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