PB99-964016
EPA541-R99-078
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Southern Solvents Inc. Site OU 1
Tampa, FL
9/30/1999
-------
-------
r
RECORD OF DECISION
Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection
for the
Soil and Surficial Aquifer
Operable Unit 1
(OU1)
at the
Southern Solvents Site
Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
Prepared by the
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency \
V
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Declaration
Site Name and Location
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the soil and surficial
aquifer (OU1) at the Southern Solvents, Inc. Site, in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida,
which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This decision is based on the administrative record for the Southern Solvents Inc. site.
The State of Florida, as represented by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), has reviewed the reports which are included in the administrative record for the Site. In
accordance with 40 CFR 300.430, as the support agency, FDEP has provided EPA with input on
those reports. The State of Florida concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This remedy addresses threats to the soil and surficial groundwater posed by the
environmental conditions at this Site (operable unit 1). Cleanup of the contaminated soil and
surficial aquifer to health based levels will reduce further leaching of contaminants to the Floridan
aquifer. This cleanup will be further evaluated after its initial phase to ensure consistency with
later actions for cleanup of the Floridan aquifer (operable unit 2).
The major components of the remedy include:
• Excavation of contaminated, unsaturated soils around the existing building;
• Initial treatment of the highly contaminated saturated soil and surficial
groundwater using chemical oxidation in areas that exceed the Florida Natural
Attenuation Default Concentration for PCE;
-------
Evaluation of continued use of chemical oxidation in areas with lower
concentrations of PCE;
Final treatment of the surficial groundwater to the cleanup goal using chemical
oxidation (unless determined otherwise); and
Groundwater use restrictions by naming the area a delineated area under the
Southwest Florida Management District.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. This remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this Site. This remedy also satisfies
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. EPA will conduct a
policy five year review of the Site beginning five years after the construction completion date until
no hazardous substances remain on-site above concentration or contamination levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
ROD Data Certification Checklist
The following information is included in the Decision Summary section of this Record of
Decision. Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record file for this Site.
The chemicals of concern at the Site are perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene
(TCE) and cis-1.2-dichloroethene (DCE). In the 8.1 soil samples taken at the Site, PCE
was detected 50 times at a maximum concentration of 50,000,000 ppb, TCE was detected
2 times at a maximum concentration of 200 ppb, and DCE was detected 2 times at a
maximum concentration of 81 ppb. In the 44 groundwater samples taken at and around
the Site PCE was detected 24 times at a maximum concentration of 170,000 ppb, TCE
was detected 8 times at a maximum concentration of 1,500 ppb, and DCE was detected 6
times at a maximum concentration of 510 ppb.
The risk assessment results indicated that current site-related contaminant concentrations
in onsite surface soil, onsite subsurface soil, and offsite groundwater at the Site, do not
pose significant carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic hazards to human health under current
use conditions.
The risk assessment assumed future land use to be industrial and residential. If onsite
groundwater were to be used for drinking water or other purposes under future land use
conditions, then the risks to future workers and/or residents would be unacceptable, due
primarily to exposures to PCE.
-------
The cleanup goals developed for the unsaturated soil at the Site are 50 ppb for PCE, 30
ppb for TCE, and 400 ppb for DCE. These cleanup goals are based on levels that have
been determined by EPA to be necessary to curtail further contamination of the
groundwater. The cleanup goals for groundwater at the Site are 3 ppb for PCE and TCE
and 70 ppb for DCE. These cleanup goals are based on Florida primary drinking water
standards for these chemicals and will be used to measure the effectiveness of the
treatment of the surficial groundwater and the saturated soil.
After successful implementation of the selected remedy, the soil and surficial groundwater
will be remediated to levels that do not pose current or future risks to human health or the
environment. The future land use of the Site will be determined after a remedy for the
deep (Floridan) aquifer has been developed.
The total estimated cost for the remedy will be $4,636,306. This estimate includes
minimal O&M costs associated with the remedy.
The selected remedy was chosen because it represents the most effective remedial strategy
taking into consideration effectiveness versus cost. The selected remedy uses the same
remedial technology (chemical oxidation) to treat both the saturated soil and groundwater,
which is anticipated to result in a savings of approximately 30% in combined costs.
Richard D. Green, Director Date
Waste Management Division
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ........ ............... 2=1.
2.1 History of Site Operations ...................................... 2-1
2.2 History of Federal and State Site Investigations ..... ............... 2-1
2.3 History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities ....................... 2-5
3.0 HISTORY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS .............................. 3JI
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION .......... ................. ............. 4J.
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................... SJ.
5.1 Geology ................................... .................. 5-1
5.2 Hydrogeology . ........................................... ... 5-1
5.3 Soil Contamination ........................................... 5-1
5.4 Groundwater Contamination ................................... 5-3
6.0 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES ....... M
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS .................................... ...... M
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment ................................. 7-1
7.1.1 Identification of Chemicals of Concern ....................... 7-1
7.1.2 Exposure Assessment ................................... ... 7-2
7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment ....................................... 7-3
7.1.4 Risk Characterization ................. .................... 7-3
7.2 Environmental Risks ........................ .................. 7-5
8.0 REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................... 9J.
9.1 Description of Remedy Components .............................. 9-1
9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative .... 9-6
9.3 Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative ................ . . ....... 9-10
10.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ........ 1 0-1
11.0 SELECTED REMEDY ....... ....................................... 11-1
11.1 Description of the Selected Remedy ............................. 11-1
11.2 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs ........................ 1 1-3
11.3 Expected Outcome of Selected Remedy ...... ..................... 11-3
-------
12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 12=1
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment .12-1
12.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
12-1
12.3 Cost Effectiveness 12-2
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
to the Maximum Extent Practicable 12-2
12.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 12-3
12.6 Five-Year Review Requirements 12-3
-------
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Southern Solvents Site (CERCLIS # FL0001209840) is located at 4109 West
Linebaugh Avenue, approximately 500 ft. west of the intersection of Gunn Highway and
Linebaugh Avenue in Hillsborough County, Florida (Figure 1-1). The Site is located in a
predominately commercial area and is presently bordered on the north by Gold Cup Coffee, Inc.,
on the west by Express Printing, on the south' by West Linebaugh Avenue, and on the east by a '
closed Amoco gasoline station.
t
The Southern Solvents Site consists of a parcel of land that is approximately 100 ft wide
by 185 ft deep. The only structures on the property are a one-story metal building and an exterior
concrete slab along the north end of the building (See Figure 1-2). The remainder of the Site is
unpaved and is used for parking and equipment storage by the current Site tenant.
Perchloroethylene (PCE) was stored in aboveground storage tanks and small tanker trucks
on the slab and the northern portion of the property. Based on historical photographs of the Site,
the last of the aboveground tanks were removed at some point between 1987 and 1991. A 6-ft '
chain link fence encloses the property.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
1-1
-------
Figure 1-1
Site Location Map
Southern Solvents Site
SOUTHERN
SOLVENTS
SITE
Record of Decision
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
1-2
-------
COLD CUP COFFEE
EXPRESS PRINTING
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE .
• FENCE
I ;' FORMER PCE STORAGE
c. ' TANK AREA
I
CONCRETE
SLAB
EXISTING
METAL
BUILDING
GOLD CUP COFFEE
CONCRETE
APRON
AMOCO
SERVICE
STATION
.J
NORTHERN EDGE OF LINE8AUGH AVENUE
30
i
60
I
SCALE IN FEET
20315 059 SSfD02.DCN
Figure 1-2
Site Layout
Southern Solvents
1-3
-------
-------
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 History of Site Operations
Interpretation of historical aerial photographs revealed that the Site was part of an orchard
in 1965 (EPA 1998). The land use and land cover around the Site then changed from
predominately agricultural to primarily commercial usage as reflected in the most recent (1991)
photograph analyzed. In a 1972 photograph, the metal warehouse building is present, and in
1980, vertical and horizontal storage tanks are visible. In 1987, only one storage tank remained,
and by 1991, the remaining storage tank was no longer present.
Records show that Southern Solvents, Inc. stored, transferred, and distributed PCE to the
local dry cleaning industry from circa 1977 until 1985. The facility was then leased to Pi's Spas
who operated a business that sold and maintained spas at the Site until August of 1989. The Site
is currently leased by AAA Diversified Services, a small business that specializes in commercial
painting.
During Southern Solvents' operation at the Site, PCE was stored in aboveground storage
tanks at the north end of the facility on or near a concrete slab. PCE was also stored in small
tanker trucks in the north central and northeast parts of the Site. Reportedly, several accidental
spills of small quantities of PCE from the storage tanks and trucks occurred in the mid-1980s . It
is believed that these accidents are the cause of the soil and ground water contamination at the
Site. No known landfill practices occurred at the Site
2.2 History of Federal and State Site Investigations
Many investigations have occurred at the Southern Solvents Site since it was first
discovered in 1988. These investigations are discussed in detail below and are summarized in
Table 1. As a result of the investigations that took place prior to EPA's involvement at the Site,
EPA had extensive information on the Site condition prior to conducting the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RJ/FS) at the Site which began in 1997 and was completed in
1999. This information was used in developing EPA's approach for conducting the RI/FS.
Due to the levels of contamination at the Site and the impact on private drinking water
wells, EPA expedited cleanup in accordance with the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) guidance. The data received from the Remedial Investigation will be used to develop
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package for the Site. The HRS package is the document that
is used to place a site on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
2-1
-------
Table 1
Summary of Site Investigations
Investigator/Date
State of Florida Department of
Health and Rehabilitative
Services/1988-1989
Mortensen Engineering for
Southern Solvents, Inc./1989
Mortensen Engineering for
Southern Solvents, Inc./1991
Mortensen Engineering for
Southern Solvents, Inc./1992-
1993
Mortensen Engineering for
Southern Solvents, Inc./l994
Bechtel Environmental, Inc. for
EPA/1997
Bechtel Environmental Inc. for
EPA/1998
Type
Drinking water
analysis
Preliminary site
contamination
assessment
Shallow aquifer
system
contamination
assessment
Additional
assessment of the
shallow aquifer
system
Upper Floridan
Aquifer
contamination
assessment
Preliminary
remedial
investigation
Remedial
Investigation
Scope
Sampling of the onsite
deep well and several
neighboring deep wells
(all potable water supply
wells).
Installed 5 shallow onsite
wells and completed 2
deep auger borings to
assess the source of
groundwater
contamination.
Installed 9 deep soil
borings, 33 shallow hand
auger borings, and 14
shallow monitoring wells.
Installed 7 deep soil
borings, 14 shallow hand
auger borings, and 7
shallow monitoring wells.
Installed 5 deep soil
borings and 6 deep
monitoring wells.
Sampled 20 shallow,
intermediate, and deep
monitoring wells.
Extensive soil and
groundwater sampling
Significance
Sampling results
indicated the presence of
PCE, TCE, and 1,2 DCA.
The affected wells were
closed and bottled water
was provided to the well
users.
Based on the locations
and test results of the
wells, it was determined
that the probable source
was the former storage
tank area north of the
concrete pad.
Analytical results
confirmed concentrations
of PCE and derivative
constituents in excess of
200,000 ng/L.
Resulting analytical data
supported the previous
evidence that PCE
shallow groundwater
contamination was
present on the site and
property to the west of the
site.
Results indicated that
PCE concentrations,
greater than the MCL,
existed in the deep
groundwater system.
Contaminant and
hydrogeological
information collected was
used to develop the
approach to the 1998
remedial investigation.
Data collected was used
to delineate the nature
and extent of soil and
groundwater
confamination
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
2-2
-------
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (1988-1989)
Investigation activities at the Site began in August 1988, when Florida's Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) discovered that the onsite deep well and three
neighboring deep wells (all once were potable water supply wells) were contaminated with PCE
and its derivatives. PCE and trichloroethene (TCE) each were detected at greater than 100 ug/L;
1,2-dichloroethane (DC A) was detected at 37 ug/L. The concentrations of PCE detected
exceeded the acceptable State drinking water standard maximum concentration level (MCL) of 3
(ig/L as specified in Chapter 17-550 F.A.C. for Class G-II groundwater (FDEP 1996). Due to the
discovery of contamination above the MCL by DHRS, the wells were immediately closed and
property owners and tenants were provided bottled water. In April 1989, following further
investigations at the Site (see below), DHRS collected additional samples from two other wells in
the area. Again the results indicated the presence of PCE and TCE.
Preliminary Contamination Assessment (1989)
Following the initial discovery of contamination at the Site, Southern Solvents, Inc.
retained the services of Mortensen Engineering, Inc. in October 1988 to conduct a preliminary
contamination assessment (PCA). The objectives of the PCA were to assess the probable source
of the groundwater contamination in the deep potable wells and ascertain, if possible, whether or
not the contamination was associated with any site-related operations. The PCA Report was
forwarded to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, then known as the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), in early 1989.
The literature review conducted during the PCA did not reveal any probable ofFsite
sources of groundwater contamination of the magnitude found by DHRS. PCE and other
contaminants (PCE degradation products) were detected at some well locations. Based on the
locations and test results of the onsite wells, it was determined during the PCA that the probable
source of the contamination was the former storage tank area north of the concrete pad (Figure 1-
2). These findings and conclusions were summarized in the Preliminary Contamination Report
submitted to FDER in early 1989. The conclusions outlined in the report, in conjunction with the
DHRS findings in 1988, led to the negotiation of a Consent Order between FDER and Southern
Solvents to conduct further investigations.
Shallow Aquifer System Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) (1991)
In accordance with the requirements outlined in the Consent Order, a subsequent
contamination assessment of the shallow aquifer system was performed by Southern Solvents.
The primary objective of this investigation was to determine the suspected source of the
Record of Decision (OUI)
. Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
2-3
-------
groundwater contamination, and to sufficiently delineate the magnitude of and both the lateral and
vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination onsite and ofFsite within the shallow aquifer
system. The scope of the shallow aquifer assessment included deep and shallow soil sampling and
the installation and sampling of fourteen shallow monitoring wells.
The analytical results confirmed that significant PCE contamination and its derivative
constituents were present within the onsite/offsite shallow aquifer system at maximum
concentrations greater than 200,000 ug/L. Soil contamination was detected at the water table
interface; however, significant soil contamination did not appear to exist in the shallow vadose
zone because PCE is heavier than water and tends to sink. The CAR was completed and
submitted to FDER in February 1991.
Shallow Aquifer System CAR Addenda (1992-1993)
In response to FDER's comments to the CAR, Southern Solvents conducted further work
and analyses of the shallow aquifer system and reported in Addendum I, submitted in July 1992,
and Addendum II, submitted in November 1993. The scope for the follow-up investigation
included collection and analysis of seven deep soil borings, 14 shallow hand auger borings, and
the installation and sampling of eight additional monitoring wells. The resulting analytical data
supported the previous evidence that significant PCE shallow groundwater contamination was
present on the Site and on property to the west (Express Printing) of the Site with the higher
levels reported at locations in and around the former storage tank area.
Upper Floridan Aquifer System CAR (1994)
Satisfied that the PCE contaminant plume in the shallow aquifer system had been
adequately identified and delineated, Southern Solvents conducted a separate site investigation
focused on the upper Floridan aquifer. The field activities paralleled those performed for the
shallow aquifer, e.g., installation of soil borings and monitoring wells. Results of the sampling
indicated concentrations of PCE existed in the deep groundwater system. As in the shallow
aquifer, the levels of PCE detected exceeded the MCL of 3 ppb. The CAR for the upper aquifer
system was prepared and submitted to FDEP in February 1994.
Preliminary Assessment (1996)
In 1996, EPA first became involved at the Site when a Preliminary Assessment (PA) was
conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. After review of the extensive
past data collected and high contaminant concentrations present, EPA was confident this Site
would qualify to be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA therefore, proceeded
Record of Decision (GUI)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
2-4
-------
directly to the Remedial Investigation (RI) in accordance with the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM) guidance which was developed to accelerate the cleanup of Superfund sites.
Preliminary Remedial Investigation (1997)
Because no investigation had been conducted at the Site since the 1994 assessment of the
upper aquifer, EPA, conducted a preliminary Remedial Investigation (RI) in November 1997.
The objective of this interim field activity was to collect current contaminant data to identify and
develop the approach to be taken during the RI, including identification of data quality objectives,
source characterization activities, and contaminant migration assessment. Water level
measurements were collected to identify groundwater flow paths and 20 shallow, intermediate,
and deep monitoring wells were sampled. The results of this investigation can be found in the
Remedial Investigation Report for the Site.
Remedial Investigation (1998)
In April 1998, EPA began field activities for the Remedial Investigation (RI) at the Site.
Additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed and extensive soil and groundwater
sampling was conducted to fully delineate the nature and extent of contamination at the Site. The
three main objectives of the April 1998 soil investigation were to: (I) determine the presence and
define the distribution of any Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) and Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) contamination in Site soils; (2) to evaluate geologic, stratigraphic, and other
physical controls affecting the downward migration and retention of contamination; and (3) to
support the development of a comprehensive Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) and Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) package for the Site. The five main objectives of the groundwater
investigation were to: (1) determine the extent of contamination beneath the Site and in offsite
areas affected by the VOC plume; (2) to identify and evaluate release and transport mechanisms;
(3) to predict future migration trends; (4) to provide data for the numerical groundwater modeling
effort; and (5) to support the development of the BRA and HRS package for the Site. The results
of this investigation can be found in the March 1999 Remedial Investigation Report for the Site.
2.3 History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities
In October 1997, EPA issued to Southern Solvents a General Notice and information
request letter which notified Southern Solvents of their potential liability at the Site and requested
answers to questions related to the Site. In their response, Southern Solvents indicated they were
no longer in operation and had no meaningful monetary assets. EPA conducted the RI/FS
activities with federal funds from the Superfund. However, EPA is in the process of completing a
search for additional responsible parties.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
2-5
-------
-------
3.0 HISTORY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Meeting (March 1998):
On March 2, 1998, the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and EPA Attorney met
with local business owners from the area around the Site. Representatives from Bechtel and the
Hillsborough County Health Department were also in attendance. The purpose of the meeting
was to discuss with the business owners the upcoming RI activities and to answer any questions
or address any concerns they might have about any potential liability. The November 1995 EPA
fact sheet titled "Policy Towards Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers" had
been mailed to them previously and was discussed at the meeting. A representative from the
Hillsborough County Health Department was present and distributed the ATSDR fact sheet on
tetrachloroethylene. She also discussed the sampling of drinking water wells that had taken place
in the past. Requests for property access were distributed at the meeting and explained.
Meeting (April 1998);
On April 2, 1998, the EPA RPM held an information session for the residents of the St.
Andrew Square Townhomes located just southwest of the Site. The purpose of the meeting was
to inform the residents in the area about upcoming Site activities and to answer questions about
the Site and about Superfund. Flyers were taped to the door of each of the residents' townhomes
to notify them of the meeting.
Community Interviews (November 1998):
Community interviews were conducted with local officials and residents in November
1998. Using information collected during these interviews, EPA developed a Community
Relations Plan to address the concerns and information needs of the community. The Community
Relations Plan identifies opportunities for the community to provide input concerning the cleanup
decisions related to the Site.
RI Results Fact Sheet (April 1999):
In April 1999, EPA mailed out a fact sheet to the community which discussed the findings
of the RI and the upcoming activities at the Site. The public was asked to contact the RPM if
they wanted EPA to hold a public meeting to discuss the proposed plan. No calls were received
requesting a public meeting and therefore, no meeting was held.
Record of Decision (OUl)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
3-1
-------
r
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet (August 19991:
The proposed plan for the Southern Solvents Site in Tampa, Florida, was mailed out to
the 140 people who were on the Site mailing list. The proposed plan was made available to the
public for comment from August 1, 1999 to September 1, 1999. The proposed plan along with
other Site related documents can be found in the Administrative Record file and the information
repository maintained at the EPA Docket Room in the Region 4 office in Atlanta, Georgia, and at
the North Tampa Branch Library located at 8916 North Boulevard in Tampa, Florida. The
opportunity for a public meeting was made, but no one requested EPA to hold a public meeting.
EPA's response to the comments received on the proposed plan during the public comment
period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is contained in Appendix B and is part
of this Record of Decision.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
3-2
-------
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Southern Solvents Site are complex.
As a result, EPA has organized the work into two operable units (OUs). This ROD describes the
planned actions for contamination in the soil and surficial groundwater (OU 1). A second ROD
to address the contamination in the deeper, Floridan aquifer (OU 2) is subsequently anticipated
for this Site. The overall Site cleanup plan for OU 1 is discussed below.
• Excavate shallow soils above the water table (approximately 0-4 feet) around the building,
including and send offsite for treatment/disposal. This will include the removal of the
concrete slab and underlying contaminated soil behind the building.
• In the initial phase, use chemical oxidation to treat the saturated soils and groundwater in
the areas where levels of PCE exceed 300 ppb in the groundwater. This level was chosen
because 300 ppb is the Natural Attenuation Default Concentration for PCE in Florida.
Chemical oxidation will also be used to treat the unsaturated, shallow soil contamination
underneath the building, since the concrete slab will act as a lid, containing the oxidant.
• After successful implementation of the initial phase, an evaluation of the effectiveness of
chemical oxidation and its continued use to treat the remaining contamination will be
conducted. It is anticipated that chemical oxidation will be used as the final treatment
technology to treat the contamination to meet the Site cleanup goals. However, this break
in the implementation of the cleanup will provide an opportunity to determine the
effectiveness of chemical oxidation, still an innovative technology, and to determine how
effective chemical oxidation will be in treating the lower level contamination.
Additionally, by this time, it is anticipated that the investigation of the Floridan aquifer will
be complete and a remedial strategy will have been developed. This break will also allow
EPA to determine if chemical oxidation will complement the treatment technology
ultimately chosen as the remedial strategy for remediating the Floridan aquifer.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
4-1
-------
-------
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Geology
The regional geology in the Site area generally consists of an upper or surficial zone, a low
permeability confining clay layer below the surficial zone, and a karst limestone zone below the
clay layer. The saturated portion of the surficial zone is referred to as the surficial aquifer, which
for the purposes of the remedial investigation, was separated into the shallow zone (water table to
15 feet deep) and intermediate zone (15 feet to 35 feet). The saturated karst limestone zone
below the surficial aquifer is referred to as the Floridan aquifer, which is the drinking water source
for much of this area of Florida. The clay layer between the two zones can range from being non-
existent to several feet thick. Where the clay layer is thick enough, it can limit the connection
between the surficial and Floridan aquifers. Where the clay layer is either too thin or non-existent,
groundwater in the two aquifers can mix freely and any contaminants in the surficial aquifer can
be released into the Floridan aquifer. Variations in the thickness of the clay layer can occur over
small areas and can be affected by features such as sinkholes or channel scours, which can provide
a direct conduit into the Floridan aquifer.
The Site geology is discussed in greater detail in the March 1999 Remedial Investigation
(RI) report. During the RI, EPA collected data to specifically characterize the geology in the area
around the Site. This data shows that semi-confining conditions exist at Site. Therefore, even
though a clay layer may exist at the Site, it is not an effective barrier to groundwater flow and
contaminant transport. This explains why PCE contamination has been detected in the Floridan
aquifer below the Site.
5.2 Hydrogeology
In the Site area, the regional direction of groundwater flow is to the south-southwest,
towards Tampa Bay. During the RI, data confirmed that the surficial aquifer groundwater in the
Site area flows to the southwest as expected. However, it was found that water in the Floridan
aquifer below the Site flows to the northeast, opposite the expected direction of flow. EPA
conducted a numerical groundwater flow model to predict groundwater flow at the Site. The
results from this model were used to evaluate potential remedial alternatives.
5.3 Soil Contamination
Historical operations conducted at the north end of the building and in the northeast
comer of the Site resulted in releases of PCE, a chlorinated solvent used in the dry cleaning
industry. Upon its release to the surface soils, the PCE migrated downward under the influence
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
5-1
-------
of gravity as an immiscible-phase liquid. As expected, the highest concentrations of contaminants
were encountered in the soil and groundwater below where the spills occurred. RI soil sampling
results indicated no significant inorganic contamination associated with the Site. None of the
onsite soil samples contained metal concentrations exceeding FDEP residential cleanup goals or
risk-based concentrations (RBCs) used for screening purposes. The presence of organic
contamination above levels of concern in soil and groundwater was determined through
comparison of sampling results with ambient media concentrations and RBCs. Upon review of
sampling results, it was determined that PCE and its degradation products were the primary
contaminants detected in soil and groundwater.
Soil Contamination in the Vadose Zone
The lateral and vertical extent of contamination within onsite vadose zone soils (above the
water table) was determined prior to EPA's RI from organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings
performed on a series of 33 shallow hand borings. Based on that delineation and further
investigations, EPA concentrated on further characterization of the spill area at the north end of
the building. The results confirm PCE is the predominant contaminant from spills that occurred
north of the building. While the area of vadose zone soil initially contaminated was relatively
small, analytical results show that the PCE has migrated downward through the vadose zone and
into the saturated soil.
In general, PCE concentrations are relatively low within the vadose zone when compared
to those measured in saturated soils. This is expected given PCE's high volatility and a density
greater than water. At exposed sampling locations (not covered with concrete), concentrations in
shallow soil samples ranged from nondetectable to 5,400 ug/kg. Except for the maximum
concentration measured in surface soil located within the former tank storage area, all results
were below 1000 ug/kg. Twelve out of the fourteen shallow samples collected contained PCE
concentrations less than 500 ug/kg.
Soil Contamination in Saturated Soils
Generally increasing with depth, PCE concentrations were highest in samples collected
just above the clay layer in the immediate vicinity of the former solvent storage tanks. The
maximum concentration estimated at 50,000,000 ug/kg was detected in a sample collected from a
depth of 32 to 34 feet directly below the tank area. Concentrations from 10,000 to 100,000
ug/kg were commonly measured in shallower saturated soils.
An exception to the increasing concentration/depth trend is found in the sampling results
located beneath the building slab. At this location, concentrations are elevated (15,000 ug/kg) in
the 0-2 ft interval and decrease with depth. It is probable that PCE volatilized from the water
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
5-2
-------
table and migrated upward as an organic vapor becoming trapped between the pore spaces in the
soils and the concrete.
The soil sampling results indicate that the approximate lateral extent of contamination
migration within the saturated soil (above the clay) is limited to the north and east as shown in
Figure 5-1. Further movement in these directions would be limited due to the relatively flat clay
layer and the southwest surficial groundwater flow. Correspondingly, it can be assumed that the
southwest flow of a dissolved phase PCE plume has resulted in contamination of most of the
saturated soil beneath the building. This contamination of the soil/ground water matrix likely
continues (at somewhat reduced concentrations) to areas south and southwest of the Site as
outlined by contamination seen in the groundwater monitoring wells. Based on the magnitude of
some of the soil concentrations of PCE, the vadose and saturated soils within the footprint of the
tank storage area still represent a definable source area.
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL)
Although field screening of soil samples for DNAPL was inconclusive, there are data from this
site which indicate the presence of some DNAPL in the subsurface. The presence of DNAPL is
inferred from the magnitude of soil PCE concentrations, the variability of soil PCE concentrations
within short lateral and vertical distances, and the association of high soil PCE concentrations
with a low point in the surface of the clay underlying the surficial aquifer. Such an association is
suggestive of DNAPL pooling on the clay.
5.4 Groundwater Contamination
During the 1998 remedial investigation, 27 existing wells and 17 new groundwater
monitoring wells were sampled. All PCE concentrations detected above the method detection
limit in groundwater samples were present at levels in excess of the risk based concentration (1.1
ug/1) and the MCL (3 ug/1). The highest concentrations were found in samples collected from the
shallow and intermediate wells installed in the surficial aquifer. The onsite and offsite PCE
concentrations are shown on Figures 5-2 and 5-3.
Record of Decision (OUI)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
5-3
-------
EXISTING
METAL
BUILDING
20US CSS SSF01S.OCN
Figure 5-1
Approximate Location of PCE Source Area
Southern Solvents
•5-4
-------
©
i
.JO-
^f
LEGEND
9UUOX OOMMtlOl
WNITORIIB tEU.
LOCATION US')
IEX
lOCiTIW
Klf GKUHMUC-
WN110RIIB «ll
i«-i;r»
WKIIWL WtKI W1TWHC
cii tociiiai not'>
SITC nww
F'
1 TMKMEI
HW-3R
ul _
' ixngTurBM Fnr.F Of LINEBAUGH AVENUE
»M5 055 SSf 01J.OCK
Figure 5-2
Onsfte Groundwaler PCE Concentrations
Southern Solvents
5-5
-------
LEGEND
-^- OOP CROMIUTE8 KM1TW1MC tea tOWTtON MJ-791 J
9 INIEM9UTC OtaKNttTCT KMITWINC KU LOUTUK IM-3511
O 9UU.W CaaMKMER KMITORIW *LL LOUT10N I IS' >
rmnr LUC now
e» BOKETttl (< NETMOO KltCTMl IDOT1
OT TO SCtlE
5VSSF1IB.OCM
Figure 5~3
Offefte Groundwater PCE Concentrations
Southern Solvents
5-6
-------
6.0 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES
Land Uses
Current land use is light commercial. The existing building is used as the headquarters for
a small painting business which specializes in commercial painting. The building is used to store
equipment and as an office. Due to the location of the property, future land use would most likely
continue to be commercial.
GroundwaterUses
Locally groundwater is being used in a limited number of private wells. The wells in the
immediate vicinity were initially tested by the Hillsborough County Health Department. A filter
was installed on one well, just north of the Site, which exceeded the drinking water standard for
PCE The Hillsborough County Health Department continues to test all wells in the vicinity
annually that continue to have detectable levels of Site contaminants. Municipal water supply is
available in this area. Therefore, future use of groundwater in the immediate area of the Site is
anticipated to decrease.
The Floridan aquifer, which is first encountered approximately 35 feet below the ground
surface at the Site, is a significant source of drinking water for this area of Florida. Potential
releases of Site contaminants to the Floridan aquifer are the main concern at this Site. Potential
exposures to contaminants in the Floridan aquifer will be further evaluated in operable unit 2
(OU2).
Record of Decision (Out)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
6-1
-------
-------
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The risk assessment results indicate that site-related contaminant concentrations in onsite
surface soil, onsite subsurface soil, and offsite groundwater at the Southern Solvents Site do not
pose significant carcinogenic ot noncarcinogenic risks to human health. However, if onsite
groundwater were to be used for drinking water or for other purposes under the future land use
conditions that were assumed in the risk assessment, then the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
risks to future workers and/or residents would be high, due primarily to PCE. Actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this ROD, may present a current or potential threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment.
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
The baseline risk assessment estimates what risks the Site poses if no action is taken. It
provides the basis for taking action and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that
need to be addresses by the remedial action. This section of the ROD summarizes the results of
the baseline risk assessment for this Site.
7.1.1 Identification of Chemicals of Concern
To evaluate the risk to human health associated with contamination from the Southern
Solvents Site, analytical data for onsite and offsite groundwater and onsite surface soil and
subsurface soil collected during the RI was evaluated to develop a list of Chemicals Of Potential
Concern (COPCs) (see tables 6-2.1 through 6-2.16 - Appendix A). Maximum detected chemical
concentrations of these COPCs, were then compared to the appropriate health based screening
criteria. All organic compounds detected at concentrations above screening criteria were selected
as COPCs. Inorganic chemicals detected at concentrations above screening criteria were further
compared to background data in order to determine whether these chemicals were present above
naturally occurring levels. Inorganic chemicals detected above both health based screening
criteria and background levels were selected as COPCs.
Based on results from the RI, as well as previous investigations, the baseline risk
assessment, confirmed PCE is the predominant Chemical of Concern (COC) (see tables 6-10.1
through 6-10.4 - Appendix A). PCE was detected in 5 of 18 onsite surface soil samples with
concentrations as high as 5,400 ug/kg. Generally increasing with depth, PCE was detected in 45
of 63 onsite subsurface samples with the highest detected concentration of 50,000,000 ug/kg
detected just above the clay layer below the former tank location. The maximum groundwater
Record of Decision (OUl)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
7-1
-------
contamination detected was PCE, with a concentration of 170,000 ug/1, found in the groundwater
just below the former tank location! TCE and cis-l,2-DCE were also determined to be
contaminants of concern. TCE was detected in 2 of 81 soil samples at a maximum concentration
of 200 ppb and in 8 of 44 groundwater samples at a maximum concentration of 1,500 ppb. Cis-
1,2-DCE was detected in 2 of 81 soil samples at a maximum concentration of 81 ppb and in 6 of
44 groundwater samples at a maximum concentration of 510 ppb.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) was detected in one groundwater sample taken from a deep
onsite well that is screened in the Floridan aquifer. Chloroform was detected in two offsite,
upgradient, deep monitoring wells which are also screened in the Floridan aquifer. This ROD is
being prepared to determine the remedy for soil and the surficial aquifer only. Neither PCP nor
chloroform are thought to be Site related and were only detected a minimum number of times in
the Floridan aquifer. The extent of contamination in the Floridan aquifer will be further evaluated
in operable unit 2 and a subsequent ROD will contain the remedial strategy for the Floridan
aquifer.
7.1.2 Exposure Assessment
The human health exposure assessment was performed to determine which human
exposure pathways could potentially be complete at the Southern Solvents Site under current and
future land use conditions. Under current land use conditions, offsite worker exposures to
groundwater from the area wells were evaluated. Under future land-use conditions, onsite worker
and hypothetical future resident exposures to groundwater from the site-wide surficial aquifer,
site-wide Floridan aquifer, surficial aquifer- PCE plume, and Floridan Aquifer - PCE plume were
evaluated. The results of this assessment in addition to examples of exposure assumptions and
formulas can be found in tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-4 & 6-10 in Appendix A.
For each complete pathway, the chemical concentrations assumed to be contacted (i.e.,
the exposure point concentrations) were derived. For all data groupings, with the exception of
(1) the surficial aquifer - PCE plume and (2) Floridan aquifer - PCE plume data groupings,
exposure point concentrations were either the 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic
mean concentration or the maximum detected concentration, whichever was lower. In
accordance with EPA Region 4 guidance, exposure point concentrations for COPCs in the PCE
plume data groupings were based on the arithmetic average of the wells in the highly concentrated
area of the plumes. The exposure point concentrations were combined with reasonable maximum
estimates of the extent, frequency, and duration of exposure in order to calculate chemical doses.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
7-2
-------
7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
The human toxicity assessment was performed in order to identify numerical toxicity
criteria with which to assess human health exposures. Quantitative dose-response data were
compiled from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, and National Center for Environmental Assessment. Toxicity criteria were available for
all COPCs. The non-cancer and cancer toxicity data can be found in tables 6-5 & 6-6 in
Appendix A.
7.1.4 Risk Characterization
For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of an
individual's likelihood of developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the
carcinogen. Excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated from the following equation:
Risk = GDI x SF
where:
Risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2 x 10'5) of an individual's developing cancer
GDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kgday)
SF = slope factor, expressed as (mg/kgday).
These risks are probabilities that usually are expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1CT6).
An excess lifetime cancer risk of IxlCr* indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable
maximum exposure estimate has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of site
related exposure. This is referred to as an "excess lifetime cancer risk" because it would be in
addition to the risks of cancer individuals face from other causes such as smoking or exposure to
too much sun. The chance of an individual's developing cancer from all other causes has been
estimated to be as high as one in three. EPA's generally acceptable risk range for site related
exposures is W4 to 10**.
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level
over a specified time period (e.g., lifetime) with a reference dose (RED) derived for a similar
exposure period. An RfD represents a level that an individual may be exposed to that is not
expected to cause any deleterious effect. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard
quotient (HQ). An HQ<1 indicates that a receptor's dose of a single contaminant is less than the
RfD, and that toxic noncarcinogenic effects from that chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index
(HI) is generated by adding the HQs for all chemical(s) of concern that affect the same target
organ (e.g., liver) within a medium or across all media to which a given individual may reasonably
— ~ " ~ Record of Decision (Ol* 1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
7-3
-------
be exposed. An HI<1 indicates that, based on the sum of all HQ's from different contaminants
and exposure routes, toxic noncarcinogenic effects from all contaminants are unlikely. An HI >
1 indicates that site related exposures may present a risk to human health.
The HQ is calculated as follows:
Noncancer HQ = CDI/RfD
where:
GDI =
RfD =
chronic daily intake
reference dose.
GDI and RfD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e.,
chronic, subchronic, or short- term).
The Site risk characterization results showed unacceptable risks (i.e., upper-bound excess
lifetime cancer risks exceeding the upper limit of EPA's target risk range and/or non-cancer
hazard indices greater than one) were associated with future worker and hypothetical resident
exposures to onsite groundwater in each of the four onsite groundwater data groupings evaluated
(i.e., site-wide surficial aquifer, site-wide Floridan aquifer, surficial aquifer - PCE plume, and
Floridan aquifer - PCE plume). In each data grouping, high cancer risks were due primarily to
PCE. In the site-wide Floridan aquifer and Floridan aquifer - PCE plume data groupings, high
cancer risks were also due to pentachlorophenol and TCE.
In each of the onsite groundwater groupings, noncancer hazard indices above 1 were
calculated for both future workers and hypothetical residents, indicating that noncarcinogenic
adverse health effects could occur if these receptors were exposed to onsite groundwater under
the conditions assumed in the human health risk assessment. In the surficial aquifer groundwater
data groupings, high hazard indices were due primarily to PCE. In the Floridan aquifer
groundwater data groupings, high hazard indices were due primarily to PCE and TCE.
Record of Decision (OUl)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
7-4
-------
7.2 Environmental Risks
A qualitative ecological risk assessment conducted for this site indicated very little
potential for adverse effects to terrestrial and aquatic life. The Site and surrounding areas are
urbanized and contain very little habitat and food resources for potential ecological receptors.
Surface soil is the only medium that terrestrial receptors could possibly contact. However, this
exposure pathway is incomplete because few, if any, receptors would forage at the Site.
Structures on the 100 feet by 185 feet site include one building and concrete slab. The remainder
of the sandy site is used for parking and equipment storage by the current tenant. There are no
sources of surface water and sediment at the Site, and groundwater does not discharge at the Site.
VOCs are present in the groundwater of the surficial aquifer, which eventually discharges to a
wetland located to the southwest of the Site. Groundwater data upgradient of the wetlands
indicated that VOCs detected in the onsite groundwater are not currently discharging to adjacent
wetlands. Moreover, based on the distance of the onsite groundwater from the wetlands and
retardation factors affecting the groundwater, it is unlikely that the VOC contaminated
groundwater will discharge to the wetlands in the future. Therefore, there are no complete
exposure pathways at the Site and no risks to ecological receptors.
Record of Decision (Ol'l)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
7-5
-------
-------
8.0 REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES
As stated in section 7, the site-related contaminant concentrations in onsite surface soil,
onsite subsurface soil, and offsite groundwater at the Southern Solvents Site do not pose
significant carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic risks to human health. The primary risk associated
with this Site is onsite groundwater if it were to be used for drinking water or other purposes in
the future.
The remediation objectives were developed to restore the groundwater to drinking water
standards, therefore eliminating the unacceptable risk at the Site which is due primarily to high
concentrations of PCE in the groundwater. The cleanup goals for soil were determined by EPA
to be necessary to curtail further contamination of groundwater. The cleanup goals for
groundwater were determined based on Florida's primary drinking water standards. The cleanup
goals for the Southern Solvents Site are found below in Table 8-1.
TABLE 8-1
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS CLEANUP GOALS
Contaminant
perchloroethylene (PCE)
trichloroethylene (TCE)
cis-l,2-dichloroethene (DCE)
Groundwater
(ppb)
3
3
70
Soil
(PP»>)
50
30
400
Record of Decision (OH 1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Sile
8-1
-------
-------
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
In developing remedial alternatives for this Site, separate alternatives were developed for
soil and groundwater remediation. In addition, remedial options were developed after the initial
internal review. The selected remedy is a combination of alternatives and options. The remedial
alternatives and options are listed below.
Soil (S) Remediation Alternatives:
Alternative SI: No Action
Alternative S2: Source Isolation
Alternative S3: In-Situ Treatment (chemical oxidation)
Alternative S4: Source Restoration (excavation)
Groundwater (GW) Remediation Alternatives:
Alternative GW1: No Action
Alternative GW2: Monitored Natural Attenuation
Alternative GW3: In-Situ Treatment (reactive barrier wall)
Alternative GW4: Aquifer Restoration (pump-and-treat)
Additional Options Considered:
Option A: Soil Vapor Extraction (shallow soil)
Option B: Shallow Excavation
Option C: In-Situ Groundwater Treatment (chemical oxidation)
9.1 Description of Remedy Components
Alternatives S1&GW1: No Action
(Estimated total cost: $0)
The No Action alternatives SI and GW1 are required to be evaluated as a baseline for
comparison of other alternatives. Under these alternatives, no further cleanup would occur at the
Site. These remedial alternatives would not include any measures to remove, treat, or contain
source materials; restrict further releases of contamination to the Floridan aquifer; or limit the
migration of the source area groundwater plume within the aquifer. If implemented, these
alternatives would be considered the final remedy and would not involve any periodic reviews to
verify their protect!veness.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-1
-------
Alternative S2r Source Isolation
(Estimated total cost: $1,203,993)
This remedial alternative uses a groundwater extraction system to hydraulically contain
any contaminant migration out of the source area, by pumping groundwater from the center of the
source area plume to the surface, treating the water in an on-site air stripping system, and then
reinjecting the treated water back into injection wells located along the outer edges of the plume.
This would create a hydraulic gradient from the outer edge of the source plume toward the center.
Alternative S2 is designed only to contain the source plume and would require institutional
controls in the form of deed restrictions to restrict future use of the Site groundwater.
Extensive Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities would be necessary for this
alternative during the projected 30 years of operation. This would include routine maintenance of
system components, power usage for the pumps and the air stripper, carbon usage, and injection
pump maintenance and repair. Periodic monitoring (every 5 years) would be required to
determine if the system was effectively containing the contaminated groundwater.
Alternative S3; In-Situ Treatment (chemical oxidation)
(Estimated total cost: $ 1,325,552)
This remedial alternative uses in-situ chemical oxidation, an innovative technology, to
remediate the source materials and source area plume. Alternative S3 would treat the soil within
the saturated zone and the groundwater contaminated with chlorinated organic chemicals by
injecting an oxidant directly into the contaminated aquifer. A strong oxidant, such as hydrogen
peroxide, would be injected under pressure into groundwater contaminated with PCE. The
chemical reactions that follow cause a degradation of PCE, TCE, and other chlorinated organic
compounds that result in the formation of nontoxic by-products such as carbon dioxide, water,
and salts.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use permits.
The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells.
Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater during the implementation of this remedy is
unlikely and institutional controls would not be necessary.
O&M activities associated with this remedy are minimal and would include sampling and
the preparation of a remedial action effectiveness review report. Performance monitoring during
the implementation of this alternative would evaluate the effectiveness of this in situ treatment, in
terms of verifying the destruction of the source material and the contaminant source plume.
Record of Decision (GUI)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-2
-------
Alternative S4: Source Restoration
(Estimated total cost: $ 3,131,597)
This remedial alternative would remove the contaminated soil from the surface and
subsurface and replace it with clean soil. The contaminated soil would be sent off site for
treatment and disposal. The estimated area to be removed would be 70 ft by 70 ft and 35-40 ft
deep. This would relieve a significant input of contamination from the source into the aquifer
contamination plume. This remedy would require a large area for stockpiling and dewatering soil
prior to being sent off site. Additionally, engineering controls would be needed to control air
emissions resulting from volatilizing PCE.
There would be no institutional controls or O&M associated with this remedy.
Monitoring requirements would include sampling of excavated soil, exposed groundwater, and air
concentrations of PCE.
Alternative GW2: Monitored Natural Attenuation
(Estimated total cost: $ 942,372)
The natural attenuation alternative relies on natural processes to achieve the cleanup
objectives for the offsite contaminant plume. This alternative would involve long term monitoring
and periodic reviews to assess the progress of natural attenuation processes and evaluate whether
the groundwater outside the area of the contaminant plume continues to be protected. It does not
include measures designed to collect, treat, or contain the offsite contaminant plume.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use permits.
The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells.
Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater during implementation of this remedy would
be unlikely and institutional controls would not be necessary.
The O&M associated with this remedy would include the installation of wells, yearly
sampling and analysis, and periodic reviews. Performance monitoring and a remedial action
effectiveness review would occur every five years.
Alternative GVV3; In-Situ Treatment (reactive barrier wall)
(Estimated total cost: $ 1,389,966)
This alternative involves the installation of a permeable reactive barrier wall which is an
innovative, alternative groundwater remediation technology. The concept involves the
construction of a permeable wall or barrier, containing appropriate reactive materials across the
Record of Decision (Of I)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-3
-------
path of the contaminant plume. As the contaminated water passes through the wall, the
contaminants are removed through chemical or physical processes.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use permits.
The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells.
Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater is unlikely and institutional controls would not
be necessary.
The O&M associated with this remedy would involve sampling and a remedial action
effectiveness review every five years. Performance monitoring would be needed to optimize
operation of the treatment system, verify containment of the off site contaminant plumes, and
demonstrate successful treatment of the groundwater by the permeable reactive wall.
Alternative GW4: Aquifer Restoration fpump-and-treat)
(Estimated total cost: $ 7,849,048)
The pump-and-treat alternative, a proven technology, would be designed to remediate
contamination associated with the Southern Solvents plume in order to return the affected
groundwater to beneficial uses. Extracted groundwater would be treated aboveground and
discharged via injection wells located between the plume and the Florida Cities wellfield, located
4,000 feet northeast of the Site. Injecting the treated groundwater in this location would create
an additional hydraulic barrier to minimize the potential for any additional impacts to the wellfield.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use permits.
The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells.
Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater is unlikely and institutional controls would not
be necessary.
Extensive O&M would be associated with this remedy. It would need to be operated and
maintained for 30 years. O&M would include power usage by the extraction pump, air stripper,
carbon adsorption unit, and injection pump; regular reconditioning of the air stripping packing;
annual injection pump maintenance and repair; and groundwater sampling and analysis.
Performance monitoring would occur to optimize operation of the extraction and treatment
systems, track cleanup of the plume, verify containment of the plume during the remediation, and
demonstrate the successful treatment of the extracted groundwater before discharge back into the
aquifer.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-4
-------
Alternative S4: Source Restoration
(Estimated total cost: $ 3,131,597)
This remedial alternative would remove the contaminated soil from the surface and
subsurface and replace it with clean soil. The contaminated soil would be sent off site for
treatment and disposal. The estimated area to be removed would be 70 ft by 70 ft and 35-40 ft
deep. This would relieve a significant input of contamination from the source into the aquifer
contamination plume. This remedy would require a large area for stockpiling and dewatering soil
prior to being sent off site. Additionally, engineering controls would be needed to control air
emissions resulting from volatilizing PCE.
There would be no institutional controls or O&M associated with this remedy.
Monitoring requirements would include sampling of excavated soil, exposed groundwater, and air
concentrations of PCE.
Alternative GW2: Monitored Natural Attenuation
(Estimated total cost: $ 942,372)
The natural attenuation alternative relies on natural processes to achieve the cleanup
objectives for the offsite contaminant plume. This alternative would involve long term monitoring
and periodic reviews to assess the progress of natural attenuation processes and evaluate whether
the groundwater outside the area of the contaminant plume continues to be protected. It does not
include measures designed to collect, treat, or contain the dffsite contaminant plume.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use permits.
The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells.
Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater during implementation of this remedy would
be unlikely and institutional controls would not be necessary.
The O&M associated with this remedy would include the installation of wells, yearly
sampling and analysis, and periodic reviews. Performance monitoring and a remedial action
effectiveness review would occur every five years.
Alternative GW3: In-Situ Treatment (reactive barrier wall)
(Estimated total cost: $ 1,389,966)
This alternative involves the installation of a permeable reactive barrier wall which is an
innovative, alternative groundwater remediation technology. The concept involves the
construction of a permeable wall or barrier, containing appropriate reactive materials across the
Record of Decision (Ol' I)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
9-3
-------
path of the contaminant plume. As the contaminated water passes through the wall, the
contaminants are removed through chemical or physical processes.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use permits.
The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells.
Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater is unlikely and institutional controls would not
be necessary.
The O&M associated with this remedy would involve sampling and a remedial action
effectiveness review every five years. Performance monitoring would be needed to optimize
operation of the treatment system, verify containment of the off site contaminant plumes, and
demonstrate successful treatment of the groundwater by the permeable reactive wall.
Alternative GW4: Aquifer Restoration (pump-and-treat)
(Estimated total cost: $ 7,849,048)
The pump-and-treat alternative, a proven technology, would be designed to remediate
contamination associated with the Southern Solvents plume in order to return the affected
groundwater to beneficial uses. Extracted groundwater would be treated aboveground and
discharged via injection wells located between the plume and the Florida Cities wellfield, located
4,000 feet northeast of the Site. Injecting the treated groundwater in this location would create
an additional hydraulic barrier to minimize the potential for any additional impacts to the wellfield.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use permits.
The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water wells.
Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater is unlikely and institutional controls would not
be necessary.
Extensive O&M would be associated with this remedy. It would need to be operated and
maintained for 30 years. O&M would include power usage by the extraction pump, air stripper,
carbon adsorption unit, and injection pump; regular reconditioning of the air stripping packing;
annual injection pump maintenance and repair; and groundwater sampling and analysis.
Performance monitoring would occur to optimize operation of the extraction and treatment
systems, track cleanup of the plume, verify containment of the plume during the remediation, and
demonstrate the successful treatment of the extracted groundwater before discharge back into the
aquifer.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-4
-------
Additional Remediation Options:
Three supplemental remediation options were evaluated based on the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection's (FDEP) review of the June 1999 Feasibility Study. The first two
additional options were evaluated to complement existing soil remediation alternatives. The third
additional option was evaluated at the request of FDEP as a result of their experience at dry
cleaning sites in using chemical oxidation for groundwater as well as source treatment.
Option A (OpA): Soil Vapor Extraction
(Estimated total cost: $ 247,562)
The first remedial option evaluated, OpA, uses an in-situ treatment method for
remediation of soil via soil vapor extraction (SVE). SVE works by creating air movement through
the shallow soil. As this air moves upward through the soil, the contaminants would volatilize into
the air, removing them from the soil. The air would then be captured and treated prior to
discharge. OpA was evaluated to complement the preferred alternative, S3, which would
remediate the saturated (wet) soil via chemical oxidation. OpA provides an option for remediation
of the shallow, vadose (above the water table) soils.
This option was developed to complement a remediation alternative. There are no
institutional controls or O&M associated with this option. Performance monitoring would be
required initially to optimize the system and evaluate its effectiveness.
Option B (OpB): Shallow Excavation
(Estimated total cost: $ 228,300)
Like OpA, OpB provides an additional option for the remediation of the shallow,
vadose soils to complement the preferred alternative, S3. Unlike OpA, which is an in-situ option,
OpB would involve the excavation of shallow soils in the source treatment area around the
existing building (estimated at 70 x 70 feet to a depth of approximately 4 feet). The soil would
then be shipped off site for treatment/disposal and clean soil would be backfilled prior to the
installation of the injection wells associated with the preferred alternative, S3. The shallow soils
underneath the building would be treated via the chemical oxidation alternative, S3 It is
anticipated that S3 would be effective in treating the shallow soils underneath the building since
the building's concrete floor would act as a lid helping to contain the oxidant.
This option was developed to complement a remediation alternative. There are no
institutional controls or O&M associated with this option. Sampling would be required to
determine the lateral extent of excavation necessary to complete the vadose soil remediation.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-5
-------
Option C (OpC): In-Situ Groundwater Treatment (Oxidation)
(Estimated total cost: $ 2,041,114)
OpC uses the same technology to treat the groundwater as the preferred alternative S3
uses to treat the soil. This option involves the injection of a strong oxidant such as hydrogen
peroxide into the soil and groundwater to reduce the levels of PCE. This option would initially be
implemented in the areas where groundwater concentrations of PCE are above the Florida Natural
Attenuation Default concentration for PCE of 300 ppb. After the initial implementation of this
option, the effectiveness would be evaluated to see if it should be used over the entire plume to
remediate the groundwater down to the MCL of 3 ppb or if another alternative would be more
effective for the lower level concentrations.
The installation of wells and usage of groundwater are regulated by the Southwest
Florida Water Management District through the issuance of individual and general water use
permits. The district also regulates water well construction and requires permits for all new water
wells. Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater during the implementation of this
remedy is unlikely and institutional controls would not be necessary.
O&M activities associated with this remedy are minimal and would include sampling
and the preparation of a remedial action effectiveness review report. Performance monitoring
during implementation of this alternative would evaluate the effectiveness of the in situ treatment,
such as verifying the destruction of the source material and contaminant source plume.
9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative
SI, GW1: Under the No Action alternatives SI and GWI, no future action would be
taken at the Site. Therefore, they have no common elements and will not be
discussed further in this section.
Key ARAR's Associated With Each Alternative:
S2: The source isolation alternative (S2) would involve treatment of groundwater prior to
reinjection into the groundwater. The ARAR's associated with Alternative S2 include:
(1) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)
(40CFR141);
(2) Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) groundwater protection
standards (40 CFR 22);
(3) Florida MCLs (FAC 62-550);
(4) Florida groundwater classification (FAC 62-520);
Record of Decision (OLM)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
9-6
-------
(5) Florida hazardous waste regulations (FAC 62-730);
(6) RCRA requirements for generators of waste (22 CFR 66262);
(7) record-keeping and waste accumulation (22 CFR 22262);
(8) container storage, closure, corrective action, disposal and discharges from
regulated units (22 CFR 66264);
(9) Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for transport of hazardous
materials (49 CFR 171 and 172);
(10) Florida requirements for water well construction (FAC 62-528); and
(11) Florida requirements for underground injection of treated discharge
(FAC 62-532).
S3: The in-situ alternative (S3) would trigger a minimum number of ARAR's since no
waste or contaminated groundwater would be brought to the surface. The ARAR's
associated with Alternative S3 include:
(1) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141);
(2) Florida MCLs (FAC 62-550);
(3) Florida requirements for water well construction (FAC 62-528); and
(4) Florida groundwater classification (FAC 62-520).
S4: The soil excavation alternative (S4) would trigger a maximum number of ARAR' s
including treatment of exposed contaminated groundwater, control of fugitive air
emissions, and compliance with storage, shipping, treatment, and disposal of
contaminated soil regulations. The ARAR's associated with Alternative S4 include:
(1) Florida petroleum criteria (FAC 62-770);
(2) RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations (40 CFR 268);
(3) Florida Hazardous Waste Regulations (FAC 62-730);
(4) Clean Water Act treatment standards for discharge to a surface water body
(33 USC 125 et seq.);
(5) Florida treatment standards for discharge to a surface water body
(FAC 62-302);
(6) Clean Air Act air emission standards for stationary sources (40 USC 7401 et
seq);
(7) Florida air emission standards for stationary sources (FAC 62-302);
(8) Florida Surface Water Quality Standards (FAC 62-302);
(9) Florida point source discharge regulations (FAC 62-620); and
: ~"~~Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Siu
9-7
-------
(10) DOT regulations for transporting hazardous waste
(49 CFR 107 and 171-179).
GW2: The Natural Attenuation (GW2) alternative would trigger a minimum number of
ARAR's since no waste or contaminated groundwater would be brought to the surface.
The ARAR's associated with GW2 include:
(1) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141) and
(2) Florida MCLs (FAC 62-550).
GW3: The in-situ barrier wall (GW3) alternative would not trigger many ARAR's since it is an
in-situ treatment. ARAR's associated with GW3 would include:
(1) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141) and
(2) Florida MCLs (FAC 62-550).
GW4: The pump-and-treat (GW4) alternative would trigger a maximum number of ARAR's
including those associated with treatment of groundwater prior to reinjection into the
Floridan aquifer. ARAR's associated with GW4 would include:
(1) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141);
(2) Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) groundwater protection
standards (40 CFR 22);
(3) Florida MCLs (FAC 62-550);
(4) Florida groundwater classification (FAC 62-520);
(5) Florida hazardous waste regulations (FAC 62-730);
(6) RCRA requirements for generators of waste (22 CFR 66262);
(7) record-keeping and waste accumulation (22 CFR 22262);
(8) container storage, closure, corrective action, disposal and discharges from
regulated units (22 CFR 66264);
(9) DOT requirements for transport of hazardous materials (49 CFR 171 and
172);
(10) Florida requirements for water well construction (FAC 62-528); and
(11) Florida requirements for underground injection of treated discharge
(FAC 62-532).
Record of Decision (OUt)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-8
-------
OpA: OpA (SVE) would involve treatment of captured air emissions. ARAR's associated
with OpA include:
(1) Florida VOC criteria (FAC 62-770);
(2) Clean Air Act standards for stationary sources (40 USC 125 et seq.); and
(3) Florida air standards for stationary sources (FAC 62-302).
OpB: OpB (shallow excavation) would trigger ARAR's associated with storing, shipping,
treating, and disposing of contaminated soil. ARAR's associated with OpB include:
(1) RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations (40 CFR 268);
(2) Florida Hazardous Waste Regulations (FAC 62-730);
(3) DOT regulations for transport of hazardous waste (49 CFR 107 and 171 -
179);
OpC: OpC would trigger the same ARAR's as S3 and include:
(1) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141);
(2) Florida MCLs (FAC 62-550);
(3) Florida requirements for water well construction (FAC 62-528); and
(4) Florida groundwater classification (FAC 62-520).
Long Term Reliability of Remedy:
The remedial alternatives and options were evaluated for soil and groundwater
separately. The selected remedy is a combination of these alternatives and options which EPA
believes best balances effectiveness and cost. Alternatives S2, GW4 and OpA involve active
remedial measures and even though it is expected they would be reliable technologies over time,
periodic maintenance would be required. Alternatives GW2 and GW3 do not involve active
remedial measures and would be considered very reliable over a long period of time. Alternatives
S3, S4, OpB and OpC would not be implemented over a long period of time and therefore, would
be considered very reliable over the long term.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
9-9
-------
Quantity of Untreated Waste to be Disposed Offsite:
Alternatives S2, S3, GW2, GW3, GW4, OpA, and OpC do not result in any untreated
wasted being disposed of ofFsite. Alternatives S4 and OpB would involve the excavation of soil
which would be sent ofFsite for treatment and/or disposal. Alternative S4 would involve the
excavation of an area approximately 70 ft by 70 ft by 35 ft deep. Option B would be used on a
much smaller scale in conjunction with another alternative and would result in the excavation of
an area approximately 70 ft by 70 ft by 3-4 ft deep.
Uses of Innovative Technologies:
The innovative technologies considered for use at this Site include in-situ chemical
oxidation (S3 for soil and OpC for groundwater) and a permeable reactive barrier wall (GW3).
Chemical oxidation has been successfully used to remediate sites with similar conditions and
similar contaminants. A treatability study showed that the chemistry at the Southern Solvents Site
was favorable to implementing the permeable reactive barrier wall. However, due to low
groundwater velocity, it was determined that alternative GW3 would not be completely effective
in removing PCE mass from the surficial aquifer. Additionally, this alternative would not address
vertical migration of contaminants into the Floridan aquifer.
9.3 Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative
S2: Alternative S2 would be designed only to effectively contain the source of
contamination. Even though some of the contamination would be treated prior to
reinjection into the Floridan aquifer, it is not expected to reach the cleanup goals within
a 30 year time frame.
S3: It has been demonstrated that chemical oxidation can be effectively used to destroy
PCE and its degradation products in saturated soil and groundwater. It is expected that
this alternative would successfully achieve its goal of treating the source area at the Site
within a 30 year time frame, possibly within 5 years.
S4: Excavation is a tried and proven technology that could be successfully used to remove
the source material in the source area. However, this alternative would require the
construction of an enclosure around the excavated area large enough to stage
contaminated soil and capture fugitive air emissions. It is expected this alternative
would result in a significant impact on the surrounding businesses and community.
Record of Decision (Of 1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-10
-------
GW2: The results of the Remedial Investigation showed that even though natural degradation
of PCE may be occurring at the Site, it is not occurring in a robust manner or at an
expedient pace. It is not expected that this alternative would reach the cleanup goals
within a 30 year time frame.
GW3: A treatability study showed that the chemistry at the Southern Solvents Site was
favorable to implementing a permeable reactive barrier wall. However, due to low
groundwater velocity, it was determined that this alternative would not be completely
effective in removing PCE mass from the surficial aquifer. Also, this alternative would
not address vertical migration of PCE into the Floridan aquifer.
GW4: It is expected that a pump-and-treat system would eventually attain the Site cleanup
goals. This system, however, would involve significant costs and a lengthy period of
time to implement.
OpA: It is expected that OpA could be successfully used to treat the unsaturated soil above
the water table to the cleanup goal for soil.
OpB: It is expected that OpB could be successfully used to treat the unsaturated soil above
the water table to the cleanup goal for soil.
OpC: It is expected that chemical oxidation (OpC) could be successfully used to treat the Site
groundwater to the cleanup goals. It is estimated that using option OpC will result in a
30% cost savings if used in conjunction with the chemical oxidation soil remedial
alternative S3.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
9-11
-------
-------
10.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether each
alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes how
risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled, through
treatment, engineering controls, and/or institutional controls.
Soil Remediation Alternatives
The soil remediation alternatives, which would provide the highest level of protection of
human health and the environment, would be In-situ Treatment (S3) and Source Restoration (S4).
The Source Restoration alternative would remove the maximum amount of contamination from
the source area soil and groundwater in the shortest time.
The Source Isolation alternative (S2) would prevent all further migration of the source
area plume by extracting contaminated groundwater. Over time, this alternative could also
accomplish a potentially significant reduction in contaminant mass and concentrations within the
surficial aquifer. S2, however, is not considered to be as protective of human health as S3 or S4
because it does not have as its objective the complete restoration of the source area.
Alternative SI would provide the least protection of human health or the environment.
The no action alternative does not provide the engineering and/or institutional controls to mitigate
the significant, ongoing degradation of the surficial and upper Floridan aquifers resulting from
continued migration of contamination from the Southern Solvents source area. For this reason, it
is not considered to be protective.
Grounthvater Remediation Alternatives
The Aquifer Restoration alternative (GW4) would be the most aggressive alternative to
restore the contaminated portions of the shallow and Floridan aquifers. This alternative would be
protective of human health and the environment. The In-situ Treatment alternative (GW3) would
not be as protective as GW4. However, GW3 would prevent further degradation of the shallow
aquifer beyond the existing plume boundaries. Groundwater use restrictions under alternatives
GW3 and GW4 should be effective in preventing any additional exposures to contaminated
groundwater during the long-term operations associated with each alternative.
Record of Decision (OU 1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
10-1
-------
The Monitored Natural Attenuation alternative (GW2) would be protective to some
degree, but is considered less protective than GW3 or GW4, primarily due to its reliance on
natural attenuation processes to fuHy degrade the Southern Solvents plume before it impacts any
downgradient receptors. .The existing data show that natural attenuation processes are not robust
in the surficial aquifer. The No Action alternative (GW1) would not be protective. It entails none
of the monitoring or evaluation activities needed to verify the progress of natural attenuation
processes, to assess the continued protectiveness of the action, or to determine the need for
contingent actions or other measures.
Remediation Options
All three options would be protective of human health and the environment Op A and
OpB would result in the permanent removal of VOCs in the shallow soils and provide significant
progress toward restoring the groundwater quality. OpC would result in the treatment of
groundwater that is highly contaminated with PCE, thus reducing the potential for further
migration of the existing plume.
Compliance With ARARs
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions at CERCLA sites attain
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State requirements, standards, criteria,
and limitations which are collectively referred to as "ARAR's" unless such ARAR's are waived
under CERCLA section 121(d)(4).
Soil Remediation Alternatives
While all of the alternatives involving soil remediation could be designed and
implemented so as to be in compliance with ARARs, the In-situ alternative (S3) would be
purposely designed to minimize the number of ARARs that are triggered. The treatment of the
soil and groundwater using S3 would be performed without pumping the groundwater to the
surface. The Source Isolation (S2) and Source Restoration (S4) alternatives would use similar
extraction and treatment technologies and, therefore, would have comparable ARAR
requirements associated with the extraction and treatment of contaminated water and the
reinjection of treated water back into the aquifer.
The No Action alternative (SI) would not trigger any action specific ARARs, because
no actions would be taken at the Site.
Record of Decision (OL' 1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Sue
10-2
-------
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
The Aquifer Restoration alternative (GW4) would potentially meet contaminant specific
ARARs through the removal of groundwater contaminants below drinking water standards. The
In-situ Treatment alternative (GW3) may not meet the remediation goals within a 30 year time
frame. Both of these alternatives would trigger numerous action specific ARARs that would need
to be considered during the design and implementation of either alternative.
Neither the No Action (GW1) nor the Natural Attenuation alternatives (GW2) are
believed to be able to attain the remediation goals within a 3 0 year timeframe. The
implementation of either or these alternatives would not involve remedial actions that would
trigger any action or location specific ARARs.
Remediation Options
All options would be designed to comply with all ARARs. OpA would involve the
collection and treatment of VOC laden air as part of the remediation. This option would be
designed to meet the Federal Clean Air Act and State of Florida regulations. OpB would mvolve
the excavation and offsite shipment of contaminated soils and would be designed to meet Federal
and State hazardous waste regulations. Just as with alternative S3, OpC would mvolve treatment
of contaminated groundwater via chemical oxidation and would be purposely designed to
minimize the number of ARARs that are triggered. It is expected that OpC would potentially
meet contaminant specific ARARs within a 30 year timeframe.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected residual risk and the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup levels have been met. This criterion includes the consideration of residual risk and the
adequacy and reliability of controls.
Soil Remediation Alternatives
The In-situ Treatment (S3) and Source Restoration (S4) alternatives would be the most
effective long-term soil remedies, as they would provide a high degree of permanence through the
removal of contaminant mass from the source. Aboveground storage and treatment requirements
are simplified under Alternative S3, and there is essentially no chance for a spill or inadvertent
release, thereby increasing the long-term effectiveness of the action.
Record of Decision (OL'l)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
10-3
-------
While S2 would not be designed to remediate the PCE source, it would effectively
isolate the source, preventing further degradation of groundwater quality. The No Action
alternative (SI) would provide no long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
Long-term effectiveness and permanence is highest for alternatives that actively extract
and treat the contaminants. While the In-situ Treatment alternative (GW3) uses a passive chemical
oxidative process, Aquifer Restoration alternative (GW4) uses pump and treat methods to restore
the aquifer. GW4 is projected to restore the aquifer to drinking water standards after about 20
years. While plume containment is the objective of Alternative GW3, this alternative is not
projected to restore the aquifer after 30 years (assuming the source is not dense nonaqueous
phase liquids, or DNAPL).
The No Action (GW1) and Monitored Natural Attenuation (GW2) alternatives do not
employ active remediation to affect the long term nature of the plume. GW2 would be much
more effective than GW1 because it uses an extensive monitoring program to verify its continued
effectiveness and includes a provision for a contingent remedy if the natural attenuation processes
do not work as expected. Neither GW1 nor GW2 would be expected to restore the aquifer
within 30 years.
Remediation Options
Both Op A and OpB would result in the permanent removal of contaminant mass from
the vadose source area. Removal of source material represents a highly effective response
measure for the Site and is expected to greatly enhance the effectiveness of the groundwater
response actions. OpC would result in the permanent removal of PCE, including DNAPL in the
surficial aquifer, and would greatly reduce the amount of PCE that would otherwise penetrate into
the Floridan aquifer.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies that may be included as part of a remedy.
Soil Remediation Alternatives
As in the case of long term effectiveness and permanence, the In-situ treatment (S3) and
Source Restoration (S4) alternatives would be the most effective in reducing contaminant mobility
and volume. Both of these alternatives would capture or intercept the plume, eliminating any
further mobility. Both alternatives also would be designed and operated to provide an optimal
Record of Decision (Ol' 1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
10-4
-------
removal of contamination from the Site, reducing both the volume and mass of contamination
associated with the Southern Solvents source area.
The Source Isolation alternative (S2) would control the mobility of the plume through
pumping to achieve hydraulic containment, but this alternative would not be designed to remove
large amounts of contaminants like S4. Of the alternatives involving active remediation (i.e., S2,
S3 or S4) only S3 would reduce the toxicity of the contaminants on site. In each of the other
cases, contamination is either separated from the groundwater, transferred to another media
(activated carbon), or shipped off site for treatment and/or disposal.
The No Action alternative (SI) would not include any controls to reduce either the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminant source.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
The greatest reduction in contaminant mobility and volume would occur through the
active pumping of the contaminant plume in Aquifer Restoration alternative (GW4). The In-situ
alternative (GW3) would involve passive treatment of the surficial aquifer to control the further
migration of the plume and reduce the mobility of the contaminants. This alternative would also
reduce the volume of contaminants, but at a slower rate than for Alternative GW4.
The No Action (GW1) and Monitored Natural Attenuation (GW2) alternatives would
not use any remediation methods other than naturally occurring processes. Although these
processes may ultimately result in the eventual degradation of the offsite plume, the response
measures would not be considered effective in the overall reduction.
Remediation Options
Both Op A and OpB would result in the removal of contaminant mass from the source
area, thereby addressing contaminants that are continuing to release contamination into the
Floridan aquifer. However, OpB would accomplish a more rapid reduction in the toxicity,
mobility and volume of the source area in comparison to OpA. OpB is also expected to
accomplish a more effective removal of contaminant mass than OpA. OpC would also result in the
rapid degradation of the contaminants accomplishing a significant reduction in toxicity, mobility,
and volume of the groundwater plume.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to implement the remedy
and any adverse impacts that may be posed to workers and the community during construction
and operation of the remedy until cleanup goals are met.
Record of Decision (Ul I)
Southern Solvents. Inc Site
10-5
-------
Soil Remediation Alternatives
The No Action alternative (SI) would involve no onsite actions and, therefore, no
construction or operation related impacts, including potential exposure to contamination, for Site
workers or the community. The In-situ alternative (S3) would have the least short-term
effectiveness, as it would involve the most complicated implementation. The increased level of
onsite construction activities that would occur under the Source Restoration alternative (S4) has
greater potential for exposures to or inadvertent releases of contamination than either S2 or S3.
The Source Isolation alternative (S2) would also involve drilling in the source area, but only on a
very limited scale. S4 would have the greatest potential for short-term impacts to workers and the
surrounding community resulting from excavation and handling of highly contaminated soils and
water. Additional impacts may occur as a result of noise, dust and vehicular traffic that would
accompany excavation. The relative short-term effectiveness of S3 and S4 is equivalent.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
The Monitored Natural Attenuation alternative (GW2) would require continued
monitoring of contaminants. These activities would have only a minimal short-term risk associated
with them based on exposure potential and duration. The No Action (GW1) and GW2 alternatives
are virtually equivalent in their short-term effectiveness as neither alternative would require any
active remediation, nor would reduce and/or eliminate the possibility of exposures to workers and
the community.
The in-situ Treatment (GW3) and Aquifer Restoration (GW4) alternatives would be
equivalent in terms of being the least effective from a short-term perspective. Although these
alternatives would use different technologies, both would require installation and/or continued
operation and maintenance on offsite property. The risks to workers and the local community
associated with activities for GW3 and GW4 would be greater than for either GW1 or GW2.
Short-term risks would be greatest with GW3 during the installation of the slurry walls, while the
activities associated with GW4 are commonplace for pump and treat remediation and would not
be considered to have excessive risks associated with them.
Remediation Options
Both Op A and OpB entail significant onsite construction activities. Pairing one of the
options with one of the alternatives has the potential for greater short-term impacts to onsite
workers and the surrounding community than would be expected if just the alternative were
implemented. The potential short-term risks from implementation of OpC to the onsite workers
and the community include limited exposure to contaminated groundwater during installation and
operation of the injector system and monitoring wells. Provisions for minimizing these impacts
will be taken.
Record of Decision (OL'l)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
10-6
-------
Implementability
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy from
design through construction and operation. Factors such as availability of services and materials,
administrative feasibility, and coordination with other governmental entities are also considered.
Soil Remediation Alternatives
The No Action alternative (SI) would be the easiest to implement, as it would not
involve any active remediation or any further response actions. The Source Isolation (S2) and m-
situ Treatment (S3) alternatives would be considered comparable in levels of Implementabuity,
although each would involve different technologies. S2 would entail the long-term operation and
maintenance of a familiar technology for groundwater treatment, while S3 utilizes a technology
which will require a treatability study to establish dosage criteria. One significant implementation
concern for S2 involves the placement of the effluent line from the water treatment system to the
injection well. This line would have to cross Linebaugh Avenue.
The Source Restoration alternative (S4) is considered the most complicated alternative
to implement as it requires an innovative application of foundation technology, and additional
complications due to handling of wet, highly contaminated materials. This alternative would use
somewhat larger equipment for the excavation of soil and to handle the higher volume of water
requiring treatment.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
Because neither the No Action (GW1) nor the Monitored Natural Attenuation (GW2)
alternatives would require any extensive onsite activities, the implementation of these alternatives
would be relatively easy. GW2 would require the installation of a few new monitoring wells but
the majority of the wells in the proposed network are currently in place. The implementation ot
the In-situ Treatment (GW3) and Aquifer Restoration (GW4) alternatives would be extensive and
require arrangements with property owners for offsite installation and/or maintenance of
equipment GW3 would require the installation of approximately 680 feet of slurry wall and
associated monitoring wells. The use of pump-and-treat technologies for GW4 would require the
installation of extraction wells and several individual treatment plants. Coordination with the
Water Management District would be required since the pump-and-treat technology would
involve large withdrawals of water from the Floridan Aquifer. While the construction systems are
readily implementable for both these alternatives, installation of the slurry wall may be more
problematic than the pump-and-treat systems due to the fact that it would be constructed very
near West Linebaugh Avenue and may significantly disrupt traffic and businesses in the area.
Record of Decision (OU t)
Southern Solvents. Inc Site
10-7
-------
Remediation Options
Both Op A and OpB are readily implementable. The selection of either Op A or OpB to
complement a soil remediation alternative complicates, but does not prevent, implementation of
the soil alternative. Chemical oxidation (OpC) is readily implementable with no anticipated
difficulties regarding technical feasibility, reliability, or scheduling. Although chemical oxidation is
considered an innovative technology, it has become widely used to treat PCE and TCE
contamination.
The estimated present worth costs for the alternatives, not including the No Action
alternative range for groundwater, from $942,372 for alternative GW2 to $7.8 million for
alternative GW4 and for soil, from $1.2 million for alternative S2 to $3.1 million for S4.
Generally, the costs are highest for the ex-situ active treatment alternatives, and lowest for the
containment and natural attenuation alternatives.
State Acceptance
The State of Florida has provided input during the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study process and supports the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
Based on the responses received during the public comment period, the community also
supports the selected remedy. The public comments and EPA responses are contained in the
Responsiveness Summary, found in Appendix B.
Record of Decision (Ot' 1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
10-8
-------
11.0 SELECTED REMEDY
11.1 Description of the Selected Remedy
Based on consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, the detailed analysis
of alternatives, and public and State comments, EPA has selected a remedy to address the
contaminated soil and surficial groundwater at this Site. The purpose of this response action is to
control risks posed by potential future exposure to groundwater contaminated with PCE and to
minimize future migration of contaminants into the Floridan aquifer. The baseline risk assessment
results indicate that site-related contaminant concentrations in onsite surface soil, onsite
subsurface soil, and offsite groundwater at the Southern Solvents Site do not pose significant
carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic risks to human health. However, if onsite groundwater were to
be used for drinking water or for other purposes under the future land use conditions that were
assumed in the risk assessment, then the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks to future workers
and/or residents would be high, due primarily to PCE. At the conclusion of this remedy, the
groundwater in the surficial aquifer will be remediated to the State of Florida's drinking water
standards for Site contaminants which is 3 ppb for PCE, 3 ppb to TCE, and 70 ppb for cis-1,2-
DCE. Additionally, shallow, unsaturated soil with contaminant levels at or above 50 ppb for
PCE, 30 ppb for TCE, and 400 ppb for cis-l,2-DCE will be removed to curtail further
contamination of the groundwater.
The selected remedy is a combination of the evaluated alternatives and options for
remediating the Site. This combination is believed to be the most effective remedial strategy
taking into consideration effectiveness versus cost and which attempts to minimize the impact on
the surrounding community. At this time, EPA's preferred alternative does not address
contamination in the deeper Floridan aquifer. The Floridan aquifer will be investigated further
prior to selecting a remedial strategy for the deep aquifer. While the Floridan aquifer investigation
is being conducted, the OU1 remedial action will begin treating the shallow soil and shallow
groundwater contamination, which at this time continues to be a source for further contamination
of the Floridan aquifer.
Description of Remedy for Soil Contamination
The selected remedy for addressing soil contamination at the Site is a combination of
Option B (OpB) and the In-situ Treatment alternative (S3). This option and alternative are being
combined because S3 alone may not successfully treat the shallow, unsaturated soils. OpB will
involve the excavation of contaminated shallow soils (above the water table) that are not
underneath the existing building. These shallow, unsaturated soils will be removed around the
building until the soil remediation goals are reached. This excavation will involve an estimated
725 cubic yards of soil. EPA has determined that the unsaturated soil remedial goals of 50 ppb for
PCE, 30 ppb for TCE, and 70 ppb for cis-l,2-DCE are appropriate for groundwater protection in
___ . - "Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
11-1
-------
light of the Site conditions and the overall Site remedial strategy. It is anticipated that since the
building has a concrete slab that will act as a lid, alternative S3 will be effective for treating the
contaminated shallow, unsaturated soil underneath the building. Therefore, the implementation
of OpB will not be necessary underneath the building and the rear of the building will not have to
be demolished. Chemical oxidation, the selected remedy to address groundwater contamination,
will destroy the contaminants in the groundwater and saturated soil concurrently. Therefore, the
contamination in the saturated soil will be treated along with the contamination in the
groundwater. The specific oxidation process will be determined prior to implementation of the
remedy. The effectiveness of chemical oxidation will be determined by measuring contaminant
concentrations in the groundwater as discussed in the following description of the remedy for
surficial groundwater contamination.
Description of Remedy for Surficial Groundwater Contamination
The selected remedy for the surficial groundwater contamination at the Site is the
chemical oxidation option (OpC). This option will complement the preferred soil remediation
alternative (S3) and will address contamination in the groundwater and saturated soil (soil below
the water table) at the same time. Additionally, by using this option in conjunction with the soil
remediation alternative S3, an estimated reduction of approximately 30 percent in overall costs
will be achieved. The Site specific oxidation process will be determined prior to implementation of
the remedy. The first phase of the cleanup will be conducted until the groundwater is remediated
to PCE concentrations above the Florida Natural Attenuation Default Concentration of 300 ppb.
The final cleanup goals for treatment of surficial groundwater contamination are 3 ppb for PCE, 3
ppb for TCE, and 70 ppb for cis-l,2-DCE. However, the effectiveness of continued chemical
oxidation for groundwater treatment will be reevaluated after the first phase of the remediation is
complete. By then, the investigation of the Floridan Aquifer will have been completed and a
remedial strategy will be developed for the Floridan aquifer. If chemical oxidation in the shallow
aquifer, as the final remedy to meet the cleanup goals, would not complement the selected remedy
for the Floridan aquifer or if chemical oxidation is shown to not be effective for treatment of low
level contaminated groundwater at the Site, additional remedial alternatives may be evaluated for
treatment of the shallow aquifer to meet the groundwater cleanup goals. By approaching the
remediation of groundwater in this way, EPA will be able to quickly and aggressively treat the
areas containing the highest contaminant concentrations and then reevaluate the overall remedial
strategy for the Site to develop a plan which is most effective at addressing the remaining
contamination.
As part of the surficial aquifer remediation, groundwater use restrictions will be
implemented by naming the area a delineated area under the Southwest Florida Management
District.
Record of Decision (GUI)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
11-2
-------
11.2 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs
The summary of the estimated costs of the selected remedy can be found in table 11-1.
TABLE 11-1
COST SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
30% Reduction
Subtotal
Total Cost of
Remedy
Alternative S3
$1,208,842
$116,710
($397,666)
927,886
Option B
$228,300
N/A
228,300
Option C
4,971,610
($1,491,483)
3,480,120
$4,636,306
11.3 Expected Outcome of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy allows EPA to aggressively treat the highest levels of
contamination at the Site that continue to be a source of further contamination of the surficial and
Floridan aquifers. EPA expects the initial phase of the remedy to eliminate a significant amount of
source material, while further investigation of the Floridan aquifer occurs. Upon completion of
the initial phase of the remedy, more information will be known about the characteristics of the
Floridan aquifer. Moreover, the continued use of chemical oxidation to treat the lower levels of
contamination can be evaluated. This evaluation will take into account how effective chemical
oxidation has been in treating the higher levels of contamination, the future effectiveness of
chemical oxidation in treating the lower levels of contamination, and the compatibility of chemical
oxidation with the selected remedy for the Floridan aquifer. Although not a cleanup goal,
implementation of the selected remedy should not leave any daughter products of existing
contaminants that exceed any federal or state drinking water standards.
Upon achieving the cleanup goals, the contaminants in the soil and surficial aquifer will
be below levels that would prevent unlimited land or groundwater use. However, the
contamination in the Floridan aquifer will have to be addressed prior to the potential land use for
the Site being designated as unlimited. It is anticipated that the initial phase of the remedy will be
completed within two years of the completion of the remedial design. If chemical oxidation is
deemed appropriate at that time to treat contaminants to the Site cleanup goals, it is anticipated
that the remedial action would be completed within five years of the completion of the remedial
design.
-~~ ~~~Record of Decision (OU I)
Southern Solvents, !nc. Site
11-3
-------
-------
12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will be protective of human health and the environment by
treating, via chemical oxidation, the contaminated saturated soil and groundwater in the surficial
aquifer until drinking water standards are met. Prior to this treatment, shallow soil will be
excavated to levels that have been determined by EPA to curtail further groundwater
contamination. The selected remedy will not pose unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media
impacts.
12.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with all Federal and State ARARs. The ARARs
associated with the selected remedy are:
(1) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141) and Florida MCLs (FAC 62-550). The SDWA and Florida law
provides groundwater MCLs that have been determined to be acceptable for
the consumption of drinking water. If different, the more stringent MCL was
selected. The MCLs are applicable and are the basis for determination of the
cleanup standards for groundwater.
(2) RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations (40 CFR 268) and Florida Hazardous
Waste Regulations (FAC 62-730). These regulations provide requirements
for the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes. These regulations are
applicable and will apply to the excavation of shallow soil portion of the
remedy.
(3) DOT regulations for transport of hazardous waste (49 CFR 107 and 171-
179). This regulation provides requirements for the transport of hazardous
waste and will be applicable to the offsite transport of excavated soil.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
12-1
-------
12.3 Cost Effectiveness
In EPA's judgement, the selected remedy is cost effective and represents a reasonable
value for the money to be spent. In making this determination, the following definition was used:
"A remedy shall be cost effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness. "
(40 CFR 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D). This was accomplished by evaluating the "overall effectiveness" of
those alternatives that satisfied the threshold criteria (i.e., were both protective of human health
and the environment and ARAR-compIiant). Overall effectiveness was evaluated by assessing
three of the five balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; and short-term effectiveness).
Overall effectiveness was then comparted to costs to determine cost effectiveness. The
relationship of overall effectiveness of this remedial alternative was determined to be proportional
to its costs and hence represent a reasonable value for the money to be spent.
Alternatives SI & GW1 (No Action); S2 (Source Isolation); and GW2 (Natural
Attenuation) were not considered to be cost effective as they would not result in any reduction of
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes at the Site, nor would they be effective in the long-
term at reducing Site risks in a permanent manner. Alternatives S3 (Chemical Oxidation in Soil),
S4 (Soil Excavation), GW3 (Reactive Barrier Wall), GW4 (Pump-and-Treat), OpA (Shallow Soil
Vapor Extraction), OpB (Shallow Soil Excavation), and OpC (Chemical Oxidation in
Groundwater) were all determined to be cost effective. In evaluating the incremental cost
effectiveness of these alternatives, the decisive factors considered were the time frame required to
construct the remedy, the time frame to achieve the remedial goals, and the preference for using
alternative technologies for treatment. EPA believes that the combination of S3 and OpB for
treatment of soil and OpC as the treatment for groundwater represents the best value for the
money to be spent.
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the best balance of tradeoffs as compared to the other
alternatives. For soil treatment, shallow soil excavation will accomplish the removal of soil with
contaminant levels above those which have been determined by EPA to curtail further
contamination of groundwater. This portion of the remedy is permanent, reduces the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants, is easily implementable, cost effective, and is accepted by
the State and community. For groundwater treatment, chemical oxidation satisfies the preference
for usage of alternative treatment technologies. Chemical oxidation will provide long term
effectiveness and permanence, will reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants, is
implementable, cost effective and is accepted by the State and the community.
Record of Decision (OIH)
Southern Solvents. Inc. Site
12-2
-------
12.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By treating the contaminated saturated soil and surficial groundwater through chemical
oxidation, the selected remedy addresses the principal threat posed by the surficial aquifer through
the use of treatment technologies. By utilizing treatment as a significant portion of the remedy,
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
12.6 Five-Year Review Requirements
Section 121(c) of CERCLA and the NCP provide the statutory and legal bases for
conducting five year reviews. If there are any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining at the Site above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure,
EPA shall conduct a review of such remedial action no less often than each five years after the
initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial action being implemented.
EPA will conduct a policy five year review of the Southern Solvents Site beginning five
years after the construction completion date. EPA conducts policy five year reviews at sites
where no hazardous substances will remain above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure after completion of the remedial action, but the cleanup levels specified in the ROD will
require five or more years to attain.
EPA may discontinue the policy five year reviews when no hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.
Record of Decision (OU1)
Southern Solvents, Inc. Site
12-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Baseline Risk Assessment Tables
-------
-------
lie V^E 6-1.1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SITE
Sotnirio
Tlmtfram*
M»*m
Expowrt
Mtdum
Exposure
PoW
SwflcM Aigurlir
Silt- «Wi FkxMtn Aqutltn
SuiMll AqiJlH PCE Pkrnt:
FM«iinAinj»«PCEPiumt.
arountfMUtf: SivinOMt
AratWtli
Sitt-wUtSuitetSoH
SHw»W»Sui1it»Soll
SubsurliotSol
Satan HfUHr,
SHf-vtto Rorfdtn Aquifii;
SuifloM Aqulf« PCE Plumt:
rMduH^uBwPCEPIufM.
Rtwptor
Poputotton
09-SHtWoAtr
On-MtWo*tr
Rtctptor
*«•
***
AtWWOTnl
AdM
Adufl
Mm
Ad*
Expoourt
Route
tootfflon
CMmiil
Onmll
NigBBOon
DtmO
kmuton
Ingtstlon
Dernial
kijesikm
Diimil
On-SIIM
Olf-SItt
Otl-HIt
on-ini
On-ill
On-ill
On-Hit
On-tili
On-nlB
On-Hit
On-Mt
On-Mt
Typtol
AnilyHi
Ouv*
Nont
Nom
Mom
Kant
Nont
Nant
Nont
Nait
NOM
Outnl
RuhnWt lor SHecSon 01 Eiculon
d Eqnourt Pitnny
No. O)^lgrouna\nUirirMu»dtilanrililrigi>iliiiout»|poliUtwilii
»prov«M 10 rh»«uI7ixmJngi;iri by dtyw.il), hlftJIIon, iwi»»lbl«
OTounovnlw wtlt> nU on HM.
OH-rto vrorhow could bt txpostd to ctwmictli ki p/oundwutr obuin«d Irom
txpotunt wnt comnvilvtly tvUiuttd M nit Ht«A lor Hit lour itu wtu
ki «Hch COPCl wtlt xliasd
Although dt-iilt trortctr dttmll txpotunt to groundwiltr ooufd occur, Int
txpottd tdoy ||«IK> lit! rt I WXU! (I.I.. Wndl IM IPIM) wouM bt tmd
ITKJ txpoRJTM wouM bt Mraqutn.
TrtipiMMfi tooH M txpoMd to crumtciu to tuitict ion m IncMinlil
msHSon; noimtt, no COPCs dimul conta*
toxtvtr, no COPCl wtr» HltcMd w n> mtoVn.
rmpnHnt couU bt txpDHd to Dhonaciii nttUM ftom lod m ptrticufilt
trnttK howmrtr, no COPCl mn Mtdtd Hi 1N> mtokxn.
«o*«™ could b» txpoiod lo cntmfcnM nbuM Irom tod In plitcutelt
tnut«n homvtr, no COPCt wttt utocttd ki ftH iMdhm.
No ground-kilniuva iclWes me ocomng n lln Soullum Sownb s» tut
would raturt In ccnttd wtlh tubMrttn ton.
No gmund-Wnnlvt lOMtm tm oaumno it IM Soullutn SoMrns S«8 »»t
would nan m conua wwi Bubtutio ta
H to Soothnn Solmili SHI K Igrttur dtrotauM lor Induttiul purpout, t w«i
todd bo tBUHtd It Int Uto, «nd wortari eouM bt tipoud lo Copci ki
grojnrtetlirrii Inoestion.
ABwugh iwrktc dtrrMl «poiunu to groundwilK couM occur, Int npOMd
body Kiidoi lre» at a worttr (l.t., hindi «id «mii) would bl unilt md
K Int Saltmm Sohnmll Sitt It davilop*d tar luUenlM purootM, > wtll
toild bt htultod al tit «Ht, tm i4* nddMi coukl bt t>posM lo COPCt
IngroundMttrvltlngiillcn.
-------
sf
f!
1
II
'fs
.£
'
o§
.£
3 *~ ;
'II!
; S 5= i
*li
.33!
m m ;
•!! ?
ffi
tfl O
Q =1
i ?
(A
m
I
I
|
? ?
s g
!!
i^^i
'3s £ 3 ™
if fit
5
•Ri
II
^»
ifr
* 9?* 8- ^ 7
«5fl |8|S
Mil l-t?
sf Us
if
i:
i
• S1 B
?l
•si
r*l
II
S|
;5*5
Hi
i
IH
si;
III
III
i-sri
• 3 '
5ii
1^
*II
'f
if
|j|
l»i-
s * s
J»»
Hf
II]
fli fit
I?? i?
tig
I y
ril -|
i-fg §-|!
i S S «r a ;_
if! ffl
I*? Ms
[if "is
I
5sl
•I
i
§• ?
:?
it
?l
o » o ••
I1 I1
S"
811
-------
3
in
CO
o
CO
*,
2II
if
ill
"fi
ii
!*i
:*s
ill
III
1
hj
siil
ill!
s*ii
I |sl
*. **«
I
|
i.
5.
i-
lt
I!
1!
f
r
i 3:
<
I *5
ill
J«
Hi
Isl
811
111
-------
TABLE 6-2.1
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Scwurn T«nffr«ni». Futur*
Expoiuri M*dium: GrourvJ*H«f
Expomn Point: SUt-wnt* Surlical Aqufaf • T«p Wtttf
-------
TABLE 6-2.1
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
CAS
Number
7440-70-2
7439-95-4
7440-09-7
7440-23-5
Scenario Tmttframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Expouire Madium: GrounrJwatar
Eipotur* Port: S«*-wida Surftcial Aquffar - Tap Water
Chemical
norganlca:
Calcium
Magneilum
Potuikim
Sodium
[«•••••«=
(1)
Minimum
Concentration
3,000
1,000
1,300
4,700
s^m^mm
Minimum
Qualifier
J
J
J
(1)
Maximum
Concentration
78,000
74.000
35,000
580.000
Maximum
Qualifier
J
J
J
UnK«
—•ML
mg/L
mg/L
mg/l
mg/L
L— ..ii.
ncamBiBMH
Location
o( Maximum
Conoamntion
MW-1
MW-8
MW-«
Mw-a
(2)
Detection
Frequency
17/17
16/17
15/17
16/17
Raogaol
Dattction
Limit*
-*J»IJ»MI^^
630
760-1,200
1.300
MMKmcaB^j
(3)
Concentration
Uieo-tor
Scraanlng
•••I^IM^B
79.000
74,000
35,000
560,000
^•^••••••M
(4)
Background
Valua
101,000
3,800
2,500
5.900
••^•i^v^n
la^^^mmm^
(5)
Scraanlng
ToxfcXy Valua
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
^•"•^^•MB
mm^^^—
(6)
PotantW
ARAR/TBC
Valua
400
80.5
100
inft
•Wi^DlsaES:
Potantlal
ARAR/TBC
Sourca
mmrnHmm^i
ADI
ADI
ADI
KB^M
COPC
Flag
•i^B
No
No
No
No
^••H
(1) Mnimum/majiimum dalactad concentration.
(2) F'»»*ncyo«Ail^k«wir»nUn*aro«»em|*am«llhadi«iilrtiw^
chamlcal wai analyzad (or. excluding dila rajtdad ai • ran* of valuation and norvdalac) umplai whara tha detection fcnK wai
graalar than two times tha maximum datactad eoncantration.
(3) Maximum concartlraUon utad when icrMning tor COPCt.
(4) Tha background vakw la two llmaa lh» background maan eoncantration (USEPA, 1995a).
(5) SaaTatriaA-1ioraliito(aioreuno*Martera«ningvatuai. Scraaningvalua*araR»9ionllllapwat»rR8C8(USEPA,199et>)
(6) GroundwatarARARaaraMCLaunlMiothanirltanotad (USEPA. 1996c).
(7) RalionalaCodat
Salactton Raawn; Abova Scraanlng Laval (ASL)
DaWlon Raawn: B»tow Scraanlng Lava) (BSL) "
E»»anttal Nutrtent (NUT)
Data QuaMian:
J * Valua It aitimalad.
N « Tanlaliva IdanUficatlon. Coraldarad praMnt.
(7)
Rationale (or
Contaminant
Deletion
or Sanction
NUT
NUT
NUT
NUT
Daftiilioni: ADI» AtowoMa Dally Inteka
ARAR/TBC « Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement^ Ba Contidarad
C « Cartinoganic
MCL • Maximum ConUminant Laval
N • Noncardnoganic
N/A-NolAvaHabla
ND«No< Detected
-------
TABU8-2-2
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Sceruxio Timeftame; Future
Medium- Grouno\»(er
Enpoiure Medium: Groundwaler
Expoiure Point: Site-wide Ftondan Aquifer - Tip Water
CAS
Number
Chemical
(1)
Minimum
Concentration
Minimum
Qualifier
(1)
Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Qualifier
UnHl
Location
ol Maximum
Concentration
Rangaof
Dettctlon
LhliU
(3)
Concentration
Utedfor
Scraanlno
Background
Value
(5)
Scraanlng
ToxIdtyVHo*
(6)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
Rationalalcf
ConUmlmnt
DaMon
or Selection
130
ug/L
ugi
iTf
i
mglL
mg/l
mg/L
mg/L
NO
370 N
WA
fVA
N/A
No
YM
:&
Ye.
BSL
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.
(2) Frequency of detection la the number of umpteithM the chemical wat detected In over the total number of lampte In which the
chemical wai analyzed for, excluding data (ejected a* a rim* of validation and non-dated samplei where the detection limit wai
greater than two tlma* ttw maximum delected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration uted when acreenlng to COPCi.
(4) The background value a two timei the background mean concertrKlon (USEPA. 1995»)
(5) SaeTebleA-lforaliilcfalgnxjndwateriereeningvalue*. Screening value* are Region III tap water RBC« (USEPA, 1998b).
(6) Ofouno\»aterARARi are MCLi unteii olherwite noted (USEPA, 1M6e).
(7) RalionaleCodei
Selection Reaion: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reaion: Below Screening Leva! (BSL)
Euentiat Nutrient (NUT)
Data Qualified:
J> Value la eMimalad.
N • Tentative Uentficalion. Contidared oreienl.
Definidoni: ADI • AkwaMe DaUy Intake
C • Carcinogenic
MCL • Maximum Contaminant Level
N • Noncardnogenlc
N/A« Not Available
NO • Not Detected.
-------
TABIEO-23
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS Of POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
scenario Tmetreme. Futurt
Medium: Groundwater
Expofur* Medium: Groundwaler
Exposure Point: SurffcW AquNer - PCE Plum* - Tap Water
(1)
Minimum
Coocwiirttlon
(2)
Detection
Frequency
(3)
Concentration
U ted for
ScTMnlng
(5)
Screening
Toxksty Value
(6)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Vllu*
Location
o( Maximum
Concentration
Potential
ARAfVTBC
Sourc*
TokMO*
1.1,1-TrlcNora*lhan*
Calcium
M*gn*iun
Potauium
Sodium
71.000
13.000
12.000
72.000
71.000
13.000
12.000
72.000
(1) MinlmummiaxlmunmtvrARARiar*MCLaunlMlom*rwiHnc4*d (USEPA, 1998c).
(7) Rational* Codrn
Srtcllon R*a*on: Above ScrMnlng L*v*l (ASL)
Delation Rtaton: Below Screening Level (BSL)
EiMOtlal Nutrient (NUT)
Dale QuaUton:
J • Vaki* It estimated.
N « Tentative ktentificatlon. Considered preienl.
DefMllont: ADI • AJtowabta OaHy Make
ARARff BC » Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequktmenVTo 8e Contlderad
C * Carcinogenic
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
N • Noncardnogenlc
N/A • No* Available
ND • Not Detected.
-------
TABLE 6-2 «
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICAIS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
a matrama, Futura
Maoum. Groundwitar
Expoiura Madium: Groundwtlar
(8)
Scnwiing
ToxttyVakM
Ralionalafor
Contaminant
Dtttion
orStlaction
(2) MinmumAnaximum dMMid cooe«rtr«ion.
m«x«num d«*cl*d oonctntrttkn.
(4) Maximum concantrallon UMd wlwn lawning for COPCi.
(5) Th« background value I* two Um.i Ih* background nwan conetnlration (U8EPA, 1 W5a).
(6) *»• Tab)* A-ltor a lot d aK groundwalar KrMning valun. SaMning valuai ara Rigion III tap watar RBCi (USEPA. 1«9M»
(7) Groundwatar ARAH. ara MCLt unhu otharwna notad (USEPA, tggSe).
(6) Rationala Cod«
Sanction Raaioo: Abova Saaaning Laval (ASL)
DaWion Raaion: Batow Seraaning Laval (BSL)
EuaKialNutrlant(NUT)
Data Quilifiart:
J • Valua I* ailimatad.
N • Tantativa ManUication. Corwidarad pratant.
ADI >Altowabla Dally Maka
ARAWTBC - AppiicMa or Ralavanl and Approprlala RaqukamanVTo Ba Coruidarad
C • Cardnoganic
COPC » Chamlcal of Potanllal Concam
MCL • Maxknurn Contaminant Laval
N • Noncarcinogwic
N/A-NotAvailaWa
-------
TABLE 8-2.5
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
:>cenano umeirame: Future
Medium: Groundweter
Expoiurt Medium: Graundwaler
ExpoiuftPojnt: Florid*! Aquifer - PCE Plume - Tip Water
(1) Minimum/maximum .
(4) Tha background vakja la two Umat ttw background maan concantratlon (USEPA, 1995.)
(S) Sea Tat* A-1 tor a Ut of rt gnundwater taaanJng vakm. Scraanlng vakj** ara Ragion III lap watar RBCi (USEPA. 19966)
(6) »oorKJ«alarARAR.ar.MCLlunla..olharwtaar»(ad(USEPA,1»96c). lustKM99W).
(7) Rational Codai
Salaction Raaion: Abova Scraanlng Laval (ASL)
Deletion Raaion: EManUal Nutrient (NUT)
Data QuaMtan:
J« Value l» animated.
DefWttorw: ADI« ABowaNe Dally Intake
ARAR/TBC • Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequiremertfTo Be Considered
C • Carcinogenic
MCL « Maximum Contaminant Level
N * Ncocardnoganlc
N/A > Not Available
NO-Not Detected.
-------
TABLE 6-2.6
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
iscenano Twtframe: Current
IMtdium: Grountfwater
nExpoture Medium: Groundwater
JExpoiure Point Office* (3830 Gunn Hwy) - Tap Water
CAS
Number
Chemical
(IV
Minimum
Concentration
Minimum
Qualifier
d)
Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Qualifier
Units
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
(2)
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection
Limit*
(3)
Concentration
Utedfor
Screening
Background
Value
(4)
Screening
Toxldty Value
(S)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(6)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.
(2) Frequency of detection I* the number of samples that the chemical wii detected In over the total number of Mmplei In which
the chemical wa» analyzed for. excluding data rejected ai a ratuK of validation and non-detect tamplei where the detection Wmft
wa* greater than two Ume* the maximum detected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration used when screening for COPCi.
(4) See Table A-1 for a list of all groundwater screening valuea. Screening valuei are Region III tap water RBC» (USEPA, 1M8b)
(S) Groundwater ARARa are MCL* (USEPA, 1996c).
(6) Rationale Code*
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Data Qualifiers:
I - Approximate value between MDL and POL; supporting evidence for Identity.
Definitions: ARAR/TBC - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement^ Be Considered
C • Carcinogenic
COPC • Chemical of Potential Concern
. MCL « Maximum Contaminant Level
N • Noncardnogenlc
N/A-NotAvilaWe
NO- Not Detected
-------
TABLE 6-2.7
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Scenario Tlmeframa: Current
Medium: Groundwater
Expoiure Medium: Groundwatar
Expoiure Point: Ditto's Plaia 01 (4123 Gunn Hwy) - Tap Water
CAS
Number
Chemical
(')
Minimum
Concentration
Minimum
Qualifier
I'J
Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Qualifier
Unit*
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
(2)
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection
Limit*
(3)
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxfctty Value
(5)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
Potential
ARAfVTBC
Source
COPC
Flag
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
75-27-4
6740-3'
Organic*:
Dkb'iPlua'Ii
158-59-2
127-18-4
79-01-6
cfs-1,2-Dichloro*thene
Tetrachloroathene
Trlchloroethtn*
-i.
0.240
0.360
0.340
WL
ug/L
MS/L
pgfl-
Dibb's Plaza *1
Dtbb's Plaza *1
Dibb's Plaza «1
MCL
MCL
MCL
Yet
YM
YM
No
No
No
•:.•••; AM.
\i& ASL
BSL
BSL
BSL
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.
(2) Frequency of detection Is the number of samples that the chemical was detected in over the total number of samples in which
the chemical was analyzed for, excluding data rejected as * result of validation and non-dated samples where the detection limit
was greater than two tkna* the maximum detected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration used when screening for COPCs.
(4) See Table A-1 for a list of al groundwater screening values, Screening values are Region III tap water RBCs (USEPA, 1998b).
(S) Groundwater ARARs are MCLs (USEPA. 1996c).
(6) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Data Qualifier*:
I • Approximate value between MDL and POL; supporting evidence for Identity.
Y • Analysis from unpreserved or Improperly preserved sample; result suspect.
Definitions: ARAR/TBC « Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
C • Carcinogenic
COPC » Chemical of Potential Concern
MCL • Maximum Contaminant Level
N « Noncardnogenle
N/A-NotAvaUbto
ND« Not Detected
-------
TABLE 0-2.8
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Groundwatar
Expoiure Medium: Groundwator
Exposure Point: Patio Pools (4118 Gunn Hwy) - Tip Watw
CAS
Number
156-59-2
127-16-4
79-01-8
Chemical
Organic*:
d»-1,2-Dlchloroelhene
Tetrachloroathene
Trichtoroethene
(D
Minimum
Concentration
—
—
—
Minimum
Qualifier
(D
Maximum
Concentration
0.400
0.180
0.230
Maximum
Qualifier
1
T
1
UntU
ug/L
pg/L
Mart-
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
Patio Pod*
Patio Poott
Patio Pods
(2)
Detection
Frequency
1/1
1/.1
1/1
Range of
Detection
Llmta
N/A
N/A
N/A
(3)
Concentration
Used for
Screening
0.400
0.180
0.230
Background
Value
NO
ND
(4)
Screening
Toxtefty Value
8.1 N
1.1 C
(5)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
70
5
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
m^m^^mmm
MCL
MCL
COPC
Flag
mmm
No
No
mi
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
^••••^KBBB
BSL
RSI
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.
(2) Frequency of detection 1$ the number of sample* (hat the chemical wai detected In over the total number of (ample* In which
the chemical wa» analyzed for. excluding data rejected a> a ratutt of validation and non-detect samples where the detection HmK
we* greater than two time* the maximum detected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration used when screening for COPCt.
(4) Sea Table A-1 for • Hat of el groundwater acreenlng value*. Screening values are Region III tap water RBCs (USEPA. lM8b).
(S) Groundwater ARAR* are MCL* (USEPA. 1996c).
(6) Rationale Coda*
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Data Qualifier*:
I - Approximate value between MDL and PQL: supporting evidence for Identity.
T • Approximate value lei* than the MDL; supporting evidence for Identity.
Definition*: ARAfVTBC - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
C • Carcinogenic
COPC - Chemical of Potential Concern
MCL • Maximum Contaminant Level
N « Noncardnogenic
N/A-NotAvalabie
NO* Not Detected
-------
TABLE 6-2.9
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
scenario Thneframe: Current
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point Dibb'» Plaza »2 (4113 Gunn Hwy) - Tap Water
CAS
Number
Chemical
d)
Minimum
Concentration
Minimum
Qualifier
Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Qualifier
Units
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
(2)
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection
Limit*
(3)
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
<«)
Screening
Toxldty Value
(S)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.
(2) Frequency of detection I* the number of samples that the chemical was detected In over the total number of samples In whteh
the chemical was analyzed tor. excluding data rejected a* • result of validation and non-detect simples where the detection Umtt
wa* greater than two times the maximum detected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration used when screening tor COPC*.
(4) See Table A-1 for a Hit of all groundwater screening value*. Screening value* are Region III tap water RBCs (USEPA. 1998b)
(5) Groundwater ARAR* are MCL* (USEPA. 1996c).
(6) Rationale Code
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Data Qualifier*:
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(«)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Delation
or Selection
Definition*: ARAR/TBC « Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequkemenCTo Be Considered
COPC * Chemical of Potential Concern
MCL • Maximum Contaminant Level
N « Noncardnogente
N/A«NotAvalab!e
ND- Not Detected
-------
TABLE 8-2.10
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
((Scenario Timelrame: Current
urn: Gnxjnttwalsf
Expoiure Medium: Groundwaltr
we Point: Gold Cup Coffee (Utility Line) (4108 Gurm Hwy) • T»p Water
CAS
Number
Chemical
(1)
Minimum
Concentration
Minimum
Qualifier
(1)
Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Qualifier
Unto
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
(2)
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection
Llmltt
(3)
Concentration
Uwdfor
Screening
Background
Value
(4)
Screening
Toxlctty Value
(5)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(6)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Delation
or Selection
Organlca:
76-27-4
67-W-3
74-«7-3
124-48-1
S-'-p'M
l«
l&tftt
ilwbl
ras
c-M3f&:
w
Pftt
m
vafu
Y»f
iVet
Ye«
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.
(2) Frequency of detection I* the number of aamplea that the chemical waa detected In over the total number of umple* In which
the chemical waa analyzed for. excluding data rejected aa a reiult of validation and non-detect aamplea where the detection limit
waa greater than two Umea the maximum detected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration uted when icreenlng for COPCa.
(4) See Table A-1 for a liat of al groundwater acreenlng valuea. Screening valuea are Region III tap water RBCa (USEPA, 1898b).
(5) GroundwatarARARa are MCLa (USEPA. 1996C).
(8) Rationale Codet
Selection Reaaon: Above Screening Level (ASL)
DataQuairwn:
L » Off-Kale high; retort value la approximate.
Y • Analytla from unpraaerved or improperly preserved aample; reaurt autpect.
Definltiona: ARAR/TBC * Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Conaldered
C « Carcinogenic
COPC • Chemical of Potential Concern
MCL • Maximum Contaminant Level
N » Noncardnogenlc
M/A-NotAva«abte
ND* Not Detected
-------
TABLE 8-2.11
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS Of POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Scenario Tknefmma: Current
Medium: Suite* Soil
Expoiure Medium: Surface Soil
ExpowmPoW: Site-wideSurfaceSoK
CAS
Number
5103-71-9
5103-74-2
72-20-8
76-44-8
127-18-4
108-88-3
7429-90-5
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
743949-6
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
744CWJ2-0
7440-09-7
7440-23-5
Chemical
Organtei:
•Ipht-ChkxttaM
garnrna-Chlordan*
Endrin
Heptaehtof
etTActiloroetnene
Toluene
Inorganic*:
Aluminum
Birium
Cadmium
CaWum
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Leid
Magnaikm
Manganete
Nickel
Potanlum
Sodium
(1)
Minimum
JoflCflfitfrtton
-
-
1.30
-
28.0
2.0
460
6.0
-
880
3.0
7.0
130
9.70
-
5.20
0.890
_
45.0
Minimum
QualKter
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
(1)
Maximum
Concentration
12.0
15.0
3.90
0.640
5.400
9.0
1.000
17,0
0.350
190,000
4.20
40.0
900
50.0
1,500
38.0
1-0
96.0
1,600
Maximum
QuaHfier
J
JN
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UnH>
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
pg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SS1301
SS1301
SS0301
SS1301
SS0501
SS0401
SS0501
SS0101
SS0102
SS1301
SS0101
SS0102
SS0401
SS0101
SS130I
SS0301.SS1301
SS0401
SS1301
SS1301
(2)
Detection
Frequency
1/7
1/7
VI
1/1
10/13
8/11
7/7
en
1/3
7/7
5/7
7/7
7/7
5/7
1/7
7/7
VI
1/7
7/7
Range of
Detection
LlmHa
1.80-2.0
1.80-2.0
3.50-4.0
-
30.0-90.0
11.0-12.0
—
5.0
0.0600
-
2.0-3.0
~
-
5.30-6.90
50.0-390
-
i.o-io
50.0-100
-
(3)
£ooc6trtrcUon
Used (w
ScfMfiioQ
12.0
15.0
3.90
0.640
5,400
9.0
1,000
17.0
0.350
190,000
4.20
40.0
900
50.0
1.500
38.0
1.0
96.0
1,600
<«)
Background
Value
NT
NT
NT
NT
NO
ND
NT
NT,
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
(5)
Screening
ToxWty Value
1,800 C
1,800 C
2.300 N
140 C
12.000 C
1,600,000 N
7,800 N
550 N
7.8 N
N/A
23 N
310 N
2,300 N
N/A
N/A
160 N
160 N
N/A
N/A
(6)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,000.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
400
800,000
N/A
N/A
1.000,000
1,000,000
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ADI
N/A
N/A
N/A
RSL
ADI
N/A
N/A
ADI
ADI
COPC
Flag
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No
(7)
Cootttnbwtt
Deletion
« Selection
8SL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
.;;, •
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
NUT
NUT
-------
TABLE 6-2.11
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
acananoTimwame: Current
Medium: Surface SoH
Expoiurt Medium: Surface SoK
Expoture Point: Site-wide Surface Soil
CAS
Number
Chemical
(D
Minimum
Concentration
Minimum
Qualifier
Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Qualifier
Unto
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
(2)
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection
UmKi
0)
Concentration
Uudfor
Screening
Background
Value
(5)
Screening
Toxtedy Value
(1) MWmummiaximum detected concentration.
(2) Free^rfdete^totrarumb^
*^^^^
(6)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(7)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
(3) Maxkrwm concentration utedwtMo screening forCOPC*.
(4) The background value btvmtlnief tr«baeliomindnieaoc«ioar*atlon(USEPA I995a)
(7) Rationale Codei
Deletion Reaion: Below Screening Level (BSL)
EMentlal Nutrient (NUT)
Data QuaWeri:
J • Value It estimated.
N« Tentative Identification. Considered pretent.
DefWWon»: ADI - Atowbte Daily Intake
ARARHBC - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Con*Uered
C » Carcinogenic
N*Noncardnogenlc
N/A-Not Available
NO-Not Detected
NT - Not Tetted (Chemical wa» not analyzed for.)
RSL • Retidentlal Sod Screening Level (USEPA. 1094)
-------
TABLE 8-2.12
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
CAS
Number
5103-71-9
5103-74-2
72-20-a
78-44-8
127-18-4
108-8841
7429-90-5
7440-30-3
7440-43-0
7440-70-2
7440-47-J
7440-50-8
7439404
7439.02-1
7439-95-4
7439-98-5
74404)2-0
7440-09-7
7440-23-5
0-68-8
Scenario Tlmeframe: Cunenl
Medium: Surface So*
Expoiure Medium: Air
:xpo»ure Point SHa-wtde Surface Sott
Chemical
Org*nfca:
alptMhChlordane
(amrra-Chlofdarie
Endrin
Heptaehlor
Tatrachkxoehene
Toluene
Inonjtnlca:
Aluminum
Barium
Cadmium
CaWum
Chromium
Copper
ron
Lead
Magnafkm
Menganeie
Nickel
Potawkim
Sodkm
Zinc
(1)
Minimum
Concentration
1.30
280
2.0
480
8.0
880
3.0
7.0
130
9.30
5.20
0890
450
18.0
MmHTKVT
Qualifier
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
0)
Maximum
Concentration
12.0
11.0
3.90
0.840
5,400
9.0
1,000
17.0
0.350
190,000
4.20
40.0
too
50.0
1,500
38.0
1.0
980
1,600
200
Mtxknum
OuaWler
J
JN
J
J
J
j
J
J
J
J
Unto
pg/kg
M0*g
H0AO
raftg
ug*g
fg*9
mg/kg
mgftg
moAg
moAg
mg/kg
mo/kg
mgiVg
mg*8
mo/kg
mo*g
mgAg
moflig
maAg
mo/lig
LocaUon
of Maximum
ConcantraUon
SS-1341
SS-1341
SS-JJ31
S9-1M1
SS*01
SS-4-01
SS-M1
53-1^)1
SS-1-01
SS-1M1
SS-1-01
SS-141
SS-4-01
SS-1-01
SS-13-01
SS-34)1,SS-134)1
SS-4-01
SS-13-01
SS-1341
SS-M1
(2)
Oalacaon
Fraquancy
1/7
1/7
217
in
10/13
8711
7/7
677
1/3
7/7
5/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
1/7
7/7
2/7
1/7
7/7
7/7
Rangaof
Datactton
UmM*
1.80-2.0
180-20
3.50-4.0
300-900
11.0-12.0
5.0
0.0000
2.0-30
50.0-390
1.0-2.0
50.0-100
(3)
Conc*Kr«#on
Uiadfor
SoaarJog
120
15.0
3.90
0.640
5,400
9.0
1,000
170
0350
190,000
4.20
40.0
900
500
1,500
38.0
10
960
1,800
200
m
Background
Vakia
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND
NO
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
(5)
Somanlng
ToufcftyValua
••••••m^B
86.000 C
66,000 C
110,000 N
100 C
9,800 C
64,000 N
1.600,000 N
160,000 N
12,000 C
USA
1.900 C
65.000,000 N
490,000,000 N
NSA
NSA
16.000 N
32,000.000 N
NSA
NSA
490.000.000 N
(6)
PolanDa)
ARAR/IBC
VakM
NM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
400
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PotanM
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
RSL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
••••M^^
COPC
Flag
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
•MM
(7)
Raaonatelbr
Contaminant
Datatton
orSaladxxi
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
NUT
NUT
BSL
•iM^MHMM
(1) Minimum/maximum detectad concamnrtlon.
(2) Fraquancy (X (Mac** ll tha numbar of tampKi tttt lha chan^wiidalMadlnovarlhaMalnunibarofump^lnwrMiIha
ctiamleal wM anHyiad for, axckidlng dad rafadad ai a ratuK of v«ldatanandrKm-<)atatfumplaiwrmr«da1ac«onllrnHwai
graatar'lhan two Urnai lha maximum datadad cooeantnttoo.
(3) Maximum ooneantraBon mad whan «cr*ening fer COPCi.
(4) Tha background vMua It two Bmai tha bickgraund maan GonoamrMion (USEPA. 199Sa).
(5) Saa TaWa A-2 (or I Nil of M nUdaMM io« icnanlng (avail (SSLi).
(8) Saa TaHa A-2 lor • KM ot aj valuai pnuantad.
(7) RatenilaCodai
Deletion Raaion: Below Screening Level (BSL)
EuantMNuMenl(NUT)
Data QuaUflm:
J« Value lieiUmilad.
N • Ttnurtve WanUlkalion. ConMdeml peter*
DelWHoni: ARAR/TBC • Appdceble or Retavant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Conildend
C • Cardnogenlc
N'Noneardnoganle
N/A* Not Available
NO .Not Defected
NSA. No SSI Available
NT . Not Teited (Chenncn wit ml analyzed (or.)
RSL « RaHdentaJ Sow Screening Level (USEPA. 1994)
-------
TABLE M.13
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
jTlmtftame: Fuluie
: Subsurface Soil
oture Medium: Subturfica SoH
Exposure Point: Site-wide Shallow Subsurface SoH
CAS
Number
72-20-8
127-18-4
10848-3
7429-80-5
7440-70-2
7440-50-8
7439-89-8
7439-96-5
7440-23-5
7440-66-6
Chemical
Organic*:
Endrin
TetracNoroethene
Toluene
norgtnlc*:
Aluminum
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Mangaiwia
Sodium
Zinc
0)
Minimum
Concentration
—
4.0
—
400
370
4.80
130
_
46.0
-
Minimum
Qualifier
J
J
J
J
(1)
Maximum
Concentration
3.00
15,000
2.0
1,300
550
21.0
180
4.70
68.0
13.0
Maximum
QuaWbr
J
J
J
J
J
J
Units
pgfto
ugftg
ug*g
ing/kg
mg/kg
mgfkg
mglkg
mgftg
ing/kg
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SS0203 '
SB0802
SS0705
SS0203
SS0203
SS0603
SS0203
SS0603
SS0304
SS0803
P)
Detection
Frequency
in
10/11
1/1
5/5
IK
2/5
215
1/5
SIS
MS
Range of
Detection
Llmltt
3.404.0
2i-
-
-
160-370
2.04.0
75.0-140
1.0-2.0
—
3.50-5.90
(3)
Concentration
Used for
Screening
3.90
15,000
2.0
1,300
550
21.0
180
4.70
88.0
13.0
(4)
Background
Value
NT
NO
NO
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
(5)
Screening
Toxldty Value
61,000 N
110.000 C
41.000,000 N
200.000 N
N/A
8.200 N
61,000 N
4.100 N
N/A
81.000 N
(«)
PotenW
ARAR/TBC
Value
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.000,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,000.000
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ADI
N/A
N/A
N/A
ADI
N/A
COPC
Flag
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
(7)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
(1) MMmurn/maxIrnum delected concentration.
(2) Frequency of defection I* the number otiampletlhat the chemical wit detected In over the total number of temple* In wNchttw
cn«rtc»!we»«n»r/iedf«,»x6udingd»Ur»)»cU>d«»™»uH
grMler then two ttmei the maximum detected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration uiedwhen Kreenlcvg tor COPC*.
(4) The background value I* Iwo time* Uve background mean concentration (USEPA. 1M5a).
(5) SM Table A-1 fora Ktt Mel *uta*un-ac*»oH»ereenlng value*. Screening value* are Region III Indurttal «o» RBC* (USEPA, 1996b).
(6) See Table A-lforaRilofall value* preiented.
(7) Rationale Code*
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
EuenUal Nutrient (NUT)
DataQuaUtlen:
J'ValuelaeiUmated.
Definition*: ADI» AKowaM* DaBy Intake
ARAR/TBC • AopNceble or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Coniklered
C • Carcinogenic
N « Noncardnooanlc
N/A • Not Available
ND* Not Delected
NT • Not Tettad (Chemical we* not analyzed for.)
-------
TABLE 6-2.14
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF'CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
CAS
Number
72-204
127-18-4
10848-3
7429-90-5
7440-70-2
7440-504
7439494
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-23-5
7440464
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Submrfac* SoH
Expoture Medium: Air
Expo«ure Port: Sic-wide Shallow Subturfac* So*
Chemical
Organic*:
Endrin
Tetrachtoroethen*
Toluene
Inorganica:
Aluminum
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganete
Sodium
Zinc
(1)
MintfTHJIft
Concentration
4.0
490
370
4.60
130
1.20
48.0
3.50
Minimum
Qualifier
J
J
J
J
1
Maximum
Concentration
3.90
15,000
20
1.300
550
21.0
180
8.40
4.70
680
130
.
. --
Maximum
Qualifier
i
1
J
J
J
j
^•^
Unit*
Me/kg
pcAo
ug/kg
mg/kg
mgfkg
mg/kg
mglkg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SS-2-03
SB442
33-7*5
SS-2-03
SW03
SS443
SS-2-03
SS4-03
SS443
SS-3-04
SS4-03
(2)
Frequency
1(5
10/11
1/1
5/5
275
2/5
2/5
SIS
1/5
SIS
SIS
Range of
Detection
Limit*
3.40-4.0
220
160-370
2.04.0
75.0-140
1.0-2.0
(3)
Concentration
Used for
Screening
3.90
15.000
2.0
1,300
550
21.0
180
8.40
4.70
680
13.0
(4)
Background
Value
NT
NO
NO
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
MWBHMMMI
(••^••••••••HI
(5)
Screening
Toxldly Value
420.000 N
160,000 N
250,000 N
6,300.000 N
NSA
250.000,000 N
1.900.000.000 N
NSA
63,000 N
NSA
1,900,000,000 N
•••••••
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Vaue
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
^••••^H
^i^m^tmm
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i^BB^BB
l^^^HH
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
••••••^M
Rationale for
Deletion
or Selection
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
NTX
BSL
NUT
BSL
\n miMiiwumMimuini^vcnoconcenuaiion.
2) Freou*rK*ofg*1*cle*lr*lh*c^
chemical we* analyzed for, excluding data rejected a* a ret* of validation and non-delect tempi** where the detection limll wai
greater than two lime* the maximum detected concentration.
(3) Maximum concentration uted when tcreenlng for COPCi
(4) The background value d two lime* the background mean concentration (USEPA, 1995»).
(5) See Table A-3 for a KM of all Induttrlal toil tcreertng level*.
(6) Rationale Code*
Deletion Reaton: Below Screening Level (BSL)
EwenUal Nutrient (NUT)
No Toxltily Information Available (NTX)
Data Ouattfiert:
J*Valu*l*atllmalad.
Daflnltiona: ARAfVTBC • Applicable or RelevartarxlAppropfWeReo^rementnroBeCorBldered
C • Cardnogente
N • Noncardnogenie
N/A
-------
TABLE 9-2.15
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
1
CAS
Number
11097-89-1
58-89-9
74-87-3
540-594)
100-41-4
'.?&!*&
10848-3
794)14
7429-90-5
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-504
7439494
7439-92-1
7439-954
7439-96-5
74404)2-0
74404)9-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-23-5
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Medium: Subturface Sou
Exjxuute Medium: Subsurface Soil
Expoiure Point: Site-wide Deep Subiutface Soil
ii [^••oac==
Chemical
Organlca:
Arodor1254
gamma-BHC (Undane)
ChJoromettiane
1.2-Dfchloroalhene (total)
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
TricritoroeOtena
norganfca:
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobari
Copper
ran
Lead
Magnedum
Mengenete
Nickel
PoUuhxn
Selenium
Sliver
Sodium
. i =
(D
Minimum
ConcentraUon
2.900
3.0
2.0
2.0
740
5.30
280
3.20
1.40
6.30
110
2.10
180
0.740
0.70
29.0
2.80
79.0
a^HjBB
Minimum
QualMer
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
^HO^^BBK
(D
Maximum
Concentration
96.0
1.80
4.100
81.0
3.0
160
200
13,000
30.0
0.300
1.0
3,700
31.0
3.20
22.0
2,100
13.0
1,100
8.30
9.80
950
5.40
0.230
150
Maximum
Qualifier
JN
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
Unlit
ug/kg
ugftg
M»*g
IKIfffn
ug/kg
mg/Vg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgftg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ing/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SB-5-19
SB-5-19
EPA-31B-18
SB-1-09
SS-1-07
S84-1B
SB0408
SB0516
SB0519
SB0318
SB0311
SB051B
SB0318
SS0107
SB0318
SS0107
SB0519
SB0508
SB0318
SB0519
SB041B
SB0318
SB0411
aoBBK^Hi
(2)
Detection
Frequency
1/14
1/14
2/38
3/24
1/1
3/25
304
14/14
9/14
1/12
1/14
14/14
12/14
2/14
5/14
13/14
9/14
4/14
11/14
6/14
6/14
2/14
1/9
14/14
Ranged
Detection
Limit*
38.040.0
1.90-2.30
11.04,700
11.0-130
11.0-130
11.0-130
1.04.0
0.020041.250
0.0700-0.250
3.0
0.220-1.0
2.0-9.50
40.0
0.770-7.40
20.0-170
1.04.60
0.420-1.0
18.0-80.0
0.470-1.0
0.1904.460
99.0-150
0)
Concentration
Uiedfcr
Screening
98.0
1.60
4.100
81.0
3.0
160
200
13,000
30.0
0.300
1.0
3.700
31.0
3.20
22.0
2.100
13.0
1,100
8.30
9.80
950
5.40
0.230
ISO
Background
Value
NT
NT
ND
ND
ND
ffiK
NT
ND
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
(S)
Screening
Toxldty Value
2.900 C
4,400 C
440.000 C
1,800,000 N
20.000.000 N
41.000.000 N
520.000 C
200.000 N
14,000 N
410 N
200 N
N/A
610 N
12,000 N
8.200 N
61.000 N
N/A
N/A
4,100 N
4.100 N
N/A
1.000 N
1,000 N
N/A
(8)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
(
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.000,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,200
800.000
N/A
N/A
1.000.000
N/A
N/A
1.000,000
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
mm
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ADI
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ISL
ADI
N/A
N/A
ADI
N/A
N/A
ADI
COPC
Flag
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
of«olectlon
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
NUT
-------
TABLE 8-2.15
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
CAS
Nwnbor
i i in ass
744042-2
7440464
BM^KaOCE
Scenario Tknaframa: Future
Medium: Subunfaca Sod
Exposure Medium: Subwrfac* Sod
Eitpoture Pofcit Stte-wide Detp Subsurfac* SoN
Chemical
SaaMBMKKEKCSB
Vanadium
Zinc
saaaa^^^amma=s
f^^ftmmmm
0)
Minimum
Concentration
SaVDC^^SBS^aV
0.370
2.10
=M^^aKaieaB
Minimum
QualHIer
^^•••M
J
J
•••••••
(D
Madmum
Concentration
100
9.90
Hnmoai
"'" ' •' —
Maximum
QuHldw
J
aHBBomj
^^^K
UnHi
331^01
mg/kg
mg/kg
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
(2)
Detection
Frequency
Rang* of
Detection
LknH*
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
••nasaa
SB0519
SS0107
—^~—™«»wai^™«"l=i==««i
(1) MkilmumAnaxImum detected concentration.
(2) Frequency of detection Is ttw number of samples that the et>en** was detected In over the total nurrto of ser^
chemical was analyzed tor. excluding date rejected as a mult of validation and rx»^irteclsamplMVme« the detection IfcnH was
greater ttan two times the maximum detected concentration.
(3) MaxIrnumcateentrationusedwr^sereenlogfcrCOPCi.
(4) The background value Is two times the background mean concentration (USEPA, 1995a).
(5) SeaTar^A-llor.Istofallsubsurtawsdlwxeenlnflvalues. Screening values a«»«lon III industrial KM RBCs (USEPA, 199M»
(6) See TaWeA-1 for* 1st of all values presented.
(7) Rational* Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Betow Screening Level (BSL)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Data Qualifiers:
J« Value Is estimated.
N > Tentative MentMcatton. Considered present.
Concentration
Utedtor
Screening
Background
Value
(5)
Screening
ToxfcHy Value
(6)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
DetlnHioiM: ADI • AKowabla Dally Intake
ARAR/TBC - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reo^imenVTo Bs Contidwsd
C • Carcinogenic
ISL • kKkmrW So* Screening Level (USEPA. 1998a)
N'Noncardnooenfc
N/A. Not Available
NO-Not Detected
NT - Not Tatted (Chemical wa« not analyzed for.)
-------
TABLE 94, W
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION ANO 8ELECTKJH Of CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Scana/io Tmahama: Futura
Madium: Subturfaca Soil
ExpomraMadiunr Air
:xpotura Point: Sila-wida Daap Subaurfaca Soil
CAS
Numbar
1109749-1
58-69-9
74-87-3
540-594
100-41-4
" .- /•.* '» •**
»QOiOOOLQOQ
160
200
13,000
30.0
0.300
1.0
3,700
31.0
3.20
22.0
2,100
130
1,100
830
9.60
950
5.40
0.230
150
100
Maximum
QuaWiar
JN
J
J
"j&tfiU&
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
j
Unit!
MO/VO
wftg
U9&9
pg&B
M9*9
irrv
(JB*8
KBfcg
M9*a
mg*g
mgftfl
mg/kg
mflfliB
mjlks
mflflig
mo/kg
rngflig
m8*8
mB*9
mflrttg
mB*9
mgrtig
ragAg
mgAg
mBdig
mg*g
m9*g
Location
o» Maximum
CooctntriUon
SB-5-19
SB-5-19
EPA-31B-16
SB-1-09
SS-1-07
:l$333Xl$l-
m&OO'&fM m*t3*
SB-4-19
SS-14-09
SB-4-06
SB-5-18
SB-5-19
SB-3-18
SB-3-11
SB-5-19
SB-3-18
SS-1-07
SB-3-1B
SS-1-07
SB-5-19
SB-546
SB-3-18
SB-5-19
S8-4-19
SB-3-18
SB-4-11
SB-5-19
(2)
Oaiaction
Fiatjuancy
1/14
1/14
2/38
304
1/1
ajgjrajjWl',
3/25
3/24
14/14
9/14
1/12
1/14
14/14
12/14
2/14
13/14
13/14
14/14
4/14
11/14
12/14
9/14
2/14
1(9
14/14
S/14
Rang* of
Dataction
Lknto
38.040.0
1.90-2.30
11.0-4.700
110-130
m^w
t$$Jy4fli£{.
11.0-130
110-130
_
1.0-4.0
0.02uu ..;«"
0,02004.250
_
3.0
0.220-1.0
20
40.0
-
20.0-170
10-3.0
0.420-1.0
40.040.0
0.470-1.0
0.190-0.480
-
0200-3.0
(3)
ConcanlfaUon
Utadlor
Scraaning
96.0
160
4,100
81.0
3.0
ifljjtpOOiOOO;
160
200
13,000
30.0
0.300
1.0
3,700
31.0
3.20
22.0
2,100
13.0
1.100
8.30
980
950
5.40
0.230
150
100
{«)
Background
Valua
NT
NT
NO
ND
NO
HflK*1MB
^rwfflmr
NO
ND
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
(5)
Sctaanlng
Toxicty Valua
2,200.000,000 C
88.000 N
7.1E+11 C
13,000 N
1,000,000 N
KB»3S3»I
250,000 N
240.000 C
6,300,000 N
630.000 N
38,000 N
700,000 C
NSA
1 10,000 C
380,000,000 N
250.000,000 N
1.900.000,000 N
NSA
NSA
63,000 N
130,000.000 N
NSA
32,000.000 N
32,000.000 N
NSA
44.000,000 N
PolanUal
ARAR/TBC
Valua
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
rmmntuum
Miim
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Potantial
ARAR/TBC
Souroa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
•flPMMKMi
laSSE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
COPC
Flag
No
No
No
No
No
*t-« •'<•
;YH
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
(6)
Ration* for
Contaminant
OaMkn
BSL
BSL
BSL
•3SL
BSL
::4»x •'•*TfL'*V
**!A8C*f
it* ;« *- ^TJi.". Ji
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NTX
NUT
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
-------
TABLE 6-2.16
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Scwwio Tmtlnm*. Future
Medium: SubiurfK* Sot
Expoiura Medium: Air
E«po»ure Point: Site-wide DMP SUnurt»
I Soil
(t) Mirgrnummie«lmumoWeetedoorK»ntr»lion.
m**l^**ti*nlili.nu«teoli.^M^
ch«.«al wu tiulyz.d to, nduding O.H r»j*cl»d » • rut* of v^Mion MM noivdtlM «mpl».«ri».lh.dtlrtionlim»w«.
grioltr uun two timu trw nwiirnun dftt«et*d concwxrallon.
(3) Mtximumconctnlr*Uonu«*4wrwnicrMnina)V«!u*ifiit!m«(Ml
N • TtnUUvi idtnUicilion. Conddtrtd prctwH.
-------
TABLE 6-4.10
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCUUTIONS
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SITE
Scenario Timelrame:
Medium:
Exposure Medium:
Exposure Point:
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Future
Groundwater
Groundwaier '
Surticial Aquifer • PCE Plume Tap Water
Exposure
Route
Ingeslion
Absorption
Parameter
Code
IR-W
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-N
SA
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Ingeslion Rate ol Groundwater
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Skin Surface Area Available lor Contact
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Units
liters/day
days/year
years
mg/ug
kg
days
days
mg/cmz - event
cm'
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
RME
Value
2
350
24
1x10'J
70
25,550
8.760
20.000
1
350
24
70
25.550
8.760
RME
Rationale/
USEPA, 1995a
USEPA. 1995a
USEPA. 1995a
...
USEPA. I991a
USEPA. 1991a
USEPA. 1991a
(1)
USEPA, 19978
(2)
USEPA. 1995a
USEPA. 1995a
USEPA. 1991a
USEPA. 1991a
USEPA. 1991e
CT
Value
...
.«
...
•••
...
...
•••
CT
Rationale/
„.
...
...
•»
...
...
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Potential (Lifetime) Average Dairy Dose
tot
CW x IR-W x EF x EPxCF
RW v AT
Internal (Lifetime) Average Dairy Dose
|(L)ADDw)(mgrt(g-day) =
DAxSAxEVxEFxED
(1) Value Is calculated using the equations presented In Section 6.1.2.3 and assuming an exposure time ol 12 minutes (ET = 0.2 hr).
(2) The event frequency was based on best professional judgement.
-------
TABLE 6-4.18
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SITE
Scenario Timelrame: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater •
Exposure Point: Surflcial Aquifer - PCE Plume Tap Water
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Absorption
Parameter
Code
CW
IR-W
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-N
DA
SA
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
B>iaM_HBMxcEBi^^^M^BMM^^M
Parameter Definition
unemtcai concentration ki Groundwater
Ingeslion Rate of Groundwater
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Dose Absorbed per Unit Area per Event
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaojng Time (Non-Cancart
™™«™«^™«Mii
Units
•»••••••••••
"9/1
liters/day
days/year
years
mg/ug
days
days
mg/cm* • event
cm1
events/day
days/year
years
Kg
days
days
i^— »i— ••
| „
RME
Value
See Table 6-3.f
1
350
6
IxlO"1
15
25,550
2,190
7.213
1
350
6
15
25,550
2.190
I^«B«MI^_«_
RME
Rationale/
Reference
Sea Table 6-3.6
USEPA. 1995a
USEPA. 1995a
USEPA. 1995a
USEPA 1991a
USEPA. 19913
USEPA, 199la
Ml
I1)
USEPA. 1997a
(2)
USEPA. 1995a
USEPA, 1995a
USEPA. 199la
USEPA. 1991a
USEPA. 1991a
••M^MiHMMIII
CT
Value
•^•••^•••••••B
—
•••••^•^••i^Bi
™™™«B»»«™««B
CT
Rationale/
*"•
-
—•^ «_
•••am—
"""
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Potential (Lifetime) Average Daily Dose
((LJADDpoi) (mg/kg-day) «
CW*|R-WxEF»Fn*CF
BWxAT
ntemal (Llfetkne) Aver&ge Daily Dose
|(L)ADDM|(rnoykg-day).
DA x SA x EV x f=F x, £p
BWxAT
(1) Value is calculated using the equations presented hi Section 6.1.2.3 and assuming an exposure time of 12 minutes (ET . 0 2 hr)
(2) The event frequency was based on best professional judgement. ''
-------
TABLE t-5.1
KON-cANcen ToxtciT v DATA - OHM/DERMAL
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SITE
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
^fmm^mmmmsa^m^mmmmm
Orginlct
Acetone
3enzer\e
Bromodichlofonrattuna
Carbon lelrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromelhane
Dltoromochloromemane
t.1-Dichforoelhen»
1.2-DlcNoroethene (total)
cis-1.3-Dlchloropropen«
lrans-1,3-DlcMoropropene
Melhyfene chloride
Pentachlorophenol
1 , 1 ,2,2-Telrachforoethane
TelracNotoelherw
1.1.2-Ti1ctilaro«lh Organ WelgM
> Organ Weight
Uver
Liver. Kidney
N/A
Liver, >Body Weight
Clinical Chemistry
Uver, KkJney
Combined
Uncertainty
ModHylng Factors
1.000
3.000
1,000
1.000
1.000
1.000
N/A
1.000
1,000
1.000
10.000
10.000
100
100
N/A
1,000
1,000
3.000
••••••••vm^Bi
Source! ol RID:
Target Organ
•MlM^^Hi^H
IRIS
NCEA
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
N/A
IRIS
tRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
N/A
IRIS
IRIS
NCEA
i
^Bnm^^Bi
Dales ol RID:
Target Organ (3)
(MM/DD/YY)
•"•^•••MBK:
1 1/1/98:8/1/93
07/02/96
11/1/98:3/1/8)
11/1/98:6/1/91
11/1/98:7/1/93
11/1/98:9/1/92
N/A
11/1/98:3/1/91
1 1/1/98:4/1/89
1997
11/1/98:10/1/90
11/1/98:10/1/90
11/1/98:3/1/88
1 1/1/98:2/1/93
N/A
11/1/98-3/1/88
11/1/98:2/1/95
3/5/92
1
IRIS - Integrated Rfek Information System
HEAST. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
NCEA » National Center for Environmental Assessment
N/A . Not Applicable
(1, Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factors were obtained from ATSDH with the following exceptions: The adjustment factors lor ds-LS-dichloropropene. trans-1.3-dlchloropropene, and 1.1.«.|rlcWoroelhane
were based on the USEPA (1995a) default factor of 80% for VOCs; the adjustment factor for penlachlorophenol was based on the USEPA (!995a) default factor of 50% tor SVOCs.
(2) The equation used to derive the adjusted dermal RID Is presented In the text.
(3) For mis values, Iha date IRIS was searched and the date of the most rncenl review are provided.
For HEAST values, the date of HEAST Is provided.
For NCEA values, the date of the article provided by NCEA Is provided.
-------
TABLE 6-5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
SOUTHERN SOLVIltifS SHE
Chemical
ol Potential
Concern
Organic*
Acetone
Benzene ,
Bromodichloromelhane
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dlbromochloromelhane
U-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
4
cls-1 ,3-Dichtoropropene
lrans-1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
Melhytene chloride
Penlachljrophenol
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tolrachloroelhene
1,1,2-Trichloroelhane
rrichloroethene
Chronic/
Subchronlc
N/A
Chronic
N/A
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
N/A
N/A
Chronic
N/A
N/A
Value
Inhalation
RIC
N/A
6E-03
N/A
2E-03
2E-02
3E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E-02
2E-02
3E400
N/A
N/A
SE-01
N/A
N/A
Units
N/A
mg/m3
N/A
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
N/A
N/A "
N/A
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
N/A
N/A
mg/m3
N/A
N/A
Adjusted
Inhalation
RfD(1)
N/A
1.7E-03
N/A
5.7E-04
5.7E-03
8.6E-05
r*.
N/A
N/A
5.7E-03
5.7E-03
8.6E-01
N/A
N/A
1.4E-01
N/A
N/A
Units
N/A
mg/Vg-day
N/A
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
N/A
N/A
N/A
mg/Vg-day
mg/kg-day
fng/kg-day
N/A
N/A
mg/kg-day
N/A
N/A
Primary
Target
Organ
N/A
Blood Chemistry
N/A
N/A
Liver. Kidney
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nasal Mucosa
Nasal Mucosa
Liver
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Combined
Uncertainly/
Modifying Factors
N/A
1,000
N/A
N/A
10,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
30
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sources ol
RIC:RID:
Target Organ
N/A
NCEA
N/A
EPA 1998
HEAST
EPA 1998
N/A
N/A
N/A
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
N/A
N/A
EPA 1998
N/A
N/A
Dales (2)
(MM/DD/YY)
N/A
7/2/96
N/A
1998
1997
1998
N/A
N/A
N/A
11/1/98:1/1/91
11/1/98:1/1/91
1997
N/A
N/A
1998
N/A
N/A
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
EPA 1998 = EPA Region III October 1,1998 RBC table.
N/A ° Not Applicable
(1) Adjustment factor applied to RIC to calculate RID = 1/70Xg x 20m9.
(2) For IRIS values, the dale IRIS was searched and the date ol the most recent review are provided.
For HEAST values, the date of HEAST is provided.
For NCEA values, the dale of the article provided by NCEA Is provided.
-------
TABLE 6-6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - OflAUDERMAI.
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SITE
Chemical
o) Potential
Concern
Orgtnlci
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodlchtoromelhane
Carbon letrachloride
Chlorobenzena
Chloroform
Chloromethane "
Oibromochloromelhane
1,1-Dichtoroemene
t,2-Dlchloroethena (total)
cis-1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
lrans-1 ,3-Dichloropropeng
Melh'ylene chloride
Pentachlorophenol
1 , t ,2,2-Tetrachloroelhane
Tetrachloroelhene
I.1,2-Tftchloroelhane
Trichloroelhene
Oral Cancer
Slop* Ficlor
N/A
2.6E-02 '
6.2E-02
1.3E-01
N/A
6.1E-03
1.3E-02
8.4E-OZ
6.0E-01
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.5E-03
1.2E-OI
2.0E-01
5.2E-02
5.7E-02
1.1E-02
Oral to DormaJ
Adjuslmant
Factor (1)
N/A
too%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A '
<;•«
N/A
100%
50%
100%
100%
80%
100%
Adjusted Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor (2)
N/A
2.9E-02
6.2E-02
1.3E-01
N/A
8.1E-03
1.3E-02
8.4E-02
6.0E-01
N/A
.N/A
N/A
7.5E-03
2.4E-01
2.0E-01
5.2E-02
7.1E-02
1.IE-02
Units
N/A
(mg/kg-day)'1
(ms/kg-day)'1
(mg/kg-day)'1
N/A
(mg/kg-day)'1
(mg/kg-day)'1
(m'g/kg-day)'1
(mg/kg-day)'1
N/A
N/A
N/A
(mg/kg-day)'1
(mg/kg-day)'1
(mg/kg-day)'1
(mg/kg-day)''
(mg/kg-day)'1
(mg/kg-day)'1
Weight ol Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
N/A
A
82
B2
N/A
B2
C
C
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
B2
82
C
C
...
Sr-jrce
N/A
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
N/A
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
N/A
N/A
N/A
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NCEA
IRIS
NCEA
Data (3)
(MM/OD/YY)
N/A
11/1/98:10716/98
11/1/38:3/1/93
11/l/98:6/1/9t
N/A
11/1/98:3/1/91
1997
11/1/98:1/1/92
11/1/98:2/1/98
N/A
N/A
N/A
11/1/98:2/1/95
11/1/98:7/1/93
11/1/98:2/1/94
No Date
11/1/98:2/1/94
(1) Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factors were obtained from ATSDR wilh the following exceptions: The adjustment laclor lor 1.1.2-lrlchloroelhane was based on the USEPA
USEPA (1995s) default (actor ol 80% for VOCs; ttn» adjustment factor lor penlachtorophenol was based on the USEPA (I995a) default (actor ot 50% lor SVOCs.
(2) The equation (or deriving the adjusted dermal cancer slope (actors are presented In the lext,
(3) For IRIS values, the date IRIS was searched and the date ol the most recent ralvew are provided.
For HEAST values, the date of HEAST Is provided.
For NCEA values, the dale of the article provided by NCEA Is provided.
EPA Group:
A • Human carcinogen
Bl • Probable human carcinogen - Indicates that limited human data are available
B2 • Probable human carcinogen - Indicates sufficient evidence in animals and
Inadequate or no evidence in humans
C - Possible human carcinogen
D • Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
IRIS > Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
NCEA = National Cenler for Environmental Assessment
-------
TABLE 6-6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS SITE
Chemical
ol Potential
Concern
Organic*
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon letrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
I.l-Dichloraelheno
1,2-Dichloroelhono (total)
:is-1,3-Dtehloropropene
•ans-1,3-Dichloropropene
rlelhylene chloride
'enlacb'orophenol
. 1.2.2-TelrachloroBihane
relrachlordbthene
,1.2-Trichloroethane
rrlchloroethene
Unit Risk
N/A
7.80E-06
N/A
1.50E-OS
N/A
2.30E-05
N/A
5.00E-05
N/A
3.70E-05
3.70E-05
4.70E-07
N/A
5.80E-05
5.80E-07
1.60E-05
1.70E-06
Units
N/A
N/A
-------
TABLE 6-10.1 RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Medium
Grounttwater
=amf^m*mt
Scenario Tfmefreme: Current
Rec«ptor Population: Induitrtal Worker
Receptor Aoe: Adult
Expoture
Medium
Groundwaler
Expoiura
Point
OHicat
(3830GunnHwy)
Dlbb't Plaza *1
(4123 Gunn Hwy)
Dlbb't Plaza #2
(4113GunnHwy)
Chemical
(Total)
(Total)
(Total)
Total Rltk Aero
i^MMMMn
Ingeitlon
BMBEKM
—
Total Ri»
It AD Media i
Carcinogenic Riik(1)
Inhalation
•••••••••
—
i Acroai (Gn
nd Alt Expoi
Dermal
BMOOT
-
—
wndwater]
uro Routes
Exposure
Routet Total
•^tKO^^^B
—
-
-
Chemical
(Total)
(Total)
(Total)
Tol
••••^^^••^•••ia^^i^i^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^Mi^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Non-Cardnogenlc Hazard Quotient (1)
Primary
Target Organ
*l Hazard Index Aero
IngeiUon
^^•HnK
_ —
• ATMadir
Inhalatxm
•MMiWMt
_ —
_
ndA« Expoi
Dermal
^mmmm^mi
—
lire Routet
Expoiura
Routet Total
•W^K^^BM
~
—
ao^^KnBM
(1) All expoiure route total cancar ritkt were Ian than IxlO"4 and all expoiure route total hazard Indicel were lew than one.
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Aae: Adult
TABLE 6-10.2 RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
SOUTHERN SOLVENTS
Groundwater
Medium
Groundwater
Point
Site-wide
Surficial Aquifer
Tap Water
Site-wide
Ftoridan Aquifer
Tap Water
• Surficial Aquifer
PCE Plume
(MW-3R. MW-S.
MW-7, MW-11R. MW-12)
Tap Water
PCE Plume
Tap Water
Tetrachloroethene
(Total)
Tetrachloroemene
(Total)
retnachloroemene
(Total)
Tetraertofotthene
(Total)
Ingestkm
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
8.2E-04
8.2E-04
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
6.BE-04
8.8E-04
Inhalation
.._T_ .
__— _
—
—
Dermal
_
—
«.
-
Total Risk ACCOM (Groundwater)
Total Rttk Across All Midla and Al Exposure Routes (1)
Exposure
Routes Total
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
8.2E-04
~ 8.2E-04
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
6.8E-04
~"6.8&04"
—
—
Chemical
Tetrachloroethene
(Total)
TetracMoroethene
Trichkxoethene
(Total)
7:—- wnroethene
(Total)
Tetrachkxoethtne
rrichloroethene
Non-Cardnogenie Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Liver, > Body Weight
Liver, > Body Weight
Liver, Kidney
Liver, > Body Weight
Liver, > Body Weight
Uver, Kidney
Total Hazard Index Across /
Ingestion
170
170
4.4
3.1
~7.5~
B8
86
3.6
2.4
6.0
JUuledlaand
Inhalation
_
-
—
—
«•
All Exposure
Dermal
—
—
—
,_ _,
Routes (1)
Exposure
Routes Total
^^•^Hrnaa:
170
170
4.4
J.1
7.S
86
86
3.6
2.4
6.4
(1) Risk and hazard totals ware not calculated since it is highly unlikely that exposures to groundwater from more than one of the data groupings would actually occur at the iKe.
-------
TABLE 6-10.3 RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
nanoaBB
Medium
Scenario Timefrarna: Future
Receptor Population: Reikfent
Receptor Aoe: Adult
mmmm^^mm
Exposure
Medium
— ™^^™-II"«l«ll^—
Air
•—— «••«««
Exposure
Point
Site-wide Surtfclal
Aquifer -Tap Water
Site-wide Floridan
Aquifer -Tap Water
Concentrated Surfidal
Aquifer PCE Plume
(MW-3R, MW-5, MW-7.
WM-11R.MW-12).Tap
Water
Floridan PCE Plume
-Tip Water
^— — —— — — ______
Site-wide Surficitl
Aquifer - Water Vapors
•t Showerhead
Site-wide Floridan
Aquifer- Water Vapon
at Showerhead
-^-•-•M_«_-__i
Chamlcal
TetracMoroethene
(Total
PenuKhlorophtnol
Tetrachloroethwe
TricWoroetherw
(Total)
relrachkxoethene
(Total)
Pentachlorophanol
TetracMoroethene
ricWofoethene
(Jojal)
etractvloroethene
(Total)
• (Total)
--_••=•____
-_-_-_^B->
8.3E-02
8.3E-02
•— -~-M----«B_-_-_l
4.7E-05
2.2E-03
2.0E-04
2.4E-03
4.3E-02
4.3E-02
3.1E-OS
1.8E-03
1.5E-M
2.0E-03
_ -
-
SUUIHERN SOLVENTS
~*K°-«-i*-B.-~^_-.-_IM._-^_-__-_-l
Carcinogenic Rhk
lnh.t..' i
=MM-_^_-_l
-
—
— '
t.SE-03
1.8E-03
•— -»------_-_-».-i
Dermal
^^•••BD
4.7E-02
4.7E-02
1.5E-03
1.2E-03
2.9E-OS
2.7E-03
— »— ^^— «— •
2.4E-02
2.4E-02
9.SE-04
1.0E-03
2.2E-05
2.0E-03
^ w*™^
-
—
Expotur*
Route* Total
•^^mmtm^
1.3E-01
1.3E-01
IMHHB^^.^^^^
1.SE-03
3.4E-03
2.3E-04
S.1E-03
•^HHiilM^^^,^^
8.7E-02
8.7E-02
9.8E-04
2.8E-03
1.7E-04
4.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
-™--«.-----»-_-_»__-_,
Chemical
—--«==«-.— -_-._.-.-.
retracnloroethene
(Total
1.2-Olchloroethene (total)
PentacNoropheiwI
Tetrachloroethene
TricMoroethene
(Total)
Tetrachloroethene
ITn4-l\
1,2-Dfchloroethene (totaj)
ratrachloroethene
richtoroethene
hloroform
etrachkxoetnene
(Total)
I
Non-Cardoog«nfc Hazard Quotient
_ Target Organ
Liver. > Body Weight
—
Liver
Uver. Kidney
Liver, > Body Weight
Liver, Kidney
— •-— — — ^— ---«.
Uver. > Body Weight
Liver
Liver. > Body Weight
Liver, Kidney
N/A
N/A
Ingeillon
^•^HM
470
1.6
0.038
12
8.7
23
^^™"—™^^M™
240
240
1.1
10
8.7
18
*"^^^^^^-OMiB
1 —
•^•^••HM^^^
Inhalation
•••••MM
—
^^•^HH^^V^
'
1.6
18
20
••••HMM^KHM
™-— ^ .M
Oermal
^— 1M1CMM
260
260
-MMW^BBta^^.
0.11
1.2
6.9
1.3
9.S
K-HHH^B^^^^
140
140
•••^•^— BHI^
0.081
5.7
0.98
™--"«™IHM™».
•"^— -«~^«
Expo jure
Routes Tola)
••OIB^Hi
730
730
•^••^— ««1^MU
1.7
1.2
19
10
33
-—•••i i .
360
380
>^«»H>^>^^^^^^_
1.2
18
8
25
1.6
18
20
• ^^^^"•"•™^^»™
•'
-------
TABLE 0-10.3 RME (continued)
RISK ASSESSMENT SOMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Medium
Groundwater
l^HMMB^HK
Scenario Timefrime: Future
Receptor Population: Resident "'
Receptor Ape: Adult
Exposure
Medium
Air
Exposure
Point
Concentrated Surficial
Aquifer PCE Plume
(MW-3R, MW-5. MW-7,
MW-11R.MW-12)- Water
Vapors at Showerhead
Ftoridtn PCE Plume-
Water Vapors at
Showerhead
Chemical
^^•iM
(Total)
(Total)
^•••Ean
Ingtstion
-
-
. _.T...
Carcinogenic Risk
Inhalation
9.1E-04
9.1E-04
•— —
Total Risk Across [Ore
Total Risk A
Total Risk AeroM All Media and All Exposure
Dermal
—
..„""
undwater]
cross [Air]
Routes (1)
Exposure
Routes Total
^••MMIBU
9.1E-04
9.1E-04
mm^^mtmmm
—
.•
Mt^a^a^a^aWMa^ala^ai^aMaVHHEB
Chemical
TetracMoroathana
(Total)
Total
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
N/A
Ingestlon
•MM
—
Inhalation
9.S
9.S
Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure
Dermal
Routes (1)
Exposure
Routes Total
m^MMMHB
9.5
•B^^^MMi
(1) Risk and hazard totals war. not calculated sine* « to highly ur^ that exp(>surts to flrourdwatw from ro^
N/A « Not Available
-------
TABLE 8-10.4 RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Medium
Groundwater
i»MBa««n
(Scenario ThrMframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
[Receptor Aue: Chid
m^aammmmm
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
mmm*aammam
••«•«•«•«=««_
Exposure
Point
Site-wide
Surfidal Aquifer
T*p water
Site-wide
Fkxidan Aquifer
Tip water
Concentrated
Surfldal Aquifer
PCE Plume
(MW-3R. MW-5,
MW-7,MW-11R.
MW-12)
Tap water
Ftoridan Aquifer
PCE Plume
Tap water
tn=n.B_M=i=c
Chemical
•••••••••••••••••I
Tetrachloroethene
(Total)
Penlaehtorophenol
retracMoroethene
TrlchloroethafM
(Total)
retracMofoothena
(Total)
Pentachtorophanol
retrachloroetrwrw
(Total)
Total Rltk Across A
VHOMMia^BI
lr>o«itkm
i^^^BMKr
4.8E42
4.8E-02
2.6E-OS
1.3E-03
1.1E-04
1.4E-03
2.5E-02
2.5E42
1.8E-05
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
Total Ris
» Media and
^••••••••Ml^^^^^^M^i^i^a^s^a^s^^^iiBiiiiiii^iiaii
Cardnofftnlc Risk
Inhilibon
••^^•••B
~
—
-
—
( ACTOM |Gn
All Expoiure
Dermal
MMMBiK
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
6.1E-04
5.2E-04
1.2E-05
1.1E-03
1.0E-02
tOE-02
4.0E-04
4.3E-04
S.3E-04
lundwater]
Routes (1)
Exposure
Routes Total
•^••••••B
8.BE-02
6.8E-02
6.4E-04
1.8E-03
1.3E-04
2.8E-03
3.5E-02
3.5E-02
4.2E-04
1.SE-03
1.9E-03
amtmmmami^
' —
Chemical
•—••••—•»—•
ratrachtoroattMne
(Total)
1,2-D)chloroem«M (total)
Pmtachlorophenot
retrachtoroatftene
rrichloroettwtw
(Total)
retrachkxoethen*
(ToU«
1.2-DlcWofoemerHi (total)
Pentaehlorophenol
TetracMoroethene
Trichloroethena
tmmam^^^^mas^^mB
Tot)
iBiaji^
Non-Cardnog«fllc Hazard Quotient
_^TarB«t Organ
Uvef.>Bo(JyWt)8hl
Llvtr
Uver, KWney
Uvtr,> Body Weight
Uvtr.Kldnay
Uw,> Body Weight
Liver
Liver, Kidney
Liver. > Body Weight
Uver, Kidney
H Hazard Index Across/
Ingtstion
•^••••M
1,100
1,100
3.6
0.089
29
20
S3
560
560
2.6
0.056
24
18
"'43"
« Media and
Inhalation
•••Man
^"•»— "^— ^^«™
—
M Exposure
Dermal
••••^•^
440
0.19
2.0
12
2.1
16
230
0.14
1.3
9.7
1.7
lRoutes°(1)1
Exposure
Routes Total
••M^HMM
1,540
1,540
3.6
2.1
41
22
69
790
2.7
1.4
34 I
_ " 1
HH
(1)
Risk and hazard total, were not calculated s.nc. H I. hfchly unlikely that exposure, to 9™^**^*™^™,*^*,™^^^^^*..
-------
APPENDIX B
Responsiveness Summary
-------
-------
Appendix B
Responsiveness Summary
Southern Solvents Site
To follow are the comments which were received on the Southern Solvents proposed plan and a
response to those comments.
1 Comment: Are other agencies checking drinking water which goes out to the
public for these site related contaminants?
Response: Yes. Local utilities are required by the State of Florida to test for many
contaminants to ensure the drinking water they supply is safe for consumption. They
are required to test for tetrachloroethylene (PCE) on a tri-annual basis unless they are
on a special monitoring schedule to test more frequently. This information is supplied
to the Hillsborough County Health Department which is the government agency
responsible for ensuring that the drinking water supply in Hillsborough County remains
safe for consumption.
2. Comment; How will EPA investigate the Fioridan aquifer? How will the
Floridan aquifer will be cleaned up?
Response: Another remedial investigation will be conducted at the Site to folly
characterize the Floridan aquifer. EPA discovered in the initial remedial investigation
that the ground water in the upper portion of the Floridan aquifer flows in a northerly
direction. This is opposite the direction of the shallow aquifer and is in a different
direction than the regional flow direction of the Floridan aquifer. This change is likely
due to the draw from wells to the north. The second remedial investigation will focus
on the Floridan aquifer and will likely result in the installation of additional groundwater
monitoring wells to fully characterize the flow direction and extent of contamination.
Once this is completed, a decision will be made on how to most effectively clean up any
contamination which may have migrated into the Floridan aquifer.
-------
-------
.
0)0
0 £ O 0
. (0 M-
££
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
T%/s report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
'•*-
------- |