Document aXLyqe0R8vpjeJ3oVJj1Bmxb

DATE February 9, /?g^________ TO Pfil*9 TECMKIICAL npUMlTTEe _____ _______________________ TRANSMITTAL LETTEF CLIENT ORDER NO. PROJECT NO ' FROM ALAAJ ORA DPT /r C6#Pox4t/oa/ ______fiHached /* A supy f Chafes* 6-o of /T's J~ev<f T rfsze&s-iv&L/ a/afe report. 7le refer / //? aj /#>/'*out fir) riocurtiPstfjhoci/&//*0^ rtr,j__ -fltf rAvj& of Phzre OZj T&k oz -<9ij?cJivrr of fffi/riPc/t __H jTfii /s OC/r f/rsY Btfesriff' k> esfzt^/skr sj&aft-'/f Cr/far* /vr /%# s/Ye 3r n/Oue. os fev/ous 7%ese d&Ya //o //?>/?/r<s-/z<?^ ___________ OL/r /He/L.Y//7p c^j fffruor^ /7, /*s____ /}busfan._________________ ______________________________ cc; pfit*>cj/>*t, jTti/ESinsoroG-r Pink - Ft BSV 0018712 6.0 RISK MANAGEKQfT TECHNICAL APPROACH FOR DEVELOPICVT OF PRO.IIIINARY CLEAN-UP VALUES GOALS FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVES The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) specifies a preference for remedies that use treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of wastes over remedies that do not use such treatment. "The most significant emphasis is on risk reduction through destruction or detoxification of hazardous waste by employing treatment technologies which reduce toxicity, mobility or volume rather than protection achieved through prevention of exposure" (EPA Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy, December 24,..1966 letter from Winston Porter to Regional Administrators and Directors). j Justification is required if some form of treat hazard is not included in the remedial alternatives to reduce the source The National Contingency Plan (NCP) /and SARA require compliance with applicable, relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) if they exist and are appropriate. ARARs mNp be performance or technology-based standards (e.g., 40 CFR 264, treatment^storage and disposal regulations under RCRA) or contaminant specific health-based standards (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs). ^ Remedial actions for a site must be "protective of human health and the environment. This means that the remedy meets or exceeds ARARs or healthbased levels established through a risk assessment when ARARs do not exist" (EPA, Dec. 24, 1986). The main concept for establishment of clean-up levels (via a risk assessment approach) at Brio/Dixie is that meeting of ARARs is not appropriate for the site because: Based on data provided in the Remedial Investigation (RI) Report the conclusion may be drawn that there is no potential for any drinking water supply being contaminated by the Brio/Dixie'site. Consequently, 6-1 RSV 0018713 RMCLs, HCLa and MCLGs (for drinking water) are not the appropriate criteria to be uaed for attainment of ARARs. The Numerous Sand Channel Zone (NSC2) is classified as a III A Aquifer, according to the EPA classification scheme, because it la a poor yielding zone with high to intermediate connection with surface water (Hud Gully). The N5C2 is not classified as a potential source of drinking water. The 50 foot sand could potentially be a drinking water source, however, there is no conclusive evidence in the RI to suggest that it is contaminated at this tine. With but a few exceptions, acceptable limits of contaminants in soil are not given in environmental regulations but rather are typically determined on Tsite specific basis.' For many of the contaminants Identified in ground wate at the Brio/Dixie site there are no fedeer$> drinking water standards or state standards. r Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) may haavv<e to be met as ARARs. Few AAQCs are currently specified for the indicator chemicals. It IsJewected that this ARAR (AAQCs) will not have any infect on setting of clean-up levels. 1 ft Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for protection of aquatic biota appear to be the moft Relevant ARAR for the Brio/Dixie site. The AWQC should be attained at tme location where a developed aquatic ecological community might be impacted by site runoff or ground water seepage to tad Gully. Attainment of ARARs (AWQC) for recreational use of receiving waters may also be necessary. Like AAQC, AWQC are unavailable for all of the chemicals of concern at the Brio/Dixie site. In the absence of relevant ARARs, the basic premise for remediation becomes protection of the public health with appropriate exposure levels established via a risk assessment approach. The methodology appropriate for developing preliminary clean-up levels for waste in pits, contaminated soils, impoundment sludges, sediments, ground water, surface water and ambient air is described in the following sections. 6-2 RSV 0018714 6.1 CONTAMINATED SOILS. WASTE PITS AND IMPOUNDMENT SLUDGES There are no ARARs associated with contaminated soils or sediments. Consequently, the rationale for soil and sediment clean-up at firio/Dixie is based on the concept of prevention of contamination of ground water, surface water and ambient air; and the preclusion of adverse health effects associated with ingestion of soil off-site. On-site soil ingestion is not assumed to be a plausible or frequent exposure scenario unless future use of the land differs from the current situation (i.e.t a secured industrial site). Chemical uptake by biota and consequent possibility of contamination entering the food chain is also unlikely. T 6.1.1 Technical Approach 1 ^ For contaminated soils, wastes in pits and impoundmeaKsludges, a conservative approach is to calculate contaminant concentrations at specific exposure points relative to the observed concenftations of the indicator chemicals. Based on the water solubility of the charfcal of concern, the Organic Leachate Model (OLH) is used to predict the concentration of the chemical in the leachate (Federal Registet<<\July 29, 1966). For the first estimate, the Vertical Horizontal SpreaU (VHS) model will be used (Federal Register, November 27, f*965) to determine attenuation in the ground water. The model allows a diliij/n factor ranging from 6.3 to 32, the most likely value (using site specific factors) would probably be between 8 and 12. The VKS Model is usually used to predict the contaminant concentration in ground water at a receptor well 500 feet away. For purposes of deriving the preliminary soil decontamination level, the assumption is made that this value is also the assumed concentration that will reach Mud Cully. Mud Gully could become a location where ARARs may be applied. The concentration of contaminant entering Mud Gully could be compared to, for example, ambient water quality criteria. The application of OLM and VHS models are described in detail in Section 6.1.2. 6-3 RSV 0018715 During Phase II of the Endangerment Assessment, a one dimensional dispersion dispersion ground water model will be used Instead of the VHS model to predict ground water contaminant concentrations entering Hud Gully. Reduction in contaminant concentrations is expected to occur as follows: From soil to leachate. In ground water based on the dilution ratio between seepage into the aquifer and flow through the aquifer which includes recharge. Seepage rate would be estimated using a water balance method to come up with infiltration rate. Attenuation in the surface water body (in which a developed aquatic ecology exists) some distance from^j the site from nixing and volatilization (based on halff life) of the volatile organic compounds. f: The next step is to back-calculate (for each of the 'indicator chemicals) from a health or environmental goal (e.g., aqAtic toxicity). The above developed model is used to derive a concentration^?) the soils that achieves the health or environmental goal concepfcjatlon at the receptor location. The goal is a level at which no health ccnepuence or environmental impact would result from an exposure. 6.1.2 TechniA^/ Approach 2 An alternative approach is to set soil decontamination levels based on protection of ground water. The target risk level would be the 10~** cancer risk due to absence of drinking water use. This is the highest allowed in the risk range of 10"^ to 10"** used by EPA for Superfund sites (Reconsendations for Ground Hater Remediation at the Millcreek, Pa. site, EPA letter from Winston Porter March 2*1, 1986). This approach will probably result in much lower clean-up levels than Technical Approach 1 described in Section 6.1.1. In addition, specifying soil decontamination levels which will expose the closest down-wind off-site receptors to no more than the 10"^ cancer risk via inhalation is advised. 6-4 RSV 0018716 The procedure described in Section 6.1.1, Technical Approach i, will be followed i.e., use of the OLM model and the VHS model. The preliminary target waste clean-up levels to protect ground water to a ICT** cancer risk level have been calculated and are presented in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 presents a range of waste clean-up levels which will achieve the protection of ground water at a 10"^ cancer risk level. The OLM model was used to estimate the amount of contaminant which will leach from the waste. The OLM is an empirical equation which was developed through application of linear regression or statistical techniques rather than modeling to a data base of known waste constituent concentrations and experimentally measured leachate concentrations. The equation shown below: Cn = 0.00211 Cw0-678 S*37^ C. s constituent concentration in leachate (ppm) Cw = constituent concentrat^pA in waste (ppm) S - constituent solubility (ppm) (Federal Regis^ar, July 29, 1986, p. 27062). The OLM is uurnffdd in concert with the VHS model (Federal Register, November 27, 1985, corrected December 12, 1986) to estimate the potential for ground water contamination from the organic constituents. According the VHS model the waste (leachate) dilution factor is dependent upon waste volume. For small volumes of waste (<475 yd3) a minimum trench length of 40 foot (12.2 m) is considered. This results in a maximum waste dilution factor of 32. The minimum dilution factor is 6.3 which is applicable to large volumes of waste (approximately 3,800 yd^). For purposes of setting preliminary target waste clean-up levels the range of dilution factors in used (i.e. 6.3 to 32) and are presented in Table 6-1. 6-5 RSV 0018717 The VHS model predicts the maximum concentration expected to occur at a specific compliance point (a receptor at a distance at 500 feet). Table 6-1 presents the results of back-calculating from a 1 X 10"* cancer risk level via lifetime ingestion of ground water to the necessary pit waste clean-up levels ii required to achieve the 1 X 10 cancer risk level. It should be noted that for inorganic constituents the clean-up levels noted on Table 6*1 were not determined by the OLM and VHS model method described. Preliminary clean-up levels for inorganics were determined by multiplying a health based guideline for the specific constituent (usually the RMCL) by a factor of 1000. The factor of 1000 assumes a 100 fold attenuation of the contaminant in the soil and a 10 fold dilution of the contaminant in ground water. This approach is used by the Epidemiological Studies Section of the California Department of Health Services (The California Site Mitigation Decision Tree Jjtfnual, May 1986). 'Cadmium and hexavalent chromium are not considered to be carcinogens via the drinking water route. The observed values noted on Table 6-1 are I the actual contaminant concentrations reported in the R1 and arevprovided as a point of reference to compare to the clean-up range. The oapronts column on Table 6-1 notes the preliminary conclusions regarding the need for remediation based on the calculated clean-up levels 6.2 C0NTAMIN<AJCD iSEDIMENTS Since sedimeanttss/ mmeay migrate off-site, a soil (sediment) Ingestion scenario will be deve(loped. The exposure is expected to be infrequent (perhaps one time per week or less) at an ingestion rate of 0.1 gram of soil for each day of exposure. Appropriate sediment clean-up levels will be developed based on back calculations from acceptable intakes of contaminants. The OLM will be used to determine the potential for the off-site sediments to release constituents to surface water. These predicted levels in the surface water will be compared to aquatic toxicity values. 6.3 SURFACE WATER According to data in the RI, surface water runoff is not contaminated. Consequently runoff to surface water should not result in values that exceed appropriate aquatic toxicity parameters and ambient water quality criteria. 6-6 RSV 0018718 Achieving the limits of the expired NPDE5 permit is also advised for surface water runoff discharges from the site. 6.U GROUND MATER Eased on data presented in the RI, contaminated ground water is not a present or potential source of drinking water. It is not plausible to postulate that the 50 foot sand aquifer will become contaminated. Consequentlyr target clean-up levels for ground water are not based upon drinking water health goals; rather they are based on what has been accepted elsewhere in EPA Records of Decision (RODs) and on potential environmental impacts. The recommended level of ground water remediation would be based on achieving a 10"** risk level for each carcinogenic constituent detected. Th^^f^vels have been calculated for each of the contaminants detected in the N^CZ and are presented in Table 6-2. It should be noted that the agency may require that the total carcinogenic risk not exceed the 10"** fsk level. This would require adding up the individual carcinogenic risks, thus lowering the individual values. /* 6.5 AMBIENT AIR (as a limiting factor on soil contamination) f?., As discussed in the Sectio ambient air values should not exceed the 10 -6 cancer risk lpMel (via inhalation) at the receptor location or 0.01 of the threshold levplV(TLV) for non-carcinogens, expected to be present in ambient air. For purposes of this endangerment assessment and assuming a "no action*' scenario, i.e. no soil disturbance, contamination of the air via volatilization of components in the contaminated ground water is not considered a significant concern. Although the contaminants are volatile and will migrate through soil, it is expected that there will be substantial dispersion in ambient air from the point of ground emission to receptors. Volatilization of components in contaminated soils will be examined further in the Level II Assessment. 6-7 RSV 0018719 6.6 FEASIBILITY STUDY OBJECTIVES Objectives for the construction/remediation phase and for the long term are summarized in Table 6-3. The objectives consider the ground water pathway, soils, sediment and air. BRO/Level1-S6 6-8 RSV 0018720 TABLE 6-1 (PAGE 1 OP 7) TARGET WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS JTO PROTECT GROUND HATER AiT- 10"* CANCER RISK LEVEL CONSTITUENT OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS) (PPM) RANGE1 OF PIT WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10'^ CANCER RISK (PPM) COMMENTS3 PIT B 1.2 DICHLOROETHANE 1.1.2 TRICHLOROETHANE BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHEH CHROMIUM2 BENZO< K)FLUORANTHENE 515; 245,000 918; 166,000 3, MO. 15; 77 2.1 7.39 - 81.19 38.6 - 424.4 0.160 - 1.76 120 15,187 - 166,932 Yes, on the basis of these calculated clean-up levels thi: would require "nreoediation. PIT J 1.2 DICHLOROETHANE 1.1.2 TRICHLOROETHANE VINYL CHLORIDE BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 159; 179,000 126; 69,100 22,700 1,410 7.39 <*1.19 38.6 p 424.4 0.118*- 1.30 0.160 - 1.76 Yes, on the basis of these calculated clean-up levels thi. pit would require remediation. PIT Q 1.2 DICHLOROETHANE 1.1.2 TRICHLOROETHANE B!S(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE V i, 140 ; 26,100 1,810 3; 58; 909 7.39 - 81.19 38.6 - 424.4 0.160 - 1.76 188.7 - 2,074 Yes, on the basis of these calculated clean-up levels thi pit would require remediation. NOTE: This table presents the necessary waste clean-up levels for constituents in pits to achieve the protection of ground water at a 10~4 cancer risk level. The organic leachate model (OLM) and the vertical horizontal spread model (VHS) were used to estimate the possible concentrations in the ground water. 1 Range of values relates to the use of the VHS ground water dilution factors of 6.3 to 32. Z. Proposed RMCL (0.12 mg/1) multiplied by 1000. 3 The findings of need/no need of remediation are preliminary and are based on agreement of 10"^ cancer risk level being appropriate in site-specific circumstances. LEVEL1-S6T RSV 0018721 OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS) CONSTITUENT____ PIT A 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHANE BEN20(K)FLUORANTHENE PIT C BENZO( K) FLUORANTHENE PIT D BEN20(K)FLU0RANTHENE P PIT G BEN20(K}FLUORANTHENE TABLE 6-1 (PAGE 2 OP 7) TARGET WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS JO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10"4 CANCER RISK LEVEL RANGE1 OF PIT WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10~fl CANCER RISK (PPM) _________ (PPM)________ COMMENTS3 0; 163 <1.0 <1.0 36.6 - 142M.4 15,187 - 166,932 basis of these cal culated clean-up levels. No remediation required on the 15,187 ^66.932 required on the basis ofthese cal culated clean-up levels. No remediation 15,187 - 166,932 required on the basis of these cal culated clean-up levels. No remediation <1.0 15,187 - 166,932 required on the basis of these cal culated clean-up levels. No remediation RSV 0018722 OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS) CONSTITUENT PIT K BENZG(K)FLUORANTHENE PIT N BENZ0(K)FLUORANTHENE PIT L CHROMIUM2 ETHYLBENZENE BENZO(KJFLUORANTHENE P PIT 0 CHROMIUM ETHYLBENZENE2 BENZOi K)FLUORANTHENE TABLE 6-1 (PAGE 3 OP 7) TARGET WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELSTO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10~* CANCER RISK LEVEL RANGE1 OF PIT WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT CROUND WATER AT 10"fl CANCER RISK (PPM) _________ (PPM) COMMENTS* <1.0 <1.0 15,187 - 166,932 required on the basis of these cal culated clean-up levels. No remediation T 15,187 266,932 required on the basis of'these cal culated clean-up levels. No remediation 660 0, 3M0 <1.0 120 660 15,187 - 166,932 concentration - assuming it is leachable and hexavalent. Yes, remediation would be required based on chromium 120 680 15,187 - 166,932 concentration assuming it is leachable and hexavalent. Yes, remediation would be required based on chromium RSV 0018723 OBSERVED CONC ENTR ATION(S) CONSTITUENT PIT E 1.2 DJCHLOROETHANE 1.1.2 TRICHLOROETHANE ETHYLBENZENE** BENZO( K) FLUORANTHENE PIT F_________ 1.2 DICHLOROETHANE 1.1.2 TRICHLOROETHANE ETHYLBENZENE BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE NO PIT H__________ ETHYLBENZENE NO PIT I METHYLENE CHLORIDE ETHYL BENZENE JS~\ BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE l/ PIT K 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE 1,1;2 TRICHLOROETHANE VINYL CHLORIDE METHYLENE CHLORIDE ETHYLBENZENE BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE TABLE 6-1 (PAGE A OF 7) TARGET WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELSTO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10~* CANCER RISK LEVEL RANGE1 OF PIT WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT KT^ CANCER RISK (PPM) _________ (PPM) 37; 930 36; 932 13; 192 15.0 7.39 - 81.19 38.6 - A2A.A 680 15,187 - 166,932 1; 218 1; 728 82 <1.0 7.39 ->11.19 38.6 fC*2A.A 15,187 ^ 166,932 300 would be required. 2; 256 A85 A.A 188.7 - 2.07A 680 15,187 - 166,932 250 i; 33 68 91 88 3.3 7.39 - 81.19 38.6 - A2A.A 0.118 - 1.30 188.7 - 2.07A 680 15,187 - 166,932 COMMENTS3 Yes, remediation would be required based on these lculations. Yes, remediation would be required based on these calculations. No remediation No remediation would be required. Yes, remediation would be required based on these calculations. ^Proposed RMCL (0.68 mg/1) multiplied by 1000. RSV 0018724 OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS) CONSTITUENT pns s.t.u5 PIT P 1,1,2 TR1CHL0R0ETHANE BEN20(K)FLUORANTHENE PIT R 1.2 DICHLOROETHANE 1.1.2 TRICHLOROETHANE ETHYLBENZENE BNZO(K)FLUORANTHENE TABLE 6-1 (PACE 5 OF 7) TARGET WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELSTO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10"* CANCER RISK LEVEL RANGE1 OF PIT WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10~fl CANCER RISK (PPH) __________ (PPM) COMMENTS3 i; 9i 6; 66 No remediation is reeoanended, since not carcin ogenic or toxic constituents were detected in the waste d*a for rthesi^Aits. T 38.6 - 424.4 15,187 - 166,932 No remediation required. 68 7; 368 21; 558 <1 7.39 - 81.19 38.6 - 424.4 680 15,187 - 166,932 No, remediation required. 5 No carcinogenic or toxic constituents detected. RSV 0018725 CONSTITUENT________ PIT AA CHROMIUM (2) LEAD*55 PIT BB CHROMIUM*25 NICKEL*65 LEAD*55 PIT CC CHROMIUM NICKEL SELENIUM m LEAD PIT DD CHROMIUM LEAD r\ / TABLE 6-1 (PAGE 6 OF 7) TARGET WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELSTO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10*4 CANCER RISK LEVEL OBSERVED CONCENTRATION(S) (PPM) RANGE1 OF PIT WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10"fl CANCER RISK _________ (PPM)________ COMMENTS 132 120 326 50 123 82 353 ft 226 179 51 1,320 A ft T50 50 120 150 45 50 Yes, remediation would be required b^sed on lead con"Hcentrations. Yes, remediation would be required based on lead con* centrations. Yes, remediation would be required based on chromium and lead concentra tions. 100 120 Yes, remediation 123 50 would be required based on lead con centration . 5 Lead value is 1000 times the MCL of 0.05 mg/1. 6 Nickel value is 1000 times the guidance level of 0.150 mg/1. ' Selenium is 1000 times the proposed RMCL of 0.45 mg/1. RSV 0018726 CONSTITUENT PIT EE CHROMIUM LEAD HEXACHLOROBENZENE BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE BENZO(A)PYRENE PIT FF CHROMIUM LEAD TABLE 6-1 (PACE 7 OF 7) TARGET WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10"* CANCER RISK LEVEL OBSERVED CONC ENTR ATION(S) _______ (PPM) RANGE1 OF PIT WASTE CLEAN-UP LEVELS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER AT 10'4* CANCER RISK (PPM) COMMENTS 97 86 67H 2.66 2.23 120 50 232.9 - 2,560 15,187 - 166,932 15,187 - 166,932 Yes, remediation would be required dye to hexachloros^bemene concentra tion. No, remediation would be required. RSV 0018727 CATEGORY Volatile Volatile Volatile Volatile Volatile Volatile Base/Nuetral Volatile Volatile Volatile Base/Neutral Base/Neutral Volatile Base/Neutral. Base/Neutral Volatile Volatile Volatile Base/Neutral Base/Neutral TABLE 6-2 10~* CANCER RISK LEVELS FOR CARCINOGENIC OR POTOIT1ALLY CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS IN THE N5CZ CONSTITUENTS IQ'4 CANCER RISK (DRINKING WATER) INGESTION NO. OF WELLS IN WHICH CON STITUENT WERE DETECTED 1,1,2 Trichloroethane 1,2 Dichloroethane Vinyl Chloride 1,1 Dichloroethane Chloroform 1,1 Dichloroethane Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethyl 1,1,2,2 Tetraohloroethane 1,3 Dichloeobenzene Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Pthalate Benzene 1,4 Dichlorobenzene 1,2 Dichlorobenzene Carbon Tetrachloride f\< LS' 1,1,1 Trichloroethane Hethylene CbM'ide HexachlorotLadiene He xa ch 1 o roat hane .061 0.038 0.0015 0.006 .043 . 0.0032 0.323 .018 f" x 5.13 0.067 1 . 0.027 0.47 0.45 2.5 9 10 8 5 2 tr MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION PPM 48,700 39,000 8,400 8,820 3.580 3,380 3,170 2,760 1.580 777 742 293 257 235 182 171 166 110 44 27 BR0/LEVEL1-S6T RSV 0018728 PATHWAY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA TABLE 6-3 FEASIBILITY STUDY OBJECTIVES (PAGE I OF 2) CONSTRUCTION Ground Water Prevent additional ground water degradation due to implementation activities. Maintain ground water quality at no leas than present quality or variability. PATHWAY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA PATHWAY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA Soils and Sediments Prevent further degradation of soil contaminant levels d^r ing construction and minimize off-site migration of sedimefEs. Maintain current soil contaminant levels. LONG TERM Ground Water Reduction of contaminant lev^ in the ground water by remedial action. Ground water que'Oty at levels no greater than the risk assessment derived remediation criteria. Prevent migration of contaminated ground water off'Site. PATHWAY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA PATHWAY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA and Sediments Minimize the threat of exposure to significant levels of soil contaminant following remedial action. Selected toxicity/hazard criteria applicable for human exposure. CONSTRUCTION Air Protection of the public through inhalation exposure at or beyond construction. Utilize current ACG1H TLV (TWA) values adjusted for general population exposures and cancer risk via inhalation. RSV 0018729 PATHWAY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA TABLE 6-3 FEASIBILITY STUDY OBJECTIVES (PACE 2 OF 2) LONG TERH Air Protection of the public through inhalation exposure, on and off-site. Utilize current ACCIH TLV (TWA) values adjusted for general population exposures and cancer risk via inhalation. RSV 0018730 TABLE PHTSICAL/CHBMICAL7TOXICOLOGICAL RANKING OF POTENTIAL INDICATOR GHOflCALS CHEMICAL CARCINOGENICITY PIT B (POTENTIALLY MIGRATING) 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE 3 1,1,2 TR1CHLOROETHANE 4 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 1 CHROMIUM 2 (Airborne dust) PIT J (POTENTIALLY MIGRATING 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 TR1CHLOROETHANE VINYL CHLORIDE BIS(C CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 3 4 1 2 PREVALENCE 2/2 2/2 l/l 2/2 2/2 2/2 1/2 1/1 CONCENTRATION RANK MAX. PPM VAPOR PRESSURE RANK naiHR 1 245,000 1 64 2 166,000 2 30 3 3,040 3 0.71 4 77 1 1 179,000 2 89,100 3 22,700 4 1,410 2 64 3 30 1 2,660 4 0.71 IT Gorp. Draft Jan. 20, 1987 MOBILITY WATER SOLUBILITY RANK mjt/1 KOC RANK (1/g) 2 8,520 3 4,500 1 10,200 --- 2 14 1 56 3 13.9 -- -* 2 8,520 3 4,500 4 2,670 1 10,200 3 14 2 56 1 57 4 13.9 RSV 0018731 PIT Q (POTENTIALLY MIGRATING 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHANE BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE 4 2 1 3 2/3 1 26,100 2 64 3 8,520 2 14 09 >o 3/3 2 3 30 4 4,500 l 56 1/1 3 1,810 4 0.71 2 10,200 3 13.9 3/3 4 909 1 362 1 20,000 4 8.8 BRO/LEVELI-TAB RSV 0018732 TABLE phtsical/cukmicalTtqxicological RANKING Of POTENTIAL INDICATOR OlEMICALS (Conti nued) CHEMICAL CARCINOGENICITY GROUND HATER (NCSZ) 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHANE 1,2 DIC11LOROETHANE VINYL CHLORIDE 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE CHLOROFORM 1,1 DICHLOROET HAN E BIS(2-CMLORO ETHYL)ETHER TRICHLOROETHYLENE TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE 1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE B1S(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PTHALATE BENZENE 1,6 DtCHLOROBENZENE 1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE METHYLENE CHLORIDE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROETHANE 16 5 3 6 6 15 l 8 9 12 16 11 2 16 16 7 16 10 13 15 PREVALENCE CONCENTRATION RANK NO. WELLS RANK MAX. PPM 2 9 1 48,700 1 10 2 39,000 3 83 8,400 4 54 8,820 6 25 3,580 4 56 3,380 5 37 3,170 6 28 2,760 6 29 1,580 7 1 10 777 6 2 11 742 7 1 12 293 6 2 13 257 6 2 14 235 6 2 15 182 7 1 16 1 71 7 1 17 166 5 3 18 110 7 1 19 44 7 1 20 27 VAPOR PRESSURE RANK mHft 11 30 9 64 1 2,660 2 600 5 150 4 J 82 17 o.?io 10 57.9 12 17.8 13 5 14 2.28 ---- 7 95.2 16 1.18 9 64 8 90 6 123 2 362 15 2 18 0.4 * NOTE: mg absorbed/kg organic carbon KOC - ---------------------------------------------------------- mg dl ssolved/11 ter solution KOC Indicates the tendency of an organic chemical to be absorbed. Low KOC values will tend to be leachable from soil and mobile In ground water. BR0/LEVEL1-TAB IT Corp. DraCt Jan. 20, 1967 MOBILITY WATER SOLUBILITY RANK ng/1 KOC RANK (!/) 6 4,500 3 8,520 8 2,670 9 4 8,200 5 5,500 2 10,200 12 1,100 14 150 7 2,900 15 123 18 0.285 10 1,750 16 79 3 6,520 13 757 11 1,500 l 20,000 19 0.15 17 50 12 56 15 14 11 57 10 13 31 14 30 16 13.9 7 12.6 4 364 5 166 3 1,700 -- 9 83 3 1,700 15 14 8 110 6 152 17 8.8 1 29,000 2 20,000 CHEMICAL ,1,2 TRICHLOROETHANE rHTLBENZENE IR0M1UM ,2 DICHLOROETHANE ETHYLENE CHLORIDE INYL CHLORIDE ICREL ELENIDM NTIMONY EAD EXACHLOROBENZENE lAHGANESE CARCINOGENICITY RANK LOG POTENCY A +2 8 Reproductive Tox 2 A +4 5 +1 7 -I 6 A0 3 2B +2 Toxic Toxic Toxic 1 2B +3 Toxic TABU pbtsical/chrmicalTtoxiooukical ranking or potential udicatw amicus It corp. vrr Jan. 20, 196 HAST! DIFOSAL PITS (NON-MICRATINC) PREVALENCE PITS A,E,K,P CONCENTRATION RANK MAX. PPM 3 932 VAPOR PRESSURE RANK HR 3 30.0 MOBILITY WATER SOLUBILITY RANK t/l 3 4,500 KOC RANK (!/) 4 56 E,P,H,I,K,R 8 558 5 7 5 152 2 1,100 L,0,R,AA,BB,CC,DD, EE,PE E,r,K,R,A,M 5 4 860 930 4 64 2 8,320 4 14 I.A 9 256 2 362 1 20,000 5 8.8 K 11 68 I 2,660 4 2,670 3 57 BB.CC 10 179 - - - CC 12 51 - - - CC 7 600 - - - CC,DD,EE,rr 2 1,320 - - - EE DD,EE,PP 6 674 6 1.09X10" 6 0.006 1 3,900 1 1,630 -- -- - IRO/LEVELI-TAB 33 C/3 TABLE phts ical/ghbhical/tox IOOLOGICAL RANKING OK POTENTIAL INDICATOR CHEMICALS (Continued) n Draft Jan. 20, 198* CHEMICAL RDNOrr TO MUD GULLT 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHANE BIS(2-CHL0R0ETHYL)ETHER 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE METHYLENE CHLORIDE DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE MUD GULLT SEDUCNT CHRYSENE CHROMIUM BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE DI BENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE BEN ZO( A ) ANTHRACENE BENZO( B ) FLUORANTHENE BENZO(A)PYRENE INDENOC1,2,3-CD)PYRENE CARCINOGENICITY PREVALENCE NO. LOCATIONS CONCENTRATION RANK PPM MAX. 3 2 1 72 ppb 1 1 2 45 ppb 2 l 3 26 ppb 4 2 4 11 ppb - 1 5 10 ppb 4 5 1 171 2 8 2 39 3 2 3 24 3 4 4 11 3 3 56 3 4 66 I 2 73 5 1 83 VAPOR PRESSURE RANK imHff MOBILtTY WATER SOLUBILITY RANK m/L KOC RANK (1/k) 3 30 4 4 0.71 2 2 64 3 1 362 1 5 10"5 5 4 6.3X10-9 4 1 5.1X1;' 3 6 10-' 7 3 2.2XIOJJ 2 2 5X10-; 1 5 5.6X1;' 5 6 10-* 6 4,500 10,200 8,520 20,000 13 2 4 3 5 1 56 13.9 14 8.6 170,000 0.0018 7 200,000 -- 0.0043 5 550,000 0.0005 2 3,300,000 0.0057 4 1,380,000 0.014 6 550,000 0.0012 1 5,500,000 0.00053 3 1,600,000 CHEMICAL CARCINOGENICITY RANK SUBSOIL 1,1,2 TRTCHLOROETHANE 1,2 D1CHLOROETHANE METHYLENE CHLORIDE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 6 1 5 7 2 4 3 TABLE physical/chbucal/toticological RANKING OF POTENTIAL INDICATOR CHEMICALS SUBSOIL IT iorp. Draft Jan. 20, 1987 PREVALENCE NO. OF PITS CONCENTRATION RANK MAX. PPM MOBILITY VAPOR WATER PRESSURE SOLUBILITY RANK mH* RANK mu/l KOC RANK <!/) a 8 1 918 4 30 4 4,500 4 56 7 2 515 3 64 2 8,520 6 14 3 3 58 1 362 1 20,000 7 8.8 2 43 6 11.7 6 466 2 330 1 52 2 150 3 8,200 5 31 I 61 7 5 5 2,900 3 118 1 61 5 17.8 7 150 1 366 WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHROMIUM CHRYSENE RENZO(A)ANTHRACENE BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE BENZ0(G,H,I)PERYLENE 1NDEN0(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE DI BENZ0(A,H)ANTHRACENE BENZ0( A) PYRENE NO. OF CONTAINERS 1 6 1 94 4 1 2 85 3 5 3 16 3 5 4 11 3 8 4 11 3 2 54 3 5 82 3 2 65 2 4 73 4 6.3XI0"9 4 0.0018 3 2.2X10" 2 0.0057 2 5X10"7 1 0.014 1 5.1XIO"7 3 0.0043 6 I.03X10"10 6 0.0007 7 i"iU 7 0.00053 7 10"10 8 0.0005 5 5.6X10*9 5 0.0012 6 200,000 4 1,380,000 5 550,000 5 550,000 3 1,600,000 3 1,600,000 2 3,300,000 1 5,500,000 Monsanto Data BRO/ LEVELI-TAB RSV 0018735