PB95-964007
EPA/ROD/R04-95/211
March 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Harris Corporation/Palm Bay Plant
Palm Bay, FL
2/15/1995
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
HARRIS CORPORATIONIPALM BAY FACILITY SITE
DECLARATION STATEMENT
Site Name and Location
Harris Corporation/Palm Bay Facility Site
Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Harris Corporation/Palm Bay
Facility site, in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida, which was chosen in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution
Contingency Plan. Tl:1is decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site. The State
of Florida, as represented by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), has
been the support agency during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study process for ~e
Hams Corporation/Palm Bay Facility site. In accordance with 40 CPR 300.430, as the support
agency, FDEP has provided input during this process. Based upon comments received from
FDEP, . it is expected that. concUrrence will be forthcoming; however, a formal letter of
concurrence has not yet been received. .
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
. implementing the response action selected in the Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedv
The response action described in this document addresses the second and fmal operable unit for
the site. The first operable unit at this site involved contaminated groundwater associated with
the Electronic Systems Sector (formerly known as the Government Systems facility) and Building
100 portions of the site, as defmed in the ROD for operable unit one, dated June 28, 1990, and
the Explanation of Significant Differences, dated December I, 1992.
This fmal operable unit addresses soils, sediment, and surface water on the entire site and
groundwater at the Seiniconductor Sector. Only the groundwater was found to be contaminated
at unacCeptable risk levels. .
-------
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
. Continued operation of the existing extraction, treatment, and disposal system:
- Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the surficial aquifer
- Treatment of the extracted groundwater by air stripping
- Injection of the treated groundwater into the Aoridan Aquifer
. Elimination of Recovery Well SC-TS4
. Groundwater monitoring
StatutOry Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
(or resource recovery) technology to the maximum extent practicable for this site 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 onsite above health-based
levels, a review of the remedial action will be conducted within five years after the initiation of
the remedy to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection to human health
and the environment The review will be performed every five years thereafter until health-based
levels are achieved. .
~~~~.
Dick Green
Associate Director of Superfund and Emergency Response
Waste Management Division.
Region IV .
\S 1~r~S
~
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEcrION TOPIC PAGE
THE DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 Site. Description 1
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 1
2.1 Electronic Systems Sector 1
2.2 Semiconductor Sector 3
3.0 Highlight of Community Relations 6
3.1 Electronic Systems Sector 6
3.2 Semiconductor Sector 7
4.0 Scope of Action 7
5.0 Site .Characterization 7
5.1 Electronic Systems Sector Sampling Investigation 8
5.1.1 Soils 8
5.1.2 Surface Water and Sediments 9
5~2 Semiconductor Sector Sampling Investigation 9
5.2.1 Soils 15
5.2.2 Sediment 15
5.2.3 Surface Water 15
5.2.4 Groundwater 21
5.3 Chemical F:lte and Transpon 26
6.0 Summary of Site Risks 29
6.1 Human Health Assessment 29
6.1.1 Chemicals of Concern 29
6.1.2 Exposure Assessment 29
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment 31
.6.1.4 Risk Characterization 34
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 38
6.2.1 Chemicals of Concern 38
6.2.2 Exposure Assessment 38.
6.2.3 Toxicity Assessment 40
6.2.4 Risk Characterization 43
6.3 Risk Assessment Conclusions 53
6.4 . Cleanup Goals 53
7.0 Description of Alternatives 54
7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 55
7.2 Alternative 2 - Monitoring Only 55
7.3 Alternative 3 - No Modification 55
7.4 Alternative 4 - Modifications to Eliminate
Recovery Wells SC-TS4 and SC-TS6 56
8.0 Comparative Analysis 57
i
-------
1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)"
SECTION
TOPIC
9.0
8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment
8.2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs)
8.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
8.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment
8.5 Short-Term Effectiveness.
8.6 Implementability
8.7 Cost
8.8 State Agency Acceptance
8.9 Community Acceptance
Selected Remedy
10.0
Statutory Detenninations .
10.1 Protection of Human Health and Environment
10.2 Compliance with ARARs
10.3 Cost-Effectiveness..
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and
Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recover Technologies
to the Maximum Extent Practicable ("MEP")
10.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element
11.0
Documentation of Significant Changes
Appendix A Chemical Specific ARARs, Criteria and Guidance
Appendix B Florida's Air Toxic Regulations (no threat levels)
Appendix C Class I Permit fujection Limits for Harris Corporation
Appendix D NPDES Permit Levels for Harris Corporation
. Responsiveness Summary
11
PAGE
57
57
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
60
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
-------
NUMBER
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1
Electronic Systems Sector Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil
10
2
Electronic Systems Sector Chemicals Detected in Sediment
12
3
Electronic Systems Sector Chemicals Detected in Surface Water
14
4
Semiconductor Sector Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil
16
5
Semiconductor Sector Chemicals Detected in Sediment
18
6
Semiconductor Sector Chemicals Detected in Surface Water
20
7
Semiconductor Sector Chemicals Detected in Groundwater
24
8
Semiconductor Sector Exposure Point Concentrations of
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater
30
9
Semiconductor Sector Carcinogenicity Classifications
32
10
Semiconductor Sector Cancer Slope Factors
33
11
Semiconductor Sector Chronic Reference Doses.
35
12
Semiconductor Sector Total Lifetime Cancer Risks for
Current and Future Scenarios and
Carcinogenic Risks for Substances of Concern
(Reasonable. Maximum Concentration) That Pose a Carcinogenic Risk
Exceeding One in One Million (10-6)
36
13
Semiconductor Sector Total Hazard Index
(Using Reasonable Maximum Concentration) for Current and Future Scenarios
and Hazard Indices for Substances of Concern
Where Pathway Exceeds a Hazard Index of One
37
14
Semiconductor Sector Ecological Chemicals of Concern
39
15
Electronic Systems Sector Ecological Chemicals of Concern
39
ill
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
NUMBER
TABLE
PAGE
16 Semiconductor Sector Exposure Routes of Potential Concern to
Ecological Receptors 41
17 Semiconductor Sector Summary of Hazard Quotientsllndices
for the Least Shrew 44
18 Semiconductor Sector Summary of Hazard QuotientS/Indices for the Osprey 45
19 Semiconductor Sector Region N Freshwater Screening Values and
Hazard Quotients for Surface Water Contaminants 47
20 Semiconductor Sector Region N Freshwater Screening Values for
the Ecological Contaminants of Potential Concern Detected in Groundwater 48
21 Electronic Systems Sector Region N Freshwater Screening Values and
State Class III - Fresh Water Quality Criteria 50
22 Electronic Systems Sector Screening Values for Sediment Concentrations 51
23 Cleanup Goals 54
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER
FIGURE
PAGE
1 Site Map 2
2 Potential Source Areas on the Semiconductor Sector 4
3 Potential Source Areas on the Electronic Systems Sector 5
4 Composite VOC Plume Map, 20-Foot Zone 22
5 Composite VOC Plume Map, 4O-Foot Zone 23
6 VOC Plume Map, 20-Foot Zone, October 1993 27
7 VOC Plume Map, 4O-Foot Zone, October 1993 28
8 Electronic Systems Sector Potential Ecological Exposure Pathways 42
v
-------
THE DECISION SUMMARY
, 1.0 SITE DESCRlYfION
The Hanis Corporation/Palm Bay FacilitY site js located, on the north and south side of Palm Bay
Road in Palm Bay, a small municipality located in southeast Brevard County, Florida. The 315
acre site is divided into two major operating business units owned by the Harris Corporation: the
Electronic Systems Sector (previously called Government Systems) and Building 100 to the
south, and the Semiconductor Sector to the north (Figure 1). The Harris Corporation
manufactures electronic devices and components, communication and information processing
equipment on the site.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Harris Corporation has been operating the ESS facility in Palm Bay since 1967. The ,Radiation
Corporation, an electronics fInn supportin,g the space industry, operated at the site from the
1950's to the early 1960's prior to being purchased by Harris. All expansion from the original
buildings has been onto undeveloped property with the'exception of Building 100. Two,previous
manufacturing firms (Sorban and Mohawk Data Services) operated at Building 100 and used the
site for painting operations, a chromium plating operation, a machine shop, and a drum storage
area. Harris acquired the Semiconductor Sector property in the early 1970's. ' ,
In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sampled the Palm Bay Utilities production
wells to the south of the site as part of a nationwide survey of groundwater quality. In March -
1982, EPA reponed to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (fonnerly
known as the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation) that numerous volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) were detected in the utility's wells. The site was proposed to EPA's
National Priority List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites in 1985 and became a fmal NPL site on
July 1, 1987. EPA issued a general notice letter to Harris corporation on April 6, 1989, notifying
Harris of its potential liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). This notice letter was issued pursuant to Section 104 and
other provisions of CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Act (SARA).
Investigations and remediation on the two sectors occurred at different times and were handled
separately; therefore, the following discussion is divided into the ESS and Semiconductor Sector.
2.1 Electronic Systems Sector
Following the detection of VOCs in the utility's wells, VOCs were confurned in wells on the
ESS property in 1982. Harris immediately entered into a Administrative Order on Consent with
FDEP in December 1983 and recorded two Amendments in 1984. Harris agreed to investigate
the groundwater contamination and develop and implement a groundwater restoration program.
Subsequent to entering into the order, Harris has conducted numerous investigations and
effectively operated a groundwater remediation system at ESS since May 1985.
1
o.
.J
-------
I (
I
i
I
i
!
I
!
I
!
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
!
I
I
i
I
i
!
I
!
FIGURE 1
SITE HAP
HARRIS CORP
PAW BAY FA ORATION/
PAW BA: CILITY SITE
:Y, FLORIDA
~
~""II.
LI'SOOI.I8 StRaT
J
o DO i
I
i
II !
aroUt""', Snt([T
2.
~'0 ~ZJ1
BUILDING 100 G 1
III III~
-------
Harris has identified the areas where the historical release events occurred and sources were
located which contributed to the contamination at ESS (Figme 2). Releases included tWo fires
in Building 6. in 1967 and 1974. During the fires, chemical vats were dumped by the fire
department and flushed out through holes punched in the building floor. .
Source areas included a drum storage area used in the late 1960's for paints, solvents, and similar
materials. During this time, an acid/solvent line located between Building 6 and the metal-
finishing waste treatment plant leaked and caused contaminants to migrate to the stonnwater
drain extending from this area to the two neutralization lagoons and ~ence to the drainage ditch
along Perimeter Road. In ~dition, a ditch located south of the lagoons conveyed water to two
treatment lagoons. More recently, Harris documented a 1986 acid line leak in the area of
Building 4. Although there was also a drum storage area and metal plating/machine shop
adjacent to Building 100, no direct releases in this area have been reponed.
Mter EP A reviewed the studies and actions conducted at the site under Florida's oversight, EP A
determined that Harris' work at ESS satisfied the requirements of the national Superfund
program's Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIIFS). In EP A's general notice le~r, the
Agency recognized the remedial efforts taken by Harris Corporation at the site in compliance
with the Consent Order executed between Harris and the State of Florida.
EPA issued a ROD in June 1990 for ESS, which described the selected remedial alternative of
continued operation of the existing extraction, treatment and disposal system and assessment and
modification, if nec~ssary, of the existing remedial system to assure that optimum effectiveness
of the system is achieved. On March 8, 1991, Harris entered into a Consent Decree with EPA
to conduct an9 implement the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) activities at ESS. The
ROD cleanup was limited to groundwater. Before EP A could make a decision on how to address
the soil, sediment, and surface water, more sampling was required. Harris has since completed
the sampling.
2.2 Semiconductor Sector
VOCs were confirmed in the groundwater from wells on the Semiconductor Sector in 1985.
Throughout the 1980's Harris conducted various investigations to study the potential impacts
from the known source areas on this sector.
Several source areas have been identified during the investigations based on knowledge. of past
operating and waste handling practices, and observations of aerial photographs. The nine
potential source areas on the Semiconductor Sector are shown on Figure 3. Major contributing
sources of VOCs during the 1970's were a trash dump (Source Area #1), an incinerator (Source
Area #2), and a drum storage area (Source Area #4). Low levels of VOCS were found in
groundwater near a fonner non-chlorinated solvent. sump (Source Area #6), which was later
discovered to have a leak, and in groundwater downgradient from the construction debris areas
and the former acid-neutralization lagoons (Source Areas #5 and 7).
3
-------
--+
.Qw
~e
o
59
JS8AIS88 ~
~ .
SOLVEHT UN( tDK
eo
63
FORWER 0UI0IPINC N{£A
ORUER lOCATIOH ~ I .
A SOLVENt' SuwP I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
CFORNER ACIO-Nt\It'RI.UZATIOH .
~ I
I
~~ :
1
RETENTION
POND
R
F()RI.IER OR\JU
STO
/
INJECTION
. WELL
FACIUTIES
LIPSCOMB STREET
NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO DESCRIPTION
OF' SOURCE AREAS IN THE TEXT.
o
JOO fEET
FIGURE 2
I
I
I
I
10
I~
. a:
I
I~
.00
I:!E
I;;}.
. Q..
I
I
(
POTENTIAL SOURCE AREAS ON THE SEMICONDUCTOR SECTOR
HARRIS CORPORATION/PALM BAY FACILITY SITE
PALM BAY, FLORIDA
'1
-------
~
OLD TREATMENT PtHIT
(tJETAL nNISHING WASTE)
"1
DRUM STORAGEI
MANUrACT\lRING AREAS
L-...J
\)OLD TREATIAENT lAGOONS
o
«
o
0:::
>-
«
CD
::<
...J
«
0.
r
ACID (H t 50.) LINE
LlrT TATION LEAK AREA
o DO
o C=--.::=r--\ '00 FCet
ClE ",RUOtH S TREEf
. .
FIGURE 3
POTENTIAL SOURCE AREAS ON TH2 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS SECTOR
HARRIS CORPORATION/PALM BAY FACILITY SITE
PALM BAY, FLORIDA
-------
Harris discovered a leak in a buried solvent line on the Semiconductor Sector in 1985 (Source
Area #8) and sampled the soil and groundwater to determine the extent of contamination. In
response, contaminated soil was removed and disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill; a pump
and treat system was installed to treat contaminated groundwater in the immediate vicinity; and
a total of 11 monitoring wells were installed and sampled by Harris under FDEP oversight.
In December 1988, concentrations of contaminants in groundwater from the monitoring wens
around the buried solvent line were below the detection limits. In 1990, groundwater remediation
in this isolated area had ceased and all of the monitoring wells except one were properly
abandoned.
Mter Harris characterized the Semiconductor Sector, FDEP accepted the conclusions set forth
in the site assessment and agreed with the recommended remedial alternative in February 1989.
In March 1990, Harris and FDEP entered into a Consent Agreement and a groundwater
remediation system at Semiconductor Sector was constructed and in operation seven months later.
The pump and treat systeni consisted of 13 recovery wells, an air stripping tower, two injection
wells and 53 monitoring wells.. .
After reviewing Harris' work at the Semiconductor Sector, EPA decided that further
investigations were necessary to fulfill the requirements of Superfund. On January 23, 1992,
Harris entered into an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct and implement the Rl/FS at
the Semiconductor Sector. The purpose of the RIIFS was to confmn the nature and extent of
chemical impacts; assess the current and potential risk to public health, welfare, and the
environment; evaluate the remedial actions already implemented; and develop and evaluate
potential remedial action alternatives to address remaining threats posed by the site.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
3.1 Electronic Systems Sector
The EPA Proposed Plan for the ESS campus at the Harris Corporation/Palm Bay Facility site was
released to the public in March 1990. All the documents prepared by Harris relating to the
Contaminant Assessment Plan and Feasibility Study, were made available to the public in the
Administrative Record located' at the EPA Records Center in Atlanta and the Franklin T.
DeGroodt Library in Palm Bay. The notice of availability for these documents was published
in the Florida Todav newspaper on March 18, 1990. On March 16, EPA mailed a fact sheet to
each person on the site-related mailing list, and, on March 23, EP A issued a press release
announcing the public meeting, comment period, and document availability. .
A 30-day public comment period was held from March 18, 1990 through Aprill7, 1990. In
addition, a public meeting was held on March 27, 1990 in Palm Bay. At this meeting,
representatives from. EP A and FDEP presented information and answered questions about the
problems at the site and. the actions taken to date. EP A responses to the comments received
during this period are included in the Responsiveness Sununary in the 1990 ROD.
6
-------
"3.2 Semiconductor Sector
EPA held a public availability session in Palm Bay on January 12, 1993, to inform the residents
about the RIlFS activities that would be conducted at the Semiconductor Sector campus and
address any questions. On November 15, 1994, EPA mailed the Proposed Plan for all media on
" the Semiconductor Sector campus and the soil, sed~ent, and surface water on "the ESS campus
to the public. All the documents, including the RIlFS, were made available to the public in the
Administrative Record at both locations mentioned above. The notice of availability for these
documents was published in the Florida Todav newspaper on November 20, 1994. This notice
also announced the public meeting and the open comment period.
The 30-day public comment period was held from November 21, 1994 through December 21,
1994. The public meeting was held on December 12, 1994 in Palm Bay at which representatives
from EP A and FDEP presented information and answered questions about the problems at the
site and the actions taken to date. EP A responses to the comments received during this period
are included in the Responsiveness Summary included in this ROD. "
4.0 SCOPE OF ACTION
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Harris Corporation site are complex.
Therefore, EP A has divided the site into two operable units (OUs) for better management of the
response activities. OUi at this site is defined as the impacted groundwater associated with ESS "
and Building 100. OU2 is defmed as the contaminated groundwater associated with the
Semiconductor Sector and the soil, sediment, and surface water at the entire site. Building 100
was originally included with OU2 and later incorporated into QUI.
This ROD will discuss the investigations, the results and conclusions of the RIlFS at
Semiconductor Sector and the RDIRA sampling activities at ESS. The groundwater, soil,
sediment, and surface water at the Semiconductor Sector were investigated and documented in
the 1994 "RIfFS for OU2. The soil, sediment, and surface water at ESS were sampled during the
current RDIRA field activities for OUI that are still ongoing.
The remedy in this ROD focuses primarily on the contaminated groundwater associated with the
Semiconductor Sector, since investigations have shown that the onsite soil, sediment and surface
water do not contain contaminants at concentrations above acceptable levels. This remedial
action is necessary to protect the public and the environment from potential exposure and address
the principal threat of contaminated groundwater" at the site.
5.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The site is bordered to the north by undeveloped property; to the west by Lipscomb Street,
Clearmont Street and. predominantly industrial property; to the east by Robert J. Conlan
Boulevard and a mixture of mostly commercial and/or industrial properties; and to the south by
7
-------
1-
Palm Bay Utilities. A residential area abuts the southeast comer of the site and approximately
27,500 residents reside within a 3-mile radius of Harris. The la.'1d use around the Harris site is
a mixture of industrial, commercial. residential, and undeveloped areas. The undeveloped areas
are primarily wooded with a typical flatwoods ecology comprised of pines, oak and saw palmetto.
Less than a mile to the east of the site lies the Indian River Lagoon.
The significant surface features present include several small storm-water retention ponds on the
ESS and Building 100 property and a large retention pond on' the Semiconductor Sector.
Drainage ditches border the site to the east and west The Northwest Tributary lies to the south
of Palm Bay Utilities, and the Indian River Lagoon is less than a mile to the east of the site. The
site is located within the drainage basin of Turkey Creek and its tributaries. Storm water that
is not retained onsite is discharged to the municipal storm water drainage system and eventually
into Turkey Creek.
The surficial aquifer is comprised of two water-bearing layers. The lower portion of the surficial
aquifer is the principal water-producing zone from which Palm Bay Utilities draws its water for
over 33,000 residents of Palm Bay. The utility's wellfield consists of 27 public supply wells and
a monitoring well network. While the utility's wellfield influences the groundwater flow at ESS,
Building 100, and the deeper zones of the aquifer in the southern half of Semiconductor Sector,
the large retention pond on Semiconductor Sector affects the shallowest zone of the aquifer in
the norther portion of this sector. ' .
5.1 Electronic Svstems Sector Sampline Investieation
Harris conducted an evaluation of possible additional source areas at ESS to ascertain the
presence of any potential chemical sources not identified in previous studies. Five additional
potential source areas were identified through the review of building blueprints, site drawings and
drawings from previous occupants. Potential sources included former fuel Underground Storage
Tanks and below-grade wastewater sumps. The sumps were used to collect and transfer
wastewater generated from within the two buildings to the city sanitary sewer system. The
sumps are no longer used and wastewater is discharged directly to the sanitary sewer system.
Based on the information obtained during the evaluation, the interviews with Harris employees
and the results from prior tank closures and investigations, the former tanks and sumps were
eliminated from further consideration as additional potential source areas.
Harris also collected soil, surface water, and sediment samples on-, and off-site under the
oversight of EP A representatives. A brief description of the sampling and the results are
summarized below.
5.1.1 Soils
Harris collected 22 confirmatory soil samples from different depths and one background sample
in January 1993, to determine whether soil was a medium of concern in any of the potential
8
-------
source areas. Twenty inorganic, eight volatile and five semi-volatile compounds were detected. .
No other constituents from the Target Compound List (TCL) were detected. Table I shows the
frequency of detection, range of detected concentrations, and arithmetic mean for the chemicals
. that were detected in surface soil from ESS.
. .
Soil action levels. protective of groundwater were developed for both the Semiconductor Sector
and ESS campus by EP A and Harris. These included preliminary soil action levels calculated
using literature-based partition coefficients (Kds) and site specific soil action levels developed
using column leach studies. The action levels were. used to have a baseline from which to
compare the actual soil sampling results.
All of the concentrations of contaminants in the soil samples from the ESS campus were ~low
their corresponding calculated and site-specific action levels indicating that migration of inorganic
compounds in soils to groundwater is not a viable migration pathway. Other potential exposure
pathways will be discussed later in Section 6.0
5.1.2 Sediments and Surface Water
Eleven sediment and four surface water samples were collected during the week of January 4,
1993, from the site drainages and the Northwest Tributary of Turkey Creek. The samples were
collected to determine if sediment or surface water were media of concern at ESS. Tables 2 and
3 show the frequency of detection, range of detected concentrations, and arithmetic mean for the
chemicals that. were detected in sediment and surface water at ESS respectively. Sampling results
and impacts to surface water and sediment will be explained in Section 6.0, Summary of Site
Risks.
5.2 Semiconductor Sector Samplin2 Investi2ation
In order to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Semiconductor Sector, Harris
conducted confirmatory sampling and analysis of all media at the site, a potable well inventory
in adjacent areas, and a visual and literature ecological assessment of the site and the surrounding
area.
The well survey indicated that of the 259 residents and businesses within 1000 feet of the ESS
campus only one well was known to be used for drinking water. The property where this well
is located, as well. as all residential properties surrounding the Harris Corporation Palm Bay
facility, are connected to the city water supply.
Harris observed no visual evidence .of impacts to the flora and fauna at the Senuconductor Sector
and immediately adjacent areas.
Soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater sampling and the results are briefly described
below. Samples were analyzed for TCL and Target Analyte List (TAL) compounds.
9
-------
Table 1
Electronic Systems Sector
Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil
Samples Collected - January .1993
Site-Related Samples
Background
Surface SoDs Range of Sample
Analyte Frequency Detected Arithmetic (SS-I)
of Concentrations Mean (mg/kg)
Detection (mglkg) (mg/kg)
:1i:111111111Ii!1~1j!ji[ilj!lll!i1iI1!1!lli!i111!!!rli1;~illlli:l:ii!i:liil[;i!ilill[~'iil{~!!:[lililli.llil!~J.I!i!L... ~~~:Jfliil!.li-
Aluminum 6n 52.3-3,290 1,371 2.410.
Arsenic In 0.5 NA 2.94
Barium 6n 0.4-29.7 7.7 16.2
Calcium 7n 120-19.800 6,229 35.700
Chromium 6n 0.8-8.1 3.0 3.9
Copper zn 2.5-47.9 25.2 1.0
Iron 6n 43.9-619 277 1.540
Lead 6n 0.7-16.4 4.1 1.96
Magnesium zn 162-569 366 163
Manganese zn 5.3-8.7 7.0 3.9
Mercury In 0.05 NA --
Nickel In 3.3 NA 2.0
Potassium In 119 NA 99.0
Silver In 7.4 NA -
Sodium 6n 106-303 178 451
Zinc 5n 1.7-121 27.2 6.0
10
-------
Table 1 (Continued)
Electronic Systems Sector
Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil
Samples Collected - January 1993
Site-Related Samples
Background
Surface Soils Range of Sample
Analyte Frequency Detected Arithmetic (SS-l)
of Concentrations Mean (mg/kg)
Detection (mglkg) (mg/kg)
:i:~¥III.iilillllliiiiii::i:if.ll~ii!f.i~iiiiriiifj~ii!iiii!!!iiii!fi;iii!!I!!~1;J!iil!!!iii;~;!i:!iil[i~1~IB!ii!iiii!!ifl11ii!iI1;!i!iiiilii~IJJ.ilfJ.i:IJi!!
Acetone In 0.087 NA -
Benzene In 0.008 NA --
Ethylbenzene In 0.008 NA -
Toluene 3n 0.014-0.072 0.034 0.0203
Xylene 3n 0.014-0.042 0.024 0.0168
- - Chemical was not detected in the background sample.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
II
-------
Table 2
Electronic Systems Sector
Chemica~ Detected in Sediment
Samples Collected - January 1993
Site-Related Samples
Sediment Analyte
Frequency
of
Detection
Range or
Detected
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
Arithmetic
Mean
(mg/kg)
Background
Sam~e
(SD-F)
(mg/kg)
Aluminum 515 915 - 8,800 3,283
Arsenic 115 0.5 NA
Barium 515 1.5 - 8.6 4.4
Calcium 515 617 - 3,450 1,318
Chromium 515 1.7 - 9.3 4.4
Co . 3/5 1.0 - 13.1 5.8
Iron 515 62.0 - 1,200 446
Lead 415 1.0 - 6.7 0.5
Ma nesium . 3/5 162 - 406 253
Manganese 1/5 3.0 NA
Me 1/5 0.071 NA
Potassium 1/5 116 NA
Sodium 515 160 - 223 195
Vanadium 1/5 6.0 NA
Zinc 515 1.7 - 24.6 6.7 3.8
1j~¥at.I.B.jilall.Ii.1:!ji::!!j:jj~:lf;1\1:i:!:!j:::f~::!!;!j;!::i;;!jjjj!j:;::::::;j:~!f;;!:jj;;;~:!!t~*!!r~:!~j!t~;:;j!:j!!j:!!!!}I;!!!m::t~i::!:!!!:r!j;!~*!:;j!~;\\I:~~j!j:ii!r!:;
CaIbon Disulfide 515 0.005-0.26 0.048 0.018
!!lltIIlli:!llllil:i!!:I:ill!!!!!!i!!!!!:li!il!!!:!!!II!ii!!I!!!!!!!!!li!I:!li::!!I!!i:li!i::ii!!!i!i!!!:!I!!!i:II!!!!!I!!i:I!!!!II!iil!1i!liifi:i!:!lf~lli!l!i't~!!!!!!ill!!I;:!lil!:!i!ll:il!!!!I!~!fl!i!i!I!I~fi
:i!i!IIRIIIII!!iil!iiiiiliiili!iiil!!li:i!i!I!!!:iiliiilii!!I!I!!!!!!!iil!!!!i~!!!!!:!ili!!I!lii!i!:ii!l!i!l!!!!!!i!i!iii!!!ii!i!!iii!!!!!li!!i!!iiiliiii:iiiii!!!iiiii!!!iiiiiiii!:iiiii!!iiiil!i!ii!!:i!ilii!!i!!i!i!!!i!:il!!iiiiil!iliii!:!!!i!lll!il!i!!ii!ii!ii!ii!iiiiiiiiiiii!i
Aluminum 2/2 403.5 - 1,600 1,002 1,110
Barium 2/2 1.4 - 1.6 1.5 1.8
Calcium 112 199 NA
Chromium 2/2 0.9 - 2.3 1.6
Copper 112 2.0 NA
Iron 212 74.9 - 121 97.7
12
1,110
1.8
1.2
142
2.1
159
1.2
142
-------
Table 2 (Continued)
Electronic Systems Sector
Chemicals Detected in Sediment
Samples Collected. January 1993
Lead 212 1.0 - 1.9 1.5
Mercury 1/2 0.063 NA
Sodiwn 212 132 - 167 150
Zinc 212 1.2 - 4.5 2.9
2.1
159
3.8
Carbon Disulfide
212
0.016 - 0.232
0.138
l"B.['!li:::::::::::....:::liilljll{~jil!fjjljjji&tf~11IjiiliilifllliJJlliijiilllfflljlflljllrir"'r.ljfj
- - Blank spaces mean chemical was not detected in the background sample.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
13
-------
Table 3
Electronic Systems Sector
Chemicals Detected in Surface Water
Samples Collected. January 1993
Site.Related Samples Background
Sample
Surface Wat~r Analyte Frequency of Range of Arithmetic (SW-F)
Detection Detected Mean (mg/L)
Concentrations (mg/L)
(mg/L)
!iiil__ilE~i!ij11f.il!li1Ii!!iirii;f.i1!rii~I!!i!!i1:it!iittt!!~~!!: ;~!;;i!!fl;;i!il!I~~i!I~I]!!![~II!!!;;i!lii1ii!iriii!1li{~lriii\!i!!ii!~[!-
RETENTION POND
Aluminum 4/4 0.518 - 1.18 0.745 --
Barium 4/4 0.012 - 0.017 0.014 0.010
Cadmium 114 0.001 NA -
Calcium 4/4 39.6 - 40.7 40.3 19.3
Copper 4/4 0.005 - 0.005 0.005 -
Magnesium 4/4 6.68 - 6.96 6.85 4.92
Potassium 4/4 1.5 - 1.7 1.6 1.27
Sodium 4/4 45.8 - 46.5 46.2 23.0
DRAINAGE DITCH
Aluminum 112 0.509 NA -
Barium 2!2 0.009 - 0.043 0.026 0.01
Calcium 2!2 38.9 - 583 48.6 19.3
Copper 112 0.007 NA -
Iron 112 0.322 NA 0333
Magnesium 2!2 6.6 - 15.5 11.1 4.92
Potassium 2!2 1.5 - 1.7 1.6 1.27
Sodium 2!2 42.9 - 67.6 55.3 23.0
Zinc 2!2 0.015 - 0.038 0.026 0.016
-- - Blank spaces mean chemical was not detected in the background sample.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
. 14
-------
5.2.1 Soils
A total of 26 soil samples from different depths were obtained to detennIDe whether soil was a
medium of concern in any of the potential somce areas. Soil was also collected from the
municipal park east of the ESS campus for use as a background sample. All sampling was done
in January 1993. As discussed above, soil action levels were developed to evaluate the soil
analytical test results. '
Seven inorganic compounds were detected in one or more samples at levels above the soil action
levels and/or twice the background concentrations (Table 4). Five o( these compounds
(aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, and manganese) were found in nUmerous samples. The
discovery of these compounds was not unusual as they are either abundant in the environment
in this area of Florida or are found in similar soil types. Aluminum was also found in the
background sample at a level exceeding the soil action leveL Two contaminants (cadmium and
mercmy) were found elevated in only one sample~ However, neither 'of these two chemicals were
detected at levels of concern in groundwater, surface water, or sediment
Ten VOCs and onesemivolatile compound were detected in one or more soil samples. Seven
of these VOCs and the semivolatile compound were not detected at levels exceeding the soil
action levels. Soil action levels were unnecessary for the other three VOCs because the
constituents were either determined to be undetected using the quality assurance/quality control
(QNQC) samples or were not detected in any of the groundwater samples. .
5.2.2 Sediment
Eight sediment samples were collected from the retention pond and drainage ditches in January
1993. No volatile or semivolatile organic compounds were detected in any of the sediment.
samples. Seventeen inorganic compounds were found to be present Table 5 shows the
frequency of detection, range of detected conc~ntrations. and arithmetic mean for the chemicals
that were detected in sediment from the Semiconductor Sector.
Carbon disulfide, a natmally occurring compound, was detected in all sediment samples including'
the upgradient sample. Therefore, the carbon disulfide concentrations are not likely to be due
to site-related activities.
5.2.3 Surface Water
Seven surface water samples were collected in January 1993 from mid-depth in the water column
of the retention pond and drainage ditches. Eleven compounds were detected. Table 6 shows
the frequency of detection, range of detected concentrations, and arithmetic mean for the
chemicals that were detected in surface water from the Semiconductor Sector.
15
-------
1-
Table 4
. Semiconductor Sector
Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil
Samples Collected - January 1993
Site-Related Samples
Range Backgronnd
Surface SoDs of Sample
Analyte Frequency Detected Arithmetic (SS-I)
of Concentrations Mean (mg/kg)
Detection (mg/kg) (mglkg)
Aluminum 6{l 52.3-3.290 1,371 2,410
Arsenic l{l 0.5 NA 2.94
Barium 6{l 0.4-29.7 7.7 16.2
Calcium 7{l 120-19,800 6.229 35,700
Chromium 6{l 0.8-8.1 3.0 3.9
Copper 2{1 2.5-47.9 25.2 1.0
Iron 6{l 43.9-619 > 277 1,540
Lead 6{l 0.7-16.4 4.1 1.96
Magnesium 2{1 162-569 366 163
Manganese 2{1 5.3-8.7 7.0 3.9
Mercury 1{l 0.05 NA -
Nickel 1{l 3.3 NA 2.0
Potassium l{l 119 NA 99.0
Silver l{l 7.4 NA -
Sodium 6{l 106-303 178 451
Zinc 5{l 1.7-121 27.2 6.0
'"
-------
Table 4 (Continued)
HarriS Corporation Site
ChemiCals Detected in Surf'ace SoD
Samples Collected - January 1993
Site-Related Samples
Background
Surface Soils Range or Sampie
Analyte Frequency Detected Arithmetic (SS-I)
of Concentrations Mean (mg/kg)
Detection (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
~!~lil:l.IIIIII~;lill~!lllr;\tlll~il~I!1{i[;illfl~11"!11[ili:rlillrj!illrillll'jllril!III~1[!~I!lli~!II[fli!!111!llrtr{i~[
Acetone In 0.087 NA -
Benzene In 0.008 NA -
Ethylbenzene In 0.008 NA -
Toluene 3n 0.014-0.072 0.034 0.0203
Xylene 3n 0.014-0.042 0.024 0.0168
-- - Chemical was not detected in the background sample.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
11
-------
Table 5
. Semiconductor Sector
Chemicals Detected in Sediment
Samples Collected - January 1993
Site-Related Samples Background
Sample
Sediment Analyte Frequency Range or Arithmetic (SD-F)
or Detected Mean (mglkg)
Detection Concentrations (mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
=====-
Aluminum 515 915 - 8,800 3,283 1,1 10
Arsenic 1/5 0.5 NA -
Barium 515 1.5 - 8.6 4.4 1.8
Calcium 515 617 - 3,450 1,3 18 -
Chromium 515 1.7 - 9.3 4.4 1.2
Copper 3/5 1.0 - 13.1 5.8 -
Iron 515 62.0 - 1,200 446 142
Lead 4/5 1.0 - 6.7 0.5 2.1
Ma~nesium 3/5 162 - 406 253 --
Man~ese 1/5 3.0 NA -
Mercury 1/5 0.071 NA -
POtasSium 1/5 1 16 NA -
Sodium 515 160 - 223 195 159
Vanadium 1/5 6.0 NA -
Zinc 515 1.7 - 24.6 6.7 3.8
:!:::iBI&.I:lilll:fjlj:!::~i,:i::!::::::;:[\!::::i:!:!:;:t!::I:!:I!::::::::::ili::!:~;ili:::ili:ili:::::;Ji1:~1~!::i::ri:::lli:i::;::::::~::::!::::~::::;::;i~::::;W;:!~::::::!::::;::!::::;::f;;:::::~:::t~:;::t;i::::::::!!ii;i:!:::
Carbon Disulfide 515 0.005-0.26 0.048 0.018
.1:1.lgl:!II_il;!!li!ili!!i!ir~::I!ili:I!1ii:f,~j1!!illf~1!!!il\r~tr[i!:!irit~r!';flii!r~r~i!I!:!II!II!li:!;fl.i\'~I{tfiff!'i!I!lil!lllliirl_ii~li
l!:::I~IRlllifl:!:I!i:!li!!i:iili!I\1!1!I!r~il~J.fl~!il!:!!i!I:I:!:!:!:!I:I!!::li:il:!;jij!:!II:I!I!II!II!::!I~jil:i!I~lrjl!:I:I!i!I!!!~!:I!l~II'I~!I~\r.j!jjl!I!III!!jil!t!!!!!I!fil!IJ.~!I!~[\!i
Aluminum 212 403.5 - 1,600 1,002 1,1 10
Barium 212 1.4 - 1.6 1.5 1.8
Calcium 112 199 NA -
Chromium 2fl 0.9 - 2.3 1.6 1.2
Copper 112 2.0 NA -
Iron 212 74.9 - lZl 97.7 142
i9
-------
Table 5 (Continued)
Harris Corporation Site
Chemicals Detected in Sediment
Samples Collected - January 1993
:iR.'~I[(- 1;.1111111. .'11
:i~I~li!fl~I:«((jrIJ_'ilillff'&11Iil~;TII"Ar~Jllllllfiilr'l!-l8;
Lead 2/l 1.0 - 1.9 . 1.5
Mercury 1(1. 0.063 NA
Sodium 212 132 - 167 150
Zinc 2/l 1.2 - 4.5 2.9
2.1
159
:~i¥gf4.rgl'B:lg~lllljli;~I'ill~it1jllf~r~~i!i~!ffIJJi[i{II!t.11fflilll}J.llf!~i"I'_ill:
3.8
carbOn Disulfide.
0.016 - 0.232
2/J.
0.124
-- - Blank spaces mean chemical was not detected in the background sample.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
.
'.
/'
(q
0.138
..
-------
Table 6
Semiconductor Sector
Chemicals Detected in Surface Water
Samples Collected - January 1993
Site-Related Samples Background
Sample
Surface Water Analyte Frequency of Range of Arithmetic (SW-F)
Detection Detected Mean (mg/L)
Concentrations (mg/L)
(mg/L)
:i11!111_.!1111;J.lr!r11~11IiI11!liiI111!11:11f.~'1111il:i!lllli1ilii!liii! .r.li.11iiI1ii~111Iilli!11i!ii!iifl~li!~ili!l!r{11\i.ji;:iil!111iii1!~1i:
RETENTION POND
Aluminum 4/4 0.518 - 1.18 0.745 -
Barium 4/4 0.012 - 0.017 0.014 0.010
Cadmium 1/4 0.001 NA -
Calcium 4/4 39.6 - 40.7 40.3 19.3
CoplX1 4/4 .0.005 - 0.005 0.005 -
Magnesium 4/4 6.68 - 6.96 6.85 4.92
Potassium 4/4 1.5 - 1.7 1.6 1.27
Sodium 4/4 45.8 - 46.5 46.2 23.0
DRAINAGE DITCH
Aluminum 1/2 0.509 NA --
Barium 2/2 0.009 - 0.043 0.026 0.01
Calcium 2/2 38.9 - 58.3 48.6 19.3
Copper 1/2 0.007 NA -
Iron 1/2 0.322 NA 0.333
Magnesium 2/2 6.6 - 15.5 11.1 4.92
Potassium 2/2 1.5 - 1.7 1.6 1.27
Sodium 2/2 42.9 - 67.6 55.3 23.0
Zinc 2/2 0.015 - 0.038 0.026 0.016
- - Blank spaces mean chemical was not detected in the background sample.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
iD
-------
5.2.4 Groundwater
Harris sampled a total of ~3 wells at the site, including both recovery and monitoring wells. Five
wells were sampled for VOCs and eight wells were sampled for TCLff AL compounds. In
addition, one sample was collected from a monitoring well in an undeveloped area on the
northern edge of the site to represent background groundwater quality. RI sampling was
performed through January to July 1993 (eight of the wells were resampled for aluminum, lead
and total chromium).
The contamination was approximated vertically and horizontally and two significant affected
groundwater zones were identified in the Semiconductor Sector area: the 20-foot zone and 40-
foot zone. In the 20-foot zone, there were two VOC plumes adjacent to the retention pond and
two small isolated areas (Figure 4). One plume was located near Source Area #1 (Former
Dumping Area) east of the retention pond, a larger plume was located beneath Source Area #4
(Former Drum Storage and Trash Staging Area) south of the pond and the smallest areas of
groundwater contamination were located beneath the Construction Debris Areas (Source Area #5)
and the Former Add-Neutralization Lagoons (Source Area #7) west of the pond. In the 4O-foot
zone, the single large plume was associated with both Source Area #3 (Former Drum Staging
Area) and Source Area #4 (Figure 5).
Eighteen TAL inorganic constituents were detected in the groundwater during the first round of
RI sampling (Table 7) and seven of these were at concentrations below state and federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water. Chromium and lead were the only
contaminants to exceed the MCL and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A) treatment technique
action level, respectively. Aluminum, iron and manganese exc~ed their respective secondary
standards. None of the other contaminants have drinking water standards or they were eliminated
based <;m QNQC results. Because the inorganic constituents detected above MCLs in the first
round of sampling are naturally occurring in site soils and their analysis in groundwater can be
affected by turbidity or suspended solids, specific wells were resampled and analyzed for
aluminum, chromium, and lead to obtain a better representation of the site's groundwater.
During the second round of sampling, total chromium concentration had decreased to below the
detection limit and the lead concentration had decreased to below the treatment technique action
level. Although aluminum concentrations markedly decreased, they still remained above the
secondary standard. However, the highest aluminum concentration was detected in the
background groundwater sample, upgradient of Hams operations, indicating that this element
naturally occurs in groundwater in the area.
A total of 13 VOCS were detected in the groundwater samples and four of these VOCS (cis-l,2-
dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride) were found at
concentrations above MCLs. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in one sample at a
concentration exceeding the. MCL; however, it is not known to have been a source constituent.
at Semiconductor Sector and is known to be a common laboratory contaminant
21
-------
'C C!ONCENTRATIONS or VINYl.. CHLOR.IDE
/.NO TRICHLOROETHENE WERE ABOVE
/_, R£IdEDW. """" .. -\ 1993
I . , ..-
\. / .
'-
~+
Qw
~e
D.-
59
~
o
8
......
...-
......
...-
RETENTION
POND
--
.......
..
......
INJECTION
WELL
F ACtLll1ES
~B
LIPSCOMB STREET
IfGFND
_IS .
MONITOR WELL
I:::::~::::::'::::~:~:..:'::::I
AREA WHERE 1992 AVERAGE INOMOUAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS
WERE ABOVE GROUND-WATER REMEDIATION GOALS
o
300 Ft£T
FJ:GORE 4
COMPOSJ:TE VOC PLUME MAP, 20-FOOT ZONE
HARRJ:S
SEMJ:CONDUCTOR SECTOR
CORPORATJ:ON/PALH BAY FACJ:LJ:TY
PALM BAY, FLORJ:DA
11
SJ:TB
o
<
o
0::
>-
<
m
~
..J
<
0..
..--
.
1
;.
-------
~
INJEC':':ON
WELL 26
(2.800 F'T DEEP)
INJECTiON b.
WELL 1
(2.333 F'T DEEF)
L£CENO
sc - TS3J.i.
SC-2se
SC-IOS0
Glw
Ve
(\
1 \
1\
I I
I
IJ SC-~S
.
I
I~
o
IQ:
I~
'J.U.OW ZONC:)
. CXISTING "ONITOR WElL LOCATiON (SHALLOW ZONE)
EXISTING "OtaTOR WElL LOCATI()ff (1tITER"EOIATE ZONE)
EXISTING RC:CO\IERY WELL LOC.I.TION (SHALLOW 2ONE)
EXlSTuic P.::COVERY WELL LOCAroOtl (I"'TER"ED~T( ZONE)
EXISTING ..OMTOR W(LL LOCATiOti (CEEP ZONE)
sc- TSI6 0
SC-I9S0
SC-160 J.
I
....
...
$C-YS,3.3
sc- 35
.
.A. SC-~
o SC-10S
4 SC-I00.
D
r
L
'1
r
I
AREA -ERE 1"2 :O\"ERACE IN!)MI)I.JAL \'OC CONCEIoITRATI()rIS
WERE. ABOvE CR~mOw..TER R("EO~TION COALS
b.
HARRIS INJECTION wEll
o
300 tEET
FIGURE 5
COMPOSITE VOC PLUME MAP, 40-FOOT ZONE
SEMICONDUCTOR SECTOR
CORPORATION/PALM BAY FACILITY
PALM BAY, FLORIDA.
,,~
HARRIS
SITE
-------
Table 7
Semiconductor Sector
Chemicals Detected in Groundwater
Samples Collected - January and July 1993
Site-Related Samples
Groundwater Background
Analyte Frequency Range of Arithmetic Sample
(SC-IS)
or Detected Mean (mg/L)
Detection Concentrations (mg/L)
(mg/L)
\1mllg__!I_~~~r4ii~ili_'~ji1,¥!*~1118i~tlill![;~t11~er~tltf~lw-
Aluminum 418 0.3-4.3 2.5 5.1
Arsenic 218 0.002-0.007 0.004 -
Barium 718 0.06-0.4 0.16 -
Beryllium 2/8 0.0007 0.0007 --
Cadmium 618 0.00005-0.00067 0.00022 -
CaJcium 818 17.2-120 60.3 -
Chromium 2/8 0.056-0.075 0.065 -
Copper 218 0.019-0.45 0.23 -
Iron 818 0.155-18.6 6.7 -.
Lead 218 0.006-0.007 0.0062 0.0023
Magnesium 818 4.06-54.8 22.7 -
Manganese 818 0.008-0.16 0.037 -
Mercury 118 0.00013 NA -
Nickel 118 0.026 NA -
Potassium 818 7.57-100 43 --
Sodium 818 38.7-110 70.9 -
Vanadium 318 0.044-0.076 0.064 -
Zinc 518 0.01-0.22 0.086 --
2."\
-------
Table 7 (Continued)
Harris Corporation Site
CbemicaJs Detected in Groundwater
Samples Collected - January and July 1993
Site-Related Samples
Groundwater Background
Analyte Arithmetic Sample
Frequency Range or (SC-IS)
or Detected Mean (mg/L)
Detection Concentrations (mg/L)
(mg/L)
:!~~liii:IL'tiRg~II~~llii~ii:'j:iijiiMllilli;lli~jt~I~t,ltflillllflrlliff.~i~;fljil~~]IJ.~lfmi.~i.!fjJll:[
Chlorobenzene 5/13 0.001-0.006 0.002 -
1,l-Dichloroethane 3/13 0.002-0.013 0.006 -
1,l-Dichloroethene 2/13 0.003-0.007 0.005 --
cis-l;l- Dichloroethene 6/13 0.0003-0236 0.069 --
trans-l;l- Dichloroethene 3/13 0.001-0.007 0.004 -
Ethylbenzene 4/13 0.002-0.374 0.105 -
Tetrachloroethene 3/13 0.002-0.009 0.005 -
Toluene 4/13 0.002-0.017 0.006 --
Trichloroethene 6/13 0.006-0.33 0.114 -
1,1,1- Trichloroethane 1/13 0.004 NA -
Vinyl Chloride 7/13 0.002-0226 0.069 -
(m-and/or p- )Xylene 5/13 0.001-1.44 0296 -
:!:_mf¥g'l:iiiI~I¥q_IIJ,!::!:i.w.;!!!:!:~!~~:t:~!:::::il:!!!!1:::~[~!I!J@M1:~I:~f\:::!li~:I~liJ!.!I~~l~!~rj~I:::I!.!~~!r~!{~~I!Jr'J.rill~~[~f?l~
Bis(2-ethylhexyl}phthalate 118 0.007 NA -
1;l- Dichlorobenzene 4/13 0.005-0.133 0.041 -
-- - Chemical was not detected in the single background sample.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
2.5
-------
These chemicals found in the 20- and 4O-foot zone have not migrated down to the 80-foot zone
(as indicated by the 80-foot zone sampling results) and the upper two zones have been
undergoing remediation by the e.xisting groundwater recovery and treatment system since October
1990. .
Sampling data from the October 1993 annual gro1¥ldwater monitoring, which is conducted by
Harris, independent of the EP A RIlFS, was provided to EP A in 1994. By October, in the 20-foot
zone, VOC concentrations east of the retention pond in all but one recovery well had dropped
below MCLs (Figure 6). Levels of VOCs were also reduced in the area south of the pond and
the plume shrunk to two smaller plumes. Benzene, however, was identified at a concentration
above its MCL and it had not been identified during the Rl Contaminants in one of the isolated
areas of groundwater west of the pond, were above MCLs in 1992 and January 1993, but were
below MCLs in October 1993. In the 4O-foot zone, the plume area did not significantly change
(Figure 7).
5.3 Chemical Fate and Transport
Groundwater modeling and air modeling were performed during the RI to characterize the
potential migration pathways for the VOCs. The predicted ambient concentrations ofVOCs from
the air stripper were found to be more than an order of magnitude lower than applicable
standards and guidance concentrations.
The four VOCs above MCLs are all halogenated aliphatic compounds which generally have high
aqueous solubilities, high vapor pressures, low soil adsorption, extremely slow hydrolysis rates
and relatively rapid oxidation rates. Usually these compounds volatilize and subsequently
undergo oxidation when present in soils or surface waters. When in groundwater these VOCs
are very slow to degrade and can be readily transported. Transport of the compounds to a
groundwater discharge area, such as a well or surface water body. is followed by rapid
volatilization and ultimate degradation. .
Two of the compounds are used as solvents and can undergo dehalogenation to form either of
the other two VOCs. The end product of the degradation reactions is vinyl chloride, which is
very resistant to degradation. Vinyl chloride is eventually broken down to ethylene and to carbon
dioxide and water via hydrolysis.
Groundwater flow modeling performed during the RI demonstrates that the zone of impacted
groundwater at the Semiconductor Sector is captured by the current recovery well system except
for an area in the 4O-foot zone south of Building 61. The contaminated groundwater that is not
being captured could either be naturally attenuated or captured by deep recovery wells at the ESS
campus. Solute transport modeling and site data establish that the Harris recovery well system
has significantly reduced constituent concentrations at the site. Model scenarios of future
conditions indicate. that the current recovery system is capable of reducing the VOCs above
MCLs during the RI to MCLs by the year 2029.
26
-------
~
SCAl£: 0 1-----1
~
.
~>-
:<:
i Q) .
i
i3
1<:
!D-
,
i
SC-4S I
8 !
,
~wli .
.ell
V,
,. :: I'
i i
, ! I
II 1 r.,SA 588 I' !
, : - I:
I ! I:
J~ I I! SC=TSJ<
II sc- T55 sc- TSS /sc- TS27 I i 54
SC - TS9 . sc- TS7 . 8 n / c;C- TS'?O .
~ I'H. [l . \L..- 8 . - r"""""'~~ sc- TS18
i . - SCt'IS~')..7 SC-iS321! /,--"",,"SC-T519
6 3 :SC- T5.) 8 . \ ~I ...........- / B I ...-r .--SC- T522
~C-TS4 I. iZ"f:1f, wwTP i .":"'--~C-TC:')1
I 'r.I r:'\ ! 1 ~ I -~-
5(:-T528 -=. '~J\ "'-SC-TS24 L1 I
. (SC-TS5 ~ '~:;TSI12.J 50 ~ 53 0
SC-TS13. I SC-TS25 ~
sc- TS31 ~ ~%'//< / B II
SC-TS14 :~~r~~ I I c:. I 1:: < il
SC-TS30 . I L-J _.2 I :) Ii
R~:~~~ON SC- TS 15=;- I n I I I
SC- T529 :' ~ I i I I I
. ~.m. I I I .
. \ sc- TS 1 S ~I i 1 I U I I
I SC- iS2a ~ I o:::;~- ':"''')61 ! I L-..J
'L SC-TS17 -f8 I f- '--
/ 8 i;
~DI!
SC-2S". R I j SC-T~33
o----t 300 FEET . I I J t
0sc-ss
8
59
!:)
I (
t \,
\ )
'--'
INJECTiON
WELL 2 6-
(2,800 FT DEEP)
INJECTION 6-
wELL 1
(2.333 FT DEEP)
!
Sf': - - i
J-.);:) i
. i
LIPSCOMB
STREET
HARRIS MONITOR WEll
ARE.6. WHERE VOC CONCENTRAlIONS
wERE ABOVE GROU~CWATER
REMEDIAl GOAlS
o
HARRIS. RECOVERY WELL
6. HARRIS INJECTION WELL
F:IGORE 6
VOC PLUME MAP, 20-FOOT ZONE, OCTOBER 1993
BARIlI: S
SEMI:CONDt7CTOR SECTOR
CORPORAT:ION/PALM BAY FACI:LI:'1'Y
PALM BAY, FLORI:DA
'17
SI:TB
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
,
1
~
:
:0
!<
is?
!~
l
(
I l
I
J
'. r
i
i
-------
-.---""..
~
~
Qw
v~
j:l
! I
I PR-1S
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
8
SC-3D.
INJ::CTiON
\,,!~II "'\fj
(2.800 f"T DEEP)
I
I
I
J I SCALE: 0
INJEC.ION A
WELL 1
(2.333 FT DEEP)
300 FEET
.I.Eili!Q
.
HARRIS MONITOR WELL
o HARRIS RECOVERY WELL
A HARRIS INJECTION wELL
I
I ')~~
- -O,.,J_'O
i
588
SC-2D OD
SC-18S. .
LIPSCOMB SiREET
FIGURE 7
61
SC-5D.
.SC-1OS
AREA WHERE VOC CONCENTRATIONS
WERE ABOVE CROUNDWATER
REMEDIAL COAlS
VOC PLUME MAP, 40-FOOT ZONE, OCTOBER 1993
SEMICONDUCTOR SECTOR
HARRIS-CORPORATION/PALM BAY FACILITY SITS
PALM BAY, FLORIDA
~"
.
.
I
o
<
o
0:
>-
co
:::E
..J
<
a..
/
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EP A performed an evaluation of the baseline public health and environmental risk associated with
the Harris Semiconductor Sector and the ESS campus based on the data presented in the RI
Report, the Remedial Design Review (RDR) Report, and An Evaluation of Past and Present
Sediment and Surface-Water Quality in Drainage Ditches in the Vicinity of Harris Corporation,
Palm Bay, Florida and the Northwest Tributary of Turkey ~ The baseline evaluations help
detennine whether or not a remedial action is necessary by identifying the risk posed by the site
if no response is taken. The risk assessment process can be divided into four components:"
identification of contaminants of concern, exposure assessmen~ toxicity assessment, and risk
characterization. These elements are described for both human health risk and environmental risk
in the following paragraphs.
6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
6.1.1 Chemicals of Concern
Chemicals which were evaluated in the risk assessment are referred "to as chemicals of potential
concern (COPCs). The selection of the COPCs is based on several factors including frequency
of detection, presence above background levels for inorganic compounds, and whether the
constituent was an essential nutrient.
Chemicals are included in the following discussion if the results of the risk assessment indicated
that a COPC might pose a significant level of current or future risk. These chemicals are referred
to as COCs. COCs are identified as those contributing to an "exposure pathway that exceeds a
lE-4 risk or a hazard index (HI) of one and their individual carcinogenic risk contribution is
above lE-6 or their noncarcinogenic hazard quotient (HQ) is above one.
The COCs for groundwater and their exposure concentrations are contained in Table 8 for the
Semiconductor Sector. No COCs based on human health risks were found applicable for the
" soils, sediment or surface water at Semiconductor or ESS. The exposure concentrations represent
the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) unless it exceeds the maximum concentration.
The average exposure point concentration was calculated as the arithmetic mean, which is based
on sampling data from the site. Receptors doses are averaged over the actual period of exposure
(years of exposure x 365 days/year) to evaluate chronic noncarcinogenic effects, and over a
lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year) to evaluate potential carcinogenic effects.
6.1.2 Exposure Assessment
The risk assessment identified the exposure pathways that need to be addressed by the remedial
action for current and future exposure scenarios. The analysis identified and quantified risk for
four different potential exposure receptors, the current adult worker, the current youth trespasser,
and hypothetical"future adult and child residents. Even though the site is currently used by Harris
29
-------
Table 8
Semiconductor Sector
Exposure Point Concentrations of Chemicals of Cqncern in Groundwater
Site-Related Samples
Groundwater
Analyte
95% VCL of
Mean
Concentration
(mgIL)
Maximum
Concentration
(mgIL)
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mgIL)
Arsenic
0.0088
!11_liIBiff,illll~'lillllfjl~"ilfi!!lli1~I~iI111Iiillll~~11:~!liiil.llil'Jil~!ri~~~~j~~~:~:;':~::~:::~:~:: .. .
Beryllium
:iiii¥llllIl:illlll:ql:lilillli\'ili!!lri1:l\IIII!r.~lliIliilliillf;lllllii!liiil'lfir::::':':o,;:,;;::
.0.001
1.1- Dichloroethene 0.008 0.007 0.007
cis-I-2- Dichloroethene 23 0.236 0.236
Tetrachloroethene 0.02 0.009 0.009
Trichloroethene 9.3 0.33 0.33
Vinyl Chloride 2.5 0.226 0.226
:i:ii:I_~lllllIlilillll!liil:iiiil!iiiliiiil!i\f'-iililliiiliiiiiiiiiii1iiiii!!iii:ii:ii:iiiii:iiiii:iiiii!!iii!!il!:!iili;liiiii:iiil!!lil!!ii!!!ilf.~il!ir!II~!!!iiiii!\!iil:!llillii~f~lllilir~::t.1iiill!!1fiiir!li;1!!ii:1;iil
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phtha1ate 0.01 0.007 0.007
- = No value was attainable.
~
-------
COIporation for their manufaCturing process, the surrounding land use is largely residential and
it is possible for the site to convert to residential use in the future. Currently the Harris facility
and the local residents are connected to city water.
The exposure pathways identified at the Semiconductor Sector for the current worker or youth
(7 -16. years old) trespasser include the dermal contact with and the incidental ingestion of
chemicals in surficial soils, sediment, and sUIface water. The exposure routes for the hypothetical
,future adult and child (1-6 years old) residents would be the ingestion and noningestion
household uses of groundwater and incidental ingestion and dennal contact with soils. In
addition, the child and youth (7-16 years old) residents may incidentally ingest or dermally
adsorb surface water or sediments while wading. The noningestion uses of water for future
residents was estimated by evaluating the inhalation of VOCS while showering.
The exposure pathways for the ESS campus for the current receptors include the dermal contact
with and the incidental ingestion of chemicals in surficial soils, sediment, and surface water. The
hypothetical future adult residents may incidentally ingest or dermally adsorb surface soils.
Potential child and youth future residents at ESS could be exposed to soil, sediment, and surface
water via ingestion and dermal contact.
The future residential scenario assumes that individuals live 30 years at the site arid take two
weeks of vacation a year, spending 350 days per year at home. Body weights are assumed to
be 15 kilogram (kg) for the child, 45 kg for the youth, and 70 kg for the adult The drinking
water ingestion rate is ass':1med to be 2 liters/day for adults and 1 liter/day for children.
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
To assess the possible toxicological effects from exposure, health effects criteria were derived
from a review of health and environmental standards and published toxicological studies. If
available, toxicity values were extracted from the Integrated Risk Information System, otherwise
the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables were used as a reference. In evaluating potential
health risks, both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects must be considered.
Slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic contaminants of concern. SFs are multiplied
by the. estimated intake of a potential carcinogen to provide an upper-bound estimate of the
excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper bound"
reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach
makes underestimation of the actual cancer risks highly unlikely. Slope factors are derived from
the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-
human exttapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of
animal data to predict effects on humans). The carcinogenicity classifications for carcinogenic
COCs are presented in Table 9 and the cancer SFs for the Semiconductor Sector COCs are
presented by route of exposure in Table 10. Since their are no health-based COCs for the ESS
campus these tables are not applicable.
31
-------
Table 9
Semiconductor Sector Carcinogenity ClassirlCiatiODS
for the COCs
EPA
Chemical Carcinogenicity Classification
:_il1t.~~!1i'11~1il~lill~lli~ml~lJli~IBI~illil!~fI1l
Bis (2-ethvlhexvl) phthalate B2
l,l-Dichloroethene C
Tetrachloroethene B2
Trichloroethene Not liSted
. Vinyl Chloride A
11i111IfllS~m~~I~~~1~~~~1i~~~r~j~~~~r~~t~I~~~i1l~~f~fJtf:~mllri~;~mli~~lt~t~f:~~~ffi~~t~j~IB
ArSenic At
Beryllium B2
1 There is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of this chemical by the oral or dennal routes.
Key:
Group A
Group Bl
Group B2
Group C
Group D
Group E
Human carcinogen (sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies).
Probable human carcinogen (at least limited evidence of carcinogenicity to humans).
Probable human carcinogen (a combination of sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate data in humans).
Possible human carcinogen (limited evidence in animals in the absence of human data).
Not classified (inadequate animal and human data).
No evidence for carcinogenicity (no evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animals tests in
different species, or in both epidemiological and animal studies).
j2
-------
Table 10
Semiconductor Sector
Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs)
(mglkg-clay)-l
Chemical Oral Reference Inhalation Reference Dermal1
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1.4E-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV - 2.8E-2
1,I-Dichloroethene 6E-l IRIS, 1993 1.75E-l - 7.SE-l
Tetrachloroethene 5.2E-2 ECAO, 1992 2.0E-3 ECAO, 1992 6.SE-2
Trichloroethene l.lE-2 ECAO, 1992 6E-3 ECAO, 1992 1.4E-2
Vinyl Chloride 1.9 IRIS. 1993 3E-l IRIS, 1993 2.4
Arsenic 1.75 IRIS. 1993 151E+l HEAST, 1993 8.8
Beryllium 4.3 IRIS, 1993 8.4 IRIS, 1993 2.15E+l
I The dennal CSF was derived based on the following Absorption Factors (ABS):
0.2 - Inorganics
0.8 - Volatile Organics
0.5 - Semi-Volatile OrganicslPesticid~IPCBs
Dermal Slope Factor = Oral SF/ABS
NTV = No toxicity data were available.
NC = Not of concern for this route of exposure.
~?>
-------
Reference doses (RIDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse
health effects from exposure to contaminants of concern exhibiting noncarcinogenic effectS.
RIDs are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of contaminants of concern from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a
contaminant of concern 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 effects to occur. Table 11 presents the route-specific RIDs for the COCs at the
Semiconductor Sector. .
6.1.4 Risk Characterization
Potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks posed by the contu1rlnants in the various
exposure pathways were evaluated for the fmal step in the risk assessment, risk: characterization.
The potential for carcinogenic effects is limited to exposure to oilly those chemicals classified
as carcinogens, while both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals are evaluated for potential
noncarcinogenic effects. .
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake level with the SF. These
risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., lxlO-6 or lE-06).
An excess lifetime cancer risk of lE-06 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual
has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over his or her lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at a site. The Agency
considers individual excess CaIlcer risks below lE-06 to be protective. Excess cancer risks in the
range of lE-04 to lE-06 mayor may not be considered acceptable, depending on site-specific
factors such as the potential for exposure, technical limitations to remediation, and data
uncertainties. Carcinogenic risks for COCs that pose a carcinogenic risk: above lE-06 are
presented for each exposure medium in Table 12 for the Semiconductor Sector.
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects was evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a
specified time period with a reference dose derived for a similar exposure period. The ratio of
exposure to toxicity is called a hazard quotient. Hazard quotients for each contaminant of
concern by exposure pathway and age group were summed within an exposure scenario to yield
a hazard index. If either the hazard quotient or the hazard index exceeds one, the potential for
adverse health effects exists. Hazard indices for COCS where the pathway exceeds a hazard
index of one are presented in Table 13 for the Semiconductor Sector.
The Semiconductor Sector risk assessment has determined that the total incremental lifetime
cancer and noncancerous risks for the current trespasser and current worker were below levels
of concern. The total cancer risk for the future resident (child, youth, and adult) through all
pathways was 8E-03 and is primarily associated with the exposure to groundwater. The hazard
indices were 11 for the future child resident and 5 for the future adult resident through the
exposure to groundwater. The surface soil, surface water, and/or sediment pathways for any of
34
-------
Table 11
Semiconductor Sector
Chronic Reference Doses (RID)
(mglkg-day)
Chemical Oral Reference Inhalation Reference Dermal1
!RIU:~I.$.f&f$f.tr&*i.ff:Wf4WJffffi.%t¥.fl.4f£MWMfi.i.Wj1fWi.Mf¥Af.W£t_iWff.fdt.f9Q-W8ff:W&Y.i#fl.J£1f4&
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthaJare 2E-2 IRIS, 1993 NC - lE-2
1,1- Dichloroethene 9E-3 IRIS, 1993 9E-3 - 7 .2E- 3
cis-l;l-DichloroetheIie lE-2 IRIS, 1993 lE-2 - 8E-3
Tetrachloroethene lE-2 IRIS, 1993 lE-2 - 8E-3
Trichloroethene 6E-3 ECAO, 1992 6E-3 - 4.8E-3
Vinyl Chloride NC IRIS, 1993 NC ~ NC
Arsenic 3E-4 IRIS, 1993 NC - 6E-5
Beryllium SE-3 IRIS, 1993 NC - IE-3
1 The dennal RID was derived based on the following AbsOIption Factors (ABS):
02 - Inorganics
0.8 - Volatile Organics
0.5 - Semi-Volatile OrganicsIP~sticideslPCBs
Dermal RID = OmI RID x ABS
2 Derived from a unit risk by dividing by 20 m3Jday, and multiplying by a body weight of 70 kg and a conversion
factor of 1,000 (EPA, 1992a).
NTV = No toxicity data were available.
NC
= Not of concern for this route of expos me.
25
-------
Table 12
Semiconductor Sector
Total Lifetime Cancer Risks ror Current and Future Scenarios
and
Carcinogenic Risks ror Substances or Concern
(Reasonable Maximum Concentration)
That Pose a Carcinogenic Risk
Exceeding One in One Million (10"')
Current Future Resident
Exposure Medium Trespasser Worker
Surface Soil tE-ll SE-ll 3E-IO
Groundwater NE1 NE Arsenic (2&4)
Beryllium (SE-S)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha1ate
(1E-6)
l,l-Dichloroethene (SE-S)
Teuachloroethene (7E~
Trichloroethene
(8E-S)
Vinyl Chloride
(7E- 3)
Total (8E-3)
Surface Water NC NC NC
Sediment 3E-8 8E-? Arsenic (lE~
Total (lE-6)
NE - Not evaluated.
NC - No concern, did not exceed lE-6 risk.
!3b
.\
-------
Table 13
Semiconductor Sector
Total Hazard Index Using Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concentrations
for Current and Future Resident Scenarios -
-and
Hazard Indices for Substances of Concern
Where Pathway Exceeds a Hazard Index of One
~
Exposure Trespasser Current Worker Future Resident
Medium
7-16 yr. old Adult 1-6 yr. old 7-16 yr. old Adult
Groundwater NE NE cis-I,2- Dichloroethene (2) NEt Trichloroethene (2)
Trichloroethene (4)
Total (5)
Total (II)
Surface Water 0.002 0.005 0.04 0.10 NE2
Sediment 0.002 0.006 0.08 0.01 NE2
Surface Soil 0.001 0.002 0.06 NEt 0.007
NE - Not Evaluated
NC . Not of concern, pathway did not exceed 1.0.
t Youth resident years were included in adult years (7-30) for calculation of resident exposure. .
\ -
-------
the future resident age groups at the Semiconductor Sector did not exceed a hazard index of one.
On the ESS campus the total cancer risks for the current trespasser, current worker, and the
future resident (child, youth, and adult) through all pathways exceeded lE-06, but were less than
lE-04. The noncarcinogenic risk for all ESS receptors was below the level of concern.
The carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk estimates for EPA's risk assessment were based on
a number of assumptions that incorporated varying degrees of uncertainty resulting from several
sources, including data evaluation; selection of exposure pathways, input parameters, algorithms,
and scenarios; and confidence in toxicological data used to estimate cancer potency factors and
reference doses. .
6.2 Ecololrical Risk Assessment
The objectives of the ecological risk assessment were to identify and es~te the potential
ecological risk associated with the exposure of aquatic and terrestrial population and communities
to potential chemicals of concern found in the groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediment.
The evaluation procedure for ecological risk is similar to that for human risk.
6.2.1 Chemicals of Concern
The selection of COPCs were identified based on ecological factors. Because the toXicity of
some chemicals to fIsh and wildlife differs from that of human receptors, the COPCs for the
ecological assessment may differ from those evaluated in the human health risk assessment. As
was done in the previous section on human health assessment, chemicals are included in the
following discussion if the results of the ecological risk assessment indicated that a COPC might
pose a significant level of current or future risk. These chemicals are the COCs. Tables 14 and
15 present the lists of COCs for the ecological evaluation by media at the Semiconductor Sector
and ESS respectively.
6.2.2 Exposure Characterization
The exposure characterization identifies the potential magnitude and frequency by which
ecological receptors are exposed to site-related chemicals that have migrated through various
pathways to terrestrial and aquatic habitats. The terrestrial habitat within and surrounding the
site consists of a variety of floral communities including pine flatwoods, sand pine scrub,
maintained wax myrtle and old field/freshwater wetland transition. .
The aquatic habitat includes a nine-acre stormwater retention pond on the Semiconductor Sector
~d several smaller stormwater retention ponds on the site. The North Harris Ditch, west of the
site, receives flow from the large retention pond and the surrounding area. The pond is adjacent
to several areas of groundwater contamination. The drainage ditch at the ESS campus receives
discharge from permitted Harris outfalls and, like the other ditches at the site, ultimately.
discharges into Turkey Creek and the Indian River Lagoon. The permitted outfalls are used for
emergency discharge from the ESS groundwater treatment system.
38
-------
Table 14
Semiconductor Sector
Ecological Contaminants of Concern
I . Aquatic Life. I
Aluminum
I Terrestrial Lite I
I Least Shrew II Osprey I
(Soil) (Surface Water)
Cadmium Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Table 15
Electronic Systems Sector
Ecological Contaminants of Concern
I Surface Water II Sediment I
Aluminum Cadmium
Copper
Mercury
Silver
39
, 1
-------
A survey was conducted to determine the biota that potentially occurs in the area. Special status
species were identified that occur within a 3-nille radius of the site and they include the West
Indian Manatee, the Southern Bald Eagle, the gopher tortoise, and the Horida Bear Grass. Based
on the biota survey it was detennined that suitable habitat did. not exist for the manatee and there
were no observations or signs of bald eagle, gopher tonoise or Horida bear grass.
Two ospreys were observed at the site, and since ospreys are afforded protection status, the
osprey was considered a target species for the. ecological evaluation. In addition to the osprey,
many other sPecies were seen at the site, including fishes, mammals and numerous other birds.
Natural Resource' Trust species occurring in Turkey Creek have the potential to occur in the
drainage ditches along the Harris site and the Northwest Tributary. These species are of special
interest for commercial industries.
The least shrew was chosen as. a target species at the Semiconductor Sector due to its almost
exclusive carnivorous habits, limited home range, and its high rate of food intake relative to its
small body size.
Based on the results of the field investigation, no visible signs of stress were observed for the
plant communities. Therefore, terrestrial vegetation was qualitatively evaluated only in the
ecological assessment
Risk to aquatic life froin chemicals of concern in surface water was evaluated by comparing
surface water concentrations with the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (A WQC) and .
Florida Water Quality Criteria, which are based on estimated water hardness. To assess the
impact of the Semiconductor Sector groundwater discharging to surface water bodies,
groundwater concentrations were also compared to the A WQC.
The assessment of the potential effects on the epibenthic and benthic life was performed by
comparing average and maximum sediment concentrations from the site with the NOAA
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) sediment biological effects range values used
as screening values by EP A Region IV. .
A summary of an exposure routes for each of the receptors is presented in Table 16 for the
Semiconductor Sector and in Figure 7 for the ESS campus. Specific target species were identified
for the Semiconductor Sector and are included on the table.
6.2.3 Toxicity Assessment
In the -ecological effects characterization or toxicity assessment, information on the toxicity of
the chemicals of potential concern to ecological receptors is presented. Information is obtained
from a variety of data sources, such as IRIS and the Hazardous Substance Data Base. The
toxicity information was used in the development of critical toxicity value,s for selected terrestrial
40
-------
Table 16
Semiconductor Sector
Exposure Routes of Potential Concern to Ecological Receptors
Tareet Species and Communities
Least Shrew
Osprey
. Ingestion of soil invertebrates (earthwonn)
. Incidental ingestion of soil .
. Ingestion of fish
Aquatic Biota
. Direct contact with surface water
. Direct contact with sediments
. Ingestion through the food chain
. Groundwater discharge impacting surface water
Intermediate Species*
Earthwonn
Vegetation
. Absorptionfmgestion of soil
from soils
Absorption/concentration
Fish
. Absorption/concentration from surface water
. Ingestion through the food chain
*Species evaluated for chemical uptake in order to estimate a dose to a target species
which feed on them.
ifl
"
-------
FIGURE 8
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS SECTOR
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
r---'" .... - -." ......... ..' .... _.. .-. ... ... -. ..- ... ,_.00' ... ...... ... .. -. ..... ....,. -... .
Sou rce Transport Mechanism Exposure Medium Exposure Ecologicall~eceptor
I Medium noutc ...' . .-..- ,,".'''--'' ..,.. ... ..
Terrestrial Biota
.n. ........... ... .-- ....
Plnnt Insect Ilerbivol'c Cau'llivorc
--....... .. ......-. .. -.. .'-' . ...' .'" .. ..... . '0"'.' ..n....'"'' '' ...-".....,... ... ... ...
Surfuce Soil None Soil liigestion . .
....---.-- .. .. .. - -
Dircct Contuct . .
.. .. .... ... ..-, .. --- -. - ...-.. -- - - - ..
Uptake Plant Food Source .
_..- -..,.....- ... .. ...-....... .. ...... ....... .-...... -... - ,."., -
Surface None SUl'fnce water/Sediment Ingestion . .
Water/ .u- ..' .- ..-
Sediment Direct Con'tnct
.... .. .. ---.. .. ..... ,.-.
Uioconcen tra tionJDiom agn i Cication Prey Ingestion
.J:
~
. Potential exprosure pnthway for this receptor.
Aquatic
Biotn
.
.
.
-------
target species at the Semiconductor Sector. Toxicity values selected for the assessment at the
Semiconductor Sector were based on the median lethal dose (LDso), when available.
At the ESS campus, the undisturbed terrestrial habitat is small and limited. In addition, toxicity
data for terrestrial wildlife is not as complete as for aquatic species; therefore, the ESS ecological
evaluation focused primarily on the aquatic life that could inhabit surface water bodies throughout
the site. - -
As mentioned above, the toxicity of contaminants to aquatic life and sediment dwellers can be
assessed by comparing surface water and sediment concentrations, respectively, to the A WQC
- values and NOAA values. Region IV Waste Management Division has adopted these values-as
screening values to determine whether potential hannful effects are possible for species in contact
with surface water and sediment. -
6.2.4 Risk Characterization
The potential risk posed to ecological receptors at the Semiconductor Sector (least shrew, osprey,
and aquatic life) was assessed by comparing estimated daily dqses or media-specific
concentrations with critical toxicity values. - This comparison, described as a hazard quotient, was
made for each chemical. A hazard quotient above one indicates that the species may be at risk
to an adverse effect from that particular chemical through that exposure route or media. A
hazard index for a contaminant represents a summation of the risks posed by a chemical through
more than one exposure route. In addition, - a. cumulative hazard index was calculated to
determine whether an organism could potentially be at risk due to ex.posure to all chemicals
through all exposure routes for an individual site. If the cumulative hazard index is greater than
1, the total exposure to all contaminants of concern through all exposure routes may potentially
pose a risk for adverse effects to the species of concern. Because of the number of safety factors
in the derivation, if the hazard quotient, hazard index, or cumulative hazard index exceeds one,
it does not necessarily indicate that an adverse effect will occur. .
The calculated hazard indices for the average and 95% UCL exposure cases for the least shrew
exceeded one (Table 17). These results indicate that there is a potential for adverse effects to
occur at the Semiconductor Sector as a result of potential exposure to inorganic compounds
primarily through invertebrate ingestion. This risk was principally due to the metals in soils from
the traSh incinerator area (Source Area #2). The average and UCL hazard quotients for the
osprey slightly exceed one (Table 18) indicating there is a limited potential for risk from
exposure to surface water contaminants through fish ingestion.
- -
The potential risk posed to aquatic receptors was assessed by comparing surface water and
sediment data with surface water or sediment screening values or toxicity data as previously
discussed above. The results of the comparison of average and maximum sediment
concentrations for the COPCs at the Semiconductor Sector to the NOAA sediment screening
values showed that they were below the screening values. Calculated hazard quotients for the
ER-Ls and ER-Ms did not exceed one for the average or maximum concentrations of any of the-
43
-------
Table 17
Semiconductor Sector
Summary of Hazard QuotientslIndices for the Least Shrew
.............
Hazard Quotient
for Soil
Ingestion
Averaae Upj:)er.95%
.~ .
.i
'!
Chemical
!
I
I
i
II Acetone
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
I Ethylbenzene
. Toluene
~i Xylene (total)
II Inorganics
i: Aluminum
i Barium
J: Cadmium
ii Chromium
:1 Copper
\!Iron
~Lead
Magnesium.
Manganese
; Mercury
;1 Nickel
;! Silver
Zinc
Organi~
NE
NE
1.1E-04
NE
NE
NE
!
I
I
1.6E-01 i
7.SE-021
9.3E-03
1.6E-02
1.6E-03
NE
1.1E-01
NE
2.2E - 03
1.1E-03\
2.3E-031
6.0E-031
2.6E-02
NE = Not evaluated due to lack of data and/or ctv.
NE
NE
: 1.SE-04
NE
NE
NE
9.0E-01 i
4.1E-011
1.1E-021
8.2E-02
1.3E-02
NE
9.8E-01
NE
1.9E-021
1.5E-031
5.7E-03 i
2.5E -021
2.3E-011
~:r..;;:" ,,:Ji.a
. Averaae UODer.95%:... Averaaei,;: ".'Opper:95%1!J:
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.4E+01
2.5E +00
6.1E-02
NE
.3.5E+02
NE
3.5E-02
1.SE-01
6.0E-01
NE
1.9E+01 I
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.6E+01
1.3E+01
5.0E-01
NE
3.0E+03
NE
3.1E-01
2.4E-01
1.5E+OO I
NE
1.7E+02
~ Cumulative Hazard Index:
£I1f
NE
NE
1.1E-04
NE
NE
NE
1.6E-01
7.SE-02
1.4E+01
2.5E+OO
6.3E-02
NE
3.5E +02
NE
3.7E-02
1.SE-01
6.0E-01
6.0E-03
1.9E+01
3.SE+02
NE
NE
, .8E-04
NE
NE
NE
9.0E-01
4.1E-01 i
1.6E+01
1.3E+01
5.1E-01
NE
3.0E+03
NE
3.3E-01
2.4E-01
1.5E+OOI
2.5E-02
1.7E+02
3.2E+03 ~
-------
Table 18
Semiconductor Sector
Summary of Hazard Quotients/Indices for the Osprey
H~rd:a"tj"!Jtients:fo:r\
.. . .". j::istdnl' estioii::
.
.
Chemical . A\ieraae"'" Upper: 95%"'
Inorganics '
,
Aluminum NE ' NE
Barium NE NE
Cadmium 3.6E-03 9.1E-03
Calcium NE NE
I Copper I 9.4E-01 / 1.3E+Ooj
Fluoride NE NE
MaQnesium I NE NE
Sodium NE NE
Zinc 1.3E-01 i 4.0E-01
Cumulative,Hazard Index: 1~1E+OO 1.7E+OO
NE - Not evaluated due to lack of data and/or ctV.
~5
-------
sediment COPCS with available screening values. An ER-L represents the lower 10th percentile
concenttation above which adverse effects may begin or are predicted and an ER-M represents
the median or 50th percentile concentration associated with adverse biological effects.
In the surface water at the Semiconductor Sector, .only aluminum exceeded the A WQC and had
a hazard quotient above one for the average and maximum concentrations (fable 19). Ail seven
of the surface water samples, including the upstream sample, had aluminum above the screening
value. Based on the presence of aluminum in quality control bl~, two results were flagged
as undetected and four others as estimates. Aluminum was also widely distributed in the soil,
sediment, and groundwater in all areas, indicating that concentrations of aluminum are not likely
due to site-related sources. .
Potential risks to aquatic life at the Semiconductor Sector due to groundwater discharge to
surface were assessed by comparing average and maximum groundwater concentrations for
COPCs to Federal A WQC. Only 1,2-dichlorobenzene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate chronic
screening values were slightly exceeded (Table 20). Lead exceeded its A WQC only in the first
round of sampling. In subsequent sampling, lead levels in groundwater were below surface water
criteria. The comparison of groundwater concentrations to surface water criteria represents a
worst-case scenario since some dilution, attenuation, etc. would be expected. In addition,
concentrations of these constituents were below detection in the retention pond's surface water.
In summary, given the overconservative nature of the ecological risk calculation, the only
ecological exposure scenario at OU2 which presents potentially unacceptable risk is direct or
indirect exposure of the shrew to soils. However, the risk was principally due to levels of metals
in Source Area #2 and the levels of metals found in the other surface soil samples were much
lower, indicating a liririted area of concern.
For the ESS campus, risk to terrestrial life was evaluated qualitatively based on the potential for
exposure and on the available toxicity information for the COCs. Most of the site is covered by
buildings and asphalt and surface soil samples were collected in areas designated as urban
vegetative communities, indicating that risk to terrestrial vegetation is of minimal concern.
At the ESS campus, the average and maximum aluminum concentration in surface water samples
exceeded the chronic A WQC, though the maximum detected concentration was below the acute
screening values (Table 21). Aluminum is a ubiquitous element in the environment
A variety of metals (cadmium, copper, mercury, and silver) in the sediments exceeded the NOAA
screening values (Table 22) in a sample collected in a portion of the Northwest Tributary
downgradient of its confluence with the South Harris Ditch. This area of the tributary historically
has had the highest levels of metals in sediment samples that have been collected from the
tributary and ditches downgradient of Harris. One sediment sample from the South Hanis Ditch
contained P AHs at levels exceeding the NOAA values. This sample not only receives drainage
from Harris' stormwater retention ponds but also receives drainage from adjacent roadways and
parking lots. .
46
-------
"
..
..
::1
',./ .. "':"".'
Aluminum
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Conner
Fluoride
M3I!nesium
Sodium
71n,.
... .
Table 19
Semiconductor Sector
Region IV Freshwater Screening Values and Hazard Quotients
for Surface Water Contaminants
'.'
.'
.- ..
...
. .' ,','n.
,'.',".',', ..,",,;...
::".. ...:.::.:~~ii.#.~;~Y.:::::\:....
.:~~~i~~~~~:d'J::~~t~.~c.. .'
..::.'Averavc:):::;::- :,:::}:':'Muirniim':..
~~~*,:~.ciil
..
..' . . ..
.... . .... .
:...;.:..:(:::.::;.:;,;.:::;:~t,jli£1:::::.,::.,::.::. .
... :':::::.::Averaoc':>:"::: ':':::?::MuiniiJ"tii:..:::::::: ::..
'"
.:, .!ttg,~n,:iy
':~~r~c~i.ifgValucs
.'.....' .. (u fL). .
:,Acule:::'::..'. . :Chronic
''''
...
Inorganics
" .: Itc&iol1..IV "
cbronic' Sc~c.CD.,iig ~aluc
... "-b'zard: a'utitic'or.,.. .. .'
..,' Avcral'cf:: :.:-MsximU'm':..':":
606 1180 7,50E+02 8.70E+Ol 8.08E-Ol 1.57E+00 6.97E+OO 1.36E+Ol
18 43 NA NA NE NE NE NE
0.4 1 5.80E+OO a 1.49E+OO a 6.89E-02 l.72E-Ol 2.69E-Ol 6.71E-Ol
43100 58300 NA NA NE NE NE NE
5 7 2.46E+Ola l.59E+Ol a 2.03E-Ol 2.85E-Ol 3.14E-Ol 4.40E-Ol
1580 1860 NA NA NE NE NE NE
82.'i0 15500 NA NA NE NE NE NE
49200 67600 NA NA NE NE NE NE
13 3ft ui S7~ ~n?-a t A..,.,. n.. a 8,28E-02 2.42E-nl 0 U~-n? ? ~?"-nI
NA - VAlue Dot nailable.
NE - Not eYIIlmted due to IackofA\Rilablo \IIJue or criteria.
A - &sed OD AD A ve", Se bardDcss 01141,5 m&4.. CaCO, fDr Harris Otl2 Site sulfAee WAler.
-------
Table 20
Semiconductor Sector
Region IV Freshwater Screening Values
for the Ecological Contaminants of Potential Concern Detected in Groundwater
Site-Related Samples Freshwater Water Quality
Groundwater Screening Values
Analyte Frequency Range of Arithmetic Acute Chronic
of Detected Mean Screening Screening
Detection Concentrations (mg/L) Value Value
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
!!lfltI_:j:iiij:lj:;jiiii\tf~!:::Jfi:im:i:i:!!::!:[j:!:1iilif;!11ij!ijlii!i1Iii:f~j!;~:ii~~[~:il[.:.. ...]!!fill:fffiiji!i!!i:j:~iiifill~i;~if.~!i:!*ti:jf;!:~!:jj:j:j!f~:::i:!~!~1!j
Aluminum 4/5 0301-43* 2.5* 0.750* 0.087*
Cadmium 1/1 0.00005 NA 0.00179 0.00066
Calcium 1/1 11 1 NA - -
Iron 1/1 0.155 NA - 1.0
LeacI 213 0.006-0.007* 0.0065* 0.03378 0.00132*
Magnesium 1/1 4.06 NA - -
Manganese 1/1 0.016 NA - -
Potassium 1/1 7.57 NA - -
Sodium 1/1 38.7 NA - --
::j:¥lvi.::jlft_191::::i::!~1~!i::i~::!:~:::!:~!:i:!:1ii::::i::j::;~:~~::~:j:!:j:::::!:r~::!j:j::!i!j::::i::j:~!::iij:::::!:::!*j:j:f~\ii:i;~i!!::::!:~::!:::!:::!:i:!i::!il~:::::!:i!~j::::::!!j::::!:::!!:!:!::!:j:::i:!!i!:!:i!:i:!::!i:!:!!~::!:!jf~:!!:i::!!:::::i:::::j!:
Chlorobenzene - 5/13 0.001-0.006 0.002 1.95 0.195
1, 1- Dichloroethane 3/13 0.002-0.013 0.006 1 1.8 2
1,1- Dichloroethene 2/13 0.003-0.007 0.005 3.03 0.303
cis-l ,2-Dichloroethene 6/13 0.0003-0.236 0.069 - -
trans-l).- Dichloroethene 3/13 0.001-0.007 0.004 - -
Ethylbenzene 4/13 0.002-0.374 0.105 4.53 0.453
Tetrachloroethene 3/13 0.002-0.009 0.005 0.528 0.084
Toluene 4/13 0.002-0.017 0.006 1.75 0.175
Trichloroethene 6/13 0.006-0.33 0.1 14 - -
1,1 , I-Trichloroethane 1/13 0.004 NA 5.28 0.528
Vinyl Chloride 7/13 0.002-0.226 0.069 - -
(m-and/or p- )Xylene 5/13 0.001-1.44 0.296 - -
::!li,_fMII.I_I!::iill'l~I:tii:::i!:!!\1:j!~:!:!:!:!lli!!!!!;!.I!:i:i:!::i!!i:::i:!!:::::!!!!!:!i:i::::!:i:::!:i1::i:!r~;!.i::::!:!i:!lli!::i:ifiiiiti.i:lfw.::fi!;~::i:::i:!:::::::\\::i:!::ri.:::~:!!::::!:i:r!:::::::!i!i:::i!!:!;:!:jj!t;::t!;!i:;!i~!i!~!.::::
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 118 0.007 NA 1.1 1 0.0003*
1).- Dichlorobenzene 4/13 0.005-0.133* 0.041* 0.158 0.0158*
Lf9
-------
Table 20 (Continued)
Semiconductor Sector
Region IV Freshwater Screening Values
ror the Ecological Contaminants or Potential Concern Detected.in Groundwater
. Chemical screening value not available.
NA - Not applicable. Cannot calculate a mean with one detection.
. - g.w. concentration (excess chronic screening value)
qq
-------
Table 21
Electronic Systems Sector
Region IV Freshwater Screening Values and State Class m. Fresh Water Quality Crit~.
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration
(pgIL)
Average
Maximum
;!lilllll_~!!fl~:
Carbon Disulfide
.;i)lll{iilll~11J.!I!lill!II!~lrl\li\11~i!!!!!I!il!!:!!11;lflllll'Jj~:::::~::~:::::.:.
15
16
Trichloroethene
NA
11&111i1;~1~ii~\!!~~}~IIIII!I!IIII~I!!i!\ili!J~!!!i!111ji!jijl~iijllllli~I!I~~~I~~~j!!~llli~;iit!\iili~:lii~i~ii!lli~1iii~ililli;ilfil~1illllll!lii~llii!ii!j;:I!riI!if,~
NA
80.7b
Aluminwn 377 459
Barium 25 34
Calcium 43500 54600
Copper 5 5
Iron 230 290
Magnesium 36300 70600
Potassium 3000 3100
Sodium 76800 105000
Zinc 141 230
Region IV
Screening Values
(pg/L)
State Class m
Fresh Water Quality
Criteria
(pg/L)
Acute
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
750
NA
NA
43 .
NA
NA
NA
260'
87 NA
NA NA
NA NA
26.5' 26.5'
1.000 1,000
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
236' 236'
NA - Value not available.
. Based on an average hardness of 257 mg/L CaCO:J for Harris OUI site surface water.
b Criteria for average concentration in SUlface water.
;
50
-------
Table n
Electronic Systems Sector
Screening Values for Sediment Concentrations
Sediment Region IV
ConcentratioDS Sediment Screening
Chemical (mg/kg) Values-
(mg/kg)
Average Maximnm ER.L ER.M
f~IIIB_llril.~~t'lllflfl~I_'I~_t::..................]fl.~~:................ jllt_,III
Benzo{a)anthracene NA 2.6 0.23 1.6
Benzo(a)pyrene NA 2.9 0.4 2.5
Benzo(b )fluoranthene 3.5 6.5 NA NA
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene NA 1.7 NA NA
Bis(Dimethylethyl)methylphenol NA 0.5 NA NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NA 0.0003 NA NA
CaIbon Disulfide 0.011 0.012 NA NA
Chrysene NA 3.9 0.4 2.8
1;1.- Dichlorobenzene NA 0.007 NA NA
1.3- Dichlorobenzene NA 0.034 NA NA
Fluoranthene 4.4 8.3 0.600 3.6
Indeno( 1 ;1..3-cd)pyrene NA 1.7 NA NA
Phenanthrene NA 2.6 0.225 1.3
Pyrene NA 4.9 0.350 2.2
if[III~1111111!!~I~jl!!!I~[ii1!~1iill:ri~f.fii~!!:I!:;i!:I!!i;i:fi;llt;1!f.!:]1!~:!!!!!!I![lifi!1rl!fJ:~11Iill!riillf~f.~!t![~f~I!lii;1!1ff.!lf!iil!ff.~~fI.!!
Aluminmn 1451 4960 NA NA
Arsenic 0.87 0.9 33 85
Barium 6.6 29.3 NA NA
Cadmium 3.8 6.9 5 9
Calcium 9202 93100 NA NA
Chromium 10.1 81 80 145
Copper 32 218 70 390
Cyanide NA 1 NA NA
Iron 3499 35200 NA NA
51
-------
Table 2Z (Continued)
Electronic Systems Sector
Screening Values for Sediment Concentrations
Sediment Region IV
Concentrations Sediment Screening
Chemical (mg/kg). Values-
(mg/kg)
Lead 4.5 21 35 110
Magnesium 338 1220 NA NA
Manganese 10 40 NA NA
Mercury 0.17 0.3 0.15 1
Nickel NA 10.5 30 50
Potassium 265 479 NA NA
Silver NA 4.4 1 2
Sodium 189 320 NA NA
Strontium NA 200 NA NA
Tin NA 27 NA NA
Titanium NA 30 NA NA
Vanadium 11 17.8 NA NA
Zinc 25.8 99.4 120 270
a
Value not available
Not evaluated due to lack of available values and/or criteria.
ER-L and ER-M values respectively represent the lower 10th and 50th percentile concentrations of a range
of sediment in which adverse biological effects have been observed (NOAA, 1990).
NA-
NE-
51
-------
Available data indicates that contaminants apparently are not currently migrating from the ESS
campus into downgradient surface water bodies via surface .water runoff. Historic surface water
and sediment data indicate that the South Harris Ditch might have been a migration pathway in
the past. but this ditch received effluent from permitted outfalls. The sediments containing metals
above screening values were located in the Northwest Tributary, downgradient from ESS as well
as other sources. This area was referred to NOAA for further evaluation.
An ecological risk assessment. like a human health risk assessment. is subject to a wide variety
of uncertainties in virtually every step in the risk assessment process. The main uncertainty
sources can be attributed to the environmental parameter estimation, exposure assumptions,
estimates of toxicological data, and environmental chemistry and samplfug analysis. EP A
believes that based on site-specific factors such as data uncertainties and the potenti~l for
exposure, risks from the soils, sediment, and surface water at the site are not at unacceptable
levels. .
6.3 Risk Assessment Conclusions
Based on the human health and the ecological risk assessment, EPA h~ determined that the
groundwater contamination has the potential to cause adverse health effects and/or an
unacceptable increased risk of cancer. EP A believes that the soils, sediment. and surface water
at the site do not contain contaminants at concentrations that would cause unacceptable risks to
human health or the environment Nor does EP A beiieve that contaminants from the Harris site
are currently migrating to offsite surface water or sediment
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this 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 e~vironment
6.4 Remediation Goals
EP A has identified the final contaminants of concern and their cleanup goals based in part on the
concentrations of contaminants found during the RI; concentrations of chemicals exceeding the
10-4 or 10-6 risk levels and hazard index of one; and chemical-specific Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) such as federal and state drinking water standards. No
cleanup goals were necessary for the surface water, soil, and sediment on either Semiconductor
Sector or ESS.
The RI concluded that four VOCs in groundwater, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, cis-l,2-
dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride, were the contaminants of concern for the site and developed
proposed remedial goals for these contaminants using primary state and federal drinking water
standards. The Risk Assessment found that seven contaminants posing a carcinogenic risk above
health levels and three contaminants posing a noncarcinogenic risk above health levels in
groundwater resulted in a total of eight different COCs. Although the calculation of risk levels
53
-------
does not involve consideration of drinking -water standards, the derivation of remediation g()als
for these eight chemicals involved using the drinking water standards.
While all of the COCs on Table 12 with a risk level above 10-6 and on Table 13 with a hazard.
quotient above one have MCLs, only vinyl chloride, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, cis-I,2-
dichloroethene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate exceeded the MCLs during the RI. In addition to
being below the drinking water standards, arsenic and beryllium were both detected in only two
out of eight samples and concentrations were extremely low. 1,I-dichloroethene was detected
. in only two samples out of 13. Although not included in the risk assessment COCs, two other
groundwater contaminants, manganese and cis-l,2-dichloroethene, exceeded the drinking water
standards during the RI and another chemical, benzene, exceeded MCLs during 1993 annual
groundwater monitoring. EP A requires that the groundwater remedy meet cleanup goals based .
on drinking water standards, the groundwater contaminants. and their cleanup goals for the
remedy selected "in this ROD are as shown in Table 23 below. Benzene is included on the table
as a minor addition to the chemicals listed in the Proposed Plan.
TABLE 23: HARRIS SITE CLEANUP GOALS
Groundwater Contaminants Maximum Federal or State
Concentration Maximum
Detected (pg/L) Contaminant
Level (pg/L)
Tetrachloroethene 9 3
Trichloroethene 330 3
cis-I.2-Dichloroethene 236 70
Vinyl Chloride 226 1
Benzene 2 1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 7 6
Manganese 160 50.
. Secondary MCL
Note: MCL shown is the more conservative concentration (state or federal)
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of all the data and studies performed at the site, EP A has determined that
operations at the Hams Corporation Facility site have impacted the groundwater at the site. A
Feasibility Study was conducted. to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives for contaminated
groundwater at the Semiconductor Sector.' The Feasibility Study initially developed seven
alternatives for screening based on short and long-term aspects of effectiveness, implementability,
and relative cost. The following four alternatives are the ones' that were selected for
consideration by EPA and FDEP and evaluated in detail in the F~asibility Study.
54
-------
7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
The Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered at every site.
Under this alternative, EPA would take no further action at the site to control or treat the source
of contamination. The no action alternative serves as a baseline with which other alternatives
can be compared. "No action" would involve shutting down the existing groundwater extraction
and treatment system at the site and discontinuing the groundwater monitoring. This al~tive
would not assure protection .of human health and the environment because it would not
dermitively prevent exposure to hypothetical future residential groundwater users.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on site, CERCLA requires that
the site be reviewed every five years. H indicated by the review, remedial actions could be
implemented at that time to address the impacted groundwater.
This alternative involves no cost to implement
7.2 Alternative 2 - Monitorin2 Onlv
Like the fIrst alternative, Alternative 2 would entail discontinuation of the existing remedial
action system, but the concentrations of constituents remaining in groundwater woUld be
monitored through routine sampling of existing monitor wells.
The RI Report inc;licated that the VOC plumes are isolated on the Semiconductor Sector and the
. groundwater at the site is not currently being used for drirJdng water. Alternative 2 would only
provide for protection of human health if natural attenuation mechanisms reduce. the
concentrations of constituents to below remediation goals and residential groundwater use does
not begin. The monitoring would provide a way to check that contaminant concentrations.
diminish, constituents are not migrating offsite, and long-term risk reduction was being achieved.
However, this alternative would not insure that groundwater meets remedial goals (MCLs).
The annual cost of monitoring is estimated to be $20,000, and with a 30-year period of
monitoring the total present value cost is estimated to be $225,000.
7.3 Alternative 3 - No Modifi=ation
Alternative 3 is currently being performed by Harris Corporation at the site pursuant to a 1990
Consent Order with the State. This remedial system consists of groundwa~r recovery wells, an
air-stripping tower, and the injection well system.
Groundwater at the Semiconductor Sector is withdrawn from 11 recovery wells in the shallow
zone and one well in the intermediate zone. (An additional shallow recovery well was shut down
in 1993 because it was no longer within the boundaries of the plume.) Groundwater is piped to
the treatment plant where the combined influent is treated by an air stripping tower which
removes the VOCs by a relatively simple multistage air stripping process. The treated water
55
-------
from the Semiconductor Sector is combined with the treated water from the ESS campus and
is pumped to the injection well facility on the Semiconductor Sector campus. The groundwater
is then injected into a zone of approximately 2000 to 2800 feet in the lower Floridan Aquifer
under a permit from the FDEP. The Floridan Aquifer is saline and nonpotable in the area.
The current withdrawal system was designed to clean up plumes along the east and south edges
of the retention pond and has effectively contained and reduced the size of the impacted
groundwater at the Semiconductor Sector. The total VOC concentration in the influent to the air
stripper has achieved more than a 65% reduction since 1990. The treatment system has
consistently removed VOCS from the groundwater to concentrations below detection limits and .
subsequently ARARs.Groundwater modelling has shown that the existing system is capable of
reducing VOC concentrations to cleanup levels, and therefore Federal and State MCLs, by the
year 2029. The air impacts from the air stripper are also within acceptable air emission
standards.
This alternative would include continuing the operation of the groundwater system until all
cleanup levels are attained.
The total present value cost to continue the operation of the existing withdrawal, treatment,
disposal and monitoring system is estimated to be $1,126,000. This cost includes operation and
maintenance of the remediation system and groundwater monitoring for 30 years.
7.4 Alternative 4 - Modifications to Eliminate Recovery Wells
SC- TS4 and SC- TS6 . .
This alternative would entail shutting down groundwater recovery wells SC- TS4 and SC- TS6 in
the 20-foot zone, while continuing the operation of the other recovery wells and remediation
system. Operati!=,n of the existing remedial system has reduced the concentration of VOCs in
groundwater. Because of a reduction in the plume size at the east end of the retention pond,
these two groundwater recovery wells which were originally positioned inside the groundwater
plume are now outside or on the edge of the VOC plume (See Figures 4 and 6).
Modification to the existing recovery system to stop pumping these two wells would increase the
efficiency and reduce the operation and maintenance costs for the system by a) eliminating
pumpage and treatment of "clean" water through the treatment system, b) reducing the
maintenance required to keep the pumps operable, and c) reducing the energy costs associated
with supplying air to the pneumatic pumps in these wells. .
Like Alternative 3, this alternative would also attain the groundwater cleanup goals by 2029.
The present value cost is approximately $1,081,000 and includes only annual O&M costs of
$96,000 since there are no capital costs.
56
-------
8.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
EP A uses nine criteria for evaluating remedial alternatives at NPL sites. The first two criteria
are known as threshold criteria and are the minimum requirements that all alternatives must meet:.
overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with site-specific cleanup
standards. The middle five criteria, called the balancing criteria, and the final two criteria, the
modifying criteria, are used for detennining the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.
The modifying criteria are used to evaluate EP A's proposed remedy after the public comment
period has ended and comments from the community and the State have been received. The nine
criteria and their respective summaries of the alternative evaluation is presented below.
8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not provide protection of human health and the environment These
alternatives would allow the groundwater to continue to exceed an acceptable level of risk.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would insure protection of human health and the environment by controlling
and reducing contaminant concentrations in groundwater to cleanup goals by providing a system
to contain the contaminant plume as well as treatment of the VOCs from the groundwater. These
alternatives would mitigate the risk to potential future residents through active treatment to
achieve remediation goals.
8.2 Compliance with ADPI~cable or J{elevant and Appropriate Requirements (A~
The ARARs for this site that any of these alternatives must attain can be grouped into five
categories: the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A), the State of Florida Administrative Code
(FAC), the Oean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA) and FDEP's toxic air criteria. .
The SDW A and PAC govern drinking water standards and groundwater in the area of the Harris
site is an existing drinking water source. Therefore, the aquifer in this area is classified as a
Class II groundwater and EPA's primary MCLs are enforceable at the site. In addition, Florida's
F AC prescribes primaIy and Secondary MCLs for Class IT aquifers and these would be applicable
. at this site. Appendix A contains the Chemical Specific ARARs, Criteria and Guidance used to
deveiop the ARARs at the site.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would violate these standards by allowing contaminants to remain in the
groundwater at concentrations above drinking water standards. Alternatives 3 and 4 would meet.
ARARs by reducing contaminant concentrations' in groundwater to Federal and State drinking
water standards through use of the extraction and treatment system.
The CAA, amended in 1990, directs EPA to publish National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQSs) for criteria pollutants. No NAAQSs presently exist for the COCs at Harris and
although NAAQSs form the basis for all regulations promulgated under the CAA, they are not
enforceable in and of themselves. Rather, it is the emission standards, which are promulgated
to attain the NAAQs, that are directly enforceable and are potential ARARs. The State has
57
-------
developed emission standards for hazardous and toxic air contaminants and these would be
applicable to the site. In addition, the State's no. threat levels (NTLs) are more stringent than the
control levels presented in EPA's OSWER Directive 9355.0-28 which sets policy for the control
of air emissions from air strippers, and. hence would preclude the directive. Under both
Alternatives 3 and 4, the emissions from the air stripper would meet FDEP's NTLs developed
in pursuit of CAA goals.
Alternatives 3 and 4 involve injecting treated water into the Floridan Aquifer, which would meet
the mc permit requirements designed to comply with the FAC.
The surface water is regulated by the CW A National Pollutant Discharges Elimination System
(NPDES). Discharges from the ESS treatment system to this ditch may occur during equipment
failure or emergencies as an alternative to deep well injection. The treated water in Alternatives
3 and 4 would attain the NPDES levels and would be di$charged to the surface through the
permitted NPDES outfalls.
Because Alternative 1 and 2 do not satisfy the threshold criteria, it is unnecessary to consider
these alternatives in the balancing or modifying criteria.
8.3 Lon2-Term Effectiveness and Permanence.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would be effective in the long-tenn by reducing constituents in groundwater
to levels below the drinking water standards. This would mitigate the risk to potential future
residents from exposure to contaminated groundwater. These alternatives would provide effective
control of the contaminant plumes and the long-term performance would be easily monitored.
/"
/
8.4 Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv. and Volume throu2h Treatment
Both alternatives 3 and 4 utilize air snipping to pennanently remove VOCs from the
groundwater, thereby reducing the toxicity and volume of the contaminants in the groundwater.
Over 99% of the VOCs in the groundwater would be treated.. These alternatives also limit the
mobility of contaminants through the use of the recovery well system. The recovery wells would
create zones of capture to prevent or reduce VOC migration.
The inorganic compound and semi volatile compound that were fou!ld in one groundwater sample
at levels above drinking water standards are located within the area of the VOC plume.
Therefore these contaminants would be captured by the existing recovery wells. This will reduce
the mobility and volume of the inorganic and semivolatile c~mpounds in the groundwater. B~
on their- relatively low concentrations in groundwater and their single detection above drinking
water standards, EPA believes that the monitoring will show that the bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
and manganese will meet ARARs. .
58
"
.. .
.'
-------
8.S Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 3 would not involve remedy consttuction since the remediation system is already in
place and, therefore, not involve any short-tenn risks to construction workers. Alternative 4
would involve shutting down two recovery wells and converting the wells into monitoring wells.
Any short-tenn risk to workers involved in the construction of Alternative 4 would be reduced
through implementation of a health and safety plan.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide reduction in risk to the community and the environment
through continued reduction of constituent concentrations in groundwater. The environmental
impact of these alternatives is minimal since treated groundwater is reinjected into the deep
Floridan Aquifer. . The Floridan Aquifer is not a potable water source in this area.
The contaminant control and treatment system is a proven, reliable measure to mitigate
contaminated groundwater. Both alternatives would require the system to be in operation for an
estimated 35 years until protective drinking water levels are attained.
8.6 ImDlementabilitv
Alternative 3 would be very easy to implement since the system is in operation and has been
proven to be effective at this site. Groundwater monitoring data has shown that the existing
system has reduced the concentrations of contaIJrinants in groundwater and the size of the plumes
at the site. The existing extraction and treatment system has already obtained state and
community acceptance.
Alternative 4 would be easy to implement since it would require only a modification to the
existing remedy. The shut down and conversion of two recovery wells would be feasible given
that Harris has already successfully shut off and converted at least one recovery well at the
Semiconductor Se:ctor. In addition Alternative 4 requires a conventional supply of services and
materials used in groundwater-related consttuction.
8.7 Cost .
All alternatives at the Harris site require no capital to implement, and, therefore, have no capital
costs.
Alternative 3 would require an annual operation and maintenance cost of $100,000. The annual
O&M cost for Alternative 4 would be $96,000; the difference in the cost of the two alternatives
would be due to the savings associated with eliminating the two recovery wells.
The net present value of capital and O&M, or total c~sts expressed in today's doll~, is
$1,126,000 for Alternative 3 and $1,081,000 for Alternative 4.
59
-------
8.8 State A2encv Acceptance
The State of Florida, as represented by the Department of Environmental Protection, has been
the support agency during EP A's Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study process for the
Harris site. In accordance with 40 CPR 300.430, as the support agency FDEP has provided input
during this process. Based upon comments received from FDEP, it is expected that concurrence
will be forthcoming; however, a formal letter of concurrence has not yet been received.
8.9 Communitv Acceptance
EP A solicited public comment on the remedial alternatives discussed in Section 7.0 of this
document during the period of November through December, 1994. Responses to comments are
contained in the Responsiveness Summary for this Record of Decision. Based on these
comments, there is no indication the community does not support the remedy proposed in the
Proposed Plan and selected in this Record of Decision.
9.0 SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, the detailed analysis of
alternatives and public and state comments, EP A has selected a variation of Alternative 4 as the
selected remedy for the groundwater at the Semiconductor Sector. Alternative 4, as described
in the Feasibility Study and this ROD, requires continued operation of the existing groundwater
remediation system with the elimination of Recovery Wells SC- TS4 and SC- TS6. EP A's selected
alternative also requires the continued operation of the existing remediation system; however,
only Recovery Well SC-TS4 would be eliminated. Groundwater monitoring has confirmed that
there is no further contamination in the area of well SC- TS4. The total present worth cost of the
sele~ted remedy, a variation of Alternative #4, is estimated at $1,118,000.
At the completion of this remedy, the calculated risk associated with this site will be 10-6 which
has been determined to. be protective of human health and the environment and/or will achieve
drinking water standards. This selected groundwater alternative will be protective of human
health, comply with ARARs, and provide the best balance among the alternatives with regard to
effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
A. Groundwater Remediation
Groundwater remediation will address the contaminated groundwater at the site. Groundwater
remediation will include the continued extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater,
and discharge to the injection well system. .
A.l The maior components of groundwater remediation to be implemented include:
Extraction of contaminated groundwater through the use of the existing remediation
system.
60
-------
Treatment of extracted groundwater utilizing the existing air-stripping tower.
Discharge of treated water to the. injection well system in accordance with all applicable
regulations and other Performance Standards.
Elimination of Recovery Well SC-TS4 and conversion to a monitoring well.
A.2 Existing Groundwater Remediation System
Under the existing remedial action, groundwater at the Semiconductor Sector is withdrawn
from 11 recovery wells in the shallow zone and one well in the intermediate zone. The
recovered water is treated by reducing VOC concentrations to acceptable levels utilizing
art air-stripping tower. After treatment, the groundwater is pumped to the two injection
wells onsite and combined with the ESS wastewater. This combined water is injected
into the Floridan Aquifer. The injection well system handles a flow of approximately
1,400,000 gallons per day. Groundwater monitoring at Semiconductor Sector is
conducted through a network of 53 monitoring wells that includes 26 shallow, 13
. intermediate, and 14 deep wells.
Recovery Well SC-TS4 will be eliminated based on the observed reduction in VOC
concentration to acceptable levels and converted to a monitoring well. Individual VOC
concentrations in SC-TS4 have been below perfonnance standards since May. 1990.
Recovery Well SC-TS6 will remain in place until there has been additional data to
suppon elimination. (Section 9(B), Compliance Monitoring, will discuss this further.)
A.3 Performance Standards
a. Extraction Standards
Groundwater will be extracted from the surficial aquifer without causing
significant drawdown of the aquifer. Current rate of extraction is from 20,000 to
30,000 gallons per day.
b. Treatment Standards
Groundwater shall be treated until the following maximum concentration levels
are attained in monitoring and recovery wells.
. Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
cis-I,2,-dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Manganese
1 ug/L
6ug/L
70 ug/L
3ug/L
3ug/L
1 ug/L
50 ug/L
61
-------
[ "
I
I
These ~leanup levels may be modified due to potential uncertainties about the
ability of the treatment system to achieve established cleanup goals with the
existing physical" groundwater system. In such a case, the system's perfonnance
may be re-evaluated by EPA, in consultation with FDEP.
Once the treatment levels have been met for any contaminant for four consecutive
samples over a period of two years the contaminant shall be dropped from the
monitoring requirement "
c. "Emission Standards
Emissions from the air stripper will attain the State air toxic regulations.
Appendix B shows Florida's criteria for hazardous and toxic pollutants.
d. Discharge Standards
Discharges from the injection well system shall comply with all ARARs, including
State permits. Harris shall continue to comply with their existing mc permit and
any future renewal permits. The Class I Permit Injection Limits that have been
established to this system are shown in Appendix C. .
Emergency discharge to surface waters from the ESS treatment system shall
comply with the NPDES permit levels shown in Appendix D.
B. Compliance Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring shall be conducted at this site. Based upon present and previous
groundwater contamination location and levels, EP A has designated specific wells to be sampled
in the initial round of groundwater monitoring." Sampling information obtained from these wells
will be used to determine exact locations of the plumes and will be used to evaluate the wells
to be sampled the following year. The wells are as follows:" "
Shallow Monitoring Zone
East Side of the Retention Pond
South of the Retention Pond
SC- TS4
SC- TS6
SC- TS9
SC-TSIO
SC- TS23
SC- TS24
SC-TS32
SC-TSI2
SC-TS13
SC-TSI4
SC-TSI5
SC-TSI6
SC-TSI7
SC- TS25
SC- TS28
SC- TS29
SC-TS30
SC-TS31
Building 61 Area
SC- TS2
SC-TS33
62
-------
Intermediate Monitoring Zone
Deep Monitoring Zone
SC-6S
SC-7S
SC-14S
SC-16S
SC-19S
SC-20S
SC-2IS
SC-16D
Another monitoring well shall be placed in the southwest portion of the site in. the intermediate .
monitoring zone~ This monitoring well will be used to monitor a small portion of contaminated
groundwater that potentially is not being captured by the extraction wells. This small portion of
contaminated groundwater is expected to undergo natural attenuation and has relatively low levels
of contaminants. The monitoring. well will be us~ to determine. the southern extent of the
groundwater contamination in the intermediate zone.
During the operation of the system, the groundwater plumes or portions of the plumes would
r~h the cleanup goals at different rates. Therefore, it may be unnecessary to continue the
operation of some recovery wells. Individual recovery wells may be shut down after 3
consecutive samples demonstrate that constituents of concern are below remedial goals. The time
interval between collection of each of the 3 consecutive samples must be at least 3 months and
no greater than .12 months. Prior to shutdown of any recovery well, a TCL analysis using MCLs
or lower as detection limits is required to monitor all VOCs' concentrations and to establish a
baseline for the future monitoring. Also, prior to shutdown of any recovery well it must be
demonstrated, based on evaluations of groundwater monitoring data, that cessation of pumping
will not result in loss of plume capture or offsite migration of constituents of concern. Should
any concentrations above cleanup goals be detected in the recovery wells or monitoring wells that
are associated. with monitoring the groundwater in the capture zone of the recovery well, the
recovery well would be reinstituted. Monitoring will continue for a period of at least one year
after shutting off a recovery well. .
After all wells at Semiconductor Sector demonstrate compliance with the Performance Standards
and the paragraph above, pumping of the remediation system would cease. The system (or
applicable portions thereof) will remain in place and groundwater monitoring will continue, for
a period of three years beyond the time the recovery wells have ceased operating. During the
fIrst year of the three-year monitoring, three consecutive samples will be collected at least three
months apart. Annual samples will be required during the final two years.
If at the end of three years; the groundwater concentrations for all contaminants of concern have
remained below cleanup goals, then the remediation system may be discontinued. EP A would
require annual monitoring thereafter. If at the end of three years, cleanup levels have been
exceeded, actions would be taken to verify the contaminant concentrations and, if verified,
appropriate recovery wells would be reinstituted.
The purpose of this shutoff and monitoring scheme is to insure that Harris can demonstrate that
the groundwater concentrations have sufficiently remained below cleanup levels. There has been
63
-------
evidence from pump and treat systems operating at other si~es that groundwater concentrations
can rise after the system is shut off. .
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund Sites is to select remedial actions that are protective
of human health and the environment CERCLA also requires that the selected remedial action
for the site comply with ARARs, be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions or alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The statute contains a preference for
remedies that include treatment as a principal element The following paragraphs discuss how
the selected remedy meets all the statutory requirements inCluding treatment
10~1 Protection of Human Health and Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by reducing levels of
contaminants in the groundwater to levels within Federal and State MCLs. Extraction and
treatment of the groundwater contaminants at the Semiconductor Sector will reduce the risk to
human health to below 10-6 for carcinogens and a hazard index of below one for noncarcinogens.,
Treated water is discharged to the Aoridan Aquifer rather than to surface water and, as a result,
presents no environmental risk. The soils, sediment, and surface water at the site present no
unacceptable levels of risk at the site; all levels fall below or within the range of 10-4 to 1006.
No unacceptable shott-tenn risks or cross-media impacts will be caused by implementation of
the remedy. .
10.2 Compliance with ARARs
Implementation of this remedy will comply with all Federal and State ARARs and will not
require a waiver.' ' .
Chemical-Specific ARARs. The performance standards for the indicator chemicals presented in
Section 9(A.3) are based on Federal and State MCLs established under the SDW A and FAC,
respectively. Federal MCLs are considered relevant and appropriate when detennining acceptable
exposure to groundwater and State primary and secondary MCLs are applicable to Class n
groundwater. The remedy in this ROD will attain the equivalent or more stringent Florida
MCLs. State permit requirements in the mc under the FAC will continue to be met by the
injection well system. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are applicable fot air stripper
emissions; however, no criteria have been determined for the VOCs being monitored at the site.
Therefore the State toxic air regulations are applicable to the air stripper emissions and the air
stripper will continue to attain the NTLs. (The specific citations that pertain to this remedy are
shown in Appendix A.) The remedy will also comply with the NPDES surface water standards
under the CW A. ' '
Action-Specific ARARs. No action-specific ARARs are applicable or relevant and appropriate
for this site.
64
-------
Location-.SDecific ARARs.
appropriate for the site.
No location-specific ARARs are applicable or relevant and
10.3 Cost-Effectiveness
After evaluating all of the alternatives which satisfy the two threshold criteria above, EP A has
concluded that the selected remedy affords the highest level of overall effectiveness proportional .
to its .cost Section 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(D) of the NCP also requires EPA to evaluate three out of
the five balancing criteria to determine overall effectiveness: long-tenn effectiveness and
permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, and short-tenn
effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness is determined by evaluating these balancing criteria to detennine
overall effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is then compared to cost to ensure that the remedy
is cost-effective. The selected remedy provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to its cost
This remedy has little capital cost and a relative low present worth cost compared to more exotic
remedies, while satisfying the criteria for long-term effectiveness and permanence and short tenn
effectiveness. This alternative would reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
The. estimated total present worth cost for the selected remedy is $1,118,000.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technolosdes or
Resource Recoverv Technoloeies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ("MEP")
EPA believes the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions.
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the groundwater at the
Semiconductor Sector. After c:;valuating the alternatives that are protective of human health and
the environment and comply with ARARs, EP A has 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 throtigh treatment, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, aQ.d cost In making this decision, the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element and state and community acceptance was also considered. .
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Princioal Element
The statutory preference for treatment is satisfied by the selected remedy by treating the
contaminated groundwater utilizing air stripping. By utilizing treatment as a significant portion
of the remedy, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element
is satisfied.
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for this remedy at the Harris site was released for public comment in
November 1994. The Proposed Plan identified Alternative 4 as modified by EPA, ~limination
65
-------
of one recovery well, extraction, treatment and discharge to injection wells, as the prefeITed
alternative for groUIidwater remediation. EP A reviewed all written and verbal comments
submitted during the public comment period. Upon review of these comments, it was determined
that no significant changes to the remedy, as orig~nally identified in the Proposed Plan, were
necessary.
66
-------
APPENDIX A
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC ARARS, CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE
-------
"
Table 5-2.
Prcllminary Chcmicul Spccilic ARARs, Critcria, IInd GlIidu~cc, Hnrrls Corporation OU2, Palm Bny, ~Iorldn.
Page 1 or 2
-.
Standard, RC(IUirclllcllt,
Criteria, or Llmitatioll
CitutioJl
Descriptioll
Status
FS Conslderutlon
Feder:\l
National Primary Drinking 40 CFR 141 Provides standards for 30 Relevant and Appropriate for groundwater,
Water Standard (NPDWS) compounds for publie Appropriate however, Federal MCLs arc equal
drinking water systems. to or less stringent than State
(primary MCLs) MCLs.
National Secondary Drinking 40 CFR 143 Establishes welfarc-based To be considered Federal secondary MCLs are to
Watcr Standard standards for public water be considered guidelines.
systems. (secondary maximum
contaminant levels)
Maximum Contaminant Publication L. The MCLs are non-enforceable Rclevant and Since the MCLGs arc nonenforceable
Level Goals (MCLGs) N 99-399, 100 heallh goals set at levels Appropriate goals, they are used as reference
Stat 642 (1986) that would result in no known values to indicate treatment system
or anticipntcd adverse health performance only.
effects with an adequate margin
of safety.
National Primary and 40 CFR 50 Sets Primary and secondary air Not Applicable Does not include criteria for
Secondary Ambient standards at levels to protest constituents being discharged
Air Quality Standard public health and wel£are. (I.e., VOCs).
GERAGHTY & MILLER.INr
-------
APPENDIX B
FLORIDA'S AIR TOXIC REGULATIONS
(NO THREAT LEVELS)
-------
.
Table 5.2.
I»reliminury Chemical Specilic ARARs, Criteria, and Guidance, Ihlrris Corporation OU2, I»lIlm nay, Florida.
Page 2 or 2
Standard, Requirement,
Criteria, or Lhnitation
FS Consideration
Citation
Description
St/ltus
State
Florida Drinking Water
Standards (Florida Safe
Drinking Water Act)
Florida Ambient Air
Ouality Standards
FDEP No. Threat Levels
17-550 F.A.C.
17.272 F.A.C.
FDEP Screening
Criteria
Sets primary and secondary
maximum concentration limits
for drinking water, equal to
or more stringent th-an Cederal
standards.
Ambient air standards for
protection of public health
and safety welfare. .
Concentrations of compounds
in ambient air should be
below no-threat levels
established by FDEP.
Applicable
State of Florida Primary and Secondary
Drinking water standards are applic-
able to Class II groundwater per
FA.C. 17-520.420.
Not Applicable
Does not include criteria for
constituents being discharged
(i.e., VOCs).
Applicable
Applies to emissions Crom
air stripper.
} lA RRl S\MF0162.016\MM940030
GERAGHTY & MILLER.Il'J'"
-------
,,'
;'.:n IU;,'\,,':
.;lIIU LI:JI
.. "
-, ~ft176 r (;/ 'I .-
IV ()m~
/'\n, CII~IICAI. NA~m CAS NO. C NO '1'lIImA'I' 1.1~"m.s IU'.A. "AI.UI~S C()l\IlImNTS
A 8hr 24 hr AIIIIIIIII 'l'WA\£! UNIT ItISK IUC MC
A (1111/1113) (1111/1113) (1I1!/1II3) (1112/1113) !"ACTon (lle/Ul3) (1I2/1U3)
. ,'" ',".',"',',",.'.',',,',',',"",',."""',',',"',' . ,',',",',.",'."'.'."""','.'.".',',',','."',,,',""'".""','''.''','.'.'''''.','.'''.',''.','.'.'''.' ',',",",' ,'.' ,','"""'.'."'''',',',',''',',',',,.,,'.''',',..,', "",,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,",,,",,.,,,,,,,,,. \','0', "'.""'."""'''.''''''''''',','oYo',', ..."'...-h','"",,,,,.A,' "y.',',',''''''''''''...','.......,.."y.' "''''''','No .y"y.."~'......v...y.,,..,nA.'" "Y..' . .... ". ,."In "..uN "....... .. ,'U"''''''''''',> "',',,,,',,,'.',,,,,,,,,,"v.','
I lK:elllldeh)'de 75.07.0. 1800 431 4.01~+ 01 180 4.00E+01 I.OOIHOI 112
1 oC/!lolllide 60.35.5 . .
3 Oel'dc ocid 64.19.7 150 60 15
~ oC/!lic ollh\'dride 108.24-7 110 50.4 11 C
5 IICe'""e 67.6.,.1 35600 85.,4 J780
6 Ilcelollilaile 75.05.8. 670 160.8 I.OE+ 01 67 I.OOE+OI Skill
7 OClo(lIllhellUII 98.86.1 . I.OE+02 I.OOE+ 02
8 l'QCel\'IOIIIIIIOnllorelle 53.96.3 .
9 OCI:I\'ll:lIe 74.86.1 (d)
10 oceh'lelle letrohrol1llde 79.27.6 140 33.6 14
11 ocroleill 107.02.8 t, 1.3 0.551 1.01t-01 0.13 I.OOE-OI 2.00E+ 01
U Qcn'lul1Iide 79-06.1. 0.3 0.071 7.7E-04 0.03 1.30E-03 A1 SKIN
IJ ocn'lic oeld 79.10.7. 59 14,16 3.0E-01 5.9 3.00&01
14 IK:n'lollilrile - - > ,,11"'1 c"allide 107.13.1. 43 10.31 1.5E-02 4.3 UOE-OS A2 DI SKIN
15 nldicarb 116.06.3 300 72 1.0E+ 00 30 I.OOE+OO
16 aldrill 309.00.2 1.5 0.6 1.0E-04 0.15 UOE-03 SKIN
17 0111'1 ulcohol 107.18.6 48 11.51 5.0E+00 4.8 5.00E+ 00 SKIN
18 olM cbloride 107.05.1. 30 7.1 1.01~+ 00 3 1.00&+00
19 alh'l 2h'cilh'l elber (AG E) 106.91.3 130 55.1 23 SKIN
10 IIlh'llIrOIl\'1 disllifide 1179.59.1 120 28.8 IJ
11 Ol1ll1lilllllll dllsl 7429-90.5 100 24 10
lJ 011111111111111 oxide 1344-28.1 100 24 10
U Ohllllilllllll IIhuslll1hle 20859.73.8 3.OE-OJ 3.00E-01 AI
H 4.omhlllllillhl'l\'l 91.67-1 . SKiff
2S 1.ulllilloll\'ri,line 504.29.0 19 4.56 1.9
16 OIlIitrole 61.81.5 1 0.48 0.1
17 Rllllliollia 7664.41.7 170 40,8 I.OE+01 17 1.00E+01
18 1lIIIIIIIIIIilllll chl"ride fllllle 12125.01-9 100 14 10
29 ...1I1II&llIilllll ItCrnllol"oucfulinalC 31125.26.1 I 0.201 0.1
.\0 111111111111111111 slIlrlllllllle 7773.06.0 100 24 10
JI "'IIIII\'IIICelll'c 628.63.7 5320 1276.11 SJ1
31 Sl'C lIulI'llicelnle 61(,.38.0 6650 1596 665
- 76
33 IIlIilille 61.53.3 . ' 18.24 I.O(fo'...OI 7.6 7.401t-06 1.00g+ 00 SKIN
J4 olllsidille o,p 0-90.0~.0 11..10~.!)4.9
-------
. .
. .
. '"''
.
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
, ..
NO TlllmA T L ,hLS .. .
"'n. CIIEMICAL NAME CAS NO. C' ORL R.I'.A. VAWI~S COMME,
A 811r .14 br Auuunl T\VA UNIT RISK mc ItAC
A (uR/1II3) (1I1t/uI3) (1I1t/m3) (wRluI3) FACTOR (1I1t/w3) (1111/1113)
. . ,'.",",'," ,',,"', . ',','.' ',",'.',','.....'.'v.',"',','......', """"""'""""""""''''"'''"'''''';''''''.'.''''""''''''''''''''''''"'''''''''''''''''',''','.',".'...',",",-"""""""""""'"'''''"'''''"'''''''''''',',','""""'''''''''''''''''''''''V'''''"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.,...",',""',,' ....",......, ,'YO'" "", ''''....'''''''''''"", "',''',,,,, N.''''',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.........,,-,, ......."v............... """Yo.", ;,0........ .."...... """"'."'.'. '........ ,v;....................,"..""...".","",
38 81l!1I1I 7440.37.1 ,
39 HI'Sl'lIic 4: sulnhle CIllIlIIOIIIIIIs 7440.38.2 . 2 0.48 2.3&.0" 0.2 4.301~03 A
"0 nl'St'lIie lriuxide (llmllnc.iun) 1327.53-3 A2
"I ursine 778...42.1 1.6 0.384 0.16
..1 ushrslos 1332.21-4.
H oSlllaal1 (nlllt'S 80S2.4Z.4 SO 12 5
.... Dlruine 1912.14,9 50 12 5
"5 OZillllhus'lIIcllayl 86.50.0 2 0.48 0.2 SKIN
"6 lIarinlll . suluble COUlllOllIIlIs 74"0.39.3 5 1.2 5.0g+01 0.5 5.00E+01
47 lIorinnJ cyunide 5"2-62.1 5.0E+01 5.00E+01
411 1I0riuIII slll(ale 77]7-43.7 100 24 10
49 ba,' 'IIU .... > IIrOllo:orur 114.26.1 . 5 U 0.5
50 bl'llouI\'1 17804.35.2 100 24 10
51 bt'lIz(o)onlllroccne 56.55.3 I.IE-OJ 8.90E-04
51 bl11ZcJle 71-43-2. 30 7.2 1.2E-01 3 8.30&.06 A2
53 bellzidilie 92.87.5 . J.5 E-OS UOE-02 AI SKIN
5.. bl1untrichllllille 98.7.7 .
55 bl1UO)'1 peroxide 94.36.0 50 12 5
56 bCllzu(nlp)'rene 50.32.8 3.0E-04 3.30&.03 A2
57 bennl chloride 100.44.7. 52 12.48 5.2
58 bl'n'lIinlll & 'COIllIIOIIIII!s 7440.41.7. 0.02 0.00"8 4.2E.04 0.002 2.40£.03 Al 112
59 IIhlhtn,'I.. .. > dinbeu,'1 91.5Z.4. JJ 3.12 1.3
60 bis (2o(hlorOelb)'1) clber .... > dichloroellll'l elbei' 111.44.4 290 69.6 3.0&.03 29 3.30E-04
--!L bis (chloroUll'lhvl) ellier 542.88.1 . 0.05 0.012 1.6&.05 0.005 6.Z0E-02 AI
61 lIis (l'l'/bl"bt':\'\'I) IIhlholnle.... >dioch'l pblbnlule 117.81-7 . 4.2E+00 2.40E-07
6J bbmnlb h:Unride 1304.82.1 100 24 10
64 bislllulb 't,lInricie se .dollCCl 50 12 5
-!L buroll'S. lelra . sodinlll snllS 1303.96.4 10 2.4 I
66 huron oxIde 1303.86.2 100 24 10
67 Ilurulllrillrolllille 10194.33.4 100 24 10. C
611 b01'\111 hinnllride 7637.07.2 28 6.72 2.8 C
69 brolllocil 314-40-9 100 24 10
70 IIromine 7726.95.6 6.6 1.584 0.66
7J bromine llell'nnuoride 7789.30.2 7.2 1.718 0.71
71 hrolllochiorulllelbone.. .. > chillrubrolllolllelhnlle 74.97.~ 21200 50811 1060
73 hrulII u(lI.,n 75.25.2. 52 12.48 9.1&.01 5.1 1.101~06 SKIN
H 'Irllllllllllt'llanne.. .. > IIIclll\'l laromlde 7".8J.9 190 45.6 6.01~+00 19 6.00E+OO B.OOIt-OI SKIN
. 1 '\(. -D7:y
PAGE2
JANUAR' 't:"
-------
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
.
"n, CIJI~IICAI. NMm CAS NO. C NO 'l'lIItltA'r 1.I~VmhC; Ogl. IU'.A. \'AI.UES COMMltNTS
A 811r 1411r AIIIIIIIII TWA UNIT IUSK lue UAC
A tlle/1II3) tlle/1II3) 1112/1113) (1112/1113) IlACTOlt ~(1I2/1113) (lle/1II3)
'. ",.,',",..," \',,',"'.,',',',""',',','.v...',',....',....',....'.""""'".""".......'N...''''''''',',,,',',';'.'.','...','.....','.''''',',,,'.';''."""""'."'."""",,',y,"''''.Y.'''.''','.,,',''''''''''''''''''.''''',',,,',',""""'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ""''''''''''''.........y,.,,,...' ' m. """.'," ,''''''''',,,,,,,,,, ",........'";''''''''''''' ........... .. ............ v. ,'oVn..,j',''',,,,',,,'''''''''''''',,,,, """"""'~.......'I ................ Yo"", """"'.""""......'"
75 I 3.hllllldielle 106-99.0. .210 51.8 3.6~03 n 2.80&.04 .u
76 hili nile 106.97.8 3800.0 9120 1900 '
77 1.II,,'0")'(o,IInllol 111-76.1 1110 190.4 m SKIN
78 1I-llIIh'l ncctnle 113.86.4 7130 1111.2 713
79 SI'C.blllrl ocelll'e 105.46.4 9500 n80 950
110 '~rt,bllh'l ocelale 540-88.5 !J5110 2180 950
SI hllh.lncn'!:.,e 141.31.1 510 114.8 51
U lI,huh'l olcnhol 71.36.3 1510 364.8 151 C.SKIN
iJ $t«.blll)'/olcobol 78.97-1 3030 711.2 303
I~ 1~I1-hllh'l alcohol 75.65.0 3000 ' -. 710. 300
15 hUI\"lnmlue 109.73.9 150 36 15 CSKIN
16 IN1,IIIIIyl chrolllale 1189.85.1 1 0.201 0.1 C.SKIN
17 lI-buh'leh'cidvl elher ( DGE) . 20116.08.6 1350 324 135
18 lI.bllh'lluclole 138-1}.7 300 71 30
19 hllM wercoJllan 109.79.5 18 4.31 1.8
/0 o-sec buh'llihellol 89.7}.$ 310 74.4 31 SKIN
/1 p.1~11.hul)'lIolnene 98.51-1 610 1016.4 61
/1 mehllillm dusls & salls . 7440.43.9. 0.$ 0.12 5.6~0~ 0.05 1:80&.03
/J cudmhllll oxide 1306.19.0 0.5 0.11 5.61~04 0.05 1.80&.03 C
/~ calcilllll carbOllole 1317.65.3 100 201 10
1$ cuicilllll chrolllnle 13765.19.0 0.01 0.0014 . 0.001 A2
16 colciulD nnllnllllcle 156.61-7 . 5 1.2 0.5
/7 tnlciulII nnulde 59}.Q1.8 3.0E+01 3.0011+01
18 calciulII 1II'droxide 1305.61-0 50 11 5
19 t nlciulII oxide 1305.78.8 20 4,8 1
00 clllciulII sllicole 1344-95.1 100 14 10
01 tnlcilllll Slllrllie . . > 1/\'11$11111 7778.18.9 100 24 10
01 cumllhor hl'uillclic). 76.}1.1 120 18.8 U
UJ cuurOhlCIRllI, dll51 105.60-1 . 10 2.4 I
O~ cUllrol:lCIIIIII l'nlKlr 100 48 10
05 tnllln(ol 1415-06.1 1 0.14 0.1
06 ('111111111 133.06.1. 50 12 5
07 co rb II n'l 63.25.2. 50 11 5
08 cnrhnrur:m 1563.66.1 1 0.24 0.1
09 ('1I1"I...n hlack 1333.86.4 35 8.4 3.5
10 curlulII disllilide 75.15.0. 310 74.4 1.01~+01 31 I,OOE'I'OI 1.00It+01 - SKIN
II (,llrhnu 1~lrahrtlluide 558.13.4 14 3.36 1.4
..
PAGEJ
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0
-------
AIR TOXles WORKING LIST
.
I ,
I
.
1'\0. CHEMICAL NMm CAS NO. C NO TIIIUtA T I.I~VEI.S OEI. E.I'.A. VALUES COMMENTS
A 8br 24!1r Allllllnl T\YA UNIT RISI\. lue RAC
A (112/1113) (1I1!/m3) (1I1!/m3) (1II1I/UI3) FACTOR (1I1!11113) I (1I1!/1II3)
. . '.'" '. ",' '.'."',' ,,';',',",",',','.',',",',".'.'... .'.',,,'.'.'.'.'.v~~.y....................................,..,',,,"','H.v.t'....,,,,,o,,"...,o,,,,v,..,,'.......',.......u...',''',','''''''',':","',';'.',',';',',',',',"'.',',',',"',',"','.Yo........'......~..........................................".........."".............;.........),Y.Yo- ....,,..,,""'.... " ,"'h~.''''''''''',,,''''''''.'.'.'.' ,'''' ..'''' "'''.'''oY " """,."",,''''''',''','.Yo','''.........' ~ .vtN,'''' Nt.... """.."", ,'".'.....Yo',"""''''', ""',',',',',',"
III carboll 1t'lrocbloride .. > lelrocblorowelbaue 56.23.5' 310 74.4 6.71~02 31" 1.50&.05 A2.SKIN
IJJ curboll\'l chloride" - > obosl!ene 75.44.5 . 4 0.96 0.4
114 corboll\'1 fllloride 353.50-4 54 12.96 5.4
115 carbom'l suJnrle 463-58-1 .
116 cnl('(hol" .. > O\'l"O(ol«hol 120-80.9' 230 55.2 23
117 rrsimll Il\'Ilroxidc . 21351.79-1 20 4.8 2
1111 chloral 75.87.6 2.0E+ 00 2.01lF.+00
119 c"lorUlllbell 133-90-4' :
110 chlordane 57.74-9' "'5-.. 1.2 2.71!:-03 0.5 3.70&-04 SKIN
III cblorillole loxollbeue 8001-35.] 5 1.2 3.11;:'03 0.5 3.20&-04 SKIN
U2 rhiorinilll'd di..llell,'1 oxicle 55710-99.5 5 1.2 0.5
..ill.. ('hllu;nc 778]-50-5. 15 3.6 4.01;;'01 1.5 4.001;:'01
124 chlorille dioxide 10049-0,'-4 2.8 0.672 2.0&01 0.28 2.00F...01
U5 chlorine lrifluoride 7190.91.2 3.8 0.912 0.38 C
126 chlorooCt'loldch,'de 107-20-0 32 7.68 3.2 C
126 rhlorooctlone 78.95.5 38 9.12 3.8 C
\17 chloru:\cttic acid 79.11-8'
US (aillbo)-chlnronceionbellone- - > uhelloc,'l chloridt 532-]7"'. 3.] 0.768 0.32
129 chloronctt,'l chloride 79.04-9 2.3 0.552 0.23
00 chlorohtslu~lIe" .. > lIIollochlorobclllene 108-90-7. 3~50 '.828 345
131 chlorohell1ilule 510.15.6 .
IJ1 o-chlorobellU'Ude-.le lualouollih;le 2698.41.1 3.9 0.936 0.39 CSKIN
IJ.J rhlurobrolllOWClhlllle'" - > bromochiorolllclhnile 74-97-5 21200 5088 1060
In 2-chluru.1 3.hulodiclle .... > (bcln)-chloroprelle 126.99.8 360 86.4 3.O~+OO 36 3.00E+00 SKIN
us chiorodinllorolllelhnne 75-45.6 70800 16992 3540
\)6 chlurllllh.hClI,'1 (42 % chlorille).. .. > IIlIh'chlorohhJhClI,'ls" > I'cn 53469-2(.9. 10. 2.4 8.31;;'04 1 t .20E-03 SKIN
IJ7 rhlurod;.Jhell)'1 (54% chlorille) .. > ufJl\'Chlorobillhcln'ls- > rcn 11097-69-1 ' 5 .1.2 8.3F...04 0.5 1.20&-03 SKIN
UII I -chloro,2 3-euon.nroulllle .. .. > euichlflrflh,'dflll 106.89-8 76 18.24 8.31!:-01 7.6 1.20E-06 3.0111;:'04
U9 1,(\,lflrol~honol.. .. > clh,'lclle chlorohrdrill 107-07.3 33 7.92 3.3 C SKIN
140 rhluruclhrlClIc" .. > "111"1 chloride 75-01.4 130 31.2 I.-m-Ol 13 7.101"...06 AI
141 chlororunu.. .. > lrichiorodlt'lhollc 67.66-3. 490 117.6 4.m.Ol 49 2.30&-05 8.001;;'03 A2
141 rhlnrolllclh\'1 OIclh,'l elher 107.30-] . 3.7&-04 2.70&-03 ' A]
IH l-chlorol-lIilrollrol.:IJle 600-25-9 100 24 10
144 C hlflroflenl n n lit. roct h olle 76-15.3 126400 30336 6320
145 chlurulli..!~l." > lIilrlllrichlorolllclhone" > IrichlorollilrolUelholle 76-06.] '6.7 1.608 0.67
146 CI""III-t'hlu"ullI'ellc"" > ]-chlnI"0-1.3 hulndicllc 126-99.8. 360 86.4 3.0"+1111 36 3.00"+ 00 SKIN
147 2.chlu,ullI'ullriuuic neid 598-78-7 4.4 1.056 0.44
PAGE4
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0
-------
AIR TaXies WORKING LIST
",n, CIIEhIlCAI. NAhll~ CAS NO. C NO 'l'IIImA'r J.ltVl~l_o; OJo:J. IU'.A. "/\J.UI~:S COMMIO:N'J'S
A 8hr 24lar AIIIIIIIII TWA UNIT IUSK ItIC ItAC
A (1I1!/mJ) (1I1!/mJ) (lIe/mJ) (lIIe/mJ) IrAC'l'OIt (1I1!/mJ) (1I1!/mJ)
,.. ,",.'.'''''.'...'','','''.''.'''."..'.','.','.','.-.'n,',',';',",",'"','.",."",,",'."',',"',",",,,,':','."'."'.','..,'.".'.','.'.""',",',',,,'."""'.",',',',',','.""."."',',',"'.",',','''.',',',''',''''',",',',",',",''',",'1'.',"',',"'...,.', "',,,,,'.'.".'''.'''''.'.'''.'.'''.'.'''.",}.'''.'''. y,','.", ."."".".'."""'""'...."."",, 'A'N'o. ...... ' ''',''Y~''''''''','''.'".' """...yo...~...,.",.......y. '" ""'."""'''1'.'''...,,".'''.'''''''''''' "Y."',,,,,'.""""""""'''-';''''''' .""''yo" ""',y."',}Y.".',""""''',,,,,,,,'
1./8 o,chlornsl\'rl'IIC IJJI.28-8 28JO 679.2 28J .
1./9 u-chiorollllucllc 95-49.8 2590 621.6 259
I~O 2-chlnro.6.(llichlorulI"clln'\)lIvriclillc" .. > lIil ru III' rill 1929.82.4 100 24 10
151 dllnr"I'rir"S 2921.88.2 2 0.48 0.2 SKIN
1~2 chrulllllie. (:15 Cr) 0.5 0.12 0.05 AI
153 chl'olllillmlllel:ll (101:11111 & IV clllllds.) 16065.8J.I . 5 1.2 2.01t-OJ 0.5 2.0U&-OJ
154 chrUillilim 1\' cOlllllOmlils 7440.47.J. 0.5 0.12 8.31t-05 0.05 1.20E-Ol 'AI
1~5 chrllllll'l cI,loritle 14977.61-8 1.6 0.384 0.16
156 clln'une 118.01.8. A2
157 clollidol 2971-90-6 100. 24 10
158 coul dust 20 4.8 1
159 coallllr IJilcb yolulilcs .... > particulnle rAil's 65996.9J.2 2 0.48 0.2 AI
160 . coh:llI. eluSI & rllllle 7440-48-4. 0.5 0.12 0.05 AS CO
161 cuhnll corhOlll'1 10210-68.1 1 0.24 0.1 AS CO
162 cobull bvdrocorboll\'l 16842.0J-8 1 0.24 0.1 AS CO
163 coke OI'CO elllissions .
164 COllller rllmcs 7440.50-8 1 0.48 0.1
165 COlliler dllslS & mist' 7440.50-8 10 2.4 I
166 COllller C\'anide 544.92.J 5.0E+00 S.OOE..,OO
167 colloll. dllsi 2 0.411 0.1
1611 crt'5OIs nil Isomers 1J19.77.J no 52.8 5.0E+01 n 5.UOE+01 SKIN
169 croluonldeh\'cle 4170-30-J 57 IJ.68 1.9&-OJ 5.7 5.40&-04
\10 cnlruUlalc 299.86-5 50 12 5
171 (u..leur 98-8%.8. 2460 590.4 9.0E+00 246 9.Onl~+ Oil I.OOI~+ 00 SKIN
I7J C\'Olllllllitlc 420-04.2 20 4.8 2
173 C\'anich:$, (as ell) 151.50-8. 50 12 1.0E+01 5 2.001HOI
17./ CI'Oll1l2ell 460.19-5 210 50.4 3.Og+01 1( 3.001£+01
IH n'IIII"!!C'1I hr"",loIe 506.68.J 8.0E+01 8.00E+01
176 CI'onll!!CII chluritle 506-77-4 7.5 1.8 0.75 'C
177 C)'cluhcxalle 110.82-7 20600 4944 1030
\111 C\'cluhu:lllol 108-9J.0 2060 494.4 206 SKIN
179 c\'cluhcxnn"OIe 108-94-1 1000 240 100 SKIN
'IIU CI'cluhul11C 1I0-8J-8 20200 4848 1010
181 cI'cluhex\'lollline 108-91.8 410 98.4 41
1112 CI'clullile" .. > RnX 121.82.4 15 J.6 1.5 SKIN
183 cI'clunelllolliene 542.92-7 20JO 487.2 20J
1114 CI'chllK'lIlnnC 287.92.J J4400, 8256 1720
...
PAGES
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0
-------
" "
;; .:~ .."
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
.
:\0, CII~MICAI. NAME CAS NO. C NO 1'lIItEAT r.EVEr.S OEL rtl'.A. VALUI~ COMMENTS
A 8br 24 br Annnol "WA UNI'rIUSK IUC ' ItAC
A (1I2/m3) (1111/1113) (1I2/m3) (IUR/1II3) P'ACTOl\ (1111/013) blll/lu3)
"',' . ,',','.;..',', ','.,', .,','.',','. '.',','""""""""",,',"',""','~,''''''''''''',',W.''''''''''''''',',,,,,"',"',',',',',',',',,,,,',"""""',',""',',',""""'.',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,',',',,',',','."','.',',',',',',,.',',',';',',"',','."'."'.'.' ,'''N,..''','~, ',~,',""',',""',',"""',',',',.,.."...,',',... ,'. '.'''. ,'IJ', "N," .,' N "',"w,,, ,) ...........y;'.....',.........."",,, ,""',' .............-,... "',.. w' ',......" ','''''''~~,'~''''M ,,,,,,,',"N ,'''''''''''''.''''''''', ',''''',,,,,,,,, ...w,....'......... ,,,,,,,,"""',"'N,"'''''~'',
11/5 (\'hexotJu" co > .lric)'clobex\'lliu II\'droxlde 13111.70-5 50 11 5
1116 2 4.1) bnlU & eslen) 94-75-7' 100 24 10
1117 IHIE 3547-04-4 .
11111 ImT 50.29.3 10 2.4 1.01~02 I 9.70&05
189 d('(obnrnne 17702-41.9 2.5 0.6 0.25 SKrN
190 dellllo(oll" .. > s\'slox 8065-48-3 1.1 0.264 0.11 SKrN
191 diactlcllle nlcllimio. .. > 4 h\'druxv-4-melll\'l-2.nenlnnolle 123.42.2 2380 571.1 238
191 1.1 diallllnoe'bnne" .. > elb\'lenecli:tlnine 107-15.3 250 60 25
193 dl;Iullnn 333-41.5 . I 0.24 0.1 SKrN
194 dibellzlo ,h)Rlllhrncene 53-70.3 ". 7.1&05 1.40&01
",
195 dinzolllechnlle 334-88.3' 3.4 0.816 7.1&05 0.34 1.40&02
196 clibl~lZo("rons 132-64.9 .
197 I 2.dibroIll0-3-cbJoroDronnne 96.12.8 . 1.6e-04 6.30&.03
198 diborllue 19287-45.7 1.1 0.264 0.11
199 I 2 dihrOilloelbnlle .... > elll\'lelle clibruullde 106.93-4 . 4.51~03 2.20&04
200 2 .n.dlhlll ,.lo",llIoelhnnol 102-81.1/ 140 33.6 14 SKIN
200 dilll..,.1 pbell\'l phDspbnle 2528-36.1 35 8.4 3.5,
201 dih"I\'1 DhoSllllole 107-66-4 86 20.64 8.6
202 dibllh'l nblbolole(OI.N) : 84.74.2' 50 12 1.06:+02 5 1.00lt+ 01
203 dichluroocth'lene 7572.29-4 3.9 0.936 0.39 C
204 o-dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 3010 711.4 1.0EfOI 301 I.OOIHOI C
105 p.dicblorobellzene 106-46.7' 4510 1081.4 7.0E+02 451 7.00E+02 I.DOE+OI
106 3.3.dicblorobel\zidiJle 91.94.1 . A2.SKIN
207 tlich 10 rn.li n "orolD elbooe 75.71-8 99000 13760 2.OE+ 02 4950 2.00E+02
208 I.J.dichloro-5 S-dillll!lh)'\'lll\'dnnlui'I 118-52-5 2 0.48 0.2
2119 1,I.dichloroelhnlle"" > dbvlitlclle chloricle 75.34-3' 8100 1944 3.8&01 1110 2.60&05
210' 1.2.dicbtoroelholle" .. > elbvtl'lIe lticilloride 107.06-1 400 96 3.811',.01 40 2.60E-05
JII 1,I.dicbloroe'b\'lelle .. .. > ,lm'lidene cbloride 75-35-4 200 48 2.0e-02 20 5.00E-05
2U 1 2.clichlnroellwlene 540.59.0 79JO 1903.2 793
213 Ilichlurolo(h)'1 elhera .. > bls12-chluructll\'l)elber 111.44-4' 190 69,6 J.01~03 19 3.JOE-04
214 dichlorolluorlllllClbl1l1e 75.43-4 420 10o.s 41
JlS dichiurullleth:llle" .. > DlI'IIi)'h,le cblorille 70-09.2' 17010 411.6 2.411',.01 174 4.101~06 3.00E+ 03 A2
JI6 1,1..lichlurn.1 -lIilrlll'lbnlle 594.72-9 120 28.8 12
217 2 4.dichlorollbellol 120-83-1 3.0E+00 J.IIOE+OO
218 I J .clichlurullrollnlle .. a > nroll\'lelle dicbloride 78-87-5' 3470 832.8 3017
119 I.J.dichlorollroIJCue 541-75.{\' 50 t1 2.71"....111 5 3.701~.05 1.01\l~+01 SKIN
120 2.1.dicblorourlluiunic ocld 75-99.0 58 13.91 5.8
'PAGE6
JANUARY 1992
DRAfT: VERSION 2.0
......!.
,t,~'.',
,n.
-------
AIR TOXICS WOnKING LIST
-,"
I
n. CHEMICAL NAME CAS NO. C NO TllltEAT I.EVELS OEI. E.I'.A. VALUES COMMENTS
A 8hr 14 lar '\lIullnl 1"W,\ UNIT JUSK nee nAC
"A (uu/1II3) (1I1!/1II3) lu!!/...3) lIu!!/...3) FACTOR (u!!/1II3) Inll/m3)
. " ................................................~.....'"'' """,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,';""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",,,,/,,,,,,",,,.,'.',',','.'.',0.'.'.'.'.....'."""""""""''''.', """"""',',,,""',"',,, ,,,,,'~"''''''''';'''' ';",""Y."'":"""""""""",, ""~"'"'' , .....N. ."."""'."',..' "N"'''.'.'''''''''''''''''''YoNIAY>''Y.A """'...'" .........................w.Y"""""" """'.......' ......"... .........-..........y....... 'NNh'N>
5 2.t'lhusnllulllol" .. > 21\'col monorth,'1 rtlaer 110.80.5. 180 4J.2 18 .. . SKIN
'6 2'lo(hux\'l'th\'1 ocetnte 111-15.9 170 64,8 17 ', SKIN
'7 "111\'1 ocrtole 141.18.6 18800 6912 1440
III Ntl\'l ocn'hlle. 140-88.5. 100 48 20 AI
'9 ttll\'llIlcuhol 64-17-5 37600 9024 1880
III t'lh,"I;\l1Ilue 15.04.7 180 43.2 18
II tlh,"IIII1I,'1 kelone .. .. > 5.Dlelh,,1.3.hell'unune 541.85.5 1310 314.4 m
11 tll",'lht1urne 100.41.4. 4340 1041.6 I.OE+03 434 1.O01~+ 03
13 ..I h\'I bromide 74.96.4 8910 1138." 891
I~ (o(ln'l bllh'l k..lone .... > 3.laentllnollc 106.35.4 13~0-- 561.6 234
15 t'lh,'1 corbllUlnle 51.19.6 .
16 elll,'1 chloride 75.00.3. 51800 12671 I.OI~+O~ 1640 1.00lH 04
)7 t'lh,'lcne 74.85.1 b
)8 ..lh,'lelle chluruh,'drin- .. > 2-chloroelhnnol 101.07.3 33 7.91 3.3 C SKIN
)9 elln'I..lIedinmhle - .. > 1.1 dhuulnoethllnc 107-15.3 250 60 15
10 ella,'lene dibnlUilde- - > 1.1 dibrowometbnne 106.93.4 . 4.5E-03 2.2010:"04 A2 SKIN
II elb\'lene dichloride..":> 1.IIlichloroethllne 107.06.1. 400 96 3.8E-Ol 40 2.60E-05 ;
U ('lIl\'lcne 21\'col YIIllOr 107-11-1. 1270 304.8 111 C
13 elln"lt-ne 21\'col dinitrote 628.96.6 3.1 0.144 0.31 C
14 ..11",lene 2h'colmeth,'lelber ocelnlc" - > 2melhox\'elhyl acelnte It 0-49.6 240 57.6 14 SKIN
15 elln'lene !!I\'col Ulollobuh'l ether 111-16.2 2.OE+01 2.00E+OI
16 clb,'111le oxide 15-21.8 . 18 ".31 1.0F...01 1.8 " 1.00F...04 A2
17 tlla,"lcnc IUllne luzirilline\ 151.56.4. 6.8 1.112 0.88 SKIN
18 t'Ilnll,ne Ihlonre:! 96.45-1 .
19 t'lh,,1 elher .... > didl",1 elher 60.19.1 24200 5808 1110
10 tlh,"1 ronn31e 109.94.4 3030 1IU 303
,Z! l'lh,"lidI1Ie cbloriele .... > I.t.dlcbloroclhnne 15.34.3. 8100 1944 3.81~01 810 1.60E-05
111 ,'II,,"li'''2Ie norhonlcnc 16119-15.3 250 60 25 C
11.\ t'lh,"1 UleI'C311tnn .... > tthonl1hiul 75.08.1 13 3.11 1.3
IH II. t11,,'llIIorllholine 10Q.74.3 240 5'J.6 24 ' 'SKIN
115 "11,,"\ silicnle 78.10.4 850 104 85
!!6 rcnlllllhlhos 21214.91.6 I 0.24 0.1 SKIN
~7 rl'll\lI!rolhilln 115.90.2 I 0.24 0.1
118 (cnlhiull 55.38.9 1 0.48 0.1 SKIN
!1,9 h'rh:un 14484.64.1 100 24 10
1.\11 h'rl"l""lIlIlIclilllll dusl \1604.5R.9 10 2.4 I
pI lihrnn~ 1!1"~5 ""51 1011 24 10
.
\
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VEnSION 2.0
PAGE9
-------
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
.
~(). CIIEMICAL NAME CAS NO. C NO TllltEA" I.IWI~I.S OEL E.I'.A. VALUES COMMt-:N'I'S
A 8hr 2411r AIIIIIIIII "WA UNIT JUSK.. IUC RAC
A IUllll11)) rll!!/III)) (111111113) rill 11/1113) FACTOR (1I!!1UI3) (111111113)
',' .,'.,' ,",'" ,"",;','.' ,",',',',',',",',,',','."'.",',';',',',',',',',"';'.""','.""""',""""',';.,'.....';',"""""',''';',','';',''',"',',',',',',',',,""',';',',"';',"',""""',...,','.'.'.',';'.',',',",',',",',',',',',','.....','...', ,','.......'...', ',',,",'."'" ,""''''''''''''',''','''''''',-.',',',',',',',',', -:0...... "''''''''''''''.'.Y''''',',,,,,',''''',,, ,',Y." ","',""','''''.'.''''''''''.....",' ',"''''''',''''''''~.Yo'.'W. ,., ",,,,"'.' ",,,,,,,,,,,,,',',","""",,,.1',"". ..... .."". .............."...................... ',';';'0 H No'.'''",,,,,,.,,',',',,,',,,,,,,,,
m nuorilles (:IS F) 25 6 2.5
JJJ nllorine 1182.41.4 16 3.84 5.0F.+OI 1.6 5.00E+01
JH nllorulrkhlC!rllulI.>lhnlle - - > lrichioronllorulllelhnne 15.69-4 112400 26916 3.0I~+ 02 5620 3.00E+Ol C
.m Innofos 944-22.9 I 0.24 0.1 SKIN
JJ6 funnnldl'ln'de 50-00-0. 12 2.88 7.1E-02 (.2 1.30&05 AlC
JJ7 funnllmide 75.12-1 J80 .43.2 18
338 fonnic ncid 64-J8-6 94 22.56 l.OE+ 03 9.4 2.001HOJ
m fll nllral 98.01.1 19 18.96 7.9 SKIN
J~O fllr(lIn'l olcohol 98-00-0 .cOU'" 96 40 SKIN
3~1 ):nsollnc 8006-6J.9 8900 2136 890
J~2 IIt'nllnllhllll Iclrllh)'dritle 7782.65.2 6.3 1.512 0.63
J~J s:llIhlrnldell\'de 111.30.8 8,2 J.968 0.82 C
34.& 2h'cerilllllist 56-81-5 100 24 10
J~S 2Iwidol"" > 2 3~pO"y.l.proIJ:lnol 556-Sz.s 760 182.4 76
H6 2h'cldvllld~b".de 765.34-4 ME-OI 3.00E-01
H7 2"'collll",....lh,'1 ether - . > 2.tthox\'cthnllul 11 0-80-5. J80 43.2 18 SKIN
J411 j!rllllhhe 7782-42-5 20 U 2
.149 2"11511111 co - > cnlc!.nll snlfule 1118-18.9 100 24 10
J50 1111'.1111111 1440-58.6 5 t.1 0.5
.151 halolhnne 151.67.7 4040 969.6 404
IJSl hClllllchlur 76-44.8 . 5 1.2 1.7&04 0.5 1.30E-OJ SKIN
: .1SJ hClllnchlor fllOxide 1024.57-3 3.81?,.04 1.60&-03
.1S~ n.helllnne 142-82-5 32800 7811 1640
3SS 2-heIItDnone" .. > welln'l 11'011'\'1 kelolle 110-43-0 2330 559.1 233
JS6 3.heplallone" .. > elilyl buh'l kelone 106.35.4 2340 56J.6 234
JS7 hexDchlorohenZl'ne 118.14.! . 2.2F....OJ 4.60E.04
JSII II eXllc hlorollll I ndicne 81.68.3. 2.1 0.504 4.51~02 0.21 2.20E-05 A2 SKIN
359 1Illlhll-hex ac hlo roc\'clnhexllile 319-84-6 5.tSF.....).. 1.80E-03
J60 hl'l II -hex nc hlC! ruc\'c 10hexRnl! 319.85-7 '1.91~OJ 5.50E-04
361 R 11111 n. h c.~ uc h 10 roc,.c lohex llile 58-89-9 2.61~-03 3.801~04
.161 III'x IIC hlo ruc "C IUIICII l:uliene 17-47.4. 1.1 0.264 5.0g+ 00 0.11 5.001~+OO
j63 h ex lie hlllroci ihclI ztl'll-cii oxil! 1.1&-01 1.30E+OO
J6~ hcxnchloroclhane 67-12.1. 91 '23.28 ' 2.5F....01 9.1 4.00&-06
J6S hexue hloronllnhlhllieue 1335.87.1 1 0.48 0.2 SKIN
.166 hl'xnchlorollrclle .70-304 3.01"....01 J.OOI~OI
.167 hcxnnlloroacl'lone 684.16-2 6.8 1.612 0.68
.~~!!.... ..!!£~l'lln",'"e-1.6.clii~ucvllnnle 822.116-11. 0.34 0.0816 0.034
? il
r' '.
r'AGE' 0
JANUARY 1992
onAl'T: vens" . 2.0
-------
Alii TOXICS WORKING LIST
.
"0, CIIEMICAJ. NAME CAS NO. C NO TII/IEAT uwm.s om. E.r.A. VAJ.UES COMMEN1'S
A 8hr 24 br AIIIIIII1I TWA UNIT RISK IUC MC
A (1II!/m3) (1I1!/0I3) (1I1!/0I3) (.lIl!/m3) FACTOR III 21m3) (1I1I/IU3)-
-- .. ... ,'" ','~' ","""":""""""'.',"'.-.~'.v,',""',""'.'.'."""''''',',',''',,,',',',,''',''',',',','',',''',',',',',',..",'.""""'''''''''.'.'~.''''''',,,,,,,,,''''''''.'.',''''','''.'.'.','''.';',',',',",""',',"""',""""',',',"""""",","',', ."'J.',,...','.',J.'.".""'.',' ,"',"..'.', """"'."."""'. ..... ",,''''',",V'o \ ,',.~ """"""",,',',""'.' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,',,,"'.........' """',.... v.v.....".... [[[y" .... ........;.......... ~." ........... YN.' """'1'."
69 hrxnrn t'lh\"lllhosllhornmlde 680.31.9 . . A2.SKIN
HI II\~xnlle . II-hcxanc 110.54.3. 1760 412.4 2.0£+ 01 116 2.001!+ 01
-71 hexAne. olher Isomers 35100 8448 1760
12 1-1I1'xnnoIiC" .. > IlIrlll\"llI.blll)-1 kelunc 591-78-6 200 48 20
7.\ h~xnllc" .. > mrlh,-Ilsohuh" kclone 108.10.1 . 2050 491 205
74 st'(.hcx,-I oct'lnle 108.84.9 2950 708 295
75 Ilc,,,,,lcnc ~rrcnl 107-41.5 1110 290.4 III C
76 hnlrl11.illc 301-01.2 1.3 0.312 2.0I!:-04 0.13 4.110&-03 A2 SKIN
77 h,'drodne s..lfnle 10034.93.2 . 2.0&.04 4.90&.03
78 hnlroc)'lIIaic acid 74.90.8 25,. 6 2.OE+01 2.5 2.00E+01
79 h,'drnl!cnOIM Icnlhetl\"ls 61788.32-7 49 11.76 4.9
110 11)-drol!clI bromide 10035.10.6 99', 23.76 9.9 C
III hrdrul!etl chloride ( hl'druchloric ocid ) 7647-01.0 . 75 18 7.0E+00 7.5 7.00E+00 7.00£+00 C
III h,'dru!:(11 cl'ouidc 74.90.8 110 - 26.4 II C.SKIN
IIJ h,-drol!<:I1 nuoride Ins FI (b,'dronuoric ocld ) 7664.39.3. 26 6.24 2.0E+01 2.6 2.00E+01 C
8-1 hrdrol!f:11 peroxIde 7122-84.1 J4 3.36 J.4
K5 hrdrol!ell sclcnide (os Se) 7783.07.5 i.6 0.384 0.16
116 hrdrol!clI sui tide 7783.06.4 140 33.6 9.0&.01 14 9.00&.01 3.001!+ 00
117 In'dmllninone" .. > dih,'droxvbcnZl'ne U3.31.9. 20 U- 2
1111 4,llI'drox,'.4.melh,'I.}.l!tulJiuooe"" > tliocefolle olcohol 123.42.} 2380 571.2 238
119 1.brdrox\,prop,-1 oc,,-Inle 999.61.1 28 6.11 2,8 SKIN
90 Indcnt 95.13-6 480 115.2 48
91 Indium conlllounds (os 10) 7440.74.6 I 0.24 0.1
91 Iodine 7553.56.2 10 2.4 I C
93 1IIIIu(o'nll 75-47-8 100 14 10
'H Irml o~itlt: rnmc 1309.37.1 50 11 5 II
95 IrOIl IICIiIACnrhon\'1 J3463-40-6 2.3 0.552 0.1J AS FE
.,,6 IrllI! 511115 .suluble (;u foe) :0 1.4 J
97 I~OAm\-1 ncclnlc 123-92.2 5320 1276.8 531
911 1500111\-1 nlcohul 123.51.J 3610 866.4 361
99 /sulmM DClin' e 110.19.0 7130 1711.2 713
1111 Isnhnh-Illkubul 78.83.1 1510 364.8 3.OE+ 01 151 3.00E+01
III l~oOCh-lolcoblll 26952.21.6 2660 638.4 266 SKIN
III I~unhurone 78-.. 59-I . 280 67.2 28 C
113 bllllhnrllllc diisocunnle 4098-71.9 0.45 0.108 0.045 SKIN
IU isnnrnl"lxn:lhnnnl t 09.59.1 10liO 254.4 106
-------
"
"
AIR T mclh\'lncn'lollilrile 126.98.7 27 6.48 1.01~01 1.7 1.00£.01 SKIN
~18 mClhollcthinl a.. > mflln'llOercnlllnn 74-93.1 9.8 2.351 0.98
m mClhnnol.. .. > melb,'1 alcobol 67.56-1 . 2620 628.8 262
410 1Ill'lholll}'1 16752-77.5 25 6 2.0E+01 2.5 2.00E+OI
m IUtlhnX\'chlor 72.43.5. 100 24 5.OIHOI 10 5.001ttOI
~32 2 ,ulrlboxvel bnllol 109.86.0\ 160 38.4 16 SKIN
41J 2'lIIclhnx\'l'tll\'l Rcelnle'" .. > clhrlene elvenl melln'1 tlher oeelole II 0.4\1-6 2~0 . 57.6 24 SKIN
41~ ~'lIItihoxYllhenol 150.76.5 50 12 5
~3S mclln'l ocelole 79-20-9 6060 1454.4 606
H6 1lII'lh,,1 orch'lclle .... > IIrOll\'IIe 74-99-7 32800 7872 16~0
417 IIIHh}'1 uCI:(\,ll'IIe-lIrnullclielle mixillre (MAI'I') 59355.75.8 32800 7872 1640
418 IUclh,'1 ocn-\;tte 96.33.3 350 84 '35 SKIN
~.19 1III'lll\'lncn'lonllrile"" > lIIelhncn'lnllllrilc (26-98.7 27 6.48 1.0&-01 2.7 1.(1/)£'01 SK(N
HO IUl'IllI'l;11 a a > dilllclln'lnxVlllclhulle 109.87-5 62200 14918 3110
.j~1 .ill1II1'1 olrnhnl .. .. > 1II('lhollol 67.56.1 . 2620 628.8 262 SKIN
H2 III 1'1 111'1:1111 illc 74.89.5 130 31.2 13
\
PAGE12
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2,0
-------
AIR TOXIC$ WUIIKiNu..I:.1
, '
" .
n, CIlIUIIICAL NAME CAS NO. C NO TIIIUtA'I' 1,lm~LS ()EI. E.I',A. VAI.lII~' COMtlmN'I'S
A 811r 24'lr Auullill 1'WA UNIT IUSK nrc nAC
A (112/11131 (112/1113) '"11/1113) (uII/1II3) FACTOR' (1111(1113) (1111(11131
" . ,'. ,',',""".'.'.','.',. ,', '.'.'.'...""...'.'.'"","'.'.''''~''''.......'.';'.'.'.'.'';',',','."'.',".';'.',',',',',',.;.,',.;.,'.', ,',','."" "','.""'.."'."'""",,""','.',',',','."'.'."',','."'.'.','.,',"',',','.""'"."",,,.'."'."','.".""',,,',"''',',',,,,', ,',""'''''~.'''''.''''','''.'''''.......';\OO.......,o; """'.....v.;,'. ",'. ,,,.,,"',.',',' 0"""'"',':''' '''''.''''YIh :......................... ..~ ..v.o.'..........',',','."', .... .,. ""........0; ... ""',,,',"',",..
IJ IIIrlll\'l 8111)'1 oleobol .... > mctl",' isobll!)'! carhillol '08.1).2 .040 249.6 .04 .. SKIN
I~ IIIrlhrlll,olll)'l hlolle IS" > 2-hcn101l01le II 0-43-0 2330 559,2 233
IS "'IIII~lh)'1 ollilillt 100-61-8 22 5.28 2.2
:6 1'lIIlih,'1 ouridillc"" > 1.1.nrOII\"rllc IlIIillc 75.55.8. 47 11.28 4.7 A2 SK'N
,6 IIIl'lh)'1 bromldc IS - > brlllllOJllelholl1! 74.8J.9. .90 45.6 6.OE+00 '9 6.00g+00 1I.00'~01
,1 IlII'III\'III.hllh'l IIdollc ... > 2.hcxOIIIIIIC 591.78-6 200 48 20
II 1II1'lh,'1 (hlorille 74.87.3. .030 247.2 5.6E-0' 'OJ 1.80F...06
I) IIIl'(I,,'1 chlorocorhoJlQle 79-22.' '.Og+OJ 1.00EtOJ
II IIIl'II",1 (hlororo.,n . IS > I 1 1 trichloroelhollo 7'.55-6. 38100 9168 I.OE+O' 19.0 '.OOg+OI
I J'lIIl'lhrlehohullhrelle 56.49.5 3.7J::..0~ 2.70&03
1 IIIl'Ih,'IZ<)'UnOllcn'lote 137.05.3 91 " "-11.84 9.1
,\ IIIl'l h ,'Ie ,'c II/h txoile 108.87.Z 32100 77]8 .6.0
1 Ull'lhrk)'dohe"nJlol Z5639.4Z.3 2340 561.6 234
J 0'111 01 h ,"e ,'c 10 hes Olllllle 58J.60.8 2190 549.6 219 SKIN
~ 1.mtlh)'k)'doo('JI'adletl\'l DIBIII!WIC!Se Iricorboll)'l 12108.13.3 2 0.48 0.2 (ns MII)SKIN
5 IIIl'Ih)'1 dClllt1un 8022.00-2 5 1.2 0.5 SKIN
I) IIIrl'I)'ltfle di!lhes,," isoc\'l\Jlole (MOl) 101.68.8. 0.51 0.1214 5.0&01 0.051 5.00FA1
7 IIINb,'ltue chlt,r:,le-. > dicblorouII~lll:IlIe 70-09.2. 1740 417.6 2.4";'01, 174 4.10&-06 3.00E+03 AJ
II 4 4'Jllt'lll\'lclle-b~(1 tlh\'1 0111\'1 kelone 541.85.5 .310 314.4 131
S IIItlll)'. h)'dranlle . 60.34-4. 3.8 0.912 3.2&03 0.38 3.10&0"' At C SKIN
i. 1111,111\'1 judido /i,ulfUlI tlhnlle) 74-88-4. /l0 28.8 12 A2
1 OIclll\'llsonlll,'1 lIelolle 8'4-78-8 ])40 561.6 234
J( 1111'(11)'1 !snbuh'l (urhillnl - - > lIIelh,'1 0111\" nleullOl 108.11.2 'O,lu 249.6 .0.. SKIN
t IIIl'Ill\'l.lslIhllh'l IIclllllO - - > hcxollc 108.10.1 . Z050 492 105
II IIlI,(ln,l isoeYIIII'UC . 624.8J.9. 0.oj7 0.1128 0.047 SKIN
I IIINln'luouroll)'1 kclolle 563.80-4 7050 1692 705
1 IIINh,'1 DlercnIlIO!l-. > IIIClhnllCllllul 74-93.1 U 2.351 0.98
J IIINII\'I IIItlhnen'lale 80.62.6. 4100 984 410
.. IIIl'lh)'1 o"rolh/oo '298.00.0 1 0.48 3.0&0. 0.1 J.OOI~OI SKIN
S 1III'Ihl'I nrolll'l 1I!:lulIC .. > 1'I)C!U'OllOIlC 107.87-9 7050 1691 705
Ii ,~!!.!:lsilic"IC 681.84.5 60 14.4 6
.
rAGE I 3
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0
-------
-' ,
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
.
~(), CI/EI\fIC'\!. NAt.m CAS NO. C; 'NO 1'lIItEA'1' I.I~VI~I.S om. F..I'.A. VAI.um; COMMI~N'I'S
A Sbr 24 br AIIIIIIIII 'I'WA UNI1' IUSK J UIC ItAC
A (11"/1113' 111"/1113' 111"/1113' (1I11!/1113\ FAC1'OR (111:/1113) /l11:/uI3)
.. .. ............ .,',","....".....',',',','.",',",,','."','.'.';',',"'....,','.':',',",',',",', ',;':',,'.'.',',',','.'.',',',';',',';'I',',"',"',',{','o"',',",',','/,','",',',','...',",'",,,,,,,,,,',',',',',','....,",",',''',''',''':','N.''',',',',';',',',';'.'.........'.''''''''",A,.,.".",........t',',v,',"';-:'.y.Y.".'n:...."..;,....y,........."" M'."""""""''''''''''''';''"'''"'''''',','.',',", ,",'......,' N"".ro','...Y...., W ,'.'.','N...,...",.",,,,,,,,,,/'.A.','."'.Yo-...'.'.'. Y,o.'",,,,,''''','''''''''','''''''.v. ,..../. . Y....."""'''''''''.''''.''',',',',''',,,,,,,,,,,,,,.-
. "..."
471 (1IIuhll) . Dwlll\'l slneue 98.83.9 2-120 580.8 2-12
H8 IIIHh\'llert hlll\'1 clher 1634.4-4 .
479 III(~i'ihllzill 21081-64-9 50 12 5
4g0 lIIe\-inllhns"" > uhnsdlin 1786-34.1 0.91 0.1108 0.092 SKIN
481 lIIillernl Wllol rihen . 100 24 10
4!12 1II1I1\'bdenllln. sulnhle compollnds. (os Mo) 7439-98-1 50 12 5 SKIN
411J 111CIh'bdl~lIIm. Insoluble cOlllllounds (ns Mo\ 1439-98-1 100 24 10
4114 IIIUllllehlorobenzelle" .. > chlorohen7.l'lIl! 108.90.7. 3450 828 345
olliS lIIollocroioohos 6923.224 1.5 0.6 U5
486 lIIurllh"line 110.91-8 110.. 110.4 '71 SKIN
4117, Ilahod 300-76-5 30 1.2 3 SKIN
olliS IIIIUhlhllh11e 91-20.3. 520 124,8 52
4"9, (hlot II )'110 Ilhi h\'I:llIIllIe 91.59.8 AI
4\10 11('<111 7440.01-9 EXF.JIU"r
m lIicl;d,lIIClnl & Insoillble COlllllOlllllls. (ns Ni) 7440.0M 10 2.4 oI.2l~03 I 2.40F".04 'AI
4\11 ,licl;Cl suluble COlllllOllllds. (os Nil 1440.02.0 . I 0.2-1 0.1 ,\1
493 lIicl;l~ rarllllll\" 13463-39-3 1.2 0,288 0.12
494, lIiel;tI C\'n.njd~ 557-19-7 2.0E+01 2.00It+01
4115 lIickd slIlride rooslill!!. rUllle & dllsl (as Nil 10 2.4 2.I&OJ I UOE-04 ,AI
496 uieulille 5,1.11-5 5 1.2 0.5 SKIN
491 lIilrUII\'I;n" .. > 2 cllloro-6-( lrichiorolllelhvi ) pyridille 1919.82.4 100 24 10
4\18 liil rie acid 7691-31-2 52 12.48 5.2
,(99 lIitric oxide 10102.43.9 310 74.4 I.Og+02 31 I.OOE+02
SUO I)ollilrOllllililie 100.01.6 30 7.2 3 SKIN
501 lIilrohclliclle 98.95.3. 50 12 2,Olt+ 00 5 2.00F.+00 8.001~01 SKIN
502 n'lIil rochlorubl:llzClII! 100.00.5 6.4 1.536 0.64 SKIN
SOJ 4'IIIIrodi"bell\'1 , 92.93-3 . 'AI
504 lIilroelhalle 19.14-3 . 3U70 136.8 301
50S uilroel11 dioxide 10101-44.0 56 13.44 5.6
506 1I;lrlll:'" 'l'illu'lride 7183.54.2 2~0 69.6 19
507 lIicrucln'triu 55.63.0 4.6 1.104 0.46 SKIN
508 lIilrolllclhlllle 75-51.5 2500 600 250
509 4 .uie rOllh"lol 1 00.01-7 .
510 I,"icrollrollalle 108.03.1 910 218.4 91
511 2'lIilruuroolllle 19-46.9. 360 86.4 3.71~Q.I 36 2.70&03 2.0IlE+01 ,\2 C
512 'u-"ill'usn.lI.hlll..lnlllille 924-16.3 6.JI~04 1.601t-03
51.\ 11-11;1 rUS'H"'"Clh\'h,rCII 684.9:1.5 . 2.91~06 BOIt-OI .
\
PAGEI
-------
AIR TOXICS WUIiKIN... LIS,.
.
.0, Cm:MICAL NM.!E CAS NO. C NO 1'IIIUtA T I.EVltLS OEI. E.r.A. VAI.UI;;5 COMMENTS
A 8hr ' 14 hr AIIIIIIIII l'WA UNIT RISK Itrc !tAC
A (u~/IIIJ) (u~/uIJ) (II~/IIIJ) (III~/mJ) FACTOR (II!!/mJ) (II!!/IUJ)
.' ..",'. ,'.",'....,',',' ",-"',','"",',',',',',,',"',""""""'.""',',"',,,,,',,,,,,,,.".','/,,','/'.';,...,...',',',',',,,',"','."'.';v,'.',',',',',"'."',',',"'''''''\''''''''.0';''''',',''-"",,,,,,,',';',',','"',',,,,,,..,'...','.....' ........1''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.'''''' .;........ """':"""""''''"",''',''', y"','."''',',,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ....... ..........y,..V'o',' ."""...v...y., y.y;.......... ~ ~, ~""""""",;"",:,,,,,,,,"""',"""'.'.Y.H...y,""'.' ,'.Y. N'o"',YNNi'."""',v""N.'".",,,,,,,,,,,...
I~ ","ilrosocli~III\'lnllliue"" > dielll)'lnilrosumille SS.IJ.S 1.JF".OS 4.J0E-01 " .
15 1I'lIil rusolI\'rrolidille 930.55.2 . 1.6&-03 6.10E-04'
16 u,"ilrosoclilllcchI'Inmille.. .. > dillll:lhl'llIilrosnmiue 62-75.9 . 7.1I~05 1.40E-01 SKIN A1
17 lIilrululuene 88.72.2 110 26.4 II SKIN
!! lIill'UII;chlunllIIl,lIlIIlIe"" > (hlorullic';l1 76-06-2 6.7 ".608 0.67
19 lI",mllC 111.84-2 21000 5040 1050
!O Ol' I :IC hili rllun Ilh I hn Icue 2234-IJ.1 I 0.24 0.1 SKIN
!I ocloue 111.65-9 28_000 6720 1400
! I - U5111111111 Il:lrudele. (1150d 20816.)1.0 0.016 0.00384 0.0016
!J o~l1lic neld 144.62-7 10 2.4 I
!~ IIWI!CII dinuo.;,II' 7783.41.7 1.1 -, . -0.264 0.11 C
!5 I.arr,,/in WIIX (1I1IIe 8002-74.2 20 4.8 :I
!6 lI"rnullnl 4685.14-7 I 0.24 0.1
!7 II,Irnlhilln 56.38.2 . 1 0.24 0.1 SKIN
!R Ilor1iclllnle I'AI~'s a... > (001101' \lilch ,'ohttilcs 65996-9J.2 2 0.48 0.2 A1.SKIN
!9 1II:IIInhorolle 19624-21-7 0.13 0.OJ12 0.013
10 1lI:lIlnthloruhe.llzI:ue 608-93-5 8.0&01 8.00E-01
II 111:111 och 10 rClnn 1IIIIIlIelle IJ21-64-8 S 1.2 0.5
II 1)(:lIlnc hlo rnlli I ru hClIZl~1 e 82.68.8 . S U 1.41~01 0.5 7 .JOF..05
13 OI:lIlnchloronhellol 87-86-5 ' 5 1.2 J.OE.. 01 0.5 J.OOE+OI
l.f 1)\.'\l.Inen'lIu;loI 115.77.S 100 14 10
15 11I.~llane 109.66-0 3S400 8496 1770
\6 l'IK,\IIIUlolle" .. > lIIelhvl nrom'l kelolle 107-87.9 7050 1692 705
17 Pl'rthloroelh\'lene" .. > letrncllloroelh)'h!lIe 127.18.4' 3390 81J.6 1.9EtOO 339 5.20&.07
III Il4!rt hlorolll 1:111,'1"11\ erco olnll S94.42.3 7.6 1.824 0.76
19 lM:rtl,lun'l Olloriell! 7616-94-6 IJO 31.2 IJ
10 l,hl'\III(,'1 chloride" .. > (olr,hl1)-chluroocehlllhcllolIC! 532.27-4 3.2 0.768 0.32
II IIhl1101 108.95-2 ' 190 45.6 J.OE..OI 19 3.00E+01 SKIN
11 IIhl11111hinzille 92.84.2 50 12 5 . SKIN
I.' "'llh.'III'I.hel:"'I" IIhlll\'hulllne 135-88.6 A1
I~ m,o,"'lIh"ll\'lcne dilllllillc 106.50.J . I 0.24 5.0l~-I' 00 0.1 5.00EtOO ,u
15 1111I'\wll'lher 101-84-11 70 16.8 7
16 "hI11)"ll:lhylelle. .. > stnelle mcmumer 100.42.5 21JO SIU 213 SKIN
17 IIhCII,.I I!Il'cicl,.ll:lht'r 122.60.1 61 14.64 6.1
.11 IIhl'll,'lh,'drntine 100-63.0 4.4 1.056 0.44 :,u
19 "hI11\-llilertnl,'an 108.98.5 23 5.51 2.3
~. _llh"III'IIIII'I'l:III;( IICI'lnlc 62-38.4 7.51~.1I2 7 .501~Ol
rAGE I!)
JANUArIY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0
-------
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
.
.
1'\0. CIJEMICAI, NAME CAS NO. C NO "lIItEA T L!tVEI.S OEI, I~.I'.A. VAI.UES . COMMEN1'S
A 8br 24 hr AIIIIIIIII TW,\ UNIT RISK mc MC :
A (lle/1II3! (lIe/uJ3) (lIe/Ill3) (III!!/Ul3) FACTOR - (11!!/1II3) (1II11uI3)
- - - ',,',',',','''.',',',',',',',','.''',',',',','.''',',',',',',',',',',',',"',",',',',',',',',',',',','1',',',"'."'."'./"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''',','.''',''',',',',',''',',',""""",;"",,'..:-;0.''''''',''''''''''''''''1'."''''''''''''''''''''' ',',','''''''''''''',,,''',''',',','.....',',',',',',',',',','',....',......,....,.'.'" ......', .. "'V"..v. ...........,','...Yo',', ....,.'.n:';'",'..,...v......'...v.o.1' ,'.1........,.1.',"'"
',',,',,",..',',"-'.'.',"..', ',',',',',',',','."'''','.'''''.''"",''',',',',',',',','.''',","'.',',",''','''.',',', ""J'. ...' ..,...... '''''"",','",''''',','.....''''',,,'
551 1IIII:III'IIIbosIJhlllC 638-21-1 2.3 0.552 - 0.23 ,C
m "horuII! 288-02-2 - 0.5 0.12 0.05 SKIN
m I.hosdrin.. co > lIIevlnlJbos 7786-34-7 0.92 0.2208 0.092 SKIN
55~ IJhnsecllc- -.>c:nrholn'l c:blnridc 75-44-5 . 4 0.96 0.4
m "hOSllbillc 71103-51-2 ' 4.2 1.008 3.0&.01 0.42 3.00&.01
556 Ilbosilboric: odd 7664-38-2 10 2.4 1
551 IIhoslJbn",s 7123-14-0 . 1 0.24 0.1
5511 IIbosllbo",s ox!"c:hloride 10025.87-3 6.3 1.512 0.63
559 IlhOSlJbonls I14:nloc:bloride 10026.13-8 8.5. 2.04 0.85
560 "hoslJbo",s Pl'lltnsutndu 1314.80.3 10 2.4 1
561 IIh0SilhonIS lricbloride 7719.12.2 11 2.64 1.1
561 Ilhlhulic: anh)'c";dc 85.44.9' 61 14.64 2.0g+0J 6.1 2.00E+03
56J 1II'lIhllmlodillilrile 626.17-5 50 11 5
56.. nicloflllll 1918.02-1 100 24 10
565 lIiclic: nrld .. .. > 2 4,6.lrinllrullhell01 88.89.1 1 0.24 0.1 SKIN
566 "illrlolle ~.. > 2'lIivnM.I.3-llIdolldiulle 83-26-1 1 0.24 0.1
567 lIi~rutiole dihl drC)(bloride 142.64-3 50 12 5
568 1."ivuhl.1 3.I'lIl:lIIdlolll! -.. > pinelollc 83.26.1 1 0.14 0.1 SKIN
569 111111111111111111:101 7440-06-4 10' 2.4 1
570 1I11I111I1I1II.soluble snits (liS PI) 0.02 0,00-18 0.001
571 JMlh'chlorobhlhell!"ls - .. > Stel c:hlorodhlhell!"1s (I'CII) 1336-36-3 ' 10 2.4 8.31~0" 1 1.10&.03
571 -IMlh'cl'Clic on!Rlllc mnllcr . .
57J IMlnllllld cetllelll 100 24 10 EXEttIl'T
SH lIolussilllu C)'Rnhle 151-50-8 5.0g+01 5.00E+01
575 '101111.\5111111 hyroxide 131 0.58-3 10 4.8 1 C
576 IIronlllllide 23950-55-5 1.21~01 4.60&.06
S77 Ilrlll:\IIe 74-98-6
5711 I.J. Urllll.'IlIe sllllollC 1120.71.4 . ,\2
579 IJrollure!"1 alcohol 107-19-7 23 5.52 2.3 SKIN
5110 (bel o)'llro Iliol:lclonC 57-57-8' 15 3.6 1.5 A2
5111 llcollionnirlelll'rle 123-38-6 .
5111 IIrCllliclllic acid 79-09-4 300 72 30
51B IlrelIM'Xllr co co > IUlI'eon 114-26-1 ' 5 1.2 0.5
5R~ 1I-..rullI'l ocelol! 109.60-4 8350 2004 835
Sll5 11;1.(0111 I okoh,,1 71.1].8 4910 1180.8 492 SKIN
5116 Ilnll,,-h'hC 115-07-1 D
5f17 IlrelllI-h'nl! clirhluriclc -.. > I 2.dkbl"rolJrolJ:lllc 78.87-5' 3470 832.R 347
I'AG!:IG
JANUARY 1992
DI1AFT: VERSION 2.0
..
-------
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
:,
.
CIIEl\IICAL NAME CAS NO. C NO TlllmA'r I.EVELS ORI. E.I'.A. VALUES COMMENTS
A 8hr 24 lar A/JIII/ol TWA UNIT IUSK mc IIAC
A 1I1I!/1II3) (1I!!/m3) 11I1!/m3) 11II!!/1II3) FACTO It (lle/1II3) (1II!IIII3)
. .. ".'.',"'.'.'.'.'.~'."." '," ""';'......',',',, . "",""""'.'.',.'."';~'.'.',"'.'.'.'.'...'."...'.',',';',',';',,'," ""',',',"',",' ','.,,' """",;. ',',',',' ','."',',',','.""."';',' '." ',',',',' ,",',',',',",',',',',',',"',',,,,,',',",',',"',',',',',""""""""""""""',,,,.,;,,"'."''''';'''''''';'.'~.;'''';':Y...',"',',"'.',':'),',',''''''''.VJ'.' ."''''',N.''''''','''.....',",',',',' ...."..',"""'''''''.'"".",,,,,,,,,...., .'N,',vNoV'o' 'N'NN.......''''''. .""',"."'."', ,'.VJ',.',"'.'.\,';....v...'.............' .........v................. ,"'''''''''''''''''''''',
Ilrlllll'ltlle I/.I)'col dillilrule 6~23.43.4 3.4 0.816 0.34 " .
-
- IIrIIlI\ 1'~le 211'col 1II01I01llerh\'1 elher 107-98-2 3690 885.6 7.0E+01 369 7.00E+ 01 7.O01~0 I
- 1.1'"rlllll'lene Imine"" > 2'lIIclhl'l OJiridilic 75.55.8. 47 11.28 4.7 A2 SKIN
IIrllll\')~ne oxide" .. > 1.2-fPOX'I'JlrOJl:\lIe 75.56.9. 480 115.2 2.7I~01 48 3.70E.06 3.00E+OI
. "'llrlllll'llitrnte' 617.13-4 1070 256.8 107
...I!!!!JlI'lIe .... > IIIcrlwl nccl!'lclle 74-99-7 31800 7872 16~0
1lI'r\ihnllll 8003.34.7 50 11 5
. lI\'ri,lille 110-86-1 160 38.4 I.OE+OO 16 I.OOI~+OO
11\'ro(ulccbol .. .. > cnlt'l:bol 120.80-9. 1:10 55.2 23
IIlIillolille 91-22.5 .
. IllIillolle 106-51.4. 4.4 1:056 0.44
rllllillllllclidcs (illchulill!! rodllll) .
. IIIIX'..... > C)'clllllile 121.81.4 IS 3.6 1.5 SKIN
rl'5crnille 50-55-5 3.31"...04 3.00E.OJ
1'l'5l1rclllul 108-46-3 450 108 45
rhu,lilllu 01 etol 7440.16-6 10 2.4 I
rhlldilllll. IlISollILle COIllIIOIIIIIIs. (os Rh) 10 2.4 I ~
rhll,lilllll solllhit COlllllllllllds los Ubi 0.1 0.014 0.01
-
rOlllld 299.84.3 100 24 10
rUll'llllllt. (comlllercinl) 83-79.4 50 11 5
nlhher soll'eot Innohlha} 31800 7632 1590
Sl'h'lIllIlI~ acid 7783-00-8 3.0E+00 3.00E+OO
S\'h'lIllIlII CORI ROullds (:\5 Se) 7782-49-2 . 2 0.48 0.2
sl,lI'lIllIlII hexafliluride 7783-79.1 1.6 0.384 0.16
5""'IIUllru 630.10.4 5.0E+OO 5.00E+00
51'5l1l1e" .. > sodilllll 2.4.dichloro'lIhellonelh,,1 slIlfnle 136-78-7 100 24 10
.
silalle"" > silicolllclrnla\'dri,le 7803.62.5 66 15.84 6.6
siliru,olllornhou,,: di:\IC/IIIAceOIl! earth 61790.53.2 100 24 10
. 100 24 10
- siliClI,ulllllrplallll~:_"rt1:llIiloled silica
si'ira'lIlIIlIrtllaoIlS: silicn I!el 100 24 10
silirn.cn'siollille: crislobnlile 14464-46-1 0.5 0.12 0.05
- HIi08.60-7 1. 0.24 0,1
siJicu.cI'}'slalJille: UllOM!
- 60676.86.0 I 0.24 0.1
siliro.cn'slalliuc: ~ilico rllsed
SiliCDo('n'slalliue: Irilll'lIIile 15468.31.3 O.S 0.11 0.05
silirn.cn'sl:\lIille: ,rill(11i 1317.95-9 1 0.24 0.1
- 7440.21.3 100 24 10
smrull
~ili,',," rnrhille 409-21.2 100 24 10
-
PAGEI7
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0
-------
AIR TOXICS WORKING LIST
~(). CHEMICAL NAME CAS NO. C NO TllltEAT LEVEI.S OEL E.I'.A. VAI.UES COMMEN'I'S
A 8hr 24 hr I\lIIlIInl TWI\ UNIT RISK .. IlI'C RAC
A '"../m31 111"/11131 ''''';1113) (111!!/Ul3) FACTOIt (III!/m:n (1I!!/m3) :
-,.. ,", .'..'.'.".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.":'."~. "'."',",',',""',',''''',',',",,,','''.'.',',',".'," ",',','.......','";",,,,',"',",','.",',',",". ',';',':....",','.','.',".':,',',"',",',',","',',',',",'."',',',',"'.',",",",',',',',',',',',','''.",',','.''',,,,,"',',".',',';',',,,",""',,,,,',',',',',',',',',',""'.',"'...',';',',','...'''N'''.-:,,'.'.......',','''''';''''','," II:W......,......." ,'u.....',','"',',',',',',',''',',,,, ''''''''''''','''''....".,".......", "',""'''''.'''''..". ',"'..Y ....','''.' ''',",V.l','...:''','.'...'"""",',,,,,,,,''''"Jh',', Vi'o".".' ',''''", ,.."o'tY,,,,,',"'''.'''.,.,",,".,..,',",".',',","
1115 silicon Ilo(rnlwride .. .. > silalle '1803-61-5 66 15.84 6.6
616 sih'er: metal '1440.22-4 1 0.24 3.0E+00 0.1 3.00E+00
611 sih'cr: soluble cOlllllOuuds (ns AI!l 0.1 0.014 0.01
618 slh'er cvnnide 506-6-1-9 1.0E+Ol I.OOE+02
619 sn.thllll otide 26618-11.8 2.9 0.696 0.29 C
630 sndiulII bisulfite '1631.90-5 50 IZ 5
631 sndium 2.4-dichloro-uhenoxvetlwl sulfate- .. > scsoue 136-'18-7 100 H 10
6,11 sndiulII nuoroocelnte 62-74.8 0.5 0.12 0.0$ SKIN
IIJJ sndhllu hydroxide 1310.73.2 """'... Cl
6H sndinm wefnbisullile 7681.57-4 50 U 5
635 slihiue 7803.52-3 5.1 1.114 0.51
6.JII sluddard solvenl 80$2.41.3 5150 1260 515
6.17 . s"''chnine 57.24-9 1.5 0.36 3.0E-01 0.15 3.00~01 .
6.J1I slrn11e mOllomer"" > vhell\'lttll\'lcne"" > vim" benzelle 100-42-$. 2130 511.2 213 SKIN
6.J9 s"'r~le oxide 96.09-3 .
6-111 sulfnlell" .. > 1'1-:111' 3689-24.5 2 0.48 0.1 SKIN
W sulfur dioxide 7446.09.5 51 12.48 5.1
6-11 sulfur bcxonuoddc 25$1-62-4 119-100 28656 5970
6-13 sulfur Rlonocblnride 10015-67 -9 5$ 13.1 5.$ C
6"" sulfllr IK'nlnnlloride 5714-12-7 1 0.24 0.1 C
6-15 sulfur Il-trnnuonlle 7783-60-0 4.4 1.056 0.44 C
..ill. sulflll')'l nlloride 2699.79-8 210 50.4 21
6"7 sulllroros 35400-43-2 10 2.4 I
6-111 "'$lox" .. > dCIIICloll 8065-48.3 1.1 0.264 0.11
6"9 2" 5.T 93.76.5 100 24 10
6S11 1IIIIIuhllll (mellil alld odde dll~l.s) 7440.2$.7 50 12 $
.651 Tlmr.. .. > sulfolen .3609.14-5 2 0.48 0.1 SKIN
651 tellurium &I COIIIIIOII1I1I5 IDs Tel 13494.80.9 1 0.24 0.1
- l\'I\II"UI1l bexnnlloridc.(ns Te) . 7183-80.4 0.14
6~J 1 0.1
6~-I Il'mel,hos 3383-96-8 100 24 10
_655 n:I'I' 107.49.3 0.47 0.1118 0.047 SKIN
656 lerllhl11\,Is 26140-60.3 47 11.28 4.7 C
(,57 1 3 '1.8 TCD\) (diosin) 1'146-01-6 . 1.2E-08 4.50&+01
m 1.1 l.l.il1rDchlnrn.l.2-dinlloroelhnllc 76-11-9 83400 20016 4170
659 1.1.1.2.\etrnchlnrll.l.l.dinlloroellulnt . 76.11-0 83400 20016 4170
61'.11 J:~ ,-I.5.II~rnrhlor"hl'IIr.t'ne. 95-94.3 3.0fo;.01 - 3.O01~01
!!~L - 1.1.1.1.ll1rllfhlllrn~,lulIIl! 79.34..5' 69 16.56 1.71\""02 6.9 5.1101\""05 SKIN
PAGEI8
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERS'"'' 2.0
. I'
-------
AII\ 10XICS V.. .,KI
Sf
,'C). CIIEMICAI. NAPtm CAS NO. C NO TllltI!:AT tlWI£I.S, OI~I. E.I'.A. vt\l.m:s COMMENTS
A 8hr . 14 hr AIIIIIIIII 'I'WA UNI'!' lUSK nrc MC
A 1I1I!(1II3) IlIe(IIIJI (1I1t(1II3) (1111:(1113) FACTOIt (111:(1113) (lle/au3)
" '",',',',',',',',',',','."'..,',','..,',",",',',,',',',,',',',"",',',',',',',',,,,,"",',',',',',',',',""'.....',',',',',',',',',',',',',"',"',','oV,',',',','./',','..,',',',',"""""',',';',','1'0>,",',',';',',',,',','-,',',','"""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''','..,',','0',',''',',',,,,,',""','","""J'o',',',"','...' ,"',',',',',':",',' '''Yo...N .v.....'....... , ... """""'.""',..V.',',','.','"'' ,'.........'...'''''"", ,','."0'1 ,'".,."N>h', "yN.""'U"'''''''N,','''''''''''''''''' ."Y.""""",,,,,' 'N...."",,',' ""Yo"......,.............,...,...........',',''''',',',
~l h'lrocbJorocll,,'lclIc =.. > IICrcbloroelhrlcne 127-18-4. 3390 813.6 1.9E+ 00 339 5.20&07 .. ,
;j h"rllChloroIllNhnllo"" > carbon Iclrncl1loriclc 56.1).5 . 310 7404 6.7F".02 31 I.SOE-OS ,u.SKIN
;~ 11:1 rllcl.lorollauhl hlllellQ 1335.88.1 10 4.8 2
.5 l.3.4 6-leCrnchlllrlluhcnol 58-90-1 3.01HOI 3.00g+01
;6 h'lrlicthllc:ld. (ns I'h) 78.00.1 I 0.14 1.01~04 0.1 1.00E-04 SKIN
,7 h'lrahrrorllrnn 109.99.9 5900 1416 9.OE+00 590 9.001HOO I.OOE+OI
,II It'lrnlllelb)'llellll (os rl,) . 75.74.1 1.5 0.36 0.15 SKIN
,'I h-Irllllllihvi sllcdnollilrile 3333.52.6 18 6.71 1.8 SKIN
II Il'lrlillilrolllLihnlle 509-14-8 80 19.1 8
I Il:lr85ocliuUt 1I\'rollbosllllule 7722.88-5 50 11 5
l Il'lryl 479.45.8 15 -.. "" 3.6 1.5
1, Ilmllic oxide 1314.32.5 3.01~01 3.001~01
4 IbnllillUl soillble C0111 IKlllllds (nsTI) . 7440-18-0 1 0.14 5.0E-01 0.1 5.00E-01
5 ,.",mIllU occlnle 563-68.8 5.0&-01 5.00E-01
6 Ibnllilllll corbollalo 6533-13.9 J.OI~.OI 3.00E-01
7 'IIHlIliIlIU chloride 7791.12.0 3.0E-01 3.00E-01
II IhnllilllU nllruCt 10102.45.1 5.01£..01 5.001£..01
\I Ih:lllium seh'nil~ 11039.51.0 5.01£..01 S.OOE-OI
II ,hnllillm slllfll'e 7446.18-6 7.5F".01 7 .501~01
I 4 .4"I"llIhI5(6-1\:'1. hlll\'l'lII-( rlJ50n 96.69.5 100 14 10
1 Ibiol:l\'colic ocid 68.11.1 38 9.11 3.8 SKIN
.1 thintl\'l chloride 7719-09.7 49 11.76 U C
4 Ihirom 137-16-8 10 1.4 1.81£..03 I 5.50&04 5.001~+00
S lilll metal, oxilh & illorennic compollnds. (ns SII) 7440-31-5 10 4.8 1
6 lill: orunllic CUlIIllOlIIUls (ns Snl I 0.24 0.1 SKIN
7 IlInllilllll dioxidt 13463.67-7 100 24 10
II .ilanllllll IClrachloricle 7550-45-0 .
II lulllCllt.. .. >' Iulllol 108.88.3. 3710 904.8 1.0g+03 377 2.001£+03 3.00E+01 ,
o lulllcJle-l.4.dibo\'onnle 584-84-9. 0.36 0.0864 1.010:-01 0.036 I.OOF...OI
I' ] 4.lolueJle dinmille 95-80.7 .
I o.toluidine 119.9].7 . ,u SKIN
J 1II.,uluidine 108-44-1 88 21.12 8.8
4 .o-llIluidille 106.49.0 88 11.12 8.8 Al. SKIN
5 11111101 - - > ,"llIclle 108.88-3. 3770 904.8 2.OIH03 377 Z.OOE+ 03 3.00l~+01
Ii IlIxDlJhtlle - .. > chlolilln'cd cnlllllhclle 8001.35.1 . 5 1.1 3.1 E-03 0.5 3.10E-04
L hillUh'l IIhOSIl":lle 116.73.8 21 5.18 1.1
II ,l'ichlorllnCtlk uci.1 76.03.9 67 16.08 6.7
PAGE19
JANUARY 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0
-------
AlA TOXICS WORKING LIST
I
,
1\0. CHEMICAl. NAME CAS NO. C NO THREAT I.EVEI.S OfU, E.I'.A. VALUI~S COMMENTS
A 8hr 24 hr Allllllol TWA UNIT RISK .. nfC ItAC
A (1I1!(1II3) (112(1113) (1111(1113) (1112(1113) FACTOR (1I1!(1II3) (1I1!(013)
.' ','''''1,'"",",",',''''''',',','''''.'"'',,,,,',',',',,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,"",',',',',','",',',','N.',",',',',''',',',''''',',',',',','..,'.'.''''.'.'.','.'.'.'.','.~'.'.'.'.'.'...' ,','.'0',',' ,',',',',',",'.',',',.','."'.','.',',',',',',',',',','",',',',',',',',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"""',,"",'U,',',',',',""""""""",,,,,,',""''''','''...','...''''''''' "''''''... ',,,,,,',,,,,,,,"','.'" "'","""'N.~.'.'.'.'.'...''','.' o',','NI';':'V.""",,",'./','o', ''''",'I'N...'M. 'NINNI,',''''',',','''''''.',,,,,,,',',,,',',',' ,'.'...... ""',"'.','.Wo',''''''''IoV. ',~ ,,,,,,,,,,""',"',','''''.',,,,','.''''.',
699 1.2 4.lricblorobenzene 120.82.1 . 370 88.8 2.OE+01 37 1.00E+01 C
700 1,l,llricbloruclbnoe" .. > melln'l chloro(onn 71-55.6 38200 9168 I.OE+OI 1910 I.OOE+OI SKIN
701 I I 2.lricblorocthone 79.00.5. 550 132 6.3 E-01 55 1.608-05'
701 Irichloroctll\'lcne (TCE) 79-01-6. 1690 645.6 5.9E-0I, 269 1.70E-06
703 lricbloronlloroulethooe.. .. > nuorotrichlorolUcthnlle 75.69-4 111400 26976 3.OE+ 01 5620 3.00E+02 C
704 tricblorollleChalle" .. > cblorofonu 67 -66.J. 490 117.6 4.31~01 49 2.308-05 8.00E-OJ 82
70S Iricblorooonhl!.lIltne 1321.65.9 50 12 5 SKIN
706 Inchlorouilrollll'lhane" > c:hloronicrin.. > lIilrulrichlorolliethnllc 76.06.2 6.7 1.608 0.67
707 2,4 ,5.trir.bloronhenol 95.95-4 . " I.OE+ 01 I.OOE+01
708 2 4 6.trkhloronhcllol 88.06-1 . 3.2E-01 J.10E-06
709 1 2 3.lricb)oronrormJle 96.18-4 600 144 60 SKIN
710 I 1 2.tricbloro.I.2,2.lrinuoroclbnllc 76.13-1 153400 36816 7670
711 lrin'clobc:nllln bvdro~llle - - > c\'hCxnlin 13121-70.5 50 11 5'
712 trilh'Dlile.. .. > silica. cn'stulille 15468.32-3' 0,5 0.12 0.05 '
713 Irililn'lullline 121-44.8. 410 98.4 1.01~.01 41 1.001~01
714 IrinnorobrolllDllltlhnlle 75.63.8 121800 29131 6090
715 lrinllraliu 1581-09-8 .
716 lrimcllilic allhrdriele 552-30-7 0.39 0.0936 0,039
717 I rillu:tln'llulIine 75-50.3 240 57.6 24
718 IrimeChrl bcnU:lle 25551-13.7 1130 295.1 123
719 2 2 4.lrillll:lb\,\j,,'uilUle 540.84-1 .
720 lrimetb)" P!IOsllhile 12 1.45.9 100 14 10
721 2 4,6.lrinlironlll'uol .... > niciic acid 88.89.1 1 0.24 0.1 SKIN
722 2 4 6.lrinllrolnlnelle Un'NT)" 118-96.7 5 1.2 0.5 SKIN
723 lriorthocresvl nbosnhole 78.30.8 I 0.14 0.1 SKIN
724 Irin"~\'1 amine 603.34.9 50 12 5
725 lri..h.,lyl P!losphute 115.86-6 30 1.2 J
716 ,Irillllll - - > silico . cn'sloli.ie 1317.95.9 I 0,24 0.1
717 hllll!slcn' !.\Soillble cOIIIP<)nnds. (us \V) 7440.33.7 50 12 5
718 1IIIII!sll.'lll soluhle cOllloonnds IOJ \VI 10 1.4 1
729 IlIr~lllne 8006.64.2 5560 1334.4 556
no urullium; soluhle & hlSolllble cnmllClllnds (liS VI 7440-61.1 2 0.48 0.1
7)J n . \'lIleraldch\'de 110.62-3 1160 411.4 116
7J2 \'nllndium 0J(\'205) 1314.62.1 0.5 0.12 2.0E+01 0.05 1.00E+01
7JJ \,1111'1 occlnle 108.05.4. 3S0 84 2.0It+ 01 35 . 2.00)~+ 01
7.\4 ,illl'l hl~IZCl\e .... > UnCUt.... > IIhl~II\'lctll\'leuc 100.41.5. 2130 511.'1 213 SKIN
m... ..l!!!.! 1 hromiele 593.60.2. 220 52.8 21 "1
PAGE20
JANUARY 1992
['HAFT: VEnSII"" 2.0
-------
AIR TOXI(;:; WORKING LIST
.
1'\0. CIlEMICAL NAME CAS NO. C NO'1'IIIU~A T I.E"I~r.S O1~L E.r.A. VAI.UES COMMENTS
A 8hr 24 hr AlUlllnl 1'WA UNIT JUSK lUC RAC
A (1I1!/m3) (1I1!/m3) {IIR/m3) (ml!/m3) FACTOR .fuR/m3} (1IIIItu3\
...n.',"'",."","" """""""""""'""''''''''''''''''''''''.v,",'''.......'.'.'.""'.'.""'.'.'~.'.'.'.""'...',,,,,.,,,,,"',"'.'.......'."J',",".......'''''",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,...,,,.....,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,"""'.'''''''''','''''''', """'""""",'.'.'...'.',',';',"','. '.',','.\",,,',",,,',',"',''''',,,,,',,,,,,.",,,,,,,,,''',",",';',',',,;,;,,,,,,"'."',"', ".<0:..'....'...........',','.....','"'' ,',,,,,,,"'/.',',,,,,,,'''''''''. ",'............... ..'.-........... """""""','.':',","'... ','...'.v.... ""'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''', ''''''''''''''''''', ."'oh"................',.uu.....
............".."...,
736 ,'in,.J cWoride.. .. > chluroedn'lelle 75-01-4 . 130 31.2 1.41~01 13 7.10&-06 AI
137 ,'In,'1 c\'onlde = .. > ocrrlonllrile 107-(3.1 43' 10.32 1.5&-01 4.3 6.801",05 A2.D2,SKIN
138 "111\'1 tvclobexene dioxide 106-87.6 570 136.8 57 A2 SKIN
139 ,.hn-lidC!t'c chloride .. - > 1,l-dichlnroelll\'Jene 75.35-4 . 200 48 . 2.0E-02 20 5.00&.05
7~O ,'hl\'ltolncue .' - 25013.15.4 2420 580.8 242
7~1 \':\1 & r nOI,hlho 8032.32-4 27400 6576 1370
,~z wnrrllrUl 81-81.2 1 0.24 J.OE-O I 0.1 3.001",01
'~2 x)"lcue . bOlllers & lIIixtures 1330.20.7 4J~0 1041.6 3.0E+01 434. 3.00E+02 8.00E+ 01
'4.1 lII.nlt-ne olllbo. olpha' . dinmine 1477-55-0 1 0.24 0.1 C.SKIN
'44 nlidioe - .. > dimclh,'lomlnohemene 1300.73.8 25 -. '. 6 2.5 A2 SKIN
745 )"1I1111n1' meCaI &: cOlllllOlinds. (ns Y'I 7440.65.5 10 2.4 1 -
'~6 linc cblnnde 7646.85.7 10 1.4 . 1
'41 tinc cbrolllal~ (ns Cr) 13530.65.9 0.1 0.024 0.01 AI
'48 tinc cyonide 557.11.1 5.0E+01 5.00E+01
749 tillc oxide 1314-13.1 50 12 5
'50 ,inc .,hospbide 1314.84.7 3.010:.01 3.00&-01
'SI tirconilllu COlllllOlilids (ns Zr) 7440.67.2 50 12 5
PAGE21
JANUAny 1992
DRAFT: VERSION 2.0 '
....
.'
-------
APPENDIX C
CLASS I PERMIT INJECTION LIMITS
FOR HARRIS CORPORATION
-------
Underground Injection COntrol
Class I Permit In1ection Limits
PERMITTEE:
Harris Corporation
I. D. Number:
Permit/Certification Number:
UCOS-126519
Date of Issue:
Expiration Date: 7/1/92
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
8. Monitorihq
- Deep Injection Well.
The deep injection well shall be monitored in
the requirements of Rule 17-28.26(2). F.A.C.
shall submit monthly a report which shall at a
the followinq data for eacb injection well:
accordance with
The permittee
minimum include
Daily specific con~uctanc.
Daily pH
Daily temperature
Daily averaqe injection pressure
Daiiy maximum injection pressure
Daily minimum injection pressure
Daily minimum flow rate (qpm)
Daily averaqe flow rate (qpm)
Daily maximum flow rate (qpm)
Total volume discharqed ~ Daily (qal~ons)
Tot~l volume discharqed ~ Monthly (gallons)
Mont~ly average of total volume discharqe per day
(psi)
(ps i) .
(psi)
9. Monitorinq - Treatment Plant
The effluent stream shall be monitored monthly for the following
parameters. A copy of these data shall be submitted monthly to
the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
O~~arde
Deep Well Effluent
Limi~~/~onrh Av~raa~
Trichloroethane. uq/l
1.1.1.-Trichloroethane. ug/l
Methylene Chloride. uq/l
O-Dichlocobenzene. uq/l
Tetrachloroethene. uq/l
5
. 5
25
5
5
~
DEI Form 17-1.201(5) Effective November 30. 1982 paqe 6 of 10
-------
APPENDIX D
NPDES PERMIT LEVELS FOR HARRIS CORPORATION
-------
PERMITTEE:
Harri. corporation
1. D. NUlllber:
Perlllit/Certitication Rumber:
UC05-126519
Date ot Issue:
e~~:L4tion. Date: 7/1/92
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
Inor'~ani(!
BOD 5 Day ,
Chelllical Oxygen Demand (C.O.D.). m9/1
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.). mq/l
Total Kjeldahl N~troqen (T.K.N). IIIq/l
Amlllonia. 1119/1 as.N
Un-ionized Ammonia (NH3)' m~/l a. N
Total Phosphorus (TP). IIIq/l ~s P
Total Suspended Solidi, IIIq/l
Arsenic. IIIq/l
Cadmium. uq/l
Chrolllium. 1119/1
Copper. IIIq/l
Cyanide. ug/l
Fluoride. m9/1
Lead. 1119/1
Mercury. uq/l
Nickel. mq/l
Selenium. mg/l
Silver. U9/1
Zinc. IIIq/l
-
-
.
a. N -
-
-
-
-
5
10
0.05
1
10
200.0
0.05
0.2
0.1
1
SO
5
-General Limitation:
Must be compatible vith the inject~on
sy.ua, . inj.eti~h zone. and confining
zone and not hazardous pursuant to
Section 17-30.03(1). Florida Administra-
tive Code.
The treatment plant shall be operatec! in .uch a ..nner .. to
maintain. .pecific paulIIeteu vi thin the above Ihud effluent
11.1111 ta t ion..
10. Monitoring - Monitor Well.
A repr..entative qround vater ...pl. shall be obtained from the
lIIonito~ vell(.) monthly. Th..e .ample. .hall be analyzed .for
the fOllowing para.eteu. The re.ul t8 of the.e analyse. shall
be reported in the monthly operatiDg report sub.hud to the
depart.ent.
Fluoride
Total Kjeldahl
pH
Chloride
Nitrogen
TDS
Specific Conductance
Total Pho.phoru.
Sulfate -
( Uelc!..)
D!R ForD 17-1.201(5) Effectiv. Nov..ber 30. 1982 pa;e 7 of 10
-------
Page 1-1
Permit No. FL0034681
PAR'!' I
EFFLUBNT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A.
1.
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized by this permit to discharge only treated ground water only from
outfall serial number 002. Such discharge 1s expected to occur on an infrequent and
intermi~tent basis since tbis outfall is considered an emergency outfall. Discharges from
outfall serial number 002 shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified be low I
PARAMETERS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REOUIRBMBNT~
Annual Monthly Daily Measurement Sampie Sampling
Averaae AveraCJe. -'. MaximUJQ Frequency fnm Point
Flow, MGD Report Report Report Continuous Recorder Effluent
Trichloroethane; ug/1 5.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
1,1-dichloroethene, uqll 5.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
1,2-cis-dichloroethene, ug/l 5.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
1,2-trans-dichloroethene, ug/l 5.0 Report l/Week Grab Bffluent
Vinyl Chloride, ug/l 5.0 Report l/Week Grab Bff1uent
1,1,I-trich1oroethane, ug/l 5.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent.
1,1-dlchloroethane, ug/l 5.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
Methylene Chloride, ug/1 25.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
1,2-dichloro~nzene, ug/l 25.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
Chlorobenzene, ug/l 25.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluen't
Ethyl Benzene, ug/l 25.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
Toluene, ug/l- 25.0 Report l/Week Grab Effluent
pH, Standard Units (See Item J on Page 1-2) l/Week Grab Effluent
~
E
-------
RESPONS:IVENESS SUMMARY
This summary presents the Agency's responses to comments that were
received from the community, loca.l officials, or potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) for the Harris Corporation/Palm Bay
Facility site operable unit two (OU2).
A. OVerview
At the start of the public comment period, EPA issued its selection
for the preferred alternative via the media and the Proposed Plan.
EPA's recommended alternative consisted of continuing the operation
- of Harris Corporation's existing groundwater recovery and treatment
system, elimination of one recovery well, potential addition of
another monitoring well, and groundwater monitoring. This
alternative is a slight variation to Alternative 4 in the
Feasibility Study (FS).
Judging from the comments received during the public comment
period, the residents of Palm Bay and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) would support Alternative 4 with or
without the slight variations. The community's concerns ranged
from the effect on property values to the safety of fish
consumption. The PRPs strongly supported continuing the operation
of the existing recovery and treatment system; however, preferred
elimination of two recovery wells as specified for Alternative 4 in
the FS.
EPA's preferred remedy identified in the Proposed Plan was selected
in the Record of Decision (ROD) after consideration of the public
comments summarized below.
B. Background On Community :Involvement
The Harris Corporation site has attracted the interest of the
community throughout the history. of EPA's community relations
outreach activities and gains its visibility from its status as the
largest employer in the state of Florida. Since 1982 the public has
been alerted by the news media about contaminated groundwater in
the adjacent public water supply wells of Palm Bay Utilities (PBU).
The major concern expressed about operable unit two (OU2) during
remedial planning activities focused on groundwater contamination.
Comments and how EPA addressed them are described below:
(1 )
A.resident living east of PBU complained of black oily water
in his well which is used for non-potable uses.
EPA Response: EPA contacted the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and ATSDR responded that the deep
wells in this part of the state are typically discolored.
People who live in this area have found the water to be odd
colors. Contaminated groundwater is confined to the site
-------
boundaries. A map showing the location of groundwater wells
related to Harris was sent to the commenter.
(2 )
A resident called about not being able to find documents on
the site at the library.
EPA Response: EPA confirmed that the Franklin DeGroodt
Library still held the documents in the reference department
and passed the information on to the resident. She was also
referred to the PRP for further information that they may be
willing to provide to her concerning the site.
Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
and Agency Responses .
The public comment period on the draft FS and proposed plan for the
Harris corporation site was held from November 21 to December 21,
1994. EPA responded to significant written comments via the
telephone or mail. "All comments. received during this time and
EPA's written responses have been placed in the Administrative
Record: Comments are summarized below. Part I of this section
addresses those community concerns and comments that are non-
technical in nature. Response to specific legal and technical
questions are provided in Part II. Comments in each. Part are
categorized by relevant topics.
C.
Groundwater Sampling Methods and Results
(1 )
A participant at the public meeting asked if there has been
any monitoring or surveying on the south side of the main
building on the Semiconductor Sector property.
EPA Response: Monitoring well placement was initially based
on locations of potential (soil) sources of contamination and.
soil sampling results. The installation of additional
monitoring wells was then based on the results from the
initial wells, direction of groundwater flow, hydrogeologic
factors, etc. This procedure allows EPA to thoroughly
characterize the contamination and determine the extent of
groundwater contamination. No potential source areas (soils)
were located south of the large buildings that are south of
the retention pond (Buildings 51-54 shown on Figure 2 of the
ROD). Additionally, the southern extent of the groundwater
contamination in the20-foot zone has been determined by the
levels of contamination below cleanup goals in wells to the
south of the plume. In the 40-foot zone, the extent of
contamination has not been defined, therefore EPA is requiring
the placement of another monitoring well to determine the
groundwater plume boundary and ensure that contamination is
not migrating offsite.
2
-------
(2 )
Another attender wanted to know why the level of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) has fluctuated over time and is not
a steady line. What causes the increases?
EPA Response: The fluctuation in the level of contaminants in
groundwater during pumping can be caused by changes in the
recovery system, e.g. 'number of wells working, pumping ~ate,
and condition of wells. VOC levels have been observed to
fluctuate during extraction in the short term, but typically
show an overall long-term decline. At this site, mechanical
failures of pumps, wells, or surface pumping have caused' the
concentrations of the total VOCs in the influent to the air
stripper to decrease. When these wells are brought back in
line and problems are fixed the levels of VOCs will then tend
to rise significantly in comparison to the previous month.
Health Risks
(1)
One resident living within a mile of the site was concerned
about his wells being polluted. He has two wells at a depth
of 80 feet and 180 feet below the surface. He uses them in
the yard and has children that may possibly drink the water
when occasionally playing in the water. He asked if anyone
has or could check his wells for contamination.
(2 )
EPA Response: EPA responded that the contaminated groundwater
associated with the Harris Corporation site is confined
onsite. It was suggested that he contact the local county
health department if he wanted someone to sample the wells.
From the information EPA received from the health department
the resident would, however, have to pay the analytical costs
unless the sampling is requested by a State Health and
Rehabilitation Service (HRS) official.
A member of the audience at the public meeting wanted to know
if EPA was studying the risk to people who currently live in
the community and the risk to people who lived in the area and
consumed groundwater from PBU over a number of years.
EPA Response: .EPA evaluates the current and future risk to
human health and the environment if there was no remediation
taking place at the site, based on present levels of
contamination. It is not within the scope' of Superfund to
study the potential risk to past receptors of contamination.
If there was an indication that residents' health was
negatively impacted from exposure to contamination in the past
or there were a number of health complaints, EPA would notify
appropriate health agencies such as ATSDR and HRS.
(3 )
A man living on Robert Conlan Boulevard next to OU2 was
con~erned about the VOCs that he smells in the mornings and
the evenings. He was concerned that the source of the odor
3
-------
was the air stripper and, if so, suggested that the stripper
stop operating. If the air stripper was not causing the
odors, he suggested that air be monitored in his area.
EPA Response: Residents in the past have complained to city
officials and others about odors coming from or around the
area of Harris corporation in the morning and after sundown.
Neither FDEP or the local fire department have been able to
identify the source. EPA contacted the local district office
of FDEP and was told that no specific monitoring other than
ozone monitoring is routinely done. The air strippers are
permitted b¥ FDEP, and EPA has sampled the air and performed
modelling calculations to determine the potential impact of
VOC emissions from the air stripper. The maximum air-impact
VOC concentrations predicted b¥ modelling were well within
safe levels. EPA also contactedFDEP's Tallahassee office and
they are following up on this issue (Related correspondence is
in the Administrative Record).
Property Impacts
(1)
A resident asked whether the Turkey Creek conununity was
considered to be part of OU1 and if so what were the risk~ to
the residents of the community and who is liable for property
value decreases. .
EPA Response: The Turkey Creek community is not included in
OU1. Both aUl and OU2 include only the Harris property and
groundwater beneath Palm Bay Utilities.
An adjacent business owner to the west side of OU2 questioned
whether his property had been contaminated.
(2 )
EPA Response: The contaminated groundwater does not
extend beyond the western boundary of OU2 and would not
be expected to migrate west of the site in the future.
The direction of groundwater flow in the shallow
monitoring zone is toward the retention pond and in the
intermediate monitoring zone is predominantly to the
south. The deep monitoring zone also flows toward the
south; however, groundwater has not been found to be
contaminated at this aO-foot depth of OU2. There has
been no indication. of contaminated groundwater present
beyond the western boundary of OU2 during any of the past
sampling done by Harris or EPA. The soils on the site
are not presently contaminated, therefore there is no
reason to suspect that the commenter's property would
contain contaminated soil.
4
-------
(1 )
Environmental Life
(2 )
One individual at the public meeting asked what kind of life
was in the retention pond and whether it was a viable
community.
BPA Response: A variety of vegetation and animal species have
been observed within and around the retention pond. Sightings
have included frogs, minnows, amphipods, glass shrimp and
mosquito fish. The fauna and flora is typical of similar
. surface water bodies in the area.
A woman in Palm Bay noticed pieces of broken pavement in a
nearby canal possibly from road repair. She was concerned
that the macad~ could impact the water quality and
consequently the health of the fish. She further questioned
whether.the fish would be safe for consumption.
BPA Response: EPA returned a written response to the
commenter which is contained in the Administrative Record. In
summary, there are only isolated cases of fresh pavement
releasing contaminants into water bodies at levels that have
caused adverse ecological impacts. Older pavement would be
much less iikely to cause any risk to the environment, and
therefore human health. .
Remedial Alternative Preferences
(l)
A resident of Palm Bay believes that the discoloration of his
well water may indicate that his well has a high manganese
level and that manganese is a natural occurrence in this part
of Florida. He suggests that it should not be necessary to
cleanup the manganese from the groundwater.
BPA Response: EPA agrees that manganese is common iri the soils
at the site. However, the s~pling results from the RI showed
that manganese was predominantly at levels well below the
secondary drinking water standard, with the exception of ,one
sample beneath a place formerly used by Harris as a
construction debris area. This sample contained over three
times the State's secondary drinking water s.tandard. EPA is
requiring that manganese levels in the groundwater be
monitored.
(2 )
One commenter preferred Alternative #3, No Modification, to
maximize clean up rate. Additional information. on
contamination levels in shallow groundwater in the Turkey
"
Creek area was also requested.
BPA Response: After considering the tradeoffs between the
alternatives, EPA decided on the remedial action described in
the ROD. The recovery well that will be shut off is pumping
5
-------
(3 )
groundwater that is no longer above the drinking water
standards, therefore it is no longer contributing to
groundwater cleanup and it is not necessary to continue
operating the well as a recovery well. A f~rther explanation
of the process for selecting the remedial alternative can be
found in the ROD. The requested groundwater information was
sent to the commenter.
An audience member at the public meeting wanted to know why
deep well injection is still used if the VOCs have already
been removed.
Both the Semiconductor Sector and the' Electronic Systems
Sector groundwater is treated to below drinking water
standards using air stripping. Disposal of the treated water
by deep well injection was the most feasible disposal
alternative for the water rather than such methods as spray
irrigation or discharge to a POTW (publicly owned treatment
works) . The injection wells operate under a State permit
system.
(4 )
(5)
A resident strongly supported EPA's preferred remedy.
The PRP did not agree that manganese and bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate should be included in the remedial goals.
EPA Response: Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, a B2 carcinogen,
was detected in one of eight groundwater samples at a level of
7 ug/l, exceeding the federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
of 6 ug/l. The rationale presented by the PRPs that this
chemical should be eliminated due to low frequency of
detection and low level of detection is inconsistent with EPA
guidance which states that to be a candidate for elimination
from the quantitative risk assessment based on frequency of
detection the chemical must not be detected at high
concentrations. EPA Region IV considers detected
concentrations exceeding applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) to be high concentrations.
Manganese was detected in all groundwater samples at levels
ranging from 8 ug/l to 160 ug/l and exceeded the secondary MCL
of 50 ug/l, which is an ARAR. Region IV's Office of Health
Assessment considers the PRP's statement that manganese has
low toxicity via groundwater ingestion to be incorrect since
the EPA has established a much lower reference dose for
manganese via water ingestion than the reference dose for
manganese via soil ingestion. Additionally, the PRPs statement
that manganese should not be included as a contaminant of
concern due to low frequency of detection is incorrect.
Manganese was detected in all groundwater samples.
6
-------
(6 )
(7 )
The PRP thought that EPA's reference
substantial endangerment- was misleading.
-imminent
and
to
EPA Response: The statement is included in the Proposed Plan
and the ROD per Agency guidance on these documents. Based on
the conununity's comments, the public did not envision an
inunediate threat to human health and the environment.
The PRP disagreed with EPA's preference to shutdown only one
of the two recovery wells recommended in the Feasibility
Study. The PRP states that concentrations in both wells have
been at or below the proposed remedial goals for over four
years.
(8)
EPA Response: The shutdown of both wells is contrary to the
scenario proposed by the PRP for elimination of pumping of
recovery wells, which states that a recovery well may be
shutdown after three consecutive samplings demonstrate that
levels of the constituents of concern are below proposed
remedial goals. The time interval between collection of each
of the three consecutive samples must be at least three months
and no greater than twelve months. While one well meets this
criteria for shutdown, the other well would need to contain
concentrations of contaminants below cleanup levels in the
next sampling in order to justify elimination. This procedure
is supported by the sampling results in a third recovery well
in this area, which exceeded the cleanup goals after having
had levels below, the goals for over three years.
The PRP believes that existing monitor wells define the
boundaries of groundwater contamination and/or that any
contamination will be naturally attenuated or captured by the
recovery wells at OU1. Therefore, an additional monitoring
well in the southwest area of OU2 is not necessary.
EPA Response: Concentrations of the contaminants increased in
the southwest corner between 1993 and 1994, indicating that a
larger portion of the VOC plume is not being captured by the
existing recovery wells. EPA evaluated the individual sample
resul ts, not annual average data to determine it is not
possible to adequately ensure that public health is protected.
There is the potential that the plume extends farther south
than the PRP estimates and without an additional monitoring
well, EPA cannot ascertain the southern boundary and fate of
the groundwater contamination.
Enforcement
(1 )
During the meeting, a resident wanted to know if there was any
determination made of the origin of contamination.
7
-------
BPA Response: EPA believes that the Harris corporation is a
responsible party under the Superfund law. A number of
historical potential source areas of contamination in the soil
from past waste handling by Harris were located on the
property which could have released similar contaminants into
the groundwater as are presently found in the groundwat~r. .
Groundwater beneath particular source areas contains higher
concentrations of contaminants than beneath others.
D.
Remaining Concerns
EPA believes all significant issues and concerns raised during the
remedial planning stage were addressed.
8
-------
"
------- |