United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA/600/2-86/066
August 1986
Research and Development
Reclamation and
Redevelopment of
Contaminated Land
Volume I.
U.S. Case Studies
-------
-------
EPA/600/2-86/066
August 1986
RECLAMATION AND REDEVELOPMENT
OF CONTAMINATED LAND:
VOLUME I. U.S. CASE STUDIES
by
G. L. Kingsbury and R. M. Ray
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Contract No. 68-03-3149, 23-1
Project Officer
Naomi P. Barkley
Land Pollution Control Division
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3149 to the Research
Triangle Institute. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and adminis-
trative review and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial
products and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation
of solid and hazardous wastes. These materials, if improperly dealt with,
can threaten both public health and the environment. Abandoned waste sites
and accidental releases of toxic and hazardous substances to the environment
also have important environmental and public health implications. The
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory assists in providing an
authoritative and defensible engineering basis for assessing and solving
these problems. Its products support the policies, programs, and regula-
tions of the Environmental Protection Agency, the permitting and other
responsibilities of State and local governments, and the needs of both
large and small businesses in handling their wastes responsibly and econom-
ically.
This report, Volume I of a two-volume set, presents information on
reclamation and redevelopment of contaminated land in the United States.
Case studies describe land use history, nature of the contamination, re-
development objectives, site remediation, and criteria for cleanup. For
further information, please contact the Land Pollution Control Division of
the Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory.
Thomas R. Hauser, Director
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
-------
ABSTRACT
There are numerous cases in the United States where uncontrolled
dumping or industrial spills have contaminated properties with hazardous
materials (now more than 18,000 sites have been inventoried by U.S. EPA).
Since many of these properties are in prime urban locations, issues sur-
rounding the reclamation and redevelopment of contaminated properties have
assumed national importance. The principal objective of this study has
been to document with case studies relationships between site remediation
methods, cleanness criteria, and redevelopment land uses.
After extensive interviews with Federal and State officials in all 50
States, 16 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites were selected for detailed
study. For each of these sites, remedial actions have been undertaken or
are planned with some upgraded redevelopment of the property in mind.
Redevelopments include single- and multi-family residential, recreational,
commercial, institutional, and light industrial land uses.
Two distinctly different types of redevelopment efforts were encoun-
tered—publie-initiated projects and developer-i ni ti ated projects. In the
case of public-initiated projects (for example, most Superfund sites),
immediate concerns for community health are paramount, and site reuse, if
any, tends to be incidental to site cleanup.
In the case of developer-initiated projects, the developer attempts to
recover site cleanup costs through resale of the property. Thus, he simply
diverts into cleanup operations money that would otherwise be used to
purchase uncontaminated land. The economic feasibility of a developer-
initiated project may depend directly on the standard of cleanness required
of a site for a particular redevelopment type. Since property decontamina-
tion standards and guidelines have not been formulated for most situations,
some confusion exists and hence, developers generally view contaminated
site reclamation/redevelopment projects as undesirable ventures.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No.
68-03-3149, 23-1 by Research Triangle Institute under sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers a period from
May 1, 1983 to May 1, 1985, and work was completed as of June 30, 1985.
-------
CONTENTS i
Page
Forword L ill
Abstract 1 > . . . iv
Figures . [ vii
Tables i vi i
Acknowledgments l ix
1 Introduction 1
Background 1
Purpose 1 2
Organization ;. 3
2 Summary and Conclusions 1 4
Case Studies 4
Conclusions i 11
• I
3 Approach and General Observations [ 14
Approach to Information Gathering. . . i 14
General Observations I • • • • 16
The California Program i 18
The New Jersey ECRA i 19
. i .
4 Criteria to Guide Cleanup. . . i . . . . 20
Guidelines for Air ....I ... 21
Guidelines for Water i 22
Guidelines for Soil and Solid Waste. 1 . . . . 24
i Nonthreshold Pollutants [..... 31
5 Reclamation and Redevelopment Case Studies 33
Hercules Properties, Hercules, California 33
Homart Development, South San Francisco, California 37
Bolsa Chica Site, Huntington Beach, California. , . . 43
Kellogg Terrace, Yorba Linda, California 47
Miami Drum Services Site, Miami, Florida 51
Kapkowski Road Site, Elizabeth, New Jersey 54
The Courtyard, Winooski , Vermont. . . . I 62
Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. . 63
Chemicals Metals Industries, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland 69
New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Plattsburgh,
New York i 75
Aidex Pesticide Facility, Glenwood, Iowa 79
Gas Works Park, Seattle, Washington, i 80
Quendall Terminal, Renton, Washington 89
Boulevard Park, Bellingham, Washington.". 93
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
References 96
Appendix A Summary of Contacts 102
Appendix B ' Existing Guidelines Useful in Site Assessment and Cleanup.. 113
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
1 Elizabeth Industrial Park, Elizabeth, New Jersey 57
2 Aerial view of Gas Work Park prior to demolition by WGN 82
3 Aerial view of Gas Works Park, Washington 90
4 Boulevard Park, Bellingham, Washington showing locations of samples
taken by EPA 94
TABLES
Number
Page
1 Redevelopment Sites Selected for Case Studies 5
2 California Guidelines for Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
(STLC) and Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) Values for
Persistent and Bioaccumulative Substances 27
3 California Department of Health Services Recommended Toxic
Waste Removal Criteria Applied to City of Hercules
38
4 Highest Concentration of Listed Parameters in Water and Soil Samples
at the MDS Site Prior to' Cleanup Program 53
5 Florida Department of Environmental Regulations (FDER) "Minimum
Criteria" for Groundwater Quality 55
6 Ground water Quality Criteria Statewide Where the Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS, Natural Background) Concentration is Between 500 mg/1
and 10,000 mg/1: Class GW3 61
7 Water Criteria for Heavy Metals,
68
8 Cleanness Criteria for Radioactive Materials on Surfaces 70
9 Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Radioactivity in Air and Water.. 71
10 Summay of PAH Levels in Samples taken from 6-inch depth
(At Gasworks Park 37
vii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
11 Highest Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
Samples Taken from Boulevard Park
95
B-l National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards (40 CFR
Part 50)
114
B-2 OSHA Regulations Adopted in 1971 • I15
B-3 OSHA Substance Specific Health Standards Adopted After 1972 127
B-4 Summary of NIOSH Recommendations 128
B-5 1983-1984 ACGIH Recommended TLV s
B-6 Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Inorganics Levels (40 CFR,
Part 141)
B-7 Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Organics Levels (40 CFR,
Part 141) •
B-8 Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides Levels (40 CFR,
Part 141)
B-9 National Secondary Drinking Waster Standards (40 CFR, Part 143)
B-10 1980 Water Quality Criteria Based on Health for Noncarcinogenic
(Threshold) Pollutants
B-ll Water Quality Criteria for Nonthreshold Pollutants.
B-12 Water Quality Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Life (Excluding
Pesticides and Halogenated Species
149
149
150
150
151
153
155
B-13 National Academy of Sciences and EPA SNARLS (Suggested No
Adverse Response Levels) and Other Unenforceable Advisory
Levels
B-14 Maximum Concentration of Contaminants for Characteristic of EP
Toxicity for RCRA Hazardous Waste (40 CFR, Part 261)
165
170
viii
-------
B-15 Interim Limits on Metal Application to Agricultural Soils 171
B-16 Reported Levels of Selected Elements in Soils 172
B-17 Substances with Designations Based on Carcinogenicity 175
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge RTI Economist, Mr. Richard Harper, for
his assistance in information gathering during the initial phase of the
project, Ms. Mary Aitken for her help in writing several of the case studies,
and Mr. Robert Chessin who assisted in assembling the criteria in Appendix B.
We also acknowledge EPA staff members—Project Officer, Ms. Norma Lewis;
Mr. Don Sanning, Program Manager for Remedial Action Investigation; and
Ms. Naomi Barkley, who has recently replaced Ms. Lewis as the official
Project Officer—for their guidance and helpful comments throughout the
study. We are very grateful for the cooperation shown by the various
local, state, and Federal officials who have answered our questions and
provided information on specific sites.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Prior to 1976, few states had regulatory programs for land disposal of
hazardous wastes. However, national awareness of hazardous waste problems
increased dramatically in the mid to late 1970's as it became evident that
mismanagement and indiscriminant dumping of hazardous wastes at many sites
had led to the release of toxic materials into the land, water, and air.
Congress responded to the national concern over hazardous wastes by
enacting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) better known as Superfund. RCRA is concerned primarily with
the proper management and permitting of present and future controlled
hazardous waste containment areas. Superfund activities focus on potential
hazards posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Currently under the CERCLA program, more than 18,000 uncontrolled
waste sites are inventoried in EPA's Emergency and Remedial Response Infor-
mation System (ERRIS). Of these ERRIS sites, 541 have been determined to
represent such a critical problem that they have been included on the
Superfund National Priority List (NPL) (1). An additional 309 sites have
been proposed for inclusion in the NPL (2). Cleanup of these NPL sites is
now either under consideration or is underway. The number of sites in-
cluded on the NPL is expected to grow to between 1,400 and 2,000 during the
next two years.
Uncontrolled hazardous waste sites are distributed throughout the U.S.
occurring in various geological settings and in urban as well as rural
areas. Uncontrolled sites may be operational, inactive, or abandoned. A
wide range of chemical wastes has been deposited at uncontrolled land
sites, and the extent and severity of the resulting environmental con-
tamination varies greatly across sites.
The extent of remedial action required to protect the public health
and welfare is influenced by numerous factors, many of which are site-
specific. Some of the important factors are climatic or hydrogeological in
nature. Others relate to land surface features such as topography or devel-
opment that determine exposure routes. The types of chemicals present
on-site, the potential for migration, the degree of contamination, extent
of the area affected, and the costs of remedial action alternatives are all
issues that must be considered as mandated by the National Contingency Plan
-------
(NCP) under CERCLA. Other important issues include the relationship to
drinking water sources and population centers, potential social and eco-
nomic impacts, and the potential for land redevelopment and reuse.
Costs of site remediation vary greatly, ranging from several hundred
thousand dollars up to $20 million per site. A 1983 report by the Office
of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress (OTA) concludes that "to
clean up a substantial fraction of the more than 15,000 presently known
uncontrolled hazardous sites is likely to cost, in public and private
spending, a total of $10 billion to $40 billion" (3). CERCLA funds are
intended to be used only for cleanup of uncontrolled sites where no respon-
sible party can be identified, or for advancing funds for cleanup prior to
recovery of costs from responsible parties.
There are many uncertainties about the effectiveness of cleanup activ-
ities at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. In addition to the technical
risks associated with site remediation, public beliefs and attitudes will
also determine in part the success of remediation activities, at least as
they pertain to site redevelopment.
A central issue for the planning of any remedial action is the cri-
teria to be used in determining the extent of cleanup required. Acceptable
concentration limits that establish the extent of cleanup necessary to
protect public health and welfare have not been determined for most toxic
substances of concern. The "how-clean-is-clean?" question is often posed
in relation to the NCP under CERCLA. Although U.S. EPA has received con-
siderable comment regarding the need for allowable levels of release from
sites following remediation, the agency has maintained that the flexibility
in the current approach is appropriate because of the site-specific nature
of most problems and the need to move ahead with remediation programs in an
expeditious fashion.
In view of the large number of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. and the extent of effort required to properly remediate these
sites, issues related to uncontrolled hazardous waste site remediation and
redevelopment are of national significance. However, because site remedia-
tion and reuse are relatively new public concerns, very little information
concerning hazardous waste site redevelopment has previously been compiled
to describe instances where redevelopment has occurred following site
cleanup. This report presents a beginning in this new area.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document the value and importance of
land reuse planning in the design of hazardous waste remediation measures.
Major emphasis is placed on presenting the functional relationships among
alternatives with respect to site remediation methods, cleanup criteria,
and options for reuse. The three main objectives are:
-------
1. To identify and document specific instances where uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites have been cleaned up and
redeveloped;
2. To assemble information on the criteria that have been used
to guide hazardous waste cleanups; and
3. To examine the relationships between site reuse and the
extent of remediation or cleanup criteria.
ORGANIZATION
A summary of the, project findings and conclusions is provided in
Section 2. The approach to the data gathering and findings of a general
nature are detailed in Section 3. In Section 4 the available standards and
criteria that have been used to guide remedial actions are examined.
Section 5, the main section of the report, documents the experience at
specific sites where redevelopment has followed cleanup of hazardous waste.
The sites presented as case studies in Section 5 were selected from among
many that were identified during the course of the project because collec-
tively they illustrate many of the problems and solutions applicable to
contaminated land reclamation and redevelopment.
Appendix A lists the U.S. EPA, state office and U.S. Army officials
who were contacted during the course of the project and who provided infor-
mation to the project team. Appendix B consists of tables listing some of
the various guidelines that have been used in site assessments and as
criteria for site remediation efforts.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
There are many Instances in the United States where uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites have been or soon will be redeveloped for some up-
graded land use. This trend is expected to increase in the future as more
sites are remediated. Sites that are redeveloped following hazardous waste
cleanups are not easily documented through references to the open literature
for several reasons. First, the brief history of federally-supported waste '
site redevelopment efforts in this country has not yet resulted in a long
list of completed projects. Second, the substantial costs and investment
risks associated with hazardous waste site cleanup operations appear to
have discouraged developers from attempting to reclaim many contaminated
sites. Third, the delays associated with decision-making may stifle re-
development projects where hazardous wastes are involved. When developers
do become involved with an uncontrolled hazardous waste site, they try to
perform the necessary remediation to the satisfaction of the regional and
local authorities with little publicity if possible.
CASE STUDIES
To serve as case studies to illustrate contaminated land reclamation
and development, 16 sites located in nine states were selected and examined
in detail. Case study sites include former Department of Defense (DOD)
properties, defunct gasification sites, abandoned chemical recovery and
drum recycling facilities, a former steel mill, munitions, fertilizer, and
pesticide manufacturing.sites, a coal tar refinery, a warehouse for chemical
storage, and several uncontrolled dump sites. Land reuses at these sites
include industrial parks, recreation parks, a hotel and convention complex,
single family residences, a public school, residential condominiums, a
housing complex for handicapped and elderly, a neighborhood playground, and
State offices and facilities. Brief descriptions of the sites examined in
the remediation/redevelopment case studies are provided in Table 1.
Six of the land reuse case studies are located in California. Concerns
at these sites pertained mainly to potential exposure of persons who might
live or work at the site following redevelopment. In most cases, material
and soil that were determined by the California Department of Health Services
(CDHS) to be hazardous were removed to a permitted disposal facility. All
of the California case studies are located near large metropolitan areas.
In Hercules, California, the former site of the Hercules Powder Works
which manufactured dynamite and other munitions from 1912 until 1963,
three cases of successful redevelopment are documented. A residential
-------
CO
w
Q
^
£
w
en
o
o
iLE 1. REDEVELOPMENT SITES SELECTED F
C""1
.*
o
•H
cd
•H
T3
0)
Ptf
Nature of Contamination
O •
"rl
*r
.*!
U
CO
CU
o
CU
CO
3
cu
•o
§
cu
4J
•H
cn
1 >-.
1 3 M 4J
cd CJ 01 -H
O O.I-H
X O TH
oi o cd cj
-3- cd
CO •. O MH
rH Csl 4-1
•HA rH
O ^ Tl «
CO 01 CO
g > O
T> O CX
01 3 B CO
4J O 01 TH
cd rl T)
C3 m
•H CO CO 0)
E CO -H 4J
cd ^ M co
4J i— 1 43 Cd
C oi S
O (3 Tl
cj cd co
43 13 3
«« 4-1 C O
Tl Cd Tl
01 01 rl
> M rH Cd
O O TH N
6-S o cd
01 CO 43
. MH Tl
CD Tl O 01
BO) 4-1
5 4J y^ 4J
)H Cd T) -H
Q > (>•> B
.
Formerly used for TNT production by
Hercules Powder Works; numerous
deteriorating metal drums and soil
contaminated with heavy metals (Pb,
Zn, Cu, Cd) and explosives.
^
cd
Bio-Rad Laboratories
175 acres
Hercules, CA
Reuse: Industrial P.
cd
rH 01
TH H 01 rl 4J
O 01 !3 M Cd C
CO 4J Q O 01
'co B c3 S
MH Cd <4H TH -CX
O S O >i O
43 rH rH
/-N CO CO rH CU
TJ 3 01 T) TH >
!>-, O 3 01 >4H 01
TJ Tl IH T)
3 rl TH 01 C
CJ Cd CO > Cd i-H
N 01 O 0) Cd '
O cd H O rH iH B
O 43 O 4-1 cd
O 0> TJ (3 l-r
« TJ B fi MH oi oo
O 01 O « O Tl O
rH 4-1 CO TH rl
^ U 01 x~, CO CX
TH «•> 4-1 4J 01
B S >> ft MH H M
C 4J CD C
3 0) TH C CN B TH
O CXrH O —* O rl
•H 1 M O
vo cd o 4J o MH 4-i
•a- cd MH rH -rl
VO O MH O! »— • Tl C
.. 4J rH 01 O
r~ rH B 4J B
*o cd CQ cj
4-> 01 CO K m TH M
co > o Q >H cd
o o ex a u o
B B co T3 cd co >>
rH 01 -H C 42 01 1
.
o a 4-1
IH -H
/-N 0) rH
13 CX-H
£*i cj
cd cd
CJ O
4J i-H
o cd
O T) CO
O OI O
» > (X
O O CO
tf) B TH
^ N
rH Cd Cd
< G 43
Site of uncontrolled dumping of
refinery sludges (>1,529 cu m)
prior to 1963; permitted Class III
landfill from 1963. .Contaminated
with acidic petroleum wastes
(aliphatic and aromatic hydro-
carbons, amines, thiophenes);
methane and odor.
CO
B
3
13 O (3
O TH -H
•H rH S
4J rH O
Cd TH Tl
IH e a
0 0
(X "1 U
Bolsa Chica
12.5 acres
Mola Development Cor
Huntington Beach, CA
Cost of Cleanup: >$
Reuse: Residential
(224 units)
,
•H CO
S 9
cd o
4J 13
(3 Tl M rH
o c cd n)
u id N co
cd o
MH CU 43 (X
O 4J CO
•H MH "H
4J . (3
•H O B CU
O Tl 3 TH
•r-> 01 O CO
S TH O MH
cd o o
S S r. ?,
B o e 4->
3 cj cd
rH • 43 13
O CO 4-> 01
> •-< S
cd oi o
OJ TH rl B
00 rl O 0)
rl 01 23 rl
= Cd 4J *
rH Cd rH >•»
B • Cd. 4J
O 13 -H TH
4J 13 01 rl rH
CU fX OI -H
OI 4J CX 4J CJ
3 cd cd cd cd
P C CJ B MH
Formerly a steel mill and fabri-
cation plant using coal-fired
open hearth furnace. Soils contam-
inated by heavy metals, oils, and
acids deposited over 75 years.
Localized high concentrations of As,
Cr, Zn, Cu, Ni, low pH, and PCB's.
1 C
CX O
0 TH
rH 4J
0) G
> < 01
01 O >
o a
The Gateway
117 acres
Developed by Homart
ment Company
South San Francisco,
Reuse: Hotel and Cc
Center
•O
(D
p
•H
4_3
c
o
o
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
B
o
•H
4J
cd
•iH
•o
1
G
0)
W
:ure of Contamination
4-1
cd
S
0
•H
4*1
P.
•H
IH
O
CO
CO
ca
-> CO
13 O
9 CO P,
O > CO
O TH
§e 13
co
cs IH co
CT> rH to
^^ rH cd
e MH
co
9 T3 9
0 C 0
cd 13
-*}• r(
en t-1 ed
O iH N
•> o cd
r-- to J3
sand and gravel excavation
i 1940; uncontrolled dumping
iery waste and used drilling
1940 's. Contaminated from
and aliphatic and aromatic
•bons .
O »M H
MH 4J -H S « cd
O MH TH CO CJ
M CO TJ
•H M <4H 9 & t*>
W P, O B P-i J3
1
•H
c1 "s
cd o
rtu
0
CJ 0
4J rH
CO i-l
0 4-1
Ol QUO)
O i-H 13 x-v
ed CO » -rl CO
M > Cd CO 4->
rl CU T3 0) -H
CO Q B « C
H to TH 9
CO M J
60 rl CU •• •*
O O rH ed 01 0)
rH Cd rH J3 CO C-l
I-H CO rl 9 ^
O rH MH O CO
X CM O fw «
MH 1 1
1 O 13 01 C
•HI CO > 0
COCO X B CO 4J O CJ
BC O O B 4-1 JD 1-1
9'tHtOrlO9iH-s!iH
M rH rH P, US N
13 O rH P.MH 13 C
CO Cd < O CO •
rj Cd S in P, >, •
cd too /— *. r^ 4J 13
4J • CO rH Cd iH CO
CO t3 . 60 a rH >
SBCOBO13OTHO
13 c 4J cd cd co
B IH Cd CO O *rj MH rl
cd co 4-i cd o to 01
4J H rH TH > rH 13
O cd T3 *P ^-^ M O Cd B
TH |J B 13 rt B CO Cd
4-1 9 a co co co o
cd i-H IH CO O CO 01
i-H TH M 4J 13 CO TH TH •
P-> C 01 T3 4-1 T3
co ,JQ cj ed too p< 01
into S'Sw^HrHra " i
»cd 4-1 a> o co co co a>
rH^aedaco ?^>Cd C01313 CO
0)OP,OCO-HiHed9
lHBB04JBi-HNOB
ooi9oicdcdocd>H3
g IH P.T3 B 4J CO JS ClO-H
CO
;ed by Chemical Metals Indus-
nc. for recovery of precious
rom waste chemical solutions
ted circuit boards. Large
f leaking drums (corrosive
ammonia- or cyanide-bearing
s, organic solvents); storag
nstable powdered and solid
m metal; high levels of Cd
Contaminated groundwater .
9 iH CO ed -H i-H
"CDIHMT3-H «CiH
COCOrHp,a>lHMCOOO
aicucd ,n s a) A! o co
4JiH4J13 B CT4J a IH
MH
0
O 4J
o e ••>
o co co
« B too
in 4J cd
CM P IJ
en cd o
CO «- P, 4-1
CO A CO CO
i! ° is M
co .• 13 K H
p< C ed cd
13 9 ed (x,
cd p C rH cu
O SS cd t>% o 13
SA CO H iH O
« rH ed MH O
CO CO O S MH ,£3
iH IH OH
rH O MH O
O B o •• .*"? .^
P.-H CO 4J £
Cd 4J 4-1 CO t— 1 60
C rH CO 9 Cd -H
C n) o co co co
1 CO
B 9 1
cd o c
4J 13 O 1
C H O T3
O ed PJ
CJ N >-, 9
Cd rH O
•a .e rH IH
C ed u
ed *o C
CO -H
to 4J too •
•H 4J IH CO
J-ia s
CO C rH
•B 01 p.
Pi •
CO >, £3
9 O 4J -rl
O 4-1 -H .
13 i-H 4J 0)
rl 13 "H MH 4-1
Cd Ol CJ 0) -rl
N ^ Cd rH tO
ed 0 MH C
43 8 CO O
Ol rH rH
MH IH cd -H T3
o to o cu
rH O CO 4-1
B -H ft. cd
O CO 13 Ol
9 CO -H 0) IH
O 13 4J 4J
•c cd
m CU CO rj (H
01 4-1 4J -H CU
en cd to a 4J
« C ed ed ed
r^ -H S 4-i £
15 years by Miami Drum Ser-
r drum recycling; 400 to 500
ms left onsite. Surface and
ce soils and groundwater
ated from spills — phenols,
tals, oil and grease, and
es.
IH 0 9 cd C 0) 13
O MH H MH iH B iH
MH 13 IH B O
to 9 cd PX.-H
T3 CO 13 CO 4J > 4-1
co o co ,a c cd co
CO -H CO 3 O 0) CU
» > 9 CO O ,£3 p.
4-1
C TH
O rH
•rl -rl
rH 4J CJ
rH TH Cd
•H CO PIJ
a B
cd 0)
^D IH O
• H C
rH Cd
•<«->> C
4-1 Ol
C3 4->
.. 3 a
Ol P. O TH
4J 9 U cd
•H (3 S
co cd co
Ol TJ >,
B rH Id 4J
9 hJ 0 O TH
Q MH O
CO " O •• t£J
•H IH TH 0) 4J
S O B 4-1 CO 3
cd cd ed co 9 •<
TH TH 0 01
a •-< g o PS
••• to o
CO •- O
4-1 P5 Cd tO
Ol O TH
^i PM 0 13
O « bo
o .c co e
•H CO 'rj
B ^ CO rH rH
IH CO p« O 3
MH rH CO CO &
rH O 13 Jt3 M
•H CO O O
O CO 9 MH
too • B
B CO O MH O
•H O 4.1 TH TH
I i cd 4J
cd rH a >i ed
O P. P. 4J >
rH P.TH Cd
MH B rH CJ
•H m TH x
CO O Ol
cd a 13 B
B cd co IH co 9
9 CO IH Ol M O
PH rH 60 O. Ol MH
lied dump site from mid
o 1972. Contamination from
1 containing PCBs up to
m. Between 1 and 3 million
of oil floating on water
d adhering to materials in
primarily in the west area.
0 4J TH P. B
V4 O CX CO CO -
4-1 CO B CO
B - CO O O CO to
O O 4J O rH rH 9
o m co co rH ,n MH
B CA cd * cd cd co
D rH ^ -a- oo 4J M
V4 0)
ed g;
PM
M-4
i— 1 O
M
TH £»>
4J TH >i
co co co IH a)
CO 01 01 3 O CO
•H CJ CJ B 4-1 CO
co cd ed M 9 1-3
13
cd en rH 1-3 i-i 4J co
P(H 1 1 4J O
1 1 - 3 PH 13
•H cd ed ,a Fn s
^i oi oi 4J co cd
CO IH I-i 0) ,C
O cd 01 M
Jli 4J 4J N CO >, O
CX CO CO 1-1 3 ,£) bH
ed oi cd I-H co
M 3 W W cd
0
C
•H
4-J
O
O
-------
'a
QJ
jji
•H
4J
O
0
i— I
EH
G
O
•H
4J
cd
13
Ol
01
g
•H
4J
CO
•H
§
jj
C
cS
MH
O
Ol
4J
^
o
•H
4-1
CX
•H
U
CO
Ol
Q
Ol
CO
3
Ol
PS
c
cd
01
•H
C/3
13
G
cd
co 13 oi
0) 4-1
O 4-1 Ol
4J Cd rH
rH > O,
13 CO CO B
Ol CO CJ O
> o X o
O PL, 0) C
E CD i-l
Ol 1-1 rH
M 13 -H rH
O iH
CO Ol CO -H
rH 4-1 4-1
0) CD 13 CO
r-l CO Ol
I-l IS 4J C
CO Cd 6
43 CO G 1-1
3 i-l 4J
60 O B CO
G 13 CO -H
•H M 4-1 'U
U CO G Ol
co N o B
2 CO O .0)
43 OS
*rt ""rt •
£ 0) >> •
C0 4J W *O
4J -H 0)
M ^ ,_| f>
£ Ea 'H O
a K o s
M -,
i-l O G 4-1
CJ >rl -H
•H CO T3 rH
4-1 CO rH -H
CO CU i-l O
Ol r-l 3 CO
PH CO 43 MH
01
...13
>, 13 -H
4-1 0) O
•H C -H
rH i-14-l
•ri B CD
CJ P 01
CO Ol O.
Pn 4-1
01 r-l
(U *^ Q)
13 43
•H Ol 4-1
O 43 O
•H CO G
4J S O cd
CO O H
0) M ^i
PM rH
„ .. 42
01 Ol CO CO E
13 13 3 CO C
•H 1-1 0) O -ri
t3 T^
G Ol 60 I-l
MH o 4-i G co
O iH cd -ri CX
4-1 G IS CO
4-1 Cd 1-1 O 01 C
co > B. r-i 0) B 60
O CO CO 60 H O -H
E 0 4-1 3 W CO
* a a) co
<4-l W O > I-t G 60
O O O Ol -H • C
I-l 43 CD i-l
Ol . >-, O. 4-1 O r-l G
4-ICOrHErH4-IOIrH
•H 01 01 1-1 3 CO CO
CO rH M PH 13 3 13
1 3 01 O 01
£3 4-1 > 4-1 13 iii
O CJ 01 • 01 rH •
3 CO CO Ol Ol CO CJ
rH M 4J 4J G (3*1-1
Cd 4-1 MH rH 1-1 rH
•HCOOOCOCOO43
M MH 4J 4J 3
3 CO CO M-l 01 rH O.
43 ^ CO 01 43 O Ol
I-l Ol 4J MH rH O
13 O M rH MH 3 4J
C 5 CO CO 4J CU CO
cd 1 -ri cd o "O
CO CJ O C CX 01
CCOl-10ICOOr Ol B3
i-i cd ** ^ ^C
O O) CO CD 1-1 60 PLI
C3 43 CO rH CD G •*-*
60 Cd G -ri
CO cd i-l Ol T3 CO
Cd rH B rH 4-1 3 G
O 3 O 0) !< rH O
CO M 4-1 W CJ 43
01 C M-l Cd G I-l
rH -H B -H *
4-1 G CO * O •
4JOIOIOI4JGOCO
Ol T3 CD O iH 13 Cd
I-l CO S rH CO 43
01 -H 01 Cd G rH
434JV4 -M-41-IOCd
4J G CO S 1-1 O
W 43 rH C CO 4J O
M-l 4-1 r-l O 4J Cd
O i-l -H i-l C B 43
• iS (X 4-1 O O 4-1
01 C CO 3 O M i-l
4J O Tj rH CO U
•H -ri 0) « rH G
COG4-1GOOOT3
!3 co o a. 43 1-1 oi
>-, C 1-1 I-l rH 4-1
oicdco3coooo
B rJ 4-1 13 rH >> O
H C O 13 T3 rH CO
OGOMGXOCO
PM O O (XC043 CX 0)
4^
p
CO
CX
•^ CJ
}-i iH
Cd rH
PM < 43
co S 3
CD 01 PH
r^ rH "
V4 CJ 01
O CO rH ••
S 4J CU
IT! 4J CD
co • cd 3
cd o oi oi
O CM CO PS
Is
01 G 4-1
cj o cd
Cd 4J 01
M-l G rH
rH Ol 4-1
3 PS
CD 13
4J G
4-i G CO
I-l 01
01 > rH
> Ol Ol
•ri rH >
13 £3, O
U
O O 0)
4-1 4J M
CO rH •-
C rH CU
•ri CO A!
cd ^ co
rH h-H
13 P*-»
M 01
43 M 43
O 3 4-1
G rH
01 CO O
rH 4J
•ri
M-l 13
O C 01
cd. 60
B cd
01 rH G
4J Ol 1-1
CO 4-1 CO
>, CO rH
CO IS 13
G
O
1-1
Ol 4-1
13 4«i CO
G (d c
Cd r4 -ri
l-i C cd
CO O 4-1
EH C
£". O
N rH O
Ol 01
rH G 01
rH -ri >
•ri MH i-l
01 01 CO
PS rH C
Ol
Cd ^1 4-J
M-l CO W
O CX
01 O •
4J O C
•ri 0
CO rH 4J
CO 60
VH U G
01 -ri -ri
E 6 43
P CU CO
O 43 CO
P>H CJ 13
rH
cd
G
•ri
Ol
EH
rH CD
rH 0)
cd U
13 O
G cd
Ol
3 O <
O1 CS S
G
rH 0
0) -ri
> 4J
O CO
•ri'
•>
S 60
13 Ol 0)
C M 4-1
3 1-1 Cd
O 4-1 rH
M C 4-1
60 Ol CO
PM OO
cd
CO CO
4-1 CO ^
O 01
3 43 G
T3 60 Ol
O -ri 3
rH 43 rH
a. o
>•> CO 4J
43 cd
13 CD Ol
C G G
CO O 01
•ri N
I-l 4-1 G
CO CO Ol
4-1 rH PQ
4-1
rH C
CO Ol •
O O 4-1
CJ C G
O CU
B cj cj
O rH
rH G 01
M-l iH CX,
13
G
CO
S
E
3
G co
rri 60
S G
O -ri
13 'O
G. rH
O -ri
C-3 3
43
.. CU
CD 1-1
3 M-l
Ol M-l
Crf O
CO
01
rH
43
4-1
1
4-1
G
01
CO
01
M
CX
Ol
I-l
CO
Ol
G
01
rH
>-,
!«!
G
O
aminati
4-1
G
O
o
dwater
G
§
tH
60
1
•ri
S
CO
4-1
G
• O
13 CJ
Ol
4-1 rQ •
60 G Ol 13
C Ol rH O)
•ri B cd 4-1
rH 3 Ol CO
3 CJ > 0
13 o o) a.
13 rH
CO CO
0) 4-1 st C
•ri O OO 60
4-1 G 4J
01 co G co
K P.M G
4J
CO 1 01
rH G • 0
E3< O CO CO
01 MH
C ^ 3 rH
O C 13 3
•ri CO -ri CO
4-1 4-1 CO
CO Ol O
O 0) I-t 4J
•ri 60
MH Cd 4-1 60
•ri M O G
CO O 3 -ri
Cd 4-1 13 CX
60 CO O 01
l-i CU
rH CX tO
CO •
O O CO CO
cj ON C G
OO -ri O
cd rH cd 43
4-1 M
MH G G cd
O 1H O 0
0 O
Ol TJ rH
4-1 .0) rH 13
•ri 4J rH (*>
CO O -ri 43
3 4J
rH M CO 13
Ol 4-1 Ol
gCO Ol lH
G 4-1 M
O O -ri 3
pt< O CO PH
— &
rH
CO
CX
^ B "
01 *ri Ol
rH rH CD
3 rH 3
O Ol Ol
CQ fQ K
M-l
O
CO
o
•ri
4-1
CO
rH
4J
G
01
0
G
o
o
60
•ri
U3
CO
cd
CU
Ol
CO
'O
G
cd
P
CO
4-1
rH
CO
O
O
•a
01
CO
o
ex .
01 -ri
o
C CD
•ri
13
01 01
C JJ
CU CO
rH G
r^-ri
cx B
/^ CO
CO 4J
-^ C
O O
N O
G
01 G
43 -ri
• *
•^_j
0)
^
*t~l
-P
f~l
o
o
-------
•a
TABLE 1. (Continue
Remediation
Nature of Contamination
C
o
•nl
4-)
O<
*rH
M
CJ
CO
O)
a
0)
CO
ai
fa
1
01
4J
CO
d W ,- I
co 4J B • a
C iH O 1 rH O
•H C M C rH O
oo o UH o cd
Tt 4J O S O rH
M C 4J 0 rH P
O CU C O >,rH cd 01
43OI4J|-lCdS !>
OrHiHT3 3 >,IH O U
H iH T3 O) rH 03 IH
>HOCU>tO OCOI
CO to O 43 4J O 43
H S >-, 4-1 3 iH 4-1
Cd !>»'rj Ol^lH CJ4J
Subsurface migration of t
disposal ponds arrested b
slurry wall. Contaminate
river bed excavated and r
tainmerit area surrounded
Containment area capped w
liner. Cement-bentonite
structed to prevent migra
uncontained coal tar into
i
4J | B
C iH cd B
Cd T3 4J O
rH 01 C P
(X co o IH
o
O C H 0)
•rl cd CU 43
4J > O
CO rH -rl CO
0 TH PS 0) •
•HO rH CO
m co o -a
•H CO H C
co C cd o
cd • co 4J p.
W Cd rH rl
i-H co co cd cd
CO tH O 4J
O K 0) O
0 43 rH
Ss 4J 43 cd
Cd 43 4J O
S iH 0
f-.'O 0 S
rH 0) P T3
M 4J
W CO iH -H
fx M 4J OS
01 S fe Cd
4J ^-r CU O
cd - n cd
4-1 a 43 O C
co o oo o) cd
.M 4J to 3 cd
H Cd 0) 43 CO
O W M W .•
SM o O 4J 01 CU
P. Cd 4-1 W 43
S H Cd 3 4J
0) O rH rH 0)
Z O rH fl, «
JU
00 CU
o >
rH 0
o B
iH 01
•b M
pic
o
•H
T3 Cd
CU (3
o «
Explosives residues destn
cal and heavy metal contai
from the site.
Efl 1 r! S
rly used by the U.S. Army
unitions manufacture and
rch development of armament!
avel radiological contamina-
in buildings, deposits of
3ive/pyrotechnic residues,
Loded ordnance, inorganic
:al residues in buildings ai
ground waste discharge syst(
0) B Cd rH O P.1H M
B cu 1 c r-l X B cu
fx«HHH54JO>3CJ3
CO 1 C rH
>> > U CO V M
CO > CO 43 Vt- cd
CU 01 43 fX, 4J
rH 13 iH >O CO 43
Cd 4J CU iH •• rH 00
C CU rl CX FH CO IH T3 C
-i>cdcdo)ooscu
PjO)4JlHrHCUCdB
T3 CO T3C043OPS p.
w CU T3 p. cd O
O t-l C 0) cd CU tH C rH
C 4->OCdrH4JCOCdOI
CdOCU4-l>iHC03SQ
W •— < 43 43 O CU
fe r-i CO PL, CJ &
0} I 'O
C i~H QJ
O cd iH M
4J T3 O 0)
C 0 cd t>
o cd 4-1 IH o
M 0) "O rH
4J 4-1 CU Cd -X3
cu to > to C
vf CU CO TJ
CO 0 rl -H CU
iH T3 rH
Underground tanks emptied;
(93 tons) of solid inorgai
contaminated wood flooring
permitted hazardous waste
ity. Vapor barrier insta]
by 4 inches of concrete.
c!
juse used for storage of
:rial chemicals; formerly
Led by a silk-screening fin
cimately 5.66 cu m (200 cu
: solid chemical wastes
:h wood flooring; traces of
LC solvents, oil.
43 CO O. O O cd C
CU 3 3 H 01 S
W T3 CJ O,»~N C 00
Cd C CJ (3, 4J 0) M
13 -H O < «H 43 O
CO 01
CU 43
4J ^j
cd
•H }-<
CJ O '
o o m >>
CO O r-H
CO O J-» M
•<] M o CO
m o *o.
J_) r~j «p-j r_|
C -e^- o W
O M
S PM T)
H •• C
cu c±4 oo cd
> 3 e
13 C iH T3
H >-, H Cd CO CU
cd 42 > eu 3 p,
>t rH O O*
4J T3 » CJ S3 Cd
H 01 -H U
3 (3, A! IH -H
O O CO O •• T3
O rH O CU (3
CU O 4-1 CO cd
01 (> C 10 3 S3
43 CU iH 0 CU
EH 0 S 0 PS 1
-------
subdivision (single family homes) with a public school was developed as
Bayside Village on the southernmost portion of the former Hercules property
following a very stringent remediation effort in 1981. Cleanup operations
on a second tract of the property were completed in 1983 by Bio-Rad Labora-
tories, and an industrial park is currently being developed there. Another
tract of 50 acres was also cleaned up in 1983 to make way for the residen-
tial condominiums known as Hercules Village.
Residential condominiums also have been developed at former uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites in Huntington Beach and Yorba Linda,
California. Contamination at these sites stemmed from dumping of refinery
wastes including both acid and alkali sludges. The removal operations at
these sites were complicated by extensive foul odors from sulfur compounds
that were released from the petroleum waste during excavation. All waste
material and contaminated soil were removed to a landfill permitted to
receive hazardous waste.
In South San Francisco a former steel mill and fabrication plant site
has been redeveloped as "The Gateway," a hotel and convention center com-
plex. The remediation agreement stipulated that the location of the con-
taminated soils be clearly designated on a site map and that these areas
not be excavated or substantially disturbed in the future without CDHS
approval. A deed restriction was negotiated as a way of enforcing these
provisions over time.
The Dade County Transit Authority has plans for a.maintenance facility
at the former Miami Drum Services site in Miami, Florida. The contamination
resulting from the drum recycling operation caused major concern because
the Biscayne Aquifer which supplies the drinking water for Dade County lies
only one meter below the natural ground surface at the site. Although
total metal concentrations in the soil were used as guidance in the initial
excavations, final excavations were guided by the results of chemical tests
together with engineering and scientific judgment.
The former Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. site in Baltimore, Maryland,
also presented an immediate potential hazard. In this case, the major
concerns included imminent threat of fire or explosion in the residential
neighborhood due to the chemical incompatibilities of the materials present
and to the potential hazard posed by runoff from the site. Following a
remedial action under CERCLA, the site now serves as a neighborhood play-
ground and as the location for a state office building.
In Winooski, Vermont, a warehouse formerly occupied by a silk-screening
firm and used for storing a variety of chemicals has been rennovated to
provide housing for elderly and handicapped persons. Remedial action at
the site involved removal of piles of solid chemical wastes that had fil-
tered through cracks and holes in the wooden flooring.
-------
Remediation and redevelopment at the Kapkowski Road site in Newark,
New Jersey, are underway currently by the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey. Pockets of PCB-laden oil are being eliminated through a series
of oil recovery wells. The site had been used for many years as a dump,
receiving solid refuse and waste oil. The property, adjacent to the Newark
Airport, is a prime location for development as an industrial park. The
extent of the remediation effort that will be performed will be determined
when excavation begins for building. During construction if soils are
encountered that contain more than 5 ppm of PCB's, the contaminated mate-
rial will be removed to a permitted disposal facility.
A local Industrial Foundation in Glenwood, Iowa, is currently seeking
a tenant for a site formerly occupied by a pesticide plant. An extensive
cleanup at the site was carried out following a fire in 1979.
At Plattsburgh, New York, a recreation park now occupies a site where
a_coal gas generating plant operated from 1896 until 1960. Large quanti-
ties of coal tars stored in unlined ponds resulted in the contamination.
The site remediation consists of containment onsite and a cement-bentonite
partial cutoff wall to arrest any further migration of the contamination
into the Saranac River. In allowing the material to remain onsite, the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has imposed
certain restrictions to development.
Two other coal gasification sites located in Seattle and Bellingham,
Washington are now used as recreation parks. The extent of the remediation
efforts at these sites is not documented because at the time of the rede-
velopment, hazardous wastes were not of much concern. Recent investigations
at both sites have revealed the presence of high levels of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from coal tar.
Among the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) sites where remediation and
redevelopment have been undertaken is the Frankford Arsenal site located in
eastern Philadelphia on the Delaware River. For more than 150 years, this
110 acre site was associated with Federal munitions research, development
and production. When the U.S. Army decided to excess the facility in 1976,
the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) assumed
responsibility for the site cleanup to satisfy the requirements of the
General Services Administration prior to sale of the property to private
developers. A large portion of the old arsenal has been sold to a develop-
ment consortium and will be developed for use by multiple tenants for light
industry. The property closest to the water is intended for use as a
regional marina and park to be built by the Pennsylvania State Fish
Commission. Projected for completion in 1986, development of this 18-acre
facility is expected to cost $3 million.
The redevelopment of a former coal tar refinery site in Renton,
Washington is currently in a planning stage. The site has extensive con-
tamination from slag and waste landfilled during the operation of the
10
-------
refinery which produced creosote and pitch for wood preserving. A private
development consortium has proposed a remediation scheme which is con-
sidered by the Regional EPA officials and local authorities to be sound.
The proposed remediation and redevelopment plans have been delayed recently
because the site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
CONCLUSIONS
In the past the presence of hazardous substances in soils was not a
major public concern. Thus, many contaminated sites were redeveloped with
minimal attention to the chemical contaminants remaining in the spil. Old
dump sites which received industrial as well as municipal wastes, for
example, have often been reclaimed for upgraded uses. Remediation efforts
(e.g., excavation of filled materials) were usually undertaken to ensure
adequate bearing capacity of the soil rather than to minimize exposure to
hazardous materials. Chemical characterization of the soil contamination
was usually neglected because it was not deemed necessary.
One type of contaminated site that is encountered frequently is former
gas works. At the turn of the century, almost every town had a gas works
where coal or oil was converted to gas for lighting and other products.
These processes also produced large quantities of solid wastes including
heavy tars (containing high concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons) and spent oxides (used in the gas cleanup) which were often disposed
on or near the plant site. As natural gas became available, the gas plants
became uneconomic and were gradually phased out. Typically the gas plants
were located near the center of populated areas (to facilitate distribution)
on properties potentially valuable for redevelopment. Thus, many of these
sites were redeveloped at a time when soil contamination was not widely
recognized as a potential health problem.
In spite of the large number of documented hazardous waste sites in
the U.S., relatively few sites have been cleaned up with specific redevel-
opment in mind. Remedial actions usually are undertaken to contain or
remove chemical contaminants with little or no consideration given to the
ultimate use of the site. If land reuse is decided prior to the cleanup,
there may be opportunity to tailor the cleanup activities to best suit the
site redevelopment.
Site redevelopment options are often limited by the extent and nature
of the remedial action. Sometimes, however, this can be made ah advantage.
In one case study, a California condominium development, the site redevel-
opment plan took advantage of the extensive excavation required for the
site cleanup to provide underground parking at the site. This proved to be
practical as a design solution and alleviated the problem of filling a
large area.
There is a need for policy at the Federal level regarding redevelop-
ment and reuse of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Most states do not
11
-------
have the resources to develop the guidelines needed to deal with the cleanup
of contaminated land. Almost all states have problems with the "How clean
is clean?" issue. Particularly for contaminants that are encountered at
many sites, guidance regarding levels that are expected to be safe need to
be developed based on realistic exposure scenarios.
The extent of cleanup that is necessary to protect human health and
welfare varies with different use categories. Residential development is
probably the most sensitive type of land use because of the long term and
multiple exposure routes and potential exposure to the most sensitive
population segments (e.g., children and elderly persons).
Excavation and removal appears to be the remedial action alternative
selected at most sites where there is redevelopment. This is because no
one^can guarantee that a site is safe (i.e., zero risk) unless all con-
taminants are removed. Neither a developer nor a municipality can accept
responsibility for site safety as long as hazardous materials remain there.
In situ treatment approaches are seldom viewed as the best option because
they are unproven and because 100 percent detoxification or stabilization
cannot be achieved.
If "acceptable levels" are developed to use as criteria for site
cleanup^ decisions, caution must be exercised in applying the criteria at
each site. For example, lead levels near major highways are typically
high. To require cleanup in urben locations to levels that are considered
appropriate for pristine environments would be inappropriate.
Uncontrolled waste site development projects appear to be of two
distinctly different types. The first type may be termed the developer-
initiated redevelopment effort. Such cases of site cleanup and redevelop-
ment occur in large metropolitan regions and other areas where the loca-
tional advantages of a site alone are so great that cleanup costs can be
recovered through future resale of the remediated property. In such cases,
the decision to remediate and redevelop a specific site is made in the
private sector, and the public sector simply regulates and certifies the
cleanup process. Such was the case for several of the examples of site
redevelopment case studies in California.
The second type of hazardous waste site redevelopment project is the
public-initiated project where reuse of the land is clearly secondary in
importance to the site remediation that is required for public health and
safety. This appears to be the case, for example, with almost all sites on
the NPL. For most public-initiated cleanup operations, remediation activi-
ties are so complicated and costly that the economic value of the site
following cleanup only partially (if at all) justifies the cleanup operation.
Where a remediated site passes into public ownership, reuse will probably
be determined by the specific property needs of the governing body at that
particular location and point in time.
12
-------
It is important to note that these two types of hazardous waste site
redevelopments result from two entirely different motivating forces. In
the first case (developer-initiated cleanups), the developer is simply
responding to land market forces and diverting into cleanup operations
dollars that would otherwise be used to purchase uncontaminated land. In
the second case (public-initiated cleanups), the redevelopment decision is
made in the public sector, and there is no explicit requirement that cleanup
costs be recovered through future uses of the property.
Of the sites in reuse examined in this study, few involved Superfund
monies. The complexity of the legal process in dealing with Superfund site
cleanup is not conducive to deliberate redevelopment efforts. Even in
cases where emergency remedial response actions have been completed, it
appears that the site may remain in receivership and go unused for long
periods of time (typically several years) while the courts decide cost
recovery and/or property ownership issues.
California appears to lead other states in the formulation and enact-
ment of legislation and regulations pertaining to the cleanup and redevel-
opment of properties contaminated with hazardous waste. With adoption of
the California Assessment Manual (CAM) Standards, California has begun to
define quantitatively what is meant by "hazardous waste contamination."
Their program for guiding redevelopment of contaminated land appears to be
the most advanced state program in the Nation.
There are many sites in the U.S. that require remedial actions and
reuse planning. The learning experiences of developers and public agencies
addressing the issues arising from contaminated land and its redevelopment
can benefit others who might be involved in similar activities. Therefore,
an ongoing effort to assemble the type of information provided through this
study could serve as a valuable source of information for Federal, state,
and local authorities. Such information would also be of value to developers
in the private sector who, having more knowledge of successful redevelopment
projects as well as potential pitfalls, might be more inclined to get
involved in remedial actions.
13
-------
SECTION 3
APPROACH AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
APPROACH TO INFORMATION GATHERING
Background information concerning hazardous waste site remediation and
reuse was assembled from three principal sources:
telephone and on-site interviews with Federal, state, and
local environmental officials;
project records and consultants' reports documenting spe-
cific site remediation/redevelopment projects; and
journal articles and published conference proceedings.
To identify sites that might serve as case studies for remediation and
reuse, telephone and personal interviews were conducted with Federal and
state officials involved with uncontrolled hazardous waste site cleanups.
In addition to contacts with environmental officials in all 50 states,
information was solicited from each of the ten EPA Regional Offices and
each of the ten EPA Regional Superfund Offices. Inquiries were also made
to the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), the U.S.
Army^Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Offices of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. This approach to information gathering was
highly successful and led to the identification of candidate sites for
detailed study. Initial telephone interviews were conducted during the
period July through December of 1983. Many follow-up contacts were made
during 1984 and 1985. Federal and state offices and officials contacted
are listed in Appendix A.
A carefully designed literature search of 13 online data bases was
also conducted, but proved to be of limited value, since there is rarely
any mention of site redevelopment in journal and newspaper articles dealing
with_hazardous waste sites. Thirteen on-line databases were scanned for
combinations of the keywords: site, location, reuse, chemical, hazardous,
reclaim, dispose, dump, tip, and expose." The following databases were
searched:
NTIS (National Technical Information Service), consists of
government-sponsored research, development, and engineering
plus analyses prepared by federal agencies, their con-
tractors or grantees;
14
-------
NEWSEARCH, a daily index of news stories from 1400 news-
papers, magazines, and periodicals;
- NATIONAL NEWSPAPER INDEX, a complete index of The Christian
Science Monitor, The New York Times, and The Wall Street
Journal;
— TRADE AND INDUSTRY INDEX, abstracts of business journals
relating to trade, industry, and commerce;
— MAGAZINE INDEX, covers 370 popular magazines;
UPI News, covers United Press International news stories;
— GPO MONTHLY CATALOG, contains records of reports, studies,
fact sheets, maps, handbooks, conference proceedings etc
issued by all federal agencies;
-- CHEMICAL EXPOSURE, abstracts of chemical industry and pro-
fessional journals;
- PUBLIC AFFAIRS INFORMATION SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, refers to
all fields of social science;
MEDLINE, indexes 3000 journals covering biomedical subjects;
ENVIROLINE, produced by the Environmental Information Center,
covers information related to environmental issues;
— POLLUTION ABSTRACTS, references environmentally related
literature on pollution, its sources, and its control; and
LEGAL RESOURCE INDEX, complete indexing of law journals and
newspapers.
Most of the articles identified through the literature search reported
problems and activities at sites where hazardous waste contamination had
come to public attention. Moreover, such sites were typically of interest
to the media because of the contamination that was still there. In the
U.S., the open literature available describing remediation of hazardous
waste sites is almost exclusively contained in U.S. EPA-sponsored research
reports and conference proceedings. These documents address reuse only
occasionally; most discussions are directed to the manner by which hazard-
ous waste contamination was treated or contained. Thus, to locate examples
of hazardous waste site cleanup and redevelopment in the U.S., more direct
data gathering methods were relied upon.
Information on candidate case studies was assembled from pertinent
project records, local newspaper articles, and various types of government
15
-------
and contractor reports pertaining to specific sites that were identified
through telephone contacts. These materials were reviewed carefully to
decide if a particular site was appropriate for further study. An effort
was then made to assemble complete files on these sites to describe site
location, ownership, and special characteristics; land use history and
redevelopment objectives; the nature of the contamination; the remediation
actions taken or planned; and the specific criteria used to guide the
cleanup effort. This detailed information gathering
telephone interviews and, in some cases, site visits.
to be highly effective in assembling the background
several sites.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
t^j — _ _ _
required additional
Site visits proved
documentation for
From the record searches and interviews, several findings of a general
nature emerged. One observation was simply the small number of Superfund-
assisted sites that have become available for redevelopment. Many uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites do not pose an immediate threat to public
health or welfare as long as they are left undisturbed, and thus they do
not meet the criteria to qualify them as NPL sites. As a result, cleanup
must be initiated by the local government or by the private sector if site
remediation is to be accomplished. Where remediation costs are high,
remediation/reuse will be untertaken by the private sector only in areas
where land values are so high that cleanup costs can be recovered through
rents or resale.
Across the U.S., several contaminated DOD sites have been remediated
and turned back to the private sector during the past few years. Efforts
to restore hazardous DOD or former DOD properties contaminated by hazardous
wastes, unexploded ordnance, and unsafe or unsightly debris will expand
under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) authorized by
Public Law 98-212. DERP'covers both active installations and formerly used
DOD properties. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for imple-
menting the program at properties formerly used by DOD.
A central issue for the planning of any site redevelopment is the
criteria to be used in determining the extent of cleanup that is to be
required. Acceptable concentration limits to establish the extent of
cleanup that is necessary to protect public health and welfare have not
been determined for most toxic substances of concern.
Almost all states have problems dealing with the "how-clean-is-clean?"
issue. Since different uses may imply a need for different cleanup criteria,
this type of judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis. Residential
use is generally felt to require the most stringent cleanup. There are
liability issues associated with the reuse of sites when residuals of
hazardous materials are allowed to remain. No authority can guarantee zero
risk for former hazardous waste sites since total removal of potentially
hazardous material cannot be assured. (Can one molecule of certain chemicals
16
-------
cause cancer?). This concern was expressed by many states. Many states
indicate that no site has been cleaned to their satisfaction. Thus, these
states have not yet confronted reuse issues.
Recognized guidelines pertaining to acceptable pollutant levels in-
clude air quality standards, occupational exposure guidelines, drinking
water standards, and water quality criteria. Although developed for other
purposes, these established sets of guidelines are frequently relied upon
as criteria for cleanup.
Most states have not established a systematic screening approach to
identify potential hazardous waste sites, including sites with potential
for reuse. As a result, plans to develop an uncontrolled hazardous waste
Site for a sensitive reuse could proceed without coming to the attention of
the State authorities. Most states do not have a plan or formal mechanism
for dealing with redevelopment of contaminated land. The only work that
has been done in some states is the cleanup of spills or other emergency
response action.
Several states indicated problems in forcing responsible parties to
agree on hazardous waste remedial actions. Remediation efforts that are
accomplished by the private sector are usually undertaken in preparation
for sale of the land. Companies are reluctant to initiate remedial activi-
ties where cleanup criteria are not spelled out completely in advance.
In some cases it has been found that upgraded reuse of property occurs
only when the expected property value justifies the expense incurred in
cleaning it to the degree necessary to permit a specified reuse. Where
remediation costs are high, remediation/reuse will be undertaken by the
private sector only in areas where land values are so high that cleanup
costs may be recovered through rents or resale.
Some states reported sites that have been cleaned up with public funds
, (either state or Federal) and that now lie idle awaiting settlement of the
issues surrounding the hazardous waste. One question to be resolved re-
lates to who is responsible for bearing the cost of the site remediation.
Although the current owner is not the waste generator, he stands to benefit
from the hazardous waste removal from his property. In such a case, pro-
vision should be made to recover public funds concurrent with the site
redevelopment since
for redevelopment.
the cleanup action contributed to the site's potential
U.S. EPA regional officials and most state environmental officials
involved with site cleanup actions do not follow-up on what happens at a
site after the cleanup is completed. There is no formal tracking of what
happens following the remedial phase. Several officials stated that they
recognized this to be a shortcoming in their program.
17
-------
THE CALIFORNIA PROGRAM
The State of California deserves special discussion in this review of
U.S. experience with hazardous waste site redevelopment. California appears
to be ahead of all Other states with respect to policy and legislation
guiding the redevelopment of contaminated land. Within the California
Department of Health Services (CDHS) a system has evolved during the last
4 years for regulating the cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned indus-
trial sites and waste disposal areas.
California has developed criteria to explicitly define hazardous
wastes. The guidelines contained in the Draft California Assessment Manual,
referred to as the CAM Standards, have been revised several times and until
very recently were not enforcible. The guidelines were adopted, effective
October 27, 1984, as formal definitions of "hazardous" and "extremely
hazardous" wastes and are now enforceable. (These guidelines are discussed
in more detail in Section 4.)
The CAM Standards were not specifically developed to guide the cleanup
at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, but rather to enable a generator to
determine if the waste he produces must be managed as a hazardous material.
The informal standards have proved to be useful as criteria to establish
the extent of remediation necessary to insure that a site is clean enough
to be redeveloped for an upgraded use.
Assembly Bill 2370 (AB 2370) is another important feature in the
California program for hazardous waste site remediation. This law author-
izes CDHS to impose deed restrictions to forbid sensitive uses on any tract
of land (and surrounding properties) that poses a significant threat to the
public health. This significant threat must be established through a risk
assessment procedure that takes into account the nature of the contaminants
present, the potential for exposure, and dose-response relationships that
are established for the particular toxicants at issue. Sensitive uses
include residential development, schools, recreational areas, and other
areas where people (particularly children) and/or animals will be in con-
tact with the soil.
Through its Abandoned Sites Program, CDHS has also developed a syste-
matic procedure to identify sites that are potential hazardous waste sites
(i.e., contain hazardous materials in quantities that pose a significant
human health hazard). This system has been applied only in certain sec-
tions of the state, but it has brought to the attention of the department,
either directly or indirectly, numerous sites that will require cleanup.
The California sites treated in detail in Section 5 serve to illustrate
the approach used by CDHS in guiding hazardous waste site mitigation and
redevelopment efforts.
18
-------
THE NEW JERSEY ECRA
The State of New Jersey has adopted innovative legislation to insure
that the cost of cleanup of hazardous materials will be borne by the owner
of the establishment or property that is remediated. ECRA is the acronym
for the Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act> N.J.S.A. 13:lK-6 et seq.
(P.L. 1983, c. 330), a New Jersey law which became effective on December 31,
1983. This innovative law imposes pre-conditions on the sale or closure of
industrial establishments involved in the generation, manufacture, refining,
transportation, treatment, storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous
substances or hazardous wastes. Under ECRA, the owner or operator of a
firm, or the land on which it is situated, is required to notify the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) within five days of
signing a sales contract, execution of an agreement of sale, a decision to
exercise an option to purchase, or making public the decision to close the
business. In the case of the transfer of property, the owner must, at
least 60 days prior to the actual transfer of property, file with the DEP
either a negative declaration or a cleanup plan. When closing operations,
the owner must notify the DEP either at closing or 60 days following public
release of the decision to close by applying for approval of a negative
declaration or by submitting a cleanup plan for approval.
19
-------
SECTION 4
CRITERIA TO GUIDE CLEANUP
As part of each hazardous waste remedial action, an assessment must be
made of the contamination at the site. The options for remedial action to
remove or otherwise deal with hazardous materials will depend on the nature
of the contamination and other site-specific factors and on the level of
contamination that will be allowed to remain on-site following cleanup.
Thus, a need arises in planning site remediation for criteria to define
acceptable levels of pollutants.
A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) (4) focusing
on EPA's efforts to clean up selected hazardous waste sites notes that
"Superfund provides that long-term remedies be cost-effective, but no
standards exist that specify to what extent sites must be cleaned up to
effect permanent remedy". One concern that surfaced during the GAO review
was the "lack of environmental standards ... for use in making cost-effec-
tiveness determinations".
This section describes some of the recognized guidelines and methodol-
ogies that relate to the "how-clean-is-clean?" issue. Some of the criteria
that are discussed were, in fact, developed for different but related
purposes. They are discussed here, however, since they can be extended to
provide guidance for hazardous waste site cleanup.
In order to determine acceptable contaminant levels in soils, two
primary exposure routes are usually considered--
1. inhalation of gases, vapors, or airborne particulate emanat-
ing from the site; and
2. ingestion of contaminated drinking water.
Other routes that can contribute to exposure include absorption of pollu-
tants through direct skin contact or uptake of water or soil contaminants
by plants and subsequent ingestion by man.
Available guidelines that address air or water quality which might be
affected by contamination from a site are described in Sections that follow.
Occupational exposure guidelines are also discussed since these values are
frequently used to judge the toxic properties of pollutants and to indicate
levels of chemical pollutants in air that may be considered to be tolerable.
Listings of the various air and water guidelines are given in Appendix B.
20
-------
The available guidelines pertaining to soil and solid waste are dis-
cussed following the guidelines for air and water. Included are the maxi-
mum criteria to trigger designation as a RCRA hazardous waste, the Centers
for Disease Control recommendation for dioxin in soil, guidelines for
sludge application to agricultural soils, natural soil background levels,
the California guidelines to distinguish hazardous wastes, and a brief
description of four systematic approaches that have been developed to
predict acceptable levels of contaminants in soil.
Because of the widespread concern over pollutants with the potential
to cause cancer, special consideration is often given during site cleanup
to the presence of certain classes of chemicals (e.g., polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorinated organics). Although quantitative risk assess-
ments have been performed for only a few materials, a substantial number of
pollutants are recognized by one or more authorities as carcinogens. A
brief overview of agencies that designate and assess the significance of
carcinogens is provided.
GUIDELINES FOR AIR
Existing guidelines for air can be used as criteria to compare against
levels of contaminants in ambient air at or near a site and to assess the
significance of exposures.
Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been promulgated (40 CFR,
Part 50) for six criteria pollutants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead. The standards are
presented in Appendix B, Table B-l. Guidelines for acceptable concentra-
tions in ambient air have not been established, however, for most of the
chemicals of concern in hazardous waste.
Occupational Exposure Guidelines
Occupational exposure regulations by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) and recommendations by the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) are useful for comparing chem-
ical hazards. The occupational exposure guidelines take into account the
available data from experimental human and animal studies as well as expe-
rience in the workplace. Odor thresholds as well as toxic effects levels
from airborne contaminants are important parameters in determining the
recommended levels.
The ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®) pertain to more than 600
chemical substances and are updated annually (5). Documentation for each
recommendation is available from the ACGIH (6). The basis for the NIOSH
recommendations are provided in NIOSH Criteria Documents.
21
-------
The quantitative occupational exposure regulations and guidelines are
summarized in Appendix B, Tables B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5.
GUIDELINES FOR WATER
The potential for hazardous contaminants in soils to migrate to
groundwater or to surface water is often of major concern. Detailed evalu-
ation of cleanup levels frequently involves modeling the movement of con-
taminants to groundwater or surface water and estimating the maximum levels
in soil that will not interfere with acceptable water quality characteris-
tics. Drinking water standards and water quality criteria developed by the
U.S. EPA are widely used as guidance for acceptable levels in water. Water
quality standards or criteria developed by individual states may also be
applied.
National Drinking Water Regulations
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR, Part 141)
and Secondary Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR, Part 143) are authorized
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Primary Regulations specify maximum
levels for several inorganic contaminants, selected chlorinated organics,
microbial contamination, radionuclides, and turbidity. The purpose of the
Primary Regulations is to protect public health. Secondary Standards deal
with the taste, odor, color, and corrosivity of drinking water. The
Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Secondary Drinking Water Standards
are listed in Appendix B. (See Tables B-6, B-7, B-8, and B-9.)
Office of Drinking Water Health Advisories
Informal guidelines for concentrations of certain organic chemicals in
drinking water have been developed by the Health Effects Branch, Criteria
and Standards Division, .U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water. The informal,
unpromulgated Health Advisories (formerly called "Suggested No Adverse
Response Levels" [SNARLs]) have been developed for more than 20 organic
chemicals. On April 30, 1982, "Inside EPA" published the "SNARLs" for 16
chemicals. Others have been released for public information because they
were used in litigation actions. Although many of the Health Advisories
are in draft form and labeled "do not cite or quote", they have received
wide distribution in the health effects community. The Advisories have
undergone both internal and external peer review and are relied upon as
guidance in many emergency situations involving quality of drinking water.
A summary of the Advisories is provided in Appendix B, Table B-10.
The Health Advisories pertain to levels acceptable for 1-day, 10-day
or "longer-term" exposure. It should be emphasized that "longer-term" in
this case refers to 1 or 2 years, but not to lifetime exposure. The Advi-
sories have been developed as the need arose in connection with spills or
accidents. The needs were brought to the attention of the Drinking Water
Office by EPA Regional Offices or state environmental agencies.
22
-------
As yet, the program to develop the Health Advisories has not been
formalized although this may change in the near future. Currently, sub-
stantial emphasis is being placed on the Advisories, and there will be an
effort in the future to update those previously developed and to issue new
ones. Pollutants to be addressed in upcoming advisories will be selected
to respond to recommendations made by the EPA Regional Offices and others
who rely on the Advisories for guidance in emergency situations.
Water Quality Criteria
Specific quantitative water quality criteria for protection of human
health have been established for many chemicals of broad concern. Three
independent sets of Water Quality Criteria that are widely recognized are
the U.S. EPA 1980 Criteria (7), the U.S. EPA 1976 Criteria (8), and the
National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering (NAS/NAE) 1972
Criteria (9). Each recommended water criterion based on potential health
effects is supported by considerable documentation. In spite of this,
there is not always agreement among the three sets of criteria. None of
the criteria carry regulatory status.
The U.S. EPA 1980 Criteria address 129 pollutants including several
potentially carcinogenic substances. Estimated concentrations of potential
carcinogens corresponding to a specified risk level, are given. The levels
are based on risk assessments performed by the U.S. EPA's Carcinogen Assess-
ment Group (CAG). Generally, an incremental increase in risk of cancer
over 70 years of 1/1,000,000 is judged to be an acceptable risk.
Water Quality Criteria for protection of aquatic life have been devel-
oped by NAS/NAE and by the U.S. EPA. Criteria were also made available in
1980--a summary of the water quality criteria for 64 toxic pollutant cate-
gories was published in the Federal Register, November 28, 1980. The
availability of 64 water quality criteria documents was also announced in
this Federal Register notice.
The 1980 criteria for protection of aquatic life specify both maximum
and 24-hour average levels. The maximum value, derived from acute toxicity
data, establishes a ceiling value for excursions (i.e., brief intervals of
higher concentration exposure) over the average 24-hour level which will
not cause harm. For most substances, separate criteria are derived for
freshwater and saltwater. For those pollutants where data are insufficient
to allow the derivation of a criterion, narrative descriptions are presented
of apparent threshold levels for acute and/or chronic effects. These
descriptions are intended to convey a sense of the degree of toxicity of
the pollutant.
In 1984 EPA published a new set of guidelines for deriving water
quality criteria for protecting aquatic life. These new guidelines estab-
lish criteria for nine inorganic chemicals. Criteria now set a maximum
concentration and a 30-day average concentration rather than the 24-hour
23
-------
average used earlier. Excursion over the average is limited to one 96-hour
episode in any 30 days. If adequate information is available, separate
criteria are derived for freshwater and saltwater. The LC50 (lethal con-
centration for 50 percent of the test animals), which had been used, is no
longer the preferred toxicity test. Rather, an effective concentration
(EC50) where organisms that become immobilized are included with those
killed is the parameter for determining criteria. Additional changes_to
earlier guidelines include (1) the preferred duration of acute tests is 96
hours (2) test results from aquatic plants are more stringently applied,
and (3) a more diverse set of species is required to develop a criterion.
Water quality criteria are presented in Appendix B, Tables B-ll, B-12,
and B-13. Criteria from 1984, 1980, and 1976 are included.
GUIDELINES FOR SOIL AND SOLID WASTE
Recognized guidelines describing levels of chemical contaminants that
are significant in soils or solid wastes have been established for only a
few substances, and the existing guidelines pertain only to very specific
situations.
RCRA Guidelines
The U.S. EPA has determined that solid waste that exhibits a toxicity
characteristic will be designated a hazardous waste and subject to the
provisions of RCRA. In developing the characteristic, EPA considered a
waste mismanagement scenario involving the co-disposal of toxic wastes in
an actively decomposing landfill which overlies, an aquifer that supplies
drinking water. The toxicity characteristic is based on an extraction
procedure (EP) and termed "EP toxicity" (40 CFR, Part 261.24).
A waste is found to be hazardous due to the EP toxicity characteristic
if any toxic contaminant concentration in the extract (1:20) exceeds 100
times the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard. The EP toxic-
itv characteristic serves as a test for identifying wastes which are capable
of posing a substantial present or potential hazard when improperly managed.
The maximum concentrations of contaminants in the 1:20 waste extract that
trigger the hazardous determination based on EP toxicity are listed in
Appendix B, Table B-14.
California Guidelines
The California Hazardous Waste Control Act requires the State Depart-
ment of Health Services (CDHS) to develop and adopt by regulation criteria
and guidelines for the identification of hazardous wastes and extremely
hazardous wastes. Draft criteria and guidelines have been developed and
are presented in the California Assessment Manual for Hazardous Wastes
(CAM) The earliest version of the CAM was developed in 1978. Several
subsequent versions have been prepared, and feedback on the criteria and
24
-------
CAM standards have been elicited from many organizations since 1978.
During this period, the criteria have been used in California as informal
guidelines to define hazardous wastes.
The CAM Standards are used as guidelines by the CDHS to determine what
material must be removed from a hazardous waste site in order that the
Department no longer considers the subject property as potential "hazardous
waste_property." It should be emphasized that the CAM Standards are used
as guidelines and not as rigid standards. In some sites for example, the
background level for a given contaminant may exceed the CAM standard. This
would be the case for lead at a site near a major highway. In such circum-
stances, the background level is considered in specifying tolerable levels
of contaminants at a site. A rule of thumb sometimes used is that a toler-
able level is twice the background concentration.
The current CAM standards are incorporated in the proposed changes in
the California regulations regarding criteria for identification of hazard-
ous and extremely hazardous wastes. The proposed regulations have been
published and defended in a "Statement of Reasons" in 1983 (10). Following
public hearings on the proposed regulations (December 20, 1983), the CAM
standards were accepted and filed with the Secretary of State on September 17,
1984. The standards became effective 30 days after they were filed.
The proposed hazardous waste identification regulations define the
characteristics of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity and
set forth tests for these characteristics. In addition, concentration
limits are proposed for selected persistent and bioaccumulative toxic
substances which commonly occur in hazardous wastes. The Department has
attempted to establish quantititative limits against which a waste can be
compared to determine if it is a hazardous waste. The proposed regulations
recognize that potential hazard is dependent upon concentrations of hazard-
ous substances in the waste.
CAM Criteria for Identification of Toxic Hazardous Wastes--
A waste or a material is defined as hazardous because of its toxicity
if it meets any of the following conditions:
Acute oral LD50 of less than 5,000 mg/kg.
Acute dermal LD50 of less than 4,300 mg/kg.
Acute 8-hour inhalation LC50 of less than 10,000 ppm.
Acute aquatic 96-hour LC50 of less than 500 mg/L measured in
soft water with specified conditions and species.
Contains 0.001 percent by weight (10 ppm) of any of 16
specified carcinogenic organic chemicals. (See listing
below, under Carcinogenic Substances)
25
-------
Poses a hazard to human health or the environment because of
its carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity,
bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment.
Contains a solubilized or extractable persistent or bioac-
cumulative toxic substance at a concentration exceeding the
established soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC).
(See Table 2.)
Contains a persistent or bioaccumulative toxic substance at
a total concentration exceeding its total threshold limit
concentration (TTLC). (See Table 2.)
Is a listed hazardous waste (California list consistent with
the Federal RCRA list), designated as toxic.
Contains one or more materials with an 8-hour LC50 or LCLo
of less than 10,000 ppm, and the LC50 or LCLo is exceeded in
the head space vapor. (Test method is specified.)
Extensive documentation has been prepared as background for the recom-
mended STLC and TTLC values listed in Table 2.
CAM Criteria for Identification of Extremely Hazardous Wastes—
The California code defines "extremely hazardous waste" to mean
"...any hazardous waste or mixture of hazardous wastes which, if
human exposure should occur, may result in death, disabling
personal injury or illness because of the quantity, concentration
or chemical characteristics of the hazardous waste or mixture of
hazardous wastes."
Examples of materials that are extremely hazardous because of their high
acute toxicity are cyanides, hydrogen sulfide, and parathion.
A waste or a material is designated as extremely hazardous if it meets
any of the following criteria-
Acute oral LD50 of less than or equal to 50 mg/kg.
Acute dermal LD50 of less than or equal to 50 mg/kg.
Acute inhalation LC50 of less than or equal to 100 ppm.
Contains 0.1 percent by weight of any of 16 specified car-
cinogenic organics. (See Section on Carcinogenic Substances.)
26
-------
TABLE 2. CALIFORNIA GUIDELINES FOR SOLUBLE THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION
(STLC) AND TOTAL THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION (TTLC) VALUES FOR PERSISTENT
AND BIOACCUMULATIVE SUBSTANCES (mg/kg wet weight)
3.
Substance
Aldrin
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium (excluding barite)
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (III)
Cobalt
Copper
DDT, DDE, ODD
2 , 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Dieldrin
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Endrin
Fluoride salts
Heptachlor
Kepone
Lead (inorganic)
Lead (organic)
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Molybdenum
Nickel
Pentachloropheno 1
Polychlorinated biphenyls . (PCBs)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Toxaphene
Trichlorethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy propionic acid
Vanadium
Zinc
STLCb
0.14
100
5.0
-
100
0.75
1.0
0.25
5
560
80
25
0.1
10
0.8
0.001
0.02
180
0.47
2.1
5.0
0.4
0.2
10
2.1
350
20
1.7
5,0
1.0
5.0
7.0
0.5
204
1.0
24
250
TTLCb
1.4
500
500
1.0(%)
10,000
75
100
2.5
500
2,500
8,000
2,500
1.0
100
8.0
0.01
0.2
18,000
4.7
21
1,000
13
4.0
20
100
21
3,500
2,000
17
50
100
500
700
5.0
2,040
10
2,400
5,000 .
TTLCC
140
-
50,000
—
-
7,500
10,000
250
_
-
-
-
-
10,000
800
1.0
20
-
470
2,100
-
l,300e
400
2,000
• -
2,100
-
-
1,700
5,000
10,000
_
70,000
500
-
1,000
-
—
Values for inorganics apply to the element and its compounds and are based on
the concentration of the element whether free or combined.
Criteria are for designation as hazardous.
Q
Criteria are for designation as extremely hazardous.
Excluding barium sulfate.
6
Dry weight basis, as lead.
2,7
-------
Has been shown through experience or testing to pose an
extreme hazard to the public health because of its carcin-
ogenicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the
environment.
Contains a persistent or bioaccumulative toxic substance at
a total concentration exceeding its TTLC as specified for
extremely hazardous wastes (see Table 2).
Is water-reactive (i.e., has the capability to react vio-
lently in the presence of water and to disperse toxic,
corrosive, or ignitable material into the surroundings).
Carcinogenic Substances—
The carcinogenic substances specified in the California criteria for
hazardous and extremely hazardous materials have been designated potential
carcinogens by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Under the California criteria, these substances cause a material to be
designated as hazardous if they are present at a concentration of 0.001
percent by weight (10 ppm). A material containing 0.1 percent of these
substances is designated extremely hazardous. The chemicals are the fol-
lowing:
2-Acetylami nof1uorene
Acrylonitrile
4-Aminodiphenyl
Benzidine and its salts
bis(Chloromethyl) ether (BCME)
Chloromethyl methyl ether (CMME)
l,2-Dibromo-3-chlbropropane (DBCP)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine and its salts (DCB)
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (DAB)
Ethyleneimine (EL)
alpha-Naphthylamine (1-NA)
beta-Naphthylamine (2-NA)
4-Nitrobiphenyl (4-NBP)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (DMN)
beta-Propiolactone (BPL)
Vinyl chloride (VCM)
Other Criteria to Define Hazardous Wastes—
California criteria for defining hazardous wastes that are ignitable
and reactive are identical to the Federal criteria for hazardous wastes
under RCRA defined at 40 CFR, Part 261. The California corrosivity criteria
differ from the Federal criteria only in the addition of a pH test for
nonaqueous wastes.
28
-------
Centers for Disease Control Recommendation
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, provides
assistance to states and regional offices regarding environmental impacts
of chemical toxicants. CDC often reviews and critiques environmental
assessments prepared by other agencies. Although the CDC has avoided
recommending acceptable contaminant levels for most pollutants studied, an
action level for dioxin has been endorsed.
Dioxin-contaminated sites that pose a human health threat have been
the subject of recent analyses by the CDC. It has been determined that 1
ppb of dioxin is detrimental to public health and that people should be
dissociated from the hazard. A level of 1 ppb of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) in
soil is recommended as an action level. In cases where soil concentrations
exceed 1 ppb, it is recommended that potential human exposure to the con-
tamination be examined further. If there is human exposure to 1 ppb or
higher on a regular basis, cleanup is indicated.
Guidelines for Sludge Application
Land treatment is one method used to manage wastes, particularly
sludges, as an alternative to land disposal. In land treatment, a layer of
sludge is spread over an area and mixed with the top layer of soil. The
sludge is then decomposed by chemical and biological processes rendering it
nontoxic and suitable for growing crops. There is, however, some concern
as to the level of certain pollutants (e.g., heavy metals) that can be
applied to the soil without causing a problem from plant uptake. Plant
uptake of an element from soil is a function of availability of the element
in the soil, movement of the element to the root, absorption by the root,
and trans!ocation of the element in the plant. Soil characteristics such
as pH, particle size, colloidal properties, salinity, moisture, and compac-
tion may profoundly affect the bioavailability of contaminants to plants
and microorganisms as well as determining the rates of degradation and
transport of pollutants in the soil.
Using soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) as a method of grading soils
on the basis of their affinity for metals, the U.S Department of Agricul-
ture together with the Land Grant Universities1have proposed interim limits
on metal application to agricultural soils (11). The recommendations
developed to guide the rate of sludge application on farmland are listed in
Appendix B. These limits are generally considered to be conservative.
Background Levels
One measure of the significance of contaminants in soil or solid waste
samples may be determined by comparing the levels with reported naturally
occurring concentrations. Provided that levels are within the range that
may occur naturally, one might conclude that the sample contaminant levels
29
-------
are of little consequence. A summary of levels of trace and minor elements
in soils is provided in Appendix B.
Methods for Developing Guidelines
Although a formal systematic approach to determine acceptable levels
of contaminants in soils has not been formally adopted at the Federal
level, several candidate methods to determine acceptable levels have been
described in the literature. Examples of these are the Multimedia Environ-
mental Goals (MEGs), the Composite Hazard Index; the Preliminary Pollutant
Limit Values (PPLVs); and the Monitoring Trigger Levels (MTLs). These
approaches are described briefly below.
MEGs Methodology—
The methodology set forth in the initial MEGs report (12) was a first
attempt to provide a systematic approach to establish a set of trigger
levels for use in environmental assessment. The methodology establishes a
hierarchy to combine a number of models (including ones developed expressly
for the MEGs and ones developed by others) to determine numerical goals for
almost any chemical toxicant. Separate values for air, water, and soil
based on health and ecological effects are computed. There is general
agreement that the MEGs values derived in accordance with the original
methodology provide a reasonable basis for relative ranking of chemical
toxicants. The MEGs should not be interpreted as absolute thresholds,
however, as they are generally overly conservative. The MEGs work com-
prises background information summaries and the calculated MEGs values for
more than 600 chemical species (13).
Composite Hazard Index—
A paper published in 1978 (14) describes a hazard assessment methodol-
ogy for limiting human exposures to environmental pollutants such that
exposure or dose will not exceed some preselected value. The method,
called the Composite Hazard Index, takes into account an estimation of
total pollutant intake and the resulting health effects based on contribu-
tions from all possible exposure routes. The methodology is based on
consideration of the interrelationships between environmental compartments.
The Hazard Index is the ratio of some measure of exposure to the corres-
ponding limit that should not be exceeded because of health risks to human
beings.
The Composite Hazard Index assessment methodology has been applied to
cadmium releases from a smelter complex. The limiting cadmium air concen-
tration is calculated as the air concentration that would limit the accumu-
lation of cadmium within the human kidney cortex to below the 200 microgram
per gram level over a 50-year exposure period.
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Values—
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Values for human health effects were
originated at the U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development
30
-------
Laboratory to provide a rational approach to guidelines for removal of
substances from heavily contaminated soil. The approach is described in a
paper in 1980 (15) and developed in more detail in a later report (16).
The approach involves a systematic analysis of every potential exposure
route in order to identify the most sensitive exposure pathway and the
maximum acceptable level of contamination that can be safely tolerated.
The PPLV approach has been applied at several military sites in an attempt
to determine how much cleanup is necessary to make the land safe for reuse
(17); (18); (19).
Monitoring Trigger Levels—
The development of Monitoring Trigger Levels (MTLs) is an outgrowth of
the earlier MEGs work. MTLs are intended to guide decisions concerning
which contaminants are to be monitored and the necessary sensitivity of the
sampling and analysis program. The monitoring may be associated with a new
industrial facility, uncontrolled site remediation, or other activities.
One of the models incorporated in the MTLs approach that is particularly
applicable to site cleanup involves direct ingestion of,soils by children.
It is recognized that adults often ingest soils and dusts through
eating food with unwashed hands and through eating food which has not been
adequately washed or which has been prepared on contaminated surfaces. The
rate of soil ingestion for adults, however, is much lower than that pro-
jected for a young child in the "oral stage." Older children also may
ingest larger amounts of soil than do adults since they will, often eat food
that has been dropped or placed on the ground or on dust-coated surfaces.
The MTLs report (20) was peer reviewed in early 1984.
be obtained through the EPA Project Officer.
NONTHRESHOLD POLLUTANTS
The report may
Chemical pollutants that are classified as potential carcinogens are
often termed "nonthreshold" pollutants. The concept of nonthreshold means
that exposure at any concentration above zero has an associated carcinogenic
risk. A substantial number of pollutants have been designated as potential
carcinogens and are therefore of particular concern in site cleanup actions.
Recognized authorities that have published lists of carcinogenic
substances include the following:
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
Based on evaluations of more than 500 chemical substances or
processes, the IARC has labeled 42 substances as having "a
positive association or a strong suspicion of an association
with human cancer" (21). Conclusions of the IARC reflect
the extent and nature of the available data in humans and in
animals. Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals
is noted for more than 140 chemicals.
31
-------
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
A list of 117 agents was published in 1983 in the Third
Annual Report on Carcinogens by the National Toxicology
Program (NTP). The list reflects evaluations of the IARC
and findings of the National Cancer Institute (22).
U.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG)
A list of 150 chemical substances has been compiled by the
CAG. CAG has determined that there is strong evidence that
these chemicals can, under certain circumstances, cause
cancer in humans or can cause cancer in animals (23). The
list includes, but is not limited to, those chemicals for
which risk assessments have been performed. There is con-
siderable overlap (though not complete agreement) between
the CAG conclusions and IARC evaluations.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
Fifteen substances are designated Human Carcinogens, and 38
industrial substances are listed as "Suspect of Carcinogenic
Potential for Man" (5).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA regulations address 21 substances that are identified
as potential carcinogens.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
NCI has compiled a list of 41 "chemicals and mixtures that
have been found to cause cancer in man by direct observation
of exposed populations." In addition, seven manufacturing^
exposures are designated on the basis of "evidence of carci-
nogenic effects in exposed people."
A listing of some of the environmental pollutants that are recognized
by these agencies as potential carcinogens is given in Appendix B.
32
-------
SECTION 5
RECLAMATION AND REDEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES
Although redevelopment is not currently planned for the majority of
the uncontrolled hazardous waste sites most publicized in the media, there
are numerous cases in the U.S. where redevelopment at formerly contaminated
sites has been successful. This Section describes the experience at 16
sites where redevelopment has followed (or is planned to follow) the clean-
up of uncontrolled hazardous waste. Six of the sites are located in
California. Others are in Florida, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.
HERCULES PROPERTIES, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA (Three Reclamation/Redevelopment
Case Studies)
Site Location and Special Characteristics
This site is located in the City of Hercules, California on the east
side of San Pablo Bay in Contra Costa County approximately ten miles, north
of Berkeley. The San Pablo Bay is visible from numerous locations along
this hilly site of approximately 202 hectares (500 acres). This scenery,
together with the site's advantageous location within the San Francisco-
Oakland
site.
metropolitan area, contribute to the high economic value of the
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
Historically, the City of Hercules had always been a small (one square
mile) "company town" associated with the Hercules Powder Company which
manufactured dynamite and other munitions at that location from 1912 until
1963. Under contract to the U.S. government, Hercules Powder manufactured
trinitrotoluene (TNT) on the northern part of the site from 1918 to 1928.
After 1928, this northern part of the site was unused and served principally
as a buffer zone between the company's dynamite factory at the center of
the site and the adjacent town of Rodeo to the north.
In 1963, Hercules Powder converted its dynamite plant into a facility
for the production of fertilizer. Operations at the Hercules Powder ferti-
lizer plant included units for producing ammonia, methyl alcohol, formalde-
hyde, urea, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, and nitrogen tetroxide (an
oxidizer used in liquid propellants). In 1970-71 a series of ponds were
constructed for on-site treatment of wastewater. In 1976, Hercules Powder
sold its fertilizer plant and surrounding property to Valley Nitrogen Pro-
ducers, Inc. who continued to produce ammonia, methyl alcohol, urea, nitric
33
-------
acid, and solid and liquid ammonium nitrate.
its operations in 1977.
Valley Nitrogen closed down
In 1979 the entire Hercules tract was purchased by Hercules Properties,
Ltd., a development corporation. Since then, Hercules Properties has sold
various parcels of the original tract to other developers. The California
Department of Health Services (CDHS) has been involved with remediation/re-
use activities at this site since 1980 when the City of Hercules approached
CDHS with its area-wide development proposal and requested aid in resolving
the hazardous waste issues associated with the former Hercules properties.
Formal mitigation plans based on the nature of the contamination and the
intended reuse have been developed and approved by the CDHS for five parcels
(24). To date, approximately 131 hectares (325 acres) have been cleaned up
and redeveloped. Still not characterized or mitigated, however, is the
central area of the original Hercules Powder property containing the old
factory structures and storage tanks associated with the manufacture of
dynamite and fertilizer.
Three of the site redevelopment efforts at Hercules are described
below. The information presented on these sites has been assembled from
the files of CDHS and from interviews with CDHS staff involved in the site
cleanups. The three redevelopment efforts are:
Citation Builders—
The southernmost 40.5 hectares (100 acres) of the original tract were
sold to Citation Builders in 1980. Citation completed cleanup of their
site in 1981 and developed Bayside Village, a single-family subdivision
complete with public school.
Bio-Rad Laboratories—
The northernmost 70.8 hectares (175 acres) of the original tract were
sold to Bio-Rad Laboratories who completed their cleanup operations in
1983. Bio-Rad is currently developing an industrial park on their portion
of the tract.
D&S Company—
A tract of 20 hectares (50 acres) midway between the Bio-Rad and
Citation tracts was purchased by D&S Company, another development corpora-
tion. D&S completed cleanup of their site in 1983 and have now constructed
condominiums known as Hercules Village.
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Each of the three developers (Citation Builders, D&S Company, and
Bio-Rad) retained the same consulting firm—Western Ecological Services
Company (WESCO)—for site characterization and remediation engineering.
Separate site characterization studies performed by WESCO for these three
developers indicated the environmental hazards described below. Ground-
water contamination was not a problem at any of the sites. Also it was
34
-------
recognized that the underlying groundwater was of limited usefulness be-
cause of high salinity (24).
Citation Builders—
Analysis of soil samples taken from the Citation tract indicated the
presence of lead in excess of background levels. The highest levels of
lead were found in an area proposed for a public school. Here lead concen-
trations were as high as 180 ppm in surface samples and 530 ppm in samples
several feet below the surface. No other metals were found in any signifi-
cant concentrations on the Citation tract.
D&S Company—
Located on the D&S tract were four abandoned wastewater ponds that had
been used previously for on-site treatment of contaminated water. One of
these ponds was constructed of concrete. Around three of these ponds
analyses indicated elevated levels of arsenic (120 ppm), lead (3,600 ppm),
dinitrotoluene (DNT) and dinitrobenzene (DNB) (3,700 ppm), chromium
(390 ppm), zinc (4,860 ppm), and other metals.
In addition to the soil contamination associated with the ponds,
several areas of denuded vegetation were also found to be contaminated with
lead. Still another circular depression on the site was found to contain
elevated levels of arsenic.
Red-stained water taken from an excavated area of the site was found
to contain the explosives DNT and DNB. This water was further tested in
bioassays to determine potential effects on aquatic life. Even after
dilution ten-fold, 100 percent mortality in a test population of fathead
minnows occurred within 24 hours.
Bio-Rad Laboratories—
Since this part of the site had been used for TNT production, exten-
sive characterization of the Bio-Rad site was undertaken using a three-
phase sampling and analysis plan. This plan was designed to sample the
property systematically for toxic waste contamination. Of greatest concern
were areas that might be contaminated by heavy metals and explosives.
(Explosives though present at less than the level of concern due to explo-
sion hazards are toxic and persistent.) Surface water and groundwater
samples were also analyzed. The site investigation resulted in the iden-
tification of 18 problem areas.
With only a few exceptions, the 18 problem areas on the property were
contaminated with one or more explosives (DNT, TNT, DNB) or one or more
heavy metals (lead, zinc, copper, or cadmium). Heavy metal contamination
usually occurred in association with deteriorating, leaking drums that were
found on the site. Contamination by explosives was generally associated
with denuded patches of red-stained soils. (The red stain results from the
optical isomerization of TNT usually referred to as the Openheimer complex.)
With two exceptions, significant heavy metal contamination was restricted
35
-------
to the top few inches of surface soil. Explosives also were found, primar-,
ily in the top several centimeters of surface soils. Leaching tests con-
firmed that there was very little tendency for these contaminants to migrate
downward into the soil.
Site Remediation
Again the same engineering consulting firm, WESCO, assisted all three
developers in the planning and execution of all site remediation activities.
Because all site remediation had to eventually receive the approval of
CDHS, in numerous instances, WESCO was also involved in negotiating "accept-
able" remediation activities with CDHS on behalf of its developer clients.
Specific remediation activities at the three sites are described be-low.
Citation Builders—•
The one-half acre intended for the school (that had shown lead concen-
trations of 180 to 530 ppm) was scraped, limed, and covered with six feet
of fresh fill. In this area 7-20 cm (3-8 inches) of lead-contaminated soil
was removed to a Class II-l landfill in Stockton, California. Lime (4.48
metric tons per hectare or two tons per acre) was worked into the subsoil
to effectively neutralize and immobilize any lead remaining. Following
these operations, field tests verified that the limed soils were in the pH
range of 6.6 to 8.0.
D&S Company—
All previously detected contaminants, as well as additional contaminants
discovered during the course of the exacavation, were removed to a Class II-l
landfill. Where contamination was heaviest, all soil down to bedrock was
removed. In total, almost 7,633 cubic meters (10,000 cubic yards) of
contaminated soil were removed from the site.
Some minor residues containing DNT and DNB at the bottom of a pit were
left pn-site and covered by 3.05-3.66 meters (10-12 feet) of clean fill
material. This pit was located on a parcel of land which was not planned
to be developed for residences. A two-year well-monitoring program was
required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to detect
any deterioration of underlying groundwater.
Bio-Rad Laboratories—
Remediation of the Bio-Rad site consisted primarily of removing the
deteriorating metal drums found on the site and excavating and removing the
contaminated soils found in the vicinity of these drums. A total of 1,833
cubic meters (2,402 cubic yards) of contaminated soil and other materials
was removed to IT's Class I disposal site in Benicia, California. Post-
cleanup soil samples were provided to CDHS to verify completion of the
mitigation effort (i.e., that levels of contaminants were below the threshold
criteria established by CDHS).
36
-------
Criteria for Cleanup
In 1981 when Citation Builders completed remediation of their site,
hazardous waste site cleanup criteria were not yet fully developed by £DHS.
Because of the sensitive use intended for the site (i.e., school and resi-
dential use) Citation Builders was required to remove all soil with lead
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater.
When the D&S Company and Bio-Rad Laboratories undertook their cleanup
activities, the cleanup criteria listed in Table 3 were applicable. _The
cleanup criteria for land to be developed for industrial use are considerably
less stringent (typically, by a factor of ten) than the criteria listed for
land to be developed for residential or other use associated with children
or other vulnerable biological receptors.
It should be noted that the criteria recognized by CDHS for the Cita-
tion, D&S, and Bio-Rad Laboratories sites were more stringent than the
California Assessment Manual (CAM) standards adopted in 1984 (see discus-
sion of the CAM standards in Section 4).
HOMART DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Site Locations and Special Characteristics
The 47-hectare (117-acre) Homart Development Company (Homart) site is
located in the City of South San Francisco just east of the Bay Shore
Freeway. When redevelopment of the site was begun, 8.5 hectares (21 acres)
were covered by buildings and pavements which required demolition and
removal. Some 39 hectares (96 acres) were exposed ground surface.
Ground surface elevations range from 3.35 meters (11 feet) above mean
sea level along the southern boundary to 23.16 meters (76 feet along) the
eastern property line. The Colma formation underlying the site is extremely
tight, has a high heavy metal attenuation capability, and a very low per-
meability rate. - ••••
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
The Homart site was formerly the site of a steel mill and fabrication
plant operated by Bethlehem Steel. The plant, operated from 1903 to 1977,
used coal-fired open hearth furnaces. During the I9601s the only operation
at the plant was a steel galvanizing operation. A wire and netting manu-
facturing facility, Edwards Wire Rope, also occupied one portion of the
site. Steel wire was drawn and galvanized at this plant.
Over a period of 75 years, metallic slag, soil and debris containing
heavy metals and other processing wastes, including oils and acids, were
deposited on the land or used as fill material at various locations on the
site. In addition, specific manufacturing, operating and storage activities
37
-------
TABLE 3. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES RECOMMENDED TOXIC WASTE
REMOVAL CRITERIA APPLIED TO CITY OF HERCULES
Toxic
Substance
TNT
DNT
DNB
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Cadmium
Criteria for Cleanup of
Hazardous Waste Substances
Industrial
Land Use
5,000 ppm
200 ppm
500 ppm
2,000 ppm
5,000 ppm
2,500 ppm
100 ppm
Unrestricted
Land Use
30 ppm
10 ppm
5 ppm
500 ppm
2,500 ppm
250 ppm
20 ppm
38
-------
have resulted in localized high concentrations of heavy metals (arsenic,
chromium, zinc, copper, and nickel), low pH, and PCBs at various areas in
the site (26).
The site was purchased in 1977 by the Homart Development Company to be
redeveloped as the multi-million dollar "Gateway Center," a combination
hotel/commercial/office park development. The site came to the attention
of the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) in 1980 through
California's Abandoned Sites Project. The nature of the former land use
suggested the presence of hazardous materials at the site and a need for an
extensive site characterization effort before redevelopment. The necessary
characterization was initiated cooperatively by Homart and CDHS (24).
Following full implementation with the cleanup and central strategy
required by CDHS, the redevelopment of the property proceeded. A 12-story
building has been erected and all substructure, including connecting roads,
is now in place. The development is scheduled to be completed in 1987 (24).
The information provided on the Homart site is summarized from reports by
Homart1s consultant, Kennedy/Jenks, and from interviews with the developer
and with CDHS personnel responsible for overseeing the site characterization
and remediation.
Nature and Extent of the Contamination
Homart and their consultants, Kennedy/Jenks, worked with CDHS and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the identifica-
tion, investigation, monitoring, and evaluation of the existing and poten-
tial groundwater, surface water, and soil contamination at the site. The
high salinity of the aquifer underlying the Bethlehem Steel site precludes
its use as a drinking water source. An investigation to assess the ground-
water contamination at the site revealed minor concentrations of dissolved
metals in areas formerly used as seepage basins for disposal of pickle
liquors. The concentrations were not deemed to be significant in view of
the salinity, and the potential for pollutant migration was judged to be
severely limited (24). Samples taken as part of the initial site survey by
CDHS indicated that specific areas of the 117-acre site were contaminated
by PCBs, heavy metals, and/or acid wastes. The site was divided into 12
subareas for the investigation efforts. These subareas are described
below:
Subarea 1: Drainage Ditch, Southeast Slag Pile, and Rebar Shop--
Heavy metals were located in the area as well as small amounts of PCB
contaminated soil which may have been accidently relocated from area 12 to
this area.
Subarea 2: Oil Shed Area--
This area had been used for fuel receiving and storage. Pipelines
connecting with several buildings were also present. PCB contaminated
wastes and soils as well as buried pipes required excavation and removal.
39
-------
PCB levels in soils as high as 880 ppm were determined.
also present.
Heavy metals were
Subarea 3: High Voltage Tower Research Area—
This Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) high voltage tower research
area had also been used as a dump site for slag and demolition debris. It
was determined that the slag did not present a threat to groundwater qual-
ity, however, and the heavy metal-contaminated material was allowed to
remain in place.
Subarea 4: Buildings and Dumping Area--
Several buildings were located in this area which was used primarily
for slag and metal debris dumping. Material in the area is not a threat to
groundwater quality and thus was allowed to remain in place.
Subarea 5: Oil Tank/Welding Shop Area—
A large underground oil storage tank, the main fuel supply source for
the- open hearth and mill buildings, was located in this area. A welding
shop, facility for equipment repair and assembly, and a debris dump were
also on the site. PCB contaminated oil and soil were of major concern.
The highest concentration of PCBs identified in the soil and oil samples
was 61 ppm; the average concentration (115 samples) was 11 ppm.
PCB contaminated oils surfaced in the area as a result of the rains in
January 1982, which raised the level of the perched water table. This
indicated the presence of contaminated oil in the fractured bedrock under-
lying the site and the need for substantial excavation.
Subarea 6: Acid Seepage Basin—
This area had been used as a holding and seepage basin for pickle
liquor, acids containing heavy metals, and other liquids used in the manu-
facture of steel products. Field observations indicated that groundwater
contamination from the acid basin was confined laterally within a radius of
100 to 150 feet from the former basin. Soil and slag excavated from the
area of the basin were allowed to be used as on-site fill. The pH of soil
samples taken in the area was within an acceptable range—6.2 to 7.9 al-
though a groundwater sample from the area had a pH of 3.5.
Subarea 7: Acid Seepage Pond—
The pond (approximately 2,295 square meters or 29,000 square feet) had
been used as a holding and seepage pond for waste acids and other liquids
used in the galvanizing of steel products. An underground diesel tank was
also present, although the contents were not classified as hazardous waste.
Significant levels of nickel and copper were detected in soil samples (870
and 240 ppm, respectively), but the material was allowed to remain in place
since there was no indication of migration from the site and the concentra-
tions were below the thresholds used by the CDHS to guide the cleanup.
40
-------
Subarea 8: Mill and Open Hearth Buildings—
This area contained the facilities for the manufacture of steel prod-
ucts. Piping materials contained one to two percent asbestos, and PCB
contaminated oil and soil were present (highest concentration PCBs reported
as 33 ppm). Soil samples from the area showed high concentrations of
several heavy metals--8,000 ppm chromium; 4,000 ppm copper; 7,700 ppm
manganese; 14,000 ppm nickel; 830 ppm lead; 500 ppm zinc; and 22 ppm cad-
mium. The heavy metal contaminated slag and soils were left in place or
moved to other on-site locations.
Subarea 9: Open Hearth Building--
The building in this area housed facilities for the manufacture of
steel and steel products. A strip of land east of the main structure
contained a slag and metal scrap pile and a fuel heating station.
Soil and bricks were contaminated with heavy metals--notably, lead (as
high as 11,000 ppm), zinc (24,000 ppm), copper (2,700 ppm), manganese
(3,200 ppm), and cadmium (110 ppm). PCBs were also found in soil and brick
samples at concentrations as high as 3,100 ppm. These materials were used
as fill material in subareas 8 and 9 or were allowed to remain in place.
Subarea 10: PG & E Substation and Lab Transformer--
The buildings in this area housed the drawing and pickling shops and
other facilities. PCB concentrations as high as 450,000 ppm were found in
soil and oil samples taken from the area. Some heavy metal contamination
was also indicated, although the heavy metal contaminated slag and soils
were allowed to remain in place.
Subarea 11: Former Edwards Wire Rope Site—
The principal building on this site housed the facilities for the
manufacture of wire rope products. Included were wire mills., furnace
areas, a galvanizing and cleaning area, an annealling pit, a fuel oil shop
and other facilities. PCBs in extremely high concentrations were present
in the area (averaging 21,000 ppm for 59 oil and soil samples). Heavy
metals were also present in significant concentrations. Lead was detected
as high as 32,000 ppm and averaged 4,800 ppm in 16 soil and oil samples.
Heavy metal contaminated soils were allowed to remain in place. In
addition heavy metal contaminated soils from the Bethlehem Steel site were
placed in this subarea. Small amounts of PCB contaminated soil from sub-
area 12 may have been accidently relocated to this area, but it was not
required to be removed.
Subarea 12: Debris Pile—
This uncontrolled debris fill area used by Bethlehem Steel was dis-
covered during mass grading of the site in January 1982. The debris con-
sisted primarily of wood, structural metal, tires, and other nonhazardous
materials. Some oily material was also found which contained hazardous
levels of PCBs. Some material, less than 7.6 cubic meters (10 cubic yards),
41
-------
containing approximately 114 ppm of PCBs may have been inadvertently placed
as fill material on subareas one and 11. In addition to the PCB contamina-
tion, some heavy metal contamination was also present in the debris.
Site Remediation
The remediation strategy agreed upon by CDHS, RWQCB, and Homart was
intended to contain the majority of contaminated materials on-site, due to
the large volumes involved. Placement of the materials was determined by
the groundwater contamination threat perceived for different subareas of
the site. Generally, the plan called for relocation of contaminated soils
to the south end of the site, in areas known to be underlain by at least
ten feet of "impermeable bay mud." The soils were then capped by 30.5
centimeters (1 foot) of clean, compacted fill.
The remediation agreement stipulated that the location of the soils be
clearly designated on a site map and that these areas not be excavated or
substantially disturbed in the future without CDHS approval. A restrictive
covenant effective into perpetuity was placed on the deed to the property
as a way of enforcing these provisions over time. The deed restriction,
which transfers to all future owners limits the site to commercial, light
industrial, office park and hotel uses. Also the 30.5-cm (1-foot) cover
must be maintained.
The cleanup itself was conducted in compliance with California/OSHA
health and safety requirements relating to hazardous waste cleanups. A
total of 561 cubic meters (735 cubic yards) and 143,920 liters (37,995
gallons) of hazardous material was taken to approved off-site disposal
sites. No estimate is available for the extent of the contaminated soils
encapsulated on-site.
Some 344 cubic meters (450 cubic yards) of PCB contaminated wastes
were removed from the oil shed area (Subarea 2). The contents of the oil
storage tank (Subarea 5) were removed. Oil sludge from the tank was
loosened by hydrojetting; the sludge and water were treated as hazardous
waste. Visibly contaminated soil and oil around the welding shop were also
removed from the site. The concrete portions of the oil storage tank were
not contaminated with PCB's and were allowed for use as on-site fill.
In an effort to remove the PCB-contaminated oils from the fractured
bedrock underlying the oil storage area (subarea 5) the site was trenched
and dewatered. The effluent was fed to an oil/water separator prior to
off-site disposal. Extensive excavation to remove all oil-contaminated
soil followed. After treatment with adsorbents to remove oily residues,
much of the excavated material was returned to the site for use as fill.
Approximately 128,883 liters (34,025 gallons) of liquid wastes and 23 cubic
meters (30 cubic yards) of contaminated soil and other material were re-
quired to be disposed off-site as hazardous waste (27).
42
-------
A total of 131 cubic meters (172 cubic yards) of material from the
mill and open hearth buildings (Subarea 8) and 25 cubic meters (33 cubic
yards) of containers of asbestos and PCB-contaminated piping and oils from
the open hearth building (Subarea 9) required removal to off-site hazardous
waste disposal facilities. PCB contaminated transformers and other materi-
als from the PG and E substation and transformer area (Subarea 10) were
required to be disposed as hazardous waste. Materials contaminated with
PCB's in excess of 500 ppm required disposal at a special facility per-
mitted to receive this class of waste. Wastes containing less than 500 ppm
PCB's were disposed in a Class I site in California. A total of 14,886
liters (3,930 gallons) of materials classified as hazardous waste were
removed from the former Edwards Wire Rope site (Subarea 11).
Some 38 cubic meters (49.5 cubic yards) of hazardous waste (including
all the PCB-contaminated material from the debris pile (Subarea 12) was
removed to an off-site hazardous waste facility. Approximately 290 cubic
meters (380 cubic yards) of material contaminated with heavy metals was
removed along with other debris from Subarea 12 to other on-site locations.
Criteria for Cleanup
During the major time period that hazardous waste cleanup took place
at the site, the August 1979 and October 1982 versions of the Draft
California Assessment Manual for Hazardous Wastes (CAM) were the guideline
documents used by CDHS to establish the concentrations at which specific
toxic substances would be assessed as hazardous (26).
PCB-contaminated soils and oil that exceeded the CAM Standards in
effect at the time of the cleanup were required to be removed from the
site. The threshold PCB concentrations used as criteria for cleanup were
50 ppm as a total concentration in soil and 7 ppm in oil.
Soils contaminated with heavy metals and metallic slag were considered
on a case by case basis. Most of the low pH and heavy metal contaminated
soils were judged to be acceptable fill material since the potential for
leaching was very low. In general, these materials were allowed to remain
on-site (26).
BOLSA CHICA SITE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Site Location and special Characteristics
the
The site, formerly known as the Boucher Landfill, is located on
east side of Bolsa Chica Street in the City of Huntington Beach, California.
The 5-hectare (12.5-acre) site overlooks a wildlife refuge and the Pacific
Ocean to the west. Surrounding land use is single-family residential
all directions.
in
43
-------
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
Following gravel mining in the 1930's, refinery sludges were dumped at
the site without permit. Uncontrolled industrial dumping occurred for a
long period of time. Southern portions of the site contained acid sludges
from the production of high octane gasoline, while the eastern pits on the
site contained alkali sludge materials, according to a 1950 report on
pollution in this area. The site was owned and used by the military during
World War II. Groundwater quality was noted to be poor as early as the
1950 report, probably from salt water intrusion. Drilling muds were depos-
ited on the site beginning in 1953.
A Class III landfill was authorized at the site in 1963. Disposal
after 1963 was restricted to inert solid waste materials such as earth,
rock, glass, concrete, etc. The volume of refinery sludge already present
on the site by 1963 was estimated to be 1,527 cubic meters (2,000 cubic
yards). Some 50 small wells had been closed in the Bolsa Chica Mesa area
by 1970, with 12 closings attributed to materials dumped in the former
gravel pits. The County informed Bolsa Chica Community Water Company in
1971 that well water being drawn from that area was unfit to drink.
In 1979, the Mo!a Development Corporation, intending to build condo-
miniums on the site, filed applications for a Tentative Tract and Condi-
tional Use Permit. Because of complaints by neighbors, the city asked the
regional_office of the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) for
information regarding possible contamination. Soil samples were taken by
CDHS and negotiations commenced with the developer. A thorough site inves-
tigation by CDHS located pools of toxic materials and a leachate plume
extending 61 meters (200 feet). Despite these findings, Mola indicated a
willingness to pay the costs to clean up the site for redevelopment as
condominiums.
Since cleanup was completed in 1981, 288 condominium-style residential
units have been constructed at the site. Prices on the units range from
$69,000 to $130,000 (24). Underground garages for the condominiums have
been constructed to take advantage of the excavation (required for site
remediation) and leave the residences more or less level with the surround-
ing terrain. Four main structures are located above the parking garages,
and two conventional buildings have parking located in these underground
structures.
Information on the Bolsa Chica site has been compiled from information
made available by the CDHS from their files pertaining to the site charac-
terization and mitigation.
Nature of the Contamination
Some of the materials on the surface were highly acidic and concen-
trated. Materials was described as "oozing to the surface" in some
44
-------
locations. Buried material seemed to have the strongest odor. A site
analysis by the research laboratory that examined soil samples resulted in
the following characterization:
"There appears to be two or three distinct types of materials.
The first type of soil appears to contain mostly aliphatic
hydrocarbons with some phthalates and minor levels of other
priority pollutants. Below this first level is the second
type of soil which, in addition to the aliphatic hydrocarbons,
contains a significant level of thiophene-type compounds plus
some aromatic amine compounds similar to quinoline. A third
type of material is found ponded at the surface with large
quantities of hydrocarbons plus a slightly higher level of
aromatic compounds than in other samples. Most of the con-
taminants found on-site were of an acidic nature relating to
the petroleum refining industry." (28)
The site was known to give off methane gas, a product of organic waste
decomposition. It was estimated that one-half the landfill area exceeded
the lower explosive limit for methane. Odor problems were very apparent,
resulting primarily from mercaptans and thiophenes released from the re-
finery sludges. The water table in the area is only about 12 meters (40 feet)
below the surface. Groundwater recharge policies of Orange County have
been instrumental in raising the water table in recent years, and there was
some concern that the rising water table may increase the potential for
groundwater pollution.
Site Remediation
Several options were considered by the developer and the State for
adequate remediation of the site. These are described very thoroughly in
the report prepared by the Developer's consultant, Jack Bryant Associates.
Mitigation measures were needed to address:
Soil contamination
Vapor generation
Vapor migration
Odors
Leachate migration •
Options that were considered included the following:
No remediation
Soil flushing/in-situ detoxification
Microbial inoculation
Impermeable barrier/gas control system
Conversion to inert material (stabilization)
Thermal processing
45
-------
In-Situ Grouting
Excavation and burial
Odor control
at new site
The resulting set of potential mitigation options and the environ-
mental problems to be addressed provided an approximate ranking of all
options. Representatives of cognizant agencies agreed that complete re-
moval of the hazardous materials on-site and disposal of the materials at a
Class I landfill site would be the most feasible and acceptable method of
mitigating long-term groundwater, vapor, and soils impacts. The odor
problem during excavation was felt to be unavoidable.
During the excavation, the CDHS regional office had staff on-site
every day to monitor the excavation and to sample the extent of contami-
nation remaining. A total of 45,800 cubic meters (60,000 cubic yards) of
contaminated material were removed and taken to a Class I disposal site.
Backfill was brought in and compacted, and sampling devices were left in
place. Costs of the remediation effort exceeded $5,000,000. The excava-
tion phase of the work was completed in July 1981.
One issue complicating site mitigation was the decision by BKK, the
operator of the landfill receiving the hazardous waste, not to allow trucks
to dump unless there was a cover of 15 centimeters (6 inches) of clean soil
deposited on top of the waste. The landfill was the subject of publicity
due to the opposition of residents of West Covina, California, to the
disposal there of "carcinogens and materials hazardous to their health."
Criteria for Cleanup
The California Assessment Manual (CAM) standards combined with evi-
dence of potential hazard due to toxicity, explosivity, and odors were used
as criteria to guide the site cleanup. Also, all material with pH of less
than 2.0 was removed.
The CDHS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the South
Coast Air Quality Management District participated in developing and imple-
menting the cleanup plan. Because the intended reuse of the site was
residential, very stringent criteria were imposed for cleanup.
DHS concluded from the site investigation and analysis that the black
petroleum-like material in the fill was a hazardous waste. The material
contained several classes of organic compounds at concentrations judged to
be significant. These classes are—
phenols and chlorinated phenols;
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);
nitro aromatic compounds;
46
-------
chlorinated ethers;
nitrosamines;
thiophenes;
aromatic hydrocarbons; and
chlorinated hydrocarbons.
In addition to the organic constituents of concern, lead was detected
at levels exceeding 50 ppm, the state's criterion in effect at the time of
the site investigation. (Note that the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentra-
tion (STLC) for inorganic lead is now 5 ppm, and the Total Threshold Limit
Concentration (TTLC) is 1,000 ppm.) (See Section 4.)
The extent of the excavation and removal of the material judged to be
hazardous was based on extensive chemical analyses of wastes and soil.
Samples were taken from 20 boreholes drilled at strategic locations on the
site. Solid/sludge samples were analyzed for aliphatic hydrocarbons,
aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated organics, heavy metals, and PCB's. Well
vapor samples were analyzed for aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, chlor-
inated organics, organic lead, mercury, selenium, organic sulfur, and
hydrogen sulfide.
Groundwater in the vicinity of the site was also sampled and analyzed.
Following completion of the cleanup effort, a letter dated July 30, 1981
advised the Mola Development Corporation that the Department of Health
Services no longer considers the subject property as a potential "hazardous
waste property."
KELLOGG TERRACE, YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
Site Location and Special Characteristics
Kellogg Terrace is a recently completed residential condominium project
on a 8.5-hectare (21-acre) site in Orange County, California. Specifically,
the site is at the intersection of the Imperial Highway (90) and Kellogg
Drive in the community of Yorba Linda. These two major transportation
arterials border the site on the south and west. To the north and east,
the site is bordered by single-family residential land use.
The information provided on this site has been compiled from reports
and memoranda from the California Department of Health Services (CDHS)
files pertaining to Kellog Terrace. Included are pertinent correspondence
between CDHS, the Gfeller Development Company (and consultants), the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the County of Orange
Human Services Agency.
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
The site was owned and operated throughout the 1930's as a sand and
gravel extraction facility by the Yorba Gravel Company. In 1940, after all
47
-------
usable material had been extracted, this company attempted to sell the
property for use as a petroleum refinery waste disposal area. The pur-
chaser made a downpayment on the site and shortly thereafter began to
deposit there large quantities, of refinery sludge. This dumping continued
until July 1941 when, as a result of odors emanating from the site, neigh-
borhood residents successfully petitioned the Orange County Board of Health
to prohibit further dumping at the site.
With the refinery sludge dumpings prohibited, the Yorba Gravel Company
resumed possession of the property. In 1945 and 1946, they were allowed to
use the site for disposal of used rotary drilling mud. In 1947 this dumping
also was stopped to permit investigation of the site by the California
Department of Health. A well 518 meters (1,700 feet) to the south of the
site had become contaminated with petroleum refinery sludge. An investiga-
tion of the site revealed that at least 227 cubic meters (8,000 cubic feet)
of refinery sludge had been deposited in the former quarry, and it was
concluded that this refinery waste was the source of the contamination of
the well to the South. In spite of these findings, however, no cleanup
action was undertaken at that time.
In 1979, the Gfeller Development Company purchased the site and initi-
ated development of the site for condominiums. This began a 2-year dialogue
between Gfeller Development Company and the CDHS concerning removal of the
refinery wastes deposited on the site.
Today, a 224-unit residential condominium complex of one- and two-story
structures occupies the site. Gfeller Development Company indicates that
no difficulties were experienced in selling all units at prices equal to
those of comparable units in the area.
Nature of the Contamination
Surface and subsurface exploration of the site performed for the
developer by G.A. Nicoll and Associates, Inc. (31, 32) revealed that petro-
liferous waste material was dumped into a low swale along the top of the
hill near the center of the southwest property line. Contaminated soil was
exposed in a small depression near the center of the hill. The hill where
the refinery waste material was located was 7.6-13.7 meters (25-45 feet)
above the adjacent freeway grade along the southwest property line. The
site consisted predominantly of terraced deposits of sand and gravel.
These deposits were overlain by fill, waste, and contaminated fill over a
part of the hilltop. To characterize the nature and extent of the con-
tamination, nine borings and 24 test pits were excavated on the hilltop.
The refinery waste was described as a hard black coal-like substance
with a very strong odor. Chemical analyses of the refinery waste taken
from the site revealed elevated levels of lead (210 ppm in one sample) and
arsenic (11.6 ppm in one sample). Benzene, toluene, and xylene were also
reported to be present in significant quantities. Contaminated fill was
48
-------
typically a silty clay impregnated with oily waste, sometimes with a slight
odor. Contaminated alluvium was gravel and sand stained with the waste.
Toluene and xylenes were detected in six of seven soil samples taken at
various depths and locations near the refinery waste deposit. Xylene in
the contaminated soil ranged from less than 0.01 to 0.49 ppm. Toluene
ranged from less than 0.01 to 0.42 ppm.
The material considered by the CDHS to be hazardous included the
refinery waste material as well as contaminated soil above and beneath the
buried waste. Prior to the excavation, it was estimated that approximately
7,633 cubic meters (10,000 cubic yards) of contaminated fill and alluvium
and 3,206 cubic meters (4,200 cubic yards) of waste would have to be removed.
The Water Resources Control Board concluded that the vertical spread
of, the contamination did not extend beyond 6 meters (20 feet) below the
waste material. Based on the preliminary drilling logs, groundwater in the
area is at least 15 meters (50 feet) beyond the lowest point of soil af-
fected by the waste.
Site Remediation
The only remediation option considered for this site was removal of
all material found by CDHS to be hazardous. This material was trucked 250
miles to the Kettleman Hills Class I hazardous waste disposal site operated
by Chemical Waste Management. Remediation consisted of removing a covering
of uncontaminated fill from most of the area, removing a layer of soil that
had been contaminated through contact with the waste material, removing the
waste material itself, and then removing the layer of contaminated material
directly beneath the waste material.
Monitoring of the exposed workface for benzene and sulfur dioxide was
conducted throughout the 5-day excavation in October of 1981. Water and
soda ash were sprayed on the workforce to help restrict emissions. Total
hydrocarbons and wind speed and direction were also monitored. This type
of monitoring was also conducted at the property boundary. Operators at
the site were provided with tank oxygen during two days of the excavation.
A total of 7,023 cubic meters (9,200 cubic yards) of contaminated
material designated as hazardous was removed during the course of the
excavation and trucked to Kettleman Hills. Uncontaminated fill containing
construction debris and fill which had been deposited in the old quarry
settling ponds was excavated and placed in the bottom of the deepest por-
tion of the on-site fills.
The principal problem encountered during the site remediation work was
that of odor from methylthiophene which was released whenever the waste
material was exposed. Area residents were able to call in complaints about
the odors given off by the waste to a special hotline. Many complaints
were phoned in during the excavation. Students were kept inside at several
49
-------
area schools, and sports events were rescheduled due to odor problems. A
public hearing was held after excavation had been completed to answer
questions regarding the waste removal operation.
Criteria for Cleanup
The refinery waste and obviously contaminated alluvium from the site
were determined by the CDHS to be hazardous based on the presence of lead,
benzene, toluene, and xylene. This hazardous designation apparently was
not questioned by the parties concerned in spite of the limited chemical
analyses reported. Gfeller was advised early in the development planning
that the material would have to be removed to a Class I Landfill, and he
readily compiled.
The extent of the contamination to soils adjacent to the waste was
somewhat more of an issue. In the end, the decision as to which materials
were sufficiently contaminated to be designated as hazardous was left to
the discretion of the on-site representative of the CDHS. Prior to the
excavation limited chemical analyses of soil samples believed to be "uncbn-
taminated" or "slightly contaminated" were performed. One of the soils
contained lead at 53 ppm, a level only slightly above the CAM standard of
50 ppm as a Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC). [Since this site
remediation was completed, the TTLC for lead has been adjusted upward to
1,000 ppm. See Section 4.]
Because of the noxious odors released during the excavation, expedi-
ency in the soil removal effort was essential. Under these conditions, it
would be highly impractical to analyze marginal soil samples during the
course of the excavation to determine whether contaminant levels exceeded
some predetermined value.
During the removal operations, for the protection of site workers and
neighbors, Engineering-Sciences, Inc. (ES) was contracted by the developer
to provide on-site air quality monitoring. ES continually monitored the
downwind boundary of the site for benzene and sulfur dioxide emissions
released from the excavation workface. These were the volatile components
of the waste believed to present health hazards to people. Acceptable
levels of benzene and sulfur dioxide were to be less than one-tenth of the
time-weighted average occupational exposure recommendation. (See Section 4
and Appendix B.) The action levels adopted for the cleanup operation were
1 ppm for benzene and 0.5 ppm for sulfur dioxide at the site boundaries.
When one of these values was approached in air samples taken at the site
boundaries, measures were taken at the workface to arrest the emissions by
backfilling or spraying with soda ash solution. (33)
50
-------
MIAMI DRUM SERVICES SITE, MIAMI, FLORIDA
Site Location and Special Characteristics
The Miami Drum Services (MDS) site is an inactive drum recycling
facility located at 7049 N.W. 70th Street in Miami, Florida. The site is
0.5 hectare (slightly greater than one acre) in size and is located in a
predominantly industrial area.
Of special significance is the fact that the Biscayne Aquifer is only
one meter below the natural ground surface at the location of the MDS site.
The Biscayne Aquifer is the only source of freshwater available as a drink-
ing water supply for the two million inhabitants of Dade County which
includes the City of Miami. It is a highly permeable (limestone and sand-
stone), unconfined, shallow aquifer which underlies the entire county. At
the location of the MDS site, the base of the aquifer is approximately 28
meters^below natural grade. The only recharge to the aquifer is rain. MDS
operations were within the cones of depression of several public well
fields operating in the area.
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
The Miami Drum Services (MDS) facility operated for 15 years as a
chemical drum recycling center until June 1981 when it was closed by court
order. Soon after closing it was purchased by Dade County (along with
other adjacent properties) as the location for a maintenance facility for
the Metro Dade County Transportation Administration's rapid transit system.
Today the land formerly associated with Miami Drum Services is covered with
rails and is used as a storage yard for commuter rail vehicles in need of
maintenance or repair.
Nature and Extent of the Contamination
During the 15 years of its operations, MDS handled thousands of drums
of various wastes, including corrosives, solvents, phenols, and toxic
metals. Drums were washed with caustic cleaning solutions. These solu-
tions, along with drum residues of solvents, acids, and heavy metals, were
then disposed on-site. As many as 5,000 drums of various chemical wastes
were on-site while the company was operating. Spills from these drums
contaminated surface soils at many locations on the site. Groundwater
beneath the site was also affected by the leaching contamination.
Immediately prior to cleanup activities, the site contained between
400 and 500 empty 55-gallon drums stored above ground. Some of these drums
probably contained waste residues (34). Spills from these drums had con-
taminated soils in some locations to a depth of several meters. Except for
some scattered grasses, vegetation at the site was generally destroyed.
51
-------
Soil samples retrieved from ten bore holes and water samples from five
monitoring wells were analyzed for EPA Priority Pollutants and other com-
pounds. Analytical results based on soil samples collected in July 1981
from a maximum depth of 3 meters (10 feet) indicated high concentrations of
phenols, heavy metals, oil and grease, and pesticides. The zone of con-
taminated soil extended beyond the property lines of the old drum recycling
facility. Low lying areas on the property that received the runoff from
the drum-washing operations were subject to the highest and deepest levels
of contamination. Water in the top few feet of the Biscayne Aquifer at the
site also showed contamination with phenols, oil and grease, cyanide, and
volatile organics (35). Highest soil and water concentrations reported
from this initial study are listed in Table 4.
The potential for leaching of contaminants off-site or to groundwater
were complicated by the 55 to 60 inches per year of rainfall typical for
Dade County. There were no natural or man-made barriers at the site to
contain the existing contamination. Because of the polluted groundwater
(levels of five metals exceeded the maximum allowable concentration for
public drinking water supplies) and because of the continued leaching of
contaminants from the affected soil, a cleanup action was initiated.
Site Remediation
In December of 1981, the U.S. EPA contracted with Ecology and Environment,
Inc. to determine the best method of remediating the surface contamination
of the MDS site. It was determined that soil excavation and off-site
disposal would be cost-effective. The excavation was designed to remove
all "heavily contaminated" soil from the site. Accordingly, a total of
7,335 cubic meters of hazardous debris and contaminated soil were excavated
and removed from the MDS site. These materials were taken to the permitted
hazardous waste disposal site operated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
in Emelle, Alabama.
In addition to these excavation and removal operations, 2.5 million
liters of contaminated groundwater were treated on-site. The total cost of
all site mitigation work was $1.6 million.
Criteria for Cleanup
Following removal of the structures and debris, the initial soil
excavation was guided by the following criteria:
Soils obviously contaminated as indicated by the total
metals analysis were removed. If levels were in excess of
ten times "minimum criteria" for groundwater, the soils were
generally considered to be contaminated.
Soils with highly colored, oily deposits as indicated by
visual inspection of corings were removed.
52
-------
TABLE 4. HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF LISTED PARAMETERS IN
WATER AND SOIL SAMPLES AT THE MDS SITE PRIOR TO
CLEANUP PROGRAM3
Parameter
1, 1-dichloroethane
Ci s-1 , 2-di chl oroethyl ene
Chloroform
Tri chl oroethyl ene
Phenols
Mercury
Lead
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Arsenic
Nickel
Oil and Grease
Cyanide
Dieldrin
Lindane
Concentration
In Water
378
839
12.4
959
22,500
3.2
220
170
310
170
210
945,000
1,200
—
--
(ppb)
In Soil
—
—
,
19,200
8,170
695,000
154,600
153,000
48,000
44,200
31,300,000
—
18,000
140
Analytical results from Wingerter Laboratories, Inc., 1820 N.E.
144th Street, Miami, Florida (1981).
53
-------
Known locations that received runoff from the drum-washing
operations were excavated.
The criterion for removal based on total metal concentration in excess
of ten times "minimum criteria" refers to criteria established by the State
of Florida for groundwater. These criteria are listed in Table 5.
The initial excavation involved the first 0.6 to 0.9 meters (2-3 feet)
of the soil in the northwest portion of the property. Removal to depths of
2.4 to 3 meters (8-10 feet) were indicated by the core samples from four
additional locations.
It was thought that virtually no contamination of the groundwater
would take place from soils showing concentrations in soil extract of less
than ten times the "minimum criteria." The U.S. EPA RCRA extraction pro-
cedure (developed for the EP toxicity characteristic to define hazardous
waste) was used as the test protocol.* Although total metal concentration
in the soil was used as a guideline in the initial excavations, final
excavations were guided by the results of the extraction procedure together
with engineering and scientific judgement.
Engineering and scientific judgement was a key factor in determining
the extent of the final excavation. The levels of mercury in the extracts
of several of the samples, for example, were slightly higher than the 1.4
microgram/liter "minimum criterion," although withfn an order of magnitude
of the criterion. The additional excavation required to remove these
marginal soils would have been extensive. Because there was no evidence of
the oil deposits or the high color exhibited by contaminated soils from
other locations, these marginal soils were left in place. It was deter-
mined that this approach would effectively mitigate and minimize damage to
the site and provide adequate protection for public health and the environ-
ment.
KAPKOWSKI ROAD SITE, ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY
Site Location and Special Characteristics
The Kapkowski Road Site is in Elizabeth, New Jersey, in a prime loca-
tion just across the New Jersey Turnpike from Newark International Airport.
*It should be noted that the RCRA extraction procedure was developed
to define a characteristic of hazardous waste. Any waste that produces an
extract (using the procedure) containing contaminants in excess of 100
times the Primary Drinking Water Standard is defined under RCRA as hazar-
dous waste. Use of the procedure in this instance (to define acceptable
levels) is not in accordance with the use of the EP intended by U.S. EPA.
54
-------
TABLE 5. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (FDER)
"MINIMUM CRITERIA" FOR GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Parameter
Arsenic
Bari urn
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Selenium
FDER Recommended
"Minimum Criteria"
for Groundwater
(mg/L)
0.000
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.00014 '
0.05
0.01
Ten Times
FDER Recommended
"Minimum Criteria"
for Groundwater
(mg/L)a
0.00
10
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.0014
0.5
0.1
These criteria were used by Dade County in the implementation of
the cleanup program at the MDS site.
55
-------
The entire site is 99 hectares (245 acres); approximately 54 hectares (134
acres) known as the West Area are located to the west of Kapkowski Road,
and 45 hectares (111 acres), the East Area, are located to the east. The
area surrounding the site is highly developed; the main uses are contain-
erization, trucking, and warehousing. At least one large office building
is located nearby.
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
The site was natural marsh until the early 1950's when it became a
disposal area. From the mid-1950's to the early 1970's the site was used
as an uncontrolled dump site for miscellaneous solid refuse and waste oil.
In 1972 the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey began leasing the
site with the intention of preparing it for industrial development. In
1980, the Port Authority purchased the site from Central Jersey Industries,
Inc. who had only a few years earlier acquired the site from the Cental
Railroad Company of New Jersey.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns most of the proper-
ty in the vicinity of the Kapkowski Road site, leasing to "the various
tenants. The West area of the site is slated for redevelopment as the
Elizabeth Industrial Park promoted by the Port Authority Economic Develop-
ment Department. The site is zoned for manufacturing and other industrial
uses and will be built to suit. Port Authority financing can be extended
to tenants for construction as well as equipment. Other incentives offered
to future tenants are fixed reduced rate property tax for 15 years and a
reduced rate for electricity. The proposed development plan for the
Elizabeth Industrial Park, shown in Figure 1, seeks "maximum coverage of
the site while maintaining a suburban industrial park environment."
Nature and Extent of Contamination
A layer of fill and partial surcharge fill comprises the surface of
the site. This fill, varying from 0.3 to 5.5 meters (1 to 18 feet) in
thickness, overlies a layer of refuse fill of 0.3 to 6 meters (1 to 20
feet). Beneath the refuse is a variable soil fill of 0.3 to 4.5 meters (1
to 15 feet). That material rests upon the organic marsh material which is
up to 4.5 meters (15 feet) thick in some locations. A series of sands,
clays, and silts underlie the organic deposits. Shale bedrock beneath
these materials is 15 to 29 meters (50 to 94 feet) below grade.
The water table aquifer, 2.1 to 10.4 meters (7 to 34 feet) below
ground surface, is in the refuse and overlying sand fill. This aquifer is
affected by rainfall and runoff. An intermediate aquifer is present in the
underlying grey sand, and a deep aquifer is located in the Brunswick shale
some 15 to 27 meters (50 to 90 feet) below ground surface. The elevation
of the water table varies widely over the site, with a high ridge located
in the West Area.
56
-------
oc
o
I
UJ
^
Q,
UJ
oc
o
O
%*s8^-«i:^g»a
<$r«:.Wi^
— ^jS.i
ll
' -'«S9
e*eSC«i g
T»J!
H
-- icjt
i
Ucf "lj*l< ®f
(O
iOO
*
,S
I*
CO
»-J
+J
<1)
•§
N
•H
iH
w
11x3
W
0)
•§
N
H
CO
50
HiaoN
57
-------
Prior to its initial leasing of the site in 1972, the Port Authority -
in 1971 commissioned an engineering consulting firm to undertake a prelim-
inary investigation of the site. This investigation revealed a mixed fill
consisting of large volumes of paper, and varying quantities of wood,
metal, glass, rags, plaster, building debris, rubber tires, ashes, and
soil. No oil was discovered on the site at that time.
In 1972, the Port Authority began preparation of the site for indus-
trial development. This work included construction of a system of under-
drains to facilitate consolidation of the compressible subgrade materials.
The underdrains for the West Area discharged into a ditch draining into the
Elizabeth Channel. The underdrains for the East Area discharged into a
culvert draining into Newark Bay.
Following installation of the underdrain system, waste oil was dis-
covered draining into the ditch on the west side of the site. In the
summer of 1976, the U.S. EPA notified the Port Authority that this dis-
charge of waste oil into the drainage ditch would have to be controlled.
Accordingly, in October of 1976, a plan was developed for installation of
an oil/water separator, and a contractor was engaged to remove oil that had
already discharged into the ditch.
In November of 1976 samples of water taken from the ditch were analyzed.
This analysis showed only low-level concentrations of some heavy metals.
The Port Authority states:
"...at that time, there was no regulatory requirement to
analyze the samples for PCB's nor was there any reason to
suspect the presence of PCB's on the site. Therefore, no
tests for PCB's were conducted." (36)
However, an environmental test program carried out in 1981-82 has
revealed the presence of PCB's in both the East and West areas of the site.
In the West Area, oil was found in 19 monitoring locations, with PCB's
positively identified in the oil from 16 of these locations. Concentra-
tions in the oil ranged from 110 ppm to a high of 4,813 ppm. Oil from
samples of the refuse layer also contained PCB's. Oil containing PCB's (61
to 824 ppm) was found at four monitoring locations in the East Area. No
PCB's were found in any of the water samples. (36)
Results of the test program indicate that the PCB's exist in the oil
which is floating on the upper surface of the water table, and adhering to
the materials in the refuse layer. The oil appears to be located primarily
in the northerly third of the West Area with a secondary area located in
the southerly portion of the site on both sides of Kapkowski Road (36). It
is estimated that from 3.8 to 11.4 million liters (1 to 3 million gallons)
of oil are present on the site, located primarily within the West Area.
There is potential for lateral movement of the contaminated oil. Visual
58
-------
evidence of migration of the oil off-site has occurred only in the drainage
ditch along the west boundary.
Other regulated substances were detected in certain of the water
samples, but not in significant concentrations. Low concentrations of
benzene, toluene, and ethyl benzene probably result from degradation of the
dissolved oil and grease in the water. Zinc and lead were present in
concentrations up to 1 ppm. It was concluded, however,that the low level
presence of these pollutants is not considered to be detrimental to any
present or future use of either the water table aquifer or the local sur-
face water. Gas discharging from the methane vent pipes did not contain
significant concentrations of Toxic Volatile Organic Substances.
It is now believed that the presence of PCB-laden oil represents the
major significant hazardous waste contamination at the site.
Site Remediation
Following the field investigations, the Port Authority evaluated
several possible mitigation approaches. The first approach considered was
excavation and proper disposal of the PCB-contaminated refuse. This ap-
proach was rejected as impractical due to the undefined magnitude of the
volume of contaminated material at the site and the cost. Based on an
assumption that only 10 percent of the refuse layer is contaminated and an
estimated cost of $590 per cubic meter ($450 per cubic yard) to excavate,
transport and dispose of the PCB-contaminated material, the site mitigation
cost would be $100,000,000. In-situ treatment approaches were also con-
sidered but determined to be inappropriate for the site.
Several approaches to provide horizontal containment of the PCB-
contaminated oil were considered, the most promising of which was the
installation of a system of hydraulic control by means of a continuous
subdrain system. The cost of construction of the subdrain system, oil
recovery well, and associated oil/water separators and water treatment
facilities was estimated, in 1982 prices, to be approximately $8.8 million.
Other measures considered were installation of a steel pile wall or a
slurry trench extending from the ground surface to an impervious subsurface
stratum.
At the conclusion of a presentation to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Division of Waste Management (DWM) of the above
findings, it was suggested by DWM that the use of recovery wells be consid-
ered for mitigation in lieu of a full perimeter trench. The use of recovery
wells was considered to be a potentially feasible solution for removing
concentrated pools of free oil in isolated areas. An oil recovery well
test system was subsequently constructed at the site by the Port Authority
along with a test recovery trench for comparison.
59
-------
The test well field installation consisted of a 1.07-meter (42-inch)
diameter oil recovery well and 27 monitoring wells aligned in four rows
around the recovery well at right angles to each other. A two-pump system
was installed in the recovery well. The lower pump depresses the water
table creating a hydraulic gradient toward the well and causing oil in the
ground to flow toward the well. The oil collected in the well is pumped
into storage containers by a floating heated oil scavenger. Water (actually
leachate from the refuse) from the lower pump is transferred through a pipe
to a 2.4-meter (8-foot) diameter precast concrete leaching tank located 61
meters (200 feet) east of the oil recovery well.
Between June 21, 1983 and September 6, 1983 a total of 418,939 liters
(110,600 gallons) of liquid were pumped and 2,932 liters (774 gallons) of
oil were recovered. The radius of influence of the well, though highly
variable, averaged 4.6-6.1 meters (15-20 feet). Concurrently with the
recovery well test operation a trench recovery test was performed. A 30.4
meter (100-foot) long trench was dug along the western boundary of the
site. Collection of almost 11.4 million liters (3 million gallons) of
liquid from the trench yielded only 644 liters (170 gallons) of oil.
In a Record of Decision of September 1984 (37) the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection has recommended that oil recovery
wells be used to recover oil from the Kapkowski Road-West Site. The oil
recovery well system recommended by the State includes the installation of
five new oil recovery wells in addition to the recovery well previously
installed as a test system. The wells will be connected to an on-site
oil/water separator. The oil will be removed and disposed of in accordance
with all applicable hazardous waste regulations.
The approximate cost of the oil recovery system is estimated to be
$1 million. The oil recovery operation will be allowed to cease when it is
determined that all of the oil has been removedtor that it is not econom-
ically justifiable to continue the recovery operation. The Port Authority
will be required to submit data to the State concerning the oil recovery.
(37)
The Record of Decision further requires that the collection and dis-
charge of the wastewater from the oil recovery operation shall be in ac-
cordance with the draft permit under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. A discharge to groundwater permit will also be re-
quired (37).
Criteria for Cleanup
Criteria used to guide the site assessment and development of the
cleanup plan were the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria Statewide
(see Table 6) and the maximum concentrations of contaminants for the char-
acteristics of EP Toxicity for hazardous waste as defined under RCRA. The
groundwater criteria were compared against concentrations found in water
60
-------
TABLE 6. GROUND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA STATEWIDE WHERE THE TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS (IDS, NATURAL BACKGROUND) CONCENTRATION IS BETWEEN 500mg/1
AND 10,000mg/l: Class GW3
Primary Statewide/Toxic Pollutants
Pollutant, Substance
or Chemical
1. Aldrin/Dieldrin
2. Arsenic and Compounds
3. Barium
4. Benzidine
5. Cadmium and Compounds
6. Chromium (Hexavalent)
and Compounds
7. Cyanide
8. DDT and Metabolites
9. Endrin
10. Lead and Compounds
11. Mecury and Compounds
12. Nitrate-Nitrogen
13. Phenol
14. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
15. Radionuclides
16. Selenium and Compounds
17. Silver and Compounds
18. Toxaphene
Secondary
19. Ammonia
20. Chloride
21. Coliform Bacteria
22. Color
23. Copper
24. Fluoride
25. Foaming Agents
26. Iron
27. Manganese
28. Odor and Taste
29. Oil and Grease and
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
30. pH (Standard Units)
31. Phenol
32. Sodium
33. Sulfate
34. Total Dissolved Solids
35. Zinc and Compounds
Ground-Water
Quality Criteria
1. 0.003 ug/1
2. 0.05 mg/1
3. 1.0 mg/1
4. 0.001 mg/1
5. 0.01 mg/1
6. 0.05 mg/1
7. 0.2 mg/1
8. 0.001 ug/1
9. 0.004 ug/1
10. 0.05 mg/1
11. 0.002 mg/1
12. 10 mg/1
13. 3.5 mg/1
14. 0.001 ug/1
15. *
16. 0.01 mg/1
17. 0.05 mg/1
18. 0.^05 ug/1
Standards .
19. 0.5 mg/1
20. Natural Background
21. **
22. None Noticeable
23. 1.0 mg/1
24. 2.0 mg/1
25. 0.5 mg/1
26 0.3 mg/1
27. 0.05 mg/1
28. None Noticeable
29. None Noticeable
30. 5-9
31. 0.3 mg/1
32. Natural Background
33. Natural Background
34. Natural Background
35. 5 mg/1
* Prevailing regulations—adopted by the USEPA pursuant to sections
1412, 1415 and 1450 of the Public Health Services Act as amended by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523).
** a) By membrane filtration, not to exceed four per 100 ml in more than
one sample when less than 20 are examined per month, or b) by fermentation
tube, with a standard 10 ml portion, not to be, present in three or more
portions in more than 20 are examined per month, or c) prevailing criteria
adopted pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523).
61
-------
samples taken from the site. The RCRA maximum concentrations were compared
against leachate characteristics of the refuse using the RCRA Extraction
Procedure. (See Section 4 and Appendix B for the maximum concentrations
for EP Toxicity.)
THE COURTYARD, WINOOSKI, VERMONT
Site Location and Special Characteristics
The Courtyard is a housing project for the elderly and handicapped in
an old converted warehouse at 110 East Spring Street in Winooski, Vermont.
The housing project is, in part, supported by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (U.S.HUD). U.S. HUD provides mortgage insurance and
rent subsidies for the project.
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
Prior to its conversion into housing for the elderly and handicapped,
the structure had been used by the Parrel! Chemical Company (which became
Folino Industries in March 1979) as a warehouse for storage of various
industrial chemicals. The structure had been occupied previously by Porter
Screen Company, a silk-screening firm. In the summer of 1979 Folino Indus-
tries vacated the building, and the warehouse was purchased by Vermont
Associates (a subsidiary of Winn Development Corporation of Boston) who was
the agent responsible for the cleanup and conversion of the warehouse. At
the time of purchase, Vermont Associates was aware of the previous uses of
the industrial structure and intended a complete cleanup as part of the
property's redevelopment. (38)
Nature of the Contamination
The exact composition of the chemical waste at the site is not known.
According to a newspaper account, Folino Industries denied leaving any
toxic chemicals at the site. The only chemicals stored in the warehouse
were said to be diatomaceous earth, calcium chloride, water softener, an
oil absorbent, rock salt, soda ash, and sodium bicarbonate. A quantitative
investigation of chemicals left within the warehouse was performed by
Aquatec, Inc. of South Burlington, Vermont. The findings of Aquatec were
not inconsistent with Folino's account.
However, beneath the wooden flooring of the warehouse building were
found conical piles of solid chemical wastes. Presumably this material had
leaked through cracks and holes in the floor as a result of occasional
chemical spillage over the years. Aquatec estimated the volume of the
chemicals found beneath the flooring to be between 4.2 and 7.1 cubic meters
(150 and 250 cubic feet). These figures do not include the contaminated
soil beneath the spills. This report emphasized as well that the material
was not homogeneous, several different types of chemicals apparently having
filtered through the wooden flooring over a long period of time.
62
-------
The waste was found to be primarily inorganic and was water soluble.
The pH values of aqueous solutions of selected samples of the materials
ranged from 3 to 11 indicating the presence of both acidic and basic salts.
Sodium was found to be the major cation with lower levels of calcium and
magnesium. Major anions included chloride, fluoride, and phosphate. Trace
metals detected in the waste included zinc, lead, cadmium, iron, nickel,
copper, mercury, and chromium. Although these metals were reported to be
present at ppm levels, quantitative analyses were not reported. Traces of
the following organic solvents were reported to be present in the solid
waste material: toluene, cyclohexanone, perch!oroethylene, and 1, 1,
1-trichloroethane. Naphtha and oil were also present. Underground tanks,
presumably from the silk-screening company that occupied the site before
the chemical company, were found to contain naphtha.
Site Remediation
The underground naphtha tanks at the site were emptied and filled with
inert material. Some 84 metric tons (93 tons) of solid inorganic waste and
contaminated wood flooring were removed to a New York State disposal facil-
ity operated by SCA Chemical Waste Services. Some 15 centimeters (6 inches)
of underfloor material as well as the existing wood flooring were removed.
A sand bed covered by a polyethylene vapor barrier was placed over the
crawl space area. This was then sealed with a 10.16-centimeter (4-inch)
thick concrete slab leaving approximately 0.76 meter (2.5 feet) of crawl
space area beneath the floor. A floor framing system and new plywood
sub-floor were then constructed. All costs ($15,000) were paid by the
developer.
Criteria for Cleanup
Criteria for the site mitigation were never expressed in terms of
levels of chemicals that would be permitted to remain at the site. Rather
than establish allowable levels for residual chemical contaminants, all
material in any way contaminated by previous chemical operations was re-
moved.
FRANKFORD ARSENAL, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Site Location and Special Characteristics
Frankford Arsenal is located in eastern Philadelphia on the west bank
of the Delaware River at the mouth of Frankford Creek. The site is 45
hectares (110 acres) in size and contains numerous buildings and other
structures that for 161 years were associated with Federal munitions re-
search, development, and production.
63
-------
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
The Frankford Arsenal dates back to 1816 when it became the second of
the nation's old line arsenals established during and after the War of
1812. Since then, arsenal activities have included munitions manufacture
and research and development of armaments of a variety of types.
In 1976 when the U.S. Army decided to excess (close down) the facil-
ity, the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) assumed
responsibility for site decontamination and cleanup. Considerable effort
was devoted to establishing the degree of contamination at the site and the
cost and effectiveness of alternative cleanup options. It was required
that decontamination and cleanup be conducted to satisfy the requirements
of the Federal Property Administration Services Act for turnover of pro-
perty to the General Services Administration (GSA).
Following site remediation, there has been much discussion and plan-
ning of site reuse possibilities. The Philadelphia Inquirer indicated as
early as October, 1980 that the part of the site closest to the water was
intended for use as a regional marina and park to be built by the Penn-
sylvania State Fish Commission. Public officials indicate that development
of the 7.3-hectare (18-acre) facility will cost $3 million and will be
completed in 1986. Grading has been largely completed at the site and a
contract has been let to install the boat ramps. Under GSA allocation
policies, this tract was transferred free of charge to the State Fish
Commission for development.
The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) has been
responsible for promoting the site and is very proud of the success of
their efforts to date. As of April 1985, some 540,000 square feet of floor
space have been leased by the PIDC to tenants engaged in distribution,
light assembly, and manufacturing. More than 400 workers are now employed
by these tenants. Numerous civic groups were involved in disposition
hearings because of the historic and aesthetic value of some of the build-
ings on the site. The Philadelphia Historical Commission (whose purpose is
to foster investment in older, historic structures) has certifed the his-
toric value of some 15 of the old arsenal buildings and thereby qualifying
them for certain investment tax credits. The tax advantages for upgrading
these buildings will make investment in them more appealing to private
entrepreneurs.
A pretzel baker presently occupies one location of the site. Another
part of the site is used by the City of Philadelphia as a lot for impounded
vehicles. A large part of the remainder of the site has been sold to
Shetland Properties of Salem, Massachusetts (a development consortium) for
unspecified further developments. The developer estimates that about 100
light-industry tenants could be housed in the 185,800 square meters (two
million square feet) of floor space, providing several thousand jobs.
64
-------
Nature and Extent of Contamination
A comprehensive survey of the Frankford Arsenal was conducted to
determine the qualitative and quantitative degree of contamination. A
records search by USATHAMA revealed several areas of concern—low-level
radiologically contaminated buildings, deposits of explosive/pyrotechnic
residues, unknown quantities of unexploded ordnance, and inorganic chemical
residues throughout some buildings. The underground waste discharge system
(including sumps, traps, and drains) was of particular concern because of
the suspected presence of explosives and other pyrotechnic materials. (39)
The site was sectioned into four physical areas for the purposes of
the survey. Sector "A", a 4-hectare (10-acre) tract with 26 buildings had
served primarily as the living quarters for military personnel assigned to
the Arsenal. No evidence of contamination was found in this area. A
6.68-hectare (16.5-acre) portion of Sector "B", consisting of 26 multipur-
pose buildings was also certified for release as a result of the USATHAMA
evaluation. Sixteen buildings within Sector "B" were found to contain
heavy metal residues, and low-level radiological contamination was con-
firmed in one building and its sumps and sewers.
A pre-survey of the Arsenal performed by Battelle Columbus Labora-
tories during 1978 concluded that the contamination was restricted to
certain facilities located in Sectors "B", "C", and "D".
The heavy metal residues (lead, cadmium, chromium, and mercury) in the
buildings were due primarily to the lead-based paint used on the interior
surfaces and to certain plating and metallurgical operations. Painted
surfaces containing heavy metals pose a potential health hazard only when
the paint is flaking and peeling since only then does it become available
for ingestion.
Excluding the "400 Area" (discussed later), 135 buildings contained
heavy metal residues. Mercury contamination found in a few buildings
resulted from spills of laboratory quantities of mercury. Sumps in 23
buildings were contaminated with heavy metal residues.
The explosives residues resulted from the small-caliber munitions
manufacturing and supply and from development of cartridge and propellant
devices. The explosives residues were present in minute quantities (of the
order of micrograms per square meter of surface area). Apart from the "400
Area" (discussed below), eight buildings were found to contain explosives
residues. In addition, several hundred cannonballs were retrieved from the
vicinity of the "329 Platform", and other cannonballs were lodged beneath
the platform.
The so-called "400 Area", a nine-acre parcel with 32 buildings in the
southeast corner of the site, was possibly heavily contaminated with explo-
sives. The "400 Area" was used during World War II as a manufacturing and
storage area for primer mixes and pyrotechnic material.
65
-------
The low-level radiological contamination was due to the use of de-
pleted uranium in the development of armor-piercing projectiles. Special
nuclear materials (radium) were used for fire control instruments. The
extent of the radiological contamination was grossly underestimated in the
preliminary survey, due to the very low level of radiation that was per-
mitted to remain after cleanup. The actual rad waste volume requiring
decontamination was approximately 1,161 cubic meters (41,000 cubic feet).
Radiological contamination was found in twelve buildings, but only one
building was contaminated with radium. Four outside areas were affected by
radiological contamination from depleted uranium.
Site Remediation
Alternatives considered by USATHAMA for remediation of the site "with
regard to environmental and historical impacts, future reuse of the prop-
erty and cost/benefit" included the following:
Identify degree of contamination and release the property
"as is."
> • . .
Close the Arsenal and retain the property indefinitely.
Decontaminate the radiologically contaminated areas and
retain the property indefinitely.
Decontaminate and release the property for restricted/in-
dustrial use.
Decontaminate and release the property for unrestricted/public
use.
The last alternative was selected since it provided the potential for
maximum reuse of the property without restrictions while insuring that any
health or environmental hazards would be reduced to the greatest possible
extent.
Rockwell International conducted the cleanup within a 17-month time
period at a cost of $8 million.
Explosives residues were destroyed primarily by passing a torch flame
over contaminated surfaces at a rate of 10 feet per minute,, with more
complete burning used for explosives in cracks and in sumps. Radiation
contamination was mitigated by removing all contaminated material since
scrubbing was relatively ineffective. Heavy metal residues were cleaned by
removing all loose or flaking paint and repainting.
66
-------
Criteria for Cleanup
Based on previous historical searches and on-site surveys, "Sector "A"
was "certified as clean by the Department of the Army," (38). A portion of
"Sector B" was released also based on the records search combined with a
technical evaluation.
Cleanness criteria were established early in the cleanup program "in
order to define a firm basis for declaring the Arsenal releasable for
unrestricted use" (39).
In support of the work at the Frankford Arsenal, the Project Manager
for Chemical Demilitarization and Installation Restoration, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, MD, requested the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USEHA) to
provide decontamination criteria for building surfaces contaminated with
heavy metals. Initially, the Agency developed two sets of rinse standards,
one for buildings to be released for restricted/industrial usage and one
for buildings for unrestricted usage. Later, because the rinse standards
were thought not to adequately address health effects from inhalation or
ingestion routes, surface residue criteria and air standards were developed
which were used in the final cleanup (Personal communication, Colonel, MC
Joel Gaydos, Director Occupational and Environmental Health, USEHA, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD, February 26, 1985).
The surface residue criteria for lead is based on the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) standard for lead in paints applied to child
access surfaces. This standard is 0.06 percent or 600 ug/lead/gram (600 ppm
by weight). A maximum permissible daily intake of lead is recognized as
300 ug. Additional surface residue criteria were based on the maximum
daily intakes for cadmium, chromium, and mercury (20, 50, and. 4 ug, respec-
tively) recognized by the U.S. EPA in establishing water quality criteria.
The surface residue criteria, to be applied to samples collected over at
least 1 square meter of unpainted surface, are as follows:
lead
cadmium
chromium —
mercury
600 (jg/g
40 [jg/g
100 ug/g
8 ug/g.
For painted surfaces, the area should be cleaned and paint removed if
defective. Air samples should be taken to demonstrate that recommended
airborne concentrations are not exceeded. The recommended concentrations
are:
Lead
Mercury
Chromium —
Cadmium
1.5 ug/m3
1.6 ug/m3
1.6 ug/m3
1.6 ug/m3.
67
-------
The recommended airborne concentration for lead (1.5 ug/m3) is the
U.S. EPA Ambient Air Quality Standard. The recommended airborne contamina-
tion criteria for mercury, chromium and cadmium were based on l/30th of the
1975 work area standard of 0.05 mg/m3 recognized by the American conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The level for mercury is
compatible with the U.S. EPA statement on an acceptable ambient concentra-
tion for mercury in the October 14, 1975 issue of the Federal Register
(p. 48297)—"The Agency has determined that an ambient air mercury concen-
tration of 1 microgram per cubic meter averaged over a 30-day period will
protect the public health with an ample margin of safety."
If the airborne contamination criteria are exceeded, either additional
surface decontamination should be performed or data to demonstrate that the
concentrations represent background ambient air quality should be collected.
Water that is potentially contaminated may be released as surface
water and runoff or as effluent in the storm sewers or the sanitary sewers.
Thus two sets of criteria for heavy metals in water are necessary. For
effluent in sewers, the applicable guidelines are the City of Philadelphia
Wastewater Control Regulations. For surface runoff, the Delaware River
Basin Guidelines were used. These water criteria are listed in Table 7.
TABLE 7. WATER CRITERIA FOR HEAVY METALS
Acceptable Concentration
Sewers (mg/L)
Surface Runoff (mg/L)
Mercury
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Lead
0005
0.1
3 (total)
1
0.01
0.02
0.1 (hexavalent)
0.1
All sludge in sumps identified as containing heavy metals was removed
to an approved landfill.
To assure that explosives were below detectable levels on surfaces,
samples collected with acetone-saturated cotton swabs were analyzed for
nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine, dinitrotoluene (DNT), trinitrotoluene
(TNT), N-tetranitro-N-methylaniline (tetryl), cyclomethylenetrinitroamine
(RDX), and pentaerythritol (PETN). Criteria for acceptability of the
various explosives was based on the lowest detection limit of the
instruments used for the analyses. These limits were 1 gram per mL of
extract for nitrocellulose, NOT, TWT, tetryl, and RDX, 40 grams per mL of
68
-------
extract for nitroglycerine, and 50 grams per ml
Acceptance of the buildings following cleanup by
based on the laboratory results.
of extract for PETN.
flashing or flaming was
The burning, demolition, and excavation of the entire "400 Area"
insured that live explosives were not left in this area.
Buildings with radiological contamination were decontaminated to very
low levels (i.e., at or near the background levels associated with the
brick and granite used for construction of the buildings).
Acceptable cleanness of surfaces, relative to radioactive materials
was established by demonstrated conformance for total and removable activity
as indicated in Table 8. Maximum allowable concentrations of radioactive
materials in air and water were based on the criteria listed in Table 9.
Although no broad standards for residual radioactivity in soil are
established, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggested that a soil action
level of 35 pCi/gm depleted uranium above background was applicable to the
Frankford Arsenal Decontamination Program. Based on 36 uncontaminated soil
samples from the Arsenal and from two nearby locations, background activity
was shown as 13 pCi/gm alpha and 15 pCi/gm beta. The acceptance criteria
for soil contaminated with natural or depleted uranium is therefore 48
pCi/gm for alpha and 50 pCi/gm for beta (39).
CHEMICALS METALS INDUSTRIES, INC., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Site Location and Special Characteristics
Until their bankruptcy in August, 1981, Chemical Metals Industries,
Inc. (CMI) occupied two pieces of property in the Westport section of
Baltimore, Maryland. Specifically, the two pieces of property are located
at 2001 Annapolis Road (Site 1) and 2103 Annapolis Road (Site 2) in Baltimore.
The two sites are separated by approximately 15-20 row houses. The sur-
rounding neighborhood is characterized by a mixture of residential and
industrial land use.
The cleanup of the CMI hazardous waste sites was the Nation's first
Superfund activity which included remedial action. The information provided
here is summarized from the On-Scene Coordinator's Report (40). The Senior
On-Scene Coordinator for the site was Mr. Thomas J. Massey of EPA Region III.
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI) recovered precious metals from
waste chemical solutions and printed circuit boards. Site 1 (2001 Anna-
polis Road) was used for storage of miscellaneous solids in drums, Jarge
quantities of scrap metal and acids, and other caustic and neutral waste
69
-------
TABLE 8. CLEANNESS CRITERIA FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
ON SURFACES (Ref. 39)
NucHdes*
Average
b.c.f
Maximumb'd>f
Removable
b.e.f
U-nat, U-235, U-238, and
associated decay products
Transuranlcs, Ra-226,
Ra-228, Th-230, Th-228,
Pa-231, Ac-227, 1-125,
1-129
Th-Nat, Th-232, Sr-90,
Ra-223, Ra-224, U-232,
1-126, 1-131, 1-133
Beta-gamma emitters
(nuclides with decay
modes other than alpha
emission or spontaneous
fission) except Sr-90 and
others noted above
5,000 dpm a/100 cnT
100 dpm/100 cm2
1,000 dpm/100
5,000 dpm By/100 cm
15,000 dpm a/100 cm2 1,000 dpm a/100 cm2
300 dpm/100 an
3,000 dpm/100 cm*
20 dpm/100 cm2
200 dpm/100 cm2
15,000 dpm By/100 cm2 1,000 dpm By/100 cm2
a Where surface contamination by both alpha- and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides
exists, the limits established for alpha- and beta gamma-emitting nuclides
should apply independently.
b As used in this table,.dpm (disintegrations per minute) means the rate of
emission by radioactive material as determined by correcting the counts
per minute observed by an appropriate detector for background, efficiency,
and geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.
c Measurements of average contaminant should not be averaged over more than
1 m2. For objects of less surface area, the average should be derived
from each such subject.
d The maximum contamination level applies to an area of not more than 100 cm2.
e The amount of removable radioactive material per 100 cm^ of surface area
should be determined by wiping that area with dry filter or soft absorbent
paper, applying moderate pressure, and assessing the amount of radioactive
material on the wipe with an appropriate instrument of known efficiency.
When removable contamination on objects of less surface area is determined,
the pertinent levels should be reduced proportionally, and the entire sur-
face should be wiped.
f The average and maximum radiation levels associated with surface contami-
nation resulting from beta-gamma emitters should not exceed 0.2 mrad/hr
at 1 cm and 1.0 mrad/hr at 1 cm, respectively, measured through not more
than 7 mg/cm2 of total absorber.
70
-------
TABLE 9. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIOACTIVITY
IN AIR AND WATER9
Contaminant
H-3
Co-60
Zn-65
Kr-85
Ag-llOm
Pm-147
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
Th-nat
U-nat
U-238
Allowable
Air
2 x 10"7
3 x ID'10
2 x 10~9
3 x 10~7
3 x 10"10
2 x 10~9
7 x ID'12
2 x 10~12
8 x 10~14
2 x 10"12
5 x ID'12
3 x 10-12
Concentration
Sewers
1 x 10'1
1 x 10"3
3 x 10"3
-
9 x 10~4
6 x 10"3
2 x 10"5
4 x 10"7
5 x 10~5
6 x 10"5
1 x 10~3
1 x 10~3
(uCi/tnL)
Surface/Runoff
3 x 10"3
3 x 10"5
1 x 10~4
-
3 x 10~5
2 x 10~4
7 x 10"7
3 x 10"8
2 x 10"6
2 x 10"6
3 x 10"5
4 x 10"5
Interpretations provided as footnotes to 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, will
be used. Concentrations of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents
are to be averaged on a monthly basis.
71
-------
liquids. This site (a former gasoline station) consisted of a storage
garage and adjoining yard.
Site 2 (2103 Annapolis Road) was the office, laboratory, and manufac-
turing center for CMI. This site consisted of a building housing company
operations and an adjoining yard with numerous large (18,900 liters or
5,000 gallons) above-ground storage tanks. Local residents and former CMI
employees indicated that precious metals refining had been conducted at
this location since the 1950's.
Approximately two weeks before CMI filed for bankruptcy in August,
1981, a Maryland Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) inspector spotted
the abandoned CMI operation. Subsequent investigations led State and
Federal officials to conclude that immediate site remedial action using
Superfund monies was warranted. Conditions were such that chemical sub-
stances abandoned on the site might react causing a fire or explosion in
the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Using Superfund resources, both pieces of property were remediated and
put back into public use. Site 1 (the former CMI chemical storage yard) is
now a neighborhood park. Site 2 (the former CMI manufacturing facility) is
now used as office and storage space by the Maryland Department of Health.
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Site 1 contained approximately 1,500 plastic and metal drums piled
haphazardly on top of one another. Many of the drums were in a severely
deteriorated condition. Liquids from some of the, drums were leaking onto
the ground. Markings on the drums indicated that at one time they con-
tained, and may still contain, corrosive liquids, cyanide-bearing compounds,
and ammonia-bearing compounds. Twenty drums were found to contain organic
solvents. Four underground storage tanks were located on-site, one con-
taining waste oil (suspected) and the other three containing gasoline and
water. Organic vapors were detected in samples of soil and groundwater
taken at the site. A blue-green colored material was being carried off-
site in surface run-off from rainfall and was draining into storm sewers.
Analysis of the liquids in the drums showed no commercially significant
levels of precious metals. Soil samples were collected using a one-meter
grid. Analyses of soils from the site indicated cadmium levels above RCRA
EP toxicity values.*
*It should be noted that the RCRA extraction procedure was developed
to define a characteristic of hazardous waste. Any waste that produces an
extract (using the procedure) containing contaminants in excess of 100
times the Primary Drinking Water Standard is defined under RCRA as hazardous
waste. Use of the procedure in this instance (to define acceptable levels)
is not in accordance with the use of the EP intended by U.S. EPA.
72
-------
Site 2 contained 15 processing, chemical, and waste storage tanks.
Some of these tanks were open. The tanks were filled with varying amounts
of liquid and crystalline material.
Also on site 2 were approximately 100 drums filled with acids, caustics,
salts, and wastes. Sampling of the drums confirmed the presence of cyanide-
and ammonia-bearing materials and corrosive liquids. One drum containing
acid was reported to be fuming. Approximately 175 drums contained solids
and sludges of unknown composition.
A storage vault at the site contained 12 boxes and 12 bags of solid
and powdered metals and other miscellaneous items. The metal stored in the
vault was later confirmed to be zirconium which is unstable as a powder.
In bar form, the zirconium metal is stable; however, a spontaneous chemical
reaction may occur if it is dropped. Small quantities of reagents were
found in the laboratory and laboratory storage areas. Low concentrations
of hydrogen cyanide and organic vapors were detected through air monitoring
at the site.
Chemical analyses of the contaminated soil samples taken from the site
indicated that the material would be acceptable for disposal at a permitted
hazardous waste landfill. Groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells
at the site appeared bluish green in color, probably due to the presence of
copper. Levels of copper in some soil samples exceeded 10,000 ppm. Lead
was found at levels as high as 1,300 ppm.
Major concerns at both sites included: (1) imminent threat of fire or
explosion in the residential neighborhood due to the chemical incompati-
bilities of the materials in the deteriorating drums, and (2) potential
hazard to the public and the environment posed by runoff which could impact
Gwynns Falls, a tributary of the Patapsco River.
Extent-of-contamination surveys and helicopter overflights indicated
that most of the hazardous materials on the two DMI sites had not yet
contributed to any off-site environmental degradation.
Site Remediation
At Site 1 (the CM I storage yard) more than 1,500 plastic and metal
drums were removed. Approximately 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) of liquids
(mostly waste oil and mixtures of gasoline and water) were pumped from the
four underground tanks at Site 1. After emptying, these tanks were filled
with a concrete slurry in order to prevent the tanks from filling with
water and to prevent subsidence in the future.
The walls of the existing structure on Site 1 were decontaminated by
sandblasting. All cadmium-contaminated soil on this site (based on RCRA EP
toxicity) was classified as hazardous waste and removed to a RCRA-permitted
hazardous waste disposal facility. Approximately 90 metric tons (100 tons)
73
-------
of contaminated soil and other debris had to be removed to such facilities.
The rate for disposal of materials classified as hazardous was $41 per
metric ton ($45 per ton). For solid waste not classified as hazardous, the
disposal rate was $16 per metric ton ($18 per ton).
After removal of all hazardous materials and other debris, Site 1 was
graded, capped, and sodded. The site is now a playground for neighborhood
children.
At Site 2 (the CMI main operations center), approximately 5,250 gal-
lons of acidic solutions and 8,300 gallons of basic/neutral solutions were
pumped from the 15 above-ground storage and processing tanks. After careful
removal of the liquids from these tanks, the tanks themselves were removed.
Also, all other structurally unstable structures were removed.
In addition to the liquids from the large storage tanks, approximately
100_drums of acids, caustics, salts, and other wastes and 175 drums of
solids and sludges of unknown composition were removed from Site 2 to a
RCRA-permitted disposal facility.
The yard of Site 2 was paved following cleanup and surface grading in
order to minimize exposure to any contaminants remaining in the soil and to
minimize infiltration from rainwater. The building and yard of Site 2 are
now used by the Maryland Department of Health as additional office and
storage space.
All cleanup activities took place in 1981 during a two-month period
between October 19 and December 18. The total cost of all cleanup and
remediation activities was over $325,000. More than $200,000 of Superfund
resources were committed to the sites. In addition to these funds the City
of Baltimore contributed $35,000 in the form of police and fire protection
during the removal of certain hazardous materials from the sites. The
State of Maryland contributed approximately $90,000 in redeveloping both
pieces of property into their current uses.
Criteria for Cleanup
The principal objective of the cleanup was to remove from both sites
those materials that might cause fire or explosion in the residential
neighborhood. Thus the initial criteria for cleanup involved the identi-
fication and removal of chemically incompatible materials and unstable
materials from the sites. Later stages of the cleanup operation were aimed
at eliminating all potential chemical and physical hazards from the site.
Very thorough cleanup measures were deemed to be necessary due to its
location in a residential neighborhood.
Soil removal at the site was guided by the RCRA EP Toxicity character-
istic defining hazardous waste. Soils were determined to be hazardous and
74
-------
were removed if levels of metals in the extract from the test exceeded the
established criteria of 100 times drinking water standards. . ,
NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC AND GAS CORPORATION, PLATTSBURGH, NEW YORK
Site Location and Special Characteristics
The site is the location of a defunct coal gasification plant operated
formerly by the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Plattsburgh
Service Center (NYSEG) in Plattsburgh, New York. The site covers approxi-
mately 4.5 hectares (11 acres) on the south bank of the Saranac River
inside the city limits of the City of Plattsburgh.
The site consists of two parcels. The larger parcel (approximately
3.6 hectares [9 acres] owned by NYSEG) lies uphill to the south and rep-
resents the property associated with the defunct NYSEG gasification plant.
This parcel is owned by NYSEG. The smaller parcel of approximately 0.8
hectare (2 acres) is a long narrow strip of land that fronts the Saranac
River just downhill (to the north) of the NYSEG gasification plant. This
parcel was given to the City of Plattsburgh in 1981 by NYSEG as a contribu-
tion to the City's long-range plan for recreational development of the
Saranac .River inside the City. ;
Lan.d Use History and Redevelopment Objectives ;.
A coal gasification plant was operated on.the"site from 1896 until
1960, jnost recently by NYSEG. (NYSEG purchased th.e;.site [.and coal: gas
'plant] from Eastern New York Electric and- Gas Corporation -to 1929.) .For
most of these. 64 years, coal tar (a by-product .Of .the coal cjasificat-ion
process) was placed of in unlined ponds on the NYSEG property just .uphill
from the Saranac River. Over the years, this coal tar migrated downhill
across the property now owned by the City and into the Saranac; River .
This migration occurred by two routes--(l) by slow downward teaching
through subsurface soils, and (2) from occasional overflow of the ponds
during periods of heavy rainfall. -.,•". .
Upon shutting down the plant in 1960, the coal tar ponds were filled
with random material and then covered with layers of cinders and ash:
Other portions of the site to the west and north ,of the ponds (downhill
^toward the Saranac) were also filled and regraded at various times during
and after plant operation. However, no records exist to, document.these
on-site, land-fill operations. .
,. Working cooperatively with the City of PTattsburgh and the. New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), in 1979 NYSEG
retained the consulting firm Acres American Incorporated (Acres) of;
Buffalo, New York to study the coal tar contamination problem at the site.
The initial geotechnical investigation was carried out by Acres during the
summer of 1979. The results of this field work and laboratory testing,
75
-------
together with preliminary, alternative strategies for site remediation,
were reported to NYSEG in early 1980. Following review of this work, a
supplementary program of soil boring and testing was undertaken in November
of 1980.
Actual site remediation (designed and supervised by Acres) occurred
between September 1981 and September 1982. These activities were coordi-
nated with the City of Pittsburgh's long-range plans for recreational
development of the Saranac riverbank including the parcel given to the City
by NYSEG. Today, this parcel is open to the public as part of the Platts-
burg park system and is used heavily by fishermen during trout season.
Further recreational development of the parcel awaits the City's acquisi-
tion of neighboring riverfront properties.
Nature of the Contamination
To define the site geology, hydrology, and area of contamination, a
total of 53 boreholes were drilled across the site. In addition to these
boreholes, three test pits were excavated to obtain bulk samples of the
coal tar and soil for laboratory testing. In order to monitor groundwater
levels across the site, 19 standpipe piezometers were installed.
The borings indicated the presence of an extremely dense till under-
lying the entire site. This till consists of silt and fine sand intermixed
with medium-to-coarse-grained sand and gravel. The dense till appears to
have served as a floor over the years halting vertical migration of the
coal tar on the site. No coal tar was observed below this till anywhere on
the site.
However, in the sandy soil and fill layers above this till, coal tar
contamination was found over most of the site. In the area of the original
coal tar ponds, contaminated soils were found as deep as 4 meters (13 feet).
From this region of maximum soil contamination, the thickness of the con-
taminated soil gradually lessened toward the NYSEG property boundaries
except that a layer of coal tar contamination extended across the City's
parcel to the north and into the riverbed of the Saranac River. The data
from the borings made it clear that the subsurface movement of coal tar
from the ponds had been downward through the permeable sands and gravels
and then laterally along the top of the till toward the river.
Along the south side of the Saranac River on the City's parcel, areas
of coal tar contamination were visible on the surface of the riverbank. A
dark, oily film was visible along a 152-meter (500-foot) length of the
river bank just downhill from the NYSEG property. Coal tar globules were
found in the river itself.
A laboratory testing program was undertaken to further characterize
the contamination. Tar content (percent dry weight) in contaminated soils
was found to be as high as 9.6 percent with an average content of 1.5
76
-------
percent (41). Tests to determine total Teachable salts in the soil/coal
tar showed low concentrations of" metals (although leachable arsenic was
reported at 2 and 3 ppm and lead at 0.9 and 1 ppm in two samples). Deter-
mination of total leachable salts in coal tar reported for three samples
showed high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC) at
850, 900, and 935 ppm (41). Leachable phenol was as high as 4 ppm in a
coal tar sample taken from the Saranac River.
Site Remediation
Site remediation occurred in two phases. The Phase I Project focused
on arresting the subsurface migration of coal tar away from the area of the
original disposal ponds. The Phase II Project addressed the cleanup of the
Saranac River and the City of Plattsburgh property to the north.
Phase I began in the fall of 1981 with the installation of a soil-
bentonite slurry wall around the main coal tar pond area (735 feet in
perimeter). This wall was everywhere keyed into the underlying impervious
till which was 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) below grade in the main pond
area. This main pond area was then capped with a temporary 20-mil polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) liner. It was estimated that approximately 80 percent of
the on-site coal tar was encapsulated within this containment cell.
Phase II remediation activities began in June of 1982 with the instal-
lation of a temporary, portable fabric cofferdam in the Saranac River.
Behind this cofferdam, coal tar contamination in the riverbed was excavated
in the dry. Water was pumped from the area of excavation into a triple-
compartment settlement tank before being discharged back into the river.
Riverbed cleanup was performed in two stages moving from upstream to down-
stream. .
The temporary PVC liner that had been placed as a cap over the previ-
ously constructed containment cell was perforated, and the contaminated
material excavated from the river was placed on top. Additional contami-
nated materials were placed in an area just to the southwest of the ori-
ginal containment cell. Later, this additional area was also surrounded
with a soil-bentonite slurry wall and thus represented an enlargement
(almost a doubling) of the size of the original containment cell.
After excavation of all visible contamination in the riverbed and
along the riverbank, the riverbed and bank were re-established to grade
with imported clean fill. To prevent continued migration of remaining
uncontained coal tar into the riverbed area, a cement-bentonite cut-off
wall was constructed through the clean fill for approximately 213 meters
(700 feet) along the riverbank. A cement-bentonite wall was used in this
area (instead of the soil-bentonite wall used previously on the NYSEG s
property) because a higher strength wall was considered necessary due to
the City's plans for recreational development of this area.
77
-------
To allow for drainage of groundwater from the area uphill from the
cement-bentonite wall paralleling the river, a groundwater collection
system was installed. This system consisted of a 15 centimeter (6-inch)
perforated drain pipe 0.6 meter (2 feet) below grade and 3 meters (10 feet)
upgradient of the cement-bentonite wall. This drain pipe discharges into a
precast manhole at the midpoint of the line.
Water collected by this system will be pumped back uphill to water
treatment equipment to be located in the vicinity of the coal tar contain-
ment cell. Treated ground water will be discharged into the Saranac River.
After grading the contaminated soil in the areas inside the walls of
the containment cells, the cells were permanently capped with a 36-mil
Hypalon liner. This liner was then covered with 15 centimeters (6 inches)
of sand, topsoiled, and seeded. All site work was completed in September
of 1982.
Because so much coal tar contamination has simply been contained
on-site, future use of both the NYSEG and City of Plattsburgh parcels will
have to be carefully guarded. Specifically, certain restrictions to on-
site development have been mandated by the NYSDEC, and other restrictions
have been suggested by NYSEG who will remain responsible for maintaining
the slurry walls, containment cell, groundwater collection and treatment
system, and monitoring network on both parcels. These are:
Sale of the lands on which the containment cell was con-
structed is prohibited by NYSDEC.
No structures or other activities may be placed or performed
on the containment cell that could result in rupture to the
Hypalon cap.
All trees or shrubs will be maintained at a distance from
the slurry walls such that their mature drip line will not
intersect the slurry walls.
All construction on or near the cement-bentonite partial
cut-off wall and/or groundwater collection system must have
prior engineering approval of NYSEG.
Criteria for Cleanup
Because of the nature of the site "remediation activities undertaken,
only the Saranac River bed and bank areas of the site can be argued to have
been cleaned up. The coal tar contamination on the NYSEG parcel was simply
tidied up and contained within slurry walled cells. Thus the cleanup
criteria reported here pertain only to the areas along the bank and in the
bed of the Saranac River from which coal tar contamination was excavated.
78
-------
Because coal tar contamination, wherever it occurred on-site, was
highly visible, it was convenient to express the criteria for cleanup of
the riverbed and bank in terms of visible contamination. Thus the specifi-
cations of the scope of work drafted by Acres for the river cleanup contain
the following definitions:
Clean material shall mean all material removed from the riverbed
or riverbank which does not visually contain coal tar as deter-
mined by Engineer and/or Inspector...Contaminated material shall
mean all material removed from the riverbed or riverbank which
visually contains coal tar as determined by Engineer and/or
Inspector. (42)
These definitions, together with the judgment of the engineer and/or
inspector, determined whether any given excavated material was removed to
the containment areas or left along the Saranac River.
[Note: Extensive research on problems associated with the cleanup and
redevelopment of former coal gas plant properties has been conducted in
England by AERE Harwell Laboratory under contract to the Department of the
Environment (43). Among other study results of relevance to the Plattsburgh1s
site is Harwell's conclusion that unacceptable coal tar contamination may
remain on-site even after all visibly contaminated soil has been removed.]
AIDEX PESTICIDE FACILITY, GLENWOOD, IOWA
Site Location and Special Characteristics
The Aidex site is located in a rural area north of Glenwood, Iowa. In
Army Corps of Engineers drawings the site is designated as part of Council
Bluffs, Iowa. The Aidex site is the highest priority Superfund site in
Iowa (44).
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
This site was the location of a plant that formulated and packaged
pesticides. The firm went bankrupt after a fire at the facility in 1976.
The area sat idle for several years after the fire before cleanup activity
was initiated. Five reuseable metal buildings remain on the site.
The Glenwood Industrial Foundation, Inc., an organization dedicated to
attracting new business to Glenwood, and the Mayor of the City have inves-
tigated the possibility of another firm locating at the site. The Founda-
tion floats bonds to encourage industrial development in the area. Con-
fusion over ownership of the site and the extent of contamination present
have delayed such plans. A likely candidate for relocation to the site is
another pesticide firm with business similar to that of the former Aidex
operation.
79
-------
Site Remediation
A three phase cleanup was carried out at the site. First, drums and
rusting barrels were picked up and moved inside the buildings. In the
second phase all chemical drums and debris were removed to a permitted
disposal facility. The third phase involved the excavation of buried drums
and contaminated soil and removal of all contaminated material from the
site.
The extent of the risk associated with locating another business at
the site remains an important issue. The Kansas City Office of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will let a contract for the design of the cleanup
for the buildings. Once the cleanup is completed, the Glenwood Foundation
must clarify the condition of the property in order to secure another
tenant. The criteria to be used for the cleanup have not yet been estab-
lished.
GAS WORKS PARK, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Site Location and Special Characteristics
Gas Works Park is located on a point projecting into Lake Union in
Seattle, Washington. The park occupies about 8 hectares (20.5 acres) which
includes some 600 meters (1900 linear feet) of waterfront. The surrounding
area is mainly industrial property.
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
The Lake Union site known as Brown's point, once a popular spot for
picnicking, was developed in 1906 by the Seattle Lighting Company as a gas
plant. The location of the plant on Lake Union made it ideal for the barge
delivery of local and imported coal (and later, oil) for gas production.
Eventually the site became known as the Gas Company Peninsula, built by a
slow process of filling in Lake Union with cinders, unusable coal and coke,
unburned coal, and gas production wastes. The Seattle Lighting Company
became the Seattle Gas Company in 1930 and eventually was made part of the
Washington Natural Gas Company (WNG).
The original plant on Lake Union produced illuminating, heating, and
cooking, and industrial gases for the growing Seattle community. Coke
ovens were operated, and retort gas and carbureted water gas were produced.
During the mid-1930's, six water gas sets were in operation with a total
daily capacity of 6,600,000 cubic feet of gas (45). The by-products of. the
gas plant operations were ammonia, light oils (benzene, toluene, xylenes),
and various other hydrocarbons, and coal tar which was refined into creosote.
Coal tar and creosote produced by the Gas Company were delivered to the
American Tar Company which was located on the peninsula adjacent to the Gas
Company until about 1920. The Tar Company refined the coal tar into various
grades of tars and pitches using steam distillation (46).
80
-------
In 1937, oil replaced coal as the basis for gas production. Two
single-shell oil gas generators known as Jones crackers were built in 1937
and 1938 with a total daily capacity of 6,000,000 cubic feet of gas (45).
Gas was made in these units by passing oil over very hot bricks to crack
the oil into hydrogen, methane, light oils, tars, and lampblack. Steam was
introduced into the process to make carbon monoxide, a low-Btu gas. The
gases were washed with diesel oil to remove light oils, then passed through
boxes of sawdust or beech chip beds containing iron oxide to remove hydrogen
sulfide and cyanides. The sulfur and spent iron oxide (containing ferricya-
nides) were wastes from the operation. The light oils recovered from the
gas scrubbing (essentially benzene, toluene, and xylene) were further
refined, washed with sulfuric acid, then neutralized with caustic soda."
The acid and caustic wastes were dumped off-site. The uncondensables from
the refining operation (butane, butene, isoprene, pentane, cyclopentadiene,
and thiophene) were released to the atmosphere (46).
Oil-gas tars contained more asphaltene type compounds than the coal
tars produced earlier and were not suitable for the products derived from
the coal tars. Thus, the oil/gas tars were generally used as fuel for
steam production. The tar emulsion from the Jones crackers was over 90
percent water and had to be concentrated before it could be burned. Naph-
thalene and related aromatic oils were collected in the condensation from
this process. The naphthalene was sometimes combined with creosote oils
and sold, but often simply .dumped off-site.
The lampblack from the oil gas cracking operation was dried for bri-
quetting and used to replace coke in the water gas sets. However, the
briquets would often break during the firing. As a result, there was
considerable waste. The lampblack production far exceeded the use, and the
excess was piled next to the lake. The pile of lampblack grew to nearly
100 feet high and covered several acres (46). There were frequent complaints
of odors from the plant and from the wind dispersal of the lampblack.
The company continued to produce gas until 1956, when a natural gas
pipeline was extended to Seattle. After that, WNG used the site for stor-
age and other activities. Figure 2 is an aerial view of the site prior to
the undertaking of major demolition by WNG. During the plant's operation,
the shoreline on the peninsula had been extended some 24 meters (80 feet)
into Lake Union. Eventually the site was almost flat down to the lake edge
where there was a 2.4-meter (8-foot) drop.
In 1962, the City of Seattle purchased the peninsula for development
as a public park. A bond resolution passed in 1968, providing funds for
park development, and planning for the park was initiated. The City hired
a landscape architect, Mr. Richard Haag, to propose a master plan for the
park. After a study of the site, Mr. Haag determined that traditional park
development would be impractical and proposed a controversial plan which
allowed for the restoration and reuse of some of the gas works structures.
The plan for the site demolition (to be done by WNG in 1971 under the 1962
81
-------
-------
purchase agreement) called for leaving six generator towers, the pre-cooler
towers, a boiler house, and an exhauster building. Mr. Haag concluded that
it would not be possible to remove all of the underground piping and exist-
ing soil from the site, nor to cover the entire site sufficiently to permit
the growth of large trees essential to a more traditional park design (47).
Despite the controversy over allowing the former plant structures to remain,
the City Council finally approved Mr. Haag's plan in 1972.
Originally, the park was to be named the Myrtle Edwards Park, after a
Seattle Councilwoman who was influential in establishing the park system in
the city. However, her relatives deemed it inappropriate to bear her name
when they learned that original gas works structures were to remain on the
site. Thus, the park came to be called simply the Gas Works Park, although
the park master plan still bears the name "Myrtle Edwards Park." Another
Seattle city park was later dedicated to Mrs. Edwards.
Nature and Extent of the Contamination
Some 50 years of heavy industrial use at a time when there was little
concern for environmental contamination had left the site on Lake Union
heavily contaminated with production residues, spills, waste materials, and
air pollution fallout. Mr. Haag, the landscape architect, expressed concern
for the ability of the site to support vegetation, noting that there was no
"natural" soil on the site. He described the condition of the soil as a
sterile layer cake of hydrocarbon contamination that supports no veqetation
(47).
Studies were undertaken by the Seattle Engineering Department and by
Dr. Dale Cole and Peter Machno, of the University of Washington, to charac-
terize drainage patterns and soil conditions at the site. Cole and Machno
(48) found that depths of fill material at the site ranged from 2 to 20
feet. Samples of the fill material were collected for evaluation regarding
potential horticultural problems. The fill is underlain by dense glacial
deposits of compacted till. This very low permeability subsurface layer
directs the flow of the groundwater system and has restricted liquid contam-
inants spilled on the site to the surface materials. A perched water table
identified in the fill above the dense till layer results from the slow
percolation of water along the till surface to the permanent water table
associated with Lake Union. A subsurface mounding of the till in the
Southeast corner of the site was found to cause a diversion in the natural
flow pattern of water toward the Lake. Oil from old spillages was found
floating on the perched water table and concentrated at this level within
the soil. It was concluded that this part of the Park site would always
present problems if preventive measures were not taken. In a letter dated
March 30, 1972 to the Project Director for the site, Cole and Machno noted
a massive surface spillage of oil that occurred in the fall of 1969. The
spillage was apparently covered by WNG with a thin layer of fill. Due to a
seasonable perched water table, the oil floated up through the fill and
again presented a surface contamination problem.
83
-------
Site Remediation
This description of the remediation activities is summarized from
information contained in a document made available by the site manager in
the U.S. EPA Regional Office (49). The document was probably prepared in
1984.
After the removal of most of the aboveground structures by WNG in
1971, considerable site preparation work was still needed. The primary
intent was to stockpile and/or bury on site much of the excavated material
and demolition rubble. The stockpiling was in the central portion of the
site. Portions of the stockpile were later buried on-site. Several existing
structures considered potential safety hazards were removed. WNG was
required to purge certain pipes in 1973.
The mound area in the southwest portion of the site consisted of
excavation materials from off-site. This fill had been brought to the site
during the 1960's and early 1970's. It was thought at one time that this
fill material could be used to cover the entire site following the demoli-
tion of the aboveground structures. However, the "Great Mound" became a
major element of the master plan for the park, and was cleared and grassed
and opened to the public for the purpose of viewing the ongoing park devel-
opment.
Work contracted by the Parks Department included the following tasks:
~ Demolition and burial in northwest section of the rubble from
13 concrete purifiers which were located just east of the
tower area.
— Removal and stockpiling of the contents of the purifiers
(i.e., wood chips coated with iron oxide and residue from the
purification process).
— Removal and burial in the northwest section of the concrete
slab remaining from the 2-million cubic foot storage holder.
--• Demolition of remaining concrete foundations and piping.
— Excavation and removal or stockpiling on-site of approximately
20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of badly contaminated soils.
— Regrading of demolition areas to match the surrounding ground
level.
In the process of removing contaminated material and burying rubble
and debris, there was concern of increased pollution to surrounding areas,
particularly Lake Union. Of particular concern was the excavation of the
contaminated soil in the southwest area (48). The contract specifications
84
-------
cautioned the contractor responsible for this work on the conditions there.
The contract stated, "Excavating oil-gas contaminated material at the
southwest property edge shall be performed with extreme care. This excava-
tion extends to the lake level and shall commence 30 feet or more inland
from the water's edge. Demolition work and pipe removal shall be completed
prior to any excavating of this 30-foot wide levee. When the inland area
is excavated, filled and/or graded to the proposed grade, the levee at the
lake's edge shall be removed."
One part of the site preparation work involved efforts to improve
growing conditions by an application of a compost-like mixture containing
dewatered sludge cake as the primary ingredient. The mixture was applied
over approximately 10 to 12 acres of the southerly half of the site (about
100 tons per acre, wet) and then worked into the top 18 to 24 inches by
periodic plowing. Sawdust and leaves were also applied and worked into the
surface soil. The surface was reworked, fertilized, and sown with a cover
crop of grass about two weeks after the compost treatment. The first crop
was plowed under, and the area was finally rehydroseeded.
The actual park improvements were undertaken upon completion of the
site preparation work. Phase I of the park development consisted of the
following actions:
— Renovation of the former boiler house for use as an indoor/
outdoor picnic shelter.
— Renovation of former exhaust building for use as a "play
barn."
— Creation of a grassed picnic "bowl" projecting to the water's
edge.
Construction of paths.
-- Further development of an existing 170-car parking area.
Deter access to the towers and remove miscellaneous structures.
Regrade mound and hydroseed.
— Plant trees and shrubs and provide sod in one small section
of the picm'c area.
The work delineated above was completed, and the official park opening
was held during the summer of 1976. Additional improvements were completed
in 1978. Plans for further improvements were being finalized when the U.S.
EPA began an investigation of contamination at the site.
85
-------
Criteria for Cleanup for Park Development
Soil testing during the park development was directed primarily at
horticultural aspects of the design. The park did not include any signifi-
cant amounts of fill. Cuts were made primarily in the southeast quadrant
and between the mound and tower areas. Considerable soil was removed from
the site, part of which was known to contain arsenic. No work was under-
taken in the water areas surrounding the site.
"It appears that the development was directed at reusing the
site in what was felt at the time to be an environmentally sensi-
tive manner. Both the general design concept and the budget were
important factors in the decisions that were made. The major
controversial issues centered on the retention and reuse of
structures associated with the former gas plant. Most of the
discussion concerning the levels of pollution centered on what
would and would not grow on the site. Public health was an
issue, more in terms of access to the towers, aquatic activity
from the park, and use of the Play Barn than in terms of general
use of the site." [Excerpt from "History of Park Development."]
Additional Investigations
In April 1984, grab samples were taken from several locations at the
park site. Elevated concentrations of cyanide and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH's) were found. These initial EPA investigations led to a
closure of the park during the three months beginning in April 1984. The
Centers for Disease Control recommended restricting public access to the
park on the basis of high levels of PAH found in grab samples. PAH levels
were highest under the pier (7,000 ppm) and around a metal vessel sandbox
(10,000 ppm at a depth of 3 - 6 feet).
After the park was closed, a total of 72 samples were taken from 24
locations (50). Samples were taken at depths of 15 and 91 centimeters
(6 inches and 3 feet) and were analyzed for a variety of substances.
During the investigation, respirators were provided for workers due to the
high level of volatile organic substances suspected.
High levels of PAH's were found in every sample obtained, with individual
species concentrations up to 620 ppm. Higher concentrations were usually
found in the 6-inch composite samples. Levels were compared to goals for
PAH's listed in Multimedia Environmental Goals for Environmental Assessment
(MEGs) (12,13) and were found to exceed the goals by a factor of 100 'in
several sample locations (50). A summary of the levels of individual PAH's
determined in borehole samples at 6-inch depth is given in Table 10.
Volatile organic compounds also were detected in all sample locations,
with concentrations as high as 802 ppb. Benzene, ethyl benzene, and toluene,
were all found, usually at low levels. In addition, a number of other
86
-------
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF PAH LEVELS FOUND IN SAMPLES TAKEN FROM 6-INCH DEPTH
AT GASWORKS PARK (50)
Compound
Two and Three-Ring PAH's
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrane
Fluoranthene
Four and Five-Ring PAH's
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (ghi) perylene
Dibenzo (a, h) anthracene
Indeno (1, 2, 3-cd) pyrene
Range
0.02 -
0.05 -
0.07 -
0.13 -
0.08 -
0.51 -
0.34 -
0.42 -
0.32 -
0.58 -
0.43 -
0.88 -
1.6 -
2.2 -
1.3 -
(ppm)
18
83
11
100
17
620
400
61
110
460
410
190
570
110
450
Average (ppm)
0.58
7.2
1.2
12.5
4.2
49.9
34.4
16.6
28.7
70.5
45.5
47.4
98.1
19.2
72.3
87
-------
substances, including dibenzofuran, 2-methylnaphthalene, and other tentatively
identified substances have been discovered in the soil samples from Gas
Works Park. Tanks left on the site in an area designated as a playground
may also contain some type of product.
It was found that most samples contained detectable levels of heavy
metals, and that usually the 15-centimeters sample levels were greater than
the 91-centimeter levels, indicating that the metal/CN contamination was of
surface origin. The levels of metal contaminants were above normal back-
ground levels but lower than the concentrations generally considered to
represent a hazardous waste. This conclusion was based on Total Threshold
Limit Concentrations as reported in the California Assessment Manual for
Hazardous Wastes, February 1984. (See discussion and specific CAM Standards
in Section 4.) Cyanide concentrations ranged between 0.56 and 458 ppm
(average 31 ppm) in the 6-inch samples and 1.21 and 340 ppm (average 36
ppm) in the 3-foot samples (50).
To address the significance of the health risks associated with use of
the Park, Seattle's Mayor, Mr. Charles Royer, convened a panel of public
health experts and community residents to review the EPA test results,
assess the health risks associated with Park use, and recommend measures to
minimize those risks. The Mayor's Committee developed estimates of inhala-
tion and ingestion exposures to benzo(a)pyrene based on reasonable estimates
of the amount of soil ingested per day by children and the percent absorption
of the benzo(a)pyrene (51). The panel concluded that the health risks
associated with use of the Park are small, and that the only significant
health risk would be posed by frequent ingestion of the most contaminated
materials found in the Park over a long period of time.
The Committee recommended securing the area under the prow at the
southern point of the Park and securing the "dome" on the West side of the
outdoor children's play area. They further recommended that the play barn
be thoroughly cleaned and former gas plant equipment be repainted. The
Committee suggested that the City reinforce the policy of not permitting
bathing in Lake Union and recommended followup sampling and monitoring.
The Committee's Draft Report was reviewed by the Center for Environ-
mental Health, Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC noted (52), "In
the absence of sufficient data on carcinogenic dose-dependency and latency
for low-dose, long-term PAH exposures, public health measures should aim to
reduce or prevent these exposures wherever possible." The CDC (52) concluded
that:
Park goers should not have contact with the high levels of
PAH present in (a) the sandbox, (b) the area northeast of
the compressor building, (c) the play_ barn, and (d) any
other areas shown to be similarly contaminated.
88
-------
Park goers should not have contact with coal slag in the
Park.
Additional sampling should be carried out, particularly to
determine PAH contamination in Lake Union.
Recognizing the severity of the buried contamination at the Gas Works
site, concern was expressed by some members of the community that opening
up the soils of the Gas Company peninsula could only worsen the potential
for irreversible ecological damage to Lake Union. Notable among those
voicing this concern was Mr. Otto Orth, a distinguished chemist and life-
long citizen of Seattle who in 1984 recounted in a letter to the Seattle
Times a history of the operations at the Gas Works.
The Gas Works Park was reopened in late summer 1984 (53) with signs
posted to warn people to wash after playing in the Park and not to eat the
soil. The Gas Works Park as it appeared in 1984 is shown in Figure 3.
Areas of high contamination were fenced off pending cleanup. Remediation
planned involves the capping of any areas of exposed slag with nylon mesh
and clean soil. Also cleanup and coverage of several eroded or highly
contaminated areas is planned. A permanent concrete wall will be con-
structed around the contaminated materials underneath the prow area. The
total cost of these efforts has been estimated at $132,000. Further in-
vestigation into the possibility of contamination of Lake Union is also
being planned by the City in cooperation with the U.S. EPA and the State of
Washington Department of Natural Resources. If leaching from the Park site
proves to be a factor in the contamination of the lake, capping with clay
and clean soil will be required. Estimates of the cost of such capping
range from $600,000 to $1.7 million.
QUENDALL TERMINAL, RENTON, WASHINGTON
Site Location and Special Characteristics
The Quendall Terminal site is located
south of Seattle. The site covers about 81
the shore of Lake Washington.
in Renton, Washington, a city
hectares (20 acres) of land on
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
Quendall Terminal was a refinery operated by the Reilley Tar and
Chemical Company beginning about the turn of the century. The plant re-
ceived coal tar by tankers from gasification plants and refined the tar
into creosote and pitch for the wood processing and the aluminum industry.
The products were used in the preservation of wood. The plant continued in
operation until the mid-I9601s.
89
-------
^••oNiaiinaMpaiifrwvaprafi o
)^m-7--^¥r^T^"'7^w";r:-^'^4;»*';;^gfeVJ-J*-' v » * * *-*L£ Jiss^ O ^
MMfe-r'/-''^-^-.^--- •Y-^j^iHiif.iiilBMIff^ ^••M^tt I I—-I (l
f-t
cd
PL,
f-l
o
CO
d
o
(D
•H
cd
•H
M
•H
90
-------
In 1971, the site was acquired by a group of investors who renamed the
site Quendall Terminal. The investors own the two adjoining sites, J. H.
Baxter Company and Barbe Mill, and wish to control the development of the
combined properties. The legal representative of the two companies,
James C. Hanken, is the president of Quendall Terminal. The investment
plan for the site involves the development of the Quendall Terminal site
along with the J. H. Baxter property to the north and the Barbe lumber mill
to the south into a development including a marina, motel, condominiums,,
and office buildings. The combined area will consist of about 24 hectares
(60 acres). The main financial backer for the proposed development is an
investor from Hawaii.
Until very recently the old storage tanks on the property were used as
a source of revenue. All the buildings and tanks have now been dismantled.
The site is currently used for storage and an off-shore boom that provides
a source of revenue.
In 1979, a development concept for the combined properties was agreed
upon, and a developer was retained for the J. H. Baxter property. In 1981,
the conceptual design for the development, to be known as Port Quendall,
was submitted to the City of Renton and was basically approved. The City
of Renton imposed a condition that the development plan must prevent further
contamination of Lake Washington in a cost effective manner.
In February 1982, a preliminary environmental impact statement was
prepared for the investment consortium by CH2M Hill (54). The EIS was
presented to the City of Renton. A three phased development plan to be
realized over a 30-year period was proposed. The first phase would involve
development of the J. H. Baxter property. The Barbe lumber mill property
would be developed second. The Quendall Terminal property which lies
between the lumber mill and the Baxter property would be developed last.
The development of the Quendall Terminal, however, is crucial to the success
of the adjoining developments. The EIS acknowledged contamination at
Quendall Terminal. The City of Renton required more detail in the EIS,
specifically concerning remediation plans for Quendall Terminal. In 1983,
the consortium hired the firm of Woodward Clyde to propose remedial alterna-
tives for Quendall.
Nature of the Contamination
Slag and waste from the process were landfilled in a natural depres-
sion in an old creek bed and other places on the site during the operation
of the refinery. As a result of this land disposal and operations at the
site, there are several areas of high contamination. When the property was
acquired, the investors were aware of the possibility of contamination, and
anticipated the need to remove some hydrocarbons from oil spills. There is
anecdotal information concerning a tanker load of wood preservative being
accidentally pumped into the lake (55).
91
-------
Some limited characterization of the contamination at the site was
performed in the 1960's. This investigation, though inconclusive, sug-
gested that the contamination extended, in at least some places, down to a
depth of 18 meters (60 feet).
As part of the remedial investigation, Woodward Clyde (56) installed
12 6-meter (20-feet) deep wells. Samples from these wells indicated areas
that were highly contaminated. In addition, 18 soil borings were per-
formed. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA's) in concentrations as
high as 4.8 percent have been found in soil and water samples obtained from
certain spots. PNAs found include acenaphthene, fluorene, naphthalene,
fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, and phenanthrene. It has been estimated
that at least 165,000 cubic yards of soil are contaminated with at least
1 percent PNA. There is some evidence of migration of these substances.
PNA's are not particularly soluble in groundwater; however, in the presence
of some hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX) they will
dissolve. These hydrocarbons are present in some parts of the Quendall
Terminal site. There is also heavy contamination in the lake sediment just
offshore, probably from spills. Analysis of sediment samples from the lake
showed PNA contamination in concentrations as high as 1.3 percent (55).
Site Remediation
Because of the contamination at Quendall, the developers have altered
their proposed use of the property where the contamination is most severe.
The major contamination concern is related to effects on the water quality
in Lake Washington. The plans for the marina have been abandoned due to
the potential problems associated with dredging the highly contaminated
sediment off the site.
The proposed remediation scheme for Quendall (57) involves installing
a system of French drains to divert surface water and a slurry wall to pre-
vent drainage from the site into Lake Washington. The plan also calls for
a system to recover and treat groundwater from the site. Pumping would
lower the water table at the shore by 0.46 meter (1.5 feet) and by 1.5
meter (5 feet) at the center of the site, where BTX is present. The treated
water would be discharged to the city sewer. The entire site would be
capped to limit infiltration of rainwater. Use of the property following
the remediation would be limited to nonsensitive uses.
In October 1984, Quendall Terminal was among the uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites proposed for inclusion in the National Priorities List (NPL).
The comment period regarding the October proposal extended through December
1984. The ranking of the site according to the Mitre model was done by a
contractor hired by the State of Washington. The site scored high enough
to make the NPL mainly because a backup well for the City of Renton is
located within a three mile radius. In actuality this subject well is not
used and such a backup well could easily be relocated elsewhere.
92
-------
Currently the Quendall Terminal investor group is trying to get the
site off the NPL, since they are concerned that such a listing will dis-
courage investors from considering the site. They also anticipate delays
associated with bureaucratic involvement in the development schemes.
BOULEVARD PARK, BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON
Site Location and Special Characteristics
Boulevard Park is located in Bellingham, Washington, a town of ap-
proximately about 60,000 people some 100 miles north of Seattle. The park
is made up of two parcels of land, an upper bluff and a lower section along
the shore of Bellingham Bay. A 6-meter (20-foot) high embankment separates
the two levels of the park. On the lower edge of the embankment lies a
track of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The two parts of the park are
connected by a pedestrian bridge and stairs. The lower section of the park
which projects into Bellingham Bay is mainly fill, consisting of construction
debris, sand, and gravel.
Land Use History and Redevelopment Objectives
Boulevard Park is the site of a former coal gasification plant. The
plant was constructed in 1890 and operated until after World War II, when
natural gas came into use. Elevations at the site have remained basically
unchanged since the gasification plant was in operation. The rail line has
been in place for many years. To the north of the site the land rises
sharply, so it was not likely used by the gas plant. There is no evidence
that coal tar was ponded on the site, and, because of the limited land area
available, it is unlikely that large amounts of tar or other residues were
stored on site for long periods of time. Ash and slag may have been shipped
off by rail and used in road building. It has not been determined whether
or not the plant had an associated refinery for the production of by-
products.
A large vertical concrete storage tank from the old gas plant remains
in the upper park. The top of the tank is level with the ground on one
side, and the round flat top is readily accessible. The top of the tank is
the highest point in the park and has been designated as a picnic area.
The land slopes sharply from the top of the tank exposing the full height
of the tank toward the bay. A trail leading from the area near the top of
the tank winds around the tank to the top of the embankment separating the
two levels of the park.
Contamination at the site was first suggested after hazardous residues
were discovered at another defunct gasification facility in Seattle. A
newspaper reporter called the U.S. EPA Region 10 office to ask if Boulevard
Park might also be contaminated. A subsequent investigation revealed high
levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in samples taken from the area,
and as a result the upper part of the park was closed to the public on
July 9, 1984.
93
-------
Nature of the Contamination
When the park was constructed, the concrete storage tank apparently
contained residues from the former process. Infiltrating rainwater has
since raised the liquid level in the tank, and a black tarry material
(presumably coal tar) now seeps from the seams of the tank and oozes down
the sides, coating the walls. Upon weathering, the material appears to
harden on the walls of the tank and to blister and crack.
At the foot of the embankment liquid obviously containing hydrocarbon
material of unknown composition was observed seeping from a bare area near
the railroad tracks.
Approximately 40 soil samples were obtained from the upper park in the
vicinity of the storage tank, along the embankment, and in the lower park.
The locations of the samples are shown in Figure 4. High concentrations of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found in samples from the tar seeping
from the tank and in some of the soil samples (58). These substances
included benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and
dibenzo(ah)anthracene—compounds which have been determined to be carcino-
genic in laboratory animals. Highest levels of polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons in samples taken from the site are listed in Table 11.
Area Closed
to Public ;
Figure 4. Boulevard Park, Bellingham, Washington, showing locations of samples
taken by EPA.
-------
TABLE 11. HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS IN SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BOULEVARD PARK
Concentration (ppm)
Compound
Samples from
storage tank
(coal tar)
Samples from
pathway in
upper park
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1,866
94,530
52,240
6,470
6,840
1,617
27,360
7,960
6,592
98
7,564
3,420
454
272
151
2,693
583
386
95
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan; National Priorities List. Final
Rule. 40 CFR, Part 300. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 185,
September 21, 1984, p. 37073.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan: The National Priorities List.
Proposed Rule. 40 CFR, Part 300. Federal Register. Vol. 49, N. 200,
October 15, 1984, p. 40320.
3. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Technologies and Management
Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, OTA-M-196, March 1983.
4. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). EPA's Efforts to Clean up Three
Hazardous Waste Sites. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce,
Transportation, and Tourism, House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
GAO/RCED-84-91. June 7, 1984.
5. ACGIH. TLVs® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for
1983-84, ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio, ISBN: 0-936712-45-7, 1983.
6. ACGIH. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values, Fourth Edition,
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc., 1980
with Updates through 1983.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Criteria Docu-
ments: Availability. Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 231, 79316-79357,
November 28, 1980.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA 440/9-76-023, 1976.
Quality Criteria for Water.
9. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (NAS/NAE).
Water Quality Criteria 1972. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C., EPA-R3-73-933, 1973.
10. California Department of Health Services. Initial Statement of Reasons
for Proposed Regulations, "Criteria for Identification of Hazardous
and Extremely Hazardous Wastes." 1983.
11. Ryan, J.A. "Factors Affecting Plant Uptake of Heavy Metals from Land
Application of Residuals." In Proceedings of the National Conference
on Disposal of Residues on Land, September 13-15, 1976, St. Louis,
Missouri. Sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environ-
mental Quality Systems, Inc., and Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville,
Maryland.
96
-------
12. Cleland, J.G., and G.L. Kingsbury. Multimedia Environmental Goals for
Environmental Assessment, Volumes I and II. Prepared by Research
Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, EPA-600/777-136a and b (NTIS PB 276919),
November 1977.
13. Kingsbury, G.L., R.C. Sims, and J.B. White. Multimedia Environmental
Goals for Environmental Assessment: Volume III. MEG Charts and
Background Information Summaries (Categories 1-12), Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C., EPA-600-7-79-176a (NTIS
PB80-115108); Volume IV. MEG Charts and Background Information Summaries
(Categories 13-16), EPA-600/7-79-176b (NTIS PB80-115116), August 1979.
14. Walsh, P.J., G.G. Killough and P.S. Rohwer. "Composite Hazard Index
for Assessing Limiting Exposures to Environmental Pollutants: Formula-
tion and Derivation." Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 12,
No. 7, July 1978.
15. Dacre, J.C., D.H. Rosenblatt, and D.R. Cogley. Preliminary Pollutant
Limit Values for Human Health Effects. Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 778-784, July 1980.
16. Rosenblatt, D.H., J.C. Dacre, and D.R. Cogley. "An Environmental Fate
Model Leading to Preliminary Pollutant Limit Values for Human Health
Effects." In Environmental Risk Analysis for Chemicals, edited by
R.A. Conway, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1982.
17. Rosenblatt, D.H. and M.J. Small. Preliminary Pollutant Limit Values
for Alabama Army Ammunition Plant. Prepared for U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by U.S.
Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development Laboratory,
Ft. Detrick, Maryland, August 1981.
18. Rosenblatt, D.H. Environmental Risk Assessment for Four Munitions-
Related Contaminants at Savanna Army Depot Activity. Prepared for
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, by U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and
Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, Maryland, November 1981.
19. Rosenblatt, D.H. Recommended Decisions About Two Environmental Pollut-
ants: 0-Chlorobenzalmalonitrile and Diphenylamine. Presented at
Second Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicologists
and Chemists, Arlington, Virginia, November 1981.
20. Kingsbury, G.L. and R.L. Chessin. Monitoring Trigger Levels for
Process Characterization Studies, Final Draft. Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Prepared under EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3170-66, November 1983 (Peer review of report completed
January 24, 1984).
21. International
Evaluation of
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs on the
the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Chemicals,
97
-------
Industrial Processes and Industries Associated with Cancer in Humans,
IARC Monographs, Volumes 1 to 29. IARC Monographs Supplement 4.
Lyon, France. World Health Organization, October 1982.
22. National Toxicology Program (NTP). Third Annual Report on Carcinogens.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
NTP 83-010, September 1983.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carcinogen Assessment Group.
Method of Determining the Unit Risk Estimate for Air Pollutants.
Prepared for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards by the
Carcinogen Assessment Group, July 31, 1980.
24. Anderson, J. K., and H. K. Hatayama. Beneficial Reuses of Hazardous
Waste Sites in California. In: Proceedings of the 5th National
Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, D.C. November 7-9, 1984.
25. Western Ecological Services Company (WESCO). Soil and Groundwater
Toxicity Studies, Hercules Industrial Park, Hercules, California.
Final Report Prepared for Bio-Rad Laboratories, August 24, 1983.
26. Kennedy/Jenks Engineers. Summary Report: Hazardous Waste Management
Activities at the Gateway Project Site, May 1981 to September 1983.
Prepared for Homart Development Company, South San Francisco,
California, K/J 2119, September 1983.
27. Kennedy/Jenks Engineers. Cleanup Report: Former Oil Tank Site at the
Gateway Project. Prepared for Homart Development Company, August
1982.
28. Bryant, Jack K. and Associates, Inc. Environmental Assessment of
Soils, Groundwater, and Vapor Impacts at the Former Boucher Landfill
Site Located South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street,
Mo!a Development Corporation. Prepared for the City of Huntington
Beach Planning Department, July 1980.
29. Bryant, Jack K. and Associates, Inc. Evaluation of Landfill Gases at
the Mo!a Project Site. Prepared for Action Engineering, October 1978.
30. Bryant, Jack K. and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Studies and Proposed
Methodologies for the Sampling and Analysis of Soils and Subsurface
Gases at the Boucher Landfill Site in Huntington Beach, Mola Develop-
ment Company. Prepared for the Hazardous Materials Management Section
of the State of California Department of Health Services, February
1980.
31. Nicoll, G. A. and Associates, Inc. Additional Exploration - Interim
Report, Kellogg Terrace. Prepared for Gfeller Development Company,
March 1981.
98
-------
32. G. A. Nicoll and Associates, Inc. Additional Exploration - Conclusions,
Kellogg Terrace. Prepared for Gfeller Development Company, May 1981.
33. Engineering Science.
Terrace Excavation.
1981.
Report of Safety and Air Monitoring for Kellogg
Prepared for Gfeller Development Company, November
34. demons, G.P., J.B. Aton, H.D. Harman, and J. Scott-Simpson. The
Feasibility of Abating the Source of Groundwater Pollution at Miami
Drum Services, Dade County, Florida. Field Investigations of Uncon-
trolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Ecology and Environment, Inc. FIT
Project Task Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Contract No. 68-01-6056. TDD# F4-8112-01. December 1981.
35. Myers, V. B. Remedial Activities at the Miami Drum Site, Florida.
In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Management of Uncon-
trolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Washington, D.C. October 31 - November
2, 1983. :
36. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Kapkowski Road Site,
Elizabeth, N.J., Report on Environmental Test Program and Recommended
Mitigation Measures. . Engineering Department, R.M. Monti, Chief Engineer.
August 1982. 79 pages. ,
37, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Waste
Management. Record of Decision, Remedial..Alternative Selection,
Kapkowski Road Site-West, Elizabeth, Uni6n County, New Jersey.
September 1984. -
38. Good, J. "Chemicals at Courtyard: Toxic Waste Taken Away. The
Burlington Free Press. No. 130. Sunday, May 10, 1981.
39. Lillie, A.F. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination Program, Final Report.
Prepared by Rockwell International Atomics International Division,
Energy Systems Group,-Canoga Park,California, for U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Report
No. DRXTH-FS-CR-80085, January 1981.
40. Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Report, Major Pollution Incident.
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc., Baltimore, MD. Emergency Removal
Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Middle Atlantic
Region/Ill, Philadelphia, PA. 1981.
41. Thompson, S.N., A.S. Burgess, and D. O'Dea. Coal Jar Containment and
Cleanup, Plattsburgh, New York. In: Proceedings of the National
Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, D.C. October 31 - November 2, 1983. ,
42. Acres American, Inc. Specification for Phase 2--River Cleanup and
Civil Construction. May 1982.
99
-------
43. Wilson, D.C. and C. Stevens. Problems Arising from the Redevelopment
of Gas Works. Prepared by AERE Harwell, Environmental and Medical
Sciences Division for the Department of Environment, United Kingdom.
Oxfordshire, England. AERE-R 10366, November 1981.
•t
44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Sites Listed
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980. Fall 1983.
45. Steinbrueck, V. "Gas Generators and Operating Equipment," Registry of
Historic Places, Inventory Nomination." Prepared by Professor Victor
Steinbrueck, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Seattle,
Washington.
46. Orth, 0. G., Jr. "Our Latent Environmental Pollution." Letter to the
City Desk, Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington, April 4, 1984.
47. Haag, R. "A Report for Substantiating the Master Plan for Myrtle
Edwards Park, City of Seattle." Prepared by Richard Haag Associates,
Inc., Landscape Architects/Site Planners, for Wes Uhlman, Mayor;
Department of Parks and Recreation; Board of Park Commissioners; and
Board of Public Works. April 1971.
48. Cole, D. W. and P. S. Machno. Myrtle Edwards Park--A Study of the
Surface and Subsurface Soil Materials." Submitted to the City of
Seattle, Department of Parks and Recreation, December 22, 1971.
49. History of Park Development," 1984. Available through the site manager
of Gas Works Park, U.S. EPA Region X Office, Seattle, WA.
50. Drew, K. "Gasworks .Park—Summary of Results." Prepared by Ecology
and Environment, Inc., Seattle, Washington for U.S. EPA, Region X,
J.E. Osborn, Regional Project Officer. TDD R10-8403-11. July 18,
1984.
51. Mayor's Committee on Gas Works Park, Draft Report, June 1984.
52. Centers for Disease Control. Report on Gas Works Park, Seattle,
Washington: June 28, 1984. Transmitted to Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA, Region X, Seattle, Washington, July 9, 1984 by V. R. Houk,
M.D., Director, Center for Environmental Health, July 9, 1984.
53. Letter to the People of Seattle. Office of the Mayor, City of Seattle,
Charles Royer, Mayor, July 25, 1984.
54. CH2M Hill, Inc. "Final Environmental Impact Statement, Port Quendall
Preliminary Plan." Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., Bellevue, WA, for the
City of Renton, Washington. February 1982.
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington. "Port
Quendall Offshore Sediment Investigation." December 1983.
100
-------
56. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. "Port Quendall Investigation." Prepared
by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Walnut Creek, California. Submitted to
the Washington Department of Ecology. September 1983.
57. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. "Description of Ground Water Pumping
Remedial Action for Quendall Terminal." Presented to the City of
Renton Planning and Zoning Board. 1984.
58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Communication on Boulevard Park
Screening Data from William Schmidt, Acting Chief Field Operations and
Technical Support to Robert Courson, Acting Chief, Superfund Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. July 5, 1984.
101
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF CONTACTS
This appendix lists the various individuals contacted in the U.S. EPA
Regional Offices and State offices responsible for site cleanups and environ-
mental protection.
102
-------
APPENDIX A
EPA REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACTS
REGION 1
Ms. Ruth Leidman
Environmental Protection Specialist
Waste Management Branch
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
REGION 2
Mr. Sal Badalamenti
Environmental Engineer
Mr. John Czapor
Environmental Scientist
Hazardous Waste Section
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
REGION 3
Mr. Neil Swanson
Environmental Scientist
Mr. Abe Fertis
Chief, Super Fund Remedial Section
Ms. Kathy Hodgkiss, Scientist
Mr. Tom Massey, On-Scene Coordinator
Mr. Fran Mulhearn, Federal Facility
Compliance Coordinator
Hazardous Materials Branch
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
REGION 4
Ms. Nancy Redgate, Project Engineer
Mr. Jim Orban, Project Engineer
Residuals Management Branch
345 Court!and Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
REGION 5
Mr. Rich Bartels, Chief
Remedial Response Branch
Mr. Bob Bowden, Chief
Spill Response Section
Mr. Greg Vanderlaan, Chief
Remedial Response Branch
Waste Management Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(617) 223-5775
(212) 264-2647
(212) 264-2647
(215) 597-3437
(215) 597-9401
(215) 597-9023
(215) 597-9858
(215) 597-4799
(404) 881-2643
(404) 881-2643
(312) 886-6148
(312) 353-9773
(312) 353-2102
(312) 886-6217
103
-------
REGION 6
Mr. Bill Hathaway, Deputy Director (214) 767-9708
Solid Waste Branch
1201 Elm Street
First International Building
Dallas, TX 75270
REGION 7
Ms. Deborah McKinley, Environmental Engineer (816) 374-6864
Hazardous Materials Branch
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
REGION 8
Mr. John Warden
Ms. Margo Nielson, Physical Scientist
Waste Management Branch
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80203
REGION 9
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Toxics & Waste Management Division
Ms. Kathy Kenworthy
State Program Section Chief
Hazardous Materials Branch
215 Freemont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
REGION 10
Ms. Anita Frankel
Mr. Wayne Grotheer, P.E.
Ms. Norma M. Lewis
Mr. John Meyer
Mr. Neil Thompson
Mr. Phillip Wong, P.E.
Waste Management Branch
Superfund Enforcement Section
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(303) 837-6238
(303) 837-6238
(415) 974-7460
(415) 974-7518
(206) 442-1220
(206) 442-1272
(206) 442-2715
(206) 442-1271
(206) 442-7177
(206) 442-7216
104
-------
STATE CONTACTS
ALABAMA
Mr. Harold Taylor, Pollution Control Specialist
Mr. Buddy Cox, Chief, Industrial Hazardous Waste Division
Division of Solid Waste and Vector Control
Department of Public Health
State of Alabama
Montgomery, AL
(205) 834-1303
ARIZONA
Mr. Bill Williams, Manager, Hazardous Waste Section
Bureau of Waste Control
Department of Health Services
State of Arizona
Phoenix, AZ
ARKANSAS
Ms. Sandra Perry, Hazardous Waste Coordinator
Solid Waste Management Division
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
State of Arkansas
Little Rock, AR
CALIFORNIA - CENTRAL OFFICE
Mr. Glenn Twitchell, Waste Management Engineer
Mr. Stan Phillippe
Mr. Lloyd Batham
Ms. Judy Tracy, Waste Management Specialist
Mr. Jim Smith
Mr. Ned Therien, Waste Management Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Section
Department of Health Services
State of California
1219 K Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA
CALIFORNIA - REGIONAL OFFICES
Ms. Julie Anderson, Waste Management Specialist
Ms. Barbara Barry, Waste Management Specialist II
Ms. Marilyn Blume, Waste Management Specialist
Mr. Wil Bruhns, Waste Management Engineer
Mr. Howard Hateyama, Waste Management Engineer
Mr. Paul Williams, Waste Management Specialist III
Regional Office
State of California
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA
(602) 255-1160
(501) 562-7444
(916) 324-3773
(916) 324-1801
(916) 323-6042
(916) 324-1798
(415) 540-2053
105
-------
Mr. James Stabler, Regional Administrator
Mr. Brad Parsons, Waste Management Specialist
Regional Office
State of California
4250 Power Inn Road
Sacramento, CA
Mr. Miller Chambers, Waste Management Engineer
Regional Office
State of California
107 South Broadway, Room 7128
Los Angeles, CA
COLORADO
Mr. Ned Noack, Geologist
Solid and Hazardous Waste Section
Department of Health
State of Colorado
Denver, CO
CONNECTICUT
Dr. Steven Hitchcock, Director, Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Waste Management Unit
Department of Environmental Protection
State of Connecticut
Hartford, CT
DELAWARE
Ms. Marilyn Plitnik, Geohydrologist
Solid Waste Management Section
State of Delaware
Dover, DL
FLORIDA
Mr. Eric Neusey, Environmental Specialist II
Hazardous Waste Division
Department of Environmental Regulation
State of Florida
Tallahassee, FL
GEORGIA
Mr. Jim Usrey, Environmental Specialist
Hapesville, GA
(916) 739-3145
(303) 320-8333
(203) 566-4869
(203) 566-4924
(302) 736-4781
(302) 736-4793
(904) 488-0300
(904) 488-0130
(404) 656-2833
Ms. Jennifer Kaydak, Unit Coordinator
Industrial and Hazardous Waste Management Program
Land Protection Branch, Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
State of Georgia
Atlanta, GA
(404) 656-7802
106
-------
IDAHO
Mr. Robert P. Olsen, Chief, Hazardous Materials Bureau
Solid/Hazardous Materials Section
Department of Health and Welfare
State of Idaho
Boise, ID
ILLINOIS
Mr. Bill Child, Deputy Division Manager of Land
Mr. Robert Cowles, Super Fund Coordinator
Division of Land and Noise Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
State of Illinois
Springfield, IL
INDIANA
Ms. Jacqueline Strecker, Solid Waste Management Planner
Solid Waste Management Section
Division of Sanitary Engineering
State Board of Health
State of Indiana
Indianapolis, IN
IOWA
Mr. Ron Kolpa, Hazardous Waste Program Coordinator
Air and Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
State of Iowa
Des Moines, IA
KANSAS
Mr. Richard Flannery, Chemical Engineer
Hazardous Waste Management Unit
Department of Health and Environment
State of Kansas
Topeka, KS
(208) 334-4107
(217) 782-6760
(217) 782-0245
(317) 633-0176
(515) 281-8853
(913) 862-9360
KENTUCKY
Mr. Barry Burris, Chief, On-Site Control Unit
Division of Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
State of Kentucky
Frankfort, KY
(502) 564-6716
LOUISIANA
Mr. Hal Etheridge, Environmental Specialist
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Environmental Affairs
State of Louisiana
Baton Rouge, LA
(504) 342-1227
107
-------
(301) 383-5734
MAINE (207) 289-2651
Mr. Bob Demklin, Environmental Services Specialist '
Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Waste Materials
Department of Environmental Protection
State of Maine
Augusta, ME
MARYLAND
Mr. Bob Byer, Geologist
Hazardous Waste Division
Office of Environmental Programs
State of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
MASSACHUSETTS (617) 727-0774
Mr. Dick Chalpin,- Deputy Regional Environmental Engineer
Division of Hazardous Waste
Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineering
State of Massachusetts
Woburn, MA
MICHIGAN
Mr. Andrew Hogarth., Chief, Remedial Action Section
Office of Hazardous Waste Management
Environmental Services Division
Department of Natural Resources
State of Michigan
Lansing, MI
MINNESOTA
(517) 373-8440
(612) 296-7235
Mr. Dick Cable, Team Leader, Environmental Response Team
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Pollution Control Agency
State of Minnesota
Roseville, MN
MISSISSIPPI
Mr. John Herman, Environmental Engineer
Division of Solid Waste Management and Vector Control
State of Mississippi
Jackson, MS
MISSOURI
Mr. R. Stan Jorgensen, Chief of Enforcement
Super Fund Section
Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Natural Resources
State of Missouri
Jefferson City, MO
MONTANA
Mr. Dwayne Robertson
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Dept. of Health and Environmental l&eiences
Montana
(601) 982-6317
(601) 961-5171
(314) 751-3241
(406) 449-2408
108 ;i
-------
NEBRASKA
Mr. Mike Stessenmeier
Water and Waste Management Division
Department of Environmental Control
State of Nebraska
Lincoln, NB
NEVADA
Ms. Aileen Colson, Environmentl Specialist
Mr. Doug Martin, Environmental Specialist
Division of Environmental Protection
Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources
State of Nevada
Carson City, NV
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Brook Dupee, Program Manager
Bureau of Solid Waste
Department of Health and Welfare
State of New Hampshire
Concord, NH
NEW JERSEY
Dr. Jorge Berkowitz, Acting Administrator
Solid Waste Administration
Division of Environmental Quality
State of New Jersey
Trenton, NJ
NEW YORK
Mr. Charles Goddard, Chief
Bureau of Hazardous Site Control
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York
Albany, NY
NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Bill Myer, Environmental Engineer
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch
State of North Carolina
Raleigh, NC
NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Bill Knatterud
Division of Environmental Waste Management and Research
Department of Health
State of North Dakota
Bismarck, ND
(402) 471-4271
(702) 885-4670
(603) 271-4610
(609) 292-9120
(609) 984-3068
(518) 457-6858
(518) 457-0730
(919) 733-2178
(701) 224-2392
(701) 224-2366
109
-------
OHIO
Mr. Mark Besel
Office of Hazardous Materials Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
State of Ohio
Columbus, OH
OKLAHOMA
Mr. Don Hinch, Director, Industrial Waste Division
Industrial and Solid Waste Service
Department of Health
State of Oklahoma
Oklahoma City, OK
OREGON
Mr. Steve Sander, Hazardous Waste Specialist
Mr. Rich Reiter, Supervisor, Hazardous Waste Operations
Solid Waste Management Division
Department of Environmental Quality
State of Oregon
Portland, OR
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Mike Steiner, Chief
Emergency and Remedial Response Section
State of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, PA
Mr. Bruce Beitler, Operations Supervisor
Regional Office
State of Pennsylvania
Norristown, PA
Mr. George Danyliw, Operations Field Supervisor
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Department of Environmental Resources
Regional Office
State of Pennsylvania
Media, PA
RHODE ISLAND
Mr. John Quinn, Supervisor
Division of Air and Hazardous Materials
Department of Environmental Management
State of Rhode Island
Providence, RI
SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Jim Ulrey, Director
Division of Site Engineering and Response Activity
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Health and Environmental Control
State of South Carolina
Columbia, SC
(614) 466-8934
(614) 462-8947
(405) 271-5338
(503) 229-5913
(717) 787-7381
(717) 787-7383
(215) 631-2420
(215) 565-1687
(401) 277-2808
(401) 277-2797
(803) 758-5681
110
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
******
Solid Waste Program
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Health
State of South Dakota
South Dakota
TENNESSEE
Mr. Don Shackleford, Consultant
Division of Solid Waste Management
Bureau of Environmental Services
Department of Public Health
State of Tennessee
Nashville, TN
TEXAS
Mr. Rod Kimbro, Head, Abandon Site Response Unit
Ms. Ann McGinley, Hydrologist
Industrial Solid Waste Unit
Department of Water Resources
State of Texas
Austin, TX
UTAH
Mr. Jim Salmon
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Division of Health
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
VERMONT
Mr. John Malter, Acting Chief
Solid Waste Management
Hazardous Materials Management Section
State of Vermont
Montpelier, VT
VIRGINIA
Mr. Gulevich, Director
Hazardous Waste Management
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
State of Virginia
Richmond, VA
WASHINGTON
Mr. Jim Krull, Project Manager
Hazardous Waste Section
Department of Ecology
State of Washington
Olympia, WA
(605) 773-3329
(615) 741-3424
(512) 475-1344
(512) 475-5516
(801) 533-4145
(802) 828-3395
(804) 786-5271
(206) 459-6050
111
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. John Northeimer, Branch Head
Solid Waste Division
Department of Health
State of West Virginia
Charleston, WV
WISCONSIN
Mr. Rich O'Hara, Chief of Hazardous Waste
Mr. Bill Rock, Chief of Hazardous Water Waste
Solid Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
WYOMING
******
Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Environmental Quality
Solid/Hazardous Waste Management
State of Wyoming
Wyoming
(304) 348-2987
(304) 348-5935
(608) 266-1327
(608) 266-0833
(608) 267-7649
(307) 777-7752
112
-------
APPENDIX B
EXISTING GUIDELINES USEFUL IN SITE ASSESSMENT
AND CLEANUP
appe"d1? Presents ™ tabular format some of the established
that
113
-------
TABLE B-l. NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS (40 CFR, Part 50)
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Type of Averaging
standard time
Primary and
secondary
Primary and
secondary
1 hr
8 hr
1 yr
Frequency
parameter
Annual maximum
Annual maximum
Arithmetic mean
Concentration
yg/m
40,000
10,000
100
ppm
35
9
0.05
Particulate
matter
Sulfur dioxide
Lead
Ozone
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Primary and
secondary
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
1 yr
3 hr
90 day
1 hr
Annual maximum
Annual geometric
mean
Annual maximum
Annual geometric
mean
Annual maximum
Arithmetic mean
Annual maximum
260
75
150
,
60b
365
80
1,300
1.5
235
-
-
-
—
0.14
0.03
0.5
0.12
^ot to be exceeded more than once per year.
bAs a guide to be used in assessing implementation plans for achieving the
annual maximum 24-hour standard.
114
-------
TABLE B-2 OSHA REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN 1971
SUBPART Z-TOXIC AMD HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Source: 39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, unless otherwise noted. Redesignatad at 40 FR 27073, May 28, 1975.
§ 1910.1000 Air contaminants.
An employee's exposure to any material listed in Tables Z-1 1 Z-2, or Z-3 of this section shad be limited in accordance
with the requirements of the following paragraphs of this section.
(a) Table Z-1:
(1) Materials with namss preceded by "C"-Ca'ing Values. An employee's exposure to any material in Table Z-1,
the name of which is preceded by a "C" (e.g., C boron trifluoride), shag at no time exceed the ceing value
given for that material in the table.
(2) Other materials-8-hour time-weighted averages. An employee's exposure to any material hi Table Z-1, the
name of which is not preceded by "C", in any 8-hour work shift of a 40-hour workweek, shall not exceed
the 8-hour time-weighted average given for that material in the table.
(b) Table Z-2:
(1) 8-hour time-weighted averages. An employee's exposure to any material listed in Tabfe Z-2, in any 8-hour
work shift of a 40-hour workweek, shag not exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average limit given for that
material in the tabte.
(2) Acceptable ceing concentrations. An emptoyea's exposure to a material listed in Tabte Z-2 shall not exceed
at any time during an 8-hour shift the acceptable ceing concentration limit given for the material in the
table, except for a time period, and up to a concentration, not exceedmg the maximum duration and concen-
tration allowed in the column under "acceptable maximum peak above the acceptabks ceiing concentration
for an 8-hour shift."
(3) Example. During an 8-hour work shift, an employee may be exposed to a concentration of benzene above
25 ppm (but never above 50 ppm) only for a maximum period of 10 minutes. Such exposure must be com-
pensated by exposures to concentrations tess than 10 ppm so that the cumulative exposure for the entire
8-hour work shift does not exceed a weighted average of 10 ppm.
(c) Tabte Z-3: an employee's exposure to any material listed in Tabte Z-3, m any 8-hour work shift of a 40-hour
workweek, shall not exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average imit given for that material in the table.
(d) Computation formulae:
(1) (i) The cumulative exposure for an 8-hour work shift shal be computed as follows:
E -
Where:
8
E is the equivalent cumulative exposure for the work shift.
C is the concentration during any period of time T where the concentration remains constant.
T is the duration in hours of the exposure at the concentration C.
The value of E shall not exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average limit in Tables Z-1, Z-2, or Z-3 for the material
involved.
115
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
(ii) To illustrata the formula prescribed in subdivision (i) of this subparagraph, note that isoamyl acetate has an
8-hoar time-weighted average limit of 100 ppm (Table Z-1). Assume that an employee is subject to the following
exposure:
Two hours' exposure at 150 ppm
Two hours' exposure at 75 ppm
Four hours' exposure at 50 ppm.
Substituting this information in the formula, we have
2 x 150 + 2 x 75 + 4 x 50
8
81.25 ppm
Since 81.25 ppm is less than 100 ppm, the 8-hour time-weighted average limit, the exposure is acceptable.
(2) (i) In case of a mixture of air contaminants an employer shall compute the equivalent exposure as follows:
En, -
L,
Where:
E,,, is the equivalent exposure for the mixture.
C is the concentration of a particular contaminant.
L is the exposure limit for that contaminant, from Table Z-1, Z-2, or Z-3.
The vfllin of Em shall not exceed unity (1).
(i) To illustrate the formula prescribed in subdivision (i) of this subparagraph, consider the fallowing exposures:
Material
Acetone (Table Z-1)
2-Butanone (Tabte Z-1)
Toluene (Table Z-2)
Substituting in the formula, we have:
500 45
171 1000 200
Actual concen-
tration of 8-
hour exposure
500 ppm
45 ppm
40 ppm
40
200
8-hour time-weighted
average exposure limit
1,000 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
Em - 0.500 + 0.225 + 0.200
En, - 0.925
Since Em is less than unity (1), the exposure combination is within acceptable limits.
(e) To achieve compliance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, administrative or engineering controls must
first be determined and implemented whenever feasible. When such controls are not feasible to achieve full com-
pliance, protective equipment or any other protective measures shall be used to keep the exposures of employees to
air contaminants within the limits prescribed in this section. Any equipment and/or technical measures used for this
116
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
purpose must be approved for by each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically
quaified person. Whenever respirators are used, their use shall comply with CFR 29, Chapter XV, II Part
1910.134.
TABLE Z-1
Acetatdahydi
Acstic add
Acetic anhydrite
Acatora
Acatontfis
Acetylene dehhrnds.
set 1,2-DichloroethyJ6fle
Acetylene lauaoioniHH
Acralain
Acrylamide-skin
Aldrin-skin
Aiyl alcohol-skin
Atyi chloride
C Alylojycidyl ether (AGE)
Aiyl propyl dBuhlde
2-Aminoethanol, saa Ethanoiamine
2-Airinopyriolne
AmmoiM
AIIWMXMHI suffamate (Anvnata)
0-Amyl acetate
sac-Amyl acetate
ArAw-skin
Amidhe (o, /Msomars)— skin
Antimony and compounds (as Sb)
ANTU (Alpha naphthyi thome)
Arsenic and compounds (as As)
Arsne
Aanphos-metiiyi-skin
Bariucn (soluble compounds)
p-BKatufxnna, see Quinone
Benzoyl peroxide
Benzyl chloride
Biphanyi, see Dtphaiy)
Biphsnyl A, see Oiglycidyl ether
Boron oxide
C Boron trifluoride
Bremne
Bromoform-skin
Butadnne (1,3-butadwne)
Butanethnl, see Butyl marcaptan
2-Butamne
2-Butoxy ethanol (Butyl ceHosohnhskin
Butyl acetate (n-butyi acetate)
sac-Butyl acetate
tert-Butyl acetate
Butyl alcohol
sec-Butyl alcohol
tart-Butyl alcohol
C Butylamina-skm
C tart-Butyl ehromate as (Cr02)-skin
n-Butyl gjycidyl ether (BGE)
Butyl mercaptan
200
10
5
1,000
40
1
0.1
2
1
10
2
0.5
50
100
125
5
0.05
1
1
0.1
0.5
1,000
200
50
150
200
200
100
150
100
5
50
10
360
25
20
2,400
70
14
0.25
0.3
0.25
5
3
45
12
2
35
15
525
650
19
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
5
5
15
3
0.7
5
2,200
590
240
710
950
950
300
450
300
15
0.1
270
35
(see footnotes at end of table)
(continued)
117
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Substance
ppm1
/Mert-ButyltoluenB
Calcium oxide
Camphor
Carbaryl (Savin®)
Carbon Wade
Carbon dnxkfe
Cartxm monoxidi
Chlordane-skin
Chiorinatad camphene-skni
Chlorinated dohanyi oxide
C Chlorine
Chlorine dwn'de
C Chlorine trifiuoride
C Chloroacatatdehyda
o-Chloraacatopherione (phenacylcMoridg)
ChtorooeraerwfnMnochlorobenzene)
o-Chlorobanzyiiden maJonrtrite (OCBM)
Chtorobromomethane
2-Chloro-1.3-butadwne, see Chtoropram
CHoradiphartyi (42 pareant CWorina]-jloi
Chtoradpheny) (54 parcsnt CMorinahskin
1-ChJoro,2,3-cpoxypropane, SM
EptcWofhydrin
2-Chlofotthsnol, set Ethylans
chlorohydrin
ChloroathyiacN, saa Viiyt chforida
C Chlorofofm (tricMoromathane)
1 -CWoro-1 -nftropropana
CHoropicrin
Chloropram (2-Chk3fo-1,3-bul8d»ne)-skin
Chronium, sol. chronic, chromous salts as Cr
Mttal and insol. salts
Coal tar pitch volaties (banana soluble
fraction) anthracene, BaP, phonanthrena,
acriolne, chryurw, pyrane
Cobalt, mttal fume and dust
Copper fume
Dusts and mists
Cotton dust (raw)
Crag® herbicide
Crasd (al isomenl-sldn
CrotonaldahYde
Cumene-skin
Cyanida (as CNl-skin
Cydohexane
Cydohaxanol
Cydohexanone
Cydohaxana
Cydopecrtadwoe
2,4-D
DDT-skin
DDVP,
Dacaborana-skin
Demeton9 -skin
Ditcatona alcohol (4-Hydroxymethyl
1-1-2-pentanone)
10
5,000
50
1
0.1
0.1
1
0.05
75
0.05
200
50
20
Q.1
25
5
2
50
300
50
50
300
75
0.05
0.05
50
60
5
2
5
3.5
9,000
55
0.5
0.5
0.5
3
0.3
0.4
3
0.3
350
0.4
1,050
1
0.5
240
100
0.7
90
0.5
1
0.2
0.1
0.1
1
1
15
22
8
245
5
1,050
200
200
1,015
200
10
1
1
0.3
0.3
240
(saa footnotes at end of table)
(continued)
118
-------
TABLE 6-2 (continued)
Substance
mg/m3b
U-Diaminoethane, see Ethytensdamine
Oiazomethane
OJboram-
Dibutylphthalate
C o-Dichtorobenzene
/7-Dichlorobenzene
Oichlorodifluoromethane
1,3-Oicntoro-5.5-dimethyl hydantoin
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Ofchtoroethylene
C Dichloroethyl ether-skin
Dichloramethane, see Methylene chloride
(table Z-2)
Dichloromonofluoromethane
C U-Oichloro-1-nitroetnane
1,2-Oichlofopropane, see Proplyene dicHoride
DichlorotetrafluoroethanB
Dichtorvos (DDVP)-skin
Diadrin-skin
DJethyJamme
Diethylamino ethanoi-skin
Diethytether, see Ethyl ether
Difluorodftromomethare
C Diglyddyi ether (DGE)
Oihydroxybenzene, see Hydroquinone
Diisobutyl ketone
Oiisopropylanwie-skin
DimettMxymathsne, see Methyfal
Dimethyl acstamida-skin
Dkmthylarrone
Oimethylaminobenzene, see Xyfidene
DimethylanilinB (N-dimethylamline)-skin
DiimthylboizeRa, sea Xylene
Dimethyl 1,2-d%romo-2.2-dichlorethyi
phosphate, (Dibrom)
Dtmethyfformamide-skin
2,6-Dimethylheptanone, see Disobutyl ketone
1,1 -Oimethylhydrazins-skin
Dimethylphthalate
Dimethylsulfate-skin
Dinitrobenzene (al isomersl-skin
Dinitro-0-cresol-skin
Dinitrotoluene-skm
Dioxane (Diethylene dioxidel-skin
Diphenyl
Oiphenylmethane dnsocyanate,
see methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MOD
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether-skin
Di-sec, octylphthalate (Di-2-
etnylhexylphthalate
Endrin-skin
Epichlorohydrin-skm
EPN-skin
1,2-Epoxypropane, see Propylene oxide
2,3-E|»xy-1-propanol, see GtyckW
Ethanethiol, see Ethyl mercaptan
Ethanolamine
0.2
1
50
75
1.000
100
200
15
1,000
10
1,000
25
10
100
0.5
50
5
10
10
10
0.5
1
100
0.2
100
0.4
5
5
300
450
4,950
0.2
400
790
90
4,200
7,000
1
0.25
75
50
860
2.8
290
20
35
18
25
3
30
1
5
5
1
0.2
1.5
360
1
600
5
0.1
19
0.5
(see footnotes at end of table)
(continued)
119
-------
Substancs
2-Ethoxyethancii-skin
2-Ettoxyathylacstata (Cetosolve-
acatstaj-skin
Ethyl acatata
Ethyl aoytate-skin
Ethyl alcohol felted)
Ethytenina
Ethyl sac-amyl kttone (5-MethyJ-
3-haptanona)
Ethyl banana
Ethyl bromida
Ethyl butyl katona (3-Haptanone)
Ethyl chloridt
Ethyl alter
Ethyl formate
C Ethyl marcaptw
Ethyl sXcata
Ethyiera cNorohydrin-skin
EthytowSamine
Ethyiena dtaomkte, saa U-Diranostharw
Ethyfane dfchloride, saa 1,2-t5chloroetiiane
C Ethyim glycd dntrata and/or
• nininiA - • "- f-r—
fiirovycarn-slan
Ethytaia giycnl monomathyl ethar acttstt.
m Matfiyl caijwlvt aortita
Ethyiana kim-sfch
Ethylana oxida
CtluJLEnM j^JnnH* *^ 1 1 lltpUmwifuwU
ttnyiuMo u»u HW, ssa 1,1 utcnwDoirem
N-Ethyknocphoino— skin
ftibani
Famvanadum durt
RjoridafssR
Huorina
Huorotrichloniniathara
Ferric add
Furfinl-skin
Rffural alcoho)
Kyddol {2^-Epoxy-1-{npanal)
Glycd monoathyl ether, saa Z-Ethoxyotiianal
t* I!I?.I_L'^ , i, . fl iTiuiliiiBi na ihi il
Gutnion , saa Aznptxisnetnyl
HtfnJun
Koptachlor-sidn
Haptana (n-Heptana)
Hnachloroathana-dcin
Haxachiorauphtfulana-skh
Haxane (n-Hwana)
2-Haxanona
Haxona (Methyl isobutyl kstone)
sac-Haxyl acatata
Hydnzna— skin
Hydrogen bnxndB
C HydrOQW chlorida
Hydrogen cyanda-skin
Hydrogen paronde (90S)
Hydrogen sefenids
Hydroqurane
Clodra
TABLE B-2 (continued)
ppin«
200
100
400
25
1,000
10
25
100
200
50
1,000
400
100
10
100
5
10
0.2"
0.5
50
20
0.1
1,000
5
5
50
50
500
1
500
100
100
50
1
3
5
10
1
0.05
0.1
mg|m3
740
540
1,400
100
1,900
18
ion
IJU
435
890
230
2,600
1,200
300
25
a en
O9U
1C
IB
")K
£9
QA
ot
1K
13
1
2.5
0.2
5,600
9
20
200
150
n c
0.5
0.5
2,000
m
10
0.2
Ionn
,800
410
410
onn
300
1 o
1.0
m
IU
1°*
A
n o
0.2
^
£.
4
f 1
(saa footnotes at end of table)
120
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Substance
mg/rn
3
Iron oxide fume
Isoamyl acetate
Isoamyl alcohol
Isobutyl acetate
Isobutyl alcohol
Isopnorone
Isopropyl acetate
Isopropyl alcohol
Isopropylamine
Isopropytether
Isopropyl gfyddyl ether (IGE)
Ketene
Lead arsenate
Undone-skin
Lithium hydride
LP.G. (Equified petroleum gas)
Magnesium oxide fume
Malathkm-skHi
Maleic anhydride
C Manganese
Masrtyi oxide
Methsnethid, see Methyl mercaptan
Methoxychlw
2-Methoxyethanol, see Methyl cetosolve
Methyl acetate
Methyl acetylene (propyne)
Methyl acetykan-propadene mixture (MAPP)
Methyl acrylata-skin
Methylal (atmethoxymethane)
Methyl alcohol (methanoi)
Methylamine
Methyl arnyl alcohol, see Methyl isobutyl
carfcnol
Methyl (o-Amyi) ketone (2-Heptanone)
C Methyl bromide-skh
Methyl butyl ketone, see 2-Hexanone
Methyl cettosolve-skin
Methyl cetosotve acetate-skin
Methyl chloroform
Methylcydohexane
Methylcydohexanol
0-Methylcydohexanone-skin
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), see 2-Butanone
Methyl formate
Methyl iodide-skin
Methyl isobutyl carbinol-skin
Methyl isobutyl ketone, see Hexone
Methyl isocyanate-skin
C Methyl mercaptan
Methyl merthacrylate
Methyl propyl ketone, see 2-Pentanone
C a Methyl styrene
C Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MOD
Molybdenum:
Soluble compounds
Insoluble compounds
Monomethyi aniline-skin
100
100
150
100
25
250
400
5
500
50
0.5
1,000
0.25
25
200
1,000
1,000
10
1,000
200
10
100
20
25
25
350
500
100
100
100
5
25
0.02
10
100
100
0.02
10
525
360
700
950
980
12
2,100
240
0.9
0.15
0.5
0.025
1,800
15
15
5
100
15
610
1,650
1,800
3,100
12
465
80
120
£000
250
100
0.05
480
5
15
9
(see footnotes at end of table)
(continued)
121
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Substwic*
C Monomethyl hydrazme-skki
MorpbolJna-skin
Naphtha (coal tar)
Naphthalene
Nickel carbonyl
Nicks!, metal and soluble compounds, as Ni
Nicotine-skin
Nitric acid
Nitric oxide
/7-Nitroanfina-skin
Nitrobenzene-skm
/^-f^trochtorobanzane-skin
Nitros thane
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen trifiuoride
Nitroglycerin-skin
Nhromethana
1-ffitroproparn
2-Nitrcpropans
Nttrotoluene-skin
Wtrotrichtoromethine, see Cbtorapicrin
rjctaditoronaphthalene-sldn
Octane
01 mist, mineral
Osmium tetroxide
Oxalic acid
Oxygen difluoride
Ozone
Paraquat-skin
Parathwn-skin
Pentaborane
Pentachfwonaphthatew-skin
PaitacWofopherwI-ikin
Pent ana
2-Pentanone
Perchloromethyi mercaptan
Parchloryl fluoride
Petroleum otstilatss (naphtha)
Phenol-skin
/T-Phenylene damine-skin
Phenyl ether (vapor)
Phenyl ether-biphenyi mixture (vapor)
Phanylsthytaw, see Styrene (table 1-2)
Phenylfllvcidyl ether (PG0
Phanyhydraane-skki
Phosdrin (Mevinpbos®)-skin
Phosgene (carbonyl chloride)
Phosphine
Phosphoric add
Phosphorus (yellow)
Phosphorus pontachloride
Phosphorus pentasulfide
Phosphorus trichloride
PhthaEc anhydride
Picric acid-skin
Prvsl (2-Pivalyl-1,3-ind8ndione)
Platinum (soluble salts) as Pt
ppm«
0.2
20
100
10
0.001
2
25
1
1
100
5
10
0.2
100
25
25
5
500
0.05
0.1
0.005
1,000
200
0.1
3
500
5
1
1
10
5
0.1
0.3
0.5
2
ma/ma"
0.35
70
jtnn
400
cn
50
0.007
1-.
0.5
5
30
6
5
1
1 44 n
310
9
on
29
2
ocn
250
90
90
30
0.1
2,350
.5d
0.002
1
0.1
n *9
nz
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.5
0.5
2,950
700
0.8
11C
13.5
2,000
4 g\
19
0.1
•JO
ii.
n i
0.1
n A
0.4
0.4
04
.1
1 *>
\i
n 1
0.1
0.1
n rino
0.002
(see footnotes at end of table)
(continued)
122
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Substaiisa
Propane
ff-Propy! assists
Prapyl alcohol
/r-Propy) nitrate
Prcpyisne drehtoride
Propytene imaw-skin
Propytena osida
Propyne, see Methyl acetylene
Pyrethrum
Qk>MIJH*«
rynosis
Quinona
RDX-skm
Rhodium, metsi fume and dusts, as flh-
solubJe salts
Rome)
Rotenona (commara'al)
Sdsnium conHnunds (as Se)
Sdemim hsxaflucrida
S3ver, metaJ and soluble compounds
Soclum fluoroscatate (10801-skin
Sodium hydroxide
Stibine
Stoddard solvent
Strydwns
Sulfur dnxide
Sulfuf hestafluoride
Sulfuric acid
SuJfurmonochlorids
Suifur pentafhtoride
Sulfuryi fluoride
Systox, SM Demeton 2,4,5, T
Tantalum
TEDP-skin
TeHurium
TeJIunum hexanucrida
TEPP-skm
C-Terphenyls
1 , 1 , 1 ,2-Tetrachloro-2,2-ai(iuoroeth8ne
1 , 1 ,2,2-TetracMwo- 1 ,2-dfluofoethsne
1,1,2,2-TetracW()roet}iao3-skin
Tetrachlcnwthylane, see Perchkmwthylene
TetrscMoromethane, see Carbon
tetrachloride (table Z-2)
Tetrachlwonaphthatefw-skin
Tetraethyl lead (as Pbl-skin
Tetrahydrofuran
Tstramemyl lead (as Pbl-skin
Tetramethyl succinonitriie-skin
Tetraratromethane
Tetryi (2,4,6-triratrophenyJ-
methylmtramitiel-skin
Thallium (soluble compounds)-skin as T1
Thiram
Tin (inofganic compounds, except oxides)
Tin (organic compounds)
Titanium dioxide
C Toluena-2,4-dusocyanate
o-Toluidine-skin
ppm1
1,000
200
200
25
75
2
too
5
0.1
0.05
0.1
500
5
1,000
1
0.025
5
0.02
1
500
500
5
200
0.5
1
0.02
5
rag/ma"
1,800
840
500
110
350
5
240
5
15
0.4
1.5
0.1
0.001
15
5
0.2
0.4
0.01
0.05
2
0.5
2,900
0.15
13
6,000
1
6
0.25
20
10
5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.05
9
4,170
4,170
35
2
0.0758
590
0.075
3
8
1.5
0.1
5
2
0.1
15
0.14
;. :„ ,, ...- .._-., .:::-„•„-. 22
(sea footnotes at end of table)
(continued)
123
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued
Substance
ppm*
mglnr
Toxapbens, see Chlorinated camphene
Tributyl phosphate
1,1,1-Trichkiroethane, saa Methyl
chloroform
1,1 ,2-TricNoromethane-skin
Trichtoromethane, see Chloroform
Trichloronaphthatene-skin
1.2,3-Trichloropropani
1,1.2-Trich!oro 1,2,2-trifluoroethane
Triathylamrne
Trifluoromonobromomethane
2,4.6-Trinhrophenol, see Picric acid
2A6-Trinitrophenylmethylnitramme, sea
10
50
1,000
25
1,000
•Parts of vapor or gas per miSon parts of contaminated air by volume at 25° C and 760 mm Hg pressure.
bAppnwimat8 miRgrams of paniculate per cubic meter of air.
cAn atmospheric concentration of not more than 0.02 ppm or personal protection may be necessary to avoid headache.
dAs sampled by method that does not coitoct vapor.
•For control of general room air, biologic monitoring is essential for personnel control.
45
5
300
7,600
100
6,100
Trinitrotoluene-skin
Triorthocresyi phosphate
Triphenyi phosphate
Turpentine
Uranium (soluble compounds)
Uranium (insoluble compounds)
C Vanadium:
^2^5
V205fume
Vinyl benzene, see Styrene (table 1-2}
Vmylcysnide, see Acrytonitriie
Vinyl toluene
Warfarin
Xytene (xytol)
XyioTne-skin
Yttrium
Zinc chloride fume
Zinc oxide fume
Zirconium compounds (as Zr)
1.5
0.1
3
100 560
0.05
.25
0.5
0.1
100 480
01
. 1
100 435
5«1C
^3
i
1
1
5
5
TABLE Z-2
Acceptable maximum peak above
Material
Benzene (Z37.4-1969)
BerySum and berylfum compounds
(Z37.29-1970)
Cadmium fume (Z37.5-1970)
Cadmium dust (Z37.5-1970)
8-how time
weighted
average
10 ppm
2^g/m3
0.1 mg/m3
0.2 mg/m3
Acceptable
ceiling
concentration
25 ppm
5 Mg/m3
0.3 mg/m3
0.6 mg/m3
tin acceptable
for an
Concentration
50 ppm
25 jig/m3
ceiling concentration
8-hour shift
Maximum duration
10 minutes
30 minutes
(continued)
124
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
TABLE 2-2 (con.)
Acceptable maximum peak above
Material
Carbon disulfide (Z37.3-1968)
Carbon tetrachloride (Z37.17-1867)
Ethylene dibromide (Z37.31-1970)
Ethylene dichlorids (Z37.21-1969)
Formaldehyde (Z37. 16-1967)
Hydrogen fluoride (Z37.28-1969)
Fluoride as dust (Z37.28-1969)
Methyl chloride (Z37.18-1969)
Methytene chloride (Z37.23-1969)
Organo (alkyl) mercury
(Z37.30-1969)
Styrene (Z37.15-1969)
Trichloroethylene (Z37.19-1967)
Tetrachtorasthylara (Z37.22-1967)
Toluene (Z37.12-1967)
Hydrogen sulfide (Z37.2-1986)
Mercury (Z37.8-1971)
Chromic add and chromates
(Z37.7-1971)
(ANSI document number)
Substance
Silica:
Crystalline:
Quartz (respirabte)
Quartz (total dust)
8-hour time
weighted
average
20 ppm
10 ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
3 ppm
3 ppm
2.5 mg/m3
100 ppm
500 ppm
0.01 mg/m3
100 ppm
100 ppm
100 ppm
200 ppm
Acceptable
ceiling
the acceptable
for an
coneentratien Coiwentratioii
30 ppm
25 ppm
30 ppm
100 ppm
5 ppm
200 ppm
1,000 ppm
0.04 mg/m3
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
300 ppm
20 ppm
1 mg/10 m3
1 mg/10 m3
TABLE Z-3
%
100 ppm
200 ppm
50 ppm
200 ppm
10 ppm
300 ppm
2,000 ppm
600 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
500 ppm
50 ppm
mppcf
250""
S02 + 5
ceiling concentration
8-hour shift
Maximum duration
30 mh
5 minutes in
any 4 hours
5 minutes
5 minutes in
any 3 hours
30 minutes
5 minutes in
any 3 hours
5 minutes in
any 2 hours
5 minutss in
any 3 hours
5 minutes in
any 2 hours
5 minutes in
any 3 hours
10 minutes
10 minutes once
only if no other
measurable expo-
sure occurs.
mg/m3
10 mg/m30
%S02 + 2
30 mg/m3
% S202 + 2
Cristobalite: Use one-half the value calculated from
the count or mass formulae for quartz.
Tridymite: Use one-half the value calculated
the formulae for quartz.
from
(see footnotes at end of table) (continued)
125
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
TABLE Z-3 (con.)
Substance
mppcf
mg(m3
Amorphous, kidudng natural tSatomacsous earth
Sifcatas (less than 1% crystafne sScafc
Mica
Soapslone
Tate (nonasbestos form)
Talc (fibrous). Use asbestos imit
Tremoite (see talc, fibrous)
Portland cement
Graphcta (natural)
Coal dust (respiraUe fraction less than 5% Si02)
For more than 5% Si02
Inert or nuisance dust
Respirable fraction
Total dust
20
20
20
20d
50
15
80 mg/m3
%Si02
15
50
2.4 mg/m3
or
10 mg/m3
% Si02 + 2
5 mg/m3
15 mg/m3
'MSora of particles per cubic foot of air, based on impinger samples counted by fight-field techniques.
kite percentage of crystalline silica in the formula is the amount determine!! from airborne samples, except in those
instances in which other methods have been shown to be applicable.
"Both concentration and percent quartz for the application of this (imit are to be determined from the fraction passing a
size-selector with the following characteristics:
Aerodynamic diameter
(unit density sphere)
2.0
2.5
3.5
5.0
10.0
Percent passing
selector
90
75
60
25
0
The measurements under the note refer to the use of an AEC instrument rf the respirable fraction of coal dust is determined with an
MRE, the figure corespondhg to that of 2.4 mg/m3 in the table for coal dust is 4.5 mg/m3. [39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974.
Radesignated and amended at 40 FR 23073, May 28, 1975.]
•"Containing < 1% quartz; if > 1% quartz, use quartz limit.
126
-------
TABLE B-3 OSHA SUBSTANCE.SPECIFIC HEALTH. STANDARDS ADOPTED AFTER 1972
Substance (CFR section)
2-Acetylamino fluorine (1014)
Acrylonitrile (1045)
4-Aminodiphenyl (1011)
Arsenic (Inorg.)
Asbestos (1001)
Benzene (1028)
Benzidine(1010)
A/y-Chloromethyl ether (1008)
Coal tar pitch volatiles (1002)
Coke oven emissions (1029)
Cotton dust (1043)
1 ,2-D ibromo-3-chloropropane
OBCP (1044)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
(and salts) (1007)
4-Dimethylamino-azobenzene
(1015)
Ethyleneamine (1012)
Lead (1025)
Methyl chloromethyl ether (1006)
4,4'-Methylener6/s
(2-chloroaniline) (1005)
a-Naphthylamine (1006)
0-Naphthylamine (1009)
4-Nitrobiphenyl (1003)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (1016)
0-Propiolactone
Vinyl chloride
Hazard
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogens
Potential carcinogens
Respiratory hazard
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Neurotoxicity
Potential carcinogen
(Standard set aside
by court action)
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Potential carcinogen
Work practices3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permissible exposure limit (PEL)
2 ppm TWA 10 ppm (15 min C)
10Mg/m3TWA
2 fibers longer than 5 MHI/CC
C 10 fibers longer than 5 Atm/cc
1 ppm 1 revoked by
SppmCJ court action
15flMg/m3TWA
200 jug/m3 textile yarn
750 nq/m slashing and weaving
500 jug/m other operations
1 ppb TWA
No eye or skin contact
50Mg/m3TWA
1 ppm TWA
5 ppm (15 min C)
practices include personal protective equipment, respirators, environmental monitoring, medical surveillance, labeling, record-
keeping, housekeeping, waste disposal and employee information and training.
127
-------
TABLE B-4 SU^MARI OF NIOSH RECOMMENDATIONS
Substances
Aratytens
Acrylamida
Acrykmitnle
AWrinfdieldrin
Aftanes (C5-C8)
Aty chloride
AlylglycJdyfether
Ammonia
Antimony
Arsenic, inorganic
Asbestos
Asphalt fumes
Benzene
Benzoyl peroxide
Benzyl chloride
BecyKuro
Boron trifkraride
Cadmium (dust & fume)
Carbaryl (Sevin®)
Carbon Hack
Carbon dioxide
Carbon olsulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachtoride
Chlorine
Chloroform
Chloroprene
Chromic acid
Chromium (VI)
Chrysane
Coal tar pitch volatites
Coke oven emissions
Cotton dust
Creso)
Cyanide, hydrogen and
cyanide salts
DOT
Decomposition products of
fkiorocarbon
Diromochkxopropane
Oisocyanatos
Dtnitro-ortho-cresol
Dioxane
Data
toOSHA
July 1976
October 1976
September 1977
September 1978
March 1977
September 1976
July 1978
July 1974
September 1978
June 1975
December 1976
September 1977
July 1977
June 1977
August 1978
August 1977
December 1976
August 1976
September 1976
September 1978
August 1976
May 1977
August 1972
June 1976
May 1976
June 1976
August 1977
July 1973
December 1975
June 1978
September 1977
February 1973
September 1974
February 1978
October 1976
September1978
September 1977
September 1977
September 1978
February 1978
September 1977
Recommended
lever a
2,500 ppm
0.3 mg/m3 10 hr TWA
2 ppm
0.25 mg/m2
350 mg/m3
1,800 mg/m3 15 min C
1 ppm TWA
3 ppm (15 mm Ceil)
45 mg/m3 15 min Ceil
50 ppm 5 min Ceil
0.5 mg/m3
2 /ig ppm/m3 15 min C
100,000 fibers/m3
over 5/im TWA,
500,000 fibers/m3
over 5 /im C
5 mg/m3 15 min C
1 ppm 5 ppm Ceil
5 mg/m3 10 hr-TWA
1 ppm (5 mg/m2)
0.5 f*g/m3 TWA
30 min Ceil
No recommendation
n
40pg/m3TWA
200 Mg/m3 C
5 mg/m3 (10 hr TWA)
3.5 mg/m3
30,000 ppm 10 mm C
10,000 ppm/10 hr TWA
1 ppm, 10 ppm CeH
35 ppm 10 hr TWA
200 ppm C
2 ppm/1 hr Ceil
0.5 ppm
15 mm Ceil
2 ppm/1 hr CeH
1 ppm (15 min Ceil)
0.05 mg/m3 TWA 15
min C
0.1 mg/m3
1 mg/m3
0.1 mg/m3 10 hr TWA
Work practices
0.2 mg/m3
(lint-free cotton dust)
5 ppm (22 mg/m3)
5 mg/m3 (lO.min Ceil)
1 mg/m3
No recommendation
10 ppb 30 min C
40 pg/m3
0.2 mg/m3
1 ppm/30 min C
(continued)
128
-------
TABLE 3-4 (continued)
Substances
EfKchtorohydrin
Ethyiene dibronnde
Ethyiene (ScWorida
Ethyiene oxide
Ethyiene thiourea
Fibroui glass
Fluorides, inorganic
Formaldehyde
Furfural alcohol
Glycidyl ethers
Hot environments
Hydrazines
Phenylhydrazme
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen suifide
Hydnxjutnore
Isooropyl alcohol
Kepone
Ketones (acetone)
Lead, inorganic
Malathion
Mercury, inorganic
Methyl alcohol
4,4'— Methytene— bis
It jlldjujlLnniKnnl
(2-cMoroaniJme)
Methyl parathion
Methytene chkmde
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel, inorganic
and compounds
Nitric acid
Nitrites
Nitrogen oxides, NO
Nrtrogyteerine
Noise
Organotin compounds
Parathion
Phenol
Phosgene
Poiychlorinated biphenyls
Refined petroleum solvent
Date
toOSHA
September 1976
August 1977
September 1978
September 1977
October 1978
April 1977
June 1975
December 1976
March 1979
June 1978
June 1972
June 1978
March 1976
May 1977
April 1978
March 1976
January 1976
June 1978
March W
July 1976
January 1973
March 1976
September 1978
September 1976
March 1976
-
May 1977
May 1977
March 1976
September 1978
March 1976
June 1978
August 1972
November 1976
June 1976
June 1976
February 1976
September 1977
July 1977
Recommended
level a
2 mg/m3 19 mg/m3
15 min Ceil
1 mg/m3 15 min Ceil
5 ppm 15 ppm
15 min Ceil
75 ppm 15 min Ceil
3,000,000 flbers/m3
TWA
5 mg/m3 TWA
2.5 mg/m3
1.2 mg/m3
30 min Ceil
6.0 mg/m3 TWA
240 mg/m3 Ceil 15 min
variable
1 ppm (1.3 mg/m3)
.6 mg/m 15 min C
2.5 mg/m3 5 mg/m3
15 min C 10 min
15 mg/m3 C
2 mg/m3 800 ppm/
15 min Ceil
400 ppm 10 hr TWA
800 ppm 15 min C
1 /tg/m3 15 min Ceil
590 mg/m3 TWA
< 100 /tg/m3
ISmg/nVMOhrTWA
0.05 mg/m3
200 ppm 800 ppm
15 mm C
0.2 mg/m3 TWA
10 hr TWA
75 ppm 500 ppm
15 mm Ca'l
0.001 ppm
0.015 mg/m3 10 hr TWA
2 ppm 10 hr TWA
25 ppm 1 ppm-
Ceil (1.8 mg/m3)
1 mg/m3 Ceil
SSdBATWA 115dBA
0.1 mg/m3
0.05 mg/m3 10 hr TWA
20 mg/m3 60 mg/m3
15 min Ceil 0.1 ppm
10 hr TWA
0.2 ppm 15 min Ceil
1.0 /tg/m3 TWA
350 mg/m3 15 min C
(continued)
129
-------
TABLE B-4 (continued)
Substances
Date
to OSHA
Recommended
level a
Silica, crystalline
Sodium hydroxide
Sulfur dioxide
Sutfnc add
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tatrachloroathylene
TKoJs
N-Alkane mono
Cyclohexane
Benzene
ff-ToSdme
Toluene
Toluene disocyanata
1,1,1-Trtcbtoroethane
TricWoroethytene
Tungsten
Tungsten carbide
cemented
Ultraviolet radiation
VanadRim
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Vnyt haides
Waste anesthetic gases
and vapors
Xyfonfl
Zinc oxide
November 1974
September 1975
May 1977
June 1974
December 1976
July 1976
September 1978
August 1978
July 1973
September 1978
July 1976
February 1978
September 1977
December 1972
August 1977
Septemixi 1978
March ,974
September 1978
March 1977
May 1975
October 1975
50 /«g/mj 10 hr TWA
2 mg/m3 15 min Ceil
0.5 ppm
1 mg/m3 10 hr TWA
1 ppm 10 hr TWA
50 ppm TWA 100 pm
Ceil
2.4 mg/m3 C
.5 mg/m3 C
20 /tg/m3
5 ppm (22 mg/m3)
100 ppm 200 ppm
10 min Ceil
0.005 ppm TWA
0.02 ppm 20 min Ceil
350 ppm TWA
100 ppm 150 ppm
15 mm Ceil
5 mg/m3 TWA
1.0 mW/cm2 for over
1,000 s
100 mW sec/cm for
under 1,000 s
0.05 mg/m3 15 min Ceil
15 mg/m3 C
Lowest feasible level
1 ppm Ceiling 15 mm
1 ppm C
2 ppm C (1 hr)
25 ppm TWA during use
200 ppm/10 min Ceil
100 ppm 10 hr TWA
15 min Ceil
5 mg/m3 TWA 15 mg/m3
15 mg/m3 15 min C
The level indicated is the recommended time-weighted average (TWA)
Based on a lO^hour day or 40-hour week unless stated as a ceiling (C)
-valtte. In addition to the quantitative recommendations work practices to
•minimize exposure are described in the individual criteria documents
130
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
a,b
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Acetic anhydride
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetylene tetrabromide
Acetylsalicyclic acid
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Proposed
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Allyl chloride
Allyl glycidyl ether
Allyl propyl disulfide
Alpha alumina
Aluminum
Metal & oxide
Pyro powders
Soluble salts
Alkyls (NOC)
4-Aminodiphenyl
2-Aminopyridine
Amitrol
Ammonia
Ammonium sulfamate
n-Amyl acetate
sec-Amyl acetate
Aniline & homologs
Anisidine (o-,p- isomers)
Antimony & compounds
Antimony trioxide
(handling and use)
ANTU (alpha naphthyl
thiourea)
Arsenic (Soluble
(compounds, As)
Arsine
Atrazine
TWA Comment
ppm mg/cu m
100
10
5
750
40
1
-
0.1
-
10
2
2
-
2
1
5
2
-
-
-
-
• -
-
0.5
-
25
-
100
125
2
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.05
—
180
25
20 Ceiling
17800
70 Skin
15
5
0.25
0.3 Skin
30
4.5 Human carcinogen
4.5 Suspect carcinogen
0.25 Skin
5 Skin
3
22 Skin
12
10 Nuisance particulate
10
5
5
2
Skin; Human carcinogen
2
Suspect carcinogen
18
10
530
670
10 Skin
0 . 5 Skin
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
5
OSHA Value
Comparison0
L
S
S
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L. ...
S ' ^
S
L
L
S
L
S
S
S
L
s
(Continued)
131
-------
TABLE B-5, 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
Azinphos-raethyl
Barium (soluble
compounds, as Ba)
Benomyl
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzoyl peroxide
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Biphenyl
Borates, tetra sodium salts
Anhydrous
Decahydrate
Pentahydrate
Boron oxide
Boron tribromide
Boron trifluoride
Bromacil
Bromine
Bromine pentafluoride
Bromoform
1,3, -Butadiene
Proposed
Butane
2-Butoxyethanol
n-Butyl acetate
sec-Butyl acetate
tert-Butyl acetate
Butyl acrylate
n-Butyl alcohol
sec-Butyl alcohol
tert-Butyl alcohol
Butylamine
tert-Butyl chromate
n-Butyl glycidal ether
n-Butyl 1 act ate
Butyl mercaptan
o-sec-Butylphenol
p-tert-Butyl toluene
TWA
ppm
-
0.8
10
-
-
-
1
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1000
-
800
25
150
200
200
10
50
100
100
5
-
25
5
0.5
5
10
mg/cu m
0.2
0.5
10
30
-
5
-
5
0.002
1.5
1
5
1
10
10
3
10
0.7
0.7
5
2200
-
1900
120
710
950
950
55
150
305
300
15
0.1
135
25
1.5
30
60
Comment
Skin
Suspect carcinogen
Skin; Human carcinogen
Suspect carcinogen
Suspect carcinogen
Ceiling
Skin
Suspect carcinogen
Skin
Ceiling
Skin; Ceiling
Skin; Ceiling
Skin
OSHA Value
Q
Comparison
S
S
S
S
S
L
S
S
S
S
L
L
S
S
S
L
L
S
S
S
L
L
S
(Continued)
132
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
,«a'b
Compound
Cadium dust & salts,
as Cd
Calcium carbonate/marble
Calcium cyanamide
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium oxide
Calcium silicate
Camphor, synthetic
Caprolactam
Dust
Vapor
Captafol
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbon black
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrabromide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl fluoride
Catechol
Cellulose (paper fiber)
Cesium hydroxide
Chlordane
Chlorinated camphene
Chlorinated diphenyl
oxide
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorine trifluoride
Chloroacetaldehyde
alpha-Chloroacetophenone
Chloroacetyl chloride
Chlorobenzene
o-Chlorobenzylidene
malonitrile
Chlorobromomethane
Chlorodifluoromethane
Chlorodiphenyl
(42% chlorine)
TWA
ppm mg/cu m
-
-
' -
-
-
-
2
'
5
-
-
-
--
-
10
50
0.1
5
2
5
-
-
-
-
-
1
0.1
0.1
1
0.05
0.05
75
0.05
200
1000
- - -
0.05
10
0.5
5
2
10
12
1
20
0.1
5
5
0.1
3.5
30
55
1.4
30
5
20
10
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
3
0.3
0.4
3
0.3
0.2
350
0.4
1050
3500
1
Comment OSHA Valuec
Comparison
Nuisance particulate
L
Nuisance particulate
H
Skin
S
S
Skin
S
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
Nuisance particulate
Skin S
Skin S
S
S
S
Ceiling S
Ceiling S
S
S
Skin; Ceiling S
S
Skin S
133
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
Chlorodiphenyl
(5435 chlorine)
Chloroform
bis-Chloromethyl ether
Chloromethyl methyl ether
1-Chloro-l-nitropropane
Chloropentafluoroethane
Chloropicrin
beta-Chloroprene
o-Chlorostyrene
o-Chlorotoluene
Chloropyrifos
Chromium metal
Chromium (II) compounds,
as Cr
Chromium (III) compounds,
as Cr
Chromium (VI) compounds,
Water soluble, as Cr
Certain water insoluble
Chromyl chloride
Chrysene
Clopidol
Coal tar pitch volatiles
(as benzene solubles)
Cobalt metal, dust & fume,
as Co
Proposed
Cobalt carbonyl , as Co
Cobalt hydrocarbonyl ,
as Co
Copper
Fume
Dusts & mists, as Cu
Cresol (all isomers)
Crotonaldehyde
Crufomate
Cumene
Cyanamide
Cyanides, as CN
Cyanogen
TWA
ppm mg/cu
-
10
0.001
-
2
1000
0.1
10
50.
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.025
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
2
-
50
-
-
10
0.5
50
0.005
-
10
6320
0.7
45
285
250
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.05
0.15
-
10
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.2
1
22
6
5
245
22
5
20
Comment
m
Skin
Suspect carcinogen
Human carcinogen
Suspect carcinogen
Skin
Skin
Skin
Human carcinogen
Suspect carcinogen
Human carcinogen
Skin
Skin
Skin
OSHA Value
Comparison0
S
L
L
S
L
L
S
S
L
S
S
L
H
S
S
S
S
S
(Continued)
134
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
Cyanogen chloride
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexene
Cyclohexylamine
Cyclonite
Cyclopentadiene
Cyclopentane
Cyhexatiri
2,4-D
DDT
Decaborane
Demeton
Diacetone alcohol
Diazinon
Diazome thane
Diborane
2-N-Dibutylaminoethanol
Dibutyl phosphate
Dibutyl phthalate
Dichloroacetylene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 3-Dichloro-5 , 5-dimethyl
hydantoin
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloroethyl ether
Dichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloro-l-nitro-
ethane
Dichloropropene
2 , 2-Dichloropropionic
acid
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Dichlorvos
Dicrotophos
Dicyclopentadiene
TWA
ppm
0.3
300
50
25
300
10
-
75
600
-
-
-
0.05
0.01
50
-
0.2
0.1
2
1
-
0.1
50
75
-
1000
-
200
200
5
10
2
1
1
1000
0.1
-
5
mg/cu ra
0.6
1050
200
100
1015
40
1.5
200
1720
5
10
1
0.3
0.1
240
0.1
0.4
0.1
14
5
5
0.4
300
450
-
4950
0.2
810
790
30
40
10
5
6
7000
1
0.25
30
Comment OSHA Valuec
i Comparison
Ceiling
S
S
L
S
Skin
S
S
S
Skin S
Skin L
S
Skin
S
Skin L
S
Ceiling
Ceiling S
S
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
S
S
H
S
Skin L
L
L
Skin
S
Skin H
Skin
(Continued)
135
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLVS
(Continued)
Compound
Dicyclopentadienyl iron
Dieldrin
Diethanolamine
Diethylamine
Diethylaminoethanol
Diethylene triamine
Dicthyl ketone
Diethyl phthalate
Difluorodibromomethane
Diglycidyl ether
Diisobutyl ketone
Diisopropylamine
Dimethyl acetamide
Diraethylamine
Dimethyl aniline
Dimethyl carbamyl
chloride
Dimethyl formamide
1 ,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethylphthalate
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitolmide
Dinitrobenzene
(all isomers)
Dinitro-o-cresol
Dinitrotoluene
Dioxane (tech. grade)
Dioxathion
Diphenylamine
Dipropylene glycol
methyl ether
Dipropyl ketone
Diquat
Di-sec-octyl phthalate
Disulfiram
Disulfaton
2 , 6-Ditert-butyl-p-cresol
Diuron
Divinyl benzene
Emery
EndosuJlfan
TWA
ppm mg/cu
-
3
10
10
1
200
-
100
0.1
25
5
10
10
5
-
10
0.5
-
0.1
-
0.15
-
-
25
-
-
100
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
-
—
10
0.25
15
30
50
4
705
5
860
0.5
150
20
35
18
25
-
30
1
5
0.5
5
1
0.2
1.5
90
0.2
10
600
235
0.5
5
2
0.1
10
10
50
10
0.1
Comment
m
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Suspect carcinogen
Skin
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Nuisance particulate
Skin
OSHA Value
Comparison0
S
L
S
S
L
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L .
S
S
S '-'~
L
S
S
(Continued)
136
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
Endrin
Enflurane (Proposed)
Epichlorohydrin
EPN
Ethanolamine
Ethion
2-Ethoxyethanol
Proposed
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
Proposed
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl alcohol
Ethylamine
Ethyl amyl ketone
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl bromide
Ethyl butyl ketone
Ethyl chloride
Ethyl ene chlorohydrin
Ethylenediamine
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Ethylene glycol
Particulate
Proposed
Vapor
Ethylene glycol dinitrate
Proposed
Ethylene oxide
Proposed
Ethyleneimine
Ethyl ether
Ethyl formate
Ethyl idene norborene
Ethyl mercaptan
N-Ethylmorphine
Ethyl silicate
Fenamiphos (Proposed)
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
TWA
ppm
_
75
2
-
3
-
50
5
50
5
400
2
1000
10
25
100
200
50
1000
1
10
-
10
-
-
-
50
0.05
10
1
0.5
400
100
5
0.5
5
10
-
-
—
mg/cu
0.1
575
10
0.5
8
0.4
185
19
270
27
1400
20
1900
18
130
435
890
230
2600
3
25
-
40
-
10
-
125
0.3
20
2
1
1200
300
25
1
23
85
0.1
0.1
0.2
Comment
m
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin; Ceiling
Human carcinogen; Skin
Ceiling
Skin
Suspect carcinpgen
Skin
Ceiling
Skin
Skin
Skin
OSHA Value.
Comparison0
S
L
S
S
L
L
L
L
S
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L
S
L
L
L
S
S
S
L
L
L
(Continued)
137
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
Compound
Ferbam
Ferrovanadium dust
Fibrous glass dust
Fluorides, as F
Fluorine
Fonofos
Formaldehyde
Proposed
Formamide
Formic acid
Furfural
Furfuryl alcohol
Gasoline
Germanium tetrahydride
Glutaraldehyde
Glycidol
Grain dust (Proposed)
Graphite (synthetic)
Gypsum
Hafnium
Halothane (Proposed)
Heptachlor
Heptane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloronaphthalene
Hexafluoroacetone
Hexamethyl phosphoramide
Hexane
N-Hexane
Other isomers
sec-Hexyl acetate
Hexylene glycol
Hydrazine
Hydrogenated terphenyls
Hydrogen bromide
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen fluoride, as F
Hydrogen peroxide
TWA
ppm
-
-
-
1
-
2
1
20
5
2
10
300
0.2
0.2
25
-
-
-
-
50
-
400
0.02
0.01
10
-
0.1
-
50
500
50
25
0.1
0.5
3
5
10
3
1
mg/cu m
10
1
10
2.5
2
0.1
3
1.5
30
9
8
40
900
0.6
0.7
75
4
10
10
0.5
400
0.5
1600
0.24
0.1
100
0.2
0.7
-
180
1800
300
125
0.1
5
10
7
10
2.5
1.5
Comment
Skin
Ceiling
Suspect carcinogen
Skin
Skin
Nuisance particulate
Nuisance particulate
Skin
Suspect carcinogen
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
Ceiling
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
Ceiling
Skin; Ceiling
OSHA Value
Comparison0
L
S
S
H
S
L
L
L
S
S
L
H
S
L
S
L
S
S
S
S
(Continued)
138
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
,a,b
Compound
Hydrogen selenide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydroquinone
2-Hydroxypropyl acrylate
Indene
Indium & compounds , as In
Iodine
lodoform
Iron pentacarbonyl , as Fe
Iron salts, soluble,
as Fe
Isoamyl acetate
Isoamyl alcohol
Isobutyl acetate
Isobutyl alcohol
Isooctyl alcohol
Isophorone
Isophorone diisocyanate
Isopropoxyethanol
Isopropyl acetate
Isopropyl alcohol
Isopropylamine
N- Isopropyl aniline
Isopropyl ether
Isopropyl glycidyl ether
Kaolin
Ketene
Lead, inorganic dusts &
fume, as Pb
Lead arsenate,
as Pb3(As04)2 (Proposed)
Lead chromate, as Cr
Limestone
Lindane
Lithium hydride
L.P.G. (Liquifid
petroleum gas)
Magnesite
Malathion
Maleic anhydride
TWA
ppm
0.05
10
-
0.5
10
-
0.1
0.6
0.1
-
100
100
150
50
50
5
0.01
25
250
400
5
2
250
50
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
Comment
mg/cu m
0.2
14
2
3 Skin
45
0.1
1 Ceiling
10
0.8
1
525
360
700
150
270
25 Ceiling
0.09 Skin
105
950
980
12
10 Skin
1050
240
10 Nuisance particulate
0.9
-
0.15
0.15
0.05
10 Nuisance particulate
0.5 Skin
- 0.025
1000
-
-
0.25
1800
10 Nuisance particulate
10 Skin
1
OSHA Value
Comparison0
S
S
S
S
S
S
L
L
S
S
S
L
S
S
S
,s
S
S
L
S
(Continued)
139
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
Manganese, as Mn
Dust & compounds
Fume
Manganese cyclopenta-
dienyl tricarbonyl,
as Mn
Manganese tetroxide
Marble/calcium carbonate
Mercury, as Hg
Alkyl compounds
AH forms except alkyl
Vapor
Aryl & inorganic
compounds
Mesityl oxide
Methyacrylic acid
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
2-Methoxyethanol
Proposed
2-Methoxyethyl acetate
Proposed
4-Methoxyphenol
Methyl acetate
Methyl acetylene
Methyl acetylene-propadiene
mixture
Methyl acrylate
Methylacrylonitrile
Methylal
Methyl alcohol
Methylaraine
Methyl n-amyl ketone
N-Methyl aniline
Methyl bromide
Methyl n-butyl ketone
Methyl chloride
Methyl chloroform
Methyl 2-cyanoacrylate
Methyl cyclohexane
Methylcyclohexanol
TWA
ppm mg/cu
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
20
-
-
25
5
25
5
-
200
1000
1000
10
1
1000
200
10
50
0.5
5
5
50
350
2
400
50
5
1
0.1
1
10
0.01
0.05
0.1
60
70
2.5
10
80
16
120
24
5
610
1650
1800
35
3
3100
260
12
235
2
20
20
105
1900
8
1600
235
Comment
m
Ceiling
Skin
Nuisance particulate
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
OSHA Value
Comparison0
S
L
L
S
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L
L
L
L
S
L
L
(Continued)
140
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
o-Methylcyclohexanone
Methyl cyclopentadienyl
manganese tricarbonyl,
as Mn
Methyl demeton
Methylene bisphenyl
Isocyanate
Methylene chloride
4,4 '-Methylene bis
(2-chloroanillne)
Methylene bis
(4-cyclohexJyisocyanate)
4 , 4-Methylene dianiline
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
peroxide
Methyl formate
Methyl hydrazine
Methyl Iodide
Methyl isoamyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl carbinol
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isocyanate
Methyl isopropyl ketone
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl propyl ketone
Methyl silicate
alpha-Methyl styrene
Metribuzin (Proposed)
Mevinphos
Molybdenum, as Mo
Soluble compounds
Insoluble compounds
Monocrotophos
Morpholine
Nalid
Naphthalene
beta-Naphthylamine
TWA
ppm
50
-
-
0.02
100
0.02
0.01
0.1
200
0.2
100
0.2
2
50
25
50
0.02
200
0.5
100
200
1
50
-
0.01
-
-
-
20
-
10
"
mg/cu
230
0.2
0.5
0.2
350
0.22
0.11
0.8
590
1.5
250
0.35
10
240
100
205
0.05
705
1
410
0.2
700
6
240
5
0.1
5
10
0.25
70
3
50
"
Comment
m
Skin
Skin
Skin
Ceiling
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
Ceiling
Skin
Ceiling
Skin; Ceiling; Suspect
carcinogen
Skin, -Suspect carcinogen
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Human carcinogen
OSHA Value
Comparison0
L
S
s
S
s
L
S
L
S
L
S
S
L
S
L
S
S
(Continued)
141
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED
(Continued)
!
Compound
Nickel carbonyl , as Ni
Nickel, as Ni
Metal
Soluble compounds
Nicotine
Nitrapyrin
Nitric oxide
Nitric acid
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
p-Ni troch] orobenzene
Proposed
4-Ni trodiphenyl
Nitroethane
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen trifluoride
Nitroglycerin
Nitromethane
1-Nitropropane
2-Nitropropane
Proposed
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Nitrotoluene
Nonane
Octachloronaphthalene
Octane
Oil mist, mineral
Osmium tetroxide, as Os
Oxalic acid
Oxygen difluoride
Ozone
Paraffin wax fume
Paraquat, respirable size
Parathion
Pentaborane
Pentachloronaphthalene
Pentachl orophenol
Pentaerythritol
Pentane
Perchloroethylene
Proposed
TWA
ppm
0.05
-
-
-
-
2
25
-
1
-
0.5
-
100
3
10
0.05
100
25
25
10
-
2
200
-
300
-
-
-
0.05
0.1
-
-
-
0.005
-
-
-
600
50
mg/cu m
0.35
1
0.1
0.5
10
5
30
3
5
1
3
-
310
6
30
0.5
250
90
90
35
-
11
1050
0.1
1450 •
5
0.002
1
0.1
0.2
2
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.5
0.5
10
1800
335
Comment
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Human carcinogen
Skin
Ceiling;Susp. carcinogen
Suspect carcinogen
Skin; Suspect .carcinogen
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Nuisance particulate
OSHA Value
Comparison0
H
S
L
S
S
S
L
S
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
S
S
L
L
S
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L
(Continued)
142
-------
TABLE B-5,1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'Sa'b
(Continued)
Compound
Perchloromethyl mercaptan
Perchloroyl fluoride
Persulfates, alkali metal,
as S208; (Proposed)
Phenol
Phenothiazine
N-Phenyl-beta-
naphthylamine
p-Phenylene diamine
Phenyl ether vapor
Phenyl glycidyl ether
Phenyl hydrazine
Proposed
Phenyl mercaptan
Phenylphosphine
Phorate
Phosgene
Phosphlne
Phosphoric acid
Phosphorus (yellow)
Phosphorus oxychloride
Phosphorus pentachloride
Phosphorus pentasulfide
Phosphorus trichloride
Phthalic anhydride
m-Phthal odini tri J e
Picloram
Picric acid
Pindone
Piperazine
dihydrochloride
Plaster of Paris
Platinum
Metal
Soluble salts, as Pt
Potassium hydroxide
Propane sultone
Propargyl alcohol
beta-Propiolactone
Propionic acid
Propoxur
TWA
ppm mg/cu
0.1
3
8
5
-
-
1
1
5
5
0.5
0.05
—
0.1
0.3
-
-
0.1
0.1
-
0.2
1
-
-
—
-
-
-
_
-
-
1
0.5
10
—
0.8
14
2
19
5
0.1
7
6
20
20
2
0.25
0.05
0.4
0.4
1
0.1
0.6
1
1
1.5
6
5
10
0.1
0.1
5
10
1
0.002
2
2
1.5
30
0.5
Comment
m
Skin
Skin
Suspect carcinogen
Skin
Skin
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
Ceiling
Skin
Skin
Nuisance particulate
Ceiling
Suspect carcinogen
Suspect carcinogen
OSHA Value
Comparison0
S
s
s
s
s
L
s
L
s
s
g
s
s
s
L
L
s
s
(Continued)
,143
_
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLV'S
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
n-Propyl acetate
Propyl alcohol
n-Propyl nitrate
Propylene dichloride
Propylene glycol
dinitrate (Proposed)
Propylene glycol
raonomethyl ether
Propyleneiraine
Propylene oxide
Pyrethrum
Pyridine
Quinone
Resorcinol
Rhodium
Metal
Insoluble compounds,
as Rh
Proposed
Soluble compounds,
as Rh
Proposed
Ronnel
Rotenone (commercial)
Rouge
Rubber solvent (Naphtha)
Selenium compounds, as Se
Selenium hexaf luoride,
as Se
Sesone
Silicone
Silicone carbide
Silicone tetrahydride
Silver
Metal
Soluble compounds
Sodium azide
Sodium bisulfite
Sodium fluoroacetate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium metabisulfite
TWA Comment
ppm mg/cu m
200
200
25
75
0.05
100
2
20
-
5
0.1
10
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
400
-
0.05
-
-
-
5
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
840
500 Skin
105
350
0.3 Skin
360
5 Skin; Suspect carcinogen
50
5
15
0.4
45
1
1
1
0.001
0.01
10
5
10 Nuisance particulate
1600
0.2
0.2
10
10 Nuisance particulate
10 Nuisance particulate
7
0.1
0.01
0.3 Ceiling
5
0.05 Skin
2 Ceiling
3-..;. - ...
OSHA Value
Comparison0
S
S
S
S
S
L
S
S
S
H
S
L
L
S
..':
S
S
S
H
S
S
S
,
(Continued)
144
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED TLVS
(Continued)
,a,b
Compound
Starch
Stibine
Stoddard solvent
Strychnine
Styrene monomer
Sucrose
Sulfotep
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur hexafluoride
Sulfuric acid
Sulfur monochloride
Sulfur pentafluoride
Sulfur tetraf luoride
Sulfuryl fluoride
Sulprofos (Proposed)
2,4,5-T
Tantalum
Tellurium & Compounds,
as Te
Tellurium hexafluoride
as Te
Temephos
TEPP
Terphenyls
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloro-
2 , 2-dif luoroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloro-
1 , 2-dif luoroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloronaphthalene
Tetraethyl lead, as Pb
Tetrahydrofuran
Tetramethyl lead, as Pb
Tetramethyl succino
nitrile
Tetranitromethane
Tetrasodium pyrophosphate
TWA Comment
ppm mg/cu m
0.1
100
-
50
-
-
2
1000
-
1
0.025
0.1
5
-
-
-
-
0.02
-
0.004
0.5
500
500
1
-
-
200
"
0.5
1
-
10 Nuisance particulate
0.5
525
0.15
215
10 Nuisance particulate
0.2 Skin
5
6000
1
6
0.25
0.4
20
1
10
5
0.1
0.2
10
0.05 Skin
5 Ceiling
4170
4170 Skin
7 Skin
2
0.1 Skin
590
0.15 Skin
3 Skin
8
5
OSHA Value
Comparison0
S
L
S
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L
S
S
L
S
S
S
H
S
S
Tetryl (2 ,4 ,6-trinitrophenyl-
methylnitramine)
Thallium
Soluble compounds, as T
-
—
1.5 Skin
0.1 Skin
S
- S- - - •:•-.
(Continued)
145
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 AC6IH RECOMMENDED TLV'S"
(Continued)
a,b
Compound
TWA
ppm mg/cu
Comment OSHA Value
m Comparison0
4 , 4 ' -Thiobis (6-tertbutyl-m-
cresol)
Thioglycolic acid
Thiram
Tin
Metal
-
1
-
-
10
5
5
2
S
Oxide & inorganic compounds,
except Sn04, as Sn
Organic compounds,
as Sn
Titanium dioxide
o-Tolidine
Toluene
Toluene-2 , 4-diisocyanate
o-Toluidine
Proposed
Tributyl phosphate
Trichloroacetic acid
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Proposed
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichloronaphthalene
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
1,1, 2-Trichloro-
1,2, 2-tri f 1 uoroethane
Triethylamine
Trifluorobromomethane
Trimellitic anhydride
Trimethylamine
Trimethyl benzene
Trimethyl phosphite
2,4, 6-Trinitrotoluene
Triorthocresyl phosphate
Triphenyl amine
Triphenyl phosphate
Tungsten, as W
Insoluble compounds
Soluble compounds
Turpentine
-
-
-
-
100
0.005
2
2
0.2
1
5
10
50
1000
-
50
1000
10
1000
0.005
10
25
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
2
0.1
10
-
375
0.04
9
9
2.5
5
40
45
270
5600
5
300
7600
40
6100
0.04
24
125
10
0.5
0.1
5
3
5
1
560
S
Skin S
Nuisance particulate L
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
L
Skin L
Skin; Suspect carcinogen
L
Ceiling
Skin S
Ceiling
S
S
S
L
S
Skin L
S
S
S
(Continued)
146
-------
TABLE B-5. 1983-1984 ACGIH RECOMMENDED
(Continued)
Compound
TWA Comment
ppm mg/cu m
OSHA Value
Comparison0
Uranium (natural), as U
Soluble compounds - 0.2
Insoluble compounds - 0.2
Valeraldehyde 50 175
Vanadium, as V205,
Respirable dust
and fume - 0.05
Vegetable oil mists - 10
Vinyl acetate 10 30
Vinyl bromide 5 20
Vinyl chloride 5 10
Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide 10 60
Vinylidene chloride 10 40
Proposed 5 20
Vinyl toluene 50 240
VM & P Naphtha 300 1350
Warfarin - 0.1
Wood dust
Certain hard woods
as beech & oak - l
Soft wood - 5
Xylene (o-,m-,p-isomers) 100 435
m-Xylene alpha,alpha'
-diamine - o. 1
Xylidine 2 10
Yttrium - l
Zinc chloride fume - l
Zinc chromate, as Cr - 0.05
Zinc oxide
Fume - 5
Dust - 10
Zinc stearate - 10
Zirconium compounds, as Z - 5
H
S
Nuisance particulate
Suspect carcinogen
Human carcinogen
Suspect carcinogen
L
S
Skin; Ceiling
Skin
Suspect carcinogen
Nuisance particulate
Nuisance particulate
L
S
S
147
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE B-5
a) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) adopted by the Americam Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. ISBN: 0-936712-45-7.
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
b) Time-weighted average concentration for a normal 8-hour workday
and a 40-hour workweek, to which all workers may be repeatedly
exposed, wothout adverse effect. Ceiling values should not be
exceeded even instantaneously.
c) 1983-1984 ACGIH recommended concentrations are compared to OSHA
regulations adopted in 1964.
S means recommendation is same as OSHA value.
L means recommendation is lower than OSHA value.
H means recommendation is higher than OSHA value.
148
-------
TABLE B-6. PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS:
INORGANICS LEVELS3 (40 CFR, PART 141)
Contaminant
Level,
mg/L
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate (as N)'
Selenium
Silver
0.05
1
0.010
0.05
2.4-1.4*
0.05
0.002
10
0.01
0.05
Not to be exceeded in community water systems
Not to be exceeded level decreases with increasing annual average daily
temperature
Q
Applicable to community and noncommunity water systems.
TABLE B-7 PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS:
ORGANICS LEVELS3 (40 CFR, PART 141)
Contaminant
Maximum Level
mg/L
(a) Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
(b) Chlorophenoxys
2,4-D, (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy-
propionic acid)
(c) Total trihalomethanes
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.10
Not to be exceeded
149
-------
TABLE B-8 PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS:
RADIONUCLIDES LEVELS (40 CFR, PART 141)
Radionuclide
Critical organ
Maximum level
pCi/L
Tritium
Strontium-90
Total body
Bone marrow
20,000
8
TABLE B-9 NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
(40 CFR, PART 143)
Contaminant
Maximum level
Chloride
Color
Copper
Corrosivity
Foaming agents
Iron
Manganese
Odor
PH
Sulfate
TDS
Zinc
250 mg/L
15 color units
1 mg/L
Noncorrosive
0.5 mg/L
0.3 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
Threshold Odor Number 3
6.5 - 8.5
250 mg/L
500 mg/L
5 mg/L
150
-------
2ABLE Br-10
1980 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA BASED ON HEALTH FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
(THRESHOLD) POLLUTANTS
Substance
Criterion*
(ug/L)
Comment
Acenaphthalene
Acrolein
Antimony
Cadmium
Chlorinated ethanes
Chlorobenzene
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Chlorophenols (all mono isomers)
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (III)
Copper
Cyanide
Dibutylphthalate
Dichlorobenzenes (all isomers)
2,3-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,5-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropenes
Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate
Diethylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethylphthalate
2,4-Din itro-o-cresol
Dinitrophenol
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead
Mercury
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenol
3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol
3-Methyl-6-chlorophenol
Nickel
Ni trobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
20
320
146
10
20
488
34.7
0.1
50
170,000
1,000
200
34,000
400
0.04
3,090
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
87
15,000
350,000
400
313,000
13.4
70
74
1
1,400
42
206
1.0
5,200
50
0.144
1,800
3,000
20
13.4
19,800
30
1,010
30
Organolepti c property es
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
151
-------
TABLE B-10 (continued)
Substance
Phenol
Selenium
Silver
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Thallium
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Zinc
Criterion3
(vg/L)
3,500
300
10
50
1.0
13
14,300
18,400
2,600
1.0
2
5,000
Comment
Organol epti c properti es
Organoleptic properties
Organol eptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Organoleptic properties
Hlnless otherwise indicated, the criterion is based on ingestion of
water and contaminated organisms.
152
-------
TABLE B-ll. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR NONTHRESHOLD POLLUTANTS9
Substance
Level 1n water (/*g/L) estimated to
result in Incremental increase of
cancer over 70 years at risk
of 1 in 100,000
Organics
(Other than halogenated organics
and pesticides)
Aery Ion it rile
1,2-01phenylhydrazine
N-N1trosodimethylami ne
N-Ni trosodi ethyl ami ne
N-NItrosodi butyl ami ne
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Ni trosopyrrol1di ne
Benzene
Benzidlne
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Halomethanes (Chloromethane, bromomethane,
dichloromethane, bromodichloromethane,
tribromomethane, dichlorodifluoromethane,
trichlorofluoromethane, or combinations)
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
1,2-01chloroethane
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethan.e
Hexachloroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,1-D1chloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Hexachlorobutadi ene
Other Chlorinated Organics
bi s(Chloromethyl)ether
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Hexachlorobenzene
Polychlorinated biphenyls
2,4,6-Tri chlorophenol
Dlchlorobenzidine
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
0.58
0.422
0.014
0.008
0.064
49
0.160
6.6
0.0012
1.1
0.028
1.9
4.0
9.4
6.0
1.7
19
20
0.33
27
8
4.47
0.0000038
0.3
0.0072
0.00079
12
0.103
0.00000013
(Continued)
153
-------
TABLE B-ll. (Continued)
Substance
Level In water (/ig/L) estimated to
result In Incremental Increase of
cancer over 70 years at risk
of 1 In 100,000
Pesticides~~
Aldrln
Dieldrln
Chlordane
DDT
Heptachlor
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
alpha-HCH
beta-HCH
tech-HCH
gamma-HCH
Toxaphene
Inorganics
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryl11 urn
0.00079
0.00071
0.0046
0.00024
0.00278
0.092
0.163
0.123
0.186
0.0071
0.022
300,000 fibers per liter
0.068
&The U.S. EPA recognizes that for the maximum protection of human health from
the potential carcinogenic effects of these pollutants the ambient water
concentration should be zero based on the assumption of nonthreshold behav or.
However, as the zero level may not be attainable at the present time, levels
which may result 1n a specified incremental increase 1n risk have been
estimated to serve as criteria. (U.S. EPA Federal Register. November 28,
1980).
154
-------
TABLE B-12. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE
(EXCLUDING PESTICIDES AND HALOGENATED SPECIES5)
Pollutant
Criteria
Ref.
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aluminum
Ammonia
(un-ionized)
Antimony
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 1,700 ug/L
in freshwater species and 970 ug/L in salt-
water species.
Freshwater algae are affected by 520 ug/L.,
saltwater algae at 500 ug/L.
Chronic toxicity occurs in saltwater species
as low as 710 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 68 ug/L in
freshwater species and 55 ug/L in saltwater
species.
Chronic toxicity occurs in freshwater species
as low as 21 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 7,550 pg/L
in freshwater species.
Mortality occurred in freshwater fish exposed
for 30 days at 2,600 ug/L.
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.01 is recommended to be
applied to the 96-hour LC50 for sensitive
organisms. Concentrations exceeding 1,500 ug/L
constitute a hazard in the marine environment,
and levels less than 200 ug/L present minimal
risk of deleterious effects.
For marine species, an application factor of 0.1
is recommended. Concentrations equal to or ex-
ceeding 400 ug/L constitute a hazard to marine
biota. Levels below 10 ug/L present minimal risk
of deleterious effects. (Insufficient data for
1984 Criterion.)
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 9,000 ug/L
in freshwater species and is toxic to fresh-
water algae at 610 ug/L. ;
Chronic toxicity occurs in freshwater species
as low as 1,600 ug/L.
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.01 is recommended to be
applied to the 96-hour LC50 for sensitive
organisms. Concentrations exceeding 0.2 ug/L
constitute a hazard in the marine environment.
155
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pol1utant
Criteria
Ref.
Arsenic
(trivalent)
Bari urn
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of arsenic
shall not exceed 72 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 140 ug/L, and the concen-
tration may be between 72 ug/L and 140 ug/L for
up to 96 hours.
For saltwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of arsenic
shall not exceed 63 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 120 ug/L., and the concen-
tration may be between 63 ug/L and 170 ug/L for
up to 96 hours.
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.05 is recommended to be
applied to the 96-hour LC50 for sensitive
organisms. Concentrations equal to or exceed-
ing 1,000 ug/L constitute a hazard in the marine
environment, and levels less than 500 ug/L
present minimal risk of deleterious effects.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 5,300 ug/L in
freshwater species and 5,100 ug/L in saltwater
species.
Adverse effects occur in saltwater fish exposed
for 168 days as low as 700 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 2,500 ug/L in
freshwater species.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 130 ug/L in
freshwater species.
Chronic toxicity occurs in freshwater species
as low as 5.3 ug/L. Hardness has a substantial
effect oh acute toxicity.
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.01 is recommended to be
applied to the 96-hour LC50 for sensitive
organisms. Concentrations equal to or exceed-
ing 1,500 ug/L constitute a hazard in the marine
environment, and levels less than 100 ug/L pre-
sent minimal risk of deleterious effects.
1
1
(continued)
156
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pollutant
Criteria
Ref.1
Boron
Bromate
Bromine
Cadmi urn
Chlorine
Chromium0
(hexavalent)
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.1 is recommended to be applied
to the 96-hour LC50 for sensitive organisms. Con-
centrations equal to or exceeding 5,000 ug/L con-
stitute a hazard in the marine environment, and
levels less than 5,000 ug/L present minimal risk
of deleterious effects.
It is recommended that ionic bromine in the form
of bromate be maintained below 100,000 ug/L in
the marine environment.
It is recommended that free (molecular) bromine
in the marine environment not exceed 100 ug/L.
For freshwater aquatic life, the concentration
of active cadmium shall not exceed a level
equal to 1.16 (In hardness mg/L) - 3.841 due
to acute and chronic toxicities being nearly
the same.
For saltwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of cadmium
shall not exceed 12 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 38 ug/L, and the concen-
tration may be between 12 ug/L and 38 ug/L for
up to 96 hours.
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of chlorine
shall not exceed 8.3 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 14 ugl/L, and the concentra-
tion may be between 8.3 ug/L and 14 ug/L for up to
96 hours.
For saltwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of chlorine
shall not exceed 7.4 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 13 ug/L, and the concentra-
tion may be between 7.4 ug/L and 13 ug/L for up
to 96 hours.
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of chromium
shall not exceed 7.2 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 11 ug/L, and the contration
may be between 7.2 ug/L and 1100 ug/L for up to 96
hours.
(free)
3
157
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pollutant
Criteria
Ref.
Chromium
(hexavalent)
Chromium
(trivalent)
Copper
Cyanides
(sum of HCN
and CN )
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
For saltwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of chromium
shall not exceed 5.4 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 1200 ug/L, and the concen-
tration may be between 5.4 ug/L and 1200 ug/L for up
to 96 hours.
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of chromium
shall not exceed 0.819 (In hardness mg/L) to 537,
the maximum concentration shall not exceed 0.819
(In hardness mg/L) + 3.568.
No saltwater criterion were derived, but levels
of 10,300 ug/L are lithal to the eastern oyster.
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of copper
shall not exceed 0.905 (In hardness) - 1.705,
the maximum concentration shall not exceed 0.905
(In hardness mg/L + 3.568, and the concentration
may be between the average and the maximum for
up to 96 hours.
For saltwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of copper
shall not exceed 2 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 3.2 ug/L, and the concen-
tration may be between 2 ug/L and 3.2 g/L for
up to 96 hours.
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of cyanides
shall not exceed 4.2 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 22 ug/L, and the concentra-
tion may be between 4.2 ug/L and 22 ug/L for up
to 96 hours.
For saltv/ater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of cyanides
shall not exceed 0.57 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 1 ug/L, and the concen-
tration may be between 0.57 ug/L and 1 g/L for
up to 96 hours.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 330 ug/L in
freshwater species and 590 ug/L in saltwater
species.
158
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pollutant
Criteria
Ref.
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene (cont'd.)
1,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorides
Iron
Isophorone
Lead1
Chronic toxicity occurs in freshwater species
as low as 230 ug/L. A decrease in saltwater
algal cell numbers occurs as low as 370 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 270 ug/L in
freshwater species.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 32,000 ug/L
in freshwater species and 430 ug/L in salt-
water species.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 3,980 ug/L in
freshwater species and 40 ug/L in saltwater
species.
Chronic toxicity occurs in saltwater species
as low as 16 ug/L.
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.1 is recommended to be
applied to the marine 96-hour LC50. Concen-
trations equal to or exceeeding 1,500 ug/L
constitute a hazard to the marine environment,
and levels less than 500 ug/L present minimal
risk of deleterious effects.
Concentrations equal to or exceeding 300 ug/L
constitute a hazard to the marine environment,
and levels less than 50 ug/L present minimal
risk of deleterious effects.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 117,000 ug/L
in freshwater species and 12,900 ug/L in salt-
water species.
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of lead
shall not exceed 1.34 (In hardness mg/L) - -5.245,
the maximum concentration shall not exceed 1.34
(In hardness mg/L) - 2.014, and the concentra-
tion may be between the average and the maximum
for up to 96 hours.
For saltwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of lead
shall not exceed 8.6 ug/L, the maximum concen-
tration shall not exceed 220 ug/L, and the con-
centration may be between 8.6 ug/L and 220 ug/L
for up to 96 hours.
159
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pol1utant
Criteria
Ref.'
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.02 is recommended to be
applied to the marine 96-hour LC50. Concentra-
tions equal to or exceeding 100 pg/L constitute
a hazard to the marine environment, and levels
less than 20 |jg/L present minimal risk.
For freshwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of mercury
shall not exceed 0.2 ug/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 1.1 ug/L, and the concentra-
tion may be between 0.2 ug/L and 1.1 |jg/L for up
to 96 hours.
For saltwater aquatic life in each 30 consec-
utive days the average concentration of mercury
shall not exceed 0.1 g/L, the maximum concentra-
tion shall not exceed 1.9 pg/L, and the concen-
tration may be between 0.1 g/L and 1.9 g/L for
up to 96 hours.
It is recommended that the concentration in sea-
water should not exceed 0.05 of the 96-hour LC50
at any time for the most sensitive species and
that the 24-hour average not exceed 0.02 of the
96-hour LC50.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 2,300 |jg/L
in freshwater species and 2,350 |jg/L in salt-
water species.
Chronic toxicity in freshwater species occurs
as low as 620 pg/L.
For freshwater aquatic life, total recoverable
nickel should not exceed 1,100 pg/L at any time
assuming a hardness of 50 mg/L as CaC03. For
saltwater species the concentration should not
exceed 140 (jg/L at any time.
The 24-hour average freshwater criterion is
56 pg/L for a hardness of 50 mg/L. The 24-hour
saltwater criterion is 7.1 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 27,000 ug/L
in freshwater species and 6,680 pg/L in salt-
water species.
(continued)
160
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pollutant
Criteria
Ref.
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
Phenol
2,4-Dimethyl
phenol
Phenolics
(Phenolic
compounds)
Phthalate Esters
Phosphorus
(elemental)
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 230 ug/L in
freshwater species and 4,850 ug/L in saltwater
species.
Toxicity to freshwater algae occurs as low as
150 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 5,850 ug/L
in freshwater species and 3,300,000 ug/L in
saltwater species.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 10,200 ug/L in
freshwater species and 5,800 ug/L in saltwater
species.
Chronic toxicity occurs in freshwater species
as low as 2,560 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 2,120 ug/L in
freshwater species.
For freshwater species, an application factor
of 0.05 is recommended to be applied to the
96-hour LC50 for important sensitive''species.
No concentration greater than 100 ug/L is
recommended at any time or place.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 940 ug/L
freshwater species and 2,944 ug/L in salt-
water species.
Chronic toxicity occurs in freshwater species
as low as 3 ug/L.
Toxicity to one species of saltwater algae
occurs as low as 3.4 ug/L.
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.01 is recommended to be
applied to the marine 96-hour LC50. Concen-
trations equal to or exceeding 1 ug/L. consti-
tute a hazard to the marine environment.
Acute toxicity probably will only occur at
concentrations above 2.0 ug/L for freshwater
species and above 10 ug/L for saltwater
species.
The 24-hour average freshwater criterion is
0.014 ug/L. The 24-hour saltwater criterion
is 0.030 ug/L.
1
2
(continued)
161
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pollutant
Criteria
Ref.
Polynuclear
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Selenium (as
inorganic _g
selenite, Se )
Selenium (as
inorganic _2
selenite, Se )
Selenium (as
inorganic +.
selenate, Se )
Silver
Sulfide
Hydrogen Sulfide
(undissociated)
Thallium
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 300 ug/L for
saltwater species.
For freshwater aquatic life, total recoverable
inorganic selenite should not exceed 260 ug/L
at any time. For saltwater species, the con-
centration should not exceed 410 ug/L at any
time.
The 24-hour averge freshwater criterion is
35 ug/L. The 24-hour saltwater criterion is
54 ug/L.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 760 ug/L in
freshwater species.
For freshwater aquatic life, total recoverable
silver should not exceed 1.2 ug/L at any time,
assuming a hardness of 50 mg/L as CaC03. For
saltwater species the concentration should not
exceed 2.3 ug/L at any time.
Chronic toxicity in freshwater species occurs as
low as 0.12 ug/L.
For protection-of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.1 is recommended to be
applied to the marine 96-hour LC50. Concen-
trations equal to or exceeding 10 ug/L consti-
tute a hazard to the marine environment, and
levels less than 5 ug/L present minimal risk of
deleterious effects with the pH maintained with-
in a range of 6.5 to 8.5.
For freshwater species, a level assumed to be
safe for all aquatic organisms including fish
is 2 ug/L. It is recommended that the concen-
tration of total sulfides not exceed 2 ug/L at
any time or place.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 1,400 ug/L in
freshwater species and as low as 2,130 ug/L in
saltwater species.
Chronic toxicity occurs as low as 40 ug/L in
freshwater species, and one freshwater fish is
affected after 2,600 hours as low as 20 ug/L.
162
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Pollutant
Criteria
Ref.'
Toluene
Uranium
Vanadi urn
Zinc
For salt species, because of a chronic effect
of long-term exposure, tests should be con-
ducted for at least 20 days to determine
harmful, sublethal concentrations. The concen-
tration in seawater should not exceed 0.05 of
this concentration. Concentrations equal to or
exceeding 100 ug/L constitute a hazard to the
marine environment, and levels less than 50 ug/L
present minimal risk of deleterious effects.
Acute toxicity occurs as low as 17,500 ug/L
in freshwater species and as low as 6,300 gg/L
in saltwater species.
Chronic toxicity occurs in saltwater species
as low as 5,000 pg/L.
For protection of saltwater species an appli-
cation factor of 0.01 is recommended to be
applied to the marine 96-hour LC50. Concen-=
trations equal to or exceeding 500 ug/L consti-
tute a hazard to the marine environment, and
levels less than 100 ug/L present minimal risk
of deleterious effects.
It is recommended that the concentration of sea-
water not exceed 0.05 of the 96-hour LC50 for the
most sensitive species.
For freshwater aquatic life, total recoverable
zinc should not exceed 180 ug/L at any time,
assuming a hardness of 50 mg/L as CaC03. For
saltwater species the concentration should not
exceed 170 ug/L at any time.
The 24-hour average criterion for freshwater is
47 jjg/L for a hardness of 50 mg/L. The 24-hour
saltwater criterion is 58 ug/L.
(continued)
163
-------
TABLE B-12 (continued)
Footnotes:
aln addition to the pollutants listed in the Table, certain pesticides and
numerous halogenated organics are addressed by the U.S. EPA 1980 Water
Quality Criteria. Criteria for protection of aquatic life and/or levels at
which toxicity occurs are specified.
Pesticides
Aldrin/dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Endosulfan
Endri n
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
ethanes
ethers
naphthalene
Halogenated Organics
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorinated benzenes
Chlorinated
Chloroalkyl
Chlorinated
Chlorinated phenols
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Di chloroethylenes
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropanes/propenes
Haloethanes
Halomethane
Hexachlorobutadi ene
Hexachlorpcyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Tri chloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
References:
•''U.S. EPA, Water Quality Criteria, Federal Register. November 28, 1980
(with updates).
2NAS/NAE. Water Quality Criteria 1972. Prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by the National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
EPA-R3-73-933.
3U.S. EPA (1984) Water Quality Criteria; Request for Comments, Federal Register,
Volume 49, No. 26, 4551-4554, February 7, 1984.
GFor arsenic; chromium, cooper, lead, and mercury, the chemical is defined as
the dissolved fraction that passes through a 0.45 urn membrane filter.
164
-------
TABLE B-13. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND EPA SNARLS
(SUGGESTED NO ADVERSE RESPONSE LEVELS) AND OTHER
UNENFORCEABLE ADVISORY LEVELS
Short-Term Dose
in mg/L (Days)
Long-Term Dose (Chronic)
in ug/L
1. Acrylonitrile
NAS
EPA
2. Benzene
NAS
EPA
3. Benzene hexachloride,
or BHC
NAS
4. Benzo(a)pyrene
EPA
5. Carbon tetrachloride
NAS
EPA draft
SNARL
6. Catechol
NAS
7. Chlordane
EPA (draft)
8. Chlorobenzene
EPA
9. Chloroform
NAS
10. Dibromochloromethane
NAS
0.035 (10); 0.003 (30)
12.6 (7)
0.35 (7)
3.5 (1); 0.5 (7)
0.025 (7)
14 (1); 2.0 (7)
0.2 (1); 0.02 (10)
2.2 (1)
0.063 (1); 0.008 (10)
22 (1); 3.2 (7)
18 (1)
1.3 x 10 cancer risk
per |jg/L
0.67 |jg/L for 10~6
cancer risk, calculated
4.5 (ag/L for 10 cancer
risk, calculated by EPA
from NAS-supplied figures
0.4 fjg/L for 10"6 cancer
risk, calculated by EPA
from EPA (CAG) figures
-6
0.023 ug/L for 10
cancer risk
72, non-cancer effects,
calculated from EPA Water
Quality Criteria
(continued)
165
-------
TABLE B-13 (Continued)
Short-Term Dose
in mg/L (Days)
Long-Term Dose (Chronic)
in ug/L
11. l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane,
or DBCP
EPA
0.050, non-cancer effects;
0.01, for 10"6
cancer risk
12. 1,2-Dibromoethane, or
Ethylene Dibromide,
or EDB
NAS
13. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
EPA
9.1x10 per pg/L, or
0.055 M9/L for 10~6
cancer risk, calculated
130, non-cancer effects,
calculated
14. Dichlorofluoromethane
NAS
EPA
350 (1); 5.6 (7)
100 (1); 43 (10)
1600, non-cancer effects,
calculated
15. 1.2-Dichloroethane
NAS
EPA
16. 1,1-Dichloroethylene
EPA (draft)
1.0 (1)
17. cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
EPA (draft) 4.0 (1); 0.4 (10)
18. trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene
EPA (draft) 2.7 (1); 0.27 (10)
19. Di-n-butyl phthalate
EPA
7.0 x 10"7 per ug/L, or
0.71 |jg/L for 10"6
cancer risk, calculated
0.95 |jg/L for 10"6
cancer risk, calculated
70, non-cancer effects
38.5 non-cancer effects,
calculated from NAS ADI
(continued)
166
-------
TABLE B-13 (Continued)
^*
Short-Term Dose
in mg/L (Days)
Long-Term Dose (Chronic)
in ug/L
20. Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
or DEHP
EPA
21. 2,4-Dichlorophenol
NAS
22. 1,4-Dioxane
EPA
23. Epichlorohydrin
NAS
24. Ethylene glycol
EPA (draft)
25. Formaldehyde
EPA (informal)
26. Hexachlorobenzene
NAS
EPA
27. Hexachlorophene
EPA
28. n-Hexane
EPA (draft)
29. Isopropyl alcohol
EPA
30. Methylene chloride, or
Dichloromethane
NAS
EPA
0.020 (10)
0.84 (1) 0.53 (7)
19 (1)
0.030 (1)
0.03 (7)
12.9 (1); 4.0 (10)
1 (1); 1 (10)
35 (1); 5.0 (7)
13 (1); 1.3-1.5 (10)
210, non-cancer effects,
calculated from NAS ADI
700, non-cancer effects
5500, non-cancer effects
2.9 x 10~ cancer risk per
Mg/L
0.35, non-cancer effects,
calculated by EPA from
NAS ADI
0.35, non-cancer effects,
calculated from NAS ADI
150, non-cancer effects
(continued)
167
-------
TABLE B-13 (Continued)
Short-Term Dose
in mg/L (Days)
Long-Term Dose (Chronic)
in ng/L
31. Methyl ethyl ketone,
or MEK
EPA (draft)
32. Methyl methacrylate
EPA
7.5 (1); 0.750 (10)
33. Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
or PCB
NAS 0.35 (1); 0.05 (7)
EPA 0.001 (30)
34. Styrene
EPA
35. Tetrachlorethylene
NAS
172 (1); 24.5 (7)
EPA
2.3 (1); 0.175 (10)
36. Toluene
NAS
EPA
37. 1,1,1-Trichloromethane
NAS
EPA
EPA, calculated
using NAS data
420 (1); 35 (7)
1 (1); 1 (10)
490 (1); 70 (7)
140 (1); 20 (10)
35.0 non-cancer effects,
calculated from NAS ADI
1300, non-cancer effects,
calculated from NAS-
supplied figures; 46.5,
non-cancer effects,
calculated from NAS ADI
20, non-cancer effects;
1.4 x 10 cancer risk
per ng/L, or 3.5 ug/L for
10 cancer risk, calcu-
lated from NAS figures
3.5 H9/L f°r 10 cancer
risk, or 0.9 pg/L for
that risk, or 0.9 |jg/L
for that risk, calcu-
lated from EPA (CAG)
figures
340, non-cancer effects
3800, non-cancer effects
1000, non-cancer effects
1.1, non-cancer effects
(continued)
168
-------
TABLE B-13 (Continued)
—
Short-Term Dose
in mg/L (Days)
Long-Term Dose (Chronic)
in jjg/L
38. Trichloroethylene
NAS
EPA
39. Trichlorofluoromethane
NAS
EPA
40. Vinyl chloride
EPA
41. Xylenes (o-, m-, and p-)
NAS
EPA (draft)
EPA, calculation
for m-Xylene
only, using NAS
data
105 (1); 15 (7)
2 (1); 0.2 (10)
88 (1); 8 (7)
25 (1); 2.2 (10),
calculated from NAS
data
21 (1); 11.2 (7)
12 (1); 1.4 (10)
4.5 for 10
calculatd
-6
cancer risk,
75, non-cancer effects;
4.5 for 10~6 cancer risk,
or 2.8 for that risk,
calculated from EPA
(CAG) data
ADI - Acceptable Daily Intake
CAG - Carcinogen Assessment Group
NAS - National Academy of Sciences
1 for 10 cancer risk,
calculated from NAS data;
2 for that risk, if
calculated from EPA
(CAG) data
620, non-cancer effects
6.1 (1); 3.2 (10)
169
-------
TABLE B-14 MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS FOR CHARACTERISTIC OF EP
TOXICITY FOR RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE (40 CFR, PART 261a)
EPA Hazardous
Waste Number
Contaminant
Maximum Concentration
(Milligrams)
Per Liter
D004 Arsenic 5.0
D005 Bari urn • • • 100.0
D006 Cadmi urn
D007 Chromi urn
D008 Lead
D009 Mercury
D010 Sel eni urn
D011 Silver
D012 Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-
1,7, epoxy-l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-
octahydro-l,4-endo, ento-5,
8-dimethano naphthalene
D013 Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-
cyclohezame, gamma isomer
D014 Methozychlor (l,l.l-Tricholoro-2,
2-bis [p-methozyphenyl] ethane)
D015 Toxaphene (ciQHlOC18s
Technical
chlorinated camphene, 67-69
percent chlori ne)
D016 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid)
D017 2,45-TP Silvex (2,4,5-
Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid)
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
0
0
1.
5.
0.02
0.4
10.0
0.5
10.0
1.0
SEP refers to the RCRA Extraction Procedure. A waste is found to meet the EP
Toxicity Characteristic if any contaminant in the extract (1:20) exceeds the
maximum concentration listed.
170
-------
TABLE B-15. INTERIM LIMITS ON METAL APPLICATION
TO AGRICULTURAL SOILS
a
Soil Cation Exchange Capacity
Element
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
0-5
5
125
500
50
250
5-15
10
250
1,000
100
500
> 15
20
500
2,000
200
1,000
Maximum accumulative amount of metal which can be added to
privately-owned farmland (kg/ha).
Adapted from: Ryan, J.A. "Factors Affecting Plant Uptake of Heavy
Metals from Land Application of Residuals." In:
Proceedings of the National Conference on Disposal
of Residues on Land, September 13-15, 1976,
St. Louis, Missouri. Sponsored by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Quality Systems,
Inc. and Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville,
Maryland.
171
-------
TABLE B-16. REPORTED LEVELS OF SELECTED ELEMENTS IN SOILS
El ement
Arseni c
Aluminum
Boron
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Concentration in soil
0 5.0
10 common
2-100 range
0.06 common
0.01-7 range
100 common
5-3,000 range
50-170
1,000 in serpentine soils
8 common
1-40 range
<1 extractable
20 common
2-100 range
0.2-3.2 extractable
20,000-50,000
1-100 extractable
10-30
10 common
2-200 range
60 and 275~reported mean rural levels
850 common
100-4,000 range
1-47 available
Reference
1
2
2
3
2
2
2,4
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3,5
2
2
6
2
2
3
(Continued)
172
-------
TABLE B-16. (Continued)
Element
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration in soil
0»g/g)
<0.01 to 4.6 for soils in western U.S.;
mean 0.083
0.147 mean for eastern U.S.
2 common
0.2-5 range
0.1-0.3 available in southeastern
Montana soils
Elevated levels may occur in alkaline
soils with high water table
40 common
10-1,000 range
30
5-40
0.5 common
0.1-2.0 range
100 common
20-500 range
50 common
10-300 range
5,000
Reference
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
7
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
173
-------
REFERENCES FOR TABLE B-16
1. NRC. Arsenic. Committee on Medical and Biological Effects of Environ-
mental Pollutants, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., ISBN
0-709-02604-0, 1977.
2. Ryan, J.A. "Factors Affecting Plant Uptake of Heavy Metals from Land
Application of Residuals." In Proceedings of the National Conference on
Disposal of Residues on Land, September 13-15, 1976, St. Louis, Missouri.
Sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Quality
Systems, Inc., and Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville, Maryland.
3. Munshower, F.F. "Microelements and Their Role in Surface Mine Planning."
In Coal Development: Collected Papers, Volume II. Papers presented at
Coal Development Workshops in Grand Junction, Colorado and Casper,
Wyoming. Sponsored by Bureau of Land Management, July 1983.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Scientific and Technical Assess-
ment Report on Cadmium. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/6-75-003,
March 1975.
5. NRC. Lead in the Human Environment. Committee on Lead in the Human
Environment, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1980.
6. Drill, S., J. Konz, H. Mahar, and M. Morse. The Environmental Lead
Problem: An Assessment of Lead in Drinking Water from a Multi-Media
Perspective. Prepared by MITRE Corporation for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Criteria and Standards Division. PB-296 556, May 1979.
7. NRC. Nickel. Committee on Medical arid Biological Effects of Environ-
mental Pollutants, Division of Medical Sciences, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C., ISBN 0-309-02314-9, 1975.
8. NRC. Zinc. Committee on Medical and Biological Effects of Environmental
Pollutants, National Academy of Sciences. Prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-600/1-78-034, May 1978.
174
-------
TABLE B-17. SUBSTANCES WITH DESIGNATIONS BASED ON CARCINOGENICITY
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Hydrocarbons
Simple aromatic
Polycyclics
Benzene
IARC (sufficient evidence in humans, carcinogenic
for humans)
NTPList
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criterion (reflects
carcinogenic risk)
OSHA (special regulations reflect cancer hazard)
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
NCI List (substance found to cause cancer in man)
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criterion (reflects carcinogenic
potential of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons)
Benz(a)anthracene
o
01010.
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)-
anthracene
CH
3-Methylcholanthrene
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
EPA CAG List (six references cited)
EPA CAG List (Note: IARC determined that evidence of
carcinogenicity is not sufficient)
EPA CAG List (three references cited)
175
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-17 (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Hydrocarbons (continued)
Polycyclics (continued)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)pyrene
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
NTP List
EPA CAG List (Note: IARC determined that evidence of
carcinogenicity is not sufficient)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
(continued)
176
-------
TABLE B-17 (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Hydrocarbons (continued)
Polycyclics (continued)
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene
Nitrites
Aromatic amines
Primary
Dibenz(a,i)pyrene
Acrylonitrile
H
=C — C=N
I
H
2-Aminotoluene
(o-Toluidine)
1-Amino-2-methoxy
benzene
(o-Anisidine)
NH2
OCH-,
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List.
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List .-•
EPA CAG List
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals; limited evidence in
humans; probably carcinogenic in humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criterion (reflects
carcinogenic risk)
OSHA (special regulations reflect cancer hazard)
ACGIH (human carcinogen)
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals as the hydrochloride;
should be regarded, for practical purposes, as if it
presented a carcinogenic risk to humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
NCI (evaluated as carcinogenic as the hydrochloride)
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals as the hydrochloride;
should be regarded, for practical purposes, as if it
presented a carcinogenic risk to humans)
177
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-17 (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Aromatic amines
(continued)
Primary (continued)
4-Methoxy-2-methyl-
aniline
(p-Cresidine)
NH2
0
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals; should be regarded,
for practical purposes, as if it presented a carcinogenic
risk to humans)
NTP List
NCI
OCH3
4-Aminobiphenyl
(p-Xenylamine)
NH2
IARC (sufficient evidence in humans and in animals;
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA GAG List
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer
suspect agent")
ACGIH (human carcinogen)
NCI List (substance found to cause cancer in man)
1-Naphthylamine
(a-Naphthylamine)
.010.
2-Naphthylamine
(/3-NaphthyIamine)
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared
pertaining to technical grade 1-Naphthylamine)
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer'
suspect agent")
IARC (sufficient evidence in humans and in animals;
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer
suspect agent")
ACGIH (human carcinogen)
NCI List (substance found to cause cancer, in man)
Secondary
N-Phenyl-
2-naphthylamine
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
(continued)
178
-------
TABLE B-17 (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Aromatic amines
(continued)
(mines
Ethylenimine
(Aziridine)
NH
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer
suspect agent")
Diamines
H,N
H,N
Propylenimine
(2-Methylaziridine)
H3C-
NH
H
2,4-Diaminotoluene
CH3
2,4-Diamino-1 -methoxy-
benzene
(2,4,-Diaminoanisole)
OCH3
Benzidine
(4,4' Diamino-
diphenyl)
3,3'Dimethylbenzidine
(o-Tolidine)
H3C \ XCH
3
NH2
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogen
potential for man)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals as
the sulfate; should be regarded, for practical purposes,
as if it presented a carcinogenic risk to humans)
IARC (sufficient evidence in humans and in animals;
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criterion (reflects
carcinogenic risk)
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer
suspect agent")
ACGIH (human carcinogen)
NCI List (substance found to cause cancer in man)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
179
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l? (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Aromatic amines
Diamines (continued)
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
(o-Dianisole)
H3CO
OCH3
Diamine with sulfur 4,4'Thiodianiline
H,N_/f IV-S-
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
Azo compounds
3-Amino-1,2,4-triazole
(Amitrole)
p-Dimethylamino-
azobenzene
= N
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer
suspeet agent")
N-HetarocycIes
Polynuclear
Benzo(c)acridine
Dibenz(a,h)acridine
EPA CAG List (Note: IARC determined that evidence of
carcinogenicity is not sufficient)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
180
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-17 (Continued)
Substance Name
Chemical Group and Structure Specific Agency Designations
N-Heterocycles (continued)
Polynuclear (continued) Dibenz(a,j)acridine IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
.X\
©I
IP
\/
7H-
^~\ NTP List
lO 1 EPA GAG List
©O
^N ^^^^
Dibenzo(c,g)- IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals)
animals)
., carbazole NTp ^
^
O
\X^
i O J EPA Ust
x JO^
^ N-^^*^
H
Amid8s 2-Acetylaminofluorene NTP List
(N-2-Fluorenyl- EPA CAG List (ten references cited)
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer
&
^^Y^I^/N— C-CH3 suspect agent")
Ester'amide Urethane IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals)
(Ethyl carbamate) EPA CAG List
H2
O
II
N-C-OC2H5
Thioamides Thiourea IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals)
(Thiocarbamide) EPA CAG List
S
II
S
1
H2N— C-NH2 -*— »>H2N - C=NH
Ethylenethiourea IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
rsT
1
1 NH
N SH EPA CAG List
1 \
1 NH
Hydrazmes Hydrazine IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals)
animals)
H2N— NH2 EPA CAG b'st
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
Methylhydrazine ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
H,C potential for man)
3 \
H
IN— NHZ
181
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l? (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Hydrazines (continued)
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
H3C /CH3
N—N^
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List
Nitrosamines
Compounds With Oxygen
Aldehyde
Epoxides
Phenyihydrazine
— N
>.
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
(Hydrazobenzene)
Several aliphatics
,R
O=N— N
/'
Formaldehyde
o
II
H H
Ethlene oxide
H2C-—-CH2
\>
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
NTP List
EPA CAG'List
EPA 1980 WQC (reflects carcinogenicity)
NCI
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criteria Reflects
carcinogenic risk)
OSHA (special regulation for nitrosodimethylamine which
is labeled as a "cancer suspect agent")
NTP List
EPA CAG list
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
. potential for man)
IARC (limited evidence in humans; probably carcinogenic
for humans)
EPA CAG List
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
182
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l? (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Warns
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Compounds With Oxygen
(continued)
Epoxides (continued)
Vinylcyclohexene
dioxide
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
Cyclic ether
Diepoxybutane
H H
c-c^— CH2
1,4-Dioxane
H2C
CH
IARC (sufficient evidence of cardnogenicity in animals)
EPA CAG List
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
NCI (evaluated as carcinogenic!
Lactones
Compounds With Sulfur
Organic sulfates
|3-Propiolactone
H2C-—C = O
H2C O
/3-Butyrolactone
H2C C=O
I I
H3C C O
H
Dimethylsulfate
O
II
H3CO—S—OCH3
O
Diethylsulfate
o
II
C2H50-S-OC2H5
O
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
OSHA (special regulations; labeled as "cancer
suspect agent")
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in" animals)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
IARC (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)
183
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l? (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Selected Chlorinated
Organics
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (RGBs)
(two or more chlorine
substituents on phenyl groups)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
Cl
Inorganics
Antimony trioxide
(Production)
Arsenic
(Inorganic compounds)
Asbestos
(All types of fibers)
Beryllium
(Metal, oxide, sulfate,
chloride, fluoride,
hydroxide, carbonate,
phosphate, silicate)
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals; probably
carcinogenic in humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
IARC (evidence of carcinogenicity in animals reported;
evaluation is incomplete)
NTP List
EPA CAG List
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
IARC (sufficient evidence in humans; limited evidence
in animals; carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criterion (reflects
carcinogenic risk)
OSHA (special regulations reflect cancer hazard)
ACGIH (trioxide production-industrial substance suspect
of carcinogenic potential for man)
NCI List (substances found to cause cancer in man)
IARC (sufficient evidence in humans and in animals;
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criterion (reflects
carcinogenic risk)
ACGIH (human carcinogen)
NCI List (substances found to cause cancer in man)
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals; probably
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
EPA 1980 Water Quality Criterion (reflects
carcinogenic risk)
ACGIH (industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic
potential for man)
NCI List (substances found to cause cancer in man)
184
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-17 (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Inorganics
Cadmium
(Metal, chloride, oxide,
sulfate, sulfide)
Chromium
(Chromates, chromate
production)
Lead
(Acetate and
phosphate)
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals; probably
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
ACGIH (oxide production-industrial substance suspect
of carcinogenic potential for man)
NCI List (manufacturing exposures in cadmium using
industries identified with carcinogenic effects in
exposed people)
IARC (sufficient evidence in humans and in animals;
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
ACGIH (certain water insolubles-human carcinogen;
chromates of lead and zinc-industrial substances
suspect of carcinogenic potential for man)
NCI List (substances found to cause cancer in man—
chromates)
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals)
NTP List
Nonspecific Chemical
Substances
Nickel
(Metal, carbonyl,
cyanide, sulfide,
oxide, carbonate,
nickelocene, refining)
Selenium sulfide
Uranium
Coal tar pitch volatiles
Coke oven emissions
IARC (sufficient evidence in animals; probably
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
NCI List (manufacturing exposures in nickel refining
identified with carcinogenic effects in exposed people)
ACGIH (nickel sulfide roasting—human carcinogen)
EPA CAG List
NCI (evaluated as carcinogenic)
NCI List (substance found to cause cancer in man due
to radiation)
OSHA
ACGIH (human carcinogen)
'NTP List
EPA CAG List (risk assessment document prepared)
OSHA (special regufations reflect cancer hazard)
NCI List (substance found to cause cancer in man)
185
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l? (Continued)
Chemical Group
Substance Name
and Structure
Specific Agency Designations
Nonspecific Chemical
Substances (continued)
Creosote
Soot, tars, and
mineral oils
Shale oils, asphalts,
pitches, high boiling
petroleum oils, various
combustion products
EPA CAG List
NCI List (substance found to cause cancer in man)
1ARC (sufficient evidence in humans and in animals;
carcinogenic for humans)
NTP List
EPA CAG
NCI List (substances found to cause cancer in man-
soots, tars, cutting oils)
NCI List (substances found to cause cancer in man)
186
IJ.U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEi 1986-616-116/40633
-------
-------
OJ O
:P =;•
S S o . I *"
— =• a. « T ra
a0 ° Q.° 3
lis °sl
111 1?^
< o
a ID
o 3-
a
" m
5 s.
> me
»<£•
3 =5' S
O O Q.I
^ CO
o 5" ol
g|§f
5'3 ?
0>
00
------- |