PB98-964103
EPA 541-R98-090
November 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Byron Salvage Yard
Byron, IL
9/24/1998
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Byron Salvage Yard, Byron, Illinois
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the soil component of
Operable Unit #4 at the Byron Salvage Yard site (Byron) in Byron, Illinois. This remedial
action was selected in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superftmd
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, is consistent with the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) to the extent practicable.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site.
The State of Illinois is in the process of preparing a Letter of Concurrence for the selected
remedy. Upon receipt of this document, it will be included in the Administrative Record
for the site.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if noi iddres^j i>>
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The purpose of this remedy is to eliminate or reduce the risks posed by the present or
potential future exposure to contaminated soil. The remedy outlines specific actions to
address on-site soil.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
1) Soil cover consisting of a rooting zone layer spread over the metal-contarmnared
soil areas.
2) Surface control technologies such as grading and revegetation.
3) Institutional controls such as access and deed restrictions.
4) Soil excavation for the VOC-contaminated soils.
5) Disposal and transport of the VOC-contaminated soils to a Subtitle D landfill.
6) Removal and disposal of three drums of waste from property adjacent to the Byron
Salvage Yard.
-------
7) Removal of the fence at the Byron Salvage Yard property after completion of soil
cover and implementation of the institutional controls (Items 1, 2, and 3 from
above) and reinstallation of the fence near Meyer's Pond.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies, to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element.
A review will be conducted within five years after commencement of the remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site
above health based levels.
Date ' William E. Muno /
Superfund Division Director
-------
U.S. EPA SUPERFUND
RECORD OF DECISION
BYRON SALVAGE YARD
BYRON, ILLINOIS
SEPTEMBER 1998
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
»
SITE LOCATION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 5
SCOPE OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 6
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS . . 6
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS , 11
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 13
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 18
THE SELECTED REMEDY 23
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 26
FIGURES
1-2 Site Location
1-3 Site Map
1-4 PRG Exceedences in Soil
1-5 Sample Grid
1-6 Soil Excavation and Treatment Areas
TABLES
Risk Tables
PRG Tables
Cost Tables
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B - State Letter of Concurrence
Appendix C - Administrative Record
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BSY Byron Salvage Yard
CERCLA Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ComEd Commonwealth Edison Company
DFP Dirks Farm property
FS Feasibility Study
IAC Illinois Administrative Code
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/1 Milligrams per liter
NCP National nil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
ug/kg micrograms per kilogram
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE LOCATION
The Byron Superfund site consists of the Byron Salvage Yard (BSY) property and the
Dirks Farm property (DFP). The contiguous properties are located in rural Ogle County in
Northern Illinois, about halfway between the cities of Byron and Oregon, Illinois. (Figure
1-2)
The BSY is located east of Razorville Road in the southwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 13, Township 24 North, Range 10 East (Figure 1-3). The DFP is
directly west of the BSY across Razorville Road. The City of Byron's corporate limit is
about 3 miles to the northeast of the Site and the City of Oregon's corporate limit is about 5
miles to the southwest of the Site.
The property adjacent to the northeast boundary of the BSY is Motorsport Park used for
motorcycle riding. The property adjacent to the southern boundary is privately owned.
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) owns the properties immediately north and
southeast of the BSY. ComEd also owns the DFP to the west of the BSY. These properties
are used by ComEd for their Byron Nuclear Power Generating Facility and support.
infrastructure. A residential landowner lives immediately to the south of the BSY. Nearby
parcels are also owned by ComEd which include 80 acres north of the BSY leased to the
Byron Forest Preserve District. The current land uses are expected to be generally the
same for the immediate future, with the exception being that increased demands for
residential development for parts of the BSY and DFP is anticipated. These current and
future land uses were used in estimating risks associated with the contaminants found on-
site.
The site is located on the upland portion of the Rock River Valley and partially at the heads
of several intermittent streams. The upland areas consist of broad, relatively flat plains.
The side slopes of the upland areas are dominated by bedrock erosional features, which
have been modified by glaciation. The area in the immediate vicinity of the Rock River is
characterized by moderate relief due to steeply incised stream and river valleys.
The site has been divided into four operable units. Operable Unit 1 was conducted to limit
site access and provide residences with bottled water. Operable Unit 2 provided additional
residences with bottled water and then carbon filters to affected or potentially affected
residences. Operable Unit 3 involved concurrence with the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency's decision to provide a municipal water supply to the affected residences
and the extension of the municipal water line to additional residences. Operable Unit 4
addresses the final soil and groundwater action selected for the site. This ROD addresses
the soil component of the remedial action for the site.
-------
2
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site History
In the 1960s, the BSY was operated as a junk yard where miscellaneous waste and debris
were brought for disposal. The disposal practices continued until about 1972. Drums of
electroplating wastes and other materials (oil sludges, paint sludges, cutting wheels,
solvents, and scrap metal) were disposed of at the BSY. Industrial wastes were reportedly
dumped directly on the ground at times of heavy rainfall, and the waste would be carried
off the BSY by the resulting surface water runoff.
The contents of the drums found on the BSY were handled in a variety of ways: wastes
were pumped out by an oil/chemical salvage company and taken offsite; dumped on the
ground in the vicinity of the ravines draining to the north; sprayed on nearby dirt roads and
onsite for dust control; or left in drums, some of which later corroded, allowing their
contents to leak out.
Similar dumping practices were also carried out during this time at the DFP. There were
four primary disposal areas on the DFP, referred to as the North, South, East, and West
Disposal Areas, located 300 to 1,200 feet west of Razorville Road. Five other smaller
disposal areas on the DFP (Areas A through E, see Figure 1-4) were also identified.
The discovery of these dumping practices prompted a series of regulatory actions that
culminated in the BSY being placed on the National Priorities Listing (NPL) in 1982.
Various site investigation and remediation activities have been carried out at both the BSY
and the DFP properties since contamination was documented.
Enforcement Activities
Beginning in 1970, the State of Illinois began inspections of the BSY. In the course of the
inspections, State inspectors noted that open dumping activities were being regularly
conducted. The State continued its inspections and, beginning in 1972, began sampling and
monitoring programs to determine whether possible contamination of BSY posed a risk to
the local community.
In 1972, following the report of a red discharge into Woodland Creek, located adjacent to
the BSY, the State conducted investigations and concluded that hazardous wastes were
disposed of on the BSY. Contamination was found in the BSY soils, the runoff from the
BSY, and groundwater beneath the BSY. Cyanide was detected in nearby private wells.
Following a series of inspections and reports, Mr. Johnson closed the salvage operation in
1973 and buried some of the drums. In 1974, the State brought an action before the Illinois
Pollution Control Board against the then-current owners, Wilford and Norma Johnson,
alleging open dumping and landfill operation violations.
-------
In 1975, Dames and Moore was retained by ComEd to investigate contamination at the
DFP after cattle were killed from drinking cyanide-contaminated water. The findings of
the study revealed four waste disposal areas on the DFP and the dumping of liquid wastes
into the gullies draining to Woodland Creek. Cyanide and heavy metals were detected in
DFP soils, soils in the gullies, and groundwater. Cleanup measures at the DFP were then
initiated by ComEd, and included drum removal, removal of contaminated soils in the
North Disposal Area, and treatment of cyanide-contaminated soils in the remaining three
disposal areas with sodium hypochlorite.
In December 1982, the Byron Salvage Yard was placed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) by U.S. EPA. In April 1983, IEPA and U.S. EPA entered into a Cooperative
Agreement for the IEPA to conduct a State-lead RI/FS of the contamination at BSY. In
May 1983, IEPA contracted with D'Appolonia Waste Management Services to conduct the
RI/FS. D'Appolonia's work was completed in 1984. The RI conducted by D'Appolonia
indicated that 504 surface drums were present at the BSY, and estimated that there were
approximately 11,400 buried drums present; some still containing liquid or solid contents.
Sampling conducted during the RI confirmed the presence of hazardous wastes at the BSY,
including the following: lead, arsenic, cyanide, halogenated organics, zinc, nickel and low
level PCBs. At that time, it was estimated that at least 3600 cubic yards of soil at the BSY
had become contaminated from releases of hazardous wastes from drums or open dumping
at the BSY. A final RI report was submitted by D'Appolonia to IEPA in June 1984.
In the FS, D'Appolonia considered six alternatives for possible remedial action to address
the sources of the drums and soil contamination at the BSY. A final FS report was
submitted to IEPA, recommending that an Interim Remedial Action be accomplished by
means of off-site disposal of wastes and contaminated soils.
In July 1984, under an emergency action, the U.S. EPA began supplying bottled water to
residents along Razorville Road and Acorn Road whose private water supplies indicated
actual or probable trichloroethylene contamination. The residents receiving bottled water
were also supplied carbon adsorption treatment units in April 1986.
In late 1984, U.S. EPA issued a work assignment for the execution of additional RI/FS
activities specifically designed to supplement the IEPA RI/FS and to further investigate
groundwater contamination emanating from the BSY. In September 1985, the RI/FS for
the BSY was expanded to include a Phased FS (PFS) for investigation of residential well
contamination in the Rock River Terrace subdivision. The PFS was initiated after U.S.
EPA, IEPA, and IDPH sampling of Rock River Terrace water wells showed VOC
contamination. The objective of this study was to investigate the potential health threat due
to exposure to the contaminated water supply and to evaluate alternative water supply and
treatment options that would ensure a safe water supply to Rock River Terrace residents.
Also during 1985, U.S. EPA erected a fence along the BSY perimeter and posted warning
signs.
-------
In April 1985, U.S. EPA issued an Emergency Action for the installation of carbon
adsorption treatment units for residences along Acorn Road and Razorville Road that were
currently receiving bottled water. The carbon units, called whole house treatment units,
treated the entire household water supply. In June 1986, the Rock River Terrace PFS
report was released for public comment. The study recommended that whole house carbon
treatment units similar to those installed at the Acorn Road residences be installed in all
affected residences in the Rock River Terrace Subdivision.
On July 14, 1986, IEPA selected an Interim Remedial Action (IRA) for the BSY which
included the excavation of soils and buried drums, off-site disposal of wastes and
contaminated soils to threshold levels, incineration of certain liquid wastes, in-situ
treatment of cyanide contaminated soils, regrading of the site, capping of remaining
contaminated areas with a clay cap, and plans for restrictions on future use of the site.
lEPA's IRA ROD determined that off-site disposal should be accomplished at a properly
lined, RCRA compliant hazardous waste landfill. Between October 1986 and January
1987, IEPA conducted cleanup and removal actions at the BSY. Activities included
excavation of buried drums; removal of surface drums; removal of soils contaminated with
heavy metals and VOCs; removal of soils with cyanide concentrations greater than 100
ppm; in situ treatment of soils with cyanide contamination less than 100 ppm; removal of
miscellaneous debris; and, backfilling and regrading for erosion control.
Also in July 1986, the IEPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the design and
construction of a water line to distribute potable water from the city of Byron municipal
water supply to residences in Rock River Terrace and along Acorn and Razorville Roads.
In September 1986, the U.S. EPA issued a Record of Decision based on the Phased
Feasibility Study that called for the installation of carbon-filter units in residences. The
remedy was not implemented due to the construction of the municipal water line.
In February 1987, the U.S. EPA and United States Geological Service conducted aquifer
pump tests on two aquifers (Galena-Platteville Dolomite and St. Peter Sandstone)
underlying the Site. Simultaneously, the U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team (ERT)
implemented a transportable water treatment system as a pilot program to cleanup the
effluent generated from the pump tests.
In September through December 1987, Phase II RI field activities were conducted on and
around the BSY to evaluate the IEPA cleanup effort at the BSY, determine if any exposure
potential remains at the BSY, acquire additional information needed to verify Phase I RI
data and determine the nature and extent of contamination on the DFP.
In August 1988, U.S. EPA published two phases of the RI. The first phase summarized site
conditions on the BSY. The second phase was added to incorporate the DFP site
characterization results into the Phase I RI. The second phase concluded that contamination
was present at the DFP; howeVer, the exact nature and extent of soil contamination and
-------
groundwater contamination and offsite migration potential were not clear, and further study
was recommended.
In June 1989, the U.S. EPA signed a ROD concurring with and providing for the extension
of the lEPA-runded Rock River Terrace subdivision water supply system to provide
additional residents with a supply of drinkable, uncontaminated water. U.S. EPA,
however, determined that a number of unanswered questions remained concerning the
nature and extent of contamination on the DFP. Another RI was initiated to: 1) fully
delineate the nature and extent of contamination at the DFP; 2) identify and evaluate
potential rates of contaminant migration; and, 3) assess the risk posed to human health and
the environment from the site. This RI was completed in 1994. In September 1994, the
U.S. EPA initiated an FS to determine available options for remediating the DFP portion of
the site and to select the final remedial action for the entire site. The FS was completed in
February 1997.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
All pertinent documents relating to the site were placed in information repositories
established at the following locations: Byron Municipal Library, 109 N. Franklin St.,
Byron, Illinois 61010; Ogle County Health Department, 104 South 5th St., Oregon, Illinois
61061; and U.S. EPA Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604.
A Proposed Plan was issued in March 1997 to inform the community of the proposed
remedy for the site. The community was informed of a public comment period that was
going to be initiated and offered them the opportunity to attend a public meeting via
placement of advertisements in the Rockford Register Star on March 27, 1997 and the Ogle
County Life/Rock Valley Shopper on March 31, 1997. The public comment period was
initiated on April 1, 1997. On April 10, 1997, a public meeting was held at the Byron
High School to explain the proposed remedy, answer questions and receive public
comments. At this meeting, a request was made to extend the public comment period for
an additional 30 days. This request was granted and the comment period subsequently
concluded on May 31, 1997.
A summary of public comments and U.S. EPA's responses, as they relate to the soil
component of the final remedial action, are provided in the attached responsiveness
summary in Appendix A.
-------
SCOPE OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This Record of Decision is for the soil component of Operable Unit 4 of the Byron Salvage
Yard site. A later Record of Decision will be issued for the groundwater component of
Operable Unit 4. The remedial action objectives for the soil are to prevent ingestion and
direct contact with soil contaminants with a total cancer risk greater than 1 x 106 or a
hazard index exceeding the Superfund remediation goal of 1 and to assure protectiveness
for the ecological receptors present on-site. Also, remediation of the contaminated soil is
being conducted to prevent leaching of contaminants to groundwater that would result in
contaminant concentrations that exceed IEPA Groundwater Class I values. The
implementation of these actions will allow for removal of existing fences around the BSY
and allow for continued use of the site under the present land use scenarios (utilization by
ComEd for the needs of the Byron Nuclear Generating Facility and non-residential use of
all other areas). In addition, metal-contaminated soil areas will be contained in-place and
the use of institutional and engineering controls will prevent adverse exposures as long as
these areas remain undisturbed by excavation activities. The VOC-contaminated areas will
be remediated to improve the ultimate effectiveness and efficiency of any subsequent
groundwater measures that may be taken by removing source material that is aggravating
the current groundwater ARARs exceedences. The present landowners are expected to be
responsible for implementing and maintaining the intitutional controls as part of this
remedy.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Geology
The Site is located on an upland, on side slopes of incised erosional ravines or valleys
within the Rock River Hill Country subsection of the Till Plains section, Central Lowland
Province. The subsection, like the Site, is characterized by a mantle of unconsolidated
deposits, primarily glapial till, overlying an irregular bedrock surface. The unconsolidated
material at the Site ranges in thickness from 4 to 33 feet, and is usually around 15 feet
thick. At the Site, the unconsolidated material consists of either silt and clay or sand and
gravel. In general, the unconsolidated material in borings located near Razorville Road
consist of silt and clay. The unconsolidated deposits 400 feet or more east or west of
Razorville Road consist of sand and gravel. Near the Rock River, the unconsolidated
materials increase in thickness to an unknown depth and consist of alluvial sands and
gravels.
Based on boring logs from the 1994 U.S. EPA RI and previous investigations, the bedrock
underlying the Site consists of the Galena and Platteville Groups (dolomite), which overlie
the St. Peter Sandstone. The dolomite bedrock is characterized by fractures, joints, and
-------
faults, typical of many carbonate rock systems. The bedrock surface has been eroded and
is characterized by steep slopes and an irregular surface. Beneath the Site, the dolomites
are about 200 feet thick. Near the river the dolomites pinch out to a thickness of less than
20 feet. The base of the channel of the Rock River appears to be on the St. Peter
Sandstone, and the dolomites appear to have been eroded.
Site Hydrogeology
The unconsolidated material at the Site is unsaturated, but it is saturated along the Rock
River and in several valleys to the north, northeast, and the west of the site. In the
dolomite bedrock, water was encountered about 15 to 80 feet below land surface on the
uplands. The configuration of the water table in the dolomite mirrors the topography, and
groundwater flow directions are from the Site to the north, northwest, west and southwest.
Flow from the site appears to discharge to at least two springs, Benesh Spring, located
about 5,000 feet southwest of the Site, and Meyers Spring located about 3,000 feet north of
the Site (400 feet south of Acorn Road).
Groundwater flow is also along large fracture or fault zones in the dolomite bedrock. It
appears that two directions of preferential groundwater flow and contaminant migration in
the dolomite aquifer exist. The primary flow pathway is from the Site to the northwest,
and a second, less significant flow path from the Site to the west-southwest. Flow
velocities in the dolomite bedrock vary from less than 0.1 foot per day to about 4,000 feet
per day. These variations are typical of fractured bedrock; poorly developed fractures
exhibit lower velocity whereas well developed fractures exhibit higher flow velocities.
Nature and Extent of Contamination
The purpose of the RI was to define the nature and extent of contamination at the site and
to describe the extent of the threat that contaminants pose to human health and the
environment. The purpose of the FS was to develop a set of alternatives for addressing the
contamination problems at the site.
Dirks Farm Soils
The nature and extent of soil contamination on the DFP was assessed based on soil data
from the 1994 U.S. EPA RI report. The results of that assessment are as follows:
North Disposal Area - elevated levels of zinc (maximum concentration detected was 43,800
mg/kg), chromium (49 mg/kg), copper (7,450 mg/kg), and lead (146 mg/kg) were detected
in the soils of the North Disposal Area. The highest concentrations of metals were detected
in the southern portion of this area, outside of the extent of previous soil excavation. The
vertical extent of metals contamination has been confirmed to at least 4 feet but has not
-------
8
been fully characterized beyond this depth. VOCs were not detected in soil samples in the
North Disposal Area during the RI investigations.
East Disposal Area - elevated levels of cyanide (maximum concentration detected was 114
mg/kg), mercury (3.7 mg/kg), lead, and aluminum were found within the East Disposal
Area. The cyanide and mercury contamination is located in the northern half of the
disposal area. Toluene up to 26 ug/kg was detected in three samples at a depth of about 4
feet. Bedrock in the East Disposal Area occurs from one foot to five feet below ground
surface, thereby defining the vertical extent of soil contamination in this disposal area.
West Disposal Area - elevated levels of VOCs, primarily toluene (maximum concentration
detected was 960,000 ug/kg), ethylbenzene (39,000 ug/kg), xylenes (280,000 ug/kg), and
PCE (18,000 ug/kg) v ere detected in the West Disposal Area at depths from 4 to 8 feet.
Elevated levels of cyanide (332 mg/kg), lead (72.7 mg/kg), copper (113 mg/kg), chromium
(151 mg/kg), and zinc (2290 mg/kg) were detected in the surface soil. The highest levels
of VOCs and metals appear to be associated with areas of no or stressed vegetation.
Elevated levels of metals >n the surface soils also occurred in the open ravine area to the
west of the disposal area.
South Disposal Area - the analytical data from the South Disposal Area showed there were
no contaminants at concentrations greater than background or at concentrations that exceed
risk or health levels.
Areas A through E - soil sampling was conducted in five other areas (Areas A through E)
on the DFP. Elevated levels of chromium and vanadium were detected in Area E (Figure
1-4). Areas A through D did not contain elevated concentrations of the potential
contaminants.
BSY Soils
The nature and extent of contamination on the BSY was assessed based on soil data
collected during Phase I and II of the RI conducted in 1985 through 1988.
These studies and previous site and related investigations have documented the locations of
onsite surface dumping, areas of buried wastes, and areas of contaminated soils. Large
deposits of this debris were seen around the various structures on the site and in the West
Waterway. An area of the southeast corner of the property contained a substantial number
of upright drums containing liquids and solids. Additional drum clusters were dispersed
throughout the site. Surface erosion in the lower reaches of the South Waterway (northeast
of the corner of the site) had exposed buried drums. Drums were also exposed in Ravine
Waterway downstream of the confluence of the South and West Waterways. Estimates
from the D'Appolonia report suggest that as of June 1984 as many as 11,000 drums may
-------
have been buried in the BSY ravines and about 400 remained on the surface. The upper
reaches of the South Waterway was in natural condition, there was no evidence that is had
been filled with waste materials, soils, or backfill. Figure 1-5 shows the locations of the
ravines, buildings, roadways, and miscellaneous debris that were once located in the BSY.
The 1983 D'Appolonia remedial investigation included surface and subsurface soil
sampling. Surficial soil sampling was performed on a 200- by 200-foot grid system
(Figure 1-5). The grid was further subdivided into uniform 100- by 100-foot squares
during the sampling program. Within each of these 100- by 100-foot squares, four
quadrants were established and a subsample of soil was taken at the approximate center of
each quadrant. These four subsamples were composited to form a representative surficial
soil sample for each 100- by 100-foot grid square. Test pits and limited subsurface borings
were also used in the investigation to characterize the subsurface conditions at the site.
Additional surface soil samples were collected over the former BSY road network in fall
1985 by the U.S. EPA and the IEPA. Sampling locations were determined by visual
inspection by the IEPA, the IDPH, and U.S. EPA. Sample analysis showed that the road
network was contaminated with heavy metals immediately on and adjacent to the roadways.
Based on the D'Appolonia investigation, in late 1986 the IEPA performed removal and
remedial actions to clean the site of drums, miscellaneous debris, and contaminated soils.
Figure 1-6 shows the areas where the removal and remedial actions were completed.
Between 1985 and 1987, Phases I and II of the RI were conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the IEPA remediation of the BSY soils. Sampling was conducted on a grid
basis similar to the D'Appolonia sampling procedures. The results of the sampling shows:
1) elevated areas of zinc (maximum concentration detected was 50,200 mg/kg) found at
select surface (0 to 1 foot) sampling points in the road network on the BSY and in Quadrant
No. 9; and, 2) elevated levels of lead (up to 502 mg/kg) in Quadrant No. 25 at the surface
(0 to 1 foot) or in the road network.
It is assumed that these contaminants are present in the soil at these concentrations today.
As part of the remedial action an effort may be required to locate any additional buried
drums and the extent of soil contamination along the road network may have to be further
defined prior to the initiation of excavation or capping.
Groundwater
This ROD only addresses the soil component of the selected remedy. The following
discussion is provided for information purposes only.
The monitoring and residential well sampling results were used to evaluate the nature and
extent of groundwater contamination. Figure 1-3 shows the location of the monitoring
wells which were used to evaluate the nature and extent of groundwater contamination.
-------
10
This involved the evaluation of the most recent data and historical trends at the sampling
locations. The most comprehensive sampling efforts for monitoring wells were conducted
in late 1991 and early 1992, although other events were conducted in spring 1991, spring
1989, winter 1988, late summer and early fall 1987, spring 1986, and fall 1985.
Residential well samples have been periodically collected since 1985. A summary of that
evaluation is described below.
*Multivalent cation metals (iron, manganese, chromium, bromine, calcium, magnesium,
aluminum) were elevated throughout much of the site based on 1991 sampling results.
However, these elevated concentrations may be due to groundwater turbidity.
*Based on the 1994 U.S. EPA RI data, cyanide is present in low-level concentrations along
the northeast corner of the BSY (B-3), in known disposal areas (AW-6 and AW-2), the
central portion of the BSY and also in the DFP (DF-2, DF-19, PC-5B). At these locations,
the cyanide concentrations are decreasing with time.
*Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) were detected in groundwater on the
Site. Elevated BTEX concentrations were found in the following wells: AW-6, PC-3B,
DF-6, and DF-1S, indicating a BTEX plume extending from central BSY to the southeast
(see figure 1-8).
*Elevated levels of PCE, TCE, and their degradation products as well as 1,1,1-TCA and
chloroform were detected throughout the onsite and offsite downgradient sampling
locations. The north disposal area and the BSY appear to be historic and existing source
areas for the chlorinated groundwater contamination. This is indicated by the elevated
concentrations in wells such as AW-4S, B-3, AW-IS, MW-15 and MW-20R, and the
increased total mass of VOC contamination beneath the north disposal area. The other
source area appears to be the West Disposal Area on the DFP as identified by elevated
levels of chlorinated contamination in wells such as DF-1S, DF-1D, and DF-18.
*Analytical data from PW-3, 6W-42, MW-20R, MW-41, residential properties along
Acorn Road, and Meyers Spring indicate that chlorinated contamination has migrated
downgradient from the source area on the BSY offsite to the northwest beneath Acorn Road
to Meyers Spring and the Rock River Terrace subdivision. The majority of samples with
elevated chlorinated concentrations are located in the dolomite bedrock.
Surface Water
This ROD only addresses the soil component of the selected remedy. The following
information is provided for information purposes only.
Surface water was sampled during six separate events (April 1975, July 1985, April 1986,
September 1987, May 1991, and October 1991). The April 1975 event focused on onsite
-------
11
areas where surface water had ponded. High concentrations of cyanide were detected in
these samples; however, based on the description of remedial actions taken by the IEPA to
control site runoff, ponding no longer occurs, and cyanide-contaminated surface water on
the Site is no longer a problem.
Sediment
Sediment samples were collected at the Site in June 1974, April 1975, June 1985, and
April 1989. Samples collected in June 1974 and April 1975 were analyzed for cyanide
only and were collected from the West Ravine that flows from the East and West Disposal
Areas on the DFP west to the Rock River. The concentrations of cyanide in these samples
ranged from below detection limits to 4 mg/kg. The highest concentration of cyanide was
detected in the sample collected near the confluence of smaller ravines that feed the West
Ravine (located near the southwest corner of the DFP).
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Risk Assessment
A baseline risk assessment was performed by U.S. EPA based upon the analytical data
collected during the RI. This Record of Decision only addresses the risk assessment as to
exposure to contaminated soil at the site. The Risk Assessment showed that an elevated or
possibly an unacceptable risk occurs under current land use scenarios for trespassers who
are exposed to onsite contamination. Also, under future land use scenarios, residents and
construction workers could be exposed to contaminants that pose an unacceptable health
risk. An acceptable health risk for noncarcinogenic contaminants is determined
numerically and is represented by a hazard index. A hazard index (HI) of less than 1 is an
acceptable health risk; a hazard index of 1 or greater would pose an unacceptable health
risk. Likewise, risk posed by carcinogenic contaminants are also expressed numerically. A
cancer risk of less than 1 in one million (1 x 106) is considered to be acceptable. A cancer
risk of 1 in 10,000 (1 xltt4) may also be acceptable depending on site specifics, but
generally anything greater than this is considered an unacceptable cancer risk. A summary
of the risk assessment and risk calculation tables are included in the attached section labeled
"Tables" following the text portion of this ROD.
Residents do not currently occupy the site. However, there is a potential for future
residential land use, except in the East, C, and D areas of DFP. These hypothetical future
residents could potentially be exposed to contaminants in soil (incidental ingestion of
surface soil, dermal contact with surface soil, and inhalation of volatiles, particulates, and
dust). Currently, most of the site is covered with vegetation. When this vegetation is
cleared, the levels of contaminants in the air could increase. However, the risk assessment
does not consider inhalation exposure to surface soils because the concentration of volatiles
in surface soils is expected to be minimal and after the mixing that occurs during
-------
12
excavation any residuals are expected to be further reduced. Construction workers
building the new homes also have the potential for exposure to surface and subsurface
soils. The total exposure hazard indices and carcinogenic risks are calculated for the
workers by combining the risks associated with incidental ingestion of, and dermal contact
with, contaminated soil.
The contaminants of concern associated with surface and subsurface soil exposures in the
West Disposal area of DFP that require remediation include tetrachloroethene and toluene.
The potentially exposed populations would fall under three scenarios; trespassers,
residents, or construction workers. The total exposure carcinogenic risks for the
hypothetical future construction workers range from 6 x 1(J7 to 7 x 1CX5. Construction
workers building new homes have the potential for exposure to shallow soil in the West
Area bare spots. Thus, the total exposure pathway hazard indices and carcinogenic risks
were calculated by combining the risks associated with incidental ingestion of contaminated
soil and dermal contact with contaminated soil. The total exposure HI is 448. This
exposure risk is well above the Superfund remediation goal of 1.
The contaminants of concern associated with surface and subsurface soil exposures in the
North and East Disposal areas on DFP and the Road Network and Quadrants 9 and 25 on
the BSY that require remediation include copper, zinc and lead. The concentrations of lead
found in the East Disposal Area of DFP and Quadrant 25 and the road network of BSY
exceed the concentration protective of a child (based on the Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model for Lead). The concentrations zinc (HI=2) and copper (HI = 2.7) in the
North Disposal area of DFP, and zinc in Quadrant 9 (HI=2.3) and the Road Network on
BSY (HI = 1.5) all exceed the hazard index of 1.
Ecological Assessment
An ecological assessment was performed for the site. The purpose of the assessment was
to identify chemicals of potential ecological concern posed by the site and evaluate the risk
to ecosystems posed by these contaminants. Risk to aquatic organisms, terrestrial animals,
and terrestrial vegetation was evaluated while this assessment was conducted.
The following conclusions were reached after conducting this assessment: 1) small
mammals that consume soil invertebrates, and also soil invertebrates, are at risk from the
zinc present onsite in soil , 2) lead found in onsite soil poses risk to insectivorous birds and
small mammals, and 3) potential toxic levels of copper exist in onsite soil in regards to
terrestrial invertebrates and terrestrial vegetation. Due to these adverse ecological
exposures, remedial measures are required on the north and east disposal areas of DFP and
the road system and quadrants 9 and 25 of BSY to protect the ecological receptors.
-------
13
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The FS identified and evaluated alternatives that could be used to remediate threats and/or
potential threats posed by the site to human health and the environment. The alternatives
have been divided into three categories, 1) metal-contaminated soils; 2) VOC-contaminated
soils; and, 3) groundwater remediation. This Record of Decision only addresses the soils
component of the FS.
Metal-Contaminated Soils
Four alternatives for the remediation of metal-contaminated soil were developed including a
no-action alternative. Metal-contaminated soils remediation is required to protect
unacceptable exposures to the environment. The contaminants of concern include zinc and
lead on BSY and zinc, copper, and lead on DFP. These alternatives are:
* Alternative 1 - No Action
* Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls
* Alternative 3 - Containment
* Alternative 4 - Excavation, Treatment, and Disposal
Alternative 1 — No Action
Estimated Cost: none
Estimated Time to Construct: none
The no-action alternative is required for evaluation by the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). Its purpose is to allow comparison of the alternatives to the conditions that
currently exist and that will likely exist in the future. Under this alternative, no actions
would be taken to protect public health and the environment.
Alternative 2 — Institutional Controls
Estimated Capital Cost: $8,100
Annual O & M Cost: None
Duration of O & M: Indefinite
Total Present Value (7% discount rate): $8,100
Estimated Time to Construct: None
The major components of this alternative are access and deed restrictions.
-------
14
Access and deed restrictions include restrictive covenants on the Site property to notify any
potential purchaser that the land has contaminated soil and that the land use is restricted to
ensure the health and safety of people present on the property. The property will be posted
to state that no trespassing is allowed. The deed restrictions would also state that any
future development activities would have to take into consideration the presence of known
or unknown areas of soil contamination an<1 would include provisions for assurances that
public health and the environment would be protected if such activities took place. It is
anticipated that the existing landowners would be responsible .for implementing and
maintaining the instiutional controls.
Alternative 3 — Containment
Estimated Capital Cost: $296,000
Annual O & M Cost: De minimis
Duration of O & M: Indefinite
Total Present Value (7% discount rate): $296,000
Estimated Time to Construct: 2 Months
The major components of this alternative are a soil cover, surface controls, and
institutional controls. The objective of this alternative is to achieve the goals of protecting
human health and the environment from unacceptable risk associated with direct contact
with the soils through the use of a combination of containment and access restrictions. The
soil cover is expected to require a total of 4000 cubic yards of material. Approximately
3,500 cubic yards would be used to cover the road system and quadrants 9 and 25 on the
BSY. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be used to cover the north and east disposal
areas on the DFP.
The soil cover would consist of locally available rooting zone material placed over the
disposal areas to a depth of eighteen inches. Additional sampling would be conducted to
better delineate the extent of contamination prior to placement of the soil cover. Placing a
soil cover over the contaminated areas would reduce the possibility of direct contact with
the waste and contaminant transport by wind-blown dust or precipitation runoff. A soil
cover would not be designed to limit the infiltration of surface water. Surface controls
would consist of grading and revegetation after placement of the cover. The institutional
controls would be the same as described in Alternative 2. It is assumed that there would be
at most only de minimis operation and maintenance costs associated with this alternative
due to the fact that once the cap is in-place and vegetated, no other work efforts would be
required other than periodic inspections.
-------
15
Alternative 4 — Excavation. Treatment, and Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $765,000
Annual O & M Cost: None
Duration of O & M: None
Total Present Value (7% discount rate): $765,000
Estimated Time to Construct: 4 Months
The major components of this alternative are excavation of contaminated soils; treatment of
metal-contaminated soil areas by stabilizing/solidifying as necessary to meet Toxicity
Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) and/or landfill limits; soil disposal; and surface
controls. This alternative would eliminate the need for institutional controls because all
contaminated soils and unacceptable health risks associated with them would be removed
from the site. About 5,000 cubic yards of metal-contaminated soil would be excavated
from the Site.
Contaminated soils would be removed using standard excavation equipment such as
backhoes, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. Trucks would be direct-loaded, thereby
eliminating contaminated soil stockpiling. The extent of soil excavation would be
determined in the field using U.S. EPA-approved methodologies. Upon removal, soil
samples would be collected to confirm that cleanup levels had been attained.
Solidification would involve the addition of binding agents such as cement or fly-ash to
reduce the teachability of inorganic contaminants in the soil and minimize the exposure for
people coming into contact with the contaminated soil. Solidification would occur either
onsite or at the disposal site and could be performed in various ways. Soil disposal would
involve transporting the excavated soil to a Subtitle C and/or D landfill for disposal. The
surface controls for this alternative would be the same as described for Alternative 3,
except the controls would be implemented after the excavation of the soil. Before covering
the excavated area, it would be regraded, as necessary, to smooth topographic contours.
The cover soil would be revegetated to prevent erosion.
VOC-Contaminated Soils
Five alternatives for the remediation of VOC-contaminated soil were developed including
no-action alternative. VOC-contaminated soil include the following contaminants of
concern requiring remediation: toluene and tetrachloroethene. These contaminants either
present a risk to human health and the environment or may act as source materials which
contribute to the exceedence of groundwater standards. The area requiring remediation is
located in the West Disposal Area on the DFP. The alternatives for remediating
VOC-contaminated soil are:
*Alternative 1 - No Action
-------
16
*Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls
*Alternative 3 - Excavation and Offsite Disposal
*Alternative 4 - In Situ Treatment
*Alternative 5 - Excavation, Treatment, and Backfilling of Treated Soils
Alternative 1 — No Action
Estimated Cost: none
Estimated Time to Construct: none
The no-action alternative is required for evaluation by the NCP. Its purpose is to allow
comparison of the alternatives to the conditions that currently exist and that will likely exist
in the future. Under this alternative, no action would be taken to protect public health and
the environment.
Alternative 2 — Institutional Controls
Estimated Capital Cost: $8,100
Annual O & M Cost: None
Duration of O & M: Indefinite
Total Present Value (7% discount rate): $8,100
Estimated Time to Construct: None
The major components of this alternative are access and deed restrictions. Access and deed
restrictions include restrictive covenants on the Site to notify any potential purchaser that
the land has contaminated soil and that land use is restricted to ensure the health and safety
of people present on the property. The property will be posted stating that no trespassing
is allowed. The deed covenants would also state that any future development activities
would have to take into consideration the presence of known or unknown areas of soil
contamination and would include provisions for assurances that public health and the
environment would be protected if such activities took place. It is anticipated that the
existing landowners would be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the
institutional controls.
Alternative 3 — Excavation and Offsite Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $63,000
Annual O & M Cost: None
Duration of O & M: None
Total Present Value (7% discount rate): $63,000
-------
17
Estimated Time to Construct: 2 Months
The major components of this alternative are: excavation of contaminated soil; transport to
and disposal at a landfill; and, surface controls. The objective of this alternative is to
protect human health and the environment and remove potential source material that may
leach causing exceedences of groundwater standards through the removal of contaminated
soil. This alternative would eliminate the need for institutional controls because all
VOC-contaminated soils and unacceptable health risks associated with them have been
removed from the site. The amount of VOC-contaminated soil to be excavated and
disposed of off site is estimated to be 130 cubic yards.
VOC-contaminated soils would be removed using standard excavation equipment such as
backhoes, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. Trucks would be direct-loaded, thereby
eliminating the stockpiling of contaminated soil. Upon removal of soil determined to be
contaminated per U.S. EPA-approved methodologies, soil samples would be collected from
the sidewalls and perimeter of the excavation to confirm that cleanup levels had been
attained. Following excavations, the area would be backfilled using uncontaminated
stockpiled soil and covered with 6 inches of rooting zone material.
For the purposes of this ROD, VOC-contaminated soils are not expected to be classified as
hazardous waste under RCRA. Therefore, excavated soil with contaminant concentrations
above the cleanup levels will be transported to a Subtitle D landfill for disposal. Surface
controls technologies such as grading and revegetation would be implemented after
excavation of the soil.
Alternative 4 — In situ Treatment
Estimated Capital Cost: $122,000
Annual O & M Cost: None
Duration of O & M: None
Total Present Value (7% discount rate): $122,000
Estimated Time to Construct: 8 Months - 2 years
The major components of this alternative are: physical contamination separation in the
VOC-contaminated area and surface controls.
The objective of this alternative is to reduce the toxicity, volume and mobility of
contaminants in the West Disposal (VOC-contaminated) Area. No institutional controls
area needed with Alternative 4 because the VOC concentration in the soils would be
reduced to an acceptable health risk. Primarily, this alternative involves tillage of the
contaminated soil to promote volatilization of VOCs. After the process is completed the
area will then be graded and revegetated to minimize surface erosion and infiltration. The
-------
18
surface controls for Alternative 4 would be identical to those described for Alternative 3.
About 130 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be treated.
Alternative 5 — Excavation. Treatment, and Backfilling of Treated Soils
Estimated Capital Cost: $145,000
Annual O & M Cost: None
Duration of O & M: None
Total Present Value (7% discount rate): $145,000
Estimated Time to Construct: 6 Months
The major components of Alternative 5 are: excavation of contaminated soils; treatment of
VOC-contaminated soils with low-temperature volatilization; on-site disposal of treated
soils; and surface controls. The objective of this alternative is to achieve the human health
and environment remedial goals through use of treatment technologies. This alternative
would reduce the VOC concentrations in soil to an acceptable level, thus institutional
controls would not be needed with this option.
The VOC-contaminated soils would be excavated as described in Alternative 3 and
stockpiled for treatment. In thermal treatment, organic contaminants are removed or
destroyed through the application of heat. Thermal treatment of VOC-contaminated soils
would involve excavation, onsite stockpiling of soil, treatment in a dryer such as a rotary
kiln, and off-gas treatment. After treatment, the remediated soils will be backfilled into the
excavated area after it is confirmed that the soil treatment objectives have been attained.
Surface control technologies such as grading and revegetation would be implemented after
the treated soils were backfilled. About 130 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be
excavated and treated.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The nine criteria used by U.S. EPA to evaluate remedial alternatives, as set forth in the
NCP, 40 CFR Part 300.430, include: 1) Overall protection of human health and the
environment; 2) Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs); 3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence; 4) Reduction of toxicity, mobility,
or volume through treatment; 5) Short-term effectiveness; 6) Implementability; 7) Cost; 8)
State acceptance; and, 9) Community acceptance.
The first two evaluation criteria are threshold criteria that all alternatives must meet.
Criteria 3 through 7 are balancing criteria that are used to compare the alternatives against
each other and determine which alternative provides the best balance of the evaluation
criteria. The remaining two criteria are modifying criteria. The input from the community
and the support agency will be considered by the lead agency in making its final decision.
-------
19
The comparative analysis of soil and groundwater alternatives against the nine evaluation
criteria is shown below.
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether a
remedy provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes
how risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering, or institutional controls. The selected remedy must meet
these criteria.
Metal-Contaminated Soils
Alternative 1 does not protect against direct contact. Exposed areas may result in transport
of contaminants by wind-blown dust and future site development may result in unacceptable
risk to human health. Alternative 2 also does not protect against wind-blown dust and risk
may occur in the future if institutional controls are not followed. Alternative 3 would
protect the overall human health and the environment by reducing direct contact exposure.
The effectiveness of the soil cover is dependent on long term maintenance of the cover.
Alternative 4 would protect overall human health and the environment by solidifying
contaminants and isolating them in a secure landfill. Short-term excavation risks are
controllable through implementation of a health and safety plan and a contingency plan.
VOC-Contaminated Soils
With Alternative 1 nature site development may result in unacceptable risks to human
health. Neither Alternatives 1 nor 2 protect against direct contact or adverse affects to
contaminated soil. Alternative 3 would protect overall human health and the environment
by isolating the contaminants in a secure landfill. Alternatives 4 and 5 protect the overall
human health and the environment by removing and destroying VOC contaminated soil
and, along with Alternative 3, short-term excavation risks area controllable through
implementation of a health and safety plan and a contingency plan.
2.Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
addresses whether a remedy will meet applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and
state environmental laws and/or justifies a waiver from such requirements. The selected
remedy must meet this criteria or waiver of the ARAR must be attained.
-------
20
Metal-Contaminated Soils
Alternative 4 would comply with all ARARs, while Alternatives 1 and 2 would not meet
any ARARS or projected remedial goals (PRGs) at the site. PRGs would be met through
isolation with Alternative 3 and this alternative would comply with ARARs.
VQC-Contaminated Soils
Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would comply with all ARARs. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
meet PRGs at the site, and thus not comply with ARARs.
Primary Balancing Criteria
3.Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to expected residual risk and the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment
over time, once cleanup levels have been met.
Metal-Contaminated Soils
Alternative 1 does not protect against any risks. Alternative 2 would limit potential for
individuals to be exposed to contaminants. With Alternative 3, residual risk related to
exposure to soil would change significantly since the potential for exposure through direct
contact would be greatly reduced. Risks associated with future development of the site
would remain unchanged. Alternative 4 would remove all contaminants from the soil
above PRGs, thereby eliminating the potential for direct contact and leaching of
contaminants to the groundwater. In addition, TCLP contaminants are solidified and are
less likely to leach. Risks associated with future development of the site would also be
eliminated.
VQC-Contaminated Soils
Alternative 1 is the least effective remedy, because it does not protect against any risks.
Alternative 2 would reduce risks by limiting access to the contaminated soils. Alternatives
4 and 5 would result in the removal of VOCs from the soil to a level below PRGs.
Alternative 3 would contain contaminated soils in a secure landfill, but not treat the VOCs,
thus still leaving a potential for VOCs to leach from the landfill. Alternative 4 is less
reliable since it is an innovative technology. Treatment methods and durations may need to
be modified in the field for Alternative 4.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment addresses the
statutory preference for selecting remedial actions that employ treatment technologies that
-------
21
permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous
substances as their principal element. This preierence is satisfied when treatment is used to
reduce the principal threats at the site through destruction of toxic contaminants, reduction
of the total mass of toxic contaminants, irreversible reduction in contaminant mobility, or
reduction of total volume of contaminated media.
Metal-Contaminated Soil
Alternative 1, 2, and 3 do not result in any reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination. Using Alternative 4, an estimated 5000 cubic yards of metal-contaminated
soil would be removed and treated through solidification. Toxicity, mobility, and volume
of contaminated soil would be reduced. Solidification is reversible if the matrix
degenerates. Any leaching that would occur would be at a much lower rate than what is
currently occurring. Soil remaining on-site would be below PRG levels. Solidified soil
would increase in volume by about 33%.
VQC-Contaminated Soil
Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in the greatest amount of contaminants destroyed.
Alternative 3 would reduce the mobility of contaminants with a secure landfill, but does not
involve treatment and would not reduce the volume or toxicity of the soil. Alternatives 4
and 5 would treat an estimated 130 cubic yards of contaminated soils, and result in a VOC
contaminant reduction of greater than 99%. This treatment is irreversible. Alternatives 1
and 2 would not result in a reduction in the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated
soil.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and
any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed, until cleanup
levels are achieved.
Metal-Contaminated Soil
No remedial action is taken with Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternatives 3 and 4 would most
likely result in nuisance noise and dust to local residents as a result of truck traffic during
the construction of a soil cover or during the excavation and disposal of soils. Alternatives
3 and 4 can be implemented within six months and remedial objectives will be achieved.
Soil erosion mitigation, such as silt fencing, would be necessary during the construction of
the soil cover or during excavation. Mitigation would be sufficient to protect the
environment from adverse construction impacts. Under Alternative 3, there is some
-------
22
potential for direct contact with contaminated soil during placement of the cover. This can
be minimized with Level D personal protective equipment (PPE) and dust suppressions.
Alternative 4 would require Level C PPE during excavation and solidification because of
risks from inhalation of metals attached to fugitive dust.
VOC-Contaminated Soil
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 could result in nuisance noise and dust to local residents as a result
of truck traffic or heavy equipment onsite and Level C PPE would be used. These three
alternatives can be implemented within six months and remedial objectives will be
achieved. Remedial action objectives will not be achieved for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Environmental impacts during remediation would not be significant for any alternative
since erosion is easily controllable.
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
Metal-Contaminated Soil
Alternative 1 is technically feasible. No technical or administrative problems affecting
implementability are expected with Alternatives 2,3, and 4. Services and materials are
locally available with Alternative 3. With Alternative 4, services and materials are located
in Rockford, Illinois, approximately 25 miles away, and could be easily mobilized to the
site.
VOC-Contaminated Soil
All alternatives are technically and administratively feasible. Alternative 4 is innovative
especially relative to the treatment of clayey soils. Services are locally available for
Alternative 4, and within 25 miles for Alternatives 3 and 5.
7. Cost includes estimated capital costs, annual operation and maintenance costs (assuming
a 30-year time period), and net present value of capital and operation and maintenance
costs. Detailed cost estimates are provided in the tables in Appendix A.
Metal-Contaminated Soil
Alternative 1 has no associated costs. Alternative 2 is approximately $8,100; Alternative 3
is approximately $230,000; Alternative 4 is $760,000.
-------
23
VOC-Contaminated Soil
Alternative 1 has no associated costs; Alternative 2 is approximately $8,100; Alternative 3
is approximately $63,000; Alternative 4 is $120,000; Alternative 5 is $145,000.
Modifying Criteria
8. State Acceptance considers whether the State agrees with U.S. EPA's analyses and
recommendations of the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, and considers State ARARs.
At this time, the State of Illinois is in the process of preparing a Letter of Concurrence for
the selected remedy. Upon receipt of this document, it will be included in the
Administrative Record for the site.
9. Community Acceptance addresses the public's general response to the remedial
alternatives and proposed plan. A responsiveness summary is attached that presents a
summary of public comments and U.S. EPA responses to those comments. The public
generally supports the selected remedy.
A complete summary of public comments, as their relate to the soil component of the
Record of Decision can be found in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on information collected and developed in the RI/FS, and using the comparative
analysis of alternatives described previously, U.S. EPA and IEPA have selected Alternative
3 (Containment) for the metal-contaminated soils and Alternative 3 (Excavation and Offsite
Disposal) for the VOC-contaminated soils. These chosen alternatives are the most
appropriate Final Remedial Action for addressing soil contamination at the Byron Salvage
Yard site.
The remedy for the metal-contaminated soils is made up of the following components:
l.Soil Cover - the soil cover would consist of locally available rooting zone material placed
over the disposal areas. Additional sampling will be conducted to better delineate the
extent of contamination prior to placement of the soil cover. Placing a soil cover over the
contaminated areas would reduce the possibility of direct contact with the waste and
contaminant transport by wind-blown dust or precipitation runoff. A soil cover would not
be designed to limit the infiltration of surface water. The soil cover is applicable to the
metal-contaminated soil areas because the contaminants in these areas are relatively
immobile. The soil cover would consist of rooting zone material spread over the
metal-contaminated soil areas. A total of 4,000 yd3 of soil would be used to cover the
-------
24
metal contaminated sites. Approximately 3,500 yd3 of the rooting zone material would be
used to cover the BSY road system, and Quadrants No. 9 and 25 to a depth of 18 inches.
The cover will extend over those areas where the concentration of lead exceeds 400 mg/kg
and the concentration of zinc exceeds 21,726 mg/kg. Five hundred cubic yards of rooting
zone material will be used to cover the north and east disposal areas on the DFP, to a depth
of 18 inches. The cover will extend over those areas where the concentration of lead
exceeds 400 mg/kg, copper exceeds 2,801 mg/kg, and zinc exceeds 21,726 mg/kg.
2.Surface Controls - surface control technologies such as grading and revegetation would
be implemented after the addition of the soil cover. Grading involves the reshaping of
topography to manage surface water infiltration, and to control runoff erosion.
Revegetation will include selecting suitable plant species, seedbed preparation,
seeding/planting, mulching and/or chemical stabilization, fertilization, and maintenance to
minimize suiface erosion and human/ecological contact with contaminated soil. The BSY
road system, once revegetated, would not long be used as a road system. If the BSY were
to be developed in the future, the roads would have to be placed in other areas, or the
contaminated soils would have to be removed and properly disposed of. This same
requirement would apply to those areas of DFP that also have been remediated by
placement of the soil cover.
3.Institutional Controls - U.S. EPA would seek access and deed restrictions, including
restrictive covenants on the DFP and the BSY property deeds to notify any potential
purchaser that the land has contaminated soil and that land use is restricted to ensure the
health and safety of people present on the property. The property will be posted stating
that no trespassing is allowed. The deed covenants would also state that any future
development (residential, commercial, industrial, or recreational) would need to consider
the potential for the presence of previously unknown and relatively small areas of soil
contamination and include provisions for soil sampling and analysis, prior to possible
development. Land use restricitions would require that if development was anticipated in
those areas where a soil cover had been placed, the contaminated soils would have to be
removed and disposed of properly.
Access and deed restrictions reduce the likelihood of exposure to contaminants arising from
future development or excavation at the site. The effectiveness of these restrictions
depends upon continued enforcement and maintenance by the existing property owners.
They are subject to changes in political jurisdiction, legal interpretations, and regulatory
enforcement. Access and deed restrictions provide low-cost protection against uncontrolled
direct contact with the contaminated soil.
The remedy for the VOC-contaminated contains the following components:
1.Excavation of Contaminated Soil - VOC-contaminated soils would be removed using
standard excavation equipment such as backhoes, front-end loaders, and bulldozers.
-------
25
Trucks would be direct-loaded, thereby eliminating the stockpiling of contaminated soil.
Soils with contaminant concentrations less than cleanup levels would be stockpiled in a
clean area to be used later as backfill. The amount of VOC-contaminated soils to be
excavated and disposed of offsite at a landfill is estimated to be 130 cubic yards. This
volume is based on sampling intervals of about 10 feet. In some cases, samples were not
collected to define the contaminated area on all sides. Therefore, further sampling is
necessary during or before excavation. As a result, actual soil volumes may vary from
those estimated in this report. Excavation of VOC-contaminated soils will require the
removal of contaminated materials that have toluene concentrations exceeding 20.67 mg/kg
and tetrachloroethene concentrations exceeding 2.3 mg/kg.
By addressing these contaminants, all other chemicals of concern will be remediated to
levels that are protective of human health and the environment.
Upon removal of soil determined to be contaminated per U.S. EPA-approved
methodologies, soil samples would be collected from the sidewalls and perimeter of the
excavation to confirm that cleanup levels had been attained. An offsite or onsite laboratory
would verify the results of the analysis. Following excavation, the area would be
backfilled using uncontaminated stockpiled soil and covered with 6 inches of rooting zone
material.
An air monitoring program would be instituted to monitor for VOCs using a field OVM.
Because of the substantial VOC soil concentrations in the West Disposal Area, it is
assumed that Level C health and safety protection for the construction workers would be
necessary. VOC emissions would be controlled as necessary by limiting the open face of
the excavation as much as possible, covering sideslopes not under excavation and using
suppression foams if other methods are not satisfactory. Visibly dusty conditions would be
controlled using a water spray.
2. Soil Disposal - For the purposes of this ROD, VOC-contaminated soils are not expected
to be classified as hazardous waste under RCRA. Excavated soil with contaminant
concentrations above the cleanup levels will be transported to a Subtitle D landfill for
disposal. There are several landfills within 30 miles of the site that accept special waste
class soils. Testing for RCRA hazardous waste characteristics would be performed and if
necessary, the soil would be treated, most likely through stabilization before landfillirig.
Based on the RI data, it is assumed that no soil would be defined as a RCRA VOC hazard,
thus it is not expected to require stabilization.
3. Surface Controls - surface control technologies such as grading and revegetation would
be implemented after excavation of the soil. Backfilling excavated areas with clean soils
would be necessary to return the topography to its original conditions. Grading involves
the reshaping of topography to manage surface water infiltration, and to control runoff
erosion. Revegetation will include selecting a suitable plant species, seedbed preparation,
-------
26
seeding/planting, mulching and/or chemical stabilization, fertilization, and maintenance to
minimize surface erosion.
In addition, the selected remedy will include an additional task to remove and dispose of
three barrels of waste from property adjacent to the Byron Salvage Yard and relocation of
the existing fence around BSY to the Meyer's Spring Pond area.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy must satisfy the requirements of Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA to:
a. Protect human health and the environment;
b. Comply with ARARs;
c. Be cost-effective;
d. Utilize permanent solutions and alternate treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable; and,
e. Satisfy a preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy.
The implementation of the two selected alternatives at the Byron Salvage Yard site satisfies
the requirements of CERCLA as detailed below:
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedial actions will be effective in removing the source materials in the soils
that are contributing to the continued contamination of the groundwater and that present a
risk to human health and the environment. The selected remedial alternatives meet the
requirement that they be protective of human health and the environment. The metal -
contaminated soil (soil cap remedy) would reduce direct contact exposure with the soil. The
excavation and offsile disposal of the VOC contaminated soil would reduce direct contact
and the potential for groundwater contamination by isolating the soil in a secure landfill.
Compliance with ARARs
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that Superfund remedial actions meet ARARs. In
addition to ARARs, the ARARs analysis which was conducted considered guidelines,
criteria, and standards useful in evaluating remedial alternatives. These guidelines,
criteria, and standards are known as TBCs. In contrast to ARARs, which are promulgated
cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria or limitations; material to be considered (TBCs) are guidelines and
other criteria that have not been promulgated. The selected remedy will comply with the
-------
27
ARARs and the TBCs listed in the section labeled "Tables" which are attached to this
ROD.
Location-specific ARARs establish restrictions on the management of waste or hazardous
substances in specific protected locations, such as wetlands, floodplains, historic places,
and sensitive habitats. No location specific ARARs are involved at this site for the selected
remedies.
Action-specific ARARs are technology-based or activity-based requirements or limitations
on actions taken with respect to remediation. These requirements are triggered by
particular remedial activities that are selected to accomplish the remedial objectives. The
action-specific ARARs indicate the way in which the selected alternative must be
implemented as well as specify levels for discharge. These ARARs establish controls or
restrictions on particular kinds of activities related to the management of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Several actions have been identified as potential
remediation alternatives for affected soils at the Byron Superfund site. These include, land
disposal/ placement (onsite); closure in place (capping, onsite); excavation (onsite); and,
consolidation. Action-specific federal requirements involve 30-year post-closure care for
land disposal units that include groundwater monitoring. RCRA solid waste management
groundwater quality standards are also enforced by the federal government, however, the
Illinois Groundwater Quality regulations, 35 IAC 620 preempt the consideration of those
requirements as ARARs.
Chemical-Specific ARARs involve ambient or chemical-specific requirements that establish
acceptable values or concentrations of a chemical that may be found in, or discharged to,
the environment and that are protective of human health and the environment. Regulatory
standards for determining an acceptable cleanup level for specific contaminants found in
soils and for establishing when a site is clean following remedial actions are indefinite for
contaminated soils. Most of the standards that have been developed under federal and state
regulations are of limited applicability to soils. Levels that have been developed for
contaminated groundwater cannot be directly applied to contaminated soils. The absence of
clear standards, criteria, or guidance for establishing acceptable cleanup levels for
contaminated soils has resulted in the site-specific determinations on soil cleanup levels
based being primarily on risk assessment findings.
Cost-Effectiveness
U.S. EPA determines that the selected remedy is cost-effective. Section 300.430
(f)(l)(ii)(D) of the NCP requires U.S. EPA to evaluate cost-effectiveness by comparing all
the alternatives that meet the threshold criteria (protection of human health and the
environment and compliance with ARARs) against three balancing criteria (long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment,
-------
28
and short-term effectiveness). The selected remedies meet these criteria by achieving a
permanent protection of human health and the environment at low risk to the public, and
provide for overall effectiveness in proportion to their cost.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
U.S. EPA and IEPA believe that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to
which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective
manner for the Byron Salvage site. Of those alternatives that are protective of human
health and the environment and comply with ARARs, U.S. EPA and IEPA have
determined that the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of
long-term effectiveness; reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume achieved through
treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost, taking into consideration
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and considering State and
community acceptance.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
Soil remediation are the principal elements of the selected remedy, and the selected remedy
employs soil treatment technologies. While the selected remedies do not involve treatment
of the excavated soils, given the levels and volume of soils involved, treatment was not
considered to be cost-effective in this case.
Optional Implementation of Alternatives 4 In Lieu of Alternative 3 for Metal-
Contaminated Soils
U.S. EPA believes that Alternative 3 will be effective in preventing risks to human health
and the environment and has selected this as the remedy for the metal-contaminated soils at
the site. However, U.S. EPA notes that Alternative 4 is an acceptable enhancement of the
selected remedy. The complete excavation of metal contaminated soils and the elimination
of O&M and institutional controls has benefits that cannot be readily itemized in a cost
estimate, such as reduction in long-term liability concerns, shortened remedial design
phase, and the elimination of U.S. EPA staff time required to track O&M compliance and
review monitoring results.
-------
FIGURES
-------
104203 FSE5 Sltelocotion 8-2;9Smms
FIGURE 1-2
Site Location
Byron Superfuna Site
-------
ROCK URRACE.
SUBDIVISION
., TO MEYER'S SPRING!
i . (-400') T
I.EOEND
SO'
OiRKS FARM
PROPERTY
- fl
li1
I
*•- •• BYRON ,
SALVAGE YARD V
:, ik I1
•• t. i
.
.if-
WO M<0
10 BINESH QUARRY
(ir.uifi i (
si;i MAI-
-------
Cu
In
— NORTH DISPOSAL AREA
PCS • 18
TOL • 350
-WEST DISPOSAL AREA
AREA E
SOUTH DISPOSAL AREA
-EAST DISPOSAL AREA
ABBREVIATIONS
PCC - 1ETRACHLOROETHENE
Pb - LEAD
In - ZINC
Cu • COPPEK
101 TOLUENE
Al • ALUMINUM
( CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/kg )
NOTE'
NO PRO EXCEEDCNCEF WERE FOUND IN THE EAST
OR SOUTH DISPOSAL -flEAS. OR IN AREA E
FIGURE 1-4 "/
PRG EXCEEDANCES IN DFP SOIL '
BASED ON 1994 U.S.EPA RIDATA
Or RON suPtnruNO SITE
-------
in«3rmsu> iorrpCiioMatomiocMtanTMDm
NORTH
LEGEND
Areas of Miscellaneous Debris
cr ^ Previous Road Network
Waterways
i~"l Existing Buildings
AMST Known Area of Contamination
"N
NOIL. All locations are approximate.
FIGURE 1-5
Sample Grid, Areas of Miscellaneous Debris,
Road Network, and Ravines on BSY
Byron Suporfund Site
-------
(I)
(6 j
(22)
NORTH
(2)
" "
(14)
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
N()[( All lor aliens nre approximate
V
£
>*<§>
(4)
(5.)
N
/
/ /
' /
,' ,'
,' ,' '*
/ ^' v/
(18)
(20)
VL^;/
i i^'^:
I I'f »;:.:
25 V ^t^*—
(28)
1
J^
LEGEND
(w) Quadrant Numbers
— — — Areas of Soil Excavation and Removal
ii ii ii CN Treatment Ey IEPA (Approx)
,.-""> Area of Miscellaneous Debris Excavation
FIGURE 1-6
Soil Excavation and
Treatment Areas on BSY f
Byron Super fund Site
-------
TABLES
-------
RISK TABLES
-------
Table 7-34. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current
Trespassers, North Disposal Area, Dirk's Farm.
Constituent
GDI
(mg/kg/day)
GDI adjusted
for aborption
RfO'
RfD
Hazard
r====r
Pathway
Hazard
Index
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Surface Soil
1 MORGAN 1 CS
A I urn ruin
Arsenic
Bar lum
Beryl 1 lum
f'nngnncse
Vanadium
Zinc
2.4E-4
1.5E-7
4.1E 6
2.5E 8
3.2€ 5
6.1E-7
2.0E-4
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
1E+0
3E-4
7E 2
5E-3
, 1E-1
7E-3
JE-1
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
2E-4
5E-4
6E-5
5E-6
3E-<.
9E-S j
7E-4
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
A I urn i nun
Arsenic
Bariun
Beryl lium
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
1.2E-4
7.3E-9
2.0-6
1.2E-8
1.6E-5
3.1E-7
1.0E-*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
•
1E-2
3E-4
7E-2
5E-5
5E 3
7E-4
8E-2
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NEAST
HEAST
1E-2
2E-5
3E-5
?E-«
:^E-3
4E-4
1E-3
~-ta— — ^ — ^___
1E-2
-------
Table 7-35. Risk Calculations for Carcinoqenic
trespassers, North Disposal Area, Dirk's rlrm
f
for Hypothetical Current
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion o« Surface Soil
IMORGAN:CS
EXPOSURE PMHUAV- Dermal Contact xith Surface Soil
INORGANICS
CDI7 Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the
SF by the absorption efficiencies
was
*" absorbed "ose by dividing the
-------
Table 7-36. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current
Trespassers, East Disposal Area, Dirk's Farm.
Const i tuent
CDI
(mg/kg/day)
COI adjusted
for aborption
RfD'
RfD
Source
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Aluninum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 inn
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
3.5E-4
2.0E-7
4.1E-7
2.4E-B
1.7E-7
2.4E-5
4.5E-7
8.1E-7
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No
1E+0
3E-4
7E-2
5E-3
5E-3
1E-1
2E-2
7E-3
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
'RIS
HEAS1
4E-4
7E-4
6E-6
5E-6
3E-5
2E-*
2E-5
1E-4
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil . -
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 inn
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
1.7E-4
1.0E-8
2.0E-7
1.2E-8
8.5E-8
1.9E-5
2.2E-7
4.1E-7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1E-2
3E-4
7E-2
5E-5
5E-5
5E-3
2E-3
7E-4
1E-3
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
2E-2
3E-5
3E-6 i
2E-4
2E-3
E-3
IE-4
6E-4
-
3E-2
1
-------
Byron Salvage/Dirk's Farm Baseline Risk Assessment
Remedial Investigation Report April 29, 1994
Section 7, Page 109
GDI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplying the RfD
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-37. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects .for Hypothetical Current Trespassers, East
Disposal Area, Dirk's Farm.
••-'" - • • — — —-
Consi t i tuent
===^=======:===
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incide
GDI
(ing/kg/day)
=====
ntal Ingest ion
=====
CDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
of Surface Soi
======
SF'
(mg/kg/day) '
======
I
8.SE-8
1.0E-8
No
No
1.75E«0
4.2E«0
Weight
of
Evidence
'
A
B2
Type of
Cancer
SF
Source
Chemical-
Specific
Risk
Total
Pathway
Risk
Total
Exposure
Risk
Skin
IRIS
IPIS
1E-7
tE-8
4E-7
EXPOSURE PATHWAY- Ocimal Contact with Surface Soil ___
4.3E-9
5.1E-9
Yes
Yes
1.75E+0
4.3E«2
A
B2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
BE -9
2E-6
2E-6
2E-6
CDI Chronic daily intake
Ji. \_UJ.WIIi'— vt«jj.j.j *...—
For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF by, the
osorotion efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-38. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for HV,™+-I, «-• ,
West Disposal Area, Dirk's Farm. trrects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers
CD I adjusted
for aborotion
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of ' urfarc Soil
INORGANICS
EXPOSURE PATHt'AY: Dermal Contact xith Surface Soil
INORGANICS
CDI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. Table 7-39 Risk £1™ i
Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers, Wes^ Disposal Are!
the RfD
F
-------
COl
(mg/kg/dav)
CD I
Adjusted
for
Absorpt
Sf'
(mg/kg/day) '
Weight
of
Evidence
Type of
Cancer
SF
Source
^Chemical-
Specific
Risk
Total
Pathway
Ri'-k
Total |l
Exposure II
RISK |
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
1E-7
4E-L
1f-7
<-*^ u,ii-h soil the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF by the
For dermal ccni-aci. w0.1.11 owo.*,
absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-39. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current Tresoasser*
Disposal Area, Dirk's Farm. <==>H«» =»*>«&>,
Constituent
COI
(ing/kg/day)
CD I
Adjusted
for
Absorpt i "i
SF1
{nig/kg/day) '
Weight
of
Evidence
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I ium
7.3E-8
8.9E-9
No
No
1 . 75E»0
4.2E«0
—
Type of
Cancer
======
=====
SF
Source
=======
A
B2
Skin
IRIS
— ' — ^•^IM .11
IPIS
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dernial Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I ium
3.7E-9
4.4E-9
Yes
Yes
1.75E*0
4.3E+2
A
62
GDI Chronic daily intake
Skin
•
:RIS
IRIS
,.., . .
====
Chemical-
Specific
Risk
=============!
in
1E-7
•*••• " i ,-n ,
4E-8
"'
6E-9
2E-6
'"
.
Totol
Pathway
Risk
' -J
.- — _.
™~— — •— •— — M_
IE-T
— ^-^— — »
2E-6
.
Total
Exposure
Risk
=====
— —— — ^^_
— __
2E-6
~ '
1 For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF
absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-40. Risk Calculations 'or Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers,
Disposal Area A, Dirk's Farm.
Constituent
COI
(mg/kg/day )
CDI adjusted
for absorption
RfO1
1
RfO
Source
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Ingestion of Constituents in Household Water
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Minganese
4.4E-7
4.9E-6
2.6E-8
2.96-5
No
No
No
No
3E-4
7E-2
5E-3
1E-1
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
1E-3
7E-5
5E-6
3E-4
1E-3
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Sou
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium
2.2E-B
2.4E-6
1.3E-8
1.4E-5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3E-4
7E-2
5E-5
5E-3
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
7E-5
3E-5
3E-4
3E-3
3E-3
•
4E-3
CDI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplying the RfD
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-41. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current
Disposal Area A, Dirk's Farm.
Cons i 1 1 tuent
GDI
-------
Table 7-42. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers
nicno^i Area B. Dirk's Farm.
Disposal Area B, Dirk's Farm.
CO I adjusted
for absorption
RfO1
RfD
Source
Hazard
Ouot ient
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of ...jrface Soil
JUIICS
Alum
2.6E-4
No
1E+0
STSC
3E-4
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
1.3E-7
No
3E-4
IRIS
4E-4
5.7E-6
No
7E-2
IRIS
8E-5
3.3E-8
No
S£ 3
IRIS
7E-6
Manganese
4.5E-5
NO
1E-1
IRIS
SE-4
6.9E-7
7E-3
HEASI
1E-A
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact xith Surface
INORGANICS
1.3E-4
6.1E-9
Yes
Tes
1E-2
STSC
IRI.
1E-2
2E-5
1E-3
2.8E-6
Tes
7E-2
IRIS
4E-5
Beryllium
1.6E-8
Yes
5E-5
IRIS
3E-4
Manganese
2.2E-5
Yes
SE-3
IRIS
7E-J
3.5E-7
Yes
7E-4
HEAST
5F-4
2E-2
2E-2
GDI Chronic daily intake
' F r dermal contact with soil, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplying the RfD
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S
-------
Table 7-43. Risk Calculations or Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current
Disposal Area B, Dirk's Farm.
Total
Exposure
Risk
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Surface Soil
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact uith Surface Soil
GDI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividinq the <;F h -i-h
absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. y r D" cne
-------
for Hypothetical Current Trespassers,
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
CO I
(mg/kg/day)
GDI adjusted
for absorption
Hazard
Quotient
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
EXPOSURE PATMWAT: Dermal Conttct with Surface Soil
-------
Byron Salvage/Dirk's Farm Baseline Risk Assessment
Remedial Investigation Report April 29, 1994
Section 7, Pagii 119
CUI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplying the RfD
by the absorption efficiencies listad in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-45. Risk Calculations or Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers,
Disposal Area C, Dirk's Farm.
Constituent
CDI
(mg/ kg/day)
CDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
Sf
(ing/kg/day) '
Weight
of
Evidence
Type of
Cancer
SF
Source
Chemical-
Specific
Risk
Total
Pathway
Risk
Total
Exposure
Risk
EXPOSURE PMHUAY: Incidental Ingeslion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I ium
1.1E-7
8.4E-9
No
No
1.75E*0
4.2E*0
A
B2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
2E-7
AE-8
2E-7
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
lunBi-jtuirs:
Arsenic
5.6E-9
4.2E-9
Yes
Yes
1.75E*0
4.3E*,!
A
B2
Skin
IM1S
IRIS
1fc-8
2C-6
2E-6
2E-6
GDI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF by.the
absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-46. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hvr^t-h^ • i „
Disposal Area D, Dirk's Farm. t-rrects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers
Const i tucnt
CDI
(mg/kg/day) j
CDI adjusted
for absorption
"
RfO'
— -
RfD
Source
1
Hazard
I
Pathway |
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
Hararri trvfev
(XPnsURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
A 1 um i nun
Arspnic
Bnr i LTI
B'n yl 1 lum
M.tngnnose
v.inncdun
1.4E-4
5.7E-8
2.8E-6
1.5E-8
2.3E-5
3.9E-7
No
No
No
No
No
No
1E«0
3E-4
7E-2
5E-3
1E-1
7E-3
STSC
IRIS
IRIi
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
_
1E-4
2E-4
4E-5
3E-6
dE-4
5E-5
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Alumif (.m
Arsenic
Barium
Boryl I ium
Manganese
Vanadium
6.9E-5
2.8E-9
1.4E-6
7.7E-9
1.2E-5
2.06-7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
.
6E-'.
1E-2
3E-4
7E-2
5E-5
5E-3
7E-4
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
, „,
7E-3
9E-6
2E-5
E-4
2E-3
3E-4
_
1E-2
—
IF - 3 1
GDI Chronic daily intake
' For dermal contact with soil, the RfD was converted to an
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix s.
^
dose by multiplying the RfD
-------
Table 7-47. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers
Disposal Area D, Dirk's Farm. '
Cons it i tuent
CUI
(mg/kg/day)
CDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
SF'
(mg/kg/day) '
Weight
of
Evidence
Type of
Cancer
S?
Source
Chemical •
Spec i f i c
Risk
Total
Pathway
Risk
Total
Exposure
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I ium
2.4E-8
6.6E-9
No
No
1.75E+0
4.26*0
A
B2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
4E-8
3E-8
7E-8
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Bcryll ium
1.2E-9
3.3E-V
Yes
Yes
1.75E+0
4.3E+2
A
82
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
2E-9
1E-6
1F-6
' _]
^rH
1 For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF by the
absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-48. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current
Disposal Area E, Dirk's Farm.
Const ituen-
COI
(ing/kg/day)
COI adjusted
for absorption
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Alunimm
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl I ium
Manganese
Vanadium
3.2E-4
1.6E-7 _j
3.8E-6
3.2E-8
J.OE-5
8.1E-7
No
No
No
No
No
No
RfD1
.
1E*0
3E-4
7E-2
5E-3
1E-1
7E-3
RfO
Source
'
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
1
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
======
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
3E-4
5E-4
5E-5
6E-6
3E-4
1E-4
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface
1 MORGAN 1 CS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Ba'ium
Beryl 1 ium
Manganese
Vanadium
1.6E-4
8.1E-9
1.9E-6
1.6E-8
1.SE-5
4.1E-7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1E-2
3E-4
7E-2
5E-5
5E-3
7E-4
ir.j
STSC
IRIS
IR-IS
IRIS
IRIS
NEAST
' —
I 2E-2
3E-5
3E-5
3E-4
3E-3
6E-4
2E-2
ll
1
— ~— — — -^- ___ ^_____
ZE-2
^^^^*^^^—~^^^*~~~~^^^—
GDI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiply!
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
ing the RfD
-------
Table 7-49. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Current Trespassers,
Disposal Area E, Dirk's Farm.
Consi t ituent
GDI
(ing/kg/day)
CDI
Adjusted
for
Absorpt i on
SF'
(mg/kg/day) '
Ueight
of
Evidence
Type of
Cancer
SF
Source
Chemical -
Spec i f i c
Risk
Total
Pathway
Risk
fetal
Exposure
Risk
EXPOSUKE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
7.0E-8
1.41-8
No
No
1.75E+0
4.2E«0
A
B2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
1E-7
6E-8
2E-7
rxmsijRF PMHUAY: Dermal Contact *ith Surface Soil — __
Beryl 1 inn _
3.5E-9
6.9E-9
Yes
Yes
1.75E«0
4.3E*2
A
82
Skin
,
IRIS
IRIS
6E-9
3E-6
!
3E-6
3E-6
CDI Chronic daily intake
1 For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF by the
absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Const ituents
CO I
(mg/kg/da, i
GDI Adjusted
for Absorption
RfO1
RfO
Source
Haiard
Quotient
Pathway
Hatard Index
Total Exposure
Hazard lnd»x
-DI Chronic daily intake
For dermal contact with the soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by
RfD by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table
West Dispos
7-54. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Residents
isposal Area, Dirk's Farm.
Const i tuents
CDJ
(mg/kg/Jay)
CO! Adjusted
for Absorption
EXPOSURE PATHWAY : Incidental Ingest ion of Surface '..oil
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 lum
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
3.1E-2
1.5E-5
1.5E-3
1.9E-6
2.7E-5
2.4F-4
1.2E-3
2.3E-3
6.6E-5
1.1E-3
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
RfO' RfD
• 1 Source
1E*0
3E-4
7E-2
5E-3
1E-3
5E-3
2E-2
1E-1
7E-3
3E-1
Hazard
Quotient
I I
Pathway
Hazard Index
=^====d
^ssss^^^s^^ss^ssssz
Total Exposure
Hazard Index
S^^^^^.^^^^^^^S^S;
SISC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
MEAST
3E-2
5E-2
2E-2
4E-4
3E-2
5E-2
6E-2
2E-2 i
9E-3
4E-3
i
— — — — — ^__,
3E-1
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl I ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Manganese
Vanad i urn
Zinc
1.2E-3
5.8E-8
5.8E-5
7.0E-B
1.UE-6
V OE-6
2.3E-6
8.6E-5
2.5E-6
4.1E-5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1E-2
3E-4
7E-2
5E-5
St-5
5E-5
2E-2
5E-3
7E-4
8E-2
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
.
1F-1
2E-*
9E-4
1E-3
2E-2
2E-1
1E-4
2E-2
4E-3
5E-4
.
— ^ — ___ .^.^^_
-------
Table 7-55. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical "Future Resident-^
.Vest Disposal Area, Dirk's Farn.
-DI Chronic daily intake
5F Slope factor
Constituents
CDI
(ing/kg/day)
Adjusted fo
Absorption
SF1
(mg/ kg/day) '
Weight of
Evidence
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Surface Soil
type of
Cancer
SF
Source
"•
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl , ium
6.6E-6
B.OE-7
No
No
1.75E*0
4.2£«0
A
82
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I iun
2.5E-8
3.0E-8
Yes
Yes
1.75E*0
4.2E+2
A
B2
Chemical-
Specific
Risk
i .
1E-6
3E-7
,_
.
Total
Pathway
Risk
—
Total
Exposure
Risk
•'
1C A.
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
-
4E-8
1E-6
1 1-' • A
?E-6
For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed do^e by dividina t-h« or u u
ibsorption efficiencies listed in table l, Appendix S. y e bF b^ tne
-------
Table 7-56. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Resi
Disposal Area A, Dirk's Farm.
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
I MORGAN ICS
A 1 urn i nurn
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium
Chromium
Manganese
Vanadium
4.4E-2
4.0E-5
2.3E-6
5.SE-5
2.6E-3
1.1E-4
NO
No
No
No
No
NO
1E«0
3E-4
5E-3
5E-3
1E-1
7E-3
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEASI
4E-2
1E-1
5E-4
1E-2
3E-2
2E-2
EXF'OSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
2E-1
CDT Chronic daily intake
1 For the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose bv mnii-i «!««„„ *->,
RfD by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. y muitlP1ying the
-------
Table 7-57. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Residents
Disposal Area A, Dirk's Farm.
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental'Ingestion of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1ium
1.7E-5
9.8E-7
Mo
No
1.75E«0
4.2E«0
B2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
3E-6
4E-7
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl Iiura
6.4E 8
Yes
3.7E-8
Yes
1.75f«0
4.2E»2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
1E-7
2E-6
CDI Chronic daily intake
SF slope factor
2E-6
if 6
1 For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF bv the
absorption efficiencies listed in table l, Appendix S. y ne
-------
Table 7-58 Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Residents.
Disposal Area B, Dirk's Farm.
Constituents
CDI
(mg/kg/d«v>
CDI Adjusted
for Absorption
RfO'
RfO
Source
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard Index
Total Exposure
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Surfe- Soil
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryl ( ium
Manganese
2.3E-2
1.2E-5
3.0E-6
4.0E-3
No
no
No
No
1E+0
3E-4
5E-3
1E-1
STSC
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
2E-2
4E-2
6E-4
4E-2
1E-1
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: rcrmal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryl I ium
Manganese
8.6E-4
4.5fc-8
1.1E-7
1.5E-4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
i
1E-2
3E-4
5E-5
5E-3
SISC -
IRiS
IRIS
IRIS
9E-2
2E-4
2E-3
5E-2
1E-1
CDI Chronic daily intake
1 For the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplying the
RfD by the absorption efticiencie- listed in Appendix S.
-------
able 7-59. Risk Calculations for arcinogenic Effects for
isposal Area B, Dirk's Farm.
Fui-nr-o D -^
Future Residents
Constituents
CO!
(IT i/kg/day)
Adjusted for
Absorption
SF'
(nig/kg/day) '
EXPOSURE'PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Surface Soi (
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I ium
5.2E-6
1.3E-6
No
No
1.75E»0
4.2E»0
A
B2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
9E-7
5E-7
1P-A
I MORGAN ICS
Arsenic
Seryll inn
1.9E-8
4.9E-8
Yes
Yes
1.75E«0
4.2E*2
82
DI Chronic daily intake
P Slope factor
For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividi™ I-K c-
jsorption efficiencies listed in table 1, Appendix S. dividing the SF by
the
-------
ole 7-60. Risk Calculations for Non-Carcinogenic Effects for HV™*-H «. • ,
sposal Area E, Dirk's Farm. meets for Hypothetical Future Residents.
CD)
(mg/kg/day)
CO I Adjusted
for Absorption
Pathway
Hazard Index
Total Exposure
Hazard Index
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
)I Chronic daily intake
For the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an
:D by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
^
do^e by multiplying the
-------
Table 7-61. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Fi,t-,,v-« n -^
Disposal Area E, Dirk's Farm. Hypothetical Future Residents.
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest I on of Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium
6.2E-6
1.3E-6
No
No
1.75E»0
4.2E»0
A
B2
Skin
IRIS
IRIS
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 imp
2.3E-8
4.6E-8
Yes
Yes
1./5t»0
TDI Chronic daily intake
JF Slope factor
1E-5
5E-6
2E-5
For dermal contact with soil, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividina <-ho c,r u
ibsorption efficiencies listed in table 1, Appendix S. aiviaing the SF by the
-------
Table 7-62. Rink Calculations for ton-carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction
Workers. North Disposal Area, Dirk's Farm.
Const i tuent
CO I
(mg/kg/day)
COI Adjusted
for Absorption
RfD"
RfD
Source
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arser. ic
Beryl t ium
Zi ic
4.4E-6
3.0E-7
1.6E-3
No
No
No
3E-4
5E 3
3E-1
Total
Exposure
HEASI
(EAST
HEAST
1E-2
6E-5
5E-3
2E-2
EXPOSURf PAIHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shsllow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsen'e
Beryl 1 ium
Zinc
l
8.8E-8
6.0E-8
3.2E-4
Yes
Yes
Yes
3E-4
5E-5
8E-2
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
3E-4
,1E-3
4E-3
5E 3
3E.-2
CDI Chronic daily intake
1 for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplying the
RfD by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. y y
; for the hypothetical future construction worker scenario, subchronic RfDs were used to calculate the
hazard quotient.
-------
Table 7-63. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construct
Nnrth D i «nr>«:A 1 Aro,a n i rV • c Fai-m. «>-».
North Disposa.1. Area, Dirk's Farm.
ion
AVJII
GDI Chronic daily intake
Consti tuent
cot
(mg/kg/day)
COI
Adjusted for
Absorption
SF'
(mg/kg/day) '
Weight of
Evidence
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I itm
1.5E-7
8.5E-9
NO
No
Type of
Cancer
=====
1
SF
Source
=====
=========
Chemical-
Specific
Risk
'"^^^— ^^™^**J^M»»^SS^S^^S
1.75E*0
4.3E*0
A
B2
skin
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
H..«IJ»NICS
Arsenic
Brvyl 1 inn
2.5E-9
1.7E-9
Yes
Yes
1.75E«0
4.3E+2
A
B2
IRIS
IRIS
~"
-
2E-7
4E-8
'
Total
Pathway
Risk
L
.
—
2E-7
^~~™-^ — •
Total
Exposure
Risk
=====
skin
IRIS
IRIS
4E-9
7E-7
7E-7
OC-7
' for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose bv Hivin
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. y uAvj.a
the SF
-------
Table 7-64. Risk Calculations for Non-carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction
Workers. West Disposal Area, Dirk's Farm.
Constituent
GDI
(mg/ kg/day)
GDI Adjusted
for Absorption
RfO"
RfO
Source
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Shallow Soil
ORGAN ICS
Acetone
Bromod i ch 1 oromet hane
Bromoform
BrocTKxne thane
Carbon disul f ide
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Chloroform
D i bromoch 1 oromet hane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropen*
trans- 1,3-Oichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Xylei.e
2.6E-2
3.4E-4
3.4E-4
6.8E-4
3.4E-4
3.4E-4
3.4E-4
3.4E-4
3.4E-4
3.4E-4
3.4E-4
1.9E-2
2.9E-3
1.3E-2
4.7E-1
3.4E-4
1.46-1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
No
1E*0
2E-2
2E-1
1E-2
1E-1
7r-3
1E-2
2E-1
9E-3
3E-3
3E-3
1E+0
2£*0
1E-1
2E+0
4E-2
4E+0
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HE.'.ST
HEAST
HEAST -
HFAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
3E-2
2E-2
2E-3
5E-2
3E-3
5E-2
3E-2
2E-3
4E-2
1E-1
1E-1
2E-2
1E-3
1E-1
2E-1
9E-3
4E-2
,
•
-------
Constituent
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 mm
COI
(mg/kg/day)
2.0E-6
3.7E-7
CDI Adjusted
for Absorption
No
No
RfO"
3E-4
5E-3
RfD
Source
HEASt
HEAST
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
7E-3
7E-S
8E-1
EXP03UKE PATHWAY: Dermal contact With Shallow Soil
ORGAN ICS
Acetone
Bromodichloromethane
Bromo!c. .11
Bi xnomethane
Cerbon disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
0 i bruiiioch 1 oromethane
1, 1-Oichloroethene
cis-1,3-0ichloropropene
t rans - 1 , 3 - D i ch I oropropene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
2.6E-4
3.4E-6
2.0E-4
6.8E-6
3.4E-6
3.4E-6
3.4E-6
3.4E-6
3.4E-6
2.0E-4
2.0E-*
1.9E-A
1.7E-3
7.9E-3
2.8E-1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1E«0
2E-2
2E-1
IE 2
1E-1
7E-3
1E-2
2E-1
9E-3
3E-3
3E-3
1E+0
2E*0
1E-1
2E+0
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEASr
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
MEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
3E-4
2E-4
1E-3 •
7E-4
3E-5
5E-4
3E-4
2E-5
4E-4
7E-2
7E-2
2E-4
9E-4
8E-2
1E-1
-------
Constituent
1. 1,2-Trichloroethane
Xylene
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryllium
GDI
(mg/kg/dey)
2.0E-4
8.5E-2
3.9E-8
7.4E-8
CDI Adjusted
for Absorption
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
RfO"
4E-2
«E»0
3E-4
5E-5
RfO
Source
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
hazard
Ouot i ent
5E-3
2E-2
1E-4
1E-3
Pathway
Hazard
Index
AE-1
Total
Exposure
1E+0
CHI Chronic daily intake
' for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplyinq the
RfU by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
2 for the hypothetical future construction worker scenario, subchronic RfDs were used to calculate the
hazard quotient.
-------
Const I tuent*
ORGAK 1 CS
Brnjenc
Bf omodich tor oroe thane
Hi omof orm ' •
Chloc of orm
Chloromethanc
D i br o«noch I oromethane
1.? DirMnropropane
Methylene chlor idc
1 , 1 ,2,2- Tetrachloroethane
t PI i achloroethene
1 . 1.2-Tr ichlorocthane
Vinyl chloride
IMOBGANICS
/>( sen ic
Brryl I ium
GDI
(ing/kg/day)
9.6E-8
9.6E-8
5.8E-6
9.6€-8
2.0E-7
9.66-8
9.6E-8
9.6E-B
5.8E-6
2.3E-4
S.8E-6
1.2E-7
1.1E-9
2.1E-9
ITU
Adjusted for
Absorption
Yes
Yes
Ye*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SF'
(mg/kg/day) '
2.9E-2
1.3E-1
7.9E-3
6.1E-4
1.3E-2
8.4E-2
6.8E-2
7.5E-3
2.0E-1
5.2E-2
5.7E-2
1.9E»0
1.75E»0
4.3E*2
Weight of
Evidence
A
82
B2
82
C
C
82
82
C
82
C
A
A
B2
Type of
Cancer
leukemia
liver
large
intestine
kidney
kidney
liver
liver
I iver
liver
1 iver
liver
liver, lung
skin
total
tumors
SF
Source
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HrASl
IRIS
'IS
Chemical •
Specific
Risk
3F-9
1E-3
5E-»
6E-11
3E-9
8E-9
7E-9
7E-10
1E-6
1E-5
3E-7
2E-7
2E-9
9E-7
Total
Pathway
Risk
IE 5
Total
Exposure
Risk
8E S
COT Chronic daily intake
' Ini the dermal contact with soil pathway, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividin9
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
* All of the constituents were detected at background levels.
the SF
-------
Table 7-66. Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a Hypothetical Future Construction Worker,
West Area Bare Spots, Dirk's Farm.
Const ituent
Cs Ca
ABS
SExDo
SExDd SExDi
Toxicitv Values
Risk
CANCER EFFECTS
yor:;
Styrene 5,900
TVt rachloroethene 27,000
Vinyl chloride* 22
J. ,'V?r.' Q & nics
A>-Finnic*
Rory11ium"
..«.•.!( *
6. 17
0.8
25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
03
03
00027
ni
01
003
8
3
5
1
4
.3E-05
.7E-04
3E-OV
.7E-08
.IE-OS
.OE-07
1.5E-04
7.0E-04
5.1E-09
5.4E-08
6.9E-09
6.6E-08
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CSFo
3.0E-02
5.1E-02
1.9E+00
1.7bE»00
4.3E+00
NA
CSFa CSFi
3.3E-02
6.4E-02
1.9E+00
1.84E+00
4.3E+02
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.6E-06
6.4E-05
5.8E-07
1.5E-07
3.IE-06
ND
ELCR
7E-05
Footnotes appear on page 3.
-------
T.ible 7-66.
Page 3 of 3
Soil Exposure Doses and Risk Calculations for a Hypothetical Future Construction Worker
West Area Bare Spots, Dirk's Farm. '
Conr.t ituent
Cs Ca ABS SexDo SexDd SExDi
Toxicity Values
Risk
HI 448E+00
ABS l< rmal absorption efficiency.
f.V Const-ituent concentration in air (mg/m1).
C:; • Constituent concentration in soil (mg/kg) .
CSFa Cancer slope factor, adjusted (mg/kg/day)"1.
CSFi Cancer slopo factor, inhalation (mg/kg/day) '.
CSFo Cancer slope factor, oral (mg/kg/day) '.
RfDa Reference dose, adjusted (mg/kg/day) to assess dermal exposure.
RfDi Reference dose, inhalation (mg/kg/day).
RfDo Reference dose, oral (r-g/kg/day) .
SExDo Soil exposure dose, oral (mg/kg/day).
SExDd Soil exposure dose, dermal (mg/kg/day).
SExDi Soil exposure dose, inhalai.on (mg/kg/day).
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index.
NA Not available.
NO Not determined.
* Constituent detected at background level.
-------
icisk Calculations for Non-carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers. Disposal
At o by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
tor the hypothetical future construction worker scenario, subchronic RfDs were used to calculate the
h.ix.ard quotient.
-------
Table 7-68. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers
Disposal Area A, Dirk's Farm.
Const! tuent
cot
(mg/kg/day)
CDI
Adjusted for
Absorption
SF1
(mg/kg/day)'
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic ,
Beryl 1 ium
1.4E-7
1.0E-8
No
No
1.75E+0
4.3E*0
Weight of
Evidence
======
A
B2
-
Type of
Cancer
=====
skin
SF
Source
Chemical-
Specific
Risk
=======
— '-' —
Total
Pathway
Risk
— —^^=^
S=S=SSSSS^=^KS5=
Total
Exposure
Risk
»- -. i " i SB
IRIS
IRIS
2E-7
4E-8
2E-7
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium
2.7E-9
2.0E-9
Yes
Yes
1.75E«0
4.3E+2
=
A
82
. =
-
skin
IRIS
IRIS
*
! "^ ,. '
5E-9
8E-7
— ,..i . n I, „,.„. . f^m*^^ _- --] __i
""" • ' .
8E-7
1E-6
CD1 Chronic daily intake
•
1 for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividinn
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. -^-my
-------
Table 7-69. Risk Calculations for Non-carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers
Disposal Area B, Dirk's Farm.
Const i tuent
GDI
(mg/kg/day)
GDI Adjusted
for Absorption
RfD"
RfO
Source
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
EXPOSURE PAIHUAY: Incidental Ingestion of Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Ai sonic
Heryl 1 ILD
1.6E-6
3.8E-7
No
MO
3E-4
5E-3
HEAST
HEAST
5E-3
8E-5
5E-3
fXPOSURF PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
' i M-nii
Rt r y| I ium
3.2E-8
7.5E-8
Yes
Yes
3E-4
5E-5
HEAST
HEAST
1E-4
2E-3
2f-3
7t-3
GDI Chronic daily intake
1 for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiplying the
RfD by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
; for the hypothetical future construction worker scenario, subchronic RfDs were used to calculate the
hazard quotient.
-------
Table 7-70. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers.
Disposal Area B, Dirk's Farm.
Constituent
CO)
(mg/kg/day)
GDI
Adjusted for
Absorption
sr1
(mg/kg/day) '
Height of
Evidence
Type of
Cancer
SF
Source
Chemical -
Spec i f i c
Risk
Total
Pathway
Risk
fxrosuRE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium ,
4.6E-8
1.1E-8
No
No
1.75E+0
4.3E*0
Total
Exposure
Risk
A
B2
skin
IRIS
IRIS
BE-8
5E-8
fXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
I llei yl 1 ium
1
9.2E-10
2.2E-9
Yes
Yes
1.75E+0
«.SE»2
A
B2
1E-7
skin
'RIS
IRIS
2E-9
VE-/
VE-7
CDI Chronic daily intake
1 for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose by dividing the SF
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
-------
Table 7-71. Risk Calculations for Non-carcinogenic Effects for hypothetical Future Construction Workers.
Disposal Area C, Dirk's Farm.
Constituent
CO)
(mg/kg/day)
CO I Adjusted
for Absorption
RfD"
RfD
Source
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingestion of Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 inn •
3.1E-6
2.3E-7
No
No
3E-4
5E-3
Total
Exposure
HEAST
HEAST
1E-2
5E-5
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Bci ^l 1 \\jn
6.3E-8
4.7E-8
Yes
Yes
3E-4
sr-s
1E-2
HEAST
HEAST
2E-4
9E-4
1E-3
1E-2
GDI Chronic daily intake
1 for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to-an absorbed dose by
RfD by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
for the hypothetical future construction worker scenario, subchronic RfDs were used to calculate the
hazard quotient.
-------
Table 7-72. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for m ~«-K 4.- ,
Disposal Area c, Dirk's Farm. 9 "tects for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers.
Chemical-
Spec i f i c
Risk
Weight of
Evidence
Total
Pathway
Risk
GDI Chronic daily intake
' for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the SF was converted
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S.
an absorbed dose by dividing the SF
-------
Table 7-73. Risk Calculations for Non-carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers.
Const i tucnt
CD I
(mg/kg/day)
COI Adjusted
for Absorption
R;D"
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental igestion of Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium
6.8E-7
1.9E-7
No
No
3E-4
5E-3
RfD
Source
" ' ' ™*^ • ,
Hazard
Quotient
:sssssas
Pathway
Hazard
Index
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
======
HEAST
HE AST
2E-J
4E-5
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryl I inn
1.4E-8
3.7E-8
Yes
Yer.
3E-4
5E-5
2E-3
HEAST
HEAST
5E-5
7E-4
81 /.
3E-3
GDI Chronic daily intake
1 for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the RfD was converted to an absorbed dose by multiolvina
RfD by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. H*y^»y
7 for the hypothetical future construction worker scenario, subchronic RfDs were used to calculate the
hazard quotient.
-------
Table 7-74. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical Future Construction
Disposal Area D, Dirk's Farm. uj.w-tj.on
Const i tuent
COI
(mg/kg/day)
CO.I
Adjusted for
Absorption
5F1
(mg/kg/day)'
Weight r>f
Evidence
Type of
Cancer
SF
Source
Chemical-
Specific
Risk
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Shallow Soil
I MORGAN ICS
Arsenic
BerylIium
2.0E-B
5.3E-9
No
No
1.75E+0
A.3E»0
B2
skin
IRIS
IRIS
2t-B
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
Total
Pathway
Risk
6E-8
CDI Chronic daily intake
1 for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the SF was converted to an absorbed dose bv
by the absorption efficiencies listed in Appendix S. r
lotal
Exposure
Risk
«-K
the
-------
)isposa
7-75. Risk Calculations for Non-carcinogenic Effects for Hypothetical P,,i-nr-0 ^ <.
al Area E, Dirk's Farm. nypotnecical Future Construction Workers.
Constituent
COI
(ing/kg/day)
EXPOSURE °ATHUAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Shallow Soi I
INORGANICS
A 1 LIT i nun
Arsenic
Bcryll \\jn
1.2E-2
4.5E-6
4.1E-7
CDI Adjusted
for Absorption
No
No
No
RfD"
•
1E»0
3E-«
5E-3
RfD
Source
— ~
Hazard
Quotient
' — '
Pathway
Hazard
InJex
1
Total
Exposure
Hazard Index
SISC
HEAST
.lEAST
1E-2
2E-2
8E-S
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
INORGANICS
/Muni nun
.*rsen:c
Beryl liLfn
1
2.3E-3
8.9E-8
8.1E-8
Yes
Yes
Yes
1E-2
3E 4
5E-5
STSC
HEAil
HEAST
3E-2
• —
2E-1
3E-4
2E-3
2E-1
1
2E-1
Chronic daily intake
tho
°°nStrUCtion "Orker scen«io- -bchronic RfDs were used to calculate the
-------
Table 7-76. Risk Calculations for Carcinogenic Effects for HW™«-H 4-- ,
Disposal Area E, Dirk's Farm. "rects for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers.
CD I
Adjusted for
Absorption
COI
(rog/kg/day)
SF1
(nig/kg/day)
Chemical
Specific
Risk
Weight of
Evidence
Total
Exposure
Risk
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Incidental Ingest ion of Shallow Soil
IMORGANICS
EXPOSURE PATHWAY: Dermal Contact With Shallow Soil
CD] Chronic daily intake
for the dermal contact with soil pathway, the SF was conv^n-oH «-
by the absorption efficiencies listed in AppendixS convertod to an absorbed dose by divid
ing the SF
-------
PRG TABLES
-------
Table 2-Ia
Initial Screening of Potential ARARs for Soil1
Federal Requirements
Byron Superfund Site
(Page I of 6)
Description
Chemical-Specific
Action-Specific
kxcavation
Prerequisite(s)
The offsile disposal of hazardous
wastes.
Construction activity, including
clearing, grading, and excavation
activities involving 5 or
more acres of land.
Materials containing RCRA
hazardous wastes subject to land
disposal restrictions.
Fugitive dust emissions from
excavation activities.
Activities resulting in air
emissions which may deteriorate
the health, welfare and the
productive capacity of the
population.
Requirement
Waste characterization.
Compli. :e with storm water
discharge requirements.
Movement of excavated wastes
to a previously uncoi tainin
ated, onsite location may
trigger land disposal
restrictions.
Control activity to minimize
paniculate dust emissions.
Compliance with air emission
standards and limitations;
minimize air emissions.
Citation
40 CFR 268
40CFR Pans 122, 123. 124,
and Section 402(P)of the
Clean Water Act (CV\ .).
40 CFR 268 Subparl D
40 CFR 51
Federal Clean Air Act 42
USC 1857; 40 CFR 52 EPA
Approval and Promulgation
of State Implementatio Plans
(SIP's)
Comments
Treatment stand .rds for various
hazardous constituents. No other
federal chemical-specific ARARs
have been identified for soils and
sediments.
Measures taken to reduce
pollutants loading in storm water
runoff.
For wastes that can be classified
as restricted hazardous wastes,
the restrictions are applicable.
Land disposal is prohibited for
these wastes unless they are
treated to defined standards.
During excavations, c;.re must he
taken to minimize paniculate dust
emissions.
Guidelines concerning air
pollution control and stale
permitting may be an ARAR for
the site.
1 AkARs Hlcnnturd under one dcsmpnun. e.g.. "e»civ«i..n" may also apply .„ another descnpi.m. e g . "amsohda.mn" and due I., their Kciic,ali/cd nature, arc n»i re,,,'.,!,, hcsc
-------
Table 2-la
Initial Screening of Potential ARARs for Soil1
Federal Requirements
Byron Superfund Site
(Page 3 of 6)
Description
Waste Piles-Storage
(Onsilv)
Prerequisite(s)
Onsue storage of RCRA
hazardous waste in waste piles
Onsiie storage of RCRA
hazardous waste in waste piles.
Waste piles used to store
hazardous waste onsite must
be:
• Designed and installed with
a liner and leachate
collection system to prevent
migration.
• Designed to control run-off
and run-on
Waste piles must be inspected
during construction and
operation.
At closure of the waste pile.
all hazardous waste residi -s
and equipment must be
removed and/or
decontaminated.
If the pile contains any
paniculate matter which may
be subject to wind disposal,
the pile must be covered or
otherwise managed to control
wind dispersal.
Waste piles that are closed
with waste in-place are subject
to regulation as landfills.
Waste piles that are inside .a
structure are not subject to
40CFR264.251
40 CFR 264.254
The U.S. EPA Regional Admin-
istrator can exempt an owner or
operator of a waste pile from the
design requirements of 40 CFR
264.25l(a).
40 CFR 264 251
40 CFk 264.250
Sec "Land Disposal/Placement
(Onsilc)"
ed
-------
Table 2-la
Initial Screening of Potential ARARs for Soil1
Federal Requirements
Byron Superfund Site
(Page 5 of 6)
Description
Prerequisite(s)
Requirement
Citation
Comments
Land Disposal
(Offsite)
Land disposal of nonhazardous
solid waste off site.
Materials containing RCRA
hazardous wastes subject to land
disposal restrictions.
Transpjnation of hazardous
waste offsite.
Land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes offsite.
Offsite solid waste land
disposal units must meet the
federal guidelines for the land
disposal of solid wastes.
Certain types of RCRA
hazardous wastes are restricted
from land disposal and treat-
ment si idards must be met
before ihese wastes can be
land disposed.
Transportation of RCRA
hazardous wastes is regulated
under both RCRA and
Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations.
Land disposal of RCRA hazar-
dous waste must be in units
that meet minimum technology
requirements under RCRA
40CFR241
40 CFR 268
40 CFR 263,
100-199
19 CFR
Land disposal requirements and
restrictions must be reviewed for
each waste code. Certain
exemptions exist for some waste
types and for wastes generated
from CERCLA sites.
Sec "Transportation tofi'siie)"
40 CFR 264.301
AKAK', identified mulei line description, e g , "excavation" may also apply to another description, c p.. "consolidation" and due in iheir itcner»li/ed njiiirc. ,nc nm iciic.iiol in i
l.ll'lus
-------
Table 2-lb
Initial Screening of Potential ARARs for Soil
State Requirements
Byron Superfund Site
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
Chemical-Specific
There are no Slate chemical -
specitlc requirements fur
impacted soils or sediments.
There are criteria for
contaminants that may be
identified as "to be
considered" in establishing
PRGs See Table 2.1 a tor
federal land disposal
restriction (LDR)
requirements applicable lo
RCRA hazardous waste
impacted media.
Waste Piles-Storage
(Onsile)
Prerequisite(s)
Storage of nonhazciJous
wastes in piles onsite.
Storage of hazardous waste in
piles onsite.
Storage of material in piles
with emissions of fugitive
paniculate matter.
Provide for control of soil
erosion and prevent
sedimentation of surface
water.
New waste piles must be
constructed lo prevent
migration of waste out of the
pile to adjacent soils,
groundwater or surface
water.
If fugitive [articulates matter
emissions e tceed state
established values, storage
piles must be protected by a
cover or sprayed or treated to
reduce emissions.
Standards and Specifications
for Soil and Sediment
Control, 1987, I EPA
Subpart 1... Pad 724
Subchapier b; Chapter I,
Subtitle G, Title 35 of
Illinois Administrative
Code.
Subchapier A: Part 212,
Subpart K
Standards and specifications
lo be employed in the
design, review, approval,
installment and maintenance
of erosion and sediment
control practices on land
undergoing clearing,
grading, and development.
-------
Table 2-ID
Initial Screening of Potential ARARs for Soil
State Requirements
Byron Superfund Site
(Page 3 of 4)
Description
Prerequisite(s)
Requirement
Citation
Comments
Soil Vapor Recovery (cont.)
Sources of VOC emissions.
Sources of odorous
emissions.
Sources of air emission from
remediation actions.
The storage of any VOC in
any stationary container of
more than 40,000-gallon
capacity must be a pressure
tank or be (.quipped with
VOC recovery system or a
floating roof.
Emission limitations and/or
control established for
compartment effluent water
separators, pumps and
compressors, vapor
blowdowns, system, and
safety relief valves.
No person shall cause or
allow the discharge of more
than 8 Ibs/hr VOC from any
emissions source unless
equipped with emission
control equipment capable of
reducing emissions by 85%
or more.
Control requirements of
objectionable odors at or near
the property line and/or at or
near places where people
work or live.
Primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards
for ozone, paniculate mailer,
CO, NOx, SO,, and lead
shall be maintained.
Subchapter A:
Subpart B
Pan 215,
Pan 215. Subpan C
Subchapter A:
Subpan K
Part 215,
Subchapier I: Part 245
Subchapter 1:
Subpart A
Pan 243.
Efficiency of controls must
be 85% or greater.
Efficiency of controls must
be 85% or greater.
Use of organic materials foi
fuel combustion sources are
exempt from the rule.
Requirement applicable lor
specific sources and
pollutants.
Ambient air modeling or
monitoring may be required
to demonstrate maintenance
of standards.
-------
Table 2-3
Calculated Soil PRGs Protective of Grounclwaler
Byron Superfund Site
Byron Salvage Yard Slid Specific Data
IMU Ellnclive poiosily
- liacliuM wdlui content
Induration (in/yi)
GW giddieiil (ll/ll)
K- Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec)
GW vulucily (It/dy) [k x I /ne|
J Aquilur Mixing Thickness (ft)
W- Width Corildm Area (perpdclr to GW How) (It)
Lunyiri Contain Area (parallel to GW How) (fl)
J Depth Contain Area (h)
j-Soil density (ijr/t_rn3)
rOC |1000()()ni- OOI|
04
026
0.2
68
004
0.00254
1 04
75
500
350
10
15
00166
Contaminant Specific D«t*
Preliminary HbineJialion Goals (Groundwaler ug/l)
Koc
KJ (inl/y) |Koc ' 1OC|
H 1 1 . soil donsily x (KO/ne))
Solubility Limit (uy/l) (Note: Ci must be < sol. limit)
fCLH Limit (U(j/l)
Qi Inlillralion/yr. (gal/mm) |l x L x W|
Cu- Cone in upijiad GW (ug/l) finpulj
Qu- Upijiadiunt GW How (yal/min) |v x d x W x no]
Mu Mabb in upyrad. GW (kg/yr) [Qu x Cu]
Qd- Uownyiadienl GW (low (gal/mm) (Qi t Qu)
Soil PHG lor Protection ol Groundwaler to PHGs
Pore Water Cone. CI- (ug/l) |(CdQd-CuQu)/(Qd-Qu)|
Soil PHG- Cs (mg/kg) CI x [Kd+(u x t/p)) (•)
Acetone
2880
<>2
0037
1.196
1.000.000.000
1.41
0.00
5656
0
57.96
118.272
10.63
Elhylbenzene
970
676
11 ?22
61 116
161.000
141
0.00
56 5.'j
0
57.96
39.835
449 13
Note: Soil PRGs protective ol groundwaler calculated using a mass balance ol contaminanl leaching and mixing in groundwaler
(a) Whure calculated soil PHG is less loan the method detection level (mdl), tho nidi is the PRG
500
661
10U73
597«2
150.300
700
1 41
000
56 55
0
5796
205
2.26
=i
Toluene
100
300
4980
27 679
534.800
1 41
000
5655
0
5796
4.107
20.67
1
TCE
500
12li
209i?
12205
1.100.000
500
1.41
000
5655
0
5796
205.3
0.44
J
4849000
VMO
3 'JU-1
21? 343
190.00(1
I 41
000
56 55
0
5/%
— —
198.000
799.39
.J
MKt/IIIM-I SCI'GW XI S
(II E30U1V A!)
-------
Tible 2-3*
Inlllil Scrccnln| of Pultnllil AKAH'i fur
Dyron Suptrfund Silt
Air
Federal Requirements
Hussion ol S|icullC lla/arilou** All
'.Mutants
II Stripping
Federal R(i|iilrtnttnli
Ilic emission o( hazardous ill pollutants,
including arsenic, beryllium, vinyl
ihloildc. bcruenc, and mercury (it listed
In 4(1 C'l K 61 1)1 (•) Hut yic enilllcil limn
paiiiLUlar source categories)
On site uli snipper or lulls ticalmcnl unlit
Ma|m stationary souicc of emissions
Sources »l hazardous alt emissions.
lii|ulpinciil perfoiinaiice slandaids, and certain
wink practices are required o( certain sources
liinisslqn standards and limitations aic esuhlishcd
(in specified all pollutants
Spcclllcd ci|ulpnicni which Is a potential source
ul fugitive emissions because ll cuiilalni ur
conitclt fluid that It at leasl 10% by weight a
volatile lituaidoui all pollulunl
l-lle • penult application with the state to Include
estimation of emission title' for each pollutant
eipccled.
Include In application:
- modeled Impact analyses ol souicc
emissions
- provide bcsl available cunliol (ethnology
(IIACT) review fur the smiicc ojicialloii
Verify through calculation csliinalci and
dlspeislnn modeling dial hydiogcn snllnlc
calculations do not ctcale an uinlilcnl
conccnlrullnn gicalct than in ci;uul to II Ml pi'i
Venly that calculations ol inciciny. vinyl
chluilde. and hcn/cnc do not occcd levels
opcclcd Iroin sounci In compliance wnli
ha/atdiius all |iollnlion i
40CFH ul. National Kmr.'hins
Slandaids fur llj/oiilous Air
l'ulluliinls(NLSIIAP's)
40CI:K Pail 61, Siibpjil V, l-ugilivc
Emljslon Snutce Slatiilurds
40U;H52(Sirs)
-4IICI-K 52 (Sll1 sj
40 (TK hi (NHSIIAP's)
•IllflU (•! (NI.SIIAKs)
'Oils ici|iiiicinciil may l>c iclcvant
If Ihicshold umounts of uiscmc.
hciyllium. vinyl chluinle.
licn/cuc. ni mctcuty jie lound on
site.
This requirement is un AKAK
when lluld containing at least
10% by weight of a hataiduus
;iollulant Is picsetit at the sile.
'Ilic Slate of Illinois will have
particular inicicsl in emission lot
ciiiti|Mn,iuh on their ha/aidous.
lo»ic. 01 ixloti.us Mil lite state is
assigin-il to ptiiMii majo, souiccs
(over I0tli|,yll). tAA fan I).
llowcvi-r. Siipcn. (id ,-lcanups un
:lic -ii nut u-i|nlie ,K:iinin
^iiI'Manllv • !>i|iiiicMn-nis ol
IKiinli a|i|ilitalion apply
M.IJOI source in area wlrlih Is
non uiialnmcnt lor |iullulanl over
HKHny will lie ici|iilicd li»
dcmonsirale lowest acliicvalilc
cmisMon uics (I AI-H) iiillil.ini
cmissiiin nlljUs ,\ injji.i
iijtliMi.i.y souiic ol an ailaiiiiiutni
aica ovci JJII |py w,|| In snl>|c-il
to I'SU ivgMl.,il,iiii
I iiipmctil (iciloiiiiance
si inilaiiK ami emission
limilaliiiiis cstatiltshcd
nilaids anil
.MH/UlN SVI'S
-------
Tiblc 2-Jb
Initial Scfetnln| of Potential ARAR'f fur
Byron Suptrfund Silt
Suit Requirements
innlml Sprtinc
H' bmissinns
illun Specific
uavailon
Suit Neqiilrrniriiti
All Snipping lesulllng In potential VOC
emissions.
New sources uf ill contaminants
Sources of nil emissions liiini iciiiedluliuii
actions.
Souices of panlcullle mallei emissions
Sources u( air emissions from remediation
actions.
liiiiltiliin Iliiiltalluns and council requirements
established fur sources ol VOC einlsslnns.
Periuns tliall not con si rue I or modify any ncv
touice uf potential air emissions without a
construction penult
Penult application lu Include stuck or vein data
designed to p.cvciil coin Mirations ol any ah
contimlnanl from eiceedi g standards causing uli
pollution, and/or c>ceedln emission slandjids
set forih In state mlcs ami , guldilons
Sources may be ici|ulrcd n> lie equipped wltli all
inunlKirlng equipment Testing, reports und
rccoiilkccping may ho icquliciJ
Prlma/y and secondary aiuhlcnl air ijuallly
slandaidJ I'm oionc. parlUulalc mullci, (X), N(l«.
SO2, and lead sliull he maintained
One hour paniculate mallei emission I mils fioni
any new process emission source
Primary and sccond-iiy iimlnc-nl ;ili i|iiallly
standards for o/onc. pailiculaie nuiicr. CO. NOi.
SO2, and lead shall he iiuimainol
Subchapiei a: Part 215
Surxliapiera:Pari20ISubpartC
Sul«.haptcr a: fan 2(11; Sulipail C
SiiNlupu-rj |.JM 201 Suh|i.in K
SuU liupi,., |. Pai
Snlnliapici a Tail 212 Siili|>.i.l I.
Suln.li.ipm I. I'.iil 24J. Sulip.nl A
Illinois review policy rci|nircs
d-monsiralion that j/ohic-iu
concenlratliins lur non-
carclmigenic chtmlcals do not
cucced I/J%1I.V-TWA
concenliaiions uf carcinogens du
not eiceed one In * million iisk.
State lias permitting authority,
however, Superfund cleanups
conducted on site do nu( require
licrrnlis. Subsli'iil've
rci|iiireiiicnlv nl in-null
applicalion do apply. l:ollowmg
consituctlon, a renew,ilile
operating (iciiiill Is rc>|uiicd lo
opciulc 11 it sou ice
Souiccs ol fugitive .'missions aic'
cm Mi1.
M.iy U- iinlud.-d.ivu 1^,0111
coiuliiion
Amlilcni an iniHlcllii'!; or
inomioinig may dc rri|i>iicil to
dcmoiiMi.iic maintenance nl I!K
|-|||||IS|I.IM:I|IIII|HIM:CSS weight
lutes
Amliic'iii .in miHlclhig <„
ni'imioimg may ho icijuircd to
'lciiioiisiiaic inaiiiiciuni-c ol
-------
COST TABLES
-------
Table vl
Bvroo Suprrfund :icc Ftvibiuiy stud»
SoU V'oUtde Organic Ci mpouads Alteraanvc Z - liumuoooal ConrroLs
I Quanlilv I Lnm Lo:l Cost I Eotndcd C'
ACCESS AND DEED RESTRICTIONS
gal Document Preprranon
St/BTOTAi.
CONTTNGEN'CY
:o
S6.CCO
5500
56.500
OTAL
CapiUi Cosis:
Annul) O4M
PV or OAM:
Toui Pr«fn< Valur:
53.100
SO
SO
>8.100
-------
Table V-'
B»ro» Super Film) Site Fe»\.n ln> Stud«
Soil Volatile Organic Compound 4lcernaa»c 3 - •>••»> F»ra»»lior* and OfTiMf DupotaJ
Description
DIVISION i;1
Fretftti. S.Jfi la*. Bonds. Insurance. '• of FjLlllly Total
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
OTAL
SITE PREPARATION/CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
Site Mobtltunon/Demorjiliiiiion
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
EXCAVATION/TRANSPORTATION
Eicavalion
Transport lo lAnvJli:!
Permiu and analytical tenltvJliun
•IAS L?*el C trquipmeni jiHl laNir aJioslmem
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
OFFSITE DISPOSAL OF si)1- HAZARDOL S SOIL
SUBTOTAL
< O«mNCENCY
TOTAL
BACKFILL. GRADING. RESEEDING
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
' *»L
SAMPLING A ANALYSIS
iamplinl Plan Design
D.rkiFarm VOCi
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
MISCELLANEOL S ITEMS
\U8TOTAL
I'llVTINCENCY
Qua ..on
:5
i
ISO
1
V)
:s
,»
-»
;
li!
I'mQ
I
LS
'i
CY
CY
LS
CY
t*4 n
LS
•*
TOT KL '
L nit Co«t E oendcd Co*l
|»; .liDi.ti
»:.(*» w
tiooo
11301)
t
SJ II?
i'.::?
S'.»lO
s: .."i
s: 50•
tin tin)
(. omments
1 J|*UM| <«I>IIIV HI«A M §H 0* »JMMftlfQ a ft.&kTjrt
•DOT .jujlilt i.icioil anO \cci). inciuOei erajinjl
Include! FSP. Subconlracu. Dau Validauon. etc
composiu; tamples per sampling event
AmuU O4M U)
Total Praeiit * altx: te.ljon
-------
Biron Super Fund sue . uibtlily Stud>
Soil Volatile Organic Compound l ''ernao** 4 • Soil In Siiu Treatment
Docnpbo*
DIVISION 1)1
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOT\L
SITE PREPARAnON'CONSrRl CTION FACILITIES
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
DESIGN. TILLING. COVER
Tilling
Cjver Sump, and GAC jnu
DC. 'nummauun Pad
S.UBtaUon 11.10 «e urL
Waste vVater Ditnuul
dt S Level C equipment anj !arv.ir ajiutuncm
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
OTAL
BACKFILL. GRADLNG. RESEEDLNG
at'U~i:l. cndini. A rueedinf ui nau%e cnsvi
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
SAMPLING.* -VALYSIS
Samphnf Plan Deiitn
Dirt i Fara VOCl
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
MISCELL A.NEOCS rTEMS
LetaJ Feel
•. 'ONTINGENO
fOT»L
Qua/Kit*
•
-
-..,
^
t!,
Inils
•:
.LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
t
>tj It
•t
LS
1 vents
*„
1 nti ( usl
^i::.>'«Mii
SI <.»>.!
s: «'i -i
s:5*:
VMM,
1* -"
PV ,-i i tM VI
-------
Btrctfi Miprrfund >ccr rr4>>h«lct« Mud
Soil 1 OC Allrnuuoe 9 - F.t«.'a»«tc*m. rm:menl. «nd tlcuile Dup>M4j
ttm» ImiC'Bt | F.nrndrtC'ccii
recftM. Salei T«JI. B'^ncii. Iniuraiwe. •' c<< Fkitlccy Tulal
Sl/BTOTVL
.••ONT1NCE.SC>
ITE PMPMlATIO.NTONSTRI.CnON F4CIUTIES
tie MofciliijUR.'CvI>CT«>Hclc/*icon
SIBTOTMI
rONTINCENl '
rnuu jnd uulvuijw v
CY I in
U 51 .«/
SL'BTOTHL
CONTINGENCY
THERMAL DESORPTION
.000 |4kjfi it*acjc cjcnci
uic Wiier MitppuJ
A S L*vel C* ei^iupcncni ml l«
SllTOTAL
CONT1NCE.NCY
;:ooo
sw,
I'M
^IIH jratcl c>Aj cki'/i lump, uvl jnic/ tctle icncr
ACKFILL. GRADING RESEEOING
fc'Uill. padin|. A rrveJini i» finite puxi
»3T ^uAJciv copcjucl «id vtrd. JKICMJJC*
ilBTOTM.
CONTINCEVY
llTtl.
I'M)
AAVLINGA ANALYSIS
«nf4inf FlM Otiipt
OCi pretrcauKW Wflw«in|
OCt • (OMruOMar> .irin i*r;ijift|
OCi • pmmrut «r nw»iinnn| Jun
LS
Enn
E>e«
• e«u
I
1:5 ODD no , 1:1000
140Q
»::s oo iwo
1500
V.1.-5
iKludel FSP. SutacacMrn.u. D«A Vijidjcuocci, etc. .
Z kOfncpoiMcn pef kjapltni e»em. 1 pteucjcuMeni ml 1 pou
^ cmccycBcin per tvnpijiflg cvfM. cuwnx - events
OVMReKU
MISCEli.ANEOL'S fTEMS
ia Ft,,
SIBTIITU.I
ovnsr.fcsot
Slolxc !
M i'O '
-------
Tahle A-r
Byron Suptrf^nd ine Feasibility Studv
Soil Metals Alternative :. - lasmuoooal Controls
Description
ACCESS AND DEED RESTRJCTJONS
-egal Document prcpenucn
Signs
SUBTOTAL
CONTTN'CENCY
TOTAL
Quaotilv
JO
:o
i <
toils
Hn
£A
*
1 La.iCost lEnfadedCjsi '- .im meo is
• s: 50.00
s:5 •>/
i
S6.a» . ,
5500 'Lnc.Cuts irsixlJtion.
S6..-<«
51.625
53.M.X) , :
Cjpiul Cojis. 53.100
.•V^r.u" O&.M: SO
?V ;:O4M: SO
j Total Presrnt Value: S8.100 !
-------
T*t>lr 4-0
BtroA Suptrfun ' Mir Fea"*1 ' •* ''lud*
S«l MrtlJ> Atlcm/'ivf .' • *dl ' .ntaimtm
>mnpii«n Quinnn 1 nifj J . Lrt'ilo'- Emndrd din : t emnwftti
DIVISION 01 !
I
1
rn^ht Sajci Tax Bonda. Insurance "•of" Facilin Total
SUBTOTAL
CONTTSGENO
OTAL
SITE PREPARATION CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
Siu MobdiauofbDcmobdiubon
SLBTOTAL
COSTING EVCY
TOTAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
AnnuAl matfilefuncr md rcpar u> cap
SUBTOTAL
CONTTNGENO
OTAL
'
;
! ;
Mswnc .pjisinj R'LP jc.3 n irjnirwrra :j PC R.* i
«-» ''""" j :;i ; '
Subutie (.' jiipouJ (*;irljr\ Covi n 5*, ->f u>u :x:i'^ ;oH 1
ill '".W
! $:.«:>
SM ri; < ^
1 LS
i
1 il
SI ••«,«) Si '••> j
ti, n<
:.< ' ••
s:-, j
| i si ;•«•
;.. -««
-"•
; i
»:.«<« .» ,' j
V)
; "'
i K>
FILL GRADING RESEFDING '
F.ll ^.J••.• ™>() 1 1C • , f-:-«l
I-DOT 4uatir\ lopuxl «u iced, include! grading
North DupotaJ Area -3 :00 ft', tin Dilpoul Area £ : dUG
j | .'.t' Qiudnnu •< A T^ = 4000U <1-«K>|. and Uw road
!
OnrJing « tr«ecd*n( njine |nuci < i05! IS7TW
11)0650
:< •. | J3J.6*)
i
S**piin| Pla« Dnipt ' 1 LS
[
ocruork Jt 18 It*) ft*
116) )00 |
1
».-.• •»«/ 'jij j t:.< ooo
Includn fSf Suboontri.ru. DMJ Validjooo. etc
; tiMi' r .LIMUII ;
BSY W^ill Aiulvici < roadj and nuamntiui 1" jumpl«< W • Pb or /» II MU JTAL rneulroo road Pb 01 Z» in qudnnu
I JIIW= TtLnxull
Oirk * unoMI U' • P» Si WW (P» • Laa landfill. TAL VteUi - NoflMandfill
j
' ]
• i Farm Mom
Mfnptinf - bitual umplin| < } dat t for * pmpt<
:u i umpln
,
Ubo> . ': haul
E^wpmcra Rcnul 1 1 -lav 1
SLBTOT«L|
lAddrocNul i*u drlmiatjon MIA 24 hr otrn-amilid. il it
14W « T^L meuit uswned tfk< additionai umplinf »ill ocmr Milbin b._
JUS - Pb III '00
t<)00 COM)
ti:nj
Ul/luJlOJtW
P\ .IO*M
FofaJ Prvwnf \ alu«
S:.
-------
P-*-*!
T«L lam. fcMMt. « al ftabnt TOM!
COVTTNCtvC*
'"I
SL'tTOT
COT1MXMO
DIC A v A nOM.TftAM WOT A TlOw
IrJUD
1000
rrt DOPOSAL OF
tiw-.n
U03U
m oisKJSAi OF **o* KA^AADCX i tot.
— *r .!• -- r ir
IIIJ.I.D
•111.10}
'"'•"I
II! 11
BJ1
II •» JOD
in 110
ULMQ
1\\1M
rot.L
-------
Appendix A
Responsiveness Summary
-------
BYRON SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT #4 - SOIL REMEDIATION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This summary provides the response to public comments on the Byron Superfund Site Proposed Plan
and supporting documents. The comments were grouped by theme including: Risk Assessment, Soil
and General. Multiple sources of comment are noted where appropriate. Each comment
(sometimes paraphrased in order to group) is provided with the response below.
The text of these full comments can be found in the USEPA Region V Byron Superfund Site
Administrative Record. Most of the comments were provided by either citizens present at the April
10, 1997 public meeting in Byron, Illinois or by the Potentially Responsible Parties during the public
comment period which extended from April 1 to May 31, 1997.
Risk Assessment Comments
Comment No. 1
The Proposed Plan incorrectly states that an elevated, possibly unacceptable risk occurs under
current land use scenarios for the potential trespasser who is exposed to on-site contamination and
also lives at a home with contaminated groundwater. In fact, the health risk from exposure to Site-
related contaminants under current land use scenarios is insignificant.
Response:
While the majority of private wells that have been impacted by the Site have been removed from
service, there still are some current downgradient residents who either are still using contaminated
groundwater or have wells that are near known areas of groundwater contamination and therefore are
an exposed or potentially exposed population. The Site contaminants pose a risk to both existing and
future residents drinking from these wells. Assuming that current groundwater concentrations will
continue, future exposures could occur resulting in risks equal to the current land use assessment and
therefore should be quantified. Assuming steady state conditions do not continue, natural attenuation
may reduce risks from certain chemicals but increase risks from others (e.g. vinyl chloride levels
from degradation could occur).
Comment No. 2
The Proposed Plan incorrectly states that under future use scenarios, residents and construction
workers on the DFP property could be exposed to contaminants that pose an unacceptable health
1
-------
risk. Construction is not likely in the future use scenario. The other risk responses address the
following related comments:
A) The risks assumed by the USEPA are due to naturally occurring background concentrations of
constituents in soil.
B) The calculation of the hypothetical future construction worker risks contains many errors.
Response:
In regards to comment that construction is not a likely future use scenario, the USEPA has in fact
been approached within the last two years by three parties interested in developing parts of the Site
for residential use. While there are not yet institutional controls in place to limit residential
development, it can be assumed that the most likely candidates for exposure continues to be
occupational workers. In the future, increased demands for development on or around the Site will
most likely continue. It was pointed out in the comment that if construction is unlikely, a
construction worker scenario would also be unlikely. This is only partially true since there are other
types of related activities that fall under the category of "construction" that could bring workers in
contact with subsurface contamination. An example would be trenching and excavation workers
engaged in activities such as installation and/or repair of water, sewer, electric service,
telecommunications, and natural gas lines, all of which would be performed below ground surface.
In these cases, exposure would not be limited to below ground exposures. Exposure would also
occur when contaminated soil is stockpiled above ground during the work, and in the area of shallow
groundwater, seep areas while water is pumped from the excavation and managed during dewatering.
The other risk assessment comments raise the issue of allowing naturally-occurring constituents (i.e.
background) to influence risk. This position may be valid when establishing cleanup goals where
remediation is usually done to background levels. However from a risk assessment perspective, risk
due to background levels of contamination do represent a portion of the risk that must be managed
and therefore should not be disregarded.
A commentor also states that there are errors in the chemical concentrations used to calculate risk.
The chemical concentrations used in the PRO development for the FS were taken from an analytical
database developed for the FS. This data base contained the analytical results from the 1980's, and
from the 1991 and 1992 groundwater sampling event. The USEPA believes that the database (i.e.
analytical results) used was sound and that the chemical concentrations were accurate and correct.
Comment No. 3
Future exposure scenarios evaluated in the baseline risk assessment are not reasonable, given the
present owner's plans for the property and existing site features.
Response:
Future exposure scenarios in the risk assessment are considered to have a reasonable potential to
occur as discussed earlier.
It may be the intent of Commonwealth Edison, the present owners of the Dirk's Farm Property, to
-------
use it as a buffer zone to prevent residential development adjacent to the Byron Nuclear Power Plant,
but until permanent land use restrictions are actually in place, the assumption must remain that future
options could be explored that are not consistent with present day objectives. Residential
development has been the intent of two existing property owners of the Byron Salvage Yard.
The comment that future exposure scenarios evaluated in the baseline risk assessment are not
reasonable, considers the fact that a majority of the property is crossed by high-voltage overhead
power lines. This does not eliminate the possibility of future development, particularly in the areas
of the property where power lines do not pose a problem. Despite the aesthetic limitations imposed
by nearby power lines, lower land costs could make the property attractive to developers.
Comment No. 4
Projected ecological risks are not supported by existing site-specific data.
Response:
The USEPA has conducted site-specific analysis anii has used site-specific data to project the
ecological risks posed by the Site. While the USEPA does agree with the commentor's assertion that
conservative values and assumptions were used, they are not considered to be unsupportable.
In summary. Zinc was found to present an ecological risk to small mammals and soil invertebrates.
Lead also posed a risk to insectivorous birds and small mammals. The complete narrative of the
USEPA investigation, evaluation, and summary conclusions is contained in Section 8 of the
Remedial Investigation report dated April 29, 1994.
Comment No. 5
The acceptance risk levels used in the risk assessment and feasibility study were unnecessarily
conservative.
Response:
The use of a target risk of 1x10"* is a reasonably conservative level, and is not inappropriate for use
in establishing PRGs. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part Br Development of Risk-Based Preliminary' Goals) states, "an appropriate
point of departure for remediation of carcinogenic risk is a concentration that corresponds to a risk of
\Q* for one chemical in a particular medium." It further goes on to state that though not required,
"in the absence of ARARs, the 10'6 cancer risk is used as a starting point for analysis of remedial
alternatives which reflects EPA's preference for managing risks at the more protective end of the risk
range, other things being equal."
-------
Soil Comments
Comment No. 1
USEPA incorrectly concluded that PRO exceedences in the North and East Disposal Areas, and in
BSY soils, require remediation of onsite soils.
Response:
For the purpose of developing remedial actions costs for the FS, the PRGs were compared to
maximum detected concentrations in specific areas to prevent hot spots from being excluded from
the cleanup action. The proposed remedy includes excavation of contaminated material with
concentration greater than PRGs. The extent of soil exceeding PRGs and requiring excavation would
be determined in the field using USEPA-approved methodologies. As a result, actual soil volumes
may vary from those assumed in this report. In short, comparing the PRGs to the maximum detected
concentrations allows identification of all areas needing remediation, but still provides the option of
excluding those areas that are below the remedial action levels.
Comment No. 2
The chemicals exceeding the PRGs (copper and zinc) in the North Disposal area are not human
health concerns in the risk assessment.
Response:
The PRGs are not being compared to the "exposure point concentrations" used to assess overall risk,
but rather they are being compared to single point concentrations that represent hot spots where
remedial action is necessary to respond to an exceedance.
Comment No. 3
No further remediation of soils on the BSY Site is warranted.
Response:
There is soil on the Site with contaminant concentrations in exceedance of PRGs. The contaminant
concentrations in soil in two of the BSYquadrants and a portion of the road network, and three
disposal areas on the DFP area exceed the PRGs developed to be protective of groundwater, human
health, or the environment.
Further soil remediation is warranted. The remediation of this contaminated soil would remove the
source of contamination, thereby eliminating the potential future release of contamination to
groundwater, and removing the health hazard posed to humans and ecological receptors.
-------
Comment No. 4
Many commentors requested that USEPA consider Soil Metals Alternative 4, instead of Soil Metals
Alternative 3.
Response:
The USEPA agrees that Soils Metals Alternative 4 is a more preferable and permanent action than
Soil Metals Alternative 3. However, Alternative 3 would still be protective of human health and the
environment and could be implemented at less cost than Alternative 4. Therefore, during the
USEPA's evaluation of the nine criteria used to select a proposed alternative, it was determined that
Alternative 3 would be the overall preferred action to take.
The USEPA will ask that the PRPs consider conducting the excavation and soil removal described
in Soil Metals Alternative 4 in lieu of Alternative 3 during negotiations subsequent to issuance of the
Record of Decision.
Comment No. 3
A recommendation was made to excavate the DFP West Disposal VOC contaminated area deeper
than the planned five feet, to include the excavation of all contaminated soils and porous rock.
Response^
Remediation of all soil in the West Disposal Area with VOC concentrations greater than the PRGs
will be required. In addition, bedrock in this area is typically four to five below the ground surface. It
can be assumed that the majority of the VOC contamination is most likely still retained in the soil
matrix and that removal of the source materials will only require removal of the unconsolidated
materials. If highly contaminated materials are noted at the soil/bedrock interface during excavation,
. then additional excavation can be undertaken to address this problem.
Comment No. 6
What type of grasses are going to be used for the soil cover? Do the grasses have deep root systems?
Can the plants bioaccumulate the metals? What about livestock and wildlife that eat the native
grasses on site, are they negatively affected?
Response:
The types of grasses used for the soil cover will be selected during the design. They will have
shallow root systems that will not extend below the 18 inch soil cover, reducing the potential for
bioaccumalation.
These grasses can bioaccumulate certain metals. There is a remote possibility that grazing animals
may eat contaminated grasses in the areas that have been remediated. Grazing animals feed over
large areas, and the areas that could contain contaminated grasses would only be a small portion of
that area. The likelihood of the animals accumulating hazardous concentrations (to them or to their
host) of contaminants is therefore small.
-------
Comment No. 7
What are the sizes (acreage) of the DFP disposal areas that are to be cleaned-up?
Response:
The remaining areas of known contamination on DFP are limited to the North, South, and East
disposal areas. Their combined area is 7,700 square feet, or approximately a fifth of an acre.
Comment No. 8
Will naturally occurring bacteria be able to bioremediate the metal contaminated areas? What
optimizes the performance of these microbes? Will the microbes currently working on the VOCs be
affected by the metal compounds or other material on the Site?
Response:
This idea may be evaluated further as part of the remedial design, but currently there are no known
practical remediation techniques that use bacterial degradation as a means of treating metal
contaminated soils.
The affect on the VOC degrading microbes by metals, or other materials, on the Site is not
definitively known. The VOC concentrations in the soil are stable or decreasing slightly, so the
degradation by microbial action is minimal. There may be many reasons for this, but the intent of
alternative 3 is not for microbial degradation, but eliminating risk by eliminating contact with the
contamination.
Comment No. 9
What are the current contaminant concentrations of the DFP VOC soils, and what will they be after
excavation?
Response:
The current DFP VOC soil concentrations are for the most part equivalent to background (not being
detected), and less than remedial clean-up standards. The West Disposal Area is the only area with
elevated soil VOC concentrations (primarily Toluene and PCE). Their concentrations range from
background to 350 ppm. The soil with a toluene concentration greater than 20 ppm and PCE at a
concentration greater than 2.3 ppm will be excavated and disposed of offsite.
Once the excavation is complete, the soil concentration on the DFP will range from being equivalent
to background to a concentration less than the remedial clean-up standards. At that point, that
specific area of DFP soil will be unrestricted as to its' use and development.
Comment No. 10
USEPA incorrectly concluded that cleanup of the chlorinated VOCs and aromatics in shallow soils in
the West Disposal Areas was necessary to protect groundwater. Groundwater quality in areas down
gradient of the West Disposal Area is not threatened and no further soil cleanup is needed. Only one
sample out of 31 soil samples exceeded PRO values for TCE and Toluene in the West Disposal Area.
-------
Response:
Concentrations of PCE and toluene exceed PRGs in the West Disposal Area soils. The PRGs were
determined by calculating the target soil concentrations that would cause groundwater concentrations
to exceed the Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs). The calculation indicates that contaminant
concentrations in soil in the West Disposal Area exceed the PRGs. As a result the soil could act as a
continuing source of contamination to groundwater.
The concern that the proposed cleanup of this area is based on one sample location is unwarranted.
The RI results show this area to be a hot spot with concentrations greater than the PRGs. Evidence of
the contamination in the West Disposal Area soils acting as a continuing source to groundwater
contamination is apparent from groundwater concentrations in wells DP-IS, PC-SB, DP-ID, DF-18
and DF-19 observed during the 1991 and 1992 sampling events.
These wells are located within 200 feet of the West Disposal Area. Specifically, toluene exceeded
PRGs (2,500 ug/L) in monitoring well DF-1S in the May 1991, sampling event. TCE was detected
in monitoring well PC-5B at a concentration of 10 ug/L during the May 1991, sampling event.
Benzene, PCE, and vinyl chloride also exceeded PRGs in the groundwater down gradient from the
West Disposal Area. The excavation of the contaminated soil in the West Disposal Area would
remove the source of contamination, and eliminate the potential future release of VOC
contamination to groundwater.
-------
General Comments
Comment No. 1
What are the boundaries for the facilities to be affected by institutional controls?
Response:
The institutional controls will apply to landowners in the vicinity of the Byron Site. This would
include all on-site areas as well as areas affected by the contaminated groundwater plumes associated
with the Site. This generally includes the residents to the west of the Site and east of the Rock River;
the residents to the north of the Site, up to the river Road; the residents to the south of the Site, to the
area of Benesh Quarry; and to Motosport park to the east.
Comment No. 2
The remedial action objective developed in the FS have not considered the recent Tiered Approach to
Cleanup Objectives regulations (IAC 35 Part 742) issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (1 EPA).
Response:
At the time the FS was developed (1995-1996) the Tiered Approach to Cleanup Objectives (f ACO)
Regulations (IAC 35 Part 742) were not promulgated as law. 1AC 35 Part 742 went into effect on
July 1, 1997. Therefore, these regulations were not ARARs when the FS was written.
However, the remedial action objective developed in the FS is consistent with the TACO. While
TACO does allow greater flexibility, it does not require the use of institutional controls.
-------
Appendix B
State Letter of Concurrence
-------
To obtain a copy of the State Letter of Concurrence please contact the'
Region Project Manager, Greg Radcliff at (217) 782-9882.
-------
Appendix C
Administrative Record
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REMEDIAL ACTION
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
FOR
BYRON SALVAGE YARD SITE
OPERABLE DNIT #4--DIRK'S FARM PROPERTY
BYRON, OGLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
UPDATE #3
APRIL 11, 1997
DATE
04/29/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
01/13/96
AUTHOR
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
Yeskis, D.,
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT
Bolen, W.(
U.S. EPA
02/04/97 CH2M Hill
03/00/97
03/00/97
U.S. EPA/OPA
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
Public
File
09/16/98
CH2M Hill
UPDATE «4
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
Bolen, W.,
U.S. EPA
00/00/00
U.S. EPA
TITLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES
Remedial Investigation 397
Report: Volume 1 of 3
(Text, Tables, and
Figures)
Remedial Investigation 770
Report: Volume 2 of 3
(Appendices A-J)
Remedial Investigation 515
Report: Volume 3 of 3
(Appendices K-W)
Memorandum re: Assess- 4
ment of Potential of
Vinyl Chloride to
Migrate into Residential
Basements at the Byron
Salvage Yard Site
Feasibility Study 147
Report for the Byron
Johnson Salvage Yard
Site
Proposed Plan for the 16
Byron Salvage Yard
Superfund Site
Proposed Plan for the 28
Byron Salvage Yard
Superfund Site (CONTAINS
ADDITIONAL MAPS NOT
INCORPORATED INTO
DOCUMENT #6)
Technical Memorandum:
Comparison of Byron
Superfund Risk Assessment
Soil Exposure Results to
Feasibility Study Areas
Exceeding PRGs
Record of Decision for
Operable Unit #4 at the
Byron Salvage Yard Site
(•PENDING)
------- |