United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R06-92/077
September 1992
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
- "
o '
,P
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 material which supplement. but adds no fur1tter.appllcable information to
the content of the doCument. All supplemental material is, however. contained in the administrative record
-------
..>
50272-1 01
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R06-92/077
I ~
3. A8cIpI8n1'8 Acc8aIon No.
4. TItI8 end Subt1t18
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Cal West Metals, NM
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Au1hor(8)
5. R8pOI1 Da18
09/29/92
6.
a. Performing OrgenlDllon Rept. No.
t. P8fonnIng OrgelnlzMlon ...... end AddrM8
10. Proj8ctIT_klWork UnIt No.
11. ConIr8ct(C) or Gr8nt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ Spon8orIng OrgenlZllllon ...... end AddI8n
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street. S.W.
washington, D.C. 20460
13. TJpe of R8pOI16 P8rIod Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Suppl8m8n1ary""'"
PB93-964203
18. Ab8nct(UmIt: ZOOworda)
The 43.8-acre Cal West Metals site is a former battery breaking. recycling. and
secondary lead smelting facility located one-half mile northwest of Lemitar. Socorro
County. New Mexico. . Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural and
residential, with three households located within 1,100 feet south of the site. From
1979 to 1981. Cal West used a 12-acre fenced portion of the site for processing
automobile batteries for lead. rubber, and plastics recovery. Batteries were crushed
onsite and components separated using flotation and centrifugation in a rotating
separator drum. Water was recycled and ultimately discharged to a lined pond, and
piles of crushed battery components were stored outdoors. From 1982 to 1984, the
facility was used for research and development on methods of lead recovery. Since
1985. the company has conducted intermittent work onsite with the battery waste piles
to extract lead oxides. rubber. and plastics. Current site features include two
evaporation ponds. three buildings, berms. soil and battery waste piles. a concrete
pad, and a salvage area. From 1979 to 1985, the state conducted investigations to
assess air and ground water quality onsite. In 1985, EPA investigations showed
elevated levels of lead in soil, sediment. and ground water. This source control ROD
(See Attached page)
17. Docum8l\tAnlllyel8 L o-Ip8Dn
Record of Decision - Cal West Metals, NM
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: Soil. debris. sediment
Key Contaminants: organics (PAHs); metals (lead.
arsenic)
b. ld8n~nd8cI T....
Co COSA n Fl8lli'Group
18. AY8ll11b111tJ S~t
111. S8a1rtty CI888 (11118 A8por1)
None
20. Securtty Ct8a (ThI8 P8g8)
II.T"" 0
21. No. of P-
157
n PrIc8
(S88 AHSI-Z3II.11)
S. In..",.,.".. - R-
FORM 272 (..77)
(Form"" NTJS..35)
-------
,~
EPA/ROD/R06-92/077
Cal West Metals, NM
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
addresses the principal threat of lead contamination at the site as a final remedy.
primary contaminants of concern affecting the battery waste piles, soil, debris, and
sediment are organics, including PAHsi and metals, including arsenic and lead.
The
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating and consolidating an
estimated 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated battery waste materials, soil, debris, and
sediment from the site, treating it onsite using stabilization/solidification, disposal
of treated materials in the southwest corner of the fenced area as nonhazardous solid
waste, capping the disposal area with cement and a 12-inch soil cover, and
decontamination of site buildings and equipment. Ground water will be sampled annually
the first 5 years following completion of the remedy and every 5 years thereafter for a
25-year period. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $1,557,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $5,000 for a 30-year period.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific soil and sediment clean-up goals are
established on health based levels for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk and include
arsenic 5 mg/kg, lead 640 mg/kg, cadmium 140 mg/kg, mercury 82 mg/kg, and PARs 3 mg/kg
benzo(a) pyrene equivalents. Contaminated materials with lead concentrations exceeding
640 mg/kg will be treated to meet the RCRA TCLP standard of 5 mg/kg leachable lead prior
-------
"'~J :.;;
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE
CAL WEST METALS SUPERFUND SITE
LEMITAR, NEW MEXICO
-------
RECORD 01' DBC1S10Jl
COJlCURRBJlCB DOCUMBH'J.'A'1'10Jl
POR '1'HB
CAL WEST KB'1'ALS SUPBRPUHD S1'1'B
~()2----
Office of Reqional Counsel
site Attorney
---
~CL-
.- stephen Gilrein, Chief
ALD Section IH-SA
-~
Carl Bdlund, Chief
Superfund proqrams Branch IH-S
-------..-
..-.~
Georqe Alezande , Jr.
Reqional COUDsel IC
~»~
Allyn M. Davis
~ Hazardous Waste Manaqement
Division IH
:1Zo;#,1
-------
. .
',.
DBCLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DBCISION
CAL WEST KBTALS SOPBRFUBD SITB
LBKITAR, - KBZICO
statutory Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element is Met
and Five-Year site Review Is Required
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Ca1 West Metals Superfund Site
Lemitar, New Mexico
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document present the selected remedial action
for the Ca1 West Metals site, in Lemitar, New Mexico, which
was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Lability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
S 9601 'et sea., and to the extent practicable, the National
contingency Plan, 40 CFR i 300 g~. This decision is based
on the Administrative Record for the site.
The State of New Mexico concurs with the selected remedy
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this si te, if not addressed by imp1ementinq the response
action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endanqerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The source control remedy addresses the principal threat of
lead contamination at the site by treatinq the soils and
source waste materials contaminated with hazardous substances,
as defined at CERCLA Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. S 9601(14),
-------
rJr
., t
levels.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
o
. .
Excavation and treatment, by stabilization/solidification
to meet the treatment standards defined in this document,
of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils,
sediments, and source waste materials.
o
Disposal of the treated contaminated material in an on-site
excavation. Material will not be a characteristic
hazardous waste pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. S 6901 n. ~., after
treatment.
o
Monitoring the site ground water with existing wells down
gradient of the disposal site.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State of New Mexico
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 that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a
principal element.
Because this treatment remedy will not result in destroying
the lead constituents which are the principal hazardous
substances of concern, hazardous substances will remain on-
site. A review will be conducted five years after
commencement of the proposed remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the nvironment.
t:!-;>q. ~ 2.
B ck J. Wynne
Regional Administrator
u.S. EPA - Region 6
-------
-i.., ;
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE.
CAL WEST METALS SUPERFUND SITE
LEMITAR, NEW MEXICO
-------
~~.v.';
\ t
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF COB'l'EB'l'S
CAL WEST KBTALS SUPEUUIfD SITE
LBXITAR, D1r KBZICO
ITEM
TITLE
PAGE NO.
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 5
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 9
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 10
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 71
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 125
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 139
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 144
x. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 145
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 149
-------
. .,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
~
TITLE-FIGURE
FIGURE 1
LOCATIONS OF SOCORRO COUNTY,
NEW MEXICO AND THE CAL WEST SITE
FIGURE 2
SITE LAYOUT OF THE CAL WEST FACILITY
FIGURE 3
CAL WEST GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION LOCATION
FIGURE 4
CAL WEST GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
FIGURE 5
CAL WEST GROUND WATER SURFACE CONTOURS,
OCTOBER 28, 1991
FIGURE 6
CAL WEST GROUND WATER SURFACE CONTOURS,
APRIL 14, 1990
FIGURE 7
CAL WEST MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
FIGURE 8
LOCATIONS OF DOMESTIC WELLS SAMPLED
DURING THE PHASE II FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
ITEM
TITLE-TABLES
TABLE 1
HISTORY OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS
AND REGULATORY ACTIONS
TABLE 2
WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR CAL WEST
MONITORING WELLS MEASURED OCTOBER 1991
AND APRIL 1992
TABLE 3
PHASE I VOLATILE ORGANIC TEST
RESULTS (uq/kq or ppb)
TABLE 4
PHASE I PESTICIDES TEST RESULTS
(uq/kq or ppb)
ii
PAGB NO.
2
3
14
15
21
21
52
53
PAGE NO.
6
20
26
-------
nD
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11
TABLE 12
TABLE 13
TABLE 14
TABLE 15
TABLE 16
'1'ABLE OP CONTENTS (cont.)
'1'J:'1'LE-'1'ABLES
SOIL AND SEDIMENT BACKGROUND TAL
TEST RESULTS (mq/kq or ppm)
BATTERY AND SLUDGE SEDIMENT TAL
TEST RESULTS (mq/kq or ppm)
BATTERY AND SLUDGE SEDIMENTS SEMI-
VOLATILE TEST RESULTS (uq/kq or ppb)
POND SEDIMENT TAL TEST RESULTS (mq/kq)
POND SEDIMENT SEMI-VOLATILE
TEST RESULTS (uq/kq or ppb)
SOIL SEMI-VOLATILE TEST RESULTS
(uq/kq or ppb)
SOIL TAL TEST RESULTS (mq/kq or ppm)
SOIL LEAD TEST RESULTS (mq/kq or ppm)
SOIL DEPTH SAMPLES TAL TEST RESULTS
(mq/kq)
TRENCH SAMPLES TAL TEST RESULTS
(mq/kq)
DRAINAGE SEDIMENT TAL TEST RESULTS
(mq/kq or ppm)
SUMMARY OF METALS GROUND WATER
ANALYTICAL DATA FOR CAL WEST
MONITORING WELLS (ppm)
iii
~
, ,
PAGB NO.
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
43
45
49
51
-------
TABLE OP COH'l'EH'l'S (cont.)
:ITEM T:ITLE-TABLES PAGE RO.
TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF METALS GROUND WATER 57
ANALYTICAL DATA FOR RESIDENTIAL
WELLS AND SITE SUPPLY WELLS (ppm)
TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF GENERAL WATER QUALITY 61
PARAMETER DATA (ppm)
TABLE 19 AIR SAMPLING RESULTS FOR LEAD 64
TABLE 20 DERMAL CDI AND HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR 88
CURRENT AND FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
TABLE 21 INGESTION CDI AND HAZARD QUOTIENT 96
FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
TABLE 22 CONCENTRATIONS AND BLOOD-LEAD LEVELS 110
TABLE 23 TCLP TEST RESULTS 129
APPEND:ICES
APPENDIX I
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX II
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
x.
xx.
:-:----
y .
DBCXSXOB SUJOIARY
SX'l'B BAJIB. LOCA'l'XOB. AND DBSCRXP'l'XOB
The Cal West Metals site is located one-half mile northwest
of Lemitar and approximately 8 miles north of Socorro in
Socorro County, New Mexico (Figure 1). The site is bounded
on the east by a frontage road for US Interstate 25. The
Interstate is located approximately 250 feet west of the
site. The facility is located at an elevation of
approximately 4,700 feet above mean sea level (msl) within
the northwest quadrant of the southwest quadrant of Section
2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West.
The Cal West Metals site is a former battery breaking and
recycling facility. The Cal West property includes
approximately 43.8 acres, of which 12.5 acres are fenced.
site operations were located within the fenced area.
Layout of the Cal West facility is shown in Figure 2. The
site currently consists of two evaporation ponds, three
facility buildings, earth berms, soil and battery waste
piles, a concrete surface pad, and a salvage area.
SX'l'B HXS'l'ORY AND BHPORCBMBN'l' AC'l'XVX'l'XBS
A cotton gin facility operated at this site prior to the
Cal West battery recycling operation. Cotton gin
operations were housed in the northernmost and central on-
site buildings. No information is available on specific
operations at this facility; however, New Mexico State
Highway Department aerial photographs indicate it was
active at least between 1961 and 1972.
-------
. ,
1:
~
"
o
~
r"
'"
%.
'P
N
t
Skm'
J'IGURE 1:
Socorro COUD~:r
'\Co
o
"
",)-
4/
if,u-
~
o
c:::.
'f,
,.J.
'V
'"
't-
New Mexico
Cal Wes~ Me~alB Si~e
~
Iv
...,
@
('t
S
c:::.
-0
'P
()
(f'
.p
."
San Anton
8
LOCATIONS OJ' SOCORRO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO AND THE
CAL WEST METALS SITE
-------
t
1
O'
SCALE
Fence LIne
FIGURE 2:
~
t ,
200'
Unlined Pond
r Pump Building
. ~~~\ \\
BatteF1i1eWasle --m- Old in OIn IkIIIdIng
Concrete pad. \ \) \
[Metal Bull ng--
rocessIShOp/VI,...e
P \ lL-
~
:0
~
~
~
Pump Building
"1\
...
o
a
~
CD
:0
o
8.
LEGEND
. Pump House and Supply Well Location
rzJ Facility Building
CAL WESi' SITE LAYOUT
-------
Y,-
Cal West Metals was a small scale battery recycling
facility and secondary lead smelter operated by Albert and
James LaPoint. From 1979 to 1981, the facility processed
an estimated 20,000 automobile batteries to recover lead,
plastics, and hard rubber components for commercial sale.
Lead-acid batteries were crushed on-site and the batteries
were separated into plastics, hard rubber, and lead oxides.
The plastics, hard rubber, and lead fractions were
separated by floatation and centrifugation in a rotating
separator drum. Water was recycled through the separator
drum and ultimately discharged to the lined pond along with
waste sludges. After the discharge line became plugged,
sludges were disposed of on the concrete surface pad
adjacent to the cotton gin building.
Piles of crushed battery components, in various stages of
separation, were stored outdoors from the start of
operations to approximately 1989. The broken battery piles
,-'0..,.
are currently stored inside the cotton gin (central)
building and stockpiled on the concrete pad adjacent (west)
to this building.
The LaPoints conducted research and development on methods
of lead r~~overy from batteries from 1982 to 1984. site
operations .decreased substantially after 1984. Since 1985,
the company has intermittently reworked on-site battery
waste piles to extract remaining recoverable lead oxides,
plastics, and hard rubber and refine the lead recovery
process.
The Lapoints borrowed money from the Small Business
Administration (SBA) to finance Cal West operations. In
1985, the Lapoints defaulted on the loan and the SBA
foreclosed and took ownership of the property. To date,
-------
III.
'-'
t .
the LaPoints have continued to maintain a presence at the
site.
The Cal West site has been the subject of numerous state
and Federal investigations and regulatory actions since
1979. Preliminary investigations were conducted by the New
Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, now the New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED) , EPA, and the Lapoints
from 1981 through 1989. Based on site investigations
conducted by EPA and NMED, the site was proposed for
inclusion in the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) on
June 24, 1988 and officially listed on March 31, 1989.
Table 1 summarizes the investigations, findings, and
regulatory actions at the Cal West facility.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Public participation activities for this site were met as
required in CERCLA Section 113(k) (2) (B) (i-v) and 117. The
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study (RI/FS) Reports
and the Proposed Plan for the Cal West Metals site were
released to the public in July 1992. These three documents
were made available to the public in the Administrative
Record and the information repositories maintained at the
EPA Docket Room in Region 6, at the NMED Superfund
repository, and at the Socorro Public Library. The notice
of the availability of these three documents was published
in the Socorro Defensor Chieftain on July 16, 1992. A
public comment period was held from July 20, 1992 through
August 18, 1992. A request for an extension to the public
comment period was not made. As a result, the public
comment period closed on August 18, 1992. An open house
meeting was held on June 30, 1992 and a public meeting was
held on July 30, 1992. These meetings were held to
-------
, ,
j""
TABLE 1:
JmD
Nov. 1979
1979-1985
March 1980
May 1981
Sept. 1983
Jan. 1984
Aug. 1985
Aug. 1985
Oct. 1985
HISTORY OP SITB II1VBSTIGATIOHS AlII) RBGULATORY ACTIOHS
SUJlMARY OP J:I1VBSTJ:GATJ:OH/ACTJ:OH
NMED issued an Air Quality Control Permit for the
operation of a smelting furnace and associated air
pollution control equipment.
NMED periodically collected samples from the Bailey
well; one sample in 1981 showed lead slightly above the
New Mexico ground water standard of 0.05 ppm.
NMED issued a Ground Water Discharge Plan for
wastewater discharges. The plan required regular
monitoring of 2 on-site supply wells. '
NMED submitted a CERCLA site Identification form and
Preliminary Assessment report.
NMED
conducted
air
for
quality
inspection
an
noncompliance.
NMED conducted an air quality inspection.
NMED conducted a CERCLA site Inspection and determined
that elevated levels of lead were present at the site.
The concentration of lead was above the ground water
standard in one on-site supply well.
EPA RCRA conducted a Compliance Monitoring Inspection.
SBA foreclosed and took ownership of the Cal West
facility.
-------
DATB
Jan. 1986
April 1986
Aug. 1986
Oct. 1986
July 1987
Aug. 1988
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUKMARY or %HVBST%GAT%OH/AC'1'%OH
EPA RCRA conducted a Compliance Monitoring Inspection
and determined that the lead Extraction Procedure (EP)
Toxicity limit was exceeded in evaporation pond
liquids, south disposal area sediments, waste piles,
and drainage area sediments.
EPA issued a Tentative Disposition recommending that a
Site Inspection FOllow-Up be conducted and a Hazard
Ranking System package be prepared.
EPA RCRA issued an Administrative Complaint to Cal West
and a Notice of Noncompliance to the Small Business
Administration based on the 1985 and 1986 inspection
findings. The Complaint proposed a penalty, cited RCRA
violations, and required clean closure of the site.
NMED conducted a Site Inspection Follow-Up and
determined that high lead levels were present in
surface soils and drainage sediments north and south of
the fenced area.
EPA and Cal West signed a Consent Agreement and Final
Order requiring submittal of a closure plan, soil
sampling plan, a hydrogeologic investigation plan, and
financial assurance documentation.
The Lapoints ini tiated ground water moni toring by
installing and sampling a monitoring well at the
northwest corner of the fenced area.
-------
. ,
"-
1mB
March 1989
May 1989
June 1990
Aug. 1990
Oct. 1990
Sep. 1991
TABLB 1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF IRVBSTIGATIO_'ACTIOH
The LaPoints removed topsoil from much of the fenced
area and moved operations and equipment into the south
building.
EPA RCRA conducted a Compliance Evaluation Inspection
and determined that lead was present above the EP
Toxicity limit in waste piles, the lined evaporation
pond, and drainages.
Contractors to the Lapoints installed two monitoring
wells on-site.
Lapoints' contractors collected unfiltered samples from
three on-site monitoring wells; chromium, lead, iron,
and manganese were detected slightly above ground water
standards in well CWMW-2.
EPA Superfund and NMED initiated the in-house Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (Phase I) to determine
if other contaminants of concern were present (other
than metals) and focus the comprehensive Phase II
investigation.
EPA and NMED began the comprehensive in-house Phase II
. RI to fully characterize the site (identify
contaminants of concern) and determine the extent of
contamination.
-------
IV.
e.-.-
informed the citizen of activities conducted at the Cal
West site and to discuss the RI/FS Reports and the Proposed
Plan for the site. These meetings were attended by
representatives from EPA, NMED, and the ,Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). At the request of
citizens from Lemitar, a community meeting was held on
August 13, 1992 with representatives from EPA and NMED to
answered questions related to the remedial alternatives
under consideration. A response to the oral and written
comments received during this period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of
Decision (ROD). This decision document presents the
selected remedial action for the Cal West Metals site, in
Lemitar, New Mexico. The selected remedy was chosen in
accordance with CERCLA, and to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan. The decision for this site is
based on the Administrative Record an index of which is
included as an appendix to this Record of Decision (ROD).
.......
SCOPB AND ROLB OP RESPONSB ACTION
This source control ROD addresses the hazardous substances
that make up the contaminated site soils, sediments, and
the sourca~~aste materials. The selected remedy described
in this ROD will prevent contact and ingestion of
contaminated site materials. Ground water samples
collected from the site monitoring wells installed during
the Phase II RI/FS do not indicate that a release of
contaminants associated with the Cal West site to the
ground water has occurred. Therefore, this ROD will
address all concerns at the site and will be the final
response action for the site.
-------
v.
SUMMARY OP SITB CHARACTBRISTICS
SITB PBATURBS
The Cal West Metals site lies within the Mexican Highlands
of the Basin and Range Province. The site is located in
the north central part of the Socorro Basin. The Socorro
Basin is part of the Rio Grande Rift, a major north-south
trending structural depression. The Socorro Basin is
separated from the La Jencia Basin on the west by the
Lemitar Mountains and Socorro Peak. On the east the basin
is bounded by Joyita Hills, the Lomas de las Canas, Cerro
Colorado and the Little San Pasqual Mountains (Figure 11).
The Socorro Basin is an open basin connected to the
Albuquerque-Belen Basin on the northern margin and to the
San Marcial Basin on the southern margin.
The Cal West site is situated two miles west of the Rio
Grande and four miles to the east of the Lemitar Mountains
on the toe of an alluvial fan along the east-sloping
piedmont associated with the Lemitar Mountains. Relief
from the Lemitar Mountains to the Rio Grande is
approximately 530 feet. Relief across the Cal West site is
approximately 25 feet to the east-northeast. The flat
lying floodplain of the Rio Grande is located immediately
east of US Interstate 25. The Rio Grande is the only
perennial surface water drainage in the Socorro Basin.
KBTBOROLOGY
The climate of the Socorro area is predominantly arid to
semiarid. Data from the now-inactive Socorro weather
station, previously located at elevation 4,585 feet msl,
show that June to August are the warmest months and
-------
" .
December and January the coldest months of the year. Mean
temperatures during July to August range from 75° to 78° F.
Most summer days in the Rio Grande valley reach 90 degrees,
but a few reach 100 degrees. Mean temperatures during
December and January range from 36 to 37 degrees (Soil
Conservation Service, 1988).
The mean annual precipitation in Socorro is 9.35 inches
(Anderho1m, 1987). Nearly half the annual average
precipitation occurs from July to September in scattered
thunderstorms. These storms, though generally brief, are
sometimes intense and it is common for flash floods to
occur. Evapotranspiration is generally greater than
precipitation and is greatest during May to October.
Characteristically, however, there is a wide range of
deviations in rates of precipitation and evapotranspiration
(Soil Conservation Service, 1988).
Winds in the valley can be highly variable. Winds are
predominantly northerly in winter and southerly in summer.
Northerly winds are more common in the morning, and
southerly winds are more common in the afternoon. Average
annual wind speed is 9 miles per hour. Winds are strongest
in the spring, averaging about 12 miles per hour. Winds of
20 to 40 miles per hour commonly occur from March to May.
Winds are lightest in the fall and winter, averaging about
8 miles per hour (Soil Conservation Service, 1988).
A tripod-mounted portable meteorological station was
established at the Cal West site by the NMED Air Quality
Bureau to collect weather data during Phase II air sampling
activities. The station included an anemometer, wind vane
and temperature probe. Data recorded consisted of month,
day, year, time, wind speed, wind vector, wind direction,
-------
. .
./
and temperature
Sampling Report,
Report.
and is included in Appendix III, Air
as part of the . Remedial Investigation
During the week of September 23, 1991, when air sampling
activities were conducted at the Cal West site, temperature
conditions varied from a low of 48 of to a high of 86 of.
Wind conditions during the sampling period were light to
moderate from a southerly direction at average speeds of 5
to 13 miles per hour.
StJRPACB WATBR HYDROLOGY
The Rio Grande is the maj or surface water body in the
region and is the only perennial stream within fifteen
miles of Cal West. It flows north-south and is located
approximately two miles east of Cal West. Numerous
ephemeral arroyos drain the Lemitar Mountains and its
associated alluvial fans and contribute directly or
indirectly to the Rio Grande.
Two west-east trending ephemeral arroyos are located within
one-half mile of the Cal West site. The two arroyos are
located to the north and south of the Cal West facility
fence, respectively. The arroyos flow into the Lemitar
Ditch lateral and the Contra Acequia, both of which are
channelized irrigation ditches. These ditches eventually
drain into the Rio Grande. No surface water samples were
collected during the RI field investigation since flowing
water was not present in the nearby arroyos during field
sampling activities and no rivers are located in the
immediate vicinity of the Cal West site.
-------
<--
y .
GEOLOGY
The Cal West site is located within the Socorro Basin
portion of the Rio Grande Rift, a major structural
depression which extends from central Colorado to northern
Mexico. The site is situated on the northwest marqin of
the Socorro Basin which slopes eastward from the Lemitar
Mountains to the Rio Grande floodplain.
The site vicinity is underlain by basin-fill deposits
consistinq of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sediments
of the Tertiary Santa Fe Group and Quaternary deposits.
The Quaternary deposits consist of alluvial fan, piedmont
slope, terrace, colluvium, landslide, and fluvial
materials. These deposits unconformably overlie the Santa
Fe Group and are qenerally less than 20 feet thick. The
Santa Fe Group varies abruptly vertically and laterally
from coarse conqlomerates and qravels .to sand, silt, and
clay. Alluvial deposits of the Santa Fe Group are divided
into the Miocene Popotosa Formation and the Pliocene Sierra
Ladrones Formation. Underlyinq the Santa Fe Group are
Tertiary Socorro volcanics, M~sozoic and Paleozoic rocks,
and Precambrian iqneous and metamorphic rocks,
respectively.
Site-specific qeoloqy was obtained from continuous core
samples collected during installation of six on-site
monitorinq wells and drillinq of three soil borinqs durinq
the Phase II field investiqation. Core samples from each
borinq showed similar subsurface materials at each drillinq
location. A qeoloqic cross section (Section A-A') showinq
the typical subsurface lithology, drawn northeast to
southwest, is presented on Fiqures 3 and 4.
-------
.. C'
1
I
N
I
I A'
CWMW.4 .
I
0' SCALE 200'
CWMW.1
o
Fence line
Battery Waste
Pile
Berm
~ ~MW~
.
CWMW.9
CWMW.3
A
A
LEGEND
o Previously Constructed Monitoring Well .
. Phase II Monitoring Well
e Phase II Soil Boring
. Pump House and Supply Well Location
E2J Facility Building
A' Trace of Geologic Cross Section
FIGURE 3 :
CAL WEST GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION LOCATION
14
-------
~ 0)"-
A' ,Q)-
.... ~_UI A
UIU
NORTH I/') Y"" ~ ~ ~.!!!.Q) SOUTH
:: ::: ~eb
' ~
~ m ;: 0 0 e:.~ 4,710'
CI)
4,710' ' W
..... w 4,630'
-J
111 W
4,590'
LEGEND
20'
~
o
~
~
~
~
Screened Interval
Silty Sands, Gravelly Silty Sands (SM, SW/SM )
Poorly Graded Sands (SP)
Gravels, Gravels with Sands and Sills (GM, GP, GW)
Silty Clays, Sandy Silts (CL, MUCL)
~
Ground Water Elevation
0'
4,610'
4,590'
0'
SCALE
VERTICAL EXAGERATION = 5X
PZGtJRB
4:
CAL WEST GBOLOGl
~ROSS SBCTZON A-A'
. 100'
-------
. .
~ .
Cross section A-A I illustrates that subsurface materials to
approximately 30 to 40 feet below the ground surface
consist of moderate to high permeability units of silty
sands with lenses of cleaner sands and gravels. A unit of
low to moderately low permeability silty clay with minor
sandy and clayey silts is present at the 30 to 40-foot
depth. The silty clay unit is approximately 10 to 15 feet
thick and appears to be laterally continuous across the
site. Beneath the silty clay are units of high
permeability gravels and poorly graded sands to a depth of
at least 120 feet.
Ground water was encountered in each well borehole at
approximately 70 to 95 feet below grade within a unit of
gravels with varying sand and silt contents. A lens of
sandy silt was encountered below the water table at Well
CWMW-9 from approximately 88 to 94 feet below qrade. The
sandy silt lens was not encountered elsewhere on site, and
the extent of this lens is unknown.
SOZLS
Surface soils in the vicinity of the Ca1 West site are
mapped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as the
Nicke1-Ca1iza association. Soils of this unit are deep,
well-drained, very gravelly sandy 10ams formed in gravelly
alluvium derived from rhyolitic tuff and lava. The SCS
rates the hazard potential for this mappinq uni t as
moderate for water erosion and high for wind erosion. In
general, these soils support shrub and grass vegetation
characteristic of dry1and range.
Surface soils encountered during soil sampling activities
at the Ca1 West site consisted predominantly of brown
-------
~-
, .
qravelly and very qravelly sandy loams associated with the
Caliza soil series. Soils were observed to be calcareous
throuqhout the site and sliqhtly indurated zones of calcium
carbonate accumulation were observed in some areas. The
soil pH was approximately 8.0 in all soil horizons
measured.
JlYDROGBOLOGY
The Santa Fe Group and Quaternary deposits comprise the
major water-bearinq unit in the Socorro Basin. This
aquifer system is divided into three hydrostratiqraphic
units: 1) the lower confined Popotosa aquifer; 2) the
middle Popotosa confininq unit; and 3) the upper unconfined
shallow aquifer.
PODO~08a Aauifer and PODo~o8a Confinino Uni~
The Popotosa aquifer corresponds wi th the lower
fanqlomerate facies of the Popotosa Formation. The lower
Popotosa is well indurated and densely fractured near fault
zones. Because the Popotosa aquifer is covered by a thick
section of the Popotosa confininq bed and the shallow
aquifer in most of the Socorro Basin, the hydraulic
properties of the Popotosa aquifer are not well known. The
hydraulic conductivity of the lower aquifer is hiqhly
variable depending on the degree of cementation, volcanic
alteration, sortinq, and qrain size distribution of the
deposit.
The Popotosa confininq unit corresponds to the playa
deposits of the upper Popotosa Formation. The playa
deposits consist of claystones, mudstones, siltstones,
sandstones and conqlomerates. The Popotosa confininq unit
-------
, ,
probably has a low hydraulic conductivity because of the
fine-grained nature of the deposit.
Shallow Aauifer
The upper shallow aquifer is composed of the Sierra
Ladrones Formation and Quaternary deposits. The Sierra
Ladrones aquifer is the most important source of ground
water in the region. Sierra Ladrones deposits are composed
of fine to coarse-grained sandstones and pebble
conglomerate interfingered with beds of mud, silt, and
sand. The Quaternary deposits consist primarily of
conglomerates and sandstones. The thickness and extent of
the shallow aquifer is estimated to be greater than 1,000
feet thick in the Socorro Basin. No wells in the Socorro
and La Jencia Basins are known to be completed in zones
deeper than the shallow aquifer.
Reaional Ground Water Circulation
Ground water flow in the northwestern Socorro Basin is
dominated by two components: '1) an eastward component of
flow associated with mountain recharge areas, and 2) a
southern component of flow associated with the Rio Grande.
Along the margins of the Socorro Basin, ground water in the
shallow aquifer flows toward the river valley and away from
mountain recharge areas. Within the inner-valley or
floodplain of the Rio Grande, ground water flow is
dominated by the river, conveyance channels, laterals, and
drains in the irrigated part of the river valley. These
two-flow systems interact extensively. Ground water flow
within the inner-valley i~ generally parallel to the river
at a gradient of approximately 0.001 (1 meter per
kilometer).
-------
p
site HYdroaeoloay
Information on the site hydrogeology was obtained from the
three preexisting monitoring wells (CWMW-1, CWMW-2, and
CWMW-3) and the six new monitoring wells installed during
the Phase II field investigation (CWMW-4 through CWMW-9).
The depth to ground water beneath the Cal West site ranges
from approximately 70 to 95 feet below grade. Sediments
encountered in the saturated zone consist predominantly of
poorly graded sands and gravels with varying sand and silt
contents. Following well construction the static water
level in the wells did not appear to change from the water
levels encountered during drilling.
All of the monitoring wells were surveyed for top of casing
elevations by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on October
29, 1991. Stabilized water surface elevations for the
monitoring wells were measured on October 28, 1991 and
April 14, 1992 (Table 2). Ground water surface contours
for the Ca1 West site for October 28, 1991 and April 14,
1992 are shown on Figures 5, and 6, respectively. The
October 1991 contours indicate that shallow ground water
beneath the site flows predominantly in a south-
southwesterly direction at a gradient of approximately
0.0007 ft/ft. The April 1992 contours also show a south-
southwest qroundwater flow direction at a sliqhtly flatter
gradient of approximately 0.0005 ft/ft. Figures 5 and 6
both indicate that ground water flow is more southerly at
the north end of the Cal West site. Measured water surface
elevations for October 1991 were approximately 0.5 foot
higher than April 1992.
-------
L
TABLE
-2: WATER StJRFACE ELEVATIONS FOR CAL WEST MONITORING WELLS
MEASURED OCTOBER 1991 AND APRIL 1992
MONITORING TOP OF CASING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
WELL (feet.msl) (feet. mSl)
10-28-91 4-14-92
CWMW-1 4,711.901 4,616.86 4,616.27
CWMW-2 4,688.804 4,617.12 4,616.59
CWMW-3 4,702.366 4,616.59 4,616.19
CWMW-4 4,688.690 4,617.25 4,616.63
CWMW-5 4,700.628 4,616.94 4,616.50
CWMW-6 4,697.669 4,617.00 4,616.45
CWMW-7 4,703.775 4,616.77 4,616.27
CWMW-8 .~~. 4,699.130 4,616.81 4,616.28
CWMW-9 4,716.212 4,616.55 4,616.11
..~...
-------
f
N
I
j
I
0' SCALE 200'
4677.00'
CWMW-4
4617.25 \ \ \
~S,~ .
'~O" - .i . CWMW-2
Lined P.ond 4617.12
. CWMW-1
4616.86
CWMW-5
4616.94. ta .
I
4616.80
Fence Line
.J
CWMW-7
4616.77
CWMW.8
4616.81
,
A6,\6.60
.
CWMW.9
4616.55
CWMW-3
4616.59
LEGEND
. Monitoring Well Location
. Pump House and Supply Well location
f2J - Facility Building .
4616.55 Ground Water Surface Elevation
4616.60'
Contour 01 Equal Ground Water
Surface Elevation
<
Direction 01 Ground Water Row
FIGURE 5 :
Unlined Pond
."
(3
a.
ci
:D
o
~
~
::0
~
~
"'
I\)
U1
CAL WEST GROUND WATER SURFACE CONTOURS, OCTOBER 28,1991
-------
1-.
1
I
N
I
j
CWMW-4
4616.63 \ \ \
~8, .
6.80' -- ~ CWMW.2
4616.59
Lined P.ond
rr
SCALE 200'
Fence Line
FIGURE 6:
96'
"6'
'90'"
. CWMW.1
4616.27
CWMW.5
4616.50. g.
. Battery wast~~
Pile ,,~
4616.20'
Berm
.
CWMW.9
4616.11
LEGEND
. Monitoring Well Location
. Pump House and Supply Well location
f2'J Facility Building
4616.11 Ground Water Surface Elevation
,
4616.60 - Contour of Equal Ground Water
Surface Elevation
III(
Direction of Ground Water Row
CWMW.8
4616.28
Unlined Pond
3
"'
':D
~
~
"'
~
on
-
o
~
c8
CD
~
~
CAL WEST GROUND WATER SURFACE CONTOURS, APRIL 14, 1992
-------
.~
DBKOGRAPBY AND SUUOmtDZIIG LARD USB
The area surrounding the Cal West site is rural and
sparsely populated. Lemitar is the closest village and has
an estimated population of 250 to 400 persons. The nearest
residences to the site are located approximately 1,000 feet
to the northeast and to the southeast in Lemitar, across
Interstate 25. At least three households are located
approximately 1,100 to 1,300 feet south of the fenced area
and are the nearest residences south of the site.
Private lands in the immediate vicinity of the site are not
irrigated; however, the inner valley of the Rio Grande
located immediately east of 1-25 is primarily agricultural.
us Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property is located west
and north of the Cal West property and is classified as
grazing rangeland.
BCOLOGY
The area surrounding the site is marginal habitat for
openland and rangeland wildlife. The US Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) ranks soils in the area as fair to poor
potential wildlife habitat (SCS, 1988). The area
historically has been overgrazed by cattle. Both the
temperature regime and rainfall distribution favor warm-
season perennial plants in this area. The Cal West site
and vicinity is dominated by drought-tolerant perennial and
annual grasses, forbs, and woody species. The expected
resident wildlife in the vicinity of the site are small
mammals and reptiles, birds of prey, and small to medium
sized birds.
-------
. ,
1-..
D'1'URB UD BX'rBH'l' 01' COH'l'AKID'1'IOB
In October 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) began the
remedial investigation (RI) at the Ca1 West Metals site to
characterize environmental conditions, hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminant migration pathways.
The ini tia1 investigation (Phase I) was conducted to
identify other (besides known lead contamination) potential
contaminants at the site.
Specifically, the Phase I investigation was used to
determine if organic contaminants were also present at the
site in order to focus the comprehensive Phase II
investigation and fully characterize the nature and extent
of contamination. Work performed during the Phase I RI/FS
included sampling and analysis of on-site battery waste
piles, soils, and three site wells. The Phase II field
investigation consisted of surface soil sampling,
trenching, air sampling, installation of monitoring wells,
residential and monitor well sampling, a field portable X-
ray fluorescence (FPXRF) survey, and depth soil sampling.
Field .activities for the Phase I investigation were
conducted on October 24, 1990, and Phase II was conducted
from September 16, 1991 through October 30, 1991.
A summary and discussion of the analytical results obtained
from samples collected at the Cal West Metals site during
the Phase I and Phase II field investigations are presented
in this document. Concentration for the Target Compound
List (TCL) of organic compounds are reported in micrograms
per kilograms, ug/kg, or parts per billion (ppb).
Concentrations for the Target Ana1yi te List (TAL) of
inorganic compounds are reported in milligrams per
-------
kilograms, mg/kg, or parts per million (ppm). Tables
provided in this section include chemical concentrations of
all compounds analyzed and includes qualifier letters.
No volatile organic compounds were detected in the samples
collected during Phase I and therefore they were not
analyzed for during Phase II. Volatile test results are
presented in Table 3. No cyanide was detected in any of
the samples collected during Phase I and was not analyzed
for in Phase II. Soil samples collected during Phase I
were also analyzed for pesticides. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were the only compounds detected in the
pesticides analysis. PCBs detected were at concentrations
below the Toxic Substances Control Act residential cleanup
level of 1 ppm, 40 CFR Part 761, and therefore were not
targeted in samples collected during the Phase II
investigation. Pesticides test results from Phase I are
presented ~n Table 4.
..f.,().;.
Backaround Data Summary
Background soil and surface sediment samples were collected
during: the Phase II field investigations. TAL test results
for the bApkground samples are presented in Table 5.
Background -..concentrations for the chemicals of concern
(COC) identified for the Cal West site in the Remedial
Investigation Report were:
For the soil samples at the surface (0 to 6 inches depth):
lead 49.2 ppm; arsenic 1.2 ppm; cadmium .41 ppm; mercury
.10 ppm; nickel 13.8 ppm; and silver 1.3 ppm.
Soil at a depth of 6 to 12 inches below ground surface:
lead 15.2 ppm; arsenic 1.2 ppm; cadmium .47 ppm; mercury
.10 ppm; nickel 12.1 ppm; and silver 1.2 ppm.
-------
TABLE 3 PHASE I VOlATILE ORGANIC TEST RESULTS (ug/kg or ppb)
CLP No. R880 Fd8t FK882 fX88S FIC884 Fraas R880S R887 Fr888
Site No. M.t tW'Z tW.a tIII.7 tW.6 CIIII" M-5 M- 3 M-4
l0C8tfon IInI Pond Lln Pond 'Ittery SUrfeee SUrlece lettery I.Sludge Soli P. Surlece
CIItorcnetll- 10. U 10. U to. U 10. U 10. U 10. u 11. U 10. U 10. U
Bl'OIIOIIeth- to. U to. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 11. U 10. U 10. u
Vinyl Chloride 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U n. U 10. U 10. U
Chloroethene 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U n. U 10. U 10. U
"ethyl- Chloride 5. U 6. 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 6. U 3. J 5. U
Acet- 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 11. U 10. U 10. U
Cerbon olsutflde 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. u 5. U
1.1-0Ichtoroeth- 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. u
1,1-0Idhloroethene 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. u 5. u
1,Z.Ofchloroetll- (Totll) 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. u 6. U 5. U 5. u
Chtorofol'll 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
1.Z-0ichloroethene 5. U 5. " 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
tIJ Z-eum- 10. U 10. U 10. " 10. u 10. U 10. u 11. U 10. U 10. U
'"
1,t,1'Trlchloroethene 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. u
Cerbon Tetredllorfde 5. U 5. u 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. u 6. U 5. U 5. U
Vinyl Acetete 10. U 10. U 10. U to. U to. U 10. U 11. U to. U 10. U
8rClllDdfchlorawth- 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
1.2-0Ichloropl GpIII6 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. u
CIS'1,3'Dlchlorapropene 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
Trlchloroetilene 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. u 5. U
DI~lorcneth- 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 6. U 5. U 5. U
"1 ,Z-Trfchlaroethene 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. u
8_- 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. u
Trens'1,3'Dlchloropropene 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. u
8rOlllOloI'II 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. u 5. u
4-Hethyl-2-Pentenone 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. u 10. u. 10. U 11. U 10. u 10. U
Z-Haara. 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. U 10. u 10. U 11. U 10. U 10. U
Tetrachloroe~ 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. u
1,t,Z,Z'Tetrachloroethane 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
Totww 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
CIItor~ 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
Ethyl~ 5. U 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 6. U 5. U 5. U
St~ 5. U 5. U 5. u 5. U 5. U 5. u 6. U 5. U 5. u
-------
TABLE 4 : PHASE I PESTICIDES TFST RESULTS (ug/kg or ppb)
CLP No. FIt880 FK881 FIC882 Fd83 Fd84 FK885 FK886 Flal87 FK888
Sit. C\I8., a11-2 QjB-8 a11-7 aII.6 eva-' eva-s aII-] a11-4
Location ~l Pond Lln PcInd BIUery SUrflC8 SurflCe leUery I.Sludge Soil P. SUrflCl
.I~..BIIC 17. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. U
bet..IRC 17. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. U
del t..IRC 17. u 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. u
e--IHC CLlnd8ne) 17. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. U
Retechlor 17. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. U
Aldrin 17. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. u
HeptlChlor epaxlcle 17. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. U
II.> Endosul f8ft I 17. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 16. U 18. U 16. U 16. U
o".J Dieldrin ]]. U 3Z. U 32. U 33. U 33. U ]2. U 36. U 32. U 33. U
4,4' -DDE 33. U 3Z. U 32. U 33. U 33. U 32. U 36. U 32. U 33. U
Endrfn 33. U 32. U 3Z. U 33. U 33. U 3Z. U 36. U 32. U 33. U
Endosul f8l'l II 33. U 32. U 32. U 33. U 33. U 3Z. U 36. U 3Z. U 33. U
4,41 'ODD 33. U 32. U 32. U 33. U 33. U 32. U 36. U 32. U 33. U
Endosul'8I'I aut flte n. U 32. U 32. U 33. U 33. U 32. U 36. U 32. U 33. U
4,4' 'DDT n. U 32. U 32. U 33. U 33. U 32. U 36. U 32. U 33. U
Methoxychlor 170. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 180. U 160. U 160. U
Endrln ketone 33. U 32. U 32. U 33. U 33. U 32. U 36. U 32. U 33. U
It~I'Chlord8ne 170. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 1110. U 160. U 160. U
911111111-Chlordllne 170. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 160. U 180. U 160. U 160. U
TOJI8~ene no. U 320. U 320. U 330. U 330. U 320. U 360. U 320. U 330. U
Aroclor-1016 170. UJ 160. U J 160. UJ 160. UJ 160. U J 160. U J 180. U J 160. UJ 160- UJ
Aroelor-1ZZ1 170. U" 160. U.. 160. U" 160. U.. 160. U" 160. 11.. 1110. U .. 160. U" 160. UJ
Aroclor'1232 170. u" 230. .. 160. U" 160. UJ 160. UJ 160. U J 1110. U J 160. u... 160. U"
Aroclor-1242 170. UJ 160. U" 140. J 160. U J 160. U J 780. J 1400. J 160. UJ 160. UJ
Aroctor-1248 170. UJ 160. U J 160. U" 160. UJ 160. UJ 160. U" 180. U " 160. UJ 160. U J
Aroclor-1254 330. U J 320. U" 340. J 330. UJ 330. U J 540. " 390. J 330. J 330. U J
Aroctor-1Z60 330. U J 320. U J 320. UJ 330. UJ 330. U J 320. U J 360. U J 3Z0. U" 330. U J
-------
'.
TABLE 5: SOIL AND SEDIMENT BACKGROUND TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
CLP No. HFR012 HFROU HFR014 HFR024
Site No. XRFA1'O XRFA1-9 XRFA1'18 SS10.5A
Location Background Background Background Drainage
Atuninun 10800.00 9650.00 11500.00 6630.00
Antimony 5.90 UR 6.30 BR 6.00 BR 2.60 UR
Arsenic 1.20 BJ 1.20 BJ 1.60 8.1 1.20 BJ
larlU!! 186.00 191.00 198.00 198.00
Beryll iun .79 B .87 B 1.00 B .29 B
Cachlun .41 U .47 B .41 U .46 IJ
'" Calc fun 13300.00 25300.00 27900.00 8590.00
00
Chromfun 10.40 8.00 9.70 8.10
Cobalt 7.80 B 7.30 B 8.00 B 7.00 B
Copper 17.00 15.30 16.50 20.60
Iron 18900.00 18500.00 ZZ900.00 11700.00
Lead 49.20 15.20 J 10.30 J 31.20
Mignesfua 5370.00 4670.00 5230.00 3430.00
Mlnganese 481.00 427.00 456.00 668.00
Mercury .10 U .10 U .10 U .10 U
Nickel 13.80 12.10 13.70 10.10
potasslun 3020.00 " 2490.00 J 2nO.OO J 1940.00 J
Selenh. .82 UJ .83 UJ .82 UJ .40 UJ
Silver 1.30 B 1.20 I 1.00 U .40 U
Sodh... 200.00 B 219.00 B 252.00 B 264.00 B
Thall fun .61 UJ .62 U .62 UJ 1.00 UJ
Vanediun 20.90 20.90 28.00 25.40
-------
soil at a depth of 12 to 24 inches below ground surface:
lead 10.3 ppmi arsenic 1.60 ppmi cadmium .41 ppmi mercury
.10 ppmi nickel 13.7 ppmi and silver 1.0 ppm.
Background concentrations for the COCs in the sediment
samples were: lead 31.2 ppmi arsenic 1.2 ppmi cadmium
.46 ppmi mercury .10 ppmi nickel 10.1 ppmi and silver
.40 ppm.
Contaminant Waste Source SamD1es
Based on test results from the samples collected during the
Phase I and Phase II field investigations, hazardous
substance contaminant sources at the Cal West site include
the broken battery waste piles, dried sludge waste
sediments, and sediment materials from the evaporation
ponds. Compounds detected in the samples collected from
the battery piles were those compounds which are typically
associated with battery recycling and recovery operations.
Semivolatile organic compounds detected were predominately
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) which are
associated with plastics and rubber products. As expected,
the major contaminant of concern found at the site was lead
and at lower concentrations, other metals typically found
with lead processing operations.
Inorganic test results from the broken battery piles and
the concrete pad sludge sediments show concentrations of
the COCs as follows: lead 836,000 ppmi antimony 1160 ppmi
arsenic 240 ppmi cadmium 14.5 ppmi mercury .34 ppmi nickel
38.7 ppmi and silver 5.0 ppm. TAL test results are
presented in Table 6.
-------
TABLE 6 BATTERY AND SLUDGE SEDIMENTS TAL TEST RESUlTS (mglkg or pprn)
CLP No. MFROO7 MFR008 CLP No. MFIC480 MfK483 MflC484
Site No. XRfl10-0 SYSI-O Site No. M.a CW-9 CW-5
Location ".ste PI Ie Cone.PeeI L0C8tion Batt.Pi Ie Batt.Plle Sludg.Sedn.
Aluninun 2900.00 Alunlnua 6270.00 3920.00 4080.00
4190.00 Antimony 591.00 J 911.00 J 1160.00 "
Antimony 814.00 R 1080.00 R Arsenic 128.00 35.20 240.00
Arsenfc 76.80 J 200.50 J garf.... 255.00 327.00 495.00
Badun 387.00 377.00 Beryllfun .19 U .20 U .21 U
Beryl! fun .47 8 .42 8 Cachf.... 9.10 9.80 14.50
CadniUD 3.90 11.60 CatcfUD 12700.00 9170.00 10600.00
Caiciun 10400.00 9970.00 Chl'OlJlha 11.20 J 113.00' J 21.30 J
w
0 thromiun 7.70 13.70 Cabat t '.80 8 '.80 8 5.'0 8
Cobalt 3.30 B 4.10 B Copper 46.10 50.20 61.00
Copper 55.10 '8.80 Iron 10000.00 9300.00 10600.00
Lead 99100.00 104000.00 149000.00
Iron 6250.00 9990.00 Meanesfun 1760.00 14600.00 1910.00
Lead 537000.00 J 836000.00 J M...... 435.00 674.00 1040.00
Magneslua 2250.00 2230.00 Mercury .30 .34 .34
Manganese 854.00 593.00 Nfckel 15.70 14.80 38.70
Mercury .10 U .16 pot.s.lun 1000.00 911.00 8 1060.00 8
Nickel 13.30 28.40 Selenlun 1.80 UR 3.40 8R 4.10 8R
Potassfua 668.00 rI 1110.00 J Sftver 2.90 J 3.40. J 4.20 J
. Seleniun 1.30 J .82 UJ Sodh. 267.00 8 227.00 8 '-43.00 B
Silver 2.40 5.00 Thall 1111 1.40 BJ .62 8.1 1.10 8.1
Vanedilll 13.10 12.80 13.20
Sodiun 297.00 8 341.00 8 Zinc 106.00 1:56.00 1n.OO
Thall IUD 1.70 .I 1.20 8 cyanfde 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.10 U
Vanediun 13.30 12.10
-------
(...
Concentrations for the semi-volatile COCs were: 2-methyl
naphthalene 6,600 ppb; acenaphthene 17,000 ppb; fluorene
4,700 ppb; anthracene 3,600 ppb; pyrene 12,000 ppb;
benzo(a) anthracene 4,800 ppb; chrysene 3,500 ppb;
benzo(b) flouranthene 4,700 ppb; benzo(k) flouranthene 1,100
J ppb; benzo(a)pyrene 2,800 ppb; indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 970
ppb; and benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,200 ppb. Semi-volatile
test results are presented in Tables 7. All of these
constitute hazardous substances as defined at CERCLA
Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. S 9601(14), and further defined
at 40 CFR S 302.4.
Pond sediment samples collected from the two evaporation
ponds indicated high concentrations of contaminants present
at the surface. Depth samples collected do not indicate
contaminant migration with depth. High contaminant
concentrations were not found deeper than 3 feet below
ground surface. Sediment samples from the lined pond are
considered source waste materials since battery sludge
waste and processing liquids with lead fines were disposed
of in this pond. Some waste materials may have been
disposed of in the unlined pond based on the high
concen~rations of contaminants found. Inorganic
concentrations of the COCs found in the pond sediments
were: lead 421,000 ppm; antimony 581 ppm; arsenic 250.3
ppm; cadmium 18.4 ppm; mercury 1.8 ppm; nickel 32.7 ppm;
and silver 9.8 ppm. TAL test results are presented in
Table 8. These inorganics constitute hazardous substances
as defined at CERCLA Section 101(14),42 U.S.C. S 9601(14),
and further defined at 40 CFR S 302.4
No semi-volatile contaminants of concern were detected in
the pond sediment samples. This would indicate that the
semi-volatile contaminants are bound in the hard rubber and
-------
l'
TABLE 7 : BATTERY AND SLUDGE SEDIMENTS SEMI-VOlATILE TEST RESULTS (ug/kg or ppb)
CLP 10. fS601 fS60Z a.p 110. flCll82 flC885 fK886
Site 110 Cone.,8d Site M-8 ewe-, M-5
Loeatlan lattery pil. Dried Iludge Locatlan I.Uery Battery B.Slucfge
"'enol 5800 " 200 .. Phenol 10000. 24000- 6500-
bls(Z-Cbloroethyl)Ether 10000 U 340 U bfsCZ-Chloroethyl)Ether 670. U 1300. U 1500. u
Z-tIIlOMlpllenol '0000 U 340 U Z-Chlcnphenol 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
1-J-DldI(orabenz- 10000 u 340 U t.3 Q,fchlorobenzene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
1.4-Dfdllorobenz- 10000 u 340 U 1.4-Dlchlorobenzene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
'.Z-DldI(orobenz- 10000 U 340 U Benzyl Alcohol 670. U 1300. u 1500. U
Z-ftetllylFhenol 10000 U 340 U 1,Z-Dlchlorobenzene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
2,21'0Krb1'(1'Chto~) 10000 U 340 U Z-Methy(phenol 230. " 1300. U 1500. u
Hledlytphenot 10000 U 340 U Bls(Z.Chlorolsapropyl)Ether 670. U 1300. U '500. U
N-Ittroe~f-~~t..fne 10000 U 340 U 4-Methylphenot 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
W Hexadl(oroetII- 10000 U 340 U N.Nltraso-dl-~propylemine 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
t\J Nftrobenzene 10000 U 340 U Hexachloroethane 670. u. 1300. U 1500. U
I sopaorone 10000 u 340 U Nitrobenzene 670. U 1300. U 150D. U
2-lftl'Clflhenot 10000 U 340 U I.ophorane 670. U 1300. U 1500. u
2.4-DI8Ithylphenol 10000 U 340 U 2.11 I trophenol 670. u 1300. U 1500- U
bfsCZ-Chloroethoxy'metllene 10000 U 340 U 2,4-Dlaethylphenol 670. u 1300. U 1500. U
2.4-Dfchl~1 10000 U 340 u lenzolc Acid 3ZOO. U 6400. U 1200. U
1.2.4-Trfchlonlbenzene 10000 U 340 U bI8(Z-Chloroethoxy)methlne 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
Naphthalene 3500 .. 580 Z,4-Dlchlorophenol 670. U 1300. u 1500. U
4-Chloroanflfne 10000 U 340 U 1,2,4-Trfchlorobenzene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
Hexachlorobutadl- 10000 U 340 U '8phthalene 10000. 7800. 9600.
4-Chloro-3-..thylphenol 10000 u 340 U 4-C2Iloroenflfne 670. U '300. U 1500. U
2-MethyllllJlhtll8lene 1400 " 830 Hexachlorobut8dfene 670. U '300. U 1500. u
HeJladll~lopent8dfene 10000 U 340 U 4-ehloro-3-methylphenol 670. U '300. U 1500. U
2,4,6-Trlchlo~1 10000 U 340 U Z-ftethyll18phthlllene 670. U 6600. 1500. U
2,4.5-Trlchlorophenol 25000 U 820 U Hexach loroc:yclopentedf ene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
2-ehloronaphthalene 10000 U 340 U Z,4,6-Trfchlorophenol 670. U 1300. U '500. U
Z-lftl'OlftHfne 25000 U 820 U Z,4.S-T'fchlorophenol 3200. u 6400. U 1200. U
Dfmethylphthatste toooo U 340 U 2-Chloronaphth8lene 670. U 1300. U 1500. u
Acenephthylerw toooo U 340 U Z-Nftroanll fno 3200. U 6400. u 1200. U
2.~fnftrotoluene 10000 U 340 U Dfmethylphthalate 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
3-11t1'08t1t f ne .25000 U 820 U Acenephthylene '50. " '300. U 1500. U
-------
TABLE 7 (COnl): BATTERY AND SlUDGE SEDIMENTS SEMI-VOLATILE TEST RESULTS (ug/kg or ppb)
CLP 10. fS601 FS602 CLP No. R882 flC885 flC886
Site 110 Cane.P. Sfte cw-a ew-9 ew-5
Locatfan 18ttery pfte Drfed Sludge loc8Uan Battery Battery B.Sludge
2,4-Dlnltrophenol 25000 U 820 U 2.6'Dfnftrotoluene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
4-11 I trophenol 25000 U 820 U 3-NitroenUfne 3200- U 6'00. U 7200. U
Dfbenzof...11'1 1800 J 400 Acenepflthene 5000. 17000. 7100.
2,4-Dlnftrotoluene 10000 U 340 U 2,4-~lnltrophenol 3200. U 6400. U 7200. U
Dfethylphtbalate 10000 U 340 U 4-lIltrophenol 3200. u 6400. U 7200. U
4-ChlOt'GphenyI -phenyletller 10000 U 340 U Dfbenzofuran 1900. 3100. 1500. U
Fluorene 2400 J 290 U 2.4.Dfnltrotoluene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
4-NI tl'Oll'llttne 25000 U 820 U Dfethytphthatate 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
4,Hinl tro-2-.thylphenol 25000 U 820 U '-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
.-.'troaodlFf!enyl.'ne (1) 10000 U 340 U Fluorene 3800. 4400. 4700.
4-8~1-~I.ther 10000 U 340 U 4.Nftroanillne 3200. U 6400. U nOD. U
Hexac:lliorobenzene 10000 U 340 U 4.6'Dfnftro-Z-methylphenol 3200. U 6400. U 7200. U
Pentachloroph_1 25000 u 820 u I-Iftroaodfpllenylemfne (1) 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
Phen8nthrene 11000 "00 J 4-lro8Ophenyt-Ff!enylether 670. u 1300. U 1500. U
Anthracene 2500 J 170 J HexachI orobenzene 670. u 1300. u 1500. U
w earbuole 10000 u 120 J PentachlOrophenol 3200. u 6'00. U 7200. U
w DI-n-butytphthalate 10000 U 150 J PheRIRthrene 26000. E 35000. 20000.
f luorll'lthene 5400 J 670 Anthracene 3600. 1300. U 1500. U
Pyrene 5400 " 520 Df-n-butylphthalate 670. U 4800. 1100. J
lutylbenzylphthalate 10000 U 27D J Fluor-nthena 13000. 11000. 4200.
3,3'-Dfchtorobenzldfne 10000 U 340 U Pyrene 1100. 12000. 2900.
lenzoCa)antbracene 1600 J 260 " lutytbenzylphthalate 900. 830. " 1500~ u
Chf'yllene 2300 .. 420 3.3'-DfchIOl"Obenzfdfne 1300. U 2100. U 3000. U
bl.(2-E~I)phth8lat8 79000 ." 18000 ... BenzO(8)lnthr8Cene 4400. 4800. 3300.
D I-n-octylphdullate 6400 .. 1100 .. Chrysene 2200. 3500. 2300.
8enzoeb)ft.....tb... 1300 " 300 J bll(Z-Ethyihexyl)phthalate 64000. E 130000. E 1500. U
.enzo(t)flUOlll'lthene 1100 " 160 .. DI-n-octylphthaI8te 4600. 14000. 6500.
lenzoCI)wrene 1200 J 170 .. 8enzoCb)flouranthene 1900. 4700. 2000.
1~(1,2,3-cd)~ 10000 u 180 J lenzoperytene 10000 U 190 J Jndeno(I,2,3.cd)~ '40. " 910. " 1500. U ~
Dfbenze8,h)anthreeene 670. U 1300. U 1500. U
-------
TABLE 8 : POND SEDIMENT TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
ClP No. "fR009 "fR010 CLP No. MfK478 MFIC479
Site No. SVEPI1Z SVEPI13 Site No. Q/B-1 cwa.Z
LOC8tion Lin.Pond Lln.Pond Loc8tlon Unl.Pond Lfn.Pond
Alunhull 4790.00 7420.00 Alunlnull 10500.00 2240.00
AntflllmY 778.00 R 723.00 R Antimony 6.20 UJ 315.00 J
Araenfc 4.10 76.20
Arsenfc Z50.30 J 15.70 J B8rfun 168.00 113.00
B8rfun 378.00 516.00 Beryll fUD .40 B .18 U
BeryLUUII .51 B .67 B Cechf un . .62 U 4.40
Cadnfun 16.90 18.40 Calcfun 19000.00 10200.00
w C8lciun 10900.00 ChrOlllfun 14.80 J 6.30
~ 14500.00 J
ChrOlllfun 24.30 30.80 Cabal t 8.50 B 3.00 B
Cobal t 5.40 B 7.00 B Copper 15.70 17.30
Copper. 87.40 94.00 Iron 22800.00 4700.00
Iron 8590.00 11200.00 Lead 736.00 74600.00
Lead 1050000.00 .. M8gneafUII 4470.00 1470.00
4Z1000.00 .. Mengeneae 416.00 158.00
Nagnes fun 2660.00 3490.00 Mercury .10 U .31
Manganese 544.00 640.00 Nickel 16.70 8.40
Mercury 1.50 1.80 Pot8asIUII 2130.00 698.00 B
Nickel 28.20 32.70 Selenhn .49 IR 1.80 UR
Pot8sslun 1770.00 J 2410.00 J Silver 1.00 UJ 1.60 BJ
Selenfun .85 'UJ 4.10 J Sodlun 122.00 I 359.00 B
Silver 9.10 9.80 Th8Ulun .40 U .37 U
Sodh. 376.00 8 389.00 B V8n8dfllll 28.20 7.80 B
Thall lun Zinc 68.50 44.90
1.30 8 1.40 B Cyanide 1.00 U 1.00
VenedlUl 16.60 20.40 U
-------
...
plastic hydrocarbon materials. Semi-volatile test results
for the pond sediments are presented in Table 9.
soil and Drainaae Sediment Sam~le8
No organic contaminants were detected in the soil samples
analyzed, not even the semi-volatile (PABs) compounds found
in the battery waste piles. This would further indicate
that the PABs in the source waste materials are not
leaching and are bound to the plastics and hard rubber
fractions of the source waste. Soil semi-volatile test
results are presented in Table 10.
TAL inorganic and lead only test results for the soil
samples collected are presented in Tables 11 through 14.
The higher concentrations of contaminants were found in
samples collected that visually contained battery waste
material. Soil samples collected included surface (6
inches or less), shallow (not more than 3 feet), and depth
(greater than 3 feet) samples.
Concentrations for the surface soils inorganic COCs were:
lead 7690 ppm; antimony 101 ppm; arsenic 32 ppm; cadmium
4.1 ppm; mercury .11 ppm; nickel 13.4 ppm; and silver 2.1
ppm.
Trench excavations were conducted in the southwest berm
area to a depth of approximately five (5) feet below
natural ground surface. TAL concentrations for the COC
found in the site trenches were: lead 51,100 ppm; arsenic
704 ppm; cadmium 15.2 ppm; mercury .11 ppm; nickel 74.7
ppm; and silver 1.2 ppm.
Sediment samples were collected from the north and south
-------
TABLE 9 . POND SEDIMENTS SEMI-VOIAllLE TEST RESULTS (uglkg or ppb)
CLP 110. fr880 fK881 c:LP 10. 'S603 FS6M
Site CWIIo1 M-Z lit. EPI13 ErI1Z
LCIC:8tfon Unl Pond Lfn Pond L_tfon LInd Pond Lind Pond
Phenol 680. U '300. U Phenol 330 U 330 U
bls(Z-Chloroethyl)Etber 680. U j 13"'. U y.; bll(2-ChloroethyUEtller 330 U 330 U
2-CIII~1 ' f 2-CIIloraphenol 330 U 330 U
680. U 1300. U
1,3 DlcIIlorabcnzene 680. U 1300. U I-J-Dfclll~ 330 U 330 u
1,"-Dlchlorobenzene 680. U 1300. U 1.4-Dlehlllf'Gb8nz- no u 330 u
lenzyl Alcahol 680. U 1300. U 1.2-Dlchlorobenzene no u 330 U
I.Z-Dlchlorobenzene 680. U 1300. U 2-Metllylpllenol 330 U 330 U
Z-MethylJlhenol 680. U 1300. U Z.Z'-axybIIC'-Chlorapropene) 330 U 330 U
BlsCZ-thlorollOprapVl)Ether 680. u 1300. u 4....tIIy1p11enol 330 U 330 U
W 4-Methylphenol 680. U 1300. u .-lftroso-dl-n-propyI8Ine 330 U 330 U
0'1 II-II f troso-df -n-propyl..1 ne 680. ReJI8c11loroeth- 330
U 1300. U u 330 U
Hexechtoroethane 680. U 1300. U ., troben1ene 330 u no u
III trobenzene 680. U 1300. U 18GfIhorane 330 U 330 U
fsaphorone 680. U 1300. U Z-Iltrapbenot 330 U 330 U
2-Nitropllenol 680. U 1300. u 2.4-DI.thytfllt-1 330 u 330 U
2,4-Dlmethylpllenol 680. U 1300. U bIICZ-Chloroeth0KY)I8thlll8 330 U 330 U
Benzoic Acid 3300. U 6400. U Z.4-Dfcllloropbenol 330 U 330 u
bis(Z-Chlor08t1\oKY)..thane 680. U 1300. U 1.2.4-TrfcllIDrabenzene 330 U 330 U
Z,4-Dlchtoropllenol 680. U 1300. u ...tflalane no u 330 U
1.Z.4-Trlchlorobenzene 680. U 1300. U '-ChIOl'08n' t I,. 330 u 330 U
Naphthalene 680. U 1]00. U Ilu8cftl00000000edfene 330 U 330 U
4.th 10l'08nfll ne 680. U 1300. U '-CIIloro-3..tllrtp/lenol 330 U 330 U
Heuclltorabutad'ene 680. U 1300. U 2-lIetllylNp/ltll8lene 330 U 330 U
4-Chloro-3-.thytpllenol 680. U 1300.. U lIeMCIIloroc:yclapentldlene 330 u 330 U
Z-Jlethylnephth8lene 680. U 1300. U 2,4.6-TrlchIDrophenol 330 U 330 U
Heuchlorocyclopentadlene 680. U 13OD. U 2,4.'-Trlchlorophenol 810 U 800 U
2.4,6-Trlchlorophenol 680. U 1300. U 2-CIItorCllllp/lthalene 330 u 330 u
2,4,5-Trlchlorophenol 3300. U 6400. U Z-lltl'08lltlne 810 u 800 u
2-CIIloronephtllllene 680. U '300. U DI..thylphthlllte 330 U 330 u
2-lIitroenfllne 3300. u 6400. u AC«WpfIthylene 330 U 330 U
DlmethylJlhthal8t. 680. U 1300. u Z.6-Dlnltrotoluene no u 330 u
Acenaphthylene 680. U 1300. u 3-lltroanllIne 810 u 800 U
-------
TABLE 9 (cont.):' POND SEDIMENTS SEMI-VOlATILE TEST RESULTS (Uglkg or ppb)
ClP 11o. FJaI80 R881 CI.P 11o. FS603 FS604
Site am. 1 M'2 Sit. EPI13 EPI12
LCIC8tlon Unl Pond Un Pond Locetfcn Lind Pond Und Pond
2.6-D'n'trotoluene 6110. U 1300. U 2.4-DfnltrGFh_1 810 U 800 U
3-II'tl'Olnftfne 3300. U 6400. U 4-.ftl'Ollhenol 810 U 800 U
. Ac-,.r.ttt- 680. U 1300. U Dlbenzoflrln 330 U 330 U
Z.4-D'nftrophenol 3300. U 6400. U 2.4-Dlnftrotoluene 330 U 330 u
4-8ftropflenot 3300. U 6400. U Dfetllylphtll818te . 330 U 330 U
D,benzofur8f'l 680. U 1300. u 4-Chlorcpbenrt-phenylether 330 U 330 U
2.4-Dfnftrotoluene 680. U 1300. U Fluorene 330 U 330 U
D i etllylJlhthal.te 680. U '300. u 4-Nftro.nU fne 810 U 800 U
4-Chlorophenyt-phenyt.ther 680. u 1300. U 4.6-o'nftro-Z-..thylpbenol 810 U 800 U
Fluorene 6110. U 1300. U ."ftl"Clloclfphenyl.'ne (1) 330 U 330 u
4-lIftro.n'Hne ]300. U 6400. U 4-lramaphenyt-phenylether 330 U 330 U
4.6'Din't~z-..thYlphenot 3300. U 6400. U leuchtorobenz- 330 u 330 U
W N'Nftr08Cldfphenyl"ne (1, 680. U 1300. U Pent8d1IDraphenot 810 U 800 u
~
4'8rCllOphenyt-Jlhenytether 680. u 1300. U P118fI8IIthrwM 330 U 330 U
HexlC/llorabenzene 680. U 1300. U Anthraene 330 U ~o u
PentlC/llOl'Gphenol 3300. U 6400. U C8r1!ezole 330 u 330 u
Pilen8nthrene 680. U 1300. U Df-~butytphthet8t. 330 U 330 u
Anthrac- 680. U 1300. U ftuorlnthene 330 U 330 U
Df-n-butylphthaI8te 680. U 1300. U ".... 330 u 300 U
Fb.ol'lnth.w 680. u 1300. U Iutrtbenzylphtft.l.te 330 u 300 U
Prrene 680. U 1300. U 3,3' -Dldllorabenzfd'ne 330 U 300 U
. llutylbcnzytphthalate 680. U 1300. U 1enzo(8)lnthl'8Cent 330 U 300 U
3.3'-olcblorobenzfdfne 1400. U 2700. u Chl'ylene 330 U 300 u
8enzo(.,..thr~ 680. .u 1300. U bI8CZ-Ethythlxyt)phthitate 4200 8J 250 8J
Ch/'y8eM 680. U 1300- U Df-n-octylphtll8tata 330 U 300 u
b'I(Z-Ethythexyt)phthet8te MO. u 17'000. I8nzo(blfl-.nu... 330 U 300 U
D f -n-octyIFlltla8t8te 680. U 1300. U I8nzo(klflUDranth- 330 U 300 U
Ienzo(blf(-8I'ItIIene 680. U 1300. U lInzo(a)Prr818 330 U 300 U
Benzoetlfb_8f'I~ 680. u 1300. U IndIno(1,Z,3-al)pyrene 330 U 300 U
8enzoCe)wrent 680. u 1300. U Dfbanle.,hJlntllrecene 330 U 300 U
1ndena(1,2,3-cd)PVren8 680. u 1300. U 18nzo(8.h,f)plrylene 330 U 300 U
Dfbenze8,hlantlarecene 680- u 1300. U ~
-------
TABLE 10 SOIL SEMI-VOlATILE TEST RESULTS (ug/kg or ppm)
CLP 10- RIm FICII84 FK88T R888
Site CWlI-T M-6 cw-] CW-4
Location SUrface SUrface Soil P. SUrface
Phenol 680. U 670. U 670. U 670- U
bI8CZ-Chloroethyl)Ether 680. U 670- U 670. U 670- U
2-Chlorophenol 680. U 670. U 670. U 6TO. U
t.3 Dichlorobenzene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
t.4-Dfchlorobenzene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Benzyl Alcohol 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
t.2-Dfchl~ 680. u 670. U 670. U 670. U
Z.Metllylphenol 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Bf8CZ-Chlorof8GprOpĄI)Ether 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
4.Methylphenol 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
'-Nftroso-df-n'propyl8Dfne 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
VJ Heuchloroeth8ne 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
00 II trobenzene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
18ophorane 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Z-Iltrophenol 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
2.4-Dlmetllylphenol 680- U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Benzofc Acid 3300. U 3300. U 3200. U 3300. U
bf8CZ-Chloroetlloxy)methane 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Z.4-Dfchlorophenol 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
1.2.4-Trfchlorobenzene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. u
Naphthalene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
4-Chloro8nfllne 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Hexechlorobutldlene 680. u 670. U 670. U 670. U
4-Chloro- 3..thylphenal 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Z-Metllylnephtll8lene 680. U 670. U 670. u 670. U
1IU8chlorocyc:lapenCldlene 680. U 6TO. U 670. U 670. U
2,4,6-TrIChlorophenol 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Z,4.5-Trfchloropllenol 3300. U 3300. U 3200. U 3300. U
Z-Chloranaphtllalena 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
2-lftroanllfne 3300. U 3300. U 3200. u 3300. u
Dfmethylphthalate 680. U 670. u 670. U 670. u
-------
TABLE10 (cont.): SOIL SEMI-VOLATILE TEST RESULTS (uglkg or ppm)
ClP 110. Fd83 FK884 Fd87 FD88
Sfte CU11-7 ew-6 CIIJ- 3 CU11-4
L0C8tfon S&.rface Surface Soft P. SUrface
2.6-Dfnltrotoluene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
3-Nltroenfl lne 3300. u 3300. U 3200. U 3300. U
ACenephthene 680. U 670. U 670. u 670. U
2.4-0initrophenot 3300. U 3300. U 3200. U 3300. U
4-lltrophenol 3300. U 3300. U 3200. U 3300. u
Ofbenzofuran 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Z.4-0fnftrotoluene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Dfethylphthelete 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
4-Ch I orophenyl-pheny tether 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Fluorene 680. U 670. u 670. U 670. U
4-1 f troanlUne 3300- U 3300. U 3200. U 3300. U
4,6-0fnltro-2-lethylphenol 3300. U 3300. U 3200. U 3300. U
w I-Nftr08oc:lfphenyl_fne (1) 680- U 670. U 670. u 670. U
\0 '-Bronaphenyl-phenytether 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. u
HexllChtorobenzene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
PentachLorophenoL 3300. U 3300. U 3200. U 3300. U
Phenenthrene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Anthracene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
D f -n-butylphthatate 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Fluorenthene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Pyrene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Butylbenrylphth.'ate 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
3,31-Dlchlorabenzldfne 1400. U 1300. u 1300. U 1300. U
8enzo(8)8nthracene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Chrysenci 680. u 670. U 670. U 670. U
bfsCZ.Ethythexyl)phthatate 680. U 670. U 1700. 510. J
DI-n-octylphth818te 680. U 670. U 1800. 670. U
BenzoCb)flourenthene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. u
Benzo(k)fLuorenthene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
Benzo(8)pyrene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
r~(t,2,3-cd)Pfr8"8 680. U 670. U 670. 'u 670. U
DfbenzC8,h)anthracene 680. U 670. U 670. U 670. U
-------
TABLE 11 : SOIL TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
CLP No. "fR001 "fR002 "fR003 "fR004
Site No. XRF81-0 XRFH15-0 XRFJ11'0 XRFJ20.0
Location Grid Surf Grid SUrf Grid Surf Grid Surf
Ahllfrua 9390.00 11100.00 9070.00 12200.00
Ant illlDl1V 7.50 IR 10.00 IR 6.70 81 9.40 II
Arsenic 2.60 ~ 5.70 ~ 2.20 ~ 3.70 ~
8arlua 185.00 189.00 179.00 191.00
Berylll.. .78 8 .80 8 .71 B .90 8
Cecbl.. .51 B 1.00 .4' U .77 B
~ Catcha 12900.00 13100.00
0 13600.00 14200.00
Chromi.. 9.40 11.60 7.70 12.20
Cobett 1.90 B 8.10 B 7.20 B 8.80 B
Copper 28.40 21.00 18.80 21.10
Iron 22300.00 19700.00 18500.00 2'8DO.00
Lead 45.60 ~ 2080.00 264.00 ~ 301.00
"agnes 1111 4640.00 5130.00 4850.00 5430.00
"e",lIneSe 561.00 501.00 491.00 556.00
Mercury .10 U .10 U .'0 U .10 U
Nfckel 12.50 13.30 10.80 13.40
Potasl.. 2210.00 ~ 3330.00 ~ 2580.00 J 3200.00 J
Setenh. .81 U~ .81 UJ .81 UJ .81 UJ
Silver 1.60 I 2.10 1.30 B 1.80 B
SodlUl 208.00 8 189.00 8 247.00 B 339.00 8
Thell h.a .60 U .61 U .61 U .61 U
Vanedi.. 24.10 22.80 18.00 Z6.50
-------
TABLE 11 (conl): SOIL TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
CLP No. MFR017 "FROn "FR015
Site No., 1 XRfF10.0 f: XRFJ12-9 XRFF10-9
I Grid 9"
Locatio" Grid Surf Grid 9" D
Aluninun 9630.00 7200.00 8680.00
Antimony 7.70 BR 19.40 R 6.60 BR
Arsenic 4.30 J 17.60 J 2.00 BJ
Bariun 178.00 293.00 166.00
Beryll hID .83 B .72 B .75 B
~ Cactnfun .70 B 2.80 .43 U
...... Calcfun 22200.00
20200.00 17600.00
Chromiun 8.70 6.60 7.50
Cobalt 7.10 B 7.00 B 1.50 B
Copper 11.80 19.50 13.50
Iron 19500.00 15200.00 16400.00
Lead 383.00 J 7150.00 26.80 J
MagnesfUD 4460.00 4080.00 4200.00
Manganese 442.00 984.00 551.00
Mercury .11 U .11 U .10 U
Nickel 12.20 ".50 ".20
Potes. hID 2600.00 J 2240.00 J 2250.00 J
Seleniun .84 UJ .84 UJ' .86 UJ
SHver 1.70 8 2.00 B 1.40 B
SodfUi 232.00 B 242.00 B 216.00 B
Thellfun .63 U .96 B .64 U
Venedfun 21.90 17.80 19.60
Zinc 70.60 87.40 57.40
-------
TABlE 11 (canl): SOIL TAL TEST RESULTS (mglkg or ppm)
ClP No. IIR485 "FleW HFK481 HFK482
Site No. Q11-3 Q/B-4 ew-7 ew-6
Location Soil PHe Sof l SUrf SoH SUrf soU Surf
AlunffUI 9050.00 10000.00. 9790.00 7970.00
AntflllOny 49.80 J 101.00 J 6.10 UJ 48.10 J
AMlenfc 32.00 31.30 4.30 21.00
BerfUi 216.00 288.00 171.00 141.00
BeryU fUi .38 B .41 . .39 ' .34 B
CecbfUi 1.50 4.10 .61 U .56 B
CelcfUl 16400.00 17700.00 18100.00 1~0.OO
Chromha 12.20 J 38.20 J 10.30 J 10.90 J
Cobel t 7.30 8 9.00 8.20 B 1.20 8
Copper 28.50 51.70 13.50 17.30
~ Iron 20100.00 23200.00 22800.00 21200.00
N Lead 7690.00 7140.00 72.40 2850.00
HagnesiUl 4050.00 8670.00 4520.00 4090.00
Hel1geneae 557.00 480.00 438.00 417.00
Mercury .08 U .09 U .10 U .09 U
Nickel 12.40 16.50 11.50 12.80
Pot..-h. 2670.00 2700.00 3090.00 2040.00
Selenl.. .40 UR .40 UR .41 UR .35 UR
Sft ver .99 UJ .89 UJ 1.00 UJ .81 UJ
Sodh. 948.00 8 238.00 8 141.00 B 193.00 B
Thell iUl .40 U .40 U .41 U .35 U
Vanedf l1li 20.70 24.40 22.70 23.10
"linc 92.80 188.00 71.40 72.70
-------
,.......n,-""
TABLE 12 : SOIL lEAD TEST RESULTS (mglkg or ppm)
a,p 110. 67Z301 672302 672303 67Z304 67Z305 672306 672307
Site 10. am-o Ilf14.0 IIIFII6-0 IIIFES.O UFC:S.O UFea-o UFI1Z-0
L0C8tlon Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid Surf Grid SUrf Grid surf Grid SUrf Grid SUrf
Lelld 76.10 126.00 1370.00 47.50 19.30 It 396.00 73.20
ClP 110. 6moa 672309 672310 672311 672312 672313 6723'4
Site 10. JUt"'4-0 XltFEI4.0 IIFGI7-0 XltR:'O-O XltfU-O OfG13-0 OW4.0
L0C8t1on Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid SUrf
01:>0
w Lelld 46.00 548.00 5IZO.00 53.90 38'.00 6810.00
395.00
.
Ct., 10. 6TZJ15 6TZJ16 6m17 672318 672319 672320 672321
. Site 10. JlUDIZ-0 IIFII9-0 IIIfDIZ.' XlF"'.' "Fd.' "'Fl.' XlFd-O
. Locetlon Grid ,.
Grid SUrf Ir'd SUrf Grid ,. Gr.d ,. Gr.d ,. Gr'd SUrf
Lelld ZT.oo . 2290.00 12.50 . 1090.00 21.70 . 11.00 . 35.50
ClP No. 67D2Z 672323 672324 672325 672326 67ZJZT 6mZ8
S'te 10. 1CIfD9-' 111''''-0 o",to-o IIFII1-0 III,G'3., IIFH9-' XlFGI1.0
Loc8tlon lirtd ,. Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid SUrf Grid ,. Grid ,. Cr'd ,.
Lad 67.70 35700.00 21300.00 4970.00 19.30 . 11.80 . 52.30
-------
,,'
TABLE' 12 (cont): SOIL LEAD TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
ClP 10. 67ZJZ9 672330 67ZS31 67m2 612m 612334 67Z335
SI,. 10. 11'11-9 11'.114.' D'.I10.' DFII7.0 D'II13.' DfD9-18 8'119.18
LocaUon Grid ,. Grid ,. Grid ,. Grid Surf Grid ,. Grid 188 Grid 18-
Le8d 19.00 . 4020.00 n.9O 302.00 544.00 36.70 12.70 .
ClP 110. 67ZJ:J6 61m7 67ZJ38 67m9 67Z340 672341 672342
~ Site 110. DR10-0 IIIFDf.O 1."'.0 IIFG1S." 111",9-1. 11'0110-1. _IF'8-1.
~
L0C8tIClft Grid SUrf Grid surf Grid SUrf Grid ,.. Grid 18- Grid 18- Grid 18-
Leed 449.00 355.00 504.00 36.90 I 318.00 9.30 I 8650.00
CLP 10. 67ZJO 6TZS44
Sit. 10. 11'.114.18 llF019.0
LocatlClft Grid 1P !hip 09.0
-------
TABLE 13.: SOIL DEPTH SAMPLES TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
ClP No. MfR030 "FR031 "fR032 MFROJ3 MFR034 MFR035 "FR036
Site No. SBI11-0 SBI11-3 5BI11-8 SBI11-13 SBI1,.,8 SBI11-Z3 58111-28
location Cone.PId Cane.Pad Cone.PId Cane.Pad Cane.Ped Cane.Ped Cone. Pad
Ahairxa 7500.00 8090.00 8030.00 9030.00 8380.00 8690.00 8980.00
Antimony 165.00 " 145.00 " 7.80 U" 7.80 U" 7.70 UJ 7.70 UJ 7.80 U"
Arsenic 54.40 27.40 4.80 2.80 2.30 2.50 3.00
Barlu. 541.00 192.00 152.00 186.00 133.00 141.00 140.00
BeryH Iu. .75 B .57 B .66 B .68 B .68 B .66 B .66 B
Cechlu. 5.10 3.40 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U
Cele'u. 15100.00 16400.00 15000.00 21000.00 21500.00 19400.00 30400.00
~ Chraalun 11.40 12.70 9.90 8.30 9.~0 12.30 8.60
VI
Cobel t 8.10 B 6.50 B 7.60 B 7.30 B 7.50 B 7.40 B 7.40 B
Copper 24.10 18.70 14.00 11.20 11.60 12.80 11.40
Iron 17900.00 22100.00 22700.00 22100.00 22600.00 22500.00 21000.00
lead 28300.00 .I 29000.00 .. 424.00 J 20.00 J 11.60 J 11.10 .I 12.60 J
Magnesl.. 3450.00 3270.00 4170.00 4690.00 4650.00 4950.00 5120.00
Manganese 1930.00 R 466.00 R 464.00 . 410.00 R 427.00 R 428.00 R 684.00 R
Mercury .10 U .11 U .11 U .11 U .11 U .11 U .11 U
Nickel 11.90 12.90 17.70 12.80 12.50 12.00 11.30
Potessha 2090.00 2120.00 1650.00 1810.00 1600.00 1860.00 1820.00
Seleniu. .61 U.I .65 U" .65 U" 3.20 UJ .64 UJ .64 W .65 UJ
Silver 1.20 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U
Sodiu. 174.00 B 331.00 B 285.00 . 437.00 B 353.00 B 316.00 B 332.00 B
Thaillu. 1.30 BJ .43 UJ .43 UJ .43 UJ .43 UJ .43 UJ .43 UJ
V8Nldi l1li 28.40 37.50 31.70 28.00 32.50 31.60 30.10
-------
"
. TABLE 13 (canl): SOIL DEPTH SAMPLES TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
CLP No. "'R037 "'R0311 "fl039 Mfl040 "'R041 "fl04Z MFR043
Site No. S8111-33 510113-0 S8J13-3 SBJ13.11 580113.13 58.113-111 SBJ13'Z3
Location c-.Ped ~l.Pond Unl.Pand Ib\l.Pand Unl.Pand Unl.Pand Unl.Pond
Alualrua 8430.00 10800.00 11500.00 7850.00 7930.00 6970.00 8130.00
Antimony 7.60 Vol 141.00 01 7.60 UJ 7.50 UJ 7.60 UJ 7.60 UJ 7.60 UJ
Arsenic Z.6O 118.30 5.00 1.50 8 1.70 8 2.20 1.90 8
8arfllll 140.00 454.00 152.00 113.00 117.00 133.00 149.00
Berylll un .66 B .86 8 1.00 . .74 8 .63 8 .60 8 .64 8
~ Cach'un 1.10 U 8.50 8.10 3.40 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U
0'1
Calcfun 18300.00 33700.00 17700.00 17900.00 25400.00 25700.00 41800.00
Chromfun 11.00 14.50 9.90 7.00 6.60 5.10 11.40
Cobal t 7.30 B 9.30 B 10.60 9.50 . 6.90 8 6.60 8 6.40 8
Copper 10.40 01 37.70 17.50 14.00 11.50 11.80 13.40
Iron 22500.00 2'900.00 2«00.00 21700.00 21300.00 20600.00 22300.00
Lead '0.40 J 28900.00 .I 175.00 .I 9.90 .. 7.80 .. 12.20 .I 66.90 .I
Magnesfllll 4960.00 5260.00 3780.00 39S0.oo 4570.00 4320.00 4230.00
ManglUleSe 421.00 R 775.00 I 504.00 I 611.00 I 663.00 R 426.00 R 449.00 R
Mercury .11 U .Z3 J .11 U .15 .I .11 U .11 u .11 U
Nickel 12.20 18.50 21.40 23.40 10.30 7.70 8 8.90
Pot.55 h.. 1460.00 3350.00 11170.00 1330.00 1540.00 1510.00 1760.00
Selenlllll .63 UJ .61 UJ .63 UJ .62 UJ 64.00 UJ .63 UJ .64 U.I
Silver 1.30 U 1.20 U 1.30 U 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.30 U 1.30 U
SeIdl III 385.00 8 257.00 8 170.00 I 155.00 8 159.00 8 171.00 8 251.00 8
Thalliun .42 U .41 W .42 UJ .41 UJ .42 UJ .42 UJ .42 Uti
VlMdhn 29.30 31.20 29.20 27.80 25.50 24.90 30.40
-------
TABlE 13 (canl): SOIL DJ;PTH SAMPLES TAL TEST RESULTS. (mg/kg or ppm)
CLP No. "'R044 "'R045 "FR046 "'1047 "'1048 "'R049 MfR050
Site No. SBJI3-28 58.113-33 58113-0 58113-2 58113-7 58113-12 $B) 13.62
Location "'1.Pond UnI.Pond Lfn.Pand Un.Pond Lln.Pond Un.Pond UnI.Pond
Aluail'LlD 8810.00 8200.00 5190.00 9410.00 11700.00 9260.00 2420.00
AntillOn)' 7.90 UJ 7.70 UJ 581.00 J 11.50801. 7.50 Uol 7.60 Uol 7.40 UJ
Arsenfc 2.30 1.20 B 117.00 5.40 2.80 2.30 3.70
B8rfua 129.00 141.00 238.00 156.00 174.00 178.00 146.00
BeryU ita .63 8 .68 B .36 8 .83 8 .92 8 .75 8 .22 B
Cacbiun 1.10 U 1.10 U 7.90 1.10 U 1.00 U 1.10 U 1.00 U
Calef.... 19900.00 3zaDO.00 16700.00 15Z00.00 21100.00 31100.00 1310.00
~ Chromh. 11.20 8.70 14.00 10.20 . 14.10 8.10 5.80
" Cobalt 1.60 8 8.70 8 3.80 B 7.40 B 10.10 8 7.70 B 3.10 8
Copper 12.60 11.00 31.40 15.40 15.10 13.80 4.30 8
Iron 21400.00 22800.00 8830.00 27900.00 34400.00 24900.00 7840.00
Lead 11.00 .I 11.30 .I 117000.00 " :5140.00 J 14.60 J 21.30 J 4.70
MagnesfUl 5910.00 5180.00 2660.00 4070.00 5620.00 4370.00 1310.00
Manganese 377.00 R 755.00 R 367.00 R 538.00 R 552.00 R 457.00 R 187.00 .I
Mercury .11 U .11 U .55 .. .11 U .10 U .11 U .10 U
Nickel 14.10 12.60 14.10 11.10 14.40 10.20 5.30 8
PotessiUII 1690.00 1500.00 1350.00 2090.00 1980.00 1940.00 351.00 8
Selenh.. .66 UJ .64 UJ 6.10 W .63 UJ .62 UJ .64 UJ .61 U
Silver 1.30 U 1.30 U 2.80 1.30 U 1.20 U 1.30 U 1.20 U
Sod I un 236.00 B 216.00 8 383.00 8 315.00 B 416.00 8 349.00 B 151.00 B
Than f.... .44 UJ .43 UJ .41 W .42 UJ .42 UJ .42 UJ .41 UJ
Vanedi LID 31.80 33.50 16.00 30.70 38.10 31.00 14.90
-------
. TABLE 13 (conl): SOIL DEPTH SAMPLES TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
ClP No. ""05' MFR052 "FR053 MFR0S4 MFROS5 MfR056 MFROS7
Site No. SBI13-" 58113-21 58113.31 58113-41 58113.51 SBJ'3-38 58111.38
location ltn.Pond L in.Pond Ltn.Pond Un.Pond Lin.Pond Bentonite Sand Pact
A h..f lUll 7440.00 9ZOO.00 6990.00 2110.00 1540.00 12700.00 478.00
Antimony 7.60 W 7.40 UJ 9.00 ... 7.40 UJ 7.30 W 7.40 UJ 7.20 UJ
Arsenic 2.50 2.60 2.50 1.90 . 5.00 7.30 1.90 .
8arilll '27.00 '61.00 141.00 55.70 49.20 '82.00 1.40 B
BeryU h.. .61 8 .70 8 .56 8 .21 U .20 U '.00 8 .20 U
Cechiua 1.10 U 1.00 U , .00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U '.00 U , .00 U
C8lciua 35000.00 24000.00 53000.00 5960.00 5140.00 230000.00 173.00 B
~ CIIromlun 7.40 3.60 10.90 2.30
ex> 10.30 8.'0 3.50
Cobs I t. 6.70 8 7.30 B 6.50 8 2.40 B 2.20 8 3.30 8 I .00 U
Copper 11.60 '3.10 9.70 3.10 8 4.40 8 8.00 1.20 U
Iron '9400.00 23100.00 '6700.00 5470.00 5770.00 '2700.00 1230.00
Lead 11.80 12.70 11.50 5.30 3.90 30.70 .95
Magne5 iUl 4440.00 5090.00 4000.00 1320.00 951.00 8 9900.00 213.00 8
Manaanese 399.00 01 526.00 01 401.00 " 126.00 " '01.00 01 408.00 .I 11.40 J
Mercury .11 U .'0 U .'0 U .'0 U .10 U .10 U .10 U
Nictel 9.20 8.80 1.50 . 3.70 . 3.10 8 8.60 , .60 U
Pot.ssh. 1460.00 1930.00 1560.00 402.00 B 286.00 B 2'40.00 146.00 U
Setenfua .63 UJ .62 UJ .62 11.1 .62 UJ .61 U 3.60 BJ .60 U
SHver 1.30 U 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.20 U
SodfU8 221.00 . 211.00 B 192.00 . 144.00 . 144.00 B 6580.00 177.00 B
"'.UI\II .42 W .41 U" .41 11.1 .41 UJ .41 UJ .41 W .40 U
V8l'l8d1 \II 23.00 30.30 23.10 10.20 8 ".80 15.80 , .30 B
-------
"
TABLE 14 TRENCH SAMPLES TAl TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
CLP No. MFR025 MFR026 MFR027 MFR028 HFR029
Site No. 5BT1-2 5Bn-0 58TZ.2.S' 58T2-2' 5BT4.0
Location Trnh 1,21 Trnh 1,01 Trnh 2,2.51 Trnh 2,2' Trnh 4.01
AluainLa 7620.00 8900.00 10600.00 19100.00 8470.00
Antimony 2.60 UR 34.70 R 2330.00 R 3190.00 R 204.00 R
Arsenic 1.80 Dol 28.30 01 172.00 01 704.00 J 288.00 J
8ariUl! 207.00 218.00 706.00 1500.00 414.00
Beryl I fun .38 B .44 B .28 B .4Z B .22 a
CachIUl .49 BJ 2.60 01 1.00 01 15.20 J 9.50 J
~ CalciUl 11900.00 22900.00 31200.00 22800.00 28600.00
1.0 ChrOlllho 1.30 10.40 78.40 120.00 D.OO
Cobalt 1.60 B 1.70 B .' 6.00 B 18.50 6.30 D
Copper 22.00 28.10 105.00 190.00 190.00
Iron 21100.00 11500.00 28700.00 43200.00 32400.00
Leed 13.90 6680.00 37800.00 51100.00 29800.00
Magnesiun 3830.00 4920.00 12100.00 11100.00 5050.00
"engenese 523.00 601.00 615.00 1050.00 642.00
Mercury .10 U .10 U .11 U .11 .11 U
Nickel 10.20 16.80 58.70 74.70 31.40
Potassiun 2020.00 01 2580.00 01 1970.00 01 1560.00 J 1920.00 01
Selenho .40 UJ .54 BJ .45 UJ .44 UJ 6.00
Sit ver .40 U .44 B .92 B 1.20 8 .48 B
SodlUl 381.00 B 1900.00 28800.00 49200.00 14400.00
ThaU hili 1.00 UJ 1.00 UJ 1.10 UJ 1.10 UJ 1.10 UJ
Vanedh.. 25.90 23.80 39.10 57.10 46.10
-------
d
drainage areas. Samples collected were analyzed for TAL
inorganic compounds, resul ts are presented in Table 15.
Maximum concentrations for the COCs found in the drainage
sediments samples were: lead 1,550 ppm; arsenic 15.7 ppm;
cadmium .98 ppm; mercury .10 ppm; nickel 17.5 ppm; and
silver 1.5 ppm. Contaminant migration off-site through the
drainage pathways is to be expected since source waste
materials are located in open areas at the site and no
drainage controls or containment measures are being used.
Ground Water BamDles
Ground water sampling was conducted during Phase I and
Phase II of the RI field investigation to determine if a
release of hazardous substances to ground water has
occurred from site waste sources. Ground water samples
were, collected from preexisting monitoring well (CWMW-2)
and the two site supply wells (CWSW-1 and CWSW-2) during
the Phase I investigation in October 1990. Ground water
sampling for the Phase II investigation was conducted in
October 1991 and consisted of sampling six newly
constructed wells (CWMW-4 through CWMW-9), three
preexisting monitoring wells, and six domestic wells in the
site vicinity. Monitoring well and domestic well locations
are shown on Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
All ground water samples collected during the Phase I and
Phase II investigations were analyzed for TAL metals by a
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory. Only
unfiltered samples were targeted for the domestic wells and
for wells sampled during the Phase I investigation. Both
filtered and unfiltered samples were targeted for
monitoring wells sampled during the Phase II investigation.
The ground water analytical metal results for the Cal West
-------
TABLE 15 DRAINAGE SEDIMENT TAL TEST RESULTS (mg/kg or ppm)
UP No. !VR018 MFROh MFR020 r. "FR021 MFR022 "FR023 MFROOS
Sfte No. S51411+50 SS14.~1 5514.851 16.28.1+35 15. 70G+85 15.3SF+35 XRFLS'O
Location Drainage Drainage Draflllge DralNg. Dr.inege Dr.iNg. S Dr.inllg8
Aluninua 3200.00 5890.00 5260.00 8530.00 5600.00 8030.00 10100.00
Antfamy 3.70 II 2.60 UI 2.60 UK 2.60 UR 2.60 UR 2.60 UR 15.30 R
Arsenic 4.60 2.10 J 3.50 3.10 1.90 8 3.40 15.10 J
Barfla1l 116.00 135.00 186.00 173.00 114.00 171.00 229.00
BerylllUi .20 U .20 8 .20 U .39 8 .21 8 .39 B .96 B
Clldai III .60 8 .76 B .67 B .M B .64 8 .77 B .98 B
Calcilll 9040.00 9060.00 6940.00 11000.00 7160.00 8310.00 2UOO.OO
U1
...... CbrCl8iUl 4.10 4.70 8.10 8.40 11.20 13.10 14.20
Cobalt 2.90 B 5.40 8 6.50 8 7.80 B 7.50 8 9.40 B 8.70 B
Copper 25.60 28.80 21.00 21.40 21.80 25.50 20.90
Iron 6580.00 14200.00 15800.00 21000.00 27800.00 25400.00 19200.00
Leed 1510.00 689.00 1550.00 796.00 156.00 107.00 . 1030.00
Megnesflll 1880.00 3430.00 2610.00 4230.00 2720.00 3690.00 5280.00
Plansenese 191.00 525.00 513.00 526.00 385.00 604.00 621.00
Mercury .10 U .10 U .10 U .10 U .10 U .10 U .10 U
Nickel 4.90 B 9.00 8.10 10.50 8.70 11.50 17.50
Potessflll 1310.00 1820.00 1790.00 2490.00 1700.00 . 2340.00 3390.00 J
Selenh.. .40 UJ .40 UJ .40 UJ .40 UJ .40 UJ .40 UJ .82 UJ
Silver .40 U .40 U .40 B .40 U .46 B .40 U 1.50 B
Sodh... 205.00 B 203.00 B 258.00 B 298.00 B 245.00 B 301.00 B 261.00 B
ThallfLD 1.00 W 1.00 UJ 1.00 U 1.00 UJ 1.00 UJ 1.00 UJ .61 U
Vanedh.. 10.90 16.70 24.10 25.10 28.20 36.70 28.00
-------
"
1
I
N
!
!
I
I
O'
SCALE
Fence Une
FIGURE 7 :
CWMW-4 .
\\\
CWMW-2
o
200'
CWMW-,
o
CWMW.. .
Surface g CWSW.,
Impoundment~
Battery Waste ~
Pile ----JI
CWMW.7.
Berm
~~~
CWSW-2
.
CWMW-9
°CWMW-3
LEGEND
o Previously Constructed Monitoring Well
. Phase II Monitoring Well
. Pump House and Supply Well Location
f2'J Facility Building
CAL WEST MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
52
Unlined Pond
~
~
~
~
rTI
~
on
..
o
:!.
cB
CD
i/.
-------
'"
1
~:
i
., I
,\ '
~~ ':" ~. I ~
, :' \ ; .,.
: } i! } \ ~
,.' / : I / ~~
'J.:.,-\'~, .-..." '" " ,{\
~ ! i -';34 i \ "-===":"---' \.".
l. -\ir".\._-~.". -f'l--.--""'\'
.-~.. : i .. '. \ /J '
"
" i "\ /' .
. : -' \ 'Ow.
i : \
---;1 " ; \
,-:'~ ,\
:: i: . \
.:; ( t Tuck~r
, .,,'Y:,
..
~
N
\ .".
'-.--
",
-".
~ f)
\
\
,
..,..
...
.""'
..~
',»
\- j
\'-"
i
. !
~
~ r
. .: \ ..~ t
. Grove' '1 ------- "
.:-. ".Pit =._8". ..",.." ~.
Ci . '--'-1;".- ,=- I.~O\
----- ~ ' ~
... 8M :-
. ~~x ,
'. " t........
30 (
, ''----\
\ .
~ iJ
\N
t
I.
"
I
,
J
," >~/'..- tr ---.' ......,,-- ~.. /:'~ _.....,:~... -_..... ..
,.." , .-:;.--~. ,......~..
\ ,.'~'~ Jaramillo Well . ..,.,~~ i Li. ',.:.._._r...r,..
" .. .' ''':0 \ ~ mltar \~
)i,~1~i'r" ..1'~ --\ >- ~CCUllOUqh ~~11 ~ \. ~~~"o ;,e
~..." : ;,-" - \~ \ . " \ 'Pc. ..~'" H
.~ .~, ; '10 ,./ \ . i ,- \/'...., \ -- "'. "'"'. 0 .~
. . . .' \ .,.....:t ---It! \:
."'" ,.>--- \ 'it, ',- /. \,
~~.:.:.r -- ", \ i:t' 0 ',or......"
..... -.", I .... --~.. . . \~ tJ :z _#<-" I
- -L--." '. Ltmrll''':'':~!J r: 8,." .
"\ -' , . 9 411"" I
./. .' ; . I ....--.-.-.- ~.' oeJ
......... ~,
-" .' I - \.---- "."~ i or!
...,..-., ,-, ........, ....... I \ 0,'
41177+ - '"4'
\ ." - '.-----.--., '\- 0 f
,_.':.... '. '''---1'...--- I
\ 4.64;-.'" --,'- - - . . ~_... m._... _. t.....
,-...t/ P , ''- ~ ~ I
J ' I ,., I
-------.111:
/.../"'--\ --
~\-
, ,.- i
~ r',-.
/'""-..,; I"'r..~
:, ;
.6,0
-+.
-...-..',
"
.
f~'
\) ..,..
~
-,
.
'.
.'I__.--_..=-.~
8M
4627 ;'
- ..
.,.~
'-~
','
.
n.
----' .
~
-
o
I MILE
-
----.,. .... .--. .-
- ....noon - _....- ...--.-
...- - .'....- --..---....'
1000
1000
2000
3000
~ t'I.;OO 7000 FEET
... 7::~:-==-. ~---,
40G0
o
- --
I'XGURE
LOCATXONS 01' DOMESTXC WELLS SAMPLED DURXNG THE
PHASE XI FIELD XNVESTXGATXONS
8 :
53
o If
c: U
, (j N
~ It
II: l-
II: .
~ It
., l
~
~
~'
~
-------
, .
"
monitoring wells are summarized in Table 16, and for the
domestic and site supply wells in Table 17. Analytical
results from sampling events prior to the RI are also
included in Tables 16 and 17.
The TAL analytical results indicate that there has not been
a release of hazardous substance metal contaminants from
site waste sources to the ground water beneath the Cal West
site. The primary contaminant of concern detected in site
waste sources is lead. The Tucker domestic well is
considered to represent background water quality upgradient
of the Cal West site, and analysis of ground water from the
Tucker well showed nondetectable lead levels «0.002 ppm).
Monitoring well CWMW-4, which is located upgradient of all
site waste sources, showed a ground water lead level of
only 0.004 ppm. Lead levels detected in filtered samples
from other newly constructed monitoring wells, including
those immediately downgradient of site waste sources
(CWMW-5, CWMW-7, and CWMW-9), are similar to those of the
Tucker well and CWMW-4. Additionally, lead levels detected
in all samples collected from newly constructed monitoring
wells do not exceed the New Mexico ground water standard of
0.05 ppm or the EPA action level of 0.015 ppm (40 CFR 141
Subpart I).
Phase II analysis of unfiltered samples from preexisting
monitoring wells CWMW-1, CWMW-2, and CWMW-3 showed slightly
elevated lead levels of 0.090, 0.043, and 0.035 ppm,
respectively. Fil tered samples from these wells all showed
lead levels of less than 0.008 ppm. The elevated lead
levels detected in the unfiltered samples are a result of
the high amounts of sediment encountered during sampling of
these wells, and are not indicative of a release of lead to
ground water beneath the site. Background soil and
-------
TABU! 16 SUMMARY OF METALS GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL DATA FOR CAL WEST MONITORING WELLS (PPM)
Date Sample
Well Sampled AI As Sa Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Mn Se Ni Zn ElYE Collector
CWMW-1 10-28-88 0.01 ? laPoint
05-16-~9 0.0318, 0.171 0.012 0.088 110.0 0.188 0.478 0.009 UF EPA ReRA
08-24-90 <0.05 F PrD
08-24-90 0.35 UF PDT
10-29-91 0.680 <0.005 0.208 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.612 0.008 0.036 0.010 <0.008 0.068 F NMED/EPA
10-29-91 85.2 0.016 12.0 <0.005 0.082 0.079 99.7 0.090 4.35 0.015 0.099 0.247 UF NMED/EPA
CWMW-2 08-24-90 <0.05 F PTD
08 -24-90 0.72 UF
10-24-90 106.0 0.0813 11.1 0.006 0.136 0.16 200.0 0.141 34.0 0.006 NF EPA CEReLA
10-29-91 0.057 <0.005 0.036 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 <0.011 0.004 0.942 0.015 <0.008 0.601 F NMED/EPA
10-29-91 23.2 0.019 2.49 <0.005 0.024 0.029 36.9 0.043 727 0.004 0.024 1.67 UF NMED/EPA
CWMW-3 08-24-90 <0.05 F PTD
08-24-90 0.80 UF PrD
lJ1 10-29-91 0.102 0.007 0.050 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.013 0.002 0.014 0.003 <0.008 0.009 F NMED/EPA
lJ1
10-29-91 25.2 0.022 11.3 <0.005 0.023 0.026 29.2 0.035 0.432 0.003 0.021 0.105 UF NMED/EPA
CWMW-4 10-29-91 0.138 <0.005 0.036 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.082 0.004 0.173 0.003 <0.008 0.054 F NMED/EPA
10-29-91 0.737 0.005 0.078 <0.005 <0.004 <0.004 0.774 0.004 0.181 0.003 <0.008 0.065 UF NMED/EPA
CWMW-5 10-30-91 0.091 0.005 0.059 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 <0.011 0.002 0.298 0.003 <0.008 0.024 F NMED/EPA
10-30-91 0.570 0.005 0.113 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.575 0.004 0.286 0.003 <0.008 0.036 UF NMED/EPA
CWMW-6 10-29-91 0.183 0.005 0.082 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.074 0.005 0.126 0.011 <0.008 0.263 F NMED/EPA
10-29-91 1.33 0.006 0.289 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 1.52 0.010 0.138 0.004 <0.008 0.337 UF NMED/EPA
CWMW-7 10-30-91 0.100 0.007 0.050 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.019 0.001 0.235 0.035 <0.008 0.061 F NMED/EpA
10-30-91 0.148 0.005 0.048 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.019 0.002 0.214 0.058 <0.008 0.059 F (dup.) NMED/EPA
10-30-91 2.77 0.006 0.547 <0.005 <0.004 0.012 3.06 0.006 0.272 0.031 0.009 0.146 UF NMED/EPA
10-30-91 4.47 0.008 0.725 <0.005 <0.004 0.018 4.60 0.008 0.261 0.013 <0.008 0.173 UF (dup.) NMED/EPA
CWMW-8 10-29-91 0.131 0.005 0.051 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.016 0.004 0.104 0.013 <0.008 0.048 F NMED/EPA
10-29-91 5.19 0.012 0.848 <0.005 <0.004 0.010 6.58 0.010 0.296 0.012 <0.008 0.175 UF NMED/EPA
CWMW-9 10-29-91 0.081 0.008 0.044 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.028 <0.002 0.221 0.013 <0.008 0.102 F NMED/EPA
-------
..
TABLE 16 (cont.): SUMMARY OF METALS GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL DATA FOR CAL WEST MONITORING WELLS (PPM)
Date Sample
Well Sampled AI As Ba Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Mn Se NI Zn ElYE. Collector
BLANK 08-24-90 <0.05 UF Pro
10-24-90 <0.026 <0.002 <0.002 <0.003 <0.006 <0.003 <0.02 0.003 <0.002 <0.003 <0.006 0.022 NF EPA CERCLA
10-29-91 0.018 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.004 0.009 0.080 <0.002 0.003 <0.003 <0.008 0.013 F NMED/EPA
10-29-91 0.166 <0.005 0.018 <0.005 <0.004 0.014 0.038 <0.002 0.001 <0.003 <0.008 0.012 UF NMEDJEPA
NOTES:
-F = filtered; NF = not filtered; - - = not analyzed
-PTD = Professional Team Design (retained by AI LaPoint): samples analyzed by Industrial Testing Laboratories, St Louis, MO
- LaPoint samples were analyzed by NM Bureau of Mi1es & Minerai Resources, Socorro, NM.
-NMED samples were analyzed by NM Scientific laboratory Division, Albuquerque, NM.
VI
-------
TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF METALS GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL DATA FOR RESIDENTIAL WELLS AND SITE SUPPLY WELLS (ppm)
Date Sample
Well Sampled AI As Oa Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Mn Se NI Zn F/UF Collector
Bailey 06-23-79 <0.005 <0.005 UF NMED
05-21-81 0.06 UF NMED
06-17-81 0.01 0.2 <0.001 <0.005 0.008 <0.1 F NMED
08-20-85 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 UF NMED
11-26-91 0.024 0.0003 <0.005 0.006 0.386 0.006 1.470 0.014 <0.005 <0.010 UF NMED/EPA
Gutierrez 10-28-88 0.01 UF laPoint
08-24-90 <0.05 F PrD
08-24-90 <0.05 UF PrD
10-30-91 0.094 0.010 0.056 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.092 <0.002 0.391 0.004 <0.008 0.005 UF NMED/EPA
Tucker 10-30-91 0.098 <0.005 0.135 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.046 <0.002 0.486 <0.003 <0.008 0.006 UF NMEO/EPA
McCullough 10-30-91 0.074 0.029 0.113 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.6'0 <0.002 '1.360 <0.003 <0.008 0.016 UF NMED/EPA
Jaramillo 10-30-91 0.067 0.020 0.02' <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 0.610 <0.002 0.946 <0.003 <0.008 0.011 UF NMED/EPA
U1
-..J
Powell 10-30-91 0.095 0.010 0.038 <0.005 <0.004 0.007 0.765 0.004 0.919 <0.003 <0.008 0.108 UF NMED/EPA
CWSW-1 10 -09 -64 <0.01 0.023 0.18 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 110.0 0.72 1.1 <0.1 4.5 UF NMED
10-28-88 0.01 1 laPoint
05-16-89 0.009 0.074 <0.005 <0.01 4.36 0.205 0.763 <0.004 UF EPA ReRA
08-24-90 <0.05 F . PrD
10-24-90 0.026 0.0089 0.052 0.003 0.006 0.0037 3.48 0.013 0.542 0.003 <0.006 0.140 UF EPA CERCLA
CWSW-2 06-17-84 <0.005 F NMED
10-09-84 <0.01 0.009 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.005 0.94 <0.1 <0.1 7 NMED
10-28-88 <0.010 1 laPoint
05-16-89 0.0067 0.091 <0.005 <0.01 0.254 <0.03 0.631 0.007 UF EPA ReRA
08-24-90 <0.05 F PTD
10-24-90 0.364 0.0074 0.092 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.068 0.003 0.66 0.165 <0.006 0.060 UF EPA CERCLA
NOlES: -F = filtered; UF = unfiftered
-PTD = Professional Team Design (retained by AI Ul'oint); samples analyzed by Inwstrial Testing Laboratories, St louis, MO
-LaPoint samples were analyzed by NM Bureau of Miles & Minerai Resources, Socorro, NM.
-NMED samples were analyzed by NM Scientific laboratory DMslon, Albuquerque, NM.
-------
,.
sediment samples collected during the Phase II
investigation indicate that lead is naturally occurring in
the site vicinity at concentrations of approximately 10 to
15 ppm. Well CWMW-1 was not completed with a gravel pack
to prevent sediments from entering the well screen, and
reportedly none of the preexisting wells were properly
developed following construction to remove sediments. The
unfiltered sample from well CWMW-9 showed a slightly
elevated lead concentration at the action level of 0.015
ppm, which may also be due to a higher sediment
concentration compared to other newly constructed
monitoring wells. The unfiltered sample from well CWMW-9
showed a lead concentration below the detection limit of
0.002 ppm.
Lead concentrations detected in ground water samples
collected from the domestic wells ranged from nondetected
«0.002 ppm) to 0.006 ppm, which are well below New Mexico
(New Mexico Water Quality Act, Chapter 326) and EPA ground
water standards (Clean Water Act, U.S.C. S 1251 et. seq.).
The closest domestic wells down-gradient of the site, the
Gutierrez and Jaramillo wells, showed nondectable lead
concentrations.
other metals detected in concentrations exceeding New
Mexico or EPA ground water standards during the RI field
investigation include aluminum, barium, iron, and manganese
which are hazardous substances as defined at CERCLA section
101(14),42 U.S.C S 9601(14), and further defined at 40 CFR
S 302.4. Aluminum concentrations exceeded New Mexico
aesthetic and EPA aesthetic water quality standards of 5.0
and 0.2 ppm, respectively, in unfiltered samples collected
from monitoring wells CWMW-1, CWMW-2, CWMW-3, CWMW-8, and
CWMW-9. Barium concentrations exceeded the New Mexico
-------
(New Mexico Water Quality Act, Chapter 326) of 1.0 ppm and
EPA's MCL (40 CFR 141 and 142) of 2.0 ppm in unfiltered
samples from monitoring wells CWMW-1 (12.0 ppm), CWMW-2
(2.49 ppm), CWMW-3 (11.3 ppm), and CWMW-9 (1.24 ppm). None
of the filtered samples exceeded ground water standards for
aluminum or barium. The Tucker domestic well, located
approximately 2,000 feet north of the site, showed metal
concentrations similar to those detected in filtered
monitoring well samples.
Concentrations of iron and manganese were found to be
elevated above New Mexico's aesthetic ground water
standards in both filtered and unfiltered samples from
almost all site monitoring wells and most domestic wells
sampled. The New Mexico ground water standards for iron
and manganese are 1.0 ppm and 0.2 ppm, respectively. The
EPA MCLs (40 CFR 143) for iron and manganese are 0.3 ppm
and 0.05 ppm, respectively. Iron concentrations in
domestic well and filtered monitoring well samples ranged
from less than 0.011 ppm to 0.765 ppm. Manganese
concentrations detected in domestic well and fil tered
monitoring well samples ranged from 0.104 ppm to 1.47 ppm.
Elevated iron and manganese levels appear to represent
background water quality in the vicinity of the Cal West
site, based on analytical results from all of the domestic
wells sampled, including those both upgradient (Tucker
well) and downgradient (Gutierez and Jaramillo wells) of
the site.
Ground water samples collected during the Phase I
investigation and from wells CWMW-5, CWMW-7, and the Tucker
well during the Phase II investigation were additionally
analyzed for TAL organic compounds using a CLP laboratory.
The analytical results did not indicate the presence of
-------
,.
volatile or semivolatile organic compounds in ground water
beneath the Cal West site. The analytical results showed
trace concentrations of some semivolatile compounds.
However, these compounds were also associated with the
laboratory blanks.
Ground water samples collected during the Phase II
investigation from monitoring wells and domestic wells were
additionally analyzed for general water quality parameters
at the Bureau of Reclamation Laboratory in Alamosa,
Colorado. The results of the general water quality
analyses are summarized in Table 18. The analytical
results show that ground water in the vicinity of the Cal
West site is generally high in total dissolved solids (TDS)
and of relatively poor quality. All samples analyzed
exceeded EPA's (40 CFR 143) water quality standard of 500
ppm for TDS. TDS concentrations in on-si te monitoring
wells ranged from 702 to 1,370 ppm, and were generally
higher than TDS concentrations in domestic wells, with the
exception of the Bailey well sample (1,520 ppm).
Analytical results also indicate that ground water in the
site vicinity contains elevated levels of sulfate. Sulfate
concentrations exceeded EPA's (40 CFR 143) water quality
standard of 250 ppm in most monitoring well samples and
also in the Bailey well sample (593 ppm). The slightly
higher sulfate and TDS concentrations detected in
moni toring well samples may be related to the higher
quantity of sediments encountered in these wells.
An elevated nitrate concentration of 64.88 ppm was detected
in the ground water sample collected from monitoring well
CWMW-8, which exceeds the New Mexico standard and EPA MCL
(40 CFR 141 and 142) for nitrate of 10 ppm. Elevated
nitrate levels were not detected in any other monitoring or
-------
TABLE 18
.
.
S11MHARy OF GENERAL WATER QUALXTY PARAHBTER DATA (ppm)
Monitoring Well MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-s MW-6 MW-7 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9
(dup)
Date Sampled 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/29/91 10/30/91 10/29/91 10/30/91 10/30/91 10/29/91 10/29/91
Parameter --------------- - - - - -pprn- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CalciJm 65.6 139 48.8 106 105 149 240 224 208 94.4
Magnesium 17.1 17.1 46.4 22.0 15.1 16.6 24.4 13.7 24.4 19.5
Sodium 76.4 130 90.6 93.8 105 138 154 162 115 68.3
Potassium 14.9 17.2 16.0 20.3 19.2 19.2 23.1 23.9 26.2 25.4
Bicarbonate 204 274 236 274 328 . 290 343 349 242 220
0'1 Sulfate 188 280 256 264 216 386 485 386 351 195
......
Chloride 51.8 126 66.0 69.6 73.1 110 163 199 234 199
Nitrate 1.02 5.02 1.27 4.21 2.57 8.26 6.92 4.98 64.98 2.83
Total Dissolved 702 1,040 838 866 850 850 1,370 1,280 1,160 1,280
Solids
pH
Conductivity
(umhoS/cm)
8.2
876
8.0
1,400
8.3
1,110
7.8
1,220
7.9
1,240
7.7
1,400
8.3
1,810
8.1
1,780
8.2
1,720
8.1
1,780
NOTES:
All samples by BureaJ of Reclamation Chemistry laboratory, Alamosa, Colorado
-------
,
TABLE
18
(cont.):
SUMMARY OF GENERAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETER DATA (ppm)
Residential Well Bailey Tucker Gutierez McCullough JaramDlo Powen
Date Sampled 11/26/91 10/30/91 10/30/91 10/30/91 10/30/91 10/30/91
Parameter - - ;.- .1 - - - l... .
: ? - - - -" - 'ppm - - - - - - - - - - - -
CalciJm 256 109 152 149 126 136
Magnesium 342 19.5 24.4 16.6 22.0 19.5
Sodium 170 27.8 71.8 37.3 37.3 154
Potassium 9.8 12.1 16.8 12.9 13.7 152
Bicarbonate 349 226 295 290 333 408
'" Sulfate 593 158 241 234 181 239
'"
Chloride 199 51.8 128 55.4 44.7 128
Nitrate NA 1.73 7.19 0.06 0.00 0.01
Total Dissolved 1,520 522 . 954 700 674 936
Solids
pH
ConductNity
(umhos/cm)
7.9
2,120
7.8
809
7.6
1,320
7.9
1,010
7.9
992
8.0
1,380
NOTES:
-An samples analyzed by Bureau of Reclamation Chemistry Laboratory, Alamosa, Colorado
-------
domestic well sampled. Cal West's septic system may be the
source of elevated nitrate at well CWMW-8.
Air SamDles
A total of twenty two (22) air samples were analyzed for
total suspended particles (TSP) and twelve (12) for
selected semivolatile compound,s (PAHs). Twelve (12)
metals, including lead, were analyzed with the TSP samples.
Lead test results are summarized in Table 19. Air samples
were analyzed for the following contaminants which are
hazardous substances as defined at CERCLA Section 101(14),
42 U.S.C. S 9601 (14), and further defined at 40 CFR
S 302.4:
METALS
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Silver
Copper
METALS
Nickel
Selenium
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
PAIl PAIl
Naphthalene Indeno(1,2,3-)pyrene
Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene
Phenanthrene Fluoranthene
Pyrene Anthracene
Chrysene Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)Anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Air sampling results (based on sampling conditions
encountered) indicate that semivolatile compounds do not
appear to present a potential to be emitted in significant
concentrations from source waste piles in the from of wind
blown particulates or soil/dust particles.
The presence of lead was detected in most air samples
collected during the RI activities. However, in one
sample, the lead concentration detected was above the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 1.5 micro-
-------
v
TABLE 19
.
.
AIR SAMPLING RESULTS FOR LEAD
Table 1 - Undisturbed Site Conditions
Sample Date Filter Stan End Total ~:~:~~~:~:~:~:}~:~:
location Collected Number Time Time Air Volume :GPm~~~~:
(M3) :::":ib1M3]':;;;:::;:::
.A~ ... ~:-:-:.:-:.:
1 9-24-91 5909971 1324 0732 1554 0.0463
2* 9-24-91 5909972 1405 0745 1141 0.2550
3 9-24-91 5909973 1428 0750 1298 0.1670
4 9-24-91 5909974 1432 0754 1623 0.1340
5 9-24-91 5909975 1442 0800 1734 0.0415
6* 9-24-91 5909976 1450 0807 1997 0.0361
"" Filter cassette was not complete during this sampling period
Table 2 - Berm Excavations
Sample
location
Date
Collected
Filter
Number
Stan
Time
End
Time
1 9-25-91 5909977 0738 0754
2 9-25-91 5909978 0742 0801
3A 9-25-91 5909979 0920 0712
4A 9-25-91 5909980 0915 ?1?
.5 9-25-91 5909981 0804 2300**
6 9-25-91 5909982 1052 2300**
Total
Air Volume
(M3)
2114
1777
1561
1?1
1573
1361
:~:~~~;f~:~:~:t~:~
:~~~i~~q~:
:::r~;;::;::::::::
"'~' .., .)...........,
0.1030
0.3680
0.4150
?11
2.31 00
0.0265
1?1 - Sample invalidated due to critical motor failure during sampling period
** - Sample time is estimated due to generator failure at approximately 11 :00 pm
-------
'-
TABLE
19
(cont.):
AIR SAMPLING RESULTS FOR LEAD
Table 3 - Trenching
Sample Date Filter Start End Total :~:~~~~~:!:~:~:!{:;
Location Collected Number Time Time Air Volume :tCiiibi!:rii'" . tiCii'i:
(M3) ~;~(~~rr~r
1 9-26-91 5909983 0158 0136 2490 0.5450
2 9-26-91 5909984 0803 0148 1655 35.600
3A 9-26-91 5909985 0813 0800 2344 0.1190
4A 9-26-91 5909986 1020 0754 1942 1.8200
5 9-26-91 5909981 0825 0802 2368 0.4540
6 9-26-91 5909988 0828 0807 2291 0.0157
Table 4 - Undisturbed Site Conditions
Sample Date Fiher Start End Total ~:!:~~~:!:!:!:!:! :!:!:
Location Collected Number Time Time Air Volume ~~~N?~~
(M3) ':'(1"" :.:.:.:.:.:
','. ... ,',',',',',
1 9-21-91 5909989 0142 0650 2555 0.0142
2 9-21-91 5909990 0154 0705 1694 1.3600
3B 9-21-91 5909991 0905 0709 1912 0.2350
4B 9-21-91 5909992 0902 0712 2260 0.1880
5 9-21-91 5909993 0804 0500 2241 0.0284
6 9-27-91 5909994 .0808 0500 2021 0.0178
-------
;>
grams per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air (40 CFR S 50.12). Air
sampling results indicate that there is a potential for
lead-contaminated soil/dust to migrate off-site,
particularly when conducting activities that disturb site
soils and source waste piles.
BX'1'BII'1' 01' COIl'1'AKlHATIOB
Source Waste
The source waste materials at the Cal West si te are
confined to specific locations within the fenced area. The
broken battery piles and dried sludge sediments are located
adjacent (west) to the old cotton gin building on a
concrete surface slab. Additional broken battery waste
materials are stored inside the cotton gin building. The
other source waste materials are sediments located in the
evaporation ponds. The source waste materials cover a
surface area of approximately 6,700 square feet (ft2). It
is estimated that approximately 2,700 cubic yards (yd3) of
source waste material will be remediated at the Cal West
site. These materials include the broken battery waste
piles, dried sludge waste sediments, and the evaporation
pond sediments.
Soils and Sediments
Based on the RI investigations, soil contamination at the
si te is predominately found at the surface (depth of 6
inches or less). High (above 500 mg/kg) lead levels were
found at a depth of 12 inches (average of 9 inches) at only
four sampled location and at a depth of 24 inches (average
of 18 inches) at two locations. Lead contamination above
the cleanup level of 640 mg/kg (ppm) -is found at the Cal
-------
"
West site on approximately 8.0 acres. At trench locations,
high lead levels were found in samples collected at the
surface and at depths of 2.0 and 2.5 feet. Al though
indications of buried waste materials were not found, there
were isolated pockets of source wastes (broken battery
pieces) resulting from site grading activities and disposal
of household wastes. It is estimated that approximately
12,000 yd3 of contaminated site soils will be remediated.
site soils include surface soils, drainage sediments,
trenched areas, and the soil pile located west of the lined
evaporation pond.
Ground Water
Ground water samples collected from the newly constructed
site monitoring well and the residential wells do not
indicate a release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants associated wi th the Cal West si te to the
ground wat:'ir. Furthermore, depth samples collected at the
two evaporation ponds and adjacent to the sludge waste
sediments (concrete pad) do not indicate that lead or other
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants have
migrated with depth.
-"
CORTAHZHAlrJ.'..- PATB AIm TRAHSPORT
Factors Affectina con~arat~
The fate and transport of contaminants from a source are
dependent upon the physical and chemical properties of the
waste constituents and the characteristics of the
environmental media. The physio-chemical properties of
solubility- and sorption potential deal with reactions of
the contaminants and the surrounding environmental media.
-------
The chemical and bioloqical transformation processes deal
with chemical conversion from one form to another or
deqradation of the chemical by the surroundinq environment.
The followinq chemicals of concern (COCs) have been
identified for the Cal West Metals site: lead, antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, silver, and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PABs). All of these chemicals
constitute hazardous substances as defined at CERCLA
section 101(14),42 U.S.C. S 9601(14), and further defined
at 40 CFR S 302.4. The qeneral properties for these
compounds are discussed below:
The PABs are characterized by very low solubilities, low
vapor pressures and Henry's Law Constants, and hiqh
partition coefficient (Koc) values. This indicates that the
predominant transport mechanism for PAR compounds is
through adsorption to organic carbon in soils. PABs may be
transported in an aqueous media but because of their very
low solubilities they do not dissolve in water but exist in
a particulate state.
Inorqanic fate and transport depends on many conditions
found in the environment. Precipi tat ion of inorqanics onto
soil or dissolution of inorqanics into the qround water
depends qreatly upon the oxidation states of the inorqanics
and the pH of the environment. Dissolution of inorqanics
into water qenerally occurs when either a low pH «4) or a
hiqh pH (>10) exists. Inorqanics qenerally precipitate
with moderate pH levels. This precipitation causes the
inorqanics to either be held to soil throuqh adsorption or
to form colloidal particles which continue to flow with the
aqueous environment. In qround water these colloidal
particles tend to move slower than the water velocity or
-------
become trapped in the soil pores due to the size of the
particles. In surface water, the colloidal particles will
generally move with the water velocity as suspended
particles. Inorganics which do not precipi tate in the
water exist as ions and move with the same velocity and
direction as the water.
Potential Routes of Kiaration
The source waste materials and pond sediments contain
potentially leachable inorganic contaminants which can
migrate to off-site locations. This is indicated from the
results of the RI field investigation that show
contaminants in drainage sediments and surface soil
samples. Contaminant migration is occurring from the site
in sediments through surface water runoff and through air
in the form of wind blown particle/dust. Sediment samples
collected from the drainage pathways show high inorganic
levels consist with compounds found in the source waste
materials. Air samples collected detected lead, and in one
sample, the lead concentration exceeded NAAQS level. This
would indicate that under high wind conditions and/or
disturbance of source wastes materials, contaminants could
migrate through wind blown particles/dust. In addition,
high lead levels were found in off-site surface soils in
the predominate downwind location (north of fence area).
Semi volatile (PAHs) organic compounds were only detected in
the source waste materials. No semivolatile contaminants
were detected in the surface soils, on- or off-site, or the
air samples collected during the RI field investigations.
These findings indicate that the semivolatile compounds are
bound in the broken battery materials which include
plastics and hard rubber.
-------
The ground water table at the site is located approximately
80 feet below ground surface. site soils are naturally
alkaline with a pH of 8.0, even at depth, and therefore
have strong sorptive and low leachability characteristics.
precipitation at the site is low (less than 10 inches per
year) and a high rate of evaporation exists. These factors
would indicate a low potential for inorganic compounds to
migrate to the ground water. No ground water contamination
associated with Cal West site contaminants is indicated
from ground water samples collected. In addition, no
indication of contaminant migration with depth was found in
the soil samples collected from the two evaporation ponds
and adjacent to the sludge waste sediments (concrete pad).
contaminant Persistenoe
Persistence of inorqanic contaminants will be discussed
using the compounds identified as contaminants of concern
at the Cal West site. These contaminants include lead,
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, and silver.
The inorganic contaminants identified at the site have
their own relative toxicity and persistence values.
Inorganics are not biodegradable but microbiological
activity may increase the mobility of some metals.
Inorqanics will either be permanently bound by
precipitation, ion exchange, or adsorption or will move in
an aqueous environment.
Lead is strongly adsorbed to soil particles, and very
little is transported into surface water or ground water
(EPA, 1986a, as pointed in Technical Resources, Inc. (TRI),
1988). In surface water, lead has a tendency to form low
soluble compounds with anions in the water. The
undissolved form is carried in the waters by colloidal
-------
VI.
particles in the water (TRI, 1988).
Arsenic is extremely mobile in aquatic systems. Sorption
onto clays, iron oxides, and organic materials in sediments
is an important fate of arsenic in surface waters. Aerobic
and anaerobic microorganisms can cause release of sediment-
bound arsenic into the water column of soil-bound arsenic
into the air. Thus the sediment-bound arsenic may act as
a secondary source of contamination to the surface water.
Arsenic in soil is usually in an insoluble, adsorbed form
[EPA, 1982b, as cited in Life Systems Inc. (LSI,1987)],
especially soils high in clay and iron oxides.
Mercury is strongly bound to particulates and organic
matter in soil and sediments. The water solubility is low,
so in aquatic systems most inorganic mercury is associated
wi th sediments. Ionic soil mercury distributions are
controlled primarily by organic matter. Aerobic
microbiological processes mobilize mercury by methylation
of inorganic forms.
Cadmium is very mobile in the environment. It is absorbed
or complexed onto soil and hydrous metal oxides but less
strongly than copper, zinc, and lead. The removal of
dissolved cadmium by sorption processes is more effective
as pH increases. Cadmium complexed with carbonate
materials or hydrous metal oxides is less mobile than
cadmium sorbed to clay particles or organic materials.
SIlHHARY OP SITS RISKS
The baseline risk assessment provides the basis for taking
action and indicates the exposure pathways that need to be
addressed by the remedial action. It serves as the
-------
...
baseline indicatinq what risks could exist if no action
were taken at the site. This section of the ROD reports
the results of the baseline risk assessment conducted for
this si te as part of the Remedial Investiqation. The
baseline risk assessment for the Cal West site was divided
into two parts: the human health risk assessment and the
ecoloqical risk assessment.
JIUKAB JlBALTJI RISKS
This human health risk assessment is a quantitative
estimate of the current and potential risks to human health
from exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants from the Cal West site. In accordance with
the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human
Health Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1989), the objectives of the
eval~ation process are: 1) to provide an analysis of
baseline risk and help determine the need for remedial
action at the site: 2) to provide a basis for determininq
concentrations of chemicals that can remain onsi te and
still adequately protect public health: 3) to provide a
basis for comparinq potential health impacts of various
remedial alternatives: and 4) to provide a consistent
process for evaluatinq and documentinq public health
threats at the site. This evaluation will also compare
risks based on future use scenarios for the site.
The parts of this human health risk assessment will include
the followinq:
1)
Identification of Contaminants of Concern. Hazardous
Substances, pollutants, or contaminants detected on or
near the site are identified and their abundance and
distribution in environmental media are evaluated to
-------
identify contaminants of potential concern that will be
carried through the evaluation.
2)
EXDosure Assessment. Pathways of human exposure to
contaminants of concern are evaluated for exposure
potential.
3)
Toxici tv Assessment. Heal th effects and toxici ty
information are identified for each contaminant of
concern. For carcinogens, slope factors are
identified. For systemic toxicants (non-carcinogens),
EPA reference doses are identified. For lead,
contaminant levels are compared to results from the EPA
Uptake/Biokinetic model.
4)
Risk Characterization. For each exposure pathway,
contaminant intake is calculated for each contaminant
of concern. These intakes can then be compared to
slope factors and reference doses to calculate
potential long-term risk. Risks are then compared for
different future use scenarios for the site.
5)
Uncertaintv Assessment. Uncertainties associated with
toxicity assumptions and calculations are discussed,
and a qualitative evaluation made as to the effect of
these uncertainties on estimation of site risks.
X4eD~irica~ion or COD~amiDan~s or Concern
This section will identify those chemicals which will be
used to develop an exposure assessment. Samples were
collected of ground water, 80i1, air, waste sources, and
sediments in the dry arroyos draining the site. Samples
were analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals. Two
-------
battery waste piles, the ponds, water within a sump inside
the building, soils within the fenced area, ground water,
and air were also sampled and analyzed for semi-volatile
organic compounds. Waste samples are particulates and will
be evaluated in the soil exposure pathway. Since water
rarely flows in the arroyos, those sediments will also be
evaluated in the soil exposure pathway.
For all pathways, the following criteria were used in
selecting chemicals for use in the risk assessment: 1)
Analyses qualified with "R" (reject) were not used: 2)
Those data qualified with "U" (undetected) were used at the
detection limit if other samples showed concentrations
above detection limit: 3) Chemicals detected in fewer than
three samples in the 'soil pathway were not included; 4)
Chemicals which pose a very low risk were not included in
calculating total risk; 5) For exposure assessment, when
more than four data points were usable, concentrations used
were Reasonable Maximum Exposure levels for contaminants
other than lead and the geometric mean for lead. When four
or fewer data points were usable, the maximum concentration
found was used.
Ground Water SamDles
Ground water was sampled in two phases from monitor wells
onsite and from six residential wells off-site. Samples
were analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, with
additional ground water samples analyzed for semi-volatile
and volatile organic compounds.
No chemicals of concern were found in concentrations
greater than EPA Maximum contaminant Levels (HCLs) in
filtered monitoring well samples and unfiltered residential
-------
well samples. The data do not suqqest a release to qround
water of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
from the site. since the qround water is not a complete
pathway, no risk analysis was completed.
Waste Samo1es
Samples were collected from all waste sources onsi te,
inc1udinq the concrete pad area, the lined pond, the
unlined pond, and the battery waste pile. Selected samples
were analyzed for' Tarqet Ana1yte List (TAL) metals.
Remaininq samples were analyzed for lead only. Addi tiona1
samples were analyzed for semi-volatile orqanic compounds.
Chemicals were considered at elevated levels when
concentrations were qreater than three times backqround
soil concentrations or, if backqroundana1yses were
qualified with "R", when concentrations were qreater than
three-times detection limit. Backqround for comparison to
waste samples was the same as used for soil samples. Only
laboratory analyses were used to determine lead
concentrations; no portable x~ray florescence (XRF) data
were included.
Contaminants of concern found identified in the waste
sources include antimony, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead,
silver, and semi-volatile organic compounds, especially
polYnuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs). The concrete pad
source contained elevated levels of antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, lead, and silver. Samples from the unlined pond
were elevated in antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
mercury. The lined pond contained elevated levels of
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, and
silver. Samples from the waste, pile and concrete pad were
-------
, .
elevated in arsenic, lead, and semi-volatile organic
compounds, especially PABs. In soils, elevated levels of
contaminants were found only in shallow samples. Samples
from borings displayed decreasing concentrations with
depth, wi th no elevated levels from samples deeper than
eight feet. For risk assessment, only samples from 2.5'
depth and less are used, since this is the assumed maximum
depth of exposure in a residential or current use scenario,
and only those contaminants which were elevated in three or
more samples included.
soil Samples
Soil samples were collected at the ground surface and up to
a depth of nine inches at selected grid locations based on
portable XRF readings or location of disturbed features on-
site. Samples were also taken from soil borings and within
trenches cut into the berm.
For risk assessment in the soil pathway, the site will be
divided into two areas, inside the fence (site workers) and
outside the fence. Samples from trenches within the berm
on-site are included as soil samples, since the berm was
created by scraping soil from site grounds.
Hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants found in
soil samples within the fenced area include arsenic,
cadmium, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, and zinc.
Nickel, zinc, selenium and thallium were not included in
the risk calculations since were not found in three or more
samples.
The arroyos draining the site are dry for most of the year.
Therefore, the potential exposure for this route would be
-------
primarily from contact with sediments. For this reason,
sediment samples are included in the soil pathway
evaluation. Lead was the only contaminant of concern
detected at elevated levels within the sediment samples.
Air SamDles
Air moni tors were installed around the si te to sample
particulate and semi-volatile air emissions. Sampling was
conducted with undisturbed site conditions to evaluate risk
for the site during current and future use, and during
trench excavations, to use in future evaluation of hazard
presented during remediation activities. For this risk
assessment, only samples taken during undisturbed site
conditions are used, in order to assess risk under
reasonable current and future use conditions.
Lead was present in most of the high volume samples. No
other metals or semi-volatile organic compounds were
detected in significant concentrations. It should be npted
that winds were light to moderate during this sampling
period, so air releases may increase under more severe
winds.
BZDosure Assess.ent
Exposure is defined as the contact of an orqanism (a human
for this assessment) with a chemical or physical agent
(EPA, 1988). A complete exposure pathway requires: 1) a
chemical of concern at elevated levels which may be
hazardous, 2) a route of exposure that allows the organism
to come into contact with the hazardous substance, and 3)
an exposed individual or population. An exposure
assessment is the determination of the magnitude,
-------
..
frequency, duration, and route of exposure (EPA, 1989).
The National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) calls for the development of a
current exposure scenario as well as ,a reasonable maximum
exposure (RME) scenario, which for the Cal West site would
be residential. For contaminants other than lead, this
risk assessment considers the following routes of exposure:
1) ingestion of soil and sediment and 2) dermal contact
with soil and sediment. Intakes will be calculated using
the equations provided in the Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (EPA,
1989), with factors modified where necessary to conform to
the Superfund risk assessment peer review committee
Standard operating Procedures (4-23-92), the Region VI risk
assessment peer review committee Draft Supplemental Region
VI Risk Assessment Guidance (4-14-92), and EPA Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9285.6-03
Standard Default Exposure Factors. Preference is given to
factors proposed in the Region VI document.
The sump which was sampled on-site is isolated by a grate
and is inaccessible. Therefore, no exposure pathway exists
for this waste source. Ground water samples had no
....,.. ,
contaminants above MCL standards, and this route of
exposure was not included in the risk calculations.
Similarly, air monitoring showed no non-lead contaminants
at elevated levels, and therefore the air route of exposure
and inhalation of soils were not included in the risk
calculations. Surface water is intermittent and was not
available for sampling, so this pathway will ,not be
evaluated.
For exposure related to lead, this risk assessment utilizes
-------
'.
the Uptake Biokinetic Model, Lead Version 0.5 (EPA, 1991),
a PC-based model which estimates the probability of blood-
lead levels based on environmental exposures. This model
considers the followinq exposure routes: 1) inqestion of
soil and dust, 2) inqestion of water, 3)inqestion of food,
4) inhalation of air, 5) exposure of a fetus throuqh the
maternal route, and 6) inqestion of paint chips (this last
not applicable to the Cal West site).
CUrrent Use
CUrrent land use information was determined by site
inspection durinq the Remedial Investiqation. The site is
presently closed and locked, and surrounded by a fence,
althouqh elevated lead concentrations were found in soils
and sediments outside the fence. Historically, the
facility was used as a battery recyclinq plant. The
current use of the site is an industrial facility.
For industrial use, the exposure assessment assumes a
chronic exposure of non-carcinoqenic chemicals for 250 days
per year for 25 years. This scenario considers only soil
concentrations within the fenced area. Because the UBK
model for lead considers only children in the exposure,
lead cannot be included as a contaminant in the exposure
assessment for the industrial scenario.
Risk values for trespassers were lower than those for on-
site workers. Therefore, for current use, risk
calculations were done for the more conservative on-site
worker scenario. Remediation which reduces risk to
acceptable levels for worker and residential scenarios will
also reduce risk for trespassers.
-------
..
Reasonable Maximum Future Use
possible future land use was determined through interviews
wi th local residents and the Socorro county manager. There
are no zoning ordinances for this part of the county.
Residences are presently located within 0.4 miles of the
site on the same side of the interstate highway. A
reasonable optimal future use of the site is for
residential development.
A residential scenario assumes a chronic exposure to non-
carcinogenic chemicals and exposure to carcinogens for 350
days per year for 30 years. Exposure due to lead is
calculated based on the UBI( model. This scenario considers
soil concentrations both in and outside the fenced area.
Tozici~v A88.88..D~
I
Slope Factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess
lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic contaminants of .concern. Sfs,
which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day).1, 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 that intake level. The term "upper bound II
reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of
the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Slope factors are
derived from the results of human epidemiological studies
or chronic animal bioassays to which anima1-to-human
extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied
(e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict
-------
effects on humans).
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects from
exposure to contaminants of concern exhibiting non-
carcinogenic 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 contaminants of concern from
environmental media (~., the amount of contaminants of
concern ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be
compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human
epidemiological studies or animal studies to which
uncertainty factors have been applied (LS., to account for
the use of animal data to predict effects on humans)
Reference doses and slope factors for the risk assessment
conducted for the Cal West site were obtained from the
Integrated Risk Information System, PC-based version
(IRIS2) and the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix Tables
(SCDM), Update 11 (EPA, 1991).
The EPA has developed a carcinogen classification system
that uses a weight-of-evidence approach to classify the
likelihood of a chemical being a human carcinogen.
Information considered in developing the classifications
includes human studies of the association between cancer
incidence and exposure, and long-term animal studies under
controlled laboratory conditions. Other supporting
evidence considered includes short-term tests for
genotoxic, metabolic and pharmacokinetic properties,
toxicological effects other than cancer , structure-activity
relationships, and physical and chemical properties of the
chemical. Carcinogens are classified as follows:
-------
0"
Group AI Human carcinogen - sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans.
Group BI Probable human carcinogen: B1 - limited evidence
of carcinogenicity in humans: B2 - sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate evidence in
humans.
Group CI Possible human carcinogen - limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or lack of human
data. .
Group D: Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity,
with inadequate or no evidence.
Group B:
Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.
Inoraanic Chemicals
b~i.ODY. Chronic exposure from inhalation of antimony
resul ts in respiratory dysfunction which can be severe. It
can also be toxic through ingestion and acts as an irritant
on skin. Subchronic and chronic oral Rfd for antimony is
0.0004.
Ar..Dlc. . Toxicity is dependent on the form of the
compound. Chronic exposure from ingestion or inhalation
can result in damage to liver, circulatory, or digestive
systems. Subchronic and chronic oral RfD for arsenic is
0.0003. Arsenic is classified as a Group A human
carcinogen, with an oral slope factor of 0.0018 and an
inhalation slope factor of 15. .
Cadmiua.
Chronic exposure to cadmium can result in kidney
-------
«>
dysfunction. Acute toxicity is severe, although at levels
much higher than those that have been detected at the Cal
West site. Cadmium has also been classified as a probable
human carcinogen (Group Bl) by the inhalation route. Oral
RfD for cadmium is 0.0005 and the inhalation slope factor
is 6.3.
Lea4. Lead can have profound adverse effects on certain
blood enzymes and on aspects of neurological behavior.
Children have been found to develop symptoms at lower
blood-lead levels than adults. Adverse effects may occur
at blood-lead levels so low as to be essentially without a
threshold. For this reason, lead RfDs are not currently
used. Lead is also considered a B2 probable human
carcinogen. Lead contaminant levels are combined in a
computer program based on the Uptake Biokinetic Model (EPA,
1991) to determine a distribution function of blood-lead
levels in children.
-.,
Mercury. Mercury compounds produce mild to severe damage
to the central nervous system and the mouth and gums. It
can occur in both inorganic and organic compounds, with the
organic form the most toxic. Oral RfD for mercury is
0.0003 and inhalation RfD is 0.000086.
....."..
Bickel. Nickel tends to act locally in the human body,
affecting the dermatoloqical and respiratory systems. Oral
RfD for nickel is 0.02. Nickel refinery dust is classified
as a Group A human carcinogen by inhalation and has an
inhalation slope factor of 0.84.
Seleniua. Excess selenium can cause a garlic odor of
breath and urine, thickened and brittle nails, loss of hair
and nails, lower hemoqlobic levels, mottled teeth, skin
-------
."
,.
lesions, and neurological effects.
is 0.005.
Oral RfD for selenium
8il ver . silver in the skin creates permanent piqmentation.
Silver compounds can irritate skin and mucous membranes,
cause severe eye irritation, and may be lethal if ingested.
Oral RfD for silver is 0.005.
Thalliua. Nerve damage may result from ingestion.
Thall~um compounds can be extremely toxic, with effects on
the nervous system, skin, and cardiovascular tract. The
effects are cumulative. Reproductive organs and fetuses
are highly susceptible. Oral RfD for thallium is 0.00008.
ZiDC. Zinc is an essential element in the human diet~
Zinc compounds generally have very low toxicity and are
only harmful in high concentrations. Some zinc salts are
carcinogenic, although these types of compounds have not
been identified at the site. Oral RfD for zinc is 0.2.
oraanic Chemicals
Bis(2-ethylhezyl) phthalate. This has an oral RfD of
2.0 x 10.'. It is classified as a probable human carcinogen
(Group 82) with oral slope factor of 1.4 x 10.2.
PolYnuclear Aroaatic By4rocarboDs (PUs). PAHs are a
complex class of compounds which includes chemicals found
at the Cal West site including acenapthene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene,benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
chrysene, fluorene, 2-methyl naphthalene, indeno (1,2, 3-c, d)
pyrene, and pyrene. The oral reference dose for PABs is
-------
based on benzo(a)pyrene toxicity and is 4.0 x 10.3
mg/kg/day. PABs are classified as probable human
carcinogens (Group B2). They are absorbed through the
gastrointestinal tract, skin, and lungs. The slope factors
are based on the carcinogenicity of benzo(a)pyrene, which
has oral SF ot 11.5 and inhalation SF of 6.1.
Ph8nol-
Phenol has an oral RfD of 0.60.
Butylb8nzyl phthalat8- This can produce significant
increase in liver. weight ~ The subchronic and chronic
reference dose is through the oral route, with an oral RfD
of 0.20.
Di-B-butyl phthalat8-
phthalate is 0.10.
The
oral
RfD
for di-n-butyl
Di-B-oetyl phthalat8-
phthalate is 2.0 xlO.I.
The
oral
RfD
for
di-n-octyl
"-Bonyl ph8nol-
Oral RfD is 0.60.
Bezaehloroeyclop8nta4i8n8-
inhalation routes. Oral RfD
RfD is 2.0 x 10~.
Exposure is by oral and
is 7.0 x 10.3 and inhalation
Pluoranth8n8-
increased liver
RfD is 0.04.
Heal th effects include nephropathy,
weight, and hematological effects. Oral
Calculated rntake
Contaminant intake is calculated using the equations
outlined in the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
-------
o.
(EPA, 1989). The equations take into account contaminant
concentration, amount of exposure, and body weight,
averaged over exposure time. Other variables are specific
to each medium considered. For the Ca1 West site, non-lead
contaminants are examined for exposure wi thin the soil
pathway, by inqestion, and through dermal exposure routes.
Only the soil ,pathway was included because analysis of
samples from water and air showed no elevated levels of
non-lead hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
in these media pathways.
Only samples of 0-2.5 feet depth were considered in the
soil pathway. Areas considered were: 1) Soils within the
fenced area excluding waste sources and berm samples; 2)
Soils from the berm; 3) Soils within the fenced area
including waste sources and berm samples; 4) Waste sources
(concrete pad, unlined po~d, lined pond, waste pile); and
5) Soils outside the fenced area, including drainage
sediments. All areas were used in calculating intakes for
adults and children in a residential scenario; all areas
except those outside the fence were used in calculating
intakes for adults in a current use (worker) scenario.
Intakes were calculated for those non-lead hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants which appeared in
concentrations greater than three times background 'levels.
Soil concentrations used in the calculation of intake for
an area were the maximum for areas which had fewer than
five data points, and the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
for those areas which had five or more data points. An RME
is a statistical calculation which represents the 95% upper
confidence limit of the lognormal mean of the data. It is
a more conservative approach to determining intake, since
the RME is greater than the average concentration.
-------
Inq8.tion of Cheaica1 in 80i1s
where
I = CS x IR x CF x FI x EF x ED
BW x AT
I - Intake
CS - Chemical concentration in soil (mq/kg)
IR - Ingestion rate
- 100 mg/d (resident adults) 1
200 mg/d (children)1
50 mg/d (workers)
CF = Conversion factor - 10.' kg/mg
FI - Fraction ingested from contaminated sources
= 1.0 (residential in all cases 1 workers with
entire area inside the fence considered)
0.2 (workers when individual sources
considered, since exposure will be over whole
site area for workers and there are a number of
sources)
EF - Exposure frequency'
- 350 d/yr (residential) 1 250 d/yr (workers)
ED = Exposure duration
-= 30 yrs (residential adults) 1 25 yrs (workers)
BW = Body weight
- 70 kg (adult)1 15 kg (children 1-6)
AT - Averaging time
-= 365 x ED (chronic); 365 x 70 (carcinogens)
-=
Results of intake calculations for ingestion of chemicals
in soil are shown in Table 20.
D8r.aa1 Contact with Ch..ica1s in 80i1
CDI= CS x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED
BW x AT
-------
o
o
TABLE 20: DERMAL CDI and HAZARD QUOTIENT for CURRENT USE SCENARIO (WORKERS)
Chemical ~ ~ D ~ Yf LP WP
RME
Antimony : 581.00 16S.OO 141.00 S81.00
Arsenic 669.62 26.00 704.00 200. SO 88.30 2S0.30 76.80
Cadmium 18.40 3.50 1S.20 11.60 8.S0 18.40
Mercury 1.80 0.23 1.80
Nickel 22.08 12.20 74.70
Sliver S.OO 9.80
CDI
Antimony 2.84E-04 8.07E-oS 6. 89E-OS 2.84E-04
00 Arsenic 3.27E-04 1.27E-OS 3.44E-04 9.80E-oS 4.32E-oS 1.22E-04 3.76E-OS
00
Cadmium 9.ooE-06 1.71E-06 7.43E-06 S.67E-06 4.16E-06 9.00E-06
Mercury 8.80E-07 1.12E-07 8.80E-07
Nickel 1.08E-OS S.97E-06 3.65E-oS
Silver -- 2.45E-06 4. 79E-06
HQ
Antimony 7.10E:...o1 2.02E-01 1.72E-01 7.10E-01
Arsenic 1.09E+OO 4.24E-02 1.1SE+OO 3.27E-01 1.44E-01 4.08E-01 1.2SE-01
Cadmium 1.80E-02 3.42E-03 1.49E-02 1.13E-02 8.31 E-03 1.80E-02
Mercury 2.93E-03 3.7SE-04 2.93E-03
Nickel S.40E-04 2.98E-04 1.83E-03
Silver 4.89E-04 9.58E-04
TOTAL 1.82E+00 4.61 E-02 1.16E+00 S.40E-01 3.25E-01 1.14E+00 1.2SE-01
Are~s: S a Salls B a Berm W 1:1 Waste Sources (all)
CP a Concrete Pad UP .. Unlined Pond LP - Lined Pond
CDI ... Chronic Dally Intake
-------
TABLE 20 (continued): DERMAL CDI and HAZARD QUOTIENT for FUTURE USE SCENARIO (RESIDENTIAL-ADULTS)
Chemical mt!J. oS ft ~ UP J:f we
RYE
Antimony : 581.00 16S.OO ' 141.00 S81.oo
Arsenic 669.62 26.00 704.00 2oo.S0 88.30 2S0.30 76.80
Cadmium 18.40 3.S0 1S.20 11.60 8.S0 .18.40
Mercury 1.80 0.23 1.80
Nickel 22.08 12.20 74.70
Silver S.OO 9.80
COI
co Antimony 3.98E-04 1.13E-04 9. 66E-oS S.98E-04
\0 Arsenic 4.S9E-04 1.78E-OS 4.82E-04 1.S7E-04 6.0SE-OS 1.71E-04 S.26E-OS
Cadmium 1.26E-OS 2.40E-06 1.04E-oS 7.9SE-06 S.82E-06 1.26E-oS
Mercury 1'.2SE-06 1.S8E-07 1.2SE-06
Nickel 1.S1E-oS 8.36E-06 S.12E-oS
Silver 3.43E-06 6.71 E-06
HQ
Antimony 9.95E-01 2.8SE-01 2.41 E-01 9.9SE-01
Arsenic 1.S3E+OO S.94E-02 1.61E+OO 4.S8E-01 2.02E-01 S.72E-01 1.7SE-01
Cadmium 2. 52E-02 4.80E-oS 2.08E-02 1.59E-02 1.16E-02 2. 52E-02
Mercury 4.11E-03 S.2SE-04 4.11E-03
Nickel 7.56E-Q4 4.18E-04 2. 56E-oS
Silver 6. 85E-04 1.34E-03
TOTAL 2.55E+OO 6.46E-02 1.6SE+OO 7. S7E-o 1 4.SSE-01 1.60E+00 1.7SE-01
Areas: S 1:1 Soils B . Berm W - Waste Sources (all)
CP - Concrete Pad UP &: Unlined Pond LP - Uned Pond
CDI 1:1 Chronic Daily Intake .
WP = Waste Pile
-------
o
b
TABLE 20 (continued): DERMAL CDI and HAZARD QUOTIENT for FUTURE USE SCENARIO (RESIDENTIAL-CHILDREN)
Chemical ~ ~ B ~ Yf lP WP
RME
Antimony . 581.00 165.00 '141.00 581.00
Arsenic 669.62 26.00 704.00 200.50 88.30 250.30 76.80
Cadmium 18.40 3.50 1S.20 11.60 8.S0 18.40
Mercury 1.80 0.23 1.80
Nickel 22.08 12.20 74.70
Silver - S.OO 9.80
CDI
Antimony 6.68E-04 1.90E-04 1.62E-04 6.68E-04
ArSenic 7.70E-04 2. 99E-OS 8.10E-04 2.31 E-04 1.02E-04 2.88E-04 8.8SE-OS
\D Cadmium 2.12E-OS 4.0SE-oe 1.75E-oS 1.S3E-OS 9.78E-06 2.12E-oS
0
Mercury 2.07E-oe .2.6SE-07 2.07E-06
Nickel 2. 54E-oS 1.40E-OS 8.S9E-OS --
Silver 5.75E-06 1.1SE-OS
HQ
Antimony 1.67E+OO 4.74E-01 4.0SE-01 1.67E+00
Arsenic 2.S7E+OO 9.97E-02 2.70E+00 7.89E-01 S.S8E-01 9.59E-01 2.94E-01
Cadmium 4.2SE-02 8.0SE-OS 3.50E-02 2.67E-02 1.96E-02 4.2SE-02
Mercury 6.90E-03 8.82E-04 6.90E-oS
Nickel 1.27E-03 7.02E-04 4.30E-03
Sliver 1.15E-oS 2.2SE-OS
TOTAL 4.29E+00 1.08E-01 2.74E+00 1.27E+00 7.64E-01 2.68E+OO 2.94E-01
Areas: S - Solis B - Berm W - Waste Sources (all)
CP D Concrete Pad UP = Unlined Pond lP - Uned Pond
CDI - Chronic Dally Intake
-------
TABLE 20 . (continued): DERMAL CDI and RISK for ARSENIC
~ ~ .B CP UP LP WP TOTAL TOTAL
RME Sources S+Sources
Arsenic 669.62 26.00 704.00 200. SO 88.30 2S0.30 76.80
CDI
Adult Residents 1.97E-G4 7.64E-06 2.07E-04 S.89E-oS 2.60E-OS 7. 36E-OS 2.26E-OS
Workers . 1. 17E-G4 4.SSE-06 1.23E-Q4 3.S1 E-oS 1.SSE-oS 4.38E-oS 1.34E-oS
RISK
Adult Residents 3.54E-07 1.38E-08 3.73E-07 1.06E-07 4.67E-08 1.32E-07 4.06E-08 3. 26E-07 7.12E-07
Workers 2.11E-07 8.19E-09 2.22E-07 6. 32E-08 2.78E-08 7.88E-08 2.42E-08 1.94E-07 4. 24E-07
\0
.....
Areas: S .. Solis CDI . Chronic Dally Intake
B - Berm
W . Waste Sources (all)
CP II: Concrete Pad
UP . Unlined Pond
LP . Uned Pond
WP - Waste Pile
c.
-------
<,
TABLE 20 (continued): CARCINOGENIC RISK from DERMAL CONTACT with SOILS. SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Yard Battery pile)
Chemical
PAHs
BIs(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Resident Adult Worker
RME SF CDI RISK CDI RISK
S7,;97 1.2E+01 1.70E-oS. 2.O&E-04 1.01 E-oS 1.22E-G4
130.00 1.4E-02 3.82E-OS 5.35E-07 2.28E-05 3.19E-07
2.05E-04 1.22E-04
4.09E-04 2.43E-05
6: 14E-04 1.46E-04
TOTAL.
Ingestion Risk
TOTAL RISK
\0
-------
TABLE 20 (continued): CARCINOGENIC RISK from DERMAL CONTACT with SOILS. SEMI~VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Battery waste pile)
Chemical
Resident Adult
Worker
PAHs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
: RME
31.90
SF
1.2E+01
CDI
9.38E-06
RISK
1.13E-04
CDI
S.58E-06
RISK
6.70E-os
0.00
1.4E-02
TOTAL
1.13E-04
6.70E-oS
Ingestion Risk
2.25E-04
1.34E-05
TOTAL RISK
3.38E-04 .
8.04E-oS
1.0
W
-------
°0
TABLE 20 (cont): CARCINOGENIC RISK from DERMAL CONTACT with SOilS, SEMI-VOLATilE COMPOUNDS (Concrete pad sludge)
Chemical Resident Adult Worker
RME SF CDI RISK CDI RISK
PAHs 4.1S 1.2E+01 1.22E-08 1.46E-oS 7.26E-07 8. 72E-o&
BIs(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 18.00 I .. 1.4E-02 S.29E-C$ 7.41E-08 3.1SE-06 4.41E-08
TOTAL 1.47E-oS 8.76E-06
Ingestion Risk 2. 94E-oS 1.7SE-06
TOTAL RISK 4.41E-oS 1.0SE-oS
1.0
-------
u,
where
CDI= Chronic daily intake (absorbed)
SA = Skin surface area
= 5000 em2 (adults): 1800 em2 (children)
AF = Soil to skin adherence factor
= 1.0 mq/em2
ABS= Absorption factor
= 0.01 (1' of chemical on
EF, ED, BW, AT are as in the
the skin is absorbed)
inqestion equation.
Results of absorbed dose calculations for dermal contact
with chemicals in soil are shown in Table 21.
Risk Cbarac~.riza~ioD
Intakes for each contaminant of concern are compared for
the soil inqestion and dermal contact pathways of exposure.
Oral intakes and corrected (for absorption factors) dermal
intakes are denoted by EPA as the chronic daily intake
(CDI). Risk from lead will be treated separately usinq the
Uptake/Biokinetic Model.
For non-carcinoqens, it is assumed that the human body's
protective mechanisms must be overcome before adverse
effects are manifested. The amount of chemical which will
exceed this value is called the threshold. A chronic
Hazard Quotient (HQ) is calculated as the quotient" of the
contaminant-specific CDI by the contaminant-specific
reference dose (RfD). The Hazard Quotients are then summed
across the various pathways and media. A total Hazard
Index of qreater than 1 exceeds the threshold value and
suqqests a potential human health concern.
For carcinoqens, it is assumed that any amount of chemical
poses some hazard. Thus, there is no threshold value. A
-------
TABLE 21: INGESTION CDI and HAZARD QUOTIENT for CURRENT USE SCENARIO (WORKERS)
Chemical U/YJ. ~ II ~ UP LP WP
RME
Antimony : 581.00 16S.00 141.00 S81.oo
Arsenic 669.82 26.00 704.00 200. SO 88.30 2S0.30 76.80
Cadmium 18.40 3.SO 1S.2O 11.60 8.50 18.40
Mercwy 1.80 0.23 1.80
Nickel 22.08 12.20 74.70
Sliver S.oo 9.80
CDI
Antimony 2.84E-G4 .- 1.62E-OS 1.38E-OS S;69E-oS
Arsenic 3.27E-G4 2.SSE-06 6.90E-oS 1.96E-oS 8.6SE-o& 2.4SE-os .7.53E-06
Cadmium 9.ooE-oe 3.43E-07 1.49E-o& 1.14E-oa 8.33E-07 1.80E-06
\0 Mercury 8.80E-07 2.2SE-08 . 1. 76E-07
m
Nickel 1.08E-oS 1.20E-06 7.32E-oa --
Sliver 4.90E-07 9.60E-07
HQ
Antimony 7.10E-01 4.04E-02 3.4SE-02 1.42E-01
Arsenic 1.09E+OO 8.49E-03 2.30E-01 6.SSE-02 2.88E-02 8. 18E-02 2.S1E-02
Cadmium 1.80E-02 6.86E-G4 2.98E-03 2:27E-03 1.67E-03 3.61 E-03
Mercury 2. 93E-03 7.S1E-oS S.88E-04
Nickel S.40E-G4 S.98E-oS 3.66E-G4
Sliver 9.80E-oS 1.92E-G4
TOTAL 1.82E+OO 9.24E-03 2.33E-01 1.08E-01 a.S1E-02 2.28E-01 2.S1E-02
Areas: S 1:1 Soils B a Berm W . Waste Sources (all)
CP . Concrete Pad UP - Unlined Pond LP 1:1 Uned Pond
CDI II: Chronic Dally Intake .
-------
TABLE 21 (continued): INGESTION CDI and HAZARD QUOTIENT for FUTURE USE SCENARIO (RESIDENTIAL-ADULTS)
Chemical Ul!J. ~ B ~ Yf LP WP
RUE
Antimony : 581.00 16S.oo 141.00 581.00
Arsenic 669.62 26.00 704.00 200.90 88.30 2S0.30 76.80
Cadmium 18.40 3.50 1S.2O 11.60 8.S0 18.40
Mercury 1.80 0.23 1.80
Nickel 22.08 12.20 74.70
Silver S.oo 9.80
CDI
Antimony 7.96E-04 2.26E-04 1.93E-04 7.96E-04
Arsenic 9.17E-04 3.56E-oS 9.64E-04 2.7SE-04 1.21 E-04 3.43E-04 1.0SE-04
Cadmium 2.S2E-oS 4.80E-06 2.08E-oS 1.S9E-oS 1.16E-oS 2.S2E-os
\0 Mercury 2.47E-o& 3. 1 SE-07 2.47E-Q6
.... Nickel 3.02E-oS 1.67E-OS 1.02E-04
Silver -- 6.8SE-Q6 1.34E-OS
HQ
Antimony 1.991:+00 S.6SE-01 4. 83 E-o 1 1.99E+OO
Arsenic 3.06E+OO 1.19E-01 3.21 E+OO 9.16E-01 4.03E-01 1.14E+OO 3.S1 E-01
Cadmium S.04E-02 9.S9E-03 4. 16E-02 3.18E-02 2.33E-02 S.04E-02
Mercury 4.93E-03 6.30E-04 4.93E-03
Nickel 1.S1E-03 8.36E-04 S.12E-03
Silver 2.28E-03 4.48E-03
TOTAL S.10E+OO 1.29E-01 3.26E+00 1.S1 E+OO 9.1 OE-01 3.19E+OO 3.S1 E-01
Areas: S - Soil B - Berm W . Waste Sources (all)
CP a Concrete Pad. UP D Unlined Pond LP. Uned Pond WP 8: Waste Pile
-------
c
C
TABLE 21 (continued): INGESTION CDI and HAZARD QUOTIENT for FUTURE USE SCENARIO (RESIDENTIAL--cHILDREN)
Chemical U/Yi ~ j! Qf Yf !:f WP
RME
Antimony " 581.00 16S.oo 141.00 S81.00
Arsenic 669.62 26.00 704.00 200. SO 88.30 2S0.30 76.80
Cadmium 18.40 3.S0 1S.2O 11.60 8.S0 18.40
Mercury 1.80 0.23 1.80
Nickel 22.08 12.20 74.70
Sliver S.OO 9.80
CDI
Antimony 7.44E-03 2.11E-03 1.80E-03 7.44E-03
Arsenic 8.S7E-03 3.33E-04 9.01E-03 2. 57E-03 1.13E-03 3.20E-03 9.83E-04
Cadmium 2.36E-G4 4.48E-oS 1.9SE-04 1.48E-04 1.09E-04 2.36E-04
Mercury 2.30E-OS -" 2.94E-06 2.30E-OS
Nickel 2.83E-G4 1.S6E-04 9.S6E-04
\0 Sliver 6.40E-OS 1.2SE-04
co
HQ
Antimony 1.86E+.01 5.28E+00 4.51 E+OO 1.86E+01
Arsenic 2.86E+01 1.11E+OO 3.00E+01 8.55E+00 3.77E+00 1.07E+01 3.28E+OO
Cadmium 4.71 E-01 8.96E-02 3.89E-01 2.97E-01 2. 18E-01 4.71 E-01
Mercury 7.68E-02 9.81 E-03 7. 68E-02
Nickel 1.41E-02 7.81 E-03 4. 78E-02
Silver 1.281:-02 2.51 E-02
TOTAL 4.77E+01 1.21 E+OO 3.0SE+01 1.41E+01 8.51E+OO 2.98E+01 3. 28E+OO
Areas: S - Solis B - Berm W = Waste Sources (all)
CP 1:8 Concrete Pad UP I: Unlined Pond LP a Uned Pond
WP - Waste Pile
-------
TABLE 21 (continued): INGEST.ON CD' and RISK for ARSENIC
~ ~ B CP UP LP WP TOTAL TOTAL
RME Sources S+Sources
ArSenic 669.62 26.00 704.00 2oo.S0 88.30 250.30 76.80
CO,
Adult Residents 3.93E-04 1.53E-QS 4.13E-04 1.18E-04 S.1SE-QS 1.47E-04 4.S1E-QS
Workers 1.17E-04 9.07E-Q7 2.46E-OS 7.ooE-Q6 3.08E-06 S.74E-Q6 2.68E-06
RISK
Adult Residents 7.0SE-07 2.7SE-OS 7.44E-07 2.12E-Q7 9.33E-QS 2. 64E-07 S.11E-08 6.S1 E-07 1.42E-06
Workers 2.11E-Q7 1.63E-Q9 4.42E-QS 1.26E-QS S.SSE-Q9 1.S7E-QS 4.S2E-Q9 3.S7E-QS S.4SE-OS
~
~
Areas: 8 - 80lls CD. - Chroolc Dally 'ntake
Ba Berm
W - Waste Sources (all)
CP - Concrete Pad
UP. Unlined Pond
LP . Uned Pond
WP . Waste Pile
C
-------
"
TABLE 21 (continued): HAZARD QUOTIENTS and RISK from ORAL INGESTION. SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Battery Waste pi/e)
Chemical Resident Adult- Resident-Child Worker
RME (ppm) RfD CDI tiQ CDI HQ CDI HQ
PAHs 31.90 4.0E-03 4.37E-oS 1.09E-02 4.08E-04 1.02E-01 3.13E-06 7.82E-04
Phenol 8.50 6.0E-01 8.91 E-06 1.48E-oS 8.32E-oS 1.39E-04. 6.37E-07 1.06E-06
BIs(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 2.0E-02
Butylbenzylphthalate 2.0E-01
DI-N-butyiphthaJate 1.0E-01
DI-N-octyIphthalate 8.S0 2.0E-02 8.91 E-06 4.45E-04 8.32E-OS 4.16E-03 6.37E-07 3.19E-OS
4-Nonyl phenol 600.00 6.0E-01 8.22E-04 1.37E-03 7.68E-03 . 1.28E-02 5.88E-oS 9.80E-OS
Hexach'oro-
cyclopentadlene 7.0E-03
......
0 TOTAL 1.28E-02 1.19E-01 9.12E-04
o
CANCER RISK RME SF CDI RISK CD' RISK
PAHs 31.90 1.2E+01 1.87E-05 2.25E-04 1.11 E-06 1.34E-OS
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 1.4E-02
-------
TABLE 21 (COIIIinued): HAZARD QUOTIENTS and RISK from ORAL INGESTION, SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Yard Banery ",10)
Chemical Resident Adult Resident-Chlld Worker
RME (ppm) .RfD CDI HQ CDI HQ CDI HQ
PAHs : 51.97 4.0E-03 7. 94E-os f.99E-02 7.42E-04 1.86E-01 S.68E-06 1.42E-03
Phenol 24.00 6.0E-01 3.29E-oS S.48E-OS 3.07E-04 S.12E-04 2.3SE-06 3. 92E-06
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 130.00 J 2.0E-02 1.78E-()4 8.91 E-03 1.66E-03 8. 32E-02 1.27E-oS 6. 37E-04
Butylbenzylphthalate 0.83! 2.0E-01 1.14E-06 S.69E-Q6 1.06E-os S.31E-OS .8.13E-08 4.07E-07
DI-N-butylphthalate 4.80 1.0E-01 6.S8E-06 6.S8E-oS 6. 14E-oS 6.14E-04 4.70E-07 4.70E-06
DI-N-octyIphthalate 14.00 2.0E-02 1.92E-os 9.S9E-04 1.79E-04 8.96E-03 1.37E-06 6.86E-OS
4-Nonyl phenol 100.00 6.0E-01 1.37E-04 2.28E-04 1.28E-03 2.13E-03 9.80E-06 1.63E-os
Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene 6.60 7.0E-Q3 9.04E-Q6 1.291:-03 8.4SE-oS 1.21 E-02 6.47E-07 9.24E-OS
TOTAL 3. 14E-02 2.93E-01 2. 24 E-03
......
0
...... RME SF CDI RISK CDI
CANCER RISK RISK
PAHs 51.97 1.2E+01 3.40E-oS 4.08E-04 2.02E-06 2.43E-oS
BIs(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 130.00 1.4E-02 7.63E-os 1.07E-Q6 4. 54E-06 6.3SE-OO
-------
o
.
TABLE 21 (continued): HAZARD QUOTIENTS and RISK from ORAL INGESTION. SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Concrete pad sludge)
Chemical Resident Adult Resident-Child Worker
RME (ppm) RID CDI HQ CDI HQ CDI HQ
PAHs 4.1S 4.OE-03 S.69E-o& 1.42E-03 S.31E-OS 1.33E-02 4.01E-01 1.02E-04
Phenol S.80 6.0E-01 7.9SE-06 1.32e-oS 7.42E-oS 1.24E-04 5. 68E-01 9.41E-01
BIs(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 18.00 2.0E-02 2.47E-oS 1.23E-03 2.30E-04 1.1SE-02 1.16E-06 8. 82E-oS
Butylbenzylphthalate 0.27 2.0E-01 3.70E-07 . 1.8SE-o& 3.46E-06 1.73E-oS 2.6S~-08 1.32E-01
DI-N-butylphthalate 0.1S 1.0E-01 2.06E-07 2.06E-o& 1.92E-06 1.92E-oS 1.41E-08 1.41E-01
DI-N-octyIphthalate 0.30 2.0E-02 4.11E-07 2.06E-OS 3.84E-06 1.92E-04 2.94E-08 1.41E-06
Ruoranthene 0.67 4.OE-02 9. 18E-07 2.29E-oS 8.S8E-06 2.14E-04 6.S1E-08 1.64E-06
TOTAL 2. 12E-03 2.54E-02 1.94E-04
...... CANCER RISK RME SF CDI RISK CDI RISK
o PAHs 4.1S 1.2E+01 2.44E-06 2. 92E-oS 1.45E-01 1. 14E-06
""
BIs(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 18.00 1.4E-02 1.06E-oS 1.48E-01 6.28E-01 8. 19E-09
-------
'"
risk is calculated as the product of the contaminant-
specific CDI and contaminant-specific slope factor. The
potential upper-bound lifetime excess cancer risk (the
additional risk of contracting cancer due to exposure to
the contaminants of concern at the site) is estimated by
summing the calculated risks for each contaminant in each
pathway. EPA considers the acceptable excess risk from a
site to be within the -range 10.4 to 10.' (one-in-ten thousand
to one-in-million). The national average for cancer risk
is presently 0.25 (one-in-four). The acceptable range,
therefore, translates to an additional cancer risk of one-
in-10,000 to one-in-1,000,000.
Hazard Quotients and Risk for each contaminant and pathway
are listed in Tables 20 and 21. Hazard Quotients and Risk"
were calculated using the current use (worker) and future
use (residential) scenarios. The dermal exposure route
lacks the toxicity reference values of the other exposure
routes. After compensation for absorption factors to
develop CDIs, oral RfDs and slope factors were used to
assess risks from dermal exposure.
For lead, no reference doses or slope factors are currently
approved. Lead contaminant levels are combined in a
computer program based on the UptakejBiokinetic Model to
determine a distribution function of blood-lead levels in
children. Since the model does not include adults, only
the residential scenario is accommodated for lead hazard.
CUrr.nt u..
The site has been used for a cotton gin, then as a battery
recycling facility. Light industrial use is considered to
be the current-use scenario. .Worker exposure frequency
-------
,.
. .
used is 240 days per year, with an averaqe 25 year duration
workinq at one location. Workers are assumed to be adults
with a 70 year lifetime, a 70 kq body weiqht, a daily soil
inqestion of 50 mq/day, and an exposed body surface area of
5,000 cm2.
Usinq an averaqe concentration derived from all sources and
soil within the fenced area, a non-carcinoqenic risk to
workers throuqh inqestion of soils is indicated (Table 20)
when a.n averaqe concentration from sources, berm, and soils
is considered. Antimony and arsenic are the chemicals of
concern which most contribute to this hazard index. The
lower hazard indices for individual sources derives from an
assumption that the contaminated soil would only contribute
20% of total soil inqestion (from the equation: factor
FI = fraction inqested). This factor was included since it
is assumed that workers would move around the site, and
therefore no single source would be a sole contributor to
soil ingestion.
For dermal contact with soils for workers, concentrations
from individual sources and from an average concentration
level of contamination within the fenced area result in
hazard indices greater than one for the lined pond, the
berm, and for the averaqe inside the fenced area (Table
21). Antimony and arsenic are the chemicals of concern
which most contribute to these hazard indices.
Arsenic is the only inorganic chemical of concern with a
verified oral cancer .slope factor. Tables 20 and 21 show
the chronic daily intake for workers from ingestion and
dermal contact with soils. The hiqhest excess cancer risk
for workers was throuqh inqestion of soils, calculated from
summing the excess risk contributed by each source and the
-------
soils. This maximum risk was 5.1 x 10.7, or 5 excess
cancers in 10,000,000 individuals. This is considered
acceptable risk, since it is less than EPA's acceptable
risk range of 1-in-10,000 to 1-in-1,000,000.
Semi-volatile organic compounds were found in elevated
concentrations in the battery waste piles and in dried
sludge on the concrete pad. Hazard indices for workers
exposed through the routes of ingestion and dermal contact
with the waste were significantly less than one (Tables 20
and 21). Maximum cancer risk was 2.4 x 10'" when risk from
all the sources is added. This risk is above the EPA
acceptable risk range.
J'utur8 0.8
There are residences within 0.5 miles to the north, east
and south of the site. This area currently has no zoning
or land-use planning. It is quite possible that the site
could be used for residences in the future. A future
optimal use scenario would be residential for both adults
and children. Exposure frequency for residents is assumed
to 350 days per year.
Adults
Residential adults are assumed to have a 70 kq body weiqht,
a daily soil ingestion of. 100 mq/day, an exposed body
surface area of 5,000 eml, a 70 year lifetime, and an
average of 30 years at one residence.
For exposure through ingestion of soils, hazard indices
greater than one were calculated for soils from the berm,
the concrete pad, the lined pond, and for an average
-------
concentration from all samples within the fenced area
(Table 20). Arsenic and antimony are the chemicals of
concern which most contribute to the non-carcinogenic risk.
Both have hazard indices greater than one for the lined
pond source and for the average within the fenced area.
The hazard index for arsenic is also greater than one for
the berm.
For dermal contact with soils for residential adults,
hazard indices greater than one were calculated for the
berm, for the lined pond, and for an average concentration
from all samples within the fenced area (Table. 21).
Arsenic was the only single chemical for which the hazard
index was greater than one, in the berm and the average
inside the fenced area, al though the hazard index for
antimony was close to one for the averaqe inside the fenced
area and for the lined pond source.
Arsenic is the only inorganic chemical of concern with a
verified oral cancer slope factor. Tables 20 and 21 show
the chronic daily intake for residential adults from
ingestion and dermal contact with soils. The highest
excess cancer risk for adult residents was calculated from
summing the excess risk contributed by each source and the
soils for ingestion and dermal contact. This maximUm risk
is 2.13 x 10'. , or 2 excess cancers in 1,000,000
individuals. This is within the EPA acceptable risk range
of 1-in-10,000 to 1-in-1,000,000.
Semi-volatile organic compounds were found in elevated
concentrations in the battery waste piles and. in dried
sludge on the concrete pad. Hazard quotients for
residential adults exposed through the routes of ingestion
-------
and dermal contact with the waste was significantly less
than one (Tables 20 and 21). Maximum cancer risk was
greater than 10.4 in both the ingestion and dermal routes of
exposure for the battery waste piles. Risk was driven
primarily by PABs in both battery piles. This risk is
greater than the EPA acceptable risk range.
Children
Hazard indices and risk were calculated for children (up to
age 6). Children in a residential scenario are assumed to
have a 15 kg body weight, a daily soil ingestion of 200
mg/day, an exposed body surface area of 1800 cm2 and
exposure duration of 6 years at one residence.
For exposure through ingestion of soils, hazard indices
greater than one were calculated for soils from each source
a~d for an average concentration from all samples within
the fenced area (Table 20). For exposure through dermal
contact with soils, hazard indices greater than one were
calculated for soils from the berm, concrete pad, lined
pond, and for an average concentration from all samples
wi thin the fenced area. Arsenic and antimony are the
chemicals of concern which most contribute to the non-
carcinogenic risk. Within the ingestion route of exposure,
the hazard indices for both arsenic and antimony are
greater than one for each individual source where measured
and for the average of all samples within the fenced area.
For the dermal route of exposure, the hazard indices are
greater than one for antimony for the lined pond source,
for aJ;'senic within the berm, and for both antimony and
arsenic for the average within the fenced area.
-------
, .
Lead
Neither a reference dose nor a slope factor is available
for lead. Risk characterization is developed usinq the EPA
Lead Uptake/Biokinetic (UBK) model. In this model, blood-
lead concentration in children aqe 0-6 is calculated
combininq exposure alonq a number of pathways. Exposure
pathways included in the model are air, drinkinq water,
indoor dust, paint, and diet. The model includes default
values for those exposure pathways for which there are no
site-specific data. The output is a probability function
of blood-lead levels. The tarqet is a probability function
showinq 95% of the population with a blood-lead level less
than 10 micro qrams per deciliter (~q/dl).
The model used to calculate risk from lead uses
concentrations from all media, and therefore the
concentrations of. lead found in the Remedial Investigation
were included in those model rUns. For the Cal West site,
values for all pathways qiven in the model except soil were
held constant, with soil concentrations varied.
Concentrations for those exposure pathways other than soil
are as follows:
Airs 0.086 micro qrams per cubic meter (~q/m3), calculated
as a qeometric mean of concentrations from samples
collected durinq undisturbed site conditions.
DriDkiDq Waters All lead data from the first round of
analyses were qualified with "R" and rejected for use. The
samples were reanalyzed and produced usable data. Analyses
of unfiltered samples from the older monitor wells were not
used, since those wells were hiqhly sedimented and
development procedures and construction details for these
108
-------
'.
wells are not adequately documented. The highest
concentration of lead found in monitor wells constructed
during the RI was 15.1 micro grams per liter (~g/l) in an
unfiltered sampled from monitor well MW-9, and this is the
value which was used in the lead model. A maximum value
for ground water is used because this could be a sole-
source well for a residence or worker. The highest
concentration of dissolved lead found was 7.7 ~g/l in a
filtered sample from well MW-1.
Indoor dust:
concentration.
Taken at 30% of the value used for soil
Paint: 0.0; there is no indication of lead-based paint at
the site.
Diet and Katernal: Model default values, since there are
no site-specific data for these categories.
For lead in soils, geometric means are used. The geometric
mean is more indicative of the true mean of a set of data
which vary widely in value. It is calculated by taking the
natura~ log of each value, finding the arithmetic mean of
these, then raising e to the power of this arithmetic mean.
I .
Areas for which geometric means were calculated to be used
in the UBK models include' soils inside the fenced area,
berm samples, waste sources combined, soils inside the
fenced area + berm samples, soils inside the fenced area + ,
berm + waste sources, soils outside the fenced area,
drainage samples, and soils outside the fenced area +
drainage samples. Table 22 shows the geometric means and
results from the UBK model for each of these areas.
-------
TABLE 22 CONCENTRATIONS and BLOOD-LEAD LEVELS
Concentrations Blood-Iead level
Area Geometric Mean % above 10 ugldl
m~
Inside Fence
Solis 753.08 7.84
Berm 24901.65 100.00
Waste Sources 93741.41 100.00
Soils + Berm 1241.32 32.68
S + B + Waste Sources 3244.52 96.65
~
~
;:> Outside Fence
Soils 173.18 0.05
Drainage 351.92 . 0.51
-------
The results of the UBX model show that, for all areas
inside the fence, blood-lead levels would be above the
target range (greater than 5% of the population with blood-
lead levels above 10 ~g/dl), even for soils with no waste
sources included. outside the fenced area, blood-lead
levels were well below the target for both soils and
drainage samples.
Further model runs were made varying the soil concentration
input to determine when the target level would be met. An
average concentration of lead in soil of 640 mg/kg would
result in 95% of the population with blood-lead levels less
than 10 ~g/dl. This is wi thin the EPA recommended cleanup
concentration for lead in soil of 500-1,000 mg/kg (OSWER
Directive t 9355.4-02).
Additional model runs were made as above, except using a
drinking water concentration of 7.7 ~g/l, which was the
highest concentration of dissolved lead detected in ground
water samples analyzed during the RI field investigation.
For these the result for all areas inside the fence
remained greater than the target level.
Uncertainty Assessment
Risk assessment involves numerous assumptions and
calculations which have inherent uncertainties. A
quantitative analysis of uncertainty is not possible
because all the associated parameters do not have numerical
values. A qualitative uncertainty assessment will provide
information regarding the variable factors which af~ect the
overall risk assessment. .
Sample collection and analysis methods may be biased,
-------
. ,
, .
leading to average concentrations for the site which are
either too low or too high. For the Cal West site, grid
sampling and thorough quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures were used to reduce sampling
uncertainties. A subset of samples were analyzed for a
suite of chemicals to ensure no contaminants were present
but not idel1tified. Multiple rounds of sampling were
included to confirm previous analyses and resample
locations with poor data quality.
Exposure assessments include estimations. for most of the
parameters us~d in CDI calculations. Since exposure is a
function of the behavior patterns and personal habits of
the exposed population, no one value can. be assumed
representative of all possible exposure conditions.
Exposure duration and frequency are generally overestimated
(350 days/year for residents), leading to a consequent
overestimation of risk. Identification of pathways rely on
sampling r!<~ults, but detailed sampling of all pathways at
all locations is not possible. For the Cal West site, air
sampling during windy days .may result. in higher
concentrations of contaminants for this pathway. In the
ground water pathway, monitor wells and some unfiltered
samples were included in the concentration calculations,
possibly reeulting in a higher estimation of exposure.
Toxicity assessments use published factors and simple
. addition of risks. Toxicity factors tend to be
conservative, resulting in an overestimation of risk.
Synergism and antagonism (how different chemicals will act
together when in the body) are .not well enough understood
to allow factorization of the individual risk numbers for
each chemical. By adding each chemical risk to develop a
total risk fo~ a pathway, then adding pathways to create a
-------
. .
sinqle value, total risk may be overestimated or
underestimated. It is assumed that risk summations are
conservative values.
Risk characterization includes all the above factors in the
final analysIs. Therefore, it may be either an
overestimation or underestimation of risk for the site.
Proper QA/QC procedures and use of most recent toxicity
data promote the best estimation of risk. It is
preferable, and qenerally assumed, that any variance
between calculated and true risk will be an overestimation
of risk for a site.
Risk CbaracterizatioD Su1lt1lta:ry
The Cal West site was most recently used as a battery
recyclinq facility. contaminants include metals and semi-
volatile orqanic compounds. Hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminant sources are battery waste piles,
lined and unlined evaporative ponds, a berm composed of
soil scraped from within the site, and soils within the
fenced area. Samplinq for the Remedial Investiqation
included qround water, soils, waste, air, and surface
drainaqe sediments. Risk was evaluated for current use
(worker) and future use (residential) scenarios.
Ground water samples contained no chemicals of concern in
concentrations qreater than EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels.
The data do not suqqest a release to qround water of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants from the
site. Therefore, no risk analysis was completed for the
qround water since it is not a complete exposure pathway.
Lead was present in most of the hiqh volume air samples.
-------
, .
No other metals or semi-volatile orqanic compounds were
detected in siqnificant concentrations. No pathway-
specific risk analysis was completed for the air exposure
pathway.
Waste, soils, and drainaqe sediments were all included in
the soil exposure pathway evaluation. Lead was the only
hazardous substance of concern found in samples outside the
fenced area. Inside the fenced area, hazardous substances
of concern used in this risk assessment include antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, and silver.
For workers, a systemic hazard (non-carcinoqenic risk) was
calculated for the area as a whole inside the fence. There
was a carcinoqenic risk calculated from semi-volatile
orqanic compounds in the battery waste piles. For
residential adults, a systemic hazard was calculated for
the berm, lined pond, and an average for the area inside
the fence as a whole. There was a carcinoqenic risk
calculated from semi-volatile orqanic compounds in the
battery waste piles. For residential children, a systemic
hazard was calculated for every source, the berm, and the
area inside the fence as a whole. This assessment does not
calculate carcinoqenic risks for children.
Risk from lead was determined usinq the Uptake/Biokinetic
model. The model includes lead concentrations in air,
water, and soil exposure pathways. A risk is indicated
when the model predicts more than 5' of the population
would have blood-lead concentrations qreater than 10 ",q/dl.
For the Cal West site, risk was indicated for all sources,
the berm, and soils inside the fenced area. There was no
indication of risk for areas outside the fence. An
iterative calculation usinq lead concentrations from
-------
samples at the Cal West site indicates soil lead
concentrations less than 640 mg/kg would reduce lead risk
below the target level.
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.
ECOLOGICAL RISK
5)
The ecoloqical risk assessment conducted at the Cal West
site consisted of:
1) an ecoloqical site description,
2) identification of the ecoloqical contaminant of concern
(hazard identification) and inc~usion of a
toxicological profile,
3) a description of the objectives, endpoints, and methods
used for the ecoloqical field study,
4) characterization of the ecoloqical receptors being
assessed,
identification of toxicoloqical benchmarks from
literature references for each receptor being assessed,
an exposure assessment for each of the receptors being
assessed,
a characterization of risk for each of the receptors
being assessed using the hazard quotient method and
including a qualitative description of uncertainty, and
conclusions, tables, a map, and references.
6)
7)
8)
The ecosystem of concern is a terrestrial desert
(Chihuahuan) ecosystem, consisting of grass. and shrub
habitat. There were no perennial surface water bodies for
-------
. ~
, .
assessment, just dry arroyos. The terrain has a very
slight slope and some rOlling topography near the arroyos,
but, in general, is fairly flat. The desert plants
observed were mainly mesquite, creosotebush, cacti, and
grasses. Desert animals observed were lizards, snakes,
jack rabbits, kangaroo rats and other rodents, road
runners, and other birds. Cattle graze in the study area
as well as on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to the
west of the site. Grasses are more predominant on the
south side where fencing prevents access to cattle. No
threatened and endangered species were observed or expected
to be affected by the site activities.
The ecological hazardous substance of concern attributable
to site activities was determined to be lead. The
determination of whether there are any other ecological
contaminants of concern besides lead was ba$ed on full scan
chemical analyses conducted on some of the soil and tissue
samples. Also, the soil was analyzed for total organic
carbon, pH, and grain size to characterize its binding
ability and the mObility and bioavailability of
contaminants. There were no detections above
quantification limits for any site-related chemicals
'besides lead. There was a BRA (di-n-butylphthalate)
detected which was attributed to blank contamination.
The overall objective is
attributable to Cal West.
evaluated included:
to determine ecological risk
Other objectives or endpoints
1)
targeting areas for ecological field sampling
(vegetation transects and small mammal trapping) with
an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry field
technique which was used to screen soils for lead
-------
. .
2)
contamination gradients:
determining the biological integrity or viability of
vegetation by surveying vegetative populations on the
site as well as in the reference areas to determine
ecological differences in structure and function
attributable to Cal West:
analyzing vegetation and small mammal tissue residues
in site and reference samples to determine uptake or
bioaccumulation of contaminant(s) attributable to Cal
West:
estimating bioaccumulation of contaminant(s)
attributable to Cal West in other animals higher in the
food chain which feed on the vegetation and small
mammals directly sampled:
measuring indicators of sublethal toxicological effects
of lead (such as delta aminolevulinic acid dehydratase
which is a blood lead biomarker, and histopathological
indicators) in site and reference small mammal samples:
ident1fying toxic benchmarks for lead from literature
references for each plant or animal sampled or
indirectly assessed: .
analyzing contaminant(s) attributable to Cal West by
atomic absorption spectrometry on random composite site
and' reference soil samples taken concurrently and
collocated with the tissue samples for correlation with
tissue"residue data: and
using the XRF.technique to determine whether highway
traffic lead emissions are a confoundinq source of soil
lead not attributable to Cal West.
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
The study was desiqned to assess ecoloqical risk posed by
the site only in areas where soil lead concentrations were
below those concentrations (500-1,000 mq/kg) that would be
remediated for the protection of human health. Since
-------
. a
earlier studies indicated that the fenced portion (12.5
acres) of the site contained high lead concentration and
would be remediated, the ecological sampling was done
outside the 12.5 acre fenced area. The study areas sampled
were the areas to the north and to the south of the 12.5
acre fenced si~e area: the reference area sampled was the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land located west of the
site.
In addition to the plant population survey, samples of
soils, vegetation (bush muhly grass and mesquite) tissues,
and small mammal (kangaroo rat) tissues were taken.
Kangaroo rats were selected for assessment because they
were the only small mammals trapped in sufficient numbers
in both the site and reference ,areas. The vegetation
. population survey and tissue residue analyses were to
provide information on the availability of habitat and the
effects of habitat alteration, the uptake of contaminant(s)
in vegetation from soil, and the impacts of contaminant(s)
on vegetation and impacts potentiallY on grazing animals
(herbivores). The small mammal samples were to provide
information on uptake of contaminant(s) and impact to the
small mammals themselves as well as information on site-
specific exposure for predators (tissue residue potentiallY
ingested by predators) . '
The objective in'the live-trapping of small mammals was to
obtain those species likely to be exposed to contamination,
and with a home range size limited to the size of the site
. to facilitate determining ecological risk attributable only
to cal West. In order to indirectly assess ecological
risk attributable only to Cal West for other species having
a home range size larger than the site and occupying a
niche higher up the food chain, an area use factor was
-------
calculated. An area use factor is calculated using
literature values for home range size, and it is a
determination of what proportion the site size is of the
home range size. The species selected for indirect
assessment of ecological risk were the pronghorn antelope,
coyote, and red-tailed hawk. They were selected on the
basis of the various ecological niches they occupy and on
information from previous local studies estimating their
occurrence and available habitat.
In the Receptor Characterization section, life history
information from the literature is described for each of
the ecological receptors (kangaroo rat, pronghorn antelope,
coyot~, and red-tailed hawk) being assessed. The life
history information described includes body weight, diet
(percentage of foods ingested and ingestion rate by weight
per day), and home range size.
In the Toxicological-Response Assessment section, toxicity
benchmarks from literature references for each of the
ecological receptors. being assessed are listed. Due to
various sampling and analytical difficulties encountered
with field toxicity studies, literature toxicity values
were used in the risk characterization. For the animals
assessed, the toxicity benchmarks were based on an oral
chronic toxic dose. For vegetation, the toxicity benchmark
was based on a toxic absorbed tissue value.
There was clear evidence of a soil lead contamination
gradient from the site. Soil lead decreased in
concentration with distance from the site in both the areas
to the north and south of the 12.5 acre fenced site area.
There were localized elevations of soil lead in the north
and south areas attributable to arroyo drainage and in the
-------
. 0
..
north area attributable to a breach which occurred from the
site waste pond. Also, soil lead was much greater in the
site-related areas compared to the reference area. The
reference area lead value measured ~as representative of
background lead measured in other previous local studies
unrelated to Cal West. There was no indication of a
contaminated soil lead gradient attributable to highway
traffic lead emissions that would confound the evaluation
of lead impacts from Cal West.
In the Exposure Assessment section, exposure or dose
estimates are calculated for each of the ecological
receptors. The only exposure pathway evaluated for animals
was ingestion of food. The method used has been used in
other EPA regional ecological risk assessments. Exposure
or dose in food is converted to dose in the receptor
(herbivores and carnivores). The formula used multiplies
the measured tissue residue value of lead in the food item
in wet weight times the percentage that the food item
represents in the diet of the ecological receptor times the
ingestion rate in weight per day for the ecological
receptor times the area use factor discussed above divided
by the body weight of the ecological receptor. All terms
except the first term in the formula were obtained from
literature references. The values for the first term were
analyses of the mesquite, bush muhly grass, and kangaroo
rat tissue sampled in the field study. Exposure estimates
were calculated separately for the site and reference
areas.
For vegetation, exposure was evaluated more qualitatively.
Since vegetation tissues were not washed, distinction
between internal (uptake) and external (aerial deposition)
exposure pathways could not be made. Total lead,
-------
diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) -extractable
lead (an estimate of the availability for plant uptake),
and aqueous-extractable lead were measured in collocated
soil samples for correlation with plant tissue residues.
Veqetation tissue lead values were positively correlated
wi th soil lead .values, al thouqh there was much less lead in
the veqetative tissues compared to that in the soil.
Availability of soil lead may be low due to the hiqh soil
pH (7.2-8.1) which was measured. Despite veqetation tissue
lead values correlation with soil lead values, there were
no apparent veqetation population trends detected in the
survey correlated with soil lead that could be attributable
to Cal West. Rather, some of the trends in the ecoloqicai
measures of the veqetation populations. could be
attributable to differences in habi tat, drainaqe,
elevation, moisture, nutrient availability, elevated pH,
and cattle qrazinq.
In the Risk Characterization section, toxicoloqical and
exposure information was inteqrated to estimate ecoloqical
risk, and uncertainty was qualitatively described. This
was achieved usinq EPA' s hazard quotient method. The
hazard quotient is a ratio of the exposure estimate divided
by.. the toxicoloqical benchmark value for each. ecoloqical
receptor. When the result is less than one, one concludes
that there is no indication of siqnificant risk.
For the animals assessed,. none of the site-related hazard
quotients exceeded one. Therefore, there is no indication
of site-related siqnificant risk for the areas evaluated.
A probable factor is the small size of the site compared to
the larqer home ranqe. sizes of some of the ecoloqical
receptors. The hiqhest hazard quotient was 0.1 found in
the kanqaroo rat. Proportioninq the hazard quotient from
-------
. d
0.1 to one (1) would result in a soil lead concentration
higher than the upper end cleanup level of 1,000 ppm used
for protection of human health and would be protective of
the ecology considering site-related risks only.
Reference area "hazard quotients exceeded one for the coyote
and red-tailed hawk which indicates significant reference
" area risk (not attributable to Cal West). This was
probably attributable to the larger size of the reference
area used which encompassed the large home sizes of the
ecological receptors and increased the area use factors.
For vegetation, ecological risk was more qualitatively
characterized. Although vegetation tissue lead values were
significantly different between site and reference study
areas, none of the vegetation tissue residue values
exceeded the tissue-based toxicity benchmark value used
from the literature. Thus, the hazard quotient was
inferred to be less than one which does not indicate
significant risk to vegetation attributable to Cal West.
This was supported by the results of the population survey
where no population differences could be attributed to Cal
West impacts.
Based on the field investigation conducted at the Cal West
site and data from the results of the laboratory analyses,
the following conclusions are drawn:
1)
All site-related hazard quotients were less than one
which did not indicate significant ecological risk
attributable to Cal West in the areas and at the lead
levels evaluated.
2)
The small size of the site compared to larger home
-------
range sizes of ecological receptors higher up in the
food chain indicates that it would be an unlikely
occurrence for lead (from the areas studied) to
bioaccumulate up the food chain.
3)
There was clear evidence of a soil lead contamination
gradient related to Cal West.
4)
Mean body burden of lead was higher in kangaroo rats
collected in the north area, but lead was also present
in reference animals.
5)
Plant species are distributed consistent with regional
ve.getation patterns. There was no clear indication
that exposure of vegetation to site-related soil lead
resulted in adverse effects as reflected in population
measurements.
6)
Lead availability to plants from the lead contaminated
soils is low due to the high pH level in the soil.
7)
Lead in plants is significantly higher in contaminated
areas than in the reference area. However, none of the
plant tissue lead values exceeded the tissue-based
toxicity benchmark value from the literature.
8)
Lead in and on plants is available to qrazinq animals.
9)
Remediation of soils for the protection of human health
within the range of 500-1,000 mg/kqshould be adequate
regarding ecological risks attributable to Cal West
site contaminants.
-------
.
'"
Remediation Goal.
The purpose of this remedial action is to control risks
posed by inqestion and direct contact with contaminated
soils, sediments and the source waste materials. The
resul ts of the baseline risk assessment indicate that
existinq conditions at the site pose an excess lifetime
cancer risk of 2.4 X 10.4 throuqh the routes of inqestion
and dermal contact for onsite workers. The non-
carcinoqenic risk to on-site workers throuqh inqestion is
as hiqh as 1.8 (Hazard Quotient). For future residential
use, total hazard indices qreater than one (1) were
calculated for children and adults. The maximum calculated
excess cancer for resid~ntial exposure to the semi-volatile
orqanic compounds was as hiqh as 10 x 10.4. For lead
contamination, the results of the UBK model indicate that
for all areas inside the fenced area, calculated
theoretical blood lead levels assuminq future residential
. .
use were above the tarqet ranqe of qreater than 5% of the
population with blood lead levels above 10 microqrams per
deciliter (uq/dl).
To meet the tarqet ranqe of 95% of the population with
blood lead levels less than 10 uq/dl, a residential lead
cleanup level of 640 mq/kq was determined for the Cal West
Metals site. Cleanup levels to achieve a 1 x 10 -8 excess
cancer risk or a hazard index value of not qreater than one
(1) for non-carcinoqenic risk for other contaminants under
a residential settinq at the Cal West site are: antimony-
110 ppm; arsenic- .37 ppm (10.8) and 270 ppm (HI=I);
cadmium- 140 ppm; mercury- 82 ppm; and for PAHs- 3 ppm
benzo(a)pyrene equivalents.
-------
VII.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1:
HO ACTIO.
Maior ComDonents:
The No Action alternative (Alternative 1) provides a
baseline for comparinq other remedial alternatives for the
Cal West site. Because no remedial activities would be
implemented to mitiqate contamination present at the site
under this alternative, lonq-term human health and
environmental risks for the site are as presented in the
baseline risk assessment.
Treatment ComDonents:
Alternative 1 provides no treatment, enqineerinq, or
institutional measures to control exposure to site
contaminated materials. No reduction in risks to human
health and the environment would occur.
Containment ComDonents: .
No controls for exposure, other than the existinq fence,
and no lonq-term or short-term site manaqement are included
under Alternative 1. This alternative provides no
reduction in the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contaminated soils, evaporation pond sediments, and source
waste materials at the site. All existinq and potential
future health risks associated with the site would remain.
Alternative 1 will not provide protection to human health
or the environment.
-------
o'
o .
General Comoonents:
No direct cost or annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost are associated with Alternative 1 since no actions
would be undertaken to address conditions at the site.
ALTBRDTIVB 2:
IIISTITUTIODL COIl'1'ROLS
Maior Comoonents:
Alternative 2 consists of access restrictions, deed
notices, zoning restrictions, and consolidating the source
waste piles and contaminated soil pile. Access
restrictions are aimed at preventing human exposure to
contaminated waste materials. This alternative consists of
installation of signs warning of the potential hazards
associated with the site, together with barriers, such as
fences, to restrict site access. Consolidation of the
contaminated piles, which include source waste materials
and site soils, would be effected by placing these
materials in the existing evaporation ponds.
Treatment Comoonents:
Alternative 2 provides no treatment to site contaminants
and therefore would not. comply wi th ARAR requirements
imposed by RCRA Subtitles C and D regarding disposal of
hazardous wastes and the State of Hew Mexico solid waste
regulations.
containment Comoonents:
Some reduction in the potential for human exposure to site
contaminants would be achieved by consolidating the source
-------
> .
waste piles and providinq fencinq around the contaminated
areas. However, no lonq-term effectiveness would be
provided under this alternative due to difficulties in
preventinq site access. Additionally, this alternative
provides no reduction in the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants at the site.
General ComDonents:
capital expenditures under this alternative include costs
for warninq siqns, additional fencinq, equipment to
consolidate existinq piles, and administrative costs for
deed notices and zoninq restrictions. Addi tionally, qround
water monitorinq would be conducted on an annual basis and
the site would be evaluated every five years to determine
if site conditions are posinq additional hazards to human
health and the environment. Indirect capital cost items
include expenses associated with enqineerinq and desiqn,
. continqencies, leqal andrequlatory activities, and
mobilization/demobilization.
Annual costs associated with this remedial action are
associated with the annual qround water samplinq and
testinq. Indirect annual costs include administration,
continqency, and maintenance reserve.
The estimated time to implement this alternative would be
approximately six (6) months. The estimated costs for
Alternative 2 are: Capital costs: $45,000: Annual O&M
costs: $5,000: Present worth $104,000. The present worth
cost is based on a life of 30 years and an annual interest
rate of 7.5 percent.
-------
"
. 0
ALTBRDTIVB 3:
OR-SITB STABILIZATIOR/SOLIDIFICATIOR,
OR-SITB DISPOSAL AKD CAPPIRG
Maior ComDonents:
Alternative 3' involves treatment of the contaminated
materials at the Cal West site, followed by on-site
disposal and capping. Treatment would be accomplished by
a fixation process using Portland cement to stabilize and
solidify approximately 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soils, sediments, and source waste materials. contaminated
materials with lead concentrations exceeding the health-
based clean up level of 640 mg/kg would be treated to pass
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Test' (TCLP), 40 CFR
S 261, App. II. After treatment and passing TCLP, the
treated material would no longer be considered a
characteristic RCRA hazardous waste and can be disposed of
without restrictions in an on-site excavation as a RCRA
non-hazardQus solid waste.
.Treatment ComDonentsl
Althoug~ other treatment technologies have been proposed
and some are at the pilot test stage, fixation is the only
proven trGatment technology that has been implemented at
other lead -battery recycling sites contaminated with heavy
metals. Based on' the treatability studies conducted on
site materials, the cement stabilization/solidification
process appears to be the most appropriate fixation process
for the Cal West Metals site.
Treatability stud~es (Table 23) conducted on contaminated
soil, sediments, and source waste materials indicate that
these materials can be treated with cement to pass (values
-------
CAL DST IIBTALS SUPBRFtJ1IID SZTB
TRBATABZLITY TBST RBSULTS
STABZLZZATZON/SOLZDZPZCATZON
TABLE 23- TCLP TEST RBSULTS
Contaminated site soils without treatment- Lead:
671 mq/L
Pond sediments without treatment- Lead:
1,120 mq/L
Battery source waste material without treatment- Lead:
1,300 mg/L
STABILIZATZON WZTB CBKBIIT
COMPOUND TCLP RESULTS RCRA REGULATORY LEVEL
(mq/L) (mq/L)
Arsenic 0.01 5.0
Barium 0.2 100.0
Cadmium < 0.01 1.0
Chromium 0.06 5.0
-
Lead 2.95 5.0
Mercury < 0.001 0.2
Silver < 0.01 5.0
Selenium < 0.02 1.0
o,m,p-Cresol < 0.08 200.0
2,4-Dinitrotoluene < 0.04 0.13
Hexachlorobenzene < 0.04 0.13
Hexachlorobutadiene < 0.04 0.5
Hexachloroethane < 0.04 3.0
Nitrobenzene < 0.04 2.0
Pentachlorophenol < 0.20 100.0
Pyridine < 0.04 "5.0
2",4, 5-Trichlorophenol < 0.04 400.0
2, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol < 0.04 2.0
-------
, .,
o .
below regulatory levels) the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP). This test is used in
determining if the solid waste is considered hazardous. In
the case of lead-contaminated soil and debris, the current
TCLP value below which a solid waste is not a RCRA
hazardous waste is where it leaches less than 5 parts per
million (ppm) lead. Treatability test results further show
that by treating the high lead concentrations with cement,
metals of concern and the semi-volatiles (source waste)
found at the site also pass the TCLP test. Therefore, the
stabilization/solidification treatment process would meet
the cleanup goal criteria set for the hazardous substances
of concern found at the Cal West Metals site.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would consist of leasing a
standard portable concrete batch plant and setting it up on
site. Portland cement would be purchased in bulk and
stored on-site. The contaminated pond sediments, trench
areas, and site soils would be excavated and consolidated
with existing source waste piles and the soil pile. The
site material would then be mixed in the batch plant and
Portland cement and water added in quantities based on the
treatability studies conducted. Excavated contaminated
materials would be replaced with clean soils as required.
COD~aiDmeD~ ComDoDeD~81
. 1
Final disposal of the treated materials under Alternative
3 would be in an on-site excavation. The resulting
"soil/cement" mixture would then be disposed of in an on-
site 'excavation located in the southwest corner of the
fenced area. The treated material will 'then be capped with
a concrete cap to provide added protected and minimize long
term O&M costs. Finally, the concrete cap will be covered
l
-------
. I
with 12 inches of clean site soils to blend the excavated
area with the natural surroundings. The soil cover will be
graded to promote runoff' of storm water. Construction
details and standards for the on-site excavation would be
determined during the remedial design phase prior to
implementation of the remedial action. Construction
standards would be developed in accordance with Federal and
state ARARs. For the Cal West site, an impermeable liner
or cap is not required since the treated material would no
longer be considered a characteristic RCRA hazardous waste.
Four (4) ,existing monitoring wells within the disposal area
would be sampled annually for the first five (5) years
after remedial work completion, followed by ground water
sampling once every five (5) for twenty-five (25) years.
The site would be evaluated every five (5) years to
determine the effectiveness of the site remedy. site
buildings and equipment would be decontaminated.
General Cq~Donen~.:
Capital expenditures under this alternative include costs
for leasing a cement batch plant, purchase of Portland
cement, and site remediation work associated with
excavation, placement, backfilling, and site grading.
Confirmation of achieving the health-based cleanup levels
would be conducted by post-remediation sampling and
analyses. Indirect cap'ital cost items include costs
associated with engineering and design, contingencies,
legal and regulatory activities, and mobilization/
demobilization.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with this
remedial action alternative include ground water sampling
-------
, .
. 0 ~
and evaluatinq the site every five (5) years. Indirect
annual costs include administration and maintenance reserve
and continqency costs.
The estimated time to implement this alternative would be
approximately .twel ve (12) months. The estimated costs for
Alternative 3 are: Capital costs: $1,498,000; Annual O&M
. costs: $5,000; Present worth $1,557,.000. The present
worth cost is based on a .life of 30 years and an annual
interest rate of 7.5 percent. Implementation of this
alternative would have a short-term risk to site workers
durinq the on-site excavation and stabilization phase.
This risk can be minimized by enqineerinq technics an
-------
t ,
~rea~ent COmDonent8:
Treatability studies conducted on contaminated soil,
sediments, and source waste materials indicate that these
materials can be treated with 20% cement by volume to pass
(values below regulatory levels) the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test used in
determining if the solid waste is considered a RCRA
hazardous waste. Treatability test results further show
that by treating the high lead concentrations with cement,
metals of concern and the semi-volatiles (source waste)
found" at the site also pass the TCLP test. Therefore, the
stabilization/ solidification treatment process would meet
the cleanup goal criteria set for the Cal West Metals site.
Implementation of Alternative 4 would consist of leasing a
standa~d portable concrete batch plant and setting it up on
site. ~ Portland cement would be purchased in bulk and
stored on~ite. The contaminated pond sediments, trench
areas, and site soils would be excavated and consolidated
with existing source waste piles and the soil pile. The
site material would then be mixed in the batch plant and
Portland cement and water added in quantities based on the
treatability studies conducted.
--....
Containm8nt"ComDonentsl
Contaminated site material exceeding lead concentrations
above the health-based clean up level of 640 mg/kg would be
excavated and treated on-site before being transported off-
site to an approved landfill for final disposal. Excavated
contaminated materials would be replaced with clean soils
as required. Site buildings and equipment would also be
decontaminated under this alternative.
-------
? .
o L
General ComDonen~8:
Capital costs for Alternative 4 include excavation of
con~aminated soils, evaporation pond sediments, and trench
areas, site grading, on-site cement stabilization of
contaminated materials, and transportation and disposal of
the treated materials to an approved RCRA non-hazardous
landfill. Confirmation of achieving the health-based
cleanup levels would be conducted by post-remediation
sampling and analyses. Indirect capital cost items include
cost associated with engineering and design, contingencies,
legal and regulatory activities, and mobilization/
demobilization.
Under Alternative 4, O&M costs would only be warranted for
the first year after completion of the remedial work since
contaminated materials above health-based levels would be
removed from the site and will no longer be a source for
potential ground water contamination. Indirect annual
costs include administration, contingency, and maintenance
reserve costs.
The estimated time to implement this alternative would be
approximately twelve (12) months. The estimated costs for
Alternative 4 are: capital costs: $2,414,000: O&M costs
(one year only) $5,000: Present worth $2,419,000.
Implementation of this alternative would have a short-term
risk to site workers during the ~nsite excavation and
stabilization. phase. This ~isk can be minimized by
engineering technics and control measures implemented
during the remediation phase.
-------
) ,
AL'1'8RHATIVB 5:
05-SI'1'8 SOIL WASBI5G AHD 05-SI'1'8 DISPOSAL
O~ S'1'ABILIZ8D RESIDUALS
Maior ComDonents:
In Alternative 5, the volume of contaminated materials
would be reduced by washing approximately 15,000 cubic
yards of contaminated site soils, sediments, and source
waste piles that exceed lead concentrations of 640 mg/kg to
remove the hazardous contaminants. Under this al ternati ve,
contaminant residuals (sludge) would be stabilized as in
Alternative 3 and disposed on-site. However, the volume of
contaminated materials to be treated after washing will be
much less than in Alternative 3. The aqueous waste stream
(acidic sOlution) from the washing process will require
off-site treatment to remove the hazardous substances
remaining in solution.
Treatment ComDonents:
Treatment involved with Alternative 5 consists of
stabilization/solidification of residual materials as in
Alternative 3. The soil washing process only removes
contaminants from the affected media and is not a treatment
process. By removing contaminants through soil washing,
the volume of material to be treated would be significantly
reduced. The remaininq contaminant residual would be
treated to pass TCLP and to no longer be considered a
hazardous waste prior to on-site disposal. This
alternative will meet State and Federal ARARs.
Containment ComDonents:
Disposal of the treated residual materials under
-------
~ ~
o L
Alternative 5 would be in an on-site excavation. The
resulting "soil/cement" mixture would be disposed of in an
on-site excavation located in the southwest corner of the
fenced area. The treated residual material will then be
capped with a concrete cap to provide added protected and
minimize long. term O&M costs. Finally, the concrete cap
will be covered with 12 inches of clean site soils to blend
the excavated area with the natural surroundings. The soil
cover will be graded to promote runoff of storm water.
Construction details and standards for the on-site
excavation would be determined during the remedial design
phase prior to implementation of the remedial action.
Construction standards would be developed in accordance
with Federal and state ARARs. For the Cal West site, an
impermeable liner or cap are not required since the treated
residual material would no longer be considered a
characteristic RCRA hazardous waste.
Four (4) existing monitoring wells within the disposal area
would be sampled annually for the first five (5) years
after remedial work completion, followed by ground water
sampling every five (5) years for twenty-five (25) years.
The site would be evaluated every five (5) years to
determine the effectiveness of the site remedy. Site
buildings and equipment would ~e decont~inated.
General CoaDonentsl
Capital expenditures under this alternative include costs
for the soil washing plant, leasing a cement batch plant,
purchase of Portland cement, and site remediation work
associated with excavation, placement, backfilling, and
site grading- Confirmation of achieving the health-based
cleanup levels would be conducted by post-remediation
-------
) .)
samplinq and analyses. Indirect capital cost items include
costs associated with enqineering and design,
continqencies, leqal and requlatory activities, and
mObilization/demobilization.
Annual O&M costs associated wi th this remedial action
include qround water samplinq and evaluatinq the
protectiveness of the remedy every five (5) years.
Indirect annual costs include administration, continqency,
and maintenance reserve cost.
The estimated time to implement this alternative would be
approximately twelve (12) months. The estimated costs for
Alternative 5 are: Capital costs: $4,715,000; O&M costs
$5,000; Present worth $4,774,000. The present worth cost
is based on a life of thirty (30) years and an annual
interest rate of 7.5'. Implementation of this alternative
would pose a short-term risk to site workers during
excavation and washing of the contaminated materials and
durinq stabilization and disposal of the residual
contaminant materials. This risk can be minimized by
engineering technics and control measures implemented
durinq ~e remediation phase.
ALTBRDTIVB "
OWW-SITB DISPOSAL TO A HAZARDOUS WASTE
LUDPILL TRBA'1'IID1'1'
Maior ComDon8nts:
Alternative 6 would consist of excavatinq all contaminated
site soils, sediments, and source waste materials with
concentrations exceedinq the lead cleanup level of
640 mq/kq. The contaminated materials would then be
transported and disposed of in an off-site permitted RCRA
-------
.,.L
o c..
subtitle C hazardous waste landfill. That is acceptable to
receive Superfund wastes pursuant to EPA's off-site Policy
promulqated pursuant to Section 121(d) (3) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. S 9621(d) (3).
Treatm.D~ CO.DOD.D~.I
Alternative 6 does not included treatment of the
contaminated soils, sediments, and source waste materials
prior to off-site disposal in an acceptable permitted RCRA
hazardous facility.
COD~aiDm.D~ CO.DOD.D~.I
Contaminated site material above t~e health-based clean up
level of 640 mq/kq would be excavated and transported off-
site to an acceptable permitted RCRA hazardous. waste
landfill for final disposal. Excavated contaminated
materials would be replaced with clean soils as required.
site buildinqs and equipment would also be decontaminated.
GeDeral
CO.DODeD~.1
Capital costs for Alternative 6 include excavation of all
contaminated materials above health-based levels,
associated site backfillinq and qradinq, and transportation
of the contaminated materials to a RCRA hazardous waste
landfill. Confirmation of achievinq the heal th-based
cleanup levels would be conducted by post-remediation
samplinq and analyses. Indirect capital cost items include
costs associated with enqineerinq and desiqn,
continqencies, leqal and requlatory. activities, and
mObilization/demobilization.
-------
v:n:z.
Under Alternative 6, O&M costs would only be warranted for
the first year after completion of the remedial work since
contaminated materials above health-based levels would be
removed from the site and will no lonqer be a source for
potential qround water contamination. Indirect annual
costs include administration, continqency, and maintenance
reserve costs.
The estimated time to implement this alternative would be
approximately twelve (12) months. The estimated costs for
Alternative 6 are: Capital costs: $7,155,000: O&M costs
(one year only) $5,000: Present worth $7,160,000.
Implementation of this alternative would have a short-term
risk to site workers durinq the on-site excavation of
contaminated materials. This risk can be minimized by
enqineerinq technics and control measures implemented
durinq the remediation phase. Additional risks associated
with this alternative would exist with transportinq RCRA
hazardous wastes to an acceptable permitted RCRA hazardous
facility.
StJllMARy 01' TJIB COMPARA'1':IVB UALYSZS 01' AL'1'BRNA'1'ZVBS
The followinq nine criteria were used to evaluate the
remedial action alternatives for the Cal West Metals
Superfund site.
1.
OVerall Protection of IIuIum B.a1 th and the BnviroDJDent
All of the alternatives, except Alternative 1 (No Action),
will provide some deqree of overall protection of human
heal th and the environment. The deqree to which each
alternative provides this protection is discussed below:
-------
. .
Dc..
Al ternati ve 1 provides no increase in overall protection to
human health or the environment. In this alternative, all
of the potential risks to human health and the environment
associated with the Cal West Metals site would remain.
Alternative 2 will provide minimal protection by
consolidating the source waste materials and soil piles in
the evaporation pond areas. Direct contact with material
on-site will be reduced as long as the fences .keep
trespassers away from the site. The risk associated with
potential air emissions will not be reduced, nor will this
alternative address the potential risk to site workers.
Alternatives 3 and 5 will eliminate the ingestion and
direct contact pathways with the source waste materials and
contaminated soil. through the stabilization process.
Stabilization and solidification of the contaminated
materials will minimize the possibility that contaminants
can migrate to the ground water under the site. Additional
protection will be provided by covering the stabilized
material with ac~ncrete cap and soil cover. These
alternatives will also eliminate the potential for air
emissions from the site. However, Alternative 3 provides
protection of public health and the environment while being
cost effective. Al ternati ve 5 with its increased cost
associated with soil washing provides no greater overall
protection than Alternative 3.
Al ternati ves 4 and 6 provide protection of human health and
the environment by the removal of the contaminated material
from the site. Because the contaminated materials would be
removed down to health-based risks levels, the potential
for future contaminant migration to the ground water and
for air emissions would be eliminated. Although these
-------
al ternati ves offer protection of human health and the
environment to the Cal West site, Alternative 6 will not
fully address the treatment of contaminated materials that
may pose a health treat at another location. In addition,
nei ther al ternati ve is cost effective due to increased
costs associated with off-site transportation and disposal.
. 2.
compliance with Applicable or aelevant and Appropriate
Requir..eDt8 (ARAR8)
ARARs are federal and state requirements that the selected
remedy must meet. For example, material to be excavated
and disposed off-site would have to be treated using the
best demonstrated available technoloqy (BDAT) to,meet the
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) prior to landfill
disposal. Contaminated material stabilized on-site will
have to be treated to the extent that it is no longer
considered a characteristic hazardous waste. Al ternati ves
3 through 5 will meet RCRA LDRs. Alternative 6 does not
meet LDRs for treatment prior to disposal.
3.
LoDg-tera BffectiveDe.. and PermaneDce
The Alternatives 1 and 2 would not provide long-term
effectiveness or a permanent solution to potential risks
associated,With the hazardous substances remaining on-site.
Al ternati ves 3 through 5 involve treatment of the hazardous
substances by stabilization. In Alternative 5, the
contaminated residuals remaining after undergoing the soil
washing process would be stabilized. The effectiveness and
the permanence of the stabilization/solidification remedies
proposed are very high because the stabilization of lead,
and other metals of concern, is essentially irreversible
-------
."
t.....
due to the chemical reactions that take place with the
stabilizing materials. The addition of a concrete cap to
the stabilized materials disposed on-site in Alternatives
3 and 5 will provide additional protection.
4.
Re4uction 'of Toxicity, lIobility or VolUlle Through
Tre.taent
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not provide any-reduction in the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminated material.
Alternatives 3 and 4 use treatment to reduce the mobility
of the site contaminants. Alternative 5 meets the same
criteria as Alternatives 3 and 4 but also reduces the total
volume of contaminated materials to be stabilized and
disposed on-site. However, the total volume of
contaminants is not reduced. Al ternati ve 6 does not reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminated
materials.
5.
Short-Tera BffectiveneS8
The short-term risk associated with Alternative 1 is the
continuation of the risk currently posed by the site.
There would be potential short-term risks to site workers
during implementation of all the other alternatives since
they all will require some excavation and transportation
on- or off-site of the contaminated material. 50me
increase in air emissions may occur during excavation
activities and during the stabilization process on-site.
However, engineering controls and monitoring will reduce
the potential for any adverse impacts during implementation
of the treatment remedies. A contingency plan would be
developed to a~dress any potential air emissions during
remedial activities.
-------
- 0
There is also a potential risk for accidental release of
contaminants during the off-si te transportation of
excavated material to an RCRA hazardous or non-hazardous
off-site landfill facility.
I.
Impl...ntability
Treatability studies conducted on materials from the Cal
West Metals site indicate that stabilization would
effectively immobilize and eliminate the hazardous
characteristics of the contaminants of concern found at the
Cal West site. On-site stabilization of contaminated
materials can be easily implemented using readily available
equipment for excavating, mixing, and placement. The
construction of a concrete cap and soil cover over the
treated material would be easily implemented, as would the
excavation and off-site landfill disposal alternatives.
Construction of an excavation on-site can be easily
implemented using earthwork excavation equipment. The soil
washing alternative will be harder to implement because of
the specialized equipment that would be mobilized onsite.
7.
Cost
The present worth cost of the selected alternative,
Alternative 3, is $1,557,000. Alternatives 1 and 2 have
lower cost than the selected alternative but are considered
unacceptable for the reasons previously discussed in this
document. The other alternatives have higher costs ranging
from $2,419,000 to $7,160,000. The off-site disposal to a
hazardous waste landfill facility without treatment has the
highest cost of $7,160,000.
-------
.""
D~
:EX.
8.
state Acceptance
The state of New Mexico through the New Mexico Environment
Department concurs with EPA's preferred alternative
(Alternative 3) of on-site stabilization, on-site disposal
and capping.
I.
Co..unity Acceptance
The citizens from the community of Lemitar and the majority
of the citizens from the surrounding community of Socorro
recommended that the contaminated site materials be treated
at the lowest cost that provides protection to human health
and the environment. The citizens agreed that Al ternati ve
3 presented in the Proposed Plan meets these requirements.'
Alternative.3 is EPA's selected alternative to remediate
contaminants at the Cal West Metals site.
SBLBC'l'BD REDDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine
criteria, and public comments from the local community,
both EPA and the state of New Mexico (NMED) have determined
that Alter!!8tive 3, On-site stabilization, On site Disposal
and capping; is the most appropriate and protective remedy
for the Cal West Site in LeJDitar, New Mexico.
Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils,
sediments, and source waste materials wi th lead
concentrations exceeding the health-based cleanup level of
640 mg/kg will be treated by stabilization/solidification
with cement and disposed in an on-site excavation. The
disposal area will be capped with concrete and covered with
-------
x.
-' (.
twelve (12) inches of clean site soils. The. estimated
costs for the selected remedy are: Capital costs:
$1,498,000: Annual O&M costs: $5,000: Present worth
$1,557,000.
CleanUD Levels.
To meet the tarqet ranqe of 95% of the population with
blood lead levels less than 10 uq/dl, a residential lead
cleanup level of 640 mq/kq was determined for the Cal West
Metals site. Cleanup levels to achieve a 1 x 10 .8 excess
cancer risk or a hazard index value of not qreater than one
(1) for non-carcinoqenic risk for other contaminants under
a residential settinq at the Cal West site are: antimony-
110 ppm: arsenic- .37 ppm (10.8) and 270 ppm (HI-l):
cadmium- 140 ppm: mercury- 82 ppm: and for PAHs- 3 ppm
benzo(a)pyrene equivalents.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA section 121 42 U.S.C. I 9621, EPA must select
remedies that are protective of human heal th and the
environment, comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, are cost-effective, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technoloqies
or resource recovery technoloqies to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for
remedies that employ treatment that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, ~oxicity, or mobility of
hazard()us wastes as their principal element. The followinq
sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these
statutory requirements.
-------
..~ ,
'-'..
Protection of Human Healtb and tbe Bnvironment .
The selected remedy protects human health and .the
environment through stabilization and solidification of
contaminated soils, sediments, and source waste materials
and on-site disposal of the treated materials.. The
disposal area will be capped with concrete and covered with
clean soil.
stabilization and solidification of the contaminated soils,
sediments, and source waste materials will eliminate the
threat of exposure to the contaminant of concern through
direct contact with or ingestiori of contaminated site
materials. The current excess cancer risks associated with
these exposure pathways is 2.4 X 10.4. By excavating the
contaminated soils, sediments, and source waste materials
and treating them through stabilization and. solidification,
the cancer risks will be reduced to less than 1 x 10.8.
This level is within EPA's acceptable risk range of 1 x 10-4
to 1 X 10". The minimal short-term threats (contaminated
dust) to site workers during implementation of this remedy
can be readily controlled through construction and
engineering methods.
compliance witb Applicable or Relevant and ~DDroDr~
Reauir_8nt.
The selected remedy of on-site stabilization/solidification
and on-site disposal and capping of source waste material,
soils,. and sediments will comply with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). The ARARs
are presented below:
-------
. '
Chemical-Specific ARAR8:
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part
261), Subpart C - Which identifies those solid wastes
which are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR Part 61)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(40 CFR Part 50)
Location-specific aJL~.:
No location-specific ARARs have been identified for the Cal
West Metals site.
Action-specific ARAR8:
o
Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) (40 CFR Part 268)
cost-Bffectivenes8
EPA believes that the selected remedy is cost effective in
remediatinq the contaminated soils, sediments, and source
. waste materials at the Cal West site. The selected remedy
meets the criteria set forth in the NCP for determining
cost-effectiveness. The estimated present worth cost of
the selected remedy is $1,557,000 and provides an overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost.
Uti1iBation of peraanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment TechDoloaie. to the Maximum Bxtent practicable
EPA and the State of New Mexico have determined that the
-------
...." 4
L-",
selected remedy represents the 'maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technoloqies can be
utilized in a cost-effective manner to address site
contaminants. Of those alternatives that are protective of
human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA
and the state- have determined that this selected remedy
provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of lonq-
term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in mobility,
or volume achieved throuqh treatment, short-term
effectiveness, implementability, cost, while also
considerinq the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element and considerinq state and communi ty
acceptance.
The selected remedy treats the principal threats posed by
the contaminated soils, sediments, and source waste
materials by achievinq significant reductions in the
leachinq of contaminant constituents from the contaminated
materials. The selected remedy provides the most effective
treatment of any of the alternatives considered and will
cost less than off-site disposal of treated or untreated
hazardous substances. The selection of treatment of the
contaminated materials and source waste is consist with
proqram expectations that hiqhly toxic and mobile. wastes
. are a priority for treatment and often necessary to ensure
the lonq-term effectiveness of a remedy.
PrefereDce for TreataeD~ as a PriDciDal BlemeD~
By stabilizinq and solidifyinq the contaminated soils,
sediments, and source waste materials, the selected remedy
addresses the pz:incipal threats posed by the hazardous
substances found at the site throuqh the use of treatment
technoloqies. By utilizinq treatment as a significant
-------
XI.
<
portion of the remedy, the
remedies that employ treatment
satisfied.
statutory preference for
as a principal element is
DOCmD!:H'l'ATIOIf 01' SIGIfII'ICAHT CHAlfGBS
The Proposed Plan for the Cal West Metals site was released
for public comment on July 20, 1992. The Proposed Plan
identified Alternative 3, On-site Stabilization/
Solidification, On-site Disposal and. Cappinq, as the
preferred alternative to remediate contaminated soils,
sediments, and source waste materials. EPA reviewed all
written and verbal comments submitted durinq the public
comme~t period. Upon review of these comments, it was
determined that no siqnificant chanqes to the remedy, as
oriqinally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
......-
-..."..
------- |