Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search
  1. ATSDR > Public Health Assessments & Consultations

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICES OF NEW ENGLAND
SOUTHINGTON, HARTFORD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on information reviewed, ATSDR has concluded that this site is a public health hazard because of the risk to human health resulting from past, present, and potentially future exposures to hazardous substances at concentrations that may result in adverse health effects. As discussed in the Human Exposure Pathways section, human exposure to volatile organic compounds and heavy metals via inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact has occurred in the past and may occur in the future through migration of contaminants off-site. Exposure has occurred, and could potentially occur through surface water, ground water, air, soil, and fish contamination. The three major sources of this contamination were from the contaminated public water supply, airborne exposure to sludge incineration products, and exposure to ambient air containing VOC's resulting from ground water stripping.

Given the extent of contamination identified to date on the SRSNE site, the former Cianci property, and the other potentially contaminated off-site properties identified, the following conclusions and recommendations are warranted.

  1. A large portion of the population of Southington was exposed to a variety of site related contaminants for an unknown period of time, through the contamination of public wells (#4 and #6). This exposure was stopped over l0 years ago by removing those wells from production. In addition public wells 2 and 5 were contaminated at times. Although not directly site related, these sources interacted with site related contamination through mixing and distribution in the public drinking water system. Continued monitoring has assured that the public water supply is currently safe.


  2. The potential exists for contaminated ground water from the Curtiss wellfield area to migrate south and southeast now that Wells 4 and 6 are no longer pumping. The CT DEP has assessed every property to the west, south, southeast and southwest of the SRSNE site for private water wells. The CT DEP has monitored and has plans to continue monitoring private wells in these areas.


  3. One (1) site related private well was found to be contaminated with solvents during the 1990 sampling conducted by the CT DHS. Though the individual living at the residence with contaminated water has been drinking bottled water for approximately 10 years, other exposures from the contaminated well may be occurring (e.g. VOC exposure from shower sprays). This individual was notified and the property is being connected to the public water supply system.


  4. Based on community concerns, sampling of sixty-four private wells was conducted by the EPA in 1990 and subsequently resampled by the CT DEP. These results revealed one (1) home with lead levels above the proposed MCL of 20 ug/l. Two private wells were found to have elevated levels of total VOC's and seven homes had elevated sodium levels.

    5. The home with lead levels was retested by the CT DEP to confirm the laboratory results and determined not to be site related. The CT DEP believes the source of lead could be internal lead plumbing fixtures in the house. Information regarding the potential health effects of lead, both in children and adults, should be made available to the residents with the contaminated well.

    The two (2) homes identified with elevated VOC's were placed on bottled water by the State of Connecticut. The CT DEP has determined that the source of contamination is not SRSNE. In addition, the CT DEP assessed and sampled all private wells within close proximity to SRSNE. The residents with elevated sodium levels in their wells have been notified and they have consulted with their physicians. One (1) resident was provided with bottled water. The residents with elevated sodium have been informed of the possible health hazards and one (l) resident has been provided with bottled water.

  5. The potential exists for public and private wells located on the fringe of the zone of ground water contamination emanating from SRSNE to become contaminated. These wells should be periodically monitored.


  6. PCBs (soil and ground water) and dioxin (soil only) have been identified on site.

    7. The identification of PCB, dioxin and furan contamination warrants future and ongoing monitoring efforts to identify the magnitude, extent and source of contamination. Dioxin and furan isomers (tetra, penta, hexa, hepta, and octa) should be identified. In addition to subsurface soil sampling, surface soil samples should be collected from a depth of 0-3 inches.

    As part of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for SRSNE, sampling for PCB, dioxin and furan will be conducted to identify the magnitude, extent and source of this contamination.

  7. Excavation and removal of contaminated soils and waste materials, may expose workers to VOCs, PCBs, dioxins, and heavy metals through inhalation of volatiles and fugitive dusts.

    8. The RI/FS will evaluate treatments that will minimize releases and residuals at the work site periphery to protect workers and nearby residents during remedial activities.

  8. The ground water recovery system and air stripper are reducing ground water levels of VOCs but increasing their levels in ambient air. Ambient air samples taken in July 1990 documented levels of VOC contamination, some of which exceeded background (USEPA TEAM Study 1987). Air pollution equipment is recommended to at least ensure compliance with CT air toxics standards and prevent exposures that may pose a public health risk.

    9. Since a complex mixture of organic solvents is being stripped from the water, it is necessary to assess the risks based on the mixture, instead of individual volatiles if strict air pollution controls are not put in place. A cumulative risk analysis is recommended.

  9. Deteriorated asbestos-like material was observed in the insulation on the condenser located outside in the old process area. This material should be analyzed as asbestos inhalation exposures to onsite workers may occur.


  10. Due to documented exposures to site related compounds and due to specific concerns expressed by local citizens, a number of health outcome data bases were evaluated. Given the inherent limitations of epidemiology, any elevation in disease rates for Southington during the time period when solvent exposure likely occurred cannot be considered causal in nature. A review of tumor incidence data indicates that there are slight elevations in some age specific bladder cancers for the town of Southington between 1979-1988. However, based on the available data, there is no difference in rates for birth defects or learning disabilities between Southington and the State of Connecticut. While there were increases in infant and perinatal mortality rates for Southington, as compared with towns surrounding Southington, or the State, between 1949-1965, these rates are no longer elevated and in fact, remain lower than the two comparison populations in the State of Connecticut and nearby towns.


    1. A preliminary investigation into the potential causes for the elevation of bladder cancer is currently being conducted. A recommendation regarding the need for future health studies on these health effects will be made based upon completion of this investigation.


    2. No further evaluation into birth defects or learning disabilities is now being conducted, based upon the findings, as stated above.


    3. The early patterns of elevated perinatal and infant mortality for the town of Southington are not consistent with adjacent towns or the state. Although these patterns could be associated with environmental contamination, such an association would be virtually impossible to prove due to a lack of environmental data from that period. For this reason no further research into this health outcome is recommended at this time.


  11. Psychological stress associated with the past and present operations at SRSNE including both health (e.g., headaches, nausea) and attitudinal effects (demoralization, upset, perceived threat, lack of trust and general helplessness) have been observed in this community and are cause for concern.

    12. Psychological stress should be addressed within the community. Local counseling centers, and physicians, should be notified of the present situation, so that they may take it into account when seeing patients.

  12. According to a citizen's concern, six residents that lived adjacent to SRSNE died from phosgene exposure related to site activities. No direct information or evidence to support this exposure was found.


  13. There are a number of areas where key pieces of environmental data are not available, incomplete, or uninterpretable. Lack of these data during cleanup activities could lead to further contamination if, for example, contaminated sediments that had not been previously identified are disturbed during the remediation process. Problems with quality assurance also raises doubt about some of the data.

    14. Specifically, more information on off-site air emissions, sediment data for the Quinnipiac river, the extent of fly ash and heavy metal contamination (identified in neighboring properties in 1974), and the total extent of contamination surrounding the site needs to be identified and characterized.

  14. Area residents may be, or have been, at risk from exposure to air, surface water, and soil contamination while engaged in recreational activities in the Quinnipiac River and off-site marshlands (former Cianci property, wetlands located just south east of the subject site), and those properties suspected of having been previously used by SRSNE for disposal of their hazardous waste sludges The CT DEP and the EPA are currently investigating those properties suspected of having been contaminated with wastes from the SRSNE facility.

    15. Access to the former Cianci property should be limited to those engaged in remediation activities. Warning signs regarding the potential hazards of ingesting contaminated biota (i.e., rabbits) should be placed around the properties.


HEALTH ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDATION PANEL (HARP) RECOMMENDATION

The Solvents Recovery Services of Southington, Connecticut has been evaluated for appropriate follow-up with respect to health activities. It is recommended that follow-up health activities would be appropriate. Specifically, after further evaluation a decision will be made as to the need for a disease and prevalence study or some continued evaluation of cancer incidence. Furthermore, an environmental health education program is recommended to advise the public health professional and the local medical community of the nature and possible consequences of exposure to contaminants at the Solvents Recovery Services of New England Inc., site. The value of obtaining a complete and accurate exposure history will be stressed as part of this program. In addition, information that is provided on contaminants may include, but not be limited to, the physical nature of the contaminant, potential exposure pathways (i.e., soil, water, air, food) exposure routes (inhalation, ingestion, dermal), potential health effects, symptoms of exposure and testing and treatment, if known.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

To respond to community concerns, and based on the HARP (Health Activities Recommendation Panel) recommendations, ATSDR has developed the following Public Health Action Plan.

ATSDR in cooperation with the State of Connecticut Department of Health Services will conduct the following Public Health Actions:

  1. The CT DHS will provide environmental health education for local public health officials, the local medical community and to local citizens to assist the community in assessing possible adverse health outcomes associated with exposure to hazardous substances. This program will start December 1, 1991.


  2. The CT DHS in conjunction with ATSDR will evaluate the need for follow-up health study activities with respect to a disease and prevalence study or some continued evaluation of cancer incidence.


  3. The CT DHS will ensure monitoring of municipal water supply wells near the site to determine and document whether or not the water quality in these wells is affected by site-related contaminants.


  4. Information regarding the potential health effects associated with lead in drinking water will be provided to all interested residents by the CT DHS Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.

In addition, other State and Federal agencies have agreed to take the following actions:

  1. The CT DEP will ensure that those private water supply wells located on the fringe of the zone of ground water contamination emanating from SRSNE are monitored to determine whether these potable water supplies are affected by contaminants emanating from the site.


  2. The CT DEP will ensure that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is installed to eliminate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated from the on-site ground water recovery/treatment system.


  3. As part of the Phase III Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will conduct investigations to characterize the ambient air concentrations of the VOCs generated from the ground water recovery system.


  4. The USEPA will characterize the ground water flow pattern(s) south of Curtiss street to assess the migration pathways of solvents from the site.

CERTIFICATION

This public health assessment was prepared by the Connecticut Department of Health Services under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was initiated.

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


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC), ATSDR, has reviewed this public health assessment and concurs with its findings.

Division Director, DHAC, ATSDR


PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

Environmental and Health
Effects Assessors:

Edith Pestana, M.S.

Environmental Epidemiologist
Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational
Health Division, CT Department of Health
Services

Sandy Geschwind, Dr.P.H., M.P.H.

Environmental Epidemiologist
Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational
Health Division, CT Department of Health
Services

Brian Toal, M.S.P.H.

Epidemiologist IV
Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational
Health Division, CT Department of Health
Services


ATSDR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE

Regional Representative

Louise House
Public Health Advisor
Region I, Regional Service


TECHNICAL PROJECT OFFICER

Technical Project Officer

Greg Ulirsch
Environmental Health Engineer
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


REFERENCES

The following documents were reviewed. These documents form the basis of this public health assessment.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for l,l-Dichloroethane," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-88/ll.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for Methylene Chloride," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-88/l8.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for Carbon Tetrachloride" Doct., #ATSDR/TP-89/05. December l989.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for Lead," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-89/l7. June l989.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for Mercury," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-89/l6. December l989.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for 2,3,7,8, Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-88/23. June l989.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-88/22. January l990.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for Toluene," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-89/23. December l989.

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene," Doct., #ATSDR/TP-88/24. October, 1989.

Casarett and Doull's, Toxicology, The Basic Science of Poisons, Second Edition. Editors: Doull, J., Klaassen, C.D., and Amdur, M.O. Macmillan Pub. Co. N.Y.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Air Compliance Unit files for SRSNE. l65 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management's files for SRSNE. l22 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Site Remediation Superfund files. l65 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Waste Management Bureau's files for SRSNE late l960's to present. l65 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance: An Assessment of the Extent and Probable Source of Surface and Groundwater Contaminations in and around Solvents Recovery Services of New England Interdepartment Message: From Paul Marin, To: Robert B. Taylor; l0/25/78.

Connecticut Fund for the Environment (1979). Petition to the United States Environmental Protection Agency to Bring Suit Against the Southington Water Company. CFE,152 Temple Street, New Haven, CT.

Dreisbach, R.H. Handbook of Poisoning. 9the Ed. Lange Medical Publications Los Altos, California, l977.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., December, l980. "Preliminary Investigation of the Abandoned Landfill, Old Turnpike Road, Southington, Connecticut," FIT Project TDD #Fl-80ll-03.

Hazardous Air Pollutant Control Program, Air Compliance Unit, CT Department of Environmental Protection, December, 1986.

Housman, Jr. J.J., Hazardous Lead Emissions from Solvents Recovery, Inc., Lazy Lane, Southington, Connecticut, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Air Compliance Engineering. August, l974

Mazzaferro, D.L., Hardman, E.H., and Thomas, M.P. "Water Resources Inventory of Connecticut, Part 8, Quinnipiac River Basin." Connecticut Water Resource Bulletin No. 27, l979.

New England Bioassay Inc., Comparative Toxicity Testing Solvents Recovery of New England and Quinnipiac River, January 25, l990, March 2l, l990.

NUS Corporation, Phase 1 Field Investigation Activities, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Solvents Recovery Sources of New England, Inc., Southington, CT, contract #68-W8-0117, October 1990.

Roy F. Weston, Inc. - Century Laboratories TID Number: 0l-88-07-06, Solvent Recovery Services, Southington, Connecticut. 1989.

Roy F. Weston, Inc. - Data Chem, Inc.; Case 980l, SDGAL463 TID Number 0l-88-07-5 Site: Solvents Recovery Service, Southington, Connecticut Soil Sampling Data VOCs, pesticides and PCB analysis, August 22, l988.

Solvents Recovery System - DTE and In-Stream Study Review, State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit Interdepartment Message. To: Bob Kaliszewski, Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit; From: Traci Jordon, Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit; l22 Washington Street, October 3, l989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Purgeable Organic Analysis from Southington, Connecticut, From: Richard Siscnaw To: Edward Tayler, Chief Chemistry Section, March 26, l980.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region I, Inspection Report, February 1-2, 1989. Solvents Recovery Service of New England, Lazy Lane Southington, CT 06489.

United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency (TEAM). The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study Summary and Analysis: Volume I. Lance, Wallace A. Office (ED.) Office of Research & Development. USEPA Wash., D.C., 20460. EPA/600/6-87/002, June 1987.

Waryzn Engineering, Inc. November l980. Hydrogeologic Investigation, Town of Southington, Connecticut.

Water Works Department files for Town Production Wells 4, 5, and 6. 65 High Street, Southington, Connecticut.

Werhan Engineering Consulting Engineers Final Report: The SRSNE site Southington, Connecticut; "A Hydrogeologic Assessment Prepared for Solvents Recovery Services of New England, Inc." Southington, Connecticut, October l982.

YWC, Inc. "Primary and Secondary Lagoon Sites Drum Handling Areas and Incinerator Site Corrective Measures Plan, Solvents Recovery of New England". Project Number 0l-6l63, May l5, l986.

YWC, Inc. and ERM-Northeast Inc. "Concept Engineering Report Off-Site Groundwater Interceptor System Alternative Proposal. "Solvents Recovery of New England, Inc." YWC project number 0l-6l63; March 26, l986.

YWC, Inc., "Discharge Toxicity Evaluation", prepared for Solvents Recovery Services of New England, Lazy Lane, Southington, CT, January, 1989.


APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: FIGURES

Site Information Map
Figure 1-1. Site Information Map

Area Map
Figure 1-2. Area Map


APPENDIX 2: AGE SPECIFIC BLADDER AND TESTICULAR CANCER CASES AND INCIDENCE RATES PER 10,000 FOR CONNECTICUT AND SOUTHINGTON FOR THE 10 YEAR PERIOD 1979 TO 1988

Age Specific Bladder Cancer Cases and Incidence Rates per 10,000 for Connecticut and Southington for the 10 Year Period 1979 to 1988
Age group Connecticut bladder cases Southington bladder cases Expected no. bladder in Southington Connecticut bladder incidence Southington bladder incidence Lower 95% Confidence Interval on Southington Incidence Upper 95% Confidence Interval on Southington Incidence
0-19
7
1
0.09
0.08
0.94 *
0.13
6.70
20-29
30
0
0.32
0.56
0.00
-
-
30-39
110
3
1.47
2.19
4.48
1.44
13.88
40-49
322
9
4.24
8.51
18.07 *
9.40
34.73
50-59
1057
15
12.38
31.90
38.66
23.31
64.13
60-69
2190
10
24.60
73.03
53.25
33.55
84.53
70-79
2260
24
21.75
124.28
137.14
91.92
204.61
80- '
1303
11
10.79
156.31
159.42
88.29
287.87
               
TOTAL
7359
81
75.71
396.85
411.97

STANDARD INCIDENCE RATIO:
 
OBSERVED
EXPECTED
SIR = OBS/EXP
LOWER 95% CI
UPPER 95% CI
 
81
75.71
1.06987
0.82060
1.31914

* Significant at the P=0.05 Level


Age Specific Testicular Cancer Cases and Incidence Rates per 10,000 for Connecticut and Southington for the 10 Year Period 1979 to 1988
Age group Connecticut testis cases Southington testis cases Expected no. testis in Southington Connecticut testis incidence Southington testis incidence Lower 95% Confidence Interval on Southington Incidence Upper 95% Confidence Interval on Southington Incidence
0-19
52
0
0.63
1.19
0.00
-
-
20-29
284
6
2.99
10.58
21.20
9.52
47.19
30-39
268
2
3.54
10.90
6.15
1.54
24.61
40-49
107
0
1.44
5.85
0.00
-
-
50-59
55
1
0.64
3.46
5.43
0.77
38.58
60-69
25
0
0.29
1.85
0.00
-
-
70-79
11
0
0.11
1.50
0.00
-
-
80- '
7
0
0.06
2.65
0.00
-
-
               
TOTAL
809
9
9.70
37.99
32.79

STANDARD INCIDENCE RATIO:
 
OBSERVED
EXPECTED
SIR = OBS/EXP
LOWER 95% CI
UPPER 95% CI
 
9
9.70
0.92793
0.36537
1.49049


APPENDIX 3: PERINATAL AND INFANT MORTALITY RATES

Perinatal Mortality Rates
Perinatal Mortality Rates

Infant Mortality Rates
Infant Mortality Rates


APPENDIX 4: PREVALENCE RATES FOR LEARNING DISABLED CHILDREN, SOUTHINGTON, CONNECTICUT


Prevalence Rates for Learning Disabled (LD) = # LD Students / Total # of Students * 100

Connecticut State percent prevalence rate = 6.55% (1987-1988)
Southington = 6.66% (1987-1988)
School District 7 = 6.53% (1987-1988)

Southington School LD Prevalence Rates for 1988-1989 School Year
School
#LD
Total # of Students
% Prevalence Rate
2 Hattan
24
249
9.60
6 Plantsville
30
334
8.98
7 South End
14
290
4.80
8 Strong
13
315
4.13
9 Thalberg
20
205
9.75
10 North Center
15
261
5.70
13 Flanders
24
432
5.55
14 Kelley
24
441
5.40
15 Central
47
688
6.83
51 De Paolo J.H.
58
660
8.78
53 Kennedy J.H.
42
730
5.75
62 Southington H.S.
66
1,300
5.07

Note: 102 special ed students are served outside of district. 26 are LD.


APPENDIX 5: FREQUENCY TABLE OF BIRTH DEFECTS IN SOUTHINGTON, CONNECTICUT, 1983, 1985, AND 1986

Table 1. Frequency of birth defects in Southington
Year of birth
Affected infants
Number of defects
Total number of defects
Expected
Observed
One
Two
Three+
1983
22.2
14
11
2
1
20
1985
24.6
17
11
3
3
30
1986
27.0
39
35
4
-
43


Table 2. Types of birth defects in Southington
ICD code
Type of birth defect
Number diagnosed
Expected 1986
1983
1985
1986
740 Anencephalus - - - < 0.1
741 Spina bifida - - - 0.1
742 Brain deformities 1 - 1 0.3
743 Eye anomalies - - 2 0.5
744 Ear anomalies - 3 1 0.9
745 Heart defects 3 2 3 3.2
746 Other heart anomalies 1 4 2 2.5
747 Blood vessel anomalies - 6 9 3.7
748 Respiratory system anomalies 1 1 1 1.0
749 Cleft lip and palate - 1 1 0.9
750 Alimentary tract anomalies 2 1 2 1.6
751 Digestive system anomalies - - - 1.1
752 Genital organ anomalies 3 3 5 4.2
753 Urinary system anomalies 1 - 3 1.2
754 Dislocation of hip, etc. - 1 6 3.1
755 Limb anomalies 4 1 4 2.4
756 Musculoskeletal anomalies 1 2 1 1.6
757 Skin anomalies - 2 2 3.6
758 Chromosomal anomalies 2 3 - 1.1
759 Unspecified anomalies 1 - - 0.7
           
  Total Defects Diagnosed 20 30 43 33.7


APPENDIX 6: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

The following is a compilation of all public comments on the Solvents Recovery Services of New England (SRSNE) public health assessment that were received between November 1 and December 31, 1991 during the Public Comment period. All public comments have been included with an appropriate response following. Several of the comments that were similar in nature were grouped together.

A. Comments by AARON Environmental Specialists, Plantsville, CT

Re: Public health assessment of Solvents Recovery Services (SRS) Public Comments

After careful review of the 45 page report entitled "Health Assessment of Solvents Recovery Service of New England" released by your department, we would like to submit the following comments:

  1. Although the report is comprehensive in nature the Standard Incidence Ratio (SIR) for tumors, infant mortality, learning disabilities and birth defects of Southington versus other Connecticut communities, we believe that the report does not adequately address the specific adverse health risk effects on the Southington citizens residing within the immediate area of SRS. We would recommend that the Dept. of Health Services:


    1. utilize the local health data provided by members of the SAFE group.


    2. expand the scope of the SAFE health survey by conducting your own health survey within the immediate area.


    3. compare adverse health risks of residences in the immediate area to that of the greater Southington community.


    4. consider the immediate SRS area as a "Town Within Itself" and statistically compare the adverse health risks of this specific area to that of other communities in the State.


  2. A study conducted by the CT DEP identified heavy metal (lead, etc.) contamination of soils and vegetation on neighboring properties from the SRS open pit incinerator. Because of bioaccumulation properties of heavy metals in the human system, we recommend that the CT DEPT. of Health Services performs blood testing of neighbors who would participate on a voluntary basis to help determine the long term chronic risk exposure inflicted by the SRS operation.


  3. We applaud the Public Health Action Plan as detailed on page 33 of the report and encourage the Department of Health Services to work closely with the concerned citizens of Southington.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO THE AARON ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS

The document is not a "Risk Assessment" study. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) public health assessments are not designed to calculate health risk. There is a difference between a "Public Health Assessment" and a "Risk Assessment". Hopefully the following paragraphs will clarify the differences between them and what they both try to achieve.

Risk Assessment:

A risk assessment estimates the statistical probability that some harm will come to an individual or a population as a result of exposure to a substance or a situation. It is comprised of four (4) steps:

  1. It assesses whether a particular hazardous substance can contribute to cancer, birth defect or a health problem.


  2. It estimates the quantity of the chemical received by a person or group of persons and the health effect that a specific quantity of chemical or dose would cause. This is referred to as "dose-response relationship".


  3. The substances's potency for each specific health effect of concern also needs to be assessed. This information is usually taken from animal studies.


  4. Finally the risk assessment expresses what the probability is that an adverse health effect will occur as a result of the exposures that were measured.

In an EPA risk assessment biological statistical models are used to calculate estimates of the health risk in order to facilitate remediation and to set regulatory guidelines and standards.

ATSDR Public Health Assessment:

While a risk assessment conducted under EPA's Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study process is used to support the selection of a remedial measure, an ATSDR health assessment is a mechanism to provide a community with information on the public health implications of a specific site, identifying those populations for which further health actions or studies are needed. The health assessment also makes recommendations for actions needed to protect public health, which may include issuing health advisories.

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (CT DHS) RESPONSE TO AARON ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST'S RECOMMENDATIONS NOS. 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d):

Most of the local health data (cancer case listings) that have been provided periodically by SAFE have been used to help design the focus of the separate health study CT DHS is conducting. However, of the data provided by SAFE only those cases that are recorded in the Connecticut (CT) Tumor Registry could be included in the health study.

The health study is entitled "Cancer Occurrence in Southington, CT." Information on the persons who have had cancer in Southington was obtained from the CT Tumor Registry. By state law, a physician who diagnoses a tumor in a Connecticut resident must report that diagnosis to the CT DHS. The CT Tumor Registry is considered to be the best and most complete source of information on cancer incidence in the country. The information on the number of cancer cases which occurred in Southington was compared with what would be expected based on cancer incidence in the entire state of Connecticut controlling for sex and age (two of the most important cancer risk factors). While the preliminary results from this analysis indicate that no overall increase in cancer cases occurred in the town of Southington during the past 10 years the observed number of testicular cancer cases in the 20 to 29 year age group and the observed number of bladder cancer cases in the 40-49 age group was elevated. An expanded study is being conducted to focus on bladder and testicular cancer in smaller neighborhoods/regions within the town rather than the entire town to address concerns that health effects are being experienced in specific locations within the town.

This expanded study is relying on newly developed Geographic Information System (GIS) technology where the precise address of the person can be mapped with computer assistance along with information on water supply, proximity to dump sites and census data on the number of individuals living in an area, their age and sex. It is hoped that the results from this analysis will more definitively answer the question of whether neighborhoods within Southington are having more cases of cancer than would be expected.

A risk assessment is presently being conducted by the United States Department of Environmental Protection (USEPA) on the SRSNE facility as part of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). This risk assessment will compare Southington with other communities.

CT DHS RESPONSE TP AARON ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST'S RECOMMENDATIONS NO.1(b):

At the present time the CT DHS does not have plans to conduct a health survey.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO AARON ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST'S COMMENT NO. 2:

Although blood is most commonly measured as a marker of exposure, it only shows relatively recent exposures and therefore would not be useful in assessing metal exposures that occurred approximately 20 years ago. Lead, which is the primary metal contaminant of concern with respect to SRS incinerator emissions, bioaccumulates in bone for up to 20 years and that would therefore be the tissue where lead could be measured. The amount of lead stored can be measured through X-ray analysis. However, this measurement does not show nor predict the effects that lead has had on the organs of concern. These are the brain, cardiovascular system and the kidney. There are no biomarkers that can measure or assess the effects or damage that past exposures to lead (approximately 20 years ago) could have had on these organs.

Other biologic monitoring of the surrounding community is not being considered at this time. However, it may be considered in the future if an epidemiologic investigation warrants it.

B. CT DHS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE AT A PUBLIC FORUM HELD BY SAFE MEMBERS IN SOUTHINGTON, CT IN DECEMBER, 1991:

Public Comments:

  1. Many articles written about the study say there is a health threat but "no pattern of illness" is noted. If 12 cancer cases out of 15 houses (now there are 13 out 15) next to the SRSNE plant are not a red flag, then the study has not been done thoroughly enough and the people doing the study have not looked or spoken with the ill residents.


  2. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted 61 investigations of apparent clusters during 1978-1984. A review of those investigations showed that most of the clusters contained five (5) or fewer cases and no plausible occupational cause. We in Southington have over 100 cases and very definite plausible causes. Our numbers are so much bigger than what would seem like the "usual" smaller cluster.

CT DHS Response to Public Comments Nos. 1, and 2:

The public health assessment cannot identify a causal link to a particular disease of concern in Southington. Unless a chemical/substance is well known to produce a specific disease in humans (such as asbestos and asbestosis of the lung) it is almost impossible to establish plausible cause. Even epidemiologic studies by themselves are insufficient to provide or establish definitive evidence that the disease we are investigating was caused by an exposure to a toxic chemical.

Cancer is not one disease, but many. It can start in many different organs in the body. There may be several different tissues within each organ that can be affected. Thus, cancers of different tissues in the same organ may have different causes. If the cluster includes cancers of different sites, it may not be a true cluster and may be difficult to link to a specific cancer causing agent.

The purpose of the public health assessment is not to conduct an epidemiologic investigation nor a risk assessment but rather to look for any current or future impact on public health.

The public health assessment tries to identify the need for additional health information and health studies (i.e. large epidemiologic studies, door to door surveys, etc.) from the information reviewed.

The occurrence of cancer in Southington is currently undergoing further study by CT DHS. Also it is important to keep in mind that there are many types of cancer in Southington and that a true cluster is only when the cancers occur in the same body location such as several cases of brain cancer.

Public Comments:

  1. The residents are concerned that there are such varied cases (different types) of cancer because the combinations of all these chemicals over the last 30 years has been so unpredictable (unusual). SRS mixed anything and everything. Residents say the place used to "glow" at night.


  2. A resident reported that she had experienced bladder infections while living on Curtiss Street (1962-1967.) Her daughter was diagnosed with thyroid cancer a few years ago. The resident believes that there is a relationship.

CT DHS Response to Nos.4 and 5:

Your concerns are warranted. It is no secret that SRSNE did generate and mishandled a large quantity of chemicals and waste. The environment that we live in affects each of us differently, with some of us responding more sensitively and badly to it. How the human body responds to exposures to chemicals, bacteria, viruses, etc., is dependent on the individual. It is unfortunate that the public health community does not have the knowledge at the present time to either prove or refute your theories.

Public Comment NO. 6:

  1. Please question doctors (especially urologists) in Southington, New Britain, Meriden, Plainville, and Waterbury about the number of patients from Southington.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 6:

The CT Tumor Registry receives cancer case information from the entire state.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 7:

  1. Residents requested that the CT DHS speak with two doctors that have cancer patient information.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 7:

Unless follow-up studies to the Cancer Occurrence in Southington Study is recommended, CT DHS does not have plans at the present time to talk to physicians concerning cancer patient information.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 8:

  1. The discrepancy in the Tumor Registry must be addressed. Of the first 50 cases brought to the attention of the Department of Health Services, 25 did not show up on the registry. This clouds everything that this assessment stands for. Does this mean that possibly half of our cancer cases are not being counted?

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 8:

Actually 45 of the cases reported were identified in the registry. This demonstrates very good case findings on the part of interested citizens. Cases sometimes are not in the registry if the case was diagnosed out of state or if the case was very recently diagnosed.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 9:

  1. On page 28 of the Public health assessment the Tumor Registry has no one in the 0-19 age group with testicular cancer. We do have a case in that age and time group. He's probably not on the tumor registry yet.

CT RESPONSE TO NO. 9:

This is quite possible if he was recently diagnosed.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 10:

  1. Two new cases of cancer have been diagnosed since this summer on Lazy Lane, one pancreatic (which is related to hazardous waste sites) and one brain. Both women live right next door to the SRS plant.


  2. We know of more bladder cases in Southington since the report has been issued. We would like these kept on record.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 10 AND 11:

CT DHS does not keep a record of cancer cases.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 12:

  1. We would like to sit down with someone from the tumor registry and verify our ill people on the registry.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 12:

The list of names has been verified with the CT Tumor Registry and this has been discussed with members of SAFE.

Public Comments NO. 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17:

  1. This is a public health assessment. You must speak with people and ask them about their illnesses. Written reports do not speak the way people can tell it. The people around the plant have a saga to tell if only someone would listen.


  2. This document is called a "Health Assessment". The site has been assessed very well. Please assess the people as thoroughly as you have assessed the site. Let this document be a model for the whole country. People living near the hazardous waste sites will be seeing the development of cancer or disease clusters arise and they will be looking for a guide to follow.


  3. A comprehensive and indepth study (like Woburn) must be done on the residents living near the SRS plant. If the State does not have the money, then the federal government through ATSDR should take on this task. If this is not done, then an independent health study from an outside state or organization (from some kind of grant money) might be a goal.


  4. Along with the above an independent door to door survey should be done of the 1 to 1.5 mile radius surrounding SRS.


  5. A resident asked that strokes be looked into.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO 13,14,15,16 and 17,:

The CT DHS is in the process of completing a Study of the Occurrence of Cancer in Southington. This epidemiologic study is looking at groups of people and populations rather than individuals. The study is evaluating several small regions in Southington where environmental exposures may have occurred. The methods used and the results of this study will be reviewed by scientists from other states who have also been involved in the investigation of cancer clusters.

Depending on the findings of the study and the recommendations made from other out-of-state reviewers, further larger epidemiologic investigations (such as door to door surveys and a study like "Woburn's") may be performed.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 18.

  1. A nurse stated that non-Hodgkins lymphoma is very prevalent in Southington. She stated it should be looked into.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 18:

In response to number 17, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma was evaluated in the initial cancer survey and the number in Southington was less than expected.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 19:

  1. We read page after page of what we have been exposed to and then we are told that "such an association is not sufficient to establish a causal link" between chemical exposures and disease outcomes. Then we need the help of the Almighty !

CT DHS RESPONSE TO 19:

It is unfortunate that at the present time we do not have the "tools" to work with that can definitively establish a link between health problems experienced in the community and exposure to environmental contamination from hazardous waste sites.

Epidemiologic studies by themselves are insufficient to establish or provide evidence that the disease we are looking at was caused by an exposure to toxic chemicals unless the chemical is known from previous toxicology studies to produce the disease we are concerned with. An example of this would be asbestos and asbestosis of the lung.

Even if the CT DHS study of cancer occurrence in Southington found a correlation between the number of cancer cases and geographic location, this would not definitively establish a link between having cancer and the exposures that happened. The results would only suggest that a relationship exists.

We can never really say that those people with cancer living in close proximity to SRSNE got their disease from exposures to contaminants from the site. Unfortunately the epidemiologic techniques available to us to investigate your question lack the power needed to detect any increases in disease.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 20:

  1. The Tumor Registry says there is not a cancer epidemic in Southington (no one ever said there was). We would like to know if there are more incidence of cancer the closer you get to the Superfund site (sites)?

CT DHS RESPONSE TO 20:

The Cancer Occurrence in Southington study used the Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to map information on cases of bladder and testicular cancer. Hopefully, this study will help answer your question.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO 21:

  1. The learning disabilities studies was not done for the correct period of time. Records dating back to the early 70's should have been looked at. There were probably no records in the 60's but testing for L.D. began in the early 70's. We know of quite a few students living near the plant that are learning disabled.

CT DHS RESPONSE:

Because several parents that live in close proximity to SRSNE expressed concern with respect to learning disabilities the CT DHS conducted a preliminary investigation to see if there was an unusual number of children in the town with learning disabilities. However, the state chose not to pursue this investigation further for the following reasons.

  1. During the investigation the state found that the total number of children in Southington with LD is not unusual when compared to other towns in the state and the U.S..


  2. The criteria for diagnosing learning disabilities have not been standardized and have changed throughout the years. Therefore records dating back to the early 1970's may not be comparable and accurate time trend analyses are not possible.


  3. The causes of specific reading, writing or mathematic difficulties remain unknown. Unfortunately despite the growing concern for learning disabilities in children, research studies investigating the cause(s) are limited.


  4. In order for epidemiologist to be able to assess whether an association exists between exposure to a chemical and a learning disability, it is essential to understand the environmental and hereditary factors that cause the specific disability.

Public Comments Received by CT DHS on the Findings of the SRSNE Public health assessment.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

  1. The off-site testing must be redone. To dig 18" and say everything is fine is a travesty to the residents of Southington. Poisons were buried 30 years ago in swampy areas and gravel pits. Eighteen inches after 30 years is not sufficient testing.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 22:

The Queen Street Diner property has been determined to fall within the study area of the Solvents Recovery Service National Priority List site and is included as part of the Phase III Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).

The Mastrianni Gravel Pit (a.k.a. The Meadows Condominiums), Angilillo Property, and the Marek Property were entered into the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA) pre-remedial evaluation processes under the federal Superfund (CERCLA) program in 1991.

The CT DEP, under cooperative agreement with EPA, was assigned the technical lead to conduct a Preliminary Assessment (PA) at each site under the federal program. A PA is the first step in the federal pre-remedial evaluation process. CT DEP conducted an assessment at the Meadows Condominiums which included tests beyond what is routinely performed in a PA. The CT DEP conducted a soil gas study of the property, and sampled soils and nearby private well water supplies for laboratory analysis in order to determine whether or not pollutants exist which could pose a threat to the environment or public health. Based on the findings in that assessment, no evidence was found to indicate that the site is a threat to the public's health. The site will remain active in the federal Superfund pre-remedial program for further evaluation and testing.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

  1. A resident requested that all soil be tested for 1/4 mile around the plant.

CT DHS RESPONSE to 23:

The CT DEP is presently conducting (see response #22) of potential satellite disposal areas . The soil testing being done by DEP is part of those investigations. Testing to determine any migration of contaminants from the SRSNE site is being done by the federal EPA. They will continue to conduct soil, air and water sampling necessary to locate and remediate any such contaminant migration.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

  1. Educate the teenage boys and young men to check for testicular cancer.

CT DHS RESPONSE to 24:

As part of the CT DHS environmental health education program, physicians will be encouraged to educate the male population in Southington on self examination for testicular cancer.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

  1. Offer free testing for people with private wells.

CT DHS RESPONSE to 25:

The CT DEP has been testing and is monitoring those private wells that could be impacted from pollutants migrating in the groundwater systems.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

  1. Why was the Minnesota protocol not carried out? Confidentiality could have been kept by using a blind (give the residents number or code names.) Other states have done this. The neighborhood needs to be looked at.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO 26:

Based on the case information received by the state of Connecticut DHS from a local resident and a review of the CT Tumor Registry, it was not necessary to conduct a public survey of those cases identified in Southington. The information submitted by the local resident was complete and accurate. In addition the state of Connecticut has an advantage over other states, because it has the oldest cancer tumor registry in the United States.

Interestingly, the Minnesota Department of Health's cancer cluster protocol (1990) does not routinely encourage public surveys since there are always questions regarding the completeness and accuracy of the data collected by the resident individual who reported the excess cancer.

The CT DHS cluster protocol uses all the epidemiological investigative methods and tools that are known at the present time for the detection of a cancer cluster.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

A resident wanted it to be known that an environmental impact statement was not done on the aquifer and one should be required. His question was "do we know if the solvents have gotten into the aquifer and if so what are the health hazards that this could pose."

CT DHS RESPONSE:

There is sufficient ground water chemistry data in the public health assessment to show that the aquifer surrounding the SRSNE plant and at least as far south as the public water supply well field (well 4 and 6) is contaminated. Phase III of the RI/FS will characterize the extent and degree of aquifer contamination. As discussed in the "Public Health Implication Section of the public health assessment, wells 4 and 6 were contaminated and residents drank water contaminated with volatile organic compounds for an unknown period of time. The wells were shut down in 1979 and 1980. The health hazards that these past exposures to VOCs in the drinking water might pose are unknown.

PUBLIC COMMENT 28:

Ask the DEP to shut the air stripper down until the new one is in operation.

CT DHS RESPONSE:

The operation of the air stripper is required by a consent decree between EPA, CONN Fund for the Environment, the water company, and SRSNE. The CT DHS did not ask EPA or the CT DEP to shut down the air stripper because they cannot unilaterally change the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, shutting down the air stripper would require that the groundwater recovery system would have to be shut down. The groundwater recovery system is to prevent migration of contaminants off-site. The CT DEP will install a new groundwater water treatment system by June 1992. The system will treat the groundwater without volatilizing the contaminants into the air, thus there will be no opportunity for air releases once the new system is in operation.

PUBLIC COMMENT NO. 29:

In closing, the general consensus of the participants at the forum on the public comment was that they do not believe or accept the fact that illness does not exist in Southington near the SRS plant because there was no personal contact with any ill residents. Trees were studied the air was studied, water was studied, the soil, now study the people.

CT DHS RESPONSE TO NO. 29:

Depending on the findings of the Cancer Occurrence in Southington study and recommendations made from out-of-state reviewers, further larger epidemiologic investigations (such as door to door surveys and a study like "Woburn's" ) may be performed.

C. COMMENTS RECEIVED IN LETTERS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS

LETTER NO. 1:

After careful examination of the Public health assessment of Solvents Recovery Services (SRS) I wish to make the following comments:

  1. In order to obtain a more accurate picture of the population affected during the 1970's and 1960's, it is crucial that an effort be made to track the people actually living in the area at the time. Therefore, I feel that it is absolutely crucial that a case control epidemiology study be conducted so that a true picture of actual cancer and health risks can be ascertained.


  2. It appears that your conclusion regarding the health risk rates posed by exposure to Solvents Recovery contamination is based upon a comparison of the general population with that of Southington as a whole. Since only 5% of the town resides within a mile and a half of the plant, a more accurate analysis of the health risks could be obtained by comparing the levels of disease suffered by the population of those residing within a close radius of the plant.

CT DHS RESPONSE:

In response to your first comment, depending on the findings of the health study entitled "Cancer Occurrence in Southington, CT" as well as comments and recommendations made from reviewers from outside the state of Connecticut, investigations such as a case control study may be performed.

The potential human cancer risks associated with exposures to specific chemicals will be measured in the Risk Assessment Study being performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In response to your second comment, no health risk rates were calculated in the SRSNE Public Health Assessment. But rather, the disease rates (or proportions) that were calculated were used to compare disease in Southington to disease in the state of Connecticut and the U.S.. This was done to see if the proportion of certain diseases in Southington are higher with respect to the state and the U.S..

A comparison of the number of specific cancer cases, (i.e. bladder, and testicular) and geographic residence is addressed in the Cancer Occurrence Study of Southington, CT.

LETTER NO. 2:

"I moved to Southington with my family in 1974. In that same year my wife had a heart attack. She was only 35 years old. Ten years later she had emphysema, in 1984. In 1989, at age 49, she died as a direct result of this emphysema. She was not a smoker.

It is my belief that she may have contracted this disease due to airborne contaminants from this site.

My major concern is that there is continued air contamination due to air stripper operations. Further, I don't see why excavation of contaminated ground should not take place immediately."

CT DHS RESPONSE:

We are sympathetic with you in your belief that your wife contracted emphysema from air borne contaminants generated from the site and are truly sorry for your loss. It is unfortunate that the biological causes of this disease are poorly understood. We do know that in addition to cigarette smoking, air pollution and hereditary factors have been shown to play a role in some patients. Also the number of cases of emphysema is on the rise in those urban areas throughout the world where air pollution is a problem. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove that your wife's emphysema was caused by air emissions from the SRSNE plant.

In response to your concern over the air emissions generated from the air stripper, the operation of the air stripper is required by a consent decree between EPA the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, the water company, and SRSNE. The CT DHS did not ask EPA or the CT DEP to shut down the air stripper because they cannot unilaterally change the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, shutting down the air stripper would require that the groundwater recovery system would have to be shut down. The groundwater recovery system is necessary to prevent migration of contaminants off-site. The CT DEP will install a new groundwater treatment without volatilizing the contaminants into the air, thus there will be no opportunity for air releases once the new system is in operation.

Plans for the excavation of those areas that pose a potential health threat such as the drainage ditch located on the eastern side of the SRSNE site grounds are underway by the US EPA.

LETTER NO. 3:

"My main concern at the moment is the air stripper and potential danger. The area residents breathing the air every day. I think the stripper should be shut down now rather then in months from now when a pollution control system will be installed. Just having that system installed is not enough. That only shows me there is a hazard to us now. If there was no problem, you would not be going to the expense of installing the system. Another concern of mine is Lupus, and the possibility of chemicals being absorbed in the skin."

CT DHS RESPONSE:

In response to your concern over the air emissions generated from the air stripper, the air stripper was not shut down because the CT DHS did not feel that the emissions generated for the air stripper posed an imminent health threat to the local community. In addition, the operation of the air stripper is required by a consent decree between EPA the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, the water company, and SRSNE. The CT DHS did not ask EPA or the CT DEP to shut down the air stripper because they cannot unilaterally change the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, shutting down the air stripper would require that the groundwater recovery system would have to be shut down. The groundwater recovery system is necessary to prevent migration of contaminants off-site. The CT DEP will install a new groundwater treatment without volatilizing the contaminants into the air, thus there will be no opportunity for air releases once the new system is in operation.

In response to your concern with dermal exposures and the disease of lupus. We do not have any evidence at the present time to suggest that the exposures that occurred caused or could potentially cause lupus.

Dermal exposures to water contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from town wells 4 and 6 occurred while bathing and washing for an unknown period of time.

LETTER NO. 4:

Trees, fungus-died. House, vinyl siding - side facing Solvents air current travels contour of street siding sludged. Houses on Knowllwood Road developing fungus on lower portion of houses, wood and around windows - decks.

Survey veterinarians for animals with cancer. Government should supply drinking water to residents in area or entire town. bought up property and excavated toxins out - Love Canal. 50 ft. circle-no vegetation grows, scum-black area.

Severe health problems related to drinking polluted water from the city. I am willing to offer personal documentation to Health Department. My wife and I have severe respiratory ailments.

CT DHS RESPONSE:

In response to your concern with fungus, and the trees dying, air pollution does not create fungus. However, severe air pollution can make trees more susceptible to the effects of fungus and other microorganisms.

The fungus that you have observed on the lower portions of the houses, wood, around windows and decks is not the result of the air currents traveling from SRSNE site but rather is caused by normal climatic conditions.

At the present time the CT DHS does not have plans to survey veterinarians for animals with cancer because our focus is on human health issues.

All those private wells that could have been impacted by contaminants from SRSNE have been tested. Those wells found to be contaminated have been provided with bottled water or have been hooked to the public drinking water supply. The public drinking water supply in the town of Southington at the present time meets federal and state drinking water guidelines.

We at the CT DHS are concerned with you and your wife's health conditions, and recommend that you go to an occupational health clinic. Occupational health clinics are familiar with the health effects of chemical exposures.

LETTER NO. 5:

A respond to your news release, DuPonte designed the incinerator that was installed at SRSNE in Southington, CT. We were not forewarned of the dangerous consequence that would be generated from this type of open pit burner.

It was DuPonte's failure to take all presentations on air pollution of noxious odors and flyash that were oust from the incinerator by the auger. The operation was a 24 hrs a day, seven days a week, all year long.

DuPonte has neglected responsibilities for not considering the health and well-being of the people and putting us all through this ordeal!

There were more than 6 people that had heart attacks in that time period of the incinerator, one kidney failure, one liver case, and there is nausea and eye irritations.

We feel we should have had more support, from the health dept and DEP. In one instant we were told that we have to learn to live with it. This remark was made by the health department of Southington CT.

When this new air stripper is installed and if it turns out to be a white horse, will it be shut down or permitted to be operated?

CT DHS RESPONSE:

The new ground water treatment system (UV Peroxide Treatment System) that CT DEP will install by June 30, 1992 to replace the old air stripper will treat the groundwater directly, without volatilizing contaminants into the air. This will eliminate any potential for air releases from this system. This new pollution control system is equipped with devices that are sensitive to any problems or failures that may occur with the system. Once a problem has been detected, an autodial device will call the consultant and the problem will be corrected as soon as possible.

The CT DEP selected a system that is both reliable and does not generate air releases. The town's environmental group SAFE and AARON Environmental Consultants have reviewed various pollution control systems and are pleased with the CT DEP's selection.

The CT DEP and CT DHS are committed to ensuring that the public health is not endangered.

COMMENTS FROM THE TOWN OF SOUTHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

I would like to comment on your extensive and rather complete report. My major comment is actually a question. My interpretation of the data shows that there is no significant adverse affects demonstrated in the community. However, you rated the site as a category B, which is the second highest level of Public Health Hazard. Does this site truly deserve really a category B?

Even the age specific bladder cancer cases shows a significance in the 0 to 19 age group and once again, in the 40 to 49 age group. The overall incidence of bladder cancer was within the expectant range.

CT DHS RESPONSE:

In response to your first comment, in order for a site to receive the category of Public Health Hazard evidence exists that exposures to chemicals occurred in the past, are occurring or are likely to occur in the future.

SRSNE was considered a public health hazard because exposures occurred in the past through contaminated drinking water and air. Although the major exposure route (the public wells and the incinerator) have been eliminated, there is still concern among the residents over exposures to air emissions from the air stripper on the ground water recovery system.

In addition, given that contaminants are migrating off-site through the ground water, the potential exists for future exposure to these contaminants if they get into drinking water wells.

In response to your second comment, it was felt that the higher than expected number of bladder cancer cases in the 40-49 year age group warranted further investigation.

Table of Contents






Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services