United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
PB93-963703
EPA/ROD/R01-92/067
September 1992
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement. but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document. All supplemental material is. however. contained in the administrative record
-------
50272.1 01
REPORT DOCUMENTATION II. REPORT NO. I 2. 3. Reclpienfs Acceaslon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROl-92/067
4. TlUe and SubUUe 5. Report Dala
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/30/92
Revere Textile Prints, CT
First Remedial Action - Final 6.
7. Aulhor(s) 8. PerIormlng Organization Rept NO'
9. Performing Orgalnlzation Name and Address 10. Project1Task/Work Unll No.
11. ConIracl{C) or Granl(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & PerIod Coverad
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. 800/000
washington. D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Nolas
PB93-963703
16. Abstract (Umi!: 200 words)
The lS-acre Revere Textile Prints site is an industrial facility, located in Sterling,
Windham County, Connecticut. Land use in the area is a mix of rural residential,
industrial, and agricultural with interspersed woodlands and grassland meadows. The
Moosup River and Sterling Pond are located southwest and southeast of the site,
respectively. The property was originally developed in 1809 as a cotton mill and was
used continually for this purpose until 1879. From 1879 to 1980, several textile
processing facilities used the site to print colored and patterned fabrics, which
involved using pigments, dyes, and solvents. Throughout the site's history, process
rinse water and leftover printing pigments were disposed of into floor drains that
drained into Moosup River. In 1980, a fire forced the facility to shut down. A
subsequent state inspection revealed over 1,500 drums of waste material at the site as
well as stained or colored soil near the former drum storage areas. In 1980, the state
ordered the PRP to dispose of the 1,500 drums offsite along with an unspecified amount
of stained soils; the action was completed in 1983. Between 1982 and 1983, W.F. Norman
Company purchased the site for metal stamping operations, and subsequently abandoned
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis s. Descrlplors
Record of Decision - Revere Textile Prints. CT
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
_. ..
c. COSA TI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statament 19. Security Class (ThIs Report) 21. No. of Pages
None 36
20. Security Class (This Page) 22. PrIce
Nnnp
'JI'"vNAL t-URM 272 (4-77)
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
Sse Instructions on Reverse
(Formerly NTI5-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/ROl-92/067
Revere Textile Prints, CT
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
the site. In 1988, the Town of Sterling acquired the site for its current use as a light
industrial park. In 1990, EPA ordered the Town of Sterling to remove and dispose of
several 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon cans containing waste material. This ROD addresses
site soil, sediment, ground water, and surface water. The results of the RI have shown
no evidence of significant site contamination, and where contaminants were detected, the
levels were usually significantly below the federal MCLs. Therefore, there are no
contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site includes no further action, with
implementation qf a 5-year sediment and ground water monitoring program. EPA has
determined that the previous interim remedial activities have eliminated the need to
conduct additional remedial actions and are adequate to protect human health and the
environment. The estimated net present worth of this remedial action is $263,000 for the
site monitoring activities.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE
~~VERE TEXTILE PRINTS CORPORATION RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Revere Textile Prints corporation Superfund site
sterling, connecticut
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected No Action decision
for the Revere Textile Prints Superfund site (the Site), located
in Sterling, Connecticut. This document was developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by
the superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
and to the extent practicable, the National contingency Plan
(NCP); 40 CFR Part 300 et sea. (1990). The Regional
Administrator for Region I of the united states Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has been delegated the authority to
approve this Record of Decision.
The state 'of Connecticut has concurred with the No Action
decision.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based on the administrative record compiled for
, the site which was developed in accordance with section l13(k) of
CERCLA. The administrative record is available for public review
at the Sterling Public Library in Oneco, Connecticut and at the
EPA Region I Waste Management Division Record Center in Boston,
Massachusetts. The administrative record index (attached as
Appendix E to this ROD) identifies each of the items which
comprise the administrative record upon which the selection of
the No Action remedy is based. .
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has determined that No Action is necessary to address the
contaminants that remain at the site under CERCLA. previous
response actions eliminated the need to conduct remedial action
at the Si~e~. EPA will perform a minimum of f~ve years of
additional monitoring of the ground water and sediments. In
addition, pursuant to section 121(C) of CERCLA, the Site will be
reviewed to ensure that the No Action decision remains protective
-------
DECLARATION
EPA has determined that no remedial action is necessary to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. Therefore, the
site now qualifies for inclusion in the .'sites awaiting deletionR
subcategory of the construction Completion category of the
National Priorities List.
~t/. 3D
-------
REGION I
REVERB TEXTILE PRI!iTS CORPeRATIOR SUPBRFUHD SITE
RECORD OP DBCISJ:ON StJJO!IARY
-------
Contents
I.
n.
A.
E.
III.
IV.
V.
. VI.
A.
B.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
REVERE TEXTILE~RINTS CORPORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE BAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.
. . .
. . . . .
SIT'E EISTORY , ENFORCEMEN'l' J.C'l'IVI'1'n:S .
. . . .
. . .
Land Use' Response History. . . . . . . . . . .
~nforcement History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . .
......
. . . . . .
SCOPE' ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
. . . . .
. . . . .
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
Human Health Risk Summary. . . . . . . . . . . .
Ecological Risk Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESCRiPTION OT NO ACTION. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . . .
STATE ROLE. .
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
. . . . .8 .
...........
(RiSk Tables)
(Responsiveness summary)
(Public Hearing Transcript)
(state Letter of Concurrence)
(Administrative Record Index)
Paqe Number
3
..
4
6
6
7
7
12
,
12
16
16
17
-------
3
REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE
ROD DECISION SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1992
I.
REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE, STERLING,
CONNEC~~CU~
The Revere Textile Prints corporation Superfund site (the Site)
covers approximately 15 acres in the small rural Town of Sterling,
Connecticut, in windham County, situated one mile west of the Rhode
Island border (refer to Figure 1). The site is bounded by Industrial
Park Road to the northwest, Main street and Route 14 to the south and
southwest and a very steep bedrock dominated slope to the northeast
(refer to Figure 2). .
The Moosup River and Sterling Pond are located southwest and
southeast of the Site, respectively, on the opposite side of Main
Street and Route 14. Sterling Pond is a man-made reservoir created
by damming the river. Four spillway channels allow pond over£low to
merge into the Moosup River downstream of the site. One of these
channels diverts water from sterling Pond underground through a
subgrade, covered man-made spillway channel consisting of a headrace
and tailrace (Spillway Channel). The headrace passes through the
Revere Site feeding an on-site pond, and discharging back into the
tailrace and into the Moosup River. Along the northern bounds of the
site, adjacent to the steep slope, is an abandoned railway bed.
Fresh-water wetlands were identified 0.9 miles downstream of the
site. No critical habitats of threatened or endangered species, or
natural wildlife refuges were identified within a 1-mile radius of
the Site.
The Site is an open, gently sloping area with elevation increasing to
the. northeast. The northwestern third of the Site has a topographic
depression. The most significant surface features on the Site are
four dilapidated building structures on the northern portion of the
Site (designated as Buildings B3, B5, B10 and B11) and two additional
structures identified as Buildings B16 and B18 adjacent to Route 14
(refer to Figure 2). Approximately 130 feet northwest of Building B3
is .a partially underground structure that houses the remains of the
former Town of sterling water distribution and treatment system. The
northern edge of the topographic depression discussed above,
terminates at this structure. Building debris and foundations cover
a.large portion of the surface of the Site. EPA performed both an
electro-magnetic geophysical survey and a seismic survey which
suggest the existence of either. a maze of underground utilities or
numerous buried metal objects (possibly including foundation slabs
and demolition debris). Both surveys found significant anomalous
readings in the southwestern portion of the site that were thought to.
-------
"!Figure 1.
Revere Textile Prints Site Location Map
cl
~
~I
;1
~
CI./
I
I
Pone!
Not to Scale
G
\
\ .
"
:=
:
o
o
\~
(I)
\f""
\~
\
\
r:=l
-------
::Figure 2.
Revere Textile Prints Site Map.
~
G
Northwest Historical
Crum Storage
Central Access
Road
Town
. Production
Well
Park
LEGEND
, .
o
I
200
J
Approx. Scale, feet
400
I
-
Flow Direction.
ApPfO"imate Site Boundary
-------
4
Based on interviews with Town officials, Sterling is serviced by a
municipal water supply system located approximately 1,000 feet west
of the Site. All homes within the vicinity of the Site are connected
to the municipal water supply system. The total population served by
ground water within a 3-mile radius was calculated to be 4,538
people. .
A more complete description of the site can be found in the Remedial
Investigation Report in Section 1.
:!1:.
S~TE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTrvYTrES
~.
Land Use ~:nd 1tesponse Eist'Ory
Land use in the area surrounding the Site is a mix of rural
residential, industrial and agricultural, interspersed with woodlands
and grassland meadows. The Moosup River is used for recreational
purpo~es including fishing.
The site has long been used for industrial purposes and was
originally a cotton ~ill operated by various owners from ~809 to
~879. The first dyeing of cotton began in 1879 with operations
conducted by the Sterling Dyeing and Finishing Company. Since then,
the Site has been occupied by several textile processing facilities,
including the Sterling Dyeing and Finishing Company from 1904-1954,
the Moosup Finishing corporation from 1959-1960, and the Revere
Textile Prints Corporation from 1966-1980. Pigments, dyes, and
solvents were used at each of the textile firms to print various
colors and patterns on fabrics until March 1980 when a fire forced
operations at the facility to shut down. The fire, however, did not
destroy all of the buildings at the Site. Kenneth Lynch bought the
Site in 1981, then sold it to W.F. Norman Company in 1982-1983. The
W.F. Norman Company used the Site for metal stamping operations and
then abandoned operations at the Site.
The Town of Sterling acquired the Site in October 1988 and is the
current owner of the property. Recently, a light industrial park has
been developed, and several of the lots have been sold. The
industrial park boundary includes the Site property and continues to
the northeast of the site. Businesses already operating in the park
are a machine shop, a computer paper manufacturer, a liquid soap
manufacturer, and a rubber tire incinerator operated by Oxford
Energy. Currently, the buildings at the Site are in very poor shape.
The Town plans for the site to remain within the Sterling Industrial
Park. .
. . .
Throughout the history of dyeing operations at the facility, process
rinse water and leftover printing pigments were reportedly disposed
down £loor drains of the Revere facility and into the Moosup River.
Many residents reportedly observed the dumping or observed the
colored effects of the dumping of waste dyes into the Moosup River.
-------
5
Environmental Protection (CTDEP) to drastically reduce the organic
color levels being discharged directly into the Moosup River, the
Revere Textile Prints Company apparently began drumming the wastes
and having them shipped off the site for treatment/disposal. The
Revere Textile Print Company began storing large quantities of the
wastes on the site after their contracted drum hauler went out of
business.
After the fire in 1980, an inspection of the site in September 1980
by the CTDEP revealed that over 1,500 drums of waste material
remained at the Site. The inspection revealed waste-containing drums
spread out over the entire Site, and not placed specifically in waste
storage areas. Some drums were lying horizontally and evidence of
soil staining was apparent. A November 1980 inspection by CTDEP
personnel revealed that the drums were eventually gathered and
organized in two of the on-site buildings. Figure 2 identifies the
historical. drum storage areas and waste material piles.
During the period that the drums were on the Site, the property did
not. have adequate security measures and several drums leaked as a
result of vandalism. As stated previously, visual inspection of the
Site showed evidence of stained/colored soils located by the former
drum storage areas and also pigmented waste piles by the fill area of
the Spillway Channel and across Route 14 in the pile area.
EPA involvement with the site commenced after the discovery of drum
storage on the site. In 1987, the Site was placed on EPA's National
priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites, making it eligible
for federal funding for investigation and cleanup. The drum storage
area as well as certain historical waste disposal areas on site,
including the Spillway Channel and the Moosup River, had the
potential to have been affected by the historical 'Site waste disposal
activities. Therefore, EPA determined that contamination might
reside in the ground water, surface water, soils and sediments
connected with the historical waste disposal and storage areas of the
site. .
Several sampling events were conducted in an effort to determine
whether significant levels of contamination still existed in the
soils, sediments, surface water, and ground water, and to identify
the contents of the remaining drums. The results of these sampling
events led to the initiation and subsequent completion of EPA's
remedial investigation in 1992.
A more detailed description of the Site history can be found in the
Remedial Inv~$t~gation Report in section 1.
Removal Activities to Date
In September 1980, CTDEP ordered Kenneth Lynch to remove the drums
remaining on the Site. In 1983, Kenneth Lynch hired Environmental
-------
6
site. At the same time, an unspecified amount of stained soils was
removed for off-site disposal. The CTDEP inspected the Site
following the removal and found that all of the drums had been
removed. Although most of the contaminated soil was removed, stained
soils and sludge piles remained on the Site in material fill areas
and around the drum storage areas.
. In 1989, EPA found several 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon cans
containing liquid waste material, located in and around the remaining
site buildings. The drums were sampled in June 1989. .On May 31,
1990, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order pursuant to
Section ~06.of CERCLA to the Town of Sterling to remove and dispose
of the remaining drums off the Site. The Town of sterling performed
the removal and disposal in 1991.
B.
Enforcement History
EPA issued
on May 31,
Site. The
1991.
a unilateral administrative order to the Town of Sterling
1990, to remove and dispose of the remaining drums off .the
Town of Sterling performed the removal and disposal in
On January 29, 1991, EPA requested that four parties who either owned
or operated the facility, generated wastes that were shipped to the
facility, arranged for the disposal of wastes at the facility, or
transported wastes to the facility provide certain information
regarding the identification, nature, and quantity of materials that
have been generated, treated, stored, disposed of at the Site or
transported to the Site. EPA also requested information relating to
the ability of a person to pay for or to perform investigations and a
cleanup of the Site. .
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the Site's history, community concern and involvement has
been low. EPA has kept the community and other interested parties
apprised of the site activities through fact sheets, press releases
and public meetings.
EPA conducted interviews with local officials and residents during
September 1990 to assess community concerns. On October 15, 1990,
EPA issued a press release to describe the plans for the Remedial
Investigation. During January, 1991, EPA released a community
relations plan which outlined a program to address community concerns
and keep citizens informed about and involved in activities during
remedial activities.
On August 19, 1992, EPA updated the administrative record which had.
previously been made available for public review at EPA's offices in
Boston and at the Sterling Public Library in Oneco, Connecticut. EPA
published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in The
-------
7
the public at the Sterling Public Library.
On September 2, 1992, EPA held an informational meeting to discuss
the results of the Remedial Investigation and to present the Agency's
Proposed No Action Plan. Also during this meeting, the Agency
answered questions from the public. From August 21, ~992 through
September 19, 1992, the Agency held a 30-day public comment period to
accept public comment on the No Action remedy outlined in the
Proposed Plan and on any other documents previously released to the
public. During the September 2, 1992, informational meeting, the
Agency was prepared to accept any oral comments. No oral comments
were made during this meeting. A transcript of this meeting
(Appendix C of this ROD) and the written comments received during the
comme~t period and the Agency's responses to these comments are
included in the attached responsiveness summary (Appendix B).
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF NO ACTION REMEDY
EPA has determined that no further CERCLA action is required at the
Revere Textile Prints corporation Site. The levels of contaminants
detected in the soils, sediments, ground water, surface water, and
air at the Site do not appear to pose an unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment based upon the authority of CERCLA to
respond to releases.
EPA will continue to monitor the ground water and sediments at the
site for a period of five years. Consistent with section 121(c) of
CERCLA, EPA will also perform five-year reviews of the site to ensure
that the No Action decision remains protective of human health and
the environment.
The decision by EPA not to pursue further action at the site is not a
determination that no action is warranted under other federal or
state regulations and statutes. In addition, EPA has the authority
to revisit the No Action decision even if the site is removed from
the NPL. This could occur if future conditions indicate that an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment would result
from the exposure to contaminants at the Site.
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The' significant findings of the Remedial Investigation are summarized
below:
A.
soil
Based on u.s. Geological Survey (USGS) surficial maps, the overburden
at the Site and vicinity primarily consists of two types of surficial
deposits: glacial till and stratified glacial outwash (Harwood and
Goldsmith, 1971a). According to the regional well and test boring
data, the till varies in thickness from 8 to 80 feet with average
-------
"
8
heterogeneous, dense, poorly sorted, light-gray to tan silt, sand,
gravel, boulders, and minor clay. The stratified outwash ranges in
size from boulder/cobble/gravel to coarse/fine sand, silt and clay.
The overburden thickness increases to the west from the Site towards
the center of the valley. The town well field 1000 feet west of the
site boundary (across the Moosup River) is located in an area of
overburden 92 feet thick.
EPA investigated soils throughout the Site using various field
screening techniques, and laboratory analysis of soil sa~ples. These
activities are described in detail in Section 4 of the RI Report.
Site soils ~ere sampled and analyzed for volatile organic
. contaDinants (VOCs), base neutral aoid extractables(BNAs),
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, and cyanide.
The highest VOC concentration levels were recorded at the four foot
depth interval from MWT-09-04 (acetone at 200 micrograms per kilogram
(ug/kg), ethylbenzene at 400 ug/kg, and xylene at 61PO ug/kg), and
adjacent subsurface sample SL-02-D (acetone at 480 ug/kg). These low
levels of VOC contamination appear to be limited to a very small area
and are probably associated with minor spills and/or releases
associated with the movement of drums/tanks and/or equipment across
the Site. The data do not indicate any major spills or sources of
VOC contamination.
Soil sampling and subsequent laboratory analysis of BNAs was
conducted during Phase II of the remedial investigation. Analytical
results for the surface and subsurface soil sampling programs are
presented in section 4 of theRI Report with more discussion of the
results in section 5 of that report and in the December 1991
Technical Directive Memorandum.
Numerous BNAs, primarily polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs),
were identified in the surface and subsurface soils. Low PAR
concentrations were distributed throughout the entire Site; however,
concentrations were elevated in some areas.
A number of metals including lead, barium, copper, iron, and zinc are
elevated above the highest reported background concentrations in
certain localized areas of the site. . Elevated concentrations of
aluminum, beryllium, and manganese were found in soils at the
Northwest Historical Drum Storage Area. The Southeast Drum Storage
Area, the Rear and Central Access Roads, the Fuel Tank Area, and the
Northern Building Perimeter Area all showed elevated concentrations
of copper and/or lead. Chromium, magnesium, and nickel were found at
elevated lev~ls in the Pigmented Waste Pile and iron was found at
elevated levels in the Former Mound Area. Arsenic was found a~
several locations.
The occurrences of elevated metals at these areas may be the result
of pigments and dyes used at the Site, and spills and/or leaks of
-------
9
site or from drums stored on the property. The occurrence of
vanadium at elevated levels along the Access Roads may be the result
of fuel spills from vehicular movement.
Pesticide/PCB field screening results and laboratory analysis
indicate that chlorinated pesticides are not widespread at the
No PCBs were detected in the field screening or the laboratory
analysis.
site.
B.
Ground Water
The Moosup River flows past the site and the well field in a
northwesterly direction and recharges the overburden aquifer in the
vicinity of the town well field. Due to the shallow water table, the
surficial aquifer also discharges to the Moosup River in the vicinity
of the site. Ground water was characterized during the site
hydrogeological study as flowing in a southwesterly direction across
the site towards the Moosup River.
Potential impacts of increasing ground water withdrawal from the
Moosup River aquifer were evaluated. Based on the town supply well
(installed ~985) pump test data, geologic logs of wells in the
immediate vicinity and a study performed by BCI-Geonetics (BCI-
Geonetics, 1988) EPA concludes that two surficial aquifers, a lower
and upper aquifer, are present at the municipal well field area
directly across Moosup River from the Site. Sterling's municipal
well PW-01 is screened in the lower aquifer, which is confined by a
layer of silt and clay that has a low, but measurable, permeability.
Seventy-two (72) hour pump tests of well PW-01 pumped ground water at
a constant rate (550 gpm) from the lower aquifer. Based on these
tests, transmissivity of the aquifer was estimated at 4,144 ft2/day.
The upper aquifer appeared unconfined. The low-permeability layer
does not appear to exist under the site and the overburden aquifer
acts as one entity.
Ground water sampling was conducted in three phases (Phase I, Phase
II, and Phase III). During Phase I, ground water samples were
collected on the site from 14 overburden monitoring wells and three
bedrock wells, two existing overburden monitoring wells, an existing
on-site bedrock production well, an old public supply source, and the
town supply well. All water samples were analyzed for VOCs, BNAs,
pesticides, PCBs, metals, cyanide, and physical characteristics.
Well PB-03 and ground water source area PW-02 are considered to be
representative of background conditions.
During Phase-'II, ground water samples were collected again from all
wells discussed above. All samples were analyzed for the same
parameters as in the Phase I round.
High concentrations of aluminum and iron (which are not priority
metal contaminants) in Phase I and II data suggested that those water
-------
10
Particulates, if not part of the matter moving with ground water, may
bias the results of metal analysis. This bias can lead to an over
estimation of concentrations and imply exceedences of maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) where, in fact, there are none. Because of
this, EPA decided to conduct a third sampling phase using a
peristaltic pump rather than a bailer for purging and sampling
the wells. Purging and sampling of the wells was performed at
extraction rates until turbidity stabilized. Once stabilized,
unfiltered water sample was taken for metals analysis. This
procedure was used in order to limit the artificial entrainment of
?articulates which can occur if the well is overstressed during a
bailing operation.
of all
low
an
None of the sampled wells had organic compound concentrations above
MCLs. None of the monitoring wells showed any detectable
concentrations of VOCs during the Phase II sampling round.
BNAs were detected in four monitoring wells, with two of the wells
showing very low but quantifiable concentrations. No pesticides or
PCBs were detected in the wells sampled at the Site. No BNAs,
pesticides, or PCBs were detected in the town water supply samples.
(Note: Phase I BNA and pesticide/PCB data were rejected due to
exceedence of sample holding times.)
Metal concentrations in off-site public supply wells, and on-site
background, bedrock, and most overburden monitoring wells were quite
low during sampling rounds one and two. However, concentrations for
two priority metals in four overburden wells exceeded MCLs. The
chromium MCL was exceeded in two wells in Phase I and two other wells
in Phase II. The arsenic MCL was exceeded in one well iR-Phase I.
The spotty nature of these exceedences coupled with elevated
concentrations of aluminum and iron (which are non-priority metals)
suggested to EPA as discussed above, that the data could'"""be biased by
particulate matter in the water samples. A third round of sampling
was performed using low extraction rates during purging and sampling.
Particulate matter in all water samples (as measured by turbidity)
was quite low, as were all metal concentrations. There were no
exceedences of MCLs.
It is the judgement of EPA that the elevated metal concentrations in
Phase I and II are a result of the purge and sampling method (bailer)
used at that time. Those metal concentrations are not characteristic
or representative of the total metals load moving through the aquifer
under natural flow conditions. Therefore, the Agency is using only
the metal concentrations for water samples from Phase III to
determine risk at the Site.
c.
Ground Water Flow
RI data indicate that ground water moves in a southwesterly direction
across the site toward the Moosup River. Two surficial aquifers, a
-------
11
area. A low-permeability layer of silt and clay separates the upper
and lower aquifers. Howev~r, based on the RI study, a low-
permeability layer does not appear to exist under the Site and the
overburden aquifer acts as one entity.
The RI data show levels in bedrock wells PB-Ol and PB-02 are artesian
(upward gradients). Water level elevations in these two wells
suggest that locally, fractures in the bedrock may have a poor
hydraulic connection with the surficial aquifer.
D.
Surface Water
Twelve surface water samples were collected from the on-site pond and
spillway channel, Sterling Pond, and the Moosup River during the RI.
Phase I and II sampling locations are shown in Section 4 of the RI
Report. All surface water samples were analyzed for complete VOCs,
BNAs, pesticides, PCBs, metals, cyanide, and physical
characteristics.
Twenty-one sediment samples were collected from the water bodies
located on and adjacent to the Site during Phases I and II. six
sedjment samples were collected during the most recent round of
sampling completed in July 1992. These samples were used for a round
of biological.assay tests incorporating indigenous benthic organisms
for analysis. All sediment samples contained greater than 30 percent
solids to assure valid data. All the samples were analyzed for VOCs,
BNAs, pesticides, PCBs, metals and cyanide.
No VOCs were detected in surface water at the site~ However,
level VOC contamination is present in sediments at the site.
and 2-butanone were most frequently detected while methylene
chloride, toluene, and carbon disulfide were less pervasive.
No BNAs, pesticides, or PCBs were detected in the surface water at
the Site. However, BNAs are widely distributed across the 'Site in
sediments and were detected at all sampling locations during Phases I
and II. section 4 in the RI Report contains the analytical results
of sediment BNA, pesticide, and PCB analysis. Only four pesticides
were detected and all concentrations were at or near detection
levels. .
low-
Acetone
with the exception of one sampling location, no metals were detected
in surface water at concentrations above those typically occurring
naturally. In sediments, only copper was detected at concentrations
significantly exceeding background levels. Low levels of other
metals were ge~ected particularly from sediment samples collected
downstream of the site.
The results of the biological assay testing indicate that no
significant biological accumulation is occurring as a result of the
concentrations of contaminants present in the sediments associated
-------
12
E.
Air
The results of the continuous and fenceline air monitoring during the
intrusive activity at the site are negligible. The only significant
sustained contamination readings were noted during the exploration of
underground storage tanks (USTs) in the building depicted near grid
location 7+50, 150 L in Section 4 of the RI Report. However, values
obtained on soils quickly dissipated in the open air to nondetectable
levels.
F.
Underground storage Tanks
A series of tank vents observed during a site walkover in May of 1990
were investigated during the RI. The investigation includ~
monitoring of the void-space of the tanks using an OVA proDe,
sampling of the tank contents, and a boring program designed to
characterize the overburden immediately surrounding the tanks for
signs of environmental impact. The three tanks were found to contain
petroleum products. In addition, an area of soil adjacent to the
tanks next to Building B10 also found to be contaminated with
petroleum products.
A complete discussion of site characteristics can be found in the
Remedial Investigation Report in section 3.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A.
Human Health Risk Summary
A Risk Assessment was performed to estimate the probability and
magnitude of potential adverse human health and environmental effects
from exposure to contaminants associated with the Site. The public
health risk assessment followed a four step process: 1) contaminant
identification, which identified those hazardous substances which,
given the specifics of the Site were of significant concern; 2)
exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure
pathways, characterized the potentially exposed populations, and
determined the extent of possible exposure; 3) toxicity assessnent,
which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health effects
associated with exposure to hazardous substances, and 4) risk
characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to
summarize the potential and actual risks posed by hazardous
substances at the Site, including carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risks. The results of the public health risk assessment for the Site
. are discussed below, followed by the conclusions of the environmental
risk assessment.
Fifty-eight contaminants of concern, listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of
this Record of Decision were selected for evaluation in the risk
assessment. These contaminants constitute a representative subset of
the more than 77 contaminants identified at the Site during the
-------
13
to represent potential site related hazards based on toxicity,
concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence
in the environment. A summary of the health effects of each of the
contaminants of concern can be found in section 6 and Appendix M of
the Risk Assessment in the RI.
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the
contaminants of concern were estimated quantitatively or
qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical
exposure pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the
potential for exposure to hazardous substances based on the present
uses, most probable future uses, and location of the site.
Potential current receptors of Site related contamination are
trespassers on the site and recreational users of the Moosup River.
Under present conditions the Site is completely accessible to
trespassers, therefore a trespasser scenario was developed for
incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soils. In
addition, exposure to sediments from the Moosup River is likely by
youths. Therefore, a recreational exposure scenario was developed
for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediments. There is
also a small pond on the Site and the frequent use of the Site by
trespassers ~akes it a present and potential future exposure pathway.
Therefore, a recreational exposure scenario was developed for
incidental ingestion and direct contact with surface water.
Future land use of the Site is expected to involve industrial and
commercial activity as it has in the past. Because there is
reasonable certainty that the Site will continue to be used for
industrial purposes and not residential purposes, an excavation
worker scenario was also developed for direct contact and incidental
ingestion of subsurface soils. Risk was also calculated based upon
future residential exposure to both surface and subsurface soils, and
ground water.
The following is a brief summary of the exposure pathways evaluated.
A more thorough description can be found in Section 6 of the RI. For
contaminated ground water, a lifetime of consuming 2 liters of water
per day was assumed. For contaminated soil, dermal contact and
incidental ingestion of soil was evaluated for a trespasser assuming
exposure 91 days a year for 10 years. Dermal contact and incidental
ingestion of soil was evaluated for an excavation worker assuming
exposure 65 days a year for 1 year. For contaminated sediments,
exposure to an adolescent (9-18 years old) was estimated. De~al
contact with and incidental ingestion of sediments was evaluated
assuming exposure 52 days a year for 10 years. Dermal contact and
incidental ingestion of surface water by an adolescent (9-18 years
old) while swimming was evaluated assuming exposure 26 days a year
for 10 years. For each pathway evaluated, an average and a
reasonable maximum exposure estimate was generated corresponding to
exposure to the average and the maximum concentration detected in
-------
14
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure
pathway by-multiplying the exposure level with the chemical specific
cancer factor. Cancer potency factors have been developed by EPA
from epidemiological or animal studies to reflect a conservative
"upper bound" of the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic
compounds. That is, the true risk is unlikely to be greater than the
risk predicted. The resulting risk estimates are expressed in
scientific notation as a probability (e.g. 1 x 10.6 for 1/1,000,000)
and indicate (using this example), that an average individual is not
likely to have greater than a one in a million chance of developing
cancer over 70 years as a result of Site-related exposure as defined
to the compound at the stated concentration. Current EPA practice
considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure
to a mixture of hazardous substances. -
The hazard index was also calculated for each pathway as EPA's
measure of the potential for non-carcinogenic health effects. A
hazard quotient is calculated by dividing the exposure level by the
reference dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for non-carcinogenic
health effects for an individual compound. Reference doses have been
developed by EPA to protect sensitive individua~s over the course of
a lifetime and they reflect a dai~y exposure level that is likely to
be without an appreciable risk of an adverse health effect. RfDs are
derived from epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate
uncertainty factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will
not occur. The hazard quotient is often expressed as- a single value
(e.g. 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated exposure as
defined to the reference dose value (in this example, the exposure as
characterized is approximately one third of an acceptable exposure
level for the given compound). The hazard quotient is only considered
additive for compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoint
and the sum is referred to as the hazard index (HI). (For example:
the hazard quotient for a compound known to produce liver damage
should not be added-to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney
damage). -
Tables 1 through 7B can be found in Appendix A of this ROD.
Table 1 depicts the summary of contaminants of concern in ground
water and their frequency of detection at the site during the RI.
Table 2 depicts the summary of contaminants of concern in surface
soils on the ~ain Site and their frequency of detection during the
RI.
Table 3 depicts the summary of contaminants of concern in subsurface
soils at the main Site and their frequency of detection during the
RI.
~able 4 depicts the carcinogenic risk summary for the contaminants of
-------
15
ingestion of ground water corresponding to the average and the
reasonable maximum exposure.
Table 5 depicts the non-carcinogenic risks for the contaminants of
concern in ground water evaluated to reflect potential future
ingestion of ground water corresponding to the average and the
reasonable maximum exposure scenarios.
Table 6 depicts the carc~nogenic risk summary for the contaminants of
concern in subsurface soil evaluated to reflect potential future
ingestion and direct contact with subsurface soils corresponding to
the average and reasonable maximum exposure scenarios.
Tables 7A and 7B depict the cumulative risk summary for the
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic contaminants of concern for each
pathway analyzed. For a more detailed analysis on the risk for each
contaminant of concern, see Appendix L of the RI.
EPA has det~rmined that the site does not currently pose an
unacceptable threat to human health. The ground water on Site does
not currently pose a threat to human health because it is not
currently used as a drinking water source. Water samples from the
municipal supply well were tested and results indicate that current
risks are insignificant.
samples collected from the surface water indicate that surface water
currently poses no carcinogenic risk. Noncarcinogenic inorganics
were detected in surface water samples. However, ingestion of and
dermal contact with Main Site surface water while swimming resulted
in hazard index values below one (3xIO-3), an acceptable risk.
The current risk from exposure to contaminated soil was calculated
for both carcinogens and non-carcinogens. These risks were all quite
low and are found to be acceptable by EPA. EPA divided the Site into
two areas of study for the purpose of calculating current risk from
exposure ~o soils. These ~wo areas are called the Main Site area and
the Pigmented Waste Pile area. The carcinogenic risk from soil to
trespassers and recreational users of the Pigmented Waste Pile area
was very low (lXlO.s). The hazard index value for noncarcinogenic
risk from soil to trespassers and recreational users of the Pigmented
Waste Pile area was also very low -- less than one (3XIO.z). The
carcinogenic risk from soils to trespassers on the Main Site area was
estimated to be lxlO.4 and the hazard index value for noncarcinogenic
risk from soils to treslassers of the Main Site area was estimated to
be less than one (8xlO'). .
EPA also evaluated the human risk currently posed by sediments at the
site. Risk from exposure to Main Site sediments, collected from ~he
spillway Channel and the on-site pond, were evaluated for
trespassers. The carcinogenic risk associated with these sediments
was very low (lXlO'5). The hazard index value for noncarcinogenic
-------
16
therefore, considered acceptable by EPA. The carcinogenic risk to a
recreational user from Moosup River sediments collected near the
Pigmented Waste Pile area and down-river calculated was estimated to
be very low -- 4xlO-6 and lxlO-6, respectively. The hazard index value
for noncarcinogenic risks from these sediments was lower than one --
(4xlO-2 and 3x~O'2 respectively). These risks are all quite small and
are acceptable to EPA.
In addition to finding that the Site currently poses no unacceptable
risk to human health, EPA has also determined that the site will not
pose a threat to human health in the future. The future carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic risks for surface water, Pigmented Waste Pile
area surface soils, Main Si~e and all Moosup River sediments were
estimated to. be the same as the current risk outlined above and are,
therefore, found to be acceptable to EPA.
After reviewing site-specific information, EPA has determined with
reaso~able certainty that the use of the Site in the future will
remain industrial. Given this determination, EPA estimated the
future risk in an industrial scenario to an excavation worker as the
most probable and potential risk scenario. The carcinogenic risk
under this scenario was estimated to be 2xlO-5 and the
noncarcinogenic risk had an estimated hazard index of 1. These risks
are small and are, therefore, acceptable to EPA. Finally, the
carcinogenic risk in the future from ingestion of ground water, after
recalculation, poses a very small risk. See Table 7A. The hazard
index for the maximum detected arsenic concentration in ground water
(19 ugjL) slightly exceeds one. However, EPA does not believe that
arsenic levels in ground water warrant taking action at the site
because the detected concentration is well below the MCL of 50 ug/L.
At the Site, there are very low level' of contaminants in the ground
water, surface water, surface and sub~~rface soils and sediments. The
cancer and non-cancer risks that would result from current or
probable future exposure to these contaminants are very slight and
are within a range that EPA considers acceptable. This strongly
supports the decision to select No Action.
B.
Ecological Risk Summary
Sediment toxicity testing was performed by EPA on two benthic
invertebrate organisms, chironomus tentans and hyallela azteca.
Sediment samples were homogenized and placed into test chambers and
then overlain with water and CaC03. Each chamber was then inoculated
with 20 organisms. The tests were performed to assess the
sensitivity gf,these organisms to the sediment samples. At the end
of ten days the organisms were removed, counte~ and measured.
The data from the hyallela azteca test did not indicate toxic
in survival or growth from any of the sediment samples. The
chironomus tentans tes~ did not indicate any toxic effects on
survival but did have some effect on growth from the sediments
-------
17
sampled from the on-site pond. However, the effects on growth were
not significant enough to warrant any remedial action. A more
complete discussion of the results of the toxicity testing performed
can be found in Section 6 of the RI.
VIZ.
DESCRZPTION OF NO ACTZON ALTERNATIVE
No construction activities would be associated with the No Action
decision. However, both ground water and sediment monitoring would
be performed to provide information regarding the nature of 9round
water and area sediment in the event that any changes-should occur.
At a minimum, quarterly monitoring for the first year followed by
semi-annual monitoring for the next four years would be performed to
confirm that no unacceptable exposures will occur in the future. The
need for additional monitoring wells would be examined. These, plus
a subset of the existing monitoring wells, and the public supply
well, would be selected as ground water monitoring points. In
addition, the ground water monitoring would provide a better
understanding of rate of ground water flow. Due to the present low
concentration of contaminants at the Site, the analytical methods.
that would be used for ground water must be capable of achieving very
low detection limits~ In addition to the monitoring and consistent
with CERCLA, the Site would be reviewed at least once every five
years to confirm that the decision to take no action remains
protective. The estimated net present worth of the five-year
monitoring program would be $263,000.00.
VIII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
EPA presented a Proposed Plan (preferred No Action alternative) on
August 21, 1992 for remediation of the Site based on the results of
both the human health and ecological risk assessments performed as
part of the RI. The No Action alternative presented in the Proposed
Plan includes monitoring of the ground water and sediments at the
site for a minimum of five years. The Proposed Plan described EPA's
proposal to take no further action at the Revere Textile Prints
corporation Site. No significant changes have been made to the No
Action recommendation described in the Proposed Plan.
IX. STATE ROLE
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed
the various alternatives and has indicated its support for the No
Action decision. The State of Connecticut. concurs with the selected
remedy for the..Revere Textile Prints Superfund Site. A copy of the
-------
APPENDIX A
Human Health Risk Tables
-------
TABLE 1:
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN IN (GROmm WATER)
Average
Concentration
(uQ'/l)
xaximum
Concentration
(uQ'/l)
:Frequency
of Detection.
Contaminants
of Concern
Tetrach~oroethy~ene 3 ~4 ~/40
Chrysene 2 ~ 1./20
Phenol 3 6' 2/20
Aluminum 86 2560 12/16
Arsenic 7 1.9 2/16
Barium 3.0 3.02 ~2/~6
Chromium 2 4 1/16
Copper 4 1.24 3/16
~ron 1.583 2500 14/16
Manqanese 203 2096 13/16
Zinc 6 12 3/16
. Frequency of detection values were calculated using the
qeometric mean where a value of one-half the detection limit was
-------
TABLE 2:
SUMKARY OF CON'TAMIHMr1'S
OF CONCERN IX SOILS (MAIN SITE- -SURFACE)
CONTAXIDHT AVERAGE IfAXDmH FREQUEHCY OP
OF COBCEJUl COBCEHTRATIOX COBCE!IT~IOB DETECTION
(ppb) (ppb)
Acetone 8 280 3/37
Methylene Chloride 5 310 13/37
Toluene 3 10 4/37
Xylenes 3 31 9/33
Acenapthene 76 2400 11/23
Acena~,.tbyl Eme 81 4000 l2/22
Anthracene 85 14000 22/28
Benzo(a)anthracene 159 32000 28/29
Benao(a)pyrene 169 32000 29/30
Benzo(b) fluor 263 44000 29/30
anthene
Benzo(g,h,i) 115 12000 23/29
perylene
Benzo(k) fluor 202 16000 28/30
anthene
Benzoic Acid 258 310 4/21
Chrysene 186 38000 30/30
Dibenzo(a,h) 81 5700 )/28
anthracene
Dibenzofuran 67 3000 12/23
Fluoranthene 290 77000 30/30
Fluorene 78 4500 12/24
Indeno(1,2,3, 118 19000 28/30
cd)pyrene
2 Methylnaptha 82 2200 8/21
.lene
Napthalene 85 3500 10/22
N Nitrosodi 72 250 5/20
phenylamil1e. .
~henathrene 22l 54000 27/29
~enol 70 170 6/20
-------
TABLE 2: (cont.) .
SUMMARY OF CON'l'AHIHANTS
OF CONCERN IN SOILS (MAIN SITE- -SURFACE)
COHTAK:IR1Ul'1' AVERAGE KAX:IKUX FRBQUBliCY OF
OF COHCERH COHCEBTRA'l':IOH CONCEH'l'RA'l':IOH DETEC'l':IOH
(ppb) (ppb)
4,4 DDl' 8 27 ~/~6
4,4 DDD 8 9 2/16
AJ.uminum 8790000 4994070 ~o/~o
Arsenic 46~4 ~2~00 . ~0/10
Barium 399~.c ~84S0D ~D/~D
Cadium 262 1200 1/10
Chromiun 7638 27700 10/10
Cobalt 2375 5300 7/10
copper 123868 1040000 9/10
:Iron 7087716 18200000 ~O/10
Lead 47184 339000 10/10
Manqanese 102431 200000 10/10
Mercury 100 980 4/10
Nickel 5620 31200 9/10
Vanadium 12767 111000 9/10
-------
TABLE 3:
SUHHARY OF CONTAMINANTS OF CORCERB
IR SOILS (HAIR SITE SUBSURFACE)
COHTAHIDBT AVERAGE nxnrox FREQUENCY
OF CONCERN CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION OF
(PPB) (PPB) DETECTION
ACETONE 9 480 8/78
XETHYLENE CHLORIDE 5 3~O. ~6/78
TOLUENE 3 12 7/78
XYLEm:S 3 6100 11/74
ACENAPTHENE 115 2400 12/31
ACENAP'TRYLmlE ],08 4000 14/30
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 192 32000 31/ _!
BENZO(A)PYRENE 178 32000 32/38
BE~ZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 287 44000 32/38
BENZO(q,h,i)PERYLENE 147 12000 26/37
BENZO(k)FI.U01iANTDNE 231 16DDO 30/38
BENZOIC ACID 417 310 4/29
CHRYSENE 217 38000 33/38
DIBENZO(a,h) 107 5700 22/36
ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN 101 3000 14/31
FLUORANTHENE 332 77000 33/38
FLUORENE 112 4500 14/32
INDENO 1,2,3,CD 150 19000 30/38
PYRENE
2 METHYLNAPHTHALENE 121 2200 10/29
NAPTHALENE 127 3500 12/30
N NITROSODI 104 250 6/28
PHENYLAMINE
PHENOL 106 170 6/28
PYRENE 307 67000 34/38
4,4,DDD "~'. .. 5 9 2/48
4,4 DDT 5 27 1/48
ALUMINUM 5550474 2610000 19/19
-------
TABLE 3: (cont.)
SUMMARY OP CONTAMINANTS OP CONCERN
IN SOILS (MAIN SITE SUBSURFACE)
COR'rAKI:HA!rr AVERAGE KAXIHUX FRBQUBHCY
OP CONCERN CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATIOH OF DETEC'l'IOH
(PPB) (PPB)
BARIUM 29916 184500 19/19
CADIUM 282 1500 4/],9
COBALT 1953 9100 9/19
CXROKIUH 6342 27700 18/19
COPPER 57972 1040000 17/19
IRON 6393-460 ],8200000 19/],9
MANGANESE 118619 2420000 19/19
MERCURY 83 980 5/19
NICKEL 4343 31200 16/19
VANADIUM. 8874 2300 16/19
ZINC 26399 297000 1~/19
-------
'TABLE 4:
CARCINOGENIC RISKS paR THE POSSIBLE YUTURB INGESTION
op .GROmmWATER
. Contamin- Concen- Exposure Cancer
ant of tration Pactor Potency Factor
Concern (uq/l) (l/kq/day) (~g/kg/ day) -1 Risk Estimate
(class) avg .ax avq RIm
'Tetrachloro 3 14 1.2X10-2 S.OlX10-2 2X10-6 8X10-6
ethylene B2 ~.~0-2 S.79%10+O ~o-,
Chrysene 2 ~ 7%10-5
Arsenie 7 3.9 1..2%11)-2 . 1.. "7SX1 0+0 1%10-4 4%10-48
*The JlCL ~or Arsenic is set at 50 ug/L. '!'he carcinogenic risk posed
by arsenic at 50 ug/L in ground water will approximate 2X10-3. ~he
highest concentration found onsite was 19 ug/l, well below the HCL.
~ecent studies i12dica1:e 'tha't 1DMIy skin tumors ari~li~ ~rom ora].
exposure to arsenic are non-lethal and that the dose-response curve
for the skin cancers may be sublinear (in which case the cancer
potency factor used to generate risks estimates may be
overestimated). It is Agency policy to manage these risks downward
by as much as a factor of ten. As a result, the carcinogenic risk
for arsenic at this site would be 4X10-5, one order of magnitude
-------
TABLE 5:
HON-CARC7HOGKHIC RISKS FOR THE POSSIBLE FUTURE INGESTION
OF GROUNDWATER
contamin- Concen-
ant of tration
concern (uq/l)
(class) ava max
Tetrachloro 3 14
ethylene B2
Phenol 1)
Reference
Dose
Exposure
Factor
(l/kq/day)
:ma/kaldav)
1X10-2
1.2%10-2
4
G
1.2%10-2
6%10-1
Arsenic A 7 19 1.2%10-2 3z10-4
Bariua .. 10 1.22:10-2 5z10-2
Chrl'mlo; DID ~ . 2 .. L2Z1o-2 SZ10-3
copper D 4 124 1.2%10-2 4%10-2
Iron D 1583 25000 1.2%10-2 5z10-1
Kaqanese D 203 2096 1.2z10-2 1X10-1
Zinc D 6 12 1.2z10-2 2z10-1
Tarqet
Bndpoint
of
Toxicity
Hazard
Quotient
ava RME
.01 .03
liver
reduced
fetaJ. !)ody
1ft.
kera-
tosis .
increased .OOG
bId pre$sure
no effect. 01
G.I.distress.003
eNS effects .09
no effect .06
Anemia .0008
.0001
.0003
.7
2 *
.06
.02
.09
1
.6
.002
* The Hazard Index for the maximum detected arsenic concentration of
19 uq/L sliqhtly exceeds one. BPA does not believe that arsenic
levels in groundwater "arrant taking action at this site because the
111: is ouy sliqhUy above a m of One aDd because the '"".yo; 1IIUIIt
-------
TABLE 6:
CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR THE FUTURE INGESTION OF
SUBSURFACE SOILS BY EXCAVATION WORKER
CONTA!O:DNT OF CONCE1lTRATIOH EXPOSURE CANCER RISE BSTDIATE
COHCElUl KG/KG FACTOR POTENCY
AVG RXE HG/KG/DA KG/KG/DAY AVG RXE
Y
METHYLENE .005 .31 1.7X10.Z 1.SX10.3 6.57X10.13 ".01%10.1'
CHLORIDE »2
BENZO(a) .192 32 1.7X10-Z 7. 3X10.0 2. 45X10'08 4. 08X10'06
ANTHRACENE B2
BENZO(a) .178 32 1.7X10'2 7. 3X10.0 2. 27X10'08 ... 08X10.06
PYRENE B2
BENZO(b) .287 44 1.7X10'2 7. 3X10.0 3.65:1:10-08 5.60X10'06
FLUORANTHENE
B2
BENZO(k) .231 16 1.7X10-2 7. 3X10.0 2. 94X10.08 2.14X10'06
FLUORANTHENE
B2
CliRYSENE.B2 .218 38 1. 7X10.2 7. 3X10.0 2.77:1:10'08 4. 84X10'06
DIBENZO-(a,h) .107 57 1.7X10.2 7.3%10.0 1.36X10.08 7.2 6X10.07
ANTHRACENE B2
INDENO (1,2,3) .151 19 1.7X10.2 7. 3X10.0 1.92X10'08 2. 42X10'06
PYRENE B2
N-NITROSO .105 .25 1. 7X10'Z 4. 9X10-3 8. 95X10.1Z 2.14X10.'1
DIPHENYL
AMINE B2
4,4 DDD B2 .006 .009 1.7X10.Z 2. 4X10.1 6. 74X10'12 1.13X10"1
4,4 DDT B2 .005 .027 1.7X10.z 3.4X10.1 9. 58X10'1Z 4. 80X10"1
ARSENIC A 2.5 1.21 1.7X10-Z 1. 75X10.0 7. 74X10'08 3. 69X10'07
BERYLLIUM B2 .35 1.17 1.7X10.Z .(. 3X10.0 2.63X10-08 8.78X10'07
TOTAL RISK
-------
Table 7A and 7B below depict the cumulative risk summary for the
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic contaminants of concern for each pathway
analyzed. For a more detailed ana~ysis on the risk for each contaminant of
concern, see Appendix L of the RI.
SUMMARY
. TABLE 7A:
OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS ESTIMATES
FOR THE REVERE SITE
:IHCREMEN'l'AL
nSB:
BI"'1lW2t.'RTO UCEP'.rOR PRESE1I'1'/EUTUlCE AVERAGE JUmSODBLE
nxDroX
GROUNDWATER RESIDENT FUTURE 3x10 -1)1.* 5X10.04*
MAIN SITE -
SURFACE
SOILS TRESPASSER PRESENT 1X10-06 8X10-05
DEmmL COJlnC'l' U10-07 2X10-DS
TOTAL 1X10-06 1X10-04
PIGMENTED
WASTE
PILE SURFACE
SOIL
INGESTION. TRESPASSER/ PRESENT/FUTURE 9x10 .09 9X10-09
RECREATJ:ONAL
USER
DIRECT CON'1'AC~ TRESPASSERI 2x~D -119 2X~0.09
RECREATIONAL
USER
TOTAL 1X10-08 1x10-08
MAIN SITE
SURFACEI
SUBSURFACE
SOIL
INGESTION RESIDENT FUTURE 1X10.05 8X10.04
DERMAL CONTACT RESIDENT FUTURE ~X10.06 ~X10.1)1.
TOTAL 1X10-05 9X10-04
MAIN SITE
SEDIMENTS
(SPILLWAY
CHANNELl
POND) . 1%10 -06
INGES.TION TRESPASSER PRESENT 9X10-06
DERMAL CONTACT TRESPASSER PRESENT 2X10-07 2X10-06
TOTAL 1X10-06 1x10 -05
INGESTION RESIDENT FUTURE 7%10-06 5X10-05
DERMAL CONTACT-- .m:SIDENT FUTURE 9%10-07 8X~0-06
-------
SUMMARY
TABLE 7A: (cont.)
OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS ESTIMATES
FOR THE REVERE SITE
J:NCREMEH'l'AL
lUSK
I SCEHMUO I RECEPTOR I PRESE>r:r/PU'l'UlIE I AVERAGE I ==LE I
MOOSUP RIVER
SEDZMENTS (NEAR
PIGMENTED WASTE
PILE)
INGESTION RECREATIONAL PRESENT/FUTURE 2X10-06 3X10.06
USER
DEBHAL CON'l'AC'l' RECREATIONAL PRESEET/~' U:1' uRE 4X10-07 6X10-07
USER
TOTAL 2X10-06 4X10.06
MOOSUP RIVER
SEDIMENTS
(DOWNGRADJ:ENT)
INGESTION RECREATIONAL PRESENT/FUTURE 7X10-07 1x10 -06
USER
DERMAL CONTACT RECREATIONAL PRESENT/FUTURE 1X10-07 2X10.07
USER
TOTAL 8Z10-07 J.xJ. 0 - 06
*The MCL for Arsenic is set at 50 uq/L. The carcinoqenic risk posed by
arsenic at 50 ug/L in ground water will approximate 2X10-3. The highest
concentration found outside was 19 uq/l well below the MCL. Recent studies
indicate that many skin tumors arising from oral exposure to arsenic are
non-lethal and that the dose-response curve for the skin cancers may be
sublinear (in which case the cancer potency factor used to generate risks
estimates may be over-estimated). It is Agency policy to manage these risks
downward by as much as a factor of ten. As a result, the carcinogenic risk
for arsenic at this site would be 4X10.S, one order of magnitude lower than
-------
SCEnIUO RECEP'l'OR PRESEHT/PUTURE AVERAGE REASONABLE
1IAX:nmH
MAIN SITE
SURFACE
SOIL
INGESTION . TRESPASSER PRESEHT 2X10~02 8XJ.0-02
DERMAL CON'l'AC TRESPASSER PRESENT 3X1.0.05 3XJ.O.D3
TOTAL 2X10.02 8xlO-02
PIGMENTED WASTE
PILE SURFACE .
SOIL
INGESTION TRESPASSER/ PRESENT/FUTURE 3X10'02 3X10-02
m!:CREA"l'IODL
USER
DERMAL CONTACT TRESPASSER/ PRESENT/FUTURE 2X10-09 2X10.09
RECREATIONAL
USER
, TOTAL 3'X10.02 3X10-D2 .
MAIN SITE
SURFACE/
SUBSURFACE SOIL
INGES'rIOH ADUL1' FUTURE 2X10.02 1.XJ. 0 - 0'1
RESIDENT
DERMAL CONTACT ADULT FUTURE 4X10-05 4x10.03
RESIDENT
TOTAL 2X10.02 lX10.01
INGESTION CHILD FUTURE 2X10.01 lX10+00
RESIDENT
DERMAL CONTACT CHILD FUTURE 2X10-04 2X10-02
RESIDENT
TOTAL 2X10.01 1X10+00
MAIN SITE
SEDIHEN'l'S
(SPILLWAY
CHANNEL/POND) lX10-02 3x10 -02
INGESTION TRESPASSER PRESENT
DERMAL CONTACT TRESPASSER PRESENT 5xlO .05 4X10-04
TOTAL lX10-02 3x10 -02
INGESTION ADULT FUTURE 8X10.03 2X10.02
RESIDENT
ADUL'r FUTURE 4X10.05 3X10.04 .
DERMAL CONTACT
... RESIDENT
TOTAL 8X1.0.03 2nO -02
INGESTION CHILD FUTURE 7X10.02 2x10 -01
RESIDENT
DERMAL CONTAC'l' CHILD ~'u'J.'uKE 2X10.04 l.X1.0-03
RESIDENT 7Xl0.02 7X1.0-02
TOTAL
".rABLE 7B:
SUMMARY OF THE NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS ESTIMATES
-------
TABLE 7B: (cont.)
SUMMARY OF THE NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS ESTIMATES
FOR THE REVERB SITE
SCB5AlU:O RECEPTOR PRBSEN'l'/FUTURB AVERAGE REASOImBLB
HAXIXUH
MOOSUP RIVER
SEDIMENTS
(NEAR
PIGMENTED
WASTE PILE)
INGESTION RECREATIONAL PRESENT/FUTURE lX10.02 4X10.02
USER
DERMAL CONTACT RECREATIONAL PRESENTjFt7TURE U1.0-04 Ul 0-04
USER
TOTAL 1.UO -02 4xJ.O -02
MOOSUP RIVER
SEDIMENTS
(DOWNGRADIENT) 6X10-03 3X10-02
'INGESTION RECREATIONAL PRESENT/FUTURE
USER
DERMAL CONTACT RECREATIONAL PRESENT/FUTURE 2X10-05 3X10-05
USER
TOTAL f)X1.0-03 3X10-DS
MAIN SITE
SURFACE
WATER
(SPILLWAY
CHANNEL/POND) 4x1.0 -04 3X10-03
INGESTION TRESPASSER/ PRESENT/FUTURE
RESIDENT
DERMAL CONTACT TRESPASSER/ PRESENT/FUTURE 9xlO -08 aX10-O?
RESIDENT
-------
~
~
y,
~
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPAR TMENT OF ENVIRONJ.fENT ALPROTECTION
W CAPITOL. AVENLJE
HARTFORD, CONNECTICtJT 06106
e
September 30, 1992
TimOThy R.E. Keen,)'
CommissiOfltr
MQ. Julie Belaqa
Regional Administrator
us El'A Region I
JFK Federal Buildinq
Boston, ~
Dear 'M!5. I
The connecticut. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
concurs with the federal Environmental Protection Aqencyts (EPA)
decision to take no further remedial action at this time under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liagility
Act (CERCLA) at the Revere Textile Prints Superfund site in
Sterling, Connecticut. EPA' s proposal includes provisions for
~onitorinq surface and qround waters potentially aftected Py the
site for a minimum period of five years to ensure that no
unanticipated impacts occur. The decision is described in detail
in the p~oposed Plan dated August, 1992.
.
DEP and EPA are aware that there are contaminants re~aininq
in soil and groundwater at the site. DEP recognizes that EPA's no
remedial action decision is based on the results of risk assessment
calculations which EPA is required to use as a basis tor its
remedial action decision. DEP is also aware that the Town of
Sterlinq, as owner of, the site, has implemented in8titutional
controls to minimize the potential for contact with contaminants
on site. DEP and EPA are in aqreement that there are waste
materials on site, including but not limited to solid wastes and
petroleum product tanks, which are outside the purview ot CERCLA
and must be dealt with under other state and/or federal
authorities.
Concurrence with EPA's selected remedy for ~he Revere Textile
prints site shall in no way affect the Commissioner's authority to
institute any proceedinq to prevent or abate,violations of law,
prevent or abate pollution, recover costs and natural resource
damages, and to impose penalties for violations of law, including
but not limited to violations of any permit issued by the
Commissioner. '
Sincerelf.Y' '~.
, t.:s': ~
~ . '-' J,vYrk
r Timoth R. E. Keanel
Commissioner
TREK: CAL: hc
------- |