Community Laundromat Site

Preliminary Remediation Goalsfor CERCLIS Sites located in Ava, Douglas County, Missouri

Sentinel Wood Treating Site,(CERCLIS ID: MOD029684438)

12th Avenue Solvents Site,(CERCLIS ID: MON000704015)

and

Community Laundromat Site(CERCLIS ID: MON000704080)

Prepared for the Superfund DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII

Prepared by:

Missouri Department of Health and Senior ServicesSection for Environmental Public Health

930 Wildwood Drive, P.O. Box 570Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

March 2004

«Bil&>. V*

1^

SB1' tftSzr' •?

3*'°

Missouri Department of Health and Senior ServicesP.O. Box 570, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0570 Phone: 573-751-5400 FAX: 573-751-6010RELAY MISSOURI for Hearing and Speech Impaired 1-SOO-735-295S VOICE 1-300-735-2465

Richard C. DunnDirector

/^*r$i/A

Bob HoldenGovernor

A p r i l 1 : 2004

Jeremy JohnsonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region Vfl90! North 5lh StreetKansas City, KS 66101

Re: Preliminary Remediation Goals for CERCLIS Sites in Ava. Douglas County. Missouri

Dear Mr. Johnson:

As requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Cooperative RiskAssessment Program, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services developedpreliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for the Sentinel Wood Treating. 12th Avenue Solvents,and Community Laundromat Sites located in Ava. Douglas County. Missouri. PRGs werecalculated for contaminants of concern in surface and subsurface soil, groimdwater. surfacewater, and sediment. The final document, dated March 2004. is enclosed.

If you have any questions, please contact Michelle Hartman at (573) 751-6160.

Sincere! y.

Scott A. Clardy. AdministratorSection for Environmental Public Health

Enclosure

SAC:GMC:DC:MDH:amh

cc: Eric Nold; U.S. EPA Region VIIPiaCapeli, DNR

.072DMSUPiRFUND DIVISION

www.dhss.state.mo.usThe Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services protects and promotes quality of life and health for all Missourians by developingand implementing programs and systems that provide: information and education, effective regulation and oversight, quality services, and

surveillance of diseases and conditions.

ftN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER: Services provided on a nondiscriminalory basis.

r-1 PRGs for CERCLIS SitesAva, Douglas County, Missouri

Table of Contents

Section Page

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 1

1.1 Sentinel Wood Treating Site 1

1.2 12th Avenue Solvents Site 2

1.3 Community Laundromat Site 2

2.0 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 2

3.0 EVALUATION OF REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE SCENARIOS 3

3.1 Surface Soil 3

3.2 Subsurface Soil 4

3.3 Soil Migration to Groundwater 4

3.4 Surface Water 4

3.5 Sediment 4

4.0 M ETHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF PRGS 4

4.1 Direct-Contact Soil PRGs 5

4.2 Soil Migration to Groundwater PRGs 7

4.3 Surface Water PRGs 8

4.4 Sediment PRGs 8

5.0 CIHEMICAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION 9

5.1 Direct-Contact Soil, Surface Water, and Sediment PRGs 9


6.0 CALCULATED PRGS 11

6.1 Direct-Contact Surface Soil PRGs 11

6.2 Direct-Contact Subsurface Soil PRGs 11


6.4 Surface Water PRGs 11

6.5 Sediment PRGs 11

7.0 REFERENCES 12

RECEIVED

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services

SUPERFUND DIVISION

PRGs for CERCLIS SitesAva, Douglas County, Missouri

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Preliminary Remediation GoalsTable 2a. Exposure Variable Values for SoilsTable 2b. Exposure Variable Values for Soil Migration to GroundwaterTable 2c. Exposure Variable Values for Surface Water and SedimentTable 3. Carcinogenic Toxicity Values for COCsTable 4a. Chronic Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Values for COCsTable 4b. Subchronic Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Values for COCsTable 5. Surface Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for Residential ExposureTable 6. Surface Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for Commercial/Industrial Worker ExposureTable 7. Subsurface Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for Construction Worker ExposureTable 8. Soil Migration to Groundwater Preliminary Remediation GoalsTable 9. Surface Water Preliminary Remediation Goals for Recreational Child ExposureTable 10. Sediment Preliminary Remediation Goals for Recreational Child Exposure

Appendices

Appendix A - Calculation Worksheets for Surface SoilsAppendix B - Calculation Worksheets for Subsurface SoilsAppendix C - Calculation Worksheets for Chemical-Specific Soil Saturation ConcentrationsAppendix D - Calculation Worksheets for Soil Migration to GroundwaterAppendix E - Calculation Worksheets for Surface WaterAppendix F - Calculation Worksheets for Sediment

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Preliminary Remediation GoalsSentinel Wood Treating Site, 12th Avenue Solvents Site, and Community Laundromat Site,

Ava, Douglas County, Missouri

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that the Missouri Department of Healthand Senior Services (MDHSS) determine preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for selectedcontaminants detected in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment associated with theSentinel Wood Treating, 12th Avenue Solvents, and Community Laundromat sites located in Ava,Douglas County, Missouri. PRGs are clean-up goals developed to be protective of human healthand the environment and are used during analysis of remedial alternatives.

Previously, EPA Region VII developed PRG documents for these sites for surface soils (EPA 2002eand EPA 2002f), subsurface soils (EPA 2003c), migration to groundwater (EPA 2003a), and surfacewater (EPA 2002g). The EPA PRG documents are included as attachments to this document.

The purpose of this document is to update and recalculate these PRGs based on updates in EPAguidance, policy, and toxicity potency values, additionally to develop PRGs for creek sediment, andfinally to combine all PRGs for the media and contaminants of concern into a single document. Asummary of the final PRGs for surface soil, subsurface soil, migration to groundwater, surfacewater, and sediment are provided in Table 1. Supporting documentation for the derivation ofPRGs is contained in the remainder of this document.

1.0 Site DescriptionsThe Sentinel Wood Treating Site, 12th Avenue Solvents Site, and Community Laundromat Site areall situated closely in a mixed commercial/manufacturing/agricultural/residential setting in Ava,Douglas County, Missouri. Soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment in the area have beenfound to bs contaminated with one or a combination of the following: volatile organic compounds(VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals. Descriptions of each of the sitesalong with a general history of past operations are provided below.

1.1 Sentinel Wood Treating SiteThe Sentinel Wood Treating Site is located at 412 NW 12th Avenue in Ava. The property is ownedby Sentinel Industries, Inc., who operated onsite from 1959 to the late 1980s. During itsoperations, Sentinel Industries first operated a facility that pressure-treated wood withpentachlorophenol (PCP) in a diesel preservative solution. Sentinel later manufactured logstructures and made outdoor wood furniture onsite both using wood treated offsite with copper,chromium, and arsenic (CCA). Sawdust and scraps generated from the CCA-treated woodoperations was reportedly burned onsite.

The former Sentinel property is approximately 14 acres in size. The southern portion of the sitecurrently has several retail shops and a parking lot. The remainder of the site consists of opengrounds and buildings from former operations, with at least one of these buildings currentlyoccupied by a small business. Two intermittent unnamed tributaries enter the site from the northand northwest, respectively. The tributaries join onsite and flow to the south, exiting the site atits southern border. The creek system flows beneath NW 12th Avenue and then resurfaces on thesouth side of the road, and continues through a residential area and the city park, then enters theupper portion of Prairie Creek.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1.2 12th Avenue Solvents SiteThe 12th Avenue Solvents Site includes the Copeland manufacturing facility at 1400 NW ThirdStreet, the: Rawlings manufacturing plant located at 400 NW 12th Avenue, a portion of the DouglasCounty Health Department property, and a portion of the former Sentinel Wood Treating plant.

The 12th Avenue Solvents Site consists of a groundwater plume contaminated with several VOCs.Contamination from the plume discharges as a groundwater seep within a wetland area locatedjust south of NW 12th Avenue on property owned by the Douglas County Health Department. Anunderground polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was installed by the Douglas County Health Departmentas part of a subsurface drainage system for the wetland area. This PVC pipe discharges water intoa drainage ditch on private property southwest of the wetland area. The drainage then emptiesinto the creek system that flows from the Sentinel Wood Treating Site.

The primary source area of the VOC contamination is thought to be Emerson Electric Companywhich formerly occupied property located at 1400 NW Third Street in Ava. Emerson ElectricCompany operated at the site prior to 1997 manufacturing and assembling electric motors forcommercial and industrial use utilizing ethylbenzene and xylene. The property is currentlyoccupied by Copeland Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Company, andhas been in operation onsite since 1997 machining cast iron parts for the manufacturing of scrollcompressors.

The property is approximately 16 acres in size and is bordered on the west by the Sentinel WoodTreating Site. The Copeland facility consists of manufacturing and office space, warehouse dockareas, and support buildings. The remainder of the property consists of grassy areas east andwest of the main building and a paved access road south of the building.

1.3 Community Laundromat SiteThe Community Laundromat Site is located at 306 NW 12th Avenue in Ava. The site is the locationof a former coin-operated public laundry facility. From approximately 1987-1995, dry cleaningoperations utilizing tetrachloroethylene (PCE) were also conducted onsite.

The former Community Laundromat property is approximately 15,000 square feet in size and islocated southeast of the Copeland facility. The property consists of the facility building and agravel parking lot. The Community Laundromat Site consists of the facility property and agroundwater plume of PCE beneath the property which extends at least 0.5 mile to the southwest.The Community Laundromat is also thought to be another source of the VOC contaminationassociated with the 12th Avenue Solvents Site.

2.0 Contaminants of Concern (COCs)

Previous environmental investigations conducted by the EPA, the Missouri Department of NaturalResources (MDNR), and potential responsible parties (PRPs) have documented the presence ofsoil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination associated with each of the sites.Contaminants associated with the Sentinel Wood Treating Site include PCP, polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons, metals such as arsenic and chromium, anddioxins and furans (collectively referred to as dioxin). Contaminants associated with the 12th

Avenue Solvents Site include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), lead, 2,4-dimethylphenol, and chlorinated VOCs. Finally, contaminants associated with the CommunityLaundromat Site include chlorinated VOCs, such as PCE and trichloroethylene (TCE).

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

For purposes of this document, contaminants from each of the previous PRG documents forsurface soils, subsurface soils, migration to groundwater, and surface water have been retained asCOCs. Additionally, sediment samples were compared to U.S. EPA Region IX PRGs (EPA 2002d),and compounds were retained as COCs if any samples exceeded the Region IX Residential SoilPRG or if a health-based benchmark was not available. Contaminants retained as COCs for eachmedia are listed below:

Surface Soil

Benzene

Toluene

EthylbenzeneXylenes

Trichloroethylem!Tetrachloroethylone

1,2-Dichloroe thane

cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene

1, 1, 1-Trichloroetliane

Pentachlorophenol

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthrao;ne

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)f)uoranthene

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

Arsenic

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Dioxin

Subsurface Soil

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethane

cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene1, 1, 1-Trichloroe thane

Vinyl Chloride

Pentachlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene


Benzo(k)fluoranthene



Arsenic

Chromium

Lead

Dioxin

Groundwater

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

TrichloroethyleneTetrachloroethylene

1,2-Dichloroethane

PentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene


Benzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno( 1, 2,3-cd)py rene

Arsenic

Chromium

Surface Water

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene1,1-Dichoroethane

1,2-Dichoroethane

Pentachlorophenol

Sediment

Pentachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene




Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Phenanthrene

Dioxin

3.0 Evaluation of Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenarios

3.1 Surface SoilResidents and commercial/industrial workers exposed to contaminated surface soil represent thehuman receptors with the greatest potential exposure in the contaminated areas; therefore,exposure scenarios for surface soil are consistent with residential and commercial/industrial use ofthe sites and areas surrounding the sites. For the purposes of this document, surface soils rangefrom 0-2 fset in depth. Reasonable maximum exposure scenarios were considered for residentsand workers that account for chronic exposures through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, andinhalation of airborne particulates or volatiles generated from contaminated soil. The residentialscenario for surface soils uses a time-weighted average to account for both children and adults ina residential scenario: a 15 kg child and a 70 kg adult exposed 350 days per year for 6 and 24years, respectively. The occupational scenario for surface soils is for a 70 kg adult worker exposed250 days per year for 25 years.

3.2 Subsurface SoilConstruction workers exposed to contaminated subsurface soil represent the human receptors withthe greatest potential exposure in the contaminated areas. For the purposes of this document,subsurface soils range from 0 to 10 feet in depth. A reasonable maximum exposure scenario wasconsidered for onsite construction workers that accounts for subchronic exposures throughincidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of airborne particulates or volatiles generatedfrom contaminated subsurface soil. The exposure scenario is consistent with construction workerswho may be engaged in high contact soil intensive activities. The scenario assumes a 70 kg adultworker exposed 120 days per year over a period of 1 year.

3.3 Soil Migration to GroundwaterThe migration to groundwater PRGs are developed to protect receptors who may ingestcontaminated groundwater and to protect potentially potable groundwater aquifers. These PRGsare developed based on chemical concentrations in soil that have the potential to contaminategroundwater above acceptable groundwater concentrations, and apply to surface and subsurfacesoils, including soils greater than 10 feet in depth.

3.4 Surface WaterA child's recreational exposure to contaminated surface water represents the human receptor withthe greatest potential exposure to the contaminated wetlands area and creek system. Areasonable maximum exposure scenario was developed to be consistent with the risk assessmentconducted for the area (MDHSS 2001) and assumes a 15 kg recreational child exposed for 4 hoursper day, 90 days per year, for a period of 6 years that accounts for subchronic exposures throughincidental ingestion and dermal contact. It is important to note that the PRPs previously agreed toclean up the wetland area to EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs); however, PRGs weredeveloped for this scenario as comparison values.

3.5 SedimentA child's recreational exposure to contaminated creek sediment represents the human receptorwith the greatest potential exposure to contaminated sediment in and around the creek system. Areasonable maximum exposure scenario was developed to be consistent with the risk assessmentconducted for the area (MDHSS 2001) and assumes a 15 kg recreational child exposed for 90 daysper year, for a period of 6 years that accounts for subchronic exposures through incidentalingestion and dermal contact.

4.0 Methodology for Determination of PRGs

Site-specific PRGs for contaminated soils, migration of contamination from soil to groundwater,and contaminated surface water and creek sediment are calculated using the methodologydiscussed below. PRGs calculated for surface and subsurface soils, surface water, and creeksediment equate to an excess individual lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"6 or hazard quotient of 0.1for each contaminant, excluding lead and dioxin (See Section 4.1 for a discussion on the derivationof lead and dioxin Soil PRGs and Section 4.4 for dioxin Sediment PRGs). Sites with multiplecontaminants may have Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices in excess of the target risk levels,depending on the cumulative toxicity of the contaminants. PRGs calculated for migration ofcontamination from soil to groundwater equate to a concentration of contaminants in surface andsubsurface soil that will not impact groundwater above regulatory or health benchmark targetlevels. Definitions of variables and specific variable values used to calculate PRGs for each mediaand exposure scenario are presented in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c.

4.1 Direct-Contact Soil PRGsDirect-contact soil PRGs were developed using formulas modified from that presented in EPA's RiskAssessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Parts A and B (EPA 1989 and 1991a), andincorporate exposure parameters based on both site-specific assumptions and established EPAguidance and policies:

RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE SCENARIO(Chemical-specific calculation worksheets are included in Appendix A.)

Carcinogenic compounds:TCR*ATC

PRG = -EF*[(SF0*CFs*FI*((IRSa*EDa/BWa)+(IRSc*EDc/BWc)))

+(SFd*CFs*ABS*((SAa*AFa*EDa/BWa)+(SAc*AFc*EDc/BWc)))+(SF,*(1/VF or l/PEF)*((IRAa*EDa/BWa)+(IRAc*EDc/BWc)))]

Non-Carcinogenic compounds:THQ*ATn

PRG =EF*[((l/RfD0)*CFs*FI*((IRSa*EDa/BWa)+(IRSc*EDc/BWc)))

+((l/RfDd)*CFs*ABS*((SAa*AFa*EDa/BWa)+(SAc*AFc*EDc/BWc)))+((l/RfD,)*(l/VF or l/PEF)*((IRAa*EDa/BWa)+(IRAc*EDc/BWc)))]

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE SCENARIOS(Chemical-specific calculation worksheets for the Commercial/Industrial Worker Exposure Scenarioare included in Appendix A. Chemical-specific calculation worksheets for the Construction Worker

Exposure Scenario are included in Appendix B.)

Carcinogenic compounds:TCR*BW*ATC

PRG = - -EF*ED*[(SF0*CFs*IRS*FI)+(SFd*CFs*ABS*SA*AF)+(SF1*IRA*[l/VFor 1/PEF])]

Non-Carciriogenic compounds:THQ*BW*ATn

PRG =EF*ED*[([l/RfD0]*CFs*IRS*FI)+([l/RfDd]*CFs*ABS*SA*AF)+([l/RfDi]*IRA*[l/VF or 1/PEF])]

The formulae above account for possible exposure from the incidental ingestion of soil, dermalcontact with soil, and inhalation of volatiles or particulates from soil that might be released intothe air at the site. Residential and commercial/industrial exposure scenarios were used to developsurface soil PRGs. A construction worker scenario was used to develop subsurface soil PRGs.

As stated, the formulae above take into consideration inhalation of volatiles or particulates fromsoil. For volatiles, the equations incorporate a soil-to-air volatilization factor (VF) that relates theconcentration of a contaminant in soil to the concentration of the contaminant in air resulting fromvolatilization. The VF is chemical-specific and is calculated separately for chronic and subchronic

exposures (equations, definitions of variables, and chemical-specific VF calculation worksheets areincluded for the residential and commercial/industrial worker scenarios in Appendix A and for theconstruction worker scenario in Appendix B). For non-volatiles, the equations incorporate aparticulate emission factor (PEF) which represents an estimate of the relationship between soilcontaminant concentrations and the concentration of these contaminants in air as a consequenceof particle suspension. The PEF is also calculated separately for chronic and subchronic exposures.The residential and commercial/industrial scenarios incorporate a PEF based on fugitive dustsgenerated by wind erosion, while the construction worker scenario incorporates a PEF based onemissions from truck traffic on unpaved roads, which typically contribute the majority of dustemissions during construction (equations, definitions of variables, and PEF calculation worksheetsare included for the residential and commercial/industrial scenarios in Appendix A and for theconstruction worker scenario in Appendix B).

Chemical-specific soil saturation limits (G ) were also calculated (chemical-specific C^t calculationworksheets are included as Appendix C). PRGs calculated for inhalation of volatiles are applicableonly if the soil contaminant concentration is at or below saturation. Above saturation, acontaminant may be present in pure liquid-phase; therefore, a comparison is made between theCat level and the calculated PRG, and the lowest value is selected as the final PRG. The G^variables are also presented in Table 2a and are calculated as follows:

Csat = S/Pb*[(Kd*Pb)+(Ow)+(H'*Oa)]

Lead PRGsResidential PRGs for Lead are derived based on EPA's Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic(IEUBK) Model (EPA 2003e). The IEUBK model is designed to predict the probable blood leadconcentrations for children between six months and seven years of age who have been exposed tolead through various sources (air, water, soil, dust, diet and in utero contributions from themother). The model has the following functional components: an exposure component whichcompares lead concentrations in environmental media with the amount of lead entering a child'sbody. The exposure component uses environmental media-specific consumption rates and leadconcentrations to estimate media-specific lead intake rates; an uptake component which compareslead intake into the lungs or digestive tract with the amount of lead absorbed into the child'sblood; a biokinetic component which shows the transfer of lead between blood and other bodytissues, or the elimination of lead from the body altogether; and a probability distributioncomponent which shows the probability of a blood lead concentration greater than 10 ^g/dL in anexposed child based on the parameters used in the model. The IEUBK model standardizesexposure by assuming age-weighted parameters for intake of food, water, soil, and dust. Themodel simulates continual growth under constant exposure levels (on a year-to-year basis). Runin the reverse, this model allows the user to calculate lead PRGs. EPA recommends that cleanuplevels be determined to reduce risk to a typical child or group of children exposed to have anestimated risk of no more than 5% exceeding a blood lead of 10 ng/dL. Default parameters wereused in the model while varying only the soil lead concentration to obtain the resulting PRG(results of the IEUBK model run are included in Appendix A).

Occupational PRGs for Lead are derived based on EPA's Adult Lead Methodology (ALM), (EPA2003h). The ALM is designed to estimate fetal blood lead concentrations in women exposed tolead contaminated soils. The PRG for lead represents a concentration in soil in which there is onlya 5% likelihood that a fetus would have a blood lead concentration greater than 10 ng/dL. TheALM uses specific input parameters including soil ingestion rate, exposure frequency and duration,averaging time, Soil Lead Absorption Factor (AFS), Biokinetic Slope Factor (BKSF), Fetal/Maternal

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Blood Lead Concentration Ratio (Rfetai/matemai)/ Baseline Blood Lead Concentration (PbB3duit,o)/ andthe Individual Blood Lead Geometric Standard Deviation (GSDi). The values used for the PbBaduit,oand GSDi were obtained from Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S. Adult Females: SummaryStatistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANESIII),(EPA ;>002b). For the purposes of this project, a PbBadUit,o of 1.53 ng/dL and GSD, of 2.18ng/dL were used. These values are the estimated geometric mean and geometric standarddeviation of blood lead concentrations in women of all races in the midwest region of the U.S.between the ages of 17 and 45. The PRG is calculated as follows (ALM variables and calculationworksheets are included for the commercial/industrial worker scenario in Appendix A and for theconstruction worker scenario in Appendix B):

PRG (mg/kg) = (rPbBg.fetal/(R*(GSD,1-645)1VPbBn)*AT.BKSF*(IRS*AFS*EFS)

Dioxin PRCisAt Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites where 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and related compounds are contaminants of concern,EPA recommends one part per billion (1 ppb) as a cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicityequivalent; (TEQs) in residential soils which corresponds to approximately a 2.5 x 10"* excesslifetime cancer risk and EPA additionally recommends a cleanup level within the range of 5 to 20ppb (2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs) for commercial/industrial soils with the lower end of the rangecorresponding to approximately a 1.3 x 10"4 excess lifetime cancer risk (EPA 1998a). Therecommended levels are generally considered protective of human health and the environmentand apply to soils at the sites.

4.2 Soil Migration to Groundwater PRGsSoil migration to groundwater PRGs were developed using the formula presented in EPA'sSupplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (EPA 2002a):

SOIL MIGRATION TO GROUNDWATER SCENARIO(Chemical-specific calculation worksheets are included as Appendix D.)

PRG = Cw*[K<j+((Ovv+Oa*H1)/(Pb))]

EPA's PRG guidance (EPA 1991a) does not address the soil migration to groundwater pathway;therefore, as stated, the methodology was derived from EPA's Supplemental Guidance forDeveloping! Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (EPA 2002a). The Supplemental SoilScreening Guidance addresses ingestion of groundwater contaminated by the migration ofcontaminants through soil to an underlying potable aquifer. The formula above produces a soilscreening level (SSL) backcalculated for the migration to groundwater pathway using regulatory orhealth benchmark groundwater concentration limits. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), or Water Health-Based Limits (HBLs) are used as thetarget groundwater concentrations. MCLs are enforceable standards set by EPA as the highestlevel of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLGs are non-enforceable health goalswhich are set by EPA at a level at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health ofpersons occurs and which allows an adequate margin of safety. HBLs are EPA-derived healthbenchmarks based on target cancer risks or hazard quotients.

It should be noted that the methodology for developing SSLs for the migration to groundwaterpathway is based on rather conservative, simplified assumptions about the release and transport

of contaminants in the subsurface. The model employs a simple linear equilibrium soil/waterpartition equation to estimate the contaminant concentration in soil leachate and additionally usesa water balance equation to calculate a site-specific dilution factor to account for reduction of soilleachate concentration from mixing in an aquifer. The resulting PRG is calculated to be protectiveof residential or occupational land use scenarios by providing a target soil concentration to beprotective of potable groundwater.

4.3 Surface Water PRGsSurface water PRGs were developed using formulas modified from that presented in EPA's RiskAssessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Part A (EPA 1989) and Draft Part E (EPA 2001c),and incorporate exposure parameters based on both site-specific assumptions and established EPAguidance cind policies:

RECREATIONAL CHILD EXPOSURE SCENARIO(Chemical-specific calculation worksheets are included as Appendix E.)


PRG = — - —EF*ED*[(SF0*CR*ET)+(SFd*CFw*SAw*DCF)]

Non-Carcinogenic compounds:THQ*BW*ATn

PRG =EF*ED*[([l/RfD0]*CR*ET)+([l/RfDd]*CFw*SAw*DCF)]

The formulae above account for possible exposure through recreational activities and includeincidental ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminated water.

As stated, the formulae above take into consideration dermal contact with contaminated water.Skin is composed of two main layers, the stratum corneum and the viable epidermis, and toestimate the absorption of chemicals from water through the skin it is assumed that absorption isa function of both the thickness of the stratum corneum and the event duration. The dermalcontact factor (DCF) for organic compounds is approximated by one of two equations: 1) todescribe the absorption process when the chemical is only in the stratum corneum and absorptionis in non-steady state; or 2) to describe the absorption process once steady-state has beenreached, ft is also assumed that absorption continues long after the exposure has ended and theabsorbed dose (DCF) is estimated to be the total dose dissolved in the skin (equations, definitionsof variables, and chemical-specific DCF calculations are also included in Appendix E).

4.4 Sediment PRGsSediment PRGs were developed using formulas modified from that presented in EPA's RiskAssessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Parts A and B (EPA 1989 and 1991a), andincorporate exposure parameters based on both site-specific assumptions and established EPAguidance eind policies:

RECREATIONAL CHILD EXPOSURE SCENARIO(Chemical-specific calculation worksheets are included as Appendix F.)


PRG = —EF*ED*[(SFo*CFs*IRS*FI)+(SFd*CFs*ABS*SAs*AF)]

Non-Carcinogenic compounds:THQ*BW*ATn

PRG = —EF*ED*[([l/RfD0]*CFs*IRS*FI)+([l/RfDd]*CFs*ABS*SAs*AF)]

The formulae above account for possible exposure through recreational activities and includeincidental ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminated sediment.

Dioxin PRGAs stated previously, EPA recommends one part per billion (1 ppb) as a cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs in residential soils at Superfund and RCRA sites where 2,3,7,8-TCDD and relatedcompounds are contaminants of concern (EPA 1998a). This recommended level also applies tosediments at the sites.

5.0 Chemical and Site-Specific Information

5.1 Direct Contact Soil. Surface Water, and Sediment PRGsThe soil, surface water, and sediment PRG equations discussed above incorporate chemical-specific Slope Factors (SF) and Reference Doses (RfD) to obtain target risk levels. SFs are thetoxicity values used in assessing carcinogenic effects from exposure. SFs are defined as theplausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of carcinogenic effects per unit intake of achemical expressed over a lifetime. RfDs are the toxicity values used in assessing non-carcinogenic effects from exposure. A chronic RfD is defined as an estimate of a daily exposurelevel for the human population including sensitive subpopulations that is likely to be without anappreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. According to RAGS, subchronic exposuresvary in exposure durations of more than two weeks to less than seven years. Subchronic RfDs arethe toxicity values used in assessing non-carcinogenic effects from subchronic exposures.Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity values were obtained from EPA's Integrated RiskInformation System (IRIS), EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), or EPA'sHealth Effeicts Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).

To estimate the contribution of dermal contact, it is necessary to convert oral SFs and RfDs toabsorbed SFs and RfDs by use of an oral absorption efficiency (OAE) variable. The formulae toadjust oral toxicity values to absorbed toxicity values for use in dermal equations are:

Carcinogenic: SForai (mg/kg-d)"1 + OAE (unitless) = SFdermai (mg/kg-d)"1

Non-Carcinogenic: RfDorai (mg/kg-d) * OAE (unitless) = RfDdermai (mg/kg-d)

Oral-to-dermal extrapolation is not recommended for exposure to volatiles or certain inorganics insoil; therefore, dermal contribution from soil exposure was not calculated for all COCs. For thoseCOCs for \vhich oral-to-dermal extrapolation is appropriate, it is necessary to adjust the dermal

intake formulae for soil contact by use of a dermal absorbance (ABS) variable. When chemical-specific absorption information was unavailable, default variables were used to assess dermalcontribution as follows: ABS for SVOCs - 0.1. Additionally, oral-to-dermal extrapolation is notrecommended for water contact unless the dermal route would pose more than 10% of theingested dose. For those COCs for which oral-to-dermal extrapolation is appropriate, it isnecessary to adjust the dermal intake formulae for water contact by use of the chemical-specificDCF calculation discussed in Section 4.3.

To estimate the contribution of inhalation exposure, it is necessary to convert Inhalation Unit Risks(URi) to SFs and Reference Concentrations (RfC) to RfDs. The formulae to adjust these values totoxicity values for use in inhalation equations are:

Carcinogenic: UR| (mg/m3)'1 * 70 (kg) / 20 (m3-d) = SF|nhaiat)on (mg/kg-d)"1

Non-Carcinogenic: RfC (mg/m3) * 20 (m3-d) / 70 (kg) = RfDinhaiatJon (mg/kg-d)

COC-specific SF values for each exposure pathway, including the OAE and UR| values utilized forconversion-purposes, to calculate the Carcinogenic PRGs for surface soil, subsurface soil, surfacewater, and sediment are presented in Table 3. COC-specific RfD values for each exposurepathway, including the OAE and RfC values utilized for conversion-purposes, to calculate theHazard Quotient for surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment are presented inTables 4a and 4b for chronic and subchronic non-cancer toxicity values, respectively.

Target Cancer Risks (TCR) and Target Hazard Quotients (THQ) could not be calculated for allcontaminants of concern due to lack of toxicity information. Those constituents for whichinformation was unavailable for the specified pathways are also presented in the aforementionedtables.

It should be noted that Tables 3 and 4 list differing toxicity values for trichloroethene. Currently,there are varied provisional toxicity values proposed for trichloroethene. The draft toxicityassessment for TCE indicates that exposure to TCE poses a higher risk to susceptible populationsthan was previously considered and proposes newer, more conservative toxicity values (EPA2001a). To provide a range of PRGs, this document utilized both the newer and originalprovisional values and presents PRGs based on both sets of values for the residential,occupational, and recreational scenarios.

It should also be noted that Chromium VI and Chromium III are assumed to be present in a 1:6ratio (EPA 2002d). Chromium VI is considered a known human carcinogen, while adequate dataare not available to evaluate the potential carcinogenicity of Chromium III in humans. Therefore,the Chromium VI cancer toxicity potency value was used to calculate the total chromium cancerPRG. The Chromium III noncancer toxicity value was used to calculate the total chromiumnoncancer PRG.

5.2 Soil Migration to Groundwater PRGsThe soil migration to groundwater PRG equation discussed above incorporate chemical-specific andsite-specific information to obtain target risk levels. Chemical-specific MCLs, MCLGs, or HBLs anda site-specific dilution attenuation factor (DAF) are incorporated to calculate a target soil leachateconcentration (C«). The DAF is calculated based on measured site-specific data and is the ratio ofsoil leachate concentration to receptor point concentration. The DAF assumes that contaminantconcentrations are reduced by this factor when leachate mixes with a clean aquifer. The soilmigration to groundwater PRG equation also incorporates this target soil leachate concentrationwith chemical-specific physical parameters and default parameters to produce the resulting PRG.

10

6.0 Calculated PRGs

The target: risk level used in calculating the PRGs for surface and subsurface soil, surface water,and creek sediment equates to an excess individual lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"6 or a hazardquotient of 0.1 for each contaminant, excluding lead and dioxin. Sites with multiple contaminantsmay have Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices in excess of the target risk levels, depending on thecumulative: toxicity of the contaminants. Lead PRGs were calculated using the IEUBK and ALM(EPA 2003g and EPA 2003k) to limit blood lead concentrations exceeding 10 ng/dL to a likelihoodof only 5% of those exposed. Dioxin PRGs were taken from EPA's OSWER Directive 9200.4-26(EPA 1998a). PRGs calculated for migration of contamination from soil to groundwater equate toa concentration of contaminants in surface and subsurface soil that will not impact groundwaterabove the maximum contaminant level or other water health based limit. The PRGs calculatedmay be applied at these sites only.

6.1 Direct-Contact Surface Soil PRGsCarcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PRGs were calculated for a residential and an occupationalscenario for those whom may be directly exposed to contaminated surface soils at the sites.Calculation worksheets are included as appendices. The final PRG for each scenario wasdetermined by comparing the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PRGs and the C^t levels for eachcontaminant, then by selecting the lowest value. The final Surface Soil PRGs for the residentialand commercial/industrial worker scenarios have been provided in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

6.2 Direct-Contact Subsurface Soil PRGsCarcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PRGs were calculated for a construction worker scenario forworkers whom may be directly exposed to contaminated subsurface soils at the sites. Calculationworksheet; are included as appendices. The final PRG was determined by comparing thecarcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PRGs and the G^ levels for each contaminant, then by selectingthe lowest value. The final Subsurface Soil PRGs for the construction worker scenario have beenprovided in Table 7.

6.3 Soil Migration to Groundwater PRGsSoil migration to groundwater PRGs were calculated to be protective for those whom may ingestcontaminated groundwater from the site. Calculation worksheets are included as appendices. Thefinal Surface and Subsurface Soil PRGs determined based on the target soil leachate concentrationhave been provided in Table 8.

6.4 Surface Water PRGs5.1.2 Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PRGs were calculated for a recreational scenario forchildren whom may be directly exposed to contaminated surface water in the wetland area orcreek system. Calculation worksheets are included as appendices. The final PRG was determinedby comparing the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PRGs for each contaminant, then by selectingthe lowest: value. The final Surface Water PRGs for the recreational scenario along with theassociated MCL for each contaminant have been provided in Table 9.

6.5 Sediment PRGs5.1.2 Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PRGs were calculated for a recreational scenario forchildren whom may be directly exposed to creek sediment. Calculation worksheets are included asappendices. The final PRG was determined by comparing the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenicPRGs for each contaminant, then by selecting the lowest value. The final Sediment PRGs for therecreational scenario have been provided in Table 10.

11

7.0 References

EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health EvaluationManual, Part A. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002.

EPA. 199ia. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health EvaluationManual, Part B: Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/R-92/003.

EPA. 1991 D. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health EvaluationManual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors. Office of Emergencyand Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.

EPA. 1993, Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-93/089.

EPA. 1994a. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Slope Factors memorandum. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region VII, Kansas City, KS. February 1994.

EPA. 1994b. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective ActionFacilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/F-94/043.OSWER Directive #9355.4-12.

EPA. 1996;a. Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,Washington, D.C. EPA/540/R-96/018.

EPA. 1996b. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. Office of Emergency andRemedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/R95/128.

EPA. 1997, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). Office of Research andDevelopment, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA 540/R-97-036.

EPA. 199&3. Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites memorandum.Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. OSWER Directive 9200.4-26.

EPA. 1998b. Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites andRCRA Corrective Action Facilities. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington, DC. EPA/540/F-98/030. OSWER Directive #9200.4-27P.

EPA. 2000, Standard Default Factors memorandum. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RegionVII, Kansas City, KS. April 2000.

EPA. 200La. Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis & Characterization - ExternalReview Draft (August 2001). Office of Research and Development, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/P-01/002A.

12

EPA. ZOOlb. Enforcement Action Memorandum: Request for a Removal Action at the SentinelWood Treating Site, Ava, Douglas County, Missouri. United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Region VII, Kansas City, KS. August 23, 2001.

EPA. 2001 c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health EvaluationManual, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment - Review Draft(September 2001). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.EPA/540/R/99/005.

EPA. 2001d. Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, Sentinel Wood Treating Site,Ava, Douglas County, Missouri. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII,Kansas City, KS.

EPA. 2001e. Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, 12? Avenue Solvents Site, Ava,Douglas County, Missouri. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII,Kansas City, KS.

MDHSS. 2001. Estimated Risks from Residential Exposure to Prairie Creek Tributary and GardenArea South of the Sentinel Wood Treating and 12th Avenue Solvents Sites, Ava, DouglasCounty, Missouri. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. October 2001.

EPA. 1992-2002. NationalCenter for EnvironmentalAssessment (NCEA) -Superfund TechnicalSupport Center (STSC). Risk Assessment Issue Papers for. Arsenic (bug. 2002); Benzene(July 1996); Benzo(a)pyrene (Nov. 1994); cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene (Sept. 2002);Ethyibenzene (Oct. 1999); Tetrachloroethene (June 1997); Toluene (July 1999); 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Aug. 1999); and Trichloroethene (March 1992 and Feb. 1998).

EPA. 2002ia. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites.Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. OSWER 9355.4-24.

EPA. 2002b. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S. Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phase Iand?, of the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III). Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. OSWER 9285.7-52.

EPA. 2002c. National Primary Drinking Water Standards. Office of Water. July 2002.

EPA. 2002d. U.S. EPA Region IX: Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs). Available online athttp://www.epa.qov/region09/waste/sfund/prq/index.htm.

EPA. 2002(5. Preliminary Remediation Goals - Sentinel Wood TreaterSite, Ava, Missourimemorandum. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII, Kansas City, KS.June 20, 2002.

EPA. 20021: Preliminary Remediation Goals - 12th Avenue Solvents Site, Ava, Missourimemorandum. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII, Kansas City, KS.July 10, 2002.

EPA. 2002<j. Preliminary Remediation Goals - Wetlands Area of the 12th Avenue Solvents Site, Ava,Missouri memorandum. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII, KansasCity, KS. July 10, 2002.

13

ESC. 2002. Removal Assessment Report for the if1 Avenue Solvents Site, Douglas County,Missouri. Environmental Strategies Corporation. December 19, 2002.

MDNR. 2002. Removal Assessment Report for the Community Laundromat Site, Douglas County,Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. April 23, 2002.

EPA. 2003;a. Migration to Groundwater Preliminary Remediation Goals, Sentinel Wood TreaterSite,Ava, Missouri memorandum. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII,Kansas City, KS. February 12, 2003.

EPA. 2003b. E-mail communication from EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment(NCEA) providing recommendations for subchronic values for Chromium; 2,4-Dimethylphenol, Pentachlorophenol, Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, Vinyl Chloride,and Xylenes. March 28, 2003.

EPA. 2003c. Subsurface Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals, Sentinel Wood Treating Site,Avenue Solvents Site, and 'Community Laundromat Site, Ava, Missouri memorandum. UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency Region VII, Kansas City, KS. April 23, 2003.

EPA. 2003d. Letter from EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response communicatingrecommended cancer toxicity values for evaluating inhalation and ingestion risks fromexposure to tetrachloroethylene. OSWER 9285.7-75.

EPA. 2003o. The IEUBK Model. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. Available online at:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/ieubk.htm.

EPA. 20031: IEUBK Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Technical Review Workgroup for Lead.Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/proqrams/lead/ieubkfaQ.htm.

EPA. 2003<:j. Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children, Windows9 version(lEUBKwin vl.O build 255) (November 2003) 32-bit version. Available online at:http://www.epa. gov/superfund/programs/lead/products. htm.

EPA. 2003h. Adult Lead Methodology. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. Available online at:http://www.epa.qov/superfund/proqrams/lead/adult.htm.

EPA. 2003i. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Approach toAssessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. Technical ReviewWorkgroup for Lead. EPA-540-R-03— 001.

EPA. 2003). Adult Lead Methodology Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Technical ReviewWorkgroup for Lead. Available online at:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/almfaq.htm.

EPA. 2003k. Adult Lead Methodology spreadsheet, Excel version (May 2003). Available online at:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/proqrams/lead/produrts.htm.

14

EPA. 20031. Superfund Information Systems - CERCLJS Database: Site Information on SentinelWood Treating Co. Inc., 12? Avenue Solvents, and Community Laundromat sites. EPAwebpage available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm.

EPA. 2003m. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Office of Research and Development andNational Center for Environmental Assessment. December 2003. IRIS webpage available at:www. epa.gov/iris/.

ITEM. 2003. Data Summary for Removal Site Evaluation Follow-Up - Sediment Sampling Activitiesat the Sentinel Wood Treaters Site, Ava, Missouri. Tetra Tech EM Inc., Lenexa, Kansas.December 2003.

15

TABLES

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 1.Summary of Preliminary Remediation Goals for CERCLIS Sites located in Ava, Douglas County, Missouri

Benzene

Toluene

Ethrlbenzeno

Xytenei

Tetr»chk>raethytena

1,1-Okhloroethane

1,2-Mchtoroe^hane

ds-l,2-Dkhk>roatriytene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Vinyl Chloride

2,4-Dlmethrl phenol

Pentachlorophenol

3enzo(a ipyiene

tenzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(b)f1uorantheM

9enzo(k)fluor«nthene

Dibeni(a,h)aiitiiracene

Indeno(l,2,3-ed)pyrene

B*nzo(g,h,l)perrl*ne

fienanthrene

Anenfc

Chromium (total)

Copper

Lead

Dtoxln ( 2,3,7, S-TCDD TEQ)

Residential

0.6

125

375

49

3.4

0.05

0.5

0.3

274

373

416

3

0.06

0.6

0.6

6.2

0.06

0.6

0.4

218

1013

340

0.001

SURFACE SOIL(mg/kg)

Commercial/ Industrial Worker

1.4

225

39!

87

7.5

0.1

1.3

0.6

1022

680

1231

9

0.2

2.1

2.1

21

0.2

2.1

1.6

463

3781

945

.005 - .02

SUBSURFACE SOIL(mg/kg)

Construction Worker

3.3

75

108

12

1.4

0.4

5.75

2.1

120C

987

2.10

993

215

4.'

4<

44

43C

4.4

44

19

21

485

.005 - .02

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION(mg/kg)

Soil Migration to Groundwatar

0.002

0.6

0.7

11

0.003

0.001

0.001

0.4

0.08

0.25

2.5

0.08

0.7

0.3

2

SURFACE WAI(mg/L)

Recreational Child

0.03

19

0.7

1.3

0.1

0.004

0.002

30

0.04

0.0005

ER

MO.

0.005

1

0.7

10

0.005

0.005

0.001

SEDIMENT(mg/kg)

Recreational Child

17

0.4

3.6

3.6

0.4

3.6

NC

NC

0.001

NC - Not calculated due ID lack of Doricity tnfonration

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 2a.

Exposure Variable Values Used To Calculate Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) In SoilsAva, Douglas County, Missouri

G V

aria

ble

s

IP

Js

+•fl

Variable*RG = Preliminary Remediation Goal

TCR =• Target Cancer Rrsk

mQ • Target Hazard Quotient

BW • Body weight

BW, - Adult

BW, - Child

M", • Averaging Time - carcinogenic

KT. • Averaging Time - noncarclnogenlc

Residential

Commercial/Industrial worker

Construction Worlcer

SF - Slope Factor

Sf. . Oral

SF.- Dermal

SF, = Inhalation

RfO = Reference Dose

RtTX-Oral

RfD« *• Demul

RID, - Inhalation

EF - Exposure Frequency

Residential

Commercial/Industrial worker

Construction Worker

ED «= Exposure Duration

ED. - Residential Adult

ED, - Residential Chad

CommercWIndustrial Worker

Construction Worker

CF, • Conversion Factor for Sob

IRS - Soil Ingestlon Rate

IRS. - Residential Adult

IRS, - Residential Child

Commercial/Industrial Worker

Construction Worker

FI • Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source

ABS = Absorption Fraction

SA - Skin Surface Area Available for Contact

SA. - Residential Adult

SA, - Residential Child


Construction Worker

AF <= Adherence Factor of Sal to Skin

AF. - Residential Adult

AF, • Residential Child


Construction Worker

IRA - Inhalation Rate

IRA. - Adult

IRA, -Child


Construction Worker

vT - Soil to Air Volatilization Factor

iff - Particulars Emission Factor for Soils

Cu, - Soil Saturation Concentration

- Solubility In water

„ = Dry Son Bulk Density

X< » Soil-Water Partition Coefficient

K^ - Soil Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient

K - Fraction Organic Carbon Content of Soil

O, - water-ruled Soil Porosity

H - Drmenskmless Henrys law Constant

0. - Air-ruled Sod Porosity (n-OJ

- Total Soil PorasJty (HIVP.))

, - Soil PartUe Density

Unit Valuemg/ka

unites

unroess

k«

days

days

(mg/lg-oay)'1

mg/kg-day

days/year

years

10* kg/mg

mo/day

unlbess

unltless

on'/day

mg/cm1

m'/day

m3/krj

m!A8

mg/kg

mg/U«,

kg/I

lykg

L/kg

8/0

U«JU>

unltless

Wl«.

U U«

kgA

Calculated

Ix 10*

0.1

70

15

25550

(ED- 365)

10950

9125

365

chemlcahspecinc

chemiol-specinc

350

250

120

24

6

25

1

0.000001

IX

200

100

330

1

chemical-SDedilc

5700

2800

3300

3300

0.07

0.2

0.2

0.3

20

10

20

20

Calculated - See Appendb A and B

Calculated - See Aprjendbt A and B

Calculated

chemlcal-spedflc

1.5

chemlcahspecncCK.fJ

chernlcal-soednc

0.006

0.15

cfterrucal-spedflc

0.28

0.43

2.65

US EPA Region VU Standard Default Factors Memorandum (2000) or US EPA RAGS Supplemental Guidance: Standatti Default exposure factors (1991)US EPA S& Screening Guidance (1996)US EPA Supplemental Guidance tor Developing Sot Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (2002)US EPA Drat RAGS, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment (2001)

Table 2b.

Exposure Variable Values Used To Calculate Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)for Soil Migration to Groundwater


PR

G V

aria

ble

s

Variable Unit Value

PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal

Cw = Target !ioU Leachate Concentration

Groundwater Target Concentration[MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level,MQ.G = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal,HBL = Health-Based Limit)

DAf = Dilution Attenuar. an Factor

KO = Soil-Water Partition Coefficient

K« = Soil Organic Cartx»VWater Partition Coefficient

f« = Fraction Organic Carbon In Soil

0. = Water-filled Soil Porosity

0. = Air-fiHeO Soil Porosity (n-OJ

i = Soil Poraaty (HPo/PJ)

Pb = Dry Soil Bulk Density

P, = Soil Partde Density

f = Dimenskmless Henry's Law Constant

mg/kg

mg/L

mg/L

uniUess

L/kg

L/kg

g/g

L-»/L»,

U/l«

Lpore/i-xa

kg/L

kg/L

unittess

Calculated

chemical-specific (MCL, MCLG, or HBL'DAF)

chemical-specific

Calculated - See Appendix D

chemical-specific (Organics=ICJC*fa; Inorganics - Arsenlc=29, Chromium=19)

chemteal-spedfic

0.002

0.3

0.13

0.43

1.5

2.65

chemlcal-spedficUS EPA Soil Screening Guidance (1996)US EPA Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (2002)US EPA Drinking Water Stattfartis and Health Advisories (2002)

Table 2c.

Exposure Variable Values Used To Calculate Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)for Surface Water and SedimentAva, Douglas County, Missouri

PR

G V

aria

ble

s

Variable Unit ValuePRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal

TCR = Target Cancer Risk

THQ = Tiirget Hazard Quotient

BW = Boly Weight

BWC - Child

ATC = Averaging Time - carcinogenic

ATn = Averaging Time - noncardnogenic

Recreational Child

SF = Slot e Factor

SF0 = Oral

SFa = Dermal

RfD = Reference Dose

RfD0 = Oral

RfDd = Dermal

ET = Exposure Tims

Recreational Child

EF = Exposure Frequency

Recreational Child

ED = Exposure Duration

Recreational Child

CFt = Conversion Factor for Soils

IRS = Soil Ingestion Rate

Recreational Child

FI = Fracion Ingested from Contaminated Source

ABS = Absorption Fraction

SA, = Skin Surface Area Available for Sediment Contact

Recreational Child

AF = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin

AFC - Recreational Child

CR = Waler Contact Rate

CF. = Vo'umetric Conversion Factor for Water

SA* = Skin Surface Area Available for Water Contact

Recreational Child

DCF = Dermal Contact Factor

mg/kg-soil or mg/L-water

unitiess

unit! ess

kg

days

days

(mg/kg-day)'1

mg/kg-day

hours/day

days/year

years

10"* kg/mg

mg/day

unitiess

unitiess

cm2/day

mg/cm2

IVhour

1 M1000 cm3

cm2/hour

cm-hour/day

Calculated

1x10*

0.1

15

25550

2190

chemical-specific

chemical-specific

4

90

6

0.000001

200

1

chemical-specific

2800

0.2

0.05

0.001

3307

Calculated - See Appendix EUS EPA Region VII Stanford Default Factors Memorandum (2000) or US EPA RAGS Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors (1991)US EPA Soil Screening Guidance (1996)US EPA Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (2002)US EPA Draft RAGS, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment (2001)

Table 3.

Carcinogenic Toxicity Values for COCs

u

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylben :ene

Xylenes

Trichlorosthylene (provisional)

Trichloro9thylene (draft)

TetrachlcToethylene

1,1-Dichbroethane

1,2-Dichbroethane

cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene

1, 1, 1-Trii :hloroethane

Vinyl Chloride

2,4-Dimethylphenol3entachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

3enzo(a)anthracene






Phenanthrene

Arsenic

Chromium (total)

Copper

Lead

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ)

Carcinogenic Weightof Evidence

Classification

A

D

D

DUnder ERA'S current (1986)

cancer guidelines, TCE would beclassified as a 'probable humancarcinogen" (Group Bl). Under

EPA's proposed (1996, 1999)cancer guidelines, TCE can be

characterized as 'highly likely toproduce cancer in humans".

B2

C

B2

D

DA

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

D

D

ACr m - D;

Q VI - A (Inhalation)- D (oral)

D

B2B2

SF0

(mg/kg-d)"

5.5E-02

1.1E-02

4.0E-01

5.4E-01

9.1E-02

7.5E-01

1.2E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

7.3E-01

7.3E-02

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

1.5E+00

I OAEc j unltiess

IX I

I ! 11

1

1

1

NJ !| l

N ;N! i1

1 1i11I11

i ! i1 1 1PI 1pi :

P: ip! iP! iii1 1 iiiii1i

i

1E2

F7

E2

EI,;El

El

El

El

El

El

El

SFd 1 UR,(mg/ko-d)" j (mg/m3)"

1

1

5.5E-02 T 7.8E-031

1

i1

1.1E-02 ! 1.7E-03

1 :1 • . ' •• . '• '

4.0E-01 j .

5.4E-01 ! 5.9E-031

1 2.6E-02

11

I! 4.4E-0311

1.2E-01 !

7.3E+00 1 8.8E-01

7.3E-01 j 8.8E-02

7.3E-01 j 8.8E-02

7.3E-02 j 8.8E-03

7.3E+00 • 8.8E-01

7.3E-01 ! 8.8E-02

1

1

1.5E+00 | 4.3E+001

j

1 1.2E+01

!

i

ii

N

N

I

I

N

P

P

P

P

P

I

I

SF,

(mg/kg-d)"

2.7E-02

6.0E-03

4.0E-01

2.1E-02

9.1E-02

l.SE-02

3.1E+00

3.1E-01

3.1E-01

3.1E-02

3.1E+00

3.1E-01

1.5E+01

4.2E+01

Carcinogenic Toxidtv Values

Weight of Evidence Classifications

A - Human Carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies

Bl - Probatle Human Carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence from animal studies and limited evidence from epidemiological studies

B2 - Probatle Human Carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence of animal studies, but Inadequate epidemiological data

C - Possible Human Carcinogen

D - Not Qaslflable as to Human Cartinogenidty

Source References

I - US EPA, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), December 2003

H - US EPA, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), 1997

N - US EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)P - US EPA Region 7 PAH Slope Factors memorandum, 1994

E - US EPA, Draft RAGS, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, 20011 - Oral-iD-Dermal Extrapolation for Soil Contact

2 - Oral-iD-Dermal Extrapolation for Water Contact

Not Available/Not Applicable

. Route-to-Rixjte extrapolation

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 4a.

Chronic Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Values for COCs

wUoU

Benzene

TolueneEthylbenzeneXylenes

, . . . . . .Tricnloroetnylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)

Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichldroethanecis-l,2-Dichloroethylene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

2,4-Dimethylphenol

PentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)£inthracene

Benzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthracene


ArsenicChromium (total)

Copper

LeadDioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ)

RfD0

mg/kg-d

4.0E-03

2.0E-01

l.OE-01

2.0E-01

6.0E-03

3.0E-04

l.OE-02

l.OE-02

2.8E-01

2.0E-02

3.0E-02

3.0E-04

1.5E+00

3.7E-02

si OAEc J unitiess

&£

I

I

I

I

N

I

N

N

I 1

I 1

I 1

I

H

Ref

eren

ce

El

El

El

RfDd RfC

mg/kg-d mg/m3

3.0E-02

4.0E-01

l.OE+00

l.OE-01

4.0E-02

6.0E-01

2.2E+00

2.0E-02

3.0E-02

3.0E-04

i

Ref

eren

ce

I

I

I

I

N

N

N

RfD,mgykg-d

8.6E-03

1.1E-01

2.9E-01

2.9E-02

..:;:;6:OEr03~. ",

1.1E-02

1.7E-01

6.3E-01

-"

Source References



N - US EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)

E - US EPA, Draft RAGS, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, 2001

1 - Oral-to-Dermal Extrapolation for Soil Contact

j Not Availabl'VNot Applicable

';;';:; Route-to-Route extrapolation

Table 4b.

Subchronic Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Values for COCs

Ethylbenze'ne

Trichloroethylene (provisional)

Trichloroethylene (draft)

Tetrachloroethylene1.1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroetnanecis-l -Dioiloroethylene1.1,1-TrichloroethaneVinyl Chloride2,4-DimethylpnenolPentachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fhjorantnene

Benzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene


Phenanthrene

Chromium (total)

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ)

Source References



N - US EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)

E - US EPA, Craft RAGS, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, 2001

1 - Oral-to- Dermal Extrapolation for Soil Contact

2 - Oral-to-Dermal Extrapolation for Water Contact

| Not Available; Not Applicable

'Route-to-Route extrapolation

Table 5.

Surface Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for Residential ExposureAva, Douglas County, Missouri

Chemical

BenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethanecis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene1,1,1-Trichloroethane2,4-DimethylphenolPentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrjneArsenicChromium (total)CopperLeadDioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ)

Cancer Endpoint

(lx!0'6TCR)

0.62

NC

NC

NC

3.40

0.05

0.48

0.27

NC

NC

NC2.97

0.06

0.62

0.62

6.20

0.06

0.62

0.39

217.61

NC

NC

NC

Non-Cancer Endpoint

(.1 THQ)6.23

125.43

375.3948.73

5.34

4.61

85.09

NC273.75

373.49

416.13

458.99NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

7.50

41062.50

1012.88NC

NC

C*»t 1 _ , „ ,| PRG (mg/kg)I

869 1 0.6

654J 125

395 | 375418; 49

! 3.41293,

1 0.05

235 | 0.5

1806' 0.31206' 274

1188| 373• 416

! 3| 0.06• 0.6! 0.6| 6.2; 0.06! 0.61 0.4j 218! 10131 340| 0.001

NC - Not calculated due to lack of toxicity information

Table 6.Surface Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for Commercial/Industrial Worker Exposure


ChemicalBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethanecis-l,2-Dichloroethylene1,1,1-Trichloroethane2,4-DimethylphenolPentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno( l,2,3-cd)pyr2neArsenicChromium (total)CopperLeadDioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDO TEQ)

Cancer Endpoint

(lxl(T*TCR)1.37

NC

NC

NC

7.46

0.11

1.31

0.59

NC

NC

NC

9.00

0.21

2.11

2.11

21.10

0.21

2.11

1.59

463.07

NC

NC

NC

Non-Cancer Endpoint

(.1 THQ)11.39

225.15

717.34

86.83

9.64

11.60

180.32

NC

1022.00

679.70

1231.33

1156.98

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

25.59

153300.00

3781.40

NC

NC

C«rt 'I PRG (mg/kg)1

8691 1.4654 j 225395 1 3954181 87

1 7'51293'

1 ^235| 1.31

18061 0.61206J 10221188, 680

1 1231

j »! 0.21 2

| *i 211 0.2

I 2

• 1.61 4*3| 3781j 945j .005 - .02


Table 7.Subsurface Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for Construction Worker Exposure


ChemicalBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethanecis-l,2-Dichloroethylene1,1,1-TrichloroethaneVinyl Chloride2,4-DimethylphenolPentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyr2neArsenicChromium (total)êadDioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDO TEQ)

Cancer Endpoint

(lxl<T*TCR)4.97

NC

NC

NC

27.19

0.41

5.75

2.14

NC

NC

3.19

NC

215.07

4.38

43.82

43.82

438.20

4.38

43.82

18.70

20.73

NC

NC

Non-Cancer Endpoint

(.1 THQ)3.28

74.84

108.14

12.42

1.39

2.34

29.77

NC

6452.02

987.13

2.10

992.62

1106.06

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

295.96

96780.30

NC

NC

^«*t ' ___ , ...| PRG (mg/kg)i

8691 3.3

654 j 75

395 i 108

41&I 12

1 I-4

1293'! °'4

235! 5.75

1806| 2.1

1206J 1206

1188, 987

11641 2.10

j 993

i 215

1 4.4

j 44, 44

1 438

| 4.4

j 44

! »

1 21J 485

j .005 - .02

NC - Not calculated due t» lack of toxicity information

Table 8.

Soil Migration to Groundwater Preliminary Remediation GoalsAva, Douglas County, Missouri

Chemical

Benzene

TolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethyleneTetrachloroethylenel,;'.-DichloroethanePentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a, h )anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyreneArsenicChromium (total)

Migration to Groundwater

Target Soil Leachate jConcentration • Soil PRG

(mg/L) 1

0.005 |

1 10.7 |10 |

0.005 j0.005 !0.005 10.001 1

0.0002 |0.0001 * j0.0001 * •0.001 * !

0.00001 * 10.0001 * |

0.01 j

o.i ;

(mg/kg)

0.002

0.60.7

110.003

0.003

0.001

0.001

0.4

0.08

0.25

2.5

0.08

0.7

0.3

2

*HBL = Water Health-Based Limit

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 9.Surface Water Preliminary Remediation Goals for Recreational Child Exposure


ChemicalBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroethylene1,1-Dichloroethane1,2-DichloroethanePentachlorophenol

Cancer Endpoint(lxlO'bTCR)

0.03

NC

NC

NC

0.16

0.004

0.002

NC0.04

0.0005

Non-Cancer Endpoint j PRG (mg/L)(.1 THQ) !

0.041 0.03

18.671 19

0.67- 0.7

1.271 1.3

0.09| 0.1

0.005! 0.004

0.08, 0.002

30.421 30NCi 0.04

0.02, 0.0005

MCL (mg/L)

0.005

10.7

10

0.005

0.005

0.0050.001


Table 10.Sediment Preliminary Remediation Goals for Recreational Child Exposure


ChemicalPentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyren<2Benzo(a)anthreiceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno( l,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peiylenePhenanthreneDioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD TEQ)

Cancer Endpoint(1 x 10 " TCR)

17.4

0.36

3.56

3.56

0.36

3.56

NC

NC

NC

Non-Cancer Endpoint ](.1 THQ) |

536.76J

NCj

PRG (mg/kg)

17

0.4

Nc[ 3-6NC|

NCj

NC!

NCl

NC|

NO

3.6

0.4

3.6

NC

NC

0.001


APPENDICES

Appendix A

Calculation Worksheets forSurface Soil PRGs

Appendix A

Residential Exposure Scenario

Appendix A

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Soil - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriResidential Exposure Scenario - Carcinogenic Worksheet at 10"6 TCR

EFx[ [SFoxCFsx R x ((IRSa x EDa / BWa) + (IRSc x EDc / BWc))] + [SFd

Carcinogenic PRG Formula:TCR x ATc

x ABS x CFs x ((SAa x AFa x EDa / BWa) + (SAc x AFc x EDc / BWc))] + [SFi x (1/VF or 1/PEF) x ((IRAa x EDa / BWa) i- (IRAc x EDc / BWc))]]

it/-...:-.1.1-

JRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/kg)TCR = Target Cancer Risk(unitless)BWa = Body Weight - Adult (kg)BWc = Body Weight - Child (kg)ATc = Averaging Time (days)SFo = Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-dayj^SFd = Dermal Slope Factor (mo,/ kg -day)"'

SFi = Inhalation Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"'EF = Exposure Frequency^days/year)EDa = Exposure Duration - Adult (years)EDc = Exposure Duration - Child (years)CFs = Conversion Factor for Soils (10* kg/mg)IRSa = Soil Ingestion Rate - Adult (mg/day)IRSc = Soil Ingestion Rate - Child (mg/day)R = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitiess)ABS = Absorption Fraction (unitiess)SAa = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact - Adult (cm2/day)SAc = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact - Child (cm?/day)AFa = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin - Adult (mg/cm2)AFc = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin - Child (mg/crrr)IRAa = Inhalation Rate - Adult (m'/day)IRAc = Inhalation Rate - Child (m3/day)

VF = Soil to Air Volatilization Factor (m /kg)PEF = Particulars Emission Factor for Soils (m3/kq)

Calculated0.000001

7015

25550

chemical-specificchemical-specificchemical-specific

350246

0.0000011002001

chemical-specific570028000.07

0.22010

chemical-specific1.36E+09

Calculated Intakes

General = TCR x ATc / EF 0.0001Ingestion = SFo x CFs x Ft x [(IRSa x EDa / BWa) + (IRSc x EDc / BWc)] 0.0001Dermal = SFd x ABS x CFs x [(SAa x AFa x EDa / BWa)+(SAc x AFc x EDc / BWc)] 0.0004Inhalation = SFi x (1/VF or 1/PEF) x [(IRAa x EDa / BWa) + (IRAc x EDc / BWc)] 11

PRG = General / SUM

Calculation of Carcinogenic Preliminary Remediation Goals

ChemicalBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trkhloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroetriy[ene1,2-Dkhteroethanecis-l,2-Dichk>roethylene1,1,1-Trichloroethane2,4-DimethylphenolPentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyreneArsenicChromium (total)Copper

General

0.0001

SFo5.5E-02

1.1E-024.0E-01S.4E-019.1E-02

1.2E-017.3E+007.3E-017.3E-017.3E-02

7.3E+007.3E-011.5E+00

Ingection6.29E-06

O.OOE+OOO.OOE+00O.OOE+001.26E-061.S7E-056.17E-05l.ME-05

O.OOE-t-00O.OOEtOOO.OOE+001.37E-058.34E-04

8.34E-058.34E-058.34E-068.34E-M8.34E-051.71E-04

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

SFd

1.2E-017.3E+007.3E-017.3E-017.3E-02

7.3E-1-007.3E-011.5E+00

ABS

0.10.25

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.03

DermalO.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+001.08E-053.42E-043.42E-053.42E-OS3.42E-063.42E-043.42E-051.62E-05

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

SFi2.7E-02

6.0E-034.0E-012.1E-029.1E-02

3.1E+003.1E-013.1E-013.1E-02

3.1E+003.1E-011.5E+014.2E+01

1/VF or 1/PEF3.74E-042.57E-041.89E-041.67E-04

3.13E-04

4.00E-042.61E-043.51E-044.61E-04

7.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-10

Inhalation1.11E-04

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+002.02E-051.36E-038.97E-052.58E-04

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+002.46E-082.46E-092.46E-092.46E-102.46E-062.46E-091.20E-073.35E-07

O.OOE+00

SUM : PRG1.17E-04! 0.62

O.OOE+OOIO.OOE+OO!O.OOE+00!_2.15E-05J 3.401.41E-03^ O.OS1.51E-04I 0.482.68E-04J 0.27

O.OOE+OO'O.OOE+OOIO.OOE+OO:2.45E-05! 2.971.18E-03J 0.061.18E-04; 0.621.18E-04I 0.621.18E-05! 6.201.18E-03! 0.061.18E-04|_ 0.621.88E-04! 0.393.35E-07! 217.61

O.OOE+OOi

Page 1 of 2

Appendix A

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Soil - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriResidential Exposure Scenario - Non-Carcinogenic Worksheet at .1 THQ

Non-Carcinogenic PRG Formula:THO x ATn

EF x [[(1/RfDo) x Cfs x Fl x ((IRSa x EDa / BWa) + (IRSc x EDc / BWc))] + [(1/RfDd) x ASS x Cfs x ((SAa x AFa x EDa / BWa) + (SAc x AFt x EDc / BWc))] + Kl/RrDi) x (1/VF or 1/PEF) x ((IRAa x EDa / BWa) + (IRAc x EDc / BWc))]]

PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/kg)FHQ = Target Hazard Quotient (unitless)BWa = Body Weight - Adult (kg)BWc = Body Weight - Child (kg)ATn = Averaging Time (days)RfDo = Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)RfDd = Dermal Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)RfDi = Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)EDa = Exposure Duration - Adult (years)EDc = Exposure Duration - Child (years)CFs = Conversion Factor for Soils (W~° kg/mg)IRSa = Soil Ingestion Rate - Adult (mg/dayjIRSc = Soil Ingestion Rate - Child (mg/dayjFI = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitless)ABS = Absorption Fraction (unitless)SAa = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact - Adult (cm 2/day)SAc = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact - Child (cm?/day)

AFa = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin - Adult (mg/crrr'LAft = Adherence Factor of Soil to Stan - Child (mg/cm2)IRAa = Inhalation Rate - Adult (m3/day)

IRAc = Inhalation Rate - Child (m'/day)VF = Soil to Air Volatilization Factor (mVkg)

PEF = Particulars Emission Factor for Soils (m3/kg)

Calculated0.17015

10950chemical-specificchemical-specificchemical-specific

350246

0.0000011002001


0.220

10


Calculated IntakesGeneral = THQ x ATn / EF 3Ingestion = (1/RfDo) x CFs x R x [(IRSa x EDa / BWa) + (IRSc x EDc / BWc)] 0.0001Dermal = (1/RfDd) x ABS x CFs x [(SAa x AFa x EDa / BWa)+(SAc x AFc x EDc / BWc)] 0.0004.Inhalation = ( VRfDi) x (i/VF or 1/PEF) x [(IRAa x EDa / BWa) + (IRAc x EDc / BWc)] 11PRG = General / SUM

Calculation of Noncarcinogenic Preliminary Remediation Goals

ChemicalBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethanecis-l,2-Dichloroethylene

1,1,1-Trichloro ethane2,4-Dimethylphenol

PentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

Arsenic

Chromium (total)Copper

General

3

RfDo4.0E-03

2.0E-01l.OE-012.0E-01

6.0E-033.0E-04l.OE-02

l.OE-02

2.8E-012.0E-023.0E-02

3.0E-041.5E+003.7E-02

Inaestion2.86E-025.71E-041.14E-03

5.71E-M1.90E-023.81E-011.14E-02

O.OOE+00

1.11E-024.08E-045.71E-03

3.81E-03O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+003.81E-017.62E-053.09E-03

RfDd

2.0E-02

3.0E-02

3.0E-04

ABS

0.1

0.25

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.130.13

0.03

DermalO.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00O.OOE+001.80E-03

3.01E-03O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+003.61E-02

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

RfDi8.6E-031.1E-01

2.9E-012.9E-026.0E-031.1E-021.7E-01

6.3E-01

1/VF or 1/PEF3.74E-042.57E-041.89E-041.67E-04

3.13E-04

4.00E-042.61E-043.51E-04

4.61E-047.36E-10

7.36E-107.36E-10

7.36E-107.36E-107.36E-10

7.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-10

Inhalation

4.73E-012.44E-027.19E-036.36E-025.67E-012.97E-01

2.53E-02O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

7.97E-03O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

SUM ! PRG

5.02E-01I S.232.49E-02J 12S.438.33E-03- 37S.396.42E-02I 48.73

5.86E-01J S.346.78E-01! 4.613.68E-02! 85.09

O.OOE+OQL1.14E-02! 273.758.38E-03: 373.497.52E-03I 416.13

6.82E-03J 4S8.99O.OOE+OO:O.OOE+OOJ

O.OOE+OOi

O.OOE+OO:O.OOE+OO!O.OOE+OOI

4.17E-01J 7.507.62E-05; 41062.50309E-03I 1012.88

Page 2 of 2

Appendix A

Commercial/Industrial Worker Exposure Scenario

Appendix A

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Soil - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriCommercial/Industrial Worker Exposure Scenario - Carcinogenic Worksheet for 10~e TCR

Carcinogenic PRG Formula:TCR x BW X ATc

EFx ED x ffSFo x CFs x IRS X FU + fSFd x CFs x ABS x SA x AF1 + fSFi x IRAxf l /VFor 1/PFFN1

VariablePRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/kg.FCR = Target Cancer Risk (unltless)BW = BODY Weight (kg)ATc = Averaging Time (days)SFo = Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-day) 'SFd = Dermal Slope Factor (mg/Kg-day)1

SFi = Inhalation Slope Factor (mg/kg-day) 'EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure Duration (years)CFs = Conversion Factor for Soils (106 kg/mg)IRS = Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day)FI = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitless)ABS = Absorption Fraction (unitless)SA = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (crrr'/day)AF = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin (mg/crtf*)IRA = Inhalation Rate (m'/day)VF = Soil to Air Volatilization Factor (m'/kg)PEF = Participate Emission Factor for Soils (rr?/Kq)

ValueCalculated0.000001

7025550

chemical- specific

chemical-specific

chemical-specific25025

0.0000011001

chemical-specific

3300

0.220

chemical-specific

1.36E+09

Calculated IntakesGeneral = TCR x BW x ATc 2EFD = EFxED 62SOIngestion = SFo x CFs x IRS x FI 0.0001Dermal = SFd x CFs x ABS x SA x AF 0.001Inhalation = SH x IRA x (1/VF or 1/PEF) 20PRG = General / SUM


ChemicalBenzene

Toluene

Ettiylbenzene

Xylenes

Trichloroethylene (provisional)


Tetrachloroethylene

1,2-Dfchloroethane

cis-l,2-Dlchloroethylene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane2,4-Dlmethylphenol

Pentachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)lluoranthene

Benzo(k.)fluoranthene

Dlbenz(a,h)anthracene


Arsenic

Chromium (total)

Copper

General

2

EFD

6250

SFo

5.5E-02

1.1E-02

4.0E-01

5.-4E-01

9.1E-02

1.2E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

7.3E-01J

7.3E-02

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

1.5E+00

Ingestion

5.50E-06

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

1.10E-06

4.00E-05

5.40E-05

9.10E-06

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

1.20E-05

7.30E-04

7.30E-05

7.30E-05

7.30E-06

7.30E-04

7.30E-05

1.50E-W

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

SFd

1.2E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

7.3E-01

7.3E-02

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

1.5E+00

ABS

0.1

0.25

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.03

Dermal

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

1.96E-05

6.26E-04

6.26E-05

6.26E-05

6.26E-06

6.26E-04

6.26E-05

2.97E-05

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

SFi

2.7E-02

6.0E-03

4.0E-01

2.1E-02

9.1E-02

3.1E+00

3.1E-01

3.1E-01

3.1E-02

3.1E+00

3.1E-01

1.5E+01

4.2E+01

1/VF or 1/PEF

3.74E-M

2.57E-04

1.89E-M

1.67E-04

3.13E-04

4.00E-04

2.61E-04

3.51E-04

4.61E-04

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

7.36E 10

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

7.36E-10

Inhalation

2.CME-04

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

3.73E-05

2.50E-03

1.65E-CM

4.75E-04

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

4.53E-08

4.53E-09

4.53E-09

4.53E-10

4.53E-08

4.53E-09

2.21E-07

6.1SE-07

O.OOE+00

SUM 1 PRG

2.10E-04J 137

O.OOE+00 j

O.OOE+OO:O.OOE+Oo!

3.84E-05! 7.44

2.54E-03I 0.11

2.19E-04J 1.31

4.84E-04J OJ9

O.OOE+OO:O.OOE+OO!O.OOE+00 !

3.18E-05I 9.00

1.36E-03J 0.21

1.36E-04J 2.11

1.36E-04I 2.11

1.36E-05! 21.10

1.36E-03' 0.21

1.36E-04I 2.11

1.60E-MJ 1.5»

6.18E-07! 443.07

O.OOE+OO:

Page 1 of 2

Appendix A

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Soil - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriCommercial/Industrial Worker Exposure Scenario - Non-Carcinogenic Worksheet for .1THQ

Non-Carcinogenic PRG Formula:THO x BW x ATn

EF x. ED x [((1/RfDo) x CFs x IRS x Fl) + ((1/RfDd) x CFs x ABS x SA x AF) + (C 1/RfDi) x IRA x (1P/F or 1/PEFW

/ariable>RG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/kq."HQ = Target Hazard Quobent (unlttess)JW= Body Weight (kg)ATn = Averaging Time (days)<fDo = Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day;(fCXJ = Dermal Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)(fDi = Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)IF = Exposure Frequency (days/year);D = Exposure Duration (years)CFs = Conversion Factor for Soils (10* kg/mg):RS = Soil Ingeshon Rate (mg/day)=1 = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitless)ABS = Absorption Fraction (unitless)SA = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (crrf/day)AF = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin (mg/cnf)IRA = Inhalation Rate (m3/day)VF = Soil to Air Volatilizabon Factor (rrf/kg)PEF = Particulars Emission Factor for Soils (nf/kg)

ValueCalculated

0.170

9125chemical-sped fiechemical- specificchemical-specific

25025

0.0000011001

chemical- specific33000.220

chemical- specific1.36E+09

Calculated IntakesGeneral = THQ x BW x ATn 63875EFD = EFxED 62SOIngestion = (l/RfDo)x CFsxIRSxFI 0.0001Dermal = (1/RfDd) x CFs x ABS x SA x AF 0.001Inhalation = (1/RfDi) x IRA x (1/VF or 1/PEF) 20PRG = General / SUM


ChemicalBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethanects-l,2-Dichloroethylene1,1,1-Trichloroethane2,4-DimethylphenolPentachbrophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrereArsenicChromium (total)Copper

General

63875

EFD

6Z50

RfDo

4.0E-032.0E-01l.OE-012.0E-016.0E-033.0E-04l.OE-02

l.OE-022.8E-012.0E-023.0E-02

3.0E-041.5E+003.7E-02

Inoestton

2.50E-025.00E-04l.OOE-035.00E-011.67E-023.33 E-01l.OOE-02

O.OOE+00l.OOE-023.57E-045.00E-033.33E-03

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+003.33E-016.67E-052.70E-03

RfDd

2.0E-023.0E-02

3.0E-04

ABS

0.10.250.130.130.130.130.130.130.03

Dermal

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+003.30E-035.50E-03

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+006.60E-02

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

RfDi

8.6E-031.1E-012.9E-012.9E-026.0E-031.1E-021.7E-01

6.3E-01

1/VF or 11 PEF3.74E-CM2.57E-041.89E-041.67E-CM

3.13E-04

4.00E-042.61E-013.51E-014.61E-0-17.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-107.36E-10

Inhalation

8.72E-011.49E-021.32E-021.17E-01

l.WE+005.«E-014.67E-02

O.OOE+00O.OOE+001.47E-02

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

SUM ! PRG

8.97E-01; 11.394.54E-02I 22S.1S1.42E-02J 717.341.18E-01; 89.83

1.06E+OOI 9.648.81E-01J 11.605.67E-02! 180.32

O.OOE+OO!l.OOE-02] 1022.00

1.50E-02! S79.708.30E-03J 1231.338.83E-03J 1156.98

O.OOE+00 ;O.OOE+00 1O.OOE+00 jO.OOE+OO ;O.OOE+00 1O.OOE+00 j3.99E-01; 25.596.67E05I 153300.002.70E-03! 3781.40

Page 2 of 2

Appendix A

IIIIIIIIIIIII

Calculation Worksheets for VF and PEF for theResidential and Commercial/Industrial Worker Exposure Scenarios

Appendix A

Calculation of Chemical-Specific Volatilization Factors for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Worker ExposuresVolatilization Factor~VF (m3/kg) = [(Q/Cyoi)*(3.14»DA*T)1/2 * 10 4 (m2/cm2)]/(2*Pb*Da)

Variable

VF = Soil to Air Volatilization Factor (m7kg)Q/Croi = Inverse of the Ratio of the Geometric Mean Air Concentration to the Volatilization Flux at the Center

of a Square Source (g/m2-s per kg/m3)DA = Apparent Diffusivity (cmz/s)

T = Exposure Interval (s)Pb = Dry Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3)

O, = Air-filled Soil Porosity (L /L ,) = n - Q,

n = Total Soil Porosity (L^L*,) = 1 - (Pt/Ps)

Ow = Water-filled Soil Porosity (L^to/L^)

P, = Soil Particle Density (g/cm3)

D, = Diffusivity in Air (cm2/s)

H' = Dimensionless Henry's Law Constant (unrtless)Dm = Diffusivity in Water (cm2/s)

K,, = Soil-Water Partition Coefficient (cm3/g)

KOC = Soil Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (cm3/g)fo,. = Fraction Organic Carbon in Soil (g/g)

Value

Calculated

68.18[[(O/^R'HXCU^'^DJl/n^/tfP^KdJ+O^CO^H')]

9.50E+081.5

0.28

0.43

0.15

2.65

chemical-specific

chemical-specificchemical-specific

chemical-specific (K f,,.)


Chemical HfKOC VF

Benzene 2.28E-01 8.80E-02I 9.80E-06! 5.89E+01! 3.53E-01! 2.15E-03- 2675Toluene 2J2E-01Ethylbenzene 3.23E-01 7.50E-02I 7.80E-06I 3.63E+02J 2.18E+OOi 5.52E-M; 5284Xylenes 3.01E-01 7.00E-02 7.80E-06; 4.07E+02' 2.44E+OOI 4.32E-04T 5972Trichloroethylene 4.22E-01 7.90E-02 9.10E-06J 1.66E+02J 9.96E-01J 1.51E-03' 3194

TetrachjoroettiY[ene_1^2:Dichloroethane

7.54E-014.01E-02

cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene 1.67E-01

7.201-02: _8-20E-06_i J..55JE+02J .SOEJJll 2.47J-03-L^Ôlj" _?.ÔE:06!_l:L7_4E_+qij_l.p4E-Ol! l-OSE-^7.36E-02! 1.13E-05J 3.55E+01J 2.13E-01J 1.90E-03

2499383J2847

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 7.05E-01 7.80E-02! 8.80E-06J 1.10E+02J 6.60E-01! 3.28E-03| 2168

Vinyl Chloride 1.11E+00 1.06E-01J 1.23E-05I 1.86E+01| 1.12E-01! 1.49E-02! 1018

S?i§^ »^ ^ ^ ^H^ :C* l'M&$'fati&lfr)Wt>i^(^W&*:"Zz^¥XxX>5-3!>;&Z':•W«x!ftA\l?KM^::-;;iîJSBiv?!1fl.':. '.f!f.:-aMV.fxV.t•.••.:•;:••

US EPA, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, 200;

Appendix A

Calculation of Participate Emission Factors for Residential and Commerical/Industrial Worker ExposuresPaniculate Emission Factor~PEF (m3/kg) = (Q/C^J"^!*) s/h)/(0.036*(l-V)*(Um/U,)3*F)

Variable

PEF = Particulate Emission Factor (mj/kg)Q/Cwind = Inverse of the Ratio of the Geometric Mean Air Concentration to the Emission Flux at the Center of

a Square Source (g/m2-s per kg/m3)

V = Fraction of Vegetative Cover (unitiess)

Um = Mean Annual Windspeed (m/s)

Ut = Equivalent Threshold Value of Windspeed at 7m (m/s)

F = Function Dependent on Um/U, (unitiess)

Value

1.36E+09

93.77

0.5

4.69

11.32

0.194US EPA, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, 200;

Appendix A

IEUBK Model Run for Lead PRGs for theResidential Exposure Scenario

Appendix A

KWin32 Model 1.0 build 255 - [Distribution Probability Percent]

t Output. View-Help

Prob. Distribution I9fl100

75

50

25

Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dlGeo Mean = 4.604GSD = 1.600% Above = 4.943

12 15 18 21

Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)

24 27 30 33 36

Age Range = 0 to 84 monthsTime Step = DailyRun Mode = Site Risk AssessmentComment = Soil Lead Level of 340 ug/g

LEAD tfODEL FOi-. V/LM:J;

Mode 1 V.=:' •-1 o n : 1.0 Eu i 1 d 233user Wa;T,e : MDHSSDate: 1/20/2004Sice Manve : CERCLI3 SicesOperable unic: Ava, Douglas Ccur.cy, MiRun Mode: Sice Sisk Assessment

f Soil/Dust DataScil Lead Level of 340 ug/g4 Run the ModelTimestep - Daily

The time step used in this model run.- 2 - Daily (once a day) .

* V + * * * i T_£ ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.Other Air Parameters:

Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor AirOutdoors Rate Absorption Pb Cone(hours) (m-3/day) (%) (ug Pb/m"3)

.5-1 1.000 2.000 32.000 0.1001-2 2.000 3.000 32.000 0.1002-3 3.000 5.000 32.000 0.1003-4 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.1004-5 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.1005-6 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.1006-7 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.100

****** Diet ******

Age Diet Intake(ug/day)

.5-1 5 .5301-2 5 . 7 8 02 - 3 6 . 4 9 03-4"" ' 6 . 2 4 04-5 6 .0105-6 6 . 3 4 06-7 7 .000

****** Drinking Water ******

Water Consumption:Age Water (L/day)

.5-1 0.2001-2 0.5002-3 0.5203-4 0.5304-5 0.5505-6 0.5806-7 . 0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ug Pb/L

****** soil & Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis UsedAverage multiple source concentration: 248.000 ug/g

'::: .L o n o i o u c dc- o r s o i 1 t'. ;.- dust convers ion . Lac• "::;:doot: .1 L'•jsfi •:» It^r1:-..

."•.<:; •--

. 3 ~~ 1.

"i - J

.1 ~ -J-i .;J -

J. - "

5-56 - /

* *• * * * * ale

Age A

.5-1 01-2 02-3 03-4 04-5 05-6 06-7 0

****** Mat

;:'::• or P. e Le '-i to inccc3 -. e indoor dust: ~o s-

5oil (ug Pb/g)

340 .000340.00 0340.000340.000340.000340.000340.000

ernate Intake ******

Iternate (ug Pb/day)

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

ernal Contribution:

Maternal Blood Concentration:

, ^ , _ , _ , , • _ ! . j»^.j»O--U.-i'-4--*--i>-l-'4--l--i-4--i--*-'4--*--i-***:*'**'**'*x

CALCULATED**********

Year

.5-11-22-33-44-55-66-7

Year

.5-11-22-33-44-55-66-7

3LOOD LEAD AND LEAD********************

Air(ug/dL)

0.0210.0340.0620.0570.0570.0930.093

Soil+Dust(ug/day)

6.61910.36910.52010.6318.1297.3397.012

r house:: Tic dusrC'ijrc«s? "o

House Dust ( U'

2 4 3 .0002 4 S.- 000243.00024S.OOO243.000243.000243.000

Infant Model ****

2.500 ug 'Pb/dL

UPTAKES :***********

Diet(ug/day)

2.430 '2.5572.9132.8432.813.2.9933.325

Total(ug/day)

9 .47913.84514 . 42314.55712.03911.57611.551

• •^•\'~\ 'i-'in'-^nt Tru. ion

7 ?b/gj

* *

Alternate(ug/day)

0.000' 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000

Blood(ug/dL)

5.15.75.45.14.33.73 .3

: _uu . •;.:TT

water(ug/day)

0.3590.8850.9330.9661.0301.0971.121

Appendix A

ALM Calculation Worksheet for Lead PRGs for theCommercial/Industrial Worker Exposure Scenario

Appendix A

Calculations of Lead Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriCommercial/Industrial Worker Exposure ScenarioU.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee

Version date 05/19/03

ExposureVariable

PbBfetal, 0.95

Rfetal/matemal

BKSF

GSDi

PbB0

IRs

IRS+D

ws

KSD

AFS,D

EFS,D

ATS,D

PRG

PRGEquation1

1*

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

2**

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Description of Exposure Variable

95* percentile PbB in fetus

Fetal/maternal PbB ratioBiokinetic Slope Factor

Geometric standard deviation PbB

Baseline PbB

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

Mass fraction of soil in dust

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

Preliminary Remediation Goal

Units

ug/dL

ug/dL perua/dav

ug/dL

g/day

g/day

days/yrdays/yrpom

Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioUsing EC

GSDi = Horn

10

0.90.4

2.18

1.53

0.05

--

0.12

250

365945

uation 1GSDi = Het

10

0.90.4

2.18

1.53

0.05

--

0.12

250

365945

Using EoGSDi = Horn

—

..

_ _

--

—

—

uation 2GSDi = Het

—

_ _

.._ _

_.

_ _

_ _

——

Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).

When IRS = IRS+D and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PRG.

* Equation 1, based on Eg. 4 in USEPA (1996).

PRG = ([PbB95fetal/(R*(GSDl1''*b)])-PbB0)*ATs,D

BKSF*(IRS+D*AFS,D*EFS;D)

** Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eg. 4 and Eg. A-19 in USEPA (1996).

II PRG = ([PbBfetal,o.95/(R*(GSD,1M5)])-PbB0)*ATs,DBKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS,D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])

Appendix B

Calculation Worksheets forSubsurface Soil PRGs

Appendix B

Construction Worker Exposure Scenario

Appendix B

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Soil - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriConstruction Worker Exposure Scenario - Carcinogenic Worksheet for 10 "6 TCR

Carcinogenic PRG Formula:TCR X BW X ATc

EF x ED x [(SFp x.C_Fs.x lRS_x Fl) + (SFd X CFs X ABS » SA x AF) + (SFi x IRA X (1/VF or 1/PEF))]

portable

PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mgAg)TCR = Target Cancer Risk (unidess)B'.V = Body Weight (kg)ATc = Averaging Time (days)SFo = Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-day) 'SFd = Dermal Slope Factor (mg/kg-dayjSFi = Inhalation Slope Factor (mg/kg-dayT1

:F = Exposure Frequency (days/year):D = Exposure Duration (years);Fs = Conversion Factor for Soils (10 kg/mg):RS = Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day):I = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitiess)ABS = Absorption Fraction (unitiess)SA = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm'Vday)AF = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin (mg/crrf )IRA = Inhalation Rate (mj/day)VF = Soil to Air Volatilization Factor (rrrVkg)

PEF = Paniculate Emission Factor for Soils (rrfVkg)


7025550


1201

0.0000013301

chemical-specific

33000.320

chemical -specific1.17E+06

Calculated IntakesGenera! = TCR x BW x ATc 2EFD = EFxED 120Ingestion = SFo x CFs x IRS x Fl 0.0003Dermal = SFd x CFs x ABS x SA x AF 0.001Inhalation = SFi x IRA x ( 1/VF or 1/PEF) 20PRG = General /SUM

Calculartion of Carcinogenic Preliminary Remediation Goals

Chemical

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Trichforoethylene (provisional)


fetrach loroethylene

1,2-0 ichloroethane

cis-l,2-Dich loroethylene

1, 1,1-Trichloro ethane

Vinyl Chloride

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Pentachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Etenzo(a)anthracene

Benzofbjfluoranthene



Indenc^l^^-cdjpyrene

Arsenic

Chromium (total)

General

2

EFD

120

SFo

5.5E-02

1.1E-02

4.0E-01

5.4E-01

9.1E-02

7.5E-01

1.2E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

7.3E-01

7.3E-02

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

1.5E+00

Ingeition

1.82E-05

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

3.63E-06

1.32E-M

1.78E-M

3.00E-05

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

2.18E-04

O.OOE+00

3.96E-05

2.tlE-03

2.41E-04

2.41E-04

2.41E-05

2.41E-03

2.41E-04

4.9SE-04

O.OOE + 00

SFd

1.2E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

7.3E-01

7.3E-02

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

1.5E+00

ABS

OJ

0.25

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.03

Dermal

O.OOE+00

O.OOE + 00

O.OOE + 00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE + 00

O.OOE + 00

2.97E-05

9.40E-04

9.40E-05

9.40E-05

9.10E-06

9.40E-04

9.40E-05

4.46E-05

O.OOE+00

SFi

2.7E-02

6.0E-03

1.0E-01

2.1E-02

9.1E-02

1.5E-02

3.1E+00

3.1E-01

3.1E-01

3.1E-02

3.1E+00

3.1E-01

1.5E+01

4.2E+01

1/VF or 1/PEF

5.46E-03

3.75E-03

2.77E-03

2.45E-03

4.S8E-03

5.85E-03

3.81E-03

5.13E-03

6.74E-03

1.44E-02

8.56E-07

8.56E-07

8.56E-07

8.S6E-07

8.56E-07

8.56E-07

8.56E-07

B.56E-07

8.S6E-07

B.56E-07

Inhalation

2.98E-03

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

5.45E-04

3.66E-02

2.41E-03

6.94E-03

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

4.42E-03

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

5.27E-05

5.27E-06

5.27E-06

5.27E-07

S.27E-05

5.27E-06

2.58E-04

7.19E-04

SUM : PRG3.00E-03I 4.97

O.OOE+OOJ

O.OOE+Ofl!

O.OOE+OO;5.48E-04! 27.19

3.67E-02I 0.41

2.59E-03J 5.75

6.97E-03J 2.14

O.OOE+OO;O.OOE+OO!4.67E-03! 3.19

O.OOE+OOI

6.93E-05J 215.07

3.40E-03! 4.38

3.40E-04; 43.82

3.40E-04J 43.82

3.40E-05I 438.20

3.40E-03J 4.38

3.40E-04! 43.82

7.97E-04; 18.70

7.19E-04.! 20.73

Page 1 of 2

Appendix B

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Soil - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriConstruction Worker Exposure Scenario - Non-Carcinogenic Worksheet for .1 THQ

Non-Carcinogenic PRG Formula:THQ x BW x ATn

EF x ED > [((1/RfDo) x CFs x IRS x FI) + ((1/RfDd) x CFs x ABS » SA x AF) + (11/RfDi) x IRA x (1/VF or 1/PEF))]

VariablePRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mo/kg)THQ = Targ« Hazard Quotient (unltfess)BW = Body Weight (kg)ATn = Averaging Time (days)RfDo = Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)RfDd = Dermal ReTerence Dose (mg/kg-day)RfDi = Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day):F = Exposure Frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure Duration (years)CFs = Conversion Factor for Soils (10th kg/mg)IRS = Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/dav)FI = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitjess)ABS = Absorption Fraction (unitiess)SA = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cmVday)AF = Adherence Factor of Sal to Skin (mg/crrf)IRA = Inhalation Rate (m'/day)VF = Soil to Air Volatilization Factor (rtvVkg)PEF = Paniculate Emission Factor for Soils (mVkg)

ValueCalculated

O.I70

365chemical-specificchemical -specificchemical-specific

1201

0.0000013301



Calculated IntakesGeneral = THQ x BW x ATn 2555EFO = EFxED 120Ingestion = (l/RfDo)x CFs x IRS x H 0.0003Dermal = (l/RfOd)x CFs x ABS x S A x A F 0.001Inhalation = (1/RfDi) x IRA x (1/VF or 1/PEF) 20PRG = General / SUM


ChemicalienzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesTrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroethylene (draft)Tetrachloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethaneds-l,2-Dichk>roethylene1,1, 1-Trichloro ethaneVinyl Chloride2,4-DimethylphenolPentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyreneArsenicChromium (total)

General

2555

EFD

120

RfDo3.0E-03

2.0E+00l.OE-012.0E-016.0E-033.0E-04l.OE-02

l.OE-012.8E+003.0E-032.0E-023.0E-02

5.0E-031.5E+00

Ingestion1.10E-011.65E-043.30E-031.65E-035.50E-02

1.10E+003.30E-02

O.OOE+003.30E-031.18E-041.10E-011.65E-021.10E-02

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+006.60E-022.20E-04

RfDd

2.0E-023.0E-02

5.0E-03

ABS

0.1

0.250.130.130.130.130.130.130.03

DermalO.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+004.95E-038.25E-03

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00S.94E-03

O.OOE+00

RfDi1.7E-022.6E-012.9E-012.9E-026.0E-031.1E-021.7E-01

6.3E+002.9E-02

1/VF or 1/PEF

5.46E-033.75E-032.77E-032.45E-03

1.58E-03

5.85E-033.81E-035.13E-036.74E-031.44E-028.56E-078.56E-078.56E-07S.56E-078.56E-078.56E-078.56E-078.S6E-076.56E-078.S6E-07

Inhalation6.371+002.84E-011.94E-01

1.71E+001.53E+018.01E+006.82E-01

O.OOE + 00O.OOE + 002.15E-02

l.OOE + 01O.OOE + 00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

SUM 1 PRG

6.48E+OOJ 3.M2.84E-Ol! 74.841.97E-01) 108.14

1.71E + 00! 12.421.53E+Ol! 1.399.11E+OOJ 2.347.15E-01I 29.77

O.OOE+00!3.30E-03] 6452.022.16E-02! 987.13

1.02E+Ol| 2.102.15E-02| 992.621.93E-02; 1106.06

O.OOE+OOlO.OOE+OOjO.OOE+OO'O.OOE + OOl

O.OOE+OOj

O.OOE+OO!7.19E-02| 295.962.20E-04! 96780.30

Page 2 of 2

Appendix B

Calculation Worksheets for VF and PEF for theConstruction Worker Exposure Scenario

Appendix B

Calculation of Chemical-Specific Volatilization Factors for Construction Worker ExposureVolatilization Factor~VF (m3/kg) = [((3.14*DA*T)1/I/(2*Pb*DA))*10 4(m2/cm2)*Q/C,.*(l/FD)]

Variable

VF = Soil to Air Volatilization Factor (mj/kg)^

DA = Apparent Diffusivity (cm2/s)

T = Total Time Over Which Construction Occurs (s)

Pb = Dry Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3)Q/CSJ = Inverse of the Ratio of the 1-h Geometric Mean Air Concentration to the Volatilization flux at the

Center of a Square Site (g/m2-s per kg/m3)

FD = Disperion Correction Factor (unitless)

Oa = Air-filled Soil Porosity (L /L ,) = n - O,,

n = Total Soil Porosity (L^L*,-,) = 1 - (PJP,)

Ow = Water-filled Soil Porosity (U,ater/Lst,ii)

Ps = Soil Particle Density (g/cm3)

D, = Diffusivity in Air (cm2/s)

H' = Dimensionless Henry's Law Constant (unitless)

Dw = Diffusivity in Water (cm2/s)

Kj = Soil-Water Partition Coefficient (cm3/g)

K.X = Soil Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (cm3/g)

fx = Fraction Organic Carbon in Soil (g/g)

Value

Calculated

[[(Oa1W3*D*H')+(Ov,

1("3*Dw)]/n2]/[(Pb*Kd)+0B+(0J,*H')]

3456000

1.5

14.31

0.185

0.28

0.43

0.15

2.65

chemical-specific

chemical-specific

chemical-specific

chemical-specific (K^*^)

chemical-specific

0.006

Chemical H' K.C VF

Benzene 2.28E-01 8.80E-02; 9.80E-06; 5.89E+01! 3.53E-01; 2.15E-03I 183Toluene 2.72E-01 8.70E-02 8.60E-06; 1.82E+02! 1.09E+00; 1.01E-03- 267Ethylbenzene 3.23E-01 7.50E-02 7.80E-06i 3.63E+02! 2.18E+00! 5.52E-04! 362Xyjenes_ 3.01E-01 7.00E-02 7.80E-06J 4.07E+02! 2.44E+00! 4.32E-04! 409

219Trichloroethylene 4.22E-01 7.90E-02 9.10E-06! 1.66E+02I 9.96E-01! 1.51E-03i

Tetrachloroethylene 7.54E-01 7.20E-02; 8.20E-06J 1.55E+02| 9.30E-01J 2.47E-03I 1711,2-Dichloroeth.ane 4.01E-02 1.04E-01; 9.90E-06J 1.74E+Ol! 1.04E-Ol| 1.05E-03; 262cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene1,1,1-JricnloroethaneVinyl Chloride

1.67E-01 7.36E-02! 1.13E-05; 3.55E+01J 2.13E-01J 1.90E-03I

7.05E-01'I-

1.11E+00

7.80^02! __8.80E-_06; 1.10E+021, 6.60E-qi|_3_.28_E-(Bt

1.06E-01! 1.23E-05 1.86E+01? 1.12E-01J 1.49E-02!

195

148

70

:r?.vg"!g?T;-Pvv•'•^^V-.'xxx^-- "x-fV^x- ±y^Be^6Xa)pyTenel^Ms>^^:f*^S^r/i\ '5tir ' ^^r.:i^^^>tJv:>v^>^>

g Soil Screening Levels tor SuperfunUS EPA, Suppl

Appendix B

Calculation of Participate Emission Factors for Construction Worker ExposureParticipate Emission Factor~PEF (m3/kg) = (Q/C,r)*(l/FD)*[(T*AR)/(556*(W/3)04*((365d/y - p)/365d/y)*VKT)]

Variable

PEF = Participate Emission Factor (mj/kg)Q/Cj, = Inverse of the Ratio of the 1-h Geometric Mean Air Concentration to the Emission Rux Along a

Straight Road Segment Bisecting a Square Site (g/m2-s per kg/m3)

FD = Dispersion Correction Factor (unitless)

T = Total Time Over Which Construction Occurs (s)

AH = Surface Area of Contaminated Road Segment (m2)

W = Mean Vehicle Weight (tons)

p = Number of Days with at Least 0.01 inches of Precipitation (d/y)

VKT = Sum of Fleet Vehicle Kilometers Traveled During the Exposure Duration (km)

Value

1.17E+06

23.02

0.185

3456000

274.213

8

110

175.5US EPA, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, 200/

Appendix B

ALM Calculation Worksheet for Lead PRGs for theConstruction Worker Exposure Scenario

Appendix B

Calculations of Lead Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriConstruction Worker Exposure ScenarioU.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee

Version date OS/19/03

ExposureVariablePbBfetai g 95

Rfetal/ maternal

BKSF

GSDi

PbB0

IRs

IRs+o

Ws

KSD

AFS,D

EFs,D

ATS,D

PRG

PRGEquation1

1*

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

2**

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Description of Exposure Variable

95th percentile PbB in fetus

Fetal/maternal PbB ratioBiokinetic Slope Factor

Geometric standard deviation PbB

Baseline PbB

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

Weighting factor; fraction of IRs+o ingested as outdoor soil

Mass fraction of soil in dust

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

Preliminary Remediation Goal

Units

ug/dL

ug/dL perua/dav

ug/dL

g/day

g/day

days/yrdays/yr

Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioUsinq Eq

GSDi = Horn

10

0.90.4

2.18

1.53

0.1

"

0.12

120

180DDtn II 485

uation 1GSDi = Net

10

0.90.4

2.18

1.53

0.1

—

_ _

0.12

120

180

Using EqGSDi = Horn

--

_ _

„

--

_ _

_ _

_ _

—

485 ||

uation 2GSDi = Het

—

_ _

..__

_ _

_ _

__

—--

1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).

When IRS = IRs+o and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PRG.

* Equation 1, based on Eq. 4 in USEPA (1996).

PRG = ([PbB95fetal/(R*(GSDi'-M3)])-PbB0)*ATs,D

BKSF*(IRS+D*AFS,D*EFS,D)

**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 4 and Eq. A-19 in USEPA (1996).

II PRG = ([PbBfetal,0.95/(R*(GSDl1M5)])-PbBo)*ATs,D

===^

BKSF*([(IRs+0)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSD*(IRs+D)*(l-Ws)*AFD*EFD])

Appendix C

Calculation Worksheets forChemical-Specific Soil Saturation Concentrations

Appendix C

Calculation of Chemical-Specific Soil Saturation ConcentrationsCsat(mg/kg) = (S/Pb) * [(Kd*Pb) + (Ow) + (H'*O.)]

Variable

Csat = Soil Saturation Concentration (mg/kg)

S = Solubility in Water (mg/\^,iKr)

Ph = Dry Soil Bulk Density (kg/L)

Kj = Soil-Water Partition Coefficient (L/kg)

KOC = Soil Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (L/kg)

fK = Fraction Organic Carbon Content of Soil (g/g)

0,, = Water-filled Soil Porosity (L /L ,)


Oa = Air-filled Soil Porosity (U,/L»ii) = " - Q»

n = Total Soil Porosity (LÛi) = 1 - (FVPS)

Ps = Soil Particle Density (kg/L)

Value

Calculated

chemical-specific

1.5

chemical-specific (Koc*foc)

chemical-specific

0.006

0.15

chemical-specific

0.28

0.43

2.65

Calculation of Csat

Chemical I Csat

Benzene 1.75E+03 5.89E+01 3.53E-01 2.28E-01I 869Toluene 5.26E+02 1.82E+02 1.09E+00 2.72E-011 654Ethylbenzene 1.69E+02 3.63E+02 2.18E+00 3.23E-01I 395Xylenes_ 1.61E+02 4.07E+02 2.44E+00 3.01E-01I

Trichloroethylene 1.10E+03 1.66E+02 9.96E-01 4.22E-6H

4181293

Tetrachloroethylene 2.00E+02 1.55E+02 9.30E-01 7.54E-01" 235

1,2-Dichloroethane 8.52E+03 1.74E+01 1.04E-01 4.01E-02! 1806

cis-l,Z-Dichloroethylene 3.50E+03 3.55E+01 2.13E-01 1.67E-01; _1206

11881,1, l;Trichloroethane 1.33E+03 1.10E+02 6.60E-01 7.05E-01"

Vinyl Chloride 2.76E-H03 1.86E+01 1.12E-01 1.11E+OOI 1164

tMMMZ

IgjgJJSJJggÛS EPA, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, 200;

Appendix D

Calculation Worksheets forSoil Migration to Ground water PRGs

Appendix D

Soil Migration to Groundwater Scenario

Appendix D

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Soil - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriSoil Screening Level Partitioning Equation for Migration to Groundwater

C.*[Ka+((0.+0.*H')/(Pj>»]

Variable

PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/kg)

Q, = Target Soil Leachate Concentration (mg/L)

K,, = Soil-Water Partition Coefficient (L/kg)

KOC = Soil Organic Carbon/Water Partition Coefficient (L/kg)

fx = Fraction Organic Carbon in Soil (g/g)

Ow = Water-filled Soil Porosity (L /Lj,,,,)

Oa = Air-filled Soil Porosity (L /L ,,) = n-0w

n = Soil Porosity (L^L*,,,) = 1-(P,,/PS)

Pb = Dry Soil Bulk Density (kg/L)

Ps = Soil Partide Density (kg/L)


Value

Calculated

chemical-specific (MCL, MCLG, or HBL*DAF)

chemical-specific (Organics=Koc*foc; Inorganics - Arsenic=29, Chromium=19)

chemical-specific

0.002

0.3

0.13

0.43

1.5

2.65

chemical-specific

Calculation of Soil Migration to Groundwater Preliminary Remediation Goals

Chemical

Benzene

Toluene

Ethyl benzene

Xylenes

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2-Dichloroethane

Pentachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene





Arsenic

Chromium (total)

Cw

5E-03

1E+00

7E-01

1E+01

5E-03

5E-03

5E-03

1E-03

2E-04

1E-04

1E-04

1E-03

IE-OS

1E-04

1E-02

1E-01

Koc

5.89E+01

1.82E+02

3.63E+02

4.07E+02

1.66E+02

1.55E+02

1.74E+01

5.92E+02

1.02E+06

3.98E+05

1.23E+06

1.23E+06

3.80E+06

3.47E+06

K,,

1.18E-01

3.54E-01

7.26E-01

8.14E-01

3.32E-01

3.10E-01

3.48E-02

1.18E+00

2.04E+03

7.96E+02

2.46E+03

2.46E+03

7.60E+03

6.94E+03

2.90E+01

1.90E+01

H1 I PRG

2.28E-01J 0.002

2.72E-01I 0.61

3.23E-Ol| 0.69

3.01E-01| 10.78

4.22E-01; 0.0031

7.54E-01- 0.003

4.01E-02I 0.001

1.00E-06J 0.001

4.63E-05I 0.42

1.37E-04! 0.08

4.55E-03J 0.25

3.40E-05J 2.55

6.03E-07- 0.08

6.56E-05I 0.72

O.OOE+OOJ 0.30

O.OOE+OOl 1.99

Page 1 of 2

Appendix D

Calculation of Chemical-Specific Target Soil Leachate Concentrations - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriTarget Soil Leachate Concentration"^ (mg/L) = MCL, MCLG, or HBL * DAF

Variable

0, = Target Soil Leachate Concentration (mg/L)Groundwater Target Concentration (mg/L)MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level,MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal,HBL = Health-Based Limit

Calculated

chemical-specific

DAF = Dilution Attenuation Factor (unitless) [l+((K*i*d)/(l*L))]

K = Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity (m/yr)

i = Hydraulic Gradient (m/m)

1 = Infiltration Rate (m/yr)

d = Mixing Zone Depth (m)

L = Source Length Parallel to Groundwater Flow (m)da = Aquifer Thickness (m)

site-specific

site-specific

site-specific[(0.0112*L2)°-5+da.(l-exp((-L*l)/(K*i*da)))]

site-specificsite-specific

site Measured or Derived values

1.04

1669

0.0042

31.78

8.53

53.342.89

ChemicalBenzene

Toluene

Ethyl benzene

Xylenes

TrichloroethyleneTetrachloroethylene1,2-DichloroethanePentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

ArsenicChromium (total)

Groundwater Target Concentration |O.OOSi

i!o.?i10!

o.oos!0.005J0.005.O.OOlj

0.0002;0.0001|o.oooi;0.001|

o.ooooi;o.oooil

o.oi;O.i!

c«0.0052

1.04

0.72

10.35

0.00520.00520.0052

0.001040.00021

0.0001040.0001040.00104

0.00001040.000104

0.01040.104

Page 2 of 2

Appendix E

Calculation Worksheets forSurface Water PRGs

Appendix E

Recreational Child Exposure Scenario

Appendix E

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Surface Water - Ava, Douglas County, Missouri

Recreational Exposure Scenario - Carcinogenic Worksheet for 10~e TCR

Carcinogenic PRG Formula:

TCR x BW x ATc

EF x ED x [(SFo x CR x ET) + (SFd x CFw x SAw x DCF)1

If Um S t*, then: DCF = 2FA • K,

I' tc.« > t*, then: DCF =

/ 6 i* t

•K, ' V ;

[ t + 2t H- 38 + 3B'KB £ ( 1 + B ) ' J

Variable>RG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/u)

TCR = Target Cancer Risk (unitless)iWc = Body Weight (kg)

ATc = Averaging Time (days)SFo = Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"1

SFd = Dermal Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)'1

ET(t) = Exposure Time (hours/day)EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure Duration (years)

CR = Water Contact Rate (L/hr)

CFw = Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water (1 L/1000 crrr1)

SAw = Skin Surface Area Available Cor Water Contact (cmVhour)Xf = Dermal Contact Factor (cm-hour/day)FA = Fraction Absorbed (unites)Kp = Dermal Permeability Coefficient of Compound in Water (cm/nr)L = Lag Time (hours)

B = Ratio of the Permeability Coefficient of a Compound through the Stratum CorneumRelative to its Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable Epidermis (unidess):• = Time to Reach Steady-State (hours)


1525550


4906

0.05

0.0013307

chemical-specific



Calculated IntakesGeneral = TCR x BW x ATc 0.4EFD = EF X ED 540Ingestton = SFo x CR x ET 0.2Dermal = SFd x CFw x SAw x DCF 3.3PRG = General/SUM


ChemicalBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzeneXylenesrrichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroettiylene (draft)retrachloroethylene1,1-Dlchloroettiane1,2-DlchtoroettianePentachlorophenol

General

0.4

EFD

540

SFo

S.5E-02

1.1E-02

4.0E-01

5.4E-01

9.1E-02

1.2E-01

Ingestion1.10E-02

O.OOE-fOO

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

2.20E-03

8.0UE-02

1.08E-01

O.OOE+00

1.S2E-02

2.40E-02

SFd

5.5E-02

1.1E-02

4.0E-01

S.4E-01

1.2E-01

Dermal 1

1.B2E-01

O.OOE+00

O.OOE-fOO

O.WE+00

3.64E-02

1.32E+00

1.79E+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

3.97E-01

FA

1

111

1

1

0.9

K,

0.015

0.031

0.049

0.053

0.012

0.033

0.39

B

0.10.10.20.2

0.1

0.2

2.5

L

0.29

0.35

0.42

0.42

0.58

0.91

3.33

t*

0.70.84

1.01

1.01

1.39

2.18

13.82

If t^« S f

DCF

4.47E-02

5.05E-02

1.74E-01

3.54E+00

IfU«>f

DCF

6.41E-02

S.89E-02

1.82E-01

5.60E+00

Final DCF

6.41E-02

5.89E-02

1.82E-01

3.54E+00

Dernull

1.17E-02

O.OOE+00

O.OOEtOO

O.OOE+00

2.ME-03

7.80E-02

3.25E-01

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

M1E-00

SUM 1 PRG

2.27E-02J 0.03

O.OOE+OO;O.OOE+OOJO.OOE+OO!1.ME-03J 0.16

1.58E-01. 0.004

4.33E01| 0.002

O.OOE+OOi

1.82E-02) 0.04

1.43E»00< 0.0005

Page 1 of 2

Appendix E

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Surface Water • Ava, Douglas County, MissouriRecreational Exposure Scenario - Non-Carcinogenic Worksheet for .1THQ

Non-Carclnooenic PRG Formula:

THO x BW x ATn

EF x ED x [((1/RfDo) x CR x ET) + ((1/RfDd) x CFw x SAw x DCF)]

IfU™. S t'.then: DCF = 2FA • K,

If t™, > t¥, then: DCF = FA • K, •

I 6ft

•K. ' V ~

+ ^L \ 1+ 3B + 3B-(1+B)2

'RG - Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/L)

THQ = Target Hazard Quotient (unilless)BWc = Body Weight jkg)ATn - Averaging Time (days)VDo = Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)RfDd - Dermal Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)ET (t) = Exposure Time (hours/day)£F = Exposure Frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure Duration (years)CR = Water Contact Rate (L/hr)CFw = Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water (1 L/1000 cm3)

SAw = Skin Surface Area Available for Water Contact (cm'/hour)DCF - Dermal Contact Factor (cm-hour/day)FA = Fraction Absorbed (unitless)p = Dermal Permeability Coefficient of Compound in Water (cnVhr)

= Lag Time per Event (hours)

B = Ratio of the Permeability Coefficient of a Compound through me Stratum CorneumRelative to its Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable Epidermis (unitless)t* = Time to Reach Steady-State (hours)

Value

0.115


90

0.05

3307chemical -specificchemical-specific

chemical-specific

chemical-specific

chemkal-spedficchemical-specific

Calculated IntakesGeneral = THQ x BW x ATnEFD = EF X EDIngestion = (1/RfDo) x CR x ET

Dermal = (1/RfDd) x CFw x SAw x DAeventPRG = SUM

32855400.23.3


Chemical

Benzene

Toluene

EthylbenzeneXylenes

Trichloroethylene (provisional)Trichloroettiylene (draft)

Tetrachtoroethylene

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-DlchloroethanePentachlorophenol

General EFD RfDo

3.0E-03

2.0E+00l.OE-01

2.0E-OI

6.0E-033.0E-04

1JIE-02l.OE+00

3.0E-02

Ingestlon6.67E+01l.OOE-01

2.00E+001,006+00

3.33E+01

6.67Et02

2.00E+01

2.00E^)1

O.OOE+006.67E+00

RfDd

3.0E-03

2.0E+00l.OE-012.0E-01

6.0E-033.0E-04

l.OE-02

3.0E-02

Dernull

1.10E+03

1.65E+003.31E+01

1.6SE+015.51E+02

1.10E+043.31E+02

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+001.10E+02

FA

1

1

1

1

\

0.9

Kp

0.0150.031O.M90.053

0.033

0.39

B

0.10.10.20.2

0.2

2.5

L

0.290.350.420.42

0.91

3.33

t*

0.70.841.011.01

2.18

13.82

Ift««Sf

DA ,

4.47E-02

1.01E-011.76E-01

1.90E-01

1.74E-01

3.54E+00

Ifl™«>f

DA™,

6.416-02

1.37E-01

2.12E-012.30E-01

1.82E-01

5.60E+00

Final DA, ,

6.41E-02

1.37E-01

2.12E-01

2.30E-01

1.82E-01

3.54E+00

Dermal 2

7.07Et01

2.26E-017.03E+00

3.80E+00

3.25E*01

6.50E»02

6.01E»01O.OOEtOO

O.OOE*003.90E+02

SUM : PRG

1.37E+02| 0.04

3.26E-01J 1».67

9.03E»00| 0.67I.SOE+OOl 1.27

6.58E»Oll 0.09

1.32E+03I 0.005

S.OlE+Oll 0.0»

2.00E-01- 30.42

O.OOE+OOJ3.9yE»02: 0.02

Page 2 ol 2

Appendix F

Calculation Worksheets forSediment PRGs

Appendix F

Recreational Child Exposure Scenario

Appendix F

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Sediment - Ava, Douglas County, Missouri,-6.Recreational Child Exposure Scenario - Carcinogenic Worksheet for 10 TCR

Carcinogenic PRG_ Formula:

EF x ED x [(SFo x CFs x IRS x Fl) + (SFd x CFs x ABS x SAs x AF)]

Variable Value

= Preliminary Remediation Goal (mg/kg)TCR = Target Cancer Risk (unltjess)BW'='Body Weight (kg)" "ATc = Averaging Time (days)

SFo = Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)'

SFd = Dermal Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)'EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)ED~= Exposure Duration (years)

CFs = Conversion Factor for Soils (10 kg/mg)IRS = Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day)FI = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unities)

= Absorption Fraction (unitless)

SAs = Skin Surface Area Available for Sediment Contact (cm'/day)

AF = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin (mg/cm )

Calculated_g.ogoooi_" " 'Ts

25550

chemical-specific

chemical-specific90~ ~

0.0000012001

chemical-specific

2800

0.2

Calculated Intakes

General = TCR x BW x ATc

EFD = EFxED

Ingestion = SFo x CFs x IRS x Fl

Dermal = SFd x CFs ABS x SAs x AF

PRG = General / SUM

0.4540

0.0002

0.001


Chemical

Pentachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene

8enzo(b)fluoranthene



Benzo^g, h, IJperylene

Phenanthrene

General EFD SFo

1.2E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

7.3E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

Ingestion

2.40E-05

1.46E-03

1.46E-04

1.46E-04

1.46E-03

1.46E-04

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

SFd

1.2E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

7.3E-01

7.3E+00

7.3E-01

ABS

0.25

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

Dermal

1.68E-05

5.31E-04

5.31E-05

5.31E-05

5.31E-04

5.31E-05

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

SUM i PRG

4.08E-05! 17.40

1.99E-03! 0.36

1.99E-04! 3.S6

1.99E-04| 3.56

1.99E-03I 036

1.99E-M! 3.56

o.ooE+ooiO.OOE+OOJ

Page 1 of 2

Appendix F

Preliminary Remediation Goals for Sediment - Ava, Douglas County, MissouriRecreational Child Exposure Scenario - Non-Carcinogenic Worksheet for .1 THQ

Non-Carcinoaenic PRG Formula:THO x BW x ATn

tHxtUxKU/KtUolxOsx IKSxHl + {(1/KlUd) X Lhs X MS xiiAsx AH))J

Variable

PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal (rug/kg)THQ = Target Hazard Quotient (unrtless)

- - - - - _ - . .ATn = Averaging Time (days)RfDo = Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)RfDd_=_ _ ÊF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure Duration (years)

CFs = Conversion Factor for Soils (10* kg/mq)

IRS = _SoiiIng_estion^ Rat^(mg/daxLFI = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitiess)ABS = Absorption Fraction (unitless)

SAs - Skin Surface Area Available for Sediment Contact (cm'/day)

AF = Adherence Factor of Soil to Skin (mg/cm')

Value

Calculated0.1

_2190"

chemical-specific_chemjcal-sp_ecific

90

0.000001200_

~ 1chemical-specific

2800

0.2

Calculated Intakes

General = THQ x BW x ATn

EFD = EF x EDIngestion = (1/RfDo) x CFs x IRS x FI

Dermal = (1/RfDd) x CFs x ABS x SAs x AF

PRG = General / SUM

3285

5400.0002

0.001


Chemical

Pentachlorophenol

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene




Benzo(g,h,l)perylenePhenanthrene

General

3285

EFD

540

RfDo

3.0E-02

Ingestion

6.67E-03

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O".OOE+OOO.OOE+00O.OOE+00

RfDd

3.0E-02

ABS

0.25

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

Dermal

4.67E-03

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00O.OOE+00

SUM ! PRG

1.13E-02I 536.76

O.OOE+OOJ

O.OOE+OOj

O.OOE+00:o.ooE+ooTO.OOE+OOI

O.OOE+OO:O.OOE+OO:

Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENTS

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII901 N. 5TH STREET

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

JUH 2 0 2002

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Preliminary Remediation GoalsSentinel Wood Treater SiteAva, Missouri

FROM: Judy Facey PhD lexicologistENSV/DISO

TO: Eric Nold, On-Scene CoordinatorEFLR

As you requested, I have developed Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for theSentinel Wood Treater site, located in Ava, Missouri. PRGs were calculated to addresscontamination from semi-volatile organic compounds, which include polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, metals and dioxin in soil. The corresponding PRGsequate to aa excess individual lifetime cancer risk of 1.0 x 10"° and are summarized in the tablebelow. All dioxin cleanup values was taken from the Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse Directive 9200.4 26 dated April 13, 1998. The supporting documentation for thePRGs is attached. If you have any questions, please let me know.

RECYCLED

Commercial/ Indus t r i a l and Residential PRGs i'or Surface Soil

Contaminants

Benzo(a) pyrene

Benzo(a) anthracene

Benzo(b) fluoranthene

Benzo(k) fluoranthene

Dibenzo(c.,h) anthracene

Indeno(l ,2,3-cd) pyrene

Pentachlo::opheriol

Benzene

Toluene (na)

Ethylbenzene (na)

Xylenes '[Na)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2 -Dichloroethane

Arsenic

Chromium (na)

Copper (na)

Lead

Dioxin

Commercial/ Indus t r ia l(nig/kg)

0.29

2.9

2.9

29

0.29

29

11

1.5

520

230

210

6.1

19

0.76

2.7

450

76,000

1000

0.005 - 0.02

Resident ia l(mg''kg)

0.062

0.62

0.62

6.2

0.062

0.62

3.0

0.65

520

230

210

2.8

5.7

0.35

0.39

210

2900

400

0.001

Attachments

Prel iminary Remediation Goalsfor Sentinel Wood Treating Site.

Ava, MissouriJune 12, 2002

1.0 Site Description and History'

The Sentinel Wood Treating Site is located at 412 NW 12lh Avenue in Douglas County,Ava, Missouri and is on property owned by Sentinel Industries Inc. The former wood treatingfacility encompasses approximately 14 acres and is located in a commercial manufacturing/agricultural setting with private residences south of the site. The former wood treating (southern)portion of the site currently has several retail shops and a parking lot. The remainder of the siteis comprised of open grounds and buildings from former wood treating operations. One buildingis currently occupied by a small business consisting of less than ten (10) employees.

Two intermittent unnamed creeks enter the site from the north and northwest,respectively. The creeks join on-site at a point southeast of the former Post Peeler building, andcontinue flowing to the south, exiting the site at its southern border. A portion of the intermittentcreek is covered by an asphalt lot at the south end of the site, but resurfaces on the south site ofNW 12* A.venue. The creek continues south through a residential area and a city park and entersthe upper portion of Prairie Creek.

2.0 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concert, (COPC)

The site is the location of a former wood treating facility which pressure treated woodwith pentachlorophenol (PCP), with diesel fuel used as a carrier. Pressure treating occurred from1959 to approximately 1978. Sludge from the pressure treating process was either burned in anon-site boiler and/ or deposited into three on-site lagoons. The lagoons were eventually closedin-place in 1978-1979, after pressure- treating operations ceased.

In 1975, on-site operations reportedly shifted toward the manufacturing of log homesusing wood treated off-site with copper, chromium, and arsenic (CCA). Information from 1980,indicates that Sentinel Industries began making outdoor furniture in addition to the log homes.Although CCA treatment occurred off-site, sawdust and scrap wood generated from on-siteoperations was burned in an on-site wood furnace, which was used to heat the furniture factorybuilding.

Previous environmental investigations conducted by the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and the property owner have documented the presence of PCP in thelagoon sludge, the shallow groundwater beneath the lagoons, and on-site soils. In addition,

d iox ins and furans (col lec t ively referred as d iox in ) . common i m p u r i t i e s in PCP. have beendetected ir. the lagoon and on-site soils.

The site investigations documented the presence of semi -vo la t i l e organic compounds,which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, vola t i le organic compounds, metals and dioxinin surface .soil. The soil sample results from the site investigation were compared to U.S. EPARegion IX industrial soil PRGs (U.S. EPA. 2000). Compounds were excluded for evaluation ifat least one sample did not exceed the Region LX industrial soil PRG or if a health-basedbenchmark is not available

3.0 Evaluat ion of Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenarios

This assessment is limited to the occupational areas of the Sentinel Wood Treatment site.Exposure scenario is consistent with commercial/ industrial use of the site. On-site workersexposed to contaminated surface soil represent the human receptors with the greatest potentialexposure in the contaminated area. Reasonable maximum exposure scenario was considered foron-site workers that account for incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of airborneparticulates generated from contaminated surface soil. The scenario assumes exposure to a 70 kgadult worker for 250 days per year over a period of 25 years.

4.0. Toxicity Information

All of the COFCs considered in this evaluation are classified as either known or probablehuman carcinogens. The cancer slope factors used in calculating the PRGs were obtained fromthe Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or the National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment. The cancer slope factors and weight-of-evidence determinations for the COPCs aresummarized in Table 1.

5.0 Calculation of PRGs

The PRGs were calculated for surface soils located on the Sentinel Wood Treating Sitearea using a formula from the Risk Assessment Guidance of Superfund, Volume I, Part B (EPA,1991b). The PRGs in this assessment primarily use default exposure parameters based onestablished U.S. EPA guidance and policies. The carcinogenic PRG formula, along with theexposure parameters and variable definitions, are presented below.

5.1 Dioxin

To date, EPA has selected one part per billion (1 ppb) as a cleanup level for dioxin inresidential soils at Superfund and Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites

where d i o x i n is a contaminant of concern. EPA has also, selected a c leanup level for dio.xinw i t h i n the range of 5 ppb to 20 ppb for commercial/ indus t r ia l soils at Superfund and RCRA siteswhere dioxin is a contaminant of concern.

Table 1. Summary of Carcinogenic Toxicitv Informat ion for COPCs

Chemicals

Benzo(a) pyrene

Benzo(a) anthracene

Benzo(b)iluoranthene


Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene

Indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene

Pentachloropheriol

Benzene

Toluene (in a)

Ethylbenzene (na)

Xylenes (total) (na)

Trichlorocthylerie

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2 -Dichloroethane

Arsenic

Chromium (total) (na)

Copper (na)

Lead

Carcinogcnicity

Oral Slope Factor(mg/kg/day"')

7.3E+00(n)'

7.3E-01(n)'

7.3E-01 (n) '

7.3E-02 (n) '

7.3E+00(n)'

7.3E-01 (n)1

1.2E-01 (n)1

5.5E-02 (i) 2

—

—

—

l.!E-02(n)'

5.2E-02 (n) '

9.1E-02(i)2

1.5E+00(i):

—

—

—

Inhal. Slope Factor(mg/kg/day"1)

3.1E+00(n) '

3.1E-01 (n) 1

3.1E-01 (n)1

3.1E-02(n)'

3.1E-H)0(n)'

3.1E-01 (n)1

—

2.7E-02(i)2

—

—

—

6.0E-03 (n) '

2.0E-03 (n) '

9.1E-02(i)2

1.5E+00(i)2

—

—

—

\Vciglit-of-EvidenceClassification

B2- probable human carcinogen



R2- probable human carcinogen




A- known human carcinogen

D-not classified as human car.










1 National Center for Environmental Health Assessment2 U.S. EPA. 2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)3 na ~ non-cancer

Carcinogenic PRG Formula for an Industrial/Commercial Scenario:

TR x BW, x AT.

Svmbol

TR

BW,

ATe

SF0

SF;

EF

ED

PEF

SA

ABS

AP

CF

1 = EF x ED x [(SF0 x ER.x CF) + (SF, x IR, x

Definition (units)

Target Risk

Body weight - adult (kg)

Averaging time - carcinogens (days)

Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"'

Inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1

Exposure frequency (days/yr)

Exposure duration (years)

Soil ingestion rate (mg/day)

Inhalation rate (mVday)

Particulate emission factor (mVkg)

Skin surface area (cm2)

Skin absorption factor (unitless)

Adherence Factor (mg/cm2)

Conversion factor

(l/PEF)) + ( S F 0 x S A x ABS

Parameter Value

l.OE-06

70

25550

See Table 1

See Table 1

250

25

50

20

1.32E+09

3300

Arsenic - 0.03PAHs-0.13

0.2

l.OE-06

x AF x CF)]

Reference

-

EPA, 19S9

EPA, 1989

-

-

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 1996

EPA, 2000b

EPA, 2000b

EPA, 2000b_

The target risk level used in calculating the PRGs for the on-site worker scenario equates to anexcess individual lifetime cancer risk of 1.0 x 10~6 and 1.0 x 10"5. The carcinogenic PRGs aresummarized in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Commercial/ Indus t r ia l PRGs for Surface Soil

Contaminants

Benzo(a) pyretic

Benzo(a) anthracene





Pentachlorophenol

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Trichloroethylei ••;

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2 -DichJ.oroethane

Arsenic

Chromiuri

Copper

Lead

Commercial/' Industrial (mg/kg)(1 x lO'*)

0.29

2.9

2.9

29

0.29

29

11

1.5

520

230

210

6.1

19

0.76

2.7

450

76,000

1000

Commercial/ Industrial (mg/kg)(1 x lO'5)

2.9

29

29

290

2.9

290

110

15

5,200

2,300

2,100

61

190

7.6

27

4,500

760,000

1000

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 3. Residential PRGs for Surface Soil

Contaminants

Benzo(a) pyrene

Benzo(a) anthracene





Pentachlorophenol

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachl o:>:oethy lene

1,2 -Dichloroethane

Arsenic

Chromiun.

Copper

Lead

Residential (mg/kg)(1 x It)'6)

0.062

0.62

0.62

6.2

0.062 .

0.62

3.0

0.65

520

230

210

2.8

5.7

0.35

0.39

210

2,900

400

Residential (mg'kg)(1 x 105)

0.62

6.2

6.2

62

0.62

6.2

30

6.5

5,200

2,300

2,100

28

57

3.5

3.9

2,100

29,000

400

6.0 References

U.S. EPA (1989). RJsk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEvaluation Manual - Part A. EPA/540/1 -89/002. Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse, Washington, B.C.

U.S. EPA. (199la). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEvaluation Manual - Part B. EPA/540/R-92/003, Publication 92S5.7-01B. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1991b). Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: StandardDefault Exposure Factors. OSWER Publication 9285.6-03. Office of Emergency andRemedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1996). Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA/540/R-96/028. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (2000a). Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) 2000.November 2000.

U.S. EPA. (2000b). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEvaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment),Interim Guidance. EPA/540/R-99/005. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (2001). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online athttp://www. epa.gov/iris. Office of Research and Development, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.




JUL 1 0 2002

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Preliminary Remediation Goals - 1 2lh Avenue Solvents SiteAva, Missouri

FROM: Judy Facey PhDToxicologistENSV/DISO

TO: Eric No IdOn-Scene CoordinatorSUPR/EFLR

As you requested, I have developed Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for the 12th

Avenue Solvents site, located in Ava, Missouri. PRGs were calculated to address contaminationfrom semi-volatile organic compounds, and volatile organic compounds in soil. Thecorresponding PRGs equate to an excess individual lifetime cancer risk of 1 .0 x 10 'and aresummarized in the table below. The supporting documentation for the PRGs is attached. If youhave any questions, please let me know.

Attachments

RECYCLED

Commercial/ I n d u s t r i a l and Residential PRGs for Surface Soil

Contaminants

1 ,1 ,1- Tnchloroethane

cis, 1, 2- Dichlorothylene

2,4- Dimiithylphenol

Benzene

Toluene (na)

Ethylbenzene (na)

Xylenes (Na)

Trichlorocthylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1 ,2 -Dichloroethane

Commercial/ Industrial(ing/kg)

1400

150

180,000

1.5

520 (CJ

230 (CSJ

210 (CSJ

6.1

19

0.76

Residential(mg/kg)

630

43

1200

0.65

520 (CSJ

230 (CSJ

210(C,J

2.8

5.7

0.35

Csat ~ Conoentradon of the contaminant is assumed to be 10% of the media (soil) and that is themaximum concentration of the contamination the media can hold, regardless of how muchcontaminant is added to the media.

Pre l iminary Remediat ion Goalsfor the 12'" Avenue Solvents Site,

Ava. MissouriJ u l v 10.2002

1.0 Site Description and History

Th; 12 l h Avenue Solvents site is located in the City of Ava, Douglas County, Missouri.The exact boundaries of the site have not been f u l l y determined. However, the site includes theCopeland manufacturing facility at 1400 NW Third Street, the Rawlings manufacturing plantlocated at 400 NW 12lh Avenue, a portion of the Douglas County Health Department property,and a portion of the former Sentinel Wood Treater plant.

Th-3 facility at 1400 NW Third Street was formerly operated by Emerson ElectricCompany, Specialty Motors Division and is currently occupied by the Copeland Corporation, awholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Company. The property consists of 231,205square feel: of manufacturing and office space, warehouse/dock areas, and support locationssituated on. approximately 16 acres.

The 12th Avenue Solvents site is bordered to the north by agricultural land; to the east byNW Third Street, parking lots, and residences; to the south by the Douglas County Department ofHealth property and residential properties; and to the west by the former Sentinel Wood TreaterSite.

2.0 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC)

Before 1968, the property was reportedly residential. From 1968 to approximately 1973Spaulding Sporting Goods manufactured sports equipment at the facility. In 1973 EmersonElectric Company began leasing the facility and first occupied the property from June throughDecember. In December 1973, Emerson Electric Company closed the plant for approximatelyone (I) year, and then operated the plant again form 1975 until the fall of 1996. During thesetimes, Emerson Eilectric Company manufactured and assembled electric motors at the facility.Copeland moved into the facility in January 1997. Copeland currently leases the property fromthe City of Ava.

The Copeland Corporation machines cast iron parts for the manufacturing of scrollcompressors. The primary raw materials used at the Copeland facility include iron castings,semi-synthetic coolant, caustic cleaners, acid coatings, and rust inhibitors. Liquid raw materialsand hazardous wastes are stored in a bermed building on the west side of the facility. Agenerator with as associated 170- gallon #2 fuel oil aboveground storage tank, propane cylinders,and a covered trash compactor are stored on the west side of the facility.

The site invest igat ions documented the presence of s e m i - v o l a t i l e organic compounds,v o l a t i l e organic compounds, and metals in surface soi l . The soi l sample resul ts from the siteinves t iga t ion were compared to U.S. EPA Region L\ indus t r ia l soi l PRGs (U.S . EPA. 2000).Compounds were excluded for eva lua t ion if at least one sample did not exceed the Region L\indus t r i a l soil PRG or if a health-based benchmark is not ava i l ab l e

3.0 Eva lua t i on of Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenarios

This assessment is l imited to the occupational and residential areas of the 12'h AvenueSolvents site. Exposure scenarios are consistent with commercial/industrial and residential useof the site and areas surrounding the site. On-site workers and residences exposed tocontaminated surface soil represent the human receptors with the greatest potential exposure inthe contaminated area. Reasonable maximum exposure scenarios were considered for on-siteworkers and residences that account for incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation ofairborne particulates generated from contaminated surface soil. The scenario assumes exposureto a 70 kg adult worker for 250 days per year over a period of 25 years. It also assumes exposureto a child and adult 15 kg and 70 kg, respectively for 350 days per year over a period of 30 years.


All of the COPCs considered in this evaluation are classified as either known or probablehuman carcinogens. The cancer slope factors used in calculating the PRGs were obtained fromthe Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or the National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment. The cancer slope factors and weight-of-evidence determinations for the COPCs aresummarized in Table 1.


The PRGs were calculated for surface soils located on the 12th Avenue Solvents Site areausing a formula from the Risk Assessment Guidance of Superfimd, Volume I, Part B (EPA,19915). The PRGs in this assessment primarily use default exposure parameters based onestablished U.S. EPA guidance and policies. The carcinogenic PRG formula, along with theexposure parameters and variable definitions, are presented below.

5.1 Soil Saturation Limit (Csat)

The soil saturation concentration "Csat" is the contaminant concentration at which soilpore air and pore water are saturated with the chemical and absorptive limits of the soil particleshave been reached. Above this concentration, the contaminant may be present in free phase.

Cj.., values represent chemical- physical limits in soil and is not risk based. However,since they represent the concentration at which soil pore air is saturated with a contaminant,volatile emissions reached their maximum at C^ . In other words, at Csa[ the emission flux from

soil to air tor a chemical reaches a plateau. V o l a t i l e emissions w i l l not increase above this levelno matter how much more chemical is added to the so i l . Chemicals w i t h v o l a t i l i z a t i o n factor-based (VF) soil screening levels above CW[ are not l i k e l y to present a s ignif icant v o l a t i l einha la t ion risk at any soil concentration.

Table 1. Summary of Carcinogenic Toxicitv Information for COPCs

Chemicals

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

cis 1, 2- Dichloroethylene

2,4 - Dimethylphenol

Benzene

Toluene (iaa)

Ethylbenzene (na)


Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2 -Dichloroethane

Carcinogenicity

Oral Slope Factor(mg/kg/day"1)

—

—

—

5.5E-02 (i) *

—

—

—

l.!E-02(n)1

5.2E-02 (n) '

9.1E-02(i)2

Inha l . Slope Factor(mg/kg/day1)

—

—

—

2.7E-02(i) :

—

—

—

6.0E-03(n)'

2.0E-03 (n) '

9.1E-02(i)2

\Veight-of-EvidenceClassification



E- evidence of noncar for human








1 National Center for Environmental Health Assessment2 U.S. EPA. 2002 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)3 na ~ non-cancer

Carcinogenic PRG Formula for an Indus t r ia l /Commerc ia l and Resident ia l Scenarios:

TRx B W . x AT.

AF

CF

i = EF x ED x [(SF0 .x [R,x CF) +• (SF t x IR, x •

Defini t ion (un i t s )

Target Risk

Body weight - adult /child(kg)

Averaging time - carcinogens (days)

Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1

Inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1


Exposure duration (years)

Soil ingestion rate (mg/day)


ârticulate emission factor (mVkg)

Skin surface area (cm2)


Adherence Factor (mg/cnr)

Conversion factor

(T /PEF))4- (SF , 1 xSAx. \BS

Parameter Value

l.OE-06

70/15

25550

See Table 1

See Table 1

250/350

25/30

50/100/200

20/10

1.32E+09

3300/5700/2800

Arsenic - 0.03PAHs-0.13

0.2

l.OE-06

x AF.xCF)]

Reference

-

EPA, 1989

EPA, 1989

-

-

EPA, 199lb

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 1991b

EPA. 1996

EPA, 2000b

EPA, 2000b

EPA, 2000b

.

The target tisk level used in calculating the PRGs for the on-site worker scenario equates to anexcess individual lifetime cancer risk of 1.0 x 10"6 and 1.0 x 10'5. The carcinogenic PRGs aresummarized in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Commercial/ Indust r ia l PRGs for Surface Soil

Contaminants

1.1,1- Tnchloroethane

cisl , 2- Cichloroethylene

2,4- Dimethylphenol

Benzene

Toluene (na)

Ethylbenzene (na)

Xylen.es (Na)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2 -Dichloroethane

Commercial/ Industr ia l (mg/kg)(1 X 10-°)

1400

150

1 80,000

1.5

520 (Csat)

230 (CB1)

210(CSJ

6.1

19

0.76

Commercial/ Industr ia l (mg/kg)(1 X 10-5)

14,000

1500

1800,000

15

520 (CSJ

230 (CSJ

210(CSJ

61

190

7.6

Csat ~ Concentration of the contaminant is assumed to be 10% of the media (soil) and that is themaximum concentration of the contamination the media can iiold, regardless of how muchcontaminant is added to the media.

Table 3. Residential PRGs for Surface Soil

Contaminan t s

1 .1 ,1- Tnchloroethane

c is l . 2- Dichloroethylene

2,4- Dimethylphenol

Benzene

Toluene (na)

Ethylberu:ene (na)

Xylenes (Na)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2 -Dichioroethane

Resident ial (mg'kg)(1 X 10'*)

630

43

1200

0.65

520 (CSJ

230 (CJ

210(CSJ

2.8

5.7

0.35

Residential (mg/kg)(1 X 10'5)

6,300

430

12,000

6.5

520 (CSJ

230 (CJ

210 (CSJ

28

57

3.5

Csat ~ Concentration of the contaminant is assumed to be 10% of the media (soil) and that is themaximum concentration of thvr contamination the media can hold, regardless of how muchcontaminant is added to the media.

6.0 References

U.S. EPA (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human HealthEvalua t ion Manual - Pan A. EPA/540/1 -89/002. Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse, Washington. D.C.

U.S. EPA. (199la) . Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEvaluation Manual - Part B. EPA/540/R-92/003, Publ icat ion 9285.7-0IB. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1991b). Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: StandardDefault Exposure Factors. OSWER Publication 9285.6-03. Office of Emergency andRemedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1996). Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA/540/R-96/028. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.



U.S. EPA. (2002). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online athttp://www.epa. gov/iris. Office of Research and Development, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.

Environmental Strategies Corporation (May, 2001). Phase I and n Site Investigations , 12th

Avenue Solvents Site, Ava, Missouri.

Tera Tech EM Inc., (April, 2001). Site Screening Assessment for 12th Avenue Solvents ReleaseSite, Ava, Missouri.

i- "-»« n " I*

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Subsurface Soil Preliminary Remediation GoalsSentinel Wood Treating Site, 12lh Avenue Solvents Site, and CommunityLaundromat Site - Ava. Missouri

FROM: Jeremy JohnsonENSV/DISO

TO: Eric NoldOn-Scene CoordinatorSUPR/EFLR

As you requested, I have developed Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for theSentinel Wood Treating Site, 12th Avenue Solvents Site, and Community Laundromat Site,located in A.va, Missouri. PRGs were calculated to address contamination from semi-volatileorganic.compounds, which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organiccompounds, metals and dioxin in subsurface soil. The construction worker scenario wasevaluated fcr a worker who spends 120 days/year engaged in high contact soil intensive activitiesin the contaminated subsurface soil. The corresponding PRGs equate to an excess individuallifetime cancer risk of 1.0 x 10"6 or a hazard quotient of 0.1, whichever is lower, and aresummarized in the table below. All dioxin clean-up values were taken from the Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response Directive 9200.4-26, dated April 13, 1998. Please note theseare considered preliminary clean-up goals which are subject to change and are not finalremediation levels. If you have any questions, please let me know.

WorkersPRGs.wpd:dmathis:4/l 8/03

ENSV/DISOBeringer

ENSV/DISOCother

Const ruc t ion Worker PRGs for Subsur face Soils

Contaminants

Benzo(aianthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)f.uoranLhene

Benzo(k)fiuoranthene

Dibenz(a.h)anthracene

Indeno( 1 ,2..3,cd)pyrene

Pentachlorophenol

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2-Dichloroethane

cis- 1 .2-Dichloroethylene


Vinyl Chloride

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Arsenic

Chromium (total)

Lead

Dioxin

Construct ion Worker Exposure ( m g / k g j

49

4.9

49

490

4.9

49

250

3.5

79

110

412 (sat)

0.43

13

2.3

1206 (sat)

970

2.2

1300

23

45

485

0.005 - 0.020

sat: soil saturation limit: See section 5.2 of the attachment

Attachments

At tachmen t 1Pre l iminary Remedia t ion Goals

for Sentinel Wood Treating Site. 12"' Avenue Solvents Site andC o m m u n i t y L a u n d r o m a t Site

Ava, Missour iApr i l 14.2003


The Sentinel Wood Treating Site is located at 412 NW 12"1 Avenue in Douglas County.Ava, Missouri, and is on property owned by Sentinel Industries Inc. The former wood treatingfacility encompasses approximately 14 acres and is located in a commercial manufacturing/agricultural setting with private residences south of the site. The former wood treating (southern)portion of the site currently has several retail shops and a parking lot. The remainder of the siteconsists of open grounds and buildings from former wood treating operations. One building iscurrently occupied by a small business consisting of less than ten (10) employees.

The 12Ih Avenue Solvents Site includes the Copeland manufacturing facility at 1400 NAVThird Street, the Rawlings manufacturing plant located at 400 NW 12lh Avenue, a portion of theDouglas County Health Department property, and a portion of the former Sentinel WoodTreating plant. The site is bordered to the north by agricultural land; to the east by NW ThirdStreet, parking lots, and residential properties; and to the west by the former Sentinel WoodTreating Site.

The Community Laundromat Site is located at 306 NW 12th Avenue. The site is an activecoin-operated public laundry facility that formerly included on-site dry cleaning operations thatutilized tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The site is bordered by commercial properties, and theformer Rawlings facility and Copeland facility.


Previous environmental investigations conducted by the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), potential responsible parties (PRPs), and the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) have documented the presence of groundwater, soil, and surfacewater contamination at each of the sites. Contaminants detected at the Sentinel Wood TreatingSite include pentachlorophenol (PCP), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleumhydrocarbons, and metals, including arsenic. In addition, dioxins and furans (collectivelyreferred to as dioxin), common impurities in PCP, have been detected in the lagoon and on-sitesoils. Contaminants detected at the 12th Avenue Solvents site include benzene, toluene,ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), lead, 2,4-dimethylphenol, and chlorinated VOCs. Finally,the Community Laundromat site contaminants include chlorinated VOCs, such astetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE). For purposes of this document allchemicals listed in the Sentinel Wood Treating Consent Agreement, dated October 2001, and the12th Avenue Solvents Administrative Order on Consent, dated September 2001, have beenretained as COPCs. Also, chemicals identified in the Removal Assessment Report for the

C o m m u n i t y Laundromat Si te , dated A p r i l 2U03. were re ta ined as COPCs. These COPCs i n c l u d ePCE. TCE, c is-1 .2-Dichloroethcne, and V i n y l Chlor ide .

3.0 E v a l u a t i o n of Reasonable M a x i m u m Exposure Scenario

On-site construct ion workers exposed to con tamina ted subsurface soi l represent thehuman receptors wi th the greatest potent ia l exposure in the contaminated area. For the puqDosesof th i s document, subsurface soils are soils 0 to 10 feet below ground surface. Based on bestprofessional judgement construction workers are not l i k e l y to come into contact with soils belowa depth of 10 feet. Please note that the iVfigration to Groundwater PRGs developed for the Avasites, dated February 2003, apply to surface soils, subsurface soils and soils greater than 10 feetbelow ground surface.

A reasonable maximum exposure scenario was considered for on-site constructionworkers that accounts for incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of airborneparticulates and volatiles generated from contaminated subsurface soil. The exposure scenario isconsistent v/ith construction workers who may be engaged in high contact soil intensiveactivities. The scenario assumes exposure to a 70 kg adult worker for 120 days per year over aperiod of 1 year.

4.0 Toxicity Information

All but six of the COPCs considered in this evaluation are classified as either known orprobable human carcinogens. Cancer slope factors and unit risk factors used in calculating thePRGs were obtained from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS. 2002b) and the NationalCenter for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). Values obtained from NCEA. are consideredprovisional values. Since the exposure duration is less than seven years, EPA recommends theuse of subchronic reference doses and reference concentrations. Subchronic toxicity values wereobtained from the Superfrind Technical Support Center (STSC) (See Attaclunent 2). Ifsubchronic values were not available, chronic values, were used (See Attachment 2). Thesevalues were obtained from IRIS and NCEA. The cancer slope factors, reference doses, referenceconcentrations and weight-of-evidence determinations for the COPCs are summarized in Table 1.

4.1 Chromium

Chromium. VI and Chromium ITJ are assumed to be present in a 1:6 ratio (EPA, 2002a).Chromium VI is considered a known human carcinogen, while adequate data are not available toevaluate the potential carcinogenicity of Chromium in in humans. The cancer slope factorprovided in the table below has been adjusted for inhalation and body weight from the ChromiumVI unit risk factor of 1.2E-01 (ug/m3)"' that is available on ERIS (EPA, 2002b). The ChromiumIII noncancer toxicity value was used to calculate the total chromium noncancer PRG (SeeAttachment 2).

4.2 TCE

TCI: has 3. range of cancer slope factors to account for r i sk factors that may modify theeffects of TCE in d i f fe rent popu la t ions . The draf t t o x i c i t y assessment for TCE indicates that i tposes a higher risk to suscept ible p o p u l a t i o n s , such as i n f a n t s and young c h i l d r e n , people w i t hchronic disease, and people with higher background exposure, than previously considered( U S E P A . 2001). For purposes of t h i s document, the o r ig ina l p rov is iona l va lue ( U S E P A , 1 9 S 7 )and the values from the draft t o x i c i t y assessment (USEPA, 2001) were used for TCE.


The PRGs were calculated for subsurface soils located in the Sentinel Wood TreatingSite, 12m Avenue Solvents Site, and Community Laundromat Site areas using a formula from theRisk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Part B (EPA, 1991). The PRGs in thisassessment primarily use default exposure parameters based on established U.S. EPA guidanceand policies. The carcinogenic PRG and noncarcinogenic formulas, along with the exposureparameters and variable definit ions, are presented below.

5.1. Dioxin

To date, EPA has selected one part per bi l l ion (1 ppb) as a clean-up level for dioxin inresidential soils at Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites wheredioxin is a contaminant of concern. EPA has also selected a clean-up level for dioxin within therange of 5 ppb to 20 ppb for commercial/industrial soils at Superfund and RCRA sites wheredioxin is a contaminant of concern (USEPA, 1998).

5.2 Soil Saturation Limit (CSJ

The soil saturation concentration "Csat" is the contaminant concentration at which soilpore air and pore water are saturated with the chemical and absorptive limits of the soil particleshave been reached. Above this concentration, the contaminant may be present in free phase.Cjj,, values represent chemical-physical limits in soil and are not risk-based. However, since theyrepresent the concentration at which soil pore air is saturated with a contaminant, volatileemissions reached their maximum Csal. In other words, at Csal the emission flux from soil to airfor a chemical reaches a plateau. Volatile emissions will not increase above this level no matterhow much more chemical is added to the soil. Volatile chemicals with soil screening levelsabove Csa! are not likely to present a significant volatile inhalation risk at any soil concentration.

5.3 Lead

The EPA's Adult Lead Model (ALM) was used to develop the subsurface soil lead PRG.The ALM is: designed to estimate fetal blood lead concentrations in women exposed to leadcontaminated soils. The PRG for lead represents a concentration in soil in which there is a 95%likelihood that a fetus would have a blood lead concentration no greater than 10 ug/dL (USEPA,

1996). The AL.V1 uses specific i n p u t parameters i n c l u d i n g soil ingest ion raie. exposurefrequency and dura t ion , averaging t ime. Soi l Lead Absorpt ion Factor ( A F s ) . B i o k i n c i i c SlopeFactor (8KSF). Fetal/Maternal Blood Lead Concentration Ratio (R.,.,^:m,lL.r,..;,|), Baseline BloodLead Concentrat ion (PbB l j L , . ( )) . and the I n d i v i d u a l Blood Lead Geometric Standard Devia t ion(GSD, ) . The ALM uses a central tendency soi l ingest ion rate of 1 00 mg/day for a contactin tens ive scenario ( i .e . , construction work). A BKSF of 0.4 ug/dL per ugAJay is used to re la tethe blood lead concentration to lead uptake. An AFs of 0 .12 is used to represent the fraction oflead absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. The values used for the PbB a d u U O and GSDi '.vereobtained from Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S. Adul t Females: Summary Stat is t ics fromPhases 1 and 2 of the National Health and Nut r i t i on Evaluation Survey (NTHANES III), datedMarch 2002. For the purposes of th is project a PbB a d u l ,0 of 1.53 ug/dL and GSD: of 2. IS ug/dLwere used (USEPA. 2002c). These values are the estimated geometric mean and geometricstandard deviation of blood lead concentrations in women of all races in the midwest region ofthe U.S. between the ages of 17 and 45.

Table 1. Summary of Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Toxicirv Informat ion for COPCs

Chemicals

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene


Bcnzo(k)fluorantbene

Diben2(a,h (anthracene

Indeno( 1 ,2.3 ,cd)pyrene

PentachJorophenol

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Carcinogeniciry

Oral SlopeFactor

(mg/kg-day)'1

7.3E-01 (n)

7.3E+00(n)

7.3E-01 (n)

7.3E-02 (n)

7JE+00(n)

7.3E-01 (n)

1.2E-01 (n)

5.5E-02(i)

-

-

-

Inhal. SlopeFactor

(mg/kg-day'')

3.1E+00(n)

3.1E-01 (n)

3.1E-01 (n)

3.1E-02(n)

3.1E+00(n)

3.1E-01 (n)

-

2.2E-06UR

(i)

-

-

-

Weight-of-Evidence

Classification

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

B2

A

D

D

D

Noncanccr (Subchronic unless otherwisenoted)

ReferenceDose

(mg/kg-day)

-

-

-

-

-

-

3.0E-02 (c)

3.00E-03 (s)

-

l . O E - O l ( s )

2.0E+00 (s)

ReferenceConcentration

(mg/m3) '

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.0E-02 (s)

9.23E-01 (s)

1.0E+00(s)

-

CriticalEf fec t -

Tareet Oigan

-

-

-

-

-

Liver andKidney i.Y)

Blood is)

CNS is)

l i v e r and k icns \

( i ' lfe tus i s )

l iver 2nd k idney

(i'l

Tridilorot ' thylene

TiMrachloroethylenc

1 ,2-Dichlorce thanc

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

1,1.1-Trichloroethane

Vinyl Chloride

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Arsenic

Chromium(total)1:6 ratio Cr VI: Grill

Copper

Lead (See Section 5.3)

2 . OE-02 i n )

4 OE-01 i n ) '

5 . 2 E - 0 2 ( n i

9 . 1 E - 0 2 ( i )

-

-

7.2E-01 (i)+

-

1.5E-i-00(i)

-

-

-

(i. 013-0? nip

2 . 0 1 3 - 0 2 ( 1 1 1 -4. O E - 0 1 mr

i . O E - 0 2 ( n i

2.6E-5 UR( 1 )

-

-

4.4 E-6 UR

(i)~

-

1.5E+00(i)

4.2E+01 (i)

-

-

E2

132

E2

D

D

A

-

A

See Section4.1

D

B2

3.i.)E-04 i c i *

1 OE-02 (no

1. OE-01 ( s )

2.0E-01 is )

3.0E-03 ( ic)

2. OE-02 ( ic)

5.0E-03 (s)

1.3 ( id)

-

-

4 . 0 E - 2 ( c j -

1 .7E-01 R I D if n c )

-

-

2.2E-01 ( s )

1. OE-01 ( i c )

-

5.0E-03 RfDiCs)

-

-

-

ir. cv. r:i(lr.-j'. .(i-j1 , c iur , ; ; l ' j Ic^.i:-'.

l.r.c: < n

13lofi,l i s i

L i v e r and CNS(i ' l

Liver ( i )

CNS. Blood ( i )

Skin

-

-

-

n: National Center for Environmental Assessmenti: Integrated Risk Information Systems: Subchromc value provided by the Superfund Technical Support Center ( See Section 4.0)c: Chronic value (See Section 4.0)d: Chromium ill Reference Dose used for Total Chromium ( See Section 4.1)*: A range of slope factors has been developed for TCE in the draft Health Risk Assessment for TCE (USEPA, 2001). Thisdocument also provides a draft RfD and RfC.#: Original TCE provisional value (USEPA, 1987)+: Vinyl Chloride cancer toxicity values account for continuous lifetime exposure during adulthoodA: Known Human CarcinogenB2: Probable Human CarcinogenD: Not classified as to Human CarcinogenicityUR: Unit Risk (ug/m3)'1

RIDi: Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)

Reference Concentration and Unit Risk Conversions:

For purposes of calculating PRGs, URs and RfCs were converted to inhalation slopefactors and inhalation reference doses using the equations and assumptions provided below.

RfDi (mg/kg-day) = RfC fmg/m3) x 20 mVdav7 0 k g

SFi (my/kg-dayr - LrR f i n - V u g ) x 70 kg x 1000 u' j /mu20 nv/day

SVOC and Metals Carcinogenic PRG Formula for a Const ruct ion Worker Scenario:

PRG (me/kg) = T R x B W c x A T cEF x ED x [SFo x I.Rs x CF) - (SFo x SA x ABS x AF x CF) + (SFi x LRa x (1 /PEF) ) ]

VOC Carcinogenic PRG Formula for a Construction Worker Scenario:

TR x BWc x ATcEF x ED x [SFo x IRs x CF) •*• (SFo x SA x ABS x AF x CF) + (SFi x IRa x (1/VF))]

PRG (mg/kg) =

SVOC and Metals Noncarcinosenic PRG Formula for a Construction Worker Scenario:

PRG (mg/kg) ==. THQ x BWc x ATnEF x ED x [(1/RFDo x IRs/CF) + (1,/RFDo x (SA x AF x ABS)/CF) + (1/RFDi x IRA/PEF)]

VÔC Noncarcinogenic PRG Formula for a Construction Worker Scenario:

PRG (mg/kg) :=. THQ x BWc x ATnEF x ED x [(1/RFDo x IRs/CF) + (1/RFDo x (SA x AF x ABS)/CF) + (1/RFDi x IRAA'F)]

Soil Saturation Limit:

Csat (mg/kg) = S/iib(Kd x nb +ew + H' x ea)

Lead PRG:

PRG (mg/kg) = rrPbB0;fetal/fR*('GSD,'fr45s)1)-PbBn)*ATpb

BKSF*(IRPb*AFs*EFpb)

Symbol Definition (units)TR Taj-get RiskTHQ Taj-get Hazard QuotientBWc Body Weight -adult(kg)ATc Averaging Time -carcinogen (days)ATn Averaging Time -noncarcinogen (days)

(EPA, 1996)

Parameter Value ReferenceID'6

0.170

25550ED*365

EPA, 1989EPA, 1989EPA, 1989

ATPb Averaging Time- lead (days) 180 EPA, 1999

EF

EF,,:ED

[Ra[RsIR,,,SAABS

A.FEvF

PEFVFCFS

nbKdKocfoe

e w

FT

PbB95fetalRGSD,

PbB0

BKSFAFs

Exposure Frequency ( d a y s / y r )

Exposure Frequency Lead ('days:vr)Exposure Durat ion (years)

inhalat ion Rate (mVday)Soil [ngestion Rate (mg/day)Lngestion Rate Lead - contact intensive (mg/day]Skin Surface Area (cnr)

120I

20330100

3300Skin absorption factor(unitless) PAHs - 0 . 1 3

Arsenic - 0.03Pentachlorophenol - 0.25

Adherence Factor (mg/crrr-event)Event Frequency (events/day)

Paniculate Emission Factor (nr/kg)Volatilization Factor (mVkg)Conversion FactorSolubility in water (mg/L-water)dry soil bulk density (kg/L)soil-water partition coefficientorganic carbon partition coefficient (L/kg)fraction organic carbon in soil\vater-filled soil porosityHenry's law constantair-filled soil porositytotal soil porositysoil particle density (kg/L)95th Percentile PbB in Fetus (jig/dL)Fetal/Maternal Blood Lead RatioGeometric Standard Deviation -Midwest Region All Races/EthnicitiesBaseline Blood Lead (ug/dL)Midwest Region All Races/EthnicitiesBiokinetic Slope Factor (ug/dL per jig/day)Absorption fraction

o.:

Site SpecificSite Specific

l.OE-06Chemical Specific

1.5organics = Koc x foe

Chemical Specific0.006(0.6%)

0.15Chemical Specific

n - e w

1 - (nb/ns)2.65100.9

2.18

1.53

0.40.12

BestProfess ionalJudgementEPA. 1999BestProfessionalJudgementEPA. 200laEPA. 200laEPA : 199VEPA. 200laEPA. 200 la

EPA, 200laBestProfessionalJudgementEPA, 200laEPA. 200la

EPA,EPA,EPA,EPA.EPA,EPA,EPA,EPA,EPA.EPA,EPA.EPA,EPA,

200 la2.00 la200 la200 la200 la2001a200 la200 la2001a200 la199619962002c

EPA , 2002c

EPA, 1996EPA, 1996

The target risk level used in calculating the PRGs for the on-site construction worker scenarioequates to an excess individual lifetime cancer nsk of 1.0 x 10"6 or a hazard quotient of 0.1. ThePRGs are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Cons t ruc t i on \\ o rkor PRGs 1'or Subsuri 'acc Soils

Contaminants

Bcnzo('a)ant!iracene

Benzofaipyrene

Benzol' b l f iuoran thene

Benzo(k}fiuoranthene

Dibenz( a. h (anthracene

Indeno( 1 .2.3 .cd)pyrene

Pentaclilorophenol

Benzene

Toluene (nc]

Ethylbenzene (nc)

Xylenes (nc)

Trichloroethylene

TetrachJoroe:thylene

1 ,2-Dichloroethane

cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene


Vinyl Chloride

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Arsenic

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Cancer Endpoimfmu/ky ' )

(1 X 10")

-iO

4.9

49

490

4.9

49

250

5.3

-

-

-

0.438.629

13

2.3

-

-

3.3

-

23

45

-

-

Noncancer Lnupoin;i n i L ' / k L M

T! 10 ( 0 . 1 )

-

-

-

-

1900

3.5

79

110

130000

2.5

31

-

6500

970

2.2

1300

320

-

-

4S5

Soil Saturat ionL i m i t [ m u / k u )

nc

nc

nc

nc

nc

nc

nc

nc

654

395

412

nc

nc

nc

1206

1 I S 8

nc

10656

nc

nc

nc

nc

Selected PRG( m u ' k i : )

49

4.9

49

490

4.9

49

250

3.5

79

110

4 1 2

0.43

13

2.3

1206

970

2.2

1300

23

45

-

4S5

sat: Soil Saturation Limitnc: not calculated

6.0 U n c e r t a i n t i e s

Several unce r t a in t i e s have been considered d u r i n g the deve lopmen t of the .se PRGs.Areas o i"ur .cerunnty i n c l u d e , but are not l i m i t e d to: use of ch ron ic noncancer reference dosesand reference concentrations, the appropriateness of a target hazard quot ien t of U . I . and the useof defau l t exposure factors. As mentioned in Section 4.0. EPA recommends u s i n g subchromcreference doses and reference concentrations for exposures less than seven vears in dura t ion .W h i l e subchromc values were ava i lab le for some of the COPCs. chronic values were used forsome of the COPCs that lack subchronic values. As a result, noncancer PRGs us ing chronictoxicuy values may be overly conservative.

There is also some uncertainty pertaining to the use of a target hazard quotient of 0.1instead of 1. Using a target hazard quotient of 0.1 assumes that all of the COPCs act on the sametarget organs and that the effects are additive. While several of the COPCs have the same targetorgans, these chemicals may exert their adverse effects on these organs through differentmechanisms and the effects may not be additive. Therefore, the calculated noncancer PRGs maybe overly conservative.

Finally, there is uncertainty with the exposure parameters used to derive the PRGs.As noted in Sections 3.0 and 5.0, some of the exposure factors, including exposure duration andfrequency, were based on best professional judgement. Actual duration and frequency ofexposure are not known, however, they are not expected to exceed the values used.

7.0 References

U.S. EPA. (1987). Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for Trichloroethylene:Updated Carcinogenicity Assessment for Trichloroethylene. External Review DraftEPA/600/8-82/006/FA. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington,D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEvaluation Manual - Part A. EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1991). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEvaluation Manual - Part B. EPA/540/R-92/003, Publication 92S5.7-01B. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S.EPA. (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for anInterim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil.Teclinical Review Workgroup for Lead. Available online athttp 7/w\vw.epa.gov/superfund/proCTams/lead/prods.him.

U.S.EPA. ( 1 9 9 S ) . Approach for Addressing D i o x i n in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sues.OSWER Direct ive 9200.4-26. Office of Sol id Waste and Emergency Response.Washington. D.C.

U.S.EPA. ( 1 9 9 9 ) . Frequent ly Asked Questions (FAQs) on the A d u l t Lead Model . Technica lReview Workgroup of Lead. Available onl ine athttp:/ /www.epa. 120 v /sunerfund/pro grams/1 ead/prods. h tm.

U.S. EPA (2001). Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis and Characterization.External Review Draft. EPA/600/P-01/002A. Office of Research and Development .Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA (2 DO la). Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for SuperfundSites.. Draft Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington. D.C.

U.S. EPA. (2QQ2a). Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) 2002. October 2002.Available online at http://ww\v.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/.

U.S. EPA. (2002b). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Office of Research andDevelopment, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris.

U.S. EPA (2002c). Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S. Adult Females: Summary Statistics fromPhase I and 2 of the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES HI).EPA 9285.7-52. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. Available online athttp:/7v/ww.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/prods.htm.

SUPERFUND STSCSent by: Ann Parker

03/23/2003 OV.32 PM

To: Jeremy Johnson/ARTD/R7/USEPA/US@EPAcc: Eric Nold/SUPR/R7/USEPA/US@EDA

Subject: Re' Request r'or Sub-chronic Toxicity values(j^j

Superfund- HeaM. Risk Technical suppen CenterCPUS EmitonimmGl Pioieciim Ayeuaj2ff H! ttortn L aim/ Drue.Ciuanuflti OH 45263JJtl. 513-569-7300lea: 513-569-7159

% *

Greetings,

I have reviewed your list of chemicals for any subchronic toxicity information that we have available. Wehave subchronic risk assessment issue papers for Arsenic, Benzene, cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene,Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. I have attached a Word Perfect file containing thesepapers to this email.

Dr. Harlal Choudhury advises that chronic values on IRIS can be used as subchronic values without anyadjustments for the chemicals on your list that have values on IRIS. These chemicals include: Chromium(for total, use Chromium III), 2,4-Dimethylphenol, Pentachlorophenol, Tetrachloroethylene, Vinyl Chloride,and Xylenes. In addition, the chronic external review draft values for Trichloroethylene can also be usedas subchronic values without any adjustments. The external review draft can be found athttp://cfpub.epa. gov/ncea7cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=23249. Please feel free to contact us if you haveany other questions.

Thank you,Ann ParkerSTSC

sentinel wood.wpd

Jeremy Johnson/ARTD/R7/USEPA/US@EPA

JeremyJohnson/ARTD/R7/USEPA'US@EPA

03/27/03 04:15 PM

To: [email protected]: Eric Nold/SUPR/R7/USEPAAJS@EPA

Subject: Request for Sub-chronic Toxicity values

See the attached request form

Thanks

Jeremy JohnsonEPA Region 7

V

IIIII

Harlal Choudhury/Director, Pat Daunt/Administrator• Hotline 513-569-7300, FAX 513-569-7159, E-Mail: [email protected]

March 28,2003

^juperfund Technical Support CenterNational Center for Environmental Assessment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency26 West Martin Luther King Drive, MS-1 1 7

Cincinnati, Ohio 4526S

I

I

Jeremy JohnsonUS EPA - Region VII

ASSISTANCE REQUESTED:

ENCLOSED INFORMATION:

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Requested toxiciry information on Arsenic, Benzene, Ethylbenzene,Toluene, and 1.1.1-Trichloroethane. (Sentinel Wood Treating Co., Inc.)

Attachment 1: Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of aProvisional Subchronic Inhalation RfC for Benzene (CASRJN 71-43-2)

Attachment 2: Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of aProvisional Subchronic RfD for Benzene (CASRN 71-43-2)

Attachment 3: Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of aSubchronic RfC for Ethylbenzene (CASRN 100-41-4)

Attachment 4: Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of aSubchronic RfD for Ethylbenzene (CASRN 100-41-4)

Attachment 5: Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Deriving a ProvisionalSubchronic Inhalation RfC for Toluene (CASRN 108-88-3)

Attachment 6: Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation ofProvisional Chronic and Subchronic RfCs for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane(CASRN. 71-55-6)

Supported by IntelliTech Systems, Incorporated, underU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-C-01-147.

/ \

IIIIIIIIIIIII

\

M E M O R A N D U MFEB 1

SUBJECT: Migration to Groundwater Preliminary Remediat ion GoalsSentinel Wood Treater SiteAva. Missouri

FROM: Jeremy JohnsonENSV/DISO

TO: Eric HoldOn-Scene CoordinatorSUPR/EFLR

As you requested, I have developed Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for theSentinel Wood Treater site, 12lh Avenue Solvents site, and Community Laundromat site, locatedin Ava, Missouri. PRGs were calculated to address contamination from semi-volatile organiccompounds, which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, andmetals in surface and subsurface soil. The migration to groundwater scenario was evaluated andthe corresponding PRGs equate to a concentration of contaminants in surface and subsurfacesoils that wil l not impact groundwater above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or otherrelevant water health based limit (HBL). The supporting documentation from the PRGs isattached. Please note these PRGs are subject to change and are not final remediation levels. Ifyou have any questions, please let me know.

Migration to Groundwater PRGs

Contaminants

Benzoâ)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene




Indeno( 1,2,3 ,cd)pyrene

wp {wp} .bkl :dmathis:2/6/03

ENSV/DISO ENSV/DISOJohnson Beringer

PRGs(mg/kg)

0.082

0.42

0.26

2.5

0.080

0.72

ENSV/DISOMorris

Toluene

Eihylbenzsnc

Xylenes

Tnchloroetl iylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1 . 2 -Dich lo roe thane

Arsenic

Chromiurru to ta l )

i :

0.7

10

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.1

"HBL: Water Health-Based Limit (EPA 2001)

PRG Formula for Migration to Grounchvater:

PRG(mg/kg) = Cw [Kd + (e w + eaH')/nb]

Derivation of Dilution Attenuation Factor

DAF = 1 + (K*i*d)/(l*L)

Estimation of Mixing Zone Depth

d = (0.0112L-)05 + da(l - exp[(-L*l)/(K*i*dJJ)

Target Soil Leachate Concentration (Cw)

Cw = (MCL or Water Health Based Limit) * DAF

Symbol Definition (units)Kd soil-water partition coefficient (L/kg)

Koc soil organic carbon/waterpartition coef. (L/kg)

foe fraction organic carbon in soil (g/g)e w water-filled soil porosity (Lwater/Lsoil)ea air-filled soil porosity (Lair/Lsoil)nb dry soil bulk density (kg/L)n soil porosity (Lpore/Lsoil)H1 Henr)''s law constant(dimensionless)

Parameter Valueomanics Kd =Koc*foc

ReferenceEPA, 2001

inorganics (See Reference) EPA, 2001Chemical Specific EPA, 2001

0.002 EPA, 20010.3 EPA, 2001n - e w EPA, 20011.5 EPA, 20011 - (fib/A,) EPA, 2001

Chemical Specific EPA, 2001(assume to be zero forinorganic except Mercury)

K aquifer hydraulic conductivity (ni/yr) Site Specific: 1669m/yrAttachment 2

hydraulic gradient (m/m) Site Specific: 0.0042

i n f i l t r a t i o n rate ( m / v r )

m i x i n g zone depth (ml

She Spcci ilc:

Sue Spec i f i c :

source length para l le l to g roundwate r f low Site Spec i f i c :

aquifer thickness (in) Site Spec i f ic :

6.0 References

A t t a c h m e n t 2

3 1 . 7 8A t t a c h m e n t 2

Sec equa t ion"Es t ima t ion of M i . \ i n < jZone Depth"

53.34 mSee Section 3.!

2.89 mAt tachmen t 2

U.S. EPA (2001) Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for SuperfundSites, Draft Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington. D.C.

U.S. EPA (2002). Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) 2002. October 2002.

Attachment 2

I

• PRG Supporting Documenta t ion

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

' STATE. OF-iMISSOURJ en M. Mahfcxxi. Director

OF NATURALorvrsiON OF GEOLOGY AND LAM> SUR

SEP 1 3 Z O O !

P.U. Box 250 111 Fsirgrouncis Kd. Rolla. MO 65402-G2?0(573) 365-2100FAX (573; 36S-2U1

MEMORANDUM ^.'-••''- -- . :

September 10,2001

Valerie Wilder, Environmental SpecialistKeizardous Waste Program, DEQ

lW:iuiam W. Little, GeologistGeological Survey Program, DGLS

SUBJECT: Geologic Summary of Sentinel Wood Treating, Inc. (Douglas County), MO

LOCATION: W '/=, NE ^, NW '/, Sec. 1 1, T. 26 N., R. 16 W., Ava 7.5 Minute Quadrangle,Douglas County, Missouri36° 57' 45" N latitude and 92° 39' 57' W longitude

I

I

SITE LOCATION AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Sentinel Wood Treating site is located on the north side of 12th Avenue, approximately O.5mile east of State Highway 5 in the City of Ava (Douglas County) Missouri. The site lies withinthe west 1A of the northeast % of the northwest % of Section 1 1, Township 26 North, Range 1 6West Approximate map coordinates for the site are 36° 57' 45" North latitude and 92° 39 ' 57"West longitude. Elevation is approximately 1270 feet above mean sea level.

The site lies within the Ozark Plateau region of the Interior Highlands Physiographic Provrns.ce(Fenneman, 1938; Stohr et al., 1981). This portion of the Ozark Plateau consists mostly of"rolling hills and broad ridges bound by narrow, moderate- to steep-sided drainages (USGS1951a, 1951b, 19B2a, 1982c) cut into Ordovician-age stratigraphic units (Koenig, 1959a, lS>59b,1959c; Robertson, 1985; Whitfield, 1985, 1986). The Sentinel Wood Treating site is situatednear the northern 2nd of a small drainage on a gentle south-dipping slope. The site is borderedby pasture to the north and west, industrial plants on the east, and 12th Avenue to the south..Residential areas ire present short distances from the site in all directions.

II(Memo to Valerie Wilder

September 10, 2001

|

Paê2 (Sentinel Wood ireating)" '

I

I

I

I

I

Im Jefferson Citv Dolomite: The Jefferson City Dolomite is approximately 185 feet thick in theI Ava area (COM Federal Programs, 1993) and is well-exposed in road cuts along the margins of

State Highway 5. Composition is variable both vertically and laterally but consists mostly of• alternating beds of iinely crystalline argillaceous dolomite and medium-grained dolomite with.I thin beds of chert and fine-grained sandstone scattered throughout (CDM Federal Programs,

1993; Rueff, 2000; site visit, November 20-21, 2000). Borings for monitoring wells penetratedthe upper 40 feet of the Jefferson City Dolomite (Siemens, 2001). Cuttings from these boringsconsist of silty to sandy dolomite interstratified with chert and thin partings of carbonaceousshale A single bed of sandstone was encountered in each of the borings.

GROUNDWATER PATHWAY

Stratigraphy

Quaternary Deposits

Surficial materials: Monitoring wells were installed at the site between January 30 and February2 2001. Cuttines d«nnved from the drilling of these wells, together with over twenty soil andGeoprobe borings, v/ere logged by Michael A. Siemens of MDNR/DGLS and provide thefollowing general characteristics. Surficial materials range in total thickness from 8 to 20 test.The uppermost 0.5 to 11 feet are typically fill deposits related to excavation and are composed ofclayey gravel and gravely clay. These are underlain by 2 to 20 feet of interbedded clay, siltsand, and gravel. Correlation between boreholes is inconsistent, suggesting that these depositsare also discontinuous laterally, however, overall, there appears to be a downward increase ingravel content.

~Dz&fk Aquifer'

I

I Vertical water mi station is limited mostly to the upper 5 feet of the unit where weathering hasproduced large solution voids (Dean, 1977; Whitfield, 1979). Upon reaching the top of

I unweathered bedrock, the flow becomes primarily horizontal (Dean, 1977; Rueff, 2000).Permeability throuiih the rest of the unit is restricted mostly to bedding plane solution anddiscontinuous vertical fractures, leading to a leaky aquitard within the aquifer (Whitfield, 1979;

• Hollman, 1998; Rueff, 2000: site visit, November 20 - 21, 2000).

Roubidoux Formation: The Roubidoux Formation is about 190 feet in thickness and consists of

I fine to medium-îined sandstone, dolomitic sandstone, and cherty fine-grained dolomite (CDMFederal Programs, 1993; site visit, November 20-21, 2000). Where exposed at the surface, thesandstone is mediiim-grained and well-sorted with highly rounded and spherical grains.Cementation is moderate to poor. These characteristics make the unit highly conducive tovertical and lateral fluid flow. Permeability is enhanced by significant dissolution along becidingsurfaces and vertical fractures (Whitfield, 1979; site visit, November 20-21, 2000).I

I

Memo to Valerie "WilderSeptember 10. 2001Pass 3 (Sentinel Wood Treating)

Gasconade Dolomite: The Gasconade Dolomite does not outcrop within the target area but hasbeen described from drill cores by CDM Federal Programs (1993). It is around 350 feet thickand grades from coarsely crystalline cherry dolomite near the bottom to more nneiy-crystaliiae-less cherry dolomite at the top. At the base of the Gasconade Dolomite is a sevenry-foot-thick:bed of medium-grained sandy dolomite called the Gunter Sandstone Member.

Eminence Dolomite: The Eminence Dolomite is not exposed in the target area. Based on""descriptions by CDM Federal Programs (1993), it is nearly 200 feet in thickness and consists ofmassive-bedded, medium- to coarse-grained dolomite with scattered nodules and angularfragments of chert, particularly in the upper part.

Potosi Dolomite: The Potosi Dolomite is not exposed in the target area. Based on well loes, it isabout 100 feet thick and is made up of medium- to fine-grained dolomite. Archer (1997) hasindicated that the Potosi Dolomite is the most prolific water-bearing unit in the Houston area-,located about 50 miles to the northeast of Ava.

Derbv-Poerun Dolomite .and Davis Formation: The Derby-Doerun Dolomite and DavisFormations are not exposed hi the target area; however, based on well logs, they are compose*!primarily of interbedded shale, dolomite, and sandstone.

St Francois Aquifer

Several units that comprise the St. Francois Aquifer are probably present beneath the target airea;including the Bonn<2terre Dolomite, Reagan Sandstone, and Lamotte Sandstone; however, noneare used as domestic or public water supplies in the Ava region (MDNR/DGLS well log files).Therefore, they have not been included as part of this report.

r.L WHydrology . ^ _ ^Quaternary Deposits ~* ^

Siemens (2001) reported the presence of a perched water table at three feet below ground surfacein elevated portions of the site and at shallower depths in topographically lower areas based onwater content in soil borings taken during the installation of MDNR monitoring wells inFebruary 2001. Depth measurements taken from these monitoring wells show a steady decreasein water table elevation of 0.5 to 2 feet, depending on well location, between late March andmiddle May 2001 (Table 2). Kingston Environmental Services (1999) also recorded water tatt>ledepths of three to six feet below ground surface from three temporary monitoring wells that "ttxeyemplaced at the site. Siemens (2001) identified small pores and fractures in these deposits wliichcan increase rates of fluid transport through an otherwise relatively impervious fine-grainedmaterial. Based on data obtained from their temporary monitoring wells, Kingston

IIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIII

Memo to Valerie V/iiderSeptember 10, 2001pass 4 (Sentinel Wood Treating)

Environmental Services (1999) reported a southeastern groundwater flow direction. TnsKinsston wells were all located to the west of a small north-south oriented channel thai runsthrough the site, most likely indicating topographic control of groundwater flow in surncialsediments. Accordingly, flow in surScial deposits located on the east side of the channel areexpected to be to trie southwest toward the same channel.

Soil boring logs from Siemens (2001) are found below.

SB-010-1.2 feet Light-gray gravel (fill) (damp)1.2-1.4 feet Dark-brown, clayey gravel (fill) (damp)1.4-3 feet Light-gray gravel (fill) (damp to wet) ';" ^3-4 feet Dark-red, sandy, clayey gravel (wet)4-7 feet Mottled, dark-red and light-brown, gravelly clay (wet)7-10 feet Mottled, dark-red and light-gray, gravelly, silty clay (wet)

_|Q-17_feet_ .Light-red, clayey gravel with a 0.3 foot sandy zone at 16 feet (wet)17-18 feet Mottled,"iiglit- and dark-brown, clayey siIT(wet)" ~ ~"~~Refusal at 18 feet

SB-020-2.5 feet Light-red, clayey gravel with a piece of wood at 2 feet (fill) (damp)2.5-3.2 feet Dark-brown, silty clay (stained) (damp to wet)3.2-3.5 feet Dark-brown, silty sand (stained) (wet)3.5-5.7 feet Dark-brown, silty, sandy clay (wet) M5.7-10 feet Light-red, clayey gravel (wet) T-, - \~^10-10.5 feet Light-red, silty clay (wet)10.5-11 feet Light-red, clayey, fine-grained sand (wet)11-12.5 feet Light-red, silty clay (wet)12.5-12.7 feet Light-brown, silty dolostone12.7-13 feet Light-red, silty clay (wet)13-15.7 feet Mottled, dark-gray, and light- and dark-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)15.7-16 feet Dark-brown, clayey gravel (wet)16-17 feet Light-brown, silty, clayey gravel (wet)Refusal at 17 feet

SB-030-0.2 feet Dark-brown, organic soil (fill) (damp)0.2-0.7 feet Light-brown, clayey gravel (nil) (damp) v.0.7-2.3 feet Light-red, gravelly clay (fill) (damp) <i A*** u2.3-3.2 feet Dark-brown, silty clay (damp to wet) ^ \^~3.2-3.7 feet Dark-brown, sandy clay (wet)3.7-3.9 feet LI ght-brown, fine-grained s and (wet)

Memo to Valerie \v iiderSeptsmber 10r2001Paae 5 (Seminei V/ood 'i rearing)

3.9-5 feet5-14 feet14-16 feetRefusal 16 feet

SB-040-1,5 feet1.5-2.5 feet2.5-4 feet4-5.5 feet5.5-7 feet7-7.3 feet7.3-10 feet10-13 feetRefusal at 13 feet

Dark-brown, clayey silt (wet)Mottled, light-brown and light-red, gravelly clay (wet)Light-brown, chert}' clay (wet)

Light-brown, clayey gravel (fill) (damp)Dark-brown, sandy, gravelly, silty clay (damp)Light-brown, gravelly, sandy clay (damp to wet)Light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Mottled, light-brown and light-red, gravelly clay (wet)Light-gray, coarse-grained chert sand (wet)Mottled, light-red and light-brown, gravelly clay (wet)Light-red, gravelly clay (wet)

vA-

I

I

I

I

I

I

0-1.2 feet1.2-3.9 feet3.9-10 feet10-10.2 feet10.2-16 feet16-18 feet18-18.6 feet18.6-19.5 feetRefusal at 19.5 feet

SB-060-0.8 feet0.8-2.4 feet2.4-4 feet4-6.8 feet6.8-11 feetRefusal at 11 feet

SB-070-2 feet2-3.1 feet3.1-5.3 feet5.3-10 feet10-12 feetRefusal at 12 feet

Dark-brown, gravelly clay (fill) (damp)Mottled, light-red and light-brown, silty clay (damp to wet)Light-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Light-red, clayey, chert sand (wet)Mottled, light-red and light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Light-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Light-red, clayey sand (wet)Light-brown, silty clay (wet)

Dark-brown, silty, clayey gravel (fill) (damp)Dark-brown, silty clay (slight petroleum odor) (fill) (damp)Dark-gray, silty clay (damp to wet)Mottled, light-gray and light-brown, gravely, silty clay (wet)Mottled, light-red and light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet)

Dark-brown, clayey gravel (fill) (damp)Dark-brown, clayey silt (damp to wet)Light-brown, gravelly, sandy, silty clay (wet)Mottled, light-red and light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wst)Light-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)

Jtt

11Blvlemo to Valerie W"September 10,2001— Paê 6 (''Sentinel VvV

1SB-OS

10-0.4 fee:0.4-4 feet

I SB-090-0.9 feet0.9-4 feet

14-4.8 feet4.8-7 feet7-10 feet

11 0-1 1.5 feetRefusal at 1 1 .5 feet

I SB-100-1. 5 feet

.1.5-3. 5 feetl'3.5-7"feer•7- 12 feet

Refusal at 12 feet

"SB-II0-1.1 feet

• 1.1-4 feet4-7 feet

H 7-9.3 feet• 9.3-9.5 feet

Refusal at 9.5 feet

1 SB-120-1 feet

1 1 -4 feet4-5 feet5-6 feet

1 6-7 feet7-8.5 feet8.5-8.7 feet

1 8.7-9 feet9-9.5 feetRefusal at 9.5 fest

1

1

-

iider

5od Treating)

Dark-brown, silry' clay (nil) (damp)Light-brown, gravelly, silry clay (damp to wet)

Dark-brown, clayey gravel (fill) (damp)Mottled, light-brown and light-red, gravelly, silry clay (damp to wet)Light-gray, gravelly clay (wet) j p _ fvf-\-Light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Mottled, light-gray and light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Mottled, light-red and light-brown, gravelly, silry clay (wet)

"

Dark-brown, gravelly clay (fill) (damp)Mottled, dark-brown and dark-gray, silty clay (damp to wet) i jfi-Mottieo, dark-Brown" anifTighVred, gravelly, sftfy ciay (wet) ^ ;.Mottled, light-gray and light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet) "\ -H

Dark-brown, gravelly clay (fill) (damp) iDark-gray, silty clay (wet) L - i O iLight-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Mottled, light-gray and light-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Mottled, dark-brown and light-red, silty clay (wet)

ConcreteDark-brown, gravelly, silry clay (fill) (wet) i - ^ ^Light-brown, sandy clay (wet) -JerVDark-brown, silty, sandy clay (wet)Dark-red, gravelly clay (wet)Mottled, light-red and light-gray, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Mottled, light-brown and light-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Light-red, clayey, very-coarse grained, chert sand (wet)Mottled, light-brown and light-red, gravelly, silty clay (wet)

IIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIII

Memo to Valerie w'iiderSeptembsr 10? 2001Pase 7 (Sentinel Wood Treating)

SB-130-1 fest Concrete1-2.3 feet Dark-brown, silty, clayey gravel (nil) (wet)2.3-4 feet Dark-brown, silty clay (fill) (wet)4.5 feet Dark-brown, gravelly, silty clay (nil) (wet)5-5.2 feet Dark-brown, very-coarse grained, chert sand (nil) (wet) -"—5.2-6 feet Dark-brown, gravelly, silty clay (fill) (wet)6-6.8 feet Dark-brown, very-coarse grained, chert sand (fill) (wet)6.8-7 feet Dark-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet)7-10 feet Mottled, light-brown and light-gray, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Refusal at 10 feet

SB-140-1 fest Concrete1 -2 fest Dark-brown, silty, clayey gravel (fill) (wet)2-3 fest Dark-brown, silty clay (fill) (wet)1_A f«ot T .jaht-Virnwn ciltv clav fyuf't) _ _ _ -T"^< TTi ~^«rvh ~~ ' - ij.J.r — -.—..' '-.-Tr^r*-—-^:-.~- ->*—,/ ' .\- -; — v - ' — i n . " . ' . - . . . . •

4-9 fest Mottled, light-brown and light-gray, gravelly, silty clay (wet)Refusal at 9 feet

SB-IS0-1 feet Concrete ' ^ ^1-2 feet Light-brown, silty, clayey gravel (fill) (wet) —--~2-8 fest Black, gravelly, silty clay (fill) (wet)Sample recovery v/as very poor at this location. The samples from 2 to 8 feet contained waterwith free product. Refusal at 8 fest.

SB-160-0.5 feet Concrete ^0.5-4 feet Dark-brown, silty, clayey gravel (fill) (wet) ——~4-7 fest Dark-brown, silty clay (fill) (wet)7-11 feet Mottled, dark-brown and dark-gray, gravelly, silty clay (fill) (wet)Refusal at 11 feet

SB-170-4 feet Dark-brown, silty, clayey gravel (fill) (wet)4-7 feet Dark-brown, stained, chert gravel (fill) (wet)7-10 feet No returns

SB-270-1 feet Dark-brown, silty clay (organic soil) (damp)1-5.2 feet Light-brown, gravelly, silty clay (wet)

Memo to Valerie WilderSeptember 10: 200!Paee 8 (Sentinel "wood Treating)

5.2-9 feet Mottled, light-brown and light-red, siiry day (wet)Refusal at 9 feet

SB^ZS0-2 feet Dark-brown, silry clay (organic soil) (damp)2-5 feet Mottled, light-brown and light-red, silty, clayey gravel (wet)5-7 feet Mottled, light-brown and light-red, silty clay (wet)

Ozark Aquifer

A.U wells within the target area produce from the Ozark Aquifer (Hollman, 1998; MDNR/DGLSwell log records). Domestic wells obtain water primarily from the Jefferson City Formation;whereas, municipal wells draw mostly from the much deeper Gunter Sandstone Member of theGasconade Dolomii:e and from the Eminence Dolomite (Hollman, 1998; Rueff, 2000;MDNR/DGLS well log records).

I MDNR/DGLS "we'll" log" recoTds show depms"bn25 tol75"feerto th2top^fths-regicnHl~at£T'table. Shallower, perched water tables are also apparent within the Jefferson City Dolomite,particularly between 50 and 75 feet below the ground surface. These are probably local features

•which vary with depth and are related to the low vertical permeability of the Jefferson CityDolomite. Most water movement within the Jefferson City is horizontal along bedding planes(Whitfield, 1979; Hollman, 1998; Rueff, 2000: site visit, November 20-21, 2000). Both

•shallow and deep groundwater flow within the Ozark Aquifer is interpreted to be to thesouthwest based on topography, drainage patterns, and stratigraphic dip. Rueff (2000) hadpreviously suggested that deep groundwater flow was to the southeast toward the Mansfield

I Fault based on MDNR dye trace studies; however, those studies were conducted about threemiles to the northeast of the site and on the opposite side of a drainage divide and, therefore,could be under the influence of different groundwater flow controls. The recently installed DNR

I monitoring wells concur with a generally southerly flow direction; however, due to placement ofwells on opposite sides of the north-south channel that divides the site, a more specific direction

_ of movement cannot be determined. Placement of the background well (MDNRMW-1) on theI western side of the channel was necessitated by the presence of the Copeland facility which

precluded the finding of a suitable location to the east of the creek (Siemens, personalcommunication, 2001).

I

I

I

I

Abundant, well-developed karst features, including sinkholes, solution valleys, losing streams,and springs are prevalent features of the Ozark Aquifer throughout the Ava region (Whitneld,1979; CD~M Federal Programs, 1993; Rueff, 2000; Missouri Speleological Society, 1999).Therefore, this would be a karst aquifer.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Memo to Valerie WilderSeptember 10.2001Pace 9 (Seminei Wood Treating)

Installation ofMDNR Monitoring Wells

Three monitoring vvslis were smplaced wiihin the upper ponion of the Jefferson City Doiornitsto establish grouncwater flow directions and to identify potential contaminant movement fromthe site. Two sources are suspected, former lagoons located in the northwest comer of the sitsand the former wood treatment area in the southern pan of the site west of the stream channel.Each of these wells penetrates 9 to 14 feet of unconsolidated material and is embeddedapproximately 25 feet into bedrock of the Jefferson City Dolomite (Bachle, 2001; Siemens,2001). A background well (MDNRMWr-l) was placed approximately 450 test north of the siteto obtain background water conditions. A second well (MDNRMW-2) was positioned near theeastern border of the site in a straight line between the lagoons and Ava City well #4. The finalwell (MDNRMW-3) was placed in the southeastern part of the Dollar General store parking lot.Loss for the three wells are included below.

MDNRMW-1 (from Bachle, 2001)

0-1.4 Jfeet _.,_ Red clayând.siltY-cjay,:^14-39 feet Dry, competent, fine-grained dolomite with shale partings39-41 feet Medium-grained dolomitic sand, water producingTD 41 feet

MDNRMW-2 (from Siemens, 2001)

0-14 feet Overburden14-19 feet Weathered, light-brown, finely crystalline, silty dolostone with light-

brown, cryptocrystaliine chert19-24 feet Weathered, light-brown, finely crystalline, silty dolostons with light-

brown, cryptocrystalline chert and light-gray, very-fine grained sandstonewith black, carbonaceous shale partings and carbonate cement

24-29 feet Light-brown, finely crystalline, silty dolostone with mottled, light-grayand light-brown, cryptocrystalline chert

29-34 feet Light-brown, finely crystalline, silty dolostone with mottled, light-grayand light-brown, cryptocrystalline chert

34-39 feet Dark-gray, finely crystalline, dolostone with black, carbonaceous shalepartings

39-41 feet Light-gray, finely crystalline, dolostone with black, carbonaceous shalepartings and light-brown, finely crystalline, silty dolostone

TD 41 feet

MDNRMW-3 (from Siemens, 2001)

0-9 feet Overburden

I1•

Memo to Valerie WilderSeptember 10, 2001Pase 10 (Sentinel Vv'ood Treating)

I9-10 feet Dark-gray, finely crystalline, doiostone with black, carbonaceous shale

• partings10-15 feet Light-brown, finely crystalline, siity doiostone and light-gray, very-fine:

grained sandstoneI 15-20 feet Light-brown, finely crystalline, doiostone with light-brown,

cryptocrystalline chert

120-25 feet Light-brown, finely crystalline, sandy doiostone with light-brown,

cryptocrystaliine chert, black, carbonaceous shale partings, and a stron_gdiesel odor

1 25-30 feet Light-brown, finely crystalline, doiostone and light-gray, finelycrystalline, sandy doiostone

30-35 feet Light-gray, finely crystalline, doiostone with light-gray, cryptocrystalline

I chertTD 35 fsst

I Each well ihclude:f a ten-foot long," 2-incri GTaSetefstainiess" Steerscreenrâ" niter 'pHck'of sars-dthat extends 3 to 8 feet above the screen; 19 to 24 feet of PVC casing; and is sealed withhydrated bentonite chips (Bachle, 2001; Siemens, 2001). Well construction information is

• shown graphically hi Figures la, lb, and Ic (obtained from Michael A. Siemens).

St. Francois Confining Unit

™ The SL Francois Confining Unit is 350 to 400 feet thick and provides a significant impediment tovertical groundwater transport.

• St Francois Aquifer

I The St Francois Aquifer is found over 1400 feet below the ground surface and is separated fromthe Ozark Aquifer by the St. Francois Confining Unit. Because of these factors, the St. FrancoisAquifer is unlikely to have been impacted by contamination from the Sentinel site.

IStructural Features

I Bedrock shows a relatively gentle southward dip. Two northwest-trending faults have been.identified 1.25 and 1.5 miles to the southwest of the site and a third is located about 3.5 miles to

• the southwest (McCracken, 1971; Robertson, 1985; Rueff, 2000). Because of the small arrôunt| of vertical offset along these faults, they are not expected to produce significant discontinu-i-ties

within the Ozark Aquifer.

I

I

- ns

A.,«TyiK**^r

v -,• v -\

\ " \ \x- ' \\ \ <\ •i

\v\ \

;EX NOTE\ i '••

*"" r^1

)7^/rJ

~r

!_,

iSSd

S- I

t • \

Ukit i t

LEGEf

o

«•

is

•

Itf

A.

e

NOTE: 1. S

«gg®§-

• • EXISTING CREEK

SUBSURFACE DRAIN

SUMP

__ TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS IN METERS ABOVE NCDVFROM USEPA BASE MAP DATED 1O/1J/OO

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER LOCATION

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER/BOREHOLE LOCATION

EPA BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER

EPA WELL LOCATION AND NUMBER

EPA XRF SAMPLE POINT LOCATION

MDNR SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION

MONK SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION

MONR BORING LOCATION

UDNR MONITORING WELL LOCATION

KINGSTON PROBE HOLE LOCATION

KINGSTON MONITORING WELL LOCATIONNOTE: I. Stroam antors culvert at thia location.

; - pcf100

FEET

. M8BJII?'

PREVIOUS SAMPLING LOCATIONS

out:

1/10/OJ

DEM- • 62401557

SENTINEL WOOD TREATINGAVA, MISSOURI

FIGURE 5

tiftjlt Hi!

IV.

£

'Avs Munic.'Dai Weii î

§24ifs«g.p^f-v

Former C'jiry

Itr

SB-CL-(M

A S3-CL.037.0V 0. 0065 - 7b/je/w

SB-CL-01

7.J.7CC»KiXiit

BW-CL-02A

»£«.<ol/i SB-CL-11

1«*0^

S8-CL-05A

SB-C1.-07A

SB-CL-0610.0':0.008<

t-mc tfty.'- -pani snon*

S-V— - .

&.&

Q.owyrtz

\ /

JB-%13 SB-Co 197 fir ? "'' "v u.(r.nw-CL-ovJB-CL-16A

2T 400 - PC5

^0-^

i

:L-«A i«9-?C£

4

Lt.l,..».7S SB^L-17r.:-7W

ACD rt noOOA-L-UO .

16.(Ô.OI3-PC£

ASB-CL-0

<.»'.- 5. 5 1340. 1<6 «a

& ' '

CommunityLaundramay

__- —

H-PC£tL

Fi/1\L

Action AuctionReally

CR n 1«;Mw-a-03/ rs-'^.tji'-pcfSB-CL-14

9 ASB-CL^C5ra/>«

70.5VZ.650-PC5

-18 ASB-CL-19

NW .12th Avenue

bVa'ter /esufts are shown in pob. in bald.Sodrasuls ore stown in ppm al l/>e depm indicated

'•-.'-.i-SB-CL-01 SS-CL-06-»-B21.0559- 45' depth 0210555-100'jvgJ2;105SJ-7.Q-depth SB-CLW

-V- S;;?; 0210567- 12.51

Sa Triple Listin

—

aSB-CL-10

depth

deathfe??^S1-15-5'd»P'h SB-CLâ

^p^? ' 18-°' deplh Q21C5S9 ' B£i' de=th

i§plg3-n,. depth sS"50'

tm . ,=.H K 0210571-12.0^^ftrS " S d ep'h 021 0572 - 1 4 0; jU -7 • w LHJ D

i !5|5 r 20.0' depth fSampfe 02TC5ao, 3 ,

depth

depthdepth

• 0210573-021D574-

SS-CL-120210575-0210577-

5B-CL-130210573-0210579-

iti

SS-CL-1512.0'depth 0210533- 7 fl1 depth19.0' depth 021G534- 10 5' depth

SE-CL-19 19 5' deplh 0210565 • 9.5' depth170' depth 0210556- 11.5' depth I

S5-CL-19 i2 5 ' d e p t h 0210538 - 5.0' d»pth |8.0' depth

SB-CL-140210582- 9.0'deplh

varer grabcollKled Iron We 'Oftf Spc/ng House' was cofecte^ 81 a DOI.T! 1;.. -.•V.-I'T.-; ;;• • aouinweao/l/ie ale and is off the map scale] !:s*si-a--.- .-.• . " — :- - — : ' •

: L; i

— •• • ••-— • m^ r-"

, 1

FORMER 7,000-GALrVARNISU TANK

X

SB-FORMER 7,000-CAl..— •-

XYLENE TANK

1

-('N>

' i<ZCM F IN FFFT

!

COPE LAUD 1 ACIiJ ' IV

FORMERXYLENE/VARNISIT—

FORMER PAINTTHINNER LINE

XYLENE/VARNISH LINES'

PUMP-

i.oon-r;Ai.;—LIGHT AROMATIC SOLVENT MAP III/'

60

PRF.VIOUS r X C A V A T I O N A R C A S

© SOIL FiORINGS

CD EXISTING MONITORING VVFLI

ENVIRONMENTAL^ •ijii"iSS^TRATnclRS CORPORATION-j—, f~^ ..—^ 11011 Ficciloin Hiive Snile 900

I"1 J'X f Reslon. Viiginro 20 IQC1

,(70.1) 70'.l-r..V)0

Figure

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

2TH AVENUE SOLVENTS SIlL

AVA, MISSOURI

7

1916 Clay, N. Kansas Cily, MO 64116(016) '121-0298 • FAX (016) .171-4370E-mail: (IIctransfer®preprintkc.comwww.propiintkc.com

•Z—*J

2.001J;iiji)'iry1 ^ 1 -1 1 (i

7 S .') 1" ii 13 I.I

1-1 1:1 K; i-; 1.1 >'} .'«,M v2 21 :^ :?:» :.i ^v.'S ?'/ 1" .)!

,)„!,.'i i 1 -t :i n 78 '1 Hi 1 i i-> i.t M

n 16 17 iJi i!' 'J.> ?i

r.' -'] M '•- 3'. « JSj.) ii-i |i

I:dji'ij;i!'j'' -' :i

^ :, f, 1 S •! 1.11 1 r.> i.l i-l n it. '/l« III M L'l JJ J| .');••. -if. -Ji rt

AlK'lJi'lI J 1 -1

:. ii 7 s :> in iii? ij H 1:1 u. 17 i«

\-j :M Ji jj vi M j',.'i. .'7 -'h J'J.li. .11

/V1;irdii 2 .1

J ', ii 7 S :l 1.'II r.1 i| i J l-i H'. i/18 n.l .M VI JJ 2.1 M!-i ill .'/ vj ::> .1" .H

Sl'lHt'irjliCr

•1 .1 -1 •) 6 7 1., 10 n i; 1.1 u iMi 17 IS III .M 21 J

rt',.'.M .Vi '.'r. -^v ?ii ')

.April1 2 .1 -4 i * 7» |l li> II 13 1) 14

III l& 17 18 !',» Ji' 2123 2.1 2-1 2r> Jfi 27 23

2|l J"

October1 'I .1 4 -1 Ii

7 8 f) i" u 12 i;iM i-i if. 17 iS 15 ao

31 22 23 24 JI 21'. 27

JS :"i .10 n

May1 2 .] H f.

6 7 8 .4 10 JI 12

I.I H 0 16 17 IS 1'J

2U 2i 22 23 2.* 2^ 2ti27 23 29 ]u Ji

Nov'Ciiyijer1 2 3

1 b 6 7 8 5 10

II 12 i| H 15 16 17

IS 1'J 20 21 22 2.5 24

21 2i'i 27 28 2'l 10

JljllfI 2

.1 4 ^ 6 7 n '.iin 11 12 II 14 i'J "'17 ^ Ifi 2c ?l 22 J.l

24 Z^ 2u 27 28 3|) .Ju

Dci.TirjbCr

2 ;i 4 D f, 7 .1

5 10 11 12 i| 14 is

Hi 17 18 Ii) 20 31 .'2

V..V. 2'j Jii 2/ .'S ."i

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY-'



JUL 1 0 2002

M E M O R A N D U M

SUBJECT: Preliminary Remediation Goals - Wetlands Area of the 12'h Avenue SolventsSite, Ava, Missouri

FROM: Judy Facey PhD ,Toxicologist ÊNSV/DFSO

TO Eric NoldOn-Scene CoordinatorSUPR/EFLR

As you requested, I have developed Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for the 12lh

Avenue Solvents site wetland area, located in Ava, Missouri. The corresponding PRGs equateto an excess individual lifetime cancer risk of 1.0 x 10"" or the Office of Drinking WaterMaximum Contaminant Level (MCLs) and are summarized in the table below. It is important tonote that tlu's evaluation is limited to the wetland area which is drained via surface water flow,and also by an underground polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe into the unnamed stream. Thesupporting documentation for the PRGs is attached. If you have any questions, please let meknow.

Attachments

RECYCLE-

MCLs/PRGs for water discharsins in to u n n a m e d creek from Wetland Area

Contaminants

Benzene

Toluene (na)

Ethylbenzene (na)

Xylenes (Na)

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

cis 1,2 -Dichloroethane

1,1- Dichloroethane

MCL(ug /L)

5

1000

700

10,000

5

5

5

—

PRGs(ug/L)

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

43,800

Prel iminary Remediation GoaUfor the Wetland Area of the

12'h Avenue Solvents Site.Ava, MissouriJ u l v 10,2002


The 12lh Avenue Solvents site is located in the City of Ava, Douglas County, Missouri.The exact boundaries of the site have not been ful ly determined. However, the site includes theCopeland manufacturing facility at 1400 NW Third Street, the Rawlings manufacturing plantlocated at 400 NW 12lh Avenue, a portion of the Douglas County Health Department property,and a portion of the former Sentinel Wood Treater plant.

The facility at 1400 NW Third Street was formerly operated by Emerson ElectricCompany, Specialty Motors Division and is currently occupied by the Copeland Corporation, awholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Company. The property consists of 231,205square feet of manufacturing and office space, warehouse/dock areas, and support locationssituated on approximately 16 acres.

The: 12th Avenue Solvents site is bordered to the north by agricultural land; to the east byNW Third Street, parking lots, and residences; to the south by the Douglas County Department ofHealth property and residential properties; and to the west by the former Sentinel Wood TreaterSite.

In December 2000, The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) collectedsurface water and. sediment samples from two drainage features downgradient of the SentinelWood Trea.ter site. Two sampling points were located along an unnamed stream (a tributary toPrairie Cre^k) which drains the Sentinel site, above and below the stream's confluence with asmaller ditch which drains a small wetland area. The wetlands are drained via surface flow, andalso by an underground PVC pipe which was installed by the Douglas County Health Departmentas part of a subsurface drainage system. Based on visual inspection only, the wetland areaappears to be recharged by groundwater coming from the northeast, in the direction of multiplefacilities, including the Copeland Corporation, and Rawlings Sporting Goods.


From the MDNR's December 2000 sampling, results indicate that the wetland area andthe associated drainage ditch appeared to be a source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) notnecessarily associated with the Sentinel Wood Treater site. High levels of total xylenes (27,000ug/L), ethylbenzene (10,500 ug/L), cis-l,2-dichloroethane (146 ug/L), toluene (79.3 ug/L), 1,1-

dicl i loroethane (5 1.5 ug/L), tetrachloroethene (2.4 ug/L), benzene (2 .3 u g ' L ) and othercompound^ were reported in the surface \ \ a t e r sample from the d i t ch .

The surface water sample results from the site invest igat ion were compared to U.S. EPARegion LX tap water PRGs (U.S. EPA. 2000). Compounds were excluded for evaluat ion if atleast one sample did not exceed the Region LX tap water PRO or if a health-based benchmark isnot avai lable .

The surface water was compared to the U.S. EPA Region LX tap water PRGs because thesurface water is draining from the wetland area via surface water How and also by anunderground PVC pipe into the unnamed stream. From previous visi ts to the site, it is knownthat this unnamed stream is used by children from the area. At different points along thisunnamed stream there is the potential for incidental ingestion to children who are exposed.

3.0 Evaluation of Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenarios

This assessment is limited to the wetland areas of the 12lh Avenue Solvents site.Exposure scenarios are consistent with recreational exposure to solvents in the surface water ofthe unnamed creek as the drainage from the wetland is discharging into the creek. A child'srecreational exposure to contaminated surface water represent the human receptor with thegreatest potential exposure to the contaminations entering the unnamed creek. Due to thepotential for incidental ingestion of the contaminated surface water the EPA Office of DrinkingWater values is used as defaults. A reasonable maximum exposure scenario was considered forrecreational exposure that accounts for incidental ingestion and dermal contact, where MCL wasnot available.


All of the COPCs considered in this evaluation are classified as either known or probablehuman carcinogens. The cancer slope factors used in calculating the PRGs were obtained fromthe Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or the National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment. The cancer slope factors and weight-of-evidence determinations for the COPCs aresummarized in Table 1.


The PRGs were calculated for surface water located in the Wetland area of the 12'h

Avenue Solvents Site using a formula from the Risk Assessment Guidance of Superfund,Volume I, Part B (EPA, 1991b). The PRGs in this assessment primarily use default exposureparameters based on established U.S. EPA guidance and policies. The noncarcinogenic PRGformula, along with the exposure parameters and variable definitions, are presented below.

Table 1. Summarv of Carcinogenic Toxicitv Informat ion for COPCs

Chemicals

1,1 Dichloroethane

Benzene

Toluene (na)

Ethylbenzene (a a)


Trichloroethylene

T e tr ach loro e thy lene

1,2 -Dicliloroethane

Carcinogenicity

Oral Slope Factor(mg/kg/day"')

—

5.5E-02 (i)

—

—

—

l.!E-02(n)

5.2E-02 (n)

9.1E-02(i)

Oral Ref. Dose(mg/kg/day-1)

l.OE-02 (h)

3.0E-03 (i)

2.0E-01 (i)

l.OE-01 (i)

2.0E+00 (i)

6.0E-03 (n)

l.OE-02 (n)

3.0E-02 (i)

\Veight-of-EvidenceClassification









n ~ National Center for Environmental Health Assessmenti ~ U.S. EPA. 2002 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)na ~ non-cancerh ~ Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

Non-carcinogenic PRG Formula for an Residential/ Recreat ional Scenario:

THQ x Bwc X AT, x 1000 ug/mg'RG (ug/L)

Svmbol

THQ

BW,

ATn

RfD0

RfDj

EF

IRw

m.VF

ED

ABS

CF

EF x ED [(IRWa/RfDo) + ( Vfw

Defini t ion (units)

Target hazard quotient

Body weight - child (kg)

Averaging time - noncarcinogens (days)

Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1

Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)"1


Water Ingestion (mL/day)


Vola.tilization factor for water (L/m3)

Expo-ire Duration (yrs)


Conversion factor

x C R A c ) / R r D i ) ]

Parameter Value

1

15

ED*365

See Table 1

See Table 1

25

50

10

0.5

6

0.1

l.OE-06

Reference

-

EPA, 1989

EPA, 1989

-

-

EPA, I99tb

EPA, 199 Ib

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 1996

EPA, 1991b

EPA, 2000b

.

The target risk level used in calculating the PRGs for the recreational child equates to an hazardquotient of 1 . The MCLs and PRGs are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. MCLs/PRGs for water discharging into unnamed creek from Wetland Area

Contaminants

Benzene

Toluene (na)

Ethylbenzene (na)

Xylenes (Na)

Trichloroethykne

Tetrachloroethylene

cis 1,2 -Dichlc methane

1,1- Dichloroethane

MCL(ug/L)

^

1000

700

10,000

5

5

5

—

PRGs(ug/'L)

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

43,800

6.0 References

U.S. EPA (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEva lua t ion Manual - Part A. EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (199la). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human HealthEvaluation Manual - Part B. EPA/540/R-92/003, Publication 92S5.7-OIB. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1991b). Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: StandardDefault Exposure Factors. OSWER Publication 9285.6-03. Office of Emergency andRemedial. Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. (1996). Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA/540/R-96/028. Office ofErr.ergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA (2000). Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Available online athttp://w^-w.epa.gov/ost/'drinking/standards. Office of Water, EPA 822-B-00-001,Summer 2000.



U.S. EPA. (2001). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online athttp://www.epa.gov/iris. Office of Research and Development, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.

Environmental Strategies Corporation (May, 2001). Phase I and n Site Investigations , 12th

Avenue Solvents Site, Ava, Missouri.

Tera Tech EM Inc., (April, 2001). Site Screening Assessment for 12lh Avenue Solvents ReleaseSite, Ava, Missouri.

Roger Riemann<[email protected]>

12/31/2004 01:58PM

To

cc

bcc

"Fred A Lafser Jr." <[email protected]>, Pia Capell<[email protected]>, EricNold/SUPR/R7/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject Sentinel Alternative Time-Critical Removal Action Work PlanResponses to November 12 Questions

Eric, attached are to files responding to yourquestions on the above subject work plan. One is ascan of your questions and our responses and the otheris an Excel spreadsheet of the reformatted schedule.

Our responses to your asterisked questions are made initalicized font. If you have any additional questionsplease contact me by email or phone at 314 741-4231,cell 314 402-3872.

Sincerely,Roger Riemann

12 1S E Mold response[1].doc Project Schedule 8-25-04 Reformatted 12-Q4jds

RE: Review of Re-revised Alternate Time-Critical Removal Action Work Plan(RAWP) Submitted August 23, 2004, for the Sentinel Wood Treating Site

Dear Mr. Lafser:

As the designated project coordinator for the Sentinel Wood Treating site (SentinelSite), I am submitting to you the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and theMissouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) response to the Alternate Time-CriticalRAWP, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) addendum. Sampling Plan addendum, andHealth and Safety Plan addendum that you submitted for review in August 2004. Submissionof these documents was required under the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), datedSeptember 17, 2001, between the EPA, MDNR. and Sentinel Industries, Inc.

As described in the AOC under section IX part 42, Submissions Requiring EPAApproval, all plans and reports which require submission for EPA approval shall: a) be approvedin whole or in part; b) be approved with modifications; c) disapprove in whole or in part anddirect the Respondent to resubmit after incorporation of EPA and MDNR comments; d)disapprove the submission and assume responsibility for performing all or any part of theresponse activities; or e) any combination of the above.

The following is a summary of the EPA and the MDNR determination for the plan yousubmitted for approval. The Alternative Time-Critical RAWP is approved with comment,pending addressing certain comments.

The following are the EPA specific comments to the plan and the MDNR commentsan; attached. The EPA is requiring that any comment with an asterisk he addressed in aseparate document back to the EPA within the reporting time-line as outlined in the AOC. Fieldwork involving excavation should not be initiated before this document is received andreviewed by the EPA and the MDNR. This does not require the re-submission of the work planunless it is easier and/or less expensive to do so. The EPA is aware that some of the commentsfor the work plan are mentioned in your cover letter, but would have been better served if theywere incorporated into the work plan itself.

Cover Letter.

*The third paragraph says based on MDNR soil samples in 2002 - proves polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments are not from Sentinel - what about the PAH results fromtin; lagoon samples collected by EPA? Some PAH analysis w i l l be necessary when excavation , -^J I ^ "Tand treatment of the lagoon area is initiated. (jLajfofco1*-' \ ~*

' 'Wood treating creosote is a mixture of over 200 chemical compounds most of which arearomatic hydrocarbons. Phenanthrene, Anthracene, Pyrene, Chryscem, Ben~o-a-pyrene, andNaphthalene are only a few of the many compounds. From the EPA sample analyses we donot see samples with hits on all these compounds. We may see one or At'o of the compounds atrnoi't in any one sample but if you have coal tar creosote contamination vou expect to see aplethora of these compounds and many more. This is why we believe PAH did not come fromthe site. Of those individual compounds which were identified in the lagoon area none wereover Missouri CALM Industrial targets.

Alternate Time-Critical Removal Action Work Plan

Section 2 page 3 - Why is Figure 7 the first figure referenced. Where are thereferences to Figures 1 -6? Why are there two sets of Figures at the end of the text?

* Section 3.2, page 5, fourth paragraph - Why did you only calculate/re-calculate forthe 110 parts per mil l ion (ppm) isopleth? Do you plan on leaving everything in the lagoon areabelow 110 ppm behind and not treated?

J10 ppm and below will remain on site as planned at this time. This decision will be t^reevaluated with EPA involvement after initial excavations and risk/based considerations. &

* Section 3.2, page 6, last paragraph - If you would consider some of this material foroffsite disposal, why not the contaminated sludge in the cement vault/oil water separator inthe treatment area?

From discussions with the owner and previous employees the oil/water separatorwas back filled with chat/gravel before the concrete pad was laid over the area. It is possiblethe. material below the fill may require offsite disposal. At this time since the oil/water \Aseparator has been a significant point of concern we will plan to remove the sludge to a lined ^> ^f~—.container pending a more rigorous examination of the material properties and analyticalmakeup. If the physical and chemical properties allow incorporation into the biologicaltreatment, we will discuss this with you at that time.

Section 4.0 The Environmental Strategies Consulting, LLC (ESC) report refers toshallow bedrock wells in highly weathered bedrock as the "B" zone and deep bedrock wells in thecompetent bedrock as the "C" zone.

* Section 5.0, page 9, second paragraph - once treatment goals are met, thematerial wi l l be removed and put where/taken where?

Treated material meeting treatment goals will be removed from the £> ^bioremediation treatment cell and remain onsite and used to contour and level the site.It will be seeded to stabilize the soil.

Section 5.0, page 9, Phase I - I thought the inoculants were going to come fromexcavation of the roads on the east side of the creek.

1 -

Aerobic inoculants are to come from the lower road on the east side of the creek. & ''

Section 5.0, page 9, Phase 2 - I did not know any roads on the west side werecontaminated.

Roads on the west side of the creek are not contaminated. Some excavated .. {\material from the lower road on the east side of the creek will be moved to the westbioremediation treatment cell as inoculant.

* Section 5.2.2, page 11 - Where is your documentation to show why you areconfident that chemical oxidation w i l l work on this material? After the potassiumpermanganate or hydrogen peroxide treatment of the confined source (cement vaul tmaterial) meets the removal goal for pentachlorophenol (PCP), wi l l your test for d ioxinequivalents?

Potassium Permanganate, Peroxide, and Ozone have all been use as an effectivemeans ofdechlorination of organic compounds. "In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using //Potassium Permanganate,DOE/EM-0496,U.S. Department of Energy, Office of £) rÊnvironmental Management, Office of Science and Technology, September 1999. Asindicated in section 3.2 above we will excavate the material to a lined container pending anwe rigorous analysis of the chemical and physical properties of the material in this areabefore an informed decision can be made for reclamation.

* Section 6. 1, page 15 - Do you plan on sampling the off-site clay before it isbrought on the site to make sure it is "clean"?

Off-site clay was obtained from the City ofAva excavations from the deep £^ ! \undisturbed, subsoil roadway excavations up gradient and northwest of the site. Abaseline sample will be collected and analyzed.

* Section 6.2, page 16 - Shouldn't the "baseline" levels for PCP and dioxin be takenafter spreading out the contaminated soil and before adding the sawdust and/or inoculants?

The reason the baseline is taken after the sawdust and inoculants are added is toplot, aerobic degradation. If we take baseline before additions our next sampling (afteradditions) will show a false data point. Obviously there is some dilution of thecontaminated soil but the additions are not for dilution but to provide loft, bacteria andnutrients to the mix. Additionally, the tilling of the materials provides for a more uniformmixture and therefore a more consistent bacterial metabolic breakdown of thepentachlorophenol across the cell. We strive to have uniformity and ideally would like thewhole volume of material in the bioremediation treatment cell to have., the same

concentration of pentachlorophenol before startup.

Section 6.3, page 17- The last sentence of the first paragraph does not make sense. Iassume the backup samples w i l l go into the treatment cell once it is determined that they /are no longer needed. /--'

Cî VThe other back-up samples will be returned to the treatment cell if not needed.

* Section 6.5, page 1 7 - What about real t ime monitoring for volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) around the perimeter. The photoionization detector (PID) may, or maynot, be sensitive for PCP, but it w i l l give you readings from other contaminants when youstart excavating. I think it is critical to have real time perimeter, monitoring since manyconstituents will migrate off-site above their odor threshold value, thereby raising concern asto what the community is being exposed to and at what levels. You w i l l need to be able toprove that nothing is exceeding a health based number . .

The carrier for the pertachlorophenol is diesel fuel which like PCP is also not , fN^sensitive to photoionization detectors. We will have a PID available for real-time ' ^ t \ & ' 'monitoring during excavation to show no VOC's are present or are migrating over property \(v)l -A ^ -^ T 1^boundaries. , —«- j- ,

Section 7.2, page 18 - Shouldn't the heading read anaerobic instead of aerobic?

Section 7.2, page 18 - Reference 7 where?

Anaerobic and reference should be 10 on page 9.

* Section 9, page 23 - The abbreviations in the project schedule are not all easy tou n d e r s t a n d / i n t e r p r e t - Th i s i s very i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Please c h a n g e thepage setup from portrait to landscape with each year on a separate page so there is enough roomto explain everything i.e.. what does "sup" mean?). Also, put them in chronologic order asthey w i l l occur as previously requested. The term "west road" is now confus ing - isthis die westernmost road on the east side of the creek or is this referring to the west road on thewest side of the creek? It is confusing here and in Section 5. Shouldn't the piezometers andmonitoring wells be installed and sampled before any other work isin i t ia ted? Where is the annua l s a m p l i n g in the project schedule? Operatebiot reatment cell with SI - what is SI? A text description from start to finish of this sectionmishtbe necessary (might not if the above suggestions are completed).

The Schedule has been reformatted and expanded as suggested and is attached as a separate ^ file in our email..

* Section 10, page 24 - There are no sample quantity numbers for the 2-4 weekmoisture and pH samples. The activated carbon sample numbers do not add up. Thereshould be an in i t ia l effluent sample analyzed to verify the first months discharge is ok. For

the bioremediation soils, shouldn't there be a basel ine/ ini t ia l sample for d ioxin ,PAHs. PCP. and OA1/OA2 (especially dioxin since Appendix A says dio.xin does not .' • _ ;,. ('biodearade)? " I f f L~ d' $ «2K I" ' '"

moisture are taken on a two to four week basis and usually after additions of C* * " ^ ^ t ( , •; ^chemical fertilizers and watering we did not provide this depth of detail to the sampling V *•£""• *• • ' 0/j/iV/7. f^'e it'/'// //f/ve o baseline for PCP, Dioxin Equivalents, OA-2 after the bioremediationtreatment cell is mixed.

Section 2.2, page 12 - second paragraph - u n t i l the cleanup goal is achieved orbedrock is encountered?

Sample Plan

Title - Sampling Plan for Alternative Time-Critical Removal Action?

* Purpose, page 2 - Don't you plan on collecting verification sampling in the treatmentarea next to the concrete culvert? What about sampling of the cement vault/oil waterseparator's liquids/sludges?

I/

* Appendix D - You mentioned that this faci l i ty was discussing the idea of selfimposing a dioxin maximum concentration for receiving F032 waste, what is their finalverdict?

Off site facilities will respond when we have a representative sample of the actualmaterial to be shipped. The physical as well as chemical properties determine whether thematerial can be accepted. We will not understand the physical properties until excavation.Some flexibility is required here.

Quality Assurance Project PlanSection 1 .6. page 3, first paragraph - not the RAWP but the Alternative Time-CriticalRAWP. Last paragraph - says 30 parts per mi l l i on (ppm) PCP wil l be the cleanup goal,but in the work plan there were areas only being excavated that were above

1 1 0 ppm. not 30? The last sentence explains the treatment area but what about lagoon soilswhere you say only excavating everything above 1 1 0 ppm and evaluating the rest?

Section 1.7, page 4 - This is a good brief summary of the tasks at hand Section

1.10, page 8 - Is a two year record retention what was required in the

* Section 2, page 10 - I stil l th ink that sampling/analysis of PAHs and total petroleum / f\hydrocarbons (TPHs) for clearance may be necessary and should be accounted for. f \ Q^1, }l

We have included TPHand Dioxin sampling in excavation boundary samples. — -\- I-Pclynuclt'.ar Aromatic Hydrocarbons will not be tested because sampling results at the site donot indicate creosote or coal tar was used in the process.

We do plan on collecting verification sampling in the excavation next to theconcrete culvert. From discussions with the owner and previous employees the oil/waterseparator sump was backfilled with cha/gravel before the concrete pad was laid over thearea. It is possible the material below the fill may require offsite disposal. At this timesince the oil/water separator has been a significant point of concern we will plan to removethe sludge to a lined container pending a more rigorous examination of the materialproperties and analytical makeup.

Section 2, page 4 - Should the "%" ac tua l ly be "1/4"?

Section 5_1.2.1, page 8 - Table I says that location SW-3 wi l l also be sampled but wasnot mentioned in this section?

Section 5.4, page 9 - What about PAHs and TPHs?

Health and Safety7 Plan Addendum

Purpose, page 3 - Excavation area may be left open for extended periods of time?

* Section 2.2, page 5 - Odor wi l l be an issue and wil l only be able to be explained awayas jus t "odor" if some type of real time monitoring or air sampling is done at the perimeter ofthe property or near the entrance of the on-site businesses.

We will have a photoionization detector on site for real-time monitoring of VOC duringexcavation.

* Section 2.2, page 5 - With respect to the treatment plant sump material, if this is theworst material, why wil l you he using potassium permanganate (and/or hydrogenperoxide) when all of the text and the appendixes to the work plan refer to oxygenreleasing compounds (ORC) and hydrogen releasing compounds (HRC), nothing onpotassium permanganate or hydrogen peroxide? The National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health (N1OSH) guide says that hydrogen peroxide mayspontaneously combust when in contact with combustible material, has this been takeninto consideration'? Wi l l potentially exceeding the immediately dangerous to l i fe andhealth (1DLH) for hydrogen peroxide in the cement vault be an issue?

From discussions with the owner and previous emplovees the oil/water separator was

back filled with chat/gravel before the concrete pad was laid over the area. Lafser personallyobserved the drilling and core samples from the oil/water separator. While the driller log mayid the bottom t\vo-foot range, only the bottom! to 3 inches of the core was stained and oily,and it appeared to be mixed with chat. The MDNR sample was from the liquid at the vervbottom of the core at refusal and was incorrectly identified as groundwater. The sample didnot reflect the entire two fool section of core, only the bottom 1 inch. It is possible thematerial at the bottom of the fill may require offsite disposal. At this time since the oil/waterseparator has been a significant point of concern and we will plan to remove the sludge to alined container pending a more rigorous examination of the material properties andanalytical makeup. Treatment ofpentachlorophenol by oxidation may be a moot point if the/eve/ ofdioxin equivalents is above the target of20ppb.

Section 2.3, page 5 - The heading for this section does not match the content.

November 8, 2004

Mr. Eric NoldOn Scene CoordinatorU.S. EPA, Region VII

901 North 5"'StreetKansas Citv, KS 66101

Re: Sentinel Wood Alternate Time-Critical Removal Action Work Plan

Dear Mr. Nold:

I have reviewed the subject report and have the following comments for yourconsideration.

21.2 Lagoon Area Northwest Part of Site

*It is stated that only data point BH-16 in the west lagoon shows PCP levels above the actionlevels. How are you referring to action levels? On figure 6 data point B14- 10, located in the westlagoon, detected PCP at 63 ppm at the 2-4ft interval and BH-1 1 detected PCP at 120 ppm at the6-8ft interval. There were three draft actions levels set for PCP (1 1, 30, 110 ppm) and thesetwo points exceed all three of them.

If we look at a hard 110 ppm as the maximum action level, ves BH-11 is 120 ppm at the 6-8interval 10 ppm higher than the 110 and probably well in the margin of error for soil samples,however when considering the west lagoon in general the contamination levels in the westlagoon are an order of magnitude below those found in the central lagoon. The obvious hotspot and area of greatest concern is the central lagoon. The plan would be start excavationsin the center core of the contamination and work out till perimeter compliance samples met the110 ppm action level. If we look at absolute numbers you are correct.

3.4 Former Treatment Plant

*lt states in this section that the amount of soil estimated to be removed from the area is 320cubic yards at the 110 ppm boundary taken to bedrock at 10 feet (p.6). However in yourprevious May 04 Assessment report (p. 18) you said that you estimated about 650 cubic yardsai: the 110 ppm boundary taken to bedrock at 15 feet. How come this has changed?

The original volume was based on a prolate spheroid formed by rotation of an ellipse aboutiis major a\is. We rotated about the major axis 360 degrees and should have only rotated 180degrees, since we were only excavating from the ground surface clown.

Also why is there no mention of the concrete vaul t material volume in this section? It is locatedin the former treatment area. 1 understand that it may be unknown but it should be mentioned.

The amount of material in the concrete oil/water separator can be calculated howeverthis is not the amount of material to be treated. From discussions with the owner and previousemployees the oil/water separator sump was backfilled with chat/gravel before the concretepad was laid over the area. Lafser personally observed the drilling and core samples from theoil/water separator. While the driller log may id the bottom two-foot range, only the bottom!to 3 inches of the core was stained and oily, and it appeared to be mixed with chat. The MDNRsample was from the liquid at the very bottom of the core at refusal and was incorrectlyidentified as groundwater. The sample did not reflect the entire two foot section of core, onlythe bottom 1 inch. It is possible the material at the bottom of the fill may require off sitedisposal. At this time since the oil/water separator has been a significant point of concern andwe will plan to remove the sludge to a lined container pending a more rigorous examination ofthe material properties and analytical makeup. Treatment ofpentachlorophenol by oxidationmay be a moot point if the level ofdioxin equivalents is above the target of 20 ppb.

5 Approach for Remediation

It is stated that when the treatment goals are met, the material w i l l be removed and the nextpriase of material will be excavated and placed in the facility. Do you have ideas of where thistreated soil wil l be placed on site. \/ \j

We will discuss with EPA and Sentinel when final concentrations are known. .

5.2.2 Former Treatment Collection Sump V* $P- o

This sump has also been referred to as a concrete vaul t in the removal assessment reportand then as a former oil-water separator in Figure 6 contained in th is work plan. It needs tobe consistently referred to as the same name in all reports.

*This section is confusing. It states in this section that the h igh ly contaminated mater ial inthis sump w i l l be treated in place with a chemical oxidant solut ion. However in theApproach to Remediation Section it is discussed that reuse of recoverable high Btu solidsand tars at the site may be used as a fuel source for a permi t ted I n d u s t r i a l Boiler if it isn ' tcost-prohibited. It was my understanding that the h ighly contaminated material in the sumpand in the lagoons was this high Btu solid you are referring to from past discussions. So is itbeing treated wi th chemical oxidation, or being shipped off-site to be used as a fuel source.

or both?

From discussions with the owner and previous emplovees the oil/water separatorsump was backfilled with chat/gravel bejore the concrete pad was laid over the area. It ispossible the material below the fill may require offsite disposal. At this time since the oil/water separator has been a significant point of concern we will plan to remove the sludge toa lined container pending a more rigorous examination of the physical and materialproperties and analytical makeup.

Also chemical oxidation w i l l not break down dioxin which could be present at elevatedlevels in th i s sludge mater ia l if PCP levels are above 1500 ppm. It is stated that 5000 ppmPCP level exist in the sump. Where did this number come from?

5000 ppm was from the DNRSB15GW which was the material on the end of the core sample fyat the bottom of the concrete water-oil separator.

There should be more sampl ing of this mater ia l once th i s area is excavated.

We do plan additional characteri~ation of this material. ^J T^-

Then another section. Former Treatment P l a n t , it seems l ike a th i rd opt ion is presented forthis area. It states that the west side of the on site creek cu lver t w i l l be left open for a periodof t ime for evaluat ion and that plans cannot be formulated u n t i l you have a better v i sua lunderstanding of the si tuat ion. This seems l i k e you presented three different options for thesame area (h ighly contaminated mater ia l in sump).

As described above, the concrete oil/water separator is totally separate from the from the ; ,area next to the culvert. If you look at Figure 6 the oil/water separator (concrete vault) is , r-^snown as a rectangle on the west side of the old treatment plant outline. Think of theconcrete oil/water separator as a separate 19' X 9' X 7' box.

You state that the zone of h ighly contaminated mater ia ls (>IOOO ppm PCP) w i l l lef t inplace and treated and lesser contaminated mater ia ls above th is w i l l be removed and treated.However the excavated soils below 30 ppm PCP w i l l be stored on site and as previouslymentioned anything above 1 10 ppm w i l l be excava ted and treated on-site. So whathappens to the contaminated soil between 30-110 ppm? ,

These soils depending on the depth and location would be handled on a risk/based C/discussion with the Agency.

HRC is mentioned as a food source to s t i m u l a t e anaerobes to be used for the highlycontaminated material left in place. But it is stated that a chemical oxidant such ashydrogen peroxide or potassium permanganate w i l l be used for t rea tment . So which w i l l beused?

was only considered for use for the oil/water separator 's bottom sludge

* How w i l l the integrity of the sump/vau l t bottom be determined? It is stated that you p lanon t rea t ing the h igh ly contaminated ma te r i a l at the bottom in place but how do you know thev a u l t isn ' t leaking or contains cracks? There was a sample. SB-09, that was located close tothe s u m p / v a u l t area that found PCP at 910 ppm.

We have? reconsidered treatment and will remove the material to an enclosed containerpending a more rigorous examination of the material properties and analytical makeup.

6.3 Clearance Sampling Criteria for Excavation

* It states that all visible stained soil wi l l be excavated from the areas and distr ibuted in the bioremediationtreatment cell. The excavated soils should be sampled before it goes into the bioremediation cell. Youhave to confirm that you aren't put t ing too highly contaminated material in your bioremediation cell .

Based on the sampling of the whole site there are few samples > WOO ppm. It has been shown that the ,PC? metabolizing bacteria are capable of metabolizing PCP >2000 ppm. We have set 1000 ppm as our /maximum bioremediation treatable concentration. This does not mean greater than 1000 ppm would be /going into the si i.e. 1200 ppm soils would be mixed with lower PCP soils to make them treatable. Just like Vincineration requires the blending of a highly volatile waste with a lower BTU content waste in order tomake the waste stream treatable, and controlled as to not damage the incinerator.Obviously we want our bioremediation treatment cell to have a very homogeneous concentration of PCP.Other sites where we have similar bioremediation operations we target PCP baselines in the 400-600 ppmrange.

*Collecting one aliquot for each 1000 sq. ft of excavated areas is not enough to be representative.

What do you fee! is acceptable? 1000 square ft. equates to an aliquot sample for every 32 X 32 foolsquare section. Would an aliquot from every 20 X 20 feet be acceptable for a 400 square footcomposite sample?

7.6 HRC Application Rates

It states that material removed from the trenches w i l l be tested and moved to the bioremediation cell if itabove 30 ppm. There also needs to be a maximum level of PCP that wi l l be allowed in the bioremediationcell as well . From the cover letter it looks l ike the maximum might be 2000 ppm PCP?

As slated several limes previously, we cannot and do not need to limit the concentration in each bucket ofmaterial added to the treatment area, only the total baseline concentration needs to be limited. We cannotcommit to shipping anything off-site until more is known about the chemical AND PHYSICAL propertiesof the material. This will be required to gain approval from any off-site facility:. We cannot be certain thethe material can be accepted anywhere.. We do not plan to dilute the material to solve the problem, butonly to dilute the material concentrations to the limits of the treatment technology (bacteria) . Thispractice occurs with every treatment technology—fuel blending, incineration, neutralization,solidification, etc.

Sincerely.

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM

Pia Capell, Environmental Specialist SuperfundSection

PEC:ta

PROJECT SCHEDULE

REVISED December, 2004

SENTINEL PROPOSED SCHEDULE_A.FSER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

pCOMMENCE IMPLEMENTATION - 2004-5PROGRESS REPORTS TO EPA (15TH)CLAY/BENTONITE LINER CONSTRUCTIONPUBLIC MEETINGUCI PERMIT APPLICATIONERECT/BUILD 100'X200'GREENHOUSE #1 ONWEST SIDE OF CREEKBERMS ERECTED AND SUMP AND ELECTRICINSTALLED

DEVELOPMENT OF AND TEST INOCULATESINSTALL HRC TRENCHES ANDDISTRIBUTORSEXCAVATE / COMPLIANCE TEST OLD PLANT

& HRC TRENCHESFILL AND BLEND CELL WITH PLANT/TRENCHSOILSQUARTERLY SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGQUARTERLY WELL SAMPLINGQUARTERLY HRC MICROWELL SAMPLINGOPERATE BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENTCELL

MONTHLY BIO TREATMENT CELL SAMPLINGINSTALL 2 PIEZOMETERSINSTALL MONITORING WELLSERECT/BUILD 100'X200'GREENHOUSE #2OPERATE / TEST / CARBON SOUTH SUMP

EXCAVATION CLEARANCE TEST WEST ROAD

SEPT,10-1(9-04?

XX

OCTMo-2

XXXX

X

X

X

NOVMo-3

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

ncr*

Mo-4

X

X

X

X

X

X

I AMurî *

Mo-5

X

XX

^CD1 l_U»

Mo-6

X

XXX

X

n A A r>ivirM \

Mo-7

X

X

XX

A nnr\r i~\

Mo-8

X

X

X

X

X

IVI/"\ 1

Mo-9

X

XXX

X

X

X

OUI^JC

Mo-10

X

X

X

X

JUL I

Mo11

X

X

X

X

MUU

Mo12

X

XXX

X

X

X

PROJECT SCHEDULE

YEAR 2 - 2005-6

PROGRESS REPORTS TO EPA (15TH)OPERATE/TEST/CARBON/ SOUTH SUMPOPERATE BIO TREATMENT CELL WEST SIDEOF CREEK

MONTHLY BIOTREATMENT CELL SAMPLING

SURFACE WATER STREAM SAMPLING/QA/QCQUARTERLY WELL SAMPLING / QA/QCQUARTERLY HRC MICROWELL SAMPLING /QA/QCCHARACTERIZATION OF LAGOON

Mo-1SEPT

Y

X

X

X

Mo-2OCT

y

X

X

X

Mo-3NOV

Y

X

XX

X

Mo-4DEC

x

X

Mo-5JAN

Y

Mo-6FEB

V

XX

X

Mo-7MAR

V

X

X

Mo-8APR

V/\

X

X

Mo-9MAY

V/\

X

X

X

XX

X

Mo-10JUNE

\//\

X

X

X

Mo-11JULY

\//\

X

X

X

Mo-1 2AUG

XX

X

X

XX

X

YEAR 3 - 2006-7

PROGRESS REPORTS TO EPA (15TH)OPERATE/TEST/CARBON/SOUTH SUMPOPERATE BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENTCELL

MONTHLY BIOTREATMENT CELL SAMPLINGREPLENISH HRC TRENCHESEXCAVATE/ REMOVE YEAR 1-2 TREATEDSOILS FROM TREATMENT CELLSURFACE WATER STREAM SAMPLING

QUARTERLY WELL SAMPLINGQUARTERLY HRC MICROWELL SAMPLINGFILL/DEVELOP BIOREMEDIATION CELL WESTFOR EAST ROAD SOILSEXCAVATE /CLEARANCE TEST EAST ROADSOILSFILL BIO CELL WITH WEST LAGOON MAT'LPARTIAL EXCAVATION OF LAGOONS FORDISPOSAL/TREATMENTOFFSITE DISPOSAL / TREATMENT

Mo-1SEPT

XX

X

XX

Mo-2OCT

XX

X

XX

X

Mo-3NOV

XX

XXXX

X

X

Mo-4DEC

X

Mo-5JAN

X

X

X

Mo-6FEB

X

XXX

X

XX

Mo-7MAR

XX

X

Mo-8APR

XX

X

Mo-9MAY

XX

X

X

XXX

Mo-10JUNE

XX

X

X

Mo-11JULY

XX

X

X

Mo-12AUG

XX

X

X

XX •X

9 PROJECT SCHEDULE

YEAR 4 - 2007-8

DDOfODCCC DCDl~lDTC T(~l (TOA /- ICTUJX

OPERATE/TEST/CARBON/ SOUTH SUMPOPERATE BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENTCELL

MONTHLY BIOTREATMENT CELL SAMPLINGSURFACE WATER STREAM SAMPLINGQUARTERLY WELL SAMPLINGQUARTERLY HRC MICROWELL SAMPLING

Mo-1SEPT

w/\

X

X

X

Mo-2OCT

\//\X

X

X

Mo-3NOV

XX

XXX

Mo-4DEC

A

Mo-5JAN

X

Mo-6FEB

X

XXX

Mo-7MAR

XX

X

Mo-8APR

XX

X

Mo-9MAY

XX

X

XXXX

Mo-10JUNE

XX

X

X

Mo-11JULY

XX

X

X

Mo-1 2AUG

XX

X

XXXX

9 PROJECT SCHEDULE

YEAR 5 - 2008-9

PROSPERS pppnpT.c; TCI PPA MSJUJ

OPERATE/TEST/CARBON/ SOUTH SUMPOPERATE BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENTCELLREPLENISH HRC TRENCHES


EXCAVATION OF YEAR 3-4 TREATED SOILSEXCAVATION/COMPLIANCE TEST CENTRALLAGOON MATERIAL

FILL BIO CELL WITH CENTER LAGOON MAT'L

Mo-1SEPT

V

X

XX

Mo-2OCT

V

X

XX

X

Mo-3NOV

V/\

X

XXX

Mo-4DEC

V/\

X

Mo-5JAN

w/\

X

X

X

Mo-6FEB

wA

XXX

X

X

Mo-7MAR

A

X

X

Mo-8APR

A

X

X

Mo-9MAY

A

X

X

XXXX

Mo-10JUNE

XX

X

X

Mo-11JULY

XX

X

X

Mo-12AUG

XX

X

XXXX

9 PROJECT SCHEDULE

YEAR 6 -2009-10

PDnr^DCCc: DPDriDTC rn CDA MCTU\

OPERATE/TEST/CARBON/ SOUTH SUMPOPERATE BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENTCELL


Mo-1SEPT

V/\

X

X

X

Mo-2OCT

V/\

X

X

X

Mo-3NOV

V/\

X

XXX

Mo-4DEC

\S/\

Mo-5JAN

\s/\

Mo-6FEB

X

XXX

Mo-7MAR

XX

X

Mo-8APR

A

X

X

Mo-9MAY

A

X

X

XXXX

Mo-10JUNE

A

X

X

X

Mo-11JULY

A

X

X

X

Mo-12AUG

XX

X

XXXX

9 PROJECT SCHEDULE

:-•::.': : V .'I;.-. ; - : . ; : . : ' : ; : • : . • ; : ; : • • • '-:': • . .' ft; '• ~ \ ' < ] " ' ••• • ' • ' • • ' :. '•-. < : '•'•

YEAR 7 201 0-11

PRORRFRR REPORT? TO EPA (15TH)OPERATE BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENTCELL

MONTHLY BIOTREATMENT CELL SAMPLINGREMOVE/CLOSE WELLSREMOVE/CLOSE HRC TRENCHESFINAL REPORTREMOVE GREENHOUSESFINAL GRADE /SEED SITE

Mo-1SEPT

Y

X

X

Mo-2OCT

Y

X

X

Mo-3NOV

V

X

XX

Mo-4DEC

V/\

X

Mo-5JAN

V/\

Mo-6FEE

\y/\

Mo-7MAR

\//\

X

Mo-8APR

X

Mo-9MAY

X

Mo-10JUNE

Mo-11JULY

Mo-12AUG

NEBRASKA * IOWA

^tDS%,

SEKANSAS S*ol

U.S. EPA REGION 7EMERGENCY RESPONSE901 NORTH 5th STREET

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101SPILL LINE (913) 281-0991

FAX (913) 551-7157

BJEpT.

PAGE NUMBER.

PREPARED BY_

ACTIVITY NUMBER.

r Xk

OF

DATE.

/y

SINCE 1957

P.O. Box 165 • Ashland, Missouri 65010 • 573-657-2164 • Fax 573-657-2484

RECEIVED

APR 1 5 2005SUPERFUND DIVISION

April 13, 2005

Mr. Eric MoldEnforcement / Fund-Lead Removal BranchU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion VIIKansas City, KS 66101

Dear Mr. Mold,

Please consider this letter a formal request to have a copy sent to me via U.S. Mail or byE-Mail ([email protected]) on all correspondence to Lafser & Associates, Inc. and David Shoreof Lathrop & Gage.

Sincerely,

Donald D. FarrisPresident

J

o

ro?-01

FROM:

Phone #:Superfund DivisionRegion 7

TO:

COMMENTS:

J/7tLt

^ -/ /S&^T 06U

'

</gz-e-

DATE:

PAGES TO FOLLOW:

-Pl e^<<7x»i

/A

'

LAFSER & ASSOCIATES, INC R F P F I V F D638 CHAMBLEE LANE n C C I V C U

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63141

314878^021 APR 07 2005

SUPERFUND DIVISION

April 5, 2005

Mr. Eric MoldEnforcement / Fund-Lead Removal BranchU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion VIIKansas City, Kansas 66101

RE: March 24, 2005 Correspondence on Sentinel Alternate Time-Critical RemovalAction Work Plan.

Dear Mr. Mold,

At the end of the above referenced correspondence you indicated that you had notreceived a response from Sentinel to EPA/MDNR's comments from your review of theRevised Time Critical Removal Action and Removal Assessment Report. (Commentsattached)

We believed from the fourth paragraph of that document a written response wasrequired only for those comments with an asterisk to be addressed in a separatedocument back to the EPA. In the document Mr. Farris and I received from your office,there were no asterisked comments for the EPA or MDNR comments, leading us tobelieve a written response was not required.

If this is in error please indicate which comments you wish formal written responses.My telephone is 314 741-4231, Fax 314 741-4388, and email [email protected].

^ f\ ôxIO.Roger A. RiemannSr. Environmental Scientist

Cc: Don FarrisDavid Shorr

Enclosure


REGION VII901 NORTH 5TH STREET

KANSAS CITY. KANSAS 66101

HOV R ZOW

C ERTIFIED MAULR ETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Fred LafserLafser & Associates, Inc.638 Chamblee LaneSt. Louis, Missouri 63141

RE: Review of Revised Time-Critical Removal Action and Removal AssessmentReport Submitted April 30, 2004, for Sentinel Wood Treating Site

Dijar Mr. Lafser:

As the designated project coordinator for the Sentinel Wood Treating site(Sentinel Site), I am submitting to you the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) official response to theTime-Critical Removal Action and Removal Assessment Report that you submitted forreview in April 2004 (see enclosure). Submission of this document was required underthe Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). dated September 17,2001, between theEPA, the MDNR, and Sentinel Industries. Inc.

As described in the AOC under section DC part 42, Submissions Requiring EPAApproval, all plans and reports which require submission for EPA approval shall: a) beapproved in whole or in part; b) be approved with modifications; c) disapprove in wholeor in part and direct the Respondent to resubmit after incorporation of EPA and MDNRcomments; d) disapprove the submission and assume responsibility for performing all orany part of the response activities: or e) any combination of the above.

The following is a summary of the EPA and the MDNR's determination for thereport which you submitted for approval. The Time-Critical Removal Action andRemoval Assessment Report is approved with comment, pending addressing certaincomments.

The following are the EPA's specific comments to the report and the MDNR'sait attached. The EPA is requiring that any comment with an asterisk be addressed in aseparate document back to the EPA within the reporting time-line as outlined in theAOC. This does not require the re-submission of the removal assessment report unless itis easier and/or less expensive to do so.

RECYCLE®

10 3=>vd HBSdtfl W <O±d Zt>ff8Z8t>TE ZS'-Ll t>00Z/60/II

1. Page 7, Section 3.2 - Says 21 pages for Table 1 and List of Tables on page 4(?) says 26 pages - which is it?

2. Page 10, Section 5.1 - First sentence - Figure 4 shows the piezometer locations- probably should reference Figures 3 and 4 here.

' 3. Page 12, Section 5.3 - C - Piezometer IS doesn't show a detection based onelevated detection limits so why describe it with piezometers 9,10, and 11 asbeing high? More importantly, the data displayed in Figure 10 doesn't match thedata displayed in Figure 21 for piezometers 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. Based on TableI (if that is correct) it appears that Figure 10 is not correct

4. Page 12, Section 5.3 - D - an explanation of where you think this is comingfrom is needed since it is south of the southernmost East-West diversion systemtrench?

' 5. Page 14, Section 5.5 - Last paragraph - here you refer to the initial material inthe south sump as sludge. Earlier in Section 4.3 it was described as a "thin oilyfilm" - which is it?

6. Page 14, Section 5.6 - On Figure 8 what are the hand written numbers next tothe "x's" - PCP results? What units? Was Sed 5 taken prior to the wall extension(hat was built? Table 14 is results of mag survey - change to Figure 13.

7. Page 14, Section 5.7 - This should be one of the most important sections of theentire Removal Assessment report and has the most data since 1997 (or 1998 or2000 or 2002). Either need to change the heading name for 5.7 or includeSections 5.8-5.11 as sub-headings. Maybe just change 5.7 to Treatment area soilsampling. Why list sample results for ground water here and create the necessityto look up soil results in two different tables? Differing units on Figure 10 forground water, soil, and isopleths make it confusing to interpret. Table 11 is forthe roadways - not treatment area. Table 13 is for sediment results. Table 12 issoil boring results.

8. Page 15, Section 5.8 - Need to reference Table 11 here.

9. Page 15, Section 5.9 - Last sentence doesn't make sense as written.

13. Page 18, Section 6.S - Classification says roadways were contaminated fromapplying sediment sludge from oil water separator but section 5.8 says it is fromdnppage during product storage after treatment - which is it?

14. Page 20, Section 8 - Conclusion #2 - Figure 20 doesn't show PZ-6 in theground water drainage diversion system, but north of it.

15. Page 20, Section 8 - Based on all the data that's been collected since 2000,1can think of many more conclusions that are important and could be made here.Especially positive ones (i.e. ponds north of the site not impacted above healthbased concerns; municipal wells not impacted by Sentinel contaminants at thistime; currently, direct exposure to highly contaminated material unlikely; doesnot appear that ground water south of the site and east of the creek has beenimpacted, etc.).

16. Page 21, Section 9 - bullet #7 - Do you mean 1 to 2 cubic-yards of sediment?

17. Table 1. Subsurface Soil - doesn't show any dioun equivalents above 1.0ppb - this is not true - are the results actually in ppt?

If you have any questions concerning the EPA's and the MDNR's review andcomments on the above referenced plans, please call me ar (913) 551-7488 or Pia Capell,MDNR at

751-2115.

Sincerely,

Eric NoldOn-Scene CoordinatorEnforcement/Fund-Lead Removal Branch

Enclosure

Mr. Eric MoldOctober 22, 2004Page 2

STATE QS> Ml£StHJRr Bob Huldcn. CJovcrnor . Swphcn M. Mahfood, Director

OF NATURAL RESOURCESwwwidnr.mo.gov

October 22, 2004 NOV 1 2004

Mr. Eric NoldOn Scene CoordinatorU.S. EPA, Region VU90 1 North5u> StreetKansas City, KS 66101

Re: Sentinel Wood Removal Action and Assessment Report

Dear Mr. Nold:

1 have reviewed the subject report and have the following comments for your consideration.

5.4 Surface Water Management

In the last sentence, it is stated that no samples have been taken from the monitoring pipe and thearea is scheduled for excavation. Will monitoring happen after the excavation?

6.0 Contaminated Soil Volume Estimates

Some areas measure the volume in 22, 1 J 0, and 1 1 00 ppm PCP and other areas are measured in1 1 and 1 1 0 ppm PCP. Seems like there should be some consistency in volumes measured.

6.4 Old Treatment Plant

It is stated that only the bottom 2-3 inches above refusal contained visible contamination, thebottom material was oily water but was. inappropriately referred to as "groundwater" by MDNR,and that the highest sample tested was 860 ppm in the bottom sludge in the vault

The sampling and log notes for the boreholes in the concrete vault taken during the ESI show inSB-1 5 that from around 6.5 - 7 feet to refusal at 8 feet there was visible contaminated material

(POP = 860 m 6m - iffl RU In the otter boring, SB-17, flne was contaminatedMluourl

Dcparuncmof

Integrity and excellence in aU. we do

o

Mr. Eric MoldOctobia- 22, 2004Page 2

material encountered at 2.5-3.5' (PCP = 1200 ppm, dioxin = 7.17 ppb) with refusal at around 12feet. So the statement that only the bottom 2-3 inches above refusal were visibly contaminateddoes not seem accurate.

The liquid samples were referred to as groundwater in the narrative portion of the ESI SamplingReport, but were correctly referred to as "liquid waste" in the ESI Narrative Report (which is themain report for the site) and in all tables describing samples.

Lastly the highest PCP concentration in this vault area from the soil/waste material was in SB-17from die 2.5-3.5' depth at 1,200 ppm, not 860 ppm.

9.0 Recommendations

In recommendation #2 it says that the small amount of sludge in the bottom of the vault shouldbe assessed but there is no potential options proposed. As is stated earlier, we believe there ismore than 1 inch of visibly contaminated oily material that will have to be addressed.

Either collecting deeper groundwater samples or drilling deeper wells into the B zone fracturedbedrock on-site at different locations should have also been recommended. PCP was found in awell drilled to 35 feet downgradient of the site. There doesn't seem to be any on-sitegroundwater data for anything besides shallow groundwater.

Sincerely,

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM

C4Pia Ciipell, Environmental SpecialistSuperrUnd Section

PEC:ta

50

Fred LakerLafser & Associates, Inc.638 Chainblee LaneSt. Louis, Missouri 63141

RE: Review of revised Time-Critical Removal Action and Removal Assessment Reportsubmitted April 30, 2004, for Sentinel Wood Treating Site

Dear Mr. Lafser,

As the designated project coordinator for the Sentinel Wood Treating Site (Sentinel Site),I am submitting to you the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) (attached) official response to the Time-Critical Removal Actionand Removal Assessment Report that you submitted for review in April 2004. Submission ofthis document was required under the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), dated September17, 2001. between the EPA, MDNR, and Sentinel Industries, Inc.

As described in the AOC under section IX part 42, Submissions Requiring EPAApproval, all plans and reports which require submission for EPA approval shall:a) be approved in whole or in part; b) be approved with modifications; c) disapprove in whole orin part and direct the Respondent to resubmit after incorporation of EPA and MDNR comments;d) disapprove the submission and assume responsibility for performing all or any part of theresponse activities; or e) any combination of the above.

The following is a summary of EPA and MDNR's determination for the report which yousubmitted for approval. The Time-Critical Removal Action and Removal Assessment Report isapproved with comment, pending addressing certain comments.

The following are EPA's specific comments to the report and MDNR's are attached.EPA is requiring that any comment with an asterisk be addressed in a separate document back toEPA . This does not require the resubmission of the removal assessment report unless it is easierand/or less expensive to do so.

1. Page 7, Section 3.2 - Says 21 pages for Table 1 and List of Tables on page 4 (?) says 26 pages- which is; it?

2. Page 10, Section 5.1 - First sentence - Figure 4 shows the piezometer locations - probablyshould reference Figures 3 and 4 here.

2

*3. Page 12, Section 5.3 - C - Piezometer 15 doesn't show a detection based on elevateddetection l imits so why describe it with piezometers 9. 10, and 1 1 as being high? Moreimportantly, the data displayed in Figure 10 doesivt match the data displayed in Figure 21 torpiezometers 9. 10, 11, 15, and 16. Based on Table 1 (if that is correct) it appears that Figure 10is not correct.

*4. Page 12, Section 5.3 - D - an explanation of where you think this is coming from is neededsince it is south of the southernmost East-West diversion system trench?

*5. Page- 14, Section 5.5 - Last paragraph - here you refer to the ini t ia l material in the southsump as sludge. Earlier in Section 4.3 it was described as a '"thin oily film" - which is it?

6. Page 14, Section 5.6 - On Figure 8 what are the hand written numbers next to the "x V - PCPresults? What units? Was Sed 5 taken prior to the wall extension that was built? Table 14 isresults of mag survey - change to Figure 13.

7. Page 14, Section 5.7 - This should be one of the most important sections of the entireRemoval Assessment report and has the most data since 1997 (or 1998 or 2000 or 2002). Eitherneed to change the heading name for 5.7 or include Sections 5.8-5.11 as sub-headings. Maybejust change 5.7 to Treatment area soil sampling. Why list sample results for ground water hereand make us look up soil results in two different tables? Differing units on Figure 10 for groundwater, soil, and isopleths make it confusing to interpret. Table 11 is for the roadways - nottreatment area. Table 13 is for sediment results. Table 12 is soil boring results.

8. Page 15, Section 5.8 - Need to reference Table 11 here.

9. Page 15, Section 5.9 - Last sentence doesn't make sense as written.

10. Page 16, Section 5.10 - Why isn't the EPA report described here part of the reference list atthe end of this report?

11. Page 17, Section 6.1 - What does the last sentence have to do with soil volume estimates?

*12. Page 18, Section 6.4 - see MDNR's comments.

* 13. Page 18, Section 6.5 - Classification says roadways were contaminated from applyingsediment sludge from oil water separator but section 5.8 says it is from drippage during productstorage alter treatment - which is it?

14. Page 20, Section 8 - Conclusion #2 - Figure 20 doesn't show PZ-6 in the ground waterdrainage diversion system, but north of it.

15. Page 20, Section 8 - Based on all the data that's been collected since 2000,1 can think ofmany more conclusions that are important and could be made here. Especially positive ones (i .e.

ponds north of the site not impacted above health based concerns; municipal wells not impactedby Sentinel contaminants at this time; currently, direct exposure to highly contaminated materialun l ike ly ; does not appear that ground water south of the site and east of the creek has beenimpacted, etc.).

16. Page 21, Section 9 - bullet #7 - Do you mean 1 to 2 cubic yards of sediment?

* 17. Table 1. Subsurface Soil - doesn't show any dioxin equivalents above 1.0 ppb - this is nottrue - are the results actually in ppt?

If you have any questions concerning EPA and MDNR's review and comments on theabove referenced plans, please call me at (913) 551-7488 or Pia Capell, MDNR at(573) 75:;-2115.

Sincerely,

Eric NoldOn-Scene CoordinatorEnforcement/Fund-Lead Removal Branch

Documents

Community Laundromat Site