United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/186
September 1992
c/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Imperial Oil/Champion
Chemicals, NJ
-------
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/R02-92/186
3. Recipient1* Accession No.
4. THIe and SubtHI*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
5. Report Date
09/30/92
7. Author<»)
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Addree*
10. Pro|eel/Ta*k/WorkUnltNo.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(O)
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
15. Supplementary Note*
PB93-963823
16. Abatract (UmH: 200 word*)
The 15-acre Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals site is an oil blending facility in
Marlboro Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey. The site is located within the Matawan
watershed of the Atlantic Coastal Drainage Basin. Birch Swamp Brook, an intermittent
stream, collects discharge from a fire pond located east of the berm. The site
consists of a 4.2-acre oil blending facility, which includes seven production, storage,
and maintenance buildings, and several oil storage tanks. Land use in the area is
predominantly residential, and a wetland area is located to the north of the site. The
estimated 27,000 people who reside within 1 mile of the site use the Englishtown
Aquifer, which underlies the site, as their drinking water supply. From 1912 to 1950,
the facility and associated land have been used for a variety of business operations
under various owners. In 1950, Champion Chemicals Company acquired the property.
Since 1969, the Imperial Oil Company has leased the facility to support used oil
reclamation and oil blending repackaging operations. Waste products from the
reclamation process included wash water, waste oils and sludge, and spent filter clay.
(See Attached Page)
NJ
17. Document Analy*!* a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals,
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics
PCBs), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Uentffiera/Open-Ended Terme
(PAHS,
e. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Claa* (Thi* Report)
None
20. Security Cliu (Thi* Page)
None
21. NaofPsge*
86
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z3S.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS45)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-92/186
Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Abstract (Continued)
In 1981, the state identified onsite contamination by oil and PCBs; metals in the onsite
tank farm area and in soil, waste samples, and sediment; and PCBs in the adjacent Swamp
Brook, which had resulted from various onsite spills during operations. State
inspections of offsite areas identified oily stained soil. In 1982, a site investigation
was performed that confirmed the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, arsenic, and
VOCs in the ground water and soil, in addition to a floating product layer underneath the
former waste pile and catchment area. A subsequent state investigation in 1983 confirmed
the continued presence of oily stained soil in the areas that had historically exhibited
visible contamination. Results of an EPA Innovative Technology Evaluation indicated that
the solidification technology was effective in remediating elevated concentrations of
metals in soil, but was ineffective in remediating PCBs and other organics. A 1990 ROD
addressed the principal threats posed by offsite areas, including contaminated soil
within the wetlands. Subsequently, in 1991, EPA installed extraction wells to remove a
petroleum-like product layer from the ground to prevent a major source of ground water
contamination and reduce time needed to restore the aquifer to a usable condition. This
ROD addresses final remediation of contaminated ground water as OU2. Future RODs will
address soil, surface water, sediment, air, and any other outstanding contamination
sources. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs and
PCBs; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes extracting and treating contaminated
ground water onsite using precipitation to remove inorganic contaminants, and carbon
adsorption to remove organic contaminants; discharging the treated ground water onsite to
Birch Swamp; continuing the previous removal action; conducting a wetlands assessment to
determine site impact; regenerating or disposing of the spent carbon; disposing of any
sludge generated during the treatment process offsite; and conducting environmental
monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy. The estimated present worth cost
for this remedial action is $9,647,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $515,000 for
30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals, based on federal MCLs and state levels,
include benzene 1 ug/1; xylenes 40 ug/1; toluene 1,000 ug/1; pyrene 200 ug/1; PCBs
5 ug/1; arsenic 8 ug/1; beryllium 20 ug/1; and lead 10 ug/1.
-------
COPY BUT DO NOT DELETE OR ALTER
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: Imperial Oil/Champion Chemical Superfund Site
Location/State: Marlboro Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey
EPA Region: Region II
HRS Score (date): 42.69 (August 1982)
NPL Rank (date): 585 (September 1, 1983)
ROD
Date Signed: September 30, 1992
Remedy/ies: Extraction and treatment of contaminated ground
water via precipitation and carbon adsorption
Capital Cost: $1,526,000
0 & M/year: $515,000
Present worth: $9,647,000
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement: Remedial
EPA/State/PRP: State
Primary contact (phone): Trevor Anderson (212) 264-9212
Secondary contact (phone): Joe Maher (609) 633-0765
Main PRP(s): Imperial Oil Company, Inc. & Champion Chemical
Company
PRP Contact (phone)
WASTE
Type (metals, PCB, &c): Metal, PCB, Organics
Medium (soil, g.w., &c): Ground water
Origin: Resulted from past site operations.
Est. quantity cu.yd.: Unknown
gal.
# drums
etc.
-------
From: Peter . .oss (PMOSS)
To: TANDERSO
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1993 3:55 pm
Subject: Imperial ROD
Thanks very much for sending me the ROD Fact Sheet.
Upon reviewing the ROD, I find Table 9 is missing.
Everything else is complete.
Please provide a copy of table 9, so I can submit the
ROD to the Clearinghouse. Thanks very much.
Peter D. Moss
From: Trevor Anderson (TANDERSO)
To: PMOSS
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1993 5:26 pm
Subject: Imperial ROD -Reply
there is no table 9 in the rod. the table numbers are as follows:
table 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10. if you read the rod carefully, there
wouldn't be any mention of a table 9.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY /CHAMP I ON CHEMICALS COMPANY
Site N*"« «"d Loeatiop
Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemicals Company
Marlboro Township; Monmouth County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis acd Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the remediation of contaminated ground water at the Imperial Oil
Company /Champ ion Chemicals Company site. The remedy was chosen
in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 as
amended by the Super fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
This decision is based on the administrative record file compiled
for the site. An index of the contents of the administrative
record file is attached.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OP THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedial action described in this document represents the
second operable unit for the Imperial Oil Company /Champ ion
Chemicals Company Superfund site. The initial remedy for the
site included the remediation of off -site soils. The remedy
contained in this Record of Decision includes the remediation of
the contaminated ground water in the underlying aquifer.
Additional actions are planned to address fully the remaining
threats posed by the site.
-------
-2-
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
- Extraction of contaminated ground water above cleanup
standards;
- Treatment of the extracted ground water via precipitation
for inorganics and carbon adsorption for organics;
- Discharge of the treated ground water to Birch Swamp
Brook;
- Continuation of the floating product removal action
currently being undertaken by the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
- Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
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 and satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element.
ionstantine Sidamon-Er
Regional Administrate:
-------
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY/CHAMPION CHEMICALS SITE
MARLBORO TOWNSHIP, MONMOUTH COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
Operable Unit II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections Paqoe
Site Location and Description 1
Site History and Enforcement Activities 2
Highlights of Community Participation 9
Scope and Role of Remedial Action 10
Summary of Site Characteristics 11
Summary of Site Risks 12
Description of Alternatives 16
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 20
Selected Remedy 26
Statutory Determinations 29
Documentation of Significant Changes 32
Appendices
Appendix A. NJDEPE Letter of Concurrence
Appendix B. Administrative Record Index
Appendix C. Responsiveness Summary
Appendix D. Ground Water Risk Based Cleanup Levels for the
Imperial Oil Site.
-------
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY/CHAMPION CHEMICALS COMPANY
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemicals Company (IOC/CCC)
site includes a 15-acre facility located in the Morganville
section of Marlboro Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey (Figure
1). Champion Chemicals Company is the owner of the real property
located on Lot 29, Block 122 (previously Lot 30, Block 10),
Orchard Place in Morganville. The premises are leased to the
Imperial Oil Company, Inc., which currently operates an oil
blending facility that occupies approximately 4.2 acres.
The site consists of seven production, storage and maintenance
buildings and numerous above-ground oil storage tanks. Sandy
soil extends over those areas not covered by buildings, asphalt
or pavement. The process area is enclosed within a six-foot
chain-link fence and is protected by security. The western
property line abuts the abandoned Central Railroad of New
Jersey's Freehold and Atlantic Highlands Branch Main Line
(Figure 2).
The site is situated in a predominantly residential area of
Monmouth County. The population of Marlboro Township is
approximately 27,000 residents. There are approximately 30
residential properties sparsely located along the surrounding
roads within a one-mile radius of the site. The nearest
residence is within 100 feet of the employee parking lot. A
small commercial center (Morganville) is located approximately
1/2 mile southeast of the site at the junction of Routes 3 and
79. Two automobile scrap yards are located just to the northeast
of the site. Lake Lefferts, a swimming and recreational area, is
located approximately one mile north of the site. Lake Lefferts
has been identified as a potential potable water source for the
area.
The site is located within the Matawan watershed of the Atlantic
Coastal Drainage Basin. The topography of the site ranges from
120 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the southwest corner of
the site to 97 feet above MSL at the northern boundary. Surface
water runoff at the site is to the north. During periods of
heavy rainfall, water accumulates in an earthen berm which
extends along the northeastern fence line of the site. Three
oil/water separators and an arsenic treatment unit are used to
treat any runoff that collects in the earthen berm. To the east
of the berm is a fire pond which discharges to Birch Swamp Brook,
ah intermittent stream. From this point, the stream flows
through a bog northwest of the site, and subsequently drains into
Lake Lefferts which, in turn, empties into Raritan Bay.
-------
The Englishtown Aquifer, which underlies the site, is a
significant natural resource in the area. The Englishtown
Aquifer is classified as GW-2 (current or potential potable water
supply) and is an important source of water supply for Monmouth
and northern Ocean Counties. The ground water in the shallow and
deep zones of the aquifer flows to the north and northeast,
respectively.
Twenty-eight residential wells were identified within a one-mile
radius of the site. These wells are used for non-potable
purposes, such as watering lawns and washing cars. The Imperial
Oil employees use the well water to wash drums and other
equipment. The Marlboro Township Municipal Utilities Authority
(MTMUA) supplies potable water to the residents in the vicinity
of the site. The MTMUA water supply wells are located
approximately two miles south of the site and obtain their water
from the Raritan-Magothy Aquifer.
The site also includes two areas known as Off-site Areas 1 & 2.
These two off-site areas are located approximately 220 feet and
700 feet northwest of the facility, respectively. They contain
surface soils which are stained with an oily sludge residue, a
result of being former dump sites for waste oil. The vegetation
in these areas is visibly stressed and the soils are highly
stained, as are the soils in the adjacent banks of Birch Swamp
Brook.
Wetlands are present north of the site. Based on a preliminary
survey, some of the land surrounding the Fire Pond, as well as
most of the area encompassing the off-site areas qualifies as
wetlands. Soils in these areas are somewhat poorly to very
poorly drained. Vegetation observed in these areas is consistent
with that normally found in wetland areas. The two types of
wetlands identified are forested wetlands and a more traditional
freshwater marsh. These areas appear to be hydraulically
connected.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Historical Sit* Us«
The IOC/CCC facility and associated land have been used for a
variety of business operations since the original buildings were
constructed in 1912.
The first company to occupy the site produced tomato ketchup and
tomato paste. The plant changed operation around 1917. Also,
around that time, the Stratford Chemical Company took over the
site and began producing arsenate and arsenic acid. In the
1930s, the Stratford Chemical Company changed its name to the
Brocker Chemical Company and continued to manufacture chemicals
until bankruptcy forced them to sell out around 1945 to S. B.
Penick and Company, which produced flavors and essences at the
site until 1949.
-------
The Champion Chemicals Company acquired the property in 1950.
The existing facilities were modified to support Champion
Chemicals' used oil reclamation operations. Eagle Asphalt
Company was also involved in this operation. The process of oil
reclamation involved washing the used oil with caustic material
in vertical process tanks to remove the sludge and impurities.
The washed oil was distilled to remove the heavy oil; the heavy
oil was then passed through a clarification process. This
process involved mixing the oil with filter clay (diatomaceous
earth) in large holding tanks, where the filter clay was allowed
to settle to the bottom and the oil was skimmed off the top. The
filter clay was used to remove the heavy metals (tetraethyl lead,
zinc, iron, etc.) present in the waste oil. The purified oil was
then passed through a filter press to remove any filter clay.
The waste products of the reclamation process included wash
water, waste oils and sludge, and spent filter clay. Reportedly,
the waste filter clay was piled outside near the settling tank
for temporary storage. Wash water was discharged into a lagoon
located on site for settling. The purpose was to recover excess
oil which would float to the surface. It has also been reported
that oil-contaminated soil was dumped on the site in the area
east of the front gate and the on-site house trailer.
Since 1969, the Imperial Oil Company has leased the facility from
Champion Chemicals. Imperial Oil runs an oil blending operation
at the site which involves the mixing and repackaging of unused
oil for delivery. Currently, raw product (refined clean oil) is
delivered by truck and transferred to above-ground tanks on the
site. Imperial Oil has reportedly removed sludge material from
the oil/water separators and deposited it in the area between the
old process building and the filter clay pile. The oil/water
separators were installed in 1950, during Champion Chemicals1
operations at the site. Later, the oil/water separators were
augmented to include a step to remove arsenic from the water.
Laboratory wastes and sanitary wastes were disposed in a septic
system located north of the office building.
Response Actions to Data
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Princeton
Aqua Science (PAS), Fred C. Hart and Associates, and the Monmouth
County Health Department have conducted investigations at the
site to date. The site investigations, conducted by PAS for
Imperial Oil and Fred C. Hart and Associates for EPA, included
the collection of soil, sediment, and ground water samples.
In April 1981, a NJDEPE site inspection found oil-contaminated
soils and numerous large puddles at the base of tank farms 1
and 2. The outfall area for the three oil/water separators was
also inspected. This area showed oily surface water and oil-
stained surface soils. The catchment area for the site surface
water runoff, north of the separators, was also stained with oil.
-------
Results of analyses of soil and waste pile samples revealed
petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, barium, arsenic, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Sediment samples from Birch
Swamp Brook also showed significant concentrations of lead,
arsenic, PCBs, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
In May 1981, EPA conducted a limited sampling program at the off-
site areas and the waste filter clay pile. Results of analyses
of the sediment samples from the stream bed of Birch Swamp Brook
confirmed the presence of PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, and
arsenic. The analytical results of the samples from the clay
pile indicated that this material contained significant
concentrations of PCBs.
In June 1981, a letter from Imperial Oil's consultant (Harold
Seldin) to EPA indicated that, in 1976, Imperial Oil had
excavated contaminated soil and replaced it with clean sand in
the area of the oil/water separators. An earthen berm was
constructed and one oil/water separator was cleaned and repaired.
In June and August 1981, NJDEPE conducted two site inspections
and identified the following potential sources of contamination:
• Oil/water separators; Overflow from flooding has
contaminated surrounding soils; sludge was being
removed from.the skimmers and dumped on site.
• Waste filter clay pile; Initial estimated volume was
approximately 50 to 75 cubic yards.
• Tank farm areas; Tanks appeared to be discharging oils
and additives to the surrounding grounds; fill hoses,
pipes, and boiler blowdown fluids drained onto the
grounds.
• Floor drains; Boiler room and machine shop; unknown
composition of liquids being drained, destination of
liquids unknown.
• Septic tank and leach field; Receives laboratory
wastes generated on site.
• Drum washing area; Oil spillages observed.
• Waste dump; Contaminated soils dumped east of house
trailer.
• Two off-site waste dumps; Visible oil sludge and
residue on the ground and stressed vegetation.
• Banks of Birch Swamp Brook; Stained with oily residue.
-------
In August 1981, NJDEPE conducted an inspection of the off-site
waste oil contamination areas. During the inspection, two
distinct areas of contamination were identified. The areas are
located north of Imperial Oil along the banks of Birch Swamp
Brook. At both areas, the surface soils were visibly stained
with oily material. The banks of the stream were also observed
by NJDEPE to be stained with oily residue. Vegetation in these
areas was noticeably stressed.
In December 1981, Imperial Oil entered into an Administrative
Consent Order (AGO) with NJDEPE in which the company agreed to
cease discharging hazardous wastes and other pollutants into the
waters of the State, unless the effluent met certain specified
discharge limits set forth by the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NJPDES). In addition, the AGO required that
Imperial Oil repair the oil/water separators and dispose of
oil/water-separator sludge in a manner acceptable to NJDEPE.
Further, the AGO required the company to conduct an environmental
assessment of the site to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and implement a remedial plan for cleaning up the
site.
In May 1982, the Imperial Oil Company contracted with Princeton
Aqua Science to conduct an evaluation of the site. During this
investigation, seven test pits were excavated and sampled. In
addition, four monitor wells were installed. The purpose of the
investigation was to assess the nature and extent of
contamination in the soil and ground water at the site. The
results of this investigation were presented in a report issued
by PAS in January 1983. The analyses performed on the selected
samples confirmed the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs,
arsenic, and volatile organic compounds in the ground water and
soil. A floating product layer was detected in monitoring wells
MW-3 and MW-5 during sampling.
The IOC/CCC site was proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites on December 1, 1982. The
site was formally added to the NPL on September 1, 1983.
In May 1983, a NJDEPE inspection of the site, including the off-
site waste oil contamination areas, confirmed the continued
presence of oily stained soils in the areas that had historically
exhibited visible contamination.
In September 1983, a Remedial Action Master Plan was prepared by
Fred C. Hart Associates for EPA for the IOC/CCC site. The report
summarized the data collected up to that point in time and
concluded that soil and ground water on site, and sediment off
site, were contaminated with heavy metals and priority organic
pollutants, including PCBs.
From 1984 through 1985, NJDEPE conducted three inspections of the
site and observed the impounded surface water overflowing the
catchment area, erosion of material from the waste filter clay
-------
pile by surface runoff, and flooding into the Fire Pond and Birch
Swamp Brook. There was a noticeable oil sheen on the surface of
Fire Pond. The inspections also revealed laboratory waste
contained in 55-gallon drums stored in a warehouse, overflowing
of the oil/water separators, and the oil/water separator effluent
not being passed through the arsenic treatment system.
In July 1986, the Mohmouth County Prosecutor's Office conducted
an investigation of the IOC/CCC site. Samples were obtained and
analysis showed that heavy metals, PCBs, and petroleum
hydrocarbons were present in soil and ground water.
In October 1986, a site reconnaissance by the NJDEPE's
consultant, E.G. Jordan Company, was undertaken. During the
reconnaissance, on-site and off-site areas were inspected. Oil-
stained surface soils were evident throughout the site. The
inspection also revealed mats of oily sludge along the banks of
Birch Swamp Brook, in the immediate floodplain, and at the two
off-site oil contamination areas.
A remedial investigation (RI) was conducted by E. C. Jordan,
NJDEPE's consultant, to determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the IOC/CCC site. The RI was conducted in two
phases. Phase I and Phase II were performed in 1987, and 1989
through 1990, respectively. At the completion of the first
phase, a draft Phase I Sampling Report (July 1987) was prepared
detailing the findings of the field investigations. Also
included in the Phase I Sampling Report, were recommendations for
a second phase of investigation. The objective of the Phase II
investigation was to further delineate the distribution of
contaminants identified during Phase I and previous
investigations in preparation for a site risk assessment and a
feasibility study (FS). In June 1990, a draft RI Report was
prepared.
In June 1987, the Imperial Oil Company and Champion Chemicals
Company entered into a Plea Agreement with Mdnmouth County. The
companies agreed to remove the clay pile to grade at a cost not
to exceed $400,000. In addition, the companies agreed to
contribute $400,000 to Phase I of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) and a sum not to exceed $7,000 to
defray State costs for laboratory fees. The companies also
agreed to abide by the 1981 ACO with NJDEPE. Currently, EPA is
seeking to recover the $400,000 set aside in the escrow account
with Monmouth County.
In September 1987, in order to evaluate an innovative technology
for potential consideration for the cleanup of the site, EPA
initiated a Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
demonstration program at the IOC/CCC site. The technology
demonstrated was the solidification/stabilization process
developed by Soiltech, Inc. of Houston, Texas. The results
indicated that the solidification technology was effective in
remediating elevated concentrations of metals in soil, but was
-------
not very effective in remediating PCBs and other organic
compounds. A Technology Evaluation Report for the project was
released in February 1990. This information will be used in the
evaluation of soil cleanup alternatives.
Wast* Filter Clay Pile
In September 1989, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO) to Imperial Oil and Champion Chemicals for the delineation,
characterization, removal and/or treatment and disposal of the
on-site waste filter clay pile. In November 1989, the two
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) submitted to EPA a draft
Work Plan for the removal and disposal of the waste filter clay
pile. After comments and revisions, the draft Work Plan still
did not conform to the terms of the UAO. EPA then modified the
document to bring it into compliance with the UAO. The modified
Work Plan was sent to Imperial Oil and Champion Chemicals on
March 21, 1991. On July 18, 1991, EPA notified the two PRPs that
they were in violation of the UAO for not removing and disposing
of the waste filter clay.
In November 1991, EPA excavated the waste filter clay pile down
to ground level. The filter clay pile was contaminated with
PCBs, arsenic, lead, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The
excavated clay pile material (approximately 660 cubic yards) was
disposed of in an approved landfill under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), located in Model City, New York. The
contaminated area beneath the waste pile was covered with an
impermeable sheet to prevent the infiltration of rainwater.
Off-site Ar«as i i 2
In July 1990, a focused feasibility study (FFS) was prepared by
NJDEPE to address the soil contamination at the two off-site
areas. This study was based on surface and subsurface soil
samples collected during the Phase I and II field investigations
of the RI. The soils in these areas were found to contain
petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and PCBs. The alternatives
evaluated in the FFS included no action; excavation with on-site
storage; excavation with off-site land disposal; excavation with
on-site thermal treatment; and excavation with off-site thermal
treatment.
In August 1990, EPA sent General Notice letters to four
potentially responsible parties pursuant to Sections 106(a) and
107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), notifying them that they
may be ordered to perform response actions deemed necessary by
EPA to protect public health, welfare or the environment.
7
-------
In September 1990, EPA gned a Record of Decision to address the
contaminated soil at 0: -site Areas 1 & 2. The selected remedy
included the installat :=n of a fence around the contaminated
areas; the excavation and off-site disposal of the contaminated
soil; and the restoration of the affected wetlands.
In September 1991, EPA installed the fence around Off-site Areas
1 & 2 to control access to the contaminated soil.
In September 1991, EPA issued UAOs to the above four PRPs
(Imperial Oil, Champion Chemicals, Jersey Central Power & Light,
and J and N Land Company) to conduct the remedial design and
remedial action for the off-site areas. The PRPs declined to do
the work required by the UAO. Utilizing CERCLA funds, NJDEPE is
currently in the process of procuring a remedial contractor to
perform the remedial design for the off-site areas. A selection
of a design contractor is expected in the near future. This work
is being performed under a cooperative agreement with EPA. EPA
is continuing to evaluate its enforcement options.
Petroleum Product Layer (Floating Product)
EPA has installed extraction wells to remove a petroleum-like
product layer from the ground water. The removal of the
petroleum-like product, which began in the fall of 1991, was
undertaken to try to eliminate a major source of ground water
contamination and, consequently, reduce the time needed to
restore the aquifer to a usable condition. Currently, the
extracted petroleum product is being stored on the site in
storage tanks for ultimate treatment and disposal.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In preparation for the September 1990 Record of Decision (ROD),
the focused feasibility study and the Proposed Plan for Operable
Unit 1 (the cleanup of Off-site Areas 1 & 2) were released to the
public for comment on July 26, 1990. The notice of availability
for these two documents was published in the Asbury Park Press on
August 1, 1990. A public comment period was held from July 26,
1990 through August 25, 1990. On August 14, 1990, a public
meeting was held at the Marlboro Township Municipal Building,
where NJDEPE presented the results of the FFS and the Proposed
Plan for Operable Unit 1. A Record of Decision for the off-site
areas was signed on September 26, 1990. Responses to the
comments received during the public meeting were included in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the September 1990 ROD.
For this decision document, the Ground Water Control Feasibility
Study (GWCFS) and the Proposed Plan for the remediation of the
ground water at the IOC/CCC site were released to the public for
comment on July 31, 1992. Notice of the availability of the
documentwT.t516£anfie public meeting were published in the Asbury
Park Press on July 31, 1992. These documents were made available
to the public at two information repository locations. Also,
8
-------
flyers were sent to residents and other members of the community
announcing the upcoming public meeting and the start of the
public comment period. The public comment period was held from
July 31, 1992 to August 30, 1992. The public meeting was held on
Thursday, August 20, 1992 in the Marlboro Township Municipal
Building. At this meeting, representatives from NJDEPE and its
contractor presented the findings of the GWCFS and the Proposed
Plan, and also answered questions concerning the site and the
remedial alternatives developed to address the cleanup of ground
water. A response to the comments received during the public
comment period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which
is a part of this Record of Decision. Comments received at the
public meeting were generally supportive of the selected remedial
alternative identified in the Proposed Plan.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the contaminated ground water at the IOC/CCC site, chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. The decision for this site is based on the
administrative record.
SCOPE AMD ROLE OF REMEDIAL ACTION
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the IOC/CCC site
are complex. As a result, NJDEPE has organized the remedial work
into phases or operable units noted below:
• Operable Unit 1: Addressed the principle threats posed by
the off-site areas. These areas
included contaminated soil within the
wetlands adjacent to the IOC/CCC
facility. A Record of Decision was
signed in September 1990.
• Operable Unit 2: Addresses the remediation of the
contaminated ground water (the subject
of this document).
• Operable Unit 3: Will address soil, surface water,
sediments, air, and any other remaining
contamination sources.
As stated above, EPA has already selected the remedy for Operable
Unit 1 (soil contamination at Off-site Areas 1 & 2). The
contaminated soil is a principal threat at this site because the
off-site areas were frequented by children (prior to the
installation of the fence) for dirt biking. In addition, soil
contaminants are migrating toward Lake Lefferts via Birch Swamp
Brook. Soil associated with the off-site areas contains
contaminants above health-based levels, including lead, arsenic,
PCBs, and semi-volatile and volatile organic compounds.
-------
Operable Unit 2 authorized by this ROD addresses the remediation
of the contaminated ground water underlying the site. The ground
water at the site poses a principal threat to human health and
the environment because it is a potential potable water supply
which is currently being used by residents in the area and by
Imperial Oil employees for non-potable purposes. In addition,
the contaminated ground water is migrating toward Lake Lefferts,
which is used for recreational purposes and is also a potential
source of drinking water. The purpose of this response is to
prevent current and future migration of the contaminated ground
water to Lake Lefferts and reduce the contaminant concentrations
to Federal and State Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in the
underlying aquifer. Operable Unit 3 will address the on-site
soils and sediment contamination.
SUMMARY OF BITE CHARACTERISTICS
The scope of the RI for the IOC/CCC site included studies for all
media that may be contaminated. Soil, ground water, and
sediments at the site were investigated and found to be
contaminated. As stated previously, this decision document
addresses only the contaminated ground water underlying the site,
including the removal of the floating product layer beneath the
former waste pile and catchment area. The cleanup of the soil
and sediments will be addressed in a subsequent Record of
Decision.
Data collected during the RI indicates that the ground water
under the site is contaminated with volatile organics compounds
(VOCs) and semi-volatile organics compounds (SVOCs), pesticides,
PCBs, metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). The RI
data also indicates that the ground water contamination is
present throughout the thickness of the Englishtown Aquifer. The
plume emanating from beneath the site is approximately 1,200 feet
long, 200 to 300 feet wide, and 40 to 50 feet deep. Figure 3
shows the horizontal extent of the plume.
The contaminated soil on the Champion Chemicals Company property
(on-site) and on nearby properties (off-site), an on-site waste
filter clay pile, and a layer of contaminated petroleum material
floating above the ground water have been identified as sources
of the ground water contamination. Figure 4 shows the various
sources of ground water contamination.
The presence of the floating product beneath the former waste
filter clay pile is a continuing source of VOCs and SVOCs ground
water contamination. Contaminants found in the floating product
and the ground water include methylene chloride, toluene,
ethlybenzene, xylene, 4-methyl-2-rpentanone, 2,4-dimethylphenol,
2-methylnaphthalene, pyrene, naphthalene, fluorene, fluoranthene,
PCBs, and TPHs. The VOCs and SVOCs detected in the ground water
10
-------
and floating product exceeded the State and Federal promulgated
MCLs for drinking water. MCLs are enforceable standards based on
health risks associated with an individual's consumption of two
liters of water per day over a 70-year period.
Contaminants found in the ground water, their maximum
concentrations measured, and the Federal and State promulgated
MCLs are shown in Table 1.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human Health Risks
A Baseline Risk Assessment was conducted to evaluate the
potential risks to human health and the environment associated
with the IOC/CCC site in its current state. The risk assessment
looked at the contaminants in the ground water which are likely
to pose a significant threat to human health and the environment.
Summaries of the contaminants of concern (COCs) in the ground
water are listed in Table 2.
The Risk Assessment identified potential exposure pathways by
which the public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the
site under present and potential future land use scenarios. The
ground water is currently not used as a drinking water source.
Presently, the residents use their domestic wells only for non-
potable purposes, such as irrigating lawns and washing cars.
Risks associated with potential future ground water ingestion
were quantified for residents. Exposure assumptions were based
on the most probable (average) and realistic worst (approximately
the reasonable maximum) case exposures.
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 individual COCs were separately
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.
of Non— carcinogenic Risks
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 the EPA for indicating the
potential for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed
in units of milligrams 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) .
11
-------
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 media. The HI is obtained
by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all
media. An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential
exists for noncarcinogenic 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. The reference
dose for the chemicals of concern at the IOC/CCC site are
presented in Table 3.
The NJDEPE, as part of the remedial investigation, performed a
risk assessment for the site. Since that time, EPA guidance on
the performance of risk assessments has been updated. As a
result, EPA has recalculated the risks associated with the site
to reflect some of these changes. The values identified in the
RI report utilized the previous risk assessment guidance. Both
the earlier and updated risk assessment values are identified in
Table 4, which shows that the assessments provide similar
results in terms of identifying unacceptable risks.
For the IOC/CCC site, EPA has recalculated the estimated HI
values associated with the ingestion of the contaminated ground
water, which exceeded 1.0 for both the most probable and
realistic worst cases. EPA recalculated the HI by subtracting
all lead non-carcinogenic effects based on NJDEPE •s RfD, which is
not an EPA verified toxicity value. For the off -site ground
water, the most probable and realistic worst case His are 4.0 and
18.2, respectively. The most probable and realistic worst case
His for the on-site ground water are 8.8 and 19.4, respectively.
The HI values are listed in Table 4. The risk is primarily due
to the high concentration of antimony found in both the on-site
and off -site ground water. Under the realistic worst case
exposure scenario, the concentration of lead at both the on-site
and off -site wells exceeded the 15 ppb action level for lead.
For the off-site ground water, the estimated HI values associated
with the site, utilizing the previous risk assessment guidance,
are 5.2 and 25.1 for the most probable and the realistic worst
case exposure scenarios, respectively. For the on-site ground
water, the most probable and realistic worst case HI are 16.8 and
51.8, respectively.
rv of Carcinogenic Risks
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
slope factors developed by EPA for the COCs. Cancer slope
factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic 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)'*,
12
-------
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 ST. Use
of this approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly
unlikely. The SF for the chemicals of concern are presented in
Table 5.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"* to 10* to
be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has
approximately 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. The calculated cancer risks associated
with ground water ingestion are listed in Table 4.
Utilizing the updated guidance for calculating risk assessment,
the carcinogenic risk associated with the ingestion of the on-
site contaminated ground water is 8 x 10~* (eight in ten thousand)
for the most probable case. The realistic worst case was 2 x 10~3
(two in a thousand). For the off-site ground water, the risk is
1 x 10"3 (one in a thousand) and 4 x 10~2 (four in a hundred) for
the most probable and realistic worst exposure cases,
respectively. The off-site risk is primarily attributed to the
presence of PCBs, while the on-site risk is primarily associated
with beryllium.
The arsenic concentrations under a realistic worst case exposure
scenario for on-site and off-site wells were 69,500 parts per
billion (ppb) and 60.9 ppb, respectively. The ground water
ingestion risks calculated for arsenic using these values
exceeded the limitations of the linear low dose cancer risk
equation. Hence, the cancer risk for arsenic is not included in
the revised risk calculation in Table 4. The arsenic
concentrations, however, greatly exceed the MCL of 50 ppb and
exposure to these levels could result in a highly increased
cancer incidence.
For the off-site ground water, the carcinogenic risks using the
previous risk assessment guidance are 8 x 10'1 (eight in ten) for
the most probable case and the carcinogenic risk exceed one for
the realistic worst case scenario. For the on-site ground water
carcinogenic risk, the most probable and realistic worst case
exposure scenario are 2 x 105 (one in a thousand) and 5 x 10'2
(five in a hundred), respectively.
A more detailed evaluation of the risks associated with ground
water is described in Chapter 13 of the Remedial Investigation
Report.
13
-------
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subjected 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 uncertainly as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis
error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent
in 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
concentration of the chemical 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 under-
estimate actual risks related to the site.
Environmental Risks
The environmental evaluation provides a qualitative assessment of
the actual or potential impacts associated with the ground water
at the site on plants and animals. The primary objectives of
this assessment are to identify the ecosystems, habitats, and
populations likely to be found at the site and to characterize
the contaminants, exposure routes and potential impacts on the
identified receptors. There are wetlands on the site which have
been impacted, primarily as a result of contaminated surface
runoff. They will be addressed by the first operable unit
remedial action. It is believed that the ground water
contamination has not adversely impacted these wetlands to any
significant degree, nor are there any other direct routes of
14
-------
exposure to aquatic or terrestrial biota. Consequently, any
potential additional ground water related impacts are considered
negligible.
Conclusion
Based on the above, actual or threatened release of hazardous
substances from the Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Record Of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment. The baseline risk assessment for
this site indicates that the potential human health risks
associated with ingestion of contaminated ground water underlying
the site are unacceptable. Based on the site conditions, nature
of contaminants, migration pathways, and conclusions of the risk
assessment, the following specific remedial response objectives
have been established for this site:
- prevent further off-site migration of contaminated ground
water
- return the aquifer to its designated use as a source of
drinking water by reducing contaminant concentrations in
the ground water to drinking water quality.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of
human health and the environment, be cost-effective, complies
with other•statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions,
alternative treatment technologies, and resource recovery
alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the
statute includes a preference for the use of treatment as a
principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the hazardous substances.
The estimated capital and annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs are used to calculate an estimated total present worth cost
for each alternative. In addition, for each of the described
alternatives, the implementation timeframe refers to the time
required to implement the alternative from the start of
construction, through operation of the treatment system to remedy
completion. This timeframe does not include the time required to
perform remedial design activities or negotiate with PRPs.
The FS considered the following general response actions for
addressing the contaminated ground water at the site: no action;
containment; and collection, treatment, and discharge of the
ground water. Several remedial technologies that could meet the
15
-------
ground water cleanup objectives were identified and evaluated
initially for effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Those
alternatives which passed the initial screening are highlighted
in this section. A detailed description of all the remedial
alternatives evaluated for the ground water at the IOC/CCC site
are provided in the Ground Water Control Feasibility Study, which
is available at the Marlboro Township Municipal Building.
Three options were considered for the discharge of the treated
ground water. These options included discharging to: a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW); the aquifer; and Birch Swamp Brook.
Discharging to a POTW or the aquifer were eliminated in the
feasibility study. The closest POTW is operating under an
administrative consent order issued by NJDEPE because of the
POTW's failure to implement pretreatment standards for industrial
dischargers and formulate local limits. Therefore, this option
was eliminated from further consideration. The disadvantages of
reinjection to the aquifer include potential interference with
the future on-site soil remediation, potential widening of the
plume width, and potential mounding due to the shallow depth of
the ground water table at the site. Mounding could potentially
raise the water table above the ground surface, which could
result in flooding and the further migration of the contaminants.
Chapter 8 of the Feasibility Study Report contains a detailed
analysis of the different discharge options. Discharge to Birch
Swamp Brook was found to be feasible.
The five alternatives which received detailed analysis (as
numbered in the GWCFS) are:
Alternative it NO ACTION
Alternative 2: CONTAINMENT
Alternative 3: GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, PRECIPITATION,
ULTRAVIOLET (UV) OXIDATION, DISCHARGE TO BIRCH SWAMP BROOK
Alternative 5: GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, PRECIPITATION, CARBON
ADSORPTION, DISCHARGE TO BIRCH SWAMP BROOK
Alternative 7: GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, ION EXCHANGE, CARBON
ADSORPTION, DISCHARGE TO BIRCH SWAMP BROOK
A detailed discussion of the remedial alternatives to address the
ground water contamination is provided below.
Alternative it NO ACTION
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 56,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 975,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: None
16
-------
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) and CERCLA require the evaluation of a No Action
alternative as a basis for comparison with other remedial action
alternatives. Under this alternative, EPA and NJDEPE would not
take any action to prevent or control extraction of, or exposure
to, contaminated ground water emanating from the IOC/CCC site.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on site, CERCLA requires that a review of site conditions be
conducted every five years. The above cost estimate includes the
cost to perform a 30-year monitoring program with evaluation of
the program every five years.
Alternative 2: CONTAINMENT
Estimated Capital Cost: $4,148,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $59,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $5,140,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years
This alternative consists of constructing a low permeability cap
over the entire site (including filling and capping the fire pond
and the portion of Birch Swamp Brook that flows through the
site), a slurry wall upgradient and along the sides of the cap,
and a ditch to divert the surface water flow of Birch Swamp Brook
around that portion of the brook that would be capped. The cap
would cover approximately seven to eight acres. The slurry wall
would be anchored approximately three to five feet into the
Woodbury Formation beneath the aquifer to prevent ground water
flow beneath the wall. The approximate dimensions of the slurry
wall would be 1,850 feet in length around the cap and 55 feet
deep into the aquifer. A 30-year long-term monitoring program to
monitor the effectiveness of the slurry wall and cap is included
in the above cost estimate. This alternative would reduce the
migration of contaminants from the source areas on site (soils,
below grade waste pile, and the floating product layer) by
reducing the amount of water flowing through the contaminated
media. The slurry wall will prevent the further migration of the
ground water towards Lake Lefferts. This alternative addresses
contaminated soil as well as ground water. Accordingly, it will
also be evaluated as part of Operable Unit 3.
The 30-year timeframe for remediating the ground water is based
on the removal of all sources of the ground water contamination
(soil, waste filter clay pile, and eventually, the floating
product layer) and the reduction of the concentrations of the
contaminants via biological degradation and natural attenuation.
Treatment Alternatives 3, 5, 7
Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 have similar components for ground water
extraction, on-site treatment, discharge to Birch Swamp Brook,
and long-term ground water monitoring. A discussion of these
components is given below and is followed by a discussion of each
alternative.
17
-------
It has been estimated that two extraction wells would be
installed into the aquifer at a depth of approximately 50 feet.
One well would be placed downgradient of the plume and the other
within the plume. Both wells together would be capable of
extracting ground water at rates between 10 to 15 gallons per
minute (GPM). Over a 30-year period, it is estimated that the
two wells would extract between 150 to 250 million gallons of
ground water. The wells would be connected to a pipe leading to
the on-site treatment plant. Effluent from the treatment plant
would be discharged into the fire pond and, subsequently, to
Birch Swamp Brook via a buried pipe.
A ground water monitoring program would be implemented to monitor
the performance of the remedial action. Existing monitoring
wells would be used to collect samples and to monitor the
migration of the plume. While the actual location of the wells
would be determined during design, anticipated points include
locations upgradient and downgradient from, and within the ground
water plume.
Alternative 3: GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, PRECIPITATION,
ULTRAVIOLET (UV) OXIDATION, DISCHARGE TO BIRCH SWAMP BROOK
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 1,586,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 553,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $10,291,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: More than 30 years
Under this alternative, extraction wells to collect the
contaminated ground water and an on-site treatment system to
treat the inorganic and organic contaminants to required
treatment levels would be installed. The precipitation treatment
scheme for inorganic contaminants would consist of
coprecipitation, flocculation, clarification, and filtration.
Organics treatment via the UV/Oxidation process would consist of
chemical oxidation utilizing ozone or hydrogen peroxide enhanced
by exposure to ultraviolet light. In the oxidation process,
organic contaminants are broken down into simpler non-hazardous
substances. As previously mentioned, the treated ground water
would be discharged to Birch Swamp Brook and ground water
monitoring would be performed during and following active
remediation.
Alternative 5: GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, PRECIPITATION, CARBON
ADSORPTION, DISCHARGE TO BIRCH SWAMP BROOK
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 1,526,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 515,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 9,647,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: More than 30 years
Alternative 5 is the same as Alternative 3 except for the
treatment technology used to treat organic contaminants in ground
water. In this alternative, activated carbon adsorption is
18
-------
utilized for the treatment of organics. Activated carbon
adsorption is a physical separation process in which organic
substances are removed from contaminated ground water by sorption
(i.e., the attraction and accumulation of one substance on the
surface of another). The treated water would be discharged to
Birch Swamp Brook. As in Alternative 3, ground water monitoring
would be performed during and following active remediation.
Alternative 7: GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, ION EXCHANGE, CARBON
ADSORPTION, DISCHARGE TO BIRCH SWAMP BROOK
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 1,750,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 467,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 9,133,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: More than 30 years
Alternative 7 is the same as Alternative 5 except for the
treatment technology chosen to treat inorganic contaminants in
ground water. The inorganic treatment technology would involve
ion exchange rather than precipitation. Ion exchange would be
used to remove the inorganic compounds (metals) from the ground
water. The treated water would be discharged to Birch Swamp
Brook. As in Alternatives 3 and 5, ground water monitoring would
be performed during and following active remediation.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each remedial
alternative was conducted with respect to each of nine criteria
for selecting a site remedy. This section discusses and compares
the performance of the remedial alternatives under consideration
against these criteria. The resulting strengths and weakness of
the alternatives were then weighed to identify the ground water
alternative which provides the best balance among the nine
criteria.
The criteria are categorized into three groups — threshold,
primary balancing, and modifying criteria. Briefly, threshold
criteria are the most important and must be satisfied by any
alternative to be eligible for selection. Primary balancing
criteria are used to make comparisons and identify the major
tradeoffs among the various alternatives. Finally, modifying
criteria are generally taken into account after the formal public
comment period on the RI/FS Reports and the Proposed Plan is
completed. The nine criteria are described below.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
itection
addresses whether or not a reaedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
19
-------
Alternative 1 (No Action) is not protective of human health and
the environment. Under this alternative, contaminated ground
water will continue to migrate further downgradient of the site,
presenting the threat of exposure to human receptors. The
Englishtown Aquifer is classified as GW-2; Current or Potential
Potable Water Supply. While there are presently no known users
of the aquifer as a potable water source, there could be in the
future and there are current users of the aquifer for non-potable
purposes. It is unlikely that contaminant concentrations would
be reduced to safe drinking water levels by natural phenomena
such as chemical and biological degradation within any reasonable
timeframe. -Because Alternative 1 does not meet the threshold
criteria of being protective of human health and the environment,
it is eliminated from consideration and will not be discussed any
further.
Alternative 2 is marginally more protective of human health and
the environment than Alternative 1 because the slurry wall and
cap would reduce further migration of contamination downgradient.
However, without some type of active treatment, there is little
likelihood that contaminant concentrations would be reduced to
safe levels by natural phenomena such as chemical and biological
degradation.
Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 all would be protective of human health
and the environment if implemented. Each of these three
alternatives would prevent the further migration of contaminated
ground water, limiting the threat of exposure to potential
receptors, and would reduce the concentrations of contaminants
found in the ground water emanating from the site to safe levels.
Compliance with Applicable Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
fARARS1
addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all Federal and state
environmental lava, and/or provide the basis for a waiver from
any of these laws. These ARARs are divided into the following
three groups: chemical-specific, action-specific, and location-
specific.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs are usually numerical values which
establish the amount or concentration of a chemical that may be
found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment.
Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 would all meet chemical-specific ARARs.
The chemical-specific ARARs for ground water remediation at the
IOC/CC site are the promulgated Federal and State drinking water
standards.
Alternative 2 is unlikely to attain the chemical-specific ARARs
for ground water because reducing contaminant concentrations is
solely dependent upon natural chemical and biological degradation
20
-------
phenomena. Even if the cleanup levels could be achieved, the
tine period would be significantly longer than would be achieved
under active remediation.
Action—Specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are technology or activity-specific
regulations, requirements, or limitations related to any remedial
measures determined necessary for the site.
All of the alternatives can be designed and implemented to
achieve their action-specific ARARs including applicable Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) requirements.
Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the
concentrations of hazardous substances or the conduct of
activities solely because they occur in a special location.
All of the alternatives would comply with current wetlands and
floodplain regulations. A wetlands delineation/assessment will
be conducted to identify any potential impacts of the remedial
activities to the wetlands and to identify procedures to reduce
the impacts. Also, an assessment will be conducted to delineate
the floodplain and to identify an appropriate mitigation for any
adverse floodplain impacts. The floodplain assessment will be
conducted using the 500-year contour as defined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The wetlands and floodplain
assessments will be conducted early in the remedial design. In
addition, a Stage IA cultural resource survey will be conducted
in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
Long-tern Effectiveness and Permanence
refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment over time. This criterion
includes the consideration of residual risk and the adequacy and
reliability of controls.
Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 all provide the greatest long-term
effectiveness and permanence because their intent is to treat
ground water to health-based standards which are developed to
minimize risk to safe levels. In order to effectively achieve
the ground water cleanup goals, it will also be necessary to
remediate the various sources of ground water contamination
(soil, waste filter clay, and the petroleum product). If these
sources are not remediated, they will continue to contaminate the
ground water and have a detrimental impact on the ground water
cleanup. However, the effectiveness of Alternative 3 or 7 is
less certain than .Alternative 5 owing to implementability
21
-------
concerns as discussed later in the Implementability Section of
this document.
Alternative 2 provides much less long-term effectiveness and
permanence than any of the three treatment alternatives since
contaminant reduction to safe levels is dependent upon natural
phenomena and the contaminants would remain on the site.
refers to the preference for a remedy that uses treatment to
reduce health hazards, contaminant migration, or the quantity of
contaminations at the site.
The active treatment alternatives (Alternatives 3, 5, and 7)
would provide the greatest reduction of toxicity, mobility, and
volume 01 contaminated ground water. The extraction of the
ground water would reduce the volume of the contaminated ground
water and would reduce the mobility of the contaminants. The
treatment of the extracted ground water would reduce its toxicity
prior to discharging to Birch Swamp Brook.
Under Alternative 2, the mobility of contaminated ground water
would be reduced, due to partial containment of the aquifer,
although, not as much as by the three treatment alternatives.
Alternative 2 relies upon natural phenomena to reduce the volume
and toxicity level of contaminated ground water.
Short-term Effectiveness
refers to the period of time needed to complete the remedy and
any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may
be posed during construction and implementation of the remedy.
For Alternative 2, short-term adverse environmental impacts would
result from diverting Birch Swamp Brook. Fugitive dust emissions
from the construction of the slurry wall and cap could pose risks
to the community beyond those which would be experienced under
the general construction activities associated with Alternatives
3, 5, and 7. However, for Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 7, dust
suppression measures would be implemented to prevent off-site
migration of dust and minimize risks to nearby residents and on-
site workers.
The installation and operation of extraction wells under
Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 will involve risks similar to those
encountered during the RI, primarily exposure to volatile organic
contaminants existing at the site. A Health and Safety Plan
would be implemented to address and minimize those risks.
Discharging the treated water to Birch Swamp Brook would not have
any adverse impact on the stream. The treated water would be -
discharged in accordance with the effluent criteria developed by
NJDEPE.
22
-------
Implementability
refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services
needed to implement the chosen solution. It also includes
coordination of Federal, state, and local governments to clean up
the site.
Alternative 2 would utilize demonstrated reliable technologies
with readily available construction equipment and material but
would pose certain coordination and administrative hurdles.
These hurdles include those associated with filling wetlands and
diverting Birch Swamp Brook.
Alternatives 3, 5 and 7 pose administrative hurdles with regard
to the need to purchase at least two adjacent off-site properties
to install the treatment plant. Because of the wide spread soil
contamination and the relatively small land size of the Champion
Chemicals Company property, the treatment plant will be located
on the two adjacent properties.
Alternative 3 includes UV/Oxidation technology, which can destroy
organic contaminants, but is questionable for the treatment to
required levels for ground water contaminated with PCBs.
Treatability studies would be required for this technology with
uncertain results.
Alternative 5 technologies have been proven effective in full
scale operations and are widely used for water treatment.
Precipitation effectively removes metals including arsenic, while
carbon adsorption effectively removes organic contaminants.
Treatability studies would be limited to those needed to
determine types and amounts of precipitating agents and the
amounts of carbon required. Sludge from the precipitation step
would be disposed of in accordance with appropriate Federal and
State requirements. Spent carbon would be regenerated for reuse,
if feasible, or disposed of in accordance with appropriate
Federal and State requirements.
Alternative 7 includes ion exchange technology, which can remove
metals (inorganics), but is questionable for the removal of
arsenic. Treatability studies would be required for this
technology with uncertain results as to the technology's
effectiveness.
Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 pose a potential future implementability
concern regarding the availability of adequate disposal and
treatment facilities for the spent carbon and the sludge
generated by the treatment system. Currently, there are licensed
chemical waste landfills and incinerators available for the
disposal of PCB-contaminated activated carbon regulated under the
Toxic Substances Control Act. Future availability via landfill
disposal or incineration is uncertain.
23
-------
Coat
refers to the estimated cost* for each remedial alternative.
These include estimated capital and annual operation and
maintenance (OtM) costs, also expressed as estimated total
present worth cost.
Cost estimation for the ground water remedial alternatives are
based on a 30-year period using a discount rate of 5 percent.
All alternatives and their associated costs are as follows:
Alt. Capital Cost
1 $ 0
2 $4,148,000
3 $1,586,000
5 $1,526,000
7 $1,750,000
MODIFYING CRITERIA
State Acceptance
O&M
$ 56,000
$ 59,000
$553,000
$515,000
$467,000
Total Present Worth Cost
$ 975,000
$ 5,140,000
$10,291,000
$ 9,647,000
$ 9,133,000
refers to the aspects of the preferred alternatives and other
alternatives that the supporting agency favors, objects to/ and
any specific comments regarding State ARARs or the proposed use
of waivers.
As the lead agency for the investigation, the State of New
Jersey participated in the selection of the remedy for this site
The State, therefore, concurs with the selected remedy of
Alternative 5.
Acceptance
This summarizes the public's general response to the alternative
described in the Proposed Plan and in the RI/FS, based on public
comments.
The objective of the community relations activities was to inform
the public about the work being performed at the site and to
receive input from the public on the remedy. The community
expressed support for the preferred alternative. Questions and
answers raised during the public meeting are presented in the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix C) . The community did not
identify any issues that necessitated changes to the Proposed
Plan or the preferred alternative.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, the
EPA and NJDEPE have selected Alternative 5 as the remedy for the
IOC/CCC site.
24
-------
Alternative 5; Ground water Extraction. Precipitation. Carbon
Adsorption. Discharge to Birch Swamp Brook is comprised of the
following components:
Extraction of the contaminated ground water that is
above cleanup standards;
Treatment of the extracted ground water via
precipitation of inorganic contaminants and carbon
adsorption of organic contaminants;
Discharge of the treated ground water to Birch Swamp
Brook;
Continuation of the floating product removal action
currently being undertaken by the Environmental
Protection Agency; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
The selection of Alternative 5 is based upon the comparative
analysis of the ground water alternatives above, and provides the
best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the nine evaluation
criteria. ARARs for the selected remedy are provided in the
discussion Attainment of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements of Environmental Laws in the following section. The
selected alternative for the cleanup of the contaminated ground
water employs an effective, readily-implementable technology for
treatment of inorganic and organic compounds. The only residuals
of the treatment are the spent carbon and sludge from the
precipitation process. As stated previously, the spent carbon
would be regenerated for reuse, if possible, and the sludge
generated from the treatment facility would be disposed of in
accordance with appropriate Federal and State requirements.
As stated previously, EPA is in the process of removing the
petroleum product layer from the ground water. Since this
product is contributing to the ground water contamination, EPA
and NJDEPE consider the removal of this source of contamination
an integral part of the remediation of the ground water. It is
anticipated EPA will not complete the product removal under its
removal authority. As a result, NJDEPE as the lead agency for
the site, will complete the remaining work associated with the
removal of the floating product as a component of this Operable
Unit 2 ground water remedy.
One goal of the ground water remedy is to restore the
contaminated aquifer to Federal and State promulgated MCLs. A
further objective of the ground water remedy is to restore the
ground water to its beneficial use which, at the IOC/CCC site, is
a drinking water aquifer, and to prevent the further migration of
the contaminant plume. Based on information obtained during the
RI, and on careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, EPA and
25
-------
the State of New Jersey believe that the selected ground water
remedy will achieve these goals. It nay become apparent,
however, during implementation or operation of the ground water
extraction system and its modifications, that contaminant levels
have ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels
higher than the remediation goal over some portion of the
contaminated ground water plume. In such a case, the system
performance standards and/or the remedy may be reevaluated.
The remedy would include ground water extraction for an
estimated period of over 30 years, during which time the system's
performance would be carefully 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:
- Discontinuing pumping at a well where cleanup goals have
been attained;
Alternating pumping at the wells to eliminate stagnation
points;
Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and allow
adsorbed contaminants to partition into the ground water;
and/or
Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or
accelerate cleanup of the contaminant plume.
To ensure that cleanup levels are maintained, the aquifer will be
monitored at those wells where pumping has ceased following
discontinuation of ground water extraction. These wells would be
sampled on a regular basis (e.g., quarterly) for several years,
followed by annual sampling thereafter for 5 to 10 years.
As stated previously, one goal of the ground water remedy is to
restore the contaminated aquifer to Federal and State promulgated
MCLs. NJDEPE has requested that ground water contamination at
the site be remediated to the levels specified in its Proposed
Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites (February 1992).
provided in Table 6. EPA has determined that further remediation
of the contaminated ground water at the Site to the levels
requested by the NJDEPE, while ineligible for CERCLA funding,
does not conflict, or is not inconsistent, with the selected
remedy. The NJDEPE has agreed to fund the incremental costs
associated with this additional cleanup.
The total estimated cost for the selected remedy is $9,647,000.
Details of the costs of this remedy are shown in Chapter 8 of the
Ground Water Control Feasibility Study Report.
Detailed technical specifications will be developed during the
design phase of the remedy. As part of the design, treatability
studies will be performed for the precipitation treatment process
26
-------
to determine the specific types and amounts of precipitating
agents needed. In addition, treatability studies for the carbon
adsorption process will be performed to provide design data on
bed life, contaminant concentrations on the spent carbon and
regenerabi1ity.
The selected alternative will comply with current wetlands and
floodplain regulations. A wetlands delineation/assessment will
be conducted to identify any potential impacts of the remedial
activities to the wetlands and to identify procedures to reduce
the impacts. Also, an assessment will be conducted to delineate
the floodplain and to identify any appropriate mitigation for any
adverse floodplain impacts. The floodplain assessment will
conducted using the 500-year contour as defined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The wetlands and floodplain
assessments will be conducted early in the remedial design. In
addition, a Stage IA cultural resource survey will be conducted
in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA's selection of Alternative 5 for the remediation of the
contaminated ground water at the IOC/CCC site will comply with
the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended. The
action is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable
or relevant and appropriate to this action, and is cost-
effective. This action utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable, given the limited scope of the action. The
statutory preference for treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility or volume will be addressed in this action, as
appropriate. The action does not constitute the final remedy for
the site. Subsequent actions are planned to fully address the
remaining principle threats posed by this site. A brief, site-
specific description of how the selected remedy complies with the
statutory requirements is presented below.
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected alternative is protective of human health and the
environment and deals effectively with the threats posed by the
contaminants which were identified. The principal threats
include the ingestion of contaminated ground water by future
residents and the migration of the ground water to Lake Lefferts,
which, in addition to the Englishtown Aquifer, is a potential
source of drinking water.
The selected remedy will allow for the extraction of the
contaminated ground water before it migrates any further off
site, and will minimize any cross-media impacts. In implementing
the action, the risks associated with construction and the length
of time for implementation will be minimized. The selected
remedy will reduce the risks posed by each pathway to the
27
-------
population by extracting the contaminated ground water and
treating it to meet discharge standards developed for Birch Swamp
Brook. The intent of ground water remediation is to reduce the
concentration of the contaminants to meet promulgated Federal and
State drinking water standards.
Promulgated Federal and State MCLs, New Jersey State Ground Water
Quality standards promulgated under State law and site specific
risk based cleanup levels (for some hazardous substances) are the
groundwater cleanup goals for the remedy selected in this ROD.
EPA recognizes NJDEPE's request that groundwater at the Site be
remediated to the levels specified in the proposed "Cleanup
Standards for Contaminated sites" which NJDEPE distributed to the
public for comments earlier this year. EPA has not identified
these proposed State regulations as ARARs nor are.they potential
ARARs since they have not yet been promulgated by the State.
Furthermore, EPA has not identified them as TBCs for this Site.
Therefore, any additional actions which might be required (beyond
the remedy selected in this ROD) to remediate groundwater at the
site to the levels specified in the proposed State regulations
are not required by CERCLA nor are they eligible, for Federal
funding under CERCLA. Any such additional actions may be
undertaken if they are identified by the State in a timely
manner, if EPA determines they are consistent with the remedy
selected in this ROD and they are performed entirely with NJDEPE
funding.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
All ARARs would be met by the selected remedy.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
The selected ground water remedy would achieve compliance with
chemical-specific ARARs related to the contaminants found in the
ground water at the site. The ARARs include the promulgated
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the State of New Jersey
Drinking Water Standards, 40 C.F.R. 141 and NJAC 7:10,
respectively, which identify MCLs for the ground water. Table 7
shows these levels for the compounds detected in the ground
water. The more restrictive of these levels will be used as the
cleanup goals for the ground water. For those compounds which
have no promulgated MCLs, risk-based drinking water cleanup goals
were developed as shown on Table 8 and presented in Appendix D.
The intent of the ground water remediation is to reduce the
contaminants found in the ground water at the site to promulgated
and calculated risk-based cleanup levels.
Action-Specific ARARs
The selected remedy would address and comply with action-specific
ARARs for the construction of the treatment plant and the
discharge to Birch Swamp Brook. The treatment plant would comply
28
-------
with 40 CFR Section 260 through 268 of the Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and the New Jersey Hazardous Waste
Regulation at N.J.A.C. 7:26; both set standards for the
identification, listing, generation, handling, treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Discharging to Birch
Swamp Brook would comply with N.J.A.C. 7:14A of the New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and New Jersey Surface
Water Quality (N.J.A.C. 7:9-4). These effluent limits are
provided in Table 10. The shipment of hazardous waste off site
to a treatment facility should be consistent with the Off-site
Policy-Directive Number 9834.11 issued by the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). This directive is intended
to ensure that facilities authorized to accept CERCLA generated
waste are in compliance with RCRA operating standards.
Also, the selected remedy would comply with 40 C.F.R. 761 -
761.75 of TSCA, which governs the disposal of PCB-contaminated
wastes in a landfill or incinerator, if the regeneration of the
spent carbon is not possible.
In addition, the selected remedy would comply with all the
requirements regulating worker health and safety under the
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Location-Specific
Since the site is located near wetlands and in a floodplain, the
selected remedy would comply with Executive Order No. 11,990 and
11,988, which govern the protection of wetlands and the
management of floodplain. The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations (40 CFR Part 6) are applicable for actions
involving construction of facilities in wetlands or alteration of
wetlands.
3. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies'to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum
extent practicable by providing the best balance of tradeoffs
among the nine evaluation criteria for all the alternatives
examined. The selected remedy does offer a high degree of long-
term effectiveness and permanence; it will significantly reduce
the inherent hazards posed by the contaminated ground water at
the site, by extracting and treating the ground water to
applicable Federal and State standards.
4. preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element. The contaminated ground water
at the site is a potential threat to human health and the
environment. The selected remedy reduces the levels of
contaminants in the aquifer through extraction of the ground
29
-------
water, it reduces the concentration of the contaminants in the
extracted ground water through treatment prior to the discharge
to Birch Swamp Brook.
5. Cost-Effectiveness
Of the alternatives which most effectively address the threats
posed by the contaminated ground water plume, Alternative 5, the
selected remedy, affords the highest level of overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. Based on the information
generated during the GWCFS, the estimated total project cost is
$9,647,000. Although the estimated total project cost for
Alternative 7 is lower at $9,133,000, the effectiveness of this
alternative is less certain than that of the selected remedy.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the IOC/CCC site was released to the.public
on July 31, 1992. The Proposed Plan identified the preferred
alternative. NJDEPE and EPA reviewed all written and verbal
comments submitted during the public comment period. Upon review
of these comments, it was determined that no significant changes
to the selected remedy, as it was originally identified in the
Proposed Plan, were necessary.
The carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were revised from the
initial values presented in the Proposed Plan. The overall
carcinogenic risk associated with the ingestion of ground water
had been calculated using a high concentration of arsenic, which
exceeded the limitation of the linear low dose cancer risk
equation. The carcinogenic risk as presented in this ROD does
not include arsenic. However, the concentration of arsenic
greatly exceeds the MCL of 50 ppb and exposure to these levels
could result in a highly increased cancer incidence.
30
-------
Figures and Tables
-------
IIM-t*
•o «i m. tmrm
FIGURE 1
MPER1AL OUCHAMPION CHEMCALS SITE
MORGAMVMJ.E. NEW JERSEY
—ECJORDftNOQ-
-------
7Z6URI 2
SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF
IMPERIAL OIL CO. FACILITY
IMPERIAL OIL/CHAMPION CHEMICALS SITE
MORGMNVILLE, NEW JERSEY
-------
(MEUUCO BY tC. JOMMN. 1M«)
(MCUUEOBV E£. JOnOAN. IMt)
CMBULLfOW tC. JONOAH, IMT)
FIGURE 3
GROUNOWATER CONTAMINANT PLUMES
GROUNDWATER CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
IMPERIAL OR. COMPANY/CHAMPION CHEMICALS SITE
MORGANVILLE, NEW JERSEY
EaiORDANCQ
-------
-.— ( U
S V-*T
, J'_-3-• fc
PROPERTY
MONOAPY
FIGURE
\ j ' AREAS OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
1 ( GROUNDWATER CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY
IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY/CHAMPION CHEMICALS SITE
MORGANVILLE, NEW JERSEY
ECJORLWJOO
-------
TABLE 1
Ground water 8amDli.no Results (cob)
Contaminants
and
Corresponding MCLs
Maximum Federal
Concentrations MCL
Methylene Chloride (a) 12
Benzene 55
Tetrachloroethene 35
1,2-dichloroethene (cis) 200*
1,2-dichloroethene (trans) 200"
1,2-Dichloroethane (a) 49
Trichloroethene 160
Ethylbenzene 120
Xylenes (total) 580
Toluene 2200
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (a) 490
SVOCs
Acenaphthene 24
2-Methylphenol 6800
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 380
4-methylphenol 210
2,4-dimethylphenol 30
Naphthalene 630
Di-n-butyl phthalate 18
Phenanthrene 64
Fluoranthene 11
Pyrene 16
Fluorene 33
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 170
2-methylnaphthalene 1000
PCBs 390
4,4' DDT (a) 7.5
5
5
5
70
100
5
5
700
10000
1000
70
0.5
New Jersey
MCL
2
1
1
10*
10*
44
8
0.5
-------
TABLE 1 (Cent.)
INORGANICS
Antimony 187 6
Lead 257 —— —
Arsenic 69,500 50 50
Silver 119
Beryllium 14 4
Vanadium 41
Chromium (total) 119 100 100
Zinc 152
Nickel (a) 102 100
— Value not available
(a) Compound not identified as Chemical of Concern in RI Report
for purpose of the Risk Assessment.
* Total
-------
TABLE 2
Contaminants of Concern
Volatiles
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Semi-volatiles
Acenaphthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Pesticides/PCBs
Ar odors
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Lead
Silver-
Vanadium
Zinc
-------
IABIE 3
Reference Dose for
IMPERIAL OIl/CIIAMPIOH
Selected Chemical of Concern
CIIEHICAl SHE
09-May-90
CHRONIC
RfO
COMPOUND mg/lcg/day
Antimony (4.00E-04
1
Butyl beniyl Phthatate (2.00E-01
1
Chroroiun III |1.00E»00
1
Copper (3.70E-02
1
Ol-n-txjtyl phthalate |t.OOE-OI
1
t-1,2-0ichloroethylene (2.00E-02
I
2,4-Dimethylphenol (2) (6.00E-04
I
Ethylbeniene (t.OOE-01
1
Lead * (1.40E-04
1
2-Hethylphenol (o-cresol ) |5.00E-02
1
4-Hethylphenol (p-cresol ) (5.00E-02
1
Noncarcinogenic PAIIs (3) (4.00E-01
1
Silver (3.00E-03
r
Styrene |2.00E-01
1
lolucne 'V OOt 01
SOURCE
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
prop. HCL
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
' MCL
IRIS
IRIS
MEASI (5)
IRIS
IRIS
IHIS
SIUDY
TYPE (1)
OU
DIET
DIET
DU
DIET
DU
GVGE
i
CVGE
DU
CVGE
GVCE
DIET
DIET
GVGE
INK
CONFIDENCE CRITICAL UNCEMTAIN1Y AND
LEVEL EFFECT MODIFYING FACTORS
Low (Longevity, blood glucose, and |UF = 1000 II. A, L
(cholesterol |
Low (Increased liver and brain-to-body |UF = 1000 H,A,S
(weight ratios |
Low (No effects observed |UF = 100 H.A.
| |HF = 10
(Local r,l irritation |
1 1
Low (Increased mortality |UF = 1000 H.A.S
1 1
low (Increased serum alkaline |UF = 1000 H,A,S
1 1
Low (Body weight and organ changes |UF = 1000 H.A.S
1 1
Low (Liver aixi kidney toxicity |UF - 1000 H.A.S
I 1
|CHS Effects |
1 1
Mediun (Decreased body weights |UF = 1000 H.A.S
(Neurotoxictty |
Medium (Decreased body weights |UF •= 1000 II, A, S
(Neurotoxici ty | .
(Ocular and internal lesions |
1 1
Medium (Argyria |UF = 2 (()
1 1
Hediun (Red blood cell and liver effects |UF = 1000 H.A.S
1 1
Hediun |CI inicnl chomislry aiul licin.itol oijiciil |UF = 100 II, A
* USEPA does not have a verified RfD for lead. The risk values were recalculated to reflect this policy
-------
IABIE 3 (Continued)
Reference Done for Selected Chemical of Concern
IMPERIAL Oil/CHAMPION CHEMICAL SUE
CHRONIC
RIO
COMPOUND oig/kg/day
1,2.4-TricMorobentene J2.00E-02
1
Vanadium (7.00E-03
1
Xytenes (total) |2.00E»00
1
Zinc (2.00E-01
1
SOURCE
HEASI
HEAST
IRIS
HEASI
SIUDY
TYPE (1)
GVGE
DU
CVGE
DIET
CONFIDENCE CRITICAL
LEVEL EFFECT
.(Increased liver-to-body weight ratio
1
(None observed
1
Medium |llyperact ivi ty, decreased body ueight,
(and increased mortality (males)
(Anemia
1
UNCERTAINTY AND
MODIFYING FACTORS
UF =• 100 H,A
NOTES:
Confidence level and uncertainty and modifying factors from IRIS
Uncertainty factors (UF) of 10 are applied for each of the following uncertainties:
H • variation in hi man sensitivity
A * animal to human extrapolation
S B extrapolation from subchronic to chronic NOAEL
L = extrapolation from LOAEL to NOAEL
Modifying factors (MF) range from 1 to 10. The defoult factor is 1.
Only modifying factors greater than 1 are listed.
(1) GVCE > gavage study
DU > drinking water study
INH = Inhalation study
(2) Based on oral RIO for 2,6-dimcthylphenol
(!) Based on oral RIO for naphthalene
<4) the standard UF of 10 for intraspecies variability is not considered appropriate
A UF of 2 is used for the LOAEL because the critical effect is considered to be minimally severe.
(•>) USEPA Health Effects Assessment Suiinary Tables
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES
via
INGESTION OF GROUND WATER
(as calculated in the RI Report)
Wells on IOC/CC Most Probable Realistic Worst
Property Case Exposure Case Exposure
Noncarcinogenic Risks (HI) 16.8 51.8
Carcinogenic Risks SxlO"1 >1
Wells off IOC/CC Most Probable Realistic Worst
Property Case Exposure Case Exposure
Noncarcinogenic Risks (HI) 5.2 25.1
Carcinogenic Risks 2xlOJ 5xlO'2
REVISED RISK CALCULATIONS
Wells on IOC/CC Most Probable Realistic Worst
Property Case Exposure Case Exposure
Noncarcinogenic Risks (HI)1 8.8 19.4
Carcinogenic Risks2 SxlO"1 2x10^
Wells off IOC/CC Most Probable Realistic Worst
Property Case Exposure Case Exposure
Noncarcinogenic Risks (HI)1 4.0 18.2
Carcinogenic Risks2 ixicr8 4X1CT2
1. EPA recalculated all hazard indices subtracting all lead
non-cancer effects based on the NJDEPE's RfD, which is not
an EPA verified value.
2. Carcinogenic risk estimates shown do not include those from
arsenic present in the ground water because ground water
arsenic concentrations exceed the limitation of the linear
low dose cancer risk equation (see text).
-------
IABIE 5
Slope Factor for Selected Chemical of Concern
IMPERIAL OIL/CHAMPION CHEMICAL SITE
09 May 90
COMPOUMO
Arsenic
Benzene
BE IIP (3)
Beryllium
Chloroform
Carcinogenic PAHs (4)
t.2-Dichloroelhane
Hethylcne Chloride
PCB
Tetrachloroethylene
Iricliloroethylene
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg/ddy)-1
T.75E«00
2.90E-02
1.40E-02
4.30E<00
6.10E-03
1.15E«01
9.10E-02
7.50E-03
7.70E«00
5.10E-02
1. IDE -02
SOURCE
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEA (5)
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IIEASK6)
IIEAST
SIUOV
TYPE (1)
OU
INH
DIET
OU
OU
DIET
GVGE
DU/INH
DIET
GVGE
GVGE
UtICHT OF EVIDENCE CANCER
CLASSIFICATION (2) TYPE
A (Skin
i
1
A | leukemia
1
B2 (Liver
1
B2 (All sites
1
B2 (Kidney
i
1
B2 (Stomach
1
B2 (Circulatory System
1
B2 (Liver
I
1
82 (Liver
1
B2 (Liver
i
1
82 (Liver
NOTE: (1) GVGE = gavage DU = drinking water INH = inhalation
(2) A - Hunan carcinogen 62 • Sufficient evidence of carcinogenic!ty in animals
(}) BEHP = Bis(2-ethylhexy()phthalate
C.) Based on l>enzo(a)pyrcne
(S) USEPA Health Effects Assessment
(6) USEI'A Health Effects Assessment Sniiimry Tables
-------
TABLE 6
NJDEPE's Proposed Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites
and
site Contaminant Levels
Contaminants
Maximum
Concentration
(ppb)
VOCS
Benzene 55
Methlyene Chloride 12
Tetrachloroethene 35
1,2-Dichloroethane 4 9
l,2-Dichloroethene(cis) 200
l,2-Dichloroethene(trans) 200
Trichloroethene 160
EthyIbenz ene 120
Xylenes 580
Toluene 2200
SVOCs
Acenaphthene 24
2-Methylphenol 6800
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 380
4-Methylphenol* 210
2,4-Dimethylphenol* 30
Naphthalene 630
Di-n-butyl phthalate* 18
Phenanthrene* 64
Fluoranthene* 11
Pyrene* 16
Fluorene* 33
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 170
2-Methylnaphthalene 1000
4,4'-DDT 7.5
PCBS 390
NJDEPE's Proposed
Standard
(PPb)
1
1
1
2
10
100
1
700
40
1,000
400
30
400
100
30
900
100
300
200
300
9
100
0.1
0.5
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont.)
Inorganics
Antimony 201 20
Lead 257 10
Arsenic 69,500 8
Silver 119 20
Beryllium* 14 20
Vanadium* 41 100
Chromium 119 100
Zinc* 150 5,000
Nickel . 102 100
* Compounds with maximum concentrations less than NJDEPE proposed
standard
-------
TABLE 7
d State Maximum CoT>+»""'*».nt Levels (MCLs
Corresponding Sit** pgmfc»minant Levels (ppb)
Contaminants
Maximum
Concentration
Federal
MCL
New Jersey
MCL
VOCs
Methlyene Chloride (a) 12
Benzene 55
Tetrachloroethene 35
1,2-Dichloroethene (cis) 200'
1,2-Dichloroethene (trans) 200*
1,2-Dichloroethane (a) 49
Trichloroethene 160
Ethylbenzene 120
Xylenes (total) 580
Toluene 2200
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (a) 490
5
5
5
70
100
5
5
700
10000
1000
2
1
1
10'
10'
44
Acenaphthene 24
2-Methylphenol 6800
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 380
4-Methylphenol 210
2,4-DimethyIphenol 3 0
Naphthalene 630
Di-n-butyl phthalate 18
Phenanthrene 64
Fluoranthene 11
Pyrene 16
Fluorene 33
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 170
2-Methylnaphthalene 1000
PCBs . 390
4,4' DDT (a) 7.5
70
0.5
8
0.5
-------
TABLE 7 (Cont.)
INORGANICS
Antimony 187 6
Lead 257
Arsenic 69,500 50 50
Silver 119
Beryllium 14 4
Vanadium 41
Chromium (total) 119 100 100
Zinc 152
Nickel (a) 102 100
— Value not available
(a) Compound not identified as Chemical of Concern in RI Report
for purpose of the Risk Assessment.
* Total
-------
TABLE 8
Federal Rislc-Based Cleanup Levels (ppb)
Contaminants
Maximum'
Concentration
Risk-Based2
Cleanup Levels
Acenaphthene 24
2-Methylphenol 6800
4-Methylphenol 210
2,4-DimethyIphenol 3 0
Naphthalene 630
Di-n-butyl phthalate 18
Phenanthrene 64
Fluoranthene 11
Pyrene 16
Fluorene 33
2-Methylnaphthalene 1000
2200
—+
1800
730
1500
3700
—+
1500
1095
1500
— Value not available
1 Concentration in ppb
+ Toxicity number not available on IRIS or HEAST
2 Risk levels listed are derived from EPA's Region III Risk-
Based Concentration Table. Third Quarter 1992.
-------
From: Peter Moss (PMOSS)
To: TANDERSO
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1993 3:55 pm
Subject: Imperial ROD
Thanks very much for sending me the ROD Fact Sheet.
Upon reviewing the ROD, I find Table 9 is missing.
Everything else is complete.
Please provide a copy of table 9, so I can submit the
ROD to the Clearinghouse. Thanks very much.
Peter D. Moss
From: Trevor Anderson (TANDERSO)
To: PMOSS
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1993 5:26 pm
Subject: Imperial ROD -Reply
there is no table 9 in the rod. the table numbers are as follows:
table 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10. if you read the rod carefully, there
wouldn't be any mention of a table 9.
-------
Surface Water Discharge Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
Imperial Company/Champion Chemicals Site
Corpwiys I«p»rfit OU/ChMplon ChmleaU (tOCC)
Lttltudti 40° 21' 05* « Avtragt Flout 25 6PM Typt of WMtwmri TrMtod GrowdMittr
Lorv * mtvrMT if**1 POILUTAI
Flow (MM) 0.036
Total Organic Carbon -
pH'(t.u.)
wan
•MLITT HCWX08T laTTHD
•MO 1MB BmCTIM
LniTB traira LML
•n MT m BAT cup/I)
AM MX MM MX
.
30 (1) •
190 110 • •
20 42
20 40 • -
2.7 3.5
6.0 «ln 9.0
•WIT
8M lajivujirr
FCTWD EFFUCVT
•MM*, LIMtT
m MT
•M MX
0.036 ftapert
Koport 30 (1)
190 310
20 42
20 40
2.7 5.5
6.0 Bin 9.0
DUtolvtd Oxyftn
Mtroltvn Nydreearberw (MB/I) 609S29
Chronic Taxtelty (X »fflu*nt) •
VOLATILE
•tni«ne
1,1
n
9.0 •
Note • 100X (S) •
0.19 O.SO 37 1S6 (4) 0.2
5.0 ainfiui
10 (2) II (2)
NOIC • 100X (3)
402
(kg/d*y> 0.000020 0.000041
S 22
59 <4>
0.11
22 (4)
49 0.29 O.M 48 211 <4>
(kg/day) 0.000040 0.000080
1,2-trana-DicMoroethylont 200(total) • 21 54 (4}
0.03
Ml 0.29
0.000040
21 (4)
0.30
0.000041
99 <4>
0.98
O.OOOOM
54 (4>
Ettiyltonuiw
Ntthylww Chlerldt
120
r
32 tOB (4)
40 *9 (4)
32 (4) U8 (4)
2.5 5.0
0.00015 0.00030
Xyltnti, Total 580 • SO (6)
0.12
401 2.3
0.00034
49 (5)
401 0.39
0.000053
26 (4)
401 1.1
0.0001S
••port
9.0
0.00068
91 (5)
0.78
0.00011
80 (4)
2.2
0.00030
50 <6>
Revised.930
-------
Table 10 (Continued)
•AitAnrm
All wluM aro In
i«/t imtoM
•ttanriM ctitad
ACID MB IAK/MUTML COM
••IT H\T81
cue OJU.ITT
ittumn MKD
DATA Limit
KM MT
AVS MX
POUNDS
TICJMOL06T MTNOD EM
MKD MTICTIM Mm
LHIITI LKWL Hurt
MM MY fut/l)
AW MX
9OMIT
•UIVAIJBIT
tFFLUWT
If HIT
MM MT
AW MX
Mniofc Aefd
Nniyl Alechel
2,«>fttatrhylph«»l
11000
BO
SO
•SS 110 (S) • H (5) 110 (5)
•houid bt Controllod Mfth othor
18 36 (4) 18 (4) 86 (4)
•it <2-lthylhaxyt) ffithalat* ISO
(ka/d«y)
1.8 1.3 103 279 (4) 2.0
406
0.00024 0.00048
l*Mthylph«nol
4>Ntthylph«nol
Ntphtteltn*
1,2,4'Trtehlorobtnttrw .
4,4 '-OCT
0.4S ...
7.3 0.00050 0.0010 •
0.000000067 0.00000014
Indotwlfm tutfitt 0.17
(k8/d«y)
O.f3 1.9
0.00013 0.00025
UphtnyU 190 0.00024 0.00049 •
0.000000033 0.000000064
(KM • 1242, 12S4, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, «nd 1016)
1.1 l.S
o.ooou
1000
24
130
410
170
»
•>
•
•
31
0.0042
* •
• •
• •
22
41 48
0.0084
"
•
•
19 (4)
140 (4)
Controlled Mfth MetitlMltnt
Controll«d Mlth 2,4>D!Mthylph«nol
Controllod with 2,4*OlMttiylph«nol
• -22 (4) 39 (4)
• 11 41
0.0042 0.0084
thould ta Control lod with othtr
0.012 408 Report 0.0010
0.006 408 0.93 1.9
0.00013 0.0002$
M> 408 Rtport 0.00049
Reviled.930
-------
Table 10 (Continued)
«miT
cut
UFLU0T
tftTtt
trrr
JJMITt
Alt voluaa in In
ug/l unloaa
ottMrwfeo eteted
NO)
AV6
MT
Hut
aw
AM
OAT
MAX
(ug/O
MM
AVB
MT
WX
TALI AID CTAIIDE
Aturinui, tot* I
Antlasny, total
Areenic, tout
Barlia. total
MrylMta, total
Chroalun, total
Copper, total
Iron
toad, total
Kanganeae
Kircury. total
•fckel, total
Silver, total
Ifnc, total
cyanide, total
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
•7BO
173
71200
(kg/day)
t
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
122
U
72
80
7*100
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
(kg/day)
(kf/day)
(kg/day)
297
450
0.36
52
26
488
20.6
71
0(0097
12
0.0017
29
0.0034
900
0.068
0.0077
0.0000010
NO
4.6
0.00062
820
0.11
MO
•
0.0098
0.000001)
72
0.0096
0.60
0.000061
32
0.00*4
4.3
O.OOOS8
140
0.019
24
0.0033
SO
0.0068
1000
0.14
0.015
•
•
200
1000
•
•
*
400
1000
*
•
3
C7) 1.4
(7) -
0.02
-
204.2
200. S
•>
200.9
71
0.0097
12
0.0017
25
0.0034
500
0.061
Aaport
140
0.019
24
0.0033
SO
0.006B
1000 .
0.14
0.015
0.0000021 •
NO
9.2
0.0013
1600
0.22
NO
•
0.020
500
400
1500
150
45
3
1000
800
3000
300
90
6
(7) 0.9
«7> 1
(7) -
(7) 0.6
(5) •
(7) 0.2
200.8
220.2
a*
800.8
-
245.1
NO
4.6
0.00062
820
0.11
NO
45 (5)
Nport
n>
9.2
0.0013
1600
0.22
NO
90 (5)
0.020
0.0000027 • •
140
0.020
1.2
0.00016
45
0.0089_
8.3
0.0012
750
100
500
100
1500
200
1000
too
(7) -
<7) 0.5
(7) •
C7> $
•
200.9
• '
333.3
72
8.0098
0.60
0.000081
32
0.00*4
4.3
•
140
0.020
1.2
0.00016
a
0.0089
8.5
0.0012
MD> Non-datoctabla uafng tho apaelflod analytical Mthod.
(1) Saaad an UM of jndfcatora of Pollution UvtU (N.J.A.C. 7i9-5.5) and atcflar tffluant Ifarita for
dlaenaraaa of trtatod grouidMtor Into aurfaea wattra, Nhleli haya baon oeononlcally achtavabla.
(2) laaod on Oil anrf «rowa effluent itaftatfons, N.J.A.C. 7iia«14.1 U us*
(3) Thla llottatlon U equivalent to a Mxleun of 1.0 TUe'a (Chronic Toxle Unite).
(4) iatad on final MEPA Iffluent BuldellnN for the Organic Chemtoale, »leetlea end lynthetlc ritora
jfOCW) point aouroa ettajwry for dlaehargae that uae ond-of-plp» biological troatawit.
(5) 8aatd on OJfPA Water Inglneerlng Reaearch Laboratory (UIRL) TreatabKlty Oatobaae for alnllar
dtaehargea and oorroapondlng treetmnt tecHnologloa oonnonly uaad.
(4> taaad on "goneral Authortiatlon to Olocherga Oecontanlnetod Orounduater Pro* Oaaollne tpllU Into
gurfaea Metara of the ftatt" (general OFC Mrutt), effective Novecber 1,1988.
(7) 8aaed on •fiuldanee far OAMojutvalent Control of lei acted Toxic Pollutant*". • roport prepared by
JatM H. Fattereon. Hi. 0., for MfPA, Nay 1981.
Reviled.930
-------
APPENDIX A
NJDEPE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
State of New Jersey
Department of Environment*! Protection and Energy
Office of the Commissioner
CN402
Trenton. NJ 08625-0402
Tel # 609-292-2885
Scott A. Weiner . F*x.«6O9-984-3962
Comfniutoner
SEP 3 0
Mr. Con*tantine Sldamon-Eristoff
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Jacob K. Javita Federal Building
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Erietoff:
The Department of Environmental Protection and Energy hae evaluated and
eoncure with the eelected remedy for the Imperial Oil Company/Champion
Chemlcala Superfund site as stated below!
"This is the second of three planned operable units for the Imperial Oil
Company/Champion Chemicals site. The selected remedy addresses the
remediation of contaminated ground water in the underlying aquifer emanating
from the site.
The major components of the selected remedy Include the followingi
e Extraction of the contaminated ground water via extraction valla;
e Treatment of the extracted ground water via precipitation for inorganic
contaminants and carbon adsorption for organic contaminants in a
facility to be constructed on the site;
o Discharge of the treated ground water to Birch Swamp Brook;
e Continuation of the floating product removal action currently being
undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency; and
o Implementation of an environmental monitoring program to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy".
Newjmnqy it tn tqutl Opportunity employer
Katy&tdPtper
-------
A. W«in«r
>tt . «in«r
Conmlcaloner
dfh
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 22 September 1992
SUBJECT: Groundwater risk-based cleanup levels for the
Imperial Oil Site
FROM: Marina Stefanidis
TO: Trevor Anderson
Below is a table listing risk-based cleanup levels for
groundwater contaminants identified at the Imperial Oil site.
The levels listed are for only those contaminants that do not
have federal or state MCLs. The majority of the risk levels
listed are derived from Region Ill's Risk-Based Concentration
Table. Third Quarter 1992.
cc: F. Cataneo»/
D. Lynch
V. Pitruzzello
-------
Imperial Oil
Groundwater Inaestion Numbers
Contaminant
Methylene chloride
Acenaphthene
2 -Methy Iphenol
4 -Methy Iphenol
2 , 4 -Dimethy Iphenol
Naphthalene
Di-n-butyl
phthalate
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum
concentration (ppb)
12
24
6800
210
30
630
18
64
11
16
33
1000
9
152
Risk-based number
(ppb)
5.4
2200
— -*
1800
730
1500
3700
*
1500
1095**
1500
— - *
260
7300
Toxicity number not available on IRIS or HEAST.
** Recalculated risk value (i.e., not found on the Region III
table).
-------
UNTIED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
July 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Risk-Based Concentration Table, Third Quarter 1992
FROM: Roy L. Smith, Ph.DM Senior Toxicologist
Technical Support Section (3HW15)
TO: RBC Table mailing list
Attached is the EPA Region III risk-based concentration table, first presented and
distributed at the March 1991 EPA Superfund Risk Assessors' Conference. Subse-
quently, it has been distributed quarterly to all interested EPA offices and private parties;
this is the fifth distribution.
The table contains reference doses and carcinogenic potency slopes (obtained
from IRIS through July, 1992, HEAST through April, 1992, OHEA-Cincinnati, and other
miscellaneous sources) for nearly 600 chemicals. These toxicity constants have been
combined with "standard" exposure scenarios to calculate chemical concentrations
corresponding to fixed levels of risk (i.e., a hazard quotient of 1, or lifetime cancer risk of
10*, whichever occurs at a lower concentration) in water, air, fish tissue, and soil.
The Region III toxicologists use this table as a risk-based screen for Superfund
sites, and as a handy desk reference to help with emergencies and requests for immediate
information. It has also been useful in evaluating preliminary site investigation data and
contractor-prepared preliminary remediation goals.
The toxicity information in the table has been painstakingly assembled by hand,
and (despite extensive checking and several years' use) may contain errors. It's advisable
to cross-check before relying heavily on any numbers in the table. If you find any errors,
please send me a note.
This sincere offer was recently taken up by EPA Region VII and the Missouri
Department of Health, which cooperated in conducting an in-depth review of the toxicity
information and calculations in the table. Chuck Arnold (of the Missouri Department of
Health), sent me a marked-up copy of the table which identified a dozen or so redundant
names, typos, and misidentified sources, plus a few incorrect or missing toxicity constants.
These have been fixed.
Chuck also found a bug in the algorithm for drinking water concentrations, which
gave spurious results for volatile carcinogens having inhaled potency slopes but no oral
potency slopes. This algorithm has been re-thought and re-written, and the changes are
-------
described in the attached background information. Only three compounds
(bromoethene, 1,3-butadiene, and l,4-dichloro-2-butene) were affected. I thank Region
VII and MDOH for conducting this review, and Chuck for taking the time to inform me
of the results.
This update of the table contains changed risk-based concentrations (resulting
from changes to IRIS and from error corrections) for the following compounds:
Benzo[a]pyrene (and all other carcinogenic PAHs)
Bromoethene*
1,3-Butadiene*
l,4-Dichloro-2-butene*
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Epoxybutane
Isopropyl methyl phosphonic acid
2-Methoxyethanol*
Methyl ethyl ketone
Mirex
NuStar*
1,1,1-Trichloroethane*
TrichlorofJuoromethane*
(*: corrected error)
Attachment
-------
Risk-Based Concentration Table
Background Information
The risk-based concentrations were calculated as follows:
GENERAL: Separate carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk-based concentrations were
calculated for each compound for each pathway. The concentration in the table is the lower
of the two, rounded to two significant figures. For non-carcinogens, the averaging time
equals the exposure duration, so the exposure duration term has been used for both. The
following terms were used in the calculations:
General:
Carcinogenic potency slope oral (mg/kg/d)'1: CPS0
Carcinogenic potency slope inhaled (mg/kg/d)'1: GPS,
Reference dose oral (mg/kg/d): RfD.
Reference dose oral (mg/kg/d): RfD,
Target cancer risk: TR
Target hazard quotient: THQ
Body weight, adult (kg): BW.
Body weight, child age 1-6 (kg): BW,
Averaging time (years of life): AT
Air breathed (mj/d): IR.
Drinking water ingestion (L/d): IR,
Fish ingestion (g/d): IR,
Soil ingestion - age adjusted (mg/d) IRS.,
Sofl ingestion - age 1-6 (mg/d): IRSe
Soil ingestion - adult (mg/d): IRS.
Residential:
Exposure frequency (d/y): EFr
Exposure duration (y): ED,
Volatilization factor (Urn3): VF
Occupational:
Exposure frequency (d/y):
Exposure duration (y):
.
.
The priority among sources of lexicological constants was as follows: (1) IRIS, (2) HEAST,
(3) HEAST alternative method, (4) ECAO-Cincinnati, (5) other EPA documents, (6)
withdrawn from IRIS, (7) withdrawn from HEAST, (8) PHRED, and (9) non-EPA sources.
Each source was used only if numbers from higher-priority sources were unavailable.
ALGORITHMS:
1. Drinking water (/xg/L). Volatilization terms were calculated only for compounds with Y
in the "Volatile" column. Compounds having a Henry's Law constant greater than 10"4 were
-------
considered volatile. The list may be incomplete, but is unlikely to include false positiv
The equations and the volatilization factor (VF, above) were obtained from the draft RAGS^
IB. Oral potency slopes and reference doses were used for both oral and inhaled exposures
for volatile compounds lacking inhalation values. Inhaled potency slopes were substituted
for unavailable oral potency slopes only for volatile compounds; inhaled RfDs were
substituted for unavailable oral RfDs for both volatile and non-volatile compounds.
a. Carcinogens:
TR -BW -AT -365'- • 10002
• r ««
• EDr - ([VF - IRm • CPS] + [IRm • CPSJ)
b. Non-carcinogens:
THQ -BW -ED - 365'- • 10002
* • ' r m.
EF -ED
VF - IRt IRw }
:*W.J
2. Air (/ig/mj). Oral potency slopes and references were used where inhalation values were
not available.
a. Carcinogens:
TR -BW -AT-3651 -10002
EF -ED -IR -CPS.
b. Non-carcinogens:
THQ - RfD. • BWm - EDe - 365± - 10002
EF -ED - IR
3. Fish (mg/kg):
a. Carcinogens:
TR -BW -AT-365'.
; r
EF -ED L- • CPS
' 10001
b. Non-carcinogens:
-------
THQ • RfDf • BWm • ED
,
EF - ED - - L.
' 10001
4. Soil occupational (mg/kg):
a. Carcinogens:
TR- BW • AT - 365i
• y
IRS
EF • ED • '- • CPS
' 10* =
b. Non-carcinogens:
THQ • RfDo - BWt • ED, • 365t
JRS
EF -ED L
' 10*2
5. Soil residential (mg/kg):
a. Carcinogens:
TR -BW -AT -365i
* i
rpc
EF -ED 1 • CPS
b. Non-carcinogens:
THQ - RfDt 'BWt'EDr- 365i
IRS
EF - ED L
' 10*2
-------
Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07123/92): Roy L Smith, Ph.D.
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS:
1-General:
Target cancer risk: le-06
Target hazard quotient: 1
Body weight, adult (kg): 70
Body weight, age 1-6 (kg): 15
Averaging time (years of life): 70
Air breathed (m3/d): 20
Drinking water ingestion (1/d): 2
Fish ingestion (g/d): 54
Soil ingestion - age adjusted (mg/d): 100
Soil ingestion - age 1-6 (mg/d): 200
Soil ingestion - adult (mg/d): 100
2-Residemial:
Exposure frequency (d/y): 350
Exposure duration (y): 30
Volatilization factor (L/m3): 0.5
3-Occupational:
Exposure frequency (d/y): 250
Exposure duration (y): 25
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23192): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
Contaminant
Acephale
Acclaldchyde
Acetone
Acetone cyanohydrin
Aceloniirile
Aceiophenone
Aciduurfen
Acrolein
Actylamide
Acrylic acid
Acryloniliile
Alachlor
Alar
Aldicarb
Aldicarb suKone
Aldrin
Ally
Ally! alcohol
Allyl chloride
Aluminum
Aluminum phosphide
Amdro
Amciryn
m-Aminophenol
4-Aniinopyridine
Amilraz
Ammonia
Ammonium tulfamaie
Aniline
Antimony and compounds
Antimony pentoxide
Antimony potassium lartrale
Antimony letroxide
Antimony trioxide
Apollo
Anmite
Anenic
Anenic (as carcinogen)
Assure
Inhale
Oral RID (mg/kt/d) (mi/
400e-03 I
::.,:: Inhaled Potency V
d RID Oral Potency Slope Slope 6
kl/d) I t/(mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kg/ld) C
8.70e-03 1
257e-03 1 7.70e 03 1
l.OOe^l 1
TOOe-02 h 2.86e43 a
6.00e43 I 1.43C-02 •
1 OOe-OI 1 5.71e46 •
t.30e-02 1
2.00e4>2 h 5.7U46 1
ZOOe-04 1
4.SOe+00 i 4.SSC+00 i
8.00e-02 1 8.S7e-OS 1
5.71C-04 1 5.40e41 I 2.3Bc41 i
I.00e42 I
8.05C-02 h
1.50e41 1
2.00e44 1
300C-04 *
300e-OJ 1
1.70e+OI i l.72e+01 1
2.50e-OI 1
5.00e43 1
SOOe-02 h 2.86e-04 1
2.90e+00 o
4.00e44 1
3.00e44 1
9.00C-03 1
7.00c42 h
2.00e4S h
2.50C43 1
2.86e42 1
2.00e-01 1 •
286C-04 1 S.70e43 1
4.00e44 I
S.OOe-04 h
9.00C-04 h
4.00e 04 h
4.00C-04 h
1.30e42 i
5.00e-02 h
SOOe-04 I
2.50e-02 1 2.49e-02 i
1.7Se+00 i l.Sle+01 1
9.00e-03 1
Tup water Ambient air
(«/l) («gAn3)
9.8 0.98
Fish (mg/kg)
0.36
Occupational
toil (ing/kg)
330
Residential
soil (mg/kg)
200
94 I.I
3700 370
2600 10
220 52
3700 0.021
470 47
730 0.021
0.019 0.0019
2900 0.31
0.16 0.036
1.1 0.11
5500 550
7.3 0.73
11 1.1
0.005 0.0005
9100 910
180 18
1800 1
110000 11000
15 1.5
11 1.1
330 33
2600 260
0.73 0.073
91 9.1
140
• 95
8.1
140
18
27
0.0007
110
0.0058
0.039
200
0.27
0.41
0.00019
340
6.8
68
3900
0.54
0.41
12
95
0.027
3.4
100000
72000
6100
100000
13000
20000
0.64
82000
5.3
36
150000
200
310
0.17
260000
5100
51000
3000000
410
310
9200
72000
20
2600
7800
5500
470
7800
1000
1600
0.38
6300
3.2
21
12000
16
23
0.1
20000
390
3900
230000
31
23
700
5500
1.6
200
1000 100
7300 730
10 1
15 1.5
18 1.8
33 • 3.3
15 1.5
15 1.5
470 47
3.4 0.34
11 1.1
0.049 0.00057
330 33
270
0.55
0.54
0.68
1.2
0.54
0.54
18
0.13
0.41
0.0018
12
200000
500
410
510
920
410
410
13000
110
310
1.6
9200
16000
300
31
39
70
31
31
1000
68
23
0.97
700
Key to Data Scant* i-IKJS x-\Vittutrawn from IRIS h-HEAST a -HEAST alternate method y-Wiihdiawn from HEAST p-PIIRED t-EPAECAO o-Olhtr EPA documents n-NonEPA sounej.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
Contaminant
Asulam
Alrazine
Avermeclin Bl
Azobcnzene
larium and compounds
laygon
Bayleton
Baythroid
Hcncnn
lenomyl
Bentazon
Benzaldehyde
Ienzene
lenzkJinc
lenzoic acid
lenzolrichloride
lenzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium and compounds
Bidrin
Biphcnlhrin (Talstar)
1,1-Biphenyl
Bis(2-chloroclhyl)elher
)is(2-chloroi*opropyl)ciher
liis(chloromelhyl)eiher
l)is(2-chloro- 1 -melhylelhyl)elher
llis(2-elhylhexyl)phlhalale (DEI IP)
liisphenol A
loron
kiron trifluoriJc
ironiodichloromethane
liromocihene
Iromofurm (tribromomelhane)
liromonielhane
4-liromophcnyl phenyl ether
lirnmoptuH
llronioxynil
llronicnynil oclanoale
1 ,3 Uulatlicne
: ;..;.-. Inhaled Potency V
Inhaled RfD Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RID (mg/kg/d) (mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kg/d) C
500c-02 1
S.OOe-03 i 2.22C-OI h
400e-04 1
l.lOe-01 1 1.09e-01 i
7.00e-02 i 1 43e04 a
4.00e-03 1
3.00e42 1
2.50e-02 1
3-OOe-Ol 1
500C-02 1
2.50e43 i
1.00e41 1
2.90e42 1 2.91e42 1 y
3.006-03 1 2.30e+02 1 2.30e+02 |
4.00e-t-00 1
IJOe+Ol 1
3.00e41 h
1.70C-01 1 y
S.OOe-03 i 4.30e+00 1 8.40e+00 |
I.OOe-04 1 .
1.50C-02 1
5.00C-02 I
1.10e+00 i 1.16e+00 1 y
4.00e42 1 7.00e42 h 3.50e42 h y
2.20e+02 1 2.l7e+02 1 y
700e 02 y 7.00c 02 y
200C-02 i 1.40e-02 1
5.00e-02 1
9.006-02 i 5.71C-03 h
2.00e 04 h
2.006-02 i 1.306-01 1 y
l.lOe-OI h y
200e42 1 7.90e4)3 1 3.85e^)3 1 y
1.406-03 i 1.43e-03 i y
5.806-02 o
5.006-03 h
2006-02 i
2.006-02 i
980e-01 1 y
lap water Ambient air
Oig/l) : (MgAn3)
1800 180
0.38 0.038
15 1.5
0.77 0.078
2600 0.52
150 15
1100 110
910 91
11000 1100
1800 180
91 9.1
3700 370
049 0.29
0.00037 0.000037
150000 15000
00066 0.00066
11000 1100
0.083 0.05
0.02 0.001
3.7 0.37
550 55
. 1800 180
0.012 0.0074
0.35 0.24
0000065 0.000039
1.2 0.12
6.1 0.61
1800 180
3300 21
7.3 0.73
0.11 0.066
0.13 0.077
3.1 2:2
8.7 5.2
2100 210
180 18
730 73
730 73
0.014 0.0087
Fuh (mg/kg)
68
0.014
054
0.029
95
5.4
41
34
410
68
3.4
140
0.11
0.000014
5400
0.00024
410
0.019
0.00073
0.14
20
*8
0.0029
0.045
0.000014
0.045
0.23
68
120
0.024
0.4
1.9
78
6.8
27
27
Occupational
soil (mg/kg)
51000
13
410
26
72000
4100
31000
26000
310000
51000
2600
100000
99
0.012
4100000
0.22
310000
17
0.67
100
15000
51000
2.6
41
0.013
41
200
51000
92000
22
360
1400
59000
5100
20000
20000
Residential
soil (mg/kg)
3900
7.7
31
IS
5500
310
2300
2000
23000
3900
200
7800
59
0.0074
310000
0.13
23000
10
0.4
7.8
1200
3900
1.5
24
0.0077
24
120
3900
7000
13
220
110
4500
390
1600
1600
iti Data Sources: i-«US x-\Yithdiawn from IRIS H-HEAST a-HEAST alumtuc method y-Wuhdrmm from HEAST p^PHRED fEPA-ECAO o-Other EPA document! n-Non-EPA sources.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07123/92): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
Contaminant
1 Bulanol
llutylale
lluiyt benzyl phlhalale
llutylphihalyl butylgtycolale
Cacodylic acid
Cadmium and compounds
Caprolaciam
Caplaiol
Capian
Carbaryl
'arbazole
Carbniuran
Carbon disulfide
Carbon letrachloride
CarbosuKan
Carboxin
Chloral
Chloramhen
Chloranil
Chlordane
Chlorimuron -ethyl
Chlorine dioxide
Chloruaceialdehyde
Chloroacelic acid
2 -Chloroacciophenone
4 Chlornaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
p-Chlorobcnzoic acid
4 -Chlorobcnzolrinuoride
2 Chloro 1,3 butadiene
1 -Chlocobulane
2 Chloroelhyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromelhane
4 Chloi o-2-melhylaniline
4 Chloro 2,2 melhylaniline
hydruchloride
beta-Chloronaphihalene
• ' ; .•''•'•• • \ . . Inhaled Potency AT
Inhaled RID Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RID (mg/kg/d) (mg/kg/d) l/(nit/kg/d) 1/(mgfltg/U) C
l.OOeOI i
S.OOe 02 i
2.00c41 i
l.OOe+00 1
3.00e-03 h
5.0ue44 1 6.30e+00 1
S.00e4)l i
2.00e43 i 8.60e 03 h
IJOeOI i 3.50e43 h
t.00e4l 1
2.00e-02 h
S.OOe-03 1
l.OOeOI i 2.86e03 h y
7.00e44 1 I.30e4)l 1 S.25e^)2 1 y
l.OOe-02 1
1.00e4)l I
2.00; 03 1
l.SOe-02 1
4.03e4)l h
6.00e-OS 1 1.30e+00 1 1.30e+00 1
2.00e-02 i
5.7ie OS 1
6.90e 03 o
2.00e-03 h
8.57e-06 1
4.00C-03 1
200e4>2 1 S.71e4)3 a y
2.00e4)2 1
2.00e-01 h
2.00e 02 h
2.00e42 y 286e4>2 a y
4.00e4l b y
2.50e42 o y
I.00e42 1 6.10e4)3 1 8.0Se42 i y
1.30eX)2 h 6.30e-03 h y
5.80C-01 h
4.60C-01 h
8.00e-02 1
Tap water Ambient air Occupational
(|tg/l) 0>g/n>3) Fuh (mg/kg) toil (mg/kg)
3700 370 140 100000
1800 180 68 51000
7300 730 270 200000
37000 3700 1400 1000000
110 il 4.1 3100
18 00014 068 510
18000 1800 680 510000
9.9 0.99 0.37 330
24 2.4 0.9 820
3700 370 140 100000
4.3 0.43 0.16 140
180 is 6.8 5100
21 10 140 100000
0.22 0.16 0.024 22
370 37 14 10000
3700 370 140 100000
73 7.3 2-7 2000
550 SS 20 15000
0.21 0.021 0.0078 7.1
0.066 0.0066 0.0024 2.2
730 73 27 20000
2.1 0.21
250 25 9.3 7100
73 7.3 2.7 2000
0.31 0.031
150 15 S.4 4100
39 21 27 20000
730 73 27 20000
7300 730 270 200000
730 73 27 20000
160 100 27 20000
2400 1500 S40 410000
ISO 91 34 26000
0.21 0.11 0.52 470
1.9 1.4 0.24 220
O.IS 0.015 0.0054 4.9
0.19 0.019 0.0069 6.2
2900 290 110 82000
Residential
soil (mg/kg)
7800
3900
16000
78000
230
39
39000
160
490
7800
85
390
7800
13
780
7800
160
1200
4.2
1.3
1600
540
160
310
1600
1600
16000
1600
1600
31000
2000
280
130
2.9
3.7
6300
Key to Data Sources: i-IRJS K-Wuhitrawn from IRIS h-HEAST a»HEAST alumau nt€lko4 yWuMrawn from HEAST p -PIIRED t-EPA-ECAO o-Other EPA documents n-Non-EPA sources.
-------
Region /// Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Ray L. Smith, PH.D.
Contaminant
o-Chloronilrobenzene
> Chloronilrobeiuenc
2 Chkirophenol
-Chloropropane
Chlorothalonil
o Chlorololucne
Chlorpropham
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos methyl
Chlorsulfuron
Chlonhiophos
Chromium III and compounds
Chromium VI and compounds
Coal tars
Cobalt
Coke Oven Emissions
Copper and compounds
Crolonaldehyde
"umene
Cyanazine
Cyanides
Barium cyanide
Copper cyanide
Calcium cyanide
Cyanogen
Cyanogen bromide
Cyanogen chloride
Free cyanide
1 lydrogen cyanide
Potassium cyanide
Potassium silver cyanide
Silver cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Zinc cyanide
(^clohexanone
Cyclohcxlamine
Cylialuihrin/ltarale
Cypermelhnn
Cyruniazinc
inhaled Potency ^T
Inhaled RfD Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RtD (mg/kg/d) (n>l/kg/d) l/(mgVkg/d) l/(mgAg/d) C
2.50C-02 h y
l.SOe-02 h y
500e 03 i
286e-02 h y
l.50e-02 1 I.IOe-02 h
2.00c42 1 y
2.00e41 1
3.00C-03 1
l.OOe-02 h
500e4)2 I
SOOe-04 h
I.OOc-KX) I 5.7U07 y
5.00e03 1 4.20e+01 i
2.20e+00 h
2.86e 04 e
2.l7e+00 i
3.7U02 h
l.OOe-02 x 1.90C+00 h l.90e+00 y
400e-02 1 2.57e-03 h
2.00e43 I
I.OOe-01 h
5.00e-03
4.00e-02
4.00e-02
900c-02
5.00e42
2.00e02
200e 02
5.00e-02
2.00e-OI
I.OOe-01
4.00e02
5.00c-02
S.OOe+00 y
200cOI
5.00e03
l.OOe-02
7.50e-03
Tap waier Ambient air
0.57 034
0.79 0.47
ISO 18
170 100
7.7 0.77
120 73
7300 730
110 11
370 37
1800 180
29 2.9
37000 0.0021
180 0.0002
0.0039
10 1
0.0039
1400 140
0.045 0.0045
1500 9.4
73 7.3
3700 370
180 18
1500 150
1500 150
3300 330
1800 180
730 73
730 73
1800 180
7300 730
3700 370
1500 150
1800 180
30000 18000
7300 730
180 18
370 37
270 27
Occupational
ng/kg) soil (mg/kg)
0.13 110
0.18 160
6.8 5100
0.29 260
27 20000
270 200000
4.1 3100
14 10000
68 51000
1.1 820
1400 1000000
6.8 5100
50 38000
0.0017 . 1.5
54 41000
2.7 2000
140 100000
6.8 5100
54 41000
54 41000
120 92000
68 51000
27 20000
27 20000
68 51000
270 200000
140 100000
54 41000
68 51000
6800 5100000
270 200000
6.8 5100
14 10000
10 7700
Residential
soil (mg/kg)
68
95
390
150
1600
16000
230
780
3900
63
78000
390
2900
0.9
3100
160
7800
390
3100
3100
7000
3900
1600
1600
3900
16000
7800
3100
3900
390000
16000
390
780
590
Key 10 Data Sources: i-IRJS jr« Withdrawn from IMS H-HEAST a-HEAST alternate mfthoJ y-Withdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED t-EPA-ECAO o-Other EPA documents n-Non EPA sources.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07123/92): Roy L Smith, Ph.il
6.
Contaminant
Dacthal
lalapon .
Danilol
DDD
DDE
DDT
Decabromodiphenyl ether .
)emeton
Diallate
)iazinon
1,4-Dibromobenzene
)ibromochloromeihane
,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoelhane
Di-n-buiyl phthalate
Dicamba
1,2 Dichlorobeniene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzenc
1 ,4 - Dichlorobenzene
3,3* -Dichlorobenzidine
1,4 Dichloro 2 butene
Dichlorodifluoromelhane
,1-Diii:. • ihane
,2-Diih. : me(RDC)
,1-Dichlnroclliylene
,2 Dichloroelhyiene (cl»)
,2-Dichloroeihylene (Irani)
2.4 nichlorophenol
4 (2.4-Dichlorophenoxy)butyric
Acid (2,4 DB) .
2.4 Dichlorophenoxyacclic Add
(2,4 D)
1 .2 Dichloropropane
1,3 Dichloropropcne
2.3 Dichloropropanol
1 >iclil<>rv<»
Dicofol
Dit-yclopcnladicne
DiclJiin
Inhale
Orel RCD (mg/kg/d) (mg/1
S.OOe-OI i
: Inhaled Potency V
d RID Orel Potency Slope Slope O
kg/d) l/(mg/kg/d) 1/Xmg/kg/d) C
3.00e42 1
5.00e-04 1
2.40e-OI i
3.40e-6l 1
5.00e44 1
I.OOe-02 1
3.40e-OI I 3.40e-01 i
y
4.00e45 1
6.10e 02 h y
9.00e-04 b
I.00e42 1
2.00e-02 1
y
8.40C-02 1 y
S.7ie-OS 1 1.40e+00 h 2.40e 03 h y
SSOe+OI 1 7.70e4l 1 y
I00e4)l 1
300C-02 1
9.00e-02 1 S.7U-02 • y
890e-02 o
y
2.00e41 h 2.40e-02 h y
4.50e41 I
9.30e+00 h y
2.00e4)l 1 5.7
le-02 • y
l.OOe-OI b 1.43e01 • y
9.10e42 1 9.IOe42 i y
9.00e4)3 1
• I.OOe-02 h
2.00e42 1
300e43 V
600e-OI I I.75e0l 1 y
y
y
8.00e-03 1
I.OOe-02 1
y
1 I4e03 1 6.80e4>2 h y
3.00e44 i 5.7U03 1 I.80e41 b l.30e-OI h y
300e 03 1
8.00e-04 i
' 3.00e-02 h 5.7
2.90c4l 1
4.40e-01 i
le-OS a y
1.60e+01 i l.6le+OI 1,
Tap waier Ambient air
(ag/l) . (pgAn3) FUh (mg/kg)
18000 1800 680
1100 110 41
18 1.8 • 0.68
0.35 0.035 0.013
0.25 0.025 0.0093
0.25 6.025 0.0093
61 37 14
1.5 0.15 0.054
0.23 0.14 0.052
33 3.3 1.2
61 37 14
O.i7 01 6.038
0.06 0.21 0.0023
0.00096 0.011 0.000037
3700 370 140
1100 110 41
370 210 120
540 320 120
0.59 0.35 0.13
0.19 0.019 0.007
Occupational
toil (mg/kg)
510000
31000
510
12
8.4
8.4
10000
41
47
920
10000
34
2
0.034
100000
31000
92000
91000
120
6.4
Residential
toil (mg/kg)
39000
2300
39
7.1
5
5
780
3.1
28
70
780
20
1.2
0.02
7800
2300
7000
7000
71
3.8
0.0015 6.00092
390 210 270
810 520 140
0.16 0.094 0.035
6.058 6.049 0.0053
61 37 14
120 73 27
110 11 4.1
290 29 11
61 37 14
0.21 0.13 0.046
0.1 0.066 0.018
110 11 4.1
0.29 0.029 0.011
0.19 0.019 0.0072
0.42 0.21 41
00053 0.00053 0.0002
200000
100000
31
4.8
10000
20000
3100
8200
10000
42
16
3100
9.9
6.5
31000
0.18
16000
7800
19
2.8
780
1600
230
630
780
25
9.5
230
5.9
3.9
2300
0.11
Key 10 f)aia Sources: i-IRIS x-WiiMrawn from IRIS h-IIEAST a-HEAST alumait mtthod y-WitMrawn from HEAST p-PHRED e-EPA-ECAO o-Olha EPA documents n-Non EPA sources.
-------
EPA Region HI Risk-Baud Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
Contaminant
Dieihylene glyco), monoethyl elhcr
Dieihyllbramide
Di(2-elhylhexyl)adipale
)ielhyl phlhalale
Dielhyblilbeslrol
lifenzoqual (Avenge)
Didubenzuron
Oiiaopropyl meihylphosphonate
)imelhipin
)iroelhoale
3,3'-Dimelhoxyb«nzidine
)imeihylamine
N-N-Dimelhylaniline
2,4-Dimeihylaniline
2,4-Dimelhylaniline hydrochloride
3,3'-Oimclhylbctuidine
l.t -Dimelhylhydraiine
1 ,2 Pimeihylhydnuine
N,N Dimelhylfonmide
2.4-Dimelhylphenol
2,6-Dimelhylphenol
3,4-pimeihylphenol
Dimethyl phlhalale
Dimethyl icrcphlhalale
-1,6-Dinilro-o-cydohciyl phenol
1,3 Dinilrobcnzenc
.2 Dinilrobenzene
1 ,4 Dinilrobcnzenc
2,4-l)inilrophenol
linitroiolucne mixture
2,4-Dinilrololuene
2,6-Dinilrololucnc
liiuwcb
•li n Oclyl phlhalale
1,4 Oioxane
Diphenamid
Diplicp.yiantiue
1,2 Diplienylhydrazine
Dicjual
••: •• • • '•••••: "•••: •:•:.-•:• -v.:1!;-.- • ••••••; . .;-V • • •• Inhaled Potency V
Inhaled RfD Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Orml R(D (mg/kg/d) (mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kg/U) C
2.00e+00 h
l.lfe-02 b
600eOI 1.20e-03 i
8.00e41
4.70e403 h
SOOe-02
ZOOe-02
8.00e02
2.00e-02
200e04
1.40e-02 h
5.7le«6 x
200e 03 i
7.50e01 h
580cOI h
920e+00 h
260e+00 h 350e+00 h
370e+OI h 3.70e+OI h
l.OOe-OI h 8.57e-03 1
2OOc-02 1
6.00e 04 1
1.00e03 1
lOOe^OI b
I00e41 i
200e03 i
1.00e04 1
400c 04 h
4.00e-04 h
200c 03 i
6.80e4)l 1
200e^)3 1 1
6.80e 01 1
I.OOe-03 1
200e 02 h
l.lOe-02 1
300c 02 1
2.50e-02 1
8.00C-OI 1 7.70eOt 1
2.20c-03 1
Tap water
(«/0
73000
400
71
29000
0.000018
2900
730
2900
730
7.3
6.1
0.21
73
0.11
0.15
0.0093
0.033
0.0023
3700
730
22
37
370000
3700
73
3.7
IS
IS
73
0.13
73
0.13
37
730
7.7
1100
910
0.11
80
Ambient air
G
-------
ETA Region /// Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07123/92): Roy L. Smith, PH.D.
8
Contaminant
Direct black 38
Oirccl blue 6
)irccl brown 35
isuUolon
iuron
Outline
imliMuUan
l-nduthall
•ntlrin
l-.pichlornhydrin
1,2-l-puxybiilane
I-P 1C (S Ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate)
l-lheplion (2 chlorocthyl
|ihos|>lmnic acid)
•lh it in
2 lilhoiyelhanol
-lilhoiyclhanol acetate
Uihyl acetate
l-lhyl acrylate
lilhylbenzcne
Uihytene cyanoliyilrin
lilhylcne diaoiine
liihylenc |lyc«l
lilhylcne glycol, monobutyl ether
ilhylene oxide
lilhylcne thiourea (ETU)
l-lhyl chloride
lithyl ether
iithyl mclhacrylale
lilhyl p-nilrophcnyl
phenylphosphorothioale
Hlhylniirotourea
lilhylphlhalyl elhyl gtycolale
ELxprcu
l-cnamiphoi
Huomeluron
Huoride
l-luoridone
l-luipiimidol
"•••••: •;•••;•.' Inhaled Potency i/
Inhaled RfD Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RID (mg/kg/d) (mjAg/d) l/(mg/k|/d) l/(mg^R/d) C
8.60e400 h
8.IOe+00 h
9.30e+00 h
4.00e4S
2.00C-03
4.00e03
5.00e45
2.00eO2
300e^4
200e^)3 » 2.86e44 1 9.90e4)3 1 4.20e 03 1
S.7U-03 1
2.50eX)2 I
500e-03 1
500e4M 1
400e-01 h S.7U-02 1
300e-OI • .
9.00e4l 1
4.80e-02 h
lOOe-OJ 1 2.86eOI I y
3.00C-01 h
200e-02 h
2.00e+00 i
S.7U-03 h
1.02e400 h 3.SOc41 h
800C-05 i 6.00e-6l h
2.00e-02 e 2.86e+00 i y
2.00e41 i y
9.00e-02 h
1.00e43 i
330e+01 p
3.00e+00
8OOe03
2SOe44
130e-02
600c-02
S.OOe-02
200c-02
Tap water Ambient air
(«g/l) 0>(Mi3)
0.0099 0.00099
0.011 0.0011
0.0092 0.00092
i.s o.is
73 7.3
150 IS
1.8 0.18
730 73
11 1.1
8.6 1
210 21
910 91
180 18
18 1.8
15000 210
11000 1100
33000 3300
1.8 0.18
1300 1000
11000 1100
730 73
73000 7300
210 21
0.083 0.024
0.14 0.014
710 10000
1200 730
3300 330
0.37 0.037
0.0026 0.00026
110000 11000
290 29
9.1 0.91
470 47
2200 220
2900 290
730 73
Fuh (mg/k|)
0.00037
0.00039
0.00034
0.054
2.7
5.4
0.068
27
0.41
0.32
34
6.8
068
540
410
1200
0.066
140
410
27
2700
0.0031
0.0053
27
270
120
0.014
0.000096
4100
11
034
18
81
110
27
Occupational
•oil (mg/kg)
0.33
0.35
0.31
41
2000
4100
51
20000
310
290
26000
5100
510
410000
310000
920000
60
100000
310000
20000
2000000
24
4.8
20000
200000
92000
10
0.087
3100000
8200
260
13000
61000
82000
20000
Retidentiat
•oil (ing/kg)
0.2
6.21
0.18
3.1
160
310
3.9
1600
23
160
2000
390
39
31000
23000
70000
35
7800
23000
1600
160000
1.7
2.8
1600
16000
7000
0.78
0.052
230000
630
20
1000
4700
6300
1600
Key to Data Sources: I-IRIS x-HWutrown from IMS H-HEAST H'HEASTolumoiemethod y-Wuhdrown from HEAST p-PIIRED t-EPAECAO o-Other EPA documents n-NonEPA tourco.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
Contaminant • :
Flulolanil
Huvalinalc •
Folpel
romcM(en
Fonofc*
•onnaldehyde
Formic Acid
Fcoclylal
Furan
•urazolidone
•urfural
•urium
Furmecyclox
Glufcninaie-ammonlum
Glycidaldehyde
GlyphoMie
1 laknyfop-meihyl
1 lanriony
Icpiachlor
1 leplachlor epoxide
1 leubromobenzene
1 lexachlorobenzenc
lauchloro butadiene
IICH (alpha)
HCII(bcla)
IICH (gamma) 1. indane
1 ICI (technical
1 leuchlorocyclopcnladiene
lexachhirodibenzo-p-dioxin mixture
(IUCDD)
llcxachloruclhane
1 Icxachlomphene
n-l Icxane
1 lexazinone
1 lydrazine, hydrazine lulfale
1 lydrogen chloride
1 lydrogen sulfide
p 1 lydnx|uin<>ne
linazalil
Inhajc
Oral RID (mg/kg/d) (mg/1
6.00e42 1
Pi: i- • . : Inhaled Potency V
d RID Oral Potency Slope Slope O
kl/tt) • l/(n>g/kg/a) l/(mgAg/d) C
1.00642 I
I.00e41 i
3.50e-03 i
1.90e-01 i
2.00e43 1
2.00e41 1
4.S5e-02 1
2.00e+00 h
3.00e+00 1
1.00643 1
3.80e+00 h
3.00643 1 1.43e42 *
5.00e+OI h
3.00e 02 i
4.00e44
4.00C-04 286c 04 h
l.OOe-OI
500e-OS
1.30e-02
S.OOe-04
130e4)5
200e-03
S.OOe-04
200e03
4SOe-fOO 4.55e+00 y
9.10e+00 9.10e+00 y
y
160C+00 1.61e+00 y
7.80e-02 7.70e-02 y
630e+00 6.30e+00
ISOe+OO l.80e+00
3.00C-04 i
130e+00 h
I.SOe^OO I 1.79e+00 I
700c 03 i 2.00e-05 h y
6.20c+03 I 4.5Se403 1
l.00e«3 1
1.406-02 i 1.40e-02 1 y
3.00e44 i
6.00e2 i y
3.30e42 i
300e+00 I 1.72e+01 i
2.00C-03 1
300e43 1 257eXM i
4.00e-02 h
I.30e42 i
Tap water
C«/l)
2200
370
24
0.45
73
7300
73000
110000
37
0.022
110
0.0017
2.8
15
15
3700
1.8
470
0.0031
0.0016
12
0.0088
0.18
0.014
0.047
0.066
0.047
0.15
0.000014
1
11
350
1200
0028
73
110
1500
470
Ambient air
(«An3)
220
37
2.4
0.045
7.3
0.19
7300
11000
3.7
0.0022
52
0.00017
0.28
1.5
1
370
0.18
47
0.0019
0.00094
7.3
0.0053
0.11
0.0014
0.0047
0.0066
0.0048
0.073
0.0000019
0.61
1.1
210
120
0.0005
7.3
0.94
ISO
47
Fish ( oig/kg)
81
14
0.9
0.017
2.7
270
2700
4100
1.4
0.00083
4.1
0.000063
0.11
0.54
0.54
140
0.068
18
0.0007
0.00035
2.7
0.002
0.04
0.0005
0.0018
00024
0.0018
9.5
0.00000051
0.23
0.41
81
45
0.0011
4.1
54
18
Occupational
soil (nig/kg)
61000
10000
820
15
2000
200000
2000000
3100000
1000
0.75
3100
0.057
95
410
410
100000
51
13000
0.64
0.31
2000
1.8
37
0.45
1.6
2.2
1.6
7200
0.00046
200
310
61000
34000
0.95
3100
41000
13000
Residential
toil (mg/kg)
4700
780
490
9
160
16000
160000
230000
78
0.45
230
0.034
57
31
31
7800
3.9
1000
0.38
0.19
160
1.1
22
0.27
0.95
1.3
0.95
550
0.00027
- 78
23
4700
2600
0.57
230
3100
1000
Key to Data Sources: i-IRlS x-Wuhttrawn frotn IRIS h-HEAST a-HEASTalternate method ymWuhdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED t-EPAECAO o-Other EPA documents n-Non EPA taunts.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07123192): Roy L. Smith, PH.D.
10
Conlimininl '
Imauquin
Iprodione
Isubuunol
Isophorone
Isopropatin
Isopropyl methyl photphonic acid
Isoubco
Kepone
1-actoTen
l«ad (leinelhyl)
Il.inuron
Uihium
.ondax
Malaihion
Makic anhydride
Malek hydratide
Malononitrile
Mancozeb
Maneb
Manganese and compound*
Mcphmfolan
Mepiqual
Mercury and compound* (methyl)
Mercury and compound*
[inorganic)
Merphot
Merphof oxide
Mctalaiyl
Methacrylonilrile
Melhamidopho*
Mclhanul
Mcihidathion
Mclliamyl
Melhuxychlor
2 Melhoxyelhinol
2 Meiluucyelhanot acetate
2 Mcihoxy 3-nitrotniline
Methyl acctale
Methyl acrylite
: ; ;•.'• . : H :: Inhaled Potency V
• . •';. •'! Inhaled Rrp Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RID (mg/kgAJ) (mg/kg/d) ; l/(rag/kt/d) l/(mg/k|/d) C
ISOe^l 1
400C-02 I
3.00e41 1
lOOe-01 1 4.IOC-03 i
1.50e-02 1
l.OOe-01 1
S.OOc-02 1
1.80e+01 e
2.00C-03 1
1.00*47 1
2.00e43 1
2.00C-02 e
2.00e-01 1
200e 02 1
I.OOeOI 1
S.OOe 01 1
2.00e^S h
300C-02 h
S.OOe-03 1
100e-0l i U4e-04 1.
9.00C-OS h
3.00e-02 1
300e44 1
3.00e-04 h B.37e-05 h
300c4)5 i
3.00e^)5 1
600e 02 1
100e4M 1 2.00e04 •
S.00e^)5 1
5 OOe^J 1
I.00e43 1
ZSOe-02 1
3.00e43 1
4.00C-03 h 5.7U03 1
2.00e-03 •
4.60C-02 h
I.OOe+00 h
300e^)2 •
Tapwaier Ambient air .: . :
0»g/!) («g/ni3) Fuh(mgAn)
9100 910 340
1500 ISO 54
11000 1100 410
21 2.1 0.77
550 55 20
3700 370 140
1800 ISO 68
0.0047 0.00047 0.00018
73 7.3 Z7
0.0037 0.00037 0.00014
73 7.3 2.7
730 73 27
7300 730 270
730 73 27
3700 370 140
18000 1800 680
0.73 0.073 0.027
1100 110 41
180 18 6.8
3700 0.42 140
3.3 0.33 0.12
1100 110 41
11 1.1 0.41
11 0.31 0.41
1.1 0.11 0.041
1.1 0.11 0.041
2200 220 81
3.7 0.73 0.14
1.8 0.18 0.068
18000 1800 680
37 3.7 1.4
910 91 34
180 18 6.8
150 21 5.4
73 7.3 Z7
1.9 0.19 0.069
37000 3700 1400
1100 110 41
Occupation*!
toil (mg/kg)
260000
41000
310000
700
15000
100000
51000
0.16
2000
0.1
2000
20000
200000
20000
100000
510000
20
31000
5100
100000
92
31000
310
310
31
31
61000
100
51
510000
1000
26000
5100
4100
2000
62
1000000
31000
Retidemui
•°U (mi/kg)
20000
3100
23000
420
1200
7800
3900
0.095
160
0.0078
160
1600
16000
1600
7800
39000
1.6
2300
390
7800
7
2300
23
23
13
Z3
4700
7.8
3.9
39000
78
2000
390
310
160
37
78000
2300
Key to Data Source*: 1-IR1S x-Withdrawn from IRIS h-HEAST a-HEAST alternate method y-Withdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED t-EPA-ECAO o-Other EPA document! n-Non EPA toune*.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
11
Contaminant
2 Melhylaniline (o-ioluidine)
2 Melhylaniline hydrochloride
Meihyl chlorocarbonate
2 • Mel hyl -4 -chlorophenoxyacelic
acid
4 (2 MelhyM-chlorophencoy)
butyric acid (MCPB)
2 (2 Meihyl 43 1 1 65eX>3 1 y
S.OOe-02 h 2.86e-OI 1
l.lOe-t-00 h
S.00c4>l h 2.29C-02 a
B.OOe-02 h
3.30e42 h
2.50e4M 1
SOOe-02 «
5.00C-02 i
i.OOe-02 h
600c-03 a 1 I4e02 a y
7.00C-02 a y
300e+02 p
5.00e43 e 1.43e^)l 1
150eX)l
250C-02
2.00e-04 l.SOe+00 h
2.00eO3
S.00e43 h
2GOc-p3
lOOeOl
2.00e-02
Tap water Ambient air
(08/1) 0>K/rn3) Fish (
0.35 0.035
0.47 0.047
37000 3700
18 1.8
370 37
37 3.7
37 3.7
Occupational
mg/k|) toil (mf/kg)
0.013 12
0.018 16
1400 1000000
0.68 510
14 10000
1.4 1000
1.4 1000
Retidential
toil (nig/kg)
7.1
9.5
78000
39
780
78
78
31000 3100
0.035 6.021
0.34 0.034
0.66 6.066
1.9 0.19
61 37
5.4 5.2
1800 1000
0.077 0.0077
1800 83
2900 290
2.6 0:26
9.1 0.91
1800 180
1800 180
1800 180
60 42
430 260
0.013 11
0.024 22
0.069 62
14 10000
0.42 380
68 51000
0.0029 2.6
68 51000
110 82000
0.096 87
0.34 260
68 51000
68 51000
68 51000
8.1 6100
95 72000
6.00028 0.000028 0000011 0.0095
180 520
5500 550
910 91
6.047 0.0047
73 7.3
180 18
73 7.3
3700 370
730 73
6.8 5100
200 150000
34 26000
0.0018 1.6
2.7 2000
6.8 5100
2.7 2000
140 100000
27 20000
6.8
13
37
780
230
3900
1.5
3900
6300
52
20
3900
3900
3900
470
5500
0.0057
390
12000
2000
0.95
160
390
160
7800
1600
Key to Data Sources: i-IRJS x-Withdrawn from IRIS h-HEAST a~HEAST alumau method y"Withdrawn from HEAST p-P/IRED t-EPA-ECAO o-Other EPA documents n-Non EPA toiatet.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07123192): Roy L Smith, PH.D.
12
Contaminant
Nickel refinery dust
Nickel sutnulfide
ilrapyrin
Nitrate
itric Oxide
Nilrile
2-Nitroaniline
•Nilroanilinc-
•Nilroaniline
lilrobenzene
litrufuranloin
J Niirutodiphenylamine
N-Niiroao di-n-propylamine
N-Niirao-N-meihyleihylamine
N NilrosopyrTolidine
fii Nilrololucne
> Nnrololucne
^orflurazon
NuSur
OcUbrumuUphenyl elher
Oi-uhydro- 1 357 lclranilro-1 357-
lelrazocine(IIMX)
Oclamelhylpyrophoiphoramide
Oryzalin
Oxadiazon
Oxaniyl
OxyDuorfen
I'aclobulrazol
I'araqual
I'aralhiun
•;••••• Inhaled Potency V
Inhaled RID Oral Potency Slope Slope 6
Oral Rm (mg/kg/d) (mg/kj/d) l/(oi|/ki/d) l/(mg^g/d) C
8.40e-01 1
1.70e+00 1
l.SOe-03 K
160e+00 1
l.OOe-01 i
I.OOe-01 1
6.00e4S h 5.71eX)5 h
300e-03 o
3.00e43 o
500e4M 1 S.7U-04 •
7.00e-02 h
1.50e+00 h 9.40e+00 h
l.OOe+00 1
l.00e-0| 1
6.20e-02 o
S.7U-03 i 9.40e+00 h
J.40e+00 5.60e>00 1
2.80e+00
I.JOe+02 l.5le+02 1
S.lOe+01 4.90e^OI i
4.90e-03
7.00c+00
2.20e+01
2.10e+00 ZMe^OO i
I.OOe-02 h
1.00e42 h
4.00e-02
7.00C-04
300e-03
5.00e-02
200eX)3 h
S.OOe-02
500e03
2.50e-O2
300e03
I.30C-O2
4.50c-03
600e4)3 h
Tap water
0«kVi)
55
58000
3700
3700
2.2
110
110
18
2600
0.057
37000
3700
2300
210
0.016
0.03
0.00057
0.0017
17
0.012
0.0039
0.041
370
370
1500
26
110
1800
73
1800
180
910
110
470
160
220
Ambient air
<«A«3)
0.01
6.005
5.5
5800
370
370
0.21
11
II
2.1
260
0.00091
3700
370
230
0.00091
0.0015
0.003
0.000057
0.00017
1.7
0.0012
0.00039
0.004
37
37
ISO
2.6
11
180
7.3
180
18
91
11
47
16
. 22
Flfh (mg/kg) .
2
2200
140
140
0.081
4.1
4.1
0.68
95
0.0021
1400
140
84
0.00058
0.0011
0.000021
0.000062
0.64
6.00045
0.00014
0.0015
14
14
54
0.95
4.1
68
2.1
68
6.8
34
4.1
18
6.1
8.1
Occupational
•oil (mg/kf)
1500
1600000
100000
100000
61
3100
3100
510
72000
1.9
1000000
100000
63000
0.53
1
0.019
0.056
580
0.41
0.13
1.4
10000
10000
41000
720
3100
51000
2000
51000
5100
26000
3100
13000
4600
6100
Residential
•oil(miAl)
120
130000
7800
7800
4.7
• 230
230
39
5500
1.1
78000
7800
4800
0.3^
0.61
0.011
0.033
350
0.24
0.077
0.81
780
780
3100
55
230
3900
160
3900
390
2000
230
1000
3SO
470
Key 10 Data Sauna: I-IRIS fWihtlrawn from IRIS h-HEAST a-HEAST alternate method y Withdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED e-EPAECAO o-Other EPA document! n-Non EPA taunts.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
13
Contaminant
Pebulale
Pendimethalin
Peniabromo-6-chloro cycloheune
'entabromodiphenyl elher
Penlachlorobenzcne
Penlachloronitro benzene
'cniachlorophenol
Permelhrin
Phenmcdipham
Phenol
m-Phenylcnediamine
i-Phenylcnediamine
'henylmercuric acetate
Phenylphenol
'home
'hosmcl
Phocphine
Phoiphoru* (while)
p Phlhalic acid
Phlhalic anhydride
Picloram
'irimiphot-melhyl
Polybrominated biphenyl*
Polychlorinated biphenyU (PCBt )
PotychJorinaled terphenyb (PCTs)
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon*
Acenaphihene
Anlhanlhrene
Anthracene
l)enz|a|anihracene
Benzo|b|nuoranlhene
Uenzo{j|nuoranlhene
licnzo|k|nuoranthene
nenzo|ghi]perylene
l)cnzo|a|pyrene
ilenzo|e|pyrene
Cyck;penl3iiicn<>|cdjpyrenc
Chryseue
i)ibenz|ahjanlhracene
Inhale
Oral R(D (mg/kt/U) (nit/
S.00e42 h
: • Inhaled Potency V
d RfD Oral Potency Slope Slope O
k|/d) l/(mgAg/d) l/(miAg/d) C
400cm 1
2.30e42 h •
200e03
8.00c44
3.00e43
3.00e-02
y
160e-01 h y
1.20e-OI 1
S.OOe-02
2.50e41
6.00e4l
6.00e43
1.90e-OI b
S.OOe-05 1
1.94e-03 h
200e 04 h
2.00e-02 1
300c 04 h 8.57C-06 h
2.00e-05 1
I.OOe+00 b
200e+00 I
TOOe-02 1
I.OOe-02 1
7.00e-06 b
8.90e+00 h
7.70e+00 1
4.50C+00 e
6.00e42 1
234e+00 n 1.9Se-fOO n
3.00e4l 1
.1.06000 n 8.85C-01 n
-1.02e-fOO n 8.S4e-OI n
4.45e4l n 3.72c-OI n
4.82e4l n 4.03e-01 n
161e-01 n I.34e41 n
7.30C-KW I 6.IOe+00 h
2.92e-02 n 2.44e-02 n
I68C-01 n 1.40e-0t n
3.2U-02 n X68e-02 n,
8.10e-fOO n 6.77e+00 n
Tap water
(«/l)
1800
1500
3.7
73
4.9
0.05S
0.71
1800
9100
22000
220
6900
2.9
44
7.3
730
11
0.73
37000
73000
2600
370
0.0096
0.011
0.019
Ambient air
<«A»3)
180
150
0.37
7,3
2.9
0.033
0.071
180
910
2200
22
690
0.29
4.4
0.73
73
0.031
0.073
3700
7300
260
37
0.00096
0.0011
0.0019
Fbh (rng/kg)
68
54
0.14
2.7
1.1
0.012
0.026
68
340
810
8.1
260
0.11
1.6
0.27
27
0.41
0.027
1400
2700
95
14
0.00035
0.00041
0.0007
Occupational
•oil (mgA|)
51000
41000
120
2000
820
11
24
51000
260000
610000
6100
190000
82
1500
200
20000
310
20
1000000
2000000
72000
10000
0.32
0.37
0.64
Residential
•oil (mg/ki)
3900
3100
74
160
63
6.6
14
3900
20000
47000
470
15000
6.3
880
16
1600
23
1.6
78000
160000
5500
780
0.19
0.22
0.38
2200
0.036
11000
0.08
0.083
0.19
0.18
0.53
0.012
2.9
0.51
2.7
0011
220
0.0044
1100
0.0096
0.01
0.023
0.021
0.063
0.0014
0.35
0.061
0.32
0.0013
81
0.0014
410
0.003
0.0031
0.0071
0.0065
0.02
0.00043
0.11
0.019
0.098
0.00039
61000
1.2
310000
2.7
2.8
6.4
5.9
18
0.39
98
17
89
0.35
4700
0.73
23000
1.6
1.7
3.8
3.5
11
0.23
58
10
-53
0.21.
fry 10 Data Sources: I'IRIS x-IHttutrawn pom IRIS h~HEAST o-HEAST alternate method y-Withdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED t-EPAECAO o-Other EPA documents n-Non EPA sources.
-------
LI'A Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, PH.D.
14
Contaminant
. l-luoranthene
Huorene
lndcno|l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphllialcne
Phcnanlhrcne
Pyrcne
Prochloraz
'roduralin
'romcton
'romciryn
'ronamide
Propachlor
'ropanil
'ropargile
'ropargyl alcohol
Propazine
Propham
Propiconazole
Propylene glycol
Propylene glycol, monoeihyl ether
Propylene glycol, monomelhyl ether
Propylene oxide
'ursuil
Pydrin
Pyridine
Quinalphus
(}uinoline
KDX (Cycloniie)
Kcsntelhrin
Itonncl
Koienone
Savey
Sclenious Acid
Selenium
Selenourea
Selhoxydim
Silver and compounds
Simaiine
Sodium azide
• Inhaled Potency V
Inhaled RID Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RID (mg/kg/d) (mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kgAl) l/(mg/kg/U) C
4OOe 02 i
4.00e42 1
1.69e+00 n 1.42e+00 n
4.00e42 h
290e 02 o
3.00e-02 1 5.91e-01 n 4.94e-01 n
900e03 1 1.50e6l 1 n
600c 03 h
I.SOe-02 1
4.00e43 1
7.50e-02 i
1.30e02 1
S.00e 03 1
2.00e42 1
200e 03 1
200e 02 1
200e02 1
1.30e-02 1
200e+OI h
7.00e 01 b
7.00e^)l h S.7ie4ll 1
B.S7e43 1 2.40e-01 1 1.30e42 1
2.SOC-OI 1
2.50e 02 1
l.OOe-03 1
S.OOe 04 1
l.20e+01 h
300c03 i 1.10c4l 1
3.00e 02 1
yoOe42 h
4.00e 03 1
250e 02 1
500e 03 1
500e 03 1
S00e^)3 h
900e4)2 i
SOOe 03 1
2.00e03 h l.20e-OI h
400e 03 1
Tap water Ambient air Occupational
(Mg/l) OgM>3) Rsh(mg/kg) toil (mg/kg)
1500 ISO 54 41000
1500 ISO 54 41000
0.05 0.006 0.0019 1.7
1500 ISO 54 41000
1100 110 39 30000
014 0.0i7 00053 4.8
0.57 0.057 6.021 19
220 22 8.1 6100
550 55 20 15000
150 15 5.4 4100
2700 270 100 77000
470 47 18 13000
180 18 6.8 5100
730 73 27 20000
73 7.3 17 2000
730 73 27 20000
730' 73 27 20000
470 47 18 13000
730000 73000 27000 20000000
26000 2600 950 720000
26000 2100 950 720000
0.35 0.66 6.013 12
9100 910 340 260000
910 91 34 26000
37 3.7 1.4 1000
is 1.8 068 sio
0.0071 0.00071 0.00026 0.24
0.77 6.077 0.029 26
1100 110 41 31000
1800 180 68 51000
ISO IS S.4 4100
910 91 34 26000
180 18 6.8 5100
180 18 6.8 5100
180 18 6.8 5100
3300 330 120 92000
180 18 6.8 5100
0.71 0.071 0.026 24
ISO IS 5.4 4100
Residential
toil (mg/kg)
3100
3100
1
3100
2300
2,9
11
470
1200
310
5900
1000
390
1600
160
1600
1600
1000
1600000
55000
55000
7.1
20000
2000
78
39
0.14
15
2300
3900
310
2000
390
390
390
7000
390
14
310
key M Data Situnei: i-IRlS *•* Withdrawn from IRIS h-HEAST o-HEAST alternate method y~ Withdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED t-EPAECAO o->Other EPA documents n-Non-EPA tourca.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07123/92): Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.
15
Contaminant
Sodium dielhyldilhiocarbaraate
Sodium (luoroacclale
Sodium mclavanadale
Slronlium, stable
Strychnine
Siyrene
Syiihane
2.3.7,8 TCIJD (dioxin)
Icbuihiuron '
femephos
Tcrbacil
I'erbufos
Tcrbuiiyn
1,2.4,5-Tcirachlorobenzene
1 ,1 , 1 ,2-Tclrachloroelhane
1. 1,2.2 -Tetrachkwoethane
reinchloroeihytene (PCE)
2.3.4.6-Teinchlorophenol
M.a.a-Tetrachlorololuene
Telnchlorovlnphoi
relnelhyldiihiopyrophotphate
Telnhydrofurao
lltallto oxide
liiallium acetate
'Challiuin carbonate
Thallium chloride
thallium nitrate
liiallium (elenite
liiallium suifale
Chinbencarb
2 ( lliiocyanomelhyilhio)-
benzothiazole (TCMTB)
Chiofanox
'liiiophanaie-meihyi
(Imam
1 in and compound*
lulucnc
1 oluenc-2.4 -diamine
toluene 2,5 -diamine
• • . ••- •.--.: :' I::'" :••>:•;;. ••;:<".• ' •.:•.':•": Inhaled Potency V
Inhaled RfD Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RID (mi/kj/d) (m|A«AJ) l^mg/kg/d) l/(mg/k|/d) C
3.00e42 i 2.70e41 h
2.00e-05 i
I.00e43 h
8.80e-OI h
3.00e-04 i
2.00641 1 3.00*42 o y
2.50e42 i
1.50e+05 h 1.50e+OS h
7.00e42 1
2.00e-02 b
1.306-02 1
2.506-05 h
I.00e03 1
3.00e 04 1 y
300e42 1 160e42 i 2.59e42 1 y
2.00e-01 i 2.03e01 1 y
I.Oue-02 1 5.206-02 e 2.03e-03 e y
3.006-02 1
2.006+01 h y
3.00e-02 1 2.40e42 h
5.00644 1
2.00e43 o
7.00e45 h
9.00e45 1
8.00e45 1
8.00e45 1
9.00e45 1
9.00e45 i
8.00645 i
I.00e42 1
3.00642 y
3.00e44 h
8.00e42 1
5.00e43 1
6.00e41 h
2.00e41 1 1.14e41 b y
320e-K>0 b
6.00e4l b
Tip water Ambient air
<«/>) <«An3)
0.32 0.032
0.73 0.073
37 3.7
32000 3200
11 1.1
0.47 0.28
910 91
0.00000057 0.000000057
2600 260
730 73
470 47
0.91 0.091
37 3.7
1.8 1.1
0.55 0.33
0.07 0.042
1.4 4.2
1100 110
0.00071 0.00043
3.5 0.35
18 1.8
73 7.3
2.6 0.26
3.3 0.33
2.9 0.29
2.9 0.29
3.3 0.33
3.3 0.33
2.9 0.29
370 37
1100 110
11 1.1
2900 290
180 18
22000 2200
750 420
0.027 0.0027
22000 2200
Fuh (mg/k|)
0.012
0.027
1.4
1200
0.41
0.11
34
0.000000021
95
27
18
0.034
1.4
0.41
0.12
0.016
0.061
41
0.00016
0.13
0.68
2.7
0.095
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.11
14
41
041
110
6.8
810
270
0.00099
810
Occupational
•oil (mg/k|) .'•
11
20
1000
900000
310
95
26000
0.000019
72000
20000
13000
26
1000
310
110
14
55
31000
0.14
120
510
2000
72
92
82
82
92
92
82
10000
31000
310
82000
5100
610000
200000
0.89
610000
Residential
toil (m|/k|)
6.3
1.6
78
69000
23
57
2000
0.000011
5500
1600
1000
2
78
23
66
8.5
33
2300
0.085
71
39
160
5.5
7
6.3
6.3
7
7
6.3
780
2300
23
6300
390
47000
16000
0.53
47000
Key 10 Data Sountt: i-IR/S x-Wiihdrawn from IRIS H~HEAST a-HEAST alternate method yWilMtrawn from HEAST p-PIIRED e-EPAECAO o-Oftur EPA documents n-Non-EPA touncs.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, PH.D.
J6
Contaminant
Toluene -2,6-d famine
ouphene
ralomelhrin
Triallale
nasulfuron
1 ,2,4-Tribromobenzene
Tribulyllm oxide (TBTO)
2,4,6 Trichtoroaniline
2,4,6 Trichloroaniline hydrochloride
,2,4 -Trichlorobenzene
, 1 ,1 -Trichloroelhane
,1 .2 Trichloroclhanc
I ncliloriwlhylcne (TCE>
1 richloronuoronielhane
2.4.5 •Trichlorophenol
,4,6 Trithlorophenol
2,4,5 rritlilorophcnoxyacelic Acid
2 •( 2.4.5 Trichlorophenoxy)
xxipionic acid
. 1 .2 -Trichloropropane
,2,3-'rrichloropro|>ane
1.2,3 -TCP as carcinogen
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropene
1.1,2- rrichloro-l,2,2-lri(luoroelhane
Tridiphane
Tiiclhylamine
Trifluralin
'1 nmeihyi phosphate
1 ,3,5-1 nnilrobenzene
rriniirophenytmelhylnilnmine
2,4,6-1 nniirototuene
Uranium (soluble sails)
Vanadium
Vanadium penloxide
Vanadyl tulfale
Vernam
Vincloiolin
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
•'•:• ' :' :':;..:•. Inhaled Potency V
inhaled RID Oral Potency Slope Slope O
Oral RID (mg/kc/d) (mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kg/d) l/(mg/kgAI) C
2.00e4)l h
1.10e+00 1 I.l2e+00 1
7.30e-03
IJOe42
l.OOe-02
S.OOe-03 y
3.00e-05
3.40e 02 h
2.90e4)2 b
l.OOe-02 1 257e 03 • y
9.00e4)2 h 28«e01 • y
4.00e-03 I S.70e-02 1 S.60e-02 1 y
6.00e-03 e l.lOe-02 y 1.70c42 y y
300e01 1 200e 01 • y
l.OOe-01 1
I.IOe-02 1 1.09e-02 1
. I.OOe-02 1
SOOe-03 1
5.00e03 1 y
6.00e4)3 1 y
2.70e+00 e y
S.OOe-03 b y
300e+OI I 7.7U+00 h y
3.00e 03 1
200e 03 1
7.JOC-03 1 7.70e-03 i
3.70e-02 h
5.00C-05 1
l.OOe-02 h
5.00e2 1
3.00e4>3 i
7.00e 03 h
9.00c-03 i . •
200e02 b
l.OOe-03 1
2.50e-02 1
1 OOe+00 h 5.7IC-02 1
l.90e^00 h 3.00e-OI h. y
1'ap water Ambient air
G«g/l) Oig/m3)
7300 730
0.077 0.0076
270 27
470 47
370 37
30 18
I.I 0.11
iS 0.25
2.9 0.29
18 9.4
1300 1000
0.25 0.15
0.89 0.5
1300 730
3700 370
7.7 0.78
370 37
290 29
30 18
37 22
0.0053 0.0032
30 18
54000 28000
110 11
73 7.3
11 1.1
23 0.23
1.8 0.18
370 37
2.8 0.28
HO 11
260 26
330 33
730 73
37 3.7
910 91
37000 210
0.025 6.028
Fish (ing/kg)
270
0.0029
10
18
14
6.8
0.041
0.093
0.11
14
120
0.055
0.29
410
140
0.29
14
11
6.8
8.1
0.0012
6.8
41000
4.1
0.41
0.085
0.068
14
0.11
4.1
9.5
12
27
1.4
34
1400
0.0017
Occupational
toil (mg/kg)
200000
2.6
7700
13000
10000
5100
31
84
99
10000
92000
SO
260
310000
100000
260
10000
8200
5100
6100
1.1
5100
31000000
3100
370
77
51
10000
95
3100
7200
9200
20000
1000
26000
1000000
1.5
Residential
•oil (mg/kg)
16000
1.5
590
1000
780
390
2.3
50
59
780
7000
30
ISO
23000
7800
150
780
630
390
470
0.63
390
2300000
230
220
46
3.9
780
39
230
550
700
1600
78
2000
78000
0.9
Key 10 Data Source*: I-IRIS x~\VuMrawn from IRIS h-HEAST a-HEAST allcmut method f-Withdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED t-EPA-ECAO o-Oihtr EPA documents n-NonEPA tourca.
-------
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations v.6.2 (07/23/92): Roy L. Smith, PH.D.
17
Contaminant
Warfarin
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Xylene (mixed)
Zinc
Zinc phocphkle
Zineb
Oral RID (mg/kgAl)
3 OOe-04 I .
2.00e+00 1
2.00e+00 1
200e+00 1
lOOe-01 b
3.00C-04 1
5.00e42 1
:'-'"-:-'. • :"-:- ':;:'- i • .: '•.•'.'••'::•;• ^'. ••••••• Inhaled Potency V
Inhaled R(D Oral Potency Slope Slope 6
(mg^jM) l/(mi^k|/d) l/(mgAgAl) C
ZOOe-OI y y
2.00C-OI y y
8.S7C-02 y y
y
1'ap water Ambient air
(M/0 OgAn3)
11 1.1
1400 730
1400 730
520 310
12000 7300
7300 730
11 1.1
1800 180
Fish (mg/Vg)
0.41
2700
2700
2700
270
0.41
68
Occupational
•oil (rag/kg)
310
2000000
2000000
2000000
200000
310
51000
Residential
toil (mgAg)
23
160000
160000
160000
16000
23
3900
Kty u> ttaia Sources: t-llUS x-Withdrawn from IRIS h-HEAST a-HEAST alternate method y-\Vuhdrawn from HEAST p-PHRED t-EPAECAO o-Other EPA documents n-Non EPA XHIKO.
------- |