United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-91/053
September 1991
Superfund
Record of Decision:
John Deere (Ottumwa Works
Landfill), IA
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. I ~ 3. Recipient'a Acceaalon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R07-91/053
4. T1ae and Subtille 5. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/23/91
John Deere (Ottumwa WorkS Landfill), IA
First Remedial Action - Final &.
7. Author(a) 8. Perfonnlng Organization Repl No.
9. Perfonnlng Orgainizallon Name and Addre.. 10. Projec1lTuklWork Unit No.
11. Con1nc1(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ Sponaorlng Organization Name and Addre.. 13. Type 01 Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Notea
I&. Abatract (Umit: 200 _rds)
The lOS-acre John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill) site is an active agricultural
equipment manufacturing and assembly facility in Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa.
Land use in the area is predominantly residential, with wetlands located within 1,000
feet of the site across the Des Moines River. All of the site lies within the
100-year floodplain of the Des Moines River, and a drainage ditch borders the site on
the east side. The estimated 27,000 Ottumwa residents use municipal water obtained
from the Des Moines River as their drinking water supply, the municipal intake is
located approximately 1,000 feet upgradient from the site. Black Lake, located 150
feet east of the site, is used as an additional water source on an infrequent basis,
contributing approximately 1/2 to 1 1/2 percent of the total annual volume of water
distributed by the Ottumwa Water Works. From 1911 to 1973, Deere & Company buried
plant generated wastes including solvents, paint sludge, heat treating cyanide, heat
treating sludge, petroleum distillates, and foundry sand in the shallow alluvium
underlying the site. After landfilling, some of the wastes were burned onsite on a
regular basis. In 1965, Deere & Company acquired the southwestern portion of the
site, which had been used previously as a salvage yard. In the late 1980's,
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis 8. Deac:riptora
Record of Decision John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill), IA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris
Key Contaminants: organics (PARs), metals (arsenic, chromiutn,. lead)
II. IcientifieralOpen.Ended Terms
Co COSA T1 FieIdIGroup
18. Avlilsbi6ty Statement 19. Security a... (This Report) 21. No. 01 Pages
None 92
20. Secwlty a... (ThIs Page) ~ Price
None
ANSI- 272 (4.71)
50272.101
..
(See
Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reve-
(Formerty NT1S-35)
Department 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R07-91/053
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill), IA
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
investigations of the disposal areas identified subsurface soil and ground water
contamination by VOCs, other organics, and metals. This Record of Decision (ROD)
addresses the disposal areas, the drainage ditch, and Black Lake surface water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, and debris are organics
including PARs; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes implementing institutional controls
including deed restrictions, and site access restrictions including maintaining the
perimeter fence. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $4,000.
There are no O&M costs associated with this remedial action since fence maintenance is
covered by the facility's operating budget.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not provided.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
JOHN DEERE-OTTUMWA WORKS SITE
OTTUMWA, IOWA
Prepared by
-
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
SEPTEMBER 1991
/'
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
"..
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
John Deere-OttumwaWorks Site
ottumwa, Iowa
statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the John Deere-Ottumwa Works site in ottumwa, Iowa. The ..
selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the requirements of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and the
National.Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). This decision document explains the factual and legal
basis for selecting the remedy for this site. The information
supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the
administrative-record for this site.
The State of Iowa concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous. substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present a current
or potential threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedv
The principal threat at this s~te is posed by buried plan~-
generated waste material. Currently, the site is used for
industrial purposes only.
The major component of the selected remedy is the placement
of deed restrictions, to run with the land, which provide for
maintenance of an existing perimeter fence and which limit land
use.
Continued ground water and surface water monitoring will
also be required to ensure the selected remedy remains protective
of human health and the environment.
Declaration of Statutory Determinations.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
~
-------
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies, to
the maximum extent practicable for this site. However, the
selected remedy does not reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of
the site waste material through treatment, and therefore does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedial action. The site waste materials are not
liquid, and are of low toxicity and low mobility. . Treatment is
not practicable because it is not cost effective.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, and so not allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure at the site, a review
will be conducted within five years after co~~encement of .
remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate" protection of human health and the environment.
/1/:;;;; /-{ ::;--
M5rr!s k~y "
Regional Administrator
United states Environmental
Region VII
~ 2 3 -7 I
Date
Protection Agency
-
~
-.-
,-
....
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
1.0
SITE BACKGROUND
1.1
1.2
1.3
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
2.0
3.0
SUMP.~Y OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1
SOIL AND WASTE MATERIAL RESULTS
LANDFILL 1
LANDFILLS 2 AND 3
HAZARDOUS WASTE/DRUM
OIL SPILL AREA
SOUTH SCAR AREA
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
STORAGE AREA
3.2
GROUND WATER RESULTS
3.3 . SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT RESULTS
3.3.1
3.3.2
BLACK LAKE SURFACE WATER
DRAINAGE DITCH AND BLACK LAKE SEDIMENT
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
4.0
4.1
4.2
OVERVIEW OF BASELINE
INDICATOR COMPOUNDS
FXP05URE ASSESS~~~T
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
!USK CHARACTERIZATION
RISK ASSESSMENT
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
RISKS FROM CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS
RISKS FROM NON-CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS
RISKS FROM LEAD
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
BLACK LAKE SURFACE WATER
BLACK LAKE SEDIMENTS
TERRESTRIAL RISK
4.5.4.1
4.5.4.2
. 4.5.4.3
.
4.5.5 CONCLUSION
--
REMEDIATION GOALS
4.6
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.0
5.1
GROUND WATER
/'
NO-ACTION WITH CONTINUED GROUND WATER MONITORING
5.1.1
-------
5.2
5.3
6.0
5.2.1
NO-ACTION
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTS
SOIL/WASTE MATERIAL
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
ALTERNATIVE 1:
ALTERNATIVE 2:
ALTERNATIVE 3:
,
NO-ACTION.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
CONCRETE CAP AND INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS
IN-SITU STABILIZATI0N/SOLIDIFICATION
WITH CONCRETE CAP AND INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS
5.3.4
ALTERNATIVE 4:
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENT
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
STATE ACCEPTANCE
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
SELECTED REMEDY
7.1
7.2
GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENTS
SOILS/WASTE MATERIAL
8.0
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.0
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
UTILIZATION OF PERP_~ENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTE?NATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
;'
-------
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT B - FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
ATTACHMENT C - TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 1~
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
site Location Map
Site Features Map
Soil Boring and Sediment Sampling Locations
Monitoring Well, Piezometer and Surface Water
Gaging Locations
Estimated Lateral Extent of Fill
Occurrence of Constituents in Phase II
Unfiltered Ground Water Samples
Occurrence of Constituents in Surface Water
and Sediment From Black Lake
Occurrence of Constituents in Drainage Ditch
Sediment Samples
Occurrence of Constituents in. Landfill 1,
Subsurface Material Samples
Occurrence of Constituents in Landfills 2 and
3, Subsurface and Composite Material Samples
Occurrence of Constituents in Drum Storage/
Hazardous Waste Storage Area, Surficial
Material Samples
Occurrence of Constituents in Drum Storage/
Hazardous Waste Storage Area, Subsurface
Samples . .
Occurrence of Constituents in Oil Spill Area,
Surficial Soil Samples
Occurrence of Constituents in Oil Spill Area,
. Subsurface Soil Samples
Oc=~~~~nce of Constitu:nts in South Sc~r Area,
Surficial Soil Samples
Occurrence of Constituents in South Scar Area,
Subsurface Soil Samples
Indicator Compounds Used in Risk Assessment
Calculations'
Reference Doses, and Cancer Slope Factors fer
Indicator Compounds
Potable Ground Water Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks
Current Site Worker Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the Drum Storage/Hazardous Waste Storage Area
Current Site Worker Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the oil Spill Area .
...-
-------
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
Table 29
Table 30
Table 31
Current Site Worker Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the South Scar Area
Future Site Worker Exposure Dosesl. Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
Landfill 1
Future Site Worker Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
Landfills 2 and 3
~dult Resident EXposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the Drum Storage/Hazardous Waste Storage Are~
Adult Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the oil Spill Area
Adult.Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the South Scar Area
Adult Resldent Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
Landfill 1
Adult Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
Landfills 2 and 3
Child Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the Drum Storage/Hazardous Waste Storage Area
Child Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the Oil Spill Area
Child Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
the South Scar Area
Child Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
Landfill .1
Child Resident Exposure Doses, Hazard
Quotients, and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks in
Landfills 2 and 3
Potable Surface Water Exposure Dose and Hazard
Quotient
Calculated B190~ Lead Levels in Children
ATTACHMENT D - GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
ATTACHMENT E - STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-.-
,-
..-
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
/
-------
1
1.0
SITE BACKGROUND
1.1
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The John Deere-ottumwa Works site is located in ottumwa, a
city of approxi~ately 27,000 people, in Wapello County, Iowa. A
site location map, Figure 1, is attached.
The site occupies approximately 105 acres. It is bounded by
the Wabash Railroad tra~ks on the west with Madison Avenue located
immediately west of the railroad. Highway 63/34 bounds the site
on the east and Vine street forms the northern boundary. The
entire site is enclosed by a eight foot high chain link fence
topped with barbed wire, except for an area on the southeast
corner where the right-of-way for Highway 63/34 is located. The
southern. boundary of the site is defined by the location of this
fence. Adjacent property to the north, south, and west is used
for residential purposes. Deere & Company is an active facility
and currently manufactures and assembles agricultural equipment at
the site.
A single disposal area of approximately 20 acres has been
determined to exist on-site with the depth of waste material
ranging between four and 10 feet deep. Waste material consists of
amber to black colored friable sand and vitrified greenish-yellow
material with pieces of wood and coal, metal fragments, and paint
chips. Approximately 90% of the landfill area is currently
covered with buildings or pavement.
The primary contaminants at the John Deere-Ottumwa
have been determined to be the metals ars~nic, cadmium,
and lead as well as semi-volatile polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Works site
chromium,
The site is lecated within the Des Moines River flood plain
and is approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the river. Flood
water periodicaJly inund~~ed th~ site until 1955 when a series 0=
dikes ~erc constructed to control ri"~r levals. The alluv~al
aquifer in the vicinity of the site is classified as IIB, a
potential source of drinking water. Topography of the site is
essentially flat. A wetland is located acr~ss the Des Moines
River from the site. and is unaffected by site contaminants.
Approximately 150 feet east of the northern portion of the site is
Black Lake, one of the secondary sources of drinking water for the
City of Ottumwa, and as such falls within Iowa Class C, drinking
water sources. Black Lake is used only intermittently when the
primary source, the Des Moines River, cannot provide all of the
municipal water supply needs for the City of Ottumwa. Total
annual withdrawal from Black Lake for use in the Ottumwa water
supply is normally 15 to 30 million~allons.
Immediately underlying the site are approximately 13 to 26
feet of alluvial deposits consisting primarily of unconsolidated
silty clay, silty sand, sand, and~ravel. Ground water in the
-------
2
alluvial aquifer flows in a generally east-northeasterly direction
toward the Des Moines River. Underlying the sand and gravel is a
shale unit of approximately 100 to 150 feet in thickness. This
shale unit is not a major source of .ground water in the area
because of its impermeable nature.
1.2
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
From 1911 to 1973, Deere & Company disposed of plant
generated waste on-site by burying the wastes in the shallow
alluvium. Wastes buried on-site include solvents, paint sludges,
heat treating cyanide, heat treating sludges, petroleum
distillates and foundry sand. After placement on the land, some
of the waste material was burned on a regular basis.
In 1965, Deere & Company purchased what is now the
southwestern portion of the site. Prior to Deere & Company
acquiring this additional property, it had been used as a salvage
yard. An oily coating on the ground surface within parts of this
piece of property existed at the time of purchase by Deere &
Company. A single building exists today from the salvage
operation and is used by Deere & Company for storage.
Deere & Company granted a right of way easement of a portion
of their property to Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) for
construction of Highway 63/34. Based on historical aerial .photos
and soil borings completed during the RI, it appears likely that a
portion of the area called Landfill 1 which contains waste
material extends onto what is now IDOT right of way, which
encompasses approximately 8.3 acres.
In May 1985, the EPA conducted a Site Investigation (SI) at
the site. Analysis of soil and sediment sample collected during
the investigation showed elevated levels of metals and organics in
.samples collected in the vicinity of the drum and hazardous waste
storage area and from the drainage ditch adjacent to Deere &
Company property.
Based upon SI data, the site was evaluated for possible
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) by completing a
Hazard Ranking Scoring (HRS). An HRS score of 42~32 was assigned
to the.John Deere-Ottumwa Works site (a score of 28.5 is
sufficient to place a site on the NPL). The NPL is a nationwide
list of sites that, due to site conditions and contaminants, have
been made priorities for remedial evaluation and response, if
necessary. EPA proposed the site for listing in June 1988 and it
became final on the NPL in February 1990.
On September 20, 1989, EPA and Deere & Company entered into
an Administrative Order on Consent. The order required Deere &
Company to perform a Remedial Investigation (RI) tor the purpose
of determining the nature and extent of any contamination existing
on-site by conducting a field investigation. In addition,. the
order required a Feasibility Stud~ (FS) to be. performed,
-------
3
evaluating a range of appropriate alternatives to address
contaminants identified during the field investigation. EPA
reviewed and approved plans detailing work to be conducted by
Deere & Company in fulfilling terms.of the order. EPA also
provided oversight of RI field activities conducted by Deere. &
Company.
Deere & Company contracted with Geraghty & Miller, Inc. to
conduct field sampling at the site and to incorporate the
investigation results into RI and FS Reports. The field
investigation was completed in November 19JO. The final RI and FS
Reports were completed in July 1991 and approved by EPA in
consultation with IDNR.
1.3
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The .RI and FS Reports and the Proposed Plan for the John
Deere-Ottumwa Works site were released to the public for comment
as required by CERCLA Section 113(k) (2)(b) (I-V) and Section 117.
The public comment p~riod was from July 20, 1991 to August 19,
lSS1. These two documents were made available to the public with
the administrative record, which is located at the Ottumwa Public
Library and at the EPA Region VII office. The notice of
.availability for these documents was published in the ottumwa
Courier on July 13, 1991. A public meeting was held on August 8,
1991 in Ottumwa, Iowa. At this meeting, representatives from EPA,
the State of Iowa, the Iowa Department of Public Health, and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) were
available to answer questions about problems at the site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. Comments received
during the comment period and EPA responses to the comments
comprise the Responsiveness Summary, which is attached hereto as
Appendix D. The decision for this site is based on the
Administrative Record, which includes the Responsiveness Summary.
2.0
S~OPE A.'ti!:> RCL!: OF RESPCN3I: ACTrO~I tHTHUI S:!:'!E STRATEGY
The response activities described in the Decision Summary
address all contaminants known at the site and are intended to
constitute final action for this site.
3.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The nature and extent of contamination at the John Deere-
ottumwa Works site is summarized below. This summary is based
primarily on data generated by the work performed by Deere &
Company in May through November 1990, and in the RI. An in-depth
discussion of the nature and extent of contamination characterized
during the RI may be found in the RI Report which is contained in
the administrative record. Tabulated analytical results from the
RI may be found in Tables 1 through 11, attached. Background .pa
"
-------
4
levels of site related contaminants are also presented in Tables 1
through 11.
During the RI, Geraghty & Miller, technical contractor for
Deere & Company, characterized the nature and extent of waste
material and investigated the effects the presence of waste
material at the site has had on ground water, surface water, and
sediments. The discussion of these findings are divided into
three main media: soils and waste material, ground water, and
surface water and sediments. Soi1s and waste materials are
further divided into five areas of initial concern: Landfill 1,
Landfills 2 and 3, Hazardous Waste/Drum storage Area, Oil Spill
Area, and the South Scar Area. A site map displaying the various
areas of concern is presented in Figure 2, attached. Figure 3
displays soil boring and sediment-sampling lo~ations and Figure 4
displays monitoring well, piezometer, and surface water sample
locations.
The primary contaminants at the-John Deere-Ottumwa
have been determined to be the metals arsenic, cadmium,
and lead as well as semi-volatile polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). -
Works site
chromium,
3.1
SOIL AND WASTE MATERIAL RESULTS
Prior to the RI, several separate former disposal areas were
thought to exist on-site: Landfill 1, Landfills 2 and 3 which are
adjacent to each other, and the South Scar Area~ Soil/waste
(hereafter called soil) boring sample analysis and visual
observation of soil, monitoring well, and piezometer boring
materials provided information necessary to redefine the extent of
these waste disposal areas. Figure 5 shows the general boundary
of what is now known to be a more extensive single disposal area
of approximately 20 acres. A majority ofth~ northeast quadrant
(shaded area on Figure 5) of the site contains plant generated
waste at depths ranging from 4 to 10 feet below ground surface.
The extreme northeastern area of the site was apparently used for
disposal in the early years of plant operation, which was -
discontinued when this lower-lying area became built up and Deere
& Company required additional buildings for its plant operations.
Subsequently, numerous buildings have been 'constructed over the
former disposal area. Currently, approximately 90% of the
landfill area is covered with buildings or pavement.
Waste materials identified in the areas on-site known as
Landfill 1 and Landfills 2 and 3 consist of amber to black colored
friable sand and vitrified greenish-yellow material with pieces of
wood and coal, metal fragments, and paint chips.
Metals concentrations in on-site waste material are elevated
relative to on-site background soil metals levels. Acetone and
methylene chloride were detected a number of times in waste
material samples and acetone was detected three times in ground
/
-------
5
water samples. Both acetone and methylene chloride are considered
site related contaminants.
3.1.1
.LANDFILL 1
. Subsurface soil and waste sample results from Landfill 1
indicate the presence of low levels of two volatile organic
compounds, acetone and tetrachloroethene, and ten semi-volatile
organics including up to 19,000 parts per billion (ppb) total
. carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydocarbons (PAHs) and 25,600
ppb total (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) PAHs. Various
inorganic compounds were detected above background levels
including arsenic, beryllium, and lead at levels up to 26 parts
per million (ppm), 3.0 ppm, and 810 ppm, respectively.
No shallow soil samples were collected from the Landfill 1
because it is covered with concrete and gravel.
3.1.2
LANDFILLS 2 AND 3
S~bsurface soil and waste sample results from Landfills 2
and 3 indicate the presence of low levels of four volatiles,
acetone, methylene chloride, toluene, and xylene, and sixteen
semi-volatiles including up to 5,000 ppb total carcinogenic PAHs
and up to 84,500 ppb total PAHs. Various metals were detected
above background levels including beryllium and lead at levels up
to 2.0 ppm and 150 ppm, respectively. .
No shallow soil samples were collected from the Landfills 2
and 3 because they are covered with either concrete or gravel.
3.1.3
HAZARDOUS WASTE/DRUM STORAGE AREA
The hazardous waste/drum storage area is currently used by
Deere & C~mpar.y to store new materials for ~se in production
operations and to store waste materials while waiting for off-site
dispos21. Deere & Company is ~ Resource Conservation ~~d Rec~ve=y
Ac~ (RCRA) ~~st~ g~nerator and may store waste m3terials fer a
period not to exceed ninety (90) days.
Subsurface soil and waste sample results from the Hazardous
Waste/Drum Storage'Area indicate the presence of two low level
volatiles, acetone and methylene chloride, and five semi- .
volatiles including up to 560.ppb total carcinogenic PAHs and
1,280 ppb total PAHs. Various metals were detected above
background levels includin9 lead at levels up to 77 ppm.
~ .
Shallow (0-2 foot depth) soil sample results from the
Hazardous Waste/Drum Storage Area showed a single occurrence of
acetone at a low level and six semi:volatiles including up to 470
ppb total carcinogenic PAHs and 1,330 ppb total PAHs. Various
metals were detected above background levels including lead at
. levels up to 350 ppm. .
.;'
-------
6
3.1.4
OIL SPILL AREA
Subsurface soil and waste sample re~ults from the oil Spill
Area show the presence of two low level volatiles, acetone and
toluene. No semi-volatiles were detected and no metals were
detected above background levels with the exception of aluminum at
levels up to 7,500 ppm.
Shallow soil sample results from the oil Spill Area indicate
that no elevated levels of organic compounds were detected.
Various metals were detected above background levels including
beryllium at levels up to 1.9 ppm and zinc up to 860 ppm.
The oily coating which was observed in this area during the
1985 site Investigation, was not detected during the RI and no
waste material such as has been identified in the northeast
portion of the site was found.
3.1.5
SOUTH SCAR AREA
Subsurface soil and waste sample results from the South Scar
Area show the presence of two low level volatiles, acetone and
xylene, and a single occurrence of the semi-volatile naphthalene
at 1200 ppb. Various metals were detected above background levels
including copper at levels up to 24 ppm and zinc up to 85 ppm.
Shallow soil sample results from the South. Scar Area
indicate the presence of two low level volatiles, acetone and
tetrachloroethene. Various metals were detected above background
levels including lead at levels up to 80 ppm.
The South Scar Area boring samples did not contain waste
material as was identified in the northeast portion of the site.
The top two feet, below the vegetative cover, did contain
construction-type rubble such as bricks and concrete.
3.2
GROUND WATER RESULTS
Two rounds of ground water samples were analyzed from on-site
and downgradient off-site monitoring wells. These two rounds of
samples were collected under Phase I and Phase II of the RI field
. work. Phase I samples were collected after a limited amount of
well purging (pumping), producing-very turbid samples from the
alluvial aquifer. Phase II samples were collected after much more
extensive purging efforts. The resulting samples were
considerably clearer than Phase I samples.
The metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, an~lead pose the
principal threat to ground water. at the John Deere-Ottumwa Works
site. .
. Acetone, at 48 ppb in monitoring well 11 (MW 11), was the
only volatile detected in ground water during the first phase of
sampling. A total of six volatil~ were detected in Phase II
-------
7
samples including 1,2-dichloroethane and benezene found at 3 ppb
~nd 2 ppb, respectively in MW 4 which is down gradient from the
South Scar Area. Five of the six volatiles detected are common
constituents of petroleum fuels and.were found in monitoring wells
4, 5, and 6, downgradient from the South Scar Area and in MW 3,
directly northeast of the South Scar Area. The highest
concentration of these petroleum related contaminants was 41 ppb.
The remaining volatile detected in Phase II samples was acetone at
2 ppb and 48 ppb in MW 8, located adjacent to Landfills 2 and 3,
and MW 11, located in the Hazardous Waste/Drum Storage Area,
respectively.
No semi-volatiles were detected in Phase I ground water
samples aithough three compounds were detected in Phase II
samples at levels up to 4 ppb in MW 1 and piezometer 2 (PZ 2),
downgradient from Landfill 1 and the Hazardous Waste/Drum Storage
Area, respectively. Two of the three semi-volatiles, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate, detected in ground
water are ubiquitous common laboratory contaminants and were not
detected in EPA's split samples. No PARs were detected in ground
water. Piezometer 2 was not sampled during Phase I activities.
Various metals were detected above Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) in Phase I samples including arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, and lead. Monitoring wells 5 and 6, located
downgradient from the South Scar area, contained the highest
concentrations of arsenic (0.37 ppm), barium (13 ppm), and
chromium (0.24 ppm) detected at the site. The highest level of
lead (0.48 ppm) was detected in MW 7, adjacent to Landfills 2 and
3. Other monitoring well locations with relatively high levels of
total metals in Phase I samples are the Oily Spill Area and the
Hazardous Waste/Drum Storage Area.
~yo metals of potential concern were detected in Phase II
g~ou~d ~ater sa~Fles at elevated levels. Barium an~ lead were
each detected at only one monitoring well locatior.. Barium was
fou!":.j at 1.1 PPD in KN 11, lvcated i":. t!,j~ Hazardous Waste Storage
!>.rea. Lead was f,:)un.1 at O. 09J ppm i:-! PZ 2, located dm.;ngradient
from the Hazardous waste/Drum storage Area.
Turbidity measurements were performed on Phase II ground
water samples with results indicating that the. clearer Phase II
samples were, in general, one to two orders of magnitude (ten to
100 times) greater than EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for
turbidity applied to surface drinking water supplies. Turbid
ground water samples potentially contain not only contaminant
source metals but also naturally occurring metals.
.....
Naturally occurring metals are often physically associated
with fine-grained clay and silt sediments found in alluvial
aquifers. Ground water samples collected from monitoring wells
that are pumped infrequently often contain such sediments,
producing turbid samples. When total metals analyses are
conducted on turbid ground water ~amples, nat~rally occurring
-------
8
metals may inadvertently be measured along with any metals that
may be due to the presence of waste material.
Because the monitoring wells were purged extensively prior
to collection of Phase II ground water samples, these samples
were considerably clearer than Phase I samples and so Phase II
results showed a marked decrease in metals concentrations.
Considering the potential effect of turbid samples, the higher
metals concentrations in Phase I samples are consistent with, and
verify, the metals results from Phase II samples. Because of the
turbidity in Phase I samples, Phase II data is more representative
of dissolved metals concentrations that may move along with the
ground water and so potentially be found in drinking water
produced from the alluvial aquifer. For this reason, Phase II
ground water results were used ln risk assessment calculations.
To assure adequate protection of human health and the
environment, continued ground water monitoring at the site is
required.
3.3
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT RESULTS
3.3.1
BLACK LAKE SURFACE WATER
Black Lake surface water was sampled and found to contain no
hazardous organic compounds, but three metals of potential
. interest, barium (0.43 ppm), manganese (0.15 ppm), and zinc (0.038
ppm), although none above EPA's Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
established for drinking water supplies.
3.3.2
DRAINAGE DITCH AND BLACK LAKE SEDIMENT
Sediment samples were collected from the drainage ditch
between the site and Highway 63/34, which drains surface water
from the eastern portion of the site, and from the southern edge
of Black Lake near a culvert outlet. During times of high
rainfall, the culvert may allow site surface water to reach Black
Lake.
No ha~ardous organic compounds were detected in the drainage
ditch or Black Lake sediments. Elevated levels of copper, lead,
. and selenium were detected in the upgradient (background) drainage
ditch sample. Downgradient drainage ditch samples exhibited
decreased levels of. these constituents. Black Lake sediment
contained several inorganics of potential interest; arsenic (0.64
ppm), barium (8.? ppm), cadmium (1.2 ppm), chromium (3.S ppm), and
nickel (8.S ppm).
/
-------
9
4.0
SUMMARY OF ~ITE RISKS
4.1
OVERVIEW OF BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
A Baseline Risk Assessment is an evaluation of the potential
threat to human health and the environment in the absence of any
remedial action. It provides information to help EPA determine
whether remedial action is necessary at a site. A Baseline Risk
Assessment was conducted for this site to determine the potential
effects on human health and the environment. In this evaluation,
both current and future land-use scenarios were evaluated. The
complete Baseline Risk Assessment is presented in the RI Report
which is available in the administrative record.
4.2
INDICATOR COMPOUNDS
A total of 19 chemicals plus PAHs were identified in the
Baseline Risk Assessment to be of potential concern. Toxicity
information was evaluated for all chemicals of concern including,
where app!icable, cancer potency factors and noncarcinogenic
eff~cts. Cumulative effects from all contaminants availaDle for
uptake were evaluated for each pathway. Contaminants of concern
are contaminants that have been detected at the site, have
inherent toxic or carcinogenic effects, and are likely to pose the
greatest concern with respect to the protection of human health
and the environment. The compounds selected include the more
mobile and persistent chemicals at the site, as well as those
present at the highest concentrations. These indicator compounds
are listed in Table 12.
4.3
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The exposure assessment identified potential pathways and
routes for c~ntaminants of concern to reach the receptors as ~ell
~~ ~he es~~~atej c~nt3~inant co~centration at the points of
exposure. Pathways by which humans could be exposed, both on-site
and off-site, to t~~ chemicals of concern were evaluatad based en
:"3asonabla assu~p~iu~~ ~:~i'~ curr€n~ and fut~ce land UZC3. 1~e
following pathways were evaluated:
1) Exposure of on-site workers to contaminated
soil/waste through dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion;
2) Exposure of on-site workers in the future by derm~:
contact, ingestion, and inhalation of subsurface soil/waste
currently covered by concrete pads or buildings;
3) Exposure of potential on-site residents (children
and adults) in the future to contaminated soil/waste through
dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion; .
4) Exposure of on-site and off-site residents in the
future through ingestion and inhalation of contaminated ground
water used as a primary potable water source;"
-------
10
5) Exposure of on-site and off-site residents in the
future through ingestion and inhalation of Black Lake surface
water used as a primary potable water source; .
6) Exposure of local residents, through ingestion, to
fish caught from Black Lake;
4.4
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse. effects from exposure to
chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg/day (parts per million/day), are
estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans that are
likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the
amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water)
can be compared to the RfD. The RfDs applicable at the John
Deere-Ottumwa Works site are listed in Table 13.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) or slope factors (SF) have been
developed for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated
with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which
are also expressed in units of mg/kg/day (parts per million/day),
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen
to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer
risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term
"upper-bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks
calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes
underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. The
SFs applicable to the John Deere-Ottumwa Works site are listed in
Table 13. .
4.5
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The risk characterization quantifies present and potential
future risk to human health that r.ay result from exposure to the
contaminants of concern found at the site. The site-specific risk
values are estimated by incorporating information from the
toxicity and exposure assessments.
Two quantitative evaluations-ar~ made: the incremental risk
to the individual resulting from exposure to a 'carcinogen; or, for
non-carcinogens, a numerical index or ratio of the exposure dose
level to an acceptable reference dose.
4.5.1
RISKS FROM CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS
-
For carcinogens or suspected carcinogens, a quantitative risk
assessment involves calculating risk levels considered to
represent the probability or range of probabilities of developing
additional incidences of cancer under the prescribed exposure
conditions. Carcinogenic risk estimates, expressed as additional
-------
11
incidences of cancer, are determined by mUltiplying the cancer
potency by the projected exposure dose level. It is t~e
carcinogenic potency factor, expressed in (mg/kg/day)- which
converts the estimated exposure dose level, expressed in
mg/kg/day, to incremental risk. These risks are probabilities
that a~i generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g.,
1 x 10 ).
An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 indicates that, as
a plausible upper bound, an individu~l has a one in one million
chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure
to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific
exposure conditions at the site. A cancer risk level of 1 x 10-4
means that an individual has an estimated excess cancer risk of
one in ten thousand when exposed to a given concentration over a
lifetime. These risk estimates are based on upper bound values,
and are likely to be lower, iossibly even zero. The EPA generally
considers risk levels of 10- or lower to be acceptable.
The carcinogenic risks were calculated for pathways 1, 2, 3,
ar.d 4. Carcinogenic risk was r.~t calculatej for pathways 5 and 6
because no carcinogenic compounds were present for exposure
through these routes4 Carcinogenic risks calculated range between
1 x 10-5 and 3 x 10- , as shown in Tables 14 through 30.
The Baseline Risk Assessment indicated that there are no site
related compounds that present a potentially unacceptable cancer
risk level.
4.5.2
RISKS FROM NON-CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS
Estimations of risk associated with exposure to non~
carcinogenic compounds employ a slightly different procedure. The
EPA has developed standards, guidelines, and criteria that provide
levels of intakes considere1 to protect human populations from
possible adverse effects resulting from chemical exposures. A
ratio of the estirn3ted chemical intake derived from the
cGnt."'l:i.l nant concent=a t ion in a gi.-\:en Jnediur.. :0 the contar.:: i:1arrt ' E:
Reference Dose. (RFD) provides. a. numerical measure of the pot:entlal
that adverse health effects may result. This ratio is referred to
as the chronic hazard quotient (HQ). By adding the HQs for all
contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a given
population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be
generated. '.
In general, an HI value of one (1) or greater indicates that
some risk of noncarcinogenic health effects exist with these risks
increasing proportionally to the HI value.
A Hazar~ Index was calculated for each pathway evaluated.
The HI value calculated for each pathway was equal to .or less than
1, indicating no anticipated noncarcinogenic risks, with the
exception of pathway 3 for children, as shown in Tables 14 through
30. The HI value associated with;potential ~xposure of children,
-------
12
who in the future, might reside on-site and come in contact with
contaminated soil/waste is slightly above 1, which means a
noncarcinogenic risk exists which must be addressed by this ROD.
Currently, neither children nor adults reside on-site.
4.5.3
RISKS FROM LEAD
Lead "is also a carcinogen but EPA believes that toxic effects
for sensitive populations will occur at lower levels than those
which will produce carcinogenic effects. The EPA has established
a unique procedure for evaluating risk due to exposure to lead,
which is a compound of concern at the site. The EPA has developed
the uptake/Biokinetic (UBK) model to estimate blood lead levels
resulting from "exposures to lead. The EPA has established 10
micrograms of lead per deciliter (ug/dL) as a blood level in
children "which is unlikely to result in adverse health effects.
Levels above 10 ug/dLare believed to result in adverse
neurobehavioral effects in exposed children. "
Mean blood levels predicted by the UBK model are presented in
Table 31. Blood lead levels of hypothetical children who may, in
the future, be exposed to site contaminants by direct contact with
waste material, inhalation of site-generated dust, and site ground
water range up to 4.59 ug/dL. This level is well below the
accepted standard of 10 ug/dL, indicating no adverse h~alth
effects are expected due to site-related lead concentrations.
4.5.4
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Environmental and ecological risks, including potential risks
to critical habitats and endangered species and endangered species
habitats, associated with the presence of contamination at the
site were also considered as part of the risk assessment. No such
risks were identified.
4.5.4.1
BLACK LAKE SURFACE WATER
Two constituents of concern were detected in the Black Lake
water sample: barium and zinc. The soluble barium concentration
would likely have to exceed 50 ppm before adverse effects to
aquatic life would be expected. The reported barium concentration
of 0.43 ppm suggests that the potential for barium to impact
aquatic life in Black Lake is very low. The detected
concentration of zinc, 0.038 ppm, is less than the Class B Iowa
Water Quality criteria of 0.10ppm (Black Lake falls within Class
C, drinking water sources).
4.5.4.2
BLACK LAKE SEDIMENT
~
No hazardous organic compounds were detected in sediment
collected from Black Lake. A comparison of the reported sediment
metal concentrations with the background soil concentrations
indicate that the concentrations are similar to background values.
/
-------
13
The sediment metal data suggest that the site is not acting as a
significant release source for sediment-bound metals.
4.5.4.3
TERRESTRIAL RISK
The John Deere-Ottumwa Works facility has been used for
equipment manufacturing since the early 1900s and so does not
provide suitable habitat to support a complex terrestrial
ecosystem. The site has not been identified as a critical habitat
for any species. Historical records report sightings of four rare
and threatened or endang~red species in the ottumwa area:
Graham's Watersnake (Reaina arahami), piping plover (Charadrius
melodus), woodland vole (Microtus Dinetorum), and the southern bog
lemming (Synaptomys cooDeri). otturnwa is also a wintering ground
for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and roosts are
located several miles downstream on the Des Moines River.
RI sample results have indicated that waste material is
either buried or covered with buildings or pavement and little to
no migration of site related contaminants has occurred. Potential
expcsures to t~reatened cr endangered species are considered to be
low and no greater than those estimated for the aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems.
4.5.5
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, based on the results of the .risk assessment,
EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this ROD, may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
4.6
REMEDIATION GOALS
Federal and state cleanup standard3 for the contaminants of
concern in soil have not been established at this time. The goal
cf any remedial action is to p~cvent un~ccepta~!e risks to hu~en
hCdlth ~nd the &nviron~ent !rc.~ Q~~~~~tng due to the ~r~sence of
site related contaminants. This may be accomplished by one of two
means: removing and/or treating contaminated material to reduce
.contaminant concentrations or by breaking exposure pathways to
prevent. unacceptable exposures of sensitive populations from
occurring. .
The EPA has determined that implementing institutional
controls to prevent children from being exposed to on-site
contaminants is adequate to address health concerns at the John
Deere-Ottumwa Works site, by breaking. the exposure pathway.
5.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives that were evaluated in detail in the
Feasibility Study (FS) are descri~ed in this section. Four
-------
14
alternatives were determined to be appropriate for consideration
at. this site. These alternatives provided a range of various
remedial alternatives. The following descriptions summarize the
alternatives, including their treatment components, implementation
requirements, estimated costs, and estimated time for completion.
The three media potentially affected by the site, as discussed in
section 3.0, ground water, soil/waste material, and surface water
and sediments are further addressed below.
5.1
GROUND WATER
The Baseline Risk Assessment indicated that ground water
contamination does not pose a significant threat to human health
or the environment, therefore only the "no-action" alternative is
described below.
5.1.1
NO-ACTION (WITH CONTINUED GROUND WATER MONITORING)
This alternative involves no action at the site to prevent
or reduce expo$ure~ to potentially contaminated ground water.
There are no costs associated with this alternative.
However, EPA will require that continued ground water
monitoring would be conducted to ensure that no unacceptable
. exposure to risks posed by conditions at the site occur in the
future. Ground water and surface water samples would be collected
on a regular basis from existing monitoring wells on-site and off-
site and from Black Lake unless new information is obtained which
indicates that additional monitoring locations are necessary to
properly evaluate site contaminants in ground water and surface
water. Samples would be analyzed. for volatile organic, semi-
volatile organics, and metals.
The total present worth cost of continued collection and
analysis of ground water samples, assuming a periodic monitoring
program over five years, is estimated to be approximately $99,600.
There are no federal or state AR?-Rs for the no-action
alternative. Compliance with federal and state ARARs is not
required because no remedial action is necessary to protect human
health or the environment.
5.2
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
Data collected during the RI and the Baseline Risk Assessment
indicate that surface water and sediments do not pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment, therefore,
only the "no-action" alternative is described below.
5.2.1
NO-ACTION (WITH ADDITIONAL SURFACE WATER MONITORING)
This alternative involves no action at the site to prevent or
reduce exposures to potentially contaminated surface water and
sed.iments. There are no costs as~ociated with this alternative.
-------
15
However, EPA will require that surface water samples from
Black Lake be collected and analyzed in addition to ground water
samples as discussed above in Section 5.1.1.
There are no federal or state ARARs for the no-action
alternative. Compliance with federal and state ARARs is not
required because no remedial action is necessary to protect human
health or the environment.
5.3
SOIL/WASTE MATERIAL
The Baseline Risk Assessment indicated a potential
noncarcinogenic health threat to children from site soil/waste
material if the site were allowed to be used for residential
purposes" in the ~uture. Therefore, a range of alternatives was
evaluated as described below.
5.3.1
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO-ACTION
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires that the no-
action alternative be evaluated for every site. This alternative
involves no action at the site to prevent or reduce exposures to
site waste material. There would be no costs associated with this
alternative.
5.3.2
ALTERNATIVE 2:
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
This alternative would include implementation of deed
restrictions to run with the land which limit access and land use
for both the Deere & Company property and the right-of-way for
Highway 63/34. The restrictions would require continued
maintenance of the existing eight foot site perimeter fence topped
~ith barbed wire to restrict una~thorized public access, and would
limit future use of the site to prevent" residential develop~ent of
the property or other similar. exposure situations (e.g., school
tuild~Dgt preschool).
A maintenance program for the existing peripheral fence is
currently being carried out by Deere & Company. Deed restrictions
are easily implemented by filing such deed restrictions with local
government officials.
The total present worth cost of implementing alternative 2 is
associated with lodging the deed restrictions and is estimated to
be approximately $4,000. The cost of maintaining the perimeter
fence is currently covered by the facility's operating budget and
so would require no additional funds.
5.3.3
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CONCRETE CAP AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
A reinforced concrete cap would be placed over those
portions of the site that contain buried waste material or have
exhibited soil contamination and ~enot currently covered with
-------
16
concrete or buildings. In addition, the institutional
discussed in alternative 2 would also be implemented.
discussion under section 5.3.2, above, also applies to
alternative.
controls
The
this
This remedial alterna~ive would be easily implemented and
maintained because the necessary materials and technology are
readily available. Long term maintenance would be required to
ensure the continuing physical integrity of the cap.
The time required to implement the capping alternative is
estimated to be approximately 16 months. The present worth cost
of qonstructing the concrete cap and lodging the deed restriction
is estimated to be approximately $2,226,000. The present worth
cost of maintaining the concrete cap is approximately $442,300
over a thirty year period. Therefore the total present worth cost
of alternative 3 over a 30 year period would be approximately
$2,667,900.
5.3.4
ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN-SITU STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION
WITH CONCRETE CAP AND INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS
This alternative involves the in-situ (in place)
stabilization/solidification of contaminated soil and waste
material. Solidifying agents and chemical reagents would be
injected into the contaminated soil/waste and mixed with large
augers to obtain a uniform mixture. The mixture then sets up
into a cement-type matrix. In addition, a concrete cap would be
constructed and institutional controls implemented. The
discussion included under alternative 3, above, also applies to
this alternative. .
The necessary solidifying agents, chemical reagents, and
mixing equipment are available from a number of commercial
vendors who specialize in this technology. A treatability study
would be required prior to implementation in order to dete'rmin~
the ~ost effective reagent or combination of reagents for
stabilizing the soil/waste. Uniform,treatment of the
heterogeneous waste material would be difficult to ensure. Long
term maintenance would be required to ensure the continuing
physical integrity of the concrete cap.
The time required to implement the in-sit~ stabilization/
solidification alternative, including performance of a
treatability study, is estimated to be approximately 1 to 2
years, after which the concrete cap would require approximately
16 months to complete. The present worth cost of implementing
the stabilization/solidification technology and constructing the
concrete cap is estimated at approximately $25,665,000. . The
present worth ~ost of performance monitoring of the solidified
matrix and maintaining the concrete cap is approximately $805,100
over a thirty year period. Therefore, the total present worth
cost of implementing alternative ~ is approximately $26,470,100.
-------
17
6.0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The NCP has established nine criteria that are used to
evaluate remedial alternati~es. The~e criteria serve as the
basis for conducting detailed analyses during the Feasibility
study and are subsequently used to determine the appropriate
alternative for the site. Attachment D provides a glossary of the
nine criteria.
Based on the Baseline Risk Assessment, EPA has determined
that ground water, surface water, and sediment contamination do
not pose a significant threat to human health. Therefore, no
remedial action with respect to these media is necessary to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. However, ground
water and surface water monitoring would be conducted to verify
that no unacceptable exposure to risks posed 'by ground water or
surface water affected by the site occur in the future.
EFA's selected remedy for soil/waste material at the 30hn
Deere-Ottumwa site is Alternative 2, institutional controls. EPA
used the nine criteria to evaluate all of the alternatives. The
selected remedy was determined to provide the best balance of
trade-offs with respect to the criteria. The selected remedy is
described 'in Section 7.0 and discussed below in relation to the
criteria and is compared to the other alternat~ves under each
criterion. The criteria are organized into three categories to
prioritize the criteria used in making the final selection.
, THRESHOLD CRITERIA
The fi~st such catego~y is threshold criteria. An
alternative must meet the following two requirements to be
c~nsidered as a final remedy for the site:
6.1
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy would require continuing maintenance of
the existing site perimeter fence in order to restrict
unauthorized public access. In addition; deed restrictions would
be plar~d on the prQperti~s to prevent residential ~evelcp~ent or
other similar exposure si~~ations fro~ occu=ring on-site in th~
future. These actions will ensure that the sensitive population,
children, would not be exposed to site related contaminants above
health based levels. ~ '
Both Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide protection of human
health and the environment by reducing or controlling risk
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls. The no-action alternative does n~t provide overall
/
-------
18
protection of human health and the environment and therefore will
not be evaluated further.
6.2
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REOUIREMENTS (ARARS)
.
Applicable requirements are those state or federal
requirements legally applicable to the release or remedial action
contemplated that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance found at the site. If it is determined that a
requirement is not applicable, it may still be relevant and
appropriate to the circumstances of the release. Requirements are
relevant and appropriate if they address problems or situations
sUfficiently similar to the circumstances of the release or
remedial action contemplated, and are well suited to the site.
There are no federal or state ARARs for the selected remedy,
institutional controls.
The remaining alternatives, 3 and 4, would comply with their
respective ARARs which include RCRA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act, and state laws.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
.
The second category of criteria is primary balancinq
criteria. The following five criteria are used to evaluate the
alternatives to determine the option that provides the best
balance for the final alternative for the site:
6.3
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Institutional controls in the form of continued maintenance
of the. existing perimeter fence and placement of deed restrictions
on future use of the si~e prop~r~ie5 would eliminate the long-term
risks associated with direct contact of site soil and waste
material to the sensitive population, children. These
requirements. would run with ownership of the land, offering
permanence of tqe selected alternative. .
Alternatives 3 and 4 would both offer the effectiveness and
permanence associated with institutional controls in addition to
construction.of physical barriers which further inhibit direct
contact exposures to all populations, not just the single
sensitive population identified in the Baseline-Risk Assessment.
The concrete cap would be susceptible to weathering, requiring
long-term maintenance and the solidified matrix would require-
regular sample collection to ensure~that the additional degree of
protectiveness provided by these alternatives continues
permanently. continued ground water monitoring would be required
for all alternatives discussed. / .
-------
19
6.4
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY. OR VOLUME
The selected remedy, institutional controls, would not
require treatment and so does not offer reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminated material. Data provided by
the RI indicates that contaminated material at the John Deere-
ottumwa Works site does not pose an unacceptable health risk to
site workers, the most probable current and future exposure
scenario.
Alternative 3, construction of a concrete cap with
institutional controls, would cover contaminated soils thereby
reducing mobility by preventing direct contact with contaminated
soil and preventing contaminated soil from becoming air-entrained
and so, inhaled. .
Alternative 4, stabilization/solidification with a concrete
cap and institutional controls, would offer the reduction of
mobility provided by alternative 3 as well as a reduction in
mobility of contaminants to the ground water, althouqh impact on
ground water has been shown to be minimal. Additionally, a
reduction of toxicity would be achieved by the use of reagents to
chemically bind the contaminants. The stabilization/ .
solidification technology generally involves some increase in
volume of treated material due to the addition of reagents and
solidifying agents.
6.5
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedy would provide a high degree of short-term
effectiveness because no construction activities are required.
Risks associated with the present use of the site are considered
acceptable and would not be increased by implementation of this
alternative.
Alternative 3 would involve a temporary increase in the
po~ential for pldnt and remedial actioD workers to be exposed to
~3ste ruaterlal d~e ~o g~ading of t~~ site re~clre~ prior tc
construction of the concrete cap.
Implementation of Alternative 4 would involve an increase in
potential exposure of plant and remedial action workers to
contaminated soil/waste during grading of the site and augering
of contaminated soil/waste.
6.6
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Potential problems associated with implementing the selected
remedy are expected to be minimal because a maintenance program
for the existing peripheral fence is currently being carried out
by Deere & Company and deed restrictions are easily implemented by
filing with local government officials.
/
-------
20
Alternative 3 would be easily implemented and maintained
because the necessary materials and technology are readily
available. Long term maintenance would be required to ensure the
continuing physical integrity of the cap.
A treatability study would be required prior to
implementation of alternative 4, stabilization/solidification.
Uniform treatment of the heterogeneous waste material would be
difficult to ensure. Long -term maintenance would be required to
ensure the continuing physical integrity of the concrete cap.
6.7
COST
The cost of implementing the selected remedy is associated
with lodging the deed restrictions and is esti~ated to be
approximately $4,000. The cost of maintaining the perimeter fence
is currently covered by the facility's operating budget and so
would require no additional funds.
The total present worth cost of alternative 3 over a 30 year
period would be approximately $2,667,900. The total present worth
cost of implem~nting alternative 4 over a 30 year period would be
approximately $26,470,100. The costs associated with alternatives
3 and 4 are considered by EPA to be excessive when compared with
the marginal increase in protectiveness offered by these
alternatives over alternative 2.
Although not considered a remedial action activity, the
ground-water monitoring that will be required by EPA is estimated
to be $99,600 over a five year period.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
The third category of criteria is modifvinq criteria. The
following two criteria are considered when evaluating the
-alternatives and are used to help determine the final remedy for
the site: . .
6.8
STATE ACCEPTANCE
The St~te of Iowa concurs with and supports the selected
remedy at the John Deere-Ottumwa Works site, see Appendix E.
6.9
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
community acceptance of the institutional controls
alternative, along with ground water and surface water monitoring,
has been evaluated following the public meeting held on August 8,
1991, and conclusion of the public comment period on August 19,
1991. The results of this evaluation are presented in the
Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A.
,..
-------
21
7.0
SELECTED REMEDY
7.1
GROUND WATER. SURFACE WATER. AND SEDIMENTS
Based on the Baseline Risk Assessment, EPA has determined
that ground water, surface water, and sediment contamination do
not pose a significant threat to human health and, therefore, no
remedial action is necessary. However, ground water and surface
water monitoring would be conducted to verify that no unacceptable
exposure to risks posed by ground water and surface water affected
by the site occur in the future.
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), ground water and surface
water monitoring data and other information, including site
conditions shall be evaluated no less often than each five years.
If results of the five-year review support EPA's current
determination that the site does not present a significant
potential threat to human health or the environ~entvia ground
water or surface water, monitoring could be modified or
terminated.
If the periodic review indicates that continued monitoring is
necessary to ensure that no potential unacceptable exposures occur
in the future, monitoring will be continued for an additional
period of time and a second review will be performed. Ground
water and surface water monitoring and periodic reviews will
continue to ensure that the site does not present a significant
potential threat to human health or the environment.
If, however, an endangerment exists or a
indicates that unacceptable migration of site
or exposures may occur, EPA has the option to
evaluating remedial options.
periodic review
related contaminants
amend the ROD, re-
7.2
Eu~L/WASTE ¥~TERIAL
Based on the relative performance cf each alternative with
rES~€~t to the evaluation criteria, EPA has m?de the de~?rrninatioI.
that the appropriate approach for the John Deere-Ottumwa Works
site is alternative 2, institutional controls, which represents
the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives.
Alternative 2 satisfies the statutory requirements in Section
121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9721: it is protective of human health
and the environment; it complies with all federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate for the alternative; and it is cost-effective.
Of the alternatives 2, 3, and 4, all of which meet the
threshold criteria, alternative 2 is by far the least costly.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would slightly increase short term risk due
to construction activities. There would be no increase in the
short-term risk during implementation of the selected remedy,
/
-------
22
alternative 2, because no construction activities are required and
an effective perimeter fence is already in place.
. The selected remedy does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment. Data provided by the RI shows that
contaminant levels in all media are low enough as to allow
unlimited use of the site and affected media with the exception of
children exposed to the waste material itself throughout their
childhood years. Baseline Risk Assessment results indicate that
site conditions do not require treatment of contaminated
soil/was~e if child~en do not live on-site or are not allowed a
similar exposure to the soil/waste material (e.g., school
building, preschool). Alternatives 3 and 4 would decrease
mobility, and alternative 4 would reduce toxicity with some
increase in volume.
The selected remedy would be protective of human health by
providing for institutional controls that require the existing
eight foot high chain link fence topped with barbed wire. be
maintained indefinitely. Alternative 2, the selected alternative,
also requires ~he lodging of deed restrictions which prevents the
development of residences or other similar exposure situations on-
site in the future. These measures would ensure, on a long-term
basis, that the sensitive population, children, are not exposed to
site waste.
There are no federal or state ARARs to be considered for the
selected remedy. ARARs for alternatives 3 and 4 would not likely
pose any problem for those alternatives.
The selected remedy for the John Deere-Ottumwa site will
provide long-term protection of human health and the environment
and provides the best balance of all factors considered when
evaluating possible options at this site.
During the statutory periodic reviews, EPA will ensure that
deed restrictions remain in place and are complied with.
8.0
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory requirements of
section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ~ 9721, as follows:
8.1
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy would be protective of human health by
providing for institutional controls that requlce the existing
eight foot high chain link fence topped with barbed wire be
maintained indefinitely. Alternative 2, the selected remedy, also
requires the lodging of deed restrictions which prevents the
development of residences or other similar exposure situations on-
site in the future. These measures would ensure, on a long-term
basis, that the sensitive populat~on, children, are not exposed to
-------
23
site waste, thereby preventing the only potentially unacceptable
exposure scenario from occurring. The Hazard Index (HI)
associated with children directly contacting waste material is
slightly above 1. Restricting access and preventing residential
type development will preclude children from contacting waste
material, thereby breaking the exposure pathway. No unacceptable
site related cancer risks were identified.
Implementation of institutional. controls will eliminate the
long-term risks associated with direct contact of site soil and
waste m~terial to the sensitive population, children. There would
be no increase in the short-term risk during implementation of the
selected remedy because no construction activities are required
and an effective perimeter fence is already in place.
continued ground water and surface water monitoring will
ensure that these media are not significantly impacted by the site
iri the future and will ensure that cross media contamination does
not occur from waste material to ground water and surface water.
8.2
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
The selected remedy would comply with all federal and state
ARARs. No chemical-specific or location-specific or action-
specific ARARs were identified for the site in implementing the
selected alternative. .
8.3
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
. The selected remedy is cost effective because it has been
determined to provide overall effectiveness proportional to its
cost, with the net present value being approximately $4,000 for
placement of deed restrictions. The selected rereedy is the least
c~stly of re~edies that we~e judged to provide equ~l protectic~ of
human health.
8.4 ~~ILIZATION OF PE~VU~E~T SOLUTIONS ;~~ ALTE~JATiVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
The EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
John Deere-Ottumwa Works Site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with
ARARs, EPA has determined that this selected remedy provides the
best balance in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume achieved through
treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and Gost.
AII.the alternatives evaluated would be protective of human
health and the environment on a long-term basis, with the
exception of Alternative 1, the no-action alternative. Because no
liquid, highly toxic or highly mobile wastes have been identified
/ .
-------
24
at the site, the additional benefit to be gained from Alternatives
3 and 4 over Alternative 2 in ensuring the protection of human
health and the environment are marginal.
The selected remedy does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment. The site waste will not be treated
because it is not liquid, highly toxic or highly mobile, and
treatment is not practicable because the benefit from treatment of
the large volume of waste is marginal compared to the cost of such
treatment. Alternatives 3 and 4 would decrease mobility, and
alternative 4 would reduce toxicity with some increase in volume.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would slightly increase short term risk
due to exposure of waste material during construction activities.
There would be no increase in the short-term risk during
implementation of the selected remedy because no construction
activities are required and an effective perimeter fence is
already in place.
Implementing institutional controls is readily accomplished
by filing with the proper local officials and a maintenance
program for the existing perimeter fence is currently in effect.
Ground water monitoring wells are already in place for ground
water sampling. Alternative 3 could be implemented without
difficulty but alternative 4 would require a highly complex effort
in order to handle the heterogeneous waste material in-situ.
Of the alternatives 2, 3, and 4, which meet the threshold
criteria, the preferred remedy, alternative 2, is by far the least
costly. Of all the balancing criteria, above, cost was the most
decisive factor in the selection decision given the low level of
risk at the site, followed by the short-term risk and
implementability criteria.
The State of Iowa concurs with and supports the selected
remedy for the John Deere-Ottumwa Works site.
As reflected in the Responsiveness Summary, attached, the
community accepts the selected remedy.
8.5
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy does no~reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment. Data provided by the RI shows that
contaminant levels in all media are low, which allows all but
children the unlimited use of the site and affected media.
Baseline Risk Assessment results indicate that site conditions do
not require treatment of contaminated soil/was~ if" children do
not live on-site or are not allowed a" similar exposure to the
soil/waste material (e.g., school building, preschool).
~
Alternatives 3 and 4 would decrease mobility, and alternative
4 would reduce toxicity with some increase in volume although both
alternatives would be implemented at substantially greater cost
/
-------
25
than the selected remedy. The site waste will not be treated in
implementing the selected remedy because it is not liquid, highly
toxic or highly mobile, and treatment is not practicable because
the benefit from treatment of the large volume of waste is
marginal compared to the cost of such treatment.
9.0
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No significant changp.s were made in selecting the preferred
alternative as described in the Proposed Plan.
~
/
-------
ATTACHMENT A
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
. ON THE
PROPOSED PlAN
FOR THE
JOHN DEERE-OTTUMWA WORKS SITE
OTTUMWA, IOWA
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held
a public. comment period from July 20 through August 19, 1991 on
the EPA Proposed Plan for the John Deere-Ottumwa Works Site in
Ottumwa, Iowa. The purpose of the public comment period was to
provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the
Froposed Plan." The Proposed Plan was made available on July 16,
1991 at the Ottumwa Public Library in Ottumwa, Iowa. Notification
of the public comment period was published in the ottumwa Courier.
A public meeting was held on August 8,1991 at the ottumwa
Public Library in ottumwa, Iowa. At this meeting EPA
representatives described the alternatives eval~ated, presented
the EPA preferred alternative, and answered questions about the
John Deere-Otturnwa Works site and the remedial alternatives under
consideration.
Section 113(k) (2) (B) (iv) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires that
EPA respond to significant comments on the EPA Proposed Plan.
. This Response Su~rnary provides a revisw and sUmIT.ary of cor~er.ts on
the Proposed Plan. In addition to summarizing significant concerns
and ~~estions, the Response Summary presents EPA's responses to
-thu:; -=cr,:~rns.
2.0
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND EPA RESPONSES
2.1
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED CITIZENS
2.1.1 One written COI::l!lent requestp-d that the u.S.
Environmental Protection Agency give a clean bill of health to the
John Deere-Ottumwa Works site and discontinue any further testing.
EPA Response
While the Baseline Risk Assessment indicates that potential
exposures to site contaminants are within acceptable ranges for
adults, waste material containing hazardous constituents will
remain on-site and poses a potential future exposure risk to
children (children currently are ~ot exposed to site waste
-------
material). Therefore, the limited remedial action of
institutional controls must be implemented.
Also, to ensure that unacceptable exposures to site
contaminants. do not occur in the future via ground water or
surface water, 'monitoring of ground water and surface water
be conducted for a minimum of five years in order to verify
water data collected during the Remedial Investigation.
will
ground
2.1.2 One commenter at the pUblic meeting expressed
appreciation for what Deere & Company, EPA, and IDNR have done and
are going to do at the site, but remarked that EPA had surveyed
community reaction. The commenter had not heard a report back.
~
EPA Response
. EPA did interview several members of the public regarding the
site and site activities. " The information received was compiled
in a Community Relations Plan for the site. The Community
Relations Plan "is available in the Administrative Record in the
Ottumwa Public Library.
2.1.3 One commenter at the pUblic meeting on behalf of Deere &
Company expressed agreement with the conclusion and recommendation
of the proposed plan and expressed De~re & Comp~ny's commitment to
carrying out the proposed plan.
EPA Response
The willingness of Deere & Company to carry out the proposed
plan enhances the implementability of the selected remedy.
2.1.4 One commenter at the public meeting stated concerns over
whether the government or Deere & Company would bear costs for the
wQrk. The commenter was particularly concerned about how ccsts
imposed on Deere & Company would affect jobs in the community.
The commenter asked "if it's no danger to the public, why the
continued monitoring?" The commenter also suggested that if there
is no risk associated with the site, EPA should remove it from the
Superfund list.
EPA Response
Deere & Company has paid all costs to date and is obligated
to pay all EPA costs to date under the existin9rConsent Order.
EPA does not have knowledge how costs affect Deere & Company's
operations or how it might affect jobs in the area. Future costs,
including ground water and surface water monitoring, are
relatively minimal compared to other Superfund sites.
/
-------
Waste material remains on-site and EPA is therefore required
by statute, CERCLA Section 121(c), to conduct a periodic review
not less than every five years to ensure the remedy is protective
of human health and the environment.. Continued ground water and
surface water monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of five
years to provide data to base the five-year review on. The site
may be considered for. deletion from the National Priority List
("Superfund" list) after a minimum of one five-year review.
~
--
/
-------
ATTACHMENT B
FIGURES
~
".
-------
i
I
t
I
I
j'
I
.. . . ..8. .
~.:
!..- ::E: ~
.:=:;t'--""'~.;':'"r" .' #~;,O
. . ---'
Dr,y.. :------... !.
Theat, '... _8__1:.'"'
c .
~~'-. '
i<,
: :"'\
.,
~j"
-'" 4 .,,'s-
. &;,
'.
.;;"
~J
SOJRCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Topograpnic Maps, OTiUW..A NORTH & SOUTH, IOWA Ouadrangles, 1976
N
.....
::-,-
8
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
JOHN DEERE OTTUMWA WORKS
OTTUMWA, IOWA
CICIUC1.CXIfIo&.CI
o
1000
2000
.000
SCALE IN .FEET
J[:r'OERAGHTY
£.r"& Mll..LER, INC.
JI:.;/ E"ri,o".."".l S"ric"
,-
-------
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\'"
)
(
\.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
!
I
/
/
/
/
",,,
/
/
./
I
I
!
(
!
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
i
i
I
./
.I
/
./
,./
~
/\
/ :
.. I
I :
: (
I "
: \.
! \
i \
I Blid \
: LDJ:e \
, ,
: \
\ ,
\. )
"..-..---"
FORMER
LANDFILL
. AREAS 1,2,3
t:I
..
..
~
Co
i
..
':II:
C'
..
...
./
/
SOUTH /'
SCAR ARE~/ / "
/ ./
,/ ./ O!O.~
/ / -- ---.:
/" FLOW /" : =-- =-
.. . ----~
.. . ... - ...--
,/ / :..-; -- -~---
.:/0.. / ,,/ :-.:-~-~;---~-.:
I ./ - "'. ---- -:-----"
0" /' ---~ - -..- :--..
/ 0".- -- --...
: / -.-~=-. -
! /0. ... ...- ... :-...
NOTE: THE SITE FEATURES ARE BASED UPON AN
AREAl. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FACILITY
WHICH WAS TAKEN ON APRIL 21, 1989.
~
o
"
2SO
soo .
1000
AP?i'IOXlM4TE SCALE 'III FEET
JIYGERAGHTY
Ii",::,; .,An 1 co T'''""
......
FIGURE 2
SITE FEATURES
REMEDIAL INVESTI::;A.TION
at""\l,..,ll\J nc.c:cc I""\T"TI 1&"&'" u'''''I'"t....~
-------
\
i
i
i
\
\
\
)
\""
i
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
!
j
!
/
.I
/
.I
,/'
/
.I
~/
i
j
!
(
!
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\.
\
i
i
j
.I
.I
.I
/
./
~.
/\
I .:
.. I
I ..
: (
I '
. ,
! \.
o ! \
~ i Black \
: : J..aJc.t \
\ .
: \
\ .
\. )
',+-..-'
11).,
/
/
SOIJiY. /
SC,I,q AREA./ /
/
/'
./.,
/
/
.// /
!
i
~
':.
~
9-
"
...
~
'C.
...
..
/
/....
/.. . -:.. -
-- -
/0. ~ -~..- - ..
0° :. ~--- --.:. -:. ~
/ .-..- ..
",00 .:~ ~..-"~_--:-e
00 - -... -- -
/ .. ~ - --: -: - .. ~
00 . ~ -- -
/ . . ~ ---..
.. --.." -- -'
/. .. - ---:----
-- -
/.. -. ",. - - - -; -: ..
FLOW
~
./
APP~XI"'" TE SCAlE IN FEET
LEGEND
ID-, + SEDIMENT SAMPLING lOCATION
FIGURE 3
SOIL BORING AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCA TlONS
AEMEDIAlINVESTIGA_T~~~
o
250
500
,ceo
~~GERAGH1Y
-------
i
i
i
i
i
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
i
j
i
I
.I
.I
/
/
" S'TAfF Z
~.
/\
./ "'
( .'
: (
I ~
. ,
i "
n:z \
i \
i Blacl: \
. LiJJu \
I .
: \
\ .
~\A S'Ttn, j
. ',j.IW., .
.,..-..~.
./
SOUTH ../
SCAR AR~.// /
//
/
./
./
// -/
!
i
\
i
\
\
\
\
\
)
\...,
.i
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\.
\
\
\
i
;
j
.I
!
.I
.I
..,"
I
.I
/
./
./. ---
/' ---
0° - .... -~- ~.;-
/ ...- .... -
./0. .:..--~- ....: ~
/0 . - ...... -.. -
...- - -.... -
",00 . :::.--:. ;.. --:. ..;.
0° . - -.. ...- - ...:.-.
../ '.":..- ..~; ~ ~..."
/ .~--- ..:.
",0. ..;: =---...
FLOW
~ ~"'-.'
.~
o
'000
!lli!!Q
"'-1 0 MONITORING WEll LOCATION
n-1. PIEZOMETER lOCATION
.....
250
500
APPROXIMATE SCAI.E IN FEET
AIYGERAGHTY
~~& MTt T J:p """r
ITAFF 1/:1 SURfACE WATER l£VEL GAGING STATION
Q
~
'I:.
\
..
."
'C.
..
..
FIGURE L{
MONITORING WELL,
PIEZOMETER AND
SURFACE WATER
GAGING tOCA TIONS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
.JC"\~N nl"l"RI" /"ITTI'U\AlA \AI'"''''''''''
-------
I
\
i
.j
\
\
\
\
. )
\"".
)
(
\.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\.
\
\
I
I
!
!
i
.I
.I
r /
1I.-4'.0'rt .,,,'
a.5 . 0 IIW.5 .' f
i'~ '"it / :
:8.' l.:~+ ;).5 .' /
n.l1. 'ilw", SOUTH / :
.n.2Z SCAR AREA / /
..// / ./
/ /._~
/ / . -..:;. -
/., FLOW /"... -7:--~ ..
.. . ..- ~... -
./" /0. ~ - :- :- ~.. -~-
/ / / ::.~--~--:=
0" ." - - -..... ..
/ / --. ~---: -:,-- ~
.. 0.' ---''''' -
/. /. ':..'".. -.."" ;..'
: /.. .. .. -~ --=-.;---
I /.. ... ---_..._~..
. -
"., 5 JAMES MONTGOMERY SOIL BORING LOCATION
FIGURE .s
fl2Zj ESTIMATED LATERAL EXTENT OF Fill ESTIMA TED lATERAL
EXTENT OF Fill
REMEDIAl. INVESTIGATION
JOHN DEERE OTTUMWA WORKS
,-~_: C:l.~ ~~ .:t,;"..,' ;'~'I.
~
OIL SPIll.
AREA
~
~
10-, + SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
I.' . SOIL BORING LOCATION
IT'*" ~ SURFACE WATER LEVEL GAGING STATION
I..' A SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
o
1000
IIW., 0 MONITORING WEll LOCATION
,z.,. PIEZOMETER LOCATION
250
500
A""ROXIM.\TE sc~ IN FEET
, :YGERAGHTY
'. r & MILLER. INC.
~ .' £..;r...,.,., S.r.;~.,
c
':.
~
a
i
~.
<
..
~
-------
ATTACHMENT C
TABLES
---
-------
ATTACHMENT D
GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following evaluation criteria were developed by EPA to
address CERCLA statutory requirements and technical, cost, and
institutional considerations. The evaluation criteria serve as
the basis for conducting the detailed analyses during the
Feasibility Study and for subsequently selecting an appropriate
remedial action.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Alternatives are assessed as to
adequate proteetion from risks above
contamination present at the site by
controlling exposures.
whether they can provide
health-based levels posed by
eliminating, reducing, or
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
The alternatives are assessed as to whether they attain
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other
federal and state environmental and public health laws or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
LONG-TER~ EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
'.:I~ rna!nitu.~.~ ~: risJ.~ r.-;.,. ~.i'\iTt~t ~f7~:;"
~.~'::;=e~~~~i~~ ~f
t:~s
alternative is evaluated. The adequacy and reliability of
controls used to manage treatment residuals or untreated wastes
that remain at the site are also assessed.
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY AND-VOLUME
The degree to which the alternatives employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume is assessed.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
..
-
The alte+natives are evaluated~with respect ~o their effects
on human health and the environment during implementation of the
alternative.
"
-------
IMPLEMENTABILITY
The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
an alternative and the availability' of services and materials are
evaluated.
COST
Direct and indirect capital costs and operation and
maintenance costs incurred over the life of the project are
identified.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
STATE ACCEPTANCE
Technical and administrative issues and concerns the state
may have regarding the alternatives are assessed.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
The issues and concerns of the public regarding the
alternatives are assessed.
/
-------
Table 1
Page 1 of 2
Occurrence of Constituents in Phase II .Unfiltered Ground-Water Samples", John Deere
Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
~
Constituents
Range'
Mean-
UCL
Background'
VQCs
Acetone 0.002 - 0.005 0.0048 (NA) 0.0052 <0.010
Benzene 0.002 - 0.0025 0.0025 (NA) 0.0025 <0.005
1,2-Dichlorocthanc 0.0025 - 0.003 0.0025 (NA) 0.0026 <0.005
Ethylbc'nzcnc 0.0025 - 0.008 0.0033 (NA) 0.0043 <0.005
Tolucne 0.0025 - 0.015 0.0035 (NA) 0.0053 <0.005
Xylene (total) 0.0025 - 0.041 0.(\074 (NA) 0.013 <0.005
Semi- VOCs
Bis(2-eth ylhcx y I)ph thala tc 0.001 - 0.005 0.0046 (NA) 0.0052 <0.010
Di-n- bu tylph thala tc 0.001 - 0.005 0.0045 (NA) 0.0051 <0.010
1,2,4- Trichlorobcnzcne 0.004 - 0.005 0.0049 (NA) 0.0050 <0.010
Inorganics
Aluminum 0.16 - 7.5 2.6 «0.027) 3.8 5.3
Arsenic 0.001 - 0.027 0.0084 «0.002) 0.013 0.023
Barium 0.13 . 1.1 C,38 (0.29) 0.51 (i.c3
Cadmium 0.0025 - 0.005 0.0027 «0.005) 0.0031 0.006
Catci~m 97 - :;~.; 1 SI') (! 58) 1 ~ 0 l~~
Ct.romium 0.003 - 0.018 0.0060 «0.006) 0.0085 C.::' ~ 4
Cobalt 0.005 - 0.028 0.0093 «0.01) 0.013 0.079
Coppcr 0.0025 - 0.032 0.011 «0.005) 0.016 0.033
Iron' 0.32 - 32 14 (6.8) 20 41
Lcad 0.0005 - 0.093 0.0099 «0.001) 0.023 0.019
Magncsium 15 - 50 33 (36) 37 43
Manganese J.1 - 7.6 3.3 (3.S) 4.4 4.3
Nickel 0.0045 - 0.058 0.016 (0.0075) 0.024 0.11
Potassium 1.7 - 8.2 4.9 (6.2) 5.9 6.6
Sit ver 0.002 - 0.005 0.0025 «0.004) 0.0031 <0,004
Sodium J5 - J47 55 (64) 77 29
Vanadium 0.002 - 0.031 0.011 «0.004) 0.015 0.074
"
-------
"
Tablc 1
Page 2 of 2
Occurrcncc of Constitucnts in Phasc II Unfiltcred Ground-Water. Samples', John Deere
Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa. Iowa.
Constitucnts
Ranle'
Mean-
UCL
Background.
Inorganic (cont')
Zinc
0.007 - 0.17
0.050 (0.020)
0.077
O.J 1
Concentrations reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
NA
Not analyzcd.
UCL Upper 95 percent confidence limit.
a
Unfiltered Phase II sample data from 12 samples (GMMVt'OJ through GMMWI J and GMPZ02).
b
Minimum concentration in range representS either the lowest detected concentration or one-half the
detection limit for non-detects.
c
Arithmetic mean of unfiltered sample data using one-half the detection limit for non-detects.
Values in parenthesis ( ) are the arithmetic mean of Phase II filtered sample data.
d
Background sample is GMMWI2-02 frorri the Phase II unfiltered sample.
721~ecftI~.d>1
,;
-------
Tablc 2
Occurrence of Constitucnts in Surfacc-Water and Scdiment From Black Lake,
John Dcere Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
Constituent
Dctected Water'
Concen tra tion
(milL)
Detected Scdimcnt'
Concentration
(ma/kl)
Inorunics
Aluminum
Arscnic
Barium
. Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Coppcr
Iron
Lead
Magncsium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.40
<0.005
0.43
<0.001
29
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
0.75
<0.005
Ii
0.15
<0.01
4.6
31
<0.01
0.038
650
0.64
1.7
1.2
1,200
3.5
4.6
6.5
3,600
-------
Table 3 Occurrence of Constituents in Drainage Ditch Sediment Samples, John Deere
.... Ottumwa Works, Ouumwa, Iowa.
Site
Constituent Rugc. Mean' VCL BacksrouncS.
Inona nics
Aluminum 2,700 - 3,400 3,000 3,400 1,700
Arsenic 2.9 - 3.1 3.4 3.1 7.6
Barium 70 - 15 77 15 170
Beryllium 0.28 - 0.31 0.29 0.31 1.1
Cadmium 2.8 - 3.3 3.0 3.3 6.4
Calcium 4,300 - 6.300 5.000 6.300 7,900
Chromium 7.1 - 7.5 7.3 7.5 15
Cobalt 5.9 - 8.1 7.2 8.1 12
Copper 6.1 - 6.6 6.3 6.6 20
Iron 8,700 - J 0,000 9,400 10.000 J 9.000
Lead 9.0 - 37 21 37 39
Magnesium 1,700 - 1.900 1.800 1,900 2,800
Manganese 300 - 400 360 400 640
Nickel 12 - 14 13 14 25
Potassium 350 - 420 400 420 1,200
Sodium 35 - 46 40 46 89
Vanadium 10 - 12 11 12 25
Zinc 37 - 53 47 53 110
Concentrations reported in mjJJigrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
VCL
Upper 95 percent confidence level.
b
Minimum concentration in range represents either the lowest detected concentration
or one.hilf the detectio& limit for non-dr:ectS.
Arithmetic mean of three samples (Gy..sD-03, GMSD-04, and GMSD.05) using one-half
the detection limit for Don-detects.
BackgrouDd sample is GMSD-02.
a
c
7D1j01r1C1nr."UDI
- .
......
......
,. .. ...,...
~ ,
/"
-------
Ta blc 4
Occurrcncc of Constituents in Landfill 1, Subsurface Material Samples, John
Deerc Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
....
Constitucnt
Rangc.
Mcan"
VCL
Mcan
Backgrounde
Ornnics
AcctODC 0.005 - 0.051 0.022 0.034 cO.Ol
Bis~2-cthylhcxyl) 0.18 - 0.9 0.29 0.44 cO.35
phthalatc
TctrachlorocthcDc 0.003 - 0.039 0.007 0.015 cO.005
cPAHs 1.) - 23 3.7 1.1 cO.39
tP AHs 1.6 - 27 4.8 9.8 cO.39
Inornnics
Aluminum 1,500 - 11,000 4.900 7,400 1,700
ArseDic 0.27 - 26 5.6 11 4.2
Barium 15 - 240 100 140 85
Bcr~'lJjum 0.14 - 3.0 0.78 1.4 0.65
Cadmium 1.0 - 32 7.3 13 3.7
Calcium 2,000 - 270,000 38,000 92,000 1,800
Chromium 2.5 - 140 25 52 10
Cobalt 1.5 - 1 5 7.6 10 7.7
Copper 1.6 - 70 19 33 4.8
IroD 4,500- 59,000 25,000 37,000 14,000
Lead 3.2 - 8 J 0 120 280 9.9
Magncsium 50 - 3,800 2,200 2,900 1,400
Manganese 1 60 - 640 380 470 400
Mercury 0.027 - 0.49 0.1 0.20 <0.059
Nickcl 5.2 - 28 16 20 13
Potassium 150 - 1,300 660 920 370
SeIenium 0.027 - 3.1 0.50 1.1 <0.59
Sodium 26 - 1,800 360 710 II
Vanadium 3.2 - 27 14 20 18
ZinC' }() -1.8~O 4~1) 980 26
C~'2.I;~~' v.:S - S3 t.: 11
-------
Table 5
'-.
Mean
Constituent RaDle. Mean' VCL Backlround"
Ornnics
Acetone 0.005 . 0.18 0.~8 0.11 <0.01
Dibenzofuran 0.19. 5.6 1.0 1.8 <0.39
Mcthylene Chloride 0.003 . 0.038 0.008 0.014 <0.005
Toluene 0.003 . 0.009 0.004 0.004 <0.005
cP AHs 1.3 - 14 4.4 6.2 <0.39
tP AHs 2.8 - 94 17 30 <0.39 '
Xylene 0.003 - 0.007 0.003 0.004 <0.005
Inonanics
Aluminum 2,300 - 9,600 5,700 6,700 1,700
Arsenic 1.9 - 36 9.0 15 4.2
Barium 51.570 180 260 85
Beryllium 0.14 - 2.0 1.0 1.3 0.65
Cadmium 2.2 . 4 1 9.5 15 3.7
Calcium 2,200 - 16,000 8,J 00 11,000 1,800
Chromium 5.9 - 36 13 17 10
Cobalt 5.0 - 12 8.2 9.S 7.7
Copper 5.9 - 48 19 26 4.8
Iron 7,700 - 49,000 22,000 29,000 14,000
Lead 5.6 - 150 62 88 9.9
Magnesium 790 - 2,900 1,900 2,200 1,400
Manganese 280 - 690 400 470 400
Mcrcury 0.029 - 0.1 6 0.055 0.077 <0.059
Nickel 9.S - 36 20 2S 13
Potassium 430 - 1,300 830 960 370
Sclenium 0.28 - 3.3 0.83 1.4 <0.59
S,::dium 97 - 460 200 260 5J
Vanadium 8.9 - 22 17 19 18
Zinc 29 - 25,000 2,300 6,000 26
Cyanide 0.14.20 2.9 6.0 <0.01
Concentrations reported in ~jJ1igrams per kilogram emg/kg).
UCL Uppcr 95 percent confidcnce limit.
. Minimum conccntration in range representS either thc lowest detccted concentration or
onc-half thc detection limit for non-detects.
b Arithmctic mean of 12 samplcs using onc-hal,r the dctcction l~it (c;>r"non-detects.
c Arithmctic mean background using two samplcs:' GMSB13-03 (4-6.ft. bls) and GMS~13-0S
(8- J 0 ft. bls).
cP AHs Carcinogcnic P AHs.
tP AHs Total- P AHs; inc1udes carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic P AHs.
'M6jOlwtdeere*3/..UlI
....
Occurrence of Constituents in LandfiJIs 2 and 3, Subsurface and Composite
Material Samplcs, John Deere Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
-------
Table 6
Occurrence of Constituents in Drum Storage/Hazardous Waste Storage Area.
Surficial Material Samples, John Deere Ottumwa Works. Ottumwa, lo'r.'I.
Constituent
Ranse'
Mean'
VCL
Mean
Background'
Ornnics
Acetonc
Methylene Chloride
cP AHs
tPAHs
3,3-Dichloroben-
zidinc .
~.005 - 0.078 0.03 0.078 cO.OI
0.003. 0.003 0.003 cO.005
0.38 - 0.47 0.42 0.47 cO.39
1.2 - J.7 J.4 J.7 cO.39
0.37. - 0.39. 0.38 0.39 cO.78
lnorunics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganesc
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
",. ..
. !n:ai'.t="
6,000 - 6.400 6,100 6,400 1,700
3 - 16 8.3 16 4.2
75 - 400 J90 400 85
0.84 - 1.1 0.95 1.1 0.65
8.8 - 14 11 14 3.7
J 6,000 - 42,000 26,000 42,000 1,800
14 - 70 35 70 1-0
6.7 - 8.7 8.0 1.7 7.7
22 - 43 29 43 4.8
19,000 - 48,000 36,000 48,000 14,000
52 - 350 170 350 9.9
460 - J ,600 J,OOO J.600 . 1,400
69 - 870 520 870 400
0.028 - 0.082 0.047 0.082 cO.059
18 - 23 21 23 13
750 - 820 780 820 370
0.28 - 1.2 0.86 1.2 cO.59
160 - 480 280 480 81
J 3 - 20 J7 10 IE
34J - 6~O 4!;J 640 26
0.14 - 1.0 0.43 1.0 cO.Ol
Zin:
C)'anidc
Concentrations reported in mHligrams per kilogram (ma/ka).
VCL Upper 95 percent confidence limit.
a Minimum concentration in range represents cither the lowest d:tected concentration or
one-half the detection limit for non-detects.
Arithmetic mean of three samples usina one-half the detection Hmit (or non- detects.
Arithmetic mean background using two samples: GMSB 13-03 (4-6 £1. bls) and GMSB 13-
05 {1-l0 (t. bls).
Not detected in surficial soil. but because it was detected in subsurface soil. the value
shown represents one-half the detection limit.
cPAHs Carcinogenic PAHs.
tP AHs Total P AHs; includes carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic P AHs.
b
c
d
716io~eet~3~.1!)1
,..
-------
Table 7 Occurrence of Constituents in Drum Storage!Hazardous Wastc Storagc Arca,
Subsurface Samplcs, John Decre Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
Mean
Constituent Ranle- Mean. VCL BackgroundC
Orunics
Acetone 0.005 . 0.095 0.036 0.095 .-:0.01
Methylenc Chloride 0.003 - 0.0,1 0.005 0.01 cO.005
cP AHs 0.37. 0.56 0.44 0.56 cO.39
tP AHs 1.1 - 1.7 1.3 1.7 cO.39
3,3-Dichlorobcn- 0.21 . 0.40 0.33 0.40 cO.78
zidine
Inornnics
Aluminum 2~800 - 10,000 6,000 10,000 1,700
Arscnic 3.0 - 10 5.4 10 4.2
Barium 47 - 200 '120 200 85
Ber}'IIjum 0.1'4 -1.0 0.54 1.0 0.65
Cadmium 2.6 - J 0 5.2 10 3.7
Calcium 4,700 - 2J,OOO 15,000 21,000 1,800
Chromium 6.4 - 22 12 22 10
Cobalt 3.2 - 10 ' 6.8 10 7.7
Copper 9.7.32 18 32 4.8
Iron 8,600 - 32,000 17,000 32,000 14,000
Lead 10 - 77 34 77 9.9
Magncsium 2,100 - 2,800 ' 2,400 2,800 1,400
Manganese J90-830 450 830 400
Mercury 0.028 - 0.061 0.04 0.061 cO.059
Nickel 6.9 - 45 22 45 13
Potassium 360 - 1,100 670 1,100 370
Selenium 0.28 - 0.3J 0.30, 0.31 cO.59
Var.adh:m 7.5 - 26 J5 26 18
Zinc: 48 - 1,300 470 1,300 26
Cyanide 0.14 - 0.30 0.24 0.30 cO.Ol
. Conccntrations reported in milligrams pcr kilogram (mg/kl).
UCL Upper 95 perccnt confidcncc limit. . ,
. Minimum concentration in range reprcsents cithcr the lowest detected concentration or
onc-halr thc detection limit for Don-detccts.
Arithmctic mean of thrce samplcs using one-half the detection limit for non-detects.
ArHhmetic mean background using two samplcs: GMSB13-03 ,(4-6 ft. bls) and GMSB13-
05 (8-10 ft. bls). .
cP AHs Carcinogenic P AHs.
tP AHs Total P AHs; includes carcinogcnic and noncarcinogenic P AHs.
b
c
716JClMCleer--3~.tbl
';
,
,.
-------
Table 8 Occurrence of Constituents in Oil Spill Arca, Surficial Soil Samples. John Decrc
Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
...
MCln
Constitucnt Ransc. Mean' VCL Backsrounde
Onanics
Acetone 0.006' 0.006 0.006 <0.01
Toluene 0.003' 0.003 0.003 cO.005
Ino12a nics
Aluminum 10,000 . 14,000 11,000 14,000 1,700
Arsenic 3.3 . 4.8 4.1 4.8 4.2
Barium 160. 190 170 190 85
Beryllium 0.9 . 1.9 1.4 1.9 0.65
Cadmium 5.0 . 6.7 5.6 6.7 3.7
Calcium 2.800 - 3.900 3,400 3.900 1.800
Chromium 12. U 15 18 10
Cobalt 6.2 . 9.0 7.9 9.0 7.7
Copper 93 . 17 12 17 4.8
Iron 15,000. 19,000 17.000 19,000 14,000
Lead 12.27 18 27 9.9
Magnesium 2,1 00 . 2,500 2,300 2,500 1,400
Manganese 390 . 790 600 790 400
Nickel 1 7 . 22 19 22 13
Potassium 620. 1.300 940 1.300 370
Sodium 68 . 86 75 86 SI
Vanadium 22 . 28 25 28 "U
Zinc 45 . 860 320 860 26
Cyanide 0.1 5 . 0.45 0.25 0.45 <0.01
Conc:en!:'atio~s re::,orttd in rriIiiS:"2:nS p~r y.H~S:~t!1 (1I.:~/kl).
VCL ~Jpt:':r ~5 ~":cen: ~~:-.fid~::\ce !~~t:rt. .
a ~unimum concentration in range represents either the lowest dctected concentration or
one-half the detection limit for non-dctects.
Arithmetic mean of three samples usins one-half the detection limit for non- detects.
Arithmetic mean background using two samples: GMSB13-03 (4-6 ft. bls) and GMSB13-0S
(8-} 0 ft. bls).
Not detected in surficial soil, but because it was detected in the subsurface soil. the nlue
rcpresents one-half the detection limit. " '
b
c
d
7'l6jOMOeer"3/7ItI1
/"
-------
Table 9 Occurrence of Constituents in Oil Spill Area, Subsurface Soil Samples, John
Deere Ouumwa Works, Ouumwa, Jowa.
...
Mean
Constituent Ranse. Mean' VCL Backsroundc
On.anics
Acetone 0.005 . 0.37 0.016 0.037 <0.01
Toluene 0.003 . 0.095 0.033 0.95 <0.005
Inonanics
Aluminum 1,500 . 7,500 . 4,000 7,500 1,700
Arsenic 0.91 - 2.9 2.2 2.9 4.2
Barium 14. 160 81 J60 85
BerylHum 0.13. 1.4 0.72 1.4 0.65
Cadmium 1.1 . 5.3 2.9 5.3 3.7
Calcium 610.3,700 1,700 3,700 J,800
Chromium 4.6 . 11 7.3 11 10
Cobalt 4.1 - 11 6.8 11 7.7
Copper 2.0 . 10 5.4 10 4.8
Iron 4,300 . 16,000 8,800 16,000 J 4,000
Lead 1.3 - 13 6.5 13 9.9
Magnesium 920 - 2,300 1,400 2,300 1,400
Mangancsc 120.700 470 700 400
Nickel 6.7 - 2 I 14 21 13
Potassium 120 - 740 350 740 370
Sodium 30 - 92 60 92 81
Vanadium 5.1 . 18 11 18 18
Zinc 13-51 30 51 26
Cyanide 0.13 - 0.15 0.14 0.15
-------
Table 10
Occurrence of Constituents in South Scar. Area. Surficial Soil Samples. John
Dcerc Ottumwa Works. Ottumwa. Iowa.
Constituent
Ranlc.
Mcan'
VCL
Mean
Backsroundc
Orunics
Acetone
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethene
Xylene
0.006 . 0.049
0.19 . 0.20
0.003 . 0.048
0.003'
0.024
0.19
0.011
0.003 .
0.049
0.20
0.048
0.003
<0.\.1
<0.39
<0.005
<0.005
Jnouanics
-.
..lr.;~
4.400.7.900 5.700 7.900 1.700
2.8 . 4.2 3.6 4.2 4.2
87. 160 110 J60 85
. 0.63 . 0.84 0.7J 0.84 0.65
3.2 . 6.0 4.7 6.0 3.7
4.300 . 9.600 6.500 9.600 1.800
13.2J 18 21 10
8.6. 10 9.4 10 7.7
9.2 . 38 22 38 4.8
11.000 . 24.000 18.000 24.000 14.000
20 . 80 46 80 9.9
2.100.2.800 2.400 2.800 1.400
260 . 660 480 660 400
0.028 . 0.06 0.039 0.06 <0.059
13 . 21 18 21 13
SIO - 9]0 680 910 370
66 - J 40 92 140 81
14.2J J7 21 J8
54 - 1~'C -;g 100 26
0.J5' 0.15 0.J5
-------
Tablc 11 Occurrcncc of Constitucnts in South Scar Arca, Subsurfacc Soil Samples, John
Dccrc Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
"
Mcan
Constitucnt R.ansc. Mean' UCL Backsround~
Ornnics
Acctonc 0.005 - 0.064 0.031 0.049 cO.Ol
Naphthalcnc 0.18 - 1.2 0.37 0.70 cO.39
Tctrachloroethcnc 0.003' 0.003 0.003 cO.OOS
Xylcnc 0.003 - 0.16 0.029 o.oa cO.OOS
Inonanics
Aluminum 1,000 - 11,000 4,700 7,900 1,700
Arscnic 0.3 - 8.9 3.3 5.9 4.2
Barium 32 - 190 94 ISO as
Beryllium 0.14 - 1.3 '0.56 0.96 0.65
Cadmium 1.1 - 5.7 3.1 4.5 3.7
Calcium 2,500 - 6,SOO 5,200 6,500 1,800
Chromium 4.1 - 18 9.4 14 10
Cobalt 3.4 - 11 ' 7.3 9.6 7.7
Copper 1.7 - 24 9.8 18 4.8
Iron 4,800 - 22,000 11,000 17~000 14,000
Lcad 1.5 - 27 10 ' 19 9.9
Magncsium 2,100 - 3,500 2,800 3,200 1,400
Mangancsc 230 - 580 400 530 400
Mercury 0.028 - 0.033 0.031 0.033 <0.059
Nickel 8.3 - 25 14 20 13
Potassium 100 - 1,200 540 920 370
Sodium 38 - 140 77 110 81
Vanadium S.2 - 27 14 21 18
Zinc 11-85 42 69 26
Cyanidc 0.14 - 0.36 0.19 0.26 <0.01
Concentrations reportcd in milligrams pcr kilogram (ma/kg).
UCL Uppcr 9S perccnt confidcncc limit.'
a Minimum concentration in range reprcscnts e.ither thc lowest detectcd conccntration or
one-half the dctcction limit for non-detccts. ' .
Arithmetic mcan of six samples using onc-half the detection limit for non- detects.
Arithmetic mean background using two samplcs: GMSB13-03 (46 ft. bls) and GMSB13-0S
(8-10 (t. bls). '
Not dctcctcd in subsurface soil, but becausc it ~as detcctcd t8 surficial soil, the value
rcprcsents onc-half thc detcction limit. '
b
c
d
707jo~ere*3f1Q.UlI
,.
-------
TABLE 12
INDICATOR COMPOUNDS USED IN RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
Inorqanics
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
t:admium
chromium
Copper
cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Volatile Orqanics
Acetone
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Tpluene
Xylenes
Semi-Volatile Organics
Dibenzofuran
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Non-carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
-" .
-------
Table 13
Reference Doses (RfD), and Cancer Slope
Factors (SF) for Indicator Compounds
RrD (met /kt-dav' SF (met/h/d!v'.'
Constituent Oral Inhalation' Oral Inhalation
Inorunics
Arseni, J.DE-3 (J.E-03) J.75 !.DE+J
Barium !.DE-2 I .DE-4
BerylJjum !.OE-3 (S.OE-3) 48.3E+0 8.4E+0
Cadmium (water) 5.0E-4 (5.0E-4) . 6.IE+0
Cadmium (Cood) J.OE-3 (I.OE-3) . 6.1E+0
Chromium (VI) 5.0E-3 (5.7E-07) . 4.IE+]
Copper 3.7E-2 1.0E-02
Cyanide (Cree) 2.0E-2 (2.0E-2)
Lead ND ND ND ND
Mercury 3.0E-4 8.6E-05
Nickel . 2.0E-2 (2.0E-2) . 8.4E-1
Selenium 3.0E-3 (3.0E-3)
Zinc 2.0E-] I.OE-2
Volatile Orunks
Acetone I.OE- J 1.0E-l
Methylene Chloride 6.0E-2 8.6E-l 7.5E-3 1.4E-2
Tctrachlorocthcne 1.0:£-2 (1.0E-2) 5.1:£.;2 1.8:£-03
Toluene 2.0E- J 6.0E-l
Xylenes 2.0E+0 9.0E-2
Semi.Volatile
Orunics
Dibenzofuran ND ND ND ND
3,3-Dichloro- ND ND 48.5E- J ND
benzidine
Polvcvctic Aromatics
CarcinoRenic PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene~ ND ND J.15E+l 6.1 E+O
. Total PAHs
Naphthalene' 48.0E-3 (4.0E-3)
. If inhalation data were not IvaHable. oral data were used (numbers in parentheses).
b Data Cor benzo(a)pyrene were used to represent all carcinogenic PAHs.
c Data (or naphthalene were used to calculate risk oC noncarcinogenic eUecu Cor all PAHs.
ND No data.
. Not a carcinogen via oral exposure.
References: IRIS, J99J; USEPA, J990a; USEPA, 1986d.
7'1SJ~ert'U.='
---
-------
Table 14
Potable qr01:1nd-Water Exposure Doses (GV.~xDs), Hazard Ouotients, and
Excess Llfeume Cancer Risks, John Deere Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
COI1ItitueDt
Cpo
Canccr JWk aDd
Haurd Quob=t
GWExD
CaIIcer Effects
AneDic
0.013
1.6E-04
3£-04
ELCJl
3£-04
NOD-Cancer Effects
AcctoDe 0.0052 1.5£-04 1E~
TolUCDe 0.0053 1.5£-04 1£-04
XyleDe 0.013 3.1£-04 2£-04
Arsenic 0.013 3.7£-04 4£-01
INlriuc 0.51 1.5£-02 3£-01
c.dt:oi\im 0.0031 8.9E-oS 2£-01
Chromium 0.0085 2.4£-04 S£-02
Copper 0.016 4.6£-04 1£-02
Lead 0.023 6.6£-04 NQ
Nickel 0.024 6.9£-04 3£-02
Zinc 0.077 2.2.£-03 lE-02
HI lE+OO
Cgw
c;WExD
HI
El..CR
NQ
1lfijdl3,n.MI.
Ground water conccntntiOD (mglL).
Ground water exposure dose (mg:'kg/day) calculated using the
9S percent upper confideDce limit CODcentratiOD (Table 47).
Huard index (sum of the haz.ard quotieDtslOVl'ExD/refereDcc
oos~s from Table ~4!~.
E:I...eu lifeume t&D~r risk (CiWExD:It c.anccr slope factor
from Table 64).
Not quantifiable. Haz.ard quotient could Dot be calculated
becauSe there is DO referencc dose for lead. 1Ae potential
health risk is evaluated using the UBK model.
,..
./'
-------
Current Site Worker Soil Exposure Doses. Hazard Quotients. and Excess
Table 15 Lifetime Cancer Risks. Drum Storage Hazardous Waste Storage Mu~'lohn
Deere Ottumwa Works. Ottumwa. Iowa.
CODItitueDt
Ca
SEJD (OlD)
SEJD (JDh)
Cancer Risk IDd
Hazard Quotients
Cancer Effects
. AneDic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
3.3-Dich1orobeWc!iDe
Methylene ch10ricle
Nicbl
cPAHa
16 2.1E-06 2.4E-09 4E-06
1.1 5.4E-07 1.6E-I0 2£-06
14 . 1.1E..()5 2.1E-09 1E~8
70 6.3E..()5 1.0E~8 9E~8
0.39 2.1E-07 5.8E-ll 4E-07
0.003 3.3E-09 4.4E-13 2£-11
23 2. IE ..()5 3.4E-09 3~-\W
0.47 2.5£-07 7.0E-ll 3E-06
ELCJl lE-05
NOD-cancer Effects
AcetoDe 0.078 2.0E-07 2.1£-11 2£-06
Arsenic 16 5.0E-06 5.5£-09 5E~3
Barium 400 1.4E~ 1.4E-07 2E-02
Beryllium 1.1 1.3E-06 3.8E-I0 3E~
Cadmium 14 2.5E-05 4.IE-09 3E-02
Chromium 70 1.5E~ 2.4E~8 1£~
Copper 43 1.7E-05 1.5E~8 SE~
CyanicSc 1.0 3.3E-06 3.5E-I0 2E-04
3.3 - DicbJorobenzid.iDe 0.39 4.9E-07 1.3E-I0 NQ
Le.ac! 350 1.0E~ 1.2E~7 NQ
Methylene cbJoricSc 0.003 7.7E-09 1.0E-12 lE-07
. Nickel 23 4.8E-OS 7.9E-09 2E~3
tP AHa 1.7 2.1E-06 5.9E-I0 SE~
Selenium 1.2 3.IE-07 4.1E-I0 lE~
Zinc 640 3.2E-04 2.2E~7 2E-03
JD lE~1
Cs Soil concentration (mglq).
SExD (OlD) Exposure dose associated w:ith oral/dermal ex~ to soil (mgtq/day).
SExD (1nh) Exposure dose associated with dust inhalation exposure to soil (mglq/c!ay).
HI Haurd iDclex (Sum of the haurd quotients {SExD/R1D from Table 64D.
ELC1l Excess lifetime caDcer risk (SExD x SF from Table 64).
NQ Not q\WItifiablc; toxicity values were Dot available. -
13 jobdocrch23. wkl
--
--
/'
-------
Table 16 Current Site Worker Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients, and Excess
Lifetime Cancer Risks, Oil Spill Area, John Deere Qttumwa Works,
qttumwa, Iowa.
Cancer Risk
aneS Hazard
Constituent C. S£xD (OlD) S£xD (IzIh) QuocieDts
Cancer £ff~u
Aneric 4.8 6.4£~7 7.1E-I0 lE~
Beryllium 1.9 9.4E~7 1.8£-10 4£~
Ca~um 6.7 5.2E~ 9.9£-10 6£~
Chromium 18 1.6E~ 1.7E~ lE-07
Nickel 22 2.0£-<)5 3.3E~ 3£~
ELCR 5E~
Non-Cancer Eff~ts
Ace LoJ1l e 0.006 1.5E-08 1.1£-12 2£-07
~~c 4.8 1.5£-06 1.7£-09 2E-03
Barium 190 4.0£-04 . 6.6£-08 9£-03
Beryllium 1.9 2.2£-<>6 6.6£-10 4£-04
Ca dmium 6.7 1.2£-<)S 2.3£-09 2E-02
Chromium 18 ' 3.8£-05 6.2E~ 8£-03
Copper 17 6.9£-06 5.9£~ 2£-04
Cyanide 0.45 1.5£-06 1.6£-10 7E-oS
LueS 27 .7.8£~ 9.3£-09 NQ
Nicke] 22 4.6£-oS 7.6£-09 2£-03
Toluene 0.003 7.7£-09 1.0£-12 4£-08
Zinc 860 4.3£-04 3.0£-07 2£-03
HI 5£-02
Cs Soil concentration (mglkg).
rE:::D (C,/!1) !xr-:lsure dose aS$Xia~ ~th oral/detml' exposure tc soi: (t=g'k~'day).
s:::~ (!.;.})) EX;y'>sure d~se .S~lltt.d ...i~ d;.;st ~b.211t.:0fI exposW'G L;-. soH (mg!~iciaJ').
HI Haz.ard iDdcx (Sum of dle bu.ard quotients (SExDiR1D from Table 64]).
ELCR Excess lifetime eancer risk (S£xD x SF from Tabl~ 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; ID,ucity values were Dot avaiIable.
l3,johDdoercll24. ..kl
,..
-------
Table 17 . Current Site Worker Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients, and Excess
Lifetime Cancer Risks, South Scar Area, 10hn Deere Ottumwa Works,
Ottumwa. Iowa.
Cancer Risks
ud Haurcl
CoDstilUeDt C. SE%D (OlD) SE%D (!Db) QuotiCDts
Cancer Effects
AneDic 4.2 S.6E-07 6.2E-I0 lE-()6
Beryllium 0.84 4.2E-07 1.2E-I0 2E-()6
Cadmium 6.0 4.6E-06 8.9E-I0 5E~
Chromium 21 1.9E-<)5 3.1E~ lE-07
Nickel 21 1.9E-<)5 3.1E~ 3E~
T etrachloroetbeDe 0.048 5.3E-08 7.1E-12 3E~
ReI. 3E-06
NOli-Cancer Effects
Acetone 0.049 1.3E-07 1.1£-11 lE-06
Anemc 4.2 1.3E-06 1.4E~ lE-03
Barium 160 3.3E-04 5.SE-08 7E-03
Beryllium 0.84 9.7E-07 2.9E-I0 2E-04
Cadmium 6;0 1.1E-oS 2.1E~ lE-02
Chromium 21 4.4E-oS 7.2E~ 2E-02
Copper 38 I.SE-oS 1.3E-08 4E-04
Cyanide 0.15 S.OE-07 5.2E-11 2E-oS
LueS 80 2.3E-<)5 2.8E-08 NQ
Mercury 0.07 6.1E-08 2.4E-11 4E-04
Nickel 21 4.4E-05 7.2£-09' 2£-03
tP AHs 0.20 2.5E-07 6.9E-11 6£-05
T etrachJoroetheDe 0.048 1.2£-07 1. 7£-11 lE-05
Zinc 100 5.0£-05 3.SE-08 3£-04
HI 4E-02
Cs Soil concelltration (mglkg).
SEC (OlD) EXposure dose .ssoc:ated y,'il1:: ora1/denr.J' exposure to soil (mE 'kg'day).
SExD (lnh) Exposure dose assoc:iattd witiJ dust inhalation exposure to soil (mgtq/ciay).
HI Hund mdex (Sum or the haurd quotients [S£xDlRfD from T.ble 64]).
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk (S£xD x SF from T.ble 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity values were Dot available.
13johD4ecrcJt1S. ...kJ
, . .",-
/"
-------
Table 18 Future Site Worker Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients and Excess
Lifetime Cancer Risks, Landfilll, John Deere Ottumwa Works,
Ottumwa, Iowa.
. CaDcer Risk ad
Ccmtituent Ca SEJD (OlD) SEJD (IDh) Haurd QuotieDts
CaDcer Effectl
AJvDic 11 I.SE-06 1.6E~ 3E-06
Beryllium 1.4 6.9E~ 2.1£-10 3E-06
Cadmium 13 1.0E-05 1.9E~ lE-08
Chromium 52 4.7£-05 7.7E~ 3E~
Nickel 20 1.8E-05 3.0£-09 2E-09
cPAHs 1.1 4.3!~ 1.2E~ 5E-05
PCE 0.015 1.6E-08 2.2£-12 IE-I0
ELCll 6E-05
NO!I-C&lIcer Effects
.A cetoDe 0.034 8.7E-08 1.2£-11 9E-07
An.eci: 11 3.4£-06 3.1£-09 3E-
-------
~able 19 Future Site Worker Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients and Excess
. Lifetime Cancer Risks, Landfills 2 and 3, lohn Deere Ottumwa Works,
" Ottumwa, Iowa.
Cancer IWk azul
CoDstitueDt CI S£xD (OlD) S£xD (IIIh) Haurd Q\aotiCDts
CaDcer Effectl
AneDic 15 2.0E~ 2.2E~ ..£~
Beryllium 1.3 6.4E~ 1.9£-10 3£-(y';
Cadmium 15 1.2E-()5 2.2E~ 1£-08
Chromium 17 I.SE-05 2.SE~. 1£~
Methylene chloride 0.014 1.5£-08 2.1£-U 1£-10
Nickel 25 2.2E-05 3.7£~ 3£~
cP AHa 6.2 3.3£~ 9.2£-10 4£-()5
ELCR 4£-()5
NOtI-Cancer Effects
AceLoDe 0.11 2.8£-07 3.8£-11 3£~
AneDic 15 4.7£-06 5.2£~ 5£-03
Barium 260 5.4£~ 9.0£-08 1£-02
Beryllium 1.3 l.S£-06 4.S£-10 3£~
Cadmium 15 2.7£-oS 5.2£~ 3£-02
Chromium 17 3.S£-oS . S.9£~ 2£-02
Copper 26 1.1£-05 9.0£~ 3£~
Cyanide 6.0 2.0£-05 2.1£~ 1£-03
Lud 88 2.S£-o5 3.0£-08 NQ
Meth)'lene chloride 0.014 3.6£-08 4.8£-12 6£-07
Nickel 25 5.2£-05 a.6£~ 3£-03
tP AMs 30 3.7£-oS 1.0£-08 9£-03
Selenium 1.4 4.4£-07 4.8£-10 1£~
Zmc 6,000 3.0£-03 2.1£ -06 2£-02
Xylenes 0.004 1.0£-08 1.4£-12 S£~
Dibenzofuran 1.8 3.9£-07 6.2E-I0 NQ
HI 9£-02
Cs Soil ccncentratiOD (mg!1cg).
S£xD (OlD) . Exposure dose associated with oral/dermal exposure to IOU (mg!1cg/day).
. SExD (1Dh) Exposure dose ~sociated with dust inhalation exposure to IOU (mgl1cg/day).
HI Hazard index (Sum of the 1w.ard quotients (SExD/AD from Table 64D.
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk (SExD x SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity values were Dot available.
7Jf~17S..u
./
-------
Table 20 Adult Resident Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients, and Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risks, Drum StoragelHazardous Waste Storage Mea, John Deere
Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
CaDcer Risk
ed Ha:.ard
CoastitueDt CI SEX!) (OlD) SExD (]Db) Quoti=tI
CaDcer Effects
AneDic 16 7.1£-06 5.3E-I0 lE..()5
Beryllium 1.1 1.9E-06 3.6E-U 1£-06
Cac1mjum 14 3.9£..()5 4.6£-10 3£~
Chromium 70 2.2£-04 2.3£~ 9E~8
3,3-Dichlorobewc!iDe 0.39 7.4£-07 1.3£-11 3£-07
Methylene chloride 0.003 . 1.2£-08 9.9£-14 9E-11
Nickel 23 7.4£-05 7.6E-I0 6E-I0
cPAHs 0.47 9.0£-07 1.6E-11 1E-05
ELCR 3E~S
~on-Cancer Effects
Acetone 0.078 7.1£~7 6.0£-12 1£-06
Anenic 16 1.8E-05 1.2£~ 2£-02
Barium 400 3.0E~3 3.1£~8 6£-02
Beryllium 1.1 4.5£-06 8.5E-11 9£-04
Cadmium 14 9.0E~S 1.1£~ 9£-02
Chromium 70 5.2E-04 S.4E~ 1£-01
Copper 43 6.2E~S 3.3E-GP 2£-03
Cyanide 1.0 1.2E-oS 7.7£-11 6E-04
3,3- Dichlorobenzidine 0.39 1.7E-06 3;OE-11 NQ
Lead 3S0 3.6E-04 2.7£~8 NQ
Methylene chloride 0.003 2.7£-08 2.3£-13 5£-07
Nickel 23 1.1£-04 1.8E~ 9£~3
,tP AHs 1.7 7.6E-06 1.3E-I0 2£~3
Selenium 1.2 1.3£-06 9.2£-11 4£-04
Zinc 640 1.1£-03 4.9£-08 6£-03
m 3£-01
Cs Soil concentratioa (mg/kg).
SEX!) (OlD) Exposure dose usoc:iated v.ith oral/dermal exposure to lOil (mglkg/eS8y).
. SEX!) (Inh) Exposure dose associated v.ith dust inhalation exposure 10 soil (mg/kg/day).
HI Haurd index (Sum of the haurd quotients [SExD/RID from Table 64]).
ELCR Excess lifetime caDcer risk (SExD x SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity V&!~s were Dot available.
I3johDdccreIt26. wkl
,..
-------
Table 21 Adult Resident Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients, and Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risks, Oil Spill Area, John Deere OttUmwa 'Works, OttUmwa, Iowa.
Cancer JUsk cd
CoDstiQleDt Ca 5£ID (OlD) SEID (IDh) Hazard QuotieDts
C&n:er Eff'"ts
Arsenic 4.1 2.3E-06 1.6£-10 4E-06
Beryllium 1.9 3.4E-06 6.3E-ll lE-05
Cadmium 6.7 1.9E-05 2.1£-10 lE~
Chromium 11 5.IE-05 S.9E-I0 1£~1
Nickel 22 7.0E-05 7.3E-I0 6£-10
ELCR 1£-05
NOZI-Cancer Effects
AcetoDe 0.006 S.SE~I 4.6E-13 SE~
Arsenic 4.8 S.4E-06 3.7E-I0 SE-03
Barium 190 1.4E-()3 1.5E-()8 3E~
Beryllium 1.9 7.8E-06 1.5E-I0 2£-03
Cadmium 6.7 4.3E-05 5.2£-10 4E~
Chromium 18 1.3E-04 1.4E-09 3E~
Copper 17 2.5E-()S 1.3E-09 1£-04
Cyanide 0.45 S.3E-06 3.SE-11 3E-04
lad 27 2.8E-()S 2.1E-09 NQ
Nickel 22 1.6E-04 1.1£-09 8E-03
Toluene 0.003 2.7E~8 2.3E-13 lE~7
Zinc 160 l.SE -()3 6.6E-()8 IE-03
HI lE~1
Cs Soil concentration (mglkg). .
SEx!> (OlD) Exposure dose associated wit!! oral/dermal exposure to soit (mgfkg/day).
SEx!> (lnh) Exposure dose associated wit!! dust inhalatioD exposure to soil (mglkg/da)').
III Ha.z.ard index (Sum or tIle h.u.ard quotients [SExDlFJD from Table 64]). .
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer ris1 (SEx!> x SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity values were Dot available.
716jo~doc:reI'J.'1: .11
~
-"
-------
Table 22 . Adult Resident Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients, and Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risks, South Scar Area, 10hn Deere Ottumwa Works, Ottum\\'i, Iowa.
CaDcer Rilk anc!
CoDstio.a=t Ca SEx%) (OlD) SEX%) (IDh) Haurd (2\Iotienll
Can:er £ff'ecll
Analic 4.2 2.0£~ 1.4£-10 4E~
BeryWum 0.14 1.5E~ 2.1£-11 6E~
Cadmium 6.0 1.7E-()5 2.0£-10 lE-09
Chromium 21 6.7E-()5 6.9£-10 3E~1
Nickel 21 6.7E-()5 6.9£-10 6£-10
T etracbJoroetbeDe 0.041 1.9£~ 1.6£-12 lE~1
ELCR 1£~
Non-Ca!!c:er Eff'ecll
AcetoDe 0.049 4.5£-07 3.1£-12 4E~
Arsenic 4.2 4.7£-06 3.2£-10 5£~
Barium 16Q 1.2£-03 1.2£-01 2£~
Beryllium 0.f.4 3.5£-06 ~.5E-ll 1£~
Cadmium 6.0 3.9£-05 4.6£-JO 4£~
Chromium 21 1.6£~ 1.6£-09 3£~
Copper 38 S.SE-05 2.9E-09 lE~
Cyanide 0.15 1.8£-06 1.2£-11 9E-05
Lead 80 ° 8.3£-05' 6.2E-09 NQ
Mercury 0.07 2.2£-07 5.4£-12 7E~
Nickel 21 1.6£~ 1.6£-09 I£~
tP AHI 0.20 1.9£-07 1.5£-11 2£-()4
Tetracb]oroetMne 0.048 4.4£-07 3.7E-12 4£~5
Zinc 100 1.8£~ 7.1£-09 9£~
m lE~l
Cs Soil concentration (mglkg).
SExD (OlD) Exposure dose associat.e.c1 with oral/dermal exposure to IOU (mglkglday).
SExD~) Expof'.l!'e dC'~e Issoc:iat.e.c1 wit!! dust inha1ation exposure Ie IOU (mgfk81day).
HI HClyj ir:kx tS~m or tb: buard q'.:ot:Ct5 ISExDlRfD flC°Z:= Table 64}).
ELCR 1:.xc;ss lii~time c.an:er risk (SExD 1 SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity valuel were DOt available.
° 716johDdccnl3l21.wkt
-..
-'
-------
-Table 23 Adult Resident Soil Exposure Doses, Haurd Quotients, and Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risks, Landfilll, John Deere Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
CaDcer Kisk IDd
Constituent Cs SEd) (OlD). SEd) (IDh) Huard Quotients
CaDcer Effects
ArseDic 11 5.3E-06 3.&-10 9E-06
Beryllium 1.4 2.5E-06 4.6E-ll lE-05
Cadmium 13 3.6E-05 4.3E-I0 3E-09
Chromium 52 1.IE~ '- 1.7E-09 7E-G8
Nickel 20 6.4E~ 6.&-10 &-10
cP AHa 1.1 1.5E-()s 2.7E-I0 2E~
TetrachJoroeth=e 0.015 5.9E-08 5.0E-13 3E-09
ELa 2E~
Non-Can~er ~ffects
AcetoDe 0.034 3.1£-07 2.6E-12 3E-G6
AneDic 11 1.2E-G5 8.5E-I0 lE-02
Barium 140 1.0£-03 1.IE-08 . 2E-02
Beryllium 1.4 5.8£-06 1.IE-I0 lE-03
Cadmium 13 . 8.4E-G5 1.0E-09 8E-02
Chromium 52 3.9£-04 4.0£-09 8£-02
Copper 33 4.1£-G5 2.5£-09 lE-GJ
Cyanide 17 2.0£~ 1.3£-09 lE-02
Lead 280 2.9£~ 2.2£-08 NQ
Nickel 20 1.5£~ 1.5£-09 7E-03
Selenium 1.1 1.2£-G6 '.5E-ll 4£-04
tP AHs 9.8 4.4£~S 7.6E-I0 1£-02
Tetra:hJoroetheDe 0.015 1.4£-07 1.2£-12 1£-OS
Zinc 910 1.7E~3 7.6£-01 9£-03
HI 2£-01
Cs Soil CODcentration (mgtq).
SE'tD (OlD) Exposure dose usoci.ted wi!b oralldermal exposure to soil (mg'ke'day).
SEx!> (lnh) Exposure d:>se associ.ted v.i!b dust iDbala:.iOtl exposure to sou (mi/kg/da)").
HI Haurd iDckx (Sum of the h.u.ard quotients [S£xD/RfD from Table 64}).
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk (S£xD:It SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity values were Dot available.
7 J 6,johDdoc:re1Jm. wkl
.,. ..' "
/'
-------
Table 24
,Adult Resident Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quotients. and Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risks. Landfills 2 and 3,1ohn Deere Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
....
Cancer Risk and
CoDstitueAt Ca SEx!> (OlD) SExD (lDh) Haute! Quotients
CalIcer Effects
AneDic 15 7.2E~ 5.0£-10, I£-OS
Beryllium. 1.3 2.3£~ ~.3£-11 1£-05
Cadmium 15 3.7£-m 5.0£-10 3£-()9
Chromium 17 5.~f~ 5.6£-10 2E-()8
Metbylene chloride 0.01~ 5.5£ -()8 ~.6£-13 4£-10
Nicel 25 1.0£-05 1.3£-10 7£-10
cP AIh 6.2 :.2E -ns 2.0£-10 1£-04
ELCR 2£-04
Non-CaDcer Effects
AcetDDe 0.11 1.0E~ 1.5£-12 lE-05 .
.Anenic 15 1.7£-()5 1.2£-09 . 1£-02
Barium 260 1.9£~3 2.0E~8 4£-02
Bery Ilium 1.3 5.4£-06 1.0£-JO 1£-()3
Cadmium 15 9.7£-05 1.2£-09 1£-()1
Chromium 17 1.3£-04 1.3£-09 3£-02
Copper 26 3.8E~5 2.0E-09 lE-())
Cyanide 6.0 7.1£-05 4.6E-I0 4£-()3
DibenzoNran 1.8 1.0£-06 1.4£-10 NQ
Lud 88 9.1£-05 6.8£-09 6£-()2
Mercury 0.077 2.4£-07 5.9£-12 1£-04
Mitb)'lene chloride 0.014 1.3£~7 1.1£-12 2£-06
Nickel 25 1.9£-04 1.9£-09 . 9£-()3
&P AHs 30 1.3£-04 . 2.3£-09 3£-02
Selemum 1.4 1.6£-06 ' 1.1£-10 5£-04
Toluene 0.004 3.7£-08 3.1£-13 2£-07
Xylenes 0.004 3.7£-08 3.1£-13 2£-08
Zinc 6.000 1.1£-02 4.6£-07 5E-02
HI 3£-01
Cs Soil concentration (mglkg).
SExD (OlD)' Exposure dose associated witb oT&t/dermal exposure to soil (mgfkgfday).
SExD (Inh) Exposure dose associated witb dust inhalation exposure to soil (mglkg/day).
HI Haurd index (Sum of the haurd quotients [SExD/RfI) from Table 64D.
£LCR Excess lifetime cancer risk (SExD 1 SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity val,," were not available.
7J6jo~:'30....tl
/'
-------
Table 25 Child Resident (age 0 - 6) son Exposure Doses; Hazard Quotients, and Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risks, Drum Storage/Hazardous Waste Storage Area, John Deere Oltumwa
.... Works, Oltumwa, Iowa.
Cancer Risk and
COUsUt\leDt C. S£xD (OlD) S£xD (Inh) Huard QuotieDts
Cancer £ffects
ArseNe 16 1.1£-05 1.8£-09 2£-05
Beryllium 1.1 1.5£-06 1.2£-10 6£-06
Cadmium 14 2.6£-05 1.5£-09 9£-09
Chromium 70 1.5£-04 7.7£-09 3£-07
3,3-I>jchlorobeDzid~ 0.39 5.6£-07 4.3£-11 3£-07
Meth)'leoe cbloride 0.003 7.5£-09 3.3£-13 6£-11
Nickel 23 4.9£-05 2.5£-0') 2£-09
cPAHs 0.47 6.7£-07 5.2£-11 8£-06
ELCR 3£-05
Non-Cancer £ffects
Acetone 0.078 2.3£-06 1.0£-10 2£-05
Arsenic 16 1.2£-04 2.1£-08 1£-01
Barium 400 9.9£-03 5.1£-07 2£-01
Be ry1liu m 1.1 1.7£-05 1.4£-09 3£-03
Cadmium 14 3.1£-04 1.8£-08 3£-01
Chromium 70 1.7£-03 9.0£-08 5£-01
Copper 43 3.7£-04 5.5£-08 1£-02
Cyanide 1.0 3.6£-05 1.3£-09 2£-03
3,3- I>ichlorobenzidine 0.39 6.5£-06 5.0E-I0 NQ
Lead 350 2.4E-03 4.5E-07 NQ
Meth)'lene chloride 0.003 8.8E-08 3.9E-12 lE-06
Nickel 23 5.7E-04 3.0E-08 3E-02
tP AHs 1.7 2.8£-05 2.2E-09 7£-03
Seleoium 1.2 9.3£-06 1.5£-09 3£-03
Zinc 640 6.1£-03 8.2£-07 3£-02
HI 1£+00
Cs Soil concentration (mglkg).
SExD (O.'D) E,-posure dose associaLed with oral/dermaJ exposure to soiI (mgTkg/da)').
S£xD (lnb) Exposure dose associated with dust inhalation exposure to soil (mg/kg/day).
HI Hazard index (Sum of &he hazard quotients (SExD/RfD from Table 64]).
£LCR Excess lifetime cancer risle (SExD x SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; Io,ucity vaJues were Dot Ivailable.'
116jo1u1decrcIJl3l. wit I
"
-------
Table 26 Child Resident (age 0 - 6) Soil Exposure Doses. Haurd Quotients. and
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks, Oil Spill Area, John Deere Ottumwa
Works, Ottumwa, Iowa. .
Cancer JUsk 8Dd
CoDItibW1t C. SEzI> (OlD) SEzI> (1Dh) Haurd Quotients
CaDcer Effects
Aneaic 4.' 3.2'£-06 5.3E-I0 61-06
Beryllium 1.9 1.61-06 2.1!.-10 lE-05
Cadmium 6.7 1.3E-05 7.4E-I0 4E-09
Chromium 11 3.8E-05 2;OE-09 8E-oI
Nickel 22 4.7E-05 2.4£-v; 2E-09
ELCR 2E-05
Ntm-Cancer Effects
AcetoDe 0.006 1.IE-07 7.7E-12 2'£-06
AneDic 4.8 3.7£-05 6.2£-09 4£-02
Barium 190 4.7E-03 2.4£-07 1£-01
Be~..Uium 1.9 3.0'£-05 2.4E-09 6'£-03
Cadmium 6.7 1.5£-04 8.6£-09 1£-01
Chromium 18 4.5£-()4 2.3£-08 lE-ol
Copper 17 1.5£-()4 2.2£-08 4£-()3
Cyanide 0.45 1.6£-05 5.8£-10 8£-()4
LeaeS 27 1.9£-04 3.5£-08 NQ
Nickel 22 5.4E-()4 2.8£ -08 3£-02
Toluene 0.003 8.8£-08 3.9£-12 4£-07
ZiDc 860 8.2'£-03 1.1£ -06 4£-02
m SE-ol
Cs Soi] concentrauon (mglkg).
SEx!> (OlD) Exposure dose associat.e.d ~'jth OTal/dermal exposure to soi] (mgfk8/day). .
SEx!> (Inh) Exposure dose associated with dIU! inha1ation exposure to soil (mgfkg/day).
HI Haurd mdex (Sum of the haure! quotients lSExD/RJD from Table 64]).
ELCR. f'xcess lifet::"1t ClJ)C':" ri~~ (SE~ x S~ from Tabl!: 64).
NQ !'i;>: qUJ:3!.ifil~ie; ~~ci~' \'~I.::.& .... e~: :].'\1 IVI~&bl=.
7J'joIDk.cnnlJ1.wtJ
.
-------
'fable 27 Child Resident (age 0 - 6) Exposure Doses. Hazard Quotients and Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risks. South Scar Area.lohn Deere Ottumwa Works. Ottumwa. Iowa.
\..
Cucer Risk ad
CoDItitueDt C. SE~ (OlD) SE~ (IDh) Haurd Quotienu
Cucer Effects
AneDic 4.2 2.'E~ 4.6E-IO 5E~
Beryllium 0.84 1.1E~ 9.2E-11 SE~
Cadmium 6.0 1.1E-05 6.6E-I0 4E~
Chromium 21 4.SE-05 2.3E~ 9E-08
Nickel 21 ".5E-05 2.3E~ 2E~
T etrachJoroetbeDe 0.048 .1.2E-m S.3E-12 6E~
ELCJl lE-05
Noc-Cucer Effects
Ac:etoDe 0.049 1.4E-06 6.3E-11 lE-05
AneDic ".2 3.3E-oS S.4E~ 3E-02
Barium 160 4.0E-03 2.1E-07 8E-02
Beryllium 0.84 1.3E-05 1.1E~ 3E-03
Cadmium 6.0 1.3E-04 7.7E~ lE-ol
Chromium 21 S.2E-04 2. 7E -08 2E-ol
Copper 38 3.3E-04 4.9E-08 PE-03
Cyazaide 0.15 S.SE-06 1.PE-I0 3E-04
Lead 10 S.6E-04 1.0E-07 NQ
Mercury 0.07 9.2E-07 9.0E-11 3E-03
Nickel 21 S.2E-04 2.7E-08 3E-02
IP AHs 0.20 3.3E-06 2.6E-I0 8E-04
Tetr.:hJoroethene 0.048 1.4E-06 6.2E-11 1 E -04
Zinc 100 P.SE-04 1.3E-07 SE-03
m 4E-ol
Cs Soil CODcentration (mgfk&).
SExD (OlD) Exposure dose associated with oral/dermal exposure to soil (mg/kg/day).
SE~ (lnb) Exposure dose 8ssociated with dust inhalation exposure to lOil (mgfk&/day). .
HI Huard index (Sum of the ha.z.ard quotieDts [SE~/RfI) from Table 64]).
ELCR E~ceu lifetime tallcer risk (SExD X SF from Table 64).
~Q Not quantifiablej toxicil)' valucs were DO! a,,'aiI8ble.
716johDdocrc131]3. -kt
-
--
~
,-
---
-------
Table 28 Child Resident (age 0 - 6) Soil Exposure Doses, Hazard Quoti~nts, and Excess
Lifetime Cancer Risks, Landfilll, John Deere Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
"
CaD=er Risk ucI
Coasticueat Ca SEd) (OlD) SEd) (JDh) Haurd Q\aotieats
CaII=er Effects
AneDic 11 7.3E~ J.2E~ lE~
Beryllium 1.4 J.9E-06 J.SE-JO 'E~
Cadmium 13 2.5E..()5 1.4E~ 9E~
Chromium 52 1.1E~ S.7E~ 2E~
Nicb.l 20 4. 2E..()5 2.2E~ 2E~
cPAHI 8.1 1.2E..()5 1.9E-I0 lE~
T etrach1oroetb=e 0.015 3.8£~8 J.7E-12 2E~
ELCR 2E-04
Non-Callcer Effects
A=etoDe 0.0)4 9.9£-07 3.7E-12 lE~
AneDic 11 8.SE-05 1.2E~ 9E-02
Barium 140 3.S£~3 I.S£~8 7£~2
Bef)'Uium 1.4 2.2E-05 I.SE-10 4E~3
Cad.mium 13 2.9E-04 1.4E~ 3E~1
Chromium S2 1.3£~3 S.7£-09 3E~1
Copper 33 2.9E-04 3.6£-09 8£-03
Cyanide 17 6.2£~ 1.9£-09 3E-02
Lead 280. 1.9£~3 3.1E-08 NQ
Nickel 20 4.9£~ 2.2E-09 2E-02
Selenium 1.1 8.SE~ J.2E-I0 3£-03
tP AHs 9.8 1.6E-04 1.1E-09 4£-02
Tetrach1oroethene 0.015 4,4E~7 1.7£-12 4E-OS
2mc 980 9.3£~3 1.1£-07 5E~2
HI 9£~1
Cs Soil cODcelltratioll (mg/k,g).
SEx!> (OlD) Exposure dose associated with oral/dermal exposure to loil (mg!kg/day).
SE:tD flcl.) !J:?C'sure do~ lS!:cxiated with dus: iJ-J)'l!alioll exposure to &oil (mg 'q/c!a)'),
HI r.e.oUd i:d;x (Su->n oftb~ buare! qu~~~:u [SE~.',?,f:) from Table 64}).
rLCk E.X~S5 lifetime C4ir..::r risl: (SE1.D x Sf from "I'abi: 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity val~ were Dot available.
71'~r.w.tWtt
~
,..
/
-------
~able 29 Chi1d Res.id~nt (age 0 - 6) Soil Ex~sure Doses. Hazard Quotients. and Excess
Lifetime Cancer Risks. Landfills and 3,1ohn Deere Ottumwa Works, Ottumwa, Iowa.
CaDcer Rille aDd
ConstitueDt C. S£11> (OII) SEX!) (Inh) Haurd. QuotieDts
Cancer Effects
AraeDic 15 I.OE~ 1.7£-09 2E-05
BeryJJium 1.3 1.8£..1)6 1.4E-l0 1£-06
Cal1mium 15 2.8£-05 1.7£-09 IE-08
Chromium J7 3.6E-05 1.9£-09 IE-08
MethyleDC cbloride 0.014 3.5£-08 1.5£-J2 3E-l0
Nickel 25 5.3£-05 2.1£-09 2E-09
cPAHs 6.2 8.9£-06 6.8£-10 1£-04
ELCR IE-04
Ncm-Cancer EffectJ
AcetoDe 0.11 3.2£-06 1.4£-10 3£-05
ArseDic 15 1.2£-04 1.9£-08 lE-01
Barium 260 6.4£-03 3.3E-07 IE-ol
Beryllium 1.3 2.1£-05 1.7£-09 4£-03
CadaUum 15 3.3£-04 1.9£-08 3£-01
ChroaUum 17 4.2£-04 2.2E-08 lE-01
Copper 26 2.2£-04 3.3E-08 6£-03
C)'aDide 6.0 2.2£-04 7.7E-09 IE-02
Dibcnzofurln 1.8 3.0£-05 2.3E-09 NQ
. Lead 88 6.1£-04 1.1E-07 NQ
Mercury 0.077 1.0£-06 9.9E-11 . 3£-03
Methy]ene chloride 0.014 4.1£-07 1.8£-11 7£-06
Nickel 2S 6.2£-04 3.2£-08 3£-02
tJ' AHs 30 5.0£-04 3.9£-08 1£-01
Selenium 1.4 1.1£-05 1.8£-09 4£-03
Toluene 0.004 1.2E-07 5.1£-12 6£-07
Xy]enes 0.004 1.2E-07 5.1£-12 6E-08
Zinc 6,000 5.7£-02 7.7£-06 3£-0]
HI lE+oo
Cs Soil concentration (mglkg). .
5ExD (OlD) Exposure dose associated with oral/dermal exrosure to soj] (mglkg/dly).
SEX!) (Inh) Exposure dose associated with dust inhalation exposure to soil (mg/kg/dly).
. HI Huard index (Sum of the hazard quotients (S£xD1RfD from Table 64).
EL.CR Excess lifetime caDcer risk (SExD x SF from Table 64).
NQ Not quantifiable; toxicity values were Dot aVlilable.
'106jdriJ3S. .-\1
~ '.""
....
-------
Table 30 Potable Surface-Water Exposure Dose (SWExD) and Huard Quotient,
Black Lake, Ottumwa, Iowa.
Constituent
Csw
SWExD
Hazard Quotients
Non-Cancer Effect
Barium
Zinc
0.43
0.038
1.2E~2
1.lE~3
HI
2E~1
SE~3
2E-
-------
Table 31
Calculated Blood Lead Levels in Children
(Age 0-6)
Blood Lead LevelS-
Lead Geometric Percent Percent
Source Concentration Mean Below Below
Area Medium (95" VCL) pgfdL 10,.gldL 15 ,.gldL
Landfill 1 Soil/Dust 280 mg/kg
) Water. 23 pg/L 4.23 99.36 99.99
...ir 0.021 pg/mJ
Landfill 2 and 3 Soil/Dust 88 mg/kg
Water 23 pg/L 3.23 99 .9'; 100
\ Air 0.0066 pg/m'
Drum Storage! Soil/Dust 350 mg/kg
Hazardous Waste Water 23 pg/. 4.59 98.78 99.97
Storage Area Air . 0.026 pg/m'
Oil Spill Area Soil/Dust 27 mg/kg
Water 23 pg/L 2.91 99.98 100
Air 0.002 pg/m'
South Scar Area Soil/Dust 80 mg/kg
Wafer 23 ,.g/L 3.19 99.95 100
Air 0.006 pg/m'
. Calculated using the USEPA Model "LEAD4-.
1OI\,.tlblllh' ...
..
-------
ATTACHMENT E
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
4
.
;'
-------
.. -.---. -
RECEIVED
JUL 0 5 '9~1
Site: \
TD ~.
., .. ""I;J
. . -
\C----..~- eo::.~ \' ri!:->
1~: ....-:..:.
...$.2-
i ""'''-
.' ~ -.... -
..
TE~RY E. 8AANSTAC. ~
ION'
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LARRY J. WILSON. DIItI:~
..
June 27, 1991
Anne 1... Olberding
Superfund Breeb
U S. EPA Region VD
726 Minnesota AveDue
KaDSas City. KaDsas 66101
RE: Job Deere Ottumwa Works Site
Dur Anne:
We have reviewed the Proposed Plan (or the Job Deere Ottum9r'a Works Site and concur with the preferred
aJternative for addressing the Contaminated soil/fill material at the site. Please continue to keep us informed
about future site activities and sch~duIes \Ioben they become known.
If you have any questionS or comments regarding this matter please CODtact me at 515/281-4968 or Keith
Schilling at 515/281-4117.
1fZ.~/I~
Morris PrestoD
Supervisor
Solid Waste Section
-
...
....,
.,. ..'"
,.
f
.--
WJ.UACE STATE OFFICE BUILl)ING I DES MOINES. 'ON" 5031~ 151~281.51"5/TDD 5'~2"2.59671 FAX 5'~281-&9S
------- |