United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-937143
June 1993
f/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Firestone Tire & Rubber
(Albany Plant), GA
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-93/143
3. Recipient's Accession No.
THto and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Firestone Tire & Rubber (Albany Plant), GA
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Roport Date
06/24/93
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contraet(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nama and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-964043
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Firestone Tire and Rubber (Albany Plant) site is an inactive tire manufacturing
facility located in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial and commercial, with an onsite wetlands area. The site is
located to the north of the U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Base Superfund site and
overlies two adjoining aquifers: the residuum and the upper/lower Ocala Floridian
Aquifer. Additionally, the' Firestone site is located in the Dougherty Plain district
of the Coastal Plain, which is characterized by karst topography that contains numerous
sinkholes. From 1968 to 1986, Firestone Tire and Rubber (later re-named
Bridgestone/Firestone) used the site to manufacture pneumatic tires. Manufacturing at
the facility was carried out within a 1,840,000-ft2 building, and shipping and material
handling operations were conducted in the courtyard area. The courtyard area contained
underground storage tanks, transformers mounted on concrete pads and four above-ground
fuel oil storage tanks. In 1980, a 3,000 ft^-burn pit area located on the eastern side
of the site was built to collect runoff from a 6,000-gallon spill of anti-oxidant.
Material from the spill subsequently was pumped into 55-gallon drums and stored
adjacent to the pit. Later in 1980, the drummed anti-oxidant and 65 partially rifled
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Firestone Tire & Rubber (Albany Plant), GA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs(benzene, PCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PCBs), and
metals (chromium and lead)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
86
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
Sft> Instructions on Rfvtrse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
rNTIS-35)
ant of Commerce
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Departmen "
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-93/143
Firestone Tire & Rubber (Albany Plant)/ GA
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
drums of liquid waste cement were burned in the pit as part of a fire training exercise.
Bridgestone/Firestone ceased site operations in 1986, and the site remained inactive until
1990, when Cooper Tire purchased the site and began renovations for future operations. In
1985, Bridgestone/Firestone conducted an assessment of the courtyard and burn pit that
identified two major areas of contamination. As a result, Bridgestone/Firestone conducted
a series of interim cleanup actions, including removal and disposal of approximately 441
yd^ of debris and 105 yd^ of contaminated soil offsite at a solid waste landfill; removal
and disposal of the transformers, roof materials, and concrete pads offsite in a permitted
disposal facility; installation of ground water monitoring wells in the surficial and
upper Ocala Floridian aquifer; removal of the USTs from the courtyard area; excavation of
the burn pit and disposing of approximately 160 drums containing material similar to
rubber cement and Banbury sludge offsite; and sampling surface water and sediment. In
1990, studies during the RI indicated that continual threats to human health and the
environment were attributed primarily to VOC-contaminated ground water beneath the site
and remaining PCB-contaminated soil in the vicinity of the courtyard that resulted from
onsite spills. This ROD addresses a final remedy for PCB-contaminated soil and
VOC-contaminated ground water at the site, as OU1. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, toluene, and
xylenes; other organics, including PCBs; and metals, including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating and disposing of
approximately 20 yd^ of PCB-contaminated soil with concentrations above 10 mg/kg at an
offsite TSCA-permitted landfill; backfilling the excavated areas with clean material;
extracting contaminated ground water and filtering out any solids; treating the extracted
ground water onsite using air stripping, followed by offsite discharge to a local POTW;
monitoring ground water; and implementing institutional controls, including deed and
ground water use restrictions. The estimated present worth cost f-or this remedial action
is $2,036,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
The soil excavation goal for PCB contamination is 10 mg/kg and is based on a 10~4 to 10~^
risk level and TSCA standards. Chemical-specific ground water cleanup goals are based on
SDWA MCLs, action levels, and a 10~^ risk level, and include antimony 6 ug/1; benzene 5
ug/1; beryllium 4 ug/1; carbon disulfide 56 ug/1; chromium 100 ug/1; 1,1-DCE 7 ug/1; lead
15 ug/1; PCBs 0.5 ug/1; and 1,1,1-TCA 200 ug/1.
-------
DECLARATION
of the
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company Site
Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document(Record of Decision), represents the
selected remedial action for the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company
"Site", Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia, developed in
accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) , as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization act of 1986 (SARA) 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et
seq., and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) 40 CFR Part 300.
This decision is based on the administrative record for the Site.
The State of Georgia concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this. ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
This final remedy addresses remediation of soils and groundwater
contamination by eliminating or reducing the risks posed by the
Site, through treatment, engineering and institutional controls.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Excavation of PCB-contaminated soils until established
cleanup levels are reached with disposal in an off-site
permitted landfill.
Backfilling the excavated areas with clean fill material.
Extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater using
existing wells and supplemental wells if necessary. The
contaminated groundwater will be remediated using on-site
air stripping.
-------
Discharge of extracted groundwater after treatment to the
Local Waste Water Treatment System (Publicly Owned Treatment
Works - POTW).
Periodic groundwater monitoring will be conducted to assess
the effectiveness of the remedy.
Institutional controls will be placed on well construction
and water use on the Site.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate, 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-site above
health-based levels, a review will be conducted at least every
five years beginning no later than five years from commencement
of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment. Reviews
may be conducted on a more frequent basis as EPA deems necessary.
t-2.4-3 3,
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator DATE
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY SITE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
. 1.2 SURFACE FEATURES 1
1.3 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY 4
1.4 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 4
1.5 GEOLOGY 5
1.6 HYDROGEOLOGY 6
1.7 DEMOGRAPHY 9
1.8 ECOLOGY 10
2 .0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 10
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 12
4 .0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 13
5 .0 SUMMARY 'OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 13 .
5.1 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 13
5.1.1 CONFIRMATORY SAMPLING OF THE FORMER
INTERIOR PCB TRANSFORMER LOCATIONS 14
5.1.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 14
5.1.3 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING 23
5.1.4 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING 23
5.1.5 SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING 23
5.1.6 SEDIMENT SAMPLING 33
5.1.7 CONFIRMATORY SAMPLING OF FORMER COURTYARD
PCB TRANSFORMERS 33
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 33
6.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 35
6.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 47
6.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 55
6.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 59
6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK 60
7 .0 DESCRIPTION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES 62
7.1 ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION 62
7.2 ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL REMEDIATION 64
8.0 SUMMARY'OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 65
8.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH & THE ENVIRONMENT 66
8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs 67
8.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS & PERMANENCE 68
8.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY OR VOLUME 68
8.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS 69
8.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY 69
8.7 COST 69
8.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE 70
8.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE 70
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY 70
9.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 70
-------
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 73
10.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT . 73
10.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs 74
10 .3 COST EFFECTIVENESS 76
- 10 .4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS 76
10.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT 76
APPENDIX A - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 77
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUNDWATER 19
TABLE 5-2 CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE
SOILS 24
TABLE 5-3 CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SEDIMENTS 28
TABLE 5-4 CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SURFACE WATER 31
TABLE 6-1 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN
GROUNDWATER RESIDUUM WELLS 36
TABLE 6-2 CONCENTRATIONS ' OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUNDWATER
UPPER OCALA 37
TABLE 6-3 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN
GROUNDWATER LOWER OCALA 38
TABLE 6-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SOILS
SURFACE SOILS (0-1 FT) 40
TABLE 6-5 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SOILS
• SUBSURFACE SOILS (3-30 FT) 41
TABLE 6-6 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SEDIMENTS
SHALLOW SEDIMENTS (0-1 FT) • 43
TABLE 6-7 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SEDIMENTS
SUB-SURFACE. SEDIMENTS (2-3 FT) 44
TABLE 6-8 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SURFACE
WATER 45
TABLE 6-9 EXPOSURE & INTAKE PARAMETERS ASSESSING INGESTION
AND DERMAL EXPOSURE TO SOIL BY WORKERS 49
TABLE 6-10 EXPOSURE & INTAKE PARAMETERS ASSESSING
INGESTION AND DERMAL EXPOSURE TO SEDIMENT AND SURFACE
WATER JBY WORKERS 50
TABLE 6-11 EXPOSURE & INTAKE PARAMETERS ASSESSING
INHALATION EXPOSURE TO PARTICLE AND VAPOR PHASE
CHEMICALS BY WORKERS 51
TABLE 6-12 EXPOSURE & INTAKE PARAMETERS ASSESSING
INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER, INHALATION OF VOCs IN THE
GROUNDWATER AND DERMAL CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER BY
POTENTIAL 'FUTURE ON-SITE RESIDENTS 52
-------
TABLE 6-13 EXPOSURE & INTAKE PARAMETERS ASSESSING INGESTION
DERMAL EXPOSURE TO SURFACE SOIL FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE -
ON-SITE RESIDENTS 53
TABLE 6-14 EXPOSURE & INTAKE PARAMETERW ASSESSING
INHALATION EXPOSURE TO VOLATIZED SOIL CHEMICALS AND
ENTRAINED SOIL PARTICLES FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE
ON-SITE RESIDENTS 54
TABLE 6-15 CHRONIC REFERENCE DOSES AND CANCER SLOPE FACTORS
FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN -.-•-. 56
TABLE 6-16 SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK AND NON-CARCINOGENIC HEALTH
HAZARD ESTIMATES AND MEDIA FOR WHICH REMEDIATION
GOALS ARE DERIVED 61
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 LOCATION MAP 2
FIGURE 1-2 FACILITY MAP (SITE FEATURES) 3
FIGURE 1-3 GEOHYDROGEOLOGY OF THE ALBANY, GEORGIA AREA 7
FIGURE 5-1 RI SAMPLING LOCATIONS 15
FIGURE 5-2 CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE RESIDUUM ... 16
FIGURE 5-3 CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE 17
FIGURE 5-4 CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE UPPER OCALA 18
-------
Decision Summary-
Record of Decision
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company Site
Albany, Georgia
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company Site("Site') is located at
3300 Sylvester Road in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia. The
City of Albany is located in Dougherty County in the southwest
portion of Georgia. The Site is located approximately one mile
east of Albany city limits (Figure 1-1). The Firestone facility
was'used for manufacturing tires from 1968 to 1986 within a
1,840,000 ft2 on-site building. In October 1989, the facility
was placed on the National Priorities List ("NPL") as a result of
environmental investigations conducted at the Site. Except for
cleanup activities, the Site remained inactive between 1986 and
March 1990, at which time Cooper Tire purchased the facility and
began renovations for future operations.
Along the eastern property line of the Site lies vacant land,
which was formerly used for agricultural purposes. Immediately
to the north of the Site is Sylvester Road, a four-lane highway
(U.S. Route 82) . North of Sylvester Road are eight mobile home
parks and three commercial retail sites, including a flea market
and a gas station. Along the western property line are a church,
a tree farm and vacant land. The southern property line lies
along the Seaboard Coastline railroad tracks. A railroad spur
along the east side of the Site, which served the facility's
shipping and receiving operations, is connected to the Seaboard
Coastline railroad at the southeast corner of the Site. To the
south of the Site, beyond the railroad right-of-way, lies the
U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Base which has also been- identified
as a Superfund Site.
The facility is currently zoned as an industrial/commercial area,
according tot the Dougherty County Planning Commission. The
primary sovu||e Area of Contamination addressed in this Record of
Decision ("lEdD") is located in the courtyard area (Figure 1-2).
However, certain chemicals have been dispersed throughout the
Site.
1.2 SURFACE FEATURES
The Firestone Site is located in the Dougherty Plain district of
the Coastal P^ain physiographic province. The land displays
level or gently'undulating topography, with measurements at the
Site indicating ground surface elevations ranging from
approximately 200 to 220 ft above mean sea level (MSL) . The
composition of the soils range from well-drained sands to poorly
-------
4 =
UNITED STATED
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ALBANY EAST, GEORGIA
^TgSprfc -?i
•^.BS?" L,,-- y
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
* FORMER FIRESTONE FACILITY - ALBANY, GEORGIA
'DRAWN BY: RCM I CHECKED BY: MJM PROJECT NUMBER: 90C61I6 I DATE: 7-29-92
FIGURE NO: 1-1
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
, ,^,
POOR QUAU"
GiNAl
-------
•CIUNV MLAt |D.lln.< kr
t JM 1119 ».n««< tur>tr)
UIVICI W4KI luxorr CMICH
IkUIM. IUl»ICtl UMIl
UNMIC«OUND IUCHIC4L UNI
UHC
IUIUHMO IIUOI
FORMER FIRESTONE TIRE
MANUFACTURING PUNT
rat u>c»iK)N of pi*i
•0«0 ItSlIU IN TNI
lOUIHIIH H*U « IHl
vic is *mo>iiun.
-------
drained soils in ponded depressional areas. Most of the surface
soils at the Site are either sandy loams or loamy sands.
The•Dougherty Plain is characterized by Karst topography and
contains numerous shallow flat-bottomed or rounded sinkholes
caused by solutioning and collapse of the underlying limestone.
Many of the sinkholes are filled with material of relatively low
permeability and some hold water year round. At the Site., the
storm water detention pond is a natural pond delineated as
Wetland Area No. 3, and is likely to be the surface expression of
a sinkhole (Figure 1-2).
1.3 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY
Southern Georgia has a warm temperate humid climate due to its
latitude and proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico. The mean total annual precipitation for Albany is about
50 in. The annual mean monthly temperature is about 66°F with
mean daily minimum temperatures ranging from approximately 37°F
in January to 71°F in July and mean daily maximum temperatures
ranging from approximately 60°F in January to approximately 92°F
in July and August.
According to data obtained from the National Climate Data Center,
no predominant wind direction exists in the Albany area. Winds
in the area are calm approximately 23 percent of the time.
1.4 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The Firestone Site can be characterized as containing both well-
drained areas and poorly-drained areas. The well-drained areas
include the manufacturing plant area, where roof and parking lot
drains discharge storm water directly into ditches, and other
areas where the slope is significant to control surface water
runoff. Poorly drained areas include some of the wetland areas
on the Site.
"•£ "
The ditches^.and ponds have been observed to completely dry up
during periods without precipitation, therefore the surface water
hydrology at the Site is influenced mainly by storm events.
After a significant storm event, rain falling onto the north half
of the Site infiltrates into the ground and/or collects in two
main ditches: the East Ditch and the West Ditch. The East and
West Ditches also receive storm water from areas north, east and
west of the §ite. These off-site areas include Sylvester Road
and nearby residential/ commercial areas. These ditches flow
from north to south and empty into a storm water detention pond
(Wetland Area No. 3). The water then flows through the pond to
the only outlet located at the west end of the pond. From the
-------
pond, the storm water flows through underground storm water
pipes, ditches and canals and ultimately discharges to the Flint
River. The Flint River converges with the Apalachicola River,
which discharges to the Gulf of Mexico.
Rain falling on the southern half of the Site basically flows to
one of several wetland areas present in the south. The railroad
bed of the Seaboard Coastal Railroad acts as a barrier for
•surface water entering or leaving the Site from the south. The
bed is elevated above normal ground surface and two drainage
ditches parallel each side of the railroad bed. Figure 1-2
shows the surface water hydrology of the Site.
1.5 GEOLOGY
The Firestone Site is underlain by Coastal Plain sedimentary
strata of pre-Cretaceous to Quaternary age. In general, the
strata consist of alternating units of sand, clay, sandstone,
dolomite, and limestone that dip gently and thicken in a
southeastern direction. The site specific geologic units of
interest consist of the Residuum, the Upper Ocala Limestone, and
the Lower Ocala Limestone.
The lithology of the Residuum varies across the Site, but can
generally be described as sandy clay to clayey sand. Colors also
vary and have been identified to include red, brown, yellow,
gray, purple, and white. The base of the Residuum unit gradates
into the underlying Ocala Limestone and a distinct contact is not
present between the two formations. Varying quantities of clay
and weathered limestone fragments with traces of dolomitic rocks
have been identified near the base of the Residuum.
The Residuum is underlain by the Ocala Limestone which is
typically white to tan and grades from a highly weathered, fine
to coarse grained, fossiliferous, soft limestone into a less
weathered, finer grained, less fossiliferous, 'more indurated
limestone at depths ranging from approximately 130 to 150 ft bgs.
The'soft, more weathered limestone is referred to as the Upper
Ocala and tBe more indurated limestone is considered to represent
the Lower Ocala.
The contact between the Residuum and the Upper Ocala, often
described as the Transition Zone, is usually very weathered.
Relatively significant void spaces (4 to 10 ft thick) have been
identified in the Lower Ocala just below the contact with the
Upper Ocala. These void spaces are underlain by a clay filled
layer, which^s typical of Karst features. The clays are
considered to restrict the downward flow of water and
subsequently create solution cavities.
-------
6 .
1.6 HYDROGEOLOGY
Aquifer Testing Program
An Aquifer Test Program consisting of three separate tests was
performed in the Floridan Aquifer by Firestone as a part of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study CRI/FS").
Specifically, the tests were performed in the Ocala Limestone.and
overlying Residuum which comprise the Upper Floridan Aquifer at
the Site. These test were intended to characterize the
conditions and properties of the formations and are listed as:
(1) Single borehole (double-packer) test;
(2) Multi-well aquifer test; and
(3) Production well monitoring tests.
The purpose of the Aquifer Testing Program was to evaluate the
hydrogeologic properties of the Ocala Formation and overlying
Residuum and to assess the hydraulic connection between the
Residuum, Upper and Lower Ocala Formations.
The objectives of the Aquifer Testing Program were to:
* Gather additional data to assess the rate and
direction of groundwater flow in the water-bearing
zones underlying the Site,
- * Investigate the hydrological continuity between
the permeable zones of the Ocala Formation and the
overlying water-bearing zones of Residuum; and
* Gather additional data on the hydrogeologic
properties (hydraulic conductivity,
transmissivity, and yield) of the Ocala Formation
underneath the Site.
The Aquifer Testing Program results were also used to evaluate
the groundwater flow velocity and chemical migration, and to
assess potential groundwater remedial alternatives during the
Feasibility £tudy.
The two hydrogeologic water bearing units of interest at the Site
consist of the Residuum and the underlying Floridian Aquifer, and
have been referred to as the Residuum, Transition Zone, Upper and
Lower Ocala Limestone at the Firestone Site (Figure 1-3).
Hydrogeologic characterization was performed at the Site through
evaluation o£ data generated from monitoring well installation in
both units and aquifer testing performed in the Ocala Limestone.
Groundwater elevation measurements were used to assess the
-------
IOO*
200'
300'
400'
500'
€00'
TOO'
eoo'
90O'
•ooo'
1100*
I ZOO1
-
1400'
1360 «««!
Residuum
SPONTANEOUS
POTENTIAL RESISTIVITY
1 1
FVxkJan Aqu'fer
Confining unit
Tollahotto aquifer
Confining unit
Aquifer
Confining unit
Clayton aquifer
Confining unit
Providence aquifer
Confining unit
6XPLAN AT I ON
^^j Sondy clay
J Lim«ston«
Coicor«oci
Clo,
f
?
L
1
n M » e co too *»
OHM-MCTCRS
SOURCE: GEOHYDROLOGY OF TOE ALBANY
AREA,, GEORGIA: HICKS. KRAUSE, AND CLARK, 1981
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
CUCMT:
ntaxct: rauu
num. goto*
«/rs -
REGIONAL
HYOROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
T/T fOC«M4
-------
groundwater flow trends and gradients beneath the Site. The
aquifer testing was performed to determine the hydraulic
properties of the Ocala Limestone in the vicinity of the
courtyard.
The uppermost hydrostratigraphic unit is the Residuum. Water-
saturated zones have not been encountered in the Residuum at the
Site which indicates that the Residuum is not continuously
saturated and the groundwater is confined in isolated permeable
zones. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity was determined to
have an average rate of 4xlO"5cm/sec. The Residuum has been
observed to possess strong downward vertical gradients with a
rate ranging from approximately 0.7 to 1.9 ft/ft. It is likely
that the strong vertical gradients are due to the unsaturated
nature of the Residuum, continuous drainage and recharge of
isolated zones, and regional downward flow components.
Horizontal movement of groundwater within the Residuum is limited
by the lack of continuous water-bearing zones and low horizontal
hydraulic conductivity.
It was found that there is hydraulic heterogeneity in the Upper
Ocala with calculated hydraulic conductivity values in the
vicinity of lxlO~5cm/sec. The relatively low hydraulic
conductivity of the Upper Ocala verifies its classification as a
regional semi-confining unit for the Lower Ocala. The vertical
gradients measured in the Upper Ocala across the Site were fairly
constant and average 0.06 ft/ft. This information suggests that
the-downward movement of groundwater within the Upper Ocala is a
result of regional stresses and natural recharge-discharge
relationships. The average horizontal gradient was found to be
approximately 0.002 ft/ft. The horizontal groundwater flow
directions are somewhat variable; southwest-west flow directions
are evident in the northeast corner of the Site, but are reversed
in the southwest corner. Local variations in groundwater flow
directions that are not consistent with regional directions are
common in the upper portions of the Ocala. Undulations and
depressions that have been identified at the bedrock surface of
the Ocala, localized permeability changes, and water table
mounding in the vicinity of the storm water detention pond may
influence t$Le groundwater flow patterns in the Upper Ocala at the
Site. -
The hydraulic conductivity of the Lower Ocala is estimated to be
on the order of SxlO"1 cm/sec. This estimate is consistent with
published literature describing prolific zones and potable water
supplies within the lower portions of Ocala Limestone and is
considerably greater than the range established for the overlying
weathered materials characteristic of the Upper Ocala. The
increased conductivity may be attributed to fracturing and more
extensive dissolution in the Lower Ocala. The primary component
of flow is horizontal with gradient of approximately 0.001 ft/ft
-------
for the southwest portion of the Site. A relatively flat
potentiometric surface has been identified across the remainder
of -the Site.
Recharge to the Residuum and the Ocala Limestone is primarily by
infiltration of precipitation and flows vertically downward. The
Residuum is leaky and provides recharge to the underlying Upper
Ocala but at a limited rate. Horizontal movement in the Residuum
is limited by the lack of continuous water bearing zones and low
hydraulic conductivity.
1.7 DEMOGRAPHY
There are eight residential mobile home parks located directly
north of the Site. Reportedly, there are a total of 250 units
within these parks. Approximately, 956 people live directly
north of the Site in Census Block 207 which includes, but is not
limited to, these trailer parks. Additionally, within one mile
of the Site, 70 people live north of Census Block 207. A large
flea market is also located directly north of the Site which is
open to the general public on Friday through Sunday.
Approximately 735 people live west of the Site and south of
Sylvester Road within a one mile radius of the Site and
approximately 340 people live west of Pine Bluff Road within one
mile radius northwest of the Site.
Another residential area, north of Sylvester Road, is located
approximately three miles east of the Site. There are
approximately 140 residents in this area according to the 1990
Census. A mobile home park is located approximately one mile
east of the Site, on Sylvester Road. According to the 1990
Census, 27 people live in ten housing units within this mobile
home park. Commercial businesses east of the Site on Sylvester
Road include two transportation and .distribution companies.
There is also a residential area less that a mile east of the
Site. According to the 1990 Census, there are approximately 600
residents that live within this area.
The seaboarcL; Coastline Railroad separates the Site from the U.S.
Marine CorpS Logistics Base which is the largest industrial and
residential^coirplex located south of the Site. The Base employs
approximately 2,700 civilians and provides housing for
approximately 600 Marine families.
Sylvester Road Elementary School (408 students) is located
approximately one mile west of the Site. In addition, two more
elementary schools (1,145 students), a middle school (951
students), and -a high school (1,034 students) are located
approximately three miles west of the Site.
-------
1Q
The Albany city hospital is located west of the Flint River more
than three miles from the Site.
1.8 ECOLOGY
There are two distinct vegetation zones at the Site: a grassy
area located on the northern half of the Site, and a wooded and
wetland area located on the southern half of the Site.
The main grassy area that lies within the fenced area of the
manufacturing plant and on the northern half of the Site is
periodically mowed and predominantly contains Bahia grass. Some
commonly occurring hydrophytic vegetation scattered throughout
"other grassy areas include reed grass, vasey grass, maidencane,
sedges, rushes and mild water pepper.
The southern half of the Site consists of a mixed southern
pine/hardwood forest and large wetland areas. The upland areas
of the pine/hardwood forest consist mostly of young slash pine
and live oak. Some sections of the upland area are barren or
covered only with herbaceous plants including golden aster,
honeysuckle, black raspberry and goldenrods. The wetland areas
of the southern half contain such species as black willow, water
oak, southern bayberry and cattail.
The fauna on and around the Site observed in August 1991 include,
but is not limited to, mammals such as the white-tailed deer,
raccoon, gray fox, gray squirrel and eastern cottontail rabbit;
birds such as the common crow, mourning dove, bobwhite quail,
turkeyvulture, killdeer, cattle egret, blue jay and mockingbird;
reptiles such as the gopher tortoise; amphibians such as the
green frog; and pond macro-invertebrates such as water boatmen,
water striders and dragonflies.
Four rare species believed to inhabit Dougherty County by the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources were hot observed at the
Site: the spotted bullhead, bluestripe shiner, hooded pitcher
plant, and chafseed. However, the gopher tortoise, believed to
be rare in some parts of southwestern Georgia, was spotted on the
Site. £.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Site is owned by the Albany-Dougherty Payroll Developement
Authority. Under lease, the sole use of this Site by the former
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company was the manufacture of pneumatic
tires. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.("Bridgestone/Firestone") is
the successor to Firestone Tire & Rubber Company (The names are
used interchangeably throughout this ROD) . Manufacturing at the
facility was carried out from 1968 to 1986 within a 1,840,000 ft2
-------
11.
building. Construction of the complex commenced in 1967 and
several additions were built over the years.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. ceased operations at the Site in
1986. The Site was proposed for the NPL in June of 1988 and was
finally included in October of 1989. EPA issued a Special Notice
Letter to Bridgestone/Firestone in March of 1990, giving them an
opportunity to conduct the RI/FS at the Site. The company
entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA in
1990 to study the Site further and to evaluate possible actions
to address any contamination found. Except for remedial
activities discussed below, the Site remained inactive until
March 1990, at which time Cooper Tire Company purchased the
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. leasehold and began renovations for
future operations.
In 1985, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., as a part of facility
closure voluntarily initiated a study of possible contamination
in soil, groundwater, and surface water. Based on the results of
this assessment, a scope of work for further studies was defined.
The study identified the courtyard and the burn pit as two major
Areas of Contamination (AOCs). These areas are presented on
Figure 1-2.
The area referred to as the courtyard is located on the eastern
side of the plant and is enclosed by the manufacturing buildings
on three sides. The courtyard was designed for shipping and
material handling operations. Materials used in the
manufacturing processes and general facility operations were
delivered to the courtyard by both rail and roadway. Underground
storage tanks, which were removed in interim cleanup actions in
1986, were formerly located in two areas of the courtyard.
Transformers mounted on concrete pads were located in the
Courtyard. Four above-ground fuel oil storage tanks remain on-
site.
The second area of concern, the burn pit area, covers about 3,000
square feet near the intersection of the east 'drainage ditch and
the storm water retention pond. The burn pit seems to have been
built to collect runoff from a 6,000 gallon spill of anti-oxidant
(Santoflex l|£) in 1980. The fluid was later pumped into
55-gallon drums and stored adjacent to the pit. Later in 1980
this material and 65 partially rifled drums of liquid waste
cement were burned as a fire training exercise.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. took a series of interim cleanup
measures, including additional groundwater monitoring to better
define concerns identified in the 1985 study. The company
presented descriptions of their past investigations to EPA in a
Scoping Document submitted on October 7, 1990 as a preliminary
remedial investigation report under the Administrative Order.
The cleanup actions and studies which Firestone conducted at the
-------
12
Site consisted mainly of the following activities:
* • Identified and analyzed soil and debris piles, and removed
and disposed contaminated materials. Approximately 441
cubic yards (c.y.) of rubbish and debris and 105 c.y. of
soil were taken to the Oxford Solid Waste Landfill in Albany
during these general cleanup activities) . Empty 5-gallon
containers and a few 55-gallon drums were disposed at a
regulated facility in Alabama.
* • Studied PCB transformer leaks in interior of building, on
the building, and in the courtyard; removed transformers,
roof materials, and concrete pads; cleaned up areas
surrounding former transformers and place'd in a permitted
facility.
•* Installed monitoring wells in surficial aquifer and Upper
Floridan Aquifer and collected soil samples in the courtyard
to determine if the source area of the contamination would
affect groundwater.
* Removed underground storage tanks (USTs).
* Studied burn pit/buried drum area, excavated the burn pit;
removed and disposed of approximately 160 drums, which
contained material similar to waste rubber cement and
Banbury Sludge (material used to make tires/all material
passed TCLP test), and contaminated soil and water; and
collected samples to determine the adequacy of the cleanup.
* Identified areas of potential subsurface drum disposal which
were evaluated by a magnetic survey, but no additional
buried drums or waste material were identified.
* Sampled surface water and sediments in the storm water
retention pond and drainage ditches flowing into the pond.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Public participation requirements in CERCLA Section 117 were met
in the remedy selection process. The Community Relations Plan was
finalized in 1991 for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Superfund
Site. This document list contacts and interested parties
throughout the government and the local community. The plan also
establishes communication pathways to assure timely dissemination
of pertinent information.
On August 1,-419^91, EPA held a public information session to
announce the start of the Firestone Site RI/FS. The RI/FS
Workplan, Risk Assessment, Technical Memorandums, RI/FS Reports,
Proposed Plan and any other documents EPA used to prepare a
-------
13
preferred remedy were released to"the public on December 30,
1992. The documents were made available to the public in both
the- administrative record docket and the information repository
maintained at the EPA docket room at Region IV Headquarters in
Atlanta, Georgia and at the Dougherty Public Library, 300 Pine
Avenue in Albany, Georgia. A public comment period was held from
December 30, 1992 to January 29, 1993.
Notices were placed in the Albany Herald newspaper on December
28, 1992, January 5 and 11, 1993 announcing the comment period.
In addition to the public comment period and the administrative
record files, a public meeting was held on January 12, 1993 at
the Albany City Hall. At this meeting representatives from EPA
and Georgia Enviromental Protection Division answered questions
and addressed community concerns.
A response to all significant comments received during the public
comment periods is included in the Responsiveness Summary
(Appendix A), which is a part of this Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the-Firestone Tire and Rubber Site, chosen in accordance with
CERCLA, as amended by SARA and to the maximum extent practicable,
the NCP. The decision for this Site is based on the
administrative record. The requirements under Section 117 of
CERCLA/SARA for public and state participation have been met for
this remedy selection.
4.0' SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This ROD addresses contamination remaining in approximately 20
cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) in shallow groundwater (Residuum, Transition
Zone and Upper Ocala) beneath the Firestone Site. The
contaminated soils pose a threat to human health and the
environment from possible ingestion (eating or drinking),
inhalation (breathing) or dermal contact (through the skin).
Also, the groundwater could pose a threat if it were to migrate
off-site or be used as a water source in the future. The purpose
of the selected remedy is to prevent current and future exposure
to the contamination by treating the soil and groundwater to
reduce movement of contaminants. This is the only ROD
contemplated for the Site.
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Nature .^nd Extent of Contamination
*
The following section provides a description of the nature and
extent of the contamination found in each media during the RI.
-------
14
5.1.1. Confirmatory Sampling of the Former Interior PCB
- Transformer Locations
A total of 10 floor wipe samples were collected from interior
transformer locations to verify that previous remedial activities
had achieved the PCB target cleanup level of 10 ug/cm2. The
samples were collected in accordance with the FSAP and analyzed
for PCBs. Sample results indicated that PCB concentrations for
all areas were below detection limits.
5.1.2 Groundwater Sampling
A total of 17 groundwater wells and one piezometer were installed
at depths ranging from 32-190 ft. A total of 46 groundwater
samples were collected from the monitoring wells located
throughout the Site, between August 14, through October 3,
(Phase I), and December 9,. through December 12 (Phase II), 1991.
In addition to the groundwater samples, 9 duplicates, 4 matrix
spikes and matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD), 27 field blanks, 22
trip blanks and 2 equipment rinsate samples were collected as per
FSAP and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). All of the
groundwater samples were analyzed for the Contract Laboratory
Program's (CLP) Target Compound List/Target Analyte List
(TCL/TAL) parameters. Contaminants found in the groundwater at
concentrations that exceed a Hazard Quotient of 1 or an upper
bound cancer Risk of IxlO'6 include Antimony, Carbon-Disulfide,
1,1-Dichloroethene Beryllium, Benzene, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane,
PCBs Lead,Chromium and Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).
Groundwater sampling locations are provided in Figure 5-1.
Figures 5-2 thru 5-4 provide the monitoring well locations
screened in the contaminated aquifers and indicator contaminants
identified during the RI activities. A summary of the
contaminants detected during groundwater sampling activities is
presented in Table 5-1.
-------
ABOVCCROUNO
STORAGE TANK AREA
FORMCR CASOLINC
UST ARCA
FORMER FIRESTONE TIRE
MANUFACTURING PLANT
GAS MCTCR
VARO
COURTYARD
AREA
FORMER OIL
STORAGE TANKS
CBOUHOWAICR WCUS INSfALLCO
OUHIMC RIutOIAl INVCSIICATION
FORMER PRIMARY PLANT
TRANSFORMER LOCATIONS
SUHTACC WATIR SAMPLING LOCA1ION
FORMER SOLVENT
STORAGE TANK
MW-1-1—-
SOU SAMPLING LOCATION
SCDIUCNT SAUPUNC LOCATION
FORMCR PROCESS OIL/
WAX STORAGE TANK
MW-l-4 ->
MW-1-3-^
PTW-1 J
PROCESS COOLING
WATER PUMP HOUSE
UONI10RINC WCLLS INS1ALLCO
PRIOR 10 NCUCOIAl INVC5HCAIIQN
FORMER H-t
TRANSFORMER LOCATION
FORMER TEMPORARY
DRUM STORAGE AREA
RW-4 -
DRW-5 -
MW-1-5
FORMER i-3
TRANSFORMER LOCATION
FORWtR SOLVENT
UNLOADING STATION
rORMCR PROCESS OIL
UNLOADING STATION
COOJNG TOWCR
CONCR.
DITCH
TANK
CATC
HOUSE
a PARKING
200 DRW-9
HAZARDOUS WASTC
STORAGE AREA
Wopdword-Clyd«
Consultants
FIREPUMP
HOUSE
GEORGIA POWCR
SUBSTATION
FIRE TRAINING
AREA
-------
(BACKGROUND WEIL)
BMW-2
MW-1-2
\IW-l-4
MW-7-4
COURTYARD AREA
1.1.1-JCA 0.7 J
l.l-OCt 0.4 J
u.LEGEND
• RCSIOUUU WELL '
9 ANALTTICAL RESULTS REPORTED IN ug/l
ND CHEMICALS NOT DETECTED
+ CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS REMEDIATION COALS
• CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED
1.I.I-TCA I.I.I-TRICHLOROETHANE
1.1-OCE 1.1-OICHLOROETHriENE
BCNZ BENZENE
DEHP Dl (2-ETMTLMEXYL) PHTHALATE
i • mi vtiuc is MI CITIXAICO
OfTCK A^FUCO «HIN ntl CMIulCAl 1} OtllCIIO
•cnrciN IHC cOMiiuct-iiouiiiP onicnoM uun (com)
me wnnuuiMt oniniOM uun (iw)
200 400
800
FEET
Wood ward-Clyde
Consultants
En9>wnif ft Kiwm ipfM b V* «rti » li immrw4
CLIENT: BRIOGESTONE/riRESTONE. INC.
PROJECT: FORMER FIRESTONE FACILITY RI/FS -
ALBANT. GEORGIA
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
CHEMICALS TO BE REMEDIATED
IN RESIDUUM WELLS
CHICVIO lr: IrtOJfCT NO; |o*II;
II I
jfin^f ; i f I T ni . ni I
-------
|A-I»4 O.M J4J
n/; x y
OflUER, riRESTON
1.1.1-TCA 310 D+
t.l-OCI 1400 0*
DtHT II I*
M.I-TCA J J
1.1-DCf S J
1.1.1-TCA 2 I
I.I-DCC 7
OEMf 70*
LEGEND
TRANSITION ZONE WELL
(SCREEN/SAND PACK IN RtSIOUUU/UPPI« OCALA)
ANALHICAL RESULTS REPORItO IN ug/l
CHEMICALS NOT DETECTED
CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS REMEDIATION COALS
• CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED
1.1.1-TCA 1,1,1-TRICHLOROUHANt
I.I-DCC 1,1-OICHLOROETHYLtNE
BCNZ BENZENE
OEHP BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
A-1254 AROCLOR-1254
i • mi vuui is wi
ontN *mxo WHIH ixc CWHICM a oaicno
•TtWIfM IM COMTIAC1-*COUIICD OCHCTION uun
AHO twi iMsrauuiHi DtncinM uun (m)
e • AMAinct or n« MUPU WAJ IASCD uroti
A sccoNMit wiunoM or THI uuru
txi CMcwxja WAS omcno M AH ASSOCUIIO
•LANK
(C0«l)
200 400
SCAU
800
rtn
Woodwarb-Clyde
Consultants
CUCNT: BRIDGESTONE/riRESTONE. INC.
PROJECT: fORUER flRESTONE fACILITY Rl/fS
ALBANY. GEORGIA
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
CHEMICALS TO BE REMEDIATED
IN TRANSITION ZONE WELLS
MMTH «T|
CHICIIO lYt
REU
rXUCCT NO: Mill
90C6M6 7-30-92
-------
'•0*1 «ry liwf
o UITC« OCM> imlVONl Mil
10 ANALYTICAL RISUITS HtPOHHO IN ug/l
NO CHCUICAL.S NOT OCHCHO
» COHCCNIRAIION fXCCCDS RCUCOIAllON COALS
cutuicAis
l.t.l-TCA. l.l.l-tHICHlOROCTHANE
1.1-OCt 1,1-OICMLOROCIHTltMC
BCNZ BCNZCNC
OCHP eiS(J-CIHUHCXTfl.)PHtHAUIC
I . IM vuuc n f innun* (OMCUXUKO*.
en» tmx» DMIN TMC CMUMAI it Mtidto
mmm n* mxntci -nouns DOICKM uwn (con)
«•» mi MirawiKi onicnw u»n (nx)
l . txl CKOOCU »» ontciio M i*
IU«« Uvru.
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
ClUMT: gmPCIStONI/flRISTONl. INC.
MOJCCT: rO*u» fIStSIOHC ftCIUIT Hl/fS -
AIBAH», CCORCU
ntic:
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
CHEMICALS TO BE REMEDIATED
IN UPPER OCALA WELLS
ICMO fit IriOHCl HOI |p»lll
RCU I 90C6II6 7-30-92
-------
SUMMAKY OP AI'PUI!O CKTII-RIA FOR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCI-RN (COO) IN GROUNDWATHR IN EACH MYDROSTRA TIGKAHIIC UNfl
Chemical
1,1,1-Trichloroelhine '
1,1-Dichloroelhane
I.l-Dichloroelhylcne
Arclonc
lieniene
nromodichloromclhane
Carbon Disulfidc
Chlorobcnrene
Chloroform
Dibromochloromclhanc
Blkyfectuene
Melhytene Chloride
Residuum
Yet
Yet
Yei
Ye»
Yes
No
Nol delected
Yes
No
Nol delected
No
Nol delected
No
Nol delected
No
Not delected
No
Pretence in blanks
Upper Ocala
Yei
Ytt
Yet
Ye*
Yet
No
Nol delected
Yet
No
Detected once
No
Delected once
No
Not delected
Ye»
No
Presence in blanks
Lower Ckala
No
Nol delected
No
Detected once
No
Delected once
Yet-
No
Not delected
No
Pretcnl in background*
Detected twice
Ye*
No
Nol delected
.Y«*
No
Present in background4
Detected twice
No
Noldetecttd Ajklil. .
Presence In Mint*
Cvalualed in
Risk Assessment?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
v
No
I
o>
-------
SUMMARY OP APPUIil) dUTHRlA TOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCI1RN (COOi) IN GROUNDWATBR IN EACH HYDROSTATIGRAnilC UNIT (Continued)
Chemical
Tetrachloroclhylcne
Toluene
Trichloroclhytcne
Xylcnei
Dcnioic Acid
Uii(2-elhylheiyl)phllulale)
Phenol
Endosulfan
Lindane
Aluminum
Antimony
Ai*ak
Barium
Beryllium
Residuum
No
Not detected
No
No) detected
No
Not delected
No
Not delected
No
Not detected
Yes
No
Not delected
No
Detected once
No
Delected once
No
Comparable to background
Ye*
No
No< delected
No
Comparable lo background
Ye*
Upper Ocala
No
Not delected
Yet
No
Not detected
Y«
No
Delected once
No
Delected once
No
Not delected
No
Not delected
No
Not delected
Ye*
Ye*
No
Detected onct
No
Comparable lo background
Ye»
Lower Ckala
Ye«
Yd
Ye*
No
Not delected
No
Delected twice
Yet
Delected three time*
No
Delected twice
No
Detected once
No
Not delected
No
Comparable lo background
No
Not detected
No
Compmble lo b«fc|ffMf ,
Comparabk lo twckfRMM
No
Not delected
Evaluated in
Rjsk Assessment?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes (see note 1)
Yes (see note 5)
No "
No
Yes (see note 1)
-------
SUMMARY OF APPLIED CRITERIA FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (COCs) IN GROUNDWATCR IN EACH HYDROSTATIC RAPMIC UNIT (Continued)
Chemical
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganeie
Mercury
Nickel
M*M*»»m
Residuum
No
Not delected
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable to background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
Ye*
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
Ye*
No
Comparable lo background
Upper Ocala
Yei
No
Comparable lo background
Ye*
Yea
Ye»
Yet
Y«
Yci
Ye*
No
(comparable lo background al
one-half detection limit)
Ye*
No
Comparable lo background
Lower Ocala
No
Not detected
No
Comparable lo background
Yet
No'
Delected once
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
Ye*
No
Comparable to background
No
Comparable to background
No
Not delected
No
Detected once
Ye»
;W'
• i
Evaluated in
Rink Aueumem?
Yes (sec note 1)
No
Yes (see note 3 and 5)
Yes (see note 1)
Yes (see note 1)
Yes (see note 1)
Yes (see note 1 and 5)
Yes (see note 1)
Yes (see note 1)
No
Yes (see note S)
• *
No (ice mty J)
c
o
o
3
-------
SUMMARY OP APPLIED CRITERIA FOR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCERN (COCs) IN GKOUNDWATER IN EACH IPYDROSTATIGRAPHIC UNIT (Continued)
Chemical 1 Residuum
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
No
Comparable lo background
No
Not detected
No
Trace element
Ye$
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
Upper Ocala
No
e Not delected
No
Delected once
No
Comparable lo background
Yet
Ye*
No
Comparable lo background
lx>wer Ocala
No
Not detected
No
Not delected
No
Comparable to background
No
Delected twice
No
Comparable lo background
(leu than 3« background)
No
Comparable lo background
Evaluated in
Risk Assessment?
No
No
No
Yes (set note 5)
Yes (see. note 1)
No
I
cs
r-J
Chemistry from wells drawing water from both the residuum and Upper Ocala formation (transition*! wtlls) were included In the derivation of an average concentration for the Upper
Ocala. When compared with the result* of the Upper Ocala background well (which does nol draw from both units), the average concentration in the Upper Ocala site wells appears
10 be higher th«n the background location. However, when these average concentrations are compared with (he background concentration* in the residuum, the melal concentrations
arc comparable. Since concentrations in the residuum and lower Ocala wells are also comparable to background concentration*, il I* not clear whether il is appropriate lo consider
these metals in the baseline risk assessment. However, lo be conservative, these metals are considered, and the ramification of that inclusion discussed in the uncertainly assessment.
One high concentration (425 ug/L) in MW-7-5 has skewed the average concentration lo 3.2 ug/L which may exceed the background concentration of < 43 ug/L The avenge
concentration without this high value is 2.1 ug/L The geometric mean value with this high value is 1.4 ug/L The second highest concentration is 85 ug/L Ihen 3.1 ug/L
One high concentration (chromium • 269 ug/L; potassium - 175,000 ug/L) skewed the average for these chemicals, resulting la cxcccdcncc of the background concentrations The
avenge concentration of chromium without (his value it 135 ug/L (compared with background of 145 ug/L); of potassium to 2329 ug/L (avenge concentration •
-------
23
5.1.3. Surface Water Sampling
Six- surface water samples were collected after storm events to
characterize on-site water quality conditions. These six samples
were analyzed for TCL/TAL parameters. Four additional surface
water samples were collected on December 12, 1991 to compare on-
site water quality to state and federal water quality criteria.
Three samples were collected from the storm water detention pond
and field tested for water hardness, one sample was collected
from the East Ditch, located just upstream from the area where
development water was discharged. This sample was analyzed for
TCL VOCs. No contaminants were found in the surface water at
concentrations that exceed a Hazrd Quotient of 1 or an upper
bound cancer risk of IxlO'6. Surface water sampling locations
are provided in Figure 5-1. A summary of the contaminants
detected during surface water sampling activities is presented in
table 5-4.
5.1.4 Surface Soil Sampling
A total of 22 surface soil samples were collected throughout the
Site. The purpose of this sampling effort was to characterize
surface soil at the Site and to obtain chemical data for use in
the baseline risk assessment. The surface samples were collected
in accordance with the Field Sampling and Analysis Plan and were
analyzed for all TCL/TAL parameters. No contaminants were found
in the surface soil at concentrations that exceed a Hazrd
Quotient of 1 or an upper bound cancer risk of IxlO"6. Surface
soil sampling locations are provided in Figure 5-1. A summary of
the"contaminants detected during surface soil sampling activities
is presented in table 5-2.
5.1.5 Subsurface Soil Sampling
A total of 37 subsurface soil samples were collected at 12 soil
boring locations and 6 well cluster locations. The purpose of
this soil sampling effort was to develop a more complete soil
profile characterization of the Site and to evaluate the
potential for contamination to migrate from the soil to the
groundwater. The subsurface samples were collected in accordance
with the Field Sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP) and were
analyzed for all TCL/TAL parameters. PCBs were found at
concentrations greater than the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) - required cleanup level of 10 ppm in four subsurface soil
samples collected in a former transformer location of the
courtyard area. The estimated volume of contamination that
exceeds 10 ppm is 20 cubic yards. No other contaminants were
found in the subsurface soil at concentrations that exceed a
Hazrd Quotient of 1 or an upper bound cancer risk of IxlO"6.
Subsurface sSil* sampling locations are provided in Figure 5-1. A
summary of the contaminants detected during subsurface soil
sampling activities is presented in table 5-2.
-------
SUMMARY OF APPLIED CRITERIA TOR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCERN (COCi) IN SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS
Chemical
1,1,1-Trichloroelhanc
2-Bulanone
4 -Methyl. 2-pcnlanone
Act lone
Denienc
Ciibon Disulfidc
Chlorobenienc
Chloroform
Ethylbcniene
Melhylene chloride
Tclnchloroctnylene
TtfMaM
Trichloroelhylene
Surface Soils
Yti
No
Presence in blinks
Yes
Yet
No
No) delected
Yes
No
Not delected
No
Delected once
Yt»
No
Presence in bljnlu
No
Not delected
Yes
No
Not delected
Subsurface Soils
Yet
No
Presence in blinks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Delected once
Yet
Yes
No
Presence in blinks
Yes
Ye«
No
Delected once
Evaluated in
Risk Assessment?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
-«•!'• M
^.JKiK^lkiaV *
No {
-------
SUMMARY 01' AITUI'.I) CRITERIA |:OR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCliRN (COCs) IN SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS (coniinucd)
Chemical
Vinyl acclale
Xylenes
4-Nilrophcnol *
Oentoic Arid
Uit(2-clhy)heiryl)phlhilitc
Di-n-bulylphlhaUie
Fluoranihene
Penlachlorophenol
Pheninthrene
Pyrene
Arocior-1254
Arodor.1260
Aluminum
Surface Soils
No
Not delected
Yef
No
Delected once
No
Not delected
Ye«
Yei
No
Delected once
No
Not delected
No
Delected onct
No
Delected once
Yes
Y«
No
Comparable lo background
Subsurface Soili
No
Delected once ,
Yei
No
Not detected
No
Not detected
Ye«
Y«
No
Not delected
No
Delected once
No
Not delected
No
Not delected
No
Not delected
No
Not detected
No
Comparable lo background
Evaluated in
Ritk Assessment?
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
•.tf.--,r. • *
•ffajAt-* Yes
\
No
-------
SUMMARY OP AITLIliO CRJTKRIA FOR'CONTAMINANTS OF CONCURN (COfi) IN SURFACE AND SUBSURPACO SOII.S (continued)
e
o
(J
U4
Kj
s
vO
CM
t
Chemical
Antimony
Arsenic
Hjrium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mitnoium
Manganese
Surface Soils
Yes
No
Comparable to background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Delected once
No
Comparable to background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
Subsurface Soils
Yes ,
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Delected once
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No 4
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable to background
Evaluated in
Risk Auemmenl?
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
f
A*:' No v
No
-------
SUMMARY OP AITI.II'.n CRmiRIA FOR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCRRN (COCs) IN SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS (continued)
C
o
(J
CM
I
1/1
UJ
.J
I
f--.
Chemical
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Surface Soils
No
Delected once
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable to background
No
Not delected
No
Comparable to background
Ye*
Subsurface Soils
No
Not detected
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Not delected
No
Comparable to background
No
Comparable lo background
Evaluated in
Risk Assessment?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
-------
SUMMARY OF SULECI1ON OP COhOTAMINANTS OP CONCERN (COCs) IN SGOIMllNTS
Ctiemicil
1,1,1-Trichloroelhinc ,
1,1-Dirhloroelhane
1.2-Dichloroelhylene
2*Butanone
2-llc«an
-------
SUMMAUY OF SHI.UCnON Ol1 CONTAMINANTS Ol' CONCERN (COCs) IN SI-DIMI-NTS (Continued)
Chemical
Xylcnci
Denioic Acid
Ris(2-elhylhcxy1)phlhalale
Uulylbenrylphlhalale
Di-n-butylphlhalalc
Pyrene
Arochlor-ltt4
Arochlor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
BcijWvm
Calcium
Shallow Sediments
Yes
No
Not detected .
Yei
No
Not detected
Ye«
Yes
Ye»
Ye.
No
Comparable lo background
Yes
No
Comparable to background
Yt$
Yes
Deeper Sediments
Yei
No
Not detected '
Ye»
Ye«
Detected once
No
Not delected
No
Not detected '
No
Not detected
No
Not delected
No
Comparable to background
Yet
No
Comparable to background
Yei
No
Comparable lo background
Chemical o( Interest?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
tyfc Ycs -
\
c
o
o
I
-------
SUMMARY OP SI-LECTION OP CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (COCs) IN SEDIMnNTS (Continued)
c
0
u
ui
o
Chemical
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
• *— • Jl
WMnrai
Zinc
Shallow Sediments
Ye*
Ye*
Yet
Ye«
Yes
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable to background
No
Comparable lo background
Ye*
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
Yei
Deeper Sediments
Ye*
Ye*
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable lo background
No
Comparable to background
No
Not detected
No
Nol delected
No
Comparable lo background
Ye*
No
Companbk to background
No
Comparable lo background .,
Ye*
Chemical of Interest?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
ojj|^:;k v
irr
Yes,
-------
SUMMARY OF SCI.F.CTION OF CONTAMINANTS Ol' CONCERN (COCt) IN SURFACE WATER
i i
Chemical
l.l.l-Trichloroelhane
1,1-Dichloroclhine
4-Methyl-2-penlanone
Artlonc
Ortxjn Diiulfidc
Mclhylenc Chloride
Aluminum
Darium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Magnesium
ManpntK
Criterion lor Dtlciioo
Presence in blanki
CommenU
Delected oncn
Delected once
All delected concent reliont were
auocialcd with method blank
contamination.
•
Delected onct
":(
Chemical ol Inleresl?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
: *
. Yes M
CfM. J ¥
^
-------
SUMMARY OF SRLCCTION OP CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (COCs) IN SURFACP. WATER (Continued)
I
CM
Chemical
Potassium
Sodium
7jnt
Criterion (or Deletion
t-
Commenli
Detected once
Chemical of Interest?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Noles: ,
A limited number of samples were collected, precluding the use of frequency of detection i( • criterion for selection as « contaminant of concern.
No Surface water background urn pie w»» collected, precluding the u« of comparability with background as a criterion for selection as • contaminant of concern.
-------
33
5.1.6 Sediment Sampling
A total of 16 grab sediment samples from ten locations and 2
composite samples from four locations were collected to
characterize the on-site sediment quality. Samples were
collected at 0 to 0.5 ft. and 1.5 to 3 ft intervals in accordance
with the FSAP. With the exception of the composite samples,, all
of the samples required by the workplan were analyzed for all
TCL/TAL parameters. The composite samples were analyzed for TCL
semivolatile organic compound (SVOC), PCBs and pesticide
parameters, and TAL parameters. Four additional sediment
samples, not described in'the RI/FS Workplan were collected and
analyzed for Total Organic Carbon (TOG). The TOC results were
used in the baseline risk assessment. No contaminants were found
in the sediments at concentrations that exceed a Hazrd Quotient
of 1 or an upper bound cancer risk of IxlO"6. Sediment sampling
locations are provided in Figure 5-1. A summary of the
contaminants detected during sediment sampling activities is
presented in table 5-3.
5.1.7 Confirmatory Sampling of Former Courtyard PCB Transformers
Twenty-three soil samples from 13 locations were collected during
the RI. These samples were collected to verify that remedial
measures to remove courtyard transformers and surrounding soil
containing PCBs had achieved the PCB target cleanup level of 10
mg/kg. The samples were collected in accordance with the FSAP
and were analyzed for PCBs. Sample locations are provided in
Figure 5-1.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
CERCLA directs the Agency to conduct a baseline risk assessment
to determine whether a Superfund Site poses a current or
potential threat to human health and the environment in the
absence of Jtny remedial action. The baseline risk assessment
provides thi basis for determining whether or not remedial action
is necessary- and the justification for performing remedial
action.
EPA's cleanup goals for contaminated soils are based on potential
for cancer risk range of IxlO"1 to IxlO'6 (no more than an
increased chance of one additional case in ten thousand to one
million) or a non-cancer Hazardous Index above 1.0 (or possible
exposure to total contaminants exceeding doses known not to cause
harmful effects). The baseline risk assessment indicates that
current Site risk from soil contamination exceeds action or
cleanup levels only for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
-------
34
Past removal activities in the courtyard area have already -
removed PCB transformers, concrete pads, and PCBs from the soil
to -10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) or parts per million (ppm) ,
which is equivalent to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSGA)-required cleanup level for the small volume and low
concentration of PCBs present at the Site. However, 4 samples
near the former PCB transformers were found to exceed 10 mg/kg
(10 ppm). Concentrations varying from 17.0 to 230.0 mg/kg were
identified in these samples at depths ranging from 4 to 5.5 ft.
The current estimate of PCB contaminated soil remaining on-site
is 20 cubic yards (c.y.). Therefore, soil cleanup will be
required in this area to reduce the threat posed by the PCB
contamination.
The major risk at the Site, however, is contamination in the
shallow groundwater exceeding Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS)
or other cleanup levels. The RI data indicate that several VOCs
were identified in shallow wells primarily located in the
courtyard area at levels exceeding MCLs or action levels. The
specific VOCs are 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA),
1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE), Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP)
and Benzene. In addition to the VOCS, beryllium, antimony, lead,
carbon disulfide, Chromium and PCBs (PCBs only in one well) above
the MCL were found in the groundwater at levels that exceed
cleanup standards. Sample results from the Lower Ocala did not
indicate the presence of of any hazardous constituents at levels
above MCLs or any other cleanup levels.
The baseline risk assessment also evaluated the health impacts
associated with potential future residential development of the
manufacturing area and southern portions of the Site. When EPA
assumes residents (children and adults) are living on the Site
property itself and depend exclusively on local groundwater from
the Upper Ocala/Transition Zone as a water source, both upper
bound cancer risk (greater than IxlO"4 or an increased chance of
one additional case in ten thousand)-and non-cancer hazard
estimate (greater than 1.0) do exceed established acceptable risk
levels. In all cases unacceptable risks and hazards were a
result of drinking contaminated groundwater and breathing
volatile groyndwater chemicals during showering. In addition,
the shallc^lwater-bearing zone does not produce an adequate water
supply. Hoipever, even if the southern portions of the property
were converted to residential, local shallow groundwater would
probably not be used because connections to the municipal system
are already available. The plant itself is already served by
city water and city sewer. The total lifetime cancer risk for
potential on-site residents in the southern portions of the Site
would be 7x10"* (a chance of 7 additional cancer cases in 10,000
people) whicfe exceeds EPA's target range. The Hazard Index for
substances causing harmful effects other than cancer would be 17
for this area, which greatly exceeds acceptable exposure and
warrants cleanup.
-------
35
Contaminants of concern (COCs) were chosen based on
concentration, toxicity, mobility, and frequency of detection for
the'contaminants present. EPA expects that meeting cleanup goals
for these will result in sufficiently reducing risks posed by
less harmful contaminants as well.
6.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
The majority of the wastes and residues generated by production
operations at the facility have been managed, treated, and
disposed of on-site throughout the Site's history. The
significant contaminated areas of concern are the courtyard area
where shipping, handling, • and temporary storage of materials
including hazardous substances occured and the burn pit where
liquid waste was burned and partially-filled 55-gal drums
containing waste materials characteristic of waste rubber cement
and Banbury sludge were buried. The chemicals measured in the
various environmental media in the Remedial Investigation were
evaluated for inclusion as chemicals'of potential concern in the
risk assessment by application of screening criteria. The
criteria used to select the contaminants of concern included:
1. a general review of the Site data,
• 2. a review of designations to the data,
3. a comparison of the detects with that of the blanks,
4. a review of the sample quantitation limits,
5. a review of the tentatively identified compounds,
6. an evaluation of the apparent statistical distribution
of the data,
7. an examination of the Frequency of detection,
8. an evaluation of the contaminants verses essential
nutrient trace levels elements, and;
9. a comparison of the appropriate health-based criteria.
Separate lists of chemicals of potential concern were identified
for each of the past waste management areas. . The contaminants of
concern for the Site area include Antimony, Beryllium, Benzene,
Carbon Bisulfide, Chromium, 1,1-DCE, PCBs, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane,
1,1-Bichloroethylene, Chloroform, Tetrachloroethylene, Toluene,
Bis(2ethylhexy)phthalate, Bi-n-butylphthalate, 1,1-
Dichloroethjsne, Acetone, Carbon Bisulfide, Ethylbenzene,
Trichloroethylene, Xylenes, 2-Methyl-2-pentanone, Polychlorinated
Biphenyls, 2-Butanone, 1,2-Bichloroethylene, 2-Hexanone, Pyrene,
Magnesium, Selenium, and Zinc.
The.arithmetic average concentrations, 95% upper confidence
levels, and frequency of detections of contaminants found in the
various media Rested are contained in Tables 6-1 through 6-8.
The exposure concentrations represent a 95% upper confidence
limit on the mean of data collected from both surface and
-------
36
TABLE 6-1
CONCENTRATIONS OF
RESIDUUM WELLS
CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINANT
1,1,1-TCA
1 , 1 -DCA
1,1-DCE
ACETONE
BENZENE
CARBON DISULFIDE
DEHP
ENDOSULFAN
LINDANE
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD T
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL f .
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
5.9
11.3
3,3
8.7
6.7
49.5
10.9
0.06
0.04
15,955.56
18.2
86.86
2.01
6345.56
31.13
17.93
56.31
34,477.78
13.39
2,271.11
962.48
0.19
20.80
1,247.89
0.83
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
22.81
48.69
10.53
15.92
17.41
1584.93
25.73
0.11
0.06
58,348.03
39.91
263.57
6.89
16,307.84
82.61
138.63
429.19
135,064.73
49.29
8,294.92
10,621.48
0.34
151.20
2,076.67
1.09
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
4/8
4/8
4/8
3/8
1/8
6/8
2/9
1/9
1/9
9/9
1/9
9/9
5/9
9/9
6/9
4/9
5/9
9/9
6/9
8/9
9/9
1/9
3/9
8/9
1/9
-------
37
CONTAMINANT
SODIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
66,060.00
1.00
87.51
128.46
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
1,758,114.10
1.39
389.46
382.51
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
9/9
1/9
8/9
8/9
TABLE 6-2
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUNDWATER
UPPER OCALA '
CONTAMINANT
1,1,1-TCA
1,1 -DCA
1,1-DCE
ACETONE
BENZENE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE
XYLENES
BENZOIC ACID
DEHP
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
35.82
19.87
37.20
15.46
6.24
12.57
3.41
3.44
13.96
2.78
3.94
35.22
25.46
12.52
15,222.50
14.33
1.04
122.60
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
45.06
28.60
63.77
21.49
8.43
20.06
4.49
3.83
11.15
3.49
6.21
18.55
32.64
19.92
455,974.04
17.97
1.12
203.33
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
8/25
9/25
7/25
16/25
1/25
14/25
1/25
1/25
2/25
2/25
2/25
3/25
1/24
1/24
22/25
2/25
1/25
25/25
-------
38
CONTAMINANT
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
4.25
3.19
165,624.00
36.04
16.07
62.45
17,059.52
20.02
2,301.56
1,326.06
0.16
25.84
4,629.74
1.76
23,396.40
1.06
66.41
174.66
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
7.96
3.30
343,794.52
105.63
34.23
120.95
618,528.15
53.74
3,720.64
17,629.19
0.19
58.28
8,529.40
2.07
44,621.76
1.23
260.02
303.89
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
11/25
3/25
25/25
19/25
10/25
15/25
25/25
23/25
25/25
25/25
4/25
5/25
24/25
1/25
25/25
4/25
19/25
23/25
TABLE 6-3
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUNDWATER
LOWER OCALA
CONTAMINANT
1,1-DCA
1,1-DCE
ACETONE
BDCM
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
1.22
1.19
84.89
1.28
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
6.85
6.23
4,068.95
6.84
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/9
1/9
7/9
2/9
-------
39
CONTAMINANT
CARBON BISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
DBCM
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
PCE
TOLUENE
TCE
BENZOIC ACID
DEHP
PHENOL
ENDOSULFAN
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE,.!"
NICKEL t:
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM '£ ,
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
7.52
1.81
1.23
0.71
1.22
1..23
1.35
21.56
20.50
12.61
0.05
2,023.99
1.67
61.97
37,755.56
41.92
1.95
15.54
4,171.89
12.83
1,170.72
69.75
11.02
21,514.78
23,010.00
0.72
9.86
249.22
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
445.80
11.43
5.96
1.97
5.86
5.98
8.06
31.23
112.30
26.64
0.08
•3,004,155.15
2.65
661.65
83,246.94
529.53
2.59
37.39
19,917,768.30
259.11
3,644.06
3,754.47
26.86
795,607.35
268,734.73
2.81
75.38
1,328.35
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
4/9
4/9
2/9
1/9
2/9
2/9
2/9
2/9
3/9
2/9
1/9
7/9
3/9
8/9
9/9
6/9
1/9
8/9
8/9
7/9
8/9
8/9
1/9
7/9
9/9
2/9
5/9
9/9
-------
40
TABLE 6-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SOILS
SURFACE SOILS (0-1 FT)
CONTAMINANT
1,1,1-TCA
2 -BUTANONE
4-M-2-P
ACETONE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE
XYLENES
4-NITROPHENOL
DEHP
DBF
FLUORANTHENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
ARCLR-1254
ARCLR-1260
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY r
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM *
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
13.16 .
15.03
7.53
118.29
15.29
2.76
2.66
41.41
9.06
7.44
1,010.00
327.47
172.59
211.76
206.71
211.76
287.94
240.29
9,334.12
3.80
1.61
19.79
0.19
0.29
3,426.00
13.82
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kg)
39.05
13.02
11.56 -
508.64
24.24
3.16
3.23
396.82
19.61
11.20
1,459.81
453.45
236.96
246.39
265.70
246.39
347.80
316.50
12,644.69
6.44
2.35
27.25
0.25
0.45
12,469.49
18.47
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
15/17 -
1/7
3/17
15/17
17/17
1/17
11/17
10/17
15/17
12/17
1/17
5/17
3/17
1/17
1/17
1/17
1/17
3/17
17/17
8/17
17/17
17/17
5/17
1/17
17/17
17/17
-------
41
CONTAMINANT
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
1.26
3.92
12,256.82
9.72
176.71
127.69
0.05
2.63
112.72
0.19
37.73
37.34
26.92
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kg)
1.87
5.32
17,522.41
16.01
265.38
223.29
0.06
4.77
176.42
0.22
45.17
51.83
127.68
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
13/17
3/17
17./ 17 .
6/17
17/17
17/17
1/17
8/17
15/17
3/17
16/17
17/17
14/17
TABLE 6-5
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN
SUBSURFACE SOILS (3-30 FT)
SOILS
CONTAMINANT
1,1,1-TCA
2-BUTANONE
4-M-2-P ::
ACETONE £
BENZENE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM -t
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
61.83
45.43
37.38
322.81
19.62
28.62
19.69
19.60
19.60
51.05
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kgl
318.22.
53.64
26.46
567.61
12.22
51.11
11.92
11.79
12.14
323.05
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
14/21
4/21
8/21
21/21
2/21
11/21
1/21
4/21
8/21
12/21
-------
42
CONTAMINANT
PCE
TOLUENE
TCE
VINYL ACETATE
XYLENES
DEHP
DBF
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
19.95
20.83
19.69
42.90
22.26
266.43
249.10
1304.76
6647.14
6.99
0.96
6.62
0.20
0.52
256.17
8.74
1.38
2.22
16010.48
6.05
85.96
48.19
1.65
84.36
0.18
37.56
37.01
4.11
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kg)
12.62
19.97
11.92
35.18
22.21
359.84
310.18
1801.62
9345.01
14.48
1.62
10.24
0.23
0.76
753.00
15.02
2.45
3.47
45244.84
9.97
108.77
125.12
1.87
138.42
0.23
47.41
82.53
9.45
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
3/21
14/21
1/21
1/21 .
11/21
5/21
2/21
1/21
21/21
6/21
13/21
20/21
4/21
1/21
13/21
21/21
9/21
1/21
21/21
5/21
21/21
21/21
7/21
12/21
3/21
18/21
20/21
15/21
-------
43
TABLE 6-6
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN
SHALLOW SEDIMENTS (0-1 FT)
SEDIMENTS
CONTAMINANT
1,1,1-TCA
1,1-DCA
2 -BUTANONE
2-HEXANONE
4-M-2-P
ACETONE
BENZENE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE
TCE
XYLENES
DEHP
DBF
PYRENE
AROCLOR-1254
AROCLOR-1260
ALUMINUM -f
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM * ,
COBALT
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
5.31
5.31
5.44
12.94
40.81
38.88
5.56
20.63
6.69
3.44
83.94
5.81
5.56
10.81
385.00
355.83
345.33
899.17
858.33
12110.00
2.06
25.23
0.43
3403.67
276.18
3.68
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kg)
9.22
9.27
42.62
23.17
193.66
247.55
8.42
45.98
15.35
4.30
23075.09
8.98
8.42
34.24
526.71
660.96
1090.88
4335.37
4928.70
42349.18
4.49
53.76
1.65
23169.79
25730.51
18.74
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
6/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
7/8
1/8
8/8 '
3/8
4/8
7/8
3/8
1/8
4/8
1/6
1/8
1/8
1/6
1/8
6/6
6/6
6/6
4/6
6/6
6/6
4/8
-------
44
CONTAMINANT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
25.38
28060.00
22.87
183.43
86.12
3'.48
134.67
0.26
60.52
80.72
486.42
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kg)
92.23
289755.56
47.79
704.50
254.74
40.72
524.66
0.43
236.52
173.98
26676.25
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
2/6
2/6
4/6
6/6
6/6
TABLE 6-7
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN
SUB-SURFACE SEDIMENTS (2-3 FT)
SEDIMENTS
CONTAMINANT
1,1,1-TCA
4-M-2-P
ACETONE
CARBON BISULFIDE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE
XYLENES
DEHP
BBP
ALUMINUM
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
4.60
16.80
64.60
13.60
2.80
88.40
2.00
3.40
1267.50
289.50
7616.67
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kg)
17.05
2580.57
5436.88
39.41
6.63
338.31
4.92
3.86
91849.55
693.26
13202.68
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
5/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
1/5
5/5
4/5
1/5
3/6
1/6
6/6
-------
45 .
CONTAMINANT
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
1.84
11.82
0.38
1313.00 .
57.50
2.56
8.03
21233.33
12.71
61.70
70.22
64.15
0.19
48.48
76.37
85.02
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/kg)
2.47
12.17
0.90
1313.49
58.36
3.41
8.36
21233 .89
13.20
62.19
71.00
64.45
0.52
49.04
76.69
85.95
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
6/6
6/6
5/6-
6/6
6/6
4/6
5/6
6/6
5/8
6/6
6/6
1/8
1/6
4/6
6/6
6/6
TABLE 6-8
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SURFACE WATER
CONTAMINANT
1,1,1-TCA *;"
1,1-DCA
4-M-2-P
ACETONE
CARBON DISULFIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
ALUMINUM
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
4.20
2.90
4.40
11.00
11.00
9.40
196.00
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
8.01
4.53
7.84
56.35
56.35
2246.66
659.06
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
2/5
1/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
1/5 .
4/4
-------
46
CONTAMINANT
BARIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
IRON
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
ZINC
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
(ug/L)
12.73
8070.00
6.53
550.50
390.75
48.40
436.00
2455.00
76.40
95% UPPER
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT (ug/L)
327.94 .
11577.16
28.61
688.37
519.33
1101.99
10144.23
4158.22
23840.22
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
2/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
3/4
-------
47
subsurface samples and therefore, the data in the Table does not
necessarily reflect land surface concentrations.
6.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Whether a chemical is actually a concern to human health and the
environment depends upon the likelihood of exposure, i.e.. whether
the exposure pathway is currently complete or could be complete
in the future. A complete exposure pathway (a sequence of events
leading to contact with a chemical) is defined by the following
four elements:
• a source and mechanism of release from the source,
• a transport medium (e.g., surface water, air) and
mechanisms of migration through the medium,
• the presence or potential presence of a receptor at the
exposure point, and
• a route of exposure (ingestion, inhalation, dermal
absorption).
If all four elements are present, the pathway is considered
complete.
An evaluation was undertaken of all potential exposure pathways
which could connect chemical sources at the Site with potential
receptors. All possible pathways were first hypothesized and
evaluated for completeness using EPA's criteria. Three current
potentially complete exposure pathways and four future exposure
.pathways remained after screening. The current pathways
represent exposure pathways which could or do exist under current
Site conditions while the future pathways represent exposure
pathways which could exist, in the future, if the current
exposure conditions change.
According to the Dougherty County Planning Commission,
residential use of this land is possible. In addition,
industrial operation to the east would not serve as an absolute
obstruction to residential development in the southern portion of
the Site and to the west. As a result, a future potential
residential scenario for residents living on the southern
portions of the facility property was developed and evaluated.
The exposure and intake parameters used in generating risk caused
by current and future scenarios are presented in Tables 6-9
through 6-14. Exposure by each of these pathways was
mathematically modeled using generally conservative assumptions
and is further discussed in Section 6.5.
-------
48
The current pathways are:
on-site worker
off-site residential populations
trespassers
The future pathways are:
on-site worker
' off-site residential populations
trespassers
residents living on the southern portion of the Site
The exposure point concentrations for each of the chemicals of
concern and the exposure assumptions for each pathway were used
to estimate the chronic daily intakes for the potentially
complete pathways, with the exception of the groundwater pathway.
The chronic daily intakes were then used in conjunction with
cancer potency factors and noncarcinogenic reference doses to
evaluate risk. No current sensitive subpopulations were
localized to the Site's area during the exposure assessment.
-------
I'.XI'OSURI! AND INTAKI! PARAMriV.RS TOK ASSI1SSING INCil-STION AND DI-KMAI. I'.XI'OSURP. TO SOIL BY WORKT.RS
lUpofiure or Intake Parameter
Chemical roncenlralion in (nil (Cs)
Skin turfarc area (SA)
Adherence factor (AF)
Absorption (aclor (AUS)
Siiil ingeslinn rale (IR)
Traction ingested from contaminated
u>u ire (H)
l:jrpnturc frequency (liF)
I'jposure duration (I:D)
Itody weight (HW)
Averaging time (AT)
Value
95% upper confidence limit
roncenlralion or minimum
concentration of turf arc mils in
manufacturing area
3200 cm'/evenl (dy)
0.6 mg/cm*
1% for organic chemicals
0.1% for inorganic chemicals
50mg/dy
1.0
iWdy/yr
(5 dy/wk; 50 wk/yr)
25 yr
70kg
hJon-cartinogcns: 365 d/yr i 25 yr
Carcinogens: .ViS dy/yr i TO yr
Ralinnale/DiM'uvtinn/Kefercncc
Represents reasonnhlc maiimum expcKurc concentration. Recommended In 'Risk Aucumenl
Guidance for SupcrionO: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual* (RAGS), EP A/540/ 1-
fiV/tX>2. 12/89.
Represent! eipnsurc nf hands and arms. Worker* unlikely to wear short pint* or partially
eipcKing clothing other than shorter sleeve* of shirt. No seasonal variation because of the mild
climate of southern (icorgia.
Middle value nf range recommended by EPA Region IV (0.2 mg/em1 • 1.0 mi/cm1).
I:.PA Region IV supplemental risk assessment guidance (2/11/92).
•Standard Default pjrposure Pacton" (Sf)RF), OSWRR Pirective 72SS.6-03. 3/25/91.
Assumes that all soil ingested during working noun is impacted.
Conventional work frequency (SDHP. 9/25/91).
Conventional work duration (SDP.P. 3/25/91).
Conventional adult t>ody weight (RAGS, I2/R9).
Conventional averaging limes (RAGS, 12/89).
cr>
-------
nxposuRn AND INTAKE PARAMI-;TERS FOR ASSESSING uxrosuRi; TO sr.niMrws AND SURFACB WATER nv WORKERS
o
u-l
I
lixposure or Intake Parameter.
Chemical concentration in sediments
(
-------
I'.XPOSURJ! AND INTAKR PAKAMEIl'.RS TOR ASSESSING INHALATION P.XPOSURRTO PAR11CLI! AND VAPOR PHASE CHEMICALS BY WORKRRS
•
o ^
lixposurt or Intake Parameter
Chemical Concentration in air (CA)
Inhalation r»lt (IR)
lUfKnure lime (If!")
liujxwure frequency (HI'")
lujioMjre durvlion (I:.D)
lb5 dy/yr » 70 yr
Rjlionale/Di(cu
-------
p.xrosuRn AND INTAW. PARAMIHT.RS TOR ASSESSING INGP.STION <»i: GROUNDWATER. INHALATION op VOLATILE CHEMICALS IN
GKOUNDWAIt-R AND Ul-RMAI. C'ONTAtT Wflll (.KUUNDWAIl-R IIV I'OIWIIAL MHUKR ON-SITE RJ!SIDI!NTS
lupoture or Intake Parameter
Chemical concentration in
grnundvaler (<"W)
Chemical concentration in §ir (CA)
(showering)
Ingeslion rale (IR)
Inhalation rale (IR)
Slin surface art* (SA)
Dermal permeability constant (PC)
Uipoture lime for showering (ET)
lUpnsurc frequency (EF)
Crpomre duration (P.f>)
Body weigh! (DW)
Averapng lime (AT)
Value
95% upper ronridenre limit or
marimum ronrenlralion in Upper
Ocala wells in manufacturing/bum
pit area or southern/western area
Modeled value bated on 95% upper
confidence limit or maiimum
concentration in Upper Ocala wells in
manufacturing/humph ana or
southern/western area
1 liter/day (ages 0-n)
2 lilen/day (adull.<)
0.6 m'/hr (0.01 m'/rnin)
0.73 m1 for children
1.94 m1 lor adulli
Chtmkal-ipeciric
12 min/evenl (day)
(0.2 hr/evcnl)
JSOdy/yr
6 yetn for children
24 yean for adulli (total 10 yr)
IS KK for children (age 0-S>)
TO kg for adults
Non I'.D
CarrinoRcns: Vi5 dy/yr « 70 yr
IUlionalc/DiM-uuion/Refercnc<
RtpreicnU re*M>nahle ma«imum eipnture ('Risk Ancumenl Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1:
Human lleillh {-valuation Manual (Part A)',liPA/540/l-8V/002, 12/89 (RAGS).
Repreicnli reasonable maiimum cipnture ('Risk Anctimenl Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1:
Human Health Hvalualinn Manual (Part A)* HP A/540/ 1-89/002, 12/89 (RAGS). Modeled air
concent rations arc presented in other tablet.
t-.PA't Tjtposure Factors Handbook* (P.PA/MW/H/-II9/043, 7/89) detcribet »everal different
drinking w»ier iniake rales for children: 1 liter per day for children under 10 kg. 0.9 L/day for 2
year olds, 1.5 L/day for children 14-16 yean, an average of 0.76 L/day for children 0 to 9, and a
range of 1-1.7 L/day (nr children 5-M yn. EPA guidance does not recommend one value. A value
of 1 L/day for children of age 0-6 is consistent with the ranges cited in this guidance, and
corresponds to the age group in which soil ingeilion also varies from adull intake*. A value of 2
L/day for adults is recommended in RAGS for reasonable maximum etposure* (RAGS 12/89).
Recommended inhalation rale for showering for all age group* (RAGS, 12/89).
XX h percentik male child body surface area for age* 341 (RAGS. 12/89), used to represent 0-6 yr
olds, as well. 50th perccnlik adull mak body surface area (RAGS, 12/89).
Values selected from I'.PA's 'Dermal Exposure AHCttmcnl: Principles and Applications*
nPA/AOO/R-91/OI in, 1/92, and Flynn (I9WJ u tiled in this report.
90th percenlik lime for showering (RAGS I2/B9). Aoumcd lo be the ume length of lime for
bathing in younger children.
•Standard Default f-jrprMurc Fartore'. OSWER Directive 9285AXO (3/23/91).
RAGS, 12/89. *
RA(iS. 12/89. .' ; '• • !.'•'
Convention averaging limes (RAGS 12/89).
-------
l-XPOSURR AND INTAKI! PARAMRTHRS TOR ASSESSING INGI-S11ON AND I>I:KMAI. CONTACT WITII SURFACE SOILS FOR POTF.NTIAL FUTURE
ON-SITIJ RliSIIMINTS
I
rn
I'.ipofturc or Inlikc Parameter
Chcminl concentration in toil (CS)
Soil ingeslinn nle (IR)
Fraction ingeMed from contaminated
source (11)
Skin suffice area (SA)
Adherence Factor (AF)
Dermal absorption f»dor (ADS)
I'jrpnsurc frcqucnry (P.P)
l:>posurc duration (P.D)
Dody «ijhl (DW)
Avcr*fin| lime (AT)
Viluc
?J% upper confidence limil or
miiimum roncenlralion in surface
toils »l (he manufKluring or
loulhem/weMem area
200 mg/djy for children (»)[( 0-6)
100 mg/diy for »dull> ( > ft yr)
1.0
20DO cm* for children
3200 cm1 for (dulls
0.6 mg/cm1
1% for organic chemical!
0.1% for inorganic chemical!
3JO dy/yr
6 yf al child parameters
M yr at adult parameten
(total 30 yr)
IS kg (ages 04)
70 kg (fVM yean)
Nofl-carcinngeni: 3AJ dy/yr > I'"D
< jrrinogens: Vi5 dy/yr i 70 yr
Rjlionale/niscuuinn/Kcferencc
Represents reasonxlile manmum eipniurc ('Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund • Volume 1:
Human Health Evaluation Manual (I'art A)', P.PA/540/ 1-89/002, 12/89 (RAGS).
RAGS, 12/89.
Assumes that all snil ingested is contaminated
Represents hands, ont.rulf of arms and one-half of kp for children (RAGS, 12/89).
Represents hands and arms (or hands and about one-third of lep and arms) for adults (RAGS,
I2/8V).
Middle value of nnge recommended by EPA Region IV (0.2-1.0 ml/cm1) in Supplemental risk
aueumenl guidance (2/11/92).
KPA Region IV supplemental risk assessment guidance (2/11/92).
I'PA's 'Standard Default Exposure Factors* OSWRR Directive 9285.6-03, 3/25/91.
RAGS 12/89.
RAGS, 12/89.
Conventional avenging lime (RAGS 12/89)
-------
RXPOSURP. AND INTAKP. PARAMLTI-K.S FOR ASSESSING I'.XI'OSUKI! TO VOI ATII.I7.I-I) SOIL CHRMICALS AND CNTRAINEO SOIL PAR11CI.P.S FOR
POTI-NllAL IVIVRI- ON-Srili RliSIDIiNTS
l-tpmure or Intake Parameter
Chemical concentration in air (CA)
Inhalation r»lc (IR)
(while outdoors)
rjfxnurr frequency (CF)
l:irp<»ure duration (ED)
Ikxiy weight (DW)
Averaging lime (AT)
Value
Modeled value bated upon M5%
upper confidence limit or maiimum
concentration in soil at either
manufacturing area of
itoulhem/weilem site
5 m'/day (or children (0-C,)
3 m'/day (or adults (6-Z4)
350 dy/yr
6 yr (ajts fM)
24 yr (ages 6-W)
30 years total
IJ kj (ages fM yr)
70 kg (ages 6-24)
Non-carcinogens: 365 dy/yr « CD
Carcinogens: 365 dy/yi i 70 yr
Rjlionale/nitcussion/Refercnce
Represents rcasonahlc maiimum cupoiture.
i
•Standard Defaull pjpn»ure radon* (OSWER Directive 9285^03 (3/25/91) recommends • total
daily inhalation rale of 20 m'/day, |5 m'/day of which is indoor eipoturt. The remaining portion
(5 m'/day) is assumed lo result from outdoor cipocurc. ChiM inhatalioo rale* are •pproiimately
the same ('Itxposure Factors Handbook' I2PA/MX)/M9/(M3, 7/89).
•Standard Default llxpoturc Factors* (OSWBR Directive 92ftS.M>3 (3/25/91).
30 year cupoKure is 90th perrenlile amount of lime residing in one location ('Risk Assessment
Guidance for Suptrfund-Volume 1: llunran Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)* EP A/540/ 1-
R9/002, 12/89, (RA(iS)).
RAGS, I2/R9.
Conventional averaging lime (RAGS, 12/89).
,'*?'•
-------
55
6.3- TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
Toxicity values are used in conjunction with the results of the
exposure assessment to characterize Site risk. EPA has developed
critical toxicity values for carcinogens and noncarcinogens.
Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime.
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CSFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg/day) "1,
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen,
in mg/kg/day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the CSF. Use of this conservative
approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly
unlikely. Cancer slope Factors are derived from the results of
human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to
which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors"have
been applied. The CSFs for oral ingestion and inhalation
exposure to the contaminants of concern at the Site are contained
in Table 6-15.
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 can be
compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological
studies or animal studies to which 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. The RfDs for oral ingestion
and inhalation exposure to the contaminants o'f concern at the
Site are contained in Table 6-15. The following information
corresponds with the alphabets located in the "Weight of Evidence
Category' obi man of the table.
Group ft - Human Carcinogen; Group B - Probable Human
Carcinogen (Bl - limited evidence from epidemiologic
studies; B2 - Sufficient evidence from animal studies and
inadequate or no data from epidemiologic studies); Group C
- Possible Human Carcinogen; Group D - Not Classifiable as
to Human Carcinogenicity and Group NE - Evidence of Non-
Carcinocenicity for humans.
-------
CHRONIC RJirF.RP.NCU UOSI-S (RIVi) AND CANCIIR SLOPH FACTORS (SFt) TOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (COO)
Chemical
2-Uulanonc
1,1-Dichloroelhane
(I.I-DCA)
l,l-[)ichloroclhylene
(I.I-DCG)
1,2-Pichloroclhylenc'
(1,2-DCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroclhane
(I.U-TCA)
4-Melhyl 2 jxnlanooc
(< M-2-P)
Acetone
Ikniene
Bistf-elhylheryl).
phlhaUle (OEIIP)
Carbon Diiulfide
Qilorofbnn
"•*•**-
EUhytbtiuene
Oral
Reference Doce
(n.g/.^y)
O.OJ1
O.I
0.009
0.02
0.092
O.OS1
01
0.02
O.I
0.01
O.I
O.I
Uncertainly
and Modifying
Paclon
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
100
1000
1000
1000
Inhalation
Reference Do*e
0.09
O.I
ND
ND
0.3
0.02
ND
ND
0.0028
ND
ND
0.29
Uncertainly
and Modifying
Factors
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
300
On)
Slope Factor
(mfAtvdy) '
1
ND
0.6
0.029
0.014 .
0.0061
Inhalation
Slope Factor
-------
CHRONIC RI!F1!RI!NCI! DOSI-S (Rm») AND CANCT.R SLOPE FACTORS (SI'*) I:OR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCRRN (COC.) AND Ollll-K CIIIlMlfAI-S
CONSIIX-RJil) IN Till! OASRLINIi RISK ASSliSSMCOT
Chemirtl
Pnlychlorinilcd
niphcnyli (PCI)J)
l"yren«
Telrarhlonxlhylene
(PCP.)
Toluene
Trichloroclhylene
.Xylenct
Antimony
Arwnif
Barium
Beryllium
°— '
Chromium (irfvtlcni)
'Oral
Reference Dose
ND
0.0)
0.01
02
ND
2
0.0004
0.000)
005
0.005
00005
ler)
1
UncerUinly
•nd Modifying
Firtore
1000
1000
1000
too
1000
3
100
too
10
1000
Inhalitkm
Reference Dow
(mg/kj-dy)
ND
ND
ND
0.37
ND
0086
ND
ND
0.0001
ND
ND
5^7
Uncertainly II Oral
and Modifying II Slope Factor
Ftclon II (mg/kg-dy) '
100
100
1000
•
300
7.7
i
O.OS1
O.OII1
1.75
4.3
ND
Inhdilkm
Slope Pxtor
ND
0.00182
O.OI71
IS
8.4
"
^«
idHP iv
Weigh) of
Evidence
C*te|ory
02
D
02
D
D2
D
NF.
A
NE
02
Bl
NC v
1
c
o
u
I
v£>
U
-------
CM RONIC REFERENCE DOSES (R/Dj) AND CANCER SLOPE FACTORS (SFs) POR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCERN (COCs) AND OTHER CHEMICALS
CONSIDERED IN THE BASELINE RJSK ASSESSMENT
i
00
Chemical
Chromium (hci.ivalenl)
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nirkcl
Selenium
Vanadium
Thallium
Zinc
Orel
Reference Dose
(mg/kg^Jy)
0.005
0.037'
ND
O.I
0.02
0.005
0.007
0.00007
(soluble ulls)
0.2
Uncertainty
tnd Modifying
Factors
500
NA
1
300
3
100
3000
to
Inhalation
Reference Dose
(mg/kg-dy)
5&07
ND
ND
0.0001
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Uncertainly
and Modifying
Factors
300
900
Oral
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-dy)-1
ND
0.84
(refinery dust)
Inhalation
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-dy)-1
41
ND
ND
Weight of
Evidence
Category
A
D
B2
D
A
D
D
NA
D
I. Values are presented for trans-I.Z-dichloroeihylene (1-1,2-DCE). Site was analyzed for total 1,2-DCR.
2. The toxicity value for this chemical has been recently withdrawn by EPA for further evaluation. The value presented is from the EPA'f Health Effect! AncHmenl Summary Tables.
3. Calculated from the drinking water standard of 1.3 mg/L i
ND
Not developed; NE
Not evaluated; NA
Not applicable
.; ••/. . v
All values from this table were obtained (ram BPA'l Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) accessed on January 22-25, 1992. If IRIS dkj not eoiisitto MUcity values, BPA's Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables, FY-91 (OERR 9200.H-303 (91-1), January 1991, was consulted. . i
The following chemicals were selected as chemicals of Interest in some or all media, but do nol possess loxiciry values with which lo perform in usessment: 2-heiinone, iluminum, calcium,
cobalt, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium.
-------
59
6.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Human health risks are characterized for potential carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic effects by combining exposure and toxicity
information. Excessive lifetime cancer risks are determined by
multiplying the estimated daily intake level with the cancer
potency factor. These risks are probabilities that are generally
expressed in scientific notation (e.g., IxlO"6) . An excess
lifetime cancer risk of IxlO"6 indicates that, as a plausible'
upper bound, an individual has a one in one million additional
(above their normal risk) chance of developing cancer as a result
of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the assumed specific exposure conditions at a Site.
The Agency considers individual excess cancer risks in the range
of 1x10"* to IxlO"6 as protective; however the IxlO"6 risk level is
generally used as the point of departure for setting cleanup
levels at Superfund Sites. The point of departure risk actions
that result in risks at the more protective end of the risk
range.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard
quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake derived from
the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the
contaminant's reference dose). A HQ which exceeds one (1)
indicates that the daily intake from a scenario exceeds the
chemical's reference dose. By adding the HQs for all
contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a given
population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can
be generated. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. An HI which
exceeds unity indicates that there may be a concern- for potential
health effects resulting from the cumulative exposure to multiple
contaminants within a single medium or across media.
The health risks resulting from exposure to the current pathways
are as follows:
Overall, the baseline risk assessment indicates the unacceptable
health hazards and risks are not posed to humans currently having
access to the Site. The summed upper bound cancer risks for
reasonable maximum exposures to current workers at the Site is
within the acceptable risk range and the non-carcinogenic Hazard
Index is below the comparison Hazard Index threshold value of
1.0. The overall upper bound cancer risks for reasonable maximum
exposures to trespassers, both youths and adults, is at or below
the lower.end of the risk range(1x10"6), and noncarcinogenic
Hazard Indices are below 1.0.
-------
60
The health risk resulting from exposure potential future pathway
are as follows:
The baseline risk assessment also evaluated the health impacts
associated with potential future residential development of the
manufacturing area and southern portions of the Site. When EPA
assumes residents (children and adults) are living on the Site
property itself and depend exclusively on local groundwater from
the Upper Ocala/Transition Zone as a water source, both upper
bound cancer risk (greater than 1x10"* or an increased chance of
one additional case in ten thousand) and non-cancer hazard
estimate (greater than 1.0) do exceed established acceptable risk
levels. In all cases unacceptable risks and hazards were a
result of drinking contaminated groundwater and breathing
volatile groundwater chemicals during showering. However, even
if the property were converted to residential, local shallow
groundwater would not be used because connections to the
municipal system are already available. In addition, the shallow
water-bearing zone does not produce an adequate water supply.
The plant itself is already served by city water and city sewer.
The total lifetime cancer risk for potential on-site residents in
the southern portions of the Site would be 7xlO"4 (a chance of 7
additional cancer cases in 10,000 people) which exceeds EPA's
target range. The Hazard Index for substances causing harmful
effects other than cancer would be 17 for this area, which
greatly exceeds acceptable exposure and warrants cleanup. A
summary of cancer risk and non-carcinogenic health hazard
estimates for all scenarios considered at the Site and
designation of chemicals and media for which remediation levels
were derived are presented in Table 6-16. A potential on-site
resident in the manufacturing area scenario was presented in the
FS. After review, EPA has determined that the scenario is not a
probable land use for that portion of the Site. However,
"potential on-site residents in the southern portions of the
Site" scenario shall be included with the factors used to develop
the contaminants of concern for this Site. The following table
presents each chemical that poses unacceptable risks for all
scenario considered.
6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
There are two distinct vegetation zones at the site: a maintained
grassy area on the north half of the Site and a natural-type area
on the south half. The grassy area lies to the west of the
manufacturing plant, and is periodically mowed in certain areas.
This area contains scattered areas of some hydrophytic
vegetation. Most of the hydrophytic vegetation is in a small
wetland area-«along Sylvester Road.
-------
i
^o
UJ
vO
I
Table 6-16 Summary of Cancer Risk & Non-Carcinogenic Health Hazard Estimates/Determination of Media Requiring Cleanup
RECEPTOR
Current
Worker
Adult
Trespasser
Youth
Trespasser
Potential
Adult Off-
site
Residents
Potential
On-Site
Residents
Southern
Site
MEDIUM
Soil
Sediments
Surface Water
Soil
Sediments
Surface Water
Soil
Sediments
Surface Water
Ground water
Ground water
Soil
NON-
CARCINOGENIC
• HAZARD INDEX
(all exposure routes)
0.06
0.0008
0.0002
0.3
0.005
0.03
05
0.006
0.04
0.04
17
1
CHEMICALS WITH
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
GREATER THAN 1
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Antimony, Carbon-
Disulfide
None
CLEANU
P LEVELS
DERIVED
?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
UPPERBOUND
CANCER RISKS
(all exposure
routes)
, 3x10*
ixia7
—
2x10*
1x10*
NA
8x10*
SxlO7
—
7x10*
7X104
SxlO4
CHEMICALS WITH A
RISK GREATER
THAN 1X10*
PCBs
None
—
None
None
NA
None
None
—
1,1-Dichloroethene,
(1,1-DCE)
Beryllium, 1,1-DCE
None
i,.,,-' v
CLEANUP
LEVELS
DERIVED?
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
-------
62
The grassy area contains mainly Bahia grass and some hydrophytic
vegetation, including reed grass, maidencane, sedges, rushes and
mild water pepper. The wetland areas of the southern half
contain such species as black willow, water oak, southern
bayberry and cattail. The other large wetland area in the
southeastern section of the Site contains the largest and most
mature trees on the Site. Trees in this area include slash pine,
water oak, laurel oak and black oak.
The fauna on and around the Site observed during the RI/FS
include, but are not limited to, mammals such as the white-tailed
deer, raccoon, gray fox, gray squirrel and eastern cottontail
rabbit; birds such as the common crow, mourning dove, bobwhite
quail, turkey vulture, kiildeer, cattle egret, blue jay and
marking bird; reptiles such as the gopher tortise; amphibians
such as the green frog; and pond macroinvertebrates such as water
boatmen, water striders and dragonflies. Faunal observations at
the Site included visual observations of the animal, or any signs
of the animal such as tracks, nests or song.
In general, adverse impacts to aquatic, avian and mammalian
environmental receptors are unlikely. Surface water and sediment
chemical concentrations are generally below comparison values and
concentrations of chemicals in soils were unlikely to pose a
significant food chain impact under current Site conditions.
Although some isolated elevated concentrations of zinc and
chromium were detected in sediments, the lack of sustained bodies
of water and, therefore, the lack of widespread aquatic receptors
suggests that the impact of these concentrations is likely to be
limited.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
The cleanup alternatives considered for both soil and groundwater
in the Feasibility Study (FS) are discussed below, and the
criteria EPA uses to evaluate the options are discussed in
Section 8.
7.1 Alternatives for Groundwater Remediation
Groundwater Alternative A: No Action
In this groundwater alternative, no further cleanup action would
be taken. EPA is required by the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) to use this option as
the baseline.£against which others are compared. This alternative
is not protective of the groundwater and will not achieve ARARs.
There would be no cost for this alternative.
-------
63
Groundwater Alternative B: Institutional Controls
Alterative B would consist of institutional controls, such as
deed restrictions or well drilling bans, in combination with
groundwater monitoring. This alternative would reduce any
potential health risks associated with contaminated groundwater.
Deed restrictions would be placed on the contaminated area to
prohibit the installation of new water supply wells. The
potential for cross-contaminating of the lower groundwater zones
and increasing the hydraulic gradient would be prevented by
prohibiting the installation of new wells. This alternative
would provide for natural attenuation of contaminants to restore
groundwater quality. Groundwater sampling and analysis for
identified contaminants of concern would be performed quarterly
in the courtyard area and at the boundary of the contaminated
area. The results from the groundwater monitoring would be used
to determine the effectiveness of natural attenuation as a
remedial option and to assess potential contaminant migration. A
review of the groundwater data collected at the Site would be
evaluated quarterly until contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater no longer exceed groundwater cleanup levels for three
consecutive sampling events. The total cost to implement this
remedy is estimated at $334,500.
Groundwater Alternative C: Institutional Controls/Containment
Groundwater Alternative C would consist of the same controls and
monitoring as B with.containment. This would involve installing
an asphalt cap over portions of the courtyard area and any
necessary drainage controls. Drainage controls would provide
additional protection from infiltration and damage to the cap.
Deed restrictions and groundwater monitoring would be implemented
as described for Alterative B to monitor movement and the
effectiveness of natural attenuation of groundwater. Groundwater
sampling and analysis for identified contaminants of concern
would be performed quarterly in the courtyard area and at the
boundary of the contaminated area.. The results from the
groundwaterrjmonitoring would be used to determine the
effectiveness of natural attenuation and containment as a
remedial option and to assess potential contaminant migration. A
review of the groundwater data collected at the Site would be
evaluated quarterly until contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater no longer exceed groundwater cleanup levels for three
consecutive sampling events. The estimated cost is $611,500 for
this alternative.
-------
64.
Groundwater Alternative D: Controls, Pump & On-site Treatment
with Discharge to POTW
This alternative would include the same controls and monitoring
as Alterative B in addition to pumping contaminated groundwater
and treating it using air stripping on-site. Extraction of
groundwater would be accomplished by installing pumps in the
courtyard area monitoring wells in which contaminants have been
detected above the cleanup levels. The installation of
additional wells may be required to adequately extract the
contaminated groundwater. The location and number of wells in
the manufacturing area depends on the areal extent of
contamination, area of influence produced by each well, and the
variability in pneumatic permeability around the manufacturing
area. Some pilot-scale treatability work would likely be
required to complete the design of the air stripping system. The
extracted groundwater would be pumped through any necessary
solids removal system to remove suspended and/or dissolved solids
(including metals) and through the air stripping system to remove
VOC's. The treated groundwater would be discharged through the
existing sewer system to the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW) after all discharge requirements are met. Groundwater
sampling and analysis for identified contaminants of concern
would be performed quarterly in the courtyard area and at the
boundary of the contaminated area. The results from the
groundwater monitoring would be used to determine the
effectiveness of the treatment system as a remedial option and to
assess potential contaminant migration. A review of the
groundwater data collected at the Site would be evaluated
quarterly until contaminant concentrations in the groundwater no
longer exceed groundwater cleanup levels for three consecutive
years. Groundwater cleanup levels are expected to be achieved
within thirty years. The emissions from the air stripping system
would meet all State and Federal air quality requirements
relating to the treatment system. The estimated cost"for this
alternative is $1,880,000.
. 7.2 Alternatives for Soil Remediation
Alternative^ for soil which would treat the principal threats
posed by th£ PCB contamination vary by treatment, quantities and
characteristics of the residuals and untreated wastes.
Soil Alternative A: No Action
No action would be taken to address PCBs remaining in the soil
above 10 mg/l|g at no further cost. The NCP requires using "no
action" as a basis for comparing active cleanup measures. This
alternative would not be protective and would not achieve ARARs.
-------
65.
Soil Alternative B: institutional Controls
Alt-ernative B would use deed restrictions on the Site for future
and present land use as a control to reduce the risks posed by
PCBs at the Site. In conjunction with deed restrictions, a
security fence would be constructed around the contaminated area
to reduce the possibility of ingestion or direct contact with the
PCBs. A monitoring well(s) would be installed and sampled to
determine if the PCBs were moving to the groundwater. The
estimated cost is $82,500.
Soil Alternative C: Controls and Containment
Alterative C would use the same controls and monitoring as B in
addition to containment to reduce potential health risks
associated with the PCBs in soils. The fencing would reduce the
possibility of direct contact with the PCBs. Containment would
include the construction of an asphalt cap over the contaminated
area. The cap design would include drainage controls at an
estimated cost of $123,200.
Soil Alternative D: Excavation/Off-Site Disposal
Soil Alternative D would include excavation of the contaminated
soil above 10 ppm and transportation to an off-site Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA)-permitted landfill. Excavation
would be done by conventional construction equipment and loaded
into a lined, covered roll-off containers or dump trucks. The
excavated area would be backfilled with clean fill material.
Total cost is estimated at $56,200.
Soil Alternative E: Solvent Extraction/On-Site Disposal of
Treated Soil/Off-Site Disposal of PCBs~
This alternative would involve excavation, treatment, and on-site
disposal of the treated soil. A solvent extraction process would
be used to £reat the contaminated soils on-site. This treatment
involves reaving PCBs from the excavated soil. Extracting the
PCBs may rejgiiire more than one stage to reduce PCB concentrations
in the soilNiio less than 2 mg/kg so they will be acceptable for
on-site disposal with no additional controls. Recovered PCBs
would be placed in appropriate containers and shipped off-site
for disposal at a TSCA-permitted facility. The estimated cost is
$214,800 for this alternative.
8.0 SUMMARY OF4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A detailed comparative analysis was performed on the five soil
alternatives and four groundwater alternatives during the FS
-------
66
using the nine evaluation criteria set forth in the NCP. -The
advantages and disadvantages were compared to identify the
alt-ernative .with the best balance among these nine criteria.
The NCP categorizes the none criteria into three groups:
(1) Threshold Criteria - overall protection of human health
and the environment and compliance with ARARs (or
invoking a waiver) are the threshold criteria that must
be satisfied in order for an alternative to be eligible
for selection;
(2) Primary Balancing Criteria - long-term effectiveness
and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume; short-term effectiveness; implementability and
cost are primary balancing factors used to weigh major
trade-offs among alternative hazardous waste management
strategies; and
(3) Modifying Criteria - state and community acceptance are
modifying criteria that are formally taken into account
after public comment is received on the proposed plan
and incorporated in the ROD.
The selected alternative must meet the threshold criteria and
comply with all ARARs or be granted a waiver for compliance with
ARARs. Any alternative that does not satisfy both of these
requirements is not eligible for selection. The Primary
Balancing Criteria are the technical criteria upon which the
detailed analysis is primarily based. The final two criteria,
known as Modifying Criteria, assess the public's and the state
agency's acceptance of the alternative. Based on these final two
criteria, EPA may modify aspects of a specific alternative.
The following analysis is a summary of evaluation of Alternatives
for remediating the contamination found at the Firestone Site
under each of the criteria. A comparison is made between each of
the alternatives for achievement of a specific criterion.
THRESHOLD GRJTKRIA
8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health & Environment addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks are eliminated, reduced/ or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls or institutional
controls. Criteria used to evaluate the protectiveness of an
alternative included the following: (1) no cancer risks from
exposure to g'roundwater with concentrations that exceed MCLs; (2)
no significant risks of threshold toxic effect (HI less than 1) ;
and (3) no significant risk or adverse impact on the environment.
-------
67
Groundwater Alternative A would not protect human health or .the
environment from the potential risks posed by the groundwater
contamination at the Site. Alternatives B and C would provide
protection to human health by reducing the potential for
ingesting groundwater through deed restrictions. In addition, C
would reduce movement of contaminants into the deeper aquifer
which is a water supply source. Groundwater extraction in D
would provide additional protection through treatment of
groundwater to remove the contamination.
Since Groundwater Alternative A does not eliminate, reduce or
control any of the exposure pathways, it is therefore not
protective of human health or the environment and will not be
considered further in this analysis.
Soil Alternative A would not protect human health or the
environment from risks posed by the PCBs in the soil or meet
cleanup levels. Alternatives B and C would provide some
protection by reducing the potential for direct contact with
contaminants. The cap under Alternative C would provide
additional protection for. the environment by reducing the
penetration of water through the source area. This would reduce
the'potential for contaminants to move into the groundwater. A
long-term risk would exist under C because the contaminants would
be contained rather than destroyed. Alternatives D and E would
provide the most protection for human health and the environment
by removing contaminants from the Site. Solvent extraction would
treat the contaminated soils in E. Alternatives D and E would
meet cleanup levels.
Since Soil Alternative A does not eliminate, reduce or control
.any of the exposure pathways, it is therefore not protective of
human health or the environment and will not be considered
further in this analysis.
8.2 Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will
meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other Federal and State environmental and/or
provide grounds for a waiver. The identified ARARs for this Site
are listed in Section 10.2.
Groundwater Alternative A would not provide a way to evaluate
compliance with the chemical-specific cleanup requirements.
Action-specific requirements would not be applicable to A because
no cleanup action would be taken. Alternatives B, C and D would
comply with health and environmental requirements. There are no
location specific requirements applicable to the Site.
The 10 mg/kg*TSCA action level is appropriate as a PCB cleanup
•level for Site soils. No location-specific requirements are
appropriate to this Site. Soil Alternative A would not meet any
-------
68
standards because no action would be taken. Alternative B,.
Controls, would not meet any requirements because no active
mea-sures wou-ld be included. Alternatives C, D and E would comply
with all federal and state action-specific requirements.
Since Soil Alternative B would not comply with the TSCA action
level, it will not be considered further in this analysis.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
8.3- Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to expected
residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup levels have been achieved. This criterion includes the
consideration of residual risk and adequacy and reliability of
controls.
Groundwater Alternative B would provide a means to measure change
in contamination and would provide additional protection of human
health by restricting future use of the property. Alternative C
would provide long-term effectiveness and permanence and would
also serve to reduce movement of contaminants through
containment. Alterative D would best reduce long-term risk
through extraction and treatment of groundwater.
Proper maintenance of the cap in Alternative C should ensure
long-term reliability. In addition under this alternative,
monitoring would provide a way to measure the effectiveness of
the cap. Alternatives D and E would have better long-term
effectiveness and permanence because the contamination would be
removed from the Site.
8.4 Reduction Toxicity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies a remedy may employ.
No contaminated groundwater would be treated under Alternatives B
pr C. Thus, Deduction in toxicity mobility or volume would only
result throtiigh the passive means of natural processes.
Alternative G would result in additional reduction in contaminant
mobility by preventing rain from penetrating the cap. The
toxicity, mobility and volume would be reduced by Alternative D
at an accelerated pace by active means.
Soil Alternative C would not reduce toxicity or volume, but
would reduce the potential for movement of contaminants to the
groundwater. *The toxicity, mobility and volume of the
contaminants would be effectively reduced in Alternatives D and E
by excavating the contaminated soil and treating it either on or
-------
69
off-site. Alterative E would provide the only on-site treatment
remedy for the Site.
8.5 Short-Term Effectiveness refers to the period of time needed
to complete the remedy and any adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation of the remedy until cleanup levels are achieved.
Groundwater contamination currently exceeds cleanup levels at the
boundary of the manufacturing area. Risks during cleanup under
Groundwater Alternatives B, C and D would be minimal. Risk to
Site workers would be somewhat higher, but this risk would be
reduced by compliance with health and safety regulations.
The short-term risk to the public and the environment under Soil
Alternatives C, D and E would be minimal. Risks to Site workers
would be somewhat greater, but this risk would be reduced by
compliance with health and safety regulations.
8.6 Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
Groundwater Alternatives B, C and D would be the same with
respect to implementability because the technologies, the
materials, and services required are readily available for each.
The overall effectiveness of these alternatives would be
determined by sampling the groundwater at the Site and in
addition for D to monitor the treated effluent.
Soil Alternative C would require working with state and local
government to establish and enforce the deed restrictions.
Capping, as specified under C, is a conventional and widely used
method for containing contamination.- However, C might be
difficult to implement, as it could affect growth of the
facility. Alternative D would be relatively easy to implement
because excavation is a widely used and proven method for
removing contamination. The last alternative would be difficult
to implement^',due to the relatively complex nature of on-site
treatment fot the small volume of soils to be treated.
Treatability studies would be required during design for E to
insure that solvent extraction would work effectively.
8.7 Cost - The total costs associated with Alterative B would
be lower than Alterative C or D. The total present worth cost of
Alternative § is $334,500, and the total present worth of C is
$611,500; while* the present worth of D is $1,980,000.
Only Alternative C would require operation and maintenance costs
-------
70
after the cleanup was completed. The total cost of Alternative C
is estimated :at $123,200; D's total cost would be $56,200, and
the-estimated cost for E would be $214,800.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
8.8 State Acceptance - EPA and GAEPD have cooperated throughout
the RI/FS process. The State has participated in the development
of the RI/FS through comment on each of the planning and "decision
documents developed by EPA, and the Proposed Plan and the Draft
ROD and through frequent contact between the EPA and the GAEPD
Site project managers. GAEPD concurs with EPA on the remedy
selection to remediate the contaminated media at the Firestone
Site.
8.9 Community Acceptance - Based on comments received during the
January 12, 1993 public meeting and the lack of negative comments
received during the comment period, it appears that the Albany
community generally agrees with the selected remedy.
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the CERCLA requirements, the detailed
analysis of the alternatives using the nine criteria, and public
comment, EPA has selected Groundwater Alterative D (Pump and
Treat) and Soil Alternative D (Off-Site Disposal) to reduce risk
at the Firestone Tire and Rubber Site.
This preferred alterative will permanently treat the remaining
threats at the Site. It will be fully protective,
cost-effective, and attain all Federal and State requirements.
9.1 Performance Standards
(1) Soil Treatment
Soil contaminated with concentrations of PCBs that exceed 10 ppm
(approximately 20 cubic yards) shall be excavated and transported
.to a TSCA permitted landfill. The excavated area will be
backfiled with clean fill material.
(2) Groundwater Treatment
Groundwater extraction and treatment system shall be constructed
by installing pumps in monitoring wells in which contaminants
have been detected above the cleanup levels. The installation of
additional wells may be required to adequately extract the
-------
71
contaminated groundwater. The location, type and number of pumps
and wells required to extract the contaminated groundwater will
be -determined during the Remedial Design. The extracted
groundwater would be pumped through any necessary solids removal
system to remove suspended and/or dissolved solids (including
metals) and through the air stripping system to remove VOCs. The
treated groundwater would be discharged through the existing
sewer system to the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
after all discharge requirements are met. If the POTW discharge
becomes unavailable, EPA may amend the ROD to allow discharge to
surface water. If EPA deems necessary, additional air strippers
and/or monitoring wells will be installed as part of the remedial
action to ensure compliance with the cleanup levels of the
selected remedy.
The groundwater extraction system will continue to operate until
cleanup levels for the contaminants of concern are reached
throughout the contaminated area.
The Residuum aquifer and the Floridan aquifer (referred to in
some of the documents as the Residuum, Transition Zone and upper
and lower Ocala aquifers) will be treated until the cleanup
levels for the contaminants, as listed below are attained.
Contaminant Cleanup Type of
Level Regulation
Antimony 6 ug/1 SDWA MCL
Beryllium 4 ug/1 SDWA MCL
Benzene 5 ug/1 SDWA MCL
Carbon Disulfide 56 ug/1 Hazard Index = I
'* Chromium 100 ug/1 SDWA MCL
1,1-DCE 7 ug/1 SWDA MCL
PCBs 0.5 ug/1 SWDA MCL
Lead 15 ug/1 Action Level
1,1,1-TCA 200 ug/1 SDWA MCL
• "s£ *' -
'<
Cleanup level based on Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),
cancer Risk of increased chance of cancer of 1 case in
1,000,000 people (lxlO~6), Hazard Index of 1 (dosage not
causing adverse effects), or Action Level depending on
whether MCLs have been established.
* Contaminant added after the Proposed Plan was issued.
A
Although Chromium was not included as a contaminant of
• concern in the Proposed Plan, the information used to
include Chromium is a part of the FS and is contained in the
-------
72
Administrative Record. Chromium was found on-site in the
groundwater at concentrations above the MCL (100 ug/1) and
- therefore EPA is adding it as a contaminant of concern. EPA
has determined that this is not a significant change because
the original remedy already addresses metals in the
groundwater and EPA believes this remedy will also address
the Chromium in the groundwater.
This ROD requires sampling and analysis during the remedial .
design to further define the background groundwater
concentrations of the inorganic contaminants. If, based on that
information, the background concentration for an inorganic
contaminant exceeds the SDWA MCL, EPA will reexamine whether
compliance with SDWA MCL continues to be appropriate for the
inorganic contaminants. The true background for inorganics at
this Site will be determined by collecting additional groundwater
samples for at least the first year of the RD, from the original
background sampling locations using a peristaltic pump operating
at a low flow rate. This procedure will be incorporated into
the quarterly sampling activities which are currently ongoing.
The operation of the peristaltic pump may become ineffective at
depths below 20 ft. If this situation occurs, the groundwater
samples will be collected in accordance with the Region^IV
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual used
during the RI/FS activities If EPA deems it necessary,
additional wells will be installed off-site to determine if the
elevated concentrations of the inorganic contaminants of concern
are a result of past facility activities.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction and
.treatment until established cleanup levels are achieved. During
the operation of the treatment system, performance will be
carefully monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted
by the performance data collected during operation. The
operating system may include:
a) discontinuing operation of extraction wells in areas where
cleanup levels have been attained;
b) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points;
and
c) pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to
encourage adsorbed contaminants to partition into
groundwater.
To ensure that cleanup levels continue to be maintained, the
aquifer will^be monitored at those wells where pumping has ceased
on an occurrence of at least every 5 years following the
discontinuation of groundwater extraction.
-------
73
All extracted groundwater shall be' treated to levels which allow
for discharge to a POTW.
All air emissions from the air stripper(s) shall be in compliance
with Federal and State CAA standards. The method of control of
off-gas emissions, if determined necessary during RD, will be
included in the RD Report(s).
(3) Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be placed on well construction and
use in the contaminated area. No well will be located,
constructed or operated which results in the diminution of the
extraction wells at the Site or in the degradation of the
contaminated aquifers. Institutional controls will also restrict
the use of groundwater containing or potentially containing
levels of contamination in excess of MCLs by prohibiting the use
of on-site groundwater in any manner resulting in human ingestion
or contact. The well restrictions and groundwater controls shall
remain in effect until EPA determines that the cleanup levels
have been attained. Institutional controls shall also include
deed restrictions and record notices placed in the chain of title
for the Site in accordance with State law.
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, EPA must select remedies that are
protective of human health and the environment, comply with
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (unless a
statutory waiver is justified), are cost-effective, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility or hazardous wastes as- their
principal element. The following sections discuss how the remedy
meets these statutory requirements.
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human and the environment by
excavating the soil contaminated with PCB concentrations that
exceed 10 ppm and transporting the material to a TSCA permitted
landfill; groundwater extraction and treatment via air stripping;
and institutional controls. The selected remedy provides
protection of human health and the environment by eliminating,
reducing, or controlling risk through treatment, and/or
engineering controls.
-------
74
10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Remedial actions performed under CERCLA must comply with all
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). All
alternatives considered for the Firestone Site were evaluated on
the basis of the degree to which they complied with these
requirements. The selected remedy was found to meet or exceed
the following ARARs.
Chemical-Specific ARARs:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs^
(42 U.S.C. § 1412 (§ 300g-l); 40 C.F.R. 141.61 and 141.80) have
been set as enforceable standards for public drinking water
systems. These standards are relevant and appropriate to the
groundwater remediation at the Site.
Clean Water Act (CWA) Federal Water Quality Criteria (33 U.S.C. §
1314(a)(l)(§ 304(a)(l)) are effluent limitations that must meet
Best Available Technology(BAT). These standards may be relevant
and appropriate to the discharge of water at the Site.
Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatments Works (POTWs) are subject
to the requirements of section 307 of the Clean Water Act. These
requirements may be applicable to discharge of the treated
groundwater.
Clean Air Act fCAA^ National Ambient Air Quality Standards (42
U.S.C. § 7409 (§ 109); 40 C.F.R. Part 50) establishes emissions
standards, monitoring and testing requirements, and reporting
requirements for eight pollutants in air emissions. These
standard may be applicable to the operation of the air stripper
at this Site.
Toxic Substances Control Act fTSCAl 15 U.S.C. § 2601; (40 C.F.R.
Part 761.120 to 761.135) authorizes EPA to establish regulations
to control selected chemical substances or mixtures that pose an
imminent hazard.
Location-Specific ARARs
'-.»!•
CAA National>^«rt->*«»TH-. Air Quality Standards (42 U.S.C. S 7409
(§109); 40C.F.R. Part 50) establishes emission standards to
protect public health and public welfare. The standards are
national limitations on ambient air intended to protect health
and welfare. The standards may be applicable for the operation
of the air stripper at the Site.
Georgia Water'^Quality Control Act (Code of Georgia, Title 12,
Chapter 5) oversees the quality and quantity of the state's water
resources. Authorizes the Georgia EPD to establish water quality
-------
75
standards and issue discharge permits and is applicable to the
discharge of the treated groundwater.
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act (Code of Georgia/ Title 12
Chapter 8, Article 3, including Georgia Rules for Hazardous Waste
Management, 391-3-11-.01,.02,.03,.07,.08,. 12,. 13, . 16) which
establishes standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste
in the State of Georgia. These regulations may be applicable if
residuals from the air stripper contain concentrations of
hazardous waste at levels to be considered a generator.
Georgia Air Quality Act (Code of Georgia, Title 12, Chapter 9,
including Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control, 391-3-1-
.02(3)(ii)) which allows more stringent emission limitations of
other requirements if deemed necessary to safeguard the public
health, safety or welfare of the people of the State of Georgia.
The requirements are applicable to the remedial activities to be
conducted at the Site.
Action-Specific ARARs
CWA Discharge Limitations (33 U.S.C. S 1311 f§ 301); 40 C.F.R.
Parts 122, 125, 129, 133, 136 and 403) prohibits unpermitted
discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants or
combinations of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from any point
source. Standards and limitations are established for and are
applicable to the discharges of treated groundwater to a POTW and
direct discharge to surface water.
CAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (42
U.S.C. S 7412 (§ 112); 40 C.F.R. Part 61) establishes emissions
standards, monitoring and testing requirements, and reporting
requirements for pollutants in air emissions. These standards
are applicable for the operation of the air stripper at the Site.
To Be Considered Materials (TBCs)
EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy (EPA, 1984) is a policy to
restore groundwater to its beneficial uses within a time frame
that is reae&nable.
56 FR, June 7, 1991 - MCLGs & NPDWRs for Lead & Copper [Action
levels established for lead (0.015 ppm) and copper (1.3 ppm) ] in
groundwater.
City of Albany Sewer Ordinance establishes standards for
discharge in the sewer system. Any discharge of the treated
groundwater to t^he local sewer system must comply with these
ordinances.
-------
76
10.3 Cost; Effectiveness
The. selected remedy, Soil Alternative D and Groundwater
Alternative D were chosen because they provide the best balance
among criteria used to evaluate the alternatives considered in
the Detailed Analysis. These alternatives were found to achieve
both adequate protection of human health and the environment and
to meet the statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA. The
present worth cost of Soil Alternative D and Groundwater
Alternative D are $56,200 and $1,980,000 respectively and -appears
to be reasonable.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the
Extent Practicable
EPA and GAEPD have determined that the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
final ROD at the Firestone Tire and Rubber Site. Of those
alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, EPA and GAEPD have determined
that the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs
in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in
toxicity, mobility or volume achieved through treatment, short-
term effectiveness, implementability, cost, while also
considering the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element and considering State and community acceptance.
The selected remedy treats the principal threats posed by
groundwater and removes the principal threats posed by soils ,
achieving significant contaminant reductions. This remedy
provides the most cost effective treatment of any of the
alternatives considered. The selection of excavation and off-
Site disposal for the small volume of contaminated soils and
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater is
consistent with program expectations that highly toxic and mobile
wastes are a priority for treatment to ensure the long-term
effectiveness of a remedy.
' ^' "
:Jii..
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By treating the contaminated groundwater by air stripping, the
selected remedy addresses the principal threats posed by the Site
through the use of treatment technologies. By utilizing
treatment as a significant portion of the remedy, the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element is satisfied.
-------
01 Naiurai resources
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1252. Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Joe 0. Tanner. Commissioner
Harold F. Reheis. Director
Environmental Protection Division
June 21, 1993
Mr. Richard D. Green
Associate Director
Superfund and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
B»A - RES1C* t»
ATLANTA. «A.
RE: Record of Decision
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company Site
Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia
May 21, 1993
Dear Mr. Green:
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has reviewed the above referenced
document and concurs with the Record of Decision and the Environmental Protection Agency's
selected remedial action for the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company Site.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please contact Bill Mundy at (404) 656-7802.
Sincerely,
Harold F. Reheis
Director
HFR/dmb
r:\doaVfucs(o3.1tr
------- |