UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Brightsmith Coil Coaters
Morrisville, PA
EPA ID NO. PAD073739005
Prepared by
RCRA Corrective Action Branch 2
Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division
September, 2022
-------
I. PURPOSE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this Final Decision
and Response to Comments (FDRTC) selecting the Final Remedy for the Brightsmith
Coil Coaters facility located in Morrisville, PA (hereinafter referred to as the Facility).
The FDRTC is issued pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, et seq.
On August 18, 2022, EPA issued a Statement of Basis (SB) in which it described the
information gathered during environmental investigations at the Facility and proposed a
Final Remedy for the Facility. Consistent with the public participation provisions under
RCRA, EPA solicited public comment for 30 days on its proposed Final Remedy. The
SB is hereby incorporated into this FDRTC by reference and made a part hereof as
Attachment A.
EPA did not receive any comments on the SB and has selected the proposed remedy set
forth in the SB as the Final Remedy.
II. FINAL REMEDY
1. Soil
EPA's remedy for Facility soil consists of the following land use restrictions:
a. The Facility shall not be used for residential purposes unless it is
demonstrated to EPA that such use will not pose a threat to human health
or the environment or adversely affect or interfere with the Final
Remedy and EPA provides prewritten approval for such use.
b. All earth moving activities at the Facility, including excavation, drilling
and construction activities, shall be conducted in a manner such that the
activity will not pose a threat to human health and the environment or
adversely affect or interfere with the Final Remedy.
2. Groundwater
EPA's remedy for Facility groundwater consists of the following:
a. Natural Attenuation to achieve National Primary Drinking Water
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), promulgated pursuant to Section
42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq. of the Safe Drinking Water Act and codified at
40 CFR Part 141, for toluene and arsenic in groundwater within a
reasonable timeframe.
2
-------
b. The following groundwater use restrictions shall remain in place until
MCLs are achieved:
1. Groundwater at the Facility shall not be used for any purpose other
than the operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities required
by EPA, unless it is demonstrated to EPA that such use will not
pose a threat to human health or the environment or adversely
affect or interfere with the final remedy and EPA provides prior
written approval for such use.
2. No new wells shall be installed on Facility property unless it is
demonstrated to EPA that such wells are necessary to implement
the Final Remedy and EPA provides prior written approval to
install such wells.
The land and groundwater use restrictions necessary to prevent human exposure to
contaminants at the Facility will be implemented through enforceable ICs such as an order
and/or an Environmental Covenant pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act, 27 Pa. C.S. Sections 6501-6517 (UECA) to be recorded with the deed for
the Facility property. If EPA determines that additional monitoring activities, institutional
controls, or other corrective actions are necessary to protect human health or the
environment, EPA has the authority to require and enforce such additional corrective
actions through an enforceable mechanism which may include an order or Environmental
Covenant, provided any necessary public participation requirements are met. If any
individual with an interest in the Facility property believes that information shows that any
use restrictions in this proposed and later selected by EPA is no longer necessary to
protect public health and the environment, the individual may submit such information to
EPA for consideration. EPA can change any such restriction if it determines it is no
longer necessary, after any required public comment period.
III. DECLARATION
Based on the Administrative Record compiled for the Corrective Action at the
Brightsmith Coil Coaters facility, EPA has determined that the Final Remedy selected in
this Final Decision and Response to Comments is protective of human health and the
environment.
DANA
Digitally signed by
DANA AUNKST
Date: 2022.09.27
A I IMI/CT Date: 2022.09.2/
AUNKST in-! 357-04W 09/27/2022
Dana Aunkst, Director Date
Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division
U.S. EPA Region HI
3
-------
Attachment A: Statement of Basis for Brightsmith Coil Coaters (August, 2022)
4
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
STATEMENT OF BASIS
Brightsmith Coil Coalers (Formerly MSC Engineering)
Morrisville, PA
EPA ID: PAD073739005
Prepared by
RCRA Corrective Action Branch 2
Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division
July 2022
-------
Section 1: Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared this Statement of Basis
(SB) to solicit public comment on its proposed remedy for groundwater and soils at the
Brightsmith Coil Coaters Facility located at 120 Enterprise Ave, Morrisville, PA (Facility).
EPA's proposed remedy for groundwater and soils at the Facility consists of Natural Attenuation
for groundwater and implementing both land and groundwater use controls through an
Environmental Covenant (EC) to control exposure to contaminated groundwater and soil. This
SB highlights key information relied upon by EPA in making its proposed remedy.
This SB does not address sediment contamination in the unnamed tributary of Biles Creek. EPA
will issue a separate SB proposing a remedy to address Facility-related sediment contamination
in the unnamed tributary of Biles Creek after investigations are completed.
The Facility is subject to the Corrective Action Program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq. The Corrective
Action program requires that owners or operators of facilities subject to certain provisions of
RCRA investigate and address releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents, usually
in the form of soil or groundwater contamination, that have occurred at or from their properties.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not authorized for the Corrective Action Program under
Section 3006 of RCRA. Therefore, EPA retains primary authority in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for the Corrective Action Program.
EPA is providing a thirty (30)-day public comment on EPA's proposed remedy for the Facility.
EPA may modify its proposed remedy based on comments received during this period. EPA will
evaluate comments received and select a final remedy in a Final Decision and Response to
Comments (Final Decision) after the public comment period has ended. Information on the
Corrective Action Program as well as a fact sheet for the Facility can be found by navigating to
https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveactionsites/hazardous-waste-cleanup-brightsmith-coil-coaters-
formerly-msc-engineered.
EPA has compiled an administrative record (AR) containing all documents, including data and
quality assurance information, upon which EPA's proposed remedy is based. See Section 8,
Public Participation, below, for information on how you may review the Administrative Record.
Section 2: Facility Background
The Facility is situated on appropriately 8.25 acres of land located 2.5 miles south of Morrisville,
PA within Falls Township, Bucks County. The Facility is located within an industrial complex
surrounded by developed properties.
The Facility has operated as a metal coil coating facility since 1973, though site use prior to then
is unknown. In 1973, Prior Coated Metals began operations at the Facility. From sometime in
-------
1983 to 1998, the Facility was owned and operated by Pre Finish Metals. MSC Engineered
Materials and Solutions Group (MSC) (also known as MSC Pre Finish Metals Products
company) purchased the Facility in 1998 and operated until it was purchased by Brightsmith Coil
Coaters in 2008.
Metal coil coating operations took place within the processing plant building and adjoining paint
storage building. Pretreatment of the metal coils consists of an alkaline wash and a chemical
coating to prevent corrosion and to allow the adhesion of paint. A wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) that receives wastewater generated through the pretreatment of the metal coils and any
overflows or leaks from pretreatment is located within the processing plant building. The treated
effluent is discharged into an unnamed tributary of Biles Creek and is regulated by National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. PA0045021.
Between 1973 and 1984, Prior Coated Metals used multiple storage tanks. During the change of
ownership to Pre Finish Metals in 1983-1984, these tanks were reportedly closed. The sand filter
tank was utilized by Prior Coated Metals as part of its waste treatment process. Wastewater was
pumped into the tank and percolated through sand to the bottom, where solids collected and were
periodically removed by an outside contractor. Between 1983-1984, the sand filter tank was
reportedly cleaned and all wastes removed, and the tank was permanently closed, filled, and
graded. An underground waste paint sludge tank was also utilized by Prior Coated Metals until
it was reportedly closed in 1984. The contents of these tanks were reportedly removed and
cleaned; the tank was later removed and the area graded. The former operators of the Facility
property used a water treatment settling lagoon located just north of the WWTP. The lagoon was
reportedly closed in 1983 prior to the transfer of ownership to Pre Finish Metals. There is no
information regarding whether this area was lined or unlined. Three ASTs were installed on the
Facility's property between 1987-1990 and are still currently used for waste paint, virgin paint,
and cleaning solvent.
Section 3: Summary of Environmental Investigations
In 1989 Pre Finish Metals conducted a Preliminary Assessment of the Facility which consisted of
geologic, hydrogeologic, demographic, and environmental surveys. It was noted in the
Preliminary Assessment report that during the time of ownership change in 1984, six
groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled; elevated levels of chromium, lead,
and zinc were detected. No remedial action took place at that time.
The Bucks County Health Department (BCHD) conducted multiple inspections between 1977
and 1993 and found discharges coming from the WWTP into the unnamed tributary of Biles
Creek where the outfall is located. Multiple inspection events during this timeframe included
grab samples of the effluent and were found to exceed the NPDES permit limits for suspended
solids, total aluminum, total chromium, and/or total iron. In 1977, a BCHD inspection found
effluent that appeared to be causing obvious pollution to the water of the unnamed tributary, as
noted by the visible white colored water for several hundred feet downstream. No remediation
took place. In 1980, BCHD found approximately 1,000 gallons of untreated chromium wastes
had been discharged into the unnamed tributary due to a mechanical failure. Prior Coated Metals
-------
reported that it hired a contractor to contain the spill in the tributary and remove the
contamination and deposit it into the water treatment settling lagoon. There is no known
previous sediment or soil sampling at the Facility.
In 2019, Brightsmith Coil Coaters reported a spill of a RCRA regulated non-halogenated waste
solvent drum that was located in the 90-day hazardous waste storage area at the Facility. Soil
immediately adjacent to the northern side of the storage area was affected and subsequently
excavated by Brightsmith Coil Coaters. Post excavation samples found concentrations of
ethylbenzene and toluene above Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's
(PADEP) Non-Residential Statewide Health Standards (SHSs). Brightsmith Coil Coaters then
further investigated and delineated the extent of contamination in 2020; an additional excavation
event took place in April 2020 after which confirmatory soil samples confirmed that
contamination was either not detected or was present at concentrations significantly below
Residential Direct Contact Soil Medium Specific Concentrations (MSCs). PADEP oversaw the
response, investigation, and remediation of the spill and determined that Act 2 cleanup standards
for toluene and ethylbenzene for soil had been attained.
In 2021, EPA requested that Brightsmith Coil Coaters investigate Facility soil and groundwater
as a confirmatory measure to establish the absence of contamination or a plume onsite. The
Brightsmith Coil Coaters contracted INTEX Environmental Group, Inc. (INTEX) to conduct
further investigation of contamination at the Facility. In December 2021 and January 2022,
INTEX obtained and analyzed soil, groundwater, and sediment samples from the Facility for
volatile organics compounds (VOCs), metals, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium.
A total of 14 soil boreholes were sampled throughout the Facility property focusing on areas
where potential releases may have occurred based on the known history of the Facility. These
areas included:
1. Former underground storage tanks (USTs) including an 8,000-gallon paint sludge
storage tank, and 8,000-gallon steel VT3 that stored toluene, acetone, and
isopropanol;
2. Former sand filter tank;
3. Railroad tracks, and
4. Former water treatment settling lagoon.
In addition, samples obtained by the railroad tracks were also analyzed for pesticides and
herbicides. This investigation found that both surface and subsurface soil exceeded EPA
Industrial Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for hexavalent chromium and heavy metals in the
areas of the former USTs, sand filter tank, and water treatment settling lagoon (Table 1). EPA's
RSLs are based on a 10"6 risk level which corresponds to the upper-end of EPA's acceptable risk
range of 10"4 to 10"6 (40 CFR 300.430), therefore these RSLs are conservative in regards to
human health exposure risk.
Groundwater was sampled in 7 monitoring wells, including one downgradient of the potential
contamination sources (Figure 1). Only one well (MW-8), located near the former UST/sand
filter tank/water treatment settling lagoon area, had slight exeeedances of EPA's National
Primary Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), promulgated pursuant to
-------
Section 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq. of the Safe Drinking Water Act and codified at 40 CFR Part
141, for arsenic and toluene (Table 2). It is suspected that MW-8 has the highest contamination
given the location on the Facility property and the historic use in that area. Data from this well
indicates that there is no longer a source or sitewide contamination. Further, the absence of
contamination downgradient indicates that contamination is localized to the area of the well.
Given the data, EPA anticipates that natural attenuation processes are inhibiting mobility of
contaminants and resulting in contaminant degradation.
Toluene was also evaluated for potential Vapor Intrusion (VI) concern. EPA has determined VI
is not to be a risk factor (Residential exposure Target Groundwater Concentration is 3mg/L while
sample concentration is 2mg/L) (Attachment 1) at the Facility.
Section 4: Corrective Action Objectives
EPA's Corrective Action Objectives (CAOs) for the specific environmental media at the Facility
are as follows:
1. Soil
Hexavalent chromium and arsenic remain in soil at the Facility at levels that exceed applicable
industrial RSLs, however the concentrations of both contaminants in soil are within EPA's
acceptable risk range of 10"4 to 10"6 (40 CFR 300.430). There is limited exposure potential to
soil at the Facility as current operations are conducted inside the buildings. Therefore, the CAO
for soil is to prevent future residential exposure to contaminated soil.
2. Groundwater
EPA expects final remedies to return usable groundwater to its maximum beneficial use within a
timeframe that is reasonable given the circumstances of the proj ect. For proj ects where aquifers are
either currently used for water supply or have the potential to be used for water supply, EPA will use
MCLs as the corrective action objective for groundwater and control exposure to the hazardous
constituents remaining in the groundwater until applicable MCLs are achieved throughout the
area of contaminated groundwater and demonstrated by groundwater monitoring results.
Therefore, the CAO for groundwater is to achieve MCLs and prevent onsite use and exposure to
contaminated groundwater until applicable MCLs are attained.
Section 5: Proposed Remedy
EPA's proposed remedy is as follows:
1. Soil
EPA's proposed remedy for Facility soil consists of the following land use restrictions:
a. The Facility shall not be used for residential purposes unless it is demonstrated to
EPA that such use will not pose a threat to human health or the environment or
-------
adversely affect or interfere with the selected remedy and EPA provides
prewritten approval for such use and
b. All earth moving activities at the Facility, including excavation, drilling and
construction activities, shall be conducted in a manner such that the activity will
not pose a threat to human health and the environment or adversely affect or
interfere with the Final Remedy.
2. Groundwater
EPA's proposed remedy for Facility groundwater consists of the following:
a. Natural Attenuation to achieve MCLs for toluene and arsenic in groundwater
within a reasonable timeframe.
b. The following groundwater use restrictions shall remain in place until MCLs are
achieved:
1. Groundwater at the Facility shall not be used for any purpose other than
the operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities required by EPA,
unless it is demonstrated to EPA that such use will not pose a threat to
human health or the environment or adversely affect or interfere with the
final remedy and EPA provides prior written approval for such use and
2. No new wells shall be installed on Facility property unless it is
demonstrated to EPA that such wells are necessary to implement the final
remedy and EPA provides prior written approval to install such wells.
The land and groundwater use restrictions necessary to prevent human exposure to contaminants
at the Facility will be implemented through enforceable ICs such as an order and/or an
Environmental Covenant pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental Covenants Act, 27
Pa. C.S. Sections 6501-6517 (UECA) to be recorded with the deed for the Facility property. If
EPA determines that additional monitoring activities, institutional controls, or other corrective
actions are necessary to protect human health or the environment, EPA has the authority to
require and enforce such additional corrective actions through an enforceable mechanism which
may include an order or Environmental Covenant, provided any necessary public participation
requirements are met. If any individual with an interest in the Facility property believes that
information shows that any use restrictions in this proposed and later selected by EPA is no
longer necessary to protect public health and the environment, the individual may submit such
information to EPA for consideration. EPA can change any such restriction if it determines it is
no longer necessary, after any required public comment period.
Section 6: Evaluation of Proposed Remedy
This section provides a description of the criteria EPA used to evaluate the proposed remedy
consistent with EPA guidance. The criteria are applied in two phases. In the first phase, EPA
-------
evaluates three decision threshold criteria as general goals. In the second phase, for those
remedies which meet the threshold criteria, EPA then evaluates seven balancing criteria.
Threshold Criteria
Evaluation
1) Protect human
health and the
environment
Human health and environmental exposure for soil and groundwater
will be protected through restrictions of potable groundwater use and
residential use of the Facility.
2) Achieve media
cleanup objectives
The proposed remedies meet the media cleanup objectives based on
assumptions regarding current and reasonably anticipated land and
water resource use(s). The proposed use restrictions at the site will
eliminate future unacceptable exposures to soil, and groundwater
until applicable MCLs are attained.
3) Remediating the
Source of Releases
In all proposed remedies, EPA seeks to eliminate or reduce further
releases of hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents that may
pose a threat to human health and the environment. Based on the
historical information known about the Facility, the sources of
contamination to groundwater and soil have been removed from the
site.
Balancing Criteria
Evaluation
1) Long-term
effectiveness
The long-term effectiveness of the proposed remedy will be
maintained by the existence of an EC on the property for soil, and an
EC for groundwater until MCLs are attained.
2) Reduction of
toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the
Hazardous
Constituents
Soil contaminant levels were determined to not be a greater than
acceptable risk to human health and environment and exposure will
be controlled through restrictions in an EC. Groundwater
contaminant levels are anticipated to achieve MCLs through Natural
Attenuation; groundwater use will be restricted to prevent exposure
until applicable MCLs are attained.
3) Short-term
effectiveness
EPA"s proposed remedy for soil and groundwater does not involve
activities that would pose a short-term risk to human health or
environment.
4) Implementability
The remedy is readily implementable at the Facility. The proposed
remedy includes implementation of use restrictions through the
enforceable mechanism of an EC.
5) Cost
The remedy for soil and groundwater requires an EC, therefore costs
will not exceed the threshold for which financial assurance is
required.
6) Community
Acceptance
EPA will evaluate community acceptance based on comments
received during the public comment period, and will address any
comments in the Final Decision.
7) State/Support
Agency Acceptance
EPA will determine PADEP's acceptance of the proposed remedy
during the public comment period, and any comments will be
addressed in the Final Decision and Response to Comments.
-------
Overall, based on the evaluation criteria, EPA has determined the proposed remedy meets
the threshold criteria and provides the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the evaluation
criteria.
Section 7: Financial Assurance
EPA has evaluated whether financial assurance for corrective action is necessary to implement
EPA's proposed remedy at the Facility. Given that EPA's proposed remedy does not require any
further construction of engineering actions to remediate soil or groundwater and given that the
costs of implementing institutional controls at the Facility will be minimal, EPA is proposing
that no financial assurance be required.
Section 8: Public Participation
The public may participate in the remedy selection process by reviewing this SB and
documents contained in the AR for the Facility and providing comments. The AR contains all
information considered by EPA when proposing this remedy. The AR documents are available
for public review at the location below:
U.S. EPA Region III
4 Penn Center (3LD20)
1600 JFK Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Contact: Kristin Koroncai
Phone: 215-814-2711
Fax: (215)814-3113
Email: Koroncai.kristin@epa.gov
The public comment period will last thirty (30) calendar days from the date that the
notice is published in a local newspaper. You may submit comments by mail, fax, or e-mail to
Kristin Koroncai. EPA will hold a public meeting to discuss this proposed remedy upon request.
If you would like to request a public meeting, please contact Kristin Koroncai.
EPA will respond to all relevant comments received during the comment period. If EPA
determines that new information warrants a modification to the proposed remedy, EPA will
modify the proposed remedy or select an alternative based on the new information and/or public
comments. In the Final Decision, EPA will announce the selection of its final remedy, respond to
all relevant comments received, and explain the rationale for any changes to the proposed
remedy. All persons who comment on this proposed remedy will receive a copy of the Final
Decision. Others may obtain a copy by contacting Kristin Koroncai at the address listed above.
The Final Decision will also be made publicly available on EPA's website for the Facility.
-------
Section 9: Signature
j—\ A M A Digitally signed
UMINM by DANA AUNKST
A I I M l/CT Date: 2022.08.09
AUINIrxbl 11:57:51 -04W
Date:
Dana Aunkst, Director
Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division
US EPA, Region III
-------
Section 10: Index to the Administrative Record
2022, March 2. Environmental Indicator Investigation Report. INTEX Environmental Group,
Inc.
2021, October 6. Workplan Report. INTEX Environmental Group, Inc.
2021, August 26. Groundwater Sampling Summary Report. INTEX Environmental Group, Inc.
2020, September 25. Act 2 approval letter. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection.
2020, June 22. Remedial Action Completion Report: Brightsmith Coaters Soil Remediation.
INTEX Environmental Group, Inc.
2007, January. Environmental Indicator Inspection Report. URS.
1989, August 14. Environmental Priorities Initiative: Preliminary Assessment of Prior Coated
Metals, Incorporated. NUS Corporation.
-------
Table 1. Summary of exceedances in soil from 2021 sampling investigation (INTEX, 2022).
B-l
B-2
B-3
B-3
B-4
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-ll
Industrial
(7.0-
(0.6-
(0.6-
(7.0-
(3.5-
(7.5-
(3.0-
(11.0-
(7.5-
(2.0-
RSL (mg/kg)
7.5)
1.0)
1.0)
7.5)
4.0)
8)
3.5)
11.5)
8.0)
2.5)
Arsenic, total
3
3.24
3.89
3.78
3.76
3.77
4.06
4.05
3.34
3.41
6.06
Hexavalent
Chromium
6.3
72.4
ND
129
-
113
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.556
Table 2. Summary of exceedances in groundwater from 2021 sampling investigation (INTEX,
2022).
EPA MCL Drinking
water (mg/L)
MW-8
Toluene
1
2
Arsenic, Total
0.01
0.01466
-------
Figure 1. Facility aerial showing groundwater monitoring well locations from 2021 investigation.
lMW-4
Brightsmith
52® Wtorr&wllte, PA
INTEX
Environmental Group, Inc
33 Appletree Ln
Pipersville, PA 18947
Monitoring Well Locations
215-766-7230
filX 215-766-9730
info@intexenv.com
Drawn by:
RC
-------
Figure 2. Facility aerial showing soil sampling locations from 2021 investigation. The area identified as "SWMU #2, # 7. #8" is where
the USTs and sand filter tank were formerly located. The area identified as "SWMU #12" is where the water treatment settling lagoon
was formerly located.
SWMU #12
SWMU #2
SWMU #7
SWMU #8
December 8. 2021 Soil Sampling
Environmental Group,
Inc
33 Appletree Ln
Pipersville. PA 18947
Bnghtsmith
120 Enterprise Ave. Mornsville, PA
215-766-7230
fax 215-766-9730
infoQintexenv.com
-------
Attachment 1. VISL results for Toluene.
Default VISL Results
Variable
Value
Exposure Scenario
Resident
Temperature for Groundwater Vapor Concentration C
16
ED_ (exposure duration) years
26
TR (target risk) unitless
1E-06
THQ (target hazand quotient) unitless
0.1
LT (lifetime) years
70
EF„ (exposure frequency) days/year
350
ED„, (mutagenic exposure duration first phase! years
2
ED,, (mutagenic exposure duration second phase) years
4
H)c I( (mutagenic exposure duration third phase) years
10
ED„„ (mutagenic exposure duration fourth phase) years
10
EF„, (mutagenic exposure frequency first phase) days/year
350
EF- ; (mutagenic exposure frequency second phase) days/year
350
EF„S (mutagenic exposure frequency third phase) days/year
350
EF„„ (mutagenic exposure frequency fourth phase) days/year
350
ET„ (exposure tirme) hours/day
24
ET„, (mutagenic exposure time first phase) hours/day
24
ET„ (mutagenic exposure time second phase) hours/day
24
ET, „ (mutagenic exposure time third phase) hours/day
24
ET„^ (mutagenic exposure time fourth phase) hours/day
24
AF„„ (Attenuation Factor Groundwater) unitless
0.001
AF^ (Attenuation Factor Sub-Slab) unitless
0.03
Output generated 12JUL2022:16:42:01
1
-------
Resident Vapor intrusion Screening Leveis (ViSL) 2
Key: 1= IRIS; P = PPRTV; 0 = OPP; A= ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X= PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied;
E = RPF applied; U = user provided; G = see RSL User's Guide Section 5; CA= cancer; NC= noncancer.
Is Chemical
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Sufficiently
Target
Does the
Does the
Volatile and Toxic
Volatile and Toxic
chemical
chemical
to
to
Sub-Slab and
meet
have
Pose Inhalation
Pose Inhalation
Target
Near-source
Target
the
inhalation
Risk
Risk
indoor Air
Soil Gas
Groundwater
Is Target
definition
toxicity
Via Vapor
Via Vapor
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Groundwater
for
data?
intrusion
intrusion from
(TCR=1E-06
(TCR=1E-06
(TCR=1 E-06
Concentration
volatility?
(IUR
from Soil
Groundwater
or THQ=0.1)
or THQ=0.1)
or THQ=0.1)
1E-5
and/or
Source?
Source?
MIN(C..,„Ca.nc)
Toxicity
c.,,Target
C... Target
Chemical Number
orVP>1}
RfC)
(C,,.> c...Target?)
(C..,> c.,,Target?)
(!1gim')
Basis
(r1g/ml
(11 g/L)
(C„. < MCL?)
Toluene 108-88-3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5.21 E+02
NC
1.74E+04
3.00E+03
No (1000)
Pure Phase ..
w Maximum
Por Groundwater
Concentration Vapor
c.,,1
(16 "C)\
Concentration
C. .1
Temperature
for Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
LEL
Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
IUR IUR RfC RfC Mutagenic
VISL
TCR=1 E»06
cia.c
VISL
THQ=0.1
(Uglm1) (|jglm') CC) volume) Ref (ug/m1)1 Ref (mglm') Ref Indicator
1.41E+08 9.13E+07 16 1.10 CRC 5.00E+00 No
(Mglm')
(pglnV)
5.21E+02
Output generated 12JUL2022:16:42:01
-------
Chemical Properties
Output generated 12JUL2022:16:42:01
3
CAS
Chemical Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
orVP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
(IUR
and/or
RfC)
Henry's
Law
MW
MW
Ref
s
(mg/L)
S
Ref
Henry's
Law
Henry's Law Conslant
Law Constant Used in
MCL HLC Constant (16 "Q Cales 11' and HLC
(ug/L) (atm-m '/mole) (unitless) (unitless) (unitless) Ref
Toluene 108-88-3
Yes
Yes
92.142 PHYSPROP 5.26E+02 PHYSPROP 10Q0 6.64E-03
2..71E-01 1.74E--01 1.74E-01 PHYSPROP
Enthalpy of Enthalpy of
vaporization vaporization
@ at
groundwater the normal
temperature boiling point
t.H \ .l.FLJ
(cal/mol}
9.09E+03
(cal/mol)
7.93E+03
l.HJ
Ref
Lower
Vapor
Explosive
Normal
Limit
Boiling
Exponent
Vapor
Pressure
VP
Critical
LEI
Temperature
(%
Point
for
Pressure
Tc\
Tel
by
IEL
BP
BP
VP
VP
(16 °C)\
(K)
5.92E+02
Ref
CRC
volume)
1,1
Ref
CRC
(K}
Ref
(mm Hg)
Ref M\.ew (mmHg)
CRC 383.75 PHYSPROP 0.363768542 2.ME+01 PHYSPROP 1.76E+01
Output generated 12JUL2022:16:42:01
------- |