9285.9-25
Hazard Ranking System
Training
Winter 1994
US Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Site Assessment Branch
-------
Foreword
The primary purpose of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) training
course is to provide participants with the knowledge and tools
needed to effectively use the HRS. The basic training materials
used in the HRS training course are the HRS rule and The Hazard
Ranking System Guidance Manual. The course materials contained in
this booklet are meant to complement, but not substitute for, these
basic references.
This training course is designed to:
serve as an introduction into the HRS rule and provide a
roadmap to The Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual,
provide an interactive learning experience for participants
through specifically-designed exercises, and
show how the HRS defines what has to be observed, measured,
sampled, and reported at the site inspection.
When you complete this course, we expect that you will understand
the HRS rule and be able to use The Hazard Ranking System Guidance
Manual to resolve questions that may arise in the design and
implementation of the site inspection or in the compilation of an
HRS package.
This training course is divided into 20 sections that are linked to
the major chapters and sections in The Hazard Ranking System
Guidance Manual. The exercises have been designed to reinforce key
concepts.
-------
Table of Contents
Section Name Section Number
Introduction 1
Regulatory Context of the HRS 2
HRS Structure 3
Source Characterization 4
Waste Characteristics 5
Observed Release 6
Actual Contamination 7
Sampling and Data Quality 8
Ground Water Pathway - Likelihood of Release 9
Ground Water Pathway - Waste Characteristics and Targets 10
Surface Water Pathway - Likelihood of Release 11
Surface Water Pathway - Drinking Water Threat 12
Surface Water Pathway - Human Food Chain Threat 13
Surface Water Pathway - Environmental Threat 14
Surface Water Pathway - Ground Water to Surface Water Component 15
Air Pathway - Likelihood of Release 16
Air Pathway - Waste Characteristics and Targets 17
Soil Exposure Pathway - Resident Population Threat 18
Soil Exposure Pathway - Nearby Population Threat 19
Radionuclides 20
LPQ Auto Parts Exercises
LPQ Auto Parts Site Inspection Narrative Report
-------
HRS Training Course Agenda
DAY 1-Morning: 8:00 AM
Duration
0:45 Video: "Site Assessment Screening: A National Priority."
0:15 EPA Introduction.
0:20 Section 1: Introduction, the Site Assessment Process.
0:20 Break.
0:20 Section 2: Regulatory Context of the HRS.
0:30 Section 3: HRS Structure.
1:00 Introduction to LPQ Auto Parts.
0:30 Section 4: Source Characterization
1:00 Lunch
DAY 1-Afternoon: 1:00 PM
Duration
1:00 SectionS: Waste Characteristics.
1:00 Exercise 1: Characterization of Sources.
0:20 Break.
0:40 Section 6: Observed Release.
1:00 Exercise 2: Observed Release to Surface Water.
DAY 2-Morning: 8:00 AM
Duration
0:30 Section 7: Actual Contamination.
0:20 Exercise 3: Actual Contamination of Targets.
1:15 SectionS: Sampling and Data Quality.
0:20 Break.
1:15 Section 9: Ground Water Pathway - Likelihood of Release.
0:45 Exercise 4: Ground Water Potential to Release to the Chagrin Aquifer.
1:00 Lunch.
DAY 2-Afteraoon: 1:00 PM
Duration
0:45 Section 10: Ground Water Pathway - Waste Characteristics and Targets.
1:30 Exercise 5: Ground Water Pathway - Glacial Aquifer.
0:20 Break.
1:15 Section 11: Surface Water Pathway - Likelihood of Release.
-------
HRS Training Course Agenda (Continued)
DAY 3-Moming: 8:00 AM
Duration
0:30 Exercise 6: Surface Water Pathway - Potential to Release.
0:40
0:20
1:15
0:30
0:45
Section 12:
Break.
Section 13:
Exercise 7:
Section 14:
Surface Water Pathway - Drinking Water Threat.
Surface Water Pathway - Human Food Chain Threat.
Surface Water Pathway - Human Food Chain Threat.
Surface Water Pathway - Environmental Threat.
1:00 Lunch
DAY 3-Afternoon: 1:00
Duration
0:50 Exercise 8: Surface Water Pathway - Environmental Threat.
0:25 Section 15: Surface Water Pathway - Ground Water to Surface Water Component.
0:20 Break.
1:00 Section 16: Air Pathway - Likelihood of Release.
0:45 Exercise 9: Air Pathway - Potential to Release.
0:40 Section 17: Air Pathway - Waste Characteristics and Targets.
DAY 4-Morning: 8:00 AM
Duration
1:00
0:45
0:20
1:00
0:20
0:20
0:45
0:20
0:15
Exercise 10:
Section 18:
Break.
Exercise 11:
Section 19:
Break.
Exercise 12:
Section 20:
Exercise 13:
Air Pathway - Targets.
Soil Exposure Pathway - Resident Population Threat.
Soil Exposure Pathway - Resident Population Threat.
Soil Exposure Pathway - Nearby Population Threat.
Soil Exposure Pathway - Nearby Population Threat.
Radionuclides.
Calculation of the Site Score for LPQ Auto Parts.
-------
Section 1
Introduction
-------
Course Objectives
To learn how to use the MRS rule, the MRS Guidance Manual,
the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM), and other site
assessment guidance documents.
To understand how MRS defines the type and quality of
information that must be gathered during the site inspection (SI).
Section 1, "
-------
The Site Assessment Process
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 3, highlight 1-1.
Section 1, page
-------
The Preliminary Assessment
The Preliminary Assessment (PA) is a low-cost review of
available information used to determine if the site warrants
further investigation.
No samples are taken.
The PA method parallels the MRS, but uses environmentally
conservative simplifications in the absence of data.
These PA simplifications may result in a relatively high "false
alarm" rate.
If the PA score is 28.50 or greater, a Site Inspection (SI) will be
scheduled.
If the PA score is under 28.50, the site is listed as "No Further
Response Action Planned" (NFRAP).
Section 1, page 3
-------
The Site Inspection
The Site Inspection (SI) builds on the data gathered at the PA,
tests the hypotheses that were developed, and challenges the
simplifying assumptions made at the PA.
Limited samples may be taken during the SI to characterize
wastes, estimate the extent of contamination, and determine if
hazardous substances have migrated into the media of concern.
The limited budget of the SI requires careful scoping of a
strategy that is driven by the information needs of the MRS.
Information from the SI feeds into the MRS scoring.
If the SI score is 28.50 or greater, the site is scored formally
using the MRS and an MRS package may be prepared to
document the final MRS score.
Section 1, page 4
-------
The Hazard Ranking System
The Hazard Ranking System (MRS) is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat associated with the release or
potential release of hazardous substances from a site.
The MRS is a simple, numerically based scoring system that uses
information obtained from the initial, limited investigations
conducted at the site: the PA and SI.
The MRS is a screening tool and not a risk assessment.
The MRS score is the primary criterion EPA uses to determine
whether a site should be placed on the National Priorities List
(NPL).
NPL listing informs the public that the site appears to present
sufficient relative risk to warrant the more extensive site
characterization of a remedial investigation and risk assessment.
Section 1, page 5
-------
Section 2
Regulatory Context of the MRS
-------
CERCLA
CERCLA, referred to as "Superfund," was passed in 1980 to fill
a gap in the nation's environmental laws (highlighted by Love
Canal, NY).
CERCLA established a $1.6 billion trust fund for 5 years to fund:
removal actions (short-term responses).
remedial actions (long-term responses).
legal enforcement actions.
CERCLA also required the establishment of a National Priorities
List (NPL) of the releases of hazardous substances that present
the greatest threats to public health and the environment.
CERCLA restricts the use of remedial action funds to NPL
sites.
Section 2f page
-------
The Hazard Ranking System
The MRS was established in 1982 to rank hazardous waste sites
so that the most serious could be included on the NPL.
A cutoff score of 28.50 was established for listing on the NPL.
This score was set to meet the Congressional mandate of
400 sites on the original NPL.
This score appears to flag 5 to 10 percent of all sites as NPL
sites.
Sect/on 2, page
-------
SARA
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986 extended and increased the CERCLA trust fund.
Funded at $11.97 billion through 1994.
SARA also required EPA to revise the MRS:
"... shall ensure, to the maximum extent feasible, that the
hazard ranking system accurately assesses the relative
degree of risk to human health and the environment posed
by sites and facilities subject to review."
The revised MRS was promulgated in 1990 (the one currently
used).
The next Superfund reauthorization is underway, in 1994.
Sect/on 2, page
-------
Hazardous Substances
CERCLA hazardous substances are defined by reference to other
laws in CERCLA §101(14).
The list of over 600 CERCLA hazardous substances is
provided in 40 CFR 302.4.
CERCLA pollutant or contaminants are defined in terms of their
negative impact on people and the environment in CERCLA
§101(33).
These negative impacts must be documented if a pollutant
or contaminant is used for MRS scoring.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 18.
Section 2, page
-------
Hazardous Substances (Concluded)
The MRS definition of hazardous substance includes both
CERCLA hazardous substances and "pollutants or
contaminants".
Please turn to the MRS rule,
page 51586.
Sect/on 2, page 5
-------
MRS Definitions of Site and Source
MRS definition of site and source:
Please turn to the MRS rule,
page 51587.
EPA evaluates sources with the MRS, but lists sites on the NPL,
Section 2. page 6
-------
CERCLA Definition of Release
CERCLA definition of release:
Release: CERCLA §101(22).
"[A]ny spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting,
emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the
abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other
closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance or
pollutant or contaminant)..."
Section 2, page 7
-------
Petroleum Exclusion
"Petroleum, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural
gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel" are excluded from
consideration under CERCLA.
The petroleum exclusion includes the substances found in
products coming out of a refinery, including gasoline with
additives such as 1,2-dichloroethene and lead tetraethyl.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 19.
Whenever it is suspected that the petroleum exclusion may
apply to a site, consult the regional NPL coordinator.
Section 2, page
-------
Radioactive Materials
A limited category of radioactive materials are excluded from
CERCLA consideration.
Releases from a nuclear power plant licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and covered under NRC
financial and liability provisions.
Releases from one of 17 uranium tailings sites specifically
designated in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
of 1978 (UMTRCA).
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 19.
Section 2, page 9
-------
Other Excluded Releases
Certain releases are excluded from response by CERCLA statute,
even though they may involve a CERCLA hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. These include:
releases that result in exposure solely within the workplace.
emissions from engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, train,
aircraft, vessel, or power pumping station.
the normal application of fertilizer.
Section 2, page 10
-------
Policy Considerations in Listing Sites
Historically, the listing of certain types of sites, although eligible
for scoring, has raised policy issues for EPA. These types of
sites should be discussed with regional NPL coordinators.
RCRA Subtitle C treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
Facilities with a current license issued by the NRC.
Environmental problems that have resulted from the legal
application of pesticides permitted under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
Ground water plumes or contaminated surface water
sediments where the source is currently unknown. Such
sources could, for instance, be subject to RCRA Subtitle C
and deferred to that authority.
Section 2, page 11
-------
Introduction to Guidance Materials
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 8, highlight 1-3.
MRS rule: 40 CFR 300, appendix A
MRS issues resolutions (also called preliminary resolutions),
WordPerfect file: electronic documentation record format
Section 2, page
-------
Section 3
MRS Structure
-------
The Pathways
An MRS score for a site is determined by evaluating four
pathways.
Ground water migration pathway.
Surface water migration pathway.
Drinking water threat.
Human food chain threat.
Environmental threat.
Soil exposure pathway.
Resident population threat.
- Nearby population threat.
Air migration pathway.
Section 3, page 1
-------
Site Score
The scores of the four pathways (0 to 100) are combined by a
root mean square method to give a single site score (0 to 100).
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 2.1.1, page 51587.
This method puts emphasis on the highest scoring pathway.
If one pathway "maxes out" at 100, the site score is 50.00.
If a second pathway has a score of 10, the site score rises
to 50.25.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 31.
Sect/on 3, page
-------
Pathway Scores
Each pathway score is based on the product of three "factor
categories" that are multiplied and normalized to a pathway
score of 0 to 100.
likelihood of release x waste characteristics x targets
82,500
The scaling factor of 82,500 results in a pathway score of 100
when the factor category values for likelihood of release and
waste characteristics are at their "typical" maximum norm and
the targets factor category value is 150 [i.e., (550 x 100 x
150)782,500 = 100].
Section 3, page 3
-------
Pathway Scores (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 2-1, page 51587.
Section 3, page
-------
Likelihood of Release
LR x WC x T
Observed Potential
Release to Release
Section 3, page 5
-------
Likelihood of Release (Continued)
Likelihood of release has the same structure for all three
migration pathways.
Either an observed release is documented or the potential to
release factors are evaluated.
An observed release is assigned the maximum value for
likelihood of release (550 points).
Section 3, page
-------
Likelihood of Release (Continued)
If an observed release cannot be documented, then the potential
to release factors are evaluated.
Potential to release is assigned a value of between 0 to 500
points and is the product of:
source containment of hazardous substances against release
to the media being evaluated (ground water, surface water,
air) multiplied by
media-specific factors that facilitate migration of the
hazardous substances, once containment is lost.
Section 3, page 7
-------
Likelihood of Release (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-2, page 51596.
Section 3. page P
-------
Waste Characteristics
LR x WC x T
Most Hazardous
Hazardous Waste
Substance Quantity
Section 3, page 9
-------
Waste Characteristics (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
The waste characteristics factor category evaluates how much
waste is at the site and how hazardous it is.
The waste characteristics factor category is calculated based on
hazardous waste quantity and pathway-specific factors (e.g.,
toxicity, mobility, persistence) that characterize the single most
hazardous substance present at the site.
Section 3, page 10
-------
Targets
LR x WC x T
Actual Potential
Contamination Contamination
Level Level
I II
Sect/on 3, page 11
-------
Targets (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 2-1, page 515S7.
Four types of targets are evaluated in each pathway:
Nearest individual.
Population.
Resources.
Sensitive Environments.
The targets factor category is not capped. The score for targets
can go as high as site conditions warrant.
Section 3, page 12
-------
MRS Structure
One site score.
Four pathway scores.
Three factor category values per pathway,
Several factor values per factor category.
The MRS is simply a set of rules for assigning values to factors,
factor categories, pathway scores, and the site score.
Section 3, page 13
-------
LPQ Auto Parts
Pathway
Rating (1 to 5)
Rationale
Ground Water
Surface Water
Soil Exposure
Air
Section 3, page 14
-------
Section 4
Source Characterization
-------
What is a Source?
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 1.1, page 51587.
Migration Pathways:
Source
Migration
Section 4, page 1
-------
Source Characterization
A complete source characterization should evaluate;
source type,
source boundaries,
identification of hazardous substances,
containment, and
waste characteristics (hazardous waste quantity and
substance-specific characteristics).
Section 4, page 2
-------
Source Type
Identify the type of source you are evaluating, using the MRS
categories as your guide.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 42.
Sources are evaluated only in the three migration pathways,
In the soil exposure pathway, areas of observed
contamination are evaluated.
Section 4, page 3
-------
Source Boundaries
Identify sources and define source boundaries using;
visual observations during the site visit,
historical records,
sampling results,
aerial photographs, and/or
interviews with individuals having knowledge of the site.
Accuracy in identifying sources and their boundaries becomes
crucial when evaluating distances to targets.
Section 4, page 4
-------
Identification of Hazardous Substances
Determine the hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants associated with each source.
Hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants
associated with a source can be identified using;
sampling data,
PRP records, labels, and manifests,
State or Federal records and permits,
information on site operations, and/or
historical records.
All hazardous substances associated with each source (with
non-zero containment) should be identified.
Section 4, page 5
-------
Containment
Containment is specific to the pathway being evaluated.
Specific containment features must be observed and reported
if the MRS is to be properly applied.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-2, page 51596.
Section 4, page 6
-------
Containment (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 147.
run-on control
cover
run-off
management
hazardous substances
leachate collection system
treatment
Section 4, page 7
-------
Section 5
Waste Characteristics
-------
Waste Characteristics Factor Category
LR x WC x T
Most Hazardous
Hazardous Waste
Substance Quantity
Section 5, page 1
-------
Waste Characteristics Factor Category (Concluded)
The waste characteristics factor category evaluates the
following two factors for all pathways;
hazardous waste quantity, and
toxicity (human or environmental).
In addition, the following factors are evaluated for specific
pathways and threats;
mobility,
persistence,
bioaccumulation potential, and
ecosystem bioaccumulation potential.
Section 5, page 2
-------
Substance-Specific Factors
The most hazardous substance is the substance with the highest
product for the following pathway-specific factor values.
Ground Water Tox. x GW Mob.
Surface Water
Drinking Water Tox. x Persist.
Human Food Chain Tox. x Persist, x Bioacc. (FC)
Environmental EcoTox. x Persist, x Bioacc. (EN)
GW to SW Add GW mobility to the above.
Soil Exposure Tox.
Air Tox. x Air Mob.
Section 5, page 3
-------
Substance-Specific Factors (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 2.4.1, page 51589.
Please turn to the LPQ SI report,
reference 2, page 38.
Section 5, page 4
-------
Hazardous Waste Quantity
For each source, document hazardous waste quantity using the
following four measures in the following hierarchy:
Hazardous constituent quantity (tier A).
Hazardous wastestream quantity (tier B).
Volume (tier C).
- Area (tier D).
In the HRS evaluation of a source, move down through the tiers,
assigning values for the information that is available.
At whatever tier the information is reasonably complete and
accurate, stop.
For each source, the highest value of tiers A-D is selected as the
source hazardous waste quantity value.
Section 5, page 5
-------
MRS Table 2-5
The hazardous waste quantity factor is based on the quantity of
hazardous substances at the site.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 2-5, page 51591.
Section 5, page 6
-------
Tier A: Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Tier A is used when data are available on the quantities of
individual CERCLA hazardous substances.
Tier A includes only the pounds of pure CERCLA hazardous
substances, not the mass of pollutants or contaminants.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 91.
If tier A for the source is "adequately determined" assign a zero
to tiers B-D.
If tier A cannot be adequately determined, assign a tier A value
based on available information, and proceed to tier B.
Section 5, page 7
-------
Tier B: Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Tier B is based on the wastestreams that went into the source,
not on its capacity or volume.
Tier B not only includes CERCLA hazardous substances but also
pollutants and contaminants and the associated waste material
that contains the hazardous substances.
The materials must be commingled at the time of deposition.
Please turn to the HRS Guidance Manual,
page 99.
If tier B for the source is "adequately determined" assign a zero
to tiers C-D.
If tier B cannot be adequately determined, assign a tier B value
based on available information, and proceed to tier C.
Section 5. page 8
-------
Tier C: Volume
Tier C is based on the capacity, not the actual contents of the
source.
Estimate the volume measure using the dimensions of the
source.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 105.
If tier C can be determined for a source, assign a value of 0 to
tier D.
If tier C cannot be determined, assign a value of 0 to tier C and
move on to tier D.
Section 5, page 9
-------
Tier D: Area
Tier D assumes a default depth for each source. Do not
evaluate tier D if the actual depth of the source is known
(evaluate tier C instead).
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 109.
Section 5, page 10
-------
Hazardous Waste Quantity Calculation
For each source at the site, evaluate all appropriate tiers and
make a list of the value(s) for each tier, and select the highest
tier value as the source hazardous waste quantity value.
In the SI report, provide all available documentation for all
tiers for all sources.
For the site, sum the source hazardous waste quantity values.
If a source has a 0 (zero) value for containment for the
pathway being evaluated, drop that source from the sum.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 112, highlight 6-9.
Section 5, page 11
-------
Minimum Factor Values
If tier A is not adequately determined for all sources, then the
hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway is
subject to a minimum value.
The minimum factor value is applied to compensate for a low
hazardous waste quantity value due to a lack of waste
information about the sources.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 2-6, page 51591.
Section 5, page 12
-------
Minimum Factor Values (Concluded)
If tier A is not adequately determined for all sources, and the
value from table 2-6 is a 1, a minimum alternative value applies:
for the soil exposure pathway, HWQ =10.
for the migration pathways, HWQ = 10 or 100.
Two situations can raise the minimum alternative value to 100:
a target in the pathway is subject to level I or level II.
a qualifying removal has taken place and the quantity before
the removal was 100 or greater.
Section 5, page 13
-------
Waste Characteristics
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 2.4.3, page 51592.
Section 5, page 14
-------
Waste Characteristics (Concluded)
Example: ground water pathway.
The most hazardous substance at the site for the ground water
pathway is arsenic:
Toxicity: 10,000 (from SCDM)
Mobility: 1 (from SCDM)
Multiply toxicity x mobility = 10,000
The hazardous waste quantity factor value is 100 (table 2-6).
Multiply toxicity/mobility factor value x
hazardous waste quantity factor value = 1,000,000.
Waste characteristics factor value = 32 (table 2-7).
Section 5, page 15
-------
Exercise 1
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 1.
Section 5, page 16
-------
Section 6
Observed Release
-------
Likelihood of Release
Likelihood of
release
Direct observation
/
,Observed release
^^
Chemical analysis
^
Potential to release
Section 6, page 1
-------
Observed Release
An observed release means that:
hazardous substances have been documented to have entered
the media of concern, and
the release is attributable, at least in part, to the site that is
being evaluated.
Definition of attribution:
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 55.
Section 6, page 2
-------
Observed Release by Direct Observation
A hazardous substance is observed to have been released into the
media of concern.
Documentation must substantiate that a hazardous substance was
present in the materials observed to have been released.
An observed release by direct observation can not be evaluated for
the soil exposure pathway. Chemical analysis of samples is
required.
Section 6, page 3
-------
Observed Release by Direct Observation -
Ground Water Pathway
water table
drums in landfill
Section 6, page 4
-------
Observed Release by Direct Observation
Surface Water Pathway
Impoundment
Leachate seep
Section 6, page 5
-------
Observed Release by Direct Observation
Air Pathway
Tailings Pile
Section 6, page 6
-------
Observed Release by Chemical Analysis
One or more analytical samples from the media show contamination
significantly above the background level for the media.
Generally, one reliable release sample is all that has been
required even if earlier, or later, sampling fails to show a
release.
Statistical analysis across samples or across time is not
required.
Some portions of the release must be attributable to one or more
sources at the site.
The release should not be from site disturbance caused by the
sampling team.
Section 6, page 7
-------
Significance Above Background
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 2-3, page 51589.
If the background is non-detect, then the sample measurement
must equal or exceed the sample quantitation limit (SQL).
If the SQL cannot be established and the sample was analyzed
under CLP, use the CRQL or the CRDL.
If the SQL cannot be established and the sample was not
analyzed under CLP, use the DL for the method (MDL).
If the background is detected, then the sample measurement must
be at least three times above the background concentration.
The "at least three times above background" rule is a minimum
standard that gives protection against false positives in the
laboratory.
Section 6, page 8
-------
Significance Above Background (Concluded)
SQL
(lOppb)
MDL
(3 ppb)
3 times
background
Release sample
~ (11 ppb)
Background sample
(3U)
t
Release sample
(33 ppb)
Background sample
en
Section 6, page 9
-------
Background
Definition of background:
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 67.
Background samples are the usual way, but not the only way, to
establish the background levels of substances in environmental
media.
Section 6, page 10
-------
Noisy Background
Background samples do not have to be "clean" or non-detect.
Sometimes the background for a substance is "noisy" (that is, the
background samples show contamination).
Examples:
Metals in soil sediments.
Trichloroethene in urban surficial aquifers.
Rivers in heavily industrial areas.
It is not necessary to establish that the site being evaluated is the
only source of contamination, but that the site has significantly
increased the level of contamination compared to background.
Section 6, page 11
-------
Selecting Appropriate Background Samples
When background is established by chemical analysis, the
background and release sample must be similar. For example:
Filtered versus unfiltered ground water samples.
Depths of ground water samples within an aquifer (floaters
versus sinkers).
Different soil horizons.
Different regimes within a stream.
Sediment samples versus aqueous samples.
Tissue samples (age, species).
Date of sampling.
Section 6, page 12
-------
Establishing Background Levels Without Sampling
The MRS does not require a background sample to establish a
background level.
At some sites, it may not be possible to collect samples to
determine a background level.
At these sites, it may be necessary to establish the background
level based on published data relevant to the site.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 62.
Section 6, page 13
-------
Attribution
Background samples are often required to establish attribution
versus alternative sources.
Place the background sample so as to include the contribution
of the alternative source to the contamination level in the
vicinity of the site.
Demonstrate that the release sample is significantly elevated
above background, including the contribution of the alternative
source to that background.
Site documentation should give the location of potential alternative
sources so that the appropriateness of the location of background
samples can be assessed.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 59.
Section 6, page 14
-------
Attribution (Continued)
background samples
contaminated sample
site
Section 6, page 15
-------
Attribution (Concluded)
Alternative
Source
o
local flow gradient
Section 6, page 16
-------
Transformation Products
Transformation products are those substances resulting from the
transformation of hazardous substances in the environment by
physical, chemical, and/or biological process.
Substances found in the environment (i.e., transformation products)
may be different than those found in sources at the site (i.e., parent
substances).
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 79.
Section 6, page 17
-------
Exercise 2
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 2.
Section 6, page 18
-------
-------
ion 7
Actual Contamination
-------
What is Actual Contamination?
A target associated with a sampling location that meets the
criteria for an observed release is subject to actual
contamination.
Actual contamination is used for assigning values to targets.
Section 7, page 1
-------
Evaluating Actual Contamination
LR x WC x T
Actual Potential
Contamination Contamination
Level Level
I II
Section 7, page 2
-------
Actual Contamination - Ground Water Pathway
Background well
\
Observed release well
(monitoring well)
Drinking water well
(not sampled)
Section 7, page 3
-------
Actual Contamination - Surface Water Pathway
PPE
zone of actual c
Section 7, page 4
-------
Actual Contamination - Air Pathway
1/2-1
1/4 - 1/2
0-1/4
Prevailing wind.
direction
Station A
Section 7, page 5
-------
Determining Level of Contamination
Actually-contaminated targets are further described as subject to
either level I or level II concentrations.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 2.5.2, page 51593.
Please turn to the LPQ SI report,
reference 2, page 36.
Section 7. page 6
-------
Determining Level of Contamination (Continued)
Benchmark
150 mg/kg
Background
25 mg/kg
C: 200 mg/kg = Level I
B: 100 mg/kg = Level H
A: 50 mg/kg = Potential
Section 7, page 7
-------
Determining Level of Contamination (Concluded)
Benchmark2-
110mg/kg
Benchmark
50mg/kg
Background
25mg/kg
C: 100 mg/kg = ?
B: 60 mg/kg = ?
A: 15 mg/kg = ?
Section 7, page 8
-------
I and J Indices
The I and J indices calculate the additive effects of multiple
contaminants.
The I index reflects the additive threat of cancer posed by a
hazardous substance (cancer risk screening concentrations).
The J index reflects the additive threat of non-cancer related
health effects (reference dose screening concentrations).
Level I contamination is established if either the I or the J index
is greater than or equal to 1.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 158.
Section 7, page 9
-------
Actual Contamination
A target associated with a sampling location that meets the
criteria for an observed release is subject to actual
contamination.
That target is subject to Level I contamination if the
concentration of a hazardous substance at that sampling location
meets or exceeds a media-specific benchmark.
Level I contamination is also established if no benchmark for
a single substance is met or exceeded, but either the I or the
J index is greater than or equal to 1.
Level II contamination is established when the concentration of a
hazardous substance at the sampling location satisfies the
criteria for an observed release but does not meet or exceed a
media-specific benchmark.
All targets within the target distance limit that are not subject to
actual contamination are subject to potential contamination.
Section 7, page 10
-------
Exercise 3
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 3.
Section 7, page 11
-------
Section 8
Sampling and Data Quality
-------
Overview of Sampling and Data Quality
Problems with data quality.
SQLs, CRQLs, CRDLs, MDLs
Uncertainty in data,
CLP data.
Use of data use categories (DUCs).
Section 8, page 1
-------
Problems with Sampling Quality
Data problems are more likely to originate in the field than in the
laboratory.
Field activities cause orders of magnitude larger variation than lab
activities.
How and where were the samples obtained?
What was the intended purpose of the sample?
How well is the sample collection and handling documented?
If the quality of field sampling cannot be documented, be
skeptical of the results.
For additional information regarding sampling
quality, please refer to the Guidance for
Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA.
Section 8, page 2
-------
Detection Limits and Quantitation Limits
Quantitation
Limit
Detection
Limit
Noise
I
Present, but we don't
know how much
We can say how
much is there
Section 8, page 3
-------
Detection Limits and Quantitation Limits (Continued)
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 57.
If the SQL is not available, use the CRDL or CRQL for samples
analyzed under the CLP; otherwise, use the method detection
limit (MDL).
Section 8, page 4
-------
Analytical Data Requirements
Analytical data used to establish an observed release should be
of known and documented quality.
Without quality control data and quality assurance review to
support the analytical results, the results are uncertain.
Section 8, page 5
-------
Uncertainty in Analytical Data
-^
Y
Rejected
R
mas
Measured
Value
10 75 1UU 110
J\. J\ )\.
Y Y
Estimated Acceptable
J (A)
125
) V
Y
Estimated
J
Y
Rejected
R
Section 8, page 6
-------
Bias in Analytical Data
Unbiased
20ppb
hH
True Value
Biased High - Overestimate
20 ppb
True Value
Biased Low - Underestimate
20 ppb
-l
True Value
Unknown Bias - Wider Range
II
Section 8, page 7
-------
Using Qualified Data
Background data
Using "J"- qualifi
for observed release
Bias high
Bias low
Bias
unknown
Bias high
Release
sample data
Bias
unknown
Section 8, page 8
-------
Field Data
Data may be obtained during the SI using accepted field
techniques including:
Soil gas samplers
Air samples
Field gas chromatography
X-ray fluorescence
Use field data to establish source boundaries and to identify
locations where samples should be taken for laboratory analysis,
Consider sending 5 to 10% of the field samples to a laboratory
for confirmation.
For additional information regarding field data,
please refer to the Guidance for
Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA.
Section 8, page 9
-------
Non-CLP Data
Data users should request QA/QC results from anyone submitting
non-CLP data for MRS evaluation, including:
blank samples
spiked samples
audit samples
replicate samples
other QC samples
Data should pass an independent data validation, using criteria
similar to those found in the CLP statements of work.
Section 8, page 10
-------
Data Use Categories (DUCs)
Data Quality Requirements for Data Use Categories
Data Use
Category
Application
DUC-I
To support decisions that require both substance identification and
concentration.
To identify site-specific indicator chemicals.
DUC-II
To determine extent of contamination boundaries.
To make other decisions that require quantitative data at relatively
well-known levels.
DUC-I
To determine gross contamination areas.
To make site characterization decisions that do not require
numerical data.
Section 8, page 11
-------
Section 9
Ground Water Pathway -
Likelihood of Release
-------
The Ground Water Pathway
LIKELIHOOD OF
RELEASE
Observed Release
or
Potential to Release
Containment
Net Precipitation
Depth to Aquifer
Travel Time
x
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
Toxicity/Mobility
Hazardous Waste Quantity
x
TARGETS
Nearest Well
Population
Resources
Wellhead Protection Area
Section 9, page 1
-------
Definition of Aquifer
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 116.
Section 9, page 2
-------
Identify and Evaluate Aquifers
Cross-border Quarry
Site
A
Blackstone Ridge
A'
XXXXXXXXXXXX
\N\SN\N\\SS
XXXXXX/XXXXX
S\\\N\\S\\\
X X X X X X X
.\\N\\\
X X X S X X X
.\S\\\\
Alluvium, k = 1 x 10E-2
Alluvium
water Table
.\\SS\\\\\\\\SXNS\S\\NX
S X \ N N X
X X X X X X
\s\\\\
X X X X X X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X\\\N\\\\\N\\SS\\\\\N\SNS\X\SS\S
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx xT-X
X S \ S S S. X ^^ S
Sauber Limestone
k = 1 x 10E-5
Sauber Limestone =
Machtsnichts Basalt
(intrusion)
Leche de la Madre
Shale
k = 1 x 10E-2
Leche de la
Madre Shale
Machtsnichts Basalt
k = 1 x 10E-200
Section 9, page 3
-------
Identify and Evaluate Aquifers (Concluded)
If aquifers are in contact with one another within the TDL, and have
hydraulic conductivities that differ by less than two orders of
magnitude, then combine the materials into a single aquifer for MRS
purposes.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 121, highlight 7-4.
Section 9, page 4
-------
Identify Aquifer Discontinuities
A discontinuity is a feature that entirely transects an aquifer across
the 4-mile radius.
Examples of discontinuities:
Major offset faults.
Intrusive formations (dikes and sills).
Erosional channels (e.g., rivers, streams).
Salt water interfaces.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 136, highlight 7-14.
Section 9, page 5
-------
Identify Aquifer Discontinuities (Continued)
4 Miles
2 Miles
Site0
Aquifer A
% % S % S S S S V* % S7^*^*tai
flfifififififififlfifififii
<..OO^.V«.VtVO«.V«..O«.VO«.VO
Aquifer B
Section 9, page 6
-------
Identify Aquifer Discontinuities (Concluded)
Gaining River
Ground Water Mounding
Section 9, page 7
-------
Identify Aquifer Interconnections
Interconnections must be within two miles of the sources, or within
areas of observed ground water contamination that extend beyond
two miles from the sources.
If data are not adequate to establish aquifer interconnections,
evaluate each aquifer separately.
Please turn to the HRS Guidance Manual,
page 127.
Section 9, page 8
-------
Karst
Please turn to the MRS rule,
page 515S6.
Karst can transmit ground water rapidly and in unpredictable
directions.
The MRS rule provides special scoring provisions for when a karst
aquifer underlies at least a portion of a source at the site.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 137.
Section 9, page 9
-------
Likelihood of Release
LIKELIHOOD OF
RELEASE
Observed Release
or
Potential to Release
Containment
Net Precipitation
Depth to Aquifer
Travel Time
x
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
Toxicity/Mobility
Hazardous Waste Quantity
x
TARGETS
Nearest Well
Population
Resources
Wellhead Protection Area
Section 9, page 10
-------
Likelihood of Release (Continued)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
Section 9, page 11
-------
Likelihood of Release (Concluded)
LR
Source
if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if
"
..«..< ."..'..I..l..«..«..'..«.......%.-..'..%.v.,...-,.%.S.«..'..%.%.%.'
. .Jf'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f-f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'f'flf'
.- .- .- - - .- .- - .- .- .- .S-S'S'%"S'\"%-S«S«S"S«S«S-V»S«%-^\"%-%«S"V-S«S«S'S"S"S"%«S'S"'i
ff*f*f*f»f*f*fff*f*fmfmf»f»f*f*f»fff»f*fmf»f»f»f»f»f»f*f»fmf*f»fmf*f*f»f*fufmf*f»f»fmft
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^A^A^A'
fffff*f'f'f-f-fff*f*f'f'mm'f'f'f'f'f'f*f'f*f-f'f*f*f'f'f*f*f'f'f'f'm''f*fff'f'f'fff'f*f'
^^^^^^......^^..^..^^.^...^..-^.^.^'.-^^.^^.^.^^.^^.^^^,
' -- -* -* -' * * ' i^^^ i^ i T > T T i i i i->r-i-i-i 'fTfTjZjiifififififififififjfi
...%.%.%.%.......>..%.%.%...,
m'*f*f'f'f'f'f'f*f'f'f'f'f*f'
S"S*\*S*S*%>%BS<%BS*%*\«%*^
fifififififSf'fSfififffSfffi
1i-S«S«%-S'S.S«S«S«S-%«S-S'\
f'fffffff'f'f'fffff'fffff'ff
.S.V.S>S>S*S*S>S*S*S*S-S>%<*i
AQl=LR1xWCxT1
f*f !f»f If Zf*f If *f*f*f ,**** fijZSiSvfZf if *f*f if fiflfmf ~f*mm*f»S»f*f!f»f*f*f',m*f'f*f*
^^'^^^^'V\^-^\^\^
if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if If if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if'
^'.'\'\''*'\'\'^-*Ji^'^'^'m-'£\-^'^'^\'^^*^^^'\'^^'m*^'\'m*'^^'^',*^'£**''£'£\'*m**,''
S-flf-f-f.f-f-f-f-f-S-f'f-f'f'f-f-f-f-f'f-f-f-f-f'f-f-fW
AQ2 = LR2 x WC x (Tj and T2)
.
'
.-...-.-.-.^.-..n,-. i
AQ3 = LR3x WC x (Tp T2, and T3)
,%'S'1
"
Section 9, page 12
-------
Observed Release
An observed release to ground water is based on either;
direct observation of the deposition of hazardous substances
into an aquifer, or
chemical analysis of ground water samples from an aquifer.
What is distinctive about ground water sampling?
The cost of monitoring wells.
The uncertainty about flow direction and, hence, uncertainty in
both background and attribution.
Section 9, page 13
-------
Observed Release by Direct Observation
- water table
drums in landfill
Section 9, page 14
-------
Observed Release by Chemical Analysis
An observed release by chemical analysis is documented when
analysis of ground water samples from the aquifer indicates that
the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased
significantly above the background concentration.
Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to
the site.
Be sure that the background and release wells are in similar
locations within the same aquifer.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 71, highlight 5-5.
Section 9, page 15
-------
Potential to Release
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
Section 9, page 16
-------
Containment
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-2, page 51596.
Do not evaluate sources that fail to meet the minimum size
requirement of a hazardous waste quantity value greater than or
equal to 0.5.
If no sources at the site meet the minimum size requirement, then
evaluate all of the sources at the site.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual
page 150, highlight 7-23.
Section 9, page 17
-------
Net Precipitation
Net precipitation is the driving force, once containment is lost, for
migration to the aquifer.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
figure 3-2, page 51598-9.
For sites that cannot be assigned a value from figure 3-2, a method
for calculating net precipitation is provided in the MRS.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
page 51600.
Section 9, page 18
-------
Depth to Aquifer
Depth to aquifer is the net of two measurements:
The depth from the surface to the lowest known point of
hazardous substances at the site.
The depth from the surface to the top of the aquifer being
evaluated.
These measurements must be made within 2 miles of the sources
on site (unless an observed release extends beyond the 2- miles
radius).
Intervening karst aquifers are assigned a thickness of 0.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-5, page 51600.
Section 9, page 19
-------
Depth to Aquifer (Concluded)
12-foot depth
Depth to Aquifer is 20 feet
Top of Aquifer = 32 feet
Section 9, page 20
-------
Travel Time
Travel time is based on the thickness and the hydraulic conductivity
of the least permeable layer between the lowest known location of
hazardous substances and the top of the aquifer.
Travel time values are reduced by layers that are either thick or
have relatively low hydraulic conductivities.
Measurements must be made within two miles of sources, but not
necessarily at same location as depth to aquifer.
Section 9, page 21
-------
Travel Time (Continued)
Assign the maximum value of 35:
if the depth to aquifer is 10 feet or less, or
if all intervening layers under a source are karst.
Do not consider layers in the first 10 feet of the depth to aquifer.
Do not consider any layer or portion of a layer which is less than 3
feet thick.
Such a layer is considered not likely to be continuous over the
two mile radius.
Section 9, page 22
-------
Travel Time (Continued)
Determine the hydraulic conductivities for the remaining layers.
Actual, measured hydraulic conductivity values are preferred
The MRS rule provides default values.
Please turn to the HRS rule,
table 3-6, page 51601.
Select the least permeable layer and determine its thickness (in
feet).
If two or more layers have the same lowest hydraulic
conductiviey, combine their thicknesses.
Section 9, page 23
-------
Travel Time (Concluded)
Depth (ft)
0
10
12
17
22
26
Clay
Silty Clay
Sand
Silty Clay
Source
Sand Aquifer
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
10
-8
10
-6
10
-4
10
-6
Section 9, page 24
-------
Likelihood of Release
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
Section 9, page 25
-------
Exercise 4
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 4.
Section 9, page 26
-------
10
Ground Water Pathway -
Waste Characteristics and Targets
-------
Waste Characteristics
Please turn to the MRS rule,
figure 3-1, page 51594.
Toxicity, mobility, and hazardous waste quantity are multiplied by
each other to obtain a waste characteristics value.
Evaluate only those quantities and substances that are found in
sources with a non-zero value for containment.
In addition, evaluate those substances that are found in an
observed release to ground water.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
Section 10, page 1
-------
Toxicity
The toxicity values are based on:
Cancer risk.
Non-cancer effects of chronic exposure.
Non-cancer effects of acute exposure.
Assign a toxicity factor value to each eligible substance using
SCDM.
Section 10, page 2
-------
Mobility
The mobility factor value for a substance is based on:
the solubility of the substance in water, and
the distribution coefficient for that substance (the tendency of
the substance to be sorbed).
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-8, page 51601.
Assign a value to each eligible substance using SCDM
Please turn to the LPQ SI report,
reference 2, page 38.
Section 10, page 3
-------
Mobility (Concluded)
If a substance is found in an observed release by chemical analysis
(not by direct observation) to any aquifer, its mobility value is 1.
The documentation of an observed release for a wide range of
substances increases the likelihood of assigning a high waste
characteristics factor value.
This illustrates the importance of careful SI sample planning.
Section 10, page 4
-------
Toxicity/Mobility
Multiply the toxicity factor value by the mobility factor value, for
each substance.
The most hazardous substance for the ground water pathway is the
one with the highest toxicity/mobility product.
Note that many substances that are highly toxic have low values
for ground water mobility.
PCBs, which are highly toxic (toxicity value of 10,000), sorb
easily and have a mobility value of 0.0001, even when in a
liquid state.
Section 10, page 5
-------
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Evaluate hazardous waste quantity based only on those sources
that have a ground water containment value greater than 0.
Sect/on 10. page 6
-------
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
Multiply the toxicity/mobility and hazardous waste quantity values,
subject to a maximum product of 1 x 108.
Based on this product, assign a value from MRS rule table 2-7 to
the waste characteristics factor category.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 2-7, page 51592.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
Section 10, page 7
-------
Waste Characteristics (Concluded)
Toxicity
X
Mobility
Table 3-9
X
Hazardous waste
quantity
10 maximum
T
cap at 10
Table 2-7
106 maximum
Waste characteristics
Section 10, page 8
-------
Targets Overview
LIKELIHOOD OF
RELEASE
Observed Release
or
Potential to Release
Containment
Net Precipitation
Depth to Aquifer
Travel Time
x
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
Toxicity/Mobility
Hazardous Waste Quantity
x
TARGETS
Nearest Well
Population
Resources
Wellhead Protection Area
Section 10, page 9
-------
Targets Overview (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
The relative ratings are seen in the maximum values:
Nearest well
Population
Resources
50
no cap
5
Wellhead protection area 20
Section 10, page 10
-------
Actual Contamination of Targets
Actual contamination (level I or level II) cannot be inferred.
Samples documenting actual contamination must be taken at each
drinking water well.
Level I = target wells are contaminated (by observed release
criteria) at concentrations at or above a benchmark.
Level II = target wells are contaminated (by observed release
criteria), but not at or above any benchmark.
Potential = target wells are not known to be contaminated.
Section 10, page 11
-------
Nearest Well
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-11, page 51603.
If a drinking water well is subject to actual contamination:
Assign a value of 50 for level I concentrations.
Assign a value of 45 for level II concentrations.
If no drinking water well is subject to actual contamination
(potential contamination):
Assign a value of 20 if a karst aquifer underlies a source and
also supplies a drinking water well.
If not, measure the distance from a source to the nearest
drinking water well and assign a distance-weighted value.
Section 10, page 12
-------
Population
Population values are based on the number of residents, students,
and workers who drink water from wells within the target distance
limit (although the people may be outside the target distance limit).
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 164, highlight 7-31.
Actual contamination (level I or level II) is based on samples taken
from the drinking water well that serves the target population.
Level I concentrations: 10 points per person
Level II concentrations: 1 point per person
Section 10, page 13
-------
Population (Continued)
For potential population, sum the residents, workers, and students
served by wells located within each distance ring.
MRS rule table 3-12 is used to distance-weight the potentially
exposed population.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-12, page 51604.
The karst section assigns higher population values for distances
over 1/2 mile from a source.
The values taken from MRS table 3-12 are then multiplied by 1/10
to obtain a potential contamination factor value.
Section 10. page 14
-------
Population (Continued)
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 165.
Section 10, page 15
-------
Population (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 168, highlight 7-33.
Section 10, page 16
-------
Blended Water Supply
In order to evaluate the population served by an individual well in
a blended system, the total population is apportioned based on the
well's relative contribution to the total blended system.
Relative contribution is determined using data on average annual
pumpage, or well capacity.
If no source of drinking water (well or intake) exceeds 40% relative
contribution, then assume each source contributes equally and
apportion the population equally.
If a source of drinking water (well or intake) exceeds 40%, then
apportion the population according to percent contribution.
Section 10, page 17
-------
Blended Water Supply (Concluded)
Blended
System
10,000
Surface Water
Contribution
35%
(45%)
3-Mile
Distance
Ring
4-Mile
Distance
Ring
All other wells
contribute 5%
One well
contributes
25%
(15%)
Section 10, page 18
-------
Standby Wells
If a standby well located within the target distance limit draws
water from the aquifer being evaluated or from any overlying
aquifer, the well may be used to evaluate both the nearest well and
population factors.
To designate a standby well as the nearest well it must be used for
drinking water supply at least once every year.
A standby well can be used to evaluate the population factor if it
is maintained on a regular basis so that water can be withdrawn.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 187.
Section 10. page 19
-------
Resources
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 195, highlight 7-46.
Section 10, page 20
-------
Wellhead Protection Area
In order to be scored under the MRS, a wellhead protection area
(WPA) must have been formally established under section 1428 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Each state lists and publishes their WPAs.
Sole source aquifers are not considered under this factor, nor are
informally defined protection areas.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 194.
Section 10, page 21
-------
Wellhead Protection Area (Concluded)
WHPA
4-mile target
distance limit
WHPA
Section 10, page 22
-------
Targets Factor Category
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 3-1, page 51595.
Section 10, page 23
-------
Exercise 5
Please turn to Student Exercises,
Exercise 5.
Section 10, page 24
-------
Section 11
Surface Water Pathway -
Likelihood of Release
-------
The Surface Water Pathway
The surface water pathway consists of two migration components:
the overland flow/flood component and the ground water to surface
water component.
Evaluate both components based on the same three threats:
drinking water threat, human food chain threat, and environmental
threat.
$A>
,^
y >* V
X
/
X"%X
^
Waste characteristics I
[Likelihood of release |
Overland flow/
flood component
Ground water to
surface water
component
Section 11, page 1
-------
Eligible Surface Water Bodies
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 207, highlight 8-4.
Map the surface water migration pathway, giving careful
consideration to boundaries between eligible surface water bodies.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 232, highlight 8-20.
Section 11, page 2
-------
Hazardous Substance Migration Path
The hazardous substance migration path is the path that hazardous
substances travel or would travel over land from a source to
surface water and within surface water to the TDL.
The hazardous substance migration path includes both the
overland segment and the in-water segment.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 205, highlight 8-1.
Section 11, page 3
-------
The Overland Segment
The overland segment is the route that runoff would take from a
source to a surface water body.
Site observations are generally the best method of defining the
overland segment and identifying the PPE.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 204.
Section 11, page 4
-------
Watersheds
Define and delineate watersheds for MRS scoring purposes as those
portions of watersheds downgradient of sources at the site.
Compile maps that show the sources evaluated and all surface
water bodies within the TDL.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 222, highlight 8-16.
Section 11, page 5
-------
Likelihood of Release
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
Evaluate the likelihood of release factor for each watershed in terms
of either an observed release factor or a potential to release factor.
Evaluate potential to release based on two components: potential
to release by overland flow and potential to release by flood.
Likelihood of release is evaluated once and is the same for all three
threats in the overland flow/flood component.
Section 11, page 6
-------
Containment
Please turn to the HRS rule,
table 4-2, pages 51609-10.
Please turn to the HRS Guidance Manual,
page 244.
Section 11, page 7
-------
Runoff
The runoff factor value is evaluated using three components:
drainage area, soil group, and rainfall.
Drainage area includes both the source areas and the area up-
gradient of the sources.
Exclude any portion of the drainage area for which runoff is
diverted from entering the sources by man-made structures.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 225, highlight 8-18.
Please turn to the MRS Rule,
table 4-3, page 51611.
Section 11, page 8
-------
Runoff (Concluded)
Soil group designations are based on the predominant soil group
within the drainage area.
If a predominant soil group cannot be determined, select the
soil group in the drainage area that yields the highest value.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-4, page 51611.
The rainfall value is equal to the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall for the site.
Derive the rainfall/runoff value and runoff factor value using MRS
tables 4-5 and 4-6.
Section 11, page 9
-------
Distance to Surface Water
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-7, page 51611.
Measure the shortest overland segment, not a straight line distance.
If the distance to surface water is greater than 2 miles, do not
score potential to release by overland flow.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 5160S.
Section 11, page 10
-------
Potential to Release by Flood
Annual
500-
XXXXXA
Source!
XXXXXXA
lSource2
Sect/on 11, page 11
-------
Potential to Release
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 5160S.
Section 11, page 12
-------
Exercise 6
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 6.
Section 7 7, page 13
-------
Section 12
Surface Water Pathway -
Drinking Water Threat
-------
The Drinking Water Threat
The drinking water threat is the first of the three threats in the
overland flow/flood component of the surface water pathway.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 5160S.
Section 12, page 1
-------
Waste Characteristics
The waste characteristics factors are toxicity, persistence, and
hazardous waste quantity.
Toxicity and hazardous waste quantity values are determined in
the same manner as described previously.
Please turn to the LPQ SI report,
reference 2, page 38.
Persistence is an indicator of the likelihood that a hazardous
substance will degrade before reaching the TDL.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 2-7, page 51592.
Section 12, page 2
-------
Persistence
Intake
Section 72, page 3
-------
Targets
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
The nearest intake factor evaluates the maximally exposed
individual drinking surface water.
The population factor evaluates the number of residents,
students, and workers served by surface water intakes within
the TDL.
Resources evaluates uses of surface water other than drinking
Section 12, page 4
-------
Actual Contamination
Actual contamination exists if a hazardous substance attributable
to the site is documented at or beyond a drinking water intake.
Once again, actual contamination is broken down into level I and
level II contamination.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 251, highlight 8-27.
Section 12, page 5
-------
Potential Contamination
Targets subject to potential contamination are evaluated using
dilution weights based on the flow rates of surface water bodies,
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-13, page 51613.
Obtain flow rate data or estimate flow rates when data is
unavailable or incomplete.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 233, highlight 8-21.
Section 12, page 6
-------
Nearest Intake
Assign a value to the nearest intake factor based on level of
contamination.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 263, highlight 8-32.
Section 12, page 7
-------
Population
The total target population (residents, students, and workers) is
assigned a value based on the level of contamination for the
intake.
Level I = n x 10
Level II = n x 1
Potential = dilution-weighted n x 0.1
The population subject to potential contamination is dilution-
weighted based on stream flow rates.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-14, page 51615.
Section 12, page 8
-------
Population (Concluded)
Level I
Level II
Target
Distance
Limit
Section 12, page 9
-------
Resources
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 290, highlight 8-45.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
Section 12, page 10
-------
Efficiency of Scoring the
Drinking Water Threat
Please turn to the HRS Guidance Manual,
page 253.
Section 12, page 1 /
-------
Section 13
Surface Water Pathway -
Human Food Chain Threat
-------
The Human Food Chain Threat
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 293.
Section 13, page 1
-------
Documenting Presence of a Fishery
Document that human food chain organisms are present in the
fishery.
Document that some attempt has been made to remove those
organisms for human consumption.
Section 13, page 2
-------
Waste Characteristics
Please turn to the HRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
Section 13, page 3
-------
Waste Characteristics (Continued)
The bioaccumulation potential factor evaluates the tendency of a
substance to accumulate in the tissues of aquatic human food
chain organisms.
Please turn to the LPQ SI report,
reference 2, page 38.
Sect/on 13, page 4
-------
Waste Characteristics (Concluded)
Hazardous waste
quantity
Hazardous substance with the
highest tox./per./bioacc.
cap at 10
Toxicity/
persistence
Bioaccumulation
cap at 10
12
I
Waste characteristics
Section 13, page 5
-------
Targets
Targets consists of two factors; food chain individual and
population.
Both factors are evaluated based on the level of
contamination to which each fishery is subject (level I, level
II, or potential).
Determine if fisheries are subject to actual or potential
contamination.
Define fishery boundaries at any point where one of the following
changes:
the dilution category,
the food chain production per acre,
the species harvested, or
the level of contamination.
Section 13, page 6
-------
Actual Contamination
The human food chain threat evaluates the actual contamination
of human food chain organisms, not the contamination of surface
water or sediments.
Actual contamination is based on documentation that such
contamination is likely or has occurred.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 298.
Tissue samples of sessile, benthic organisms consumed by
people can document actual contamination in a fishery.
Sediment and surface water samples must meet additional
requirements that show contamination of a human food chain
is likely.
Section 13, page 7
-------
Level of Contamination
Establish zones of contamination based on level I, II, and
potential sampling locations.
Tissue samples are required to establish level I concentrations,
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 299, highlight 8-48.
Section 13, page 8
-------
Food Chain Individual
This factor value often drives the score for the human food chain
threat.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 301, highlight 8-50.
Because the bioaccumulation factor value usually raises the
waste characteristics factory category value, a relatively low
target value can result in high threat score.
Section 13, page 9
-------
Food Chain Population
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-18, page 51621.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 301, highlight 8-50.
Section 13, page 10
-------
Estimating Fishery Production
Human food chain production can be estimated based on
production data or, in some cases, stocking rate data.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-18, page 51621.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 307, highlight 8-52.
Section 13, page 11
-------
Human Food Chain Threat Score
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
Section 13, page 12
-------
Exercise 7
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 7.
Section 13, page 13
-------
Section 14
Surface Water Pathway -
Environmental Threat
-------
Overview of the Environmental Threat
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
Section 14, page 1
-------
Ecosystem Toxicity
Please turn to the LPQ SI report,
reference 2, page 38.
Select the appropriate salt or fresh water ecosystem toxicity factor
value from SCDM.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 239.
If environmental targets are in both fresh and salt water, or if any
are in brackish water, assign the higher of the two ecosystem
toxicity factor values.
If SCDM only contains one ecosystem toxicity factor value (fresh
or salt), use it.
Section 14, page 2
-------
Persistence
The persistence factor value is calculated in the same way as for
the previous threats, but you may get a different value.
Base your choice of river or lake persistence on the predominant
surface water body type between the PPE and the nearest
downstream target.
Section 14, page 3
-------
Bioaccumulation
The bioaccumulation factor values for the environmental threat may
differ from those for the human food chain threat.
Environmental threat bioaccumulation factor values are based
on all aquatic organisms, not just human food chain organisms.
Choose the appropriate fresh or salt water bioaccumulation factor
value from SCDM based on the locations of sensitive environments.
Please turn to the LPQ Auto Parts SI report,
reference 2, page 38.
Section 14, page 4
-------
Waste Characteristics Factor Value
Hazardous waste
quantity
Hazardous substance with the
highest tox./per./bioacc.
cap at 10
Ecotoxicity/
persistence
Bioaccumulation
cap at 10
12
I
Waste characteristics
Section 14. page 5
-------
Environmental Targets
There are two types of environmental threat targets; wetlands, and
the sensitive environments listed in MRS table 4-23.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-24, page 51625.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-23, page 51624.
Section 14, page 6
-------
Sensitive Environments
Evaluate only those sensitive environments that lie in or along the
in-water segment and could be impacted by the presence of
contamination in the surface water body.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
Appendix A, page A-6.
Section 14, page 7
-------
Wetlands
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
section 8.16, page 331.
Identify and determine the frontage of the wetland.
Delineate the boundaries of the wetland.
Establish whether to use the wetland frontage or perimeter to
determine the wetland length.
Segregate the wetland frontage (or perimeter) based on level of
contamination (actual or potential) and, for potential, by dilution
weights.
Section 14, page 8
-------
Sensitive Environments and Wetlands
Sensitive environments listed in MRS table 4-23 are treated as
indivisible between levels of contamination and dilution weights.
Point values are assigned based on the highest-scoring surface
water segment within the sensitive environment.
Wetland frontage is divisible between levels of contamination.
Point values from table 4-24 are assigned based on the total
length (frontage) of wetland within each zone of contamination.
Section 14, page 9
-------
Sensitive Environments and Wetlands (Concluded)
PPE
Wetland
The wetlands are habitat for two Federal
designated endangered species:
The least Bell's vireo
The light-footed clapper rail
Sect/on 14, page 10
-------
Environmental Benchmarks
Please turn to the LPQ Auto Parts SI report,
reference 2, page 37.
SCDM contains two EPA environmental benchmarks for the surface
water pathway.
- Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC).
Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations (AALAC).
Select the appropriate salt or fresh water benchmark concentration,
based on the surface water salinities at the target locations.
Environmental benchmarks are based on aqueous concentrations.
Therefore, aqueous samples are required for comparison.
Section 14, page 11
-------
Environmental Threat
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-1, page 51608.
Section 14, page 12
-------
Exercise 8
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 8.
Section 14, page 13
-------
Section 15
Surface Water Pathway -
Ground Water to Surface Water Component
-------
Overview and Definition
The ground water to surface water component evaluates the
likelihood of contaminants in the ground water discharging to
surface water and affecting surface water targets.
Either the overland flow/flood component or the ground water to
surface water component is scored for the surface water pathway.
The two components are not additive; the highest scoring
component is selected to score the pathway.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-25, page 51628.
Section 15, page 1
-------
Overview and Definition (Concluded)
The ground water to surface water component can be scored only
if certain criteria are met.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 4.2.1.1, page 51626.
Path through
uppermost aquifer
Mile
H
No discontinuity
in aquifer
Top of aquifer at least
as high as bottom of
surface water body
Section 15, page 2
-------
Hazardous Substance Migration Path
The ground water segment is restricted to the uppermost aquifer
and replaces the overland segment in the overland flow/flood
component.
The ground water segment is the shortest straight-line distance
from a source to a surface water body.
The probable point of entry may be different than it is for the
overland flow/flood component.
Therefore, the 15-mile target distance limit may begin at
different point, and different targets may be evaluated.
a
Section 15, page 3
-------
Hazardous Substance Migration Path (Concluded)
Ground water to surface
water component
probable point of entry
Intake
Overland flow/flood
migration component
probable point of entry
Section 15, page 4
-------
Likelihood of Release
Likelihood of release is evaluated in the same manner as for the
ground water pathway.
Except, likelihood of release is evaluated only to the uppermost
aquifer.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-25, page 51628.
Section 15, page 5
-------
Waste Characteristics
Both ground water mobility and surface water persistence are
considered as threat-reducing mechanisms in this component and
are multiplied.
Toxicity x Ground Water Mobility x Surface Water Persistence
Toxicity
Chromium (VI) 10,000
TCE
PCBs
10
10,000
Mobility
0.01 (liquid)
1
Persistence
1
0.4
0.0001 (liquid) 0.7 (lake)
Section 15, page 6
-------
Waste Characteristics (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-25, page 51628.
Only substances available to ground water are evaluated.
Found in a source with non-zero ground water containment,
Documented in an observed release to ground water.
Section 15, page 7
-------
Actual Contamination of Targets
The ground water to surface water component evaluates the same
surface water targets factors as the overland flow/flood
component.
If the PPE changes, the actual targets evaluated may be
different.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 4.2.1.3, page 51626.
Substances used to establish actual contamination of targets must
be found in both an observed release to ground water and an
observed release to surface water by chemical analysis (not by
direct observation).
Determine level of contamination by comparison to appropriate
surface water benchmarks.
Sect/on 15, page 8
-------
Actual Contamination of Targets (Continued)
O
Surface water
observed release
Ground water
observed release
Same substance(s)
found in both releases
Release sample
W7X Actual
contamination
Section 15, page 9
-------
Actual Contamination of Targets (Concluded)
w
1000 0 1000 WOO MOO
9000 6000 raoo fit?
Section 15, page 10
-------
Potential Contamination of Targets
Please turn to the MRS rule,
figure 4-3, page 51632.
The dilution weights for all potentially-contaminated targets are
multiplied by an adjustment factor based on the angle theta.
The MRS model assumes that ground water flows out from sources
equally in all directions.
Only that portion of ground water that intersects with surface
water within a 1 -mile distance limit is considered in the evaluation
of the angle theta.
Please turn to the HRS rule,
table 4-27, page 51631.
Section 15, page 11
-------
16
Air Pathway -
Likelihood of Release
-------
The Air Pathway
LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
Observed Release
or
Potential to Release
Gas
Gas Containment
Gas Source Type
Gas Migration
Paniculate
Particulate Containment
Paniculate Source Type
Particulate Migration
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
Toxicity/Mobility
Hazardous Waste Quantity
TARGETS
Nearest Individual
Population
Resources
Sensitive Environments
Section 16, page 1
-------
Likelihood of Release
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-1, page 51651.
Section 16, page 2
-------
Observed Release by Direct Observation
An observed release by direct observation can be documented
when one of the following occurs:
Material that contains one or more hazardous substances has
been seen entering the atmosphere directly.
Demonstrated adverse effects may establish an observed
release when evidence supports the inference that a material
containing hazardous substances has been released into the
atmosphere.
Section 16, page 3
-------
Observed Release by Direct Observation
(Concluded)
|Sampl(
Section 16, page 4
-------
Observed Release by Chemical Analysis
An observed release to air by chemical analysis is documented
when both of the following occur:
Analysis of air samples shows that the concentration of
ambient hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly over
background for the site.
Some portion of the release is attributable to a source at the
site.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 400.
Section 16, page 5
-------
Gaseous and Particulate Substances
Distinguish between gaseous substances (vapor pressure greater
than or equal to 109 torr) and particulate substances (vapor
pressure less than or equal to 101 torr).
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 405, highlight 10-2.
Please turn to the LPQ SI report,
reference 2, page 38.
Section 16, page 6
-------
Potential to Release
In a single source there may be some substances that are gaseous,
some substances that are paniculate, and some that are both.
The release of gaseous substances is governed by quite different
factors than the release of paniculate. Therefore, two separate
evaluations are needed.
Potential to release evaluates both the gas potential to release and
the paniculate potential to release, and selects the higher scoring
of the two.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-2, page 51651.
Please turn to the HRS rule,
table 6-8, page 51653.
Section 16, page 7
-------
Containment
The gas containment value is assigned from MRS rule table 6-3.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-3, page 51652.
The particulate containment value is assigned from MRS table 6-9,
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-9, page 51653.
These tables require that specific observations are made during the
site visit.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 406.
Section 16, page 8
-------
Source Type
Different source type factor values are assigned to gas and
particulate potential from MRS table 6-4.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-4, page 51652.
The minimum size requirement applies to source type rather than
containment in the air pathway.
If a source does not meet the minimum size requirement (i.e.,
a hazardous waste quantity value of 0.5 or greater), assign that
source a value of 0 for source type.
Section 16, page 9
-------
Gas Migration Potential
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-6, page 51653.
Obtain the gas migration potential values for each gaseous
substances found in the source from SCDM.
Average the three highest values.
Assign a source gas migration potential to the source from HRS
table 6-7.
Section 16, page 10
-------
Particulate Migration Potential
This value is the same for all sources at the site and is based on the
location of the site.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
figure 6-2, pages 51654-55.
If the site is too near a breakpoint on the map, calculate the
Thornthwaite precipitation-effectiveness index using mean monthly
precipitation and mean monthly temperature data for the site.
Section 16, page 11
-------
Calculate Potential to Release
Gas
Potential to Release
Containment
Source Type
+
Migration Potential
Choose Highest
Source PR
Potential
to Release
(PR)
and/or
Choose Higher
of the two PRs
Paniculate
Potential to Release
Containment
Source Type
+
Migration Potential
Choose Highest
Source PR
Likelihood of Release
Section 16, page 12
-------
Exercise 9
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 9.
Section 16, page 13
-------
Section 17
Air Pathway -
Waste Characteristics and Targets
-------
Waste Characteristics
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-1, page 51651.
Section 17, page 1
-------
Toxicity and Mobility
Obtain the toxicity factor value from SCDM.
Assign a value of 1 for mobility for a gaseous substance found in
an observed release by direct observation or by chemical analysis.
Otherwise, assign a gaseous mobility value found in SCDM.
Assign a value of 0.02 for a particulate substance found in an
observed release.
Otherwise, obtain a particulate mobility value from MRS rule
figure 6-3.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
figure 6-3, pages 51657-60.
Section 17, page 2
-------
Waste Characteristics
Select the most hazardous substance, the substance with the
highest product of toxicity times mobility.
Multiply toxicity/mobility by the value for the hazardous waste
quantity for the air pathway.
This product is capped at 108.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-1, pages 51651.
The waste characteristics value is obtained from MRS rule table
2-7. The maximum value is 100.
Section 17, page 3
-------
Targets
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-1, page 51651.
Section 17, page 4
-------
Distance Categories
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 418, highlight 10-9.
Level I is assigned to the entire distance category with the level I
sample and to all closer distance categories.
Level II is assigned to the entire distance category with the level II
sample and to all closer distance categories that are not at level I.
Potential contamination is assigned to all other distance categories
within the target distance limit.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 419, highlight 10-10.
Section 17, page 5
-------
Distance Categories (Concluded)
The air pathway is unique in that an observed release and the
corresponding zones of actual contamination are attributed to single
source.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 415, highlight 10-7.
Section 17, page 6
-------
Nearest Individual
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 6.3.1, page 51661.
Section 17, page 7
-------
Population
Count the number of residents, workers, and students (n) subject
to each level of contamination.
Level I population = n x 10
Level II population = n x 1
Potential population = distance-weighted n x 0.1
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-17, page 51661.
Note in MRS rule table 6-17 that the first distance category is "On
a source".
This could include workers whose duties take them onto a
source and residents whose homes were built over an old
source.
Section 17, page 8
-------
Resources
Please turn to the MRS rule,
page 51662.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 422, highlights 10-11 and 10-12.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 421.
Note that the target distance limit for resources is 1/2 mile,
Section 17, page 9
-------
Sensitive Environments
MRS rule table 4-23 lists the air sensitive environments.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 4-23, page 51624.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 425, highlight 10-13.
Wetlands are evaluated by acreage rather than frontage,
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-18, page 51662.
Section 17, page 10
-------
Sensitive Environments (Continued)
Only two contamination levels are assigned to sensitive
environments.
Actual contamination: This is not further divided into level I
and level II because there are no air benchmarks.
Potential contamination.
The multipliers for the two contamination levels are:
Actual contamination values have a multiplier of 1.
Potential contamination values have a multiplier of 0.1 and are
distance-weighted.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-15, page 51661.
Section 17, page 11
-------
Sensitive Environments (Continued)
f When sensitive environment is in one or more distance category:
If the sensitive environment is not a wetland, assign it to the
distance category closest to the source.
If the sensitive environment is a wetland, assign the acreage in
each distance category (i.e., wetlands are divisible).
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 427, highlight 10-15.
Section 17, page 12
-------
Sensitive Environments (Concluded)
The air pathway score based solely on sensitive environments is
limited to 60 pathway points.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 6.3.4.3, page 51662.
Section 17, page 13
-------
Air Pathway (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 6-1, page 51651.
Section 17, page 14-
-------
Exercise 10
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 10.
Section 17, page 15
-------
Section 18
Soil Exposure Pathway -
Resident Population Threat
-------
Exposure vs. Migration
Migration Pathways:
Source
Migration
Soil Exposure Pathway:
Area of
Contamination
Residence or Travel
Section 18, page 1
-------
The Soil Exposure Pathway
RESIDENT POPULATION THREAT
LIKELIHOOD OF
EXPOSURE
Observed Contamination Area
with Resident Targets
X
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
Toxicity
Hazardous Waste Quantity
X
TARGETS
Resident Individual
Resident Population
Workers
Resources
Terrestrial Sensitive
Enviroments
NEARBY POPULATION THREAT
LIKELIHOOD OF
EXPOSURE
Attractiveness/ Accessibility
Area of Contamination
X
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
Toxicity
Hazardous Waste Quantity
X
TARGETS
Nearby Individual
Population w/in 1 mile
Section 18, page 2
-------
Definitions
Observed contamination -- Surficial contamination related to a site, as defined by a
sampling location meeting observed release criteria. Analogous to observed release
by chemical analysis in the migration pathways.
Area of observed contamination -- Established based on sampling locations meeting
observed release criteria. Analogous to a source in the migration pathways.
Likelihood of exposure - Analogous to likelihood of release in a migration pathway.
Resident population threat - Evaluates targets located on areas of observed
contamination. Analogous to targets exposed to actual contamination in the
migration pathways.
Nearby population threat - Evaluates targets that may potentially migrate to an area
of observed contamination. Analogous to potential contamination in the migration
pathways.
Section 18, page 3
-------
Observed Contamination
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 5.0.1, page 51646.
The observed contamination criteria are the same as the criteria for
establishing an observed release by chemical analysis in the
migration pathways.
Establish a site-specific background level.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 344, highlight 9-1.
Section 18, page 4-
-------
Areas of Observed Contamination
Identify sampling locations that meet the observed contamination
criteria.
For sources other than contaminated soil (if boundaries are well-
defined), consider the entire source to be an area of observed
contamination if any sampling location within that source meets the
criteria for observed contamination.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 345, highlight 9-2.
For contaminated soils, consider observed contamination sampling
locations and the area between such locations to be areas of
observed contamination, unless available information indicates
otherwise.
Section 18, page 5
-------
Areas of Observed Contamination (Continued)
Refine the areas of observed contamination.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 349, highlight 9-6.
Section 18, page 6
-------
Areas of Observed Contamination (Continued)
200 feet
Section 18, page 7
-------
Areas of Observed Contamination (Concluded)
Observed contamination can only
be established for the WA shaded areas
Section 18, page 8
-------
Resident Population Threat
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 5-1, page 51646.
Section 18, page 9
-------
Likelihood of Exposure
Assign a likelihood of release value of 550 if an area of observed
contamination is located on the same property and within 200 feet
of a residence, a school or day care center, or a workplace area.
Assign a likelihood of release value of 550 if an area of observed
contamination is within the boundaries of a resource (as specified
in MRS section 5.1.3.4) or a terrestrial sensitive environment (as
specified in MRS section 5.1.3.5).
Otherwise, assign a likelihood of release value of 0 for the resident
population threat and move on to the nearby population threat.
Section 18, page 10
-------
Waste Characteristics
The waste characteristics factors are toxicity and hazardous waste
quantity.
For hazardous waste quantity in the soil exposure pathway, areas
of observed contamination are evaluated rather than sources.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 5-2, page 51647.
Consider only the top 2 feet of an area of observed contamination,
except as specified for the volume measure (tier C).
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 354, highlight 9-7.
Section 18, page 11
-------
Targets
Resident population threat targets consist of resident individual,
resident population, workers, resources, and terrestrial sensitive
environments.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 359, highlight 9-8.
Section 18, page 12
-------
Level of Contamination
The resident population threat only evaluates targets subject to
actual contamination. Do not evaluate potential targets under this
threat.
Compare the concentration of each hazardous substance that
meets the observed contamination criteria with its benchmark for
the pathway.
Soil exposure pathway benchmarks are contained in SCDM.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 367, highlight 9-10.
Section 18, page 13
-------
Resident Individual
A resident individual is any person who lives or attends school or
day care on a property with an area of observed contamination and
whose residence, school, or day care is on or within 200 feet of an
area of observed contamination.
Do not count workers as resident individuals.
Determine the level of contamination (I or II) to which each resident
individual is subject.
Score the resident individual factor based on the highest-scoring
resident individual.
Section 18, page 14
-------
Resident Population
The resident population factor value is based on the number of
resident individuals (n) subject to level I and level II concentrations.
Level I = n x 10.
Level II = n x 1.
Section 18, page IS
-------
Workers
Workers are people whose workplace is on the same property as,
and within 200 feet of, an area of observed contamination.
Count both full and part-time workers, but not temporary or
transient workers.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 5-4, page 51647.
Section 18, page 16
-------
Resources
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 5.1.3.4, page 51647,
Section 18, page 17
-------
Terrestrial Sensitive Environments
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 376.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 380, highlight 9-16.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 379, highlight 9-15.
Section 18, page 18
-------
Resident Population Threat SI Strategy
The primary objective of the soil exposure pathway is to identify
whether residential or school properties are contaminated.
A secondary objective is to document observed contamination
within the property of a workplace, or within the boundaries of a
terrestrial sensitive environment or resource.
Before scoping out sampling strategies, look for corroborative
information such as:
Data from other investigations.
Historical waste deposition patterns.
Soil staining and stressed vegetation.
Site drainage patterns.
Remember only level II contamination of targets can be inferred
between sampling points.
Section 18, page 19
-------
Score the Resident Population Threat
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 5-1, page 51646.
Section 18, page 20
-------
Exercise 11
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 11.
Section 18, page 21
-------
Section 19
Soil Exposure Pathway -
Nearby Population Threat
-------
Nearby Population Threat
200 feet
Fenced with
24-hour guard
Section 19, page 1
-------
Nearby Population Threat (Concluded)
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 5-1, page 51646.
Section 19, page 2
-------
Likelihood of Exposure
Assign an attractiveness/accessibility factor value to each area of
observed contamination, excluding any land used for residences.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
page 51648, table 5-6.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 391, highlight 9-21.
The area of contamination factor value is based on the total area of
all areas of observed contamination at the site that receive an
attractiveness/accessibility value greater than zero.
Section 19, page 3
-------
Waste Characteristics
Evaluate waste characteristics (toxicity, hazardous waste quantity)
in the same manner as for the resident population threat, except:
Include only those areas of observed contamination with an
attractiveness/accessibility value greater than 0.
Section 19, page 4
-------
Waste Characteristics (Concluded)
200 feet
Fenced with
24-hour guard
Section 19, page 5
-------
Targets
Evaluate nearby population threat targets based on two factors:
nearby individual and population within a 1-mile travel distance
from the site.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 389.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 393, highlight 9-22.
Section 19, page
-------
Nearby Individual
The nearby individual is defined as the resident or student with the
shortest travel distance from any area of observed contamination.
If one or more individuals meet the criteria for resident
individual, the nearby individual factor value is zero.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
page 51649, table 5-9.
Section 19, page 7
-------
Nearby Population
Nearby population is defined as the total number of people who live
or attend school within a 1-mile travel distance of an area of
observed contamination and who do not meet the criteria for
resident individual.
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 385, highlight 9-18.
Section 19, page 8
-------
The Soil Exposure Pathway Concluded
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 5-1, page 51646.
Section 19, page 9
-------
SI Strategy for the Soil Exposure Pathway
Pick up and use a plot map to identify property boundaries at the
tax assessors office.
Plan sampling locations that will document observed contamination
and assess the exposure to targets.
On the property and within 200 feet of a residence, school, day
care, or workplace.
Within the boundary of a terrestrial sensitive environment or a
qualifying resource use.
Read section 9.7 of the MRS Guidance Manual before evaluating
the nearby population threat.
Section 19, page 10
-------
Exercise 12
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 12.
Section 19, page 11
-------
Section 20
Radionuclides
-------
Radionuclides
Radionuclides are unique hazardous substances that require
special considerations when scoring a site.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
table 7-1, page 51663.
Section 20, page 1
-------
Radionuclide Exclusions
CERCLA excludes a limited category of radioactive materials from
the statutory definition of "release.
"
Please turn to the MRS Guidance Manual,
page 19.
Current EPA policy is not to list releases of radionuclides from
facilities with current license issued directly by the NRC.
NRC is responsible for requiring and overseeing cleanup of
radioactive releases at these sites.
EPA has authority with NRC for the cleanup of mixed and
chemical waste at such sites.
Section 20, page 2
-------
Likelihood of Release
Only the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis are
evaluated differently for radionuclides.
Radionuclides do not affect the potential to release or
observed release by direct observation.
To document an observed release by direct observation, the
material observed releasing must contain a radionuclide.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 7.1.1, page 51663.
Section 20, page 3
-------
Observed Release Criteria
Observed release by chemical analysis criteria is different for
naturally-occurring or ubiquitous radionuclides than for man-made
radionuclides.
Please turn to the MRS rule,
section 7.1.1, page 51663.
Section 20, page 4
-------
Waste Characteristics
Waste characteristics is where the most differences occur when
evaluating radionuclides.
Hazardous waste quantity:
Evaluate only as tier A or tier B.
The MRS provides conversions from volume and activities to
tier A, and from volume to tier B.
Mixed wastes:
Calculate source HWQ separately for radioactive and non-
radioactive wastes.
Sum these two values to score source HWQ.
Section 20, page 5
-------
Targets
The evaluation of targets differs in the use of benchmarks.
For actual contamination:
Radionuclide benchmarks are listed in MRS section 7.3.2 and
in SCDM.
For the soil exposure pathway, gamma radiation meeting OR
criteria is considered level I.
For mixed wastes.
Calculate and sum the I indices for both radioactive and non-
radioactive wastes, to evaluate levels I and II.
The J index does not apply to radionuclides.
Section 20, page 6
-------
Exercise 13
Please turn to the Student Exercises,
Exercise 13.
Section 20, page 7
-------
Student Exercises
LPQ Auto Parts
Trainer's Note
The purpose of these exercises is to learn from MRS
scoring what is critical to observe, measure, sample,
and record at the site inspection.
-------
Contents
1. Characterization of Sources 1
2. Observed Release to Surface Water 5
3. Actual Contamination of Targets 7
4. Ground Water Potential to Release to the Chagrin 9
5. Ground Water Pathway-Glacial Aquifer 13
6. Surface Water Potential to Release 19
7. Human Food Chain Threat 23
8. Surface Water Environmental Threat 27
9. Air Potential to Release 31
10. Air Targets 35
11. Soil Exposure-Resident Population Threat 39
12. Soil Exposure-Nearby Population Threat 43
13. Calculation of the Site Score for LPQ Auto Parts 47
iii
-------
iv
-------
/: Characterization of Sources
Exercise 1
Characterization of Sources
Assignment
Characterize the buried surface impoundment, source 1. for the MRS. This
characterization entails answering 5 questions:
What type of source does the HRS consider it to be?
Where is it and what are its boundaries?
How well contained is it against release to ground water, surface water, or air?
What hazardous substances does it contain?
What quantity of hazardous substances, in MRS terms, does it contain?
Move quickly through the first four issues and spend the bulk of your time on the last, the
assessment of hazardous waste quantity.
Tools
You will need the description of source 1 in the draft SI report for LPQ Auto Parts.
Source types are defined in the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Guidance Manual beginning
on page 42.
The HRS containment tables are 3-2 (page 51596) for ground water, 4-2 (page 51609) for
surface water, and 6-3 (page 51652) and 6-9 (page 51653) for air.
The HRS hazardous waste quantity table is 2-5 (page 51591).
The relevant portions of the HRS Guidance Manual are section 4.1 (page 41),
characterization of sources, section 7.3 (page 147), ground water containment, and
chapter 6 (page 83), hazardous waste quantity.
Exercise Questions
1. What source type is this?
Bonus point (to be done if you have extra time): What item of critical information is
lacking from the description? This item is required by one of the HRS pathways.
2. Are its location and boundaries adequately described in the draft SI report?
-------
/: Characterization of Sources
3. Evaluate containment against release to ground water and assign an MRS value.
Document below the assertions of fact in the SI report that correspond to each
dimension of HRS containment. For example, if you believe that there is "evidence
of hazardous substance migration from source area" (HRS table 3-2, p. 51596, first
entry), what facts from the SI report support this belief?
Before going off on a wild goose chase, look at the assigned value column for the last
entry under 'Surface Impoundment" in HRS table 3-2. This applies to most buried or
backfilled impoundments.
The HRS value for ground water containment is:
Discussion: If you suspect that the potentially responsible party (PRP) might
contest this factor value, what supporting evidence for the above assertions of fact
would you like to be sure are in the SI report?
Bonus Points (to be done if you have extra time): If the containment factor were
being evaluated for the air pathway, what information is missing from (or deficient
in) the SI report?
4. What hazardous substances can be associated with this source and what is your
evidence?
-------
/: Characterization of Sources
5. Enter below whatever data you have for each of the four tiers of hazardous waste
quantity and assign a value for each tier from MRS table 2-5 (page 51591).
Tier A: Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Is tier A 'adequately determined"? If so, go no further. Assign the value for hazardous
waste quantity based on tier A alone.
Tier B: Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Is tier B 'adequately determined'? If so, do not evaluate volume or area. Assign the
value for hazardous waste quantity based on the higher of tier A and tier B.
Tier C: Volume
Are you satisfied that your estimate of the original operating volume for the
Impoundment Is reasonably defensible? If so, assign a value of 0 for the tier D.
Otherwise, assign a 0 for tier C and go on to tier D.
Tier D: Area
Assign the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the surface impoundment:
-------
1: Characterization of Sources
-------
2: Observed Release to Surface Water
Exercise 2
Observed Release to Surface Water
Assignment
Document an observed release to the surface water (Wintergreen Run) and show how far
downstream the conditions of the observed release apply. Provide documentation that this
release can be properly attributed to LPQ Auto Parts.
Tools
The sample locat'ons and analytical results are found in sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the draft
SI report. The sample locations are shown on figures 2 and 11 of the SI report.
HRS section 2.3 (page 51589) lays out the criteria for an observed release and MRS
section 4.1.2.1.1 (page 51609) defines observed releases to surface water.
Guidance on observed releases is found in HRS Guidance Manual, chapter 5 (page 55).
Exercise Questions
The display of analytical results In section 4.4 of the SI report has already done most of
the work for you. The downstream samples are already displayed in sequence,
beginning with sample 16s nearest the point where surface runoff most likely enters
Wintergreen Run (the probable point of entry or PPE).
1. Circle on the display of analytical results in section 4.4 (page 27) of the SI report
the substances in each sample that met the criteria for an observed release.
Do this for both the sediment samples and the aqueous samples.
2. What information would you like to see in the SI Report to assure yourself that the
sediment samples are sufficiently similar that the analytical results can legitimately
be compared?
-------
2: Observed Release to Surface Water
3. Discussion: If Leslie Percival Quickstep went into court and denied that the release
was attributable to LPQ Auto Parts, what facts would you bring in to support
attribution? Think rather broadly about not only the placement of the samples and
the analytical results but about the operational history and the source descriptions.
4. Bonus Point: What observations, measurements, additional samples, or records
could have been reasonably gathered at the SI to support the assertion of
attribution of the observed release to LPQ Auto Parts?
5. Circle the sampling location on figure 11 of the SI report that represents the
farthest downstream point of observed release.
All surface water targets that He between the probable point of entry (PPE) and this
farthest point of observed release are considered within the zone of the observed
release. The impact of this will be seen in the next presentation.
-------
3: Actual Contamination
Exercise 3
Actual Contamination of Targets
Assignment
All of the samples mentioned in this exercise show the presence of a hazardous substance.
Decide whether each sample documents potential contamination, level II of actual
contamination, or level I of actual contamination.
Explain the basis of your choice between potential, level II, or level I.
Tools
HRS section 2.5 (page 51592).
Figure 2 of the SI report.
The benchmarks from Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) are summarized in
reference 2 of the draft SI report.
Hint: When using SCDM, pay close attention to the units of measure. These will give
you a clue as to what type of sample is required for comparison against the benchmark
for the type of target you are assessing.
Exercise Questions
1. In the surface water pathway, any target that lies between a sampling point and
the PPE of hazardous substances into surface water is considered subject to the
level of contamination found at the sampling point. What level of contamination
does ST-C indicate wetland along Wintergreen Run for the environmental threat?
Why?
2. What level of contamination does sample 8s indicate for the wetland along
Wintergreen Run? Why?
-------
3: Actual Contamination
3. In the ground water pathway, level of contamination cannot be inferred from one
well to another but must be documented at each well. What level of contamination
isfoundatMW-1? Why?
4. What level of contamination is found at PW-2? Why?
5. Bonus Points: In the soil exposure pathway, observed release criteria and
benchmarks are used to establish points of observed contamination. The pathway
then specifies procedures for inferring areas of observed contamination around and
between these points and for associating targets with these areas. Does sample
12s from the drainage ditch establish a point of observed contamination? If so, is it
level I or level II?
8
-------
4: Ground Water Potential to Release
Exercise 4
Ground Water Potential to Release to the Chagrin Aquifer
Assignment
Assign a score for the ground water potential to release to the Chagrin aquifer.
Tools
You will need section 3 of the SI report for information about the ground water pathway
and section 2.4 for the assessment of containment. You'll also need to look at various
references such ?s the sampling data (reference 6) and the various maps and cross-
sections.
HRS section 3.1.2 (page 51595).
The HRS Guidance Manual covers only the containment factor (section 7.3, page 147).
Use the HRS scoresheet (table 3-1), reproduced below for your convenience, for your
"roadmap" to the exercise. Enter the HRS values on it as you complete the steps of the
exercise on the following page.
HRS Table 3*1, Ground Water Pathway, Likelihood of Release (page 51595)
Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer Maximum Value
Value Assigned
1. Observed Release 550
2. Potential to Release:
2a. Containment 10
2b. Net Precipitation 10
2c. Depth to Aquifer 5
2d. Travel Time 35
2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a(2b + 2c + 2d)] 500
3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550
-------
4: Ground Water Potential to Release
Exercise Questions
1. Containment. Assess containment for all five sources. Write down the basis for
the values you assign.
Be very wary! Is it really true that you have to assess containment for all five of the
sources?
Source 1: Buried Surface Impoundment MRS Value = 10
Assessed under "All Sources". No firm evidence of hazardous substance
migration from the source. The clay layer appears to be a liner. The cover
is not "maintained and engineered" because it is made of an inappropriate
material (fine sand) and has only a thin cover of vegetation. The drainage
ditch shows signs of washout and erosion and provides for no management
of any runoff. No leachate collection system was observed.
Source 2: Contaminated Soil Area I HRS Value =
Source 3: Buried Trench HRS Value =
Source 4: Waste Pile HRS Value =
Source 5: Contaminated Soil Area II HRS Value =
10
-------
4: Ground Water Potential to Release
2. Net Precipitation. This one really is easy if you know where the site is and it
doesn't lie exactly on one of the dividing lines on figure 3-2 (page 51598) of the
MRS.
3. Depth to Aquifer. Divide this section into two questions, convert all your depth
information into mean feet above sea level (MSL), and feel free to draw cross-
sections, ft's awesome how much time people can spend on depth to aquifer if
they don't do these things!
3a. How deep is it in MSL to the deepest point where you have documented the
presence of hazardous substances?
Hint: Look at the analytical data for ground water. Which wells meet observed release
criteria? Look at well logs in reference 8 for these wells. Figure out the elevation
(MSL) for the top of the screen. This is how deep you can be certain hazardous
substances have penetrated. Now check the soil borings that show contamination
significantly over background (e.g., 9d) to make sure that none of these samples can
possibly be deeper than the deepest well samples. As you think in terms of MSL,
remember that the deeper you go, the closer to sea level you get and the smaller the
numbers are.
3b. How deep is it in MSL to the top of the Chagrin aquifer?
4. Travel Time. What layers lie between the deepest point of documented
contamination and the top of the Chagrin. Simply consult the geological cross
section, figure 9 of the SI report.
5. The Score. Now that you've entered at the numbers on the scoresheet, calculate
the value for likelihood of release to the Chagrin aquifer.
11
-------
4: Ground Water Potential to Release
12
-------
5: Ground Water Pathway
Exercise 5
Ground Water Pathway-Glacial Aquifer
Assignment
Score the ground water pathway for the Glacial sand and gravel aquifer.
Tools
MRS sections 2.3 (page 51589), on likelihood of release, 2.4 (particularly table 2-7, page
51591-2), on waste characteristics , and 3.0 (page 51593), on the ground water
pathway.
In the MRS Guidance Manual, you may need to glance at chapter 5 (page 55), on observed
releases, (particularly pages 61-63 and 69-74 which apply to the ground water pathway).
You may also need to glance at the MRS Guidance Manual, chapter 6 (page 83) on
hazardous waste quantity (particularly section 6.6 on the calculation of hazardous waste
quantity) and chapter 7 (page 115), on the ground water pathway.
In the SI report, you will need the ground water section, including the ground water
figures, and references 2 (SCDM), 3 (USGS topo map), 6 (sample results), 7 (geological
cross-section), and 8 (well logs).
Exercise Questions
1. Observed Release to the Glacial Sand and Gravel Aquifer
Review the analytical data for the ground water samples. Decide which wells meet
the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis to the glacial sand and
gravel aquifer. Summarize below the list of substances that meet the criteria for an
observed release in any of the wells.
Soil sample 9d was taken from below the water table. The substances found in
this sample document an observed release by direct observation. The substances
are chloromethane, DCE, and TCE.
13
-------
5: Ground Water Pathway
2. Assignment of a Value for Toxicity/Mobility
For the limited set of substances below, select and circle the one substance that
has the highest value for toxicity x mobility.
Helpful hint: If you feel you are lacking information you need to fill out the table, don't
agonize. Fill in what you can and keep going. Then, come back to the sticking point
and ask 'exactly what additional information is needed to make a difference in the
decision about the most hazardous substances.' In other words, don't waste time on
HRS issues that don't make any difference.
Found in Observed Liquid (L) Toxicity
Release by or X
Chemical Analysis Solid (S) Toxicity Mobility Mobility
Chromium
Lead
Benzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol
Dichloroethene
Dichlorophenol
Trichloroethylene
3. Assignment of a Score for Waste Characteristics
Fill in the following portion of HRS table 3-1 (page 51595), the ground water
migration pathway scoresheet:
Table 3-1, Ground Water Pathway, Waste Characteristics (page 51595)
4.
5.
6.
Factor Categories
and Factors
Toxicity/Mobility
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Waste Characteristics
Maximum
Value
(a)
(a)
100
Assigned
Value
(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.
14
-------
5: Ground Water Pathway
There are five sources at the site, plus a wastestream (20 tons of casting sand)
that cannot be allocated to any specific source and is, therefore, treated as an
unallocated source. None of these sources have a 0 value for ground water
containment. The hazardous waste quantity values for the sources are:
Source
Quantity Values
from Table 2-5 (o. 51591)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Surface impoundment
Contaminated Soil-Area I
Buried Trench
Waste Pile
Contaminated Soil-Area II
Unallocated Source
4,615.4
0.3
177.8
5,333.3
0.1
0.8
10,127.7
Bonus Point 1: The sum of the quantity values for the sources is close to the MRS
breakpoint of 10,000 in MRS table 2-6 (page 51591). What would happen to the
score for waste characteristics if Leslie Percival Quickstep brought in information
showing that the correct sum was slightly under 10,000?
Bonus Point 2: What priority actions at the SI should be taken to avoid getting
booby-trapped by Leslie Percival Quickstep?
Stop here. Do not continue with the
exercise until this portion has been
debriefed.
15
-------
5: Ground Water Pathway
4. Assignment of a Score for Targets
Fill in the following portion of HRS table 3-1, the ground water migration pathway
scoresheet. In assigning the value for the aquifer, assign 550 for an observed
release (line 3) and the value for waste characteristics from step 3 of this exercise
(line 6).
HRS Table 3-1, Ground Water Pathway, Targets (page 51595)
Factor Categories Maximum Assigned
and Factors Value Value
7. Nearest Well 50
8. Population:
8a. Level I Concentrations (b)
8b. Level II Concentrations (b)
8c. Potential Contamination (b)
8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b)
9. Resources 5
10. Wellhead Protection Area 20
11. Targets (line 7+ 8d+ 9+ 10) (b)
Ground Water Migration Score for an Aquifer:
12. Aquifer Score Klines 3x6x11 )/82,500]e 100
(b) Maximum value not applicable.
(c) Do not round to nearest integer.
The easiest way to arrange the information needed to evaluate targets is to follow
the format of the HRS documentation record, as shown on the following page.
Arrange by distance rings (see HRS table 3-12, page 51604), beginning with the 0-
1/4 mile ring, the information you have about all the drinking water wells within the
target distance limit.
Once you have done this, you are ready to break out the different wells by level of
contamination and by distance ring. Then, assign population to each well. When
you allocate population to the Waverly wells, do not take the backup well into
consideration for this part of the exercise.
16
-------
5: Ground Water Pathway
Level I Level II Potential
Distance Contam. Contam. Contam.
Well ID From Source Aquifer (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)
Bonus Point 1: Re-evaluate the potentially exposed population, counting the
Waverly backup well as though it were in regular production.
Bonus Point 2: What if the trailer park well, PW-2, had not been sampled or had
been sampled and found to be uncontaminated? Recalculate the ground water
pathway score. This exercise will give you a sense of the impact of the
documentation of actual contamination versus potential.
17
-------
5: Ground Water Pathway
18
-------
6: Surface Water Potential to Release
Exercise 6
Surface Water Potential to Release
Assignment
Score the surface water potential to release for LPQ Auto Parts. To do this, you will have
to assume that no surface water or surface water sediment samples have been taken and
that no observed release to Wintergreen Run has been documented. For the purposes of
this exercise only, ignore aqueous samples ST-A, ST-B, and ST-C and sediment samples 6,
16, 7, 8, 19, and 20.
Tools
In the MRS, use section 4.1.2.1.2 on pages 51609-11.
In the MRS Guidance Manual, the only relevant section is section 8.4 on surface water
containment.
In the SI report, use sections 4.1 and 4.2 for information on the pathway and section 2 for
the assessment of surface water containment. Use figure 2 for soil sample locations and
the overland segment of the hazardous substance migration path. Use reference 3 (USGS
topo map) for estimation of the size of the drainage area.
Use the portion of MRS table 4-2 that is reproduced on the next page as your roadmap
through the exercise. Enter the values on this table.
Exercise Questions
1. Containment
1a. Which sources will you evaluate for containment?
1b. What is deficient about containment for all of these sources?
19
-------
6: Surface Water Potential to Release
MRS Table 4-1, Surface Water Pathway, Likelihood of Release (page 51608)
Maximum Value
Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned
Likelihood of Release:
1. Observed Release 550
2. Pot3ntial to Release by Overland Flow:
2a. Containment 10
2b. Runoff 25
2c. Distance to Surface Water 25
2d. Potential to Release by Overland
Flow (lines 2a[2b + 2c]) 500
3. Potential to Release by Flood
3a. Containment (Flood) 10
3b. Flood Frequency 50
3c. Potential to Release by Flood
(lines 3a x 3b) 500
4. Potential to Release
(lines 2d + 3c) 500
5. Likelihood of Release
(higher of lines 1 and 4) 550
20
-------
6: Surface Water Potential to Release
2. Runoff
The first step in determining runoff is to identify the drainage area that will produce
runoff around or through the sources and provides the vehicle for migration from the
sources to surface water. Rough out this area on the portion of the USGS Topo map
on the following page. HINT: Water drains perpendicular to the topographic lines.
Pencil on the topo map arrows showing the direction of runoff. This will help you
define the boundary of the drainage area.
2a. The approximate acreage of the drainage area is acres.
2b. The predominant soil within the drainage area is .
2c. The 2-year, 24 hour rainfall is inches.
2d. The runoff factor value is .
Simply process the above information through the four HRS tables 4-3 through 4-6
(page 51611) to find the value for runoff.
3. Distance to Surface Water
3a. The approximate distance to surface water is feet.
3b. What are the arguments for measuring distance to surface water from soil
sample 15 versus from the extent of stained soil? If you were managing the SI and
not planning to sample from Wintergreen Run, how would you seek to document
distance to surface water?
4. Potential to Release by Flood
The containment of source ff cannot be guaranteed against a year
flood.
5. Bonus Points
Rough out the score for the drinking water threat. What are the targets and the
target score? Use lead and PCB 1254 to score waste characteristics.
21
-------
6: Surface Water Potential to Release
22
-------
7: Human Food Chain Threat
Exercise 7
Human Food Chain Threat
Assignment
Score the human food chain threat for LPQ Auto Parts. Use the results of exercise 2 for
the assignment of an observed release to Wintergreen Run and to document the extent of
surface water contamination.
Tools
HRS section 4.1.3 (page 51621).
MRS Guidance Manual sections 8-12 (page 293) and 8-13 (page 305) discuss actual
contamination of the human food chain and the estimation of production.
Target information is found in section 4.2.2 of the SI report. The maps you will need are
figures 2 and 10 in the SI report and reference 3, the USGS topo map.
Use the portion of HRS table 4-1 that is reproduced on the next page as your roadmap
through the exercise. Enter the values on this table.
Exercise Questions
1. Waste Characteristics
Restrict the evaluation of toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation to the following
items:
Bioaccum. Tox. x Pers.
Substance Toxicity Persistence (BCFV) x BCFV
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Dichloroethene
PCB 1254
Trichloroethylene
The most hazardous substance for the threat is:
23
-------
21. Human Food Chain Threat Score
([lines 14 x 17 x 201/82,500) 100
(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.
(b) Maximum value not applicable.
7: Human Food Chain Threat
MRS Table 4-1, Surface Water Pathway, Human Food Chain Threat (page 51608)
Maximum Value
Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned
Likelihood of Release:
14. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550
Waste Characteristics:
15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a)
16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a)
17. Waste Characteristics 1,000
Targets:
18. Food Chain Individual 50
19. Population
19a. Level I Concentrations (b)
19b. Level II Concentrations (b)
19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b)
19d. Population (lines 19a-f19b+19c) (b)
20. Targets (lines 18 +19d) (b)
Human Food Chain Threat Score:
24
-------
7: Human Food Chain Threat
The values for hazardous waste quantities for the sources are found in step 3 of
exercise 5. Do any of these sources have a "0" value for surface water
containment (see step 1 of exercise 6)7
What is the sum of source quantities for the surface water pathway?
Assign a value for hazardous waste quantity from MRS table 2-6 (page 51591) and
enter it on the scoresheet.
Assign a score for waste characteristics using the instructions in MRS section
4.1.3.2.3 and enter it on the scoresheet.
2. Segmentation of the In-Water Portion of the Hazardous Substance Migration Path
into Fisheries.
What portions of the in-water segment of the hazardous substance migration path are
subject to level I concentrations? To level II concentrations? To potential
contamination? In answering these questions, you may want to review the analytical
results in section 4.4 of the SI report. Do not ignore the fish tissue sample. You may
also want to look at your conclusions in exercise 2.
Read and apply the second bullet at the top left of MRS page 51621. If the level of
contamination changes within a fishery, you will have to divide that fishery into
two fisheries.
Enter here the fisheries that will be assessed and the level of contamination in each:
Level of
Fishery Contamination
Bonus Point:
Calculate the average annual flow of Wintergreen Run from the information given in
section 4.1 of the SI report.
25
-------
7: Human Food Chain Threat
3. Targets
3a. Assign a value for food chain individual and enter it into the MRS scoresheet.
Before plunging into calculating food chain production and food chain population for
each fishery, calculate the human food chain threat score based on the target value
of the food chain individual.
3b. Assign a value for the human food chain production of Wintergreen Run.
The information you need is: (1) Wintergreen Run from the PPE to Lake White is about
1320 feet long, judged from reference 2 of the SI report, (2) the SI report says
Wintergreen Run is 5 foot wide, (3) there are 43,560 square feet to the acre, (4) the
production per acre is unknown but should be around the 5 Ibs/acre that is
characteristic of Pee Pee Creek, unless a lot of salmon wander up the creek and are
caught. In that case, the production might approach the 45 Ibs/acre that is
characteristic of Lake White. Does this range of uncertainty make any difference in the
value assigned?
3c. Complete the worksheet that is provided below. Assume that sample 19
defines 1/3 of the surface area of Lake White as a level I or II fishery and 2/3 of
Lake White as a potential fishery.
Production Dilution
Fishery Estimate Pop. Level of Weighted
in Pounds Value Contam. Population
Wintergreen Run na
Lake White-Level I na
Lake White-Level II na
Lake White-Potential
Pee Pee Creek
Scioto River
Enter onto the scoresheet the population values for the level I, level II, and potential
fisheries and complete the score for the human food chain threat.
Bonus Points: Should the estimate that 2/3 of the surface area of Lake White is a
potential fishery be refined? Should Wintergreen Run be considered to be a fishery?
26
-------
8: Surface Water Environmental Threat
Exercise 8
Surface Water Environmental Threat
Assignment
Score the environmental threat for LPQ Auto Parts.
Tools
In the SI report, use Section 4.2.3 on environmental targets, as well as the maps showing
surface water sampling locations, and the analytical results for surface water samples.
MRS section 4.1.4 (page 51621), on the environmental threat.
HRS Guidance Manual sections 8-13 (page 305), 8-14 (page 317), and 8-15 (page 325),
and Appendix A (page A-1).
Exercise Questions
1. Waste Characteristics
The values in SCDM for PCB 1254 for the environmental threat are all maximum.
Use the HRS scoresheet on the following page to assign a score for waste
characteristics for the environmental threat based on PCB 1254.
The Bonus Points in step 6 will give you an opportunity to look at waste
characteristics in more depth.
2. Segmentation of the Surface Water into Zones of Contamination
In section 4.4 of the SI report, review the analytical results to decide which
sampling points, if any, document level I or level II concentrations for the
environmental threat.
16s
7s
8s
19s
ST-B
Based on these sample locations, decide which surface water bodies, or portions of
surface water bodies are at level I concentrations, at level II concentrations, and at
potential contamination.
27
-------
8: Surface Water Environmental Threat
3. Identification of Targets along the In-Water Segment
In section 4.2.3 of the SI report, circle or underline each sensitive environment that
is assigned a value by MRS table 4-23 (page 51624) and write the assigned value in
the margin.
Note also the existence of wetland frontage along the various water bodies within
the target distance limit. For the wetland frontage along Lake White, assume that
1,050 feet of wetland frontage lie within the zone of level II concentrations and
4,000 feet of frontage within the zone of potential contamination.
Compile the information you have gathered on the following table. This format, or
one like it, will make step 4 of this exercise relatively easy.
Level of Water Wetland Sensitive
Contam. Body Frontage Environments
Level II Wintergreen
Run
Level II Lake
White
Potential Lake
10-100cfs White
Potential Pee Pee
10-100cfs Creek
Potential Scioto
~5,000cfs River
If you think you have any targets at level I concentrations, go back to step 2 of this
exercise. Did you note that environmental benchmarks are stated in //g/l? This
means that aqueous samples are required to document the level of contamination
against environmental benchmarks.
Sample 19s defines the farthest downstream point of observed release. This
sediment sample defines the breakpoint between level II and potential
contamination.
Evaluation of Targets
Look carefully at the formulas for level II and potential contamination on MRS page
51625. Note also the rounding rule that follows the formula for potential
contamination. These are the formulas and rule you will be applying in assigning
target values to sensitive environments and wetlands.
28
-------
8: Surface Water Environmental Threat
MRS Table 4-1, Surface Water Pathway, Environmental Threat (page 51608)
Maximum Value
Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned
Likelihood of Release:
22. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550
Waste Characteristics:
23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a)
24. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a)
25. Waste Characteristics 1,000
Targets:
26. Sensitive Environments
26a. Level I Concentrations (b)
26b. Level II Concentrations (b)
26c. Potential Contamination (b)
26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c) (b)
27. Targets (value from line 26d) (b)
Environmental Threat Score:
28. Environmental Threat Score
([lines 22 x 25 x 271/82,500) 60
Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score for a Watershed
29. Watershed Score
(lines 13 + 21+28) 100
(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.
(b) Maximum value not applicable.
(c) Do not round to nearest integer.
29
-------
8: Surface Water Environmental Threat
Assign target values for the sensitive environment threat and enter them on the
scoresheet.
5. Complete the Surface Water Pathway
5a. Assign a score for the environmental threat.
5b. Assign a score for the surface water pathway.
6. Bonus Point
What would be the impact on the environmental threat score if PCB 1254 had not
been found at the site? Approach this question by identifying first which HRS
factor will be affected, and then assess the impact on score.
30
-------
9: Air Potential to Release
Exercise 9
Air Potential to Release
Assignment
Assign a value for the air potential to release.
Tools
MRS section 6.1 (page 51651).
HRS Guidance M^/iual section 10.2 (page 403).
In the SI report, the description of source 4 and the analytical results for the samples taken
at source 4.
Exercise Questions
1. Identify the Substances Associated With the Waste Pile
For the purpose of this exercise, evaluate only the waste pile. The values for the
other sources have been calculated for you.
The first step is to identify whether the source is to be evaluated for gas potential
to release, particulate potential to release, or both. This depends on the
characteristics of the substances present in the source.
List below all of the substances present in the waste pile and note whether each
substance is a gaseous substance, a particulate substance, or both. To save time,
while you are using SCDM, write in the gas migration potential value for each
gaseous substance in the source.
Gaseous? Particulate? Gas Migration
Substance Y/N Y/N Pot'l Value
31
-------
9: Air Potential to Release
2. Evaluate tne Gas Potential to Release
Enter on MRS table 6-2, reproduced here for your convenience, the values for gas
potential to release and select the value for the highest-scoring source.
HRS Table 6-2, Gas Potential to Release Evaluation (page 51651)
Source
1.
3.
4.
5.
Source
Type
Buried
Surface
Impound.
Other Waste
Pile (Trench)
Contaminated
Soil
Gas
Containment
Factor
Value
A
10
0
10
Gas Gas
Source Migration
Type Potential
Factor Factor
Value Value Sum
B
11
17
0
Gas Potential to
C (B + C)
17 28
11 28
11 11
Release Factor Value
Gas
Source
Value
Ax(B + C)
280
0
110
(select the highest gas source value)
Bonus Point: Why was source 5 assigned a 0 for gas source type?
32
-------
9: Air Potential to Release
3. Evaluate the Participate Potential to Release
Enter on HRS table 6-8, reproduced here for your convenience, the values for
particulate potential to release, complete the table, and select the value for the
highest-scoring source.
HRS Table 6-8, Particulate Potential to Release Evaluation (page 51653)
Source
1.
2
3.
4.
Source
Type
Buried
Surface
Impound.
Contaminated
Soil
Other Waste
Pile (Trench)
Particulate
Containment
Factor
Value
A
10
10
0
Partic.
Source
Type
Factor
Value
B
22
0
28
Particulate
Migration
Potential
Factor
Value Sum
C (B + C)
Partic-
ulate
Source
Value
Ax(B + C)
5. Contaminated
Soil
10
Particulate Potential to Release Factor Value
(select highest particulate source value)
Assign the Score for Likelihood of Release
Enter the values for gas potential to release and particulate potential to release on
the HRS scoresheet for the air pathway and determine the value for likelihood of
release for LPQ Auto Parts.
Bonus Point
Why were zeros assigned for gas and particulate containment for the buried trench?
What is the implication of these zeros for waste characteristics?
33
-------
9: Air Potential to Release
MRS Table 6-1, Air Pathway, Likelihood of Release (page 51651)
Maximum Value
Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned
Likelihood of Release:
1. Observed Release 550
2. Potential to Release
2a. Gas Potential to Release 500
2b. Particulate Potential to Release 500
2c. Potential to Release (higher of lines 2a and 2b) 500
3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2c) 550
34
-------
10: Air Targets
Exercise 10
Air Targets
Assignment
Evaluate target for the air pathway at LPQ Auto Parts and assign a score for the air
pathway.
Tools
MRS section 6.3 (page 51660).
In the HRS Guidance Manual, use pages 416-7 and 420 for information on the nearest
individual.
In the SI report, use the maps and section 5 on the air pathway. Refer to exercise 8 for
the location and values of the various sensitive environments.
Exercise Questions
1. Evaluate Human Targets
Assign HRS values for nearest individual and for population subject to potential
contamination and enter the values in the HRS scoresheet.
Distance Number of Total Distance-Weighted
Ring Residences Population Population Value
On a Source
>0- 1/4
>1/4- 1/2
>1/2- 1
>1 -2
>2-3
>3-4
Sum of Distance-Weighted Population:
35
-------
10: Air Targets
2. Evaluate Resources and Environmental Targets
What resources for the air pathway lie within the air pathway distance limit for
resources? Enter a value for resources on the HRS scoresheet.
Assess the wetlands and sensitive environments that lie within the distance rings.
Follow the formula for potential contamination on HRS page 51662 carefully. The
table below is for your convenience. It is not an HRS table but is similar to what is
used in an HRS documentation record.
HRS HRS Value Distance
Distance Wetland Value for for Sens. Distance Weighted
Ring Acreage Wetlands Environments Weights Value
On a Source
>0- 1/4
> 1 /4 - 112
>1/2- 1
>1 -2 11.36
>2-3
>3-4 59.38
Sum of Distance-Weighted Environments:
3. Complete the Air Pathway
On the scoresheet for the air pathway, enter the score for likelihood of release from
the previous exercise.
The score for waste characteristics is 32. This is based on an air toxicity/mobility
value for PCB 1254 or vinyl chloride of 10,000 and a hazardous waste quantity
value of 100. The value for hazardous waste quantity is 100 rather than the
10,000 that was used for the ground water and surface water pathways because
the buried trench has gas and particulate containment values of 0 and is not,
therefore, evaluated for the air pathway.
Complete the air pathway scoresheet.
36
-------
10: Air Targets
HRS Table 6-1, Air Migration Pathway Scoresheet (page 51651)
Maximum Value
Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned
Likelihood of Release:
3. Likelihood of Release (from exercise 9) 550
Waste Characteristics:
6. Waste Characteristics (assigned in exercise) 100 32
Targets:
7. Nearest Individual 50
8. Population
8a. Level I Concentrations . (b)
8b. Level II Concentrations (b)
8c. Potential Contamination (b)
8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b)
9. Resources 5
10. Sensitive Environments
10a. Actual Contamination (c)
10b. Potential Contamination (c)
10d. Sensitive Environments (lines 10a +10b) (c)
11. Targets (lines 7+ 8d+ 9 +10c) (b)
Air Migration Pathway Score
12. Pathway Score [(lines 3x6x1 D/82.500J 100 .
(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.
(b) Maximum value not applicable.
(c) No specific maximum value applies to factor. However, pathway score based solely
on sensitive environments is limited to a maximum of 60.
(d) Do not round to nearest integer.
37
-------
10: Air Targets
4. Bonus Points
Assume that air sampling was done at the SI with the release sample taken 50 feet
east of contaminated soil area II (source 5). The results show vinyl chloride
significantly over background and also over the cancer risk benchmark of 0.012
//g/m3.
Rough out a score for the air pathway.
38
-------
/ /. So/7 Exposure Resident Population Threat
Exercise 11
Soil Exposure-Resident Population Threat
Assignment
Evaluate the resident population threat of the soil exposure pathway
Tools
MRS sections 5.0 and 5.1 (pages 51644-48).
MRS Guidance Manual sections 9.1 through 9.6 (pages 343-375).
In the SI report, use section 6 on the soil exposure pathway, the map of soil/sediment
sampling locations (figure 2), and the analytical results (reference 6).
Exercise Questions
1. Define Areas of Observed Contamination
Define the points of observed contamination, based on the analytical results
reported in section 6 of the SI report. Indicate the points of observed
contamination on figures 2 and 10 of the Si report.
Define the areas of observed contamination accurately enough to be able to decide
which targets are to be counted as resident targets.
2. Evaluate Waste Characteristics
The hazardous waste quantity values for three of the areas of observed
contamination are given below. Complete the assignment of a value for hazardous
waste quantity for the soil exposure pathway and enter the value in the MRS
scoresheet.
1. Surface Impoundment 4,615.4
2. Contaminated Soil Area I 0.3
3. Buried Trench
4. Waste Pile
5. Contaminated Soil Area II 0.1
6. Other areas of Observed Contamination
Total for areas of observed contamination:
39
-------
11: Soil Exposure Resident Population Threat
Define the set of substances that can be assessed for toxicity. Select the highest-
scoring substance and enter its value in the MRS scoresheet.
Assign a score for waste characteristics from MRS table 2-7 (page 51592).
Bonus Point: The value for hazardous waste quantity for the soil exposure pathway
is frequently smaller than it is for the migration pathways. Why?
3. Evaluate Targets Associated with the Areas of Observed Contamination
Which targets are considered to be resident targets? Review the first four bullets in
HRS section 5.1 (page 51646) carefully and complete the scoresheet for the
resident population threat.
40
-------
/ 7: So/7 Exposure Resident Population Threat
HRS Table 5-1, Soil Exposure, Resident Population Threat (page 51646)
Factor Categories and Factors
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
Likelihood of Exposure:
1. Likelihood of Exposure
Waste Characteristics:
2. Toxicity
3. Hazardous Waste Quantity
4. Waste Characteristics
Targets:
5. Resident Individual
6. Resident Population
6a. Level I Concentrations
6b. Level II Concentrations
6c. Population (lines 6a + 6b)
7. Workers
8. Resources
9. Terrestrial Sensitive Environments
11. Targets (lines 5 + 6c + 7 + 8 + 9)
Resident Population Threat:
12. Resident Population Threat (lines 1x4x10)
550
(a)
(a)
100
50
(b)
(b)
(b)
15
5
(0
(b)
(b)
(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.
(b) Maximum value not applicable.
(c) No specific maximum value applies to factor. However, pathway score based solely
on sensitive environments is limited to a maximum of 60.
41
-------
/ /; Soil Exposure Resident Population Threat
42
-------
12: Soil Exposure Nearby Population Threat
Exercise 12
Soil Exposure-Nearby Population Threat
Assignment
Evaluate the nearby population threat of the soil exposure pathway for LPQ Auto Parts.
Tools
MRS section 5.2 (page 51648).
MRS Guidance rV^anual sections 9.7 (page 383) and 9.8 (page 389) on the nearby
population threat.
In the SI report, use the description of areas of observed contamination from exercise 11
and the USGS topo map (reference 3).
Exercise Questions
1. Assess the Likelihood of Exposure to the Areas of Observed Contamination
la. The highest value for attractiveness/accessibility for any of the areas
of observed contamination within the fence line of LPQ Auto Parts is:
1 b. The value for attractiveness/accessibility for the area of observed
contamination along the intermittent stream is:
1c. The value for attractiveness/accessibility for the area of observed
contamination defined by samples A, C, D, and E is:
1d. The highest value for attractiveness/accessibility is: . Enter this value
on the scoresheet.
1e. Assign values for area of contamination and likelihood of exposure for the
nearby population threat. Enter these values in the MRS scoresheet.
The areas of observed contamination are:
Square Feet
Surface Impoundment 60,000
Waste Pile 45,000
Soil around samples 12, 14, and 15 9,600
Soil around sample 17 2,400
Soil between 17 and 15 5,600
Soil between samples A, C, D, and E 3,400
43
-------
12: Soil Exposure Nearby Population Threat
Bonus Point: What characteristics must an area of observed contamination have to
receive a score of 500 for likelihood of exposure for the nearby population threat?
2. Assess Waste Characteristics for the Areas of Observed Contamination
2a. Assign a value for toxicity and enter it in the MRS scoresheet. For the resident
population threat, the maximum value of 10,000 for toxicity was assigned, based
on chlordane, chromium (NOS or VI), lead, PCB 1254, or vinyl chloride. Drop from
consideration any substances found only on private property or areas with an
attractiveness/accessibility value of 0.
2b. Assign a value for hazardous waste quantity from MRS table 2-6 (page 51591)
and enter this value in the HRS scoresheet. For hazardous waste quantity, start off
with the value for the total areas of contamination for the resident population threat
(5,939.7) and subtract the value for any areas of observed contamination on
residential property or with an attractiveness/accessibility value of 0.
2c. Assign a value for waste characteristics for the nearby population threat.
3. Assess Targets Within 1 Mile Travel Distance
3a. Assign a value for nearby individual and enter it in the HRS scoresheet.
3b. Estimate the population within each of the travel distance categories.
Travel Distance Population
> 0 to 1/4 mile
> 1 /4 to 1/2 mile
>1/2to1mile
3c. Based on this estimate, assign a value for population within 1 mile and enter it
in the HRS scoresheet. Also enter the score for targets.
4. Complete the Score for the Soil Exposure Pathway
Finish the calculation of the score for the soil exposure pathway.
44
-------
12: Soil Exposure Nearby Population Threat
MRS Table 5-1, Soil Exposure, Nearby Population Threat (page 51646)
Factor Categories and Factors
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
Likelihood of Exposure
12. Attractiveness/Accessibility
13. Area of Contamination
14. Likelihood of Exposure
Waste Characteristics
15. Toxicity
16. Hazardous Waste Quantity
17. Waste Characteristics
Targets
18. Nearby Individual
19. Population Within 1 Mile
20. Targets (lines 18 + 19)
Nearby Population Threat Score
21. Nearby Population Threat Score (lines 14x17x20)
Soil Exposure Pathway Score
22. Soil Exposure Pathway Scored
(lines [11 + 211/82,500)
100
100
500
(a)
(a)
100
1
(b)
(b)
(b)
100
(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.
(b) Maximum value not applicable.
(d) Do not round to nearest integer.
45
-------
12: Soil Exposure Nearby Population Threat
46
-------
13: Site Score
Exercise 13
Calculation of Site Score for LPQ Auto Parts
Assignment
Calculate the site score for LPQ Auto Parts.
MRS Pathway
Ground Water
Surface Water
Soil Exposure
Air
Pathway
Score
Pathway
Score Squared
100.00
100.00
23.68
4.09
Sum of squares:
Divided by 4:
Site Score
47
-------
Site Inspection
Narrative Report
LPQ Auto Parts
Trainer's Note
The information on LPQ Auto Parts is fictional. The
site does not exist. The environmental setting,
however, is based on actual information wherever
possible.
Caution: This draft SI report does not provide a
model for your SI reports. It has been adapted for
the purposes of the exercises in this training.
-------
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Site Description 1
2.1 Location
2.2 Site Description
2.3 Operational History
2.4 Description and Sampling of the Sources
2.4.1 Surface Impoundment (Source 1)
2.4.2 Contaminated Soil Area I (Source 2)
2.4.3 Buried Trench (Source 3)
2.4.4 Waste Pile (Source 4)
2.4.5 Contaminated Soil Area II (Source 5)
2.4.6 Other Wastestreams
2.5 Conclusions
3. Ground Water Pathway 17
3.1 Hydrogeology
3.2 Targets
3.3 Sample Locations
3.4 Analytical Results
3.5 Conclusions
4. Surface Water Pathway 23
4.1 Hydrology
4.2 Targets
4.2.1 Drinking Water Threat
4.2.2 Human Food Chain Threat
4.2.3 Environmental Threat
4.3 Sample Locations
4.4 Analytical Results
4.5 Conclusions
5. Air Pathway 29
5.1 Physical Conditions
5.2 Targets
5.3 Conclusions
6. Soil Exposure Pathway 31
6.1 Soil Sample Locations
6.2 Soil Sample Results
6.3 Targets
6.4 Conclusions
-------
Figures
1. Topographic Map 2
2. Site Map (Soil and Sediment Sample Results) 3
3. Surface Impoundment (Source 1) 6
4. Contaminated Soil Area I (Source 2) 8
5. Buried Trench (Source 3) 10
6. Waste Pile (Source 4) 12
7. Contaminated Soil Area II (Source 5) 14
8. Regional Geological Cross-section 16
9. Local Geological Cross-section 18
10. Site Map (Ground Water Sampling Results) 21
11. Surface Water Sampling Results 26
12. Quickstep Properties 30
IV
-------
References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazard Ranking System, 55 FR 51583,
December 14, 1990 (40 CFR part 300, Appendix A).
2. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March
6, 1993 [relevant pages included].
3. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps of Ohio:
Piketon, 1960 [on each table].
4. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983. "The Climatic Atlas of the United
States."
5. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1961. "Technical Paper No. 40."
6. Summary of Sampling Results [included].
7. Geological Cross-section [on each table].
8. Graphic of Well Logs [on each table].
-------
VI
-------
Introduction
Date: January 1994
Prepared by: ABC Environmental Consulting Group
Portsmouth, Ohio
Site: LPQ Auto Parts
County Route 220
Pike County, Ohio
EPA ID No.: XXY987654321
1. Introduction
Under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Waste Management Division, Region 5 conducted a site inspection (SI) at LPQ
Auto Parts near Waverly in Pike County, Ohio. The purpose of this investigation was
(1) to collect information concerning conditions at LPQ Auto Parts sufficient to assess
the threat posed to human health and the environment (2) to determine the need for
additional investigation under CERCLA or other authority and (3), if appropriate,
support site evaluation using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) for proposal to the
National Priorities List (NPL). The investigators reviewed previous information,
sampled waste and environmental media to test preliminary assessment (PA)
hypotheses and to evaluate and document HRS factors, and collected additional non-
sampling information (including interviewing nearby residents).
2. Site Description
2.1 Location
LPQ Auto Parts is located on County Route 220 just north and west of the intersection
with County Route 228 at Lake White and 1.6 miles west of the city limits of Waverly
in Pike County, Ohio. The geographic coordinates are lat. 39°07'53" N, long.
83001'53" W (Reference 3). Figure 1 is a copy of the topographic map in the vicinity
of the site. Figure 2 is a site map.
Pike County is characterized by cool temperate climate. Summers are warm and
humid with daily temperature reaching 80°F or higher. Daily high temperatures
during winter are 25°F to 35°F. Net annual precipitation for the area is 40.5 inches
(Reference 4) and the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall is 2.7 inches (Reference 5).
-------
Site Description: Site Map
Figure 1: Topographic Map
) A.s ^\\ /*.' I \ /
tJ, :- \V^A\\\ -*!-. ' ' -'.-
**/': v^^V'-W-V-N ' '-'X' '-/
-------
Site Description: Site Map
Figure 2: Site Map (Soil and Sediment Locations)
\
\
SURFACE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
* SOI'. / S£3.'M£NT SAMPLE
- WATER SAMPLE
>
-------
Site Description
2.2 Site Description
The LPQ property covers 14 acres of relatively flat terrain. The site slopes from
slightly over 600 feet MSL in the west to about 580 feet along its eastern border with
Wintergreen Run, a minimal perennial stream. An unnamed intermittent tributary of
Wintergreen Run borders the northern side of the site. Hills rise sharply to the west
and north. A wetland associated with Lake White lies close to the southeastern corner
of the property (Figures 1 and 2).
The onsite facilities include a small, metal casting foundry, a milling shop, a plastics
casting shop, an electroplating shop, a soldering and welding shop, a paint shop, and
an engine rebuilding and maintenance facility for its fleet of trucks. The foundry has
been closed since 1978.
There are five identified sources at the site: a large surface impoundment (now
backfilled), a waste pile, a buried trench, and two areas of contaminated soil.
Drainage ditches run around the waste pile and impoundment and through one of the
areas of contaminated soil. The ditches empty into the intermittent stream.
Most of the property boundary is fenced except for part of the back of the property
which is heavily wooded and abuts against the hill. Although the main gate is left
open, there is no evidence of trespassing on the waste sources themselves. The
maintenance workers have indicated the parking lot on the eastern side of the site is
used by local teenagers on Friday and Saturday evenings, and that they have collected
numerous beer cans in that area.
2.3 Operational History
The company was founded in 1919 for the manufacture of racing car parts for the
owner, Louanne Penelope Quickstep (LPQ) and expanded as a parts manufacturer
with the American automobile industry. The foundry was abandoned in 1978 when
new air pollution regulations were enforced. In the past 20 years, the company has
increasingly relied on plastic casted parts, phasing out the metal casted parts. In the
1970s, the company consolidated all of its operations at this Ohio facility.
The company is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. There are
currently a minimum of four individuals at the facility during the day: two general
maintenance workers who maintain the physical plant and who do the yard work, the
former general manager/owner of the company, and his secretary clerk.
The company never completed a RCRA permit application and the owner has stated
that he has no intent or money to fund any remedial actions.
-------
Site Description: Source 1
2.4 Description and Sampling of the Sources
2.4.1 The Surface Impoundment (Source 1)
A RCRA permit application that was apparently never filed indicates that the
impoundment was designed as a shallow evaporation basin of 100 feet by 600 feet (see
Figure 3). The impoundment has been backfilled, but a quick visual inspection
indicates that the cover material seems to be sand similar to that used for casts. The
depth of sand at the edges of the area was less than 2 feet based on four borings made
with a soil auger, and seems to be underlined by a compacted clay layer or, perhaps,
by fine sediments. A boring to 11 feet deep was taken through the middle of the
impoundment. Here, the compacted layer was encountered at just over 3 feet.
The sand has a thin cover of vegetation. A drainage ditch runs around the south and
west sides of the impoundment, carrying rainwater to the intermittent stream and then
to Wintergreen Run. A drainage ditch on the east side shows signs of washouts and
erosion. No leachate collection system was observed during the site inspection.
The impoundment received wastewater from the engine rebuilding and truck
maintenance shops. This area used "Disolv-O-Grease" which, according to company
records, was purchased at a rate of 10 gallons a week for 50 weeks a year from 1980
through 1988 (no records prior to 1980 exist). According to the company president,
the degreaser product was used as a spray to clean used engine parts prior to their
rebuilding and in the truck maintenance area during truck cleaning and repair. The
spray was followed by a water rinse. He also stated that the total volume of
wastewater from these processes was estimated to be about 200 gallons a week, based
on an engineering study in 1988. He stated that any liquid wastes from the milling,
plastics molding, painting, or electroplating shops were centrally collected rather than
discharged to the impoundment. These wastes were held for reuse or sold to a
recycler when one could be found.
The impoundment was closed in 1988 and all waste flows were routed into the Lake
White sanitary sewer system.
The producer of "Disolv-O-Grease" was contacted and indicated the product was
mainly stoddard solvents with detergents, but contained trichloroethylene (TCE) from
1980 to 1986. After 1986, the TCE was replaced in the formulation to avoid having
to meet RCRA and OSHA requirements for handling the chlorinated solvent.
Samples were taken from soil boring 9 in the surface impoundment (Figure 2 and
Figure 3). In the shallow sample taken of the top one foot of sand, TCE was found at
50,000 ppb (Reference 6). In the medium depth sample, taken below the clay layer
and at a depth of 5 to 6 feet, no contamination was detected. The water table was
-------
Site Description
Figure 3: Surface Impoundment (Source 1)
Plan View
600'
100*
Cross Section
. _ . compact)
Foundry Sand » *
2fee^ y#
^
^
^soil bori
sdday
\ /
,/ \
sandy day
TCE.DCE
Chloromethane
'" '
»
»
ng1H
TCE
X<
H-^L hand auger
JT^^ borings
I
Foundry Sand
., 3 feet
^-XX^ compacted day _y
V **Ws ^i^&
sandy clay
:i
f
Foundry Sand
s 2 feet
600'
-------
Site Description: Source 1
encountered at 9 feet. The deep sample, taken at 10 to 11 feet, showed the presence
of chloromethane (300 ppb), dichloroethene (DCE)(6,000 ppb), and TCE (20,000 ppb)
(Reference 6).
-------
Site Description
Figure 4: Contaminated Soil Area I (Source 2)
Plan View
intermittent creek
Drainage
Cross Section
WIntergreen Run
sediment sample
#16
Cr, PCB.TCE
10'
Cr,Pb
Zn
Cr, Sn, Zn
Cr
Cr
8
-------
Site Description: Source 2
2.4.2 Contaminated Soil Area 1 (Source 2)
An area of discolored soil lies along the drainage ditch to the east of the parking lot,
extending from the drainage tile under the driveway down into the intermittent creek.
At the drainage tile, the soil was stained orange, which faded to green as distance
from the drain increased. The bottom of the intermittent creek below the point of
intersection with the ditch to the point of intersection with Wintergreen Run was also
stained orange and no vegetation was visible on the rocks and gravel, in contrast with
about 100 feet above the intersection. The concrete base of the building on the other
side of the driveway was also stained and eroded. This portion of the building
formerly contained the metal plating operation.
The area of staining is about 12 feet in width in the drainage ditch and up to 20 feet in
width in the intermittent stream. The length of the drainage ditch is 300 feet and the
intermittent stream is another 300 feet.
No organic vapors were detected by flame ionization detector/photoionization detector
(FID/PID) in this area. Samples were taken from two borings and one surface
location in the drainage ditch, sampling locations 12, 14, and 15 in Figures 2 and 4.
Surface samples at these locations showed chromium, lead, tin, and zinc significantly
elevated over local background; samples at 10 to 11 feet deep in the borings showed
these metals at background levels.
-------
Site Description
Figure 5: Buried Trench (Source 3)
Plan View
150'
10'
Cross Section
12'
81
Contaminants
Cr, Pb, acetone
dichlorophenol
phenol, ethyl acetate
soil boring #11
150 cans of paint waste
in foundry sand
150'
10
-------
Site Description: Source 3
2.4.3 Buried Trench (Source 3)
The trench was found as a depression in back of the facility near the waste pile
(Figure 2). The dimensions of the depression are 150 feet by 10 to 12 feet (see
Figure 5). The building maintenance workers mow the grass on this area regularly.
No ditches or berms surround the area and no gas collection system was associated
with the trench.
When State personnel attempted to take a boring in the depression, they repeatedly
encountered what seemed to be the lids of metal drums at a depth of slightly more
than 5 feet. The first 31A feet consisted of silty clay material. Below this was what
appeared to be foundry sand extending to a depth of the deepest boring, 6 feet.
The trench was excavated, after the site inspection, under CERCLA removal
authority. The Agency found 150 cans of paint wastes (2 feet by 3 feet) in the trench.
Most had rusted along the seams where the lids were soldered on. This seems mainly
to have occurred only in those cans placed upside down. The five open cans were full
of paint wastes and smelled strongly of solvents. The removal team reported the
presence of substances typically associated with paint sludge: ethyl acetate, acetone,
kerosene, barium, lead chromate, and titanium. The total depth of the trench was 12
feet, about the same depth as the water table. The removal team noted that none of
the substances found in the trench were found in the shallow ground water at nearby
monitoring well MW-1 (Reference 6).
The shallow sample results from soil boring 11 in the buried trench (Figure 5) showed
no contamination (Reference 6). The sample taken at 5 to 6 feet deep showed
elevated levels of chromium, lead, and tin, and the presence of acetone, ethyl acetate,
dichlorophenol, and phenol.
11
-------
Site Description
Figure 6: Waste Pile (Source 4)
Plan View
300-
150'
soil boring #10
Cross
Section
10*
-240'
bonces) foundry sand
contaminants
benzene,
chlorobenzene
chlorophenola
dimethylphenol
cftlonxnethane
OCE
TCE
300*
12
-------
Site Description: Source 4
2.4.4 Waste Pile (Source 4)
The dimensions of the pile, 300 by 150 feet, were found on the un-filed RCRA permit
application. The pile extends about 10 feet above the surface and is basically
trapezoidal in shape, with 30 percent slopes on its edges, extending to the soil surface
(see Figure 6). The pile rests on native soil with no liner. This description is
consistent with what was observed at the site inspection.
The cover material is sand which looks similar to that used in forming casts. The
sides are extensively eroded and waste material is exposed. The top is covered by at
least 21A feet of sand and supports a sparse cover of vegetation. There are drainage
ditches around the pile that are inspected weekly and repaired as necessary. There
are no trees or other form of windbreak around the pile. No response from the biogas
detector was observed during the site inspection.
When investigating the edges of the pile, State personnel reported that they could
identify that the pile had been used for disposal of all types of solid waste, including
5-gallon containers (whose labels indicated they formerly contained chlorinated
solvents and paint), cardboard boxes, metal shavings, rags, used car parts, and food
containers.
Soil boring 10 was taken through the thickness of the pile (Figures 2 and 6). The
sample results (Reference 6) show benzene, chlorobenzene, and dichlorophenol in the
shallow sample (0 to 1 feet), chloromethane, DCE, and TCE at medium depth (5 to 6
feet) and chloromethane, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, chlorophenol,
dichlorophenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, DCE and TCE at the depth of 10 to 11 feet. The
drillers indicated organic smells and, based on the soil core log, the presence of ashes,
suggesting that the pile formerly was burned.
Shallow ground water at RP-3 and RP-5 alongside the pile is contaminated with the
same substances found in the pile (Figure 8 and Reference 6)
13
-------
Site Description
Figure 7: Contaminated Soil Area II (Source 5)
Plan View
60'
40'
r'Y'Y'Y'Y-YN;
pT.-T.yTYT.-TT.l^l^l,-,-,,!,-,.!.-!! H-l
SSSSffiSS^S
iMW*w*wnyng>KynJwlUrKifna»na»Kaf*wrJ
-------
Site Description: Source 5
2.4.5 Contaminated Soil Area II (Source 5)
The second area of contaminated soil is an area about 60 feet by 40 feet (see Figure 7)
at the sharp bend in the drive that leads to the loading dock for the truck maintenance
facility (see Figure 2). The soil, naturally mottled grey, was stained almost pinkish in
parts of the surface, but in other areas the soil was black. One small water puddle
down-gradient from the main part of the area had an oily sheen. The FID/PID
registered weak but detectable quantities of hydrocarbons in one part of the area, but
the concentrations exceeded the limits of the instrument in other parts.
A notice of a spill of mixed contaminants, dated June 1989, was found in the company
files. The notice explained that an open bed truck carrying containers of waste
material for transport to the county disposal area (as part of a State-sponsored
Community Cleanup Program) overturned on its way out of the facility, and an
unknown amount of waste chemicals had been spilled. The sheet indicated that the
wastes included organic solvents from the truck repair facility, PCB-contaminated oil
from company transformers that had been refilled with PCB-free dielectric fluid, some
cans labelled roach spray, and cans of paint waste from the maintenance shop. The
notice of spill may not have been filed since the copy to be sent to the state was still
attached.
Soil boring 17 was placed in this spill area (Figures 2 and 7). The sample results
(Reference 6) show the presence of chlordane, PCB 1254, TCE, and vinyl chloride in
the top 1 foot of soil.
2.4.6 Other Wastestreams
A shipping manifest, dated 1979, was also found in the company files. The manifest
was for the transport and disposal of 20 tons of casting sand. The manifest bore a
stamp indicating that the material had been rejected for disposal at the county landfill,
and an explanation that an EP toxicity test of the material found 20 parts per million
of arsenic in it.
2.5 Conclusions
Author's Notes
Conclusions to be developed.
15
-------
Ground Water Pathway
Figure 8: Regional Geological Cross-section
I i' I ' i' I ' i' I '
i i
i i I i i i I i i i I i i i
16
-------
Ground Water Pathway
3. Ground Water Pathway
3.1 Hydrogeology
The facility is located 16 miles south of the edge of the Wisconsin glacial advance.
There are two main features to the area: the dissected uplands of the unglaciated
Kanawha (Allegheny) section of the Appalachian Plateaus Province and the broad river
valleys that are deeply eroded into the uplands and contain sand and gravel glacial
outwash. Small, meandering rivers now run through these valleys. The site is located
directly over a portion of the glacial sand and gravel aquifer that extends into the area
of Lake White(Reference 3 - USGS Topo Map and Reference 7 - Geological Cross-
Section). See also Figure 8 for the Regional cross-section and Figure 9 for the local.
The stratigraphy for Pike County is:
Period
Formation/Member Lithology
Thickness
Mississippian Cuyohoga
Sunbury
Berea
Bedford
Devonian Ohio/Cleveland
Ohio/Chagrin
Ohio/Huron
sandstone & shale 340 ft.
dark fissile shale 16 ft.
sandstone 29 ft.
pinkish-grey shale 59 ft.
shale 165 ft.
sandstone 70 ft.
shale 210 ft.
The glacial outwash valley is eroded into the Cleveland formation. Therefore, the site
overlies the unconsolidated outwash aquifer which is up to 90 feet thick in the area,
the Cleveland (a confining layer that is around 100 feet thick under the site), the
Chagrin (which has some local use as an aquifer) and the Huron (a confining layer).
The Berea is used as an aquifer in the uplands but does not underlie the facility.
The soils in the area are moderately fine-textured silt loams with rather low infiltration
rates.
3.2 Targets
The locations of the public supply wells within the 4-mile target distance limit are
shown as large black dots on the USGS topographic map (Reference 3). Irrigation
wells are shown by smaller black dots. All public supply wells draw from the sand
and gravel valley aquifer. The information gathered so far on each system is:
17
-------
Ground Water Pathway
Figure 9: Local Cross-section
fiiimiiifiiiiTiiii
o
I*!1!*!1!1!1
, >; i j i j»j i, i
J«J»j»J«jiJiJ
s»«
y-
(«
I
v.tf%-
^f'f!
m
-»-»-»-»-»»-»'
«««««*
$?ss
ii
111 Ul 11 lil II lillll
18
-------
Ground Water Pathway
Lake White. The Lake White water supply system supplies the 1,100 residents
around the lake from two wells located next to the Lake White State Park.
Piketon. The Piketon water supply system supplies a population of 2,860 from a
wellfield of three wells located along the Scioto River.
Pike County. Pike County supplies rural residences in the uplands with water. This
is done through two separate systems. The Ross well supplies 1,380 people and is
located east of Waverly C and just within the 4-mile target distance limit. The Main
Plant well supplies 3,020 people and is located on the west side of the Scioto River
from the three Piketon wells.
Waverly. The Waverly water supply system supplies a population of 4,890 from 3
wells, Waverly A, B, and C. Well A is southeast of the city next to the intersection
of Crooked Creek and Highway 23. Well B is directly south of the city by the
sewage treatment facility lime ponds. The city also maintains, on a regular basis, a
standby well next to Waverly B. Well C is northeast of the city, east of where
Crooked Creek crosses Highway 23. The city engineer said that the wells have
roughly the same pumping capacity. He noted that the city has never used surface
water because the Scioto River is contaminated by storm/sewer runoff and industrial
outfalls upstream at the town of Chillicothe.
Several private wells have also been identified. They are located at the residence just
west of the site (PW-1 on Figure 9), at the trailer park just south of the site (PW-2),
about % mile west of the site along the intermittent stream where the location of an
irrigation well is also shown (PW-9), and at the gasoline station at the intersection of
county roads 220 and 228 (PW-10). The trailer park well supplies the residence of
the owner and the trailers.
Information from the well logs for the private wells is:
Total Surface
Well ID Depth Elevation Water Level Screened Interval
PW-1
PW-2
PW-9
PW-10
58 ft.
33ft.
25 ft.
27 ft.
618
578
745
583
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
MSL
MSL
MSL
MSL
605
572
732
581
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
MSL
MSL
MSL
MSL
580
550
720
556
- 600
- 565
- 730
- 565
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
MSL
MSL
MSL
MSL
The Census states that the 1990 population per household in Pike County was 2.8.
19
-------
Ground Water Pathway
3.3 Sample Locations
The ground water sampling locations are shown in Figure 10. The well logs for the
wells that were sampled are found in Reference 8.
LPQ Auto Parts has five wells, RP-1 through RP-5. According to Mr. Leslie
Quickstep, the current owner, these wells are used for process water and were never
used for drinking water. RP-1 is 171 feet deep and is screened in the Chagrin
(Reference 8). The other four wells range in depth from 29 to 59 feet and are
screened in the unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer. All five wells were sampled
at the site inspection. The depths of these wells are depicted on figure 9 (page 18)
and the concentrations of hazardous substances found in these wells are shown on
figure 10 (page 21).
Four monitoring wells were placed during the site inspection. These wells, MW-1,
MW-2, MW-3s, and MW-3d, were placed to the south and east of the facility to test
the hypothesis that there is an observed release to ground water and to assess the
threat to nearby private wells and the likelihood that contaminated ground water may
discharge to surface water.
Monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3s range in depth from 45 to 66 feet and
are screened in the unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer. MW-3d is 139 feet deep
and is screened in the Chagrin.
The three nearest private wells were also sampled at the site inspection. These are
PW-1 to the west of the site and believed to be up-gradient, PW-2 at the trailer park
just south of the site, and PW-10 at the gasoline station. These wells range in depth
from 36 feet to 58 feet and are all screened in the unconsolidated sand and gravel
aquifer. PW-2 and PW-10 were hypothesized to be primary targets in the preliminary
assessment.
20
-------
Ground Water Pathway
\
Figure 10: Site Map (Ground Water Sampling Locations )
Ground Water Sampling Results
concentrations in ppb
NO = nothing detected
TC£ - 7800
DOE - 2100
8
-------
Ground Water Pathway
3.4 Analytical Results
Author's Notes
The analytical results for the ground water samples are found in Reference 6 and
are summarized in Figure 10.
No contamination was detected in either well in the Chagrin aquifer (RP-1
and MW-3d).
No contamination was detected in the shallow wells along the north and west
of the site (RP-1, RP-2, RP-4, PW-1, and MW-2). Similarly, no
contamination was detected in the shallow well at the gasoline station on the
other side of Wintergreen Run.
Contamination was found in all shallow wells that lie between the sources at
the site and Lake White/Wintergreen Run.
The most heavily contaminated well is RP-3, which lies between the waste
pile, the evaporation pond, and the trench. The substances found were TCE
(7800 ppb), DCE (2100 ppb), benzene (23 ppb), chlorophenol (10 ppb), and
dichlorophenol (18 ppb).
TCE and DCE were also found in RP-5 by the waste pile and MW-3s by the
surface impoundment. TCE was found at 4.7 ppb in MW-1 next to the
trench.
The hypothesis that PW-2 at the trailer park is a primary target was
confirmed by detections of TCE (1300 ppb) and DCE (70 ppb).
The sample quantitation limits for the substances found in ground water are:
benzene (5 ppb), chlorophenol (10 ppb), dichlorophenol (10 ppb), DCE (5 ppb),
and TCE (5 ppb).
3.5 Conclusions
Author's Notes
Conclusions to be developed.
22
-------
Surface Water Pathway
4. Surface Water Pathway
4.1 Hydrology
The soils in the drainage area are moderately fine-textured silty loams with rather low
infiltration rates. Most of the land is forested and is infrequently lumbered. The 2-
year, 24-hour rainfall is 2.7 inches (Reference 5).
Hydrology information on each segment of the surface water pathway is as follows:
Wintergreen Run drains 1,880 acres, an estimate made with graph paper and
the USGS topo map. The average annual runoff is 20 inches per year (USGS
Water Atlas, Plate 21). The Run is no more than 5-feet wide except where it
enters the wetland at Lake White. The reach of the Run, from the confluence
with the intermittent stream to Lake White, is !4 mile.
Pee Pee Creek, at its entry into Lake White, has an average annual flow of 45
cfs. The flow of Pee Pee Creek below the spillway from Lake White, after
merging with Crooked Creek is 90 cfs. Between the spillway and the Scioto
River, Pee Pee Creek averages 38 feet wide and is 5,800 feet long. This
means the surface area is 5.1 acres (43,560 square feet per acre).
The USGS collects discharge data along the Scioto River 1.2 miles north of
Higby, which is north of Waverly. Average discharge over 58 years is 4,551
cfs. The river is an average of 375 feet wide. The length within the target
distance limit is 11.75 miles (62,000 feet).
Lake White, a 337-acre lake, was built in the 1930s. The lake is periodically
dredged to maintain its depth profile of 25 to 30 feet in the middle and 10 to 15
feet nearer the shore. The dredge spoils have been placed at the upper end of
the lake where Pee Pee Creek enters, near the upper boat landing, and along
the peninsula in the middle of the lake. The distance from Wintergreen Run to
the spillway is 2.1 miles.
4.2 Targets
4.2.1 Drinking Water Threat
According to the county health authorities, there are no drinking water intakes along
the Scioto River. Before the Lake White water supply system was installed, some
people may have drawn drinking water directly from Lake White rather than using
shallow wells. This is no longer done.
The county agricultural agent said that, while there are a number of irrigation wells in
the area, there are no irrigation intakes along Pee Pee Creek or the Scioto River.
23
-------
Surface Water Pathway
Lake White is itself a State park and a major water recreation area. The on-land
portion of the State park at the southern end of Lake White maintains a boat launch
and a swimming beach.
Author's Notes
The floodplains around Lake White and Wintergreen Run are defined by the
following elevations:
Annual Up to 580 MSL
10-year Up to 590 MSL
100-year Up to 600 MSL
500-year Up to 610 MSL
4.2.2 Human Food Chain Threat
Lake White is stocked with sockeye, also known as red salmon. The State fisheries
biologist has estimated the yield or catch for Lake White to be 45 pounds per acre.
This above-average catch is due to the stocking with salmon.
During the SI, a fisherman was observed casting into Lake White from the lake shore
near the bridge across Wintergreen Run. He said that people catch pan fish and
salmon near the bridge over Wintergreen Run in the spring and the fall.
The State biologist stated that the yield for Pee Pee Creek is probably about 5 pounds
per acre and that the yield for the Scioto River is 11 pounds per acre.
4.2.3 Environmental Threat
Wintergreen Run passes through wetland at its confluence with Lake White. Also,
local wetlands have developed along the shore east of the mouth of Wintergreen Run.
The entirety of Lake White is a managed fishery, a State-designated area for
maintenance of aquatic life, and a State park. A portion of the lake along the
southeastern shore opposite the state park has also been listed in the State's Clean
Lakes Program as a critical habitat for a lake fishery under Section 314 of the Clean
Water Act. The lake is stocked with sockeye. The terrestrial portion of the State
park has a nature trail and a small nature center. No hunting is allowed in the park
but it is not specifically designated as a wildlife management area. Wetlands in Lake
White also exist near the mouth of Pee Pee Creek as it enters the lake and, locally,
east of the dam. This frontage is indicated on the USGS topographic map (Reference
3). The total wetland frontage on Lake White has been estimated to be 5,050 feet.
24
-------
Surface Water Pathway
Pee Pee Creek is being opened for canoe access by the State and the City of Waverly.
Pee Pee Creek and the adjacent stretch of the Scioto River is considered a critical
habitat for the survival of the Blue Sucker, which is listed as an endangered species by
the State of Ohio because of over fishing. Pee Pee Creek has no designation under
Section 305(a) of the Clean Water Act. About 2,000 feet of wetland frontage lies
below the spillway along Pee Pee Creek.
Portions of the Scioto River are known to contain the Blue Sucker. The Scioto River
has been designated as a managed fishery and has been restricted for use as industrial
waste discharge receiving water under Section 305(a) of the Clean Water Act. About
44,000 feet of wetland frontage has been identified by State Department of Natural
Resources personnel between the levees and the main river bed along the Scioto River
and along major bends and oxbows in the river. This frontage is shown on Reference
3.
4.3 Sample Locations
The onsite and nearby soil sediment and water sample locations are shown on Figure
2. The more distant sediment samples are shown on Figure 11 on the next page.
Soil samples 2 and 3 were taken up-gradient from the sources to document the
background in the intermittent stream bed. No alternative up-gradient sources
of contamination have been identified.
Soil sample 15 was taken in the intermittent stream bed to document the extent
of Source 2 and to show whether hazardous substances from other sources are
migrating toward surface water.
Background water and sediment samples were taken from Wintergreen Run 400
feet upstream of the confluence with the intermittent stream (water sample ST-
A and sediment sample 6).
Aqueous samples to test the hypothesis of an observed release to surface water
were taken at ST-B, just below the confluence of Wintergreen Run and the
intermittent stream, and at the mouth of Wintergreen Run in Lake White (ST-B
and ST-C).
Downstream sediment samples were also taken at the following locations:
~ 16: Just below the intermittent stream
~ 7: Along the wetland frontage just below the bridge over Wintergreen Run
~ 8: At the edge of the wetland where Wintergreen Run enters Lake White
~ 19: In Lake White about 3,500 feet toward the spillway
20: In Pee Pee Creek just below the spillway
25
-------
Surface Water Pathway
Figure 11: Site Map (Surface Water Sampling Locations)
26
-------
Surface Water Pathway
A background sediment sample for Lake White was taken from the dredge spoils in
the western branch of the lake toward the upper boat launch.
A fish tissue sample was obtained from a local fisherman who was observed casting
into Lake White from the wetland at the confluence of Wintergreen Run and Lake
White. He said that he had caught the pumpkin seed sunfish in the lake at this
location.
4.4 Analytical Results
The analytical results are found in Reference 6 and are summarized here.
4.4.1 Sediment Samples
Hazardous
Substance
Chromium
PCB 1254
TCE
DCE
Background
Samples
Units
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppb
SQL
0.02
80
5
5
6s
26
nd
nd
nd
Drdg.
na
nd
na
na
16s
4000
33000
37000
nd
Downstream Samples
7s
55
8000
5300
1000
8s
42
9000
1500
70
19s
na
5000
nd
nd
20s
na
nd
nd
nd
Attribution
Samples
2s
13
nd
nd
nd
3s
16
nd
nd
nd
na = not analyzed for, nd = analysis performed but not detected.
4.4.2 Surface Water Samples
Substance Units SQL Background
ST-A
TCE fjQ/L 5 nd
Downstream
ST-B ST-C
300 18
4.4.3 Fish Tissue Sample
The fish tissue sample showed 23,000 ppb of PCB 1254. The SQL for the analysis was 80 ppb.
4.5 Conclusions
Author's Notes
Conclusions to be developed.
27
-------
Surface Water Pathway
28
-------
Air Pathway
5. Air Pathway
5.1 Physical Conditions
Volatile organic substances were found in surface samples at the buried impoundment
(sample 9s, Reference 6), in the waste pile (sample 10s), and in the area of
contaminated soil where the truck is reported to have overturned (sample 17s). High
but localized levels of hydrocarbons were detected by FID/PID in the area of
contaminated soil.
Metals or organic substances likely to be entrained as paniculate were found in the top
foot of soil at the contaminated soil in the drainage ditch (sample 12s, 14s, and 15s),
at the waste pile (sample 10s), and at the area of contaminated soil where the truck is
reported to have overturned (sample 17s). No surficial contamination, however, was
found is samples 13s or 18s taken near the waste pile.
No air samples were taken during the site inspection.
5.2 Targets
A survey of the number of residences within the 4-mile target distance limit has been
completed. Because of the age of the USGS topographic map, the number of homes
with 1A mile was field-verified during the SI. The number of homes by distance
category is :
On a Source 0
>0 to 1/4 mile 26
> 1/4 to 1/2 mile 23
>1/2 to 1 mile 164
> 1 to 2 miles 475
> 2 to 3 miles 1130
> 3 to 4 miles 1030
The number of persons per household in Pike County, reported in the 1990 Census, is
2.8.
All sensitive environments identified within the 4-mile target distance limit lie along
the surface water hazardous substance migration path or the Scioto River. The
acreage of wetlands is indicated on the USGS topographic map (Reference 3).
5.3 Conclusions
Author's Notes
Conclusions to be developed.
29
-------
So/7 Exposure Pathway
Figure 12: Quickstep Properties
100 feet
-H
Sample A
300 ppb PCBs
Sample B
NDPCBs
SQL =125 ppb
Sample C
210 ppb PCBs
(The Quickstep Estate)
Sample D
950 ppb PCBs
LPQ Auto Parts Site
30
-------
Soil Exposure Pathway
6. Soil Exposure Pathway
Author's Notes
In a 1992 flood, water backed up from Wintergreen run into the intermittent stream
and into the residential drainage system for the three houses directly north of the
site via the culvert under the road. Because of the concerns raise by the finding of
hazardous substances, particularly PCBs, in the intermittent stream at sampling
point 15, five surface soil samples were taken from the residential properties and
analyzed for PCBs.
Samples A, B, C, D, and E were taken on two of the residential properties directly
north of the site.
6.1 Soil Sample Locations
The locations of the surficial soil sample are shown on Figure 2 on page 9 and Figure
12 on the opposite page.
Surficial soil samples were taken at each of the five sources at the site:
samples 9s, 10s, 11s, 12s, 14s, 15s, and 17s.
Samples Is and 2s were taken within the property boundary of the residence
directly west of the site.
Sample 4s was taken within the property boundary of the trailer park and within
200 feet of the 14 trailers.
Samples 5s and 18s were taken offsite on the north and southwest sides of the
facility and were intended to serve as backgrounds.
Sample 3s was taken as an attribution sample (background) from the
intermittent stream bed for the purposes of the surface water pathway.
The surficial sample at location 13 was taken to see if there was evidence of
wind entrainment of contaminated particulate from the waste pile.
6.2 Soil Sample Results
All sample results, except for the five recent samples for PCBs, are summarized in
Reference 6.
Chlordane at 130 ppb was found on the property of the residence directly to the west
of the site. Chlordane was also found at high concentrations onsite in sample 17s and
in the intermittent stream bed in sample 15s.
31
-------
Soil Exposure Pathway
No hazardous substances were detected in sample 4s on the property of the trailer
park.
Author's Notes
The results for the five recent samples from the property of the two homes north of
the site showed the presence of PCB 1254. The SQL for the samples are 125 ppb
and the data was unqualified. The results are:
A 300 ppb
B none detected
C 210 ppb
D 950 ppb
E 285 ppb
6.3 Targets
Author's Notes
Distance rings for the air pathway have not been modified for the soil exposure
pathway to reflect area of contamination rather than sources. However, data for the
air pathway appears to be good enough to estimate targets for soil exposure. The
three additional homes to the north, directly across from the site, need to be
considered for soil exposure targets.
6.4 Conclusions
Author's Notes
Conclusions to be developed.
32
-------
References
Reference 2: SCDM
(Relevant Pages Only)
33
-------
References
34
-------
References
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
Hazardous Substance Benchmarks
SOIL PATHWAY
Substance Name
Acetone
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol, 2-
Chromium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Cyanide
Dichloroethene, 1,1-
Dichloroehtylenc, cis-1,2-
Dichlorochtylcnc, trans- 1,2-
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Dimcthyl phenol, 2,4-
Ethyl acetate
Iron
Lead
PCBs
Phenol
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc
CAS Number
000067-64-1
007429-90-5
007440-38-2
007440-39-3
000071-43-2
000057-74-9
000108-90-7
000074-87-3
000095-57-8
007440-47-3
016065-83-1
018540-29-9
000057-12-5
000075-35-4
000156-59-2
000156-60-5
000120-83-2
000105-67-9
000141-78-6
015438-31-0
007439-92-1
001336-36-3
000108-95-2
000079-01-6
000075-01-4
007440-66-6
Reference Dose
Screen Cone
(rag/kg)
5.8E+04
1.7E+02
4.1E+04
3.5E+01
1.2E+04
2.9E+03
2.9E+03
5.8E+05
2.9E+03
1.2E+04
5.2E+03
5.8E+03*
1.2E+04
1.7E+03
1.2E+04
5.2E+05
3.5E+05
1.7E+05*
Cancer Risk
Screen Cone
(rag/kg)
...
3.3E-01
2.0E+01
4.5E-01
4.5E+01
...
...
9.7E-01
7.6E-02
5.3E+01
3.1E-01
Indicates difference between previous version of chemical data (DEC91) and current version of chemical data.
35
-------
References
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
Hazardous Substance Benchmarks
AIR PATHWAY
GROUND WATER PATHWAY
Reference Dose Cancer Risk
NAAQS/NESHAPS Screen Cone Screen Cone
Reference Dose Cancer Riak
MCL/MCLG Screen Cone Screen Cone
Substance Name
Acetone
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol, 2-
Chromium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Cyanide
Dichlorocthcnc, 1,1-
Dichloroehtylene, cis-1,2-
Dichloroehtylene, trans-1,2-
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Dimethyl phenol, 2,4-
Ethyl acetate
Iron
Lead
PCBs
Phenol
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
CAS Number (ug/m3)
000067-64-1
007429-90-5
007440-38-2
007440-39-3
000071-43-2
000057-74-9
000108-90-7
000074-87-3
000095-57-8
007440-47-3
016065-83-1
018540-29-9
000057-12-5
000075-35^1
000156-59-2
000156-60-5
000120-83-2
000105-67-9
000141-78-6
015438-31-0
007439-92-1 1.5E-KX)
001336-36-3
000108-95-2
000079-01-6
000075-01-4
(mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/L)
2.3E-07 5.0E-02
...» ... 2.0E+00*
1.2E-04 5.0E-03
2.7E-06 2.0E-3*
...*
5.6E-04
...
l.OE-01*
...*
...» 8.3E-08
2.0E-01*
2.0E-05* 7.0E-03
...» ... 7.0E-02*
l.OE-01*
...
...*
5.0E-04*
5.8E-04* 5.0E-03
1.2E05* 2.0E-03
(mg/L)
3.5E+00
1.1E-02
2.5E+00
...
2.1E-03
7.0E-01
...
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
3.5E+01
1.8E-01
7.0E-01
3.2E-01
3.5E-01*
7.0E-01
1.1E-01
7.0E-01
3.2E+OI
2.1E+01
...
(mg/L)
...
...
2.0E-05
...
1.2E-03
2.7E-05
...
2.7E-03
...
...
...
...
...
5.8E-05
...
...
...
...
...
4.5E-06
...
3.2E-03
1.8E-05
* Indicates difference between previous version of chemical data (DEC91) and current version of chemical data.
36
-------
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
Hazardous Substance Benchmarks
DRINKING WATER
SURFACE WATER PATHWAY
FOOD CHAIN
ENVIRONMENTAL
Substance Name
Acetone
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol, 2-
Chromium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Cyanide
Dichloroethenc, 1,1-
Dichloroehtylene, c is- 1,2-
Dkhloroehtylene. trans- 1,2-
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Dimethyl phenol, 2,4-
Ethyl acetate
Iron
Lead
PCBs
Phenol
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc
CAS Number
000067-64-1
007429-90-5
007440-38-2
007440-39-3
000071-43-2
000057-74-9
000108-90-7
000074-87-3
000095-57-8
007440-47-3
016065-83-1
018540-29-9
000057-12-5
000075-35-4
000156-59-2
000156-60-5
000120-83-2
000105-67-9
000141-78-6
015438-31-0
007439-92-1
001336-36-3
000108-95-2
000079-01-6
000075-01-4
007440-66-6
MCL/MCLG
(mg/L)
5.0E-02
2.0E+00
5.0E-03
2.0E-03*
l.OE-01*
2.0E-01*
7.0E-03
7.0E-02*
l.OE-01*
...*
5.0E-04*
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
Reference Dose Cancer Risk
Screen Cone Screen Cone
(mg/L) (mg/L)
3.5E+00
1.1E-02 2.0E-05
2.5E+00
1.2E-03
2.1E-03 2.7E-05
7.0E-01
2.7E-03
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
3.5E+01
1.8E-01
7.0E-01
3.2E-01 5.8E-05
3.5E-01*
7.0E-01
1.1E-01
7.0E-01
3.2E+01
...
4.5E-06
2.1E+01
3.2E-03
1.8E-05
1.1E+01*
Reference Dose Cancer Risk
FDAAL Screen Cone Screen Cone
(ppm) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
1.3E+02
3.9E-01 7.4E-04
9.1E+01
4.5E-02
3.0E-OI 7.8E-02 l.OE-03
2.6E+OI
l.OE-01
6.5E+00
6.5E+00
1.3E+03
6.5E+00
2.6E+01
1.2E+01 2.2E-03
I.3E+01*
2.6E+01
3.9E+00
2.6E+01
1.2E+03
...
... ... ...
1.7E-04
7.8E+02
1.2E-01
6.8E-04
3.9E+02*
AWOC/AALAC
Freshwater Saltwater
(ug/L) (ug/L)
1.9E+02 3.6E+01
4.3E-03 4.0E-03
...
...
...
2.1E+02 2.IE+02
1.1E+01 5.0E+01
5.2E+00 l.OE+00
...
...
l.OE+03 l.OE+03
3.2E+00 5.6E+00
1.4E-02 3.0E-02
...
...
1.1E+02 8.6E+01
o
p
(o
* Indicates difference between previous version of chemical data (DEC91) and current version of chemical data.
-------
HAZARD RANUNO SYSTEM
Hazardous SubMancc Factor V.I
UCI
Orouid Wiler Mobility
Liquid
Subataocc Name
Accloac
AlMMiram
Anonic
Barium
Bcueoe
Chlurdaoc
Chlorobeozeoc
Chtaronclhane
CMoropacnal. 2-
CWamium
Chromium (HQ
Chromium (VI)
Cyaaioc
Dkhloraetheoc, l.l-
DkUoroehtylcac. cii-1,2-
DkUoncbtylcac. lr.oi-1.2-
Dichloropbcool 2 4-
Dimethyl phenol. 2.4-
Elhyl acetate
Ira*
Lead
PCBe
Phenol
Trichloroethylcae
Vfayl Chloride
CAS Number
000067-64-1
007429-90-5
007440- Ji-2
007440- 39-3
000071-43-2
000057-74-9
OOOlOt-90-7
000074-17-3
000095-57-1
007440-47-3
OI6063-U-I
011540-29-9
000057-12-5
000075-35-4
000156-59-2
000156-60-5
000120-13-2
000105-67-9
OOOI4I-7S-6
OIS43S-31-0
OU7439-92-I
001336-30-3
000101-95-2
000079-01-6
000075-01-4
Toxic ity
10
10000
10
100
10000
100
10
100
10000
1*
10000
100
100
100
100
1000
100
1
10000
10000
1
10
10000
Kara
1 OE-00
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
IOE-00*
I.OEHX)*
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
I.OE<00
1.0E<00
1.0E*00
1.0E«00
1.0E«00
I.OE<00
IOEKW
I.OE«00*
l.OEHX)
I.OE«00
1.0E*00
NooJUnt
1 DE-CO
1.0E-O2
1 OE-02
1 OE-O)
IOE-04
1 OE-02
IOEHX)
1. OE-02
1 OE-02
I.OE«00*
1 OE-02*
1 OE-02
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
I.OE-O2
I.OE-O2
l.OEHX)
1 OE-02
1 OE-02
1.0E-O4*
l.OEHX)
1. OE-02
1. OE-02
Noo-Uquid
Kim
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
1 OEHX)
l.OEHW
2.0E-O3
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
10EHX)
NOO-KJIH
l.OEHX)
1. OE-02
1. OE-02
l.OEHX)
2.0E-07
1 OE-02
l.OEHX)
1. OE-02
1. OE-02
2.0E-05* 2.0E-05*
___
IOEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
2.0E-03
1 OE-02
IOEHX)
l.OEHX)
1 .OE-02
1 OE-02
l.OEHX)
1 OE-02
2.0E-05
2 OE-03* 2 OE-07*
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
l.OEHX)
1. OE-02
1. OE-02
Pcllitlcocc
Rivcc
0.4000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.4000
1.0000
0.0007*
00007
0.4000
1.0000
0.4000*
1.0000
0.4000
0.4000
04000
0.4000
1.0000
10000
04000
10000
loooo
10000
i.oooo
0.4000
0.0007
Ukc
0.0700
10000
1.0000
1.0000
0.4000
1 0000
.0700*
0.0700
1.0000*
1.0000
0.0700*
1.0000
00700
i.oooo
1.0000
I.OOOO
0.4000
I.OOOO
0.4000
i.oooo
i.oooo
I.OOOO
0.4000
I.OOOO
0.0700
Bioaccimuliiioo
Food Chain
Frcih
0.5
500
5.0
0.5
5000.0
50000.0
50.0
5.0
500.0
5.0
50000.0*
5.0
0.5
50.0
5.0
50.0
500.0
5000
0.5
0.5
500
50000.0
5.0
50.0
5.0
Silt
0.5
50.0
500.0
0.5
5000.0
500000
50.0
5.0
500.0
500.0
50000.0*
500.0
0.5
50.0
5.0
50.0
500.0
500.0
0.5
O.S
50000
50000.0
5.0
50.0
5.0
Envirattc
Freah
0.5
500.0
50.0
0.5
500.0
50000.0
».0«
5.0
500.0
5.0
50000.0*
5.0
0.5
50.0
50
50.0
500.0
500.0
0.5
05
5000.0
50000.0
5.0
50.0
5.0
olal Ecotoxicily
Sail
05
500.0
500.0
0.5
50000.0
500000.0
50.0*
5.0
500.0
500.0
50000.0*
500.0
0.5
5O.O
50
50.0
500.0
500.0
05
O.S
5000.0
50000.0
5.0
50.0
50
Frcih
100
10
10
1
10000
10000
1000
1
100
10000
10
100
1000
10
1*
100*
100
1*
10
looo
10000
10000*
100*
Sail
1
10
100
1
10000
10000
1000
1
100
10000*
10
100
looo
1
1*
100*
100
I*
10
1000
10000
100
10
Ail Oat
Mi{nUoa
17
NA
NA
NA
17
6
17
17
17*
NA
NA
NA
NA
17
17
17
||
II
17
NA
NA
II*
II
17
17
Air Oai
Mobility
I.OOOO
NA
NA
NA
I.OOOO
0.0020
I.OOOO
I.OOOO
I.OOOO
NA
NA
NA
NA
I.OOOO
I.OOOO
I.OOOO
0.2000
0.2000
I.OOOO
NA
NA
i.oooo*
I.OOOO
I.OOOO
I.OOOO
References
e
CL
o
Yci No
No Yet
No Yet
No Yet
Yu No
Yci Yci
Yc. No
Ye« No
Yci No
No Yci
No Yci
No Yci
No Yci
Yci No
Yci No
Yci No
Yci Yci
Yci Yei
Yci No
No Yu
No Yci
Yei* No*
Yci No
Yci No
Yci No
007440-66-6
10 IOEH» 1.OE-02
2.0E-01 2.0E-03
1.0000
' Micalc* difference between previoua vcnion of chemical data (DEC91) and current vcnioa of chemical data
I.OOOO
5000 500000
500.0
50000.0
10
too
NA
NA
No Yci
-------
References
Reference 6:
Summary of Sampling Results
39
-------
References
40
-------
References
Summary of Sample Results
Trainer's Note
Summary tables of key sampling results should be included in the text of the SI
report. In those tables, never mix ppm and ppb within the same table. For the
references, attach the laboratory report, the QA/QC summary, and the chain of
custody.
Soil Sample Results1
Substance
SQL
Soil Sample #1
House W of Site
m d
Soil Sample #2
Intermittent Stream NW
m
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
16000
22
22000
20
0.7
35
15000
27
19000
7
0.1
32
19000
19
23000
8
0.3
38
18000
16
23000
23
1.2
15
Acetone 10
Benzene 5
Chlordane 80
Chlorobenzene 5
Chloromethane 10
Chlorophenol 330
Dichlorobenzene 330
Dichloroethene 5
Dichlorophenol 330
2,4-dimethylphenol 330
Ethyl Acetate 10
Phenol 330
PCB1254 80
Trichloroethylene 5
Vinyl Chloride 10
130
1 Metals are reported in ppm, organics in ppb.
"-" = analysis performed but none detected,
" " = analysis not performed.
s = 0 - 1 ft deep,
m = 5 - 6 ft deep,
d = 10- 11 ft deep.
41
-------
References
Substance
SQL
Soil Sample 13
Intermittent Stream
s m d
Soil Sample #4
Trailer Park to South
s m d
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
Acetone
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethene
Dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Ethyl Acetate
Phenol
PCB 1254
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Substance
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
Acetone
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethene
Dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Ethyl Acetate
Phenol
PCB 1 254
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
10
5
80
5
10
330
330
5
330
330
10
330
80
5
10
SQL
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
10
5
80
5
10
330
330
5
330
330
10
330
80
5
10
14500
13
25000
29
0.5
33
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .
-
.-
-
-
-
Soil Sample #5
North of Site
s m d
16800 12500 14000
27 24 28
26000 23000 24000
22 7 4
0.8 0.9 0.6
24 29 32
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
-
.
.
.
.
15400
19
19000
12
0.1
33
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13800
23
18000
9
0.7
36
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17000
25
21000
7
0.5
29
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Soil Sample #9
Surface Impoundment
s
17000
22
34000
13
0.3
26
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
50000
-
m
23000
19
20000
10
0.5
22
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d
19000
25
23000
8
0.2
19
.
-
-
-
300
-
-
6000
-
-
-
-
-
20000
-
42
-------
Substance
SQL
Soil Sample #10
Waste Pile
m d
References
Soil Sample #11
Buried Trench
m d
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
Acetone
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethene
Dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Ethyl Acetate
Phenol
PCB 1 254
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
10
5
80
5
10
330
330
5
330
330
10
330
80
5
10
30000
48
34000
23
0.9
140
.
350
-
575
-
-
-
-
200
-
-
-
-
-
19000
27
30000
9
0.5
33
.
-
-
-
700
-
-
12500
-
-
-
-
-
35000
-
20000
28
25000
10
0.8
27
.
-
-
550
1400
200
400
18000
-
630
-
-
-
48000
-
19000
22
23000
8
0.5
28
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Soil Sample #12
Drainage Ditch
Substance
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
Acetone
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethene
Dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Ethyl Acetate
Phenol
PCB 1 254
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
SQL
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
10
5
80
5
10
330
330
5
330
330
10
330
80
5
10
s
35000
15000
40000
2000
1400
800
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m
29000
7000
32000
270
10
52
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d
20000
100
18000
7
0.4
30
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
s
15000
27
40000
9
0.5
38
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32000
85
35000
65
1.8
32
800
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
400
-
5000
600
-
-
-
Soil Sample #13
of Buried
m
17000
20
23000
3
0.7
30
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trench
d
12000
23
23000
17
0.8
29
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
10000
-
-
-
650
-
38000
-
43
-------
References
Substance
SQL
Soil Sample #14
Drainage Ditch
s m d
Soil Sample #15
Intermittent Stream
s m d
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
Acetone
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethene
Dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Ethyl Acetate
Phenol
PCB 1 254
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
10
5
80
5
10
330
330
5
330
330
10
330
80
5
10
13000
10000
38000
3000
1100
300
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20300
2000
32000
35
3
38
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16800
65
23000
6
0.8
28
.
-
-
-
-
- '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11800
8000
32000
7000
300
100
_
.
15000
-
-
-
-
15000
-
-
-
-
51000
75000
-
Soil Sample #17
Substance
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
Acetone
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethene
Dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Ethyl Acetate
Phenol
PCB 1254
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
SQL
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
10
5
80
5
10
330
330
5
330
330
10
330
80
5
10
s
15000
23
23000
23
0.5
35
.
-
250000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
180000
200000
2000
Spill
m
14500
24
26000
5
0.3
23
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Area II
d
17000
19
30000
7
0.8
31
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
s
14800
19
23000
8
0.7
22
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Soil Sample #18
W of Waste Pile
m d
17600 12340
23 21
14000 21500
5 3
0.4 0.4
32 29
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
44
-------
References
Sediment Sample Results2
Substance SQL 6s
Chlordane
Dichloroethene
PCB 1254
Trichloroethylene
7s
8s
16s
Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Tin
Zinc
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
19000
26
20000
28
1.0
33
18500
55
22000
19
1.2
38
19000
42
20500
22
0.9
39
17000
4000
35000
60
0.9
33
80
5
80
5
1000 70
8000 9000
5300 1500
33000
37000
Substance
SQL
19s
20s Dredge
Chlordane
Dichloroethene
PCB 1254
Trichloroethylene
80
5
80 5000
5
Metals are reported in ppm, organics in ppb.
"-" = analysis performed but none detected.
" " = analysis not performed.
s = 0 - 1 ft deep,
m = 5 - 6 ft deep,
d = 10- 11 ft deep.
45
-------
References
Surface Water Sample Results3
Substance SQL ST-A ST-B ST-C
Acetone 10
Benzene 5 - - -
Chlordane 0.05
Chlorobenzene 5 ...
Chloromethane 10
Chlorophenol 10
Dichlorobenzene 10
Dichloroethene 5
Dichlorophenol 10
2,4-dimethylphenol 10 - - -
Ethyl Acetate 10
Phenol 10
PCB1254 1
Trichloroethylene 5 - 300 18
Vinyl Chloride 10
3 Analytical results are reported in /ig/L.
"-" = analysis performed but none detected.
46
-------
References
Ground Water Sample Results4
Substance SQL MW-1
MW-3s
PW-2
RP-3
RP-5
Acetone 10
Benzene 5
Chlordane 0.05
Chlorobenzene 5
Chloromethane 10
Chlorophenol 10
Dichlorobenzene 10
Dichloroethene 5
Dichlorophenol 10
2,4-dimethylphenol 10
Ethyl Acetate 10
Phenol 10
PCB1254 1
Trichloroethylene 5
Vinyl Chloride 10
70
70
23
10
2100
18
0.3
4.7
5700
1300
7800
4 All wells shown on Figure 10 were sampled.
No contamination was found in MW-2, MW-3d, PW-1, PW-10, RP-1, RP-2, or
RP-4.
Analytical results are reported in jtg/1.
"-" = analysis performed but none detected.
47
------- |