United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-90/078
August 1990
EPA Superf und
Record of Decision:
Bypass 601 Ground water
Contamination, NC
-------
50872-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-90/078
4. Tin* ind Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination, NC
First Remedial Action
7. Author(i)
». Performing Organization Name and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Nama and Addreu
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipients Acceaalon No.
5. Report Date
08/31/90
6.-
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Pro|ect/Taak/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
1C. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site, is in Concord, Cabarrus County, North
Carolina. One of the potential sources of onsite contamination is the -13-acre Martin
Scrap Recycling Facility (MSR) facility, an inactive battery salvage and recycling
operation. Ground water at the site has also been found to be contaminated with heavy
metals by several unknown sources. The MRS Facility consists of two tracts of land;
the larger tract includes a main facility that was used for lead reclamation
activities; and the second lot encompasses the floodplain area. The immediate area
surrounding the MSR Facility is commercial, light industrial and residential with
1,400 persons residing within a 3-mile radius of the site. The Main Facility is
comprised of several lead-contaminated buildings including a scale house, several
garages and sheds, as a result of onsite battery cracking operations. Contaminated
debris including old tanks, drums, wires, casings, and trash is spread throughout the
Main Facility area. The southeastern corner of the Main Facility has been backfilled
with cracked battery casings to a depth of 20 feet. Approximately 57,000 cubic yards
of lead-contaminated soil remains onsite from previous battery salvage activities. A
1984 EPA site investigation found high levels of metals in nearby wells. This Record
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination, NC
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, debris
Key Contaminants: metals (chromium, lead)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSAT1 Field/Group
18. Availabilty Statement
19. Security Claaa (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
56
22. Pries
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See /nafructfona on Reverse
OPTIONAL rOHM Z7Z (4-77)
(Formerly NT1S-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-90/078
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination, NC
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
of Decision (ROD) addresses Operable Unit 1 (OU1), which will contain the source
contamination from the MSR facility to minimize the continued degradation of ground
water and surface water. Subsequent RODs will address the final action and remediation
of other onsite contaminant sources (OU2) and ground water contamination (OU3). The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and debris are metals including
chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site is an interim action, which includes
demolishing and disposing of debris from four onsite buildings; excavating and
consolidating the contaminated surface soil; regrading the site, -covering with area
with 6 inches of clean fill, covering the soil with a HPDE liner, with 18 inches of
drainage soil and 6 additional inches of clean topsoil; revegetating the area;
backfilling excavated areas, realigning an adjacent stream to minimize the erosion of
the cap; maintaining the soil cover; and enacting public awareness programs; and
implementing institutional controls including deed restrictions and site access
restrictions including fencing. The present worth cost for this remedial action is
$738,821, which includes an annual O&M cost of $9,700.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Soil contaminated with lead will be remediated to 500
mg/kg (EPA Interim Guidance).
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
First Operable Unit
Site Name and Location
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site (Martin Scrap Recycling
Facility), Concord, North Carolina.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site (Martin Scrap Recycling
Facility), in Concord, North Carolina, which was chosen in accordance
with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP).
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy. The
information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the
administrative record for this site.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial threat
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This interim action operable unit is the first of three that are planned
for the site. The first operable unit will address soil remediation at
the Martin Scrap Recycling Facility portion of the site. This
alternative will address the source of contamination by excavating, and
consolidating the soils in a single location and installing a cover to
prevent human and environmental exposure to the contaminants, and to
minimize the generation of contaminated leachate entering the
groundwater environment.
While the remedy does address one of the principal threats at the site,
the second operable unit will involve continued study and possible
remediation of other sources of contamination, and the third operable
unit will address the groundwater contamination.
The major components of the selected remedy for the first operable unit
interim action include the following:
-------
-2-
— Demolish and dispose of four buildings.
— Consolidate contaminated surface soil into one area of contamination,
regrade site, cover with 6 inches of clean fill, HDPE liner, 18
inches of drainage layer, and 6 inches of clean topsoil, revegetate.
— Backfill areas where surface soil were excavated.
— Install perimeter fence at property boundary.
— Bi-annual maintenance of cover until final action.
— Institute deed restrictions on property.
Conduct public awareness programs to inform public of hazards
associated with the site.
— Conduct five-year reviews of the site conditions.
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The interim action is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable
or relevant and appropriate directly associated with this action. This
action utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site, given the
limited scope of the action. Because this action does not constitute
the final remedy for the site or operable unit, the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element will be addressed by the final action.
Subsequent actions are planned to address fully the principal threats
posed by conditions at this operable unit.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement
of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
n
AUG
reer C. Tidwell Date
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Site Name, Location and Description 1
2.1 Area Land Use 4
I
2.2 Surface Water 4
2.3 Groundwater 5
3.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities .... 5
4.0 Highlights of Community Participation 7
5.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 7
6.0 Summary of Site Characteristics 8
6.1 Contaminant Source Investigation 8
6.2 Groundwater 13
6.3 Surface Water and Surface Sediment 15
6.4 Air Investigation 19
6.5 Contaminant Fate and Transport 19
7.0 Summary of Site Risks 20
7.1 Selection of Indicator Chemicals 22
7.2 Exposure Assessment Summary 23
7.3 Toxicity Assessment 24
7.4 Potential Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic
Contaminants 24
7.4-1 Noncarcinogenic . 24
7.4-2 Environmental Risks 25
8.0 Remedial Action Objectives and General
Response Actions 25
8.1 Site Remedial Action Objectives 25
8.2 Soils 26
8.3 Volume of Lead Contaminated Soil 26
-------
Table of Contents Cont'd.
8.4 Cleanup Levels for Soils 26
9.0 Description of Alternatives 27
9.1 Overall Objectives 27
9.2 Alternative 1, No Action 27
9.3 Alternative 2, Excavation, Consolidation and
Capping 27
9.4 Alternative 3, In-situ-Solidification 35
9.5 Alternative 4, Excavation, On-site Treatment
and Disposal 38
9.6 Alternative 5, Excavation, Off-site Treatment
and Disposal 39
10.0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives. . 39
11.0 Selection of Remedy 40
12.0 Statutory Requirements 40
12.1 Protective of Health and the Environment .... 40
12.2 Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 40
12.2-1 Contaminant - Specific ARARS 40
12.2-2 Location - Specific ARARS 42
12.2-3 Action - Specific *. 42
12.2-4 To Be Considered Criteria 42
12.2-5 ARAR Attainment 42
12.3 Cost Effectiveness 42
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alter-
native Treatment Technology or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable 43
13.0 Occupational Exposures 43
14.0 Populations at Risk 43
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Vicinity Map
Site Location Map
Surface Soils Sampling Location Map .
Monitor Well and Soil Boring Location Map
Groundwater Sample Location Map
Offsite Surface Water and Sediment
Sampling Location
Toxicity Constants for Noncarcinogenic
Compounds
Summary of Soil Lead Action Levels
Horizontal Extent of Lead - Contaminated
Soils (>500 mg/kg) in the 0-1'Internval).
Horizontal Extent of Lead - Contaminated
Soils (>500 mg/kg) in the l'-5'Internval)
Horizontal Extent of Lead - Contaminated
Soils (>500 mg/kg) in the 5'-15'Internval)
2
3
10
12
16
20
28
29
30
31
Horizontal Extent of Lead - Contaminated
Soils (>500 mg/kg) at Depths Greater than
15' 32
Calculation of Soil Volumes Contaminated
with Lead in Excess of 500 mg/kg 33
Alternative 2 - Capping 36
Alternative 2 - Capping 37
Excavation, On-Site 41
Cost Estimates for Remedial Alternatives. . . 43
Chemical Specific ARARs, TCBs 46
Chemical Specific ARARs, TCBs 47
Dose - Response Effects of
Lead Adsorption in Children 48
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site
Martin Scrap Recycling Facility
Soil Remediation Operable Unit I
Concord, North Carolina
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
Record of Decision
First Operable Unit
The Decision Summary
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site
(Martin Scrap Recycling Facility)
Concord, North Carolina
1.0 Introduction
The Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, (Martin Scrap Recycling
Facility) was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in October 1984, and finalized in June 1986. The Remedial
Investigation report, which examines air, sediment, soil, surface water
and groundwater contamination was completed in April 1990. The
Feasibility Study report, which develops and examines alternatives for
remediation of the site, was issued in final form to the public on May
7, 1990.
2.0 Site Name. Location and Description
The Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site is defined as an area in
Concord, North Carolina in which groundwater is contaminated by multiple
unknown sources. The Martin Scrap Recycling Facility is an inactive
battery salvage and recycling operation just west of Concord, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The Martin Scrap Recycling Facility occupies
approximately 13 acres of land in Cabarrus County and was identified as
a potential source of the groundwater contamination. U.S. Highway
29/Route 601 Bypass borders the site on the west and provides access to
the cities of Kannapolis, approximately 6 miles north, and Charlotte,
approximately 21 miles southwest of the site, (Figure 2). The 13-acre
property is bordered by private commercial property (a flea market and a
landfill) on the north; to the east by Irish Buffalo Creek, a tributary
of the Pee Dee Yadkin River; and an unnamed tributary of the Buffalo
Creek to the south. Residences are located south and west of the MSR
facility.
The MSR Facility consists of two tracts of land. One lot, where the
Main Facility is located, covers 2.92 acres. .The second lot, which
encompasses the Flood Plain area, covers 9.75 acres.
The Main Facility, which consists of the smaller of the two lots, is
where the Lead reclamation activities occurred. This area consists of
several buildings, including a main office building, a scale house,
several garages and sheds, and an octagonal shed in which the battery
cracking operations were primarily conducted.
Most of the Main Facility area has been covered with asphalt, although
some grassy areas still remain. Debris such as old tanks, drums, wires,
casings, and trash is spread throughout the main facility area. The
southeastern corner of the Main Facility has been backfilled with
cracked battery castings. When viewing the exposed portions of the
slope separating the Main Facility from the Flood Plain area, it appears
that the backfill has been deposited up to depths of 20 feet.
-------
N
V.ARTIN'S SCRAP RECYCl S3
SOURCE CABANMUS COUNTY
N.C. 06PT. 0* TRANSPORTATION
MARTIN S SCS A?
RECYCLING
VICINITY MAP
BY PASS 601 / MSR SITE
C3NCOO SOUTH CA»OL:VA
FICLRE s
-------
Sir***
-------
-4-
An asphalt road, which winds down the slope and becomes a dirt road in
the Flood Plain area, connects the Main Facility to- the Flood Plain
area.
2.1 Area Land Use
The immediate area around the MSR Facility is primarily commercial and
light industrial with local residential neighborhoods nearby. It is
estimated that more than 1400 persons reside within a 3-mile radius of
the MSR Facility. It is also estimated that the entire population in
the vicinity obtains its potable water supply from either public water
supply wells or from private wells. The closest residences are located
on the northern side of Sumner Drive, immediately adjacent to the
southern property line of the MSR Facility.
Industries in the area include sand and gravel operations, private
landfill operations, and manufacturing related to the textile industry.
Commercial operations include convenience food stores and gas stations,
auto part sales and repair shops, office supply stores, retail shopping
centers, fast food restaurants and mobile home sales operations.
Residential neighborhoods surround the light industrial/commercial areas
which line the main roads within a three-mile radius of the MSR
Facility.
2.2 Surface Water
The entire province, and more specifically, the Concord, North Carolina
area, consists mainly of rolling hills cut by many streams which usually
originate in the mountains to the west.
The Bypass 601 site, including the MSR Facility is located within the
Rocky River drainage area, which includes Irish Buffalo Creek. This
creek, which forms the eastern facility boundary, is a tributary of the
Pee Dee Yadkin River Basin, which includes a major North Carolina/South
Carolina river that flows southeast toward the Atlantic Ocean.
Generally, drainage is to the southeast because of the
northwest-southeast orientation of the stream valleys which are
controlled by the underlying bedrock (Lefler, 1969).
The MSR Facility is bounded on the west by State Route 29 (Bypass 601).
The road bed has been artificially elevated with fill to create a
"bridge" between two hills, one of which appears to have been later
leveled for construction of the MSR Facility. This artificial ridge
caused by the highway directs surface water towards the MSR Facility.
MSR Facilities have been constructed on fill materials. Additional
fill, which includes battery chips produced by the MSR operations, was
added to the eastern edge of the Main Facility area to create an
artificial surface.
-------
-5-
The Main Facility area slopes sharply from State Route 29 towards Irish
Buffalo Creek at a slope of approximately 3.0-4.0 percent. Along the
floodplain, the land surface slopes toward Irish Buffalo Creek at a
slope of approximately 2 percent. The two separate portions of the MSR
Facility are separated by a steep, approximately 22-foot embankment.
2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater in the Piedmont Physiographic Region occurs in two zones.
The saturated saprolite zone is the uppermost aquifer and is generally
referred to as the water table or shallow aquifer (Moore, Gardner and
Associates, April 1982). Water is usually readily found between the
pore spaces of the soil. The soil acts as a reservoir to store water
and is influenced strongly by climatic changes. The other zone of
groundwater occurrence is in the fractures and secondary openings in the
underlying bedrock. Water in this zone moves along the fractures as if
they were pipelines. Thus, water can be transmitted effectively over
large distances by this "pipeline" network if the fractures and cracks
are connected or overlap. It appears that the two systems are
hydraulically connected with the saprolite transmitting water to the
underlying rock. This would allow for contaminant movement over fairly
large areas if the contaminants are transmitted to the bedrock.
Reportedly, all residents in the immediate site area west of State Route
29 and Bypass 601 use well water due to a lack of a major municipal
drinking water supply system serving the area generally west of Irish
Buffalo Creek. In 1987, the City of Concord indicated that since
mid-1985, the area west of State Route 29 and Bypass 601 is served by
the County of Cabarrus water system. Investigations confirmed that in
the area outside the city limits of Concord, practically all domestic
water supplies are currently obtained from wells. Although some dug
wells exist in rural areas, which obtain water from the weathered
material/water table aquifer, it is believed that the vast majority, if
not all, of wells in the vicinity of the site are drilled to tap
fractures within the bedrock. The average well depth in this area is
approximately 186 feet below land surface (LeGrand, 1952).
Data from the U.S.G.S. indicate that the general well yields in the
Charlotte-Concord area are from 0 to 400 gpm, while the average yield
ranges from 20-40 gpm. The information from the above noted sources
appear generally to agree and provide an adequate overview of
groundwater well yields in the vicinity of the site. According to
information from the report by LeGrand and Mundorff (1952), yields from
wells in the vicinity of the site can be as high as an average of 23
gallons per minute with wells yields ranging from 0-150 gpm.
3.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities
Early in 1981, MSR was cited for various Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) violations, the most serious one involved employee
exposures to lead in the work place. MSR was fined $13,000 for the OSHA
violations.
-------
-6-
In August and September 1981 inspections of the MSR facility were
carried out by the State of North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) and the Division of Health Services (DHS),
respectively. While DEM did not find evidence of air or water
contamination, the investigation conducted by DHS discovered 15
violations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). On
February 24, 1982, DHS conducted a follow-up inspection of the MSR
facility. By this time, MSR claimed to be selling all hazardous
by-products of the battery recycling operation. MSR had discontinued
disposal of battery acid into the lagoon, which was filled with sediment
and sludge, and began storing the battery acid in steel holding tanks
until the acid was recycled or sold. Additionally, MSR removed and sold
two to six inches of topsoil from around the plant operations buildings.
In October 1984, MSR was ranked on the National Priorities List (NPL), a
list of hazardous waste sites across the country eligible to receive
Federal Superfund monies for clean up. In June, EPA Region IV and the
State of North Carolina conducted a joint inspection of the MSR
facility. Water samples taken from the unnamed stream showed high
levels of contamination by heavy metals.
Throughout 1983 and 1984, DEM and DHS continued sampling of surface
water and sediment from areas surrounding the MSR facility. Sediment
samples taken from the Irish Buffalo Creek approximately five miles
downstream from the facility showed elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc. Water samples taken from the
Iris Buffalo Creek showed the presence of lead in water 2,500 feet
upstream of the facility and higher concentrations downstream of the
facility. DEM and DHS were not able to conclude, however, that the MSR
facility was having an effect on off-site portions of the creek.
Samples collected from three groundwater monitoring wells located on the
MSR property indicated the presence of arsenic, cadmium, and lead at
levels exceeding Federal standards.
EPA completed a site investigation report for the MSR facility portion
of the Bypass 601 site in late summer 1984. EPA sampling of monitoring
wells, private wells, surface water and sediment, both on and off site,
detected lead, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium at levels high enough to
be a threat to public health and the environment.
The Bypass 601 site was formally proposed for inclusion on the NPL in
October 1984, even though MSR was determined to be in full compliance
with State RCRA requirements. However, additional site visits and data
gathering conducted in 1985 by EPA and the State identified further
areas where MSR was not in compliance with regulations. The site was
finalized on the NPL in June 1986, with a Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
score of 37.93. In July 1986, MSR filed a petition for bankruptcy.
In the spring of 1987, EPA began planning for a Remedial Investigation
(RI) of the Bypass 601 site. An RI/FS Work Plan was developed to
address gaps in existing data which are required to determine the nature
and extent of contamination. A field investigation was implemented from
April 27 to September 1, 1989, and the final RI report was completed in
April 1990.
-------
-7-
The Rl field inveatigation included surface and subsurface soil
investigations, groundwater quality investigations,'and surface water
and sediment investigations. A total of 96 surface soil samples were
collected at 48 locations. Another 167 subsurface soil samples were
also collected from soil borings and monitor well installations. Of the
numerous compounds detected, the inorganic compounds were present in the
greatest concentrations and frequencies. At least 9 other potential
contaminant sources separate from the MSR facility were identified in
the Bypass 601 area.
The RI reported gross metal contamination of soils throughout the MSR
facility. The volume of soils contaminated with lead in excess of 500
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) was estimated to be approximately 57,000
cubic yards (CY). The existing contamination is continuing to spread
throughout the soils, surface water, stream sediments and groundwater
regimes. The contaminated soils and buried battery casings are
continuing to load the groundwater with contaminants.
4.0 Community Relations
The RI/FS and proposed plan for the MSR facility were released to the
public in May 1990. These documents were made available to the public
in the administrative record and in the information repository
maintained at Charles A. Cannon Memorial Library, 27 Union Street North,
Concord, North Carolina. The notice of availability was published in
the Concord Tribune. The public comment period was held from May 10 to
July 11, 1990. A public meeting was held on May 17, 1990, to present
the remedial alternatives for the site. During the meeting, EPA, DHR,
DHS, and representatives from Hunter/ESS (the RI/FS consultant)
presented the results of the RI/FS. DHR and EPA presented the proposed
plan and answered questions about problems at the site and the remedial
alternatives under consideration. A response to comments received
during the public comment period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of the ROD. A transcript of the public meeting
is available for review in the repositories.
5.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit
As with many superfund sites, the problems at the Bypass 601 Groundwater
Contamination Site, Martin Scrap Recycling Facility, are complex. As a
result, the work has been divided into units or phases, referred to as
"operable units". The operable units (OUs) at this site are:
OO One: Addresses soil contamination at the Martin Scrap Recycling
Facility (interim containment followed by final action OU).
OU Two: Intensive study and possible remediation of other sources
of contamination.
OU Three: Addresses groundwater contamination at the Bypass 601
Groundwater Contamination Site.
-------
-8-
The first: operable unit will address soil remediation at the Martin
Scrap Recycling Facility portion of the site. This "alternative will
address the source contamination by excavating and consolidating the
soils into one area of contamination and installing a cover to prevent
human and environmental exposure to the contaminants, and to minimize
the generation of contaminated leachate entering the groundwater
environment in the interim until a complete assessment of the multiple
sources and the site can be addressed.
The second operable unit will involve an intensive study of additional
potential sources of contamination around the MSR Facility and the
Bypass 601 area.
The third operable unit will address the groundwater contamination.
The interim action will be consistent with any planned future actions,
to the extent possible.
6.0 Summary of Site Characteristics
The RI at the MSR site was designed to determine the extent of
contamination at the site, to determine potential impacts of the
contaminants on human health and the environment, and to develop data
needed for an engineering evaluation of further remedial actions.
Earlier studies at the site had found on-site areas of soil, sediment,
and groundwater contamination. The RI expanded the search for
contaminants to off-site areas, and also re-examined areas previously
excavated and covered with asphalt to determine residual contaminant
levels in the soils. The RI was designed to identify and quantify
metals and organic chemical contamination in the groundwater, in surface
and subsurface soils on the MSR Facility, and in surface water and
sediments along the unnamed stream and Irish Buffalo Creek. In
addition, the RI provided geologic and hydrogeologic characterizations
for the MSR property, limited investigations of private wells and their
water quality, and a survey of other potential sources which could act
as contaminant sources for the Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination
Site.
The RI was a comprehensive assessment of site conditions that included
additional characterization of site hydrogeology, new site mapping by
aerial surveys, completion of additional magnetometer surveys, air
sampling and soil test borings, and sampling of streams and wells
off-site.
The investigation of the MSR site was conducted during the period from
April 27, 1989, through September 1, 1989.
6.1 Contaminant Source Investigation
A total of 96 surface soil samples were collected at 48 locations
(Figure 3). Another 167 subsurface soil samples were also collected
from soil borings and monitor well installations (Figure 4). Of the
-------
-9-
numerous compounds detected in the soils, four were selected as
indicator compounds for the RI. Selection of indicator compounds was
based on contaminant concentration, frequency of occurrence,
distribution in the environment, and potential risk to human health and
the environment. The four compounds selected as indicator chemicals for
the MSR Facility are Lead, Chromium, Nickel and sulfate.
In the surface soils, a total of 19 organic compounds were positively
identified and an additional 35 compounds were tentatively identified by
the CLP laboratories in the 23 samples analyzed. Of the positively
identified compounds, 14 were detected in 3 or fewer samples which had
erratic geographical distributions.
The final positively identified compound, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate,
is a common plasticizing compound. It was detected in 4 geographically
distant locations on the MSR Facility. The presence of this compound is
attributed to the actual battery casing debris.
In the subsurface soils, a total of 18 organic compounds were positively
identified and an additional 17 compounds were tentatively identified by
the CLP laboratories in the 51 samples analyzed. Of the positively
identified compounds, 8 were detected in 3 or fewer samples which had
erratic geographical distributions.
The largest suites of compounds were generally limited to 4 samples.
These samples were all collected in areas associated with buried battery
casing debris: BP-SB-05 (14-16'), BP-SB-07 (13-15'), BP-MW-02 (8-10'),
and BP-MW-05 (28-30').
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate was the most frequently detected extractable
organic, occurring in 8 of the 12 samples in which extractable organic
compounds were found, and all of which (except BP-MW-05) are on or along
the slope between the Main Facility and the Flood Plain. This compound
is also a common component of plastics, and its presence at the MSR
Facility is likely to be due to the presence of battery casing chips,
although the pervasiveness and distribution cannot currently be defined.
No trends for extractable organic compounds could be established in the
surface or subsurface soils of the MSR Facility.
Several compounds detected in the surface soils were eliminated as
naturally occurring elements. These compounds included Aluminum,
Calcium, Manganese, Mercury, Strontium, Titanium, and Yttrium.
Lead was detected in 22 of the 23 samples sent to CLP laboratories and
93 of the 96 samples analyzed by the On-site Laboratory (OSL).
Concentrations ranged from 18 mg/kg in the 0-0.5' interval at sample
location BP-SS-45 (CLP) to 110,000 mg/kg in 1.5-3.0' interval at
BP-SS-40 (OSL).
Although Lead was detected throughout the entire MSR property, the
heaviest surface soil contamination was found (BP-SS-40) in the area of
the buried battery casing debris located at the southeast corner of the
-------
-------
-11-
Main Facility area. Surface soil samples with Lead concentrations in
excess of 10,000 mg/kg were also detected throughout the western portion
of the Flood Plain area, more sporadically along the eastern portion of
the Flood Plain area, and throughout the Main Facility area.
Lead concentrations in excess of 1,000 mg/kg were found in all parts of
the MSR Facility. No significant difference between the Main Facility
area and the Flood Plain area could be detected, nor could such a
difference be found to differentiate the area of the former surface
impoundment from the rest of the Flood Plain area.
Lead in subsurface soils was detected in 35 of the 51 samples sent to
CLP laboratories and in 105 of the 167 samples analyzed by the OSL.
Concentrations ranged from 2.8 mg/kg in the 23-25' interval at sample
location BP-SB-45 (CLP) to 136,000 mg/kg in 4-6' interval at BP-SB-05
(OSL). The resultant volume of 57,719 cubic yards of soil are estimated
to be contaminated with Lead in concentration in excess of 500 mg/kg.
As with the surface soil samples, the heaviest subsurface soil
contamination was found (BP-SB-05) in the area of the buried battery
casing debris located at the southeast corner of the Main Facility area
and along the slope that separates the Main Facility area from the Flood
Plain area. Subsurface soil samples with Lead concentrations in excess
of 10,000 mg/kg were limited primarily in areas adjacent to • this slope,
and generally at depths of 5' or less.
No significant difference between the Main Facility area and the western
Flood Plain area could be detected, but the eastern portion of the Flood
Plain area showed markedly lower concentrations of Lead in the
subsurface soils.
Nickel was detected in 34 of the 51 subsurface soil samples sent to CLP
laboratories. Concentrations ranged from an estimated value of 2 mg/kg
in the 8-10' interval at sample location BP-MW-03 to 66 mg/kg in the
9-11' interval at BP-SB-02. Unlike the surface soil samples, the
subsurface soil samples showed the presence of Nickel throughout the MSR
Facility, as well as in the soils collected during installation of two
monitor wells at locations off the MSR property.
Sulfates derive naturally from automotive battery cracking operations,
since suIfuric acid is an electrolyte used in such batteries. The
mobility of sulfate in the natural environment makes it a good indicator
of potential extent to which soluble contaminants may have migrated.
Sulfate was detected in 88 of the 96 surface soil samples analyzed by
the OSL. Concentrations ranged from 46 mg/kg in the 1.5-3.0' interval
at sample location BP-SS-20 to 10,800 mg/kg in 1.5-3.0' interval at
BP-SS-02.
The highest concentrations appear to be associated with the areas in
which battery cracking operations occurred or around the abandoned
surface impoundment area. However, elevated sulfate concentrations were
found consistently throughout the MSR Facility.
-------
-------
-13-
There appears to be no distinction between the two surface soil levels
sampled (0-0.5' and 1.5-3'). Concentrations of sulfate tended to be
different by an order of magnitude between the levels, but the 0-0.5'
level contained the higher level of sulfate as frequently as the 1.5-3.0
level.
Sulfate was detected in 121 of the 129 subsurface soil samples analyzed
by the OSL. Concentrations ranged from 12.3 mg/kg in the 13-15'
interval at sample location BP-MW-05 to 20,400 mg/kg in 3.5' interval at
BP-SB-04. With only a few exceptions, sulfate concentrations tended to
generally increase with depth down to either the 8-10' interval or the
13-15 interval, and then gradually begin to decrease.
6.2 Groundwater
Twenty-one temporary monitor wells and 10 permanent well clusters (each
cluster consisting of one shallow and one deep monitor well) were
installed during this investigation of the MSR Facility (Figure 5).
Initial groundwater investigation activities involved installation of
the temporary wells in the Main Facility Area and in the western portion
of the Flood Plain area of the MSR property.
After the temporary well installation program was completed, placement
locations of the permanent monitor well clusters were selected, based on
the analytical data generated by the on-site laboratory. Each cluster
consisted of a shallow permanent monitor well which was installed in the
shallow aquifer to the top of bedrock and one deep monitor well which
was installed to a final depth of 20 feet into the fractured bedrock.
Originally, RI/FS Work Plan specified that 9 permanent well clusters
were to be installed — 8 clusters on the MSR Facility property and one
background well cluster. After the analytical results of the temporary
well groundwater investigation were assessed, it became apparent that
the extent of contamination had not been defined, even though temporary
wells had been installed in all accessible areas of the MSR property.
Cluster BP-MW/DMW-08 was installed on the opposite side (south) of the
unnamed stream, approximately 100 feet west of Irish Buffalo Creek.
Cluster BP-MW-/DMW-10 was installed across Irish Buffalo Creek from the
MSR Facility on a parcel of land owned by the Concord Lace Company.
Cluster BP-MW/DMW-09 was installed topographically and hydrogeologically
upgradient of the MSR Facility, on a parcel of land located along
Montford Avenue.
It should be noted that wells BP-MW-09 and BP-DMW-09 were originally
designed to comprise the background well cluster. It was not possible
to find an accessible location upgradient from the MSR Facility which
did not contain battery-cracking debris and still remain within the same
local drainage basin. As a result, the upgradient well cluster was
installed to provide information only on the upgradient groundwater
quality and on hydrogeologic conditions, and not on background water
quality.
-------
. "*-i .... ,„
\lv"-.
^. -^a.
100 0 100 .'UU
C
-------
-14-
The ground surface at each of the temporary well installation points and
the top of each permanent monitor well casing were surveyed for
horizontal location and vertical elevation. All points were tied to
U.S. Geological Survey benchmarks located in the vicinity of the MSR
property.
Lead was detected in 17 shallow aquifer samples in concentrations which
ranged from 5 ug/L (BP-MW-06) towards the eastern end of the Flood Plain
to 2,300 ug/L (BP-TW-03 and BP-TW-05) at the western property boundary
at the top of the slope and in the area of the buried battery casing
debris, respectively.
Chromium was detected in 23 of the 29 shallow aquifer samples in
concentrations ranging from 15 ug/L (BP-EMW-03) to 1,000 ug/L
(BP-TW-03). Chromium was detected in only two of the bedrock aquifer
samples (120 ug/L in BP-DMW-03 and 40 ug/L in BP-DWM-04), and both were
associated with high chromium concentrations in the shallow aquifer.
Sulfates were detected in all 29 shallow aquifer groundwater samples in
concentrations ranging from 24.4 ug/L in BP-TW-01 near the main entrance
to 21,000 ug/L along the Flood Plain.
A total of 12 private wells were sampled during this RI field
investigation. All 12 samples were sent to CLP laboratories for TCL and
TAL analysis.
It should be noted that no information was available on the depths of
the private wells or on their construction details.
No extractable organic compounds were detected in the private well
samples.
A total of 9 different volatile organic compounds were detected in 7 of
the 12 private wells sampled. Five of the 9 compounds, Trana-1,
3-Dichloropropene, Dibromochloromethane, Bromoform, Tetrachloroethene,
and an unidentified compound, were detected only once. Two compounds,
1,1,1-Trichloroethane and Vinyl Acetate, were detected only twice. In
the case of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, the two wells in which it was
detected were nearly half-a-mile apart (BP-PW-08 and BP-PW-09), and were
located along different ridges. Vinyl Acetate was detected in two
adjacent wells (BP-PW-02 and BP-PW-03), but the concentrations were very
low (3 ug/L and 1 ug/L, respectively).
On volatile organic compounds, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, was detected in 3
wells (BP-PW-02, BP-PW-03, and BP-PW-05), but again all three locations
are on different ridges.
The final volatile organic compound, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorethane, was
detected in 4 wells (BP-PW-01, BP-PW-02, BP-PW-03, and BP-PW-05).
None of the volatile organic compounds, except the one unidentified
compound, were present in concentrations in excess of 5 ug/L. Because
of the low concentrations, low frequencies of occurrence, and (in some
cases) wide separation, volatile organic compounds in private well
samples will not be discussed further.
-------
-15-
The only inorganic compound of concern detected in the private well
samples was Lead, which occurred at a concentration'of 6 ug/L in three
wells (BP-PW-08, BP-PW-11, and BP-PW-12) all of which were separated by
large geographical distances. In addition, no information was available
on well construction materials. If Lead solder was used in any of these
.wells, it could be the source of the detected Lead. Until more is known
about the well depths and their construction, it is not possible to
discuss inorganics in these private wells.
Only one pesticide, Heptachlor Epoxide, was detected in two wells, both
of which were located near each other along South central Drive. In
both cases, the quantities detected were very low: 0.054 ug/L in
BP-PW-02 and 0.068 ug/L in BP-PW-03. Heptachlor Epoxide is a commonly
used pesticide, but it is not possible to speculate on its source.
Until more is known, this compound is eliminated from further
discussions.
No PCBs were detected in any of the private well samples.
None of the private well samples were analyzed for sulfates.
6.3 Surface Water and Surface Sediment
Surface water and stream sediment samples were collected from 11 sample
locations during the RI field investigation sample locations (Figure 6)
were selected as follows:
— One background sample (BP-SW/SD-01) collected approximately 2000 feet
west (upstream) of the Site along the unnamed stream;
— One background sample (BP-SW/SO-02) collected from the unnamed stream
approximately 850 feet west (upgradient) from the abandoned MSR
Facility;
— One on-site sample (BP-SW/SD-03) along the unnamed stream
approximately 1,750 feet upstream from the confluence with Irish
Buffalo Creek;
— One on-site sample (BP-SW/SD-04) along the unnamed stream
approximately 1,500 feet upstream from the confluence with Irish
Buffalo Creek;
— One on-site sample (BP-SW/SO-05) along the unnamed stream
approximately 1,200 feet upstream from the confluence with Irish
Buffalo Creek;
— One on-site sample (BP-SW/SD-06) along the unnamed stream
approximately 725 feet upstream from the confluence with Irish
Buffalo Creek;
— One sample location (BP-SW/SD-07) along Irish Buffalo Creek
approximately 325 feet downstream from the confluence with the
unnamed stream;
-------
(M
-------
-17-
— One sample location (BP-SW/SD-08) along Irish Buffalo Creek
approximately 200 feet downstream from the confluence with the
unnamed stream;
— One on-site sample (BP-SW/SO-09) along the unnamed stream
approximately 100 feet upstream from the confluence with Irish
Buffalo Creek;
— One sample location (BP-SW/SD-10) along Irish Buffalo Creek
approximately 2,400 feet upstream from the confluence with the
unnamed stream; and
— One sample location (BP-SW/SD-11) along Irish Buffalo Creek
approximately 1 mile upstream from the confluence with the unnamed
stream.
All 11 surface water and all 11 sediment samples were analyzed for Lead,
Cadmium, total chromium and sulfates by the on-site laboratory. In
addition, 2 sediment samples were sent to a laboratory for Total Cr,
Cr , and Cr analyses.
A total of 11 surface water and stream sediment samples were collected
along the unnamed stream and Irish Buffalo Creek during this RI field
investigation.
No volatile organic compounds were detected in any of the 11 surface
water samples.
Analysis of the surface water samples indicate that Lead was detected in
6 of the 11 samples collected, and ranged in concentration from an
estimated value of 6 ug/L (BP-SW-07) to an estimated maximum of 56 ug/L
(BP-SW-05). Lead was detected in only those surface water samples
collected from the unnamed stream at points which are physically on the
MSR (BP-SW-03 through BP-SW-06) and from the confluence of the unnamed
stream with Irish Buffalo Creek (BP-SW-09).
Analysis of the sediment samples indicate that Lead was detected in all
11 samples collected, and ranged in concentration from an estimated
value of 3,2 mg/kg (BP-SD-01) to an estimated maximum of 84 mg/kg
(BP-SD-06). Lead concentrations increased in the unnamed stream from
the moat upgradiant sample (BP-SD-01) to the most downgradient sample
(BP-SD-06). The sample collected from the confluence between the
unnamed stream and Irish Buffalo Creek (BP-SD-09) was not significantly
different (estimated at 80 mg/kg) than the most downgradient sample from
the unnamed stream (84 mg/kg).
The trend along Irish Buffalo Creek indicates an increase in Lead
concentration at the confluence with decreasing values downstream from
the MSR Facility.
Chromium was found in all but the most upgradient sediment sample
collected from the unnamed stream in concentrations ranging from 2.1
mg/kg (BP-SD-02 and BP-SD-03) to 18 mg/kg (BP-SD-05). In general, the
concentrations of Chromium in the stream sediment samples displayed the
same trends as Lead.
-------
-19-
No PCBs were detected in any of the surface water or stream sediment
samples collected from either the unnamed stream or Irish Buffalo Creek.
Sulfates were detected in all 11 surface water samples. The
concentrations along the unnamed stream increased from 14 mg/L at the
most upstream location (BP-SW-01) to 70 mg/L at the most downstream
location (BP-SW-06). Along Irish Buffalo Creek, the upstream sulfate
concentrations were low, but increased notably at the confluence with
the unnamed stream, and then decreased again at the downstream
locations.
Sulfates were also detected in 10 of the 11 stream sediment samples, the
only sample with no detectable levels of sulfates was collected at
BP-SD-04, along the western end of the Flood Plain area. The highest
concentration was 519 mg/kg at BP-SD-09, at the confluence between the
unnamed stream and Irish Buffalo Creek. As was seen with the surface
water samples, sulfates in the unnamed stream systematically increase
from upstream locations to downstream locations.
6.4 Air Investigation
Air sampling will be performed prior to remedial action in accordance
with the work plan for the purpose of acquiring background data. This
will be necessary to measure the level of fugitive emission from the
site prior to the commencement of remedial actions, thus determining the
level of protection necessary for the workers on the site and to
evaluate potential impact on the public downwind of the site.
6.5 Contaminant Fate and Transport
Based on a detailed assessment of contaminant fate and transport from
the MSR Facility, both migration of surface soils via erosion mechanisms
and contaminated groundwater were identified as exposure pathways. The
soils, until remediated, will continue to be a source of groundwater
contamination as the soil contaminants are leached. In addition, eroded
soils are being deposited into the unnamed stream as sediments which are
currently being transported to Irish Buffalo Creek. Groundwater
migration of contaminants is expected to continue in a
south/southeasterly direction. Also, groundwater modeling efforts
suggested three additional potential sources of groundwater
contamination: the upgradient location discussed above (BP-MW/DMW-09),
the flea market area and the private landfill located along the northern
boundary of the MSR Facility.
It is anticipated that the indicator chemicals, Lead and Nickel, and
other metals in the groundwater, may pass the boundaries of the MSR
Facility, although their migration is retarded by adsorption to soils.
Modeling efforts indicate that sulfate and Chromium, being more mobile,
have spread beyond the property boundaries, and will continue to do so.
Operations at the MSR Facility were suspended in 1986, and on-site
disposal was stopped in 1982, therefore, the source of new additional
contaminants entering the environment has been eliminated. However, the
-------
-20-
existing contamination is continuing to spread throughout the soil,
surface water, stream sediments and groundwater regimes, and the
contaminated soils and buried battery casings are continuing to load the
groundwater with contaminants.
7.0 Summary of Site Risks
Risks calculated in this assessment are based on one of two scenarios.
The current use scenario is of a child, age 6-15 years, trespassing onto
the site 3 days per week to play, and thus comes in contact with the
contaminated soil. The future use scenario is based on a resident
child, age 1-15 years, that comes in contact with the soil on a more
frequent basis. The exposure assumptions and constants are listed.
The RI Report, Phase I (April, 1990) for this site lists detected lead
concentrations in soil as analyzed by either a Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP) lab or an On-site Laboratory (OSL). Since the Upper (95%)
Confidence Limit (UCL) for the CLP samples, the latter UCL is used in
this assessment because it represents more thorough coverage of the
site.
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Age 1-6 Age 6-15
ASSUMPTIONS
Body Weight (BW) 16 kg 35 kg
Soil Ingestion Rate (IR) 200 mg/d 100 mg/d
Exposure Frequency (EF)
current N/A 120 d/y
future 280 d/y 200 d/y
Exposure Duration (ED) 5 y 9 y
CONSTANTS
Averaging Time (AT) - ED * 365 d/y
Conversion Factor (CF) = 10~6 kg/mg
Upper (95%) C.L. of lead cone, in soil (SPb) * 8580 rag/kg
d = day; y « year; N/A - Not Applicable
-------
-21-
The Intake (I) of lead by incidental ingestion of contaminated soil is
calculated from the following equation:
I(mg/kg-d) = SPb * IR * CF * EF * ED
BW * AT
The noncarcinogenic Hazard Index (HI) is calculated by dividing the
Intake (I) by the reference Dose (RfD):
HI - I
RfD
An HI of greater than 1.0 is generally an unacceptable risk, and
indicates that some type of action is necessary.
No EPA-verified RfD currently exists for lead. For this assessment,
safe drinking water lead concentrations of 5 ug/1 and 15 ug/1 have been
used to calculate RfD. and RfD- respectively. The resultant RfDs
are listed.
SUMMARY OF RISKS
Scenario
Current Use Future Use
Exposure Age Range (yrs) 6-15 1-15
Calculated Lead Intake (mg/kg-d) 0.0081 0.095
Reference Doses (mg/kg-d)
#1 (RfDj^) 0.00014
#2 (RfD2) 0.00043
Hazard Index (unitless)
-based on RfD1 58 679
-based on RfD2 19 221
To determine appropriate health-based soil cleanup goals for this site,
the equation used above to calculate Intake (I) was modified to solve
for lead concentration in soil (SPb). The resulting equation:
SPb (mg/kg = I * BW * AT
IR * CF * EP * ED
uses all the same assumptions and constants. The respective RfDs are
used for Intake (I).
-------
-22-
Health-based Remediation Goala for Soil
Target Soil Concentration (mq/kal
Scenario
Current Use Future Use
-based on RfD^^ 149 15
-based on RfD2 458 45
SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT: According to the His calculated in this
assessment for the different scenarios (All much greater than 1.0), the
lead contamination in the soil at this site poses a sizable risk. To •
achieve an acceptable health-based risk (HI = 1.0), the soil-borne lead
concentration would need to be reduced considerably. If it were reduced
to 458 mg/kg, it would be protective for the least conservative scenario
and RfD value. Cleanup to lower soil-lead concentrations would
obviously be protective of more conservative exposure assumptions.
Although not an ARAR, the lead reference dose (RfD) should be considered
here, as adherence to this criterion is necessary to ensure the
protectiveness of the remedial alternative and is appropriate for the
site. As the capping alternative will eliminate the ingestion and
dermal contact pathways, this alternative will meet the RfD criterion.
7.1 Selection of Indicator Chemical
The indicator chemical selection process was able to reduce the number
of chemicals to be evaluated in the discussion of contaminant
distributions and in the qualitative risk assessment. Thus, the four
indicator chemicals (Lead, Chromium, Nickel, and sulfate), are
representative of the most toxic contaminants detected in the soils and
groundwater at the MSR Facility.
However, the indicator selection process is simply a manner in which the
overall suite of compounds identified at the MSR Facility can be
justifiably limited. It is important to note that the selection of
these four indicator chemicals must not be interpreted to mean that
other contaminants detected at the MSR Facility are not of concern.
Other compounds were excluded because they were detected at low
frequencies or concentrations, because too little is known of the health
risks posed by these compounds, because they pose a risk, but that the
subjective risk is lower than the risk posed by one or more of the
selected indicator compounds, or because there is too little available
toxicological data to adequately address their risk. Since they occur
in association with one or more of the selected compounds they are
inherently addressed.
-------
-23-
A second concern involves the unusually high concentrations of Iron
detected in the shallow aquifer, although there are' other contaminants
of similar concern. Iron, at the levels detected, could significantly
affect the quality of the surface waters and their effect on aquatic
ecology since the groundwater has been found to discharge to the surface
water environment. No information was obtained on the aquatic
environment, so the potential impacts of Iron (or other compounds)
cannot be. This lack of ecological data is the reason that ecological
impacts of the MSR Facility are not addressed here.
Finally, it should be reiterated that the exclusion of organic compounds
from the indicator selection process should not be interpreted to mean
that these compounds are not of concern. As with the example of
Benzene, some of the compounds may be present in concentrations of
concern, but cannot be addressed due to the limitations of the
analytical data base.
7.2 Exposure Assessment Summary
Because all potential source areas or the extent of contamination have
not been confirmed by analytical results, most of the potentially
significant exposure pathways have been deferred to the two other
operable units. Only those pathways for which analytical data are
available are included in the preliminary risk analysis, which is
quantitative in nature. Risks cannot be quantified because the
resulting values based on the available data would not allow for
apportionment of risks to a specific source area, which, subsequently
would not allow for the prioritization of source areas or the
establishment of individual cleanup goals. Based on the initial
exposure assessment, the screening has reduced the preliminary routes to
the following four pathways for the preliminary risk analysis and
include:
— Exposure to surface soils at the MSR Facility (direct contact,
ingestion, and inhalation of dusts);
— Exposure to surface water and sediments at the eastern and southern
physical boundaries of the MSR Facility (direct contact, ingestion);
— Exposures to groundwater; and
— Ecological exposures to surface soil, surface water, and sediments at
the eastern and southern physical boundaries of the MSR Facility in
Irish Buffalo Creek and the unnamed stream, respectively.
The remainder of the potential exposure pathways will be addressed in
subsequent operable units. These pathways include:
— Exposure to surface soils at source areas upgradient and downgradient
of the MSR Facility (direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation of
dusts);
-------
-24-
— Exposure to surface water and sediments at source areas located
upstream and downstream of the MSR Facility (direct contact and
ingestion);
— Ecological exposures to surface soil, surface water, and sediments to
Irish Buffalo Creek upstream and downstream of the MSR Facility area
as noted above.
7.3 Toxicitv Assessment
The objective of the toxicity assessment is to characterize the nature
of the potential health effects associated with the indicator chemicals
identified at the MSR Facility such that, in conjunction with the
exposure information, a preliminary risk analysis of the Facility can be
performed. The characterization is a qualitative evaluation of the
available health effects data in order to provide a toxicological
profile for each indicator chemical of concern. To more clearly
understand the toxicological profiles, terms relevant to the toxicity
profiles and dose-response information are also presented.
A number of terms commonly used in toxicity assessments for carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic effects are defined in the following subsections.
Acceptable intake for Chronic Exposure (AIC). The AIC, also referred to
as the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is the highest human intake of a
chemical, expressed as mg/kg/day, that does not cause adverse effects
with long term exposure. The AIC is usually based on chronic animal
studies, since few data exist on long-term human exposures and is used
in evaluating potential noncarcinogenic health effects resulting from
chronic exposure to a chemical (EPA, 1989a).
Cancer Risk. Cancer risk is a unitless probability of an individual
developing cancer and is calculated by multiplying the average daily
exposure dose by the appropriate Carcinogenic Potency Factor to convert
the dose directly to an incremental risk of an individual developing
cancer. For example, a cancer risk of 1 x 10 is the risk of one
additional case of cancer per 1 million people (EPA, 1989a).
Carcinogenic Potency Factor (CPF). The CPF is an upper-bound estimate
of the probability of a response per unit intake of a chemical over a
lifetime, and is generally reported in (mg/kg/day) . The CPF is
derived by applying a model to the available dose-response data set and
using the model to extrapolate from the relatively high doses
administered to experimental animals to the lower exposure levels
expected for human contact in the environment (EPA, 1989a).
Chronic Hazard Index (HI). The HI is a ratio of the lifetime average
daily exposure of a noncarcinogenic chemical contaminant.
7.4 Potential Carcinogenic and Noncarcinooenic Contaminants
7.4-1 Noncarcinogenic
Detected compounds were evaluated with regard to their frequency of
occurrence, distribution and concentrations. As & result, several
-------
-25-
compounds were eliminated. Of the remaining compounds, none were known
or potential carcinogens in the media which were assessed (soil and
water), so evaluation of carcinogenic effects as part of the indicator
chemical selection process was eliminated.
Although hexavalent Chromium is a potential carcinogen via inhalation
pathways, analytical data were generated to determine the ratio of
hexavalent Chromium to the noncarcinogenic trivalent form. The result
of those analyses indicate that the hexavalent form was not detected in
any of the samples analyzed. Therefore, it should be noted that any
discussions on Chromium refer to the trivalent form.
Compounds detected were categorized by their noncarcinogenic effects.
The toxicity constants for noncarcinogenic chemicals are provided in
Figure 7. The toxicity constants used to calculate the indicator scores
for each of the inorganic chemicals detected at the MSR Facility are
derived from the most current numbers available in the EPA Health
Effects Assessment Summary Tables (EPA, 1989b) and the Integrated Risk
Information System (EPA, 1989c).
Toxicity constants for noncarcinogens (nT*) were derived using the
reciprocal of the reference dose (1/RfD). Toxicity constant units are
the inverse of their respective concentration units; therefore, the
values in the calculation of the indicator scores will be unitless. The
indicator score (IS) is the sum of the product of the concentration of a
chemical in a given medium and a toxicity-based concentration.
7.4-2 Environmental Risks
A preliminary natural resources survey has been completed on the Bypass
601/Martin Recycling (MSR) Groundwater Contamination Site, by the U.S.
Department of the Interior.
The survey reveals that the site and surrounding area provide suitable
habitat for migratory birds, a trust resource of the Department of the
Interior. Numerous species of migratory birds would be expected to
occur seasonally in this area, and several species were seen on a recent
field inspection.
Acid and metal contamination have been recorded in the surface waters,
soils, stream sediments, and groundwater on and near the site.
8.0 Remedial Action Objectives and General Response Action
8.1 Site Remedial Action Objectives
The remedial action will reduce the environmental risk posed by the
contaminants at the MSR Facility. The remedial action is protective by
reducing direct exposure to contaminated soils. Reduce the mobility of
contaminants by limiting wind dispersion of soils and infiltration of
wastes into groundwater; however, contaminants remain on-site. A fence
will be used to limit access, but may not completely eliminate the
access to trespassers to the MSR Facility. Institute deed restrictions
on property while action is going on.
-------
-26-
Continual monitoring will be conducted to determine whether remedial
measures are performing successfully.
8.2
An interim cleanup level of 500 to 1,000 mg/kg of Lead in soil has been
derived by CDC (1985) and has been adopted as a technical directive by
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response for Superfund Sites
(EPA, 1989d). A Lead soil action level of 500 mg/kg will be used for
the MSR Facility.
Because the oral toxicity of Lead is 5 to 10 times more toxic than
Chromium, Nickel or sulfate and the concentration of Lead at the MSR
Facility are several orders of magnitude higher in soil and sediment
than the other indicator chemicals, action-level development was only
performed for Lead.
Alternative 3 — In-situ solidification, involves the solidification of
contaminated soils at the site with minimal potential
for exposure to subsurface soils.
Alternative 4 — Excavation, on-site treatment and disposal. The soils
will be treated using solidification and disposed of
on-site.
Alternative 5 — Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal, involves
disposal and treatment of contaminated soils at a RCRA-
licensed facility. '
8.3 Volume of Lead Contaminated Soil
The volume of soil contaminated with Lead was calculated. Figures 9,
10, 11 and 12 show surface and subsurface soil sample locations with
Lead concentrations in excess of 500 mg/kg identified based on the
intervals 0-1', 1-', 5-15' and below 15'.
Finally, all sub-volumes were added together to obtain a final estimate
of the total volume of soil contaminated with Lead (Figure 13). The
resultant volume of 57,719 cubic yards of soil are estimated to be
contaminated with Lead in concentrations in excess of 500 mg/kg.
8.4 Cleanup Levels for Soils
There are no ARARs for soils; however, EPA Interim Guidance on
Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites was considered
for determining a soil action level. Concentrations of Lead greater
than 500 mg/kg in soils pose a potential health risk. A concentration
of 500 mg/kg is the soil action cleanup goal. This action level for
Lead will be applied to surface and subsurface soils. This Lead
concentration represents the lower end of the recommended action level
range for residential areas (500-1,000 mg/kg, USEPA, 1989d). Chromium
and Nickel were not found to be present at concentrations significantly
above background and therefore have no action levels. Sulfate has no
health based limits in soil, therefore, no soil action level for sulfate
has been selected. '
-------
-27-
9.0 Description of Alternatives
9.1 Overall Objectives
In the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), a number of steps were performed
to evaluate thoroughly the potential remedial action alternative for the
HSR site. These steps were: (1) formulation of site remedial action
objectives, (2) identification of general response actions, (3)
identification and screening of technologies, (4) development and
screening of remedial action alternatives, and (5) detailed analysis of
alternatives.
Alternatives developed and screened included the following:
Alternative 1 — No action, but long-term water monitoring.
Alternative 2 — This is an interim action. Excavation, consolidation
and capping, involves capping the contaminated soils
at the site to limit direct exposure and reduce
migration of contaminants. EPA will be able to pursue
investigations of the groundwater at the MSR Facility
and soil and groundwater at the other potential
sources.
Table 20 shows a tentative order of several dose-response effects in
children. However, it must be remembered that there is considerable
overlap between the effects noted, and these effects may vary accordings
to sex, age, and length and duration of elevated PbB. Benchmark for
that chemical in that medium that is used to rank the site chemicals.
9.2 Alternative 1 - No Action, But Loncr-Term Monitoring
This alternative involves taking no action at the MSR Facility. The MSR
Facility property would be left in its current condition. Monitoring of
soils at the MSR Facility needs to be incorporated into a comprehensive
monitoring plan for all media so all migration pathways may be
evaluated.
9.3 Alternative 2 - Excavation. Consolidation and Capping
Four buildings in the Main Facility area consisting of concrete slab,
cement block and metal frame construction will be demolished (Figure
14). The large octagon-shaped building, where Lead reclamation
-------
3 10 0294
/7
-------
5 10 0294
Toxicity Constants for Noncarcinogenic Compounds
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site --
Martin Scrap Recycling Facility.
Chemical
Name *
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Ccpper +
Iron
Lead -n-
Manganese
Nickel
Sulfates •*
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
nT*
NL
Water
nT*
'(mg/kg/day)-l
2-OOE-t-Ol
l.OOE+00
NL
2.70E+01
NL
2.00E+03
5.00E+00
5.00E+01
"Cf 8.75E-02
NL
1.11E+02 '
NL
5.COE+00
» I/reference dose
reference doses obtained from
* value not listed in available
Soil
nT*
(ag/kg/day)-l
2 .OOE-01
l.OOE-CO
NL
2.70E-01
NL
2 .OCE-03
5.00E-00
5. OOE-01
8.75E-02
NL
1. 11E+02
NL
5.00E-00
HEAST or IRIS
literature
or databases
» inorganic compounds
• no reference dose determined for copper;
acceptable intake calculated using adult
exposure to MCL of 1.3 mg/L
- no reference dose determined for lead;
acceptible intake calculated using child
exposure to proposed MCL of 0.005 mg/L
• no reference dose determined for sulfates;
acceptable intake calculated using adult
exposure to EPA guidance level of 400 mg/L
-g/kg/day - milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/L • milligrams per liter
Source: EPA, 1985c, 1989b, and 1989C.
-------
r "
U i.
SUMMARY OF SOIL LEAD ACTION LEVELS
BYPASS 601 -- MARTIN SCRAP RECYCLING FACIL1TT)
PHASE I FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
Soil Lead
Level for the
Protection of
Human He*1th
Source
Basis of Decision
Background
Levels
50 mgAg
500 to
1.000 ag/kg
500 to
1.000 «g/kg
1.000 ag/kg
2.500 mgAg
EPA Region I, ROD,
Nyanza Chemical, MA,
1983
EPA Region II, ROD.
Burnt Fly Bog Site,
NJ. 1983
Centers for Disease
Control, 198S
EPA OSVER Directive
•9355.4-02. 1989.
EPA Region IV, ROD.
Peppers Steel, FL,
1986
EPA Region IX'. ROD,
Celtor Cheaical Vork
Site, CA, 1986
Action level for
industrial property
Action level for
industrial property
Reeooaended action level
for residential areas
RecoaBended action level
for residential areas
Action level for an
industrial site
Action level for an
industrial site
Source: Hunter/ESE, 1989.
-------
\
«b
11 (-1 (ill
\
^:
M
w
V i
100 700 * '
^^^^•^**^**1 '
State in F««l ~'
'"**»"* ^J..
.l...»n T'.
I^K*a,/Huaa
K1 Hood
IU' t^unluul
ritMlhv A«ao
l'*o|M«1ir OuufMkw)
I il«nl ul C4Milo
-------
C. '
-------
-------
-------
C'J/9
/3 Calculation of Soil Volumes Contaminated
with Lead in Excess of 500 mg/kg. Bypass
601 Groundwater Contamination Site --
Martin Scrap Recycling Facility.
X-section
A
B
C
D
. r
: F
G
H
. I
J
K
; L
M
i N
i 0
P
1 Q
Area
(sq. ft.)
4,095
3,770
6, 095
290
355
0
0
0
0
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interval
-A
A-B
B-C
C-D
D-E
E-F
F-G
G-H
H-I
I-J
J-K
K-L
L-M
M-N
N-0
0-P
P-Q
Sub-Volume
Between
Adjacent Cross-
Sections (cu. yd.)
10,617
14,565
13,269 :
11,824 :
1,194
657
0 *
0 *
0 *
296 i
296 I
0
0 *
0 *
0 *
0 *
0 *
Estimated Volume
57,719 cu yd
* = No Lead Contaminated Soils Detected in Excess
of 500 mg/kg.
Note: Distance between x-sections * 100 feet
Source: Hunter/ESE, 1990
-------
-34-
activities were conducted, is believed to be contaminated, based on the
soil sample collected from inside the building and the acid-etched
concrete floors. The building debris will be disposed of in a secure
landfill, except for the metal materials, which may be reclaimed through
recycling. Concrete and stone from the buildings will be crushed and
consolidated with the contaminated surface soils.
Contaminated surface soils at the northern section of the main facility
area and at the eastern side of the slope towards the floodplain will be
excavated. This surface soil will be placed over the area where
subsurface soils are contaminated and graded to reduce the slope to no
greater than 15% (Figure 15). Clean sandy fill will provide a layer
over the contaminated soils for the replacement of a synthetic liner. A
high density polypropylene (HOPE) liner will be placed over the area and
anchored around the perimeter using trench and fill method. Eighteen
inches of clean fill will be placed over the HOPE liner and then covered
with 6" of clean topsoil to support shallow root vegetation. The cap
will eliminate the direct exposure to surface soils and limit vertical
infiltration and potentially reduce the leaching of contaminants into
the groundwater until a final remedy is chosen.
Areas where surface soils are removed will be filled with clean soil to
the approximate grade before excavation. The unnamed stream will be
realigned along the southern property boundary to minimize erosion of
the cover.
During the construction phase of the cap, air sampling will be conducted
to monitor the workers and neighbors potential exposure to airborne
particulate and dust. Air sampling results will be used to determine
the level of worker protection and potential risk to neighbors. Oust
suppressants such as water, calcium chloride solution, or foam will be
used to control airborne particulate and dust, if necessary.
A six foot high chain-link fence will be installed along the property
line of the MSR Facility. This fence will be topped with strands of
barbed wire to limit trespassers. An access gate will be installed at
the northwest corner of the property along State Road 29. Warning signs
will be posted at appropriate intervals on the fence. The fence will
limit but not completely eliminate trespassers.
Deed restrictions will be required for the MSR Facility to protect he
cap and limit exposure. The deed restrictions must limit the owner or
occupant of the property to activities that would be consistent with
minimizing exposure and risk to human health and the environment. These
restrictions would be carried with the deed on the property and
transferrable upon the sale of the property. The State of North
Carolina and Cabarrus County would be responsible for inspecting the
site to determine that the deed restrictions are not transgressed.
A public awareness program would be implemented to educate the public of
the potential human health hazards associated with the MSR Facility
soils and groundwater. The program would include periodic meetings and
-------
-35-
presentations in the local neighborhood and pamphlets. These programs
would be coordinated through the State of North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and Cabarrus County.
Maintenance of the cap may require mowing the vegetative cover and
re-establishing any areas where erosion threatens the integrity of the
cap. Since contaminants would remain on-site, CERCLA regulations
require that the site be reviewed every five years. Data collected
during the bi-annual site investigations will be used to evaluate the
site. This plan would not include environmental media sampling and
analysis since such a plan will be developed later for the entire Bypass
601 site.
9.4 Alternative 3 - In-situ Solidification
Reagents effective for immobilizing metals will be tested in bench and
pilot scale studies. Samples of untreated soils will be analyzed for
moisture content, bulk density, permeability, pH, Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS), weathering, TCLP and other possible parameters. This
analysis will be used to select the type and amount of reagents, as well
as determining the effectiveness of reagents. The most effective
reagents (low leachability, adequate strength and resistance to
weathering) will be used for pilot testing. The pilot test will
determine process rate and effectiveness.
The same demolition and disposal of buildings, consolidation of
contaminated surface soil, site regrading, and stream relocation
described in Alternative 2 would be don in Alternative 3.
The selected reagents will be mixed with the contaminated soil via
injection and mechanical mixing using a vertical auger. The treated
soil columns are positioned to overlap and create a continuous
solidified mass. The auger would be advanced to a depth sufficient to
treat all contaminated soils in excess of the action level.
During solidification of soils, approximately 65 quality control samples
will be collected. Thirty-five samples will be treated for the
parameters described below. The results will be used to confirm that
the construction meets specifications. Thirty of the 65 samples will be
splits and, once set, buried on-site. Every five years, five samples
will be uncovered and analyzed for the same suite of parameters. These
test results will be used to determine the long term integrity of the
solidified mass. The results will also be evaluated as part of the five
year site review.
The area of treated soils will be covered with 18" of clean fill and 6"
of clean top soil. The site will be revegetated and inspected
biannually.
The fence installation, deed restrictions, and public awareness program
described in Alternative 2 are the same for Alternative 3.
-------
^.
c
2QQ
.-.-r.-.-r Cirt 3occ
--— -- • *C' Ccntsi..- [zjii;--
• --- '10' Cortcwr (P-ssaies
Graphic Scale in Feet
L»CC - So. » >;;: -;
.tec - So; * <«:•: --
AREA OF CONSOLIDATE: sr
REGRADED A,\D
X
BUILDINGS TO
BE DEMOLiSHED
Alternative 2 - Capping
Figure /4- Bypass 601 Ground*ater Cc-'.:~ •='• -" -
1 Wartin Scrap Recycling rcc":..
-------
-r-
AREAS OF SURFACE SOUS
O BE CXCAVAIEO
aim DINGS 10
, Bf DEMOLISHED
1 1 (,
1 . "
4 1
J
* 1
n \
MID '''
t::: v v
t>.JI.».lf/ Nuu.l
«-••! N> .',
HI 1 .MllHUI ^>J
u. ,.,!., «,.o 1 ^V^ "N
'l.*p««1v tfuull«l
r.ij .11 '«*!• .*HI«I («g/k»* "x f» 'v
• .t.l .11 '.i-l» • MIO mij-M , -•'^^^XX. **^ ' '
r >
r ,
Vi
•^o
/
\
/jr
-------
-38-
9.5 Alternative 4 - Excavation. On-Site Treatment and Disposal
All the buildings in the Main Facility area will be demolished and the
debris stored in a staffing area on the Flood Plain area (Figure 6),
east of the slope separating the Flood Plain and the Main Facility areas
east of the Flood Plain area where contaminated soils were found.
The contaminated surface soils from the Main Facility area will be
excavated and place on top of the contaminated soils at the base of the
slope separating the Main Facility and Flood Plain areas, where soil
contamination was identified during the Phase I field investigation.
Once the Main Facility area is cleared of buildings and surface soil,
excavation of a disposal cell will begin. The Main Facility was
selected as a disposal area because it is not prone to flooding and
provides additional distance between treated soils and the groundwater.
The demolition of all the buildings allows the cell to be placed as far
north as possible, thus further away from the flood plain and ensuring
the greatest separation of the treated soils and the surficial
groundwater. Starting with excavation along the northern perimeter of
the Main Facility area, clean subsurface soils will be excavated. The
uncontaminated subsurface soils form the Main Facility area will be
staged on clean soils further east form the debris staging area in the
Flood Plain area.
Contaminated soils will be treated by solidification; battery casing
debris will be ground and consolidated with the contaminated soil, all
of which will be consolidated using cement based stabilization. The
treated soil will be placed in the disposal cell in the Main Facility
area. The clean soil excavated from the Main Facility Area will be used
to backfill the areas where contaminated subsurface soils were
excavated. Excavation of the Main Facility Area and treatment and
disposal of contaminated soils will be staged. The contaminated soils
in the western portion of the Flood Plain area (south of the Main
Facility area) will be also excavated, treated, and finally disposed of
in the Main Facility disposal cell. Excavation of the Main Facility
Area will continue until all soil contaminated with Lead in excess of
500 mg/kg action level is removed, treated and disposed.
After excavation of the contaminated soils in the western section of the
Flood Plain area, that area will be regraded and slopes will be
maintained at a 15% (or less) grade as shown in Figure 14.
A mound will be created at the Main Facility Area to provide for the
increase in volume of treated soils due to the addition of
solidification agents. The volume of solidified soil is expected to be
15% to 25% larger than the volume of excavated soil, depending on the
volume of solidification agents used. The area of treated soils will be
covered with 16" of clean fill and 6" of clean top soil. The site will
be revegetated with shallow root vegetation.
-------
-39-
9.6 Alternative 5 - Excavation. Off-Site Treatment and Disposal
Four buildings on the Main Facility Area (Figure 16) will be demolished
and disposed of off-site at a secure landfill. The contaminated soils
will be excavated using power hoes. The excavated material will be
placed in trucks and transported to a subtitle C facility.
The licensed treatment and disposal facility will be required to treat
the soils which are EP Toxic for lead by solidification. It is
estimated that half the volume of soil received will require treatment.
The remaining volume of soil can be landfilled directly since it would
not be a restricted waste.
During the excavation, air sampling will be conducted to monitor the
level of contaminated dust generated. Confirmation sampling will be
conducted on a 50 foot grid to determine if all soils contaminated in
excess of the soil action level are removed. Approximately 70
confirmation samples will be analyzed for the indicator compounds.
Because the treatment of groundwater will be evaluated in Operable Unit
3, this alternative will not consider excavating the soil below the
groundwater table for the purpose of preparing a cost estimate.
The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil, regraded and
revegetated.
The site will be visited 6 months after site demobilization to inspect
the revegetation program. No long-term monitoring will be required
since no waste will be left on-site.
10.0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
It is concluded that all the alternatives except the no action
alternative are protective of human health and the environment. The
treatment alternatives will be more protective than the capping
alternative. Alternative 5 is expected to be more protective than
Alternative 3 or 4, however, due to off-site treatment and disposal of
contaminated soils in a secure landfill. Alternative 3 and 4 will
require bench and pilot-scale studies to confirm the level of
contaminant immobility and to optimize the design to achieve this
efficiency. Exposure to the contaminated soil on the MSR Facility will
be eliminated under this alternative. Therefore, the risks associated
with dermal contact and ingestion will be eliminated. A periodic
inspection and maintenance program is necessary to guarantee the
continued protectiveness of this alternative.
The shortest estimated time necessary for implementing an alternative is
two months for capping (Alternative 2) and the longest is seven months
for excavation, on-site treatment, and disposal (Alternative 4). Both
Alternatives 3 and 5 are estimated to take five months to implement.
Alternative 1 will do nothing to eliminate the risk due to direct
exposure of contaminated soil and leaching of contaminants to the
groundwater. Alternative 3 will eliminate the direct exposure to soils
-------
-40-
and reduce the leaching to groundwater. All the treatment alternatives
are expected to eliminate the exposure to soils and leaching to
groundwater. Alternative 5, however, would provide the greatest level
of protection since the treated soils would be disposed of in an
off-site secure landfill. Bench, pilot-scale, and environmental studies
are required to determine the relative level of effectiveness for
Alternatives 3 and 4.
11.0 Selection of Remedy
The selection remedial alternative for the MSR Facility is Alternative
2. A list of Figures 9 thru 12 showing the extent of lead
contamination, capping soil consolidation and a more complete
description can be found in section 9.0 of this ROD.
This alternative will also incorporate all the retained limited action
technology process options: site fencing, deed restrictions, and public
awareness program. Alternative 2, provides a relatively inexpensive
interim remedial action for the MSR Facility. This alternative would
not prohibit future remedial actions at the site, but would provide a
level of protection until such time that a treatment and/or disposal
alternative could be implemented.
12.0 Statutory Requirements
The Agency has determined that this interim action satisfies the
statutory requirements of providing protection of human health and the
environment, attaining applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of other environmental statutes, will be
cost-effective and will utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The remainder of this section discusses how the
statutory requirements relate to this site.
12.1 Protective of Health and the Environment
No unacceptable short term risk or cross media impacts will be caused by
implementation of the interim action.
12.2 Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Remedial actions performed under Superfund must comply with all ARARs.
The following ARARs were identified for this site.
12.2-1 Contaminant-Specific ARARs
The contaminant-specific ARAR pertinent to the capping remedial
alternative is the NAAQ standard for lead, which is codified in the
Clean Air Act of 1976 and the North Carolina Air Control Regulations.
As stated above, water sprays or other dust suppressants are envisioned
to be used to control fugitive dust emissions such that this standard is
not exceeded.
-------
««—•— 10' Contour
2QQ • — — '0' Contour
Graphic Seal* in F««t
AREA TO DISPOSE OF
SOUDIRED SOILS
BUILDINGS TO
BE DEMOLISHED
REALIGNMENT OF _
UNNAMED-STtfE&T
--65C-
»*
/ 0 4$ x
J • '«' <° ^ y
' / ^ , / .e
jr: = - -:: :- : 'e
. *
-------
-42-
12.2-2 Location-Specific ARARs
The location-specific ARAR that may be activated by the interim action
is the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for Wetland and Flood Plains.
Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services will be required
if realignment of the unnamed stream involves wetlands.
12.2-3 Action-Specific
Several action-specific ARARs will be applicable or relevant and
appropriate for capping remediation. All on-site workers must meet the
requirements of OSHA under 29 CFR, Parts 1910, 1926, and 1904.
Additionally, worker exposure to air contaminants must be kept below
allowable concentrations (threshold limit values) set by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
Although not an ARAR, the lead reference dose (RfD) should be considered
here, as adherence to this criterion is necessary to ensure the
protectiveness of the remedial alternative and is appropriate for the
site. As the capping alternative will eliminate the ingestion and
dermal contact pathways, this alternative will meet the RfD criterion.
12.2-4 To Be Considered Criteria
To be considered (TBC) criteria are those criteria which, although not
required by or based on federal statutes (as ARARs are), may be
applicable to the MSR Facility.
Because groundwater contamination is not being addressed in this ROD,
groundwater ARARs are presented only in the context of dewatering
activities associated with the soil excavation activities.
12.2-5 ARAR Attainment
All other alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1, would meet
their respective ARARs and cleanup goals. The contaminated soil is not
a RCRA hazardous waste and is currently under the soil and debris
exemption to the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR). Therefore, the LDR
are not ARARs for this site. No waiver from ARARs would be necessary to
implement the active cleanup options.
12.3 Cost Effectivenesa
Figure 17, presents the comparison of the present worth, capital annual
O&M, and five-year costs for Alternatives 2, 34, and 5.
EPA's selected Alternative affords a higher degree of overall
protectiveness in not only protecting the public against direct exposure
to surface soils but also in reducing the threat of future contamination
to surface water and sediments at the eastern and southern physical
boundaries of the MSR Facility. The present worth estimated cost of
EPA's selected remedy is approximately $738,821.
-------
-43-
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technology
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
U.S. EPA believes this interim action is the most appropriate cleanup
solution for the MSR site and provides the best balance among the
evaluation criteria for the remedial alternatives evaluated given the
limited scope of the action. This remedy provides effective protection
in both the short- and long-term to potential human and environmental
receptors, is readily implemented, is cost-effective and is consistent
with future response actions that will be undertaken at the site.
Preference for treatment will be addressed in the final decision
document.
13.0 Occupational Exposures
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has
estimated that >1 million American workers are occupationally exposed to
inorganic lead in >100 occupations (NCI 1985). The highest and most
prolonged lead exposures are found among workers in the lead smelting,
refining, and manufacturing industries. In all work areas, the major
route of lead exposure is by inhalation an ingestion of leadbearing
dusts and fumes. Airborne dusts settle onto food, water, clothing, and
other objects, and may subsequently be transferred to the mouth.
Therefore, good housekeeping and good ventilation have a major impact on
the extent of exposure. Although occupational exposure is widespread,
environmental monitoring data on levels of exposure in many occupations
are not available. This is partly because lead exposure is frequently
monitored by biological testing (e.g., determination of urinary lead
levels, blood lead levels, urinary coproprophyrin, or
delta-aminolevulinic acid) rather than monitoring the workplace
environment for lead concentrations (NCI 1985, EPA 1986a).
Potentially high levels of lead may occur in a wide variety of
occupations including: lead smelting and refining industries, battery
manufacturing plants, steel welding or cutting operations, construction,
rubber products and plastics industries, printing industries, firing
ranges, and gas stations (EPA 1986a, NCI 1985, Feldman 1978). Workers
involved in the production of gasoline additives, tetraethyl lead and
tetramethyl lead, are exposed to both inorganic lead and lead alkyIB.
The major potential hazard to these workers appears to be from dermal
exposure (EPA 1986a).
Secondary occupational exposure may occur among families of workers who
inadvertently bring home lead dusts on clothing worn at work. Blood
lead levels have been found to be markedly higher in household members
residing in homes of occupationally exposed workers compared to members
of homes of people not occupationally exposed (EPA 1986a, Grandjean and
Bach 1986).
14.0 Populations at Risk
As discussed by EPA (1986a), at least three groups of populations at
risk can be identified: pre-school age children, the fetuses, and white
males between 10 and 59 years of age.
-------
COST KST1HATKS
FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
BYPASS 601 -- MARTIN SCKAI' RECYCLING FACILITY
PHASE I FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
Remedial Alternative Present Worth
Alternative 2 -- $ 738,821
Capping
Alternative 3 -- $ A. 539, 118
In-Situ Solidification
Alternative A -- $ 11,511.757
On-Slte Treatment and
Disposal
Alternative 5 -- $ 16.A7l.823
Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal
Capital Annual O&M 5-Yi-,n Review
1
$ 681.155 $ 9.700 $ 20.000
$ A. 243. 995 $ 9.700 $ 52,500
$ U.198.1A7 $ 10.900 $ 52.500
$ 16.A71.823 $ 00 $ 00
Source: ESE. 1990
-------
-45-
Young children are inherently more susceptible to the effects of lead
because of the greater intake of lead by infants and young children in
the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts on a body-weight basis
compared with adults; the greater prevalence of nutrient deficiency,
which can affect gatrointestinal lead absorption; normal hand-to-mouth
activity and pica; differences in the efficiency of lead sequestration
in bone; and incomplete development of the blood-brain barrier
increasing the risk of entry of lead into the nervous system.
Fetuses are at even greater risk. As discussed in Section 4.2-2 on
distribution and body burden in the Toxicological data section, lead can
readily cross the placental barrier; therefore, exposure of women to
lead during pregnancy results in uptake by the fetus. Furthermore,
since the physiological stress of pregnancy may result in mobilization
of lead from maternal bone, fetal uptake of lead can occur from a mother
who was exposed to lead before pregnancy, even if no lead exposure
occurred during pregnancy. Prenatal exposure may be related to
postnatal mental retardation, impaired postnatal neurobehavioral
development, and reduced birth weight and gestational age.
Increased blood pressure is associated with blood lead concentrations
possibly as low as 7 ug/dL (EPA 1986a). It appears that this
relationship is particularly significant for middle-aged white males
(aged 40 to 59).
Figure 20 shows a tentative order of several dose-response effects in
children. However, it must be remembered that there is considerable
overlap between the effects noted, and these effects may vary according
to sex, age, and length and duration of elevated pbB.
-------
CMNICAt SPtCIHC ARMS. IK*. OMUtl*. AND OIIOAma
•tPASS 601 - NMIIH SOUM> ttCmilK IACIIIIT
•MAS* i laaisto rtASititiif siuot
I
( I
>tUHAIO»»
tivft
ARM IKMimCAIIOJI
SIAIUS
HCOUUtMtMl SMOPSIS
federal
CWA Mater Duality Criteria
(UK) for Protection ol
Health «id Aquatic
•C*A Naiimum
limit* (Kiel
Concentration
•elevent end
Appropriate
•elevent end
Appropriate
federal
SOWA MM ieuaCont eminent level*
UBj>tian alone.
Provide* ttandard* for U toiic caapounds
end peclicide* for protection of
groundttater. lhe*e tlandard* are e II..
«aniatja coniaMinatit levels at •ypask 6til i.
determine levels of coniaBinalion.
Ihe proMJlgated values are included u> iiir
SOtM NCI* (Refer to SOU* below). Ihe <:«•«,1,^
standards are used to coapare mth the •• «!•••
contaminant levels at lypass 601 to
the level of contamination.
fight actall ic species and one tome
(cyanide) were identified in
contamination. Ihe SIMM NCIi. in cunium 11.«.
with NC Ambient Quality Standards and guitUm «•
value*. Mill be used to selett inditan.i
chemicals and as treatment retirement*
Since the HClCs are non-enforceable yoaii
they are used as reference values to ioli. «i
treatment system performance only.'
-------
MCM WtCIIIC AIMS. OIIIEtlA. MD CUIDMKt
•IPASS 401 - MMIIIi SOMT •fCTCllW tACUIIV
PtMSf I fOCUSCD ItASIfMUlf SIUDI
UtOUKHMI
tivu
Stale
OHM
State
Water rollution Control
••fulatiom for Cftluant
lialtatlom » MCAC 211.0118
Water Ouality Stamtardi for
freah Surface Water
Claaaification and Standard*
1* HCAC 21.0211
•« levant and
Afipropriat*
•elevant and
Af^irapriate
Provide* concentration criteria for
discharge of effluent to curtate Mater
environments, these standard* arc
developed to cnaur* protection of surface
Mater resources and acBjatlc species.
Establtahe* Mater quality atandard* for 16
tone substances and peatlclde*. including
ChrodiuB. lead, and nickel and establishvs
discharge li«lt* tor pN for all fresh
•urface Mater*.
fS COMMOtMIIOl
Discharge of li rated groundbiter lo ir.r
•urface Mater* (tl«»k C) at the N$t faic
Mhen developing treatacnt criteria Im
dewatering Materc prior to discharge tu •
surface Mater body.
-------
• 7 ••
•-. 2o Dose-Response Effects of Lead Adsorption in Children.
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site -- Marti.-.
Scrap Recycling Facility.
Blood Lead Level
(ug/dL) Effect
<10 Inhibition of ALA-D
15 Elevation of ZPP
30 Elevation of ALA and Coprcprcp'-yrir.
in the urine
40 Shortening of red cell life spar.
50 Peripheral neuropathy (succlir.ical;
70 Anemia
80 to 100 Impannent of renal function
80 to 100 Encephalopathy
ZPP = Zinc Protoporphrin Source: ATSDR, 1937c.
ALA-D » Delta-aminolevulinic Acid
Dehydratase
ALA » Delta-aminolevulinic Acid
------- |