PETITIONED PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
AIR QUALITY
WALLINGFORD, NEW HAVEN COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
The Air Quality Petition Site, which is the Town of Wallingford,Connecticut, is considered an indeterminate public health hazarddue to the lack of data on the levels of contaminants in ambientair. Relatively large amounts of pollutants are being releasedfrom automotive, industrial, and other sources in the Wallingfordarea. There is a potential for exposures of health significancebased on the amounts of contaminants, and the presence ofconditions that would maximize pollutant levels. Thoseconditions are that Wallingford is in a valley and temperatureinversions occur. The potential for exposures of healthsignificance could be evaluated by long-term monitoring of theair in Wallingford.
The data available to ATSDR suggest that the complaints expressedby SPARROW and other Wallingford citizens are limited to a smallportion of the 40,000 or more residents of Wallingford. Datawere insufficient to link the complaints with any specific cause. However, there is a possibility that the reporting individualsare more sensitive to environmental contaminants than the generalpopulation.
The number of cases of cancer in Wallingford from 1964-1988 iswhat would be expected based on the rate for Connecticut, exceptfor buccal cancer and multiple myeloma. Numbers of those caseswere lower than expected compared to rates for the State.
The toxicologic data reviewed indicate that the chemicals inWallingford's air could cause many of the symptoms listed in thecomplaint logs kept by SPARROW members. However, nearly all ofthe symptoms would occur only after high levels of exposure. There is no indication from the limited air monitoring studiesthat high levels of exposure have occurred or are occurring.
During the development of this public health assessment, ATSDRdetermined that the following activities are necessary to furtherclarify and/or quantify the public health hazard at this petitionsite.
- A more thorough characterization of Wallingford air qualityshould be undertaken. To implement this, a panel ofinterested and knowledgeable representatives from theConnecticut Departments of Health Services and EnvironmentalProtection, the Town of Wallingford, SPARROW and/or otherconcerned citizens, the major industries in Wallingford, andthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be convened. ATSDR would be available, if requested, to assist the panel. This panel could help define the scope of such monitoring,and possibly share resources.
- The panel should address, as a minimum, the following:
- the number and types of parameters to be sampled thatwould provide meaningful insight into Wallingford's airquality;
- numbers, types, and locations of sampling stations to beincluded;
- sources of funds, labor, and other resources needed tocarry out the program; and
- project milestones and responsibilities for reportgeneration and data interpretation.
- Minimally, the monitoring program should include a network ofair monitors located strategically within the Town andoperated for at least a full year to reflect the full rangeof seasonal meteorologic conditions affecting migration anddispersion of air pollutants generated near or within theWallingford air basin.
- Complete local meteorologic data for the area should berecorded throughout the duration of air monitoring.
- The baseline monitoring program should also include analysisfor ambient air parameters (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogendioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead, othermetals, and inorganic chemicals) to serve as indicators ofgeneral air quality in Wallingford. That information wouldbe useful for better understanding the effects of localterrain and meteorology on the dispersion or concentration ofarea air pollutants, and might suggest areas warrantingcloser review. Such review could include specific point-of-exposure monitoring to support further, more detailedanalysis of the health implications of airborne pollutantexposures. That type of data could also be compared withsimilar data for other urban areas both within and outsidethe State of Connecticut.
- A mobile monitoring program should be considered to betterunderstand the nature and spatial distribution of organic airpollutants in the city. The array of organic compoundsselected for review should be representative of industrial,commercial, residential, and automotive emissions.
- If exposures of health significance are identified in themonitoring program suggested here, a symptom\prevalence orother appropriate epidemiologic study is suggested todetermine the impact of those exposures.
The Air Quality Petition Site, which is the Town of Wallingford,Connecticut, has been evaluated by the ATSDR Health ActivitiesRecommendation Panel (HARP) for appropriate followup with respectto health activities. Because of the potential for exposure toairborne contaminants, ATSDR is considering a program to educatethe community about the health effects and sources of airpollution. Studies of health effects possibly due to airbornecontaminants are not being considered at this time, because ofthe lack of air monitoring data adequate for determining exposurelevels. However, if data become available suggesting that humanexposure has occurred or is occurring, ATSDR will reevaluate thissite for any additional indicated follow-up.
Public Health Actions
Based on the data evaluated and the recommendations made by HARP,the following Public Health Action will be taken.
ATSDR will coordinate the convening of the panel recommended previously.
Public Comments
The public health assessment for the Air Quality Petition site,Wallingford, Connecticut was available for public review andcomment from July 20 through August 18, 1992. A summary of thecomments received can be found in Appendix Four.
Harvey Rogers
Environmental Engineer
Remedial Programs Branch
John R. Crellin, Ph.D.
Environmental Health Scientist
Remedial Programs Branch
ATSDR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
Louise House
Senior Public Health Advisor
ATSDR Region I
- Letter: Request for Health Assessment. From PD Galbraith(CDHS) to BL Johnson (ATSDR), December 15, 1987.
- Letter: Support of Galbraith Letter. From MG Fritz(Connecticut State Representative) to BL Johnson (ATSDR), January11, 1988.
- Letter: Request for Health Assessment. From BA Morrison(Congressman) to BL Johnson (ATSDR), June 5, 1989.
- Letter: Inquiry about Health Assessment. From JI Lieberman(U.S. Senator) to BL Johnson (ATSDR), May 18, 1989.
- Town of Wallingford Service Directory, 1990.
- Letter: Review of CDHS Activities regarding Wallingford. FromPD Galbraith (CDHS) to KJ Wagener (Connecticut Council ofEnvironmental Quality), June 5, 1985.
- Trip Report: Attend Public Meeting concerning Air QualitySite, Wallingford, Connecticut, July 6-7, 1989. From JE Abraham(ATSDR) to BL Johnson (ATSDR), July 24, 1989.
- Trip Report: Site Visit for Air Quality Health Assessment,Wallingford, Connecticut, September 4-7, 1990. From JR Crellinand HW Rogers (ATSDR) to BL Johnson (ATSDR), October 17, 1990.
- Connecticut Department of Health Services. EstimatedPopulations in Connecticut as of July 1, 1989. CDHS, Hartford,CT, Undated.
- Record of Call: H Rogers (ATSDR) to J Rosofsky (Water Quality,Wallingford), October 12, 1990.
- National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permits for Wallingford, CDEP files.
- Memorandum: Investigation of a Cluster of GastrointestinalIllnesses in Wallingford. From PJ Checko and G Cooper (CDHS) toJ Hadler (CDHS), June 26, 1984.
- Memorandum: Symptoms of Citizens near American Cyanamid Plantin Wallingford. From B Toal (CDHS) to PD Galbraith (CDHS),October 23, 1984.
- Memorandum: Review of Health Hotline Information fromWallingford for SPARROW. From D Denis and B Toal (CDHS) to PDGalbraith (CDHS), December 19, 1984.
- Memorandum: American Cyanamid Citizen Complaints. From NJBeloin (EPA) to S Perkins (EPA), March 21, 1985.
- Report: Brief Review of Wallingford Symptom Log. By DCMiddleton (ATSDR), undated.
- Letter: Description of Symptoms and Suspected Chemicals. From JA Nuzzo to A Siniscalchi (CDHS), May 18, 1984.
- Connecticut Department of Health Services. StatisticalSummary of Connecticut Infants All Races and Non-White, 1982-84and 1985-87: Infant Mortality, Low Birthweight, Teenage Mothers. Health Surveillance and Planning Division/CDHS, Hartford, CT. Undated.
- Air discharge permits for Wallingford, CDEP files.
- Trip Report: EPA Workshop, Identifying Toxic Hotspots usingthe Toxic Release Inventory, September 25-26, 1990. From SRodenbeck (ATSDR) to BL Johnson (ATSDR), October 3, 1990.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Chemical ReleaseInventory (TRI) Data for 1987 and 1988. In, Hazardous SubstanceDatabase (HSDB), National Library of Medicine (computerdatabase), 1990.
- York Services Corporation. "Ambient Air Quality Evaluation,Town of Wallingford, Connecticut", December 4, 1989.
- Lilly FW, "Ambient Monitoring for Airborne Organics in theVicinity of American Cyanamid, Inc., Wallingford, Connecticut", USEPA Region I, August 2, 1984.
- Lilly FW, "Ambient Monitoring for Airborne Organics in theVicinity of American Cyanamid, Inc., Wallingford, Connecticut", USEPA Region I, December 21, 1984.
- TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. "Air Monitoring Programfor Chemical Exposures in the Wallingford Area", for AmericanCyanamid, August 20, 1984.
- Lilly FW, "Ambient Monitoring for Airborne Organics in theVicinity of American Cyanamid, Inc., Wallingford, Connecticut",USEPA Region I, June 19, 1985.
- American Cyanamid air permits, CDEP files.
- Laboratory report for J Doolittle, Charcoal tubes,residential followup to odor complaints, June 26, 1985.
- Chronology, Air Sampling Events in Wallingford, Connecticut,1984 - 1985. CDEP, undated.
- Memorandum: Hydrogen sulfide from Wallingford Dump. From BToal (CDHS) to P Galbraith (CDHS) w/attachments, June 12, 1985.
- O.H. Materials Corporation, "Results of Air MonitoringStudies Conducted at American Cyanamid, Polymer ProductsDivision, Wallingford, Connecticut", August 3, 1988.
- Parallel Air Monitoring Report, Conrail and American Cyanamid,July 1988.
- CDEP, Review of Conrail Incident at American Cyanamid,w/attachments, October 21, 1988.
- American Cyanamid, Fenceline Air Monitoring Report,October/November 1988.
- Letter: American Cyanamid Wallingford Air Emissions,w/attachments. From L Bruckman (CDEP) to M Mushinsky (State ofCT. Representative to General Assembly), July 27, 1989.
- CDEP. Leachate & Wastewater Discharge Sources Inventory -South Central Coast Basin, 1988.
- Map: Leachate and Wastewater Discharge Sources for the SouthCentral Coast Basin, CDEP, March 1989.
- Map: Water Quality Classifications for the South CentralCoastal Basin, CDEP, April 17, 1985.
- Map: Water Quality Classifications Map of Connecticut, CDEP,1987.
- Map: Community Water Systems in Connecticut - 1984 Inventory,CDEP, 1986.
- Wallace LA. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM)Study: Summary and Analysis: Volume 1. EPA/600/6-87/002a.Washington, DC. 1987.
- Memorandum: Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring (AC)Evaluation - Summary or Results, From MW Bamberger (CDEP) toGroundwater monitoring file, September 25, 1989.
- Record of Call: H Rogers (ATSDR) to T Iott (CDEP, Bureau ofWater Management), October 12, 1990.
- American Lung Association. Pollution Primer. American LungAssociation. 1978.
- Ferris BG. Effects of air pollution on school absences anddifferences in lung function in first and second graders inBerlin, New Hampshire, January 1966 to June 1967. Am Rev RespirDis 1970; 102: 591-606.
- Samet JM, Speizer FE, Bishop Y, Spengler JD, Ferris BG. Therelationship between air pollution and emergency room visits inan industrial community. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 1981; 31:236-240.
- Ayres SM, Evans RG, Buehler ME. Air Pollution: A Major PublicHealth Problem. CRC Critical Reviews in Clinical LaboratorySciences. 1972.
- Schwartz J. Lung function and chronic exposure to airpollution: a cross-sectional analysis of NHANES II. Enviro Res1989; 50: 309-321.
- Letter: Evaluation of March 21, 1985 EPA Memo by EI White. From DR Brown (Northeastern University) to L Gokey (CDHS), July9, 1987.
- Vyner HM. Invisible Trauma. The Psychosocial Effects of theInvisible Environmental Contaminants. D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA. 1988.
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. PocketGuide to Chemical Hazards. Atlanta, Georgia: National Institutefor Occupational Safety and Health (DHHS/NIOSH/85-114), 1989.
- Industrial Hygiene Unit. Hydrogen Sulfide - the InvisibleKiller. Saudi-Aramco Oil Company. Dhahran. 1983.
- State of Connecticut, "Hazardous Air Pollutants", Section22a-174-29, PP. 29-1 to 29-38, February 1989.
- National Library of Medicine. Hazardous Substance Database(HSDB). Washington, D.C.: National Library of Medicine(computer database), 1990/1991.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated RiskInformation System (IRIS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA (computerdatabase), 1990/1991.
- Lewtas J. Experimental evidence for the carcinogenicity ofair pollutants. In, Tomatis L, ed. Air Pollution and HumanCancer. Springer-Verlag. Berlin. 1990.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Methylene Chloride. Atlanta, Georgia: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR/TP-88/24), 1989.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. Atlanta, Georgia: Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR/TP-88/03), 1989.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Toluene. Atlanta, Georgia: Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR/TP-89/23), 1989.
| RD-1. | Letter: From B.A. Morrison (Rep., U.S. Congress, 3rd District CT.) to H. Laing (Dir. Air Mgt. Div., USEPA I), June 18, 1984. |
|---|---|
| RD-2. | Letter: From H.F. Laing (Dir. Air Mgt. Div., USEPA I) to L. Bruckman (Air Compliance Unit, CDEP), July 3, 1984. |
| RD-3. | Letter: From M. Deland (Regional Administrator, USEPA I) to B.A. Morrison (Rep., U.S. Congress, 3rd District CT.), July 11, 1984. |
| RD-4. | Statement: Congressman Morrison's Statement of EPA Testing at American Cyanamid, July 17, 1984. |
| RD-5. | Letter: From E.J. Conley (Environmental Services Div., USEPA I) to L. Bruckman (Dir. Div. of Air Compliance, CDEP), December 21, 1984. |
| RD-6. | Internal report: Comparison of TRC air quality results with American Cyanamid's results, with attachments, From N.D. Yin (American Cyanamid) to B.W. Bussey (American Cyanamid), January 2, 1985. |
| RD-7. | Letter: From SPARROW (Wallingford citizens organization) to Community Relations Officer (American Cyanamid), w/attachments, April 26, 1985. |
| RD-8. | "Preliminary Assessment for American Cyanamid Company", USEPA I, January 13, 1986. |
| RD-9. | Memorandum: Wallingford ATSDR Review. From B. Toal (CDHS) to P. Galbraith (CDHS) April 11, 1987. |
| RD-10. | "Site Analysis - American Cyanamid Company, Wallingford, Connecticut, Volume I", USEPA, TS-PIC-86133, April 1987. |
| RD-11. | Health Consultation: "Review of Air Sampling and Complaint Log, American Cyanamid Company Site, Wallingford, Connecticut", J. Lybarger (ATSDR), August 14, 1987. |
| RD-12. | Letter: From M. Mushinsky (State Representative) to G. Zandri (Wallingford Town Council), September 29, 1988. |
| RD-13. | "Geophysical Investigation Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Landfill Closure", for American Cyanamid, by Malcom Pirnie, March, 1989. |
| RD-14. | "Summary of Air Emission Studies, American Cyanamid, Wallingford Plant", no author cited, April 11, 1989. |
| RD-15. | Letter: From K.E. Cichon (Malcolm Pirnie) to M. Bamberger (CDEP), re; groundwater monitoring and landfill closure plan for American Cyanamid, September 14, 1989. |
| RD-16. | "Guidelines for the Derivation of Water Quality Standards for the Protection of Human Health", Draft, CDEP, March 1990. |
| RD-17. | "Air Quality Study Programs, A Proposal for Wallingford, Connecticut", York Services Corporation, March 13, 1990. |
| RD-18. | "Groundwater Monitoring Report - December 1989, Landfill Closure", for American Cyanamid, by Malcolm Pirnie, May 1990. |
| RD-19. | Safety Rules for Visitors to the Wallingford Plant, undated. |
APPENDIX ONE-DATA TABLES FOR AIR QUALITY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
| SITE OF CANCER | TOTAL OBSERVED CANCERS | TOTAL EXPECTED CANCERS | SIR3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bladder | 153 | 168 | 0.92 |
| Bone/Connective Tissue | 36 | 30 | 1.21 |
| Breast | 533 | 517 | 1.03 |
| Buccal | 92 | 113 | 0.83* |
| Cervical1 | 202 | 200 | 1.00 |
| Brain & Other CNS | 59 | 62 | 0.92 |
| Colon | 365 | 389 | 0.93 |
| Kidney | 88 | 76 | 1.19 |
| Leukemia | 100 | 94 | 1.09 |
| Lung | 459 | 442 | 1.03 |
| Lymphoma | 101 | 109 | 0.94 |
| Melanoma & Other Skin | 72 | 82 | 0.89 |
| Multiple Myeloma | 23 | 34 | 0.69* |
| Ovary1 | 80 | 74 | 1.03 |
| Pancreas | 98 | 91 | 1.10 |
| Prostate2 | 233 | 252 | 0.92 |
| Rectum | 193 | 179 | 1.01 |
| Stomach | 95 | 105 | 0.92 |
| Testis2 | 20 | 17 | 1.12 |
| Thyroid & Endocrine | 29 | 34 | 0.86 |
| Uterus1 | 115 | 116 | 0.98 |
| ALL CANCERS | 3224 | 3386 | 0.98 |
EXPLANATION OF TABLE 1
1=Female only; 2=Male only; 3=Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR);This ratio is the standardized incidence rate for Wallingforddivided by the rate for Connecticut. * = SIR is statisticallysignificantly low at p = 0.05; Number of cases for each cancersite was provided by Connecticut Department of Health Services(CDHS) from data in the Connecticut Tumor Registry. CDHS alsoprovided the population figures used to calculate the age-adjusted incidence rates. Population data from Wallingford andConnecticut for 1975 were used in the various calculations. Allanalyses were done by staff of the Agency of Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR) using a Lotus 123R program provided byCDHS. This program calculates expected numbers of cases, age-adjusted incidence rates, and whether the results are higher orlower than what would be expected by chance.
| Range - | 1000 - 10,000 | 10,000 - 100,000 | >100,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | |||
| acrylonitrile | x (AC) | ||
| dichloromethane | x (AC,UL,BA) | x (AL) | |
| ethyl acrylate | x (AC) | ||
| ethylene glycol | x (AC) | ||
| formaldehyde | x (AC) | ||
| hydrogen fluoride | x (AL) | ||
| melamine | x (AC) | ||
| methanol | x (AC) | ||
| methyl acrylate | x (AC) | ||
| methyl methacrylate | x (AC) | ||
| n-butyl alcohol | x (AC) | ||
| nitric acid | x (AL) | ||
| styrene | x (AC) | ||
| tetrachloroethylene* | x (BA) | ||
| toluene | x (AC) | ||
| 1,1,1 trichloroethane | x (AL,AC,AM,CK) | ||
| xylene | x (AC) |
AC - American Cyanamid,
AL - Allegheny Ludlum,
AM - Ametek,
BA - BASF,
CK - C&K/Unimax, Inc.,
UL - Ulbrich Stainless Steel
Source: TRI data21 and York Report for Wallingford22
* It should be noted that dry cleaners can be a significant source oftetrachloroethylene, but are not presently required to report to the TRI data base.
| Sample Location | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound | ||||
| Benzene | 6 | 5 | 8 | 2 |
| Toluene | 50 | 17 | 10 | 6 |
| Xylenes | 66 | 7 | 7 | NR |
| Tetrachloroethylene | NR | NR | 3 | NR |
NR - not reported
Other tentatively identified compounds at levels below 0.5 ppb were also reported for this study.
| Range | Instantaneous | 10 Min. Average |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical | ||
| acrylonitrile | 0 - 55 | BDL |
| benzene | 0 - 120 | NR |
| ethyl acrylate | 0 - 250 | 32 - 50 |
| methyl methacrylate | 0 - 350 | BDL |
| styrene | 0 - 550 | BDL - 250 |
| toluene | 0 - 750 | 10 - 410 |
| formaldehyde | 0 - 235* |
BDL - below detection limit, NR - not reported
* Formaldehyde was measured only on AC property because the 110 volt powersource required to run the analytical equipment used for formaldehyde wasnot available at the other sampling locations. Sample times were from 3.65to 21.8 hour.
| Range | MAAC* | HLV+ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| benzene | <0.5 - 15.51 | 50 | -- |
| pentane | <1.0 - 293.9** | 2400 | 11,700 |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | <1.0 - 421.6 | 7000 | 7000 |
| heptane | <3.0 - 21.62 | 1700 | 1750 |
| toluene | 1.15 - 20.5 | 2000 | 2000 |
| xylene | <1.0 - 5.84 | 2000 | 2000 |
| butyl acetate | <1.0 - 8.81 | 3000 | 3000 |
| ethyl acrylate | <1.0 - 1.68 | N/A | 100 |
| hexane | <1.0 - 5.03 | 1000 | 1000 |
| ethyl benzene | <1.0 | 2000 | 2000 |
* Maximum allowable ambient concentration (MAAC) proposed by State in 1985 for 8-hour exposure.
+ Hazard limiting value (HLV), 8-hour exposure, Connecticut, Feb. 1989
(where more than one isomer is listed, lowest value is shown here)53
** could be greater than value shown
The MAAC and HLV values are included for comparative purposes. Theyare based on occupational exposure levels and may not representpermissible exposure levels for all individuals.
| Range | MAAC | |
|---|---|---|
| Sodium | 3.5 - 13.5 | 40 |
| Barium | <0.05 - 2.7 | 10 |
| Calcium | 1.2 - 5.6 | 40 |
| Zinc | 1.2 - 2.8 | 20 |
| Copper | 0.2 - 0.6 | 20 |
| Magnesium | 2.3 - 2.8 | 200 |
| Tin | <0.03 - 0.1 | 40 |
| Aluminum | 0.2 - 0.3 | 200 |
| Molybdenum | <0.03 - 0.1 | 100 |
Other metals, including lead, were checked in this study, but were below detectable levels.
| Applicable Standard | Measured Emission | |
|---|---|---|
| Particulate | 0.08 gr/dscf | 0.00006 gr/dscf* |
| Sulfur oxides | 500 ppm | 11 ppm |
| Nitrogen oxides | 700 ppm | 84.7 ppm |
| Hydrocarbons | 3 lb/hr | 0.99 lb/hr |
* grains per dry standard cubic foot corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide.
| Range | Ball field maximum | |
|---|---|---|
| Formaldehyde | <0.01 - 0.04 | 0.02 |
| AN (acrylonitrile)* | <0.01 - <0.02 | ---** |
| Toluene | <0.01 - 0.16 | 0.03 |
| Styrene | ND - <0.01 | ---** |
| MMA (methyl methacrylate)* | <0.01 - 0.02 | 0.01 |
| EA (ethyl acrylate)* | ND - <0.001 | ---** |
| Butanol | ND - 2.1 | ---** |
| Butyl acetate | <0.003 - 0.01 | ---** |
| Hexane | <0.004 - 0.02 | 0.02 |
* Chemical in parentheses assumed from acronym.
** Below quantifiable limit
| CHEMICAL | EN | NM | RE | GI | BE | SK | CV | CA | OEL PPM | REF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acrylonitrile | X | X | X | PC | 2 | 51,54-6 | ||||
| Dichloromethane1 | X | X | X | X | PC | 500 | 51,54-7 | |||
| Benzene | X | X | X | X | X | X | HC | 1 | 51,54-6,58 | |
| Butyl Acetate2 | X | X | X | 150 | 51,54 | |||||
| Ethyl Acrylate | X | X | X | 5 | 51,54 | |||||
| Ethyl Benzene2 | X | X | X | X | 100 | 51,54 | ||||
| Ethylene Glycol | X | X | X | X | 50 | 51,54-5 | ||||
| Formaldehyde | X | X | X | PC | 1 | 51,54-6 | ||||
| Heptane2 | X | X | X | 85 | 51,54 | |||||
| Hexane2 | X | X | X | X | X | 50 | 51,54 | |||
| HydrogenFluoride | X | X | X | X | 3 | 51,54 | ||||
| Melamine | X | X | ND | 54 | ||||||
| Methanol | X | X | X | X | 200 | 54-5 | ||||
| Methyl Acrylate | X | X | X | 10 | 51,54 | |||||
| MethylMethacrylate | X | X | X | X | X | 100 | 51,54 | |||
| Nitric Acid | X | X | X | X | 2 | 51,54 | ||||
| n-Butyl Alcohol | X | X | X | X | 50 | 51,55 | ||||
| Styrene | X | X | X | X | X | PC | 50 | 51,54-6 | ||
| PCE3 | X | X | X | X | X | PC | 50 | 51,54-5 | ||
| Toluene | X | X | X | X | 100 | 51,54-5,59 | ||||
| 1,1,1-TCA4 | X | X | X | 350 | 54,55 | |||||
| Xylenes | X | X | X | X | 100 | 51,54-5 |
1 = also known as methylene chloride
2 = found only in indoor air study (Table 6)
3 = PCE (perchloroethylene) is another name for tetrachloroethylene.
4 = 1,1,1-TCA is 1,1,1-trichloroethane
ND = No data was available for this parameter.
Explanation of the Headings for Table 9
For each heading, an X means that there are animal and/or humanstudies that indicate that this chemical can affect this organsystem.
EN = Irritation or damage to the eye, nose, and/or throat.
NM = This chemical can affect the nervous system and/or muscles. Effects can include headaches, dizziness, weakness, confusion,muscle twitching, and loss of coordination.
RE = The respiratory system can be affected. Effects can includeshortness of breath; wheezing; damage to lung, bronchial, ortracheal tissue; and water in the lung (edema).
GI = The stomach, and small and large intestine (gastrointestinaltract) can be affected. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting,diarrhea, pain, and cramps.
BE = This chemical can affect behavior. Symptoms can includetemporary or permanent loss of memory, insomnia, sleepdisturbances, depression, and nightmares.
SK = The skin can be affected. Effects can include irritation,rashes, drying, and loss.
CV = The heart, blood vessels, and blood can be affected. Effects can include increased and/or irregular heart rate, heartdamage, vasoconstriction (tightening of the blood vessels), anddecreased production of blood.
CA = This chemical has been classified as a carcinogen. HCindicates that it is strongly linked with cancer in humans basedon human studies. PC indicates the chemical has been classifiedas a probable human carcinogen based on animal studies and few orno human data.
OEL = Occupational Exposure Limit. This is the lowestpermissible airborne exposure level for workers expressed inparts per million (PPM). It is provided for comparisons of therelative toxicity of chemicals.
REF = References used to provide the information on thischemical.
REPORTED SYMPTOMS
| Nervous System | Eyes |
|---|---|
| Headache | Blurring |
| Tingling | Itching |
| Numbness | Burning |
| Extreme Mood Changes | Inflammation |
| Fatigue | |
| Hyperactivity Countered with Lethargy (Children and animals look drugged) | |
| Muscle Spasm / Facial Tics | |
| Tremors—Internal and External | |
| Ears | Nose and Throat |
| Inflammation | Running / Congestion |
| Dizziness | Itching |
| Pain | Swelling |
| Loss of Hearing | Hoarseness |
| Swelling in the Center of the Neck | |
| Lungs and Chest | Difficulty Swallowing |
| Swollen Glands | |
| Dry Hack | Inflammation |
| Deep Mucousy Hack | |
| Deep Bronchial Cough | |
| Breathing Difficulties | |
| Skin | Muscles and Joints |
| Hives | Pain / Aches |
| Eczema | Stiffness |
| Rashes | Swelling |
| Eruptions | |
| Digestive Tract | Circulation |
| Cramps | Heart Palpitations |
| Diarrhea | Chilling / Flushing |
| Canker Sores | |
| Abdominal Pain | Genitals / Urinary Tract |
| Vomiting | Bladder Infections |
| Rectal Pain / Bleeding | Vaginitis |
| Gas / Belching | Abnormal Periods |
| Nausea | Miscarriages |
| Miscellaneous | |
| Animals Hyperactive / Strange Behavior | |
| Swelling in Glands (i.e. groin) | |
| Lowered Alcohol Threshold | |
| Bone Pain | |
| Chest Pains | |
| General Weakness | |
| Filmy sensation in eyes | |
| Shuddery, jittery behavior—untouchable | |
| Wakefulness | |
| Abnormal sleep patterns | |
| Nightmares | |
| Intense stabbing pains | |
| Intense throbbing pains |
Typically, many of the symptoms are experienced in conjunction with each other in patterns. The behavioral symptoms may have appeared for years in children and sloughed off as "just as they are". The older children's reaction is even more subtle.
SUSPECT CHEMICALS
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
Butanol
Xylene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Mixed Xylenes
Acrylonitrile
Methyl Methacrylate
The chemicals most suspect would be those which would produce a narcotic effect.
APPENDIX THREE-FIGURES 1 AND 2 FOR THE AIR QUALITY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Figure 2. Town of Wallingford Map
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE AIR QUALITY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The Air Quality Public Health Assessment was available for publicreview and comment from July 20, 1992 through August 18, 1992. The Public Comment Period was announced in local newspapers. Copies of the public health assessment were made available forreview at the Wallingford Public Library, and the ProgramPlanning Office of the Town of Wallingford. In addition, thepublic health assessment was sent to 11 individuals ororganizations who had requested that they receive copies. Comments were received from one individual, a staterepresentative, and the Town of Walling
| COMMENT: | The commenter agreed with ATSDR's conclusions that the chemicals in or that could be in Wallingford's air could cause many of the reported symptoms, and that additional monitoring is needed. |
|---|---|
| RESPONSE: | ATSDR appreciates the support. |
| COMMENT: | It was suggested that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's (CDEP) list of air violations be compared to SPARROW's complaint logs to see if there is a significant correlation. |
| RESPONSE: | In 1990, ATSDR reviewed the CDEP's air pollution complaint logs and air quality notices of violation for the Wallingford area. None of the air pollution complaints, including those for 1984, resulted in a notice of violation. The only notices of violations were for technical violations of the law, not for actual releases of pollutants. Thus there is nothing to compare to SPARROW's logs of health complaints. |
| COMMENT: | The resource recovery plant is mentioned as a facility identified in an odor complaint; the report should note the plant was not yet built in 1984 when SPARROW's health complaints were recorded. |
| RESPONSE: | The public health assessment has been revised to mention this fact about the resource recovery plant. |
| COMMENT: | The panel of interested representatives you suggest to establish monitoring parameters should be expanded to include representatives of workers as well as management in the major industries in Wallingford. |
| RESPONSE: | ATSDR supports having workers participate in the panel as representatives of the public. |
| COMMENT: | Town officials should ban any more industry in Wallingford. |
| RESPONSE: | This matter should be addressed directly to the Town of Wallingford. |
| COMMENT: | The location of Wallingford in a valley would prevent easy dissipation of industrial emissions. |
| RESPONSE: | There is an extensive discussion in the public health assessment of this and other factors that might affect the air quality in Wallingford. |
| COMMENT: | There are six schools and a Little League field in a position to receive polluted air currents. |
| RESPONSE: | As mentioned in the public health assessment, the air quality around the Little League field was not found to be a problem in one evaluation. The overall quality of the air in Wallingford is not known which is why ATSDR is recommending comprehensive monitoring. |
| COMMENT: | The commenter and her family have experienced health problems which they associated with poor air quality. |
| RESPONSE: | Data from comprehensive air monitoring and on the specific health effects are needed to address this concern, and they are currently not available. ATSDR recommends in the public health assessment that a health study be done if the comprehensive monitoring identifies levels of air pollution that could be a health hazard. |
| COMMENT: | The commenter wondered whether the rate of miscarriages in Wallingford is greater than for other nearby towns. |
| RESPONSE: | ATSDR could not identify any database with the information that could be used to answer this question. |
| COMMENT: | Will ATSDR fund the monitoring they recommend in the public health assessment? |
| RESPONSE: | ATSDR believes that this problem can best be addressed through a multi-agency effort. As indicated on page 31 of the public health assessment, ATSDR is committed to convening a multi-agency panel on air quality in Wallingford. This panel, which would include representatives from local, state, and federal agencies, and also private industry, would have funding identification as one of its tasks. As stated in the public health assessment, one of the panel's purposes is to facilitate resource sharing among its members. |
ford.
Comments and responses are summarized below. The comment letterscan be requested from ATSDR through the Freedom of InformationAct.
1. This list of symptoms was part of a letter from Ms. Janice Nuzzo to Mr. Alan Siniscalchi of the Connecticut Department of Health Services dated May 18, 1984.
