United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-93/154
September 1993
*EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Chem-Form, FL
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-93/154
3. Recipient's Accession No.
Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Chem-Form, FL
Second Remedial Action - Final
5. Roport OH*
09/16/93
Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Nam*.and Addra
10 Project TaakWork Unit No.
11. Contraet(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(6)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* 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
PB94-964042
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 4-acre Chein-Form site is a former manufacturing facility located in Pompano Beach,
Broward County, Florida. Land use in the area is predominantly commercial and
industrial. Another Superfund site, the Wilson Concepts site is located immediately
adjacent to the east of the Chem-Form property. The site is fenced and includes a
50,866 square-foot building. The nearest residence is located approximately one-half
mile"from the site. The Pompano-Cypress Creek Canal lies approximately 3,000 feet
south of the Site and flows east toward the Biscayne Bay. The Site overlies the
Biscayne Aquifer, which supplies all potable water for Broward County and has been
designated as a sole-source aquifer. Since 1967, various manufacturing activities have
been conducted at the site, primarily related to the machining of precision parts for
the aerospace industry. While manufacturing activities conducted at the Site have
remained relatively similar, ownership of the site changed hands several times between
1967 and 1986. From 1967 to 1976, a division of KMS Industries named "Chem-Form"
operated as a certified station for the repair and refurbishment of turbine engine
components, and manufactured electrochemical machining equipment and precision machined
metal parts. These operations generated waste and spent materials such as cutting
oils, organic solvents from metal cleaning, solvents used in fiberglassing and painting
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Chem-Form, FL
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiars/Open-Endad Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
44
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Rtverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
y rms-35)
ent of Commtree
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Dapartman
-------
" -
\
EPA/ROD/R04-93/l54
Chern-Form, FL
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
operations, metal-bearing electrolyte solutions, and process wastewater. Process
wastewater was discharged along with sanitary sewage to a septic tank and associated drain
field on the south side of the building. Other wastewater was discharged to an open
trench in the open field on the west side of the building. In August 1985, EPA conducted
an onsite screening investigation and noted 19 drums outside the building, two of which
were found to be leaking, as well as 47 other drums and four steel tanks in the shop yard
containing various quantities of oil and sludge. A two-phase removal action was conducted
by the PRPs in 1990 and 1991 to remove the drums and any contaminated soil that might
potentially affect the ground water, respectively. A 1992 ROD addressed potentially
contaminated ground water at the site, as OU1. This ROD addresses a final remedy for the
onsite contaminated soil, as OU2. Based on the results of the RI and the Risk Assessment
that were conducted, EPA has concluded that previous removal and remedial actions have
fully addressed site contamination; therefore, there are no con~aminants of concern
affecting the site.
The selected remedial action for this site includes no further action. Based on the
results of the RI and the Risk Assessment, as well as the removal action that was
previously been conducted to reduce soil contamination levels, EPA has determined that no
further action is necessary to protect human health and the environment. There are no
present worth or O&M costs associated with this no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
j
DECLARATION FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Operable Unit Two
Chemform, Ine. Site
Pompano Beach, Florida
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Chemform, Inc.
Site in Pompano Beach, Florida. The remedy for Operable Unit Two of the site was
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 42 U.S.e. Section 9601 et.seq., and to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CPR Part 300. This decision is
based on the administrative record file for this site. '
In accordance with 40 CFR 300.430, the State of Florida, as represented by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), has been the support agency during
the Remedial Investigation process for the Chemform site. Based upon comments
received £rom FDEP, EP A does not anticipate that concurrence on this Record of
Decision will be forthcoming; however, EP A has not yet received ~ formal letter of
nonconcurrence.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELEL"! HD REMEDY
This remedy applies to Operabie Unit Two at the site which pertains to the site-
related soil contamination. Due to an extensive cleanup of the site related
contaminant sources, and a significant reduction in soil contaminant levels, no further
Superfund action is necessary to address Operable Unit Two at the site.
DECLARATION SI'ATEMENT
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment conducted
for Operable Unit Two at the Chemform, Ine. site, EP A has determined that no
further action is necessary to ensure ~e protection of human health and the
environment, and that the selected remedy ~ Protective 'of human health and the
environment. "The five-year review will not apply to this actiQn because this remedy
,
-------
..
will not result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels.
EP A has determined that with the exception of quarterly groundwater monitoring as
part of Operable Unit One, its response at this site is complete. Therefore, the site
now qualifies for inclusion on the Construction Completion List.
G~}11~
Patrick M Tobin, Acting Regional Administrator
.0
9-/(...9:1
Date
. .
-------
.,,{
Record of Decision
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
.'
Operable Unit Two
Chemform, Ine. Site
Pompano Beach, Florida
Prepared by:
U.s. Environmental ProtectiOn Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-: .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description.........................1
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities.....................1
3.0 Highlights of Community Participation.....................5
.'
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit................................6
5.0 Summary of Site Characteristics.__------_:"'--____6
5.1 Clim.a.te.....-..---......--------------......__.....6
5.2 Surface Hydrology ..............................................6
5.3 Geology and Hydrogeology........._--_.............9
5.4 Results of the Remedial Investigation...........10
6.0 Summary of Site Risks.........--..-..------........-_......14
6.1 Contaminants of Concem._____---_____.14
6.2 Exposure Assessment._---_------______15
6.2.1 Current Land Use._-------______15
6.2.2 Future Land Use..--..-..---.............15
6.3 Toxicity Assessment.._____--____~..21
6.4 Risk 0\aracteriza.tion....._._~--_......................26
6.5 Environmental Assessment (EA)....................33
7.0 Description of the
"No Further Action" Altemative._-----------_.33
8.0 Documentation of Significant Diflerences.---.33
-i-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5-1 Inorganics in Soils-
Before and After Excavation.................................11
. .
Table 5-2 Description of Excavation....................................13
Table 6-1 Exposure Assessment; Trespasser Scenario......16
Table 6-2 Exposure Assessment; Industrial Scenario.......17
Table 6-3 Exposure Assessment; Residential Scenario.._.18
Table 6-4 Ingestion (Oral) Toxicity Values; .
Potential Carcinogenic Effects..._....................-.22
Table 6-5 Inhalation Toxicity Values;
Potentiao Carcinogenic Effects........_..................23
Table 6-6 Ingestion (Oral) Toxicity Values;
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects.._..................24
Table 6-7 Inhalation Toxicity Values;
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects_-..--..25
Table 6-8 Cancer Risk Estimates;
Trespasser Scenario.....-..........................__..-..27
Table 6-9 Cancer Risk Estimates; .
Future Industrial Scenario._..._.__._..._~.~;~"i:~.28
0"
o "
Table 6-10 Cancer Risk Estimates;
Future Residential Scenario.".."'I""11"TI....."'~
Table 6-11 Chronic Hazard Index Estimates;
Trespasser Scenario.....,................,........ ...............30
Table 6-12 Chronic Hazard Index Estimates;
Fu.ture IndustIial Scenari01..'" ..............................31
Table 6-13 Chronic Hazard Index Estimates;
Fu.ture Residen.tial Scenario.. ,. f r 1"If"".."....."."" .1..32
. -ii-
.,
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Site Location Map..............................................2
Figure 1-2 Detailed Site Map..............................................3
Figure 5-1 Site Surface Drainage........................................7
Figure 5-2 Cyprus Creek (C-14 Canal)..............................8
Figure 5-3 Soil Excavation Map....-..-..-..--....-----...._12
Figure 6-1 Un.d Use Map.....................---..---..........__.19
Figure 6-2 Future Land Use Map.........-............-.._......_20
LIST OF APPENDIX
APPENDIX A Responsiveness Summary------_..34
."
" .
-------
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
CHEMFORM, INC. SITE
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
1.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Chemform, Ine. Site (Chemform) is located in Broward County at 1410 S.W. 8th
Street, Pompano Beach, Florida (Figure 1-1). The site is located in a commercial-
industrial area at the end of a dead-end street Immediately adjacent to and east of
Chemform is the Wilson Concepts Superfund site currently operated as a machine tool
manufacturing facility (Figure 1-2). An alley about 6-10 feet wide on the Chemform
property separates the WIlson Concepts and Chemform buildings. The site is bounded
on the west by active Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks, and on the north by S.W. 8th
Street and the National Enquirer Property. On the south side of the site is an industrial
access road and Carpenter Contractors of America, Ine., a roof truss manufacturing
facility.
Chemform occupies approximately four acres in a highly industrialized area less than
one half mile west of Interstate 95. The site is fenced and includes a 50,866 square-foot
building. The closest residential zoning lies just east of 1-95. The site is located within
the city limits of Pompano Bea~ which has a population of 72,400 (US.D.C., 1990).
The Pompano-Cypress Creek CanaIlles an estimated 3000 feet south of the site. The
Canal, operated by the South Florida Water Management Distri~ flows east toward and
connects with Biscayne Bay. Directly underlying the site is the Biscayne Aquifer, which
supplies all potable water for Broward County and has been designated as a sole-source
aquifer.
2.0
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACl1VITIES
Operations began on the site in November 1967 after construction of the original
building. Aerial photographs show the Chemform site and the area in general as
undeveloped prior to 1967. The first operation at the site was a small precision machine
shop under the name KECO, Inc., an acronym for Kismet Engineering Company.
During its initial years of operation, KECO was involved in the mac:1Uning of precision
metal parts for the aerospace industry. Later, KECO began operation of its first Electro-
Chemical Milling (BeM) ~chine. After gaining experience with the ECM machine,
KECO mnverted a standard milling machine into an ECM machine. Success with this
machine led to the design, building, and marketing of a product line of ECM machines
under the name of Chemform.
. .
.
. .
. .
1
-------
~OT TO
SCAl.E
."
N
8ROWARO COUN TY, FLORIO/,
POMPANO' 8 EACH
SI'l'E LOCA'l'IOlv HAP
CHEMFORM SITE
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
. .
Figure 1-1
2
-------
$.
H
I
I
~
w
.0 0111 . .. ... ...
','''' ,'" .... .
.,... . It II .... .
. . II I.
"" I" .. . II ...
~ ~.:.:... . . . . . .' . . . : :..,..:. ..... .. ..
.H-+~~--M--I-~: tIC:::: ~**~-:~~~"..~f(r-:-- -.....-
: :.: :~~ : . : . . ~: ." ...:. :. ::: : ~ : .. . . . . ...
. . . . I
. .
,
.. .... II
:. ": II::::::: ::1.' I
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
. .... .... fl.
. I . II ...
. . . . ..
.,
.t. ... I
"" . ........, .,, ... .1
... .. ,. ....... ..1.. ",."
. . .,...... ... ....,..... ..
-
-
--'
-
--
.-
.... ...
.... ...1"'" .,. ... II "' .
: tARP~Nr~A t(JWf'/U~r~tt$ (J1")'JI~AICJ.
.
... .... . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ... . . . .. ,
.. ...,. I. . ,., .
. . .. .... I." . . .. .
.. .. . . .... . .
-
"
. ,
-
tI
SCA LE:
40 0 JO 60 1)0 r1
) ~ ~ 1- I
o ..
.. ,
o ..
. .. .
.. .
.....
Sw 81,,\ S:P.!G
-
O.
f ...
o
. II "'
..., .
:-:
,.
.. ,
.
..
... .
, ..
II '1'
. , .
.
CllEMFORM
o
.t. .
'"
. ...+.. .-x...
urlC(
pnoPtArt eOUHOARY
.. ,
II..
" ..
., ..
....
.... .
I""
, .,."
.. ....,
- -
...........,...... --....L.-o.-...
...".....8.... ...,.,.,.,.,..... ...
. . ,. .. ,........,........,..,....
. .,. . .,.,. ., .........
.. . .. . , . . ,
':." . ., .
~ -....- ---.
. --
SW:lllli.SIIHn:.
.
.., .
I'" .
, ...
, '
. ,
... .
, ..
... .
,...., .
LEGEND:
..... .... A....
[ili)' PAVtMtNT
, ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . I
. . I . . , . . . '," , . . . . . . . . . t
. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,.
. .... .,
........ ,
...... .
..... .
..... .
..... .
........ .
....... .
."....,. .
...... .
SITE LAYOUT MAP
I
CHEMFORMSI'l'E
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
Figure
1-2
-------
On November 29, 1967, the site was sold to KMS Industries, Inc. (KMS) who then sold
the site to New England Mutual Life Insurance Company in 1969 in exchange for a long-
term lease. New England Mutual Life is the current owner of the site. Chemform, a
division of KMS, manufactured electrochemical machining equipment and precision
machined metal parts at the site from November 1967 to May 1976. Although operators
of the site changed twice more, the above-described manufacturing operation continued
until 1985. From September 1985 through October 1986, the site was subleased to a
company which operated a small-scale manufacturing business.
.
Most of Chemform's business was with the aerospace industry as a certified 'repair
station for the repair and refurbishment of turbine engine components. Chemform also
provided services to utility companies that used turbine power plants. Chemform's
other business operations consisted of the design, manufacture, and marketing of electro-
chemical machines for other industries involved in the fabrication of metal parts.
Chemform ceased operations in 1985 and has been maintained in a potential operational
status since that time with limited maintenance and upkeep. The property has
undergone extensive renovation, however, since late 1991 to prepare it for leasing.
From 1967 to 1985, Chemform and its predecessor operations were engaged in several
processes that generated wastes or .spent materials. Metal milling and mechanical
shaping operations required cutting oils to lubricate and cool the parts and machines
during operations. Spent cutting oils were collected in stainless-stee1 Vats and routinely
pumped out by local reprocessing contractors. Organic solvents were used for metal
cleaning. FInished metal parts which required cleaning were processed through vapor
degreasing equipment. Fiberglassing and painting operations also involved the use of
solvents for thinning and cleanup. The electro-chemical machining operation involved
a wet process which removed metal from the part being worked by using an electric
current applied in an electrolyte solution. This process produced metal-bearing
electrolyte solutions which were settled in tanks and centrifuged to remove the metal
solids. Process wastewater from ECM machine wash down and sanitary sewage"Wa$:.
discharged to a septic tank and associated drain field on the south side of the ~uilding:
Wastewaters were discharged to an open trench in the open field on the west side of the
building. According to Chemform's response to an Industrial Wastewater Questionnaire,
the company discharged about 50 gallons per day of wastewater (sodium chloride and
sodium nitrate) unti11975.
In August 1985, EP A conducted a site screening investigation at the site. This
investigation noted an outside drum rack in the paved shop yard west of the building
with 19 drums, two of which:were leaking. EP A also noted that approximately 47 other
drums were stored in the shop yard along with four stainless steel tanks containing
various quantities of oil and sludge. In July 1986, an EP A contractor, NUS Corporation,
conducted a sampling investigation. After evaluating the sampling results, EP A
Proposed the site for the National Priorities List (NPL) in July 1988~ In March 1989, the
. .
4
-------
Chemform Site was formally included on the NPL.
On October 19, 1989, EP A and the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) entered into
an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for conducting the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site.
The PRPs for the site are Chemform, Ine., New England Mutual Life Insurance
Company, KMS Industries, and Smith International, Inc.
On April 17, 1990, EP A sent the PRPs a Unilateral Administrative Order to addr~ the
removal of drums found on the Site and to investigate the effect of metal concentrations
on the groundwater. The PRPs commenced the removal action in October 1990. Based
upon the results of this initial action, EP A further ordered the PRPs to remove
contaminated soil that may potentially affect the groundwater. This second phase of the
removal action commenced in July 1991 and was completed in early 1993.
3.0
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Chemform site is located in the industrial section of Pompano Beach, Florida. The
closest residentially zoned area is east of 1-95, about 1/2 mile east of the site.
Community mterviews were conducted by EP A in February 1990 to determine public
interest in the Chemform site. The conclusion drawn from these interviews is that there
is minimal interest in the Chemform Site, probably due to the transient nature of the
local population and the industrial setting around the site. EP A held an Availability
Session at the Pompano . Beach Multipurpose Center on December 4, 1990 to provide
information and answer questions on the Remedial Investigation (RI) to be conducted
at the site. Seven people attended. Attendees of the session indicated an interest in
learning more about the site and asked numerous. quest:ions apout the Superfund
process. Minimal questions were raised regarding. site-related health and/ or
environmental concerns.
The RI, Risk Assessment, and Proposed Plan for Operable Unit Two of Chemform were
released to the public on July 22, 1993. These documents were made available in both
the administrative record and at the information repository maintained at the EP A
Records Center in Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia and at the Broward County Main Library
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The notice of availability for these two documents was
published in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel on July 15, 1993. A public comment period
was held from July 22, 1993 ~ugh August 22, 1993. In addition, a public meeting was
held on August 4, 1993. At the public meeting, which was attended by 10 people,
representatives from EP A answered questions about the findings of the RI and Risk
Assessment and EP A's Proposed Plan for the site. A response to the comments received
during this period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is Ap~~ A
I
.5
-------
of this Record of Decision. The decision for this site is based on the administrative
record. These community relations activities fulfill the statutory requirements for public
participation contained in CERCLA section 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
4.0
On April 7, 1992, EP A and the PRPs entered into the FlI'St Amendment to the AOC
dated October 19, 1989. This amendment included modifications to the AOC which
reflected the division of the Site into two operable units. Operable Unit 1 (OUl)
addressed any contamination in the groundwater at the Site that may have posed 'a risk
to the surrounding population. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) addressed the soil at the Site, the
principle site-related threat. Dividing the site into two operable units allowed for the
groundwater to ~ addressed while the removal action was ongoing for the soils.
The response action in this ROD is for om at the Site. Extensive cleanup efforts during
the remoVal action and results of the- risk assessment suggest that if no further action
were taken at this site, present site conditions would be protective of human health and
the environment. The response actions are consistent with the NCP (40 CPR Part 300). .
5.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARAcrERISTICS
5.1 CLIMATE
Pompano Beach is located in South Florida in an area dominated by tropical air masses.
The average maximum annual temperature is 82.~; the average minimum annual
temperature is ~i and the mean annual temperature is 75.6OP. The average annual
precipitation for the area Is 57.5 inches. Surface meteorological data obtained from the
Miami International Airport indicate a general westerly flow of air in this region.
5.2 SURFACE HYDROLOGY
. .
- . ,
Figure 5-1 displays potential surface drainage patterns on and near the site. The
ground surface on the site slopes gently from north to south, with an average -
gradient of 1.4 feet across the site. Surficial soDs on the site are sandy and highly
permeable. The flat topography and permeable solls tend to minimize surface runoff
from the site. Should surface runoff occur during heavy rainfalls, the general flow
direction would be sou~ toward the Carpenter Contractors of America truss plant.
The closest surface water body to the site is Cypress' Creek, which lies about 0.5 miles
south of the site at its closestpoint, as shown in Figure 5-2. Cypress Creek, or C-14
Canal, is a short 7-8 mile branch of Pompano Canal, a part of the vast system of
canaJs that provide drainage and flood control in south Rorida. From its origin at
the Pompano Canal, about 1.5 miles northeast of the site, Cypress Creek Rows due
6
-------
l
$\'1 f\ !"
t"
~,
...
tONE 3
...
CREMFORM
I
'.t.
...
~ . ~'''~~\:'~''",~;;mi!m;mmiii;
......: I:: I I:h:::;::::::::::: :::::j!::: I: :H:...."
. "''':;;:. ::I:I::~:;:e:~rc!i.mi!:m!!:::m:::::::i ~~~~: :~!n::!!li::;:::
... ......""" "" ~B""~ '~m ......... . . ,,,. "'" .,.,..
.. ." '"", iHiH i! Hi, '~i!g8"~ii~~[P..,.. i,:.. ".. ...... .', iH, ,iiH
i" ;;"iiiiPi!J«T,€m i",,, 'jm.;, i iii" 'Hi; iim
,j!gm!:~:j!ni!!im1!!glll!t:t!I!!iii;. LEGEMD ,iiiimi
,. ... ,..... "..." ,... .... .m. i ". r.. . ",. .",
"n1m i i iHm mmmiiiiiiiiiii!;,. : 'Hi iHi
"". 0:,,,,, """, ",...... ... ,.. ,,,,,,,,,
"';;, "".. ..,. . ... ...... '"'' h"
... .."... . . ';;;; i!r
+- iiH'
..::/11H1
ZONE 4
+-
)@mm'
. "....
N
..
:~ :~:~.~~
5\'1 I?::
m: 'ii:: \: \m::: H:::HimmmH'i
"
-------
.
--/
-.....,,--- . . .
! ~
--- -- -------- ---- -----
----
N
$
f~.'fl'''''O CJ.ftAl
\
\
(8
<:
~ourH NEW ANtil
1\
29
28
:;0
32
CNtA'
SN...~t CREE~
,
------.
.. .
. .
o ,
. . . MIle,
1 3 ~
SOURCE:
BROWARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
QUAUTY CONTROL SOARD.
ALE NO.: ORW £159
CHECKED
3-24-92
e
Westingho~se Environmental
and Geotechnical Services~ InG.
O~ .. f'.AJlP.I. . DZrRrLrLD ~CII
nn.t:'f1'Jt
Figure 5-2
CYPRESS CREEK CANAL
CHEMFORM SITE
POMP ANO BEACH. FLORIDA
---=-- _-_I
-------
south for about 1 mile and then in an easterly direction for about 6-7 miles until it
empties into the Intercoastal Waterway. Cypress Creek is about 100 feet wide at its
nearest point to the Chemform Site. Cypress Creek, as well as the other canals in this
part of South Florida, is managed by the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) which is responsible for operation, maintenance, and manitoring of the
canals. SFWMD maintains two fload cantrol structures/gauging stations on Cypress
Creek, .one upstream, at abaut 1.7 miles west of the site, and one downstream, at
about 1.2 miles east of the site. The average flow for the period 1985 to 1992 was
~ 120-129 cubic feet per second (cis).
5.3
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The Chemform Site is located on the Southern Atlantic Caastal strip which is a broad
ridge that is tmderlain by Pleistoc;ene-aged sand and shelly sand (Pamlico sand). In
the vicinity .of the site, the Pamlico sand .occurs ta a depth .of appraximately 50 feet,
where the Anastasia Formatian .occurs as a slightly calcareous shelly sandstane.
Belaw the Anastasia Farmatian (at a depth of approximately 200 feet) the
Miocene-aged Hawtharne Formatian occurs; a thick unit consisting primarily .of
semi-consalidated clay and silt. Belaw the Hawtharne Farmation are highly
transmissive Eocene-age limestones. Soil borings conducted during the Phase I RI
indicated na evidence .of a confining unit within 50 feet .of the surface.
The sands, sandstone, and limestone beneath the site form part .of the Biscayne.
Aquifer, the primary drinking water source in Broward and Dade Caunties. The
aquifer is thickest near the coast and it thins and pinches aut in the western reaches
.of Dade and Braward Counties. The aquifer is comprised primarily .of
unconsolidated quart sands in apPraximately the upper 50 feet and it becomes mare
calcareous and oonsolidated with depth. Belew a depth .of 75 feet the aquifer is
comprised .of semiconsolidated sandstone and limestone that are inter layered. The
limestone is mare transmissive than either the unconsolidated ~d .or sandstone; it is
fram the mare transmissive zones .of the limestone that water supplies are drawn.
Transmissivity of the Biscayne Aquifer ranges fram 5.4 X 10' ft2 / day where the
aquifer is mostly sand to greater than 1.6 X 1cr ff / day in the limestone-rich areas.
Regianal flaw .of ground water is to the southeast; however, the directian .of flow
may be infiuenced by drainage canals .or well fields. Flow directian in the site area
appears to be influenced by the C-102 Canal, as it ranges in directian from east to
northeast.
Regianally,the groundwater table is high, from 1.62.to 6.24 feet above mean sea level
(USGS, 1988) and typically ~. to 8 feet belaw graund surface, clw'acteristic .of South
Flarida. Site-spedfic infarmatian .obtained by NUS during the 1986 study indicates
that ground water is appraximately faur feet below grade at the site, while later
studies indicate that the groundwater is approximately 3.0 to 3.5 feet belaw grade.
.... .
9
-------
5.4
RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the Remedial Investigation (0) is to gather and analyze sufficient
data to characterize the site in order to perform the Baseline Risk Assessment, which
determines the site's impact on human health and the environment. Both the RI and
Risk Assessment are used to determine whether further remedial action is necessary
at the site.
The goal of soil and source area sampling at the site was to estimate the lateral and
vertical extent of soil contamination as well as for use in the Baseline Risk -
Assessment to evaluate current and future risks associated with exposure to possible
soil contaminants.
Soil characterization has been an ongoing process over several years at the site
beginning with Phase I of the RI in June of 1990 and ending when the Removal
Action was essentially completed in July of 1992 During this time period, site
sampling activities were initially directed at general site characterization. As the
Removal Action got underway, sampling became focused on confirming the
effectiveness of several rounds of soil excavation and source area remediation to meet
EP A generated Soil Oeanup Levels (SCLs) that were developed to be protective of
the groundwater beneath the site.
Sampling for inorganic soil parameters consisted of a preliminary screening of 113
soil samples using nickel as an indicator of general inorganics contamination, and
analysis of a subset of the 113 samples for Toxic Compound Ust (TCL) inorganics
based on nickel screening results. The results of EP A's site screening studies showed
nickel to be ubiquitous in soils at the site and a general indicator of the Presence of
inorganics in the soils. From this subset mentioned above, a list of the main
contaminants of concern for surface soils was generated for the site. . In subsurface
soils, nickel and chromium were found to be the primary contan\iJ;!.ants of concern.
Table 5-1 summarizes sample results for inorganics in surface and subsurface soils for
these main contaminants of concern prior to and after excavation at the site. -
Sampling results for organics in surface soils revealed low concentrations Qess than
Img/kg) of three semi-volatile compounds and one pesticide and subsurface soils
revealed similar compounds again in low concentrations.
Contaminant levels were substantially reduced through the implementation of soil
and source area cleanup activities conducted by Chetnform under EPA's oversight.
Over 2,000 tons of contaminated surface and subsurface soils were excavated. Figure
5-3 presents the specific areas of soil remediation and Table 5-2 represents a
description of soil and source area excavation. Confirmatory sampling of surface and
subsurface soils corroborated that SCLs established for inorganics under the Removal
Action were attained at the site. The exceptions to this were two isolated samples
. .
10
-------
Table 5-1
Chemical Frequency of Range of Detected Concentrations Background
Detection (mg/kg) Levels
Prior to Excavation
Arsenic 20/27 051-38 <0.36
Beryllium 7/27 0.65-51 <0.50
Cadmium 15/27 0.67-240 _. <0.50
.
Chromium 27/27 1.8-36,000 18.0
Cobalt 2D/27 4.9.Q,ooo 20.0
Lead 27/27 1.7-650 18.0
N1Cke1 2Jj/27 6.6-92,000 36.0
Post-Excavation
Arsenic 7/12 <0.33-38 0.18
BeIyI1ium 0/21 <0.30<0.50 <0.50
Cadmium 7/21
-------
.
..
....... ",.""
.,.. "'"
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
LECEND:
J.!W QL ~ r'CAYAt'OH,
~ ~OUHO r C'/U.fO/",
~ AOUIIO II CS/,. "/It)
(;S] AOUNO III r./II.'/I/II)
-------
Table 5-2
Description of Soil and Source Area
Excavation Under the Removal Action
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Approximate Date
Area Volume Average Excavation
Number Description Excavated (yd) Depth(ft)l Completed2
lA Western Field 78 1.3 05/12/92
IB Western Field 12 1.5 O? /01/92
, .
lC Hydrocarbon Area 450 5-7 05/12/92
2A Old Sludge Trench 22 1.3 07/20/91
2B Area West of Shopyard 11 1.3 05/12/92
2C Area West of Shopyard 54 1.3 05/12/92
2D Area West of Shopyard 11 1.3 05/12/92
I
2E Old Drum Storage Area 114 2 07/01/92
2F Area West of Shopyard 81 1 07/01/92
3 Hot Spot South of Old Drum 11 1.3 05/12/92
Storage Area -
4A Hot Spot North of Trench 20 1.3 05/12/92
4B Hot Spot North of Trench 9 1 07/01/92
SA Old Wastewater Trench 23S 5-7 05/12/92
I 07/01/92
58 Old Wastewater Trench 360 5-7
6A Septic Tank Area ...: :. 462 10 07/01/92
6B . Field Line Area . 100 . 6 05/12/92
I
7A Porch Area 500 3 05/12/92
7B Porch Area 129 4 07/01/92
8 Right of Way 46 1.3 05/12/92
9 Area South of Parking Lot 113 1 f17/01/92
.-
Notes:
1.
: Depth is Feet below land surface.
2. .. Some excavation areas were excavated deeper in a .subsequent round.
Date shown is for final round of excavation complete for the area.
13
-------
~
that exceeded the SCLs - one sample from the underground tank excavation (240
mg/kg nickel versus 200 mg/kg SCL) and one sample in the old wastewater trench
excavation (260 mg/kg chromium versus 200 mg/kg SCL). Four organic parameters
are indicated in surface soils under the current site conditions. These parameters
were identified at only two locations in surface soils, at concentrations less that 1.0
mg/kg. Ten organic parameters were detected in subsurface soils and source areas
in one or more samples. Organic parameter concentrations were generally below 1.0
mg/kg except for acetone and fluoroanthene, which were below 5.0 mg/kg.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
--
.'
6.0
A Baseline Risk Assessment was conducted as part of the RI to estimate the health or
environmental problems that could result if no further action were taken at the
Chemform site. Results are contained in the Fmal Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
A Baseline Risk Assessment represents an evaluation of the risk posed if no remedial
action is taken. The assessment considers environmental media and exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable levels of exposure now or in the
foreseeable future. Data collected and analyzed during the RI provided the basis for
the risk evaluation. The risk assessment process can be divided into four .
components: contaminant identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment,
and risk characterization.
6.1
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
: ".: ~ :'
. .
The objective of contaminant identification is to screen the information that is
available on hazardous substances present at the site and to identify contaminants of
concern (COCS) in order to focus subsequent efforts in the risk assessment process.
COCs are selected based upon their toxicological properties, concentrations and
frequency of occurrence at the site. Contaminants in subsurface soils were not
. considered to be chemicals of potential concern for the risk assessment. An analysis
of the leaching potential of subsurface soils present in the RI Report concluded that
'contaminant concentrations in subsurface soils were not presenting a likely thr~t to
the underlying grC?undwater. Based on the data evaluation and screening steps
necessary, the following parameters were selected as chemicals of potential concern
for quantitative evaluation of risk.
Inorganics - arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, mercury,
nickel, silver, vanadium, and zinc
Organi£! - bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate, di-n-butylphthalate,
4,4'"!DDT, and benzo(b)fluoranthene
'.
. .
J.
. . .
14
-------
6.2
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
An exposure assessment was conducted to estimate the magnitude of exposure to the
soil contaminants of concern at the site and the pathways through which these
exposures could occur. The results of this exposure assessment is combined with
chemica1-specific toxicity information to characterize potential risks. Populations on
or near the site were characterized under current and potential future land use
scenarios.
The exposure pathways evaluated quantitatively for these scenarios were incidental
ingestion of soils and inhalation of particulates from the soil. The results of the
exposure assessment are presented in Tables 6-1,6-2, and 6-3.
6.2.1 Current Land Use
Figure 6-1 represents current land use patterns near the site. As depicted in this
figure, the area within a one-half mile radius of the site is bisected in a north-south
direction by the seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks. The area east of the tracks,
within the one-half mile radius, is zoned "highway light industrial" and represents 52
percent of the total area of the circle. The area west of the tracks is currently zoned
(with percent of area percent in parentheses): commercial recreational (19 percent);
multiple family residential (18 percent); and planned light
industrial/ office/warehouse and planned commercial district (7 percent). The
remaining 4 percent represents Cypress Creek Canal ~ocated at the southern edge of
the. circle.
6.2.2 Future Land Use
The Future Land Use Plan for the Qty was evaluated in conjunction with an
evaluation of established land use trends. The Qty's Future Land pse Plan is shown
in Figure 6-2. This plan was adopted in 1989 and projects land use through 1998. It
is updated every five years; however, the classifications are generally consistent for at
least a ten year period In Figure 6-2, on the western side of the railroad tracks from
the Chemform site, exists in an area classified as commerdal/reaeation (ie.,
Pompano Race Track) and one classified as Medium Residential (ie., 10 to 16
developments per acre, for Cypress Bend Condominium Complex). These are the
same as the present land uses in these areas. The only anticipated change for these
two areas is the addition of 500 living units to the Cypress Bend Condominium
mmplex to bring the total number of units to 2,000. .With the present analysis of
occupancy expected to r~ the same, this would amount to approximately, 4,000
people at the condominium complex.
. .
15
-------
Table 6-1
Summary of Results of Exposure Assessment
Trespasser Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Population Exposure Pathway Parameter Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
Effects Effects
Trespassers Incidental Ingestion Arsenic 7.7E-8 2.3E-7
. of Soils
Barium _1 1.6£-6
Cadmium - 2.3£-7
I "
Chromium (III) - 1.1£-5
Chromium (VII - 1.2£-6
Copper - 3.6E-5
Manganese - 2.6E-6
Mercury - 6.(E-8
Nickel - 2.6E-5
silver - 1.1E-6
Vanadium - 3.6E-7
Zinc - 7.3E-5
Benzo (b I flouranthene' 9.9E-10 2.9£-9
Bis I 2-ethylhexyl I phthalate 8 .2E-9 2.(E-8
! Di-n-bIltylphthalate - 4.5E-8
, 4.4'-DDT 1.5E-10 4.5E-10
Inhalation of Arsenic 4.7E-11 1.4E-10
Particulates
Barium - 9.9E-10
Cadmium 4. 7E-11 1.4E-10
Chromium I IU) - 6.6E-9
Chromium (VI) 2.4E-10 7.0E-10
-
Copper - 2.2E-8
Manganese - 1. 5E-9
! Mercury - 3.8E-11
Nickel 5.0E-9 1.5E-8
Silver - 6.6E-10
vanadium - 2.2E-8
Zinc - 4.4£-8
Ben%olb) flouranthene2 6.0E-13 1.7E-12
.. BisI2-ethylhexyl)phthalate - 1. 5E-11
Di-n-bIltylphtbalate - 2.7E-11
4.4'-m1r 8. 7E-14 2.5E-13
__,
1. -Intake for carc:iDclg8Uc eUecu Dot ca1ca1at8d far par888t8r8 ~ CCID81d8nd tIS' BPA to be pot«at181 Juam
cuc1llog8u C 111 IUS.. of May 1"3).
2. -1I8UO(b)flounath8M _traUOD used 111 1I1take CalculaU- WIUI c:oavertecS to eqg1val81t _traUOD of
bczo lal PfZ'8W.
16
-------
Table 6-2
Summary of Results of Exposure Assessment
Future Industrial Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Population Exposure Pathway Parameter Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
Effects Effects
Industrial Workers Incidental Ingestion Arsenic 8.0E-7 2.3£-6
of Soils
Bar ium -' 1.6£-6
Cadmium - 2.3£-6
Chromium (III) - 1.1£-4
Chromium (VI) - 1.2E-5
COpper - 3.6E-4
Manganese - 2.6E-5
Mercury - 6.4E-7
Nickel - 2 .6£-4
Silver - 1.1£-5
Vanadium - 3.6£-6
Zinc - 7.3£-4
Benzo(b) flouranthene' 1. OE-8 2.9E-8
B1s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 8.6E-8 2.4E-7
D1-n-bIltylphthalate - 4.5E-7
4,4'-DtJ'l' 2.0E-9 4.3E-9
II1halat1on of Arsenic 2.0£-9 6.0E-9
Part1culates
Barium - 4.lE-8
CadIII1um 2.0E-9 6.0E-9
O1rom1um (III) - 2.7E-7
Chraniwn (VI) 1.lE-8 - 2.9E-8
COpper - 9.0E-7
. Manganese - 6.5E-8
Mercury - 2.0E-9
N1ckel 2.2£-7 6.lE-7
Silver - 2.7E-8
Vanadiwn - 9.0£-7
Zinc - 1. 8E-6
BeDzo(b) flouranthene' 2.6E-11 7.2E-11
.'
Bis(2-ethyIhexyllphthalate - 1. OE-9
D1-n-wtylphthalate - 1.0E-9
4,4'-DDT 3.8£-12 1.lE-ll
.."....,
1. -Jlltake for c:are1l1og_dc effecu ~ c:a1c:111at84 for p&n88t8r8 IIat ca181du'8d by BPA to - pclt8aUal ~
c:&n'1~ (111 IIUS .. of liar 1993). .
2. -IMDso1b) flOUl'8lltMlle _tnti- U8IId 111 iDtaJt8 c:a1c:ulaUOII8 ... ~ to equiYal_t ~t1011 .of
b8Ds0(a)wr-. .
17
-------
Table 6-3
Summary of Results of Exposure Assessment
Future Residential Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
popula~ion Exposure Pathway Parame~er Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
Effects Effects
Residenl:s Incidental Ingestion Arsenic 2.7E-6 6.3E-6
of Soils
Barium -' 4.5E-5
Cadmium - 6. 3E--6
Chromium (III) - 3 .OE-4
,Chromium (VI) - 3.3E-5
Copper - 1.0E-3
Manganese - 7.3E-5
Mercury - 1.8E-6
Nickel - 7.3E-4
silver - 3.0E-5
Vanadium - 1.0E-5
Zinc - 2.1£-3
Eg(b) flouranthene' 3.5E-8 8.1E-8
Bis (2-ethylhexyl 1 phthalate 2 . 9£- 7 6.7£-7
Di-n-butylphthalate - 1. 3E-6
4,4'-DD'l' 5.1E-9 1.2£-8
Inhalation of Arsenic 3.0E-9 8.0E-9
Particulates
Barium - 5.8E-8
Cadmium 3.0E-9 8.0E-9
Otromiwn 'XU) - 3.8E-7
Chromiwn 'VI) 1. 8E-8 - 4.2E-8
Copper - 1.3E-6
. Manganese - 9 . b£-8
Mercury - 2.0£-9
Nickel 3.6£-7 8.5£-7
Silver - 3.0-8
Vanadium - 1.3£-6
Zinc - 2.6£-6
Bg'b)flouranth~ 4.3£-11 1.0£-10
-
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. - 1. 0£-9
Di-n-butylphthalate - 2.0£-10
.,4'-DOT 6.3£-12 1.5£-11
<><;-.
1. -nauu far c:arc1Dog8Uc effectll ~ calculated for par888tU'8 DOt. ccms1dereC1 112 BPI. to be potcti81 ~
carc1qog8Dll (iD UIS .. of llay 19931. .
2. -Bg(b)flaurantb8De CCDCllDtrati- 1I88d 111 111U1te ealculat1_- ~ed to equivalent CC81CIIDtrat1cm of
eg(a)pyreae. .
0.
18
-------
! .
..:-:.--~
'lJ. - ~J'
..
ZONING CLASStACATtON S
N
.-
1-'
HIGHWAY UOHT IHOUSTIUAL
&.IU\.TIPt.£ FAYI\.Y ~E$loacl1AL
. sCALE
1" - ,28G.
RC-'
R1-2
COUUERCIAL RECREAl10HAL
PtANHED UQHT.IHDun1'tA1./0FFICEIWAAEHOUSE
p~-HEO CONuettaAl OtSTRtCT
elf'(%)
NOTE: PERCENtAGES REPRESENT PERCENT lAND USE
WITHIN 1/2 MILE RADIUS OF SITE
.- .
LAND USE MAP
. CHEMFORM SITE
POMPANO BEAcH, FLORIDA
Figure 6-1
19
-------
\! '
~ i
: I
J-/
(
'--..
", :\
; i
! I
I !
j J
I:
!
I:
'/z N/LC~
/?/Jt;/U S - -
~_/
l'
~
/'
.
(
c
lJ
K
U - ~:tIt 1 I:
- I 1
--. :: t« 1-1.1_1'..
1200 600 . 0 1200 FT.
1 f' '1
SCAlE: 1"= 1200 FT.
SOURCE:
CITY. OF POMP ANa BEACH, FLORIDA
FILE NO.: ORW - E159
CHECKED
4-13-92(~ -
LEGEND:
I = INDUSTRIAL 0,
CR = COMMERCIAL-R£CREAll0NAl
M = MEDIUM RESIDOOIAL
-------
According to the City of Pompano Beach, there are to be no plans for future
residential use in the Chemform area, if there are no existing residential land uses in
that area. The Chemform Site is in a commercial/industrial zoned area with no
existing or past residential land use. Therefore, it appears that the most likely future
land use for the Chemform Site is industrial.
6.3
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of a toxicity assessment is to weigh available evidence regarding the
potential of the contaminants of concern to cause adverse effects in exposed --
individuals and to provide an estimate of the relationship between the extent of
exposure and the likelihood of adverse effects. The toxicity assessment is based on
toxicity values which have been derived from quantitative dose-response information.
Toxicity values for can~ are known as slope factors (SFs) and those determined for
noncarcinogenic effects are referred to as reference doses (RIDs).
Slope factors (SFs), which are also known as cancer potency factors (CPFs), have been
developed by EP A's Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. Sfs,
which. are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)-l, are multiplied by the estimated intake
of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the
excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term
nupper-bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the $.
Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely.
SFs are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal
bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied. SFs for the contaminants of concern at Chemform are listed in Table 6-4
(ingestion) and Table 6-5 (inhalation). .
Reference doses (RIDs) ~v~ 1?een developed by EP A for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects &Dm.exposure to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects.
RIDs, which are expr~ In units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime dai!y
exposure levels for hUIlUins, including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes of
chemicals from environmental media (e.g. the amount of a chemical ingested from
contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the RID. RIDs 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 RIDs will not underestimate the
potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur. RIDs for the contaminants of
concern at Chemform are fo~d in Table 6-6 (ingestion) and Table 6-7 (inhalation).
. .
..
,.
. .
21
. .
-------
Table 6-4
Ingestion (Oral) Toxicity Values
Potential Carcinogenic Effects
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Arsenic
1.8E~
A
Skin
(Drinking
Water)
IRIS
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
4,4' -DDT
7.3E+O'
1.4E-2
B2
B2
IRIS
IRIS
3.4E-l
B2
IRIS
Notes: .
1. Weight of evidence c1etssification
A- Human carcinogens
B- Probable human carcinogens
C- Possible human carcinogens
D- Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
E- Evidence of noncarcinogenidty for humans
.. .. . '. ': .
..
.8 ~ .
2. Type of cancer only identified for Oass A carcinogens
3. Slope factor derived from unit risk value of 5.0SE-S as follows:
'.
Q (mg/kg-daYJl = ~
1
70 kg x 21/ day x 1aa mg/ug
4. Slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene used for ~(b)flouranthene per EP A
Region IV guidance dated 2/11/rn.; guidance applies to oral exposure only.
. .
. 0.
° .0
.
. .
22
-------
Table 6-5
Inhalation Toxicity Values
Potential Carcinogenic Effects
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Arsenic 5E+l A Skin HEAST
Cadmium 6.1E+O 81 HEAST
Chromium M) 4.1E+l A Lung HEAST
Nickel 8.4E-} 1 A Lung HEAST
4,4' -DDT 3.4E-l 82 HEAST
Notes:
1. Nickel slope factor for refinery dust
2 Weight of evidence dassification
A- Human carcinogens
B- Probable human carcinogens
C- Possible human carcinogens
D- Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
E- Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans
3. Type of cancer only identified for Oass A carcinogens
..
.". ..
. -
23
-------
Table 6-6
Ingestion (Oral) Toxicity Values
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Arsenic 3E-4 Medium Skin~ vascular IRIS 3 1
Barium 7E-2 Medium Blood pressure IRIS 3 1
Cadmium lE-32 High No observed IRIS 10 1
effect
Oumnium am lE+O Low No observed IRIS 100 10
effect
Chromium M> SE-3 Low No observed IRIS 500 1
effect
Copper 3.7E-2' NA Local GI irritation HEA5f NA NA
Manganese NA3
Mercury 3E-4 NA Kidney effects HEAST 1000 NA
Nidcel 2E-~ Medium Decreased body IRIS 300 1
and organ weight
Silver SE-3 Low Argyria IRIS 3 1
Vanadium 7E-3 NA Noobserved HEAST 100 NA
effect
Zinc 3E-l Medium Blood cells IRIS 3 1
Bis(2-ethyl 2E-2 Medium InaeasedUver IRIS 1000 - 1
hexylphtha1ate weight
Di-n-butylphthalate lE-l Low MOI1a1ity IRIS 1000 1
4,4' -DDT SE-4 Medium Uver lesions IRIS 100 1
Notes: 1. Confidence level from IRIS; either high, medium or low
2. RiD based on food intake
3. NA - not available
4. RiD ca101lated. from drinldng water standanf - 1.3 mg/I (in HEA5I')
5. N1Cke1 RiD is for soluble salts
.
. .
. .
24
-------
Table 6-7
Inhalation Toxicity values
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
- - - - - - -
.. .'
Barium 1 AE-4 NA Fe to toxicity HEAST 1000 NA
Manganese 1 .1E-4 Medium Respiratory IRIS 300 3
System and
Psychomotor
effects
Mercury 8.6E-5 NA Central HEAST 30 NA
Nervous
System
Notes:
1. RID calculated from reference concentration (RfC) provided in HEAST of IRIS as follows:
RID (mg/kg-day) = RfC (mg/m3) x 2Om3/qay
70 kg body weight
2. Confidence level from IRIS; either high, medium or low.
. =- ~
0-
.0
2S
-------
6.4
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
In this final step of the risk assessment, the results of the exposure and toxicity
assessments are combined to provide numerical estimates of the carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic risks for the site. Nearly all of the carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risk is produced by ingestion of soils under the three assumed
scenarios.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are detennined by multiplying the intake level with the
slope factor. These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific
notation (e.g. lxlO"' or lE-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of lxl0-4; indicates that, as
a plausible upper bound, an individual has a one in one million chance of developing
cancer, over a 7o-year lifetime, as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen.
The NCP states that sites should be remediated to chemical concentrations that
coJTespond to an upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to an individual not exceeding 10"'
to 10"' excess lifetime riSk. Carcinogenic risk levels that exceed this range indicate the
need for performing remedial action at a site.
The sum of the risks across both exposure pathways was calculated for each exposure
scenario as follows:
Total Exposure Cancer Risk = Risk (Ingestion) + Risk (Inhalation)
As shown in Table 6-8, Table 6-9, and Table 6-10, the total cancer risk for all exposure
pathways is 1E-7 for the trespasser scenario, 2E-6 for the future industrial scenario,
and 6E-6 for the future residential scenario.
In order to characterize potential noncarcinogenic effects, estimated intake levels are
compared with toxicity values. Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a
single contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the Hazard_~otient (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 exceecm\go.uirlty (1.0)
indicates a potential for site-related noncarcinogenic health effects. By adding-the
HQs for all Contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a given
population may be reasonably exposed, the Hazard Index am can be generated. The
m provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple
contaminant exposures within a single medium or aaoss media.
The total Hazard Index, representing the noncarcinogenic risk for the site, is equal to
6E-6 (Table 6-11) for the trespasser scenario, 4E-2 (Table 6-12) for the future industrial
scenario, and 1E-1 (Table 6-13) for the future residential scenario. As can be seen, the
total exposure hazard index for each scenario is well below unity, a value which,
when not exceeded, generally is not cause for concern. Based on the results of the
baseline risk assessment-. the removal actions conducted at the site were sufficient to
be protective of human .healtb.
26
-------
Table 6-8
Cancer Risk Estimates
Trespasser Scenario
. Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Rorida
, Parameter CDI! . Slope Factor Chemical-Specific Pathway Risk Total
i ~ (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)"! Risk Exposure
Risk
Exposure Pathway: Incidental Ingestion of Contaminated Soil : :
Arsenic 7.1£-8 1.8E+e>2 1E-7
Benzo(b)Flouranthene 9.9E-10 7.3E+OJ 1£-9
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 8.2E-9 1.4E-2 IE-1 0
4,4' -DDT 1.5E-IO 3.4E-1 SE-11
i 1E-7
Exposure Pathway: Inhalation of Particulates
Arsenic 4.1£-11 SE+1 2E-9
Cadmium 4.1£-11 6.1E+O 3E-10
Chromium(IV) 2.4E-10 4.1E+1 IE-8
Nickel S.OE-9 8.4E-I 4E-9
4,4' -DDT 8.7E-14 3.4E-1 3E-14
2E-8 1E-7
3.
CD! = Ouonic Daily Intake. -
Value calculated using proposed unit cancer risk from IRIS. Arsenic does not have
a published slope factor verified by EPA's.Cancer Assessment Group (see
Uncertainties Section for further discussion).
Slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene used for benzo(b)flouranthene per EPA guidance
dated 2/11/92; guidance applies to oral exposure only.
-. .~:t..: .
Notes:
1.
-2.
27
-------
Table 6-9
Cancer Risk Estima tes
Future Industrial Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Parameter " CDIt Slope Factor Chemical- Pathway Risk Total
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)-t Specific Risk Exposure
Risk
Exposure Pathway: Incidental Ingestion of Contaminated Soil - .,
Arsenic 8.0E-7 1.8E+(f 1E-6
Benzo(b)Flouranthene '1.0E-8 7.3E+0' 7.3E-8
Bis(2-ethyIhexyl)phthalate 8.6E-8 1.4£-2 lE-9
4,4' -DDT 2.0E-9 3.4£-1 1£-10
lE-6
Exposure Pathway: Inhalation of Particulates
Arsenic 2.0E-9 5E+l 1E-7
Cadmium 2.0E-9 ,. 6.1E+0 lE-8
Chromium(IV) 1.lE-8 4.1E+ 1 5E-7
Nickel 2.2£-7 8.4£-1 2E-7
4,4' -DDT 3.8£-12 3.4£-1 lE-12
8E-7 2E-6
3.
CD! :~;6u-onic Daily Intake
. Value calculated using proposed unit cancer risk from IRIS. Arsenic -does not have
a published slope factor verified by EP A's Cancer Assessment Group (see
Uncertainties Section for further discussion).
Slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene used for benzo(b)flouranthene per EP A guidance
dated 2/11/92; guidance applies to oral exposure only.
Jotes:
1.
.2.
. ..
. ,
.. .' 28
-------
Table 6-10
Cancer Risk Estimates
Future Residential Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Parameter CDI1 Slope Factor Chemical-Specific Pathway Risk Total
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-daYJl Risk Exposure
Risk
Exposure Pathway: Incidental Ingestion of Contaminated Soil - - .'
Arsenic 2.7E-6 1.8E+cf 5E-6
Benzo(b)Flouranthene 3.5E-8 7.3E~ 3E-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.9E-7 1.4E-2 4E-9
4,4' -DDT 5.1E-9 3.4E-1 2E-9
SE-6
Exposure Pathway: Inhalation of Particulates
Arsenic 3.0E-9 5E+1 2E-7
Cadmium 3.0E-9 6.1E+O 2E-B
Chromium(IV) 1.8E-8 4.1E+l 7E-7
Nickel 3.6E-7 8.4B-1 3E-7
4,4' -DDT 6.3E-12 3.4B-1 2E-12
.. 1E-6 6E-6
3.
CDI = Chronic Daily Intake
Value calculated using proposed unit cancer risk from IRIS. Arsenic-does not have
a published slope factor verified by EP A's Cancer Assessment Group (see
Uncertainties Section for further discussion).
Slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene used for benzo(b)flouranthene per EPA guidance
dated 2/11/92.; guidance applies to oral exposure only.given
~otes:
1.
-2.
29
-------
Table 6-11
Chronic Hazard Index Estimates
Trespasser Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
I Total Exposure ~
COIl Rfd2 Hazard Pathway Hazard Index
Parameter (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Quotient Hazard Index
Exposure Pathway: Incidental Ingestion of Contaminated Soil
Arsenic 2.3E-7 3E-4 8E-4
-
Barium 1.6E-6 7E-2 2E-S
Cadmium 2.3E-7 lE-3 2E-4
Chromium am 1.lE-5 IE+O 1E-S
Chromium (IV) 1.2E-6 SE-3 2E-3
Copper 3.6E-5 3.7E-2 lE-3
: Manganese 2.6E-6 .NA3 -
Mercury 6.4E-8 3E-4 2E-4
Nickel 2.6E-5 2E-2 1E-3
Silver 1.1E-6 SE-3 2E-4
Vanadium 3.6E-7 7E-3 SE-5
: Zinc 7.3E-5 3E-1 2E-4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.4E-8 2E-2 lE-6
Di-n-butylphthalate 4.5E-8 IE-1 SE-7
4,4'-DDT 4.5E-IO SE-4 9E-7
6E-3
Exposure Pathway: Inhalation of Particulates
Barium 9.9E-10 1.4E-4 7E-6
Manganese 1.5E-9 1.IE-4 1E-5
Mercury 3.8E-ll 8.6E-5 4E-7
" 2E-5 6E-3
Notes:
1. CD! = Qu'onic Daily Intake
2. RID = Chronic reference Dose
3. NA = Not Available
30
-------
Table 6-12
Chronic Hazard Index Estimates
Future Industrial Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, Florida
Total
CDP Rfd2 Hazard Pathway Exposure
Parameter (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Quotient Hazard Index Hazard Index
Exposure Pathway: Incidental Ingestion of Contaminated Soil
Arsenic 2.3E-6 3E-4 8E-3
~ ~
Barium 1.6E-5 7E-2 2E-4
Cadmium 2.3E-6 1E-3 2E-3
Chromium (III) 1.lE-4 1E+O 1E-4
Chromium (IV) 1.2E-5 5E-3 2E-3
Copper 3.6E-4 3.1£-2 1E-2
Manganese 2.6E-5 NA3 -
Mercury 6.4E-7 3E-4 2E-3
Nickel 2.6E-4 2E-2 1E-2
Silver 1. 1 E-5 SE-3 2E-3
Vanadium 3.6E-6 1£-3 SE-4
Zinc 7.3E-4 3E-1 2E-3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.4£-7 2E-2 1E-5
Di-n-butylphthalate 4.5£-7 1E-1 SE-6
-
4,4' -DDT 4.3E-9 SE-4 9E-6
4E-2
Exposure Pathway: Inhalation of Particulates
Barium 4.1E-8 1.4E-4 3E-4
Manganese 6.5E-8 1.1E-4 6E-4
Mercury 2.0E-9 8.6E-5 2E-5
.. 9E-4 ~-2
.,
~otes: .
1. CDI = Chronic Daily Intake
2. RID = Chronic reference Dose
3. NA = Not Available
31
-------
,-
Table 6-13
Chronic Hazard Index Estimates
Future Residential Scenario
Chemform Site, Pompano Beach, F10rida
Total
CDIt Rfd2 Hazard Pathway Exposure
Parameter (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Quotient Hazard Index Hazard Index
Exposure Pathway: Incidental Ingestion of Contaminated Soil
Arsenic 6.3E-6 3E-4 2E-2
.- "
Barium 4.5E-5 7E-2 6E-4
Cadmium 6.3E-6 lE-3 6E-3
Chromium (Ill> 3.0E-4 lE+O 3E-4
Chromium (IV) 3.3E-S SE-3 1E-3
Copper 1.OE-3 3.7E-2 3E-2
Manganese 7.3E-5 NA3 -
Mercury 1.8E-6 3E-4 6E-3
Nickel 7.3E-4 2E-2 4E-2
Silver 3.0E-S SE-3 6E-3
Vanadium 1.OE-S 7E-3 lE-3
Zinc 21E-3 3E-l 1E-3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha1ate 6.1E-7 2E-2 3E-S
Di-n-butylphthalate 1.3E-6 lE-l lE-5
-
4,4' -DDT 1.2E-8 SE-4 2E-S ~
lE-l
Exposure Pathway: Inhalation of Particulates
Barium S.8E-8 1.4E-4 4E-4
Manganese 9.0E-8 1.1E-4 8E-4
Mercury 20E-9 8.6E-S 2E-S
- lE-3 lE-l
Jotes:
1. CDI = Chronic Daily Intake
2 RID = Chronic reference Dose
3. NA = Not Available
.-. .
32
-------
6.5
ENVIRO!\TMENT AL ASSESSMENT (EA)
The enviroI1I!\ental evaluation (EA), also known as the ecological assessment, is a
"qualitative and/or quantitative appraisal of the actual or potential effects of a
hazardous waste site on plants and animals other than people and domesticated
species". This EA will address the potential environmental risks associated with soil
contamination at the Chemform Site.
Chemform and the surrounding area are in an industrial! commercial area with
limited opportunities for wildlife to find food and shelter necessary for susfaining a
viable habitat. The presence of fences around all the properties in the area would
also tend to limit the mobility of any fauna that may exist. Studies indicate that there
are no surface waters or wetlands areas within 0.5 miles of the site that could be
impacted. Therefore, under the present s~te conditions, ecological impacts at the site
would be very limited.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
EP A has determined, based on the results of the RI and Risk Assessment for
Operable Unit Two, that no further Superfund action is necessary for the soils at the
site. The previous removal actions of the contaminated soils and source areas has
successfully mitigated in accordance with 40 CPR 300.430 (e)(2), the threat from the
site to human health and the environment. Groundwater monitoring will be
conducted at the site for a period of one year as required in the Record of Decision
for Operable Unit One.
8.0
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCFS .
The selected remedy as presented in this decision document has no difference,
significant or otherwise, from the preferred alternative presented ~ the proposed
~an. .
. .
33
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
'. .
- .
'.
34
-------
-~--
-- ,----
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
CHEMFORM, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
PART I - Summary of Maior Issues and Concerns
A public information meeting was held on August 4, 1993 at which the
.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented its Proposed Plan for Operable
Unit Two-Soils of the Chemform Inc. Superfund Site. The Proposed Plan called for
no further action to address soils at the site.
Ten people attended the public meeting. The major concerns involved explimatiGn of
the Superfund process, and minor issues related to the actual site itself. A 30 day
public comment period began on July 22, 1993 and concluded on August 23, 1993
and there was no request for an extension to this comment period. EP A received one
comment letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
during this time period. In addition to responses to the state, oral comments that
were received during the public meeting as well as those received during the
comment period, are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
PART IT - Comments and Responses
Comment: FDEP inquired about the possibility of hexavalent chromium in soils
leaChing to the underlying groundwater and posing a threat.
Response: As a prerequisite to offsite disposal of soils excavated under the Removal
Action, representative samples of stockpiled soils were collected and analyzed for
both total metals and leachable metals. The laboratory data show that only a very
small fraction of the total chromium in the soils was leached in the Toxicity .
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests. Because hexavalent chromium salts
are infinitely soluble in water, much higher concentrations of chromium would have
been observed in the TCLP extracts if hexavalent chromium had been present in
signifi~t: ~nCentrations.
Comment: The FDEP expressed concern with a small area of the site that had soil
arsenic level of 38 Parts Per Million (ppm) that they considered could pose a threat to
human health. FDEP proposed a remediation level of 3.2 ppm arsenic for industrial
use and 0.59 ppm (or background, whichever is higher) for residential use.
Response: Based on the concentration of arsenic present at this particular portion of
the site, the risk numbers generated for both an indusbial and residential scenario are
well within the acceptable range of risk as defined by EP A 40 CFR 300.430 (e)(2).
Since the risk posed by the Chemform site does not exceed EP A's established risk
range, further soil cleanup actions muler the Superfund program are not necessary.
35
-------
Although further Superfund action is not necessary to protect human health and the
environment since arsenic soil concentrations currently fall within EPA's acceptable
risk range, a voluntary private party action to address this area of arsenic in the soil
could be implemented. Such an action may be conducted under the authority of the
FDEP.
Comment One commenter at the public meeting inquired about the possibility of
removing the fences surrounding the Chemform property.
Response: Since EP A has determined that the site no longer presents an unacceptable
health risk, the fences may be removed. However, in discussions with the PRP .'
contractor, it was brought to EPA's attention that the property would remain fenced
after all Superfund work had been completed for security reasons.
Comment One citizen called to discuss the cleanup of the Chemform site and
in~ed about the location of the contaminants that were transported off site for
disposal.
Response: All contaminants that were transported off site during the 1990 removal
action were checked for leachability using the TCLP method. The results indicated
that the contaminants in the soils were not leachable and would therefore, not pose a
threat if disposed of in an approved land£i11. Over 2,000 tons of contaminated soils
were taken to the Chambers industrial waste landfill in Florida for disposal.
Comment One commenter at the public meeting asked about the possibility of
applying institutional controls such as deed restrictions to the Chemform site. This
would allow the property to be used solely for industrial purposes as opposed to
residential use.
Response: The risk numbers generated for both the residential and industrial
scenarios were protective of human health and the environmenl Therefore, EP A
believes that institutional controls are not necessary for the Chemform site.
Comment: One commenter at the public meeting asked about possible PCB .
contamination in the alley way between the Chemform site and the Wilson Concepts
Superfund site.
Response: Past records (which include the RI Reports for both sites) indicated no
PCB contamination in this area of the site.
. .
..
. .
36
------- |