CH2M HILL INC - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI) REPORT - VOL I · 2018-06-19 · REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION...

ho ooo a 2 i

Remedial investigation Report

Well Fie

WA 14-5151.0/Contract68-W8-0040

August 1990

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

VERONA WELL FIELDBattle Creek, Michigan

WA 14-5L51.0/Contract 68-W8-0040

August 1990

oPrinted onR«CycM&RacydabtoPaptr

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Contamination of the groundwater at the Verona Well Field and in nearby residentialareas by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was discovered in 1981. The Verona WellField site, as defined by the well field's zone of influence, was listed on the NationalPriorities List in 1982. Three primary source areas (Thomas Solvent Raymond Road,the Thomas Solvent Annex, and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad marshalling yard)were identified within the zone of influence by the EPA technical assistance team(TAT) in 1982. A site location map is presented as Figure 1.

REMEDIAL MEASURES

The first response action at the site was the Initial Remedial Measure (IRM), under-taken in 1984 to ensure a sufficient and safe drinking water supply for the City ofBattle Creek. The IRM included the conversion of several production wells to purge/blocking wells, the construction of an air stripper to treat extracted water, and theinstallation of three additional wells for water production.

An operable unit feasibility study was completed for the Thomas Solvent RaymondRoad facility in 1985. This was the primary facility for the Thomas Solvent Companyand included 21 underground storage tanks, an operations building, office and garage.Contamination resulted from leaking storage tanks, past practices, and spills. Remedialaction at that facility (groundwater and soil vapor extraction) was initiated in 1987.

inCVOR51/081.51

0 1/4 1/2

SCALE IN MLES

SOLVENTRAYMONDROADFACIUTV

CftAND TRUNKWESTERN RAKROADCAR DEPARTMENTPW NT SHOP

Figure 1VICINITY MAP

VERONA WELL HELDBATTLE CREEK. MICHK3AN

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

This remedial investigation (RI), which covered the entire site but focused on the tworemaining known source areas, was initiated in 1987. The overall objective of the RIwas to gather sufficient data to support the development and evaluation of remedialaction alternatives for the site in a separate feasibility study. This report presents thefindings of that RI.

The RI followed a phased approach, with the results of each phase used to plan anddirect subsequent phases of field work. Five technical memoranda reported the resultsof the different phases of the field investigation. They are:

• Technical Memorandum 1: Phase I Scoping Studies

• Technical Memorandum 2A: Near Surface Soil Sampling Report

• Technical Memorandum 2B: Soil Boring Sampling Report

• Technical Memorandum 3: Site Geology Report

• Technical Memorandum 4: Hydrogeology and Groundwater Flow

• Technical Memorandum 5: Analytical Results from GroundwaterMonitoring

Technical Memoranda 2 through 5 are presented in their original form in Volumes IIand III of this report. The technical memoranda have not been changed to reflect theresults of studies that followed their completion.

The principal findings of the RI are summarized in the pages that follow.

CVOR51/081.51

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The Verona Well Field site is located in the northeast corner of the City of BattleCreek, Michigan. It is within the gently rolling alluvial valley of the Battle Creek,River. The valley floor is approximately 1 mile wide at the site.

The Verona Well Field is the primary well field for the City of Battle Creek. TheBattle Creek water system supplies approximately 53,000 customers. The well fieldcurrently contains 18 production wells; two more wells are to be added before the endof 1990. In 1989, the maximum daily pumping demand on the water system was16.3 mgd.

There are three small residential areas within the study area. Two of these areas andpart of the third area are currently connected to the City water supply, although privatewells may still be in use for consumptive and/or nonconsumptrve purposes (e.g.,gardening). The total estimated population within the study area is 700.

Soils

The soils on the site are well drained, unconsolidated loamy sands and glacial tillformed in glaciofluvial deposits from the Wisconsinan glacier. They are generally classi-fied as poorly graded, fine to medium sands. Soil depth varies throughout the site from0 (bedrock outcrop) to a recorded high to 65 feet.

The soils overlie the Marshall Formation, a light to medium gray, fine to medium-grained sandstone. It contains many bedding plane separations and horizontalfractures. The sandstone thickness generally was found to vary from 100 to 120 feet.The sandstone overlies the Coldwater Shale, a blue-gray shale that appears to form thebottom of the aquifer used by the Verona Well Field.

VICVOR51/081.51

Groundwater

The groundwater surface occurs primarily in the soils at depths of between 8 and28 feet. There is no confining layer between the unconsolidated material and the sand-stone. The sandstone is the primary water-bearing unit at the site. It is recharged bythe unconsolidated material.

Groundwater pumping in the well field depresses the water table by up to 10 feet. Thewell field's zone of influence, the area where the groundwater flow is influenced by thepumping in the well field, defines the boundary of the site. The zone of influenceextends from Capital Avenue on the west side through the Grand Trunk Western Rail-road Marshalling Yard on the east side, and from a groundwater divide south ofEmmett Street north to the Battle Creek River. The Battle Creek River (average flowof 203 cfs) is within the zone of influence and appears to recharge the well field abovethe Emmett Street dam.

CONTAMINANT SUMMARY

Contaminant investigations conducted as part of this RI built on the findings of earlierstudies to the greatest extent possible. Previous studies identified three known sourceareas (primary) and three potential source areas (secondary). The primary areas areThomas Solvent Raymond Road, the Thomas Solvent Annex, and the Grand TruckWestern Railroad Marshalling Yard paint shop. The secondary areas are the GrandTrunk Western Railroad Roundhouse, the Consumer Power area, and the RaymondRoad Landfill. All six areas were included in this RI's field studies. Earlier investiga-tions also noted that the primary contaminants of concern at the site are volatileorganics (VOCs), and all samples were analyzed for VOCs. Selected samples were alsoanalyzed for metals, semivolatiles, PCBs, and pesticides. The studies focused onsubsurface soils and groundwater.

VllCVOR51/081.51

No evidence of contamination in either the soils or groundwater that resulted from pastpractices was noted at the old Grand Trunk Western Railroad roundhouse or theConsumer Power area. Groundwater contamination was identified in and downgradientof the Raymond Road Landfill. However, the concentrations measured are low relativeto the levels seen in the primary source areas.

Contaminant investigations of the three primary source areas focused on defining thenature and extent of groundwater and soil contamination at those areas. Threesitewide groundwater sampling efforts identified three distinct contaminant plumesmigrating from the sources to the well field. All three plumes appear to be interceptedby the blocking well system. The primary components in all three plumes arechlorinated hydrocarbons, with larger compounds (for example, tetrachloroethane)predominating at the sources and smaller breakdown products (for example, 1,2-dichlo-roethene) at the blocking wells. Aromatic compounds and ketones were also present inonsite wells, but were not detected in blocking wells.

Groundwater concentrations were found to be greatest at the source areas andimmediately downgradient of the source areas. The highest monitoring well VOCconcentrations recorded at each of the primary source areas are:

Thomas Solvent Raymond Road: Well B18, @ 85,960 jig/1

Thomas Solvent Annex: Well B8, @ 49,800 jig/1

• Grand Trunk Western Railroad paint shop area: Well CH106I, @64,510

Source area soil studies at the Annex and paint shop found VOC contamination pres-ent at both areas. At the Annex, widespread contamination of the site was noted bothhorizontally and vertically. Three hot spots were identified: the underground tank area,

VlllCVOR51AW1.51

the solvent transfer area and the truck turn-around area. Three contaminant groupswere detected: chlorinated hydrocarbons, aromatics, and ketones.

At the paint shop area, soil contamination was greatest in the areas directlydowngradient and close to the former source point disposal area. In most of the paintshop borings, the concentrations were greatest in the deepest sample interval (justabove the water table and/or sandstone bedrock). This location indicates that thecontaminants probably have migrated via the aquifer. The primary contaminantsdetected in the paint shop soils were tetrachloroethane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

A baseline risk assessment evaluating potential threats posed by site contaminants topublic health and the environment was conducted as part of the RI. It identified andcharacterized the toxicity of contaminants of potential concern to help evaluate theneed for remedial action at the site.

Forty-eight of the 73 chemicals detected in soil or groundwater samples were identifiedas contaminants of potential concern. The chemicals included carcinogens and noncar-cinogens from VOC, semivolatile, and metal groups.

The exposure pathways deemed most relevant to the site are:

• Incidental ingestion of, inhalation of vapors from, and dermal contactwith subsurface soils by future trench workers

• Ingestion of, dermal contact with, and inhalation of vapors from ground-water by current and future residents and workers

IXCVOR51/081.51

The risks resulting from these pathways were evaluated for noncarcinogens bycomparing estimated daily intakes for each chemical of potential concern to lifetimeintakes (reference doses) that will not produce adverse health effects. For carcinogens,excess cancer risks were calculated using the estimated daily intake numbers. Areas orgroups that showed current or future risks (hazard index greater than 1 or an excesscancer risk greater than 1 in a million) using the assumed pathways are:

• Current residential scenario for areas downgradient from the ThomasSolvent Raymond Road facility (this is between Thomas SolventRaymond Road and the well field, and includes the Michigan LivestockExchange and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Credit Union) and theThomas Solvent Annex.

• Current onsite trench workers at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road,Annex, and paint shop areas.

• Future residents and trench workers at all three source areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The Verona Well Field site contains three residential areas with a combined affectedpopulation of approximately 700 people, and a City water supply well field servicing apopulation of 53,000.

The site contains three primary source areas with soil and groundwater contamination:the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility, the Thomas Solvent Annex, and the GrandTrunk Western Railroad Car Department paint shop. The Thomas Solvent RaymondRoad site is currently undergoing remediation. The Consumer Power area and GrandTrunk Western Railroad roundhouse are not considered source areas.

CVOR51/081.51

The contamination at the three source areas poses threats to current and future resi-dents and workers under assumed exposure scenarios. Contaminants at the site areprimarily volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Semivolatiles, pesticides, PCBs, andmetals either were not detected or do not appear to be of concern.

Groundwater plumes migrating from the three source areas are primarily chlorinatedhydrocarbons. The highest concentrations occur at the sources. All three plumesappear to be captured by the blocking well system.

Soil contamination at the Annex occurs throughout the area both horizontally and verti-cally. At the paint shop, the soil contamination is found primarily near the source point(the drum pit). Away from the drum pit, the highest concentrations were found in thedeepest soils.

The groundwater at the Raymond Road Landfill also appears to be contaminated,although at levels much lower than observed at the primary source areas. The landfillwill not be considered in the feasibility study.

XICVOR51/081.51

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1OBJECTIVE OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . 1-1REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION APPROACH AND

ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

2 SITE SETTING AND HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1GENERAL PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1SITE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

CONTAMINANT INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4HISTORY OF PRIMARY SOURCE AREAS . . . . . . . . . . 2-8CONTAMINANT RESPONSE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1SURFACE FEATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2CLIMATOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND HYDROGEOLOGY ... 3-6

4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,1SOURCE AREA STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

SITEWIDE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15THOMAS SOLVENT ANNEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD PAINT

SHOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROADROUNDHOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42CONSUMER POWER AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44RAYMOND ROAD LANDFILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

XlllCVOR51A)29J1

CONTENTS (continued)Page

5 CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . 5-3CHEMICAL MIGRATION FOUND AT THE VERONAWELL FIELD SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6AROMATIC COMPOUNDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8KETONE COMPOUNDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

6 SUMMARY OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1SITE BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL

CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4SCREENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4SELECTED CHEMICALS OF CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

ELEMENTS OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY . . . . . . . . . 6-8EXPOSURE PATHWAY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE AND POTENTIAL

RECEPTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14GROUPING OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17RISK ESTIMATION METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17RISK ESTIMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22LIMITATIONS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS IN THE RISKASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2CONTAMINANT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

APPENDIX A. BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENTAPPENDIX B. RISK ESTIMATE DETAILS AND CALCULATIONS

XIVCVOR51/029.51

TABLES Page

4-1 Groundwater Analytical Results fromThomas Solvent Raymond Road Onsite Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4-2 Results of Hand-Auger SoilSampling: Thomas Solvent Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4-3 Annex Soil Boring Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-264-4 Groundwater Analytical Results from

Thomas Solvent Annex Onsite Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-294-5 Results of Hand-Auger Soil

Sampling: GTWRR Paint Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-324-6 Paint Shop Soil Boring Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-384-7 Groundwater Analytical Results from

the Grand Trunk Paint Shop Onsite Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-404-8 Groundwater Analytical Results from

the Raymond Road Landfill Onsite Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-474-9 Groundwater Analytical Results from

the Raymond Road Landfill Downgradient Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

5-1 Chemical Groups Detected at the Verona Well Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25-2 Physical and Chemical Equilibrium Properties of

Contaminants Found at the Verona Well Field Site . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-45-3 Physical and Chemical Data for Selected

Verona Well Field Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

6-1 Chemicals of Potential ConcernDetected in Verona Well Field Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

6-2 Exposure Assumptions forthe Verona Well Field Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6-3 Summary of Risk Estimates from Ground-water Downgradient of Source Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6-4 Summary of Risk Estimates from Ground-water Upgradient of Source Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6-5 Summary of Risk Estimates from Subsurface Soils:Ingestion and Inhalation by Trench Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6-6 Summary of Risk Estimates from OnsiteGroundwater in the Raymond Road Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6-7 Summary of Risk Estimates from OnsiteGroundwater in the Paint Shop Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

6-8 Summary of Risk Estimates from OnsiteGroundwater in the Annex Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

xvCVOR51/029.51

XVICVOR51029J1

FIGURES page

2-1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32-2 Primary and Secondary Source Areas and Production Wells . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52-3 Site History Time Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

3-1 Bedrock Topography Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73-2 Geologic Cross-Section Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-93-3 Geologic Cross Section A-A' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-113-4 Regional Potentiometric Source Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-143-5 Groundwater Surface Map-Unconsolidated Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-153-6 Groundwater Surface Map-Sandstone Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17

4-1 Primary and Secondary Potential Source Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34-2 Monitoring and Municipal Well Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54-3 Total VOCs (ppb) Unconsolidated Unit-April 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-64-4 Total VOCs (ppb) Sandstone Unit-April 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-74-5 Contaminant Cross Section Locations ............................ 4-84-6 Cross Section A-A'-Total VOCs, Thomas

Solvent Raymond Road-April 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-94-7 Cross Section B-B'-Total VOCs-April 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-104-8 Cross Section C-C-Grand Trunk Paint Shop-April 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-114-9 Hand-Auger Soil Sample Locations

Thomas Solvent Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-224-10 Soil Boring Locations from Previous

Studies at the Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-284-11 Hand-Auger Soil Sample Locations

GTWRR Paint Shop and Consumer Power Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-354-12 Soil Boring Locations-Grand Trunk

Western Railroad Paint Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-374-13 Hand-Auger Soil Sample Locations-GTWRR Roundhouse . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

5-1 Anaerobic Degradation of PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

6-1 Source and Receptor Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-36-2 Elements of a Complete Exposure Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-106-3 Plausible Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

xviiCVOR51/029J1

o

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

This report summarizes the findings of the remedial investigation (RI) conducted at theVerona Well Field Superfund site in Battle Creek, Michigan. The RI was conducted byCH2M HILL in three separate phases between December 1987 and January 1990.Five technical memoranda, each presenting results of a separate part of the RI, wereissued as part of the RI process. This RI report summarizes the findings of the fivetechnical memoranda and of a comprehensive sitewide risk assessment.

The RI was initiated under Zone II REM IV Work Assignment 120-5L51.0. Phase Iwas completed under the REM IV Work Assignment. Phases II and III of the RI havebeen completed under CH2M HELL's ARCS V Contract No. 68-W8-0040, WorkAssignment 14-5L51.0.

OBJECTIVE OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

The objective of the RI was to gather sufficient data to determine the need for actionat the site and support the development and evaluation of remedial action alternativesin the feasibility study. Specifically, this included:

• Defining chemical contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwaterthroughout the affected area and in background areas

• Confirming known sources and investigating potential sources of contami-nation at the site

1-1CVOR51/078.51

• Determining the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwatercontamination at and downgradient of source areas

• Determining migration pathways, media interactions, and exposure routesof contaminants at the site

• Identifying and defining health and environmental threats resulting fromthe contamination

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION

The field investigations conducted as part of this RI were accomplished in phases.Results of each phase were used to plan and direct subsequent phases of the work.Discrete sampling points, monitoring locations and depths, and analytical parameterswere left open pending the results of the preceding phase of work. Onsite and fieldmonitoring techniques were used wherever applicable to aid in the interactive phasingapproach.

Work on the remedial investigation commenced with the initiation of Phase I ScopingStudies in December 1987. The Phase II Source Area Screening was initiated in June1988, and the Phase III Detailed Hydrogeologic Investigation began in November1988. The results of each phase of the field investigation were reported in the fivetechnical memorandums noted earlier and described below. The technical memorandaare presented in full in their original form in Volumes II and III of this report. Thetechnical memoranda have not been altered to reflect the results of studies thatfollowed their completion.

1-2CVOR51/078.51

Tech Memo __________Topic__________

1- Phase I Scoping Studies2A. Near Surface Soil Sampling Report2B. Soil Boring Sampling Report3. Site Geology Report4. Hydrogeology and Groundwater Flow5. Analytical Results from Groundwater Monitoring

The comprehensive baseline risk assessment conducted for the Verona Well Field siteas part of the RI is presented in Appendix A of this report.

It is the intent of this RI report to present an overview of the findings of the threephases of the remedial investigation. Details on methodologies, field techniques, andanalytical parameters and results are presented in the technical memoranda.References in the RI report direct readers desiring more details of the field effort tothe appropriate technical memoranda.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

The remaining sections of this report present the findings of the remedial investigation:

• Chapter 2 presents the history and physical setting of the site. It includesa summary of previous investigations and remedial actions at the site.

• Chapter 3 summarizes the physical characteristics of the study area,focusing on the site's geology and hydrogeology.

• Chapter 4 presents the nature and extent of contamination as determinedin the Phase II and III field investigations. Results from earlier investiga-tions are included as necessary to evaluate contaminant trends over time.

1-3CVOR51/078.51

Chapter 5 discusses the physical and chemical properties and migrationpathways of contaminants present at the site.

Chapter 6 presents the findings of the baseline risk assessment, focusingon the public health evaluation and the environmental evaluation.

Chapter 7 presents a final summary and the conclusions of the RI.

1-4CVOR51/078.51

Chapter 2SITE SETTING AND HISTORY

Chapter 2

SITE SETTING AND HISTORY

GENERAL PHYSICAL SETTING

The Verona Well Field is the primary well field for the City of Battle Creek, a city ofapproximately 36,000 residents in south central Michigan. Battle Creek is in CalhounCounty. The well field provides potable water to approximately 53,000 residents ofBattle Creek, Emmett Township, Pennfield Township, Bedford Township, and the Cityof Springfield, Michigan. The well field also provides water to three major foodprocessing industries and a variety of other commercial and industrial establishments.In 1989, the city experienced a maximum day demand of 16.3 million gallons per day(mgd). The 1989 average day was 12.7 mgd. Generally, more than 80 percent of thecity's water supply comes from the Verona Well Field (Black & Veatch, 1987).

The Verona Well Field is in the northeast portion of Battle Creek. Prior to becomingcontaminated, the well field contained 30 usable production wells. As a result ofcontamination, only five of the original wells are used without restriction. The use ofan additional eight wells is restricted by the city because of the periodic presence of lowlevels of contaminants. Three new wells were added in 1984 as part of an EPA InitialRemedial Measure (IRM). Two additional production wells were added to the systemearly in 1990 and two more wells will be added before the end of 1990 to meet ananticipated increase in demand. Twelve of the original wells that are not used forproduction are tied into a blocking well system designed to prevent the northwardmigration of contaminated groundwater. Any combination of some or all of the12 wells operate at a given time to provide the blocking well system. (The blockingwells are discussed below, under "Site History.")

The area surrounding the well field includes single- and multifamily residential homes,and light and heavy industries. The major identifiable feature in the area surrounding

2-1CVOR51/079.51

the well field is the Grand Trunk Western Railroad marshalling yard, which is directlyeast of the well field. The Battle Creek River flows south through the western portionof the study area. A general vicinity map is shown in Figure 2-1.

SITE HISTORY

Contamination in the Verona Well Field site was identified in 1981 and the site waslisted on the Superfund National Priority List in 1982. An early study (EPA TechnicalAssistance Team, 1982) identified three potential source areas: the Thomas SolventRaymond Road Facility, the Thomas Solvent Annex (referred to as the Annex), andthe Grand Trunk Western Railroad marshalling yard. These primary source areas areshown in relation to the well field in Figure 2-2. Three other potential source areasshown on Figure 2-2 were also identified through earlier studies and included in the RI:the Grand Trunk Western Railroad roundhouse, the Raymond Road landfill, and theConsumer Power Area. Two gas stations that had leaking underground storage tanksor surface spills that are affecting the well field are being investigated by the State ofMichigan and were not included in the RI.

Under two previous response actions at the site, the EPA sought to ensure the supplyof potable water to the City of Battle Creek. The agency also sought to address,through capture and treatment, soil and groundwater contamination at the ThomasSolvent Raymond Road facility, which was the most severely affected of the threeprimary source areas.

2-2CVOR31/079.51

\0 . 1/4 1/2

SCALE IN WLES

THOMAS SOCVENTCOMPANY ANNEX

GRAND TRUNKWESTERN RAILROADCAR DEMRTMENTHUNT SHOP

Figure 2-1VICINITY MAP

VERONA WELL HELDBATTLE CREEK, MICUGAN

A time line detailing site history is in Figure 2-3.

CONTAMINANT INVESTIGATION

Contamination of the Verona Well Field by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) wasdiscovered in August 1981 during the sampling of private wells in a separate part of theCity of Battle Creek. Subsequent sampling by the Calhoun County Health Departmentfound VOC contamination present in 10 of the well field's 30 wells, as well as in privateresidence wells (see Figure 2-2). Soon thereafter, the State of Michigan initiated astudy to identify the cause or causes of the contamination. The Michigan Departmentof Public Health (MDPH) began a sampling program of private wells in the residential

neighborhood south and west of the well field in September 1981. Several of theprivate wells were found to have total volatile organic compound (VOC) levels on theorder of 1,000 micrograms per liter (jig/1). One private well contained total 1,2-dichlor-oethene (cis and trans) at a level of 3,900 u.g/1. VOCs were eventually identified in 80private wells within this area. Beginning in 1982, the affected residences were providedwith bottled water and public showers. Efforts were initiated at that time to hook upthe homes in the affected neighborhood to the City water supply. In 1984, all affectedhomes and businesses were connected to the City water supply. Since that time, someof the affected residences have resumed use of their private wells for water supply.

Prior to the initiation of remedial measures by EPA, the City of Battle Creek under-took two actions to maintain their water supply. The most highly contaminated wellswere removed from the production system (V31 through V35; see Figure 2-2), and

water from the less contaminated wells was blended with clean water. Between

October 1981 and September 1982, water from the City's two most contaminatedsupply wells (V32 and V35) was pumped directly to the Battle Creek River in an

attempt to purge the groundwater contamination.

2-4CVOR51A>79.51

X^ppf W ,r> VVA*.v'l#i i>\" ^ ^ - ^ ' :

E^.>x^'

ip£^; -*'s-~- ••&X*,^v^r-':

SCAif /N FEET

RQURE 2-2

PHMARY ATO SECX5NDARY SOURCEAREAS AhD PROCUCmON WB-LS

. jBATTLE CREEK. MOKAM

Home Fuel andCoal Companyfounded atRaymond Road andAnnex FacHtttes

11940 1945

Name changed toHome Coal and CleaningSolvent Company

Name changed toThomas Solvent Company

I960 1955 1960 1965

Drum pit used byGrand Trunkfor solvent disposal

Surface disposal ofcontaminants Is hattedat Grand Trunk

1970

Grand Trunk employeesbegin to use

solvent degreasers

1975 1980

Contaminants detected atVerona Well Field

TAT Investigation Identitiespotential source areas

Site placed onSuperfund National Priority List

Thomas Solvent Companyand Grand Trunk RaHroad

properties Identified aspotential source areas

9 leaking tanks Identified atThomas Solvent Raymond Road Company

Thomas Solvent Company declaresbankruptcy and closes

Initial Remedial Measureenacted at weH Held

Remediation ofRaymond Road stte begins

1985 1990

RameaU Investigationcompleted tor theAnnex and Grand Trunk Faclites

FeaslbWy study conducted for theAnnex and Grand Trunk paint shop areas

Record of Decision signed forremediation ofRaymond Road site

Remedial Investigationrotated at Verona Well Field Stte

FIGURE 2-3SITE HISTORY TIME LINE

VERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

Soon after the contamination was detected, the Michigan Department of NaturalResources (MDNR) began an investigation of potential industrial and commercialsolvent users to identify the source or sources of the contamination. The MDNR alsoprepared an Emergency Action Plan for the site, and asked U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) for assistance. In December 1981, the Verona Well Fieldsite was identified as a potential CERCLA (Superfund) site. In July 1982, the site wasadded to the EPA's National Priority List of Superfund sites. The EPA TechnicalAssistance Team (TAT) installed a number of monitoring wells in and around the wellfield in the spring of 1982 to investigate the extent and possible source of the contami-nation. Their findings were submitted to the EPA in June 1982 in a report entitled"Battle Creek Groundwater Survey." The TAT investigation found a contaminantplume with concentrations of 1 u.g/1 to 356 ng/1 within the well field, and identifiedthree primary potential sources of contamination: the Annex, marshalling yard, andThomas Solvent Raymond Road area.

The results of a hydrogeological investigation of the site carried out by the U.S.Geologic Service (USGS) for the City of Battle Creek were published in 1985 as"USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4056." This study focused on thegeology and hydrogeology of the study area and included a groundwater flow model ofthe Verona Well Field area. The results of the investigation supported the findings ofthe TAT investigation. The model was used to investigate the effects of variouspumping scenarios at the well field on groundwater flow direction in the affected area.

HISTORY OF PRIMARY SOURCE AREAS

Three primary source areas have been identified at the Verona Well Field site: theThomas Solvent Raymond Road facility, the Thomas Solvent Annex, and the GrandTrunk Western Railroad marshalling yard.

2-8CVOR51/079.51

Thomas Solvent Raymond Road Facility and Thomas Solvent Annex

These two facilities were part of the Thomas Solvent Company that operated at thosesites from 1963 until 1984. Before 1963, the facilities were operated from those sites asthe Home Fuel and Coal Company (1939-1950) and the Home Coal and CleaningSolvent Company (1950-1963). In 1984, the Thomas Solvent Company filed for bank-ruptcy protection and shut down.

During its years of operation, the Thomas Solvent Company purchased, stored, contain-erized, blended, transported, and sold virgin industrial solvents. They also transported,stored, and arranged for the disposal or recycling of spent solvents obtained from itsclients. The solvents handled by Thomas Solvent included both chlorinated and nonchl-orinated hydrocarbons.

Thomas Solvent Raymond Road Facility. This site has 21 underground storage tanksranging in size from 4,000 to 15,000 gallons. These tanks were used to store the sol-vents. Solvents were transported in both tanker trucks and drums. Contamination ofthe soil and groundwater beneath the Raymond Road facility resulted from leaks in theunderground tanks, leaking drums, and surface spills that occurred during operation.Direct discharge to the ground surface during drum and tank cleaning has also beenreported. Leak tests done on the 21 underground tanks in 1984 showed that 9 of thetanks were leaking (Warzyn, 1986).

In addition to the underground tanks, the facility included a warehouse, garage, andoffice building.

Thomas Solvent Annex. The Annex, shown on Figure 2-2, is on property leased fromthe Grand Trunk Western Railroad to the Thomas Solvent Company from 1963 until1984. The Thomas Solvent Company used the Annex property primarily as a railroadsiding for unloading railroad tank cars containing solvents. A loading dock at the

2-9CVOR51/079.51

Annex was also used for storing drummed solvent wastes, and two underground tankswere used for storing virgin solvents. A 20,000-gallon aboveground tank at the Annexwas reportedly only used for a short period during 1977. Its contents during that timeare unknown. The only building at the Annex was a tank control building located overthe two underground tanks. All three tanks and the tank control building wereremoved from the site by Grand Trunk Western Railroad in the spring of 1990.

Contamination of the soil and groundwater beneath the Annex facility resulted fromleaking drums and surface spills that occurred during operation. Direct discharge tothe ground surface during drum and tank cleaning has also been reported at the Annex.

Grand Trunk Western Railroad Marshalling Yard

The marshalling yard, which is north of Emmett Street (see Figure 2-2), includes a carrepair shop and a car department building. Solvents and paint thinners have been usedby Grand Trunk Western Railroad (Grand Trunk) employees in these areas fordegreasing and cleaning since the mid-1960s. Grand Trunk employees report that upuntil approximately 1980, spent solvents from cleaning and degreasing were disposed ofby dumping them on the ground or roadway outside of the car department buildingpaint shop.

For a period of up to 8 years in the 1970s, a drum pit was also used for disposal ofspent solvents and thinners. (The drum pit was described as a 55-gallon drum with thetop off, holes cut in the bottom and side, and half buried in the soil.) The primarysolvent used by Grand Trunk employees during the 1970s was Dowclene*, a commer-cially blended product consisting of approximately 72 percent 1,1,1-trichloroethane and25 percent tetrachloroethene (the remaining 3 percent was not reported by DowChemical). The amount of solvent disposed of on the ground or in the drum pit duringthe 1960s and 1970s is unknown.

2-10CVOR51/079.51

CONTAMINANT RESPONSE ACTIONS

Blocking Wells

Shortly after the contamination was detected in 1981, the City of Battle Creek discon-tinued the use of the most contaminated wells (V-31 through V-35) for water supply.Wells V-32 and V-35 were then pumped directly to the Battle Creek River in anattempt to keep the contamination from spreading. The City of Battle Creek was ableto meet production demand during this period by shifting production away from thecontaminated wells and pumping more heavily from their northern most wells. Waterfrom slightly contaminated wells was blended with water from uncontaminated wells.

The continued use of the well field caused the contaminant plume to migrate furthernorthward. By February 1984, contamination had spread to 27 of the 30 City produc-tion wells in the well field. As a result, the EPA undertook an Initial RemedialMeasure (IRM) to provide a sufficient potable water supply for the City. The IRMincluded the conversion of the 20-series production wells (V20, V22, etc.; see Figure2-2) to blocking (or purge) wells designed to capture and remove through pumping theleading edge of the plume. This pumping would inhibit the northward migration ofcontamination beyond the blocking wells. The blocking system is comprised of 12 wellswith wells V22 and V24 through V28 (see Figure 2-2) in use as of summer 1990.

Contaminated water pumped from the blocking wells was treated in an onsite air strip-ping tower and discharged to the Battle Creek River. The 20-series (blocking) wellswent into operation in May 1984, prior to the stripping tower; a temporary granularactivated carbon system was used to treat the water from May to September 1984,when the air stripper was started. Carbon was also added as pretreatment to thestripper when groundwater from the Thomas Solvent Raymond road facility was addedto the system in February 1987. The pretreatment carbon was removed in January1988.

2-11CVORS1/079.5I

The IRM also included the installation of three new city production wells to the northof the existing well field (V51, V52, and V53). These three wells were in production byJuly 1984. The interim measures to provide potable water to the City were successful,and in October 1984 the Michigan Department of Public Health reported that the Cityof Battle Creek had 14 uncontaminated wells. The City currently uses 18 wells forwater supply: 10 are identified as uncontaminated and 8 are considered to berestricted by the City due to periodic or potential contamination.

Groundwater and Soil Vapor Extraction

In the fall of 1985, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the remediation of theThomas Solvent Raymond Road site, characterized as the most severely contaminatedof the three source areas. The ROD specified extraction and treatment for thecontaminated groundwater and soil vapor extraction (SVE) with offgas treatment forthe contaminated soil. The groundwater extraction system started operating in March

1987 with nine wells located on and immediately downgradient of the Thomas Solventsite. The extracted groundwater was piped to the existing well field air stripper fortreatment. The SVE system was pilot tested in the fall of 1987, and full-scale operationbegan in March 1988. From startup until the end of 1989, extracted soil vapor wastreated using activated carbon. Since the beginning of 1990, the contaminated soilvapor has been treated using a catalytic oxidation unit. Through 1989, the groundwaterextraction system has removed 5.5 tons of VOCs, and the SVE system has removed21 tons.

The remedial investigation of the remaining source areas (the Thomas Solvent Annexand the Grand Trunk car department area) was initiated in 1987. This report presentsthe findings of that investigation.

2-12CVORS 1/079.51

o

Chapter 3CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA

Chapter 3CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA

SURFACE FEATURES

The Verona Well Field project area was originally defined (in 1982) as the zone ofgroundwater influence due to groundwater pumping in the well field. Increasedpumping in the well field since that time has increased the zone of influence and,consequently, the areal extent of the site. The site currently includes the Verona WellField, the two Thomas Solvent facilities, the Grand Trunk Western Railroadmarshalling yard, the Raymond Road Landfill, Bailey Park, and three residentialneighborhoods. The entire project area is within Calhoun County, Michigan, which ischaracterized by a flat to gently rolling topography. Moraines along riverbeds in thearea were formed during the retreat of glaciers that covered the entire area during theWisconsinan Stage.

The Verona Well Field is within the alluvial valley of the Battle Creek River, whichflows southwesterly through the site. The valley floor is about 1 mile wide at the wellfield, with higher elevations on a moraine on both the east and west sides of the valley.The east valley wall, running southward from the Grand Trunk marshalling yard to theRaymond Road landfill, is relatively steep (10 percent slope), with upper elevationsapproximately 100 feet above the valley floor. The west side of the valley has a moregradual slope (<5 percent slope).

The Battle Creek River is the area's predominant natural feature. The Grand TrunkWestern Railroad marshalling yard, approximately 1/2 mile east of the river bisects thesite into the east and west sections. The marshalling yard consists of an extensiveswitching track system along with a number of maintenance and repair shops. The

3-1CVOR 122/043.51

Verona Well Field is northwest of the marshalling yard. The well field is fenced and itssurface is generally undeveloped.

LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHY

Several types of existing land uses are found within the defined project area. The areais zoned for retail and commercial development along the major traffic corridor, whichconsists of Emmett Street in an east-west direction and Raymond Road in a north-south direction (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). There are a number of small retail and light-industrial commercial establishments along these corridors. In the northeast part of theproject area is the Grand Trunk Railroad marshalling yard and maintenance complex.The Kellogg Company cereal plant is located south of the project area. The areanorthwest of the marshalling yard contains the Verona Well Field.

Three low-density residential areas are interspersed throughout project area. Thelargest residential area is north of Emmett Street, between the Battle Creek River andthe Grand Trunk Western Railroad marshalling yard. This neighborhood is connectedto the City water supply although private wells are still in existence and use. A secondarea, also on City water, is south and west of the Raymond Road Landfill. The thirdarea is southwest of the marshalling yard; many of the homes in this area use privatewells for water.

The residential population in the project area is approximately 700. The service popu-lation of the Verona Well Field is approximately 53,500. According to the CalhounCounty Comprehensive Plan (Calhoun County, 1985), future land use of the areaprobably will be similar to current use.

3-2CVORl 22/043.51

CLIMATOLOGY

Battle Creek has a typical midwestern continental climate. Summers are generallywarm and humid, and winters cold and cloudy. The mean annual temperature is justover 48°F. Average monthly temperatures range from 23°F (January) to 72°F (July).The summer months of June through September are the warmest, with an averagedaily temperature of 68.2°F. The winter months of December through February arethe coolest, averaging 25°F. The growing season typically extends from mid-April tomid-September, although frost can be expected through the end of May and beginningonce again in early September.

Total monthly precipitation in the project area ranges from 1.65 to 3.95 inches, withtotal annual average precipitation of just over 34 inches. The period of April throughJuly normally has the highest amount of monthly precipitation (averaging 3.59 inches),while December-to-February has the least (averaging 1.97 inches). Average monthlyprecipitation is about 2.85 inches. Snowfall is highest in Battle Creek from Januarythrough March. Winds are generally from the west to the east, with the highest veloci-ties recorded in late spring.

SOILS

Soils at the site range in thickness from 0 (bedrock outcrop) to 65 feet. They areprimarily Pleistocene glacial and recent alluvial sands, with some gravel and silt. Basedon preliminary unpublished data collected by the Soil Conservation Service for aCalhoun County soil survey, the soils are well- to extensively well-drained,unconsolidated loamy sands formed in glaciofluvial deposits from the Wisconsinan glaci-ation (telephone conversation, 1989), The surface soils are typically dark brown tograyish brown loamy sand to a depth of 4 to 10 inches. The subsurface soils arenormally yellowish brown to brown loamy sand with a thickness of 12 to 35 inches. The

3-3CVOR122/043.51

material beneath this subsurface layer to the Marshall Sandstone (bedrock) is unconsol-idated sand and some gravels.

Grain size analyses of the soil indicate a sand content ranging from 78 to 97 percent(Technical Memorandum 3). The soils are generally classified as poorly graded, fine tomedium sands (Unified Soil Classification SP-SM). Silt and clay fractions range from3 to 32 percent, with an average of 6.8 percent. Some gravels are found in the uncon-solidated material above the bedrock near the river. The amount of gravel decreasesas' distance from the river increases. The total organic carbon value measured incomposited soil from various depths at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road site is0.14 percent.

GEOLOGY

The geology of the site consists of Pleistocene glacial deposits overlying theMississippian-age Marshall Formation and Coldwater Shale. The Marshall Formationis a light to medium gray, fine- to medium-grained sandstone to silty sandstone. Itcontains numerous bedding plane separations and horizontal fractures. Interbeds oflimestone, siltstone, and shale are also present. The Coldwater Shale underlies theMarshall Formation. It is a dark gray, sandy, silty shale. Both the Marshall Formationand the Coldwater Shale dip slightly to the north.

Interbeds of limestone, siltstone, and shale were noted in the Marshall Formation inthe study area at depths of between 90 and 140 feet below ground surface. Rubblezones (layers of highly fractured rock) were also found in the sandstone. Geophysicallogging of selective boreholes identified a layer of higher clay content, approximately8 feet thick, in the sandstone approximately 70 feet below the ground surface. Therubble zones at this depth were generally less than a foot thick.

3-4CVOR122/043.51

A vertical fracture zone known as the Verona Structure is one of the features of thesandstone in the study area (USGS, 1985). It is significant because it appears to influ-ence groundwater flow in the area. Much of the bedrock near the structure is highlyfractured and weathered. The major trend of the structure is roughly parallel to theBattle Creek River.

The sandstone is 100 to 120 feet thick within the study area, although its thicknessdiminishes to about 20 feet south of the study area (2,000 feet). The formation isabsent approximately 1 to 2 miles southwest of Battle Creek where glacial depositsdirectly overlie the shale. The bedrock elevations range from 720 feet south of EmmettStreet to 830 feet in the Verona Well Field. A bedrock surface map of the site ispresented as Figure 3-1. Rock cores did not fully penetrate the Coldwater Shale, andits thickness at the study area is unknown.

The location of a typical geologic cross-section for the site is shown on Figure 3-2. Thecross-section is presented in Figure 3-3. Technical Memorandum 3 presents a moredetailed discussion on site geology.

HYDROLOGY

The Battle Creek and Kalamazoo Rivers are the major surface water bodies in thearea. There are also several lakes in the area, but none are in the immediate vicinityof the site or impacted by the site. The Battle Creek River flows southwest throughthe project area and joins the Kalamazoo River in downtown Battle Creek, approxi-mately 3 miles from the site.

The Battle Creek River is dammed approximately 500 feet north of the Emmett Streetbridge. The 7-foot-high concrete dam widens and slows the river's flow for up to1.5 miles upstream. The river's surface elevation, as measured with a series of staff

3-5CVOR 122/043.51

gauges, is higher above the dam than the nearby groundwater. This indicates that theriver potentially recharges the groundwater above the dam.

Flow in the Battle Creek River at the Emmett Street dam from September 1986 toAugust 1987 ranged from a monthly mean of 70.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 673 cfs.The annual mean over this period was 202 cfs. The lowest flows occurred duringsummer months, and the highest during the winter. Portions of the well field are withineither the 100- or 500-year flood plains, but none of the known or potential sourceareas are within the designated flood plains.

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND HYDROGEOLOGY

The groundwater surface at the site occurs primarily in the glacial overburden, typicallyfrom 8 to 28 feet below the ground surface. No confining layers between the groundsurface and the Coldwater Shale have been detected in the project area. Groundwatermeasurements collected as part of the RI field effort indicate a small general downwardgradient from the glacial unit to the sandstone beneath it. There is also a small generalupward gradient from the lower sandstone to the upper sandstone (TechnicalMemorandum 4).

Groundwater elevations in most areas of the site are between 820 and 830 feet abovemean sea level, although a groundwater high of 845 feet was noted in the RaymondRoad Landfill and a low of 817 feet was observed south of the Emmett Street dam.Average daily pumping rates at the Verona Well Field range from about 7.5 to12.8 million gallons per day. The highest rates usually occur in August Pumping inthe well field depresses the water table 3 to 4 feet; however, higher use during thesummer months can cause the water table to drop as much as 10 feet in the center of

3-6CVOR 122/043.51

the well field. The well field's zone of influence defines the boundary of the Superfundsite and includes the Thomas Solvent Annex, Thomas Solvent Raymond Road, theGrand Truck Western Railroad Marshalling Yard, and Bailey Park.

The average hydraulic gradient in the sandstone measured in April 1989 was2.2xlO"3 cm/cm. The hydraulic gradient in the alluvial aquifer, also in April 1989, was2.7xlO"3 cm/cm.

Groundwater within the well field's zone of influence flows towards the well field.There is a groundwater divide present south of Emmett Street, and groundwater southof the divide flows towards the Battle Creek River. The divide is affected by the outeredge of well field influence. It has moved south since 1984 due to increased pumpingat the well field. A regional potentiometric surface map is presented in Figure 3-4.Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show groundwater contours from the glacial and sandstone unitsfrom April 1989.

Both the glacial and sandstone units are used for water supply in the area around thewell field. The glacial unit is used primarily by private and residential wells, and munic-ipal and industrial supplies are derived from the sandstone. Municipal wells are casedthrough the glacial material and into the sandstone. Below the casing, the wells areopen boreholes. It is assumed that the majority of groundwater is derived fromfractures and bedding plane separations in the sandstone, since the rock itself is toofine-grained to consistently produce the amount of water extracted at the site. Pumptests in the well field measured a sandstone hydraulic conductivity of 0.21 cm/sec(Layne-Northern, 1989); slug tests outside the well field measured the sandstone'shydraulic conductivity at 0.01 cm/sec.

Groundwater flow patterns and information obtained during a previous investigation

3-13CVORl 22/043.51

EXPLANATION

POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Showsgtneral altitude of ground wattr Itvel.Inrtrval 20 f*«t. Datum Is s*a l«vel

DEPRESSION CONTOUR — Topmostcontour of d*orts*«d lurfact

GROUND-WATER PLOW--Arrowindicotis direction of flow

FIGURE 3-4REGIONAL POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP

SOURCE: USGS (1965)VERONA WELL FIELD

BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

indicate that the existence of the Verona structure (Figure 3-1) could influence ground-water yield in the well field and contribute to an asymmetrical cone of depression inthe well field (USGS, 1985).

Additional information on site hydrogeology, including additional surface maps, is inTechnical Memorandum 4, the site hydrogeology and groundwater flow report.

3-19CVOR122/043.51

o

Chapter 4NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

Chapter 4NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

This chapter summarizes the findings of the soil and groundwater sampling and analysisprograms carried out at the Verona Well Field site as part of the Remedial Investiga-tion (RI). The discussion focuses on defining the nature and extent of contamination atthe site.

Sampling carried out as part of the RI included source area soil sampling and sitewidegroundwater sampling. Analyses focused on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), butincluded analyses of selected soil and groundwater samples for semivolatiles, pesticides,PCBs, and metals.

This chapter concentrates on the major findings and trends from results of theindividual sampling program. For more information, the reader is referred to theappropriate technical memoranda that present sampling results in detail. (TechnicalMemoranda 2A and 2B discuss the findings of the soil sampling efforts. TechnicalMemorandum 5 discusses the groundwater sampling results.)

SOURCE AREA STUDIES

Contaminant and source area investigations carried out since the discovery of contami-nation at the Verona Well Field site in 1981 have identified three known (primary)contaminant source areas and a number of potential (secondary) source areas. Thesepreliminary investigations are identified in the site background chapter of this report(Chapter 2).

4-1CVOR51/120.51

The primary source areas identified in the previous investigations are the ThomasSolvent Raymond Road facility, the Thomas Solvent Annex, and the Grand TrunkWestern Railroad marshalling yard. Soil and groundwater samples from these areashave confirmed that they are contaminant source areas, and remediation has alreadybeen initiated at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility. These areas were thefocus of the remedial investigation field work summarized in this report. Their historywas presented in Chapter 2.

The potential secondary source areas identified by previous investigations included theRaymond Road Landfill, the old Grand Trunk Western Railroad roundhouse, and anarea between the marshalling yard and the well field owned by the Consumer PowerCompany. These areas were also investigated as part of the remedial investigation, butnot to the extent of the known primary source areas.

The rest of this chapter presents sitewide results and trends for the groundwater invest-igation. Each of the primary and potential secondary source areas are then discussedseparately. The discussions focus on the results of the various investigations carried outduring the remedial investigation. These discussions summarize the findings ofTechnical Memoranda 2A, 2B, and 5.

The locations of each of the primary and potential secondary source areas are shownon Figure 4-1.

SITEWIDE INVESTIGATION

Groundwater contaminant studies carried out as part of the RI focused on the overallsite as much as on specific source areas. Monitoring wells included in the study are

4-2CVOR51/120.51

0 i/4 1/2

SCALE IN MILES

THOMAS SOLVENTCOMPANY ANNEX

GRAND TRUNKWESTERN RAILROADCARDEMRTMENTHUNT SHOP

Figure 4-1PRIMARY AND SECONDARY POTENTIAL SOURCE AREAS


located on both sides of the Battle Creek River, at the three primary and threesecondary source areas, and in three residential neighborhoods within the siteboundaries. The locations of all the monitoring wells included in the study area areshown on Figure 4-2.

While three separate rounds of groundwater sampling were carried out, the discussionof results focuses on data from the April 1989 sampling; the June 1989 data was usedfor verification and backup. March 1989 sampling results have not been used to anygreat extent due to a number of questionable results. (This is further discussed inTechnical Memorandum 5.) The April and June rounds show the presence of VOCgroundwater contamination plumes migrating from each of the three primary sourceareas to the well field. All three plumes appear to be within the capture zone of theblocking wells. The VOC plumes identified in the unconsolidated and sandstone unitsduring the April 1989 sampling event are shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4, respectively.

Vertical cross sections of the VOC plumes identify the vertical movement of theplumes within the aquifer. The locations of cross sections developed for each of thethree primary source areas are shown on Figure 4-5. The cross sections are presentedas Figures 4-6, 4-7, and 4-8. They are discussed separately for each source area. Theprimary contaminants in all three plumes are chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g.,1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene), although other VOCs arealso present (e.g., benzene, toluene, xylene).

Samples from all three rounds were also analyzed for semivolatiles, pesticides, PCBs,and metals. Twenty different semivolatile compounds were detected but only bis(2-ethylhexyl), phthalate (24 detections), and benzoic acid (4 detections) were detectedin more than 10 percent of the samples. The detection of semivolatile compoundswere rather sporadic and no pattern or plume of contamination was detected. No

4-4CVOR51/120.51

r\- .' "'-'',.''':• •".*,'*.,>£*. '^^VVto/C1-?.'"'• i'4* '; v "'"..^f^r''1-'"" """.'/jT: " *"GfVf * ;^VV.-i'^^-rrl»|'i5>"-i> ^ ' f'. . ^ .L^,. ____ ._ -. ^., „ j«._ - ' , . . - _ î. —^Â,... '._^_-'0'-i-- • aijarv*- - Jî» *^c-'" . • ~ ^jd--™^^ ,. -_..j» J.T . _:-._«.- jfc- ^»™B, 1 ,s*» n U *'i *>_ l"" 'f 'I **> ^"flrâ^fcTI - fl(j -f*f * **"*-

V \ \"'\ '}-$ps3Z^\ '*^X^&%^

500 »ODO ,5,00

scALC/wrtrT

FIGURE 3-18H*KXX TOPOGRAPHY MAPVOJONA WB-L flBJ)BATTLE CREEK. UlCrtCAN

1/4

SCALE IN MILES

AVENUE

RAY^AOND ROADLOCATION OF

THOMAS SOLVENTANNEX

LOCATION OFTHOMAS SOLVENTRAYMOND ROAD

USGS MONITORING WELL

WARZYN MONITORING WELL

CH2M HILL MONITORING WELL

SHALLOW WELL

INTERMEDIATE WELL

DEEP WELL

MONITORING WELL

OBSERVATION WELL

RAYMOND ROADLAND FILL

1/2

NOTE:Labelled wells (e.g., E2S) are thosefor which geologic logs were usedto examine site geology

Figure 3-2GEOLOGIC C'ROSS-SECTION LOCATION

VERONA WELL FIELDB/TTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

(J

870

660

850 ——

840

830 ——

820

810 ——

800 ——

790 ——

78°

770 —— |

760 ——

750 ——

740 ——

730 —

720 —

710 —

700 —

690 —

680

670

Gray flpe-to —-median" ~ grainedsandstPne

Shaley "" "sandstPne

W6DVERONA WELL FIELD A'

CH105-D

0 ^ -~ ——— - ———— —— .- E2(^ . o —— rp, FILL— *

' * , ^ ' <7 .v<? SafW and gravel0

v^ • .- Q « *\ - + -• • — —— Iv\ + -f + + + +

^ r Sandy clay -f -f - -h^ -V^T' -^ \ (EstiTna.ted Aom meil leys for area.• • -^- --\ _j_ ^ £jie fjrart.d. Trunk Western Railroad"

• • • "> ^L heavy equipment repair shop)

- - - - - -\ ' , ^ , , ; /. . . . . . . x . . ^

•Groy^lrre- "Y '1" "*" + l~to rnediurri- \ -j- + + -|- -(/grained \ , . /Jsandstone \ ' "" 'r/. Y~,. . . . . . . . . . \ . - ) - - r + / . . . - .

. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . .^ . . . . . . . . . \ ± + 4 - / - . . . - -

^ ^ "~- -^ \ + + - / . . . . .Gray — - • • \ ^ /. . . . . . ."Sandstone ' ' ^'-Yi + +/interbedded with ' \ /siltstone, shale. . . + + / . . . . . . . . .and lirriest'Qne . .N , /. . ->--^ • • •

^^-^•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•"•'—————— [JUI^. y t uy ——————— • <^- . . . . . . . .

——— liuie —————— "••• I ——" ~>«, _

3D WV

' 0o

•^ri •J ' •/ • • --/ ' ' '

„ . r-. -

— — —

_ . . .

. . . .

-f::.

UM 1 JbD — - ^

<y

^>

•c

.•/.*x

— - ^^^^^^^-^

•— ~^^~~~~-

—•-•

^-\

r

<y

N

- —

*

o J•7 I

. ds

1\ i\^—— 4-

~.N . .1..>J- • • •>•\ • 1

' ' I. . . . ( .

. . . ]

. , \j.YY/r__i

^\pi——————————— r-|

V__

ApprlocaVeroStru

' . C i . . . . . . . — — - — — '

1 v • 0 • • •

. < ? - • - • • • • • : • ' • .. <7 *Q . . . . . . . .

. o.1 . V . °1 ^ -"~" """"

^^*^~^\ *~*1'^

- / - - - - - - ' • - - - - - -.. I . . . . . Gray fjn.eTto medium-. .

1 '. . 1. r-.-,^,^^. . . . . . . . . . . .. .1. . <3c. ,. . .~T-r-^_. . . . . . .

°~~~ ~~ ^^O/ey <> ~ — - — — _

| ~*— — — _. .J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Gray fine-grained

sandstoneY | . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . - . . .^. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .— i — . . ——— . . . ——— . .

^^•~ -_^

"^ ^-^_• • ! • • sandstone • • • • • • - ~ ^ < _ - •

• • .• • interbedded "with • • • • • - > - v' - | ' 'slltstohe, 'shdle1, • • • • - • • •

v^ ana limestone ' •r^^-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-/.-.—— —— Duik yruy — """" ~— -^^ . . .—— —— shrjte ————————————— * "* ^

oximntflion ofnacture

4 _ ---~~~"~'"~~^—— Y o

^ « °o ,o<7

^ ^

_ _ _ ~ i . . . . . . .

. .X . . . . . . . . . .x. ..X, - . . . . . . .

_X^- ——— t^- - ——————

.•.Y.X.-S.V.-.V. . . . . . x . .>.. . . .. . . . . . . . .\, ?v.. . . . . . . . . . N^ .

. . . . . . . . . . . .-x.

— • • • ——— • • •

SY^.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y.^ . . .^^~- ^^

^^^^»^~v.

j

-

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5SCALE IN WILES

L E G E N D

Pt-EISTOCENE GL-ACIAL ANDRECENT ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS

I^|SSISSIPPIAN-AGEMARSHALL SANDSTONE

CLAY CHANNELIN MARSHALL FC)RMATION

M|SSISSIPPIAN-AGECCXDWATER SHALE

E33D MONITORING WEl-L

Note: See Figure 3-2 for |0P°tionof cross-section

FIGURE 3-3GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A~A'

VERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MI

J: \INDUST\CV065563\nG3-3.DWC

E-33"

E-27 -Wss UONTTOR *5XL LOCATWNl>-| -ORANO TRUNK MONITOR WOI. LOCATIONr-H - TAT MONITOR »tU. LOCATIONC#4R-1 - MOMR MONTTOR MIL LOCATIONw-1«. 6-1 - VARZYX UOHTOR 1IIEU- LOCATIONV-36 -WUNIOPAL «LL LOCATIONCH-107 -CH2M ULL UON1TOR weLL LOCATION5C -5TAFT CAUOE

SOO '000 !500

SCAi£:

iooc1"" —"l"" ""!!

FK3URE4-2

MOWTO«NQ AhPMUMCPAL WB-VtROHA «QL FIELDBATTLE C«£EX. WICH

LOCATX>e

rV"~D .r%Kgi <0>J•m >/•*«•_ -.*} W-^-i. "as*- _—

) - 'C\ ;., '.'.,.; cj:*; k?*^

CENTRAT10

DETECT10

' -TT" .v *•*;••* -&»f- X'îv^-v•*£TA-nd& "y^S^*?^*^-^ iTr^-ri .. . . ' 3&mfa ^/As_»-.

" --• * - ,•• ;, •» '^ r -^« -r- • ,v- -7 " ty ' r 51— -. < i. n- * ^- ^ * • - -, * • -i- - ^J1/-. -- *- - • • -. . > • ,- , - >, JT.- - - . ; ^ *i-^-K^î-^ - - ' „ „ • * . , > • ,-rr-j/ •• --, -,T » % - - V - • ' - • . - • •^,-^; ' ' ' - ^ ' V . - - - - / ^ f<.:'^v-'">f',- ::1? *--"^^ v> * ''%-''T- ^ •-x'" :-:v- -i^^/-.---H^;.;-;-.-î. - , " < - : " - V ' • . . ' : . ;;-.-. >'- - - ..rr^n^^^^ ;• :t:-: - *"i:/' *w ^jm^^m^*-:f~^K^m&tM tf:^'' i > - , - - \m! -: feW• ft-^^^.^^-:^^?^ .^^. '';''-5:: ^-:-; «gMSs^:Sv^ ' &•

" " "" '" " ' . . , - • ' £ - . ( - !t>. ,-r # • ri r^»^. ., -'.^.-'-••'.•/ ,^r :5--;,' •-• . . • ' , - . - : : v .. -i..',--::-- •.: -v-o *v - v--.,,,.^.;,'':^."/ -.>.- • ^ • ••. • -,-•"•%>"•;•--• v-'v. -;>:;.-; : >r'^'^<,ms-:î:^:^^--.^K •'•. : .: ','... ^^/'r-^VV'Sr;.':-.;-,-: v i r w - , • : ; : . . .'• ."> :.•- - • •-".',! '>'«' '• ='• - <". • • •' *' ' "'-••• ---•"• V - ,' •" - \A " - -' . • .-•'-. . •-*••(•'• ^-->:, - - ' - ; • : / - . - - : . - -> - . - • < - - • • : ; J" -

RAYMOND ROADLANDRUL--.'

' '

.<•••: •'--.^<>ît;_.;,'' --5- VFRt)MA :WELL RE1 "D '-'- '. f^'" "'v•.'•••;j\'.-CH.-/>:...' BATTLE* CREEK,: M I C H I G A N " -., fiJHî/u/

i MARSHALLING YARD _j WELL FIELD

700 -,

JTHOMAS iSOLVENT'

VERONA STRUCTURE(APPROXIMATE)

SAND ANDGRAVEL

SANDSTONE/^

CH101I.D-.860 -

840 -

CH101I.D820 -

800 -

780 - E

760 -

740 - E

720 - •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••::

i I200 400

I I600 800

I I1000 120O

I I1400 1600

^ ?....,....l..............l...............l..............l...........

1800 2030 220° 240° 260° 280°

I3200

BLOCKING WELL

V-25 _840

-—— - 820

- 800

- 780

- 760

- 740

- 720

-700I I I I

3600 3800 4000

NOTES:1 CROSS BECKONS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND

DO NOT PURPORT TO BE AN EXACT REPRESENTATIONOF SUBSUF^ACE CONDITIONS BETWEEN MONITORING WELLS.

2 QUESTION MARKS ON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOURSINDICATE INFERRED VALUES. QUESTION MARKS BETWEENGEOLOGIC UNITS INDICATE CONTACT IS INFERRED.

J5 WELL DEPTHS AND SCREENED INTERVALS ARE SHOWN FORILI USTRAT'VE PURPOSES. WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILSARE INCLUDED IN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4.

-10-

v

ND

NS

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 10X

EGENDWAS ACETONE. WHICH WAS ALSO

A r n M r A N T . DATA POINT IS TO-BEA LAB CONTAMIM. H.,,MARYCONSIDERED PRF_UMIINAK T-

— ISOCONCENTRAT^ CONTOUR. CONCENTRATIONIS jjgArRnnwnwATFR I E^1- DETERMINED FROM WATER LEVELMEASUREMENTS OBTAINED ON APRIL 2 AND 3, 1989.

NOT DETECTED ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT

NOT SAMPLED D^JRING APRIL 1989 SAMPLING

FIGURE 4-6CROSS SECTION A-A1 TOTAL VOCsTHOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD

APRIL 1989VERONA WELL FIELD


J \INDLI5I\CV06bb6.5\BSb63Il DWG

• = 1.0

86O -_ THOMASSOLVENT

ANNEX

T16.W11DB1 [325 > B23

^>

T5

840 -

820 -

800 -

780 -

760 -

740 -

720 -

X . . X . X X 2 . 1

1.6

" V • • • •• • •v \

8395-

233

\

•..SANDSTONE,

^ MAR_SH_AUJ_NG__ ,P YARD """"~""

CH150I.D

-CH107I.D10,000

4000273 . : : : : : : : : : . : : ' : ' :

60.6

\\

\V•,,.•.-.• V.YX-.::;: x;x-x\

W8S.I.D

459.

\v x\

..................^..........,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,. .,.v,v ^BHIiili;;,,,,,,,,v,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

VERONA STRUCTURE(APPROXIMATE)

W4S.I.D

WELL FIELD - 860

SAND ANDGRAVEL

105.9

268 b

BLOCKINGWELLV22 _

0.2

243;;;;;;;;

X14..8 x

- 820

- 800

- 780

- 760

- 740

- 720

700 -

ooCM

oo oo(O

oooo

oooooCN

oo oo(O

oo00

oooCN

ooCNCM

oo oo(OCN

oo00CN

oooooCN

oon

o- 700

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 10X

SECTIONS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE ANDDO NOT PURPORT TO £E AN EXACT REPRESENTATIONOF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS BETWEEN MONITORING WELLS.

2 QUESTION MARKS ON (SOCONCENTRATION CONTOURSUsIDlCATE INFERRED VALUES. QUESTION MARKS BETWEENGEOLOGIC UNITS INDICATE CONTACT IS INFERRED.

3 WEI-L DEPTHS AND SCREENED INTERVALS ARE SHOWN FORILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILSARf INCLUDED IN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4.

-1 0—

V

b

LEGENDCONCENTRATION WAS ACETONE, WHICH WAS ALSOA LAB CONTAMINANT. DATA POINT IS TO BECONSIDERED PRELIMINARY.

ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR. CONCENTRATIONIS

GROUNDWATER LEVEL DETERMINED FROM WATER LEVELMEASUREMENTS OBTAINED ON APRIL 2 AND 3, 1989.

JUNE DATA WAS USED FOR CONTOUR

FIGURE 4-7CROSS SECTION B-B' TOTAL VOCs

THOMAS SOLVENT ANNEXAPRIL 1989

VERONA WELL FIELD£ CREEK, MICHIGANBA

= 1.0

860 -

CH102I

_ P A I N T' SHOP

MARSHALLING YARD WELL FIELD

840 -

820 -

CH145I

YARD

VERONA STRUCTURE(APPROXIMATE) —-^

SAND ANDGRAVEL

CH106I

= 58 <

45,160

4

^

1

f.

--—

-

~ ——— , — _

>\V\ \ N•\v'•>*.\E B

-CH146I_ CH142I

800 -

;ofe;»£ymr-

CH108I

70.5

SAND ANDGRAVEL

70-

780 -

W1I

-860

BLOCKINGWELLV-28-840

:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•?:*?:•:•:•:•:•:760 -

/.-.-.

/::::-:::::

740 -ooCM

OO

oo(O

oooo

oooooCN

oo oo(O

oooooooCN

8CNCN

OO

CN

OO(OCN

ooo10

ooCM

NOTES:1. CROSS SECTIONS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND

DO NOT PURPORT TO BE AN EXACT REPRESENTATIONOF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS BETWEEN MONITORING WELLS.

2. QUESTION MARKS ON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOURSINDICATE INFERRED VALUES. QUESTION MARKS BETWEENGEOLOGIC UNITS INDICATE CONTACT IS INFERRED.

3. WELL DEPTHS AND SCREENED INTERVALS ARE SHOWN FORILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILSARE INCLUDED IN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4.

LEGEND VERTICAL EXAGGERATION =10x

-10-

v

CONCENTRATION WAS ACETONE, WHICH WAS ALSOA LAB CONTAMINANT. DATA POINT IS TO BECONSIDERED PRELIMINARY.

ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR. CONCENTRATIONIS pg/L

GROUNDWATER LEVEL DETERMINED FROM WATER LEVELMEASUREMENTS OBTAINED ON APRIL 2 AND 3, 1989.

-820

-800

-780

-760

-740|oo(O

FIGURE 4-8 ~720

CROSS SECTION C-C' TOTAL VOCsGRAND TRUNK PAINT SHOP

APRIL 1989VERONA WELL EIELD


i \CVO6556J\6556 JT.i DWG

= 1.0

C 1TI6 TAT UOt,=

1>NR 1 WDNRW :S B 1 WAK7WCH 107

USG5 MGRAND I1*""* «°M'TC« -Ell LOCAT1

LOCATION

"CiMITOR MIL L^CAT.t

ft H B a B Eirx•;«;>. ,r. ft? r

HQURE 3-5

QROUNDWATEF) SURFACE MAPUNCONSOUDAfED

r, 0 1000 (500 2000

'f£T

^LR£ INFTRRELJ

FK3URE 3-6

OflOUNDWATER SURFACE MAPSANDSTONE BEDROCK APRIL, 1339

•.-•"SON* wr: t PEiD

pesticide compounds or PCBs were detected in the samples, and metals concentrationswere within the range expected for the area. These results are discussed further inTechnical Memorandum 5.

THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD

The Thomas Solvent Raymond Road site was the primary facility for the ThomasSolvent Company, containing the company's office, warehouse, and solvent storagetanks. It has also been identified as the most contaminated of the known source areaswithin the Verona Well Field site. As a result of an earlier source area investigation,remediation of the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road site was initiated as a separateoperable unit action. This action and additional history surrounding the ThomasSolvent Raymond Road facility are presented in Chapter 2 of this report.

Physical Setting

The soils at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility are poorly graded fine tomedium grained loamy sands. A bedrock valley begins near the southeastern corner ofthe property and bedrock elevations decrease from approximately 830 feet to 790 feetat the northwest corner of the site (see Figure 4-6). The average thickness of theglacial soil at the Raymond Road area is 50 feet. It is underlain by approximately100 feet of the Marshall Sandstone.

The groundwater surface is located between 16 and 25 feet below the surface, and isinfluenced by the operation of the eight extraction wells that are part of the sourcearea remediation. Groundwater in the unconsolidated unit at the Raymond Road siteis within the zone of influence of the extraction wells. This zone of influence isestimated to have a 500-foot radius. Before site remediation began, the groundwaterflowed northwesterly towards the well field. Groundwater in the sandstone unit doesnot appear to be affected by the extraction system and flows towards the well field.

4-15CVOR51/120.51

Contaminant Summary

Remedial investigation field work at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road site waslimited to the collection of groundwater samples from onsite and downgradient moni-toring wells. Two separate rounds of soil borings collected as part of the installationand operation of the soil vapor extraction system have also been completed at the site.They are being presented in a separate document evaluating the remediation effort atthis site.

Seven onsite, 3 upgradient, and 14 downgradient monitoring wells were included in theRI groundwater investigation of the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road area. The loca-tions of the wells are shown on the site base map (Figure 4-2). The wells considered tobe onsite include B-17I, B-18, B-19, B-20, B-21, B-22, and CH127S. Not all of the wellswere sampled during each sampling round due to problems encountered duringsampling. The VOC results from the sampling of onsite groundwater wells arepresented in Table 4-1. Results for the upgradient and downgradient wells arepresented in Technical Memorandum 5.

Shallow onsite Well B-18 contained the highest total VOC level detected (85,960 iig/1)during the three sampling events. Other onsite shallow wells had similar concentra-tions, but onsite intermediate Well B-17I was largely uncontaminated. This mayindicate that the contamination has remained in the unconsolidated sand and gravelunit at the source area. The primary contaminants are 1,1,1-trichloroethane,trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, xylene, and toluene.

Shallow and intermediate wells CH139S and CH139I are the most contaminated of thedowngradient wells. They are located approximately 200 yards directly downgradientfrom the source area, but are outside the current groundwater capture zone. CH139S

4-16CVORS1/120.51

1

GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROMTHOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon DisulfideI. I-Dichloroethene1,1 -Dichloroethane1.2-DichloroetheneChloroform1,2-Dichloroethane2-Butanone1 . 1 , 1 -TrichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBromodichloromethaoe1,2-Dichloroporpanecis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneDib romocliloromethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzenetrans-1,3-DicliloropropeneBromoform4-Methyl-2-Pe»tanone2-HcxanoneTetrachloroethene1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTolueneChlorobenzeneEthylbenzeneStyreneTotal XylenesAcroleinAcrylonitrile

TOTAL VOCs

Notes are on last page of table.Concentrations are j i /1

owe 19-01EAWOO02/28/89GRAB

GWB20-01 GWB2I-OIEAW01 EAW8I02/28/89 02/28/89GRAB GRAB

GWCH127S-OI GWBI7-02EAW51 EAL9403/01/89 04/04/98GRAB GRAB

GWB18O2EAL9504/04/89GRAB

GWB19-02EAL9604/03/89GRAB

GWB20-02EAL9704/03/89GRAB

6 J45 1300

23 6900

19

55

5 J

360

12 28 494

17000

360

17000

34000

2000

7400

85960

10

0.6

26

146 36

Table 4-1 (Continued)GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM

THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

ChloromelhaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMclhyleoe ChlorideAcetone 470Carbon Disulfide1. l-Dichloroethenc1.1-Dichloroethane 0.51.2-DichloroetheneCliloroform1,2-Dichloroelhane 0.42-Butanone1,1.1 -Trichloroethane 18Carbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcelaleBromodichloromethane1,2-Dichloroporpanecis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroethene 37 0.6Dibromochloromethane1.1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzene 0.2tram-1,3-DichloropropeneBromoform4- Methyl -2- Pentanone2-HexanoneTetrachloroethene 280 41.1,2.2-TetrachloroethaneTolueneClilorobeiizeneEihylbenzeneSlyreneTotal XylenesAcroleinAcrylonitrile

TOTAL VOCs 805 810 7

Notes are on last page of table.Concentrations are ftg/1

GWB21-O2 GWCHI27S- GWB17-03 GWB19-03EAL98 EDG34 EEE03 EEE0604/03/89 04/04/89 06/26/89 06/26/89GRAB GRAB GRAB GRAB

GWB20-03 GWB22-03EEE07 EEE0906/26/89 06/26/89GRAB GRAB

GWCH127S-03 GWCH127S-03EEE26 EEE7006/26/89 06/26/89GRAB GRAB

1 J I J

1 J I J

II D

17 D I J 1 J

16 100 D 77 D

7.7 22 148 213 91 I I

Tab. T-I (Continued)GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM

THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD ONSITE WELLS

Notes:

J = Result below contract-required detection limit; reported as an estimateB - Result also found in corresponding blank sampleD - Dilution sampleE = Estimated, value was above calibration rangeBlanks = Compound was not detected

Example column head:

Head DefinitionGWBI9-OI Sample numberEAWOOO EPA ID number02/28/89 Date sample takenGRAB Sample type

Key to sample number:GW = GroundwaierB19 = Well numberNumbers after hyphen (-01) = Sampling round

had total VOC values of up to 22,300 |ig/l. The primary downgradient contaminantsare vinyl chloride and dechlorinated compounds (1,2-dichloroethene,1,1-dichloroethane).

The contaminant plume from the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road area flows in anorthwesterly direction towards the well field. It appears to merge with the Annex areaplume near the boundary of the well field. At the source, high concentrations of VOCsare detected in shallow wells. Downgradient of the source, concentrations of VOCs arehigher in intermediate wells than in shallow wells at the same location. The higherconcentrations in downgradient intermediate wells indicates a downward migration ofVOCs. This is shown in Figure 4-6. Similar downward migration has also beenobserved from the Annex and paint shop areas. This migration probably is the resultof pumping in the well field.

THOMAS SOLVENT ANNEX

The Thomas Solvent Annex on Emmett Street was used by the Thomas SolventCompany as a railroad siding and primary drum storage area until 1984. It was identi-fied as one of the primary source areas at the site as early as 1982. Since then, anumber of soil and groundwater studies have been conducted at the site. The summaryof the Annex history is presented in Chapter 2.

Remedial investigation field work conducted at the Annex included hand-auger soilsampling, soil borings and groundwater sampling. The analyses focused on VOCs, butalso included semivolatiles (BNAs), pesticides, PCBs, and metals. Results from eachinvestigation are presented separately below.

4-20CVORSl/120.51

Physical Setting

The Annex area is roughly 1.25 acres in size. It is primarily flat except for a loadingdock on its east side. The dock stands roughly 3.5 feet above the ground surface.There is surface vegetation throughout most of the area. The dock is paved withasphalt.

Soils at the Annex are similar to soils at other locations in the study areas (poorlygraded, fine to medium-grained loamy sands). Some material in the dock appears tocontain more organic matter and/or clay. It may be fill material brought to the site forconstruction of the dock.

Groundwater is present at about 12 to 14 feet below the ground surface. It appears toflow in a north to northwesterly direction towards the well field. • The bedrock surfaceoccurs just beneath the water table at depths of 13 to 15 feet. At least the upper 5 feetof the sandstone bedrock is weathered and fractured.

Contaminant Summary

Hand-Augers. The hand-auger soil sampling effort was used as the first phase in theRI soil investigation at the Annex. The sampling locations were focused in three areasidentified based on past practices at the facility: the loading dock, the solvent transferstation, and the tank control building. The remainder of the area was covered with aloose grid of sampling locations to help identify other areas of contamination.

A total of 31 samples were collected and analyzed. A diagram of the Annex identifyingall of the near-surface sampling points is presented as Figure 4-9.

4-21CVOR51A20.51

TANKCONTROLBUILDING

LVENTTRANSFERSTATIC

LEGEND

1 -32 • TYPICAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS

— — — PERIMETER OF GRAVEL DRIVE

LOADINGDOCK

Figure 4-9HAND AUGER SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS

THOMAS SOLVENT ANNEXVERONA WELL FIELD


Hand-auger samples were collected from just below the loading dock surface and from3 to 4 feet belowgrade throughout the remainder of the site. All the samples wereanalyzed in an onsite close support laboratory (CSL) for six indicator VOCs. Theresults from the Annex samples are presented in Table 4-2. The results show thatchlorinated compounds were found in the samples collected from beneath the loadingdock, and the vicinity of the tank control building (3 to 4 feet depth). Thesecompounds were also detected in the samples collected from the center of the site. Nocompounds were detected in the hand-auger samples from the solvent transfer area.Additional samples (approximately 10 percent) were submitted to the EPA ContractLaboratory Program (CLP) for confirmatory analysis. The CLP results matched theresults from the CSL.

Soil Borings. Following the hand-auger soil sampling effort, 16 soil borings were drilledand sampled at the Annex. The locations were selected based on the results of thehand-auger samples, a review of past practices, and the locations of previous boringsamples collected from the facility. The locations of the borings, along with boringlocations from earlier studies, are presented on Figure 4-10. The soil was sampledcontinuously in the borings from the ground surface to the water table using modifiedsplit-spoon samplers with brass-liner inserts. One 6-inch sample was taken from each2-foot split-spoon section. The samples were then composited into 6-foot sections (0 to6 feet, 6 to 12 feet, etc.) in the laboratory and analyzed for priority pollutant VOCs.The results are presented in Table 4-3.

Twelve different VOCs were detected in the soil boring samples at concentrationsabove the detection limit. The most prevalent compounds were tetrachloroethene(PCE), which was detected in 47 of the 48 samples, and trichloroethene (TCE),detected in at least one sample from each of the borings. As a group, chlorinatedhydrocarbons were the most prevalent compounds in the samples.

4-23CVOR51A20.51

Soil Borings SB-6 and SB-11 were the most contaminated of the borings with thegreatest number of compounds present and the highest concentrations of most of thecompounds. These two borings, along with SB-1, seem to identify three areas ofelevated concentrations on the site: the solvent transfer area, the tank control building,and the truck turnaround area. These areas are identified on Figure 4-10. The leastcontaminated borings were the perimeter borings (SB-12, SB-13, SB-14, and SB-16).

Contamination was also present vertically throughout most of the unsaturated zone.Contamination was found in all three sample intervals (0 to 6 feet, 6 to 12 feet, and12 feet to water table) at similar concentration levels. The relatively even distributionof contaminants may indicate that the observed contamination resulted from a numberof multiple leaks, spills, or discharges over time throughout the Annex property.

Additional discussion on the soil sampling and analyses carried out at the Annex arepresented in Technical Memoranda 2A and 2B.

Groundwater Sampling. Groundwater sampling at the Annex involved 3 upgradient,7 onsite, and 24 downgradient wells (Figure 4-2). The results of the groundwatersampling for onsite wells are presented in Table 4-4. The results for upgradient anddowngradient wells can be found in Technical Memorandum 5.

The groundwater contamination observed at the Annex is similar to the soil samplingresults described above. The contamination primarily consisted of chlorinated hydro-carbons and substituted benzenes (e.g., xylene, toluene). Vinyl chloride,1,2-dichlorothene, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and totalxylenes were detected above 100 u-gA in at least one onsite Annex well. The mostcontaminated wells were shallow Wells B-8, B-9, and B-25.

4-24CVOR51/120.51

Table 4-2Results of Hand-Auger Soil Sampling

Thomas Solvent Annex

Close Support Lab Analytical Results

Note:

No.

12345678910111213141516171819202122233425262728293031

Sample Location

VW-NS-01-01VW-NS-01-02VW-NS-01-03VW-NS-01-04VW-NS-01-05VW-NS-01-06VW-NS-01-07VW-NS-01-08VW-NS-01-09VW-NS-OMOVW-NS-OM1VW-NS-01-12VW-NS-01-13VW-NS-01-14VW-NS-01-15VW-NS-01-16VW-NS-01-17VW-NS-01-18VW-NS-01-19VW-NS-01-20VW-NS-01-21VW-NS-01-22VW-NS-01-23VW-NS-01-24VW-NS-01-25VW-NS-01-26VW-NS-01-27VW-NS-01-28VW-NS-01-29VW-NS-01-30VW-NS-01-31

TCA

BDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDL0.0420.0730.034BDLBDL0.024BDLBDLBDLBDL0.0290.0930.0230.07

0.035BDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDL

TCE

BDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDL

0.650.4

0.880.13

0.0560.310.190.170.440.26

BDL0.390.12

0.0780.16

BDLBDLBDL0.047BDLBDL

PCE

0.0220.020.3

0.044BDLBDLBDL

0.2BDLBDL0.51

914

0.680.120.270.140.130.390.420.130.29

0.0620.0960.19

BDLBDLBDL0.052BDLBDL

Concentrations reported in mg/kg.

AbbreviationDCETCATCEPCETOLXYL

Name1,1-DichloroetheneTrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneTetrachloroetheneTolueneXylene

Detection Limit0.02 mg/kg0.02 mg/kg0.02 mg/kg0.02 mg/kg1.0 mg/kg1.0 mg/kg

BDL-below detection limit

CVORll 1/102.51

TABLE 4-3ANNEX SOIL BORING ANALYTICAL RESULTS <ng/kg)

VERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK. MICHIGAN

SB-01

SB-02

SB-03

SB-04

SB-05

SB-06

INTF HVAl (FT) i OC TION—————————

0-6 T«nkA'«e-1212-14

0-6 T«nkA'»«6-1212-14

0-6 DC''*6-1212-11

0-6 De«*6-1212-11

0-6 DC*"6-1212 18

0-6 Tun1'"6-1212-14

OCA DCE TCA TC6

e«oo

410 400 7000640

690 ••• 630

300

230 25001300340

nooo6800

760

2400 --- 370 1100000260 •-- --- 2600

1200 --- -•• 14000

PCA PCE TOL

$40001000MO

260 230002000

730

6700430660

2500 3801200 2701400

0100 23057007700

570 2100000 3206100

16000

TOTAL

XYl _______ SB IBECL 2 BUT iff WXS

1400 ... ... 643001000660

310702640

730

10020430»60

562027701740

20330125008460

510 270 720 220 ... 32053808860

2400 750 650 ... ... 35000

c 0,11 pound*

DCA - 1.20KHLOROETHUCDCE- UOKHLOROETHETETCA - TRCHOROEIHMCTCE - TROljDflDEnaCTET - 1.1.2.2. TETRACHLOROETHANEPCE - TETFWCKOHCeTVeeTO.- TOLLBCXYL-XYIBC

ED- ETHIUBENZEie*CL- METHVLENECH0RCE

2-BUT- 2-BUTANONEACE- ACETOtC.... BELDW CONTWCT REQUIRED DETECTIONUMTS

DOCK -LOAOWQOOCKYANK AREA -UNDERGROUND TANK/TAM< coNTHP1-AHE*

TRANSFER -SOLVENT TRANSFER STATIONTURNAROUND -TRUCK TURNAROUND AREA

TABLE 4-3 (CONTINUED)ANNEX SOIL BORING ANALYTICAL RESULTS (fig/kg)


SCH.BCRNG

SB-07

SB-06

SB-09

SB- 10

SB-11

SB- 12

SB-13

SB-14

SB- IS

SB- 16

Com pound*

INTERVAl(FT)

0-66-12

12-14

0-66-1212-14

0-66-1212-14

0-66-1212-16

0-00-1212-10

0-00-1212-14

0-66-1212-14

0-66-1212-16

0-66-1212-14

0-66-1212-1*

LOCATION DCA

Tr»n»t»f ---

Turn-Around

Turn-Around

Turn-Around

...

Turn-Around

TtnkAiM

Turn-Around

Turn-Around

Tr«n»f*<

OocK

CCC TCA ICE

370 ••• 1700J70

300

160730

260

4200

210 2100ISO 000 2000

2700 1 600000 4000000

...

...

1 60

260

10001400190

390

PCA PCE TO. XYL ffi

7107000 ISO 090 160•oo

100002300•400

2000030002000

1MO1600012000 2900 3200 13000

$4001200000 --• 300

42000000 . 3400000 1ZOOOOOO 1MOMO

...370

1 200

93020001200

070670

1000 230

9000 39009400 1300 3002000 1700

1200 410200 140140 100

TOIAlI*CL 2-BUT ACE WXS

71010050

1470

163002300B40Q

290003 1 §o2730

21801600034000

77101204120

•40 63303340

o370

1200

10BO20001200

1230S70

2130

1080064604690

440 2440340300

OCA- 1 _2D»CHLOROETWU*OCt 1 .2 DCHjOROETrCftE

TCA- TBCWjQHOETrWtTET-PCE-TOU-

TFICrtJDFOETVCt1 .1 A2 TETRACHLOROETHANETOUJENi

XYL-XYl£ttED-

tCCL-2-BUT-

ACE-

ETHVUEICBChETHIA£Ni CMORDE2-BUTANONEAGETOrf

- BELOW CONTRACT REQUHED DETECTION UMTSL«c*llo»

DOCK- LOAONGOOCKTANK AREA- UNOERGHOUWTANK^AMCCCNTROLAHEA

TRANSFER- SOLVENT TRANSFER STATIONTURN-ABOUND- TRUCK TUHN-AROUW AREA

TANKCONTROLBUILDING

ABOVEGROUNDSTORAGETANK

LEGEND

• NEW SOIL BORING LOCATIONS

f) EXISTING SOIL BORINGS(FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES)

— — — PERIMETER OF GRAVEL DRIVE

TRUCKTURNAROUND AREA

Figure 4-10SOIL BORING LOCATIONS

FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES AT THE ANNEXVERONA WELL FIELD


. oolc 4-4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THOMAS SOLVENT ANNEX ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

ChloromethaneBromomefhaneVinyl ChlorideChloroelhaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulflde1,1-Dichloroethene1.1-Dichloroethane1.2-DichloroetheneChloroform1,2~Dichloroethane2-Butanone1 , 1 , 1 -TrichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBromodichloroinethajte1.2-Dichloroporpanccis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroctheneDibromochloromethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzenetrans-I,3-DichloropropeneBromoform4-Methyl-2-Pentanone2-HexanoneTetrachloroethene1,1,2.2-TetrachloroelhaneTolueneClilorobenzeneEthylbenzeneStyreneTotal XylenesAcroletnAery Ion itriie

TOTAL VOCs

GWB08-OIEAW4903/01/89GRAB

GWB08HHEAWSO03/01/89GRAB

GWB09-01EAW6703/02/89GRAB

GWB23-01EAW5603/01/89GRAB

GWB23-OIEAW5703/01/89DUPLICATE

GWB25-01EAWSS03/01/89GRAB

13

34

51

1762 D

3200 DI

13

62 D

170 D

43

340 D

9I

140 D

36

4094

0.7 J

7 D180 D

3 DJ

110 D

4 DJ

190 D

6ISO

3 J

95

3 J

170

1 J31

12

496.7 427

55

I I

0.9 J

20

138.9

GWCH107I-01 GWCH107D-O1EAW72 EAW7003/02/89 03/02/89GRAB GRAB

160 D

46 D

12 D37 D

1500 D

4 J

34 D

150 D

22 JD

310 D

56 D

84 D

160 D

2575

9 D

3 JD6

I4 D

160 D0.5 J

1 J

0.8 J

6 D

0.6 J2

6 D

3 JD0.4 J0.8 J

19 D

223.1

Notes to this table are on the last page of Table 4-1.Concentrations are fjg/1

Table 4-4 (Continued)GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THOMAS SOLVENT ANNEX ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

GWB08-02EAG6204/06/89GRAB

GWB08I-02 GWB09-02EAG3S EAG3604/06/89 04/06/89GRAB GRAB



GWCH1071-02 GWCH107D-02EAL73 EAL7204/06/89 04/06/89GRAB GRAB

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulflde1.1-Dichloroethene1.1-Dichloroethane1.2-Dichloroethene 12000Chloroform1,2-Dichloroethane2-Butanone1,1.1-Trichloroethane 1100Carbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBromodichloromethane1,2-Dichloroporpanecis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneDibromochloromethane1, 1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzenetrims-1,3-DicliloropropeneBromoform4-Methyl-2-Pentanone2-HexanoneTelrachloroethene 21001.1,2.2-TetrachloroethaneToluene 3100ChlorobenzeneEthylbenzene 7500StyreneTotal Xylenes 24000AcroleinAcryloiiitrile

9100

4700

50

0.7

471

976

2100

820

0.938

0.9

0.7

TOTAL VOCs 49800 0.7

110

40

260

83

51

30

5361

52 970

100

233

520

600

3300

8395

10

0.1 J

0.6

1.1

60.6

0.7

5.4

Notes to this table are on the last page of Table 4-1.Concentrations are fig/1

Tauic 4-4 (Continued)GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THOMAS SOLVENT ANNEX ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfide1,1 -Dichloroethene1. l-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloroethene 13000Chloroform1,2-Dichloroethane2-Butanone1,1.1-Trichloroetnanc 1200 JCarbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBrotnodichloromethane1,2-DichJoroporpanecis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneDibromochloromethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzenetrails-1,3-DichloropropeneBromoform4-Methyl-2-Pentanone2-HexanoneTetrachloroethene1,1,2.2-TetrachloroethaneToluene 3300ClilorobenzeneEthylbenzene 7100StyreneTotal Xylenes 24000AcroleinAcrylonitrile

GWB08-03EEE3906/29/89GRAB

GWB08-03EEE9306/29/89DUPLICATE

GWB08I-03EEE0806/29/89GRAB




GWCH1071-03 GWCHI07D-03EEF74 EEF7306/28/89 06/28/89GRAB GRAB

220 J

11000 D

12000

980 8 D

2600 J

730 J 1600 18

170 5 D 580 J 110 j

TOTAL VOCs 48600

900

4200 D

7900 D

11000 D

47170

300 J 9 D 3300 240

1280 33

1700 J

8910 2170 23

Notes to this table are on the last page of Table 4-1.Concentrations are /ig/1

CVUflSI/Ul *kl

Onsite, the highest concentrations of contaminants were found in the shallow wells.Contaminant levels in intermediate Well B-8I were, for the most part, below detectionlimits during all sampling rounds. No contaminants were found at concentrationsgreater than a few p.g/1 or with any regularity in the upgradient wells. In thedowngradient wells, concentrations were highest immediately downgradient of theAnnex. They decreased away from the source and towards the well field. The primarycontaminants downgradient of the Annex are the chlorinated hydrocarbons. The plumegenerated by contaminant movement from the Annex can be seen on the siteisoconcentration maps presented as Figures 4-3 and 4-4.

Away from the Annex, the contamination can be found first in the intermediate wells(CH107I and T-5) and then in the deep wells (W8D and W4D). This appears to be aresult of well field pumping, which is pulling the contaminated groundwater downwardas it moves towards the well field. This is shown in Figure 4-7.

Monitoring wells between the Annex and the Battle Creek river (G10, Gil, T3, T4, andT12) were sampled to investigate the impact of groundwater contaminants from theAnnex on the Battle Creek River. While low levels of contamination (<5 u-g/1 VOCs)were found in many of these wells, no definitive plume of contamination was identi-fied. The detected contaminants are suspected of being residual levels from earlierplume migration towards the Battle Creek River. There does not appear to be acurrent impact to the river.

GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD PAINT SHOP

The paint shop is part of the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Car Department, next tothe marshalling yard (Figure 4-2). The paint shop and other car department shopsused solvent chemicals for degreasing and cleaning from the mid-1960s until the 1980s.Until the late 1970s, spent solvents were disposed of on the ground outside the shopsor in a drum pit located adjacent to the paint shop. A more detailed history and

4-32CVOR51/120.51

description of the paint shop area is presented in the source area history section ofChapter 2.

Remedial investigation activities in the paint shop area included hand-auger soil sam-pling, soil borings, and groundwater sampling. The analyses focused on VOCs, but alsoincluded BNAs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals. Results of these investigations arepresented separately below.

Physical Setting

The Grand Trunk'Western Railroad Car Department is on the eastern side of themarshalling yard, a switching yard with approximately 30 sets of railroad tracks. Thetopography of the marshalling yard is flat, but the area is located on the edge of theeastern side of the river valley. The area is industrial and access is limited to railroademployees.

Soils in the area of the paint shop are poorly graded, fine to medium-grained loamysands. The alluvium is present to a depth of approximately 15 feet on the east side ofthe Car Department Building and 20 feet on the west side. The groundwater surface isat a depth of 18 to 20 feet, generally just below the bedrock surface. The bedrocksurface slopes towards the west to the bedrock valley on the western side of themarshalling yard.

Contaminant Summary

Hand-Augers. Hand-auger soil sampling was the first investigation to take place at thepaint shop area as part of this RI. Nine samples from depths of between 3 and4.25 feet were collected and analyzed for indicator VOCs. The sample points wereselected based upon the known location of the drum disposal pit on the east side of thefacility. One sample was collected from an area identified on area maps as an aban-

4-33CVOR5 I/I 20.51

doned dry well, thought to be a stormwater drainage collection point. The samplepoints are shown on Figure 4-11.

The analytical results from the hand-auger samples show that chlorinated VOCs arepresent throughout the downgradient area at depths between 3 and 4 feet. Tetrachlor-oethene was detected in all 8 downgradient samples. None of the indicator compoundswas detected in the dry well sample. The results are presented in Table 4-5.

Soil Borings. As the second step in the soil investigation at the paintshop area, ten soil borings were installed and sampled from the ground surface to thetop of bedrock. (The water table here is below the top of bedrock.) Six of these bor-ings were installed on the east side of the paint shop, and four on the west. Theborings on the east side were spread out laterally to investigate the north-southperiphery of contamination. The west side borings were put in to investigate thedowngradient movement of vadose zone contamination. All ten boring locations areshown on Figure 4-12.

Soil boring analytical results for VOCs are presented on Table 4-6. Only thosecompounds detected in the paint shop samples are included. Only three compoundswere detected in more than two samples: tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, andtoluene, Tetrachloroethene was the most frequently detected compound, found in all10 borings and in 28 of the 34 samples.

The highest concentrations of contaminants were generally found in the borings closestto the drum pit. The concentrations tended to decrease laterally and downgradient ofthe drum pit. Stratification of the contaminants was also noticed in the paint shopboring results, with the highest concentrations found in the deepest soil. The shallowestsamples were also the least contaminated (except for boring SB-27). This stratificationis probably the result of contaminant migration from a single source point (the drumpit) in the groundwater.

4-34CVOR51/120.51

VE

0 100 200

SCALE IN FEET

.._4-1 .4-2 .4-3 «4-4..4-5

CONSUMER .4.3POWER AREA

LEGEND3-.9 • TYPICAL SAMPLEtOCATION

PIGURE4-11HAND-AUGER SOILSAMPLE LOCATIONSGTWRR PAINT SHOP ANDCONSUMER POWER AREAVERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

Table 4-5Results of Hand-Auger Soil Sampling

GTWRR Paint Shop

No.

3-1

3-23-33-4

3-5

3-6

3-73-8

3-9

SampleLocation

VW-NS-03-01VW-NS-03-02VW-NS-03-03VW-NS-03-04VW-NS-03-05

VW-NS-03-06

VW-NS-03-07VW-NS-03-08

VW-NS-03-09

Close Support Lab Analytical Results

TCA0.0410.071BDL

0.034

0.027

BDL

BDL0.08

BDL

TCE

BDLBDLBDLBDLBDL

BDL

BDL0.064

BDLNote: Concentrations reported in mg/kg.

Detection limits are as follows:

Abbreviation Name Detection LimitDCE 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.02 mg/kgTCA Trichloroethane 0.02 mg/kgTCE Trichloroethene 0.02 mg/kgPCE Tetrachloroethene 0.02 mg/kgTOL Toluene 1.0 mg/kgXYL Xylene 1.0 mg/kg

BDL--below detection limit

PCE

0.233.1

0.0570.120.250.079

0.1128

BDL

CVOR1HA03J1

29* 304

28 <

CAR DEPARTMENT BUILDING

Not to Scale

LEGEND

A SOIL BERING LOCATIONS

CARREPAIRSHOP

21* 23 <

24* 220

DRUM PIT(Approximate Location)

Paved

FIGURE 4-12SOIL BORING LOCATIONS

GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD PAINT SHOPVERONA WELL FIELD


TABLE 4-6PAINT SHOP SOIL BORING ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Detected ConcentrationsVERONA WELl FIELD

BATTLE CREEK. MICHIGAN

SOU. BORING

SB-21

SB- 22

SB-23

SB-24

SB-25

SB-26

SB-27

SB- 28

SB- 29

SB-30

NOTES:BOCUTCAPCETO.

INTERVAL (FT)

0-66-1212-16

0-66-12

12-16

0-66-1212-18

0-66-1212-18

0 -66-12

12-16

0-66-1212-14

0-66-1212-1618-22

0 -66-1212-1818-20

0 -66-12

12-1818-20

0 -66-1212-1818-20

LOCATION

EulSitte

East Side

East Side

East Side

East Side

East Side

West Side

Wast Side

West Side

West Side

Bromodichloroethane MECLTrichloroethaneTeUachloroelheneToluene

BDCU TCA

...

... ...160

... ...

... ...620

... ...

... ...150

... ...

... 160240

... ...

... ...440

... ...

... ...630

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

Uelhytene ChlorideBelow contract required detection

PCE

260780

1900

260039008200

76027003200

140024003200

60012009400

4401700

12000

990035000

11001600

280

1503100

...

17004000

...

490

limits

TOTALTOL MECL VOCS

- - - ... 26077 - - - 857

... ... 2,060

2.600... ... 3,800290 290 8.400

7602.700

1 50 - - - 3.500

... ... 1>40o

... ... 2.560

... ... 3,440

... ... 600

... ... 1i2oo9.640

... ... 440

... ... 1(7QO

... ... 12,630

... ... 9,900

... ... 35,0001.100

240 --- 2.040

... ... 280

... ... o150

340 - - • 3.440

o... Q

1.700430 - - - 4.430

... ... o

... ... oo

490

Groundwater Investigation. The groundwater investigation at the paint shop areainvolved sampling and analyzing groundwater from seven onsite wells and a number ofupgradient and downgradient wells. The well locations are shown on the site base map(Figure 4-2). The wells that are considered onsite wells at the paint shop are CH106I,CH140I, CH145I, CH146I, and W14S. Well W14S is adjacent to the former drum pitlocation. Three compounds were the most prevalent in the onsite groundwater: tetrac-hloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and benzene, the first two compounds were alsofound in the hand-auger and soil boring samples, and are known to be components ofDowclene*, the solvent used by Grand Trunk employees. The sampling results fromthe onsite wells are presented in Table 4-7. Results from upgradient and downgradientwells are presented in Technical Memorandum 5.

Total VOC levels were highest in the wells closest to the drum pit and decreased awayfrom this known source, as expected. Downgradient wells on the western side of themarshalling yard generally had total VOC concentrations two orders of magnitudebelow the levels in the wells adjacent to the source. The direction of contaminantmigration appears to be in a north-by-northwesterly direction from the paint shop tothe eastern portion of the well field. Groundwater flow projections indicate that thecontaminants are being captured by the existing blocking well system. The contaminantplumes are presented on Figures 4-3 and 4-4.

The results from onsite and downgradient wells also indicate that there is a downwardmigration of the contaminants from the paint shop. The highest contaminant concen-trations in the onsite wells were detected near the top of the aquifer; however, indowngradient wells (CH144I, CH108I, W2I), the concentrations were highest inintermediate sections of the aquifer. This is shown on Figure 4-8.

4-39CVOR51/120.51

Table 4-7GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE GRAND TRUNK PAINT SHOP ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

OWCH 1061-01EAG1403/05/89GRAB

GWCH140MHEAG0903/05/89GRAB

GWCH 1451-01EAG1203/05/89GRAB

GWCH 1461-01BAG 1303/05/89GRAB

GWCH 1061-02EDG8204/05/89GRAB

GWCH 1401-02EDG8504/06/89GRAB

GWCH 1451-02EDG8804/06/89GRAB

GWCH 1461-02EDG8104/05/89GRAB

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroelhaneMethylcne ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfide1.1 -DichJoroethene1.1-Dichloroethane1.2-DichloroetheneChloroform1,2-Dichloroethane2-Butanone1,1.1-Trichloroethane 0.6 JCarbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBromodichloromethane1,2-Dichloroporpanecis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneDibromocliloromethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzenetrans-|,3-DichloropropeneBromoform4-Methyl-2-Pentanonc2-HexanoneTetrachloroethene 61. 1,2.2~TetnichIoroethaneTolueneChlorobenzeneEthylbenzeneSlyreneTotal XylenesAc role inAcrylonitrile

TOTAL VOCs 6.6

150 D

3 J

330 D

560 E5919

12

4400 D180

36

222

12000 D

21017000

1500 87

16

993323

6300

0.40.3

20.9

4.6

488 17281

280

160

1300

4900160

11000

28000

64510

30

190 16000

283 22501

0.5

10.9

23.1

5.5

0.70.33.3

70.5

Notes to this table are on last page of Table 4-1.Concentrations are /ig/l

CVGKil ' IM *k

Table -.-7 (Continued)GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE GRAND TRUNK PAINT SHOP ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroeJhaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfide1,1 -Dichloroethene1.1-Dichloroethane1.2-DichloroetheneChloroform1,2-Dichloroethane2-BuIanone1 , 1 . 1 -TrichloroetbaneCarbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBromodichloroinfithane1,2-DichIoroporpanecis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneDibromochloromethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaiieBenzenetrans-1,3-DichloropropeneBromotorm4-Methyl-2~Pentanone2-HexanoneTetrachloroethene1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTolueneChlorobenzeneEthylbenzeneStyreneTotal XylenesAcroleinAcrylonitrile

TOTAL VOCs

GWWI4S-02EDG8904/06/89GRAB

GWCH1061-03EEE2406/28/89GRAB

GWCH 1401-03EEE2306/28/89GRAB

GWCH 1451-03EEE2906/28/89GRAB

GWCH 1461-03EEE2706/28/89GRAB

GWW145-03EEE3006/28/89GRAB

160

13000 78 DJ 98 D 5700 10000

32000 460 D 190 D

16000 DJ

2000 DJ 31000 DJ

45160 550 290 23700 23 41000

Notes to this table are on last page of Table 4-1.Concentrations are /l

GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD ROUNDHOUSE

The roundhouse facility was built by the Grand Trunk Western Railroad in the 1920sand was used for engine storage and repair until the 1950s. It was eventually demol-ished, reportedly in the 1960s. The area is currently topographically flat. It is used bythe railroad as a storage yard for surplus equipment. The concrete foundation of theoriginal roundhouse is still present. Most, but not all, of the holes and voids at theroundhouse have been filled in with soil.

The roundhouse was included in the remedial investigation because of the possibility ofcontamination resulting from past practices. A 1988 hydrogeologic study indicated thatthe roundhouse may now be within the zone of influence of the well field.

Three separate investigations were carried out at the roundhouse. The first involved anambient air study. Using an HNu (real-time organic vapor analyzer), the ambient air inand around the roundhouse foundation was tested for organic vapors. The probe fromthe Hnu was inserted into visible voids at the roundhouse foundation and in any areafilled with soil and or building demolition materials. No organic vapors above back-ground were detected. (It should be noted that ambient air typically measures between0 and 1 ppm on an HNu because of organic vapors and moisture in the air.)

The second investigation conducted at the roundhouse involved collecting 22 soilsamples from in and around the area of the old roundhouse. The samples werecollected from depths of 6 inches to 4 feet, and analyzed in an onsite gas chromato-graph for six indicator compounds [tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,1,2-dichloroethene (total), trichlorothene, toluene, and xylene]. No compounds weredetected above the method detection limits in any of the samples. The samplinglocations are shown on Figure 4-13. Technical Memorandum 2A describes thissampling effort in greater detail.

4-42CVOR51A20.51

0 100 200

SCALE IN FEEfeRjGDEN

^^n

."-•'' i n*"jE^!

.2-4.« *

'2-19. ,2-3

.2-5

2-20. * 2-18.2-16

.2-21 .2-17.2-15

GTWRR *2-22

ROUNDHOUSE

LEGEND3-1 . TYPICAL SAMPLE LOCATION

\\FIGURE 4-13HAND-AUGER SOILSAMPLE LOCATIONSGTWRR ROUNDHOUSEVERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

The third investigation at the roundhouse involved the installation and sampling of twomonitoring wells on the downgradient side of the roundhouse. These wells (CH129Iand CH129D, see Figure 4-2) were vertically sampled at 10-foot intervals during instal-lation and then sampled again as part of the 1989 groundwater sampling efforts at thesite. No target compounds were detected during vertical sampling (analyzed for theindicator VOC compounds), and only toluene was detected (at 0.2 jig/1) during theApril sampling. No VOCs were found in either well in June, One sample fromCH129I was also analyzed for semivolatile (BNA) compounds, pesticides and PCBs.None of these compounds were detected. The groundwater sampling effort is de-scribed in Technical Memorandum 5.

Based on the results of these three investigations, it does not appear that the round-house is a source of contamination at the Verona Well Field site. It will not beconsidered further as part of this investigation.

CONSUMER POWER AREA

The Consumer Power area between the marshalling yard and the well field wasincluded in the remedial investigation because results from a 1984 soil gas survey byWarzyn identified contamination in the subsurface at concentrations higher than insurrounding areas.

Soil gas surveys are most commonly used to indicate the movement of VOCcontaminant plumes in the groundwater. However, because of an apparent area ofcontamination in the Consumer Power area, it was included in the hand-auger soilsampling effort.

Before selecting the sampling locations, a site reconnaissance was completed to searchfor obvious source areas. Only site drainage ditches on the east and west side of thearea were identified, and the hand-auger soil sampling was concentrated there. A total

4-44CVOR51A 20.51

of eight samples was collected from the locations shown on Figure 4-11. The samples

were analyzed for six VOC indicator compounds; no compounds were detected abovedetection limits.

The Consumer Power area was also evaluated using the Thomas Solvent RaymondRoad downgradient groundwater sampling results presented in TechnicalMemorandum 5. The results from upgradient and downgradient wells were comparedand no increase in groundwater contaminant concentrations were noted between thetwo sets of results.

It is, therefore, unlikely that the Consumer Power area is a separate source area. Thecontamination identified during the soil gas survey most likely resulted from thegroundwater plume flowing from the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road source area tothe well field. The Consumer Power area will not be considered further by thisinvestigation.

RAYMOND ROAD LANDFILL

The Raymond Road Landfill, located southeast (upgradient) of the Thomas SolventRaymond Road facility, was included in the remedial investigation because residentialwells downgradient of the landfill have contained low levels of VOCs in the past. Thelandfill is within the zone of influence of the well field and contaminants, if migratingfrom the landfill, could eventually affect the well field.

The Raymond Road landfill operated from 1976 through 1983 on land that was origi-nally farmland. It was licensed as a Type II landfill under the old MDNR solid wasteregulations during that period, and received refuse from a number of towns and munic-ipalities in the Battle Creek area. It ceased operation in 1983, but was never officiallyclosed following MDNR solid waste landfill closure procedures. A separate section of

4-45CVOR51/120.31

the landfill is currently receiving demolition debris. No chemical disposal or hazardouswaste disposal has been documented at the landfill.

Investigation of the landfill as part of the RI field work included sampling andanalyzing monitoring wells in the landfill and downgradient of the landfill. ThreeMDNR wells in the landfill and four downgradient wells just outside the landfill weresampled as part of the groundwater sampling events (Figure 4-2). The results,presented in Tables 4-8 and 4-9, are summarized here and presented in more detail inTechnical Memorandum 5.

Within the landfill, the compounds detected most frequently and at the highest concen-trations (up to 800 ng/1) were ketones (acetone, 2-butanone, and 4-methyl-2-pentanone). A number of chlorinated compounds and aromatic compounds werealso found in the landfill wells, generally at concentrations of less than 10 pg/1.

In the downgradient wells (CH132I, CH101I, CH101D, CH133I), the primary contami-nants were chlorinated compounds similar to those detected elsewhere on the site.These include 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene. All of thecompounds detected in the downgradient wells were also detected in the landfill wells.One ketone compound was detected in the downgradient wells; acetone was detectedat 8.6 iig/1 in the April 1989 sample from CH132I. However, because acetone was alsodetected in a number of upgradient wells from the April sampling round, it is suspectedof being a laboratory contaminant. The concentrations found in the downgradient wellswere generally lower than observed in the landfill wells (VOC values were all less than11 iig/1, and no individual concentration exceeded 2 iig/1 except the acetone samplementioned above).

It is also important to note that the most contaminated well downgradient from thelandfill, based on average VOC concentrations (CH101I at 8.9 jig/1), is adjacent to the

4-46CVOR51A20.51

4-8GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE RAYMOND ROAD LANDFILL ONSITE WELLS (ppb)

Compound

ChloromethaneBromoroethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Bisulfide1 . 1 -Dichloroethene1 , I-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloroethene

GWDNROI-OIEAW8603/02/89GRAB

45

2929

GWDNR02-OIEAW8403/02/89GRAB

0.6 J3

300

13

GWDNR03-01 GWDNR02-02EAW83 EDG4103/02/89 04/OS/89GRAB GRAB

0.62

750

3

GWDNR03-02EDG4204/05/89GRAB

0.2 J

GWDNR02-03EEE8506/29/89GRAB

2

240 DJ

2

GWDNR03-03EEE3206/29/89GRAB

Chloroform1.2-Dichloroefhane2-Butanone1,1,1-Trichloroetbane 0.9 JCarbon TetrachlorkteVinyl AcetateBromodichloromethane1,2-Dichloropropane 5cis-1,2-DichloropropeneTricliioroelhene 1Oibromochloromethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzenetrans-1,3-DichloropropeneBromoform4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 752-HexanoneTetrachloroethene1.1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneToluene 4ChlorobenzeneEthytbcnzene 2StyreneTotal Xylenes 4AcroleinAery I on it rile

TOTAL VOCs 158.9

630 D

29 D

800 35 DJ0.2

II

42 31 DJ

0.4

970.6

0.3

1611.9 0.8 312

Notes to this table are on last page of Table 4-1.Concentrations are /tg/1

Table 4-9OROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE RAYMOND ROAD LANDFILL DOWN GRADIENT WELLS (ppb)

OWCHIOII-02 GWCHIOID 02EAL75 EAL7404/04/89 04/04/89GRAB GRABCompound

GWCH 1011-01EAW4603/01/89GRAB

GWCHIOll-OIEAW4703/01/89DUPLICATE

GWCH 101 D-01EAW9303/05/89GRAB

GWCH 1321-01EAW4S03/01/89GRAB

GWCH 1331-01EAW4803/01/89GRAB

GWT09-O2EDG9004/06/89GRAB

ChloromethancBromomethaiieVinyl Chloride IChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfidc1,1 -Dichloroethene1.1-Dichloroethane 11.2-Dichloroethene 2Chloroform1,2-Dichloroethane2-Butanone1,1,1 -TrichlorocthancCarbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBromodichloromethane1,2-Dichloroporpanecis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichlorocthene 2Dibromochloromethane1.1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzenetrans-1,3-DichloropropeneBromoform4~Me*hyl-2-Pcntanone2-HexanoneTetrachloroethene 1 J1,1,2,2-TctrachloroelhaneTolueneChlorobenzcneElhylbenzeneStyreneTotal XylenesAcroleinAcrylonitrile

TOTAL VOCs 7

Notes to this table are on last page of Table 4-1.Concentrations are pg/1

0.9

0.9I

1 J

0.7

0.3

2

0.2

0.9

9.9

Tab.u 4-9 (Continued)GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE RAYMOND ROAD LANDFILL DOWNGRADIENT WELLS {ppb)

Compound

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon DisulfideI, I -Dichloroethene1.1-Dichioroethane1.2-DichloroetheneChloroform1,2-Oichloroethane2-Butanone1 . 1 , 1 -TrichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideVinyl AcetateBromodichloromethane1,2-Dichloroporpaoccis-1,2-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneDibromochJoromethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzeneIrans-1,3-DichloropropeneBromoform4-Methyl-2-Pentanone2-HexanoneTetrachloroethene1,1,2.2-TetrachloroethaneTolueneChlorobenzeneEthyihenzeneStyreneTotal XylenesAcroleinAcrylonitrile

TOTAL VOCs

GWCH1321-02EDG3804/05/89GRAB

0.4

8.6

1.10.8

GWCH 1331-02EAL7604/04/89GRAB

0.7

GWCH 1011-03EEFS106/27/89GRAB

2 J

2

1 J2

GWCH101I-03 GWCHI01D-03 GWCH 1321-03 GWCH 1331 03EEE72 EEFSO EDG38 EEF5206/27/89 06/27/89 06/27/89 06/27/89DUPLICATE GRAB GRAB GRAB

0.4 0.8 J

10.9 1.1 9.8

Notes to this table are on last page of Table 4- i.Concentrations are */l

Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility. It is possible that the low levels of contamina-tion detected in Well CH101I are a result of past activities at the Thomas Solventfacility.

Based on the findings of groundwater sampling and analysis conducted on the landfilland downgradient wells, the Raymond Road Landfill appears to be a source of contam-ination to groundwater. However, the levels of onsite and downgradient contaminationdetected at the landfill during this investigation were low. Further investigation isneeded to assess the extent of the problem. Consequently, the landfill will not beconsidered further by this remedial investigation and the subsequent feasibility study.

4-50CVOR51A20.51

o

Chapter 5CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT

Chapter 5

CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAYS

The migration of contaminants from the known source areas within the Verona WellField site and their persistence in the environment are a function of site characteristics,degradation processes, and the physical and chemical properties of the contaminantsthemselves. For the Verona Well Field site, the primary concern regarding contami-nant transport and fate is if and when contaminants will migrate from the known sourceareas to the potential receptors in either the downgradient residential neighborhoods orat the well field. Contaminant migration tendencies will be a concern when remedialactions are selected since they will also impact the method and rate of potentialremedial actions.

This chapter presents information pertaining to the migration of contaminants at theVerona Well Field, It identifies physical and chemical properties of contaminants,transformation processes important at the site, and site-specific contaminant migrationnoted during the analysis of RI data. This information will be used as part of the sitefeasibility study to identify and plan for future contaminant migration.

The chemicals detected at the Verona Well Field site can, for the most part, be sepa-rated into three general chemical groups: chlorinated hydrocarbons, aromatics, andketones. The migration characteristics of the three chemical groups are different, andeach group will be discussed separately.

Chemicals detected at the site are presented in the three groups on Table 5-1. A moredetailed look at the processes and their effects on the chemicals found at the site ispresented in Technical Memorandum 1 and its appendixes.

5-1CVOR51/082.51

Table 5-1CHEMICAL GROUPS DETECTED AT THE VERONA WELL FIELD

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

ChloroformMethylene Chloride1,2-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloroethene1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)Trichloroethene (TCE)Tetrachloroethene (PCE)1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-DichloroetheneVinyl Chloride

Aromatics

BenzeneTolueneXyleneEthylbenzene

Ketones

Acetone2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (Methyl isobutyl ketone)

CVOR70/083.51

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

A chemical's mobility in any environment depends in part upon its physical and chemi-cal properties. The properties that impact mobility include solubility, density, vaporpressure, and partitioning between media (e.g., air and water, soil and water, soil andair). A summary of several important physical and chemical properties is presented inTable 5-2. The values of these properties for the most prevalent contaminants found atthe Verona Well Field site are presented in Table 5-3.

Mobility also depends on the physical nature of the site. At the Verona Well Field site,the soils are primarily loamy sands with a low (0.14 percent) total organic carbon con-tent. The low organic carbon content indicates a low sorption potential onto the soils.

TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES

Transformation processes can alter the chemical forms of contaminants and affect theirtoxicity and mobility. Chemical and biological degradation are considered the mostimportant transformation processes for VOCs at this site.

Chemical and biological degradation can lead to the breakdown of most VOCs,including the chlorinated hydrocarbons found at the Verona Well Field site. Thebreakdown products are typically smaller compounds with different characteristics.One example is the chemical abiotic degradation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane to 1,1-dichlor-oethene, or acetic acid, that has been observed in Florida and Arizona (Cline andDelfino, 1988).

5-3CVOR51/082.51

Table 5-2Physical and Chemical Equilibrium Properties

of Contaminants Found at the Verona Well Field Site

Property

Molecular weight

Aqueous solubility

Specific gravity

Henry's constant (H)

Partition coefficient (K^)

Organic content of soil

Octanol-water partitioncoefficient (K^)

Description

Indicates the mass of a molecule of thecompound

Amount of a chemical that will dissolve inunit quantity of pure water

Density of a chemical in its pure liquidform relative to water

Predicts tendency to volatilize from wateror wet soil

Predicts tendency to adsorb on organicmatter in soil

Predicts tendency of organic compoundsto adsorb on soil

Predicts tendency of a compound to favororganic liquids over aqueous

Tendency

Higher weight molecules tend to be lessmobileHigh values indicate high solubility in waterExtremely low numbers indicate insolubility

< 1 = less dense than water (floats)> 1 = more dense than water (sinks)

Higher H implies greater tendency tovolatilize from water

Higher K^ implies greater tendency toadsorb (retards migration) to soil organicmatter

Higher organic content implies greatertendency of compounds to adsorb (retardsmigration)

Higher K^, implies greater affinity fororganic phase (retards migration)

CVOR51/084.51

Table 5-3PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA FOR SELECTED VERONA WELL FIELD CONTAMINANTS

Chemical Name

AcetoneBenzene2-ButanoneChloroform1,1-DichJoroethane1,1-Dichloroethenel,2~Dichk>roeUi»ne. x\EthylbenzeneMethylene Chloride ; -i4-Melhyl-2-PentanoneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrans- 1,2-DichIoroethede1,1,1 -TrichloroelhaneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideXylenes

SpecificGravity

0.790.880.811.491.171.22

• :.:... •••:L25" :-<.-: :

0.87.-^.•-"•^1*32"?^

0.80•--:,--:t ,v •.!i.63.-.:;j-,::"

0.871-261.351.460.910.87

MoleWeight(gymolej

587872

1199997

:-:,:,.-:- -99 - . - : ,

106;&i ::. v US -: "£$:;•

ioo%:-V:166":^;v''.

9297

13313163

106

Water3

Solubility(mg/1)

l.OOE+061.75E+03Z68E+058.20E+035.50E+Q32.25E+03&52E+031.52E+02ZQOE+04L70E+04130E+025.35E+026.30E+031.50E+031.10E+032.67E+031.98E+02

Vaporb

Pressure(mm Hg)

2,70E+029.52E+017.75E+011.51E+021.82E+026.00E+026.40E+OI7.00E+00

;--: ;3T62E*C2-M:'::1.60E+01

..-:-:'---lv78E*Otl;:':-:"2.81E+013.24E+ 021.23E+025-79E+012.66E+03LOOE+01

Henry's LawConstant

(atm-m'/mol)

ZQ6E4S5.59E-032.74E-052.87E-034-3 IE-033.40E-02

..:, ..:.9^78E^^M.:i;;.-:|-6.43E-03

; : -:;; :g:s Z03Ei03::;:-: l :S::;;i""" ""' L3"2E-04"™"^K ;:' ; ::;: : ,::2f59E^02y ¥$?•:: V

&37E-036.56E-03 -1.44E-029.10E-038.19E-027.04E-03

Kocc

(ml/g)

23.83

4.50313065

•;;:;;:;',.:?.;;::;:x.I4.::.::;:;:1,100

19.5^>?' 36*^

30059

15212657

240

Log Kowd

-0.242.120.261.971.791.84

^V: ;'::.ft48

""":'"':3.15m^m^t^Q———l^T^'vvv^zeo

2.730.482.502.381.383.26

a l.OOE+06 = 1,000,000.b Vapor pressure values are given for a temperature range of 20 to 30°C, US EPA Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. EPA540/1-86A)60.October 1986.c Organic carbon partition coefficient.d Octanol/water partition coefficient.e NA=not applicable.

CVOR70/143.51

Another example of the degradation process is the anaerobic biodegradation of tetrach-loroethene (PCE) to trichloroethene (TCE) and then to dichloroethene (DCE) andvinyl chloride. This process occurs through systematic dechlorination of the chlorinatedethene molecule. This degradation process is presented schematically in Figure 5-1.

CHEMICAL MIGRATION FOUND AT THEVERONA WELL FIELD SITE

CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS

Chlorinated hydrocarbons are the most prevalent of the contaminant groups found onthe site. They were identified in soil and groundwater samples from all three knownsource areas, and are present in downgradient groundwater samples from the residen-tial area north of Emmett Street and at the blocking wells in the well field (seeChapter 4).

The compounds are generally distributed with larger species predominant at or nearthe source areas, and the smaller species predominant downgradient of the sourceareas. At the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility, onsite monitoring wellscontained up to 17,000 iig/1 of tetrachloroethene in April 1989 but no dichlorinatedcompounds or vinyl chloride. During the same sample round, downgradientWell CH139S (approximately 200 yards northwest) contained 1,790 jig/1 of dichlorinatedcompounds and only 78 jig/1 of tetrachloroethene. This distribution pattern may be dueto differences in compound mobility (the smaller compounds are generally moremobile), or may be the result of compound degradation. The distribution at theThomas Solvent Raymond Road facility is also affected by the

5-6CVOR51/082.51

Cl Cl\ /PCE C=C

/ \Cl I ClIH Cl\ /

TCE C=C + Cf

/ \Cl I ClI

H Cl H Cl\ / \ /1,2-DCE C=C + C=C + Of/ \ / \

H Cl Cl H

\ /H H\ X

Vinyl r_rChloride ^'^

/ \Cl H

FIGURE 5-1ANAEROBIC DEGRADATION OF PCE


ongoing remediation at the site, which has removed a percentage of the contaminantsand, by supplying air to the subsurface, has probably hindered the anaerobic degrada-tion of the larger compounds (tetrachloroethene).

At the Thomas Solvent Annex facility, total 1,2-dichloroethene is the predominantcontaminant both onsite and downgradient, but the ratio of the dichloroethenes totetrachloroethene and trichloroethene increases with distance from the source. Forexample, downgradient Well CH131I, located near the Battle Creek River at the end ofPickford Road, contained only dichlorinated compounds during all three samplingrounds. This distribution is also likely due to compound degradation and differences inmigration rates. The Annex source area concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethene probablyresulted from anaerobic degradation of the larger compounds. Unlike the RaymondRoad area where remediation has introduced oxygen near the aquifer surface (thusretarding anaerobic processes), the Annex subsurface has remained unaltered andpotentially suitable for anaerobic degradation. The presence of vinyl chloride in onsiteWell CH107I in 1989 may also indicate the presence of microbial degradation. Novinyl chloride was detected at the Annex in earlier samples (Warzyn, 1986).

At the blocking wells, the dichlorinated compounds and the tri- and tetrachlorinated

compounds occur at approximately equal concentrations, but at up to three orders ofmagnitude less than at the source areas (10 jig/I versus 10,000 u-g/1). These decreasesin concentration could stem from dilution effects at the well field, degradation, and/orcontaminant retardation due to sorption.

AROMATIC COMPOUNDS

Aromatic compounds (benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene) were also detectedat all three source areas at concentrations greater than 1,000 ng/1. However, away fromthe sources they generally were found only in wells within 1/4 mile of the sources and

5-8CVOR51/082.51

only at much lower concentrations. Only toluene, at concentrations under 1 ng/1, wasdetected in wells in the downgradient residential area.

No aromatic compounds have been detected at the blocking wells. While aromaticcompounds tend to have a mobility similar to that of the chlorinated compounds, theymay exhibit more rapid degradation. This would account for their relative absence indowngradient wells.

KETONE COMPOUNDS

The ketone compounds, more than any of the other chemical groups detected at theVerona Well Field site, tend to be highly mobile and readily degradable. They weredetected in downgradient Well CH139S, related to the Thomas Solvent Raymond Roadfacility, and in the wells within the Raymond Road Landfill. They were not detectedwith any regularity or at significant concentrations in the wells associated with theAnnex or the paint shop, nor were they detected in any of the other wells associatedwith the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility. (Note: Because acetone is acommon laboratory chemical, it periodically shows up as a laboratory artifact in envi-ronmental samples. This occurred in a number of the April 1990 sampling results.)

Ketones were reportedly used and stored by the Thomas Solvent Company. Their lackof detection in the onsite or downgradient areas indicates they were either not releasedto the environment or have since been degraded. The regularity of detection and theconcentrations found in the Raymond Road Landfill wells indicates that they arepresent in those wells. However, the compounds were not detected in thedowngradient wells, and have either not migrated or are being degraded prior tomoving offsite.

5-9CVOR51/082.51

o

Chapter 6SUMMARY OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT

Chapter 6

SUMMARY OF THE BASELINE RISKASSESSMENT

A baseline risk assessment evaluates potential threats posed by site contaminants topublic health and the environment in the absence of remedial action (in other words,under a no-action scenario) (EPA 1988a). It identifies and characterizes the toxicity ofcontaminants of potential concern, potential exposure pathways, potential human andenvironmental receptors, and the potential impact or threat under the conditionsdefined for a site. Its purpose is to characterize the potential risks posed by a site tohelp evaluate the need for additional remedial action at the site.

This chapter summarizes the baseline risk assessment prepared for the Verona WellField site. The risk assessment evaluates the potential risks from the site under currentand feasible future land uses. Full details and an extensive description of risk assess-ment methodology are in Appendix A, whose basic outline follows the headings usedhere. Tables detailing the risk calculations are in Appendix B.

This risk assessment followed EPA guidelines (EPA 1989a, 1986a, 1986b, and 1986c).It is based on the following major assumptions:

• That the blocking well/extraction systems at the site will continue tooperate

• That no additional remedial actions have or will be taken

• That no land-use restrictions will be in effect

6-1CVOR7&019J1

• That there is the potential for future residential or industrial develop-ment of the site

• That for the purpose of risk calculations, contaminant concentrations willnot change over time

The blocking well system will be assumed to continue under a no-action scenariobecause of its importance in providing the City of Battle Creek with usable drinkingwater. The Verona Well Field is the primary well field for the City, whose entire watersupply (1988 average of 13.5 mgd) could become contaminated and unusable, a conclu-sion based on recent sampling results, if the blocking well system were turned off with-out additional site remediation.

The groundwater extraction system at Thomas Solvent Raymond Road would alsocontinue under a no-action alternative, and the SVE system would continue at least tothe point of reaching the performance objective of the original soil vapor extractioncontract. The soil vapor extraction contract was let in response to the 1985 Record ofDecision signed by EPA for the remediation of the Thomas Solvent Raymond Roadsite.

SITE BACKGROUND

The Verona Well Field's zone of influence contains three known source areas (theThomas Solvent Raymond Road facility, the Thomas Solvent Annex facility, and theGrand Trunk Western Railroad car department area, referred to as the paint shop)and two potential receptor areas. A map of the site source and receptor areas is pre-sented as Figure 6-1. Site and source area background and history are in Chapter 2 ofthis report, and summaries of source area investigations are in Chapter 4. The primary

6-2CVOR7&019J1

0 1/4 1/2

SCALE IN MILES

THOMAS SOWEMCOMMNVANNDC

GRAND TRUNKWESTERN RAILROADCAR DEnumiENTRAINTSHOP

Figure 6-1SOURCE AND RECEPTOR AREAS


contaminants at the site are VOCs, but analytical results for all detected compounds(VOCs, semivolatiles, pesticides, and metals) were included in the risk assessment.

IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL

CONCERN

All of the soil and groundwater data collected as part of the RI were included in thedata base developed to identity potential risks at the site. Seventy-three chemicals onthe EPA's Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) were detectedduring the remedial investigation of the Verona Well Field site. These include 53organic compounds and 20 inorganic chemicals. In addition, several tentatively iden-tified compounds were detected. (These chemicals are listed in Appendix A, inTables A-l, A-2, and A-3).

SCREENING

All of the 73 positively identified chemicals were evaluated to determine whether theymight be of potential concern. The evaluation included a screening based on two maincriteria: frequency of detection (in more than 5 percent of the samples analyzed) andthe availability of toricity data established by EPA. Chemicals eliminated because ofthe 5 percent criterion were reevaluated to determine if they represent localized areasof high concentration. As a result of this screening, 48 of the 73 chemicals were iden-tified as being of potential concern. (Table A-4 in Appendix A lists the chemicals thatwere eliminated as those of potential concern.)

SELECTED CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

Table 6-1 lists the chemicals of potential concern for the Verona Well Field site. (Italso notes whether these chemicals are carcinogenic, noncarcinogenic, or both, and

6-4CVOR78/019.51

shows in what area and media the chemicals were found. This information is discussedlater in this chapter.) An evaluation of potential risk from these chemicals is built ontwo assessments:

* Toxicity assessment: Considers adverse health effects, if any, of a chemi-cal; also considers the relationship between the level of exposure and theincidence of adverse health effects

• Exposure assessment: Evaluates potential pathways (such as exposure tosoil or to water) by which people could be exposed to contaminants

Detailed explanations of the methodologies for these two assessments are inAppendix A.

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

For risk assessment purposes, the chemicals are divided into two broad groups basedon human health effects: carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic.

* Carcinogenic effects result in or are suspected of resulting in cancer

• Noncarcinogenic effects range from effects on specific organ systems(e.g., neurotoxicity) to those on reproduction and offspring (e.g., terato-genicity and mutagenicity)

Exposure to some chemicals may result in both carcinogenic and noncarcinogeniceffects. Factors that should be considered in identifying toxic effects include the targetorgan and the route of exposure. For example, chromium is considered carcinogenic if

6-5CVOR7MJ19.51

Carcinogenic

1,2-Dichloroethanen-N(troso^-a-pTricnloroethene

Noncarcinogenic

Antimony

Benzoic AcidBenzylbuiyiphthftlateBromomelhane

Cadmium

ChiorobenzeneChromium l-;:;:i;-;Copper

Diethylphthalale

ManganeseMercury (inorgtnk)2 Melhylphenol

4-Melhyl-2-PentanoneNapbihaleae

Table 6-1CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN DETECTED IN VERONA WELL FIELD AREA

ANNEX PAINT SHOP RAYMOND ROADSubsurface Groundwater Subsurface Groundwaler Subsurface Groundwaler

Soils Onsile Downgradlent Soils Upgradicnt Onsile Soils Upgradienl Onslle Downgradient

X

"T

m.

"X

«-»

X

;xX

XmX

XX

:?W;

x"""""

xxfv '!&&$.X ' '„.

,„m\':¥ ' "

-.'-'-.•-,-. -~-:---Jm. . ^V:-fllJft::\^ -.;.".o:-.-.::-: .- :. . -:::. ;-:-;:;: Itf.^^n^-,^...^™

^!^XTI^..^•^^n^^'

^m^m^iM^^iMmi,::,,,.,,, ,::,,:,,.....,.,,

• " • - - — — • - : • - . • : - - - - : •

• • : :V"X-:-. -;:',':v'- • '-.,

1111

i;: t:!:|:;§l:il:3f:;:,,™,,,,,,. ,,,,..

,,,,:,,,,,,,,:,,,,:, ,

•: ...-..«. . ;;....... .- -.;.••; . ;.v:-;.;>!«»S'i:?: .:'::: :': ?-?;:;::: *::............ ........... ^

,:,,,......,, -,,, . .

:,::„,, ,,:,,,::,,,,,, :

: lN:JI :|::i|;;;::-;;. -:

.,- . . , - . . - .- , . , . .^

c

Table 6-1 (continued)

ANNEX PAINT SHOPSubsurface

SoilsGroundwater

Onsile DowngradicntSubsurface

SoilsGroundwater

Upgradicnl Onsite

RAYMOND ROADSubsurface

SoilsGroundwater

Upgradicnt Onsite Downgradient

Noncarcinogenic (continued)

NickelNitrobenzenePhenolTolueneTrans-1,2-Dichloroelhenei .i.'ilniptl toii :;1:-' ^ ;:";;Tetrahydrofuran

Xylenes

Both Carcinogenic & Noncarcinogenic

ArsenicBerylliumBi$(2-ethylbexyl)phtha|ateBromodichloromethaneCarbon TetracblorideChloroformU-Dichloroethane1,1-DichloroetheneHexachloroethaneMethylene ChlorideTelrachloroclhene1,1,2-Trichloroethane

XX

XX

X

X

;:&:wmxX

lS^ ' -'':--:^>W-:::?^:-!::feS :?V.:i:::A :y::;;. !l::-:.;:;:":.

.......... ...^_ .. . ... .......

'^mx^^^-'-'-^:-^:yfe^;-

;:. -.:v,-X

X

X

XXX

X

X

XXX

XX

.^,,:,,

X-,,-- x

.::,:-•: •:,-,--,

......... .^.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

:m%^mi

x^m" X"

'""x"'

XXX

XXX

XX

XXX

XXXXXX

XX

X X

x ' " x"

XsX;

•:X,

XXX

XxX

XXX

CVOR78/020.51

the exposure route is inhalation (with the lungs being the target organ), but is not con-sidered carcinogenic if the route is ingestion.

Details on these effects and how they were evaluated for the Verona Well Field sitechemicals of potential concern are in Appendix A.

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

The general approach to exposure assessment involves two steps:

• Exposure pathways deemed most relevant to the site are selected from alist of all possible pathways of human exposure. Typically, exposure toonly a few chemicals via a few exposure pathways will account for mostof an estimated potential risk.

• Exposure scenarios are then developed based on estimated frequency,duration and magnitudes of exposure, behavidr of "receptors" (people oranimals that may be exposed to contamination), site conditions, andchemical fate and transport.

People living in the residential areas within the Verona Well Field site, as well as theworkers on the site, are potential receptors. Potential receptor areas are shown onFigure 6-1.

ELEMENTS OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY

An exposure pathway describes how a contaminant may move from its source to areceptor. An important requirement in the risk assessment process is that there is noexposure (and thus no risk) unless the exposure pathway is complete. An example of

6-8CVOR78/019J1

a complete exposure pathway (for a generic waste site) is shown in Figure 6-2. A com-plete exposure pathway has five elements:

• A chemical source

• A mechanism for chemical release

• An environmental transport medium

• An exposure point (where receptors can come into contact with thecontaminants)

• A feasible route of exposure

Exposure can occur when chemicals migrate from a site to a potential exposure point(such as surface runoff). Exposure can also occur when receptor behavior (for exam-ple, trespass) causes them to come into contact with the chemicals or contaminatedmedia on or near the site. An exposure pathway is complete if there is a means for thereceptor to take in contaminants through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact withthe contaminated media or waste.

EXPOSURE PATHWAY ANALYSIS

Figure 6-3 shows plausible exposure pathways pertinent to the Verona Well Kield siteunder current and future land use conditions. These pathways were selected from a listof possible pathways presented in Appendix A.

6-9CVOR78AH9.51

SOURCE Source

Rainfall -Percolation

into Soil

RELEASEMECHANISM

WaterLeaches Out

Contaminants

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LeachateMixes with

Groundwater

NO RISK EXISTSUNLESS PATHWAYIS COMPLETE

Transportthrough

Groundwater

EXPOSUREPOINT

GroundwaterWell Screened

in Zone ofContamination

ROUTE OFEXPOSURE

Ingest ionof TapWater

J: \lNDUSr\CVQ6556J\C65583F4 QWG

FIGURE 6-2ELEMENTS OF A COMPLETEEXPOSURE PATHWAY(example only)VERONA WELL HELDBATTLE CREEK. MICHIGAN

————————— CKMHItL ————

CONTAMINANTSOURCE

CONTAMINANTRELEASE

MECHANISM

CONTAMINANTTRANSPORT

MEDIAEXPOSURE

POINTEXPOSURE

ROUTEEXPOSED

POPULATION

Leaching Groundwoter

SOLVENTSPILLS. LEAKS.AND HANDLINGPRACTICES

Direct Contact Onsile Soil

Off site Residence.

Onsite

Onsite

Ingeatlon

HInhalation ^

Dermal ^

* ————

Offsite Water Users^

ruture Onsite """

Incidental

Receptor Activities ReplaceRelease and Transport

Ingestion

DermalAbsorption

Future Site Users

S f\CH>«SS6J \C05MJfS DtK

FIGURE 6-3PLAUSIBLE EXPOSURE PATHWAYSVERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

oat HILL-

Sources

The identified sources of contamination include soils and groundwater in areas of theAnnex, paint shop, and Thomas Solvent Raymond Road that were contaminated bysolvent-handling practices, spillage, and leaking underground storage tanks.

Exposure Routes

The following list shows major routes of exposure for pathways at the site that havesome chance of being complete, along with potential receptors.

• Incidental ingestion of subsurface soils by future trench workers duringexcavation

• Dermal contact with subsurface soils by future trench workers duringexcavation

• Inhalation of vapors from subsurface soils by future trench workers dur-ing excavation

• Ingestion of groundwater by current and future residents and futuretrench workers

• Dermal contact with groundwater by current and future residents andfuture trench workers

• Inhalation of vapors from groundwater by current and future residentsand future trench workers

6-12CVOR78AH9.51

Pathways Eliminated from Risk Assessment

This assessment does not consider potential exposure pathways that are believed to beunimportant in the overall risk at the site. These pathways include those associatedwith surface soils and with exposures to environmental receptors.

• Pathways associated with surface soils: These include direct contact,

runoff, volatilization, and wind erosion. They were eliminated becausesurface soils have not been shown to be contaminated. The aerated andwell-drained nature of the surface soil, along with its low organic carboncontent, promote rapid chemical migration of VOCs from the surfacesoils.

• Pathways involving potential environmental receptors: These includegroundwater discharge to the Battle Creek River. They were eliminatedbecause site investigations failed to identify any potential or actual effectson environmental receptors.

PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE AND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

Contaminants have been detected in onsite subsurface soils at all three source areas.Receptors coming into contact with contaminated subsurface soils may become exposedvia three primary pathways: incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and/or inhalation ofvapors. Since the major land use for the three source areas at the Verona Well Fieldsite is commercial, a plausible exposure scenario would be that of short-term exposureduring site excavations and trenching to place or repair utility lines, pipes, etc. Poten-tial receptors due to onsite subsurface soils would be onsite short-term workers.

Contaminants have also been detected in groundwater onsite and downgradient fromthe source areas. Human exposure to groundwater contaminants can occur through

6-13CVOR78/OI9.51

ingestion of drinking water, by dermal contact with contaminated water, or by inhalingcontaminants volatilized from water during showering, cooking, or other householdactivities. All current downgradient receptors are connected to the city water supplyand exposure could occur through nonconsumptive uses (e.g., gardening, car washing).Exposures could also occur if downgradient receptors used groundwater for consump-tion in place of the City-supplied water.

EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS

Estimates of contaminant intake are built on two main factors: exposure assumptionsand exposure point concentrations.

Exposure assumptions essentially concern estimates of exposure over a long period oftime. These assumptions, which are based on guidance from EPA, address the recep-tor, exposure route, medium, intake rate, and exposure frequency. For the VeronaWell Field site, the assumptions cover the rate and frequency of exposure by ingestion,inhalation, and dermally. Receptors are current and future residents, and future trenchworkers. Media are soil, vapor, and water. Table 6-2 shows exposure routes andmedia for groups of receptors.

The exposure assumptions are explained in detail in Appendix A. The intake ratesused in these assumptions are intended to represent conservative estimates. It shouldbe recognized that exposure can be influenced by a variety of factors, including individ-ual lifestyle, hygiene, age, gender, health and nutritional status, and socioeconomiclevel. In addition, this assessment assumed that 100 percent of a given contaminantwas absorbed following ingestion.

The exposure assessment uses exposure point concentrations (direct measurements ofconcentrations at the point of contact) and intake estimates to estimate contaminantintake. Reasonable maximum exposure estimates were assumed to be the 95 percent

6-14CVOR78/019.51

Table 6-2EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE VERONA WELL HELD SITE

Receptor

Current resident(nonconsumptiveuse)

Current resident(consumptive use)

Future resident

Future worker

ExposureRoute3

ingestiondermal

ingestiondermal

ingestiondermal

ingestiondermal

ingestioninhalation

Medium

waterwater

waterwater

waterwater

waterwater

soilvapors

IntakeRate

0.1«/day

2{/dayc

2«/dayc

l«/day

O.lg/day2.1m3/hr

ExposureFrequencyb

12/y/70 yr12/yr/70 yr

daily/70 yrdaily/70 yr


250 days/yr/40 yr250 daystyr/40 yr

once/yr/40 yr8 hr/day,onceyyr/40 yr

aAn inhalation route due to water use was not quantified.

Although the assumed exposures to noncarcinogens are intermittent, the availabletoxicity values for systemic effects (RFDs) are most properly applied to chroniclifetime exposures (daily/70 yr). Therefore, since lifetime RfDs are used to calculatenoncarcinogenic risks, resulting risks may be overestimated.

Thermal intake is estimated assuming 100% and 25% body surface area exposed forfuture residential and worker exposures, respectively. Current residential exposuresassume 100% and 25% body surface area exposed for consumptive and nonconsump-tive use, respectively. A permeability constant equal to water (8x10-4 cm/hr) isassumed.

CVOR78/067.51

upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean concentrations in a given mediumat a given source area. The assessment method differs for carcinogens andnoncarcinogens.

Carcinogens

To evaluate risk from exposure to carcinogens, lifetime average contaminant intakeshave been estimated. A given total dose is assumed to have a similar potency whetherexposure occurs over a shorter (40 year) or longer (70 year) period. Exposure forworkers is not continuous over a lifetime, so exposures over 40 years were averagedover a lifetime to estimate the lifetime average daily intake.

Noncarcinogens

To evaluate exposure to noncarcinogens, daily contaminant intakes are estimated. Theestimated intakes for the Verona Well Field site chemicals are compared to lifetimeintakes considered by the EPA to be without adverse effect.

GROUPING OF DATA

The direct measurements of concentrations at the point of contact, or exposure pointconcentrations, are detailed in Appendix A. This appendix includes data on concentra-tions for all chemicals of potential concern at the site.

The data grouping is related to how the estimated risk (or risk characterization) ispresented later in this chapter. The data were grouped by source area, medium ofconcern, and exposure situations. These groupings allow estimation of potential riskunder current and future land use settings.

6-16CVOR78AU9.51

Concentrations in subsurface soils were determined only for onsite soils at each of theknown source areas (Thomas Solvent Annex, Grand Trunk paint shop, and the ThomasSolvent Raymond Road sites). No offsite soil sampling was conducted as part of thisinvestigation. Previous offsite soil sampling efforts did not identify any contaminantsother than laboratory artifacts (Warzyn, 1986).

The data for groundwater were grouped into downgradient and onsite areas forThomas Solvent Annex, and downgradient, onsite, and upgradient areas from ThomasSolvent Raymond Road. Paint shop area wells were grouped into upgradient andonsite/downgradient areas. Wells downgradient of the Annex and Thomas SolventRaymond Road were grouped to estimate current potential exposures. Downgradientpaint shop wells were grouped with the onsite wells because there is no distinctionbetween current and future receptors. Wells upgradient were also grouped to estimatecurrent potential exposures. The onsite wells for each area were grouped to estimatepotential future exposures.

RISK CHARACTERIZATION

This subsection summarizes the approach used to develop the human health risk esti-mates. It also presents a quantitative risk characterization for the Verona Well Fieldmedia of concern under the assumed exposure routes described previously.

RISK ESTIMATION METHOD

During the process of risk characterization, toxicity information for each chemical iscompared to the measured contaminant exposure levels particular to the site. Thiscomparison is to determine whether current or future concentrations at or near the siteare of potential concern. To do this, the amount of chemical predicted to enter thebody (based on the exposure assumptions in Table 6-2 and the measured media

6-17CVOR78/019.51

concentrations) is compared to the exposure levels not anticipated to have harmfuleffects. These anticipated levels are based on EPA's toxicity values.

In addition to evaluating the risks for individual chemicals in a particular medium, thecumulative risks are also estimated. This is done by summing the individual risks forthe particular chemicals. The result is a total risk estimate for the particular pathwayof exposure to a particular medium (e.g., groundwater ingestion under a residentialsetting).

The risk estimation method is different for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic chemicals,as explained below.

Noncarcinogenic Effects

The potential for noncarcinogenic health effects is evaluated by comparing the esti-mated daily intake of a chemical to a lifetime intake that the EPA believes will notproduce adverse health effects. This lifetime intake is called the reference dose, orRfD.

If the estimated daily intake for a particular chemical equals or exceeds the lifetimeintake (the reference dose), the potential exists for adverse health effects. If referencedoses for individual chemicals are not exceeded, the "hazard index" approach is used toevaluate the possibility of multiple adverse effects from exposure to noncarcinogens.

With the hazard index approach, the projected intake for each chemical is divided bythe reference dose for each chemical. The resulting quotients are summed. The sumis called the hazard index. If the hazard index exceeds 1, the concern for the potentialhazard is the same as if a reference dose were exceeded for an individual compound.

6-18CVOR78/019.51

Carcinogenic Effects

The potential for carcinogenic effects is evaluated by estimating excess lifetime cancerrisk (also called individual risk). This risk is the incremental increase in the probabilityof developing cancer over the probability of developing cancer if no exposure to sitecontaminants occurred. For example, a IxlO"6 excess lifetime cancer risk means thatfor every 1 million (106) people exposed to the carcinogen, the expected incidence ofcancer is increased by one extra case of cancer over their lifetime.

For exposure to multiple carcinogens, estimated risks for individual chemicals in a par-ticular medium are summed to obtain the total risk estimate.

RISK ESTIMATION

The exposure assessment subsection identified the potential exposure pathways associ-ated with the Verona Well Field site. Based on that analysis, three exposure settingsare defined to describe exposures for current site conditions and future potential siteuse. These exposure settings are used to evaluate the potential health threats from theVerona Well Field site. The following list notes the three exposure settings, and thetables that show risk estimate summaries for each setting.

• Current conditions-residential setting for nearby areas (Tables 6-3, 6-4)

• Future use-residential/commercial development setting (Tables 6-5, 6-6,6-7)

• Future use-subsurface excavation setting (Table 6-8)

The tables show noncarcinogenic hazard indexes and excess lifetime cancer risk. Thecancer risk is based on the cancer slope factor, which reflects the slope of the dose

6-19CVOR78/019.31

Table 6-3Summary of Risk Estimates from Groundwater

Downgradient of Source Areas

Area

Annex

Annex

RaymondRoad

ExposureScenario

Current Resident(nonconsumptive)Current Resident(consumptive)Current Resident

NoncarcinogenicHazard Index

Ingestion<0.01

0.02

0.49

Dermal<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Excess LifetimeCancer Risk

IngestionIxlO-6

4X10"4

5xlO'5

Dermal9xlO'9

IxlO-6

5xlO'7

Table 6-4Summary of Risk Estimates from Groundwater

Upgradient of Source Areas

Area

Paint Shop

RaymondRoad

ExposureScenario

CurrentResident

CurrentResident


Ingestion<0.01

<0.01

Dermal<0.01

<0.01


IngestionIxlO'9

4xlO'7

Dermal

2x10-"

3xlO'9

CVOR78/071.51

Table 6-5Summary of Risk Estimates from Subsurface Soils:

Ingestion and Inhalation by Trench Worker

Site

AnnexPaint ShopRaymond Road

ExposureScenario

Trench WorkerTrench WorkerTrench Worker


Ingestion0.39

<0.01

<0.01


Ingestion3xlO'7

8xlO-10

3xlO'9

Inhalation7X10-4

3x10-*

2xlO'5

Table 6-6Summary of Risk Estimates from Onsite Groundwater

in the Raymond Road Area

Site

Raymond RoadOnsiteRaymond RoadOnsite

ExposureScenario

FutureResidentFutureWorker


Ingestion

13.4

6.72

Dermal0.02

<0.01


Ingestion

7xlO-3

IxlO'3

Dermal

IxlO'5

IxlO-6

CVOR70/138.51


in the Paint Shop Area

Site

Paint ShopOnsitePaint ShopOnsite

ExposureScenario

Future Resident

Future Worker


Ingestion18.7

9.37

Dermal0.03

<0.01


Ingestion

2xlO'2

4x10*

Dermal

3xlO'5

3x10-*


in the Annex Area

Site

Annex OnsiteAnnex Onsite

ExposureScenario

Future Resident

Future Worker


Ingestion

20.1

10.1

Dermal0.04

<0.01


Ingestion7xlO'2

IxlO'2

Dermal

IxlO-4

lxlO'5

CVOR70/136.51

response curve for carcinogens. This estimate is expressed in terms of risk per amountof average daily contaminant intake, extrapolated to low dose levels from informationat high dose levels. It is an upperbound estimate not likely to be exceeded; true risksmay be much lower, or zero..

Details on the noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risk estimates for these exposure set-tings, and the exposure assumptions used for each, are in Appendix B.

CONCLUSIONS

The list below shows current and/or future areas of potential risk. These areas ofpotential risk were calculated to have chemicals present with hazard index valuesgreater than 1 for noncarcinogens and/or excess lifetime cancer risks of greater thanIxlO"6 for carcinogens. A risk of IxlO"6 is considered by EPA as a point of departurefor determining goals for cleanup of carcinogenic substances (EPA 1988b). The actualrisks are presented in Tables 6-3 through 6-8. Identification of these areas is based onthe exposure scenarios developed for the site, and the 95 percent upper confidencelimit of the contaminant concentrations recorded on the site.

• Current residential (nonconsumptive) uses of groundwater downgradientof the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility (ingestion)

• Current residential (consumptive) uses of groundwater downgradient ofthe Thomas Solvent Annex facility (ingestion)

• Future trench workers at any of the three source areas (inhalation)

• Future residents downgradient of and trench workers at any of the threesource areas (ingestion and dermal exposure to groundwater)

6-23CVOR78/019.5I

These risks assume a no-action scenario at the site, and could be mitigated throughfuture remedial action at each of the source areas. Potential actions to address theserisks will be developed and evaluated as part of a separate feasibility study being devel-oped for the site.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessments are subject to a variety of uncertainties. This risk assessment involvesscientifically verifiable findings (e.g., chemical concentrations in onsite groundwater), aswell as judgments about the use of various kinds of scientific information (e.g., appro-priate cancer risk models).

The major sources of uncertainty are:

• Media sampling and analyses• Contaminant fate and transport estimation• Exposure estimations• Toxicological data

Uncertainty in this risk assessment is a function of the "state-of-the-practice" of riskassessment in general and also a function of the uncertainty specific to the Verona WellField site. To compensate for apparent uncertainties, the approach used in this riskassessment was to bias exposure assessment in the direction such that risk is likely over-estimated. This approach was used for conservatism in public health protection andshould be considered when interpreting the results of this assessment.

6-24CVOR78/019.51

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT

Major assumptions used in this risk assessment are:

• Contaminant concentrations remain constant over the exposure period

• Exposure remains constant over time

• The selected ingestion rates and population characteristics (weight, lifespan) are representative for a potentially exposed population

• Risks are additive

• All intake of contaminants is from the exposure medium being evaluated(no relative source contribution)

• Current onsite concentrations represent future offsite concentrations

6-25CVOR78AM9.51

o

Chapter 7SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Chapter 7SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The Verona Well Field site is in the northeast corner of the City of Battle Creek,Michigan, within the gently rolling alluvial valley of the Battle Creek River. TheVerona Well Field is the primary well field for the City of Battle Creek, whose watersystem supplies approximately 53,000 customers. The well field 'currently contains18 production wells; two more wells are to be added before the end of 1990. In 1989,the maximum daily pumping demand on the water system was 16.3 mgd.

There are three small residential areas within the study area. Two of these areas arecurrently connected to the City water supply, although private wells may still be in usefor consumptive and nonconsumptive purposes. Pan of the third area is also connectedto the City supply. The total estimated residential population within the study area is700.

SOILS

The soils on the site are well drained, unconsolidated loamy sands and glacial tillformed in glaciofluvial deposits from the Wisconsinan glaciation. They are generallyclassified as poorly graded, fine to medium sands. Soil depth varies throughout the sitefrom 0 feet (bedrock outcrop) to a recorded high to 65 feet.

The soils overlie the Marshall Formation, a light to medium gray, fine to medium-grained sandstone. It contains many bedding plane separations and horizontalfractures. The sandstone thickness generally was found to vary from 100 to 120 feet.The sandstone overlies the Coldwater Shale, a blue-gray shale that appears to form thebottom of the aquifer used by the Verona Well Field.

7-1CVOR51A2J.51

GROUNDWATER

The groundwater surface occurs primarily in the unconsolidated unit at depths ofbetween 8 and 28 feet. There is no confining layer between the unconsolidated sandand the sandstone. Groundwater pumping in the well field depresses the water tableby up to 10 feet. The Battle Creek River (average flow of 203 cfs) is within the zoneof influence and appears to recharge the well field above the Emmett Street dam.

CONTAMINANT SUMMARY

The primary contaminants of concern at the site are volatile organics (VOCs). Theprimary contaminant source areas are the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility, theThomas Solvent Annex and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Car Department paintshop. No evidence of contamination in either the soils or groundwater that resultedfrom past practices was noted at the old Grand Trunk Western Railroad roundhouse or

the Consumer Power area, Groundwater contamination was identified in and downgra-dient of the Raymond Road Landfill. However, the concentrations measured are lowrelative to the levels seen in the known source areas.

Sampling efforts identified three distinct contaminant plumes migrating from thesources to the well field. All three plumes appeared to be intercepted by the blockingwell system. The primary components in all three plumes are chlorinatedhydrocarbons, with larger compounds (e.g., tetrachloroethene) predominating at thesources and smaller breakdown products (e.g., 1,2-dichloroethene) at the blockingwells. Aromatic compounds and ketones were also present in onsite wells, but werenot detected in blocking wells. Groundwater concentrations were found to be greatestat the source areas and immediately downgradient of the source areas.

Source area soil studies at the Annex and paint shop found VOC contaminationpresent at both areas. Three areas of high concentration were identified at the Annex:

7-2CVOR51/121.51

the underground tank area, the solvent transfer area and the truck turn-around area.Three contaminant groups were detected at the Annex: chlorinated hydrocarbons,aromatics, and ketones.

At the paint shop area, soil contamination was greatest in the areas directly downgrad-ient and close to the former source point disposal area (drum pit). The concentrationswere also greatest in the deepest soils. The primary contaminants detected in the paintshop soils were tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Forty-eight of the 73 chemicals detected in soil or groundwater samples were identifiedas contaminants of potential concern. The chemicals included carcinogens and noncar-cinogens from VOC, semivolatile, and metal groups.

The exposure pathways deemed most relevant to the site are:

• Incidental ingestion of, inhalation of vapors from, and dermal contactwith subsurface soils by future trench workers

• " Ingestion of, dermal contact with, and inhalation of vapors from ground-water by current and future residents and workers

Areas or groups that showed current or future risks (hazard index greater than 1 or anexcess cancer risk greater than IE-6) using the assumed pathways are:

• Current residential areas downgradient from the Thomas SolventRaymond Road facility (this is between Thomas Solvent Raymond Roadand the well field, and does not include any of the three residentialareas)

7-3CVOR51/121.51

Current onsite trench workers at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road,Annex, and paint shop areas

Future residents and trench workers at all three source areas

7-4CVOR51/121.51

c

Appendix ABASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix A

BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

A baseline risk assessment evaluates the potential threats in the absence of remedialaction, to public health and the environment from contamination sources at a site(EPA 1988a). The risk assessment identifies and characterizes the toxicity of contami-nants of potential concern, the potential exposure pathways, the potential human andenvironmental receptors, and the extent of expected impact or threat under the condi-tions defined for a site.

PURPOSE OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this risk assessment is to characterize the potential health and environ-mental risks posed by the Verona Well Field site. The contamination at the VeronaWell Field site generally consists of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that havemigrated into site soils and groundwater. This risk assessment focuses on these con-taminants and media, and the associated potential exposures. The results will be usedto help evaluate the need for additional remedial action at the site. The risk assess-ment evaluates the potential risks from the site under current and feasible future landuses. It assumes that no additional corrective actions will take place and no restrictionswill be placed on future site use. Evaluation of a no-action alternative is requiredunder Section 300.430(d)(4) of the National Contingency Plan (EPA, 1988b).

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE AND ASSUMPTIONS

This risk assessment was performed in a manner consistent with the following guidance:

A-lCVOR78/072.51

EPA risk assessment guidelines (EPA 1986a, 1986b, and 1986c)

• The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund-Human Health Evalua-tion Manual, Part A (EPA 1989a)

It is based on the following major assumptions:

• That the blocking well/extraction systems currently in operation at thesite will continue operating under an assumed no-action alternative -

• That no additional remedial actions will be taken

• That no land use restrictions will be in effect

• That there is the potential for future development of the site

• That for the purpose of calculations, contaminant concentrations will notchange over time

The blocking well system has been assumed to continue under a no-action scenariobecause of its importance in providing the City of Battle Creek with usable drinkingwater. The Verona Well Field is the primary well field for the City of Battle Creek,and the entire City's water supply (1988 average of 13.5 mgd) could become contami-nated and unusable, based on recent sampling results, if the blocking well system wereturned off without additional site remediation. For that reason, it was assumed that theblocking wells would continue whether or not there is additional source arearemediation.

The groundwater extraction system at Thomas Solvent Raymond Road would alsocontinue under a no-action alternative, and the SVE system would continue at least to

A-2CVOR78/072J1

the point of reaching the performance objective of the original soil vapor extractioncontract. Completion of the original remediation contract would follow the Record ofDecision issued for remediation of the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road site in 1985.

ORGANIZATION OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT

This appendix is organized into the following subsections:

• Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern identifies the contami-

nants evaluated in the risk assessment.

• Toxicity Assessment summarizes the toxicity of the selected contaminants.

• Exposure Assessment describes how receptors could come into contactwith contaminants from the site.

• Human Health Risk Characterization integrates the toxicity and exposureassessments to estimate the potential risks to public health from exposureto site contaminants.

• Limitations and Assumptions summarizes the basic assumptions used inthe risk assessment and limitations of data and methodology.

SITE BACKGROUND

The Verona Well Field's zone of influence contains three known source areas: theThomas Solvent Raymond Road area, the Thomas Solvent Annex area, and the GrandTrunk Western Railroad car department area (referred to as the paint shop). Thereare receptor areas (residential and/or industrial) located downgradient of two of theareas. Site and source area background and history are presented in Chapter 2.

A-3CVOR78/072.51

Summaries of source area investigations are in Chapter 4. A map of the site, includingsource and receptor areas, is shown in Figure A-l.

The primary receptor groups are downgradient residents and onsite and downgradientworkers. All downgradient residents are currently connected to the City water supply.However, groundwater may still be used by residents for nonconsumptive uses (e.g.,gardening). Groundwater is also used by downgradient workers for nonconsumptiveuses. The chemicals handled by the Thomas Solvent Company and the majority con-taminants detected in the soils and groundwater at all three source areas were organicsolvents. The list of solvents reportedly used and sold at the areas includes chlorinatedethenes and ethanes, benzene, toluene, xylene, ketones, naphtha, and mineral spirits.

Three separate rounds of groundwater sampling were completed at the site to generategroundwater data for site evaluation. Over 100 wells were sampled during each round.The results were grouped according to source area for evaluation and risk calculationaverages. The results are summarized in Chapter 4 (details of the results are in Tech-nical Memorandum 5).

Soil sampling was also conducted at each known source area. A total of 16 sampleswas collected at the Annex, 24 at Thomas Solvent Raymond Road, and 9 at the paint

shop. These results are also summarized in Chapter 4 (results are detailed in TechnicalMemorandum 2B).

IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Seventy-three chemicals on the EPA's Target Compound List (TCL) and TargetAnalyte List (TAL) were detected at the Verona Well Field site. There were53 organic compounds and 20 inorganic chemicals. In addition, several tentatively

A-4CVOR78/072J1

0 1/4 1/2

SCALE IN MILES

THOMAS SOLVENTCOMMNY ANNEX

GRAND TRUNKWESTERN RAILROADCAR DEMRTMENTMINT SHOP

Figure A-1SOURCE AND RECEPTOR AREAS


identified compounds were detected. These chemicals are presented in Tables A-l,A-2, and A-3 by media of occurrence for each of the three source areas.

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

All of the positively identified chemicals (including metals and semivolatiles) were eval-uated to determine whether they might be chemicals of potential concern. The evalua-tion included a screening based on two main criteria: frequency of detection and theavailability of toxicity data. These criteria are further described below. As a result ofthis screening, 48 of the 73 compounds detected were identified as potential chemicalsof concern and possible contributors to public health risk.

The evaluation excludes data unusable because of a failure to meet quality controlguidelines (for example, insufficient surrogate spike recovery), but includes data thatwere assigned a "J" qualifier, indicating that the compound was positively identified butthe concentration estimated. Tentatively identified compounds were not included in thelist of chemicals of concern for this risk assessment because they were not positivelyidentified. They were generally detected at very low concentrations and frequencies.Inorganic compounds were not included as chemicals of potential concern if thedetected concentrations did not exceed background soil concentrations (Lindsay, 1979).

Frequency of Detection

Only chemicals detected at a frequency of greater than 5 percent of the samplesanalyzed were deemed to be eligible as chemicals of potential concern. This mostoften required detection in more than one or two of the samples analyzed. Chemicalseliminated by this criterion were reevaluated to determine if they might represent local-ized high-concentration areas (hot spots) at the site. None of the chemicals eliminateddue to frequency were deemed important in this assessment.

A-6CVOR78/072.51

Table A-lCHEMICALS DETECTED AT THE ANNEX

CHEMICAL

Volatile Organic Compounds

AcetoneBenzene2-Butanone ;ChlorobenzeneChtoroethaneChloroform14-DfchkvoetIiane1,2-DichloroethaneL l-Dich toroethene1,2-DichloroetheneEthyibenzeneMethylene Chloride4-Methyi-2-pentanone1,1 A2-TetrachloroethaneTetraehloroetheneTolueneM ,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideXytenes

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

AcenaphtheneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalaie4-ChIoro-3-niethytphenolDiethylphthalate2,4-DimethyIpheDolFluorantheneHexachloroethane2-Methylnaphthalene2-MethyIphenol4-MethylphenolNaphihaleneNitrobenzenePhenanthrenePhenolPyrene

Metals

AluminumArsenic

SUBSURFACESOILS

X

X

GROUNDWATER"

X

X

XXX

XXXX

X

X

Onsite

XX

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

XX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Downgradient

XX

XXXXXX

XXX

XXX

XX

XX

Table A-l (continued)

CHEMICAL

Metals (continued)

Bwt^:^;., • • , : • ; ' . . / . • . .BerylliumCafcfom i .' ' •ChromiumCopper '- -:

IronLead"/ '.-j -:••• ' : • . ' . . . . . •MagnesiumManganeseNickelVanadium , " . • • ' " " - : • . . . •Zinc

SUBSURFACESOILS

; . , " • • - - • • • XX

. • • - : XXXX

- • • . : ; - • • • - xXX--X

• • • " . . . ' XX

Onsite

X

X

X

XXXX

GROUNDWATER"

Downgradient

9No downgradient groundwater samples were analyzed for metals.

CVOR70/041.51

Table A-2CHEMICALS DETECTED AT THE GRAND TRUNK PAINT SHOP

CHEMICALSUBSURFACE

SOILS GROUNDWATER"

Volatile Organic CompoundsUpgradient

BenzeneBroinodiCarbon isulfide

ChlorobenzeneCfttoroethaneChloroform

1 ,2-Dichloroetha ne

1,2-Dichloroethene

Methylene Chloride4-Methyl-2-pentanoneStyreneTetiachtoToetheneToluene1.1.1-TrichJoroc thane1.1.2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideXylenes

Sem (volatile Organic Compounds

BenzoicAcidBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate4-ChIoro-3-mcthylphenoI2,4-DimeihylphenoI2-MethylphenoI4-MeihylphenoIN-Nitroso-Di-n-propylaminePhenol

Metals

AluminumArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalcium

XX

XXX

X

X

XXX

XXXX

Onsite

XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX

XXXX

Table A-2 (continued)

CHEMICAL

Metals (continued)

ChromiumCopper&OB; : : '"-. '~: '-'' .". " :. '" '\ •-LeadMapwsiumManganeseNicKelr?1;."" ' i : ' . ; ; ' . ' • - - . •VanadiumZK-. : v, : • . . . • • ; . ; . .

SUBSURFACESOILS

.,..., . x

X-- . . - •- ' • ' X . :

X-:- . X

XXX•.x . . .

GROUNDWATER*

Upgradient Onsite

.. .; . xxX "

X. , - •;" ' : . ' - , :- X,

x. : ' . • • • . -,:•:•,:.: X

"No upgradient groundwater samples were analyzed for semivolatiles or metals.

CVOR70/042.51

Table A-3CHEMICALS DETECTED AT THOMAS SOLVENT RAYMOND ROAD

CHEMICALSUBSURFACE

SOILS GROUNDWATER*

Volatile Organic Compounds

Acetone ' . " " " • • ' . • ' • • ' ' :

BenzeneBTOinodichiorQinethaneBromomethane

Carbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChlofpetbane • •• ' •ChloroformChlGfomethan? " : • • " • • :Cis-l,3-Dichloropropane

"1,2-Dichloroethane1.1-DiGhJoroethene1.2-DichloroetheneEthylljenzene ' ;• .• . - ' t2-HexanoneMethytene Chloride4-Methyl-2-pentanoneSlyrene ' . . • i .TetrachloroeiheneTetrahydrofaranToluene144-Trichloroethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichjoroetheneVinyl AcetateVinyl ChlorideXylenes

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

AcenapbiheneBenzylbutylphthalateBenzole AcidBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateDibenzofuranDi-n-butylphthalateDi-n-octylpbthalateFluorene2-MctftyInaphtnaJencNaphthalenePhenaothrene

X^Xp|X$8X|';

XIIXMX; ;iX^XKj'X

XXX"

i XX

XXXXXX

XX

Upgradient

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Onsite Downgradient

XX

XxX

XX

X

XX

XXX

XXXXXXX

XXXX

XX

X


CHEMICAL

Metals

Antimony

Barium

Cadmium

Chromium

CopperL ,: ,,:::,:.,,:-

Manganese

Nickel

SodiumVanadiumZinc

SUBSURFACESOILS GROUNDWATER"

Upgradient Onsite Downgradient

• ::-. '. ,•;. -•• •. : .: .. , ., -; - „ . > ; vv. . " ,. • X'.... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. .. . . . . . . x

. , . . - . . : : , . . - . - , . . . : - . : . . . . . . . . . . . • . . , . . - . , ,:.,,:•,,,....,.. ^

.,,,.:,,:,,,...,:.-:.,,.,..•, : ,V-,:, , ,- . . : - . - . - : : . : - . - • . - . - : . - .^ -- ' ,- ^

- ,.-:,-., : , . . ,- .,,,.,,,,,,,,,.,„. .^-

. . . . . . . . . . ,, -, . __

1 '•,,:,":•:.": . . ' - • : : , - " . . . ' - • : • . : ; • . .: : . ' : :V - ' ' , . , • ' : . ; : - : ' . . ,V ::-: ,X

. - , - : . . . - . . , : - -,,- . , . . - . , , , , . • : , • - - f ,,.,:,,,:•,,-:,: ^

- : • • • • . • - • - . : : , ' - ' ' , - '•^'.r.y;. XX

X. . - . ; - • " . •-..- X

X

aNo upgradient or onsite groundwater samples were analyzed for metals.

CVOR70/043.51

Availability of Toxicity Value

The second criterion for identifying a chemical as one of potential concern is the avail-ability of a toxicity value established by the EPA (such as cancer slope factors andreference dose values). If a toxicity value was not available, then the chemical was notincluded as one of potential concern. It should be recognized, however, that lack of anavailable toxicity value does not preclude a chemical's toxicity.

Table A-4 lists chemicals detected at the Verona Well Field Site but eliminated asthose of potential concern by virtue of detection frequency and/or lack of toxicityvalues.

SELECTED CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

As a result of the screening, 48 of the 73 chemicals identified were selected as chemi-cals of potential concern. The list includes VOCs, semivolatiles, and metals. Table A-5lists these chemicals for the Verona Well Field Site. Included are selected physical,chemical, and fate properties for each chemical. These properties can influence achemical's fate and transport, and are important in considering exposure. The toxicitiesand potential exposures to chemicals of potential concern are evaluated in the followingsubsections.

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

The toxicity assessment contains two steps: hazard identification, and dose-responseevaluation. Hazard identification is the process of determining what adverse healtheffects, if any, can result from exposure to a particular chemical. Dose-response eval-uation, quantitatively examines the relationship between the level of exposure and theincidence of adverse health effects in the exposed population. This subsection

A-13CVOR7S/072.5I

Table A-4VERONA WELL FIELD SITE

CHEMICALS ELIMINATED AS THOSE OFPOTENTIAL CONCERN AND

CRITERIA FOR ELIMINATION

Eliminated EliminatedBased on Based on

Unavailable DetectionChemical Toxicity Values3 Frequencyb

Aluminum Xcjrtfefe^r^'f^1.-' ' : "V;;M; - - - • - • : : ! " - " : ' • ' ' • ' 1 ! X 1 - . • • • • • - , ' • ; - : ' • • : ' - - ' • ; -::::' •;'.':;•Chloroethane XChloromethane X4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol X

Cobalt XDibenzofuran ," ', •,..•. ";• ••; \. •;•-:_.•'.. . ' . • ' . • ; t. •"• -; • : . • ;,:.-".:::X2,4-Dimethylphenol XI^-pe^Iphthalate > XFluoranthene XFluorene . . . ". , . :', , . . • , , - ;- : . : : -:;,• . X2-Hexanone X

Lead XMagnesium X2-Methylnapththalene XBhenairthrene XPotassium XPyrene XSodium XSt^ene X1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneVinyl Acetate X

a No RFD values or cancer slope factors were available.b Detection frequency of <5%.

CVOR70/092.51

Table A-5PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND FATE DATA FOR VERONA WELL FIELD CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Chemical Name

AcetoneAntimonyArsenicBariumBenzeneBenzoic AcidBenzylbutylphlhalateBerylliumBis(2-ethylhetyl)phtluUjiteBromodtchlorotnethane

2-Butanone

Carbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformChromiumCopperDibutyl Phthalate1,1-Dicbloroethane1.1-Dichloroeihene1.2-DlchloroeihaneDiethyl PhthalateEihylbenzene

CASNo.

67-64-17440-36-07440-38-27440-39-3

71-43-265-85-085^8-T

7440-41-7

75-27-4

7440,43-975-15-056-23-5

108-90-767-66-3

7440-47-37440-50-8

84-74-275-34-375-35-4

107-06-284-66-2

100-41-4

MoleWeight(g/mole)

761541131195264

278999799

222106

Water4

Solubility(mg/1)

LOOE+06

4.66E+&28.20E+03

1.30E+015.50E+032.25E+038.52E+038.96E+02

Vaporb

Pressure(mm Hg)

2.70E+02l.OOE+00

1.J7E+01

1.82P+026.00E+02

3.50E-037.00E+00

Henry's LawConstant

(atm-ma/mol)

NAN/^:NA

*%%•7.00E-08

3-06NA

2:74E^5

3.72E-03E-pJ;NA

54M330

170,000. ,v :v.-;:-; 30,

65. :!:::;':; 14.:

142

LogKow"

-242:1.874M

2.10mm2.002.642.841.97

5.601791.841.482.503.15

a!.OOE+06 = 1,000,000.bVapor pressure values are given for a temperature range of 20 to 30°C, US EPA Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. EPA540/1-86/060.October 1986,cOrganic carbon partition coefficient.dOctanol/water partition coefficient.eNA=not applicable.

Table A-5 (continued)PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND FATE DATA FOR VERONA WELL FIELD CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Chemical Name

Hexachloroethane

Mercury (inorganic)Methylene Cnkmde2-MethyI Phenol4-Metbyl ]$wM^;^ /r4-Methyl-2-Pentanbnen-Nit roso-di-n-propylamineNaphthalene

Nitrobenzene

TetrachloroetheneTolueiie;:-:^L;}.:-,-:..., /^ - . ; . . ;Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1,1,2-TrichloroelhaneTrichloroetbeneTctrahydrofuranVanadiumVinyl ChlorideXytenesZinc

CASNo.

67-72-1

7439-97-6

95^8-7

108-10-1

91-20-3744&02-0

9 -95-3

127-18-4

540-59-6

79-00-5

109-99-97440-62-2:

75-01-4

MoleWeight(g/molc)

Water*Solubility

(mg/1)

Vapor"Pressure

(mm Hg)

Henry's LawConstant

(atm-ml'/mol)

7440-66-6

Koc*(ml/e)

"19.5"

':""Wv"364':'

59

"':'56'

57240

LogKow"

3.34

1951,941.18

2.6

0.48•2,5,-2.47Z380.46

1.38

CVOR70AM5.51

a!.OOE+06 = 1,000,000.bVapor pressure values are given for a temperature range of 20 to 30°C, US EPA Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. EPA540/1-86/060.October 1986.cOrganic carbon partition coefficient.dOctanol/waier partition coefficient.eNA-not applicable.

summarizes the toxicological characteristics of representative chemicals of potentialconcern at the Verona Well Field site. It also summarizes the dose-responserelationships (expressed as toxicity values) for all the chemicals of potential concern.

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Table A-6 presents summary toxicity profiles of selected chemicals of potential concernat the Verona Wells Field site. The table briefly describes the chemicals' acute andchronic toxicities, their carcinogenicity, and other information pertinent to their adverseeffects. Table A-6 considers the most representative toxic effects of these chemicals;more detailed toxicity profiles can be found in the toxicological literature and publica-tions referenced in the table.

For risk assessment purposes, the chemicals are divided into two broad groups basedon human health effects: carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic. Carcinogenic effects arethose that result in or are suspected of resulting in cancer. Noncarcinogenic effectscover a variety of toxicological end points ranging from effects on specific organ sys-tems (e.g., neurotoxicity, etc.) to effects on reproduction and offspring (e.g., terato-genicity and mutagenicity).

In describing chemicals as carcinogens or noncarcinogens, it must be realized that expo-sure to some chemicals may result in both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicolog-ical effects. Factors that should be considered include target organ and route of expo-sure. For example, chromium is considered carcinogenic by inhalation (with the lungsbeing the target organ), but is not considered carcinogenic by ingestion.

DOSE-RESPONSE EVALUATION

A fundamental concept of toxicology is that the toxicity of a specific substance dependson the dose or concentration of the substance (i.e., the dose-response relationship).

A-17CVOR78/072.51

Table A-6 SUMMARY TOXICITY PROFILES OF SELECTED CHEMICALS

AntimonyAcute Toxicity SummaryMany antimony compounds irritate the gastrointestinal tract;antimony tartar has been used as an emetic; intoxication resultsin severe vomiting and diarrhea. With occupational inhalationexposures, rhinitis and acute pulmonary edema may occur.Chronic Toxicity SummaryInhalation of some antimony compounds can produce rhinitis,pharyngitis, trachertis, bronchitis, and pneumoconiosis with ob-structive lung disease and emphysema. Transient spots on theskin have been reported in workers. Antimony may form stibinegas, which causes hemolysis.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.OtherTrivalent or pentavalent compounds. In mutation tests, someantimony compounds were positive in human lymphocytes andSyrian hamster embryo cells. Trivalent antimony compoundswere used for treatment of parasites.

ArsenicAcute Toxicity SummaryAcute oral exposure can cause muscular cramps, facial swelling,cardiovascular reactions, severe gastrointestinal damage, andvascular collapse leading to death. Sensory loss and hematopoi-etic symptoms delayed after exposure to high concentrations areusually reversible. Inhalation exposures can cause severe irrita-tion of nasal lining, larynx, and bronchi.Chronic Toxicity SummaryChronic oral or inhalation exposure can produce changes in skin,including hyperpigmentation and hyperkeratosis; peripheralneuropathy; liver injury; cardiovascular disorders; oral exposuresassociated with peripheral vascular disease; and blackfoot dis-ease.Cancer PotentialKnown human carcinogen; oral exposures associated with skincancer, inhalation exposures with lung cancer.OtherMay be essential. Toxicity varies for different compounds; inor-ganic trivalent arsenic compounds usually more toxic than pen-tavalent compounds; high doses of some inorganic arseniccompounds to pregnant laboratory animals produced malforma-tions in offspring.

BariumAcute Toxicity SummaryIngestion of barium salts can cause prolonged muscular stimula-tion, gastroenteritis, hypokafemia, and cardiovascular effectssuch as ventricular fibrillation and extra systoles.Chronic Toxicity SummaryProlonged occupational inhalation has resulted in baritosis—abenign, reversible pneumoconiosis.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.OtherToxicity of compounds depends on solubility.

BenzeneAcute Toxicity SummaryAcute exposures (inhalation) to high levels of benzene may leto depression of the central nervous system, unconsciousnes*..and death or may cause fatal cardiac arrhythmias.Chronic Toxicity SummaryMajor toxic effect is hematopoietic toxicity (affects formation ofblood); chronic exposure of workers to low levels has beenassociated with blood disorders, such as leukemia and aplasticanemia (depression of all three cell types of the blood in theabsence of functioning marrow).Cancer PotentialSufficient evidence that benzene is a human and animal carcino-gen; strong correlation between exposure to benzene by inhala-tion and leukemia.OtherChromosomal aberrations in bone marrow and blood have beenreported in experimental animals and some workers.

BerylliumAcute Toxieity Summary ^^Acute lung disease (chemical pneumonitis) has been observeo*^immediately after inhalation of aerosols of soluble berylliumcompounds, such as beryllium fluoride and compounds (probablyzinc beryllium silicate) in broken fluorescent light tubes. Severalmonths after exposure the entire respiratory tract may becomeinflamed with fulminating pneumonitis in severe reactions. Re-coveries usually occur within weeks, but fatalities have occurred.In studies with monkeys, high concentrations of aerosols ofberyllium fluoride or beryllium phosphate produced severe lur "*reactions in all animals and damaged the liver and kidney as was affecting adrenals, pancreas, thyroid, and spleen; many Ib-sions were similar to those in patients who died of pneumonitis.Conjunctivitis and contact dermatitis may follow exposure toberyllium, with skin lesions or ulcerations. Beryllium compoundsmay produce hypersensttivity with delayed allergic reactions.Chronic Toxicity SummaryThe lung is a major target organ for toxic affects of beryllium.Berylliosis, a chronic granulomatous lung disease that is fre-quently fatal, has been described for over 40 years amon-workers exposed to insoluble beryllium compounds; symptom ,may include shortness of breath, cyanosis, clubbed fingers,lesions that progress to fibrotic tissue and nodules with respiratorydysfunction.Cancer PotentialBeryllium compounds or alloys have produced cancer in rats,rabbits, and monkeys. Lung tumors have been reported in ratsand monkeys exposed by inhalation, intratracheally, or intrabron-chial implantation, and bone tumors have been produced inrabbits after intravenous or intraosseus administration. Excesslung cancer has been observed in some studies of workersoccupation ally exposed to beryllium, but data on exposure andconfounding factors were lacking. Beryllium and its compoundshave been classified by IARC as having sufficient evidence ofbeing carcinogenic in animals and limited evidence in humans(group 2B) and by EPA as B1, probable human carcinogen.OtherWide variations in individual sensitivity have been reported,perhaps because of an immune reaction; individuals exposed tolow doses may exhibit severe effects. Beryllium is stored in tbody for many years with detectable amounts in lung reported <.long as 23 years after exposure. Some beryllium compounds aremutagenic in in vitro tests.

BromodicloromethaneAcute Toxicity SummaryAcute effects in laboratory animals include sedation, anesthesia,fatty infiltration of the liver and hemorrhage in kidney, adrenals,'ungs, and brain.Chronic Toxicity SummaryLonger term studies in mice show reduced body weight, cen-trilobular degeneration of the liver, depressed hepatic reticutoen-dothelial system, tubular cell hyperplasia and cytomegaly of thekidney, and immune logical suppression.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.OtherResults from chjorination of natural organic precursors in rawwater. Possible fetotoxicity.

CadmiumAcute Toxicity SummaryFor acute exposures by ingest ion, symptoms of cadmium toxtcityincluded nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscular cramps, saliva-tion, spasms, drop in blood pressure, vertigo, loss of conscious-ness, and collapse. Acute renal failure, liverdamage, and deathmay occur. Exposure by inhalation can cause irritation, coughing,labored respiration, vomiting, acute chemical pneumonitis, andpulmonary edema.Chronic Toxicity SummaryRespiratory and renal toxicity are major effects in workers. Chronicoral exposures can produce kidney damage. Cadmium accumu-lates in kidney, and nephropathy results after critical concentra-tion in kidney is reached, probably about 200 u,g/g. Inhalation cancause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including bronchi-tis, progressive fibrosis, and emphysema. Chronic exposureaffects calcium metabolism and can cause loss of calcium frombone, bone pain, osteomalacia, and osteoporosis. Chronic expo-sure may be associated with hypertension. Cadmium can pro-duce testicular atrophy, sterility, and teratogenic effects in experi-mental animals.Cancer PotentialIncreased risk of prostate cancer and perhaps respiratory tractcancer in workers exposed by inhalation. No evidence of carcino-genicity from chronic oral exposure.OtherA nonessential element.

Carbon TetrachlorideAcute Toxicity SummaryFatalities have occurred in humans, with death after ingest ion ofas little as 1.5 ml and average lethal doses of 70 to 140 mg/kgbodyweight. Exposure to high dosages of carbon tetrachloride cancause CMS depression. Changes in the liver of animals havebeen reported after a single oral dose and may include rapid Itpidaccumulation, single cell necrosis, membrane effects, and livernecrosis within 24 hours, but some changes may be reversed.Chronic Toxicity SummaryExposure can produce liver and kidney damage in humans.Classic hepatotoxic, liver necrosis, and fat accumulation havebeen reported in humans, monkeys, rats, mice, rabbits, guineapigs, hamsters, cats, dogs, sheep, and cattle. After inhalationCNS depression, pulmonary edema, and fatal cardiac arrhyth-mias have been described. Encephalopathy and neuropathologi-jal alterations have also been observed in rats exposed forseveral weeks.

Cancer PotentialCarcinogen (liver tumors) in mice and rats; suggestive casereports of humans exposed to carbon tetrachloride who developliver tumors several years later [IARC].OtherFetotoxic in mice; retarded development in rats; synergistic withalcohol, producing liver injury.

ChloroformAcute Toxicity SummaryAnesthetic depresses CNS. Fatalities in humans may be rapid,resulting from cardiac arrest (apparently sensrtization to epineph-rine) or delayed with kidney and liver damage, Respiratorydepression, coma, and liver and kidney damage are among thesymptoms of exposure to chloroform. In laboratory animals, acutetoxicity depends on species, strain, sex, and age; liver damagemay be cause of death in rats and mice after acute exposure.Chronic Toxicity SummaryKidney damage (renal tubular necrosis) can occur in mice, andkidney and liver damage in rats, rabbits, dogs, and guinea pigsexposed by inhalation.Cancer PotentialCarcinogenic in mice (hepatomas, hepatocellular carcinomas),male rats (malignant kidney tumors), and female rats (thyroidtumors).OtherFetotoxic in rats and rabbits

ChromiumAcute Toxicity SummaryMajor acute effect from oral exposure is renal tubular necrosis.Inhalation of chromate salts results in irritation and inflammationof nasal mucosa, u Ice rat ion, and perforation of nasal septum.Chronic Toxicity SummaryChronic exposure to hexavalent chromium has resulted in kidneydamage in animals and humans. Inhalation exposures to chro-mates in industrial settings have resulted in nasal membraneinflammation, chronic rhinitis, laryngitis, and pharyngitis. Expo-sures to skin can result in allergic skin reactions in sensitiveindividual. Overall, hexavalent forms are usually more toxic thantrivalent forms.Cancer PotentialExcess lung cancer has been associated with chromate-produc-ing industry workers. Chromatic salts are carcinogenic in ratsexposed by inhalation.OtherEssential element. Toxicity is related to valence state.

CobaltAcute Toxicity SummaryHigh doses can produce decreased appetite, weight loss, anddebilitation. Death can occur in animals injected intravenouslywith cobalt salts.Chronic Toxicity SummaryOral exposures of humans and animals can result in polycythernia(abnormal increase in red blood cells). Vomiting, diarrhea, andflushing have been reported in humans, changes in blood pres-sure and tinnitus (ringing in the ears) and deafness in animalsafter intravenous injection. Severe cardiac effects, includingeffects on contractility, conductivity, and perhaps structuralchanges in the heart, and congestive heart failure occurred

among people drinking beer containing cobalt as a loam stabilizerat levels of approximately 1.5 mg/l beer, apparently because ofsynergistic effects of alcohol and cobalt.Among some children treated with cobalt therapeutically foranemia, toxic it y included goiter, decreased thyroid function, in-creased cardiac and respiration rate, and skin and blood pressurechanges. Cobalt may pose a health hazard to humans at levelsabove 1 mg/kg, especially people with ailments [NAS]. Workersexposed occupation ally may exhibit respiratory effects probablyfrom irritation. Cobalt salts may produce allergic contact derma-titis. Cobalt inhibits enzyme reactions catalyzed by cytochromeP450 and may affect metabolism of other chemicals.Cancer PotentialSarcomas at injection site have been observed in animals admini-stered cobalt powder or salts subcutaneousty or intramuscularly.OtherEssential nutrient as part of vitamin 812 in humans; found in diet;in livestock cobalt deficiencies cause anemia, weight loss, slowgrowth; divalent, trivalent forms; USSR limit 1 mg/l.

CopperAcute Toxlctty SummaryInhalation of copper dusts result in symptoms similar to metalfume fever. Exposure to metal fumes results in upper respiratorytract irritation, metallic or sweet taste, metal fume fever, and skinand hairdiscotoration. Exposure to dusts and mists of copper saltresult in congestion of nasal mucous membranes, sometimes ofpharynx, and occasional ulcer at ton with perforation of nasalseptum. Acute copper sulfate poisoning in humans (oral) some-times fatal; includes vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension, coma, andjaundice.Chronic Toxlclty SummaryHemorytic anemia after chronic exposure in some dialysis pa-tients. Sensitive individuals withdisorders of metabolism—Wilson'sdisease and Menke's disease.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.OtherEssential nutrient. Organoleptic threshold in water between 1 to5 mg/l.

7,1-DichloroethaneAcute Toxfcity SummaryCNS depression may occur when 1,1 -dichloroethane is inhaled athigh concentrations. Irritating to skin.Chronic Toxlclty SummaryData limited.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.

1,1-Dichloroethene(Vinylldene chloride)Acute Toxlctty SummaryLiver appears to be principal target. Biochemical changes andnecrosis in liver in fasted rats have been reported to developrapidly after inhalation. Liver damage in fasted rats can occur afterone oral dose. At high concentrations, inhalation of 1,1 -DCE cancause CNS depression in humans and unconsciousness.

Chronic Toxicity SummaryDescribed as "exquisite hepatotoxin" because it is more potentand faster acting than classic hepatotoxin, carbon tetrachloride.Kidney injury can also occur at relatively low doses. Reports ofhealth effects on workers exposed to 1,1-DCE include li\function abormallies. headaches, vision problems, weakne,fatigue, and neurological sensory disturbances.Cancer PotentialOne group of investigators reported an increased incidence ofkidney tumors in mice exposed by inhalation and possibly mam-mary tumors in rats. Tumorinrtiator activity in mouse skin followingseveral treatments with phorbol as promoter has been described.OtherStructure similar to vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen;mutagenic in bacterial tests; may be fetotoxic in laboratory ani-mals.

1,2-DichloroethaneAcute Toxicity SummaryCNS depression, lung irritation, and injury to liver, kidney, andadrenal have been reported. Deaths in humans exposed byingestton or inhalation may result from circulatory and respiratoryfailure.Chronic Toxicity SummaryChronic exposure can cause liver degeneration and kidney damagein laboratory animals. Eye damage (necrosis of corneal epithe-lium) has been observed in dogs injected with 1,2-dichloroethane.Repeated exposures have been associated with anorexia, nau-sea, liver and kidney dysfunction, and neurological disorders inworkers.Cancer PotentialCarcinogenic in mice and rats exposed orally.OtherMutagenic in some tests in bacteria, barley, and fruit flies.

c/s- 1,2-DichloroetheneAcute Toxicity SummaryAnesthetic at high concentrations; appears half as potent astransisomer in depressing CNS; elevated liver enzymes in ratsreported after one exposure.Chronic Toxicity SummaryMinimal fatty accumulation in liver of rats chronically exposed UThigh doses of cis-1,2-DCE in drinking water.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.

trans- 1,2-DichloroetheneAcute Toxicity SummaryInhalation exposure to high levels can cause narcosis and deathin rats.Chronic Toxicity SummaryRats exposed by inhalation exhibited fatty accumulation in liverand infiltration of lungs.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.

Dichloromethane(Methylene chloride)Acutt Toxic I ty SummaryActs on the CNS, causing narcosis; affects the liver. Fatalities,iave been associated with acute or prolonged exposure.Chronic Toxlcity SummaryIn animals chronic exposure can affect the liver and kidney.Damage to liver and CNS following long-term occupational expo-sure has been reported.Cancer PotentialCarcinogen in laboratory animals.OtherMutagenic in some bacterial tests.

EthylbenzeneAcute Toxfcity SummaryEthylbenzene is irritating to eyes, mucous membranes, and skin.It can cause headaches and narcosis.Chronic Toxlcity SummaryData limited.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.

LeadAcute Toxlcity SummaryAcute inorganic lead intoxication in humans is characterized byencephalopathy, abdominal pain, hemolysis, liver damage, renaltubular necrosis, seizures, coma, and respiratory arrest.Chronic Toxlclty SummaryChronic low levels of exposure to lead can affect the hematopoi-etic system, the nervous system, and the cardiovascular system.Lead inhibits several key enzymes involved in heme btosynthe-ses. One characteristic effect of chronic lead intoxication isanemia, by reduced hemoglobin production and shortened eryth-rocyte survival. In humans, lead exposure has resulted in nervoussystem injury including reduced hand-eye coordination, reactiontime, visual motor performance, and nerve conduction velocity.The developing child appears especially sensitive to lead-in-duced nervous system injury. Lead can also affect the immunesystem and produce gingival lead lines. Epidemiological studieshave indicated that chronic lead exposure may be associated withincreased blood pressure in humans. Exposure to lead is associ-ated with sterility, abortion, neonatal mortality, and morbidity.Organolead compounds are neurotoxtc.Cancer PotentialLead salts have some evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.OtherChildren are especially sensitive to low level effects.

IronAcute Toxlclty SummaryOral exposure can result in severe toxJetty, especially in childreningesting medicine, vomiting, sometimes bloody, black stools,shock, metabolic acidosis, liver damage, followed by coagulationdefects and renal failure.Chronic Toxlcity SummaryChronic exposure can produce hemosiderosis, disturbances iniver function, diabetes mellttus, endocrine, and cardiovasculareffect.

Cancer PotentialNot indicated.OtherEssential nutrient.

MagnesiumAcute Toxiclty SummaryConjunctivitis, nasal inflammation, coughing with sputum, andincreased serum calcium have been reported in industrial set-tings. Magnesium particles can become imbedded in skin andproduce lesions that do not heal. Orally magnesium salts are usedas cathartics or antacids. Above 700 mg/l magnesium sulfateusually has a laxative effect [NAS1977]. Toxicity can occur if thereis renal impairment, with effects including decreased blood pres-sure and respiratory paralysis resulting from CNS depression.Chronic Toxiclty SummaryInhalation of magnesium oxide can produce fume fever. In ani-mals subcutaneous or intramuscular injection of magnesium maycause "gas gangrene" with generation of hydrogen and magne-sium oxide after reaction with body fluids. Lesions are reversible.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.OtherEssential nutrient. Deficiency causes grass staggers in cattle andmagnesium tetany in calves may cause neuromuscular irritability,calcification, cardiac and renal damage. In humans deficiencyoccurs in alcoholics, those involved in hard labor in hot climates,and people with endocrine imbalances or using diuretics. Mostmagnesium compounds are absorbed poorly from intestine andmay interact with calcium; endocrine activity affects magnesiumlevels. WHO has recommended 150 mg/l drinking water. Tastethresholds in water are 100 mg/1 for sensitive individuals, 500 mg/I for average persons [NAS 1977].

ManganeseAcute Toxlcity SummaryAcute inhalation exposures to very high concentrations can causemanganese pneumonitis.Chronic Toxlclty SummaryChronic manganese poisoning results from inhalation of highconcentrations of manganese dust. Chronic manganese poison-ing is characterized by psychiatric symptoms, such as irritability,difficulty in walking, speed disturbances and compulsive behav-ior, and by encephalopathy and progressive deterioration of theCNS. Chronic effects of manganese poisoning are similar toParkin son's disease. Liver changes are also frequently seen.Individuals with an iron deficiency may be more susceptible tochronic poisoning.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.OtherManganese is an essential nutrient. Manganese concentrationsin water at 50 u.g/1 may exhibit undesirable taste and discoloration.

MercuryAcute Toxicity SummaryInhalation of mercury vapor can cause bronchitis and nervoussystem effects. Oral exposure can result in abdominal cramps,gastrointestinal effects, utceration, shock, circulatory collapse,and renal failure.

Chronic Toxicity SummaryOccupational exposure to inorganic mercury can produce effectson nervous system, including tremors, erethism, muscular weak-ness, personality changes, gingivitis, and colored eye reflex. Inchildren, pink disease has been reported after ingestion of mer-curous compounds. Exposure to organic mercury can causesensory and visual disturbances, tingling, paresthesiae, numb-ness, tunnel vision leading to blindness, visual, peripheral neu-ropathy, weakness in extremities and progressive ataxia, tremor,cerebral atrophy, degeneration of nerves, and death.Cancer Potential

OtherMercury is transferred transplacentally. Toxicity depends onchemical form. Metallic, organic, and inorganic compounds canbe biotransformed.

NickelAcute Toxicity SummarySigns of acute nickel toxictty may include headaches, nausea,vomiting, chest pain, cough, hyperpnea, cyanosis, gastrointesti-nal and CNS effects, weakness, fever, pneumonia, respiratoryfailure, cerebral edema, and death. Acute exposures to nickelcontaining dust may result in chemical pneumonitis.Chronic Toxictty SummaryRhinitis, nasal sinusitis, and nasal mucpsal injury are among theeffects reported among workers chronically exposed to variousnickel compounds. Allergic contact dermatitis and otherdermatol-ogical effects are the most frequent effects of dermal exposure tonickel and nickel-containing compounds.Cancer PotentialThere is extensive epidemic logical evidence indicating excesscancer of the lung and nasal cavity for workers exposed to certainnickel compounds. Nickel compounds implicated as having car-cinogenic potential include insoluble dusts of nickel subsulfideand nickel oxides, vapor of nickel carbonyl and soluble sulfate,nickel carbonyl.OtherMay or may not be an essential element.

PhenolAcute Toxicity SummaryCorrosive to tissue. Severe eyedamage and blindness may resultfrom direct eye contact. Skin contact may produce whitening ofskin, burn, or systemic poisoning. Paleness, weakness, sweating,headaches, cyanosis, kidney damage, and death may occur.Chronic Toxicity SummaryChronic phenol poisoning is rare. It induces vomiting, difficultyswallowing, diarrhea, lack of appetite, headaches, fainting, dizzi-ness, and neural disturbances. Liver and kidney damage mayoccur.Cancer PotentialPhenol may promote the effects of certain carcinogens.

Tetrachloroethene( Perchloroethylene)Acute Toxicity SummaryTetrachloroethene can depress the CNS and cause narcosis. It isirritating to mucous membranes and skin and can cause lungedema. Neurological effects on dry-cleaners have been reported.

Chronic Toxicity SummaryChronic exposure may result in pathological changes in liver oflaboratory animals. It may also affect the kidney. In humans,inhalation exposure may produce irritation of respiratory tract,nausea, headache, sleeplessness, and abdominal pains. Fata|;

ties have been reported.Cancer PotentialCarcinogenic in laboratory animals. An increased incidence ofcancers among dry-cleaning workers exposed to several solventshas been described.

TolueneAcute Toxicity SummaryHumans exposed by inhalation experimentally, occupationally, orby intentional abuse may exhibit excitation, then CNS depressionand necrosis. Neurotoxic effects include nausea, fatigue, andcoordination at low levels and confusion, ataxia, and weakness athigher levels. In rats, irritation of mucous membranes and incoor-dination have been observed, as well as pulmonary irritation withsubchronic exposure.Chronic Toxicity SummaryCNS effects have been reported in workers, such as disturbancesin memory and thinking, psycho motor skills, visual accuracy,sensorimotor speed, and performance tests. Indications of cerbral and cerebellar dysfunction include tremors, ataxia,equilibrium disorders, bizarre behavior, and emotional lobilitymay occur. In cases of abuse, changes in liver and kidney functionhave been observed. In rats, a decrease in hematocrit has beenreported.Cancer PotentialEmbryotoxicity and possible teratogenicity in mice have beenreported in an abstract. In rats, skeletal retardation of offspringhas been described.

7,1,1-TrichloroethaneAcute Toxicity SummaryTrichloroethane is a CNS depressant and may impairpsychophysi-ological functions. Human fatalities have been reported followingdeliberate inhalation or occupational exposures; lung congestionwas found.Chronic Toxicity SummaryExposure by inhalation can produce liver damage in mice araffects drug metabolism in liver of rats.Cancer PotentialMutagenic in some in vitro tests.

Trichloroethene (TCE)Acute Toxicity SummaryExposure to TCE can cause depression of the CNS, includingdizziness, headaches, incoordination similar to that induced byalcohol, nausea, vomiting, and unconsciousness.Chronic Toxicity SummaryLong-term inhalation exposure can affect liver and kidneys inanimals. In humans, changes in liver enzymes have been asso-ciated with TCE exposure.Cancer PotentialExposure of mice (orally and by inhalation) and rats have pro-duced increases in liver or lung or kidney tumors.Other"Oegreasers flush" has been described in TCE-exposed worktwho consume alcohol.

Vinyl ChlorideAcute Toxicity SummaryAcute occupational exposure to high concentrations of vinylchloride can produce symptoms of narcosis in humans. Respira-ory tract irritation, bronchitis, headache, irritability, memory dis-turbances, and tingling sensations may also occur. Deaths havebeen reported. In animals, ataxia, narcosis, blood clotting difficul-ties, congestion and edema in lungs, and kidney and liver effectshave been demonstrated. At high doses excitement, contrac-tions, convulsions, and an increase in respiration followed byrespiratory failure precede death.Chronic Toxicity SummaryHuman health effects associated with chronic occupational expo-sure to vinyl chloride include hepatitis-like liver changes, de-creased blood platelets, enlarged spleens, decreased pulmonaryfunction, acroosteolyis (sometimes with Raynaud-like syndrome),sclerotic syndrome, thrombocytopenia, cardiovascular and gas-trointestinal toxicity, and disturbances in vision and in the CMS. Inlaboratory animals, liver and kidney toxicity may be severe andhistopathological changes in lung and spleen may also occur withvinyl chloride exposure.Cancer PotentialVinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen causing liver angio-sarcomas (a very rare tumor in humans) and possibly increasingincidence of tumors of the brain, lung, and hemolymphopoieticsystem in humans. Vinyl chloride is carcinogenic in mice, rats, andhamsters.OtherVinyl chloride is mutagenic in several test systems. Chromosomeaberrations have been reported in exposed workers. In humans,possible relationships between exposure and birth defects andfetal death have been reported. Possible increased fetal mortalityamong wives of occupationally exposed workers has been de-bated. Increased skeletal variants were found in offspring of micejxposed during gestation.

Sources;Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, 3rd edition. Ed. C. D. Klassen,M. O. Amdur, and J. Doull. New York: Macmillan. 1986.IARC Monographs, Vol. 3, 20, 23. International Agency forResearch on Cancer. Lyon, France. 1973, 1979, 1980.Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 1. National Academy of Sci-ences. 1977.M. Sitting, Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals. ParkRidge, N.J.: Noyes Publications. 1981.EPA Health Advisories for inorganics, organics, and pesticides.March 1987.Experimental and Clinical Neurotoxicology. Ed. P. S. Spencerand H. H. Schaumburg, Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. 1980.W.J.Hayes. Pesticides Studied in Man. Baltimore: Williams andWilkins. 1982.29 CFR 1910:50412-99. OSHA, Occupational Exposure toFormaldehyde. December 10, 1985.40 CFR 141:25720-34. EPA. Drinking Water. July 8, 1987,ACGIH, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hy-gienists, Inc., Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values.1980. 1984.Sax, 7th edition, August. 1989.Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Halomethanes, EPA 44015-80-051. October 1980.NOTE: Health effects may be based on animal studies and do notimply that human exposure will have the same results.

XyleneAcute Toxicity SummaryAcute exposures to inhaled xylene can depress the CNS andirritate mucous membranes.Chronic Toxicity SummaryChanges in behavioral tests, manual coordination, balance, andEEG patterns have been reported in humans exposed to xytenes.Development of tolerance against some of these effects has beendescribed. Effects on liver of rats have been reported.Cancer PotentialNot indicated.

ZincAcute Toxlctty SummaryAcute adverse effects of zinc include metal fume fever by theinhalation of fumes. Fever, nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps,diarrhea may result from acute ingestions.Chronic Toxicity SummaryProlonged ingestion of zinc can result in irritability, muscularstiffness and pain, loss of appetite, and nausea. High levels of zincin diet may retard growth and produce defective mineralization ofbone.Cancer PotentialJot indicated.

OtherEssential nutrient. Taste threshold 15 ppm; 40 ppm soluble zincsalts impart a metallic taste.

Dose-response curves describe the relationship that exists between the degree of expo-sure to a chemical (dose) and the magnitude of effect (response) in the exposedorganisms or population. By definition, no response is seen in the absence of a chemi-cal. As the amount of the chemical exposure increases, the response becomes apparentand increases (EPA, 1986d). Dose-response information is used by the EPA to estab-lish toxicity values for particular chemicals.

The primary source of toxicity values is the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System(IRIS) data base (EPA, 1990a). IRIS is the EPA's repository of agency wide verifiedtoxicity values. If a toxicity value was not available through IRIS, then the latest avail-able Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST) issued by the EPA's Officeof Research and Development (EPA, 1989b) was consulted. The cancer slope factorused for arsenic was that proposed by the EPA Risk Assessment Forum (EPA 1989b).


Noncarcinogenic effects are responses to exposure that are assumed to display a thresh-old value (that is, exposure must exceed a certain critical level, or threshold beforetoxic effects are manifested). The apparent threshold value is used by EPA (in con-junction with uncertainty factors based on the weight of lexicological evidence) toderive the toxicity value. This value is called the reference dose (RfD). An RfD,expressed in units of milligrams of compound per kilogram body weight per day(mg/kg/d), is an estimate of an exposure level that would not be expected to causeadverse health effects when exposure occurs for a lifetime (EPA, 1989a). RfDs aredesigned to protect sensitive populations and are specific to exposure route (forexample, ingestion or inhalation). RfDs are verified by the EPA RfD Work Groupfollowing review of all available toxicity information and are subject to change whennew information becomes available. When an RfD is unavailable for a chemical, anacceptable intake for chronic exposure (AIC), as developed in the Health Effects

A-24CVOR78/07Z51

Assessment Documents, can also be used. This assessment uses the term RfD for bothAIC and RfD.

The chronic ingestion and inhalation RfDs for the potential chemicals of potential con-cern at the Verona Well Field site are presented in Table A-7. Ingestion RfDs wereused in this assessment when considering dermal exposures, and when inhalation RfDswere unavailable.

RfDs for some inorganic compounds are for specific forms (e.g., hexavalent and tri-valent chromium). However, the TAL analyses do not report concentrations of specificforms, but rather give results in terms of total inorganic chemical. In such situations itwas assumed that unless otherwise known, the most toxic form is present and its RfDused.


Carcinogens are characterized by a dose-response relationship that is assumed to haveno threshold. For chemicals with no threshold, any exposure is associated with somedegree of risk. Therefore, the risk of developing cancer is expressed as a frequency orprobability (EPA, 1986d).

The dose-response relationship for carcinogens is expressed as a carcinogenic slopefactor, which converts estimated daily intakes directly to incremental lifetime risk of acancer occurrence. Cancer slope factors are developed by the EPA Carcinogen Assess-ment Group (CAG) and are updated periodically. The data used by CAG for estimat-ing carcinogenic slope factors are taken from lifetime animal studies and/or humanstudies where excess cancer risk has been associated with long-term exposure to achemical agent. CAG incorporates a weight-of-evidence scheme (see footnote inTable A-8) to determine whether a chemical is a known, probable, or possible humancarcinogen (EPA, 1986b). In deriving carcinogenic potency factors, it is assumed by

A-25CVOR78/072J1

Table A-7 (page 1 of 4)TOXICITY VALUES FOR NONCARCINOGENS AT VERONA WELL FIELD

Chemical

ReferenceDose (RfD)mg/kg/day Source" Dale Critical Effect Ul* MF*

ConfidenceIn RfDd

ORAL ROUTE

Acetone

Antimony

ArsenicBarium

Benzoic acidBeryllium

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Bromodichloromelhane

Bromomethane

2-Buianone

Butyl benzyl phlhalate

Cadmium

Carbon disulfidc

Carbon letrachloride

Chlorobenzene

Chloroform

0.1

0.0004

0.001e

0.05

4rO

0.005

0.02

0.02

0.0014

0.05

0.2

0.0005

0.1

0.0007

0.02

0.01

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST.

IRIS

74-89

8-1-89

7-3U89

8-1-89

8,1-89

1-1-90

8-1-89

1-1-89

8-1-89

12-1-89

9,1^9

10-1-89

2-1-S9

12-1-89

7-1-89

6-30-88

Increased liver and kidney weightand nephrotpxicHy

Longevity, blood glucose, andcholesterol

Keratosis and hyperpigraeotationIncreased blood pressure

Human daily per capita ;V;'No adverse effects

Increased relative liver weight ;Renal cytomegaly

Epithelial byperplasia of ;foreslomach

Fetoloxicity in rats

Effects on livenbody and livenbrainweight ratios '^iHV'^ "•Significant proteinuria

Fetal toxicity/malfbrmationsLiver lesions

Liver and kidney effectsFatty cyst formation in liver

..ixtff1,000

" ': " •**•*''

100

•" ;-.-;i100

x,oob1,000

1.000

1,000;:.w*l

10

1001,000

1,000

1,000

• • • • > :

1

, i-:-.' : !.*-'-

1;?-:".'- 1"

1:;--..;,:i.:

i:'1KV

i;|:i:

111

—

1

Low

Low

4- • :,"" . : . ' - .

Medium

MediumLow

MediumMedium

Medium

Medium

InPW

High

MediumMedium

-

Medium

CVOR70/139.5I


Chemical

ReferenceDose (RfD)mg/kg/day Source* Date Critical Effect Uf* MF«

ConfidenceinRfDd

ORAL ROUTE (continued) : , - . . . • . , A ---: ; i^.- ;/:Vv . ; S.^^^:^.^ :• : " . / " • ^ : " ; : : :

Chromium IIIChromium VI

CopperDi-n-butylphthalate

J4^D^^toctliai! ':;'-:;':HTir^3I1 , 1 -Dich loroet hene

trans-l,2-Dichloroethene

Diethyl phthalate

Ethylbenzene

Hexachloroethane

ManganeseMercury

Methylene chloride

4-Meihyl-2-pentanone(MlBK)

1.0

0.005

ao3/0.1

mffffX0.009

0.02

0.8

0.1

0.001

a20.0003

0.060.05

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST . ;

IRIS:jE*EAW--'::IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST

HEAST

IRIS

IRIS

8-1-89

3-1-88

7^9

8-1-89

-UK4-1-89

1-1-89

8-1-89

8-1-89

3-1-88

7-1-89

7-1-89

10-1-89

7-1-89

•N6«a^"0b*?irt^';;E;^:^V^;^^No effects reported

.Local GI irritation : V .^ ',._ ...... -\.:.^ =>>;

Increased mortality

^J^pii^l^l^^i^^^^KMHepatic lesions

" Increased seram; alkaline / - - • : -=^ >^f :phosphalase in male mice

Decreased growth rate, foodconsumption and altered organweights

Liver and kidney toxicity

Atrophy and degeneration of therenal tubules

C N S - • - " . . . ; - : / . . - . . • : : " . - • - - . . ^ : ^ • : • • " . . " • •CNS

Liver toxicityIncreased liver and kidney weightand nephrotoxtcity

W^500

-:i;: :;j:: :::'

1,000

l$iK1,000

:';-:;-l^)pO:-

1,000

i,ooo1,000

"'-::ioO:::

10

100

1,000

101

-: -:-.-^-.

1dllll

1- :|:

1

1

1

•*"» •

--

1

1

LowLow

':-™; : ". '. .... --

Low

! :*ftV -i:: '-: . . -v::\ '-'- -"'

Medium

tow

Low

Low

Medium

*.

--

MediumLow

CVOR70/139.51


Chemical

ReferenceDose (RfD)mg/kg/day Source* Date Critical Effect UF* MF°

ConfidencelnRfDd

INHALATION ROUTE

Bromomeihane

2- Bu ta none

Carbon disulfideChlorohenzene

1,1-DichloroethancMethylene chloride

Tetrahydrofuran

Toluene

1,1,1-Trichloroeihane

Xylenes

0.008

0.09

0.01 mg/m3

0.005

(M.^vi^'0.86

0.07 mg/m3

2.0 mg/m3

0.3

0.3 mg/m3

HEAST

HEAST

EPA

HEASTHEASTEPA

EPA

EPA

HEAST

EPA

7-1-89

7-1-89

9-20*89

7-1-89

7-1-89

9-20-89

9-20-89

9-20-89

7-1-89

9-20-89

Paralysis and lung damageCNS

Developmental effects : ;Liver and kidney effects

Kidney <Jajjiia l: ::;>: '": % : ? li^^J^Kidney damage

Mucociliary depression, histologicalchanges

CNS effects, eye and nose irration

Hepatotoxicity

CNS effects, nose and throatirritation

1,000

1,000

tOQO10,000

1M*I1,00

3,000

100

1,000

100

..

--

-.: , .r*.

~<;1:IP:::;

-

V

..

^

--

— .

-

Medium~

•'Ww J.:1.1 .".".'.-•-,'.-"=!' ' , ,-.-.-'-r'\

Medium

Low

Medium

-

Medium

a Sources of Toxicity Values:IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System. U.S. EPA 1988 (accessed January 29, 1990).HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables - Quarterly Summary. U.S. EPA 1989.EPA - Verified Inhalation Reference Doses, Memorandum from Daniel J. Guth, Ph.D Pollutant Assessment Branch, USEPA,September 20, 1989.b UF-Unceriaimy Factor.c MF-Modifying Factor.d Confidence rating from IRIS, either high, medium, or low.e The oral RfD is being reconsidered by the RfD workgroup.f Based on proposed drinking water standard of 1.3 mg/l.8 Nickel value based on nickel-soluble salts.

CVOR70/1.W.51

Table A-8 (page 1 of 2)CARCINOGENIC SLOPE FACTORS FOR THE VERONA WELL FIELD

CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Oral Route

Chemical

Arsenic

Benzene

Beryllium

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Bromodichloromethane

Carbon teirachloride

Chloroform

1 , 1 -Dichloroelhane

1 ,2-Dichlorocthane

1,1-Dichloroelhene

HexachloroelhaneMethylene chloride

N-Nitroso-dipropylamine

Tetrachloroethene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Weight ofEvidence"

A

A

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

C

C

B2

B2

B2

C

Slope Factor11

(rag/kg-day)-1

2

0.029

4.3

0.014

0.13

0.13

0.0061

0.091

0.091

0.6

0.014

0.0075

7

0.051

0.057

Source*

HEAST1

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST

IRIS

Date...

12-1-88

1-1-90

8-1-89

7-1-89

12-1-89

6-30-88

7-1-89

8-1-89

4-1-89

3-1-88

10-1-89

3-1-88

7-1-89

9-26-88

Inhalation Routes

Weight ofEvidence"

A

A

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

-

B2

C

C

B2

—

B2

C

Slope Factor*(ntg/kg-day)*'

50

0.029

8.4

--

--

0.13

0.081

-

0.091

1.2

0.014

0.014

~

0.0033

0.057

Source0

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

HEAST

IRIS

IRIS

-

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS„

HEAST

IRIS

Date

10-1-89

12-1-88

1-1-90

8-1-89

7-1-89

12-1-89

6-30-88

-

8-1-89

4-1-89

3-1-88

10-1-89

--

7-1-89

9-26-88

(con'l.)

Oral Route

Chemical

Trichloroethene

Vinyl chloride

Weight ofEvidence1

B2

A

Slope Factorb

(mg/lcg-day)-1

0.011

2.3

Sourcec

HEAST

HEAST

Date

7-1-89

7-1-89

Inhalation Routes

Weight ofEvidence*

B2

A

Slope Factor*(mg/kg-day)'1

0.017

0.295

Source*

HEAST

HEAST

Date

7-1-89

7-1-89

Table A-8 (page 2 of 2)CARCINOGENIC SLOPE FACTORS FOR THE VERONA WELL FIELD

CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

aU.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) Classification.Group A: Human carcinogen-Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies.Group Bl: Probable human carcinogen-At least limited evidence of carcinogenicity to humans.Group B2: Probable human carcinogen-Combination of sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate data in humans.Group C: Possible human carcinogen-Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in the absence of human data.Group D: Not classified-Inadequate animal evidence of carcinogenicity.Group E: No evidence of carcinogenicity for humans-at least two adequate animal tests show no evidence of carcinogenicity.bSources of toxicity values:

IRIS-Integrated Risk Information System. U.S. EPA 1988 (accessed January 29, 1990).HEAST-Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables-Quarterly Summary. U.S. EPA 1989

cSlope factor based on slope of dose response curve for carcinogens. Slope factor is expressed in risk per average daily contaminantintake, extrapolated to low dose levels from information at high dose levels. Estimate is at upper bound and not likely to be exceeded.True risk may be much lower, or zero.dBased on Risk Assessment Forum unit risk of 5xlO~5 (ug/l)-l.

CVOR70/140.51

EPA that if a carcinogenic response occurs at the dose levels used in animal studies,then a response may also occur at all lower doses. For practical reasons, low levels ofrisk cannot be measured directly, either by animal experiments or by epidemiologicstudies (EPA, 1984a). Therefore, carcinogen dose-response relationships at low doselevels must be extrapolated from information generated at higher dose levels. Theprimary method adopted by EPA for risk extrapolation to low levels of the dose-response relationship is the linear nonthreshold model (EPA, 1986b).

The cancer slope factor is the 95 percentile upper confidence limit slope of the dose-response curve. In other words, there is only a 5 percent chance that the probability ofa response may be higher than predicted. While actual risks resulting from exposure topotential carcinogens are not likely to be greater than risks predicted using CAG-derived slope factors, they could be substantially lower or even zero. This method isused so that risks from carcinogens are not likely to be underestimated (EPA, I989a).The cancer slope factors for the chemicals of potential concern are presented inTable A-8. Ingestion slope factors were used in this assessment when considering der-mal exposures, and when inhalation slope factors were not available.

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

In this section, the potential pathways by which human populations could be exposed tocontaminants at the Verona Well Field site (e.g., exposure pathways) are assessedaccording to guidance by the EPA (1988c, 1989a, 1989c). The general approach toexposure assessment involves a two-step process. First, the exposure pathways deemed

most relevant to the site are selected from a list of all possible human exposure path-ways. Typically, exposure to only a few chemicals via a few exposure pathways will

account for most of an estimated potential risk. Second, exposure scenarios are devel-oped based on estimated frequency, duration and magnitudes of exposure, receptorbehavior, site conditions, and chemical fate and transport.

A-32CVOR78/072.51

A description of the residences, industries, and land uses in areas surrounding theVerona Well Field site is in Chapter 3. People in those areas, as well as the workerson the site, are potential receptors.

ELEMENTS OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY

An exposure pathway describes how a contaminant may move from its source to areceptor (a potentially exposed organism). An example of a complete exposure path-way (for a generic waste site) is shown in Figure A-2. A complete exposure pathwayhas five elements:

• A chemical source

• A mechanism for chemical release

• An environmental transport medium

• An exposure point (where receptors can come into contact with thecontaminants)

• A feasible route of exposure

Exposure can occur not only when chemicals migrate from a site to a potential expo-sure point, but also when receptor behavior (for example, trespass) causes them tocome into contact with the chemicals or contaminated media on or near the site. Anexposure pathway is complete if there is a means for the receptor to take in contami-nants through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact with the contaminated media orwaste. No exposure exists (and thus no risk) unless the exposure pathway is complete.This is an important requirement in the risk assessment process.

A-33CVOR78/072.51

SOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

EXPOSUREPOINT

ROUTE OFEXPOSURE

Source

1 '

Rainfall -Percolation

into Soil

1 '

WaterLeaches Out

Contaminants

i '

LeachateMixes with

Groundwater

1 '

Transportthrough

Groundwater

i '

GroundwaterWell Screened

in Zone ofContam nation

l '

Inqestionof TapWater

NO RISK EXISTSUNLESS PATHWAYIS COMPLETE

J: \lHDUSr\CV06556J\nG-A -2 DWG

FIGURE A-2ELEMENTS OF A COMPLETEEXPOSURE PATHWAY(example only)VERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

————————— O&iHItL ————

EXPOSURE PATHWAY ANALYSIS

Figure A-3 shows possible exposure pathways for a generic chemical waste site under

current and future land use conditions. The pathways most pertinent to the VeronaWell Field site were selected from this list of possible pathways, and are shown as boldlines on Figure A-3.

Sources

The identified sources of contamination at the Verona Wells Field site are identified inChapters 2 and 4. They include soils and groundwater of the Thomas Solvent Annex,Grand Trunk paint shop, and Thomas Solvent Raymond Road areas that were contam-inated by solvent-handling practices, spillage, and leaking underground storage tanks.

Release and Transport

The behavior of the chemicals is influenced by physical and chemical conditions at thesite and in the surrounding area. Their form, transport, and fate depend upon suchfactors as pH, temperature, soil moisture, oxidation-reduction potential, physico-chemical properties of the surface and subsurface strata, water chemistry, and themacro and microorganisms present.

The primary mechanisms for contaminant fate and transport at this site are describedin Chapter 5. The primary pathway of migration of contaminants is via groundwatertransport. In addition, if subsurface soils become exposed to air, chemicals will vola-tilize and create an air migration pathway. (Table A-5 summarizes physical and chem-ical properties of the contaminants of potential concern.)

A-35CVOR78/072.51

CONTAMINANT CONTAMINANTCONTAMINANT RELEASE TRANSPORT EXPOSURE EXPOSURE

SOURCE MECHANISM MEDIA POINT ROUTE

SOLVENTSPILLS, LEAKS. .^AND HANDLINGPRACTICES

Ingestion ^

Offsite Residence^

Leaching ^ Groundwoter ^ ^ ^ Inhalation ^

Onsite ^

Dermal ^

Dermal Absorption

Inhalation

Incidental

IngestionSurface Water

*" Offsite SurfaceSurface Runoff 1 ' Water Body Ingestion——————————————————— —— »J ————————— ———————— ——————— * ——— . —————

Sediment

Ingestion

^Bioconcen-trotion

Volatilization Of fs i te Residence

PRIMARY SECONDARYEXPOSED EXPOSED

POPULATION POPULATION

Offsite Water ^

Users

* ————Future Onsite ^

Residents/Workers"'

Humans(Recreational)

Human/TerrestrialOrganisms Consuming

Terrestrial Organisms Terrestrial Organisms

Human /Torres trialOrganisms Consuming

Aquat c Organisms Aquatic Organisms

Olfsite Residents

Air inhalation

Wind or Mechanical Onsite

Erosion

Incidental ^

Ingestion

Dermal fc

Direct Contact Unsite ^ Onsite ^ Absorption ^

Receptor Activities Replace """ "^Release ond Transport Ingestion

^^^^^B. MAJOR PATHWAY

Trespassers

Future OnsiteResidents/Workers

Human/TerrestrialTerrestrial Organisms Organisms ConsumingOnsite Terrestrial Organisms

FIGURE A-3CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FORPOTEmiAL EXPOSUREVERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

CtniHtl!

Exposure Routes

Major routes of exposure for pathways at the site that have some chance of being com-plete include:

• Incidental ingestion of subsurface soils by future workers duringexcavation

• Dermal contact with subsurface soils by future workers during excavation

• Inhalation of vapors from subsurface soils by workers during excavation

• Ingestion of groundwater by current and future residents and workers

• Dermal contact with groundwater by current and future residents andworkers

• Inhalation of vapors from groundwater by current and future residentsand workers

Incomplete Exposure Pathways

This assessment does not consider potential exposure pathways that are believed to beunimportant in the overall risk at the site. These pathways include those associatedwith surface soils (e.g., direct contact, runoff, volatilization, and wind erosion), withexposures to environmental receptors (e.g., groundwater discharge to the Battle CreekRiver).

Pathways associated with surface soils were eliminated from consideration becausesurface soils have not been shown to be contaminated. The aerated and well-drained

A-37CVOR7&072.51

nature of the surface soil, along with its low organic carbon content, promote rapidchemical migration from the surface soils. This is discussed further in Chapters 4and 5.

Pathways involving potential environmental receptors were eliminated from consider-ation because site investigations failed to identity any potential or actual effects onenvironmental receptors. This is discussed further in Chapter 4.

PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE AND POTENTIAL RECEPTORS FOR THE SITE

Exposure to Subsurface Soils

Contaminants have been detected in onsite subsurface soils at all three source areas.Receptors coming into contact with contaminated subsurface soils may become exposedvia three primary pathways: incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and/or inhalation ofvapors. Since the major land use for the three source areas at the Verona Well Fieldsite is commercial, a plausible exposure scenario would be that of short-term exposureduring site excavations and trenching to place or repair utility lines, pipes, etc. Poten-tial receptors would be onsite short-term workers.

Ingestion. Exposure to trench workers is assumed to occur as a result of incidentalingestion of subsurface soils during work activities. Exposures under this scenariowould be expected to be very infrequent (e.g., once a year) and trench workers prob-ably would be protected by their work clothes.

Dermal Contact Short-term workers may become exposed by skin contact with con-taminated soils. Some of the chemicals detected at this site may be absorbed to someextent through unprotected skin. Organic compounds with higher octanol water parti-tion coefficients generally are more readily absorbed through the skin. (Table A-5

A-38CVOR7M>7151

includes partition coefficients for contaminants of potential concern at the Verona WellField site.)

Dermal exposure at the site is expected to be minimal compared to exposures resultingfrom ingestion and inhalation of the VOCs in the subsurface soil. Short-term workerswould be extensively protected by their work clothes when working in trenches, and theamount of exposed skin would be minimal. Because of these factors, exposures toshort-term workers due to dermal contact with soils will not be quantitatively addressedin this report.

Inhalation. In a reasonable exposure pathway, by inhalation, chemicals can be releasedand transported to potential receptors via dusts or vapors. Since VOCs are the majorcontaminants of potential concern at the Verona Well Field site, exposures are esti-mated only for vapors that may exist in trenches during short-term excavations of sub-surface soils. Dusts are not likely to form in trenches because soils would be saturatedand relatively protected from wind, and any exposures would be minimal when com-pared to those from vapors.

Groundwater Use Exposure Pathways

Human exposure to groundwater contaminants can occur through ingestion of drinkingwater, by dermal contact with contaminated water, or by inhaling contaminants vola-tilized from water during showering, cooking, or other household activities. There arewell-established methods for assessing exposures from ingesting groundwater, but notfor estimating exposures from inhalation of contaminants volatilized during householduses. For this reason, exposures by inhalation of groundwater VOCs are not quantifiedin this assessment.

Current Land Use Conditions. Contaminants have been detected in offsite ground-water, making groundwater migration the most significant immediate transport

A-39CVOR78/072.5I

mechanism associated with the Verona Well Field site. Organic compounds have beendetected in offsite monitoring wells and offsite private wells. Contaminants havemigrated from the source areas in a north to northwesterly direction, in the generaldirection of groundwater flow (see Chapter 3 and 4). Because of this, exposure todowngradient groundwater receptors is possible at present.

Potential downgradient receptors consist mainly of local residents and industries, sincethe areas in the immediate vicinity of the source areas are zoned as either medium-density residential or light industrial. Downgradient residences have been connected toCity water. However, it is possible that some downgradient wells could be used asdrinking water sources. A more likely event would be for the downgradient wells to beused for gardening, car washing, etc., with exposure occurring through infrequent andinadvertent contact. Current groundwater risks have been estimated in this assessmentfor incidental, nonconsumptive exposure settings. A consumptive use exposure settingwas also evaluated for this area.

Future Land Use Conditions. Exposures to groundwater may also occur in the futureif residences or industries which are built onsite or nearby use groundwater as apotable source. In this assessment, future exposures to groundwater are quantified foringestion and dermal contact by residents or workers. This exposure scenario isunlikely, however, since City water is available to future site users.

Groundwater transport modeling was not conducted for the risk assessment, and cur-rent onsite concentrations in groundwater have been assumed to represent future con-centrations in potential offsite wells. In other words, groundwater concentrations wereassumed to be at steady-state conditions. This is a health-conservative assumption andmay overestimate exposures, since groundwater contaminant concentrations maydecrease with time due to natural attenuation (migration and degradation). Certaindegradation products of the VOCs (such as vinyl chloride) may increase over time.

A-40CVOR78/07Z51

However, their rate of production must exceed the rate of extraction for accumulationto occur.


Several default exposure assumptions were made in calculating average daily intakes ofthe soils and groundwater for this assessment. These assumptions, based on estimatesof average body weights, media intake levels, and exposure frequencies, are provided bythe EPA (1988c, 1989c). Other assumptions (e.g., 0.1 liter water per exposure eventfor a residential gardening scenario) are based on best judgment. The exposureassumptions used to estimate potential current and future exposures to the site's chem-icals of potential concern are summarized in Table A-9.

Exposures through subsurface soil contact are estimated for future trench workers.Under this scenario, exposures to subsurface soils are assumed in this assessment tooccur once per year, for 40 years. An ingestion rate of 0.1 g soil (dry weight) per dayexposed and an inhalation rate of 2.1 m3/hour is assumed. This is assumed to representa reasonable maximum exposure (RME) frequency and intake for a person working ata moderate activity level (EPA, 1989c). Exposure point concentrations are assumed toequal the upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean of chemical concentrations inthe subsurface soils (dry weight basis), as prescribed by EPA guidelines (EPA, 1989a).

Exposures to groundwater are estimated for current users under scenarios of both non-consumptive, infrequent gardening, and consumptive use (downgradient annex only).Current potential exposures to residents under a nonconsumptive scenario are eval-uated by assuming contact with groundwater once every 2 weeks, for 6 months peryear, for a 70-year lifetime. Incidental ingestion of 100 ml per exposure event isassumed. Dermal exposures are assumed to occur at the same frequency, with 25 per-cent of body surface area exposed for 15 minutes per exposure event. The evaluationof current potential exposures to residents through consumptive use of groundwater

A-41CVOR78/072.51

Table A-9EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE VERONA WELL FIELD SITE

Receptor

Current resident(nonconsumptiveuse)

Current resident(consumptive use)

Future resident

Future worker

ExposureRoute3

ingestiondermal

ingestiondermal

ingestiondermal

ingestiondermal

ingestioninhalation

Medium

waterwater

waterwater

waterwater

waterwater

soilvapors

IntakeRate

0.1«/day

2«/day ,c

2fi/dayc

10/day

O.lg/day2.1m3/hr

ExposureFrequency13

12/yr/lQ yr12/yr/70 yr



250 days/yr/40 yr250 days/Vr/40 yr

once/yr/40 yr8 hr/day,once/yr/40 yr

aAn inhalation route due to water use was not quantified.bAlthough the assumed exposures to noncarcinogens are intermittent, the availabletoxicity values for systemic effects (RFDs) are most properly applied to chroniclifetime exposures (daily/70 yr). Therefore, since lifetime RfDs are used to calculatenoncarcinogenic risks, resulting risks may be overestimated.

cDermal intake is estimated assuming 100% and 25% body surface area exposed forfuture residential and worker exposures, respectively. Current residential exposuresassume 100% and 25% body surface area exposed for consumptive and nonconsump-tive use, respectively. A permeability constant equal to water (8x10-4 cm/hr) isassumed.

CVOR70/057.51

assumes ingestion of 2 liters per day for a 70-year lifetime. Dermal exposures areassumed with 100 percent of body surface area exposed for 15 minutes per day.Dermal permeability of site contaminants is assumed to equal the permeability of waterthrough the intact skin (0.0008 cm/hr). No inhalation exposure to current users wasquantified due to data and modeling uncertainties.

Future potential residential exposures to groundwater are assumed to occur at an inges-tion rate of 2 liters per day for a 70-year lifetime. For future workers, the assumedingestion rate is 1 liter per day for 40 years. Exposures by dermal contact under afuture residential setting are assumed to occur while bathing, with 100 percent of thebody surface area exposed (25 percent for an occupational setting) for 15 minutes perday.

The media intake rates selected are intended to represent conservative estimates oftypical or expected intake values. It should be recognized that exposure can be influ-enced by a variety of individual factors, including lifestyle, hygiene habits, age, gender,health and nutritional status, and socioeconomic level. In addition, no correction wasmade in this assessment for percent absorption of contaminant following ingestion.

Exposure point concentrations and media intake estimates are used to produce esti-mates of contaminant intake on a daily and a lifetime average daily basis. To evaluatethe health risk from exposure to carcinogens, lifetime average contaminant intakes havebeen estimated. A given total dose is assumed to have a similar potency whether expo-sure occurs over a shorter (40 years) or longer (70 years) period of time. For occupa-tional scenarios, since exposure is not continuous over a lifetime, exposures over40 years were averaged over a lifetime to estimate the lifetime average daily intake.

To evaluate exposure to noncarcinogens, daily contaminant intakes are estimated.Since RfDs reported for noncarcinogens assume a lifetime exposure, using RiDs to

A-43CVOR78/072.51

calculate risks from a shorter duration exposure (e.g., 5 or 10 years) may overestimatethe actual risk.

EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS

Estimation Method

Exposure point concentrations can be estimated by direct measurement of concentra-tions in the exposure media at a point of contact, or by modeling contaminant releaseand transport to the exposure point. For soil and groundwater, this assessment usesthe direct measurement approach (actual size data was used to quantify risks). Model-ing contaminant movement in these media was not considered appropriate because ofsite data uncertainties (source release rates, fates, etc.). Inhalation exposures to short-term trench workers were estimated using modeling techniques, however. This wasnecessary because no air samples have been collected from the subsurface soils. Esti-mates of trench air concentrations were developed using the techniques of Thibodeauxand Hwang (EPA, 1988c) and are in Appendix C.

Reasonable maximum exposure estimates were developed for this assessment as pre-scribed by EPA (1989a). RME estimates represent a plausible upper boundary ofpotential exposure to site chemicals of potential concern. The concentrations used toestimate exposure under reasonable maximum exposure conditions were calculated asthe 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean concentrations ina particular medium at a particular source area. The UCL was calculated using thisformula:

UCL = x + (1.96 x SD//n)

A-44CVOR78/072.51

Where: x = arithmetic mean

SD = standard deviationN = number of samples

In estimating UCL exposure concentrations, a value of one-half the method detectionlimit (MDL) was assumed for cases where no detectable contaminant quantities werefound in that specific sample, but the contaminant was detected in that media at thatsource area.

Grouping of Data

The exposure point concentrations in subsurface soils were only determined for onsitesoils at each of the known source areas (Thomas Solvent Annex, Grand Trunk paintshop, and the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road sites). No offsite soil sampling wasconducted. The exposure point concentrations for contaminants of potential concernfor the three areas are given in Tables A-10 through A-12, along with information ondetection frequency, concentration ranges, means and standard deviations. The dataare given as micrograms per kilograms (ng/kg) on a dry-weight basis.

The data for groundwater were grouped into downgradient and onsite areas forThomas Solvent Annex, and downgradient, onsite, and upgradient areas from ThomasSolvent Raymond Road. Paint shop area wells were grouped into upgradient and

onsite/downgradient areas. Wells downgradient of the Annex and Thomas SolventRaymond Road were grouped to estimate current potential exposures, Downgradientpaint shop wells were grouped with the onsite wells because there is no distinctionbetween current and future receptors. Well upgradient were also grouped to estimatecurrent potential exposures. Wells onsite of each area were grouped to estimate poten-tial future exposures.

A-45CVOR78/072.51

Table A-10SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN ANNEX SUBSURFACE SOIL BORINGS

Number ofChemical Detections

Bis(2-ethylhexylpolhalate)1,2-Dichloroethane1,2-DichloroeihcneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1 -Trich loroe thaneTrichloroetbeneXylenes (mixed)

23753

47146

287

DetectionFrequency (%)

676

15106

9829135815

MeanConcentration (i*g/kg)a SDa

- --- 61.5 - • , . :191

• • = . 212:V ••'-?31,641

161949,39371,16037,761

120,308250,250

,- - ;V . : - : : : - ' - . 92

407••••••" ... ', 421

216,457. .,. :-' : 283:,

6,061,021490,700259,769679,107

1,732,014

95% Range ofUCL Detected Concentrations

71.9306

-.: : -,335. •::,-.92,880

" '- '"241 -.-.•:•:•.

2,664,00021QJWQ111,300512,400740,200

i 55-68260-2,400150-2 00180-1300,000650-MOO140-42,000,000140 ,400,000210-1,800,0001604,600,000380-12,000,000

a Calculation using '/> the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD ~ Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.

CVOR70AM6.51

C

Table A-I1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN PAINT SHOP SUBSURFACE SOIL BORINGS

Chemical

Bis(2-ethylhexylphthalaie)B ro mod ichloro me thaneTeirachloroetheneToluene1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Number ofDetections

22

2865


676

821815

MeanConcentration (ng/kg)a

216284

3,376294294

SDa

-:- 232-:.774

6364767770

95%UCL

479534

•• .- 5*515 •552553

Range ofDetected Concentrations

52,380 :-=^ -..440-630ISO-35,00077-430150-620

* Calculation using '/£ the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD = Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.

CVOR70y047.51

Table A-12SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN RAYMOND ROAD SUBSURFACE SOIL BORINGS

MeanConcentration (|ig/kg)a

74314.829,235.63524.52Z420.216-687.6194

2,7133,0489,6077,855

2351,193

13,483

382173983200518145

a Calculation using !/i the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD = Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.

CVOR70/048.51

Chemical

Vola tiles

AcetoneBenzeneBromomethane2-ButanoneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzencChloroform1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1,2-DichloroctheneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1 -TrichloroethaneTTichloroetheneXylene

Semivola tiles

BenzoicAddBenzylbutylphlhalateBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateDi-n-butylphihalateNaphthaleneTetrahydrofuran

Number ofDetections

11645549

16494

34366367223641

22

1064

12


1585775

12215

125

45488489294855

88

42251716

SD8

4,0528.1

14.933.63195.532.420.616,9

54531.9

20,7745,940

62,04252346

1,1745,661

97,036

29749.8

2,034142988101

95%UCL

1,66016.631643.29646.129J24.920.4

211263

7,4154392

23,65019,700

5012,474

35,440

M*)l193\m257913343


; , 120-32,0008-7216*13098-2004*716-84013 18014-140J2-W5-4,7006-2306-180,00077-21,00040-530,000160-4504)007-9,3004-43,00010-840,000

37-69043-7240.9,30035-770120400030-300

The exposure point concentrations of chemicals of potential concern in groundwater ator near the Annex, paint shop, and Thomas Solvent Raymond Road are summarized inTables A-13 through A-19, along with information on detection frequency, concentra-tion ranges, means, and standard deviations. The concentrations are given as micro-grams per liter (jig/1).

RISK CHARACTERIZATION

This subsection summarizes the approach used to develop the human health risk esti-mates. It also presents a quantitative risk characterization for the Verona Well Fieldmedia of concern under the assumed exposure settings described in the previous sub-section ("Exposure Assessment").

RISK ESTIMATION METHOD

To characterize potential risks, chronic daily intakes are estimated for each of thechemicals of concern at the site. The intake estimates use the exposure assumptionspresented in Table A-9 and the UCL media concentrations given in Tables A-10through A-19. Average chronic daily intakes are expressed in terms of milligram ofchemical taken in the body per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day). The chronicdaily intakes are compared or combined with EPA-derived toxicity values for the partic-ular chemicals to generate a quantitative risk estimate.


The potential for noncarcinogenic health effects is evaluated by comparing the esti-mated daily intake of a chemical to its reference dose. This baseline risk assessmentassumes exposure to chemicals would be chronic. The chemical intakes estimated,

A-49CVOR78/072.51

Table A-13SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (ANNEX, ONSITE)

MeanConcentration (|ig/f)a

2,171118114114123115115

1,920783105633412231117157404

2,559

50.34.3

1138.3

49184.56.5

a Calculation using half the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD = Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.

Chemical

Vo la tiles

AcetoneBenzeneChlorobcnzeneChloroform1,1-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloroethane1,1-DichlOFoethene1 ,2-DichloroetheneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1 ,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideXylenes (mixed)

Semivola tiles

BU(2-ethylriexyl)phlhalateDiethylphthalateHexachloroethane2-Methylphenol (0-cresol)4-Methylphenol (p-cresol)NaphthaleneNitrobenzenePhenol

Number ofDetections

3632934

17106

191012

1136

1*

3111

•-- 2 '211


142914104314198148299048575

622952

7525252550502525

SDa95%UCL

;7,956301303303300302302

3,6432,132281

1,296949428302264

1,1586,998

5,574247

- • • = = 2 4 4243251244244

3,4781,695225

1,188818414246270899

5,552

32,21.5

<42Jk"6.5

$&922.8

1.03.0

31,65.8

23.614.7

11740.3

:.:; 5.59.4


6^2,6002-430,4-30.5-10.9,761-13>174-1,300D.6-7,5000.7-130.7-5,2000.1-3,3000.8-1,2000.61-9700.7-220U-24.QOQ

6-772301836-15010-52311


MeanConcentration (iig/<)a

50.6110

6.38406.513.313.6

3,875

8 Calculation using half the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD - Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.

Chemical

Metals

ArsenicBariumChromiumManganeseNickelVanadiumZinc

Number ofDetections

2212122


10010050

10050

100100

SDa

46.181

5.1348.84.61.6

1,718

95%UCL

114222

13.5474

19.715.8

6,256


18.0-83.253.1 B-167 B10372-44110.0 B12.4 B-14.7 B2,660-5,090

CVOR70/050.51

Table A-14SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (ANNEX, DOWNGRADIENT)

ChemicalNumber of Detection MeanDetections Frequency (%) Concentration (ng/*)a SD*

Volatilcs

Acetone 7 9Benzene 5 61.1-Dichloroeihane 15 181.2-Dichloroethane 7 91,2-Dichloroetbene 23 28Methylene Chloride 19 23Tetrachloroethene 16 20Toluene 17 211,1,1-Trichloroethane 8 10Trichloroethene 20 24Vinyl Chloride 6 7

Scmivolatilcs

Bis(2-eihylhexyl)phtbalate 3 60a Calculation using half the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD = Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.

17,4 - : . - • • • • • , , • > , : 56.02.1 13.11,5 4.00.77 1.2

20,8 56,20.82 0.866.4 19.80.82 1.40.70 U5.7 15.74.1 19.2

31.8 3Z9

95%UCL

29,5.;.4.9Z31.0

32,91.0

10.71.10,959.183


•3-43 -0.5-120Q.5-301-50,3-2800.2-30.1'»200.2-90,4-60.6-90M50

26^5

CVOR70/051.51

Table A-15SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (PAINT SHOP, UPGRADIENT)

Chemical

Volatiles

Acetone1,2-DichloroetheneMtMhylene ChlorideTeirachloroeihene1,1,1 -TrichloroethaneToluene

Number of Detection MeanDetections Frequency (%) Concentration Qg/f)a

95% Range ofSDa UCL Detected Concentrations

207

13202027

9,00.370.560.480.440.44

16,1 ^ 17*2 3*530.23 0.49 0.20.39 0.76 0,4*10.29 0.63 0.3-10.25 0,56 02*0,70.29 0.59 0.2-1


CVOR70A)52.51

Table A-I6SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (PAINT SHOP, ONSITE)

Chemical

Vo la i iles

AcetoneBenzene1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroeihene1,2-DichloroetheneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1-TrichloroethaneTrichloroeihepeVinyl ChlorideXylenes (mixed)

Semivolatiles

Benzoic AcidBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate2-Methy!phenol4-MethylphenolN-Nitroso-Di-n-propylaminePhenol

Metals

ArsenicBarium

Number ofDetections

47

25181144

3410351565

361111

26


91554392499

742276331311

25508888

33100

MeanConcentration (u.g/l)a

65,029.734.435.6

39726526.6

2,45313390333,450.9

636

24.420.17.08.86,15.8

9.5149

SDa95% Range ofUCL Detected Concentrations

65,029.734.435.6

39726526.6

2,45313390333,450.9

636

231120m122

.--.,. ,V2,478;" :1,605

1187,330

7202,660

124231

4,081

.--.,-,432 :, - ..64.269.270.8

4,U372960,7

4,571, :;:. .341,:, - - - .

1,67169.1

1171,815

94100.8-160ai-2100.27-160MT^JQQ0.68-11,000

••,.Mrl6--,0.2-32,0000,2-4,9000.6-13,00003-2800.9-22-28,000

10,924.56.9

13.03;82.6

30.634.640,916.28.37.3

7-5211-8829501814

5345.7 186


2.3 B-17.582.6 B-198 B

ChemicalNumber ofDetections

Metals (continued)

BerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperManganeseNickelVanadiumZinc

22656336


3333

10083

1005050

100

Table A-I6 (continued)

MeanConcentration (ng/>)a SDa

0.654.2

32.210.6

49949.715.8

7,292

95%UCL

0.483.9

12,04.7

48238.215.1

2,982

1.07.3

41.814.4

88580.327.9

9,678a Calculation using half the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD = Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.


0,90 B-1.50 B5.8-7.9163.52.78.1 B-16.0B202-1,47013.6 B-93.7

-1&4&4U2B2,530-10,700

CVOR70/053.51

Tabte A-17SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (RAYMOND ROAD, UPGRADIENT)

Chemical

Vola tiles

AcetoneBenzeneU-Dichk>roethane1 ,2-DJchloroetheneMethyiene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneVinyl Chloride

Semivola tiles

Bis(2-ethy!hexyl)phthalate

Detections

218555144

2

MeanConcentration

147

573636367

2929

100

15.00.531.01.00.930.770.530.882.0

20

95% Range ofSD3 UCL Detected Concentrations

16.90.390,620.770.650.460.390.672.0 .

23.80.741.31.4U1.00.731.23.0

3-8.570.30.9-20.77-30.7,20.4-20,20.7-20.9-2

22.6a Calculation using '/i the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD = Standard deviation.UCL = Upper confidence limits.

CVOR70/054.51

51.3 4-36

Table A-18SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (RAYMOND ROAD, ONSITE)

Number of Detection MeanaChemical

Volaliles

AcetoneBenzeneCarbon Disulfide1,2-DichloroetheneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachtoroethene1,1,1-ThchloroethaneTrichloroeihene '••f^'^Toluene3^fenCS . . : ; ; ' ; ; • : : - ( - : \ ;.-^

Detections

331112

9s;^..;^10y:-;!:'-,:

2;-:-,-:^';;l -,-:,:,,

Frequency (%)

2525888

178375

."-:--^r=j83t"^;-*-^..._,..,,,.....

:--y::^;^^^^

15630.75.76.0

16710.1

580

2,834

SD*

368;"99.316.417.8

- :: .553 ...:;&.::30.1

1,906

9397•^jwi^^iB^I1

95%UCL

86^915.016.1

48027.2

1,658

8,151|:;; l ^Sgf:';


45-1,3006.7-360212,0002-6

1-6,900

0.6-34,000';;>.;;;.; y ;•;•;.; ;; ;:::;:;g;. if ;': ;:;:gi:::;>;;:: -• :i : : .;!:';•:; ' .


CVOR70/055.51

Table A-19SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (RAYMOND ROAD, DOWNGRADIENT)

Chemical

Volatilcs

AcetoneBenzeneChloroform1.1-Dichloroethane1.2-Dichloroetbane1.1-Dichloroethene1.2-DichloroeiheneEthylbenzeneMeihyicne Chloride1,1,1-TrichloroethaneTrichlorocthepeTetrachloroetheneTolueneVinyl ChlorideXylenes

Semivola tiles

AntimonyArsenicBariumBeryllium

Number ofDetections

9136

231211258

141727249

218

Bis(2-*thymexy|)phtnalate 3

Metals


192813492623531730365751194517

60

II896722

MeanConccmration (ng/l)a

45,941.1L8

18112,02.7

1369.32,2

11.245.254.3

11016628,3

7,4

2843.3

3881.1

95% Range ofSD8 UCL Detected Concentrations

136197

•;-'-:43":V68753.59.3

56533.15,2

35.6120147537733106

. . .843:,,--;-:.

97.3• . • - - : " . 3J, ' . " - • - : - • . .

377• ; : - ; - -27.3. - . - - .

5.3• -.298 •:-/-

18.8' -,-3,7,, - . . "

21.379,496.2

26437658,7

2*6700.2- 1,300Q.4r230.5-3,8000,4-3400.6-641,16 3,7006.4-1700.6-340.3-2200,4,7800.5-72004-3,4000.92-4,7000,6-590

8,9

18,561.3

2661.4

15.2

4Q483.3

5622.0

1-23

59,292.0B-150mi B#4 B3.4 B-3.5 B


ChemicalNumber ofDetections

Metals (continued)


Detection Mean 95%Frequency (%) Concentration (ug/<)a SDa UCL

44 8.0 9.1 13.956 45.1 38.5 70.356 72.4 81.4 126

100 1,794 2,176 3,21611 043 ft08 > 0.1867 81.9 81 13533 53.9 54.4 : 89.4

100 4,889 3,346 7,075

3 Calculalion using half the detection limit for samples where compound was undetected.SD = Standard deviation.UCL - Upper confidence limits.

CadmiumChromiumCopperManganeseMercuryNickelVanadiumZinc

45591639


4.9 B-29.26.3B-10212.5 B-5U467.9-6,4900,3443.6-2287.8 B-1502,870-13,100

CVOR70/056.51

therefore, are chronic daily intakes (GDIs). The comparison is termed a hazardquotient, expressed as follows (EPA, 1989a):

If [CDI/RfD] il, the potential exists for health effects.If [CDI/RfD] <1, health effects are not anticipated.

The term CDI/RfD is the hazard quotient.

Since the GDI basically assumes a lifetime exposure, the exposure scenarios are mostproperly applied to 70-kg adults. The lifetime RfDs are currently the only verifiedcritical toxicity value developed by the EPA (for noncarcinogenic effects) for mostchemicals. Comparing lifetime RfDs to intakes based on intermittent or less-than-chronic exposures (as is done in this assessment) may result in an overestimate of risk.

If estimated daily intakes of individual chemicals are compared to their reference dosesand if no reference doses are exceeded, then the hazard index approach is used toevaluate the possibility of adverse effects resulting from exposure to multiple noncar-cinogens. With this approach, the projected intake for each chemical is divided by thereference dose for each chemical and all the resulting quotients are summed. This sumis called the hazard index (HI).

Hazard index = CDlj/RSD). + CDI2/RfD2 + ... + CDI/RfDj

Where:

j = intake level for the ith toxicanti = reference dose for the ith toxicant

When the hazard index exceeds 1, the concern for the potential hazard is the same asif a reference dose were exceeded for an individual compound. The hazard index is

A-60CVOR78/072.51

only a numerical indicator of the transition between acceptable and unacceptable expo-sure levels and should not be overinterpreted. It is not an indication of statistical prob-ability (as cancer risk estimates are).

The assumption of additivity is most properly applied to chemicals that induce the sameeffect by the same mode of action or in the same target organ. Thus, if the hazardindex is near or exceeds unity, the chemicals in the mixture should be considered onthe basis of their critical effect and separate indexes derived for each effect. Chemicalsthat are essential nutrients should be excluded from the hazard index if they are in therange of essentiality. This method is consistent with the EPA guidelines on chemicalmixtures (EPA, 1986c).


The potential for carcinogenic effects is evaluated by estimating excess lifetime cancerrisk. Excess lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an individual chemical is estimatedas follows:

where:

e = 2.71828q* = carcinogenic potency factorCDI = lifetime average chemical intake

(or delivered dose) in mg/kg body weight/day

Excess lifetime cancer risk (also called individual risk) is the incremental increase in theprobability of developing cancer over the background probability (e.g., if no exposure tosite contaminants occurred). For example, a IxlO"6 excess lifetime cancer risk meansthat for every 1 million people exposed to the carcinogen, the expected incidence ofcancer is increased by one extra case of cancer over their lifetime.

A-61CVOR78/072.51

For exposure to multiple carcinogens, estimated risks for individual chemicals in a par-ticular medium are summed to obtain a total risk estimate for the mixture.

RISK ESTIMATION

The exposure assessment subsection identified the potential exposure pathways associ-ated with the Verona Well Field site. Based on that analysis, three exposure settingsare defined to describe exposures for current site conditions and future potential siteuse. These exposure settings are used to evaluate the potential health threats from theVerona Well Field site. They are:

• Current conditions-residential setting for nearby areas• Future use-residential/commercial development setting• Future use-subsurface excavation setting

The noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risk estimates for these exposure settings, andthe exposure assumptions used for each, are given in table form for each source area inAppendix C. The results are summarized in the following subsections.

Current Conditions-Residential Setting for Nearby Areas

As discussed earlier, contaminants have migrated from the Verona Well Field site andbeen detected in downgradient private and monitoring wells, creating a potentiallycomplete exposure pathway. Risk estimates are developed for ingestion and dermalexposures to groundwater in residential areas downgradient of the Annex and RaymondRoad areas. Risks are also estimated for nearby residential areas upgradient of thepaint shop and Raymond Road areas. The exposure scenario for current residentialexposures assumes infrequent and incidental contact with groundwater, which mightoccur during activities such as gardening or car washing. (Exposure assumptions for acurrent residential setting were given in Table A-9.) The risk estimates for

A-62CVOR78/072.51

groundwater downgradient to the Annex and Raymond Road areas are summarized inTable A-20. The risk estimates for groundwater upgradient of paint shop andRaymond Road areas are summarized in Table A-21.

Table A-20Summary of Risk Estimates from Groundwater

Downgradient of Source Areas

Area

Annex

Annex

Raymond Road

ExposureScenario

Current Resident(nonconsumptive)Current Resident

(consumptive)Current Resident


Ingestion<0.01

0.02

0.49

Dermal<0.01

<0.01

<0.01


IngestionIxlO-6

4X10-4

5xlO'5

Dermal9xlO'9

IxlO-6

5xlO'7

Table A-21Summary of Risk Estimates from Groundwater Upgradient

of Source Areas

Area

Paint ShopRaymond Road

ExposureScenario

Current ResidentCurrent Resident


Ingestion<0.01<0.01

Dermal<0.01<0.01


IngestionIxlO'9

4xlO-7

Dermal2X10'11

3xlO'9

Annex. No groundwater samples were collected upgradient of the Annex because thereare no homes there. Twenty-seven wells were sampled downgradient of the Annexarea. Eight chemicals of potential concern with noncarcinogenic effects were detected

in these wells. Using the pooled groundwater data from these wells, none of thesechemicals were present at RME concentrations where estimated intakes are greaterthan acceptable intakes (e.g., the hazard quotients, HQs, are less than unity). Fornonconsumptive groundwater use, the hazard indices (HI, sum of hazard quotients) are

A-63CVOR78/072J1

estimated to be <0.01 for both ingestion and dermal contact. For consumptive use, theHis are 0.2 and <0.01 for ingestion and dermal contact.

Eight carcinogenic chemicals were detected in groundwater downgradient to the Annexarea. The total excess lifetime cancer risk for ingestion is estimated to be IxlO"6 (9xlO"9

for dermal contact) for a nonconsumptive setting, and 4x10^ (lxl(V* for dermal contact)for a consumptive use setting for the pooled groundwater data. About ninety percentof this risk was due to vinyl chloride.

Paint Shop. No groundwater samples were collected downgradient of the paint shoparea and risks are not quantified. The groundwater upgradient of the paint shop areacontains chemicals of potential concern which result in a hazard index of <0.01 forboth ingestion and dermal absorption.

Two carcinogens, methylene chloride and tetrachloroethene, were detected in ground-water upgradient of the paint shop. The estimated total excess lifetime cancer risk foringestion by future residents is IxlO'9. The total risk for the dermal route is estimatedto be IxlO'".

Raymond Road. Sixteen wells were sampled downgradient of the Raymond Roadarea. Of the 24 chemicals of potential concern with noncarcinogenic effects that weredetected in these wells, none of these resulted in HQs greater than unity). The hazardindexes are estimated to be 0.49 for ingestion and <0.01 for dermal contact.

Eleven carcinogens were detected in groundwater downgradient of the Raymond Roadarea. The total excess lifetime cancer risk for ingestion is estimated to be 5xlO'5 (5xlO'7

for dermal exposure) for the pooled groundwater data. The major contributors arevinyl chloride, arsenic, and 1,1-dichloroethane.

A-64CVOR78/072J1

The groundwater upgradient of the Raymond Road area contained chemicals of poten-tial concern which result in a hazard index of <0.01 for both ingestion and dermalabsorption.

Seven carcinogenic chemicals of potential concern were detected in groundwater upgra-dient of the Raymond Road area, resulting in a total excess lifetime cancer risk esti-

mate of 4xlO"7 for residential ingestion. Nearly all of this is due to the presence of vinylchloride in the well samples. The RME concentration calculated for vinyl chloride(3 ug/I) is slightly above the MCL of 2 ug/1. No individual upgradient well containedvinyl chloride greater than the MCL. The total carcinogenic risk for dermal exposureis estimated at 3xlO~9.

Future Conditions-Residential/Commercial Development Setting

Under a no-action alternative, the groundwater exposure pathway will remain completeif the aquifer is used as a potable water supply. While it is possible that new wells may

be installed on or adjacent to the site, it is more likely that new water users will takeadvantage of the availability of City-supplied water. Onsite monitoring well data are

used to assess the potential risks resulting from future area development. As a conser-vative assumption, concentrations in onsite wells are used to estimate future down-gradient conditions. This scenario is likely to overestimate risks since concentrationsare not remaining constant, but are decreasing with time due to the solvent extractionsystems at the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road area. This setting is assumed to eval-uate an upper bound on future site risk estimates.

Both residential and occupational receptors are assumed under a future land usescenario, since the areas surrounding Verona Well Field are currently planned for

medium residential and light industrial use. Ingestion and dermal contact exposure

pathways are assumed. (Exposure assumptions for future residential and occupationalsettings were given in Table A-9.)

A-65CVOR78/072.51

Annex. Risk estimates for the onsite Annex area are summarized on Table A-22. Fornoncarcinogenic effects, there are five chemicals of potential concern in onsite ground-water which have a HQ greater than one under a residential setting for ingestion.These include acetone, arsenic, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, and trans-1,2-dichloroethene. The hazard index for ingestion is estimated at 20.1; for dermal expo-sure to residents, it is 0.04.

Table A-22Summary of Risk Estimates from Onsite Groundwater

in the Annex Area

Site

Annex OnsiteAnnex Onsite

ExposureScenario

Future ResidentFuture Worker


Ingestion20.110.1

Dermal0.04

<0.01


Ingestion7xlO"2

lx!0"2

DermalMO"4

IxlO'5

For worker exposures, estimated intakes of three chemicals exceeded acceptable intakelevels. These included arsenic, tetrachloroethene, and trans-l,2-dichloroethene. Thehazard index for ingestion by workers is 10.1; for dermal exposure, it is <0.01.

There were 13 carcinogens detected in groundwater onsite at the Annex area. Undera residential setting, the RME concentrations, using data pooled from the onsite Annexwells, showed that all of these carcinogens result in excess lifetime cancer risks greaterthan IxlO"6 for the ingestion route. The combined risk estimate for all carcinogens is7xlO"2. The risk estimate for the dermal route is 1x10^*. For worker exposures, thecancer risk estimates are IxlO"2 and IxlO"5 for ingestion and dermal contact,respectively.

Paint Shop. The risk estimates for the onsite paint shop area are summarized onTable A-23. For noncarcinogenic effects, there are three chemicals of potential concernin onsite groundwater for which intake estimates exceed their RfDs for ingestion.These include tetrachloroethene, trans-l,2-dichloroethene, and zinc. The hazard index

A-66CVOR78/07Z51

for ingestion by residents is 18.7 and for dermal exposure to residents is 0.03. The zincconcentration may be anomalously high due to using unfiltered groundwater samples.The maximum zinc concentration in this data set was 10.7 mg/1 (from well 1421) andthe corresponding filtered sample was about 40 percent as high (4.6 mg/1). It is pos-sible that unusual amounts of suspended solids were in the well sample.


in the Paint Shop Area

Site

Paint ShopOnsitePaint ShopOnsite

ExposureScenario

Future Resident

Future Worker


Ingestion18.7

9.37

Dermal0.03

<0.01


Ingestion2xlO*2

4xlO'3

Dermal3xlO'5

3x10-*

For worker exposures, the estimated intake of tetrachloroethene exceeds the acceptable

intake level for ingestion. The hazard index for ingestion by workers is 9.37, and <0.01dermal exposure to workers.

There were 10 carcinogens detected in groundwater onsite at the Paint shop area.According to the pooled groundwater data, all of these carcinogens result in excesslifetime cancer risks greater than IxlO"6 for the ingestion route under a residential set-ting. The total risk estimate by ingestion (all carcinogens, all wells onsite) is 2xlO"2.The estimated risk for the dermal route is 3xlO"5.

For worker exposures to onsite groundwater, excess lifetime cancer risks are estimatedto be 4xlO"3 and 3x10"* for the ingestion and dermal routes, respectively.

Raymond Road. Table A-24 summarizes the risk estimates for the onsite RaymondRoad area. In onsite groundwater, tetrachloroethene is at a RME concentration that

A-67CVOR78/072J1

results in a HQ greater than unity for the ingestion route by a residential setting. Thehazard index for ingestion is 13.4 and the HQ for tetrachloroethene is 88% of the totalhazard index. The hazard index for dermal exposure to residents is 0.02.


in the Raymond Road Area

Site

Raymond RoadOnsiteRaymond RoadOnsite

ExposureScenario

Future Resi-dentFutureWorker


Ingestion13.4

6.72

Dermal0.02

<0.01


Ingestion7xlO'3

IxlO'3

DermallxlO'5

1x10^

Under an assumed occupational setting, the estimated intake of tetrachloroetheneexceeds the RfD. The hazard index for ingestion by workers is 6.72, and <0.01 fordermal exposure to workers.

Four of the chemicals of potential concern in onsite groundwater at Raymond Roadare carcinogens. Under a residential setting, all of these carcinogens result in excesslifetime cancer risks greater than IxlO"6 for the ingestion route. The cancer riskestimate for all carcinogens (pooled groundwater data) is 7xlO'3. The risk for the der-mal route is IxlO"5.

The total excess lifetime cancer risk estimate for a worker setting is estimated to beIxlO"3 for ingestion, and IxlO"6 for dermal contact.

Future Conditions-Subsurface Excavation Setting

Human exposure to contaminants in subsurface soils is assumed in this assessment tooccur to workers in trenches during infrequent excavation activities. Exposures are

A-68CVOR78/072.51

possible via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. There are considerable uncer-tainties involved with estimating exposures to chemicals in soil by the dermal routes.Soil adherence to the skin is expected to be minimal because workers would be pro-tected by gloves and clothing. Consequently, dermal risks are not quantitatively esti-mated in this assessment. This exposure route could, however, add to the total siterisks to short-term workers onsite if skin is unprotected. Risks are estimated for soilingestion and inhalation of vapors. If inhalation toxicity values were unavailable fromIRIS or HEAST, ingestion toxicity values were used. Exposure assumptions for short-term workers were presented in Table A-9. Only onsite subsurface soils from theAnnex, paint shop, and Raymond Road areas were sampled. Two samples wereanalyzed for metals. The metal concentrations were comparable to background levelsand yielded hazard quotients less than unity. The remaining samples were analyzed fororganics (VOCs). Table A-25 summarizes the risk estimates for subsurface soils atVerona Well Field.

Table A-25Summary of Risk Estimates from Subsurface Soils:

Ingestion and Inhalation by Trench Worker

Site

AnnexPaint ShopRaymond Road

ExposureScenario

Trench WorkerTrench WorkerTrench Worker

Non carcinogenicHazard Index

Ingestion0.39

<0.01<0.01


Ingestion3xlO'7

SxlO'10

3xlO'9

Inhalation7x10^3X10-6

2xlO'5

Annex. The estimated risk from noncarcinogenic effects due to ingestion of subsurfacesoil in the Annex area results in a hazard index of 0.39. The excess lifetime cancer riskfor ingestion is estimated to be 3xlO"7, with 99 percent being contributed by tetrachloro-ethene (2,660 mg/kg, dry weight). For inhalation exposures, the excess lifetime cancer

risk is estimated to be TxlO"4.

A-69CVOR78/07ZS1

Paint Shop. Ingestion of subsurface soils from the paint shop area result in a hazardindex of <0.01 and a cancer risk estimate of SxlO"8. The cancer risk estimate for theinhalation route is

Raymond Road. Exposures to subsurface soils from the Raymond Road area by inges-tion result in a hazard index of <0.01 and a cancer risk estimate of 3xlO"9. Estimatedcancer risk by inhalation is 2xlO'5.

Battle Creek Health Study

An epidemiological study of the Battle Creek area, Calhoun County, Michigan, wasperformed by the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) and the U.S.Centers for Disease Control (now called the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry) in 1988 (Freni and Bloomer, 1989) to determine the potential health effectsof chronic exposure to low levels of VOCs in drinking water. The study was designedas a retrospective cohort study to address the health risks from simultaneous chronicexposure to VOCs detected in groundwater with multiple routes of entry. Their studyinvolved 251 current and former residents in the area of the contaminated wells inVerona Park, Springfield, and Dowagaic, and 498 of the reference area. They selectedreference neighborhoods for comparability to the contaminated areas with respect tothe age, size, and value of the dwellings.

Of the 251 potentially exposed participants, 28 had left the exposed area before theirwell water became contaminated. The maximum estimated exposure level among theremaining 223 exposed people was 3.3 grams total accumulated VOCs in drinking water(available exposure) or 6.8 mg/kg/day (the dose, based on the actual volume of waterconsumed). The study found no excess of health disorders that could have beenattributed to the VOCs.

A-70CVOR78/072J1

Although not attributed to VOCs, diabetes, cancer in women, miscarriages, skin rashes,and psoriasis occurred more frequently in the contaminated areas than in the compari-son areas, whereas gall bladder disease, hypertension acne, and hives occurred lessfrequently. Other differences were not statistically significant. The study concludedthat the available information is insufficient to explain either the surplus or the deficitof disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The list below shows current and/or future areas of potential risk. Identification ofthese areas is based on the exposure scenarios developed for the site, and the 95 per-cent upper confidence limit of the contaminant concentrations recorded on the site.

• Current residential (nonconsumptive) uses of groundwater downgradientof the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road facility (ingestion)

• Current residential (consumptive) uses of groundwater downgradient ofthe Thomas Solvent Annex (ingestion)

• Future trench workers at any of the three source areas (inhalation)

• Future residents downgradient of and trench workers at any of the threesource areas (ingestion and dermal exposure to groundwater)

These areas of potential risk were calculated to have hazard index values grater than 1for noncarcinogens and/or excess lifetime cancer risks of greater than IxlO"6

for carcinogens. A risk of IxlO"6 is considered by EPA as a point of departure for

A-71CVOR78/072.51

determining goals for cleanup of carcinogenic substances (EPA 1988b), The actualrisks are presented in Tables A-20 through A-25.

These risks assume a no-action scenario at the site, and could be mitigated throughfuture remedial action at each of the source areas. Potential actions to address theserisks will be developed and evaluated as part of a separate feasibility study being devel-oped for the site.

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessments are subject to a variety of uncertainties. This risk assessment involvesscientifically verifiable findings (e.g., chemical concentrations in onsite groundwater), aswell as judgments about the use of various kinds of scientific information (e.g., appro-priate cancer risk models). Table A-26 lists the general uncertainty factors identifiedfor the baseline risk assessment. The major sources of uncertainty are:

• Media sampling and analyses• Contaminant fate and transport estimation• Exposure estimations• Toxicological data

Errors associated with sampling and analysis include failure to sample or conductanalyses for all possible toxic agents at the site, the inherent errors in the analysis,representativeness of the samples, sampling errors, and heterogeneity of the samplematrix. While the quality assurance/quality control program used during the RI servesto reduce some of these errors, it cannot eliminate all errors associated with samplingand analysis.

A-72CVOR78/07151

Table A-26UNCERTAINTY FACTORS

VERONA WELL FIELD SITE

Uncertainty Factor

Use of cancer potency factors

Risks/doses assumed to beadditive

Critical toxicity values derivedprimarily from animal studies

Effect of Uncertainty

May overestimate risks

May over-or underestimate risks


Comment

Critical toxicity values derivedprimarily from high doses; mostexposures are at low doses

Critical toxicity values

Bioavaliability from soilassumed to be 100%

Effect of absorption



May overestimate risk


Estimates of inhalationexposure

Inorganic analysis



Potencies are upper 95thpercent confidence limits;Considered unlikely tounderestimate true risk

Does not account for synergismor antagonism

Extrapolation from animal tohumans may induce error dueto differences in absorption,pharmacokinetics, target organs,enzymes, and populationvariability

Assumes linear at low doses;tend to have conservativeexposure assumptions

Not all values represent thesame degree of certainty; all aresubject to change as newevidence becomes available

Contaminants may preferentiallybind to soil and not entirelyrelease to GI tract; actual intakemay be less than the intakeamount estimated

Assumption that absorption isequivalent across species isimplicit in the derivation of thecritical toxicity values;absorption may actually varywith chemical

Methods used to estimate vaporconcentrations wereconservative

Inorganic analysis reportsresults for total metals and notspecific forms; assumed themetal was present in its mosttoxic form


Uncertainty Factor

Not all chemicals at the sitehave critical toxicity values

Relative source contribution isnot accounted for

Contaminant loss duringsampling

Dermal absorption rate assumedequal to permeability of water

Analysis limited to TAL andTCL chemicals

Exposure assumptions

Effect of Uncertainty

May underestimate risk


Comment


May under-or overestimate risk



Contaminant concentrationsassumed constant

Method detection limits



Cannot quantitatively estimaterisks, must address thesechemicals qualitatively

Exposures not associated withthe site are not included withinthe risk assessment; thisapproach may miss incrementalrisks from the site

May underestimate contaminantconcentrations, especially VOCs

Chemical may be absorbedmore or less readily than water

TAL and TCL chemicals mayrepresent only a subset of thetoxic chemicals which arepresent at the site

Assumptions regarding mediaintake, populationcharacteristics, and exposurepatterns may not characterizeexposures

Did not account forenvironmental fate, transport,or transfer which may altercontaminant concentration

Method detection limit forsome chamicals may be above aconcentration that might be ofconcern

Notes:TAL = Target Analyte List.TCL * Target Compound List.VOC - Volatile organic compounds.

CVOR70/058.51

Data gaps concerning the environmental fate and transport of site contaminants repre-sent a potential source of risk estimation error. In this assessment, it is assumed thatcurrent conditions (contaminant concentrations) would not change substantially overtime. The formation of breakdown products (e.g., vinyl chloride) and the removal ofsite contaminants by the pre-existing solvent extraction systems at the Thomas SolventRaymond Road area could significantly change the nature of site risks over time.

Another potential source of error involves the numerous assumptions required todescribe potential exposure situations. There are a number of uncertainties regardingthe likelihood of exposure, frequency of contact with contaminated media, theconcentration of contaminants at exposure points, and the extent of exposure. Theseestimates tend to simplify and approximate actual site conditions. Reasonable maxi-mum exposure scenarios were used in an attempt to estimate the highest plausibleexposures and human health risks at the site.

The lexicological data base is also a source of uncertainty. EPA outlined some of thesources of uncertainties in its Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA1986c). They include extrapolating from high to low doses, from animal to humans;species differences in uptake, metabolism, and organ distribution; species differences intarget site susceptibility; and human population variability with respect to diet, environ-ment, activity patterns, and cultural factors.

Uncertainty in this risk assessment is a function of the "state-of-the-practice" of riskassessment in general and also a function of the uncertainty specific to the Verona WellField site. To compensate for apparent uncertainties, the approach used in this riskassessment was to bias exposure assessment in the direction such that risk is likely over-estimated. This approach was used for conservatism in public health protection andshould be considered when interpreting the results of this assessment.

A-75CVOR78/072.51

ASSUMPTIONS IN THIS ASSESSMENT

Major assumptions used in this risk assessment are:

• Contaminant concentrations remain constant over the exposure period

• Exposure remains constant over time

• The selected ingestion rates and population characteristics (weight, lifespan) are representative for a potentially exposed population

• Risks are additive

• All intake of contaminants is from the exposure medium being evaluated(no relative source contribution)

• Current onsite concentrations represent future offsite concentrations

ARSENIC

Naturally occurring levels of arsenic in Verona Well Field, as measured at the pumpstation, are typically in the range of 5 to 7 mg/1. There is significant variation in arsenicconcentrations, depending upon the depth of a well drilled in the Marshall Sandstoneand the duration of pumping prior to sample collection. Wells that are operated con-tinuously contain levels of arsenic in the 5 to 7 mg/1 range, whereas intermittentlyoperated wells or samples obtained from monitoring wells contain much higherconcentrations. (Personnel communication, Jon Bloemaker, District Engineer with theMichigan Department of Public Health).

A-76CVOR78/072J1

Arsenic was detected in groundwater and soil samples during the RI fieldwork at theVerona Well Field site. It is often the case that background levels (less than the estab-lished MCL of 50 jig/1) exhibit a substantial cancer risk (> IxlO"6). A carcinogenic slopefactor for arsenic was unavailable from either IRIS (1990a) or HEAST (1988a), thepreferred sources for EPA-derived toxicity values. The slope factor used in this riskassessment is proposed by the EPA Risk Assessment Forum and had been scheduledfor verification. There is also some question whether arsenic is an essential nutrient in

the human diet. These uncertainties should be recognized when interpreting the car-cinogenic risks from the site.

Arsenic has not been reported to have been dumped or buried by Grand Trunk orThomas Solvent Company at any of the source areas. Soil samples collected at theAnnex and paint shop had concentrations of 1.1 mg/1 and 1.2 mg/1, respectively. Thesevalues are within the normal background range of 1 to 50 mg/1 (Lindsay, 1979).Groundwater concentration ranged from 1.5 to 150 mg/1. Low arsenic concentrations insubsurface soils and moderately high groundwater concentrations further support theconclusion that arsenic found at the site is representative of naturally occurring levelsfound in the Marshall Sandstone. It has previously been noted that arsenic is naturallyoccurring in the Marshall Sandstone (Cummings, 1980). It may have been transportedalong with the iron-rich waters off of the Precambrian Shield during and shortly afterdeposition of the sandstone (Thomas, no date).

The EPA Risk Assessment Guidance document for Superfund (EPA 1989a) identifiesnaturally occurring levels as levels that are present under ambient conditions and that

have not been increased by anthropogenic sources. If inorganic chemicals are presentat a site at naturally occurring levels, they may be eliminated from the quantitative riskassessment. In some cases, however, background concentrations may present a signifi-cant risk, and while cleanup may or may not eliminate this risk, the background riskmay be an important site characteristic to those exposed. The EPA has the option ofconsidering the risk posed by naturally occurring background chemicals separately.

A-77CVOR78/072.51

REFERENCES

Cummings, T.R., 1980. Chemical and physical characteristics of natural groundwaters inMichigan. USGS Open File Report, 80-953. 1980.

EPA 1990a. Integrated Risk Information System. Office of Research and Develop-ment, Cincinnati, OH.

EPA 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evalua-tion Manual, Part A, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.EPA/540/1-89/002. December 1989.

EPA 1989b. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Third Quarter FY 1989.Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. OERR9200.6-303-(8902). April 1989.

EPA 1989c. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assess-ment. EPA/600/8-89/043. May 1989.

EPA 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility StudiesUnder CERCLA, Interim Final. October 1988.

EPA 1988b. 40CFR Part 300 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contin-gency Plan, Proposed Role. December 1988.

EPA 1988c. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Office of Remedial Response.EPA/540/1-88/001. April 1988.

EPA 1986a. Guidelines for Estimating Exposure. Federal Register Vol. 51

34042-34005. September 24, 1986.

A-78CVOR78/07ZS1

EPA 1986b. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Federal Register Vol. 5133992-34013. September 24, 1986.

EPA 1986c. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.Federal Register Vol. 51 34014-34041. September 24, 1986,

EPA 1986d. Toxicology Handbook. Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.September 1986.

EPA 1984. Health Assessment Document for Inorganic Arsenic: Final Report.EPA-600/8-83-021F. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. March 1984.

Freni, S.C., and Arthur W. Bloomer. 1988. Report on the Battle Creek Health Study.Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control Centers for Disease Control,Atlanta, Georgia.

Lindsay, W. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

McGregor, DJ. 1954. Stratigraphic Analysis of Upper Devonian and Mississippian rocksin Michigan Basin. AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 33. P. 2324-2330. 1954.

Monnett, V.B. Mississippian Marshall Formation of Michigan. AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 32.P. 629-659. 1948.

Personal Communication. February 1990. With Jon Bloemker, District Engineer,Michigan Department of Public Health.

Pettyjohn, W.A., Hayes, L.R., and Schultz, T.R. Concentration and Distribution of TraceElements in the Maumee River Basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. 1985.

A-79CVOR78/072.51

Stearns, M.R., and Cook, C.W. A Petrographic study of the Marshall Formation and ItsRelation to the Sand of the Michigan Series Formations.

Thomas, W.A. A Study of the Marshall Formation in Michigan.

A-80CVOR78/072^1

c

Appendix BRISK ESTIMATE DETAILS

AND CALCULATIONS

Contaminant Releasefrom Soils into Trenches

H-Feb-9

COSimiHfHfT prime HlOn SOILS IHTO ISBCHB: - KSH-OBBCISOTS

Chwical

Traru - 1,2 - OichloroetheneEthylbeflzeneHethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolwne1,1,1 - Trichlaroettanefylene

RSSWffTIOHSTemperature (C)Tenperature (It)Diffusion CoefficientTenperature Correction

Total Porosityfloisture Content, fractionftir Filled PorosityExcavation flrea (cn2)Length of tine excavationis open (sec)

Uidth of excavation (n)Average wind speed («/«c)Mixing height (n)

Concentrationin soil,

no/tg

0.33392.8

0.2112C61210111710

192B3

1.055

0.130.170.26

200,00011,100

2.01.02.0

UolunetricConcentration

§toi3

5.98E-071.67EHM1.33E-B?1.7K-833.77E-M1.99E-M1.33E-83

DlffUHw! 8lff.»3Coefficient Chenical

a tT ,oiZ/'sec

0.03970.06910.103?0.08750.08198.57958.0711

B«4t« 5? ftwrsge Conceatrationin Soil, Uolatiliiation in Excavation«2/5ec Bate Pit

g/s«c ^3

l.Wt-BZ 1.72E-D1 1.3E-02USE-IB 1.22H2 UE»011.72E-02 1.3«-01 3.3E-021.15EHB l.?6£»Q9 3..1E»B21.11H2 1.D6EHH 2.6ft|)il.EE-82 5.10E-Q2 1.1E»0!1.2M 3.18E-Q! ?.?E»01

•

H-r-h-in

mots nm SOILS IHTO (MX - CfflJCIHOGCKS

Chemral

1,2 - DlchloroethaneHethylene ChlorideTetrachlorBetheieTriehlwoethene

KanrriflBTwperature (C)Tenperature (K)diffusion CoefficientTemperature Correction

Total PorosityMoisture Content, fractionflir filled PorosityCxcauation Area (»2)Length of tine excavationis open (sec)

Uidth of excavation (n)Outrage wind speed (n/aec)flixing height (n)

Concentration l!ol metricin soil, Concentration

«g/kg g/c«3

0.306 5.SOE*070.211 1.31-07

2661 1.73MB312 5.C1MH

10283

1.055

0.130.178.26

200,00011,100

2.01.02.0

Diffiiriffii Clffuiivity iff fiverage Cijr^entratiuiiCoefficient Chemical in Soil, Volatilization in [,xcsi5ti3n

at T, oi2/3rc Bate PitCH*y KC Oy "^ ffu^3

0.0818 1.11E-02 1.S1E-01 3.3E-02B.1037 1.72C-02 1.31MH 3.3T020.0575 1.15T-02 1.3ff»W 3.1E»020.0781 1.30E-K 1.51E-B1 3.8E'01

COHTITOtH ttLEfiE nffll SOILS WO TKKHESi PfllHT SHOP -

Chenical

BronodichlorwwthaneTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1 - TrichlflrKttwM

HSStlJPTKHISTenperature (C)Toperature (K)Diffusion Coefficient

Tenperature CorrectionTotal PorosityRoisture Content, fractionflir Filled PorosityExcavation Urea (cn2)Length of tine excavationis open (sec)

Uidth of exudation (n)Average wind speed (n/sec)ttiJdng height (n)

Concentration Ifolumtricin soil, Concentration

np/tg o/cn3

0.531 9.60t-07S.52 9.BHK

0.552 9.52E-07fl.553 9.ME-87

10283

1.055

0.130.170.2S

200,00011,100

2.01.02.0

Diffusion Oiffusirity ofCoefficient Chenical in Soil,

at T, cn2/secoiZ/sec

O.WM 1.5K-020.0875 MS-020.0919 1.1H-020.0795 1.32C-K

OverageVolatilization

Itateg/sec

2.86E-D12.82HI32.78C-M2.S9E-01

Concentrationin Excavation

Pitnj/«3

7.1EHJ27.0C-016.9H26.7C-02

lHeb-90

KELEIISE raw SOILS IHTO PfllHT SHOP - CflRCIKOGEHS

Chwical

BrwodkhloronethaneTefracaloroethene

RSWTIOKSTenperature (C)Tmperaturt (K)Diffusion CoefficientTenperature Correction

Total PorosityMoisture Content, fractionfar Filled PorosityExcavation Urea (cn2)Length of tine excavationis open (sec)

Uidth of excavation (n)ftuerage ulnd speed (n/sec)Kixing height (n)

Concentration UoluHetricin soil, Concentration

njA.g j/c»3

0.531 16IJE-0?5.5Z 9.92C-06

102B3

1.055

0.130.170.26

200,00011,100

2.01.02.0

Diffusion Diffusing of ftuerage ConcentrationCoefficient Chenical in Soil, volatilization in Excavation

at T, w2/sec fete PitoiZ/sec 5'iec n /«3

fl.0%0 1.5K-BZ 2.36E-51 7.1E-D2O.C87S 1.15E-02 2.82E-03 7.ff-IH

a-feb-90

miss, ran SOILS mo WfflOHD MR) -

Diffusion fiiffuiiulty ofChenical

AcetoneBrononethaneflethyl Ethyl KetoneCarbon BisulfideCarbon letrachlorideCUorobcnzeneOil or of urn1,1 - mchloroetiiaM1,1 - UchloroetheneTraiu - 1,2 - DichloroetheneCthylboaewHetnyleK ChlorideMttaleneTetrachloroetiKMToluene1,1,1 - TrichloroetnnefyleneTetrehydrofurw

HSSOTTIOItSTenaerature (t)Temperature (t)Diffusion CoefficientTenperature Correction

Total PomityMoisture Contest, fractiontor Tilled PorosityExcavation Area (cn2)Length of tine excavationis open (sec)

Itidth df excavation (ft)Average wind speed («/*«)rUxing height (n)

CoKentrationla nil,

rigAg

l.tt0.0338.0130.096O.M6OJU

0.0250.02

0.2110.026iJd1.3S

0.51323.65».?

BJ01JS.10.343

10283

LOSS

0.13Ul0.26

200,00011,100

2.01.02.0

UolwetricCancentnUn

8/0)3

2.9K-065.93C-*7.73C-081.73E-WIJTC-ttS.39E-M1.19E-063JK-M3.75E-071.67E-001.35-C7J9C-«14«-061JX-05U«-flS9JQE-476JS-056J6E-87

Coefficient Chenical in Soil,atr,

«2/9«

OJ1SO0.10370.0612O.Wl0.08280.07580.09600.09190.08610.0897

' 0.06910.10370.05110.007SO.Q8C20.07950.07110.097S

cn2/ttc

1.91EHC1.72E-021.10E-D21.S6C-021J7E-C21.24E-021.59E-021. 531*021.13E-021.19E-02USE-021.72E-D28.98C-031.15CHI21.33E-021.32E-021.23E-021.S5E-02

Averagetfolatiliation

Kiteg/sec

9.71EHM1.83C-Q5Z.1SE-OSS.08HE2.28CHKl.12£-«51.31E-051JEE-051.07E-WUff-OS3J7E-032.MCHB3.67EHM1.21EH129.63E-032.HE-011.66E-021.81EHM

ConcentrationIn Excavation

tttng/h3

2.1E-011.6E-03S.tfHJJ1.3E-H2S.7E-033.SCHK3JE-032.6C-032.7E-023.1E-03O.ttHtt6.1E-019JE-473JK«002.C*00&.lf-tt1JE*001.5E-02

KLERSE ran SOILS IHTO TPENCHES: HmtGHD 9m - CflRCInWffS

Chemcal

BenzeneCarbon TetrachlorideChlorofora1,1 - Blchloroethane1,1 - OiehloroetheneHethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrlchloroethene

flSSttflTIOtfSTenperature (C)Tenperature ft)Diffusion Coefficientlenperature Correction

Total Porosityftoisture Content, fractionflir filled PorosityExcavation nrea (w2)Length of tine excavationis open (sec)

Uidth of excavation (n)teenage wind speed CV^Ofoxing height (n)

Concentrationin soil,

ng/kg

0.0170.0160.0250.02

0.2111.39

23.652.17

102B3

1.055

0.130.170.26

200,00011,100

2.01.32.0

UolunetricConcentration

g/c«3

3.05E-088.27E-081.19E-083.59E-083.79C-077.89E-061.2SE-OS1.11E-06

DiffusionCoefficient

atT,c«2/sec

8.88130.082S0.09600.09190.08610.10370.08750.0781

OiffusU'itj? ofChenicai in Soil,

cnZ/sec

1.35C-021.37T-021.59C-021.53T-021.13C-021.72C-021.15E-02l.m-02

fl'.'firagel>olatiliiaticn

EM*Kail

ji'sec

e.3ec-oe2.28C-051.31E-U5l.OSE-051.07E-012.11E-031-2IE-321.1M

Concentrationin Exca^tion

Pitng/n3

2. IE-03S.7C-033.3E-032.6E-032.7C-026. It-013.0C*003.0E-01

Exposure Assumptions and RiskEstimates for Exposure Settings

Table 1

HONCflECINOeOQC IOITH EISK EUflUIHIION • U8IE1 IHKSTIDH ftKD OCGta HBSQWIION(flHNEK

ReferenceDose (WO)

Chenical ng/kg-day

Acetone 0.1bi3(2-Ethylhexyi)phthalate 0.021,1-Oichloroethane 0.1trans l.Hichloroethene 0.02fcthylene chloride 0.06letraehloroethene 0.01loluene O.iU.Hrichloroethane 0.09

Hazard Index (Sin of OI/RfD)

EXPOSURE BSSIWIIOHS

Exposure Setting Residential

General assunptions:

Receptor fldultBody -tight (kg) 70

Ingeition assumptions:

Uater Intake (I/day) 0.1

Dernal abs. assunptionj;

Surface area (W) 18000Percent subnerged 2Sline in uater (hrs/day) 0.2S

a. Sources of RfDs:IRIS - Integrated Risk Information

Perneability RNE b Daily IntakeConstant Cweentration (DI )

Source a cn/V jg/1 ng/Vg-day

IRIS 0.0008 Z9.S 1.21E-OSIRIS 0.0008 U.6 B.£fiE-05IRIS 0.0008 2.3 3J9E-OGIJIS 0.0008 32.9 UOE-05IRIS 0.0008 1 U3E-Q6IRIS 0.0008 10.7 1.S3E-OSIRIS 0.0008 1.1 1.S7E-06IRIS 0.0008 0.% I.ib[-Cb

(nonpotable uater)

Systen. U.S. EPfl 1988.

Ingeition

HazardQuotient Does Intake

QI/RfG Exceed RfD?

U1E-01 HO1.33E-03 HOJ.29E-05 HO2.35E-03 HO2.38E-OS HO1.S3E-03 NOS.21E-06 NO1.S1E-OS NO

B.71E-03

Oernal absorption

Daily Intake Hazard(DI) Quotient Does Intake

no/Vg-iay OI/SfD [«eed M07

3.79E-0? 3.79E-06 HO7.75E-07 J.90E-OS HO2.96E-08 2.96E-07 HOU3E-07 2.11E-05 NO1.29E-W 2. HE-07 NO1.38E-07 1.38C-OS NO1.11E-OB ^.71E-08 Hfll.ZZE-08 1.3K-0? HO

7.83E-OS

•

b. Reasonable Hamun Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit af arithmetic neao).

Fable 2

excess LirETME CHHCER RISK • INTER IKKSTIOH on sm. muni(BHNEli DQUHGRRQIEH!)

Chenical

Benzenebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate1,1-Oichloroethane1,2-OichloroethaneHethylene chiondeTetrachloroethenetnchloroethtneUinyl chloride

U.S.EPHCarcinogen

Clarification

flB2B282B2B282a

Slope factor(kg-oay/ng)

D.OZ90.0110.0910.091

0.0075O.OS10.011

2.3

Source

msIRIS

HEKTIRISIRIS

HEAS1IRIS

HEBS1

Perneability SBC ba Constant Concentration

cn/hr ug/1

8.00E-M 1.98.0QE-M HU8.00E-01 2.38.00EHH 1a.ore-M i8.0DE-01 10.78.0QH1 9.18.00E-Q1 8.3

Ingestioo

Lifetime fluerage ExcessChenical Intake Lifetiw

ftg/kg-day Cancer Risk

Z.30H7 7E-092.BSE-M 1E-08IJK-ff IE-08*. TOE-OB 1t-N1. TOE-OB 1E-10S.D3E-07 3C-081.27E-Q7 SE-093.ME-07 9E-07

Oernal absorption

Lifetine flwage ExcessDitniwl Intake Lifetine

ng/Vg-oa^ Cancer Euk

MITE-09 6E-112.S6E-Q8 ^E-!09.72E-10 9E-111.23E-10 IE-111.23E-10 JE-12<.S2E-09 2E-103.BSE-09 IE-113.SIE-D9 8E-09

sun or RISKS IE-OS 9E-09

EXPOSURE HSSUtPflOHS

Exposure setting

General assunptionsj

Residential (nonpotable uater)

Body weight (kg)Hunter of days/year exposedNunber of years exposedAveraging tine: lifehne (yrs)

Ingeition assunptionsi

Daily uater intake (I/day)

Oemal abs. assunptions:

Surface area (cn2)Percent subnerged (interger)line in uat«r (hrj/day)

0.1

250.25

Lifetine average nedia intake(I/kg body weight per day);

Ingestion 1.70E-OS

a. Source) of Cancer Potency Factors'IRIS • Integrated Risk Infomahon Systen. U.S. EPD 1988,HERST - Health Effects flssessnent Sumary tables. U.S. EPfl 1989

b. Reasonable llaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence linit of arithnetic nean).

Table 3

HONCRRCINOGnUt HEALTH RISK [UflLUfl[IOH - UfllER IH6ESTIW flHO Km flBSORPTIQH

Ingestion

Reference Penteability WE • Daily Intake HazardOoje (RfQ) Constant Concentration (01) Quotient Does Intake

Chenlcal ng/kg-day Source a cn/hr ug/1 ng/kg-day OI/RfD Eiceed RfD?

Rceto*bis(2-E%lhe*yl)phthalate1,1-Oiehloroethanetrans 1,2-Dichloroetheneflethylene chlorideTetrachloroethenetoluenel.l.Hrichloroethane

Hazard Index (Sun of DI/BfO)

[XPOSilH flSSHIPTIONS

Q .1 IRIS 0.0008 Z9.S 8 .«-« 8 .1 K-03 HOO.OZ IRIS 0.0058 60.6 1 .73C-Q3 8.S6C-02 NO0.1 IRIS 0.0008 2.3 (.Sft-05 b.STt-31 HO

0.02 IRIS 0 .0008 E .9 9 .10C-M * .TOE-02 W0.06 IRIS 0.0008 I 2.3U-05 1.76C-01 W0 .01 IRIS 0.0008 IB .7 J .66E-M 3 .06E-02 NO0.3 IRIS 0.0008 1.1 . 3.HE-OS 1. IK-01 HO

0.09 IRIS 0.0008 0.95 2.71E-05 J.02C-01 HD

1.71E-01

Dernal absorption

Daily Intake Hazard(DI) Quotient Does Intake

ngAg-day DI/RfD Exceed RfO?

1.S2E-06 1.S2E-05 HO3.12E-06 l.SSE-01 HOUtt-07 1.18E-06 HO1.69C-06 8.16E-05 HO5. HE-08 B.57E-07 NOS.SOE-07 5.SOC-05 NO5.66E-08 1.89E-07 HOU9E-Q8 5.13E-Q7 HO

3.13E-0^

[xposure Setting Residential (consunptiue use)

General assunptioni;

ReceptorBody Ueignt (ka)

Ingestion assunpttons:

Uater Intake (I/day)

Dernal abs. assunptions:

Surface area (»Z)Percent subftergedline in uater (hrs/day)

Rdult70

2

13000100

0.2S

a. Sources of EfDi:IRIS - Integrated Bisk Infornahon Systen. U.S. CPU 19B8.

b. Reasonable na*inun [xposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithnetic nean).

Table

EHCESS Liraiftc CHHCE* BISK - UATER IHKSTIQN HHD OCML ITOPTIOKOHM DOUHGRaoIEHT)

Chenical

Benzenehis(2-£thylhexyl)phthalate1,1-Oichloroethane1,2-OichloroethaneHethylene chlorideletrachloroetheneTnchlofoetheneUinyl chloride

sun or RISKS

EXPOSURE RSSWIIOKS

Exposure setting

General assumptions:

Body weight (kg)Hunber of days/year exposedNunber of yean exposedflueraging tines lifetine (yrs)

Ingestton assunptionsi

U.S.EPHCarcinogen

Classification

H828282K5282fl

Slope Factor(kg-day/ng)

0.0290.0110.0910.091

0.00750.0510.011

2.3

Ptmeability

Ingestion Dernal Absorption

RUE b Lifetine Huerage Excess Lifetine Average Excessa Constant Concentration Chenical Intake Lifetine

Source cn/hr

IRIS B.OOE-01IRIS B.OOE-01

HEHSI B.OOE-01IRIS e.OQE-01IRIS 8.00E-01

HEflST 8.00E-01IRIS 8.00E-01

HERST B. ODE-01

ug/1 ng/Vg-day Cancer Risk

1.9 1.10E-01 IE-0668,6 1.7IE-OI 2E-DS2.3 fi.S7E-OS 6E-06

1 2.86MJS 3E-061 2.BK-K ZE-B7

10.7 3.06E-01 2E-OS9.1 2.60E-01 3C-D68.3 2.37E-B1 SE-01

6E-04

Chentcal Intakeng/kg-day

2.S2E-073.1ZE-061.18E-07S. HE-08S. HE-085.SOE-071.68E-071.27E-0?

LifetineCancer Risk

7E-091E-C8IE-085E-G91E-103E-08SE-09IE-06

IE-06

Residential (consumptive use)

703657070

Daily water intake (I/day)

Demal abs. assunptionj:

Surface area (cn2)Percent subnerged (interger)line in water (hrs/day) 0.2S

Lifetine average «dia intake(I/kg booV ueight per day)i

Ingestion 2.8U-OZ

a. Sources of Cancer Potency factors!IRIS - Integrated Risk Inforwhon System U.S. CPU 1968.HERSI - Health Effects AssusneM Sumary Tables. U.S . tPD 1989

b. Reasonable ftaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence lintt of arithmetic nean}.

lable 5

HEflilH RISK EUHLUflTIOH - MTflt IH6ESIIOH UN) DEHIfll. ABSORPTION(RflYTIONO ROflD ODUNGRflQIEHT)

Ingestiw

Chemical

flcetoneflntinonyArsenicfiariunBerylliunbis(2-Etbylhexyl)phthalateCadniunChloroformChromun UICopper1,1-Oichloroethane1,1-Oichloroethenetrans 1,2-Dichloroethene{thylbenzenellanganeseflercury (alkyl and inorganic'Flethylene chlorideHickelletrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1-TnchloroethaneUanadiun and ConpoundsXylenes (nued)Zinc

Hazard Index (Sun of DI/RfO)

EXPOSURE flSSUflPTIONS

Exposure Setting


ReceptorBody UeigM (kg)

Ingest ion assumptions:


Dernal abs. assunptionj:

Surface area (cn2)Percent iiibnergedline in water (hrj/day)

ReferenceOose (HO)ng/kg-day

0.10.0001

0.001a. os

0.0050.02

0.00050.01

D.OQS0.037

0.10.005

0.020.10.2

0.00030.060.020.010.3

0.03O.D07

0.2

Residential i

Adult70

0.1

1800025

0.25

Source a

IRISIBIS

HEflSTIRISIRISIRISIRISmsIRIS

HEflSl cIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HERS!HEflSlIRISIRISdIBISIRISIRIS

HEflSTIRIS

HENST

nonpotable

i'erneability SHE bConstant Concentration

cn/hr ug/1

D.0008O.OOOB0.0008O.OOOB0.00080.00080.00080.00080.00083.00000.00080.00080.00080.00080.0008O.OOOB0.0008O.OOOB0.00080.00080.00080.00080.0008O.OOOB

water)

81.810.183.3562

215.213.93.1

70.31263775.3289

18.B

0.183.713S

96.2261

21.389.1SB.77075

Daily Intake(01)

ng/kg-day

1. HE-015.73E-OSU5C-M8.03E-012.86E-062.17E-OS1. HE-OS1.13E-061. ODE-011 .80E-01S.39E-Q17.57E-061.13E-M2.69E-OS

2.S7E-Q7S.29E-061, HE-011.I7E-013.77E-D13.01E-OS1.28E-MB.39E-OS1 .01E-02

HazardQuotient Does Intake

OI/RfO Exceed BfO»

1. HE-031.13E-01U9E-011 .61E-02S.71E-011.09C-033.97E-021.13EHM2.01E-02U6E-03S.39E-03B.11E-012.06E-022.69E-01I. JOE-02B.S7E-01B.81E-OS9.61E-031 .37E-021.26E-OJ3.38E-011.82E-021.1W-OS5.05E-02

1.91E-01

HOHOWHOHONONONONONOHOHOHOHONONOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO

Qernal absorption

Daily Intake(DO

ng/kg-day

1 .09E-06S.I6C-071.07E-067.23E-062.S7E-Q8l.H-071.79E-073.99E-089.ME-07l.KE-061.BSE-066.B1E-W3.72E-062.12E-071.13E-OSZ.31E-094.76E-001.71E-061.21E-06J.39E-M2.71E-07USE-OS7.SSE-079.10E-OS

HazardQuotient

OI/RfO

1.09E-OS1.29E-031.07E-031 .1SE-01S.11E-M9.77E-063.S7E-013.99E-061.8It-M1.38E-BS1.BSE-OS7.57E-061.86E-012.12E-062.07E-017.71E-067.93E-079.S8E-05I.Z1E-M1 .13E-053.Q4E-061. HE-013.77E-071.5SE-01

U2E-Q3

3oes Intakee<ceed RfD'

NOHOHONONONONONOHONOHOHOHOHOHONOHOHOHOHONOHOHOHO

a. Sources of RfOs:IRIS - Integrated Risk Infornation Systen. U .S . EPfl 198B.NERSI - Health Effects fksessnent Sumary fables. U.S. [PR 1989

b. Reasonable tlannun Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of artthnetic wan),c. Copper RfD based on proposed tICLG. See HESS!,d. Nickel value base on nickel-soluble salts.

table b

EXCESS LlfEliriE CRNCCR RISC - UflfEB IHGESIIW(MfflOHO RQRD DOUNGRROIENT)

QERHfll RBSORPIION

U.S.EPflCarcinogen Slope Factor

Chemcal ClaMi f ication (kg-dey/ng)

RrsenicBenzenebij(2-£thylhexyl)phthalateCMorofom1,1-Oichloroethane1,2-DicMoroethafle1,1-Oichioroettw*Hethylene chloridefetr«hloroetheneIrichloroetheneUinyl chloride

Stfl Of RISKS

EXPOSURE flSSlltPIIOHS

Exposure setting Residential

Central assumptions:

Body weight (kg)Hunber of days/year exposedHunter of years exposedRueraging tine; lifeline (yrs)

Ingeition assunptions;

aB

BZB282B2

CB232B2

R

2fl. 0290.011

O.OttlD.D910.051

0.60.007S0.0510,01!

2.3

Ingeition Dernal Rbsorption

Perneabihty M. b Lifetint fltierage Excess Lifetine fluersge Excessa Constant Concentration Chenical Intake Lifetine Chenical Intake Lifetine

Source

HERSI cIRISIRISIRIS

HERSIIRISIRISIRIS

HERSIIRIS

HERST

cn/nr

B.OQE-Q13.00C-01fl.OOt-018.00C-04B.OOC-018.00t-01B.OOE-018.QOE-0^fl.OOE-01fl.OOE-0<8. DOE-01

ug/1

83.397.3IS .23.1377

11. 1S.33.7

96.279.1J76

no/kg-day Cancer Risk

1.91E-061.S7E-K7. HE-071.16E-071.77E-OS1.28E-U2.19E-071.71E-071.S2E-063.73E-061.77E-OS

8E*OfiIE-07IE-089E-102E-06IE-07IE-07IE-092E-071E-08IE-OS

SE-OS

ng/kg-day Cancer Risk

3.52E-OB1.11E-086.13E-091.31E-091.S9E-071.1SE-Q82.21H91.S6E-091.07E-OB3.36E-OB1.S9E-07

7E-08IE-099E-118E-12IE-08IE-09IE-09IE-112E-091E-10tt-Q7

5E-07

(nonpotable uater)

7D127070

Daily uater intake (I/flay) 0.1

Dernal aii. asiunptions:

Surface area (cn2) 18000Percent subnenjed (interger) 25lint in water (hrs/day) 0.25

Lifetine average nedia intake(I/kg body weight per day):

Ingejtion 1.70E-05

a. Sources of Cancer Potency Factors:IKIS - Integrated Risk Information Systen. U.S. EPfl 1988.HERSI - Health Effects Rssessnent Sumary Tables. U.S. EPR 19B9

b. Reasonable Flaximn Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithnetic nean)c. Based on Risk flisessnent Council unit risk of 5xlO-5(ug/l)-l. U.S. EPfl 1988.

Table?

HONCKCINOGQIK HEflLIH BISK EUFOHUQH - UHTCR INGESIION (WO OERffiL ABSORPTION(PfllNT SHOP UPGBflOICNT)

Chenical

Rcetonetram 1,2-OichloroetheneNethylem chlorideTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1-frichlorMthane

ReferenceBose (RfD)ng/kg-day Source a

0.1 IRISO.QZ IRIS0.06 IRIS0.01 IBIS0.3 IBIS

0.09 IRIS

PerneabilityConstant

cn/hr

0.00080.0008O.OOBB0.00080.00080.0008

Ingestion Oernal absorption

B1C b Daily Intake Hazard Daily Intake HazardConcentration (01) Quotient Does Intake (01) Quotient Does Intake

ug/1 ng/kg-day OI/RfO Exceed BfO? ng/kg-day QI/RfO Exceed RfQ?

17,2 2.WE-05 Mtt-W HO 2.21E-07 2.21E-OS HO0.« 7,00t-07 5.SOE-3S HO S.HC-W USE-0? HO0.76 1 .09E-06 1 .B1E-OS HO 9 .77E-09 1 .63E-07 NO0.63 9.00E-07 9.00E-B5 HB 8.10E-09 B.10E-07 HOO.S9 8,<3E-07 2.B1E-06 HO 7.S9E-M 2.S3E-Q8 HO0.5G B.OOE-07 3.B9E-06 HO 7.20E-09 B.OOE-08 HO

Hazard Index (Sun of Dl/SfO)

EKPOSURE

1.01E-M 3.60E-06

Exposurt Setting Residential (nonpotable water)

General aiswptioni:

ReceptorBody Height (kg)

fldult70

Ingestion assunptioni:


Dernal abs. assonptioni:

Surface area (cn2)Percent jubnergedline in water (hrs/day)

0.1

Z50.2S

a. Sources of Bffc:IBIS - Integrated Bisk Information Systefi. U.S. EPR 1988.

b. Reasonable foximin Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithnetic nean}.

table 9

EXCESS LIFElinE CRO BISK - UflTER IHGESIIOH flHD OERfIRL ftflSORPlIOH(Pfl lHI SHOP UPCBHOIEHI)

Ingestion Denal flbiorption

U.S.CPfl Permeability Rfff b Lifetine- fluerage Excess Lifeline fluerage ExcessCarcinogen Slope Factor a Constant Concentration Chatical Intake Lifeline Chenical Intake Lifeline

themcal Classification (kg-day/ng) Source cn/nr ug/1 ng/Vg-day Cancer Risk ng/Vg-day Cancer Risk

rtethylene chloride BZ 0.3075 IRIS B.DOE-M D.76 3.57E-08 3E-1D 3.21MO ZE-1Zletrachloroethene BZ Q.OS1 HCRSI B.30C-M D.b3 2.%C-OB 2E-03 2.UE-10 IE-11

SlU OF RISKS 2£-09 2E-11

WKUBI RSSUtPTIIUfS

Exposure setting Residential (nonpotable water)

General

Body weight (kg) 70Nunber of days/year exposed IIHuwber of yean exposed 70flwaging tine: lifeline (yrs) 70

IngestiOfl assunptioni:

Daily uater intake (I/day) 0.1

Qernal abs. assumptions:

Surface area (cnZ) 1BOOOPercent atibnerged (interger) 2Shnt in uater (hrs/day) 0.2S

Lifetine average nedia intake(I/kg body ueight per day):

Ingestion <,70£-OS

a. Sources of Cancer Potency Factor):IRIS • Integrated Risk Infornation Systen. U.S. EPft 19BB.HCflST - Health Effects fksessnent Swary tables. U.S. EPD 1969

b. Reasonable Kaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence hnit of anthnetic nean).

Table?

HOKCRRCINOGENIC HERLIH RISK eURLURTIQH - INTER IHEESTIDM(RfiYttONO BOOD UPGRRDIENT)

QEJB1RL ABSORPTION

Chenical

flcetonebis(2-EthylbexyJ)phthalate1,1-Oichloroethanetrans 1,2-OichIoroethenerfettiylene chlorideTetrachloroetheneToluene

ReferenceOOM (MO)n<yTig-day

Q.I0.020.1

o.flz0.060.010.3

Source a

IRISIRIS

ffflSTIBISIBISIRISIRIS

PemeabilityConstant

cfi/nr

0.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.0008

RflEbConcentration

up/1

23.8SI .31.31.41.3

10.73

Ooily Intake(D!)

ng/kg-day

MOE-057.33E-051.86E-DSZ,OQE-061.86E-OG1.13E-061.31E-06

Ingestion

HazardQuotient

OI/RfD

3.10E-M3.6SE-03I.86E-OS1.00C-W3.10E-3S1 ,43E-Q<J.48E-M

Does IntakeExceed RfO?

KOKONOHOHOHOHO

Daily Intake(01)

ng/kg-day

3.06E-07&.6QE-Q71.67E-081.80E-081.57E-D81.Z9E-089.I9E-09

Dernal absorption

HazardQuotient

OI/RfO

3.0&E-OG3.30E-OS1 .67E-079.00E-072.79E-07U9E-Q63.1JE-OB

lots IntakeExceed RfO?-

NOHOHONONONOHO

Hazard Index (Sun of QI/RfD)

EXPOSURE nsswiims

Exposure Setting Residential (nonpotable water)

General asiunptionsi

UOE-03 I.B7E-OS

ReceptorBody weight (kg)

Rdult70

IngeiUon assumptions;

Water Intake (I/day)

Oernal aos. assumptions;

Surface area (cn2)Percent submergedTine in water (hrs/day)

0.1

250,25

a. Sources of RfDsiIRIS - Integrated Risk Information Syiten. U.S. [PR 1988.HERST - Health Effects flssessnent Swry tables. U.S. [PS 1989.

b. Reasonable flawun Exposure concentration (upper confidence limt of withnetic nean).

Table 10

EXCESS LIFETIME CRNCER RISK - URTER IWESTIOH flHD OERflflL RBSORPTIDH(WMBW RORQ UPGRROinil)

Ctaiui

B.S.EPHCarcinogen Slope factor

Classification (k.g-day/ng)

Pernwbility EREa Constant Concentration

Source oi/hr ug/1

Ingestion

Lifetin* fluerage ExcessCherucal Intake Lifeline

ng/Vg-day Cancer Risk

0«rwi Rbsarption

Lifeline flueraqe [ncesiChenical Intake Lifeline


Benzene fl 0.025 IRIS B.OOE-01 0.71 3.18E-OB 1E-M J.13E-1D 9E-1Zbis(2-Cthylh«xyl)phthalate BZ Q.OH IRIS B.OOE-01 S1.3 2.11C-06 3C-08 M7t-OB ][-10l,Hichl«-MthaM 82 0.091 HEflSI B.OOH1 1.3 6.11E-08 6C-09 S.SOC-10 SI-11nethylene chloride 82 0.DOTS IKIS B.OOE-01 1.3 6.HE-08 SE-1D 5.50E-10 ff-12letrwhloroethene B2 0.051 HEflSI fl.OOE-01 1 1.70E-M 2E-M U3E-10 2E-I1Trichlonethcw B2 0.011 ISIS fl .QQE-01' 1.1 S .61E-08 ff-10 5.07E-W 6C-1ZUinyl chloride fl 2.3 HEflSI B.OOE-01 J 1.11E-07 3E-0? 1.27E-D9 3E-09

SU1 Of RISKS 1E-07 IE-09

EXPOSURE RSSHOTIOHS

Exposure setting Residential (nonpotable uater)

General assunphons:

Bodjt wight (kg) 70Hunber of days/year exposed 12Nunber of years exposed 70Rueraging tinet Iifetine (yrs) 70

Ingestion assunotions:

Daily uater intake (I/day) Q.I

Oemal abs. assunptions:

Surface area (cn2) 13000Percent subnerged (interger) 2STine in uater (hrs/day) O.Z5

Lifetine average nedia intake(1/Vg body ueigtit per day):

Ingestion V7QE-0S

6. Sources of Cancer Potency factor]:IRIS - Integrated Riik Infornation Systen. U.S. EPfl 198B.HEflST - Health Effects Rssessnent Sumary Tables. U.S. EPR 158$

b. Reasonable fcxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence hmt of anthnetic nean).

Table 11

NOHCRRCIHQSMC HEflLTH BISK EUflLURIlOH • UflTER IHGESIIDN HKD QEWftL RBSORPIICNCHHKX OHSITE)

ReferenceOoie (RfD)

Chenical ng/Vg-day

AcetoneArsenicBarlunbis(2-Ethylfie*yl)phthalateChlorobenzewCMorofornChroniun 1111,1-Oichloroethane1,1-Qichloroethenetrans 1,2-DichloroetheneOiethyl phthalateEthyl benzeneHexachloroethaneHanoaneseflethylene chloride2-flethyl Phenol (o-Cresol)Hlethyl Phenol (p-Creso!)naphthaleneHickelnitrobenzenePhenolTttrachloroethuneToluene1,1,1-Tnchloroethane1,1,2-TrichloraethaneUanadiun and ConpoundsHylenes (nixed)2inc

Hazard Index (Sun of QI/RfO)

EXPOSURE aSSWPTIONS

Exposure Setting future


ReceptorBody Ueight (kg)

Ingest ion assunptions:


Oernal abs. assunptions:

Surface area (cn2)Percent subnergedTine in uater (hrs/day)

0.10.0010.050.020.020.01

O.OOS0.1

0.0090.020.80.1

0.0010.2

0.06O.OSO.OS0.1

8,02O.OOOS

0. 60.01

0.30.09

0.0010.007

20.2

PerneabiUty RUE bConstant Concentration

Source a

IRISHEHS1IRISIRIS

HEflSIIRISIRIS

HEHSIIRISIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HEflSlIRISIRISIRIS

HEflSTIRIScICISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HERS1IRIS

HEflST

cn/tir

0.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.0008O.OOOB0.00080.00080.00080.0000O.OOOB0.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.0003

ug/1

5571111222

31.6211213

13.S251211

31785.8

169S23.6171225

11.7117

10.319.7S.S9.1

1138313111216

15.3SS526256

Ingestion

Daily Intake Hazard(81) Quotient

ng/kg-day

1.S9E-013.Z6E-Q36.31E-Q39.03E-016.97E-036.91E-033.86E-017.17E-036.97E-039.91E-OZ1 .66E-W1.81E-Q26.71E-011.3SE-026. HE-031.ZOE-013.31E-OIUSE-035.G3E-Q11 .S7E-Q42.69E-013.39E-02Z.31E-021.18E-OZ7.03E-031.51E-M1.S9E-011.79E-01

Cl/SfO

1 .S9E-00J.Z&E'QOI.:TE-OI1.S1E-02J.19E-01&.91E-017.71E-027.17E-027.7SE-011.97E*002.07H11.B1E-016.71E-016.77E-021.07E-018.10E-G36.59E-022.BSC-032.B1E-02s.ME-fll1.18E-MU5E-007.79E-OZ1.31E-011 .76E*006.1SE-OZ7.3JE-OZ8.91E-01

Z.fllE'fll

loes IntakeExceed RfO?

VESVES

HOHONONONOKOHO

VESNONONOHONONONOHONONONO

VESHOHO

VESNOHOHO

Demal absorption

Daily Intake Hazard(HI) Quotient

ng/Vg-dav

2.87E-Q1S.86E-OSU1E-OS1.63T-06l.ZSE-051.2SE-OS6.91E-071.29E-OSl.ZSI-OS1.79E-01Z.98E-07B.72E-OS1 .21E-062. HE-OS1 .IK-057.S6E-076.0ZE-062.07E-061.01E-06Z.83E-071.83E-076. HE -051.21E-05i.l3E-051.27E-Q58.13E-07Z.86E-013.Z2C-M

DI/WO

Z.87E-03S.B6E-032.Z8E-018.13E-OS6.;7E-011.2SE-031.39E-M1.29E-011 .39E-038.91E-033.73E-078.72E-011 .Z1E-031.Z2E-011. HE-011.S1E-OSl.ZOE-01S.10E-065.07E-0!;S.66E-018.06E-076.11E-031 .ME-012.37E-013.16E-03UK-011 .13E-011.61E-03

3.6X-02

Iocs IntakeExceed MO?

HOKOHONO

. NONOKONONONOHONOHONOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHONONOHOHOHOHO

Residential

fldult70

2

18000100

0.25

a. Sources of RfOsiIRIS - Integrated Risk Infornatian Systen. U.S. EPft 1988.HERSI - Health Effects flssessnent Sunrary Tables. U.S. EPR 1939

b. Reasonable naxinun exposure concentrations (upper confidence Unit of arithmetic nean).c, Hickel ualue base on nickel-soluble salts.

Table 12

EXCESS LIFE1IHE CDHCCR RISK - IHTER INGESIIOH (WOEKHRL ABSORPTION(RHHCX OHSIIE)

U.S.EPHCarcinogen Slope factor

Chenical

ArsenicBenzenebis(Z-Ethylhexyl)phthalateChloroforn1,1-Oichloroethanel.Z-Qicnloroethaiw1,1-DichloroetheneHexachloroethanetlethyleflC chlorideTetracnloroetnenel,l,Z-TrichloroethaneTnchloroetheneUinyl chloride

sun or RISKS

EXPOSURt flSSUHPTIOKS

Exposure setting

General assunptionsi

Body weight (kg)Hunber of days/year exposedHuhber of years exposedhVraging tinei lifeline (yrs)

Ingestion assunptions:

Classification

RR

BZBZBZBZ

CC

B2BZ

C82fl

future Residential

703657070

kg-day/rtg)

20.029-0.011

0,00610.0910.091

0.60.311

Q.OOTSO.OS1O.OS70.011

Z.3

Ingestion Oernal Rbsorption

Ptmeability RUE b LifetiM Ruerage Excess LifetiM Average Excessa Constant Concentration Chenical Intake LifetiM Chenical Intake LifetiM

Source

HCASTcIRISIRISIRIS

HCHSIIRISISISIEISIEIS

HEflSTIRISIRIS

HCRST

cn/hr ug/1

8.00f-D1 1118.00E-01 Z17B.OOC-01 31 .6B.OOE-01 Z13B.OOC-01 251fl. ODE-01 2118.00E-01 2118.0K-01 23.68.00E-01 ZSS8.00C-01 HB88.00E-01 Z16fl.OOC-01 2708.00E-01 899


3.26E-037.06E-039.03C-016.91E-037.17E-03S.97E-036.97E-036.71E-017.29E-033.39E-Q27.03E-037.71E-032.S7E-OZ

6E-03ZC-01IE-OSIE-OS7E-016E-01IE-039E-0&5E-OS2t-031C-01BE-OS6E-OZ

7E-OZ


5.86E-0&1.27E-OSl.bJE-Ot1.2SE-OS1.Z9E-OS1.2SE-OS1 .2SE-OS1.21E-06U1E-QS6.HE-OS1 .27E-Q5L39E-OSUZH5

IE-OS1E-072E-OB9E-08IE-06IE-06BE-062E-08IE-073E-D67E-072E-07IE-01

IE-01


Oernal abs. assunptionst

18000100

0.2S

LifetiM average Mdia intake(1/fcg body weight per day)i

Ingestion O.OZ9

a. Sources of Cancer Potency factors:IRIS - Integrated Kisk Enfomation Systen. U.S. CPU 1988.HERSI - Health Effects AssessMtit Sumary tables. U.S. EPR 1989

b. Reasonable naxinun exposure concentration (upper confidence hmt of arithmetic nean).c. Based on Risk Assessment Council unit risk of SxlQ-5(ua/l)-t. U.S. [Pfl 19IB.

Table 13

MKCflRClNOKNIC HEf iLIH RISK CUflUMIIOH - WICK INGCSIION UNO OERHfll f lBSQBPTIQN(MKX OKSIIC)

Reference Perneabihty

Ingest ion

(HE b Daily Intake HazardDose (RfO) Constant Concentration

Chemcai

RcetoMflrsenicBanunbii(2-Ethylhexvl)phthalateChlorobenieneChloroformChroniun UI1,1-Oichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethenetrans 1,2-DichloroetheneDiethyl phthalateEthylbenzeneNexachloroethanefanganeseflethylene chlorideMlethyl Phenol (c-Cresol)Utethyl Phenol (p-Cresol)NaphthaleneNickelNitrobenzenePhenolTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,1 -In chloroethane1,1,2-Tri chloroethaneUanadiun and ConpoundsXylenes (nixed)Zinc

ng/Vg-day Source a

0.1 IRIS9. 001 HEflSTO.OS IMS0.02 IRIS •0.02 HEflST0.01 IRISO.OOS IRIS0.1 KEBSI

0.009 IRIS0.02 IRISO.B IRIS0.1 IRIS

0.001 IRIS0.2 HERST

0.06 IBIS0.05 IRISO.OS IRIS0,1 HEflST

0.02 IRIS cO.COOS IBIS

0.6 IRISo.oi ms0.3 IRIS

0.09 IRIS0.001 IRIS0. 307 HEflSI

2 IRIS0.2 HEflSI

cfi/nr

0.00090.00090.0009O.OQOS0.00080.00GB0.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00090.00090.0009O.OOOBO.OQOBo.oooeo.oooe0.00080.00080.00080.0008D.00080.00080.00.1)80.00080.0008Q.OOOB

ug/1

SS71111222

31.621121313 .SZ51Z«31785.81695Z3.617122S11.711710.319.75.S9.1use818111216IS .8SSS262S6

(01)ng/kg-day

7.96E-021.63E-033.17E-031.S1E-Q13.19E-Q33.17E-Q3I.93E-013.59E-033.19E-031 .97E-028.29E-OS2.12E-023.37E-Q16.77E-033.21E-032.1QE-011 .S7E-03S.76E-012.B1E-017.B6E-OSU1E-Q11.70E-Q21.17E-02S.91E-033.S1E-032.26E-017.93E-3ZB.91E-02

Hazard Index (Sun of 01/ftfO)

EXPOSURE HSSUnpUQHS

Exposure Setting



Ingest ion assumptions:


Qernal abs. assumptions:

Surface area {cn2}Percent subnergedline in water (hrs/day)

a. Sources of RfOs:IRIS - Integrated RiskHEflSI - Health Effects

Iccupati onal

fldult70

1

1BOOO2S

0.2S

Information Systen. U.S. EPSRssessnent Sunnary Tables. U

1988.S. EPfl 1989

b. Reasonable narinun exposure concentrations (upper confidence Unit of arithmetic nean).

QuotientDI/RfD

7.96E-011 .63E-006.31E-022.2&E-021.71E-013.17E-013 .86E-023.S9E-023.B7E-012.18E'001.01E-01M2E-013.37E-013.39E-0;5.36E-021.ZOE-033.31E-G21 .ME-D31.11E-Q21.57C-01Z.Z1E-M1. TOE* 003.90E-026.S7E-02B.79E-013.:2E-023.97E-021.17E-OI

I.OIE'01


HOVESNDNOHOHONONONOYESNOHOHONONONGHOHOHONONO

VCSNONONONONOHO

Qernal absorption

Daily Intake Hazard(01)

ng/kg-day

7.17E-OSI.17C-062.BSE-061.06E-073.HE-063.12E-061.71E-073.23E-063. HE-061.17E-OS7.16E-082.18E-OS3.C3E-0?6.09E-062.89E-061 .89E-0?l.SBE-06S.18E-072.53E-077.07E-OB1 .21C-07I .S3E-OS1 .05E-OSS.32E-OfaI.16E-062.03E-077.HE-OS8.01E-OS

QuotientOI/RfD

7.17E-011 .17E-03S.71E-OS2.03E-OS1.S7E-013.12E-013.17E-053.23E-053.19E-012.21E-039.32E-OBZ.18C-M3.03E-013.0SE-OS1.82E-OS3.7BE-063.Q1E-OS1 .30E-061.27E-051.1 IE-012.01E-071.S3E-033.51E-OSS.91E-OS7.91E-01J.90C-053.S7E-OS1.02C-M

9.0S[-03


NOHONOHOHOHOHOHOHONOHONONONONOHONONOHOHOHOHOHONOHONONONO

c. Nickel value base on nickel -soluble salts,

Table 11

EXCESS LirCTIflC CflNCEB RISK - UflTtt IHGKUW fltffl OW1RL HBSQRPTICH(RNNEX OHSI1E)

Qiemcal

U.S. [PRCarcinogen

ClassificationSlope Factor(kg-day/ng)

Permeabilitya Constant

Source cn/hr

RttbConcentration

ug/1

Ingestion

Lifetime flverage ExcessChenical Intake lifeline


Dernal Absorption

Ufetine Rgerage ExcessChenical Intake Lifehne


flrsenicBenzenebis(2-EthyIh«vl)pntnaIateChlorofom1,1-Oichloroethane1,2-Qichlwoethane1,1-OichloroetheneHexachloroethanetlethylerx chlorideIetrachlor«thene1,1,2-IrichloroethaneInchloroetheneVinyl chloride

RR

B2BZBZB2

CC

82BZ

CB2

fl

ZO.QZ90.011

0.006;0.0910.091

0.6O.D11

O.Q07S0,0510.0570.811

2.3

HERSIcIMSIRISIRIS

HCflSIIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HCRSTIRISIRIS

HERSI

8.00E-018.00E-Q1B.OOE-013.00E-Q18.00C-!Ma.oot-oi8.00E-Q1B.OOC-018.0DE-01fl.OOE-MB.OOE-0*B.OG[-(UB.OOE-01

111217

J1.&213251211Z11

Z3.6Ztt

lies2«ZTDm

J.J7HHI.3BC-03I.77EHH1.36C-031.10E-031.36E-031.36E-031.32E-01I.13£-U36.61E-OJ1.3BE-D31.S1E-03S.03E-03

IE-031E-OSZE-068E-MIE-01IE-01ffi-01ZE-06IE-OS3E-01BE-052C-OS1E-OZ

S.74E-07l.ZIE-flfi1.S5E-D71.22C-K1.26E-B61.23H61.22-061.19E-071.2BE-06S.98T-K1.21E-061.36E-064.52C-OG

IE-061E-OBZE-097E-09IE-07IE-077E-072E-Q9IE-083E-0?7E-OBIE-OBIt-OS

sut or RISKSEHPOSURE flSSIItPIIOHS

Expoiure setting


Body ueight (kg)Hunber of days/year exposedNunber of years exposedRueraging ti«: lifetine (yrs)

Ingestion aasunptions:

IE-02 IE-OS

Occupational

70Z504070



Surface area (tnl)Percent submerged (interger)fine in uater (hrs/day)

2S0.25

Lifetme auerage nedia intake(I/kg body weight per day)i

Ingestion Q.Q

a. Sources of Cancer Potency Factors;[R1S - Integrated Risk Infomation Syiten. U.S. EPR 1988.HERST - Health Effects flsseswent Simrp Tables. U.S. EPR 19B9

b. Reasonable naxinun exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of anthnetu nean).c. Based on Risk flmssnent Council unit risk of SilQ-5(ug/I)'l, U.S. EPR 19B8.

fable 15

NOHCflOOGENIC HEflLIH HSK CUALUHTION • UfllER INGESTIQN UNO OEWL RBSQfiPIION(MIHT SHOP ONSITE)

Chenical

AcetoneRrsenicBwiunflenzoic acidBerylliunbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateCadniunChromun UICopper1,1-Oichloroethane1,1-Oichloroethenetrans 1,2-QichloroetheneEthyl benzenellanganeseHethylene chloride2-flethyl Phenol (o-Cresol)1-flethyl Phenol (p-Cresol)NickelPhenolletrachloroetheneToluenel.l.HnchloroethaneUanadiun and CompoundsXyienes (nixed)Zinc

Hazard Index (Sun of DI/BfO)

EHPOSURE flSSUflPTIOHS

ReferenceDose (RfO)ng/kg-day

0.10.001

O.QS1

0.0050.02

0.00050.0050.037

0.1O.Q09

0.020.10,2

O.OG0.050.050.020.6

0.010.3

0.090.007

20,2

Perneabihty RKbConstant Concentration

Source a

IRISHEflSTIRISIBISIBISIBISIBISIRIS

HEflST cHEflSTIBISIBISIBIS

HEflSTIBISIBISIBISIBISdIBISIRISIBISIRIS

HEflSTIRIS

HEflSI

w/hr

0.00090.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00080.00030.00080.00080.0008

~ 0.00080.00030.00080.00080.00080.00030.00080.00080,00080.00080.00080.00030.00080.0008

ug/1

13213.7186

30.6I

317.3

11.811.169.270.81113729385

60.710.916.280.37.3

1571311

167127.9IBIS9678

Ingestian


ngAg-day

3.77E-033.91E-01S.31E-038.71HH2.86E-059.71E-Q12.09E-011 .19E-031.11E-011.98E-032.02E-03M3E-Q22.08E-022.S3E-E1.72E-Q33.11E-01USE -012.29E-032.Q9E-D11.31E-019.71E-031.77E-027.97E-015.19E-022.77E-01

QuotientOI/BfO

3.77E-D23.91E-011.06E-012.1K-M5.71E-03I.Bff-OZU7E-012.39E-011.11E-021 .96E-022.2SE-OIl.SSE'GO2.08E-011.2GE-012.B9E-026.23E-039.26E-D31.15E-013.16E-01UlE'Ql3.25E-02S.10E-011. HE-012.59E-021.38E>00

1.87E-01

Does IntakeExceed Rf07

HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO

YESHOHONONONONONO

VESNONONONO

VES

Oernal absorption


fig/kg-day

S.79E-067.05E-079.S7E-06I.S7E-OG5. HE-081.7SE-063.75-072.15E-Q67.11E-073.56E-063.61E-Q6S.72E-OS3.75E-OS1.SSE-OS3.12E-06S.61E-07B.33E-071.13E-063.7SE-072.3SE-011.7SE-OSB.S9E-OS1 .HE-06S.33E-OS1.98E-01

QuotientDI/RfD

6.79E-OS7.0SE-011.91E-Q13.93E-071.03E-053.71E-OS7.S1E-011.30C-012.QOE-DS3.S6E-OS1.0SE-012.86E-033.7SE-012.28E-MS.20E-05UZt-QS1.67E-OS2.06E-016.26E-Q72.3SE-02S.8SE-OS9.55E-012.0SE-011.67E-052.19E-03

3.37E-02

Ooes IntakeExceed RfO'

HOHONOHONOHOHOHOHONONOHONONONONOHONONOHOHONOMOHOKO

Exposure Setting Future Residential

General asiunptions!




Oernal abs. assumptions;

Surface area (cn2)Percent subnergedline in water (hrs/day)

Adult70

2

18000100

0.2S

a. Sources of BfOs:IBIS • Integrated Bisk Information Systen. U.S. EPR 1988.HEflSI • Health Effects Assessnent Simry Tables. U.S. EPR 1909

b. Reasonable Haniftun Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithmetic nean).c. Copper BfO based on proposed 1CLG. See HEflST.d. Hickel value base on nickel-soluble salts.

fable Lfi

EXCESS Lirninc :mts RISK - LWF.B INGES™ RHD OERHAL ASSORTUM(PAINT SHOP ONSI1E)

U.S.EPACarcinogen Slope factor

Cheniul Classification (kg-day/ng)

ArsenicBenzenebis(2-Ethylh«>il)phtnalate1, Hi cMorw thanel,HicMor«the«Rethylene chlorideN-Hi troso-dipropylanineTetrachloroetheneInchloroetheneUinyl chloride

sir or RISKS

EXPOSURE flSStflPTIONS

Exposure setting Future

General asiunptions:

Body ueight (kg)Hunfaer of days/year exposedHunber of years exposedAveraging tine: lifetiM (yrs)

Ingestiw assumptions:

HA

B282

C328282B2

A

Residential

7036S

?070

20.0290.0110.091

a.s0.007S

7D.OS10.011

2.3

Ingestion Derwl Absorption

Permeability BIT b Lifeline Average Excess Lifehne Average [xcessa Constant Concentration Chenical Intake Lifeline Chenical Intake Lifeline

Source

HERSIcIRISIRIS

HEflSTIRISIEISIRIS

HEASIIRIS

KEASI

cn/hr ug/1

8.0KHM 13.78.0KHM 61.28.00C-M J1I.OOC-W 69,28.00E-M 70.B8.00C-IM 60.73.00E-IH 3.38.00C-D1 1571B.OOE-IM 69.18.00E-01 117


3.91E-011. HE-039.71E-011.98E-032.02E-Q31.73E-03Z.37E-Q11 .31E-011 .971-033.31E-03

8E*01SE-QSIE-052E-01IE-03IE-OSZE-037E-032E-OSBE-03

2E-02

ng/kg-dsy Cancer Hisk

7.DSE-073.30C-OG1.75E-KJ.S6E-063.61E-063.12E-061.27E-W2.3SE-G13.S5E-066.D2E-06

IE-06IE-072E-083E-D72E-06ZE-083E-06IE-OS1E-Q8IE-OS

3E-OS


Dernal abs. assunptions:

Surface area (cnZ)Percent subnerged (interger)line in uater (hrs/day)

1000.2S

Lifeline average nedia intake(I/kg body ueight per day):

Ingestion J.B29

a. Sources of Cancer Potency Factors:IRIS - Integrated Risk Infornation Systen. U.S. EPfl 1988.HERST - Health Effects Assessnent Sumary Tables. tl.S. CPR 1H9

b. Reasonable laxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithmetic nean).c. Based on Risk NsHSsnent Council unit risk of SxlQ-S(ug/})-l. U.S. [Pfi 1988.

fable 1?

NOHCHRCINOGENIC HEflLlH BISK UlflUIRIION - UHIER IHGESTIOM AND OERNflL ABSORPTION(PHUT SHOP OHSITE)

Chettical

AcetoneflrsenicBariunBenzoi c acidBeryl honbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateCadmunChromun UICopper1,1-DichIoroethane1,1-Ouhloroethenetrana 1,2-Dichloroethene[thylbenzeneManganeseflethylene chloride2-Hethyl Phenol (o-Cresol)4-flethyl Phenol (p-Cresol)NickelPhenoltetrachloroetheneTolutne1,1,1-IrichloroethaneUanadiun and ConpoundsXylenes (nued)Zinc

ReferenceDose (RfO)rtg/kg-oay

0.10.001

O.DS1

Q.OOS0.02

O.OOOS0.3050.037

0.10.009

0.020.10.2

0.06O.OSQ.flS0.02

0.60.010.3

0.090.007

20.2

Perneability ME faConstant Concentration

Source a

IRISHERS!IRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HERS! cHERSIIRISIRISIRIS

HEflSIIRISIRISIRISIRISdIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HEflSIIRIS

HEflSI

w/hr

0.0008O.OOOB0.00080.00030.00080,00080.00080.00080.0008Q.OODBO.Q&08Q.OOD8O.OOOB0.00080.00080.00080.00080.0008O.OOOBO.OOOBO.OOOB0.00080.00080.00080.0008

uo/1

13Z13.7186

30.fi1

317.3

11.811.169.270.8111372988S

60.710.916.280.37.J

1571311

167127.918159678

Ingestion

laily Intake Hazard(01) Quotient Ooes Intake

ng/Vg-day

L83E-Q31.96E-012.66E-031.37E-011.131-051. 861-011.01E-015.971-042.Q6E-019.89E-011.01H31 .S9E-Q21.01E-02L26E-02B.67E-01I.S6E-012.31E-011 .1SE-031.01E-Q16.S3E-021.37E-032.39E-023.99E-012.S9E-021.3BE-01

Hazard Index (Sun of DI/RfO)

EKPOSURE RSSW1IOHS

Exposure Setting



Inqestion assunptionsi


Oernal abs. asjunphons:

Surface area (cn2)Percent subnergedline in uater (hrs/day)

Occupational

Rdult70

1

1800025

0.25

OI/RfD Exceed RfO?

1.09E-Q21 .96E-01S.I1E-021 .09E-012.B6E-032.1ZE-022.09E-01I.19E-01S.S6E-039.89E-031.12E-OI7.9SE-011.01E-016.32E-02USE-023.11E-031.63E-03S.71E-021.71E-016.53E-001.G2E-022.6SE-01S.69t-021 .JOE-025.91E-01

9.37E*00

HOHOHOHDHONOHONONOHOHONONONONONONOHOHO

V[SNOHOHOHONO

Oernal absorption

Daily Intake Hazard(01) Quotient Ooes Intake

fto/kg-day

1. TOE-061.76E-072.39E-063.93E-071 .29E-Q8U7E-079.39E-08S.37E-07l.BS£-07B.90E-079.10E-071 .13E-OS9.37E-06l.ME-057.BM-071.101-072.0BE-071 .03E-069.39E-085,B8E-flS1.3BE-062.1SE-OS3.S9E-072.I3E-OS1 .Z1HH

DI/RfD

1.701-051.76E-011.78E-OS9.81C-082.S7E-062. 191 -OS1 .B8E-011 .07E-0^S.OOE-068.901-061.Q1E-Q17.1SE-019.37E-OSS.69E-OS1.30E-OS2.80E-061.171-06E.1GE-OS1.S6E-07S.88E-OJ1 .46E-Q52.39E-01S.12E-OSLITE-OS6.22E-Q1

8.131-03

Exceed RfO'

NONONOHOHOHOHONOHONOHONONOHOHONONOHOHOKONONONOHOHO

a. Sources of RfDs:IRIS - Integrated Risk Information Systen. U.S. EPfl 1988.HEftSl - Health Effects flssessnent Sumary tables. U.S. fffi 1989

b. Reasonable fexinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence linit of arithnttic rtean).c. Copper RfD based on proposed ftCLG. See HERST.d. Nickel value base on nickel-soluble salts.

Table IS

EXCESS urmriE CHNCER KISK - UHTER INGESTHM wo com. RBSOJPTION(MINT SHOP OHSITE)

Chenical

RrsenicBenzenebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate!,l-OichlorHthane1,1-Oichloroetheneflethylene chlorideH-Hitroso-dipropylamneTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneUinyl chloride

sir or BISKS

mm flsswrioHsExposure setting

General aisunptions:

Body weight (kg)Hunber of days/year exposedHunber of yean exposed

U.S.EPflCarcinogen Slope factor

Classification (kg'day/ng)

fl Ifl 0.029

02 0.01182 0.091

C 0.6BZ 0.007582 782 O.QS182 O.D11fl 2.1

Occupational

70ZSO

40

Pemeabilitya

Source

HERS! cIBISIRIS

HERSTIRISIRISIRIS

HEflSTIRIS

HEflST

IiX|estion Dernal Rbjorption

RRE fa Lifetine Rueragt Cxcess Lifetine fluerage [.-^ssConstant Concentration Chenical Intake

cn/hr

8.M-018.00E-01«.Mt-fl18.00EHM8.00E-018.00E-018.00H18.00C-01I.OOE-M8.00C-01

ug/1 no/kg-day

13.7 7.66E-OS61.2 3.S9E-01

31 l.ME-M69.2 3.87E-0170.8 3.96E-M60.7 3.3W-01fl.3 Utf-OS

4S71 2.S6E-0269.1 3.B6E-M117 6.51E-M

LifetineCancer Risk

2E-MIE-OS3E-06It-052E-013E-QG3E-011E-D31E-KZE-D3

1E-03

Chenical Intakeng/kg-day

6.3%- OB3.23E-071.7SE-073.18E-073.56E-073.0EE-071.1BE-OBZ.3DE-053.18E-075.B9E-Q7

LifjuneCancer Risk

IE-079E-092E-093E-OB?E-07ZE-093E-07IE-061E-09IE-06

3E-06

Outraging tine: lifetine (yrj) 70


Daily water intake (I/day)

Oemal abs, aisunptions:

Surface area (w2)Percent subnerged (interger)Tine in uater (hrs/day)

250.2S

Lifetine auerage nedia intake(1/Vg body ueight per day):

Ingestion 0.0

a. Sources of Cancer Potency Factors:IRIS - Integrated Risk Infornation Systen. U.S. Erfl 1988.HERST - Health Effects flssessnent Sumary Tables. U.S. EPfl 1999

b. Bcswrnable Haxtnun Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithmetic nean).c. Based on Risk A»ewient Council unit risk of SxlO-5(uo/l)-l. U.S. EPfl 1988.

Fable 19

MQHCKCIHOKIilC HEALTH RISK EURLIMUOH - UHTER IHGESIIUH RNO QCRTtHL flBSORPTlOH(RIM10HO BDflD DHSIIE)

Reference PemeabilityOose (MO) Constant

Chemcal no/tg-dav Source a cn/hr

flcetwe 0.1 IRIS 0.0008Carbon diwlfide 0.1 IRIS 0.0008trans 1,2-Oichloroethew 0.02 IRIS 0.0008Ethylbeniene 0.1 IRIS ' 0.0008Hethylwe chloride 0.06 IRIS 0.0008Tetrachloroethm 0.01 HIS J.XOflloluene 0.3 IRIS 0.0008l.U-IrichlorMthaM O.fl9 IRIS O.OODflXylenes (nixed) I ICIS O.OQ08

Hazard Index (Sun of DI/WO)

EXPOSBE KSW1IOHS

Exposure Setting Future Residential


Receptor MaliBody Ueight (kd) 70

Ingest ion assumptions

Uater Intake (I/day) 2

Dernal abs. asjunptionj:

Surface area (cnZ) LBOOOPercent subnerged 100line in water (hrj/day) 0.25

a. Sources of EfDs;IRIS - Integrated Bisk Information Systw. U.S. CPfl 1988.

b. Reasonable flaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence

Ingestian

RK b Bail y Intake HazardConcentration (01) Quotient Ooes Intake

u l ng/Vg-day Dl/HfO Exceed RfD?

341 I.IME-O; I.01E-01 HO15 1.29E-W 1.21E-03 HO

16.1 1.60C-M 2.3K-02 HO180 U7E-Q2 1.37E-OI HO

Z7.2 7.TO-M 1.30EHK HO1138 1.10E-01 l.lBE'fll VES81S1 2.33E-01 7,7h£-01 HO1KB 1.71E-02 S.Ztt-01 HO177S S.DTt-02 2.51E-02 HO

1. HE'01

Unit of srith«etic »*ean}.

Dernal absorption

Daily Intake Hazard(DI) Quotient Ooes Intake

ng/kg-day DI/HO Exceed RfO?

1.87E-OS 1.B7E-M HO7.71E-37 7.71E-06 HO8.28£-07 1.11C-05 HOMTt-flS Z.ffl-M ' HO1.10E-06 2.33E-OS HO2.13E-01 2.13C-02 HO1.19E-M 1.10E-03 NO8.S3E-OS 9.17E-Q1 HO9.13T-OS 1.56E-05 HO

2.12E-02

[able ;0

EXCESS LIFETIME CflNCtf RISK - UHTEB IHGESIION ftHO QEfSWL RBStRPTIOM(RfffflOHD eOHC OHSIIC)

Ingestion Dernal Rbsorption

U.S.EPH Perneability RUE b Lifetine Ruerage Excess lifeline flverage ExcessCarcinogen Slope Factor a Constant Concentration Chenical Intake Lifeline Chenical Intake Lifetine

Chenical Clasiifiution (kg-doy/ng) Source cn/hr uoyi ny/kg-day Cancer Riik n^kg-day Cancer Risk

Beniene fl O.OZ9 HIS 8 .OOE-M 86.9 Z.flHJ 7E-OS 1M7E-06 IE-07Hethylene chloride 82 O.M7S IRIS B.OflEHM 27.2 7.77E-01 6£-Ofi 1.10E-Q6 IE-OBTetrKhloroethe* BZ 0.051 HOST 8.00E-M 1138 1.18E-D1 6C-03 Z.13E-01 IE-OSTrichloroetheM 62 0.011 IRIS B.9K-D1 1001 1.17E-01 IE-03 2.10C-1H 2C-OG

Silt Of RISKS 7E-03 IE-OS

EXPOSURE ASStflPTIOHS

Exposure setting Future Residential


Body Might (kg) 70Kunber of days/year exposed 365Nunber of years exposed 70ftueraging tine: lifetiw (yrs) 70


Daily uater intake (I/day) I


Surface area (en2) 1BOOOPercent subnerged (interger) 1DOTine in yater (hrs/day) 0.2S

Lifetine average nedia intake(I/kg body ueight per day):

Ingestion 0.029

a. Sources of Cancer Potency factors:IRIS - Integrated Risk Infornation Sylten. U .S . CPfl 1988.HERST • Health Effects flssessnent Simary Tables. U.S. EPfl 1989

b. Reasonable flaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithnetic nean}.

• Table 21

HOKCflKINOGEHIC HEALTH RISK CINLURTION - UflTEJf IHGESUW flHO OQML DBSORPTION(R1M1QHO ROM) OHSITE)

Reference PerrwbilityBOM (RfD) Constant

Cbemcal ng/kg-day Source a ci0ir

Bcetom 0.1 IRIS fl.0008Carbon diwlfide 0.1 IRIS 0.0008tram 1,2-Oichloroethene 0.02 IRIS 0.0008Ethylbenzene 0.1 IRIS 0.0008fethylene chloride 0.06 IRIS 0.0008letrachloroethene 0.01 IRIS Q.OOOBloluene 0.3 IRIS 0.0008l.l.Hrichloroethane 0.09 IRIS 0.0008Xylenes (nixed) 2 IRIS 0.0008

Hazard Index (Sift of OI/R/0)

EXPOSURE RSSII1PTIOHS

Exposure Setting Occupational

General assumptions;

Receptor fldultBody Ueight (kg) 70

Ingestion assumptions:

Uater Intake (I/day) 1


Surface area (cn2) • 18000Percent subnerged 25line in wter (hrj/day) 0.25

a. Sources of RfDsiIMS - Integrated Risk Information Systw. U.S. EPB 1588.

b. Reasonable flaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence

Inqestion

Bt b Daily Intake HazardCmentratiM (01) Quotient Qoes Intake

uj/1 ng/kg-day DI/SfD Exceed RfD?

361 5.20C-03 S.20E-02 NOIS 2.11E-W 2.11E-03 HO

16.1 2.30E-Q1 1.1SE-02 HO1BO fi.8£E-Q3 fi. BEE-02 HO

27.2 3.B9E-01 6.18E-03 HO1138 S.91E-OZ 5.91E*00 YES81S1 1.16E-01 3.86C-Q1 HO1658 Z.37E-02 Z.63E-01 HO1775 2.S1E-OZ 1.Z7E-OZ HO

fi.JZE'OD

linit of arithnetic n«an).

Oernal absorption

Daily Intake Hazard(01) Quotient Doei Intake

njAg-day DI/RfO Exceed RfO?

1.&8E-06 1.£BE-OS HO1.93E-07 1 .91-06 HO2.07E-07 1.01E-OS NO6.17E-06 6.17E-OS HO3.50E-07 S.83E-06 HOS.32E-K S.3ZT-Q3 HOIJSE-M 3.19E-Q1 HO2.11-05 2.37E-Q1 HOZ.ZBE-05 1. HE-05 HO

U1E-0!

Table U

urciuiE Cflra RISK - IMTEB IHGESIIOH aw KRtiRL ABSORPTION(RBVtlOHD KOflO

U.S.EPfl Perneability HIE bCarcinogen Slope Factor a Constant Concentration

Chenical Classification (kg-day/ng) Source cn/V ug/I

Ingestion

Lifeline flverage ExcessQienical Intake Lifetime

ng/kg-day Cancer Biik

Qernal Absorption

Lifeline fluerage EtcessChwical Intake Lifeline

n o k - d a y Cancer Riik

Beniene fl 0.029 IRIS 3.0BHH K.5 1.8GE-01 IE-OS 1.37C-07 1C-OBHethylwe chlonde B2 0.007S IBIS 8.00E-IH 27.2 1.S2C-01 IE-06 1.37C-07 IE-09TetrachloroetheM B2 O.OS1 HEASt 3.00C-01 1138 2.J1E-02 1[-03 Z.08T.-05 IE-06Irichloroethene 82 0.011 IRIS O.OOC-M 10M 2.M-02 3E-01 2.06E-OS 2E-07

Stfl Of BISKS IC-03 IE-06

EKTDSUKC flSSttlPIIOHS

Exposure setting Occupational


Body ueignt (kg) 70Nunber of days/year exposed Z5QNunber of years exposed 10Averaging tine; lifeline (yrs) 70

Ingeition assunplions:

Daily uater intake (I/day) 1

Dernal abi. assunptions:

Surface area (cnZ) 10000Percent subnerged (interger) ?SUne in uater (hn/dsu) 0.25

Lifetine average «edia intake(I/kg body ueight per day):

Ingestion

a. Sources of Cancer Potency Factors:ISIS - Integrated Bisk Information Systen. U.S. EPft 1988.KCflSr - Health Effects Ass«Sfient Sunnary Tables. U.S. EPR 1981

b. Reasonable fcxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of arithnetic nean).

lafale 23

NQNCflRtlKQKKie HEHTH RISK CWUffllM - SOIL IHGESIlOtt

Reference W b Daily Intake HazardOo» (RfD) Concentration (01) Quotient Does Intake

Chenical ng/Vg-day Source a uj/tg ng/fcg-day DI/RfB Exceed RfD?

bis(2-Ethylhe)tiFl)phthaIate 0.02 IBIS 71.9 1.03H7 S.HE-06 HDtrans 1,2-Oiehloroetnene O.OZ IRIS 333 1.76E-B7 2.ME-QS HOCthylbenzene 0.1 IRIS $2880 1.H-Q1 1J3C-03 HOhethylene chloride 0.00 IRIS 211 3.11E-Q7 5.7«-0£ NOletrachUrKthene 0.01 IRIS &1000 I.B1E-03 3.B1C-Q1 NOToluene 0.3 IRIS 210000 3.00C-01 1 .DOC-03 HOl.U-trichloroettorw O.M IRIS 111300 1.S9H1 1.77E-03 HOXvlenes (nixed) 2 IRIS 710200 1.06E-03 S.Z1E-Q1 HO

Hazard Indev (Sun of DI/RfD) 3.BSC-Q1

HPOSUBE HSSWIIOHS

Eiposure Setting Trench Uorker

General

Receptor Adult3ody Ueight (kg) 70

Ingestion a»unphonn

Soil Intake (g/day) 0.1

a. Sources of RfDsiIPIS - Integrated Riik Infornation Systen. U.S, EPR 1988.

b. Reasonable flaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence linit of arlttwetic nean).

Table 21

EXCESS LirnilK CMCER K I 3 K - SOIL IH6CS1HN

tl.S.EPfl RUE b Ufrtt* Rwrage ExcessCarcinogen Slope factor a Concentration Chenical Intake Lifetine

thenical Classification (kg day/Hg) Source ug/kg ng/kg-day Cancer Uisk

bis(Z-Ethylhexyl)phthalate S2 0.011 IRIS 71.9 1.&1HQ ZH21,2-Oiehlonwthafle BZ 0.091 IRIS 306 fi.MHQ 6E-11Hethylew chiortde S2 Q.DD75 IRIS Ml S.39E-10 W-12TetrachloTKthene B2 0,351 HERST 2^000 S.96E-OG 3E-Q7McMoroetheM B2 0.011 IRIS 312MO S.9%-07 8E-09

SKI OF RISKS JC-Q7

EffDSURE HSWIPTItWS

Exposure setting Trench Uorker

General assunptioos:

Body weight (kg) 70Nunber of days/year exposed 1Hunber of years exposed 10

tines lifetine (yrs) 70

Injection assunptions:

Daily soil intake (g/day) 0.1

Lifetine average nedta intake(g/Vg body ueight per day):

IngeitiM Z.Z1E-06

a. Sources of Cancer Potency FactwsiIRIS • Integrated Risk Inforntlon Syiten. U.S. EPfl 19B8.HEBSI - Health Effects flssessnent Sunwry lables. U.S. EPfl 1989

b. Reasonable tlaxinun Exposure concentration (upper confidence limt of anthnetic nean)

table 25

HONCRRCIHQGEHIC HOLI« 8ISK EUBLlfflllOH • SOIL IHKSTION(PRIM SHOP)

Reference RttE b Daily Intake HazardBox (BfO) Concentration (01) Quotient Does Intake

Chwical wj/lg-day Source a ug/tg ngAg-day DI/WO Exceed RfO?

bu(2-EthvIhei(yl)phthalate 0.0! HIS 17? Utf-07 3.12E-OS NGBronodichloronethane 0.02 IRIS 531 7.&3E-07 UlE-GS NOletrachloroethene 0.01 IHS SS1S 7 .88E-M 7 .Bbt-01 HOtoluene 0.3 IBIS 552 7.WE-07 2.63H6 HO1,1,1-Inchloroethane 0.09 IBIS 553 7.90E-07 a.TBEHK HO

Hazard Index (Sun of OI/BfD) 0.72E-Q4

EXPIKUtE RSSinPTIONS

Exposure Setting trench Uorker

General asiunptions:

Receptor AdultBody Ueight (kg) 70

If.gtihon asaunptiona:

Soil Intake (tftov) 0.1

a. Sources of SfDs;IBIS - Integrated Eiak Infornation Syaten. U.S . EPR 1%8.

b. Reasonable ftxinun Cxpoiure concentration (upper confidence hmt of ariihtwUc nean).

ss Lircntic CRKCIE sisr - MIL IBSESUM(PflHT SHOP)

U.S.[Ffl RH£ b Lifetime Storage ExcessCarcinogen Slope factor a Concentration Ch»ical Intake Li Mine

Chemical Classification (kg-da^) Source iig/Vg h^g-day Caivcer till.

bu(;-[thylhi»yl)piithaiat( K 0.011 IRIS 179 U7E-09 1M1Brmdichloronethane BZ 0.13 HEflST S31 1.19E-05 ZE-10Tetrachloroethene B2 0.051 HCRST SS15 1.23E*Ofl (C-10

Stfl OT RISKS 3E-1D

WQSUK ASSWnOMS

Expoiure setting Trench Worker

Seneral agsunptioftsi

Body Might ( } 70Hunber of days/year exposed 1Hunber of years exposed 10Hue-aging ti«: lifeline (yrs) 73

Ingestian assunptiow

Daily soil intake (o/day) 0.1

Lifeline average nedia intake(jAg body weight ptr day)i

tiHi 2.21C-0(

a. Sources of Cancer Potency* factors*IRIS - Integrated Risk Infomation Systen. U.S. EPH 19BB.KCHST - Health Effects flisessnent Swary lables. U.S. EPA 1389

b. Reasonable tlaxinun EKposure (upper confidence Unit of the arithmetic nean).

lable 27

HOHCRRCINGGENIC HER.ni RISK EUflLUftllOH - SOIL IK6ES1IGH(RRYITONO RQflO KITE)

Chenical

AcetoneBenzoic acidbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtnalateBrononethane (Hethylbronide)2-Butanone (HEX)Butyl ben:yl phthalateCarbon disulfideCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzenethlorofomOibutyl phthalate1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Oichloroethenetranj 1,2-OichloroetheneEthylbenzenenethylene chloridenaphthaleneletrachloroetheneloluenel.liHmhloroethaneHylenes (nixed)

Hazard Index (Sun of DI/WO)

EXPOSURE KSUfTIOHS

Exposure Setting


ReceptorBody UeigM (kg)


Soil Intake (g/day)

ReferenceOose (RfD)ng/kg-dsy

0.11

0.020.0011

0.050.20.1

0.00070.020.010.10.1

0.009Q.020.1

0.060.1

0.010.3

0.0V2

Trench Uorker

Nult70

0.1

WEbConcentration

Source a

IRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRIS

IMS!IRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HERS!IRISIRISIRISIRIS

ug/kg

16601001119732 .613.2193%

16.129.721.9257

20.1211

26.371151392913

2365B19700

50135110

Daily Intake(01)

ng/kg-day

Z.37E-OS1.13E-061. TIE-OS1.66E-Q86.I7E-OB2.76E-Q71.37E-076.S9E-081.21E-083.S6E-083.67E-072.91E-083.01E-073.76E-081.06E-OS6.27E-061.30E-063.38E-OS2.81E-OS7.16E-07S.06E-DS

HazardQuotient

OI/SfO

2.37E-OS3.S8E-07fl.SSE-OS3.33E-OS1. HE-06I.3K-OS1.37E-069.11E-OS2.12E-063.S6E-06J.67E-062.91E-073.3EE-OS1.8K-061.06E-011 .OSE-013.26E-063.3BE-039.38E-057.9SE-062.53E-05

1.01E-03

Does IntakeExceed UfD7

HOHOHOHOMONOHOKONOHONONOHOHONOHOHOHOHOHOHO

a. Sources of VfDs:IRIS - Integrated Bisk Infornahon Systw. U.S. EPR 19BB.HtflSI • Health Effects Riseiwent Smwy lablei. U.S. EPR 1989

b. Reasonable flaxinun Eiposure concentration (upper confidence linit of arithnetie nean).

excess LirEiiHE CHNCEB BISK - SOIL INGESIION(BRYWKD RORO)

U.S.ePfl OlCb Ufetine Rverage ExcessCarcinogen Slope Factor a Concentration Chenical Intake Lifeline

Chenical Classification (kg-ctay/ng) Source ug/Vg ng/kg-day Cancer Risk

Benzene fl 0.029 IRIS U.fi 3.7ie-ll IE-12bij(2-£thyln«x|il)phthalate B2 0.014 IRIS 1197 Z.HEHI9 IE-11Carbon tetrachloride B2 0.13 IRIS H.I 1.03HO tC-11Chlorofom 67 0.0061 IRIS 21.3 5.S7H1 3E-13l,t-Dicnloroethane BZ 0.091 HERSI 20.1 1.S6H1 1E-12Ut-Uchlaraethcw C O.fi IRIS Zll 1.7ZE-10 3E-IOnethylene chloride B2 0,0075 IRIS 1392 9.82C-09 7H1letrachloroethene 82 O.OS1 HttST Z36SO 5.29E-08 3e-09IrichlorMthene B2 0.011 IRIS 2171 5.53E-W 6E-11

SIH OF RISKS 3E-09

eXPOSURE RSSIDPTIONS

Exposure setting Trench Uorker

General assunptionji

Body weight (kg) 70Hunber of days/year exposed 1Hunber of years exposed 10Averaging tine: lifttine (yrs) 70

Ingestion assunptionst

Daily soil intake (o/day) 0.1

Ufetine average nedia intake(g/Vg body weight per day):

Ingestion 2.21E-0&

a. Sources of Cancer Potency factors:IRIS - Integrated Risk tnfornation Systen. U.S. CPfl 1988.IOST - Health Effects flssessnent Surmary Tables. U.S. EPR 1389

ta. Reasonable fcxinun exposure concentration (upper confidence Unit of the arithnehc nun}.

Table 29

COKPflRISOH Of ESTIflflTED OftllY WIKE TQ REFERENCE DOSE (RfD)INNRLRTIOK

Chenical

trafl3-l,2-8ichloroetheneEthylb«n2enettethylene ChlorideletrachloroetheneMutt*

1,1,1-TrichloroethaneXylenes (««d)

Hazard Index (Sun of DI/WD)

Exposure settingExposed individualBody Might (kg)Inhalation rate (1/nin)Tine exposed (hrs/day)Uolune of air inhaled/day (I/day)

aReference

Dose (KfD)ng/tg/day

0.02 o0.1 o

0.86 i0.01 oO.S? i0,3 i

0.086 i

EstinatedIreneh

Concentrationng/n3

1.3E-D2LIE* 013.3E-02

1 3.1E'02Z.fiE'011. IE'018.?£'Q1

OccupationalIrench Worker

TO358

16800

Eitiwted DailyIntake (01)

ng/tg/day

0.0102.610o.ooe

81.600£.2103.360

20.880

OI/SfO

5.16E-01Z.£1E'Ol9.21E-Q38.1EE*Q3l.OK'Ol1.12E'012.13C*02

8.15E'fl3

ExceedReference

Dose

NOYES

NOVESYESYESYES

a. Sources of RfDs:im - Integrated Riik Infornahon Systen. U.S. EPR 1988.HERSI • Health Effects Rsiessnent Sumery Tables. U.S. EPD 1989

i < Inhalatianal RfO

lade iQ

EXCESS Liminc cntra RISKINHRLRTIOH

(RNHEX)

Chenical

1,2 OichloroethwK (TJC)rtethylene chlorideletrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

U.S.EPRCarcinogen

Classification

BZBZBZBZ

aSlope Factor(kg-day/ng)

0.051 i0.0113 i0.0033 i

0.017 i

CstinatedTrench

Concentrationno/n3

3.BE-OZ3.3E-OZ3.1E'OZ3.8E'01

[xcessLifetine

Cancer Kisk

IE-06ZE-07tf-01ZE-Q1

sin or RISKSEXPOSURE RSSWFUOXS

Exposure SettingInhalation rate (1/nin)Body ueight (kilograns)line exposed (hrs)Hunber of days per ueekHunoer of ueefcs per y«rNtnber of years exposedLifetim average air intake(liters/kg body ut./day)

Trench Uorker3S70

B11

100.3B

Tt-81

a. Sources of Cancer Slope Factors:IRIS - Integrated Risk Infornation Syiten. U.S. [Pfl im.HERSI - Health Effects RsMssnent Swary Tables. U.S. [Pfl

i - Inhalational Canter Slope factor

latilt II

CtWHBISOH OF ESlimiEQ QRILV mm 10 REFERENCE OOSE (MB)INNUIIN(PfllNT SHOP)

Chemcal

BrwodicnloronetharwletrachlorKthenelaluene1,1,1 -In chloroethane

Hazard Index (Sw of OI/lfD)

EXPOSURE ftSSUtPTIOKS

Exposure jettingExposed individualBody ueight (kg)Inhalation rate (I/run)line exposed (hrs/day)Uolune of air inhaled/day (I/day)

aReference

Ooie (EfO)ng/kg/day

O.OZ o0.01 oO.S7 t0.3 i

EstinatedIrench

Concentrationtq/r3

7.1C-QZ7.BE-01E.9E-02fi.TE-02

OccupationalIrench Uorker

703S8

16800

[jtinated DailyIntake (HI)

no/ip/day DIA'D

0.017 B.52E-010.168 l.ttE'Ql0.017 Z.91E-02Q.01G S.ftE-02

1.771*01

ExceedReference

Do«

NO¥£S

NONO

a. Sources of RfOs:IKIS - Integrated Eiik Infornation Syitm. U.S. EPfl 1988.HtRSl - Health Effects Rssessnent Sumary Tables. U.S. EPR 1989

i • Inhalational RfD

[KCESS LIFETIME CflHCEB PISKIHHRLRHOK

(PfllHI SHOP)

Chemcal

Broiwdicfilonwthaneletrachloroethene

U.S. EPSCarcinogen

Classification

8282

aSlope Factor(kg-day/ng)

0.13 o0.0033 i

CstinatedTrench

Concentrationng/«3

7. IE-027.0E-01

ExcessLifeti«

Cancer Bisk

3E-069C-D7

SIR OT RISES •

EXPOSURE DSSUVTIOHS

Exposure SettingInhalation rate (1/nin)Body ueight (kilogram)Tine exposed (hri)Hunber of days per ueekHunber of ueeks per yearNunber of years exposedLifetiH average air intake(liters/Vg body ut./day)

Trench Uorker35708I1

0.38

IE-OS

a. Sources of Cancer Slope Factors:IBIS • Integrated Bisk Information Syiten. U.S. CPU 1988.HEflST - Health Effects ftssessnent Sumary Tables. U.S. CPR 1989

i • InhaiaUonal Cancer Slope Factor

Table 33

CORPWISOH OF ESntfRIEO WILY IKTKC 10 RETEttHCE DOSE (RfO)UMLBTIM

MM)

Chenical

fl«toneBrononcthane2-Butanone (HEX)Carbon BisulfideCarbon Tetrachlond*ChlorobenzeneCMoroforn1,1-Oichloroethane1,1-Olchloroethenetrans-l , 2-Dichl oroetheneEthyl benzeneNethylene ChlorideNaphthalenefetrahydrofuranletractiloroetheneToluene1,1,1-TrichloroethaneXylenes (nixed)

Hazard Index (Sw of DI/RfD)


Exposure jettingExpoMd imtividualBody weight (kg)Inhalation rate (1/nin)hue exposed (hrs/day)Uoluie of air inhaled/day (I/day)

aReference

Oo» (EfD)rtjAj/dajf

0.1 o0.009 i0.09 i

0.0079 i0.0007 o

D.OOS i0.01 o0.1 i

0.009 D0.02 a0.1 o

0.8k i0.1 o

O.OZ i0.01 aO.S7 i0.3 i

0.086 i

EstinatedTrench

Concentrationng/n3

2.K-Q1UEHJJ5. IE-031.S-US.7E-033.SE-033.3C-OIZ.SC-W2.7E-OZ3.1E-038.1E-016. IE-019.2E-K1.2HB3. DC'00ME'OD6.1E-Q21.2C*00

OccupationalIrench Uorker

70IS9

16000

tstinataf dailyIntake (01)

n to/day

S.76E-OZ1. IDE-03I.JKHH3.1ZE-031.37E-038.10E-017.92C-016.21E-W6.1BE-Q38.16E-M2.02E-01t.KC-OlZ.2IE-021.08E-027.20C-015.76E-011.16C-02I.OIE-OO

OI/WO

S.76E-011.3BE-011. HE-021. QBE'00l.K'M1.68E-017.92E-026.21E-037.:OE-D11JJ8C-OZ2.B2E'00I.70E-01S.S2E-OZS.10E-017.20E*01l.fllEtOO1.BBE-021.17E-01

9.23E'01

ExceedReference

Ooie

HOItONO

YESYES

HOHONOHOHO

VESHOHOHO

YESYES

NOYES

a. Sources of RfDs:IRIS - Integrated (isk Information Systen. U.S. EPS 1988.HERST - Health Effects Rssesment Stmary tables. U.S. EPR

i * Inhalational 0fO

lafii- 31

[HC[SS LIFTIIHE CRHCCR K1SKIHHRLAIION

(RfffflONO ROM)

U.S.EPflCarcinogen

Qiemcal Classification

Benzene f)Carbon [(trichloride 82Chlorofom K1,1 Dichloroethane 821,1 Oichloroethene Cllethylene Chloride 82Tetrachloroethene 82Trichloroethene 82

sm Of Risrs •

EXPOSURE flSSUIPTIONS

Exposure SettingInhalation rate (1/mn)Body wight (kilogranj)line exposed (hrs)Nunber of days per ueekNunber of weeks per yearHunber of i^earj exposedUfetine average air intake(liters/kg body ut./day)

Estimateda Irench

Slope factor Concentration(fcg-day/ng) ng/n3

Q.029 i 2.1E-Q30.13 i 5.7E-03

3.081 i 3.3E-030.091 o 2.6E-03

I.Z i 2.7E-02O.OH i 6.1E-01

0.0033 i 3.0E*000.017 i 3.0E-01

Irencti liorker3570811

100.38

Excesslifeline

Cancer Risk

2E-OB3MJ7It-079E-08IE-OS3C-06IE-062E-OS

2E-OS

a. Sources of Cancer Slope factors:IRIS - Integrated Risk Infornation Systen. U.S. EPR 1988.tfBSl - Health Effects Bssessnent Sinwy Tables. U.S. EPfl 1989

i * Inhalations! Cancer Slope factor

CH2M HILL INC - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI) REPORT - VOL I · 2018-06-19 · REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION...

Documents

Transcript of CH2M HILL INC - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI) REPORT - VOL I · 2018-06-19 · REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION...