workers may be exposed tocontamination that could contain higher levels of contamination. These invasive activitieswould include gardening or other activities that would require digging in the soil. Inaddition, workers who must disturb soil to work on underground utilities may be atincreased risk of exposure if precautions are not taken.

Evaluation of Community Concerns:

Is it safe to garden or disturb soils on site?

While surface soil contamination is not present at levels of public health concern, soilbeneath the first 6 inches does have higher levels of some contamination and there is no dataavailable for soils beneath two feet. For this reason, any type of invasive soil activitiesincluding gardening and digging are strongly discouraged. These activities would increaseones risk of coming in contact with any contamination that may be beneath the surface.

Is the water safe to drink?

Drinking water for all commercial and residential buildings as well as the two private homeson site is provided by the CT Water Company. This water is required to meet healthprotective standards set by the state and federal government. While pipes and the waterdistribution system may lay in landfilled materials beneath the surface, there is little if anychance that the water could become contaminated. A positive pressure is maintained in thepipes meaning that if there is a hole in a pipe, drinking water will leak out rather thananything leaking in. There have been some instances when water pipes have failed,requiring replacement. There is the potential for contamination to enter the pipes duringreplacement activities if precautions are not taken. EPA is working with the utilitycompanies to ensure that any work on pipes occurs in a manner that prevents infiltration ofcontamination into the pipes.

Is the pond located in Hamilton Park contaminated?

Limited data indicates that the pond is not contaminated. Carrington Brook formerly ranthrough the site from the north to the south. The brook was culverted and discharges to apond in Hamilton Park approximately three-quarters of a mile southwest of the site. Surfacewater run-off from the site is routed to a catch basin system that is believed to be part of theCarrington Brook drainage. The Carrington Brook is hard-piped through the siteminimizing the potential for site related contaminants to discharge into the Pond.


CONCLUSIONS

Under current conditions and using available data, the site presents no apparent public healthhazard. The only potential exposure pathway identified is exposure to contaminated soil. Most of the surface soil samples did not contain contaminants above comparison values. The most commonly identified contaminants above comparison values were PAHs. Thelevels found are not very different from levels found in soil in most urban areas and are notat levels likely to result in adverse health effects. The potential for exposure and associatedhealth effects is minimized due to grass cover, paving and the lack of evidence of gardening. However, exposure could increase if these conditions were to change or if other invasive soilactivities were to occur. Activities that increase the risk of exposure to soilsbeneath the surface present an indeterminant public health threat.

Soil samples collected from deeper soils, in general, had higher levels of contamination;however, there are no data available for soils beneath two feet. Based on the historic use ofthe site as an industrial landfill, it is likely that contamination lies much deeper than the 24inch samples that were taken. Utilility workers or people that must perform invasiveactivities may be at risk of being exposed to contamination that is present in the deeper soils.

Exposure to very high levels of PCBs and some metals may have occurred to people whoplayed on the Calabrese parcel from 1988 through 1998. The most significant exposurewould have occurred to people who came in direct contact with contamination. Becausesampling focused primarily on source materials, it is difficult to evaluate what people mayhave actually come in contact with throughout the site, therefore, an evaluation of healthimplications is difficult. This potential past exposure represents an indeterminate publichealth hazard. Current exposures to these contaminants have been stopped because thesource materials have been removed, a one foot cover of material has been placed over thearea, and a chain-link fence now prohibits access to this part of the site.

Drinking water is provided by a public water supply that is regulated and monitored-there isno current risk to residents or workers associated with drinking or using water. However,there is the potential for contamination present in soils to infiltrate the system during piperepair activities. The EPA is working with the utility companies to reduce this potential.

Limited indoor air sampling in the basements of homes located on the landfill does not indicate a problem associated with the migration of volatile organic compounds into structures. This finding is supported by the fact that no volatile organic compounds were detected in soils.


RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Residents living on the landfill site should avoid digging, gardening or disturbing soilsbeneath the surface.

2. The site should be monitored by the local health department and the CT DEP to ensurethat digging and invasive soil activities are not occurring.

3. Any invasive soil activities, including the repair of underground utilities, should bemonitored by the CT DEP and EPA to ensure that the work is done in a way that minimizesthe migration of soil and exposures to workers and others in the area.

4. The site should be the focus of a more comprehensive investigation to further delineatethe extent and degree of contamination and appropriate remediation needs.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

Actions Taken:

1. In July 1998, a fact sheet was prepared by the CT DPH summarizing the public healthimplications associated with the Calabrese portion of the site. This fact sheet was distributeddoor-to-door to residents living on or adjacent to the site by the Waterbury and State HealthDepartments.

2. In August 1998, a public meeting was held by the City of Waterbury, EPA, the CT DEPand CT DPH to discuss the Calabrese portion of the site, the health implications and futureplans for the area.

3. In March 1999, a fact sheet was prepared by the CT DPH summarizing the findings ofthe CT DEP Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. This fact sheet focused on howresidents and workers at the site could reduce or prevent exposure to landfilled materials onthe 30 acre site.

4. In October 1999, a fact sheet was prepared by the CT DPH summarizing the soilsampling results collected by EPA contractors in April, 1999.

5. In October 1999, a public meeting was held by the City of Waterbury, EPA, CT DEPand CT DPH to discuss the results of the EPA Site Inspection Report.

6. The fence around a portion of the Calabrese site was extended by CT DEP contractors inDecember 1999 to restrict access to the area of the site with elevated levels of nickel andother metals.

7. In June 2000, a public meeting was held to discuss the results of the Public HealthAssessment and the proposed NPL listing by EPA.

8. A public comment period on the Public Health Assessment was announced in localpapers and ran from mid-October through the end of November.

Actions Planned:

1. CT DPH will review and evaluate additional environmental sampling data collected forthe site.

2. CT DPH will continue to work with the Waterbury Health Department in responding topublic health concerns and questions.

3. CT DPH will continue to work with EPA, DEP, Waterbury Health Department and theutility companies to ensure that work on utilities occurs in a manner that protects workers and local residents.


REFERENCES

[1] McDaniel, M.W. (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection-Site Discoveryand Assessment Program). 1998. Final Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report forScovill Industrial Landfill, Store Avenue, Waterbury, Connecticut. December, 2.

[2] Tillman, U.J. and Jabbour, D.N. (City of Waterbury, Department of Health) 1989. Correspondence with Mr. Joseph Calabrese RE: Cease and Desist Order, March, 30.

[3] Roy F. Weston (Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team). 1999. FinalSite Inspection Report Scovill Industrial Landfill, Waterbury, Connecticut CERCLIS No.0002265551. December, 20.


CERTIFICATION

The Public Health Assessment for the Scovill Industrial Landfill was prepared by theConnecticut Department of Public Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agencyfor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approvedmethodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was initiated.

Gregory V. Ulirsch
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC

The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation(DHAC), ATSDR, has reviewed thisPublic Health Assessment and concurs with its findings.


Chief, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


PREPARER OF HEALTH CONSULTATION

Jennifer Carnes Kertanis, MPH
Epidemiologist
Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health
Department of Public Health


ATSDR Regional Representative:

William Sweet
EPA/New England


ATSDR Technical Project Officer:

Greg V. Ulirsch
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


APPENDIX A: Site Map

Site Map
Figure 1. Site Map


APPENDIX B: Site Fact Sheets

Appendix B, Page 1

Appendix B, Page 2

Appendix B, Page 3

Appendix B, Page 4

Appendix B, Page 5

Appendix B, Page 6



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. #