BRIDGEPORT RENTAL AND OIL SERVICE
LOGAN TOWNSHIP, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
ENVIRONMENTALCONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
The tables in this section list the contaminants of concern. NJDOH evaluates these contaminants in the subsequent sections of the Health Assessment to determine whether exposure to them has public health significance. NJDOH selects and discusses these contaminants based upon the following factors:
- Concentrations of contaminants on and off the site.
- Field data quality, laboratory data quality, and sample design.
- Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with health assessment comparison values for (1) noncarcinogenic endpoints and (2) carcinogenic endpoints.
- Community health concerns.
In the data tables that follow the On-site Contamination subsection and the Off-site Contamination subsection (appendices), the listed contaminant does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects from exposures. When selected as a contaminant of concern in one medium, that contaminant will be reported in all media.
The Data tables include the following acronyms:
- CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
- EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
- RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide, calculated from EPA's reference dose (RfD).
- LTHA = USEPA's Lifetime Health Advisory
- NJ MCL =NJ Maximum Contaminant Level
- PPB = Parts Per Billion
- ND = Not Detected
Comparison values for public health assessments are contaminant concentrations in specific media that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation. These values include Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), and other relevant guidelines. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations based on a one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors. Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations that New Jersey or a Federal regulatory agency, e.g., EPA, deems protective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of 2 liters of water per day. MCLs are regulatory concentrations. EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause health effects.
The environmental contamination section includes sampling data from a variety of media sources including: groundwater (monitoring wells and residential wells); surface water; surface soil; subsurface soil; and sediments.
Local residential water supplies in the area of the BROS lagoon are derived primarily from the Upper PRM Aquifer and the Upper Middle PRM Aquifer. Due to this fact, the groundwater section of this public health assessment will focus primarily on these two aquifers.
The Upper PRM Aquifer is the water table aquifer. Originally the movement of groundwater in this aquifer was primarily to the north and west, however, due to the ongoing site remediation the local hydraulic gradient has reversed so that the groundwater currently moves back towards the lagoon (personal communication).
Groundwater flow in the Upper Middle PRM Aquifer is consistently toward the southeast, regardless of tidal stage or season. Contaminant concentration in this aquifer is strongest (most contaminants, highest concentration) towards the southeast, along the direction of the groundwater flow.
As of the writing of this report the extent of the contaminant plume in the Upper Middle PRM Aquifer has not been delineated (6). The conservative estimate of the distance of contaminant transport from the lagoon in the Upper Middle PRM Aquifer was calculated to be 5,000 feet, based on 40 years of travel time and an average of the hydraulic conductivity of this aquifer. Swedesboro-Paulsboro Road is about 5,000 feet from the BROS lagoon.
The characterization of the groundwater at the BROS site will be made by using data collected
from monitoring wells between September 17 and 25, 1990. This includes 12 on-site and 18
off-site wells (Figure # 6).
On-site groundwater samples were taken from 12 monitoring wells which were screened in the shallow, Upper PRM, and deep, Upper Middle PRM and Lower Middle PRM, aquifers. Samples were analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and inorganic compounds. Table # 3 shows the contaminants of concern detected in the on-site monitoring wells. Concentration ranges are given for both the shallow and the deep aquifers, because the direction of groundwater movement in these two aquifers differs.
1. Upper PRM Aquifer
Volatile organic compounds (VOC's) were detected in all of the on-site monitoring wells which were screened in the shallow , Upper PRM aquifer. VOC's common to several wells include the compounds benzene, xylenes, toluene, ethylbenzene, 1,2,4,-trimethylbenzene, carbon disulfide and chlorobenzene. Three of the wells (MW-1A, MW-13A, and S-11C) exhibited 2-3 feet of floating or light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL).
Although monitoring wells near the southern and eastern edges of the BROS lagoon show some VOC contamination, the two most contaminated wells in the Upper PRM aquifer lie north of the lagoon. These wells partially define the contaminant plume that trends north-northwest.
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC's) detected in the monitoring wells exhibit a distribution similar to the VOC's. Contaminants common to several wells include the compounds Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (BEE), naphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene.
Metals of concern in this aquifer are chromium, lead, and manganese.
2. Upper Middle PRM Aquifer
The three on-site monitoring wells screened in the Upper Middle PRM aquifer, (S-3C, S-2C, and S-11c), were heavily contaminated with volatile organic compounds such as, benzene, acetone, tetrachloroethane, trichloroethene (TCE), and methylene chloride.
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC's) detected in the Upper Middle PRM aquifer, well S-11C only,include: Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (BEE), naphthalene, and isophorone. Well S-11C in located on the southeastern edge of the lagoon.
Metals of concern in this aquifer are chromium and manganese. As with many of the other
contaminants the highest concentration of metals was found towards the southeast, wells S-1C,
S-2C, and S-11C.
There are no residential groundwater wells on site.
There were three areas near the BROS lagoon where surface soil samples were taken (AREA # 1, 2, and 3; Figure # 7). Area # 1 will be discussed under off-site contamination. This is due to the size of the spill, approximately 3 acres, and the obvious signs of visible oil contamination. Areas 2 and 3 will be considered on-site. These two areas were setup south and east of the lagoon to characterize and delineate the horizontal extent of contamination in documented and suspected overflow areas. Fourteen surface samples for chemical analysis were collected between June and September 1990 (7). Samples were taken of soil from zero to 1 foot below grade.
Results of the chemical analysis of these soil samples indicate that there was some contamination in each area sampled. Area # 2 was heavily contaminated with a wide variety of SVOC's and inorganic compounds including metals.
Area # 3, to the south of the lagoon, showed some contamination of SVOC's and inorganic compounds. The contamination, although similar to Area # 2, was contaminated to a much lesser degree.
These data indicate that there was lagoon overflow to the east of the site not only towards the
known overflow, Area # 1, in the northeast. Some contamination occurred to the south, but it
does not appear to be a major overflow.
Off-site groundwater samples were taken from 18 monitoring wells which were screened in the shallow, Upper PRM, and deep, Upper Middle PRM and Lower Middle PRM, aquifers. Samples were analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and inorganic compounds. Table # 4 shows the contaminants detected in the off-site monitoring wells. The concentration range is given for both the shallow and the deep aquifers, because the groundwater movement in these two areas is so different.
1. Upper PRM Aquifer
Site contaminants in the upper PRM Aquifer have been, until recent dewatering, moving parallel to the direction of the groundwater flow in that area. The most distant monitoring well in that direction, MW-7A, shows several contaminants of concern. Monitoring well MW-7A is less than 1,000 feet north-northwest of the lagoon. Specifically detected were 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, acetone, and methylene chloride. The original extent of the contamination plume has never been delineated, however; USEPA estimated that it was approximately 1,100 feet wide and 2,700 feet long. As previously noted the groundwater flow in this aquifer has been reversed by the remedial activities at the site.
2. Upper Middle PRM Aquifer
All of the off-site monitoring wells screened in Upper Middle PRM aquifer showed some VOC contamination. In addition to VOC compounds common to the Upper PRM Aquifer (benzene, acetone, etc.), the Upper Middle PRM samples contained the heavier chlorinated solvent compounds such as cis-1,2 dichloroethene, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and vinyl chloride. Wells S-2C and S-11C near lagoon and off-site wells MW-11B and MW-10B, more than 1000 feet downgradient, define a contaminant plume that tends southeast from the lagoon. Significant VOC contamination has been found in the furthest wells along this trend; the extent of the contaminant plume, therefore, has not been delineated. EPA estimates that the plume has extended approximately 5,000 feet downgradient.
Semivolatile organic compounds were detected in most of the off-site wells. The greatest total concentrations were found downgradient in well S-11C. Semivolatile contaminants detected in the Upper Middle PRM included: bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (BEE), naphthalene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (BEHP), and isophorone.
The metals detected with concentrations exceeding their comparison values were similar to the samples collected in the Upper PRM and included manganese lead, and zinc. Lead was encountered only in off-site well S-6.
In their Phase II RI/FS Work Plan, the EPA will attempt to further delineate the extent of the
contamination plume in the groundwater in the Upper Middle PRM aquifer. The plan is to install
one well along Route 295 (near S-6), and three wells at locations along Paulsboro-Swedesboro
Road. The locations are shown on Figure # 8.
Residential well data collected by USEPA during a 1985 survey of 11 residential wells in the area documented the presence of VOC's in the potable water supply of these residents. Numerous VOC's were detected, but few were quantified. Quantified VOC concentrations form these wells included: trans 1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE) (20 ppb); 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) (1.9 ppb); 1,2-dichloropropane (7.1 ppb); and 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA) (1.9 ppb).
Monthly data (March 1983 to November 1985) were consistent with the above concentrations; generally, VOC levels of less that 20 ppb were reported. However, one residential wells' data was a persistent exception and often revealed vinyl chloride concentrations that exceeded 50 ppb. The average detected vinyl chloride concentrations in this well was approximately 80 ppb (maximum reported was 170 ppb).
A limited amount of more recent data concerning residential wells was collected in September 1992 as part of the Phase II RI/FS, Table # 8. Specifically, 11 residential wells in the vicinity of the lagoon have been tested. Of these 11, wells two are known to be screened in the Upper Middle PRM Aquifer. These wells, (40 and 44) each revealed some contamination. Well 40 was found to have detectable levels of cis 1,2-dichloroethene (9 ppb) and trichloroethene (TCE) (120 ppb). The TCE is being found well above its ATSDR comparison value of 3 ppb (CREG). Well 44 was found to have detectable levels of PCB (Aroclor 1260) at the level of 0.8 ppb. The ATSDR comparison value for PCB's is .05 ppb, chronic EMEG. A resampling of well 44 did not detect PCB's.
Confirmatory resampling by the USEPA, January 1993, of the above contaminated wells has, so far, been inconclusive.
It is important to note that these wells, (40 and 44) are also located near a second superfund site
known as the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines Site (CLTL), Figure # 5. At least two of the
compounds, TCE and cis 1,2-dichloroethene, found in these residential wells are known
contaminants of the CLTL site.
Soils/Sediments(Overflow Area # 1)
As noted in the background section of this report, in the early 1970's the eastern dike of the BROS lagoon was breached and an adjacent 3 acre area was covered with a superficial layer of PCB contaminated oil.
USEPA, as part of the Phase 2 Remedial Investigation at the site, collected additional samples of soils/sediments in the area east of the lagoon. A total of 25 soil/sediment samples were collected along three transects, Figure # 9.
The analytical results of the materials taken from these transects show that this entire area is heavily contaminated with numerous compounds including PCB contaminated oil, grease and petroleum hydrocarbons. As expected, the concentrations of contaminants , generally, decreases in samples taken further east of the lagoon dike.
Twenty-four of 25 samples analyzed contained organic contaminants at or above detection levels, although some compounds are only tentatively identified or listed as unknown. Some of the numerous VOC's detected include (maximum levels) : toluene (160,000 ppb); Benzene (13,000 ppb); xylene (240,000 ppb); TCE (610 ppb); Tetrachloroethene (6600 ppb); 1,2-dichloroethene (19,000 ppb); chlorobenzene (4,500 ppb); ethylbenzene (44,000 ppb); and others.
Analyzed samples also included very high concentrations of SVOC's. The highest concentrations were found at sample location S-4 along transect 3 (Figure # 9). At this location, fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(k)flouranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene reached levels of 1,300 ppb, 3,000 ppb, 2,600 ppb, 1,200 ppb, 2,000 ppb, and 1,700 ppb, respectively. In the case of the SVOC's the concentrations along the 3 transects differs from the VOC's. The concentrations appear to be greatest along the central portion of the transect near the center of the wetland, rather than being greatest near the lagoon area as would be expected.
An analysis of inorganic compounds found in this area, indicated that 24 compounds were found
at detectable levels. These include metals and other inorganics of potential concern including
lead, cadmium, chromium, zinc, arsenic, cyanide, and barium.
Surface Waterand Sediment Sampling
Ten surface water and sediment samples were collected from three surface water bodies near the BROS lagoon, on June 18 and 19, 1990 (8). These water bodies include Gaventa Pond, Swindell Pond, and the Little Timber Creek. Figure # 10 shows the location of these samples.
With the exception of location GVP-1, samples from the two ponds contained no significant levels of contamination. Sample GVP-1, collected on the pond side of the oil boom, exhibited 112 ppb of volatile organic including: acetone (78 ppb); 2-butanone (26 ppb); and 2-hexane (6 ppb). Semivolatile organics detected include: naphthalene (2 ppb); anthracene (18 ppb); pyrene (14 ppb); and BEHP (68 ppb). In addition, PCB (Aroclor 1260) at 110 ppb and 314 ppb of lead were detected. The detection of the above referenced compounds indicates that contaminants are migrating under the oil boom and spreading throughout the pond.
Each of the surface water samples collected along the Little Timber Creek, including the
upgradient sample LTC-5, showed low concentrations of VOC's and SVOC's. These
contaminants include: acetone (6 ppb); methylene chloride (1 ppb); 1,1,1-TCE (1 ppb); benzene
(4 ppb); toluene (1 ppb); naphthalene (5 ppb); 1,2,3-TCE (.4 ppb). In addition, PCB (Aroclor
1260) at 2 ppb and 19.1 ppb of lead were detected. The number and concentration of
contaminants generally increased nearest (LTC-2, LTC-4) and downgradient of the site (LTC-1).
To date, there has been no sampling of any biota likely to enter the human food chain in the
vicinity of the BROS Site. A Rapid Stream Bioassessment was performed on the Little Timber
Creek to assess the impacts of the AWTS discharge on the creek macroinvertebrate community
(16). This work took place in the spring/summer of 1992, based upon a workplan dated April 8,
1992. NJDEPE believes results showed that BROS effluent discharge appeared to be impacting
Little Timber Creek to the extent that a shift in the species composition of the benthic
community, favoring pollution-tolerant species, had occurred.
C. QualityAssurance and Quality Control
In preparing this Public Health Assessment, ATSDR and NJDOH rely on the information
provided in the referenced documents and assumes that adequate quality control measures were
followed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity
of analysis and conclusions drawn for this public health assessment is determined by the
availability and reliability of the referenced information.
D. Physicaland Other Hazards
The site contains no obvious or discernible physical hazards. On site buildings and the lagoon
area are guarded by security personnel. The perimeter is fenced to prevent unauthorized access.
There are no known or suspected radiological or biological hazards associated with the site.
E. ToxicChemical Release Inventory Data
The NJDOH conducted a search of the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) in an attempt to identify any possible facilities that could be contributing to the environmental contamination near the BROS Site. The TRI is compiled by USEPA and is based on estimated annual releases of toxic chemicals to the environment (air, water, soil, or underground injection) provided by certain industries.
The TRI search for the years from 1987 to 1990 did not identify any reported emissions of
chemicals that were relevant to the contaminants of concern at the BROS Site.
To determine whether nearby residents are exposed to contaminants migrating from the site, NJDOH evaluates the environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. This pathways analysis consists of five elements: (1) a source of contamination; (2) transport through an environmental medium; (3) a point of human exposure; (4) route of human exposure; and (5) an exposed population.
NJDOH classifies exposure pathways into two groups: (1) "completed pathways", that is,
those in which exposure has occurred, is occurring, or will occur and (2) "potential pathways",
that is, those in which exposure might have occurred, may be occurring, or may yet occur. A
summary of all the completed pathways for the BROS site are summarized in Table # 1. The
potential exposure pathways are summarized in Table # 2.
Past exposure of residents living near the BROS lagoon to VOC's in residential well water are likely to have occurred from before 1983 and through 1987. In the past, VOC's had migrated from the BROS lagoon through the shallow groundwater system, the Upper PRM Aquifer.
Before connections to the public water supply were completed (1982 to 1987), all of the known
residents in the area were supplied with bottled water for drinking and cooking purposes. A
permanent source of water to 33 of these residents was provided by extension of the public water
supply pipeline in April 1987. During the period before the potable water line extension,
residents may have been exposed by drinking tap water by breathing air in the home that was
contaminated with VOC's released during the use of tap water for, purposes such as showers and
dishwashing and, through direct contact with VOC's in activities such as hand-washing.
TABLE # 1.COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
|EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS||TIME|
|POINT OF EXPOSURE||ROUTE OF EXPOSURE||EXPOSED POPULATION|
|BROS||Groundwater||Residences (Taps)||Ingestion, Inhalation, Skin Contact||Residents N
TABLE # 2.POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
|EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS||TIME|
|SOURCE||ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA||POINT OF EXPOSURE||ROUTE OF EXPOSURE||EXPOSED POPULATION|
|BROS||Groundwater||Residences (Taps)||Ingestion, Inhalation, Skin Contact||Residents||Past |
|Ingestion, Inhalation, Skin Contact||Residents, Trespassers||Past |
|Ambient Air||BROS, Inciner- ator||Ambient Air||BROS
|Ponds||Ingestion of Biota||Fish
The full expanse of the contamination plume at the BROS site has not been totally characterized. Contamination has been documented in off site monitoring wells and has been estimated to have moved as much as a mile from the site towards the southeast. It is not known the extent to which residents may have used this water in the past , how it is presently used, or how it may be used in the future.
Most of the concern for residential exposure to contaminated groundwater would come from persons using wells screened in the Upper Middle PRM Aquifer. Again, it is not known exactly how many residential wells in the path of the contamination plume are using this aquifer.
It is possible that there are residents who are downgradient from the BROS lagoon who drank
water from contaminated private wells and were chronically exposed to contaminants in those
wells. The actual length of exposure to those contaminants depends on when the off-site
groundwater became contaminated, which, in some cases, may have begun more than 30 years
In nonresidential areas near the Little Timber Creek and lagoon overflow area past and present exposures to elevated levels of contaminants in the surface soil and sediments via ingestion and skin contact, may have occurred. Future exposures in the overflow area are unlikely, but possible. This area is undergoing active remediation and is secured with a fence. Only workers and trespassers would have access to this area. Additionally, children and other residents could have future access to certain areas of the Little Timber Creek which could lead to exposure.
On site workers and nearby residents may potentially be exposed to airborne soil and dust
released during site remediation activities. Routine dust suppression should be sufficient to
minimize or eliminate this pathway.
As previously noted, the BROS Site has a Thermal Destruction Facility (TDF) which is being used during the site remediation stage to incinerated contaminated materials on site. The TDF is a state-of-the-art transportable incinerator.
With the incineration of contaminated materials there is always the potential of some discharge into the air. Such emissions could constitute a potential exposure source to area residents.
When properly operated, the levels of contaminants emanating from the BROS TDF should not
present a health concern. In addition, because the BROS TDF will only be operating for
approximately 2 years, its potential impact on the community would be short-term (9). During
the site inspection, off-site air monitoring equipment was noted, however, no air data was
supplied for this public health assessment.
There is anecdotal evidence that the two ponds, Gaventa and Swindell are used for recreation, particularly swimming. Past exposure to low levels of organic compounds as well as elevated levels of PCBs and lead may have occurred at the ponds and the Little Timber Creek. The extent to which residents or children may have played in the creek is unknown.
In a August 1991 addendum to their 1986 Health Assessment, the ATSDR concluded that the contaminant levels measured in Swindell Pond should not pose a health concern. This conclusion was based on soil and water samples taken during the summer of 1990 at the Swindell pond property.
Continued current and future exposures at these locations, particularly at Gaventa Pond, are possible until remediation is complete.
Both of the ponds and the creek have only been sampled at 10 locations, so the full extent of any
contamination has not been determined.
Since there are no data on the presence of any contaminants in biota, this pathway remains as a potential human exposure pathway. Residents may have been exposed to contaminants through the consumption of peaches from the adjacent peach orchard and fish caught in the nearby ponds.
Peaches could become contaminated either from direct uptake of groundwater by the fruit trees, the presence of contaminated dust, or through the use of contaminated irrigation water from Gaventa Pond.
Fish caught from the nearby ponds may also be accumulating toxic substances. As noted, contaminants have been detected in surface water and sediments of the ponds. Of particular concern are the levels of contaminants in the part of Gaventa Pond nearest the BROS lagoon. PCBs, for example, were detected at up to 110 ppb. PCBs are known to partition significantly from water to aquatic organisms such as fish. There is evidence that PCBs will biomagnify within the food chain.
High levels of toxic compounds in fish could be a concern for any residents that eat fish captured
from these ponds. More data on levels of contaminants, if any, in the fish are needed.
A. Toxicologic Evaluation
In this section we will discuss the health effects in persons exposed to specific contaminants, evaluate state and local databases, and address specific community health concerns. Health effects evaluations are accomplished by estimating the amount (or dose) of those contaminants that a person might come in contact with on a daily basis. This estimated exposure dose is than compared to established health guidelines. People who are exposed for some crucial length of time to contaminants of concern at levels above established guidelines are more likely to have associated illnesses or disease.
Health guidelines are developed for contaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. Examples of health guidelines are the ATSDR's Minimum Risk Level (MRL) and the USEPA's Reference Dose (RfD). When exposure (or dose) is below the MRL or RfD then non-cancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur.
MRLs are developed for each route of exposure, such as acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 to 364 days), and chronic (365 days and greater). ATSDR presents these MRLs in Toxicological Profiles. These chemical-specific profiles provide information on health effects, environmental transport, human exposure, and regulatory status.
The toxicological effects of the contaminants detected in the groundwater and other environmental media have been considered singly. The cumulative or synergistic effects of mixtures of contaminants may serve to enhance their public health significance. Additionally, individual or mixtures of contaminants may have the ability to produce greater adverse health effects in children as compared to adults. This situation depends upon the specific chemical being ingested or inhaled, its pharmacokinetics in children and adults, and its toxicity in children and adults.
In the pathways section of this document, it was noted that exposure to contaminants has occurred (through a completed exposure pathway) for some of the residents in the BROS area. Before residents were switched to bottled water (1983) and before they were connected to the municipal water supply (1987), exposure to low levels of several contaminants occurred through the use of drinking water, most notably to chlorinated solvents.
As discussed in the residential wells portion of the pathways section, two wells sampled showed
contamination with TCE and PCB, respectively. Emergency re-sampling by the USEPA was
unable to confirm the presence of these contaminants. These compounds will not be evaluated
1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) (11)
Exposure to 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) through inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion has occurred in BROS residents who used contaminated private well water before 1987. Exposure dose assessments assume that adults drink, on the average, two liters of well water per day, and children drink one liter of well water per day.
Presently there is no MRL or RfD for chronic oral exposure to 1,2-DCA. However, exposure doses calculated from the maximum reported concentration of 1,2-DCA (1.9 ppb) were well below the No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL) for animal studies presented in the ATSDR Toxicological Profile for this chemical. At such concentrations, it is not likely that non-carcinogenic adverse health effects would occur.
1,2-dichloroethane is considered by the USEPA to be a probable human carcinogen. The
calculated lifetime excess cancer risk associated with the oral exposure for 1,2-DCA is
sufficiently low so that no apparent increased risk of cancer should be expected. Exposure dose
assessments assume that adults (70 Kg) drink contaminated water for 33 years.
Exposure to 1,2-dichloropropane through inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion has occurred in BROS residents who used contaminated private well water before 1987. Exposure dose assessments assume that adults drink, on the average, two liters of well water per day, and children drink one liter of well water per day.
Based upon the maximum levels of 1,2-dichloropropane detected in potable wells at the site exposure doses calculated were well below the ATSDR's Minimum Risk Level (MRL) of 0.09 mg/kg/day for chronic oral exposure.
1,2-dichloropropane is considered by the USEPA to be a probable human carcinogen. There is
no current oral carcinogenic slope factor from which to calculate a lifetime excess cancer risk
(LECR) associated with the oral exposure for 1,2-dichloropropane. Data regarding any
carcinogenic effects in humans following oral exposure to 1,2-dichloropropane was limited. Oral
exposure to 1,2-dichloropropane at the calculated exposure dose would present no apparent
increased risk of cancer. Exposure dose assessments assume that adults (70 Kg) drink
contaminated water for 33 years.
1,1-dichloroethane (DCA) (13)
Exposure to 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA) through inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion has occurred in BROS residents who used contaminated private well water before 1987. Exposure dose assessments assume that adults drink, on the average, two liters of well water per day, and children drink one liter of well water per day.
Presently there is no MRL or RfD for chronic oral exposure to 1,1-DCA. However, exposure doses calculated from the maximum reported concentration of 1,1-DCA were well below the No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL) for animal studies presented in the ATSDR Toxicological Profile for this chemical. At such concentrations, it is not likely that non-carcinogenic adverse health effects would occur.
1,1-dichloroethane is considered by the USEPA to be a possible human carcinogen based on
limited animal studies. There is no current oral carcinogenic slope factor from which to calculate
a lifetime excess cancer risk (LECR) associated with the oral exposure for 1,1-dichloroethane.
Data regarding any carcinogenic effects in humans following oral exposure to 1,1-dichloroethane
was limited. Oral exposure for 1,1-dichloroethane at the calculated exposure dose would present
no apparent increased risk of cancer.
Vinyl Chloride (14)
Exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion has occurred in BROS residents who used contaminated private well water before 1987. For a period of up to 33 years for drinking and 37 years for other domestic uses. Exposure dose assessments assume that adults drink, on the average, two liters of well water per day, and children drink one liter of well water per day.
Based upon the maximum levels of vinyl chloride detected in potable wells at the site exposure doses calculated exceed the ATSDR's Minimum Risk Level (MRL) of 0.00002 mg/kg/day for chronic oral exposure. Studies with animals have shown that chronic exposure to low levels of vinyl chloride has caused liver damage. Health affects in humans is not well known.
There are data that show that animals fed low levels of vinyl chloride increased their risk of developing cancer. Vinyl chloride is considered by the USEPA to be a human carcinogen based on these limited animal studies. There is no current oral carcinogenic slope factor from which to calculate a lifetime excess cancer risk associated with the oral exposure for vinyl chloride.
There is very little data regarding carcinogenic effects in humans following oral exposure to
Vinyl Chloride, however, the most compelling evidence of its carcinogenic potential in humans
comes from occupational studies. Reports of greater than expected cancers of the liver were
reported in workers who were occupationally exposed to vinyl chloride. Oral exposure for Vinyl
Chloride at the calculated exposure dose would present a moderate to low increased risk of
B. HealthOutcome Data Evaluation
Health outcome data for the BROS site were not evaluated. Although completed exposure pathways for on-site contaminants have existed in the past, primarily through contact with contaminated groundwater, only about 33 residences were potentially exposed. Available databases would not yield observable results for a study population of this size.
Should the ATSDR and the NJDOH decide to do so, the health status of those residents whose
wells were effected by site related contamination may best be determined by individual case
C. CommunityHealth Concerns Evaluation
The primary community concern regarding the BROS Site, specifically the impact of the site on groundwater north and west of the lagoon, has been addressed through the introduction of a potable water supply to the area. Since the introduction of the public water supply community health concerns regarding water quality in the area have been minimal.
More recent community concern regarding the possible impacts on the groundwater southeast of the BROS Site are justified and will persist until the full extent of the contaminant plume has been delineated.
The issues concerning the public health implications of the on-site incinerator were addressed in a 1988 ATSDR Health Consultation. ATSDR concluded that a state-of-the-art incinerator, such as the BROS incinerator, are, when operated properly, capable of combustible destruction of organic chemicals without discharging concentrations of chemicals into the surrounding environment. Inorganic compounds can also be controlled with the proper technology.
No site related odors were noted during our site visit, however, residents have reported periodic
odor problems. It seems likely that these types of episodes will continue until the site is
completely remediated. There was insufficient air sampling data to evaluate the possible health
effects of these odors, if any, however, adverse health effects seem unlikely. This is due to their
infrequency and short duration.
At USEPA's request, the ATSDR (August 1991) performed an Addendum to the Health
Assessment on Swindell Pond to evaluate data collected during the Phase 2 RI/FS for possible
health effects. ATSDR concluded that the levels of VOC's, SVOC's, pesticides, inorganics, and
PCBs detected, in the pond and adjoining property, were below levels of health concern. This
conclusion, however, was based on a very small number of samples. For example, only two
surface water and two sediment samples were taken for the entire pond (Figure # 10).
Public Comment Period
The New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) conducted a comment period for the Public Health Assessment for the Bridgeport Rental and Oil Service (BROS) site from September 23, 1994 to October 28, 1994. The Public Health Assessment was placed in local repositories to facilitate commentary and reaction from the public at large. Additionally, the Public Health Assessment was circulated to the Gloucester County Department of Health for the purpose of soliciting commentary by local health officials.
A summary of commentary received by the NJDOH and associated responses are contained in Appendix C.