ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA-330 2-80-023
HAZARDOUS SITE INSPECTION
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS. INC.
Nitro. West Virginia
(December 11-14. 1979 and February 19. 1980)
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
DENVER. COLORADO
June 1980
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA-330/2-80-023 •
HAZARDOUS SITE INSPECTION
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC.
Nitro, West Virginia
[December 11-14, 1979 and
February 19, 1980]
June 1980
Steven W. Sisk
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER - Denver
REGION III - Philadelphia
-------
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION. . . . 1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . 3
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION . 3
CONCLUSIONS . 3
III PRODUCTION AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES . . . . . 8
PRODUCTION . 8
WASTE DISPOSAL 10
IV MONITORING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS . . 15
SAMPLE COLLECTION 15
MONITORING RESULTS 17
V OFFSITE POLLUTANT MOVEMENT . 20
VI TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED POLLUTANTS. 22
REFERENCES . . 33
APPENDICES
A SAMPLE ANALYSIS
B MUTAGEN ASSAY METHODS AND RESULTS
C TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS DATA COMPILATION PROCEDURE
TABLES
1 Raw Materials Used and Products Manufactured 9
2 Sample Collection andSampling Station Descriptions 16
3 Summary of Organic Analysis Results for Liquid Samples . . . . 18
4 Summary of Metal Analysis Results for Soil Sample 19
5 Toxicity of Compounds 23
FIGURES
1 Location Map - Nitro, West Virginia 2
2 Schematic Flow Diagram Wastewater Treatment System 11
3 Sampling Station Location 14
-------
DISCLAIMER
Mention of. trade names or commercial products does not con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Chemical Formulators, Inc. , in Nitro, West Virginia, [ Figure 1] oper-
ates a small chemical production facility which manufactures a systemic
pesticide (methoxychlor) and two chemicals used to regulate plant growth
(rnaleic hydrazide and maleic hydrazide diethanolamine salt). Bordeaux mix-
ture was formerly produced but has been discontinued. All products are
formulated on a batch basis. Process w stewaters are treated onsite and
batch discharged through a single permitted outfall (Outfall 001) to the
Kanawha River.
On August 28, 1979, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III
requested that the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) inves-
tigate Chemical Formulators. The Company is under a State consent decree
which requires remedial actions regarding wastewater treatment and contami-
nated liquids on plant grounds. The request was initiated, in part, be-
cause of continuing Federal and State concern about hazardous waste hand-
ling and disposal practices at this facility.
During December 11 through 14,. 1979, and on February 19, 1980, NEIC
personnel investigated Chemical Formulations to determine compliance with
applicable State and Federal regulations. The primary objectives were to
evaluate: (a) waste disposal practices, (b) the potential for offsite haz-
ards resulting from these practices, and (c) possible environmental impacts.
-------
Golf
Cours
1
0 ,1Nito
/,,.q 5.
Branch
-- k
- .-.
I, / . . . .
L
I
-
,4rrnoUr ’. •
/
<2
I.’.))
Figure 1. Location Map — Nitro, West Virginia
-------
3
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
Information was obtained from Company personnel regarding current pro-
duction, waste disposal practices and methods of handling hazardous and
toxic wastes. Hazardous materials handling and disposal practices were
assessed through a site evaluation, sample collection and determination of
avenues by which pollutants could move offsite. Potential environmental
impacts were addressed by compilation and presentation of available toxi-
city and health effects data for the contaminants identified in the plant
samples.
NEIC personnel collected one soil and four liquid samples on plant
grounds. The sampling stations included the cooling water supply well, and
areas potentially ccmtaminated by spilled process wastes or raw materials.
All samples were analyzed for organic compounds with emphasis on priority
pollutants, toxic substances, and compounds with readily available stan-
dards. In addition, the soil sample was analyzed for metals and the well
water sample was tested for mutagenicity. Compounds identified during the
NEIC investigation were representative of samples collected. They were
not, however, necessarily representative of additional contaminants stored
in drums, previously buried onsite, orof liquid and soil contamination in
locations not sampled.
CONCLUSIONS
Wastewater Pollution Control
Progess is being made in upgrading the.presenLtreatment. system; how-
ever, problems persist in achieving satisfactory treatment on a continuing
basis.
-------
4
Process wastewater sources include reactor wash water, distillation
column residue, reactor sludge, HC1 scrubber spent caustic, and spent sul-
furic acid. Treatment cons sts of aeration, pH adjustment, hydrogen perox-
ide and polymer addition, and settling, all on a batch basis. Discharge
(usually once/week) is to the Kanawha River through a single permitted out-
fall. There was no discharge from the treatment plant during the survey
period due to high phenol concentrations in the wastewater. Approximately
60% of treatment facility capacity was full of sludge which decreases
treatment efficiency.
Past violations of State Water Pollution Control Permit discharge lim-
itations and minimal sludge removal from the treatment system resulted in
legal action by the State and the subsequent development of a consent de-
cree. The consent decree requires repair or replacement of the aeration
system in the initial treatment basin, sludge removal from the treatment
units, and minimization of rainfall pooling and contaminated storm water
runoff.
Two 5-horsepower surface aerators have been ordered for the initial
treatment basin.
New sludge drying beds have been constructed and the dried sludge,
which contains high phenol concentrations, is drummed for disposal. The
drummed sludges have been stored in an onsite warehouse, pending selection
of a disposal site. Following the December inspection, the Company
negotiated a contract with Chemical Waste of Alabama in Emelle, Alabama,
for sludge disposal in a secure landfill.
Storm water runoff has been controlled by construction of berms around
storage tanks and barreled waste materials. Grading and recontouring of
the east plant grounds to divert upgradient (east) surface drainage around
the facility has been completed. The central portion of the plant will be
regraded to eliminate onsite ponding. The driveways and production areas
will be paved.
-------
5
Hazardous Materials Handling and Disposal
The plant grounds contain spilled and disposed—of chemicals which are
generally not being removed as part of planned remedial measures.
During the 1977 NEIC inspection, the former plant manager stated that
process wastes from anisole, niethoxychior, and Bordeaux mixture production,
and waste treatment plant sludges were buried in an onsite unlined pit.
During the 1979 inspections, the new plant manager would not acknowledge or
discuss onsite disposal practices.
Some waste materials, other than the warehoused sludges, are stored.in
open and/or deteriorated drums onsite in diked areas. Samples collected
from pools in two such areas contained anisole, methoxychior and a total of
six priority pollutants (carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 4,4-DDE,phenol,
methylene chloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane). Phenol and methylene
chloride were detected at concentrations of 100 mg/i in one of the pools.
A runoff ditch sample contained anisole, methoxychior, and three priority
pollutants (chloroform, lindane, and phenol). Phenol was detected at a
concentration of 80 mg/i. On the day following sample collection, con-
taminated storm water runoff was observed moving offsite from this ditch.
Several areas of the plant had been recently graveled; consequently,
the extent of contaminated soils and previous spills could not be deter-
mined. One area near the shop which had not been graveled, was sampled and
found to contain methoxychior (44,000 mg/kg), anisole, and the priority
pollutant chlordane (4.4 mg/kg). Fourteen metals were also detected in-
cluding six priority pollutants (cadmium chromium, copper, nickel, lead and
zinc). Concentrations ranged from 1.51 mg/kg (cadmium) to 8,990 mg/kg
(copper).
The cooling water supply well sample was analyzed for organics analy-
sis and tested for mutagenicity. No organic compounds or rnutagenic activ-
ity were detected. However, the absence of organic contaminants in the
-------
6
well does not preclude the possibility of groundwater contaminationfroni
spilled and buried chemicals on plant grounds.
OffSite Pollutant Movement
Offsite movement of hazardous chemicals in storm water runoff was docu-
mented during the survey. It is highly probable that pollutants also move
offsite through groundwater flow and in the wastewater treatment unit ef-
fluent.
Pooled runoff on plant grounds, which was subsequently discharged off-
site, contained high concentrations of the priority pollutants chloroform
(6 mg/i) and phenol (80 mg/i). Although proposed regrading and paving are
expected to reduce pollutant discharge from plant grounds, all contaminated
soil and spilled chemicals need to be removed and properly disposed of pri-
or to remedial work.
‘The plant site is underlain by permeable alluvial silty sands which
promote surface water infiltration. Rainfall, which averages 114 cm (45
in)/year constitutes a potentially major source of water for leachate for-
mation frc m waste residues both above and below the ground surface. ‘Based
on sample results, infiltrating water would contain priority pollutants
such as carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methylene chloride, phenol, 1,1,
l-trichloroethane, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc.
The probable offsite movement of toxic chemicals in the alluvial aqui-
fer constitutes a potential hazard to present and future users of ground-
water in this area. The type, location, and extent of any buried wastes
need to be’ determined prior to extensive onsite remedial work.
As previously noted, process wastewater is collected, treated, and
discharged to the Kanawha River. Although no effluent samples were col-
lected, previous data suggest that toxic chemicals would be present in’ the
discharge.
-------
7
Toxicity and Health Effects
Most of the chemicals identified in soil and water samples have demon-
strated adverse health effects including eight potential carcinogens.
to evaluate toxicity and health effects from the 21 organics and six
priority pollutant metals, established computer data bases were searched
and summary data were compiled.
Of the 21 organic compounds and metals detected in the samples, 11
have demonstrated human health effects including systemic (affecting the
liver or kidneys), central nervous system, pulmonary, gastrointestinal,
psychotropic (affecting the mind), and irritation to the skin, eyes, or
mucous membranes. Eight of the 21 pollutants detected are reported as ani-
mal carcinogens. Two cause neoplastic (the production of tumors, not clear-
ly defined as carcinogenic) effects in laboratory animals; and four produce
teratogenic effects.
-------
8
III. PRODUCTION AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
PRODUCTION
Chemical Formulators is a small (20 employee) chemical manufacturing
firm which began operation in 1954. The plant produces methoxychior solu-
tions (100% and 5O%),.maleic hydrazide, inaleic hydrazide diethanolanine
salt (MH-30), and anisole (intermediate chemical used in methoxychior pro-
duction). Methoxychior, a systemic pesticide used on crops and vegetables,
is produced year-round and is sold to formulators for blending with other
chemicals for consumer use. Maleic hydrazide and maleic hydrazide diethan-
olamine salt (MH-30) are used as plant growth regulators on potatoes, toma
toes, onions, tobacco, and to retard growth along highways. Production is
limited to spring, summer, and fall. Raw materials are listed in Table 1.,
Of the products and raw materials, phenol and methyl chloride are priority
pollutants. Bordeaux mixture [ CuSO 4 •3 CU(OH 2 ) H 2 0] was formerly produced,
but was discontinued in early 1978. The Company considers production rates
and process schematics to be confidential, therefore they are not included
in this report. The plant operates 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.
Water used in product manufacture, boiler feed, and for sanitary pur-
poses is supplied by the West Virginia Water Company. Non-contact cooling
water is derived from an onsite Company well which taps the Kanawha River
alluvial aquifer and is approximately 18 to 23 in (60 to 75 ft) deep. Well
construction records were not retained by the Company.
-------
9
Table 1
RAW MATERIALS USED AND PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS
December 1979
Products Raw Materials
Anisole Methyl aCh On dea
Phenol
Sodium hydroxide
Methoxychior (100%) Anisole
A1C1 3
Trichioroacetaldehyde
Methoxychlor (50%) Methoxychior
Wetting Agents
Maleic hydrazide Hydrazine hydrate
Maleic anhydride
Sulfuric Acid
Water
Maleic hydrazide Diethanolamine
diethanolamine salt (MH-30) Maleic hydrazide
Penetrati ng agents
(non—ionic surfactants)
Water
a Priority pollutant.
-------
10
WASTE DISPOSAL
Wastewater
Waste sources include reactor wash water, distillation column residue,
reactor sludge, HCl scrubber spent caustic and spent sulfuric acid.
Process wastewaters are treated onsite in a physical-chemical plant
[ Figure 2]. Treatment is accomplished in a series of concrete basins
(ponds) identified byalphabetic letter. Ponds A and B are used for
closed-cycle non-contact cooling water only. Pond C, which. receives all
process wastewater, is aerated by bottom diffuser lines. Caustic (NaOH) is
manually added for pH adjustment to promote the formulation of alum sludge.
The waste stream from methoxychior production is reported to contain high
concentrations of phenol and aluminum, which is used as a catalyst. From
Pond C the waste stream flows to settling ponds D and E which are operated
on an alternating basis. Clear liquid from these ponds goes to covered
Pond G. Wastewater in Pond G is batch-treated prior to discharge. Ini-
tially, hydrogen peroxide is added to oxidize the organic contaminants. A
high polymer floccing agent is then added at a rate of 6.8 kg/400 m 3 (51
lb/100,000 gal) and caustic is used to raise the pH to approximately seven.
Water quality is monitored in this pond until pollutant levels are within
discharge permit requirements. Normally, treated wastewater is discharged
once/week. The effluent flows through final Pond H to the Kanawha River
through a single permitted outfall (NPDES Permit WV-0000108 and State Water
Pollution Control Permit IW-6066-79).
All treatment ponds are rectangular basins with flat bottoms. Sludge
is removed from Ponds D, E, and G with a portable pump to two covered dry-
ing beds. These drying beds were completed in July 1979, as required by
the consent decree. Subnatant is returned to Pond D.
-------
B
COOLING
POND
SLUDGE PUMPED
FROM BASINS B
MOBILE PUMP.
PROCESS WASTES
COOLING
POND
NaOH
BOILER
HOUSE
BOILER
t
H 2 O 2
Figure 2 SUBNATANT
Schematic Flow Diagram
Wa tewater Treatment System
Chemical Formulators, Inc.
—A
-------
12
During the December inspection, Company personnel indicated that ap-
proximately 60% of treatment system capacity was filled with sludge. Re-
sulting problems in achieving satisfactory treatment were reported and evi-
denced during the survey period. The contents of Pond G, which was re-
ported to contain a 1-rn (3 ft) thick, sludge blanket, had, received the pre-
viously described treatment but the phenol content of the liquid fraction
could not be stabilized. Additional treatment on December 12 and 13 re-
sulted in substantial lowering of the phenol concentrations by the end of
each day. However, by the following morning, the phenol concentration had
increased to an unacceptable level. Consequently, there was no discharge
during the survey period.
The State consent decree with Chemical Formulators requires remedial
work on and around the treatment system including:
1. Repair or replacement of blower and air lines in Pond C.
2. Sludge removal from and any necessary repairs to Ponds C, G,
and H.
3. Construction of adequate diversion structures to minimize the
amount of contaminated surface water in the plant area and to
prevent hydraulic overloading of the treatment plant.
Compliance with the first requirement will be accomplished by instal-
lation of two 5-horsepower surface aerators. For the second requirement,
sludge is reportedly being removed, dried, and barreled as quickly as pos-
sible. Company personnel stated that sludge drying time was three to four
months. Between July 1979 and February 1980,’ the new sludge drying beds
were filled four times.
Thirdly, control of storm water runoff has been addressed through con-
struction of berms around storage tanks and recontouring of the east plant
grounds to divert drainage around the facility. The central portion of the
plant will be regraded to enhance runoff and e1iminathpooi’ing of water ’.
As a final measure, driveways and production areas will be paved.
-------
13
Solid Waste
During an NEIC inspection in September 1977, the former plant manager
reported that process solid wastes had been buried on plant grounds in a
non-lined pit.’ These solid wastes were reported to be from the anisole
process (sodium phenolate); methoxychlor process (methoxychlor from around
bagging machine); Bordeaux process (copper sulfate from floor cleanup) and
the wastewater treatment facility sludges (primarily aluminum). The Com-
pany did not maintain an inventory of the buried solids. When asked about
the location of the pit during the December 1979 inspection, the new plant
manager did not acknowledge previous onsite burial practices.
During the December 1979 survey, barreled sludges, floor scrapings,
and other plant chemical wastes were stored on plant grounds until disposal
arrangements could be finalized. Approximately 200 barrels of waste mate-
rial were observed in a diked area in the southeastern portion of the plant
[ Figure 3, Station 05]. Many of the barrels were not covered and/or were
badly deteriorated. A few had been upset, spilling their contents on the
ground. The interior of the diked area had pooled rain water at least 14
cm (0.45 ft) deep. Another such area, located on the east side of methoxy-
chior bay No. 3, contained 35 barrels of wastes standing in a pool of gray-
white water [ Figure 3, Station 06].
By February 1980, the Company had arranged for solid waste disposal at
the Chemical Waste of Alabama site in Emelle, Alabama. Plant personnel
reported that former barrel storage areas were being “cleaned up” by scrap-
ing up contaminated materials for disposal. As previously discussed, some
of these areas would later be paved. Wastes stored in deteriorated drums
were being transferred to drums in good condition prior to disposal. The
old barrels are given to a drum reclaimer in Huntington, West Virginia.
Many areas of the plant had been recently graveled without removal of
contaminated soils or spilled materials. Past spills and housekeeping
practices were generally not discernible during the inspection other than
through discolored rainwater pools.
-------
FRONT PARKING LOT
MN.
BOILER
400s
Figure 3 Sampling Station Location
Chemical Formulators
December 13, 1979
300
0
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
DRYING
DRYING
BED
BED
FENCE IINE
BACK
PARKING
LOT
OFFICE
WAREHOUSE
ALT.
0 E COOLiNG BOILER
0
03
0
Dl
0
0000
‘NH
UNIT
rc irr I
86,170 gal
D
SETTLING PONDS
85,092 gal
E
SETTLING PONDS
-a
-------
15
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 activity.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
The sampling survey involved a three-phase approach including: (1’)
site evaluation, (2) sample station selection and location, and (3) samp e
• collection. On the basis of the site evaluation, five sampling stations
(one soil and four liquid) were selected {Table 2, Figure 3]. There was no
discharge from the wastewater treatment system during the survey period.
Selections of soil and liquid sampling stations were based on qualitative
judgments as to probable points of contamination or past dumping practices.
Soil and pooled liquid samples from plant grounds were judged to be poten-
tially hazardous. Smaller aliquots were collected from these stations for
safety reasons and to comply with shipping requirements. Laboratory pre-
paration for analysis included special handling procedures which resulted
in compound detection at high concentrations only.
Samples were analyzed for organic compounds with emphasis on priority
pollutants, toxic substances and compounds with readily available stand-
ards. In addition, the soil sample was analyzed for metals and the well
water sample was tested for mutagenicity. A discussion of sample analysis
and detection limits is presented in Appendix A. Photographs were taken of
the sampling stations except the cooling water supply well (Station 01).
Duplicate samples were collected from all stations and supplied to Company
personnel.
All samples were packed in locked ice chests and transported to the
NEIC laboratory in Denver, Colorado. Whenever applicable, EPA approved
-------
16
Table 2
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND SAMPLING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC.
Stationa
Date
Time
Description
01
:
12/14/79
0845
Liquid sample from cooling water well on
south side of Pond B. Well was purged
for 15 minutes at a rate of approximately
60 liters (51 gal)/min) prior to sample
collection.
03
12/11/79
1355
Liquid sample from pooled water in ditch
Ofl :south side of Pond 11, 3.7 m (12 ft)
upstream from railroad tracks.
04
12/11/79
1400
Surface soil sample from between rail-
road track rails 5.2 m (71 ft) north of
the southeast corner of the plant shop.
05
12/11/79
.
1340
Liquidsample fronr pool within diked drum
storage area located adjacent to the east
plant fence just south of settling Pond D.
06
12/11/79
0845
Liquid sample from stagnant pool east of
methoxychlor bay 3, approxim .tely 1.5 m
(5 ft) north of east wall of green fiber-
glass building addition.
a Station 02, wastewater treatment facility effluent, was not sampled as the
Company was not discharging.
-------
17
procedures, as promulgated pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Clean Water
Act, were used in analysis of the samples. New methods or modifications to
existing methods were documented and are retained on permanent file with
other records of this investigation. Throughout the course of the study
(sampling through analysis and reporting), sample and document control for
evidentiary purposes were maintained.
MONITORING RESULTS
The cooling water supply well [ Table 2 and Figure 3, Station 01] was
analyzed for organic compounds, including priority pollutants, and none were
identified. The Ames standard bacterial assay for mutagenicity was also
performed on this sample and no mutagenic activity was detected. A de-
tailed discussion of the mutagen testing procedure for this sample is pre-
sented in Appendix B.
Liquid samples from pools on plant grounds [ Table 2 and Figure 3, Sta-
tions 03, 05, and 06] contained.a total of 13 organic compounds [ Table 3].
Seven of the 13 are priority pollutants (carbon tetrachioride, chloroform,
4,4’-DDE, lindane, methylene chloride, phenol and1,1,1-trichloroethane).
Concentrations ranged from a low of 40 ppb (lindane) to a high of 100,000
ppb (phenol and methylene chloride). Methoxychlor and anisole were identi-
fied in all three samples.
The soil sample (Station 04) contained chiordane (4.4 mg/kg), a prior-
ity pollutant, methoxychior (44,000 mg/kg), and anisole. The sample also
contained 14 metals [ Table 4]. Six of those detected are priority pollu-
tants (cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc) with concentra-
tions ranging from a low of 1.51 mg/kg (cadmium) to a high of 8,990 mg/kg
(copper).
-------
18
Table 3
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LIQUID SAMPLES
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS
• 01 03
Concentrati
• Station
05
06
ons
(ppb)
carbon tetrachloride
Priority Pollutant Compounds
400
• a
chloroform
6,000
400
4,4’-DDE
lindarie (BHC-Gamma)
40
160
methylene chloride
100,000
phenol
• • 80,000
100,000
1,1,1-trichloroethane
.
2,000
anisole
Non-Priority Pollutant CompoundsC
PNQ
PNQ
PNQb
cyclohexane
PNQ
hexane
PNQ
methoxychior
220
550
4,300
tetrahydrofuran
PNQ
2,4,6-trimethyl-1,3,5
trioxane
PNQ
•
a No result means compound not detected.
b PNQ - Present but not quantified.
c Except for methoxychlor, compounds not verified by reference standard.
-------
19
Table 4.
SUMMARY OF METAL ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SOIL
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS
SAMPLE (STATION 04)
Metal
Concentration (mg/kg)a
Limit of Detection (mg/kg)
AgC
N.D.b
0.393
.
Al
28,800
5.31
Ba
.BeC
.
115
N.D.
0.138
0.118
Ca
CdC
CrC
Cuc
22,600
1.51
37.3
8,990
1.57
0.393
1.18
0.393
Fe
9,850
•
2.95
Mg
1,890
3.15
Mn
5,870
•
:
1.18
Mo
N.D.
5.51
Na
NiC
PbC
.
2,020.
46.1
112
.
4.13
5.90
3.74
V
ZnC
8.34
3,070
•
1.18
0.393
a Concentration expressed as wet weight.
b N.D. means not detected.
c Designated as a Priority Pollutant.
-------
20
V. OFFSITE POLLUTANT MOVEMENT
Offsite hazards posed by pollutants from Chemical Formulators are a
function of offsite movement and exposure to the general public and/or the
environment. The avenues of pollutant transport addressed during this re-
connaissance survey include wastewater discharges, surface runoff and
groundwaters.
As previously noted, process wastewater is collected, treated, and
discharged directly to the Kanawha River. Although no effluent samples
were collected, previous data suggest that at leas.t trace amounts of toxic
chemicals, including phenol, would be present in the discharge.’
Storm water runoff provides a pollutant transport avenue from contam-
inated soils and spills on plant grounds to the Kanawha River. Rainfall
averages 114 cm (45 in)/year and is fairly uniformly distributed on a
monthly basis. 2 A drainage ditch sample, collected on December 11, con-
tained high concentrations of the priority pollutants, chloroform and phe-
nol [ Table 3 and Figure 3, Station 03]. On the following day storm water
was observed to be flowing offsite from this ditch. The Company needs to
remove all contaminated soil and spilled chemicals prior to regrading and
paving to reduce the amount of hazardous materials discharged during per-
iods of surface runoff.
The plant site is underlain by the Kanawha River alluvial aquifer.
These unconsolidated deposits are comprised primarily of well-sorted silty
sands with permeabilities on the order of iO to 1O cm/sec 2 ’ 3 . Flat
surface topography promotes rainfall infiltration into the alluvial mate-
rials. This situation enhances leachate formation from waste residues lo-
cated both above and below ground level. Based on sample results, infil-
trating water would contain priority pollutants such as carbon tetrachlo-
ride, chloroform, methylene chloride, phenol, 1,1,1-trichioroethane,
-------
21
4,4-DDE, lindane, chiordane, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and
zinc. Normal groundwaterflow would carry these pollutants west toward the
Kanawba River.
The probable offsite movement of toxic chemicals in the alluvial aqui-
fer constitutes a potential hazard to present and future users of ground-
water in this area. The type, location, and extent of any buried wastes
must be determined prior to extensive site regrading arid paving in case the
need for alternate remedial actions is indicated.
-------
22
VI. TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED POLLUTANTS
Fifteen organic compounds and six priority pollutant metals were iden-
tified in the soil and/or water samples in the Chemical Formulators, Inc.
survey. Toxicity and health effects data compilation procedures are pre-
sented in Appendix C.
Of the 21 compounds and priority pollutant metals detected in the sam-
ples [ Table 5], 11 have demonstrated human health effects, including sys-
temic (affecting the liver or kidneys), pulmonary, gastrointentinal, and
irritation to the skin, eyes, or mucous membranes (carbon tetrachloride,
lindane, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methylene chloride, tetrahydor-
furan, 2,4,6-trimethyl-1,3,5,-trioxane, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc).
Eight of the 21 pollutants detected in samples are reported as animal
carcinogens (carton tetrachloride, DDE, lindane, chlordane, chloroform,
phenol, cadmium, and nickel). Chromium and nickel also cause neoplastic
(the production of tumors not clearly defined as carcinogenic) effects in
laboratory animals. Four of the 21 produce teratogenic effects in labora-
tory animals (chloroform, methoxychlor, cadmium and lead).
-------
Table 5
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC., NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Chemical Other Toxicity
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicitya Route of Type of
— Species Dose
Service No. Entry
Datab
Exposured
Effectse Limits
Dose DurationC
Anisole C 7 H 8 0 100-66-3 Oral-rat LD5O: 3,700 mg/kg
Oral-mouse LD5D: 2,800 mg/kg
Cadmium Cd 744 o_ 43 Inhalation-man TCL0: 88 pg/rn 3 8.6Y Systemic TLV (air): 0.05 mg/m 3
Inhalation-human LCL0: 39 mg/m 3 2OM OSHA std (air):
Intramuscular-rat TDLo: 70 mg/kg Carcinogenic TWA 200 pg/rn 3
Intraperitoneal-mouse TDLo: 2,248 pg/kg 8D Teratogenic Cl 600
(preg)
Oral-rabbit LDL0: 70 mg/kg NIOSH recrn std (air):
Subcutaneous-rabbit LDL0: 6 mg/kg TWA 40 pg/m 3 ;
Intramuscular-hamster LDL0: 25 mg/kg Cl 200 pg/m 3 /15M
Intramuscular-rat TD: 14 mg/kg Carcinogenic
Intramuscular-rat TDLo: 63 mg/kg Equivocal
Tumorigenic
Agent
Unreported-man LDL0: 15 mg/kg
Unreported-rat LD5O: 712 mg/kg
Unreported-mouse LD5O: 636 mg/kg
Intravenous-hamster TDL0: 2 mg/kg 8D Teratogenic
(preg)
Carbon CC1 4 TLM 96: Skin-rabbit 4 mg Mild TLV (air):
Tetrachloride 1O0-1 ppm Irritation 10 ppm (skin)
OSHA std (air):
TWA 10 ppm;
Cl 25; pk 200/5M/4H
Eye-rabbit 2,200 ug 30 sec Mild
Irritation NIOSH recm std
Eye—rabbit 500 mg 24H Severe (air): Cl 2 ppm/6OM
Irritation
Skin-guinea Pig 800 mg 24H Moderate
Irritation
Oral-human LDL0: 43 mg/kg
Oral-woman TDL0: 1,800 mg/kg Systemic
Inhalation-human TCL0: 20 ppm Central
Nervous
System
Oral-woman T0L0: 1,800 mg/kg Pulmonary
System
Oral-man TDL0: 1,700 mg/kg Central
Nervous
System
Inhalation—human •LCL0: 1,000 ppm
Inhalation-human TCL0: 317 ppm 30M Gastrointestinal
Tract
Unreported-man IDL0: 93 mg/kg
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. , NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Name
.
Molecular
Formula
Chemical Other Toxicity
Abstracts Aquatic TOX C1tYa Route of Type of
Dose
Service No. Entry — Species
Datab
Exposured
Effectse Limits
Dose Durationc
Carbon Tetrachloride (cont) Inhalation-rat LCL0: 4,000 ppm 4H
Skin-rat LD5O: 5,070 mg/kg
Intraperitoneal-rat LD5O: 1,500 mg/kg
Subcutaneous-rat TDL0: 133 gm/kg 25W1 Neoplastic
Oral-mouse LD5O: 12,800 mg/kg
Oral-mouse TDL0: 4,800 mg/kg 8801 Carcinogenic
Inhalation-mouse LC5O: 9,526 ppm 8H
Intraperitorteal-mouse L050: 4,675 mg/kg
Subcutaneous-mouse LDLo: 12 gm/kg
Oral-dog LDL0: 1,000 mg/kg
Inhalation-dog LCL0: 14,620 ppm 8H
Intraperitoneal-dog LD5O: 1,500 mg/kg
Intravenous—dog LDLo: 125 mg/kg
Inhalation—cat LCL0: .38,110 ppm 2H
Subcutaneous-cat IDL0: 300 mg/kg
Oral-rabbit 1D50: 6,380 mg/kg
Intraperitoneal—rabbit LDL0: 478 mg/kg
Subcutaneous—rabbit LOL0: 3,000 mg/kg
Intravenous—rabbit LD5O: 5,840 mg/kg
Inhalation-guinea-pig LCL0: 20,000 ppm 2H
Oral-hamster TDL0: 3,680 mg/kg 3OWI Carcinogenic
Inhalation-frog LCL0: 58,000 mg/m3
Inhalation-mammal LCL0: 50,000 ppm 5M
Oral-mouse ID: 8,580 mg/kg 9W 1 Carcinogenic
Chlordane C 10 H 6 C1 8 Oral-human IDL0: 40 mg/kg TLV (air):
Unreported-man LDL0: 118 mg/kg 0.5 mg/rn 3 (skin)
Oral-rat . LD5O: 283 mg/kg
Inhalation-rat LC5O: 100 mg/rn 3 4H OSHA std (air):
Skin-rat LD5O: 700 mg/kg . TWA 500 ig/m 3
Intraperitoneal-rat LD5O: 343 mg/kg (skin)
Oral-mouse 1050: 430 mg/kg
Oral-mouse TDL0: 2,020 mg/kg 8OWC Carcinogenic
Intraperitoneal-mouse LOL0: 240 mg/kg
Intravenous-mouse LD5O: 100 mg/kg
Inhalation-cat LC5O: 100 mg/rn 3 4H
Oral-rabbit LD5O: 100 mg/kg
Skin-rabbit LD5O: 780 mg/kg
Intravenous-rabbit LDL0: 10 mg/kg
Oral-hamster LD5O: 1,720 mg/kg
Oral-chicken LD5O: 220 mg/kg
Oral—mouse ID: 4 mg/kg D Carcinogenic
N.)
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. , NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Name
:
Molecular
Formula
Chemical Other Toxicity
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity tm Route of Type of
— Species Dose
Service No. Entry
Datab
Exposured
Effectse Limits
Dose DurationC
Chloroform CHC1 3
(Tn chloromethane)
TLm 96:
100-10 ppm
Oral—human
Inhalation-human.
Inhalation-human
Unreported-man
Oral-rat
Oral-rat
Inhalati on—rat
Inhalation—rat
Oral—mouse
Oral—mouse
Oral—mouse
Inhalation-mouse
Intraperi toneal -mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Oral-dog
Inhalation-dog
Intraperi toneal—dog
Intravenous—dog
Inhalation-cat
Oral-rabbit
Inhalation-rabbit
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Inhalation-guinea pig
Inhalation—frog
Inhalation-mammal
Oral—rat
Skin—rabbit
Eye-rabbit
Intravenous—rat
Implant—rat
Implant-rabbit
Oral-human
LDLo:
TCLo:
TC Lo:
LDL0:
LD5O:
TDL0:
LCLo:
TCL0:
LD5O:
TDLo:
TDL0:
LC5O:
LD5O:
LD5O:
LDL0:
LC5O:
LD5O:
LDLo:
LC Lo:
LDL0:
LC5O:
LDL0:
LCL0:
LC Lo:
LCLo:
TO:
TDL0:
TDLo:
TOLo:
140
1,000
5,000
546
0O
70
8,000
100
1,120
18
75
28
1,671
704
1,000
100
1,000
75
35,000
500
59
3,000
20,000
6,000
25,000
98
10
mg/kg
mg/m 3
mg/rn 3
mg/kg
mg/kg
gm/kg
ppm
ppm
mg/kg
gm/kg
mg/kg
gm/rn 3
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
gm/rn 3
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/rn 3
mg/kg
gm/rn 3
mg/kg
ppm
mg/rn 3
ppm
mg/kg
rng
148 rng
2 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
75mg/kg
TDL0: 120 pg/kg
1Y Systemic
7M Central
Nervous
Sys tern
78W 1
4H
7H/6- 150
12001
78W 1
4H
2H
5M
78W1
24H
open
TLV (air): 25 ppm
OSHA std (air):
TWA 50 ppm
Neoplastic NIOSH recm std
(air):
Teratogenic Cl 2 pprn/60M
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic
Neoplastic
Mild
Irritation
Irritation
6W1 Neoplastic
LW! Neoplastic
Equi vocal
Tumorigenic
Agent
Gastro-
intestinal
Tract
TLV (air):
0.5 mg/rn 3
OSHA std (air):
TWA 1 mg/rn 3
TLV (air):
0.2 mg/rn 3 (fume)
liv (air): 1mg/rn 3
(dusts, mists)
67-66-3
Chromi urn
Copper
Cr
Cu
7440 - 47 - 3 f
I . ’ )
0 1
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC., NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Name
Molecular
Formula
Chemical Other Toxicity
Abstracts Aquatic 7oxicitya Route of Type of
Service No. Entry — Species Dose
Datab
Exposured
Effectse Limits
Dose DurationC
Cyclohexane C 6 H 12 110-82-7 TLm 96: Eye-human 5 ppm Irritation TLV (air):
100-10 ppm Ski , -rabbit 1,548 mg 2D 1 . Irritation 300 ppm
Oral-human LDL0: 500 mg/kg
Oral-rat LD5O: 29,820 mg/kg OSHA std (air):
Oral-mouse LD5O: 1,297 mg/kg TWA 300 ppm
Oral-rabbit LDLo: 5,500 mg/kg
Intravenous-rabbit LDL0: 77 mg/kg
DDE C 14 H 8 C 1 4 ? 2 S 5 9 Oral—rat LD5O: 880 mg/kg
Oral—mouse LDL0: 200 mg/kg
Oral-mouse TDLo: 28 gm/kg 8OWC Neoplastic
Oral—mouse TO: 17 gm/kg 78WC Carcinogenic
Ethane, 1,1,1- C 2 H 3 C1 3 TLm 96: Inhalation-man LCL0: 27 gm/rn 3 iON TLV (air): 350 ppm
Trichioro- 100-10 ppm Inhalation-man TCLo: 350 ppm Psycho-
(Methyl Chloroform) . trophic OSHA std (air):
Inhalation-human TCLo: 920 ppm 70M Central TWA 350 ppm
Nervous
System NIOSFI recm std
Oral-rat LO50 14,300 mg/kg (air):
Inhalation-rat LCLo: 1,000 ppm Cl 350 pprn/15M
Inhalation—mouse LCLo: 11,000 ppm 2H
Intraperitoneal—mouse LD5O: 4,700 mg/kg
Oral-dog LD5O: 750 mg/kg
Intraperitoneal-dog LD5O: 3,100 mg/kg
Intravenous-dog LDLo: 95 mg/kg
Oral-rabbit LD5O: 5,660 mg/kg
Subcutaneous-rabbit LDLo: 500 mg/kg
Oral-guinea pig LD5O: 9,470 mg/kg
Eye-man .450 ppm 8H Irritation
Skin-rabbit 5 gm 1201 Mild
Irritation
Skin-rabbit 500 mg 24H Moderate
Irritation
Eye-rabbit 100 mg Mild
Irritation
Eye-rabbit 2 mg 24H Severe
Irritation
Hexane C 6 H 14 110-54—3 TLm 96: Eye-human 5 ppm TLV air: 100 ppm
over 1,000 ppm Inhalation—human TCLo: 5,000 ppm iON Central
Nervous
Sys tern
Intraperitoneal—rat LDLo: 9,100 mg/k
Inhalation—mouse LCL0: 120 gm/rn
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC., NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Mace Molecular
Formula
Chemical Other Toxicity
Abstracts Aquatic Route of - Type of
Species
Service No. Entry Dose
Datab
Exposured
Effectse Limits
- C
Dose Duration
Lead Pb 743 g g 2 l Oral—woman TDLo: 450 mg/kg 6Y Central TLV (air):
Nervous 0.15 mg/rn 3
System
Intraperitoneal-rat LDL0: 1,000 mg/kg OSHA std (air):
Intravenous-hamster TDLo: 50 mg/kg 8D TWA 200 pg/rn 3
(preg) NIOSH recm std
(air):
TWA 0.10 mg/c 3
Lindane C 6 H 6 C1 6 5 B 89 9 TLm 9&: Oral—child LDLo: 180 mg/kg TLV (air):
under I ppm Oral-child TDLo: 111 mg/kg Systemic 0.5 mg/rn 3 (skin)
Oral—rat LD5O: 76 mg/kg
Skin-rat LD5O: 500 mg/kg OSHA std (air):
Intraperitoneal-rat LDLo: 35 mg/kg TWA 500 pg/rn 3
Oral-mouse LOSO: 86 mg/kg (skin)
Oral-mouse lOLa: 29 gm/kg 52WC Carcinogenic
Intraperitoneal-mouse LDLo: 75 mg/kg
Oral-dog LD5O: 40 mg/kg
Intravenous—dog LDLo: 8 mg/kg
Oral-rabbit LD5O: 60 mglkg
Skin-rabbit L050: 50 mg/kg
Intravenous-rabbit LDL0: 4,500 u /kg
Oral-guinea pig LD5O: 127 mg/kg
Oral-hamster 1050: 360 mg/kg
Oral-bird, wild LDLo: 100 mg/kg
Intramuscular-bird, LDL0: 26 mg/kg
wild
Methoxychlor C 15 H 15 C1 3 0 2 72-43-5 Oral-human LDLo: 6,430 mg/kg
Skin-human TDLo: 2,414 mg/kg
Oral-rat lOLa: 2,000 mg/kg 6—150 Teratogenic
(preg)
Oral—rat LD5O: 5,000 mg/kg
Oral-rat TOLo: 2,000 mg/kg 6-15D Teratogenic
(preg)
Intrapentoneal-vat LDLo: 500 mg/kg
Oral-mouse 1050: 1,850 mg/kg
Methane, CH 2 C1 2 75-O9-2 TLm 96: Inhalation-human TCLo: 500 ppm 1YX Central TLV (air): 200 ppm
Dichloro- 1,000-100 ppm Nervous
(Methylene Chloride) System OSHA std (air):
Oral-human LOLo: 500 mg/kg TWA 500 ppm;
Inhalation—human TCLo: 500 ppm 8H Blood Cl 1,000;
Oral-rat LD5O: 167 mg/-kg Pk 2,000/5M/2H
Inhalation-rat LC5O: 88,000 mg/rn 3 30M
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. , NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Chemical
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicitya
Service No.
Other Toxicity
Datab
Exposure
c
Effectse Limits
Route of Type of
Entry - Species Dose
Dose Duration
Methylene Inhalation-mouse LC5O: 14,400 ppm 7H NIOSH recm std (air):
Chloride (cont) Intraperitoneal-mouse LD5O: 1,500 mg/kg TWA 75 ppm;
Subcutaneous-mouse LD5O: 6,460 mg/kg PK 500 ppm/15M
Oral—dog LDL0: 3,000 mg/kg
Inhalation-dog LCL0: 20,000 ppm 7H
Intraperitoneal-dog LDL0: 950 mg/kg
Subcutaneous—dog LDL0: 2,70C mg/kg
Intravenous-dog LDL0: 2OO mg/kg
Inhalation-cat LCL0: 43,400 mg/m 3 4.5H
Oral-rabbit LDL0: 1,900 mg/kg
Subcutaneous-rabbit LDL0: 2,700 mg/kg
Inhalation-guinea pig LCL0: 5,000 ppm 2H
Skin-rabbit 810 mg 24H Severe
Irritation
Eye-rabbit 162 mg Moderate
Irritation
Eye-rabbit 10 mg Mild
Irritation
Eye-rabbit TCLo: 17,500 mg/rn 3 iON Irritation
Inhalation-rat TCL0: 500 ppm 6H/2Y Equivocal
Tumorigenic
Agent
Nickel Ni 744 o o 2 o Inhalation-rat TCL0: 15 mg/rn 3 Carcinogenic TLV (air):
Subcut ncous-rat TDLo: 15 mg/kg 6W1 Neoplastic 0.1 mg/rn 3
Intramuscular-rat TDLo: 1,000 mg/kg 17W1 Carcinogenic
Intrapleural-rat TDL0: 1,250 mg/kg 22W1 Neoplastic OSHA std (air):
Parenteral-rat TDL0: 40 mg/kg 56W1 Carcinogenic TWA 1 mg/rn 3
Intratracheal-ràt LDL0: 12 mg/kg (skin)
Implant-rat TOL0: 250 mg/kg Carcinogenic
Intravenous-mouse LDL0: 50 mg/kg NIOSH recrn std
Intramuscular—mouse TDL0: 100 mg/kg Carcinogenic (air):
Intravenous-dog LDL0: 10 mg/kg TWA 15 .ig/m 3
Implant-rabbit TDL0: 165 mg/kg 2Y1 Neoplastic
Oral-guinea pig LDL0: 5 mg/kg
Inhalation—guinea pig TCL0: 15 mg/rn 3 91W-I Carcinogenic
Intramuscular-hamster TDL0: 208 mg/kg 22W Carcinogenic
Intramuscular-rat TD: 58 mg/kg Neoplastic
Subcutaneous-guinea pig LDL0: 500 mg/kg -
Phenol C 6 H 6 0 iO 8 95 2 TLm 96: Skin-rabbit 500 mg 24H Severe TLV (air):
100-10 ppm Irritation 5 ppm (skin)
Skin-rabbit 535 rng open Severe
Irritation
Eye-rabbit 5 mg Severe OSHA std (air):
Irritation TWA 5 ppm
(skin)
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. , NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Name
•
Molecular
Formula
Chemical Other Toxicity
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicity tm Route of - Type of
Species Dose
Service No. Entry
Datab
Exposured
Effectse Limits
Dose DurationC
Phenol (cont)
Oral-human
Oral—rat
Skin-rat
Intraperi toneal-rat
Subcutaneous- rat
Oral—mouse
Ski n—mouse
I ntraperi toneal —mouse
Subcutaneous-mouse
Intravenous - mouse
Oral-dog
Parentera 1-dog
Oral-cat
Subcutaneous-cat
Parenteral—cat
Oral-rabbit
Skin-rabbit
I ntraperi toneal - rabbit
Subcutaneous-rabbit
Intravenous-rabbit
Parenteralrabbi t
Intraperi toneal-gui nea
pig
Subcutaneous—guinea pig
Subcutaneous—frog
Parenteral-frog
Subcutaneous- frog
LDL0:
LD5O:
LD5O:
LD5O:
LDL0:
LD5O:
TDLo:
LD5O:
LD5O:
LD5O:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LD Lo:
LD Lo:
LOL0:
LDLo:
LD5O:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LDL0:
LD Lo:
140 mg/kg
414 mg/kg
669 mg/kg
250 mg/kg
650 mg/kg
300 mg/kg
4,ODO mg/kg
360 mg/kg
344 mg/kg
112 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
2 1 0D0 mg/kg
80 mg/kg
80 mg/kg
500 mg/kg
420 mg/kg
850 mg/kg
620 mg/kg
620 mg/kg
180 mg/kg
300 mg/kg
300 mg/kg
450 mg/kg
75 mg/kg
290 mg/kg
290 mg/kg
2OWI Carcinogenic
NIOSH recm
std (air):
NA 20 mg/rn 3 ;
Cl 60 mg/m 3 /15M
Subcutaneous—mouse
Subcutaneous—f rog
LDL0: 350 mg/kg
LDL0: 100 mg/kg
Tetrahydrofuran C 4 H 8 0
109-99-9
Oral-human
Inhalation-human
Oral-rat
Inhalation-rat
Inhal ation-mouse
Intraperi toneal—gui nea
pig
LDL0: 50 mg/kg
TCL0: 25,000 ppm
LDL0:
LCL0:
LC Lo:
LDL0:
3,000
28,000
24,000
500
mg/kg
mg/rn 3
mg/rn 3
mg/kg
2H
2H
Central
Nervous
System
Sodium phenolate C 6 H 5 0.Na
139- 02-6
TLV (air):
200 ppm
OSHA std (air):
NA 200 ppm
I ” )
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. , NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
Compound Name Molecular
Formula
Chemical Other Toxicity
Abstracts Aquatic Toxicitya Route of Type of
Service No. Entry — Species Dose
Data
Exposured
Effectse Limits
Dose DuratlonC
2,4,6-Trimethyl- C 6 H 12 0 3 123-63-7 Skin-rabbit 500 mg open Mild
1,3,5-trioxane Irritation
(paracetaldehyde) Eye—rabbit 5 mg Severe
Irritation
Oral-human TDL0: 14 mg/kg Psychotropic
Intravenous—human TDL0: 14 mg/kg Psychotropic
Intramuscular-human TDLÔ: 71 mg/kg Psychotropic
Unreported-man LDLo: 1,462 mg/kg
Rectal-human TDLo: 14 mg/kg Psychotropic
Oral—rat LD5D: 1,530 mg/kg
Inhalation-rat LCL0: 2,000 ppm 4H
Intraperitoneal—rat LDL0: 2,100 mg/kg
Subcutaneous—rat LDLo: 1,650 mg/kg
Oral-dog LDSO: 3,500 mg/kg
Oral-rabbit LD5O: 3,304 mg/kg
Skin rabbit LD5O: 14 gm/kg
Zinc Zn 744 O 66 6 Skin-human 300 pg 301 Mild
Irritation
Inhalation-human TCL0: 124 mg/m 3 5DM Pulmonary
System
-------
Table 5 (continued)
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. , NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA
TOXICITY OF COMPOUNDS
a Aquatic Toxicity: TLm 96: 96-hour static or continuous flow standard protocol, in parts per million (ppm)
b Other Toxicity Data: LD5O — lethal dose 50% kill
LCL0 — lowest published lethal concentration
LC5O — lethal concentration 50% kill
LOL0 - lowest published lethal dose
TDL0 - lowest published toxic dose
TCL0 - lowest published toxic concentration
TD - toxic dose
c Duration: M — minute;
H -hour
O -day
W -week
Y -year
C — continuous
I - intermittent
d 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 — ceiling
Pk - peak concentration
e Blood - Blood effects; effect on all blood elements, electrolytes, pH, protein, oxygen carrying or releasing capacity.
Carcinogenic - Carcinogenic effects; producting 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.
Mutagenic — Transmissible changes produced in the offspring.
Neoplastic - 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.
f This chemical has been selected for priority attention as point source water effluent discharge toxic pollutant (NRDC vs Train consent decree)
-J
-------
33
REFERENCES
1. National Enforcement Investigations Center, Feb. 1978. Process
Evaluation and Point Source Inspection at Chemical Formulators,
Inc., Nitro, West Virginia. Denver: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 19 p.
2. Doll, W. L., Wilmoth, B. M., and Whetstone, G. W., 1960. Water
Resources of Kanawha County, West Virginia. West Virginia Geological
and Economic Survey, Bull. 20.
3. Wilmoth, B. M. , 1966. Ground Water in Mason and Putnam Counties,
West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Bull. 32.
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
Steve Sisk, Project Coordinator DATE: February 25, 1980
Concurrence:
FROM : 0. J. Logsdon
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Investigation, Chemical Formulators, Nitro, West Virginia,
Project 609, Organic Priority Pollutant Analytical Results
Four (4) hazardous waste samples and one (1) environmental sample for priority
pollutant extractableorganic analysis were received. Four (4) of the five
samples were analyzed for volatile organic priority pollutants (VOA’s). Four
(4) of the five samples were. analyzed for priority pollutant pesticides, poly-
chlorinated biphenyis (PCB’s) and methoxychlor. The hazardous waste samples
from Stations ,O3-O6. were received December 14, 1979. The environmental sample
from Station O7 a’ ’received December 17, 1979. All of the samples were received
under chain-of—custody procedures. The hazardous waste samples were taken to
the Quail Street regulated laboratory and prepared for analysis. Chemistry and
Biology Branches split the extracts of the environmental sample. The Chemistry
Branch tested the sample extracts for priority pollutants. The Biology Branch
tested the environmental sample extract for mutagencity. Attachment I is a
summary of the samples received by the Chemistry Branch, Organic Characterization
Section.
o’
Attachment II is a compilation of the results of the analysis of the environmental
sample from Station OX’for organic priority pollutant compounds (bases, neutrals,
acids, volatiles). Included in the compilation are the volatile quality control
results for the sample from Station 10 (611) 1/ The average percent recovery
of standard compounds spiked into the sample at concentrations of 50 - 250 ug/l
was 62%. The base/neutral/acid extractable quality control data 1/ was declared
invalid because the aliquots were not removed from the sample in accordance with
acceptable quality control procedures. No priority pollutants were detected in
the environmental sample.
Attachment III tabulates the results of the analysis of the hazardous waste samples
for extractable (bases, neutrals, acids, pesticides) and volatile organic priority
pollutants, PCB’s and methoxychior. Because of the suspected hazardous nature of
these saripies, they were prepared with special handling to detect compounds at
high concentrations only. Minimum detection limits for bases/neutrals/acids
in solid samples were 100-500 ppm, bases/neutrals/acids in liquid samples were
25-100 Illg/l, and VOA’s in liquids were 0.3 mg/i (acrolein, acrylonitrile were
15 mg/i). Nominal detection limits for pesticides and PCB’s in hazardous waste
samples were 25 ugh to 1250 ug/1 for liquids and 100 ug/kg to 5000 ug/kg for
solids. The detection limit for methoxychior in hazardous liquid was 125 ug/l
and in hazardous solid was 500 ug/kg. Few priority pollutants of significant
concentrations were detected at these levels. Chloroform and phenol were detected
at Station 03. l,l,l-trichioroethane, methylenechloride, and phenol at Station
06. Other compounds detected were carbontetrachioride, lindane, and 4,4’-DDE.
1/ QC data for Project 611 was applied to data from Project 609; the samples were
analyzed in the same batch.
-------
A-2
None of the water or soil samples analyzed contained detectable amount of PCB’s.
All of the hazardous liquid samples contained detectable amounts of methoxychior.
The hazardous waste soil contained a significant amount of methoxychlor.
Included in Attachment III are the quality control data for hazardous liquid and
solid samples. The average percent recovery of base/neutral/acidcompounds spiked
into a liquid sample at the detection limit was 68%. 1/ Pesticides were recovered
from spikes of 125 to 1250 ug/l at an average of 90%. 1/ No compounds were detected
in the solid or liquid sample duplicate runs. 1/ The average percent recovery of
bases/neutrals/acids spiked into the solid sample (611—07) 1/ at the detection
limits was 85%. The average percent recovery of standard compounds spiked into
samples analyzed for VOA’s was 87%.
Attachment IV (a,b) lists non—priority pollutant compounds detected in the samples,
but not verified or quantitifed by GC/MS. Methoxychlor was detected in the sample
from Station 04 that was analyzed for bases/neutrals/acids.
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),
624 (volatile organics) and 625 (bases/neutrals/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.
A:
/iohn Logsdcd/
Attachments
1/ QC data for Project 611 was applied to data from Project 609; the saniples were
analyzed in the same batch.
-------
A-3
DETECTION LIMITS AND ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL DATA
-------
FlArE
UI \N1 c fF1 lOll I’FY POL.LU IAN 113
ST/ TIOrJ 10 SEQUENCE 01 DATE TIME
DUPLICATES
— GUf Ll’IY CON INUL Nl.;l-0N1
TAO 1L DESCRZPT1ON r_’( Vt{O (\
SPIV.E
.tNJ cU_—
.
&c
FIII13T SliCCjl40
DIrrErlErICE
LEVEL Z
RECOVCflY
2. ACI 1OLEIN ..
.
2 j 3 /L
3. ACRYLOI’JITRILE (sir) Jl)
2 O
4. L’ENZEIIE Ii( ..
•j j •
. CArlU0NTCTnAClILO: IDE i.V
i /\
5c
7. Cl-ILORDOENZENE
L’A
So
10. 1 2•-D1CHLCROETHANE k)
i\
SO
11. 1 1, 1—TRICHLOROET}1ANE . Lii)
\ t
b 0
13. 1 1-DICHLDROETH(,11E L . ’)
i i ’ ,
5
14. 1, 1, 2—IRICHLOROETHANE ( () .±IL
.
1.. 1 1 2 2—TETF1 CHL02UETHANE .
W\
5
15. CllL0 ?0ETH?’NE .L I)_
19. n—CHLC DETHYLVINYLETHER 1. L
J _
23. C}lL0 0F0Pl1 . . . .h\
L’t\
()
29. 1. 1—D1CHL0 OETll’i’LENE .\)
J. L
30. l 2—TPAIl3—DICHI_OROETHYLENE
32. 1 2-DiCl1L01flGPAl’ E
. 3
icc.
33A. 1 3—TR llS—DICI-IL0F10l’R0PYLENE
W\
!:
33 . CIS-1 3-DICHLOP.OPflOPYLENE
.
33. ETHYLCENZENE
S
44. METHYLENE CHLOI 1IDE
I\
45. METHYL CHLORIDE . ‘ J L
J 1L
.J _
45. METHYL 13R0M IDE
1t\
1 ¼
47. I3ROMOFORM I
t\
E
40. DICHL0I OOR0l IOMETHAl’IE
E
67. TF 1ICHLOROFLUDROMETHANE t
t1l\
..
‘. I)IrFENENCE= 2 * 100 * (SECOND —:r IRsT)/(sEcOr1D + FIRST)
PZCp,’EpED/ EyEL
* QC data for 611 was applied to data from project
analyzed in the same batch.
0
J2 2
ii 2
-i --
C9
Cc
C.
:
‘ 14
( .4
609; the samples were
-------
Fh\N E r:Ip.ST
_____ V CHLO OV IFLU000METHANE _______
CHLOROO DRONC IMETH ArIE ‘
TET RACI1LORO ETHYLENE
TOLUENE H)
______ Tfl I CHLOROETHYLENE )
VINYL CHLORIDE
7. 1)IFFEflENCE 2 * 100 ( ccorID —FIRST)/(SECOIW + FIRST)
7. RECOVERY= 100 * RECOVERED/LEVEL
TMT1UN \O SEQUENCE ______
_____ o.
3 0 .
C
______ 87.
DEl.
UHU, l1C IN LUN A I V IUI..L , AN U AL1 Y LUll I L)L NI. r I_JII •I 13 A
DATE TItlE Y?C TAC DESCRIPTION
DUPLiCATES CIPIV E
Sl CUND 7. DIFFERENCE LEVEL /. P.ECOVERY
___ J J __
5c 54
— -
_i _ _ ____ __ _c __ _____
— . - -- ____ ____-
01
-------
EI’)v ron V’vi v\*C’ ..4 :u IC PR 1UR l’IY PU1.L.U h\NTS — L.)A A HEPUIU - li L. I • IJ
TATIflN _____ SEQUENCE “ DATE _____“‘TIME _____ “ TAO •._____ ‘DESCRIPTION L V iPJV O b . .4.*I0Y 4.
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITSjC ./L : BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS)LM2AL PESTICIDES UNITS _____
ACENAPHTHENE jo,. 56. NITROBENZENE _ . . 09. ALDRIN ______
DENZID INE . 62. N—NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE(A) 10 90. D1ELDRIN ______
1 .2 ,4-T RICHLOROUENZENE 10 63. N—NITROSODI—N—PROPYLAMXNE _ 5 91. CHLO’RDANE _____
‘. }I XAC (1L0ROEtENZENE tO ss. B1S(2—ETHYL}IEXYL)PHTHALATE IC • 92. 4. 4’—DDT
2. ((EXACIILOROETHANE tO 7. I3UTYLDENZYLPHTHALATE 10 93. 4,4 ‘—DDE ______
(3. QJS(2—CHI.OHOE1I’IYL)ETHER tO 68. DI—N—I3UTYLPHTHALATE __LO__ 94. 4. 4 —DDD : —____
‘3, 2-C (ILORLNAPHTHALENE 10 69. DI—N—OCTYLPHTHALATE ‘ 2 . A—ENDOSULFAN—ALPHA ______
5. 1. 2—D!CHL0R0DEI’JZE (” E 0 70. DIETHYLPHTHALATE ‘ 10 B—ENDOSULFAN—DETA _______
25. 1. 3-D1cHLor oi3Er4zErIE _j __ 71. DIMETHYLPHTHALATE ______ 97. ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
:“ . t. 4—DICHLOROEENZENE — 0 72. DENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 10 s. ENDRIN
r o. 3. 3’—DICJ ’ (LONODENZ ID INE lO 73. RENZO(A)PYRENE ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ‘ —
5. 2. 4—DINITrI0T0LU:NE 74. ‘3, 4—DENZOFLUORANTHENE 0 ioo. HEPTACIILDR ______
.15. 2. &—DINITHOTOLUENE. _______ 75. UENZO(V .)FLUORANTHENE 0 101. -IEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
7, 1 . 2-DIl HENlLI’l’(D ,AZ lEE(S) to 76. CHRYSENE _______ 102. A- ’BF (CALPHA _____
;9, FLUflOANTHENE tO 77. ACENAPHTHYLENE _______ 103. C-’CHC-’DETA
;o, 4 -cHLor o NErlyLpHEr (YLETHEn 0 : Al’JTHRACENE , ) 0 — 104. DHCOAN )IA (LINDANE)
Ii. 4—IJ N D:I OFHENYLPHENYLETHE2 ( 0 79. BENID (0. H. I )PERYLENE .j Q_ , 1 05. BHC—DELTA ‘ ______ —
• 2. Dlsc2—CHLER DIEOPRO7YL)ETHER 2 ) 80. FLIJORENE , I D 1OSJPCB—1242
45. D1S(2—CHLOROETIIOXY)METHANE 2 .5 ei. PHENANTHRENE tO 107. PCD—1254
2. IICXACHLDROBUTADIENE tO 62. DIIJENZD(A. H)ANTHRACENE ______ 103. PCB—1221 _____
ss. HEXACHLDrIOCYCLOPENTADIENa 0 83. INDEF.I0(1. 2.3—C. D>PYRENE .50_ 107. PCB—1232
‘ .4 IEtPHORONE “ (0 Si. PYRENE ‘ j , ,Q_ 110. PCI3—1242
55. NAPHTHALENE ( 0 , 111. PC13 1260 _______
112.PCD—1016 ______
113. TOXAIHENE ______
(A) ME AS’JRED AS 1)1 PHENYL.R 111 NE
fl ) MEASURED AS AZOIIEFJENE
-------
t\\Jj ( fl
STATION —_____ SEQUENCE ______
VOLAT ILES UNiTS_, L
.‘. ACROLEIN
3. ACRYLOI’IITRILE
c. DENIENE
6. CA000NTETF1ACHLORIDE
7. CI-ILOFODENIErIE
10. 1. 2—DIC} -!LOROETHANE
11. 1. 1 . 1—TI 1ICHL000ETHANE
13. 1. 1—DICHL.OROETHANE
14. 1 • 1. 2-TR 1CHLOROETIIANE
15. 1 1 2, 2—TETRACHL0 lOETHANE
16. CHL020ETI4ANE
19. 2—CHLCFOETHYLVIF -IYLETHEH
23. CLU2OFONI
29. 1, 1—DICHLOP.OETHYLENE
3-3. 1 • 2—TRANS—DICHL OR OETHYLENE
32. 1 , 2—D1CHLOROPROPAI4E
33A 1 , 3—TRANZ—DICHLOROPr 0PYLEI.IE
330. CIS—1. 3-D1CHL OROPP.OPYLENE
33. EIHYLI3ENZENE
44 IIETHYLENE CHLORIDE
45. METHYL CHLORIDE
46. METHYL ORONIDE
47. DROMOFORM
49. D ICHLOROI300IIOMETMANE
49. li i ICIIL000FLUOP .Gl - IETHANE
ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS — DATA REPORT
DATE _______ _______
10
0
.10
lo
jO
• . •10
TITlE _______ TAG T
I
VOLATILES UNITS _____
50. DICHLORDDIFLU000IIETHANE
51. CHLCJP.ODJ IJROI -TCJNETHANE
23. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
86. TOLUENE
27. TP.ICHL000ETHYLENE
.98. VINYL CHLORIDE
MISCELLANEOUS UNITS
17. DIS(CHLDP.OMETH’iL)ETHER
61.. 1—141 TROSCIDI METI-IYLAMINE
129. 2 3. 7. @ —TETFIACHLORE1DIOEIIZO—,
DICIXAN
I 1 ’;
I 0
ic
i,
_&L ’L_
r i
_2 S
2.o
“10
40
10
10
‘IC)
10
10
0
to
0
0
It)
— --
FAOE 2 OF 2
DESCRIPTION Lc.v i ’: dion 4 1
PHENOLS UNITS
_______ 21. 2. 4. 6—TFUCHLDROPHEN(JL
_______ 22. PARACHLOROMETACRESOL
_______ 24. 2—CHL000PHENOL _______
31. 2. 4—DICHL000PHENOL
34. 2. 4—DIMETH’(LPHENOL
______ 57. 2—N1TF 1OPHENOL ______
59. 4—NITROPHENOL _______
59. 2. 4—DINITROPHENOL
60. 4, 6—DINI1RO-O—CRESOL
_____ 64. PENTACHLOROPI-IENOL
654. PHENOL _______
***$ *** RESUlTS QUALIFIERS ******* -
PNO PRESENT BUT NOT QUANTIFIED.
THE SUO IECT PARAi’IETER WAS PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE our
NO Qtj(C.JTIFJADLE RESULT COULD DE DETERMINED.
FOC FAILED QUALITY CONTROL.
THE ANALYSIS RESULT IS.EITHER NOT PREE 71T OFT NOT
F1ELIADLE OECAUSE THE OC LIMITS HERE EXCEEDED.
l. IAI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERREI ICE.
DECAUSE OF AN UNCcJNTP.OLLI ’ .T3LE INTEP.FERRENCE. THE ANALYSIS
FOR TillS PARAMETER WAS NOT CONDUCTED.
NA NOT ANALY7.ED.
NOT ANALYZED IN THE SAMPLE.
ND NOt DETECTED.
NOT IDENTIFIED OR DETECTED IN THE SAMPLE.
-------
7. I)JFFERENCE 2 * 100 * SECOND — FIRST)/(SECOND + FIRST)
7. RECOVERY= 100 * RECOVERED/LEVEL
STATION
j\Jct — ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS — QUALITY
SEQUENCE DATE J2 T(L1 TIME 2 S TAG $t
VO DUPLICATES
NAME FIRST SECOND 7. DIFFERENCE
CONTROL REPORT
DESCRIPTION
SP1V E
LEVEL 7.
G4JM
. .
,
RECOVERY
,
•
2. ACROLEIN .....—.—-.—
— - —
\
——-.
3. ACRYLONITRILE
\\ U
P \
OccoLt /L
4
4. IIEr4ZEr4E
b
A
( )00O
6. CARI3ONTETRACHLORIDE ) . .\D
c)
t .3A
( j t .
‘ O
7. CHLORODENZENE
D
NA
‘ 10
10. 1,2—DICHLOROETHANE
_
i 1
o000
if)
11. 1 1 1—TR1CHLOROETHANE —____
t’ D
t_
( cO(
13. 1 1—DICHLOROETHANE .D
14. 1, L 2—TRICHLOROETHANE
k D
A
( .oOQ
OC . O
if)
)
.
15. 1, 1 2 2—TETP.ACHLCROETHANE K.
JID
c ’ A.
16. CHLOROETHANE J .
J !
.J k ...
.:.__.
19. 2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
th )
t
( .O )O
1 Q
.
23. CHLOROFORM
( . )
( \
(oc.Oo
.
29. 1 1-DICHLORDETHYLENE
1
.
1
30. 1. 2—TRANS—DICHLOROETHYLENE c
ITh )
P\
eOC)
10
32. 1,2—DICHLOROPROPANE
l li)
2 ’J UO
T ’
33A. 1. 3—TRANS—DICHLOROPROPYLENE
\D
\
( o00
33 13.CIS—1.3—DICHLOROPROPYLENE )
L\\)
J ç
U
33. ETHYLBENZENE D
L j)
U \
( CQO
90
41. METHYLENE CHLORIDE
2_
‘ E 0
i . .
45. METHYL CHLORIDE j .\P\
I
.
.
46. METHYL DROMIDE .
j
I
.
47. OROMOFORM )
k .
‘
(t D C’
48. DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
)
U(\
( r)
.
49. TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHAr4E
I )
I P’
-------
ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS — QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Ctu tiv . fr’U’iit,
DATE ______ TINE 32 .5 TAG — DESCRIPTION _ -1
VO DUPLICATES SPHcE
FIRST SECOND h DI FERENCE LEVEL RECOVERY
1’ ) —
____- _ 2_ _i _ ( oooj l J2 L.
0 ( coo ___
\ S D . _____ I
___ 1 Oc() 95
_____ _J±f ____ ____-
___ —___
______ 1 :1t\ ______
I)IFFENENCE= 2 * 100 * (SECOND — FIRST.)/(SECOND + FIRST)
FECDV iRY= 100 F.UCOVERED/LEVEL
\oz . JVcL e_-
STATION SEQUENCE 0! _____
(A NE
50. DICHLORDDIFLUOROrIETHANE ______
______ 51. CHLORODIDRDr1OMETHANE _____
95. TETRACHLDROETHYLEr .IE _______
S . TOLUENE ______
97. TRICHLOROETHYLENE ______
138. VINYL CHLORIDE ______
MISCELLANEOUS UNITS _____
____ 17. DIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER
1. N—N I TRDSOD I NETHYLAM INE __________
129.2.3.7. 8—TETRACHLORDDIDENZD— (
DIOXAN
‘ 0
-------
‘. I)IFFERENCE 2 * 100 * (SECOND — FIP.Sfl/SECOND + FIRST)
7. RECOVERY= 100 * RECOVERED/LEVEL •
e s VQk’ o a J - u / J 4 4
(l xo(W €s wext c aJiy?x t t& Q X N 4L bCdt ’\
. ¼ -_ct’-
- - - ----
-J
-,---- .-------
I ORGANIC FR IORITY PoLLu-rANrs — QUALITY
STATION O SEOUENCE QJ_ DATE( TIME 1Q O TAG
CONTROL REPORT
DESCRIPTION
DUPLICATES
NAME FIRST SECOND
Y. DIFFERENCE
2 i e. / tht L. / ! c ()t - 3 D
‘
—— -
:
Lfl L&J J VA 1
-—
i P,; dvI Dh * .VX I(L -e -
1 ___
-I
. 2.- ——
:?(iU’U 7 (4 k (j ( () Pl’ )’ L_________
——
-—
.
_
..
.
-- ----
J j 1____ ——
1 d.A.) .I.1
1 - - 1 (uAe- _ —— ——
Y —; A
i’N
—
SPIV E
LEVEL 7. R COVERY
25 IwJ/L’
25 ____
25 ____
•1
25
( D° 1.5
2-53 _____
0
‘9 C)
I 0
I C
C.j
em
0
J 4
c 1
C )
-------
STATION _____ _____
NAME
__ __ __—
.
I 1.4 - C c’ic i:) cJ
IL/ .— T i1C.’L .
.
- \ 7 1\ ((
.
‘!1Th __
.
.
.
.
( .1:.
7 ,14 -- 1. pI U
• (& .CY C C;
—-
— _____
0. . N T
f ?: DDI__.
1) % .•5 .OS. V\
DIFFERENCE
-- ScrC cL
SPIVsE
LEVEL RECOVERY
jc 4
00 ____
i0 ____
cc
‘ CO _______
(CC ______
Co
(00
00 ______
100 _____
C-)
‘3
C;.
2b
I
0
C
-( I
: I)IFFE ENCE 2 * 100 * (SECOND — FIRST)/(SECOND FIRST)
X RECOVERY= 100 * RECOVERED/LEVE . /
& - b toi i . ‘ç /tuir / u&.
* ( 0 C O - [ -Y il pp 1 ct’- (i3 CUe o c± C O1 p\ S v A cjj .v ’ — h i1 M .
ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS — QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
SEQUENCE —_____ DATE TIME \ i& TAG t ______ DESCRIPTION
DUPLICATES
FIRST SECOND Z
____ _____ ____ .j J2 ____
-J
-------
89. ( .CL .
90. C l .C5
91. ______
92. _____
93. 4 .4 ’ —DDE _____
94. 4 .4’—DDD C; 1
95. A—END OSULFANJ—ALPHA
96. B—ENDOSULFAN—I3ETA ______
97. ENDOSULFAN SULFATE ______
98. ENDRIN ______
99. ENDRIN ALDEHYDE I
100. HEPTACHLOR ______
101. HEPTACKLOR EPOXIDE ______
102. A—BHC—ALPHA ______
103. B—I3HC—BETA ______
104. BHC—GAMMA (LI NDANE) . C05
105. 81-IC—DELTA C .c 5
106. PCI3—1242 ______
107. PCI3--1254
108. PCI3—1221 _____
109. PCB—1232 01
110. PCD—1248 Cl
111. PCD—1260 . _____-
112. PC B—1016 _____
113. TOXAPHENE ______
-a
N)
STATION ______ SEQUENCE ______
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS 1 tA .c / 4 ’
1. ACENAPHTHENE
5. BENZIDINE
3. 1.2. 4—TRICHLOROBENZENE
9. HEXACHLOROUENZENE
12. HEXACHLOROETHANE
13. BIS(2—CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
20. 2—CHLORONAPHTHALENE
25. 1. 2—DICHLOROt3ENZENE
25. 1. 3—DICHLOROI3ENZENE
27. 1, 4—DICHLORIJI3ENZENE
26.3 3’ —DICHLOR OBENZIDINE
35. 2. 4—DINITROTOLUENE
36. 2. 6-DINITROTOLUENE
37. 1 . 2--DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE(B)
39. FLUROANTHENE
40. 4-CHLOflOPHENYLPHENYLETHER
41. 4—BR OMOPHENYLPHENYLETHER
42. UIS(2—CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER
43. 131S(2—CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
52. HEXACHLOROI3UTADIENE
53. HEXACHLOP.OC’?CLOPENTADIENE
54. 150P 1-IORONE
55. NAPHTHALENE
ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS — DATA REPORT PACE 1 OF 2
DATE ______ TIME ______ TAG _____ DESCRIPTION L W — 4 .(C - -lGrfl S
BASE/NEUTRALS UNITE3JA 3 /L PESTICIDES UNITS _____
25000 56. NITROBENZENE CCO ALDRIN ______
C)CC(. ) 62. N—NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE(A) S0C( ) DIELDRIN ______
63. N—NITROSODI—N—PROPYLAMINE CHLORDANE ______
Q t’(’C ) 66. BIS(2—ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 2 OOC ’ 4. 4’—DDT ______
2E0cc ) .57. .BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE _______
‘ l oCc 68. DI —N—BUTYLPHTHALATE 5cCO _______
______ 69. DI—N—OCTYLPHTHALATE JC.CCO ______
______ 70. DIETHYLPHTHALATE 2 . .50C0 ______
______ 71. DIP1ETHYLPHTHALATE 0O0 ______
______ 72. BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE ______ ______
L: ) 73. BENZO(A)PYRENE ______ ______
5 cC0 74. 3. 4—I3ENZOFLUORANTHENE ICCCCO ______
CCO 75. BENZ O(Ik)FLUORANTHENE 0C0C ______
______ 76. CHRYSENE ______ ______
_____ 77. ACENAPHTHYLENE OC(X ) ______
50 .:e 78. ANTHRACENE ____ ______
‘ GCC 79. BENZO(G .H . I)PERYL’ENE ! eCCC . ) ____
)‘ f’fl 80 FLUORENE ______ ______
______ 81. PHENANTHRENE
? - CCO 82. DII3ENZO(A.h)ANTHRACENE ______ ______
OC;(O 33. INOENO(1.2.3—C ,D)PYRENE _____ ______
CCCO 84. PYRENE ______
. ‘1. 3CCJO ________
(A) MEASURED AS DIPHENYLAMINE
(B) MEASURED AS AZOBENZENE
-------
STATION ____ ______
2. ACROLEIN
3. ACRYLON ITRILE
4. IIENZENE
6. CAR I3ONTETRACHLORIDE
7. CHLOROBErJZENE
10. 1 , 2—DICHLOROETHANE
11. 1 ,1 , l—TRICHLORDETHANIE
13. 1. l—DICHLOROETHANE
14. 1 ’ 1 , 2—TR1CHLOROETHANE
15. 1 , 1.2. 2—TETRACHLOROETkIAF4E
16. CHLOROETHANE
19. 2—CHLORLETHYLVINYLET-ER
23. CFILDROFORII
29. 1 1—DICHLOROETHYLENE
30. 1, 2—TPANS—D ICHLOROETI-IYLENE
32. 1 , 2—DICHLDROPROPANE
33A. 1, 3-TRANS—DICHLOROPROPYLENE
3313. CIS—1. 3—OICHLOROPP.DPYLENE
38. ETHYLBENZENE
44. NETHYLENE CHLORIDE
45. METHYL CHLORIDE
45. METHYL BROMIDE
47. O.%DMOFORM
48. OICHLOROIIROMOMETHANE
49. TRICHLOROFLUCROMETNANE
c.c
. Co
?c.o
?cxJ
MiSCELLANEOUS UNITS
17. BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER
61. N—NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
129, 2. 3. 7 , 8—TETRACHLOROOIFJENZO—
DIOXAN
PHENOLS UNITS j
21. 2. 4, 6—TRICHLOROPHENOL
22. PARACHLOROMETACRESOL
24. 2—CHLOROPHENOL
31. 2. 4—DICHLOROPHENOL
34. 2, 4—DIMETHYLPHENOL
57. 2—NITRDPHENDL
58. 4—NITROPHENOL
59. 2. 4—OINITROPHENOL
SD. 4 6—DINITRO—O—CRESOL
64. PENTACHLDROPHENOL
65A. PHENOL
coc.
I- , --
k5CtC
95cc;c
25c. 1 cC ’
[ tcc: ‘ C
C C
c:coo
Qsc:co
fLi.tL L ;.
ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANtS — DATA REPORT
— _ _ _ _ SEQUENCE ______ OATE ______ TIME ______ TAG *t ______
VOLATILES UNITS ( H VOLATILES UNITS _____
- I-- )
______ SD. OICHLOROOIFLUORQMETJ-IANE
______ 51. CHLORODIOROMOMETHANE
______ 85. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
______ 86. TOLUENE
______ 07. TR ICHLOROETHYLEME
______ SB. VINYL CHLORIDE
PAGE 2 OF 2
DESCRIPTION & t of t c on
c:cc
: cc
cc.
cc c.
‘CC
: 3 cc;
c :
V ’C
*** **** RESULTS QUALIFIERS *** *** **
PNQ PRESENT DUT NOT QUANTIFIED.
THE SUDUECT PARAMETER WAS PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE DUT
NO QUANTIFIABLE RESULT COULD BE DETERMINED.
FQC FAILED QUALITY CONTROL.
THE ANALYSIS RESULT 19 EITHER NOT PRESENT OR NOT
RELIASLE BECAUSE THE OC LIMITS WERE EXCEEDED.
NAI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERRENCE.
OECAUSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERRENCE. THE ANALYSIS
FOR 1 1 115 PARAMETER WAS NOT CONDUCTED.
NA NOT ANALYZED.
NOT ANALYZED IN THE SAMPLE.
NO NOT DETECTED.
NOT IDENTIFIED OR DETECTED IN THE SAMPLE.
-a
( ‘a
-------
ij1 . .C. k ( A ORCAI4 1C PRIORITY POLLUtANTS — DATA REPORT PACE 1 2
STATION _____ SEQUENCE _____ DATE _____ TIME _____ TAG _____ DESCRIPTION . 11 j irLv k o
IJASE/NEUTRALS UNITS f \l f 0 BASE/NEUTRALS UNITS /k PESTICIDES UNITS 1 U3/ j
1. ACENAPHTHENE 100 56. NITROI3ENZENE _____ 89. ALDRIN C I
5. BENZIDINE 2. .E)O 62. N—NITROSODIPHENYLAI’1INE(A) ICC 90. DIELDRIN ______
0. 1,2.4—TRICHLORO ENZENE CC 63. N—NITROSODI—N—PROPYLAMINE : 5 91. CHL.ORDANE _____
9. JIEXACHLOROBENZENE ISO 66. 13IS(2—ETHVLHEXYL PHTHALATE 1Q20 92. 4.4’—DDT ______
12. HEXACHLOROETHANE CO 67. QUTYLOENZYLPHTHALATE ______ 93. 4 4 ‘—DDE £1
18. DIS(2—CHLO OETHYL)ETHER Cc 68. DI—N—DUTVLPHTHALATE I cC ) 94. 4, 4’—DDD ______
20. 2—CHLORONAPHTHALENE 00 69. DI—N—OCTYLPHTHALATE ______ 95. A—ENDOSULFAN—ALPHA 0.2 ,
25. 1 2-DICHLOROBENZENE iCc ) 70. DIETHYLPHTHALATE ______ 96. B•-ENDOSULFAN—DETA C. 2
26. 1.3—DICHLDROUENZENE CC 71. DIMETHYLPHTHALATE KO 97. ENDOSULFAN SULFATE _____
27. 1 4—DICHLOROBENZENE CC) 72. DENZO(A)ANTHRACENE I CC 98. ENDRIN C.2_ .
28. 3 3’—DICHLORODENZIDINE . ThC 73. QENZO(A)PYRENE 0 99. ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ______
35. 2 4—DINITROTOLUENE ______ 74. 3, 4—BENZOFLUORANTHENE )CO 100. HEPTACHLOR ______
36. 2 ,6—DINITROTOLUENE 2.5c 75. DENZOU )FLUORANTHENE .‘C0 101.HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0 .’
37. 1 2—DIPHENYLH’iDRAZ1NE(2) ( L 76. .CHRYSENE CO 102. A—BHC—ALPHA _____
39. FLUROANTHENE ______ 77. ACENAPHTHYLENE 2.S 103. B—BHC—BETA ______
‘10. 4-CHLOROPHENYLPHENYLETHER ce ANTHRACENE ______ 104. QHC—GAMMA (LINDANE)
‘(1. 4—QROMOPHENYLPHENYLEIf (ER C I3ENZO(G ,H I)PERYLENE ____ 105. I3HC—DELTA ____
42. DIS(2—CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER ______ 80. FLUORENE I O 106. PCI3—1242 ____—
13. BIS(2—CHLOROETHOXY)NETHANE ______ 81. PHENANTHRENE ______ 107. PCB--1254
2. HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE RO 82. DIQENZO(A. H)ANTHRACENE . tC 108. PCB—1221 ______
53. HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE r C ) INDENO(1 2.3—C ,D)PYRENE ____ 109. PCQ—1232 _____
54. ISOPHORONE 400 84. PYRENE CC iio. PCB—1248 _____
35. NI1PHTHALENE It C 111. PCI3—1260 _______-
112. PCD—1016 _____—
113. TOXAPHENE _____—
(A) MEASURED AS DIPHENYLAMINE
(B) MEASURED AS AZOBENZENE
-------
t-k cWdU1L \ ‘ “ ‘ ORCANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS — DATA REPORT
STATION ______ SEQUENCE ______ DATE ______ TIME ______ TAO 4$ ______
VOLATILES UNITS _____ VOLATILES UNITS _____
2. Ac:.R0LEIN ______ DO. OICIIOROOIFLUOROMETHANE
3. ACRYLONITRILE ______ 51. CHLOROOIBROMOMETHANE
4. DEr4ZE I4E _______ 85. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
6. CAR0ONTET1 ACHLORIOE ______ 86. TOLUENE
7. CEILOROBENIENE ______ 87. TR ICHLOROETHYLENE
10. 1 1 2—OICHLOROETHANE _____ SB. VINYL CHLORIDE
11. 1 ,1 . 1—TRICHLOROETHANE
13. 1. I—DICHLOROETHANE — _ _ _ _ _ MISCELLANEOUS UNITS _____
IA. 1 .1. 2—TRICHLOROETHANE ______ 17. D1S(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER
15. 1. 1.2. 2—TETRACHLORDETHANE ______ 61. N—NITROSOOIMETHYLAMINE
16. CHLOROETHANE ______ 129. 2. 3 7 . 8—TETRACHLORODIBENZO—
DIOXAN
19. 2—CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER ______
23. CHLOROFORM _______
29. 1 , 1—DIC HLOROETHYLENE ______ —.— —‘ .
30. 1. 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
32. 12-D1CHLOROPRDPANE _____ . PNO
I . 3-TRANS-DICHLDROPROPYLENE ——
3313. CIS—1.3-OICHLORDPROPYLENE _____ FQC
38. ETHYLBENZENE ______
44. METHYLENE CHLORIDE ______ . N M
45. METHYL CHLORIDE ______
46. METHYL BROMIDE . ______ , NA
47. BRO1IOFORM ______
NO
48. DICHLOROBRDMOMETHANE ______
49. TRICHLDROFLUOROMETHANE ______
PAGE 2 OF 2
DESCRIPTION L-ewqx- La it,o.r). qka-iui-
PHENOLS UNITS
_____ 21. 2.4.6—TRICHLOROPHENOL
______- 22. PARACHLOROMETACRESOL ______
_______ 24. 2—CHLOROPHENOL _____
______ 31. 2.4—OICHLOROPHENOL ______
34. 2. 4—DIMETHYLPHENOL _______
_______ 57. 2—N ITROPHENOL _______
513. 4-NLTRDPHENDL ______
59. 2.4-DINITROPHENOL _____
______ 60. 4. 6-DINITRO—D—CRESOL _______
______ 64. PENTACHLOROPHENOL ______
65A. PHENOL _______
t C C :
u
F OG
C C )
(C C ’
LC C’
2tc ;
jUG
2 _ c L. ’
******** RESULTS QUALIFIERS ********
PRESENT BUT NOT QUANTIFIED.
THE SUBJECT PARAMETER WAS PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE BUT
NO QUANTIFIABLE RESULT COULD BE DETERMINED.
FAILED QUALITY CONTROL.
THE ANALYSiS RESULT 15 EITHER NOT PRESENT OR NOT
RELIABLE BECAUSE THE QC LIMiTS WERE EXCEEDEO.
NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERRENCE.
UECAUSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERRENCE. THE ANALYSIS
FOR THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT CONDUCTEO.
NOT ANALYZED.
NOT ANALYZED IN THE SAMPLE.
NOT OETECTEO.
NOT IDENTIFIED OR DETECTED IN THE SAMPLE.
-J
01
-------
A-i 7
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
8U LDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
TO : John Logsdon DATE: February 25, 1980
Concurrence:
FROM Ed Bour ,/7
LI
SUBJECT: Trace Metals Data for Project 609, Hazardous Waste Investigations, Chemical
Formulator, Nitro, WV
One sediment sample was received by the Chemistry Branch for metals analysis.
Attached are the subject analyses requested, as well as detection limits, and
descriptions of analytical methods and quality control procedures.
Of particular note are the Cu, Mn, and Zn results obtained from the sediment
sample.
Ed Bour
Attachments
cc: Carter
Lowry
-------
A-i 8
1—QUANTITATIVE MEASUREN1ENTS FOR VOLATILES REPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED
FOR ANY CONTAMINATION DETECTED IN THE FIELD BLANK.
2—Yb RECOVERY OUTSIDE THE: RANGE OF C 7 AVERAGE RECOVERY + 2(STD DEV) J.
3—COMPONENT CONCENTRATION EXCEEDED LINEAR DYNAMIC RANGE OF MASS SPEC.
QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT FOR THIS COMPOUND REPRESENTS THE LEAST AMOUNT
OF COMPOUND PRESENT.
4—NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 1 LITER OF WATER
EXTRACTED CONCENTRATED TO 1 MILLILITER (B/N/A/PEST).
5—NOJ1INAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILITERS
OF LIQUID EXTRACTED INTO 50 MIl_LILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
6 —NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OR DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 CRAMS OF
SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED TO 50 MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAn.
7—NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF
WATER, PURGED FOR 12 MINUTES USiNG HELIUM AT 40 ML/MIN (VOA).
-------
/\-19
Analytical Methods
The sample was digested in accordance with the method referenced in Analytical
Chemistry 51, 1082, (1979). The digestion consists of treating the sediment
with HNO 3 , HF, and HC1O 3 acids.
All elements were determined by “Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma—Atomic Emission
Spectroscopy” CAP-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.
All results were reported on a wet weight basis, because the sediment was
labeled as a hazardous waste sample.
Quality Control
A quality control reference standard and a calibration standard were analyzed
and recoveries were found to be within 6% of the true value.
-------
APPENDIX B
MUTAGEN ASSAY METHODS AND RESULTS
-------
B-i
CHEMICAL FORMULATORS
Summary and Conclusions
The Ames Test for mutagenesis did not demonstrate mutageriic activity in
the one wellwater sample collected at Station 01 from Chemical Formulators,
Inc.
-------
8-2
Survey Findings
Analyses fo mutagenicity was performed on one ?composite sample•
collected from the well located on the south side of cooling water pond
B (Station 01) on the Chemical. Formulators, Inc. property.
The standard bacterial assay for mutagenicity was performed on
liquid sample concentrates using the plate incorporation method, as
described by Ames, et a1 1 . 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 niutagenic substance. Mutagenic
activity based upon use of bacteria as indicator organisms correlates
closely ( 90% probability) with inducement of cancer in laboratory
animals by organic compounds ,2,3,4,5,6,7
Acidic and basic sample extracts were pre—screened for mutagenic
activity using five standard Salmonella tester strains: TA ‘98, TA 100,
TA 1535, TA ‘1537, and TA 1538. Samples were first tested individually.
if they showed negative mutagenicity, they were then subjected to
metabolic activation by adding rat liver homogenate (5-9 mix)
[ Appendix ].
The mutagenicity test did not demonstrate niutagenic activity in the
sample collected at Station 01. The inability to detect mutagenic
activity in the sample 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, i.e., the Salmonella test does not detect
some of the important chlorinated carcinogens such as chloroform, carbon
tetrachioride and Fiexachlorobenzene. The concentration technique
employed eliminates the volatile alkyl halides. Data for test results
that did not exhibit elevated reversion rates (negative niutagenic
activity) are not presented in this report.
-------
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 dichioromethane, respectively.
Emulsions were removed by centrifugation (2-5 mm 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 1000 ml 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 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 procedures. 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: 1) 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 arc not detected, i.e., chloro-
form hexachiorObensene , etc.
The acid extract from this. sample was accidentally destroyed after
extraction. The Procedure was repeated; however, only 1640 ml
of sazn le was available. The sample was extracted with only 200
ml total volume of dichloromethane. Acetone was exchanged with
14.35 ml of DMSO.
-------
.B-4
Bacterial Mütagenicity Assay
The Standard Ames Salmonella/mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay
was performed using the agar-plate incorporation procedure as described
by Ames, etal’. Sample extracts were screened with Salmonella typhiniurium
test strains TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535, TA 1537, and TA 1538, first
individually and then in the presence of rat liver homogenates (S—9 mix).
Quality Control
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 DM50 sample was tested to ensure that
this material did not interfere with test results. These quality
control procedures were repeated several times during the study.
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 resista ice,
crystal violet sensitivity, ultra-violet light sensitivity, and histidine
requirement. Spontaneous reversion rates were tested with each sample
series.
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-5
REFERENCES
1. Ames, B.N. , McCann, J. , and Yaniansaki, E. , Methods for Detecting
Carcinogens and Mutagens with the Salmonella/Mammalian - Microsome
Nutagenicity Test. Mutation Research , 31 (1975) 347-364.
2. Commoner, B. , Chemical Carcinogens, in the Environment, Presentation
at the First Chemical Congress of the North Fm erican Continent,
Mexico City, Mexico, Dec. 1975.
3. Commoner, B. , Development of Methodology, Based on Bacterial
Mutagenesis and Hyperfine Labelling, For, the Rapid Detection and
Identification of Synthetic Organic Carcinogens in Environmental
Samples, Research Proposal Submitted to.N ational Science Foundation,
February, 1976.
4. Commoner, B., Henry, J.I. , Gold, J.C. , Reading, M.J. , Vithayathil,
A.J. , “ Reliability of Bacterial Mutagenesis Techniques to Distinguish
Carci nogenic and Noncarci nogenic Cheii i cals, ” EPA-600/1-76-O11,
Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. (April 1976).
5. McCann, 3., Ames, B.N. , Detection of Carcinogens as Mutagens,
in the Salmonella/Microsome Test: Assay of’ 300 Chemicals, Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci., 73 (1976) 950-954.
6. Purchase, I.F.H. , et. al. , An Evaluation of 6 Short-Term Tests
for Detecting Organic Chemical Carcinogens. British Journal of
Cancer , 37,(1978) 873-902.
7. Sugimura, T. , et. al. , Overlapping of Carcinogens and Mutagens,
In Mcgee P.M. , S. Takayama, T. Sugimura, and T. Matsushima, eds.
Fundamentals in Cancer Prevention, Univ. Park Press, Baltimore, Nd.
pp. 191-215, 1976. -
-------
APPENDIX C
TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS DATA COMPILATION PROCEDURE
-------
C-’
TOXICITY AND HEALTH EFFECTS DATA COMPILATION
In order to obtain toxicity and health effects data for the 15 organic
compounds and six priority pollutant metals, the Registry of Toxic Effects
of Chemical Substances (RTECS),, an annual compilation prepared by the Na-
tional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, was searched.
RTECS contains toxicity data for approximately 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.
Substances whose principal toxic effect is from chronic exposure are not
presently emphasized. Toxicity information on each chemicalsubstance is
compiled from published medical, biological, engineering, chemical and
trade information on data.
The Toxline data base, a computerized bibiographic retrieval system
for toxicology, containing 683,310 records taken from material published in
primary journals, was also searched for the 21 pollutants. It is part of
the MEDLINE file from the National Libraryof Medicine and is composed of
10 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.)
2. Toxicity Bibliography, 1968 - (A subset of Medline)
3. Pesticides Abstracts, 1966 - (Compiled by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and formerly known as Health Aspects of Pesti-
cides Abstracts Bulletin)
4. International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, 1970 - (Product of the
American Society of Hospital Pharmacists)
-------
C-2
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 tera-
tology)
10. Environmental Teratology Information Center File, 1950 - (From
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee)
11. Toxicology/Epidemiology Research. Projects, October 1978 - (Pro-
jects selected from the Smithsonian Science Information Ex-
change - SSIE data base)
The RTECS search yielded toxicity data on all 21 compounds and metals.
The TOXLINE search yielded over 1,000 citations documenting health effects
from these pollutants and provided support to the toxicity data frdm RTECS.
Eight of the 15 organic compounds are listed as priority pollutants (carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, DDE, lindane, methylene chloride, phenol, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and chlordane).
------- |