United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
PB93-964009
EPA/ROD/R04-92/125
September 1992
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Chem-form, FL
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement. but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. I~ 3. Recipienfs Accession No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-92/125
4. Tille and SubtiUe 5. Report Dale
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/22/92
Chern-form, FL
First Remedial Action 6.
- Subsequent to follow
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Repl No.
9. Performing Orgainization Name MId Address 10. Projec:tlTaakIWork Unit No.
11. Contrac1(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G) -
12. Sponsoring Organization Harne and Address 13. Type 01 Report" PerIod Covered
U.S. Environmep.tal Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. 800/000
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary NoIBs
PB93-964009
16. Abstract (Umit 200 words)
The 4-acre Chern-form site is a former electrochemical machine design, manufacturing, and
marketing facility in Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial, with residential areas located within 2 miles east of the
site. The pompano-Cypress Creek Canal lies about 3,000 feet south of the site and flows
east into Biscayne Bay. The estimated 72,400 residents of Pompano Beach use the
underlying sole source Biscayne aquifer as their primary source of drinking water. From
1967 to 1985, Chern-form used the site as a certified repair station for refurbishing
turbine engine components related to the aerospace industry and also provided services
to utility companies that used turbine power plants. Addi tionally, they were involved
in the design, manufacture, and marketing of electrochemical machines for other
industries involved in the fabrication of metal parts. These operations resulted in
substantial waste generation. Spent cutting oils were stored in stainless-steel vats
and were routinely collected by reprocessing contractors. Organic solvents were used
for metal cleaning and painting operations. Process wastewaters were discharged to an
onsite septi c tank/drain field system. Other wastewaters were discharged to an open
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Chern-form, FL
First Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
-.. ..
c. COSAl1 ReIdlGroup
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. 01 Pages
None 56
20. Security Class (This Page) 22. Price
NonF'
See ANSI- .18 O,,110NAL ~OHM 272 (4-77)
Z39 )
See/nstrucbons on Reverse
(Formerly NTlS-35)
Department o' Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-92/125
Chern-form, FL
First Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Abstract {Continued}
trench. Prior to 1975, about 50 gallons of wastewater per day were disposed of in this
manner. As a result of EPA investigations, a removal action was performed to remove
approximately 3,000 cubic yards of soil from the field and trench areas at the site. A
1985 EPA site screening investigation reported that a total of 66 drums containing oils
and sludge were being stored onsite and that two of the drums were leaking. A second
removal action was conducted in 1990 to remove these drums and investigate metal
concentrations in the ground water. In 1991, EPA also ordered the PRPs to remove
contaminated soil that may potentially affect the ground water. Future RODs will address
the contaminated onsite soil. This ROD addresses a final remedy for the ground water at
the site, as OU1.. Previous removal actions have now reduced contamination in ground
water to below significant levels; therefore there are no contaminants of concern
affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no action, with quarterly ground water
monitoring for no less than 1 year. The estimated total cost for this remedial action is
$104,000, which includes an O&M cost of $80,000 for a I-year peri.od.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
DECLARATION FOR 'l'BB
RECORD OF DBCISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Operable Unit One
Chemform, Inc. Site
Pompano Beach, Florida
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Chemform, Inc. Site in Pompano Beach, Florida. The remedy
for Operable Unit One of the site was chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 42 U.S.C. Section 9601
et.sea., and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This decision is based on the
administrative record file for this site.
In accordance with 40 CFR 300.430, the State of Florida, as
represented by the Florida Department of Environmental Requlation
(FDER), has been the support agency during the Remedial
Investigation process for the Chemform site. Based upon comments
received from FDER, EPA anticipates that concurrence on this
Record of Decision will be forthcoming; however, BPA has not yet
received a formal letter of concurrence.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This remedy applies to Operable Unit One at the site which
pertains to the site-related groundwater contamination. Due to a
lack of significant ground water contamination, a "No Action with
Monitoring" alternative was chosen for ground water at the site.
The ground water will be monitored quarterly for no less than one
year in order to verify that no site-related release of
contaminants is occurring. If the results of the monitoring show
that there is no unacceptable risk from exposure to site-related
contaminants in the ground water, then the site will be
considered for deletion from the National Priorities List (NFL).
However, should groundwater monitoring indicate that the site
poses a threat to human health or the environment, EPA, in
consultation with the State of Florida, will reconsider the
protectiveness, of the "No Action with Monitoring" alternative and
the feasibility of groundwater remediation will be re-evaluated.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation and Risk
Assessment conducted for Operable Unit One at the Chemform, Inc.
site, EPA has determined that no remedial action is necessary to
ensure the protection of human health and the environment, and
that the selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. The five-year review will not apply to this action
because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels. EPA has determined
that no remedial action is necessary at this t~e for OPerable
Unit One at this site. .
:r~f
ate
-------
Record of Decision
S1111111'1:ny of Remedial AI ternative Selection
Operable Unit One
CbA8¥oaa, Inc. Site
p~ Beach, Florida
U.S.
Prepared by:
Environmental Protection
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Agency
-------
1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Name, Location, and Description. . . ... .
..................1
2.0
Site History and Enforcement Activities. . . .
..................1
3.0
Highlights of Community Participation. . . . .
..................5
4.0
Scope and Role of Operable Unit.
.,.....
5.0
. . . . . .--8 ... . . . . . . . . .
. . . .6
Summary of Site Characteristics.............................. 6
5 . 1 Cl.i.mate.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. 2 . Surface Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 . 3 Geology and Hydr'oqeology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4 Results of the Remedial Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
6.0
S11mmary of 5i te Risks. ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .~. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . 12
6.1 Contaminant Identification.............................12
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.S
6.6
6.7
Exposure Assessment. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
6 .2 . 1 Well Invento.ry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6 .2 . 2 Current Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6 .2. 3 Future Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Toxicity Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Risk Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Comparison to .ARA,R,s.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Environmental Assessment...............................22
Discussion of Uncertainty............................ ..23
7.0
Description of "No Action " Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . .
.. 25
........
.. 24
8.0
Documentation of Significant Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Site Location Hap.....
. . .2
...... ..... ..... ....... ......
Detailed Site Hap.....
. . .3
.........
...............
Site Surface Drainage.
....................
. . .8
Cypress Creek (C-14 Canal).
. . .9
........... .............
Monitoring Well Locations..
..11
. .......... ..... ... .....
Soil Vapor Borings/Temporary Well Location Map..... ..13
-i-
-------
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
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
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)
Well
Surv-ey Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Lanq Use Map... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Future Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
LIST OF TABLES
Groundwater
Sam.pling Ev"ents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
List of Chemicals of Concern.......................... .28
Exposure Assessment - Industrial Scenario........... .. .29
Exposure Assessment - Residential Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Slope Factors for Contaminants of Concern -
Ingestion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Slope Factors for Contaminants of Concern -
Inh.alation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Reference Doses for Contaminants of Concern -
Inqes tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Reference Doses for Contaminants of Concern -
Inh.alation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Cancer Risk Estimates - Industrial Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . .35
Cancer Risk Estimates - Residential Scenario. . . . . . . . . . .36
Noncarcinogenic Risk Estimates -
Industrial Scenario............................. 37
BODcarcinogenic Risk Estimates -
Res idential Scenario............................ 38
Comparison of Groundwater Concentrations to ARARs
and T'BC Cr iter ia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1
Table 14 . Comparison of Groundwater Data to Surface Water
_0' . . Quality Standa.rds............................... 42
Table 15
Estimated Cost of Groundwater Monitoring..............43
-i1-
-------
Appendix A
Appendix B
LIST OF APPENDICES
. Remedial Investigation Sampling Data
and Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Responsiveness Summary.........................51
-iii-
-------
DBCISION SOMHARY FOR TBB RBCORD OF DBCISION
MmJB'ORK, INC. SITE
POKPAMO BEACH, FLORIDA
1.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Chemform, Inc. Site (Chemform) is located in Broward County
at 1410 S.W. 8th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida (Figure 1). The
site is located in a commercial-industrial area at the end of a
dead-end street. ~ediately adjacent to and east of Chemform is
the Wilson Concepts Superfund site which is currently operated as
a machine tool manufacturing facility (Fiqure 2). An alley about
6-10 feet wide on the Chemform property separates the Wilson
Concepts and Chemform buildings. The site is bounded on the west
by active tracks of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, and on the
north by S.W. 8th Street and the National Enquirer Property. On
the south side of the site is an industrial access road and
Carpenter Contractors of America,Inc., a roof truss
manufacturing facility.
Chemform occupies approximately four acres in a highly
industrialized area less than one half mile west of Interstate
95. The site is fenced and includes a 50,866 square-foot
building. The closest area of residential zoning lies just east
of I-95. The site is located within the city limits of Pompano
Beach, which has a population of 72,400 (U.S.D.C., 1990).
The Pompano-Cypress Creek Canal lies an estimated 3000 feet south
of the site. The Canal, operated by the South Florida Water
Management District, flows east into the Biscayne Bay. Directly
underlying the site is the Biscayne Aquifer, which supplies all
potable water for Broward County and is designated a sole-source
aquifer.
2.0
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Operations began on the site in November 1967 upon completion of
the building construction. Aerial photographs show the Chemform
site and the area in general as undeveloped prior to 1967. The
first facility at the site was a small precision machine shop
operating under the name KECO, Inc., an acronym for Kismet
Engineering Company. During its initial years of operation, KECO
was involved in the machining of precision metal parts for the
aerospace industry. Later, RECO began operating its first
Electro-Chemical Milling (ECM) machine. After gaining experience
with this machine, RECO converted a standard milling machine into
an ECM machine. Success with this subsequent machine led
eventually to the design, building, and marketing of a product
line of ECM machines under the name of "Chemform".
On November 29, 1967, KECO sold the business to KMS Industries,
Inc. (KMS) who then sold the property to New England Mutual Life
-------
N
HOT 1'0
SCALE
2
BROWARO COUNTY. FLORIDA
POMPANO. BEACH
.
SITE LOCATION MAP
CHEMFORM SITE
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
Figure 1
-------
~
....
~
11
II)
tV
~
~
~
~
~
e
S
~
:J
I
I
{
---" "'" !
/.. [.ITlONAL ENQUIRER } ilfj' SCALE: !
.---..~ . '0 0 JO 60 120 n I
. " ------ (. I I' I J )
: /~~... ._-_..__._-~. \---.----....--.-----
. . . ::.:::'. ':. : :' ..." .: ". ~.' --~....._.__._..
. . '. . .... -. .,...
. . .
. . . .. .. .... . .. ... .
. .. . . .. . .
.. .
. .".. " ~..:~. ." ...'~~. '-----. - - _.
h... .. ..,., >" ...~ .. .,.".,.". ---..
.' SW IIlh SIR[(1
\-..
. .'.. :':-:. '-:-- ...::=ii':-"---
CHEjtl'O/Ui
. .
- - --
-- - --~
- -
t.J
. ..............."... .. ----. --
. ~AR~~N.rER. ~~~~~cro~~ "..'ERICA :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~: : : : : : :~:~ . . ~. . . . . . .~1t::--= II-'i
:. . '.':' : : : :. . :.~ . -: :. ."'" ... ....:: :: : :: . : : : . . sw: l2eti SIR(£T::'::::. ~7"'
... . .. ..". . (LEGEND' ." ... ...::: -' ... :...:.."" ..
.~~--:---..:.._..~-.. .. --....-..
. ..
--- -. _. ...- PROPERtY BOuttUARY
-* - ..)1- f(IIC(
o P"V[M[NT
. .
. .
. ....,.
. ... . ,..
. .
.. '.. ,..,
'0"- ....
.. ..... .
.... ..."
""'.."
........,
." ...,.,
"" ....'"
.....,....
.. 0"""'" "" ...,...
. """'"
...... ..... '" ........,
'.""".'
SITE LAYOUT MAl)
CHEMFORM SITE
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
-------
4
Insurance Company in 1969 in exchange for a long-term lease. New
England Mutual Life remains the current owner of the site.
Chemform, a division of KMS, manufactured electrochemical
machining equ~pment-and precision machined metal parts at the
site from November 1967 to May 1976. Although operators of the
site changed twice more after May 1976, the above-described
manufacturing operation continued until 1985. From September
1985 through October 1986, the property was subleased to a
company which operated a small-scale manufacturing business.
Operations at the site ceased entirely in 1985, but the property
has been maintained in a potential operational status since that
time with limited maintenance and upkeep. The property has
undergone extensive renovation since late 1991, however, to
prepare it for leasing.
Most of Chemform's business was with the aerospace industry as a
certified repair station for the repair and refurbishment of
turbine engine components. Chemform also provided services to
utility companies that used turbine power plants. Chemform's
other business operations consisted of the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electro-chemical machines for other industries
involved in the fabrication of metal parts. -
From 1967 to 1985, Chemform and its predecessor, RECO, were
engaged in several processes that generated wastes or spent
material~. Metal milling and mechanical shaping operations
required cutting oils to lubricate and cool the parts and
"machines. Spent cutting oils were collected in stainless-steel
vats and routinely pumped out by local reprocessing contractors.
Organic solvents were used for metal cleaning. Finished metal
parts which required cleaning were processed through vapor
degreasing equipment. Piberglassing and painting operations also
involved the use of solvents for thinning and cleanup. The
electro-chemical machining operation involved a wet process which
removed metal from the part being.worked by using an electric
current applied in an electrolyte solution. This process
produced metal-bearing electrolyte solutions which were settled
in tanks and centrifuged to remove the metal solids.
Process wastewater from ECM machine washdown and sanitary sewage
was discharged to a septic tank/drain field system on the south
side of the building. Other wastewaters were discharged to an
open trench in the open field on the west side of the building.
According to Chemform's response to an Industrial Wastewater
Questio~aire, the company discharged about 50 gallons per day of
wastewater (sodium chloride and sodium nitrate) in this manner
until 1975. Cleanup of both the septic system and wastewater
trench have been addressed under a Removal Action at the site.
During the removal, data was collected on contaminant levels in
soils.. As a result of the soil investigation, approximately 3000
cubic yards of soil were removed from the site.
-------
5
In August 1985, EPA conducted a site screening investigation at
the site. This investigation noted an outside drum rack in the
paved shop yard west of the building with 19 drums, two of which
were leaking.' EPA also noted that approximately 47 other drums
were stored in the shop yard along with four stainless steel
tanks containing various quantities of oil and sludge. In July
1986, an EPA con~ractor, NUS Corporation, conducted a sampling
investigation. After evaluating the sampling results, EPA
proposed the site for the National Priorities List (NPL) in July
1988. In March 1989, the Chemform Site was formally included on
the NPL.
On October 19, 1989, EPA and certain Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPS) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) to conduct the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) at the site. These PRPs are Chemform, Inc., New England
Mutual Life ~nsurance Company, KMS Industries, and Smith
International, Inc.
On April 17, 1990, EPA issued an Administrative Order to the PRPs
to conduct a removal of drums found on the site and to
investigate the effect of metal concentrations on the
groundwater. The PRPs commenced the removal action in October
1990. EPA further ordered the PRPs to remove contaminated soil
that may potentially affect the groundwater. This second phase
of the removal action commenced in July 1991 and is scheduled for
completion in late 1992.
3.0
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Chemform site is located in an industrial section of Pompano
Beach, Florida. The closest residentially zoned area is east of
1-95, about 1/2 mile east of the site.
Community interviews were conducted by EPA in February 1990 to
determine public interest in the Chemform site. The conclusion
drawn from these interviews is that there is minimal interest in
the Chemform site, probably due to the transient nature of the
local population and the industrial setting of the site. EPA
held an Availability Session at the Pompano Beach Multipurpose
Center on December 4, 1990 to provide information about the site
and answer questions on the RI to be conducted at the site.
Seven people attended. Attendees of the session indicated an
interest in learning more about the site and asked numerous
questi.on~ a?0ut the Superfund process.
EPA released to the public the RI, Risk Assessment, and Proposed
Plan for the Chemform site on July 22, 1992. EPA also made these
documents available in both the administrative record and an
information repository maintained at the EPA Records Center in
Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia and at the Broward County Main
-------
6
Library in Port Lauderdale, Florida. On July 20, 1992, EPA
announced in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel a public ~omment
period as well as the availability of these documents. The
public comment period occurred from July 22, 1992 through August
21, 1992. In addition, EPA conducted a public meeting on
July 28, 1992. Representatives from EPA answered questions
about the findings of the RI, Risk Assessment, and EPA's Proposed
Plan for the site. Eleven local citizens attended the public
meeting. A response to the comments received during the comment
period is included in the Responsiveness Summary portion of this
Record of Decision. The decision for this site is based on the
administrative record. These community relations activities
fulfill the statutory requirements for public participation
contained in CERCLA Section 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v).
4.0
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
On April 7, 1992, EPA and the PRPs entered into the First
Amendment to the RIfFS AOC dated October 19, 1989. This
amendment included modifications to the AOC which reflected
dividing the Site into two operable units. Operable Unit 1 (OU1)
addresses any contamination in the groundwater at the Site that
may pose a risk to the surrounding population. Operable Unit 2
(OU2) will address the soil at the site, the principal site-
related threat. Dividing the site into two operable units allows
the groundwater to be addressed while the removal action is
ongoing. OU2 will be addressed after the completion of the
removal action.
The response action in this ROD is for OU1. Groundwater analysis
and results of the risk assessment suggest that "No Action with
Monitoring" for the ground water will be protective of human
health and the environment. The groundwater will be monitored
quarterly for no less than one year to confirm that the few
samples collected during the RI which contained contaminants
above drinking water standards are not indicative of a release of
contaminants from the Chemform site. If further groundwater
monitoring indicates an unacceptable risk from contaminants, EPA
will reconsider the protectiveness of the "No Action with
Monitoring- alternative. The response actions are consistent
with the National Contigency Plan (NCP) [40 CFR 300.430(e)].
5.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1
CLIMATE
Pompano Beach is located in South Florida in an area dominated by
tropical air masses. The average maximum annual temperature is
82.6QF~ the average minimum annual temperature is 68Of; and the
-------
7
mean annual temperature is 75.6~. The average annual
precipitation for the area is 57.5 inches. Surface
meteorological data obtained from the Miami International
indicate a gen~ral westerly flow of air in this region.
Airport
5.2
SURFACE HYDROLOGY
Figure 3 displays potential surface drainage patterns on and near
the site. The ground surface on the site slopes gently from
north to south, with an average gradient of 1.4 feet across the
site. Surficial soils on the site are sandy and highly
permeable. The flat topography and permeable soils tend to
minimize surface runoff from the site. Should surface runoff
occur during heavy rainfalls, the general flow direction would be
south, toward the Carpenter Contractors of America truss plant.
The closest surface water body to the site is Cypress Creek,
which lies about 0.5 miles south of the site at its closest
point, as shown in Figure 4. Cypress Creek, also known as C-14
Canal, is a short 7-8 mile branch of Pompano Canal, a part of the
vast system of canals that provide drainage and flood control in
south Florida. From its origin at the Pompano Canal, about 1.5
miles northeast of the site, Cypress Creek flows due south for
about 1 mile and then in an easterly direction for about 6-7
miles until it empties into the Intercoastal Waterway. Cypress
Creek is about 100 feet wide at its nearest point to the Chemform
Site. Cypress Creek, as well as the other canals in this part of
South Florida, is managed by the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) which is responsible for operation, maintenance,
and monitoring of the canals. SFWMD maintains two flood control
structures/gauging stations on Cypress Creek, one upstream, at
about 1.7 miles west of the site, and one downstream, at about
1.2 miles east of the site. The average flow for the period 1985
to 1991 was 120-129 cubic feet per second (cfs).
5.3
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The Chemform site is located on the Southern Atlantic Coastal
strip which is a broad ridge that is underlain by
Pleistocene-aged sand (Pamlico sand). In the vicinity of the
site, the Pamlico sand occurs to a depth of approximately 50
feet, where the Anastasia Formation occurs as a slightly
calcareous shelly sandstone. Below the Anastasia Formation, at a
depth of approximately 200 feet, the Miocene-aged Hawthorn Group
occurs. The Hawthorn Group is a thick unit consisting primarily
of semi-consolidated clay and silt. Below the Hawthorn Group are
h~ghly transmissive Eocene-age limestones. Soil borings
conducted during Phase I of the R1 indicated no evidence of a
confining unit within 50 feet of the surface.
The sands, sandstone, and limestone beneath the site form part of
the Biscayne Aquifer, the primary drinking water source in
-------
.-1 1.1
j'~'
.., .
120 FT
I
N
flU H'. 4181'..-11.
C"ICIIIO
1'"11'0
"IJ
.....
~
t1
II)
'-I..t
'nl IIIII'ACI. 'lOW "Ar rt.1IH "AP
RM SITE
CHEMFOEACH FLORIDA
POMPANO B .
w
It"
....
It"
,
1-"
I ...
I
.~
sw 8th sr~v::- :
...
'"
t
t
...
...
,
...,
j+-
,:::.... .:.
I
ZONE 3 .
~ \'~'\\\~~\'.
....CA~NrE~...JHT"'~T~"..Of. .ue:ND... .. .......
.
~
ZONE t
.
...
CHEMFORM
tj 'I
-... ~ .
fl
!
,
tt#.
.
lONE 4
---JJ
...... .iii1=l/
/ I
lONE 7
-...
"'sw :'~h SrREEt:-:: .
-,--
:. .. ..
+-
'U"'ACI 'LOW DlIIIClION
8-....
.....---
~
-_/
-------
9
<
f :; '.~; I !
=r
.
.',
.,' .~
----...........---..-- .. ":-~-
: : .: ;'1.. ~: ::... .'4 :""
<
<
-
...
:.
.~
-.,
-
'43
<
;>
. .
--
.'
: ':"..,~~"O :';."J~'
.
9
~..'~:~! :;'/E~
14
-
<
>
~
::lJrH VEW.,vf;l
29
28
~
~
-
30
\-
'::
-------
10 .
Broward and Dade Counties. Water table mapping conducted during
the RI showed groundwater to be moving in a generally easterly
direction at a rate of about 17 feet per year. The average
horizontal gradient across the site was foUQd to be about
6.3xlO-4, a re1atively flat gradient. The average vertical
hydraulic gradient was 10.6x10-4. This indicates a slight
downward gradient but does not suggest that the immediate
vicinity of the Chemform Site is.an area of significant recharge
to the underlying Biscayne -aquj;fer~ .-,
Geologically, the Biscayne Aquifer is composed of soils of
Holocene age and limestone, sandstone, and .~nd ranqing in age
from Pleistocene through L~e MLocene. In the site vicinity, it
is primarily limestone and extends to a dep~h o~ approximately 80
feet below sea level. Solution cavities occupy a. significant
volume of the limestone in the Biscayne Aquifer, caaaing it to
have high horizontal and vertical permeabilities~ The lower part
of the oolitic limestone is also cavity r~}~ and, is identified
by the presence of bryozoans. A hard cave.t'Dous limestone
underlies the bryozoan layer. Because of the:-'extremely high
permeability of this limestone,. all large capacity wells are
completed in this part of the aquifer, generaLly 40 to 100 feet
below land surface. Transmissivity of the Bi8cayne Aquifer
ranges from 5.4xlO. ftz/day where the aquifer is mostly sand to
greater than 1.6xlO' ft2/day in the limestone-rich areas.
Regional flow of ground water is to the southeast; however, the
direction of flow may be influenced by drainage canals or well
fields. Flow direction in the site area appears to be influenced
by the C-102 Canal, as it ranges in direction from east to
northeast. .
Regionally, the groundwater table is high, from 1.62 to 6.24 feet
above mean sea level (USGS, 1988) and typically 6 to 8 feet below
ground surface as is characteristic of South Florida.
Site-specific infor.mation obtained by NUS during the 1986 study
indicates that ground water is approximately four feet below
grade at the site, while later studies indicate that the
groundwater is approximately 3.0 to 3.5 feet below grade.
5.4
RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the Remedial Investigation (RI) was to gather and
analyze sufficient data to characterize the site in order to
perform the Baseline Risk Assessment, which determines the,site's
impact on human health and the environment. Both the RI and Risk
Assessment have been used to determine whether remedial action is
necessary ..at. the site.
Six monitoring wells were installed in August 1990 to
characterize groundwater quality (see Figure 5). Pive monitoring
wells were shallow (12 feet) and one well was deep (50 feet).
One shallow well (MW-1) is located in an upgradient location to
-------
::--
Nl\n~~~,£N()UIR£R ,,: '..,
, (~:..:' :5CAL~::!!:;i/!:>:::::
---...:.. ::111:::::::::::;::0:': , 10, . eo
::':ii;:;!;': ;u;r , :!!!,,~;,
.. ,"'w "'::1::::"1,,111:1111:111",,1,111
.::::::: . ":':::::::;H:::H::::::::::::::
1'-3 1'-5 MW-1
. .0
. .-. OO~OWATER Fl~ . ,-, "1',lllir,;;'" C.'.,o,.
[!!:~~ij~~jJiji!ii~!~ij~","""",",~-, :: ::..- .
c
110 f1
J
N
P-I
IW .Ih' ~r~r
I
/
I
I
t'Ij I
~. /
~ iff
t1
m II
VI
TW-IO
LIGIND
o
.
............ ....,.... ..u.
.'II' _rM.. ..14
"1''''111.
U-OOI- -..
.
CI
""""""""" . .
"",.,............. "'0.............
.......................................
........................................
"" ...................................
.........................................
. .... . . ...........
I)IEZOMETER/MONITORING WELL
LOCATION MAP
CHEMFORM SITE
POMPANO BEACH, FlOIUOA
..
.-
.-
n
o
z
n
m
..
"1
III
-------
12
characterize background groundwater quality. Four other shallow
wells (MW-2,3,5,6) are located at the downgradient site boundary
to characterize contamination leaving the site in shallow
groundwater. A deep monitoring well (MW-4) is located
downgradient and adjacent to shallow well MW-3 to characterize
groundwater contamination at depth.
Groundwater quality sampling was conducted over several major
events (Phase I, Phase II, and Phase lIB) and in two minor events
(January 16, 1992 and February 18, 1992). Other than Phase I,
each sampling event was designed to either verify the results of
a previous sampling event or to address specific technical
concerns arising from a previous sampling event. Table 1 on
page 27 summarizes the groundwater quality sampling events.
Another objective of the January 16, 1992 sampling event was to
evaluate the presence of groundwater contamination in the western
part of the site. An area of organic subsurface soil
contamination (35 feet by 55 feet) had been characterized in the
western field during an earlier soil sampling phase. The area
was delineated through headspace field screening of soil samples
using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA). A temporary well (TW-I)
was installed at the downgradient edge of the organic vapor
contamination based on OVA readings (Figure 6).
Appendix A provides a tabular snmmary of the RI data collected at
the site. This summary includes the contaminants "and
concentrations found at each of the groundwater monitoring well
locations.
6.0
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Baseline Risk Assessment was conducted by EPA as part of the RI
to estimate the health or environmental problems that could
result if the Chemform site were not remediated. Results are
contained in the Final Baseline Risk Assessment Report. A
Baseline Risk Assessment represents an evaluation of the "No
Action" alternative, in that it identifies the risk present if no
remedial action is taken. The assessment considers environmental
media and exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable
levels of exposure now or in the foreseeable future. Data
collected and analyzed during the RI provided the basis for the
risk evaluation. The risk assessment process c~ be divided into
four components: contaminant identification, exposure
assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization.
6.1
CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFICATION
The objective of contaminant identification is to screen the
information that is available on hazardous substances present at
-------
1-
t1j
,...,
~.
11
d)
0\
I
I
-- u_-..-. - .
-. -- --'---- . --. - --
--*~~ ./~..x'u
"--.- :/
~-
, -
.. ---_.. -_u.
eo 2 ., .- - 80
- .'~ !,.. ~ 'y flUt'OHAH.. .tu
0" e.KJO /"~. :iV-lt
~ ,too 9'>1000 tjt/i.O
,.. '-" :L ; 0:'1122
I . "" ,\> &..0
., '"11111, \"~:iV. 2J
o "'.0 8'0-; 00
() :iV-2'
~v. )0
'II I
x
.~
x
1
fll [ NO.: ORW"£I~9
c''-ii CKfo ---_. -. -
y :'1(\ ..~ i
'-. --
0- . '-~ -. . _.
,/
,/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
.
-.
-'-
/'
.'
/
l
SCALA':
JI
~'CAL6': NUN6'
o
L
tiO II.
I
JO
I
/
I
LA'CA'ND:
,,' ... I :>IIMAII U At([A (;111 AliI< 111.\11 JIJ "1""
i . '. J
..) \"{
o $()II VAI'O/I UOIIII'(, IUI.AlllJl1 (1,1:.::11)
OIU..A."U . r~I"" . D..HI"W ......,."
'LuldAj
/
/
eu ~Oll VA"Ole UOHIII(; IIICAIIlJII (II I:.'~I) IVIIII
ASSUClAlLO OVA HI AIlINI, (......,) AI 4:> 'II I
OVA 1114/1S""CI HUIIINGS (,......)
~UII V""OH 0'1-"" 1/111 H\l41 (III
IIlIk,NG If. 4 4:' I> ti~ ti~. /
-
SV 111 <. 10 ...111
~v ~ I - 11/ . 11/
W n ... 1(, .111
sv H -.10 .10
~" H I~IJI, J/~ .,1""
..----. .---. '-
Westinghouse [" nvlronmentol
and Geotechnical St:rvicus. Inc.
'IQUAt 2-1
,"IJIL I'.,'OR /JONINI.'
n'u/'ulCAilY ".'./. LUI~TI"N UtI'
{.'III:'M "'0"101 .""{'/'#:'
I'O.U/'..INU IJ":,H'II, "'f.OIlIJJ.1
-------
14
the site and to identify contaminants of concern (COCs) in order
to focus subsequent efforts in the risk assessment process. COCs
are selected based upon their toxicological properties,
concentration~ and frequency of occurrence at the site.
Table 2 on page 28 presents the chemicals that the Risk
Assessment identifies as potential contaminants of concern in the
groundwater for the Chemform site.
6.2
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
An exposure assessment was conducted to estimate the magnitude of
exposure to the groundwater contaminants of concern at the site
and the pathways through which these exposures could occur. The
results of this exposure assessment were combined with .
chemical-specific toxicity information to characterize potential
risks.
Based upon the source characterization and soil investigation
conducted under the RI and Removal Action, contaminated soil is
the primary potential source of groundwater contamination at the
Chemform site. The primary groundwater contaminants at the site
are inorganic constituents. Metal-working operations at the site
produced elevated concentrations of inorganic parameters such as
chromium, nickel, and arsenic in the soils. Leaching of the
soils is the likely contributor of inorganic constituents to
groundwater at the site.
Significant local use of groundwater at or near the site is an
unlikely occurrence because City water will likely continue to
serve the site area. Although highly unlikely, a conservative
future-use scenario is based on the assumption that a well could
be installed on the Chemfor.m site for use by industrial workers
or residents as a potable water supply. On-site exposure to
groundwater, under the future industrial or residential scenarios
would represent the greatest potential exposure (i.e., greater
than exposure in off-site locations). The exposure pathways
evaluated quantitatively for this scenario were ingestion of
drinking water and dermal contact through showering for the
industrial use scenario and ingestion of drinking water, dermal
contact and inhalation of volatile chemicals for the residential
use scenario. The results of the exposure assessment are
summarized in Table 3 and Table 4 on pages 29 and 30.
6.2.1
Well Inventorv
A well inventory was conducted in a one-mile downgradient arc
(i.e. 180 degrees) from the site (Figure 7). Water level
measurements taken throughout the RI showed groundwater leaving
the site in a generally easterly direction. No wells were
identified in the inventory area, however three non-potable wells
(recovery and irrigation wells) and one potable well system
-------
lS
::r;:~:-:.~:~ ~~~:-~~. i
'?1~"~''''''-L.".. ~'
'-.'-."" ~ .~.~
~qjer~ '," ~ '.11.-
.-.' rc...... 'e- !lit. ..
,"''''? , :. : . : :,:: ':':' ... -.. . I'
Ir:,,!' ";'!......-.o" '\\\\\\~
-. :~ -\.\ ..8,-
. I.: ,~ ~":' .~/..~~~~ " ,-
-I '.', --=...:-
.~~~ ~..~--,:. '. ~ ::.:'.
. ~~I . ~ ."'\,=: ..
.. - -....-. -...-- ..J. --.. . .
,. -J, ==:, ;
...1"" ~... ~I -... J
..,,., ...... .. .-.-. ==~ 1
/ I =-~~ ' ~ '-:Q
~~"' I .J '.V, ::~ '
I
',.~ t-
. " ,
-. - .c:i. -"'~ :- ,:::'--.-
~ -I a- .:;---: ~ "";:"-:--'''~
~":'.-' .=-~ -..,
.."""", ,., 1_"""
I ....',- .".=:'c..J;
==-1 ..J", '-ja .'
- . ~" .!
-. . '... ~~.
~"'I .1.. '1':-' I.
- ...."", '" 1-11
... , . ~ . .. -:- - I'
~t~",1 1__' . :..
~ - ". . . ... '
: . ~ I.. -~ 1 .
~I ~:
.. . :
I I -. 1 D'
- - .~ - :-...,.., ~!
'. . ~ . -
,...~ =-8._.,
'-11."J'
'. .....
~
.--- ~.----:s.-'&..
Sr'::_~'
-t
o
!
, 000 2000
! !
SCALE
4-000
I
LEGEN 0:
CD. WEL.L LOCATION
(SEE TABLE 5-4)
o
I
, MILE
I
AREA OF WELL INVENTORY
CHEMFORMSITE
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
Figure 7
-------
(Broward County 1B well field) were identified just outside of
the survey area perimeter. Groundwater modeling conducted
routinely by Broward County indicates that it would be unlikely
that pumping qf wellfield 1B, located about 0.7 mile southwest of
the site, would affect the groundwater flow in the area of the
site. In addition to the well inventory, city water line maps
were obtained and show that the entire area falling within the
scope of the well inventory is served by city water. As a
result, there are no populations currently in the site area that
are potentially exposed to groundwater on or near the site.
Groundwater sampling results from the RI at the adjacent
(downgradient) Wilson Concepts site indicate that groundwater
parameters associated with Chemform are not migrating off site to
any discernable extent. Also, future land use projections for
the area indicate that the site will likely remain industrial.
Conservative future exposure scenarios were developed for future
potential industrial and residential use of the site. Those
scenarios assume construction of a well on the site and
subsequent groundwater exposure through ingestion, dermal
absorption, and inhalation.
6.2.2
Current Land Use
Figure 8 shows current land use patterns in the vicinity of the
site. As depicted in this figure, the area within a one-half
mile radius of the site is bisected in a north-south direction by
the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks. The area east of the
tracks, within the one-half mile radius, is zoned "highway light
industrial" and represents 52 percent of the total area of the
circle. The area west of the tracks is currently zoned (with
area percent in parentheses): commercial recreational (19
percent); multiple family residential (18 percent); and planned
light industrial/office/warehouse and planned commercial district
(7 percent). The remaining 4 percent represents Cypress Creek
Canal located at the southern edge of the circle.
Based on the results of the well inventory and the fact
Chemform Site and surrounding area are served by public
supply linea, no current population in the area appears
exposed to groundwater.
that the
water
to be
6.2.3
Future Land Use
The Future Land Use Plan for the City was evaluated in
conjunction with an evaluation of established land use trends.
The City/~ Future Land Use Plan is shown in Figure 9. This plan
was adopted in 1989 and projects land use through 1998. It is
updated every five years; however, the classifications are
generally consistent for at least a ten year period. Figure 9
shows an area on the western side of the railr~ad tracks from the
Chemf~rm site. This area is comprised of two land use
-------
17
J~ ~ ~~1I;' if ,/:;
~.
~I
~ :
':
. . I I
ii f
....
.,
81-,,]
...
. ,~;.:-_~
. II
.. ~ ~
~.-..,.
-1 '. ;:
- .-'
...
ZONING CLASSIFICATtONS
N
1-'
HIQHWAY UGHT INOUITJIIAL
Wu..nllLE FAMILY ItE8D1N11AL
SCAL!
'..'21.'
RC-I
R%-2
COIIIIIE":'AL ItECJIU110NAL
C'~CO
~1.N8t1.D Uf»ofT INCua~IALlO"ICE/WAltE"OUSE
PLNiiJlID COMMERCIAL OtSTlttCT
NOTE: PERCENTAGES REPRESENT PERCENT LAND USE
WITHIN 1/2 Mj!-E RADIUS OF SITE
LAND USE MAP
CHEMFORM SITE
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
Figure 8
-------
18
.
.f
., :
<:::j
. \
.Il) i.
i/ ~ :.:
. I,
RAC ;'./
. - -r . 'j; ~,..
. I ' ,
: I:
~' . j.'
:: I
f .:~ . J'['
~ /;:', . .~
tJ./: !: ~mUmIJ
I !UII! lliIU
,.r
, --rr
I .
I
, I
~ .
~
8.ce ,..~, !'
, ,,"!
.1
l
t;
,
. I
~ (
U ;:;: 'I, I I:,
~ ~ I I J -J, J _11.. I ,.-1
1 200 600 0
I I I
SCALE: 1"- 1 200 Fi.
1200 Fi.
I
=
INDUSTRIAL
COM MERCIAL - RECREATIONAL
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
SOURCE:
CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
FilE- NO.: ORW E159
CHECKED
4-13-92(dCoo
LEGEND:
I
CR =
M =
.' Westinghouse Environmental
and Geotechnical Services, Inc.
OIU.ANDO . rAJQI~ . DlZRlaUJ BUCH
n.lJ1U1U.
FrJ7'UU LAND US8 MAP
CHEMFORJ/ SITE
POMPANO BL4CB. FLORllJA
Figure 9
-------
19
classifications, Commercial/Recreation (i.e., Pompano Race Track)
and Medium Residential (i. e.,. 10 to 16 developments per acre, for
Cypress Bend Condominium Complex). This projected land use is
the same as the present land use for this area. The only
anticipated change for the area is the addition of 500 living
units to the Cypress Bend Condominium Complex to bring the total
number of units to 2,000. With the present analysis of occupancy
expected to remain the same, this would amount to approximately.
4,000 people at this complex.
According to the City of Pompano Beach, there would be no plans
for future residential use in the Chemform area, if there are no
existing residential land uses in that area. The Chemform Site
is in a commercial/industrial zoned area with no existing or past
residential land use. Therefore, the most likely future land use
for the Chemform site is industrial.
Under a future industrial scenario, workers would be expected to
be in the site area for a normal 8-hour work day. Although the
site is served by a public water supply, a conservative future.
exposure scenario is produced by looking at the installation and
use of a potable well in an industrial setting onsite.
SLmilarly, a residential scenario was examined for informational
purposes, although EPA does not expect the site area to be
converted for residential use in the foreseeable future. The
conservative exposure assumption for an industrial setting forms
the basis of the exposure assessment.
6.3
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
. .
The purpose of a toxicity assessment is to weigh available
evidence regarding the potential of the 90ntaminants of concern
to cause adverse effects in exposed individuals and to provide an
estimate of the relationship between the extent of exposure and
the likelihood of adverse effects. The toxicity assessment is
based on toxicity values which have been derived from
quantitative dose-response information. Toxicity values for
cancer are known as slope factors (SFs) and values determined for
noncarcinogenic effects are referred to as reference doses
(RfDs). .
Slope factors (SPS), which are also known as cancer potency
factors (CPPs), have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic
Assessment Group for est~ting excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals.
SFs, which. are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)-l, are
multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in
mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estLmate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake
level. The term "upper-bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of tne risks .calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes
-------
20
underestLmation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. SFs
are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or
chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation
and uncertain~y factors have been applied. SFs for the
contaminants of concern at Chemform are listed in Table 5
(ingestion) and Table 6 (inhalation) on pages 31 and 32.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating
the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to
chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g. the
amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water)
can be compared to the.RfD. RfDs are derived from human
epidemiological studies or animal studies to ~hich uncertainty
factors have been applied (e.g. to account for the use of animal
data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty factors
help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential
for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur.. RfDs for the
contaminants of concern at Chemform are found in Table 7
(ingestion) and Table 8 (inhalation) on pages 33 and 34.
6.4
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
In this final step of the risk assessment, the results of the
exposure and toxicity assessments are combined to provide
numerical estimates of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risks for the site. Nearly all of the carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risk is produced by ingestion of groundwater
under the potential industrial and residential scenarios.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the
intake level with the slope factor. These risks are
probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation
(e. g. lxlO-6 or lE-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10.6
indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual has a
one in one million additional chance of developing cancer, over a
70-year lifetime, as a result of site-related exposure to a .
carcinogen. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) states that
sites should be remediated to chemical concentrations that
correspond to an upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to an
individual not exceeding 10-6 to 10.4 excess lifetime risk.
However, the upper boundary of the risk range is not a discrete
line at 10-6, although EPA generally uses 10.6 in making risk
management. decisions in determining a need for remedial action at
a site. A specific risk estimate around 10-4 may be considered.
acceptable if justified based on site-specific conditions.
Chemical-specific risks are shown in Table 9 (industrial
scenario) and Table 10 (residential scenario) on pages 35 and 36.
-------
21
The sum of the risks across both exposure pathways was calculated
as follows:
Total Exposure C~ncer Risk = Risk (Ingestion) + Risk (Dermal
Contact) + Risk (Inhalation for Residential)
As shown in Table 9 and Table 10, the total cancer risk for all
exposure pathways is 2E-4 for the potential industrial scenario
and SE-4 for the potential residential scenario. Under both
scenarios, arsenic is responsible for a siqnificant portion of
the carcinogenic risk. This level of carcinogenic risk is
produced by arsenic (primarily through ingestion of drinking
water), but the average arsenic concentration (24 ug/1) used to
derive the chemical-specific risk is less than one-half of the
federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 50 ug/l. '
In order to characterize potential noncarcinogenic effects,
est~ated intake levels are compared with toxicity values.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the Hazard
Quotient (HQ). The HQ is a ratio of the est~ted intake derived
from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the
contaminant's reference dose. An HQ exceeding unity (1.0)
indicates a potential for site-related noncarcinogenic health
effects. By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a medium,
or across all media to which a given population may be reasonably
exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The HI provides
a useful reference point for gauging the potential siqnificance
of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or
across media.
The total Hazard Index, representing the noncarcinogenic risk for
the site, is equal to 1 (Table 11 on page 37) for the potential
industrial scenario and 3 (Table 12 on page 39) for the potential
residential scenario. When segregated by toxic effects, the
Hazard Index does not exceed 1 for any of the toxicity endpoints
under the potential industrial use scenario. Under the
residential use scenario, the Hazard Index for skin and vascular
effects exceeds 1, but the other toxicity endpoints do not exceed
1.
Under both the industrial and residential scenarios, arsenic is
responsible for a significant portion of the noncarcinogenic
risk. In the case of the potential residential scenario, arsenic
is 'responsible for the total Hazard Index exceeding unity (1).
As noted -for the carcinogenic risk, the average arsenic
concentration of 24 ug/l is less than one-half of the federal
drinking water standard of 50 ug/l for arsenic. The only
chemical which exceeds the acceptable risk of 1x10-. is
arsenic. In addition, the carcinogenic endpoint on which the
slope factor is based is a nonfatal form of skin cancer.
-------
22
6.5
COMPARISON TO ARARS
Table 13 on page 41 compares groundwater parameter concentrations
to Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS)
and To-Be-Considered (TBC) criteria for groundwater. Applicable
requirements are those standards or other requirements that
specifically address a pollutant or circumstance at a CERCLA
site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those standards
or other requirements that, while not "applicable" to the site,
address problems or situations similar to those encountered at
the site and, therefore, are suitable for use at the site.
Federal max~um contaminant levels (HeLs) and Florida drinking
water standard (Chapter 17-550) are relevant and appropriate
requirements since they address groundwater that is not currently
used as a drinking water supply but which could potentially be
used, although unlikely, as a water supply in the future.
Proposed max~um contaminant levels, maximum cont.aminant level
goals (HeLGs) and lifetime health advisories are
to-be-considered criteria.
Table 13 also indicates that the maximum qroundwater
concentrations of arsenic and chromium exceeded ARARS. However,
for each parameter, this exceedance was observed during the RI in
only one sample. The maximum arsenic concentration (55 ug/l) was
within 5 ug/l of the 50 ug/l standard~ this falls within the
accuracy range of the arsenic test. The exceedance of the
chromium standard occurred in one sample collected on
January 16, 1992. .
Naphthalene and nickel also exceed to-be-considered criteria in
one sample during the RI. The nickel exceedance was caused by
one sample collected on January 16, 1992. Naphthalene was found
in a temporary well used in the western part of the site to
characterize an area of hydrocarbons.
6.6
ENVIRONXENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
The environmental assessment (RA), also known as the ecological
assessment, 18 a qualitative and/or quantitative appraisal of the
actual or potential effects of a hazardous waste site on plants
and animals other than people and domesticated species. This EA
will address the potential environmental risks associated with
groundwater contamination at the Chemform site.
Cypress Creek, a drainage canal, is the closest surface water to
the site. Comparison of groundwater quality data from the site
to water quality standards applicable to Cypress Creek do not
indicate that there would be a significant impact if groundwater
from the site discharged into the canal. Table 14 on page 42
presents a comparison of average groundwater concentrations from
-------
23
the down-qradient wells to the surface water quality standards
for Cypress Creek. Groundwater concentrations are the upper 95
percent confidence limit on the average groundwater
concentrations. of the preliminary list of chemicals of concern.
This preliminary list Includes aluminum and iron in addition to
the final list of chemicals of potential concern: this is because
chemicals other than those of potential human health concern may
present environmental concerns. Only those chemicals that have
Florida water quality standards associated with them are shown in
Table 14. The average concentrations of aluminum, chromium, and
iron in groundwater are above the associated surface water
quality standards. As can be seen in Appendix A, however,
aluminum and iron both had high background concentrations. Only
one data point in ten was higher than the aluminum background
(MW-1) concentration. Only three of ten data points were above
the iron background concentration. Also, the average
concentration of each parameter was heavily influenced by a
sLngle high-concentration data point.
No wetlands were identified in the downgradient area between the
site and Cypress Creek. One wetland was identified on the.
opposite side of Cypress Creek from the site, but would not
likely be impacted because it is hydraulically separated from the
site by Cypress Creek. .
Considering the above factors, the dilution effect Cypress Creek
would have on qroundwater entering the stream, the long travel
time for groundwater to reach Cypress Creek from the site, and
the attenuation mechanisms that would tend to bind these metals,
it is not anticipated that surface water quality standards in
Cypress Creek would be exceeded due to inflow of groundwater from
the Chemform site.
6.7
DISCUSSION OF UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainties about the numerical results of environmental risk
assessments may be relatively large. These uncertainties often
represent a value of at least one order of magnitude. Several
categories of uncertainty are associated with site risk
assessments. These uncertainties include the selection of
substances used to characterize exposure, the toxicity values for
each substance, and the exposure assessment for individual
exposures. The fluctuations in contaminant levels detected over
numerous sampling rounds create a significant uncertainty in the
Chemform groundwater risk assessment.
Chromium
As se~n in Appendix A, all values of total chromium were less
than 50 ug/l except for the January 16, 1992 result from
-------
24
monitoring well MW-S which was 1,300 ug/l. This data point was
inconsistent with the MW-S results from the previous sampling
round on August 14, 1991 (20 ug/1) and the subsequent sampling
round on February 18, 1992 (34 ug/1). The presence of solids and
turbidity in the January 16, 1992 sample were confirmed by
laboratory analysis.
Nickel
Only two of 13 nickel values were above the detection limit
(Appendix A). As,with the chromium, the nickel results for MW-S
on January 16, 1992 (230 ug/1) was"inconsistent with the previous
sampling round on August 14, 1992 (less than 40 ug/1) and the
subsequent sampling round on February 18, 1992 (55 ug/1). As
with chromium, the elevated nickel concentration on January 16
may have been associated with the elevated solids in the sample
rather than the groundwater.
Methv1ene Chloride
Methylene chloride was positively identified (i.e., found above
blank concentration) only once during the RI, on March 14,1991 in
MW-3. The methylene chloride result for MW-3 on March 14 (690
ug/1) was inconsistent with the results from the previous
. sampling event on August 15, 1990 (less than 1 ug/1) and the
result from the subsequent sampling event on August 14, 1991
(less than 5 ug/1). In addition, methylene chloride is a very
prevalent lab contaminant and was found in three lab blanks
during the RI.
Arsenic
There is currently no published cancer slope value for arsenic
which has been verified by EPA's Cancer Assessment Group.
However, the cancer slope factor for arsenic was calculated using
a proposed unit risk value for arsenic in IRIS. Most of these
assumptions have been selected deliberately to be conservative.
However, in a few cases where scientific information is
unavailable, it is possible that one or more assumptions may not
be conservative.
7.0
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
EPA has determined, based on the results of the RI and Risk
Assessment, that no action is needed for remediation of
groundwater'at the Chemform site. However, the future potential
risk from exposure to the ground water at the site is close to
the level at which EPA may consider taking action. Therefore,
the groundwater at and around the site will be monitored
quarterly for no less than one year. The purpose of this
groundwater monitoring is to confirm that the few samples
-------
I--
I
25
collected during the RI which contained contaminants above
drinking water standards are not indicative of a release of
contaminants from the Chemform site. Quarterly monitoring will
occur at all existing RI wells and additional wells to be
installed before the quarterly monitoring begins. The samples
will be analyzed for volatile and extractable organic compounds
and metals. EPA has estimated the cost of the "No Action with
Monitoring" alternative to be $104,000 as shown in Table 15 on
page 43. If monitoring indicates a potential threat to human
health or the environment, EPA, in consultation with the State of
Florida, will reconsider the protectiveness of ,this alternative
and re-evaluate the need for protective measures or site
remediation.
Groundwater monitoring will include the installation of
approximately four additional monitoring wells downgradient of
potential sources of groundwater contamination. There will be
quarterly sampling of these new wells and existing monitoring
wells at the site. .
The new wells will be located downgradient of the following
potential source areas of concern:
(1)
(2)
the wastewater discharge trench
adjacent to MW-S, screened in a deeper zone where high
OVA readlngs were previously observed,
(3 )
the hydrocarbon area in the western portion of the
site, and
(4)
the area of the four stainless steel vats.
Groundwater monitoring will continue until the delineation and
cleanup of the contaminated site soils as part of OU2 has been
completed to EPA's satisfaction. The groundwater monitoring will
occur for no less than one year.
8.0
DOCUMR~ATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
The selected remedy as presented in this decision document has no
difference, significant or otherwise, from the proposed plan.
-------
:z-
;j
26
'l'ABLBS
." . .:r. .
. I.u'-.~,' .,
..:-...
. ,~
-------
Table 1
~.. O...........S8mpUngU......... R8m8dI8I1nq~
Chemlo.... 5118. PompIlIO 8uI:h. FIaIId8
: S8InpInti. .' .": ~R"'" I ...
w.... P.U~l"" ...
p,.... 0118(8) 0118 ........ : AM8ped S8InpInti R8IIon88e
I 8/15-18/90 12/15/90 MW-1 - MW-e TAL Inore.'c. .nd Firat round of groundwaterqualily
TCL organlca; umpllng. FI"er~ and untlltered
hexavalent chromium. Inorganic. collected.
.. 3/14-15/91 4/24/91 MW-1 - MW-e TAL Inorganlc8; Re..mple all we"a to addr...
hex8vatent chromium. concern. over Ph... I, primarily to
vol..... organlce, reduce aoIld. In umpl.. through re-
...8tlcldn/PCe8. de".lopmentof well. and u.. of
vacuum ..mpllng method.
118 8/14/91 11/5/91 MW-1 - MW-a TAL Inorgolc. and R.umple .11 ".n. to provld..
TCL organic.. ..cond round'" ground\Vat.rdllta
hexavalent chromium. IJ
u.lng vacuum umpllng method to
comp." with f8r,vlOu8 data.
- 1/18/92 3/9/92 MW-5, MW-e, VoIat"e and .eml- Re..mpl. MW-5 and MW-e to
TW-1 volatl'. organlca; evaluat. eHect laaldng s.w.r line
8r88nlc. clvomlum. ...., ""'e h8d on Pha.e 118 results.
nickel. CharKterlze contamination In
hydrocarbon area by Inatalling and
umpllngtemp0r8ryw.1I (TW-1).
- 2/18/92 3/10/92 MW-5 Chromium. nickel, Ra.mple MW-5 to evaluate effect
turbidity, total aolld8 mey h8va had on 1/16/92
8u8pendad Hlld., Inorganic. r..ults.
"-J
-.J
-------
28
Table 2
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
AT THE CHEMFORM SITE
Inoraanics
Arsenic
Barium
Cobalt.
Hexavalent Chromium
Nickel
Zinc
Oraanics
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Xylene
. Cobalt is addressed qualitatively, not quantitatively.
-------
29
Table 3
Summary of Aesultl of Exposure Assessment
Industrial Futur. Land U..
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, florida
- ..
." .'. 'T., ~ " .. "CironJc D811y Intake (mgjkg-ay)
Exposure CarcInogenic .NoncarcInogenic
POpulallon. 'Itta-v,,__. ..--- . Ch8mJcaI, . . ,_. Eff8cIa..... . Ef1ect8 ''''.
Industrial Ingestion of ArsenIc 8.4E-5 2.4E~
Wor1cers groundwater as Barium - 1.6E~
drinking water Chromium (VI) - 1.3E-3
Nickel - 5.4E~
ZInc - 2.0E-4
1.4-0lchIoro- 9.SE~ -
benzene
Meth~ene 1.3E-4 3.1E-4
Chloride
~- - 5.SE-4
X~... - 2.0E-5
0erm8I contact ArsenIc 4.1E-7 1.1E~
wIIh grcundwat8r Bartum - 7.6E-7
during shower'lI"1g ChromIum (VI) - 6.1E~
Nickel . 2.6E-6
.
ZInc - 9.5E-7
1.4-0lchIoro- 4.8E~ -
benzene
MeIhyIene 6.4E-7 1.8E~
CNortde
Naphthalene - 2.8E~
X~ene . 9.5E~
Note:
Intake for carcinogenic effedS not calculated for chemicals not considered
by EPA to be potential human carcinogens (as of April 1992 In IRIS). .
-------
30
Table 4
Summary of Rnult8 01 Exposure Ann8ment
Residential Futun L8nd U..
Ch.mform Site, Pompano Seach, Florid.
. ~.-
: ~!:y - !)','!{"~"
.~~1Ir Intake (mg/kg-day)
".. . . ...,~....... .'... ...0.0. ~~ureo . ~~;'. ,::;...: :""":"'U:.:" . . ..... C8rdnogenIc . 0 NOftCIRIncgenlc
Population. .. P.~ :'.... if Ch8mIc8J..o.. .E--, Eff8ct8
. ':.1:"'" .
Potential Ingestion d Arsenic 2.8E-t ' .
6.6E~
Future groundwater as Barium - ".4E-4
Residents drinking water ChromIum (VI) - 3.5E-3
Nick.. - 1.5E-3
ZInc - 5.5E""
1 ,4-01ct1Iao- 3.3E-5 -
benzene
M8Ch)1ene ".5E"" 1.0E-3
CHcrtde
Nasi1IhaIII'I8 - 1.se.:5
X~.. - S.5E-5
DerrrW conrad Ars81Ic e.8E.1 1.6E~
wIIh groundwater BarUn - 1.1E~
during showerN1g ChromIum (VI) - 8.5E~
.
NIckII - 3. 7E~
ZInc - 1.3E~
1,4-0lchIoro- 8.0E-8 .
b8nz8n8
~ 1.1E~ 2.5E~
CHortde
Naphthalene - 3.9E~
X)4ene . 1.3E.7
Inh8Iadon d Arsenic . -
~ 8Irbn . .
chemic8I8 from Chromium (VI) - .
groundwater ... Nick. . .
In home ZInc . -
1,4-0lchIoro- 1.2E"" 2.9E4
benzene
Melh)'tene 1.7E-3 3.9 E.:5
Chloride
... .. Naphthalene . 6.1E-3
Xytene - 2.1E4
Note:
Intake for carcinogenic effects not calcUated for chemlcaJs not considered
by EPA to be potential human carcinogens (as 01 AprI1992 In IRIS).
-------
31
Table 5
Ing8lllon (Oral) ToxJclty Vllun . PotentJal Cllctnog8nJc Eff8Ct8
Chemform Site, Pomplno a_eft, Floridl
Slape Fact«. WIIgbkJ.Evld8ftC8 Type of Slope Flaw
Param8I8r (0). Cla~ ~. ~
AnenC 1.8E+o- A SIdn (drtNdng IRIS
water)
1."~ 2.E-2 C Liver HEAST
benzene (gavage-mouse)
MChytene 7.5E-3 B2 Liver IRIS
Chloride
Notes:
L Slape fader derN8:t from unt rtsk 'lBlue 015.0£-5 u faIIc:Ms:
Q (mgJko-
-------
32
Table 6
Inhalation ToxlcJty Valun . Potential Carcinogenic EfflCtl
. Chemfonn Site, Pompano Buch, florida
,~ ., ". .,.\18ope Faaor':~' : WlIght-41NMd8nc8 ; ~;'::' . ''''''' of ..~..:: ( .StOpe Factor
PI,........ ..... (Q) C1a88ftlcatlon8 CI~ Sourc.
1,4 DIctDo- HAc . - NA
benzene
M8thytene 1.6E~ B2 Liver IRIS
CNortde Lung,
Notes:
a. Weight d evidence cIas8IIIcaIIon
A - Human c:ardnogen8
B - Prob8tIIe tunan c:ardnogenI
C - POIIItM hunan c:ardnogenI
o - Hat d8a8II8tH as to human cardnogenIy
E - Evtdence d noncardnogenIy far tunanI
b. Type 01 cancer orty IderdIed far Oau A ~
c. HA. Not 8Y8IabIe 01 determined
d. Slope factor d8rIwd from n rI8k Vlllue d 4.7£-788 fdIow8:
Q(mg/kg.day)" .
Uni Risk (ua/m~
.L
70kg X 20 m3/day X 10'3 mg/ug
-------
33
Table 7
Ingntlon (0r81) Toxicity Valun . Pot8ntJai Noncarcinogenic Eff8ct8
" ...." Ch8In8afm Site, PomP8no Seach, F10ftd8
" CInnfc RID ContIdtftC8 Crtllcal RID" Uncert8lnty Modifying
Paramet. (mgl'8. day} L8ftI8 Eff8ct," Sowc8 Factor Flctor
Arsenic 3E-4 Medium Skin. vasaar IRIS 3 1
Barium 7E-2 Medium Blood IRIS 3 1
Pressure
Chromium (VI) 51:-2 Low Genend IRIS 500 1
SystemJc
Nick. 2£-2 Medium Dec:reued IRIS 100 3
body and
organ weigt'«
ZInc 2£-1 . Blood HEAST 10 -
1, 4-OIchI(WC)o NA" - . - - -
benzene
Methylene SE-2 MedJum Uver IRIS 100 1
Chloride
Naphthatene E-3 . 0ect8u8d HEAST 10,000 -
body weight
gain
Xylene 2E+0 Medium HyperactMty. IRIS 100 1
decreased
body ~
Increased
mate mor1aIlty
Notes: a. Confldence level from IRIS. efIher hJgh, medium or low.
b. NA - not avaIabl8. "
-------
34
Table 8
Intl8Jativ- 'P'xklty ValuM - PoI8ntIIl Noncarcinogenic Eft8Ct8
Ch8mform SII8. Pompano Bead\, F10rIda
, .
-" ....."
:
ca. oaIc RID Contd_,:..::. '.C)lIo8t.~.,.::.: .. ,":::".:RID'::::.::... Uric8rtaantr . Modlfytng
Para.... : .' (mg/lt8- clay) L8vII' ."" Etrec8::::,<. :8Owce.: Factor Factor
1.4-01cHoro- 2£-111 - Uv8r /KIdney HEAST 100 °
benzene RfC (7Eo1)
Methylene 8.8E-1*' .o NAc HEAST 100 '0
Chloride RfC
(3E+O)
NaphlhaJene NA - 0 - 0 0
Xytene 8.8E-tJ - CenIrII HEAST 100 °
N8MXI8 AfC (3E-1)
~
Notes: L eo. R1dence ..... from IRIS. eIIh8r high. medlun or low.
b. RID~ from ref«8nC8 coral c.-~ (RfC; proyIded In HEAST) 18 fcIIow8:
Rm (8g/q~y) . RfC (89/q~y) . A1.r collC8lluaUoD(8g/.3)x2083/daY
70k; body wt.
c. NA - not 8V8I8tH or d8t8nni1ed.
-------
35
Table 9
C8nc. Alak E8tIm8te8 -lndu8trt81 Scenario
Ch8m~ III 5118, POmpano S..ch. Florida
~.
CI)t.I.:.. . Slope Flctar Ch8mJcal. Total Weight 01
Plrlmeter (mg/lrt-48JJ: :. (mgJkg.da,r' Specfftc RI8k PaIh...yRflk EIpot&n Rt8k Evidence
E~re Pathway : Ingestion of Contaminated Groundw8Ier as Ortnktng Water
A1senic 8.4E-5 1.8E+cf 2E-4 A
1.,4 OIcN~ 9.8E~ 2.4E-2 2E-1 C
benzene
Meth}iene 1.3E-4 1.5E-3 1E~ 82
Chloride
2E..-
Exposure Pathway: 0em18I E~n 10 G~ During Showering
ArsenJc 4.1E-1 1.8E + 0*' 1E-1 A
1,40lcHon> 4.8E.a 2.4E-2 1E-9 C
benzene
Methyfene 6.4E.1 1.5E-3 5E-9 82
Chloride
]E.1
2E...
Notes: a. COI .. Chronic dilly InraJca
b. VaJue calcUated using ptOpOIed. una cancer risk from IRIS. Arsenic does not have a published slope factor
verified by-EPA's Cancer AswssmenI Group (568 Uncertainties SectIon for further dlscussl
-------
36
Table 10.
Canc8' Risk EltJmat.. - R8lid8ntlal Scenarto
Chlmform Sltl, Pompano Such, Florida
co.. Slope FICIOt Ch8mJca1- Totill Weight of
P8I8m8t. (mg/k8-d8J) (~-1 Specific RIsk P8thw8y RJsk Exposure Risk EYld811C8
. .
Exposure Pathway: Ingestion ~ ConIaminatecl GroundwBIer u DrtnIdng W..
ArsenIc 2.8E'" 1.8E+cf SE... A
1,4 Dlchloro- 3.3E-S' 2.4E-2 eE-7 C
benzene
Methylene 7.SE'" 7.SE-3 3E-6 82
Chloride
SE'"
Exposure Pathway: Dern8 ExpoII n to Gro&ntwater D\rtng Show......g
ArsenIc 8.8E-7 1.8E+cf 1E.e A
1,4 Dlchloro-. 8.0E-a 2.4E-2 2E-9 . C
benzene
Methylene 1.1 E-6 7.5£-3 8£-9 82
Chloride
1E-8
.'
~1f8 Pathway: Inh8I8tIon ~n to Volatles from Groundwater
1,4 DlcNoro- 1.2E'" HAc .
benzene
Methylene 1.7E-3 1.6E-3 3E-6 82
Chloride
3E-8
SE'"
Notes: a. COI = Chronic daIy lnIake
b. Value calcUatecl using proposed unit cancer risk from IRIS. AtsenJc does not have a published slope factor
verified by EPA's Cancer AssessmenI Group (see Uncertainties SectJon for further dIscusSiOn).
c. NA. Not avaIabIe or detennJned
-------
37
Table 11
Chronic Hazard Index EltJmat.. . Industrtal Scenario
Chemfonn Stte, Pompano Beach, Florida
Total
CO" AfDI8 Hazard Pathway Expolur8 CrfUca'
Plramet. -- (rngJkg-day). (~) Quotfena . _Hazard Index Hazard Index - Effect
Exposure Pathway: Ingestion 01 ContamJnated Groundwater as Drinking Wat81
Arsenic 2.4 E-4 3E-4 0.8 Skin. vascular
Barium 1.6 E-4 7E-2 0.002 Blood Pressure
Chromium (VI) 1.3 E-3 5E-3 0.3 General
NlckE)t. 5.4 E-4 2E-2 0.03 Decreased
body and
organ weight
Zinc 2.0 E-4 2£-1 0.001 Anemia
1,4 Dlchloro- 2.7E-4 NAc . .
benzene
Methyfene 3.7 E-4 6E-2 0.008 Uver
Chloride .
Naphthalene 5.8 E-4 4E-3 0.1 Decreased
body weight
gain
Xytene 2.0E-5 2£+0 0.00001 Hyperactivity,
decreased
body weight.
Increased male
mortality
1
(ContInued)
-------
38
Table 11 (Con't.)
Chronic Hazard Index Estimates - Indultrlal Scenarto
Ch.mtorm S1t8, Pompano Such, Florida
.
TotIIf
CO" ~ Hazard Pathway Expo8&n CrttJcaJ
Param8l. {mg/kg.4ay} (mgjk~) QuGUent Huard Index Hazard Index Effect
Exposure Pathway: 0ermaI Exposure to Groundwater During Showertng
-,
Arsenic 1.1 E~ 3E 041 ! 0.004 SIdn. vascular
Barium 7.6 E-7 7E-2 ; 0.00001 Blood Pressure
Chromium (\'1) 6.1 E-6 SE-3 0.001 General
Nickel 2.6 E-6 2E-2 0.0001 General
Zinc 9.5 E-7 2E-1 0.000005 MemI8
1,4 D~ 1.3E-7 NA . .
benzene
Mett¥ene 9.8 E.2 eE.2 0.00003 Uver
Chloride
Naphthalene 2.8E-6 4E-3 0.0007 . General
Xytene 9.5 E-8 2E+0 0.0000005 General
0.007 1
Notes: a. COI . ChronIc daIy Intak8
b. RfD . ChronAc reference dose
c. NA = Not avaJabIe
-------
39
Table 12
Chronic Huard Indu EstIlnlt... Resid.ntlal Scenario
Ch.mfonn Sit., Pompano Beach, FIorid8
Total
CO" Rte8 Haz:Ird Pattl~, Exposure Cr1dca1
Parameter (mg/kg-d8y) (mg/~Y) QuotIent Huard Ind- Hazarcllnda' Effect
Exposure Pathway: Ingestion a Contaminated Groundwater as Orlnldng Water
Arsenic 6.6 E--a 3E... 2 Skin, vasculat
Barium ..... E--a 1E-2 0.006 Blood Pressure
Chromium ('11) 3.5 E-3 5E-3 0.7 General
Nickel 1.5 E-3 2E-2 0.07 Decreased
body and
organ weight
ZInc 5.5 E... 2E-' 0.003 Anemia
1.40~ 2.1£... HAC: - -
benzene
Meth}1ene 1.0 E-3 6E-2 0:02 liver
Chloride
Naphthalene 1.8 E-3 E-3 0.4 Decreased
body weight
gain
Xytene 5.5 E-5 2E+O 0.00003 Hyperactivity,
decreased
body weight.
Increased male
mortality
3
(Continued)
-------
40
Table 12 (Con't.)
Chronic Huard Index Estimates - Residential Scenario
Chlmform Site, Pompano Buch, Florida
Total
CO" AfD8 Hazard Pathw8y Exposun CrItIcal
Plrameter (mgflcg-dIY) (mg/kg.day) Quotlena Hazard Index Huard lncIex Effect
Exposure Pathway: Dermal Exposure to Groundwaler Curing Showering
Arsenic 1.6 E-6 3E-4 0.005 Skin. vascuJar
Barium 1.1 E-6 7E-2 0.00002 Blood Pressure
Chromium (VI) 8.5 E-6 5E-3 0.002 General
Nickel 3.7 E-6 2E-2 0.0002 GeneraJ
ZInc 1.3 E-6 2E-1 0.000007 Anemia
1,4 OicHon>- 1.3E-7 NAc - -
benzene
Meth'f1ene 2.5 E~ SE-2 0.00004 Uver
Chloride
Naphthalene 3.9 E-6 4E-3 0.001 . General
Xylene 1.3 E-7 2E+O 0.00000oo7 General
0.008
Exposure Pathway: Inhalation of Volades from Groundwater
1,4 Olchlora- . 2.9 E-4 2E-1 0.001 Uver/Kidney
benzene
Methytene 3.9 E-3 8.6E-' 0.005 NA
Chloride
Xylene 2.1E... 8.6E-2 0.002 CNS
0.008 3
Notes: a. COI = Chronic daIy Intake
b. RfC = Chronic reference dose
c. NA = NOI avaiable
-------
Com""'" of 0r0undwIIIWec...-.......
toARARa ""T~ c......-
. ..::-..:. .
--.~ f- ----. ....... V"""
.-. ..... C6n1IY\1n811 ~...... 11adda"""", UM1 ......... :r~ARM
P. ....e.w CcInH8.111M LewI CIICl» : ... (IICta). .. .................. MAn.r
A,.enlc 55 50 NAc 50 NA 1/11
Barium 39 2,000 2,000 1.000 2,000 0/10
Chromium (VI) 1,300 1oo.d 100 50 100 1/13
1.4 Dlchloro- 2.8 15 75 75 75 0/1
benzene
M.thylene 890 NA NA NA NA -
Chloride
Naphthalene 78 NA NA NA 20 1/1
. 1/13
Nickel 230 100 100 NA 100
Xytene 3.4 10,000 10.000 NA 10,000 0/17
Zinc 34 5,000 NA &,000 2,000 0/10
Note.:
a. All concentr"lon., ARAR. .nd crlterl. expreued In ug/l.
b. Number of v.lu.. excNdlngARAR or crlterlonov.; tol8l number of ..mpleL
c. NA - No atandard Of criterion .all.ble.
d. ThiB value iB for unBpBciated Chromium
e. Secondary HCL
t-i
PI
tr
.....
11>
~
.....
.....
w
-------
42
Table 14
. Compari80n 0' Groundwater Para met.. COncentrltJOM
to Surface Wat. Quality Standard I for Cypr... Creek
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Upper Confidence Limit W"'" Quality .
Pwlm8I8t - (ug/l) . Standard (ug/I) ..
-
Aluminum 10.000 1.500
ArseNc 2.. 50
Chromium ('11) 128 11
Iron 700 1000
Nickel 55 157.7 *
ZInc 20 106 *
Netes: a. 96 percent I.q)pIt conIIdence limit an the artttwnedc mean.
b. Qua III Water Quality Standatda (FlorIda Chapter 17-3).
These are for recreation, fish, and wildlife.
* where water hardness = 100 mg/l
-------
43
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED COST OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING
CHEMFORM SITE
Construction of New Wells
4 wells @ $6000 each
Samplina and Analvsis of Wells
10 wells @ $2000/well/quarter
Total Cost of Groundwater Monitorina
For the required one year minimum
$24,000
$80,000
$104,000
-------
"---
44
APPBIIDXX A
RBIIBD1:AL DlVBSTJ:GU'IOR SAllPI.DfG
DAD AIID ~IOR8
-------
T8bIe 2-2
IIIOI'g8nIca Groundw8l8rSampilng nesu",8
Chen,hwm S1t8. Pompmoll88ch. florida
.
QU8IIit8IIon ~ Equipment Dr1nking d
P8nlll8l8r UmII """ MW-2 IInH MW-4 IIW-S InH BI8nk wn8f Utd.
Aluminum 200 8/18/90 87.000 71.000 54.000 78.000 180.000' 11 0.000' - ND'
.
3/14/91 2.300 1.100 920 840 1.300' 8.900' -
8/14/91 850 330 _8 - 210 430' -
Ar..nle 10 8/15/90 - - 12 - 14c 96' - 50
3/14/91 - - - - - c 55' -
8/14/91 - - - - ;.. - -
1/18/92 NAil NA NA NA NA 33 -
Barium 10 8/15/90 160 82 ee 440 140c 230c - 1,000
3/14/91 - - - 15 - c 39c -
8/14/91 15 - 11 18 - 20c 18
Calcium 500 8/15/90 88.000. 43,000 100,000 78,000 140,000' 180,000' 200 ND
.
3/14/91 39.000 15.000 63.000 39,000 53,Oooc 89,000' -
8/14/91 55,000 30,000 80.000 45.000 32.000 43,000(; -
Chromium 10 8/15/90 200 170 110 110 1.4ocr 510c - 50
(T ~t.l) 3/14/91 - - - - 40c 47c -
8/14/91 - - - - 20 - -
1/18/92 NA NA NA NA 1,300' 15 -
2/18/92 NA NA NA NA 34c NA -
Chromium 10 8/15/90 h h - - hC - c - 50
(Hoxavalent) 3/14/91 100 73 100 - 34' 11 c -
0/14/91 - - - - 17 - c -
~
1I1
((ontinllptl\
-------
T8bIe 2-2 (ConIInued)
1n0rg8n1ca GrouncIwIt8rS8mpllng Rau...-
Ch8m1onn SII8. POIIIp8IIO I1e8ch. FIortd8
QUIftIJbIIon ~ EqU""'" Drinking
....... '~' MW-1 IIIVH ~ IIW-4 1IIW-6 "", l18t.er 8td. d
P.......... '.- . ......
. ,
'. '''.'', .....-::...;:
.,:, ':',' ::,::':'
Cobalt 10 8/11/80 11 . 24" n 1,1ooe: 4201: - NO
.
3/14/91 . . - . 26e 67e -
8/14/91 - - - - 31 19c .
8/15/80 : 20.000' 17.0001:
Iron 50 11,000 4,800 27.000 8.500 . 300
3/14/91 280 180 290 110 220c 1.800< -
8/14/91 180 280 160 77 80 97c -
Magn..lum 500 8/15/90 2,300 2,000 2.000 4.400 1.5OOc 1.900~ - NO
3/14/91 530 1.000 1.500 1.800 .c 700e -
8/14/91 830 1.200 1.900 1,800 2,200 . c -
Nickel 40 8/15/90 64 - ., 55 1.200" 310G .. 100
3/14/91 . - - - _c .c -
.
8/14/91 - - - - - - c ..
1/16/92 NA NA NA NA 230c - ..
2/18/92 NA NA NA NA 55c NA -
.
Potassium 1,000 8/15/90 . .. 4.400 2.3oo .c 1.3OOc .. ND
3/14/91 2,200 - 3.100 1,100 1.600c .. e -
8/14/91 - - 1.700 - 1,500 - e -
Sodium 500 8/15/90 15,000 6,700 89,000 13,000 79.00Gc 63,oooc - 16,000
3/14/91 9,700 5,400 26,000 4,800 39,OOOc 5,300c ..
6/14/91 5,600 3,300 18.000 5.000 18,000 3,900' -
",.
0\
(Continued)
-------
T8bIe 2-2 (ContInued.
Inorspnlc8 Glvundwll8rS8mpllng Rau"'.
Ch8mfonn SII8. Pamp8nO B88ch. FIortda
. ..
Q...~ "Ii~ Eq.18p1Ml1&
:.:..~ Drinking
P........ Um8I '- 1IW-1 InN "'3 IIW-4 IIW-5 MW-8' .... V.ter 8td
...
Zinc 20 8/15/90 81 52 49 52 140c 270c . 5.000
3/14/91 - . - - .c 34c .
8/14/91 21 - - - - 26c -
Note.: a. All concentration. In ugll.
b. S.mpllng Event.:
e 8/15/90 - Pha.. I
e 3/14/91 - Ph... II
.8/14/91 - Ph... 11&
. 1/16/92
. 2/18/92
e. Cone.nt,"'on. are arhhmetlc .e"ue. of duplicate umple concentration..
d. MCL;;: Max'mum Contaminant Level (Primary and Sec:ondary DrInking W".r Standard.: Flor'da Chapter 17-550).
e. Concentration ,. below the quaritltal'on limit.
t. NO - no value currently determined.
g. Shaded value. ar. con.lder.dunrepre..nt8t'v.of groundw".rcondlt'on." Ih. .'1..
g. NA - Paramet.r not analyz.d.
h. Hexav8lent chromium concentratlona
could nol be m....r.d due 10 ",..,be
'nt.rf.r.nc..
I. Nickel concentr"lonof 1 00 uglil. . propo.ed Feder.' MCL
-------
Tab!* 2-3
. Organic* Groundwater Sampling Results*
CnMnfomi Sltof PompanoOaadi, Florida.
PafWfer
Bromodlchloro-
mathana
Carbon
dliulflda
Chloroform
Dlbromo-
chloromathana
1,4-Dlchloro-
banzana
QuMiUMIan
Umtt
i
1
s
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
10
10
fijMpMno
4«Hi^
8/18/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
1/16/92
3/14/91
8/14/91
1/16/92
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
1/16/92
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
1/16/92
8/15/90
8/14/91
1/16/92
IIW-1
>'.'. :"' ':; '
-
«• • :-
NA'
3,4
-
NA
1.3
«t- •
»
NA
•
-
•»
NA
-
NA
NA
•MM.A
MVFnc
w. - : '• . ;-
-
If
NA
l»
-
NA
•
i*
«« ^
NA
•
-
41
NA
-
NA
NA
HIM
*• -: .-• ' :
-
« •
NA
«« •
-
NA
» . ;•
*t':; ::: ,.::. •
•>•:.' ' ' ' •
NA
-
•
IV
NA
2.8
-
NA
MMM
1,1
-
*»
NA
'1>
-
NA
5J
» • •"
«
NA
•
-
**
NA
-
NA
NA
MW-6
jt
.0
18
.0
,9
-
-«
.0
Jl
43
.«
.g
.a
6JZ
.«
.9
NA
NA
MV*ft
^ ;
.9
„•
NA
,0
.«
NA
Jt
•* .
Jl
NA
.9
.9
J>
NA
.9
NA
NA
TOM
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
-
EB 19
% •
-
*
-
22.
-
-
M
2.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
m ' ''•'•'
NA
V
-
NA
-
-
-
NA
•+
-
-
NA
-
-
-
NA
NA
Drinking
H>t«r Std.
100
NDh
100
100
75
(Continued)
-------
Tab!* 2-3 (Continued)
Organic* GroundwatarSampUng Results*
ChwnfcwmStt*. Pont panoBMch, Florida
PanMM
Mathylana
chlorida
Naphthalana
Xylan*
Aldrln
b • BHC
d- BHC
QuantllaJlon
UN*
1
1
5
1
10
10
10
i
i
5
1
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
- o-W-
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
1/16/92
8/15/90
8/14/91
1/16/92
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
1/16/92
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
•JMM
-
V:<- :• '. '
m
Hfj'il
•
NA
NA
-
-
-
NA
0.019
-
-
0.032
-
-
0.028
.
-
MW*
-
•i
-
NA
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
NA
0.011
-
-
•
-
-
•t
.
-
IMP*
-
$90
-
NA
-
-
NA
-
-
-
NA
• ... -':
-
-
m
-
•
*
-
-
mm^im
BJNr*>
-
2.9
-
NA
-
NA
NA
-
•
-
NA
M
-
-
•
-
-
«
.
-
•ftV-0
.0
.9
-
2.0°
.0
NA
NA
.a
.a
-
.0
0.012"
.0
•
.«
-0
-
.0
.0
-
MW*
.0
Ji
.0
NA
.0
NA
NA
.0
.0
.0
NA
ji';-
.0
.0
.«
_0
.0
JI
.0
.0
TWM
NA
NA
NA
1.1
NA
NA
76
NA
NA
NA
3.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Btanff
EB IB
-
4.8
-
1.9
-
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
•»
-
-
•
-
-
•*
-
-
•
NA
-
5.8
-
NA
NA
-
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Drink
H«t*r
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(Continued)
-------
Table 2-3 (Continued)
j^r^
HC
iptachlor
Ouantttatlo*
Uwtt
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0 10
•^•MB%hn
<>IBF
8/18/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
8/15/90
3/14/91
8/14/91
M«M
0.011
-
-
0.01S
-
-
iwwi
w
»
•»
0.013
-
*
HW*
»»
-
•
-
-
MUM
•*
-
-
«t
-
-
VMHI
>""• ' :" '
.0
-
0.012°
.8
-
MM*Jft
•IW"O
^•-'•;:r
.a
.a
Jt
.9
.0
TOM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ra -m
w
.
-
«
-
-
NA
NA
rtA
NA
NA
NA
Drinking
w«t«r Bt4
4
•
ND
Jot«s: •. All concentration* In ug/l.
b. Sampling Ev«nt»:
• 8/15/90 - PIMM I
• 3/14/91 - Pha»« II
• 8/14/91 - PhM«IIB
• 1/16/92
c. EB a •qulpmcntblank; TB « trip blank.
d. MCL « Maximum Contaminant L*v«l (Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standarda; Florida Chapter 17-550).
e. Concentration la below quantitative limit.
I. NA- Parameter not analyzed.
Q. Concentration* are arithmetic average* of duplicate sample concentration*.
h. NO s no value currently determined.
Shu ;Ute* are considered unrepreaentativeof groundwatercondftlonaat the *lt*.
en
O
------- |