United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-92/217
September 1992
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
American Chemical Service,
-------
~
I>
NOTICE.
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain materi8J which supplement. but adds no ful1her applicable information to
the content of the document. All suppMtmentaI material is, however. con1BnId In the adm81istratiYe record
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTA nON 11. REPORT NO. 1 ~ 3. Recipient'a Acceealon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-92/217
4. 1111e and Subdtle S. Report D81e
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/30/92
American Chemical Services, IN
6.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author~s) 8. l'Ierforming Organization RepI. No.
9. Perlonning Orgainiaion Nalllll end Adelre... 10. Projec:llTe8klWortI Unit No.
11. ConIrIIc1(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization NaIIIII and AdcIre.. 13. Type 01 ReportS Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Notee
PB93-964125
, 6. Abstrect (Umlt: 200 worde)
The 36-acre American Chemical Services (ACS) site is a chemical manufacturing facility
in Griffith, Indiana, which was formerly involved in solvent recovery. Land use in the
area is predominantly residential and industrial with a wetlands area located north of
the Chesapeake and Ohio railway on the west of the site. Nine upper aquifer wells and
16 lower aquifer wells are located within 1/2 mile of the site, with area residents
using most of the lower aquifer wells for drinking water. From the late 1960's to
early 1970's, ACS manufactured barium naphtherate, brominated vegetable oil, lacquers
and paints, liquid soldering fluid, and polyethylene solutions in polybutene. Two
onsite incinerators burned still bottoms, nonreclaimable materials generated from the
site, and offsite wastes; however, in the 1970's, the incinerators were dismantled, the
shells were cut up and scrapped, and the burners and blowers remain onsite. From 1970
to 1975, batch manufacturing expanded, and additives, lubricants, detergents, and
soldering flux were manufactured. In 1980, a 31-acre part of the property to the west
of the offsite containment area was sold to the City of Griffith to expand the City's
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis L Deacriptol8
Record of Decision - American Chemical Services, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (P AHs, PCBs,
phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Idandflera/Open.Ended Tenns
c. COSA 11 Reid/Group
18. A vallsbllity Statement 19. SecurIty Cl81111 (This Report) 21. No. 01 Peges
None 90
I 20. Security CI- (This Page) 22. PrIce
None
. 27214-77)
50272.101
(See ANSI Z39.18)
See Instructions on Retterse
(Fonnelly ~)
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-92/217
American Chemical Services, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
municipal landfill. Solvent recovery operations continued until 1990 when ACS lost
interim status under RCRA regulations because of failure to obtain required insurance
policies. Three identified disposal areas on the ACS property are the Onsite Containment
Area, where approximately 400 drums containing sludge and semi-solids of unknown types
were reportedly disposed of; the Still Bottoms, Treatment Lagoon #1, and adjacent areas,
which received still bottoms from the solvent recovery process, including a pond and
lagoon that were taken out of service in 1972, drained, and filled with an estimated
3,200 drums containing sludge materials; and the Offsite Containment Area and
Kapica/pazmey property, -which was used as a waste disposal area and received wastes that
included onsite incinerator ash, general refuse, a tank truck containing solidified
paint, and an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 drums that were reportedly punctured prior to
disposal. Disposal practices in the Offsite Containment Area ceased in 1975. This ROD
addresses a final remedy for the buried drums, as well as waste, contaminated soil,
debris, and ground water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics, including PCBs, PAHs and phenols; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavation and offsite incineration
of approximately 400 intact buried drums, decontaminating and disposing of miscellaneous
debris offsitei treating contaminated sojl using in-situ vapor extraction; conducting an
in-situ vapor extraction pilot study for Onsite Area buried waste; excavating and
treating buried waste or PCB-contaminated soil onsite using low temperature thermal
treatment, with vapor emission control during excavation, and possible immobilization of
inorganics after treatment; depositing the treated residuals that meet health-based
levels onsite and covering the area with a soil cover; pumping and onsite treatment of
contaminated ground water along with wash water from the decontamination processes and
condensate from the soil treatment processes using a method to be determined during the
RD phase, with onsite discharge of the treated water to surface water and wetlands;
continuing to evaluate and monitoring wetlands, with mitigation of affected wetlands if
necessary; controlling and monitoring air emissions from excavation and treatment
processes; conducting long-term ground water monitoring; and implementing, to the extent
possible, institutional controls including deed restrictions, and site access
restrictions such as fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action
ranges from $37,800,000 to $46,800,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $17,670,000
for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are based on risk-based levels and include benzene
1.0 mg/kg; toluene 167-5,000 mg/kg; xylenes 867-26,000 mg/kg; PCBs 10 mg/kg (with lO-inch
soil cover); chromium 47-1,400 mg/kg; and lead 500 mg/kg. The lead clean-up level for
soil is based on the Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at
Superfund Sites and the PCB clean-up level for soil is based on TSCA policy for
unrestricted access. Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are based on
risk-based levels, SDWA MCLs, and include benzene 5 ug/l; PCE 5 ug/l; PCBs 0.06 ug/l; and
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
American Chemical services
Griffith, Indiana
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document represents the selected remedial action
for the American Chemical Services (ACS) site located in
Griffith, Indiana. This action was chosen in accordance with the
comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to .the extent
. practicable, with the National oil and Hazardous Substances
contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
Administrative Record for this site.
The state of Indiana concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the'
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Ground water pumping and treatment system to dewater the
site and to contain the contaminant plume with subsequent
discharge of the treated ground water to surface water and
wetlands;
Excavation of approximately 400 drums in the On-site
containment Area for offsite incineration;
Excavation of buried waste materials and treatment by low-
temperature thermal treatment (LTTT);
On-site treatment or off-site disposal of treatment
condensate;
Vapor emission control during excavation and possible
immobilization of inorganic contaminants after LTTT;
Off-site disposal of miscellaneous debris;
In-situ vapor extraction pilot study of buried waste in On-
-------
2
In-situ vapor extraction of contaminated soils;
continued evaluation and monitoring of wetlands and, if
necessary, remediation;
Long term ground water monitoring;
Fencing the site and possible implementation of deed and
access restrictions and deed notices; and
Private well sampling with possible well closures or ground
water use advisories.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies which employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted at
least every five years after commencement of the remedial action
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide ade ate
P:2~:h~~ ,;;;;h and t:;;:;:i
Date ". Valdas V. Adam s
Regional Admi strator,
-------
3
DECISION SUMMARY
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICES
I.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The American Chemical Services Superfund site (ACS), located at
420 S. Colfax Ave., Griffith, Indiana, (Fig. 1) includes ACS
property (19 acres), Pazmey Corp. property (formerly Kapica Drum,
Inc, now owned by Darija Djurovic.i two acres) and the inactive
portion of the Griffith Municipal Landfill (approximately 15
acres) (Fig. 2). The ACS Superfund site includes all these
properties. ACS began as a solvent recovery facility in May
1955. ACS ceased solvent reclaiming activities in 1990 after
losing interim status under RCRA. ACS currently operates as a
chemical manufacturer.
Land around the site is used for single family residences and
industrial purposes. The site is bordered on the east and
northeast by Colfax Avenue. The Chesapeake and Ohio railway
bisects the site in a northwest-southeast direction, between the
fenced On-site Area and the Off-site Area. On the west and
northwest, south of the Chesapeake and Ohio railway, the site is
bordered by the abandoned Erie and Lackawanna railway and the
active portion of the Griffith Municipal Landfill. North of the
Chesapeake and Ohio railway, the site is bordered on the west by
wetland areas. The northern boundary of the site is formed by
the Grand Trunk railway.
The site is underlain by unconsolidated glacial deposits
approximately 130 feet thick. The deposits have been divided
into an upper sand and gravel aquifer, an intermediate clay, a
lower sand and gravel aquifer, and a lower clay till directly
overlying Devonian Detroit River and Traverse System Limestones.
Using U.S. EPA guidelines for ground water classification, both
the upper and lower aquifers are currently used or potentially
available for drinking water or other beneficial uses and are
therefore considered Class II for the purposes of this remedial
action. Surface water runoff is generally to the west and south.
Surface water runoff appears to be confined to the site by
drainage to the wetlands and subsequent infiltration. There
appears to be no direct connection between site surface water
drainage and local streams, however, ground water does discharge
to the wetlands and the wetlands are ultimately drained by Turkey
Creek, approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the site.
The nearest residents to the site are located approximately 150
feet east of the Off-site Area. The nearest potential receptors
to potentially contaminated ground water through ingestion and to
volatile compound emissions through inhalation are employees of
the businesses located approximately 100 feet east, on Colfax
Avenue. To the south and west of the site, the nearest potential
-------
~uuuu
o t~(J
Gre"CtJj
1tI,,* 1111
i1
:I:
I
~
L______---
r--- ----
LOCATION
. .0 I A . A
GrIfIth
.LandfID
-------
Abandoned -
I Ra-road Track
Easement -..
...",.-
.'
Figure 2, Site Map
-------
4
and occupants of the residential development approximately 800
feet west of the site boundary. The nearest potential receptors
to the north are occupants of the industrial park on Main street
(approximately '1500 feet north of the site boundary).
Ground water contamination has migrated off-site but has not
infiltrated local residential wells used for drinking water.
Approximately 70 private wells were identified in the immediate
vicinity. 9 upper aquifer wells and 16 lower aquifer wells are
located within 1/2 mile of the site. The well survey conducted
during the remedial investigation found upper aquifer waters to
be nonpotable and used by residents for lawn maintenance or other
domestic purposes other than consumption. The upper aquifer
,residential wells were not sampled as part of the remedial
investigation. Investigative monitoring wells were installed to
evaluate upper aquifer contamination. Most of the 16 lower
aquifer wells are used for drinking water. Samples were obtained
from 10 lower aquifer private wells during the remedial
investigation. with the exception of elevated lead levels found
in an unused industrial supply well, no contaminants of concern
were found in any lower aquifer water supply well~
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In the late 1960s and early 1970S, small batches of chemicals
were manufactured at ACS. Specific chemicals manufactured
included barium naphtherate, brominated vegetable oil, lacquers
and paints, liquid soldering fluid, and polyethylen~ solutions in
polybutene. These early manufacturing operations also included
bromination, treating rope with a fungicide, and treating ski
cable.
Two on-site incinerators burned still bottoms, non-reclaimable
materials generated from the site, and off-site wastes. The
first incinerator started operating in 1966, the second in 1969,
and burned about two million gallons of industrial waste per
year. The incinerators were dismantled in the 1970's. The
shells were cut up and scrapped: the burners and blowers remain
on-site.
Batch manufacturing was expanded between 1970 and 1975.
Additives, lubricants, deterqents and soldering flux were
manufactured, and an epoxidation plant created a product called a
plasticizer. Since 1975, the small batch manufacturing and
epoxidation plant operations have remained essentially the same.
Kapica Drum, Inc., was sold to Pazmey ~orp. in February 1980,
which sold it to Darija Djurovic in March 1987. Kapica/Pazmey
has not operated at this location since 1987. In 1980, a 31-acre
parcel of property to the west of the Off-site Containment Area
-------
5
municipal landfill. The Griffith Municipal Landfill has been an
active sanitary solid waste disposal facility since the 1950s.
Solvent recovery operations at ACS continued until 1990 when ACS
lost interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) regulations due to the failure of ACS to obtain
required ,insurance policies. Semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) such as phenol, isophorone, naptha1ene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, anthracene, bis (2-chloroethy1) ether, and
phtha1ates were used and discarded at the site throughout its
history.
Several areas on the ACS property were used for disposal of
hazardous substances. The disposal areas on the ACS site,
depicted in Figure 2, have been consolidated into three
identified source areas: 1) the On-site Containment Area; 2) the
still Bottoms Area, Treatment Lagoon #1 and adjacent areas; and
, 3) the Off-site containment Area and Kapica/Pazmey property. The
Off-Site containment Area is located on the ACS property and is
, part of the ACS site. The area is described as off-site since it
is separated from the ACS plant by a fence and railroad tracks.
The Off-site Area includes the Off-site Containment Area and the
Kapica/pazmey property. The On-site Area includes the On-site
containment Area, the still Bottoms Area, Treatment Lagoon *1,
and adjacent areas (oily soil area designated in Fig. 2).
ACS was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), a roster of
the nation's worst hazardous waste sites targeted for cleanup
under Superfund authority, in September 1984. Approximately 400
drums containing sludge and semi-solids of unknown types were
reportedly disposed of in the On-site containment Area. The Off-
site containment Area was utilized principally as a waste
disposal area and received wastes that included on-site
incinerator ash, general refuse, a tank truck containing
solidified paint, and an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 drums that
were reportedly punctured prior to disposal. Disposal practices
in the Off-site Containment Area reportedly ceased in 1975.
Hazardous substances were also disposed directly, and as a result
of drum washing operations, on the Kapica/Pazmey property. The
still Bottoms Pond and Treatment Lagoon #1 received still bottoms
from the solvent recovery process. The pond and lagoon were
taken out of service in 1972, drained, and filled with an
estimated 3200 drums containing sludge materials.
"
..~.
Approximately 400 special notice letters were sent out in March
1987 to initiate Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study
negotiations. A Consent Order to perform an RI/FS was signed by
the PRP's in June, 1988. Under this Consent Order, Warzyn, Inc.,
a consultant for the PRPs, performed the RI/FS. The'RI began in
1989 and the RI/FS was completed in 1992. A portion of the RI,
the ecological assessment, was prepared by USEPA due to the PRPs
inadequate submittals. Additionally, the PRPs refused to
i
-------
6
develop clean-up standards so proposed human-health risk based
cleanup standards were developed by USEPA to supplement the FS.
USEPA recently issued combination general notice/information
request letters to a number of previously unnoticed PRPs.
Special notice letters will be issued and negotiations will begin
after completion of this Record of Decision.
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
USEPA has conducted community relations activities at the site
since the start of the remedial investigation in 1989. The
proposed plan was released to the public (by public notice in a
local newspaper) on June 30, 1992, informing residents that the
Feasibility Study Report, along with other documents comprising
the Administrative Record for the site, were available at the
public information repositories at the Griffith Town Hall and the
Griffith Public Library. The Administrative Record Index is .
included as Appendix A. A public comment period was established
for June 30, 1992, to July 29, 1992. After public request, the
public comment period was extended until August 28, 1992. A
public meeting was held at the Griffith Town Hall on July 9,
1992, to discuss the proposed remedial action with residents.
Public comments and the USEPA responses are included as Appendix
B.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This ROD addresses buried drums, buried wastes, contaminated soil
and debris, contaminated ground water and contaminated surface
water. This contamination represents the principal threat from
the ACS site. Buried wastes and contaminated soil and debris
present a threat as a continuous contaminant source to ground
water, a direct contact threat should future excavation occur,
and a inhalation threat from migration of volatile contaminants
through existing cover material and possible dispersion of
contaminants to the neighboring community. Contaminated ground
water presents a threat to potential 'users through ingestion,
dermal contact, and inhalation.
It is the purpose of this remedy to restore contaminated property
to an acceptable level that, will allow unrestricted use of the
property (within the context of local zoning laws). Cleanup
levels included in the ROD would allow future residential use of
the property. Ground water use restrictions may be necessary
beyond site boundaries until the contaminant plume is verified to
be contained at site boundaries. Future use of ground water
directly under the site may also be restricted. The LTTT system
and ISVE technology will have to undergo treatability testing to
-------
7
This ROD requires vapor emission controls, if necessary, and
ambient air monitoring with the selected treatment technology as
well as possible vapor emission control associated with the
excavation of VOC contaminated material.
Further evaluation of the onsite wetlands is also necessary.
Additional sediment and surface water sampling will be
.accomplished during pre-design. Because no sampling of nearby
upper aquifer private wells was accomplished during the RI, a
plan will be developed to sample these wells to assess the need
for well closures or use advisories.
V.
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The Remedial Investigation has shown that there are large areas
of buried contamination with a wide range of contaminants.
Because of the numerous contaminants detected, compounds were
grouped together to more easily evaluate contaminant
distribution. Total VOCs, PCBs, and lead were chosen as
indicators of the extent of wastes and contaminated soils.
The major categories of wastes include: organic contaminants
without polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (approximately 90% of
total buried contamination), organic contaminants with PCBs
(approximately 7%), and various heavy metals (approximately 3%).
These were found in the three identified source areas. The
source areas are; the on-site containment area, the still
bottoms/treatment lagoon and adjacent areas, and the off-site
containment and Kapica/pazmey area. Buried waste v91umes for
source areas were based on information collected during the RI.
The RI selected 1 ppm total VOCs, 1 ppm PCBs, and 500 ppm lead to
represent the extent of buried wastes/contaminated soils at the
site. For the purpose of developing FS alternative cost
estimates, buried wastes were defined as areas of contamination
with total VOCs in excess of 10,000 ppm (Fig. 3). PCB-
contaminated soils in excess of 50 ppm were also delineated.
Contaminated soils were defined as areas of contamination with
total VOCs in excess of 10 ppm (Fig. 4). Soils contaminated with
heavy metals (lead greater than 500 ppm was used as an indicator
parameter) were also found associated with buried waste areas.
Other isolated pockets of ~llic contamination (lead greater
than 500 ppm) were also identified in the RI.
SOURCE AREAS
On-site Area
The On-site containment Area contaminants consist predominately
-------
(V)
w
~
:..J
"
H
u...
\ tit ~
I .~'.',~~""'. .
.- --
l .'~ \
'I> \.
;.
"
)'
"
.'
r'!
~ \\
i
~
~ I
:1
..01
'\ :
"~,I \
\ .
I', \t: \
. h .
f'
~U
~EG~~Q
(/ J b( .U>~i ,tJ~' ;.,&r<:.:.', """",:.' (1(':1..;. ,"\"~ ~"~~F..~\ '!:::J
." .) (.! .'. . '-.. "~ '''l . ... . "'.. .':. ....
,.., .,. "1' \ I " 'I.. ~,. '- .. ' . 0
-. ~~-,;: -::~~_. -=_£C:..~. ~" ,.0 "..~': .' I .~ C\ -<~))' '{..\ .
! --'---~.'--: -, .~-' - "'--.r--.f.~~'i. ;fj' ~~~': ,'" ',..:.>::' ,c\ ..
, . 'a ,..--srrl '.-f I r~ '.",. ." (". '-""",
. : I{ r ,i £r;1 tllr-t..JlJi i:" r.~ -": ~.: ~~ '~:;:/~--"i . \ \--~1 .' .'.,~.
I ., 'I,LJ .. ..' i . 'L~~'
::. -' :'0 [S0~": ':. 1 ,../~'~'" "~":J. . ",i '~i .\
: :. , . (. i. " . I. ,.'=- I, - . . '. 9)\ .
I : :;J to,', " .r.''''~'''' I .' .' 'I \ ~,
\~II ~!o.!':} ,...,' " :'l! (\-:.. \'\ '/'i- ~'i". ~<
1", , "",1 \ {, ',; 'j I;" I', ,,""" - "I ' \- ,'-::rl, => ~
, .' -. . \ :" \, . "" ,-'-.' ", a l:)
" j'. '... ;ll~'i \" .....' " . '. . " ~ 0
'" '. ' . ,'.' ,":'j .~"""'" . A"'~I~ ~'~OUND"~Y '\ : '. Q.;
',' ,. : l '. ~' >; "~ UN t -'1 ' t.
\ '&\.".', ". . !", /'~;".' .' '\ ,,'
J 11, ',",::'" ". ",-'..; i ',' ,~f!" , '" ~, " ~':.~ .... WAS DEVElOP'O F"" CW' "",,.." . NCI<'''NC
'\111' .,. . ;:r...'. "'~-1 r p. , '\ ON N(J/EMBER 8. 1985. MAP HAS BEEN lJ'OATEO FROM AN AERIAl
I . 'J", - " ! . f: , } I i PHOTOGRN'H OF THE SITE HOWN ON NOYEM"ER 3. 1989 BY
~ . -- y- ~ , i.' I t . 0 GEONEX CHCAGO "ERlAl SIJAVEY. INC.'
- .(. '? ( \----' -'. :. . ..: " 0 . ' ~ 2. VERTICAL DATU\.. IS USGS DATUM. CONTOUR INTERVAl 18 III
Pi .' ). \ ONE FOOl. .
. ... \" . . ( :", \
. 'r -.- . ., ~ ,\ \. . . / ..' . \...
," ,. 0\
. . "'. ". .:. it ..,.,.1. '! ';. Ii' t? ..\ -""'\,"
. I ,. I ,.., \.
: \i (\;' " .",.,:- / ,/ . ,~
, I ,lCAuno :... i
o! :. .RIA ...:... ..
A ... I J ~
APPROXIMAI flANK' limA
BOUND""Y
Bunt£O WASTE
P\.A~ " 50 /'Pm
\.
o 200 400
U""'U'1.--J
SCALE IN FEET
~~
-------
-::t
:\
ILl
p:;
:::>
~
~
c......
.- . ," "
".
:l. VERTICAL OATlJ,M IS USGS OATUM. CONTOUR INJEnVAL 15 tll
ONE FOOT. ;
\
.' '
.,
..
o 200 400
LrU'1---J
SCALE IN FEET
:I
: .:j
ill,
. 'U
~~
-------
8
Additional contaminants consist of a 50'x 50' buried drum area
(estimated to contain 400 intact drums), and localized areas of
organic contaminants with PCBs (980 cubic yards) and soils
contaminated with metals (100 cubic yards). Contamination in the
On-site Containment Area is summarized below:
BETX
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Ketones
Phthalates
PAHs
Phenols
PCBs
Lead
Benzenes
Ethenes
Ethanes
DETECTED RANGE (ug/kg)
11 - 3,002,000
2 - 10,790
2 - 1,110,000
1 - 11,000
4 - 7,400
39';" 15,086
50 - 121,338
93 - 2,270
130 - 26,000
2900 - 1,440,000-
The still Bottoms/Treatment Lagoon and adjacent area contaminants
consist predominantly of organic contaminants without PCBs
(22,000 cubic yards) and randomly distributed buried drums
(estimated to contain 3200 partially filled drums). Organic
contaminants with PCBs were not detected in the treatment lagoon
area, but were detected in the still bottoms area (1000 cubic
yards). Metals were detected in both the still bottoms and
treatment lagoon areas (550 cubic yards). In an adjacent area,
west of the existing fire pond, (designated as "oily soils" in
Fig. 2) both organic contaminants without PCBs (3400 cubic yards)
and organic contaminants with PCBs (300 cubic yards) were
detected. Contamination in the still bottoms/treatment lagoon
and adjacent areas is summarized below.
BETX
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Ketones
Phthalates
PAHs
Phenols.
PCBs
Lead
Benzenes
Ethenes
Ethanes
Off-site Area
DETECTED RANGE (ug/kg)
66 - 34,670,000
45 - 62,500
31 - 2,000,000
8 - 21,000,000
55 - 4,100,000
--456 - 4,694,000
351 - 1,057,900
429 - 19,400
330 - 158,000
21900 - 6,300,000
The Off-site Containment Area contaminants consist predominantly
-------
9
However, organic contaminants with PCBs (5250 cubic yards) and
metals (950 cubic yards) were detected primarily in one area in
the northern portion, as well as at a number of small areas in
the southern portion. General refuse, an estimated 20,000 to
30,000 drums, and a tank truck partially full of solidified paint
were reportedly disposed of in this area. Contamination in the
Off-site Containment Area is summarized below.
BETX
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Ketones
Phthalates
PAHs
Phenols
PCBs
Lead
Benzenes
Ethenes
Ethanes
DETECTED RANGE (ug/kg)
17 - 254,000,000
3 - 1,000,000
44 - 65,000,000
8 - 151,000,000
52 - 197,000,000
54 - 19,136,000
273 - 3,487,700
180 - 1,054,000
96 - 1,400,000
2300 - 17,200,000
The Kapica/Pazmey area contaminants consist of organic
contaminants without PCBs (7200 cubic yards) and organic
contaminants with PCBs (2300 cubic yards) in an area north of the
Kapica building. Metal contamination is found in the west (700
cubic yards) and north (200 cubic yards) of the Kapica building.
Contamination in the KapicajPazmey area is summarized below.
BETX
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Ketones
Phthalates
PAHs
Phenols
PCBs
Lead
Benzenes
Ethenes
Ethanes
DETECTED RANGE (ugjkg)
1 - 46,300,000
18 - 27,000
2 - - 960,000
5 _78.: 1,350
2 - 367,000
177 - 698,100
54 - 157,300
280 - 34,300
4200 - 329,000
5000 - 16,200,000
-. --'
A detailed breakdown of all contaminants detected (including
tentatively identified compounds) and the frequency of detection
of each individual contaminant in buried waste/soil can be found
in Tables 7-4 through 7-10 of the Baseline Risk Assessment
-------
10
Ground water
Organic contaminants without PCBs, including chlorinated ethanes,
partially water soluble products from gasoline, oil and/or other
hydrocarbon products (e.g. benzene, toluene, xylene) were found
in the upper aquifer (Table 1). Lower aquifer contamination
relative to the upper aquifer is limited, both with respect to
the nature of compounds detected and the extent (Table 2).
Contaminants were not found to extend off-site to lower aquifer
wells. No organic contaminants were detected at any lower
aquifer private residential well. Upper aquifer private
residential wells were not sampled during the RI.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A BlRA was developed for the American Chemical Services site by
respondents to the Administrative Order on Consent in accordance
with USEPA's 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS).
The purpose of a BlRA is to analyze the potential adverse health
effects, both current and future, posed by hazardous substance
releases from a site if no action were taken.to mitigate such a
release. The BlRA consists of an identification of chemicals of
potential concern, toxicity assessment, exposure assessment, and
risk characterization.
Identification of chemicals of Dotential concern
Ground water, surface water, sediment, and soil data were
.evaluated and contaminants of concern were selected based on
carcinogenicity, detection frequency, comparison with background
concentrations, toxicity, physicochemical properties,
concentration, and grouping chemicals based on similar chemical
structures. Based on this analysis, the chemicals outlined in
Table 3 were selected as contaminants of potential concern at the
ACS site. The following site contaminants were found to exceed
10-6 excess cancer risk or a hazard quotient of 1:
UPPER AQUIFER GROUND WATER
-
Volatiles
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone
Trichloroethene
(cis)
Semivolatiles
*bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
Pentachlorophenol
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
-------
Table 1
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS pa;e 1
~ERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICES RI/FS
GRIFFITH, INDIANA
MATRIX: Ground lIater
SOJRCE AREA: upper Aquifer
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION NUMBER SAMPLES ANALrZE~
----------.-.-............................ ..................-....
ARITHMETIC
CHEMICAL UNITS MINIMUM MAX I MUM MEAN TOTAL OETECTEO
VolltHes 21,
Chloromethane ug/l 68.000 68.000 68.00 1
Vinyl c:IIlodde UIII/l 22.000 720.000 371,.00 3
Chloroethane UIII/l 3.000 2000.000 442.71 17
Methylene Chloride UV/l 1. 000 7.000 1,.00 2
Acetone UIII/l 84000.000 99000.000 91500.00 2
1,1 -Dichloroethane . ug/l 6.000 21000.000 981.25 "
Totll 1,2-Dichloroethene UIII/l 1.000 400.000 180.67 6
2-Butmone ug/l 150000.000 220000.000 185000.00 Z
Trichloroethene ug/l 310 . 000 105.000 39.50 2
Benzene ug/l 1.000 100000.000 7265.20 15
Io.Methyl.2.Pentanone ug/l 105000.000 54000.000 49500.00 2
2-Hexll'lOn8 ug/l 1200.000 1800.000 1500.00 2
Tltrachloroethene "II/I 160.000 ZOO. 000 180.00 2
Toluene ug/l 21.000 2300.000 725 .25 "
Ch I orobenllne UIII/l 2.000 96.000 33.60 5
EthylbenZene UIIIII 52.000 1100.000 476.00 .i; 7
Totll Xyl~ ug/l 47.000 3000.000 659.57 7
>-
Semi-volati les 21,
Phenol UIII/l 3.000 2100.000 34.20 10
bisC2-Chloroethyl)ether ug/I 10.000 250.000 65.67 9
1,3-0ichlorobenZene ug/l 3.000 3.000 3.00 1
1,Io.Oichlorobenzene UIIIII 3.000 10.000 5.50 I,
1,2-0ichlorobenzene UII/I 4.000 33 .000 1S.50 6
2-Methylphenol UII/l 2.000 38.000 '''.50 I,
biIC2.Chloroisopropyl)lther UII/I 59.000 300 .000 143.20 5
".MethylphenoL UII/I 5.000 2200.000 1068.00 5
Ilophorone UIII/I 19.000 35.000 26.33 3
2,Io'Oimethylphenol UIII/l 6.000 110.000 41.33 3
Benzoic acid ug/L 2.000 1900.000 323.00 6
NaphthaLene UIII L 2.000 71.000 32.50 6
Io-Chloro-3-methylphenol UIII L 2.000 2.000 2.00 1
2.Methylnaphth8lene UIIIII 9.000 27.000 . 17.00 3
Oilthylphthilite ug/l .. -'~ 3.000 9.000 6.00 2
PentlchI orophenol UIIIII 2.000 3.000 2.50 2
Oi -n-butylphth818te > ug/I 2.000 2.000 2.00 1
bi~(2.EthylheXyl)phthallte UII/I 2.000 50.000 16.33 6
Pesticides/PCBs 24
AROCLOR.12'S UIII L 2.600 2.600 2.60
-------
Table 1
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS Page 2
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICES RIfFS
CRIFFITH, INDIANA
MATRIX: Cround \later
SClJRCE AREA: Upper Aquifer
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION NUMBER SAMPlES ANALYZED
......-----..........-.....-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- ...-..-..------...--...
AR I THMET! C
CHEMICAL UNITS MINIMUM MAX I MUM MEAN TOTAL DETECTED
Metals 24
AlUlinua ug/l 250.000 280.000 265.00 2
Arsenic ug/l 2.100 . 43.200 13.59 17
BarilD ug/l 230.000 .1~0.000 608.75 16
BeryllilD ug/l 0.250 0.250 0.25 1
C8Cili un ug/l 0.240 3.100 0.98 4
CalciUl ug/l 32100.000 1040000.000 176233.33 24
Chromiun, Total ug/l 1.100 3.900 2.43 4
Iron ug/l 170.000 218000.000 25052.77 22
Lead ug/l 3.200 4.600 3.90 2
M8gnes i UI ug/l 7270.000 78800.000 33820.56 18
"anganese ug/l 281.000 4250.000 2099.00 23
Mercury ug/l 1.700 1.700 1.70 1
Nickel U81l 48.000 53,000 49.67 3
PotulilD U81l 1480.000 95800.000 13938.75 2'
Seleniun ug/l 2.100 6.200 3.'7 3
SocIi un ug/l 12700.000 444000.000 "5423.8' 21
Thall iun ug/l 3.100 4.000 3.55 2
Vanadlun ug/l 2.200 25.900 8.25 8
Zinc ug/l 10.000 886.000 113.15 20
C.,."ide, Total usa/I 10.000 10.000 10.00 1
Tent. ldent. Caq:IOU'Id-SVOC 2'
Unknown U81l 6.000 2600.000 249.79 86
Un!cnoIin Hydrocarbon ug/l 36.000 1100.000 418.67 3
Ethyl..thylbenzene isomer ug/I 24.000 130.000 64.00 4
Tri..thylbenzene isomer 118/1 50.000 300.000 172.50 4
Ethyldimethylbenzene isomer 118/1 32.000 160.000 96.00 2
Undecane, 4,7-dimethyl- U81l 120.000 120.000 120.00 1
Benzene, 1,1'.oxybis- U81l 24 . 00.0 24.000 24.00 1
Benzene, propyl- U81l 22.000 22.000 22.00 1
. Benzene, 1-ethyl-2-.thyl- U81l 42.000 88_000 65.00 2
Benzene, 2.ethyl-1,4-dimethyl- ug/l 6.000 400.000 151.00 ,
~ SubstitUted Benzene U81l 22.000 110.000 51.00 8
unknown carboxylic acid ug/l.. -.- 22.000 22_000 22.00 ,
Tetr...thylbenzene isomer UIIl 120.000 130.000 125.00 2
Benzene. ',3.5-trimethyl- UIIl 82.000 280.000 181.00 2
Cyclohexanol, 3,3.5-trimethyl- UIIl 26.000 2000.000 728.57 7
Heaanoic acid, 2-ethyl- UIIl 360.000 360.000 360.00 ,
Benzene, 1-ethenyl-3-ethyl- U81l 18.000 18.000 18.00 1
Hexanoic acid (DOT) ug/l 740.000 740.000 740.00 1
Oimethylphenol ug/l 54.000 200'.000 127.00 2
Cyclopentanol, 2'methyl-CI... ug/l 52.000 52.000 52.00 1
Benzene. 1-ethyl.4'methoxy' ug/l 90.000 90.000 90.00 ,
Furan, 2.2,..thylenebis' ugll 150.000 150.000 150.00 1
-------
Table 1
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICES RifFS
GRIFFITH, INDIANA
MATRIX: Ground W~ter
SOURCE AREA: Upper Aquifer
CHEMICAL
Fur.".
2,2'-[a_ybisCmethylene)]bis,-
Hexanoic acid. anhydride
'.4-Methanonaphthalene. 1.4-...
2~Propenol.
1. [2.C2.methoxy.1...thylethaxy).1.2
-propanol
Hexanoic acid. 2-methyl.
2,4.Pentanedial. 2-methyl-
2-Propenol. 2-C2.methoxy-1.m...
lenzeneacetic acid, .alpha..ethyl.
Pentanoic acid. 4-..thyl-
Disulfide, di.thyl-
3.OCtanone
Benzene, '.chloro.3...thyl.
CyclohexaneDlthanol.
..lpha...alpha.-4-trimethyl-
. UnIcnown substituted phenot
Phenol. 3-ethyl-5-..thyt-
Benzoic acfd. ]...thyl-
Ethane, 1.2-bis(2.chlorOlthoxy).
lenzene, ethyt-
lenzene, 1,]-df..thyt-
Benzene.
1.2.dimethyl-4-(phenytmethyt)-
Benzene. (1.1-di..thytpropyl... Ut/t
Naphthalene. 1.2,3.4-tetrah... ug/l
1(2H).Naphthalenone, 3,4-dih... UtI 1
2.Cyclohepten-1-one ug/l
Benzene, '.methyl-4.(methyts.'~. ug/ 1
Glycine, n-(Z.methyt.'.oxo-2... Ut/t
Phenol. 3.5.di..tllyl- ug/l
1.3-Pentanediot, 2.Z,4-trimetllyl- ug/l
2,4,6(1H.3H.5H)-Pyri8idinetrione-5- ug/t
C 1-methyl)-
2.Methytcyclopentanol iSaDIr
Trimetllytphenot flG8lr
Methytbenzoic acid iSOIIIer
2.Propenot,
1-(2-..thoxy-1-..tllytethoxy)-2-prop
~t
Propanoic acid.
2.(3-chtorophenoxy)-propenoic 8cid
UnknoWI substituted sul fonyl
Trfmethyt benzoic acid
Capra t ac t 8111
OCtane, 2.3-dimethyt-
Decane, 2.6.7.trimethyl.
Nonane, 3.7-dimethyl-
,
UNITS
Uti 1
ug/l
U8Il
U81l
Uti 1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Ut/t
USl/l
UO/l
uo/t
ug/l
ug/l
UOIl
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/t
ug/l
ug/l- ./
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
118/1
ug/l
ug/l
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM
---.......................-.....-.-.......
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
32.000
60.000
160.000
110.000
720.000
72.000
90.000
58.000
1100.000
140.000
86.000
120.000
220.000
28.000
50.000
31.000
50.000
16.000
440.000
24.000
32.000
52.000
12.000
92 .000
14.000
12.000
12.000
40.000
10.000 .
2000 .000
62.000
44.000
140.000
98.000
44.000 '
12.000
10.000
320.000
320.000
180.000
/WI I MUM
54.000
60.000
160.000
110.000
720.000
1800.000
90.000
58.000
1100.000
720.000
86.000
120.000
220.000
28.000
50.000
31.000
78.000
16.000
440.000
24.000
32.000
52.000
12.000
92.000
14.000
12.000
12.000
40.000
130.000
2000.000
62.000
420.000
2200.000
98.000
44.000
12.000
10.000
720.000
380.000
180.000
42.67
60.00
160.00
110.00
720.00
936.00
90.00
58.00
1100.00
430.00
86.00
120.00
220.00
28.00
50.00
38.00
64.00
"16.00
440.00
24.00
32.00
52.00
12.00
92.00
14.00
. 12.00
12.00
40.00
70.00
2000 .00
62.00
232.00
1170.00
98.00
44.00
12.00
10.00
520.00
350.00
180.00
Pase 3
NUMBER SAMPLES ANALYZED
.-...--.-.-.-....-.....
TOTAL
OETECTE:J
3
,
2
,
,
,
2
,
,
1
,
1
,
2
,
,
1
,
1
1
,
1
1
,
,
2
1
,
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
-------
TabLe 1
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICES RI/FS
CRIFFITH, INDIANA
MATRIX: Ground Water
SOURCE AREA: upper Aquifer
CHEMICAL
Dimethyl ~ane
Methylethylphenol
~ diol
ChlorOlethylbenzene
Disilene, hexaet~yl-
Unknown alcohol
Methylpropenylbenzene
Tetrahydronaphthalene
2-Cyclohexen-1-one,
3,5,5-trimethyl-
Benzoic .cid, 2,'-dimethyl-
Benzoic acid, 2,',6-trimethyl-
Benzoic acid,
4-(t,1-dimethylethyl)-
Phenobarbital (VAN)
Ethyltrimethylbenzene + unknown
Methylnaphth.lene
Dimethylnaphth.lene
Tent. IQmt. C~-WX
Unknot,n
Benzene, 1-ethyl-2'methyl-
Benzene, propyl-
Benzene, (1-methylethyl)-,
Cyclohexane, _thyl-
Ethylmethylbenzene isomer
Trimethylbenzene isomer
Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl-
Unknown alcohol
Ethane, t,1'oxybis-
2-Propanol, 2-methyl-
Unknown oXYSlenated alkane
Dimethylcyclohexane
Ethenyl cyclohexene
Diethylbenzene
Butanol
Propane, 1,1'-oxybis-
Methylpentanol
Metllylhex8nOne
Cyc:Lohexlne, 1,3-dillltthyL.,
Disopropyl ether (DOT)
trans-
UN ITS
ug/l
ugtl
"II/I
USIII
"II/I
ug/l
ugtl
USIII
"II/I
ug/l
USI/l
USIIl
ug/l
ug/l
118/1
ug/l
USIIl
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ua/l
ug/l
USIIl
ug/l
ua/l
USI/l
ug/l
USIIl
USI/l
ug/l
ug/l
USI/l
USI/l
ug/L
USIIl
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM
----------------.-.---------.-.----.-.----
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
170.000
54.000
82.000
68.000
46.000
24.000
6.000
66.000
32.000
2'.000
36.000
34.000
8.000
5'.000
74.000
38.000
29.000
70.000
60.000
60.000
40.000
35.000
130.000
170.000 ,
100.000
4.000
8.000
450.000
76.000
63.000
78.000
40.000
6.000
15.000
7.000
45.000
8.100
MAX I MUM
170.000
88.000
82.000
68.000
46.000
2'.000
6.000
66.000
32.000
24.000
36.000
34.000
22.000
54.000
74.000
38.000
140.000
70.000
60.000
60.000
1tG.000
100.000
640.000
170.000
1100.000
1500.000
8.000
450.000
76.000
63.000
78.000
40.000
6.000
15.000
7.000
45.000
8.100
170.00
71. 00
82.00
68.00
46.00
21,.00
6.00
66.00
32.00
24.00
36.00
34 .00
15.00
54.00
74.00
:sa . 00
73.50
70.00
60.00
60.00
40.00
59_60
437.50
110.00
900.00
264.29
8.00
450.00
76.00
63.00
78.00
40.00
6.00
15.00
7.00
45.00
8.10
Pase ~
NUMBER SAMPLES ANALrZ~J
---~--_._._._.__.._....
TOTAL
DETECTED
1
2
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
21,
8
1
1
1
1
5
I,
1
2
7
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
This table includes all compounds identified above detection limits in the Upper Aquifer Source A~ea (see table 7-' for
samples included In this arel),' and is provided a. the st.rting point in the development of a Set of Chemical Data fo~
use in the Risk Assessment, a. discussed in Section 7.1.2.1. Refer to appropri.te appendices to determine the total
par_ttrs analyzed and their as.ociated det«tion li8it.. Refer to appendix U for values used in risk calulations.
The dati V8lues presented contain a ..xi~ of thr.. significant digits fo~ the results of ..tals analyses and two
significant digiti for organic chemical 8nllyses: additional digit. Ire due to limitations in the ccmpute~ prog~am used
to prepare these taDI.., and do not infer, an increase in accuracy. The ruN)er of tentatively identified c~s
designated I. wUtnowlS .V exceed the total ruar of s8q)ltS InIIlyzed because more than one ,-"known cOlq)Cund may be
preslnt in I given sample.
-------
Table.~
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS Page'
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICES RIfFS
GRIFFITH, INDIANA
MATRIX: Ground Water
saJRCE AREA: L-r ~ifer
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION NUMBER SAMPLES ANAlYZE~
..............-.---....-.-.----...--...... ...............-.-.....
ARITHMETIC
CHEMICAL UNITS MINIMUM MAX I MUM MEAN TOTAL DETEC7E~
voLatiLes 9
ChLoroethane ug/l 3.000 440.000 2'4.33 3
4-MethyL-2-Pentanone ug/l 3.000 3.000 3.00 ,
Semi -VoLatiles 9
bfs(2-ChlorOithyl)ether ug/l 11.000 12.000 11. 50 2
Metall 9
Arsen;c ~/l 2.100 8.600 4.06 5
BariUII ~/l 220.000 310.000 255.00 ,
CalcfUB UII/ 1 59000.000 151000.000 113266.67 6
Iron ug/l 152.000 3160..000 1043.33 6
Ma;nesiun UII/l 19300.000 53100.000 35766.67 6
M8nganese ug/l 123.000 866.000 337.33 6
Mercury ug/l 0.470 0.470 0.47 1
Potalsfun ug/l 960.000 3420.000 1923.33 6
Sod i UII ~/l 10000.000 96200- 000 40700.00 6
YlI\8dhm ug/l 2.000 2_000 2.00 1
Zinc ug/l 10.000 22.000 16.00 2
Tent. Jdent. CCIq)OU'Id-SVOC 9
Unknown u;ll 10.000 3300.000 340.59 17
CyclOhexanol, 3,3,5-trimethyl- u;ll 2500.000 2500.000 2500.00 1
Z-Propanol, ug/l 1000.000 1000.000 1000.00 1
1-t2-CZ-Dethoxy-1-..thylethoxy)-1-2
-propanol
2.4-Pentanedfol. Z-..thyl- ug/l 270_000 270.000 270.00
2-Propanol, ug/l 530_000 530.000 530.00
1-(2-methoxy-1-..thylethoxy)-2-prop
enol
Di..thylbenzoic acid u;ll.. _./ 400 _000 400.000 400.00
Di8lthylethylbenzoic acid ug/l 400.000 400.000 400.00
Propanoic acid, ug/l 170.000 170.000 170.00
Z-S3-chlorophenoxy)-propanoic acid
Tent. Jdent. C~-VCC 9
Unknown ug/l 1200.000 1200.000 1200.00 1
-------
Tahle 2
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICES RI/FS
GRIFFITH, INDIANA
Pase 2
MATRIX: Ground Water
SOURCE AREA: Lower Aquifer
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION
NUMBER SAMPLES ANALrZE~
...-.-.-............-........--.-.-.-.-.-.
-.-.......----.........
CHEMICAL
ARITHMETIC
UNITS MINIMUM MAX I MUM MEAN TOTAL CEiEi:TE~
ug/l 36.000 36.000 36.00
ug/l 10.000 10.000 10.00
usa/l 11.000 11 .000 11.00
Ethane, 1,1'oxybis-
Propane, 2,2"oxybis-
Substituted methylborane
This tiOle includes IU c~ identifiecLlbove detection lillits in the lower Aquifer Source Area (see table 7.1 for
s8mples included in this area), and is provided as the starting point in the development of a Set of Chemical Data fer
use in the Risk Ass..~t, as disclAsed in section 7.1.2.1. Refer to 8ppropriate appendices to determine the total
plrlllleters 8ft8lyzed and their associated detection li.its. Refer to 8PP8"dix U for values lAeeI in risk calulations.
The data values presented contlin a ~i8U8 of thr.. significant digits for the results of metals lnalyses and two
significant dilits for orll"ic chemical 8ft8lyses: additional dilits ara due to limitations in the computer program used
to preplre these tiOles, and do not infer an incraase in eccurecy. The nu8:ler of tentatively identified c~
designated as ~knowns lilY exceed the total nureer of s~les analyzed tiecause more than one ~known c~ may be
present in a given sample.
-------
11
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene .
total PCBs
Inoraanics
*Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
Thallium
TIC GrOU1JS
Cyclic Ketones
Dimethyl Ethyl Benzenes
Branched Alkanes
Non-Cyclic Acids
*Also lower aquifer contaminant
. SOILS
Inoraanics
Antimony
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Semivolatiles
Hexachlorobutadiene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Di-n-Butylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
total CPAHs
bis(2-Cholorethyl) ether
l,4-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
l,2,4-Trichlorophenol
Naphthalene
Pesticides/PCBs
Alpha-BHC.
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
total PCBs
Volatiles
vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
l,l-Dichloroethene
l,2-Dichloroethene (cis)
Chloroform
l,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone ~I
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane'
1,l,2-Trichloroeth~ne
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Tetracholorethene
1,l,2,2-Tetrachlor~ethane
Toluene ~
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
styrene
Xylenes (mixed)
..-
TIC GrOU1JS
Non-cyclic Acids
Cyclic Ketones
Methyl Propyl Benzenes
Dimethyl Ethyl Benzenes
Nitrogenated Benzenes
Propenyl Benzenes
-------
12
Diethyl Benzenes
Oxygenated Benzenes
Methylated Naphthalenes
Halogenated Alkanes
n-Chain Alkanes
Branched Alkanes
PCB
Toxicity Assessment
The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to weigh available
evidence regarding the potential for particular contaminants to
cause adverse effects in exposed individuals and to provide,
where possible, an estimate of the relationship between the
extent of exposure to a contaminant and the increased likelihood
and/or severity of adverse effects, including carcinogenic and
. noncarcinogenic effects.
Sixty-four of the one hundred and forty-eight positively
identified (nonTIC) contaminants of concern are known, probable
or possible human carcinogens. Cancer potency factors (CPFs)
have been developed by EPA's carcinogenic Assessment Group for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated. with exposure
to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed
in (mg/kg/day)-l, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a
potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure at the intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects
the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the CPF.
Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer
risk highly unlikely. CPFs are derived from results of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied. The weight of evidence classification and CPF for the
contaminants of concern is shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Eighty-four of the one hundred and forty-eight positively
identified contaminants of concern have noncarcinogenic toxic
effects. USEPA has developed chronic reference doses (RfDs) to
indicate the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media can be
compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological
studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been
applied. These uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs
will not underestimate the potential for adverse health effects
to occur. RFDs for noncarcinogenic effects for the contaminants
-------
TaDle 3
SUHHARY OF TOXICITY INfORHATION
fOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Aaerican Cheaical Services "PL Site
Re8edtal Investtyatton
Grtffith, Ind ana
Page I
Chronic Reference Dose Slope Factor
(hemical of Oral
Potential Concern Inha lat ion Inha lat ion Oral
Species/Effect uncertaintl Species/Effect uncertaintI Species/Tumor WeiSht of Species/Tumor Weight of
of Concern Factor {I 01 Concern Factor {1 Site Evi ence Site Evidence {n
TARGET COHPOUMO LIST
VOLATILES
Chloro.ethane n/;'- mouse/kidney C mouse/kidney C
\
BrollOliethone robbit/neurotoxicity 3000 rat/hyperplasia 1000 --/--
of forestOllach
epitheliull
Vinyl chloride n/_- rat/1 her A rat/1ung .A
Chloroethane --In mouse/k idney ( mouse/kidney C
"ethylene chloride rat/-- 100 rat/liver 100 mouse/1ung, 82 mouse/1 her 82
toxicity 1i ver .
Acetone --/-- rat/increased 1000 --/--
liver & kidney
wei~ht, nephro-
tax city
(arbon disulfide rabbit/feta 1 100 --In
toxicity
I,I-Oichloroethene --/-- rat/liver lesions 1000 mouse/kidney ( rat/ adrena I C
-------
(con h nued)
Page Z
Chronic Reference Dose Slope Factor
Cheaical of
Potenti«l Concern Inha1ahon Oral 'nhalat ion Oral
Species/Effect Uncertaint Species/Effect Uncertaint Species/Tumor weitt of Species/Tumor wei3ht of
of Concern Factor 1 of Concern Factor 1 Site £Vi ence Site £Vi ence {.
l,2-Dichloroethene (cis) --/-- rat/decreased 3000 --/-- --/--
hellOglobin &
he.atocrit
l,2-Dichloroethene (trans) --1-- JAOuse/increased 100 --/-- --/--
seru. alkaHne
phophatase
Chloroforlll --1-- dog/liver lesions 1000 . mouse/liver 8Z rat/\;idney 82
l,2-Dichloroethane --1-- --/-- rat/circulatory 82 rat/circulatory 82
syste. system
2-Butanone rat/CNS 1000 rat/fetotoxicity 1000 --1-- --/-- 0
(.ethy 1 ethy 1 ketone)
\ ~uinea pi9/
l,l,l-Trichloroethane guinea pi~/ 1000 1000 --1-- --/--
epatotox city epatotox1city
Carbon Tetrachloride --1-- rat/l her les ions 100 several/liver 82 several/liver 82
Vinyl acetate --1-- --/-- --/-- --/--
Bromodichloromethane --1-- lIOuse/ renal 1000 --/-- 82 mouse/l iver 82
cyto.egaly
1,2-Dichloropropane (data inadequate for quantitative risk assess.ents) --/-- 82 mouse/l iver 82
cis-l,3-0ichloropropene rat/degenerat he 100 rat/increased 10,000 n~use/benign lung 82 rat/forestomach, 82
changes in nasal mucosa organ weights tumors 1 iver, adrenal,
thyroid
Trichloroethene --/-- --1-- mouse/lung 82 . mouse/1 i ver 82
Dibromochloro.ethane --/-- rat/liver lesions 1000 --/-- ( mouse/hepatocell- C
u\ar adenomas
or carcinomas
. l,l,2-Trichloroethane --/-- mouse/clinical 1000 mouse/liver ( mouse/liver C
che.istry alter-
at ions
Benzene --/-- --1-- human/1eukemia A human/leukemia A
trans-l.3-Dichloropropene rat/degenerat ion 100 rat/increased organ 1000 mouse/benign 82 rat/forestomdch, 82
changes in nasal weight lung tumors 1 iVH. adrenal,
-------
(continued)
Page 3
Chronic Reference Dose Slope factor
Chellical of
potential Concern Inhalation Oral Inha lation Oral
SpecieslEffect Uncertaint SpecieslEffect Uncertaint Species/Tuaaor WejS"t of Specie~/Tumor weitt of
of Concern Factor 1 01 Concern Factor 1 Site Ev\ ence Site [vi enee (2l
Bro80forll --1-- --1-- ratlliver effects 1000 --1-- 82 rat/adenomatou~ 82
polyps or adeno-
carcinomas in the
1 arge intes tine
4-Hethyl-2-pentanone ratlliver .. kidney 1000 rat/l iver .. 1000 --1-- --1--
effects kidney effects
2-HeKanone Data inadequate
Tetrachloroethene --1-- lIOuse/hepato- 1000 rat, lIOusel 82 mouse" iver 82
toxicity leuke.ia. .1 her
1,1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane --I-T. --1-- lIOuse/l iver C mou~e/l iver C
Toluene hu.an/CHS effects 100 rat leNS effects 1000 --1-- --1--
eyes, nose irritation
Chlorobenzene ratlliver .. kidney 10,000 do,lliver .. kidney 1000 --1-- --1--
effects ef eds .
Ethy I benzene --/-- r~t/hepatotoxicity, 1000 --/-- --1--
.. nephrotoxicity
Styrene --/-- do~/red blood cell 1000 rat/leukemia 82 lIIolI~e/lllllY 82
.. her effects " brollchi
Xylenes (.hed) hu.an/CHS effects, nose 100 rat/hyperact ivlty \ 100 --1-- --1--
.. throat irritation decreased body we 9ht
.. increased IOrtal1ty at
higher dosage
SEHIVOlAlIlES
Phenol --1-- rat/reduced fetal 100 --1-- --1--
body weight
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether --1-- lOuse/decrease in 1000 mouse/l iver 82 mouselliver 82
hel1lO1lobin ..
poss ble erythrocyte
destruction
2-Chlorophenol --1-- ratlreproductive 1000 --1-- --1--
-------
(continued)
Page 4
Chemical of
Potential (one ern
Chronic Reference Dose
Slope factor
Species/Effect
of Concern
Uncertaint
Factor 1
Oral
Species/Effect
of Concern
lllhalation
Oral
Inhatation
uncertaintl
Factor (1
Species/TulIIOr
Site
We~ght of
Evulence
Species/Tulllor
Sile
Weight of
Evidenc.L1l1
1.3-0ichlorobenzene --1-- --1-- --/-- --1--
1.4-0ichlorobenzene rat/liver & 1000- --1-- --/-- 82 mousel1 her 92
kidney effect J ..k:
i . ::. '::?
Benzyl Alcohol --1-- rat/fi~erplasia of 1000 --1-- --/--
the ep1thelium of
the forestomach
l,Z-Dichlorobenzene rat/decreased body 1000 rat/1 her 1000 --1-- --1--
weight gain effects
2-Hethytphenol --1--\ rat/reduced body 1000 --/-- --1--
weight gain,
neurotoxicity
bis(2-Chloroi$opropyl)ether --1-- lOuse/decrease in 1000 --1-- --/--
helORlobin & possible
eryt rocyte des truc-
tion
4-Hethylphenol --/-- rat/reduced body 1000 --/-- - -i--
weight gain.
neurotoxicity
N-Nitroso.di-n-dip~opylamine --/-- -./-- --/-- 82 rat/l iver 112
Hexachloroethane --Ie. ratlkidney degenerationl00 mouse/l iver C mousell i ver C
Nitrobenzene mouse/hematological, 3000 mouse/hematological. 10,000 --/.. --/--
adrenal. renal & adrenal. renal &
hepatic lesions hepatic lesions
Isophorone --/-- doglkidney lesions 1000 --/-- C rat/kidney, C
preputial glalld
2-Nitrophenol data inadequate
2,4-Dimethy'lphenol --/~- mouse/neurological 3000 --/-- - -/- -
signs & hematological
changes
Be/ll:oic Acid --/-- human/irritation, --1-- h/--
malaise
-------
(continued)
Page 5
Chronic Reference Dose Slope factor
Che.ical of
Potential Concern Inhalation Oral Inhalation Oral
Species/Effect ilncertaintl Species/Effect uncertaintl Species/TulIIOr Weia"t of Species/Tumor WeiSht of
01 Concern Factor (I 01 Concern Factor (I Site Ev r ence . Site Evi enee (2}
2.4-Dichlorophenol -.-/-- rat/imaune function 100 --I-e. --/--
1.2,4-Trichlorophenol --i-- --/-- --/-- --/--
Naphtha lene --/-- rat/ocular & 10,000 --/-- --/--
internal lesions
4-Ch loroanil ine --/-- rat/proliferative 3000 --/-- --/--
lesions of the spleen
He~achlorobutadiene --/-- rat/kidney to~icity 100 rat/kidney. C rat/kidney C
4-Chloro-3-.ethylphenol --/--', -- --/-- --1-- --/--
\
2-Hethylnaphthalene --/-- --/-- --/-- --1--
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene rat/respiratory 1,000 rat/forestollach 1000 --/-- --1--
tract lesions lesions
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol --/-- --/-- lDOusel1 iver 82 mouse/liver 82
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol --/-- rat/decreased 300 --/-- --/--
survival
2-Chloronaphthalene --/-- --1-- - -1-- --1--
2-Nitroani line --/-- --/-- --1-- --/--
Di.ethylphthalate --/-- --/-- --/-- --/--
Acenaphthylene --/-- --/-- --/-- --/--
2,6-Dinitrotoluene --/-- -~/-- --/-- 82 --/-- 82
3-Ni troani line --/-- --/-- --1-- --1--
Acenaphthene --/-- lIOuse/hepato- 3000 --/-- --/--
toxicity
Z,4-Dinitrophenol --/-- human/cataract 1000 - -/-- --/--
4-Hitrophenol --/-- --/-- --/-- --/--
Dibenlofuran --/-- --/-- --/-- --/--
-------
lcontinued)
Page 6
Chronic Reference Dose Slope Factor
Che.ical of
Potential Concern Inha lat ion Oral Inhalation Oral
SpecieslEffect uncertaint! SpecieslEffect uncertaintl Species/Tumor Wei3ht of Species/Tumor Wei3ht of
of Concern Factor (I of Concern Factor (I Site. £Vi ence Site £Vi ence (2)
Diethylphthalate --1-- rat/reduced 1000 --1-- --1--
ter.inal body weight
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether --1-.- --1-- --/~- --/--
fluorene --1-- mouse/he.atological 3000 --/-- 00/_-
changes
4-Nitroanil ine --/-- --/-- --/-- --/--
4,6-Dinitro-2-8ethylphenol --1-- --1-- --/-- --/--
,
N-nitrosodiphenyla~ine --1-- \. --1-- --1-- rat/urinary 82
bladder
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether --1-- --/-- --/-- --/--
Hexachlorobenzene --1-- rat/liver & he.ato- 100 hamsterll iver 82 hams ter/I i ver 82
logic effects
Pentachlorophenol --1-- rat/liver & kidney 100 --/-- --/--
pathology
Phenanthrene --1-- --/-- --/-- --/--
Anthracene --1-- mouse/no effects 3000 --1-- --1--
Di-n-butylphthalate --1-- rat/~rta Ii ty 1000 --1-- --/--
Fluoranthene --1-- mouse/nephropathy, 3000 --/-- --/--
liver wei9ht changes,
hematolog1cal changes
pyrene --1-- mouselrenal effects 3000 --/-- --1--
Butylbenzylphthalate --1-- rat/effects on body 1000 --/-- --1-- c
weight jain, testes,
Ii ver, idney
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine --1-- --1-- --1-- ra t/manllnary 112
Benzo(a)anthracene(c) --/-- --/-- -,-/-- 82 --1-- 82
-------
Chellica 1 of
Potential Concern
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Oi-n-octyl Phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene(c)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene(c)
Benzo(a)pyrene(c)
Ideno(I.2.3-cd)pyrene(t)
Oibenz(a.h)anthracene(c)
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene
Total-Carcinogenic PAHs(3)
PESTICIDE/PCB
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
de lta-BHC
ga8la-BHC (Lindane)
Heptach 1 or
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
(continued)
Slope factor
Chronic Reference Dose
Inhalation
Oral
Species/Effect
of Concern
Inhalation
Oral
Weight 01
Evidence (2}
Species/Tumor
Site
Weight 01
Evidence
Species/Tumor
Site
Uncerta intl
Factor (1
Species/Effect
of Concern
--1--
--1--
--1--
--/--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--/--
--/--
--/--
Uncertaint
Factor 1
guinea pig/increas- 1000
ed relative liver
",eight
rat/elevated kidney 1000
& 1 her ",eights
--1--
--/--
82
--1--
--/--
--/--
--/--
--1--
--/--
--1--
--/--
00/_-
B2
82
82
mouse/stomach
hamster/respira-
. tory tract.
-~/--
--1--
--1--
82
82
--1--
--1--
--/--
--1--
--1--
--1--
--1--
82
mouse/stomach
hamster/respira-
tory tract
Page 7
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
--/-- - -1-- mouse/l i ver 82
--/-- --/-- mouse/l iver C
--/-- - -/-- --/--
rat/liver & kidney 1000 --/-- mouse/I i ver 82
toxicity
ratlincreased 300 mouselliver 82 mouse/liver 82
liver weight
rat/liver lesions 1000 mousell iver 82 mouse/I i ver 112
--1-- mousell iver 82 mousell i ver 82
rat/mi ld kidney 3000 --/-- --/--
-------
(continued)
Page 8
Chronic Reference Dose Slope Factor
Chellical of
Potential Concern Inhalation Oral Inhalation Oral
Species/Effect uncertaint! SpecieslEffect uncertaintl Species/TulIIOr "eiaht of Species/Tumor Weiaht of
of Concern Factor (I of Concern Factor (J Site £Y r ence Site Evi ence (2)
Dieldrin --1-- --1-- --1-- 82 mousell i ver 82
4,4'-OD£ --1-- --1-- -./.- mouse, hamsterl 82
liver
£ndrin --1-- doglconvulsions & 100 --1-- --1--
liver les ions
£ndosulfan II --1-- rat/mUd ~idney 3000 --1-- --1--
1 e5 ion5
4,4'-000 --1-- \ --1-- --1-- mouse/1 i ver 82
Endosulfan sulfate --1-- --/-- --1-- --/--
4,4'-00T --/-- rat/Hver lesions 100 lIOuse, rat/ 82 mouse, ratl 82
liver liver
Hethoxychlor --1-- ratlfetotoxicity 100 --1-- --/--
Enrin ketone --1-- --/-- --1-- --/--
a 1 pha- Ch lord ane --1-- ratlliver necrosis 1000 mouse/1 iver 02 mouse/liver 82
gamma-Chlordane --1-- ratlliver necrosis 1000 mouselliver 82 mouselliver 82
Toxaphene --1-- --1-- lIIOuse/1 i ver 82 mousell i ver 82
Pollchlorinated biphenyls --1-- --1-- --1-- ratlliver 82
(PC s)
TARGET AHALYTE LIST
HETAlS
Aluminum Data Inadequate --1-- --1-- --1--
Antimony --/cancer ratlreduced life 1000 --1-- --1--
s~an, altered
b ood chemistries
Arsenic --/cancer human/keratosis & human/respira- A hUllldlih k Ifl A
hyperpigmentation tory t rac t
Barium --/fetotoxicity 100 rat/increased blood 100 --/-- --{--
-------
(continued)
Page 9
Chronic Reference Dose Slope Factor
Cheaical of
Potential Concern Inhalation Ora' Inhalation Oral
Species/Effect Uncertaint Species/Effect Uncerta;nt Sped es /1 ulllOr \/ei9ht of Sped es IT URlor wei~ht of
of Concern Factor I of Concern Factor I SHe. Ev r ence Site [vi" enee (2}
Beryl HUll --/-- rat/none observed 100 hUlian/lung 82 rat/total tumors 82
Cad.iu. (water) (4) --/-- hUllan/cancer, )O human/respiratory 81 --/--
renal duage tract
Cad.iull (food/soil) (4) --/-- huaan/cancer, 10 hUllan/respiratory 81 --/--
renal d.aage tract
Ca ldum --/-- --/-- --/-- --/--
Chro.iull III --/-- rat/hepatotoxicity 1000 --/-- --/--
Chrolliu8 VI --/c.ncer rat/not defined 500 hUllan/lung A --/--
..
Coba \t --/-- --,-- -- --,-- --/--
Copper --/-- hUllanlloca I G I --/-- --/--
i rri tat ion
Iron Data inadequate --/-- --/-- --/--
lead --,eNS effects --/CHS effects --/-- 82 --/-- 82
Magnesium --/-- --,-- --/-- --1--
Manganese hUlDan/CNS 100 rat/reproductive 100 --/-- --/--
Mercury human/neurotoxicity 30 rat/kidney effects 1000 --/-- --/--
Nickel --/cancer rat/reduced body 300 human/respiratory A --/--
.. organ weight tract
Potassiull --,-- --,-- --/-- --/--
Seleniull --/-- --/-- --/-- --1--
S i her --/-- hUlian/ argyri a 2 --/-- --/--
Sodium --/-- --/-- --1-- --/--
Iha 11 ium --/-- rat/increased S601 3000 --1-- --1--
.. serum LOH levels.
a lopeda
-------
. . .
(continued)
Chronic Reference Oose
helllical of
'otential Concern
Inha)at ion
Species/Effect
01 Concern
:inc
--/--
:yanide
--/--
. Uncertaint
Factor)
Oral
Species/Effect
of Concern
rat/weight loss,
thyroid effects &
.yelin degeneration
rat/weight loss,
thyroid effects &
~yelin degeneration
uncertaintl
Factor (J
SOO
SOO
Inha lation
Slope Factor
Oral
SIIec ies/Tumor
Site
--/--
--/--
Wejght of
Ev1dence
Species/Tumor
Site
--/--
--/--
Page 10
Weight 01
-------
(continued)
paye 11
Che.ical Group of
Potential Concern
Representat he
COllJlound
Chronic Reference Dose
Inhalation
Oral
uncertaintl
factor {l
Species/Effect
of Concern
Uncertaint
factor 1
Species/Effect
of Concern
TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COHPOUNDS (5)
Propy I Benzenes Cu.ene rat/CNS involvement, 10,000 rat/renal 3.000
nasal irritation
Propenyl Benzenes "ethyl Styrene mouse/nasal lesions 1000 mouse/nasal lesions 1,000
Ethyl "ethyl Benzenes Ethyl toluene Data inadequate --/--
Oiethyl Benzenes Ethyl, benzene --/-- rat/hepatotoxicity,
nephrotoxicity
"ethyl Propy I Benzenes Cumene rat/CNS involvement, 10,000 rat/renal 3,000
nasal irritation
"ethyl Ethenyl Benzenes "ethy 1 Styrene. lIOuse/nasal lesions 1,000 mouse/nasal lesions 1.000
"ethy f Pheny I Benzenes Naphtha I ene --/-- rat/decreased body 10 . 000
weight gain
Trimethyl Benzenes Trimethy f benzene Data Inadequate --/--
Dimethyl ethyl benzenes Ethyl benzene --/-- rat/hepatotoxicity, 1 . 000
nephrotoxicity
Tetramethyl Benzenes Tri.ethyl benzene Data Inadequate --/--
Oxygenated Benzenes Benzaldehyde --/-- rat/kidney. 1,000
forestomach
Halogenated Benzenes o-chlorotoluene --/-- rat/decreased body 1,000
-------
(continued)
Pa!le 12
Chronic Reference Dose
Representat ive
Co.pound
Chemical Group of
Potential Concern
Ora I
Inhalation
Species/Effect
of Concern
Uncertaint~
Factor (I
uncertaint!
factor (1
Species/Effect
of Concern
mouse/hematological,
adrenal, renal &
hej)atic lesions
1,000
DOuse/hematological,
adrenal, renal &
hepatic lesions
300
Nitrobenzene
Nitrogenated Benzenes
--1--
--1--
--1--
--/--
Hethylcyclohexane
Vinylcyclohexane
I,I,I-Trichloroethane
Cyclic alkanes
Cyclic Alkenes
guinea piCJI
hepatotoX1city
rat/neuropathy
or testicular atrophy
ratlneuropathy or
testi~ular atrophy
1,000
guinea pig/hepatotoxicity 1,000
Halogenated Alkanes
10,000
300
human/neurotoxicity
n-hexa'oe
n-chain Alkanes
10 , 000
300
human/neurotoxicity
n-hexane
Branched Alkanes
.-1..
Data Inadequate
vinyl cyclohexene
Ethy I ether
Naphthalene
Branched Alkenes/Alkynes
Et~ers
Methylated Naphthalenes
rat/liver effects
rat/decreased body
weight gain
1,000
10,000 .
--/--
--/--
mouse/lun~ & kidney
histopalholoyy
rat/reduced body
weight gain,
neurotoxicity
1,000
--/--
Phthalic anhydride
Phthalates
1,000
--1--
Cresol
Methylated Phenols
rat/increased liver &
kidney weight,
nephrotox ic ity
rat/feloloxicity
1,000
--/--
Acetone
Methylated Ketones
1,000
1,000
100
1,000
rat/CNS
2-butanone
Isophorone
Simple Ketones
Cyclic Ketones
dog/kidney lesions
rat/morta Ii ty, liver
& kidney effects
--1--
--/--
Ethylene glycol
Dio15
rat/effects on erythrocyte
I,UUU
--/--
I-butano I
Vinyl cyclohexene
Simple Alcohols
Straight chain
a Ikenesl a Hynes
--/--
-------
(continued)
palJe 13
Che.ical Group of
Potential Concern
Reprcsenut i ve
Co.pound
Chronic Reference Dose
Inha 1a Ii on
Oral
Sped es/Eff ect
of Concern
Uncertaint
Factor
Species/Effect
of Concern
Uncertaint
Factor 1
Cyclic Alcohoh Benzyl alcohol
Oxygenated Alcohols Ethyl ,1~cOI
IIOnobu 'J ether
Cyclic Acids Benzoic acid
Hon-Cyc1 ic Acids AG,ry lie acid
Allines Coprolacta.
PoltChlorindated PCBs
Bip enyh (PCBs)
Furans Tetrahydrofuran
--/--
rat/hyperplasia of the
epitheliu. of the
foresto.ach
1,000
rat/ altered
hellOtology
--/7-
1,000
-./--
human/irritation,
malaise
lIOuse/lesions of the
nasal ..cosa
1,000
rat/reduced body weight,
altered organ weights
rat/reduced body weight
1,000
--/--
--,--
100
--/--
--'--,
mouse/hepat ic'
lesions
1000
NOTES:
1) A reference dose (RFD) is derived fro. a pertinent toxicity study(s). and is an estimate of the "safe" level of chemical
intake over a set length of exposure (e.g., chronic) for hUllans. "any assu.phons .ust be made when predict in9 this "safe"
chemical intake level (i.e., RFD) fro. a laboratory study. Uncertainty factors (UFs) are applied when estimat1ng the RFO
for the following 'reasons. .
. A UF of 10 is used to account. for variation in the general population and is intended to protect sensitive
subpopulations (e.g., elderly, children).
. A UF of 10 is used when extrapolating from ani.al data to humans. This factor is intended to account for the
interspecies variability between humans and other mammals. .
. A UF of 10 is used when a RFD is derived from a subchronic instead of a chronic toxicity study.
. A ur of 10 is used when a lowest adverse effect level (LOAEL) is used instead of a no adverse effect level (NOAEl) to
derive a RFD. This factor is intended to account for the uncertainty associated with extrapolating from toxic levels ~f
chemical exposure (i.e., lOAEl) to nontoxic levels of chemical exposure (i.e., HOAEl).
In certain cases, a modifying factor (nF) is used to account for further uncertainty associated with the toxicity study
used to develop the RfO. The Hf may vary from >0 to 10.
The uncertainty factors presented in this table represent the product of al I the uncertainty factors (and modi fY1l19
-------
.- -
(continued)
Page 14
2) This code represents the U.S. [PA weight-ot-evidence classification systell tor carcinogenicity tor chemicals. The fol1ow1n!)
Is a description of the classification by group.
Groul!
Description
A
Known hu.an carcinogen
81 or 82
Probable human carcinogen
81 indicates that li.ited hUllan data on the carcinogenicity of the chemical are available.
82 indicates sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequat~ or no
evidence of carcinogenicity In humans exists.
C
Possible human carcinogen
o
Hot classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
E
Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for hUlllans
5)
The slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene was used to represent the carcinogenic potential of the carcinogenic polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Toxicity values have been developed separately for ingestion of cadmium in water and cadmium ingestion with solids (I.e..
food or soil). .~
Tentatively identified co.pounds (TICs) were grouped based on similar chemical structure. Compounds of similar chemical
structure are assumed to have sim1lar toxicological properties. For each TIC grouping, a representative compound was
chosen for which there was a reference dose (RFD). The RfD for the representative compound was used to represent the toxic
potential of the particular TIC group.
The information in this table was sUlllllarized from U.S. EPA's "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables" (Fiscal Year -
Annual, 1991).
3)
4)
6)
iliUm
. information not available
data inadequate. presently, toxicity data is inadequate tor reference dose or slope factor derivat iOIl.
-------
TA hIe 4
CIlfMICAL lOXICITY VALUES AlII AlSOIIPIiCli ESIlMAIES
USEO '01 IIU: ClUAllllfiCAIiCli
A81rlcln Ch..lcil S.rvlc.. NPL Sit. .
188Id1ll Inveetilitian
Griffith, Indl8n8
-1 eII_lcll Ab8orftlon 0.....1
Chronic ..f.renc. 008. (III/lei-d) Slope fector (111/IeI.d) Eltl..t. (unit .11) ,.,...8bI.ll ty
Che8lcII Conatll\t
lrilalltlon Or.l 01....1 l""llation Or.l 0.,...1 Oral 0.....1 (clll/hr)
-;:t- ~;
.".
VOLAIILES
ChlorCllllthene lID 0 811 lID 6.3..03 ... 1.31-02 1 Z.6I-OZ 0.50 0.30 1.0..00
Ir08D8lthene. 6.01.0) ". 1.41-0) I 7.01-04 III III III 0.50 0.30 1.0..00
VI~1 chloride lID III III 3.01-01 6 '_.,..00 11* 1.98+00 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
Ch oroethene 1.0et1O 1* III III III 0 lID lID 0.50 0.30 8.0.-03
Methylene chloride ,3.01+00 .* 6.01-02 I. 4.81-02 1.4.,02 . 7_5.-03 1 9.4.-03 0.80 0.30 1.0..00
Acltone \ III 1.01-01 I 9.5.,02 III III III 0.95 0.30 1.0..00
Clrbon dllulflde 1.0.'OZ H* 1.0.-01 " 5.0.-02 lID . lID lID 0.50 0.30 5.3.-01
1,1-0lchloroethene III 2 9.0.-03 I 9.0.-0) 1.2..00 II 6.0.-01 I 6.0a'01 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
1,1.0lchloroethene 1.08-01 1 1.0.-01 " 1.01,01 III III III 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
1 2.0lchloroethene (cll) lID 1.0.-02 1 9_Se-03 lID III lID 0.95 0.30 1.0..00
1,i'Olchloroethtnt (trena) 110 2.01.02 I. 1.98-02 III III 811 0.95 0.30 1.0..00
ChlorofOl"a lID Z 1.01-02 I 1.01-02 8.1.-02 II 6.1.-03 I 6- 1.-03 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
I,Z'olchloroethene III lID lID 9.1.-02 II 9.1.-02 1 9.1..02 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
2-lutenone 9.0.,02 112 5.0.-02 I 2.5a-02 II) III 110 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
1,I,I-Irlchloroethane 3.08,01 H2 9.0.,02 12 9.0.-02 III III lID 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
Clrbon tetrachloride III 7.0.-04 I 6.0.-04 1.3.-01 H 1.3.-01 I 1.5"'01 0.85 0.50 1 . 0..00
. vinyl ac.tat. 2.0.,01 1* 1.08+00 I. 5.0.-01 II) lID 811 0.50 0.50 1.0..00
. ranodl ch I orCllllthene 811 2.01-02 I 1.08-0Z II) 1.3.-01 I Z.6I-OI 0.50 0.30 1.0..00
I,Z-Dlchlorapropane II) D lID III II) 6.81-02 H 1.4.-01 0.50 0.50 1.0..00
CII-1,5'Dlchloropropene 2.08-0Z 1* 3.01-04 H 1.5.,04 1.3.-01 II 1.88-01 II 3.61-01 0.50 0.30 1.0..00
Irlchloroethent lID 110 811 1.7.-02 1 1~1.-0Z II 1.1.-02 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
DlbrOlOChlorCllllthene lID 2.0.-02 I 1.0..02 lID 8.4.-0Z I 1.7.-01 0.50 0.30 1.0..00
1,I,2'Irlchloroethene 811 4.0.-03 I 2.0.-03 5.7.-02 II 5.7.-02 I 1.1.-01 0.50 0.30 1 .0..00
lenaent lID lID lID 2.98-02 II 2.98-0Z I 5.8.-02 0.50 0.30 1.1..01
trens-1,3-0Ichloropropene 2.08-0Z II. 3.0.-04 H 1.5.,04 1.31-01 H 1.88.01 H 3.6.-01 0.50 0.30 1.0..00
'r08)fo,.. lID. 2.08-0Z 1 1.08'Q2 3.98,03 H 7.9.,05 I 1.61-02 0.50 0.50 1.0..00
4-M.thyl-2'pentenone Z.08~02 HZ 5.08-02 "' 2.5.-02 lID NO NO 0.50 0.50 1.0..00
2-M..enone lID D II) III III lID NO 0.50 0.30 I .0..00
I.trachloroethene lID 1.01-02 I 1.08-02 3.3.,03 6 5. 1.-0Z H 5. 1.-0Z 1.00 0.30 1.0..00
1,I,2,Z-Iatrachloroethlnt III NO 2 lID 2.08-D1 H 2.0.-01 I 2.1..01 0.95 0.30 1.0..00
Toluene 2.0..00 H* 2.0.-01 1* 2.0.-01 lID NO NO 1.00 0.30 1 .0..00
Chlorobenlene 5.0e-05 12 2.0.-02 I 6.08-03 II) II) ND 0.30 0.30 1.0..00
Ethylbenzene 1.0e.00 1* 1.08-01 I 5.0a-02 81) lID NO 0.50 0.30 1 .4..00
Styrene 110 2.08-01 12 1."-01 2.08-03 H 3_0.-02 H 3.3.-02 0.90 0.30 6.7.-01
Xylenea (.bed) 3.0.-01 HZ* 2.0..00 I 1.0..00 lID 810 NO 0.50 0.30 1.0..00
Xylenee (.,0) 2.0.-01 H 2.01+00 H 1.0..00 lID NO ND D.50 0.30 1. 0..00
-------
CHEMICAL lOlllCITY VAllES AlII) AlSCllPlIOII ESTIMATES
USED fOl 11I1 ClUAllllfiCAIIOII
Alerlcen Ch..lcel lervlc.. IPL lite
18IOdiei Inveltl,ltlon
Griffith, Indl8nl
-1 Ch-lc.I Abaorttion D..... I
Chronic a.f.renc. Do.. C88/k,-d) Slope factor C88Ik,-d) Eltl..t. Cunlt ell) P...ebH Ity
Ch_IClI Canttent
l"'ll.tlon Or. I D.....I 1"'.I.tlon Orel 0.....1 Ore I De....l C~hr)
SEMIVOLAIIlES '
Phenol lID 6.08-01 I 5.4e-01 NO lID lID 0.90 0.30 8.2e-03
bIIC2-Chloroethyl) eth.r 110 110 81) 1.1..00 I 1.1..00 I 2.2..00 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
2-Chlorophenol 110 5.0.-03 I 2.5.~03 81) 81) lID 0.50 0.30 1.3e-02
1,3'Dlchlorobenzene 110 D lID lID lID lID lID 0.50 0.30. 5_0.-03
1,4'Dlchlorobenzene ;1.0.-01 11* lID lID lID 2.4.-02 H 2.4.-02 1.00 0.10 5.0.-03
lenzyl Alcohol lID 3.0.-01 H 1.5.-01 lID lID ND 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
1,2-Dlchtorobenzene ".0.-02 II 9.0.-02 I 4_5.-02 110 110 NO 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
2-M.thrtptlenol lID 5.1.-02 I 4.1.-02 110 110 :g 0.80 0.30 1.60-02
bllC2-Chtoro I~~t)eth.r lID 4.08-02 N 2.0.-02 iIO lID 0.50 0.30 5.00-03
4-Methyl eno lID 5.08-02 I 4.08,02 lID lID 110 0.80 0.30 1.8e-02
N-Nltrolo-dl-n.dlpropvl..lne lID NO lID 110 1.08+00 I 1.4..01 0.50 0.30 5.0e-03
H...chloroethtnt lID 1.08-03 I 5.08-04 1.4.-02 ' 1.4.-02 I 2.h-02 0.50 0.30 5.0e-03
N ItrobeNent 2.08-03 N~ 5.08-04 I 2,5e-04 lID lID lID 0.50 0_30 5.0e-03
'Iophorone NO 2.08-01 I 1.0.-01 110 4.1.-03 1* 8.2.-03 0.5D 0.30 5.0e-03
2-Nltrophenol 110 lID lID lID 81) NO 0.50 0.30 1.1e-01
2,4-DI8Ithyiphenol lID 2.08-02 I 1.0.-02 lID lID NO 0.50 0.30 1.le-01
Benzoic Acid 110 4.0..00 I 3.0..00 lID lID .110 0.15 0.30 5.0e'03
bIIC2-chioroeth~)..th8nt lID lID NO lID lID ND 0.50 0_30 5.0e'03
2,4-Dlchlor enol lID 1.0.-03 I 1.5.-03 lID NO ND 0.50 0.10 6.0.-02
1,2,4-Irlchlorobenzene 3.0.-03 II 1.3.-03 "' 6.61-04 NO lID ND 0~50 0.30 5.0.-03
IIlphthllene NO 4.08-03 H2 3.4.-03 lID lID ND 0.84 0.30 5.0e'03
'-Chtoroaniline lID 4.0.-03 I 2.0"03 lID NO NO 0.50 0.30 5.0e-03
lIe..chlorobuttdlene lID 2.0.-03 I 1.0.-03 1.88.02 . 1.88-02 I 1.68-01 0.50 0.30 5.08-03
'-Chloro-3...thtlphenol NO lID lID lID NO NO 0.50 0.30 5.5e-02
2-Methrlnepht Ilene NO NO lID NO lID NO 0.50 0.30 5.08,03
1I...chlorocyclopenttdlene 2.0..05 II 1.0.-03 I 3.5.-03 NO NO NO 0.50 0.30 5.0"03
2,4,6'Irlchlorophenol NO 2 NO NO 1.1..02 . 1.1.-02 ' 2.2.-02 0.50 0.30 5.9.-01
2i4,5-IrlChiorophenol lID 2 1.0.-01 I 5.0.-02 NO ND ND 0.50 0.30 5.98,01
-Chloronaphthllene NO 8.0.-02 I 4.0.-02 NO ND ND 0.50 0.30 5.0"03
2-lIltroanfllne NO D lID NO NO NO NO 0.50 0.30 5.0e-03
DI88thylphthlllt. lID 1 1.0..00 H 5.0.-01 NO NO NO 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
Acenephthylene lID 0 NO 1 NO lID NO NO 0.50 0.30 5.0e-03
2.6'Dlnltrotoluene NO 0 NO 110 lID 6.h-01 " 1.'~00 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
3.Nltroanlllne ND 0 110 lID 110 lID NO 0.50 0.30 5.0..03
Acenephthene NO 6.08-02 I 3.0.-02 lID 110 NO 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
2,4-Dlnltrophenol 110 2.0.-03 I 1.0.-03 NO NO NO 0.50 0.30 3.2.-03
4-lltrophenol lID 0 lID NO NO NO ND 0.50 0.30 5.6e-03
-------
CHEMICAL TOXICITY VALUES AID USOIPTlOII ESTIMAtES
USED '01 IlK IIMIITlflCATlOII
"'rlc8I\ eII_lclt brvlc.. IIPL Ihe
18Id11' Investlptlon
Griffith, Indl8n8
-1 eII_lc.' Ab8o~tlon De....t
eIIronlc .eferenc. D08e (../It,-d) stope 'actor (../It,-d) Eltl..te Cunlt ell) PI....1b1 t I tv
Chelllcit ConIt.,..t
l""I'ltion Or.t De,...' Imltltlon Orlt DUlle' Orlt DI,...' (c.,hr)
2,4-Dlnltrototuene lID D1 lID lID lID 6.e.-01 111 1.4..00 0.50 0.10 5.0e-01
Ol'thv'phth.,.t. lID 8.08-01 I 4.08-01 lID lID lID 0.50 0.30 1.11-05
4-ChlorOphenv'-phenv'ether lID lID . lID ... ID 0.50 0.10 5.01-01
F&uorenl lID 4.08-02 I 2.08-02 ID ID ID 0.50 0.30 5.01-03
4-lIhr08l'l" lne ID 0 ID . ID ID lID 0.50 0.10 5.01-03
4,6'Dlnitro-Z-..thr,phenot lID D ID lID ID lID IIf 0.50 0.30 5.01-03
.-nltrolodlpheny ..Ine ID D ID ID ID 4.ge-03 I 5.0,-03 0.98 0_30 5.01-03
4-lrOlOpheny,~'ether ID 0 ID lID lID lID II) 0.50 0.30 5.01-03
HIRachtor ene i ID 8.08-04 I 4.08-04 1.68tOO II 1.61+00 I 3. Z..oo 0.50 0.30 6.4e-04
pentachtorOpheno' lID 1.08-02 I Z.71-02 ID 1.Ze-01 18 1.3.-01 0.90 0.10. 5.0.-01
Phenenthr... ID 0 lID lID ID lID . 0.50 0.30 5.0e-01
Anthracene lID 1.0.-01 I 1.5.-01 lID lID lID 0.50 0.30 5.0e-01
DI-n-butv'phthl,.t. lID 1 1.08-01 I 9.08-02 lID ID lID 0.90 0.10 2.3e-06
Fluorenthene lID 4.08-02 I 2.08-02 ID ID lID 0.50 O.SO 5.0e-03
pyrene lID J.08-02 I 1.51-02 :, ID 110 110 0.50 0.30 5.0e-03
.lutylbenIV'phth.l.tl ID 2.08-01 I 1.e.-01 lID ID ID 0.90 0.30 5.0e-03
3,J'-OlchtorobtnJldlne lID ID lID lID 4;5.-01 I 9.0e-01 0.50 0.30 5.01-01
lenloCI)enthrlCenI lID lID ID ID lID lID 0.50 0.30 . 5.0.-03
ChrY8ene lID 0 ID lID ID ID lID 0.50 0.30 5.0e-03
bll(Z-ethvth.Rvt)c=thlt.t. ID 2.01-02 I 5.08-= ID 1.4e-OZ I 5.6I-OZ ..0.25 0_30 5.1.-06
DI'n.octv' Pht .tlt. lID 2.08-02 II 1.08-' ID lID lID 0.50 0.30 5.0"03
lenzoCb)t'uorenthene lID ID 110' lID ID 110 .0.50 0.10 5.0e-01
lenloCk)t'uorenthene lID ID . ID NO ID ' 0.50 0.10 5.0.-03
lenloCI)pyrene lID lID . ID II 110 H lID 0.50 0.30 5.0.-03
IdenoC1,Z,1-cd)pyrene ID lID ... lID ID lID 0.50 0_30 5.0e-03
DlbenlCI,h)enthracene lID lID lID ID NO lID 0.50 0.30 5.0..03
lenzoC"h l)perJ'ene lID ID lID lID ID lID 0.50 0.10 5.0e-01
Tot.t clrclnogen c PAHI lID lID lID 6.1..00 H1 1.2..01 H1 2.3..01 0.50 0.30 5.0e-01
PESTI C IDE/PCI
Ilphl-IHC lID lID lID 6_1..00 H 6.1..00 I 1.1..01 0.50 0.30 1.1,.-02
betl-SHC lID lID lID 1.88+00 H 1.8..00 I J.6I+oo 0.50 0.30 1.4.-02
de'U-BHC lID D lID lID lID 110 lID 0.50 0.30 110
,....-SHC CLlndane) lID 3.0.-04 I 1.08-04 lID 1.1..00 H 1.3..00 1.00 0.10 1.3e-02
HeptlcMor ID 5.08-04 I 1.5.-04 4 .5..00 H 4.5..00 I 6.4..00 0.70 0.30 110
Atdrln ID 1.08-05 I 1.5,-OS 1 .7..01 H 1.7..01 I 3.4..01 0.50 0.30 1. 5e-03
Heptlch'or epoxlde ID 1.1.-os 18 6.5.-06 9.1..00 H 9.1..00 I 1.8..01 0.50 O.JO 1.5e'03
Endolulfen I lID f.Oe-OS H 2.5..05 lID 110 110 0.50 0.30 110
-------
CHEMICAL TOXICITY VALUES All) AlSOIPTIOli ESTIMATES
USED '01 II SIC ClUAllTI' I CA TI 011
Merleen Ch_lc'-' lervlc.. NPL Sit.
..-1.' InvutlpUon
Griffith, Indl8nl
-I Ch_lc.' Ab80rft'on De....'
Chronic ..f.rene. Do.. (1III/kg-d) . "ope fector (l1li1 kg-d) I.tl..t. (unit ...) P.....abl , I ty
Ch_lc.1 ConItint
IM.'.Uon Or.' D.....l IM.'.tlon Or.l D.....l Or.l D....., (aa/hr)
4,4' -DDE NO NO NO NO 3.4.-01 I 3.1e-01 0.90 0.30 1.1e-01
Endrln NO 3.0.-04 I 1.5.-04 NO . NO 0.50 0.30 NO
Endolul fen II . 5.0.-05 II 2.5.-05 NO NO NO 0.50 0.30 NO
4 4' -ODD NO NO NO NO 2.4.-01 H 4.8.-01 0.50 0.30 3.08-01
Endolutfen lulf.t. NO 5.0.-05 H8 2.5.-05 NO NO NO 0.50 0.30 NO
4,4'-OOT NO 5.08-04 I 2~5.-04 3.4.-01 H 3.4.-01 I 6.1e-01 0.50 0.30 3.0.,01
Methoxych'or NO 5.08-03 1- 2.5.-01 lID NO lID 0.50 0.30 lID
Indrln k.tone NO . NO NO NO NO 0.50 0.30 NO
.'ph.-Ch'ord8ne NO 6.08-05 II 3.08-05 1.3..DD H 1.3..00 H 2.6e+00 0.50 0.30 ND
g_-Ch'ord8ne NO 6.0.-05 I 3.0.-05 1.3..00 H 1.3..00 H 2.6..00. 0.50 0.30 110
1ollllllh..... NO lID lID 1.18+00 H 1.18+00 I 2.2..00 0.50 0.30 NO
PCI NO NO . . 1.1..00 H 2.6..01 0.30 0.08 5.3.-01
METALS
Ahal... 110 . NO NO NO NO 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
AnU8DnY lID 4.08-04 I 2.0.-05 lID lID NO 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
Anenlc lID 1.08-03 112 9.5.-04 5.0.+01 H 1.88+00 6 1.9..00 0.95 0.01 1.5"03
'.r". 1.08-04 " 7.08,02 1* 1.5.-03 lID . NO 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
lery" ha NO 5.08-01 I 5.08-04 10 "* 4.3..00 I 4.3..01 0.10 0.01 1.5.-03
Cedllh. (lI.t.r) lID 2 5.0.-04 I 1.5.-05 NO "* lID NO 0.07 0.01 1.5.-03
CedIII.... (food/.oIU 110 Z 1.0.-01 I 1.0.-05 lID "* NO NO 0.07 0.01 1.5.-03
C.'el.... 110 NO 10 lID lID NO 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
Chr.l.... III 2.08-06 H 1.0.+00 H 5.0.'01 lID NO lID 0.50 0.01 2.1.-03
Chr.l.... VI 2.01-06 HZ. 5.0.,01 I 2.5.-03 lID "* lID NO 0.50 0.01 2.1.-03
CobIlt lID NO lID lID lID NO 0.05 0.01 1.5"03
COfIF8r lID 10 lID 110 NO NO 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
Iron lID lID NO 110 NO 110 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
L.ed lID 10 lID NO ND NO 0.50 0.01 1.5"03
M.gne.I"" III lID NO NO lID NO 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
"8nlane.. 4.0e-04 1* 1.0.,01 1* 4.0..03 lID NO NO 0.04 0.01 1.5e-03
Mercury 3.08'04 HZ* 3.08-04 HZ 4.5.-05 lID NO NO 0.15 0.01 1.5.-03
Nick., NO 2.0.-02 12 2.0.-03 8.4.-01 4 NO NO 0.10 0.01 1.5.-03
Pot...1.... NO lID 110 NO lID NO 0.05 0.01 1.5"03
S.'enl.... NO lID 2 10 NO NO NO 1.00 0.01 1.5.-03
Silver lID 3.08-03 I 3.0"04 NO NO 110 0.10 0.01 1.5.-03
Sodl.... liD 110 NO NO lID ND 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
Th." lUll NO 7 .0.-05 H 3.5.-06 110 NO lID 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
Vlnedll.ll NO 7.0.-03 H 3.5"04 NO NO NO 0.05 0.01 1.5.-03
-------
CHEMICAL 'OXICITY VALUES AID MIOIPTI" ESTIMATES
USED '01 IlK GUAllTlflCATI..
"' _ricin Ch.lc.i lervlc.. IIPL lit.
..-dl.i 1fW88t1pUon
Irlfflth, Indlene
., Ch-Iut Abaorrtlon O.....L
Chronic I.f.rene. Do.. (1II/kg-d) It ope 'Ktor (III/kl-d) E.tl..t. (unit ...) Pe....mlttty
CtI.teli ConIt",t
I~.i.tlon Gr.i D..... i Im.i.tlon Gr.i D.,...i Gr.i D.....i (c:a/hr)
Cylntde lID 2_08-02 I '.4.-02 lID lID lID 0.70 0.01 1.5.-03
TIC GrCM4»lnp
PropyL lenaenH 9.01-0] ... 4.08-02 II 2.08-02 lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 1. 0e+00
Propenyi III\IIRII '.08-02 " 6_08-05 ' 5.0I-OJ lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 1.01+00
Ethyt M8thyi IlI\IenH ,2.08+00 '. 2.01-01 1* 2.01-01 lID lID lID '.00 0.30 1.0e+00
o .thyL lenaenll \ 1.01+00 I. 1.01-01 I 5.01-02 lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 , .4e+00
M8thyi propyi lenaenll \ 9.08-0J II. 4.08-02 II 2.08-02 lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 , .0..00
M8thyi Eth~Tt I8nlenll 1.08-02 II 6.0I-OJ II J.08-0J lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 5.0.-03
...thIL Pheny 11f\18n18 lID 4.0I-OJ 112 J.4.-0] lID lID lID 0.84 0.30 5.0e-03
Tr _thyi lenaenH 5.1.-0' 4.08-01 4.01-01 lID lID lID '.00 0.30 , .0..00
Ot..thyL Ithyi blnZenII 1.01+00 I. '.08-01 I 5.01-02 lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 '.4e+00
'Itr..thyt lenzenll 5.7.-01 4.01-01 4.01-0' "lID lID III 1.00 0.10 '.08+00
Oayl8ft8ted lenalRll lID 1.01-01 " 5.01-02 lID lID 110 0.50 0.10 , .0..00
HliOlen8ted III\IIRII lID 2.01-02 II 1.01-02 lID lID 110 0.50 0.10 5.08-01
IIltrogenated Ilnlenll 2.0.-0J H2* 5.08-04 I 2.5.-04" lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 1.0..00
Cyci Ic .Ut"" lID 0 lID lID lID lID lID 0.50 0.00 1.0e+00
Cyei Ic AUtenl8 lID D lID lID lID lID lID 0.50 0.00 1.0..00
H.iOl8ft8tld AtklRll 5.01-01 112 9.08-02 12 9.01-02 lID lID 110 1.00 0.10 1.0..00
n-ch.ln AUt"" 2.0.-01 11* 6.08-02 It. J.0.'02 "lID lID lID 0_50 0.30 1.0e+00
Irenched AUt'" 2.01'01 ..* 6.08,02 It. J.0.-02 lID lID 110 "' 0.50 0.10 , .0..00
'renched Aikenel/AUynea lID D lID 110 lID lID lID 0.50 0.00 1.0..00
Elhlre lID 5.01-01 H 2.5.-01 lID lID 110 0.50 0.10 1. 7.-02
"Ithyt.ttd IIlphth.Len18 lID 4.01-03 H2 1.4.-01 lID lID lID 0.84 0.30 5.0e-0]
Phth.t.t.. lID 2.08+00 II 1.01+00 lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 5.01-01
Methytlted PhenoL. 110 5.1"02 I 4.1.-02 lID lID NO 0.80 0.10 1.8e-02
M'thytlted K.tona. lID 1.01-01 I 9.5.-02 lID lID 110 0.95 0.]0 1 .0..00
stlipL. K.tones 9.0.-02 1t2 5.01-02 I 2.5.-02 lID lID III 0.50 0.10 1.0e+00
CycUc lC.tona. lID" 2.01,01 I 1.01-01 lID 4. ,.-0] 1* 8.2.-01 0.50 0.10 1.0..00
Otoi. 110 2.01+00 " 1 .08+00 lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 5.0e-03
stlllL. AicchoL. lID 1.01-01 II 5.0.-02 lID lID 810 0.50 0.10 , .0..00
CycLic Alcohot. 110 1.01-01 " 1.5.-01 110 lID 810 0.50 0.10 5.0e-0]
OaYleneted Aieohol. 2.0.-02 " lID lID lID lID lID 0.50 0.10 5.0e-03
Cyci te Actdl lID 4.01+00 I 1.0e+00 110 lID 110 0.75 0.]0 5.0e-03
lIon-Cycitc Actds ].0.-04 " 8.0..02 .. 4.01-02 NO lID 110 0.50 0.30 1 .0e+00
a.tnel 810 5.01-01 II 2.5,-0' lID ' lID 110 0.50 0.]0 1.0e+00
PCB. lID lID 110 NO 7. 7e+00 H 2.6..01 0.]0 0.00 5.0e-03
-------
CHEMICAL TOXICIIY VALUES AIID AlSOIPTlOli ESTIMATES
USED FOI IISIC GlWI'IFICAlIOII
AMrleln Ch_Icll IIrvlc'l IPL lit.
l.-dlll Inve,UI8Uon
8rlfflth, Indl8A8
lIot..:
Toxicity veluee wer. obt.lned fr08 the U... EPA', Intltr.ted Illk Infor88tlon lyet.. (II'S), U.S. EPA'. -H..lth Effect. A.....-ent
. . "-8ry Tebl..- CIlEAIT, Annuli n-I991), and Infol'88t!r'. provided by u...:.:~rOMlnt'I CrUlr'a A....l8Iftt Offlc. CEtAO).
Toxicity value. fOrthl IIC .rOl,lpI,.s arl vatUII f'f" -r. r""lnt.t.f.'i!"~- ~ .
eh-lc.1 .peelfle Infol'88Uon pert.lnlne to thl ore' end ....., _orptlon of eClllpOtRia .... provided by ECAO. In the
_enel of eII.lcll apeclflc V.tUII, It .... ..8&88d thet the oral _orpUon Ifflclency for orllf\lc cOlllpOUOdl end _tel.
.... 50 I and 5 I, r8Ip8Ctlva'y. Th. .....t 8b8orptlon .Itl..tl. werl u..-a to be :sol for orllf\lc c~ end '.0 I
for .tll.. 'hi oral end ."", ebaorptlon ..tIMt.. .r. prl.ented .. ~IU". value. ""Ir. '.0 r...ent. 100 I (c~l.te)
eblorptlon. Ch_lcll-lpIClflc .1'881 pel'88ebltftV conatentl ...rl obtllned fr08 the u.s. EPA -Superfund Expolur.
A.....-ent MInUI'- CSENt) 1988. or the lCAO. A. required by thl U.S.EPA, ""an ch88tce'-lpIClflc tnfol'88t1on I. not .v.llabll.
default ve'uel wer. e..lgned to..r...ent c:h_lcli pel'8l8blltt" .. footnoted.
\
aeference D08el end Ilope Factor. deltpted for the .r-' route of exposure er. not provided In the U.5. EPA tnforMtlon.oure'l,
but were c.leul.ted fr08 corr..pondll'll v.lue. for the ore' rout. of expoaur.. 'h... va'uel arl used to ca'culatl rllk.
e..octeted "Ith ch8lcal doll HUMt.. ba.ed on en eblorbad Cln contr..t to en adIIlnlltlred) levll of ch_Ic.'. AU eh_lc.'
do.. I.UMtll for the de,..1 rout. of .xpoeur. ara ba.ed on _orbed eII.lcal 1'''118. 'hi followll'll r.'attonahl.p8 tlere
Uled to dlrivi dI,..I toxicity value.:
Or'I I.f.renel 001. (adIIlnt.tared) x Or.' Ablorptlon E.tl..t. . Denial I.f.renc. Do.. (8b8orbed)
Or.' Slape factor CadIIlntlt.red) I Orel Ab8orptlon EltI..t. . D.r..1 Slape factor (8b8orbed)
fOOTNOTES' C'llted to the right of the v.lue)
I . V.rlfled tn .111 5/15/91
II . V.lue. fr08 lEAS' 'Y-I991
D . 'D.te inadequltl for quantltltivi rl.k .....l8Iftt' CHEAS'); eppll.. to .11 IfD. for thl. e~.
lID . v.lue not dlt....lned for thl. cOllpU1d.
e . Velue. fr08 Int.rl. Guldancl for D.n881 Expo.ur. AI"ll88nt. (OHEA'E.]6!l 3/91, I.vl... Dr.ft)
1 . V.IUII fr08 the Superfund EnvlronleRt.t A....l8Iftt Manual (EPA/540/1-88/uu') Tlbl' A-4.
. . v.lue updated 5/91 CR.vl.ed fr08 dr.ft rt.k .....ament)
1 . v.lue withdrawn by 1115 pending furth.r r.vlew.
2 . e~ under .1.5 review.
3 . 'otll carcinogenic PAH.; If 01 and Sf v.luea fr08 Benlo(.Jpyrene used.
4 . Mlck.1 .Iope tletor for nlck'i refinery dult.
S . .RIS not queried tor thl. cOlllpO'Ri
6 . vlluel fr08 ECAO Technlc.I S"fIPOrt Center.
7 . B.ranowak,'Dutkt.wtc, I. 1981. Absorption of Hexlvalent Chromlue In Man. Arch. ToxlcOI., 41: 41-50.
8 . Vllue for cndolul fan Uled for endo.ul fon aul fit..
Der..1 Pel'8l8bHtt, conatent Defeult v.lue.,
VOlatll.. - Toluene (1.01..00) .. required by U.S.EPA.
S.tvoiltUe. - 2-lut- (5.0.-0]) .. required by U.S.EPA.
Pc'ttclde. - V.IUII 'r08 ECAD. 'ot.1 PCBI use Aroelor 1Z48.
I nor8enlCI - w.ter (1.50.03)
JAH/jah/EAG/KJD
(.c8.2020Jtox-tabl..w20
-------
13
It is important to note that risks due to exposure to lead in
soils and waste areas were not evaluated because USEPA has not
developed a CPF or RfD for lead. Until a CPF or RfD is
developed, USEPA is using the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry's finding that lead levels of 500 to 1,000 mgjkg
in soils can cause increased blood lead levels in children as a
basis for assessing risks. due to lead. Lead concentrations in
waste areas and in some other site soils exceed 500 mgjkg and
thus may result in adverse health effects under the scenarios
discussed below. U.S. EPA now believes that the best approach in
evaluating lead contamination involves using the Uptake
Biokinetic Model as a risk assessment tool to predict blood lead
levels and develop appropriate clean-up standards. Specific
clean-up standards may be modified during design based upon the
results of. this model.
Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment identified potential pathways for
contaminants of concern to reach the receptors and the estimated
contaminant concentration at the point of exposure. Estimated
exposures to contaminated media were calculated based on a
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario, in accordance with
the National contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR Part 300), under both
current and projected future land use conditions. The exposure
pathways evaluated in the BlRA are summarized in Table 5.
The current land use scenario takes into account that there are
residents who have access now and will have access in the future
to contaminated areas of the site. It is therefore plausible
that off-site residents, including trespassers, may be exposed to
contaminants at the site. ACS continues to operate and thus,
site employees represent a population potentially exposed to site
contamination.
The future land use scenario takes into account that the site is
zoned general industrial. However, there is residential zoning
adjacent to the site .and some residences exist within the
industrial zoned areas. It may therefore be possible that the
site, or areas near the site, could be developed for residential
use.
Current-Use Conditions - Off-Site Residents
zoning in the immediate vicinity of ACS is industrial, light
industrial, or residential. The current use exposure assessment
evaluated the following pathways for Off~site Residents:
incidental ingestion and dermal contact of upper aquifer ground
water; ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of lower aquifer
ground water; inhalation of volatile emissions released from
subsurface contaminants; and inhalation of fugitive dusts from
-------
Potentially Exposed Population
Tpble 5
Exposure Pathway Analysis
A8erican Chllical Services RI/FS
Griffith, Indiana
Exposure Route, "ediu.
and Exposure Point
Pathway Selected
for Evaluation?
Page 1 of .
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
-------------------------------------------------------- CURRENT LAND USE CONDITIONS --------------------------------------------------
Off-Site residents adjacent to
Site.
Off-Site residents adjacent to
Site.
Ingestion of groundwater fro. the
upper aquifer.
No
Denaal contact and incidental
ingestion of groundwater fro. the
upper aquifer.
Yes
\
Surve~s perfor8ed at homes adjacent to the
Site 1nd1cate those with wells in the shallow
aguifer do not use the. for drinking water;
t~e 8Unicipal syste. is used.
Some hOles adjacent to the Site maintain
wells in the upper aquifer and use the water
for lawn care and gardening. If contaminated
groundwater were to .igrate to the off-Site
wells, exposure .ay be possible for garden
produce and subsequent human consumption. In
addition, children .ay play in the water
(e.g., in swi..ing pools) and become exposed
der8a ly or through incidental ingestion.
However, no testing was performed for these
wells because they are not used for drinking
water and because if contamination were
found, it would be difficult to determine the
source, in a region where there exists many
industries. Also, the flow of groundwater in
the upper aquifer is diverted towards the
excavation near the active landfill and by
the wetlands which surround the Site, both
servinQ to control off-Site migration of
contam1nants. Nonetheless, if contaminants
in the shallow aquifer migrate to off-Site
iocations, residents adjacent to the Site may
occasiona ly be exposed, therefore, this
-------
Potential Iv Expose~ Population
Off-Site residents adjacent to
Site. .
Off-Site residents adjacent to
Site.
Off-Site residents adjacent to
Site.
Off-Site residents adjacent to
Site.
Off-Site residents adjacent to
Site. .
Exposure Route, "ediu.
and Exposure Point
Ingestion and/or other potential
exposures to groundwater fro. the
lower aquifer.
Inhalation of volatiles emissions
released fr08 subsurface
contuinants.
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
eaanating fro. surface
conta.ination at Kapica/Pazmey.
Ingestion of garden vegetables
and fruits.
Fishing, hunting and trapping;
terrestrial and aquatic speCles
for consullption.
Adolescents. playing (trespassing) Inhalation of volatiles released
on-Site. froll the Site.
(Continued)
Pathway Selected
for Evaluation?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Page 2 of 4
.Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Eight private wells located in the deep
aquifer were analyzed during the RI and had
no detectable levels of contamination. The
ACS and landfill facilities both .aintain
wells in the lower aquifer; the landfill
facility uses their well for drinking watert
the use of the well at ACS is for industrial
purposes as well as drinking water. There is
retardation of conta.inant .igration
vertically due to the confining layer. The
potential for exposure to the groundwater in
the lower aquifer is considered to be low.
Nonetheless, conta.inants detected in the
lower aquifer were assumed to lIigrate to off-
Site locations where exposure lIay occur.
The aaount of VOCs eminati~g from the
contuinated soils is expected to be low
co.pared to that froll the ACS facility and
fr08 the air in this region of heavy
industry. No sa.ples were taken in the field
because of the difficulty in distinguishing
air pollutant sources and anthropogenic
background. It should be recognized that
volatiles r~leased from the Site lIay pose an
exposure to off-Site residents. Predicting
the aaount of exposure quantitatively would
be difficult given the current conditions.
Nonetheless, an e.ission and dispersion model
was used to esti.ate potential releases to
air froll subsurface conta.ination.
There exist unvegetated areas of surface soil
conta.ination at Kapica/Paz.ey. These soils
may be disturbed via wind erosion and
disperse conta.inated particulates to off-
Site locations. The greatest impact is
likely to be on-Site. A particulate erosion
and dispersion IIOdel has been used to
estimate exposure from this pathway.
This pathway was not considered to present
substantial risk.
The wetlands do not support fish populations.
Hunting and trapping are considered low
potentlal exposure pathways because of small
user groups. .
Similar to off-Site residents, est Imdt ing
exposure via this pathway ulldtr current
conditions utilized an emissiolls alld
-------
Exposure Route. Hedium
Potentially Exposed Population And Exposure Point
Adolescents playing (trespassing) Inhalation of fugitive dusts at
on-Site. Kapica/PlzIeY.
Adolescents playing (trespassing) Incidental ingestion of, and
on-Site. dental contact with. conta8inated
so11s on-Site.
Adolescents playing (trespassing)
on-Site.
Incidental ingestion of, and
der8al contact with, contll1nants
detected in wetland surface'water
and sedi.ents and in drainage
ditches.
Direct contact with 50ils.
sedt.ents and lagoon waters.
On-Site workers at the,ACS ...
tacH ity,
On-Site workers at the ACS
facility.
Inhalation of airborne
conta8inants e.anating fro. the
Site.
On-Site workers at the ACS
facility.
Ingestion and/or other potential No
exposures to groundwater from the
lower aquifer.
I.
(Continued)
Pathway Selected
for Evaluation?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Fugitive Ousts - Yes
Volatiles - Ye5
Page 3 of 4
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Wind erosion .ay contribute to the total
exposure for a trespasser coming on-Site at
Kapica/Paz.ey.
Surface conta.ination is evident at
Kapica/paz.ey; Children playing
(trespassing) on-Site at this location may
ex~osed occasionally via the pathways
indicated. Other areas of the RI/FS Site
where'contaainated soils exist are covered
with clean .aterial and/or have extreme
access li.itations (i.e., ACS).
be
This pathway 1S evaluated to assess the risks
associated with surface water and sedi~ent.
Contaainotion has been detected in these
.edia.
Contaainated soils and sedi~ents have been
covered by clean cover .aterial and/or
building construction. The surface water in
the lagoon has been analyzed and indicates
low conta.ination. The lagoon is the only
surface water feature on t~e Site. In
addition, worters on-Site wear health and
safety protection, and must comply with OSHA
safety requirements. '
Contaminated soils are covered by clean cover
8aterial,effectively minimizing the potential
for generation of contaminated fugitive dust.
Volatiles released from subsurface soils to
the ambient air may occur. however. exposure
to volatiles released from operating
processes is likely lOre substantial.
Analysis of volatiles released from
subsurface soils has not been performed
because of the difficulty in obtaining
meaningful estimates of exposure point
concentrations given the contributions of
pollutants to the air from the ACS facility
and anthropogenic background. Nonetheless,
emissions and dispersion models have been
used to estimate release of volatile
contaminants from subsurface materials to the
air.
ACS maintain~ 4 wells in the'deep aquifer,
more than 300 ft be low the ground sur f oce, In
-------
~
Potentially Exposed~opulation
(continued)
Exposure Route, MediU8
and Exposure Point
pathway Selected
for Evaluation?
poge 4 of 4
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
--------------------------------------------------- POTENTIAL FUTURE lAND USE CONDITIONS ----------------------------------------------
Hypothetical resident living on-
Site.
KJD/vlr/BJC
[cc1-400-91]
60251.17-"D
Ingestion of and denial contact
with groundwater fr08 the upper
aquifer. Inhalation of volatiles
released while showering.
Ingestion of and deraal contact
with groundwater froa the lower
aquifer. Inhalation of volatiles
released while showering.
Denial contact with and
incidental ingestion of unearthed
subsurface s01ls~
Direct contact with and
incidental ingestion of
sedi.ents. .
Direct contact (denial and
incidental ingestion) with
surface water.
Inhalation of volatiles released
to air on-Site. .
Inhalation of particulate
released fro. unearthed
subsurface soils.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Hypothetical.
Hypothetical.
Hypothetical - to oddress risks associated
w1th subsurface soils, it was assuled that
contllinated subsurface soils are unearthed
and present direct exposure potential to
resi~ents living on-Site.
Si.ilar exposure as current use scenario.
Si.ilar exposure as current use scenario.
24-hour/day exposure to volatiles.
Assu.e vegetative cover in residential
setting .ini.izes this p~thway; addressed
-------
14
Current-Use Conditions - TresDassers
The current-use exposure assessment evaluated the following
pathways for Trespassers: inhalation of volatiles and fugitive
dusts released from the site; incidental ingestion and dermal
contact with contaminated soils on-site; incidental ingestion of
and dermal contact with contaminants detected in wetlands,
surface water and sediments in drainage ditches.
Current-Use Conditions - On-site Workers at ACS Facility
The current-use exposure assessment evaluated the following
pathways for on-site workers: inhalation of volatiles and
fugitive dusts released from the site.
Future-Use Conditions
The future-use exposure assessment evaluated the following
pathways for a resident living on-site: ingestion and dermal
contact of contaminated ground water from the lower or upper
aquifer; inhalation of volatiles released from contaminated lower
or upper aquifer; dermal contact and incidental ingestion of
contaminated soils, sediments and surface water; inhalation of
volatiles released to ambient air.
Risk Characterization
The risk characterization combines the chronic daily intakes
developed in the exposure assessment with the toxicity
information collected in the toxicity assessment to assess
potential human health risks from contaminants at the site. For
carcinogens, results of the risk assessment are presented as an
excess lifetime cancer risk, or the probability that an
individual will develop cancer as a result of a 70-year lifetime
exposure to site contaminants. These risks are probabilities
that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g. 1 x
10-6 or 1E-06). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6
indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual has a
one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of
exposure to conditions at a site.
-~
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard
quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake derived
the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the
contaminant's reference dose). By adding the HQs for all
contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a
population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI)
be generated. The HI provides a useful reference point for
from
given
-------
gaog,ng t~ ~~ia. ~~~i~ o~ ~tip.e eXP°sores within a
si"g1 e ".,.n- .." "a"""" ...,.;11"-
te "is.); cJoaX""...,ri~"'" wre iIe",aiied in -ra1>le 6 and
di.SC'.1Ssea be~~ 0"
);5
~~~~
'1'\" qre"'~ calcuJ.ated pO't~iaJ. risJ< und"" .c"rrent-use ,
conaitiot\S ,...., "'" child:<"" ~ to con'l;a1ll1nated ~pper aqu1fer
qronnd wa"""" D£%S"-i. abs<>~i"" ~e 1;0 conta,n>nated ground
"ate" :resultS in an ..,..,- ~cer: :r1sk. of 1,' " 10-2.. Benzene
contril>l1t"" 0;0. »"""""t of ",,",S r",1<. ~W ..,UlYl chlonde
""nUibUdJO'J "J.""'st 1.'~' }I""-cancer healW effectS were
at a 1...".... of c:cn~ pXi""riVf fr<>" de""'" contact to 4-"ethyl-
2-pe-nta.:none.
For tr..~si.,g cbi1.dr"'" we to':'" excess cancer risk is ~.1 "
10-3 ....in1.Y fr<>" de""'" abSorpt1on e>'" 1.,1. diChloroethene.
"~l fO";' and carhOn tetraChloride. }loncancer h8a1.tb effects
~reo~~so ~acc..pta1>le for the inb"lation path"ay due to non-
cycliC acidS and "inY1. chloride.
For adu1.t off-site residents; the tOtal 1.ifeti"e.e"c~ss cancer
r'sk for all pathways "as 4.S " 1.0-4. }lost of thlS r1S~ co"es
f~O" ingestion of arsenic and hiS(2-Ch1.0rcethYl)ethe~ In 1.ower
aquifer ground water and innalatiOn of se..,eral ..,01at11e
co"pounds. }lonc,""cer hea1.th effects are a1.so ~ccepta1>le for
the innalatiOn pathway due to a numh"r of contaJOlnantS.
t\11:e-use
If a hO"e with a pri..,ate well ""re huilt on the following
1.ooations at the site. residentS "ould he e>le noncancer hea1.th effectS at
-------
Table 6:
SlIIWIr OF HAZARD INDICES AND" CAIICER RISKS FOR POTmIAtu EXPOSED POPULATIONS
A81riean Ch.,cal Se...,c:es "PL Site
I"",al InvlSt'9ltion
&riffftb. Indllnl
lfazard Ind'ices Cancer Q,Slcs
POPUlation/£XDOsure Table Oe""l 0."..,
PatllwlY H*tr Inoestion AbsO~t;on Inllilit ion InQeStiOn--4bsorctTon Inll, 'ation
-
-.--------------.."-"----""------...-...CURIErr lAID 05£ COIDITIONS...._--.---.-...-.-....--.-.-...-..-.--
-
Off-Site IItsfdlftt-Adult
GrouiidW.ter , Lower 7~1' 2.71.02 3.51-01 2.6e-04 1.6'-06
Aquife,. 8.11.01 2.7'-05
-tent At,., Vat .1.2/1... 9.31-01 1. 6e-04
A.oient Ai,., Oust 7.21 3..e-04 5.2.-09
POPUlltion Totll ,. 48111U ~.)e.U4
Off-Sfta lesicfent4Ud
Groundwat,r, up,.,. 7.22 2.8'-04 1. 71-02
Aqui fe,. 3.ZtttO 1. 5..02
PQpUlation TotlJ J/::. 4.)8"W 1.1e-uc:
. I
T"'PIIJ4r.Qf lei . "",
Surf~e 50113. - l-U
Klpica-,oazJN!y 3.71;01 1.21+01 9.3'~ 5.5e-03
Surface 11.18' 1...z4 6.41.03 I.Z..oo 1.'1-06 1. 6e-oc
Sedi-'t 7-<5 6.11-04 8.7e-oz 3.5'-06 2.1'-04
.
-.ant Air, yoc ~5 5.3..00 2.9'-04
-1ent Air. Oust 1-27 3.9'-04 2.0i-og
Population TotlJ 1.»""j CI.Je-UJ
ACS JIort...
'-;.nt AI". Yilt 7.28 -- g. tt-oo 1.61-03
:AI81ent Atr, BaIt 7-29 - .. -' 7.4e-04 1.1.-oe
IJI>opu J,tt ion Tot.tJ 9. n"U(I 1. CI'e()J.
-------
.-'
-
-
~~t;nue(j)
lIa11,'f11 \nd;~!~ (ancer QI~\t~
~'at,onH.~"O,.e '!a'A1~ oe". \ oerea \
1!!,9.es t ~ ~bSOr1)t,on ~a\at~
patt1l@1 ~ ~~t;~ ~ ~~a\at;~ - -
- - -
~ 1JOI 15£ CDIOITIORS........................................
-----..:.:--.---.---------.--
on-S\t, ~ ~ om-stU
--=-taa'8;.-a\ I1f'C4
-
Gf'OIII!Ch'ater. ~ 1-1G ~. 3e.o\ 3.1'.07. 3.5e.o1 3.58-04 ,.1e-06 3. ge-05
A,q..\fer
G~ater. 1J~ 7-1\ ,.O...oz 2.08401 \.18407. 6.0..0, 9.7.-03 \. 7e.o1
A,q..,fer
- \.9.M \.6e~
SlIrface water 7-7.4 6.4e-O! \.2...0<1
Sed~-"t 7-,5 6.7'.()& 8.7e.~ 3.5e-06 ' . a.04
~-.nt ~;r. ~ot 7-31 \.6...01 ,.7.-03
SO\" 7-33 \.2..00 4.9...01 \.9,-04 6.61-03
4.U""" - - ~./e.u, -
POfU\&t;on Tota'. -
.S\\8 ...~ct- - Sti 11
~ ... trea-nt
u.aa-
-
G~.t''', I._r 7-)0 9.3.-91 3.1'.01 3.5,-Cn 3.5.-04 ,.1.-06 ).9e-OS
--;fer -
G~ater. U",er 1.0..07. ,.0...01 \.1e.o1 6.0e.o7. 9.7..03 \. 7'.oz
A,q..,fer 7-11
Surf ace \lIter 7-14 6..,.03 1.2e+OO \.9,-06 \.6,-04
Sd ;8tftt 7-7.5 6.7e-04 8.7'.0' 3.5e.06 ,.1e-04
_\~ A;r. 'lot. 7-11 1.fle.Q1 ,.7.-03
SOHs 7-34 i.1..oG &.1e.oz 8...-04 3.88.01
P09U'lt~on total. - I .1 t4'V' - - ~.~..Ql
Qft-Snl aesid- - Off-
S\" (.aftUi~ N'88 . .'
G~at.r. \.0II8f' 3.1'-Oi 3.5,-01 ).58-04 7..1,-06 3.98..c1.»
_..ifer 7-30 9.31.01
G~.te", U",.r 7..0..07. 7..Qe401 \.1e.o7. 6.08-07. 1).7,.03 \.7.-07.
Aqu;fer 7-31
Surface \laur 7-7.4 6...-03 \.2e.oo \.98.06 \.6..04
Sed ,88ftt 7-15 6.78-04 8.7.-01 t. . 3.5e-06 2.U-04
_~ent ~;r. '40C 7-31 1.&e.o1 ,.7e-03
SOHs 7-35 1.le.o1 \ . 0e.03 3.3.-03 \.5..01
-------
j
--
(Contlnueo)
l4auro IndiC!! C anc!r' Q; Sk $
POPUI.ttoniExDOsure Table OeF'lla' Oenlal
p.tlllr.v ~~ Inoesti~ 4bsorotT~ lnhalatt~ ! "oeSt ;C!!! Absor'D.t Ton 1.fl.halat!on
- -
On-Sitl "'idtnt -
Surf-=- SoH.,
r.,'Ic.-,--,
Graunow.te~. LOWer 7-30 3.1'-02 3.51-01 3.5e-04 2.1'-06 3.ge-05
AqUif.~ 9.31-01
Grounaw.tlr. UPPlr 7-31 1.1e.o2 6.01-02 9.7'-03
Aquife~ 2.0e.o2 2.0..01 1. 7 e-02
SUrf'('e Wat.r 7-Z4 6.4'-03 1.Z"OO 1. 9'-06 1. 6e-04
Sed111ent 7-Z5 6.7'-04 8.7'-02 3.5'-06 2.1'-04
~ilnt Ai,., Vat 7-32 1.6~1 Z. 7e.03
S01" 7-36 1.6~ 3.3e.ol 1.Ze.03 4.4'-02
POprl.t1on Tot.,. - J.I~z !. 4e-(JJ
Gn-St~ "''Idtnt-
Sotl. ..n ~
~Q"-.,.
GI'Oundw.tl~. 1..-..,.
Aquifl,. 7.30 9.3'-01 3.1e-oz 3.5e-ol 3.5'-Q4 2.1'-06 3.91-05
G~.tl". UPPer
Aqu1 f,,. 7-31 2.0.-.02 2.0..01 1.1~2 6.0.-02 9.7'-03 1.1,-OZ
SUrf.ce Ware,. 7-24 6.4'-03 1.Z"OO 1.'1-06 1.6e-04
Sedf8tltt 7-25 6.7'-04 8.7e-02 3.5e-06 2.Z.-04
AItO'lItt ~1,.. Vat 7.32 1.6~1 2.7'-03
-
S01 J. 7-37 1.6"00 3.4-.01 4.1e-04 1.81-oZ
""ItI1- 10""* - .t .18'tQZ - l.lt-U! -
-------
8~~:."-""
,'.....,. ':""";:..-. .'.~
(Cont,nueo)
Hazara Indices
Cancer Qisks
population/ExpOsure
Pathway
Table Denaal
~ Inaestion Absorpt10n Inhalation
!l1aestion
Denial
AbsorDt,on
[nhalatlon
-------------------------_._._~.._._-__._.-Multi.Popuilt;on AssesS8eftt
(1) --.---....-..-..-.-..---.--.-.'
Off.Site RtSidtnt - Adult . Off-Site Resident - Child
OftaSit. -.idtftt MIlt
6rounciwater, Lower 7-19 8.1e-Ol 2.7e-02 3.se-01 2.6e-04 1.6e-06 2.7e-Os
Aquifer
-
A8iient Air, vac 7-20 9.3e-Ol 1.6e-04
AllDient Air, Dust 7-21 3.4.-04 5.2e-09
Off.Sit. Resident-Child
6rounowater. upper 7-22 3.2e.oo 1.5~2 2.8e-04
Aqu1fer 1. 7e-02
Po,*1ation Total 1.fj~, 1.7 e-02
Off.site Rtsidtnt - Adult . Tf'ftDlSSer - thUd (2)
Off-SU' ...idtnt--lt
6rounawater, Lower 1-19 a.le-01 2.7e-02 3.5.-01
Aqu1f.r 2.6e-04 1. 6e-06 2.7e-05
AllDient Air, yO( 1-20 9.3.-01 1.6e-04
A8iient Air, Dust 7-21 3.41-04 5.2e-09
T,.,,ustr..cht 1d
Surf .ce So i 15.
It.,;ca - PaZ8IY 7-23 3.7e-Ol 1.2e+Ol 9.3e-05 S.5e-03
Surface Water 7-24 6.4e-03 1. 2e+OO . 1.9e-06 1.6e-04
SetUlltftt 7-25 6.7e-04 8.7e-02 3.5e-06 2.1e-04
AllDient Air, vac 7-26 S.3t.oo - - Z.ge-04
A8iient Air, Dust 7-21 3.ge-04 2 . Oe-09
po,*1ation Total ,.1t'tOl f). Ie-OJ
.
j
-------
(Cont muea)
Hazan:! Indices Cancer R;~lcs
po~lation/Exposure Table Denial Dermal
Pathway ~ Inaest10n Absorvt,on [nhalat~on !naest1on Absor"t' 0" Irtha1at;on
Off-Site Resident - Adult & Off-Site Resident - Child & TresPISser - Child (2)
Off-Site Resident.Adult
Groundwater. Lower 8.1e-Ol 2.7e-OZ 3.5e-Ol 2.6e-04 1.6e-06
AqU; fer 7-19 2.7e-OS
1IIDient A;r~VOC 7-20 9.3e-Ol 1.6e-04
A8i4ent Air. Qust 7-21 3.4e-04 S.2e-09
Off-Site Resident-Child
Groundwater. Upper 3.2e+OO 1.5~Z 2.8e-04 1.7e-02
Aqu;fer - ~22
Tres,..s.r-Child
Surface 50; Is.
Kap;ca - PaZ8t!y 7-23 3.7e-Ol 1.Ze+Ol 9.3e-05 S.Se-03
Surface water 7-24 6.4e-03 1.Ze+OO -4. ge-06 1.6e-04
Stdi8ent 7-25 6.7.-04 8.7e-02 3.Se-06 2.1e-04
AIIIIient At r, VOt 7-26 S.3e+OO. 2-ge-04
AIIIItent Air, Dust 7-27 3.ge-04 2.0e-09
pOtlUlatton Total 1.1 t'tOc - Z.4e-GZ
. /
-
Off-Site Resident - Ad~lt & ACS vortIer (3)
Off-Site Resident-Adult
Groulldwater, Lower
Aquifer 7-19 8.1e-01 2.7e-02 3.5e-ol 2.6e-04 1.6e-06 Z.7e-05
A8btent Air, VOC 7-20 9.3e-01 1. 6e-04
A8bient Air, Dust 7-21 3.4e-04 s.2e-09
. ACS VOrtIfl'
A8bient Air, VOC 7-28 9.9e+OO 1.6e-03
AlIbi ent A; r I Dust 7-29 7.41-04 1.1e-08
-------
(Cont1nue<1)
(-) Total pooulation hazara indices and cancer risks for future Site res1dents were calculatea by
incorporating values for groundwater in the upper aquifer.
(1) In addition to the current use exposures that exist for each population as described above. 1t is
posS1ble that a tres~lSser .ay 11so be an off-Site resident. and on-Site worker1 Day be an off-Site
resident. Thus. while pathways have been c08bined for each individual population, populations have
.Iso been c08bined. as IPpropriate (e.g.. off-Site resident and tresp,sser) to evaluate the .aX18U8
exposure of I population through current land use conditions that is reason'bly expected to occur at
- the 5i te.
(2) The I8QUIIt of exposuretiM to cont8inants in.air as a treSOlSser (3 hour1/day, 52 d.ys/year. 10
-- ye~rs) is 1.2% of the.of~-stte resident (24 hours/d.y,.I82 days~year~ 30 yea~~. Because .aking this
adjuSt8ent does not s1gft1ficantly alter the tot. I IUlt1-populat1on r1sk. 1nd1v1dual population r1sks
. were directly added in oraer to tvalua~e llUiul1y expoSed popul.tiOn risks.
(3) 51.narly, ACS exposure to cont8inants in air whi1eworii~-Site (8 hours/day. 130 days/year. 30
years) 15 23.8' of the txposure conditions assUied for the off-Site resident (24 hours/dlY. 182
days/year, 30 years). This difference does not have' substantial impact on the total IUlti- .
population risk. Indtv;oual population risks were directly added in order to evalu.te .ax,..lly
exposed population risks. .
~
..-
JAM/vlr/EAG/UO
£1IId-.c)1-899)
-------
16
Environmental Risks
The ecological assessment for the ACS site identified two types
of ecological habitat; upland and wetland. Based on the semi-
quantitative, screening-level analysis of ecological risks,
upland, wetland and aquatic receptors may be adversely affected
by contaminants present in the environmental media within the ACS
watershed. The contaminants posing the greatest potential risk
are PCBs and lead. Further study will be necessary to assess the
need for remedial action in the wetlands.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report suggested that the area
around Griffith, Indiana, may provide habitat for several Federal
. or State endangered or threatened species. The King Rail, a
state threatened species, was observed by the U.S. F&W during a
site visit. other endangered or threatened species are suspected
on the site based on observations of available habitat made by
the U.S F&W.
The results of the BlRA show that actual or threatened releases
of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the findings of the Remedial Investigation, the
following remedial action goals were developed for the ACS site:
* To ensure that public health and the environment are not
exposed to cancer and non-cancer risks greater than the
acceptable risk range from drinking water, soils, buried
drums/liquid wastes/sludges, or other substances from the ACS
site;
* to restore ground water to applicable state and federal
standards;
* to reduce the migration of contaminants off site through water,
soils or other media; and
* to reduce the potential for erosion and possible migration of
contaminants via site surface water and sediments, including
areas surrounding Turkey Creek.
Remedial action alternatives to meet these goals were developed
-------
17
Alternative 1: No Action
CERCLA requires that a "No Action" alternative be considered,
against which all other alternatives are compared. Under this
alternative, no remedial action would take place and the site
would remain in its present condition. All contamination would
remain in the source areas, ground water and soils, with
continued potential for entering water supplies. The Griffith
Municipal Landfill would continue to operate and would eventually
close under state law. Every five years a review would be
performed to evaluate the site's threat to public health and the
environment. .
Total cost of Alternative
Time to complete: 0
Quantity of waste treated:
. Quantity of soil treated:
1: $ 0
o
o
Alternative 2:
containment with slurry wall: on-site ground-
water gradient control: ground-water pumping
and treatment outside slurry wall: and
covering contaminated surface soils.
Alternative 2 provides for the construction of a slurry wall
around the entire site to minimize off-site contaminant migration
and impede ground water flow into the site. The soil/bentonite
slurry wall would be keyed into a clay confining layer
(approximately 25 feet below the surface). Inward ground water
gradients would be maintained by pumping from within the slurry
wall. Ground water pumping and treatment would be performed
outside the slurry wall to prevent off-site migration. Treated
ground water would be discharged or reinjected to the wetlands to
prevent dewatering. contaminant source areas would be covered
with a RCRA cap. Operational areas of the ACS facility could be
covered with asphalt or concrete.
Total cost of Alternative 2~-$ 12,000,000
Total time to-complete construction: 1 year
Operation and maintenance period: 30 years
Quantity of waste treated: 0 .
-------
18
Alternative 3: Site dewatering; Excavation and (a) on-site
incineration of buried waste or (b) on-site low
temperature thermal treatment of buried waste.
Alternative 3 provides for site dewatering using a series of
ground water pumping wells to allow excavation of buried waste.
Excavated waste would be treated on-site by incineration (3a) or
with a low temperature thermal treatment unit (3b). Treatment
residuals would be placed back into the excavation. An
infiltration basin would be constructed over each source area in
order to use treated ground water to flush contaminants.
Total cost of Alternative 3a: $ 54,800,000
Total cost of Alternative 3b: $ 45,100,000
Total time to complete source treatment: 3
Quantity of waste treated: 35,000 - 65,000
Quantity of contaminated soil treated: 0
years
cubic yards
Alternative 4: In-situ steam stripping of buried waste, soils,
and ground water.
Alternative 4 would simultaneously treat buried wastes, soil and
on-site ground water in place. In-situ steam stripping consists
of injecting steam at approximately 400 degrees fahrenheit
through specially designed hollow stem augers which are moved
vertically through the unsaturated and saturated zones. PCB-
contaminated surficial soils would either be treated in-situ or
excavated for off-site landfillinq.
Cost of Alternative 4: $ 50,900,000
Total time to complete treatment: 10-20 years
Quantity of waste and soil treated: 135,000 cubic yards
Alternative 5:
site dewatering; Offsite incineration of intact
buried drums in the On-site Containment Area; Off-
site disposal of miscellaneous debris; In-situ
vapor extraction of buried waste and soi1s.
-
Alternative 5 provides for site dewatering using a series of
ground water pumping wells to allow for excavation of intact
drums and miscellaneous debris. Intact buried drums in the On-
site Containment Area would be incinerated off-site while
miscellaneous debris would be landfilled off-site. PCB-
contaminated surficial soils would either be treated in-situ or
excavated for off-site landfillinq. An in-situ vapor extraction
-------
19
installed to treat both soils and buried wastes. A cover would
be placed over unpaved surfaces in the areas that require ISVE to
prevent short-circuiting of air from the surface and to reduce
rainwater infiltration. A pilot scale test would need to be
conducted to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of ISVE on
materials with such high contaminant levels.
.Cost of Alternative 5: $33,000,000
Total time to complete treatment: 5 - 20 years
Quantity of waste and soil treated: 135,000 cubic yards
Alternative 6:
site dewatering; (a> on-site or (b) off-site
Zncineration of buried drums; offsite disposal of
miscellaneous debris; (a) on-site incineration of
waste or (b) on-site low temperature thermal
treatment of waste; in-situ vapor extraction of
soils.
Alternative 6 provides for site dewatering using a series of
ground water pumping wells to allow for excavation of intact
drums and miscellaneous debris. Intact drums would be
incinerated on-site (6a) or off-site (6b) while miscellaneous
debris would be landfilled off-site. Areas designated as buried
waste or PCB-contaminated soils would either be incinerated on-
site (6a) or treated with low temperature thermal treatment (6b).
Treatment residuals would be deposited back into the excavations.
An in-situ vapor extraction (ISVE) system (possibly four separate
systems) would then be installed to treat contaminated soils.
Partial installation of a ISVE system could begin following the
completion of site dewatering in areas which are not impacted by
buried waste excavation activities. A cover would be placed over
unpaved surfaces in the areas that require ISVE to prevent short-
circuiting of air from the surface and to reduce rainwater
infiltration. A pilot scale test would need to be conducted to
demonstrate the overall effectiveness of ISVE on materials with
such high contaminant levels.
Cost of Alternative 6a: $ 43,100,000 - $ 56,600,000
Cost of Alternative 6b: $ 37,800,000 - $ 46,800,000
Time to complete treatment: 6 - 8 years
Quantity of waste treated: 35,000 - 65,000 cubic yards
Quantity of soil treated: 70,000 - 100,000 cubic yards
Alternative 7:
site dewaterinq; (a) on-site or (b) off-site
Incineration of buried drums; Off-site disposal of
miscellaneous debris; (a) onsite incineration of
-------
20
temperature thermal treatment of buried wastes and
soils.
Alternative 7 provides for site dewatering using a series of
ground water pumping wells to allow for excavation of intact
drums and miscellaneous debris. Intact drums will either be
incinerated on-site (7a) or off-site (7b). Miscellaneous debris
will be taken off-site for landfilling. Buried waste and
contaminated soils will be incinerated on-site (7a) or treated
on-site through low temperature thermal treatment (7b). Treatment
residuals would be deposited back into the excavations.
Cost of Alternative 7a: $84,600,000
Cost of Alternative 7b: $64,400,000
Time to complete treatment: 2 - 6 years
Quantity of waste and soils treated: 135,000
cubic yards
Alternative 8:
site dewatering; Off-site incineration of buried
drums; off-site disposal of miscellaneous debris;
(a) landfarming of buried waste and soils or (b)
slurry-phase bioreactor treatment of buried waste
and soils.
Alternative 8 provides for site dewatering using a series of
ground water pumping wells to allow for excavation of buried
wastes, contaminated soils, intact drums and miscellaneous
debris. Intact drums will be incinerated off-site.
Miscellaneous debris will be taken off-site for landfilling.
Buried waste and contaminated soils will be treated on-site
through biological treatment. Biological treatment would be
accomplished by land-farming (8a) or by slurry-phase bioreactors
(8b). Treated soils would be deposited back into excavations.
Because it is not known if biological treatme~t would attain
appropriate treatment levels, a pilot study would be necessary to
evaluate the technology on this contaminant matrix.
of Alternative 8a: $ 34,200,000
of Alternative 8b: $ 43,200,000
to Complete treatment: 8 - 15 years (8a)
. -~~ years (8b)
Quantity of waste and soils treated: 135,000 cubic
Cost
Cost
Time
yards
VIII.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The NCP requires that alternatives be evaluated on the basis of
nine criteria: overall protection of human health and the
environment; compliance with applicable, or relevant and
-------
21
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume (TMV)
through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability;
cost; state acceptance; and community acceptance. This section
compares alternatives with respect to ~hese criteria.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ACCORDING TO THE NINE
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The remedial action alternatives considered for the ACS site were
evaluated in accordance with the nine evaluation criteria. An
analysis summary of the alternatives compared to the criteria is
provided below.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection
Alternative 1 does not provide any protection against contaminant
exposure through buried waste, soil or ground water contact or
possible exposure of emissions from buried wastes and would not
prevent future site users from being exposed to unearthed soils
or buried wastes resulting from future development of the site.
It is therefore eliminated from further analysis.
Buried waste mate~als are addressed in Alternatives 2 through 8.
Alternatives 3, 6',' 7 and 8 provide the most protection from
buried wastes becaU$e the wastes would be excavated and treated.
Residual contamination would be left in the ground after
treatment under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. If buried wastes were
disturbed under a future use scenario, the risks would be greater
for Alternative 2, than Alternatives 4 and 5.
contaminated soils ~re addressed in Alternatives 2 through 8.
Alternative 7 wou~provide the most protection from contaminated
soils through the~~l treatment. Alternative 8 treats
contaminated soils biologically and affords a slightly lower
degree of protection due to the uncertainty of the technology to
, adequately handle ACS's contaminant matrix. Residual
contaminants would remain in soils in Alternatives 2 through 6.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are the least protective, providing natural
flushing as the only soil treatment.
.. -''''
Alternatives 4 through 8 provide the most protection for
contaminated ground water by applying pumping and treatment of
the upper and lower aquifers. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide
reduced protection through containment and natural flushing of
-------
22
Compliance with ARARs
All alternatives should comply with ARARs., However, the RCRA cap
ARAR outlined in alternative 2 also applies to alternatives 3, 6,
7, and 8 if treatment residuals do not meet health-based levels.
U.s. EPA,has determined that LDR treatability variance levels are
not protective because of the high contaminant levels known to
exist. Because U.S. EPA has determined that LDR treatability
variance levels are not protective for this site, and treatment
to health-based levels is necessary, a RCRA cap will not be
required for treatment residuals. Alternatives that include
excavation and treatment (3, 6, 7, and 8) will require
treatability testing to ensure that all RCRA standards are met.
Another criterion to be considered is the TSCA cleanup policy for
PCB spills. This policy requires that spills resulting in PCB
contamination of greater than 50 ppm be cleaned up to a level of
10 ppm and covered with at least 10 inches of clean soil.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
Implementability
Alternative 2, requiring containment only, would be easiest to
implement. Alternatives 3, 6, and 7 involve proven technologies
and have been effective for a wide range of contaminated
matrices. Alternatives 5 and 8 have yet to be demonstrated
effective on a contaminant matrix or scale analogous to the ACS
site. Alternative 4 technology has not been demonstrated on full
scale soil and waste cleanups and no known vendor is available.
Short-term Effectiveness
Alternatives 2 through 8 require ground water pumping and
treatment and would be equally effective in addressing off-site
short-term risk from ground water. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be
less effective in addressing on-site ground water contamination.
Alternatives which require excavation of wastes and soils (7 and
8) produce potential short-term exposure of contaminants to site
workers and nearby residents. Personal protective equipment for
remedial workers and VOC emission control addresses this concern
for remedial workers, ACS workers and nearby residents.
Alternatives which involve excavation of buried waste only and
in-situ treatment of contaminated soils (3 and 6) would produce
much shorter exposure to site workers and nearby residents and
would also remove the majority of site contamination in a
relatively short timeframe. Alternatives 4 and 5 attempt to
treat buried wastes and contaminated soils in-situ. This would
involve a minimum of short-term exposure but unknown
effectiveness due to possible buried drums and relatively long
-------
23
Long-term Effectiveness
Alternatives 2 through 8 require ground water pumping and'
treatment and would be equally effective in truncating continued
migration of contaminants in ground water and potential exposure
to offsite ground water users. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be
less effective in addressing on-site ground water contamination.
The buried waste at the site currently does pose an unacceptable
risk to public health. There is more uncertainty with
Alternative 2 than others in alleviating this risk because its
effectiveness is dependent upon the cover material and the slurry
wall performing adequately over the long-term. Alternatives
which require removal and treatment of wastes (3, 6, 7, and 8)
will result in much lower residual contamination and fewer long
term maintenance problems. The effectiveness in significantly
removing contaminants from wastes through Alternatives 4 and 5 is
suspect. Residual contaminants in waste would definitely remain
in the ground after treatment in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. .
Alternative 2 provides the same relative level of protection for
contaminated soils as is discussed above for buried wastes.
Alternative 3 provides only for natural flushing of contaminants
from soils. Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 provide for treatment
of contaminated soils. Alternatives 5 and 6 use the same
technology and would therefore be equally effective. The
relative effectiveness of Alternatives 4 and 8 is unknown.
Alternative 7 would be the most effective in removing risk from
contaminated soils.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume
n
Both the toxicity, mobility and volume of off-site ground water
contaminants would be equally reduced in Alternatives 2 through
8. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be less effective than
Alternatives 4 through 8 in reducing on-site ground water
contaminant toxicity.
Alternative 2 provides only for containment and flushing of
buried waste so this alternative would not significantly reduce
the toxicity or volume but is designed to reduce contaminant
mobility. The toxicity and volume of contaminants in wastes are
reduced in Alternatives 3 through 8. The greatest probable
reduction in volume and toxicity would occur with Alternatives 3,
6, and 7. The degree of volume and toxicity reduction in
Alternatives 4, 5, and 8 would have to be determined with bench
and pilot scale testing. It should be noted that none of the
alternatives reduce the volume or toxicity of heavy metals in the
waste.
Alternatives 2 and 3 provide only for flushing of contaminated
soils and therefore would probably retain the highest residual
i
-------
24
soil contamination. The effectiveness of Alternative 4 through 8
in reducing contaminant volume, toxicity and mobility on
contaminated soils would have to be determined through bench and
pilot scale testing. Alternatives 5 and 6 are identical in
treatment technology for contaminated soils. Alternative 7 would
probably afford the greatest effectiveness.
Cost
Alternatives are evaluated for the costs of capital
(construction), operation and maintenance, and present-worth.
Cost estimates are presented at the end of each alternative
discussed in Section VII.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
state Acceptance
IDEM has been involved throughout the remedial process for ACS
and has concurred with the selected remedy (as discussed below) .
community Acceptance
.Community acceptance of the selected remedy is discussed in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is attached as Appendix B.
IX.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the information collected and developed in the RI/FS and
using the comparative analysis of alternatives described above,
USEPA has selected Alternative 6b as the most appropriate
remedial action at the ACS site. This section contains a
detailed description of the selected alternative. A flow chart
outlining the basic elements is shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
A note of explanation is necessary to avoid confusion regarding
the terminology of site features. The ACS site boundary is
defined in Section 1. Within the site boundary individual areas
referred to as the On-site Area, the On-site Containment Area,
the Off-site Area, and the Off-site Containment Area exist.
References made to sending material lIoff-site".actually mean
physically transporting material off-site of the ACS Superfund
Site. Likewise, treating "on-site" means physically on the ACS
Superfund site and has nothing to do with the above identified
-------
Fig . 5: SOURCE ARfAS/CONTAMINA TED SOilS
~~~~~1--1~~;;=1
--- -{
Cont.n vac
&08_. Burleel Wast.. In GUilt. Emlalona During
Ar... ~"""ed Sola > excavation
10 ppm I" Both Off8ll. - Onslt.
. Ar.... and H..VV ...... ._-
Contemlnaleel Sola > &00 ppm
Laacl
{ Re-Oepoait J 1. Plac-.-,o. -;~;~o~~
Tre.ed R8sIduaIa - . Over PCB
---- " Conlamination >
1ppm end < 10 ppm
. _.--
Tr..t with lm
.. Sydam to
-.. Rlmecl8don levell -
Immobilia. If
Nec8aury
Condensate to
Groundwat.
Treat....nt Systom
or Of"'ta DispD881
""""",nt ISVE for
Unremediated SOIR8
Ar... In O...t. Ar..
..---
\lnltl8t. Not Study for .
ISVE on Buried W..I.
Mol_In 0l1li'0 - 1
&C8V8t. O~t. Are:]
8ur1ed W"8 Material
for L m System
-... ------
[:C8V"~'MiIC8IIan8o~ DebrI8 St~~ ci.....~--
..... SenI Off.... for SubtlIIe 0 II""'" .,
.- - -
conec,ad Solids to L~ syst~w.~g
W.t... 10 Groundwal" Treatment System
---- - -.---..
r -' .
InatenlSVE System In OMite 8nd
. Oflsit. Are.. to T".~ VOC/SVOC
Contaminated Soil.
--- -- .------- --"
~ -{''''---'--'' ......--._-----
Tr.at with ISVE System to Soil
Remediation Level. ---- Condensate to Groundwater \
- ..-- -'-- ---' ... -- Treatment System or OUsite DiSP06a8
-------
Extracted
Contamlnted
Groundwater
Steam Cleaning.
Wash Waters from .
Miscellaneous
Debris
.. Condensate from
Soil/Source
Treatment Systems
t . ~. .
i -.:'
Fig- 6:
.GBOUtfDWAIEII
..' f;
Trealed Water
Discharge 10
Drainage Ditch.
Tributary of Turkey
Creek or Turkey
Creek
---.-.
---------
Treat Onsile
(Method 10 be
Detennlned)
Treated Water
Controlled
Discharge 10
. Wetlands
-"--_0. - ---...... _. "'----.
--."--'..'.-... 0_-
Collected Solids
Sent Offslle 10r
Disposal
.---..
-------
25
ALTERNATIVE 6B PREFERRED RBMEDY:
SITE WIDE: off-site incineration of intact buried drums; off-site
disposal of miscellaneous debris; in-situ vapor extraction pilot
study for contaminated soils. .
ON-SITE AREA: in-situ vapor extraction of contaminated soils; in-
situ vapor extraction pilot project for selected buried wastes.
OFF-SITE AREA: in-situ vapor extraction of contaminated soils;
on-site low temperature thermal treatment of buried wastes (with
vapor emission control during excavation and possible
immobilization after treatment); treatment ' residuals required to
,meet health-based levels prior to redepositing back into
excavations; .
GROUND WATER: qround water puapinq and treataent;treated water
controlled discharqe to wetlands; continued evaluation and
monitorinq of wetlands and, if necessary, remediation, which may
require replacement of wetlands.
Ground water
Under the Selected Alternative 6b, aground water pump and treat
system will be installed in the upper and lower ground water
aquifers to dewater the site, to contain contaminated ground
water within the point of compliance and to ensure that MCLs, a
cumulative cancer risk of 1.3 x 10-5 and a cumulative noncancer
risk of HI < 1 are attained outside and downgradient of the point
of compliance. '
The method of ground water treatment to be used will be
determined during the design of the system. It is expected that
ground water treatment will include technologies involving air
stripping, uv/oxidation, chemical precip~tation, and carbon
absorption. Permitting the choice to be made during design will
provide for the selection of the most appropriate system for the
task to be performed by allowing for 'additional information to be
'used in the decision. The selection will be made using good
engineering practice. The ground water treatment extraction
system will meet NPDES substantive requirements and will utilize
the best available control technology for treatment and discharge
of the treated ground water to surface water or wetlands. u.s.
EPA's OSWER Directive 9355.0-28, relating to the control of air
emissions at Superfund ground water sites will also be considered
in the ground water treatment process selection.
The following discharge options exist for the'remaining quantity
of treated ground water: discharge to the drainage ditch running
through the western wet~ands; discharge directly to Turkey Creek
-------
26
Hammond POTW, as identified in the proposed plan, has been
eliminated because of Hammond's poor compliance history. This
option could be reconsidered if Hammond came into compliance.
Reinjection of treated ground water after buried waste excavation
and ISVE are complete may be considered because nutrient addition
to treated ground water could promote bioremediation of any
residual SVOC contaminants remaining in the subsurface. Ground
water will be discharged in accordance with appropriate NPDES
discharge limits, or in the case of controlled discharge to
wetlands, Ambient Water Quality criteria. A portion of the
treated ground water will be discharged to the western wetlands
in a controlled fashion to prevent wetland dewatering and
degradation. Continued wetland evaluation is required based on
the conclusions of the USEPA-produced ecological assessment.
Wetland remediation will be implemented as part of this remedy,
if necessary, to avoid the long and short term adverse impacts
associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands.
Ground water remediation levels are provided in Table 7. The
point of compliance for ground water remediation levels is the
down-gradient site boundary. The site boundary was selected as
the point of compliance because site contamination was not found
to be limited to discrete, well-defined units. Remediation
levels must also be attained outside the site boundary, to the
extent of ground water contamination. The intent of the
remediation levels outlined in Table 7 is to present a guide to
manage risk within the cumulative 10-4 - 10-6 carcinogenic risk
range and cumulative noncancer hazard index (HI) of < 1.0.
The ground water will be treated to meet MCLs, to achieve a
cumulative cancer risk of 1~3 x 10-5 for carcinogenic
contaminants and to achieve a cumulative noncancer risk of HI <
1. Due to the existence of multiple contaminants, clean up of
the ground water to MCLs alone would exceed a cancer risk of 1 x
10-4 and thus would not be protective of human health and the
environment. Thus the ground water remediation levels for
carcinogenic contaminants represent levels that have a
carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10-6 or MCLs less than 10-6 risk.
For noncancer contaminants, these remediation levels represent a
noncancer risk of HQ =1 for individual contaminants (or MCLs
less than 10-6 risk). Based on the number of carcinogenic
contaminants, the cumulative :risk that must be attained is
therefore 1.3 x 10-5 for carcinogenic contaminants.
The actual remediation level will depend on how many noncancer
contaminants are detected in compliance monitoring wells and must
represent a cumulative HI < 1~0.
Technology limitations and detection limits may affect the
-------
TABLE 7: GROUND WATER
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final Remediation Levels
corresponding Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical
Remediation
Level ug/L
Basis
Cancer
NonCancer
Benzene
----------------------------------------------------------------
NA
Vinyl Chloride
PCBs
bis(2-Chloro-
ethyl) ether
Arsenic
PCE
Methylene
Chloride
Chloromethane
Beryllium
Trichloroethene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
cyclic Ketones
Pentachlorophenol
5.0
0.25
0.06
21.0
8.8'
5.0
5.0
8.4
0.02
5.0
5.8
5.8
1.0
Isophorone
l,4-Dichlorobenzene 3.3
19
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone
Non-Cyclic Acids
.
Acetone
Branched Alkanes
24,000 -
2,000
640 - 53"
280 - 23
2,300 -
192
210 - 18
MCL
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
MCL
MCL
Risk
Risk
MCL
Risk
Risk
MCL
Risk
Risk
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
6.5E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
6.2E-07
5.4E-07
1.0E-06
1. OE-06
2.1E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
1.5E-06
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1. 0-0.08
1. 0-0.08
1. 0-0. 08
1.0-0.08
-------
Ethylbenzene 390 - 33 HI NA 1.0-0.08
Thallium 2.4 - 0.2 HI NA 1.0-0.08
Dimethyl Ethyl
Benzenes 250 - 21 HI NA 1. 0-0.08
1,2-Cichloroethene
(cis) 330 - 28 HI NA 1.0-0.08
Manganese 3,300 - HI NA 1.0-0.08
275
4-Methylphenol 1,700 - HI NA 1.0-0.08
142
1,1-Cichloroethane 2,200 - HI NA 1. 0-0.08
-------
27
the cumulative risk must meet 1.3 x 10-5 cumulative cancer risk
and a cumulative HI < 1.0 total noncancer risk.
During the 30 or more years of aquifer remediation, the ground
water pump and treat system will be monitored and adjusted, as .
necessary, by the performance data collected during operation.
Adjustments to the system may include a more aggressive pump and
treat approach including; nutrient introduction to promote
bioremediation, alternating pumping at wells to eliminate
stagnation points, and pulse pumping to allow aquifer
equilibration and encourage adsorbed contaminants to partition
into ground water. .
Source Areas and contaminated Soils - CleanuD Levels
Under the selected alternative, all buried waste and soil will be
treated to a cumulative carcinogenic risk of 3.3 x 10-5, and a
cumulative noncancer risk of HI < 1. For carcinogenic
. contaminants, these remediation levels represent carcinogenic
risk of 1 x 10-6 for individual contaminants. Based on the
number of carcinogenic contaminants, the cumulative risk that
must be attained is therefore 3.3 x 10-5 for carcinogenic
contaminants.
For noncancer contaminants, these remediation levels represent a
noncancer risk of HQ = 1 for individual contaminants. The range
given for individual noncancer contaminants is based on the
number of noncancer contaminants detected in site soils. The
actual remediation level will depend on how many noncancer
contaminants are detected in the particular remediation area and
must represent a cumulative HI < 1.0.
Technology limitations and detection limits may affect the
attainment of these levels for individual contaminants, however,
the cumulative risk must meet 3.3 x 10-5 cumulative cancer risk
and a cumulative HI < 1.0 total noncancer risk.
The cleanup level of 500 ppm lead for contaminated soils is based
on the Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels
at Superfund Sites (OSWER Directive 9355.4-02). This guidance
sets a clean-up range of 500-1000ppm lead. The most conservative
value was chosen due to the large number and high levels of other
site contaminants. This clean-up level for lead may need further
evaluation and refinement through the use of the U.S. EPA Uptake
Biokinetic (UBK) Model. . .
The cleanup level of 10 ppm PCBs with 10" soil cover is based on
TSCA policy for unrestricted access. U.S. EPA guidance suggests
a concentration of 1 ppm for PCB cleanup based on the standard
exposure assumptions under the residential use scenario. A ten
inch soil cover has been estimated to give an additional order of
-------
28
10" of clean soil cover would provide protection at the 10-5
level. Soil and waste exceeding 10 ppm will be treated to 2 ppm
PCBs in order to achieve a clean up level equivalent to .
incineration. If treatment of soil and waste cannot achieve 2
ppm, the soil and waste will be sent offsite in compliance with
TSCA.
Compliance with the Land Disposal Restrictions may be achieved
through a Soil and Treatability Variance pursuant to 40 CFR
268.44. Such a variance will result in the establishment of
treatment levels/ranges for the contaminated soil at the site.
However, because of the high site contaminant levels u.S. EPA has
determined that the treatment level ranges..established through a
- treatibility variance are not protective of human health and the
environment. "Residuals from the LTTT process must meet
remediation levels identified for contaminated soils set- in Table
8 in order to be redeposited onsite. Because clean-up levels are
presented as ranges for noncarcinogenic contaminants and .
flexibility exists with respect to clean-up levels for individual
carcinogenic contaminants, LDR treatability variance levels
cannot be exceeded for any individual contaminant. Residuals
will also be immobilized, if necessary, to attain these standards
and RCRA hazardous waste characteristic levels.
Source Areas
Under the selected alternative, intact buried drums in the On-
Site_~rea will be excavated for off-site incineration. The
follewing soils and was~e will be excavated and treated by low
temperature thermal treatment (LTTT) to meet clean up levels: 1)
buried wastes in tne Off-site Area; 2) soils contaminated with
PCBs at a level greater than 10 ppm in both the On-site and Off-
site Areas; and 3) isolated VOC-contaminated soil not within the
areas to be addressed by In-situ Soil Vapor Ex~raction (ISVE).
All LTTT residuals will be deposited back into the excavations
after meeting appropriate health-based remediation levels
identified in Table 8.LTTT treatment residuals can contain up to
2 ppm PCBs, however, in order to be used as cover material
treatment res~duals must not contain'.ore than 1 ppm total PCBs.
PCB treatment criteria. cannot be met through dilution of material
to be treated. Treatability studies will need to be conducted to
determine if LTTT can treat to 2 ppm total PCBs. If the
technology fails to meet this cleanqp objective then PCB
contaminated soils greater than 10 ppm must be sent offsite to a
licensed TSCA landfill or incinerator.
Isolated pockets of heavy metal-contaminated soils greater than
500 ppm lead in both the On-Site and Off-Site Areas will also be
excavated, treated by LTTT to remove VOCs and' SVOCs, possibly
immobilized to remove the hazardous waste characteristic for
metals, -and sent off-site for disposal. Vapor ' emissions will be
-------
TABLE 8: SOIL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final Remediation Levels
Corresponding Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical
Remediation
Level mg/kg
Basis
Cancer
NonCancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
NA
CPAHs
Tetrachloroethene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Aldrin
Tricholorethene
Isophorone
Styrene
Pentachlorophenol
Benzene
4,4'-000
2,4-0initrotoluene
1,1-0ichloroethene
Carbon Tetra-
Chloride
bis(2-Chloroethyl)
ether
4,4'ODT
Chloroform
Hexachlorobuta-
diene
l,2-0ichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
.
0.0026
1.1
1.1
0.002
5.3
v
, .
7.2
1.7
0.43
1.0
0.12
0.044
0.098
0.38
0.027
0.088
9.5
0.36
0.64
6.2
l,2-0ichloropropane 0.42
Hexachlorobenzene
0.018
qamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.046
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1. OE-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1. OE-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1. OE-06
Risk
1. OE-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1.0E-06
,'.
Risk
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
Risk
Risk
1. OE-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
Risk
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
Risk.
1.0E-06
Risk
1.0E-06
Risk
1.0E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Cyclic Ketones
1, 1, 2-Trichloro-
ethane
n-Nitrosodiphenyl-
amine
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
alpha-SHC
beta-SHC
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
4,4'-DDE
7.3
0.51
12.0
0.28
0.031
0.0047
0.016
0.044
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.4
0.16
Heptachlor Epoxide
Antimony
Tolune
Cadmium
Ethylbenzene
Barium
Chromium (VI)
Naphthalene
Nitroqenated
Benzenes
n-Chain Alkanes
0.0033
15 -
0.5
5,000 -
167
51.~,-
2
1,300 -
43
2,6CK) -
87
1,400
47
82 -
"3
6.2 -
0.2
760 -
25
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
R~sk
HI
HI
"
HI
HI -.
:"
HI
HI
HI
-'
HI
HI
..
~ ..:;..
1.OE-06
1.0E-06
1. OE-06
1. OE-06
1. OE-06
1. OE-06
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
.....
1. OE-06
NA
1.0E-06
1. 0-0.03
NA
~~
NA
j
~NA
NA
'NA
NA
'NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1. 0-0.03
1.0-0~03
1.0-0.03
1.0-0.1>3
1.0-0.03
1.0-0.03
1.0-0.03
-------
1,1,1-Trichloro-
ethane 2,300 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
77
Branched Alkanes 770 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
26
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone 630 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
21
Methyl Proply
Benzenes 490 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
16
Haloqentaed
. Al kanes 2,300 - HI NA 1. 0-0.03
77
Endosulfan I 0.63 - HI NA 1. 0-0.03
0.02
Dimethyl Ethyl
Benzenes 1,300 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
43
l,2-Dichloroethene
(cis) 250 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
8.3
j,.
2-Butanone 620 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
21
Non-Cyclic Acids 1,000 - HI NA 1. 0-0.03
33
Methylated
Naphthalenes 85 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
3
Acetone 2,.400 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
80
Chlorobenzene 150 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
5
Xylenes (mixed) 26,900 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
867
Oxyqenated Benzenes 1,200 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
40
Diethyl Benzenes 1,300 - HI NA 1. 0-0 .03
-------
Propenyl Benzenes 320 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
11
Di-n-butylphthalate 2,300 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
77
Ethyl Methyl
Benzenes' 4,900 - HI NA 1. 0-0. 03
163
1, 2, 4-Trichloro
benzene 16 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
0.5
Chloroethane 2700 - HI NA 1.0-0.03
90
;
;, ]I:: .
.. .
--
-------
29
required. Condensate from LTTT or ISVE processes will be
properly disposed offsite.
Under the selected alternative, in order to assess whether ISVE
technology will work on buried wastes'with such high contaminant
levels and because buried drums may interfere with the ISVE
effectiveness, a pilot study may be conducted on a portion of the
buried wastes in the On-site Area. The On-site Area was chosen
because it was determined through the RI that buried drums were
more accurately defined than in the Off-site Area. This pilot
study, if conducted, will be in conjunction with the ISVE system
to be developed for all contaminated site soils and will have a
defined proof of performance period.
At.the end of the performance period, it will be determined by
USEPA if in-situ soil vapor extraction is effective on the buried
waste in the On-site Area. Confirmation sampling will be required
to determine if ISVE can meet health-based levels. If the U.s. .
EPA determines that the technology is capable of meeting
remediation levels then it may be expanded to unremediated
portions of the On-site Area.
The potential benefit derived from successful demonstration of
ISVE's effectiveness on On-site Area buried waste would be a
decrease in the overall cost of remediation and a reduction of
the amount of mat!fial that would have to be handled for LTTT.
If the technolo~doesn't provide a potential to meet remediation
levels or if pilot., studies are not conducted then LT'l'T will be
implemented for al~ buried wastes and contaminated soils.
.I I
Even if the pilot'study fails to demonstrate that ISVE can meet
- remediation levels for both buried wastes and contaminated soils,
the potential decrease in VOCs might negate the need for
elaborate VOC emiss.ion control during buried waste excavation,
contaminated soil~cavation, drum removal, and transportation of
waste material and'contaminated soil to the Off-site Area LTTT
system. With U.S.-EPA's approval, studies accessing ISVE's .
effectiveness on site contamination may be abandoned in favor of
implementing LTTT for all buried wastes and contaminated soils.
Regardless of the pilot study results, LTTT will be implemented
and completed for buried wastes in the Off-site Area. USEPA has
determined that an in-situ technology (i.e. ISVE) is not
appropriate for the Off-site Area due to the large number and
random distribution of buried drums. However, additional pilot
scale testing on other innovative technologies may be conducted
providing such testing does not delay the current remediation
schedule involving.LTT'I'.
Miscellaneous debris uncovered durinq excavation activities will
be steam-cleaned and sent off-site for disposal. Any intact
-------
30
Miscellaneous debris wash waters will be treated in the ground
water treatment system or sent offsite.
Contaminated Soils
Both On-site Area and Off-site Area Soils contaminated with VOCs
and SVOCs will be treated with ISVE. Remediation levels for
contaminated soils are also set in Table 8.
If it is determined by USEPA that final remediation levels cannot
be met by ISVE then VOC/SVOC contaminated soil will be excavated,
treated by LTTT to health-based standards, and redeposited.
Implementation of an unproven technology through pilot testing on
a contaminant matrix and scale found at the ACS site contaminated
soils may provide valuable data for remediation of future sites.
Additional pilot scale testing on other innovative technologies
may be conducted providing any additional testing does not delay
the current remediation schedule. Because LTTT will be .
implemented in the Off-site Area, .no.time wtll be lost in the
overall remediation of this site~. .
This alternative has been supplemented by USEPA because
alternative 6b, as proposed in the FS, did not address VOC
emissions resulting from excavation, heavy metal-contaminated
soils outside of defined source areas, and continued evaluation
of the wetlands. .
Air Emissions. Monitorina. and XnstitutioDal Controls
Air emissions from excavation and treatment.processes will be
controlled and monitored. The need for air emission controls will
be triggered by exceedences in Federal or state air quality
standards. These processes include excavation of intact drums
and miscellaneous debris; soil excavation, consolidation, and
treatment associated with the LT'1'T-.sys~ell;- and ISVE. treatment.
Offgas treatment or other corrective actions will be utilized if
excess cancer risk from off-qas chemicals is outside the 10-4 to
10-6 risk range for nearby residences or site workers.
The remedy will also include (1) long-term ground water
monitoring to ensure that action levels are being met, (2) site
fencing and, to the extent possible, deed restrictions to prevent
use of the ground water in contaminated aquifers under the site,
and (3) to the extent possible, deed notices or advisories will
be provided for protection from contaminants and to inform off-
site users of ground water use. recommendations until cleanup
levels are met.
A cost estimate for the selected remedy is provided in Table 9.
-------
.-- ----
Table 9
PAOfIOSI:b PlAN (T111RW. OFF 8IT& lIVE ON 8ft) COBr E8T81A1E
DIAEC1 CAPlJAL COSTS
REM
UNIT
GUMmTY UNI1' C08r .
C08J
.......... Dlu8l1Ioit
.. ............
GnIokdl Edi.....s,llIr,
GIaunIIINI8r T, II ~ ~111 m
- MACSTriF...
~l "D"or~
RT""'lI"'OII-8II
........01 Dn88
~--"DIun
... IRIII IlL"" DIbrt,
0lI4l '-0lIl 01 PCB'"
Rlilb. RCfWTICA---
Tit - 1_~"""
,....., .........
OIHIII Low T..
...... '" II...,.. 01 c....-..
08lI1l'" al" of.......
V... EI8M8IaII .........,
YIpor MMIIIM
.. J'14~ At..1nM1
IunIp un
--un
--
...
.... ...
....
....
... ...
au,.
....-
1Inp....
cu.
..... ..
cu-
...-
11*1111
.....,....
. - _..- - ... -..- ..
1
1
24
2JDO
1
..
100
1.000
1
1
11.GGO
1
IMO
I
4
1
. .--.. .- ..---.
.----- - '4-
..ECf CAPITAL 8U8IOI'AL. eJa UDINIlTTT
1811Jt'T CAPiTAL 8U8IOrM. FOR Lm
OVERML OIECT CNWM.IU8ftJ1'AL
1
.....
".ODO
-.ODO
"'....oao
....oao
t tIOJIGO
-.000
81.-.000
..
8JaO.aao
-...
'1.'-
.........
...oao
-.000
....
-.GOO
-
_oaa
. ... ..----.... -------. """.
.~_._... 'h..__..
87_""
-------
IiiDlRECT CAPlIAL COSTS
(CON11NUED)
e.p. 11111. . bcIIDft at.. dIr8cI CIIIJIIII.""" ~.. LTI1):
RBI
PERa:rlrMiE
COST
...... . 8II8IJ
DII~r""'lIILlI~ ~.
-YIIII" DII'III
...... COllI
.....~... r..ltOuII...,..
8aape COI"'..ICJ
21M
8M .
..
..
,.
211M
8M
",,411.000
".411.000
.,....
8711'"
81II.aoo
".478.000
.. .841.100
1OrALIG8ImT CMTAL 008,..
-.100.000
-------
CCONTINUED)
OPERATION & MAWTENANCE C0818
ANNUAL
OIM
OI8COUNT NUI8ER
RATE OF YEAA8
PRE8EHT
WORnt
GroundIraIIr MOIII_1ng ".000 MIl 10
Graul...... EIdrac8IDn.... 811.000 ... ao
InIIII CIIoundwaIw T......... 82IO,GOO MIl .
.......-... Groundw.~I. 8180.000 a.. 11
TrI.'"
fInII GroundnIIr T.....- Il1O.- ... 10
ba4~ V8IJGI'Tr..... ".000 I" 2.1
VtpOf Extr8Ctlon 8400.000 '" 7
......... "0.000 ""
A.urN Fund ,.O,GOO ... 8
Mt*.,... 8200.000 I" 30
1U74.ooo
-.ooa
11'-.oao
82.on.ooo
88.141.000
. 1111.000
82.111.000
.'.000
.1.000
. ",074.000
TOTAL PAE8ENT WORTH OF OIM
817.810.000
DIRECT CAPITAL COST
8'2.110.000
INDIRECT CAPTITAl COST
.,100,000
. ..-- .-.... .-----..-... ._--_..-
.1OTAL NET FAE88n' WORTH
-------
31
remediation levels for On~site Area buried waste. If ISVE is
proven ineffective on all site contaminants then costs for LTTT
would increase dramatically and the overall remedial action may
require costs similar to those outlined for alternative 7b (see
section VII) .
Griffith MuniciDal Landfill
The Griffith Municipal Landfill was included in the ACS remedial
investigation after the ACS site was added to the NPL. The BlRA
did not identify any completed exposure pathways from the
landfill. Additionally, the RI did not indicate that the landfill
was causing any downgradient ground water contamination. This
, could be due in part to the dewatering activities at the
landfill. As part of the RI, it was determined through modeling,
that if the current dewatering system was discontinued the ground
water flow patterns would not change significantly. Given these
facts, this ROD does not require remedial action at the Griffith'
Municipal Landfill.
RCRA Closure
A total site closure plan was approved by IDEM on August 4, 1992,
for container, tank storage, and solvent distillation units at
the site. As defined in the approva1 letter, the closure process
must be completed within 180 days and must include a
certification by bQth the site's Owner/Operator and an
independent regis~~red professional engineer that the facility's
regulated units hav~ been closed in accordance with the approved
closure plan. Bec~Use this closure process is expected to be
completed before remedial design begins, the results of this
closure will be evaluated by u.s. EPA on the need to incorporate
any additional contaminated areas into this final remedy.
x.
DOCUMENTATION ,OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
~"
The proposed plan,"'Which described USEPA's preferred alternative
for remediation of the ACS site was released for public comment
on June 30, 1992. The public comment period ended August 28,
1992. The Agency has reviewed all written and verbal comments
submitted during the public comment period. Upon review of these
comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the
remedy, as described in the Proposed Plan,' were necessary.
However, a few minor changes were made to the proposed remedy, as.
discussed below:
The treated ground water discharge option to the Hammond
POTW has been eliminated based on Hammond's poor compliance
history. ,:,
Innovative technologies may be evaluated as part of a
-------
32
waste and contaminated soils. However, this evaluation will
not delay the overall remediation plan outlined in this ROD.
Treatability testing on the effectiveness of ISVE on buried
waste and contaminated soils may be abandoned with u.s.
EPA's approval if it is determined through further
engineering analysis that ISVE will be ineffective at
meeting final remediation levels.
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Protection of Human Health and the BDviroDment
The Baseline Risk Assessment developed for the American Chemical
Services site showed that exposure to upper aquifer ground water,
. buried wastes and contaminated soils pose the greatest risks
associated with. the site. Extraction and treatment of
contaminated ground water, and imposition of use restrictions for
contaminated ground water until aquifer remediation is attained
will address risks from ground water.
Implementation of the remedy will protect against risks from
direct contact with wastes and soils. All risks resultin~from
exposure to individual contaminants will be reduced to MCLs, a 1
x 10-6 carcinogenic risk level or a HI of less than one.
Cumulative carcinogenic risk will be managed within the 10-4 to
10-6 risk range.
Use of emissions controls, if determined to be nece$s~ry, will
protect against short term exposure to contaminants during the
remedial action. The discharge of treated water to the on-site
wetlands and Turkey Creek (or one of its tributaries) will be .
regulated by NPDES and ambient water quality criteria to ensure
that the remedial action does not affect aquatic life.
Attainment of Aoolicable. or Relevant and ADoro9riate.
Reauirements
The selected remedial action will meet all identif~ed applicable,
or relevant and appropriate, federal and more stringent state
requirements unless waived pursuant to section l21(d) (4) (B). The
ARARs for the selected remedy are described and/or listed below.
Chemical Specific
Safe Drinkina Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act is relevant and appropriate to
the Site because the aquifers underlying the Site are class
II aquifers which are presently being used as a drinking
-------
33
for use of MCLs or MCLGs when setting standards for aquifer
restoration, except in cases where the MCLG is zero, or
where the attainment of MCLs would result in a cumulative
carcinogenic risk outside of the 10-4 to 10-6 risk range.
The selected remedy includes cleanup standards for all
contaminants in the aquifers which achieve risk based
standards. The standard for each contaminant equals or
exceeds the MCL for that contaminant.
Clean Water Act
Surface water quality standards for the protection of human
health and aquatic life were developed under section 304 of
the Clean Water Act. The federal Ambient Water Quality
Criteria '(AWQC) are nonenforceable guidelines that set
pollutant concentration limits to protect surface waters
that are applicable to point source discharges, such as from
industrial or municipal wastewater streams. At a Superfund'
site, the federal AWQC would not be applicable except for
pretreatment requirements for discharge of treated water to
a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). AWQCs would be
relevant and appropriate to the point source discharges if
the treated ground water is discharged to the drainage ditch
running through wetlands, to Turkey Creek, or directly to
wetlands. The substantive NPDES permitting requirements
would need to be met if discharge is allowed to the Hammond
POTW.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The 10 ppm clean up level for PCBs is based on the
requirements for PCB spills outlined in 40 CFR, '
761.125(c) (4) (v) which states that soil contaminated by PCBs
at 10 ppm will be excavated to a minimum depth of 10 inches.
Although the PCB Spill Policy is not an ARAR, it is an
important TBC. Excavated soils will be replaced with clean
soils containing PCBs less than 1 ppm. U.S. EPA guidance on
Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB contamination
also suggests 1 ppm PCB cleanup'level, providing a 10-5
excess cancer risk, under the residential use scenario.
Adding a 10" soil cover provides an additional order of
magnitude protection. Therefore, a 10 ppm cleanup level
with a 10" soil cover will provide protection under the
future residential use scenario at the 10-5 excess cancer
risk level.
TSCA regulations are generally considered applicable or
relevant and appropriate when PCB concentrations are greater
than 50 ppm and disposal occurred after' February 17, 1978.
Although PCBs were originally disposed of at ACS prior to
1978, excavation and re-disposal of PCB material will occur
-------
v
34
regulations governing disposal are considered applicable for
those portions of the remedy which involve on site disposal
of material contaminated above 50 ppm.
TSCA disposal regulations at 40 CFR 761.60 allow PCB
disposal of non-liquid PCBs at concentrations greater than
50 ppm through the use of treatment that provides treatment
equivalent to incineration, ie. treatment to a level less
than 2 ppm. Thi~ remedy requires treatment of PCB soils
containing greater than 10 ppm PCBs to a level of 2 ppm.
Low temperature thermal treatment is anticipated to provide
treatment equivalent to incineration. If LTTT is unable to
treat PCBs to 2 ppm, they will be sent. to an off-site
incinerator.
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et sea. provides air emission
requirements for actions which may release contaminants into
the air. The selected remedy involves excavation and
treatment activities which may release contaminants or
particulates into the air. Emission and technology
requirements promulgated under this act are relevant and
appropriate, including provisions of the state of Indiana
Implementation Plan. Also ARARs are the Clean Air Act's
National Emission standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs, 40 CFR 61).
-Indiana VOC Emission standards (Title 326 IAC Articles 2-1 and
8-1)
-Indiana fugitive dust control (Title 326 IAC Articles 6-4 and
-5)
6
-Indiana regulations on treatment of hazardous waste or PCBs in a
unit (Title 329 IAC Articles 3-50-2, 3-51-2, 3-52-4, 3-54-4
through 546, 3-30-2, and 4)
Action SDecific
RCRA Land DisDosal Restrictions
Land disposal restrictions (LDRs) are applicable to this
site since the remedy involves excavation, treatment, and
placement of residuals from the treatment of RCRA listed
waste. The LDRs provide for the use of LDR treatability
variance levels for soil .or debris contaminated with a RCRA
listed waste. The selected remedy will comply with the LDRs
-------
35
of the high concentrations of contaminants at the Site, LDR
treatability variance levels are not protective of human
health at this site. This remedy requires that standards
for each contaminant at the site must equal risk based
levels and equal or exceed LDR treatability variance
requirements. .
-Air Emissions from On-site treatment operations (40 CFR 50.1-
50.12, 61.01-61.252; 40 CFR 264 Subpart AA and BB; Title 326 IAC
Articles 1~3-4, 2-1, 8;)
-RCRA Definition and Identification .of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR
261)
-Indiana Hazardous Waste Rule (Title 329 IAC Article 3.1)
-Indiana Special Waste Rule (Title 329 lAC Article 2-21)
-Indiana PCB Rule (Title 329 IAC Article 4)
-RCRA Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR 262 and
Article 329 IAC 3.1)
:
-------
36
ARARs regarding these wetlands include Executive Order
11990, which requires that actions at the site be conducted
in a manner minimizing the destruction, loss, or degradation
of wetlands. These ARARs will be met through the continued
evaluation of the wetlands, and if necessary, implementation
of a plan to limit adverse impacts to the wetlands, or
restore or mitigate the wetlands. Water will also be
discharged into the wetlands to prevent their dewatering
from ground water treatment at the site.
-Indiana regulations on activities affecting the quality of water
(Title 327 IAC Articles 2-1-7, 2-1-6(f), 2-1-6{g»
, -Indiana DNR (IC-13-2-6.1) registration of extraction wells
-Indiana regulations on water quality standards for direct
discharge of pollutants (Title 327 IAC Articles 2-1, 2-1-6(b), 3
(construction standards), and 5)
-Fish and Wildlife Protection Act (40 CFR 6.302)
-Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1351 as amended by Public Law
-237)
98
-Wetland Protection through the state of Indiana Water Quality
Surveillance Standards Branch and the Indiana DNR Division of
Water Requirements
To Be Considered Criteria
-Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB
Contamination (OSWER Directive 9355.4-01)
-Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at
Superfund Sites (OSWER Directive 9355.4-02)
-Guidance on Control of Air Emissions From Superfund Air
Strippers at Superfund Ground Water'sites (OSWER Directive
9355.0-28) ,
-RCRA health-based "action levels" for individual Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents. (7/27/90 FR; proposed RCRA corrective
action 'rule) ,
..
-TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy and provisions (40 CFR 761)
Cost-Effectiveness
Alternative 6b will achieve significant risk reduction at a total
-------
37
range of Alternative 7b PNW estimates of $64,400,000 if all
contaminated soils are required to undergo LTTT. Alternatives
involving incineration (6a and 7a) offer a somewhat higher degree
of permanence but at a significantly higher cost.
The selected alternative is approximately three to four times
more expensive than the least expensive action, Alternative 2,
which only provides for ground water treatment and containment of
site contaminants.
other alternatives not involving incineration, are less costly
than the preferred alternative but provide less treatment.
Alternative 3b is less costly than the preferred alternative but
does not treat contaminated soils~ Alternatives 5 and
potentially 4 are less costly than the preferred alternative but
employ in-situ technologies on wastes that contain buried drums.
u.s. EPA does not believe it is possible to verify the
effectiveness of in-situ treatment on some portions of the ACS
site. Alternatives Sa and Sb are less costly than the preferred
alternative but have not been demonstrated to be potentially
effective on a contaminant matrix or scale similar to ACSls.
utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technoloqies or Resource Recoverv Technoloaies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable
USEPA believes that the selected remedy represents the maximum
extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies
can be utilized in a cost-effective manner at the American
Chemical Services site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and that comply
with ARARs, USEPA has determined that the selected remedy
provides the best balance of long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction of TMV through treatment, short term
effectiveness, implementability, and cost, taking into
consideration the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element and state and community acceptance.
Several innovative treatment alternatives were con~idered for
this site. USEPA has selected LTTT followed by solidification
for buried waste material because it affords a higher degree of
certainty of achieving the remedial action goals for all
contaminants than some of the less established technologies
considered, such as ISVE, in-situ steam stripping or biological
treatment of the buried waste material.
Preference for Treatment as a PrinciDal Blement
The selected remedy provides for treatment of the principal
-------
38
incineration of intact buried drums. The remedy treats the
highest concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and metals in the
buried waste areas by LTTT, followed by solidification, if
necessary. Contaminated soils will be treated in place by soil
vapor extraction. If soil vapor extraction fails to meet final
remediation levels then LTTT will be implemented for contaminated
soils. Ground water will be treated onsite. The selected
alternative thus satisfies the statutory preference for treatment
------- |