United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EB93-963806
EPA/ROD/R02-92/168
March 1992
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Robintech Inc./National Pipe,
NY
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the 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/R02-92/168
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. TWe «nd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Robintech Inc./National Pipe, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
03/31/92
7. Authors)
a. Performing Organization Rept No.
». Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(C)
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 Note*
PB93-963806
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 12.7-acre Robintech Inc./National Pipe Company site is a light industrial facility
located in the Town of Vestal, Broome County, New York. The facility is situated in a
regionally important industrial center adjacent to Binghamton, NY, where an estimated
5,500 people live within 1 mile of the site. Two distinct aquifers, which underlie
the facility, provide 250,000 gallons of water per day for 10 onsite production wells
to meet requirements for cooling water in the pipe production process. There are no
private drinking water wells in the vicinity of the site. All residents are supplied
with drinking water by the Vestal well fields. In 1966, Robinson Technical Products,
later renamed Robintech Inc., constructed the main building that currently exists
onsite. The first floor of the building was used to manufacture aircraft engine
mounts and automobile accelerator cables; the second floor housed the assembly area
for electronic cable. In 1970, the first floor activities were replaced with
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe extrusion operations. Since that time, several
successive site owners have continued PVC pipe production at the site. During site
operations, cooling waters from the PVC operations were discharged to an onsite
settling tank to reduce particulate matter before entering the storm sewer. In 1984,
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Robintech Inc./National Pipe, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (DCE, TCA, TCE, vinyl chloride)
b. Identifiero/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
68
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM27Z («-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/168
Robintech Inc./National Pipe, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
a routine state permit discharge compliance sample found organic constituents not
included in the permit. Further investigation resulted in the conclusion that ground
water contamination beneath the site originated from reinjection of wastewater into the
PW-2 production well. This ROD is the first of two operable units planned for the site
and addresses remediation of the contaminated ground water. A future ROD will address
suspected lead contamination of onsite soil as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs, including 1,1-DCE,1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, and
vinyl chloride.
The remedial action for this site includes extracting contaminated ground water by
pumping from the bedrock and overburden aquifers; treating the VOC-contaminated ground
water by air stripping, followed by discharge of the treated water to the permitted
effluent discharge point or, depending on plant requirements, use of the treated water
in the plant process; implementing a semi-annual monitoring program for 10 wells and the
effluent discharge to track the migration and concentration of contaminants of concern;
and institutional controls to restrict ground water usage. This alternative includes an
ARAR waiver contingency measure that may be invoked if the continued monitoring and
adjustments to the treatment system indicate that portions of the aquifer cannot be
restored to beneficial usage. The estimated present worth cost for this action is
$2,255,877, which includes an annual O&M cost of $242,286 for 15 to 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The selected remedy will achieve chemical-specific
ARARs based on SDWA' MCLs and state equivalents for the site, including TCE 5 ug/1;
1,1-DCE 5 ug/1;1,2-DCE 5 ug/1; 1,1,1-TCA 5 ug/1; and vinyl chloride 2 ug/1. Air
emissions from the stripping treatment operations will comply with state requirements
for air resources.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date):
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Groundwater:
Capital Cost:
O & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Robintech
Vestal, Broome Co., New York
II
30.76 (6/86)
Not Applicable
March 31, 1992
Pump and treat (air stripping) of
groundwater with goal of achieving
ARARs. Treated groundwater to be
discharged to SPDES outfall.
$
$
$
291,564
242,286
2,255,877
Enforcement, PRP Lead
Primary Contact (phone): Mark Granger (212-264-9588)
Secondary Contact (phone): Melvin Hauptman (212-264-7681)
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Groundwater - VOCs.
Groundwater.
Pollution allegedly originates from a.)
overflow of process waste water settling
tank, and b.) possible reinjection of
waste "water at PW-2.
-------
DECLARATION FOR RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Robintech Inc./National Pipe Co. Site, Vestal, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Robintech Inc./National Pipe Co. Site ("Site") in Vestal, New
York, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision document summarizes the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for this Site.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy. A letter of
concurrence from NYSDEC is appended to this document.
The information supporting this remedial action decision is
contained in the Administrative Record for this Site, the index
of which is also appended to this document.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected by this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The remedial alternative presented in this document is the first
of two operable units for the site. It focuses on groundwater
contamination.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
o Contaminated groundwater will be pumped from bedrock and
overburden extraction wells in accordance with an extraction
scheme that will be further refined during remedial design. The
pumping will continue until maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are
achieved in the aquifer, which is estimated to take 15 to 30
years.
o An air stripping treatment system will be installed to remove
VOCs from the pumped groundwater.
-------
o The treated water from the Robintech Site could be used in the
plant process or pumped directly to the SPDES permitted effluent
discharge point.
o A long-term system monitoring program which includes the
collection and semi-annual analysis of ten wells and the SPDES
effluent discharge will be implemented in order to track the
migration and concentrations of the contaminants of concern.
o Institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions will
be recommended to the appropriate authorities (on- and off-site
restrictions) in order to prevent the extraction of groundwater
for potable purposes.
DECLARATION OF 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. This remedy satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination as their principal
element for the groundwater.
Because this alternative will result in contaminants remaining •
on-site above health based limits until the contaminant levels in
the aquifer are reduced below MCLs, CERCLA requires that this
action be reviewed at least once every five years after
commencement of remedial action, and every five years thereafter,
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
istantine Sidamon-EristofJ
Regional Administrator, Region II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
ROBINTECH INC./NATIONAL PIPE CO. SITE
VESTAL, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECISION SUMMARY PAGE
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN
SITE STRATEGY 3
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 10
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 15
IX. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 19
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 21
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 22
-------
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2. SITE LAYOUT MAP WITH MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF 1,1,1-TCA IN OVERBURDEN AND
INTERMEDIATE WELLS
FIGURE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF 1,1,1-TCA IN BEDROCK WELLS
FIGURE 5. ALTERNATIVE GW-3A
APPENDIX B - TABLES
TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.
TABLE 3.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 5.
TABLE 6.
TABLE 7.
TABLE 8.
TABLE 9.
TABLE 10.
APPENDIX C
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA (ORGANIC PARAMETERS)
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA (INORGANIC PARAMETERS)
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA (ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS)
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND THEIR RESPECTIVE INDICES OF
TOXICITY
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
RANGE, AVERAGE, AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
SUMMARY OF NON-CARCINOGENIC RISKS
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS
FEDERAL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS FOR DRINKING WATER
COMPARISON OF FEDERAL AND STATE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT
LEVELS FOR DRINKING WATER
- NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX D - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX. E - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
I. Site Location and Description
The Robintech Inc./National Pipe Co. Site ("Site") is located at
3421 Old Vestal Road in the Town of Vestal, Broome County, New
York (see Figure 1). Vestal, with a population of 27,238 (U.S.
Census, 1980), is located within a regionally important
industrial center adjacent to Binghamton, N.Y. in the Susquehanna
River basin. An estimated 5,350 people live within a one mile
radius of the Site.
The Site occupies 12.7 acres, and is bordered by Commerce Road
and several warehouses and light industrial buildings to the
east; Old Vestal Road and several residences to the south; an
amusement facility (known as the Skate Estate), and fuel storage
tanks (Mobil Tank Farm) to the west; and by Conrail railroad
tracks and Parkway Vending Inc. to the north. The Site is
located approximately half-way down the westerly face of a hill
that slopes gently toward the Susguehanna River. Consistent with
this, EPA field observations and examination of topographic
contours indicate that the superficial (overland) flow of surface
water across the Site is to the west, controlled by a series of
conduits and drainage ditches which direct the flow to the river,
located approximately a half mile to the north and west.
The area has two distinct aquifers which are sources of water
supply. The upper aquifer is comprised of the overburden
material above bedrock. This material consists mainly of gray
and brown till which becomes harder with depth. In addition,
fill material associated with extensive grading on-site for
storage and parking space ranges from 0-6 feet. Groundwater was
encountered within the upper aquifer unit 6-20 feet below the
ground surface. The lower aquifer is shale bedrock with a
weathered zone 7-10 feet thick. The primary permeability of this
material is low but the secondary permeability is much higher.
Fractures along the horizontal bedding planes and vertical joints
in the shale allow for groundwater flow. Groundwater was
encountered in this zone 10-60 feet below the ground surface.
Groundwater flow in the study area is primarily toward the west,
with minor components trending to the northwest and southwest,
and is recharged from rainfall. There are no private drinking
water wells in the vicinity of the Site. All residents are
supplied with drinking water by the Vestal well fields. One of
these well fields is located downgradient of the Site near the
river. Several investigations in the area have indicated that
groundwater contamination from the Site is not impacting this
area.
The area where the Site is located is not known to contain any
ecologically significant habitat, wetlands, agricultural land, or
historic or landmark sites which are impacted by the Site.
-------
II. Site History and Enforcement Activities
In 1966, Robinson Technical Products constructed the main
building that currently exists at the Site. The first floor of
the building was used for the manufacture of aircraft engine
mounts and automobile accelerator control cables. The second
floor was used for the assembly of electronic cable. In 1970,
Robinson Technical Products was renamed Robintech, and first
floor production activities were replaced with PVC pipe extrusion
operations. Between. 1966 and 1979 the present pipe staging area
was paved in four successive stages to the north. The warehouse
was constructed in 1974 (see Figure 2).
The Site was bought by Buffton Corporation, the current owner, in
1982, and has been occupied by its subsidiaries National Pipe
Company and Electro-Mech Incorporated. Electro-Mech continued
the assembly of electronic cable on the second floor. National
Pipe continued the PVC pipe extrusion operations. According to
Buffton, in 1991 the assets of National Pipe Co. were sold to LCP
National Plastics, Inc. ("LCP"), a subsidiary of Hanlon Group,
Inc. Electro-Mech and LCP are currently operating at the Site.
Production wells currently provide water to the plant to meet a
250,000 gal/day requirement for cooling water for the PVC pipe ;
manufacturing operation. Ten wells were drilled on-site between
1983 and 1984, numbered PW-1 through PW-10. One well (PW-7) was
abandoned and grouted to the surface with cement due to poor
yield. Production well PW-10 was screened within the overburden
aquifer but has been removed from operation, also due to low
yield. The eight remaining wells derive water from fractures in
the shale bedrock aquifer. These wells discharge into a
distribution tank located near the rear of the production
facility and are simultaneously activated and deactivated
automatically in response to plant demand. Water from the
distribution tank is used as both contact and non-contact cooling
water in the pipe production process. After this, the water is
pumped to a process wastewater settling tank to reduce
particulate content, and then discharged at the permitted
effluent discharge point.
An NYSDEC effluent sample collected at the Site in 1984 to verify
discharge permit compliance found certain organic constituents
above standards that were not covered under the existing permit.
Further investigation resulted in the conclusion that the source
of contamination was coming from the groundwater beneath the
Site. The Robintech Site was placed on the EPA National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1986. An Administrative Order on
Consent (AOC) under Sections 104 and 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§§9604, 9622 for the performance of a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was issued by EPA in 1987 to General
Indicator Group, Inc. (a successor of Robintech), Buffton,
Buffton Electronics (now named Electro-Mech, Inc.), and National
-------
Pipe Company. General Indicator Group, Inc. subsequently changed
its name to CompuDyne, Inc. McLaren/Hart, retained by Buffton,
implemented the EPA approved RI/FS work plan. The RI Report was
approved by EPA in October, 1991. The revised FS Report was
submitted to EPA in December, 1991. All of the above parties
have been identified as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
pursuant to CERCLA.
III. Highlights of Community Participation
The RI and FS Reports and the Proposed Plan for the Robintech
Inc./National Pipe Co. Site were released to the public for
comment on February 21, 1992. These documents were made
available to the public in both the Administrative Record and
information repositories maintained at the EPA Docket Room in the
Region II New York City office and at the Town of Vestal Public
Library located at 320 Vestal Parkway East, Vestal, New York.
The notices of availability for these documents were published in
the Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin on February 21, 1992. A
public comment period was held from February 21 through March 21,
1992. A public meeting was held on March 18, 1992 at the Vestal
Town Hall in Vestal, New York. At this meeting, representatives
from EPA presented the findings of the RI/FS and answered
questions from the public about the Site and the remedial
alternatives under consideration. Response to the comments
received during this period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is appended to this ROD.
IV. scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within
Site Strategy
EPA has separated the response actions at the Site into two
distinct operable units (OUs). These operable units include: a.)
groundwater contaminated with volatile organics above Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (OU-1);
and b.) soils potentially contaminated with lead in excess of
EPA's Interim Guidance on Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund
Sites (OU-2). The remedial action described in this ROD will
address only contaminated groundwater. Potential lead
contamination will be addressed in a future ROD.
The ultimate goal of the EPA Superfund approach to groundwater
remediation as stated in the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300 (NCP) is
to return usable groundwater to their beneficial uses within a
time frame that is reasonable. The goal of this remedial action
is to halt the spread of the groundwater contaminant plume and
return usable groundwater to beneficial uses within a time frame
that is reasonable. However, EPA recognizes that the selected
remedy may not achieve this goal because of the technical
difficulties associated with restoring contaminated aquifers to
groundwater cleanup levels. The result of this remedial action
-------
will be monitored carefully to determine the feasibility of
achieving this final goal. This remedial action will permit the
further collection of data on the aquifer without delaying
initial remediation measures.
EPA's Superfund Program uses EPA's Groundwater Protection
Strategy as guidance when determining the appropriate remediation
for contaminated groundwater at CERCLA sites. The Groundwater
Protection Strategy establishes different degrees of protection
for groundwater based on their vulnerability, use, and value.
For the aquifer at the Robintech Site, which is classified by EPA
as a Class II aquifer, the final remediation goals will be
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs and New York State
Department of Health MCLs. Class II aquifers include current and
potential sources of drinking water as well as groundwater
potentially available for drinking water, agriculture, or other
beneficial use.
V. summary of Site Characteristics
A. Site Geology and Hydrology
The majority of unconsolidated materials encountered on-site
comprise two glacial till units deposited directly above the
bedrock surface. The deeper, older till unit is medium to light
gray in color and contains abundant rock fragments from the
underlying gray shale. This unit has a documented on-site
thickness ranging from 0-29 feet. The shallower, younger till
unit identified on-site is brown in color and contains reddish-
brown sandstone and siltstone fragments. The brown till ranges
from 0 to 21 feet in thickness. Soil borings completed just
northwest of the Site also intersect a thin medium to dark brown
lacustrine clay unit.
Surficial soils that were suspected of being disturbed or
reworked during construction activities were classified as fill.
Typically, these materials were encountered to a maximum depth of
6 feet below ground surface, if,encountered. The composition of
the fill is similar to other surficial soils encountered on-site.
According to a representative of National Pipe, the source of
some of the fill material may be from excavations associated with
construction activities for Old Vestal Road.
A weathered bedrock zone, between 7 and 10 feet thick, was
encountered on-site between overlying unconsolidated materials
and competent bedrock. Bedrock underlying the Site is composed
primarily of medium to dark gray shale, interbedded with
siltstone and occasional lenses of sandstone. Rock cores
collected from on-site locations indicate that the upper surface
of the bedrock is highly fractured and severely weathered in
areas. Fractures intersected during rock coring are
predominantly horizontal and partially clay-filled. Vertical
-------
jointing within the rocks is well developed with a prominent
orientation of north-south. Less developed joints generally
trend northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast. This
extensively developed system of joints is the main conduit for
groundwater movement within these rocks due to the near absence
of primary porosity in the shale.
Groundwater was encountered in the glacial till at depths ranging
from approximately 6 to 20 feet below the ground surface. The
average depth to water encountered was 12 feet below grade. The
overburden aquifer is heterogeneous in nature, and the occurrence
of groundwater appears to be non-uniform. At several areas (MW-
4, MW-5, and MW-6 locations), the saturated zone extends only a
few feet, and the overburden aquifer is essentially non-existent.
At such areas the till is extremely dense, and consequently
unable to store or transmit significant volumes of groundwater.
The dense portions of the till appear to result in discontinuous
zones of saturation.
The water level measurements in the overburden wells were used to
construct groundwater elevation contour maps in an effort to
evaluate the direction of groundwater flow in the overburden. The
contour maps generated during the Remedial Investigation indicate
a predominant groundwater flow direction toward the west. Minor-
flow components to the northwest and southwest are also possible.
The direction of groundwater flow is consistent with the general
slope of the topography in the western and northern directions,
toward the Susquehanna River.
The occurrence of groundwater in the bedrock aquifer is
controlled primarily by the distribution, magnitude and
interconnection of fractures in the shale bedrock. Sandstone
beds are limited in the bedrock underlying the Site, and
therefore the presence of groundwater under primary porosity
conditions is believed to be minimal. Water levels measured in
bedrock monitoring and production wells during static conditions
varied between approximately 10 and 60 feet below the ground
surface. The average depth to water measured in the bedrock
wells was approximately 34 feet below grade.
At several areas (MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6) the bedrock surface is
severely weathered and fractured. Intermediate wells installed
to screen the weathered bedrock zone in these areas were
discovered to be in hydraulic connection with the deeper bedrock
wells as evidenced by the drawdown observed in MW-4, MW-5, and
MW-6 during a pumping test of PW-2. In addition, the water
levels measured in the intermediate and bedrock monitoring wells
at the MW-4 and MW-5 nests were essentially the same.
Piezometric surface contour maps generated during the Remedial
Investigation for the bedrock aquifer indicate a predominant
hydraulic gradient in the north-northwest direction toward the
-------
Susquehanna River, the major discharge area in the watershed.
The contour maps also display westerly and southerly groundwater
flow components within the southern one-third section of the
Site, indicating an apparent groundwater divide trending in the
east-west direction in this portion of the Site.
B. Nature and Extent of the Contamination
The groundwater quality of the aquifer underlying and
downgradient of the Site was assessed during water quality
sampling conducted by McLaren/Hart for Buffton in 1989. Tables l
through 3 present the results of .the analyses of groundwater
samples from this RI sampling.
The following halogenated alkane/alkene compounds are hazardous
substances pursuant to CERCLA and are also the principal
contaminants detected during the RI groundwater monitoring
program.
Trichloroethene (TCE)
1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)
1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-DCE)
Vinyl Chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)
Acetone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane was the principal volatile organic
contaminant (VOC) detected in the groundwater underlying the Site
in both aquifers. The concentrations detected in the overburden
ranged from an estimate of 5 ppb to 1,100 ppb. Concentrations of
1,1,1-TCA detected in bedrock production wells ranged from 5 ppb
to 8,800 ppb. Figures 3 and 4 display the 1,1,1-TCA distribution
based on McLaren/Hart groundwater sampling data. The overflow of
the process wastewater settling tank and reinjection of process
wastewater into PW-2 represent the most probable pathway for the
majority of contaminants to have entered the groundwater.
Several VOCs were detected in the overburden'at lower levels, but
above MCLs, in the northern portion of the "Paved Pipe Staging"
area. In addition, TCE was detected ranging from 12-54 ppb in
both aquifers along Commerce Road at the "Northeastern Site
Boundary" area. The MCL for TCE is 5 ppb.
Elevated metal concentrations were detected in unfiltered
groundwater samples collected from several RI monitoring wells.
Existing or proposed MCLs were exceeded for barium, cadmium,
lead, and chromium, in unfiltered groundwater samples. Metal
concentrations in the on-site filtered groundwater samples do not
exceed MCLs.
-------
The majority of VOC contamination detected in the PW-2 area was
not detected in downgradient monitoring well locations.
Significantly lower contaminant levels in these wells indicate
that: a.) constant pumping of the production wells may be
curtailing the spread of groundwater contamination or b.) a plume
exists somewhere between the PW-2 area and the downgradient well
locations.
For metals in on-site and downgradient soil and sediment, lead is
the apparent contaminant of concern, although the data that this
is based upon is currently undergoing further review by EPA.
Soil and sediment samples analyzed by McLaren-Hart have shown
lead levels exceeding the EPA interim cleanup level of 500-1000
ppm in most samples collected down to a depth of 10 feet
(concentrations ranged from 10 to 56,000 ppm). EPA conducted
confirmatory split sampling at several sampling locations at the
time these samples were collected. The EPA split samples failed
to confirm the elevated lead concentrations (concentrations
ranged from 12-61 ppm). In addition, a comprehensive soil and
sediment investigation was conducted by EPA, prior to the 1988
McLaren-Hart investigation. Lead levels in soil and sediments
from this investigation ranged from 1 to 143 ppm. Because of the
elevated concentrations of lead indicated by the McLaren-Hart
data, EPA's Emergency Response Team (ERT) sampled the suspected
heavily contaminated soil and sediment in order to assess the
potential need for immediate action in February 1992. Results of
this sampling effort (over 100 samples were taken from varying
horizons) revealed no detections of lead within or above the 500-
1000 ppm range on-site or downgradient. The results of this
sampling effort, along with additional sampling to be conducted,
will be used in determining the necessity of remediating lead in
soils as part of the previously noted second operable unit (OU-2)
for soils contamination.
VI. Summary of Site Risks
EPA conducted a Risk Assessment.of • the "no-action" alternative to
evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment
associated with the Site in its current state. All the contam-
inants identified above detection limits in the sampling of
environmental media at the Site were selected as contaminants of
concern. The contaminants of concern and their indices of
toxicity are listed in Table 4. .
EPA's Risk Assessment identified several potential exposure
pathways by which the public may be exposed to contaminant
releases from the Robintech Site under a current land-use
scenario. In addition, the potential future risks associated
with the use of contaminated groundwater were evaluated. The
actual and potential pathways and populations potentially
affected are shown in Table 5.
-------
8
The potential exposure routes identified in the Risk Assessment
include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact exposure to
organic compounds and metals from contaminated groundwater
beneath the Site as a source of potable water.
The potentially exposed populations in all cases were the
residents (adults and children) of neighborhoods near the Site,
workers within the study area, and trespassers.
The Risk Assessment evaluated the maximum and average contaminant
concentrations detected in the environmental media at the
Robintech Site. Table 6 presents the range, maximum, and average
concentration of all groundwater contaminants of concern.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and non-carcinogenic effects due to exposure to
Site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the Site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individuals were summed to indicate
the potential risks associated with mixtures of potential
carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a Hazard Index ("HI")
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference Doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligram per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of
daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe
over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular medium. The HI is obtained by
adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media
that impacts a common receptor. An HI greater than 1 indicates
that the potential exists for npn-carcinogenic health effects to
occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a
useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of
multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media. A compound specific list of RfDs for the Site is included
in Table 4.
The His for the potential ground water exposures at the Robintech
Site are presented in Table 7. The HI calculated for a resident
exposed to maximum organic contaminant levels exceeds one. The
cumulative His are 33.0 for children and 14.0 for adults. The
-------
main contributors to non-carcinogenic risks are 1,1,1-TCA, TCE,
chromium, and 2-butanone.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
slope factors developed by the EPA for the compounds of concern.
Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. For known or suspected carcinogens,
EPA considers excess upper bound individual lifetime cancer risks
of between 10^ to 10"6 to be acceptable with 10"* being the point
of departure. The 10"* to 10"6 range indicates that an individual
has not greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million
chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure
to a carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure
conditions at the. Site. A compound specific list of SFs for the
Site is included in Table 4.
The cancer risk levels for ground water exposures are presented
in Table 8. The cumulative upper bound risk for adult residents
using contaminated ground water is 4.8 x 10'3 for the overburden
aquifer and 5.5 x 10'3 for the bedrock aquifer. Both values are
greater than EPA's acceptable cancer risk range. Vinyl chloride
and 1,1-DCE are the main contributors to carcinogenic risk.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, 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
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis
uncertainty can stem from several sources including the errors
-------
10
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
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Robintech Site, if not addressed by implementing the response
action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
VII. Description of Alternatives
The Superfund law requires that any remedy selected for a Site
must be protective of human health and the environment, cost-
effective, and in accordance with statutory requirements.
Permanent solutions to contamination are to be achieved wherever
possible, and there is a bias for treating wastes and applying
innovative technologies. The remedial alternatives considered
for the Site are summarized below. They are numbered to
correspond with their presentation in the FS report.
The time to implement refers only to the actual construction time
and does not include the time needed to design the remedy and
negotiate with the potentially responsible parties.
Alternatives for the Contaminated Groundwater
A common element in each groundwater remediation alternative,
with the exception of the "No Action" alternative (described
later) is long-term groundwater monitoring to evaluate the
alternative's effectiveness. Monitoring will be conducted semi-
annually for the duration of the alternative, and will include
sampling ten wells along with the treated groundwater effluent
discharge for VOCs and metals. Further detail on this proposed
long-term groundwater monitoring program can be found in the FS
Report on page 3-6. In addition, in accordance with Section 121
-------
11
of CERCLA, EPA must review any remedial action that leaves
hazardous substances above health based levels at a site once
every five years to assure that the remedy selected remains
protective of human health and the environment. It is
anticipated that all groundwater alternatives presented in this
document will require a five year review.
The remedial action objectives for the contaminated groundwater
are a.) to restore the aquifer as a potential source of drinking
water by reducing contaminant levels to the New York State and
Federal MCLs, and b.) to reduce or eliminate the potential for
off-site migration of contaminants. Bedrock and overburden
extraction wells located in the areas of concern will be pumped
at rates that will allow for coordinating an expeditious
groundwater remediation. The exact number, depth, and location
of extraction wells will be further refined during remedial
design (RD). A monitoring well cluster (one overburden, one
bedrock) will be installed during remedial design midway between
the PW-2 area and MW-5 (located on the Skate Estate property) to
assist in determining pumping rates as well as to further assess
groundwater quality between these areas (see Figure 2). The pre-
design phase pumping rate estimate is: 20 gallons per minute
(gpm) for PW-2 with a total rate of 5 gpm for associated
overburden extraction wells; 10 gpm for the Northeastern Site
Boundary bedrock well with a total rate of 5 gpm for associated'
overburden extraction wells; and a total of 5 gpm for overburden
extraction wells in the Paved Pipe Staging area. Estimated
pumping rates may be revised in response to data generated during
remedial design pump tests.
Based on current estimates (Appendix A of the FS), the aquifer in
the vicinity of PW-2 could be remediated in 15 years, in the
Paved Pipe Staging area in 2 years, and in the vicinity of the
Northeastern Site Boundary in 6 years. These estimates can be
revised as data is collected during the remedial action. The
"30-Year Present Worth" figures presented include costs for
monitoring beyond the estimated time to remediate.
For all alternatives, institutional controls such as deed
restrictions, will be recommended to appropriate authorities in
order to restrict any other groundwater withdrawals.
For treatment alternatives, the treated water from areas of
concern may either be discharged separately at the permitted
discharge outfall or used as plant process water. This approach
permits the design option for continued operation of groundwater
treatment independent of the plant operations. Groundwater from
production wells in non-contaminated areas may continue to be
used for industrial purposes without treatment.
Recent studies have indicated that pumping technologies may
contain uncertainties in achieving the ppb concentrations
-------
12
required under ARARs over a reasonable period of time. For this
reason, the following groundwater extraction alternatives may
include contingency measures, whereby the groundwater extraction
system's performance will be monitored on a regular basis and
adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during
operation. Modifications may include any or all of the
following:
a) at individual wells where cleanup goals have been
attained, pumping may be discontinued;
b) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points;
c) pulsed pumping to allow for aquifer equilibration and
to allow adsorbed contaminants to partition into
groundwater; and
d) installation of additional extraction wells to
facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant
plume.
If it is determined, on the basis of the preceding criteria and
the system performance data, that certain portions of the aquifer
cannot be restored to their beneficial uses in a reasonable time
frame, all or some of the following measures involving long-term
management may occur, for an indefinite period of time, as a
modification of the existing system:
a) engineering controls such as physical barriers, source
control measures, or long-term gradient control
provided by low level pumping, as containment measures;
b) chemical-specific ARARs may be waived for the cleanup
of those portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further contaminant
reduction;
c) future institutional controls, in the form of local
. . zoning ordinances, may be recommended to be implemented
and maintained to restrict access to those portions of
the aquifer which remain above remediation goals;
d) continued monitoring of specified wells; and
e) periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for
groundwater restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made
during a periodic review of the remedial action, which will occur
at intervals of no less often than every five years.
-------
13
Alternative GW-1; No Action
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alternative be considered at
every site to provide a baseline of comparison among alterna-
tives. This alternative assumes no additional activity takes
place beyond the current activities at the Site. All wells that
are currently pumping are assumed to continue pumping at their
current rates. In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA,
remedial actions that leave hazardous substances at a site are to
be reviewed at least once every five years to assure that the
remedial action is protective of human health and the environ-
ment. The No Action alternative would have to be reviewed by EPA
at least once every five years.
Cost Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M: $0
30-Year Present Worth: $0
Time to Implement None
Alternative GW-2; Groundwater Extraction/Discharge/
Institutional Controls/Monitoring
This alternative assumes continued plant operations at the
present rate of water use. Overburden extraction wells will be
manifolded into the bedrock well system and together they will be
pumped into the plant's storage tank. The water will continue to
be used as process cooling water in the plant. The process water
will continue to be discharged without treatment at the existing
permitted discharge point.
A long-term monitoring plan will be implemented as previously
described in "Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater" with the
addition of sampling the influent water to the plant.
Cost Capital Cost: $133,622
Annual O&M: $ 65., 929
30-Year Present Worth: $921,331
Time to Implement 6 months
Alternative GW-3A; GW Extraction/Air Stripping/ Discharge/
Combined Flow/Institutional Controls/Monitoring
The groundwater extraction scheme and treated water discharge for
this alternative are identical to that previously described in
"Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater."
Contaminated groundwater will be pumped from areas of concern to
an air stripper. Treated groundwater may either be used in the
-------
14
plant process or discharged separately. Approximately 95 to 99
percent of the VOCs would be removed by air stripping.* Air
stripping is a proven technology, has been widely used in the
removal of VOCs from groundwater, and is commercially available.
A.long-term monitoring plan will be implemented as previously
described in "Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater."
Cost Capital Cost: $ 291,564
Annual O&M: $ 242,286
30-Year Present Worth: $2,255,877
Time to Implement 2 years
(*) Regarding potential air emissions: The application of air
emission controls will be determined during remedial design in
accordance with New York State Regulation Part 212.
Alternative GW-4B; GW Extraction/Air Stripping/ Carbon
Adsorption/Discharge/Separate Flow/ Institutional
Controls/Monitoring
The groundwater extraction scheme and treated water discharge for
this alternative are identical to that previously described in .-
"Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater."
For this remedial alternative, liquid phase and vapor phase
carbon adsorption units follow the air stripper. Groundwater
from the PW-2 area will be pumped through the stripper, then to a
two-stage (in series) liquid phase carbon adsorber for the
removal of any remaining VOCs. The groundwater from the
Northeastern Site Boundary area and Paved Pipe Staging area
enters the treatment process after the air stripper but before
the carbon adsorption unit. The rationale for this approach is
that the only contaminant of concern in the Northeastern Site
Boundary is TCE. Also, TCE is at a lower concentration in the
Northeastern Site Boundary area and the pumping rate estimate is
lower (15 gpm) than that of the^PW-2 area (25 gpm). The low
level of TCE in the Northeastern Site Boundary, combined with the
1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCA from the Paved Pipe Staging area (5 gpm),
can effectively be removed through carbon adsorption alone.
Spent carbon would be shipped off-site for disposal or
regeneration.
A long-term monitoring plan will be implemented as previously
described in "Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater."
Costs Capital Cost: $ 376,732
Annual O&M: $ 235,500
30-Year Present Worth: $2,430,127
Time to Implement 2 years
-------
15
Alternative GW-6B; GW Extraction/ UV/Chemical Oxidation/Carbon
Adsorption/Discharge/Institutional Controls/Monitoring
The groundwater extraction scheme and treated water discharge for
this alternative are identical to that described in "Alternatives
for Contaminated Groundwater."
This remedial alternative is similar to Alternative GW-4B except
that a free radical chemical oxidation process rather than the
air stripping process would be used to remove VOCs from the
groundwater. A hydrogen peroxide-ultraviolet light (H2O2-UV)
oxidation system would treat the groundwater. This oxidation
system employs a combination of H2O2 and UV light to chemically
oxidize the VOCs in the process stream. The 25 gpm flow rate
from the PW-2 area contains the majority of VOCs and is pumped
through the UV system. The Northeastern Site Boundary and Paved
Pipe Staging area influent is added prior to carbon adsorption.
The treated groundwater from the PW-2 area would have VOC
concentrations below permitted discharge limits for all
contaminants except 1,1,1-TCA. The carbon adsorbers will treat
the effluent of the UV system for this compound and for VOCs from
the Northeastern Site Boundary and Paved Pipe Staging areas.
A long-term monitoring plan will be implemented as previously
described in "Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater."
Cost Capital Cost: $ 494,904
Annual O&M: $ 210,300
30-Year Present Worth: $2,494,342
Time to Implement 2 years
VIII. summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
EPA has developed nine criteria (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01),
codified in the NCP §300.430(e) and (f), to evaluate potential
alternatives to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection. This analysis is comprised of an
individual assessment of the alternatives against each criterion
and a comparative analysis designed to determine the relative
performance of the alternatives and identify major trade-offs,
that is, relative advantages and disadvantages, among them.
The nine evaluation criteria against which the alternatives are
evaluated are as follows:
Threshold Criteria - The first two criteria must be satisfied in
order for an alternative to be eligible for selection.
1. overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection
-------
16
and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a
remedial alternative would meet all of the applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of
other federal and state environmental statutes and/or
satisfy the criteria for invoking a waiver as set forth
in Section 121(a) of CERCLA.
Primary Balancing Criteria - The next five "balancing criteria"
are to be used to weigh trade-offs among the different hazardous
waste management strategies.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence focuses on any
residual risk remaining at the Site after the
completion of the remedial action. This analysis
includes consideration of the degree of threat posed by
the hazardous substances remaining at the Site and the
adequacy of any controls (for example, engineering and
institutional) used to manage the hazardous substances
remaining at the Site. It also considers how effective
and permanent the remedy is in the long term.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment is the anticipated performance of the
treatment technologies a particular remedy may achieve.
5. Short-term Effectiveness addresses the effects of the
alternative during the construction and implementation
phase until the remedial response objectives are met.
It also considers the time required to implement the
remedy.
6. Implementability addresses the technical and
administrative feasibility of implementing an
alternative including the availability of various
services and materials required during its
imp1ementation.
7.. Cost includes estimated capital, and operation and
maintenance costs, both translated to a present-worth
basis. The detailed analysis evaluates and compares
the cost of the respective alternatives, but draws no
conclusions as to the cost-effectiveness of the
alternatives. Cost-effectiveness is determined in the
remedy selection phase, when cost is considered along
with the other balancing criteria.
-------
17
Modifying Criteria - The final two criteria are regarded as
"modifying criteria", and are to be taken into account after the
above criteria have been evaluated. They are generally to be
focused upon after public comment is received.
8. State Acceptance reflects the statutory requirement to
provide for substantial and meaningful State
involvement.
9. Community Acceptance refers to the community's comments
on the remedial alternatives under consideration, along
with the Proposed Plan. Comments received during the
public comment period, and the EPA's responses to those
comments, are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary
which is a part of this ROD.
The following is a summary of the comparison of each
alternative's strengths and weaknesses with respect to the nine
evaluation criteria.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:
Alternatives GW-3A, GW-4B, and GW-6B would provide permanent
overall protection of human health and the environment through
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater. Such
alternatives will provide the greatest overall protection of
human health and the environment. While Alternative GW-2 is
considered viable, its ability to provide reliable protection and
continuous remediation over time is questionable as it is
dependent on the continued operation of the plant and there is no
treatment of contaminated groundwater involved. Deed
restrictions to prevent the withdrawal of contaminated
groundwater for potable purposes would be recommended for
implementation for all alternatives.
The "No-Action" alternative is not protective of human health and
the environment; therefore, it was eliminated from further
consideration and will not be discussed further.
2. Compliance with ARARs: Since.the groundwater underlying the
Site is a potential future potable water supply source, Federal
and State MCLs (whichever is more stringent) are ARARs. Both
Federal and State MCLs are relevant and appropriate for the
cleanup of the aquifer. Alternatives GW-3A, GW-4B, and GW-6B are
designed to meet these ARARs. The ability of Alternative GW-2 to
meet ARAR's over time is questionable as it is dependent on
dilution of the contaminated groundwater and on the continued
operation of the plant and pipe production.
Any off-site discharge of treated water for these alternatives
will comply with the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permit.
-------
18
3. Long-Term Effectiveness: Alternatives GW-3A, GW-4B, and GW-6B
would provide long-term effectiveness by virtue of the extended
groundwater extraction plan, the attainment of MCLs, and a
resulting minimal risk from contaminant residuals. There would
be no long-term threat to the environment or human health as the
aquifer will be remediated to drinking water standards. The
long-term effectiveness of Alternative GW-2, though viable at
present, is questionable in the long term as it is dependent on
dilution of the contaminated groundwater and on the continued
operation of the plant and pipe production.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume: Alternatives GW-
3A, GW-4B, and GW-6B, with an identical groundwater pumping
scheme, would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume
permanently through extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater. Alternative GW-4B would produce a cleaner effluent
than GW-3A by approximately 5-10%. The reduction of VOC content
for Alternative GW-6B, the alternative involving innovative
technology, should be comparable to the reduction of VOCs for
Alternative GW-4B, but this would need to be confirmed during
remedial design. It should be noted that GW-6B would not
generate air emissions. Alternative GW-2 may tend to reduce
mobility but will not address the reduction of toxicity and
volume criteria as there is no treatment system currently in
place, or planned, for this alternative.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness: No short term impacts on human
health and the environment are anticipated with construction
associated with any of the alternatives as no contaminated media
will be disturbed. Monitoring will help to prevent potential
future exposure during the remedial period for all the
alternatives.
6. Implementability: All of the alternatives involve the use of
commercially available products and accessible technology. Also,
as mentioned previously, the extraction plan and pumping rates
are identical for all of the alternatives. Alternative GW-2 is
the easiest to implement as it involves only well installation,
followed by Alternative GW-3A, which is the simplest treatment
alternative. The added treatment and piping, in addition to the
residuals handling and disposal associated with carbon
adsorption, make Alternatives GW-4B and GW-6B more difficult and
time consuming to implement. Alternative GW-6B, an innovative
technology, has had limited application and may achieve the VOC
treatment necessary for this Site. A treatability study would
have to be performed during RD for this alternative. This, along
with the technology involved, makes it more difficult to
implement than Alternatives GW-3A and GW-4B.
7. Cost: Alternative GW-2 has the lowest capital and O&M costs,
resulting in a present worth of $921,331 because it does not
involve the installation of a separate groundwater treatment
-------
19
system. Alternative GW-3A has the next higher cost with a
present worth of $2,255,877. Alternative GW-4B adds further
treatment to that outlined in GW-3A for a present worth of
$2,430,127. Alternative GW-6B, the innovative treatment
alternative carries a present worth of $2,494,342.
8. State Acceptance: A concurrence letter from New York State is
attached to this Record of Decision at Appendix C.
9. Community Acceptance: In general, the community was
supportive of the remedy. All comments that were received from
the public comment period are addressed in the attached
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix D) .
IX. Description of the Selected Remedy
Based on the results of the RI/FS reports, as well as a detailed
evaluation of all comments submitted by interested parties during
the public comment period, and the rest of the administrative
record for the Site, EPA has selected Alternative GW-3A as the
selected alternative for addressing the groundwater contamination
problem at the Robintech Inc./National Pipe Co. Site. Specific-
ally, the selected alternative will involve the following:
o Contaminated groundwater will be pumped from bedrock and
overburden extraction wells in accordance with an extraction
scheme that will be further refined during remedial design.
Remedial design determinations will include pumping rates and the
exact location and depth of extraction wells. The pumping will
continue until MCLs are achieved in the aquifer, notwithstanding
the previously noted contingency measures. After the groundwater
treatment system is in place it is estimated that groundwater in
the aquifer will meet the remediation goals in 15 to 30 years.
o An air stripping treatment system will be installed to remove
VOCs from the pumped groundwater. The application of air
emission controls on the stripper will be determined during
remedial design in accordance with. New York State Regulation Part
212.
o The treated water from the Robintech Site could be used in the
plant process or pumped directly to the SPDES permitted effluent
discharge point, depending on plant process requirements.
o A long-term system monitoring program which includes the
collection and semi-annual analysis of ten wells and the SPDES
effluent discharge will be implemented in order to track the
migration and concentrations of the contaminants of concern.
o Institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions will
be recommended to the appropriate authorities (on- and off-site
-------
20
restrictions) in order to prevent the extraction of groundwater
for potable purposes.
o The site conditions will be evaluated at least once every five
years to determine if a modification to the selected alternative
is necessary.
The ultimate goal of the EPA Superfund Program's approach to
groundwater remediation as stated in the NCP is to return usable
groundwater to its beneficial use within a reasonable time frame.
Therefore, for the aquifers underlying the Robintech Site, which
are classified as Class II aquifers, the final remediation goal
will be the MCLs.
The preferred alternative is believed to provide the best balance
of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the
evaluation criteria. Based on the information available at this
time, EPA believes the preferred alternative will be protective
of human health and the environment, comply with ARARs, be cost
effective, and utilize permanent technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The preferred alternative also meets the
statutory preference for the use of a remedy that involves
treatment as a principal element.
Alternative GW-3A, with a network of bedrock and overburden
extraction wells, is as capable of a comparable level of
contamination removal from the aquifer as the other treatment
alternatives and of reducing contaminant concentration levels in
the most heavily contaminated portions of the aquifer. Besides
being the most cost effective and simplest of all treatment
options, Alternative GW-3A is the easiest treatment alternative
to implement. This alternative does not require the handling and
disposal of hazardous residuals as would Alternative GW-4B, and
uses a reliable and proven technology that would not require
prior testing, unlike Alternative GW-6A. In addition, this
alternative provides for the control of potential contaminant
migration and is ultimately expected to reduce contamination to
MCLs thereby restoring the aquifer.
This alternative also includes contingency measures, as
necessary, outlined under "Alternatives for the Contaminated
Groundwater" in the Description of Alternatives section of this
ROD (Section VII), whereby the groundwater extraction and
treatment system's performance will be monitored on a regular
basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected
during operation. If it is determined, in spite .of any
contingency measures that may be taken, that portions of the
aquifer cannot be restored to its beneficial use, ARARs may be
waived based on the impractic-ability, from an engineering
perspective, of achieving further contaminant reduction. The
decision to invoke a contingency measure may be made during
-------
21
periodic review of the remedy, which will occur at intervals of
no less often than every five years.
X. Statutory Determinations
EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to select
remedial actions that are protective of human health and the
environment. CERCLA also requires that the selected remedial
action for the Site comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate environmental standards established under Federal and
State environmental laws, unless a waiver is granted. The
selected remedy must also be cost effective and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The statute also contains a preference for
remedies that include treatment as a principal element. The
following sections discuss how the selected remedy for
contaminated groundwater at the Site meets these statutory
requirements.
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
In order to meet the remedial objectives outlined in the previous
section, the risk associated with exposure to the contaminated
groundwater must fall within the acceptable risk range for
carcinogens. Attainment of MCLs and proposed MCLs is also
necessary to ensure that the remedy is protective. The selected
remedy protects human health and the environment by reducing
levels of contaminants in the groundwater through extraction and
treatment as well as through the recommendation of deed
restrictions. Alternative GW-3A will provide overall protection
by reducing the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination
permanently, through treatment of the contaminated water to meet
federal and state MCLs.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements of Environmental Laws
All ARARs would be met by the selected remedy.
Chemical- Specific ARARs — The selected remedy would achieve
compliance with chemical specific ARARs related to the
groundwater at the Site. The relevant and appropriate
requirements include the MCLs promulgated pursuant to the Safe
Drinking Water Act as well as State law. The contaminants of
concern identified for the Site have MCLs. Values for MCLs,
proposed MCLs and New York State Department of Health MCLs are
listed in Tables 9 and 10.
Air emission controls will be implemented to comply with the
applicable portions of 6NYCRR Chapter 3 - Air Resources.
-------
22
3. Cost-Effectiveness
According to the dictates of 40 CFR §300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D) of the
NCP, cost effectiveness is determined by evaluating three of the
five balancing criteria noted in §300.430(f)(1)(i)(B) to
determine overall effectiveness: long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment, and short-term effectiveness. Overall effectiveness
is then compared to cost to ensure that the remedy is cost-
effective. A remedy shall be cost effective if its costs are
proportional to its overall effectiveness. The selected remedy
meets these criteria and provides for overall effectiveness in
proportion to its cost and in mitigating the principal risk posed
by contaminated groundwater. The estimated cost for the selected
remedy has a capital cost of $291,564, annual O&M of $242,286,
and 30-year present worth of $2,255,877.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy for the groundwater satisfies this criterion
by the use of a groundwater extraction system to remove contam-
inated groundwater from the aquifer.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies employing treatment that permanently and significantly
reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous
substances. The selected remedy satisfies this criterion by the
use of an air stripping system to treat contaminated groundwater
in addition to the installation and operation of groundwater
extraction wells.
XI. Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan for the Robintech Inc./National Pipe Co. Site
was released for public comment, on-February 21, 1992. The
Proposed Plan identified Alternative GW-3A, with a network of
bedrock and overburden extraction wells and treatment with
discharge at the permitted effluent discharge point, as the
preferred alternative for the groundwater contamination.
Therefore, there have been no changes from the time of the
Proposed Plan until the signing of the RQD.
-------
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2. SITE LAYOUT MAP WITH MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF 1,1,1-TCA IN OVERBURDEN
AND INTERMEDIATE WELLS
FIGURE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF 1,1,1-TCA IN BEDROCK WELLS
FIGURES. ALTERNATIVE GW-3A
-------
VESTAL WATER DISTRICT
NO. 4 WELLF1ELO
PIPE SITE L..X." 'xv^ r*\~^z^*^^*3!^
-4F s~:.' . •/" "".-NX \$ *-?*~?£*j&j~S* --
^XL--'>..a«f '~>--;;AXvVife:5nA^ :
^^^^^ i--«=fe2:^^5^^NXiHj^:jF:^^ / ^l
• r ....v\ -.-•' *", A -
-" V V-—^-s-
—^ X. -v-.---. 7^;
BASE MAP IS A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING 7.5' U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S):
ENDICOTT, N.Y., 1969
1000 2000 3000 feet
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
SITE LOCATION MAP
LOCATION OF THE ROBINTECH INC/NATIONAL PIPE COMPANY
VESTAL, N.Y.
ALLIANCE
^w4vw4m^a f
•DTODy^B L
FIGURE 1
-------
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STORM SEWER
— — DRAINAGE OUCH
FENCELINE
R RESIDENCE
B BUSINESS
« MONITORING WELL
© PKUDUCllON WELL
SCALE IN FCtT
240
120
240'
MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
NATIONAL PIPE. VESTAL. NY
FIGURE 2
-------
f HOI'Ell IV BOUNOANf
SIOHM SEWCR
OHAIMACC DITCH
KNCCLINC
KISIUCNCL
BUSINESS
MONIIORINC WEIL
PROUUCIION WU.I.
CONLLNIRAriUNS IN UG/L
* INIERMCDIAIE WtLL
SCALE IN KttT
120
I.I.1-TCA CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION
IN OVERBURDEN AND INTERMEDIATE
MONITORING WELLS - 1989
NATIONAL PIPE. VESTAL. NY
-------
0§
2 ^
Qo
2^E
££
U
\x
8,800
LEGEND
---- PHWCBIY BOUNOAAV
-- SIO«M SlVttR
— — DKAINACC OIICM
R HtSIUCNCC
a UUSINCSS
• UONI1 OWING WtlL
e PKOOUCllOM WtLl
CQNCCNIRAIIQNS IN UC/L
SCALK IN JtCT
/»;^
"o ^~-^Lr«^
/— ~~--
# M /,;/
$ LJ *''
v ^ 2<0 I2O 0
[fr
s
I.I.1-TCA CONCENI RATION
IN BEDROCK
W^LLS
^^^^^"^
24U-
DISIRIUUTION
- 1989
NAHONAL PIPE. VESTAL, NY
-------
NEW
Extraction
WELLS
\
BAG FILTER
NEW NEW
OVERBURDEN OVERBURDEN
WELLS WELLS
PW-2
VICINITY
DF PV-2
MV -ISA
NORTHEASTERN
SITE
BOUNDARY
PAVED PIPE
STAGING AREA
* MONITORING INCLUDED IN ALTERNATIVE
SURFACE
WATER
DISCHARGE
PQTV
AIR
STRIPPER
FIGURE 5
ALTERNATIVE GW- 3A
McLAREN/HART
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING CORP.
-------
TABLE 1. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA (ORGANIC
PARAMETERS)
TABLE 2. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA (INORGANIC
PARAMETERS)
TABLE 3. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA (ADDITIONAL
PARAMETERS)
TABLE 4. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE INDICES OF TOXICITY
TABLES. SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
TABLE 6. RANGE, AVERAGE, AND MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF NON-CARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLE 9. FEDERAL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS FOR
DRINKING WATER
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL AND STATE
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS FOR DRINKING
WATER
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OFGROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AND AVAILABLK NEW YORK STDs AND FKDKKAL MO J. ORGANIC PAKAMI-TI-RS
NATIONAL PIPli, VESTAL, NEW YORK
SAMPLE NUMBER
DATE
MW-3
10-24-19
MW-3A
IO-2S-89
MW-4
10-24-19
MW-4O
10-24-89
MW-4A
IO-2S-I9
MW-S
2-l-»9
MW-SDJ MW-JA
2-1-891 2-1-89
MW-6
2-2-89
MW-6A
2-1-89
MW-7
1-26-89
NYSTD
(ug/l)
TED MCL
(ug/l)
VOLATIUJ OROANICS (ui
Acetone
Benzene
Chtoroeltune
Chloroform
l.l-Dichtoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
M-Dichkvoelhane
1.2-Dichloroelhene (lotil)
Tetrachloroelhene
Toluene
1,1.1 -Trichloroeihane
Trichkroeihene
Vinyl Chloride
Total VOCa
TIC* Number
Concentration
I/I)
_
—
—
—
-
_
_
—
-
-
—
—
-
—
0
-
-
-
_
_
-
T
—
—
—
2Q
—
/
—
20
1
15
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
|
16
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2O
—
-
-
20
I
6
-
9
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
20
-
-
MO
2
86
-
8
-
-
3O
-
-
-
-
-
2O
-
-
130
2
84
2200G
10
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22 IX)
i
460
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
-
—
_
—
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0
-
_
20
23
IQ
93
52
3Q
230R
17
-
HOOT-
IOOOE
17
2540Q
1
80
NS
5
5
100
5
5
5
Z
5
5
5
5
2
NS
NS
NS
NS
5
NS
NS
NS
7
5
X
NS
NS
200
5
2
NS
NS
NS
TIQ Tentatively identified compound* (listed in Appendix J )
D Duplicate ( MW-4, MW-5, MW-I5A listed a* MW-20. MW-I, MW-16 respectively on the chain of custody)
Q Estimated icml-quantitalive value because concentration it below contract required quanlilalinn limit
J Value i* • *emi-quanlilalive estimate based on QA/QC review
R Data failed to meet QA/QC requirement*
X Standardii70ug/lforcia-l^dkhloroelhene,and I00u(/lforlraiw-l,2dichloroelhene
Z. Standard I* 5 ug/l for cli-1,2 dichloroelhene and 5 ug/l for Iran*-1,2 dkhloroelhene
- Not Detected
NS Not Specified
NA Not Analyzed
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level, BPA
STD NYSuie*Uodardfwgroundwiler(ClauGA)
B Anatyle quantified from dilution (from 5 to 25 fold); refer to Appendix
SEMIVOLATILE OROANICS fug/I)
Semivobtile Organic*
TIC* Number
Concentration
_
0
-
—
0
-
—
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
_
0
-
-
1
100
-
0
-
-
1
90
-
0
-
-
1
77
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
-------
TABLE (continued)
SUM MARY OFGROUNOWATBR ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AND AVAILABLE NI-W YORK STDi AND FRDBRALMCLs. ORGANIC PARAMETERS
NATIONAL PIPE , VI-STAL, NEW YORK
SAMPLE NUMBER
DATB
' MW-i
10-25-19
MW-9
1-27-89
MW-IO
2-3-89
MW-II
1-27-89
MW-12
1-31-89
MW-IJ
1-26-89
MW-IJA
2-3-89
MW-14
I-2S-89
MW-IS
1-25-89
MW-I5A
2-2-89
MW-I5AD
2-2-89
NYSTolFEDMCL
("8/1)1 (ug/t)
VOLATILE OROANICSfu
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroeihane
Chloroform
I.l-Dichloroelhane
U-Dlchlocoelhene
1,2-Dkhlaroelhine
M-Dkhtoroelhene (total)
Telrachloroelhene
Toluene
1,1.1 -TrichloroeihMe
Trichlaroelhene
Vinyl Chloride
Total VOC*i
TIC* Number
Concentration
*>
23
43
-
370B
110
—
400B
—
—
620E
460B
36
1913
1
100
-
-
-
—
-
•-
—
—
—
—
—
_
— .
_
2
51
-
-
-
-
i •—
-
-
—
-
-
50
—
—
5Q
0
'-
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
-
-
-
150
-
-
173
1
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
' -
-
-
-
—
1
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
54
-
54
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31
-
31
0
-
-
_
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
-
14
0
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
12
-
12
0
-
NS
5
5
100
5
5
5
Z
5
5
5
5
2
NS
NS
NS
NS
5
NS
NS
NS
7
5
X
NS
NS
200
5
2
NS
NS
NS
TIC* Tentatively idenllfiedcompoundi (listed in Appendix J )
D Duplicate ( MW-4. MW-5. MW-ISA listed u MW-20, MW-1, MW-16respectively on the chain of cuilody)
Q Estimated aeml-quanliutive value because concentration is below contract required quantilalion limit
J Value is a aemi-quantitative estimate based on OA/QC review
R Data railed to meet QA/QC requirement*
X Si«nd«rdU70ug/lforci»-l^dichloroelhene,and lOOug/lfortraiu-l^dichloroelhene
Z. Standard Is 5 ug/l for cis—1,2 dichloroelhene and 5 ug/l for Irani-1,2 dkhloroelhene
- Not Delected
NS Not Specified
NA Not Analyzed
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level. EPA
STD NY Slate standard for frouwtwaler (data OA)
B Anah/te quantified from dilution (from 5 to 25 fold); refer lo Append!!
SEMlVOLATILEORGANICSfui/1)
SeailvohlUe Orxanlc*
TIC* Number
Concentration
—
1
150
_
0
-
_
0
-
—
0
-
-
0
-
-
1
61
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
1
12
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AND AVAILABLE NEW YORK STDs AND FEDERAL MCLs. METALS AND CYANIDE
NATIONAL PIPE. VESTAL. NEW YORK
DATE 1 10-24-19
10-24-19
IO-2S-W
IO-23-S9
10-24-19
10-24-19
10-24-19
10-24-19 | 10- 25-19
10-25-19
2-1-89
2-1-19
2-1-19
2-1-89
2-1-19
2-1-19
r«r siu
("tint
ruu MCI.
(ug«)
METALS
-------
.TABLE 2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AND AVAILABLE NEW YORK STDs AND FEDERAL MCLs. METALS AND CYANIDE
NATIONAL PIPE, VESTAL. NEW YORK
SAMPLE NUMBERI MW-«
DATE 1 2-1-19
MW-6P
2-2-19
MW-6A
2-1-19
MW-6AP
2-1-19
MW-7
1-26-19
MW-7F
1-26-19
MW-t
10-25-19
MW-IP
10-25-19
MW-9
1-27-19
MW-9P
I-27-B9
MW-10
2-3-W
MW-10P
2-3-W
MW-II
1-27-19
MW-IIP
1-27-19
MW-12
1-31-89
MW-I2P
1-31-89
NYSTD
FED MCL
(UR/D
METALS (ttg/1)
Aluminum
Antimony
Anenk
Barium
Bciyllhmi
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
CoUII
Copper
Ira*
Lead
MagncalM
Maagaaeao
Mercury
Nkkcl
roUMlum
SekataB)
Silver
Sodium
•nulIlM
Vanadium
Zinc
3370
-
-
600
-
-
171000
-
-
-
1220
S.MQ
21000
540
-
-
M«00
-
-
51900
-
-
22
-
-
-
32Q
-
-
I3OOO
-
-
-
20 J
-
2960
-
-
-
14200
-
-
61*00
-
'
-
I70Q
-
-
1360
-
s.o
5)700
-
•
-
420
-
•620
W
-
-
I260Q
-
-
6)500
-
-
-
-
-
-
1270
-
.-
41)00
-
-
-
-
-
1620
60
-
-
I290Q
-
-
5MOO
-
-
-
14900
-
-
300
-
-
117000
-
-
131
31700
•
41000
5420
-
12
27MQ
-
-
76500
-
-
140
-
-
-
-
-
-
U2000
-
-
-
-
-
33100
5060
-
-
2290Q
-
-
76)00
-
-
6.OQ
S2500
4.71
R
I69Q
-
-
-
-
-
175
101000
-
29300
5O7O
-
121
3I40Q
R
-
51200
-
24Q
276
230
4.7J
-
I2IQ
-
-
132000
-
-
-
159
-
15700
1770
-
-
492Q
R
-
51200
-
3I.3Q
34
I15O
-
-
266
-
-
97700
-
-
-
2710
I.69Q
20700
IW
-
-
4020Q
-
-
67700
-
-
4.IQ
1030
-
-
266
-
-
17100
-
-
-
1630
-
22400
150
-
-
3760Q
-
-
67000
-
-
14
28100
-
-
IO.VO
-
-
175000
1.1
40Q
320
60100
23.5
27500
74M
-
-
32WQ
-
-
7590
-
-
135
-
-
-
I7IQ
-
-
106000
-
-
-
-
-
17500
530
. -
-
I3MQ
-
-
I3MO
-
-
32
no
-
-
241
-
-
161000
-
-
31
24500
29.2
17500
3200
-
-
I980Q
-
-
91400
-
-
55
-
-
-
I45Q
-
-
107000
-
-
-
110
-
11300
750
-
-
I270Q
-
-
95900
-
-
63
2150
-
-
IWQ
-
-
207000
-
-
19
7060
i.to
51200
1960
-
-
35WQ
-
-
27100
-
•-
HQ
•
-
-
93.6Q
-
-
117000
-
-
-
56
-
50900
1500
-
-
3I40Q
-
-
27600
-
-
39
NS
NS
50
1000
NS
10
NS
50
NS
1000
300
50
NS
300
2
NS
NS
10
50
NS
NS
NS
5000
NS
NS
50
1000
NS
5
NS
100
NS
NS
NS
50
NS
NS
2
NS
NS
50
50
NS
NS
NS
NS
MA|
|CY AMIDE (ugfl)
NA|
HA |
HA |
HA |
NA
200
NS
NA: Parameter not analyzed
-: Not delected
D: Duplicate (MW-4. MW-5. MW-ISA lined aa MW-20. MW-I. MW-16 rcapccllvely on the chain of cuilody)
Q: Estimated aeml-auanllutlvc *ab*e became concentration la below contract required ouanlitatlon limit
J: Value la • aeml-quaMltallve cMlmatc baaed on QA/QC review
R: Rejected
MCL: Manlmum Contaminant Level. EPA
STD: NY Sutc tundard for groundwatcr (Clan OA)
P: Sample waa tillered in the Held
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AND AVAILABLE NEW YORK STDs AND FEDERAL MCLs, METALS AND CYANIDE
NATIONAL PIPE. VESTAL. NEW YORK
SAMPLE NO.
DATE
MW-13
1-26-19
MW-I3P
1-26-19
MW-I3A
2-J-W
MW-IJAP
2-3-W
MW-14
1-25-M
MW-MP
1-25-19
MW-IS
1-25-19
MW-ISP
1-25-19
MW-ISA
2-2-19
MW-I5AP
2-2-S9
MW-I5AD
2-2-89
MW-I5ADP
2-2-19
PB-I
I-JI-I9
PB-IP
1-31-19
PB-102S
10-25-19
PB-I025P
10-25-19
SYSTD
(Kg/I)
"EDMCL
(ugfl)
METALS (ug/l)
AlMlMm
Antimony
Anenfc
Bariun
BeqrtUum
Cadmitn
Calclun
Chromium
Cobalt
Capper
Ira
U»d
Mac*e*u»a
Maagaawao
McKtwy
Nkkel
foUMlua
Selealttt
Silver
Sodlun
ThaUluc*
Veudltn
Zinc
15100
-
-
I62Q
-
-
17100
-
-
71
27600
2.SOQ
22700
1270
-
42
3760Q
-
-
17600
-
-
230
-
-
-
-
-
-
IIWOO
-
-
-
-
-
I6SOO
460
-
-
21 100
' -
-
17900
-
-
270
-
-
-
I95Q
-
-
12900
-
-
-
750
-
9)10
170
-
. -
IITOQ
-
-
19400
-
-
-
-
-
-
I95Q
-
-
51100
-
-
-
-
-
•770
I2Q
-
-
II30Q
1.60
-
19100
-
-
22
7150
-
-
. M5Q
-
-
54100
40
-
, 23Q
' 14900
. 10
•100
1540
-
230
I400Q
-
-
17400
-
-
50
-
-
-
760
-
-
SO6OB
-
-
49
301
I.47Q
7250
40
-
•2
I26Q
-
-
17600
-
-
210
1250
-
-
IWQ
-
74600
770
-
53
26000
-
I4MO
1250
-
100
IISOQ
-
-
99100
-
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
69100
14
-
-
120
-
10300
no
-
20Q
I270Q
-
-
92300
-
-
1*0
211
-
-
240
-
5.0
69700
30
-
-
601
-
II 100
190
-
-
I460Q
-
-
II 100
-
-
-
-
-
-
220
-
-
63900
-
-
-
-
-
9S40
360
-
-
I090Q
-
-
1050
-
-
-
-
-
-
ISOQ
-
50
6I7IW
-
-
-
492
5.39
9MO
400
-
-
970Q
-
-
9900
-
-
-
-
-
-
I24Q
-
-
57300
-
-
-
-
-
9610
350
.
-
9700
-
-
1510
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
-
4.71
-
72.20
-
-
-
-
-
"Q
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R
-
69IQ
-
-
-
-
4.71
-
-
-
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R
-
720Q
-
-
69
US
NS
50
1000
NS
10
NS
50
NS
1000
300
50
NS
300
2
NS
NS
10
50
NS
NS
NS
5000
NS
NS
50
1000
NS
5
NS
100
NS
NS
NS
50
NS
NS
2
NS
NS
50
SO
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA|
NA|
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
700
NS
NA: Ptrtmeler not iiulyicd
-: Not detected
D: Duplicate (MW-4. MW-5. MW-I5A lined •• MW-20. MW-I, MW-16 rtipeell.elr on the dull of cu«ody)
Q: ErflmiUd •cml-qMilllatlire value becMM coaceMntloa li below contiicl requited qunlluilaii limit
I: V.lue li • tcml-qiunliUllve crtlaite bated oo QA/QC review
R: Rejected
MCL: Maximum CoaUraliunt Level. EPA
STO: NY Stale itandaid for grauadwater (Claia OA)
P: Sample wat tillered In the field
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AND AVAILADLE NEW YORK STDs AND FEDERAL MCLs, ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS
NATIONAL PIPE , VESTAL, NEW YORK
SAMPLE NUMBER
DATE
MW-1
10-24-14
MW-3A
IO-7J-I9
MW-4
10-24-19
MW-4A
IO-2S-I9
MW-4D
IO-24-S9
MW-i
2-1-19
MW-5D
2-1-19
MW-SA
2-1-19
MW-6
2-2- §9
MW-6A
2-1-19
MW-7
1-26-19
MW-I
IO-2I-S9
NYSTD
(ug/0
FED MCL
(ug/I)
FIELD PARAMETERS
Temperature (degrees C)
PH
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
13
6.7
NM
II
7.3
NM
12
7.5
NM
12
5.6
NM
12
7.5
NM
14
6.8
1010
14
6.8
NM
14
7.9
610
II
11.4
540
II
7.6
560
10
6.8
1735
14
6.8
NM
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS (mg/1)
mg/1
mg/1
Bicarbonate •• IICO3
Chloride
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Hardneta
Nitrate, at N
Sulfate
SulClde
Total Dissolved Solidi
Total Organic Carbon
-
44
69
303
0.02
47
R
378
R
100.7
29'
40
62
0.02
2
R
270
R
-
6
45
159
0.09
25
R
182
R
2.72
8
32
73.4
0.09
19
R
162
R
R
6
56
156
0.11
25
R
204
R
432
30.4
8
497
0.03
10
1.08
483
10
362
30
3
502
0.03
8
1.31
478
5
268
34
9
203
0.05
17
1.70
353
49
30
34.7
4
214
0.07
29
2.19
170
8
221
46
2
188
0.06
17
1.72
315
4
522
103
138
694
0.24
33
1.45
725
141
-
179
94
433
0.02
30
R
658
R
NS
250
NS
NS
45
250
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
45
NS
NS
NS
NS
D Duplicate ( MW-4, MW-S. MW-I5A liated at MW-20, MW-I, MW-I6 respectively on the chiln of custody)
. Q Estimated aerol-quantitative value because concentration is below contract required quantilation limit
J Value la • semi-quantitative estimate based on QA/QC review
R Data failed to meet QA/QC requirements
- Not Detected
NM Not Measured
NS Not Specified
NA Not Analyzed
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level, EPA
STD NY State standard for groundwatcr (Class OA)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AND AVAILABLE NEW YORK STDs AND FEDERAL MCLs, ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS
NATIONAL PIPE , VESTAL, NEW YORK
SAMPLE NUMBER
DATE
MW-9
1 -27-19
MW-IO
2-3-«9
MW-II
1-27- M
MW-12
l-JI-89
MW-ll
1-26-19
MW-DA
2-J-I9
MW-14
I-2S-S9
MW-li
l-2J-»9
MW-ISA
2-2-i9
MW-I5AD
2-2-S9
FB-I
2-2-«»
NYSTD
(ug/l)
FED MCI, 1
(«g'l) 1
FIELD PARAMETERS
Temperature (degrees C)
PH
Conductivity (umhoi/cm)
7
7.1
795
II
7.2
550
6
7.1
960
10
6.7
1170
II
6.8
940
7
7.4
390
9
6.4
355
10
6.1
720
9
7.1
530
9
7.1
530
NM
NM
NM
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS (mg/1)
Bicarbonate at HCO3
Chloride
Dluolved Organic Carbon
Hardness
Nitrate, aa N
Sulfate
SullUe
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
276
130.3
65
371
0.20
9.8
2.64
515
89
mg/l mg/1
236
43.8
-------
TABLE 4 f TOXICITY VALUES FOR 11 III CONTAM1N AMI'S OF CONCCUN AT TUB UOWNI liCII INC./NATIONAL I'll'liCO. SI 111
OOHTAMNANIS
OPCONCaiH
vouvnuBS vT- -, ',: "-',>' il*--
AHIOM
Ooucn*
Buunono(2-)
CMoraboiitn*
CMoroeilum
CManlDcllulM
DfcMoradhmO.l-)
(*cUonxrt»chlonK(hjrtea*
Tohxm
TOcMaratfwM (1, 1.I-)
TivhkviMlhvtMM
Vinyl ChlotW.
,£?«*«• -
Antaccne
lfcnio(i)iniiincu»
U«u<<*)pyniM
lkni<":-„'- - ,~ - \
,.*>*^* «>-A /««.,
2.90&02
-
••
' _
IJ064R b
9.IOE42
-
-
6.00K4II
_
7JOB-OI-.:
I.IOG4)] b
-
_
1.106-02 b
I90U.OO b
'
1 ISE.OI c
1 I5I!»OI c.d
U5U«QI «
1 ISIitOI c
I.4M'.-02 b
I.ISIi.OI c
IMIALA1WN
SLOFB
FACIOR(ai)
'>•'." i.- . , ',
*,^v!,W «->-«•• »v-> ^,, ,
Z.90B4n
•-
**.' '
-
«joe«3 b
*.ioe-02
-' ::;
-
IJM!«OO
. > i.«oe4) b
IJOU4U b
-•
..
1 70lv4)2 b
X90B4I b
,. <
•-
..
-•
DQIMAL
stora
FACTOR (o)
(•M/hA~^ty ) • I
s
..
3*3C42
-
• ! -':: • r
..
1.62602
1141:4)1
•' ' ' " '
7-SOIi-OI
..
91WO3
6.17t!4>2
••
|.MK4)2
2371-100
>
.
••
1401:01
ORALHFO
root; oi
••
5 001: 02
XOOK4T2
400U4I i
I.OOK-OI b
low; 02 b
9.om-:o3
i our: 01
6IXN-4)>
iom-,02
2om;oi b
9001:02
7.00^413 r
2.001-100 n
3 001! 01
2.001:4)2
INIIAIAI1ON
RIU
••
9001:02 b
JOW:03 b
3.0M:<(M r
|OOK4)I b
••
3 UM:4>I
9.0H-4I) b
--
60W-.OI b
3lUI:OI b
««
2001:01 b.n
DURMAI.
HIU(o)
t.OOI-412
..
4om;o2
IMM-02
3201:01
IHM!-02
• UHiO)
7 201; 03
IUH:412
4.WH:4>2
•001:01
I60li0l
7201:02
36OI:-O)
Ib0l:«00
3.0UU02
2UH-.03
1-DAV
IIKAI.7II
AOVISOMV (•)
2001:01
»OOI:.OI
..
..
740K-OI
'
4.00l:«0i)
2IMII :.OU
30111:. oi
IOOI;.OI
2WH-..OU .
70UI-.OI
I.OOI:<02
^
30UIUHI
400I..OI
IJONO-TCRM
AQVlSOHY(l)
9.0MUOO
..
26MUOO
--
4001:100 '
.vomuuo
5 001;, 00
IIHHUCi
IUH:.OJ
5 Ull:02
1001. .02
-------
TABLE 4 : TOXICITY VALUES FOR TIIC CONTAMINANTS Ol'CONCERN ATT1IE UOWNTLOII INC./NA IIONAL PIPE CX). SITE (amlinuul)
OONTAMNAHIS
OP CONCERN
Ftuoraniben.
Mt*iylnaptalnkni(2-)
Nanhtfiakna
Fnemnhreo*
Pyrene
" INWOANICS ''"?rAv-s '"''*•
Aluminum "°
Annie
Barium
Deryllkwi
Cadauun
Cbronlua
Iron
Magpealu.
Mercury
Nickel
Slhur
Zinc
ORAL
axra
FACTOR
-
-
—
.-
<••: ', <• ** J'; *<"
*-»•*•""* "^^-^
UJBtOO p
-
' OtftOO
-
- 1
:
-
_
_
-••?- •
IMIALA110N
FACTOR(iD)
;;
••
-•
-.
,\ t ', <
>,•>«»,„*-<. fc-was ,- ^
.-
--
..
••
••
••
.-
..
-; .':; '•• ;- ' '; ••
DERMAL
FACTOR (o)
-
•-
--
*"*" _^'
I.94B<00
-
; 430G<0|
--
•-
:,-.•::: :.;::C;Z .=
••
..
' :---
ORALRPO
I.OtNvOI
4.OM-03 a
4OUI-03 b.e
4.00U-O) a
3001; 02
'" ':.
I.OM<-03 b
7001:02
5.0M!-03
IOW-03 (
S.OOii-03 g
... ., ^ ,
300R-04 b
2001:02 1
100H43
2.00U4I b
iraiAIAHON
urn
-•
•-
--
.
"- ' .•
.,
»
•t
IHUIMAL
H(l)(o)
(mgAg-day)
4«H:M
4001:04
4.001: 04
3.00I:O3
9.0M-O4
imim
JuUli-fH
IOOC-W
).OOU«4
„
300T:-05
2001:01
3001:04
2001242
1-DAY
ADVI!iOHY(a)
•-
J|»H:IH
--
--
500U.OO
3.00H«OI '
4.00t:-02
I40I-..00 )
„
i.om-iou
2.00I--OI
-
IDNO-TUtM
IIUAI.11I
ADVISORY (a)
<«••»>
•-
2UII:|IM
..
srxHi.oo
20M-IOI
2.001102
IOW:OI J
;;
20III:0)
6001:01
2001:01
.
NbU: UnltM MbmlM InUofcil «ll dtta « from IRIS.
Ndral UW. of on provided btcMM chemlcil b not i COC for Che pMhwijT.
•• dMlpendlnf xxonltaf lolHIS.
(•) U5. EPA. Drinklnf W«u Rtgulilkini ml lk>UhAA,llcalUll-(recl»Aurlec.l;Y 1990. Scpltmhtr.
(u) IVrliPA guidance, (hebeiui{a)|>yicne »ki|ie faclur it uut! as a uurug;ilc furmlier I'Alk vdirrc uiffu-iciil rviikwe iiffiHcintigcnktljr cii^ts. as ilr»igmlcil In IHISur lll:AS*r.
(J) U S U'A, Ikallh lUfecU Aunsaienl fur polynucltaf araaialic hyJ(ix«tKJro at pec 10/26/90 U.'AO meniu on (U-J«H l*ulivy Im I'AI b lo Maiiiu Sdf|Juiiklu.
ETA Rcgkn II. bin Pel-Fung I lurct. Chemical Miilurca ASUSMUM Uinch.
(c) Ihe RID to naphakne b used >• • (urrogale (or PAlb (hawing evkknce of noncarclnogeiik eHecu.
(I) CaJmknn - Oral HID la (or rood cantuinpllun: RIU at i.OBO4 la uud lot w«ut comumuiiun
(g) Sope Caclortnd RID «»lue««re to Chromium VI.
(h) Cop|ier-n>KfUcakulale1J
(KWBR Dlncllw C93SI.4 4)2 (lolaim Ouidanr* on BojblWilnj Soil Clean-up Level, al Siipa(und Silu^Uatn lhal Ihe toil clean-up level UiauU be al 500-IOIIIHinm.
-------
TABLE 4 : TOXICITY VALUES FOR THE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCliUN AT Till! UOniNTECII INC./NATIONAI. I'll'U CO. SITIi (oominucil)
(0 HuMiarMaa>ka(cnt-|findlont4erB)are fur Total Qiroalum
(i) hlialaiJanalarttlacttvf
(I) RfDvakiMfoiiilckclaolubltiaka.
(m) MiiUdaailofiilKlan
MuLxloo tioft hdor(a|AtAI>rH • «* ri«k (ufta mtur) I M 70kg > l/20ni.mAby • 1
(US. U'A. Rl* AiKBoxrt Ouldanct (or Supcrfunl Vol.1 lluauo Ikdlh linkalua Mmuil (I'M AXl> 7 13. |-J'A/54IVI-S9/UO}, l)cc I9J9)
(a) fUDv«kiterlnor|. 0.10
(per •gixcaxM with EPA Rc|lan II)
Ptnml 'lop' ttcmi wcte rilciilMMl uring lh« iifmlon: iJope rKtorMnarpllaa factor
DcnnilHIDlwinulculMcdiMinf Itet^uMlon: H(O • *buxvA.IM9. Ruk AucumcM Ouidmct la Suftriant Vul.l Itunun llcitth EvaluMlan M«ul (Pm A)TPA/5<(VI I9A»2 Interim l-in.il I)ec.l989 )
(p) Oral do|M boar (or ncnfc w«t ulculMcil (ium IMi KIA provided In IMS by ihc (uUcminc «fuli.«:
y)-l . unil ruk (u»rtiur) I i7Utgi l/2tilcnAby> 1/10 ImgAif.
(q) Tool l.2-dichloractfi>le« WM malyieJ. 'IMicompuundeiUuuloo Uomtn, haw
-------
TABLE 5 ROniNTECH/NATIONAL PIPE CO., INC. SITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Pathway
Time-Frame Evaluated
Receptor Present Future
Degree of
Assessment
Quant. Qua). Rationale for Selection
or Exclusion
Groundwalcr: : . > :
Ingesiion of Unfitlercd Ground Water
(From Bedrock A Overburden
Aquifers)
Inhalation of Ground Water
Contaminanta Dining Shower*
Inhalation of Ground
Water Contaminants
During Baths
Deimal Contact with Ground
Water Contaminants Duriaf
ShowenVBalha
Inhalation of Contaminants
thai Volatilize from Grouad water
and Seep in Baaement*
Dermal Contact with Omito
Production Wed Water
Inhalation of Volatilized
Contaminants from Production
Well Water
Small Child Resident No Yes
Adult Resident No Yes
Adult RcMdent No Yea
Small Child Resident No No
Adult Resident No No
Small Child Resident
Local Resident No No
Onalle Worker No No
Onaite Worker No No
X Residents currently obtain
X drinking water from public
drinking water supply;
Assumes residents obtain
drinking water from local well
in the future.
X Assumes residents obtain
water from local welb In the
future; several volatile*
present in ground water.
Volatilization not as great
as showering because less
aeration and lower temperature
Exposures assumed to be
insignificant in relation
to other ground water
pathways.
Ground water table is shallow; but
low avg VOC cone. & westerly flow
preclude significant exposure.
Data inadequate for assessment.
Data inadequate for assessment.
-------
Table 6
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE. BY CHEMICAL AND MEDIUM/AREA
Num. Num. Lowest Hlgheet
Chemical Claaa Analyte
Volatllea Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethan«
, 1-Dlchloroethene
, 1-Dlchloroethane
, 2-Dlchloroethene (total)
Chloroform
, 2-Dlchloroethane
,1, 1-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
1, 1,2-Trlchloroethane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Inorganlco Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnealum
Manganeae
Nickel
PotaaalUM
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Tinea
Detected
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
5
3
1
3
2
11
1
10
11
2
1
7
11
6
11
11
6
10
11
1
10
Samplea
Analyzed
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
Detected
Cone.
17.00
23.00
52.00
3.00
210.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
31.00
4.00
2.00
17.00
466.00
36.70
145.00
49000.00
e.eo
40.00
31.00
2780.00
1.69
6900.00
424.00
14.20
542.00
S740.00
24.00
4.10
Detected
Cone.
34.00
46.00
110.00
370.00
400.00
3.00
5.00
1100.00
1000.00
4.00
23.00
53.00
52500.00
36.70
1050.00
1710001.00
770.00
40.00
320.00
101000.00
29.20
51200.00
7460.00
121.00
14600.00
99100.00
24.00
276.00
Oeom.
95 Pet. Mln.
Mean Upp. Conf. Detect.
Cone.
6.65
7.03
4.65
6.62
5.93
2.34
2.71
10.67
8.71
2.61
3.35
3.93
4487.61
1.52
237.46
156101.77
5.74
13.60
37.13
14442.31
2.90
22462.26
1764.09
19.49
2693.25
28943.23
4.23
30.97
Limit Limit
10.00
10.00
5.00
. 5.00
5.00
5.00
S.OO
5.00
S.OO
5.00
5.00
5.00
, ,
2.12
43.20
.
3.30
20.10
14.00
. .
0.91
. .
.
6.90
. .
6.34
2.78
Max.
Detect.
Limit
10.00
10.00
5.00
S.OO
5.00
5.00
S.OO
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
,
2.30
43.20
.
e.eo
30.50
17.30
.
2.80
.
.
17.80
.
.
11.20
2.78
-------
Table 6 (continued^
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BY
CHEMICAL AND MEDIUM/AREA
' ' IK A / 1 1 ,11 KJ
Nun. Num. Lowest Highest
Chemical Class Analyte
Inorganics Aluminum
Araenlc
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Times
Detected
2
1
e
11
1
8
11
10
3
11
11
1
1
8
Samples
Analyzed
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Detected
Cone.
230.00
20.00
46.00
. 13000.00
14.00
20.51
2960.00
110.00
15.80
44.00
5370.00
1.37
31.30
6.00
Detected
Cone.
1030.00
20.00
511.00
187000.00
14.00
1630.00
50900.00
5060.00
23.00
14200.00
95900.00
1.37
31.30
180.00
Oeom. 95 Pet.
Mean Dpp. Conf.
Cone. Limit
100.99
1.41
81.74
87757.62
3.74
90.51
15073.96
502.72
10.33
1212.25
30950.86
1.17
4.33
21.75
Mln.
Detect.
Limit
138.00
2.12
43.20
.
3.30
20.50
.
5.13
8.90
,
.
1.37
6.34
2.78
Max.
Detect.
Limit
159.00
'2.30
46.00
.
8.80
68.00
.
5.13
17.80
,
.
7.80
11.20
34.00
-------
Table 6 (continued)
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE. BY CHEMICAL AND MEDIUM/AREA
Num. Num. Lowest Highest
Chemical Class
Volatlles
Semlvolatlles (UNAS)
Inorganics
Analyte
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Acetone
1, 1-Dlchloroetheno
1« 1-Dlchloroe thane
1,2-Dlchloroethene (total)
Chloroform
It 2-plchloroethane
2-Butanone
1.1, 1-Trlchloroethane
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Trlchl,oroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene (total)
bls( 2-Bthylhexyl)phthalate
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chronlum
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnealura
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potaeelun
Sodium
Zinc
Times
Detected
5
5
3
5
10
S
1
2
5
8
1
7
6
1
11
4
1
8
1
e
5
11
3
11
1
1
11
3
11
10
2
1
11
11
9
Samples
Analyzed
IS
IS
15
15
IS
15
15
15
IS
IS
15
15
14
IS
15
15
15
15
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
e
11
11
11
11
11
11
•• 11
Detected
Cone.
4.00
6.00
14.00
23.00
3.00
140.00
4.00
3.00
21.00
5.00
60.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
e.oo
3.00
97.00
170.00
e.eo
59.00
5.00
12500.00
30.00
21.00
332.00
5.39
7470.00
60.00
0.14
18.20
72S.OO
10500.00
23.00
Detected
Cone.
38.00
36.00
2200.00
150.50
865.00
535.00
4.00
4.00
510.00
6950.00
60.00
1350.00
11.00
3.00
2250.00
73.00
8.00
480.00
97.00
1290.00
27.35
1360.00
6.00
197000.00
30.00
21.00
42400.00
10.60
19300.00
1440.00
0.40
18.20
39400.00
64900.00
1390.00
' Oeora. 95 Pet.
Mean Opp. Conf.
Cone. Limit
6.75
6.86
10.76
7.46
18.40
12.36
3.15
3.19
17.11
34.80
3.77
17.33
3.94
3.09
29.45
4.35
3.55
8.75
6.40
241.95
5.01
254.17
3.05
73781.09
2.22
11.37
1540.38
2.73
13650.16
292.18
0.04
8.92
2123.73
32945.97
132.59
Mln.
Detect .
Limit
10.00
10.00
10.00
S.OO
5.00
5.00
S.OO
5.00
10.00
5.00
S.OO
5.00
5.00
S.OO
S.OO
S.OO
5.00
S.OO
10.00
130.00
2.12
.
4.60
.
2.08
20.00
.
0.91
.
14.70
0.03
8.90
.
.
2.78
Max.
Detect.
Limit
10.00
10.00
SO. 00
5.00
5.00
S.OO
25.00
25.00
50.00
5.00
25.00
5.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
10.00
130.00
6.00
.
S.OO
.
43.00
38.50
.
5.00
.
14.70
0.10
17.80
.
.
2.78
-------
Table 6 (continued)
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BY CHEMICAL AND MEDIUM/AREA
Num. Num. Lowest Highest
Chemical Class Analyte
Inorganics Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Times Samples Detected
Detected Analyzed Cone.
8.90
121.00
11000.00
630.00
7580.00
60.00
1030.00
8260.00
1 S.OO
Detected
Cone.
8.90
1270.00
78800.00
630.00
15700.00
430.00
35900.00
58400.00
5.00
Oeom. 95 Pet.
Mean Upp. Conf.
Cone. Limit
1.80
513.15
39951.52
38 . 54
10003.03
90.58
4685.01
30599.21
1.97
Mln.
Detect.
Limit
2.12
.
.
20.10
. .
14.70
.
.
2.78
Max.
Detect.
Limit
2.12
.
.
68.00
,
14.70
.
,
3.10
-------
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES (ffl) FOR THE
ROBINTECH SITE
Scenario
Ground Water (overburden)
Ingestion
Volatiles Inhalation While Showering
Ground Water (bedrock)
Ingestion
Volatiles Inhalation While Showering
Surface Soils
Ingestion - On Site
Dermal Contact - On Site
Ingestion - Skate Estate
Dermal Contact - Skate Estate
Subsurface Soils
Ingestion - On Site
Dermal Contact - On Site
Sediment
Ingestion - On Site
Dermal Contact - On Site
Ingestion - Off Site, Downstream
Dermal Contact - Off Site, Downstream
Current/ Acute
Receptor Future HI
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Trespasser
Trespasser
Youth
Youth
Worker
Worker
"
Trespasser
Trespasser
Youth
Youth
F
F
F
F
F
F
OF
C/F
OF
C/F
C/F
OF
C/F
C/F
3.5 x lO-'Ca)
8.0 x lO-'Cc)
N/A
2.7 x lO-'(a)
6.3 x lO-'(c)
N/A
1.0 x 10'1
6.1 x 10'2
1.1 x 10^
1.4 x 10'3
1.2 x 10'3
5.5 x 10-*
6.4 x 10-*
3.8 x 10"
3.4 x lO"4
2.0 x 10-*
Chronic
m
1.3 x 10'(a)*
3.0 x 10l(c)»
1.0 x lO-'U)
1.4 x lO'(a)*
3.3 x lOHc)*
5.4 x lO-'(a)
7.8 x lO'2
5.5 x lO"1
2.0 x lO"3
4.4 x 10'2
5.4 xlO"4
1.5 x 10'3
3.1 x lO'3
3.7 x 10'1
1.3 x 10'3
9.3 x 10'3
(a) - adult
(c) - child
* HI exceeds one (1).
ALLIANCE
-------
TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES
FOR THE ROBINTECH SITE
Scenario
Receptor
Current/
Future
Incremental
Risk
Ground Water (overburden)
Ingestion
Volatiles Inhalation While Showering
Ground Water (bedrock)
Ingestion
Volatiles Inhalation While Showering
Surface Soils
Ingestion - On Site
Dermal Contact - On Site
Ingestion - Skate Estate
Dermal Contact - Skate Estate
Subsurface Soils
Ingestion - On Site
Dermal Contact - On Site
Sediment
Ingestion - On Site
Dermal Contact - On Site
Ingestion - Off Site, Downgradient
Dermal Contact • Off Site, Downgradient
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Trespasser
Trespasser
Youth
Youth
Worker
Worker
Trespasser
Trespasser
Youth
Youth
F
F
F
F
F
F
OF
OF
OF
C/F
OF
OF
OF
OF
3.8 x 10'3**
1.0 x 10'3**
4.1 x 10'3**
1.4 x 10'3**
1.2 x 10'5.-
1.7 x 10'6
1.4 x 10'7
2.5 x 10"6
4.3 x lO'7
1.1 x 1C'7
3.4 x 10'7
2.8 x ID"*
2.8 x 10'7
1.7 x 10"
** Exceeds 10* risk.
ALLIANCE
-------
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
AND HEALTH ADVISORIES
by
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
202-260-7571
SAFE DRINKING WATER HOTLINE
1-800-426-4791
Monday thru Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST
November 1991
Table 9
-------
Table 9 (continued)
LEGEND
Abbreviations column descriptions are:
MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. A non-enforceable concentration of a drinking
water contaminant that is protective of adverse human health effects and allows an
adequate margin of safety.
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level. Maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water
which is delivered to any user of a public water system.
RfD - Reference Dose. An estimate of a daily exposure to the human population that is
likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects over a lifetime.
DWEL - Drinking Water Equivalent Level. A lifetime exposure concentration protective of
adverse, non-cancer health effects, that assumes all of the exposure to a contaminant
is from a drinking water source.
{*) The codes for the Status Reg and Status HA columns are as follows:
F - final
D - draft
L - listed for regulation
P - proposed (Phase II and V proposals)
T r - tentative
Other codes found in the table include the following:
NA - not applicable
PS - performance standard 0.5 NTU - 1.0 MTU
TT - treatment technique
** - No more than 5% of the samples per month may be positive. For systems collecting
fewer than 40 samples/month, no more than 1 sample per month
may be positive.
**•* - guidance
- Large discrepancies between Lifetime and Longer-term HA values may occur because
of the Agency's conservative policies, especially with regard to carcinogenicity,
relative source contribution, and less than lifetime exposures in chronic toxicrty
testing. These factors can result in a cumulative UF (uncertainty factor) of 10 to 1000
when calculating a Lifetime HA.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS AND HEALTH ADVISORIES
November 1991
Standards
Honllh Advisories
Table 9 .(continued)
Chemlcnls
ORGANICS
Acenaphlhylene
Acilluorten
Acrylamide
Acrylonilrile
Adipales (diethvlhexvft
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Aldicarb suUone
Aldicarb sulloxide
Aldrln
Ametryn
Ammonium Sullamale
Anthracene (PAH)
Atrazine
Bavaon
Bentezon
Benz(a)anthracene (PAH)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
Benzotbilluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(g.h.i)perylene (PAH)
Benzo(k)lluoranthene (PAH)
bis-2-Ch!oroisopropyl ether
Oromacil
Dromobenzene
Status MCLG MCL
Reg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
-
F zero TT
L -
P 0.5 0.5
F zero 0.002
F 0.001 O.O03
F 0.001 0.001
F ,0.001 0.002
. .
-
F 0.003 0.003
L
P zero 00001
F zero 0.005
P zero 0.0002
P zero 0.0002
P zero 0.0002
L
L
SlalUS
HA*
F
F
0
F
F
F
F
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
10 kq Child
Longor-
| Ono-day Ton-day torm
| mg/l mg/l mg/l
2 2 0.1
1.5 0.3 0.02
0.02 0.02 0001
0.1 0.1
0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
9 9 0.9
20 20 20
0.1 0.1 0.05
0.04 O.04 0.0-1
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
44 4
553
70-kq Adult
Longer- mg/l
term RfD DWEL Lifetime al 10'
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cnncor
Risk
0.06
0.4 0.013 0.4 - 0.1
0.07 0.0002 0007 - 0.001
0.004 0.0001 0.004 - 0.007
0.7 20 0.5
001 0.4 - 0.04
O.0002 0.004 0.001 -
0.002 O.004 0.00 1 -
0.0002 0.004 0.001 -
0.0003 0.00003 0.001 - 0.0002
3 0.009 0.3 000
80 0.28 B 2
0.3 - -
0.2 0.005 0.2 0.003 -
0.1 O.O04 0.1 0.003 •
09 0.0025 0.09 0.02
0.1
• * » • •
13 0.04 1 0.3
9 0.13 5 0.09
Cnncor
Group
D2
W.
B1
C
02
O
n
D
B2
[)
D
D
C
C
0
B2
A
02*
02
D
B2
D
C
* Under review.
NOTE: Anthracene and Benzo(g.h.i)perylene -- not proposed In Phase V.
-------
November 1991
Table 9 (continued)
Standards
Health Advisories
Chemicals
Bromochloroacelonitrile
Bromochloromelhane
Bromodichloromethane (THM)
Bromoform (THM)
Bromomelhane
Butyl benzyl phthalale (PAE)
Butylate
Butylbenzene n-
Butylbenzene sec-
Butvlbenzene tert-
Carbaryl
Carboluran
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Carboxln
Chloral Hydrate
Chloramben
Chlordane :
Chlorodlbromomethane (THM)
Chloroethane
Chloroform fTHM)
Cliloromelhane
Chlorophenol (2-)
p-Chlorophenyl methyl
sulllde/sulfone/sulfoxlde
Chloroplcrin
Chlorothalonil
Chlorotoluene o-
Chlorotoluene p-
Chlorpyrlfos
Chrysene (PAH)
Cvanazlne
Status MCLG MCL
Reg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
L
• • •
L - 0.1
L - 0.1
L -
P zero 0.1
• • •
» • •
• * •
• • •
F 0.04 0.04
F zero 0.005
L
• • »
F zero 0.002
L - 0.1
L - -
L - 0.1
L
L
L -
L
• • •
P zero 0.0002
L
Status
HA*
D
F
D
D
F
F
D
D
D
F
F
F
F
D
F
F
D
D
D
r
D
D
F
F
F
0
F
10-kg Child
Longor-
| One-day Ton-day term
| mg/l mg/l mg/l
50 t 1
774
522
0.1 0.1 O.t
2 2 1
1 1 t
0.05 005 0.05
4 0.2 0.07
1 1 1
7 1.4 0.16
3 3 0.2
0.06 0.06
77 2
44 0.1
9 0.4 04
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.2 0.2 0.2
2 22
222
0.03 0.03 0.03
0.1 0.1 0.02
70-kq Adult
Longer- mg/l
term RfD DWEL Llfotlme at KT*
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cancer
Risk
• » * • .
5 0.013 0.5 0.09
13 0.02 0.6 - 0.03
6 0.02 0.6 - 0.4
0.5 0.001 0.05 0.01
0.2 6 - -
4 0.05 2 0.35
• • . . . .
t . ...
* . ...
1 0.1 4 0.7
0.2 0005 0.2 0.04
0.3 0.0007 0.03 - 0.03
4 0.1 4 0.7
0.56 0.0016 0.056 0.045 -
0.5 0.015 0.5 0.1
0.00006 0.002 • 0.003
8 0.02 0.7 0.02
_ • * • •
6.S 0.01 0.5 - 0.6
1 0.004 O.I 0.003 -
O.S 0.005 0.2 0.04
• * * • •
• • * » •
0.5 0.015 0.5 • 0.15
7 0.02 0.7 0.1
7 0.02 0.7 0.1
0.1" 0.003 0.1 0.02 ' -
A . - * ' *
0.07 0.002* 0.07* 0.001 -
Cane
Groii
B2
(32
D
C
D
*
D
E
B2
D
D
B2
C
82
C
D
B2
D
D
D
B2
C
* Under review.
NOTE: Chrysene was proposed In second option.
-------
November 1991
Table 9 (continued)
Standards
Health Advisories
Chemicals
Cyanogen Chloride
Cymene p-
2.4-0
DCPA (Dacthal)
Dalaoon
Di|2-ethylhexyl)adipate
Diazlnon
Dibenr(a.h) anthracene (PAH)
Dihromoacetonitrile
Dibromochloropropane (DDCP)
Dibromomethane
Dibutyl phthalate (PAE)
Dicamba
Dichloroncetaldehyde
Oichloroacetlc acid '
Dlchloroacetonitrile
Dichlorobenzene p- :
Olchlorobenzene o-,n>
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloroethane (1.1-1
Dichloroethane (1.2-)
Dichloroethylene (1,1-)
Olchloroelhylene (cls-1.2-)
Dichloroethylene (trans- 1. 2-)
Dichloromethane
Dichlorophenol (2,4-)
Oichloropropane (1,1-)
Dichloropropane (1,2-)
Dlchloropropane (1 ,3-)
Dichloropropane (2.2-)
Status MCLG MCL
Reg.» (mg/l) (mg/l)
L
F 0.07 0 07
L -
P 0.2 0.2
P 0.4 0.4
P zero 0.0003
L -
F zero 0.0002
L
.
L
L
L
L
F 0.075 0.075
L 0.6 0.6
L
L - -
F zero 0.005
F 0.007 0.007
F 0.07 0.07
F 0.1 0.1
P zero 0.005
F zero 0.005
L
L
Status
HA*
0
F
F
F
F
0
F
F
D
D
D
F
F
F
0
F
F
F
F
F
0
D
F
D
D
10-kq Child
Longor-
| One-dny Ten-day term
| mg/l mg/l mg/l
1 0.3 0.1
00 80 5
3 3 0.3
20 20 20
0.02 0.02 0005
22 2
0.2 0.05
0.3 03 03
1 1 0.0
10 10 10
99 9
40 40 9
0.7 0.7 07
2 1 1
433
20 2 2
10 2
0.03 0.03 0.03
0.09
70-kq Adult
Longer- mg/l
term RfD DWEL LUellmo al 10*
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cancer
Risk
0.4 0.01 0.4 0.07
20 0.5 20 4
0.9 0.026 0.9 0.2
GO 0.6 20 0.4 3
0.02 0.00009 0.003 0.0006 -
0 0.02 0.8 0.02
0.003
014 - -
1 0.03 1 0.2 -
3 0.000 0.3 0.006 -
40 0.1 4 0.075 -
30 0.9 3 0.6
30 0.2 5 1
_ * • _ • •
2.6 - - 0.04
4 0.009 0.4 0.007 •
11 0.01 0.4 0.07
6 0.02 0.6 0.1
0.06 2 - 0.5
0.1 0.003 0.1 0.02
0.05
Cnncor
Group
D
0
D
C
E
02
C
B2
0
D
D
C
C
D
0
B2
C
t)
n
B2
I)
02
-------
November 1991
Table 9 (continued)
Standards
Health Advisories
Chemicals
Dicliloropropene (1,1-)
Dichloropropene (1,3-)
Dleldrln
Dfelhyl phlhalale (PAE)
Dlethylene glycol
dinltrale (DENGON)
Diethylhexyl phlhalale (PAE)
Diisopropyl melhylphosphonate
Dimelhrin
Dimethyl melhylphosphonale
Dimethyl ohlhlote (PAE)
1,3-Dinilrobenzenc
Dlnilrotoluene (2,4-)
Dinitrotoluene (2,6)
Dlnoscb
Dioxane D-
Diphenamld
Dlquat
Disulloton
1,4-Dilhlane
Oiuron
Endolhall
Endrln
Eplchlorohydrln
Elhylbenzene
Elhylene dibromlde (EDO)
Elhylene glycol
ETU
Fenamiphos
Fluometuron
Fluorene (PAH)
Status MCLG MCL
Reg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
L
L
-
P zero 0.004
• • . •
» •
•
L -
L
P 0.007 0.007
P 0.02 0.02
• • «
* • 4
P 0.1 0.1
P 0.002 0.002
F zero TT
F 0.7 0.7
F zero 0.00005
» * •
L
• * *
* . '
• • *
Status
MA*
\)
F
r
D
D
0
F
F
0
F
D
n
F
F
F
F
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
10 ka Child
Lotigcr-
| One-day Ten-dny term
| mg/l mg/l mg/l
003 003 003
0.0005 0.0005 00005
a n n
to 10 10
0.04 001 004
0.3 0.3 0.01
4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
• * *
0.01 0.01 0.003
• * -
.1 1 0.3
0.0 0.0 02
0.02 0.02 0.003
0. 1 0. 1 0.07
30 3 1
0.008 0.008
20 6 6
0.3 03 0,1
0009 0009 0.005
222
70-kq Adull
Longer- mg/l
term RfD DWEL Lifetime at 1
-------
November 1991
Sl.ind.ird3
Mcnllli Advisories
Table 9(continued)
'
Chemlcnla
Fluorolrichloromethane
Fog Oil
Fonolos
Formaldehyde
Gasoline, unleaded (benzene)
Glyphosate
Heptachlor
Heplathlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobuladiene
Hexachlorocyclopenladiene
Hexachloroelhane
Hexane (n-)
Hexazinone
HMX
Hypochlorile
Hypochloroug acid
lndeno(1,2,3.-o.d)pyrene (PAH)
Isophorone
Isopropyl methylphosphonale
Isopropylbenzene
Llndane
Malalhion
Maleic hydrazlde
MCPA
Mel homy 1
Melhoxychlor
Methyl ethyl kelone
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert butyl ether
Status MCLG MCL
Keg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
L
P .0.7 0.7
F zero 0.0004
F zero 0.0002
P zero 0.001
L
P 0.05 0.05
L .' -
.
L
P zero 0.0004
L
.
F 2E-4 0.0002
.
L
F 0.04 0.04
L -
L
Status
HA*
F
O
F
0
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
0
D
D
F
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
10 kn Child
Longer-
| One-day Ten-day lorm
| mg/l mg/l mg/l
773
002 0.02 0.02
10 5 5
20 20 t
001 0.01 0005
0.01 - 0.0001
005 0.05 005
0.3 0.3 0.1
5 5 0.1
1O 4 4
33 3
55 5
15 15 15
1 1 003
0.2 O.2 02
10 10 5
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.3 0.3 03
6 205
80 B 3
03 O.3 0.03
3 3 0.5
70 kq Adult
Longer- mg/l
lorm RIO DWEL Lifetime at 10^
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cancer
Risk
10 0.3 10 2
0.07 0.002 007 0.01
20 0.15 5 1 -
0.005 -
1 0.1 4 0.7 -
0.005 0.0005 0.02 • 0.0008
0.0001 1.3E05 00004 • 0.0004
0.2 0.0000 003 - 0.002
0.4 0.002 0.07 0.001 -
0.007 0.2
0.5 0.001 0.04 0.001 -
10 - - - -
9 0.033 1 0.2
20 0.05 2 0.4
- . ...
15 0.2 7 0.1
0.1
0.1 0.0003 001 0.0002 -
08 0.02 0.8 0.2
20 0.5 20 4
0.4 0.0015 0.05 0.01
03 0.025 0.9 0.2
0.2 0.005 0.2 004
9 0.00005 0.9 0.2
0.1 0.00025 0.009 0.002 •
2 0.005 0.2 0.04
Cnnc
Grou
D
()
B1
0
B2
H2
0.?
C
O
C
n
D
D
02
C
11
C
n
1)
F.
n
n
o
D
D
-------
November 1991
Table 9 (concinued)
Standards
Health Advisories
Chemicals
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Monochloroncetlc acid
Monochlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Nitrocellulose (non-toxic)
Nitroguanldine
Nllrophenols p-
Oxamyl (Vydate)
Ozone by-products
Paraquat
Pentachloroethane
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Phenol
Picloram
Polychlorlnated byphenyls (PCBs)
Prometon
Pronamide
Propachlor
Propazine
Propham
Propylbenzene n-
Pyrene (PAH)
RDX
Simazlne
Styrene
2.4.5-T
2.3.7.e-TCDD (Dloxln)
Tebuthluron
Status MCLG MCL
Reg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
L
L
L
F 0.1 0.1
• * •
• • ••
P 0.2 0.2
L
•
• • * *
F zero 0.001
* • t
P 0.5 0.5
F zero 0.0005
L - *
• . 1
4
» - «
• • *
* * *
• • *
P 0.001 0.00 1
F O.t d.1
L - *
P zero 5E-08
Status
HA*
r
F
D
F
F
F
F
D
F
F
D
F
0 .
F
P
F
F
F
F
F
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
10 kn Child
Longer-
| One-day Ten-day term
| mg/l mg/l mg/l
222
5 5 0.3
222
0.5 0.5 0.4
10 10 10
o.e o.o on
0.2 0.2 02
0.1 0.1 0.05
1 0.3 0.3
6 0 6
20 20 0.7
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.1
1 1 0.5
555
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.07 0.07 007
20 2 2
08 0.8 08
1E-06 1E-07 1E-08
3 3 0.7
70-kq Adult
Longer- mg/l
term RlD DWEL Lifetime at NT*
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cancer
Hlsk
5 0.15 5 0.1
0.9 0.025 0.9 0.2
7 0.02 0.7 0.1
1 0.004 0.1 0.02
40 0.1 4 0.7
3 0.008 0.3 0.06
0.9 0.025 0.9 0.2
0.2 0.0045 0.2 0.03
* • m • *
1 0.03 1 - 0.03
• • • • •
20 0.8 20 4
2 0.07 2 0.5
0.0005
0.5 0.015 0.5 0.1
3 0.075 3 0.05
0.5 0.013 0.5 0.09
2 0.02 0.7 0.01
20 0.02 0.6 0.1
• * • • •
0.03 - •
0.4 0.003 0.1 0.002 0.03
0.07 0.005 0.2 0.004 -
,7 0.2 7 0.1
,1 0.01 035 0.07
4E-08 1E-06 4E-08 • 2E-08
2 0.07 2 0.5 ' -
Cane
Groii
C
D
D
D
D
0
E
E
B2
D
D
B2
D
C
D
C
D
D
L_P
C
C
D
B2
D
Under review.
NOTE: Phenanthrene -- not proposed.
-------
November 1991
Table 9 (continued)
Standards
Health Advisories
Chemicals
Terbacil
Terbulos
Tetrnchloroethnne (1,1,1.2-)
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-)
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetranitromethane
Toluene
Toxaphene
2.4.5-TP
1.1.2-Trlchloro- 1.2.2-
Irilluoroethane
Ttichloroacetic acid
Trichloroactonilrile
Trichlorobenzene (1,2.4-)
Trichlorobenzene (1 ,3.5-)
Trichloroelhane ( 1 . 1 . 1 -I
Trlchloroethane (1.1.2-)
Trichloroethanol (2,2.2-)
Trlchloroelhylene
Trlchlorophenol (2,4,6-)
Trichloropropane (1.1.1-)
Trichloropropane (1,2,3-)
Trilluralin
Trlmelhylbenzene (1,2,4-)
Trlmelhylbenzene (1,3,5-)
Trinitroalvcerol
Trinitrotoluene
Vinyl chloride
White phosphorus
Xvlenes
Stntus MCLG MCL
Beg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
L
L
F zero 0.005
F 1 1
F zero 0.003
F 0.05 0.05
L
L -
P 0.009 0.009
F 0.2 0.2
P 0.003 0.005
L
F zero 0.005
L
L
L
F zero 0.002
F 10 10
Status
HA*
F
F
F
0
F
0
F
F
F
0
D
F
F
F
F
F
O
D
F
F
D
D
F
F
F
F
F
10-kci Child
Longor-
| Ono-dny Ten-dny term
mg/l mg/l mg/l
0.3 03 0.3
0.005 0.005 0001
2 2 09
2 2 1
20 2 2
0.5 004
0.2 02 0.07
0.05 005
0. 1 O.I 0. 1
0.6 O.6 0.6
100 40 40
0.6 O.4 0.4
0.6 06 0.6
0.08 0.08 0.00
0.005 0.005 0.005
0.02 0.02 0 02
3 3 0.01
40 40 40
70-kq Adult
Longor- mg/l
torm RIO DWEL Lifetime at 10^
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cancer
Risk
0.0 0.013 0.4 0.09
0.005 0.00013 0.005 0.0009 -
3 0.03 1 0.07 0.1
5 0.01 0.5 - 0.07
7 0.2 7 1 -
0.1 0.0035 - 0.003
0.3 0.0075 0.3 0.05
0.5 0.001 0.05 0.009 •
2 0.006 0.2 0.04
100 0.035 1 0.2 -
1 0.004 0.1 0.003 -
03 - 0.3
03
2 0.006 0.2 004
0.3 0.0075 0.3 0.005 -
.
0.005 - - 0.005 -
0.02 00005 0.02 0.002 0.1
0.05 - - - 0.0015
0.00002 0.0005 0.0001 -
100 2 60 10 ' -
Cnncor
Group
E
0
C
02
D
n?
D
0
n
D
c
B2
02
C
0
A
D
L_Q
Under review.
-------
November 1991
Table 9 (continued)
Standards
Health Advisories
Chemicals
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Ammonia
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos (fibers/I > 10um)
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chloramlne
Chlorate
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorite' :
Chromium (total)
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride*
Lead (al tap)
Manqanese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Status MCLQ MCL
Reg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
L
P 0.0030.01/0.005
* - 0.05
F 7 MFL 7 MFL
F 2 2
P zero 0.001
L , •
F 0.005 0.005
L . -
L
L
L
L
F 0.1 0.1
P 1.3TT**
P 0.2 0.2
F 4 4
F zero TT"
F 0.002 0.002
L
P 0.1 0.1
F 10 10
F 1 1
Status
HA*
D
D
D
D
F
D
D
F
D
D
D
D
D
F
F
D
F
D
F
F
F
10-kq Child
Longor-
| One-day. Ten-day term
j mg/l mg/l mg/l
'
0.015 0.015 0.015
30 30 4
4 0.9 0.9
0.04 0.04 O.005
1 1 1
• • •
1 1 0.2
.
0.2 0.2 0.2
• « • -
0.08 0.08 001
1 1 0.1
10*
1*
70-ka Adult
Longer- mg/l
term RfD OWEL Lifetime at 10^
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cancer
Risk
'
. .
30
0.015 0.0004 0.015 0.003 -
0.003
700 MFL
0.07 22-
20 0.005 0.2 • 0.0008
3 0.09 3 0.6 -
0.02 0.0005 0.02 0.005 -
1 0.1 3.3 2.6
08 0.005 0.2 0.1
0.8 0.022 0.8 0.2
0.12
0.14
0.002 0.0003 0.01 0.002 -
0.05 0.001 0.05 0.05
0.6 0.02 0.6 0.1
1.6 • -
0.16*
Cane
Grou
D
D
A
A
D
B2
D
D
D
D
D
B2
0
D
D
• Under review.
•* Copper - action level 1.3 mg/L
Lead - action level 0.015 mg/L
-------
November 1991
Table 9 (continued)
Standards
Hoallli Advisories
Chemicals
Nitrate •(- Nitrite (both as N)
Solenium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sullate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zinc chloride
Status MCLG MCL
Reg.* (mg/l) (mg/l)
P 10 10
F 0.05 0.05
• * *
"
L
P 400/500400/500
P 0.0005 0.002/
O.001
L
L .' -
Slntiis
HA*
F
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
10-kd Child
Longer-
| Ono-dny Ten-day term
| mg/l mg/l mg/l
0.2 0.2 • 0.2
25 25 25
0.007 0.007 0007
0.00 O.OD 0.03
44 2
70 kn Adult
Longor- mg/l
term RfD DWEL Llfellma al 10*
mg/l mg/kg/day mg/l mg/l Cancer
Risk
0.005
0.2 0005 0.2 0.1
20"*
90 2.5 90 17
0.02 0.00007 0.002 0.0004 -
Oil 0.003 0.11 0.02
9 0.2 9 2 -
Cnncer
Group
•*
D
0
D
D
nADIONUCLIDES
Beta particle and photon
activity (formerly
man-made radlonuclldes)
Gross alpha particle activity
Radium 226/228
Radon
Uranium
F
F
P
P
P
zero 4 mrem
zero 15 pCi/L
zero 20 pCi/L
zero 300 pCi/L
zero 20/iq/l
-| - -
. |
. |
- 1
. |
4 mrem/y
.
- 22/26 pCI/l
150 pCi/l
- 170pCi/l
A
A
A
A
A
* Under review.
*** Guidance.
-------
SECONDARY MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
November 1991
Table O(continued)
Chemicals
Aluminum
Chloride
Color
Copper
Corrosivitv
Fluoride*
Foaming Agents
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Iron
Manqanese
Odor
PH
Silver
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Zinc
Status
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
P
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
SMCLs
(mq/l)
0.05 to 0.2
250
15 color units
1
non-corrosive
2
0.5
0.008
0.3
0.05
3 threshold odor numbers
6.5 - 8.5
0.10
250
500
5
Status Codes: P - proposed, F - final
* Under review.
-------
COMPARISON OF FEDERAL TO WW YORK fTATB MCLS
(as of January 1991)
OR6AXXC
all unite art aicrograas par litar (ppb)
Cberiea} _
A cry 1 aside Q treatment
Benzene * 5 6
Brer.sber.zene • 5
Brorochlorcntthene • 5
Brer.srethane •• 8
n-Butylbenzene -' 5
«ec-B-jtylbenzane • - 5
tert-Butylber.zene • 5
Certsn Tetrachlorida 5 •• 5
Chloreber.zane - S
Chi or oe thane - 5
Chlercr-ethane - 5
2-Chlertcluene • 5
4-Chlcrtcluene - 5
Cifcrtrcr.ethane • 5
o»r:chlcrober.zene (1,2)0 €00 5
r-richlcrcber.zene (1,3) - 5
p-Siehlerebanzene (1,4) 76 S
DieMereiiflueresethane - 5
1,2-T eMeroethane 5 5
1,1-r chlereethant • 5
1,1-r chlereethyl«n« 7 . 5
cis-i 2-r>ichloreethylene3 70 5
trar.s-i,2-DichlDroethylaneO 100 . 5
l;2~r chlcr&propana 5 5
1,3-r shl&ropropane - 5
2,2-5 ehier»?ropan» • • S
1,1-r chloroprepene • 5
cis-l,3-Diehlereprepene - 5
trar.s-l,3-Dichlorepropene - 5
Zpiehlcrchydrin Q treatment
Cthylbanzena Q 700 5
Cthyltne dibreride Q 0.05
Hex'&chloreb-Jt&diane • 5
Iscprepylbenzene • 5
p-Jstpropyltoluene • 5
Kethyltne chloride - 5
Table 10
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
TEDHCL
VYMCL4
Mor.ooh lore-benzene •
PCB'S 0
r-Frcpylbenrene
Styrene Q
1,1,1,2-Tetrashleroethane
l,l,2,2-7etr«ehloroethane
Tetrechlcroethylene Q
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenrene
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Triehloroethane
Trichloroethyltne
TrichlDrofluorosethtne
1 ,2 , 3-Irichioropropane
1 ,2,<-Trirethylbenrene
1 , 3 , £-?rirethylbenz«ne
Vir.yl Chloride
XyUr.es (total) C
Tribal crethanes
(tctal)
Vr.spesifiei ercar.ic
crr.-.arir.ar.t (UOC)
Tttai ?rir.r:pal organic
100
100
200
2
10000
100
K/A
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
100
50
100
y rsris: PIS /FIRST
AI » shier 6
Atrerine 6
2,4,5-TP •• Q
Carbcfurar* Q
Chlerdant 0
Ditrcrochloropropane Q
Er.drin
Kept a shier Q
Kept&chlor epoxide I
lindane 0
Kethexyehler Q
Texaphene Q
2
9
70
50
40
2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
40
9
50
10
0.2
4
50
5
Table 10 (continued)
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
* 2,4-D: 2,4-Diehlorophenoxypropionic acid
** 2,4,5-TP: 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (Silvax)
K/A • not applicable
4 Principal organic centaninant (POC) Beans any organic
clerical compound belonging to tht following classes,
for Total Tribalesetha&es, Viayl Chloride and regulated
Fcsticiees/Kerbicides:
1) Halogenated alfcane
2) Halogenated ether
3) Halobenzenes and substituted halebenzenes
4) Benzene and alXyl- er nitrogen-substituted benzenes
5) Substituted, unsaturated hydrocarbons
e) Kalosenated nonaror.atic cyclic hydrocarbons
Farther'definition of the POCs is contained in Chapture Z of
the Kev Ycrk Sanitary Code Part 5, Subpart S-l.l(ab). A
table listing tht POCs is found in Table 9A ef the saae •*
d s current.
4-4 Vr.specified organic contaminant (UOC) aeans any organic
cherical ccrpsund not other-vise specified in Chapture I ef .
the Kev YcrX Sanitary Code Part 5, Subpart 5-1.
Q Phese II Kris promulgated 1/90/91 in 56 FK 3526 and vill
t&Xe effect for pvss in 7/92. These.KCLs sust be adopted or
raze core stringent by the States by 7/92.
Table 10 (continued)
-------
OTItR
The standards for Radiological, Coliforr Bacteria and Turbidity
have been adopted frea the ftdaral MCLs by tha states (including
VI t PR).
IKSRSXJfJC
ell units are rilligraits per liter (pps), except as noted
O.eris&l
Arsenic
Asbestos1 0
Eariu-
Ceir.iur G
Chrcriur G
Fluoride (ppr.)
Leas
Kercury
Nitrate (as V) 9
Nitrite (as V) Q
Nitrate*Nitrite(as K)0
Seleniu: 0
Silver
TZDXCL
0.05
7
1.0
0.005
0.1
4
0.05
0.002
10
1.0
10
0.05
0.05
VYXCL
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
2.2
0.05
0.002
10
•
•
0.01
0.05
Phase II Y.CLt prorogated 1/30/91 in 56 T* 3526 and will
taXe effect for FW5S in 7/92. These MCLs Bust be adopted er
r&de sore stringent by the States by 7/»2.
PCX)R QUALITY
ORIGINAL
J The KCL for asbestos apply to fiber* longer than 10
sicro=eters, and are in units ef Billion fibers per liter.
Table 10 (continued)
------- |