SITE AND RISK ASSESSMENT IN PROVIDENCE, RI BY ENG MARNIE A. BELL AND BETH A. MANOOGIAN B.S., Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999 Submitted to the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING In Civil and Environmental Engineering At the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2000 © Marnie A. Bell and Beth A. Manoogian. All rights reserved. The authors hereby grant to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole and in part. Signature of Authors Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering May 5, 2000 /1 Dep -N ment/f Civil and Efivironmental Engineering May 5, 2000 Certified by David H. Marks Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering hesis Supervisor Accepted by MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MAY 3 0 2000 LIBRARIES Daniele Veneziano Graduate Studies on Committee Departmental Chairman, ENG SITE AND RISK ASSESSMENT IN PROVIDENCE, RI BY MARNIE A. BELL AND BETH A. MANOOGIAN Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 5, 2000 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT Many cities across the United States are plagued by brownfields that occupy choice lands for future development. If these cities want to provide new land use, it is imperative that their brownfield sites be redeveloped. Brownfield sites are abandoned, idled, or underutilized properties with real or perceived contamination. Providence, RI is an EPA Brownfield Showcase Community and is currently in a period of unprecedented growth. Providence's growth is being hindered by the abundance of brownfield sites. This thesis focuses on a site assessment of the Promenade Area, development of a GIS system to display environmental concerns in the Promenade Area, and development a recreation risk-based clean-up standard in order to facilitate the redevelopment of brownfields in Providence, RI. The Promenade Area has been industrial in use historically and can therefore be expected to have a variety of potential contaminants. Contaminants include VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and acids. Detailed Phase I and Phase II investigations need to be performed on land parcels to determine the extent of contamination, if any. Environmental concerns are likely to be surficial soil contamination or presence of historic structures such as USTs or dry wells. Remediation, if necessary, is likely to fall within the scope of the Brownfields Program. We feel that the majority of the Promenade has the potential to be redeveloped for commercial, industrial, and recreational reuse. We have developed a GIS system that displays historical and government regulated sites of environmental concern in the Promenade Area. Our system should be used in conjunction with the City of Providence and developers in selecting properties for redevelopment. The recreational standard demonstrates promise to be applied in the Promenade Area because it is less stringent than the current method. This standard will allow for swift and cost effective remediation of brownfield sites. Many brownfield sites will be able to be redeveloped for recreational use using this standard. The recreational standard not only shows promise for the City of Providence, but it also has potential to be implemented statewide and nationwide. Thesis supervisor: Title: Professor David H. Marks Professor, Director of the Center for Environmental Initiatives ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following people: Dr. Peter Shanahan for all his time, advice, and wisdom. You were truly a joy to work with! Elise Jakabhazy from the EPA for giving us the opportunity to work on this project, putting us in touch with knowledgeable people, and providing feedback. Your enthusiasm is apparent and contagious. Timothy O'Connor, Chris Reynolds, and Pamela Fromm from VHB for providing us with a place to work and access to your resources and knowledge. Prof. David H. Marks, our thesis advisor, for providing us with resources and feedback. Elizabeth Shea for being a wonderful photographer and hired-hand. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The City of Providence 1.1.2 Brownfields 1.1.3 New Cities Initiative 1.2 Statement of Problem 9 9 9 13 14 15 2.0 PROMENADE SITE ASSESSMENT 2.1 Historical Use Analysis Records Review 2.2 2.3 Site Reconnaissance Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 2.4 2.5 Significant Sites Summary of Selected Chemicals Released 2.6 Recommendations 2.7 2.8 Conclusions 16 16 16 18 18 22 46 48 50 3.0 RECREATIONAL RISK-BASED CLEANUP STANDARD Literature/ Regulation Review 3.1 3.2 Analysis of Residential Standard 3.3 Development of Risk-Based Recreational Standard 3.3.1 Equations 3.3.2 Exposure Parameters 3.3.2.1 Exposed Population Variables 3.3.2.2 Chemical Related Variables 3.3.2.3 Assessment Determined Variables - Averaging Time of Residential Standard and Recreational Standard Comparison 3.4 Summary 3.5 52 52 55 57 58 63 64 76 78 78 81 4.0 CONCLUSION 83 References 86 Appendix A 89 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION Historically, the City of Providence has had an industrial-based economy. Textile and jewelry manufacturing were the basis of the city's economy during the 1880s to 1920s. However, the city's industries were forced to move or shut down when the industrial revolution enabled the South to produce goods faster and cheaper. As a result, Providence has been left with old industrial factories and mills that are still present. Many of these once thriving buildings are presently abandoned, decrepit, and deteriorating today. Providence no longer has any open spaces to develop and must face the challenge of redeveloping these brownfield sites in order to expand. The EPA defines brownfields as abandoned, idle or under-utilized commercial or industrial facilities where perceived or real contamination complications redevelopment [EPA 1997e]. In 1999, Mayor Vincent A. Cianci of Providence announced a major initiative, in cooperation with RI DEM and the EPA, to turn hundreds of acres of underutilized land to productive urban use. The mayor's plan includes the development of brownfields sites for residential, recreational and commercial use. This thesis focuses on a site assessment of the Promenade Area, development of a GIS system to display environmental concerns in the Promenade Area, and development a recreation risk-based clean-up standard in order to facilitate the redevelopment of brownfields in Providence, RI. 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The City of Providence The City of Providence, the state capital, is located on the eastern seaboard of Rhode Island (Figure 1). Providence, founded in 1636 by Roger Williams, is one of the oldest cities in the United States [Nifong 1996]. 9 Figure 1: Location Map for Providence, Rhode Island [Amengual and Huxol 1999] The City of Providence is currently in the middle of an unprecedented growth period. The city is transitioning from an industrial-based to a service-based economy, but this transition has been a long time coming with many years of planning and investment. After the industrial revolution, the city was financially unable to rebuild many of the neighborhoods. As a result, Providence currently has many abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities. One project that is already completed and one pending project are responsible for moving the city in a positive direction. The Capital Center/ River Relocation Project has transformed the downtown waterfront and the redevelopment of an area adjacent to the historic downtown core. This area was once blighted by railroad switching yards, rendering it inactive, but it is now an area of booming business and enthusiasm. Together, these investments have led to the development of Providence Place Mall, new offices, residential and hotel development, and created a public waterfront space, which 10 has received national acclaim from the installation of Waterfire in the rivers (Figure 2). Waterfire is an award winning multi-media installation that has captured the imagination of thousands of people and brought life and vitality to Providence. Figure 2: Waterfire in Historic Downtown Providence [Benjamin 1999] The City of Providence is currently working in partnership with fifteen federal partners, a non-profit group (The Providence Plan) and the RI DEM to develop the Woonasquatucket River Greenway. A greenway is a corridor of greenspace through a developed area. Greenways provide areas for recreation, as well as space for alternative transportation, such as bike paths [Amengual and Huxol 1999]. The greenway follows the Woonasquatucket River for 4.4 miles from Waterplace Park in downtown Providence through the neighborhoods of Smith Hill, Valley, Olneyville, Hartford and Manton to the Johnston town line (Figure 3). Several contaminated riverfront parcels will be cleaned up and re-used as greenspace. The city has renovated two city parks along the greenway and continued with this progress in the summer/fall of 1999 with more improvements. The 11 bike path is in design, with construction, under the direction of the RI Department of Transportation, scheduled to begin in 2000. Figure 3: The Woonasquatucket River Greenway [Amengual and Huxol 1999] The building of 1-95 split the City of Providence in half. The Interstate 1-95 Relocation Project will reunite the city via over and underpasses and is in the final stages of engineering and is about to begin construction. Upon completion, this will provide drivers with more user-friendly vehicular access to the city. The waterfront lands that will be exposed once the existing highway is removed represent an exciting opportunity for continued growth. It is imperative that we utilize this recent infusion of capital and development in the downtown and environs to bring sustainable economic development to Providence residents. More specifically, our intention is to leverage the downtown revitalization to create jobs and improve livability in the perimeter neighborhoods. 12 1.1.2 Brownfields Brownfields are defined by the EPA as "abandoned, idle or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination." Brownfields are often the sites of old factories and businesses [Amengual and Huxol 1999]. Brownfields have many potential sources of danger including debris, dilapidated buildings and chemical contamination. Physical dangers such as broken windows and rotted floors are easy to spot. Dangers that are not easily visible are harder to detect; for example, toxic chemicals in the soil can endanger human health if ingested, absorbed, or inhaled [Sieong 1999]. The country is currently in the process of cleaning up brownfields and redeveloping them for new land uses. One of the goals for some of the restored brownfields in Providence is to use the land to create greenspace. Greenspace is an area of land that is covered, partially or completely, with vegetation. Greenspace is considered to be a type of open space, which is any open piece of land that is undeveloped and can be accessed by the public. Some examples of greenspace are parks, soccer fields, and bike paths. Creating greenspace is important in Providence because it provides recreational spaces and helps improve the beauty and environmental quality of neighborhoods - it raises the overall quality of life for the city's residents. This is especially important in the neighborhoods that currently have the majority of brownfields - the underprivileged and usually minority neighborhoods. Fifteen Federal agencies interested in brownfield redevelopment have formed a partnership in the interest of redeveloping brownfields nationwide and have designated sixteen Brownfields Showcase Communities. Rhode Island became one of the Brownfields Showcase Communities in 1997. The City of Providence, the State of Rhode Island, and the EPA are working in a partnership to address the community's brownfields. The partnership is currently addressing the New Cities Initiative and the Woonasquatucket River watershed area, focusing on the development of the Woonasquatucket River Greenway Project. 13 The City of Providence has an abundance of brownfield sites. The city was a thriving urban area from the industrial revolution until the beginning of the 2 0 th century. The textile industry was located along the riverbanks of Providence in mills and factories. The textile-based economy began to decline in the mid-i 920's as Providence became unable to compete with the cheap labor of the South. As industry shifted southward, abandoned mills and properties were left behind, and now fit the definition of a brownfield site. The Brownfields Showcase Community pilot sites in Providence are located along the Woonasquatucket River and in the three areas associated with the New Cities Initiative. 1.1.3 New Cities Initiative Mayor Cianci announced a New Cities Initiative to turn acres of underused land into productive use, including residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial use, focusing on three neighborhoods adjoining downtown Providence: the Promenade, Narragansett Landing, and Westminster Crossing. Providence has succeeded in revitalizing 75 acres of its downtown area and is looking to expand outwards. Redevelopment has the potential to attract new money to the city through investments and create tens of thousands of new jobs. Currently, brownfields are holding back development in these neighborhoods. Brownfields cannot be redeveloped until their environmental conditions are evaluated. The Promenade area is located adjacent to the new Providence Mall. The area around the mall in the downtown area has been redeveloped. There are plans for a new hotel and movie theatre and the Mayor would like to expand this development into the Promenade area. Two hundred acres of land exist in between the Providence Mall and Olneyville Square. Old, industrial buildings from the 1880s to the 1920s currently dominate the Promenade area. The taxes from this large area generate less than $3 million per year. The City plans to acquire and clear old buildings in this area for redevelopment. Some modern buildings, such as the Providence Journal, will remain. Owners of old properties can avoid having their land acquired if they agree to conform to the new plan. The Woonasquatucket River Greenway will be the 14 showpiece through this area. However, development cannot occur until the brownfield sites are properly assessed [Amengual and Huxol 1999]. 1.2 Statement of Problem The problem addressed by this thesis is twofold. One aspect deals with identifying brownfield sites and determining if they are potentially good sites to redevelop; the other aspect deals with the risk-based standards that are used when cleaning a site for recreational use. Our objective is to provide the City of Providence with a site assessment of the Promenade Area, a GIS system that will display environmental concerns in the Promenade Area, and a recreational land re-use standard. 15 2.0 PROMENADE SITE ASSESSMENT Development cannot occur in the Promenade area until the land has been properly assessed. Land must be found free of contamination or meet appropriate risk assessment standards. Phase I investigations are the first step in the analysis of brownfields. A baseline survey is more informal than a Phase I report, though the format is similar. Baseline surveys are often used before conducting Phase I reports in order to determine which sites will meet the criteria for incorporation into the Brownfields Demonstration Pilot. Phase I investigations can then be conducted on the most attractive parcels of land. A Phase I is based on an industry standard for "due diligence" and is legally defensible [ASTM 1999]. 2.1 Historical Use Analysis A historical use search was conducted to assess possible environmental conditions at the Promenade area. The historical search was conducted using Sanborn (historical fire insurance) maps. Sanborn maps, located at the Rhode Island Historical Society Library in Providence, Rhode Island were reviewed for information concerning past uses at property, as well as for evidence of the storage and use of hazardous material. Sanborn maps from 1920-1921, 1956-1970, and 1982-1984 were reviewed. 2.2 Records Review A review of federal and state environmental databases and state and local records was conducted to help identify properties in the vicinity of the subject area that have had a release or threat of release of oil and/or hazardous materials and may impact the environmental quality of the subject area. The following databases were reviewed: e National Priorities List (NPL)- A database operated by the USEPA as an inventory of hazardous materials disposal sites that have been reported to the Federal government and have been determined to be a priority for a Federally overseen cleanup. The database was searched for NPL sites in the Promenade area and within a 0.25-mile radius as specified by the RI DEM. No NPL sites were identified. " Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Transportation, Storage, Disposal Facility (TSD) - A database operated by the USEPA as an inventory of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. RCRA TSD sites were searched for in 16 the Promenade area and within a 0.25-mile radius as specified by the RI DEM. No RCRA TSD sites were located within the specified search area. " RCRA Generators (GEN)- A database operated by the USEPA as an inventory of hazardous waste generators who store hazardous waste on their properties for periods not to exceed 90 days. RCRA GEN sites were searched only within the Promenade area as specified by the RI DEM. The database search identified eighty-seven RCRA GEN sites in the search area. A RCRA Generator does not necessarily imply that there is an environmental hazard, therefore only files for RCRA GEN sites that are also leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, underground storage tank (UST) sites or State sites were reviewed. Please see Appendix A for a summary of the files. " RCRA Corrective Action Sites (COR)- A database operated by the USEPA as an inventory of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities requiring a Federally overseen cleanup. " Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Sites- A database operated by the USEPA as an inventory of potential hazardous materials sites that have been reported to the Federal government. No RCRA COR sites were found within the specified search distance of the Promenade area and property within a 0.25-mile radius. " Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)- A database operated by the USEPA as an inventory of hazardous materials or petroleum spills. Ten ERNS sites were identified by the database search within the Promenade area only. ERNS sites are much smaller than a State Spill List (SPILLS) site, but require notification, and are generally not considered a hazard. " State Spills List (SPILLS)- A database operated by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management of spills of hazardous materials and/or petroleum. Thirty-three SPILLS sites were identified by the database search within the Promenade area and adjoining property only. * State Sites (STATE)- A database operated by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management of properties regulated by the Rhode Island Remediation Regulations (hazardous materials and petroleum sites). Ten State List files were located within the specified search area of the Promenade area and property within a 0.25-mile radius. Please see Appendix A for a summary of the files. Of the ten state sites, only one site, Gaudette Industrial Rentals, has not reached closure under the regulatory program. * Underground Storage Tanks (UST)- A database of underground storage tank facilities. Eighty-six UST sites were identified by the database search. Only the USTs located within the Promenade area were reviewed. Please see Appendix A for a summary of the file review. 17 * Leaking UST (LUST)- A database of known leaking underground storage tank facilities. Thirteen LUST sites were identified within the specified area of a 0.25-mile radius of adjoining property. Please see Appendix A for a summary of the files. * Solid Waste Landfills (SWL)- A database of active and closed solid waste landfills. 2.3 Site Reconnaissance The objective of a site visit is to obtain any information that may indicate environmental conditions associated with the land parcel. The property and any structures located on the property shall be visually and physically observed from municipal streets and sidewalks. The exterior of buildings, and when appropriate, interior of structures will be observed. The methodology used in observing the properties as well as limitations imposed by physical obstructions will be documented. The following conditions will be noted to the extent that they can be visually or physically observed through the site visit: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current use(s) of the property Past use(s) of the property Current use(s) of adjoining properties Past use(s) of adjoining properties Current or past use(s) in the surrounding area Geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic and topographic conditions General description of structures Roads Potable Water Supply Sewage Disposal System Storage Tanks Odors Pools of Liquid Drums Hazardous substance containers Unidentified substance containers Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Stains or corrosion Drains and sumps Stressed Vegetation 2.4 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) incorporates the management of textual and graphic information into a single system. A thematic map is produced in GIS by linking 18 textual information (tabular data) with graphic information (digital map). GIS has become an important tool in the past decade because of technological breakthroughs and the increasing availability of GIS data. The data gathered from historical and file reviews are displayed in a GIS system specifically developed as a part of this thesis. Our GIS represents data in a concise and user-friendly manner. We have chosen to use ArcView software for our GIS system. ArcView is used by both the EPA and the City of Providence and will allow easy compatibility. This tool should prove useful to the community, the EPA, and the City of Providence. Individuals or corporations interested in buying a parcel of land can use this tool to determine possible environmental conditions at the property and surrounding property. The EPA and the City of Providence will be able to use this tool to assess overall past environmental conditions in this area. In order to develop our GIS system, we needed to gather data to create various datasets. A basemap of the City of Providence was obtained from RI DEM. This basemap has spatial components and contains streets, waterways, and railways. Ranges of street addresses are provided in the basemap. This basemap serves as the map on which all our data is plotted. Before data can be displayed on the basemap, datasets needed to be created. Sanborn fire insurance maps were used to obtain historical information. From this historical information, datasets were created on historic textile manufacturing, rubber manufacturing, auto repair facilities, jewelry manufacturing, printing, dry cleaning, metal industries, wood preserving industry, iron and steel mill sites, and underground storage tanks. Government regulated sites were obtained from our record review and these sites were incorporated into datasets. Government regulated sites available in our GIS system include State-listed sites, LUST sites, RCRA GEN sites, UST sites, ERNS sites and SPILLS sites. The datasets contain the name of the facility, an address, and a ranking of their importance. Data are displayed in our GIS by geocoding. Basically, the sites are linked as point data by a street address to a base map that contains address ranges. Note that the addresses used to plot the data are not absolute addresses. The majority of data did not have known addresses; however, the location of the parcel in relation to the streets was known. 19 Therefore, the street addresses may not be correct and should not be looked at in analyzing parcels of land. Developers and the city should look at these data points as being representative of the area in which they are plotted. All data displayed in our GIS is ranked according to its importance, ranging from 1, lowest priority, to 3, top priority. This ranking allows the data to be displayed in various sizes. Markers representing the parcels are bigger for those sites that may be of greater environmental concern. Criteria used in determining the ranking include amount of data available, possible contaminants, general size of facilities and whether the condition was ongoing. Sites that were ranked as top priority generally were historical sites with no available data and facilities of a large size and therefore used large quantities of chemicals or government regulated sites that have not reached closure. Sites that ranked as middle priority generally were historical sites with no available data and facilities of small size. Sites that ranked as low priority generally were government regulated sites that have reached closure or government regulated sites with no history of environmental problems. Once all the datsets were geocoded, we then overlaid the datasets onto the basemap and on top of other datasets. For example, it is possible to overlay historic USTs with registered or removed USTs to determine if any USTs are unaccounted for and could therefore still be present and abandoned today. We can also use this tool to determine which facilities may be having compliance issues. For example, we have developed a dataset of RCRA generators in the Promenade Area (Figure 4). However, being a facility that is occupied by a RCRA generator does not necessarily imply that there are any environmental concerns at the site. The facility is being regulated and could be in perfect compliance. If the RCRA generator dataset is overlaid with the SPILLS dataset (Figure 5), we can now see which RCRA generator sites have reported spills. The sites that have had spills may be facilities to be concerned with in exploring land parcels to develop. 20 ,' < .... F Figure 4: RCRA Generators in the Promenade Area Figure 5: RCRA Generators and SPILLS Sites in the Promenade Area 21 2.5 Significant Sites The record review, the historical review and the site reconnaissance have indicated areas of particular concern in the Promenade area. They are summarized as follows: General Electric Company Facility The GE facility, located at the southwestern corner of Atwells and Harris Avenues, has been utilized in the manufacture of electrical goods since prior to 1960 (Figure 6). * AV- Figure 6: General Electric Company in Providence, RI [Sanborn Map 1970] Due to a fuel oil release from a LUST (the location and source of the leak is unknown), GE has implemented an oil recovery system in order to remediate the groundwater at the site. Based on a July 1997 monitoring report, the thickness of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) at the site ranges from non-detect to 4.11 feet in the twenty-one groundwater monitoring wells gauged. The GE facility currently has two 20,000-gallon, four 10,000gallon and four 8,000-gallon petroleum storage tanks at the site. A site reconnaissance conducted from the municipal sidewalk did not reveal any additional environmentally 22 significant information. Historically, General Electric may have produced capacitors, resistors and transformers at this site. PCBs are a potential environmental concern that is associated with electrical goods. Gaudette Industrial Rentals Gaudette consists of two parcels: 3-9 Magnolia Street, located at its southeastern intersection with Troy Street and 62-64 Dike Street, bounded by Agnes Street to the west and Troy Street to the east (Figure 7). Figure 7: Gaudette Industrial Rentals (shaded) located at Dike Street and Magnolia Street Historically, both of these properties have been industrial since the buildings now on site were constructed. Uses at these facilities include electroplating processes and degreasing operations. Hazardous wastes produced at the Magnolia Street site include 1,1,1 trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and potassium cyanide metallic mixture. Thurgen, Inc, a metal finishing and plating company at the Magnolia Street site was granted a wastewater discharge permit by the Narrangansett Bay Commission (NBC). NBC cited Thurgen for regulatory compliance failures and alleged violations of their discharge permit at least nine times between 1986 and 1993. The Dike Street site may have unlined trenches under the first floor of the building. Additionally, the facilities at Magnolia and Dike Streets may have unregistered USTs at the site and historical spillage of oil outside the site buildings due to overfilling of the USTs. 23 Jewelry Manufacturers The jewelry industry in Providence, RI began to grow in the 1820s. The industry consisted mainly of gold plating onto copper or other metals at this time. In the 1830s, the jewelry industry grew to produce silverware as well. The industry continued to grow sporadically until 1865 primarily because jewelry is a luxury item. The end of the 1800s brought about advances in the jewelry industry including: the chain-making industry, the electroplating process, and the development of the findings industry. The 2 0 th century brought the introduction of cigarette lighters, metal watchbands and chains, and celluloid jewelry into the jewelry market [Downing 1981]. Historically, jewelry manufacturing has existed at several locations in Providence as shown in Figure 8. Metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particularly chlorinated compounds, are the contaminants of greatest concern associated with jewelry manufacturing [O'Connor 2000]. Figure 8: Historic Jewelry Manufacturers in the Promenade Area 24 Valley Street Playground The Valley Street playground is bordered by Valley, Barstow and Cutler Streets (Figure 9). - Barstow St 0CO Valley Street Playground Figure 9: Valley Street Playground Historically, the playground has primarily been undeveloped land. A site reconnaissance observed the presence of construction debris, broken glass and household refuse located west on the banks of the Woonasquatucket River. The playground area also was covered with broken glass and broken beer bottles in the sand area and walkways. Children were observed running around barefoot and the majority of children were unsupervised. Topographical mounding was also observed, which may indicate landfill areas [Fromm 2000]. Former Rubber Plant Facilities Sanborn maps were examined and we identified areas near Valley Street that were utilized for rubber manufacturing and dyeing since circa 1920 (Figure 10). These sites are bordered 25 1 . ......... ' /// > Figure 10: Historic Rubber Manufacturers in the Promenade Area by Valley Street to the north and west, Hemlock Street to the east, and Atwells Avenue and Kinsley Avenue to the south, and comprise approximately 22 acres. Historical maps from the 1920s show two gasoline USTs and six oil USTs that are not accounted for in RI DEM databases as in use or removed. During the site reconnaissance, areas of stockpiled metal and I-beams and mill buildings, which were likely the former rubber and dyeing facilities, were observed. Rubber manufacturing is a diverse industry. However, seven processes are common to rubber manufacturing: (1) mixing; (2) milling; (3) extruding; (4) calendering; (5) building; (6) vulcanizing; (7) finishing [EPA 1995a]. Mixing involves producing a rubber mix from polymers, carbon black, oils, and other chemicals. Polymers include raw and/or synthetic rubber while carbon black is the main filler used in making a rubber mixture. Processing aids, vulcanizing agents, activators, accelerators, age resistors, fillers, softeners, and specialty materials are the other 26 chemicals used to produce a rubber mix [EPA 1995a]. The functions of these chemicals are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Functions of Chemicals Used in the Rubber Mixing Process [EPA 1995a] Chemical Function Processing Aids Vulcanizing Agents Activators Accelerators Modify rubber during mixing or aid during extrustion, calendering, or molding. Form links between chains of polymers. Operate with vulcanizing agents to decrease the curing time. Help increase vulcanization rates and improve properties of rubber product by forming chemical complexes with activators. Reduce deterioration of rubber products Support and/or alter physical properties of rubber, and decreases cost by reducing the amount of expensive materials needed for the rubber medium. Assist in mixing, promote elasticity, or replace a section of the rubber hydrocarbon. Not required in most rubber products, but are used for precise reasons. Specialty materials include dusting agents, odorants, retarders, colorants, and blowing agents. Age Resistors Fillers Softeners Specialty Materials Mixing creates a uniform mass of rubber and forms the rubber into strips or sheets and then cools the rubber. Milling heats the rubber; extruding alters the rubber into desired shapes and forms. Calendering produces thin sheets of rubber by squeezing the hot rubber. Building refers to the process of combining extruded and calendered rubber products. Rubber products may be combined using adhesives. Vulcanization is the process of curing the rubber. Curing causes the polymer chains in the rubber matrix to cross-link and produce a sturdy and elastic final product. Heated compression molds, autoclaves, microwave ovens and fluidized bed units can be used to perform vulcanization. Finishing processes include grinding, washing, wiping, buffing, and printing [EPA 1995a]. The main environmental concerns from the rubber manufacturing industry are solid wastes, wastewater, hazardous wastes and fugitive emissions. Subsurface Releases: The compounding area of a rubber facility may be an area of concern because releases to the subsurface may have occurred through spills and leaks. The compounding area is where chemicals are weighed and placed in containers prior to mixing. Additives must be pre-weighed and can therefore sit in open containers before and during weighing, 27 increasing the potential for significant spills [EPA 1995a]. The major chemicals used in the rubber compounding and mixing processes are displayed in Table 2. Table 2: Major Chemicals That May Be Released to the Subsurface from Rubber Manufacturing [EPA 1995a] Chemical Type Processing Aids Accelerators Activators Chemical Zinc compounds Zinc compounds, ethylene thiourea, diethanolamie Nickel compounds, hydroquinone, alphanaphthylamine, p-phenylenediamine, phenol Age Resistors Selenium compounds, zinc compounds, lead compounds Initiator Accelerator Activators Plasticizers Miscellaneous Ingredients Benzoyl peroxide Zinc compounds, lead compounds, ammonia Dibutyl phthalate, dioctylphthalate Titanium dioxide, cadmium compounds, organic dyes, and antimony compounds Solvents are another potential subsurface contaminant. Solvents are used to clean equipment and tools [EPA 1995a]. A release of solvent could occur if the solvents were spilled or disposed of on-site. Maintenance areas and areas where solvents were stored may be contaminated with solvents. Also, any disposal sites may also have solvent contamination. Soil staining or lack of vegetation may mark disposal sites. Used lubricating, hydraulic and process oils are common at most rubber manufacturing plants and could be of concern if disposed of on site or if spills occurred [EPA 1995a]. Areas where these chemicals were used and disposal areas are possible areas of environmental concern. Solid Waste: Scorched and waste rubber is another significant waste produced at rubber facilities. Mixing, milling, calendering and extruding processes produce scorched rubber; molding processes produce waste rubber [EPA 1995a]. The scorched and waste rubber may have been disposed on site. If so, this buried rubber is a concern in the redevelopment of the site. The rubber facilities located along the Woonsquatucket River were large and likely produced a large volume of waste and scorched rubber. The buried rubber may be leaching contaminants into the soil. Waste rubber can contain volatile organics, semi28 volatile organics and metals. However, a toxicity characterization leaching procedure (TLCP) performed by the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) indicate that contaminants detected in the leachate were found at trace levels and none exceed the proposed TLCP regulatory levels. Forty chemicals including VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals were tested for in the leachate [EPA 1995a] Wastewater: Wastewater is produced during cooling, heating, vulcanizing and cleaning operations of rubber manufacturing and can contain many contaminants from the manufacturing process. If the wastewater was disposed of on site, contaminated soil and groundwater may be an environmental concern [EPA 1995a]. In conclusion, rubber manufacturing employs a diverse number of processes and therefore uses a variety of chemicals. Subsurface contamination can occur through direct releases to the subsurface, burial of waste rubber, and disposal of wastewater. Contaminants of concern include petroleum products, oxidizers, metals, acids and solvents. Former filling stations and auto repair shops The historical review identified former filling stations and automotive repair sites (Figure 11). Auto repair sites are relatively small, approximately one to two acres of land. Automotive repair, automotive maintenance, and recycling activities are the most common activities that occur at an auto repair site. Solvents used during automotive repair to clean engine parts are an environmental concern. Oil, transmission fluid and antifreeze may be of concern because automotive maintenance involves changing these fluids. Auto parts, solvents, and battery breaking are a potential hazard because recycling of these materials occurs at an auto repair site [EPA 1999a]. 29 Figure 11: Historic Filling Stations and Auto Repair Shops in the Promenade Area Automotive repair and maintenance will likely occur in the main building on the site. Oil and grease, solvents from cleaning, volatile organics and semivolatile organics from automotive fluids, and metals from bodywork (Table 3) are contaminants associated with automotive repair and maintenance activities. Ethylene glycol, associated with antifreeze, may be a potential environmental concern. Volatile organics, such as methylene chloride and toluene, may be present if painting occurred at the site [EPA 1999a]. Another possible environmental concern would be if the business used an area of the site for disposal. If so, battery casings, old leaking drums, and other storage containers may be present. Chemicals of concern include petroleum hydrocarbons; metals used in batteries, such as lead and cadmium; VOCs, such as xylenes and toluenes; and oil and grease [EPA 1999a]. Underground storage tanks (USTs) were used at filling stations and at automotive shops that had gas pumps. USTs are used to store diesel fuel, gasoline and/or fuel oil. It is likely that former facilities had fuel leaks into the subsurface. Paved areas may have facilitated 30 runoff of contaminants. Scrap and used car storage areas and tire storage areas may be other services provided by the auto repair site; however, these areas are usually not sources of contaminants [EPA 1999a]. In conclusion, historical auto repair sites and filling stations may have provided a number of services and therefore have the potential to have a variety of contaminants associated with the site. These contaminants include VOCs, SVOCs, metals and fuels. Table 3: Typical Contaminants Associated with Automotive Repair Sites [EPA 1999a] Contaminant Type Contaminant Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Xylene, benzene, ethyl benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, freon- 113, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) SVOCs in oil and grease, ethylene glycol, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) Lead, cadmium, chromium, aluminum Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) Metals Metal Industry A number of various types of metal industries have existed within the Promenade area. Metal finishing, metal fabrication, electroplating, manufacturing of metal objects and metal scrapyards are examples of some of the metal industries that have existed over time (Figure 12). Metal FinishingSites The surface of a metal needs to be cleaned before applying a finish. The metal products are immersed in degreasing tanks to remove oils, grease, and other dirt from the metal surface. The degreasing tanks may contain solvents or emulsion solutions to clean the metal surfaces. Wastewater from cleaning operations may also contain solvents; solid wastes may also be generated [EPA 1998a]. A number of tanks followed by rinsing are used in metal finishing. Alkaline or acid baths are used to increase the metal surface's ability to adhere a finish. The metal products are then immersed in plating tanks where the final finish is applied [EPA 1998a]. 31 . ...... .... .... ............ ......... . * ............... .............. 'I ... ......... ......... .......... ..... .... ............ .......... ........... ... .......... . ....... A.............. ..... . ............. .. ................. ........ .... ... f .. ........ .... ........ 40 ..... ...... ....... ............ . ... ... ............... ..... ... .... .. 'V-....................... . ... ....... ....... .... ...... 'e ................ ............ ......... Ai . ........ ... ... ....... "'\X ..... . .... .. ..... .... ....... ... ...... .... . ......... ........... Figure 12: Historic Metal Industries in the Promenade Area Common metal finishing processes include anodizing, chemical conversion coating, electroplating, immersion plating, and painting. Anodizing is an electrolytic process that converts the metal surface into an insoluble oxide coating by using acids from electrolytic solution/acid bath. Metal products are rinsed and coated after anodizing. Contaminant wastewater and solid wastes are produced from anodizing operations [EPA 1998a]. Chemical conversion coating includes chromating, phosphating, metal coloring, and passivating. Wastewaters are produced from chemical conversion and may include contaminants. Electroplating produces a metal coating on another metal by electrodisposition. Contaminated wastewaters and solid wastes are produced from electroplating. Immersion plating is the production of a metal coating onto a plastic object by submersing the object in a plating solution. Contaminated wastewaters and solid wastes are produced during immersion plating. Zinc and silver are common toxic metals in this waste. Painting is the process of coating the object with an organic for decorative and/or protective reasons. Solvent-containing waste is a common waste produced from painting operations [EPA 1998a]. There are a number of areas of concern associated with metal finishing sites. The most common contaminants at metal finishing sites are listed in Table 4. 32 Table 4: Common Contaminants at Metal Finishing Sites [EPA 1998a] Contaminant Group Contaminant Name VOCs Acetone, benzene, isopropyl alcohol, 2dichlorobenzene, 4-trimethylbenzene, dichloromethane, ethyl benzene, freon 113, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, pheonl, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, xylene (mixed isomers) Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, asbestos, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, cyanide, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc Hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid Metals/Inorganics Acids Most of the processes in metal finishing produce wastewater. Today, facilities are required to meet wastewater discharge standards or permits before discharging wastes. However, these regulations were not required for older historical metal finishing sites. It is possible for older sites to still have wastewater in storage tanks or floor drains that could potentially contain solvents, metals, acids and wastewater sludge, which may contain metals. If any of the tanks were USTs, it is possible that they could develop leaks and lose contents, such as VOCs and metals, into the subsurface. The old chemical storage area at a metal finishing site is also a potential area of concern. Large containers may have been spilled or leaked and therefore discharged to the subsurface and/or floor drains. VOCs, acids and alkaline reagents are likely contaminants associated with the chemical storage area. The disposal area of the metal finishing site could be a potential area of concern. Liquid and solid wastes from process baths may have been disposed on site. VOCs are likely contaminants to be found in a disposal area. Stained soils or a lack of vegetation could be indications of former disposal sites [EPA 1998a]. Our site reconnaissance did not reveal any evidence of past disposal sites; however, our site reconnaissance was limited to our view from municipal streets and sidewalks. If a developer is interested in developing a metal finishing site, an on-site reconnaissance for a disposal area should be undertaken. Other areas of concern are related to maintenance at the metal finishing facility. Electroplating facilities require a large amount of electricity and therefore a large number of transformers. Older transformers contain PCBs and may have been disposed of on site. Chemicals, such as solvents, oils, and grease, used to maintain large machinery could also have been dumped on-site [EPA 1998a]. 33 In conclusion, metal finishers encompass etching, engraving, coating, painting, polishing, and electroplating. Contaminants of concern include solvents, acids and metals. Metal Scrapyards The majority of metal scrapyards store the metal in direct contact with the ground and weather. Precipitation causes metal corrosion and oil releases to occur to the subsurface [EPA 1990a]. The ground should be checked for stains or lack of vegetation on these former properties before redeveloping. Textile Manufacturing Providence used to be a textile based economy and therefore many textile manufacturers used to be located in the Promenade area (Figure 13). The textile industry is typically characterized by product specialization [EPA 1997a]. Each facility usually only participates in one process or raw material. The Sanborn maps did not always identify which processes the facility used, therefore it is important to consider all possible processes in determining likely environmental concerns. The textile industry produces a large amount of wastewater. Washwater, process water and noncontact cooling water are types of wastewater produced in textile manufacturing. The greater the number of processes used at a facility, the greater number of chemicals used. Wastewaters produced from each process are summarized in Table 5. Solvents and metals are the primary contaminants of concern from textile wastewater. TCE and PCE are common spent solvents [EPA 1997a]. 34 Figure 13: Historic Textile Manufacturing in the Promenade Area The majority of solid wastes produced from textile manufacturing, fabric and yarn scrap, are nonhazardous [EPA 1997a]. The residual wastes generated from each process are summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Possible Releases During Textile Manufacturing [EPA 1997a] Process Wastewater Residual Wastes Fiber preparation Little or no wastewater generated Yarn spinning Little or no wastewater generated Slashing/sizing BOD; COD; metals; cleaning waste; size Weaving Little or no wastewater generated Knitting Little or no wastewater generated Tufting Little or no wastewater generated Desizing BOD from water-soluble sizes; synthetic size; lubricants; biocides; anti-static compounds Scouring Disinfectants and insecticide residues; NaOH; Fiber waste; packaging waste and hard waste Packaging wastes; sized yarn; fiber waste; cleaning and processing waste Fiber lint; yarn waste; packaging waste; unused starch-based sizes Packaging waste; yarn and fabric scraps; off-spec fabric; used oil Packaging waste; yarn and fabric scraps; off-spec fabric Packaging waste; yarn and fabric scraps; off-spec fabric Packaging waste; fiber lint; yarn waste; cleaning materials, such as wipes, rags, and filters; cleaning and maintenance wastes containing solvents Little or no residual waste 35 Process Wastewater detergents, fats; oils; pectin; wax; knitting lubricants; Residual Wastes generated spin finishes; spent solvents Hydrogen peroxide, sodium silicate or organic Little or no residual waste stabilizer; high pH generated Singeing Little or no wastewater generated Mercerizing High pH; NaOH Heatsetting Little or no wastewater generated Little or no residual waste generated Little or no residual waste generated Little or no residual waste generated Dyeing Metals; salt; surfactants; toxics, organic processing assistants; cationic materials; color; BOD; COD; Bleaching Little or no residual waste generated sulfide; acidity/alkalinity; spent solvents Finishing Suspended solids; urea; solvents; color; metals; heat; BOD; foam BOD; COD; suspended solids; toxics, spent solvents Product Fabrication Little or no wastewater generated Printing Little or no residual waste generated Fabric scraps and trimmings; packaging wastes Fabric scraps In summary, wastewaters and spent solvents are the primary environmental concern associated with textile manufacturing. If disposed of on site, there may be subsurface contamination. For those facilities located along the Woonsquatucket River, it is likely that wastewaters were disposed of directly into the river. Printing Industry There was only one historic printing industry found within the Promenade area (Figure 14). Two other historic printing industries were found near the border of the Promenade Area, north of Jewett Street. 36 Figure 14: Historic Printing Industries within the Promenade Area The commercial printing industry includes lithographers, gravure printers, flexographers, and letterpress and screen printers. A variety of wastes can be generated during the printing process. Printing can be divided into four steps: image processing, platemaking, printing and finishing. Paper and ink are the main raw materials used in the printing process. Photoprocessing chemicals, solvents, fountain solutions and lubricating oils are some other input raw materials. Solvents and some types of inks are contaminants of concern at a printing industry. Inks that are of concern may contain heavy metals and/or toxic and flammable solvents, such as xylenes, ketones, alcohols and aliphatics [EPA 1990b]. Wood Preservers and Treaters The wood preserving industry includes facilities that treat wood with preservatives to prevent decay and protect against insects and fire. A number of possible wood preserving facilities were identified on Sanborn Fire Insurance maps (Figure 15). 37 \-*' \x ...... / . ~ .~, . ... /..... Figure 15: Historic Wood Preserving Industries in the Promenade Area Steaming, boultonizing, and kiln or air-drying preserves the wood. Common preservatives include creosote, chromated copper arsenic, ammoniacal copper arsenate, and pentachlorophenol (PCP). All processes produce wastewater sludge. The wastewater sludge contains creosote and PCP, which are listed as RCRA hazardous wastes. Spills of preservatives may occur around the treatment area causing subsurface contamination. Preservatives may also leach from treated wood in the storage areas [EPA 1990a]. Dry Cleaners Four historic dry cleaners were located on Sanborn maps and two historic dry cleaners were located near the Promenade Area (Figure 16). 38 ..... ..... ........... ... ............. .......... .......... ... ....... ... ----------, ....... ... .......... . ........ .................... .......... ...... ..... ............ ..... ............... ............ ... ....... ... ... A .. . . .... .. ...... Figure 16: Historic Dry Cleaners in the Promenade Area Dry cleaning is a service industry involved in cleaning garments and apparel. Dry cleaning facilities that use solvents are likely to produce hazardous waste. Establishments that may make up the industry include: retail dry cleaners, industrial and linen supply plants with dry cleaning facilities, leather and fur cleaning plants, and self-service laundromats with dry cleaning facilities. Solvents that may be typical of dry cleaning facilities are perchloroethylene (PCE), petroleum solvents, chlorofluorocarbons (Freon113), and 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane (1, 1, 1-TCA). Cleaning, extracting, and drying are the three steps involved in dry cleaning operations. Cleaning involves the washing of garments. Extraction removes solvents by draining and spinning the clothes, therefore reducing solvent losses, eliminating waste and dripping of solvent from clothing, and reducing the weight of the wet garments. The drying process removes any solvent remaining in the garments by tumbling them in a stream of hot air. The clothes may be treated with a fresh air after the solvent is completely removed during the dry cleaning process. Wastes that may be produced include separator water, filters and filter media, spent solvents, spent carbon and residues and muck [EPA 1995b]. 39 Wastewater and hazardous waste are the primary environmental concerns associated with a dry cleaning facility. Spills and discharges to the ground or drywells may be responsible for subsurface contamination. Former dry cleaning facilities should be investigated for contaminants, especially solvents. Brown & Sharp Facility The Brown & Sharpe facility is a potential area of environmental concern. Brown & Sharpe is bounded by Promenade Street to the south, Holden Street to the east, W. Park Street to the north and Calverley Street to the west (Figure 17). Brown & Sharpe has ro St ..... Figure 17: Historic Location of Brown & Sharpe Facility had a presence in Providence, RI since 1833 and possesses worldwide importance in the development and growth of the precision-tool industry. In 1833, the former David Brown & Sons Company began as a small clock & watchmaking company. In 1841, the company began to produce lathes and small tools for machinists and mechanics. During the 1840s and 1850s, Brown invented a machine that made production of the vernier caliper possible and invented a precision gear cutter. The obtainment of a contract to produce Wilcox and Gibbs sewing machines was the most 40 important event of the 1850s for Brown & Sharpe. Growth for Brown & Sharpe continued into the 1860s; the company built a turret lathe, its first commercial machine tool, used in the production of precision-lock muskets [Downing 1981]. Growth caused the building of a new factory complex to become necessary; this factory complex was located at today's present site on Promenade Street. The first building of the new factory was finished in 1868; the factory complex was praised as a role model for efficient and attractive industrial construction [Downing 1981]. Through the rest of the 1800s, Brown & Sharpe continued to expand as manufacturers of sewing machines, tools and precision tools. Brown & Sharpe was also able to grow during periods of wartime because they could obtain government contracts [Downing 1981]. In the 20th century, Brown & Sharpe introduced mass production techniques and grew to be a corporate giant. In 1964, Brown & Sharpe moved to a new factory complex in North Kingstown, RI. In the 1970s the former Brown & Sharpe complex was adapted for office, retail and light manufacturing space and is now known as the Capital Industrial Center (CIC) [Downing 1981]. Brown and Sharpe has historically stored large quantities of petroleum materials and waste at their location. Sanborn maps indicate the presence of USTs that stored fuel oil, naphthalene, gas, kerosene and solvents on site. There is no file recording the registration or removal of any USTs at this site, although the tanks may have been removed before today's regulations were in effect. However, large quantities of contaminants were handled on this site over a number of years. It is possible that there may be hot spots of subsurface contamination due to LUSTs, unlined trenches, and dumping practices. Iron and Steel Mill Sites The four most common types of iron and steel mills are integrated mills, specialty mills, stand-alone coke mills, and stand-alone finishing mills. Integrated mills perform all processes and use iron ore as a raw material. Specialty mills perform only certain processes and uses scrap metal as a raw material. Stand-alone coke mills produce coke 41 for other facilities to use. Stand-alone finishing mills perform forming and finishing operations on steel products [EPA 1998b]. There are one former iron and steel site and two iron sites located in the Promenade area (Figure 18). .... . . . . . . . . . . Figure 18: Historic Iron and/or Steel Sites in the Promenade Area Although there are only three, the facilities were rather large and took up a significant area of land. Older iron and steel facilities tend to be integrated mills while newer mills typically focus on certain processes or products. Integrated mills are usually large complexes, composed of many buildings that house various processes. The land surrounding the structures on an iron and mill site was usually used for: bulk product and scrap metal storage, slag pits, iron ore storage, cooling towers, rail lines and parking lots, wastewater lagoons, loading areas, storm water collection, landfills, above ground storage tanks (ASTs) and USTs [EPA 1998b]. Manufacturing iron and steel involves a number of processes and products. The typical processes and usual contaminants associated with these processes will be described. Cokemaking: Coke is the fuel source for producing iron and is produced by heating coal in a coke oven at high temperatures without oxygen. The coke is then placed in a tower 42 and cooled with a water mist before being sent to storage or a furnace. A number of products are produced during cokemaking. Coal tars that contain polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and light oils are regulated under RCRA. Coke battery areas are often the source of SVOCs, such as creosols, naphthalene, pyrene, phenol, benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(a)anthracene. VOCs, such as xylene, toluene, and benzene, are often found in the cokemaking area. Ammonia and cyanide also may be present in the cokemaking process [EPA 1998b]. Ironmaking: A blast furnace heats coke mixed with lime, where the iron ore is reduced to iron by carbon monoxide. Slag, the product produced from ironmaking, is formed from acids in the iron reacting with lime. The iron produced in the process is then used during the steelmaking process, while the slag is moved into storage. Contaminants that are likely to be associated with ironmaking are SVOCs, heavy metals and inorganic compounds. The SVOCs are phenols and those associated with oil and grease. Iron, lead, cyanide, and zinc are heavy metals that are commonly found in the area of these operations [EPA 1998b] Steelmaking and Refining: A basic oxygen furnace (BOF) or an electric arc furnace (EAF) are the two types of steelmaking operations. A BOF combines iron with flux, alloy materials and scrap to form steel. An EAF is used mostly at smaller mills. Steel is usually produced as slabs or beams. Metals, such as chromium, nickel, iron, lead, and zinc, are a common contaminant associated with both BOF and EAF operations. Refining operations produce the same contaminants as steelmaking [EPA 1998b]. Sintering: Sintering involves recycling products from other processes into a source of fuel for the furnace. Contaminants from sintering are similar to the cokemaking process [EPA 1998b]. Forming Operations:Molten steel is allowed to cool and then formed into slabs, bars, or plates. Large volumes of water are used to cool the steel and wastewater is therefore produced. The wastewater produced can contain contaminants, particularly metals, such 43 as zinc, lead, cadmium, and chromium. The rolling operations may contain SVOCs in oil and grease. Pickling liquids, liquids that remove scale from the steel, can include hydrochloric acid, nitric and sulfuric acids. Solvents related to machinery may also be found in the forming operation area [EPA 1998b]. Finishing Operations:Steel must be cleaned of rust, oil, grease, scale, and dirt before a final finish can be applied. A variety of cleaners may be used, including solvents, abrasives, alkaline agents and acids. VOCs, such as trichloroethene, 1,1 -dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethene are common contaminants found near finishing operations. Wastewater may contain metals, such as iron, lead, cadmium, chromium, aluminum and zinc [EPA 1998b]. Maintenance Operations: Iron and Steel sites are likely to have heavy machinery, railways, and USTs on site. Contaminants associated with these operations are primarily VOCs or SVOCs. Gasoline products and PCBs from hydraulic oils and transformer units may also be found. The transformer units could be spilled or disposed of on site [EPA 1998b]. In summary, steel and iron sites are likely to have metals/inorganics, acids, toxic compounds, SVOCs and VOCs on site. Examples of these classes of contaminants can be seen in Table 6. Table 6: Common Contaminants Located and Iron and Steel Facilities[EPA 1998b] Contaminant Class Contaminant Metals/Inorganics Manganese, zinc, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, aluminum, cyanide, barium Sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen sulfide, phosphoric acid Ammonia Ethylene glycol, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 1,1,1-trichloroethane, ethylene, benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene, phenol, xylene, ethyl benzene, chlorine, tetrachloroethylene Acids Toxic compounds SVOCs VOCs 44 Abandoned Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Historic Sanborn maps were examined for evidence of historic USTs. These USTs were compared with records at RI DEM for registered and removed USTs. The USTs that were found on the historic maps can be seen in Figure 19. The larger circles correspond Figure.. tohitoricUrs 19aweHidor 1H o U ' MatpIs l rinsration UST's Lanytecod o Sanbor Fir EM The smaller circles correspond to records of removal or registration of a UST that matches the historic USTs description. The medium size circles represent USTs that were not matched identically with RI DEM records, but other USTs had been removed or registered on that property. It is possible that the historic tanks could have been removed before the landowner was required to report this information to RI DEM. If other tanks are being recently accounted for at RI DEM, it is likely that the historic tanks have been removed prior to regulations. The historic USTs represented by the largest size circles are an environmental concern. It is possible that these USTs are abandoned and present today in the Promenade Area. Abandoned USTs can be an environmental threat because the condition and contents of the UST are unknown. The UST may have been in the ground for fifty or more years and 45 the tank walls are likely to be corroded and have holes. If the UST is not empty, material from the tank, such as gas, oil, solvents, could be leaking or have leaked into the subsurface. 2.6 Summary of Selected Chemicals Released We are concerned with releases of chemicals to the environment because they are toxic. Toxicity refers to the ability of a chemical to produce negative effects on an organism (i.e. human) once it reaches a vulnerable site on or in the body. Chemicals of concern include VOCs, SVOCs and metals. VOCs Electroplating/metal finishing shops, leaking USTs, paint stripping and spray booth areas, solvent degreasing areas, vehicle maintenance areas, and chemical manufacturing plants are some of the sites where VOCs may be present [Deuren et al. 1997]. Subsurface VOC contamination can exist in four phases: gas, solid, aqueous and immiscible. In the gaseous phase, contaminants can exist in the unsaturated zone as vapors. In the solid phase, contaminants can be sorbed to soil particles in the saturated and unsaturated zone. In the aqueous phase, contaminants can be dissolved in pore water in saturated and unsaturated zones. In the immiscible phase, contaminants can be present in the unsaturated zone as non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) [Deuren et al. 1997]. It is important to determine if the VOC compound contains a halogen. Compounds that are halogenated or nonhalogenated respond differently to remediation technologies. For example, chlorinated compounds are less likely to be remediated using bioremediation. Nonhalogenated VOCs include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, methanol, ethanol, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and acetone. Halogenated VOCs include TCE, PCE, TCA, vinyl chloride, ethylene dibromide, and Freon- 113 [Deuren et al. 1997]. 46 SVOCs Wood preserving sites, electroplating/metal finishing shops, leaking USTs, paint stripping and spray booth areas, solvent degreasing areas, vehicle maintenance areas, and chemical manufacturing plants are some of the sites where SVOCs may be present [Deuren et al. 1997]. As with VOCs, subsurface SVOC contamination can exist in four phases: gas, solid, aqueous and immiscible [Deuren et al. 1997]. Chlordane, PCBs and dichlorobenzene are examples of potential halogenated SVOCS found at many sites [Deuren et al. 1997]. PCBs are different configurations of chlorobiphenyls and the environmental fate of these compounds is dependent on their degree of chlorination [EPA 1998e]. PCBs constitute a type of halogenated compounds. PCBs are often present in oils found in transformers. PCBs found in the subsurface are not very mobile [Deuren et al. 1997]. Nonhalogenated SVOCs include ethylene glycol, pyrene, tetraphene, malathion, naphthalene, and PAHs [Deuren et al. 1997]. PAHs are polyaromatic hydrocarbons and include the chemicals chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, anthracene and pyrene. The majority of PAHs are biodegradable in the subsurface. PAHs with a lower molecular weight are transformed faster than PAHs with a higher molecular weight. PAHs with a higher molecular weight are subject to the most stringent cleanup standards. Achieving these cleanup standards with bioremediation may be difficult [Deuren et al. 1997]. Inorganics/Metals Electroplating/Metal finishing shops, LUSTs, paint stripping and spray booth areas, vehicle maintenance areas, jewelry manufacturers and rubber manufactures are some of the sites where inorganics/metals may be present. Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and zinc are examples of potential inorganics/metals found at many sites [Deuren et al. 1997]. 47 Metals in the subsurface may exist in their elemental form or as salts present in the soil. Metals present an environmental hazard because they cannot be degraded. Any movement of the metal within the subsurface will depend on its chemical and physical properties and the soil matrix. Vertical transport can occur when the soil is overloaded with metals or the metals are solubilized [Deuren et al. 1997]. Arsenic: Arsenic exists as arsenate, As(V), or arsenite, As(III), in the subsurface; both forms of arsenic are toxic. As(III) is more toxic while As(V) is more common. Arsenate behaves similarly to phosphate in the subsurface. Arsenate is bound to the soil and relatively immobile. Arsenate's immobility is enhanced by complexes formed with iron, aluminum and calcium. Arsenite is 4 to 10 times more soluble than arsenate and is therefore subject to more leaching than arsenate. Arsenate can be reduced to arsenite under anaerobic conditions. The sorption of arsenite also appears to be pH dependent [Deuren et al. 1997]. Arsenic is often found naturally in Providence soils at concentrations above clean-up levels. This naturally high background level of arsenic makes determining unnatural arsenic extremely difficult. Zinc: Zinc is easily adsorbed by clay carbonates or hydrous oxides. The majority of total zinc in the subsurface is associated with iron and manganese oxides. Zinc compounds are highly soluble and are therefore removed by precipitation. Zinc adsorption increases with pH. At a pH greater than 7.7, zinc hydrolyzes and sorbs to soil particles [Deuren et al. 1997]. 2.7 Recommendations The majority of the Promenade Area should be redeveloped for industrial, commercial or recreational land use. The majority of the Promenade Area is unsuitable for residential reuse. The reuse of brownfields will largely depend on where the money is coming from to redevelop. It is likely most of the money will be for projects that are commercial or industrial. The area surrounding the river is being committed to developing a greenway and will therefore be recreational in use. 48 There are a number of areas that may be of concern. Gaudette Industrial, the State-listed site, uses and produces a number of hazardous materials and may have unlined trenches and abandoned UST's. The former rubber manufacturing facilities, located along the Woonsquatucket River, may be of concern because of the large size of the facilities and because of petroleum products, oxidizers, metals and acids that may have been used. Historic industries require more field investigation and should be developed more cautiously because of the lack of data associated with these sites. GIS should be used in conjunction with the City of Providence and developers. GIS will allow planners to gain an idea of what conditions may be present at or near parcels of interest. The GIS tool developed can also be combined with other city GIS data in making planning decisions. For instance, a dataset on open spaces could be overlaid with our system in order to determine which areas lack open spaces and which parcels may be easier to cleanup to recreational levels. There is the potential to expand the GIS system that we have developed. Industries could be ranked based on the volume of wastes that they produced or the size of the industry. Current uses of land could also be included in the system. The City of Providence could expand the GIS based on their needs and the needs of developers in working to promote redevelopment of brownfields in the Promenade Area. Detailed Phase I and Phase II site assessments need to be performed. Phase Is are similar to the site assessment that we performed; however, they are more detailed and legally binding. Phase Is are only performed on a single parcel of land. Interviews with former occupants and employees, review of aerial photographs, and review of Polk Directories are some of the activities that would be included in a more detailed Phase I. A Phase II is performed in order to determine the extent of contamination by taking air, soil, and water samples. A Phase II will determine whether there is contamination above state accepted levels and the extent of this contamination. 49 The majority of hazardous materials and petroleum contamination that exists in the Promenade area will likely be limited to surficial soil contamination and those related historic structures such as underground storage tanks, drywells, and trenches. Surficial soil contamination can either be excavated or encapsulated. If the soil is excavated, the soil can be recycled or disposed of at a licensed facility. Encapsulation of contaminated soil can occur by using four inches of asphalt, two feet of clean fill, or geosynthetics. RI DEM requires that the encapsulated area be surveyed and a deed notice recorded on the property chain of title. If historic structures are present, RI DEM requires proper registration and closure under their regulatory program. Generally, removal of the structure and removal or encapsulation of contaminated soil would be required. 2.8 Conclusions A site assessment has been conducted to identify possible and known hazardous materials and petroleum releases in the Promenade Area. Our research included historical analysis, a file review and a site reconnaissance. The historical analysis consisted of reviewing Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps from 1900 to 1982. The file review consisted of a Federal and State database search and a review of RI DEM files. The site reconnaissance was conducted from the municipal streets and sidewalks in the Promenade Area. Based upon the file review, we conclude that there are no known Superfund sites listed within the Promenade Area. There is only one State-listed hazardous materials site, Gaudette Industrial, which has not reached regulatory closure. Gaudette is a potential environmental concern because of abandoned USTs, the possibility of unlined trenches and the historical use of hazardous materials at this site. Correspondence reviewed indicates that RI DEM wanted to offer technical assistance to tenants to comply with regulations. However, no correspondence indicated that historical releases of hazardous materials would be addressed. Also, no files were found documenting the registration or removal of USTs at Gaudette. Only one LUST site in the Promenade Area has not reached closure, General Electric. Although the LUST site has not been closed, the extent of the contamination has been delineated and does not impact abutting properties. 50 Based upon the historical analysis, we conclude that there is the potential for unidentified hazardous materials and petroleum releases to exist within the Promenade Area. The Area has a long history of industrial use and has been home to a variety of industries including rubber, jewelry, textile and metal. Drycleaners, auto repair facilities and wood processors are some of the smaller businesses in the area. Manufacturers of larger size may be of greater concern because they handle larger volumes of hazardous wastes and therefore the contamination extent may be greater. The rubber facilities located along the Woonsquatucket River from Atwells Avenue to Hemlock Street comprise a large tract of land and are likely to have handled a large volume of contaminants. Chemicals of concern include SVOCs, VOCs, metals and acids. The Promenade Area is likely to contain environmental contaminants; however, these contaminants are likely to be those usually managed by the RI DEM Brownfields program and are likely not to prohibit recreational, commercial, and industrial re-use. The majority of the Promenade Area has been used industrial historically, and therefore should not be redeveloped for residential re-use. 51 3.0 RECREATIONAL RISK-BASED CLEANUP STANDARD Identified brownfields in Providence must fit the EPA definition of a brownfield in order to receive federal and/or state funding for environmental sampling. One of the major obstacles for the City is money - environmental risk assessments are very costly and time consuming. Currently there are no specific risk-based standards for environmental cleanup that are appropriate for recreational and/or greenspace uses. The stringent residential standard for environmental cleanup is used for recreational and/or greenspace. One of the purposes of the research completed herein is to develop a risk-based recreational and greenspace standard to be presented to the respective State Departments of Environmental Protection/Management and to determine if this standard will be more appropriate in the long term than the current practices. The development of a recreational cleanup standard has the potential to drastically reduce the time and money spent assessing sites. It could be a powerful tool for all brownfields in the state of Rhode Island. 3.1 Literature/ Regulation Review Several EPA documents define procedures for risk assessment. The first step in developing our own risk-based standard is to understand the current methods and procedures for conducting risk assessments. Our standard aims to be a complement to the current methods, not a divergence. This section summarizes a few of the most important EPA documents that we reviewed. Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund: Volume I- Human Health Evaluation Manual (PartA, Baseline Risk Assessment) [EPA 1989] The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, or the RAGS, written by EPA, describes the procedures for conducting an exposure assessment. The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the type and magnitude of exposures to the chemicals of potential concern that are present at or migrating from a site [EPA 1989]. The exposure assessment process is broken into three steps: 1) characterizing exposure setting; 2) identifying exposure pathways; and 3) quantifying exposure. Step 1, characterizing the 52 exposure setting, involves characterizing the physical environment and characterizing the potentially exposed populations. Step 2, identification of exposure pathways involves identifying sources and receiving media, evaluating the fate and transport in the release media, and identifying exposure points and exposure routes. Step 3, quantifying exposure, is often conducted in two stages: 1) exposure concentrations are estimated; and 2) pathway-specific intakes are quantified. In this third step, generic equations for calculating chemical intake are presented. Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund: Volume I - Human Health EvaluationManual (PartB, Development of Risk-Based preliminaryRemediation Goals) [EPA 1991 b] This guidance was written by the EPA to assist in developing preliminary remediation goals (PRGs). PRGs provide remedial design staff with long-term targets to use during analysis and selection of remedial alternatives. Chemical-specific PRGs are concentration goals for individual chemicals for specific medium and land use combinations at CERCLA sites [EPA 1991b]. The recommended approach for developing remediation goals, according to this documentation, is to identify PRGs at scoping, modify them as needed at the end of the remedial investigation (RI) or during the feasibility study (FS) based on site-specific information from the baseline risk assessment, and ultimately select remediation levels in the Record of Decision (ROD). Chapter 3 of the documentation, Calculation of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals, presents standardized exposure parameters and the derivation of risk equations for each media and land-use assumption (i.e., ground water, surface water, and soil for residential land use and commercial/ industrial land use). The risk-based equations have been derived in order to reflect the potential risk from exposure to a chemical, given a specific pathway, medium, and land-use combination [EPA 1991b]. The equations relate the total acceptable risk for a carcinogen or a non-carcinogen with chemical-specific and pathway-specific variables. By setting the total risk for carcinogenic effects at a target risk level of 10-6, it is possible to solve for the concentration term in the equation. A target risk level of 10-6 corresponds to a 10-6 incremental risk of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen [EPA 1991 b]. Similarly, the total risk for non-carcinogenic effects is set at a target hazard index (HI) of 53 1 for each chemical in a particular medium, and then the concentration term can be determined. A hazard index of 1 is the level of exposure to a chemical from all significant exposure pathways in a given medium below which it is unlikely for even sensitive populations to experience adverse health effects [EPA 1991b]. Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (PartC, Risk Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives) [EPA 1991 c] Part C of the RAGS provides guidance on human health risk evaluations of remedial alternatives that are conducted during the feasibility study, during selection and documentation of a remedy, and during and after remedy implementation [EPA 1991 c]. This document is the final manual in a series of three written by EPA. A risk evaluation of remedial alternatives follows the same general steps as a baseline risk assessment, however manual A is more appropriate for guidance in this area. The information included in part C is beyond the scope of this report. Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Supplemental Guidance: StandardDefault Exposure Factors) [EPA 1991 d] This supplement to the EPA RAGS attempts to reduce unnecessary variability in the exposure assumptions used to characterize potentially exposed populations in the baseline risk assessment. This guidance encourages a consistent approach to assessing exposure when there is a lack of site-specific data or consensus on which parameter value to choose, from a range of possibilities [EPA 1991d]. The standard factors presented are intended to be used for calculating reasonable maximum exposure (RME) levels. (RME aims to combine upper-bound and mid-range exposure factors, not worst possible case, so that the result is an exposure scenario that is both protective and reasonable.) The standard intake equation used is as follows: * ED Intake = C * IR * EF BW*AT 54 Where: C = concentration of chemical in medium IR= intake/contact rate EF= exposure frequency ED= exposure duration BW= body weight A T= averaging time The default exposure factors for a residential, a commercial/industrial, and an agricultural or a recreational exposure scenario are presented. The recreational scenario addresses exposure for people spending a limited amount of time at or near a site while playing, fishing, hunting, or doing other outdoor activities. The guidance states that not all sites provide the same opportunities and therefore recreational scenarios must be developed on a site-specific basis. Estimation of Multimedia Exposures Related to Hazardous Waste Facilities,[Hwang and Falco 1986]. In order to determine soil clean-up levels, it is necessary to estimate the magnitude of human exposure for each likely exposure pathway. This paper presents a procedure that was developed for estimating the concentration level to which pollutants must be remediated in soil. The procedure relates to 1) identification of exposure pathways, 2) exposure assessment to estimate pollutant intakes by humans from each pathway, and 3) the use of health effects data to estimate the acceptable exposure levels. Equations are developed for calculating intake by soil ingestion, intake by air inhalation of volatilized contaminants, intake by dermal absorption, intake by drinking water, intake by fish consumption, and intake by inhalation of contaminants adsorbed on particulate matter. The procedure by which permissible pollutant levels in soil are determined is outlined by taking the total intake from all possible exposure pathways and setting it equal to the acceptable intake. Default values for exposure assessment parameters are also presented from various studies. 3.2 Analysis of Residential Standard An important aspect of this project is to fully understand the residential standard for environmental cleanup, which is currently employed for recreational and/or greenspace 55 reuses. By studying this standard, it can be determined if the residential standard is appropriate for recreational reuse. The RI DEM's residential standard is a three-tiered approach to remedation. When a hazardous substance is identified at a site, a Method 1 Soil Objective is approved [RI DEM 1996]. A Method 1 Soil Objective refers to the criteria specified by either the RI DEM or the EPA for site reuse. The criteria are in two categories: residential and industrial/commercial. The residential criteria are more stringent than the industrial/commercial criteria. Part of the site investigation is to determine the current uses and zoning of the contaminated site -- whether the site is used for industrial/commercial business or for residential activity. It should also be determined during the site investigation which contaminants are of concern for this site. Using the information from the site investigation, a Method 1 remedial objective is determined for each of the contaminants of concern. Method 1 is not site specific and it is very conservative because the numbers reflect a worst case scenario generated from a generic model with all routes of exposure. In many cases Method 1 criteria are too general and therefore too stringent. In other cases, a chemical of concern for the site is not specified in the Method 1 criteria. In these situations Method 2 must be employed. Method 2 allows for the consideration of limited site-specific information to modify Method 1 Soil Objectives. Method 2 Soil Objectives are developed based on Method 2 Direct Exposure Criteria, which are divided in the following method: A. Ingestion i. Residential Activity 1. Carcinogenic Substances 2. Non-Carcinogenic Substances 3. Acute Toxicity ii. Industrial/Commercial Activity 1. Carcinogenic Substances 2. Non-Carcinogenic Substances B. Inhalation - Residential i. Carcinogenic Substances Non-Carcinogenic Substances ii. 56 iii. Volatilization Factor C. Soil Saturation Limit (Csat) Basically, Method 2 takes into account that not all sites are the same and allows for the development of some site specific criteria. Relative to Method 1, Method 2 is less conservative and slightly more site and chemical specific. Method 3 Remedial Objectives allow for a site-specific risk assessment to be conducted. According to the Remediation Regulations published by the RI DEM [1996], site-specific human health risk assessments shall be conducted only after review and approval of a Human Health Risk Assessment Workplan. The methodology proposed in the Human Health Risk Assessment Workplan must be consistent with scientifically acceptable risk assessment practices and the fundamentals of risk assessment under EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund [EPA 1989, 1991 b,c]. The Human Health Risk Assessment Report proposes the remedial objectives for the site. Method 3 is the most time intensive of the three methods because it is a full risk assessment that takes into account reuse, routes of exposure and specific chemicals at the site. It is based on actual risk scenarios. Method 3 is the most site-specific tier of the three methods. 3.3 Development of Risk-Based Recreational Standard The motivation for creating a recreational standard is to save time and money. The current practice for determining clean-up standards as reuse for recreational space is to use the residential standard. The first phase of using the residential standard would be to determine the feasibility of achieving the Method 1 Direct Exposure Criteria. Method 1 is a series of tables establishing conservative risk-based cleanup levels for commonly encountered hazardous substances [RI DEM 1996]. Often the Method 1 residential criteria are too stringent and Method 2 must be used to achieve an exposure level that is realistic to reach. Method 2 is a process by which the performing party can supplement or modify the Method 1 clean-up levels to reflect site-specific circumstances [RI DEM 1996]. As discussed in section 3.1, it is clearly more costly and time intensive to employ Method 2, rather than just using the Method 1 criteria. Even more expensive is Method 3. Method 3 corresponds to site-specific human health and/or ecological risk 57 assessments. One of the goals for the new recreational standard is that the Method 1 recreational criteria should be sufficient, thereby avoiding the expense of employing Method 2 or Method 3. The first step in creating the recreational standard was to determine which exposure pathways are applicable for recreational land use. In order to be conservative, a scenario of a children's playground was considered when developing the standard and choosing the pathways. We consider a playground to be conservative because children go to playgrounds often and spend a long time there; they also have direct contact with media, such as soil and water. The activities that take place at a playground could include playing in the sand/dirt and wading/swimming in the river. For contaminated soil the exposure pathways include ingestion, inhalation of particles, inhalation of vapors, and dermal contact. For contaminated water the exposure pathways include ingestion and dermal contact. Other scenarios for recreational land use include soccer fields, bike paths, baseball fields, and basketball courts. The exposure pathways mentioned above are also applicable in these scenarios. Once the set of pathways has been determined (selected), the equations for each pathway must be determined. From the literature review it is clear that many of the equations used to quantify exposure and risk were very similar and it was just a matter of modifying them to best fit the needs of a recreational standard. An important factor in putting together these equations was their compatibility with the equations that the RI DEM uses for the residential and industrial/commercial criteria. The creation of a recreational standard is not meant to be a diversion from the current RI DEM procedure, but rather an extension of it. 3.3.1 Equations This section outlines and describes the equations used to solve for direct exposure criteria for all hazardous substances. Risk-based equations have been derived in order to reflect the potential risk from exposure to a chemical, given a specific pathway, medium, and land-use combination [EPA 1991b]. The basic form of the risk-based equation is: 58 Intake = C* IR * EF * ED* ET * toxicity BW*AT Where: C = concentration of chemical in media IR = intake/contact rate EF= exposure frequency ED = exposure duration ET= exposure time toxicity = chemical specific toxicity value BW= body weight AT= averaging time Rearranging the equation, we can solve for the concentration, C. To calculate a concentration that will be an acceptable direct exposure criteria for the chemical of concern, the intake term is set equal to the target risk intake level. For carcinogens, the target is the target cancer risk level, and for non-carcinogens it is the target hazard index. The toxicity term is a chemical specific number that represents either a slope factor or unit risk factor for carcinogens or an inverse reference dose, (reference dose)-I, for a noncarcinogen. The intake/contact rate term varies depending on the pathway; it takes into account the different ways that a person may come into contact with a chemical. Equations are presented for both media (soil and water) and all exposure pathways, as well as combined pathways for each media. The variables in the following equations are described in subsequent sections of this report along with their default values. Equations 1a and lb are algorithms specific to the ingestion of soil. For noncarcinogenic substances, adult and child soil ingestion rates are calculated separately. Soil: Ingestion only (Non-carcinogenic) Risk*BW*AT 1 *EF*ED*IR*FI*ET*CF RfDo 59 (a) Where: C = contaminant concentration in media [mg/kg] Risk = target [-]: Non-Carcinogens = target hazard index Carcinogens = target cancer risk level BW= body weight [kg] AT = averaging time [yr-day/yr] RfDo = oral reference dose [mg/kg-day] EF = exposure frequency [day/yr] ED = exposure duration [yr] IR = soil ingestion rate [mg/d] F = fraction ingested [-] ET = exposure time [hr/d] CF = conversion factor [kg-d/mg-hr] For carcinogenic substances, an age-adjusted soil ingestion factor is used for calculating the remedial objective concentration. Soil: Ingestion only (Carcinogenic) Risk*AT SFo*EF*IF*ET*CF2 Where: SFo = oral slope factor [kg-day/mg] IF= age-adjusted soil ingestion factor [kg-yr/kg-day] ET = exposure time [hr/day] CF2 = conversion factor [yr/hr] Equations 2a and 2b are algorithms specific to dermal contact with soil. Soil: Dermal contact only (Non-carcinogenic) Risk*B.W*AT *SA*AF*ABS*EF*ET*ED*CF3 CRfDad Where: RfDad = absorbed reference dose [mg/kg-day] SA = skin surface area [m2/day] AF = adherence factor [mg/cm 2] ABS = absorption factor [-] CF3 = conversion factor [d-cm 2 -kg/hr-m2 -mg] 60 (2a) Soil: Dermal contact only (Carcinogenic) Risk*BW*AT SFad*SA* AF*ABS* EF*ET*ED*CF3 Where: SFad = absorbed slope factor [kg-day/mg] Equations 3a and 3b are algorithms specific to inhalation of particles from soil. Soil: Inhalationofparticles only (Non-carcinogenic) (3a) Risk * AT *EF *ED * PEF RfCi *ET *CF4 Where: RfCi = inhalation reference concentration [mg/m 3] PEF= particulate emission factor [m3 /kg] CF4 = conversion factor [d/hr] Soil: Inhalation ofparticlesonly (Carcinogenic) C - Where: Risk *AT *ET*CF4 URF*EF*ED* PEF (3b) URF = inhalation unit risk factor [m3/mg] Equations 4a and 4b are algorithms specific to inhalation of vapors from soil. Soil: Inhalationof vapors only (Non-carcinogenic) C= Where: Risk*AT *EF*ED* *ET*CF4 VF RfCi (4a) VF = volatilization factor [m3/kg] Soil: Inhalationof vapors only (Carcinogenic) C= Risk* AT 1 *ET*CF4 URF* EF* ED* VF 61 (4b) Equations 5a and 5b are algorithms for a total exposure to all pathways: ingestion of soil, inhalation of particles and vapors, and dermal contact. Total exposure is calculated by summing the risk for each pathway and then determining the concentration. Concentrations for adult and child exposure have to be calculated separately in order to take into account the differences in soil ingestion rate, body weight, and skin surface area. Soil: Total - Ingestion, Inhalation,Dermal (Non-carcinogenic) C = - - EF*ED*ET* (5a) Risk* BW* AT + *FI*IR*CFl+I *BW* VF PEF) RfCi RfDo RfDad Soil: Total - Ingestion, Inhalation,Dermal (Carcinogenic) - Risk * BW *AT C EF*ED*ET* (SFo*FI*IR*CF2)+ URF*BW* + *CF4 +(SFad*CF*SA*AF*ABS Equations 6a and 6b are algorithms specific to ingestion of water. Water: Ingestion only (Non-carcinogenic) Risk*BW*AT = C *IR*EF*ED*ET RfDo Where: (6a) C = contaminant concentration in media [mg/L] Water: Ingestion only (Carcinogenic) C - Risk *BW * AT SFo* IR* EF* ED* ET (6b) Equations 7a and 7b are algorithms specific to dermal contact with water. Water: Dermal Contact only (Non-carcinogenic) Risk*BW*AT *SA*Kp* ET*EF*ED*CF6 C= RfDad 62 (7a) (5b) Where: Kp = permeability constant [cm/hr] CF6 = conversion factor [L/cm-m2] Water: Dermal Contact only (Carcinogenic) C= Risk*BW* AT SFaa SA* Kp* E* EF*ED"CF6 (7b) Equations 8a and 8b are algorithms for a total exposure to water via both pathways: ingestion of water and dermal contact. Concentrations for adult and child exposure have to be calculated separately in order to take into account the differences in water ingestion rate, body weight, and skin surface area. Water: Total - Ingestion, Dermal (Non-carcinogenic) (8a) Risk*BW*AT C= *SA* Kp*CF6 * IR + EF* ED* ET* RfDad (RfDo Water: Total - Ingestion, Dermal (Carcinogenic) C 3.3.2 Risk*BW*AT EF*ED*ET* [(SFo* IR) + (SFad*SA* Kp* CF6)] Exposure Parameters Exposure is defined, by the EPA, as the contact of an organism (i.e. humans) with a chemical or physical agent. Often exposure is normalized to account for the facts that exposure can occur over time and that exposure can be a function of body weight. The EPA RAGS Vol. 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) terms normalized exposure "intake." In order to estimate intake, the RAGS has three categories of variables: 1) variables that describe the exposed population - contact rate, exposure frequency and duration, and body weight; 2) chemical-related variable - exposure concentration; and 3) assessment-determined variable - averaging time [EPA 1989]. 63 3.3.2.1 Exposed Population Variables In calculating exposure, a person's average daily dose of a contaminant is determined from a combination of variables including the pollutant concentration, exposure duration, and frequency of exposure [Sexton and Ryan 1987]. The last two variables are dependent on human activity patterns, which vary depending on a person's age, occupation, location, culture, and personal preferences. The Handbook describes published time use studies and makes recommendations for selected activities. Exposure Frequency (days/yr) and Exposure Time (hr/day) Exposure time is the time over which a single contact event occurs. Exposure frequency refers to how often the contact event occurs. Exposure frequency and duration are used to estimate the total time of exposure [EPA 1989]. In this section we discuss exposure to both soil and water. As stated in section 3.3, the soil pathway includes ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact. It is assumed that activities associated with soil ingestion present opportunities for inhalation of vapors and particles as well as dermal contact, therefore the exposure frequency and exposure time variables have one value for all of the soil exposure pathways. This is also true for the water exposure pathways. In order to determine an appropriate exposure frequency and exposure time for a recreational land-use scenario, the studies presented in the Exposure Factors Handbook [EPA 1997b] were analyzed. Exposure frequency and time are different for different exposure pathways. The values are determined based on a specific land use scenario. For example, the number of days a child spends playing in the soil will be different from the number of days a child goes swimming or wading in the river. A summary of the data for relevant activities (outdoor recreation) for the soil pathway is presented in Table 1 below. Included in the table are the 9 5 th percentiles for the data, as prescribed by the EPA in the RAGS. The data in this table is from "National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)," by Tsang and Klepeis [1996]. The survey was conducted by the U.S. EPA and is the largest and most current human activity pattern survey available. The data was collected using minute-by-minute 24-hour diaries from respondents in the 48 contiguous United States. Participants for this survey were selected using a Random Digit Dial (RDD) method and Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) [EPA 1997b]. 64 Data was collected on the duration and frequency of selected activities and of the time spent in selected microenvironments. Advantages of the NHAPS data set are that it is representative of the U.S. population and it has been adjusted to be balanced geographically, seasonally, and for day/time [EPA 1997b]. It is also representative of all ages, gender, and is race specific. A disadvantage of the study is that means cannot be calculated for time spent over 60, 120, and 181 minutes in selected activities. This does not seem to be a problem for the activities of interest for a recreational scenario. Table 7: Activity Factors [Tsang and Klepeis 19961 Number of Respondents Number of Minutes Spent (min/day) 95th Percentile __Age-1-4 Playing in Sand or Gravel Playing on Sand, Gravel, Dirt, or Grass When Fill Dirt Was Presen: 203 205 193 185 Playing on Grass 206 185 Outdoor Playing Outdoor Recreation 4 121 Outdoors on a Sidewalk, Street, or in the Neighborhood 30 Outdoors on School Grounds/Playg round 964 21 6 54 -Outdo-orsat a Park/GolfCourse Outdoors at a Restaurant/Picnic Outdoors Other Than Near a Residence or Vehicle Such as Parks, Golf Courses, or Farms Age 1-4 121 121 Age 5-11 121 121 121 210 630 360 574 75 158 410 54 5 175 425 160 220 635 473 159 560 574 Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 *Note:Under the heading 'Number of Minutes Spent (minutes/day),'the value of "121" for a num er of minutes signities that more than 120 minutes were spent. Examining the data from the study, we were able to get an estimate of how much time children ages 1-4 years old and 5-11 years old spend outdoors. The data on the top half of the table does not lend too much useful information except to confirm that over 2 hours/day are spent for both age groups playing outdoors. The bottom half of the table, statistics for 24-hour cumulative number of minutes spent, offers more specific information. We can see that over 2 hours/day are spent by both age groups for all of the listed activities/ locations. If a straight average of the 7 categories is taken, then the data would indicate that, in the 95 percentile, for the 1-4 age group an average of 5.5 hours/day is spent outdoors and for the 5-11 age group an average of 7.7 hours/day is 65 spent outdoors. However, some of the sample sizes are too small to really be meaningful across the subgroup; this limitation in the data cannot be overlooked. The recommended value in the Exposure Factors Handbook for the amount of time children (ages 3-11 years old) spend doing outdoor activities is 5 hr/day for weekdays and 7 hr/day for weekends. These values come from the study 'How children use time' done by Timmer et al. [1985]. This study was a follow-up of households from a previous survey conducted in 1975-76 [EPA 1997b]. From February through December 1981, Timmer et al. [1985] conducted the survey during which households were contacted four times during a three-month interval of the survey period. The initial contact was a personal interview, followed by subsequent telephone interviews for most of the respondents. Families with children were contacted personally and questionnaires were administered to a maximum of three children per household. The children surveyed were between the ages of 3 and 17 years and were interviewed twice [EPA 1997b]. The questionnaires consisted of a time diary and a standardized interview. One of the limitations of this study is that the data do not provide overall annual estimates of children's time use since the data were collected exclusively during the school year. Also, the survey was conducted in 1981 and it is possible that activity patterns in children may have changed from that period to the present. The EPA recommends the following range of default values for dermal exposure in the report "Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications" [EPA 1992b]: Soil Contact Central Value Upper Limit 40 events/year 350 events/year In coming to these recommended values, the study considers the time people spend in outdoor recreation, gardening, and construction. The document offers the following guidance on deriving exposure estimates: use of all central values for each parameter should produce a central value scenario; use of all high end values for each parameter, produces a bounding estimate that is usually above the high end of the distribution; and a 66 mix of high end and central values is probably the best way to create a reasonable high end scenario. Using the upper end does not make sense, as it clearly does not represent the recreational scenario. For example, the upper value for water contact represents the exposure of a competitive swimmer. A study presented in this report looks at soil contact time, frequency, and duration. Hawley [1985] used the premise that activities that are associated with soil ingestion are likely to present opportunities for dermal exposure. Existing literature was used to estimate exposure for young children and older children to contaminated soil. Seasonal factors were taken into consideration in determining exposure estimates. Hawley assumed an outdoor soil exposure of 5 days/week during a period of 6 months, for young children (2.5 years of age) [EPA 1992b]. This yields an exposure frequency of 130 days/year. Hawley reasoned that children retain soil on their skin after coming indoors, so he approximated the contact time to be 12 hours. For older children, the average outdoor playtime, during which dermal exposure to soil would occur, was estimated at 5 hours/day 6 days/week from May to September [EPA 1992b]. Again, the exposure frequency is 130 days/year. RAIS, Risk Assessment Information System, is sponsored by Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (OEM), Oak Ridge Operations (TN), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory [RAIS 2000]. They have developed their own recreational standard. For this standard, recreation land use covers individuals assumed to be exposed to contaminated media while playing, fishing, hunting, hiking, or engaging in other outdoor activities. The default values for exposure frequency and exposure time were determined from the EPA's Dermal Exposure Assessment Report [EPA 1992b]. For the soil exposure pathway, they set exposure frequency to 75 days/year and exposure time to 1 hour/day. The EPA RAGS Vol. 1 Human health Evaluation Manual (part A) [EPA 1989] offers "best guess" values for dermal exposure frequency for children. They suggest 3 times/week for fall and spring days (>32 0 F) and 5 times/week for summer days when children are not attending school [EPA 1989]. The guidance also says that worker and recreational user contact rates are dependent on the type of activity at the site and that 67 exposure frequency and exposure duration may be lower for workers and recreational users. If we estimate that each season last 13 weeks, then we can calculate: Fall and spring: Summer: 3 times/week(13 weeks/fall+13 weeks/spring) = 78 times 5 times/week(13 weeks/summer)= 65 times 143 times/year Site-specific data needs to be taken into account, if available, in determining the default values for these variables. A significant factor in determining whether a child plays outdoors is the weather. The National Weather Service reported that the mean number of days that Providence RI has snow and ice pellets of 1.0 inches or more is approximately 10 days/year. The mean number of days that a thunderstorm occurs is approximately 20 days/year. For approximately 26 days/year the temperature in Providence reaches a maximum of 320 F or below. It is assumed that when the temperature is less than or equal to 320 F that children will be wearing clothing to cover almost all of their exposed surface area. It is also assumed that at this temperature the exposed soil on the ground as well as the river will be frozen. If the ground is frozen it will hinder children from digging and playing in the dirt/soil. It is not reported whether the days that it snows/ice pellets correspond to the days with a maximum temperature less than or equal to 320 F. In an effort to be conservative, we assume that these events do take place at the same time. Therefore we conclude that there are a minimum of 46 days/year that the weather in Providence RI precludes children from being in contact with certain exposure pathways. Taking into account the studies, recommendations, and site-specific information, we have set the default values for exposure frequency to 200 days/year and for exposure time to 6 hours/day for the soil exposure pathways for a recreational land use scenario. Based on the recommendation from the Exposure Factors Handbook, the exposure time is 5 hours/day for weekdays and 7 hour/day for weekends. Given that the risk equations do not differentiate between weekdays and weekends, this would be equivalent of 5.57 hours/day on any day. To be conservative we set the exposure time at 6 hours/day. The recommendations by the EPA for exposure frequency are less clear, so we relied more heavily on the studies discussed above. The study from the RAGS part A [EPA 68 1989] does not take into account that children may play outdoors in the winter. If we use the same assumptions for winter that were used for fall and spring, that children will be exposed to contaminated soil for 3 times/week, and they will be exposed for 5 times/week for summer, we can calculate that the number of times that a child is exposed to contaminated soil for the whole year is 182 times/year. Hawely's [1985] study has an exposure frequency of 130 days/year for both young children and older children; however the contact time for these two age groups is very different: 12 hours/day for young children and 5 hours/day for older children. This variation in contact time is too large to ignore. If we average the two contact times we have a contact time of 8.5 hours/day. Combining the contact time and exposure frequency, we have 1105 hours/year. Since we know that our exposure time is 6 hours/day, we divide 1105 hours/year by 6 hours/day to get an exposure frequency of 184 days/year. With both of these studies in mind, and in an effort to be conservative, we arrived at the exposure frequency of 200 days/year. There is significantly less information available on the time and frequency of swimming compared to the plethora of information on soil exposure. The EPA recommends the following range of default values for dermal exposure to water in the report "Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications" [EPA 1992b]: Water Contact - Swimming Central Upper 0.5 hr/event 1 hr/event 1 event/day 1 event/day 5 days/year 150 days/year As stated before, it does not make sense to use the upper values to represent the recreational scenario. In this report the upper value for water contact represents the exposure of a competitive swimmer. The SEAM (Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual) [EPA 1988] suggests that national average values based on the Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Survey [DOI 1973] be applied. These are: 69 Exposure Frequency: 7 days/year Exposure Time: 2.6 hours/day The value for exposure time represents more than actual time in water. The exposure frequency parameter needs to be site specific, because factors such as geography (i.e. weather conditions) and availability of surface water for recreation are key details in setting the default value. EPA Region 4 publishes Human Health Assessment Bulletins [EPA 2000]. In the exposure assessment, section Region 4 states that a default value for swimming frequency in the Southeast should be 45 days/year. This number is likely to be an over estimate for the northeast part of the country. The recommended value in the Activity Factors Handbook [EPA 1997b] for the exposure time and exposure frequency for swimming is 1 event/month, 60 minutes/event. These numbers are based on the study by Tsang and Klepeis [1996] described earlier in this section. The National Weather Service reported that for approximately 10 days per year, the temperature in Providence reaches a maximum of 900 or above. It is assumed that when the temperature is this high, the likelihood of children going in the water is increased. These 10 days all fall between April and September. Based on the EPA recommended values and the information specific to Providence, we have set the default value for exposure frequency to 16 days/year and for exposure time to 1 hour/day for the water exposure pathway. Using the National Weather Service information, we estimated 10 days of exposure for April through September. Based on the Activities Factors Handbook recommendation of 1 event/month, we added 1 day/month for October through March, yielding a total of 16 days/year. We set the exposure time based on the Activities Factors Handbook recommended value, which is also the upper bound value in the Dermal Exposure Assessment Manual - 1 hour/event. 70 Exposure Duration Exposure Duration represents that length of time over which someone has the potential to be exposed to a contaminated site. This variable is usually set to the number of years spent at one residence. The upper bound value of 30 years is used when calculating exposure from childhood to adulthood. Thirty years is the national upper-bound time, or 9 0 th percentile, at one residence [EPA 1989]. If the exposure changes from childhood to adulthood, then the exposures for adults and children are calculated separately. The exposure duration for a child is set to 6 years and for an adult to 24 years. A lifetime exposure duration is 70 years, by convention. Contact Rate Contact rate refers to the amount of contaminated medium (e.g., soil, water) contacted per unit time or event [EPA 1989]. If statistical data are used, the RAGS prescribes using the 9 5 th percentile value. Several terms fall under the category of contact rate, such as ingestion rate, surface area, and inhalation rate. Soil Ingestion Rate Soil ingestion rate refers to the amount of soil that a child or adult consumes each day. Depending on the study, 'soil' can mean either street dirt, house dust, or soil. The EPA RAGS Vol. 1, Part B [EPA 199 1b] assumes that the risk of contamination from soil is due to direct ingestion of soil only. Because the soil ingestion rate is different for children and adults, the risk due to direct ingestion of soil is calculated using an ageadjusted soil ingestion factor [EPA 1991]. This factor accounts for the fact that children and adults differ not only in soil ingestion rates, but also body weights, and exposure durations. The equation expressing the adjusted ingestion factor, IF, is: IFsoil/adj Where: = (IRsoil/agel-6 x EDagel-6)/BWagel-6 + (IRsoil/age7-31 x EDage7-31) /BWage7-31 IR = soil ingestion rate ED= exposure duration BW= body weight In order to calculate the age-adjusted soil ingestion factor, the children's ingestion rate of soil has a default value of 200 mg soil/day and the ingestion rate of soil of all other ages 71 has a default value of 100 mg soil/day. Average body weight for a child age 1-6 years is 15 kg and for a person ages 7-31 years is 70 kg. Using these default values, the default age-adjusted soil ingestion factor is 114 mg-yr/kg-day. The information presented in Part A of the RAGS Vol.1 [EPA 1989] suggests a value for the ingestion rate of children 6 years old and younger that is based primarily on fecal tracer studies. This value accounts for ingestion of indoor dust as well as outdoor soil [EPA 1989]. The default value for children, 1 through 6 years old, is 200 mg/day and for age groups greater than 6 years old is 100 mg/day; these are the same values used in the RAGS Part B. The document cautions that these ingestion rates do not apply to individuals with abnormally high soil ingestion rates such as pica children. Pica is defined in the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook [1 997b] as a deliberately high soil ingestion rate. A supplemental guidance to the RAGS Vol. 1 for Standard Default Exposure Factors accounts for ingestion of both outdoor soil and indoor dust [EPA 1991d]. The rate for children aged 1 through 6 year is specified as 200 mg/day and 100 mg/day for others. These values are believed to represent an upper-bound for soil and dust ingestion. The EPA's Exposure Assessment Group published a report by Hwang and Falco [1986] entitled "Estimation of Multimedia Exposures Related to Hazardous Waste Facilities" in which they present studies on soil ingestion rate. The first study in the report by Lepow et al. [1975] studied the mouthing behavior of ten 2-to-6-year-old children. The total soil ingestion rate for a 2-year-old child, based on the average amount of street dirt, house dust, and soil ingested by the child as a result of putting his hands and fingers in his mouth, can be summed as 600 mg of soil per day [EPA 1986]. Another study presented by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), by Kimbrough et al., found that ingestion rate changed at different ages and was given as 0 for age group 0-9 months, as 1,000 g/day for age group 9-18 months, as 10,000 mg/day for age group 1.5 to 3.5 years, and as 100 mg/day for a 5-year-old child [EPA 1986]. CDC presented a study by Binder [1985] that dealt with children between the ages of 1 to 5 years, living in Montana. The ingestion 72 rates were back-calculated from the results of feces analysis. Using the soil analytical results, the ingestion rates were in the range of 120 to 1,800 mg soil/day. Based on the reports and guidance, the current accepted ingestion rate and the value we have chosen to use for children age 1 to 6 is 200 mg soil/day, for ages greater than 6 years it is 100 mg soil/day. These two values, along with standard body weights yield an age-adjusted ingestion rate of 114 mg-yr/kg-day. Water Ingestion Rate Water ingestion rate refers to the amount of water that is consumed while swimming. Little information regarding exposure during swimming is available. The EPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins [EPA 2000] suggest an ingestion rate of 50 ml/hour of surface water for exposure to water during swimming. This is consistent with the RAGS Part A Residential Exposure [EPA 1989] via ingestion of surface water while swimming. The accepted default value for water ingestion rate appears to be 50 ml/hour. Skin Surface Area Skin surface area is a variable that represents the amount of skin that may be exposed to contaminated media for a certain/specific exposure pathway. This variable is pathwayspecific because exposed surface area will vary with activity and the extent of clothing worn [EPA 1989]. For example, the total body surface area may be in contact with contaminated water for a swimmer, whereas a child playing in the dirt may only contact his head, hands, forearms, and lower legs. The RAGS Vol. 1 Part A states that to calculate the reasonable maximum exposure for this pathway, 5 0 th percentile values, not 95th percentile values, are used for the area of exposed skin [EPA 1989]. Surface area and body weight are strongly correlated and 5 0 th percentile values are most representative of the surface area of individuals of average weight (e.g., 70 kg for adults and 15 kg for children) [EPA 1989]. The default variable values in the RAGS document are given in Table 8: 73 Table 8: Body Surface Area Used in Risk Assessments [EPA 1989] 50'" Percentile Total Body Surface Area (M2) Age (years) Male Female 3<6 0.728 0.711 6<9 0.931 0.919 9<12 1.16 1.16 12<15 1.49 1.48 15<18 1.75 1.60 Adult 1.94 1.69 50th Percentile Body Part-Specific Surface Area for Males (m) Age (years) Arms Hands Legs 3<4 0.096 0.040 0.18 6<7 0.11 0.041 0.24 9<10 0.13 0.057 0.31 Adult 0.23 0.082 0.55 The differences in body part surface area between sexes is negligible. The EPA's Dermal Exposure Assessment report states that for soil contact scenarios, dermal exposure is expected to occur at the hands, legs, arms, neck, and head with approximately 26% and 30% of the total surface area exposed for adults and children, respectively [EPA 1992b]. It is assumed that clothing prevents dermal contact. This report recommends that assessors may want to refine estimates of surface area based on seasonal conditions. For example, in moderate climates, it may be reasonable to assume that 5% of the skin is exposed during the winter, 10% during the spring and fall, and 25% during the summer [EPA 1992b]. For water contact scenarios, such as swimming, dermal exposure is expected to occur for 75% to 100% of the skin surface. Table 9 shows the mean surface area by body part for adult males, as given in the Dermal Exposure Assessment report [EPA 1992b]: 74 Table 9: Surface Area by Body Part for Adult Males Body Part 0.118 Trunk 0.569 Upper Extremities 0.319 0.228 Upper Arms 0.143 Forearms 0.114 Hands Lower Extremities Legs 0.084 0.636 0.505 Thighs 0.198 Lower Legs 0.207 Feet TOTAL [EPA 1992b] Mean Value (m') Head Arms 2 (M ) 0.112 1.94 After reviewing the EPA documents, we have decided to set the skin surface area for soil contact scenarios to 0.53 m2 . We assumed that the head, forearms, lower legs, and hands would be exposed to soil for the majority of the year. We feel that this is a conservative estimate because we did not take into account the fact that long sleeve shirts and long pants are likely to be worn during some of the fall and spring and all of the winter months. For the water contact scenarios we set the skin surface area to 1.94 m 2 , which is the 5 0 th percentile value for an adult male body. Body Weight The RAGS Part A [EPA 1989] states that the value for body weight is the average body weight over the exposure period. If exposure occurs only during childhood years, the average child body weight during the exposure period should be used to estimate intake [EPA 1989]. For the soil ingestion pathway, exposure should be calculated separately for children and adults. This pathway requires such a distinction because exposure can occur throughout the lifetime, but the majority of exposure occurs during childhood. According 75 to EPA [1989], for pathways where contact rate to body weight ratios are fairly constant over a lifetime, a body weight of 70 kg is used. Average body weight for children age 16 years old is 15 kg. 3.3.2.2 Chemical Related Variables There are several variables in the exposure equations that are chemical-specific, that is they vary depending on which chemical is of concern. These variables either have a tabulated value (compiled by EPA), can be calculated with tabulated values, or can be solved for using the exposed population variables, assessment determined variables, and tabulated values. Exposure Concentration The concentration term is the arithmetic average of the concentration that is contacted over the exposure period [EPA 1989]. The objective of estimating the exposure concentration is to provide a conservative estimate of the average concentration. In this report we are calculating the acceptable exposure concentration. These concentrations can be found in Tables 11 and 12 in section 3.4. Slope Factor, Reference Dose, Volatilization Factor, Particulate Emission Factor Slope Factor: According to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a slope factor is an upper bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to an agent [EPA 1992a]. In other words, it is the cancer risk per unit dose of a substance. The Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Environmental Management, defines a slope factor as a toxicity value for evaluating the probability of an individual developing cancer from exposure to contaminant levels over a lifetime [EPA 1992a]. In a carcinogen risk assessment there is a dose-response assessment that establishes a quantitative relationship between the dose of a substance and the probability of initiation of a carcinogenic effect. Dose-Response assessment usually entails an extrapolation from 76 the generally high dose administered to experimental animals or exposures noted in epidemiological studies to the exposure levels expected from human contact with the agent in the environment [EPA 1992a]. There are numerous mathematical models for extrapolating from high to low dose. EPA usually employs the linearized multistage procedure in the absence of adequate information to the contrary [EPA 1992a]. In this procedure, the model is fit to the data. A multistage model is an exponential model that approaches 100% risk at high dose, and a shape of a polynomial function at low doses. In short, a slope factor is a plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of a response per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime [EPA 1991]. Reference Dose: A reference dose is the toxicity value for non-carcinogens. Noncarcinogens, or chemicals that give rise to toxic endpoints other than cancer and gene mutations, are often referred to as "systemic toxicants" [EPA 1993]. Systemic toxicity is treated as if there is an identifiable exposure threshold below which there are no observable adverse effects [EPA 1993]. Volatilization Factor: The volatilization factor (VF) describes the relationship between the concentration of a chemical in soil and the volatilized chemical in air. It is calculated for each chemical using the following equation: VF = C*(3.14* DA *T) 2 *pb *D *4 - Where: Q/C = inverse of the mean conc. at the center of a 0.5-acre-square source DA= apparent diffusivity T = exposure time interval pb = dry soil bulk density ParticulateEmission Factor:The particulate emission factor (PEF) describes the relationship between the chemical concentration in soil and the concentration of respirable particles in the air. The particulate emission factor is calculated using the following equation: PEF=Q/C* 3600 0.036 * (I- V) *(U,,, / U, )' * F(x) 77 Where: Q/C = inverse of the mean conc. at the center of a 0.5-acre-square source V = fraction of vegetative cover Un= mean annual wind speed U= equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 7 m F(x) = function dependent on Um/Ut derived using Cowherd et al. [1985] This equation is a conservative model of intake of particles. The equation describes a surface with "unlimited erosion potential," which erodes at low wind speeds and particulate emission rates are relatively time-independent at a given wind speed [EPA 1991b]. Using the default values, the particulate emission factor has a value of 1.32x10 9 m3/kg. 3.3.2.3 Assessment Determined Variables - Averaging Time The averaging time variable is the time over which the exposure is averaged. An averaging time is selected based on the type of toxic effect being assessed. There are four types of toxicants: Table 10: Toxicants [EPA 1989] Toxicants Developmental e Acute * Non-Carcinogens * Carcinogens e Exposure Averaged Over Exposure event Shortest exposure period that could produce an effect Period of exposure Lifetime* * The approach for carcinogens is based on the assumption that a high dose received over a short period of time is equivalent to a corresponding low dose spread over a lifetime. For the purposes of this report only non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicants are of concern. For the non-carcinogens, the averaging time is calculated by multiplying the exposure duration, 30 years, by 365 days/year. For carcinogens the lifetime exposure of 70 years, by convention, is multiplied by 365 days/year. 3.4 Comparison of Residential Standard and Recreational Standard Using the equations described in section 3.3.1 and the exposure parameters in section 3.3.2, concentrations that represent direct exposure criteria were calculated. The chemicals listed in Table 11 are the chemicals of concern in the RI DEM Rules and 78 Regulations. Table 11 compares the concentrations calculated for a recreational scenario with the RI DEM residential concentrations. Table 11: Direct Exposure Criteria for Soil Contaminants Kecreational Kesidential Volatile Organics Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromotorm Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chlorotorm dibromochloromethane 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,1-dichloroethane 1,2-dichloroethane 1,1 -dichloroethene cis-1,2-dichloroethene trans-1,2-dichloroethene 1,2 dichloropropane ethyl benzene ethylene dibromode (EDB) isopropyl benzene Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl isobutyl ketone Methyl-tert-butyl-ether (M IBE) Methylene chloride Styrene Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2 311,860 3.3 125 134 59 23.3 37,17 1.4 75.4 5.1 228,035 49.9 U.6 33,399 6679/ 102 Ietrachloroethylene [oluene Trichloroethane, 1,1,1Irichloroethane, 1,1,2richloroethylene Vinyl chloride Xylenes (Total) Semivolatiles Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)tluoranthene Benzo(k)tluoranthene Biphenyl, 1,1Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether Bis(2-chloroisipropyl)ether Chloroaniline, 4- (p-) Chlorophenol, 2Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene i 0.06 44,T6 1,381 8U,374 22,63 40.64 92,211 6.9 1.6 29.1 -8629 12356 3.64 13 U.18 6,484,41-4 113,150 903,163 5.4 0.5 2.2 5U.18 124,029 224.71 1.1 99,223 9,922 12,403 226.59 U.15 ecreational Kesidential Uichlorobenzene, 1,2- (o-UGJB) 780 Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (m-UGB) 2.5 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (p-UGB)y843 10 Dichlorobenzidine, 3,381 Dichlorophenol, 2,40.8 Diethyl phthalate 1.5 dimethyl phenol, 2,4210 Dimethyl phthalate 1.2 dinitrophenol, 2,47.6 Dinitrotoluene, 2,40.5 Fluoranthene 920 Hluorene 0.9 Hexachlorobenzene 1.2 Hexachlorobutadiene 63 Hexachloroethane 1100 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.9 Methyl naphthalene, 2712 /1 Naphthalene 0.01 Pentachlorophenol 2/ Phenol 10U000 Pyrene 1200 Trnchlorobenzene, 1,2,439U Inchlorophenol, 2,4,545 Inchlorophenol, 2,4,613 2.2 PesticideslPCBs 1.3 Chlordane 12 Ulednn 190 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PGBs)(hi 540 Polychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs)(loN 3.6 13 Inorganics 002 Antimony 110 Arsenic Banum Beryllium 43 Cadmium 35 Chromium 1ll 0.9 Chromium VI O.4 copper 0. 9 Cyanide 0.9 Lead" 0.8 Manganese 46 Mercury 0.6 Nickel 9.1 Selenium 310 Silver 50- Thallium 0.4 Vanadium 4 . Zinc 3,867 153,300 12.9 9,312 2,572,867 49,612 32,16U,839 6,680 28.1 75,433 99,223 0.13 131 4U.4 4.9 102,200 120 64.9 1,929,650 56,575 5,617 193.59 4.6 6000Y 13 96 330 3248058.25 58 0.5 0.. 0.21 1.21 74 -3.5 41,7/32 0.05 578 71,636 557 204,400 24,820 50 35,328 56 34,493 11,59u 6,477 358 662 420,0U0 *Direct exposure criteria for lead consistent with Rhode Island Department of Health Rules and Regulations for Lead Poisoning Prevention [R23-24.6-PB], as amended. 79 - 510 430 27 1.4 30 340 1400 1900 160 0.9 20 28 0.4 8.2 46 J0.9 123 54 5.3 10 10 10 1T.7 55U00 0.J74 39 140 390 3100 200 150 390 23 1000 390 200 5.5 550 6U00 Table 12 : Direct Exposure Criteria for Water Contaminants Volatile Organics Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene 1,2-dichloroethane 1,1-dichloroethene cis-1,2-dichloroethene trans- 1,2-dichloroethene 1,2 dichloropropane ethyl benzene Styrene Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Trichloroethane, 1,1,1Trichloroethane, 1,1,2Trichloroethylene Vinyl chloride Xylenes (Total) Semivolatiles Benzo(a)pyrene Dichlorobenzene (all isomers) Naphthalene Pentachlorophenol Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) Recreational Residential .27/3 0.041 12.2 0.268 0.02 65.45 447.7 U.1 /b 104.4 0.005 0.005 0.1 0.005 0.007 0.070.1 U.UO5 0.7 19.6 0.1 0.10 28O 7677 0.20 0.160 0o.10 1 55 0.005 1 0.2 0.005 0.005 0.002 10 0.000007 0.112 639 0.002 23 0.0002 0.6 0.02 0.001 0.07 Pesticides/PCB-s Chlordane 0.005 0.002 Polychlorinated biphenyls (P Tnor-ganics 0.0002- 0.0005 Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium 111 Chromium VI Cyanide Nickel 0.62 Selenium 0.0004 1.5 .4 83 07 1.7 0.004 0.005 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 117 0.05 In most cases, the recreational standard produces less stringent criteria than the residential standard. Less stringent criteria will allow for quicker and less expensive cleanup of brownfields than currently possible with the residential standard. Every effort was taken to ensure that the default values for the variables are conservative in order to 80 make certain that human health is protected. We used conservative values for exposure frequency, exposure time, and skin surface area; for all other values the standard default values, recommended by EPA, were used. It is important to recognize that even though the numbers are different from the residential standards, the process by which we developed the equations and chose the variables is essentially the same as used for the residential standard. The recreational standard is intended to complement the current methods and standards used by EPA and RI DEM, to be a tool for the specific case of recreational re-use. By having such a narrow scope, we were able to tailor the variables to be representative of a recreational scenario, have conservative parameters, and less stringent cleanup criteria. 3.5 Summary We have developed a recreational risk-based cleanup standard to facilitate the redevelopment of recreational land in urban areas. Currently, neither EPA nor RI DEM have a recreational standard and the default is the residential standard. The first phase of using the RI DEM residential standard is to determine the feasibility of achieving the Method 1 Direct Exposure Criteria, a series of tables establishing conservative risk-based cleanup levels [RI DEM 1996]. For recreational scenarios, the Method 1 residential criteria are often too stringent and Method 2 must be used to achieve an exposure level that is realistic to reach. Method 2 is a process by which the performing party can supplement or modify the Method 1 clean-up levels to reflect site-specific circumstances [RI DEM 1996]. It is more costly and time intensive to employ Method 2, rather than just using the Method 1 criteria. Even more expensive is Method 3, a site-specific human health and/or ecological risk assessment. One of the goals for the new recreational standard is that the recreational criteria should be sufficient, thereby avoiding the expense of employing Method 2 or Method 3. Our standard has been developed to compliment the current methods employed by EPA or RI DEM, and to drastically reduce the time and money spent assessing sites. Looking at a few of the potential chemicals of concern in the Promenade Area, we can compare the recreational standard to the residential standard. VOCs, SVOCs, and metals 81 are all possible contaminants in this area; Table 13 compares the residential to the recreational standard for chemicals in each of these three categories: Table 13: Possible Contaminants in Promenade Area Concentration (mg/kg): VOC Toluene SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene Metal Zinc Recreational Residential 8,630 190 5.4 0.9 420,000 6,000 It can be seen from Table 13 that, for chemicals of potential concern, the recreational standard tends to produce criteria concentrations an order of magnitude larger than the residential standard. The recreational standard is less strict than the residential standard and will facilitate in the redevelopment of brownfields. 82 4.0 CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, a site assessment was conducted to identify possible and known hazardous materials and petroleum releases in the Promenade Area. Our research included historical analysis, a file review, a site reconnaissance and development of GIS. The majority of the Promenade Area should be redeveloped for industrial, commercial or recreational land use; the majority of the Promenade Area is unsuitable for residential reuse. The area surrounding the Woonsquatucket River is being committed to developing a greenway and will therefore be recreational in use. The land reuse of other brownfields in the Promenade Area will be determined by investors and developers and will likely be industrial or commercial. Sites of potential concern in the Promenade Area include Gaudette Industrial, rubber manufacturing facilities, and historic facilities. Gaudette Industrial, a State-listed site, uses and produces hazardous materials and may have unlined trenches and abandoned USTs and has not reached regulatory closure. Historic rubber manufacturers are of environmental concern because of the large size of the facilities and use of petroleum products, oxidizers, metals and acids. Other historic industries including jewelry manufacturing and auto repair facilities are also of concern because of the lack of data associated with these sites. Field investigations should be conducted on historic sites before development proceeds. Our GIS should be used in conjunction with the City of Providence and developers. GIS will allow planners to view potential environmental conditions at land parcels. Our GIS tool can also be overlaid with other datasets in making development decisions. Current land uses and demographic information could be included. Also, our datasets could be further ranked to provide more information to the planner. Datasets could be ranked by chemicals of concern or volume of wastes produced. Our GIS will be a powerful tool for land developers in the City of Providence and has the potential to be expanded. Detailed Phase I and Phase II site assessments need to be performed before redevelopment can occur. Phase I investigations will allow for a legally binding and more 83 thorough site assessment. While Phase II investigations will provide detailed information on the extent of contamination at the site through land, soil, and water samples. Based upon our site assessment and GIS, we conclude that there is the potential for unidentified hazardous materials and petroleum releases to exist within the Promenade Area. The Promenade Area has had a long history of industrial use and has been home to a variety of industries including rubber, jewelry, textile and metal. Drycleaners, auto repair facilities and wood processors are some of the smaller industries in the area. Manufacturers of larger size may be of greater concern because they handle larger volumes of hazardous wastes and therefore the contamination extent may be greater. Because of the large variety of industries and manufacturers there is the potential for many contaminants including VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and acids. Contamination, if any, is likely to be limited to surficial soil contamination and those related historic structures such as USTs, drywells and trenches. Surficial soil contamination can either be excavated or encapsulated. Historic structures require removal of the structure and contaminated soil. All removals and encapsulations will need to be performed under RI DEM's regulatory program. The Promenade Area is likely to contain environmental contaminants; however, these contaminants are likely to be those usually managed by the RI DEM Brownfields Program and are likely not to prohibit recreational, commercial, and industrial reuse. The recreational standard is a promising tool for use in restoring the Promenade Area. This standard will allow for faster and cheaper cleanup of brownfield sites. More brownfield sites will be able to be redeveloped for recreational use using this standard because the residential standard will no longer set the clean-up criteria. The recreational standard is less stringent than the residential standard because the exposure frequency and the exposure time for recreational use are less than the exposure frequency and the exposure time for residential use. Although the recreational standard is less stringent than the residential standard, the default values were conservatively selected to ensure the protection of human health. 84 Further work that needs to be conducted includes a comparison of the recreational criteria with urban background contaminant levels. If the background levels are found to be higher than the criteria, then perhaps the standard will need to be reevaluated. It is important to do a public perception analysis of the recreational standard. Perhaps the standard should be presented at an open meeting where it can be explained, questions asked and fears quelled. Having an understanding and supportive community will ease the use of the recreational standard. Finally, the list of chemicals presented in Tables 11 and 12 can be expanded to include other possible contaminants of concern. The current list includes the same chemicals in the RI DEM Rules and Regulations [1996], and is in no way is exhaustive. The recreational standard will be a useful tool for the City of Providence to use during the redevelopment of the Promenade Area. It will be especially valuable during the construction of the Greenway around the Woonsquatucket River. Not only does this standard show promise for the City of Providence, but it also has the potential to be implemented statewide and nationwide. 85 References Amengual, M., Huxol, J., 1999. Livable Providence 2000. Brown University, Center for Environmental Studies, http://www.brown.edu/Departments/EnvironmentalStudies/summit/index.html, December 2, 1999. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 1999. Standard 1527-93: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process Bartsch, Charles, Collaton, Elizabeth, 1997. Brownfields: Cleaning and Reusing Contaminated Properties. The Northeast-Midwest Institute, Westport, CT, 1997. Beck, Eric, 1999. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Personal Communication, November 2, 1999. Benjamin, Richard, 1999. The Benjamin Richard Collection: Photographsof Providence, Rhode Island. http://www.providenceri.com/richardbenjamin/vb.html, December 2, 1999. Benson, Craig H, 1998. Risk-based Corrective Action and Brownfields Restorations: Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Congress '98. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication, no. 82, Boston, MA, 1998. Binder, S. 1985. "Estimating the Amount of Soil Ingested by Young Children Through Trace Elements," Report by the Centers for Disease Control, 1985. Dennison, Mark S., 1998. Brownfields Redevelopment: Programs and Strategies for Rehabilitating Contaminated Real Estate. Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville, MD, 1998. Deuren, J.V., Wang, Z., Ledbetter J., 1997. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide Version 3.0, October 1997. DOI 1973, Outdoor recreation: a legacy for America. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Report No. S/N 050-000-00-534-8. 1973. Downing, George E.(chairman), 1981. Providence Industrial Sites: Statewide Historical Preservation Report P-P-6. Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission. July 1981. EPA 1988, Superfund exposure assessment manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., Report No. EPA/540/1-88/001. 1988. EPA 1989, Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (PartA, Baseline Risk Assessment), Report No. EPA/540/1 89/002. December 1989. EPA 1990a, A Review of Sources of Ground-Water Contamination From Light Industry: Technical Assistance Document, Report No. EPA-440-6-90-005. May 1990. EPA 1990b, Guides to Pollution Prevention for the Commercial Printing Industry, Report No. EPA-625-7-90-008. August 1990. EPA 1991 a, Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative, Report No. EPA-625-R-98-008. February 1999. 86 EPA 199 1b, Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (PartB, Development of Risk-BasedpreliminaryRemediation Goals), Report No. EPA/540/R-92/003. December 1991. EPA 1991 c, Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (PartC, Risk Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives), Report No. 9285.7-01C. December 1991. EPA 199 1d, RAGS Supplemental Guidance: StandardDefault Exposure Factors,Report No. OSWER-9285.6-03. 1991. EPA 1992a, Integrated Risk Information System, EPA 's Approachfor Assessing the Risk Associated with Chronic Exposure to Carcinogens,Background Document 2. January 17, 1992. EPA 1992b, Dermal Exposure Assessment: PrinciplesandApplications. Report No. EPA/600/8-91/011 B. Interim Report. January 1992. EPA 1993, Integrated Risk Information System, Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk Assessments, Background Document 1A, March 15, 1993. EPA 1995a, EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. Profile of the Rubber and PlasticsIndustry, Report No. EPA-3 10-R-95 -016. September 1995. EPA 1995b, EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. Profile of the Dry CleaningIndustry, Report No. EPA-3 10-R-95-00 1. September 1995 EPA 1997a, EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. Profile of the Textile Industry, Report No. EPA-3 10-R-97-009. September 1997. EPA 1997b, Exposure FactorsHandbook Volume IIIActivity Factors,Report No. EPA/600/P-95/002Fc. August 1997. EPA 1997c, Road Map to UnderstandingInnovative Technology Optionsfor Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, Report No. EPA-542-B-97-002. June 1997. EPA 1997d, Tool Kit of Information Resourcesfor Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, Report No. EPA-542-B-97-001. June 1997. EPA 1997e, Brownfields Glossary of Terms, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/glossary.htm. September 30, 1997. EPA 1998a, Technical Approaches to Characterizingand Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative, Report No. EPA-625-R-98-006. March 1999. EPA 1998b, TechnicalApproaches to Characterizingand Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative, Report No. EPA-625-R-98-007. December 1998. EPA 1998c, Quality Assurance Guidancefor Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments, Report No. EPA-540-R-98-038. September 1998. EPA 1998d, Using Supplemental EnvironmentalProjects to FacilitateBrownfields Redevelopment, Report No. EPA-330-F-98-001. September 1998. EPA 1998e, TechnicalFactsheet on PolychlorinatedBiphenyls (PCBs), http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-soc/pcbs.html, January 27, 1998. EPA 1999a, TechnicalApproaches to Charaterizingand Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative, Report No. EPA-625-R-98-008. February 1999. EPA 2000, Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins - Supplement to RAGS, Waste Management Division, January 13, 2000. 87 Fromm, Pamela, 2000. VHB. Personal Communication in January, 2000. Hawley, J.K. 1985. Assessment of health risk from exposure to contaminated soil. Risk Anal. 5:289-302. 1985. Hwang, S.T.; Falco, J.W. 1986. Estimation ofMultimedia Exposures Related to Hazardous Waste Facilities,EPA Exposure Assessment Group, Report No. EPA/600/D-87/340. 1986. Jakabhazy, Elise, 1999. Environmental Protection Agency. Personal Communication, November 2, 1999. Kimbrough, R.D.; Falk, H.; and Stehr, P.; 1984. Health implications of 2,3,7,8tetrachloro-dibenzodioxin (TCDD) contamination of residual soil. J. Toxicol. Env. Health 14:47. 1984. Lepow, M.L.; 1975. Investigations in sources of lead in the environment of urban children. Env. Res. 10:45. 1975. National Weather Service, 2000. "Normals, Means, and Extremes: Providence RI," www.nws.noaa.gov/er/box. January 2000. Nifong, Christina. 1999. To Revitalize a Decaying City Takes Many Acts of Providence. Christian Science Monitor (1996). http://ProvidenceRI.com/christinanifong.html, December 2, 1999. O'Connor, Timothy, 2000. VHB. Personal Communication on April 3, 2000. RAIS, 2000, Risk Assessment Information System. http://risk.lsd.oml.gov/rap-hp.shtml. April 2000. RI DEM, 1996, Rules and Regulationsfor the Investigation and Remediation of Hazardous MaterialReleases, Division of Site Remediation, DEM-DSR-0 193. August 1996. Sanborn Map, 1920. Sanborn Historical Fire Insurance Maps, Rhode Island Historical Society. 1920. Sanborn Map, 1970. Sanborn Historical Fire Insurance Maps, Rhode Island Historical Society. 1970. Sanborn Map, 1982. Sanborn Historical Fire Insurance Maps, Rhode Island Historical Society. 1982. Sexton, K; Ryan, P.B., 1987. Assessment of human exposure to air pollution: methods, measurements, and models. In: Watson, A.; Bates, R.R.; Kennedy, D., eds. Air pollution, the automobile and public health: research opportunities for quantifying risk. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences Press. 1987. Shanahan, Pete, 1999. HydroAnalysis. Personal Communications, October 15, November 4, and November 16, 1999. Sieong, Wong T., 1999. Welcome to Providence,Rhode Island. http://www.providenceri.com, December 2, 1999. Timer, S.G.; Eccles, J.; O'Brien, K., 1985. How children use time. In: Justen, F.T.; Stafford, F.P.; eds. Time, goods, and well-being. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research. 1985. Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E., 1996. Results tables from a detailed analysis of the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) response. Draft Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed martin, Contract No. 68W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13. 1996. 88 APPENDIX A Summary of File Review State Sites: " Japelo Realty: The subject site is located at 475-485 Valley Street on a single lot south of the intersection between Wolcott Street and Valley Street. On December 8, 1993, the RI DEM Division of Site Remediation was notified that a release of hazardous material occurred on the subject site. Surface soil samples revealed the presence of petroleum contamination and trace levels of volatile organic compounds. Fuel oil delivery overflow was considered a potential source of contamination. A RI DEM Letter of Responsibility was issued to the property owners on December 23, 1993. The letter required the owners to perform a Site Characterization Report and subsurface investigation. The Site Characterization Report revealed no significant petroleum hydrocarbon, volatile organic compound or polychlorinated biphenyl soil contamination. The presence of an underground storage tank and three aboveground storage tanks was observed. Visual evidence indicated that potentially contaminated sludge exists at the bottom of the dry well. A boring placed downgradient of the dry well revealed no evidence of contamination. Based on the findings, no further action was required in a letter from RI DEM dated June 23, 1994. " ProvidenceSeafood: Providence Seafood is located at 81 Manton Avenue. On May 12, 1992, an employee at Providence Seafood arrived at work and noticed that four 55-gallon drums had been abandoned on his loading dock. The drums were found to contain plating chemicals. Three drums contained chromic acid solutions; one drum contained a waste cyanide solution. Several of the drums appeared to be leaking and the area was sealed until the drums could be properly removed. Clean Harbors removed the four drums and the loading dock was washed down with a Bleach solution. " Eagle Plating: Eagle Plating Company, Inc. is located at 21-29 Aurora Street. RI DEM personnel witnessed waste being disposed within a pit behind the Eagle Plating facility. Samples of material within the pit indicated cyanide and heavy metals at hazardous levels. Eagle Plating and their subcontractors excavated the materials from the pit. Samples taken after excavation found levels from a hundred to several thousand times lower than the Direct Exposure Criteria for the site remediation of industrial/commercial areas. RI DEM indicated that no further action was necessary and issued a Letter of Compliance. * Eagle Trading Co: The subject site is located at 75 Eagle Street. On May 27, 1987, large amounts of epoxy, paints, laquers and thinners were left at the site. An auction of materials at this address had taken place earlier in the day. Materials left at the site included eleven 55-gallon drums of flammable material, one hundred eleven 5-gallon containers, and 15-gallon empty containers. The auctioneer stated that the material 89 would be returned to its owner, Bruno Taglia, who used to run B&A Industry in the basement of 75 Eagle Street. No other information is provided regarding this site. NARR Electric-UNCASManufacturing: The subject site is located on Valley Street, south of the intersection of Grove and Valley Street. A historic release of non-PCB mineral oil dielectric fluid (MODF) of an unknown quantity was observed on June 14, 1996 during the retirement of the UNCAS industrial substation. The release was not determined to represent an imminent hazard as defined in Section 3.31 of the Remediation Regulations. On August 19, 1996, remedial actions were performed. The affected area on the concrete pad was cleansed and the soil was excavated to a depth of three feet. Soil samples taken after excavation resulted in Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) below the Method 1 Residential TPH Direct Criteria and GB Leachability Criteria. No further action was required at this site and RI DEM issued a Letter of Compliance on October 8, 1997. e NARR Electric-Olneyville Substation: The subject site is located at the comers of Dike and Troy Streets. A historic release was reported to RI DEM on April 5, 1996. An unknown quantity of non-polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) mineral oil dielectric fluid (MODF) and lead contamination was observed in the soil surrounding five (three existing and two removed) electrical transformer locations. Lead levels exceeded the RI DEM Method 1 Commercial/Industrial Direct Exposure Criteria. The petroleum contamination was due to the historical MODF releases from transformers; the lead contamination was likely due to paint flaking from the transformers. Soil was excavated on August 13, 1996 by Clean Harbors Inc. Concerns of compromising the structural integrity of the transformer foundations and close proximity of live underground electrical cables limited excavation efforts. Post-excavation soil samples indicate residual TPH exists in the subsurface that exceed Method 1 soil objectives. The NEC was granted a variance on July 16, 1998 based on a number of factors that limit the potential for adverse health and environmental effects. Factors include: 1. MODF is relatively insoluble in water and has a low vapor pressure, thereby limiting migration through the subsurface. 2. MODF is less toxic than most petroleum mixtures regulated by Method 1 criteria. 3. The site is and has been utilized as an electrical substation; there are no plans to dismantle this station from service. 4. The groundwater at the Olneyville substation is classified as GB, groundwater not suitable for drinking without treatment, and adjacent properties are also classified as GB. 5. The direct exposure pathway has been eliminated because all excavations were backfilled with clean fill. 6. The area of affected soil appears limited based on the apparent lateral extent of the impacted soil in the excavation. * NARR Electric-LichtIndustries: The subject site is located at 350 Kinsley Street and is the Licht Industries Industrial Substation for Narragansett Electric Company (NEC). Evidence of a historic release of mineral oil dielectric fluid (MODF) was 90 observed on November 13, 1996. MODF staining on concrete pads which support electrical equipment was noticed during the retirement of a section of the Licht Industries Industrial Substation. One sample exceeded the 10 pIg/100 cm 2 limit for PCBs established in the Remediation Regulations. Samples of TPH in the soil were found to exceed the RI DEM criteria. Contaminated soils were excavated and disposed off-site. Post-excavation samples indicate a PCB concentration lower than the notification criteria established in the Remediation Regulations and TPH concentrations lower than the Method 1 Residential Direct Exposure Criteria. No further action was required and a Letter of Compliance was issued on September 25, 1997. * NARR Electric-CAPCOSteel Co: The subject site is located at 33 Acorn Street and is currently occupied by CAPCO Steel Company. Historic releases of MODF from three transformers mounted on a concrete pad caused surficial oil staining to ground surfaces and the concrete pad. Some initial soil samples exceeded the regulatory limit for PCB as established in the Remediation Regulations. Remedial actions included removing the three transformers, excavation of PCB-contaminated soil, cleaning the concrete pad, and collection of post-excavation soil samples. Additionally, the excavated area was backfilled with clean fill material. The PCB levels found in the post-excavation soil samples were below the standards established by EPA's TSCA regulations. The TPH residual concentrations are relatively low and not expected to impact the site or adjacent properties. No further action was required and a Letter of Compliance was issued to NEC on August 1, 1995. * Crawford Garden Supply: The subject site is located at 589 Atwells Ave. On February 27, 1991, RI DEM was notified by the Providence Fire Department of the presence of 2,350 pounds of DDT and 228.5 gallons of chlordane at the former location of Crawford Garden Supply. On May 6, 1991, RI DEM personnel conducted an inspection of the site and found glass containers of DDT and chlordane stored in a disused elevator shaft. No secondary containment had been provided and no drains were observed in the immediate vicinity of the shaft. A Notice of Violation and Order was issued on May 24, 1991. The materials were removed by applicable standards and supervised by RI DEM. A letter was issued on July 22, 1991 indicating compliance with the Notice of Violation and Order. * 500 Valley Street: The subject site is located at 500 Valley Street. A grab sample taken on September 7, 1988 had a PCB concentration of 66 ppm, which exceeds the Federal guideline contamination level of 50 ppm and the Rhode Island guideline contaminant level of 1 ppm. Forty-eight soil samples and one groundwater sample were below the detection limits set in accordance with RI DEM approved protocols. The detection limits were well below the Federal and State guideline contaminant levels. Based on this site assessment, RI DEM Division of Air and Hazardous Materials required no further action on May 17, 1989. * Providence Place: The soils identified for excavation for the Providence Place Mall exceeded the Direct Exposure Criteria for both residential and industrial/commercial 91 properties. The proposed Remedial Action incorporated removal and off-site disposal of contaminated soil and the recording of an Environmental Land Usage Restriction (ELUR) on the property. RI DEM accepted the proposed Remedial Action in a letter dated August 10,1999. * RIDOT-RAMP: The subject site is located at 100 Harris Avenue. Soil samples taken from the site indicated the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) at concentrations exceeding the RI DEM Direct Exposure Criteria for industrial/commercial property. A Short Term Response Action Plan was submitted to RI DEM indicating remedial plans of excavating and off-site disposal of the contaminated soil. * Metro Pigments Dye: Metro Pigments Dye, formally located at 325 Valley Street, vacated its location in August 1986 and left behind four hundred drums of waste. RI DEM personnel found the abandoned drums on September 15, 1986. Ninety-eight drums were sampled in January 1987; ten drums contained hazardous waste. The company removed all materials by February 1987. * Foundry Associates: The site consists of a one-story, steel-framed masonry building and forms a portion of the commercial building complex, the Foundry. During the 1990's, tenants filed air quality complaints. Contracts for the Foundry removed floorboards from the site in January 1999 and revealed a one-inch thick course material. The material consisted of black sand, coal ash, coke and possibly residual petroleum. Samples from the material indicated polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at concentrations 12-275 greater than Method 1 remedial objectives. Eighty cubic yards of course material was removed from the site and an engineered barrier was installed over the existing floor to prevent the infiltration of any volatiles. RCRA Generators * Colonial Knife Co: The 1989 Biennial Report indicated that less than 100 kg/month of waste was generated. Wastes included FOO1: TCE and solvent. The 1991 Biennial Report indicated that no hazardous waste was generated, but they will generate hazardous waste in the future. e Thergen Inc.: Thergen Inc. generates less than 1000 kg/month of waste. The waste primarily produced was FOO 1. " George's Service Station: In 1991, less than 100 kg/month of waste was generated. Wastes included waste petroleum and naphthalene, ROO 1. * Jutras Woodworking Inc.: In 1993, Less than 1000 kg/month of ignitable, F003 waste was produced. 92 * UNCAS Manufacturing: In June 1998, more than 1000 kg/month of hazardous waste was produced. Waste had corrosive and toxic properties. The 1997 Hazardous Waste Report indicates that wastes produced include: spent gold stripper solution, spent nickel strip solution, metal hydroxide sludge, and waste paint. * Antonelli Plating: The 1995 Small Quantity Hazard indicated that Antonelli Plating generated hazardous waste, but did not ship off-site. Possible hazardous wastes include concentrated cyanide, alkaline soaps and caustic solutions, concentrated acidic solutions, sludge slurries from treatment of metal finishing wastewater, noncontaminated rinsewater, dilute metal-bearing rinsewater, and precious metal plating rinsewaters. " Eagle Plating: The 1989 Biennial Report indicated that Eagle Plating produced less than 100 kg/month of F006, hazardous waste solid. The 1997 Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator 1997 Bienniel Report indicated that F006, metal hydroxide sludge was produced. " Gallo 's Auto: The 1989 Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator indicates that petroleum naphthalene and waste oil were produced. " PanbroSales: The 1997 Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Biennial Report indicated that waste combustible liquid and petroleum naphthalene. " GeneralElectric: The 1997 Biennial Report indicates that this generator is a LCQ. Wastes produced include hazardous waste, waste combustible liquid, used fluorescent tubes containing mercury, and waste petroleum oil. " RI Welding & Fabricating:A notification of regulated waste activity, dated 9/93, indicates that RI Welding and Fabricating produces less than 1000 kg/month of corrosive hazardous waste. " Shell Station: The 1995 Bienniel Report indicates that Shell Station is a small quantity hazardous waste generator. The report indicated that hazardous waste was no longer produced, though the station was still in business. " Providence Journal:The 1995 Biennial Report indicates that Providence Journal is a small quantity hazardous waste generator. The 1991 Hazardous Waste Report indicates that some wastes include: ignitable spent solvent, Tri-chloroethylene, waste corrosive liquid, hazardous waste solid, waste ink and oil, ink solids, spent photographic developer and fixer, corrosive liquid, and paint. " Oster Alloys: The 1997 Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Biennial Report indicated that non-hazardous waste was produced. The 1991 Notification of Regulated Waste Activity indicates that less than 1000 kg/month of ignitable waste was produced. 93 e The Foxon Co.: The 1991 Bienniel Report indicates that less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste was produced. In 1991, flammable waste ink was produced. * Eastern Wire ProductsCo: Eastern Wire Products Co is a small generator.The 1997 Hazardous Waste Report indicates that metal hydroxide sludge, chrome electroplating sludge and cyanide strip tank waste was produced. e Coca Cola Bottling Co ofNew England. The file available at RI DEM indicates that Coca Cola is a small quantity generator however there was no other information in the file. e Arconium Specialty Alloys: The 1994 Notification of Regulated Waste Activity indicates that less than 1000 kg/month of corrosive and toxic waste was produced. The 1997 Bienniel Report indicates that Arconium produced mostly sludge. USTs e CartierBrothers Inc. 00014: A 1000-gallon gas tank was removed from 65 Bath St. A closure inspection report was dated on February 16, 1993. e Autocrat Inc. 00022: A certificate of closure certificate, dated November 28, 1988, was issued for the removal of two 500-gallon #2 fuel oil tanks on 119 Harris Avenue. On November 11, 1988, a permanent closure application was issued for two 1000gallon #2 fuel oil tanks. * Twin City Supply Co 00042: The site is located at 233 Harris Avenue. On August 7, 1985, a permanent closure application was filed for a 2000-gallon gas tank. However, a certificate of registration for underground storage facilities was found dating February 8, 1996, indicating that there is still the presence of UST's. * Crawford Garden Supplies 00067: A certificate of closure certificate, dating December 12, 1985, was issued for two 1500-gallon tanks at 589 Atwells Avenue. e HarrisAve Substation,NARR Substation 00166: The Narrangansett Electric Substation is located at 215 Harris Avenue. A letter from NARR by Karen Lynch and a report from Environmental Science Services indicates that a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was removed on November 12, 1993. e Delaine Oil Company Inc, 00407: A closure certificate was issued on December 11, 1995 for a 20,000-gallon and a 15,000-gallon tank containing #2 fuel oil at 659 Harris Avenue. * Di Dom Jewelry Company 00487: A letter addressed to RI State Central Landfill on April 5, 1985 indicates that a tank was purged and removed from 1850 Westminster 94 Street. An Application for a Certification of Registration for a 3000-gallon was received by RI DEM of an unknown date. " David's Service Station 00551: David's Service Station is located at 128 Delaine Street. On March 19, 1987, a certificate of closure was issued from three 1000-gallon gas UST's and a 3000-gallon gas UST. " Eastern Wire Products 00725: A Soil Removal Assessment Report by Resource Control Associates, Inc, dated November 11, 1994, indicates that a 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and two 10,000-gallon #2 fuel oil tanks were removed from 498 Kinsley Avenue. " Shell Oil Company 00810: An unknown UST of unknown volume located at 286 Valley Street received a certificate of registration on February 13, 1996. " Sal's Amoco Station, S+WAuto 01012: A 3000-gallon gas tank, two 1000-gallon gas tanks, and a 5000-gallon waste oil tank received a certificate of closure on September 8, 1987. * Grasso's Olney Gulf Service Station 01064: On May 4, 1994, a UST registration form was recievied for four 8000-gallon tanks of unknown material at 35 Plainfield and Hartford. An application for UST storage facilities for three 8000-gallon gas tanks, a 8000-gallon diesel tank, a 2000-gallon kerosene tank, a 550-gallon waste oil tank and a hydraulic oil tank was received on April 20, 1987. * GeneralElectric Company 01133: A letter from General Electric to RI DEM indicates the presence of #6 and #2 fuel oil tanks at 586 Atwells Avenue. A RI DEM inter-office memo, dated 1994, indicates the presence of eight UST's. * InternationalChromium Plating01359: A certificate of registration for UST's was dated January 17,1996 for the site at 2 Addison Place. An application for 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil and a 1000-gallon #4 fuel oil was received on July 3, 1985. In a letter to RI DEM from International Chromium Plating on October 31, 1994, a 1000-gallon tank was filled with sand and a 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was removed from the site. * L. Sweet Lumber Co 01556: The site located at 709 Harris Avenue was issued a certificate of closure on April 9, 1992 for a 1000-gallon gas tank. * FelicityAssociation Inc. 01577: The site located at 26 Turner Avenue was issued a certificate of closure on July 31, 1989 for a 3000-gallon gas tank. * RI Welding & FabricatingCo 01617: A closure certificate was issued on September 8, 1993 for a 2000-gallon gas tank and a 1000-gallon diesel tank located at 43 Turner Street. In a letter dated September 9,1993, RI DEM required no further action at the site. 95 e Simeone Service Station 01648: A certificate of registration, dating February 9, 1996, for an unknown number of tanks and unknown content and size from the site on 691 Valley Street. A closure certificate dating December 11, 1995, was issued for the removal of two 2000-gallon gas tanks, a 1000-gallon gas tank, a 5000-gallon gas tank, a 500-gallon waste oil tank and a 500-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. * Gallo'sAuto Service 01659: A closure inspection sheet was issued on September 8, 1998 for two 1000-gallon gas tanks at 416 Valley Street. A closure certificate was issued on June 22, 1999 for two 1000-gallon gas tanks. On June 21, 1999, RI DEM required no further action. " State Auto Body 01669: A closure certificate was issued on October 14, 1994 for a 2000-gallon gas tank at 380 Valley Street. No further action was required by RI DEM on October 14, 1994. * George 's Service Station 01747: An application for underground storage facilities, dated approximately 1986, indicates the presence of a 3000-gallon diesel tank at 125 Plainfield Street. A leaking detection inspection, dated March 31, 1998, indicates the presence of two 2000-gallon gas tanks, two 8460-gallon gas tanks and a 550-gallon waste oil tank. " A.J. Oyster Co, Oster Analysis 01799The site was located at 50 Sims Avenue. A closure certificate for a 13,500-gallon solvent tank was issued on July 15, 1993. No further action was required on August 5, 1993. " J.T.S. HarrisLumber Co Inc., Harris Lumber 01987: A letter from Harris Lumber, dated 1986, indicates the presence of a 3000-gallon diesel tank and a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at the Harris-Atwells loation, and a 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at the Harris-Sims location. A certificate of closure, dated June 11, 1990, indicates the removal of a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. A closure certificate, dated November 17, 1999, indicates the removal of a 3000-gallon diesel tank. No further action was required by RI DEM on November 17, 1999. e USPO/FSO 02226: A closure certificate for a 2500-gallon #2 fuel oil tank as issued on September 7, 1995 for 100 Hartford Avenue. No further action was required on September 6, 1995. e Snow & Stars Corporation02275: A certificate of registration to operate a UST was issued on September 18, 1987 for 665 Harris Avenue. A certificate of closure was issued for a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank on June 26, 1987. " R & 0 Eatering: Caruso's Continental Restaurant 02278: An application for a 4000gallon fuel oil tank was issued on August 23, 1987 for 247 Valley Street. " Marcello Realty 02336: An application for a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was issued on April 7, 1987 for 105 Harris Avenue. 96 " Bridge Maintenance 02509: A certificate of registration was issued for a UST at 34 Calverley Street on January 13, 1989. An application for a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was issued on August 14, 1986. " Maintenance Headquarters02510: A certificate of registration, dated January 13, 1989, indicates the presence of an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content at 90 Calverley Street. A letter to RI DEM from RIDOT, dated June 3, 1996, indicates the presence of a 4000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at the property and the presence of a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at 30 Calverley Street. " Manton Avenue Mill, Manton Industries 02514: A closure certificate was issued for a 10,000-gallon #4 fuel oil tank on November 232, 1994 for 100 Manton Avenue. " Auto Valet Inc, PleasantValley Sunoco 02724: A certificate of closure was issued for three 6000-gallon gas tanks and a 3000-gallon diesel tank on March 14, 1988 for 38 Pleasant Valley Parkway. An application for three 8000-gallon gas tanks and a 8000gallon diesel tank was dated on April 19, 1988. A certificate of registration was issued on December 28, 1995 for an unknown number of tanks of unknown content and volume. * Tom's Mobile Mart, Inc. 02728: A certificate of registration for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued on March 7, 1995 at 269 Valley Street. A closure certificate for a 500-gallon fuel oil tank was issued on January 6, 1997. A closure certificate for two 10,000-gallon gas tanks, a 4000-gallon gas tank and a 500-gallon waste oil tank was issued on May 2, 1988. * Bay State FloralSupply Inc, Haifax FloralCo 02757: An application for operation of UST's was received on January 12, 1987 for a 500-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and a 3000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at 395 Promenade Street. A certificate of closure for a 1000-gallon gas tank and a 5000-gallon gas tank was issued on May 27, 1987. " Chris Antonelli Real Estate 02765: A certificate of registration for 52-90 Valley Street was issued on June 9, 1994 for an unknown number of tanks and unknown volume and content. " Antonelli Plating Co. 02766: A certificate of registration for 50 Valley Street was issued on February 9, 1996 for an unknown number of tanks and unknown volume and content. * National Lumber & Building Materials,National Lumber 02870: A closure certificate was issued for a 1000-gallon diesel tank on July 31, 1998 for 81 Troy Street. No further action was required by RI DEM on July 28, 1998. * Hallamore Corporation,Japelo Realty 02937: An application for a 10,000-gallon diesel tank for 500 Valley Street was dated December 28, 1988. A certificate of closure was issued on August 29, 1988 for a 3000-gallon gas tank. A certificate of 97 closure was issued for a 10,000-gallon diesel tank on November 25, 1992. No further action was required by RI DEM on February 24, 1993. " Stone CrestApartments 03075: A certificate of registration was issued for 820 Atwells Avenue on January 19, 1996 for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content. * Lachance ProductionsInc. 03171: A certificate of registration was issued for 728 Valley Street on February 12, 1996 for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content. A closure certificate for a 500-gallon gas tank was dated November 27, 1989. A closure certificate for a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was issued on July 22, 1999. " Panbro Sales Corporation03200: A Data Chart for Tank System Tightness Test, dated April 14, 1990, for 450 Valley Street, indicated that are a 4000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and two 550-gallon #2 fuel oil tanks. * Atwells Avenue Fire Station 03266: An application for UST's dated October 9, 1990 for 630 Atwells Avenue indicates the presence of a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. " NarrangansettBay Commission 03349: A certificate of closure for two 6000-gallon tanks, dating September 3, 1987, was issued for 459 Promenade Street. A 275-gallon waste oil tank was issued a certificate of closure on September 1, 1987. The Narrangansett Fuel Storage Tank Inventory, dated July 26, 1991, indicates the presence of a 10,000-gallon diesel tank and a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. An application for underground storage facilities, dated July 26, 1991, indicates the presence of a 3000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. " Jopelo Realty 03464: A certificate of registration for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued for 485 Valley Street for February 13, 1995. " Licht Properties,Inc. 03478: A certificate of registration for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued for 350 Kinsley Avenue on February 12, 1995. * Licht Family Realty Association 03480: An application for two 7000-gallon #6 fuel oil tanks was issued for 10 Eagle Street on January 4, 1993. * Licht Properties03481: An application for a 10,000-gallon #6 fuel oil tank was issued for 555 Valley Street on January 4, 1993. A certificate of registration for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued on February 12, 1996. e G & M035 10: A closure certificate for a 25,000-gallon #6 fuel oil tank was issued on June 21, 1999 for 50 Agnes Street. No further action was required by RI DEM on June 18, 1999. * Colonial Knife 03529: A UST Registration Form, dating February 5, 1993, indicates the presence of a 10,000-gallon #4 fuel oil tank and a closed 1,100-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at the corner of Agnes and Magnolia. 98 * The Foxon Company 03587: A UST Registration Form, dating May 11, 1993, indicates the presence of 1200-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and a 1500-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at 235 West Park Street. e Bianco Plating Co, Inc, Universal PlatingCompany 03 589: A closure certificate for a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was issued for 25 River Avenue on March 1, 1999. * National Cleansers03672: A certificate of registration for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued on February 13, 1995 for 88 Harold Street. A letter from Marciel Realty, dated August 19, 1994, indicated the presence of a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. e Tel Realty Co 03716: A certificate of registration for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued on January 19, 1996 for 91 Hartford Avenue. A Closure Inspection Sheet, dating November 9, 1995, indicates the presence of a 10,000-gallon #4 fuel oil tank. * UNCAS ManufacturingCo 03730: A certificate of registration for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued on February 12, 1996 for 623 Atwells Avenue. A UST Registration Form indicates the presence of two 10 M #4 fuel oil tanks. * National Plumbing 17294: A closure certificate was issued for a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank on December 27, 1995 for 333 Harris Avenue. No further action was required by RI DEM on December 27, 1995. " Johnson & Wales College 15117: A certificate of closure for a 2000-gallon gas tank for 34 Rathburn Street was issued on February 17, 1986. * New EnglandMetal 15177: A certificate of closure for a 2000-gallon diesel tank and a 3500-gallon gas tank for issued on May 15, 1986 for 405 Promenade Street. * Okie Street Garage,Providence DOT 15225: A closure certificate was issued on June 21, 1999 for 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at 21 Okie Street. No further action was required by RI DEM by June 18, 1999. A certificate of closure for a 2000-gallon gas tank and a 10,000-gallon gas tank was issued on July 30, 1986. A registration form for an unknown number of tanks of unknown volume and content was issued on July 27, 1996. * PortionMeat Co 15274: A certificate of closure for two 3000-gallon gas tanks and two 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tanks for 358 Valley Street on October 22, 1986. * Independent Glass 15269: A certificate of closure for a 500-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was issued for 332 Valley Street on October 16, 1986. * George 's Auto Repair, George's Garage 15334: A certificate of closure, dated April 16, 1987, indicated the removal of two 4000-gallon tanks and a 500-gallon tank of unknown content at 710 Valley Street. A certificate of closure, dated April 15, 1987, 99 indicated the removal of two 2000-gallon tanks and a 1000-gallon tank of unknown content. * Walsh Cab 15337: A certificate of closure for two 1500-gallon tanks, a 3000-gallon tank, and a 1000-gallon tank of unknown content was issued on April 21, 1987 at 890 Valley Street. * Joseph Boscia 15567: A certificate of closure for a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank as issued on September 26, 1988 for 536 Atwells Avenue. " C & D Transport 15584: A certificate of closure for two 4000-gallon diesel tanks and a 1500-gallon diesel tank was issued for 186 Valley Street on October 13, 1988. e The Foundry 15592: A certificate of closure for a 5000-gallon solvent tank, a 1000gallon gas tank, a 500-gallon kerosene tank, a 1500-gallon solvent tank, a 1500gallon napthalene tank and a 550-gallon diesel tank was issued on November 4, 1988 for Leland & Manchester Way. " Castellucci 15654: A certificate of closure for a 7200-gallon #4 fuel oil tank was issued for 45 West River Road on March 3, 1989. * Licht Properties15698: A certificate of closure for a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and a 3000-gallon tank of unknown content for 288 Kinsley Avenue on April 27, 1989. A certificate of closure was issued on April 26, 1987 for a 550-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. " ABC Petroleum 15740: A closure certificate for two 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil tanks was issued for 38 Boyd Street on June 27, 1989. On March 31, 1998, a closure certificate was issued for a 250-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. No further action was required by RI DEM on March 31, 1998. e FlairIndustries Inc. 15841: A certificate of closure for a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was issued for 6 Robin Street on February 13, 1990. * Bello Property 15873: A certificate of closure for a 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank, a 2000-gallon gas tank, and a 1000-gallon waste oil tank was issued on April 25, 1990 for 50 Plainfield Street. " ABC Inc 16031: Two 4000-gallon diesel tanks and a 2000-gallon diesel tank were issued a certificate of closure on April 1, 1991 for 375 Promenade Street. * Arconium Specialty Alloys 16221: A 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was issued a certificate of closure for 400 Harris Avenue on March 30, 1992. 100 * DeltorisInc 16273: A certificate of closure was issued on October 25, 1990 for two 2000-gallon gas tanks and two 10,000-gallon gas tanks at 393 Harris Avenue. Two 2000-gallon gas tanks and a 1000-gallon gas tank were issued a certificate of closure on October 23, 1990. " Ralph Rose 16529: A closure inspection report, dated August 26, 1993, indicates the removal of a 6000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at 285 Valley Street. " Jutras Woodworking Inc. 17039: A closure certificate, dated April 5, 1995, indicates the removal of a 1500-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and a 1500-gallon #4 fuel oil tank at 103 Dike Street. " Rhode Island Automotive, Delaine Oil 17077: A closure inspection report, dated May 11, 1995, indicates the removal of two 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tanks and two 1000gallon gas tanks from 13 Delaine Street. A closure inspection report, dated May 12, 1995, indicates the removal of a 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. " Citizen's Bank 17172: A closure certificate, dated August 28, 1995, indicates the removal of a 550-gallon #2 fuel oil tank at 1917 Westminster Street. " GovernorDyer Marketplace 17256: A closure certificate, dated February 26, 1997, indicates the removal of a 4000-gallon diesel tank and a 500-gallon waste oil tank from Promenade Street. A closure certificate, dated June 16, 1997, indicates the filling of a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. No further action was required by RI DEM on June 16, 1997. " Imperial ProductsInc 17348: A closure certificate, dated February 26, 1996, indicates the removal of a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank from 25 Manton Avenue. e Johnson & Wales Auto Garage #17, Johnson & Wales University 17410: A 275gallon waste oil tank was removed from 80 Pleasant Valley Parkway, as indicated by a closure certificate dated May 30, 1996. * Providence Housing 18174: A closure certificate, dated June 2, 1997, indicates the removal of two 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tanks, a 3000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank, a 20,000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank, a 20,000-gallon kerosene tank, and a 275 waste oil tank from 3 Bowdoin Street. A certificate of closure, of unknown date, indicates the removal of two 2500-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and a 10,000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. " Ultra Metal Finishing 18224: A closure certificate, dated December 2, 1997, indicates the removal of a 5000-gallon #4 fuel oil tank at 40 River Avenue. * Zedaka Building 18239: A closure certificate, dated August 12, 1997, indicates the removal of a 2000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank and a 10,000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank from 230 Oak Street. No further action was required by RI DEM on August 12, 1997. 101 e Ardent Supply Co, Inc. 18264: A closure certificate, dated February 19, 1998, indicates the removal of a 1000-gallon diesel tank from 404 Valley Street. No further action was required by RI DEM on February 17, 1998. " CommercialBuilding, Giffoni Associates, Inc. 18333: A closure certificate, dated September 3, 1998, indicates the removal of a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank from 226 Academy. * Metronet Inc 16472: A 3000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank was removed from 280 Kinsley Avenue, as indicated by a closure certificate, dated July 19, 1993. No further action was required by RI DEM on October 7, 1993. " Providence JournalCo 01315: A certificate of closure, dated November 27, 1989, indicates the removal of a 5000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank from 210 Kinsley Avenue. A certificate of closure, dated October 30, 1987, indicates the removal of two 20,000gallon gas tanks and a 10,000-gallon diesel tank. A certificate of closure, dated May 8, 1986, indicates the removal of a 1000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank, a 1000-gallon tank of unknown content, a 10,000-gallon gas tank, and two 10,000-gallon #4 fuel oil tanks. A certificate of closure, dated March 24, 1988, indicates the closure of a 3000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank from 280 Kinsley Avenue. A permanent closure application, dated March 22, 1998, indicates the removal of a 3000-gallon #2 fuel oil tank. LUST Sites e Governor Dyer Marketplace LS28114: The subject site is located on Promenade St. One 4000-gallon UST containing diesel oil and one 500-gallon UST containing waste oil was removed from the property on October 12, 1995. After removal, free product and stained soil was observed in the 4000-gallon tank grave. Based on moderate levels of soil and groundwater contamination, RI DEM did not require remedial action as of January 17, 1996. However, RI DEM required that the groundwater quality be monitored at the site for one year at quarterly intervals. The fourth quarterly report on February 10, 1997 concluded that although there is minor groundwater contamination, the levels of contamination have decreased over the year and should not be considered significant. * Joseph EdwardRaymond LS28 72: On May 24, 1994, six USTs were removed from 78 Judith Street. Waste oil, gasoline, No. 2 fuel oil and diesel were stored in the tanks. Soil around the waste oil tank and diesel gas tank required excavation. Groundwater samples taken from a monitor well indicated that the groundwater was minimally impacted. No further corrective action was required by RI DEM; however, the monitoring well was to remain operational. " National Lumber LS28145: A 1000-gallon diesel UST was removed from 81 Troy Street on July 24, 1997. After removal, the soil in the tank grave was stained and diesel odors were detected. Approximately 13 tons of contaminated soil was excavated and removed from the site. A UST Closure Certificate was authorized on June 16, 1998. 102 " Zedaka Building ST28143: Two USTs, containing No. 2 fuel oil, were removed from 230 Oak Street on June 4, 1997. Contaminated soils were excavated. Clean Environment Inc. recommended no further action in their Closure Assessment Report dated July 1997 based on low levels of contamination. " ABC Petroleum Services ST28154: On December 16, 1997, a 250-gallon UST containing No. 2 fuel oil, was removed from 38 Boyd Street. Visual and olfactory evidence of a petroleum contamination was detected in the tank grave. Two cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and disposed off-site; post-excavation soil sample results were acceptable by RI DEM clean-up standards. RI DEM confirmed that no further remedial work was necessary. " Marcello Building ST28188: Two 1000-gallon No. 2 fuel oil USTs were removed from 105-111 Harris Avenue on March 3, 1999. A reportable release of diesel fuel had occurred at the site. Remedial actions included excavation of contaminated soils and dewatering of suspected impacted groundwater. No further action was required by RI DEM on December 1, 1999. " Tel Realty ST28125: A sheen was observed on the Woonsquatucket River due to a leaking No. 4 fuel oil UST located at 91 Hartford Avenue on October 2, 1995. The UST was removed from the property on November 9, 1995. Free product and contaminated soils were observed during the tank removal. Contaminated soils were excavated; however, subsurface structures limited the extent of excavation and residual contamination remains in soils east and south of the former UST location. " Tom's Mobile Service Station LS2804: The subject site is located at 269 Valley Street. An unspecified number of USTs were removed from this site. Groundwater was being monitored for BTEX and MBTE from four monitoring wells as of November 1, 1995. Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc. recommended to RI DEM that no further action was required. " RI Welding & FabricationLS2857: On August 11, 1993, two USTs, containing gasoline and diesel, were removedfrom 43 Turner Street. A hole was found in one of the USTs after removal. Soils were excavated and sampled. No evidence of petroleum contamination was found in any samples. No further action has been required by RI DEM on September 9, 1993. " Delaine Oil ST28107: Two USTs, containing No. 2 fuel oil, were removed from 659 Harris Avenue on June 14, 1995. Soils surrounding the tanks appeared oily during removal. Approximately 28 tons of petroleum impacted soil was removed. No further action was required by RI DEM on October 23, 1995. * HallamoreCorporationLS2841: On January 29, 1993, a diesel UST was removed from 500 Valley Street. Contaminated soils were removed and no further action was required by RI DEM on February 24, 1993. 103 * Metronet Inc./ProvidenceJournalLS2852: An UST containing No. 2 fuel oil was removed from 280 Kinsley Avenue on June 11, 1993. Visual and olfactory signs of petroleum contamination were present. Contaminated soils were excavated and no further action was required by RI DEM on October 7, 1993. * Coca-ColaEnterpriseLS2861: Between September 13 and 30, 1993, nine USTs were removed from 95 Pleasant Valley Parkway. The tanks contained heating oil, gasoline, and diesel oil. No further action was required by RI DEM on November 24, 1995. * NationalPlumbing ST1 7294: On November 29, 1995, a 3,000-gallon No. 2 fuel oil UST was removed from 333 Harris Avenue. Visual and olfactory signs of petroleum contamination were present. Approximately 10 cubic yards of petroleum impacted soil was excavated and no further action was required by RI DEM on December 27, 1995. 104