PETITIONED PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
MORSE CUTTING TOOLS
NEW BEDFORD, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
Figure 1. Morse Cutting Tools Site Location
Figure 2. Morse Cutting Tools Site Plan
Figure 3. Morse Cutting Tools Intro Map
Figure 4. Underground Storage Tank and Catch Basin Removal
Figure 5. Sampling Location Map
APPENDIX B -- PAST RESPONSE ACTIONS
Past Response Actions (1987 to 1998):
Date
|
Response Action
|
1987 | Morse Cutting Tools facility discontinued manufacturing activities. |
1990 | Morse Cutting Tools facility assets were prepared for auction. |
June 27, 1990 | The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) Hazardous Waste Division inspected the facility to determine its status relative to compliance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. MADEP noted that Morse Cutting Tools was in the process of closing out the operation and dissembling and/or removing the production equipment. |
July 18, 1990 | The MADEP issued a Notice of Noncompliance pursuant to RCRA regulations for improper labeling and storing of hazardous wastes on the site. |
November 1, 1990 | Harborline Engineering, Inc., released a Phase I report that included a visual inspection of the site, a review of local and state records, installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells, electronic soil screening, and laboratory analysis. The report concluded there was a substantial quantity of separate free product on the water table directly adjacent to the site (MW-2), and there was evidence of a release of oil and/or hazardous material from the site. The report stated that these site conditions may constitute an imminent hazard. |
1991 | The current site owner, 163 Pleasant Street Corporation, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. |
March 5, 1991 | Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES) completed an assessment of the free phase petroleum product at the site and determined that the free product is localized, not migrating rapidly, and could be relatively thin as compared with the thickness observed in the monitoring wells. |
April - May, 1991 | MADEP requested further investigation to confirm ABB-ES' findings. In response, ABB-ES excavated a 29-foot long test trench on Purchase Street approximately 10 feet downgradient of MW-2. ABB-ES found that visual evidence clearly indicated that free product had not migrated to the trench. ABB-ES reported that they believe that the presence of oil on the water table at the site does not pose an imminent or substantial hazard to public health and safety. |
February 1992 | The New Bedford Fire Department (NBFD) entered the facility to assess water damage from a broken sprinkler system pipe and noted the presence of hazardous substances. The NBFD immediately notified MADEP. |
February 5, 1992 | The bankruptcy trustee for the 163 Pleasant Street Corporation filed a "Notice of Intention to Abandon Property". |
February 27, 1992 | A MADEP, Southeast Regional Office (SERO), site inspection identified numerous potential hazards and hazardous substances stored on-site that could potentially cause exposure to nearby human populations, including the threat of fire or explosion. |
March 3, 1992 | Personnel from the EPA, the RCRA Emergency Response Group at MADEP-SERO, the NBFD, and consultants Roy F. Weston, Inc., conducted a site inspection and assessment sampling effort, including an air monitoring survey, as a part of a "Removal Program Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation". Several areas of concern were identified, including haphazard storage of chemicals and waste products like cyanide, oil, solvents, acids and asbestos in drums. |
March 26, 1992 | Hazardous waste warning signs were posted at the facility. |
April 13, 1992 | The New Bedford City Council held a public meeting to inform the residents of New Bedford about an upcoming removal action at the Morse Cutting Tools site. The EPA on-scene coordinator and representatives from MADEP were available to answer community questions and discuss concerns. |
April - June, 1992 | The EPA conducted a removal action at the site. This involved inventorying, staging, bulking, sampling, and transportation of various containerized wastes. The material was sent to disposal facilities or it was removed for recycling or reuse. Asbestos-containing materials reportedly remained on-site, as did various miscellaneous drums, vats, furnaces, and the like. |
1996 | The City of New Bedford erected a padlocked chain-link fence around the perimeter of the site to prevent unauthorized access. |
The MADEP secured an absorbent pad/plywood barrier to a portion of the East Building wall in response to the cutting oil "weeps" through the masonry wall from EPA Tank #1. | |
1997 | During 1997, initial remedial response actions were undertaken by the city of New Bedford and Haley & Aldrich, Inc. immediately prior to and during demolition of the buildings. |
November 5, 1997 | A draft "Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan" dated September 9, 1997, was presented for public review and comment at a public meeting. |
February 27, 1998 | The final IRA Plan was submitted, which incorporated comments as appropriate, from the public review and comment period. |
April 24, 1998 | Franklin Environmental Services (Franklin) obtained precharacterization samples of material contained in a tank and within a catch basin at the site. |
May 5-13, 1998 | Franklin pumped out, exposed, cleaned, and removed two 10,000-gallon bare steel, #6 fuel oil underground storage tanks (USTs). Franklin also removed associated below-grade piping, brick, and mortar manway access structures, and a concrete catch basin/oil water separator. Below-grade soils that showed black staining and a faint petroleum odor were excavated. An additional 960 gallons of groundwater that contained small, emulsified droplets of oil and discolored foam were removed by tanker truck during soil excavation. |
May 1998 | Franklin conducted passive soil gas screening, confirmatory soil sampling, exploratory soil boring sampling, and groundwater sampling in conjunction with the UST removal. |
June 10, 1998 | Tank bottom sludge and oily debris removed from the USTs and catch basin were contained in thirteen 55-gallon drums and transported off-site. |
June 22, 1998 | The oil-impacted soil was transported for off-site, cold asphalt batch recycling. |
August 11-13, 1998 | Six test borings were completed to assess the lateral and vertical extent of the free product in the vicinity of MW-2. |
August 26, 118 | Groundwater samples were collected from existing and newly installed wells. |
October 1998 | Soil cuttings from recent test borings were placed in a total of four 55-gallon drums for off-site disposal. |
A draft "Scope of Work Phase II - Comprehensive Site Assessment" was submitted for public review/comment. | |
December 1998 | A final "Scope of Work Phase II - Comprehensive Site Assessment" was released. |
Notes:
ABB-ES | Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. |
EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
IRA | Immediate Response Action |
MADEP | Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection |
NBFD | New Bedford Fire Department |
RCRA | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act |
SERO | Southeast Regional Office |
USTs | Underground Storage Tanks |
Pathway Name | Exposure Pathway Elements | Time Frame | ||||
Source | Media | Point of Exposure | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population | ||
Completed Exposure Pathways | ||||||
Air | Morse Tools | Indoor Air | Off-site (nearby homes) | Inhalation | Residents | Past; Current; Future |
Potential Exposure Pathways | ||||||
Groundwater | Morse Tools | Groundwater | On-site; Off-site |
Dermal; Ingestion; Inhalation |
Residents | Future |
Soil | Morse Tools | Subsurface Soil | On-site | Dermal | Workers | Past |
Asbestos Containing Materials | Morse Tools | Asbestos Containing Materials | On-site | Dermal; Inhalation |
Workers; Trespassers | Past |
Paint Chips | Morse Tools | Paint Chips | On-site | Incidental Ingestion; Dermal |
Workers; Trespassers | Past |
Water | Morse Tools | Tank Water | On-site | Dermal | Workers | Past |
Debris | Morse Tools | Miscellaneous Debris | On-site | Dermal | Workers; Trespassers | Past |
Tank and Catch Basin Material | Morse Tools | Tank and Catch Basin Material | On-site | Dermal | Workers | Past |
Soil | Unknown | Subsurface Soil | Off-site | Dermal | Residents; Workers | Current; Future |
Air | Unknown | Indoor Air | Off-site (St. James Place) | Inhalation | Residents | Future |
Eliminated Exposure Pathways | ||||||
Groundwater | Morse Tools | Groundwater | On-site; Off-site |
None | None | Past; Current |
Soil | Morse Tools | Surface Soil | On-site | None | None | Current |
Air | Unknown | Indoor Air | Off-site (St. James Place) | None | None | Current |
Lead Dust | Unknown | Dust | Off-site (property that was deleaded) | None | None | Current |
Table 2: On-site Groundwater Sampling
Contaminant | Concentration Range (µg/L) | Location/Year of Maximum | Comparison Value (µg/L) |
Acenaphthene | 0.4; 0.5 | B210-OW/1999 | 6,000 IEMEG (child) |
20,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Acetone | 6.0 - 38 | B203-OW/1999 | 20,000 IEMEG (child) |
70,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Anthracene | 0.1 - 110 | Compositea/1990 | 100,000 IEMEG (child) |
400,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Arsenic | 10 | B214-OW/1999 | 0.02 CREG |
50 MCL | |||
3 IEMEG (child) | |||
Barium | 340 - 12,000 | B214-OW/1999 | 700 RMEG (child) |
2,000 MCL | |||
Benzene | 1; 4 | B217-OW/1999 | 1 CREG |
5 MCL | |||
Bromodichloromethane | 2 | B203-OW/1999 | 0.6 CREG |
200 Chronic EMEG (child) | |||
700 Chronic EMEG (adult) | |||
2-Butanone | 10 | B217-OW/1999 | 6,000 RMEG (child) |
20,000 RMEG (adult) | |||
Chloroform | 2.2 - 30 | B203-OW/1999 | 6 CREG |
100 Chronic EMEG (child) | |||
Chloromethane | 1 | B217-OW/1999 | 3 LTHA |
400 CLHA | |||
Cyanide, total | 20 | B210-OW/1999 | 200 RMEG (child) |
200 MCL | |||
1,2-Dichloroethane | 6.6; 132 | MW-5/1990 | 0.4 CREG |
5 MCL | |||
2,000 IEMEG (child) | |||
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | 0.8 - 170,000 | B214-OW/1999 | 3,000 IEMEG (child) |
70 MCL | |||
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene | 0.51 | MW-4/1997 | 2,000 IEMEG (child) |
100 MCL | |||
Fluoranthene | 0.3; 0.5 | B210-OW/1999 | 4,000 IEMEG (child) |
10,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Fluorene | 0.4 - 190 | Composite/1990 | 4,000 IEMEG (child) |
10,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Lead | 3 | B211-OW/1999 | 15 EPA Action Level |
2-Methylnaphthalene | 0.1 - 8 J | Composite/1990 | None |
Methyl tert-butyl ether | 1.2 | MW-2/1997 | 3,000 IEMEG (child) |
10,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Napthalene | 0.9 - 15 | B206-OW/1999 | 200 IEMEG (child) |
700 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Phenanthrene | 0.9; 92 | Composite/1990 | None |
Pyrene | 0.2 - 22 | Composite/1990 | 300 RMEG (child) |
1,000 RMEG (adult) | |||
Selenium | 2 (2 detections) | B106-OW/1998 | 50 Chronic EMEG (child) |
200 Chronic EMEG (adult) | |||
Tetrachloroethylene | 5 (2 detections) | B208R-OW/1999 | 0.7 CREG |
5 MCL | |||
100 RMEG (child) | |||
Toluene | 0.6 - 2 | B217-OW/1999 | 200 IEMEG (child) |
700 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Trichloroethene | 0.7 - 33,000 | B214-OW/1999 | 3 CREG |
5 MCL | |||
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 0.83 - 20 | B210-OW/1999 | 12 RBC (n) |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | 1 (2 detections) | B217-OW/1999 | 12 RBC (n) |
Vinyl Chloride | 1.6 - 930 | B212R-OW/1999 | 0.2 EMEG (child) |
0.7 EMEG (adult) | |||
2 MCL | |||
Xylenes, mixture | 0.75; 1.6 | B217-OW/1999 | 2,000 IEMEG (child) |
10,000 MCL |
a "Composite" refers to a sample containing groundwater from 5 wells.
Table Notes:
CLHA = | Child longer term health advisory |
CREG = | Cancer risk evaluation guide |
EMEG = | Environmental media evaluation guide |
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
J = | Estimated value |
LTHA = | Lifetime health advisory |
MCL = | Maximum contaminant level |
RBC (n) = | Risk-based concentration (noncancer) |
RMEG = | Reference dose media evaluation guide |
µg/L = | micrograms per Liter |
Table 3: On-site Subsurface Soil Sampling Results
Contaminant | Concentration Range (mg/kg) | Location/Depth of Maximum | Comparison Value (mg/kg) |
Acenaphthene | 0.039 J - 2.3 | B210/2-6 ft | 400,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Acetone | 0.012 - 0.160 | B105/4.0-6.0 ft | 1,000,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Anthracene | 0.098 J - 6.9 | B213R/2-7.5 ft | 7,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Arsenic | 0.94 - 15 | B207/0.5-4 ft | 200 Chronic EMEG (adult) |
Barium | 5.5 - 120 | TP-1/4.3-5.5 ft | 50,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Benzo(a)anthracene | 0.042 J - 8.2 | B210/2-6 ft | 0.87 RBC (c) |
Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.041 J - 7.5 | B213R/2-7.5 ft | 0.1 CREG |
Benzo(b)flouranthene | 0.046 J - 9.1 | B210/2-6 ft | 0.87 RBC (c) |
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 0.052 J - 5.7 | B210/2-6 ft | None |
Benzo(k)flouranthene | 0.041 J - 5.5 | B210/2-6 ft | 0.87 RBC (c) |
2-Butanone | 0.007 - 0.045 | B105/4.0-6.0 ft | 400,000 RMEG (adult) |
n-Butylbenzene | 0.016 | TP-8/4.4-7 ft | 780 RBC (n) |
Cadmium | 0.35; 0.45 | Stockpile#1/NA | 100 Chronic EMEG (adult) |
Carbon disulfide | 0.001 J - 0.018 | B101/4.0-5.5 ft | 70,000 RMEG (adult) |
Chromium | 3.0 - 22 | B201/0-4 ft | 2,000a RMEG (adult) |
Chrysene | 0.044 J - 8.6 | B210/2-6 ft | 87 RBC (c) |
Cyanide, total | 11 | B216/0.5-4 ft | 10,000 RMEG (adult) |
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | 0.6 - 1.7 | B210/2-6 ft | 0.87 RBC (c) |
1,1-Dichloroethane | 0.003 J | B105/4.0-6.0 ft | 7,800 RBC (n) |
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | 0.001 J - 80 | B214/4.5-6.5 ft | 200,000 IEMEG (adult) |
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene | 0.001 J - 0.010 J | B105/4.0-6.0 ft | 100,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Ethyl benzene | 0.001 J | B101/4.0-5.5 ft | 70,000 RMEG (adult) |
Fluoranthene | 0.08 J - 20 | B210/2-6 ft | 300,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Fluorene | 0.46 - 14 | B213R/2-7.5 ft | 300,000 IEMEG (adult) |
2-Hexanone | 0.004 J | B101/4.0-5.5 ft | 3,100 RBC (n) |
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 0.06 J - 5 | B210/2-6 ft | 0.87 RBC (c) |
4-Isopropyltoluene | 0.013 | TP-8/4.4-7 ft | 7,800 RBC (n) |
Lead | 8.7 - 670 | B207/0.5-4 ft | 400b EPA Interim Soil Guidance |
Mercury | 0.073 - 0.21 | TP-1/4.3-5.5 ft | 7.8 RBC (n) |
2-Methylnaphthalene | 0.073 J; 0.4 | SP-1/2.5-4.5 ft | 1,600 RBC (n) |
Naphthalene | 0.15 - 0.6 | B217/4-6 ft | 10,000 IEMEG (adult) |
PCBs (Aroclor 1260) | 0.12 | B214/2-6.5 | 0.4 CREG |
Phenanthrene | 0.047 J - 41 | B213R/2-7.5 ft | None |
n-Propylbenzene | 0.17 J | B217/4-6 ft | 0.78 RBC (n) |
Pyrene | 0.038 J - 15 | B210/4-6 ft | 20,000 RMEG (adult) |
Silver | 3.2 | B101/12.5-13.0 ft | 4,000 RMEG (adult) |
Tetrachloroethene | 0.001 J | B101/4.0-5.5 ft | 7,000 RMEG (adult) |
Trichloroethene | 0.003 J - 40 | B214/4.5-6.5 ft | 60 CREG |
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 0.032 - 4.7 | B214/4.5-6.5 ft | 3,900 RBC (n) |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | 0.012 - 0.59 | B217/4-6 ft | 3,900 RBC (n) |
Vinyl Chloride | 0.009 - 0.052 | B105/4.0-6.0 ft | 10 Chronic EMEG (adult) |
Xylenes, mixture | 0.002 J - 0.19 J | B217/4-6 ft | 1,000,000 IEMEG (adult) |
a Comparison value provided is for hexavalent chromium.
b Comparison value provided is based on the EPA 'Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities' (Directive 9355.4-12) 1994.
Table Notes:
CREG = | Cancer risk evaluation guide |
EMEG = | Environmental media evaluation guide |
ft = | Feet |
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
mg/kg = | Milligram per kilogram |
J = | Estimated value |
NA = | Not applicable |
PCBs = | Polychlorinated biphenyls |
RBC (c) = | Risk-based concentration (cancer) |
RBC (n) = | Risk-based concentration (noncancer) |
RMEG = | Reference dose media evaluation guide |
Table 4: Concrete Tank Water Sample
Contaminant | Concentration (ppb) | Comparison Valuea (ppb) |
Chloroform | 1 J | 4,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Copper | 30 | 1,300 MCLG |
Zinc | 84 | 10,000 IEMEG (adult) |
a Comparison values listed in this table are for drinking water.
Table Acronyms:
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
J = | Estimated value |
MCLG = | Maximum contaminant level goal |
ppb = | parts per billion |
Table 5: Wood Pile Debris Sampling
Contaminant | Concentration (ppm) | Comparison Valuea(ppm) |
Acenaphthene | 5.2 | 30,000 IEMEG (child) |
400,000 IEMEG (adult) | ||
Anthracene | 13 | 500,000 IEMEG (child) |
7,000,000 IEMEG (adult) | ||
Benzo(a)anthracene | 24 | 0.87 RBC (c) |
Benzo(a)pryene | 17 | 0.1 CREG |
Benzo(b)flouranthene | 17 | 0.87 RBC (c) |
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 7.1 | None |
Benzo(k)flouranthene | 15 | 0.87 RBC (c) |
Chrysene | 21 | 87 RBC (c) |
Flouranthene | 63 | 20,000 IEMEG (child) |
300,000 IEMEG (adult) | ||
Flourene | 6.3 | 20,000 IEMEG (child) |
300,000 IEMEG (adult) | ||
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 7.3 | 0.87 RBC (c) |
Naphthalene | 5 | 1,000 IEMEG (child) |
10,000 IEMEG (adult) | ||
Phenanthrene | 56 | None |
Pyrene | 53 | 2,000 RMEG (child) |
20,000 RMEG (adult) | ||
Arsenic | 8.2 | 20 Chronic EMEG (child) |
200 Chronic EMEG (adult) | ||
Barium | 720 | 4,000 RMEG (child) |
50,000 RMEG (adult) | ||
Cadmium | 3.8 | 10 Chronic EMEG (child) |
100 Chronic EMEG (adult) | ||
Chromium | 130 | 200b RMEG (child) |
2,000b RMEG (adult) | ||
Lead | 840 | 400c EPA Interim Soil Guidance |
Mercury | 1.5 | 7.8 RBC (n) |
Silver | 3.4 | 300 RMEG (child) |
4,000 RMEG (adult) | ||
Aroclor 1242 | 2.3 | 0.32 RBC (c) |
a Comparison values listed in this table are for the soil medium.
b Comparison value provided is for hexavalent chromium.
c Comparison value provided is based on the EPA 'Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities' (Directive 9355.4-12) 1994.
Table Acronyms:
CREG = | Cancer risk evaluation guide |
EMEG = | Environmental media evaluation guide |
EPA = | Environmental protection agency |
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
ppm = | parts per million |
RBC (c) = | Risk-based concentration (cancer) |
RBC (n) = | Risk-based concentration (noncancer) |
RMEG = | Reference dose media evaluation guide |
Table 6: Construction and Demolition Debris Sampling
Contaminant | Concentration Range (ppm) | Comparison Valuea (ppm) |
Chloroform | 0.002 | 500 Chronic EMEG (child) |
7,000 Chronic EMEG (adult) | ||
Methylene Chloride | 0.009 | 3,000 Chronic EMEG (child) |
40,000 Chronic EMEG (adult) | ||
PCBs | 0.596 - 26.4 | 0.4 CREG |
TPHs | 1,219 | None |
a Comparison values listed in this table are for the soil medium.
Table Acronyms:
CREG = | Cancer risk evaluation guide |
EMEG = | Environmental media evaluation guide |
PCBs = | Polychlorinated biphenyls |
ppm = | parts per million |
TPHs = | Total petroleum hydrocarbons |
Table 7: Underground Storage Tank and Catch Basin Material
Sampling
Compound | UST Material Concentration (mg/kg) | Catch Basin Material Concentration (mg/kg) | Comparison Valuea (mg/kg) |
n-Butylbenzene | 13 | ND | None |
Butylbenzyl phthalate | ND | 680 | 100,000 RMEG (adult) |
Ethylbenzene | 17 | ND | 70,000 RMEG (adult) |
Naphthalene | 1,300 | 54 | 10,000 IEMEG (adult) |
Phenanthrene | 690 | ND | None |
Toluene | 25 | ND | 10,000 IEMEG (adult) |
TPH | 54,000 | 260,000 | None |
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 91 | 15 | None |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | 27 | ND | None |
o-Xylene | 47 | ND | 100,000b IEMEG (adult) |
m&p-Xylene | 91 | ND | 100,000b IEMEG (adult) |
Barium | 12.8 | 81.5 | 50,000 RMEG (adult) |
Cadmium | 0.59 | 0.45 | 100 Chronic EMEG (adult) |
Chromium | 2.46 | 33.0 | 2,000c RMEG (adult) |
Lead | 62.1 | 19.2 | 400d EPA Interim Soil Guidance |
a Comparison values listed in this table are for the soil medium.
b Comparison value provided is for total xylenes.
c Comparison value provided is for hexavalent chromium.
d Comparison value provided is based on the EPA 'Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities' (Directive 9355.4-12) 1994.
Table Acronyms:
EMEG = | Environmental media evaluation guide |
EPA = | Environmental protection agency |
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
mg/kg = | Milligrams per kilogram |
ND = | Not detected above the reporting limit |
RMEG = | Reference dose media evaluation guide |
TPH = | Total petroleum hydrocarbons |
UST = | Underground storage tank |
Table 8: Off-site Groundwater Sampling
Compound | Concentration Range (µg/L) | Location/Year of Maximum | Comparison Value (µg/L) |
Acetone | 125; 130 | MW-2/1993 | 20,000 IEMEG (child) |
70,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Benzene | 1 | B302-OW/1999 | 1 CREG |
5 MCL | |||
Bromodichloromethane | 0.7 | B315-OW/1999 | 0.6 CREG |
200 Chronic EMEG (child) | |||
700 Chronic EMEG (adult) | |||
Chloroform | 1 - 18 | B309-OW/1999 | 6 CREG |
100 Chronic EMEG (child) | |||
Chloromethane | 1 | B221-OW/1999 | 3 LTHA |
400 CLHA | |||
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | 2 - 3,200 | B219-OW/1999 | 70 MCL |
3,000 IEMEG (child) | |||
10,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene | 4.8; 8 | B218-OW/1999 | 100 MCL |
2,000 IEMEG (child) | |||
7,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
2-Methylnaphthalene | 0.1 | B218-OW/1999 | 120 RBC (n) |
Trichloroethene | 2 - 750 | B222R-OW/1999 | 3 CREG |
5 MCL | |||
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1 | B311-OW/1999 | 12 RBC (n) |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | 2 | B311-OW/1999 | 12 RBC (n) |
Toluene | 1 | B221-OW/1999 | 200 IEMEG (child) |
700 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Vinyl Chloride | 0.5 - 890 | B220R-OW/1999 | 0.2 Chronic EMEG (child) |
0.7 Chronic EMEG (adult) | |||
2 MCL | |||
Xylenes, mixture | 1 | B221-OW/1999 | 2,000 IEMEG (child) |
7,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Barium | 760; 4,900 | MW-2/1993 | 700 RMEG (child) |
2,000 RMEG (adult) | |||
2,000 MCL | |||
Cadmium | 40; 200 | MW-2/1993 | 2 Chronic EMEG (child) |
7 Chronic EMEG (adult) | |||
5 MCL | |||
Chromium | 350; 2,500 | MW-2/1993 | 100 MCL |
Lead | 300; 1,800 | MW-2/1993 | 15 EPA Action Level |
Mercury | 2 | MW-2/1993 | 2a MCL |
Silver | 60 | MW-2/1993 | 50 RMEG (child) |
200 RMEG (adult) |
a Comparison value provided is for inorganic mercury.
Table Acronyms:
CREG = | Cancer risk evaluation guide |
EMEG = | Environmental media evaluation guide |
EPA = | Environmental protection agency |
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
MCL = | Maximum contaminant level |
RBC (n) = | Risk-based concentration (noncancer) |
RMEG = | Reference dose media evaluation guide |
µg/L = | micrograms per Liter |
Table 9: Off-site Subsurface Soil Sampling Results
Contaminant | Concentration Range (mg/kg) | Location/Depth of Maximum | Comparison Value (mg/kg) |
Acetone | 0.014; 0.037 | B104/0.5-2.5 ft | 100,000 IEMEG (child) |
1,000,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Benzene | 0.001 J | B104/0.5-2.5 ft | 20 CREG |
2-Butanone | 0.007 | B104/0.5-2.5 ft | 30,000 RMEG (child) |
400,000 RMEG (adult) | |||
Chromium | 1.3 | B220/0.5-4 ft | 200a RMEG (child) |
2,000a RMEG (adult) | |||
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | 0.001 J - 0.018 | B219/6-8 ft | 20,000 IEMEG (child) |
200,000 IEMEG (adult) | |||
Xylenes, mixture | 0.007 | B104/0.5-2.5 ft | 10,000 IEMEG (child) |
100,000 IEMEG (adult) |
a Comparison value provided is for hexavalent chromium.
Table Notes:
CREG = | Cancer risk evaluation guide |
ft = | Feet |
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
mg/kg = | Milligram per kilogram |
J = | Estimated value |
NA = | Not applicable |
RMEG = | Reference dose media evaluation guide |
Compound
|
Indoor Concentration Range at St. James Placea
(µg/m3)
|
Indoor Concentration Range at a nearby Residenceb
(µg/m3)
|
Outdoor Concentration Rangec
(µg/m3)
|
Comparison Value (µg/m3)
|
Acetone | - | 26; 76 | 18 - 52 | 30,900 Chronic EMEG (13,000 ppb) |
Benzene | 2.3; 2.6 | 0.84; 2.2 | 0.75; 1.2 | 0.1 CREG |
13 IEMEG (4 ppb) | ||||
2-Butanone | - | 1.7; 3.4 | 3.7 - 5.1 | 1,000 RFC |
Carbon Disulfide | - | 1.1; 1.4 | 1.4; 3.0 | 930 Chronic EMEG (300 ppb) |
Carbon Tetrachloride | Trace (0.75) | ND | ND | 0.07 CREG |
320 IEMEG (50 ppb) | ||||
Chloromethane | 1.8; 2.0 | 2.4; 2.5 | 1.5 - 2.3 | 103 Chronic EMEG (50 ppb) |
1,2-Dichlorobenzene | - | ND | 3.7 | 150 RBC(n) |
1,4-Dichlorobenzene | - | 1.3 | ND | 601 Chronic EMEG (100 ppb) |
1,2-Dichloroethane | ND | 0.86; 1.5 | 1.7; 1.8 | 0.04 CREG |
809 Chronic EMEG (200 ppb) | ||||
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | Trace (0.67); Trace (0.51) |
ND | ND | 37 RBC(n) |
Dichlorodiflouromethane | 3.6; 3.9 | -d | - | 108 RBC(n) |
Ethylbenzene | 1.2; 1.4 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 870 IEMEG (200 ppb) |
4-Ethyltoluene | Trace (0.59) | - | - | None |
Freon 113 | Trace (4.8); 32 | - | - | None |
2-Hexanone | - | ND | 11; 12 | 5 RBC(n) |
4-Methyl-2-pentanone | - | 16; 20 | 9.2 - 23 | 73 RBC(n) |
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether | 4.0; 4.7 | 7.7 | 0.77 - 1.3 | 2,500 Chronic EMEG (700 ppb) |
Methylene Chloride | 14; 19 | 0.81; 1.7 | 1.1 (2 detections) | 3 CREG |
104 IEMEG (30 ppb) | ||||
Styrene | Trace (0.55); Trace (0.64) |
ND | 0.96 - 1.4 | 60 Chronic EMEG |
Tetrachloroethylene | ND | ND | 1.3 (2 detections) | 2 CREG |
Toluene | 5.6; 6.4 | 12; 24 | 2.8 - 13 | 3,800 Chronic EMEG (1,000 ppb) |
1,1,1-Trichloroethane | Trace (0.76); Trace (0.81) |
0.78 | ND | 3,800 IEMEG (700 ppb) |
Trichlororethene | Trace (0.58); Trace (0.85) |
ND | ND | 0.6 CREG |
540 IEMEG (100 ppb) | ||||
Trichloroflouromethane | 3.3; 4.2 | 3.1; 4.2 | 1.5 - 1.6 | 730 RBC(n) |
1,2,4-Trimethylbezene | 2.0; 2.1 | - | - | 6.2 RBC(n) |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Trace (0.59) | - | - | 6.2 RBC(n) |
Vinyl Chloride | ND | 0.090; 0.13 | 0.10 - 0.17 | 77 IEMEG (30 ppb) |
Xylenes | 5.6; 6.9 | 0.84 - 10 e | 1.3 - 28 e | 3,040 IEMEG (100 ppb) |
a The indoor samples were collected from the east and west stairwells.
b The indoor air samples were collected from the basement and kitchen.
c The outdoor air samples were collected from the northwest corner of the Morse site, 8th street, and outside the Livramento residence.
d Not reported.
e The maximum concentration was for xylenes, m-,p-.
Table Notes:
CREG = | Cancer risk evaluation guide |
EMEG = | Environmental media evaluation guide |
IEMEG = | Intermediate environmental media evaluation guide |
ND = | Not detected |
ppb = | parts per billion |
RBC (n) = | Risk based concentration - noncancer |
RFC = | Reference concentration |
RMEG = | Reference dose media evaluation guide |
µg/m3 = | micrograms per cubic meter of air |
APPENDIX D -- COMPARISON VALUES
ATSDR comparison values are media-specific concentrations that are considered to be safe under default conditions of exposure. They are used as screening values in the preliminary identification of site-specific "contaminants of concern". The latter term should not be misinterpreted as an implication of "hazard". As ATSDR uses the phrase, a "contaminant of concern" is merely a chemical substance detected at the site in question and selected by the health assessor for further evaluation of potential health effects. Generally, a chemical is selected as a "contaminant of concern" because its maximum concentration in air, water, or soil at the site exceeds one of ATSDR's comparison values.
However, it must be emphasized that comparison values are not thresholds of toxicity. While concentrations at or below the relevant comparison value may reasonably be considered safe, it does not automatically follow that any environmental concentration that exceeds a comparison value would be expected to produce adverse health effects. The whole purpose behind highly conservative, health-based standards and guidelines is to enable health professionals to recognize and resolve potential public health hazards before they can become actual public health consequences. Thus, comparison values are designed to be preventive, rather than predictive, of adverse health effects. The probability that such effects will actually occur depends, not on environmental concentrations alone, but on a unique combination of site-specific conditions and individual lifestyle and genetic factors that affect the route, magnitude, and duration of actual exposure.
Listed and described below are the various comparison values that ATSDR uses to select chemicals for further evaluation, as well as other non-ATSDR values that are sometimes used to put environmental concentrations into a meaningful frame of reference.
CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides
MRL = Minimal Risk Level
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guides
IEMEG = Intermediate Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
RfD = Reference Dose
RfC = Reference Dose Concentration
RBC = Risk-Based Concentration
DWEL = Drinking Water Equivalent Level
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
CLHA = Child Longer Term Health Advisory
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs) are estimated contaminant concentrations expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors, or cancer potency factors, using default values for exposure rates. However, neither CREGs nor CSFs can be used to make realistic predictions of cancer risk. The true risk is always unknown and may be as low as zero.
Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical (doses expressed in mg/kg/day) that are unlikely to be associated with any appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are calculated using data from human and animal studies and are reported for acute (< 14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (> 365 days) exposures. MRLs are published in ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for specific chemicals.
Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) are concentrations that are calculated from ATSDR minimal risk levels by factoring in default body weights and ingestion rates.
Intermediate Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (IEMEG) are calculated from ATSDR minimal risk levels; they factor in body weight and ingestion rates for intermediate exposures (those occurring for more than 14 days and less than 1 year).
Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (RMEG) is the concentration of a contaminant in air, water or soil that corresponds to EPA's RfD for that contaminant when default values for body weight and intake rates are taken into account.
EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant unlikely to cause noncarcinogenic adverse health effects. Like ATSDR's MRL, EPA's RfD is a dose expressed in mg/kg/day.
Reference Concentrations (RfC) is a concentration of a substance in air that EPA considers unlikely to cause noncancer adverse health effects over a lifetime of chronic exposure.
Risk-Based Concentrations (RBC) are media-specific concentrations derived by Region III of the Environmental Protection Agency Region III from RfDs, RfC's, or EPA's cancer slope factors. They represent concentrations of a contaminant in tap water, ambient air, fish, or soil (industrial or residential) that are considered unlikely to cause adverse health effects over a lifetime of chronic exposure. RBCs are based either on cancer ("c") or noncancer ("n") effects.
Drinking Water Equivalent Levels (DWEL) are based on EPA's oral RfD and represent corresponding concentrations of a substance in drinking water that are estimated to have negligible deleterious effects in humans at an intake rate of 2 L/day for life, assuming that drinking water is the sole source of exposure.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations in drinking water that 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.
Child Longer Term Health Advisory (CLHA) represents the concentration of a substance in drinking water that would have no deleterious effect on a child exposed for up to 7 years.
APPENDIX E -- ATSDR METHODOLOGY
In public health assessments, ATSDR addresses the likelihood that exposure to contaminants at the maximum concentrations detected would result in adverse health effects. While the relative toxicity of a chemical is important, the response of the human body to a chemical exposure is determined by several additional factors, including the concentration (how much); the duration of exposure (how long); and the route of exposure (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact). Lifestyle factors (i.e., occupation and personal habits) have a major impact on the likelihood, magnitude, and duration of exposure. Individual characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, overall health, and genetic constitution affect how a human body absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and eliminates a contaminant. A unique combination of all these factors will determine the individual's physiologic response to a chemical contaminant and any adverse health effects the individual may suffer as a result of the chemical exposure.
ATSDR has determined levels of chemicals that can reasonably (and conservatively) be regarded as harmless, based on the scientific data the agency has collected in its toxicological profiles. The resulting comparison values and health guidelines, which include ample safety factors to ensure protection of sensitive populations, are used to screen contaminant concentrations at a site and to select substances ("chemicals of concern") that warrant closer scrutiny by agency health assessors and toxicologists.
It is a point of key importance that ATSDR's (and EPA's) comparison values and health guidelines represent conservative levels of safety and not thresholds of toxicity. Thus, although concentrations at or below a comparison value may reasonably be considered safe, it does not automatically follow that any concentration above a comparison value will necessarily produce toxic effects. To the contrary, ATSDR's (and EPA's) comparison values are intentionally designed to be much lower, usually by orders of magnitude, than the corresponding no-effect levels (or lowest-effect levels) determined in laboratory studies. ATSDR uses comparison values (regardless of source) solely for the purpose of screening individual contaminants. In this highly conservative procedure, ATSDR considers that a compound warrants further evaluation if the highest single recorded concentration of that contaminant in the medium in question exceeds that compound's lowest available comparison value (e.g., cancer risk evaluation guides or other chronic exposure values) for the most sensitive, potentially exposed individuals (e.g., children or pica children). This highly conservative process results in the selection of many contaminants as "chemicals of concern" that will not, upon closer scrutiny, be judged to pose any hazard to human health. However, ATSDR judges it prudent to use a screen that "lets through" many harmless contaminants rather than one that overlooks even a single potential hazard to public health. Even those contaminants of concern that are ultimately labeled in the toxicologic evaluation as potential public health hazards are so identified solely on the basis of the maximum concentration detected. The reader should keep in mind the protectiveness of this approach when considering the potential health implications of ATSDR's evaluations.
Because a contaminant must first enter the body before it can produce any effect, adverse or otherwise, on the body, the toxicologic discussion in public health assessments focuses primarily on completed pathways of exposure, i.e., contaminants in media to which people are known, or are reasonably expected to have been exposed, such as water that may be used for drinking water and air in the breathing zone.
To determine whether people were, or continue to be, exposed to contaminants originating from a site, ATSDR evaluates the factors that lead to human exposure. These factors or elements include (1) a source of contamination, (2) transport through an environmental medium, (3) a point of exposure, (4) a route of human exposure, and (5) an exposed population. Exposure pathways fall into one of three categories:
Please refer back to the Discussion section of this public health assessment for ATSDR's evaluation of the Morse Cutting Tools site.
APPENDIX F -- GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ATSDR released the Morse Cutting Tools public health assessment for public review and comment from September 28 through December 22, 1999. Upon receiving a request on December 21, 1999, to extend the public comment period, ATSDR extended the public comment period until March 1, 2000. Each comment received was logged and became part of the administrative record. This appendix contains both the comments received during the public comment period and ATSDR's response to those comments. The comments have been numbered and are in italic with the response directly below each comment.
Comment 1: What was done with the
demolition materials that were buried on-site?
Response 1: ATSDR reviewed site files and contacted the New Bedford
Department of Public Works to gather information about buried demolition material
(ATSDR, 2000). A large quantity of demolition material was originally buried
on-site in the buildings' basements which did not meet the specifications of
the demolition contract. These specifications directed that asphalt, brick,
and concrete could be used as backfill as long as they were processed to pieces
no greater than 6 inches in diameter. Also, the specifications directed that
no wood debris could be used as backfill. Once it was noted that the backfill
material did not meet specifications, portions of the site were dug out and
the backfill material was removed. Once tested, this backfill material was sent
to a landfill. These areas on-site were later filled with clean backfill (ATSDR,
2000; Haley & Aldrich, 1998e).
Comment 2: Could contamination from
the site have entered the municipal water lines during demolition activities,
thereby causing my family to experience skin problems (like burning sensations)
when bathing?
Response 2: ATSDR contacted the City of New Bedford Water Department
to ask about pipe leaks (New Bedford Water Department, 1999). The water department
researched pipe breaks in the area of the Morse site during demolition activities,
i.e., from 1991 to the present. The only break close to the site was on South
Sixth Street near Wing Street in August 1996. The free product (i.e., crude
oil) contamination plume is near Purchase Street, which is on the opposite side
of the site. No leaks have been reported along the Purchase Street pipe located
adjacent to the Morse site from 1991 to the present. Therefore, ATSDR would
not expect contamination from the site to be entering the municipal water lines
or contributing to adverse health effects.
Comment 3:There is one aspect throughout the public health assessment that is speculative inasmuch as data supporting past completed air exposure pathways does not exist. Therefore, we would suggest that the document reflect only existing information known about the site. The following provide suggested changes:
3A) Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence:
change the word "completed" to "potential".
3B) Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: change
the words "the extent to which" to "whether".
3C) Section 4.2.3, 1st paragraph, 3rd and 4th
sentences: delete the sentences "However, given the types of manufacturing processes
and the amount of chemicals used at the site during operations, and the close
proximity of residences, it appears possible that residents were exposed to
air contamination in the past. ATSDR, therefore, considers ambient air to represent
a past completed exposure pathway."
3D) Section 4.2.3, 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: change
the last sentence of this paragraph to "Without ambient air sampling data, it
is not possible to conclude that past off-site air exposures occurred or contributed
to reported respiratory ailments."
3E) Section 5, Response to first community concern, 1st paragraph,
2nd sentence: delete the sentence "Air contamination, in the form
of dust, from site demolition activities would have been the main contributor
to respiratory ailments at that time."
3F) Section 5, Response to first community concern, 2nd paragraph,
2nd sentence: delete sentence "Given the types of manufacturing processes
and the amount of chemicals used at the site during operations, and the close
proximity of residences, it appears possible that residents were exposed to
air contamination in the past."
3G) Section 5, Response to first community concern, 2nd paragraph,
4th sentence: delete the words "of off-site air exposures."
3H) Appendix C, Table 1, Completed Exposure Pathways, Air: delete "Past"
from the Time Frame column.
Response 3: Ambient off-site air has been classified by ATSDR as a
past completed exposure pathway. Numerous manufacturing activities that used
a variety of volatile chemicals occurred on-site directly across the street
from residences. While ATSDR recognizes that chemical-specific air sampling
data are not available to verify that past air exposures did indeed occur, it
is the agency's opinion that past air exposures were possible when the facility
was operating. No changes to the main text of the document have been made.
Comment 4: ATSDR received comments
on the December 1999 Morse Cutting Tools fact sheet. The comments were similar
to Comment 3, i.e., that air data supporting past completed air exposure pathways
does not exist so the fact sheet should be changed to reflect only existing
information known about the site.
Response 4: No changes were made to the fact sheet (refer to Response
3).
Comment 5: The report lists the
petitioner as Congressman Barney Frank. The community readily acknowledges and
is grateful for the support of the Congressman and his office but has indicated
that the role of the residents deserves to be acknowledged as a starting point
for the public health assessment.
Response 5: Public health assessment activities at the Morse site began
in response to Congressman Barney Frank's petition letter. However, learning
what people in the area know about a site and what concerns they may have about
its impact on their health is of particular importance to ATSDR. Responding
to community health concerns is a major focus of the public health assessment
process. ATSDR has added these statements to Section 2 (Purpose and Health Issues)
to further define the role of the residents in the public health assessment
process.
Comment 6: The ATSDR summary of
the groundwater data states that "on-site groundwater contains contamination
at levels of health concern for ingestion as drinking water". The ATSDR does
not find a pathway of exposure - as there is no existing or planned reliance
on the groundwater for drinking purposes - and concludes that this media is
not of public health concern. Comments on the Interim Report on Phase II - Comprehensive
Site Assessment are in agreement that the principal concern on-site is the contaminated
groundwater (document provided by commentor).
Response 6: The comments regarding groundwater that were submitted
on the Phase II - Comprehensive Site Assessment focus on the need for additional
groundwater sampling and analysis, and continued removal of oil from the groundwater
surface. ATSDR has made similar recommendations with regard to groundwater in
this public health assessment (i.e., continue monitoring groundwater contamination
on- and off-site, and continue removing free product from on-site groundwater
to prevent further off-site migration of groundwater contamination).
Comment 7: Based on these analyses
the ATSDR concludes that the former Morse Cutting Tools site poses a past Indeterminate
Public Health Hazard. This historical perception of risk is a matter of some
concern to residents as the public record reflects.
Response 7: ATSDR agrees that residents are concerned about historical
issues related to the site. Several areas of this public health assessment note
these concerns, such as Section 2 (Purpose and Health Issues) and Section 5
(Community Health Concerns). Unfortunately, environmental sampling data were
not collected when the facility was operating. Therefore, ATSDR cannot comment
on potential environmental hazards associated with the facility in the past
(prior to 1990). However, the limited data collected during and after demolition
activities do not indicate contaminants were released off-site into the environment
at levels of health concern.
Comment 8: The ATSDR concludes that
the former Morse Cutting Tools site currently poses No Apparent Public Health
Hazard. The dynamic nature of the site interjects some uncertainty - especially
with possible re-use scenarios still in development. Previous comments on a
Response Action Outcome (RAO) (document provided by commentor) for the West
Parcel of the site stated the need to provide a quantitative estimate of exposure
and risk from eating produce grown on the site.
Response 8: ATSDR public health assessments reflect an evaluation of
available environmental data based on current information concerning site conditions.
ATSDR is aware there are several possible re-use scenarios for this site. At
this time, ATSDR does not see the need for estimating potential future exposures
from eating garden produce grown on the site; however, if site conditions change
considerably in the future, ATSDR will re-evaluate the environmental data, if
requested, based on the new site conditions.