United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
PB93-963807
EPA/ROD/R02-92/182
September 1992
x°/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Bioclinical Laboratories, NY
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in ttie index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-92/182
3. Recipients Accession No.
4. Titte and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Bioclinical Laboratories, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/30/92
6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Taskwork Unit No.
11. Contract(C)orGrant(G)No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-963807
16. Abstract (Limit 200 words)
The 2.6-acre Bioclinical Laboratories (BCL) site is located in Bohemia, Suffolk County,
New York. BCL occupied 1 unit in a 10-unit building, leased by various tenants. Land
use in the area is mixed commercial, industrial, and residential. The nearest
residential development is found approximately 1,000 feet from the site, and most
residents are connected to the public water supply system. The two aquifers underlying
the site, the Upper Glacial and the Magothy, represent the main source of potable water
for the area. From 1972 to 1984, BCL used the site to formulate and repackage
industrial chemicals for wholesale distribution to manufacturers. During this process,
indoor sinks that were used for washing chemical mixing vessels drained to the east
sanitary sewer system. In 1981, a fire partially destroyed BCL's chemical inventory and
resulted in surface water runoff of hazardous waste. The county ordered BCL to clean
out the sanitary system and submit a plan for installing a ground water monitoring
system; however, no wells were ever installed. In 1984, the business was sold and moved
to another location; in 1990, it ceased operation entirely. An additional source of
contamination has been partially attributed to another tenant at the site, the Panatone
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Bioclinical Laboratories, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiere/Open-Ended Terras
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None .
21. No. of Pages
54
22. Price
(See ANS-Z39.18)
See Instructions en Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/182
Bioclinical Laboratories, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
Finishing Corporation. Their metal finishing operations were connected to the west
sanitary sewer system. Numerous sanitary code violations by Panatone led to a limited
ground water investigation by the county in 1981 that revealed 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCA at
concentrations above state drinking water standards. In addition to the west sanitary
sewer system, Panatone utilized a leaching pool on the north side of the building to
dispose of effluent. In 1985, this leaching pool was pumped out, cleaned, and removed
from service. Sampling performed by the county in 1991 revealed no contamination in the
east sewer system and minor contamination in the west sewer system. In 1992, the
property owner and current tenants cleaned out the contamination in the west sewer system
and were ordered to halt future potentially hazardous discharges. This ROD will
determine the nature and extent of contamination to ensure protection of human health and
the environment and is the only OU planned for the site. As a result of previous
clean-up activities, risk assessment results indicate that contaminant levels do not
exceed risk-based standards; therefore, there are no contaminants of concern affecting
the site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action. The risk assessment
results indicate that the levels of contamination present in the soil, air, sediment,
and ground water present risks which fall within or below EPA's allowable risk range.
There are no costs associated with the no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Site name:
Site location:
HRS score:
ROD
Date.signed:
Selected remedy:
Capital cost:
O & M cost:
Bioclinical Laboratories, Inc.
Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York
36.64
Sept. 30, 1992
No Further Action
N/A
N/A
Present-worth cost: N/A
Environmental Protection Agency
Damian Duda (212-264-9589)
Doug Garbarini (212-264-0109)
Carpentier Construction
LEAD
Fund:
Primary contact:
Secondary contact:
Main PRP:
WASTE
Waste types: Volatile and semi-volatile organics •
(trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichlorofluoromethane, bis(2-ethyIhexy1)
phthalate, etc.)
Inorganics (arsenic, chromium, lead, etc.)
Waste quantity: Unknown
Contaminated media: Soils, sediments, groundwater
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Bioclinical Laboratories
Hamlet of Bohemia, Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Bioclinical Laboratories site (Site), which was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and
the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for
this Site. The information supporting this remedial action
decision is contained in the administrative record for this Site.
The administrative record index is attached. (Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
concurs with the selected remedy, as per the attached letter
(Appendix IV).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY - NO FURTHER ACTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
consultation with the State of New York has determined that the
Site does not pose a significant threat to human health or the
environment and, therefore, remediation is not appropriate. This
determination is based on previous cleanup activities conducted
at the Site and the remedial investigation activities conducted
by EPA from 1989 through March 1992. Thus, "No Further Action"
is the selected remedy for the Site.
DECLARATION
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and
the NCP, it has been determined that no further remedial action
is necessary.to protect human health and the environment at the
Site. Previous cleanup activities conducted in response to
Suffolk County Department of Health Services' enforcement actions
have remediated the significant contamination present at the
Site. Since this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-year review
will not apply to this action.
-------
Since EPA has determined that no further remedial action is
necessary at the Site, the Site now qualifies for inclusion in
the "Sites Awaiting Deletion" subcategory of the Construction
Completion category of the National Priorities List.
>"Constantine Sidamon-Eristorr / Date
Regional Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Bioclinical Laboratories
Hamlet of Bohemia
Town of Islip
Suffolk County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 4
SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION" REMEDY 11
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 12
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
11
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Bioclinical Laboratories (BCL) site (Site) is located at 1585
Smithtown Avenue in the Hamlet of Bohemia in Suffolk County, New
York, approximately 0.5 mile south of Long Island's MacArthur
Airport (see Figure 1). BCL previously occupied Unit I of a 10-
unit building, which is situated on 2.6 acres; each unit of the
building is occupied by various tenants. The remainder of the
Site is covered mostly by pavement (see Figure 2). The one-story
building, has approximately 39,000 square feet of floor space and
is situated on a 2.6-acre paved lot. The building is serviced by
two distinct on-site sanitary systems, each consisting of a
septic tank, distribution pool, and related storm drain drywells,
located south of the building on the east and west sides. BCL
was connected to the east system. The storm drains at the Site
collect runoff from the asphalt areas and recharge it directly
into the aquifer.
The land in the vicinity of the Site is zoned for industrial and
commercial development, with -many small industries located in the
area. The nearest residential development is approximately 1,000
feet to the south of the Site, just beyond a 3-acre lot of
deciduous forest.
There is no designated New York State significant habitat,
agricultural land, historic or landmark site directly or poten-
tially affected by the Site. There are no endangered species or
critical habitats within close proximity of the Site.
At the Site, the aquifers of concern include the Upper Glacial
(300 feet thick) and the underlying Magothy (900 feet thick) (see
Figure 3). The aquifers are Class IIA aquifers and represent the
sole source of potable water for the area. The Site is underlain
by a thick relatively homogeneous deposit of fine to coarse grain
sand. Here the Magothy aquifer overlies the Raritan Clay Member
of the Raritan formation and is overlain by the Gardiner Clay
which acts as a confining layer. Both local and regional ground-
water flow within the Site vicinity are in a south-southwesterly
direction (see Figure 4). The velocity of the horizontal ground-
water flow in the Upper Glacial Aquifer is estimated to be 1.85
feet/day and that of the Magothy Aquifer is estimated to be 0.5
feet/day. Groundwater level measurements indicate that groundwa-
ter generally occurs 30 to 40 feet below grade.
As of 1986, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(SCDHS) had identified 14 municipal wells (Locust Avenue well-
field) within a 3-mile radius of the Site, serving an estimated
population of 5,549 persons. Subsequently, with the expansion of
public water supply to the immediate vicinity of the Site, many
users of private wells were disconnected from private wells and
-reconnected to the public water supply system available in the
are= .
-------
There are no surface water courses in proximity to the Site. The
closest water body is the Connetquot River, which is approximate-
ly 2.2 miles to the southwest; the Site is not within the water-
shed of the river.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
BCL was founded in 1972 to formulate and repackage industrial
chemicals for wholesale distribution to manufacturers. During
this processing, containers contaminated with various inorganic
chemicals were washed both indoors and outdoors for reuse.
Indoor sinks were used for washing chemical mixing vessels; these
sinks drained to the .east sanitary system. Drums were routinely
rinsed above storm drains at the front and rear of the building.
In July 1981, a fire partially destroyed BCL's chemical invento-
ry. This resulted in- surface runoff of hazardous waste and air
emissions. In September 1981, SCDHS issued a Decision and Order
to BCL to clean out the sanitary system and submit a plan for the
installation of a groundwater monitoring system. In November
1981, the sanitary system was cleaned out and a plan for ground-
water investigation was submitted. SCDHS deemed the plan inade-
quate, and no wells were installed by BCL. BCL was sold in 1984
and moved operations to another location. As of April 1990, the
subject business had ceased operations.
Another source of organic and inorganic contamination at the Site
has been partially attributed to activities by another tenant,
Panatone Finishing Corporation (Panatone). Panatone, a company
involved in the preparation and application of finished metal
products, leased Unit D of the building. Panatone was connected
to the west sanitary system of the building. Numerous violations
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code-were issued by the SCDHS to
Panatone for discharging hazardous substances to the environment.
In September 1981, SCDHS issued a Consent Order to Panatone to
cease discharges of hazardous materials to surface soils and the
sanitary system, to clean up contaminated soils and to apply for
pertinent discharge permits. In October 1981, Panatone complied
with the provisions of the order. Subsequently, a limited
groundwater investigation was conducted as a result of enforce-
ment actions related to the violations. This investigation
detected 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethane above New
York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) drinking water stan-
dards. In addition to the west sanitary system, Panatone uti-
lized a leaching pool (unrelated to the sanitary system) for the
disposal of effluent on the north side of the building. In
October 19-85; this leaching pool was pumped but, cleaned, and
removed from service by the owner of the property. Panatone is
no longer in operation.
-------
During 1983 and 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conser-
vation (NYSDEC) conducted a preliminary assessment of the Site.
As a result, the Site was proposed to the National Priorities
List (NPL) in June 1986; final NPL listing occurred in March
1989.
In 1986, EPA initiated a potentially responsible party (PRP)
search to identify PRPs other than the Site owner. On January 4,
1989, pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), EPA issued notice letters to Car-
pentier Construction Corp., the operator of the Site, and Mrs.
Sidney Fox of BCL.
In 1988, as a result of the incomplete groundwater assessment
performed by Panatone and the final NPL listing, EPA, under
CERCLA authority, issued a work assignment to its contractor
Ebasco Services, Inc. to perform-the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) for the Site.
During the summer of 1991, EPA and SCDHS officials met to discuss
the contamination found in the on-site sanitary systems and the.
potential for ongoing discharges of contaminants to those sani-
tary systems.
Subsequently, in September 1991, SCDHS sampled the east and west
sanitary systems and related storm drains and determined that the
east system (BCL) was clean, while the west system had evidence
of minor contamination. In May 1992, pursuant to a December 1991
SCDHS directive, the owner of the building, in conjunction with
the current tenant, cleaned out the contamination in the west
system; the property owner, in conjunction with the current
tenant, was also directed to halt future potentially hazardous
discharges.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to
the public for comment on July 29, 1992. These documents, as
well as other site-related documents, have been made available to
the public in the administrative record file at the EPA Docket
Room in Region II, New York and the information repositories at
Connetquot Public Library in Bohemia and the Sachem Public
Library in Holbrook. A press release announcing the availability
of these documents was issued on July 30, 1992. The public
comment period ended on August 28, 1992.' The public notice for
the Site was published in Newsdav on Monday, August 3, 1992 and
in Suffolk Life on Wednesday, August 5, 1992.
-------
On August 11, 1992, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Green-
belt Recreation Center in Holtsville, Suffolk County, New York to
inform local officials and interested citizens about the Super-
fund process, discuss the RI findings, present the Proposed Plan,
and respond to questions from area residents and other attendees.
EPA did not receive any comments on the RI or Proposed Plan
during the public meeting. Responses to written comments on the
RI and the proposed remedy received during the public comment
period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see
Appendix V).
SCOPE AMD ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This is the first and only operable unit planned for the Site.
The primary objective of this operable unit is to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the Site and to identify
measures, as appropriate, to ensure protection of human health
and the environment.
The specific objectives of the RI and the risk assessment for the
Site are as follows:
- to identify all potential source areas of contamina-
tion;
- to characterize the nature and extent of possible
contamination in environmental media on-site;
- to determine the hydrogeologic characteristics of the
Site by assessing potential current and/or future
impacts on downgradient receptors; and,
- to assess the current and future potential risks to
public health and the environment caused by site con-
tamination in the absence of remedial action.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Previous site investigations, conducted by SCDHS from 1977 to the
mid-1980s, showed that there had been 1) unregulated discharges
to the on-site sanitary systems and to an on-site leaching pit
and 2) unacceptable raw material (chemicals) and waste handling
practices which resulted in frequent spills to the surface soils.
Under the"direction of EPA, Ebasco Services Inc. conducted an RI
from May 1989 to March 1992 to characterize the geology, ground-
water hydrology and chemical quality of the soils and groundwater
at the Site. Typical background concentrations for metals in
-------
soils are presented in Table 1. The investigation consisted of
sampling of suspected source areas, subsurface soil sampling,
surface soil sampling, sampling of the sediments and liquids in
the two sanitary systems, a soil-gas survey, monitoring well
installation, well-point sampling, groundwater sampling and
geotechnical testing. The results of the RI are summarized
below. All sampling results were compared with New York State
and Federal applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) (see Table 2).
Groundwater
Twenty-three monitoring wells (shallow, intermediate and deep)
were installed on-site and off-site to monitor both upgradrent
and downgradient conditions at the Site (Figure 4). On several
occasions from 1990-1992, the wells were sampled for a broad
spectrum of contaminants, including volatile organics (VOCs),
semi-VOCs, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
inorganics. Validated data were generated for both on-site wells
(four rounds for organics and inorganics) and off-site wells (two
.rounds for organics and inorganics).
Tables 3 and 4 list the inorganic and organic contaminants
detected in the groundwater at the Site, as well as the frequency
and range of detection. Sampling data for organic contaminants
indicated isolated instances where State or Federal maximum
contaminants levels (MCLs) were exceeded. Aside from the organic
contaminant trichloroflouromethane (TCFM) which is discussed
below, no organic contaminant exceeded its respective MCL in more
than one sampling round. During the Short Round sampling,
toluene was detected above its MCL (5 ug/1) in one well at a
maximum concentration of 13.3 ug/1. In Round I sampling, bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (BEHP) was detected at concentrations
exceeding its MCL (5 ug/1) in seven" upgradient and downgradient
wells at a maximum concentration of 72 ug/1. In Round III
sampling, trichloroethene was detected above its MCL (5 ug/1) in
two wells, at a maximum concentration of 9.8 ug/1. Two organic
contaminants were detected above MCLs in Round IV: 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane in 4 wells, with a maximum concentration of 12 ug/1
(MCL= 5 ug/1); and 1,1-dichloroethane in two wells with a maximum
concentration of 21 ug/1 (MCL = 5 ug/1).
As noted above, TCFM was the only organic contaminant to exceed
MCLs in more than one sampling round. The highest TCFM concen-
tration of 170 ug/1 was found in monitoring well MW-06 in the
initial round (the January/February 1990 Short Round) of sam-
pling. TCFM was detected above its MCL in three other wells
during the Short Round. It was also detected above its MCL in
two wells during Rounds III (19.7 and 26.7 ug/1) and IV (19.0 and
34.5 ug/1). The concentration of this compound decreased signif-
icantly in the monitoring wells over the four rounds of ground-
-------
water sampling, especially in MW-06. In Rounds III (February
1991) and IV (March 1991), the concentration of TCFM in MW-06
dropped to a nondetectable level and 4 ug/1, respectively. This
contaminant was not detected above MCLs in any of the off-site
wells. The presence of TCFM, a compound which does not persist
in the environment due to its high volatility, in the on-site
wells is believed to have resulted from ongoing discharges to the
on-site sanitary systems.
The unfiltered inorganic sampling results showed instances of
chromium, lead and silver concentrations above ARARs. Silver
(MCL =50 ug/1) was detected in one well at concentrations of
76.5 ug/1 during the Short Round and 112 ug/1 at a different well
during Round I. Lead was detected above the Federal Action level
of 15 ug/1 in some upgradient and downgradient wells; an up-
gradient sample had the highest concentration of 162 ug/1. These
unfiltered samples correlate, in part, to elevated total suspend-
ed solids in the samples. Historically, lead was not related to
Site discharges. Surface and subsurface soil sampling did not
reveal elevated lead concentrations. The higher lead data
results could represent a background or upgradient condition.
The chromium (MCL = 50 ug/1) concentrations are shown in Table 5.
The unfiltered samples collected during the Short Round and
Rounds I and II indicated some elevated levels of chromium, which
might have been an artifact of previous Site usage. In order to
clarify the highly variable nature of the results, four supple-
mental rounds of samples were collected from the wells of con-
cern, and analyses were performed on both filtered and unfiltered
samples. Concentrations of chromium in the filtered groundwater
samples did not exceed New York State or Federal MCLs. The
additional results indicated that the elevated chromium concen-
trations in unfiltered samples correlated directly to elevated
total suspended solids in the samples and were not representative
of the quality of the groundwater.
Surface/Subsurface Soils
Six surface soil samples were taken on the north side of the
building to investigate the "hot spots" north of the building,
related to known or suspected discharges documented by the SCDHS
(see Figure 5). One-time detections of semi-VOCs, including
phenol and butyl-benzyl-phthalate, were found at relatively high
concentrations, 470 ug/kg and 800 ug/kg, respectively. No VOCs
were detected. Inorganic contaminants, including arsenic,
chromium, and selenium, had concentrations similar to background
concentrations (see Table 6).
Supplementary soil samples (see Figure 6) taken at various depths
at the former leaching pool location behind the building showed a
somewhat elevated concentration of chromium above background at
-------
610 mg/kg (4 feet) (see Table 7). Samples collected at two (2)
feet above and below this sample indicated lower concentrations
of chromium. Typical U.S. sandy soils show levels up to 200
mg/kg of chromium. Remaining soil samples exhibited .concen-
trations similar to typical background levels.
Eighteen subsurface soil samples (soil borings) were taken at
locations both north and south of the building and around the
leaching pits of the east and west sanitary systems (see Figure
5). These samples were taken to provide further information on
Site geology and to determine the extent of horizontal and
vertical contamination. A summary of the subsurface sampling is
shown in Table 8. A one-time detection of the semi-VOC diethyl
phthalate was found (170 ug/kg). Of the inorganic contaminants,
cobalt, copper and manganese were detected above Long Island
subsurface soil background levels but below U.S. soil background
levels.
Sediments/Aqueous Samples
Seven sediment samples were taken from the on-site sanitary
systems and storm drains on the south side of the building (see
Figure 5). The results of the sediment sampling are shown in
Table 9. Organic results showed elevated levels of VOCs, includ-
ing toluene (640 mg/kg) and ethylbenzene (19 mg/kg), and semi-
VOCs, including BEHP (87 mg/kg), 1,4-dichlorobenzene (31 mg/kg),
4-methylphenol (1100 mg/kg), and benzo(a)anthracene (890 ug/kg).
Numerous inorganic contaminants were detected, including arsenic
(4.1 mg/kg), chromium (346 mg/kg), cobalt (134 mg/kg), lead (1460
mg/kg), and silver (130 mg/kg).
Nine samples (see Table 10) were taken from the liquids present
in the septic tanks and related storm drains on the south side of
the building complex. Elevated levels of semi-VOCs were detect-
ed, including BEHP (22 ug/1), benzoic acid (880 ug/1) and 4-
methylphenol (410 ug/1). Elevated levels of some inorganics were
detected, including cadmium (38.8 ug/1), chromium (3350 ug/1),
lead (624.5 ug/1), and silver (858 ug/1).
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based on the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment (RA)
was conducted to" estimate the risks associated with current and
future site conditions, including land use. The baseline RA
evaluates the potential impacts on human health and the environ-
ment at a site which could result from site contamination if no
remedial action were taken. This information is used to make a
determination as to whether remediation of a site may be re-
quired. -••• •
-------
As part of the baseline RA, the following four-step process is
utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a
reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification—
identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration; Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and
duration of these exposures, and the pathway (e.g, ingesting
contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed;
Toxicity Assessment—determines the types of adverse health
effects associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship
between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse
effects (response); and, Risk Characterization—summarizes and
combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to
provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer
risk) assessment of site-related risks.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. An assumption is made.
that the noncarcinogenic toxic effects of the site-related
chemicals would be additive. The same assumption is made for the
carcinogens found at a site.
The baseline RA began with selecting contaminants of concern
which are representative of Site conditions. Chemicals of
concern were identified for Site surface soils, subsurface soils,
and groundwater underlying the Site (see Tables 11-13). .
Two scenarios were developed based on current (commercial/
industrial) and future (residential or commercial/industrial)
land uses at the Site. Several pathways (direct contact, inhala-
tion, and ingestion) were evaluated for exposure to groundwater,
subsurface and surface soils (see Table 14). The only population
evaluated under current-use conditions was the site worker
population. The future populations evaluated included on-site
residents (adults and children), on-site workers and construction
workers. An exposure assessment was conducted to estimate the
magnitude, frequency, and duration of actual and/or potential
exposures to the chemicals of potential concern via all pathways
by which humans are potentially exposed. Reasonable maximum
exposure is defined as the highest exposure that is reasonably
expected to occur at the Site for individual and combined path-
ways.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
slope factors (CSFs) developed by EPA for the inorganic (see
Table 15) and organic (see Table 16) contaminants of concern.
CSFs have -been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Verification Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals.
-------
CSFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multi-
plied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in
mg/kg-day, to generate the upper bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound
intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative
estimate of the risks calculated from the CSF. Use of this
approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely.
EPA considers excess upper bound individual lifetime cancer risk
in the range of 10"4 to 10"6 to be allowable.
For the current-use scenario, the most significant risk level
identified for Site workers was 2.9 x 10"6 for inhalation of soil
(see Table 17). For the future-use scenario/reasonable maximum
exposure case, the most significant carcinogenic risks [2.43 x
10"1 for adults and 9.70 x 10"5 for children] were from the inges-
tion of upgradient groundwater (see Table 18). For the future-
use construction worker scenario, the carcinogenic risk level was
6.5 x 10"6 for ingestion of upgradient groundwater (see Table 19).
The highest carcinogenic risk level of 2.43 x 1CT4 indicates that
there are two chances in 10,000 of getting cancer over a 70-year
lifetime. This excess cancer risk, however, is within EPA's
allowable excess cancer risk range (10"4 to 10"*) . The majority of
the carcinogenic risk from the ingestion of upgradient groundwa-
ter is attributable to the presence of arsenic and beryllium;
neither of which are related to on-site discharges. The arsenic
and beryllium concentrations found were well below their respec-
tive MCLs of 50 ug/1 and 4 ug/1, respectively.
To assess the overall noncarcinogenic effects posed by more than
one contaminant, EPA has developed the Hazard Quotient (HQ) and
Hazard Index (HI). The HQ is the ratio of the chronic daily
intake for a contaminant to the reference dose for that chemical;
the reference dose being a measure of the chemical's "threshold"
for adverse effects with many built-in safety factors. The HQs
are summed for all contaminants within an exposure pathway (e.g.,
groundwater ingestion) to give the HI. When the HI exceeds one,
there may be concern for potential noncarcinogenic health ef-
fects, if the contaminants in question are believed to cause a
similar toxic effect.
The HI values for the current-use and future-use scenario for
site workers, and the future-use scenarios for adults, children,
construction workers are shown in Tables 17-19. As a result of
the presence of manganese in the upgradient groundwater, the HI
value for the future-use upgradient groundwater ingestion pathway
for children exceeds one at HI = 3.76. As a result of the pres-
ence of both managanese and thallium in the downgradient ground-
water, the HI value for the future-use downgradient groundwater
ingestion-pathway for children also exceeds one at HI = 1.76.
Thallium was the major contributor to the HI of 1.76; however,
thallium was only detected during one round of sampling at 3 ug/1
-------
in one well out of twenty-three sampled and is not a contaminant
of concern at the Site. Manganese is an essential dietary nutri-
ent and is present in levels that are typical of the average
daily dietary intake. The manganese contamination is not related
to the Site. HI values did not exceed one for the other pathways
evaluated.
The carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with
exposures to individual compounds of concern across the pathways
evaluated (excluding future upgradient groundwater) were summed
to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of
potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively (see
Table 20). The exposed population which is subject to most
significant carcinogenic risk (7.8 x 10"5) is the adult resident
population under the future-use scenario; the pathway contribut-
ing most significantly to this risk is the ingestion of groundwa-
ter. The exposed population which is subject to the most signif-
icant noncarcinogenic risk (HI =1.88) is the child resident
population under the future-use scenario; the majority of this
risk is also posed by the ingestion of groundwater. As explained
above, even though thallium was the major contributor to the
increased HI value for the child resident future-use scenario, it
is not a contaminant of concern. Thus, the baseline RA showed
that the carcinogenic risks at the Site are within EPA's allow-
able risk range and the noncarcinogenic risk are also acceptable,
even though there are instances where some organic and inorganic
contaminants exceed ARARs; these excursions were not considered
to be significant for reasons discussed above under the Site
Characteristics Section.
Since some low levels of VOCs were found in some monitoring
wells, the owners of existing downgradient private.wells will be
notified by either NYSDOH or SCDHS that they can request that the
Suffolk County Water Authority sample their wells to ensure that
their water supply continues to be of acceptable quality.
An ecological risk assessment considers potential exposure routes
of contamination to terrestrial wildlife. Since the majority of
the Site is paved or covered with structures, there is little, if
any, potential for wildlife to be exposed to contaminated surface
soils on-site. The only potential route of exposure to wildlife
in the Site vicinity would be if contaminants were transported
via groundwater and discharged into surface waters some distance
from the Site. Off-site monitoring wells, however, did not
indicate the presence of contaminants at significant levels.
Therefore, no significant effect would be found on aquatic
organisms in the area's surface water from groundwater discharge
off-site.
10
-------
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evalua-
tion, as in all.such assessments, are subject to a wide variety
of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sam-
pled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the
actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis error
can stem from several sources including the errors inherent in
the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled. Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to
estimates of how often an individual would actually come in
contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the
point of exposure. Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in
extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low
doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing
the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are
addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and
exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the
Risk Assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to underesti-
mate actual risks related to the Site.
DESCRIPTION OP THE "NO FURTHER ACTION" REMEDY
The risk assessment indicates that the levels of contaminants
present in the soil, air, sediments and groundwater at the Site
present risks which fall within or below EPA's allowable risk
range. In addition, sampling results indicate that, with the
exception of a few minor excursions in the groundwater above
MCLs, the majority of contaminants do not exceed MCLs in the
groundwater or background levels in the soils and air. Enforce-
ment actions taken by the SCDHS have resulted in the clean-out of
the west sanitary systems and a former leaching pit in the rear
of the building.
There remains some question about whether the east sanitary
system has been adequately cleaned out. Therefore, since both
sanitary systems are currently operational and subject to the
11
-------
Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the SCDHS will attempt to secure
the clean out of the east system by the owner of the property.
EPA and NYSDOH recommend to SCDHS that it consider performing
inspections to monitor the discharges into the two systems in
order to ensure the protection of the groundwater in the area.
Based upon the findings of the RI performed at the Site, EPA, in
consultation with NYSDEC, has determined that the Site does not
pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.
EPA, therefore, has selected a "No Further Action" remedy for the
Site. Since this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-year review
will not apply to this action.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative,
as presented in the Proposed Plan.
12
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
PATCHOCUE
Q'JAORAWSIX
SCALE
0.5
I
1 MILE
I
0.5
I
0
1 KILOMETER
BIOCL1NICAL
LABORATORIES
COMMERCIAL
AND LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
ZONES
LOCUST AVENUE
WELLFIEL
CHURCH STRE
\ WELLFIELD
KEY
BiOCLINICAL LABORATORIES
RESiDENTAL AREAS
RECHARGE BASIN
LOCUST AVE. WELLFiELD AND
CHURCH"STREET WELLFIELD
WOODED AREA
SOURCE: USGS. 1979.
E5ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
OEpT 940
OR J.R.
CH -
SCALE 'AS NOTcD
APPROVED
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
BIOCUNICAL LABORATORIES SITE,
SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL ISLIP, NEW YORK
FIGITRE 1
-------
"pAHfciNC,L.Oi ®
JG
WEST SANITARY SYSTEM
lOCktlM PIM V
IWOMCU.
pttf^MCD rM Duea
IT (jrfwcon (XCMOUIO
ASJOOATtS. xa H» aUS.
MAWIC 111 TV-I,
OAm C-tfr-AO.*
UMT LOCAnOHS AMD OTDC mTQl MA
court.
-------
CWLANM\ON_
!-"-"-"-! CLAY
SOUTH
NORTH
LEVEL
0 1 UILE
APPROMMATC SCJOE
^^^j BEDROCK
[-^~^-~~| S*NDY ClAY. CLAYTf SAWO. AND SIT
.'OURCE: JENSEN AND SOREU. 1974.
THIS ORAWHS EXISTS OH A CADD F1LT. 00 NOT REVISE IT MANUALLY. • .
uy
o»n
11
CM
A>nmvo
•n
OArt
»r
CM
AM-IOVO)
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
COT. 940 odJ.R.
OAK. CH.
SCAU AS. NOTED
Arrnovoi
1 1
U.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
BIOCLINICAL LABORATORIES SITE
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION OF LONG ISLAND
AT BOHEMIA. NEW YORK
FIGURE
3 . •;•••
\ •
-------
SCALE IN FEET
)0
300
600
mis ORAWNG EXISTS ON * CADD FILE. DO NOT fttusf u UANUMJ.Y.
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
940
DOT.
0»It CM.
soit AS SHOWN
,J.R.
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
BlOCLINICM. LABORATORIES SITE
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
GHOUNUWATEn ELEVATIONS (5/93)
FICURC
-------
REPORTED LOCATION OF
FORUCR UIOUSTKIAl POOL
UNIT I
BIOCUNICAL
LABORATORIES
UNIT 0
PANATONE
®®"h.~ .ASPHALT ^
WEST SANITARY SYSTEM p""* PARKING,LOT
5
EAST SANITARX-SV5TEM v
^*
Rl SAMPLING LOCATIONS:
UMione Mil (wsiAun tuug u)
O MVACCIOC
IM. IMMfl
_ SD01.SDOT
LWOI-LW08
leu tocAtw HAH. or
IIOOMCAl lAtOKAlMlU •'
narun m OAKO savicu
ty urmctn [MMmio
f|} 1«M1AAT mTDl (OX NOTQ
'-' (ituriUlAH(
111
l)|fxnroou
Hilt
IMI lOOMKI
-------
7
/
3 STORY BRICK
BUILDING
— 80 —'
REPORTED LOCATION OF
UitV FORMER INDUSTRIAL POOL
BUILDING
UNIT
E
-03
1585
UNIT
F
(22000)
UNIT
G
C.V.
UNIT
H
UNIT I
BIOCLINICAL
LABORATORIES
UNIT
J
LOCATIONS -FOR
SUPPLEMENTARY
SOIL
SURFACE
SAMPLES
ASPHALT
PARKING..LOT
/ (2%^ B-2)
EAST SANITXRX-^YST^M v I •
80
81 .
MW-5-- MW-3
Rl
A ou rAUBM Kxitmc m
9 IKMMIK «i (muua
C a»uiia.iu otoo ntf. oo Nor K\ASE n UWUHLY.
OAIt
MWOVO)
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
OtPF 940 CM
0*1t O1
SOUL AS NOTED
SCALE IN FE£T
U.S.ENV1RONUENT/U, PROTECTION
AGENCY
BIOCUNICAL LABORATORIES SITE
SUPPLEMENTARY SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE
6
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
ELEMENT
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Hn
Hg
Ni
K
Se
Ag
Na
Tl
V
Zn
<">
CONCENTRATION "
RANGE IN
TYPICAL EASTERN U
BACKGROUND SOIL
' 10000-300000
< 1-5001')
5-15'')
100-3500
-------
TABLE 2
BIOCLINICAL LABORATORIES SITE
FEDERAL AND NEW YORK STATE HEALH-BASED ARARS
COMPARED TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (UG/L)
COMPOUND ;
IN.QBGAN.IC.S;:
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
SOWA
5000
A
5
100
1300
15"
100
Zero
5000
Zero
5
100
1300
Zero
100
NYS<2) NYSAWQC<3)
HCls C1ASS GA WATER
50 25 .
1000 1000
10 10
50 50 (VI)
1000
300
50 25
300
50 50
5000
UPGRADIENT
RANGE OF
GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
2.1-4.4
29.9-232
1.0-3.1
4.2
37.9-1310
10.1-21.8
45.6-141
5830-69700
9.3-162
113-2190
24.5-110
4.3-7.6
9.0-87.5
40.6-146
COMPOUND
Arsenic
Barium
Beryll ium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total )
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Seleni urn
Si Iver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MILS
5000
4
5
100
1300
15'
2
100
50
SOWA
HCkfii
Zero
5000
Zero
5
100
1300
Zero
2
100
50
0.5
NYS< 2)
MAs
50
1000
10
50
50
2
10
50
25
1000
10
50 (VI)
1000
300
25
300
2
20
50
5000
DQWNGRADIENT
RANGE OF
GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
2.0-3.7
8.6-118
1.1-1.7
3.3-10.5
6.8-75.8
3.6-10.0
7.2-240
55.8-12000
4.6-74.5
11.6-1090
0.42
6.8-40.8
2.0-44.6
3.3-112
3.0
<1.3-10.6
6.0-589
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Uis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalatc
2,-t-Oiinolhylphenol
1 .2.4-Trichlorobenzene
cis-1,2-Oichloroetliene
Tricliiuroethene
'1-Hethyl-2-pentanone
Hetliylene Chloride
) ,2-Oi cliloroelliane
Hen reno
Telracliluructlit.-nc
Oil oromclhane
1,1.1-1richloroothane
Carbon Oi sul Mile
I , 1-Diclilnroetliant!
Clt I nru f orin
Ir i clil oruM noroiuaLane
Total Xylenus
I .3.5-Trimctl>ylbenzone
Haplillialene
BIOCUNICAL LABORATORIES SITE
FEDERAL AND NEW YORK STATE HEALH-BASED ARARS
COMPARED TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (UG/L)
SDWA< ''
BCLs
9
70
5
5
5
5
5
200
10000
SOWA
HXLGi
Zero
9 -
70
Zero
Zero
Zero
2ero
Zero
200
10000
NYS<2>
50
50
5
5
5
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
GO
5
50
5
15"
5
50
NYSAHQC(3>
CLASS GA WATER
1200
1 (Total)
10
100
DOWNGnADIENT
RANGE OF
GROUIIOWATER
CONTAMINATION
2.0-72.0
5.0
0.5
0.10
0.6-17.6
<1.0
120
2.0
0.37-1.0
0.70-2.0
1.0-3.0
0.70-12.0
0.20-O.M
0.50-21.0
O.M-2.0
0.37-170
0.60-0.00
0.10-0.60
0.29-0.12
COUCQUUD
2-Butanone
cis-l,2-Uichlnructlicne
Trichloroelliene
4-Hethyl-2-pentanone
Chloroform
Triclilorofluoromethane
Total Xylenes
Naphthalene
Endosulfan Sul fate
SOWA(l>
HCLi
70
5
SDWA
70
Zero
10000 ' 10000
NYS<2)
10
5
• 5
50
50
5
15"
50
NYSAWQC'3)
CLASS GA WATER
10
100
UPGRADIENT
RANGE OF
GROUNDWATER
CQNTArtlHATIJJM
0.0
0.5-2.0
1.0-2.0
5.0-28
0.1-0.26
0.13
0.6-1.0
1.0
0.27
• Nut Available
Ml) Mori doloct
• rcdeial Action Level
•" Each xylene (m-,o-,p-) has a 5 ug/l (equitement.
(1) Diinklng Water Regulations and Health Advisories (USEPA-2/9a).
(2) NYS Sanitaiy Code: Ch.1, Part 5 (Drinking Water Supplies)/Public Health Law 225, Suhpatt 5-1 (Public Water Supplies) (NYS-1/90).
(3) NYS Water Quality Regulations: Surlaco Water and Groundwaler Classilicalions and Standards (Title 6, Ch.10, Parts 700-705).
-------
TABLE 3
DIOCMNICAL LADS SITE
INORGANIC DATA SUMMARY TABLE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES • ALL ROUNDS
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
llurium
llcryllium
Calcium
Qulmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
lion
Uad
Magncs.
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
7inc
Mcrcuiy
Selenium
'Iliallium
Short Hound
MW-OI thru MW-07
Jan-l'eb 1990
IVcq
7/7
7/7
7/7
4/7
7/7
0/7
7/7
4/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
1/5
2/5
0/7
Range
3200-46800
2.0-2.9
31.1-232
1.3-3.1
44380- 35900
...
26.5-190
4.4-21.8
21.2-141
5820-69700
9.3-46.0
1940-6250
145-2190
7.3-58.9
1140-9790
3.3-76.5
3020-27900
9.0-87.5
46.9-146
0.42
14.6-44.6
Round 1
MW-fll thru MW-23
Sept 1990
Fren
25/25
1/17
24/25
1/2
24/25
2/23
21/25
3/25
19/25
25/25
21/21
24/25
20/20
18/25
25/25
2/25
24/25
6/25
19/21
—
2/23
0/23
Ranee
45.2-22800
3.2
9.1-1 18
10
3820-23300
5.5-10.5
5.9-1310
4.6-12.4
7.9-240
55.8-37900
4.6-162
1530-10800
15.5-1090
10.5-118
238-10600
4.3-112
3040^(4900
9.7-42.5
20.1-589
—
7.0-16.5
...
Round 2
MW-01 thru MW-23
Oct 1990
j'req
23/23
8/23
23/23
1/2
23/23
8/22
21/23
2/23
23/23
23/23
21/21
23/23
23/23
14/23
22/22
1/21
23/23
10/23
17/17
—
5/20
1/23
Range
59.1-16,000
2.M.2
8.6-109
1.0
2360-23,800
2.9-5.8
9.1-251
4.2-7.7
7.2-74.6
190-26,550
5.0-42.8
1310-9360
11.6-980
6.8-28.2
920-7740
24.2
3060-36,100
4.3-30.0
6.0-305
—
2.0-14.2
3.0
Round 3
I'eb 1991
NOT
SAMPLUD
Round 4
Mar 1991
NOT
SAMPl.nD
Suppl. Round 1
(Noie 3|
Jan 1992
Prefl
5/5
0/5
5/5
1/5
5/5
0/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
0/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
0/5
3/5
0/5
Range
1500-54,300
—
20.6-173
2.2
5820-15,300
—
11.1-1030
2.1-37.8
8.1-119
1270-81,500
3.4-95
1550-7030
85.2-3000
7.0-168
1470-4180
--
10400-27300
2.0-100
19.1-171
—
1.5-2.7
...
Suppl. Round 2
[Note 3]
Mar 1992
Prefl
0/5
Range
—
Suppl. Round 3
[Note 4)
Apr 1992
Preq
0/5
Range
...
Suppl. Round 4
(Note 5]
June 1992
Freq
5/10
Range
18-28
Notes: 1. All concent ration ranges are in fig/1.
2. I'rcq. represents frequency of detection.
3. Wells sampled during this round were MW-01, MW-02, MW-05, and UO-1 (new upgradient well).
4. Wells sampled during this round were MW-ftl, MW-02, MW-0-1, MW-5 and UO-I. Tillered results shown.
5. Wells Dimpled during this rnuiul were MW-01 thru MW-07 and UG-1. I'illered results shown.
-------
TABLE 4
UIOCI.INICAI. IAIIS SITE
VOIATILE, SEMI-VOIATILE, PESTICIDE & PC II DATA SUMMARY TABLE
CROUNDWATER SAMPLES - ALL ROUNDS
Parameter
Volatile
Cis 1,2-Dichloroelhene
2-llulanonc
Trichloroelhene
4-Mcthyl-2 I'enlanone
Toluene
M&P Xylcnes
(.'hloromelhane
Melhylcnc Chloride
l,l-l)ichloroclhane
1,2-Dichloroelhane
Henzene
Telrachloroelhene
Tiichloionuoruinclhane
Slyrcnc
4-Chlorulolucnc
Dichlorodifluoroniclhanc
1 lexachlorobuladicne
1.2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenc
0-Xylene
Chloroform
Carbon DistilCidc
1,1,1-Trichlorocthane
I'lhylbcnzenc
lUilyllicnzene
Naplhalene
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 Trimvlhylbcnzcne
1,1 Oichloroelhene
1,2 Dichloroclhcnc
1,2 Didtlornprnpanone
1,4 Dichlorohciv/ciie
1,3,5 TriclilimimclliylbciHcne
' Short Round
MW-fll thru MW-07
Jan-l'eb 1990
1'reci.
3/7
1/7
5/7
3/7
3/7
4/7
1/7
1/7
2/7
1/7
1/7
3/7
4/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
(1/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
Range
O.S-3.3
8.0
1.0-5.8
2.3-28
2.0-13.3
0.55-1.0
0.75
60.3
0.5-0.55
1.3
0.75
1.0-2.0
11.0-170
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Round 1
MW-OI thru MW-23
Sept 1990
ALL
VOC
DATA
RRJBCTRD
I1Y
DATA
VALIDATION
Round 2
MW-OI thru MW-23
OCI1990
ALL
VOC
DATA
REJECTED
BY
DATA
VALIDATION
Round 3
MW-OI thru MW-23
Feb 1991
Preq.
0/23
0/23
4/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
0/23
2/23
0/23
7/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
12/2
3
1/23
2/23
1/23
1/23
2/23
1/23
1/23
0/23
2/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
Ranee
-
-
0.89-17.6
-
-
-
-
-
8.93
-
0.15-0.37
-
0.17-26.7
-
-
•-
-
-
-
0.44
0.10-1.8
0.64
4.3-6.2
0.23
0.33
0.29-0.42
0.78
0.17
-
0.6-2.3
-
-
-
Round 4
MW-OI Ihru MW-23
Mar 1991
Pfcn,
0/23
0/23
4/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
3/23
0/23
4/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
8/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
7/23
2/23
7/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
5/23
1/23
1/23
9/23
Ranee
-
-
0.6-2.0
-
-
0.8
2.0-3.0
-
0.85-21
.
-
0,85
0.5-34.5
-
•
-•
-
-
-
-
0.1-2.0
0.5-6.6
0.8-12
-
-
i
-
-
0.2 •
0.1-0.8
0.5
0.9
0.1-0.6
Supp. Round 1
Note 3
Jan 1992
Pren,
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/S
0/5
0/5
1/5
2/5
0/5
3/5
0/5
2/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
3/5
0/5
3/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
Range
.
-
-
-
-
-
3.0
0.6-0.7
-
4.0-6.0
-
0.3-0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2-0.7
-
0.5-2.0
-
-
-
-
-
.
• -
-
•
-
Supp. Rounds 2, 3, 4
Note 4
Mar 1992 - June 1992
NO
VOIATILE/SEMI-
VOLATILB
PESTICIDE/PCD
ANALYSIS
FOR
THESE
ROUNDS
»
-------
TAIH.E 4 (CONTINUED)
DIOCLINICAL LADS SITE
VOIATII.E, SEMI-VOLATILE, PESTICIDE & PCD DATA SUMMARY TABLE
CKOUNDWATER SAMPLES - ALL ROUNDS
Parameter
Semi-Volatile
Napfhalene
D-N-llulyl I'hlhalale
nis(2-l!lhylhcKyl)l'hlhalale
I'yrcne
Muoiantlicnc
2,4-Dimciliylphenol
Pcsticitlcs/l'nis
liiidosulfiin Sulfulc
Short Round
MW-OI thru MW-07
Jan-Feb 1990
l-'reci,
1/7
1/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
Range
1.0
7.5
-
-
-
•
Round 1
MW-01 thru MW-23
Sepll990
Pren,
0/23
0/23
16/23
1/23
2/2.1
1/23
0/23
Range
-
-
2.0-72
3.0
2.0
5.0
Round 2
MW-01 Ihru MW-23
Ocl 1990
I'reo,
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23
Range
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.16
Round 3
MW-01 thru MW-23
Feb 1991
NOT
SAMPLED
NOT SAMPLED
Round A
MW-01 Ihru MW-23
Mar 1991
NOT
SAMPLED
NOT SAMPLED
Supp. Round 1
[Note 3]
Jan 1992
NOT
SAMPLED
NOT SAM PLED
Supp. Rounds 2, 3, 4
[Note 4]
Mar 1992 - June 1992
r-
Notes: 1. All concentration ranges are in /ig/l.
2. I'rcq. represents frequency of detection.
3. Wells sampled during this round were MW-01; MW-02, MW-OS, MW-OSD, and UG-1.
4. No volatile, semi-volatile, pesticide or PCI) analyses were performed during these 3 rounds of supplemental sampling.
-------
TABLE 5
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
CHROMIUM ANALYSIS RESULTS
limpllnl
hlBl
Will
I
Jinuar|/fibnJV|
two
lMhmt»r IBM
Rouiltl
OctablMIW
HoulUll
J»nuir|ll01
SuppUminlil
flounl
(bitco limf lki|
Untlllini
Flllmd
Mill IN!
110
Unllllmd
Til
Juni I MI
(NT
liirvllni
Flllllil
111
MW01
1310 |J)
2S1
412
21.5 |J)
6.SU
214
10U
11.6
159
10U
43.5
MW 01 DUP
(MW-111)
MW-02
110 (J)
160 (J)
1SS(J)
1030
38.9(J)
6.5U
143
10U
440
SB
18
30.6
162
MW03
2B.1S(J)
11.1
10.9
33
10U
2.6
MW04
35.10(J|
5.9
9.6
10
10U
20
10U
10U
6.0
MW05
26.5 (J)
33.3
31.4
127
299(J)
6.SU
10U
44.4
10U
10U
17.B
MW-Ob UUP
163
24
53.8
MW06
S7.30(J)
94.9
5B.O
llolo:
• - Dau duumud invalid due la problem in lieU lilliatbn.
U . lion duiacl. Usloclion limit is Itsled
(J|. tslimalod
2B
3S.2
-------
TABLE ,6
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
SUMMARY OF SURFACE SOIL CHEMICAL CONSTITUENT1; (UG/KG)
Volatile Compounds
No Compounds Detected
Semi volatile Compounds
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Phenol
Pesticldes/PCBs
No Compounds Detected
Inorganic
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Compounds (mg/kg)*
LOCATION
SS01-SS06
SS01
SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01,SS03,SS05,
SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS04.SS05
SS01.SS05
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS02
SS01.SS02.SS04,
SS05
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
0/6
1/6
1/6
0/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
6/6
6/6
4/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
2/6
2/6
6/6
6/6
1/1
4/6
6/6
6/6
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
470
800
6560-9040
3.2-4.9
9.9-33.8
1.3
556-1220
7.9-197
2.1-2.8
4.3-20.5
5300-9950
9-3-23.8
567-1200
31.2-58.1
3.8-4.0
5.2-6.2
339-927
0.25-2.7
273
0.24-0.37
12.8-21.4
11-207 .
(-) - Not Available
(*) - Numerous detected values (hits) exceed Typical Eastern U.S. Background
-Soil Concentrations (Dragun, 1988 and Conner and Shacklette, 1975),
Typical U.S. Sandy Soil Concentrations (Kabata-Pendlas, 1984) or data
obtained from urisaturated soil samples taken from the surface to the
water table from off-site locations as part of the Preferred Plating
Corporation Site Remedial Investigation (Ebasco, 1989) and Circuitron
Corporation Site Remedial Investigation (Ebasco, 1990).
-------
Table 6 (continued)
Bioclinical Labortory Site
January 1992 Surface Soil Samples (in mg/kg)
Summary for Detected Concentrations of Inorganic Compounds
Inorganic
Comoound
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
J =
U
OUJ
R
SS07
6310
( 2 . 8 ) U J
1.7
10.9
(0.22)U
(0.66)UJ
18000
40.8
2.1
5.8J
6610
5.6
2700
40.5
(0.10)U
. 6.3
234
0.24
(0.66)U
36.4
(0.22)U
12. LJ
17.6
SS07DUP
6370
( 2 . 8 } U J
1.5
12.9
(0.21)U
(0.64)UJ
51200
45.6
1.7
4.2J
5370
3.9
3800
38.9
(0.10)U
3.0
319
0.21J
(0.64)0
47.3
(0.21JU
12. 9 J
16. 7J
Estimated value
Non-detects, detection limit
parentheses
Not detected, detection limit
Unusable
SS08
7690
(2.9JUJ
1.6
11.7
(0.22JD
(0.66)UJ
2290
57.0
2.1
5.6J
6510
15.5
750
42.3
(0.10)U
3.3
216
(0.22)U
(0.66JU '
83.1
(0.22JU
11. 3J
21.4
is reported in
is estimated
SS09
6090
(2.8)UJ
1.3
19.8
(0.22)U
(0.65)UJ
1230
86.3
2.0
8.8J
5420
52.7
511
50.3
(0.10)U
4.9
203
(0.22)U
(0.65JU
57.4
(0.22JU
11. 4 J
77.5
-------
Table 7
Bioclinical Labortory Site
January 1992 Leaching Pit Soil Samples (in mg/kg)
Summary for Detected Concentrations of Inorganic Compounds
Inorganic
Compound
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
LP-02
(Leaching
Pit-4 ft)
12600
(2.8)UJ
1.2
13.3
(0.22JU
1.9J
2100
610
1.7
19. 7J
6880
47.4
1320
73.3
(0.10)U
10.3
126
(0.22)U
(0.65)U
86.1
(0.22)U
28. 9J
.... ..52.9
LP-03
(Leaching
Pit-5 ft)
4610
(2.7)UJ
1.2
14.6
(0.20)U
(0.6DUJ
4400
16.9
2.0
14. 2 J
5550
22.6
2380
70.5
(O.ll)U
11.2
190
(0.2DU
(0.6DU
299
(0.2DU
26. 6J
29.5
LP-04
(Leaching
Pit-6 ft)
7820
(2.8)UJ '
1.5J
12.2
(0.2DU '
0.86J
5340
226
1.7
14. 9 J
5520
32.8
2570
68.1
(0.10)U
8.8
174
(0.2DU
(0.64)U •
177
(0.2DU
24. 8J
44.3
J = Estimated value
U = Non-detects, detectipn limit is reDorted in parentheses
;)UJ = Not detected, detection limit is estimated
R = Unusable
-------
TABLE -8
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS (UG/KG)*
Volatile Compounds
Acetone
Semi volatile Compounds
Di ethyl phthalate
Pesticides/PCBs
No Compounds Detected
Inorganic Compounds (mg/kg)
Alumi num
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromi urn
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
LOCATION
SB01
SB06
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB07-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB05.SB07,
S809
SB01-S809
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB05
-
SB07
SB01-SB06, SB08.
SB01-SB09
SB06-SB09
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/18
1/18
0/18
18/18
18/18
18/18
5/6
18/18
7/18
18/18
18/18 •
18/18
18/18
18/18
5/18
0/18
2/16
14/18
18/18
7/8
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
40
170
-
219-1360
0.48-1.8
1.2-5.4
28.2-84.0
1.8-6.5
0.84-3.0
1.7-8.8
662-3275
0.57-1.9
39.4-458
•3.8-104
2.7-3.7
-
0.59
18.9-64.1
1.3-3.6
2.1-3.3
(-) - Not Detected
(*) _ Refers to soil borings from which samples
(4.5-11 feet) and bottom (40-48 feet).
were taken at the top
-------
TABLE 9 .
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN THE SANITARY SYSTEMS (UG/KG)
Volati 1e Compounds
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
LOCATION
SD01,SD02,SD03,
SD05,SD06,SD07
SD03,SD05,SD06
SD07
SD01,SD02,SD03,
SD04.SD05.SD06
SD04
SD01
SD01,SD04,SD05,
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD04
SD05.SD06
FREQUENCY
OF .
DETECTION
6/7
4/7
6/7
1/7
1/7
4/7
5/7
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
3-12000
2-3
1-19000
2500
18000
60-640000
6-18000
Semi volatile Compounds^)
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
D1-n-butyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl
phthalate
Benzo( a) anthracene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethyThexy1)
phthalate
01-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b+IO
SD02,SD03,SD05,
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05,
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05,
SD06
SD02.SD03.SD05,
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05,
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05
SD02,SD03,SD05,
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05
SD06
S002,SD03,SD05
SD06
SD02.SD03.SD05,
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05
SD06
SD01-SD06
SD02.SD05.SD06
SD02,SD05,SD06
4/6
4/6
4/6
4/6
4/6
4/6
3/6
4/6
4/6
4/6
4/6
4/6
6/5
3/6
3/6
25-53
47-140
38-110
72-230
625-1400
104-300
85-450
1050-1900
1 300-3200
535-3500
410-890
550-1100
1650-87000
183-1300
780-2000
fluoranthene
-------
TABLE 9 (Cont'd)
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN THE SANITARY SYSTEMS (UG/KG)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)
pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methyl phenol
Dimethylphthalate
Z--Methyl naphthalene
PestTc1des/PCB5<1>
4,4'-DDT
Inorganic Compounds
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmi urn
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sod i urn
Vanadium
Zinc
LOCATION
SD02, SD03, SD05
SD06
SD02,SD03,SD05,
SD06
SD02.SD03.SD05
SD06
SD01
SD01
SD03,SD05,SD06
SD04.SD05.SD06
SD01 ,SD06
(mg/kg)
SD01-SD07
SD01.SD03.SD04
SD02.SD03.SD04,
S005,SD06,SD07
SD01.SD02.SD03
SD05,SD06,SD07
SD01.SD02.SD03
SD04
SD01-SD07
SD01-SD07
SD01-SD07
SD04
SD01-SD07
SD01-S007
S001-SD07
SD01-SD07
SD01,SD03,SD04,
SD06.SD07
S001-S007
SD01-S007
SD01.SD02.SD03,
S004.SD06
SD01-SD07
SD01-SD07
SD01.S002.SD03
SD04
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
4/6
4/6
4/6
1/6
1/6
3/6
3/6
2/6
7/7
3/7
6/7
6/6
4/4
7/7
7/7
7/7
1/1
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
5/7
111
7/7
5/5
7/7
111
4/4
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
' 268-690
120-270
160-280
31000
1100000
29-180
24-4300
26-310
2400-8395
4.3-9.0
1.8-4.3
31.1-81.4
0.31-21.5
1920-16400
18.9-346
3.3-134
5110
4170-50700
70-1460
1230-12500
48.9-99
0.15-1.6
15.7-539
105-788
1.0-130
359-590
3.7-36.5
124-9310
Only six analyses were performed as one sample was received by the
laboratory In a cracked jar.
-------
TABLE 10
. BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
SUMMARY OF SEPTIC TANKS AND STORM DRAINAGE DRYHELL CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OJG/L)*
FREQUENCY OF
Volatile Compounds
Acetone
Toluene
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Carbon Disulfide
-
Semi volatile Compounds
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Phenol
4-Methyl phenol
2, 4-D1 methyl phenol
Benzole Add
Benzyl Alcohol
Naphthalene
2-Methy 1 naphthal ene
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Inorganic Compounds
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromi urn
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
LOCATION
LW07
LW05.LW06
LW01.LN02,
LW05.LW06
LW01.LW02,
LW05.LN06
LH01.LH02,
LW05.LW06
LW02.LW05,
LW06.LW07
LW03
LW01.LW02 .
LM03.LW05.LW07
LW01.LW02,
LW05.LW06
LW01.LW02,
LW05
LW01.LW02
LW01.LH02
LH05
LH05
LW05.LW06
LN06
LW02.LH06
LW05.LW06
LW05.LH06
LW05.LW06
LW01-LW09
LW02
LH01-LH09
LW01 , LW02 ,
LH03.LW05,
LW06
LW01-LW09
LH01 ,LW02,LW03
LW01 .LW02.LW03
LW01 .LW02.LW05
LN06.LW07
LN01-LW09
LH01-LW09
DETECTION
1/9
2/9
4/9
4/9
4/9
4/9
1/9
5/9
4/9 '
3/9
2/9
3/9
1/9
2/9
1/9
2/9
2/9
2/9
2/9
9/9
1/9
9/9
5/8
9/9
3/3
3/9
. 5/5
9/9
9/9 .
RANGE OF
DETECTED VALUES (HITS)
280
340-360
2.0-35
11-13
55-69
1.0-8.0
3.5
3.0-22
20-65
100-410
2.0-5.0
180-880
23
1.0-2.0
2.0
0.10-0.17
0.14-0.78
0.30-0.44
0.13-0.14
•
223-49900
31.2
82.6-781
2.2-38.8
2470-133000
133-3350
9.7-36
22.4-8190
373-66950
9.8-625
*Note that detected values are measured In a liquid matrix.
-------
TABLE 10 (Cont'd)
BI'OCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
SUMMARY OF SEPTIC TANKS AND STORM DRAINAGE DRYHELL CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS (UG/D*
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
VcTnadium
Zinc
LOCATION •
LW01-LW06.LW09
LW01-LW09
LW01.LW02.LW03
LW04.LW06
LW01.LW02.LW03
LW06
LW01-LW03.LW05
LW06.LW08.LW09
LW01.LW02.LW03
LW05,LW06,LW08
LW01-LW09
LW02.LW03
LW01,LW02,LW03
LW05,LW06,LW07
LW08
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
7/9
9/9
, 5/5
, 4/9
, 7/9
, 6/8
9/9
2/9
, 7/7
»
RANGE OF
DETECTED VALUES (HITS)
633-21550
9.9-749
0.2-1.0
20.1-123
530-17800
6.0-858 .
2230-44100
19.8-139
114-5290
*Note that detected values are measured in a liquid matrix.
-------
TABLE 1.1
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
CONTAMINANTS Of CONCERN CONCENTRATIONS (UG/KG1
FREQUENCY OF DETECTION. RANGE AND MEAN VALUES
SURFACE SOILS
Vola til fi_£flH'pQuftili
No Compounds
Compounds
Phenol
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Eesticjjjes/ECBi
No Compounds
Inacaank Coippoumii (mo/kg)"
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
LOCATION
SS06
SS01
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
0/7
1/7
1/7
0/7
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01
SS01-SS06
SS01.SS03.SS05,
SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
SS04.SS05
SS01.SS05
SSOI-SS06
SS01.SS02.SS04.
SS05
SS01-SS06
SS01-SS06
7/7
7/7
1/7
7/7
4/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
2/7
2/7
7/7
4/7
7/7
7/7
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
800
470
3.2-4.9
9.9-33.8
1.3
7.9-197
2.1-3.1
4.3-20.5
5300-9950
9.3-23.8
31.2-62,3
3.8-4.0
5.2-6.2
0.25-2.7
0.24-0.37
12.8-21.4
11-207
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
433
386
4.2
14.6
0.59
55.1
2.1
8.9
8070
17.0
46.2
1.2
3.4
0.79
0.22
16.4
43.2
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
414
385
4.1
13.3
0.54
32.5
1.9
7.0
7936
16.2
45.2
0.18
3.2
0.55
0.20
16.1
22.7
U£L
557
416
4.7
22.3
0.85
197 X
3.1 X
15.6
9677
23.7
56.8
4.0 X
5.2
2.5
0.37 X
19.6
165
(1) - 95% Upper Confidence Limit
(X) - Indicates that the 95X. UGL is greater than the maximum detection. In this case, the maximum
detection for the contaminant is used to calculate risk.
(-) - Mot available
(*j - Numerous detected values (hits) exceed Typical Eastern U.S. Background Soil Concentrations (Oragun,
1988 and Conner and Shacklette. 1975), Typical U.S. Sandy Soil Concentrations (Kabata-Pendias, 1984)
or data obtained from unsaturated soil samples taken from the surface to the water table from
off-site locations as part of the Preferred Plating Corporation Site Remedial Investigation (Ebasco,
1989) and Circuitron Corporation Site Remedial Investigation (Ebasco, 1990).
-------
TABLE 12
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN CONCENTRATIONS (UG/KG)
LOCATION. FREQUENCY OF DETECTION. RANGE AND MEAN VALUES
SUBSURFACE SOILS (TOP AND BOTTOM ANALYSES)
LOCATION
Volatile C
No Compounds
SemlyflJ.ftti.1e Compounds
No Compounds
No Compounds
Inorganic Compounds (mg/kg)'
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
SB01-SB09
SBB1-SB09
SB01-SB09
SBOl-SBOS(U).
SB07(U), SB09(U)
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SB01-SB09
SBOl-SBOB(U)
SB07-(U.L)
SB01-SB06(U.L).
SB07-SB09(U),
SBOfl(L)
SB06-SBOB (U.L)
SB09 (U)
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
0/19
0/19
0/19
19/19
19/19
19/19
fl/19
19/19
19/19
19/19
19/19
6/19
2/17
17/19
7/8
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
95X0
0.48-1.8
1.2-6.8
1.8-6.7
0.84-3.0
1.7-8.8
662-3580
0.57-1.9
3.8-104
2.7-3.9
0.59
1.3-4.5
2.1-3.3
0.79
2.5
3.5
1.0
3.9
1844
1.0
36.1
1.7
0.26
2.2
2.4
0.75
2.2
3.2
0.79
3.4
1644
0.99
22.9
1.3
0.24
1.9.
2.2
1.2
4.4
6.7 X
3.0 X
5.7
3037
1.3
94.4
3.9 X
0.30
3.4
3.3
(I) -
(U)
(L)
(X)
95X Upper Confidence Limit. The values used are for the top samples only (4.5-11 feet) as receptors
are not believed to come in contact with subsurface soil deeper than 11 feet.
Numerous detected values (hits) exceed Typical Eastern U.S. Background Soil Concentrations (Dragun,
1988 and Conner and Shaqklette, 1975), Typical U.S. Sandy Soil Concentrations (Kabata-Pendias. 1984)
or data obtained from unsaturated soil samples taken from the surface to the water table from
off-site locations as part of the Preferred Plating Corporation Site Remedial Investigation (Ebasco.
1989) and Circuitron Corporation Site Remedial Investigation (Ebasco, 1990).
Upper boring
Lower boring ...
Indicates tliat the 95'/. UCL is greater than the maximum detection. In tins case, the maximum
detection for the contaminant is used to calculate risk.
-------
TABLE 13
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN CONCENTRATIONS (UG/L)
LOCATION. FREQUENCY OF DETECTION, RANGE AND MEAN VALUES
GRQUNDH&TER (ALL ROUNDS)"
LOCATION
FREQUENCY'2*
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
GEOMETRIC
. MEAN '
95X<3>
IKk
UPGRADIENT
MONITORING HELLS:
yflla,tilfi_£QJieo,u.ndi( ' *
(Low Detection Limit)
cis 1 ,2-Oichloroethene
Trichloroethene
4-Methy)-2-pentanone
Naphthalene**
Chloroform •
2-Butanone
Trichlorofluorome thane
Total Xylenes
Semi yfllaLile_Cfliiipjiund s
No Compounds
Endosulfan Sulfate
Inurgflnic-Camfiounds
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
HW01, HW02
MW01, MW02
MH01, MW02
MW01
HW01
MW01
HW01
MW01, MW02
MW02
MH01.
HW01.
MW01.
HWO 2
MW01,
HW01.
HW01.
MH01,
MWOI,
MW01.
MWOI.
MWOI.
MWOI.
HWO).
MW02
HW02
MW02
MW02
MH02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
HW02
HW02
2/7
2/7
2/7
1/7
2/7
1/1
1/7
2/7
0/7
1/7
5/5
7/7
5/7
1/7
5/7
7/7
5/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
3/7
7/7
7/7
0.5-2.0
1.0-2.0
5.0-28.0
1.0
0.10-0.26
8.0
0.13
0.60-1.0
0.27
2.1-4.4
29.9-232
1.0-3.1
4.2
37.9-1310
7.3-21.8
45.6-141
5830-69700
9.3-162
113-2190
24.5-118
4.3-7.6
9.0-87.5
40.6-146
0.53
0.60
4.9
0.39
0.28
8.0
0.37
0.43
0.08
3.5
86.3
1.3
2.2
323
9.0
78.7
29061
48.2
753
45.6
3.7
34.4
78.5
0.28
0.29
0.68
0.23
0.19
8.0
0.32
0.32
0.06
3.4
69.2
1.1
2.0
187
6.5
72.1
22631
34.0
477 ,
38.4
3.3
27.1
70.3
2.0 X
2.0 X
28 X
1.0 X
0.26 X
8.0 X
0.13 X
1.0 X
0.17
4.4 X
200
2.81
3.28
1310 X
21.8 X
124
69700 X
162 X
2190 X
85.7
6.0
87.5
131
(-) Not available.
* All rounds refer to the combination of the short round, Round I, Round II, Round III and Round IV sample data.
'" Naphthalene is considered a volatile organic contaminant only when analyzed using the low detection limit method.
(1) Volatile organic contaminant results for Round I and II sampling events were determined by USEPA to be unusable in
this report. Therefore, sample results from Round III and IV sampling events were used.
(2) The number of valid analyses includes duplicates as individual samples.
(3) Indicates that the 95% UCL is greater than the maximum detection. In this case, the maximum detection for the
contaminant is used to calculate risk.
-------
TABLE 13 (Cont'd)
BIOCLINICAL LADS SITE
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN CONCENTRATIONS (UG/L)
LOCATION. FREQUENCY OF DETECTION. RANGE AND MEAN VALUES
GROUNDtiATER (ALL ROUNDS!"
LOCATION
FREQUENCY<2)
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS!
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
UQk
DOWNGRADIENT
MONITORING WELLS:
ompounds^ ' *
(Low Detection Limit)
cis 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Methylene chloride
I,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
Chiorome thane
Carbon Oisulfide
Chloroform
1.1-Dichloroethane
1,3.5-Trimelhylbeniene
1,1 ,'1-Trichlorethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Total Xylenes
Naphthalene"
HW03, MW06.
HW09, MW12,
HW03, MW04,
MH07, MW09,
MW13, HW14,
HW03
MW03
MW03
MHO 3, HW23
MW03, MH05,
HH04
HH03, MH07,
MW12, MW19
HW03, MW05.
HHll, MH13.
MW20
HW03, MW04.
HH07. HW08
HW09. MW12.
MW19-23
HW03. HW04.
MW07. HW13.
HW18
HW03-7. HW11
HW14
HW03, MW04.
MW20, MW23
MW07,
HW16
HW06
HU12
MW16
MW06
MW13
MW08,
MW18.
HW06. ,
MH16,
MH06,
HW15.
, MW13,
MW23
8/53
11/53
1/53
1/53
1/53
2/53
4/53
1/53
4/53
3/53
16/53
8/53
11/53
10/53
21/53
5/53
2/53
0.10-6.0
0.60-17.6
4.0
120
2.0
0.37-1.0
0.70-2.0
0.50
1.0-3.0
0.20-0.64
0.14-2.0
0.50-21.0
0.10-0.60
0.70-12.0
0.37-170
1.0-1.5
0.29-0.42
0.48
1.3
0.44
3.3
0.96
0.34
0.40
0.32
0.57
0.33
0.49
1.1
0.28
1.0
14.1
0.37
0.33
0.26
0.39
0.32
0.83
0.60
0.24
0.27
0.21
0.46
0.23
0.31
0.26
0.20
0.34
1.1
0.31
0.23
0.65
2.1
0.54
1.8
1.3
0.50
0.56
0.50
0.62
0.50
0.82
1.3
0.38
1.9
25.8
.50
0.42
(-) Not available.
* All rounds refer to the contamination of the short round, Round I, Round II, Round III and Round IV sample data
"" Naphthalene is considred a volatile organic contaminated only when analyzed using the low detection unit method
(1) Volatile organic contaminant results for Round I and Round II sampling events were determined by USEPA to be unusable
in this report. Therefore, sample results from Round III and IV sampling events were used.
(2) The number of valid analyses includes duplicates as individual samples.
(3) Indicates that the 95X DC I. Is greater than the maximum detection. In this case, the maximum detection
for the contaminant is used to calculate risk.
-------
TABLE 13' (Cont'd)
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN CONCENTRATIONS (UG/L)
LOCATION, FREQUENCY OF DETECTION. RANGE AND MEAN VALUES
GROUNDWATER (ALL ROUNDS 1*
DOMIGRADIENT
MONITORING WELLS (Cont'd)
Semi volatile Compounds
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-Oimethylphenol
No Compounds
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
LOCATION
FREQUENCY*2)
OF
DETECTION
MW04. MW05, MW07-10
MW12-20. MW23
MW19
HU03-08. MH12-14
HW03-MW23
17/50
1/46
0.52
13/45
51/52
HW03. MW04 4/52
HW04, MW06. HW09-11
MWI7. HW19 9/51
MW03-16, MW1B-23 45/52
MW03-MW05
HW03-MW23
MW03-MH23
MW03-HW23
MW03-MH23
6/52
46/52
52/52
45/45
47/47
1/52
HW07
MW03-11, MW14-16.
HW18-23 35/52
MW03-06. MHO9. MWI2,
MW16 11/51
MW03-MW07 7/52
MH2J 1/52
MW03-08. MW11-14 16/52
MW03-HW23 . 36/40
RANGE OF
DETECTED
VALUES (HITS)
2.0-72.0
5.0
2.0-3.7
8.6-118
1.1-1.7
3.3-10.5
6.8-75.8
3.6-10.0
7.2-240
55.8-12000
4.6-74.5
11.6-1090
0.42
6.8-40.8
20-44.6
3.3-112
3.0
4.3-19.6
6.0-589
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
8.3
5.3
1.4
32.0
0.57
2.6
21.4
3.6
33.6
3173
22.1
167
0.11
11.4
3.3
6.4
1.08
5.0
80.5
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
5.9
5.2
1.2
26.0
0.54
2.3
15.2
3.3
21.4
1514
17.8
83.6
0.10
8.6
1.6
2.9
0.93
3.2
43.5
ua
9.0
5.0
1.6
41.4
0.60
2.9
75.8 X
4.1
52.5
6259
27.3
297
0.11
14.6
3.2
5.2
1.2
6.4
145
(-) Not available.
• All rounds refer to the contamination of the short round, Round I, Round II, Round III and Round IV sample data
*• Naphthalene is considered a volatile organic contaminant only when analyzed using the individual unit mehtod.
(I) Volatile organic contaminated results for Round I and II sampling events were determined by USEPA
to be unusable in this report. Therfore, sample results from Round III and IV were used.
(2) The number of valid analyses includes duplicates as individual sampling.
(3) Indicates that the 957. UCL is greater than the maximum detection. In this case, the maximum detection
for the contaminant is used to calculate risk.
-------
Table 14
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Population
Matrix
Route of Exposure
CURRENT AND FUTURE USE
Commercial/Industrial
Site Workers
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
FUTURE USE
Commercial/Industrial
Site Workers
Const. Workers
Residential
Residents
Groundwater
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Groundwater
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Groundwater
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation (Shower Model)
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation (Shower Model)
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation (Shower Model)
-------
TABLE 15
BIOCLINICAL LADS SITE
CHROMIC TOXICIIY DATA FOR HONCARCIMOGEN 1C
AMD POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION (a)
Chemical Name
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Bar inn
Beryl! inn
Cadmium
Chromiun (III)
Chromium (VI )
Hnnganese
Mercury
Nickel (b)
Silver
Thai I iun (c)
Vanadium
Zinc
HOHCARCINOGEHS :
Oral R(D
(mg/kg-day)
1.00E-03*
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
5.00E-04 (1120)
1.00E-03 (food)
1.00E+00
5.00E-03
1.00E-01
3.00E-04*
2.00E-02
3.00E-03
7.00E-05*
7.00E-03*
2.00E-01*
Reference Doses
Inhalation RfD
(mg/kg-doy)
-
l.OOE-04*
-
-
•
5.71E-07*
5.71E-07*
1.UE-04
8.57E-05*
-
-
-
CARCINOGENS :
Oral SF
(mg/kg-day)
1.75E+OQ
-
4.30E+00
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
Slope factors
Weight of
"-1 Evidence
A
-
B2
-
-
-
-
0
D
-
0
0
D
Inhalation SF
(mg/kg-day) "-1
1.50E+01
-
8.40E+00*
6.30E*00*
-
-
A.20E+01*
•
•
1.70E+QO
-.
-
-
-
Weight of
Evidence
A
-
82
81
•
-
A
0
0
A
D
-
D
Compounds
w/o Criteria
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Selenium
EPA Weight of Evidence Classifications are as follows:
Group A • Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence from cpidemiologic studies to support a causal association between exposure
and cancer.
Group B1 - Probable Human Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenic*ty in humans from cpidemiotogical studies.
Group 62 - Probable Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Inadequate evidence of
carcinogenic!ty in humans.
Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenic!ty in animals.
Group D - Not Classified. Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.
(a) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Hay, 1991.
(b) An oral RfD exists for the soluble salt form only. The SF represents the nickel subsulfidc form of the chemical for conservatism.
(c) The oral RfO represents the soluble salt form of the chemical.
*: Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables • fourth Quarter. USEPA, 1990.
-: Not Available '
-------
TABLE 16
8IOCLIHICAL LABS SITE
CHRONIC loxicnr DATA FOK NONCARCINOGENIC
AND POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION (a)
Chemical Home
Volatile*:
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disul fide
Chloroform
Chlorotiiellione
1 ,4 -Dichloi obenzenc
0 i cli 1 orodi f I uoromctlianc
1. 1-Oichtoroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroctliane
\, 1 -Oichloroethene
cis 1,2-Dichloroethene
1 , 2 - 0 i ch 1 or opr opane
Ethylbenzene
llexach 1 orobut ad i one
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Hcthylene Chloride
Styrcne
letrachlorocthenc
lot none
1 , 2 , 4 • I r i ch 1 orobenzene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethene
Trichtoroethene
Trichlorof luoromethane
Total Xylenes
NOIICARC IMOGENS
Oral RfO
(mg/ko-day)
1.00E-01*
-
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
-
-
2.00E-01
1.00E-01*
-
9.00E-03
1.00E-02*
-
1.00E-01
2.00E-03
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
2.00E-01
1.00E-02
2.00E-01
1.31E-03*
9.00E-02
'
3.00E-01
2.00E+00
: Reference Doses
Inhalation RfD
(mg/kg-day)
-
-
9.00E-02"
2.86E-03'
-
-
2.00E-01*
5.00E-02*
1.00E-01*
-
-
-
-
2.90E-01
-
2.00E-02*
8.57E-01*
-
-
5.71E-01*
3.00E-03*
3.00E-01*
-
2.00E-01*
B.57E-02*
CARCIIIOCEHS :
Oral SF
(mg/kg-day)
.
2.90E-02
-
-
6.10E-03
1.30E-02*
2.40E-02*
-
-
9.10E-02
6.00E-01
-
6.00E-02*
•
7.BOE-02*
-
7.50E-03
3.00E-02*
5.10E-02*
-
-
-
1.10E-02*
Slope Factors
Weight of
-1 Evidence
A
D
-
B2
C
C
-
C
B2
C
D
B2
D
C
•
B2
82
B2/C
-
D
02
-
D
Inhalation SF
(mg/kg-day)" -1
- '
2.90E-02
-
-
8.10E-02
6.30E-03*
-
•
9.10E-02*
1.75E-01
-
-
7.00E-02*
-
1.40E-02*
2.00E-03*
1.B2E-03*
•
-
•
1.70E-02*
•
Weight of
Evidence
•
A
0
-
B2
C
C
-
C
B2
C
D
02
D
C
•
B2
B2
B2/C
•
-
D
82
-
0
Compounds
w/o Criteria
Butyl benzene
4-Chlorotoluene
1,2.3-
Trichlorobcnzene
1,2,4-
T rime thy I benzene
1,3,5-
T r i me thy 1 benzene
EPA Weight of Evidence Classifications are as follows:
Croup A • Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence from cpidcmiologic studies to support a causal association between exposure
and cancer.
Group B1 • Probable Human Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenic!ty in humans from epidemiologic.il studies.
Group B2 - Probable Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence of carcinogenic!ty in animals. Inadequate evidence of
Ciircinogcnicity in humans.
(iroup C • Possible Human Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenic!ty in animals. Inadequate or lack of human data.
Croup 0 • Not Classified. Inadequate evidence of carcinogenic!ty in animals.
-------
TABLE 16 (continued)
QIOCLIMICAL LABS SITE
CHROMIC IOXICITY DATA FOR MOMCARCIHOCEHIC
AND POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION (a)
Chemical Name
Semi volut ties:
Bis(Z-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Oiethylptithalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyrene
Pesticides:
None Detected
NOHCARCINOCENS
Oral RfO
(mg/kg-day)
2.00E-02
2.00E-01
1.00E-01
8.00E-01'
2.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-03*
6.00E-01
J.OOE-02
-
: Reference Doses
Inhalation RfD
(mg/kg-day)
- •
-
-
-
• -
-
-
-
•
-
gARCIHOGEHS :
Oral SF
(mg/kg-day)
1.40E-02
•
-
-
'
-
-
-
.
Slope Factors
Weight of
'•1 Evidence
B2
C
D
-
-
D
D
D
D
-
Inhalation SF Weight of
(mg/kg-day)"-1 Evidence
02
C
D
-
-
0
D
D
D
-
Compounds
u/o Criteria
'
Endosul fan Sul fate
EPA Weight of Evidence Classifications are as follows:
Group A • Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence from epidcmiologic studies to support a causal association between exposure
and cancer.
Group Bl - Probable Human Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans from cpidcmiological studies.
Group B2 • Probable Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity in.humans.
Group C • Possible Human Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.
Group D - Hot Classified. Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.
(a) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Hay, 1991.
*: Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables - Fourth Quarter. USEPA, 1990.
-: Hot Available
-------
TABLE 17
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PRESENT AND FUTURE-USE SCENARIOS - SITE WORKERS
PRESENT AND
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO
CARCINOGENIC
RISK LEVELS
Reasonable
Maximum Case
NONCARCINOGENIC
HAZARD INDEX LEVELS
Reasonable Maximum
Case
Present and Future-Use Scenario
1) Use of Surface Soils
Soil Ingestion
Soil Dermal Contact
Soil Inhalation
Future-Use Scenario
1) Use of Groundwater (Downgradient)
Groundwater Ingestion
Groundwater Dermal Contact
2) Use of Groundwater (Upgradient)
Groundwater Ingestion
Groundwater Dermal Contact
8.04E-07
1.04E-06
2.90E-06
2.43E-05
2.93E-08
8.31 E-05
5.26E-09
8.48E-03
1.45E-02
4.66E-03
3.02E-01
1.77E-03
8.86E-01
1.77E-02
-------
TABLE 18
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
FUTURE-USE SCENARIOS - RESIDENTS (CHILDREN & ADULTS)
FUTURE-USE SCENARIOS
1) Use of Surface Soils
Soil Ingestion
Soil Dermal Contact
Soil Inhalation
2) Use of Subsurface Soils
Soil Ingestion
Soil Dermal Contact
Soil Inhalation
3) Use of Groundwater (Downgradient)
Groundwaler Ingestion
Groundwater Dermal Contact
Groundwater Volatile Inhalation
4) Use of Groundwater (Upgradient)
Groundwater Ingestion
Groundwater Dermal Contact
Groundwater Volatile Inhalation
CHILDREN
CARCINOGENIC
RISK LEVELS
Reasonable
Maximum Case
8.57E-07
2.57E-07
4.99E-07
8.11E-Q8
2.43E-08
4.25E-09
2.84E-05
1.07E-07
1.07E-06
9.70E-05
1.93E-08
1.88E-07
NONCARCINOGENIC
HAZARD INDEX LEVELS
Reasonable Maximum
Case
4.63E-02
1.83E-02
3.77E-03
1.41E-03
4.22E-04
1.70E-03
1.76E+00
2.80E-02
4.55E-02
3.76E+00
3.25E-01
2.22E-02
ADULTS
CARCINOGENIC
RISK LEVELS
Reasonable
Maximum Case
8.04E-07
1.04E-06
1.87E-06
6.70E-08
8.64E-08
2.81 E-09
7.11 E-05
4.58E47
2.50E-06
2.43E-04
B.22E-08.
4.38E-07
NONCARCINOGENIC
HAZARD INDEX VALUES
Reasonable Maximum
Case
8.69E-03
1.48E-02
2.78E-03
2.32E-04
3.00E-04
1.12E-03
8.82E-01
2.39E-02
2.12E-02
1.88E-fOO
2.77E-01
1.04E-02
-------
TABLE 19
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
FUTURE-USE SCENARIOS - CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO
CARCINOGENIC
RISK LEVELS
Reasonable
Maximum Case
NONCARCINOGENIC
HAZARD INDEX LEVELS
Reasonable Maximum
Case
1) Use of Surface Soils
Soil Ingestion
Soil Dermal Contact
Soil Inhalation
2) Use of Subsurface Soils
Soil Ingestion
Soil Dermal Contact
Soil Inhalation
3) Use of Groundwater (Downgradient)
Groundwater Ingestion
Groundwater Dermal Contact
4) Use of Groundwater (Upgradient)
Groundwater Ingestion
Groundwater Dermal Contact
1.34E-07
1.73E-07
6.11E-07
3.35E-08
4.32E-08
2.81 E-08
1.90E-06
2.93E-09
6.48E-06
5.26E-10
9.85E-03
1.49E-02
7.27E-03
1.12E-03
1.45E-03
1.07E-02
1.01E-01
7.52E-04
4.98E-01
1.95E-03
-------
TABLE .20
BIOCLINICAL LABS SITE
CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
SUMMATIONS ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
CHILDREN
Soil Ingestion (Surface) «- Soil Dermal Contact (Surface) + Soil Inhalation (Surface) + Groundwnter Ingeslion (Oowngradienl) + Groundwaler Dermal Contact
(Uowmjradienl) t Groundwater Volatile Inlialaliun -(Oowngradient) ' •
Carcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Case = 0.57 E-07 t 2.57 E-07 + 1.99 E-07 + 2.01 E-05 + 1.07 E-07 * 1.07 E-06 = 3.12 E-05
Moncarcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Case = 1.63 E-02 + 1.83 E-02 + 3.7 E-03 + '-76 El°° * 2-°° E-°3 * /I-55 E"oz = 1-88
ADULTS
Soil Incjestion (Surface) + Soil Oermal Contact (Surface) + Soil Inhalation (Surface) + Groundwater Ingostion (Dovngradicnt) + Groundwater Dermal Contact
(Oowngradienl) t (JrounJwatcr Volatile Inhalation (Oowngradicnl)
Carcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Case = 0.01 £-07 + 1.01 E-06 t I.07 E-06 + 7.II E-05 + 1.50 E-07 + 2.50 E-06 = 7.70 E-05
lloncarcinogens
Roasonable Maximum Case = 0.69 E-03 + 1.10 E-02 + 2.78 E-03 + 0-°2 E-°' + 2-39 E-°Z + 2-12 r--°z = 9.5 E-01
SITE WORKERS
Soil Ingestion (Surface) > Soil Dermal Contact (Surface) + Soil Inhalation (Surface) *• Groundwater Ingeslion (Downgradicnt) <• Groundwater Dermal Contact
(Oowmjradienl)
Carcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Case = 0.01 E-07 -f 1.01 E-06 t- 2.90 E-06 + 2.13 E-05 + 2.93 E-00 = 2.91 E-05
lloncarcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Case = 0.10 E-03 + 1.15 f-02 + 4.66 E-03 + 3.02 E-01 + 1.77 E-03 = 3.3 £-01
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
Soil Ingeslion (Surface) + Soil Dermal Contact (Surface) + Soil Inhalation (Surface) + Groundwater Ingestion (Oowngradienl) + Groundwater Dermal Contact
(Oowngradicnl)
Carcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Case = 1.31 E-07 + I.73 E-07 t 6.II E-0/ + I.90 E-06 + 2.93 E-09 = 2.02 E-06
Munc Ji'C i nogens
Reasonable Maximum Case - 9.05 E-03 + 1.19 E-02 + 7.27 E-03 + l.OI E-Ol + 7.52 E-04 = 1.34 E-01
------- |