United States
Environmental Protection
Aaency
Office if
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-88/045
March 1988
Superfund
Record of Decision
Tyson's Dump, PA
-------
50272 -un
~:.. ~JMEHTATION 11- REPORT NOEPA/ROD/R03-88/045
.. Title and sUtIt!t.,.
SUPE~YUND RECORD OF DECISION
, T\I~"'n' s Dump, PA
E : Remedial Action - Final
2.
3. Recipient's Acc8sslan No.
50 Re~?'t/88
6.
- .
7. Autftor(s)
8. Performina Oraanization Rept. No.
. 9. Performlna Orpnlzatlon Name and Add,.ss
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
I'
- _. _. -.--
.-
11. Contr8ctCC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
CG)
12. Sponsorina 0rasnlzatlon Name and Add,...s
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, 'S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Agency
13. Type of Report &. Pe,lod eov.red
- -
800/000
1..
15. Supp/ementllry Not..
,
i
16. Abstr8c:t (Umlt: 200 words) .
Tyson's Dump, a 4-acre abandoned septic and chemical waste disposal site, is located
in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Several formerly unlined
lagoons were used to store various industrial, municipal, and chemical wastes. Spills
and overflows reportedly occurred during the period of operation, thus allowing for the
dispersal of wastes throughout the site. Surface water runoff and seeps contributep co
( -~site migration of the wastes toward the Schuylkill River. The site is bordered on
sides by unnamed tributaries to the river. When the Pennsylvania Department of
~n_ironmental Resources (PADER) ordered two dumps closed in 1973, the owner of the land,
General Devices Inc., removed some ponded water .but did not arrange for the removal of
contaminated soils. Immediate removal measures were initiated in January 1983,
following an anonymous citizen complaint about conditions at the site. These measures
included: construction of a leachate collection and treatment system; installation of
drainage controls and a site cover; and fencing of the lagoon area. In December 1984,
EPA issued an operable unit ROD for the onsite area. Remedial actions selected in the
ROD include: excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils and sediments; and
upgrading the existing air strips to treat leachate, shallow ground water, and surface
run-on. EPA began the remedial design phase for this selected alternative in
(See Attached Sheet)
. -
17. Document Analysis a. Dncriptors
Record of Decision
Tyson's Dump, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil
Kevd Con'taminants: VOCs (benzene,
-b. 1, entrflers/Opm.Ended Terms
PCE, TCE)
e. COSATI Field/Group
-
l'
...
'ability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
21. No. of PfflS
20. S8curit)r. Class (This Paae)
None
22. PrIce
-c----
- -
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
S.. Instructions 0" Reverse
Oll'TlONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTI~35)
Department 0' Commerce
-------
Site Map
Tyson's Site
m
'I
IE GEND
Fe«tct»
11 /( (Judiry
\
AH
V
' S
Ram
X / ,
?f; //
: *,;
>
' /
ftwi, •.'
Mo>l 11 'ifii in/«i/,s; T.i
-------
Tyson's Dump Site
Revised Record of Decision
Introduction
EPA and t,e ?ennsylJania Jepart~ent of ~nvir~nmental
~esources e'Jaluatad the i:Tnovative technology remedial action
praposa l' "ade to the ~gency by C iba-Ge igy Corpora t ion, Sm i t:,-
Kline 6ec~~an, ,Wyeth Laboratories, and t~e Essex Group on June
and July 1987. This Re'Jised Record or Jecision (~~D) will
summaiize the resul~s of the EPA evaluation and will presant
a permanent remedy for the former lagoon areas.
Site Location and Jescription
7Y50n'5 Si:~ is ~n abandoned septic Naste and cr,emical
,oIaste dis:J05a~ site reported to hava operated :rom 1960 to
1970 wit:,in a sandst:)ne quarry. The sit~ is located in Jpper
.1=rion :,own5;,ip, '1,=>n':]Ofnery :ounty, ?ennsylvania. 5-=!veral
farmerly unlined la;oons N~re used to store various industrial,
:TIuni=i=,a~, 3nd chemi=al,wastas. Spi~ls and overflows reportad-
~'f occurr-=!d d\.1rin; t"e :Jeriod of oper3tion, thus ,~llowing for
the d i s :J e r 5 a ~ a : :.... as': a s t:, r 0 ugh 0 U t the 5 1 ': a . S IJ r fa c e ..... a t ~ c
c\.1n-off and s.:.?ps =ontcibuted to off-s::~ migc~tion of t:he
~3S:.:S toward the Schuyl~ill River. 7r,e 3?proxi,~~tely 4-acra
91~':, .....~ich con5:i,:'.:t-=5 a series of foc:ner:::' :.1n1i.,-=! lagoons, i5
~ordered 0:"1 ':he ea3: 3nd '....est 'o:Jy 'Jnnalnc?i :rib..:--: ,~ies t:") t'~e
S = h \.11 ~ '.( i j,: ~ :. ';' "? C, 3 S -: e e p q \.1 a C' r y h i '~ ~ - .,...:: :: to '-: :; 0 U t:" a ., d
~ -: :) !'1 C' 3 ~ l r 3 :. : :' :J a d .5'~ i ': :;:, i n ~ '! a r d t ~ t " -= nor t: -:' i g u r ~ 1).
,; :, C' :: 1 0: t .~ c: .: oj n C' 3 L L t r 3 c ~ .5 t ~ the 5 = h u f : '
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE REVISED RECORD OF DECISION
SIT~ NAME AND LOCA~IO~
Tyson's JU~~ Sit:
U~per ~erion TOwnshi~
pennsy l'Jan i a
STATE~ENT OF BASIS
This document is =>ased upon the administr~tilJe r::cord
supporting the 1984 ~ecord of Jecision and information recei~~d
a.tter t;,e adrninistrati'Je record was closed, which is set
forth in the attached index.
DESCRIPTION 0: THE SELECTED RE~EDY
The
consists
r :1 no': a t i 'J e Tee h nolo 9 y
of t~e :ol~owi!1g:
~emedial
Action
A 1 t ern a t i 'J ~
.
- ~e:nediation of t;,~ contaminated soils through t;,e use of an
innolJati'.;e techno~ogy remedial action of vacuum extraction,
d0wn to levels det:ermined =>y t:'e Age!"lcy t.:) =>e,?rotecti"Je of
~uman hea:t~ and t~e en~ir~nment.
JECUd~";1'IO~
This je'=isio~ document represents t:1-: selected r+Tledi031
3=tion f~r t~is site de~alo?ed in ~c~~r~3n=e ~lt~ :!RCLA, ~s
1 ~ e n j e d ::J :l S .; ~ ,; , ~ .., d t :, e 'J.~ t ion 03 l ': :") n 1: i "1 ~ e 1 c 1 ? ~ an. ! '1 a .,,~
;::::r:-:1ine...: :::13': ':'ie :;.'?lected re:nedj is ?cJte-.::tiJe f): '1'J.~..:I:1
'1=2~':1 and ':1-: 8:1:ic:)nl:'1~!1t, ~tt.'2in5 cedec~~ .ind 5':3t:;! re\jlli:,~-
~en:s t~a1: ~r~ ap~:i=~ble or relevant 3nd ~??rapri3te, ~~d i~
::::JS': effecti'Je. ":'hi:; remedy s.3tlsties t'1c preference :-:>r
trea':11ent t:1at reallces toxici:/, onobility, or 'I')Lu-ne ):3.1
? r i n = i ? a ~ ~ 1 e 11 en t . :: i n all i , i t i ::; :j e ': ? :: ':'1 i n ~ d t ,1 a ': t:1 i s
r?11edj .l:iLizes permanent 30111ti<)ns d:1d ~l:-=cnati'/:: tr.~at,l1~r1t
(or resource recovery) technologies t~ the m3xi~llm extant pr~c-
ticable.
The Commonwea 1 :;,
selected remedy.
0:
?e n ns y:.-v?n i.'2
I
'1a s
~oncurr~d, on
t:1e
Date
-------
-3-
In January 1983, EPA investigated an anonymous citizen
complaint about conditions at Tyson's and subsequently deter-
mined that immediate removal measures were required. These
measures it'1cluded the construction of a leachate ~ollection
and treatment system, drainage controls and cover over the
site, and the erec t i on 0 f a fence around the lagoon a rea.
Between January 1983 and August of 1984, EPA and its
contractors conducted a series of investigations primarily
in what is now referred to as the On-Site Area. The- On-Site
Area is defined here as that area south of the railroad tracks
and within or immediately adjacent to the security fence
erected during the emergency response measures. In December
1984, EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the On-Site
Area which recommended the following remedial actions:
- Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils
a nd was tes to a permi t ted Resou rce Conse rva t i on and
Recovery Act (RCRA) landfill. .
- upgrading the existing air-strippi~g facility to treat
leachate, shallow ground water and surface run-on en-
countered during excavation.
- Ex~a'lation and off-site disposal of contaminated sed-
l:'nents within the tributary which receives effluent
:rom the existing air stripper.
Fo:lowi~g issuance of the ROD, E?A began remediaL design
for the selected alternative in January 1985. This design
included additional borings throughout the lagoon area to de-
fine the 'lolume of material to be excavated. In August 1985
through November 1985 EPA performed additional borings and
magne tometer su.rveys th roughou t the lag oon area to be t ter
delineate the areas to be excavated.
In the fall of 1985, CISA-GEIGY Corporation agreed to
conduct a further investigation. of the Off-Site Area, the
need for which was described in the December 1984 EPA ROD.
The Off-Site Area is defined here as that area outside of the
security fence including the deep aquifer (bedrock aquifer).
EPA subdivided the Off-Site Area into five sub-areas or "oper-
able units." The Off-Site Operable units included the follow-
ing: .
-------
-4-
- Deep Aquifer (operable Unit 1)
- Hillside Area (Operable unit 2)
- Railroad Area (operable unit 3)
- Floodplain/Wetlands (Operable unit 4)
- Seep Area (Operable unit 5)
On May 27, 1986, an Administrative Consent Order (ACO)
was signed between EPA and Ciba-Geigy Corporation for the Off-
Site Operable unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
( RI /FS) .
In November 1986 Ciba-Geigy Corporation initiated an on-
site pilot study using an innovative vacuum extraction tech-
nology process. Due to zoning restrictions, the pilot study
operated for only a short duration (less than 10 days). How-
ever, in May 1987, the pilot study was recommended and operated
for more than three wee~s.
> .
In December 1986, Ciba-Geigy submitted a draft Off-Site
Operable Unit RI Report to EPA. This report indicated>' that
much of the site related contamination had migrated off-site
into the deep aquifer toward the Schuylkill River.
On March 24, 1987, a
work plan was submitted
This 3d~endum included
Schuy:':< ~ >00 ~ i ":er and the
5 ide of :::-.: :: :-:r.
second addendum to the offsite RI/FS
to EPA by Ciba-Geigy Corporation.
a detailed in~estigation of the
installation of wells on the north
Curre!'lt
Site Si:a:us
! n J un e and J u 1 Y 19 8 7, f 0 u r res p 0 n sib 1 e par tie s, C i b a - Ge i g Y
Corporation, Smith-Kline Beckman, Wyeth ~aboratories, and
Essex Group submitted a proposal to EPA for clean-up of the on-
site lagoon areas, upgrading of the leacha:e collection system
and clean-up of the tributary sediments. Additionally, the
parties proposed to initiate ground water remediation measures
since the information contained in the draft Off-Site Operable
Units RI report indicated that much of the contamination
formerly in the lagoon areas was now in the aquifer system,
d own g r ad i en t 0 f the sit e, and was d i s c h a r gin g to > t he S c h u Y 1 kill
River.
The parties' proposal was based on a Comprehensive Feasi-
bility Study (CFS) submitted to the Agency on June 15, 1987.
The CFS was developed independently by Ciba-Geigy Corporation
and was not formally commented on by EPA. The eFS incor-
porated the results of the innovative vacuum extraction pro-
cess for clean-up of the lagoon soils, preliminary results of
the Off-Site RI and additional studies for the installation
-------
. E-- fROD/R03-88/045
1'S Dump, PA
F ;t Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
January 1985. In the fall of 1985, Ciba-Geigy Corporation (CGC) agreed to conduct a
further investigation of the offsite area. In November 1986, CGC initiated an onsite
pilot study using an innovative vacuum extraction technology process. In June. and July
1987, four responsible parties, CGC, Smith-Kline Beckman, Wyeth Laboratories, and Essex
Group submitted an alternative proposal to EPA for the first operable unit cleanup.
This proposal incorporated the results of the vacuum extraction process for remediating
lagoon soils. In September 1987, after close review of the technology, EPA decided to
recommend a ROD change to include vacuum extraction. This new alternative was not.
available when the original Feasibility Study was conducted prior to the 1984 ROD. In
aqdi~ion, CGC's investigation discovered that most of the contamination from the lagoon
areas had migrated into the bedrock and excavation would not remove all the contaminants
from the area underlying the site. The primary contaminants of concern are VOCs. The
four indicator compounds include benzene, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and
1,2,3-trichloropropane.
The amended remedial action for this site. includes: in-situ treatment of soils and
bedrock using vacuum extraction; treatment of the vacuum-extracted water using the
onsite leachate water treatment system; installation of a soil cover following
.atment; and ground wate~ monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for .this
~dial action is $10,200,000. .
-------
-5-
of ground water recovery wells. Some of the results of the
CFS indicated that the contaminants in the bedrock underlying
the lagoons would be a source of continuing contamination of
the backfilled soil. The study raised the possibility that
the remedy selected in the ROD would be of limited effectiveness
without the installation of a barrier, which would limit upward
movement of contamination from the underlying bedrock.
On July 29, 1987 Ciba-Geigy Corporation submitted the
final draft Operable 'Jnits RI report to EPA. This report
concluded that much of the sits contamination, specifically
the dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLS), were in the
underlying bedrock and aquifer. The report also found that a
dissolved portion of the DNAPLs was discharging into the
Schuylkill River.
Comparative Evaluation of the EPA Record of Decision Remedial
Action Alternatives and the Innovative Technology Remedial
Action Alternative
Consistent with Secjrion 121 (Cleanup Standards) of the
Superfund -Amendments and* Reauthor i zat ion Act .of 1986 (SARA)
every remedy selected by EPA as the preferred remedy must
fulfill the following requirements:
1. The remedy is protective of human health and the environ-
ment.
the remedy meets or exceeds contaminant specific ap-
plicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) or other health or risk bssed levels, and
presents no unacceptable exposure i. hazardous sub-
stances.
2. The remedy attains Federal and State ARARs unless a wai-
ver is appropriate.
3. The preferred remedy utilizes treatment and permanent solu-
tions to the maximum extent practicable.
4. The remedy is cost-effective.
!
The discussion as follows focuses on these requirements
as criteria for which the remedial action alternatives in the
1984 EPA Record of Decision were compared with the innovative
technology remedial action alternative proposed by the respon-
sible parties. Because the selection of treatment technologies
for ground water will depend upon the final results of the
-------
-6-
Off-site Operable ~nits Re:nedial I:,westigationj :aasibili':y
Studies and a subseque~t Record 0: Jecision, specific action
and cleanup levels for ground '",ater remediation was not. the
subject of t~is evaluation.
Range of ~lternatives
The' e val u a t ion 0 f a 1 t ern a t i '/ e s was !:J a sed? rim a r i 1 yon
their effectiveness and implementability, as specified by the
~ational Continge~cy plan (NCP).
A. Effective~ess
An Effectiveness criterion is a measure of how well
o remedial a~ternatives or components of remedial alternatives
satisfy response ::>ojecti'les. '=actors within this criterion
i.~c:'..:de:
:. ?rotective~ess
(Long term and short term)
2. Comoliance with ARARs
-
.Chemi~al s?ecific
'Action specific
'Locatidn speci:ic
3. Redu~tion i~ Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume (MTV)
.?er~ane~t and s:gnificant
.~se ?er~anent solutio~s and alter~ati~e
=~so~r=e raco~ery te~hnologi~s
.rrreversibllity of treatment
treatment or
4. Reliability
.?otential need for replacement
'Resulting risk to wori(ers and comm'Jnity during opera-
tion
'Operations and maintenance (0 & M) requirements
'Demonstrated performance or potential performance versus
little or no field experience with similar sites or
wastes.
B. Implementability
Implementability measures how easily remedial alterna-
tives or components can be affected at a site. Factors include:
1.
Technical Feasibility
'Short Term
'Long Term
-------
...
-/-
The following is a su~ary of the remedial action
alternatives identified in the 1984 Record of Decision,
and of. the innovative technology remedial action alternative.
1984 ROD Alternatives
~o Action
1-
2.
Site Capping and Ground Water Jiversion
3 .
Ground Water/Leachate Collection and Treatment; Sur-
face Sealing of Contaminated Areas
4.
Construction of an On-Site, Secure Landfill.
5 .
Excavation/Off-Site Removal
New Innovative Technology Alternative
6.
Vacuum Extraction
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
In the No Action Alternative, no further remedial action
~ou~d ~e taken for the contaminated soi~s in the former lagoon
area. (Jnder t:,e No Action Alternati'.-e, no site erosion
contr~l or construction of run-off contr~l structures would
occur. The site would remain as it currently exists, however,
the current leachate collection system would continue to
operate.
A. Effecti'Jeness
1. protectiveness
In the short term, the No Action Alternative would allow
the contaminated soils to remain essentially undisturbed. The
soils which contain volatile organic compounds would still be
present in the upper soils, posing potential short-term risks
from dermal contact with and ingestion of contaminated soils.
In the long-term, the No Action Alternative is not protective
of human health and the environment.
2. Compliance with ARARs
The No Action Alternative would not meet the possible,
action-specific ARARs (RCRA Interim Statq~ Facilities Standards)
for closure of waste disposal sites, s'uch as the elimination
of potential free liquids from the disposal area, control of
leachate production and leachate collection.
-------
-8-
3. Reduction in Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume
From the observations above, it follows that the No Action
Alternative would not reduce the mobility, toxicity, or
volume of the contaminants, and would not significantly
reduce the migration of contaminants from the site.
4. Reliability
The No Action Alternative would fail to protect human health
the environment in both the short-term and long-term.
and
8. Implementability
The No Action Alternative would represent the current condi-
tions on-site.
Alternative 2 - Site Capping and Ground Water Diversion
This al~ernative involves sealing the areas overlying the
for:ner lagoons with 'an impervious material an"d controlling
the movement of the ground water through these areas with grout
curtains. !rI this alternative, the contaminate~ area may be
capped wit:' 3 grass cover, two feet of cover soil, one foot
of drainage 3~nd or equivalent, and a membrane liner 'supported
~y a =lay O~ ;)il-bentonite secondary liner (40 CFR Part 264).
A minimum :: :O-mil thickness membrane llner is required for
RCRA ca?s. ?:r maxi:num pr~tection and long-term reliability,
a 50-mil H:=~ ~iner would be recommended.
A. E f f e c t i: .::" ~ S S
1. prQ:~:tiveness
During construction of the site cap there would be some
disturbance of contaminated soils and, therefore, additional
risk to the commun i ty, the env i ronmen t, or site workers.
The migration of contaminated soil or run-off water could be
controlled by diversion ditches, sediment basins, silt fences,
and dikes. Difficulties are expected in anchoring ('keying')
the surface cap into the quarry highwall because of the
highly fractured/jointed bedrock and because of the potential
for slope movement.
This alternative will not prevent any hazardous contam-
inants from migrating into the ground water and surface waters.
There is also no means of estimating the quantities of hazardous
contaminants entering into these waters from; the site.
-------
-9-
2. Compliance with ARARs
The possible ARARs would include the performance standards
f~r RCRA landfill closure, as established in 40 CFR ~art 204.
These standards include the following:
- ~~ng-term minimization of migration of liquids through
the closed landfill.
- Function with minimum maintenance.
- orainage and minimum er~sion or abrasion of the cover.
- Settling and subsidence accommodation so that cap's in-
tegrity was maintained.
- ?er~eability less than or equal t~ the permeability of
any bottom liner system or natural subsoils present.
.~s outlined in the EPA 1984 ROD, utilizing both a synthetic
and a clay cap is highly effective in preventing 1) surface
water infiltration, 2) volatile organic air emissions, and 3)
direct contact exposure with contaminated soils.
. .
In evaluating t!'1is alternative wit!1reference to site
characteristics, several disadvantages were identified which
may not satisfy the RCRA ARARs. These disadvantages included
difficulties expected in anchoring the surface cap into the
qua r r y h i g h wall and com? 1 i cat ion sin vol '/ e din ins tall i n g a
grout curtain in fractured bedrock.
3. Reduction in Mobility, Toxicity or ~olume
The ::ap alternative would reduce soil contaminant migration
t:) a :ninimum by preventing its contact ',",ith infiltration.
Reduction in this migration potential wou:'d be significant
and essentially permanent for the life of the cap. This
alternative would not reduce contaminant migration resulting
from water table contact with contaminated soils; this
situation could be controlled with horizontal. drains if
required. This alternative would not control contaminant
migration from the soil into the bedrock or' ground water.
This alternative would not decrease contaminant toxicity
or volume. However, direct contact and inhalation threats
would be reduced by the presence of a cap. After the useful
life of the system, the cap could be replaced to renew the
"permanence" of this containment alternative.
..
-------
-10-
4. Reliability
The site cap would have a limited useful life and would
eventually require replacement. However, the useful life
could be extended by upgraded design and ma intenance of the
cap as needed.
For operation and maintenance- of the cap system, water
samples from monit~ring wells could be analyzed to detect any
increase in ground water contaminant levels. However, since
the ground water is already contaminated, it would be difficult
to verify system performance. If a significant increase in
contamination occurred, the cap system would have to be in-
spected for structural failure so that appropriate repairs
could be made. If signs of failure were detected after a
long period of service, remedies might include mending of
liner tears, recompaction of underlying soil/clay layers, or
reinstallation of the entire cap.
B. Implementability
1. Technical Feasibility
This alternative has be~n demonstr3ted to be technically
feasible at other sites. However, due to the nature of the
fractured bedrock and the existence of the quarry highwall, it
was e'/aluated that the integrity of any "key" or "tie-in"
oet~een the cap and quarry wall ~ay be disrupted by long-term
olo::i< or s~ao movement and/or seepage pressures against the
quarry face.
For the long-term, this alternative may not be technically
feasible. Although monitoring wells could be installed to
monitor the ground water, verification 0: performance of the
remedial action would be difficult because of the presence of
pre-existing contamination in the ground water.
f
-------
-11-
Alternative 3 - Ground Water/Leachate (Seep/Spring) Collection
and Treatment: Surface Seallng of Contaminated Areas
This alternative is in part the same as Alternative 2
and involves sealing the areas overlying the former lagoons
with an impervious material to eliminate infiltration of
?recipitation. A deeper and longer interceptor trench
similar to the existing interceptor trench would be installed
to intercept 'and collect any contaminated ground water
leachate originating from the site. .
The interceptor system would
seeps and springs emanating from
the ~eachate collection system
seep/spring collection.
also collect water from the
the site a rea. Therefore,
can also be termed the
A. Effectiveness
1. protectiveness
The seali~g of the lagoons would provide the s~me
protecti'leness as outlined in Alterna:ive 2. The Leachate
(Seep/Spring) Collection and Treatment system could be effective
in reducing f~rtheroff-si~e migration of contaminants into the
gr~und water.
2. Comoliance with ARARs
-
The possible ARARs for site c3pping would include those
standards as outlined in Alternate 2. Specific ARARs of
treatment standards would have to be attained for treatment
of leachate.
3. Reduction in Mobility, Toxicity or Volume
For installation of the cap this Alternative would be
the same as Alternative 2. For installation ~f a collection
system this alternative will not ensure that, hazardous
substances will not migrate into the ground water; moreover,
there is no means of estimating the quantities of hazardous
contaminants entering into the ground water from the Site.
Even if the interceptor trench were installed 5 to 10 feet
deeper into the bedrock, leachate which moves through the
base of the unlined lagoons into the fractured bedrock would
very likely not be intercepted.
.
-------
-12-
4. Reliability
The reliability of the cap is the sa~~ as Alternative 2.
The reliability of a larger and deeper interceptor system
would not ensure effective collection of :'Jntaminants to the
ground water.
B. Implementability
l~ Technical Feasibility
The t e c h n i c a 1 f e as i b i 1 i t Y for ins tall a t i on and ma i n t e-
nance 0 f the cap wou ld be the same as ;'.1 terna t i ve 2. For
i~stallation and extension of the intercep~or trench, excava-
tion would be required into the bedrock which could cause
additional fracturing of the bedrock.
Alternative 4 - Construction of an On-Site, Secure Landfill
This alter~ati'/e invol'/es the place~ent of .wastes and
contaminated' soils in a properly designed ~nd constructed on-
site landfill to reduce off-site mi;ra:iQn of hazardous
constituents through ground water or a~:', and to prevent
direct contact threats.
.~. :: f f ec +; i '/ e n e s s
1. protectiveness
A RCRA landfill, adequately desigr.--'; and constz:ucted,
should be able to contain the waste for a :ypical design life
of 30 years. Surface water infiltratio-. '",ould be prevented
by the cap and leachate generation would ~e minimal. Leachate
generated within the landfill would be re~oved by the leach-
ate collection system. Lastly, the bottom double-liner would
contain the leachate prior to removal. Records on the perform-
ance of RCRA landfills are limited because few landfills were
built toy such standards until a few years ago. The most
critical factor for performance of a RCRA landfill would be
the integrity of the liners. This integrity largely depends
on construction quality control and leachate and liner compat-
ibility, particularly for the bottom liner. Even with stringent
quality control and extensive leachate/liner compatibility
testing, the long-term performance of a filled RCRA landfill
in service environments remains uncertain.
-------
-13-
2. Como1iance with ARARs
.
construction of the on-site landfill would have to comply
with all the requirements of RCRA.
3. Reduction in ~obility, Toxicity and Volume
Although an ideal RCRA landfill could effectively contain
the waste over the design life, this technology would not offer a
permanent solution of reducing the volume, toxicity or mobility
of the waste. Air emissions during the construc.tion period could
cause a risk to .the public health and environment for several
.months.
4. Reliability
A RCRA landfill would require a significant level of
inspection and maintenance over it's entire active life.
. Inspection/maintenance items would include correction of
settlement, eros ion, grass cover, surface ponding, leachate
removal, and ground water monitoring. Because of the very
. short .a.pplication history, the reliability of a RCRA landfill
is unknown and will be unknown for a few more decades.
B. Implementability
1. Technical Feasibility
RCRA permitting personnel from Region III compared the
Tyson's Site characteristics and location to their RCRA
locational guidances. The determination was made that it was
highly unlikely that a RCRA landfill would be permitted at
the Tyson's site location, for .the disadvantages indicated as
"critical factors" in the EPA Record of :>ecision. These
"critical factors" include the following:
a. protected lands - Tyson's Site is situated in close
proximity to a wetlands.
b. Ground water monitoring - Due to fractured bedrock,
contaminant releases may not be monitorable.
c. Ground water vulnerability -Target areas
and drinking water intakes) may be at risk.
(wetlands
d.
Time to achieve remediation - r..ong time to achieve
remediation.
-------
-14-
Alternative 5 - Excavation/Off-Site Disposal, Leachate (Seep/
Spring) Water Collection and On-Site Treatment
This remedial action alternative was selected by SPA in
the Jecember 1984 Record of ~ecision (ROD). The objective of
soil excavation was to remove the contaminated soils and
transport them to a secure RCRA approved landfill for dispo-
sal. Initially, soils known to be contaminated are excavated
.for disposal. soil t)orings and soil analysis a.re conducted
during t:-te removal process to determine additional contami-
nated soils. Clean soils are stockpiled during excavation to
provide backfill material and stabilize slopes in the excava-
tion area. A chemical additive is then added to =ontaminated
soils to remove free water prior to disposal. :i='lally, the
dewatered soils are transported to an ::PA-approved landfill
thac :11eets the RCRA :ninimum technology requirements for a
double liner and double leachate collection system (Subtitle
C landfiLL). Backfill material is then used to fill the
excavated area to its former elevation. or to predetermined
elevations.
Leachate from the site and seep/spring water would be col-
.' lected b1 an interceptor trench and routed to treatment units
consisting of air strippers with carbon adsorption uni~s. It
~as envisioned t:-tat these treatment systems .ould be erected
on the south side of the railroad tracks. .
The ~~~Jme of contaminated soi~s to be removed 1S
estimated t~ be 27,300 yard3, based on ::?;'s latest s.t;.ldies/
at t='le site. ~n estimated 6040 yard) of cementitious
material would be added to the soils to remo'le free water
prior to transport off-site. Swelling of soils resulting
from excavation was estimated to contribute 409S yard3 of
addi~iona~ 'lolume to the materials removed from the site, for
a total of approximately 37,000 yard3.
An estimated 20,200 yard3 of excavated soils without
significant organics content would be stockpiled to provide
backfill material and to stabilize sLopes wlthin the excavation
area.
The EPA ROD stipulated that soils excavated from this
area must be disposed in full accordance with RCRA regulations,
including the requirement that they be sent to a Subtitle C
landfill for disposal. A Subtitle C landfill is one with a
double liner and a do.uble leachate collection system.
..
-------
-13-
A; Effectiveness
1. protectiveness
Removal of co~taminated materials is a highly effectiv~,.
permanent (useful life) solution to prevention of l)hazardous
substanceS' migration off-site and into ground water, and 2)
direct contact exposure with contaminated soils. It is
highly reliable and has been. successfully demonstrated at
previous sites and requires little or no operation and main~
tanence.
Air emission controls and surface water run-off controls
would have to be implemented during the design phase to
minimize any organic vapor releases. However, a temporary
evacuation plan for local residents in the event of a release
and other safety measures could adequately address these
concerns.
The continued operation of the leachate (seep/spring)
collection system would provide long term management and
control of -contaminant f~ow from any shallow aquifer system.
2. Comoliance with ARARs
.
1'his Alternative would ha'l~ to satisfy the ARARs in
accordance '..,ith RCRA Closure ~:1d Post-C~osure requirements
contained in (4~ eFR 264). J-::":.:r .~RARs that may apply t:>
the remediation of the soils .., the former lagoon area via
exca'Jation and di3posal are th...;- ';ational _~mbient Air 'Juality
Guidelines.
3. Reduction in ~obility,
~:{icity or volume
Excavation and off-site d~3)osal of contaminated soils,
fill material, and wastes to a ?~rmitted RCRA landfill would
eliminate the continued generation and off-site migration of
leachate from the former lagoon locations and the continued
contamination of the ground wat:~r zones. During exca'/ation
of the soils, 'mobility of soil ::ntaminants may be increased
from volatilization. Volatilization controls would ha'le to
be implemented during excavation to control this potential
problem. The result of excavation and off-site disposal would
be the transferral of the contaminant mass to another land
disposal facility without further reduction in toxicity and
mobility.
~.
-------
-16-
4. Reliability
Excavation and off-Site disposal is highly reliable in
removing contaminated soils. Minimal operations and mainte-
nance requirements would be envisioned following completion of
soil removal, assuming provisions for controlling site soil
erosion and run-off were made. As with some soil excavations
down the bed rock, un less precau t i onary measu res are - imple-
:nented, the potential may exist for recontamination of the
backfilled soils from organic vapors diffusing upward from
the contaminated bedrock.
Leachate (seep/spring) collection and treatment has proven
to be effective in reducing contaminants in water.
B. Implementability
,
... .
Technical Feasibility
Short-Ter:n
Ex c a va t ion -.0 f so i 1 s w 0 u 1 d be ate c h n i call y f e a sib 1 e a 1 t ern a-
ti'/e, even though the site has limited area for'maneuvering equip-
ment.' Conventional earth moving equip:t\ent would ~e able to
operate on the site' and near the quarry high wall provided
that appropriate safety measures were taken. Such safety
precautions would include improvement of the site access
road, inspection of slope stabilities, and the construction
of stable sLopes ~here needed.
This alternative would require the a~ailability of suffi-
cient daily Subtitle C landfill capacity to allow disposal to
keep pace with excavation. An appropriate Subtitle C land-
fill is one the EPA has authorized to accept "Iastes from
Superfund sites and which has a double liner and double leach-
ate collection system, as required by the ROD. The daily
capacity of the receiving facility mus't be identified since
the temporary stockpiling of excavated soils waiting for
avai~able landfill capacity could potentially pose unaccept-
able risks to the community and environment.
Long-Term
,
The excavation alternative would not limit any future re-
medial action should the excavation alternative fail, such as
re-excavation, on-site treatment, in-situ treatment, or any
ground water remediation. Also, this alternative would not
prevent any necessary on-site or off-site ground water and soil
monitoring. Long-term maintenance, consisting primarily of
soil monitoring for recontamination, could be' performed.
-------
-17-
offsite rncin~ration Alternative
Offsite incineration of the excavated materials was
investigated in formulation of the 1984 ROD, but due to the
limited availability of commercial facilities, the time required
to process the materials (minimum three years - no staging
of wast;es at incinerator) and the lowest cost obtained ($21
million, just for incineration), it was decided that the
landfill alternative was more feasible and cost effecti'Je.
A recent cost estimate developed in Region IIris Bruin
Lagoon ROD (September 26, 1986) calculated, using 1986 dollars,
that offsite incineration for approximately 17,~~~ cubic
yards of contaminated material would cost in the range of
$l~~ to S232 million. gecause of these high project costs and
the estimated long timeframe for implementation, this alterna-
tive was not selected for further evaluation.
rnnovative Technology Remedial Action Alternative
Alternative 6 -'Vacuum Extraction of Contaminated Soils
The vacuum e)( tract ion process is an i n- situ trea tmen t
process used to clean soils that contain volatile compounds.
The process utilizes extraction wells t.:> induce a vacuum on
subsoils that are above the water table. Subsurface vacuum
propogates laterally, causing in-situ volatilization of
~ompounds adsorbed to soils. volatilized compounds and sub-
surface air migrate rapidly to extraction points and are then
passed through and collected on activated carbon substrate.
Figure 2 shows a conceptual design for the vacuum extraction
process.
A. Effectiveness
1. Protectiveness
This alternative Js designed to reduce the level of
contaminants in the former lagoon areas and to reduce the
potential risks to public health, site workers and }he envi-
ronment. The alternative would combine the leachat~ (seep
/spring) water collection and treatment system, vacuu~extrac-
tion for soil remediation, and remediation of the residual,
dense, non-aqueous, phase liquid (DNAPL) in the unsaturated
-------
, GROUND
I SURFACE
V ACUUI\.1
<11
E XTn J\CT I ()(\J
SVSTEfi,1
T Y ~) 0 N . S SIT E J I' F N W . Y I. V i\ N I i\
[....
-
-..-/
- -
-
I' 01' I ,I" II:
V;U:IIUIII
lIu11.
/, J,
5 \IL
0-- ~.
.;)
l~dC kill' I I
La I.' bUll
-:. Ullil.. II
rr_r V A 1':)1:; I . ~:::j F~~:Jf~~Jt._~- \! < I )
-- - V .--- - - - ~~=:--J I ,1/A},'lt j J r;. 2 J L ) _J [ I, J
<\1---- <\1 _1I.:AI{J~ _/XLj C_-~[-~J
QU;HJ cup 1 c Ca d)()n
Adsorption Unjt
,
t-
oo
,
-/
- - ...
.- .../
"--~ --.
~- ./ "-- -="= .../
~ := -- '---~
'-:-:
=== ..../
,,~ - -
- -
- -
'. -
-
/
..-
/
....
rl
".t'\"I''::::~~:'::~1 .
1 ( r~(-.~( 1
I. r.: ::'.' : ~:: " \/if ,(
, -. -~.' --." I I
'----~-: I
~"". III.\I~ I I .0\111"/1
1111.1.111 I. /III I I II II, II",
. .i' .
\-
.1
I.EGEN()
---
n,
, .
'-.~ ::
~
o Control Valve
fi> Samp I <: 1'0 ill t
..
Vacuum Ex II .U' t ion W.'ll:;
10) FIO\.I ,.kll'l'
r I C II I: F
l
~
-------
-19-
bedr~ck beneath the f~rmer lagoon area. Remediation of t.'":-:
soils and unsaturated bedr~ck eli~inates t~e need for a 'soi~
ca!;) meeting RCRA !;)erfor~ance standards. Control of surfac-=.
infiltration or DNAPL va!;)or movement by a clay/bentoni:~
and/or imper~eable layer would not be required. The'soi~
=over would be installed at the conclusion of vacuum extrac-
tion.
'//
The vacuum system would extract any perched gr~und wate:
and volatile com~ounds from the soil column and residual JNAP:
from the unsaturated zone beneat~ the former lagoons. The 'Jacuum-
extracted water would be treated by the on-site leachat~
(seep/spring) water treatment system.
/' ,
2. Com~liance wi.th ARARs
~
The ~?A Feasibili~y Study and subsequent Record 0:
Jecision determined that because it was technically infeasible
to ca? the site due to the high quarry wall and the ground
~ater was not monit~rable, in accordance with the !;)erformance
standards f~r RCRA Landfill Closure, as established in (40 eFR
?art 264) ,contaminated soils exceedin~ backgrou_l"!~ l~yels
needed to be remediated down to b~ck~round levelL.or'~xcavated
and dis?osed off-site. In :-!arch 19, 1987, E:PA ?ro!;)osed an
amend~ent. to this closure requirement (32 ~. Reg. p.8712
~.~.) '..hich would allow contaminants to re~ain on-site i:
i~ can be shown that any wastes and waste residues remainin~
o~ si~e will ~ot ?ose a threat to human ~ea~:h and the environ-
~ent through any ~otential ex?osure ?athway. These !;)otEntia'
;:Ht':1'..tajs l:1cl....de ex?~sure t~ the '..aste constituents thr'Jug.
direct contact, ground water, surface water, and atmos~heri'
routes. This proposed rule making would serve as the RC?',.
ARAR which vacuum extraction would ha~e t~ meet. vnder tht.
?ro~osed rule, safe soil criteria would need to be develo!;)A:
for '13 c ',J u m ext r act ion to at t a in, for t his a 1 t ern a t i 'J e to;; ..
in compliance and acceptable to EPA.
. Other possible ARARs that may apply to a vacuum extraction
operation and the water treatment would be the Ambient ,r..ir
~uality Guidelines established under the Pennsylvania Interim
Operating Guidance for Air Toxics Substances. Both operations
would satisfy these possible ARARs. Interim status RCRA
standards of closure, post closure care, and monitoring may
also apply to the alternative.
-------
-20-
3. Reduction in ~obility, Toxicity and Volume
Vacuum extraction is expected to significantly reduce the
volume of contaminants in the soil. However, since this tech-
nology has not been readily applied to other similar sites it
:an only be estimated through pilot scale tests and modeling
that this technology will attain the levels determined by the
Agency to be 9r~tective of human health and the environment.
3. Reliability
Recent studies have shown that vacuum extraction has a
record of success in achieving very significant VOC recoveries
fr~m soils, and some documentation indicate that vacuum extrac-
tion can remove VOCs from 90 percent to 99 percent (USATHAMA
1385; Ma:ot and ;.lood 1985; .101 a lot 1984; ?ayne et ale 1986;
.~grelot et ale 1984; and ;/eston 1986).
The results of the vacuum extraction pilot test at the
Tyson Site in May 1987 indicated that significant reductions
in the mobility and volume of VOCs in the contaminated soils
and unsaturated bedrock are achievable. Additionally, it was
found that vacuum extraction also removed s7"tgnificant amounts
of semi-volatile compounds including one of the predominant site
specific compounds, 1, 2, 3-trichloropropane.
Four '/acuu:TI extraction wells insta~Led t:> the top of
bed::'~ck 3C':,ie'.'ed recovery rates of ap?r,)ximately 80 l:Js/day
of total ~~Cs and a radlus of infl~ence of 40 feet; ~ single
':acuu:TI extraction welL installed in unsat',Jrated '~edr:>cl< recover-
ed 16 lbs/day of total VOCs and exhibited a significant radius
of influence. ?ermanent reduction in toxicity would occur
during EIJ:ne incineration of the off-gases from the vacuum
extraction system.
B. Implementability
1. Technical Feasibility
To date, numerous pilot and full-scale vacuum extraction
systems have been constructed at sites consisting of a variety
of soil types ranging from fine, sandy soils to sandy loam
soil to clayey silt and silty clay soils. The depth to ground
water in these projects varied. At one site, vacuum extrac-
tion was successfully operated in fractured limestone.
-------
-21-
The installation and operation of a vacuum extraction system
would not limit additional remediation at the Tyson's Site.
The 'Jacuum manifold, vacuum blowers, and fume incineration
equipment or carbon tanks could be removed relatively easily
to allow f:H implementation of another on-site or in-situ
treatment, i: required.
The act~al vacuum extraction apparatus would requir~ very
little maintenance. Sufficient soil testing would be required
to verify the achievement of acceptable residual contaminant
levels in the soil. Ground .water monitoring would be required
after completion of the vacuum extraction.
The time required for full-scale vacuuming to achieve the
desirad ~oil remediation for projects documented in the
literature ranges :rom bet''''een six weeks to more than one
year. ~t the '!'win City Ar:ny Ammunition ?lant (TCA??) site,
over 60,000 10. of tetrachloroethene have already been
recovered by vac~um extraction after only one year of
operation, and the operation will be continued for some time
(TCAA?Operations Manger 1986). under continuous operation,
ai-lowing for. start-up, weather, and water table conditions,
t:-te responsible parties have estimated fr.om their data that
it would take two years of oper~tion for acceptable remediation
of the !yson's former lagoon area soils. .
-------
-22-
Recommended Alternative
Sect ion 121 0 f t:te S upe r fund .~mendmen ts and Reau tho r i-
zation Act of 1386 (SARA) and t~e current 'Jersion of the
National Conti~gency Plan (NC~) (SO~. Reg. 47912, ~ovember
20, 1985) established a variety of requirements relating t~
the level of cleanup for remedial actions under CERCLA.
Applying the current evaluation criteria (effectiveness,
i~ple~entability, and cost) that was previously described for
each of t:te alternatives, E~A is recommending that Alternative
6 be imple~ented at the :-yson's Dump Site. This innovati'/e
technology re:nedlal action al':er~ative meets t:te goals of
SARA: protection of ~uman health and the environment;
attainment of 90ssible ARARs through treatment and contaminant
recovery in both the lagoon area soils and in the unsaturated
bedrock underlying the former lagoon area; achievement of
permanent reduction in waste volume and toxicity on-site; and
:::ontrol of 90tential migration of contaminants by use of
leachate (seep/sprin~) collection and t'Ceatment system. A
disadvantage of this alternative is that trace levels of
!TIeta 1 sand nonvo 1 a tile organ ic compounds, wh ich have been
shown no t to 9 resen tar i sk to human hea 1 th and the env i ronmen"t,
:nay remain on-site. T:tis ~lternative is not the least expensive
of all the feasible "alternatives considered, but is one of
t:te most cost-effective of the alternatives that are protective
of human ~ealt~.. '!'3b~e 1 su:mnarizes t:te associated costs for
eac~ alternative.
Alternative 5 (Sxcavation and J~E-Site Disposal of
Cont3.1nnated Soils) is deslgned t~ 9ro':ide a germanent solution
t~ t~e risks asso:::iated wit~ the site. :"is Alternative also
9r~~ides ease of implementation and has a proven performance
in removing contaminated soil volumes. Some of the disadvan-
tages of Alternative 5 include: greater potential release of
volatile organic vapors to the community; inability to remove
:::ontaminant levels in the bedrock underlying the lagoon soils;
t~e intent of SARA which discourages ex:::avation and transfer-
ence of contamination from one source to another; and the high
cost of disposal.
Alternative 1 was not selected because it would not
be protective of human health and the environment. Alternatives
2 and 3 were not selected because they are technically infeasible
and also are not protective of human health and the environment.
-------
-23-
TABLE 1
Summary of Cost Estimates for Remedial Action
Alternatives at Tyson's Oump Site
Alternatives
Total Estimated Costs
1. ~o act ion
(1)
485,720
2. Site Capping and
Ground water ~iversion
(1) 3,680,860
3. Ground watet/~eachate
Collection and ~reat:-
~ent and Surface Seal-
ing
(1) 2,053,475
4. Construction of an
On-site Secure Landfill
(1) 2,941,434
s.
Excava~ion and O~f-si;~
;:)isposai.; incl'.Jdii'tg
leachate =ol~e=tibn and
treatment
(2) 20.8 million
6. Vacuum!xtraction;
~ncludlnq :eachate
(seep/sprin;) =oL~ect:ion
and t:eatment and soil cover.
(3) 10.2 "l'Iitlion
(1) ~~dated Costs of the 1984 E~A ROD using the Department of
Commerce Gross National ~roduct ~eflator :actor of 1.082 (2nd
Quarter 1987).
(2) Costs developed from E~A Final ~esign 9/87.
(3) Responsible ~arties June 16, 1987 Comprehensive Feasibility
Stud Y .
The Total Estimate Costs for each Alternative include long-
term operation and maintenance.
,../
.
-------
-24-
SPA's Recommended Innovati'/e Remedial .~ction Alternati'/e
Imclementatlon
-
~he :ol~owing :'$ ~n ex?lanation of EP~'5 Recommended
Alternative t~at ~ay ~e implemented by t~e Responsi~le ~arties
(::~Ps), under the super'J1.sion of EPA, utilizin-; the proposed
I:'1no':ati'/e Te.=hnology ~e~edial Action Alternative ~umber ~.
."dditionally, RPs ~ay 3130 lrt\ple"np.nt -;round water correct-
i':e measures. .-.-- -_..--
Summary of Remedial ~easures and Settlement for th~
Tvson's Site
.
1. ReS?onsi~le par,:ies (~?S) ar~ to c~eanup lagoon soils to a 50
par': ~er ~i~lion :e'lel :or four indic~tor organic compounds
and a130 to c~ean la~oon soils of ::Jther organics to levels detar-
~i:'1ed ~y t~e Agency to be ?rotecti'J~ of human health and
e:'1~i:onment. The lagoon cleanup levels for the lagoon soils
are. listed in 7a~l~ 2. These L~vels have been deter~ined in
accor~ance wi:~ then~thodologies as set forth in Appendix ~.
./'
./
y
!. At the.e~ 0:' the :'..,e;"'.'~ ~O:1ths of '/acuum ~xtraction th~ ~P3
'..,i:t detar:nine t:ie e:Ee~:i'./~ness :,: t:he :"'~anup and ':Jy the
e:'1d of a t',o/enty-si:< '!I~n::h .?erlod attai:'1 :.1e cleanup L'!\"e15
specified ':)y E:P.~. I: tar-;et la'/eis are '1:: attained ':J,/ the
~?S '..,i':hio the first feu', t:he REls '..,ilL -2.-:::::'~:;$ 5u?pl~1tent'!L
~aas...t'-=3 to i::1:nJ":= ':;,~ ':1;:'J".111 ~:f ::leanu? - -;tandards :::Jr sit~ reLdtad
compounds. The final r:~rne:jl sdL~:-:t~d Eor 3..1C:' -:1t'~\Jnd ''''.3~-=-r
t'arnediation will i"pl~'tIent ~ll app:Lcabl~ or t'~Leva:'1t '!nd
app-ropriate requit'~ments in consult~tion with the Co~mon-
'..,~alt;, of ?ennsyLvania and s~ch standards wi 11 be in:l:Jded'
in 3 ~OD developed subs~quent to the completion of the
Off-Site Operable Units Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study.
-------
-25-
4 . R P s are tad e 'I e lop J e s i :;:1 War i< ? 1 a n s u !:) j e c t toE:?~ a p p r ~:I a 1 .
prior t~ start ~E any site wori<.
5 . R? s are tot a k e ~ 'l e r f'J L lop era t ion and :t1a i n ten an ceo f
leachate =oLlection siste~ and stripper and upgrade air
stripper t::l deal wi,::' ex?ected leacnate (seep/spring) and
ground water flo-.
~. ~Ps ara t::l remediate =ont3mi:1an~s in the tributary from t:,e
existing s~ri9per affluent; areas to the Schuyl:
-------
-26-
. .
Table 2
CLEANUP LEV~LS FOR LAGOON SOItS
Con~entration in mq/kq
Compound
Aniline
Anthra~ene
V Benzene
Benzoi~ Acid
B.3(2-et~yl~exy:)?t~alate
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
:~rysene
':ye lohe~ta::' i ~ne
:jc1ohexanone
. Ji-N-Butyl~hthata:e
Ji-Octyl ~htha~ate.
Jiehlorobenzenes
2,4-Jimethyl?hen~1
~,~-Jimethyl-l,3-?r~?anedi1~ine
~ode:ane .
E:hy1~enzene
L-Ethyl-2-~et~yt~enzene
:~:Joranthene
~exade~ane
Hexadecano~= ;cld
~et~y~ene :~Lorlde
2-~e~~y:~a?t~a:~ne
2-~ethyl ?henol/4-Methyl ",enol
2-~ethyL-2-~entanone
S-~ltrosodipneny1amine
~a~ht~alene
~itrobenzene
1,1-Oxybis-(2-ethoxyethan~)
Phenanthrene
v phenol
~yrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetramethylurea
v Toluene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trimethyl~enzene
Tridecane
Undecane
./ O-xylene
1. 40 E .00
1.24 E .04
0.0'5 E .00
6.95 E .00
8.31 E .04
3.68 E ."01
1. 15 E .01
1.70 E .02
3.80 E "00
6.00 E -02
2.10 E -01
2.62 E .02
8.94 E .02
1. 64 E .04
6.00 e: .01
1.08 E .01
6.50 E "'00
4.90 :: -05-
5.99 :: -)2
l.07 :: -02
4.08 E -)2
2.90 :: -)6
1. 9 7 :: - .) t
5 . a 4 :: - JO
4.78 E -)2
3.35 E -)1
:. . 87 :: -) 1.
4 .80 E -.)0
3.03 E -J2
3 . 00 E - J 1
9.22 E -)0
7.09 E -)2
4.19 E ...a1
3.89 E -')3
0.05 E -,,)0
7.50 E .00
5.88 E ..:>2
4.79 E .02
4.79 E .02
0.05 E .00
0.05 E. .00
1. 23 E .03
5.40 E +04
2.30 E .04
6.28 E .01
-------
-27-
INDEX
1. off-Site Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Report,'
(July 3~, 1987) Volumes I t~rough V.
2. ~PA's Record vf ~ecision, December 1384.
3. June 16, 1987 Let:er from Karline Tierney of Ciba-Geigy
:orporation to ~r. Stephen Wassersug of EPA.
4. June 16, L987 :omprehensi~e Feasibility Study (Volu~es I
:~rough III) generated by ER~ Inc. for Ciba-Geigz :orp..
s. July 24, 1987 letter from Kar~i~e K. Tierney of Ciba-
Geigy :orporation to ~r. Stephc~ ~assersug of EPA.
6. :edera~ ~egister, !hursdaz ~arc~ 19, 1987, Part III
(proposed Amendments for ~andfill, Surface Impoundments,
3:'1d ilaste pi ~e Closures; pr~posed Rille).
.
-------
FILE:
272-14
CAI.CUI.ATIO~ OP CLEANUP
LEVELS FOR THE FORMER LAGOON AREA
TYSON'S SITE
3 0 ~lo'le~=e:: ~ 9 S ':"
Prepar'ed ~or:
CISA-CEIC't
444 3a~ill ~ive:: ~oad
Ardsl~y, ~ew Y~::k
Preparad By:
:::\Vi:'~n~ant:al Res~urces :ta:\a~e~ene., !nc.
. 855 Sprin~dale Drive
E:xe.~n, Pennsylvania 19341
TIle
~.~~~
~'-'..C:IH
-------
- .
Introduction
!~e cleanup of ~he :~~me~ :~goon area at ~~e ~lson's Site ~ill .
i~clude ~he ext~acti~n of c~ntaminan~s f~~~ t~e soil. aecaus~
~~e~e are no s~ecific levels stated in ~he law :~~ cleanu~ 0:
soil, it ~as necessary ~o develo~ soil cleanu~ levels for th~s
site fo~ ~ur~oses of ~his c~nsent decree. The cleanu~ levels
devel0ged here re~~esent levels determined ~o be pr~~ec:ive ~:
huma~ health at ~he c~mple~ion of the cleanu~ of ~he soils.
E:?A has s~eci:ied cleanup' s~anda~ds of SO ~art3 ~er ~illi~n fo:'
c ~. ~ :" : ~ '! ~ i : 3 : .3 (: I : , J - ~ :" i c ~ lor 0 ;: .:: I) an e, = ~ :1 Z e ~.. , :. :" : ~ :... : oJ :" .; o:i. :. :-. - ... ,
and tetrachloroethene). E:PA has also specified a list of ot~e:
c~ntrnainants for which cleanup levels had ~o be calcula~ed.
~~ calc~la~e a?~r~~ria~e soil cleanup levels, this docurnen~ firs~
~denti:ied ~ealth-~ased accep~able inta~e levels for eac~
,-:'~~a.~::1a...~. 7:.~~ ~,eQ:~~-~ca~c:~ ,,~'-,,~'-cau~. iC1C,cI;...t:t :G".~~ ~n~l~c.le
la~ge safety :a:tors or hi~hly conservative assum~tions an~ ~hus
re~~ese~t :~111 ?:otective levels. .
. .
~he soil le~els necessary t~ achieve ~he acce~~able i~take lev.ls
were then calcul&ted ~si~g hypothetical expos~r. s~ena~ios. ~he
ex~osu:"e scenarios were s~lected ~y ~?A i~ :oo~eration ~:th
E~~ an: ~e=e i~tended ~o r~sult in soil :e~els ~hat w~uld ~e
~~ll1 ;:~~ec:~~~ 0: huma~ healt~. ~~e selected scenari~s.
~:1::'~~e:
~ ~1;ot~e~ica: W~:~ at ~~~ :'~n=a'f ,: the sice,
ass~~~~; t~at any :"esid~J: s~~l =ontamina~~:~ ~s
released in:~ the ;:~un~ -J~e' ::o~ .hi::1 the .eL~
~:aws, a~d assu~in~ a li:e:~-~ ,f ex?csure :~ t~e wa:e:
:r:~ the well :or all ~ses;
;::e~':~al cons~r'.Jc~i~n 0: i ::"ad t:",u;h the s~:! ~~
:~e Eutu~e aEte~ ~he clean~;. ~ss~~i~; ~~at soils a:~
unea~thed and const~uc~i~, wor
-------
e: a c h 0 f the' s c e n a r i 0 sin ~ !. u des a :'t u :1t 0 e r:" 0 f : 0 n s e : "/ a t. l .... ~
assumptions, and these scenarios are not ex~ect.d to occur or: to
occur: on a continuing oasis. (~ach of the scenarios addresses
hy~othetical exposure after the clea~p is complete; d~rin; t~e
cleanup the site will be secured and under ~uard, so tha~
ex~osures to the public are precluded.)
Once :~e calculat.ions were done for each of the ex~osur:.
scenarios, the scenario producing the most strinqent cleanu~
requir:ement ~as selected as the cleanup level. I~ al~ost everl
instance, t.he most s~rinqent level was qenerated under :ha
scenario that assumes that soil contamination qi~es rise t~
- .. -. . ...... '.' '" .. "".. - ~.. .. '" m. ... .. .. : 0 n .. - ~ ~ .. a ~ , .... . : ... a.. ..: . -"," :
..",.' ~. I "'~....';;J. -...,. -... ..,..... ........ -~, .. ... -~~-... ......a. -'IIIiiiIIJ.. "".~"."':f
only this contaminated qround water is used for all -household
pur~oses for a lifetime. The scenar:ios addressing exposure of
constr:~ction workers or children playin; at the site would have
~~qui:ed less stringent ~leanu~ levels.
':'~: ~~:~:~:::';i' ;.6:1~a':/~ii':i t:.i,o I..Q:~Io6:'ca~~un~ ~n ttlis document. 1.S
:esigned to produce s::ingent cleanu~ standards that are fully
~rotective of hu~an heal:~. - -
2
T1I8 .
~. ~-~.~
-------
; Pu r';)ose
:he vac~um ex~rac~io~ ~e~ed, f~r ~~e O~-Si:e Opera~le U~i~
(E~~~er lagoon area) a~ the :,son's Site is desi~ned to ac:ain
cleanu~ levels oE 50 ~~~ in s~ils for the Co~~oun~3
1,2,3-t~ichlo~o~~o~ane, ~enzene, t~ichlo~oethe~~ a~d
t~t~achlo~~ethene, as sti~ula:ed in the consent dec~e~. However,
no tar~et conc~ntrations for ~esidual Levels of othe~ c~emi~a~
. :~nta~inants ijenti:ied d~rin~ on-site investi~ations had ~een
est.aolished.
-\0" _....._~ t: ..10.: :J.~~..... as" ....-....'-~~.- .. -.. - .'.
... ..---~-~" ..- .......$ ---_1:'.., 'w..J ..:I_-..J...;a... ....-..........'-1..--0 ,-.c:.a.,w~
levels fo~ certain sgecified chemicals in the soils in the for~e~
lagoon a~ea at the :lson's Site. These cleanu~ leveLs ar~ ~ased
on ~ublic health considerations due to contact with contaminants
at ~otential ~o~ulation ex~osu~e points.
7:'.~ ~~'O::';i:J".O::I;' 0,,): ...;~~al&...~ ~O:"o:fi::i C:Jc <': n - s L ~ e $ ~ ~ : ~
~:,,\j ::>nce~:~3tions at ~oi:"\~s of h~~an exposu:~ :~C ea:~
~~~ntifi~: ex~osu:~ s:enario (e.g., ::ans,~c:
~:)celin~). .
Quantitative assess~ent of the li
-------
Identification of Potential EXQosure Points and Summary of
Ex~osur. Scenarios
Because the remedial action includes installation of a'clean
s~r:ace cove~ u~on completion of vacuum ext~action, and the
s e c u : i n ~ 0 f t !'\ e sit e (f e nc i n g) d u r in; the, rem e d i a.. : 0 n, d ire ct'
contact and e~issions of contaminated dust are precluded.
Howeve:, ground wate~ contamination result in; from contaminants
~:esent in. subsurface soils following vacuum extraction is a
~lausi~le scena:io. ~ccordingly, contamination of a hypotheti:al
~otable well installed at some future time at the boundary of tne
tv",.1.' :'Q~.Jons \>In-si~o :.t:lara~'lQ .Jnit) ~~ ,;onsi..:ere.:i ~G:.a. .'
migration of subsurface soil contaminants into the ~nderlying
~round water, whic!'\ then ~igrates to the location of the
hypothetical well, ~s :al:ulated usin; EPA's RITZ model and is
~resented in de:ail i~ A~~end~x A.
~se~s 0: :nlS nY~Ot~etlCaL WeLL .e~e as~u~ea to ingest ~ liters
(~) ~er cay of contaminated water for a'life~i~e 0: 70 years.
For the ~ur,oses 0: this scenario it' is assumed that some gr?und
water con~aminants a:ising from contaminated 50il would be hi;hIy
volatile. Such contaminants thus could transfer durin; use from-
household wate: to indoor am~ient air and be i'nhaled.
. iJ~s!'\washing, launderin;, cleaning, etc, :':lay :9sult in roe lease of
volatile con~a~inants into suroro~ncin; ~ncoor air whi:n i~
assu~ed to exc~ange wi:~ outdoo: ai: on ~n ave~3ge frequancy 0:
once ~er how: (?ri::na:d a~d ~esel, 1985). As d'is:ussed i~ ':~-.~
e~da~;e~~e~: as~e55~enC ~j: :~e o::-si:~ o~e:a~le unit (~~~,
~9a7), in~ala~ion 0: ~ndoo: ai: ~s ~ot a s~;ni:icant ,ac!'\way :~~
ex~os,J:~ ~~la:i~e to droin
-------
Un:e::, ~~e co~di:ions 0.; C'oad COi'\S~:"Jction' ~h::'o~;h a:'~as ~~
~u~surface co~tamin3tion, it is assu~e~ t~a~ ~or~e::'s ~al
~n:iden~ally l.nges~ a~ou~ 90 ~g of sOll ;Jer cal, inha:'e 3:'1d
su~sequent1y swallow a~out 4 mg of dust per day, and a~!or~
~~rough the skin ~h. a~ount of.contamii'\ant ~ontained in J~ ~g of
soil. The assumpt1.ons, calculatlons, and aval1able docu~entatioi'\
for these esti~ated inta~e levels are presented in detail in
A~~endix 6-2. 7~ose assum~~ions ~resume ~hat ~orkers do not ta~e
~rotactive or hygie~~: ~easuC'es.
!he scenario assumes t~at i'\0 new, clean cover material (~ther
than ~he ~l3ckto~) is rea~~lied to the jisru~ted, ~:'~~i=~sll
-.,veree a::''!! o~ cO"':3!'fti~'\~ioi'\ af:e!."' the !''''''''c is ~""s':~",=':~,.1 .a..,.1
the work crew moves on, an op~o~tunity for adventurous ci'\ild::'9i'\
to enter t~e site could create an additional e~~osur~ scenario.
It should ~e noted however, that the cons.n~ decree sti~ulates
the ~resence of a s~itable cover on the site. In 311 likeli~ooc,
if a C'oad .ere constructed throug~ the for~e::' la~oons, a -ne~-
:~~g:, w~~l~ ~~ ~~~lie~ ~~ !!~ ~i~~~::,~~~ ~~~~!~~~ ".. o~~~~- ~i,.l~
of t~e as~halt roadway. ~ow~ver, for the pur~ose of dete::'~inin;
.hecher such an ex~osure scenario could r'!present the most
restrictive clea~u~ levels and to ensure minimal ri3ks ~o
trespassii'\; cnildren, it is assumed for purposes of calc~lation-
that c:'\ild::'en could gain free ,access to areas where suosurface
soi: :ontami~3~ion has ~een ~ncovered and ~ro~ght to the surface.
: ::1 ::-:1s ci::::J~sta:'\ce, it is assu~ed :ha: ~dve:'1turouschi:'=::en (5
': 0 ~ 1 l' e 3r so: 3; e) "It a y i:'l ~ est 5 0 m '; :: con t" ami i'\ ate d s ~ i :. ~
ii'\~a:~, re~ain, and s:J~seq:Jently 30sor~ (:ar;e11 ~y swall~.i~;)
0.~5 ,; o~ co:'\:a~i:'la~ed"soi:: and de~~alli 3~sor~ t~~ a~OUi'\t ~:
:o~:;~~~a:'\:3 COi'\~al~ad ~:1 aoo~t a ~; 0: 3~~1 :~3t ~ay ~=~e~~ :~
ax;:;~: s<~~ :o~ eac~ visit to :~e 3:eas c: :-::;~~s: cO:1:a~~~!:::~
~;--. :.-.~; 3~:'!. !'he =~::-3t.~0:1 ~E ::--.e :/;ic.3: v~s~t., ':~e :~!~\Jen~'f
of :~iLts a:'\d :~e s~an of years d~r~:'I; ~hic~ a cnild is i:<~~1 ':~
~:J:" ~~ the a~ea a~e all :ac~ored i~~o ~his scenario ~o ~e~e::~i~e
::'~;::5~i'\~!~i~e chronic inta~e coeE:icia'ts which aC'e ~~ei'\.
c:~;~=ed to acce~table chronic inta~e le~els (:hilj) ~3ed :;
j~=~:~ co::'::es~onding -acce~ta~ll safe- s~il concent~1:ions.
D~:a~~s concer~in9 the several assu~~tio~s, the calc:Jla:ions 0:
e3ti~a~ed intakes of contaminated soils, and the availa~le and
~ele~ant support "documen~ation are ~resented i~ Appendix 3-3.
cete~inatiQn.of'Acc.Ptabie" Intake"teveis
Acce~taole le-,els (or intakes) for each chemical of concer:1 :cr
each of the identified ex~osure ~a~hways or scenarios a::'a
~resented in Table 1 .i~h docu~e~tation 0: ~heir sourc~. 7he
decision logic u~ilizej to selec: ~~e ~os: a~~ro~::,iate 3ta~:a::':
or ;~idelii'\e or t~ develo~ acce~table inta~e levels is ~resented
in A~~endix c. "
5
"..
~:!
-------
Calcula~ion of Soil Cleanuo ~vels
The soil clea~u~ levels cal=ula~ed for each che~i=al of co~cec~
for each of ~he ide~~ified ex~Osuce ~a~hways oc sce~arios acs,
~rese~~ed i~ Taole 2. ~xce~~ for ~he four com~ou~ds for which
clea~u~ lavels were selec~ed by EPA, ~he lowes~ calcula~ed soil
level for a chemical of co~cer~ for ~he variouS ex~osure
sce~arios ~s selecoed as ~he clea~u~ level for ~hao chemical.
.
;>
:.
".
l~~~
~
-------
r
I
lAir
~~JI!!!!! - -- ---- .. . I - .. . ..-'
1'- _-.......t II '*-"- 1.'lIa:'1 -
- _. -- - ..
---'-!~~!f~;d!{ . I. ---- - - . . '--
AI'H "I AlII II lit 1 :t.AM.II'''W=--:AlJO. ..-=AI CA"SIAHI!I
-
a"ON)
~!!t-- -
~'!lRACt...
!!!!!!!!L -..-
1IfHA¥M:f)-
IIStll"'~ .wi "'1'UAlA'(
!I!!!-- -
~~
lOI
!Qy!!!!!.l1O.
~!H!i. ...:..:-
~w::aQIIP'!'_'" -
i9DOPAH~
!1! !! I!!m !'!!111M AU
~~n!!!!.~.
l@!g.~!
l.t 1!IIl~-",!,,~--
!!.!! 1M 1M... .
...~
n!t" II""'" '"
!.f.8.l ~ Pft'8(HANE
~~
~1IQ~g
!!!O!!1W!Lm """QUi"
,. III , AMI "IE
-l1li ,"'" rt!tIAl"-
!!!!
~"""
!tIJIWV8ilN
!.l~I!!Ul Uttuq\ 'HNIi.
"
iiJO
-~
In81U88 0tI0f1..181
.
im &II" .,
LLaJ--OM91IU&IIUIIi
i-=-=-
,..tIHIIJ.. "
LU:J--~AIII
!.l.!' ~
,.. CAllE
I""c.:
O'''I~
"
"
.~-- -- '--
. .. -- ~~ ~!!II!!!!!!I AII~ .-!!I!!!.- t!!!!!... !t!
. - .. !~ ~!9...- ;!!-{L ~'~!I!!!I II""'''. .....-
-"..".. .~ ...,.. ..,.
..... !!!:.!! -_n u-1..tt.!1.- _._---_!!£.._..--..I~.tI !.!!!f!I! J..t~(.J1..
-- LUUI flU!!! &!!IL!llW . " . - ut Il-- -1Dt~!!!!L8'U!!L.t!UHU- -I !tl.11 1.".1J .J iti:ii.
_... . --.. !!!'!!!! g! .. -- - .--. ~.. - --~!! g'J . --- J 'ft n UtLU i!!!l..n.
-l.!!!!~!!J!!!! '!!L!!.!!U... --LOl.ti -. 1 litO tl8II!!!!!.oIOO .1 !!( tl -tl!!i.:JL
--- !!!!!! 9t. - --- . --- ~ --- "[~g.f ! ;!JlJ!- .!J!!(!t! !~M(..
.... !t!!{!!~-.!! _... ..-t.!l.!i- it!UAIC .HtLtL J.tIL!t .JjtLl1.
.t',. - I!'!!!!~... - - - - Hi 11-- --_.!!!!!!~. 'tit tL. tlI{t!1 ..!.ttUl.
~~ .~ -~!!S I!!U!1.!!.L __-_Ht II -'~!~.!!!!H~O&INia ,J.!!{ II. .1P.!lt!t U!U1.
,. .- .t!l!l!1M! U ----- .-.-HI IL- --....1.!e~ H .!.!ILn. UU!!! !~.tt...
~. aJ!~ &!!f. ~ D _!!t. - - """"RUt!!! ..I ~!l.!t ..l.I!It.!1..U!(.t!.
8.,.0 IOIO'"IIOO,,,(,,,,U.. _i!l!!- 1()80114IIIGI.&MIDlINI.. !lit_oo ..1tiU
i8E..,- M!!":' !!L._.__- ---l.!!!.!!t_!!! -. :'t ~~!i~-- -- .t1!iB'
...!.8E... 1iI'ttI..~ 12_-.. __Ht.lt. - .m.!~AIC _htl.JL .1J!!(1!! .iB(.S.
--111..' !!!!':.Jt . -- -.- !It !l.- AI!.- .J :'fl.!!!. !.!!!!L1t 2.1tt..!!.
.J~.. ~!!I!!!l !J_._- .__IM"-- .J!I!ft'~t.H ...L!'tf...ti. U!tsH .1.J.!Ltl
-.I.IL.' _-UII111M1t __ltilL- UM..L8UI8_- J."UL .Mi:u .Lllilt.
_HI II .-1!!!!' lOClllO ~!!!u --U{ !I.- ---WIt L'oo.CJ!:It i!!!'''.'u ....t.!tl.JL . U!ILU
_---1.IhIL_- IlIiIn !!.!!!!!.&!!i.!!L.m -_Hi 11- !~9-1'!""1~1!'!!!!!.!!!!!l -- --- --
~I ,I II J!!t!!!!! -'- _ut II-- 8M1!~- ..tJ.!t IL UUtti . Utl..!I.
!!( J. -. ...... -1.1{ 01 -. .- ~!ItdIt tlt(sJl .~
IIf..I1.- MM - 11-"':"-.. -- _d .11- . M!I .1l1..IL J.JILI1 - - ..
--1..( ... 1110 -~_........!t.!!!!i &!!t~!!1 -J..!(.tl-- IIl9 _I'!"I~'" "'!!!.!!!!i
. 'I IL- IOM.._-....-",-- --ill tL- .018 """"In .-,»- .~!l:I1.. ...1.t!1L.t!..
«It .--II'!~gf.-_.- (It ..,~C:W ...t.:AiAI --~ - -UJL.U
!. d .. .-1J!IIl !!.!II J!!1 01 ..n UL II 10M, i '1Ji.1J .LIlIA
IILtL- JIUII A£JI- _U(., . ".,iM: AME Ai .ul(aJj UlLIJ
..!( IL- -...... ~.:'12- -1J(.' 81't1f:~ AIC -I.!it JL ~~ ....!-ttI..!!.
-- 9t ~ --. ---.!B- ~~i -t!lij. I.. [:.. U!(.tI.
.J !LIt-. _J!!!!!.t!9 11_- " t:U!Pi 1 !8!!~ ~ 1 MUL .~~t _1..JtI...U
-_t !!f.Il.-. --.. .I!'!~~.!£.-!! - --- --.!~ II!. .""'IfAIC 1A1f.J. 1_... 1.t1LU
J !!. tt_. _l~HoGIIQ &!!!.~!ID.- --~~...u IOML1aEt Mllaltlll:. Ufi.ll. ~.tl..
--1tt.H- I'"':!.L.~O!lOQ 8. I~!.f~:- ...t.t,IL~ ~=~~ i}!f.IJ..
IIf.1l- -~!!!!S - _n i--I.t(.tJ . -M I..IU -I_A
-11( It...=.... I.!!!~ t I.- --1J(.t1- t ~ I. ..t~lf!~ .l.!tUt J 11U1..
m__._!!'!I!!!!!.'__h- ~ "'."{!f:"'.''''' J.~ti..J1- .l.IILU. .tOi."
--ill,.. . 10M.!. 10IlOO i!!U!!!U.....-_. --1.1(01 1011' '!!!!.!It I t..!L.tL.- t.!!L.U.
. JI II -- !!'!~!!! ----1.!L.." ""'!AIC .UIUL [..i'H(tU .J.J!i:JL
1!{..tL-- - - - ~ ~ ~!f.- - _J.lill.- .mi!tAJe ~.1U1 I iii ,If ..t..JJLtL
-l.It.1!- . It!!.!! !E.: it t!.L!:...1$I1M( II' --1.!( jj it ~ . .. - J.'!1i It. -UJ(..JJ
-0.- --.-JI!O!(ft . 01 ""'''m:---- -fA'" J.IILJJ r-i1K.'I-
.. !!!!!J'l._-- . .-91 (,...iti- ...:t.J1i.IL 1811.., -HIf.D.
..!tI.!L-. .---.!!!t!!!If 'lY!!! - -..JM 0' ....... 'IV' ,.,Mi'.t .101 n.
- !It 11- H~!!.!!!!!t~!~ I!!!.!!!~I -Ill 11- iJ!I"'.--'tI.'" MCIIINI.- - -
. -_J.lt.!J_..t!!H!!!!!~!!.!'!!!t!!l!!.!!l -....tun .011 Mo--'H..INIOI'" -,- --- -=---.
.8& .. """MaIS '01 .1' ~."I~. '11... . ,... ..~ iIl...1
~~---~ '-'-'---. .
- ~- .-. ...._.JH!!!
-,. "..
-i ...2 -
al ,-
.. ..1
.
.
.,
r
.,
I'-f.:". ,.
-------
IAI8I~ I
--_._~- .--- " .- -. .----------.' .--.
.. - - . . - n" .. .--------
... ------. ... .,,- - - ----.--
-.". --.-. -- -- -- .- ---'---- ---
----.--....- - -..--.-- --- -------- _._----
!U~.ai M'ftHlIIJI!! !~! ....~'Qt -' "' -. ".-- . -------
CAQ-INllIItOHUt"'At cfttft""~MI(~-(lff!l ~ !!t! l~~!:~~!!~!~ .
..- ...II -...-IIIM .. ~ ......-- ~ ~AA ..M8IIIha....... 68II1II8 J!lIJ'A -- ---
'!!!!- Stt!!IU ~,! ",AlIi -----~_._._---- ---
!!M!:~~~ .------- - -"___0__-
~:!f!U!~ If!~ gllOfl:l...-.1 -..--. -_.. --.---- ---
CM ~NC~¥=YfACR8 --.---.----
!"~~!!U!!~I!!!! ----.---.-----.----
~ ao:ar'~1 tfl!l!f IUIIQtIPII: fW'i08JJIII --.- ----.
YQ a -IWI"" ~,......, &I\(', QQAI ---- -- ..
1018. !!!t",,"":_P"OOMB"'''''~M(fY '1/£ ~!!!!!!t1L-_-
",ANt( 1it'K.1C OA'A '-VAua'
II y , ,. !!!!JU.!!I.Y!!!!l~ ."--
Hi ."...-a.'f""-UW' g.-.
II, f!!!g:I(""'~~ AOIUQN).!!I.!!!!!I~u.;;,!-~.-Git-A"IDw.-
... .41 ~!I!m ~~ VQ"'U8.,.HM"""''''",HWAI''IN
r.a, MliJl'DqlCAHrfR .. Mfa... I~ IIJIL - .. ._---- -.-.--
MUf'lAIII 0Aa Y "'.. - II f _91. ....,.. If"'" f IIf"OIIiW MfI/!!!!!!. !!'.!!@l! ~ I!!!II JII06( 0
. !8O!fIVI>IIIII-" U!""""" .. JII.{ft JILII!.........- !!I1R!!!f !t t!!!m!!L. -
-- . ........~ a!l!!!!""'.~ M""" ~. *' p.,. 8... ...,... t!!!!!a. ....-..
YQ !:9ft~WIl- -
!IfN .. ' ftaaj.1£M n'':V!L!!MIWM!8. J8 --
...111.. 'IIMAY(W"~ .ft"~,,, -
tw. ......u- fa. 4:_" , (:4; .~.. ~~!J1i1ii-IMt---
a___." - -- - --_.
A iue.. JU8tJIIL UL ~ . II------tl- II IM-Io.." .,....-
f8, ....M r..--- .. II" ..., --
. 4t
-'---'
.----
leU) 110 -..... ....- ~ 8DII " .. .'4 """"!HI.._-"
-"--'--"-~'
-- _.- -----
-------
--.-------- --
--
-- ,-.,--"-. ....-.-
~.tI!t.!..... '1M ~.t!-~tf!!! ~ t!t! ~~ ~---
~. If I8!I!!I JI!!f J!l.t!d cf ".~ 8R ----
-- .----
----..- -- - ----
------..--. ---- ----'----
-.----...--. -..--------.
------- ..-. --.-. _. ------ '--
t',.,.' t
-------
~"'I Z
S 'e' -';;~ '
:.:. i). " A~- &... .t~~
:.:. C:"...c " tb.. .. '..1 fO~ I
I I
~~.... m I
A~ leI\. eoHCINntA".,Nt ...100.. H"ICU8 sc.HAlltC8
I I ~0I'C8"ft"'" ,,. ...~&. ,
. "'~~DM' i ~ I :,.,O~ . ~~..
,. t I!.. I !ftID 8Je s.. I!.I 11 ~
~
"1- I 11 ....~ " J:W c' CS,!" 1.'2'11 IIY e~IICI'''' 1-' 2' .
f J ,; tIeM . .. I ..,. 8088 af!80 II....
f ~ c:~,..-- I c,.. C.;..-- ~.."...._~.... ;
.- , III'T'Z :'.. ;. 21 . 30 ..... . ,..,.1 t ...,..
I
'/OfIL,,..1I I '0 .00 'tOI!.OI ~ l. 'I . . 1.' .0 . !8 -oJ.
I 1 iO .a. . ,.I! .0' I . ' 3 .0 I :...: I
" HZ."'- C,I1 ." ]. ~o .''0 S ~1! .~a I.' . . .0 . 4~ .~.,
SiS .00 t , . 3 .0 J : ~ .~.
'II ,..-......, ~ C:AI 1.31 .0. .u .o ~ ..1..,1.0: I .0 .! ..:.
J~ ..lIl ..~ _. ~ 2.' - . '.~ J.
~"L~"O~~"'Ji.~' " .~ ~ ,. .~,
, '5 I!'.O' 2.11 .0 ' 5 . 1 .0 . Z. .':5
:iEt ~o I!'.a:l 1,'5 . 5 II 6 5.1 .0. 4': ..).
.0. .40 121 . I S 6 ' S .0. . 3 .4.
( "',.., , 00 ,(32 . 75 . n.y 2. I . , 3 2 .00 32 .ao
':~ A .'0 .0' 1 21 . 3 . 2 3 S .O~ 2.5 .O~
521 .02 2. '3 . . ~ ' . . 7 '3 :i 10 .01
C,."..aa.~ ~ALAT'I I i' .02 J ~3 . I GI!\. 5 t . 5 ~ 3 . .tlC
,--..- _...N . 11-.,:~ : f'- .~~ - , .- . . '.' ..
. I
. Qle.....~N2tI"'.!I " I ~O I! .~ I 2.101! ..)J ~ 5.0 . I ~ 5 . II . a . I
;, 601'11" .'" . ' 311.0' 2. all! .06 T\.y . . 6 ~" 6 't,a ..
Of ,...1'1,...".."., " ]..ItC~aIldl!CI~' JI'" I 5al.40 't, I "'..tI6 '" :1 .. .
I IoCr . J . ... 041
..~"L..HftH- ., sn .4 , i1'1!.43 lIB .. .. ] !. . .tlC
, .i:""Ioo'" ,',".~Ll!IlI",n",. , 31 .4 . .. 3 l. . 1 ~ 04.
,'" '01 .0 't.'211.4. ~ .1 . . 3. . . 2 1 .0.
~ 1 . '. . ~ . . , t .LI.
ACZ] . a7 .al 1 . '3 1 5 . 25 .'"
'... :-....- Oft..C"IO- ,CtI\ -- ~ I' .0 . S' .,,~ n..v 5 ~ . . i. . 3 J a .':3
2." ~~LC'4 I"S .02 2iS .0. I' . . i; . . , :"c .,:.
,... ~~ -.._~ 6oW~ "'~~l 115 .0' , ~I .05 !'tv 2 ! .05 , ~ ~ . 15 .. 2 c .: 5
'.W TIoo'" ".~!.r,'/IoICW 11c.O I .31 .08 1'\.'1 2 !!.o ' ." II .. ,1: .:5
. . .
..--.IT'!It'~p..c,'- """'1" :$1 1 so .~o 3.72 .0. i !e.'. I :11. . . ! (; .~.
--A"~,6L,I"'1 " I 3:1 .032 3 12 .0' ~ 3 : c .01 I 3 3 . II , ,~.: ~
3 1:0 .01 ., .03' ~l 2! .032 I ]; .~3 , 'c.~ 1
. . ':ZY!I$o. 2.a"''<1~",..t!1 '22 .40 S .. ..). . ..31 I .01 'c.:5
~~'4! ":Q .02 2 ge .O~ 3 a .0. I ., .:11 3 '::.:.
~ 1 ., .", '59 .~. GIR 5 5 .03" . 1 -0' .! ..:.
~ 388 .OJ 152 .a5 .~I ; :-.0 J: ..: 1
~~TWA~LC"O~f~' ~'" " 714 .0' . :~ .0' 1'\." a 3 .J ' 'e..O ' . .J1
- 1 50 .0 1.51 .~. ' ..:1 .e.c J J ! ..-,
.OL~I"'I V 5 II .0 2.1. .0 1'v 2.' .0 I jlr.c . J .':5
, 2,..1'.'C)I\'0"01''''ZlH' '' I '2 .0 I'" .0 l' ., , ' .0 : 3 .0 J ':8.':,
.' 3 ~"2~!ot.. - 'iWO 1 71 .0 V ' .0 I 1 .4 J: .-:.
. ..IC~LQ.O ~'~I 'C,., V ,.~" J] .a v 11 .0' ,.. .0 ,~ .01
" , 1. ".IC. .O..O.A,.I Ie", II 'I .4, 1.10 .0. R. 1 i .02 . S . 7 5 .032
" 260".'"'''' 111 ' 87 .01 . 1 .01 5 1 . 1 I .05
:~ 1.7 .0- ., 8 . . ,. .~, '
2.' .06 3.1 . . '. ~ .0.
O.I'n.t-"I- II I. .', 2.3811.03 ~ 5 5 .06 1.3 .0. 4 51.:1'
::1-.:::'8
.. ~ ..~
v. ~C":'~. ~"LI (~. I" .".M ....... '''''' Q.01
.~., :tcL"".... I I I
'2' ....,........~........... ~ I 18' O~I 'I
tCJt, . '011117 IItA "IQIC.. III ..01.:1 rTlD ".. ull 0' I. C.u8ClJIt .....
rllCTUO 0' Cu
-------
APPENDIX A
Transport Modeling of Potential
Cont4mlnants in Ground Water
As a Result of
~eaching from Lagoon 5011s
""-~-.=";.-1~~ t:..~...e'-:"'~~ ..,...~ ~""'''tt~'a:~~; c:'~~e"'."11"'~--1 ~. ~
hypothetical ~eside~tial .ell have ~een estimated using an ~?A
s~ecified ~~~~oach. Cleanup levels in contaminated soils we~9
back calculated from acceptable concentrations in a residential
-ell :~~ the listed :o~~ounds. The cleanu? levels are given as
a~e:a;e :~n:e~ttat~ons 0: :o~tarninant in t~e lagoon soils.
A!;'proach
The a~~t~ach sancti~~ed ~y tPA e~ploys the use of
seque~t~alll t~ dete:~i~e the ~elationshi~ bet.een
:~nce~~~~tions ~~ ~~e soils and c~ncentrations i~ a
'!:'~s..L~e~ti.al ''''ell.:
th ~ge :':\odel-s
contaminant -
h:t;:othetical
1.
'rhe H1~:o~~;ic
( HE:L?) ~~o=e:.
::va~l.Jatio~ 0:
:an~fill ?er:~r~an:~'
2.
7h9 Re;~:a~~=i
~oce 1.
a,j :nves:i;ati~9
7~ea:~l!n':. :~~e
, - --~.
, :"... . ... J
3 .
G:o~nd wate: di~~tion ~odel.
7~e ~odels .e~e linked 50 t~at t~e out~~t 0: t~e HE::? ~~ce~
~~,:i:t:a::=n arid eva~ot:ans~i~ation) ~eco~~s :~~~t :~ :~e ~:7!
~odel. :~t~ut of the RITZ ~ocel in:lu=e~ ~ass t:ans~Q~t t~
;:ounj -ater. ~as5 t~anspo~t to the grou~d water ~as in t~tn
used as in~ut to the ground -ater dilution ~odel. 'rhe out~ut of
the g~ound water dilution model prov~des the basis fo~
jack-calculation of the soil cleanup leve~3 ~ased on ac:e'ta~la
:=~:entrations in the hypot~etical well.
HELP
T~e HE~? ~o~31 was used to ~redic: the amount of infiltration and
evapotranspiration in the lagoon a~ea. The following 3ssu~~ti~~s
~ere used ~n the ~ocel:
1.
Clima~ologic cata f~o~ Philadel~hia, PA (1974~1~7a) can
oe used to adequately describe cli~atological
conditions on-si~a.
A-l
I'
nit
~
-------
2.
The soil on-si:9 ~3 ho~)~enous and can :8 ~ocele~ as a
sin~le laye~ of loam soi~.
3.
The surface of t~e la~oor. ~as no slo~e.
7~e vegetation at ~~esen: is 8rOOr8.
4.
T~e HE~~ ~ocel ~redicted eva~otr!~Spi~3tion at the site to oe
O.OOla meters/day and :he net inf~ltration ~as esti~ated to ~e
.00l ~etars/cay.
RITZ
The RITZ ~ocel was used to ~redi:t ~ass transport to the ~round
water ~eneat~ t~e lagoons. 7he fo:lowin~ assum~tions were used
~=' t:te ~ode:':
1.
2.
" 3.
4.
S.
,.
':) .
~
I .
3 .
9 .
H~mo~eneous soil =olu~n ~ith unifor~ concentrations an~
soil ;:ro~erties.
Uni:or~ :low t~rou~hout t~e unsaturated zone.
Hy~r~ul~~ ~onductivity ~s related to mQist~re content.
'/ i a the : la=,p-Hor~ba ~ge r .~quat ion.
~is~e:sion is i~sig~i~ican:.
?a::':i:ionir.~ :Jet''''ee~ so:"ij, li~'~~~, and 9a!~8)~a~5"es c~n
=a ~es:ri:ec ~i:~ linear ~!latio~3hi~s.
S:~~~ll ~~i~~r~ ~a;:3~ltion ~0~stant3 ~ased ~;O~
~i~ce;~~~ation 0: hydr~l:3~s.
~ini:a ~aS3 ~e =0~ta~i~3:ion, ~i:~ transie~: loss E::,~~
t~e s:s:e~. .
~ :~:l: ~ixe1 zo~e a: ~~~ s~r:ace, 1 ~at~r i~ ~a~th,
i~:~ ~~~:h all:onta~i~a~~ :oadi~; is ~nte:e~
:':sses :0 the at~osiJl'\e:e ::.a '/olat:.liza:ion.
-~e ~axi~~~ a~er~;e concentration ;~ leachate entering the ~:ou~~
J a tar ~ 'I e r 1 ~ , '7 J 'I ear ~ e r i 0 d for.; 1: c i no g ens and a 5 'I ear ~ e : i 0 C
::: noncar:inogens was calculated ~3in~ the RITZ ~odel.
Ground Water Dilution
~ ;~~und water dilution ~ocel -as ~sed ~o ~:edic: concent=3tio~s
in a hy~othetical reside~tial -ell located on the varti:al ~13ne
describ-.d oy the downgracien: ~oundarl 0: t~e lagoon. !he ~ocel
~evelop~en~ was straightfo~wa:j a~d was oased on a conce~t used
f~~ tho E:?~ 'ler:ical-Horizontal Spread (VHS) :-todel. The dil:Jtion
~! leachate in:o the resicenti31 -ell ~as dete~~ined 0'1 assuming
that the -ell ~ould ~enetrate the aquifer oelow the lowe~
oouncacy of the contaminant .,l~~e. tn t~i.s '.lay, a ~4Prcentage ::)f
clean -ate~E:~m oeneath t~e ~lu~e wo~ld ~e c~awn into the ~ell
with the contaminant .,lume d~rin~ any p~m.,i~g ev.~t. A ~ajor
A-2
~.-. "
_~.l~
-------
i ~
~he h1;>~~:'e~:':3:'
s~ue-ce 0: ur cee-t:.3 in~y
.:~ns truct ion of' the ..ell.
':.~e ~~cel.
is
~i~~ e-egard to well c~nst:.:~c:ion, the follow.ing assu~~t:.i~ns ..ee-e
:':tace:
4.
1.
!~e aqui~er is homo;eneous and isot:.r~~ic i~ t:.he ae-ea o~
.:~ncee-:'\.
2.
Well ;>u~~i:'\~ has n~ effect on t~e ~eomet:.e-1 ~f t~e
cont:.ami:'\ant:. ,lume or ~round wat:.er flow patt:.ee-ns.
,
- .
7~~ '.~e::
. .:" -: ..
~ni!~~~:1 ~:;~ ~~l
'" i ':. ~ j : .! '"r 5 '.,;.! t e !,:
ii1t:.erval.
The lagoons a:e e-ectangular in plan view and no port:.ion
of ':.~e lagoon ~s =el~w the water table.
.... .. - ~ - - : - .:to .. ...a . e a - 100 a ~.3 If:..... - -. '-. '.. - - .. .... . . .. - .. - -.... t.... ..: . . .
......H....Q,.....-...~'.... ...... '-- -.....J..' ...c: ."":I"""""'~ "Q~ ~:t~...u4G..... -'-' h,....~_a,-o
vee-ti.:.!l:, t:.~ the ;rounc -ate: table and move int:.~ ':.he saturated
Elo. field ..i:hou: :':tixi:'\g. ~s a result:., a wedge of water
con~3.minat:.ed at the leachat:.e concente-at:.ion Co, is form~d
uni~oe-~l! ace-~ss the ~:~nt of the lagoon. This wedge has a-
co:'\st:.!.:'\t:. ':.hic!<:'\ess d at: the f:~nt of the .lagoon ...,hich can ,oe
:etee-~i~ed ~J a ~ass ~ala:'\ce cal:~la:ion.
:' ~ e : e '= e =' ':. ~': .'" e 11 i s 1. 0 .: a : e d at the e -: ; eo: ':. h e lag 0 0 i'\, a:'\ ::
~en~:~!tes t:.he :~n~a~ina:'\: ..ed~e f~e-. .! ~en;th of its o?e~
:.~:e:v.!:'. !he ..,el1 is cons:.cee-ed to cause c:'\ly a ~i:'\oe' :hange :.:'\
.. '. ~ ...... ",., ... "" oJ a . ~,. 1:'.., 'J 1:; e' 4 ....;.. e ... t 'I...; .... ,.' ,J S e S .., ~ a I: .!.. 1, ~ '/ ..,:
- .. - ~ - ..,... I. ... - '- -.. -... ~ .. ... - ... ..... ~.'" . i ;.J .. - 4 .. ...., - _..I. . '..J -
:)~~. ;5 a ~e5~1:, ~~e co~':.a~i~3n~ ~l~~e su::~~:"\=s :~~ "a~~.
~5s~~i~; ~~a: :~e ~ell ~ill ~e:ei~e ~a~e~ ~~~~~~~:! ~.~~~ ~:g
e~::.~e Len;~~ o~ o~en ii'\:e~va: :, due-in; a 9u~~i~~ eve~:, ~~e
~~r.:e~:~a:i~~ ~f t~e abs~:3:ted watee-, C~, is =eter~i:'\ed:
:x == Co (d/:')
Well Conste'uction
!he next step in the analysis ..as t~ deter~lne an o~en l:"\terval
:e:"\~th, ~,of a hypothetical e-esidential ..ell t~ oe i:'\stal1ad a:
30~e f~t:.ure da~e. The c~ns::~ct:.ion and ~e;t:.:'\s o~ res~~9:'\:~a1
49115 are highly variable. Several methods of jet:.ee-~i:'\ing a
~:~ical well construction wete considared i~cluci~~:
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
Contacting govee-:'\~ent agencies foe' ~ell ~equie'ement$,
Contacting "'ell de'illee's foe' typical ~ell conste-~ction,
Rev1.ewing je~ths 0: ~ater wells near the si~e, and
Calcula:in~ de~tns based on aquifae- ~ae-a~eta~s
~e~ee-~i~ed curin1 hydrolo~ic invest:.i;ati~ns.
.~-3
"..
W~ '
.
-------
"
~o a~SO.ut. requiremen~s for well yield or de~~~ were a~a~la~le
f~om government a~encies. ;he Farm Home Ad~inis~ra~ion indica~ed
~ha~ for new wells six ~allons ~er ~i~u~e yield was a r~le of
thu~~ but not a wri~ten requi~ement. ~ell drillers ind~ca~ed
~~a ~ a 'Je II . s ope n in te rva 1 was ve ry dependent u~on the ~eoloQY .
encoun~e~ed whic~ often varies 9rea~ly over relatively shor:
horizon~al diS:1nces (50 f~). An avera~. well depth was
dete~~ined from :he well inven~ory data collected for the RI.
The ave~aQe dep~n ot wells located in the Stockton for~ation was
appr~xi~a~ely 27J feet. Howeve~, mos~ of these ~ells were
indus~rial or ~u~icipal wells and deemed not represen~ati~e 0:
residential wells.
The selec~ed method of deter~inin~ an ~. value for ~h~
calculations was based on ~he calculated hydraulic conductivity
from shallow anj intermediate monitorin~ wells at the site.
Jsin~ a for~ula for ~ransmissivity of a semi-confined aquif.r,
:alc~la~Lons were ~ade :or ~hree di::erent ~roduc~ion rates; a, 6
~&1~ .. ;~~:'..
:- he c a 1 : ~ :. a : ion 5 0 : d / r.. .'" ere ~ e r : 0 r m e d for a r a nq e 0 f a qui f .~
'Jalues. !'he e)(.,~cted 'Jalue of d/e. a 1/34. !'his is the value-
t~at will oe usee in ris( calc~lations. The ranqe of'd/~ is from.
1.1 1:0 1/960, a~~r.,)(i:-:ia':.ell a factor of 10 on either side of the
avera;e.
A-4
n~
. -
-------
APPENDIX B
Quantitative Assessment of Potential Intakes
7~e ex~osu~e s~ena~ios sele~ted for ~onsideration at ~~e 7'json's
Site a~e as follows:
rJ::.~ot~e': i 7'\:
a.
. j.
:-~3~~en~::.~
'.ell ~ :~~3t,~~e
~~;:.s~=~
Ingestion of ~ontaminated ground water used for
drinking (~hroni~)
In~ala~ion of va~o's from
-:~n:'a~.~~a:.a~ '..-a:: .4Q~a" ~~:.I..\J.&~-j
bathing
wi~:-\
2.
~ir~~t ~ontact to contaminated su~surface soils ~y roaa
const",Jcticn .or!( c:,e., (30-day eXi)osur-e.)
a.
~ .
~
- .
j.
Je:'~al a~so::2-~ionooooo! conota~inants
~igh.ay .or-!(e:,s -(subchr-onic)
in soi 1 0'1
!ncidental in;estion o~ :~nta~inate~
~~;~.a! .or~ars :s~~c~r~ni=)
so:.l =:-
rn~a:a~:.~n 0: :~r.taminants a~sor:e~ on~o
~~s~s ~1 high.at .or~e:'s (suochronic)
~ .~ -; :. -: ~ 0' ~
:nonalation 00:
(a:uta)
~n-si.:~
~' °n~;~o.a:t
04 0 r :<. a :" 3
'J 3 ~ 0 , s
~x~~sur-e to conta~inated s011s ~~ c~ild::en af:~r :":~!
con'str-~:tion, assuming no cove::- is .C'e.,laced aEt~' road
constr~ction, and r-emoval of sec~r-i:' fence.
3 .
a.
Soil intake by children (6 to l2 yea,s) via
inhalation of dusts, ingestion of soil on han:s,
and der~al aosor-~ti.on (chronic).
~ach ex~osure scenario is detailed below.
Rypothetical residential well - lifetime exposure
a. Ingestion of contaminated ground water used for drinking
(chronlc).
1.
Calculation of the ave'age daily lifeti~e ex~~sure level
(~Q/k~/:a'j) is ~ase~ on the standard ~an wi~h a ~ody .ei~ ht 0:
3-1
ne
. - . ,.
~,j_.,
-------
-J k; (154 poun~s), a~d a 2-li:er ~er day c~ns~~~tion of d~~~~:~~
~~te~ over a 11fati~e ?f 70 years. ~~ese assum~:ions ar~
.:~llzed bY EPA to der~ve ~ax~~u~ contami~a~t LeveLs (~C~s),
:j justed acceptable dai ly intakes (MCts), etc. and si)ec i ~ i.e~ i ~
~?~'s Superfund Pu~lic ~ealt~ evaluation ~anual (3PR€M). '.
b. Inhalation of vapors from bathing with contaminated well
wat.er (chroni.c)
!: was assu~ed that ~ecause 30me of the chemicals whic~ ~i;nt ~e
~~tected in the 9round water c~uld be hi;hly volatile, inhalati~n
~x~osu~e to vapors ~enerated in confined s~aces ~ay be
c: ; ...... ~ . i .... ~ ... . ;., a ..... ... .: ~ .: 0IIIiI'" ..... ~"" ~ A .. .. : 01IIII'" .. '- ; '.,. .a:. '.. ....~.:.
"';'~- - -... ............J. -" -"~-~_..I\.. .'..-.".. ....~.."'2~..l_.~.
l~underin;, e~c. may contribute to release and innala:ion oE
volatile or9anic chemic~l (VOC) vapors, it is daill showerin9 i~
an ~nventilated bathroo~ that is expected to provide the
c~nditions which would ~esult in substantial potential absor~ti~n
c: .:::Cs.
~Jt all c~emicals ~~esen: in on-site soils are volatile, and
i~ha13:i=n of va~ors released f~oo shower water is no~
a:'\tici~ated t~ represent a si;~i!icant eX90sure pathway Eor these -
cJ~~ounjs such as di-n-octyl~hthalate. The extent of
v)latili:ation will vary widely from water c~ntaminants which are
;lses at ~tandard 1:es~~~e and te~~era:~re and have low
s::uoi:i:y in wa~er to ~ate: solub:~ =on:~~i~ants wi:h verI low.
~!~o, ~~essu~es. ~Qr ~~~~oses of defi~~n1 vola~ile, ~: ~s
" . - . . - e.~ ...... "'.. - .... - .... ...... ... "" S 'J 1,. .... :J e n .. '/ .... . ",..1 - - ... S .. a.... t - .... t: "I .,! '" ... ""
.;& J ~ "'* .... .... '- .. .. ~... ... ~..~ :' "'" ... , . .... .... . . .. .. . ~ .... .... - """ .. .. ., ~ ...., - .j. \J. .. .. -
~~;~er wi:1 c~m~lately ~ol!~il~za :ro~ shc~~: water. :~~~o~~ds
~~:~ va:~es less t~~n J.;L ~:e ass~~ed t~ ~ola:ilize ~o o~:y ~
-~;:~3l ex:e~: a~d :esul: i~ :~e inhala:~on of qua~~i::as ~:
:J~=:s :~at a:e s~all :eL~ti~e to drin~i~; 2 liters of ::'\~ sa~e
,. ~:a:'.
=:en:ion factors (i.e., the fraction of :~e volatile or;ani:
- ~~:3~:nan: in ins~i'ed air t~a: is :i~en ~~ ~n:o ~~~
._~~ods::ea~) f~r chemicals ~ay varl widell. A value 0: J.5
. :..e., 5,j\) is used for it\ost. volatile che~~:als under :es:i:'\~
;~o'~al 'es~ira~ion) conditions in a shewer s:all.
7he €PA's Carcinogen Ass.ss~ent Croup tl~ically assu~es 50\
~eten:icn of inhaled va~o's (e.1. see Health ~ssessment Docu~e~:
~or E:thy lene Oichloride). tn a recent vol'.J:ne of ~rin~ing ~;a:e=
and Health (Vol. 6, 1986) the ~ati~nal Academy of'Sciences
describes de~ailed studies where equ~valent tissue levels (e.9.
~lood, liver, etc.) from inhalation and dri~~ing wate, ex~os~res
have ~een deter~ined precisely for ~enzene and trichloroet~ene
(T~~). For :richloroethe~e, an ef~ective conc.ntra:i~n of
~e~aboli~e formed in tne Li~er from dri~~in9 wa~ar containing 403
~;/~ (~n 6 divided doses) .as equivalent to inhal~ti~n of air
containing 302.4 ~9/m3 of TC~ over an 8-hour ~eriod. For a nu~an;
tnis would re~resent 806 i'nQ ingested in 2 liters, :or 2032 m;
B-2
.
ne -
.~. ,
, _Jc~/'1
-------
I
I
L :'\ ~ ale din 6. 7 2 ~ J i i1 S h:" s a s ~ : ~ d u c i :'1 q e <:;:J i 1/ a.1 e:'1 ~ ~ ~ s S',J e
concen~~a~ions of r:~ ~e~a~oli~es. ~cco~dinqly, inhala::~n
'9sul~s in only aoou~ ~o ~e~cen~ aoso~~~ion com~a~ed to inqest.ion
f~~ TCE. A simila~ s~udy wi~h ~enzene (~lood lel/els) :e~ealed
chat in~alatLon was a~ou~ 41\ as ef!icient as inQes~ion of
~e:'1zene in j~i:'\ki:'1g ~a~e:.
2. Direct contact to contaminated subsurface soils by road
constructl0n worK crew
a.
Dermal Absorption of contaminants in soil by hiQhway
worKers (subchronic)
r~e ~e:c~taneous a~s~r~tion of chemical pollu~ants fc~~
con~aminated soil or dust which adheres to the ex~os.d skin ~~~l
de "end u~~n: 1) ~~e concentration of t~e chemical in soil; 2)
:~e a::'ea of sl
-------
~et.er::':1i!'\ed ~he' mean '-eight. of hand dir:: fr:~m a 21. 5 ~...2 "'0"";""'"
.., r - '- .. \..i I ~
of a child's hand was 11 ~g. This c~r:=es~onds t.o aoor~xi~a:a'i
150 ~g o~ dirt over all ~~e s~in on bot.h hands (300 cm2) o:.a
2-1/2 year old. Roels and cowor:kers (1980) measured t.he quant.i:1
~f lead on ~he hands of 11-year-olds in a play;r:~und ~y r:e~ovi~~
t.he l~~d ~r:~m t.he dominant. hand wit.h dilut.e ni~r:ic acid. 3y
c~~pari~; the lead levels in t.he acid solution ~i:h t.he
concent.r:3t.ion of lead in sur~icial ~laY9round soil t.he aut.hors
est.i~at.ed a soil load of 0.13 t.o 0.60 ~;/c~2 oE sKin ~~r t.he
.soLled hand. Thus, ~e~ow's ~u~lished value of 0.51 mg dir:/~,2
0: 3~i~ a~~ears :0 be a :easo~able, conservat.ive est.i~at.e.
r'I,a"-"" "''"'co.,............. ....: ""o~;"'''''s "''''~'1.'e''' -.. ."e ~".._'., "':.~t "":'" ----
.,/ - .. . ... - :1 ..J .. -.: - .' . ..., . . . .. . ... .. ... ~ ~. - '..., ,-. . . -
. likely t.o occur: for com~ounds wit.h low molecular weight., ~hi:h
are ~ot.h wat.er soluble and li~id soluble, and which can remain on
the s~i~ for a prolonged durat.ion. Hi;hly volatile chemicals can
be ex~ected to eva~orate ra~idly. Studies by Bart.ek e~ ale
(1972) and~elj~ann a~d ~aibach ~ 1970) who a~plied various
=~:~:-~3:!::: :=;a~~: ::~r:~~:: :: :~c ~:=:~:=3 o! ~~~~n:
i~di:!t.e t.hat, with Ee~ exce~tions (e.g., caffeine), t.he
a~sor~t.ion over: a 2~-hour ~eriod ranged from 0.4' to lO.8'.
:;aw:~:./ (1985) assumed an 3~sor'.tion rat.e o~ ll\ ~er: 24 hOtJrs as -
:~~se=~a:ivel: representative of all or;anic c~emicals if
der~al:y ap~lied i~'~~~e E~~~ ~n an acet.one vehicle. Rawley
a ~ s .J , e ..j t ~ a t. ~ ~ r: a 1 2 - ~ 0 tJ rex ~ 0 s tJ r: e ~ e r :. 0 ~, t. ~ e r 3 t. e 0 E
!~so:~t~on o~ ~~~e c=~~o~nd ~3 6. ;>e::ent. (~!~~e:, 19S5).
.. - . ... '1 - .. ... 0 (a - ... e... . ... ",' ... ... - .: ... . ' ... ... a. -.. e - . . .. ...... 's S. - ~ ) :: .. 'J' ... '/
...::t..4:f -,-...." . .....1. ..L."..... .,..J- -'-'''''''1."", '- .... .1~~'. --.. I ....fW_-.
: ~3a3) es~i~ated ~he ~f:ec~ ~: :~e soil ~a::ix -a~ to ~ed~:e :~e
3=so:~:i~r. ~3:e to 3~O~~ :3\ ~~ :~at :~~ "'u:a c~m~c~n~s. :~is
. ~ .
:a~::): Mas =asac ~;o~ :~e ~:se~ved recu::~=~ in :e'~al 3bs~r~~i~~
~~e~ ~i;~ ~;~ :oncentra:ions o~ ::00 in a 30il!~3teL ~as:~ 1I~=e
:o~~d:ed :0 :::J i:1 a ~e:ha~ol sol~t~~n. 7he attenuati~g e::ec:s
~: $~il ~.y :e ~uch ~or:e si;n~:icant for soils c~ntaining low ~~~
~e~els 0: ~~n-~olat.ile o:Jani: co~~ounds. :~ t.he other ~3n~,
:::: ~as ! ~~c~ hi;he~ af~i~it, Eo: $oi1 ele~en:s (~~~ ~ 3.3~100,
~~;:<.~: = 6.32) t:.han most ~ther or;anic c~e~icals (e.g., ::-.e
l~~Koc f~: l,2,4-t.r:ichlorobenzene is 3.96).
~~e 0.15 s011 attenuation factor em~loyed =y Hawley was used to
account. for ~he mat.~ix effects in der~al absor:~tion o~ t.he
c~ntami~ants from soil. The influence 0: :~e soil ~atr:ix is
li~ell to de~end gr:eat.ly on ~ro~er::ies of t~e s~eci:ic che~ic3l
and soi1 as well as concent.ration. However, in the absenl"'e of
s~ecific information a de~~al absor~t.ion over a 12-hour ~!ri=d
:or all ~on-volat.ile organic chemicals has been derived by ~~wley
as follows:
6 ~er:e~t (aosor:~tion ~u~e co~~ound) x 0.15(soil ~3t.r:ix ef:e:t.) .
0.9 percent
a-4
TN
S ~/i .
-------
lineae' e'elationshi~ ~et.ween du:,at.ion of ex~osure and ex:ent. oE
abso~~tion f?r compounds a~~li&d on t.he skin i~ ~u~e fo:~ (a
solvant vehlcle) was assu~ed i~ e~is ~odel. This may not. ~e
valid foe' absor,tion of chemicals fro~ a soil ~at:~x coat.ing t.~a
skin. It. is ~ossibla that absor~tion of c~e~.cals from soil or
5~in :ould ~e limited by the amount. o~ free chemical at tha
soil-~ois:'.Jra-skin int.e~faces. Rates of :e:'~al u~take may de~end
in la~ge ~art upon t.he desor~tion and diffusion ot the chemical
and i:3 3vail3~ility at. the der~al i~terfac.. Oesor~tion and
diffusion ~at.as are inversely relat.ad to the affinity of the
cnami~al for the or;anic ca~~on (and perhaps othee') ele~ents of
the soil mat.:,ix. Th~s, some compounds (such as t~e rcoo st~died
'.J "... " ~, ' -', -'" '" '. ; .... :.. 3 '/ e .... I. 1, - 100 ~ C 41 1, ..1' ...? II".. .. 0 1, 1 .. l- 1ft - ... ,. 3
;.,J. C'1..-.GJI .~,....... "W......,...,J-- a -.." ~~. .a__.t -" ~4- ~ -;;. ""1.
may nee readily dif:use to t.he soil-skin int.e~~ace as the
3. va i la:lla f :'ee chemica lis de e'ma ll:/ absorbed and exha',:sted.
~or ot.her non-volatile organic chamicals tha affinities foe' soil
ele~ents (:elat.ed to ~oc) ~ay be ~uch lass than t.hat. of TCeO.
-.. .~" -'n := t f.;. -- ..-- - --".10""""". a~.f'\'" .." II
..,.a 3t...n_a.....g d...ec s 0 ;'\J......... ....... ..C........_.._--- -... ,:'.lr.>n nl:
chemi:3ls, therefore, ~ay not. be aC:'.Jratell re~resented 01
H3~ley's o~sa:vations. Therefore, t.~. ~ot.en~ial a1sor~tion ontQ
skin is es~i~a~ed ~y ~eans oE ~i:k's taw of diffusion. -
Fi:k's 13w ~3y~e used to ~et.er~i~e the ~errneati~n ~a~e of
~e~lcals in an aqueous 3~1~t~~n, and is ;i~e~ ~y the equation:
Js~ . i<~~
,.. 0
-s
( 1 )
'..:1e"e . 0 ; ~ """:8 oe"-e3t; on "at.e I Clux) .;: :.~e S01....~ Q,<""I"e-s~";
10 . .J ~ .. ~ ... . . - .. - ... . .. \ .. .. - - - - :"..:1 -
"'- "'-'__~ '" ...-. to> ~;~ "~e .....a"-e",,,,;1j-j C-"'S""'''- (l;-.a~' -,2."
-.:t ,'~~/-.'~ "...,:'\~ .~ "'-.. ::J--.., a..,J...'. _.i ..a.,. ._--~ .., .,
'~..). ... ~ "Q""I..~~'e"'''s """e con-e"'.""'-1.'O'" ..I; =t:~"ence Ot: -....... ,.' -,a
". , '-5 .-:''''-~ .&. '... '"- .......... .. ~._--- - ....'IIiijjj : ",...-.
30:::-:;53 St:ec~:~e'= :i.ss'...e i.n ~7/1i:e:' (3:'':)'''':1, eo: ~l, L9d4). :i.;,'-
:d~ ~3 3.~~lie~ to dil~te aqueous 'selu:ions an~ is ass~~ej C~~:
a~s~r~:ion 0: :he solute .ill ~e di.r~:::j ~~o~~=:i~nal ~=
::on:ent=at~on.
7~e ~er~eabilitl const.~nt. i<~0 used is tne hi;hes~ val~e ce~orte~
in t.~e li~erature for the c~m~ounds et.hy:~en%ene, s:yrene,
to 1 u e n e, and x'i l. n e (8 row n, at 31., 19 a 4). -:'h \J s, t.h e val ~ e 'i sed
~s tnat. for ethylbenzene:
K~O . 0.001 li:e~3/::~2 )(. ~r
~ 2)
For 1,2,3-trich1ot',~p~opane (TCP) it. is aSS'.1:ne<. that the
concent.ration difference, Cso, ace'Oss s~ecifi.ed tiss' e is 73.7'
of t~e s~t~~ility of !:P in .ater (1,900 ~g/~), equiv~lent. t~ :~e
6-5
ne
t~t~
-------
~ercent solubili~y ~oncen~ra~ion of ethy:oenzene usee t~ c~r:~e
the ~erm.ability constan~ stated above:
Cso
. 0.137 x 1,900 mg/liter ~ 1,400 mg/liter
( 3 )
Su~stitution of these values for K~O, and
!:9sults in:
Cso into equation (1)
Js'o a (0.001 1.it.ers/c:n2 x hr) (1,400 :tig/liter) a
1.4 =:\g/c:t12 X hr
( 4)
Over a 12-hour ~eriod the skin absor~tion rate is:
Jso . 16.8
~9/c:n2
( 5)
:.~~ :-C?
t~e watar/or;anic car~on ~a:tition coefficient is:
~oc a 0.638 ~3/k~
( 6)
ror Tyson's site an ~oc coef~icient (organic carbon content) of -
0.001 is used :or conservativeness. !hus, the sor~tion
-:oef:i.ci.ent is:
~~ a
..
( :<':) c )
(:~c) a (0.688)' (J.001.
~ 6.88 X 10-4 ~J/k;
a
( 7)
:a::~lation ~t :~e soil attenuation :~::or i.s ~ased o~ :~9
:~~:e;t ~: !:e:~:~~9 ~el~c~~1 ~: acs~:~ed a~j ~~nacso:=ed sol~t9s
:~r~~;n ~ ;o:~~s ~a:e:i.al. 5~ch a re1at~~e ~eloci:l lS ~esc!:~=ed
~'! :.~e e,,=,'.Ja:~~n:
~ela:ive
velocity a l/Rd a :/(1 . .(~/~)~e)
''''-A''~ ~... : - .....~ ';'Ata""at~""'n fac~""'r 0; S .0,0 so~ 1 ....ul!. ""''''s~ ../ ~...
..--.. "'. .~ ....- -- ...... -'Wi. _"ottt/ I .. ..'- .....J" ._.~ .-l ...
~; / ~3, K d i. s : h e so r ~ t ion m co e f ~ i c i e n tin ~ 3 1'<:;, and ~ i s t ~ I!
soil ~orosity (expressed as a fraction). ~sin9 a soil ;orosi.:j
~: 0.3, the soil attenuation factor is:
5 ,~ i l. a t ten u a. t ion f act 0 r a 1/ (1 + (1 5 0 0 kg /:!\ 3/0 . 3 ) 0 . 0 00 6 a 8 =:\ 3.1 '<; )
a 0.2252
Thus, the dermal a~sorption over a 12-hour ~~riod taking int~
account thl! soil ~atrix is:
15.8 (a~sor~tion rate ~ure ~C? :om~oun~) x 0.2252 (soil
ma~rix effec~) . 3.78 ~ercent
B-6
he
8 ""',' "
-------
l
For' the .,ur'"oses of this exe:cise, this ~er'cu.taneous a!:)soC'ot~O:i
C'ate is conservatively assumea for' all oC';anic co~~o~~ds
consider'ed.
~ssu~i~; a skin e~"osur'e aC'ea of la70 c~2 for .0r'~eC's, the ~~o~nt
.of soil adher'lng to the skin is esti~aced to oe 954 ~g. Since
the deC'~al a!:)soC'~tion is assu~ed t~ oe 3.78t, the amount of soil
contaminant absor'oed in 12 hour's is esti~ated to oe e~uivalent to
the amo~nt of contaminant contained in 36 mg of contami~3~ed
soil, as follows:
~:ea of ex~osed ski~ .
S~~: ~~~e=~~, ~~ ex~~sd~ s~i~ ~
~bsoC'~tion r'ate ~ur'e compound.
Soil matr'ix effect .
1 a 7 0 c~ 2
O.~~ ::\g/c~2 x
16.8'/12 hour'
0.22
:a7C
...
~:':\- -
:1 ~ ~ "'-"
la70 c~2 x 0.51 ~g/c~2 x 0.0378
. 36 ~g soil/day
~o ;:'Q S~il/..:ciY .( :n; ..;~\t~:,Ii~e&ru:,/~ soil. :-ng of a\emicaJ. acsoC':::ec/aay
b. Incidental ingestion of contaminated 50il by highway
worker's (subchronic)
For' ,~:,oses 0: C'isk analysis, it .as assu::\ed t~at high-ay
cO~3:.C'~:tion .ot'~et's do not ~r'acti=e hygienic ha~i:s.
A~coC':i~;ly, so~e si:e soil adheC'i~; to t~~ s(i~ of the hands ~a,
:e ::a~sfe:C'e~ :0 fooe ot' cigat'ecces. ~3.1ey (:9a5) ,~,~C':e=
t~a: :~e ~~s~ce s~::3:e 0: the fi~;e:~ :~: :~~~~ C'e~t'ese~:s :~~
~: t~e s~=:3ce 3:ea ~f a hane. 7~e su::~:: ~:ea ~f :o:~ ~3~=3 ~:
~n a:~:: is ta~e~ to oe ~10 :~2 (~ocu~~.~:! :ei;y, 1373: 3~C'~~.,
~324). :~ ha~dlir.; food (e.g., a san:'Ji:h), .: 4!S ~ss'.;~e.: ~h3':
t~e =~u~o and :i~~er' ?ads t'e~r'esent the ~oi~:s ;~ :onta:: :e:~ee~
~~~::/~ ha~cs and food. !o oe conseC'va:ive, ~: is :~:t~eC'
ass~~ec ~~a~ hal! of the total skin on the i~sides o~ all ~inger's
~~j :~~~~ :o~~ac: ~~e food, ane t~~ t:3ns:e~ ~f co~tamin3ted S~::
:=~~ s~i~ to food is 100'. The amount of dir': on this s~in
s~=~ace is assu:':\ed, to be be equivalent to t~e :neasiJr'ed le'l.els 0:
soil on children's hands (~a~ow, 1974), ~~ich is 0.51 ~g/c::\2.
7hus, the incidental ingestion of contaminated 50il Erom eatin~ a
3and.ich or other food is der'i~ed as follows:
"
!.1gestion of soil with f~ . 0.14 x 310 cn2 x 0.5 )( 0.51 ~/c:':\2 . 32.5 ~
Ot~et' t'elated ~otential ~athways ~f soil intake include
incidental cr'ansfer' fr'o~ soiled at'~s, hands, fin;et's, ot'
~et's~i'ation to li.,s, nostr'ils, and eyes (:~~jun:tiva).
:ngestion Or' mucosal a~sor'~~ion via these ~at~ways is dif:~:ul:
to esci~ate,. but is not ex~ected to oe su~st.1ntial. .~ssu::tin~
that t~e li.,s ar'e com"letely coated 3 times juring t~e co~t'se of
a-7
n. -
8~~N
-------
a workdaj with a 10 ~~ ~il~ ~f soil, all of whi~~ is
is roughly .sti~ated ~~at ~~~ soil inta~e would ~e:
Soil.ingestion from inci:ental contact. 9 ~2 x 0.0010 ~ x 1500 ~/~~ x 3 .
40.5 ~ soil
i:1~es:ed, ~:
where:
9 c~2 . surface area li~s
0.00:0 c~ . ~hickness of soil film on li~s fr~m cust
:eposi:i=n anc transfer fr~m ar~s, hands, or
fingers
'SO~ -- 1~_1 = ~~~~;.., ~. ~~.'-.4i-~t ~o.:~
. .. . ~ / ....i .. -, "",j . - .. - ~ .... v.. - -
3 . assumed frequency of soiling
The total esti~ated ingestion of soil is cerived by summing the
transfer ~a~~.ays.
7=a~s~a:: :.:,
-:':-ansfe:- :0
= '-J\J~ - 3 ~ . 5 i\l~
1 i ~s " ~ucosa . -40.5 m(1
-:'otal soil i~;ested
.' a 1 mg/day'
c. Inhalation of' contanzinants adsorbed onato fugitive dusts
~y highway WorKers (subchronic)
A s~~c~:~~ic ax~os~:e ~~ 6 -ee~s ~ax~~~~ -33 assu~e1. :: -3S
3ss~~ed :~3~ 75, of :usts ~~~aled are re:ained (25\ ex~atej)
(:~-~e:j, i334); ~f :~e d~s:s re~3ined, lJO\ is a~sor~ed.
~~~endix J des~:i:es ~roced~res used to es:i~ate fu~i:i~e dus~
e~:ssi~~ :3:es a~d :esul~i:1~ concar.t:atio~s i~ inna:a~le air.
ASS~~i~; :~a: a :~nstr~c:i~n wo:~er inhales :Om3 of ~us~-lade~
air j~ri~g a~ 3-hour day, and 75' of the c~nta~ina:1ts adsor~ed
~n~~ i~~a:~~ E~~itive dUS:3 are r~tai:1ed, the a~o~nt ~: s~i:
conta~i~an~ a~sor~ed in a hours is es~i~ated ~o ~e equi~alen~ to
~~e a~ount ~f contaminant contained in 2 ~; 0: c~ntaminated soil.
The total daily intake fro~ all routes ~E ex~osure for ~oad
construction ~orkers is the a~ount of conta~i~ant con~ai~ed i~
:25 -n; Soil.
total
81 mg/soil/~ay
36 mg soi llday
2 mg soil/day
1 25 r!tg so i ~ / -= a y
ingestion
der~al a~sor~tion
c'.Jst inhalation
a-a
TIle
f~T)" ""I"
-------
soil concen~ration co::es~o~di~g to an ~cce~~aole s~~c~:~r.~c
l~ta~e (AIS) ~an be cal~ulated.~y a~91ying the AIS t~ the a~oun:
of t~e contam1nant absor~ed cally from 121 ~; ~f soil as ~oll~ws:
.~c::e;:>table soi 1
conce~tr3tion
!or: r:oad c:e.
(~~m)
. ~g contaminant x 106 mg x AIS (~g/k9/cay) x ~O kg J
~9 s011 ~~ 115 ~9 SOl! lntake/day
For: ~a:cino~~~s (i.e., c~emicals classified as Grou~ A 0: 3 under:
E?A's classification scheme), a level of risk cor:espondin7 t~
:.:-6 (~.:., ._~c ~n ! ~:tt;'n~ :'5 r:e';5t'ce(4 as a~ acce~)t~ahla
exposut'e. ~he EPA carcinogenic ~otency factors were utit~zed to
~uantifl risk. (See A~~encix C regarding the derivation of theso
factors and the use of t~e ter:ms .carcinogen. and .cancer risk".)
Since t~e ~o~enc~ ~3~:0:S a:e ~ased on an assu~ed 1ifeti~e
ex~os~:e (363 ca:s.~er: le3: for 70 years), expos~r:es occurrin~
ove: ~ ~~~:o~ ~~~s~ant~a::i :e:: :~:~ ~ ~:.~~~:.~~ a~A ~~~u~erl t~
~e ~ropo::ionatell less. 7his assum~tion ~hich has a~ple
~:s:~:i~a~ p:eceden~e is ~ased on the probability of a s~eci!ic
:: e s ~ 0 n s e (e. ~., 1 i 'J e:: n e .0 p 2. as m) ~ y t i :n e t, u n d e r con s tan t dose.
::ate c, a~d degends on tne ~alues of d and t only through their
~:~d~ct, ~:. 7his is :efe:~ed to as the ti~e/~ose ~ro~uct rule.
~~::~rdi~;l" t~e p:ed~:::ed can~er :isk f::~~ su~chronic ex~osu::e
a~ ~e :eLated :0 an eq~~~ale~: exposure ~ve:: a lifeti~e ~y
~o~ve~~~~; the ~a~~i~o~e~i: ~o~encl Eact=:s (:PFs) f::om c~:l!
=x~~s~::; ~~~~s t~ =::a: :~:=~~~e ex~os~~e ~~3< ~~i:s:
:C-6 ~:.s.~
-.. ~
... :- :
= -= '~;/:ay ~~rres::~~:~~;
-- ."'-6....' . I
--;.." ..~It
~~ / k g / d ~ I ~ 1 0-6 :::'.3.<. X 3 6 3~ a:, 3 " i:: x
10 yrs/~ifeti~e
~ ~g/~g/lifetime . the 10-6 l~:=t~~e
risk ex~osure (L~E)
~=: s~bchronic ex~osures to road const:uc:Lon ~o~ke::s (i.e., 30
:3YS :otal) ~he total ris< ass~ciated wi~h a =a11, expos~re level
~a~ ~e esti~ated by si~~:1 di~i~ing :~e 10-6 l~:eti~e-:~s~
ex~osure level ~y the number ~f ~ays of exposure.
10-6 t.aE:
30 cays/yr x 1 yr
'his, t~en, is substi:'.1ted for the A!S in :he equa~ion above t:)
~er:i~e a correspond~~g soil concentration.
:1 .
a-9
"" ..
.~. ,
18H~~
-------
d. InhAlation of vapors on site by highway workers (acute)
Subsurfac. soil vola~ile contaminants exposed to air as a :es~:
of grading activity may undergo volatilization and "releas. in~
a~Oien~ air. Rates of release a~d ambient concentrations a~
es~i~ated ~y tec~niques described in A~pendix o. 05~A'~
Pe~~issi~le ~x~osure ti~its (P!ts) or TLVs, where no P!t ~as bee~
established serve as de~er~ining criteria for acu~e ex~os~res t;
'.otork:nen.
3.
50il intake b
T~e scenario assu~ed accessi~ility to the site after vacuu~
ex~rac~i~n a:tivities ~a~e ~een com~lete~. (Ouring vacuum
~ :( -:. : ~ : : :. : ~, ~ ~ ~ 3 . ~ : ~ ~J:' ~: :: ~ .t :: 0"; ~ ~ = :. -= ~ 6 .i ~ G ~,~ -; ~ ~ ~.... r ~ ~ .. ,
assumed ~~a~ ~~ere is n~ cover re~laced af~er the soil is
distur:"ed.
F~r ~he ~ur~ose of esti~a~i~~ chronic oral, dermal, and
i 1'1 h a 1 a t i ~ n e x ~ 0 sur e s :"y c n i 1. d : e ~ t :) so i 1 son - sit.: the f 0 11 0 win <;
c~nse:va:ive assu~~tio~s, ~~:)~;h ~ot ne:essari:y ex~ected :~
oc=~r, 4e:e ~sed:
:~i:=re~ a;e: 6 ~~ 12 lea:s
~als ~er fear ~~r 6 lea:s;
°4 i : ~
,lay
a~ a~e:a;e ~: ~~
~r.:1 5~s ~: :~e ti~e 4i:l ~e s?ent i~ areas
sdll c~n:a~i~atio~ (ie, 26 :ays/yea:);
~: s~:':.a~e
ave:a~e ~layti~e is
4 hours ~er ~ay;
a'U~:3;3
d~s t 1e 'Je ls
are ass~~ed t~ :e 70 ~;/~3
a?pr~ximately 75\ ~f ~he inhaled ~a3S is retai~ed
average respiratory ra~e for children aged 6 ~~ l~
years 11.6 1iters/~inute (i.e. 0.7 ~3/nr);
incidental ingesti~n of SO ~g soil adhering to ~ands.
a~pr~ximatf1y 207 ~<; of soil ~ay adhere to ~~e skin
surface (~a~ed on soil coverin~ ~he s~in of knees,
legs, ~~rear~s, and hands); and
~ercu~aneous a~sor~tion rata of 3.74i.
8-10
ft-l
-------
a. Average Daily Dus~ Inhala~ion:
0.7 m3/hr x 4 hr/d x 0.75 ~ 70~~ x ~ . 0.147 ~g soil/
:u ~g event
b. De~al Absor~~ion:
207 ~g soil x 0.0374 . a~ount of con~aminan~ c~ntained i~
7.74 ~9 soil
c.
Oral-incidental ingestion
50 ~g/jal
Total Ex~osu~~ level. oral . de~al . inhalation
. so . 7.74 ~g . 0.15 ~; . sa ~9 soil_~er ex~osu::~
5i~ce eX~O$u:es a~e es~i~a~ed to occur 26 d/lr,
cail, :ose ~s e~ui~alent to 4.l2 ~;/day.
the ave:ag8
7he ~axi~~~ a~:e~table level ~~r Group A and 9 carcinogens is:
lxlO-6
:?F
x 26 ~~ . ~;/ja, .~ 10-6
.
~radic:ed
:an:er ~is/(
:~e ~a x :.::\:~:-:-t
a=:;~':3::>le
~aV9~ :~r
non-car:i~;;ens :3:
. - .
~::) x 25 ~~ . ~;/=a/.
:' :: :: ; I: e :: ~ ;. ". -: : :; e ~ g .: 0 n t a in i :'1 an': ;J e:: ., ; ~ : 3 0 i 1 (: ~ ; a : ': .~ a :.
e:<:)cs:~::e :e'I;: :~e ~axi~um ac:e~ta~le teve~ :s =i'li.:e~ ~'I :::e
': ~ "I: a 1 s ~ :. 1. e x ;J 0 S ~ :: e level. T his e x ~ 0 S U ~ e : eve 1. ~ S : 0 n v e :: t:e ,= ~ 0
~;J~. As neejed -hen ~sin~ car:inogenic )ocenci :acto:s, a
:~~~~::s~=n :::=~ 70 year co 6 year eX;Jcs~::e is ~aje. 7~e
ac:e~t3::>l.e soil levels by children aged 6 to 12 are t~en :o~~a::ed
:0 ac:~al soil levels.
For t~e calculation of subchronic ex~osure levels in :~::=ren,
':~e factor of 26d/36Sd is re~oved anj t~e leve~3 a::e
:eca ~C'.J 1a ted.
acce;ltable
soil :O:'1c.
. .~Q
i(~
chemical (~pm) .
soi 1
accep~able intai(e
.chronic x 26 kg
(~day) ,
4 . 1 :":\g 3 0 i 1 / day
x 100
3-11
.
TIle
~~
-------
~nde~ suoeh~onie s~a~:~'~s:
aeeep~able
soil cone.
. :nr;;
i<;
.
ehe~ical (~9m) .
5011
a-12
accep~aole ~n~ake
. subch~onic ~ 26 i<;
(~r;;/kc/day)
sa :nQ soil/day
.~ 106
n..
~ ,jf.',~.1
-------
APPENDIX C
Cetermination of Acceptable Intake ~.vels
!~e level 0: inta~e for a c~emical t~at can be re;arded as
ac:epta~le ~ill de~end ~~on t~e f=eque~cy and curstion of t~~
inta~e. For exa~~le, an acce~table daily intake of a suostance
.hich acc~~ulates i~ the body will be ~uc~ lower when the dose is
:~-.:;'~.;:'.:~ -:...=~ ~.!:-:~' l.~1rs :~a~ ~~r' ~ t.~le'3::e ::-..;,-~:.=.a ~.'.r";~-':-
cose.
~ach o~ t~e ex~osure sce~arios outlined considered. different
d~r3ti~ns and :=eque~cies ~~ intake episodes. Oe~endin9 upon the
:~~;:~ 0: ex~osure, as =efi~ed ~y each scenario, c=iteria ~er9
: ; .; e :. ,; ~ e : :,; ~ ,: :-. r ::. :". ~ .; I 3 ... .. ~ :. r .:. ,'I ~ ... I Iii II ~ Q C ~ ~ '=' i II i. Q i\ I:t l. eve 1 s '... 'f
~a=io~s =outes. ::r =~e~icals treated as carcinogens based upon
their C13ssi:ication in Grou~ A and B, accordin~ to EPA's
=lassi:ication sch9~e, r~sk is nor~alll ~ased on a life~lje.
ex~o~ure, and risk ~otancy factors are determined for daily
ex~os~=e l.eve:s ov~r 3 ~eriod of 70 years. !n certa~n scenarios
~he a~tici~a:e~ ~~rioc ~f ex~osure is co~si~era~lJ less than a
li:eti~e. :~ ::-.ese =i:=~~sta~ces, the :~:~t~me ~otancy :act~r3
.e=e ~tilizec a~d risk was ass~mej CO ~~ ~ro~ortio~alto :~e
::1=:io~ ~: :~e :i:e:i~e over ~~ic~ e~~osu:e is ax~ec:ej ::
~c:~r. :: s~oul= :e ~oted that ~?A's =3r:~~o;eni: classific1~~on
,~ ~~"'~"~~"I "''''seA ..... """.';'''''''0''''.;''''' el'..."",. 1.....,..,-...:a..- Io.;-~ jos.:a
..:1 ~_.._.-.... .... .... ...,. "'''--~:I ."".'.7 ...-- """"'7 .-..... i.l.~.. -
~~~~al s:~~~~s c: ~~~:emiolo;l :i~di~9S c~ ~~e ~~~ao ~o~ul~tion.
7~~ E?A's r~s~ ~~3n:i~i:3cion ~o~el ~se ~~c excr3~01a~ion is
=o~serv!:i~el.! jesi;ned to ~e ~cote:ci~~ o~ ~U~3~ nealth.
7~~r~~cre, :~is te;occed risk ;ener31~1 ce~=esen~s a ~u~~ec :~a:
~s ~o: li~~ll co ~e hi;~er ~ut is Li~ell to :e :o~er.
~~r ~a~i =~ :~e listed chemicals ~C~s, ~axi~~~ cootami~ant level
;oa1s (~C:'~3), acce~table incai(e chconic (AI:s), ac:e~ca~~~
i~tai(e suochronic (AISs), risk.raference doses (RfCs), and ot~e~
~?A-generat.d criteria, ~uidalines or ad~isorie5, have been
~u~lished. For others, however, ~hich have no such standards, i:
~dS necessary to develo~ ac:e~t30le intai(e levels. Where ~O:9
:~3n ooe guideline was availa~la, a selection of t~e ~os:
3~rropriate standard is ~ased on considerations consistent .it~
:u:orent E:?A poli.cy (Section 121 CERCt..A; F~ 52, No. l16, Au;ust
2 7, 1 9 a 7, ~. 3 2 4 , 6 ). -:' he s e 1 e ct:. i on ~ r d eve 1 0 ~ men t 0 f a ~
ac:epta~le inta~e level :or a given che~ical will depend upon t~e
in:or~ati.on a~aila~le fo= th3t c~emicsl. ~he hierarchy 0: t~e
decision logic is given belo~.
C-l
,
.~-. "
~~~~
-------
..
- .
3 .
4 .
1.
'" her e. a v a i ~ a ~ lea :1:1 .'" her e ~ ? ~ r 0 p r ~ a : e (e. ;., l i : a c :. ~ e
exposure to cont.aminat.ed dri~~ing wat.er), ~ro~ul-aced
standards should ~e a~~lied. T~e ~ost. a~pro~:iat.e
standards are !-tCL.! (E'R 52, ~o. 166, Au;ust 27, i987, ~.
3 2 4 9 1). :i 0 w eve r, '.., her e car c i no 9 e n ice 0 rt\ P 0 un d's are
involved, E~A has stipulated that MCts are
i:1ap~ropriate as cleanup lev81s unless ~Cts are
available for all carcinogens considered. tn this
circumstance, acceptaole levels are selected such t~at.
th. ~redict.ed cancer risk falls within the acce~t.ao1e
ris~ range of 10-4 to lO-1. For the indivl~~a:
carcinogens, a 10il concentration correspondin~ to 3
. ., - 6 -. S '.I 1,'. I ~ t..:o .. - ; C' .:0 ... . 0 .. e t.... ..' - a'. :"\ S. -
.. .." ~..... w..,.. .w"--.. .., ., 'W.. "Wr ,-4,,~a:.......
ePA's carcino;en potency factors, as published in t~e
Superfund Pu~lic Health Evaluation Manual (SPHEM,
1986), are ut.ilized to quantitatively estimate cancer
:,is~s.
-: ...J 1: :1 \J n - c C& , ...: i :1 .J 'oJ Ef (. .i. c ~ hem 1. c a ~ :s, a c c e pea::) .L 9 c: a 1. 1 'I
i~takes for :hronic ex~osure are selected on the oasis
of est.aolished che~ical-speci~ic advisory levels tna;
are ~rotec:ive of ~~:':\an health and th. 'environment. .
:;hile t~ey are not ARARs, ''''herever available, ~'1Ct.Gs are
used for this ~ur~ose. !he ePA's risk-referen~e doses
(~f~s), a:1:1 t:,e ArC (c~ronic) arid AIS (suo chronic)
advisories ;uo~i3ned in t.~e SPHE~ ar9 also ;uides fQ:
t~is ~ur?ose.
-:~r :he~:.ca~s, ~n:.c~ ~ave no: :~en ~~J:~ated =1 E?A :.~
:~~~s of ~~~~./in; an REO, ~::, ~:3, et~., ~: ~3
~ecess3:Y :0 ~evelo? an A~I (!:ce?:1;:9 ~3i:l. ~~:a~e,
-h~:~ is eq~i~al~nt. :~ e?A's ~!O) :::- =3ta ;e~e:3:e=
~: :~e ~ost :elL~ole lo~~-:e~~ ::{~:ity s:~=~es i~
~ni~a:'s. 1'~e hi;hes!:, conEi.:~nt ~~:- ....3er'Jed-adverse-
e::e:t 1e'."el (~:CA::t.) o:Jtain-!~ i~ ~;;~ - ~:'s is dil/ided :11
5a:9:1 fact:Jts t~a~ inco~~ora:~ ~n:e::ai~:~e~
associat.ed wi::' ani:Ttal-t:J-hu~an ~~,):: equi'/alencies,
~a~ia~ility of ~u:Ttan'res~onse, a~~ an a~=iti:J~3l
uncertainty facto~ for les~ than a ~iEeti:Tte dosing
regimen or other considerations. (3~bc~ronic NOAets o~
LOELs ~ay ~e ~tili%ed 9rovide: t~~ st~dies .e:e
reliao18 and an adj:.tional safe~J :~~tor ~: lj i3
applied). These ]uide1ines have ~e~~' ad09ted ~y t~a
National Academy of Sciences and endorsed oy ::PA.
S~~e chemicals lacK sufficient t.oxicologicl~
inf~r~ation to ascertain a NOAEt. to d~rive a suitable
~~I. rn t~ese :~:cumstances, a sear:h will oe
~onducted to c6m~i19 available LOSO j3:a. Ceneralll,
the lowest. otal ~~50 value Eor any s?ecies ~as used.
1'his ~al~e was dil/ided oy appro~~iate safety factors,
C-2
nw
, r-' ~-,' o'
. -.\ ."., '
-------
6.
de~endi~; on antici~ated duratio~ o~ ex~osur~, :~
develo~ pr~visional aCC&9table intakes:
a)
b)
L~SO 100,000 . accep:able chronic i~take
~~SO ~O,OOO . ac:eptable subchronic i~take
.....
~~plication of these safety factors is a commonly ~sed,
conservative ap~roach that can ~e a~~lied generica~l~
when su~stance-s~eci:ic data are lackin~.
5.
In rare i~stances, only (T~~) data ~ay be availa~le.
!~ :~ese cases, acce~table inta~e levels can ~e de~ive:
'- .'" .. r ~ ..... : . ~ , .... r ." ~ .. : ~..... . e .., ., 0 S .. ~ .2 ~. .':,,' *: -" .
-,£ ....... -'---..., -- -_.._..._wU~ '., u... a..- "-.._-_..~ -"
100 to account for hi;hly sensitive se;ments o~ the
non-working population (e.g., the infirm, the neonate,
etc.). Use of 100 as a safety factor is conservative.
:o~ those c~e~icals t~at lack toxicity infor~ation a~
~ ~ ~, ~::. .:1 .is i ~ ~ i I <# ... <# :. :. ca I. 1 ;. \oJ ca ., ., : 't Iw ;"J I' .,,; Q ~ ~:. \oJ:
s:r~ct~re-activi:y-:elationshi~s and derive acce~table-
i~ta~e levels ~y inferenc. and analo;y to closely
related com.,ouncs. ?rofessional jud~ment is tem~.red-
~i:~ conservatis~ i~ ':hese sit~ations. .
C-3
.
n.e
8 =t'. ~
-------
,
.
,
APPENDIX D
Eat1mation of Pugitive Dust Emi.aion Rate.
and Potential Volatilization of
Subsurface Soil Contaminants
During Roadway Construction
Fuqitive OUst emission Rates
four ~y~.s of ac~ivl~ies 1n cons~rUC~lon of a ~ossi~le :oadwa:
have ~~e ~o~en~ial ~o ~enera~e fugitive dust:
1 )
2)
3 )
0;)
Rough 9rading of ~he roadway
~lacement of cr~shed s~one
SlacKt~~~i~~ o~ sur~ace
General ~:af~ic over unpaved
surface.
~s~i~a~ion of fU9i~ive dust e~i.sion due to each activity.is
examined separately as ~~llow.:
1) :tough ;radi~9. of ~he roadway. ~ough gradin~ is expected to
~e ~erfo:~ed ~y a ~ulldozer. ~n es~~~ate of ~ar~ic~late
e~issions <15 U~ in dia~e~er due to ~ul:~ozin~ ac~ivity can :a
Eou~d ~n ~PA, 1,aS (~a~l. 8.Z4-2): .
:: . (1.: (s 1 . 5 ) / ( :i 1 . 4 )
'~ne:e :
s . ~e::ent sil: conten:
~ . ~er:ent soil mois~~~~
e: . e~ission fac~or in ~: '~r
A soil ~oist~re content of :l.8 percent .as selec~ed ~ased u~c~
~revious sampling results (Woodward Clyde Consultants, avera;e of
32 core sasple. taken during the site assess~ent, 1985), and a
sil~ content value of 241 ~3 assumed fr:~~ ErA, 1985 l~ t:--e
!osence of site specific da:3 (1'ab1e 11.2.1-1; fi9u:e is for a
haul road, freshly graded). S~bstitution of ~hese values yieles
an esti~ate of an e~ission rate for dust of 3.7 lbs/hr. t~
should be noted that all equations ~res.nted quantifl the
~eneration of dust. of 18ss than or equal t~ 15 u~ in dia~eter
only: generation of ~articles larger than this is not included.
aulldozing activity was assumed to take ~lace a hrs/day !or a
days.
0-1
,
"-
~
-------
2) ~~ace~e~t of cr~shed s~one. ~lac~~en~.o~ ~rushed S:o~e
~akes place 1n progressively sho::er ~:-:.lc.( t:ij)s', i.e., ~:'\e !j :os:
~ruck ~ravels. the entire lenQth of ~~e roadway, d~mps s~one, :~en
returns to its startinQ ~oint; ~he second truck t:oavels a shor:.:
dis~ance, dumps stone, and returns; etc. ~eneration of ~u~~tive
dust of concern was assumed to ~ake ~lace only w~il. ~r~C:KS
loaded wi~n s~one ~ravel over stone-uncovered surface. EPA 1985
c:on~ains an empirical .JCpression tha~ can be used for t~.e
esti~ation o~ ~~;i~ive dus~ ;eneration from travel over ~npaved
sur~ac:es:
E . I( ( 5 . 9) ( s / 1 2) ( S / 3 0) ( (~/ 3 ) 0 . 7) ( (.., / 4 ) 0 . 5 ) ( ( 3 6 5 -p ) / 3 6 5 )
wrtere:
s - percent silt content
k - ~article size multiplier
S - ~ean vehicle speed, ~ph
~ - ~ean ~ehic:le wei;~t, ~on
w - mean nU~Qer of ~heels per vehicle
~ - ~ean num~er of days with) -0.01
~rec:ipi:ation per year
t - emission rate in lb/vehicle mile
inches of
traveled (VMT)
~.rc:.n~ silt con~ent was assumed to ~e 24' ~ased on ~a~a
disc~ssed above. ~~e particle size ~ul~i~lier used is 0.50,
c:or:es~ondi:'\~ ~o partic:les less t~an lS ~icrons. ~ean ve:'\i~:9
speed was ass~~ed to =e 15 ~;h. ~ean veh~c:le ~ei;ht is ass~~e~
:0 ~e 32 :ons, an avera;e of :~. f~ll ~.i;:'\t (43.5 tons) ~:~~r :~
d~~pin; and the unloaded ~eiQ:'\t (20.5 tons) on the ret~::'\. 7~e
ve~i=les .~sed in this activity have 14 wheels ~er veh~~le. ~ean
:'\u~oer o~ days with less than 0.01 incnes of preci~i~a:~:n ~e:
fear is 111. Substit.~tion of :hese ""al'~es i'ie1ds an es:i~a:9 -:f
:~Qi:ive dust Qeneration of particles <-15 mi::ons of ~9.6
:~s/V~7.A total of 800 tons o~ stone is estima~ed t~ ~e
:equired ~y ~~. l400-foot roadway, or an esti~ated 40 tr~:<:oa~3.
~n ave:a;e truck trip of 1400 feet was assumed (an avers;e of al:
~ri~s, ~itn the first truck traveling 2800 feet, the 1as:
~raveling 0 feet). Place"ent of stone is aJC;ected to occur over
4 days, 8 hrs/day. This results in. an est~:nated 1.25 tri8'. ~e:
~our. Based on these assu~ptio~s, t~e esti~ated .missio~ ~a:e ~:
just during placement of stone is 6.5 l~s ~.r hour: this ac:~~i:i'
will occur 8 hrs per day for 4 days.
3) Blacktopping. ~:sffic over un~aved
blackto"pin; will occur mini:nally, especially
s~ac. availaole on the sides of the road~ay and
here. .
surface durir'\~
due to li:ni~ed
is not esti:nated
0-2
"'-
~~
.'. __I
-------
~
.\) C.ne~a1; "traffic. i\ddi~i~n\l miscellaheous !::aff:.c ~""e:,
un~aved sur~ace is ex~ected !:~ ~e ~i~i~al, ;iven ~h, s~or: ~:~e
~:3me for constr~ction of :~e roadway and t~e suosequent level o~
activity during construc~ion. Fugitive dus~ emission is ex~.c:ec
~o be negligible com~ared to other activities. .
For ~h. suochronic ex~osure scenario, calc~lated fugi~ive dus~
emissi~n '3~es .e,e conver~ed to concentrations usi~g a 8=OX.
~odel. Use of this ~odel assumes t~at the base of the box :3
deta:~ined oy the amount of sit. area disturbed via s~~ne
~lacement activity (1400 x 44 ft), the box height is deter~i~ed
~y ~~e oase leng~h and a roug~ness hei;ht for a non-vegeta~ec
surface (lcm), wind s~eed is 1 ~/s, and ~articles of the s~ze
~lAs~ ,15 u~ A'~ ~'Ans~or~eu ~ne same as vOlatlle orqanlcs. 7~e
~.rcentage of ~o~ential area ava11a01e for roadway constr~ction
t~at could be occu~ied by contaminated mAterial in the fiJt~re was
es~ima~ed by calculating t~e ~ercentage of available area ~ow
occu~ied oy contamina:ed soil: contaminated soil ~resentl1
occu~ies a~~roxi~ately 32\ of the remaining sur~ac. area in the
f~'~er la~oon area.
Volatilization of Subsurface 5011 Contaminants
~he fo110wi~; ~~~cedu'es were ~sed to esti~ate"emission.rates
E:o~ dist~r~ed s~ils at Tyson's Site. It wa$ assumed that 13,125
~:3 of soil would ~e distu:oed, obtained :r~~ a ~axi~um de~~h 0:
5.0 fee:, and would be s~:ead oyer an area ~f 17S'x44' (es~:~a:es
of si~e-s~ac:~ic activities involved in ~oadway constr~ction .e:,
~eveloped =ased on existing desi~n ~lans !or"a service. :oa~.af
:~:ou;h :~e ~~;oon area).
7~e e~:ss~:~ :a:., 0, !:~~ :~e lan~ sur~a:e can ~e ap~rox:~a:e~
:'f :;;e equa:~~:'1 (:~deral aegister, '/01. 50, ~o. 229, ~9. .\a364):
,~ . CiW
t:T
( 1)
. where:
Q . emission rate (mg/sec)
Ci . constituent concentra~ion in ~~e 30il (~g/k;)
W . wei;ht of soil (~;) .
~d . ti~. period within ~hich volatilization occurs
(sec)
For !:he case beinQ considered, by ~sinQ a bulk density ot soil
eq~a1 ~o 1,500 ~9/~3, t~. ~ei9ht of the soil material is:
~ . (l3,125 ft3)(1,SOO kQ/~3)(O.3048 ~/ft)3 . 557,487 k;
0';' 3
.
"'" ."
~.
-------
!~e time it taKes for ~he contaminant to oe v,latilized fr~m ~-6
soil ~an be estimated from the equation (U.S. ~rA .Su~e~!~~d
Ex~osure Assessment ~anual., January 14, 1986, p;. 3-30):
td . h 2 - d 2
20
( 2)
~here:
h a de~t~ from soil sur~ace to the bottom of the
contaminated ~egion (cm)
d . d8~th of dry zon8 at s~mplin; time (cm)
o (cm2/s8c) is related to the amount o~ contaminant" i ~~at
diffus8s fro~ the soil to the Air. 0 c.n be estimated as follows
(U.S. EPA, .Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual., JAnuary 14,
1986, p;. 3-29):
o . 0iPt../jffi
( 3 )
wl'1ere:
01 . ai~~~sion coefficient o~ compon.nt i, (c~2/se~)
Hi". Henry's ~aw constant (dimensionless for~)
r: . total soil ~orositl (dimensionless)
~o ~~tain ~ ~orst case esti~ate of emission rates, t~. tot~~
~or~s~ty is used fo~ Pt. !n this st~dy the total ~or~si:y i3
~.561.
7~e de~th ~=~~ soil surface to the ootto~ o~
t"e; ion ,.,a5:
~~e co~ta~i~a~ed
~ .
13,125 ft3
~
a 1.7045 ft . S2 c~
7he de~th of the dry lone was assu~ed to be zero.
:~r the &~ute ax~osure scenario, calculated volatilized
contaminant emisaion rates ~ere ~onvertad to concentr~tions usin;
a .oox. ~odel. Use o~ this model assumes that the '.asa of t~e
oox is determined by the amount of site area that ca~ disturoed
via oulldozingactivity in one day (175 x 44 ft), th. box height
is deter::ined- oy the oase length and a roughness hei~ht for a
non-vegetated surface (1 ~m), wind speed is ,1 mis, ana t~e area
of~axi~um concentration of contaminants in !oil is disturoea.
0-4
.~;,
~c~
-------
."., .o:JIfAPItt
~. M. J.. J. A. t& .......... InS H. :. :.'''- -'-, 1112.
Vi-: r. - 18:a JA Ita. ~~. P19 .. "."
58. 11.-1D.
"!11m r~ "t 11.1 ~/ ~
1. ~.:~. ~t=l.
a..t --"". S. G.. 112.. itA MI~ of "~j,n; . ~ eft.-.1'JW 01 t.-1cr.8
(~In» .. ~,.) -- I em ~:-- Az'8 P1:- I.~." AftB. ~. I.
138-1'-.
~ . It.
~ ~
(VQ:a) ~
~ 4. C., ~., . 1. cr. I.. ~1- t. P. J., ..a~. O. A., 1184.
"_1i£ -'~ ~ 01 b;-=::IW"'e i.w ;..,i~'~"'w ;t.'-iaw f:tra i-~ N
.Qz 4_uea S1 t88. It !l'A ~ t. . 01 1118. Otf1c8 ot B8&1~ ai
~Q1 A ~. t~ ~i~~. O.C.
~Q G81QY, 1113.
Sc~~U1c: r8t-. C:i~ G8~ t.td.. 11818..528.
It. J.. 8Xi II. I. ~4~. 1t1a. "~of SC88 ~c
- ~ ~ -:.-.a ~ ~.~.. 1. :.~~. ~~1.:. U. 3M ll:'.
!8rJ.'f. :. IC.. 1". "~ --.t ct S88J.th !U.* ~ ~ ~ ...~ = Cc::nQaLr.a~8C!
9011." ~4.. Az-..lw18 I. 2_302.
:.p:.. !It. t... t.."'11 b . It. A. ,,*jm. S. ...~a, M. U~.. 8'J:i :.
,"~4"'. In.. ~ of A1I;ta-- t.8S = t:- A!I::dr a:=m Qt :.as:! ~
H8rU=:"4 ~.1*-.. !ft9UaI. ,. 1~ Pb.. (t. 1. 5-102.
'...,-. M. r,., t..... . It. A. ~"'4_. s. ~1rDJ1a, M. Cl1118ft8. InS J.
.,.4", 1m. .1a_t1;8~1cIn8 m= ~ cI t..s m t.."a I:wi:....-.t Qf
t:4~""" "- ~.. ~ 10. .15-42.. .
Mllt1-t ~. . 01 leV- ... 1,... ar""""- '-"" .~. Vol. 8. ~
SaI. CZ'~ *t8I' ("_4n., *ucr.al ~~..' ; Pf'w..J. t~ ~iY~, D.C.
PQ~. II., 8d C. c..-h.t't~. 19'71. ":::::'- 01 saJ.Waa ;at ~';..4= =:
. ~-l~~~..1 At...... Ijlt.1.=OI.w.w.. l!iiia ~-~""t. ~ l~..Tr-
"1.
-------
am.:CGMP!Y
- pIII;II %
Pr1~. I. M. lid t. ,. ~ ~ 1. 1981. "AA ~ al """.t.1.c:D ~ ~ ....~
~ eo ...... ~ 1:1 .-.J.1e Wit.. !U;p.l~- iA t:. AI'8 at ~=a. ~-~.,
~ 41. 511 8C8.
~18. H. A.. J. P.~. 8'd It. It. ~-- -1.' 1'80. ~.. --IN to t8:d ~
1:." QnJ. InS ~ ,.., - f ~ of C2S.i' f - r.J.~ JA 1::t8 v~~ at a
Pr~ t..s Sl88J.~... It !rN4..%"Cft. P8. 22. .1.....
a.s. ~1....- l~ ~"",t~j,cft , r&y. 1M:1. 81&1..& ~t ~1: ~:r
ftftrle8 D1'" 'er1d8. Oft1c:8 of 18&1~ ... ~~ & .~.
t~tJ.l..~. D.C.
a.s. !::Y1...- .Q1 ~~1c:n I.tt--'f. 1.-. ~t".N '*111:
!V8.J.ua1:~ ~. cmt. Of: 1=8 of $0 1 ~ ilL. CII. &IS a-...--7 r or
!!8l t:l
-.
&
.
~Q1 F.""tK't1c:B 11,,--'1.
,~ ~- \. cmt. Otf1c:8 of
1"'. ~: ~ X. ~ _::"S
SOHlI fLQ. &IS Ia-.--'f fit rO. ~,
a.s.
~. D.C.
.
-------
. I
Addendum :0 Tyson's Responsiveness Summary
~rch, L 988
In January, 1985 EPA announced excavation as ~he selected clean-
up alternative for the Tyson's site. The Superfund statute expired
in September, 1985 and was reauthorized in October, 1986. In
~ovember, 1986 C1ba-Geigy Corpora:ion of Ardsley, New York, a
responsible party at the si:e, requested that EPA review a new
, :echnology known as vacuum soil extraction as the site cleanup
alternative. Following several meetings with EPA, DER and the
Upper Merion Township local officials, Ciba- Geigy conducted a
pilo~ program at ~he Tyson's site in Spring, 1987. They also
invited ~he local media and :he local officials to tour the site
and observe the project. EPA met repeatedly with the township
officials, explaining each new development as it occurred. In
September 1987 after close review of the technology EPA d~cided ~o
recommend a ROD change, :0 include vacuum extraction.
A decision on the recommendation was ~ade after the Upper
~erion Township Supervisors voted 3-2 in favor of the new proposed
method. gecause of :he ROD change, ~everaL requirements had :0 be
~e: before the Aiency could officially order Ciba-Geigy to begin
the work. On January 8, 1988, EPA announced that a public meeting
~ould be held on'January 26 :0 diiCUSS the new propos~d alternative,
~~d :ha: a 30 day comment period was i~ effect un:il February 10.
A quarter page add was published in the ~orris:olo~ ,1'i:ues Herald
listing all the cleanup alternatives, along with ~?A's recommenda-
:ion ror vacuum soil extraction. Due to freezin~ road conditions,
:~~ ?ubli..: :uee:inlJ had :~ be rescheduled Eor Wed:~~:;d3Y, February
3. r., addi:ion, :hl! public comment period '."as o!."(:o!~ded :0 February
i~. S?A ::te: i!'\ :hl! a::o!rnoon of February 3, 1~~i:S wi'.;' represl!~:~-
:~':es ~rom Ci~a-Gc!igy, T~rra-V~c, ~nd ER."!. A premee:i!'\17; loIi:h ::;PA,
JEK and :ownship offici~ls was also h~ld jus: prior ~o :he public
~eo!:in~. A court reporter was present at :he public ~ee:ing to
document all comments received as par: of the of~icial record for
: he s i:e. A: ransc ript of the meet i ng is aval lab le ,\:' the s i:e
reposi:,)ry, a: the Wolfsohn ~emorial Library, Town Cc:,:er Road,
Kin~ of Prussia, Pa.
The pub11c meeting was opened by Nanci Sinclair, with a
description of the ROD change and the requiremen~s under the new
Superfund Bill, as ammended by Superfund Ammendmen: and Reauthori-
za:ion Act (SARA) of 198~. Tim Travers did a site technical presen-
:a:ion, and J1m Malo: of Terra-Vac did a slide pre~en~a:lon about
:he vacuum soil' extraction process. Included tn the presenta~ion,
were slides of the on-site pilot program. Af:er the presentations
were complete, ~he meeting was opened to questions and answers.
::PA toxicologist Dr. Richard Brunker attended the l1Ieeting 'to answer
health ques:ions. The following is a summary of that portion of
the meeting: ,
~os: residents were interested in what areas of the soil would
be cleaned up if vacuum extraction is used. EPA based its' an$wer
on the evaluation of the results of the pilot test, subm1tte4 by
Ciba-Ceigy in June, 1987. The residents were told that the soil
zone and the bedrock zone would be cleaned up, and that a 20 to 40
foot radius around the well would be cleaned byustng vacuua extrac-
tion to remove the conta81natioa froa the 1011.
.
-------
---I
2.
Tyson's Responsiveness Summary Addendum.
~rch, 1988
A resident stated that he believed vacuum extraction is a much less
effective al:ernative:han excavation. and that the discussions
have lasted too long, with nothing actually being cleaned '.10 for
the pas: four years. EPA explained that this new al:erna:~ve was
not available when the Feasibili:y Study was conducted. and there
are requirements for public participation that must be met before
a new Record of Decision is signed. In addition. EPA explained
that through further i~estigation i: was discovered that most of
the contamination from the lagoon areas had migrated into the
bedrock and excavation would not remove all the residence contami-
,nants frotl the area underlying the site. Several residents asked'
if excavation followed by vacuum extraction would be a better way
of remedia:ing the site. EPA answered that vacuum extraction
would be a s3fer method not only for the surrounding community,
but also for the workers on site. We also explained that under
the new Superfund Law, EPA is looking 1n:o on-site technolo~ies
rather than taking environmental contamination frotl one site to
another. Dr. Brunker explained the scenarios that were taken
i,nto account before EPA recolDmended 'the new alternat ive. He
ex~lained that EPA performed a quan:1:3:ive risk a9~eSStDen: wich
looks into how :t1uch soil children would ,e exposed :0 while playing
outside, and how much exposure :here would be :0 ":: .)n-si:e workers.
He also told the resid~n~s that the site would be:~eanee to levels
that are no: haM1ful. Another residen: a~i<.ed :ha: '".is s:atl!ftlen:
become oar: of :h~ official resord. He stated :ha: ~ :0:a1 clean
up solution is ~is ~referance.
O~e resident asked w~a~ happe~s :J the site df:~r i: is cleaned
u,. ~?A re?lied :ha~ the Superfund Law does no: add~~;~ site
~wnership, and that ownership of :he proper:y would :emain wi:h
General Devices. A resident stated :ha~ the townshi? wants :0
build a highway which would run through par: of :h~ site, and she
wanted :0 know if there would be a threat ~o workers who would
have ~o ~xcava:e the area in the future. EPA infoMed the resident
that worker exposure was a150 calculated during the qU3n:i:a:ive
risk assessment. We calculated that the levels we would clean to
would protect the aquifer and that those levels were extremely
c~nserva:ive. Dr. Brunker explained that if we cl~~'ed down ~o
levels to ~atisfy the aquifer protection criteria in :~e soil, i:
would satisfy the protection of children who play i~ the area and
the protection of workers who work there 8 hours a day.
A transcript of the public meeting is available at the site
repository which is the Wolfsohn M.-ortal Library on Town Center Road.
Several residents asked where all of the documents and models can be
reviewed. During the comment period which lasted from January 8 to
February 19, only two wri:ten co...nts were received. One resident
fully supported the vacuum 'extraction process. The other letter WRS
a general comment, requesting that EPA expedite the Tyson's cleanup
project.
.
------- |