United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
PB93-963812
EPA/ROD/R02-92/177
September 1992
c/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Witco Chemical (Oakland
Plant), 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/R02-92/177
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Witco Chemical (Oakland Plant), NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/28/92
6.
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. ProjecCTasfc/Work Unit No.
11. Contract
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/177
witco Chemical (Oakland Plant), NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
system and detected several chemicals of concern, including 2-butanone and the pesticides
DDT and dieldrin. From 1987 to 1988, Witco voluntarily disposed of approximately
720 cubic yards of soil and other debris and fourteen 55-gallon drums of sludge that were
shown to contain greater than 100 ppm of petroleum hydrocarbons; and collected and
analyzed ground water samples from monitoring wells at the facility. This ROD addresses
any remaining soil and ground water contamination resulting from site activities. Based
on the results of remedial investigations, the removal of the seepage pits and
surrounding soil by Witco during 1987 has effectively remediated the contamination at the
site. Therefore, there are no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action, with implementation of
limited ground water monitoring. Results of the RI indicated that there are no
significant concentrations of hazardous substances remaining onsite. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is $8,660, which includes an annual O&M cost
of $2,000 for 5 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Site name: Witco Chemical Corporation
Site location: Oakland, Bergen County, New Jersey
HRS score: 33.12
ROD
Date Signed: September 28, 1992
Selected remedy: No Action
Capital cost: None
0 & M cost: $10,000 (5 year monitoring @ $2,000/year)
Present-worth cost: $8,660
LEAD
Environmental Protection Agency
Primary Contact: John Osolin, (212) 264-9301
Secondary Contact: Janet Feldstein, (212) 264-0613
Main PRPs: Witco Chemical Corporation
WASTE
Waste type: Volatile Organics
Waste origin: Laboratory Seepage Pits
Estimated waste quantity: Unknown (Relatively Small)
Contaminated medium: Soil and Groundwater
-------
SEP I 7 1992
Record of Decision for the Witco Chemical Corporation Site
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
Attached for your approval is the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Witco Chemical
Corporation site, located in Oakland, Bergen County, New Jersey. The selected remedy
calls for No Further Action, with a limited off-site monitoring program. Witco removed
contaminated soils and sludges in 1987 and 1988. That action appears to have fully
addressed the principal threats posed by the Site.
The remedial investigation report and the Proposed Plan were released to the public for
comment on June 28, 1992. A public comment period on these documents was held
from June 28,1992 through July 28,1992. In addition, a public meeting to discuss these
documents and the preferred No Action remedy was held on July 14,1992. Comments
received during the public comment period generally supported the No Action decision;
however, there were several residents who expressed a desire for the Agency to conduct
further monitoring. The comments are addressed in the attached Responsiveness
Summary.
The ROD has been reviewed by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE), and the appropriate program offices within Region II.
Their input and comments are reflected in this document. NJDEPE has concurred with
the selected remedy for the Witco Chemical Corporation site, as indicated in the attached
letter.
If you have questions or comments on this document, I would be happy to discuss them
with you at your convenience.
Attachments
2ERRD/CNJS II/NJSB II/ROD3.WTT/9/15/92/MP
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
WITCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Witco Chemical Corporation Site
Oakland, Bergen County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Witco Chemical
Corporation Site, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (CERCLA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this Site.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy concurs with the
selected remedy. The information supporting this decision is contained in the administra-
tive record for this Site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY: NO ACTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that no further remedial
action is necessary at the Witco Chemical Corporation Site, the removal of contaminated
soil and sludge, undertaken in 1987 and 1988, appears to have been effective in
remediating the principal threats associated with the Site. This determination is based on
the results of the remedial investigation, which demonstrated that there are no significant
concentrations of hazardous substances remaining at the Site. Furthermore, based on
a site-specific risk assessment, the current and future risks posed by the Site are within
EPA's acceptable risk range.
Upon completion of the remedial investigation and risk assessment, it became evident
that no further remedial action was required. Accordingly, an evaluation of remedial
alternatives, as described by CERCLA, was not appropriate. However, because sporadic
ground water contamination has been detected, a limited ground water montioring
program will be implemented to ensure that this no remedial action decision continues to
be protective of human health and the environment.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
In accordance with CERCLA and the NCR, EPA has determined that no further action is
necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment at the Witco
Chemical Corporation Site. Therefore, the Site now qualifies for inclusion in the "Sites
Awaiting Deletion" subcategory of the "Construction Completion" category of the National
Priorities List. Because this site does not contain hazardous substances above health-
based levels, the five year review will not apply to this decision.
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Witco Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Oakland, Bergen County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1992
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Witcp Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Oakland, Bergen County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September, 1992
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS . . : 5
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" REMEDY 9
STATE ACCEPTANCE 9
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE 10
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 10
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. . TABLES
APPENDIX HI ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
WITCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION SITE
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Witco Chemical Corporation Site (the Site) is located in the McBride Industrial Park,
Oakland, New Jersey, in western Bergen County (Figure 1). The 9-acre site is bounded
to the southeast by the Borough of Franklin Lakes, on the northwest by Bauer Drive, on
the southwest by Hoppers Lake and the northeast by a vegetated lot (Figure 2). Two
buildings exist on the Site: a research laboratory, and a small storage shed in the east
corner.
The Borough of Oakland has a population of approximately 13,000 people. With the
exception of one residential well, the area downgradient from the Site is supplied by a
municipal water supply system, which consists of six active supply wells.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Witco Chemical Corporation (Witco) has owned and operated a technical research facility
for the development of specialty chemicals at this location from 1966 through the present.
From 1966 through 1984, the company neutralized laboratory waste water in a 2,000
gallon underground acid neutralizing tank, and then discharged it to a series of under- •
ground seepage pits.
On March 10, 1982, representatives of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy's (NJDEPE's) Division of Water Resources performed an
inspection at the facility to review operations and waste water management practices for
compliance with the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act.
On April 2,1982, NJDEPE issued a directive requiring that Witco take measures to cease
the unpermitted discharge of industrial waste waters to ground water at the Site. On July
16, 1982, NJDEPE further directed Witco to submit a plan for the elimination of the
discharge of industrial waste waters into ground water and to implement a hydrogeolog-
ical study to investigate possible soil and ground water contamination.
On April 14, 1982 and November 18, 1982, NJDEPE collected seepage pit, soil and
ground-water samples at the facility. Compounds detected include petroleum hydrocar-
bons, chloroform, toluene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, benzene, xylene and
ethylbenzene.
In response to NJDEPE's directive, Witco initiated a hydrogeological investigation in
November 1982 which included the installation and sampling of four ground water
monitoring wells. In addition, three soil borings and two sludge samples from the
seepage pit system were collected and analyzed. The analyses revealed that the ground
water, soil and sludge were contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and various
-------
organic compounds including toluene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, xylene, benzene
and chlorobenzene.
In February 1984, Witco replaced its underground seepage pit system with a 6,000 gallon
capacity fiberglass tank with associated line connections, pumps and level gauges. This
tank is used for the accumulation of laboratory waste waters prior to off-site disposal.
The system has been in operation at the facility from February 1984 through the present.
On August 28,1985, EPA performed a Site Investigation at the facility to evaluate potential
contamination due to the previous operation of the underground seepage pit system.
Ground water, soil and surface water were sampled and analyzed. Compounds detected
during the Site Investigation include 2-butanone, dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT and
benzo(a)pyrene.
On November 30,1987, Witco initiated remedial activities at the Site including excavation
and stockpiling of soils, removal of sludge from the six seepage tanks, and removal and
disposal of the seepage tanks. These activities were completed in January 1988. Soils
that were shown by Witco's analyses to contain greater than 100 parts per million of
petroleum hydrocarbons were removed and disposed of off site. Witco reported that
approximately 720 cubic yards of soil and other debris, and fourteen 55-gallon drums of
sludge were disposed of off site. Ground-water samples from monitoring wells at the
facility were collected and analyzed by Witco on five occasions from February 1987 to
June 1988 as part of a voluntary monitoring program. The removal and disposal of
materials from the Site and the collection and analyses of samples were conducted
voluntarily by Witco and were not subject to oversight or verification by NJDEPE or the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Site was proposed for inclusion on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) in
June 1988. In September 1989, it was formally placed on the NPL
In June 1989, EPA notified Witco of its potential Superfund liability with respect to the Site.
EPA offered Witco the opportunity to conduct and finance the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Site and Witco agreed. Witco and EPA entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent (Order) which provided for Witco's performance of the
RI/FS with oversight by EPA. The Order became effective on August 29,1989 and the
Remedial Investigation field work was initiated in August of 1990. The Rl was completed
in the late Spring of 1992.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In accordance with the public participation requirements set forth in Sections 113 and 117
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as
amended (CERCLA), the following activities were conducted. The Remedial Investigation
-------
Report, the Risk Assessment, the Proposed Plan and other documents, which comprise
the Administrative Record for the Witco Site, were released to the public for comment on
June 28, 1992. These documents were made available to the public at the Superfund
Record Room at EPA's Region II offices in New York City and the Oakland Public Library
in Oakland, New Jersey. On June 28, 1992, EPA published a notice in the Bergen
Record which contained information relevant to the public comment period for the Site,
including the duration of the public comment period, date and location of the public
meeting, and the availability of the administrative record. The public comment period
began on June 28, 1992, an ended on July 28, 1992. In addition, a public meeting was
held on July 14,1992, where representatives from EPA and NJDEPE gave a presentation
and were available to answer any questions regarding the Remedial Investigation and the
proposed no action remedy. Responses to the significant comments received during the
public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this
Record of Decision.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Based on EPA's risk assessment, the risks posed by contaminants associated with the
Site are within EPA's acceptable risk range. Consequently, there is no need to implement
any remedial action at the Site. Monitoring of the Oakland Public Water Supply System
is conducted by the Borough twice a month. This monitoring has not revealed any
evidence of site-related contaminants. Although EPA does not believe it is likely that site-
related contamination could impact downgradient wells, the Agency will monitor a private
well downgradient of the Site (see description of "No Action" remedy). This well is located
between the Site and Oakland Supply Well #5; therefore, the monitoring program will not
only ensure that this residential well has not been impacted, but will also provide an early
warning for the public water supply, should any past releases of contamination be
migrating toward Well #5.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Witco contracted with Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston) to conduct an investigation to
characterize the geology, ground water hydrology, and the chemical quality of the soil and
ground water at the Site. The investigation included the installation of additional monitor-
ing wells and piezometers, drilling of soil borings, collection of soil samples, and four
rounds of ground-water samples. All samples were analyzed for volatile organic
compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic compounds, base-neutral and
acid extractable organic compounds, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The analytical results indicated no significant levels of site-related contaminants in Site
soils or surface water, and although there were sporadic detections of contaminants in
Site ground water, no discernible contaminant plume was found. The results of the
investigation are summarized as follows.
-------
The Site is located on a plateau composed of approximately 230 feet of glacial sediments
on top of bedrock. The sediments contain two aquifer units separated by a relatively
impermeable silt and clay unit (Figure 3). The ground water can be found at approx-
imately 25 feet below ground surface throughout most of the Site. The direction of
ground-water flow varies from approximately north to northwest in the shallow aquifer
(Figure 4) and generally flows northwest in the deeper aquifer (Figure 5).
Four rounds of ground-water samples were collected from the ten on-site monitoring
wells. Analyses of the data indicated that the majority of the compounds detected were
determined to be representative of natural background conditions, upgradient conditions
not related to the Witco Site, or were present at concentrations below Federal and State
drinking water standards (Tables 1A through 1D).
Eight compounds were detected at levels which exceeded Federal and/or State standards
and did not appear consistent with background conditions. These eight compounds
consisted of one semi-volatile compound (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate), and seven inorganic
compounds (antimony, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, sodium, thallium,).
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in six out of 31 downgradient samples in the
upper aquifer, at concentrations ranging from 1 part per billion (ppb) to 120 ppb. The
proposed drinking water standards or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate are 30 ppb (Federal) and 4 ppb (New Jersey). Although it could not be
conclusively determined that bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was representative of background
water quality, it was detected in two of the eight background samples (collected from the
two monitoring wells at the upgradient edge of the Witco property). In addition, it was
only detected at concentrations above proposed Federal and/or State drinking water
standards in three out of 31 site-related ground-water -samples.
Of the seven inorganics detected in the ground water above Federal and/or State
standards, three compounds (antimony, chromium, nickel) were reduced to levels below
the standards by filtering.
Antimony was detected in two out of 32 downgradient samples, at concentrations of 21.4
ppb and 37.2 ppb. The MCLs for antimony are 6 ppb (Federal) and 20 ppb (New Jersey
proposed). Sample filtering was conducted during the fourth round of sampling. This
reduced the antimony from 37.2 ppb to below the method detection limit.
Chromium was detected in 19 of 32 downgradient samples at concentrations ranging
from 4.1 ppb, to. 985 ppb. The MCLs for chromium are 100 ppb (Federal) and 50 ppb
(New Jersey). When sample filtering was conducted during the fourth round of sampling,
chromium was reduced from concentrations ranging from 15.3 ppb to 985 ppb, to below
the method detection limit. Chromium was also found in four of eight background
samples.
-------
Nickel was detected in 23 of 32 downgradient samples at concentrations ranging from 9.3
ppb to 146 ppb. The MCLs for nickel are 100 ppb (Federal) and 100 ppb (New Jersey
proposed). When sample filtering was conducted during the fourth round of sampling,
nickel was reduced from concentrations ranging from 12.8 ppb to 146 ppb, to below the
method detection limit or 82.6 ppb, in one case.
The elimination or substantial reduction in the concentrations of these contaminants by
filtering suggests that these contaminants are attached to the sediment present in the
ground water, and therefore, may not be representative of the water that would likely
reach the tap.
Thallium was detected twice during the first round of sampling, at 7 ppb and 13 ppb, and
not detected in the last three rounds. The MCLs are 2 ppb (Federal) and 10 ppb (New
Jersey proposed). However, thallium was also detected in the field blank for that round
at a 4.1 ppb. Contamination in the field blank indicates that the thallium contamination
was introduced into the sample during the sampling and analyses process and is likely
unrelated to the Site.
Concentrations for the remaining three compounds (iron, manganese, sodium) remained
elevated after filtering. However, these compounds exceeded secondary standards only,
which are established for aesthetic purposes and do not pose a health risk. Iron was
detected at concentrations ranging from 54.7 ppb to 67,500 ppb; the secondary MCLfor
iron is 300 ppb. Manganese was detected at concentrations ranging from 2.9 ppb to
1,900 ppb; the secondary MCL for manganese is 50 ppb. Sodium was detected at
concentrations ranging from 9,610 ppb to 288,000 ppb; the secondary MCL for sodium
is 50,000 ppb.
Surface and subsurface soil samples were taken in the area of the former seepage pits
and from the monitoring wells during drilling. The contaminants detected included
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, and iron. A summary of soil sample results can be found
in Tables 1E through 1G. In the absence of promulgated Federal or State standards for
soils, the concentrations of chemicals detected were evaluated in a site-specific Risk
Assessment. As discussed below under "Summary of Site Risks", no significant current
or future risk exists related to the chemicals detected in the soils on the Site.
One surface water sample was taken from Hoppers Lake for analysis. None of the
compounds detected in that sample exceeded Federal or State standards (Table 1H).
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a baseline Risk Assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human
health and the environment associated with the Witco Chemical Corporation Site. The
Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in the ground water, surface water, surface
-------
soil and subsurface soil which are likely to pose significant risks to human health and the
environment. The summary of the contaminants of concern (COC) in sampled matrices
is listed in Table 2.
EPA's Risk Assessment identified several potential exposure pathways by which the public
may be exposed to contaminant releases at the Site under current and future land-use
conditions. Ground water, surface water, surface soil and subsurface soil exposures were
assessed for both present and future land-use scenarios. The baseline Risk Assessment
then evaluated the health effects which could result from current and future exposure to
contamination as a result of ingestion of ground water and incidental ingestion of surface
and subsurface soils. Although the Site is located in an industrial development, residential
land use was considered for future exposure scenarios as a conservative assumption.
Receptor populations considered for the Risk Assessment included the following: resident,
on-site worker, excavation worker, utility worker, trespasser and recreational user.
Seven exposure pathways were chosen as pathways of maximum potential exposure and
evaluated for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. The exposure pathways
considered under current and future uses are listed in Table 3. The reasonable maximum
exposure was evaluated.
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
compounds of concern were summed to indicate the potential risks associated with
mixtures of potential carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based on a
comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses).
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of 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). Estimated intakes of chemicals
from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular medium. The hazard index is obtained by adding the hazard
quotients for all compounds across all media that impact a particular receptor population.
A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for non-carcinogenic
health effects, to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures
within a single medium or across media. The reference doses for the compounds of
concern at the Site are presented in Table 4. A summary of the non-carcinogenic risks
associated with these chemicals across various exposure pathways is found in Table 5.
-------
As shown on Table 5, only two use scenarios exceeded EPA's target level of 1.0 (future
residential ingestion of ground water from the deep aquifer and future residential ingestion
of surface soil). Although the Hazard Index for a future resident drinking from the deep
aquifer is above 1.0, this is a sum composed mainly of the hazard quotients for iron and
antimony, which are likely to be attached to the sediments in the water, and therefore,
may not be representative of the water that would likely reach the tap. In addition, the
antimony value is based on only one detection in four rounds of sampling. Furthermore,
the Hazard Index assumes that the contaminants of concern have an additive effect on
the human body, when in fact, antimony and iron have different critical effects on the
human body and, therefore, should not be considered additive.
The Hazard Index for a future resident ingesting surface soil, although just at the target
level, is a sum composed mainly of the hazard quotients for iron and arsenic, which were
found at concentrations well within the natural background range for soils of the Eastern
United States. In addition, iron and arsenic have different critical effects on the human
body and, therefore, should not be considered to have an additive effect.
Furthermore, both of the above Hazard Indices are also based on the conservative
assumption that there will be future residential use of the Site. No adverse health impacts
would be expected based on the current industrial use of the Site.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope factors developed by
EPA for the contaminants of concern. 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)"1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake level. The
term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF.
Use of this approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for
the compounds of concern are presented in Table 4.
For known or suspecte.d carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper bound individual
lifetime cancer risks of between IO"4 to IO"6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an
individual has not greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year
period under specific exposure conditions at the Site.
The pathway with the highest upper bound cancer risk at the Wrtco Site is residential
ingestion of ground water from the upper aquifer, which was calculated to be 6.7 X 10'5
(6.7 in a hundred thousand) (Table 6). As is evident from Table 6, carcinogenic risk
associated with each of the pathways falls within or below the acceptable risk range of
IO"4 to IO"6. The carcinogenic risk for the Site is almost primarily attributable to the
occurrence of arsenic and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
-------
8
The ecological risk assessment first evaluated the site-related contaminants that could
potentially pose risks to the associated ecological (non-human) receptors. Of potential
concern in the Site's surface soils were iron and arsenic.
The ecological risk assessment then considered the effects of the above chemicals on
the respective receptors that interplay with the surface soils. The risk of exposure to
chemicals in the surface soils (iron and arsenic) would be to the several avian species
observed in the vicinity of the Site (crows, swallows, sparrows, starlings, and Canada
geese) and to the Eastern Cottontail rabbit, the only mammalian species observed on the
Site, although others might be expected to be occur.
The route of exposure for the potential uptake of these metals to both the bird species
and the Eastern cottontail rabbit would be via their diet, which is largely not supplied by
the Site proper. A large portion of the 9-acre site is a building and a parking lot;
therefore, the Site does not provide high-quality habitat for the species observed.
Additionally, the Site has only a small wooded area which, in conjunction with the fact that
home ranges for both birds and rabbits are significantly larger than the Site itself, would
act to greatly minimize the occurrence of exposure to these metals. In addition, the
Canada goose and other birds are migratory species, and being absent from the region
during several months of the year further reduces the likelihood of exposure to the metals.
Although sampling was performed in Hopper's Pond, the Rl later revealed that there are
no significant pathways for migration of contaminants from the Site to the pond. Further-
more, the samples from the pond showed no significant levels of contaminants.
Based on the ecological risk assessment performed for the Witco Site, site-related
contaminants should have no significant impact on the plant and animal species on and
around the Site.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such
assessments, are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources
of uncertainty include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicologicaf data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven
distribution of chemicals in the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant
uncertainty as to the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis error can
-------
stem from several sources including the errors inherent in the analytical methods and
characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an
individual would actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time
over which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and
from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the
toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the
assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment provides upper bound estimates of the
risks to populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks
related to the Site.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative
evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is presented
in the Risk Assessment Report.
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" REMEDY
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation, it appears that the removal of the
seepage pits and surrounding soil, undertaken by Witco in 1987, effectively remediated
the contamination at the Witco Site. Therefore, EPA has determined that no further
remedial action is necessary at the Site. However, because there was some evidence of
past ground-water contamination and sporadic contamination was detected during the
Remedial Investigation, a limited ground-water monitoring program will be implemented.
EPA will monitor the residential well located at 18 Bailey Avenue, once a year for a period
not less than five years. This well was selected because it is the only residential well
downgradient of the Site which is located between the Site and Oakland Public Supply
Well #5. In the unlikely event that site-related contamination has migrated off the Site, the
monitoring program will not only ensure that this residential well has not been impacted,
but will provide an early warning for the public water supply, should any such contamina-
tion migrate toward Oakland Public Supply Well #5.
STATE ACCEPTANCE
The State of -New Jersey concurs with the No Action remedy. The State's letter of
concurrence is attached to this Record of Decision as Appendix IV.
-------
10
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
A summary of the comments received during the public comment period is provided in
the Responsiveness Summary, which is attached to this Record of Decision as Appendix
V.
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the recommended alterative in the Proposed Plan.
However, EPA will include monitoring of the residential well as discussed above.
-------
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I.
FIGURES
-------
Ill !it%^3&*
•'.VE V-U'fc "C\\ ' "40v>-
•/••.-..• -N: • - --G» ••. '-a Sh *"' 'i =••>/• •• If*- \ CO* * ^^',-^Z**^*^.
•••"."•• ^ " ^X '• i A *l-\ '- - '- r^ •/.^•v^ xU^rytL^^gC^^i
: \V-'i'--.V^ '. \j^3«/:^S ' 'X». ::" ""^1 *••'••*• vrOfej^^^^^
"'•v'':> r\ : .
L
-------
Property boundary QNfcmcfc
approximately 360 fool
LEGEND
Q Bu**ng
(J
SITE MAP
SITE MAP OF THE WTTCO SfTE
OAKLAND, NEW JERSEY
-------
' ''"'
= = = :ftm»mi Out SH Mid SM! I
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
W1TCO FACILITY - OAKLAND, NEW JEH8I
-------
376.60
MW-5
MW-30
382.69
100 200
ScatelnFM!
Contour Inleival. S Feel
927-7001 d
\
\
Hopper* Lake
420.35
FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER EQUIPOTENT1AL MAP
WATER TABLE ZONE 11/20/90
-------
Wiir.o r.nofir lira
401.;75 40l.nO ©"*» 4(107J
onouNowATcn COUIPOTEMTIM. MAP
!>H-P ZONK-J/IV92
Figure 5
-------
APPENDIX II.
TABLES
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WTTCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT. TABLE 1A
AflMVAIir STATISTICS FOJt tfrTIT, *Y CHKMtCAL Mm MTftf m/MM
•II In unit* of pph
PAMB* PRffl* uOVA0C rf 1 0ffl9WC I* 1 01100 C Ow0M>
Tim..
C «~ *.t.et*
r j.j.«-mouMM« i
A^^^^M^^^B 4
mcwTOHM *
CAKMMT •JTOVtmV 1
cnoMWoiw 1
f AMwnmv, tvnu 44
MMMM, MM 7
Awrnmrr, tonu 1
• •^^^•»4» 0BM^9M*i 0¥
•WoWzC* Wnw 9
MNnw, tonu 44
Murunw, tonu 14
cuciow, tonu' 44
cmonrnr 44
coMtr, foru 10
corn*, tonu 44
4M*r, ronu 10
UM0, tonu 10
HMHtOtVH, IVnU 44
ttHt$OJkitf99f 9OVMtf 44
HMCMftff tOf Ad 44
irmunr, *• * 44
««^>!M
' *"1^-1
44
0
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
14
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
10
41
44
44
44
44
D*t«rt«. 90
9.30
0.14
D*t«ct««f Cone.
Cone. Locmt.
9. tO 40 00) MOOI
440.00 40 010 M004
1.00 40 004 MOO)
0.40 40 005 M001
9 ic •• aac Maaf
4.00 40 004 MOOI
4.00 40 004 M004
41400.00 40 004 H004
1.40 40 00) M004
47.40 40 010 M004
4.00 40 004 MOOI
404.00 40 004 M004
4.40 40 004 M004
144000.00 40 004 MOOI
701.00 40 004 MOOI
•it 29 919 H99t
905.00 40 004 M004
01.40 40 000 M004
97.40 40 000 M004
07500.00 40 00) M004
45.00 40 004 M004
5))OQ.OO 40 004 MOOI
1900.00 40 00) W004
140.00 40 000 M004
41.90 40 005 MOOI
»•••
Cone.
0.17
4.45
0.00
0.14
• mm
0.17
4 901
4.90
00)9.00
0.10
14.59
1.04
147.41
1.07
44)90.94
07.00
. vj
44.10
14.70
40.55
11945.44
5.44
1)704.40
414.00
44.41
4.54
95 fct.
Ofp. Conf.
tlMle
0.44
175547.14
0.14
0.17
• 6*
0.09
0.14
444409.07
0.40
10.01
4.44
440.50
1.04
79097.04
154.97
.V5
904.41
44.40
04.71
007400.94
44.00
40497.07
9495.1)
49.5)
44.95
Mln.
D«t«rt.
tlatt
0.40
0.50
0.10
0.40
0101
0.10
19.99
10.00
77.00
0.19
19.00
4.00
.
1.00
.
.91
4.00
4.00
7.00
• .
4.09
.
4.00
10.00
9.19
...
ItotM*.
tl«lt
0.50
17.00
9.49
9.00
0.50
17.00
11.59
90.90
9.19
55.99
4.99
.
1.99
.
.07
044.99
19.99
10.00
.
4.09
.
15.99
19.99
9.19
-------
TABLE IA
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT, (continued).
•JJ
• ' Hum. Hum. to*m«fc
M«M ««*>!*• 0«t«ct*4
C MM* JM*«et«4 Mmmlym»4 Come.
roTAJWMT, fUFU J4 J4 3040.00
tmUfHHUtt fOfML 4 4" J> • 0W
Minn, tonu J JJ 4.o
JODfMf, roni. 14 J4 9919.99
onriam 34 34 19.99
THHLUVm, flOllU J 14 7.99
9arML mmwouro* MUM J4 M 179.99
m»m*^*m\m\m>mmmm mmwmmmmimJ •• 4Jd • JMJB
WMfUtmif TOW 33 39 7.99
UtHC, flVmt 34 34 9.99
m stn. ar CHKMICAL AND
tm umltf of ppb
O*t«ct«d Cone.
Coma. Locmt .
49399. 90 39 919 HO01
1.39 39 003 H003
4.00 30 003 H003
399999.99 39 903 H003
t).S9 39 993 H094
13.00 39 999 H001
3.710.09 39 003 HO01
99.19 39 90S HOOt
149.90 39 003 H004
MVDIOW/AIIM
Ofom
«•..
Come.
S11S.73
9. ft
3. ft
37799.99
34. 49
7.93
391.93
31. 4t
5S.94
»s rot.
DM>> Comt.
Limit
9919.49
1.17
3.33
94979.79
34.34
39.99
919.73
99.99
193.99
Him. Hmm.
D*t«<*. H*t«ofc.
Umtt Limit
. .
1.00 1.00
4.99 19.99
.
m *
3.99 §9.99
.
9.99 19.99
m 9
-------
TABLE IB
SUMMARY STATISTICS TOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT.
AONMAJir STATISTICS PtJH SITU. Wf CHKMtCAL AND
• 11
9
TIM*
C «H0J D**cte4 J
• u.ra.itwruntft|piifiaun i
02^*M*2Jv^r7ftrwFiimdiiw * i
t MM0M0M> flWWH 4
HMMDMIA, AW M 4
MJUOW. ffOTIU 4
Mmfuvrar, TOTAL 4
CMMXOMf JVWA4 , 1
CALCnu, TOTAL •
CmUHam 4
CWJKMmt 9X 1
C9JMMT9MV 1OTCL 1
fMMWUT, fOnifc 4
COPMB3* flWMft 4
THOMV ffWJUi 9
uuo, forafr 2
MMMM10MV IVMt 4
MJUHUIMm. VDTU 4
IHCWLi TOTAL 4
MiflUT*, 45 ir 2
•onuurint, tor** 4
ntttnmi. TOTAL t
fILY*m, TOTAL 1
MWIOW, tonu 4
•WAT* 1
TOTAL 010VOLWD 0OL1O0 4
fWMB* uOWAC
0M«>1**
lMly«*4
4
4
4
' 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
)
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
4
4
4
D*t*CtMf
Co*c.
2.00
2.00
1)200.70
0.40
212.00
1.00
9.40
J9400.00
25.00
0.02
29.20
29.00
90.50
•1200.00
5.10
7040.00
590.00
10.40
0.29
2510.00
1.10
7.20
12100.00
7.00
05.00
MVDtnW/AMM
_ .
In unit* of ppb
*lga«*t Nl0h«*t 0*oa.
Detected Cone.
Cone. . toot.
2.00 20 001 M004
2.00 20 001 MOO)
20000.00 20 001 MOO)
0.01 20 001 moot
it f. 99 20 001 MOO)
2.70 20 001 M004
2.40 20 001 M004
10000.00 20 001 M001
52.70 20 001 M004
0.0) 20 001 M002
29.20 20 001 M004
51.00 20 001 MOO)
05.50 20 Ml M004
100000.00 20 001 MOO)
21.90 20 001 M004
10100.00 20 001 MOO)
050.00 20 001 M002
15.50 20 001 MOO)
0.)2 20 001 M002
2040.00 20 001 MOO)
1.10 20 001 M002
7.20 2O 001 M002
21900.00 20 001 MOOI
7.00 20 001 M002
150.00 20 001 M001
w...
COBO.
4.07
4.07
20000.47
0.55
229.01
2.20
2.41
14429.20
27.52
0.01
5.00
20.91
59.09
109705.00
12.20
9009.04
754.2)
25.07
0.12
1124.99
. 1.10
4.24
10150.70
4.57
121.50
95 ret.
Bpp. Comf.
Limit
12.00
12.00
27)11.00
0.0)
241.10
2.0)
).04
20079.77
75.00
0.04
254707.99
54.07
01.09
440705.90
4050.50
105)0.04
951.55
40.90
14.04
)949.5)
1.10
7.30
2424). 94
4). 02
107. 39
Ml*. H»m.
Detect . Detect .
fJalt LleJt
10.00 11.00
10.00 11.00
. .
.
. ' .
.
4.00 5.00
.
.
0.02 0.02
2.00 24.40
• •
.
.
• *
.
. .
.
0.10 0.10
.
.
5.00 5.00
• •
5.00 20.00
0 •
-------
TABLE IB
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR Tim WITCO SITE RISK ASSKSSMF.NT. (continued).
5OMUMT STATISTICS fON SITU, l»f CHHilCAL HMO MBDf 0M/AMM
•II !• unit* of
Tr».tack0r«*iMf Oround Hatmr - Vppir Ap. Come. 0*C«et. 9«t«cC.
0M««C*4 *MJr»«f COM. Oo«e. fcocat. ca*c. tl«lt llnfe tf«ft
«ovu 4 4 **.»• i««.o» 40 001 MOOI ti.si 337.19
•rue, tomt « «• '••*• JM-°.0 ac oot tfto.\ 7*-*J
-------
TABLE IC
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT.
1
MM
MM*
C MH04 0*t«Ct«d J
V If 4-MCM4NIOMmiMV 1
i,9-Dnm!•• D*t«ct«4
iMijr*«4 ' co»c.
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
4 100.00
0 0.00
0 4.00
0 1.00
0 100.00
0 0.11
0 41.40
0 0.00
0 47100.00
0 5.40
4 9.40
0 0.00
0 15.90
0 54.70
0 0.70
0 19)0.00
0 7.10
0 10.90
4 0.11
0 1040.00
• 4090.00
0 19.40
* SIT*. »r rmmicAL AND i
In unit* of pf*
ttmPf m\f • f^MfMF Aouf fm\f •
T»4f t •• * BAWW« M^fWJ I •• *
Nl0n«*e iri0n««e
O*t«ct«4 rooc.
Coae. Loctt.
0.00 40 000 M004
0.00 40 000 M004
0.90 40 000 M004
140.00 40 000 M009
140.00 40 000 M004
4.00 40 000 IM09
1.00 40 000 H004
0700.00 40 000 H004
0.17 40 000 H001
41.40 40 000 M004
59.10 40 000 H004
40000.00 40 000 K004
40.50 40 000 H001
45.00 40 000 M001
0.00 40 000 H004
44.00 40 000 M004
11000.00 40 000 JM04
14.10 40 000 M004
5700.00 40 000 M004
44 9. 00 40 000 H004
J0.9O 3O OOt MOO4
0.04 40 009 N001
94700.00 40 000 M001
91000.00 40 000 H001
44.00 40 000 M001
moitm/uuu
o~m
!*•••
Coma.
0.11
0.11
0.10
4.04
0.07
4.99
4.14
440.15
0.07
14.44
19.59
90417.45
4.50
9.70
9.07
4.90
450.49
4.40
4791.11
45.54
5.11
0.11
1795.09
1)515.14
10.00
I
05 Pet.
Ofep. Comt.
limit
0.00
0.00
0.49
1.0944049715010
104.90
7.07
0.90
195041.40
0.14
44.40
47.04
44009.74
10.04
49.41
5.00
40.74
5490599.41
44.94
4990.04
4)0.44
7.17
0.07
45505.94
19594.40
44.77
Him.
P*t*ct.
LI Bit
0.10
0.10
0.40
0.50
9.00
4.00
10.0*
77.00
0.10
19.00
10.00
•
5.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
55.00
4.00
•
•
7.00
0.10
044.00
• '
.
.
Hmm.
0*C*ct.
Limit
0.40
0.90
0.90
19.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
144.00
0.1*
S5.00
10.00
•
5.00
10.90
10.00
10.00
55.00
4.00
•
•
11.00
0.10
1010.00
•
«
-------
TABI.F ic
SUMMARY STATISTICS TOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT. (cimimuaO.
jtMUJir STATtfTic* ron yirm, i»r CHSMSCM Aim Mn>ri>w/JiMA
' aJJ »m vale* of pf*
f MMCJ •!!•«/
MM* tmmyl99 0*C*«t«4 D*C«eC*«f ' CMC. •!•••
C MMV g*t«et»4 *MJf**4 CMM. ODBC. toeat. cio«c.
ffmracMMr J • *.JI ».Ji 39 900 MM* •.•*
fonu WMCBM9 MUM • « JU.M 339.99 39 999 MM JJJ.fJ
MMMW, fOtSU tf • J*.M 39.90 30 000 H001 9.14
CMC, TOW, 9 -9 9.79 93.49 39 909 HO04 14.00
99 Pet. HI*.
Ofgt. Camt. 0*e*ct.
Ualt AliUC
0.97 0.39
144.01
39.99 9.99
199.91 4.99
•ur.
*mt~*.
Limit
9.19
.
10.00
4.99
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITR RISK ASSHSSMF.NT.
TABLE ID
gVHMMr STATISTICS fOH SITg, BT CMRNICAL AMI) M*DIOM/AN8A
•JJ In unit* of ppf»
MMM /
e mm p.t^t*f *
r 1.4,4-fw-mm^iBor 4
4,4,5-ntiMiTmMwnini i
AOTOM* 1
ouumr M0vtnnr i
• »W4-«nmuBmjMnnMr* 4
1 AMHTMW, tonif, 4
AMMONIA, A0 » 4
Aftnvrc, roriu, 3
mourn, TOTAL 3
cALcnu, tomb 4
CttMf MT 4
CMMnmf* fOTUt ' 3
corn*, rvau, 3
two*, TOTAL 4
LCA0, TOTU, 3
NMMMfOW, TOTAL 4
MAMMMOT, TOTAL 4
MTTNAnr, A* w 4
poTAff0f0w, TOTAL 4
0OOIOH, TOTUt 4
mnrurm 4
MmrAcrAwr i
TDTM, OfMMIOT 00U00 4
nUMDjmf, flOfMIr 4
•Me, formt, 4 •
9umpt»»
Mlr««d
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
• 4
4
o.e*ct*i
Cone.
0.50
1.00
55.00
5.00
4.00
147.00
0.14
4.40
15.40
11400.00
0.90
0.90
7.00
444.00
14,70
419.00
4.90
0.14
19400.09
33990.09
3.10
9.1)
331.99
14.40
44.50
D«t«ct«d Cotter.
Cone. local .
4.00 40 007 HOOt
3.09 39 997 HOOt
39.99 39 997 HOOt
5.00 40 007 M004
4.00 40 007 M004
1000.00 40 007 H003
9.39 39 991 HOOt
3.39 39 991 H093
39.99 39 991 HOOt
34399.99 39 991 HOOt
9.90 40 007 HOOt
49.10 40 007 HOOt
11.00 40 007 HOOt
3149.99 39 991 H093
14.70 40 007 HOOt
3339.99 39 001 H003
34.99 39 991 H003
1.00 39 991 HOOt
91300.09 39 991 HOOt
99 tOO. 99 30 091 H001
35. »0 30 007 HOOt
0.1) 30 007 HOOt
419.09 39 997 HOOt
34.30 39 097 HOOt
44.99 39 997 N004
M..D
Cooc.
0.49
0.14
4.71
0.44
4.51
405.40
0.19
1.54
15.14
44504.40
4.54
10.49
5.44
574.55
4.17
004.94
14.40
0.40
31919.49
37337.13
10.94
9.94
379.93
39.94
45.40
95 Pet.
Vpf. Comt.
limit
374.99
733.99
99.99
33119993.94
1.31
147441. 17
1.44
4.40
40.00
15141.44
49.45
97.50
40.47
440577)54.47
4400.44
4079.44
1)01.00
410.40
15090)5.15
105)44.04
1*5.79
0.19
017.00
54.01
149.40
Kin.
0«C*ct.
Ltmlt
9.39
0.10
0.50
0.10
10.00
.
.
4.00
10.00
.
5.00
14.40
0.00
.
4.00
.
.
0.10
. '.
.
.
0.10
.
.
•
Ma*.
P*t«rt.
Limit
9.39
9.39
0.50
0.40
11.00
.
*
4.00
10.00
.
5.00
14.40
7.00
.
4.00
.
.
0.10
.
.
.
0.10
.
t
•
-------
TABLE 1E
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT.
SUNNAJir STATISTICS KM SIT*, BT CMBMICAL AMD MTDIOM/AllffA
•11 la unit* of ppb
c mm ootmctod
•mOfAIAirnMACM 1
mono IM> mum 3
•mwwraMNuwnoMi J
tm*townoomjamn*o l
•i«ri->YOTUB»ni0iirtttM* l
u-m-mvi lumnumn 3
noomjuHtmm l
mwumouM l
rnuMi l
» 4,4'-0M J
4, 4 '-DDT 1
1 AMMijmr, TOTAL )
AftSBHC, TOTAL 9
MJU0V, TOTAI. 9
Mxnxiaw, TOTAL j
CALCIOW. TOTAL )
CMMMIOIf, TOTAL J
COBALT, TOTAL 2
conn, TOTAL )
JMO», TOTAL J
LMD, TOMfJat )
tmrnplmu O*t«et«d • Jtoe«ct«d Cone. !••••
AMly*«
)
)
X
)
)
J
)
)
J
J
)
)
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
3
3
-------
TABLE IE
SUMMARY STATISTICS POR THE WITCOSITfi RISK ASSRSSMRNT. (continued).
smetAHT
,«.
MUMMMM, TOTAL
m**CP9ff TOTAL
mCKtttt TOTML
fonuurm, TOTAL
9*L*mT93lt WOWtt
fODXOHr TOfttL
VAHAPmt* TOTAL
9XHCf TOTAL
3
3
1
3
3
J
*
*
1
Nil*.
Iwpl««
Mijr»«d
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
STATISTICS ran SITU, nr cmwfnu. AMD
•11 in unit* of r»*
fcoBtlnuad/
Law»»t Hlohfmt Hlftimft
P*t*ct«d 0«t«ct«d Cone.
Cooc. Cone. Locmt.
49499.99 3900000.00 30 091 9003
9999.99
309.99
1999.99
399999.99
399.99
39799.99
3999.99
3199.99
494900.00 30 091 9O03
309.90 30 001 9993
10900.00 30 091 9993
399000.00 30 001 mOO3
900.99 39 991 9003
19400.00 30 001 9903
34109.90 30 991 9003
91900.00 30 091 9003
MTDIOM/ANEA
OMM. 99 ret.
«•*• Oft>. Conf.
Cone. Limit
399431.49 4.4449391393*39
34379.94 3.3314999349*33
91.49 331931.99
3)49.93 149391991349.49
134993 . 99 399399994. 99
339.99 3913.99
49331.93 499343.99
9331.99 4194493111.99
13909.99 3999990494349.4
Him. H»m.
Limit Limit
•
119.99 139.99
1499.99 1900.00
131099.99 149999.99
399.99 399.99
.
• *
•
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT.
TABLE IF
ffOMMJtr STATISTICS FOR SIT*. Bf CHOHCML AND MRDIPM/AMX
•11 Ja umltu of ppfo
CM.
r«ara«
ffmuaa«0mtwruNV
• •Mfl-mmiinvUMnuiJiv
M-w-Mrrenmuumr
IMIIH
F 4,4'-00»
4,4'-MW
4,4«.M>r
nntmn
t AMMTOTW, rotML
8Hfi9V8tf, TOTAL
Ajwnrrc, TOTAL
•Minr, TOTAL
MntuiiM. WML
CMLC39H, TOTAL
CMMMTOW* tvrati
CD0UUT, TOTAL
COFPSHi TOTAL
39Otff TOTAL
UUUtt WML
MMMMJOIft TOTAL
•UMUMVM, TOTAL
KICMt, ItTTAL
ror*««rcw, TOTAL
•ILVn, TOTAli
MM*
l^*et*d
I
X
• 4
1
1
J
4
4
1
J
X
4
7
f
7
7
4
0
*
J
7
7
4
J
3
«;.
•MJr*«
,
7
4
7
7
7
?
' 7
7
J
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
J
7
1
7
1
7
£ov*0t JtlakMt Mi0h«*t
* D*t«ct«4 0*t»ee«d Cone.
f CfMC.
490.00
1.00
040.00
M.00
«9.00
1.10
J.40
11.00
4.J0
1490000.00
11700.00
440.00
1000.00
490.00
04500.00
1500.00
1000.00
1900.00
4570000.00
1440.00
34300.00
7 tOO. 00
4000. 00
450000.00
010. 00
COM*.
490.00
1.00
3409.99
03.00
99.00
1.39
99.99
41.99
4.39
9139999.99
33100.00
1100.00
40000.00
470.00
3399999.00
39999.99
1999.99
39490.00
31300000.00
3000.09
3110000.00
i 340OO.OO
33309.99
990000.00
3109.99
Locmt.
39 Ml
10 Ml
10 993
30 Ml
10 MJ
10 9*1
30 893
10 993
30 Ml
19 893
30 993
39 093
30 893.
30 Ml
10 0*1
10 Ml
10 893
30 881
30 883
30 393
30 383
10 a»t
39 ami
39 893
39 Ml
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•009
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
•001
9003
•001
•001
•001
»0tfJ
9003
9093
Omcm.
JK»M
Come.
93.03
3.10
3434.91
393.01
119.41
9.93
11.1*
11.91
11.10
J19J001.77
1040.10
594.50
X4179.74
174.40
910001.04
7114.41
1491.47
7944.91
10044405.91
1714.51
1040094.01
110701.44
am. 70
104777.51
471.51
95 Jet.
Opf. Come.
Limit
914339.34
3.99
3949.39
313.43
319.48
331.33
41.19
33.09
11.99
941419119.91
1939.91
3303.10
111474.94
054.15
10904409.77
40947.04
49174.00
171041.41
19949405.54
104.55
409759749.01
9599049.45
t*f*f. «r
440*4194114.99
1154.54
Mm.
D*e««t.
Ltmtt
34.09
9.90
m
390.00
390.99
31.99
31.99
31.99
31.99
.
4409.90
490.00
•
440.00
.
*
940.00
1100.00
•
.
•
.
ttoo.oo
149000.00
410.00
Hut.
Omtrnvt.
Limit •
1300.
4.
.
400.
409.
399.
30.
30.
390.
t
5400.
450.
.
440.
.
.
940.
1100.
•
0
*
.
»«00.
109000.
700.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
-------
TABLE IF
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSF.SSMHNT. (continued).
«m*MJir STATISTICS ran SITU. »r CHKMICM, um
• II la unit* of ppb
vwmorew, IOML
tine, rant
0*t*ctwi
7
. 7
7
7
7
rrPV-Aibcurfaca Boll
(continued)
Ni0h«*t HJ0b««t
D«t*ct*
1(00.09 15*00.00 10 nt »001
4100.00 J1400.00 10 0*1 9001
Co«c.
1101)5.10
11717.75
1*005.»7
inCC •
. Come.
Ml*.
151)79.41
51005.00
54)15.00*
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT
TABLK IC
*
CJM»
TACIT**
CMMrMMETJOT
• 993003 C ACM
09tm9 f 3 • WWWJBWnfcl frWR
M-v-Mmranuum
j* 4, 4 '-ant
J JUJHTMMt, fOMft
MifTtltOOtfi TOTAL
AM99*tCt TOTAL
OAOJOM, TOTAL
Ooxnuo*. TOTAL
CAUaWU. TOTAL
CALCI9H, TOTAL
C09ALT. TOTAL
COfFVt, TOTAL
CTAKtoo, TOTAL
39091, TOTAL
LOAO. TOTAL
jmOMTJ/OW, TOTAL
MUmMMV, TOTAL
MmcVMf, TOTAj.
H3C0ML, 9tM9fwf9M.
Tlmtm
MfM*
4
J
J
mjuam 4
J
j
f
J
jf
JJ
30
J
JJ
«'
JJ
JJ
J
30
99
33
33
J
JJ
ffOMMJir STATISTICS fom 91TO, 9T CM0UCAI, AND MtVIDV/AHM
•JJ J* uait* of ppb
9tmf3*
JUMJjm*
JJ
JJ
JJ
JJ
JJ
JJ
JJ
•
JJ
JJ
JJ
JJ
JJ
JJ
• •
is
39
33
33
39
39
33
33
39
33
* *~"
43.99
3.99
«A^
.••
J.M
JM.M
JJ9.M
M.M
9.99
3739999.99
33399.99
499.99
39900.99
390.99
779.99
3939999.99
m mm£ Am
1199.99
3399.99
7499.99
003.00
9300000.00
3900.99
9995000. 00
99709.00
309.09
4999.99
P*e*ct«
-------
TABLE 1C
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR TIIG WITCO SITE RISK ASSHSSMRNT. (coniinuc«l).
5UMWftr STATISTICS fO» 51 TIT. l»f CHKHtCAL AND WTDHW/AIWA
•11 la unit* of pfb
f continued!
MM. NUM. KoWMt Nla&*«t Nlah**t O*m.
Tim** B*mfl»m D«t*ct*ff 0*t*ct«d Cone. H*mm
C NM0J 0*t*ct«d AMly*«4 C0«e. Come. toemt. Come.
ronntm, wmt 14 11 459000.00 1100000.00 40 MM »0o4 015970.07
Mnuwmv, ton* J 41 040.00 040.00 10 MM •001 410. 01
•f tVHI, Vtmil. 5 41 700.00 910.00 40 991 9993 445.05
9aonm, rarnL 41 41 04000.00 409000.00 40 *»* 0001 14*401.54
nmiuav, tonu I 41 910.00 910.00 40 MM 0001 010.05
VMMttOV, fOMt 41 41 9100.00 51700.00 40 M»7 »904 40495.17
•INC, font 41 41 11000.00 49400.00 40 MM M04 44904.09
95 Pet.
OH*. c»«r.
"•"
040091.41
459.04
559.05
174409.41
J450.50
47940.10
19999.19
Him. MM.
0*e«ot. D>t*<*.
Umie LiMic
104000.00 104000.00
110.00 510.09
040.00 1450.00
.
050.00 950*. 00
.
• .
-------
TABLE I II
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE WITCO SITE RISK ASSESSMENT. *
aoMMMr STATISTICS fon SIT*, ar cmmrrAL AND NVDIOM/AIUUI
•11 tm Holt* of ppto
MM. MM. lotrutt M*b«*t Htgliftt O»am.
TJMM
cm* **.«t.
t MUtK, ram, i
cucmr, tonu. 3
cmouM 1
mew, torn* i
IMU>. font, 1
•MMMfMI, fOftt . i
MMM»MTMIt tVMft J
vmuffv. JM v l
^b^^BK ^*^»^mmm ^m^^m^» •
fonmnwr nrnu( «
•wnv, ronu, J
OTIfM* 1
ffOnU* MAMMilOT MMkfBtf J
MMMMIMV^MW AVMBM0. fl
•IMC, ronu J
MM>1*«
"-"•^
a
j
i
i
i
j
«
j
j
i
l
i
j
a
Ptt«ct«d
Ooac.
4.M
14100.00
93.99
333.00
3.99
4979.99
39.39
9.31
1339.99
93999.99
19.99
149.99
7.99
3.10
OvC^cCvv C^UMC.
Come. Locmt.
4.99 39 991 9001
14100.00 30 091 9001
43.99 39 991 9991
333.00 30 001 9001
3.90 39 991 9991
4479,99 39 991 9001
39.39 39 991 9991
9.31 39 991 9991
1339.99 39 991 9001
33099.99 39 991 9991
19.99 39 991 9991
149.99 39 991 9991
7.99 39 991 9991
3.10 30 001 9001
WMB
COM*.
4.90
10190.00
93,99
333.99
3.99
4479.99
39.39
9.31
1339.99
33999.99
19.49
149.99
7.99
3.19
99 rot. •!•. Mu.
•frp. Comt. P*t»ct. 0*C«ct. '
Limit Limit Limit
4.09
14199.99
93.99
333.99
3.99
4479.09
39.39
9.31
3339.99
33999.99
19.49
149.99
7.99
3.19 . ' . .
-------
TABLE Z LIST
CONTAMINANT
VOLAT1LES
Acetone
Chloroform
1 ,3.PieMfirrAmy»p»
1,3-Dicblorobenzene
J,4-r>?&k*i?teaieBe
TetracbJoroetbylene
TricfaloTofluorcmeihMe
SEMIVOLATILES
Bo«oCi)aDtbracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluorantbene
Bury! benzyl pbtbalate
Cbryscne .. ,,..:,
Di-n-butylpbtbalate
DjctbylpWiala*
Fluorantbene
4-Nj«ropbenol „ v
Pbenanthrene
Pfaeooi
Pyrene
PESTICIDES
4,4'-DDD
4,4'.DDE
4X'-DDT
Dieldrin
OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE WTTCO SITE
GROUND WATER
UPPER LOWER SURFACE SUBSURFACE
AQUIFER AQUIFER SOILS . SOILS
3f ~ -%r "" "^ ' , ' % s ' 5f
x
X,' * . r:- ,'s, *• ,.«
_ x
- ,,,'•-• y ,„ '-^~ l^\^, \ ~*.;t •
X X
„+»»„„ ^///""'-^' V" *;r / '
, v t „ v a/_ X w ^^_ ,„__ ,
ywx __.,._„_,
^ , x^
XXX X
* w^:^ilV'~~ ^1^ '•""'-'
X
* ,„:', <-^r.^^_^'^'.'.^-f~^rJ^ .-„>:",-, %^ -=.„„, -' .-.
x
^ ' ' ^'Vrv^~ rtvl^\" -^"^c
X
X X
' '"" "\% ^^^)n^^^«-''^4^rKtoX^^^''*^X
X
-------
TABLE Z LIST OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE
(CONTINUED)
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINANT A$&
INORGANICS
Alimritiifln \ ~ - '' ^ ' ^^T^"'
Antimony
AncBie ».^±. ^^.,.'4.^t
Barium
Beryllium ^ . .. - „ ^./^
Chromium, VI ,v ^ , w,,>^.x
Chromium, total ^^ ^^^JX
Cobalt
HR "JBBK*
wrrcosiTE
SUBSURFACE
SOILS
-71- ^-Z/t-Tlc ^-y^V"-^ ~~ ^j^'
x
-. "^ r "\J- "v *^ <^ f i&r'- s *^ *** vv"" -^" '
""r i* if M i'" -"M-f V^* W*f ="vuk' > *V A**?- «•-->- •>. J( . «••>• jfvM**
X
^RiS££* ^VAV'*"^^ •. S-.VAW
X
^ 7 , v?*l j,tir^is »^f >^jf ^ ',7
X X
Copper _«Hl ~~x/^L^Z.7~,x^^JC^, X-,
IrOn ^ -.vgj.-
1 f 'Mi v^ ,„ v\» '.J^,M~.
Maenesium w A ^ X
Mercury
A •> -W vx- jv
Nickel , :,, , ^Jf
Selenium
Silver , V^VO^».^LA««.
Vanadium
Zinc
X X
j*UK«»>tt>tfc»" "»w** vs»'«JtjgUfas«fi««*-^f— *•_ vr-x^Vv^iiJ
X X
3T v * ^T
vhMWWwww^v /.-.J> ^vrf^ ^dw .-.-X-i <*Mtf.-X*. -^^^ vw.wwv W.WAI
x
j.fcjrfBflftIV -w-cJK .f.r«"iliu v vyv. ^
jr
IW.-.S v% v M&At*
x
v v
WVA JWWkWVW*.-^^.^*
•V.
^^ ^*X
X
X
-------
TABLE 3
WITCO SITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Pathway
Receptor
Time-Frame
Present
Evaluated
Future
Degree of Assessment
Quant. Qual. Rationale for Selection or delusion
Or««dWatoi3:;:;-r-:;V-,^':'-:v;/- . •'-: ^ ; " ' •• •. "•".:?.•-•'•• -S; k-^v-^^
Ingestion of Ground Water
9
Inhalation or Ground Water
Contaminants During Showers
Inhalation of Contaaunants Oat
Volatilize froaa Ground Water and
DemaJ Contact with Ground Water
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
X Adjacent areas are zoned residential and
some town residents currently obtain
drinking water from local wells. WeOs
currently in use are over one mite
downgradient.
This pathway was not evaluated because
concentrations of volatiles are tow in
ground water.
This pathway was not evaluated because ffce
ground water table is 20-31 feet below te
surface and concentrations of volatiles hi
ground water are tow.
Considered iasignJikanl comparad to
ingestiou of ground water.
StrfBMSoUi "; V=; ;,;\ .. :_ " ,- -• -: '. .: '- . :.'.- '^ :' ^i*
Incidental Ingestion of Ousilc
Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Onsite Surface
Soils
Onsite Worker
Trespasser
Adult Resident
Child Resident
Onsite Worker
Trespasser
Adult Resident
Child Resident
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
X Site is currently to use by Witco Chemical
X onsite workers.
V Arf- mt ui-rtu 1 «.»« Ul«al 1
X
The three contaminants with sufficient
toxicily data to complete a quantitative
assessment were not delected at the Witco
site.
A92-589.4-5
RECYCLED PAPER
A
ALLIANCE
-------
TABLE 3 wrrco SITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (CONTINUED)
Pathway
Inhalation of VOC and Paniculate
Emissions from Surface Soils
Time-Frame Evaluated
Receptor Present Future
Omile Worker No No
Resilient No No
Degree of Assessment
Quant. Qual. Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Contaminant concentrations In surface soils
are low. The site is paved and covered
with vegetation, limiting release*.
Sobwtfaoe Soils
Incidental Ingestion of Onsite
Subsurface Soils
Dermal Contact with Omile
Subsurface Soils
Incidental titgesuon of Onslle
Subsurface SoUs
Dermal Contact with OnsHe
Subsurface Soils
Utility Worker Yes Yes
Utility Worker No No
Excavation No Yes
Worker
Excavation No No
Worker
X Routine maintenance of buried utilities may
be necessary.
The three contaminants with sufficient
loRidty data to complete a quantitative
assessment were not detected at the Wilco
lite.
excavation.
The three oontamhtants with sufficient
toxfcity data to complete a quantitative
assessment were not detected at the Wnco
lite.
S«rferi Water :'°'' ' *' ; , ' " ; > \< " ;
Dermal Contact with Surface Water
to Hoppers Lake
Recreational Yes No
User
A Inn |MtnWflJT WM MOt CV8MMGQ
quantitatively because only tow levels of
morganics were oeiecteo m sunace water,
and other potential sources of contamination
exist near the site.
AW-589.4-5
A
/wvk
ALLIANCE
-------
TABLE 4- TOXICITY VALUES FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE wrrco
SITE
CoDtamlfiiDts of
Coacera
VOLA7ILE5
ACCBBC ......
Chloroform
l,2-D>chlarobeai«je
1 J-Oiehlorobeazcac
lADichtoiobtMffl*
TttncbJoroetbyleoe
TricUofofluoromrtbiue
SEMIVOLATTLES
B*eao(i}a&thr*ceae
B«aio(i)pyreoe
Bca>o(b}noorutbeoe
Beo2o(k)fluorutbeoe
Bu(2-EtliyJheiyt)pbthaItt
Butyl benzyl pbtbaJate
Chryieoe
Di-D-butyl pbtbaJaie
DietbylpbtbaJate
Ftaorio&coe
4-Nitropbenol
Phc&aa&CDe
Pbcaol
FyiBoe
PESTICIDES/FOBS
4,4- DDD
4.4* DDE
**' DDT
Ditldha
OralSlopt
Factor
(Bg/kg-dayVl
6.10E-03
X40&02 b
S.10E-02 b
5.79B*00 e
5.79E*00 e
3.?9E*00 c
5.79E*00 c
1405^2 b
S.»E*flO *
-
— :.' •':-.'••.
-
-
• '.•!. . --: ' \
2M&01 ' :, .••;;•
3.40E-01
340E^i.;:j;:;:;;,
1.60E*01
OnlRfD
(•gl4/(Uj)
i'jboMrifif^
I.OOE.O:
«UOEXO ;:I;y.:i:'
3.00E-02
l«&oi":;;:iW::
1DOE43
sxiffi^r-:!?-"
—• ":'"V-:.:. ':'':: ':';:'^
-
^ooE^a
2.00E-01
l.OOE-01
S.OOE-01
4JOB«'.^;.i'
-
6.00E-01
j«»4n .^-F..
S.pCB^2f;g:
S.OOE-QS
Snbchronk
OnlRflXb)
(B^fd.7)
•;. :•?:.-••:-.• .-. •; : :,-x:«S'-¥: :?>::'•
ir»E*00 f ti::;y:i
.-. ;;;•: • .•-- -.-.- -; v;. xWy^iiXHxtv
1DOE-02
»xremr!i.:lli.'
1 '.:;-. .£;;:;V£;: :V>:^::;:y::.| J;:-:;:>X::-:' "
1A)E-01
.'••:.• ••.••;,:-::-™fifWXSf:-.
ISOE-Gi ->:^.:
• ':f '^v^:': •:•••'• :-:--:':
-
2IK«J2 >.:£v
2.00E*00
1.00E*00
t.OOE»00 b
4JOOE42 ::>::i;r
*T:> ::-.;:i-xv>:vi::x:: :;i::.i:x:j'- :..'.
6.00E-01 j
ixxsii :;i£ :• ;
••••mfiiiifizX-.:
5JOOB-05
l-D«y HMltb
AdTfcory (•)
(»g^)
4DOE*00
9DCS*oo :...;.->;':'^::";
9XOE«00
iiJciB+bi' :vfe;f :,:'•
iOOE*00
. v.V;.. •'•••;::iii.:.:!v :•."
—
-
-
-
— .-;.:.:'"i:'::-:V,' '••'• -
l.OOE-01
6JK)E*OO
— :::'^:;';::;' ;:i:;;:;v:.". •
SJOOE-QA
Loog«r-Term
Huhb Adviwry
(•)
(Bg,1)
5XX>E^)1
JDOB^OI
3.00E401
4.00£«01
5.00E«00
— ' ': : ' •
-
-
-
-
—''.:-•'-.
3.00E«00
2.00E*01
— "••••^' ,.. -•'. •
2.00E-03
A92-589.4-5
RECYCLED PAPER
ALLIANCE
-------
TABLE 4 Toxicmr VALUES FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE wrrco
SITE (CONTINUED)
Contaminants of
Concern
INORGANICS
Aatimony
Amok ..
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium, m
Cfeonrium, VI
Chromium, toul
Cobalt
Copper
faffl
Lead
alapesium
Maofanese
itecury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Ziac
Oral Slope
Factor
1.75E400 f i
~
4JOE«oo .;.::•••
-
— • . ' • .-
^ '.
••
:.-.
- e
-
~
«
-
-
-
OralRfD
(•»Vki/daj)
4.00EXJ4
SXX)E42 d
5.O3E-03
1DOE«00 b
5X»B<»';BS:
S.76E-01 k
4.00E-02 i
5«JE4i i
- e
— '.• '.-. .'/.. '
l.OOE-01
2.00E-02 f
5-OCE-Q3
5.00E-03 a
74XS03 b "
2.00E-01 b
Sabctroak
Oral RID (b)
(BfAi/day)
f f
4.00EO4
5J30E-02
5JOCE4S
1£QE*01
1A£42
I.75E*00 k
-
'^SffSS:^l
-
— • ••••••. •;••'••"' -
l.OOE-01
2.00E42
— •'"•-':•: ::;;;::::':-1:':--:.::-:-:
3.00EJD3
2XIOE-01
1-Daj Haaltb
Adrbory (a)
(Bg/I)
f '.
iJOExn
-
)A£40i
-
MfcBtOOt
1J(X£«00
~
^jil3;:lSi;:;-le
-
— ::'':;:'M;ri:; •;•;:!;•:•;' "...
-
l-OOEtOO
XOOE-01
I.OOE^H
4.00E«00
Longtr-Term
Haahb Adraory
(B^)
130E42
-
2XXJB40I ;:v;;:;;:; . ;
-
tUM^i...".;"';:;'.;
S.OOE01
-
- ;,-.:.\C. ":::"\
—
- . • ' '•• •'
2.00E433
6.00E-01
~
2.00EX>1
9.00E*00
Note: UoJess otber»-ise udjcated, iIJ dau are from IRIS.
— Not available (missisf slope factors indicate tfaat available data au||c(t oat anbraac* it DoocareiDojesic or that dau it
inadequate to assess carcino(enicity).
(a) U.S. EPA. Driniinf Water Rtguluicnt and HtalA Adviioriet, Office of Driakiaf Watar. April 1991.
One-Day HAs are for a IQkj child; Lonfe-Ttaa HA* are for a 70k| aduh.
(b) U.S. EPA. Health Efftcu Aittssmeru Summary Tablet (HEAST). Aaaual FY 1991. Daccmber.
(c) Per EPA tjuidaace. tbe benzo(a)pyreae itopc factor tt usad as a awro(atc for otbar PAHs where surTtcieot evidence of
earcino|e&iciry cum, at de§if nated is DUS « HEAST.
(d) At tbe re^uen of EPA. tbe Oral RfD from HEAST, ratbei tbao BUS, it baiaf BMd for barium.
(a) Gives tbe current knowled|e of lead pbanBaeokioctics. CAG ncomacods tbai a BumericaJ animate not b* used for carcinojenic
ritk.
A92-S89.4-S
RECYCLED PAPER
ALLIANCE
-------
TABLE ^ TOXICITY VALUES FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE WTTCO SITE
(CONTINUED)
Toe RfD Work Group considered tbc development of to RfD for lead inappropriate because Acre u essentially BO threshold.
OSWER Directive 993SS.4-02 ('Interim Guidance OB Establishing Soil Clean-up Levels at Supertuad Sites') states that the soil
clean-up level should be at 500-1000 ppm.
(f) RfD vilue for soluble salts.
(g) Oral Slope Factors for aneaic were calculated from Unit Risks provided ia BUS by the following equations:
ORAL: slope factor(mg/kg/day) • 1 • unit rukOig/Iitrr)-! x TOkf x 1/2 liten/day x 1/10-3
(U.S. EPA. Risk Assessmeat Guidaact for Superfund, VoL 1: Humaa Heiltb Evaluation Manual (Pan A), p. 7-13.
EPA 540/1 -S9AXD2, Dec. 1989)
ft) 1-day Health Advisory does aot exist; value is a lO^ay Health Advisory; EPA recommend* usifif this value ia place of May
Health Advisory.
(i) Interim values provided by ECAO for Region E Superfund Sites ia tatters from Kenneth A.- Poirier. Director, Superfusd Health
Risk Technical Support Center, to John Oaolia. VS. EPA Region D (Novaabcr 19. 1991} and Mike Walters. U.S. EPA Region
II (January 24. 1992).
(j) Developmental effects have been used as the basis of this calculation.
(k) Chronic and subchronic oral R/Ds for total chromium were calculated based OB the assumed ratio of seven pans Bivalent
chromium aad ooe pan bexavaleat chromium (Personal communication between Alliance aad EPA Region U oa October 18,
1991).
(1) No chronic oral R/D for cobalt » provided by ECAO as described in a tetter from Kenneth A. Poirer. Director, Superfuod Health
Risk Technical Support Center, to John Osoli. VS. EPA Region n (March 2, 1992).
A92'5894-5 A ALLIANCE
SvtA T»"^«^|-jt-*—
RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES (HI) FOR
THE WITCO SITE
Scenario
Ground Water .'
Ingestion
Ground Water -
Ingesnon
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Ingesnon
Ingesrion
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion
Ingestion
Receptor Present/Future
Upper Aquifer
Resident
Lower Aquifer
Resident
Onsite Worker
Trespasser
Adult and Child
Resident
Utility Worker
Excavation Worker
F
F
P
P
F
P/F
F
Acute HI
2.7E-01
4.1E-01
2.5E-03
6.9E-03
5.1E-02
1.3E-02
6.0E-02
Chronic HI
4.7E-01
2.4E+00*
3.5E-02
4.6E-02
l.OE+00
2.6E-03
3.1E-01 a
'Hazard Index exceeds one (1).
a - Subchronic His were calculated for this scenario.
-------
TABLE fe SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES FOR THE
WTTCOSrTE
Scenario
Ground Water •
Ingsstion
Ground \Vater •
Ingestion
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingesuon
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion
Ingestion
Receptor
Upper Aquifer
Resident
Lower Aquifer
Resident
Onsite Worker
Trespasser
Present/Future
F
F
P
P
Adult and Child Resident F
Utility Worker
Excavation Worker
P/F
F
Incremental Risk
6.7E-05*
1.7E-05*
3.4E-06*
1.8E-06*
3.1E-05' -
6. IE-OS
7.7E-08
•Exceeds 10'f nsk but falls within EPA's acceptable risk range.
-------
APPENDIX IV.
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
OS. 21. 92
609 633
O 3 :
T.
OF
NV.
P- ROT
O 1
Scott A. Wclnor
Comm/ss/oner
State of New Jer»ey
Deportment of Environmental Protection and Energy
Office of the Commissioner
CM 402
Trenton. NJ 08625-0402
Tel. * 609-292-2885
FAX. * 609-984-3962
SEP 2 1 1992
Mr. Constantino Sidamon-Eristoff
USEPA Region n
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Sidamon-Eristoff:
Re: Record of Decision (ROD)
Witco Chemical Corporation Site
Oakland Township, Bergen County
The NJDEPE has reviewed the Record of Decision (ROD) dated August 21,1992, for the
Witco Chemical Corporation Site Ircated in Oakland Township and we concur with the
proposed "No Further Action" alternative.
t •• •
The Remedial Investigation and subsequent Risk. Assessment have provided significant
documentation of this site and the protectiveness of the previously performed remedial
actions in regard to human health and the environment
Sincerely,
Scon A. Werner
Commissioner
AN**" brand fax tranwnrtial memo 7871 |*Q*PMM» /
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^_HH^^__HM__^^H^MgBB^HM^MHMM*^MMlMVHB^^^MMM^M*^^HV*
N««v/en
-------
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Office of the Commissioner ^
CM 402 *
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402
Tel. # 609-292-2885
Scon A. Weiner Fax. # 609-984-3962
Commissioner
SEP 21 1992
Mr. Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
USEPA Region H
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Sldamorj-Eristoff:
Re: Record of Decision (ROD)
Witco Chemical Corporation Site
Oakland Township, Bergen County
The NJDEPE has reviewed the Record of Decision (ROD) dated August 21, 1992, for the
Witco Chemical Corporation Site located in Oakland Township and we concur with the
proposed "No Further Action" alternative.
The Remedial Investigation and subsequent Risk Assessment have provided significant
documentation of this site and the protectiveness of the previously performed remedial
actions in regard to human health and the environment.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Weiner
Commissioner
New jersey Is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Piper
------- |