-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA-330/2-80-022
HAZARDOUS SITE INSPECTION
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
[December 11-14, 1979 and
February 18, 1980]
June 1980
Steven W. Sisk
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER - Denver
and
REGION III - Philadelphia
-------
DISCLAIMER
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION 4
Wastewater Pollution Control Practices 4
Hazardous and Toxic Waste Handling 5
Offsite Pollutant Movement 6
Toxicity and Health Effects 8
CONCLUSIONS 9
III PLANT PRODUCTION AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 10
...PRODUCTION 10
PREVIOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 10
PRESENT WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 14
CST 14
Evaporation/Percolation Lagoons 17
Solid Waste Disposal 20
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS 20
IV MONITORING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 25
SAMPLE COLLECTION 25
MONITORING RESULTS 29
CST 29
Groundwater Monitoring Wells 34
Mutagen Testing 34
Surficial Liquid Samples 35
Solids Samples 35
Ambient Air Samples 37
V OFFSITE POLLUTANT MOVEMENT 41
SURFACE WATER 41
GROUNDWATER 42
AIR 43
VI TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED POLLUTANTS . . 44
LIQUID/SOIL SAMPLE POLLUTANTS 44
AIR SAMPLE POLLUTANTS 46
References 71
APPENDICES
A SAMPLE ANALYSIS
B MUTAGEN ASSAY METHODS AND RESULTS
C TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS
-------
TABLES
1 Chemical Products Eliminated Since October 1977 .... 11
2 Listing of Products Manufactured by Fike
Chemicals, Inc 12
3 Summary of Self-Monitoring Data from Groundwater
Monitoring Wells 23
4 Sample Collection and Sampling Station Descriptions . . 26
5 Summary of Organic Analysis Results for CST and
Groundwater Samples 30
6 Metal Analysis Results from CST Effluent 32
7 Summary of Organic Analysis Results for Surficial
Water Samples 36
8 Summary of Organic Analysis Results for Air Samples . . 38
9 On and Offsite Ambient Air Concentrations of Methylene
Chloride and Toluene 39
10 Toxicity of Compounds - Soil/Liquid Samples Collected
at Fike Chemical Company 47
11 Toxicity of Compounds - Air Samples Collected at Fike
Chemical Company 46
FIGURES
1 Location Map - Nitro, West Virginia 2
2 CST Biological Treatment for Fike Chemicals, Inc.
(1977 Configuration) 15
3 CST Physical-Chemical Treatment Plant Schematic .... 16
4 Sampling Station Locations 18
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Fike Chemicals, Inc. in Nitro, West Virginia, is a small-volume chem-
ical manufacturing firm specializing in the development of new chemicals,
speciality chemicals, byproduct recovery and custom manufacturing. Many
of the chemicals are produced only as required and all are batch formu-
lated. Production varies from a few hundred to about one million kilograms
(2 x 106 lb)/year for individual products. Waste disposal has been ac-
complished by biological stabilization of "treatable" waste streams,
evaporation/percolation lagoons for "non-treatable" waste streams and on-
site burial for other wastes.
During October 3 through 7, 1977, at the request of Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) Region III, National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) personnel investigated Fike Chemicals, Inc. (Fike), Coastal Tank
Lines, and the jointly owned Cooperative Sewage Treatment, Inc. (CST)
facilities [Figure 1]. The primary objectives of tnat study were to
identify and quantify all toxic chemicals discharged to the Kanawha River
from these plants. These data were also used to determine compliance with
the NPDES permit for the CST facility.1
As a result of the 1977 survey findings and those of other regulatory
/investigators, the State entered into a consent decree with Fike on September
12, 1978. Coastal Tank Lines sold their interest in the CST to Fike shortly
before this date. The consent decree and subsequently issued permits re-
quired:
1. In-plant segregation of various waste streams;
2. CST modifications;
3. Prohibition of priority pollutant discharges from the CST; and
4. Prohibition of discharges to existing toxic waste disposal
lagoons until rehabilitation is effected.
Neither the consent decree nor the permits address the disposal and/or
burial of hazardous wastes on plant grounds.
-------
IM yfl m /\^?-^
Wm^/f J^
\\}>*v// / & L. /
?: ln?& J (-^^y^
ft^S^^U^f^^^
/l^v^^^'" D^rpto«"r~:\ii^-'irr
>*Z?r/ju*t cure ruciuirAi r- Cr"
(C^sLT^Ji / ' '' .
f^§Y?^
X9S5-'-s . // X ^ "7 -xV
y:>?';-4;r^
-
\ v-.;^
Figure I. Locaf/on /Map - Nifro, Wesf Virginia
-------
On August 28, 1979, EPA Region III requested NEIC to again investigate
the Fike and CST plants to assess progress toward pollution control and
abatement. Also, the Region wanted an evaluation of possible hazards and
potential environmental impacts posed by these plants. At the time of this
request, the consent decreee regarding wastewater discharges and liquid
waste disposal practices was still in effect with expiration on October 31,
1979.
During December 11 through 14, 1979,1 and on February 18, 1980, NEIC
personnel investigated the Fike production and CST facilities to determine
compliance with applicable State and Federal regulations. The primary
objectives were to evaluate: (a) waste disposal practices, (b) the poten-
tial for offsite hazards resulting from these disposal practices, and (c)
possible environmental impacts.
To accomplish these objectives, the NEIC investigation addressed:
1. Plant production;
2. Wastewater treatment;
3. Hazardous/toxic materials handling and disposal practices;
4. Onsite pollutant identification;
5. Avenues for offsite contaminant migration; and
6. Potential toxicity and health effects of identified pollu-
tants.
A summary of the survey findings and conclusions follow.
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
To determine current wastewater pollution control practices, Fike
personnel were interviewed to obtain information regarding plant pro-
duction, the status of wastewater treatment plant (CST) modifications, and
present treatment procedures. Methods of handling hazardous and toxic
wastes were ascertained through a site inspection and evaluation. Possible
offsite hazards and environmental impacts posed by hazardous materials
handling and disposal were assessed through sample col lection'and eval-
uation of the avenues by which pollutants could move offsite.
NEIC personnel collected 13 liquid/soil samples and 7 air samples.
The liquid/soil sampling stations included the CST discharge, an old toxic.
waste disposal lagoon, groundwater monitoring wells, and areas potentially
contaminated by spilled process wastes or raw materials. Air sampling
stations included on and offsite locations at both the production facility
and the CST. All samples were analyzed for organic compounds with emphasis
on priority pollutants, toxic substances and compounds with readily avail-
able standards. Three liquid samples were analyzed for mutagenicity and
one for metals. The compounds detected in the samples were evaluated for
their toxicity and health effects on both humans and animals by searching
established computer data bases. Compounds identified during the NEIC
investigation were representative of samples collected. They were not,
however, necessarily representative of additional contaminants stored in
deteriorating drums, previously buried onsite, or of soil contamination in
locations not sampled.
Wastewater Pollution Control Practices
Fike has ceased production of 27 chemical compounds and added 12 since
-------
the 1977 survey. Most of the processes that resulted in the discharge of
priority pollutants from the CST have been eliminated. The CST is being
modified to incorporate powdered activated carbon treatment, settling, and
aeration upstream of the existing oxidation ditch. The ditch is followed
by alum and polymer addition, settling, activated carbon columns, and final
chlorination. The aeration basin and settling tank which follow initial
carbon treatment were not complete and operational in December 1979. The
oxidation ditch may be contributing pollutants to groundwater since it is
not lined to prevent seepage.
During the December 11 to 14 inspection, the CST was discharging to
the Kanawha River through both permitted Outfall 001 and a non-permitted
storm sewer (storm water runoff) bypass via a drainage ditch. The per-
mitted discharge contained 14 identifiable organic compounds and 11 metals.
Of these, three organic compounds and four metals are priority pollutants
(2,4,6-trichlorophenol, phenol, toluene, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc).
The 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, toluene, copper, nickel, and zinc are categor-
ically prohibited in the effluent by the State discharge permit. The storm
water bypass discharge was found to contain nine identifiable organic
compounds. Three of the nine are priority pollutants including phenol,
toluene, and ethylbenzene. The bypass is prohibited by both Federal NPDES
and State discharge permits under weather and flow conditions present
during the survey period. Standard Ames mutagenicity tests conducted on
samples of these discharges were inconclusive due to toxic effects on the
test bacteria.
Hazardous and Toxic Waste Handling
Historically, hazardous wastes were either discharged to three non-
lined evaporation/percolation lagoons, buried onsite, or discharged di-
rectly to plant grounds by spillage and other poor housekeeping practices.
Two of the three disposal lagoon sites have been reclaimed. The sludge
from the larger one was removed to a new onsite lined lagoon while that in
the other was buried in place. Discharge to the remaining disposal lagoon
-------
was discontinued in January 1979 a State permit issued subsequent to the
consent decree required termination on October 11, 1978.
Company personnel reported that five pits, excavated in the vicinity
of the disposal lagoons, each contain between 100 and 200 barrels of chem-
ical wastes. The pits were covered with soil after they were filled with
drums. Waste burial was reported to have been discontinued shortly after
the 1977 survey. Several hundred drums containing raw and waste chemical
materials are presently stored onsite including those containing several
thousand kilograms of metallic sodium.
As noted in 1977, general housekeeping at the plant continues to be
poor. Deteriorated drums releasing chemical contents, areas of chemical
spills, leaks, and contaminated soils were noted throughout the plant.
Strong chemical odors at both the production facility and the CST required
NEIC personnel to use cartridge respirators as a safety precaution.
Surficial liquid/soil samples collected from plant grounds contained a
total of seven organic compounds. Two of these, toluene and bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate, are priority pollutants. Toluene was detected at a con-
centration of 1500 ppb in a pool of rainwater runoff over one of the known
drum disposal pits. Approximately 15 m (50 ft) south of this pool, runoff
was draining into a hole in the ground. The hole probably feeds an old
sewer system which predates Fike. Whether the runoff is carried into
Pike's storm sewer or to some other point of discharge is not known.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, a priority pollutant, was detected in
sludge from the remaining old disposal lagoon at a concentration of 160
mg/kg. Another chemical, tetrahydrofuran was identified in all surficial
liquid samples from the plant grounds.
Offsite Pollutant Movement
Surface Water - Discharges of priority pollutants and other con-
taminants to the Kanawha River from the permitted CST effluent and the
-------
non-authorized storm sewer bypass, via drainage ditches, were documented
during this survey. Contaminated groundwater discharging to the river
probably contributes additional toxic chemicals from Fike.
Groundwater - Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the
vicinity of the disposal lagoons and drum burial areas between 1976 and
1978. All wells are about 16 m (54 ft) deep with the bottom 4.6 in (15 ft)
of casing slotted for water entry. Aquifer materials have entered the
casings and filled them to above the slotted section. Company personnel
normally purge approximately 20 liters (5 gal) from each well prior to
sample collection. Small purge volumes, such as this, substantially
increases the chance for analysis of stagnant water in casing storage.
This water would be expected to have lost some volatile and less stable
compounds. Even so, company data indicate goundwater degredation at all
well sites.
The Company plans to install additional wells to monitor subsurface
pollutant movement as required by the disposal lagoon operating permit. To
be useful for future monitoring; the existing wells need to be cleaned and
appropriately screened to prevent encroachment of aquifer materials.
Samples collected from these wells during the December inspection,
revealed 31 organic compounds in the groundwater. Fourteen of these are
priority pollutants and include:
phenol 1,2,-dichloroethane
toluene -chloroform
ethyl benzene 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate methylene chloride
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether tetrachloroethylene
bis (2-chlorisopropyl) ether butylbenzyl phthalate
benzene trichloroethylene
All well samples contained priority pollutants with concentrations
ranging from a low of 22 ppb benzene to a high of 6,000 ppb bis (2-chlo-
roethyl) ether; both occurred in the well located approximately 6 m (20 ft)
west of the remaining old disposal lagoon. The Standard Ames mutagenicity
test conducted on this well sample was inconclusive due to toxic effects on
the test bacteria.
-------
8
Only one of the priority pollutants listed above, bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, was identified in the disposal lagoon. Observed variances in
compounds detected in the disposal lagoon and the monitoring wells suggest
multiple groundwater pollutant sources and/or a single source whose
chemical content varies over time. As previously noted, the Company has
buried chemical wastes which could be a major source of detected ground-
water contaminants.
Rainfall [114 cm (45 in)/yr] and permeable alluvial materials promote
pollutant leaching from the buried hazardous chemical wastes and disposal
lagoons as evidenced by the monitoring well data. Although the leaky toxic
waste disposal lagoons are being eliminated, the buried chemical wastes
have not been subjected to remedial actions. The underlying Kanawha River
alluvial aquifer has been a major water source for local industries. The
presence of toxic chemicals in this aquifer constitutes a hazard to present
and potential users of groundwater in this area.
Air - Ambient air samples collected both on and offsite contained 27
organic chemicals including nine priority pollutants. Priority pollutant
concentrations ranged from a low of 0.1 ppb trichloroethylene to a high of
27 ppb toluene. Eight of the nine priority pollutants, methylene chloride,
chloroform, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, bis (2-chloroethyl) ether, and
tetrachloroethylene, were also detected in the liquid/soil samples from
Fike and the CST. Consequently, these airborne priority pollutants are
attributed to Fike. Prevailing southwesterly winds would carry these toxic
chemicals into nearby [approximately 0.40 km (0.25 mi)] residential areas.
Toxicity and Health Effects
Sixty-two organic compounds, including 16 priority pollutants and 4
priority pollutant metals were identified in samples collected at Fike and
the CST. Analytical data were reviewed by the NEIC toxicologist to assess
potential hazards to human health and the environment. Chemicals present
in groundwater make it unfit for human consumption due to an unacceptably
high cancer risk and a number of other potential adverse health effects.
-------
Also, since there are no generally accepted safe levels of airborne car-
cinogens for long term exposure, Nitro residuents living downwind from Fike
have an elevated risk of cancer and other health problems due to air emis-
sions.
CONCLUSIONS
1. During the study period, the CST was discharging priority pol-
lutants in excess of the amounts allowed by the State Water
Pollution Control Permit.
2. A bypass discharge of untreated wastewater from the CST was
observed which was prohibited by both Federal and State Discharge
Permits.
3. Buried hazardous and toxic wastes, as well as these disposed in
evaporation/percolation lagoons, are leaching into groundwater.
4. Pollutants were documented moving offsite via surface water,
groundwater, and air.
5. Goundwater in the immediate vicinity of Fike has been rendered
unfit for human consumption because of high carcinogen concen-
trations and other chemicals known to cause adverse health
effects.
6. Airborne carcinogens and chemicals known to cause adverse health
effects are carried by prevailing winds into adjacent Nitro
neighborhoods.
7. Corrective measures must be initiated by Fike to abate the
release of hazardous and toxic chemicals to the environment from
the CST, buried wastes remaining disposal lagoon, chemical spill
areas, and process emissions.
-------
10
III. PLANT PRODUCTION AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
PRODUCTION
As previously noted, Fike specializes in the development of new
chemicals, speciality chemicals, byproduct recovery and custom manufac-
turing. In 1977, during the previous NEIC survey, more than 50 different
chemicals were produced.* Since that time, 27 chemicals have been dropped
from production [Table 1] and 12 new ones have been added [Table 2]. Most
of the products which resulted in the discharge of priority pollutants have
been eliminated to comply with the consent decree and discharge permit
limitations. Presently, about 41 chemicals are manufactured including
three added to production in January 1980 [Table 2]. Twenty-four of the
41 compounds presently manufactured result in liquid/solid waste pro-
duction.
PREVIOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Historically, liquid/solid wastes have been disposed of in three ways.
Wastewaters considered to be treatable have been discharged to the CST
oxidation ditch which was constructed as a joint venture by Fike and
Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. Most wastewaters considered to be non-treatable
were disposed of in evaporation/percolation lagoons located on plant
grounds. Used drums, still bottoms, and various reaction by-products were
buried in pits excavated on plant grounds. The normal practice was to dig
a pit in the southern area of the plant, place drummed wastes into it and
then backfill with soil. Before backfilling, many drums rusted through
and released the contained wastes.1
During the 1977 study, the CST discharge to the Kanawha River con-
tained eight priority pollutants (anthracene, phenanthrene, phenol,
* See Table 2 in reference number 1.
-------
11
Table 1
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS ELIMINATED SINCE OCTOBER 1977
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
December 1979
Product Associated Liquid Waste
Diphenolthiourea Yes
Diammonium ethylene biscarbamate (Amdeam) No
BCES (butyl carboethoxyethyl sulfide) No
Bexide-EXO (bis ethyl xanthogen) Yes
Bristamine base Yes
CMA Yes
CMA-MIBK Mix No
Diisopropyl carbodaime Yes
Dimethyl acetoacetamide No
Dimethyl phosphonate No
Galvaplan No
Glutaric anhydride No
Hexamethyl phosphoramide (HEMPA) No
Latex sensitizer #3 Yes
Mercaptothiazoline Yes
Mi 11 room grinding - santowhite No
N-acetyl ethanolamine (NAE) Yes
Orthobenzylphenol (OBP) Yes
PXD (bis isopropyl xanthogen) Yes
R-2 Crystals (N methylene piperidim'um cyclopentamethlene Yes
dithiocarbamate
RWA 50 (sodium butyl o-phenyl phenol) Yes
RWA 375 (butyl phenyl phenol sodium sulfonate) Yes
R2-50 (50% solution N'N dibutyl ammonium N'N1 dimethyl- No
cyclohexyldi thi ocarbamate)
RZ 100 No
Tetramethyl thiourea No
Thioacetamide Yes
Trimethyl thiourea Yes
-------
Table 2 12
LISTING OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
December 1979
Product Liquid Waste Produced
Group Aa
Allyl cyanide Yes
Benzyl mercaptan Yes
Butyl Ziram (zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate) Yes
Cutain II (mixture of propylene thiourea and thiourea) No
Cyclohexylamine Yes
Dibutyl thiourea No
Diethyl thiourea No
Diisopropyl thiourea " Yes
Dimethyl amine hydrochloride No
Dimethyl thiourea No
Di-o-tolyl thiourea («« dimethyl thiocarbanalide) Yes
Dithiooxamide (DTO) Yes
EMI-24 (2 ethyl 4 methyl imidazole) No
Ethanedithiol Yes
Ethylene thiourea Yes
Ethyl fluoroacetate Yes
Fluoracetamide Yes
Methoxy triglycol acetate Yes
Methyl Ziram (zinc dimethyl 1 dithiocarbamate) Yes
Propylene Thiourea Yes
R-235 (diethyloxadiazene thione) Yes
R-240 (dimethyl oxadiazene thione) Yes
ROCURE-7 (polyethylene tetrasulfide) Yes
Sodium amide No
Sodium fluoracetate Yes
Sodium methyl ate No
Sodium nickel cyanide Yes
trichloromelamine Yes
Vin Vat B-l (mixture of sodium nickel cyanide and Yes
sodium formaldehyde sulfoxolate)
Group B
Cresol disulfide Yes
Bi-phenol A and Methanol blending No
Tall oil residue and fatty acids blending No
Tri methyl amine hydrochloride No
chloroisopropylphenylcarbamate (CIPC) Yes
Isopropylphenylcarbamate (IPC) Yes
p-Chlorophenyl N-methyl carbamate (124) Yes
Solubilized A hydroxyquinoline (Nilate) No
3,3', 4,4'-Benzophenonetetra carboxylic dianhydride No
Group C
Dichlorobutane No
Dichlorohexane No
Dichlorooctane No
a Group A compounds were listed products during the previous NEIC survey
(October 3 through 7, 1977).
b Group B compounds went into production following the previous NEIC
Survey.
c Wastestream (HC1) packaged and sold as product to oil well drillers.
d Group C compounds added to production in January 1980.
-------
13
isophorone, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,2-trichloroethylene, tetrachloro-
ethylene, dimethylnitrosamine).
Isophorone and phenol maximum concentrations were 3.3 and 1.8 mg/1,
respectively. All other priority pollutants were detected in concen-
trations of less than 0.3 mg/1. NPDES permit limitations for pH, oil and
grease, phenols, ammonia, and surfactants were exceeded during the five-day
monitoring period. Mutagenicity tests showed that potential carcinogens
were present in the discharge. Samples collected from the old evaporation/
percolation lagoon (lagoon No. 1) contained five priority pollutants
(phenol, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,2-trichloroethylene, and
dimethylnitrosamine). Samples collected from onsite monitoring wells in
the vicinity of lagoon No. 1 confirmed degradation of groundwater by
pollutants identified in the pond. Various other organic contaminants
were detected in the groundwater which were not identified in the disposal
lagoon or were detected in one well but not another.
Following the 1977 NEIC study, the State of West Virginia entered into
a consent decree with Fike. The decree and subsequently issued operating
permits contained the following requirements:
1. CST modification including incorporation of powdered acti-
vated carbon treatment and construction of sludge drying beds.
2. Prohibition of priority pollutant discharges from the CST.
3. In-plant modifications to contain contaminated surface water
and process wastes around mixing tanks, holding tanks, raw
materials, storage areas, etc.
4. Sewer line modifications to segregate contaminated from non-
contaminated waste streams,
5. Removal and proper disposal of waste materials from lagoons 1
and 2 followed by complete reclamation of lagoon number 1 and
rehabilitation/abandonment of number 2 (Company option).
6. Prohibition of discharges to lagoons 1 and 2 prior to completion
of rememdial work.
7. Construction of a new properly lined lagoon (No. 3) to receive
wastes formerly discharged to lagoons 1 and 2.
8. Construction of a groundwater monitoring well upgradient from
the existing lagoons.
-------
14
9. Monthly monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells.
10. Determination of the extent of waste material movement from
lagoons 1 and 2.
Neither the consent decree nor the permits addressed the disposal and
burial of liquid/solid wastes on plant grounds. The status of waste dis-
posal practices during the current investigation is described in the fol-
lowing subsections.
PRESENT WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
CST
On August 30, 1978, just prior to the issuance of the consent decree,
Fike bought Coastal's interest in the CST and became sole owner and waste
contributor to the facility. In October 1977, the treatment facility con-
sisted of a flow equalization pond, followed by an oxidation ditch and a
final settling pond [Figure 2]. As required by the consent decree, the
plant was modified to incorporate activated carbon treatment and improve
sludge handling capabilities [Figure 3]. The modified treatment plant v,ill
include the following process units upon completion:
1. Aerated activated carbon contact basin (former equalization
basinPond 1);
2. Settling cone for Pond 1 discharge;
3. Aeration basin with settling chamber (former final settling
basinPond 2);
4. Oxidation ditch with inner race used for primary settling of
storm sewer flow;
5. Settling cone for oxidation ditch discharge. Preceded by
alum and polyelectrolyte addition,
6. Two activated carbon columns operated in parallel;
7. Chlorine contact tank; and
8. Two covered sludge drying beds.
Pond No. 2 and the settling cone following pond No. 1 were under con-
struction during the December 1979 investigation. Other process units were
-------
(TO BE OPERATIONAL OCT 77)
15' * x 2I1 D CLARIFIES
° CST Tro.l.r OH.ct
I m -"I PADDLE WHEEL AERATOR!
I I I /I \
FINAL POND
100,000 GAL
n.^3 -^
, ,,
-------
WAblLW
CARBON
CARBON COLUMNS
tOCFISS c^ SED. c^> 1
. .- ,-n 1 CONE /
-<" K I'OM) si ^X^ POND f; 2 X
135,000 GAL. [~ 150,000 GAL
I HD j
SLUDKE |
1
110,000 GAL.
1 1
t . L -, «J» * POND i'3
-"- *- -* j
nHYIIir, DRY 1 MR INNER fl
RFI) RI'D OUTfR - R
RACE °(°
j 1
1 SUBNATANT '
c.
JLL
cor
x
>
K
J
1
SLUDfiC
CHLORINE
STORM SEWER
_1
1
L
RIVER
500 GAL
LIFT STATION
Fi(|ure 3
CST Physical-Chemical Treatment Plant Schematic
December 1979
Fike Chemicals, Inc.
-------
17
in place and operational except for the south activated carbon column which
was out of service for repairs. Ponds 1 and 2 are concrete basins while
the oxidation ditch is only lined with riprap to control erosion. The
effluent from pond No. 1 was being pumped directly to the outer race of the
oxidation ditch. Alum and polyelectrolyte are continuously added to the
oxidation ditch effluent to improve sludge settling. Approximately 45 kg
(100 Ib) of alum and 2 kg (5 Ibs) of polyelectrolyte are added to the waste
stream daily. The settled sludge is recycled back to the outer race for
several hours once/mo. Company personnel believe that most of the recycled 1 '
sludge is alum rather than biological solids. Following the settling cone, (
the wastewater passes through two 3,600 kg (8,000 Ib) activated carbon
.jau^te,
columns which are operated in parallel. The final effluent is chlorinated
in a 1900 liters (500 gal) contact tank prior to discharge to the Kanawha
River.
When the plant is completed, effluent from the No. 2 pond will go to
either the oxidation ditch or the settling cone which presently follows the
ditch. Company personnel are considering elimination of the ditch or
operating it in some other sequence in the treatment flow scheme.
Sewer lines within the production facility have been separated into a
chemical line (process wastewater) and a storm sewer. The CST receives
between 115 and 190 cu m/day (30,000 to 50,000 gpd) from Fike processes. ., /-.,.-
^r,/L«-.'"
Storm water received during low intensity rainfall is pumped to the inner g. ,
race of the oxidation ditch. During high intensity rainfalls, the CST \ '
storm sewer lift station is shut down. The storm sewer and lift station I
wet well are allowed to overflow into surface ditches which drain to the
Kanawha River. During the current survey, storm sewer flow was being
bypassed in this manner. This discharge of non-treated wastewater is not
authorized by either the NPDES or state discharge permit.
Evaporation/Percolation Lagoons
During the October 1977 NEIC inspection, two non-lined evaporation/
percolation lagoons were present at the southern end of the plant [Figure 4].
-------
-------
19
This area of the plant is underlain by permeable sandy floodplain materials
characteristic of the area [See Section V: Offsite Pollutant Movement].
*
The eastern lagoon, designated as No. I, was constructed in about 1969.
Process wastewaters considered too toxic by Fike to be treated by the CST
biosystem were being discharged to this lagoon for disposal. By design,
disposal was accomplished through evaporation and seepage into the under-
lying aquifer. The lagoon has a capacity of approximately 650 cu m (170,000
gal).1 In 1977, about 7.6 cu m (2,000 gal)/day was being discharged to
it.1 Discharge to lagoon No. 1 was terminated on January 9, 1979, ac-
cording to Company personnel. The State Water Pollution Control Permit
(IW-6017-78) required discharge termination on October 11, 1978. The
smaller western lagoon was constructed just prior to the 1977 survey to
receive transport cleaning wastes from Coastal Tank Lines. The capacity of
this lagoon was determined from field measurements to be about 1,230 cu m
(330,000 gal). State personnel reported that the western pond was back-
filled with soil shortly after the previous NEIC survey. Company personnel
stated that the disposed materials were not removed prior to reclamation.
In 1978, another non-lined lagoon was constructed some distance east
of lagoon No. 1 [Figure 4] to also receive toxic process waste'-.aters from
Fike for disposal. This lagoon was subsequently identified as lagoon No. 2.
In response to the consent decree and subsequently issued permits, a
third lagoon (No. 3) was constructed between lagoons 1 and 2. The State
permit (IW-6017-78) required that it be lined with 0.6 m (2 ft) of clay
having a final compacted permeability of 10 cm/sec. Prior to the
December 1979, waste materials in lagoon No. 2 were transferred to No. 3.
The area occupied by lagoon No. 2 was then backfilled and reclaimed as
usable land.
Both lagoon Nos. 1 and 3 were full of liquid/solid wastes when ob-
served in December 1979. Company personnel reported that about 7.6 cu m
(2000 gal) of cyanide containing wastewater is discharged to lagoon No. 3
each week. This lagoon was equipped with a series of risers and spray
-------
20
nozzles to enhance wastewater evaporation. Evaporation enhancement is
necessary since water percolation through the bottom is severely restricted
by the clay liner, and rainfall exceeds average lake evaporation by 33 cm/yr
(13 in).2'3 This system was not observed in operation during the in-
spection.
Solid Waste Disposal
Company personnel stated that no pits have been excavated for waste
disposal since the previous NEIC inspection in 1977. There are reported to
be five pits in the vicinity of lagoon No. 3, each containing between 100
and 200 drums. The pits have all been backfilled. Several drums in one
such pit, just east of warehouse No. 3, had collapsed and were observed as
small water-filled pits [Figure 4, Station 06]. Currently, empty drums are
sold for scrap or stored onsite. Some drums are filled with waste materials
and raw materials not currently utilized in plant production. There are
between 2,300 and 4,600 kg (5,000 and 10,000 Ib) of sodium metal stored
onsite in drums. The sodium will be used in product if a saleable chemical
compound can be developed.
General housekeeping at the plant is poor. Drums, reactors, and other
debris are scattered throughout the site. Many areas of chemical spills,
leaks, and contaminated soils were noted. A plant worker was observed
draining drums onto the ground. The liquid was reported to be a 95% water
and 5% glycol solution. Other drums in the immediate vicinity had labels
reading "Petroleum Naptha" and "IRMO" (toluene). Approximately 100 of
these drums were stored on their sides on a concrete pad just east of
warehouse No. 2 [Figure 4, Station 07]. The ends of several drums were
bcwed, apparently due to excessive internal pressures. Elsewhere, drums in
various stages of deterioration are stored on the north and south sides of
warehouse No. 3. Materials had leaked from several of these drums onto
plant grounds. Vapors in this area were identified by Company personnel as
fuming nitric acid emanating from an open carboy. In the barrel recycling
and cleaning area, residual raw materials and wastes are routinely spilled
on plant grounds. Strong odors throughout the plant required use of
organic cartridge respirators by NEIC personnel as a safety precaution.
-------
21
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
In February 1976, two alluvial groundwater monitoring wells were
installed on the west side of lagoon No. I [Figure 4, Stations 11 and 12].
Groundwater flow is generally to the west toward the Kanawha River, there-
fore these wells are downgradient from the disposal lagoons. The well ad-
jacent to lagoon 1 is identified as well No. 1 [Figure 4, Station 11] by
Company and State personnel for self-monitoring purposes. The other well
is identified as well No. 2 [Figure 4, Station 12]. Another older well
(No. 3), located in the production area, was once used for groundwater
monitoring and is referenced in the 1977 survey report but has been aban-
doned because of pump failure and sand heaving into the casing. In re-
sponse to a consent decree requirement, a fourth well (No. 4) was con-
structed "upgradient" from the lagoons in December 1978 [Figure 4, Station
10].
Wells 1, 2, and 4 were all constructed in the same manner by a local
water well driller. An open 15 cm (6 in) diameter steel casing was driven
into the ground and alluvial materials entering the casing were removed
with a bailer. The bottom section of each casing had been slotted with a
cutting torch prior to installation.
The total lengths of the casing and slotted section for each well are
as follows:
Well Number Casing Length [m (ft)] Slotted Section [m (ft)]
1
2
4
16.2 (53.2)
16.7 (54.7)
16.7 (55.0)
4.6 (15)
4.6 (15)
4.6* (15)
* The drillers records indicate no exact length of the slotted
section, however, the driller stated that the length was
between 4.6 and 6.4 m (15 and 21 ft).
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 6 m (20 ft) below
the ground surface.
-------
22
The casing slots were approximately 0.3 cm wide and 10 cm long (0.12
by 4 in). Grain size distribution data for Kanawha River valley alluvium
in the Nitro area indicate that approximately 50% of the surrounding ma-
terials would be expected to pass through the casing slots.2 Open hole
measurements made on each well revealed that the slotted portion of the
casings are filled with alluvial materials. In fact, the fill extends
above the slotted section by 4.3 m (14 ft) in well No. 1, 0.67 m (2.2 ft)
in No. 2 and 0.88 m (2.9 ft) in No. 4. Since water cannot be drawn
directly from the slotted casing section, it would be necessary to purge
several casing volumes in order to get a truly representative sample.
Monthly samples have been collected from wells 1, 2, and 4 since
December 1978, as required by the State issued lagoon permit. No samples
were collected in January 1979. Samples are collected with a bailer which
is not routinely cleaned between wells. Usually, less than 20 liters
(5 gal) of water is purged from the wells prior to sampling. This is
approximately equal to 1 m (3.4 ft) of water in the casing and is much less
than the generally recommended 3 to 5 casing volumes. Small purge volumes
prior to sample collection in this situation substantially increase the
chance for analysis of stagnant water in casing storage. The stagnant
water would be expected to have lost some volatile and less stable com-
pounds.
The samples are analyzed for pH, dissolved solids, suspended solids,
phenol, COD, and chlorides [Table 3]. Despite the probable inherent
errors in the data resulting from well design and sampling techniques,
which would produce conservative results, all well data indicate ground-
water degradation. It should be noted that these wells are downgradient or
adjacent to disposal lagoons and drum burial areas. Degradation is sug-
gested by pH values and COD, dissolved solids, chlorides and phenol con-
centrations. For example, the COD values compare with that normally
measured in raw domestic sewage (on the order of 250 mg/1) not that of
clean groundwater (less than 25 mg/1). The seemingly erratic suspended
solids concentrations could be due to sample turbidity induced by agitation
of the casing fill by the bailer. It should also be noted that the March
and April 1979 data are remarkably similar (i.e., identical).
-------
Table 3
SUMMARY OF SELF-MONITORING DATA FROM GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS3
Fike Chemicals, Inc .
December 1978 to January 1980
Date
PH
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Phenol
COD
Chloride
pH
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Phenol
COD
Chloride
PH
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Phenol
COD
Chloride
12/78
7 3
2704
996
0 8
276 8
1304 2
6 3
1180
566
1 0
138.4
372 2
6 8
160
28
0
4359 6
186 3
2/79
7 3
2538
134
1 0
684 7
84 4
7 5
1276
32
0.1
532 6
75
8 0
704
44
0
75.1
25
3/79
6 5
2168
3520
1 0
633.7
844.2
6 8
1972
2436
1.0
588 4
838
7 7
364
60
0.05
256 5
37.5
4/79
6 5
2168
3520
1 0
634
844 2
6 8
1972
2436
1 0
588 4
838
7.7
364
60
0.05
256.5
37.5
5/79
6.6
634
48
0.1
125
119
6.7
2400
852
1 0
89
831
7.8
432
208
0 1
499.5
43.8
6/79
Well No
7.3
2583
140
1.0
468 6
80
Well No
7 5
1267
30
0.099
356.2
78
Well No
8.0
740
40
0
75
30
7/79
1
6 8
2115
112
0.8
570.6
76.7
2
7.3
1160
29 1
0 09
484.2
68.2
4
8.0
640
40
0.00
69.2
22.7
8/79
6.4
698
54
0 2
113
209
6.6
2448
140
0.6
76.6
692 75
8 3
258
146
0.02
454.5
41.8
9/79
7 2
2152 5
116 67
0 8
390.5
66.67
7.3
1055 8
25
0.08
297
65
7.8
616.07
33.33
0
90
36
10/79
6.5
2260
26
0
541.2
2563 7
6 4
834
6
0
426.4
44. 9
8 2
392
4
0
164
25 6
11/79
6 8
2486
31.2
0
595.3
3076.44
6.4
792.3
5 8
0
469 04
413.6
8 0
344 96
9.96
0
144.32
21.25
12/79
6 8
3292
7492
0 31
179 9
640 9
6 5
1740
1764
0 12
114 5
64.1
7.1
312
3612
0 17
147.2
64.1
1/80
7 5
1460
400
1 72
180 5
631 3
6.6
712
32
1 48
30 1
48.1
7.2
348
48
1 66
45.1
9.6
a All values reported as mg/1 except pH which is reported in standard units (S U ).
b Ho sample results were located in Company files for January 1979.
ro
oo
-------
24
Company personnel expressed concern about the suitability of these
monitoring wells for future use in defining the extent of pollutant move-
ment from the lagoons as required by the permit. Other well types and con-
struction techniques are currently being explored by Company personnel.
Some of this work has been misdirected. For example, grain size analyses
have been conducted on sediment recovered from the monitoring wells, which
was mistakenly believed to represent typical alluvial materials.
If the existing wells are to be used for future monitoring, they
should be cleaned out and appropriately screened to prevent future en-
croachment of aquifer materials. New permanent well installations should
be preceded by preliminary studies to locate the vertical position of the
leachate plume. Offsite upgradient wells should be installed to obtain
true background water quality and water level data.
-------
25
IV. MONITORING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
Onsite pollutant identification through sample collection and analysis
was conducted as a precursor to evaluation of potential offsite hazards and
environmental impacts. This section presents the procedures and results of
that monitoring acitivity.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
The sampling survey involved a three-phase approach including: (1)
site evaluation, (2) sample station selection and location, and (3) sample
collection. On the basis of the site evaluation, twelve soil/liquid
sampling points were selected [Table 4, Figure 4]. Selections of soil and
pooled liquid sampling stations were based on qualitative judgments as to
probable points of contamination or past dumping practices. The Stations
were separated into two categories, environmental and hazardous, prior to
sample collection based on a field assessment of the probable level of
pollutants present. Smaller sample aliquots were collected from the
"hazardous" sites for safety reasons and shipping requirements.
The smaller aliquot size and special laboratory analysis procedures
resulted in compound detection at high concentrations only. A discussion
of analysis and detection limits for all samples is presented in Appendix A.
Environmental samples were collected from the CST discharges (Stations 01
and 02) and from the three groundwater monitoring wells (Stations 10, 11,
anci 12). Hazardous liquid samples were collected at Stations 03, 04, 06,
and 09, and solids from Stations 04, 05, 07, and 08.
Ambient air samples were collected at seven sites [Table 4, Figure 4].
Sampling methodology included mechanically drawing ambient air through a
glass column packed with Tenax,* a porous polymer resin, with an MSA*
* Trade name.
-------
Table 4
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND SAMPLING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
Nitro, West Virginia
26
Station
Date
Time
Description
01
12/13/79 0930 to 1530
02
03
04
12/13/79 1000
12/13/79 1045
12/13/79 1100
12/13/79 1105
05
12/14/79 1000 to 1030
12/13/79 1115
06
12/13/79 1125
CST final effluent just upstream from
7.6 cm (3.0 in) rectangular weir in
discharge channel located on second
floor of control building. Composite
sample comprised of six equal volume
aliquots manually collected at 0930,
1030, 1150, 1240, 1420, and 1530 hours.
Effluent flow rates are monitored at the
7.6 cm (3.0 in) weir with a bubbler type
head level sensor. The level is recorded
on a circular chart in the plant control
room. The flow rate during the sample
compositing period was a constant 150
liters (40 gal)/minute based on a head
level of 0.08 m (0.26 ft).
Overflow from storm sewer influent line
to CST at manhole in roadway just out-
side the south gate to the storm sewer
lift station.
Pooled liquid in drum disposal pit at
extreme southwest corner of plant.
Composite sample of liquid from la-
goon No. 1. Sample comprised of 4
aliquots collected at approximately
equally spaced points along the
eastern dike.
Composite sample of sediment from
lagoon No. 1. Sample comprised of
4 aliquots collected at approximately
equally spaced points along the east-
ern dike.
Ambient air sample collected at
ground level at center of lagoon
No. 1 east dike.
Surface soil sample between railroad
tracks and southeast corner of con-
crete pad on south side of warehouse
No. 3.
Liquid sample from standing water over
collapsed buried drums about midway
between warehouse No. 3 and the east
plant fence.
-------
Table 4 (cont'd)
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND SAMPLING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
Nitro, West Virginia
27
Station
Date
Time
Description
07
12/13/79 1135
Surface soil sample from east side of
concrete pad on east side of warehouse
No. 2.
08
09
12/13/79 1205
12/14/79 0844 to 0859
12/13/79 1220
Surface soil sample from drum storage
area at north end of plant just across
roadway from production area No. 2.
Ambient air samples in drum storage
area, as described above, approximately
1 m (1 yd) above ground level.
Composite liquid sample from two small
pools in open area on south side of
plant analytical laboratory. Area
previously used for disposal of
laboratory wastes.
10
12/13/79 1630
11
12/13/79 1700
12
12/13/79 1730
Liquid sample from monitoring well
at extreme southeastern corner of
plant grounds. Identified as both
No. 4 and upgradient well. Sample
collected with bailer following
withdrawal of 22 liters (5.7 gal)
from casing storage.
Liquid sample from monitoring well
near the south end of the lagoon
No. 1 west dike. Identified as
well No. 2 in previous NEIC report1
and well No. 1 by West Virginia Water
Resources Division. Sample collected
with bailer following withdrawal of
14.5 liters (4.8 gal) from casing,
storage.
Liquid sample from monitoring well
located approximately 100 m (110 yds)
west of Station 11. Identified as
well No. 3 in previous NEIC report
and well No. 2 by West Virginia
Water Resources Division. Sample
collected with bailer following
withdrawal of 22 liters (5.7 gal)
from casing storage.
-------
Table 4 (cont'd)
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND SAMPLING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
Nitro, West Virginia
28
Station
Date
Time
Description
13
14
15
16
17
12/14/79 0849 to 0919
12/14/79 0938 to 0953
12/14/79 0938 to 0953
12/14/79 1047 to 1117
12/14/79 1047 to 1117
Ambient air sample from point 15 m
(50 ft) north of Station 08. Station
located just off plant grounds.
Ambient air sample at north end of
east plant fence near storage tanks.
Sample collected approximately 1 m
(1 yd) above ground level.
Ambient air sample at point 7.6 m
(25 ft) east of station 14 off plant
property. Sample collected at ground
level.
Ambient air sample at point approxi-
mately 1 m (1 yd) above ground level
near center of west outside wall of
CST control building.
Ambient air sample from southwest
quadrant of Viscose Road and Allied
Chemical access road intersection.
Sample collected approximately 0.5 m
(1.5 ft) above ground level at fence
line.
-------
29
personnel sampler at the rate of one liter/minute. Wind conditions during
ambient air sampling were calm to light westerly breezes.
Most sites were documented with photographs. Except for the liquid
sample collected at Station 02* and the air samples, all samples were
split with Company personnel.
All samples were packed in locked ice chests and transported to the
NEIC laboratory in Denver, Colorado. Whenever applicable, EPA approved
procedures, as promulgated pursuant to Section 304 (h) of the Clean Water
Act, were used in the analysis of samples. New methods or modifications to
existing methods were documented and are retained on file with other re-
cords of this investigation. Throughout the course of the study (sampling
through analysis and reporting), sample and document control for eviden-
tiary purposes were maintained.
MONITORING RESULTS
CST
The 6-hour composite sample of the CST effluent discharge (Station 01)
was analyzed for organics, including priority pollutants, selected metals,
and mutagenicity. Mutagenicity tests were also conducted on the storm
sewer bypass and monitoring well No. 1 (Stations 02 and 11, respectively).
Mutagenicity results are presented following the monitoring well section.
The CST permitted discharge was found to contain seven priority
pollutants, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, phenol, toluene, copper, nickel, lead,
and zinc [Tables 5 and 6]. The 2,4,6-trichlorophenol and phenol were
detected in concentrations of 1,000 and 2,000 ppb, respectively. The
* Company personel collected a sample at station 02 approximately
1 hour before NEIC and declined the split.
-------
Table 5
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYSIS
Results for CST and Groundwater Samples
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
December 13, 1979
Station
CST
01
Effluent
02
Storm Sewer Bypass
10
Well No. 4
11 12
Well No. 1 Well No. 2
Concentration (ppb)
Priority Pollutant Compounds'
benzene
butylbenzylphthalate
chloroform
1,2 dichloroethane
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
-1 ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
x/phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
tetrachlororoethylene
trichloroethylene
toluene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
aniline
4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
tetramethyl thi ourea
9H-xanthen-9-one,hydroxyi somer
2-ethylhexanoic acid
N-cyclohexylformamide
\JN.N1-bis (1-Methylethyl)urea
benzoic acid
3-chlorophenol
2000
18
1000
150
1000
82
Non-Priority Pollutant Compounds0
60
30
50
X
X
X
X
X
22
73
18
6000
2000
450.
84C
81
77
150
90
>21QQ
96
3700L
200
31
CO
o
-------
Table 5 (cont'd)
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYSIS
Results for CST and Groundwater Samples
FIKF CHEMICALS, INC.
December 13, 1979
Station
01
CST Effluent
02 10 11 12
Storm Sewer Bypass Well No. 4 Well No. 1 Well No.
Concentration (ppb)
. 1-methyl ethylphenyl carbamate X
\i 3-(butyl thio)propianic acid X
p-cresol
benzeneacetic acid
phenylthiocyanate
2,6-dimethylphenol
dimethylphenol isomer
methylethyl phenol isomer
\ chlorophenol isomer
hexamethylphosphoric triamide
N-phenylformamide
2-propeny1benzeneacetate
pentanedinitrile
l-ethyl-3-piperi done
2 methoxyphenol
l-methylethyl(3 chlorophenyl)carbamate
4-methyl-2-pentanone X
methoxybenzene X
cyclohexane
cyclohexanone
tetrahydrothi ophene
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether6
tetrahydrofuran
bis (1-chloroisopropyl) ether
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a Samples v/ere analyzed for all organic priority pollutants except bis(chloromethyl)ether, n-nitrosodimethylamine, and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxan.
b Methylene chloride was used to clean bailer prior to sampling of these wells.
c All compounds were identified but not quantified.
d Presence was verified with standard compound.
e This compound is a priority pollutant. It was measured quantitatively in a different analytical fraction.
-------
32
Table 6
METAL ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM CST EFFLUENT
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
December 13, 1979
Metal
Aga
Al
Ba
Bea
Ca
Cda
Cra
Cua
Fe
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Nia
Pba
V
Zna
Concentration (mg/1)
N.D.b
3.55
N.D.
N.D.
41.4
N.D.
N.D.
0.894
1.19
4.56
0.293
N.D.
4,500
0.790
0.052
0.010
0.014
Detector Limit (mg/1)
0.002
0.027
0.0007
0.0006
0.008
0.002
0.006
0.002
0.015
0.016
0.002
0.028
0.021
0.030
0.019
0.006
0.002
a Designated as a priority pollutant.
b N.D. means not detected.
-------
33
State Water Pollution Control Permit (IW-6043-79) for the CST contains the
following requirement in Part A, "Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Re-
quirements":
"There shall be no discharge in excess of trace amounts of any of
the priority pollutants presently listed under, or included in the
future under Section 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended 1977, P.L. 92-500 (The Clean Water Act of 1977) with
the exception of those listed in this permit."
The priority pollutants listed in the permit include phenol, arsenic,
cadmium, lead, mercury, and hexavalent chromium. Those priority pollutants
detected in the discharge which are categorically prohibited by the permit
are:
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
toluene
copper
nickel
zinc
Ten additional non-priority pollutant organic compounds were iden-
tified in the discharge, but were not quantified. Seven non-priority
metals were also identified in the discharge. Sodium was detected at a
concentration of 4,500 mg/1 [Table 6].
The bypass discharge sample was analyzed for organic compounds in-
cluding priority pollutants. This discharge was found to contain the
priority pollutants phenol, toluene, and ethylbenzene at concentrations of
1000, 82, and 150 ppb, respectively [Table 5]. Six non-priority pollutant
organic compounds were also detected in the sample [Table 5]. Both the
Federal NPDES (WV 0001651) and State discharge permits for the CST prohibit
bypassing except under unusual circumstances such as when loss of life or
severe property damage is imminent. These conditions were not present
during this survey.
-------
34
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Samples were collected from the three onsite groundwater monitoring
wells with a clean 1.45 liters (0.383 gal) stainless steel bailer [Table 4
and Figure 4, Stations 10, 11, and 12]. Purge volumes were minimized
because of the reconnaissance nature of the survey and the potential for
contamination of surficial materials by large quantities of polluted
groundwater. The samples were analyzed for organics, including priority
pollutants.
In total, 14 priority pollutants were identified in the three mon-
itoring wells, including three in the "upgradient" well [Table 5]. The
priority pollutants detected are:
phenol 1,2-dichloroethane
toluene chloroform
ethyl benzene 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate methylene chloride*
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether tetrachloroethylene
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether trichloroethylene
benzene butyl benzyl phthalate
Concentrations ranged from a low of 22 ppb benzene to a high of 6000 ppb
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether, both in well No. 1. An additional 19 non-
priority pollutant organic compounds were also detected, including five in
the "upgradient" well.
Mutagen Testing
The Ames standard bacterial assay for mutagenicity was performed on
liquid sample concentrates from Stations 01, 02, and 11. The mutagenicity
test did not demonstrate mutagenic activity in any of the three samples.
All of the concentrated sample extracts exhibited toxicity to one or
another of the five Salmonella test strains. The inability to detect
mutagenic activity in the samples does not necessarily mean that these
substances are absent, but that the mutagenic effect may be below the
* Used to clean bailer between sampling stations. Possible contam-
ination of samples may have resulted.
-------
35
detection limit of the test system used. The testing procedures and
results are presented in more detail in Appendix B.
Surficial Liquid Samples
Surficial liquid samples were collected from four stations on plant
grounds [Figure 4, Stations 03, 04 06, and 09]. The samples were analyzed
for organics only.
A total of six compounds were identified in the samples from these
stations (toluene, tetrahydrofuran, cyclohexene, carbon disulfide and
hexane) [Table 7]. The sample from Station 06 contained the priority
pollutant, toluene, at a concentration of 1,500 ppb. All samples contained
tetrahydrofuran. This compound was also identified in well No. 2 [Table 5,
Station 12].
About 15 m (50 ft) south of Station 06, runoff was flowing into a hole
in the ground approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) in diameter. Fike is located on
the site of a World War I smokeless powder plant.4'5 The hole probably
drains into the old sewer system, part of which is currently used by Fike
to convey stormwater. Whether the runnoff flows into Fike's storm sewer or
to some other point of discharge is not known.
Solids Samples
Solids samples were collected at Stations 04, 05, 07, and 08. Only
the sediment sample from lagoon No. 1 (Station 04) contained detectable
organics. The single compound identified, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
was found in the concentration of 160 mg/kg. This compound, a priority
pollutant, was also detected in well Nos. 2 and 4, but not in No. 1, as
might be expected due to its proximity to the lagoon.
-------
36
Table 7
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYSIS
RESULTS FOR "SURFICIAL" WATER SAMPLES
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
December 13, 1979
Concentration (ppb)
Station 03 04 06 09
Organic Compounds Pooled Water Lagoon No. 1 Pit above Pooled water
in drums dis- burial drums in lab waste
posal pit disposal area
toluene3 b 1500
tetrahydrofuran PNQC PNQ PNQ PNQ
cyclohexene PNQ
carbon disulfide PNQ
Oxirane PNQ
Hexane PNQ
a Designated as a Priority Pollutant.
b No result means not detected.
c Present but not quantified.
-------
37
Ambient Air Samples
As previously noted, both on and offsite ambient air samples were
collected at Fike and the CST. Twenty-seven chemicals were measured in the
samples [Table 8]. Nine priority pollutants were detected including
methylene chloride, chloroform, trichloroethylene, benzene, toluene,
ethyl benzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, bis (2-chloroethyl) ether, and
tetrachloroethylene. All priority pollutants except 1,1,1-trichloroethane
were detected in the solid/liquid samples collected at Fike and the CST.
Priority pollutant concentrations ranged from 0.1 ppb (trichloroethylene at
Station 04) to 27 ppb (toluene at Station 08). The priority pollutants
methylene chloride, benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene, and ethylbenzene
were detected in no less than six of the seven ambient air samples.
On and offsite ambient air sampling stations were selected as a series
of two station sets. The sets were comprised of the following pairs:
Onsite Station Offsite Station
08 13
14 15
16 17
The onsite samples show generally higher pollutant concentrations than
the offsite samples. The largest concentration differences were exhibited
by the priority pollutants methylene chloride and toluene [Table 9]. The
consistency and magnitude of the concentration differences strongly suggest
that Fike is the source of these airborne contaminants. Toluene is used as
a raw material by Fike. It should be noted that several industries in the
vicinity produce organic chemicals and that possibly not all of those
compounds detected can be attributed to the Fike plant. One such compound,
anisole, identified at Stations 04 and 16, is produced at the Chemical
Formulators plant located just south of the CST.6
-------
Table 8
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AIR SAMPLES
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC
December 14, 1979
Name
methylene chloride
acetone d
1,2- trans- ojichloroethylene
chloroform .
1,2-chchloroethane
trichloroethylene
benzene
n-hexane
toluene rf
chlorobenzeng
ethylbenzene
2-propanol .
1,1,-tricbloroethane '
1-butanol
cyclohexanone .
tetrachloroethylene ' ri
bis (2-chl oroethyl) ether0'6
anisole
carbon disulfide
cyclohexane
methyl eye 1 opentane
3-methylhexane
2-methylhexane
2-chloropropane
methylcyclohexane
2-propen-l-cl
2-hexanone
a Values based on 30 liter sample
b Detection limits are based upon
c NO means not detected
04
0 26
NDC
NO
0 21
NO
0 10
0.90
1 8
1 2
NO
0.15
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
PMQ
ND .
TENh
TEN
TEN
TEN
ND
ND
ND
ND
size
levels
08
3 6
8.0
ND
ND
ND
0 14
1 3
ND
27
ND
ND -
PNQT
ND
ND
ND
ND
PNQ
ND
ND
NO
ND
TEN
TEN
TEN
TEN
ND
ND
Sample
13
0.80
4.6
ND
ND
ND
0.13
1 3
ND
5.3
ND
0 28
PNQ
PNQ
PNQ
ND
PNQ
ND
ND
TEN
ND
ND
TEN
TEN
ND
ND
TEN
TEN
All samples corrected for
necessary for
Station
14
6.8
5 9
ND
ND
ND
0 16
1 3
1 2
3 8
ND
0 48
PNQ
ND
ND
PNQ
PNQ
ND
ND
TEN
ND
ND
TEN
ND
TEN
ND
TEN
ND
levels
identification and
(Concentration in ppb)
15
1 8
ND
ND
ND
ND
0 13
1 1
0.87
3.2
ND
0 26
PNQ
ND
ND
ND
PNQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEN
ND
TEN
ND
in blank.
quantification
16
3 5
12
ND
ND
ND
0 11
1.2
1 2
2 0
ND
0 53
PNQ
ND
ND
PNQ
ND
ND
PNQ
ND
ND
ND
TEN
TEN
NO
ND
ND
ND
based
17
2 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
1.0
1 5
ND
0.21
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
TEN
NO
ND
ND
ND
upon a 30
a
Blank3
0 09
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
0.04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
liter sample.
n
Det. Limits
0.1
0 2
0 06
0 04
0 07
0 07
0 04
0 05
0 03
0 04
0 02
NA9
NA
NA
NA
NA
a | A
NA
%
NAy
NA
tIA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
d Desgignated as a Priorotu Pollutant.
e Identity is verified by mass spectrum
f Present but not quantified.
g Detection limit not determined.
h Tentatively identified. Not verified
and GC retention time. No
by analysis of
a standard.
quantification standard was
available.
CO
CO
-------
39
Table 9
ON AND OFFSITE AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS OF
METHYLENE CHLORIDE AND TOLUENE
FIKE CHEMICALS, INC.
December 14, 1979
Station
08a
13b
14a
15b
16a
17b
Methylene Chloride (ppb)
3.6
0.8
6.8
1.8
3.5
2.2
Toluene (ppb)
27
5.3
3.8
3.2
2.0
1.5
a Onsite sampling station.
b Offsite sampling station.
-------
40
Wind conditions were nearly calm to slight westerly breezes during the
period of sample collection. Air temperatures ranged just above 0°C (32°F)
which would not promote volatilization. Summer conditions, with signif-
icantly elevated temperatures would enhance organic volatilization.
Operation of the spray system on lagoon No. 3 (adjacent to Station 04)
could produce potentially hazardous concentrations of airborne priority
pollutants and other organic chemicals.
-------
41
V. OFFSITE POLLUTANT MOVEMENT
Offsite hazards posed by the pollutants identified at Fike and the CST
are a function of actual and probable offsite movement and exposure to the
general public and the environment. The principal avenues of pollutant
transport include surface and groundwaters, and air. Movement along these
transport avenues is governed primarily by a combination of climatic, topo-
graphic and geologic factors.
SURFACE WATER
As previously noted, process wastewater is collected, treated, and
discharged directly to the Kanawha River. The quality of this discharge
was presented in Section IV and the presence of priority pollutants was
noted. Storm water runoff provides another avenue of pollutant transport
to the Kanawha River. The Fike plant is topographically downgradient from
the City of Nitro so that contaminated runoff would remain in the in-
dustrial area as it flows toward the river. Rainwater contaminated by both
airborne pollutants and those detected in soilsjand pooled liquids os-
tensibly flows into plant storm sewers. The storm sewer system is com-
prised of both recently installed lines and some laid in 1918 by the Army
during the construction of a smokeless powder plant at this site.4'5
Exfiltration of priority-pollutant-containing .runoff is suspected due to
the age of these lines. These lines carry storm water to the CST for
treatment unless flows are judged too great in which case the treatment
system is bypassed through a non-authorized discharge to a roadside
drainage ditch. During the current survey, the bypass discharge was
observed, sampled, and found to contain priority pollutants.
-------
42
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater flow in floodplains is typically toward the river from the
valley walls. Beneath the Fike plant, groundwater flow would be toward the
Kanawha River from the east. There were no observed or previously reported
industrial facilities east of Fike which would contribute the types of
compounds found in the groundwater samples. In fact, the area to the east
is old residential. Well water analytical results from both the present
and previous* NEIC surveys suggest multiple pollutant sources of goundwater
contamination and/or one whose contaminants periodically change. This is
evidenced by the number of compounds detected in one onsite well but not in
another [Table 5]. The 1977 survey revealed not only chemical variances
between wells, but also lagoon No. 1 which was receiving toxic wastes at
that time and was considered a major source of groundwater contaminants.
Since manufacturing is on a batch basis and chemical production varies
substantially throughout the year, contaminants in the disposal lagoon are
ever changing in both type and concentration. These changes would affect
the quality of water percolating through the lagoon bottom and possibly
explain the variations in groundwater quality. Leaching of waste deposits
at several locations on the plant grounds coi'ld also produce the observed
variations in groundwater quality and give the appearance of multiple
sources. Further investigative work is warranted by these findings, and,
in fact, was required by the lagoon permit.
The climate and topography of the plant area tends to promote both
leaching and offsite movement of these pollutants. Rainfall averages
approximately 114 cm (45 in)/year and is fairly uniformly distributed on a
monthly basis.2 This constitutes a significant source of water for
leachate formation. Normal lake evaporation amounts to about 81 cm
(32 in)/year.3 This rainfall surplus suggests that the disposal lagoons
had to lose water by percolation or they would have soon filled to capacity.
The flat topography of the plant area promotes infiltration of rainfall
into the permeable Kanawna River floodplain materials.
* See Table 20 in reference No. 1. -
-------
43
This alluvial deposit constitutes the major groundwater aquifer of the
area. The alluvial aquifer is 5 to 10 times as productive as the underlying,
predominantly shale, bedrock aquifer.7 These unconsolidated deposits are
comprised primarily of well sorted silty sands with permeabilities on the
order of 10~ to 10" cm/sec. Most of the large groundwater developments
for industrial use in the Nitro area have been in alluvial aquifer.2'7 The
historic major users of groundwater in the Nitro area include those plants
located adjacent to and in the vicinity of Fike.2'7 In more recent years,
plant water supplies have been changed from groundwater to the Kanawha
River and a private water company which obtains its water from the Elk
River near Charleston.
The offsite movement of priority pollutants in the alluvial aquifer
constitutes a hazard to present and potential users of groundwater in this
area. The installation of the lined No. 3 lagoon and the elimination of
the other disposal ponds will effectively eliminate one source of ground-
water contamination. However, until buried wastes are isolated from
leaching rainfall, groundwater contamination from this area of the plant
will continue to be a problem. The potential for wastewater percolation
out of the CST oxidation ditch is another problem which must be addressed.
AIR
Residential areas of Nitro are within approximately 0.40 km (0.25 mi)
of the Fike plant. Prevailing winds come from the southwest at a mean
speed of about 11 km/hr (7 mi/hr) as determined by measurements made at
nearby Charleston.8 These wind conditions would carry airborne toxic
pollutants into nearby residential areas.
-------
44
VI. TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED POLLUTANTS
Sixty-two organic compounds, including 15 priority pollutants, and 4
priority pollutant metals were detected in samples collected from Fike and
the CST. Analytical results for these compounds were reviewed by the NEIC
toxicologist to assess potential hazards to human health and the envi-
ronment.
To aid in this evaluation, established computer data bases and the
scientific literature were searched for pertinent information. A synopsis
of the methodology is presented in Appendix C; compiled data is summarized
and presented in Tables 10 (Pollutants in Water) and 11 (pollutants in
air).
Most available toxicity data reflects short term (acute) high dosage
testing in animals as opposed to low dosage long term (chronic) exposure to
hazardous chemicals. The health effects producted by chronic exposure to
combinations of two or more hazardous chemicals are generally not known.
Such combinations could result in more severe effects than would be ex-
pected from the additive effects of each chemical in the mixture. This
potential must be recognized when considering documented health effects of
the identified pollutants.
LIQUID/SOIL SAMPLE POLLUTANTS
Twenty-one of the 37 organic chemicals and all 4 priority pollutant
metals detected in the liquid/soil samples have known or demonstrated
adverse human health effects. Included are effects on the liver, kidneys,
blood, gastrointestinal tract, lungs, central nervous system, skin, mucous
membranes and eyes. Additionally, some compounds are known or suspected
carcinogens, mutagen, and teratogens (causing birth defects).
-------
45
Eight of the 21 organic compounds and 2 of the metals are presently
classified as carcinogens by one or more of the following groups: EPA
Cancer Assessment Group (CAG), International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), and National Cancer Institute (NCI). These ten organic compounds
and metals are:
benzene phenol
chloroform 2,4,6 trichlorophenol
1,2-dichloroethane bix (2-chloroethyl) ether*
tetrachloroethylene lead*
trichloroethylene nickel
Of these, the organics were only detected in groundwater while the metals
were detected in the CST effluent (no metals analyses were conducted on
groundwater samples.
At present there is no general agreement regarding safe concentrations
of any carcinogen. EPA has proposed criteria for a number of carcinogens
based on additional lifetime cancer risks ranging from no additional risk
to an additional risk of lin 100,000 (10 ).** For maximum protection to
human health, the acceptable intake level in food and water is zero. Under
567
consideration are criteria for an interim target risk of 10 , 10 , or 10 .
6
For chloroform and benzene, the 10 risk level corresponds to con-
centrations of 0.21 and 1.5 ug/1 (ppb), respectively.** In groundwater
monitoring well No. 2, chloroform was detected at 2,100 ppb (10,000 times
the 10 risk level concentration) and benzene at greater than 790 ppb
6
(about 500 times the 10 risk level concentration). These presence of
these and six other known or potential human carcinogens would pose an
unacceptable risk to anyone consuming this water.
Additional risk is inferred on the basis of more than 30 other
chemicals present which could produce adverse health effects. Any
* Found to be animal carcinogens only in testing thus far.
** Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 52, March 15, 1979.
-------
46
individual or industry tapping the zone of contaminated groundwater would
be in danger of exposure to the hazards of these chemicals.
AIR SAMPLE POLLUTANTS
Twenty-four organic compounds, including nine priority pollutants were
detected in the air samples [Table 8]. Seventeen of the 24 compounds have
demonstrated health effects on humans and/or laboratory animals. These
include adverse effects on the eyes, blood, central nervous system, liver,
kidneys, mucous, and the mind.
Five of the 24 are known or suspected carcinogens (benzene, chloro-
form, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and bis(2-chloroethyl) ether.
As in the water/soil media, no agreement exists regarding safe ambient
concentrations. Since prevailing winds would carry these pollutants into
nearby neighborhoods, every effort should be made to minimize airborne
concentrations.
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Compound Name
Aniline
Anil me,
N-Fornyl-
Anisole
Benzene
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of
Formula Service No. Entry " sPEC1es
C0H,N 62-53-3 TLm 96: Skin-rabbit
100-10 ppm
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-human
Unreported- human
Unreported-man
Oral-rat
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Skin-rat
Intraperitoneal-rat
Oral-mouse
Inhalation-mouse
Intraperi toncal -mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Unreported- mouse
Oral-dog
Skin-dog
Intravenous-dog
Oral-cat
Inhalation-cat
Skin-cat
Skin-rabbit
I ntraperitoneal- rabbit
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Oral -guinea pig
Skin-guinea pig
C7H7I10 103-70-8 Oral-dog
Intravenous-dog
Oral-frog
C7H80 100-66-3 Oral-rat
Oral-mouse
CGHG 71-43-2f TLm 96- Skin-rabbit
100-10 ppm
Eye- rabbit
Oral-human
Oral-hu-nan
Inhalation- human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-man
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo-
L050:
TDLo:
LCLo.
LD50
LD50:
LD50:
LC50:
LD50:
LDLo:
LD50:
LD50-
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
LD50:
TDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
Dose
511 mg
500 mg
102 mg
50 mg/kg
357 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
440 mg/kg
11 gm/kg
250 ppm
1,400 mg/kg
420 mg/kg
464 mg/kg
175 ppm
492 mg/kg
480 mg/kg
572 mg/kg
195 mg/kg
1,540 mg/kg
200 mg/kg
1,750 mg/kg
180 ppm
254 mg/kg
820 mg/kg
200 mg/kg
1,250 mg/kg
1,750 mg/kg
1,290 mg/kg
400 mg/kg
400 mg/kg
800 ug/kg
3,700 mg/kg
2,800 mg/kg
15 mg
88 mg
130 mg/kg
50 mg/kg
20,000 ppm
210 ppm
2,100 mg/m3
Exposure
Duration Effects Limits
24H Hi Id TLV air. 5 ppm
Irritation (skin)
24H Moderate
Irritation OSHA Std air:
Severe TWA 5 ppm
Irritation (skin)
204DC Neoplastic
4H
7H
8H
24H Mild
open Irritation
Moderate
Irritation
Central TLV (air)
Nervous Cl 25 ppm
System
OSHA std (air).
5M TWA 10 ppm.
Blood Cl 25 ppm;
4YI Carcinogenic Pk 50 ppm/10M/8H
p.
-J
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
oo
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of _ , .Has
Formula Service No. Entry " p
Benzene (cent) Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Intraperi toneal-rat
Inhalation- human
Unreported-man
Oral -mouse
Oral-mouse
Intravenous- rabbit
Inhalation-mouse
Skin-mouse
Intraperi toneal-mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral-dog
Inhalation-dog
Inhalation-cat
I ntraperitoneal- guinea
pig
Subcutaneous- frog
Inhalation-mammal
Eye- rabbit
Subcutaneous-mouse
Parenteral -mouse
Type of
Dose
L050:
LC50:
LDLo:
TD:
LDLo:
LD50:
TDLo:
LDLo:
LC50:
TDLo:
LD50:
TDLo.
LOLo:
LCLo:
LCLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
TDLO-
TDLo:
Dose
3,800 mg/kg
10,000 ppm
1 ,150 mg/kg
400 ppm
194 mg/kg
4,700 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
88 mg/kg
9,980 ppm
1 ,200 gm/kg
468 mg/kg
2,700 mg/kg
2,000 mg/kg
146,000 mg/m3
170,000 mg/m3
527 mg/kg
1 ,400 mg/kg
20,000 ppm
2 mg
600 mg/kg
670 mg/kg
Exposure
Duration Effects Limits
7H NIOSH recm std
(air):
Cl 1 ppm/60M
8YI Equivocal
Tumor igernc
Agent
Mutagenic
49WI Neoplastic
130 Teratogenic
(preg)
5M
24H Severe
Irritation
17WI Equivocal
Tumor i gem c
Agent
19WI Equivocal
Tumor i genie
Agent
Benzoic Acid
C,HS02
65-85-0
Skin-human 22 mg 3DI
Skin-rabbit 500 mg 24H
Eye-rabbit 100 mg
Skin-human TDLo: 6 mg/kg skin
Oral-human LDLo: 500 mg/kg
Oral-rat LD50. 2,530 mg/kg
Oral-mouse LD50: 2,370 mg/kg
Intraperitoneal-mouse LD50: 1,460 mg/kg
Oral-dog LD50: 2,000 mg/kg
Oral-cat LD50: 2,000 mg/kg
Oral-rabbit LDLo: 2,000 mg/kg
Subcutaneous-rabbit LDLo: 2,000 mg/kg
Intraperitoneal-guinea
pig LDLo: 1,400 mg/kg
Subcutaneous-frog LDLo: 100 mg/kg
Moderate
Irritation
Mild Irritation
Severe Irritation
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxic itya
Formula Service No.
Benzene, Ethyl- C8H1O 100-41-4f TLm 96:
100-10 ppm
Carbon Disulfide CS2 75-15-0 TLm 96
1,000-100 ppm
Chloroform CHC13 67-66-3f TLm 96.
(Trichloromethane) 100-10 ppm
Other Toxicity Data
REntry°f - ^ecles
Inhalation-human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Skin-rabbit
Inhalation-guinea pig
Skin- rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Oral-human
Inhalation- human
Unreported-man
Inhalation-rat
Intraperitoneal -guinea
pig
Inhalation-mammal
Oral -human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation- human
Unreported-man
Oral-rat
Oral-rat
Inhalation- rat
Inhalation-rat
,
Oral -mouse
Oral-mouse
Oral -mouse
Inhalation-mouse
Intraperitoneal -mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral-dog
Inhalation- dog
Intraperitoneal -dog
Intravenous-dog
Inhalation-cat
Oral-rabbit
Inhalation-rabbit
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Inhalation-guinea pig
Inhalation-frog
Type of
Dose
TCLo:
LD50:
LCLo:
LD50:
LCLo:
LDLo-
LCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
TCLo
LOLo:
LD50-
TDLo
LCLo-
TCLo:
LD50.
TDLo:
TDLo:
LC50-
LD50:
LD50.
LDLo.
LC50
LD50.
LDLo:
LCLo.
LDLo:
LC50:
LOLo:
LCLo:
LCLo:
Dose
100 ppm
3,500 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
5,000 mg/kg
10,000 ppm
15 mg
100 mg
14 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
186 mg/kg
50 mg/m3
400 mg/kg
2,000 ppm
140 mg/kg
1,000 mg/m3
5,000 mg/m3
546 mg/kg
800 mg/kg
70 gm/kg
8,000 ppm
100 ppm
1,120 mg/kg
18 gm/kg
75 mg/kg
28 gm/m3
1,671 mg/kg
704 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
100 gm/m3
1,000 mg/kg
75 mg/kg
35,000 mg/m3
500 mg/kg
59 gm/m3
3,000 mg/kg
20,000 ppm
6,000 mg/m3
Duration*"
8H
4H
24H
open
30M
8H
1-21D
(preg)
5M
1Y
711
78WI
4H
7H/6-15D
(preg)
120DI
78WI
4H
2H
Effects'1
Irritant
Mild
Irritation
Irritation
Teratogemc
Systemic
Central
Nervous
System
Neoplastic
Teratogenic
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic
Exposure
Limits
TLV (air): 100 ppm
OSHA std (air)-
TWA 100 ppm (skin)
TLV air:
20 ppm (skin)
OSHA std air.
TWA 20 ppm;
Cl 30, Pk 100/30M
NIOSH recm std-
air TWA 1 ppm.
Cl 10 ppm/15H
TLV (air) 25 ppm
OSHA std (air)-
TWA 50 ppm
NIOSH recm std
(air):
Cl 2 ppm/60M
10
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity
Formula Service Ho.
Chloroform (cont)
Copper Cu 7440-50-8f
p-Cresol C7H80 106-44-5
Cyclohexane C0H12 110-82-7 TLm 96:
100-10 ppm
Cyclohexanone CCH100 108-94-1 TLm 96:
100-10 ppm
Other Toxicity Data
REn"y°f - *«="
Inhalation-mammal
Oral-rat
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral -human
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-rat
Skin- rat
Subcutaneous- rat
Oral -mouse
Skin-mouse
Intraperitoneal -mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Unreported-mouse
Subcutaneous-cat
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Intravenous-rabbi t
Subcutaneous-guinea Pig
Subcutaneous- frog
»
Eye-human
Skin-rabbit
Oral-human
Oral-rat
Oral-mouse
Oral-rabbit
Intravenous-rabbit
Eye-human
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Inhalation- human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Subcutaneous-rat
Intraperitoneal -mouse
Type of
Dose
LCLo:
TD:
TOLo:
L050:
LD50:
LDLo:
L050:
TDLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo.
LDSO:
LDSO.
LDLo:
LDLo.
TCLo:
LDSO:
LCLo.
LDSO.
LDSO:
Dose
25,000 ppm
98 mg/kg
10 mg
148 mg
120 M9/kg
517 mg
103 mg
207 mg/kg
750 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
344 mg/kg
4,800 mg/kg
25 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
160 mg/kg
80 mg/kg
62 mg/kg
301 mg/kg
300 mg/kg
180 mg/kg
200 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
5 ppm
1,548 mg
500 mg/kg
29,820 mg/kg
1,297 mg/kg
5,500 mg/kg
77 mg/kg
75 ppm
500 mg
4,740 ug
75 ppm
1,620 mg/kg
2,000 ppm
2.170 mg/kg
1,350 mg/kg
Duration0 Effects'1
5M
78WI Meoplastic
24H Mild
open Irritation
Irritation
Gastro-
intestinal
Tract
24H Severe
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
12WI Neoplastic
Irritation
2DI Irritation
Irritation
open Mild
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
Irritant
4H
Exposure
Limits
TLV (air).
0.2 ng/m3 (fume)
TLV (air): lmg/m3
(dusts, mists)
TLV air: 5 ppn
TLV (air).
300 ppm
OSHA std (air).
TWA 300 ppm
TLV (air):
50 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 50 ppm
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 100 mg/m3
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Cyclohexanone (cont)
Chemical
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity3 Route of
Service No. Entry " bPecles
Oral-mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Intravenous-dog
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Subcutaneous- frog
Other Toxicity Data
Type of
Dose
LD50:
LDLo.
LDLo
LDLo:
LD50.
LDLo:
Exposure
Dose Duration Effects Limits
1.300 mg/kg
1,300 mg/kg
630 mg/kg
1,600 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
1,900 mg/kg
Cyclohexene
CGH.
Ethane, C2H,C12
1,2-Dichloro-
(Elhyleno Oichloride)
110-83-8
107-06-2
TLm 96:
1,000-100 ppm
Inhalation-human
Oral-human
Oral-man
Oral-human
Inhalation-rat
Intrapentoneal-rat
Subcutaneous-rat
Oral-mouse
Inhalation-mouse
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral-dog
Intravenous-dog
Oral-rabbit
Inhalation-rabbit
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Inhaljtion-pig
Inhalation-guinea pig
Intraperitoneal-guinea
pig
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Oral-rat
Oral-mouse
Oral-rat
TLV (air): 300 ppm
OSHA std (air).
TWA 300 ppm (skin)
TCLO.
TDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo
LCLo:
LD50:
LDLo
LDLo.
LCLo
LD50.
LDLo
LOLo:
LDLo.
LD50:
LCLo
LDLo:
LCLo-
LCLo.
LDLo:
TDLo:
TDLo:
LD50:
4,000 ppm H
428 mg/kg
810 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
1,000 ppm 4H
74 ug/kg
500 mg/kg
600 mg/kg
5,000 mg/m3 2H
40 ug/kg
380 mg/kg
2,000 mg/kg
175 mg/kg
860 mg/kg
3,000 ppm 7M
1 ,200 mg/kg
3,000 ppm 7H
1 ,500 ppm 7H
600 mg/kg
625 mg open
63 mg
26 gm/kg 78WI
81 gm/kg 78WI
680 mg/kg
Central
Nervous
System
Gastro-
intestinal
Tract
Mild
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic
TLV (air) 50 ppm
OSHA std (air)
TWA 50 ppm.
Cl 100,
Pk 200/5M/3H
NIOSH recm std (a
TWA 1 ppm.
Cl 2 ppm/15M
cn
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
in
ro
Chemical
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity
Formula Service Mo.
Ether, C4H8C120 lll-44-4f Tin: 96
Bis(2-chloroethyl) 1,000-100 ppm
Ethylene, C,H,C12 156-60-5f
l,2-Oichlcro-,(E)-~
Ethylene Oxide C2H40 75-21-8 TLn 96.
100-10 ppm
Ethylene, Tetra- C2C14 127-18-4f TLm 96:
chloro- (Tetra- 100-10 ppm
chloroethene)
Other Toxicity Data
Route of . s ,
Entry f
Skin-rabbit
Skin- rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Oral-mouse
Skin-rabbit
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-mouse
Inhalation-cat
Skin-human
Eye- rabbit
Inhalation- human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhalation-mouse
Intrapen toneal-mouse
Intravenous-mouse
Inhalation-dog
Intravenous- rabbit
Onal-guinea pig
Inhalation-guinea pig
Inhalation-mammal
Inhalation-human
Oral-human
Inhalation-man
Inhalation-man
Inhalation-rat
Oral-mouse
Inhalation-mouse
Intrapen toneal -mouse
Oral-dog
Intraperi toneal -dog
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
LD50.
LCLo:
TDLo:
LD50.
TCLo:
LCLo.
LCLo:
TCLo:
LD50:
LC50
TCLo.
LC50:
LDLo:
TOLo:
LC50:
LDLo:
LD50.
LCLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
LCLo:
LD50:
LCLo:
LDSO:
LOLo:
L050.
Dose
10 mg
500 mg
20 mg
50 mg/kg
75 mg/kg
1,000 ppm
33 gm/kg
720 mg/kg
4,800 mg/m3
75,000 mg/m3
43,000 mg/m3
1 %
18 mg
12,500 ppm
72 mg/kg
1,462 ppm
1,000 ppm
836 ppm
100 mg/kg
450 mg/kg
960 ppm
175 mg/kg
270 mg/kg
7,000 ppm
30 mg/m3
200 ppm
500 mg/kg
280 ppm
600 ppm
4,000 ppm
8,850 mg/kg
23,000 mg/ra3
5.671 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
2,100 mg/kg
Duration0
24H
open
45M
79WIC
10H
2H
6H
75 sec
6H
IDS
4H
4H
4H
6-8D
4H
150M
2H
10M
4H
2H
Effects"
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
Irritation
Carcinogenic
Central
Nervous
System
Irritation
Moderate
Irritation
Irritant
Mutagcnic
Teratogenic
Mutagenic
Systemic
Eye
Central
Nervous
System
Exposure
Limits
TLV (air): 5 ppm
(skin)
OSHA std (air).
Cl 15 ppm
(skin)
TLV air
50 ppm
OSHA std air:
TWA 50 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 100 ppm;
Cl 200,
PK 300/5H/3H
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 50 ppm,
Cl 100 ppm/15M
TLV (air).
100 ppm (skin)
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICHY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxi'city
Formula Service No.
Ethylene, Tetra- (cont)
chloro-
Ethylene, C2HC13 79-01-6f TLm 96:
Trichloro- 1,000-100 ppm
(Trichlorcethene)
Formamide, C,H13NO 766-93-8
Other Toxicitv Data
' R°u*e of - Species
Entry K
Intravenous-dog
Oral-cat
Oral-rabbit
Subcutaneous- rabbit
Oral -mouse
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Oral-human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation- human
Inhalation-man
Oral-rat
Inhalation- rat
Oral -mouse
Inhalation-mouse
Intravenous-mouse
Oral-dog
Intraperitoneal-dog
Intravenous-dog
Subcutaneous- rabbit
Oral-cat
Inhalation-cat
Inhalation-guinea pig
Eye-hunan
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-man
Intraperitoneal -mouse
Subcutaneous- dog
Oral-rabbit
Intravenous-mouse
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
TDLo:
LDLo
TCLo.
TCLo:
TCLo:
LD50.
LCLo:
TDLo:
LCLO:
LD50-
LDLo:
LD50
LDLo.
LDLo
LDLo:
LCLo.
LCLo:
LDLo:
TDLo:
LCLo:
LD50:
LDLo-
LDLo.
LD50:
Dose
85 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
5,000 mg/kg
2,200 mg/kg
86 gm/kg
810 mg
162 mg
50 rag/kg
6,900 mg/m3
160 ppm
110 ppm
4,920 ng/kg
8,000 ppm
316 gm/kg
3,000 ppm
34 mg/kg
5,860 mg/kg
1,900 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
1,800 mg/kg
5,864 mg/kg
32,500 mg/m3
37,200 ppm
5 ppm
500 mg
20 mg
7 gm/kg
812 mg/kg
2,900 ppm
3,000 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
7,330 mg/kg
320 mg/kg
Duration0
41WC
24H
10H
83M
an
4H
27WI
2H
2H
4 OH
24H
24H
. Exposure
Effects Limits
Carcinogenic
Severe
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
TLV (air) 100 ppm
Central
Nervous OSHA std (air).
System TWA 100 ppm,
Central Cl 200,
Nervous Pk 300/5M/2H
System
Irritant N10SH recm std (air)
TWA 100 ppm,
Cl 150 ppm/lOM
Carcinogenic
Irritation
Severe Irritation
Severe Irritation
Systemic
N-Cyclohexyl-
cn
CO
-------
Hexane
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
Compound Name
Furan,
Tetrahydro-
PIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical
Moled.-1 ar Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of _ Soecl-es
Formula Service No. Entry
C«HB0 109-99-9 Oral-human
Inhalation-human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhalation-mouse
en
-P*
Other Toxicity Data
Type of
Dose
LDLo.
TCLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LCLo:
Dose Duration Effects
50 mg/kg
25,000 ppm Central
Nervous
System
3,000 mg/kg
28,000 mg/m3 2H
24,000 mg/m3 2H
Exposure
Limits
TLV air: 200 ppm
OSMA std air
TWA 200 ppm
CKH,
110-54-3
TLm 96:
over 1,000 ppm
Intraperitoneal-guinea
pig
Eye-human
Inhalation-human
Intraperitoneal-rat
Inhalation-mouse
5 ppm
TCLo. 5,000 ppm
LDLo- 9.100 mg/kg
LCLo: 120 gm/m3
10H
Irritation
Central
Nervous
System
TLV air.
100 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 500 ppm
MIOSH rec-n std (air)
TV/A 350 mg/m3.
Cl 1800 mg/m3/15M
Hc\anoic Acid,
2-Eth/l-
149-57-5
Lead
Pb
CH2Cla
Methane,
Dichloro-
(Hethylene Chloride)
7439-92-1
75-09-2
Skin-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-rat
Skin-rabbit
Oral -woman
Intraperitoneal -rat
Intravenous-hamster
TLm 96 Inhalation-human
1,000-100 ppm
Oral -human
Inhalation-human
Oral-rat
LD50:
LD50:
TDLo:
LDLo:
TDLo:
TCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
LD50.
10 mg
450 mg
4,500 ug
3,000 mg/kg
1,260 mg/kg
450 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
50 mg/kg
500 ppm
500 mg/kg
500 ppm
167 mg/kg
24H Irritation
open Mild
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
6Y Central
Nervous
System
8D Teratogenic
(preg)
1YI Central
Nervous
System
8H Blood
TLV (air).
0 15 mg/m3
OSHA std (air)-
TWA 200 H9/I"3
NIOSH recm std
(air):
TWA 0.10 mg/m3
TLV (air). 200 ppn
OSHA std (air)
TWA 50" ppm; Cl
1,000. PK 2.000/
5M/2H
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of
Formula Service No Entry " SPecles
Methane, (cont) Inhalation-rat
Dichloro Inhalation-mouse
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral-dog
Inhalation-dog
Intraperitoneal-dog
Subcutaneous-dog
Intravenous- dog
Inhalation-cat
Oral-rabbit
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Inhalation-guinea pig
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
,
Eye-rabbit
Inhalation-rat
Nickel Ni 7440-02-0f Inhalation-rat
Subcutaneous- rat
Intramuscular- rat
Intrapleural-rat
Parenteral-rat
I ntra trachea! -rat
Implant-rat
Intravenous-mouse
Intramuscular- mouse
Intravenous-dog
Implant-rabbit
Oral-guinea pig
Inhalation-guinea pig
Intramuscular-hamster
Intramuscular- rat
Subcutaneous-guinea pig
Type of
Dose
LC50:
LC50:
LD50:
LD50.
LDLo:
LCLo-
LDLo
LDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
TCLo.
TCLo.
TDLo:
TDLo:
TDLo:
TDLo-
LDLo-
TDLo:
LDLo:
TDLo-
LDLo.
TDLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
TDLo:
TD
LOLo:
Dose
88,000 mg/m3
14,400 ppm
1,500 mg/kg
6,460 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
14,108 ppm
950 mg/kg
2,700 mg/kg
200 mg/kg
43,400 mg/m3
1,900 mg/kg
2,700 mg/kg
5,000 ppm
810 mg
162 mg
10 mg
17,500 mg/m3
500 ppm
15 mg/m3
15 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
1,250 mg/kg
40 mg/kg
12 mg/kg
250 mg/kg
50 mg/kg
100 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
165 mg/kg
5 mg/kg
15 mg/m3
208 mg/kg
58 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
Duration*"
30M
7H
7H
4.5H
2H
2411
ion
6H/2Y
6WI
17WI
22UI
56WI
2YI
91WI
22W
. Exposure
Effects Limits
HIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 75 ppm,
PK 500 ppm/15M
Severe
Irritation
Moderate
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
Irritation
Equivocal
Turaorigemc
Agent
Carcinogenic TLV (air) 0.1 mg/m3
Neoplastic
Carcinogenic OSHA std (air)
Neoplastic TWA 1 mg/m3
Carcinogenic (skin)
Carcinogenic NIOSH recm
std (air)
Carcinogenic TWA 15 ug/m3
Neoplastic
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic
Neoplastic
en
en
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
tn
CTI
Chemical _ Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name
2-Pentanone,
4-Hydroxy-
4-Hethyl
2-Pentanone,
4-l'ethyl
Phenol
'
Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of .
Formula Servicu Mo. Entry " bPecles
C6HI202 123-42-2 TLm 96: Eye-human
1,000-100 ppm Skin-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Inhalation- human
Oral-rat
I ntraper i toneal -mouse
CCH,,0 108-10-1 TLm 96- Eye-human
over 1,000 ppm Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Inhalation-human
Oral-human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Oral -mouse
I ntraper i toneal -mouse
CcHfcO 108-95-2f TLM 96- Skin-rabbit
100-10 ppm
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-human
Oral-rat
Skin-rat
I ntrapen toneal - rat
Subcutaneous- rat
Oral-mouse
Skin-mouse
I ntrapen toneal -mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Intravenous-mouse
Oral-dog
Parenteral-dog
Oral-cat
Subcutaneous-cat
Parenteral-cat
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Type of
Dose
TCLo:
LD50:
LD50:
TCLo-
LDLo:
LD50-
LCLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LD50.
LD50.
LD50:
LDLo:
LD50:
TDLo:
LD50:
LD50.
LD50:
LDLo-
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
Dose
100 ppm
10 mg
500 mg
5 mg
100 ppm
4,000 m/kg
933 rag/kg
200 ppm
500 mg
40 mg
200 ppm
500 mg/kg
2,080 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
2,850 mg/kg
268 mg/kg
500 mg
535 mg
5 mg
140 mg/kg
414 mg/kg
669 mg/kg
250 mg/kg
650 mg/kg
300 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
360 mg/kg
344 mg/kg
112 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
2,000 mg/kg
80 mg/kg
80 ng/kg
500 mg/kg
420 mg/kg
850 mg/kg
Durationc Effects
15H Irritation
21H Irritation
open Mild
Irritatation
Severe
Irritation
Irritant
15M Irritation
24H Moderate
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
Irritant
15M
24H Severe
Irritation
open Severe
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
20WI Carcinogenic
Exposure
Limits
TLV air: 50 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 50 ppm
NIOSH re cm std
(air): TWA 240
mg/m3
TLV (air):
100 ppm (skin)
OSHA std air-
TWA 100 ppm
NIOSH recm std-air-
TWA 200 mg/m3
TLV (air):
5 ppm (skin)
OSHA std (air)
TWA 5 ppm
(skin)
NIOSH recm
std (air).
TWA 20 mg/m3.
Cl 60 mg/m3/15M
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical _ Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Phenol (cont)
Phenol, m-Chloro- C6H5C10
Phenol , C7HB02
o-t'.ethoxy-
Phcnol, 2,4, C6H3C130
6-trichloro-
Phthalic Acid, C24H3a04
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
Ester
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of -
Service No. Entry " sPecles
I ntraperitoneal- rabbit
Subcutaneous- rabbit
Intravenous -rabbit
Parenteral- rabbit
I ntraperitoneal -guinea
pig
Subcutaneous-guinea
pig
Subcutaneous- frog
Parenteral-frog
Subcutaneous- frog
108-43-0 Oral-rat
Intraperi toneal-rat
Subcutaneous- rat
Skin-mouse
90-05-1 Oral-human
OVal-rat
88-06-2f Skin-rabbit
Oral -human
Oral-rat
Oral-rat
Intraperi toneal-rat
Oral-mouse
Oral-mouse
Oral-mouse
Oral-rat
Eye- rabbit
117-81-7f Eye-rabbit
Oral-man
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo.
LDLo:
LD50.
LD50:
LD50:
TDLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo-
LD50.
TDLo
LD50
TDLo.
TO:
TO:
TO.
TDLo.
Dose Duration
620 mg/kg
620 mg/kg
180 ng/kg
300 mg/kg
300 mg/kg
450 mg/kg
75 mg/kg
2SO mg/kg
290 ng/kg
570 mg/kg
355 mg/kg
1,390 mg/kg
6,000 rag/kg 15WI
50 mg/kg
725 mg/kg
500 mg 24H
500 mg/kg
820 mg/kg
185 gm/kg 105WC
276 mg/kg
441 gm/kg 105WC
29 gm/kg 78WI
882 gm/kg 105WC
374 gm/kg 107WC
250 ug 24H
500 mg
143 mg/kg
Exposure
Effects Limits6
Meoplastic
Moderate
Irritation
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic
Equivocal
Tumorigenic
Agent
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic
Severe
Irritation
Irritation OSHA std (air)-
Gastro- TWA 5 mg/m3
intestinal
Tract
Oral-rat
Intraperitoneal-rat
Intraperitoneal-rat
Intravenous-rat
Oral-mouse
Oral-mouse
LD50: 31 gm/kg
LD50- 30,700 mg/kg
TDLo: 30 gm/kg
LD5o.
LD50:
250 mg/kg
30 gm/kg
TDLo: 7,500 mg/kg
5-150
(preg)
80
(preg)
Tetratogenic
Teratogenic
-------
TABL.E 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
tn
CO
Chemical a
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity
Formula Service No.
Phthalic Acid, (cent)
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
Ester
Phthalic Acid, C19H2004 85-68-7f TLm 96:
Benzyl Butyl over 1,000 ppm
Ester
Phosphoric C6H]8N3OP 6SO-31-9
Triamide,
Hoxamethyl-
Thiocyanic Acid, C7H5IJS 5285-87-0
Phony! Ester
Toluene C,Hg 108-88-3f TLm 96.
100-10 ppm
Other Toxicity Data
Ink" - ^ecles
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Oral -rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Skin-guinea pig
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Skin-rat
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Intravenous-mouse
Skin-rabbit
Oral-guinea pig
Skin-guinea pig
Oral-chicken
Intraperitoneal-rat
Intravenous-rabbit
Eye- human
Oral -human
Inhalation-human
§
Inhalation-man
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Intraperitoneal-rat
Inhalation-mouse
Skin-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Subcutaneous-frog
Type of
Dose
LD50:
LD50:
LD50:
LD50:
LD50:
LD50:
TCLo
LDLo-
TDLo:
LD50:
LD50
LD50:
LD50:
LD50-
LDLo:
LDLo
LDLo:
TCLo
TCLo:
L050:
LCLo:
LDLo:
LC50
LD50:
LDLo:
Dose
14 gm/kg
34 gm/kg
25 gm/kg
10 gm/kg
500 mg
500 mg
3,160 mg/kg
2,525 mg/kg
400 ppb
3,500 mg/kg
100 mg/kg
800 mg/kg
2,600 mg/kg
1,600 mg/kg
1,175 mg/kg
835 mg/kg
40 mg/kg
40 mg/kg
300 ppm
50 mg/kg
200 ppm
100 ppm
5,000 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
800 mg/kg
5,320 ppm
14 gm/kg
435 mg
870 ug
920 mg/kg
Duration0 Effects'1
24H Mild
Irritation
24H Mild
Irritation
35WI Carcinogenic
12H Mutagenic
Irritation
Central
Nervous
System
Psychotropic
4H
8H
Mild
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
Exposure
Limits6
TLV (air)- 100 ppm
(skin)
OSHA std (air):
TWA 200 ppm
Cl 300, PK 500/10M
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 100 ppm;
Cl 200 ppm/10M
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
1,3-Tnmethylene- CSHGH2
dinitrilc
Urea, 1,1,3, CSH12N2S
3-TeLramethyl-
2-Thio-
2,6-Xylenol CgH100
Zinc Zn
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of _ - .
Service No. Entry p e
544-13-8 Unreported-dog
Unreported- rabbi t
Unreported-pigeon
Subcutaneous- frog
2782-91-4 Oral-rat
Oral-rat
Oral-rat
576-26-1 Eye- rabbit
Oral -rat
Oral-mouse
Skin-mouse
Skin-mouse
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
7440-66-6f Skin-human
Inhalation-human
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
TDLo:
TDLo:
LD50-
LD50-
LD50.
TDLo.
LD50-
LD50.
LD50
TCLo:
Dose
50 mg/kg
18 mg/kg
1,200 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
920 mg/kg
1,250 mg/kg
1,848 mg/kg
100 mg
296 mg/kg
980 mg/kg
920 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
700 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
300 pg
124 mg/m3
Exposure
Duration Effects Limits
6-150 Tcratogenic
(preg)
79WC Carcinogenic
Irritation
120WI Neoplastic
3DI Mild
Irritation
50M Pulmonary
System
in
10
-------
TABLE 10
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
SOIL/LIQUID SAMPLES COLLECTED AT
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
a Aquatic Toxicity:
b Type of Dose.
c Duration'
TLm 96:
LD50 -
LCLo -
LC50 -
LDLo -
TDLo -
TCLo -
TO
n
H
D
W
Y
C
I
96-hour static or continuous flow standard protocol, In parts per million (ppm)
lethal dose 50% kill
lowest published lethal concentration
lethal concentration 50% kill
lowest published lethal dose
lowest published toxic dose
lowest published toxic concentration
toxic dose
minute;
hour
day
week
year
continuous
intermittent
d Effects-
Blood - Blood effects; effect on all blood elements, electrolytes, pH, protein, oxygen carrying or releasing capacity
Carcinogenic - Carcinogenic effects; producing cancer, a cellular tumor the nature of which is fatal, or is associated with the formation
of secondary tumors (metastasis).
Central Nervous System - Includes effects such as headaches, tremor, drowsiness, convulsions, hypnosis, anesthesia.
Eye - Irritation, diplopia, cataracts, eye ground, blindness by affecting the eye or the optic nerve.
Gastrointestinal - diarrhea, constipation, ulceration.
Irritant - Any irritant effect on the skin, eye or mucous membrane.
Mutagemc - Transmissible changes produced in the offspring.
Heoplastic - The production of tumors not clearly defined as carcinogenic.
Psychotropic - Exerting an effect upon the mind.
Pulmonary - Effects on respiration and respiratory pathology.
Systemic - Effects on the metabolic and excretory function of the liver or kidneys.
Teratogenic - Nontransmissible changes produced in the offspring.
Equivocal Tumorigenic Agent - those studies reporting uncertain, but seemingly positive results.
e Exposure Limits- NR - not reported
NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
TWA - time-weighted average concentration
TLV - threshold limit value
Cl - celling
Pk - peak concentration
f This chemical has been selected for priority attention as point source water effluent discharge toxic pollutant (NRDC vs Train consent decree)
-------
Table 11
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity
Formula Service No.
Acetone C3H6D 67-64-1 TLm 96: over
1,000 ppm
Allyl Alcohol C3H60 107-18-6 TLm 96'
(2-Propen-l-ol) . 10-1 ppm
Anisole C7HgO 100-66-3
Other Toxicitv Data
Route of
Entry Species
Eye-human
Oral-human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-man
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhalation-mouse
Intraperi toneal -mouse
Oral -dog
Intraperi toneal -dog
Subcutaneous-dog
Oral-rabbit
Skin- rabbit
Subcutaneous-guinea pig
Unreported-man
Intraperi toneal-rat
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Eye- human
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-human
Inhalation- human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Intraperi toneal -rat
Intraperi toneal -mouse
Oral-mouse
Oral-dog
Inhalation-monkey
Oral -rabbit
Inhalation-rabbit
Skin- rabbit
Oral-rat
Oral-mouse
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
TCLo:
TCLo: 12
LD50- 9
LCLo: 64
LCLo:110
LD50: 1
LDLo.
LDLo:
LDLo:
LD50: 5
LD50:
LDLo: 5
LDLo: 1
LDLo:
3
LDLo:
TCLo:
L050:
LC50.
LD50:
LD50:
LD50:
LD50:
LCLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LD50:
LD50:
LD50:
Dose
500 ppm
50 mg/kg
500 ppm
,000 ppm
.750 mg/kg
,000 ppm
,000 mg/m3
,297 mg/kg
24 gm/kg
8 gm/kg
5 gm/kg
,300 mg/kg
20 gm/kg
,000 mg/kg
,159 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
395 mg
,950 ug
25 ppm
10 mg
4,270 ug
50 mg/kg
25 ppm
64 mg/kg
165 ppm
42 rag/kg
42 mg/kg
96 mg/kg
5 mg/kg
1.000 ppm
53 mg/kg
1,000 ppm
53 mg/kg
3,700 mg/kg
2,800 mg/kg
Exposure
Duration Effects Limits
Irritation TLV (air).
1 .000 ppm
Eye OSHA std (air).
4H Central TWA 1,000 ppm
Nervous
System
NIOSH recm std
4H (air)-
62M TWA 590 mg/m3
open Mild
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
Severe TLV (air):
Irritation 2 ppm (skin)
24H OSHA std (air):
Severe TWA 2 ppm
Irritation (skin)
Irritant
4H
4H
-------
Table 11 (continued}
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO. WEST VIRGINIA
cr>
ro
r.hemiral Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Benzene. C8H1O
Ethyl-
Butyl alcohol C4HI00
(n-Butanol )
Carbon Disulfidc CS2
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of _ So_cies
Service No Entry " p
100-41-4f TLm 96- Inhalation- human
100-10 ppm Oral -rat
Inhalation-rat
Skin-rabbit
Inhalation-guinea pig
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
71-36-3 TLm 96: over Eye-human
1,000 ppm Oral-human
Inhalation-human
Oral-rat
Intrapentoneal-rat
Oral-mouse
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Intravenous-cat
Unreported- rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
75-15-0 TLm 96: Oral-human
1,000-10 ppm Inhalation-human
Unreported-man
Inhalation-rat
I ntraperi toneal -gui nea
pig
Inhalation-mammal
Type of
Dose
TCLo:
LD50-
LCLo:
LD50:
LCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
LD50-
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
LOLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
LDLO:
LCLo:
Dose
100 ppm
3,500 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
5,000 mg/kg
10,000 ppm
15 mg
100 mg
50 ppm
500 mg/kg
25 ppm
790 mg/kg
970 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
4,250 mg/kg
4,200 mg/kg
6 mg/kg
3,500 mg/kg
1,620 ug
20 mg
405 mg
500 mg
14 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
186 mg/kg
50 mg/m3
400 mg/kg
2,000 ppm
Duration
8H
4H
24H
open
24H
24H
24H
30M
8H
1-21D
(preg)
5H
Effects'1
Irritant
Mild
Irri tation
Irritation
Irritation
Irritant
Severe
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
Moderate
Irritation
Moderate
Irritation
Teratogenic
Exposure
Limits
TLV (air). 100 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 100 ppm (skin)
TLV(air). 50 ppm
(skin)
OSHA std (air):
TWA 100 ppm
TLV air:
20 ppm (skin)
OSHA std air-
TWA 20 ppm
Cl 30 Pk 100/30M
NIOSH recm std
air: TWA 1 ppm
Cl 10 ppm/15M
-------
Table 11 (continued)
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO. WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity3 Route of
Formula Service No. Entry " 5Pecles
Benzene CCHC 71-43-2f TLm 96: Skin-rabbit
100-10 ppm
Eye- rabbit
Oral -human
Oral -human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-man
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
I ntrape ri toneal - rat
Inhalation-human
Unreported-man
Oral-mouse
Oral -mouse
Intravenous -rabbit
Inhalation-mouse
Skin-mouse
Intraperi toneal-mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral -dog
Inhalation-dog
Inhalation-cat
Intraperitoneal-guinea
pig
Subcutaneous- frog
Inhalation-mammal
Eye- rabbit
Subcutaneous-mouse
Parenteral -mouse
Type D
Dose
TDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
L050-
LC50:
LDLo:
TD:
LDLo:
LD50-
TDLo:
LDLo:
LC50:
TDLo-
LD50:
TDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LCLo.
LDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
TDLo:
TDLo:
f
Dose
15 mg
88 mg
130 mg/kg
50 mg/kg
20,000 ppm
210 ppm
2,100 mg/m3
3,800 mg/kg
10,000 ppm
1 , 1 50 mg/kg
400 ppm
194 rag/kg
4,700 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
88 mg/kg
9,980 ppm
1,200 gm/kg
468 mg/kg
2,700 mg/kg
2,000 mg/kg
146,000 mg/m3
170,000 mg/m3
527 mg/kg
1,400 mg/kg
20,000 ppm
2 mg
600 mg/kg
670 mg/kg
Exposure
Duration Effects Limits
24H Mild
open Irritation
Moderate
Irritation
Central TLV (air):
Nervous Cl 25 ppm
System
OSHA std (air).
5M TWA 10 ppm;
Blood Cl 25 ppm,
4YI Carcinogenic Pk 50 ppm/10M/8H
7H NIOSH recm std
(air):
Cl 1 ppm/60,'1
8YI Equivocal
Tumorlgenic
Agent
Mutagenic
49WI Nooplastic
130 Teratogenic
(preg)
5M
24H Severe
Irritation
17WI Equivocal
Tumorigemc
Agent
19WI Equivocal
Tumorigenic
Agent
CTl
OJ
-------
Table 11 (continued)
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
CT>
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Chloroform CHC13
(Trichloromethane)
Cyclohexane C6H12
Cyclohexane, C;K14
Me thy 1-
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of «__,*-
Service No. Entry Species
67-66-3f TLm 96. Oral -human
100-10 ppm Inhalation-human
Inhalation-human
Unreported-man
Oral-rat
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhalation-rat
Oral -mouse
Oral -mouse
Oral -mouse
Inhal ati on-mouse
Intraperitoneal -mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral -dog
Inhalation-dog
Intraperi toncal -dog
Intravenous-dog
Inhalation-cat
Oral-rabbit
Inhal at ion- rabbi t
Subcutaneous- rabbit
Inhalation-guinea pig
Inhalation-frog
Inhalation-mammal
Oral-rat
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
110-82-7 TLm 96: Eye-human
100-10 ppm Skin-rabbit
Oral-human
Oral-rat
Oral-mouse
Oral-rabbit
Intravenous-rabbit
108-87-2 Oral -human
Oral -rabbit
Type of
Dose
LDLo-
TCLo:
TCLo:
LDLo:
LD50:
TDLo:
LCLo:
TCLo:
LD50:
TDLo-
TDLo:
LC50:
LD50-
LD50.
LDLo:
LC50:
LD50:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LDLo:
LC50:
LDLo:
LCLO-
LCLo:
LCLo:
TO:
LDLo:
LD50
LD50:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LOLo:
LDLo:
Dose
140 mg/kg
1,000 mg/m3
5,000 mg/m3
546 mg/kg
800 mg/kg
70 gm/kg
8,000 ppm
100 ppm
1,120 mg/kg
18 gm/kg
75 mg/kg
28 gm/m3
1,671 mg/kg
704 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
100 gm/m3
1,000 mg/kg
75 mg/kg
35,000 mg/m3
500 mg/kg
59 gm/m3
3,000 mg/kg
20,000 ppm
6,000 mg/m3
25,000 ppm
98 mg/kg
10 mg
148 mg
5 ppm
1,548 mg
500 mg/kg
29.820 mg/kg
1,297 mg/kg
5,500 mg/kg
77 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
Durationc
1Y
7M
78WI
4H
7H/6-15D
(preg)
120DI
78WI
4H
2H
5M
78WI
, 24H
open
201
Exposure
Effects Limits
TLV (air) 25 ppm
Systemic
Central OSHA std (air):
Nervous TWA 50 ppm
System
Neoplastic MIOSH recm std
(air)
Teratogenic Cl 2 ppm/60H
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic
Neoplastic
Mild
Irritation
Irritation
Irritation TLV (air):
Irritation 300 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 300 ppm
OSHA std (air)
TWA 500 ppm
-------
Table 11 (continued)
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIXE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molicular
Forni'la
Cyclohexanone CCH100
Cyclopcntanc, C6H,2
tie thy 1-
Ethanc, 1,1,1- C2H3C13
Trichloro-
(iiethyl chloroform)
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of ,
Service No. Entry " ^P601"
108-94-1 TLnr 96. Eye-human
100-10 ppm Skin- rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Inhalation-human
Oral-rat
Inhalation- rat
Subcutaneous- rat
I ntraper i toneal -mouse
Oral-mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Intravenous-dog
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Subcutaneous- frog
96-37-7 TLm 96: over Inhalation-mouse
1,000 ppm '
71-55-6f TLm 96- Inhalation-man
100-10 ppm Inhalation-man
Inhalation- human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhalation-mouse
I ntraper i toneal -mouse
Oral-dog
I ntraperi toneal -dog
Intravenous-dog
Oral-rabbit
Subcutaneous- rabbit
Oral-guinea pig
Eye-man
Skin-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Type of
Dose
TCLo:
LD50:
LCLo.
LD50.
LD50:
LD50:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LOLo.
LD50:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LCLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
LD50:
LCLo:
LCLo:
L050:
LOSO:
LD50-
LDLo-
LD50.
LDLo:
LDSO:
Dose
75 ppm
500 mg
4,740 ug
75 ppm
1,620 mg/kg
2,000 ppm
2,170 mg/kg
1,350 mg/kg
1,300 mg/kg
1,300 mg/kg
630 mg/kg
1,600 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
1.900 mg/kg
95,000 mg/m3
27 gm/m3
350 ppm
920 ppm
14,300 mg/kg
1 ,000 ppm
11 ,000 ppm
4,700 mg/kg
750 mg/kg
3,100 mg/kg
95 mg/kg
5,660 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
9,470 mg/kg
450 ppm
5 gm
500 mg
100 mg
2 mg
Durationc Effects'1
Irritation
open Mild
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
Irritant
4H
10M
Psycho-
trophic
70M Central
Nervous
System
2H
8H Irritation
12DI Mild
Irritation
24H Moderate
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
24H Severe
Irritation
Exposure
Limits
TLV (air).
50 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 50 ppm
NIOSH rccm std
TWA 100 ng/m3
TLV (air) 350 ppm
OSHA std (air).
TWA 350 ppm
NIOSH recm std
(air)-
Cl 350 ppm/15M
cn
en
-------
Table 11 (continued)
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO. WEST VIRGINIA
en
CT>
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Ether. C«HgCl20
Bis(2-cMoroethyl)
Ethylenc, Tetra- C2C14
chloro-
EUiylene, C2HC13
Tnchloro-
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of ,
Service No. Entry " 5Pecles
lll-44-4f TLm. 96 Skin-rabbit
1,000-100 ppm Skin-rabbit
Eye -rabbit
Oral-human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Oral -mouse
Skin-rabbit
127-18-4f TLm 96. Inhalation-human
100-10 ppm Oral -human
Inhalation-man
Inhalation-man
Inhalation-rat
Oral mouse
Inhalation- mouse
Intraperi toneal -mouse
Oral -dog
Intraperi toneal -dog
Intravenous-dog
Oral-cat
Oral -rabbit
Subcutaneous- rabbit
Oral -mouse
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
79-01-6f TLm 96: Oral-human
1,000-100 ppm Inhalation-human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-man
Oral -rat
Inhalation-rat
Oral-mouse
Inhalation-mouse
Intravenous-mouse
Oral -dog
Intraperi toneal -dog
Intravenous-dog
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
LDSO:
LCLo:
TDLo:
LDSO:
TCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
LCLo:
LDSO:
LCLo:
LDSO:
LDLo:
LDSO:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
TDLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
LDSO:
LCLo:
TDLo:
LCLO:
LDSO:
LDLo:
LDSO:
LDLo:
Dose
10 mg
500 mg
20 mg
50 mg/kg
75 mg/kg
1,000 ppm
33 gm/kg
720 mg/kg
200 ppm
500 mg/kg
280 ppm
600 ppm
4,000 ppm
8,850 mg/kg
23,000 mg/m3
5.671 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
2,100 mg/kg
85 mg/kg
4,000 mg/kg
5,000 mg/kg
2,200 mg/kg
86 gm/kg
810 mg
162 mg
50 mg/kg
6,900 mg/m3
160 ppm
110 ppm
4,920 mg/kg
8,000 ppm
316 gm/kg
3,000 ppm
34 mg/kg
5,860 mg/kg
1,900 mg/kg
ISO mg/kg
Duration0
24H
open
4SM
79WIC
2H
10M
4H
2H
41WC
24H
10M
83M
8H
4H
27WI
2H
Effects'1
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
Irritation
Carcinogenic
Systemic
Eye
Central
Nervous
System
Carcinogenic
Exposure
Limits
TLV (air)- 5 ppm
(skin)
OSHA std (air):
Cl IS ppm
(skin)
TLV (air)
100 ppm (skin)
OSKA std (air):
TWA 100 ppm;
Cl 200,
PK 300/5M/3H
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 50 ppm,
Cl 100 ppm/15M
Severe Irritation
Mild Irritation
Central
Nervous
System
Central
llervous
System
Irritant
Carcinogenic
TLV (air): 100 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 100 ppm;
Cl 200,
PK 300/5M/2H
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 100 ppm;
Cl 150 ppn/lOM
-------
Table 11 (continued)
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
Chemical Other Toxicity Data
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Ethylcne. (cont)
Trichloro-
n-llexanc CG"H
2-Hexanone C0H120
Isopropyl Alcohol C3II80
( Isopropanol)
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity Route of ,
Service No Entry " 5Pecles
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Oral-cat
Inhalation-cat
Inhalation-guinea pig
Eye- human
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Oral-human
Inhalation-human
Inhalation-man
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Subcutaneous- dog
Oral-rabbit
110-54-3 TLm 96: over Eye-human
1,000 ppm Inhalation-human
I ntraper i toneal - rat
Inhalation-mouse
591-78-6 Eye- rabbit
Oral-rat
Intraperi toneal -rat
Oral -mouse
Oral-guinea pig
f
67-63-0 TLm 96: Inhalation-human
1,000-100 ppm Oral-rat
Oral -mouse
I ntraperi toneal -mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Intravenous- dog
Intravenous-cat
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Intravenous-i abb it
Subcutaneous-mammal
Oral-man
Unreported-man
Eye- human
Eye-rabbit
Oral -human
Oral-dog
Type of
Dose
LDLo:
LDLo:
LCLo:
LCLo:
LDLo:
TDLo:
LCLo:
LD50:
LOLo-
LDLo.
TCLo:
LDLo:
LCLo-
LD50.
LDLo:
LDLo-
LDLo:
TCLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo-
LDLo
LDLo.
LDLo:
LD50:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
LDLo:
TDLo:
LD50:
Dose
1,800 mg/kg
5,864 mg/kg
32,500 mg/m3
37.200 ppm
5 ppm
500 mg
20 mg
7 gm/kg
812 mg/kg
2,900 ppm
3,000 mg/kg
150 mg/kg
7,330 mg/kg
5 ppm
5,000 ppm
9,100 mg/kg
120 gm/m3
100 mg
2,590 mg/kq
914 mg/kg
1,000 mg/kg
914 mg/kg
400 ppm
5,840 mg/kg
192 mg/kg
933 mg/kg
6,000 mg/kg
5,120 mg/kg
1,963 mg/kg
5,000 mg/kg
13 gm/kg
8,230 rag/kg
6 mg/kg
8,600 mg/kg
2,770 mg/kg
20 ppm
16 mg
15,710 mg/kg
6,150 mg/kg
Exposure
Ourationc Effects0 Limits6
2H
4 OH
Irritation
24H Severe Irritation
24H Severe Irritation
Systemic
Irritation TLV (air): 100 ppn
10M Central
Nervous OSHA std (air)-
System TUA 500 ppm
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 350 mg/m3,
Cl 1800 mg/n3/15M
Irritation TLV (air)
100 ppm (skin)
OSHA std (air):
TWA 100 ppm
NIOSH recm std
(air). TWA 4 mg/m3
Irritant TLV (air)-
400 ppm (skin)
OSHA std (air):
TWA 400 ppm
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 400 ppm;
Cl 800 ppm/15M
Irritation
Irritation
Central Nervous System
en
-------
Table 11 (continued)
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
00
Chemical
Compound Name Molecular Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity
Formula Service Mo
Methane, CH,C12 75-09-2f Urn 96-
Dichloro- 1,000-100 ppm
(metnylene chloride)
Toluene C7H8 108-88-3f TLm 96
100-10 ppm
Other Toxicity Data
"Entry"' - ^*
Inhalation-human
Oral-human
Inhalation- human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhalation-mouse
Intraperitoneal-mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral -dog
Inhalation-dog
Intraperitoneal-dog
Subcutaneous-dog
Intravenous-dog
Inhalation-cat
Oral-rabbit
Subcutaneous- rabbit
Inhalation-guinea pig
Skin-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Eye- rabbit
Inhalation-rat
Eye- human
Oral-human
Inhalation- human
Inhalation-man
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Intraperitoneal-rat
Inhalation-mouse
Skin- rabbit
Skin-rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Subcutaneous- frog
Eye- rabbit
Type of
Dose
TCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
LD50-
LC50.
LC50:
LD50:
LD50:
LOLo-
LCLo:
LDLo.
LDLo
LDLo-
LCLo:
LDLo.
LDLo.
LCLo-
TCLo:
LDLo:
TCLo:
TCLo:
LD50:
LCLo:
LDLo:
LCSO:
LD50:
LDLo:
Dose
500 ppm
500 mg/kg
500 ppm
167 mg/kg
88,000 mg/m3
14,400 ppm
1,500 mg/kg
6,460 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
14,108 ppm
950 mg/kg
2,700 mg/kg
200 mg/kg
43,400 mg/m3
1,900 mg/kg
2,700 mg/kg
5,000 ppm
810 mg
162 mg
10 mg
17,500 mg/m3
500 ppm
300 ppm
50 mg/kg
200 ppm
100 ppm
5,000 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
800 mg/kg
5,320 ppm
14 gm/kg
435 mg
870 ug
920 mg/kg
2 mg
Duration0
1YI
8H
30M
7H
7H
4.5H
2H
24H
10M
6H/2Y
4H
8H
24H
Effects'1
Central
Nervous
System
Blood
Severe
Irritation
Moderate
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
Irritation
Equivocal
Tumorigenic
Agent
Irritation
Central
Nervous
System
Psychotropic
Mild
Irritation
Mild
Irritation
Severe
Irritation
Exposure
Limits
TLV (air). 200 ppm
OSHA std (air)
TWA 500 ppm, Cl
1,000, PK 2.000/
5M/2H
HIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 75 ppm.
PK 500 ppm/15M
TLV (air): 100 ppm
(skin)
OSHA std (air):
TWA 200 ppm;
Cl 300; PK 500/10M
NIOSH recm std (air)
TWA 100 ppm.
Cl 200 ppm/lOtl
-------
Table 11 (continued)
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
a Aquatic Toxicity:
b Type of Dose.
c Duration
TLm i'o
LD50 -
LCLo -
LC50 -
LDLo -
TDLo -
TCLo -
TD
M
H
D
W
Y
C
I
SG-hour static or continuous flow standard protocol, in parts per million (ppm)
lethal dose 50% kill
lowest published lethal concentration
lethal concentration 50% kill
lowest published lethal dose
lowest published toxic dose
lowest published toxic concentration
toxic dose
minute;
hour
day
week
year
continuous
intermittent
Effects-
Blood - Blood effects; effect on all blood elements, electrolytes, pH, protein, oxygen carrying or releasing capacity
Carcinogenic - Carcinogenic effects; producing cancer, a cellular tumor the nature of which is fatal, or is associated with the formation
of secondary tumors (metastasis)
Central Nervous System - Includes effects such as headaches, tremor, drowsiness, convulsions, hypnosis, anesthesia.
Eye - Irritation, diplopia, cataracts, eye ground, blindness by affecting the eye or the optic nerve
Gastrointestinal - diarrhea, constipation, ulceration.
Irritant - Any irritant effect on the skin, eye or mucous membrane
Mutagonic - Transmissible changes produced in the offspring
Ncoplastic - The production of tumors not clearly defined as carcinogenic.
Psychotropic - Exerting an effect upon the mind.
Pulmonary - Effects on respiration and respiratory pathology.
Systenic - Effects on the metabolic and excretory function of the liver or kidneys.
Teratogcnic - Nontransmissible changes produced in the offspring.
Equivocal Tumorigenic Agent - those studies reporting uncertain, but seemingly positive results.
e Exposure Limits:
NR
NIOSH -
OSHA -
TWA -
TLV
Cl
Pk
not reported
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
time-weighted average concentration
threshold limit value
ceiling
peak concentration
This chemcal has been selected for priority attention as point source water effluent discharge toxic pollutant (NRDC vs Train consent decree)
10
-------
71
REFERENCES
1. National Enforcement Investigations Center, Feb. 1978. Compliance
Monitoring and Wastewater Characterization of Fike Chemicals, Inc.,
Coastal Tank Lines. Inc., and Cooperative Sewage Treatment, Inc.,
Nitro, West Virginia. Denver: Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-330/2-78-002, 118 p.
2. Doll, W. L., Wilmoth, B. M., and Whetstone, G. W. 1960. Water
Resourcesof Kanawha County. West Virginia. West Virginia Geological
and Economic Survey, Bull. 20.
3. Todd, D. K., ed. 1970. The Water Encyclopedia. Water Information
Center. Port Washington, New York.
4. Brown, S., 1920. The Story of Ordnance in the World War. Washington,
D.C.: James William Bryan Press, p. 98.
5. Conservation Commission of West Virginia, 1941. West Virginia a Guide
to the Mountain State. New York: Oxford University Press, p 418.
6. National Enforcement Investigations Center, Feb. 1978. A Summary of
Toxic Substances Information for the Kanawha Valley. West Virginia.
Denver:Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-330/1-77-13, pp. 151-224.
7. Wilmoth, B. M., 1966. Ground Water in Mason and Putnam Counties,
West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economica Survey, Bull. 32.
8. Gale Research Company. 1978. Climates of the States. Volume 2.
Detroit: Book Tower, p. 1081.
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A" '
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
TO Steve Sisk, Project Coordinator DATE February 19, 1980
Concurrence: ^.
FROM 0. J. Logsdon II
SUBJECT Hazardous Waste Investigation, Fike Chemical Company, Nitro, West Virginia, Proj. 611,
Organic Priority Pollutant Analytical Results
Five (5) environmental samples for priority pollutant extractable organic analysis and
priority pollutant volatile organic analysis and eight (8) hazardous waste samples for
priority pollutant extractable organic analysis were received. Four of the eight
hazardous samples were analyzed for volatile organic priority pollutants. Four (4)
water and four (4) soil samples were analyzed for priority pollutant pesticides
and PCB's. All of the samples were received under chain-of-custody procedures on
December 14, 1979. The hazardous waste samples were taken to the Quail Street
regulated laboratory and prepared for analysis. The Chemistry and Biology Branches
split the extracts of the environmental samples. The Chemistry Branch analyzed
the sample extracts for priority pollutants. The Biology Branch tested the sample
extracts for mutagenicity. Attachment I is a summary of the samples received by
the Chemistry Branch, Organic Characterization Section.
Attachment II is a compilation of the results of the analysis of the environmental
samples for organic extractable priority pollutant compounds (bases, neutrals, acids,
pesticides) and volatile organic priority pollutants (VOA's). Included in the com-
pilation are the VOA quality control results for the sample from Station 10. The
average percent recovery of standard compounds spiked into the sample at concentrations
of 50-250 ug/1 was 62%. The base/neutral/acid extractable quality control data was
declared invalid because the aliquots were not removed from the sample in accordance
with acceptable quality control procedures. Few priority pollutants were detected in
the environmental samples. Phenol was detected at Station 02, bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether and bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether at Station 11, chloroform and methylene chloride
at Station 12. Other compounds detected include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, butyl benzylphthalate, 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene
and -e^rachloroethylene.
Attacnment III (a,b,c) lists non-priority pollutant extractable compounds detected
in the samples, but not verified or quantified. Only aniline and tetramethylthiourea
were verified after comparison to standard compounds. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether was
detected in the sample from Station 11 analyzed for VOA's and the sample from Station
11 analyzed for bases/neutrals/acids.
Attachment IV tablulates the results of the analysis of the hazardous waste samples
for volatile and extractable organic priority pollutants. Because of the suspected
hazardous nature of these samples, they were prepared with special handling to detect
compounds at high concentrations only. Minimum detection limits for solid samples
were 100-500 ppm, bases/neutrals/acids in liquid samples were 25-100 mg/1, and VOA's
in liquids were 0.3 mg/1 (acrolein, acrylonitrile were 15 mg/1). Nominal detection
-------
A-2
limits for pesticides and PCB's in hazardous waste samples range from 25 ug/1 to
1250 ug/1 for liquids and from 100 ug/kg to 5000 ug/kg for solids. None of the
water or soil samples analyzed contained detectable amounts of pesticides or PCB's.
Only phenol in the Station 06 sample was detected at these levels.
Because of the potential significance of the samples from Station 04 these
samples are being reanalyzed under conditions to enhance the detection limits.
Included in Attachment IV are the quality control data for hazardous liquid and
solid samples. The average percent recovery of base/neutral and acid compounds
spiked into liquid sample 04-01 at the detection limits was 68%. Pesticides
were recovered from spikes of 125 to 1250 ug/1 at an average of 90%. No compounds
were detected in the solid sample from Station 07. The average percent recovery
of base/neutrals and acids spiked into the sample at the detection limits was
33%. Pesticides were recovered from spikes of 500 to 5000 ug/kg at an average
of 85%. The average percent recovery for spiked compounds was 87% for VGA's
analyses. Attachment V lists non-priority pollutant volatiles detected in the
samples, but not verified or quantified.
Environmental samples were extracted and analyzed using methods similar to the
proposed 304 (h) Method 625 for priority pollutants. The hazardous waste samples
were prepared by extraction and dilution to get concentrations in the range of
environmental extracts. The analyses for all samples were then conducted using
the procedures similar to the proposed 304 (h) Methods 608 (pesticides and PCB s),
b24 (volatile organics) and 625 (base/neutrals and acids). Exceptions to these
methods and the hazardous waste sample preparation procedures are documented and
included in the complete raw data documentation package for reference.
rj^'l
\
o'
]ohn Logsdo^rj
Attachments
-------
A-3
Detection Limits and Analytical Quality Control Data
-------
1C
ST,'T:ON SEQUENCE DATE
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS
i NAPHTHENE
o LLNIIDINE
1.2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLORODENZENE
'C HEXACHI OROLTHANE
13 BiS<2-CHl.O.*ClETHVL>ETHER
0 2-CHLORL),NAPHTHALENE
.5 1. 2-DICHLORODENZEIJE
1'i 1. 3-D1CHLORODENZENE
.'7 1. 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
.0 3, 3--DICHLOROBENZIDINE
~-.f> 2.4-D1NITROTOLUENE
36 2,6-DINITUOTOLUENE
-'7 1. ?-DlPHEN>LH\DRAZINc(S)
~^f FLURDANTHENE
'.0 4- CHLGROPHENYLPhENYLETHER
'il 1-DRDMOPHENYLPHENYLETHER
13 DISta-CHLOROJSDPROPYDETHER 'Z5
13 DlSO-CHLOROElhOXY)METHANE 2.5
i2 HCXACHLORQBUTADIENE
CO HCXACHLDROCYCLOPENTADJENE
S -1 I SOPHORDf.'E
j-j NAPHTHALENE
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS - DATA REPORT
TIME TAG 41 DESCRIPTION
Ot o-f
PAGt 1 OK 2
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS
56 NITROBENZENE
62 N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE(A)
63 N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLANINE
66 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
67 EUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
68 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
69 DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALA1E
70 DIETHYLPHTHALATE
71 DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
72 DENZO
-------
w STATION
SEQUENCE
ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS - DATA REPORT
DATE TIME TAG fl
PAGE 2 OF 2
It.
iC
U:
VOLATILES UNITS . I ' ./I
2 _ ACROLEIN
3 ' ACRVLONITRILE
4 nCNZEFIE
6 CARDONTETRACHLORIDE
7 CMLOROBENZEI-JE
10 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
11 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
13 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
14 1, 1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
15 1.1,2. 2-Ti-:TPACHLOROETHANE
16 CHLOROETHANE
19 n-CHLOKOETHYLVINYLETHER
23 CIILORDFOPM
29 1, 1-D1CHLOROETHYLENE
30 1.2-TRAN3-DICHLOROETHYLENE
22 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE lO
33A 1,3-TRAN3-D1CHLOROPROPYLENE £
33B CIS-1, 3-DICHLOROPROPYLEME IB.
33 ETHYLQEriZENE t^
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
45 METHYL CHLORIDE
46 METHYL BROMIDE
47 BROI1OFORM
43 DICHLORCBRCMOriETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUDROrlETHANE
\\i
,C
1C
1C
10
(C
DESCRIPTION L&VA/CV U Wl of beUc"hon
C-.D
VOLATILES UNITS
3O DICHLORODIFLUOROnETHANE
31 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
33 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
86 TOLUENE
97 TRICHLOROETHYLEME
88 VINYL CHLORIDE
MISCELLANEOUS UNITS
17 BIS
-------
CTJ.TION B SEQUENCE
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS
1 ACENAPHTHENE
t DENZIDINE
i.1 1. 2, 4-TRICHLOROBENZENE t
7 HFXACHLOKOL'ENZENE .
12 HEXACHLORDETHANE
10 BIS<2-CHLOHDE1HVL>ETHER
10 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
.'5 1. 2-DICHLDRO3ENZENE
26 1.3-DICHLOROBENZENE
n 1.4-DICHLOROBCNZEME
'0 3. 3'-DICHLORODENZIDINE
;S 2. 4-DIrJITROTOLL'ENE >
?£. 2,6-DINITRO10LUENE
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS - DATA REPORT
TIME _ TAG # _ DESCRIPTION
RAGt 1 OF 2
U
^ 3L500Q
.g^coo
ITO CCC
"J9 FLUROANTHENE
'tO 4- CHLORDPHENYLPHENYLETHER
41 4-3ROMOPHENYLPHENYLETHE'R
12 BIS(2-ChLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER 5C
r3 BIS ( 2-CHLOROE1HOXY) METHANE
u/2 HEXACHLORODUTADIENE
'.,3 HEXACHLORDCYCLOPEflTADIENE
'-4 JSOPHORONE '
35 NAPHTHALENE
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS
56 NITROBENZENE
62 N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE(A)
63 N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
66 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
67 BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
68 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
69 DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
70 DIETHYLPHTHALATE
71 DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
72 BENZOFLUORANTHENE
76 CHRYSENE
77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
78 ANTHRACENE
79 BENZO(G,H, I)PERYLENE
80 FLUORENE
81 PHENAIMTHRENE
82 DIBENZO(A.H>ANTHRACENE
83 INDENOd. 2. 3-C,D)PYRENE
84 PYRENE
'A) MEASURED AS D1PHENYLAM1NE
(D) MEASURED AS AZOBENZENE
-------
STATION SEQUENCE
VOLATILES UNITS " '' *-'
3 ACROLEIN
3 ACRVLONITRILE
4 BENZENE
6 CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
10 1, 2-D1CHLCROETHANE
11 1. 1. 1-TR1CHLOROETHANE
13 1. l-DICHLOROETHANE
14 1. 1. 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
13 1.1,2.2-TGTRACHLOROETHANE
16 CHLOROETHANE
19 2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
23 CliLDSOFORN
29 1. 1-DlCliLOROETHYLEriE
3O 1, 2-TPAriS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
32 1.2-D1CHLOROPROPANE
33A 1. 3-TRAM3-D1CHLOROPROPYLENE
33B C1S-1.3-DICHLDROPRDPYLENE
38 EfHYLBENZENE
4-1 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
45 METHYL CHLORIDE
46 METHYL BROMIDE
47 nnCMOFORII
48 DICHLORCBROMOJSETKANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
ORGANIC PRIORITY 'POLLUTANTS - DATA REPORT
DATE TIME TAG «
l\CLtC.
PAGE 2 OF 2
X -
-------
Solids
SEQUENCE
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS - DA I A REPORT
PACt 1 OF 2
TIME
TAG tt
DESCRIPTION l_\Aj&Vr Lt
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS
1 ACENAPHTHENE
I
.} BENZIDINE
f 1. 2, 4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
7 HEXACHLOROUENZENE
iC HEXACHLORDETHANE
10 BIS(2-CHI.D,JOE7HYL)ETHER
20 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
:'5 1. 2-DICHLOROBENZEflE
26 1, 3-DICHLOROBLNZENE
-~l 1. 4-DlCHLOROPENZENc
I'O 3, 3'-DICHLORQDENZIDlNE
15 2, 4-DINITRCTOLUEr,'E
3o 2, 6-DINITKOTOLUENE
J7 1. S-DIPhEN'rLH-iDRAZINEO)
H FLUROANTHENE
-10 4- CHLOROPHENYLPhENYLETHER
'11 4-BROMOPHENYLPHENYLETHER
52 DIS(2-CHLOROISDPROPYL)ETHER
43 B I S ( 2-CHLOROETKOXY ) METHANE
i2 HEXACHLORODUTADIENE
^3 HEXACHLDROCYCLDPErJTADIENE
54 I5CPHORQNE
5^ NAPHTHALENE
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS
56 NITROBENZENE
62 N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE(A)
63 N-N1TROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
PESTICIDES UNITS
%,5o B9 ALDRIN
OO 90 DIELDR1N
91 CHLORDANE
66 BISO-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE I OO 92 4, 4'-DDT
(A) MEASURED AS DlPHENYLAMINE
(D) MEASURED AS AZOOENZENE
c-f
67 BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
68 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
69 DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
70 DIETHYLPHTHALATE
71 DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
72 BENZO
-------
STATION SEQUENCE
VOLATILES UNITS
2 ACROLEIN
3 ACR-YLGNITRILE
4 BENZENE
6 CARBONTETRACHLOEICE
7 CHUORDOEN^ENE
10 1.3-D1CKLOROETHANE
11 1.1.1 -TR1CHLOROETHANE
13 1. 1-DICHLOROETHANE
14 1. 1, 2-TR1CHLOHOETHANE
15 1.1.2. 2-TETFACHLORD!ETHANE
16 CHLOROETHANE
19 2-CHLDROE7HYLV1NYLETHER
23 CHLOROFORM
29 1.1-DlCHLOnOETHYLENE
30 1.2-TRAN3-DICHLQROETHYLENE
22 1.2-D1CHLOROPROPANE
33A 1,3-TRANS-DICHLOROPROPYLCNE
33D CIS-1,3-D1CHLOROPROPYLENE
38 ETHYLBENZENE
4-1 METHVLENE CHLORIDE
45 METHYL CHLORIDE
46 METHYL EROMIDE
17 nnOHOFOPM
4B DICHLORCQROMOriETKAME
17 TRICHLDROFLUOROilETHANE
ORGANIC PRIORITY 'POLLUTANTS - TATA REPORT
DATE
TIME
TAG »
DESCRIPTION Uov/\J
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A"1]
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
TO Steve Sisk, Project Coordinator DATE January 24, 1980
Concurrence: Chief, Chemistry BranchQ}}/. a-fi.^
FROM 0. J. Logsdon
SUBJECT Results of Air Sample Analyses
Hazardous Waste Investigation, Fike Chemical, Project 611
The analysis of the air samples collected at the Fike Chemical site have been
completed. Seven samples, two blank traps and two spiked traps were received
for analysis under chain-of-custody procedures. One blank trap and one spike
trap were broken upon receipt. All other sample traps were acceptable for
analysis. Attachment I summarizes the samples received. Because the analysis
destroys the sample and the traps must be unpacked and cleaned for reuse, the
tags were removed upon completion of each analysis.
Attachment II is a table of the chemicals detected. Twenty-seven chemicals
were measured. Nine were priority pollutants (12 priority pollutants are shown
in the table, 3 were ananjyzed but not detected in any of the samples) wepe
detected. Also, 9 additional chemicals were detected but could not be verified.
Some chemicals detected were aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons. These chemicals
are often associated with internal combustion engine exhaust and fuels and
could represent background levels. Large variations in the levels of these
chemicals may indicate other sources however. Generally correlations may be
seen between samples 14, 15 and 16, 17. The on-site samples 14 and 16 showing
higher levels of chemicals than the off-sites 15 and 17.
The non-priority pollutants identified are listed in Attachment III with their
Chemical Abstracts registry numbers (CAS#) for reference. Attachment IV sum-
marizes the available quality control data corresponding to these samples.
Also attached are copies of the sample trap preparation, sampling, standard-
ization and analysis procedures (Attachments V - VIII).
C ^ L'{\-»J
0. -J. Logsdon
Attachments
cc: C. Swibas (w/Attach. I, II, & III)
-------
A-12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
TO John Logsdon DATE February 25, 1980
11* S
Concurrence:
FROM Ed Bour
SUBJECT Trace Meta-|s rjata for Project 611, Hazardous Waste Investigation, Fike Chemical,
Nitro, WV
One sample was received by the Chemistry Branch for metals analyses. Attached
are the subject analyses requested, as well as detection limits and descrip-
tions of analytical methods and quality control procedures.
Of particular note is the NA result obtained for the CST plant effluent.
Ed Bour
Attachments
cc: Carter
Lowry
-------
A-13
Analytical Methods
The sample was digested in accordance with Method 4.1.3, EPA Methods Manual,
page-metals 6 (EPA-600/4-79-020).
All elements were determined by "Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma - Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy" (ICAP-AES). The methods used are referenced in ICAP-
AES Methods for Trace Element Analysis of Water and Wastes, Interim Methods,
U.S.E.P.A., EMSL, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1979.
Quality Control
A quality control reference standard and a calibration standard were analyzed
and recoveries were found to be within 7% of the true values.
Because an insufficient quantity of sample was received, no precision and
accuracy data are available for the digestion procedure.
-------
A-14
Attachment IV. Quality Control Data for Air Samples. Hazardous Waste
Investigation, Fike Chemical, Project 611.
Name % Difference9 % Recovery
methylenechloride 1.4 85
acetone 2.7 96
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene 1.6 88
chloroform 4.1 90
1,2-dichloroethane 4.1 88
trichloroethylene 3.3 98
benzene 2.7 94
n-hexane 20 114
toluene 5.2 92
chlorobenzene 3.2 98
ethyl benzene 12 87
c,
a % difference = 200 * (second-first)/(second + first). First and second
are analyses of midrange standard.
% recovery = 100 * recovered/1evel. Spiked sample trap analysis after
transport to and from field and 3 weeks holding time.
-------
A 15
Volatile Organic Air Pollutant Analysis
Sample Collection
January 19SO
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Sampling for organics in air is performed by drawing air through a
glass tube packed with the porous polymer resin Tenax GC. Air is
drawn through each trap at 0.1 to 1 liter per minute using a cali-
brated personnel sampler. The sampler is calibrated before sampling
using a mass flow meter.
2.0 Equipment
2.1 Sampler. MSA model S or equivalent personnel sampler. Capable
of adjusting and monitoring the flow over the range of 0.1 to 1
liter per minute (1pm) with a trap in place.
2.2 Mass flow meter. Portable unit equipped with a teflon fitting to
measure the flow through a sampling trap. It should have a range
of 0 - 2 Ipin and 0 - 10 1pm.
2.3 Sample traps. Glass sampling traps packed with Tenax GC.
2.4 Sampling line. 2-5 feet of 1/4" o.d. tygon tubing with a teflon
fitting at one end to attach to the sampl ing traps.
2.5 Dummy Sampling Trap. One trap taken from the batch to be sampled.
3.0 Calibration Procedure
3.1 Attach the dummy sampling trap to the sample pump. Attach the mass
flow meter over the inlet of the sample trap. Set the mass flow
meter to the appropriate range and zero with no flow.
3.2 Start the sampling pump and adjust for a stable flow at the desired
rate. Note the flow meter reading on the personnel sampler at the
desired flow rate.
3.3 Record the mass flow meter reading and the sampler flow meter reading.
3.4 Detach the mass flow meter and the dummy trap.
3.b Recalibrate the sample pui'.io at the beginning of each sampling day,
whenever the sample flow meter reading deviates from That at cali-
bration or whenever necessary.
3.b flow rate variation botwoon these tmps is less than 5'V,.
4.0 Sample Collection
4.1 Using a cli.'cin tissue or wearing a nylon cloth glove, remove a sample
trap from us cuUurc tube benuj careful to teseal the culture tube.
-------
4.2 Inspect the trap for damage such as broken glass, glass wool plugs
loose or resin spilled. If the trap is in question, replace in
culture cube ana return to the laboratory unused.
4.3 Attach the trap to the calibrated sampler. See Figure 1.
4.4 Begin sampling noting the start time and sample pump flow meter
reading. Collect sample volumes depending upon the suspected levels
of contaminants. Generally:
Dumpsites: 1 1pm for 5-30 min.
Offsite: 1 1pm for 15-120 min.
Ambiant: 1 1pm for 60-120 min.
or .1 1pm for 1-24 hr.
4.5 Stop sampling noting the end time and sample pump flow meter reading.
Replace the trap into the culture tube being sure the glass wool
cushions the trap. Reseal with the teflon lined septum cap and tag.
4.6 Replace sample traps in culture tubes into the tin can and reseal
the can. Be sure to tag the "field blank" and "field spike" samples
in each tin can.
5.0 Quality Control
5.1 Sample pumps are calibrated daily and any flow rate changes noted
by monitoring the flow meter on the sampler.
5.2 Contamination in each sample transport container is monitored by a
"field blank".
5.3 Deterioration of the samples is monitored by a "field spike".
6.0 Options
6.1 In the event -of unkno'-n ctaospnsres suspect of containing high levels
of contaminants, two samples should be collected at flow rates of 1
and 1/10 or 1/100 rate (1 1pm and 10 ccpm for example).
7.0 Limitations
7.1 The sample traps are essentially short chromatographic columns.
Retention of chemicsls is dependant upon absorbtion characteristics
of the chemicril/resin systam. factors influencing retention include:
temperature, fin-./ rate,'air volume and vapor pressure of the chemical
Volatile species like vinyl chloride are only moderately retained
win If other chemicals like chlorobcnzenc are retained very well.
All ciiFiincals will experienco breakthrough undor the correct con-
ditoi::; however. Table I li-ts break through volumes for some
rclev.-.nt chemicals. Tin1 volumes represent the amount of air
samplttj where 50; of tho collected chemical is lost through the
trap. D
-------
8.0 References A"17
S.I 'O^veiu^vieni: of Analytical Techfiiques rur Measuring Ambient A:.;ios-
pheric Carcinogenic Vapors", EPA-600/2-75-075, November 1975.
8.2 Env. Sci. Tech., 9_, 556 (1975).
8.3 PeThzzari, E. D., Quarterly Report Mo. 1, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
2252. February 1976.'
S.4 Anal. Lett., 9, 45 (1976).
-------
A-2. Tri;..X GC HKEAKTHKOUUIl VOLUMES FOR SEVERAL ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTANTS1
I
oo
Clicmic.il
CI.IL.S
ll.i 1 (i[;fii:i t rd
liytl 101 .1 1 lion
U
Trmpcrnturc (°F)
CninpouiKl
mt'lliyl (.111 or idt.*
liirLliyl In on nit;
vinyJ ciiJoruk-
ii'cLliy It'iie clilorjdc
( liloro form
cnirlion LeLiMcliloride
1 ,2-di cldoLOclliane
1 , 1 , 1-t r iclil orooLlianc
t uLrar li 1 o rot-Lliylcne
Li i Lhl 01 oel hylcne
l-cliloro-2-rncLhylproiuMic1
3-cliloL'o-2-rneLliylpro[i(:ne
] ,2-ii i rlil 01 opropnuc
1 , 3-tl 1 1 it J 01 i)[)ropane
cp i chi orohydc] it ( 1 -cli 1 oro-
2 ,3-L'jjoxypropanc)
3-cliJ oro-1 -buLc/ic
n] ly 1 t li ! or i ilc
/i-cliloro- J -buleno
L-cliloto-2-buicne
clil orobcn?cne
o-tl irhlorolicnzfnc
(ii-d i cli 1 orcilicn/.iMie
b.p.
C°c)
-;)/,
J.5
13
41
61
77
83
75
121
87
68
72
95
121
116
6/1
45
75
8^.
132
181
173
50
8
3
2
11
42
36
53
23
361
90
?.G
29
229
3/i 8
200
19
21
'.7
I/. 6
809
1,531
2,393
60
6
2
\ .5
9
31
27
41
18
267
67
20
22
U>2
253
m
15
16
36
106
'653
1,153
1,758
70
5
2
1.25
7
2 A
21
31
15
106
50
16
J7
115
J8/*
104
12
12
27
77
473
8G7
1,291
80
4
I
1.0
5
18
16
23
12
I/. /i
38
12
13
Rl
134
74
9
9
20
56
344
656
948
90
3
1
0.8
4
n
13
18
9
106
28
9
10
58
97
54
7
6
15
40
249
494
697
100
2.5
0.9
0.6
3
10
10
14
7
78
21
7
8
M
70
39
6
5
12
29
J81
372
510
(continued)
-------
TOIIII<.IL;
Compound
benzyl chloride
limiiio form
cLliylcne di bromide
hi liinobcnzene
2-i'liJoroetliy] rLliyl ctlicr
B i :. - (rhloroir.cLliy 1 )c:Llior
li-iii L rosodiiiicLlry 1 .-IIIHIIC
\\-\\ i 1. 1 osodi cLliy 1 .1111 1 nc
n c i o 1 c i n
ftl ycidaldcliydc
pirpylenc oxiilu
lniL;uliene diL-pi^nlc
c ycl olicxcnt; o.'iclf
:. 1 y rcnc QXJ tie
piiuuo L
iTcLopliconoriL-
I'l-propiolacLonc
n i Lromctbanc
.1IIJ 1 J [1C
difLliyl sulfaLc
i-tliyL ineLlinnc -ml fate
b.p.
(°C)
179
l/i9
131
155
108
-
151
177
53
-
34
-
J32
I
-------
/,"!> A? 7
I
ro
O
T.iMc A-2 (conl'd.)
Temperature (°1
('|K;:III C.'i 1
Cl t'..:; Coiii|)ounil
iinuics ilimethyl.!!!ii ue
isjobiity 1 ami nc
L-butyJ mm ue
ili-(.n-lmlyl ).iiiune
py i- 1 (h lie
.Till 1 I ML'
1' tin- !.
-------
7~/>.lk 1 f <,-./.
Table A-2 (cont'd.)
Chemical
Class
AroinnLi. cs
llydroca rbons
1 n organ ic
;';a se:;
Compound
benzene
toluene
e thy 1 benzene
cumc.'ne
n~hexane
n-liepLane
1-hexene
1 --heplene
2 , 2-d i methyl butane
2 ,4-d i methyl pen Lane
4 --me thy 1-1 -pen te He
cyclohexane
n i t. ric oxide
ni t rogen dioxide
ch 1 or i ne
fj ul. fur dioxide
water
b.p.
80.1
110.6
136.2
152.4
68.7
98.4
63.5
93.6
. 49.7
80.5
53.8
80.7
-
-
-
-
100
50
1.08
494
1,393
3,076
32
143
28
286
0.5
435
14
49
0
0
0
0.06
0.06
60
77
348
984
2,163
23
104
20
196
0.4
252
.10
36
0
0
0
0.05
0.05
Temp-cr
70
54
245
693
1,525
17
75
15
135
0.3
146
8
2.6
0
0
0
0.03
0.04
ature (°
80
38
173
487
1,067
12
55
11
93
0.2
84
6
19
0
0
0
0.02
- 0.03
F)
90
27
122
344
750
9
39
8
64
0.2
49
4
14
0
0
0
0.02
0.01
100
19
86
243
527
6
29
6
44
0. I
28
3
10
0
0
0
0.01
0
Breakthrough volume is given in A/2.2 g Tenax (\C. used in sampling cartridges.
f _ .-. -^ , .3 / ' / "~~ C /
ro
-------
A-22
Sample Collection
n
i P L t"
'; I
_._! \j:|eo.' r-
riDJwiT
figure i. SoinjU.' .'.ir! L'-.-IJ ac.-.i'.:i:vJiiL.
Dun no caliDruuion, ..ctcch ,,,£31. IT1? -i '
S '-I', P'>'.s
C3
/ ,.
LC , /
top of imp.
-------
APPENDIX B
MUTAGEN ASSAY METHODS AND RESULTS
-------
B-l
FIKE CHEMICAL COMPANY
Summary and Conclusions
Mutagen Testing
The Ames Test for mutagenesis did not demonstrate mutagenic activity in
any of the three composite samples collected from 1) the CST final
effluent (Station 01), 2) the CST storm sewer overflow (Station 02), and
3) the monitoring well adjacent to the south end of Lagoon #1 (Station
11) at Fike Chemical Company.
-------
B-2
Survey Findings
The standard bacterial assay for mutagenicity was performed on
liquid sample concentrates using the plate incorporation method as
described by Ames, et al1. This test consists of specially developed
strains of Salmonella typhimurium that are auxotrophic for the amino
acid, histidine (i.e., unable to grow without histidine supplemented to
the media). The organisms have been genetically altered so when they
are subjected to certain mutagenic and carcinogenic substances they will
mutate and regain the natural ability to synthesize histidine. Thus,
only mutant colonies can grow on media which does not contain histidine
and their growth indicates presence of a mutagenic substance. Mutagenic
activity based upon use of bacteria as indicator organisms correlates
closely (-90% probability) with inducement of cancer in laboratory
234567
animals by organic compounds »»»»».
Acidic and basic sample extracts were pre-screened for mutagenic
activity using five standard Salmonella test strains: TA 98, TA 100, TA
1535, TA 1537, and TA ^538. Samples were first tested individually. If
they showed negative mutagenicity, they were then subjected to metabolic
activation by adding rat liver homogenate (S-9 mix) [Appendix ].
The mutagenicity test did not demonstrate mutagenic activity in any
of the three samples. All of the concentrated sample extracts exhibited
toxicity to one or another of the five Salmonella test strains. However,
mutagenicity was not apparent in any of the test strains at low concentra-
tions. Therefore, mutagenicity could not be definitively determined for
this material.
The inability to detect mutagenic activity in the samples does not
necessarily mean that these substances are absent, but that the mutagenic
effect may be below the detection limit of the test system used. The
Salmonella test does not detect some of the important chlorinated carcinogens
such as chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and hexachlorobenzene. The
concentration techniques employed eliminates the volatile alky1 halides.
Data for test results that did not exhibit elevated reversion rates
(negative mutagenic activity or toxicity) are not presented in this
rpnnrt.
-------
B-3
MUTAGEN ASSAY METHODS
*
Sample Extraction
For base-neutral extractions, four 1250 ml portions of sample were
adjusted above pH 12 with NaOH. Each sample aliquot was extracted for 2
minutes with 125 ml, 70 ml and 70 ml of dichloromethane, respectively.
Emulsions were removed by centrifugation (2-5 min at 10,000 rpm). The
combined solvent fractions were poured through a drying column containing
3-4 inches of anhydrous sodium sulfate (pre-rinsed with 20-30 ml dichloro-
methane). The organic extract was collected into a Kuderna-Danish (K-D)
flask equipped with a 10 ml concentrator tube. The aqueous sample
fraction was retained for acidic extraction.
Approximately 500 ml of the dichloromethane in the combined extract
was evaporated off at 65° C. One hundred fifty ml acetone was added to
the K-D flask; the volume was reduced to less than 5 ml. Acetone was
added to a final volume of 10 ml. A portion (2 ml) of the acetone
extract was removed for trace organic analyses. Ten ml dimethylsulfoxide
(DMSO) was added to the remaining acetone extract. The acetone was
rotoevaporated at 65° C; DMSO was added to the residue to a total volume
of 35 ml. The extract was collected in a small amber bottle (pre-rinsed
in DMSO), labeled and refrigerated at 4°C until assayed by the Ames
procedure. Aqueous fractions were adjusted below pH 2 and the above
procedure repeated.
Using this method, the estimate of mutagenic activity^ from complex
mixtures is low, because: I) the volatile alkyl halides are lost
in the dichloromethane/DMSO exchange, and 2) the Salmonella test
detects only about 90% of carcinogens as mutagens. Some of the
important chlorinated hydrocarbons are not detected, i.e., chloro-
form, hexachlorobenzene, etc.
-------
B-4
Bacterial Mutagenicity Assay
The Standard Ames Salmonella/mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay
was performed using the agar-plate incorporation procedure as described
by Ames, et, alj. Sample extracts were screened with Salmonella typhimurium
test strains TA 98, TA TOO, TA 1535, TA 1537, and TA 1538, first
individually and then in the presence of rat liver homogenates (S-9
mix).
Alternate Mutagenesis Assay
To test for interferences caused by trace metal chelation of S-9
mix, concentrated liver homogenate was first boiled to destroy enzyme
activity. Aliquots of boiled liver extract (1 ml) were added to 3.8 ml
of each sample extract. This dilution corresponds to the total volume
of S-9 used in a normal test run. The modified sample was then analyzed
by the Standard Ames procedure. Test results of the sample extract did
not indicate that trace metal chelation and consequent enzyme toxification
had occurred.
Quality Control
A four-liter volume of tap water was added to a clean, one-gallon
amber, glass-bottle and treated as a sample. This served as a quality
reference for the sample bottles, extracting solvents, emulsion removal,
and the concentration process. A DMSO sample was tested to ensure that
this material did not interfere with test results.
The test strains TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 1538, TA 98, and TA 100
were exposed to diagnostic mutagens to confirm their natural reversion
characteristics. The strains were tested for ampicillin resistance,
crystal violet sensitivity, ultra-violet light sensitivity, and histidine
requirement. Spontaneous reversion rates were tested with each sample
series.
-------
B-5
Rat liver homogenate was tested with 2-aminofluorene with strains
TA 1538, TA 98, and TA 100 to confirm the metabolic activation process.
Sterility checks were performed on solvents, extracts, liver
preparation, and all culture media.
-------
B-6
REFERENCES
1. Ames, B.N., McCann, J. , and Yamansaki, E. , Methods for Detecting
Carcinogens and Mutagens with the Salmonella/Mammalian - Microsome
Mutagonicity Test. Mutation Research. 31 (1975) 347-364.
2. Commoner, B., Chemical Carcinogens in the Environment, Presentation
at the First Chemical Congress of the North American Continent,
Mexico City, Mexico, Dec. 1975.
3. Commoner, B., Development of Methodology, Based on Bacterial
Mutagenesis and Hyperfine Labelling, For ths Rapid Detection and
Identification of Synthetic Organic Carcinogens in Environmental
Samples, Research Proposal Submitted tc Rational Science Foundation,
February, 1976.
4. Commoner, B., Henry, J.I., Gold, J.C., Reading, M.J., Vithaydlhil,
A.J., "Reliability of Bacterial Mutaqenesis lechm'ques to Distinguish
Carcinogenic and Moncarcinoqenic Chemicals." EPA-600/1-76-Oil,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (April 1976).
5. McCann, J., Ames, B.N., Detection of Carcinogens as Mulagens,
in the Saliiionslla/Microsorcs Test: Assay of 300 Chemicals Proc
Nat. Acad. Sci., 73 (1976) S50-954.
6. Purchase, I.F.H., et. al., An Evaluation of 6 Short-Term Tests
for Detecting Organic Chemical Carcinogens. British Journal of
Cancer, 37, (1970) 873-902. ~~
7. Stigimura, T. , et. al., Overlapping of Carcinogens and Mutagens,
In Magee P.M., S. Takayama, T. Sugimura, and T. Matsushima, eds.,
Fundamentals in Cancer Prevention, Univ. Park Press, Baltimore rid.
pp. 191-2]5, 1976.
-------
APPENDIX C
TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS
-------
C-l
DATA COMPILATION METHODS
Sixty-two organic compounds and four priority pollutant metals were
identified in the Fike Chemical Company survey. Thirteen organic compounds
were identified in both air samples and the soil and/or liquid samples (cy-
clohexane, chclohexanone, carbon disulfide, hexane, dichloromethane, chlo-
roform, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene, bis (2-chloro-
ethyl) ether, trichloroethylene, and anisole).
To obtain toxicity and health effects data for the 62 organic com-
pounds and four priority pollutant metals, the Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances (RTECS), an annual compilation prepared by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, was searched.
RTECS contains toxicity data for about 37,000 substances, but does not
presently include all chemicals for which toxic effects have been found.
Chemical substances in RTECS have been selected primarily for the toxic
effect produced by single doses, some lethal and some non-lethal. Subs-
tances whose principal toxic effect is from chronic exposure are not pre-
sently included. Toxic information on each chemical substance was compiled
from published medical, biological, engineering, chemical, and trade infor-
mation.
The Toxline data base, a computerized bibliographic retrieval system
for toxicology, containing 692,394 records taken from material published in
primary journals, was also searched. It is part of the MEDLARS system from
the National Library of Medicine and is composed of 11 subfiles:
1. Chemical-Biological Activities, 1965 - (Taken from Chemical
Abstracts, Sections 1-5, Sections 62-64, Section 8 - Radiation
Biochemistry, Section 59 - Air Pollution and Industrial Hygiene,
and Section 60 - Sewage Wastes.)
-------
C-2
2. Toxicity Bibliography, 1968 - (A subset of Medline)
3. Pesticides Abstracts, 1966 - (Compiled by the Environmental
Protection Agency and formerly known as Health Aspects of
Pesticides Abstracts Bulletin)
4. International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, 1970 - (Product of the
American Society of Hospital Pharmacists)
5. Abstracts on Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants, 1972 -
(Comprised of profiles from BIOSIS data bases only)
6. Hayes File on Pesticides, 1940-1966 - (A collection of more than
10,000 citations to published articles on the health aspects of
pesticides)
7. Environmental Mutagen Information Center File, 1960 - (Prepared
at the Environmental Mutagen Information Center, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Tennessee)
8. Toxic Materials Information Center File, 1971-1975 - (Prepared
at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee)
9. Teratology File, 1960-1974 - (Closed subfile of citation on
teratology)
10. Environmental Teratology Information Center File, 1950 - (From
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee)
11. Toxicology/Epidemiology Research Projects, October 1978 -
(Projects selected from the Smithsonian Science Information
Exchange - SSIE data base)
-------
C-3
The RTECS search yielded information on 49 of the 66 organic compounds
and metals. The TOXLINE search yielded 14,000 citations from the 40 com-
pounds, providing support to the toxic data from RTECS. Sixteen of the 45
organic compounds are listed as priority pollutants.
Additional sources searched to locate toxic information on those com-
pounds having no toxic data were: (1) Merck Index; (2) Toxicology Data
Bank (TDB), from the National Library of Medicine, which currently contains
information on 2,514 substances; (3) Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical
Assistance Data System (OHMTADS), and EPA file, containing toxic data for
about 1,000 compounds; and (4) Chemical Abstracts.
Toxic data were not located on the following compounds detected in the
soil and/or liquid samples:
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis (1-chloroisopropyl) ether
9 H-xanthen-9-one, Hydroxy isomer
N,N'-Bix(l-methylethyl) urea
1-methylethylphenyl carbamate
3-(butyl thio) propionic acid
dimethylphenol isomer
methyl ethyl phenol isomer
chlorophenol isomer
2-propeny1benzeneacetate
1-methylethyl (3-chlorophenyl) carbamate
tetrahydrothiphene
benzeneacetic acid
l-ethyl-3-piperidone
Toxic data were not located on the following compounds detected in the
air samples:
3-methylhexane
2-methylhexane
2-chloropropane
-------
C ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
TO Steven W. Sisk, Coordinator, Hazardous Site DATE June 19, 1980
Inspection, Fike Chemicals, Inc., Nitro, West Virginia
FROM John E. Preston, Ph.D. /^<^
SUBJECT Health Hazard Evaluation, Fike Chemicals, Inc.
Background
The National Enforcement Investigations Center conducted investigations
(with samplings) of Fike Chemical Inc. in October 1977, August and
December 1979 and February 1980.
The chemicals in the water, soil and air samples were identified and
quantified to the extent possible.
Based on the toxic properties of the 62 organic chemicals, plus four
priority pollutant metals, a hazard evaluation has been conducted.
Conclusions
The data on the magitude of the exposure to the toxic chemicals found
and the toxicity data on these chemicals are not sufficient to completely
assess the associated hazard to human health and the environment. The
presence of eight priority pollutants in three media, air, liquid, and
soil, increases the hazard since exposure may occur by three routes,
inhalation (air), orally (water and contaminated food), and through the
skin (soil, water, air). Also, the presence of these toxic chemicals
plus the priority pollutant metallic compounds and the additional non-
priority pollutant organics in the soil, increases the off-site pollutant
hazard due to leaching action by rain and runoff water and contamination
of the subterranean water.
.Iso of importance for off-site hazard evaluation are the priority
pollutants found in the air: benzene, ethyl benzene, chloroform,
trichloroethylene, dichloromethane (methylene chloride) and toluene.
Three of these pollutants are carcinogens (underlined) for which the
ambient concentration in air for maximum protection of human health
would be zero. However, in the case of certain chemicals, it is
-------
C-5
difficult or impossible to reduce ambient levels to zero. For example,
benzene, which is a component of American gasolines (average of 0.8% w/w),
occurs in the ambient air of gas stations to the level of 0.3 to 2.4 ppm
and the rural level has been reported as 0.017 ppb. Further, NIOSH has
a recommended worker protection standard (air) ceiling value of 1 ppm
for benzene. Although the risk of adverse effects, including cancer,
may be considered reasonable at the level of 1 ppm for 8 hours per day,
5 days per week a much lower level, 1 ppb, when inhaled continuously for
years may represent an unacceptable risk.
Generally, the data on the effects of low level long-term exposure to
chemicals are not available. Also the data to make an extrapolation
from exposure to a chemical during the workweek to continuous exposure
for many years are not available. Finally, the basic toxicity data on
many chemicals, as well as the effects of mixtures of chemicals, are not
known. Therefore, a prudent course of action is to reduce exposure to a
pollutant to a minimum, or whenever possible, to eliminate the pollutant(s),
Toxicity and Health Effects of Identified Pollutants
Sixty-two organic compounds including 15 priority pollutants plus 4
priority pollutant metals (metallic compounds) were identified in the
survey of the Fike Chemical Company and Cooperative Sewage Treatment
(CST). Twelve organic compounds including 8 priority pollutants were
detected in both soil/liquid and air samples, namely anisole, benzene,*
ethyl benzene,* chloroform,* cyclohexane, cyclohexanone, bis(2-chloro-
ethyl)ether,* tetrachloroethylene,* trichloroethylene,* hexane, dichloro-
methane,* and toluene.* The presence of these chemicals, especially the
8 priority pollutants in three media, air, water and soil, increases the
probability of exposure and therefore the hazard to humans and the
environment.
Toxicity data was not found on 17 of the 62 chemicals. However, these
chemicals do have adverse effects on humans, animals and the environment
at a sufficient dose level; so their hazardous effects, although unknown,
must be recognized as contributing to the magnitude of the hazard to
human health and the environment.
*Priority pollutants are chemicals or compounds generally requiring
priority consideration due to their inherent toxicity and as a result
of legislative mandates and various suits. A list of 65 toxic pollutants
was published by the Administrator of EPA on January 31, 1978 and is
judicially recongized in the Natural Resources Defense Counsel v. Russel
E. Train (June 1976) and referred to in the Clean Water Act as Table I
of Committee Print 95-30. The list currently includes about 130 chemicals.
-------
C-6
Fourteen of these 17 chemicals were found in soil and/or liquid samples,
namely:
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether dimethyl phenol isomer
bis(l-chloroisopropyl)ether methyl ethyl phenol isomer
9 H-xanthen-9-one, hydroxy isomer chlorophenol isomer
N,N'-Bis(l-methylethyl) urea 2-propenylbenzeneacetate
1-methylethylphenyl carbamate tetrahydrothiophene
3-(butyl thio) propionic acid benzeneacetic acid
1-methylethyl (3-chlorophenyl) 1-ethyl-3-piperidone
carbamate
Similiarly, there were three compounds in air samples for which toxic
data was not located:
3-methylhexane 2-chloropropane
2-methylhexane
To aid in the evaluation of the toxicity of these chemicals, established
data bases and the scientific literature were searched and these data
are summarized in Tables 10 and 11. It should be recognized that most
of the toxicity data reflects short term (acute) high dose testing in
animals rather than the more useful and appropriate low dose coupled
with long term (chronic) exposure to hazardous chemicals. Finally, the
effects of combinations of long term exposure to two or more toxic
chemicals is generally not known; but such combinations could result in
more severe toxic effects than would be expected from the additive
effects of each chemical in the mixture. For example, one chemical
could promote the carcinogenic effect of another chemical, i.e., it
could act as a co-carcinogen.
Liquid and Soil Sample Pollutants
Twenty-one of the 39 organic chemicals and 4 priority pollutant metals
detected in liquid/soil samples have known or demonstrated adverse human
health effects. Involved are adverse effects on many organs and tissues
as shown in Table 10, including the liver, kidneys, blood, gastrointestinal
tract, lungs, central nervous system, skin, mucous membranes, and the
ciye. In addition, certain of the chemicals found show carcinogenic,
ceratogenic and mutagenic effects. Fourteen of the 21 organics were
priority pollutants: benzene, ethylbenzene, chloroform, 1,2-dichloro-
ethane, bis(2-chloroethylJether, 1,2-dichloroethylene. tetrachlo-
roethylene, trichloroethylene, dichloromethane, phenol, 2.4,6-tri-
chlorophenol.bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzylbutyl phthalate,
and toluene. Of these, the six underlined above have been classified
-------
C-7
as carcinogenic by one or more of the following groups: the Cancer
Assessment Group (CAG) of the EPA, the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) or the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Also, two
chemicals have been reported in the literature as carcinogenic in
animals, namely, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether and phenol. Benzene is con-
sidered a human carcinogen as well as a teratogen and mutagen (adversely
affects reproduction and heritable genetic material). Also tri-methyl
thiourea was found which is an animal carcinogen and teratogen. Three
other compounds found are teratogenic or are mutagenic: carbon disulfide,
ethylene oxide, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of a chemical, such as benzene, due to ingestion of contaminated
water, food (aquatic organisms, etc.) or inhalation of contaminated air,
the acceptable intake is zero. At present, there is no agreement as to
the acceptable concentration of a carcinogen in the environment. The
concentrations of priority pollutant organics found, together with the
presence or absence of the other organics according to sampling site,
are shown in Table 5. Taking, for example, the highest level of benzene
found in a monitoring well, namely 790 ppb (shown in Table 5), it can be
shown that this value exceeds an EPA proposed water criteria (1.5 yg/1)
by a factor of about 500. The presence of five other known carcinogens,
chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene
and bis(2-chloroethyl)ether and other hazardous compounds (such as
methylene chloride - see Table 5) renders the groundwater polluted and
unfit for human consumption. For example, the proposed EPA water
standard for chloroform is 0.21 ppb or 0.21 yg/1 and this level corres-
ponds to an added risk of cancer of 1 in 1 million. The concentration
of chloroform in the sample from well No. 2 was greater than 2100 ppb or
10 thousand times higher than the proposed standard. When the risk of
cancer from the other five carcinogens is added to that due to chloroform,
a prudent evaluation would be that the risk is unacceptable and that
steps must be taken to reduce the carcinogic, teratogenic and mutagenic
hazard due to the presence of these and the many other chemicals present
in the groundwater.
Air Samples
Twenty-four organic compounds including 9 priority pollutants were
detected in the air samples. Toxicity data were not available for 3 of
these compounds. Of the 9 priority pollutants which were detected, all
were also found in the liquid/soil samples except for 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane. This chloroethane has been shown to be negative as a carcinogen
by the NCI carcinogen bioassay but it does exhibit adverse effects on
the central nervous system; it is a moderate skin irritant and a severe
-------
C-8
eye irritant. As shown in Table 8, detectable amounts of 8 organic
chemicals including 6 priority pollutants were found in the air. Three
of the 6 priority pollutants are carcinogenic, namely benzene, chloro-
form and trichloroethylene.
In the case of benzene, a human carcinogen, the levels found at all
sampling stations exceeded the rural background level of 0.017 ppb* with
values ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 ppb. Therefore, Fike Chemical is adding
to the hazardous load of benzene from other sources (mainly automotive)
to which people in the Nitro area are exposed.
Since no agreement exists as to safe concentrations in the air, every
effort should be made to reduce their levels to a minimum.
Metallic Compounds
As shown in Table 6, compounds of four metals (copper, lead, nickel and
zinc) which are priority pollutants were found in the Coast Tank Lines
effluent together with compounds of less toxic metals (aluminum, calcium,
iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium and vanadium. Of particular interest
are the compounds of lead since they have been designated as carcinogenic
(by IARC in the animal) and teratogenic (causes birth defects).
Lead compounds were detected at 0.052 mg/1. This is between 5 and 50
times the background level in groundwater and is essentially the same as
the proposed water criterion of 50 ug/1. However, as stressed earlier,
at present agreement is 'lacking as to the safe level of any carcinogen
including lead and nickel compounds.
As indicated above, nickel compounds have been designated as carcino-
genic (in humans and animals by CAG and IARC). Nickel was found in the
CST effluent at a concentration of 0.79 mg/1. This exceeds the proposed
ambient water criterion of 133 yg/1 by a factor of about 6. Nickel
levels in drinking water in the U.S. based on two studies and including
levels in the ten largest U.S. cities averaged between 4.8 and 5 yg/1.
Also, there is evidence that most of the nickel intake of people in the
general population comes from foods. For adults, estimates of nickel
intake vary from 300 to 600 yg/day.
Carcinogenic response to various nickel compounds by injection has been
ojserved in a number of animal studies. Also, an excess of risk of
nasal and lung cancers has been demonstrated in nickel refinery workers.
However, since at present there is no evidence that nickel is tumorigenic
by the oral route, there does not appear to be an imminent hazard due to
the presence of nickel in the CST effluent. Nickel does possess a type
of toxicity which can lead to great discomfort and distress, namely it
can cause skin allergies and asthma. For this reason, people allergic
to nickel would be at added risk as workers at Fike or if they came in
contact with nickel polluted soil/water from CST.
*Cleland, J.G., and G. L. Kingsbury. 1977. Multimedia environmental
goals for environmental assessment. EPA-600/7-77-136.
-------
C-9
Zinc compounds were also detected on the CST effluent at 0.14 mg/1.
This is lower than the proposed ambient standard for water of 5 mg/1 by
a factor of about 350. The principal hazard due to zinc compounds
appears to be to freshwater organisms since zinc concentrations as low
as 90 yg/1 reportedly are acutely toxic to such organisms.
Zinc is an essential metal for plant and animal life. The recommended
daily intake (dietary allowance) for adults is 15 mg/d. However, as is
true for all chemicals, zinc will exert toxic effects at the appropriate
dose. For example, zinc oxide fumes have caused acute poisoning (metal
fume fever). Also, poisoning by zinc has also occurred due to ingestion
of acidic food kept in galvanized containers (1000 ppm of zinc) with an
estimated intake of 325-650 mg of zinc. The adverse effects were
reversible and without sequelae.
Mutagen Testing
The Ames standard bacterial assay for mutagenicity was performed on
liquid sample concentrates from Stations 01, 02, and 11. The mutagen-
icity test did not demonstrate mutagenic activity in any of the three
samples. However, all of the concentrated sample extracts exhibited
toxicity to one or another of the five Salmonella test strains. The
inability to detect mutagenic activity in samples containing a mixture
of toxic chemicals does not necessarily mean that these substances are
not mutagenic, rather it may mean that the mutagenic effect is below the
detection limit of the test system used.
------- |