United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-91/054
December 1990
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Kern-Pest Laboratories, MO
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1" REPORT NO. I 2. 3. ReclpIent'a AcC88810n No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R07-91/054
4. TItle end Subtitle 5. Report OIIte
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 12/31/90
Kem-Pest Laboratories, MO 8.
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(a) 8. Perfonnlng Orgenlzrion Repl. No'
8. Perlonnlng OrgeinlDtion HaIM end Add..... 10. ProjectJTallcJWork Unit No.
11. Contnc:1{C) or Grent(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. ~ortng Organlz8llon HaIM end Addre.. 13. Type 01 Report a Patted Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. SupplelMntary No\e8
18. Abatract (Limit: 200 worda)
The 6-acre Kem-Pest Laboratories site is a former pesticide production facility
located in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Site features include a concrete block
building that housed the pesticide formulation operation and currently holds
approximately 11,200 gallons of contaminated water in its basement; six storage tanks
used for storing solvents and oil; and a lagoon used for the disposal of sewage and
plant waste. An unconfined aquifer system lies within the alluvial and colluvial
deposits at the site. From 1965 to 1977, Kem-Pest Laboratories formulated various
pesticide products including liquid pesticides, granular insecticides and herbicides,
and pesticide dust onsite. Wastes generated from pesticide production contained
several pesticides including aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor. Plant wastes
were disposed of in the onsite lagoon. No production or disposal activities have
occurred onsite since 1977, and the lagoon was backfilled with clay by the owner in
1981. Based on Federal assessments and investigations conducted in 1981, it was
determined that the lagoon and the formulation building were the most significant
sources of site contamination. Ground water contamination has occurred from the
migration of contaminants from the soil within the lagoon; ground water may also act
(See Attached Page)
17. Document AnaJyala .. eeacriptolS
Record of Decision - Kem-Pest Laboratories, MO
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: debris, sw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other organics (pesticides), metals (arsenic,
chromium, lead)
b. Identifler8l0pen-Ended Tonne
Co COSA 11 ReIcIIGroup
18. AvailabiRty Statement 18. Security CIa.. (Thla Report) 21. No. 01 Pagea
None 68
20. SecurIty CIa.. (Thla Page) 22. PrIce
None
See ANSt-Z38.18 See In.rruclion. on R.",,- .
(Formerty Nl1S-35)
DepartlMntofCo~ce
-------
EPA/ROD/R07-91/054
Kern-Pest Laboratories, MO
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
as a flushing mechanism for contaminants in the subsurface soil. A 1989 Record of
Decision (ROD) addressed OU1, the contaminated surface soil in the lagoon; surface soil
in the lagoon area and near the formulation building; and sediment in drainage channels
onsite and offsite. This ROD addresses pesticide contamination in the formulation
building, ground water, and surface water, as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting debris and surface water are VOCs including benzene; other organics including
pesticides; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes decontaminating the formulation
building by surface layer removal; dismantling approximately 50 tons of interior
structures and formulation equipment not amenable to decontamination, followed by
offsite incineration and disposal of decontaminated and dismantled debris; implementing
additional decontamination measures including scarification and applying a sealant to
the concrete floors, if necessary; collecting and treating onsite approximately 11,200
gallons of water that has collected. in the basement of the formulation building using
activated carbon adsorption, with onsite discharge of the water and offsite carbon
regeneration or disposal; long-term ground water and surface monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is $727,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $5,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: No Federal or State clean-up standards exist for
remediation of contaminated structures in regard to risks posed by direct contact. EPA
has determined that a 10-5 individual lifetime excess cancer risk will be protective of
human health from risks associated with contaminated structures. Performance standards
for inhalation of pesticides are the worker permissible exposure limits as defined by
OSHA regulations including aldrin 0.25 mg/m3 and dieldrin 0.25 mg/m3.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES SITE
CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY, MISSOURI
GROUND WATER AND FORMULATION BUILDING OPERABLE UNIT
Prepared by:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
DECEMBER 1990
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Kern-Pest Laboratories site
2ape Girardeau County, Missouri
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for ground water and the formulation building at the Kem-Pest
Laboratories site located in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri.
This decision was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record
file for this site.
The State of Missouri concurs on 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, may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Remedial action at the Kem-Pest site is to be implemented
through a series of operable units. The first operable unit
addressed contaminated soil and sediment, the materials that
comprise a principal threat posed by the site. The Record of
Decision for the first operable unit was signed September 29,
1989. This second and final operable unit addresses risks posed
by contamination in the formulation building.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Ground Water
No remedial action. Monitoring will be conducted to
verify that no unacceptable exposures to risks posed by
conditions at the site occur in the future.
Wells to be monitored include existing monitoring wells,
an additional monitoring well to be installed during remedial
design, and private drinking water wells located off of the site.
-------
Formulation Buildinq
Decontamination by surface layer removal and off-site
incineration of decontamination and dismantling debris.
Institutional controls that limit future use of the
building to commercial or industrial activities.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Ground Water
Based on the determination that ground water contamination
does not pose a significant threat to human health or the
environment, no remedial action is necessary to ensure protection
of human health and the environment.
Formulation Buildinq
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 (or resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a
principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on the site above health-based levels, a review will be
conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
orris Kay
Regional Administrator
u.s. EPA, Region VII
I ~Iu /'D
-;;:;rr-
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES SITE
CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY, MISSOURI
GROUND WATER AND FORMULATION BUILDING OPERABLE UNIT
Prepared by:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
DECEMBER 1990
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1
2.2
2.3
Location and Description
Geology and Hydrogeology
Topography
3.0
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
4.0
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
5.0
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
5.1
5.2
5.3
site Cleanup strategy
First Operable Unit
Second Operable Unit
6.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 Nature and Extent of contamination
6.1.1 Ground Water
6.1.2 Formulation Building
6.2 Contaminant Sources and Potential Routes
of Migration
7.0
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
7.1 Ground Water
7.1.1 Exposure Assessment
7.1.2 Toxicity Assessment
7.1.3 Risk Characterization
7.2 Formulation Building
7.2.1 Exposure Assessment
7.2.2 Toxicity Assessment
7.2.3 Risk Characterization
8.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
8.1 Ground Water
8.1.1 No Action
8.2 Formulation Building
8.2.1 No Action
8.2.2 Demolition and Off-site Disposal
8.2.3 Decontamination and Off-site Disposal
8.2.4 Decontamination and Off-site Incineration
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
9.0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
10.0
SELECTED REMEDY
10.1 Ground Water
10.1.1 Description of Remedy
10.2 Formulation Building
10.2.1 Description of Remedy
10.2.2 Remediation Goals
11.0
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
12.0
ATTACHMENTS
Concurrence Letter from the state of Missouri
A
B Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
C Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
site Vicinity Map
Site Map
Monitoring Well Locations
Profile of Formulation Building
Formulation Building Sample Locations
Pesticide Analysis Results for Phase I RI
Volatile Analysis Results for Phase I RI
Metals Analysis Results for Phase I RI
Pesticide Analysis Results for Second Round
Volatile Analysis Results for Second Round
Metals Analysis Results for Second Round
Summary of Zone. A Sample Results
Summary of Zone B Sample Results
Summary of Background Well Sample Results
Summary of Private Well Sample Results
Summary of Formulation Building Sample Results
Estimates of Exposures Based on Zone B Sampling
Estimates of Exposures Based on Modeling
Health Effects Criteria: Ground Water contaminants
Risks from Direct Contact with Building Surfaces
Risks form Direct Contact to Dust in Building
Summary of Cost Estimate for Ground Water Monitoring
Summary of Cost Estimate for Formulation Building
Acceptable Contaminant Concentrations in Building
OSHA permissible Exposure Limits
-------
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Record of Decision (ROD) is the final remedial action
plan for a site or operable unit. This ROD for the Kem-Pest
Laboratories site presents the final remedy for the ground water
and formulation building operable unit.
The ROD consists of three major components:
a Decision Summary, and a Responsiveness Summary.
a Declaration,
The Declaration is a formal statement signed by the u.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regional Administrator.
The Declaration identifies the selected remedy and states the
selection was made in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP).
This document, the Decision Summary, provides an overview of
the site characteristics, the risks posed by site conditions, the
remedial alternatives evaluated, and the analysis of those
options. The Decision Summary also provides the rationale for
the selected remedy.
The final component of the ROD, the Responsiveness Summary,
provides information about community preferences regarding the
remedial alternatives evaluated and general concerns about the
site. The Responsiveness Summary also demonstrates how comments
were considered as an integral part of the decision making
process.
2.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
2.1
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Kem-Pest Laboratories site is located in Cape Girardeau
County, Missouri, approximately three miles northeast of the city
of Cape Girardeau. A map of the general vicinity and site
location is presented in Figure 1.
The site occupies approximately six acres of land in a
predominantly rural setting. Three residences are located within
1000 feet from the site to the west and southwest; ten additional
residences lie within a 1000 foot radius northwest to northeast.
Adjacent to the site on the south are the st. Louis-San Francisco
2
-------
railroad tracks; the Mississippi River is approximately 1000 feet
further south. A storage tank facility and agricultural fields
are located between the river and the railway. Agricultural
fields are adjacent to the site on the east and northeast.
Information obtained from the u.s. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Missouri Department
of Conservation indicated there are no critical habitats of
endangered species or national wildlife refuges within a one mile
radius of the site. The Fish and Wildlife Service identified a
small (200 feet by 100 feet) scrub-shrub wetland located south of
the site between the railroad tracks and the Mississippi River.
A 40-by-100 foot concrete block building which housed the
Kem-Pest pesticide formulation operation is located on site. Six
storage tanks used for the storage of solvents and oil are north
of the building. A lagoon used for the disposal of sewage and
plant waste is located approximately 40 feet southwest of the
building. A site map is presented in Figure 2.
2.2
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located on portions of an alluvial terrace and
upland on the west bank of an encroaching meander of the
Mississippi River. Borings made during site investigations
encountered unconsolidated alluvial deposits consisting of silty
clay with localized sand lenses overlying colluvial deposits
consisting of gravelly sand. The silts and clays range in depth
from 42 to 55 feet from the ground surface. The thickness of the
colluvium is unknown but greater than 15 feet.
Ground water monitoring wells were installed to monitor
ground water within both the alluvial and colluvial deposits.
Based on data obtained during the remedial investigation (RI),
ground water flow is 'generally to the south-southeast in the
silty clay and to the south in the gravelly ,sand. The RI data
also indicates there is one unconfined aquifer system present
within the alluvial and colluvial deposits at the site.
2.3
Topography
The topography of the area is characterized by rolling
landscape to the west and relatively flat terrain between the
site and the Mississippi River. The site is located adjacent to
the 500-year flood plain.
Runoff from the site, particularly the lagoon area, flows
south-southeast to a drainage channel along the railroad tracks.
This drainage channel continues southwest to a culvert which runs
under the tracks. From the culvert, runoff flows toward the
river.
3
-------
3.0
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Kem-Pest Laboratories plant was constructed in 1964.
From 1965 to 1977, the company formulated various pesticide
products including liquid pesticides, granular insecticides and
herbicides, and pesticide dust. Wastes generated from the
formulation processes contained several pesticides including
aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor. The plant wastes were
disposed of in the on-site lagoon. There have been no production
or disposal activities at the site since 1977. The lagoon was
backfilled with clay by the owner in 1981.
In 1981 Charles Knote, an owner and operator of the
facility, submitted a notification of hazardous waste site under
section 103 of CERCLA to EPA. A preliminary assessment of the
site was conducted by EPA in September 1981. Erosion of the
lagoon cover and chemical odors were noted. In March 1983, EPA
obtained soil samples from the lagoon area and ground water
samples from the plant well and two private wells in the area.
Pesticide contamination was detected in the soil samples; no
contamination was identified in the well water samples.
In April 1984, EPA installed five on-site monitoring wells
and collected ground water, soil, and sediment samples.
Pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile
organic compounds were detected in the soil, sediment, and ground
water samples. The Kem-Pest site was proposed for the National
Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987.
In March 1987, EPA initiated a search for potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) that might have contributed to or
caused the contamination at the site. The search identified Cape
Chemical Company, Inc., and affiliated entities, and Charles and
Ruth Knote as PRPs that owned or operated the Kem-Pest plant.
Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into
by EPA and the property owners in November 1988, the owners
conducted limited sampling in December 1988. Pesticides were
detected in soil samples obtained from the lagoon area and in
wipe and dust samples collected from the formulation building.
In February 1989, EPA initiated a remedial investigation
(RI), which included collection of soil and sediment samples,
installation of six monitoring wells down-gradient of the site
and a background well up-gradient of the site, and collection of
ground water samples from on-site and off-site monitoring wells
and two nearby private wells.
4
-------
Based on information obtained during these investigations
RI, remediation alternatives for contaminated soils and sediments
were developed and evaluated in an Operable Unit Feasibility
study issued in August 1989. A remedy for soils and sediments
was selected in a ROD signed by the Regional Administrator in
september 1989. The ROD specified excavation of contaminated
soils and sediments and their disposal in an off-site hazardous
waste landfill.
As part of the RI, EPA conducted additional field activities
in February 1990 to further evaluate the nature and extent of
contamination in the ground water and to obtain additional
information on the formulation building. These activities
included collection of ground water samples from on-site and
off-site monitoring wells and a detailed inspection of the
building.
4.0
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
Community participation activities were initiated prior to
the start of the remedial investigation. A community relations
plan was developed based on interviews conducted by EPA with
residents and local officials. The plan documented the issues of
concern to the community and outlined future community relations
activities.
At the start of RI field activities in February 1989, EPA
met with the Cape Girardeau County commission, the county health
department, and other local officials to discuss the field work.
Informal interviews were also conducted with area residents to
inform them of site activities and to answer questions. Fact
sheets about the project were mailed to residents, local
officials and the media. During the field work, nearby residents
and local officials were provided updates on EPA's activities.
In November 1990, Addendum I and II to the Phase I RI
report, the Formulation Building Operable Unit Feasibility Study
report, and the Proposed Plan were made available to the public
in the administrative record file located at the Cape Girardeau
Public Library. A public notice was published in The Southeast
Missourian on November 27, 1990, announcing the start of the
public comment period, the date of the public meeting, and the
availability of the administrative record file at the library.
Fact sheets .were also mailed to area residents, local
officials, and the media announcing the availability of the
project documents, the public comment period, and the public
meeting.
5
-------
The public comment period was held from November 26, 1990,
through December 26, 1990. A public meeting was held in Cape
Girardeau on December 11, 1990. At the meeting, representatives
from EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and
the Missouri Department of Health (MDOH) were available to answer
questions regarding problems posed by site conditions and the
remedial alternatives under consideration.
A response to comments received during the public comment
period is provided in the Responsiveness summary, the third
component of this Record of Decision.
5.0
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
5.1
SITE CLEANUP STRATEGY
Remedial action at the Kem-Pest site is to be implemented
through a series of operable units, or discrete actions. The
phasing of cleanup actions provides the opportunity to achieve
significant risk reduction more quickly than addressing the
entire site at one time. The Kem-Pest site cleanup consists of
two operable units.
5.2
FIRST OPERABLE UNIT
The first operable unit addressed contaminated subsurface
soil in the on-site lagoon, surface soil in the lagoon area and
near the formulation building, and sediment in drainage channels
on the site and off the site. These sources of contamination
present one of the principal threats posed by the site to human
health and the environment due to the potential for dermal
contact, ingestion, and inhalation.
As mentioned earlier, the remedy for soils and sediments was
selected in the September 1989 ROD, which specified excavation of
contaminated soils and sediments and disposal in an off-site
hazardous waste landfill. The development of construction plans
and specifications was initiated in March 1990 and will be
completed by May 1991. Implementation of the soils and sediments
remedy could begin as early as the summer of 1991.
6
-------
5.3
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
This second operable unit addresses contamination in the
ground water and formulation building. contamination in the
ground water is not considered a significant threat to human
health or the environment. Pesticide contamination in the
formulation building presents the other principal threat to human
health and the environment posed by the site due to the potential
for dermal contact, ingestion, and inhalation.
The remedy for this operable unit has two objectives. The
first is to monitor contamination in ground water to ensure that
no unacceptable exposures occur from potential future residential
use of the aquifer. The second objective is to remove or reduce
risks posed by dermal contact, ingestion, or inhalation of
pesticide contamination in the building by workers in the future.
6.0
SUMMARY OP SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The nature and extent of contamination of ground water and
the formulation building is summarized below. Sources of
contamination and potential routes of migration are also
discussed. This summary is based on information obtained during
the Phase I RI conducted in 1989 and the second round of field
activities conducted February 1990. Detailed information
regarding the nature and extent of contamination can be found in
the Phase I RI report (August 1989) and Addendum I to the Phase I
RI report (September 1990).
6.1
NATURE AND EXTENT OP CONTAMINATION
6.1.1
GROmm WATER
During the 1984 site investigation, five monitoring wells
(1,2,3A,3B,4) were installed on the site to determine if ground water
was contaminated. Pesticides, VOCs and semi-volatile organic
compounds were detected in ground water samples obtained from the
monitoring wells.
To better characterize site hydrogeology and define the
extent of contamination in ground water, seven additional
monitoring wells (5, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B) were installed
during the Phase I RI. One well (5) was located up-gradient of
the site, and six wells were located down-gradient of the site.
Well locations are illustrated in Figure 3.
7
-------
Based on boring logs and physical analyses conducted on soil
boring samples, it was determined that the upper 70 feet of
unconsolidated deposits beneath the site consist o£ two water-
bearing units. The first unit, Zone A, consists of alluvial clay
and silt deposits with localized sand lenses. Monitoring wells
1, 2, 3A, 4, 5, 6A, 7A, 7B, and SA are screened in Zone A. The
lower unit, Zone B, consists of colluvial sand deposits. Wells
6B and SB are screened in Zone B. The alluvial deposits range in
depth from 42 to 55 feet from the ground surface. The thickness
of the colluvial deposits is undefined, but known to be greater
than 15 feet.
Ground water elevations recorded during the RI
unconsolidated deposits beneath the site constitute
unconfined aquifer system that includes both Zone A
Ground water flow is to the south/southeast and the
gradient is downward.
indicate the
a single
and Zone B.
vertical flow
During the Phase I RI, ground water samples were collected
from the on-site and off-site monitoring wells. Two nearby private
drinking water wells were also sampled. The samples were
analyzed for pesticides, VOCs, semi-volatiles, and total metals.
To confirm the presence of pesticides dissolved in ground water
rather than absorbed on soil particles, both filtered and
unfiltered ground water samples were collected from five wells.
The results of the Phase I RI sampling identified
concentrations of pesticides, VOCs, and metals in on-site
monitoring wells screened in Zone A and located in the area of
the lagoon. Maximum contaminant level (MCL) drinking water
standards were exceeded in these on-site wells for several
pesticides (gamma-BHC, heptachlor, endrin, chlordane), VOCs (1,2-
dich10roethane, benzene) and metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead).
In the off-site monitoring wells screened in Zone A, three
pesticides (heptachlor, aldrin, and chlordane) were detected at
relatively low concentrations. One VOC, 1,2-dichloroethane, was
detected above the MCL. Three metals (barium, chromium, and
lead) were detected above the MCLs. No contaminants were
detected at concentrations exceeding MCLs in the off-site
monitoring wells screened in Zone B.
A second round of ground water sampling was performed in
February 1990 to further evaluate the extent of contamination in
ground water. The results of the second round confirm the
presence of pesticides, VOCs, and metals in on-site monitoring
wells screened in Zone A and located in the lagoon area. In off-
site monitoring wells, no pesticides were detected. One
volatile, 1,2-dichloroethane, was detected above the MCL in a
well screened in Zone A. Again, no contaminants were detected
above MCLs in off-site wells screened in Zone B.
S
-------
Analytical results for pesticides, VOCs, and metals for both
phases of sampling are summarized in Tables 1 through 6. A
comprehensive summary of analytical results for Zone A, Zone B,
the background well, and the private wells is presented in Tables
7 through 10.
6.1.2
FORMULATION BUILDING
sixteen samples were collected inside the two-story concrete
block building. Twelve wipe samples were obtained from walls,
floors, and abandoned equipment. The remaining samples consisted
of a dust sample, a basement water sample, and two bulk material
samples. A profile of the formulation building is presented in
Figure 4; sample locations are shown in Figure 5.
Based on the results of the wipe samples, residual pesticide
contamination appears to be present throughout the building.
Pesticides identified most frequently and in the highest
~oncentrations include heptachlor, dieldrin, and chlordane.
Toxaphene was detected at relatively high concentrations in the
bulk samples. Low concentrations of pesticides were detected in
the sample of water that had accumulated in the basement. A
summary of pesticides detected in samples collected from inside
the formulation building is presented in Table 11.
6.2
CONTAMINANT SOURCES AND POTENTIAL ROUTES OF MIGRATION
Based on the results of the RI and previous site
investigations, the sources of contamination at the Kem-Pest site
include areas where hazardous substances may have been spilled,
leaked, or disposed. The lagoon and the formulation building
appear to be the most significant sources, but the lagoon has
already been addressed in the Record of Decision for the first
operable unit.
The potential migration pathways at the site include
infiltration and direct migration through surface and subsurface
soil, ground water transport, erosion and surface runoff, and air
transport mechanisms. Through infiltration, precipitation
percolates downward forming a leachate of the soluble materials.
The leachate continues to migrate downward to the water table.
Direct migration of wastes can occur from beneath the lagoon.
The fluctuating shallow ground water at the site may also act as
a flushing mechanism for contaminants in the subsurface soils.
The subsurface conditions at the site indicate that sorption
will retard the migration of contaminants due to the organic
content and low hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial material.
9
-------
The organochlorine pesticides detected at the site are very
insoluble in water and are readily adsorbed to soil particles.
The pesticides also are persistent and do not significantly
biodegrade. The VOCs are generally water soluble and less
readily adsorbed to soil particles. They are more mobile in
ground water than the pesticides. Some of the metals, such as
arsenic, can be mobile in ground water.
7.0
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
To evaluate potential effects on human health in the absence
of remedial action, a risk assessment was conducted as part of
the RI. Both current and future land use scenarios were
considered. This section summarizes EPA's findings regarding
risks from exposure to contamination in the ground water and
formulation building. The complete risk assessment is contained
in the Phase I RI report and Addendum II to the RI report.
The RI did not identify any potential environmental impacts.
Ground water flowes south to the Mississippi River, which is
located approximately 1000 feet from the site. There are no
agricultural users of the ground water in the area.
7.1
GROUND WATER
7.1.1
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
A baseline risk assessment was conducted to evaluate risks
to human health associated with potential exposures to ground
water contamination in the absence of remedial action. To
determine potential effects on human health, pathways by which
humans could be exposed were identified based on reasonable
assumptions regarding current and future uses of the site.
Based on this pathway analysis, the only pathway considered
to be complete under current or future land use conditions was
future use of ground water from the lower water bearing unit,
Zone B. No exposures to ground water are expected to occur under
current land use conditions, because no drinking water wells
exist on the site or down-gradient of the site.
Use of the upper water-bearing unit, Zone A, was not
considered as a potential exposure pathway. It is unlikely that
a well would be screened in this zone and used as a private water
supply source due to the hydrogeological characteristics of this
unit. The low hydraulic conductivity of the silty clay material
in Zone A would not likely support a domestic well, and water
from this unit contains a large amount of suspended solids. The
potential yield from a residential well screened in Zone A was
10
-------
estimated to be approximately 2 gallons per minute, based on
calculations using an average hydraulic conductivity from slug
tests conducted on wells screened on Zone A. Furthermore,
because the water-bearing unit located just below Zone A would
support a private well, there is little need to use Zone A.
Finally, it is unlikely that a well would be installed down-
gradient of the site due to its close proximity to the river.
Therefore, the potential for exposure to contamination in ground
water from Zone A is sUfficiently low to omit it as an exposure
scenario.
The gravelly sand material in Zone B would provide
sufficient yield for a private well and was therefore considered
as a potential exposure pathway. Based on a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario, future residents could be exposed to
contamination in ground water from Zone B by ingestion or by
using the water to shower, thereby inhaling volatilized
chemicals. A reasonable maximum exposure scenario reflects
exposures that could occur based on the likely or expected use of
the site in the future.
To evaluate these exposures, two approaches were used to
estimate the concentrations of contaminants in Zone B to which
future residents could be exposed. The first uses 1989 and 1990
sampling data from monitoring wells screened in Zone B with the
assumption that these concentrations will remain constant over
the 30 year exposure period assumed.
The second approach estimates average concentrations for
Zone B over 30 years, based on modeling the downward migration
over time of selected chemicals from Zone A to Zone B. The
modeling methodology, and the rationale for the chemicals
selected for modeling, is presented in Addendum II to the RI
report. Based on the results of this model, 1,2-dichloroethane
and heptachlor were used to quantify future exposures.
Chronic daily intakes (CDIs) to humans were estimated by
using the exposure point concentrations determined above and
exposure parameters including ingestion rates, body weights, and
exposure frequency and duration. Tables 12 and 13 present the
exposure point concentrations and CDIs for ingestion of ground
water and inhalation of contaminants while showering based on
Zone B sample results and on modeled concentrations for Zone B.
7.1.2
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to weigh available
evidence regarding the potential for contaminants to cause
adverse effects to exposed individuals and to provide an estimate
of the relationship between the extent of exposure to a
contaminant and the increased likelihood or severity of adverse
effects.
11
-------
Slope factors have been developed by EPA to estimate excess
lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially
carcinogenic chemicals. EPA also assigns weight-of-evidence
classifications to potential carcinogens. Under this system,
chemicals are classified as either Group A (human carcinogen), B1
& B2 (probable human carcinogen), C (possible human carcinogen),
D (not classified), or E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity).
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to chemicals exhibiting non-carcinogenic effects. RfDs are
estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including
sensitive individuals.
Table 14 presents the health effects criteria discussed
above for the chemicals of potential concern in ground water at
the Kern-Pest site.
7.1.3
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Based on the 1989 and 1990 Zone B sampling data, the results
of the baseline risk a~sessment indicate a total excess lifetime
cancer risk of 6 x 10-. The total excess lifetime cancer risk
based on modeled concentrations is 6 x 10-5. An excess cancer
risk is defined as the additional probability that an individual
exposed to a chemical for his entire lifetime will develop
cancer. An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 indicates an
individual has a one in one million chance of developing cancer
as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen.
Potential risks of non-carcinogenic health effects were
estimated by comparing the CDIs to the RfDs. The hazard index
(HI) is the sum of the CDI:RfD ratios for all the chemicals
evaluated. In general, hazard indices less than one are not
likely to be associated with any health risks. For the non-
cancer health effects, a hazard index of one was estimated for
ground water.
The excess cancer risk levels estimated by the ~aseline risk
assessment fall within the risk range of 10-4 to 10-. EPA
considers this risk range representative of generally acceptable
levels for the protection of human health.
It is expected that the risks posed by ground water will be
less than those estimated by the baseline risk assessment due to
the removal of the primary source of contamination to ground
water, the on-site lagoon. The methods used in the risk
assessment to estimate the concentration of contaminants in
ground water that residents could be exposed to in the future are
12
-------
based on the continued release'of contaminants to ground water by
the lagoon. As previously discussed, the first operable unit
will include the removal of the lagoon and contaminated soils
below the base of the lagoon.
Regarding environmental risks, no critical habitats,
sensitive environments, or endangered species are affected by
contamination in the ground water.
For these reasons, EPA has determined that no remedial
action for the clean up of ground water is necessary.
7.2
FORMULATION BUILDING
7.2.1
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
A baseline risk assessment evaluated risks to human health
associated with potential exposures to pesticide contamination in
the formulation building. To determine potential effects on
human health, pathways by which humans could be exposed were
identified based on reasonable assumptions regarding current and
future uses of the site.
The only pathway considered to be complete under current or
future land use conditions was future use of the building. An
industry occupying the site in the future may use the formulation
building, and workers may be exposed to chemicals in the building
through direct contact with contaminated surfaces and through
inhalation. The building has no current use: entrances to the
structure are locked and windows are boarded up.
Potential risks from contact with contaminated building
surfaces were evaluated by using estimated acceptable levels for
dpe samples for the chemicals of concern by analogy to available
~pill cleanup requirements for polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
for industrial indoor surfaces such as walls and floors. This
comparison is reasonable, because these pesticides and PCBs share
similar chemical properties. The cleanup requirement for PCBs
based ~n wipe samples is 10 micrograms/100 square centimeters
(ug/cm). Acceptable levels for wipe samples for the chemicals
of concern were estimated by comparing the cancer potency for
PCBs to the cancer potency of the chemical of concern and then
multiplying by the PCB criteria. The estimated acceptable levels
are presented in Table 15. .
Potential exposures to future industrial workers were
calculated separately for dermal contact and incidental ingestion
based on data from the dust samples.
13
-------
7.2.2
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT'
Slope factors and weight of evidence were again used for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure
to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. RfDs were used for
estimating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to chemicals exhibiting non-carcinogenic effects.
7.2.3
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Based on the baseline risk assessment, estimated
contaminant concentrations for surfaces were exceeded
times in the wipe samples for aldrin, chlordane, DDT,
and heptachlor.
acceptable
by 1 to 140
dieldrin,
Potential risks were also calculated for dermal contact with
and incidental ingestion of dust. The average and plausible
maximum ~xcess lifetim~ cancer risks were calculated to be
2 x 10 - and 2 x 10 - , respectively. Most of the cancer risk
is attributable to heptachlor. The non-carcinogenic hazard index
associated with direct contact with dust was estimated to be 4
for the maximum case and less than one for the average case.
Estimated exposures and risks from direct contact to dust is
presented in Table 16.
EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, if not addressed by the preferred
alternative or one of the other active cleanup measures
considered, may present a current or potential threat to human
health, public welfare, or. the environment.
8.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives evaluated in detail in the Formulation
Building Operable Unit Feasibility Study (OUFS) report are
described below. This description identifies engineering and
treatment components, institutional controls, implementation
requirements, estimated costs, and major applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for each alternative.
8.1
GROUND WATER
The baseline risk assessment conducted for ground water
indicated ground water contamination did not pose a significant
threat to human health. The OUFS for this second operable unit,
therefore, did not develop or evaluate remedial alternatives for
ground water. The no action alternative is described below.
14
-------
8.1.1
NO ACTION
The no action alternative will not involve any remedial
action to prevent or reduce exposures to ground water
contamination. Monitoring will be conducted for the first five
years to verify that no unacceptable exposures posed by
conditions at the site occur in the future.
Ground water samples will be collected from existing on-site
and off-site monitoring wells, private drinking water wells in
the immediate vicinity of the site, and from an additional
monitoring well which will be installed down-gradient of the site
during the remedial design phase of the project. This additional
monitoring well will be installed to further characterize the
nature and extent of contamination in Zone B.
The ground water samples will be analyzed for pesticides,
VOCs, and total metals. Sampling would be conducted on a
quarterly basis for the first three years and semiannually for
two additional years.
During the statutory five-year review, the five years of
ground water monitoring data and other information, including
site conditions will be evaluated. Upon completion of the
review, if EPA determines the site does not present a significant
threat to human health or the environment, monitoring could be
terminated.
However, if during the monitoring period or at the five-year
review EPA determines that unacceptable risks may occur, the ROD
would be amended, the use of institutional controls, including
deed restrictions, could be implemented and the need for remedial
action including engineering controls or treatment would be
evaluated.
compliance with federal and state ARARs is not required as
no remedial action is necessary to protect human health or the
environment. Furthermore, development and comparison of remedial
alternatives is not necessary, because no unacceptable risks are
presented by the ground water.
The time required to implement this alternative, i.e., to
install the additional monitoring well, is estimated to be
approximately one week. Costs for the no action alternative
include costs for the collection and analysis of ground water
samples and the installation of the additional monitoring well.
The total present worth of the no action alternative with
monitoring, assuming a ten-year monitoring program as described
above and a five percent discount rate, is estimated to be
$215,000. The detailed cost summary for capital cost, annual
costs, and total present worth costs associated with
implementation of this alternative is presented in Table 17.
15
-------
8.2
FORMULATION BUILDING
The baseline risk assessment for the formulation building
indicated pesticide contamination in the building posed
unacceptable risks to human health. Summarized below are the
remedial action alternatives developed and evaluated in the OUFS
to reduce or eliminate the threat to human health and the
environment posed by the building contamination.
8.2.1
NO ACTION
The NCP requires the no action alternative be evaluated.
This alternative provides a baseline for comparing the
effectiveness of the other alternatives. Under this alternative,
no remedial actions would be taken to prevent or reduce
exposures. The building would remain in its present condition.
There are no costs associated with this alternative.
8.2.2
DEMOLITION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
This alternative calls for the complete demolition of the
formulation building and disposal of the debris at an off-site
land disposal facility in compliance with the requirements of
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Interior structures and formulation equipment would be dismantled
prior to demolition. Formulation equipment would be
decontaminated and salvaged, if possible.
Water that has accumulated in the basement would be
collected and treated on the site by activated carbon adsorption
to remove organic contaminants. Approximately 11,200 gallons
would require removal and treatment. After treatment, the water
would be discharged to drainage channels on the site. The carbon
would be regenerated or disposed of at an off-site RCRA-
authorized hazardous waste disposal facility.
For purposes of developing and evaluating this alternative,
it is assumed that all interior structures and equipment would be
disposed of at the off-site RCRA-authorized hazardous waste
landfill. Approximately 500 tons of material would require
disposal as hazardous waste. Based on information provided by
the responsible party, EPA has determined that the wastes from
this site are RCRA-listed wastes, both "P" and "U" wastes.
Currently, there are three RCRA land disposal facilities within
700 miles of Cape Girardeau that may be available for the
disposal of the waste. Demolition and dismantling debris would
be transported to the off-site facility in bulk shipments by
covered trucks. After completion of the demolition, the affected
areas would be returned to their original elevation, graded and
seeded.
16
-------
This alternative would comply with federal and state ARARs.
At the time of implementation, the off-site landfill would comply
with the CERCLA off-site disposal policy. The facility would
meet RCRA requirements, 40 C.F.R. Parts 264 or 265, which include
a double liner system, a leachate collection system, a leachate
detection system, a mUlti-layer cap, and a ground water
monitoring system. The alternative would also comply with RCRA's
land disposal restrictions, 40 C.F.R. Part 268. If land disposal
were to occur after the national capacity variance date for these
wastes (May 8, 1992), it may be necessary to treat the waste to
treatability variance levels.
The off-site transportation of hazardous materials would
comply with u.s. Department of Transportation (DOT) and RCRA
regulations found at 40 C.F.R. Part 263. Waste manifests would
accompany all shipments.
Substantive requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and Missouri Water Quality Standards
would be met for treated water discharged on the site. Occupational
Health and Safety Act (OSHA) requirements would be met to protect
the health and safety of the workers during hazardous waste
activities. State of Missouri Waste Management Rules would be
met during implementation of the alternative.
The time required to implement this alternative is estimated
to be approximately 15 to 20 weeks. The direct capital costs are
estimated to be $290,000. with indirect costs, the total capital
cost is predicted to be $436,000. There would be no operation
and maintenance costs associated with this alternative.
8.2.3
DECONTAMINATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
This alternative requires the decontamination of the
formulation building by surface layer removal, dismantling
interior structures and formulation equipment, and disposal of
decontamination debris and dismantled equipment and structures at
a RCRA-authorized land disposal facility. Water from the
basement would be collected and treated on the site as described
in the above section.
In order to make a final selection of decontamination
technologies during remedial design, it would be necessary to
collect core samples from the building to evaluate the depth to
which contaminants have penetrated the porous concrete surfaces.
Based on observations made during investigations of the building,
it has been assumed in developing and evaluating this alternative
that the depth of penetration is relatively shallow and that
grit-blasting would be adequate to decontaminate the concrete
surfaces. Scarification might be required to remove deeper
contamination and a sealant might be used in place of surface
removal in heavily contaminated areas.
. 17
-------
Structures and equipment not amenable to decontamination
would be dismantled and disposed of at a RCRA-authorized land
disposal facility as described in the previous section. After
dismantling, the concrete floor, walls, and other surfaces would
be spray-blasted with a hard abrasive material with a combined
grit-blasting/vacuum head. The grit used to blast would be
reused, when possible, throughout the decontamination process.
Decontamination debris would be collected in 55-gallon drums and
disposed of at an off-site RCRA facility. It is estimated that
approximately 50 tons of contaminated material and grit-blasting
debris would require disposal.
After decontamination was completed, confirmation samples
would be collected from the surfaces to determine whether the
remedial action objectives had been achieved. If analyses
indicated contamination was still present above remedial goals,
additional decontamination measures would be implemented,
including scarification to remove deeper contamination or the
application of a sealant.
Dermal and inhalation exposure to pesticide contamination in
the building would be reduced by decontaminating the building to
health-based contaminant concentration levels. These levels are
based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario for future
industrial use. This alternative would include institutional
controls to limit future use of the building to commercial or
industrial activities. These controls would prevent higher risks
associated with residential use of the building.
Long-term monitoring and operation and maintenance (O&M)
activities would be necessary at the site if water again
collected in the basement. Water seepage would be collected,
analyzed, and treated as necessary.
This alternative would comply with federal and state ARARs.
The major ARARs are those identified in the previous section,
which include RCRA regulations found at 40 C.F.R. Parts 263, 264,
265, and 268, DOT transportation requirements, NPDES and Missouri
Water Quality standards, OSHA regulations, and the Missouri Waste
Management Rules.
The time required to implement this alternative is estimated
to be approximately 25 to 30 weeks. The direct capital costs
associated with this alternative are estimated to be $214,000.
with indirect costs, the total capital cost is estimated to be
$322,000. Annual O&M costs, which would include collection and
treatment of water which accumulated in the basement, are
estimated to be $5000. The total present worth of this
alternative, assuming a 30-year life and a S-percent discount
rate, is estimated to be $399,000.
18
-------
8.2.4
DECONTAMINATION AND OFF-SITE INCINERATION
This alternative would essentially be the same as the
previous decontamination alternative, with the exception that
dismantling and decontamination debris would be thermally treated
at a RCRA-authorized off-site incineration facility prior to land
disposal. Thermal treatment would be used to destroy the
pesticide contamination.
The time required to implement this alternative is estimated
to be approximately 25 to 30 weeks. The direct capital costs for
this alternative are estimated to be $289,000. with the addition
of indirect costs, the total capital cost is estimated to be
$425,000. Annual O&M costs, which would include collection and
treatment of water which accumulated in the basement, are
estimated to be $5000. The total present worth cost of this
alternative, assuming a 30-year life and a 5-percent discount
rate, is estimated to be $512,000.
9.0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The NCP establishes nine evaluation criteria to address.
CERCLA statutory requirements and technical, cost, and other
considerations. The evsluation criteria serve as the basis for
selecting a remedial action. The relative performance of the
remedial alternatives in the Formulation Building OUFS report is
summarized below in relation to the nine evaluation criteria.
9.1
OVERALL PROTECTION OF JIUMA!f BBALTH AND TIlE ENVIRONMENT
This criterion addresses whether a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls. This criterion is
considered a threshold criterion; that is, overall protection
must be provided for an alternative to be considered for
selection.
with the exception of the no action alternative, all the
alternatives for the formulation buildinq provide protection of
human health and the environment by removinq, reducinq, or
controllinq risk throuqh treatment, engineerinq controls, or
institutional controls. The no action alternative will not be
discussed further, because it is not protective of human health
and the environment.
The demolition and off-site disposal alternative would
eliminate risks at the site associated with the building by the
removal of pesticide contaminated material to a RCRA-authorized
19
-------
off-site hazardous waste landfill. The off-site landfill,
through containment, would reduce risks posed by the contaminated
material by reducing the potential for contaminant migration and
direct contact with or inhalation of contaminants. RCRA
technical requirements for the landfill include a double liner, a
leachate detection and collection system, and monitoring.
The decontamination and off-site incineration alternative
would reduce and control future risks at the site associated with
the building. The potential for inhalation of contaminants or
for direct contact with them would be reduced by the removal of
surface contamination to protective levels for commercial or
industrial use. Institutional controls would limit future use of
the building to commercial or industrial activities. The risks
associated with the decontamination and dismantling debris would
be permanently eliminated by destruction of the pesticide
contaminants through incineration.
The decontamination and off-site disposal alternative would
reduce and control future risks at the site associated with the
building in the same manner as described above for the
decontamination and off-site incineration alternative. The risks
associated with the decontamination and dismantling debris would
not, however, be eliminated but reduced through containment at a
RCRA-approved off-site hazardous waste landfill.
9.2
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
This criterion addresses whether a remedy will meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of federal
and state laws. Compliance with ARARs is also a threshold
criterion that must be satisfied in order for an alternative to
be eligible for selection.
All the alternatives would comply with federal and state
ARARs including RCRA regulations found at 40 C.F.R. Parts 263,
264, 265, and 268, NPDES, OSHA, the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, and Missouri Hazardous Waste Management
Rules. The decontamination and off-site incineration alternative
would also comply with federal and state air pollution
requirements including the Clean Air Act.
9.3
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
This criterion assesses residual risk and the ability of a
remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time, after remedial action goals have been met.
Factors that are considered include both the magnitude of
residual risk remaining after implementation as well as the
adequacy and reliability of controls used to manage treatment
residuals or untreated wastes.
20
-------
The demolition and off-site disposal alternative would
eliminate long-term risks at the site associated with the
building. No long-term monitoring or O&M activities would be
required at the site. However, less long-term effectiveness
would be associated with the demolition debris, as off-site
disposal would contain rather that treat or destroy the
contaminants. containment provided by an off-site land disposal
facility meeting the RCRA technical requirements would adequately
control the risks associated with the pesticide-contaminated
debris.
The decontamination and off-site incineration alternative
would effectively reduce long-term risks at the site associated
with the building by removing surface contamination to protective
levels. Residual long-term risks would be controlled by limiting
future use of the building to commercial or industrial activities
through institutional controls. This alternative would also
require long-term monitoring and O&M requirements for water that
may accumulate in the basement. Incineration would effectively
eliminate risks associated with the decontamination and
dismantling debris.
The decontamination and off-site disposal alternative would
also effectively reduce long-term risks at the site associated
with the building as described above. This alternative would
include similar long-term monitoring and O&M at the site. There
would be less long-term effectiveness associated with the
decontamination and dismantling debris, because the landfill
would contain rather than treat or destroy the pesticide
contamination. containment provided by an off-site land
disposal facility meeting the RCRA technical requirements would
adequately control the risks associated with the pesticide
contaminated debris.
9.4
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH. TREATMENT
The degree to which a remedy will employ recycling or
treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume is assessed,
including how treatment is used to address the principal threats
posed by the site. .
The decontamination and off-site incineration alternative is
the only alternative that would employ treatment to achieve
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of the primary threat
posed by the building. Approximately 50 tons of decontamination
and dismantling debris would be thermally treated to destroy the
pesticide contaminants.
All the alternatives would employ treatment to address the
other threat posed by the building. Each alternative would
employ activated carbon adsorption to remove organic
contamination from approximately 11,200 gallons of water from the
basement.
21
-------
9.S
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
This criterion addresses the period of time needed to
achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during implementation of the
remedy.
All the alternatives would present similar short-term risks
to the community, workers, and the environment during
implementation. Potential exposures to fugitive emissions during
demolition or decontamination activities would be effectively
minimized and controlled by implementing engineering controls
such as water sprays and dust suppressants. Potential risks to
workers would be minimized and controlled by compliance with OSHA
requirements. RCRA and DOT regulations would effectively
minimize and control potential risks to the community and the
environment during the off-site transport of contaminated
material.
All the alternatives would require approximately the same
time to implement. The demolition alternative would take the
least amount of time to implement, estimated at 15 to 20 weeks.
The decontamination alternatives would require 25 to 30 weeks to
achieve the remedial response objectives.
9.6
IMPLEMENTABILITY
This criterion addresses the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services. The difficulty of undertaking additional remedial
action, if necessary, is assessed.
All the alternatives are similar regarding the technical
feasibility of implementation. All the alternatives would be
easily implemented using conventional technologies. These
technologies are established and proven reliable for hazardous
waste remediation.
The demolition alternative would not require anyon-site
monitoring. The effectiveness of the decontamination
alternatives would be monitored by obtaining surface, wipe, and
air samples. If analyses indicated contamination above remedial
goals were still present, additional conventional decontamination
technologies could be implemented including scarification or the
application of a sealant.
The number of landfills and thermal treatment facilities
that are permitted to receive hazardous waste and which are in
comp~iance is limited, so availability at the time of
22
-------
implementation might vary. The equipment and materials required
to implement the demolition or decontamination alternatives would
be readily available. Workers trained in hazardous waste site
work and transporters of hazardous waste materials would also be
readily available.
All the alternatives require coordination with federal,
state, and local agencies before and during implementation.
Institutional controls associated with the decontamination
alternatives also require coordination with state and local
agencies after implementation. In addition to MDNR and the city
and county of Cape Girardeau, coordination with state and local
officials in the area where the off-site facility was located
would also be required.
9.7
COST
This criterion addresses the direct and indirect capital
costs of the remedy. operation and maintenance costs incurred
over the life of the project, as well as present worth costs, are
also evaluated.
The decontamination and off-site disposal alternative is
estimated to be the least costly at $399,000. The cost for
demolition and off-site disposal was estimated to be $436,000.
The demolition and off-site incineration alternative was estimated
at $512,000.
9.8
STATE ACCEPTANCE
This criterion assesses the state's concerns and position
regarding the remedy. Technical and administrative issues are
considered.
At the public meeting, the state of Missouri indicated its
support for the decontamination and off-site incineration
alternative for the formulation building and the no action
alternative for ground water with monitoring and the installation
of an additional down-gradient monitoring well.
9.9
COMMUHITY ACCEPTANCE
This criterion summarizes the public's response to the
alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan. Specific responses
to all comments submitted by the public are provided in the
Responsiveness Summary component of the ROD.
23
-------
10.0' SELECTED REMEDY
10.1
GROUND WATER
Based on the information obtained during the RI including
the baseline risk assessment, EPA determined that ground water
contamination does not present a significant threat to human
health or the environment and, therefore, no remedial action is
necessary. Monitoring would be conducted to verify that no
unacceptable exposures to risks posed by site conditions occur in
the future.
10.1.1
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY
The monitoring program would include the collection of
ground water samples from existing on-site and off-site monitoring
wells, private drinking water wells in the immediate vicinity of
the site, and from an additional monitoring well which would be
installed down-gradient of the site during the remedial design
phase for the formulation building.
Sampling would be conducted on a quarterly basis for the
first three years and semiannually for two additional years.
Based on a review of the sampling data and other site
information, monitoring would be terminated or continued as
appropriate.
If at any time during the monitoring program EPA determined
that unacceptable exposures are occurring, the ROD would be
amended, the use of institutional controls, including deed
restrictions, could be implemented and the need for remedial
action including engineering controls or treatment would be
evaluated.
Costs for the monitoring program include costs for the
collection and analysis of ground water samples and the
installation of the additional monitoring well. The total
present worth of the no action alternative with monitoring,
assuming a ten-year monitoring program and a five percent
discount rate, is estimated to be $215,000. A detailed cost
summary for capital cost, annual costs, and total present worth
costs is presented in Table 17.
10.2
FORMULATION BUILDING
Based on information obtained during the RI including the
baseline risk assessment, EPA has determined that pesticide
contamination in the formulation building poses unacceptable
24
-------
risks to human health and the environment. EPA has further
determined that decontamination by surface removal and off-site
incineration is the most appropriate remedy for the contaminated
structure, based on an evaluation of the relative performance of
each alternative with respect to the evaluation criteria, and
consideration of comments received during the public comment
period.
10.2.1
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY
The potential for direct contact with or inhalation of
pesticide contamination in the formulation building would be
reduced by the decontamination of the building by surface layer
removal, dismantling of interior structures and formulation
p.quipment not amenable to decontamination, and thermal treatment
)f the decontamination and dismantling debris at a RCRA permitted
~ff-site incineration facility.
structures and equipment not amenable to decontamination
would be dismantled. After dismantling, the concrete floor,
walls, and other surfaces would be decontaminated by spray-
blasting with a hard abrasive material with a combined grit-
blasting/vacuum head. The grit used to blast would be reused,
when possible. Decontamination debris would be collected in
55-gallon drums.
After decontamination was completed, confirmation samples
would be collected from the surfaces to determine whether the
remedial action objectives had been achieved. If analysis
indicated contamination was still present above remedial goals,
additional decontamination measures would be imple~ented,
including scarification to remove deeper contamination. If
necessary, a sealant would be applied in heavily contaminated
areas. During the remedial design phase, EPA would conduct
sampling to better define the extent of contamination on the
building surfaces to determine whether scarification or the
application of a sealant would be required.
The decontamination and dismantling debris, estimated to be
about 50 tons, would be transported by truck to an off-site RCRA
permitted incineration facility. Incineration would be used to
destroy the pesticide contamination.
Approximately 11,200 gallons of water that has accumulated
in the basement would be collected and treated on the site by
activated carbon adsorption to remove organic contaminants.
After treatment, the water would be discharged to drainage
channels on the site. The carbon would be regenerated or
disposed of at an off-site RCRA-authorized hazardous waste
disposal facility.
25
-------
Institutional controls would be used to limit future use of
the building to commercial or industrial activities, because the
remedial action cleanup levels are based on worker exposures.
These controls would prevent higher risks associated with
residential use of the building.
Long-term monitoring and O&M activities would be conducted
for the life of the structure (30 years) for water which accumu-
lates in the basement. Water seepage would be collected, ana-
lyzed and treated as necessary.
The time required to implement this remedy was estimated to
be approximately 25 to 30 weeks. The direct capital costs are
estimated to be $289,000. with indirect costs, the total capital
costs are estimated to be $425,000. Annual O&M costs for the
collection and treatment of water which accumulated in the base-
ment are estimated to be $5000. The total present worth cost of
this remedy, assuming a 30-year life and a 5-percent discount
rate, is estimated to be $512,000. A detailed cost summary for
capital costs, annual costs, and total present worth costs is
presented in Table 18.
10.2.2
REMEDIATION GOALS
The objectives of this second operable unit are to remove or
reduce to an acceptable exposure level for commercial or
industrial use the threat of direct contact with or inhalation of
pesticide contamination in the formulation building.
A risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential
impacts to human health for current and future land use
scenarios. Estimated acceptable contaminant concentrations for
wall surfaces were exceeded by 1 to 140 times in wipe samples for
aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, and heptachlor. For dermal
contact with and incidental ingestion of dust, the average and
plausible_~aximum exce!~ lifetime , cancer risks were c~lcula~ed to
be 2 x 10 and 2 x 10 , respect1vely. The non-carc1nogen1c
hazard index associated with direct contact with dust was
estimated to be 4 for the maximum case and less than one for the
average case.
There are no federal or state cleanup standards for
remediation of contaminated structures in regard to risks posed
by direct contact. When a h2alth-ba~ed standard does not exist,
EPA considers a range of 10- to 10- individual lifet~me excess
cancer risk to be protective of human health. The 10- level is
generally used as the point of departure for establishing cleanup
levels.
26
-------
Acceptable contaminant concentrations were calculated for
building dust based on maximum case exposure conditions for
future industrial use. These concentrations were calculated
using risk assessment techniques that combine scenario-specific
exposure parameters with an estimated acceptable chronic daily
intake for each chemical for the exposed population. The
concen!Sations for t~iee target cancer,risk levels, 1 x 10-6,
1 x 10 , and 1 x 10 , are presented 1n Table 19.
Acceptable contaminant concentrations were also calculated
for wipe samples based on information from cleanup requirements
for PCBs for industrial indoor surfaces. (This approach was
summarized in section 7.2.) The concentrations for three target
cancer risk levels, 1 x 10-6, 1 x 10-5, and 1 x 10-4 are
presented in Table 19.
The EPA has determiged that removing or reducing surface
contamination to the 10- level will reduce potential exposures
to protective levels that represent a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario. Based on the exposure scenario at the site, EPA
believes that this level of risk is generally acceptable.
The performance standards for inhalation of these pesticides
are the worker permissible exposure limits (PELs) as defined by
OSHA regulations. These standards evaluate the effectiveness of
decontamination of the formulation building. The permissible
exposure limits are presented in Table 20.
11.0
STATUTORY DBTERKIHATZONS
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes statutory requirements and
preferences for remedial actions. These specify that when
complete, the selected remedy must protect human health and the
environment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
federal and state requirements, be cost-effective, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, the statute includes a preference for remedies
that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduces
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a
principal element. This section discusses how the selected
remedy meets these statutory requirements.
27
-------
11.1
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Decontamination of the formulation building by surface
removal will reduce risks posed by direct contact with or
inhalation of pesticide cogtamination in the structure. Risks
will be reduced to the 10- excess lifetime cancer risk level for
commercial or industrial exposures. Institutional controls will
limit future use of the building to commercial or industrial
activities to prevent exposures associated with residential use.
The risks associated with the decontamination and
dismantling debris would be permanently eliminated by destruction
of the pesticide contaminants through incineration.
There will be no unacceptable short-term risks during
implementation of the selected remedy. No adverse cross-media
impacts are expected from this remedy.
11.2
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
The selected remedy will comply with all federal and state
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to
this operable unit. Contaminant-specific ARARs for remediation
of contaminated structures have not been promulgated for these
contaminants, and no location-specific ARARs were identified.
Action-specific ARARs include:
RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 262 - Standards applicable
to generators of hazardous waste.
RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 263 - Standards applicable
to transporters of hazardous waste.
RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 264 - Standards for owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 265 - Interim status
standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 268 - Standards for land
disposal of hazardous waste.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations, 40 C.F.R.
Parts 107, 171-177.
28
-------
OSHA 29 U.S.C. ~ 1910 - Worker health and safety.
NPDES, 40 C.F.R. Parts 122 and 125 - Discharge of pollutants
from any point source.
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. ~~ 7401-7642 - Treatment technology
standards for emissions to air from incinerators.
Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Rules, Title 10 C.S.R. 24
- Establishes standards and regulations to govern the management
of hazardous waste.
Missouri Water Quality Standards, Title 10 C.S.R. 20-7 -
Establishes water quality standards for ground water and surface
water.
Other criteria, advisories, or guidance to be considered for
this remedial action include the acceptable contaminant
concentrations for dust and wipe samples based on the risk
assessment scenarios for future commercial or industrial use.
11.3
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been
determined to provide overall effectiveness proportional to its
costs, estimated at $512,000. Decontamination of the building
would allow future use of the structure. In addition, the
off-site incineration of the decontamination and dismantling
debris would utilize permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Approximately 50
tons of debris would be thermally treated.
The estimated costs of the selected remedy are within an
order of magnitude of the costs for the demolition alternative
and the decontamination and off-site disposal alternative. In
addition, the demolition alternative would not provide for future
use of the building. Finally, neither the demolition alternative
nor the decontamination and off-site disposal alternative utilize
permanent solutions and treatment technologies.
11.4 UTILIZATION OP PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES) TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
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. Of
those alternatives that protect human health and the environment
and comply with ARARs, EPA has determined that the selected
remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-
term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity,
29
-------
mobility, or volume achieved through treatment, short-term
effectiveness, implementability, cost and considering state and
community acceptance.
The decontamination and off-site incineration remedy provides
a higher degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence than
demolition or decontamination and off-site disposal alternative.
Through incineration the selected remedy effectively eliminates
the risks associated with pesticide contamination that are above
acceptable contaminant concentrations in the building.
The selected remedy is the only alternative that would
employ treatment to achieve reduction in toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the primary threat posed by the contaminated building.
Approximately 50 tons of decontamination and dismantling debris
would be thermally treated to destroy the pesticide contaminants.
All the alternatives are comparable with respect to short-
term effectiveness and implementability. All the alternatives
would present similar short-term risks during implementation of
the remedy and would require approximately the same time to
implement. All the alternatives would be easily implemented
using conventional technologies that are established and proven
reliable for hazardous waste remediation.
The estimated costs of the selected remedy are within an
order of magnitude of the costs for the other alternatives. In
addition, the remedy provides for future use of the building.
The selected remedy is also supported by the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Department of
Health. EPA has therefore determined that decontamination and
off-site incineration is the most appropriate solution for the
pesticide-contaminated building, because it provides a higher
degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence, uses treatment
to address the principal threats posed by the building, and would
have costs within the same order of magnitude of the other
alternatives while providing for future use of the building.
11.5
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy addresses one of the principal threats
posed by the site through the use of treatment technologies.
Pesticide contamination above acceptable contaminant
concentrations in the building will be treated at an RCRA
permitted off-site incineration facility. Therefore, the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element is satisfied.
30
-------
12.0
DOCUMENTATXON' OP SXGNXPXCANT CHANGES
Section 117(b) of CERCLA requires an explanation of any
significant changes from the preferred alternative originally
presented in the Proposed Plan. The selected remedy identified
in this ROD presents no significant changes from the preferred
alternative.
31
-------
ATTACHMENT A
CONCURRENCE LETTER FROM STATE OF MISSOURI
-------
JOHN ASHCROFT
c.c-mo..
Division of Encrgy
Division of Environmcntal Quality
Division of Geology and ~nd Su~
Division of Managemcnt Serviccs
Division of Paries. Rccl'Cation.
and Historic Prescrvation
G. TRACY MEHAN III
DIm:Ior
STATE OF MISSOURI
DEPARTMENT OF NATIJRAL RESOURCES
OFFICE OF THE DIREcrOR
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City. MO 65102
314.7514422
.-.
December 31, 1990
Mr. Morris Kay
Regional Administrator
u.s. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Dear Mr. Kay:
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Kern-Pest Laboratories site, in Cape Girardeau, Missouri,
regarding the groundwater and formulation building operable unit. The
epartment concurs with the goals and remedies selected which are outlined in
he ROD.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate ~o
contact me.
GTM: bgp
-------
ATTACHMENT B
FIGURES
-------
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
..
"
\\
, .
. ,
, !
"' r.,
\ "~
\~
~\
o
::
.,
o.
., .
0'
I'
.:
.
'0
I.. '.
~ ~ I .
"
. ,
,
~, '0 I
',. \ I I
'~:.. I
~".. ..,
..~I
"
.,
~o,18
'.. .
..,\. "
" '
'0' :
., ,
~ .
1.,'
..\
...,
..
..
u
. .
t
b-
-...-'
-
.
-
-
-
-
,..,
!I!!.!'!!'!II . ....- -., ..-.
....... ...... - c... ........
-"'..'.. "" ~.... .....
, IItJtI: I
SIT( Vr:18f'I MAP
8'-'"'' "a8OllA1'IIIIII
-------
-----
. JIll
Ii
'Jd 0
~~
'(U
fJd
.
.~
, ..-/ J
~- - - //
- --- ------- ~
---
. M.'
~
~
---
---
---....
r TO MtSSm.... ItM:It b tOO FYI
~,ro
!1n!!1J!f1.!
" ,-~ c-...,. ,.....,.. .-
.u.. ,...-.,.,., -'CIOt-
"",., ,..CIOt.'-'. ,., "Iii.'.".
,." .. ....
r-. t
sn( ...~
...-"U ~fte11112
-------
-------
"
--
!tel
.
LEGUO
. _ITORINO W[lU 8Y
. 8 Y 1 1989 I
. "ITORINO W[llS 8Y
EaE 119841
..
"'-"A
~-88
- ..:::::- -=- ::' ?
---
. 149.'
8m IIfIlCl :
Sf llJUl' C- '" r.....n., rail
III'P. (-"", _'011'"
""f'IISl"".,QR'f,la, "GAI,n.
~ 8,"88.
---
---
Ft~ure J
roII.......TlOM IIJItOllll .1It MOMI tOlU NIl
WEll saMPl'''G LOCATIONS
.I".PU' l._.fOlllri
Mmt-.,,, II) P".t( I ..
-------
------------..
....a.
DOOII
, "'"
S'OIIAGr
SECTION
SCALE; ,.. '0'
VERT/CAl ANO HOR'ZONTAl
!!!~
..U. n.~. a.. Ctll- St.a. _'"
-, "'10" " /10' '0 seal(.
JIJ'("t~ . .
.f.'~" lallO..'ortIU. Jawa.. '"I.
'...G(
-
la_afOllY
T
",,- I
s-':. 8
I
-=-.--1.-
1
I
.
,
I
I
I
A",,"",MUI lOCll11C*
or PtIOOUt, tlUII.DII .
."'. O8a..
----~_....._-
.atr..,
LA-It
s..
..
YO I.'"
-0 um
,.,.110
F1Qure 4
PIIOF1lt OF FORMUlATION 8UIl.0INO
.,.-..,. La_.,OOt.u
aDO(IIOUlt YO "",U . ..,
-------
'1J
o
00
:D:D
G>o
-c:
z»
» r--
r- -
-,,-1
-<
8010
i..- ...
-
~,- ....
....
~"'"
..,..,., "08--.
=rg)~
ft.....
.~
ft/:..;yiV
=-~
....Ift !III'
Ult....
~
o
II
4
,
. .
.1" ......
..... ......
..., ......
......., "fl.
I..~ll
8DY '0 lUll
..+~
I!I!LI!!!$Ii ...........
,tal_."
...- -
F10ure 5
. MIlL ""'.
'OlU"UU'~_.,jjII'f I
".'."'.,1 , .,
...,. .~..
fI~
-------
ATTACHMENT C
TABLES
-------
..... -- _.
Table 1
StMotARY OF PESncme ANALYSIS RESUlTS fOR GROUND WATER (UQIIJ
ICEM-PEST LABORATORIes. CAPE GIAAROEAU. MO
PHASE I m
-P\E lOCA.1ON1IMO -8Bt
......... ....., IIIW-a .~_-M --- ~ -.. -.. .....,~ .... ......
,_, .,~ " ,,-, "..... "..... "...... .- ,,- ,,- ,-
"""'8MC 1.01 J , J I.
~8HC ... J II'
-8l1li 1.l1li J 10. J
HI"""" 'A - I. I.. 10. ... ...
- ... - ...
HI""""""'" ..
- eo.' . .. I." I.a J 10.
~ ,.. - 1.'1 J
EtoMo"- ..., 101 J
eo.'
~ ... I ,- 1.01 J 1.1
PE8J1C8JE8(fcn "II .... I .111 I." II.~ 1.08 I.. 10. e.. I.. ... ..08
"1J
o
00
:D:D
-
G>O
-c::
Z~
».
1-
~
8MIf'U""'''' lIMO lOCA'1ON
PE~~ . . :tA 78
,....... '.-:ICI ,,-, fI_'
,.,.......c , J
~8HC 1.1'
_8HC 8A 1.1
........... ... ..1
- 1.11
EaMI " "
~. ... I.e' J
~"- we
-..- "
G.--. CI~ .- I.'.
PE8J1C1JE8(fcnMl a.1 Boll '10'1 I.'.
IGfe
OiL 4' 111"""""''''''-'''--'-''-'''''.
no....... -- -... ~- --......-........
,...,.-......... -.... -..-..
lBKIO
J --""~' --.......
-------
.'--.-..." ....
"-- -.'
....------..
'-.. I
Table 2
SUMMARY OF VOlATilE ORGANIC ANAL YSIS RESUlTS FOR GROUND WATER (ugII)
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES. CAPE GIRARDEAU. MO
PHASE I RI
VOlATILE COIFOUHD UW-2 MW-2 MW-3A MW-M
(DupIIcale)
T19N6002 T19N60020 T19H6081 T19N11062
1.1-DIdIIcND8I""" .. J .. J
1.1-01C:"0I'08I1... 15 17 15
CNofofonn 170 190 18
1,2-OIdIIonI8Iha.. 1300 1300 200 33
1.1.1- Trlchloro8lha.. 7 8. .. J
1Jet1Z'8t81 22
2-He1C8none 10 11
ChIOfobennl.. 22
XJ11n8 (taI.1) 22J
HOlE:
CompaundI und8I8c:ted In I'" ample I" omitted from '..lUriImIry 18bII.
1111 bII,* ..... Indlcal. ..... 1118 c:ompound ... und8I8c:ted In tha, ample.
-0
08
::D::D
G>O
-c:
z»
».
,-
--I
/'
"...
I.EOEND:
J ......... d818CI8d; CGflC8nlrallon 8II1ml1ed
~. ,""
-------
fOUL IIUU "" C'fMIII MIIlnl5 .SII." ,.. ~ !IAn. (1./1)
PIIAS( I .1
.(""'(S' l_TIIIIES, tJPI 51_JIll, 11)'
UlftE lOCAII.. "" ....
II'.' "" a-III, "'-1 ,III-I ,III-I ,III-M ,111-. ,111-4 I III.S : III.S I 1II.6A I 111-" : 111-11 : III." ,III-II ,..... '''''ltE I(U '''''I'ltE I(U n.DliIlI. ,,.,
.11...1 ,II" ,nlllOOlO ,11"'1 lIIMOO) ,lIweooe ,IIMOOS ,II~ ,lItII606I :111Il6OO6 ,IIII6OIJ :1I_1'lItI6OI4 ,11_' IItM05I , IIMCM ,"_UI,
..............-----:...................,........-,-.....--:..........-....--,-.......:..........:-.......: ...-....:..-..... :...-....,....-..........-.,-.....---,--------,---..-,
a1.,.. , - , !ilOIlO ,h 15GOO , 14000 , .5GOO , IIODO , 41000 JI 41000 J. Stooo, 1900, loaooo , I!IOGO, .., 14000 J, "OOI , IGO I' ,:MO,
'.."".....'......."-1."........'......."'.: ...........,- .........,.. ..._e- ..: ..........-1........ ...: -..-........: -.... ....-: ..........- t -........,-........, ...............,....._........._.....0.......,
II I, II I, II I, II I: II I, II II II I: 10 I, II '1 10 II II II 10 I, .. I, .. ., .. I, .. I, 10 ..
'.......--1...-.....-'.-.. -.-.-,....... ..: ....... ...1-... .._--,.. ...-........., ..... ...... .,-.--.-.. ..-,.-.-....... --I .. ... -....,.... .....,..-......,...-....,...............,.....-.....-.,..... ..--.&
II ., . .I, 51 .I, . .I. 10 I, U .I, 10 .: 10 I, II J, 10 I. .. .I, 10 .I, II I' II ., II .. U .I, 10 I,
,........_, .-....... .-.......,......... J ...... ...,.........&.......--: ...-.---.. J .... .-.-.,-...-... .8..-......'...-...-.'.........'..-.....'....-.........' ...-..........,..........,
, ,., 1- .I, ,.., 1801, 140, UII, 4.. .I, 410 .I, 1l0, 400, UOI, StO, ''', Its .I, 158 , "' I, ., J,
,---------,---------, ---------,-------- .,-------- .,---------,-----.. - -: --------- -1---------,---- -..- - I --- ..----,---_..._-,---------, ------,--------------,--------------,------- -..,
, 5 I, 5.1 .I, 5 .. '.1, 5.' .I, 5 I, 5 I, 5.1 .I, 5 " 5 II 1.4, 5 I, 5 I' I ., I I' 5 I, I I.
,.........&.........,....-....,......-.,.........,.......-.,....... .-'-.........8.......-.1....."'.-.' -..... ...1.......".'.........'..-....1-..............' .................,......-.-.,
5 I. 'I, , I, 5.t, 5 I' , '1 5 I, 'I' , I, 5 I, 'U. 5 I, 'I, , ., 'I, 5 I, 5 I,
,.........,.........,........... ..-......, ........., .... .-.-.. ........ ...,...-.-...., -..... .-.,.-..-.....,.. ..........., ...... ... I .........,..-..-.,..............., ...-.........., ..........,
,11l1OOO ,MOODO .I, 1- ,4lO0OI ,180000 ,14.-0 , JIOOO J, 41000.1, UOOOO , 14000 . 11l1OOO ,140000 , .,OOI , - .I, 1lO0OI , 150111, 1400II,
,---------, ---------,---------, -----_.._,---- -----,------ ---,------- --,----------,---. ----, --- - - -- - -,.--... -- .,--_.-----,--------,---------,---------------,------------, ----------,
, n, u .I, '" I", 150, JII, " J, " .I, 'S, .., 150, )8, U, D .I, U , II '1 II I'
,..... ..~.,........ .,.-..... ..,..... ... .,... .... ..,......-..,.......-.,.........., ......-..1 --.... -.. t ...... ...'.--......'.........1 .........,...............,--............,......- -.1
58 ., 58 .I, 58 ., ", so .I, 50 I, so I' 50 ., 50 '1 50 I, 10, 50 I, 58 ., . I, . ., 58 ., so .,
1-........1.........'.".-... .., ........ -& .. ..... ..1..... ....,....... ..,... ..... ..1.........1.........: ....... .....,..... .....,_......,........., .-............'.............-.1..."....".'
, 15 I, I" .I, II, 110. IJII, Jl, II J, .1 .I, .., IS II ISO, 4t, n I, n J, ,. , rs I, 15 I'
,----- --- -,----- -- --,-------- --,--------- ,---- -.... ,- .----- ..,-------- -,---- 0 -----,------ ---,--- u--- -... 0-- -.- -. - -..--_..,---------,---------,----------- ----,---------_..._,----- ---.-,
, nOlO, ... .II HOOD ,150100 . loaooo , J2000 , - J. StOOll J, l1OOO , UOOO . 1]0000 , - , 1I0OI , UOOO.l' .. , 1000, 1110 I,
,---------,---- ----,----------,---------,- ----- 0 - -,---- ..---,--..... - -,.... ---..-, .._------, -.. - - - 0 0 -. ....- -- ..,----.. ---,---------,------_._,----------_.._-,---------------,.._-_...._,
, t.I, U .I, II, IS, JS, 10, Jt JI IS .I. J1, II' ., 14, t.., U .I, .. , 5 a, 5 ..
,.........,..... ....,....... ..., .... .....1...... -. .,.... ..-. .,...... ..., ..... ..-. .,.. ..-.. ..,.......... -8.... .--- -I.. .......'.........8 ...... ...,............ ...,.......... .....1........"'.'
, 5J11OO ,1I1OtIO J, 5JIIOI ,150000 , HOOO , 19000 , 11000 J: 14000.1, SJIIOO , 11000 . 16000 , Stooo , JIOOO , I'" .I, SIOOO , IIOGI, 1100II,
,----- -- --,----- ----,----------,-------. .,..---..--,--..-... -,----- -- - -. _u- '.-- .-,--_.._---,... eo -- --I - --- -.... ,. - - eo - ---,---------,---------,------------ --,--------- -- -- --,------_.._,
, III, 14000 .I, "110, UOOO, 1900, 150, 1400 J: 1400 J, 1100, 6100, noo, nOlI, 151' ICIOI .I, not , ISO, 15 .,
,--_.. ----,---------,------ .---,------- - -, -.. ------,--_. -.-..,---.. -. - -,----- --- --,----.._--, ---...-. -,.-- ....--,-- .------ ,---------,---------, --..------ 0-- -,--------------,--------._,
, 0.1 ., I.' .I, 0.1 ., I, I.', 1.1 .. 0.1 I. 0.1 .. 0.1, 0.1 UI 0.', 1.1 I, 0.1 I, '.1 ., 0.4 , 0.1 I" 0.1 I.
,..-......,........ .,....... .-.,........ .,..... ..-.,.... ..-.., ....... -.,........ ..,.... .....: ...-.... .... r .........8..... ....'.........'.........1............. ..,.........-... ..,............
, eo I, 110 .I, It, ''', In, 40 I, II J, It J, 17, 40 UI 180. SI, '.110 ., U .I. St , eo I, eo I'
I...... ...,......... t .......-.-. ..... ....8...... ... t. ..... ....,.....-.. .8...-.. ....,.-.. -..-.,...... ...:.. ..... ...1...." ....,.......-.-,...-..--,............ -..,.....-........,...... ...-..
, 5GOO, IJIIOO .I, -, 11000 , 14000, SJOO, 1101 .I, 1500 .I, 1l1OOO' 5000 I. 14000, .., !IOOO I' - I, ISOI , 5IlOO I, 1100 .I,
,---------,---------, --- ..--- --,-----_..-,_..-- ----,._---- - --'----"---1----- ---- -,---------. ...--.. - -,..-- .--..,- -.-- "--'-"------'---------'----"---------'-----------"--,-----"-"1
, II II II II .. II .I, II II II II II n .I, II II II II 5 .,
. -........-,........-,.-.......,........ .,. ........,.... .....,......... J ..........1........ .,.........: .....--.... t ..... ....,........., ...-....,.-.-........., ....--........,........ "'.1
, 10 ., I' I' II ., II I. .. I' 10 I' II I. 10 I, 10 I' 10 I: 10 I. 10 I, .. ., II ., II ., II ., 10 I,
. ....... ..8......--'... .......,........ .,..... .....,.......... .......... ...........,.......... ..... .... J ........ ..._,.... _...- .,.........,..-....., --..........,..--........, ..... .....,
, nOl. , ".. .I, ,- , ,- , UIIOO , nOlO , UGOO .I, 1l1OOO J, I5GOO, 1400, 1l1OOO I. 11000 , 11_, - .I, MOllO , 15001, 41000,
,---..----, ---------,----------,---_.... -,-.._-----,---------,.._------,-----. -_.-,----- ----,-------. -. ---------. ---------,---------, --------,------------,---------,---_..----,
, II I, II I, It I' 10 I' II I, 10 ., .. I' 10 I, II I' 10 VI 10 I. 10 I' II I, II ., II I, It I, 10 II
'.....-...'.-....--8........ ._,........ .8-.... ....,. .......-.,........... ......-...,....... ..,..........: ......... .,...... ...,.......-, ..........,----.-...-,....-........, ..........,
, SO I, 171 .I, SO I, I!IOOO, 120, ", I" .I. IJII .I, 140, SO I. ISO, 10, . ., 58 I, '1 , 58 I, SO I,
,.........,.........,_....... -.'-........8....... ...,.... .....,-_..... ..,..... .....,..... ....,..........: ..........,...... ...,-......., ..-.....,-..--......., ----.......,..........-,
, II .I, JI. I, II' .I, 100 .I, no J, 110 .I, IJII .I: no .I, '" J, .. '1 510 .I. 140 .I, rr .I, 00 .I, I" .I, " ., 10 .,
,-.-......,.........,-.....-..,........ .8..... .... .,.......-.,..... ."..1..... ..- ..1....... ..8...... -....: -..... .--,.....--.. t -......., ...-...., .-.........-.-, .......--.....,-.. ..... ....,
, II I, 10 I, II I, .. '1 .. II 10 ., II .. 10 I, 10 ., 10 U: II .. 10 ., II ., II ., .. ., II I, 10 .,
18U_,
Artftlc
IIrt-
....,m.
te8-
Cek-
aw...
CaN It
Co,ptr
I,.
l...
....... I..
....,....
It2nlr,
I1chl
'otau I.
Sellli.
5t1-
WI.
,...n-
'...1..
lllIC
C,..I"
Table 3
-------
. Table 4
SUMMARY OF PESTICIDE ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (ugll)
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES, CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO
SECOND ROUND OF GROUND WATER SAMPUNG
SAMPLE LOCAT1ON AND NUMBER
PEST1C1DE MW-1 MW-2 MW-M MW-M MW-4
(DupIiCatl)
CSXN6002 CSXN6017 CSXN601 a CSXN601 aD CSXN6009
Alpna-BHC t.. 7.3
O8lta-BHC 0.88
Gamma-BHC S.' tI 5.3 5.a
H8e)taCl'Ilor 0.06 1300 10 3.7 0.09
Aldrin 270 2.1
Dlllelrtn 0.03 oi 17 0.38 tI
Enortn 0.07 . 220 2.4 1.1
Enelosultan II -. 0.63 01
Alpl'la-CI'Ilorelan, 570
Gamrn.-Cl'IlorCl.n, 0.15 5.3 2.5 0.07 01
PESTICIDES (TOTAL) 0.31 2380.3 32.51 21.28 0.16
NOTE:
CompounelS uneJ,tte:ttd in any sampl, ar, omintd from Ih, aummary tabll.
Th, ~Iank SQa:. Indicatt that tht compound wu Undltecttd In that arnolt.
Total pesI.ciCIas tQual trl' sum 01 III individual pasticlellS.
LEGENO:
J compound eI'tICttd. conctntration 8S\imattd
'.
.
-
.
-------
Tabl.e 5
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (ugfl)
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES, CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO
SECOND ROUND OF GROUND WATER SAMPUNG
!
I
.
I
t
I
,
SAMPLE LOCATION AND NUMBER
VOLATILE COMPOUND MW-2 MW-3A MW-3A 'MW-IA
(DupIiCatl)
CSXN6017 CSXNI018 CSXN6018D CSXN6003
, . , -DichIOl'OIIhlnl 12 12 13
, ,2-DichlorOllhlnl 370 ,. 110 ~
Benunl 12 J 12 J
ChIOl'~ 12 J " J
Etttytt>enz..... 18 J 17J 15 J
Xyttnt (tOl.1) 5 J 25J S6J
&,
NOTE:
CompoundS undlllCtld In any sampli Itl omlnld from tN IUftUNtY 1Ib11.
Th. blink lOac. IndltlSl that \hI compound WU undlllCtld In tIW 1ImP1..
LEGEND:
J compound ClIIICtId. concentration liSIimatld
-------
SMPlE lOCAJlIII - ....
.tIIU .. aM11IE ,"-I ,"-I , 111-. ,111-. ,..-. , III-S ,111-'" I 111-8 I III.'. ,III." ,..... ,..... ,
,CUIIOOI ,CSDI6OU ,[$U6011 ICSUIOIIIIICSU60IO ICSIll600I ICSIll600J ICSIllOlM ICSJUl600S ICSDIOOI ,CDMOII7 ,CSII6OOI ,
.....-."""---'---""1--..-'..-...."'.........:..-...-:....--.,..........:...-....:--.....,.........,----,--...-,
AI..I- '''O~, 11000 ~I 110000 .II UOOOO.lI nOlO .II 11000 .II S400 .II 4- .II 1100 .II 1400 .I, 7tOI .I, 4a .I,
,..... ....,......... -,_..... ...- ._,-.. .."---1..... .....1 .... -..-- -I --.............. -1-" .... __a' -."...".-8-... ...--1....."---1--.. ..- ..,
, .. I, 10 I, 10 I' .. U, 10 II 10 II 10 II 10 II 10 I' 10 I' .. I, .. I,
t .-........-,.......- .-.-.. -"-.----1....".." -I ------"..1-------. -1--- -........ -I- ......--1.."""....' .........._,........._, .....--..--,
, 10 I' 10 .I, II .I, sa .II I .I, . .II 1.4 .II 10 II I .I, II I, i.1 .I, 10 I,
,.........-,....-... -"1- .......... ..,--.... _e. -,- ..... ---..'----..."-1-" ..-........ -I .... ....... --1...,,- ."..1---..... -,..--.-.-,-......-.
, I. .I, 140, UOO, 1500, )40, J50, 110 .II 140 .I, I. .II ,., m, " .I,
1......"-"-'.-"......' ..........,....... ...,.........,..........,............:. ...........,........., .......-.,...--.-.-,.-.--..--,
, 5 I, S I' 10 II , UI S II S II S II 5 II 5 I, I I' I I, 5 I'
,..--. ....,...-.- - - -,.--.- -. ...1....... --1...-... .-,....... ..,-. ........, . -..... .., ........., ..-...--'----....-'.--.....1
, 5 I, S II U, 14, S II " S II S I' 5 I' 5 I' 5 I, 5 I'
,........ -,.... .....,.. ........ ,........ -, ...... ...,_....... -,...... u. .,. - - -... ..,.........,..-......, -... ....,...-.....,
, ilOIlO ,110000 , I10OOO ,yoooo , 11000 , 11000 , 110000 , 11000 , 11000 , ... . I40OI , 11000 ,
,........-,_....... -I' -..... ...,---...- - -I ... -.. 00,1- ....... .,-......-- .,_.. .... ..,.. - ..00..' .--...-., .........,... ......,
, 10 I' IS, JJO, I. I ., Sf, 10, I .I, 15, II I, II, II,
,....-.-..,..--..... ,..... '.-"1 .....-..., ...... .'.1 .........,..........,-......--,-.......-,.......-.,........., .........,
, . I' It .I, 100, I., II .II 17 .I, . I' 10 .I, . .I, . I, 51 I' . I'
,..... ... .,..-......, ...... ....,...... ---I ......... I' -...... -, ....- -... -I"""." ,-..-.....,.--.-..-,....... -., -.......-,
, 15 I' ,., 410, JIG, 4' U, .., II VI IS U, IS I, 15 I' 15 I, 15 I'
,........_,---_.... .,.... ..... .,........ -, .... - -... I -....... .,_.... -. - -'1 .... -. "-I"" -.... ,--..----,..-....-.,.........,
, UDI, ilOIlO , JIOOOO ,nllOOO , JOOOO I 41000, '500 I sa, 1500, ~, 11000 , 5",
,.....--.., -...-....,.. ."""""-"''''''''.'''''1--.'''",1,,,''-., - '1-""---"-"'..-'-'."."-" ,..-..-..-,--......-,
, 4.1, 15, 110, 110, II' Jt, '.4 1 1.1 1 10, J' t.l, 1.1,
,........., ."-.''''1''''. -....,....... ..,..... ....,..... -- ._,. ..-. - -.. '1..'-" - .-1 ........ -,-_.......,.........,.........,
, i- , l1OOO , J40000 ,110000 , J'OOO , I SOlO , iOOOO, t5OO, J5ODO , J!IOOI , JIOOI, ..,
,...-..-.., .-.. ..-..,.......- ..,.....-.. -I .....,. ..,_........,...... -. ._,..... ....,.. .......,.......-., -........, -........,
, IJ, MOO, J&OOO, 11000 1 1000 I 1100, 110, '400, J50, 1001. .It, I",
,-......-..,...-..- .... .1... ......-1". ".."...1........ ..,... .... ..,.... -... ..1.... ....-1.----....1.--..-.-'-.-.. ...1 .-.....-...,
, 0.1 I, i.1 .II , .I, , .I: 4.1 .II 0.' II 0.1 II 0.1 I, 0.1 I, 1.1 I, 1.1 I, 1.1 I'
'-.-"""'...""'.''''''''.'''''''....'1 """"-1'''''..._' ......-. ._,-........,........., .-.....,-.--.-., .........,
, 40 I, 100 I, 110, ilO, SS II Sf II 40 I' 40 I' .. I' .. I, .. I' .. I'
'."...".'-""-""--.."""'-"."".'."""-.1.--.'''''' ......--.. 1-""-."'"'''.''.'.-......'..-.''.'-..''.'''
, 1500 .I, 1100, JtOOO, 11000, sa, SIOO 1 1100 .I, 1- .I, I!!GO .I, II.. '''' .I, ,. .II
,..-.. ..- --,..-....-., .-.......- I ....... .-1.- -.... ..,--...... .,......... .,- ...... .-,-.....-.., .-.....-,........., .......-.,
, 5 II . 10 I, 10 I, II II 10 II 10 II 10 II 10 I, 10 I, II I, II I, 5 I,
,........ -I...... .-.1.. ... .... .,........ -: ... .... ..,...... -. -. ... ............ .......1--.- .....1.-.-.-.'.-.....--'.--.-.--.'
, 10 I' 10 I, 10 I, 10 VI 10 II 10 UI 10 UI 10 I' II I' II I, II I' 10 I'
,..---. --.-, ....-- .---- .,--_... .....,.-...-...: -.... ....1.. ...... .1.. .--... -. .1.. .... -..1.-... ..-.,........., -....-..-,.........,
, IlOIlO , 11000, )4000, ltooo I 11000 , 11000 I 11000 1 ,..., 11000, I., 11001, IJIII,
I"."" ..,.-.. -.. ..,.......-.. ,........ - I ...... .--,.... '''''1'''''. -. ..I." _n.. .,.... .....,.-......,--....---,........-,
, 10 I' 10 I' 10 II 10 VI 10 I, III U. 10 UI 10 01 10 I' II I, II I' It I'
'.......-.1.... ...-.,...... ..--.,..........: --...... ....,........ .1....... --.. .1- ........ -I ...... .-..'-..-----'..-...-..'.........1
, . I, ,., -, JIG, 51, ., I 14 .I, IS .II II .I, 51 I, " .I, U .I,
,.........-t.-.........,--........--.,..--.-.....,.........:. ........,........ ...: .."...-.-1.."....--'...."-".-'-....".-"'."....-..'
, 10 I, 100, 1500, 1000 I . VI 110 I ., UI . II ., I, .. I, 51 I, " II
.........,-..-.....,..--...--.: --.......: ....--...:... ...-....: -.........1."....-..'--.....--' ---....,-.-.-..,..-... ...
...,-,
Art.. Ie
"rl-
Itr,m-
[81-
Calc 1-
0Irt81-
c..1t
ea".r
I....
l...
.......1-
..........
II8t'cIrJ
"d.T
PtIt...I-
lel..l-
S 11-
So8I-
,.. 11...
'...1..
l111t
Table F
'0". ."1.$ ... nls -SUliS Fill smJlllllnl 18'")
KallIO .... or 8ICUD IIIf(. UWIIIIIi - MIl. 'dE
1(11-'($' UlllllATu.IU. WI 5I..oUII. III
-------
Table 7
I1Itto\af or CBD1Ic:.u.s DETECTED II zorz A GItCIIJftNATD
AT 1'D mt-ns! 1.AlCaA1aU1S Iln Ca)
(CoDc8ftuaU..a ..aponed JD l1l/I.)
~ 1 Cc) .... I Cd)
------------------------------------------ --------------.--------------.-------------
aan,1 of lanai of "'1 of laaal of
rr........,. .f De"'CL1.. De"'cLed 'r....-OJ of Det.lcL1.. Det.lct.ed
a-cal CII) Det.let.1.. CI) L1a1U CoDe8ftt...,t.1... Det.ecUoo Ca) I.1a1 t.a CoIIc8ftt.l'at.1...
0I'...1c a_cal.:
----------------- -
. "a- I" 5 U -" 1/' 5 12
. alo..-.uml 1" 5 U 1/' 5 11.5
. alol'otol8 v. 5 11 - 180 "' 5 - .
. 1,I-D1clllor08Lhanl V, 5 15-16 V. 5 11 - n.5
. 1,I-D1chlorolt.1l"l I" 5 sa - 1,100 "' 5 2. - 170
. 1,I-D1eIl1or08t.11l.' 1/' 5 . "' 5
. 2,'-D1cIl1orophIDol 1/' 10 12 lIS
. D1..-oct.rl pbt.1lallt.1 1/' 10 1 .
. ELh,U>lnuIII 0" 5 lit 5 16
. 'l.achlorOblnaml I" 10 148 IS
. 2-1.._1 11' 10 1.0.5 "' 10
. I,Z.'-fr1chloroblllallll lit ZO 3 lIS
. 1.1.1-fr1ehloro.Lbanl 21t 5 . - '.5 Olt 5
. 1118n.. 11' 5 12.3 Z/9 5 5 - 31
. Ald1'1.: Cd11101Yed) 1/5 0.01 - 0.75 0.53 IIA
C Lot.a U 3/' 0.01 - 1 0.06 - 275 2/9 0.05 1.11 - 270
. alphl-lle: (d1110lvld) II' 0.01 - S.IS ' IIA
Ct.ot.d) 3/' 0.01 - 1 0.0' - 7 1/9 d.., - 5 '.85
. dllt.a-lle: Cd11101vld) 115 0.01 - 0.5 o.n IIA
U.ot.al) 2/' 0.01 - 1 0.01 - 1.1 1/' 0." 0.56
. .--tlC: Cd1uo1vld) 2/5 0.01 - 0.5 '.12 - ... IA
C Lot.aU ZI' 0.01 - 1 0.03 - .., 21t 0.05 5,SS
. alphl-cblordanl Ct.ot..1) 11' 0.05 - 0.5 0.47 1/9 0.5 - 5 570
. ._-Ch10rdanl: (di'lo1Yed). lIS 1 0.1' IA
(t.ot.a1) 3/' 0.05 - 10 O.Z - SSo 1/9 0.5 - 5 0.07 - 3.'
. Dil1dl'1. CLot.al) 'I' 0.01 - 2 0.02 - 30.5 lit 0.1 0.03 - 17
. EndoluU.. II: Cdiuo1ved) 21S 0.01 - 1 0.' - 2.' IA
( Loul) 0/' 0.01 - so lit 0.1 - 1 0.56
. Endr1.: Cdi..olvld) lIS 0.01 - 1.5 11 IA
CLoLd) 3/' 0.01 - 2 0.16 - 220 lit 0.1 0.07 - 220
. ~1. I.Lo.I: (di'lolved) 1/5 0.01 - 1.5 10 IA
(LoLd) 2/' 0.01 - 0.1 0.01 - 0.2 Olt 0.1 - 1
. '1,t.lOlIlor: (d11101vld) 2'5 0.05 - 0.75 0." - I.' IA
(t.ot.al) 4" 0.01 - 1.0 0.0' - 1,000 .It 0.05 0.06 - 1,300
I '1,t..eIl101' Epo81dl CLoL.l) lit 0.01 - 0.5 0.26 Olt 0.05 - 5
. tlet.1lo8Jc1l101' Cd11101Yed) 1/5 0.05 - '.5 '.75 IA
l8Or,..1c Cb88Jcal.:
-------------------
. AlID1IN8 ", ',600 - 100.000 I" 770 - 170.000
. "...8ft1c ." 10 10 - ".5 ." 10 2 - 17
. 111'1- ." 240 - 1.800 1/1 110 - 1,400
"1'7111- ." 5 '.15 - I.' I" 5 - 7.5
Ca81- 1Jt 5 5.' 1/' S 13.5
. e.ld- .It '7.000 - "0,000 1/, '1.000 - 770.000
. Cbr_- .It 17 . 150 "' 10 10 . 255
. Cobalt. .It 50 41.5 . 72 4/1 50 . . 1"
. Copper '" 25 17 - "0 1/1 25-47 71 - 175
. e,..1d. 1Jt 10 25,000 .
. 11'- .It U.OOO - 150,000 "1 I,JGO - 2",000
-------
I
Table 7
(Cont.)
I
IQIMIt 01 cmnCALS DrTIC'TtD D ZOIIE A GlCUllllWAfD
At ft£ 'EDt-PESt ~a lID Ca)
(c..c_~at.i- raJllln" &8 ..n.)
.... 1 Cd
..... 1 Cd)
-----------------------.........----------
------------------------------------------.
088i..1 ~)
Pn."..,. of
De\.ec"i- C.)
a.nae af
huUi-
1.181 ",
P"..,IIIC1 ot
"\.eet.i- Co)
lalltl of
De"Ict."
c.c..t.raU-
181181 .f
De "ecU-
a.aaa '"
--.. .f
DeLlC""
c.cIllUIU-
I
I8or..ie Q88ica18:
----.--------------
I Le-
I """"I-
I MulaUl..1
l"nn17
I lichl
I .."..d-
I .Il..i-
. Jodh.
. 9811.411-
I Jll1c
tit '.1 - N 81' 1 - Sf 0
tit 11,tOO - 150,000 .18 11,000 . 1",000
fI' 750 - U,OOO .18 ., - 1',000
SIt '.1 '.1 - 1 118 '.1 1.1 . ,
71t '0 a - laO 111 10 - 100 ft 515
./t 5,'00 5,000 - 16,000 .18 1,500 . 10,~0
VI 11 - U 81' S - 10
"' 20,000 n,ooo - 1',000 III 18 - n,500
7/t so 'I - 15,000 "' 50 U - ISO
tit 12 - )00 V. JO-fl JOO - 1,150
(I) bel"d.. _u.4Irllll .1118 "'-1, "'-2, "".'., ...,-:31. "'-', "'.'''. "'-'''. "'-71. 8IId "'-IA. lfaalt.orlna ..11e
"'-2, HW-'.. HW-a, "'-'.. 81141 HW-" ..r. 8IIel,'I. for fllLered ,.."lelde.. 1..,11 ...-, .1' 1IOL aDll,... for
lnorllll1c cblllS call 111 IOUIICI Z.
C~) Obl, d.LlcLld cb..lc.le arl lie"".
Cc) a~ I . rebrvlf7 and MAtcb ot 1"'.
Cd) lo\1r14S 2 . rlbl'\llf7 and ",re~ of 1990.
CI) IY8blr of l..,lle 18 8hlcb I ch88iell .1. deLlcL.d D¥lr \bl .ueblr of ...,111 8IIal,....
. . SllleLI. a. a ch..lcll ot poLIeLlal ConClrD for \be rlak a..I.88eDL.
1$ . 10\ ,ampll..
JA . 10L 1II,1,'ld.
-- . lot. 1111VIIIL. lilli' ot dlLlcLlaa 118lt.e .OL rlllvlIIL for ch..ic'le dlLlcLe. ill all 1..,11' froe . ,ivI. round.
lanai ot dlLecLl. eOlle.nLrILloo, IIOL relevlllL for cblOle,l. 110\ dlLICLl. III 8117 ...,11' of a ,1.1. round.
-------
Table 8
IIItWIJ or ClD4JCALS Drn:cn:zI rw IOIE . GllCUllDWATEa
At tIE mt-rat LUCll.An:alES lID Ca)
CCaD,enl,,.I,... l'8pllnM ill ../I.)
..... 1 Cc)
----------------.---------------------------------
------.---------------------.--------------
CIa_leal ()
rr8qllenC7 .f
0.&.8'1.1- Co)
lana. of
o.l,.eLlaa
1.i8! U
Iana' of
D.I,.ct."
CDIIcaLnl,l..
..... 2 Cd)
Fr8q118C7 .f
hLodlaa Co)
..... of
o.Lo,Uaa
1.i8! U
Iana. of
o.LeeL"
Ccac8DL...I,I..
o,llllie a."'ca1a:
-------.----------
. ..,&.Ieblor
Iaerllllic a....e.l.:
1/2
0.01
O.Ot
--------------------
.&1181-
larh.
Caleh.
0IrC81-
Cob.n
Co,per
haa
I.I.d
"""181-
. Karla an.. I
.1ch1
'otall....
SocII-
9111.dl-
&IIIC
1/2
2/1
211
2/2
0/1
1/1
2/1
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
0/2
2/2
0/2
1/2
7,tOO - 14,000
2'0 - 400
24,000 - 11,000
18-»
II
11,000 - 17 ,000
11-1)
11,000 - 14 ,000
2,000 - ',800
U
50
25
40
5,000
50
at
1,-00 - 1,'00
II
II - 72
-
0/2-'"
.0.05
va
2/1
211
1/1
1/1
OIl
2/2
2/2
212
2/2
0/2
2/2
1/1
1/1
0/2
.~oo
It - 140
11,000 - 22,000
. - 11
10
5,SOO - 5.800
,.. - I.'
t.500 - '.100
1, SOO - 2, - 00
50
15
40
--'
1.800 - 2,000
7,'00 - 8,300
1) - 15 .
(.) Includ., 8ODI&.orina ..11. MW-'. and MW-I..
(b) Onl, dlt'etld ch_Ic.l. .rl ll....d.
(e) Round 1 . rlbrv.r,' 8IId Much of 1989.
(d) lound 2 . r.lIrv." and Huell of 19'0.
'I) .~.r of .ampl.. In wblcb . chemic.l .., dltlcLld OYlr &.hI DU8blr of ...,1..
an.l,..d.
e . Sellcted .. . eb..lcal of poLential conClrD for &.hI ri.k ........nL.
-- . 101. a,llvan". .8ftl1 ot dltlction 11811.. not r.llvlllt for ch"'c.1. d,".cLed In .11 ...,11' trG8 . Ilvln round.
.&nI1 ot dlt.ct.d conclnLral,lon. no" rlllvant for cb"'c.l. aOL dltlcL.d ID 8D7 ...,11' of a II... round.
-------
Table 9
IIIft\RT or IACrGJtCUJID CQlf.bIKAtIOIS or cmaCALS Dnz:cTr:I)
r. GllCUllnwAra At fa mt-nst UlC&\rcara IIR Ca)
CCaac8IILrILi818 "PORed iD l1l/I.)
rr8q\18DC7 .f
a..1cal DeL.cU. (1) CaDC8DLraLi0D8 (e)
Orawe a-tu18:
----.------------.
..pLacblor 1/2 CO.O,: O.Of
'-81 Ln8odipb...,laatu 111 2
-ramie Qal81uu:
--------------------
~i- V2 27.000: U.500
Annie 1/2 cl0: ,
lui- 1/2 150: 410
I.r, 111 18 1/1 c': 4.2
Ca81- 1/2 c,: .,
Caldll8 212 21,000: S7.000
Quo-i 118 III 59: 75.'
CobalL III c5O: n
Coppu In '4: ...,
%r- III 4'.000: 55,000
1.ed III 37: 3t
"'1II.,h. III 15,000; U.'OO
Manian... III 1.400; 1.700
.1chl III <59: u.,
Pot.I..ill8 1/2 '.COO: 7,300
Sodi 118 III 11.000: 11,000
.UI8dill8 1/2 87: II'
liDC III UO: U,
CI) a..ult.1 fr- tJI. Uet and UtO 188pUIII perioda for
8OnHorina ..U Mi-' Ire pn..nt.ed. 01117 deLect.ed ch_icah
are lilt.ed: cyanide, ..rour" end le1811ill8 .ere DOL deLecLed
ia eiLber beck. round l-.ple.
Cb) .umber of lemple' iD wbicb I cbl81cII .., deLecLed ...r tJle
Dl8Ibn of 'emple, and,led. CAI DOLed in CI) ..e, I1U1oup
1.111) '.-ph, .en and,.ud Lb.,. .en frC8 1 loclLiOD eL
dift,reat. t.~ period,.)
Cc) Chl81c.l, DOt. deLecLed are pre,enLed ae c.z. wbere .z. il
Lb, '~h 'pecific deLecLi- UaiL.
-------
Table 10
I1ItWtJ Of CBDUCA1.S Dn1X:'r!I) II GlCUllllWAJD
II !'IZ PRIVATE WELLS It.Aa !'IZ
mt-PESr L.AIICRAtCRIIS lID
Cc:.cmtz.Uon. n~R8d &a 8&/1.)
WI11/Q_hd
De"ee""
C-..tz.U-
Pli..L8 ...11 I
------------
lDoCI8Dtc Ch88Jc.l.:
--------------------
AI_t-
lut-
.Cdct-
~ca1-
c:o".c
Jna
L..d
. "'1".11-
Mula an...
. tterclIl'7
Itchl
Pohn".
. SocI1-
9811.d1-
Ztnc
17,000
ISO
110,000
51
,.
",000
II
52,000
1,200
0..
S.
'.500
2.,000
75
160
'dYah ...11 I
--------------
Orlante Cheated.:
------------------
. Dt,.oct"l pht.h.hL8
%Dor,antc Ch..1cal.:
2
-----.--------------
. AlaRic
Cdc1-
hOD
"'&1\.11-
Mana m...
. SocI1-
17
65,000
',000
26 .000
250
~,OOO
(a) 0111,. d.Llct." ch-h.1I u. 118&."'.
. S.l.ct." .. ch..1c.l o'.pot.oat.t.l conc.~ 'or
Lhe rtak .......-n".
-------
Table 11
SIIIIIIII'y of Ch8aica1a Detected in Samp 111
Collected Inl1d1 the Bul1din; at the K8m-Pelt Laboratortel Site (b)
Area (Units)/
Chemica 1
F'reqvency of
Detection (a)
6IcIIItric
"'an
Mil[ llIUD
Detected
eASEMENT WATER (llg/1)
. ch10rdane
. die1drin
. endrin
. . endrln ketone
. glllllll-8HC
. heptach10r
. Ildrln
. chlordane
. DOT
. dieldrin
. endrin
. enarin ketane
. heptach 101'
. toxlphene
2/2 6.1 84.0 J
2/2 8.3 12.0 J
212 14.9 17.0 J
2/2 26.0 26.0 J
1/2 IR 1.6 J
2/2 28.3 47.0 J
1/1 MA 10.000.000.0
1/1 MA 200.000.000.0
1/1 MA 550.0 J
2/2 1. 549 1.600.0 J
212 85.951 161.300.0 J
1/1 MA 1.300.0 J
1/2 2.524 4.900.0
1/2 2.193 3.700.0
1/1 NA 230.0 J
1/2 26.699 98.000.0 J
1/1 MA 5.000.0
2/2 160."4 580.000.0 J
1/1 NA 6.300.0
1/1 NA 5.200.0
1/1 MA 1.400.0
1/1 MA 8.100.0
2/2 1.413.240 10.000.000.0 J
6/13 6.5 470.0
13/13 435.9 16.000.0
9/13 66.1 1.500.0
13/13 139.6 2.000.0
12/13 42.4 770.0
7/13 14.4 620.0
4/12 2.0 13.0
13/13 230.0 15.000.0
2112 9.8 102.0
BULK SAMPLE NO.1 (u;/1)
. DDT
. toxaphene
BULK SAMPLE NO. 'I. (ug/1)
I
! DUST SAMPLES (llg/kg)
. 11drin
. ch10rdane
. DOT
. dieldrin
. endrin
. gl/lllll-8HC
. heptach 101'
WIPE SAMPLES (u;/100 Iqulre inches)
. Ildrln
. chlordane
. DOT
. die1drin
. endr;n
. endrin ketone
. gl~-BHC
. heptach 101'
. IIItnoxychlor
Note,:
J . Estimated Yl1ue.
MA. Not appHcable linee only - ~le.
IR. The geometric IIIln "I not ~!'ted (NR). IS thil concent!'ltton "I grelter than the lIDillUll
detected YI1ue (IS I relult of inc1uding detection 1imits that exceeded t.o ti... the
IIIxillUll detected vllue In calcu1ating the geometric .an).
(a) The nllllber of 11/I'III1e. in which the contaminlnt .a. detected dlYlded by the total nllllber of 1I/I'1II11' ana 1)'1ld. In
deteMl;ning the frequency of detection. lamp lei f1aggld with a data qualtfler of -I" (Inya1id) Wire not Included.
(b) Only pesticides Ind PCBs "1'1 analyzed for In thele lamp1el.
. . 5e1ected as chemicl1 of potentia1 concern for the !'ilk asselsment.
-------
Table 12
ruTUR! SITE un. CCNDITIOIIS:
EXPOSURl JIOIIfT c:aICEImIATIONS AJI1) CBROHIC DAILY IIfTAXES rat IJlCi!STIc:. or GRCtOOIWATD
AJI1) IMBAU.rJCII OF CCIITAHIlWftS III CRCUJIDWATD. WBI1J: S8CIlD.I~ lASe c:.
KEASUItEII CCIICEJlTRATIOHS II ZOHE . rat ICUIIt) 1 AJI1) ICUIID a
(ConcenUI\.lanl nport.ed la 11&/1.)
Caftcn\.n\.i-
EzpoIU~1 '1t.hwIY!
Tozici\.7 Cllll/Cb.-£ca1 (I)
Adu-Uc
Ma.
Upper '5 'I~cen\.
CoDfi'aacl L~\.
On MaUl
Kui8a
Izpolurl
hie\. (II)
JHE
EI\.18I\.o' Chronic
Da117 Iatako (COI)
(-atka-'oy)
-----------------...-----------------------------------
IlIIlltl- of G~ouadwl\.l~
------------------------
Ch.-£ca11 .i\.h 'otentil1
CI~ciDoaen1c Efflc\.1
------------------------
80p\.lcblo~
Ch.ucab wi\.h
lIonclrciao.anic Effactl
0.036
420
0.0'
0.0' (c)
l.U-O'
-----------------------
8aphch10~
Hanaan.. a
0.03'
3.100
420
U.OOO
0.0'
'.'00
0.0' (c)
'.'00 (c)
z.n-o'
1. '£-01
IntllhUon of Cont.aminant.1 ia
Groundwlt.er WhUI Sh-arill&
-----------------------------
Chemicill wi\.h Potant111
Carcino.anic Effactl
------------------------
Bapt.achlo~
0.036
420
0.0'
0.0' (c)
1. 5E-07
(~, Chemicall I~a aroupad wi\.h ra.,.ct t.o \.ozici\.y cat.a.ory baclula Iuch c1alliflcl\.1onl 'a\.0r81n8 ~I .IY
chronic d.ily intaka. ara c.lculat.ad. Sa. t.axt fo~ furt.har dilcul11on.
'~I E1clpt. I' not.ad. \.hl Izpol~1 point. concant.rat.ion il \.hI uppo~ '5 pa~con\. coafl'oDcl l~\. 011 ~o ~lLhmot.ic
"aD.
oc) HLlimum dlt.lct.od concont.rlt.1oa; ulad if \.ha uppe~ '5 parcan\. confi'anca 1i.i\. IXCOO'O' thl 8&Z18U8. SII \.az\..
-------
,
Table 13
rvTUU SIn USE CDmIfICltS:
EXJ'OS1JR! POlin CX»ICtIIDATICIIS AID CBROIfIC, DAILY IJTAXES rat IIIGESTIOI or
GROUIIDWATEI AIID IIIBAt.UJCII 01 CClfTAHIIWfTS II GROUIIIIWATD WIIIU SlCWDUJO
wm C8 ta)z::LJ.IZ) CCIICDmIATICIIS II ZCII! .
!zpo.u~. ..Lbw.,1
To.ieiLy ClaaalCb~e.l CI)
Iowr..a MlMSe1ed
CGae8ftL~."iOD OYa~
~o run (ualL)
IH!
EiL18a\." QarODic
Daily 1DLak. CCDI)
C 11&""-'" )
11\&.."i- of OrtNDdlra\.l~
------------------------
OIl81ca18 w1\81 Po\.8D\.h1
CI~CiDO'8Dic Eff.e\..
------------------------
l,2-D1ehIorD8U1ane
..p\.8cb1o~
OI_hl18 wi UI
IODelrcino,eoSe Itt'~\.1
10
0.5 (II)
1.41-06
'.11-0'
-----------------------
..p\.8eblor
0.5 Cb)
1.61-05
IrlballUn of Con"..inanL' iD
Groundwahr Whill Sh-aUI\I
------------------------.-.--
0I..iea1. wiUl 'oLenLial
C.areino,anie trrac".
------------------------
1.2-Diebloroat.bana
S.pt.leblor
20
O.! Cb)
5.51:-05
'.31:-07
CI) Chemic.l. .ra ,roupe' wit.b ra.paeL LO "oziei"y e.La.orr baeau.a .ueb
ela'ailiclt.iona da\.armioa Lba .ay chronic daily int.aka. ara caleula"a..
Saa "azL tor furLbar .iaeuaaioo.
Ch) Valua rapraaanL' ODa-halt Lba 80dal daLaeLioo l18i". S.. \.a~.
-------
Table 14
BEALt1I EJTEC1'S atItERIA rea ClDaCALS or I'O'I'DTIAL CDICEIUI At t1IZ mt-PEST LAlClU.TClRIES lIt!
Onl
Iltlrlncl Do..
cam) setlty Tarllt 110" rac~r Wdaht of
OI-inl C..Ik&/dl,.) rlc~r (a) SouCI (II) Orl- (c) (..Ik&/dly)-l Evidlnce Cd) Sounl (II)
1,l-DichloroeLbanl 0,091 II IRIS
Ilptachior SI-0' 300 mIS Liyn '.5 11 nIS
Mazlaanl.. 21-01 100 lEASt Jnn&.nid\,.
bbaht.i-
leferencI Do..
(am) Saflty , Tarllt Slope rac~r Wdaht of
OI_ica1 (../ka/d87) rac~r (a) love. (II) Orlan (c) (../kI/da,.)-1 Evidlncl \d) ~ce (II)
l,I-DichloroILb.1 0.091 ~ 11 nIS
.Ipt.achlor '.5 11 WS
(a) Safaty fac~ra uald t.o dlvllop rlflrlncl dOlI. ara tha product.. of uncertaint,. and 8Ddif,.ina ractor.. Unclrt.inty
tact.or. conaiat of 8Ultiplaa of 10, each fact.or rlprl.ent.ina a lpecitic arIa 0' unclrt.eint.,. inhlrent. in Lbl dat.a
available. Thl at.andard uncartaint.,. tac~rl includl:
- A 10-'01d fac~r t.o account. for thl variat.ion in aen.itivit.,. 880ftI thl --.blr. ot thl hY8an population;
- A 10-'01d tact.or t.o account. for t.hl unclrt.aint.,. in lrt.rapo1at.ina ani.ll dat.a ~ thl ca'l of hUDana;
- A 10-fo1d tact.or to ICCOunt. for unclrt.aint.y in Ist.rapo1at.in, frma le.. Lban cbronic JOAELS ~ chronic »OAELa;
- A lO-fold tlcu.r t.o account Cor Lbl uncert.a1Dt)' In annpolat.!!\1 bOlD LOAtt.S t.o JlOAU...
Cb) Sourcl.: IRIS. ch_ieal fil.a of Lha Int.l,rat.ed _1.k In'o,...t.ion S,..t.-, Jul,. 1, 1"0;
lEASt . IlalLb Eff.ct.a AI.....ant. SuaDlry tabl.., Oct.oblr, 1"'.
(c) A t.arllt. orlan la t.hl orlan mo.t. .In.it.ivI t.o a ch_1cal'. t.osic Ifflct.. ltD. al'l baa" on tosic Ifflct.a 10 thl
t.arlat. orlan. If an R!D .a. ba..d on a .t.udy In whlcb . t.arlat. orlan .a. oot. 1dlnt.lflld, Lb, orlan 11.t.ld 1. onl
known t.o b. a".ctld b,. th. part.1cular chamical 0' conc.m.
Cd) Wei.ht. 0' Ividlnce c1a..i'ieat.ion aeh-=- for carcino,lna: A--Iuman Carcinolln, .uf'ic1Int evid.ncI fram hUDan
Ipidam1010li'al at.udia.; I1--Probab1e luman Carcinolan, 1im1t.ad avidencI fram ap1d88iololical at.udiaa and adaquat.a
avidence 'rma an1.al .t.udi..; 12--Probable Buman C.rcino.en, inadequat.1 avldane. 'roa apld_iololica1 at.udiea
and adequ.t.e avidanc. 'rom anime1 at.udile; C--Po.aib11 BUDin Carcinolan, limit.ad Ividanca in ani..la in tha
ah.anc. of human dat.a: D--fiot. Claaai!ied aa t.o human carcino.anieit,.; and E--Evidanc. 0' "oncareinolanieit,..
-- . Crit.arion haa not b.an d,vl10ped tor t.hia chamiea1 and t.hia routl ot azpoaur..
-------
i .
.
Table 15
FUTURE LAND-USE CONOITIONS
POTENTIAL RISKS TO INDUSTRIAL WORKERS FROM
DIRECT CONTACT VITH BUILDING SURFACES AT THE KEN-PEST SITE
CHEMICALS VITH POTENTIAL
FOR CARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS
CONCENTRATION ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION/STANDARD
(ug/l00 Iqu.rt tn.) ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS RATIO
------------------------- FOR VIPE SAMPLE ('1 -----------------------
1ieaII. Mean Nut... (ug/l00 IqUirt in. Aver.ge MIX ;nun
6.5 470 29.2 0.2 16.1
436 16.000 3B2 1.1 41.9
66.1 1.500 1460 0.0 1.0
140 2,000 31 4.5 64.5
2 13 382 0.0 0.0
230 15.000 110 2.1 136.4
a1drin
ch 10rdane
DOT
dte1drtn
glllllll-BHC
heptach10r
(.1 Based on a Itandard of 10 ug PCBs per 100 Iquare em.
.
#
-------
Table 16
M~E LAND-USE CONDITIONS
ESTIMATED EXPOSURES AND RISKS TO INDUSTRI~ WORKERS
FROM DIRECT CONTACT EXPOSURE TO DUST IN THE PESTICIDE FORMULATION BUILDING AT THE KIM-PEST SITE
ESTIMATED CHRONIC ESTIMATED CHRONIC
DAILY INTAKE (CDI) VIA DAILY INTAKE (CDI) VIA ESTIMATED COMBINED
DERMAl ABSORPTION INCIDENTAL INGESTION UPPER BOUND EXCESS
(lII!iI/kg/day) (1liii/kg/day) CANCER LIFETIME CANCER RISK
CHEMICALS WITH ------------------------- ------------------------- POTENCY ----------------------
POTENTIAL FOR P1au.tb1e P1au.tb1. FACTOR Plausible
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS Average Maxt- A.erage Maxtu (l111/kg/day)-1 A.eragl Mal ilUll
a1drin 2.61E-09 (a) ..91E-08 9.78E-09 (a) 1. 30E -07 17 2E-07 3E-06
chlordane 8.37E-08 5.69E-06 3.1U-07 1.51£-05 1.3 5E-07 3E-D5
DDT 6.58E-09 t} 6.18E-08 1.23E-08 t} 1.&4E-07 0.34 6E-09 8E-08
dieldrin 2. 71E-09 a 5.10E-08 1.02E-08 a 1.36E-07 16 2E-07 3E-06
lIaIIIIIiI-8HC 6.34E-09 a 1.07£-07 1.59£-08. 2. llE-07 1.3 3£-08 4E-07
heptachlor 7.74E-07 9.81E-05 2.90E-06 2.61E-04 4.5 2£-05 2£-03
---------- ------- -------
TOTAl 2£-05 2E-03
[[[
ESTIMATED CHRONIC ESTI~TED CHRONIC
DAILY INTAKE (CDI) VIA DAILY INTAK£ (CDI~ VIA
DERMAL ABSORPTION INCIDENTAL INGES ION ESTIMATED COMBINED
(1IIg/kg/dly) (1II!iI/kg/dly) CDI :RFD RATIO' ,
CHEMICALS WITH ------------------------- ----------- ---------- REFERENCE DOSE ----------------------
POTENTIAL FOR P1ausible P1au,tb1e }RfD) Plausible
NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS A.erage Max iaun A.erage Max laun (1II!iI kg/day) A.irage Mil iaun
aldrin 3.91E-08 1.84E-07 1.47E-07 4.89E-07 0.00003 6E-03 2£-02
chlordlne 1. 26E -06 2. 13E-05 4.71E-06 5.AE-05 0.00006 lE-Ol 1£.00
DOT 9.86E-08 2.32E-07 1.85E-07 6.16E-07 0.0005 6E-04 2£-03
dieldrin 4.07E-08 1.91E-07 1. S3E -07 5.09E-07 0.00005 .£-03 lE -02
endrin 1.10E-08 5. 15E-08 ..l1E-08 1.37£-07 0.0003 2£-04 6£-04
gllllll4-BHC 9.51E-08 4.02E-07 2.38E-07 7.93E-07 0.0003 lE-03 4£-03
heptachlor 1. 16E-05 3.68E-04' ..35E-05 9. 78E-04 0.0005 lE-Ol 3E.OO
-------
--
Table 17
Ground Water Monitoring
Cost Est imate
Unit Capital Annual
Item Quant i ty Units Cost Cost Cost
Installation of Additional
Moni toring "ell 90 LnFt 125.00 11,250
Ground "ater Monitoring
Labor 3 Oay 765.00
Analysis 15 S~le 600.00
Years 1-3 45,180
Years 4-5 22,590
Years 6-10 11,295
Subtotal 11,250
Bid Contingencies (15%) 1,700
Scope Contingencies (15%) 1 ,700
Construction Total 15,000
Penmitting and Legal (3%) 500
Construction Services (5%) 800
Total Implementation Cost 16,300
Engineering Design (8%) 1,200
Total Capital Cost 17 ,500
Total Present "orth
(10 years, 5% discount rate) 215,000
-------
,
Table 18
FORMULATION BUILDING ALTERNATIVE 4
SURFACE LAYER REMOVAL AND OFFSITE INCINERATION
COST ESTIMATE
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
UNIT CAPITAL ANNUAL
n-EM QUANTITY UNITS COST COST COST
MOBIUZATlONIDEMOBIUZATION 1 LS 1000.00 11,C¥X1
HEAlTH AND SAFETY 125 DAY 410,00 151,300
REMOVAL AND TREATMENT OF WATER IN BASEMENT
Install SUMP Pump 1 EACH 500.00 500
Sample and Analyze Water (Pesticides and VOAs) 2 SAMPLE 800.00 1,600
Collect Water 1 1 .2C~ GALLON ~.~ 600
Treatment Of Water with Carbon Cannister 1 DRUM 700.00 700
&orage Tank (2.~O gallo"s) 1 LS 3400.00 3.400
Sample a:1C Analyze Treateo Water (Pesti::ides and VOAs) 6 SAMPLE 800.00 4.300
Disposal of Carbon Cannister 1 DRUM 160.00 200
$12.000
D:SMANTLING OF W\:>ODEr.j STRUCTURES AND SELECTED PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
Remova! of Inlernal WOOden Structures (Ass:.Jme 1 ton) 2.200 SQFT 2.15 4.700
Removal of EQuipment and Other Deoris 5 TON 480.00 2.400
$7.000
GRIT BLASTING OF CONCRETE AND METAL SURFACES
Predeconta:':1ination Sampling and Analysis (Core/Surface) 1S SAMPLE 290.00 4,400
Predecontamination Sampling and Analysis (lNipe) 10 SAMPLE 285.00 2.900
B!aSting 14,350 SQFT 3.25 46.600
W&ste Drums 190 DRUM 25.00 4.800
ConflrmaJlon Sampling and Analysis (Surface) 15 SAMPLE 290.00 4,400
Confirmation Sampling and Analysis (WIpe) 10 SAMPLE 285.00 2.900
166.000
-------
,
I
,
Table 18
(Continued)
FORMULATION' BUILDING ALTERNATIVE 4
SURFACE LAYER REMOVAL AND OFFSITE INCINERATION
COST ESTIMATE
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
1 UNIT CAPITAL ANNUAL
ITEM QUANTITY UNITS COST COST COST
I DISPOSAL OF DECONTAMINATION DEBRIS
Load Drums onto Transport Vehicles 190 DRUM 5.00 1,000
I Transport to Qffslte Facility (2 Loads) 1,700 MILE 3.00 5,100
Drum Incineration 190 DRUM 500.00 95.000
'101.000
DISPOSAL OF DISMANTLING DEBRIS
Load DebriS onto nansport Vehicles 6 TON 4.00 20
Transport to Off Site Facility (20 tons/load) 6 TON 115.00 700
Incineration 6 TON 1700.00 10.200
$11,000
DECONTAMINATION OF DISMANTLING EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL
Construction 01 Decontamination A'aa 1 LS 40000.00 S40,ooo
Treatmenl 01 Decontamination Waler with Carbon Cannister - Cost part of
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF WATER IN BASEMENT
COLLECTION AND TRE)'TMI:~ OF \',,'.iEq IN BASEMENT AS REQUIREC AFTER COMPLETION OF REMEDIAL ACTION
Sample and Analyze Water (Pesticides and VOAs) 2 SAMPLE 800.00 1,600
Collect Water 6,000 GALLON 0.05 300
Treal Waler with Ca1)on Cannister 1 DRUM 700.00 700
Sample and Analyze Treated Water (PestiCides and VOAs) 3 SAMPLE 800.00 2,400
Dlt;:Iosal 01 c'.rt)on Cannister 1 DRUM 160.00 200
$5,000
-------
f
I
,
.1
t
Table 18
(COntinued)
FORMULATION BUILDING ALTERNATIVE 4
SURFACE LAYER REMOVAL AND OFFSITE INCINERATION
COST ESTIMATE
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
ITEM
UNIT CAPITAL ANNUAL
QUANTITY UNITS COST COST COST
$289.300
43,000
43.000
$375,300
11.000
19.000
$405.300
30.000
$435,000
55.000
SS12.000
SUBTOTAL - FORMULATtON BUILDING AL TERNATtVE 3
BID CONTINGENCIES (15%)
SCOPE CONTINGENCIES (15%)
r 'STRUCTION TOTAL
PERMITTING AND LEGAL (3%)
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (S°..t)
TOTAlIMPLEME~~TATION COSTS
ENGINEERING DESIGN (8%)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH (30 YEARS. 5G,t DISCOUNT RATE)
-------
,
J
Table 19
ACCEPTABLE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE FORMULATION BUILDING
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
AecepMtlle CcID~l8ia.~ CclDcClDun1C1Da 1a Dua~
b tIIa 'onul.~11111 h1ld1aa .~ tIIa It.-..n SUo
l..oeI CID 'uc.uz. lJuIuaU1al a.. CClD41UIIII8
&08'-1. Caa~t. CcID8_uat.1CID
Caalta) Ca)
"
---.-----------------------------------------
rUl8t. C:acu &1M L8w81
------------------------------------
'.8t.1cid.
1&10-' 1&10-' 1&10-.
1,'00 16,000 160,000
21,000 210,000 a,100,OOO
12,000 820,000 8,aOO,Ooo
1.700 17.000 170,000
ZO,Qc'! 2!'- ~:: 2,aOO,:laO
',2:10 62...::0 UO,OOO
.ldzb
chlo~d..
1)1)1
d1.1ddn
r-.l'!!~
b.pL8cb~Q~
(a) buDd.d ~ twa aiPlU1cm~ ti'~..,
Acc.pt.able Caa~l8ia8llt. CIIIIcCIIUaUClDa CID 1IIdoo~ S~faC8a
1a Lba rQ~lat.ll111 lui1d1lal at. tII. It.-'.at. S1~.
Acc.~ulo Caat.l8illmt. CaacCIIUat.1CID
C1&J/100CIIZ) Ca)
.---------.-, -----------.-.----------------
fu.at. Cacu &1u L8w81
------------------------------------
Pe8t.1c1da Slope hct.or 1&10-' la10-' la10-.
a1U1D 17 0.11 1.1 al
cbloH.. 1.S 1.1 ZI alo
DDt O.S. 11 110 noo
dialdz1D 16 O.IS a.s Z3
.- IIC 1.S a.8 ZI a80
b.~aU1or .., 0.11 1.1 81
Ca) I.aod CID .ClDCCllt.rcU0D8 88t.188~od fn8 .1,. a..,laa. AecepMtl18 80118811uat.10118
..ra a.t.~~.~ for ,.at.leld.. fr08 cl.~up r.quir...:,~. for tela for low cantlct
1I1c~:: 1n~ult.:~a1 aurfac.I CE'A 1.87). Low clllltact l~~~at.rial .~fac.a illclud.
cuUaaa, ..u.., 8Dd Cloon. Valu.a ua rcn&docl ~ t.wo 811J'1Uc8ll~ U.~aa.
.....: fo c-n aa/l00-Z to aa/l00bZ 8111.1,11 81/100- ~ '.U.
-------
TABLE 20
COMPOUND
OSHA PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS)
PEL
milliqram/meter3
Endrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Heptachlor/Heptachlor
Toxaphene
Chlordane
DOT
Gamma-BHC
Epoxide
0.1
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
------- |