RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT FOR REMEDIAL PLANNING … · Program Manager Approved by: ^ _____ Date: Deanna Moultrie Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AR30050

RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACTFOR REMEDIAL PLANNING AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

IN EPA REGION III

U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-S7-3003

REVISED FINALREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

FORNORTH PENN OPERABLE UNIT 2

SPRA-FIN PROPERTYNORTH WALES, PENNSYLVANIA

VOLUME I

Work Assignment No.: 015-RICO-03X1Document Control No.: 3232-015-RT-RIRT-01570

June 24, 2003

Prepared for:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IIIPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Prepared by:CDM Federal Programs Corporation

993 Old Eagle School RoadWayne, PA 19087

A R 3 0 0 5 0 0

RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACTFOR REMEDIAL PLANNING AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

IN EPA REGION III

U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-S7-3003

REVISED FINALREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

FORNORTH PENN OPERABLE UNIT 2

SPRA-FIN PROPERTYNORTH WALES, PENNSYLVANIA

June 24,2003

Work Assignment No.: 015-RICO-03X1Document Control No.: 3230-015-RT-RIRT-01570

Prepared by: £jf%^ZC<t<6></ A /St%Z<^^ Date:Andrew P. HoptoProject Manager

—————-

Andrew P. Hopton

Reviewed by: ' luv^ gr; _________ Date:George Ebelullo URegional QA Manager

Issued by: /- ^ Date:Joan O. KnappProgram Manager

Approved by: ^ ________ Date:

Deanna MoultrieRemedial Project ManagerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

A R 3 0 0 5 0

Contents

"R30050?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1=11.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1=11.2 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.1.3 SITE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1=2

1.3.1 OPERATIONAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1^31.3.2 INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS . 1=4

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ±6

2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2=12.1 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2J.2.2 SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2=22.3 GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2=32.3.2 SITE GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2=5

2.4 DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2=62.5 ECOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2=72.6 METEOROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=13.1 UTILITY SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=1

3.1.1 METHODS/PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=13.1.2 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=1

3.2 SURFACE FEATURE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=23.3 SOIL INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=2

3.3.1 SURFACE SOIL (SEDIMENT) SAMPLING ACTIVITIES . . . . 3=33.3.1.1 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33.3.1.2 Methods/Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33.3.1.3 Deviations From SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.3.2 SOIL-GAS SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=53.3.2.1 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53.3.2.2 Methods/Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53.3.2.3 Deviations From SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.3.3 SUBSURFACE SOIL BORING ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=73.3.3.1 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73.3.3.2 Methods/Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73.3.3.3 Deviations From SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.3.4 BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLING ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

A R 3 Q 0 5 Q 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

3.3.4.1 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-103.3.4.2 Methods/Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-103.3.4.3 Deviations From SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)... . . . . . . 3-123.4.1 INVESTIGATION QA/QC SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-123.4.2 INVESTIGATION ITEMS AND DEVIATIONS FROM THE

SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

4.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14.1 SOIL GAS SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=14.2 SHALLOW GROUNDWATER RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=24.3 SCREENING VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4£4.4 SOIL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4^4

4.4.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ±64.4.1.1 Organic Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-64.4.1.2 Inorganic Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.4.1.2.1 Surface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-74.4.1.2.2 Subsurface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.4.2 INVESTIGATION SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=3.4.4.2.1 Volatile Organic Exceedances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.4.2.1.1 Surface Soil Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-104.4.2.1.2 Sub-Surface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4.4.2.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Exceedances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-154.4.2.2.1 Surface Soil Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-154.4.2.2.2 Subsurface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.4.2.3 Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls Exceedances . 4-204.4.2.3.1 Surface Soil Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-204.4.2.3.2 Subsurface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

4.4.2.4 INORGANIC EXCEEDANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-224.4.2.4.1 Surface Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-224.4.2.4.2 Subsurface Soil Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27

4.5 SUMMARY OF EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-284.5.1 VOLATILE ORGANIC CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-284.5.2 SEMIVOLATILE CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-294.5.3 PESTICIDES AND PCB CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-304.5.4 INORGANIC CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-304.5.5 BACKGROUND CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

11

A R 3 0 0 5 0 L *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

5.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5=±5.1 EXCEEDANCES OF REGULATORY SCREENING LEVELS . . . . . . . 5J.5.2 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5^2

5.2.1 PROPERTIES OF SITE MEDIA INFLUENCINGCONTAMINANT TRANSPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . «5.2.1.1 Topography/Surface Water Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35.2.1.2 Surficial Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35.2.1.3 Shallow Groundwater Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35.2.1.4 Soil Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2.2 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT PATHWAYS .. 5^55.3 CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CONTAMINANTS 5^5

5.3.1 CONTAMINANT PERSISTENCE (FATE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5=55.3.1.1 Processes that Affect Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65.3.1.2 COC Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.3.2 CONTAMINANT MOBILITY (TRANSPORT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-105.3.2.1 Mobility of Organic Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-115.3.2.2 Mobility of Inorganics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5.4 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT . . . . . 5-17

6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6^6.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6=1

6.1.1 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d6.1.2 SCOPE OF RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6=2

6.2 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN . . . 6-36.2.1 DATA EVALUATION AND SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6=4

6.2.1.1 Surface Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-66.2.1.2 Subsurface Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-66.2.1.3 Soil-Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6£7

6.2.2 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN . . M6.2.3 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-116.3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE SETTING . . . . . . . . 6-12

6.3.1.1 Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-126.3.1.2 Potentially Exposed Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12

6.3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . 6-146.3.2.1 Contaminant Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-146.3.2.2 Release and Transport Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

in

^300505

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

6.3.2.3 Potential Exposure Points and Exposure Routes . . . . . . 6-156.3.2.4 Current Exposure Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-156.3.2.5 Future Exposure Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

6.3.3 ESTIMATION OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS 6-176.3.4 ESTIMATION OF CHEMICAL INTAKES FOR INDIVIDUAL

PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-196.4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.4.1 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR NONCARCINOGENICEFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6.4.2 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR CARCINOGENICEFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23

6.4.3 CHEMICALS FOR WHICH NO USEPA TOXICITYVALUES ARE AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-27

6.4.4 TOXICITY PROFILES OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIALCONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29

6.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-306.5.1 NONCARCINOGENIC AND CARCINOGENIC RISK

ESTIMATION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-306.5.2 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-326.5.3 SUMMARY OF TOTAL RISKS ACROSS PATHWAYS AND

M E D I A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-386.5.3.1 Current Adult and Child Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-396.5.3.2 Current/ Future Trespassers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-396.5.3.3 Current/Future Industrial Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-396.5.3.4 Future Adult and Child Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-406.5.3.5 Future Construction Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-41

6.6 UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN HEALTH RISKASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-416.6.1 GENERAL UNCERTAINTY IN COPC SELECTION . . . . . . . 6-426.6.2 UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE

ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-426.6.3 UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH TOXICITY

ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-436.6.4 UNCERTAINTY IN RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . 6-44

6.7 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-45

7.0 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

IV

A R 3 0 0 5 0 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

7.2 SCREENING LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1^27.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7^2

7.2.1.1 Site Location and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-27.2.1.2 Habitat and Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7^27.2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7.2.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . 147.2.3 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2=6

7.2.3.1 Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-67.2.3.2 Endpoints and Risk Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

7.2.4 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTSEVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-107.2.4.1 Screening Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-107.2.4.2 Ingestion Screening Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

7.3 SCREENING LEVEL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-127.3.1 RECEPTOR SPECIES EXPOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-127.3.2 EXPOSURE ESTIMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13

7.3.2.1 Food Chain Exposure Dose Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-137.4 SCREENING LEVEL RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17

7.4.1 ESTIMATION OF RISK TO SOIL INVERTEBRATES . . . . . . 7-187.4.2 ESTIMATION OF FOOD CHAIN RISKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-217.4.3 RISK SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-23

7.5 SCREENING LEVEL UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 7-26

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18.1 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18.2 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A RI DATA SETAPPENDIX A- 1 COMPLETE RI DATA SETAPPENDIX A-2 SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL

RESULTS - ALL DETECTIONAPPENDIX B HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT STANDARD TABLESAPPENDIX B-l STANDARD TABLES 1 THROUGH 10APPENDIX B-2 DATA USABILITY WORKSHEETAPPENDIX B-3 PRO UCL RESULTSAPPENDIX B-4 DERMAL ABSORPTION VALUES

7

APPENDIX B-5APPENDIX B-6APPENDIX B-7APPENDIX B-8APPENDIX B-9APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

VOLATILIZATION FACTORSADULT LEAD RUN RESULTSCHILD LEAD MODEL RUN RESULTSTOXICITY PROFILEAIR MODELING RESULTSSCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTSTANDARD TABLESCALCULATIONS TO SUPPORT THE PRESENCE OF DNAPL

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

4-14-24-34-44-54-64-74-85-16-16-27-17-27-3

Summary of Soil Gas Survey Analytical ResultsSummary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results - All DetectionsList of Soil SamplesSummary of VOC Screening Value Exceedances in Surface Soil SamplesSummary of SVOC Screening Value Exceedances in Surface Soil SamplesSummary of Pesticide/PCB Screening Value Exceedances in Surface Soil SamplesSummary of Inorganic Screening Value Exceedances in Surface Soil SamplesSummary of Screening Value Exceedances in Subsurface Soil SamplesFate and Transport Properties of COPCsSummary of Data Used in Human Health Risk AssessmentSummary of Chemicals of Potential ConcernAssessment and Measurement EndpointsSummary of Chemicals of Potential ConcernEcological Exposure Parameters

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1-11-21-31-41-52-13-1

Site Location MapSite MapTax MapWVWA/NPWA Soil Boring LocationsWeston Soil Sample LocationsLand Features MapSurface Soil Sample Location Map

VI

^300508

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

3-2 Soil-Gas Survey Points3-3 Groundwater Sample Location Map3-4 Soil Boring and Background Soil Sample Location Map3-5 Profile View of Soil Boring and Background Soil Sample Locations4-1 Map of TCE Concentrations in Soil-Gas 3' Depth Interval4-2 Map of TCE Concentrations in Soil-Gas 5' Depth Interval4-3 Map of TCE Concentrations in Soil-Gas, Bedrock Depth4-4 RBC Soil Exceedances: VOCs in Surface Soil4-5 Surface Soil Map of TCE Concentrations4-6 Subsurface Soil Map of TCE Concentrations4-7 Bedrock Map of TCE Concentrations4-8 Surface Soil Map of Vinyl Chloride Concentrations4-9 Subsurface Soil Map of Vinyl Chloride Concentrations4-10 Bedrock Map of Vinyl Chloride Concentrations4-11 RBC Soil Exceedances Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Surface Soil4-12 RBC Soil Exceedances Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Surface Soil4-13 RBC Soil Exceedances Lead in Surface Soil7-1 Preliminary Conceptual Model

vn

A R 3 0 0 5 0 9

A R 3 0 0 5 I O

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Report for the North Penn Area 7 Superfund Site, Operable

Unit 2 - Spra-Fin Property (Spra-Fin) in North Wales, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania has

been prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal) for the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as authorized under RAC Contract 68-S7-3003, and

Work Assignment Number 015RICO3X1. Operable Unit 2 is a soil/source area investigation.

The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) was conducted in accordance with the Draft

Work Plan, dated September 30, 1999, the Draft Project Goals and Objectives, dated February

17, 2000 and the Draft Site Management Plan (SMP), dated February 17, 2000.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Spra-Fin Facility is located on a 1.1-acre property on Wissahickon Avenue in North Wales,

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Figure 1-1 is a site location map and Figure 1-2 is a map of

the site area. The property is identified by the Montgomery County Board of Assessments as

parcel # 56-00-09940-003, Block 022, Unit 014, Upper Gwynedd Township. The county tax

map is provided in Figure 1-3. The property is bordered to the southwest by Wissahickon

Avenue, across which is an industrial-zoned, vacant, wooded lot (Block 022, Unit 015). To the

east the property is bordered by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA, formerly

North Pennsylvania) railroad tracks, across which is an industrial-zoned, vacant, open field (Block

022, Unit 051). To the north the property is bordered by a residential property (Block 022, Unit

01) and an industrial property (Block 022, Unit Oil). The site is situated in an overall industrial

neighborhood with some residential properties.

1-1

A R 3 Q G 5 I I

In its current configuration, the site consists of one brick-construction, one-story, 5,584

square-foot building and an on-site trailer. A second building occupied the street-side portion of

the property until late 1996, when is was consumed by fire. The remains of the burned building

were demolished and removed from site by order of the township of Upper Gwynedd in 1997.

The concrete pad upon which the destroyed building was built is still in place at the property and is

used as a parking area and the site of the trailer.

The topography of the site is essentially flat with a slight gradient of 0.17 ft/ft, sloping downward

toward the northwest. The site lies at an elevation of approximately 360 feet above mean sea level

and has a very low relief (less than five feet).

The site is an active metal finishing facility. The production operations are housed in the brick

building situated on the rear of the concrete pad. The onsite trailer is used as an

administrative/office space. The facility formerly used and stored trichloroethylene (TCE) on site

for process-related applications, primarily for degreasing metal products. One production well is

currently located on the property and is used as an industrial water source. The property has no

connection to public water or sewer.

Spra-Fin is one of several potential responsible parties (PRPs) associated with the North Penn

Area 7 Superfund Site (NP7). NP7 encompasses 650 acres in North Wales including the Spra-

Fin facility. The site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) on March 31, 1989 for

contamination of soil and groundwater by chlorinated solvents including TCE, tetrachloroethylene

(PCE), carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride (MC) and vinyl chloride (VC).

1.3 SITE HISTORY

The NP7 site is a 650 acre area site in Upper Gwynedd Township, Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania. This site is one of six NPL sites located within the North Penn Water Authority

1-2

(NPWA) service district where previous sampling has indicated the presence of elevated levels of

volatile organic compounds in groundwater samples from public and private wells.

Within Area 7, there are five facilities, including the Spra-Fin facility, that have been identified as

possible sources of groundwater contamination. The sections that follow discuss both historical

operations at the site and historical remedial activities.

1.3.1 OPERATIONAL HISTORY

A search of historical information indicated that the Spra-Fin property was used as a warehouse

for paper products prior to 1963 (CH2M HILL, 1992). Additional information regarding the use

of the property prior to the purchase by Spra-Fin in 1963 was not available. Spra-Fin has been

operating a metal manufacturing and finishing business on the property since 1963.

Prior to 1997, Spra-Fin utilized three different production lines for their metal finishing activities.

These lines included a "main line" spray booth which used both powder and solvent-based

coatings, a "spindle" line which used only solvent-based paints, and a booth which was used

exclusively for powder coating (PADER, 1992). Wastewater from the spray booths was

historically discharged to the sanitary sewer (PADER, 1987). On January 13, 1997, a fire

destroyed one half of the Spra-Fin plant, including the portion which contained the booth that was

used exclusively for powder coating (PADEP, 1998).

Since 1995, Spra-Fin has been making an effort to use powder coating whenever possible

(PADEP, 1998). According to a recent air quality inspection, the use of solvent-based coatings is

limited to approximately once per month (PADEP, 2000).

The Spra-Fin facility historically used TCE for the degreasing of metal parts prior to painting.

According to a 1980 EPA report, Spra-Fin used approximately 82 gallons of TCE per month for

1-3

3 R 3 0 Q 5 I 3

degreasing purposes (Musheno, 1980 as cited in CH2M HILL, 1992). Prior to 1980, TCE was

stored in an underground storage tank which was located immediately outside of the southeastern

comer of the Spra-Fin building (Figure 1 -2). This tank, or a surficial spill near this tank, is

believed to be a source of the TCE contamination beneath the Spra-Fin property (Weston,

1999a).

Freon replaced TCE as the main degreasing agent at Spra-Fin sometime between March 1987

and May 1988 (Spra-Fin, 1987 and PADER, 1988). Other materials known to be used

historically by Spra-Fin include xylol, methylethyl ketone (MEK), alcohols, EB ether, solvesso 100

(solvent G), and iron phosphates (Spra-Fin, 1987). MEK is the only degreasing solvent currently

used by Spra-Fin (PADEP, 2000). It should also be noted that powder coatings such as the ones

used by Spra-Fin may contain caprolactam (Kruger, 2000).

1.3.2 INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS

As part of a study for the Wissahickon Valley Watershed Association (WVWA) and NPWA

conducted in 1981, ten boreholes were drilled in the overburden soils surrounding the main

building on the Spra-Fin property. The boreholes were drilled to bedrock, and one soil sample

was collected from the bottom of each hole. Bedrock was generally encountered at depths

ranging from 6 to 10 feet; however at BO078-7, a concrete pad was encountered at 3 feet

(Martin, 1981 as cited in CH2M HILL, 1992). Boring locations from this study are presented on

Figure 1-4.

Various chlorinated solvents were detected in site soils during this investigation. The highest level

of TCE was detected at location BO81-7, near the underground storage tank, at a concentration

of 158,600 ppb. PCE and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) were also detected in this boring at

concentrations of 30,360 ppb and 10,040 ppb, respectively. In other borings, TCE

concentrations ranged from 5 to 5,460 ppb; PCE concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 870 ppb; and

1-4

1,1,1-TCA ranged from <0.2 to 40 ppb (Martin, 1981 as cited in CH2M HILL, 1992).

In 1982 and 1983, soil borings were advanced to depths of 7 to 8 feet at seventeen locations on

the Spra-Fin property as part of a study conducted by NPWA and the North Penn Water

Resources Association. Soil samples were collected from 3 or 4 depths in each boring and

analyzed for TCE. Actual boring locations were not available. However, it has been reported that

the highest TCE levels were in the vicinity of the TCE storage tank (Bell, 1983 as cited in CH2M

HILL, 1992).

As a result of the contamination identified during the two studies described above, the following

remedial actions were taken.

» The underground TCE storage tank was removed and replaced with a 500 gallon aboveground storage tank. The tank was completely enclosed in a block structure that wascapable of containing a spill of the entire storage tank (CH2M HILL, 1992). A 200-gallon steel catch basin was also reportedly installed beneath the tank (Bell, 1983 as citedinCH2MHTLL, 1992).

• The exhaust vent from the degreaser area was repositioned from the ground surface to theroof (CH2M HILL, 1992).

• 60 cubic yards of the most heavily contaminated soil was excavated and disposed in asanitary landfill. Following the excavation, an underground drainage system was installedin the excavation pit. Groundwater is collected by perforated pipes which ultimatelydischarge to the sanitary sewer system (CH2M HILL, 1992).

• The two deep wells at the facility were pumped continuously. One of the wells waspumped to the roof of the Spra-Fin building where it underwent aeration treatment viaspraying (CH2M HILL, 1992).

• A packed tower was installed on one of the wells in 1986. No further informationregarding the packed tower was available (CH2M HILL, 1992).

The justification for the selection of the remedial methods described above is unknown.

In July 1999, Roy F, Weston (Weston) collected several surface and subsurface soil samples in

1-5

1 R 3 0 0 5 / 5

the vicinity of the former underground storage tank in order to determine if additional excavation of

contaminated soils was necessary. Two samples (one surface and one subsurface) were collected -

from each of nine locations and analyzed for TCL VOCs (Weston, 1999a). Sample locations are

presented in Figure 1-5.

Chlorinated VOCs were detected in all but two of the surface soil samples collected. TCE

concentrations ranged from non-detect in SS-07, -08, and -09 to 27 ppb in SS-04. PCE

concentrations ranged from non-detect in SS-07, -08, and -09 to 16 ppb in SS-04. Cis-1,2-

dichloroethene (Cis-l,2-DCE) concentrations ranged from not detected in SS-03 and -05 through

-09 to 5 ppb in SS-04 (Weston, 1999b).

Chlorinated VOCs were detected in all but one (SBS-07) of the subsurface samples collected

during Weston's sampling event. TCE concentrations ranged from non-detect in SBS-07 to 180

ppb in SBS-04. PCE concentrations ranged from 3 ppb in SS-08 to 110 ppb in SS-03. Cis-1,2-

DCE concentrations ranged from not detected in SS-07 and 08 to 110 ppb in SS-02 (Weston,

1999b).

Since 1980, NPWA has sampled groundwater in the vicinity of the site. Typical TCE

concentrations detected in onsite bedrock production wells have been greater than 500 ppb

(CH2M HILL, 1992). Samples collected from the onsite bedrock production wells between

1981 and 1984 contained maximum concentrations of TCE at 36,605 ppb, 1,1-dichloroethylene

at 6,801 ppb, VC at 947 ppb, PCE at 569 ppb, and 1,1,1-TCA at 236 ppb (NUS, 1986 as cited

inCH2MfflLL, 1992).

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This RI report is organized in the following manner with tables and figures presented at the end of

each Chapter.

1-6

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION, presents an overview of the Spra-Fin facility and

summarizes the site history and previous site investigations.

Chapter 2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA, briefly

describes the physical attributes of the study area, including surface

topography, meteorology, surface water hydrology, geology,

hydrogeology, and soil types. Sections on demography, land use, and

ecology describe the area's demographic and human and ecological

receptors.

Chapter 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION, describes the methodology and sampling

rationale used during the RI.

Chapter 4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION, describes the type

and extent of contamination determined to be present at the site.

Chapter 5 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT, evaluates the persistence

and mobility in the environment of the various types of contamination

identified, and summarizes the fate and transport mechanisms that will

apply based on the site's physical characteristics.

Chapter 6 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, evaluates the risk to humans

from exposure to site contaminants.

Chapter 7 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT,

evaluates the risk to ecological receptors exposed to site contaminants.

1-7

A R 3 Q 0 5 I 7

Chapter 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, summarizes the

significant determinations of the remedial investigation.

Chapter 9 REFERENCES.

1-8

A R 3 G 0 5 I 8

CTanr+»••o3

SectionTwo

40300 5 / 9

2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA

This section describes the physical characteristics of the study area including surface water

hydrology, soils, geology, demography and land use, ecology, and meteorology.

2.1 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

The site lies within the watershed of the Wissahickon Creek. The Unites States Geological Survey

(USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map for Landsale, PA indicates that surface water

flow, during recharge events, is toward the northwest. Observations made during site visits and

investigations support this interpretation. A system of storm sewer drains which line the western

edge of Wissahickon Avenue receives runoff from the site and from the road. Surface water from

the site ultimately flows, via the storm sewer system, into Wissahickon Creek. Figure 2-1 indicates

the topographic contours of the site and surrounding areas.

No surface water bodies are located on or immediately adjacent to the site (Department of

Interior, 1981). The two closest mapped wetlands are a 400' x 100' wetland area, mapped as

POWZh (Palustrine, Open Water, Intermittently Exposed/Permanent, Diked/Impounded), located

1,100 feet southwest of the subject property, and a 250' x 200' irregularly shaped wetland area,

mapped as PEMSC (Palustrine, Emergent, Temporary Tidal, Seasonal), located 1,100 feet

northeast of the subject property. Figure 2-1 represents the wetland, surface water, and surface

drainage of the site and adjacent areas.

The subject property is within an area determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain (FEMA,

1996). Dodsworth Run flood plain is the closest flood zone to the site. It is located 400 feet south

of the subject property and mapped as an area within the 500-year floodplain; areas of 100-year

flood with average depths less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile and areas

protected by levees from 100-year flood.

2-1

f l R 3 0 0 5 2 0

2.2 SOILS

The site is underlain by soils classified as Made Land (Me), shale and sandstone materials, sloping

(MeB) (USDA, 1986). The classification of Made Land is broad and applies to soils which have

been altered, relocated or removed from their original, in situ state. Made land often result from

operations such as grading, leveling or digging to prepare land for development and/or

construction.

The sub-category of made land, MeB, on which the site is mapped, is formed by mixing weathered

shale and sandstone materials. The SCS soil survey describes this soil type as primarily nearly

level and gently sloping, which agrees with actual conditions found at the site. Characteristics of

this soil type are moderate to very slow permeability, moderate to very low moisture capacity,

rapid to very slow runoff, severe likelihood of erosion, medium to very strongly acid, and moderate

to low natural fertility.

The property neighboring the site to the southwest, lot 15, is mapped as Chalfont silt loam, 0 to 3

percent slopes (CfA), which is a subcategory of the Chalfont Series (Cf)- This soil type is

characterized by a very silty composition and a slowly permeably subsurface layer which restricts

downward movement of water. The surface layer may be silt loam up to 18" thick. Reddish-

brown shaley substratum underlies the surface layer. A seasonal high water table may lie at or

near the surface during late fall, winter and early spring. Drainage of the surface layer is slow to

moderate and erosion hazard is slight to moderate. Moisture holding capacity is high.

Observations made at this property during the ecological and soil investigations agree with SCS

mapping.

2.3 GEOLOGY

The regional and site geology of the Spra-Fin facility are discussed in the sections that follow. The

2-2

A R 3 G 0 5 2 I

discussion of geology prepared for this RI is derived primarily from referenced materials. Original

data are not presented as a geologic study was not conducted during this

investigation.

2.3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The North Penn Area 7 Superfund Site is situated in the Piedmont physiographic province of

Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Piedmont is composed of three sections, which are, from

southeast to northwest, the Piedmont Upland, the Piedmont Lowland and the Gettysburg-Newark

Lowland. The Piedmont province comprises the southeastern region of the state, with the

exception of the southeastern-most edge of the state (Philadelphia) which lies along the Delaware

River and is part of the Coastal Plain province.

The Piedmont Upland Section comprises Pre-Cambrian and Proterozoic-aged high-grade

metamorphic rocks (Socolow, 1980 and Sevron, 2000). Rock types of this section include

gneiss, schist, phyllite and serpentenite (Socolow, 1980). This section of metamorphic rocks is

dominated by the Wissahickon Formation, a muscovite schist which locally bears garnet (Socolow,

1980).

The Piedmont Lowland Section is characterized by Cambro-Ordovician and Ordovician-aged

sedimentary and meta-sedimentary carbonates (Socolow, 1980 and Sevron, 2000). The Ledger

and Conestoga Formations are the dominant rock units within this section (Socolow, 1980).

These lithologies represent a sedimentary shelf sequence which was deposited on the coast of

Laurentia during Cambrian and Ordovician times. These sedimentary units were later

metamorphosed by tectonic activity.

The Gettysburg-Newark Lowland Section is composed of Triassic-aged mudstone, shale, and

sandstone, often having a characteristic reddish-brown color. The dominant rock units within this

2-3

A R 3 Q 0 5 2 2

section are, in age-descending order, the Stockton, Lockatong and Brunswick formations. These

formations compose the Newark Group, a series of lacustrine, fluvial and alluvial sediments

deposited in the Newark rift basin (Rima, et. al. 1962) and are the bedrock upon which the North

Penn Area 7 Superfund Site is located (Socolow, 1980, and Berg & Dodge, 1981). The general

structure of bedding planes in this section is a northeast/southwest strike and five to 20 degree dip

toward the northwest. Numerous joint systems have been identified within these units. The strike

of joint planes varies but the dip is consistently perpendicular to bedding planes (near vertical).

The Stockton Formation contains arkosic sandstones, conglomerates, shales and siltstones which

represent a range of depositional environments from alluvial fans to deep lacustrine. The

topography supported by these lithologies is undulating valleys flow-relief (Geyer & Wilshusen,

1982). This formation is characterized by high to moderate porosity and permeability attributable

to primary porosity in weathered sections and secondary porosity from joint and bedding-plane

openings (Geyer & Wilshusen, 1982),

>—.The Lockatong Formation is a dark gray to black argillite with some zones of shale and local

occurrences of calcareous shale, representative of a lacustrine depositional environment (Geyer &

Wilshusen, 1982, Berg & Dodge, 1981). The Lockatong Formation is more resistant to

weathering than the Stockton Formation and therefore supports a moderate-relief topography

(Geyer & Wilshusen, 1982). Porosity and permeability of this formation are low (Geyer &

Wilshusen, 1982).

The Brunswick formation is composed of reddish-brown shale, mudstone and siltstone. Some

interbeds of red argillite as well as beds of green or brown shale are present (Geyer & Wilshusen,

1982). The lithologies of the Brunswick formation are suggestive of a fluvial environment. Like the

Stockton Formation, the Brunswick Formation forms undulating hills of low relief. Porosity and

permeability of the Brunswick formation are moderate (Geyer & Wilshusen, 1982).

2-4

A R 3 G 0 5 2 3

The Triassic-aged rocks of the Gettysburg-Newark Lowland Section are intruded by diabase

throughout. Diabase dikes also occur locally throughout the province, particularly in Triassic-aged

rocks, in the western regions of the province and along the northeastern strike of shear zones and

faults (Socolow, 1980).

2.3.2 SITE GEOLOGY

The Spra-Fin property is located on the Brunswick formation near a contact with the Lockatong

formation. In the area of the site the Brunswick and Lockatong formations interfinger with one

another, representing a transgressive basinal sequence (Berg and Dodge, 1981).

The Brunswick formation consists of soft red shale, siltstone and sandstone. Bedding planes in this

unit are thin and not laterally extensive, usually they are not traceable for distances greater than

1,000 feet (CH2M HILL, 1992). Soil samples collected during the RI where largely red and

reddish brown clays and silty clays. These soil types are consistent with overburden produced

from weathering of the Brunswick formation and confirm the presence of Brunswick bedrock at

the site.

The overall orientation of bedding planes in the interfingering zone of the Brunswick and

Lockatong formations is northeast striking with a 10 degree dip toward the northwest (CH2M

HILL, 1992). Fractures and joints occur near the site and enhance the porosity of these

formations (CH2M HILL, 1992, Geyer and Wilshusen, 1982). Three distinct sets of joints have

been identified within the Brunswick formation. These joint systems strike northeast at 30, 40 and

75 degrees and dip steeply (CH2M HILL, 1992). Quartz and calcite commonly occur within

fractures and joints in these formations.

2-5

2.4 DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE

The Spra-Fin facility is located in Upper Gwynedd Township, approximately 1,200 feet northwest

of the Borough of North Wales and 1,500 feet south of the Borough of Lansdale, in Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania. As described in Section 1.2, the property is bordered to the southwest by

Wissahickon Avenue, to the east by SEPTA railroad tracks and an open field, and to the north by

residential and industrial properties. The site is situated in a mostly industrial neighborhood with

some residential properties.

According to the Montgomery County Board of Assessments, the site and the properties that

surround it are zoned either industrial or light industrial. However, a residential dwelling is located

immediately north of the Spra-Fin plant. Several other residences are located within 1,000 feet of

the site (Montgomery County Board of Assessments, 2001).

Based on data from the 1990 census, approximately 678,000 people live in Montgomery County.•*.

The population of Upper Gwynedd Township is 12,197, the population of Lansdale is 16,362,

and the population of North Wales is 3,802 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990).

Potable water is supplied to the surrounding area by both the NPWA and the North Wales Water

Authority. The NPWA has municipal supply wells located within 1,200 feet of the site. The North

Wales Water Authority receives most of its water from the Delaware River, however, the

Authority does possess one supply well within 5,000 feet of the Spra-Fin facility. In addition,

several private wells have been identified in close proximity to Spra-Fin (COM Federal, 2000).

Several other hazardous waste sites are located near the Spra-Fin facility. As previously

discussed, Spra-Fin is included within the North Penn Area 7 Superfund Site, which consists of

four other current and former industrial facilities. Additionally, a facility owned by Merck and

2-6

^300525

Company, which is regulated under EPA's RCRA program, is located approximately 1,500 feet

southwest of the site.

2.5 ECOLOGY

Ecological conditions were observed at the Spra-Fin property on numerous occasions including

site visits on June 28,1999 and July 27, 2000. Observations of ecological resources were also

made during the sampling event in November and December 2000. A formal ecological

reconnaissance was conducted at the site on July 10, 2001 in preparation for this report and the

Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment.

The site is 1.1 acres in size and is located in an industrial area north of the town of North Wales.

As noted in Section 2.1 the site is very flat with a slight slope toward the northwest. The site is an

active urban industrial property with limited ecological habitat on site. The site is bordered to the

east by the SEPTA rail line and the Fitzpatrick Container Corporation property and a housing

development located on the other side of the train tracks. At the south end of the site is a small

wooded brush area narrows as the rail line and Wissahickon Avenue intersect (see Figure 1-2).

To the west of the site, across Wissahickon Avenue, is a small densely wooded plot that is 3.35

acres in size and to the north of the site is a residential home and yard.

As noted in Section 2.2, the site property is located within the water shed of the Wissahickon

Creek. The creek is located 1,200 feet to the north of the site. No National Wetlands Inventory

(NWI) large wetlands are located adjacent to the site. One small palustrine open water wetland is

located 1,100 feet to the southwest and a second small palustrine emergent wetland is located

1,100 feet to the northeast of the site property (See Section 2.2). During the site visits and

reconnaissance a small plot of common reed (Phragmites communis) approximately 50 feet long

by 15 feet wide was observed across from the site along the west side of Wissahickon Avenue.

Soils along the road were not wet or moist and no standing water was observed.

2-7

f l R 3 0 0 5 2 6

During the ecological reconnaissance, observations were made of resources on the site property

and in the wooded parcel located to the west of the site. These observations are described as

follows.

Approximately 70 to 75% of the site property is absent of vegetation or only slightly vegetated.

These areas of the site include the facility building, the concrete foundation in front of the building,

the paved areas, and the gravel parking areas (see Figure 1-2). The southern half of the property

consists of a parking lot and storage area. The parking lot along the east edge of the property is

paved while the lot located to the west along Wissahickon Avenue is chipped gravel. Two

concrete drum storage areas are located along the east side of the parking lot. The gravel portion

of the lot is not maintained and weed species and grasses were observed growing throughout the

lot. Weed species noted included common chickweed (Stellaria media), daisy fleabane

(Erigeron annuus), corn cockle (Agrostemma githago), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). A thin

stand of trees, approximately 20 ft. wide by 130 ft. long, is located between the parking lot and the

road and consisted of red oak (Quercus rubra) and black oak (Quercus nigrd). At the southern

end of the property a small wooded brushy area was noted. Trees and saplings in this area

consisted of more red and black oaks, white oak (Quercus alba), black cherry (Prunus

serotina), and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia). Ground cover in this southern area

consisted of Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), and

multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora).

The only other vegetated areas of the site property include the border areas along the rear of the

building and along Wissahickon Avenue in the front of the site. The area behind the building is

overgrown with grass and weed species. Weed and bush species noted along the back of the

property include purple flowering raspberry (Rubus oderatus), red clover (Trifolium pratense),

daisy fleabane, common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), field garlic (Allium vineale),

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bittersweet nightshade (Solatium dulcamara), oxeye daisy

R R 3 0 0 5 2 7

(Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), and one trembling

aspen tree (Populus tremuloides).

Along the northern side of the building a gravel driveway runs the length of the property. This

driveway is overgrown with grasses, common plantain (Plantago major), red clover, and

common chickweed. Trees located along the northern property line include red maple (Acer

rubrum) and common catalpa (Catalpa bignoniodes). Between Wissahickon Avenue and the

front (west side) of the facility, the edge is overgrown with grass species, red clover, Queen

Anne's Lace, Canada thistle, and goldenrod species.

Bird species noted on the site property include American robin (Turdus migratorius), American

crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), killdeer (Chadradrius

vociferus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). During the sampling in November a pair of

red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) was noted flying over the site on several occasions.

Mammals noted on site include the Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).

The wooded area located to the west of the site across Wissahickon Avenue is a remnant patch of

the type of mature forests once found in this area. This wooded plot is surrounded on all sides by

open grass fields associated with office buildings and industrial properties. This plot is mesic to

wet mesic and the canopy and under story are dominated by red maples. Many of these trees

were noted to be over 100 feet tall. Forest communities dominated by red maple can be classified

as a Northern Riverine (floodplain) Forest or Northern Swamp Forest (Kricher, 1988). Other tree

species noted that are associated with these forest classifications included striped maple (Acer

pennsylvanicum) and black ash (Fraxinus nigrd), although the red maple clearly dominates the

stand. One shrub species noted was speckled alder (Alnus rugosa). The herb layer is dominated

by an extensive growth of poison ivy. The area did not appear to be wet and no pools of standing

water were noted. It is possible that the surrounding urban development and associated storm

water management systems have changed the drainage in this plot.

2-9

A R 3 0 0 5 2 8

Edge species located along the border of this plot and the road included grasses and sedges,

common reed, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), multi-flora rose, bittersweet nightshade, and

Canada thistle. One large common catalpa tree was noted along the edge of these woods.

Bird species noted in the wood lot include common crow, blue jay, and tufted titmouse (Paras

bicolor). Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) were the only mammals noted in these woods,

2.6 METEOROLOGY

Site climate data for temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and prevailing winds was

obtained from a weather station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which is approximately twenty- three

miles southeast of the site. Temperature and liquid precipitation data was available for all years

from 1874 to 1999. Snowfall data was available for all winters between 1884-1885 and 1999-

2000. Relative humidity data was available for the years 1820-1930 and 1942-1993. Finally,

prevailing winds information was assembled from data collected between 1930 and 1996.

The overall climate of the Philadelphia region is typified by warm, humid summers and generally

moderate winters. The average annual daily temperature calculated for the site area is 54.7° F.

The average summer temperature is 74.6° F and the average winter temperature is 34.3° F. The

average relative humidity is approximately 55 percent in the mid afternoon, and higher at night

(approximately 76 percent at dawn). Prevailing winds are generally from the west-northwest

during the first six months of the year and from the southwest during the last six months of the year

(National Weather Service, 2001). Average wind speeds are at their highest (11 miles per hour)

in February, March, and April (National Climatic Data Center, 1998).

Precipitation levels are generally steady throughout the year in the Philadelphia area. The average

annual rainfall (including melted snow) is 40.95 inches and the average annual snowfall is 22.0

inches. Between November and December of 2000, the period when field activities were

2-10

^300529

performed, approximately 5 inches of precipitation were recorded for the Philadelphia area

(National Weather Service, 2001).

2-11

ectionThree

S R 3 0 0 5 3

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

3.1 UTILITY SURVEY

CDM Federal conducted a utility survey at the Spra-Fin Superfund site in order to identify all

underground utilities, drainage lines, and other potential underground hazards that could interfere

with the subsurface investigation at the site. CDM Federal mobilized to the site on November 17,

2000 to conduct the utility survey.

3.1.1 METHODS/PROCEDURE

The utility survey was conducted over all areas of the property slated for sampling. Prior to

running the survey, the sampling grid was marked off on the ground surface and flagging was used

to indicate the grid nodes. Facility personnel were also interviewed about what utilities were

located on site and the approximate location of these utility lines.

The survey was conducted using a Geophysical Survey Systems Sir 3 Ground Penetrating Radar

(GPR) unit with a 500 MHZ antenna and a Pipe and Cable Locator Model 8700. The GPR was

run on grids, typically 20' by 20', with readings taken at 5 foot intervals around the soil sampling

nodes. For certain areas of the site, the GPR grid was modified depending on interference from

metallic objects. The GPR was also used to identify a natural gas line.

The pipe locator was used in two locations where a natural gas line and a drain line had been

identified by facility personnel.

3.1.2 RESULTS

The utility survey identified three main subsurface features. The shop drain which originates at the

3-1

A R 3 0 0 5 3 2

sump located by the southern entrance to the shop was determined to run north under the concrete

foundation and then make a ninety degree turn and run out to Wissahickon Avenue. It is believed

that the drain enters a storm or sanitary sewer located in the middle of the street although this was

not confirmed. The second feature identified was a PVC natural gas line that runs from the street

down the center of the gravel driveway that runs along the northern border of the site property

entering the building at the northeast corner. An underground electric line running from the rear of

the building to the building supply well was also identified. No other drainage features or utility

lines were identified on the property.

3.2 SURFACE FEATURE INVESTIGATION

Mapping activities of the Spra-Fin facility and the surrounding area were performed in May 2001

by CDM Federal's team subcontractor, L. Robert Kimball (Kimball). Kimball conducted an

aerial survey and used conventional surveying techniques to map the site.

Based on the surveys, a site base map with a scale of one inch equals 400 feet was prepared.

Major surface features including buildings, driveways, roads, railroads, woodlands, existing wells,

and water bodies are included on the map.

CDM Federal obtained coordinate information for all locations sampled during this investigation

using either a hand-held GPS instrument or a Trimble unit. Coordinates for locations SS-01

through SS-09 and locations BK-01 and BK-02 were recorded using a hand-held GPS unit.

Alternatively, the surveying of SB-01 through SB-30 was performed using a Trimble unit.

3.3 SOIL INVESTIGATIONS

CDM Federal conducted field investigations at the Spra-Fin Superfund site in order to acquire

data for use in site characterization for the RI. All field investigation activities were conducted in

accordance with the following EPA-approved documents:

3-2

A R 3 0 0 5 3 3

Draft Work Plan dated September 30, 1999;

• Draft Site Management Plan dated February 17, 2000; and

• Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Project Goals and Objectives

dated February 17, 2000.

On November 28, 2000, COM Federal mobilized to the Spra-Fin site to conduct a soil-gas

survey, subsurface soil sampling, and surface soil and sediment sampling in accordance with

subtasks 3.5, 3.6 and 3.8 of the Draft Work Plan, respectively.

3.3.1 SURFACE SOIL (SEDIMENT) SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

3.3.1.1 Rationale

Surface soil sampling activities were conducted on November 28 and 29, 2000. Nine samples

were collected from sumps, drainage-ways or other low-lying areas on and near the site. These

samples were collected to help characterize potential contamination along overland transport

pathways. Figure 3-1 depicts the locations from which surface soil samples were collected.

3.3.1.2 Methods/Procedures

Proposed sediment sampling locations had been pre-identified in the Site Management Plan

(SMP). Upon arriving at the site, the field team realized that the estimated spacing and location

of proposed sediment samples was inaccurate in the SMP. Therefore, due to space restraints

and insufficient occurrence of proper sample media, the field crew made on-site decisions about

the location and number of samples required to adequately characterize site conditions. Surface

soil samples were collected in lieu of sediment as no true sediment was identified at the site.

Sampling locations were selected with a bias toward low-lying areas

3-3 A R 3 0 0 5 3 1 4

where the contaminants would be most likely to occur. The field team selected locations on-site

and across Wissahickon Avenue from which to collect samples.

All sample were collected in accordance with CDM Federal's Technical Standard Operating

Procedure (TSOP) 1-3 and United States Environmental Protection Agency contract laboratory

program (CLP) requirements. Samples collected as part of this task were identified with the

pre-fix "SS" and numbered sequentially in the order in which they were collected. Aliquots for

volatile organic compounds (VOC) analysis were collected directly from the ground surface with

EnCore Samplers. After aliquots for VOC analysis were collected, the remainder of the sample

material was collected with a decontaminated stainless steel trowel and placed into a

decontaminated stainless steel bow!. The sample material was then homogenized by thorough

mixing with the sampling trowel. After the sample material had been homogenized, aliquots were

collected for base-neutral analysis (BNA), pesticide/polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), metals

(TAL) and cyanide (CN). One of the soil samples (SS-02) was also analyzed for total organic

carbon (TOC) and grain size (GS).

All samples were placed in a cooler and kept at 4°C after they were collected. Samples were

packaged and shipped to the respective organic and inorganic CLP laboratory for analysis the

day after they were collected.

3.3.1.3 Deviations From SMP

Twenty-five sediment samples were estimated to be collected on and near the site per the SMP.

Due to space constraints and lack of adequate sampling locations, the number of samples was

reduced in the field to 9 locations plus 1 duplicate. Upon inspecting the site, the field crew

determined that sediment was not present at the designated sampling locations, therefore, surface

soil samples were collected instead of sediment.

The SMP states that all sediment samples will be analyzed for TOC and grain size. Because no

sediment was present, the field crew collected surface soil samples to be analyzed for TOC and

3-4 A R 3 0 0 5 3 5

grain size at a rate of 20% of the total samples collected.

3.3.2 SOIL-GAS SURVEY

3.3.2.1 Rationale

On November 28, 2000, CDM Federal mobilized to the Spra-Fin property to oversee the

collection and onsite analysis of soil-gas samples by pool subcontractor Tracer Research

Corporation (Tracer). Soil-gas results were used to screen potential soil sampling locations for

contamination by site-specific VOCs.


Proposed soil-gas survey points had been pre-determined as nodes on a 50-foot grid imposed

on the site. Some of the survey locations were re-located by the field crew due to obstacles,

utilities or other access issues. Samples were pulled from three depths at each location; 3 feet

below ground surface, 5 feet below ground surface, and the soil/bedrock interface. Figure 3-2

indicates the locations from which soil-gas samples were collected.

Soil-gas samples were taken by driving a coring device into the ground with a hydraulic pushing

device (direct push), hydraulic hammering device, or hand pounding at the sampling location.

The method used to drive the sampling probe into the ground was dependent upon the hardness

of the subsurface material and the sampling location. Samples which were located behind the

building were inaccessible by the truck-mounted pushing devices and were therefore sampled by

hand-pounding the probe.

Soil-gas was extracted through the probe with a vacuum pump which was connected to the

coring device with silicone tubing. The gas sample was drawn directly from the tubing with a

syringe which was also used to introduce the sample into the onsite gas chromatograph/mass

spectrometer (GC/MS) for chemical analysis. Each sample was analyzed on site for TCE, 1,1-

3 _ 5 A R 3 Q 0 5 3 6

dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), MC, PCE, 1,2-dichloroethethylene (1,2-DCE), VC, chloroform

(CHC13) and 1,1,1-TCA, In the course of analyzing samples for the prescribed parameters,

dichloromethane (CH^CL^) was also identified.

At locations where the presence of soil-gas contamination was confirmed by the onsite GC/MS,

the extent of contamination was delineated by taking additional samples. Additional sample

locations were located along the grid lines, in four directions from the contaminated sample,

midway between nodes (25 feet from the original sample in most cases). As with the original

sample locations, some delineation points had to be relocated by the field crew due to utility

interference, lack of adequate space to delineate or other access issues. In some cases

delineation could not be accomplished in all four directions from trie original sampling point.


The SMP states that soil-gas and soil samples collected at nodes on the grid would be named by

the row and column number of the grid from which they were taken. Since some of the sample

locations were moved off of the original grid, the samples were named sequentially following the

order they were collected. The prefix used to identify soil-gas sample was unchanged from the

SMP, SG was used to indicate a soil-gas sample. The depth from which samples were collected

was also included as the last part of the sample identification.

The SMP stated that soil-gas samples would be collected using a DPT rig. Samples located in

the rear of the facility could not be accessed using the rig and were collected using hand-

sampling equipment. Samples collected by hand were: SG-1, SG-2, SG-3, SG-4, SG-5, SG-

11 andSG-23.

The SMP states that soil-gas samples will be collected from stainless steel probes and

transferred to Tedlar™ bags. Soil-gas samples were collected directly into the syringe which

was used to introduce the sample to the on-site GC/MS.

3-6

During the soil-gas survey probing activities, groundwater was encountered at sampling locations

SG-15, SG-17, SG-19, SG- 21 and SG-24, preventing the collection of soil-gas below the

depth at which water was encountered. The SMP contained no contingency for the occurrence

of groundwater in soil borings. The field crew collected groundwater samples from these

locations and shipped them to the laboratory to be analyzed for VOCs. Figure 3-3 indicates the

locations from which groundwater samples were collected.

3.3.3 SUBSURFACE SOIL BORING ACTIVITIES

3.3.3.1 Rationale

On December 4, 2001, COM Federal began collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis to

determine the presence and concentration on contaminants in soil at and near the site.


Sampling locations were determined based on screening results of soil gas using the on-site

GC/MS. The fifteen soil-gas sampling locations in which the presence of chlorinated VOCs was

confirmed which were selected as soil sampling locations are SB-1, SB-4, SB-8, SB-14, SB-

18, SB-20 and SB-22 through SB-30 (see Figures 3-4 and 3-5). Five soil-gas sampling

locations, in which no chlorinated VOCs were detected, were selected as soil sampling locations

because of their position along the property boundary. These sample location are SB-03, SB-

06, SB-09, SB-19 and SB-21.

Soil samples were collected by driving a four foot by two inch, stainless steel macro-core lined

with an acetate sleeve into the ground at the designated sampling location. The core was driven

by truck-mounted hydraulic push or hammering device, depending on the hardness of the

material being sampled. Locations in the rear of the building were not accessible by truck and

were sampled by hand-pounding the core into the ground. For samples that were collected

3-7 f l R 3 0 0 5 3 8

beneath the concrete pad a concrete drill was used to open the concrete and allow access to the

underlying soil.

Once the core had reached the desired sampling depth, it was removed from the ground via

hydraulic lift. The acetate liner sleeve containing the soil boring was removed from the macro

core and provided to the CDM Federal field team. The field crew evaluated the soil using a

photoionization detector and inspected the soil for odors or other indications of contamination.

Soil logs containing observations and descriptions of the soil were recorded in the field team

logbook.

Per the SMP, samples were collected from three distinct intervals at each sampling location: the

surface soil interval (0-T), the soil/bedrock interface and in intermediate interval. The field crew

determined the intermediate sampling depth based on observations of the soil and PID readings.

Samples were collected with a bias toward areas of the soil boring that showed evidence of

contamination. In cases where no evidence of contamination was observed, samples were

collected from the soil interval that was most likely to contain contamination, such as zones

directly above clay layers.

Soil samples were collected by the CDM Federal field team following CDM Federal's TSOP 1-

3 and USEPA CLP requirements. Aliquots for VOC analysis were collected directly from the

acetate liner using EnCore Samplers. After aliquots for VOC analysis were collected the

remaining material from the sampling interval was removed from the liner with a decontaminated

stainless steel trowel and placed in a decontaminated stainless steel bowl. It was then

homogenized by thorough mixing with the sampling trowel. Sample bottleware was then filled for

BNA, pesticide/PCB, TAL Metals and Cyanide analyses. Four of the soil samples (SB-24J3-

1, SB-25_7-8, SB-28_3-4 and SB-09_2.5-3) were analyzed for TOC and GS in addition to

the afore-mentioned analyses. Following collection, all samples were placed on ice in coolers to

preserve sample integrity and prevent the loss of analytes by volatilization. All samples were

shipped to the CLP laboratory on the day of or the day following collection.

3-8


The SMP states that soil samples collected at nodes on the grid would be named by the row and

column number of the grid from which they were taken. The field crew determined during the

soil-gas screening task that the naming convention would be changed so that samples were

named sequentially following the order in which they were collected. Soil samples were named

to correspond with the number of the soil-gas sample location. The prefixes used to identify

sample type were unchanged from the SMP. SB was used to indicate a soil sample. The depth

from which samples were collected was also included as the last part of the sample identification.

The SMP states that soil samples will be collected using a DPT machine. Samples located in the

rear of the facility could not be accessed using the specified equipment and were therefore

collected using hand-sampling equipment. Samples collected by hand were: SS-1, SS-2, SS-3,

SS-4, SS-5,SS-11 andSS-23.

According to the SMP, all soil-gas sampling locations at which positive results were identified

were to be used as soil sampling locations. According to information conveyed to the CDM

Federal project manager on site, positive soil-gas results at locations SG-05, SG-08, SG-12 and

SG-13 were believed by the soil-gas sampling subcontractor to be caused by contamination in

the sampling apparatus rather than representative of in-situ conditions at the sampling location.

Based upon this information, the CDM Federal project manager determined that soil samples

would not be collected as locations SG-05, SG-12 or SG-13, however, SG-08 was used as a

soil sampling location due to its location along a property boundary. Positive results were also

obtained from soil-gas samples taken at locations SG-02 and SG-16. These locations were not

used as soil sampling locations because the soil-gas results were very low compared to the

results of other sampling locations in the vicinity. The CDM Federal project manager

determined that adequate soil delineation could be achieved by sampling the soil-gas locations

surrounding these points which had higher levels of VOCs.

3-9

Soil sampling locations SG-03, SG-06, SG-09, SG-19 and SG-21 were sampled despite having

no positive results during the soil-gas screening activities. Sample location SG-03 was selected

as a soil sampling location because of its proximity to sample number SB-04, which when

screened by FED indicated very high levels of VOCs. Sample locations SG-06, SG-09 and SG-

19 were selected for soil sampling based on their locations along a property boundary. Sample

location SG-21 was selected for soil sampling because it was in an area of high soil-gas

contamination and a soil-gas sample had not been obtained from that point due to the occurrence

of shallow groundwater in the probe hole.

3.3.4 BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

3.3.4.1 Rationale

Background soil samples were collected during the soil-gas screening activities in order to

provide a basis for comparison of soil samples which were to be collected on site and to help

make a determination as to which contaminants, if any, would be attributable to conditions or

activities at the Spra-Fin facility and which would be attributable to naturally-occurring

conditions or to contamination from an off-site source.


Background soil samples were collected from two locations in the wooded area across

Wissahickon Avenue from the Spra-Fin facility. The sampling locations correspond with the

locations which had been proposed in the EPA-approved SMP. The locations of these samples

are indicated on Figure 3-4, Subsurface Soil Sample Locations. Samples were collected from

three depths at each of the two locations: surface, intermediate, and bedrock/soil interface.

At each of the two locations, the surface soil samples were taken from the interval representing

0-6" bgs. The surface samples were collected after surficial debris such as leaves, sticks, or

plants had been removed from the sampling point. Following preparation of the sample location,

3_10

the VOC aliquots were collected in EnCore Samplers directly from the freshly exposed ground

surface with as little disturbance to the soil as possible. Once the VOC aliquots had been

collected, the remainder of the sample material was removed from the ground using a

decontaminated, stainless-steel trowel and placed in a decontaminated, stainless-steel bowl and

homogenized. The homogenized material was then used to fill sample bottler for BNA,

pesticide/PCB, TAL Metals and cyanide analyses.

Subsurface background samples were obtained by driving a hand-held, decontaminated,

stainless steel auger into the ground at the specified location. The depth of the auger was

advanced by removing the cuttings each time the auger bucket was filled until the desired

sampling depth was reached. When the desired sampling interval was reached the cuttings from

that interval were placed into a decontaminated, stainless steel bowl. As with the surface,

background soil samples, the VOC aliquot was collected immediately upon removal of the

cuttings with as little disturbance to the sample material as possible. After the bottler for the

VOC fraction had been filled, the remaining sample material was homogenized and placed into

sample containers for BNA, pesticide/PCB, TAL Metals and cyanide analyses.

Following collection, all samples were placed in coolers, on ice to preserve sample integrity and

prevent the escape of volatile compounds. Samples were properly labeled and tagged according

to USEPA CLP requirements and shipped to the CLP laboratory on the day they were

collected.


The SMP proposed three background sampling locations, two across Wissahickon Avenue from

the Spra-Fm Facility, and one across the train tracks in the rear of the building. When CDM

Federal attempted to obtain the sample from across the train tracks, located on the property of

Fitzpatrick Container, the property owners denied access. EPA has previously arranged for

access to this property, but at the actual time of sampling, facility personnel refused access. The

CDM Federal field team was therefore unable to collect samples from the third location.

3-11 '

The background soil samples were supposed to be collected by use of a hydraulic direct-push

technology (DPT) device. The DPT device could not be used because the sample locations

were inaccessible to the truck on which the DPT device was mounted. Hand-held augers were

used to collect the samples instead of the DPT device.

3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (OA/OC)

The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program developed for this project is

documented in the EPA-approved Draft SMP dated February 17, 2000. The results of the

program are summarized below.

3.4.1 INVESTIGATION QA/QC SAMPLES

In accordance with the approved SMP, field QA/QC samples were collected during the

investigation. The following types of QA/QC samples were collected:

• field duplicates,

• equipment rinsate blanks,

• field blanks, and

• trip blanks.

The field duplicates are listed with the environmental samples presented on Table 4-3.

3.4.2 INVESTIGATION ITEMS AND DEVIATIONS FROM THE SITE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

During the investigation, QA/QC issues were identified and corrective measures were taken to

eliminate the chance of data quality being reduced. Also, during the investigation, the scope of

work occasionally deviated from the SMP. The issues, corrective measures or reasons and the

impact on the quality and quantity of data are discussed in Sections 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.3.3,

and 3.3.4.3.

Additionally, the samples collected during the investigation were analyzed and validated through

the U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program. The data usability was evaluated by reviewing the

validation reports and querying the investigation team. A Risk Assessment Guidance for

Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Part D (RAGS Part D) Data Usability

Worksheet was completed to document the results of the evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1997b). The

worksheet is provided in Appendix B-2.

3-13

C/3nnrfH--o3

Four

4.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

This section documents the occurrence of contamination in soil gas, shallow groundwater, and

soil at the Spra-Fin property. Section 4.1 presents the results of the soil gas screening data.

Shallow groundwater data collected during the soil gas survey is presented in Section 4.2.

Section 4.3 discusses CDM Federal's approach to the evaluation and characterization of soil

contamination and the selection of soil contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). Section 4.4

presents the nature and extent of contamination identified in surface soil and subsurface soil

samples. Each section includes a discussion of contaminants identified in site related investigation

samples.

The discussion of contaminants detected in background samples is for the purpose of

comparison to investigation sample results only. The sections on background samples discuss

only the contaminants that occur at concentrations which exceed the screening values. However,

this discussion is not intended to identify COPCs in background samples. COPC selection is

based solely on the occurrence of contaminants in investigation samples. Compounds that were

not detected or that were detected at concentrations below the applicable screening values are

not considered COPCs and are not discussed herein.

4.1 SOIL GAS SURVEY RESULTS

On-site soil-gas screening confirmed the presence of VOCs in 20 out of 30 soil-gas sample

locations. Sample locations in which contamination was identified are SG-1, SG-2, SG-4, SG-

5, SG-8, SG-12, SG-13, SG-14, SG-16, SG-18, SG-20 and SG-22 through SG-30 (See

Figure 3-2). The results of on-site soil-gas analysis are summarized in Table 4-1. Of the

locations where soil-gas contamination was identified, 15 were chosen for soil sampling. The

five locations which were not selected for soil sampling are SG-02, SG-05, SG-12, SG-13 and

SG-16.

4-1

Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 present contour maps of TCE soil gas concentrations for the samples

collected at the three foot, five foot, and bedrock intervals. The highest concentration of TCE

found at the 3 foot depth interval were collected in samples from locations SG-28 (3,300 ug/L)

SG-27 (104 ug/L), and SG-26 (46.0 ug/L). These samples are all located at the southern end

of the active building and on the old concrete foundation (See Figure 4-1). Figure 4-2 presents

TCE soil gas contours for the five foot depth interval and again indicate that the highest TCE sc

concentrations were detected in sample locations SG-28 (2,200 ug/L) and SG-26 (250 ug/L).

High concentrations of TCE were also detected in sample SG-29 (97 ug/L) and SG-30 (130

ug/L). All of these samples are located at the southern end of the active facility and on or

adjacent to the old concrete foundation of the former plant building (see Figure 4-2). Figure 4-3

presents the results of TCE concentrations detected in soil gas sampled at the bedrock interface

(generally from 7 to 8 feet bgs). The highest concentrations detected at this depth were in

samples SG-27 (55,000 ug/L), SG-28 (2,900 ug/L), and SG-22 (1,900 ug/L) (See Figure 4-3

and Table 4-1).

Soil gas results at each depth interval indicated an area of contamination located at the southern

end of the active building and concrete foundation. The highest soil gas concentrations were

detected at the deepest interval on top of bedrock. All of these sample locations were selected

for soil sampling and soil samples collected from this area confirmed the presence of TCE and

other site contaminants in the soil in this area. The largest and most concentrated area of soil

contamination was found in the area outlined by the soil gas contours. There was not always a

perfect match between soil gas results and soil results collected from an individual sample

location. This may be due to sampling or analytical error during the collection of the screening

level data or due to subsurface soil conditions. Tight clay lenses containing TCE may not have

released TCE in a vapor form. However, when subsequent soil samples were analyzed at the

laboratory, TCE was detected.

4.2 SHALLOW GRQUNDWATER RESULTS

Laboratory analytical results confirmed the presence of 16 VOCs in groundwater samples that

4-2

were collected in lieu of soil-gas samples due to the shallow occurrence of groundwater at boring

locations SB-15, SB-17, SB-19, SB-21, and SB-24. It is believed that this shallow

groundwater is perched in the locations where these samples were collected. Samples were

analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) volatile analytes. Table 4-2 summarizes the

laboratory analytical data for groundwater.

The highest concentrations of VOCs were detected in the groundwater sample collected at a

depth of 7 feet in boring SB-24 which is located behind the active facility building near the

location of the former TCE tank (See Figure 3-3). Elevated soil gas readings were also detected

in the shallow and intermediate depths in this boring. Locations in this southern area where

VOCs were detected in groundwater samples are in close proximity to the sample locations

where soil gas was detected.

4.3 SCREENING VALUES

CDM Federal focused this remedial investigation on constituents identified as COPCs in soil.

For the purposes of this RI, the screening levels or criteria used to determine COPCs were

selected to correspond with those used in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and

Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessments (SLERA). The HHRA and SLERA are

presented in Sections 6.0 and 7.0, respectively, of this RI report.

The risk-based concentration (RBC) soil residential screening criteria were used to select

contaminants that pose a potential risk to human health. These criteria were selected for the

purposes of this discussion as they represent the most conservative value used in the HHRA,

therefore an inclusive list of COPCs is generated when screening sample concentrations against

these values. Where concentrations exceed the RBC soil industrial concentration as well, the

exceedance is noted, however, this less conservative screening value was not used to determine

COPCs. The EPA Region IH Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) soil flora and soil

fauna screening criteria were used to select contaminants that pose a potential risk to ecological

receptors.

4.3 f lR30n5 [ | 8

Laboratory analytical data for surface soil samples were compared against both the RBC soil

residential and STAG soil flora and soil fauna screening values. Constituents identified in sur

soil were selected as COPCs if they exceeded any of the screening values by any amount in an?

number of samples. For contaminants that have been assigned a BTAG screening value for soi

flora or soil fauna, but not both, the screening value that has been assigned is used for

determining COPCs.

In this section the identification of COPCs based on the comparison to ecological screening

values only considers actual exceedances of BTAG screening values. As per EPA Region ffl

BTAG guidance, compounds that do not have a screening value are listed as COPCs in the

Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA). Compounds that are not detected but

have a detection limit that exceeds the screening value are listed as COPCs in the SLERA as

well. This is done to ensure that the screening level risk assessment makes a conservative and

thorough evaluation of potential risk. For the purposes of identifying actual exceedances these

two rules were not applied to the evaluation of contamination in this section. Refer to the

SLERA in Section 7.0 for a more conservative and complete list of ecological COPCs.

Laboratory analytical data for subsurface samples were compared only to the RBC values, as

subsurface soil below a depth of 18 inches is not considered an exposure route for the purposes

of the SLERA. Constituents identified in subsurface soil were selected as COPCs if they exceed

the RBC soil residential screening values by any amount in any sample. The laboratory data

package is provided in Appendix A-l. Appendix A-l presents all detected and non-detected

analytical results.

4.4 SOIL RESULTS

This section identifies the compounds that were selected as COPCs in surface soil and

subsurface soil investigation samples. The set of surface soil samples used to determine COPCs

comprises select samples collected between the zero to one foot bgs interval as follows. All

4-4

surface soil samples, denoted with the prefix "SS" in their sample identification, are included in

this group (See Figure 3-1 and Table 4-3).

Some of the soil at the site is covered by a foundation, consisting of a concrete pad

approximately 12 inches thick that overlays concrete block and bricks (See Figure 3-4). The

total foundation is approximately two feet above ground surface. Soil under this foundation has

been covered for at least 40 years and probably longer. Soil samples collected under the

concrete pad were not exposed at the surface and were not included as surface samples. All

boring samples, identified with a prefix "SB", taken from the zero to one foot interval and

exposed at the ground surface are included with the surface soil for COPC selection (See Table

4-3).

All of the above-mentioned samples were compared to all of the screening values for determining

COPCs. RBC exceedances in surface soil samples are summarized in Tables 4-4, 4-5, 4-6,

and 4-7, and discussed in the following sections.

As discussed in Section 3.3.3 Subsurface Soil Boring Activities, soil samples were collected at

three depths to determine the stratification of contamination at the site. Bedrock at the site is at a

depth of eight to ten feet bgs, therefore the total sampling interval was only zero to eight or ten

feet. Besides the soil sample collected at a depth of zero to one foot bgs and in some cases zero

to one foot below the concrete pad, mid-depth and deep samples were also collected. The mid-

depth sample varied in actual depth and was based on elevated photoionization detector and soil

gas readings. The mid-depth sample was taken from within a depth range of two to six feet bgs.

Most were taken from the four to five foot interval. The deep sample was taken at the bedrock

interface.

The set of sub-surface soil samples used to determine COPCs includes samples collected from

the zero to one foot bgs interval below the concrete pad. This includes samples SB-20_0~1,

SB-21_0-1, SB-22_0-1, SB-27 J)-l and SB-29_0-1. Subsurface samples also include all

"SB" samples collected from one foot bgs and deeper, i.e., at mid-depth and at the bedrock

4.5 « R 3 0 0 5 5 0

interface (see Table 4-3). The above-mentioned samples were compared only to the RBC soil

residential screening value for determining COPCs. RBC exceedances in subsurface soils are

summarized in Table 4-8 and discussed in the following sections. Results for mid-depth samp]

and samples collected at the bedrock interface are discussed separately.

4.4.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLES

Contaminants detected in background soil samples are summarized in Appendix A-2. All

samples were analyzed for full TCL and TAL analytes. Only two of the planned background

locations were sampled due to access problems. Contaminants detected in the background

surface soil samples included VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and metals. Samples collected from

both of the background locations were contaminated with compounds found at the site or with

contaminants that are ubiquitous in urban/suburban settings. However, because some of the

contaminants detected in the background sample are compounds specific to the Spra-Fin facility

the selected locations are not suitable as background locations. One SVOC, caprolactam, was

detected in background surface soil samples (BK-01 and BK-02) at a concentration of 1900

ug/kg and 1500 ug/kg, respectively. Caprolactam is a chemical used at the facility during varioi

coating processes. Contaminant results that exceeded screening criteria are described in the

following section.

4.4.1.1 Organic Compounds

No VOCs were detected in the background samples at concentrations exceeding human or

ecological screening values. No SVOC RBC residential soil screening values were exceeded in

the background samples. Nine SVOCs were detected in background surface samples at levels

exceeding the BTAG screening values. These SVOCs include the PAHs benzo(a)anthracene,

benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,

fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.

4-6 ^30055

There were no detections of organic compounds in subsurface samples collected from either of

the background samples that exceeded their respective RBC soil residential screening values.

The detection of organic compounds, and specifically site related compounds, such as

caprolactam, in the background surface samples, negates the use of this background data for

comparison purposes. These data also indicates that surface soil contamination extends to the

wooded area across Wissahickon Avenue where the background samples were collected.

4.4.1.2 Inorganic Compounds

Background samples were analyzed for TAL metals and cyanide. Concentrations of these

compounds detected in background samples are reported below.

4.4.1.2.1 Surface Samples

Twelve metals were detected in the surface background samples and all of these metals

exceeded either the RBC soil residential or BTAG screening values or often exceeded both of

these values. Results of the background samples are provided in Appendix A-2. As stated

previously the use of these locations as background locations is questionable based on the fact

that site contaminants were detected in these samples.

Aluminum, iron, and manganese were detected in both surface soil background samples at

concentrations in excess of both their respective RBC soil residential screening values and

BTAG soil screening values. These exceedances would classify them as COPCs were they

detected in investigation samples. These analytes were detected in sample BK-01_0-1 at

concentrations of 13,000 mg/kg, 19,000 mg/kg, and 1,340 mg/kg, respectively, and in sample

BK-02J)-! at concentrations of 12,300 mg/kg, 21,200 mg/kg and 1,810 mg/kg respectively.

These values exceed the RBC soil residential screening value of 7,800 mg/kg for aluminum,

2,300 mg/kg for iron and 160 mg/kg for manganese-nonfood and 1,100 mg/kg for manganese-

food. These values also exceed the BTAG screening value of 1.0 mg/kg (soil flora) for

4 _ 7 A R 3 0 D 5 5 2

aluminum, 12.0 mg/kg (soil fauna) for iron and 330 mg/kg (soil flora and soil fauna) for

manganese.

Arsenic was detected in both surface soil background samples, BK-01_0-1 and BK-02_0-1, at

concentrations of 6.5 mg/kg and 6.1 mg/kg, respectively. These values exceed the RBC soil

residential screening value of 0.43 mg/kg but are below the BTAG soil flora value of 328 mg/k

Copper, nickel, silver, vanadium and zinc were detected at concentrations that exceed the

BTAG soil flora screening value. These analytes would become COPCs if detected at these

concentrations in investigation samples. These analytes were detected at concentrations of 16

mg/kg, 13 mg/kg, 0.65 mg/kg, 35.6 mg/kg and 73.6 mg/kg, respectively in sample BK-01JM

and at 14.9 mg/kg, 10.4 mg/kg, 0.87 mg/kg, 37.7 mg/kg and 67.3 mg/kg, respectively in sample

BK-02_0-1. These concentrations are above their respective BTAG soil flora screening values

of 15 mg/kg for copper, 2.0 rng/kg for nickel, 0.00001 mg/kg for silver, 0.5 mg/kg for vanadiun

and 10 mg/kg for zinc.

Chromium, lead, and cyanide were detected at concentrations which would make them COPCs

if they were detected at these concentrations in investigation samples. Chromium, lead, and

cyanide were detected at concentrations of 19.8 mg/kg, 58,8 mg/kg and 0.26 mg/kg,

respectively in sample BK-01_0-1. Chromium and lead were detected at concentrations of

21.9 mg/kg and 54.1 mg/kg, respectively in sample BK-02_0-1. These concentrations are

below their respective RBC soil residential screening values of 230 mg/kg for chromium, 400

mg/kg and for lead, and 160 mg/kg for cyanide, however, they exceed their BTAG soil fauna

screening values of 0.0075 mg/kg for chromium, 0.01 mg/kg for lead and 0.005 mg/kg for

cyanide.

It is not clear whether the metals detected in the background samples are related to the site. All

of the metals detected in the background samples were detected at similar concentrations on site

with the exception of chromium, lead, and zinc. These three metals were detected at higher

concentrations in samples collected on the site property.

4-8 I

4.4.1.2.2 Subsurface Samples

Four metals were detected in the mid depth background samples and three metals were detected

in one deep background sample at levels exceeding the RBC soil residential screening criteria.

Aluminum was detected in four samples, with a maximum concentration of 13,500 mg/kg

detected in BK-01_2.5-3.5. AH detected concentrations would cause aluminum to become a

COPC if detected in investigation samples.

Arsenic was detected in samples BK-01_2.5-3.5, BK-01_3.5-4 and BK-02_3-3.5 at

concentrations of 4.7 mg/kg, 4.2 mg/kg and 5.5 mg/kg, respectively, which are sufficiently high

to classify arsenic as a COPC had they been detected in investigation samples.

Iron was detected in four samples, with a maximum concentration of 30,700 mg/kg detected in

BK-01_2.5-3.5. Iron would become a COPC if detected at the observed concentrations in

investigation samples.

Manganese was detected in four samples, with a maximum concentration of 601 mg/kg.

Detections in these four samples exhibited high enough concentrations that manganese would

become a COPC if detected at these levels in investigation samples.

It should be noted that all four of these metals were detected at similar concentrations in both the

background samples and the subsurface samples collected on the site property.

4.4.2 INVESTIGATION SAMPLES

This section documents VOC, SVOC, pesticide/PCB, and metals concentrations detected in

excess of screening criteria in soil samples collected on the site property or from locations

bordering the site property.

4.9 ""^ v u J04

4.4.2.1 Volatile Organic Exceedances

All soil samples were analyzed for TCL volatile organic compounds. VOCs detected in the

investigation samples are reported In the following section.

4.4.2.1.1 Surface Soil Samples

Three VOCs, ethylbenzene, toluene, and TCE, were detected in surface soil investigation

samples at concentrations which exceed their respective BTAG screening values, thereby

making them COPCs. These compounds were detected in the surface samples collected from

three borings (SB-26, SB-28, and SB-30) located at the southern end of the active building

(See Figure 4-4). The former TCE tank and several drum storage areas were located at this end

of the facility near these boring locations. A machine shop was also located in the southern end

of the former main building near boring locations SB-22 and SB-28. The compounds that

exceed regulatory criteria and their respective concentrations are presented in Table 4-4. This

table lists each sample and the corresponding result and detection limit for each analyte. The

RBC soil residential value and the BTAG flora and fauna values are listed for each compound for

comparison. The screening criteria that are exceeded by the detected concentration are shown

in bold. The final column presents the exceedance quotient which is the analytical result divided

by the screening value which provides a measure of the degree of the exceedance.

Ethylbenzene was detected in 2 of 25 samples (SB-26_0-1 and SB-30_0-1) at concentrations

of 34,000 ug/kg and 2800 ug/kg, respectively. These concentrations are below the RBC value

of 780,000 ug/kg but exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna value of 100 ug/kg. The

exceedance quotient calculated for this compound is 340 (see Table 4-4) indicating a significant

exceedance of the screening value.

Toluene was detected in one of 25 samples (SB-30_0-1) at a concentration of 87,000 ug/kg.

This concentration is below the RBC value of 1,600,000 ug/kg but exceeds the BTAG soil flora

and soil fauna value of 100 ug/kg and generates an exceedance quotient of 870 (See Table 4-4)

4_10 A R 3 0 0 5 5 5

TCE was detected in 4 of 25 samples and exceeded screening values in one sample (SB-28 J)-

1) at a concentration of 6,500 ug/kg. This concentration is less than the RBC value of 58,000

ug/kg but exceeds the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna value of 300 ug/kg and generates an

exceedance quotient of 21.7. Figure 4-5 is a contour map of TCE concentrations in surface

soils and indicates that the highest TCE concentrations are centered at the southern end of the

building although the only exceedance of ecological screening criteria occurred in sample location

SB-28. Sample location SB-28 is located at the corner of the old foundation where the former

machine shop was located.

TCE was also detected in surface soil samples SS-08 (110 ug/kg) and SS-09 (86 ug/kg)

located in the northeast corner of the property (See Figure 4-5). The concentrations in these

samples are well below screening criteria. A small pile of debris and trash was noted in this

corner of the property and could be a possible source for this surface contamination.

Contoured results indicate contamination expanding into areas where there are no data to

support the actual contours. Low concentrations of TCE were detected along the east and

northeast boundaries of the site but there are no non-detect results to constrain the contours,

Therefore, additional sampling is recommended in this area to define the extent of contamination.

For example the contours extend under the railroad tracks even though the investigation did not

include the collection of samples from the other side of the railroad tracks.

4.4.2.1.2 Sub-Surface Samples

TCE was detected in six of 27 mid-depth subsurface samples but only exceeded the screening

value in sample DSB-26 J>-6. The concentration of TCE in this sample (76,000 ug/kg) exceeds

the RBC soil residential screening value of 58,000 ug/kg (See Table 4-8). Boring location SB-

26 is located in the parking lot to the south of the active facility building and the concrete

foundation (See Figure 3-4), Figure 4-6 is a contour map of TCE concentrations at the

intermediate depth level. As can be seen in this figure two areas of high TCE concentration can

4-11A R 3 0 n 5 5 6

be seen at boring locations SB-24 and SB-26. Boring SB-24 is located where the former TCE

storage tank was located and where the spill occurred. Location SB-26 is south of the concrete

foundation for the former main facility building. A machine shop was supposedly located in th

south east comer of the former main building. Boring SB-26 is also located 20 feet west of the

drum storage areas.

TCE was detected in five of 18 samples collected at the bedrock interface but only exceeded the

RBC residential soil screening value in sample SB-26_ 7-8 (See Table 4-8). This sample had a

TCE concentration of 710,000 ug/kg which exceeded both the residential RBC value of 58,000

ug/kg and the industrial RBC soil screening value of 520,000 ug/kg. While not exceeding

screening criteria, TCE concentrations were also elevated in samples SB-22_ 7-8 (18,000

ug/kg) and SB-27J7-8 (54,000 ug/kg).

Figure 4-7 presents a contour map of TCE concentrations at the bedrock interface. As seen in

this figure the highest concentrations of TCE are shown in bright yellow, orange, and red colors

and are shown centered around SB-26, extending northwest under the concrete foundation of

the old building through SB-22 to SB-27. The area of contamination portrayed in Figure 4-7

indicates the possible spreading of contamination across the bedrock surface either in the form of

released product or a high-concentration dissolved phase transported by perched groundwater

moving along the bedrock surface. The concentration of TCE in sample SB-26_7-8 is probably

indicative of DNAPL (See Section 5.0 and Appendix D). Based on the data as shown in Figure

4-7, the highest TCE concentrations and probable pure phase TCE is located on top of bedrock

under the southern end of the concrete foundation and at sample location SB-26, where spills

may have occurred and the machine shop and drum storage areas were located. Samples

collected at the surface, above this area of high TCE contamination at the bedrock surface had

positive detections of TCE. The highest concentration of TCE in a surface soil sample was

found in sample SB-28 located at the southeast corner of the concrete foundation. This corner

was supposedly the location of the former machine shop. TCE was detected in several other

surface soil samples above the area of bedrock contamination including SB-21, SB-22, and SB-

27. The correlation between bedrock and surface samples indicates that a source at the surface

4-12

in this area may have migrated down to bedrock. It is also possible that the spill or leakage from

the old tank located behind the active building may have migrated to this current position on top

of bedrock.

TCE concentrations in soil were also compared to EPA soil-to-groundwater Soil Screening

Levels (SSLs) to evaluate the potential for TCE concentrations in soil to impact groundwater at

the site. The SSLs provide a conservative screening value that sets a soil concentration for an

individual contaminant that is protective of chemical migration from soil to groundwater (USEPA,

1996a). The SSL for TCE is 15.0 ug/kg. All of the detected concentrations of TCE in shallow,

intermediate, and deep samples exceed the SSL value, some by a large margin. This indicates

that there is significant potential for TCE to migrate from soil to groundwater at the site resulting

in groundwater concentrations that would exceed the EPA Region IH tap water RBC value.

Groundwater samples collected in February 2001 from onsite monitoring wells under the North

Penn Area 7 Operable Unit 3 RI confirm this observation.

VC was not detected above screening values in surface soil but was detected in 5 of 22

intermediate depth samples at concentration that exceeded the residential RBC screening value

of 90.0 ug/kg. The highest concentrations of VC at the site were detected in SB-25_3-4 (3,300

ug/kg) and SB-22_ 5-6 (1,600 ug/kg) (See Table 4-8). Borings SB-22 and SB-25 are located

at the southern edge of the concrete pad that was the former foundation to the main plant

building. SB-22 was actually drilled through the concrete pad. VC concentrations were higher

in the intermediate depth samples than in the bedrock depth samples. Figure 4-8 presents

surface soil concentrations of VC at the site and shows low levels of contamination near the

southern end of the building. Figure 4-9 depicts the concentration contours for VC at the

intermediate depths and shows the high concentrations of VC under the southern edge of the old

building foundation.

VC was detected in seven of 18 samples at the bedrock interface at concentration that exceeded

the residential RBC soil screening value of 90.0 ug/kg. The highest bedrock concentration were

found at locations SB-22 (740 ug/kg) and SB-28 (420 ug/kg) (see Table 4-8). Figure 4-10

4-13

depicts concentration contours for VC on top of bedrock. The pattern of VC contamination at

the bedrock depth interval is similar to the pattern in the mid-depth samples. The highest

concentrations are centered under the southern end of the concrete foundation near SB-22, SB-

27, and SB-28. While higher VC concentration were detected at two locations in the mid-deptf

samples, the area of soil contamination that exceeds the residential screening value is greater at

the bedrock interface (see Figures 4-9 and 4-10).

VC is a breakdown product of TCE biodegradation. High concentrations of VC and TCE in the

mid-depth samples and the bedrock samples were noted to occur in the same area but did not

occur at the exact same sample locations. At both depths the higher VC concentrations are

detected where TCE concentrations are lower indicating that degradation may be occurring.

Figures 4-6 and 4-9, presenting the concentrations of TCE and VC at in the mid-depth samples,

indicate that the highest TCE concentrations are located near SB-24 and SB-26 while the

highest VC concentrations are found near SB-25, SB-22, and SB-28. A similar pattern is noted

when comparing Figures 4-7 and 4-10 of the contaminant contours at bedrock. Although not

exceeding screening levels, intermediary breakdown compounds such as dichloroethene were

also detected in 28 of the mid-depth and bedrock depth samples indicating that biodegradation

is occurring.

VC concentrations in soil were also compared to EPA soil-to-ground water SSLs to evaluate the

potential for VC concentrations in soil to impact groundwater at the site. The SSLs provide a

conservative screening value that sets a soil concentration for an individual contaminant that is

protective of chemical migration from soil to groundwater (USEPA, 1996a). The SSL for VC is

0.33 ug/kg. All of the detected concentrations of VC in shallow, intermediate, and deep samples

exceed the SSL value by a large margin. This indicates that there is significant potential for VC

to migrate from soil to groundwater at the site. Groundwater samples collected from onsite

monitoring wells in February 2001 under the North Penn Area 7 Operable Unit 3 RI confirm this

observation. Very high concentrations of VC were detected in the Spra-Fin well #1.

4-14 A R 3 0 0 559

4.4.2.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Exceedances


Twenty-two SVOCs were detected in surface soil investigation samples at concentrations which

exceed their respective screening values, thereby making them COPCs. These compounds and

their respective concentrations are presented in Table 4-5. This table lists each sample and the

corresponding result and detection limit for each analyte. The RBC soil residential value and the

BTAG flora and fauna values are listed for each compound for comparison. The screening

criteria that are exceeded by the detected concentration are shown in bold. The final column

presents the exceedance quotient which is the analytical result divided by the screening value

which provides a measure of the degree of the exceedance.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Sixteen PAHs were detected in surface soil samples at levels that exceeded screening criteria.

The majority of these compounds are COPCs due to the exceedance of BTAG criteria. With

few exceptions, PAH exceedances occurred in the same sample locations on and near the site.

PAH exceedances occurred in samples collected along both sides of Wissahickon Avenue, in

the driveway located to the north of the building, along the railway right of way, and in the

parking areas south of the facility building. PAH exceedances in surface soil are shown in Figure

4-11.

As listed in Table 4-5, acenaphthene was detected in six of 25 surface soil samples and

exceeded the BTAG screening value in all of these. These locations were all located along

Wissahickon Avenue across from the street or along the railroad tracks behind the facility (See

Figure 4-11). A maximum concentration of 490 ug/kg was observed in SS-05. All detected

concentrations were below the RBC soil residential screening value of 470,000 ug/kg, but

exceeded the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg.

4-15

Acenaphthylene was detected in eight of 25 surface soil samples, including six of seven locatio

along the road in front of the site and two locations near the railroad tracks behind the site (See

Figure 4-11 and Table 4-5). The maximum concentration of 930 mg/kg was observed in SS-

01. All detected concentrations were below the RBC soil residential screening value of 470,00(

ug/kg but exceeded the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg.

Anthracene was detected in nine of 25 surface soil samples (See Figure 4-11). The maximum

detected concentration of 1,800 ug/kg was observed in SS-01. All detected concentrations

were below the RBC soil residential screening value of 2,300,000 ug/kg, but exceeded the

BTAG soi] flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg.

Benzo(a)anthracene was detected in surface soil samples collected from 10 borings on the site at

concentrations in excess of the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg. As

shown if Table 4-5, none of the onsite boring samples generated an exceedance quotient higher

than 4.2 and most were below 2.0, indicating that the onsite concentrations were not excessive.

This compound was also detected in all nine of the surface soil samples located along the road

and along the railroad tracks (See Figure 4-11). Seven of the surface soil samples had

concentrations that exceeded the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value as well as the

RBC soil residential screening value of 870 ug/kg. Additionally, the concentration detected in

sample SS-01 is in excess of the RBC soil industrial screening value of 7,800 ug/kg.

Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in all nine of the surface soil samples and 11 of the boring

locations. These samples were located along both sides of the road, in the parking area south of

the facility, and along the railroad tracks (See Figure 4-11 and Table 4-5). Benzo(a)pyrene was

detected in samples SB-09_0-1 and SB-23_0-1 at concentrations of 89 ug/kg and 92 ug/kg,

respectively, which exceed the RBC soil residential screening value of 87 ug/kg. This compound

was also detected in 10 samples at concentrations that exceed the RBC soi] residential screening

value and the BTAG soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg. In addition, all of the surface soil

samples (with the exception of SS-06) collected along the road and near the railroad tracks had

4-16

detections of benzo(a)pyrene at concentrations that exceed both RBC soil residential and BTAG

soil fauna screening values, as well as the RBC soil industrial screening value of 780 ug/kg.

Benzo(b)fluoranthene was detected in 12 of 25 samples at concentrations that are below the

RBC soil residential screening value of 870 ug/kg, but exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna

screening value of 100 ug/kg. This compound was also detected in eight samples at

concentrations that exceeded both the RBC soil residential screening value and the BTAG soil

flora and soil fauna screening value. In addition to these exceedances, the concentrations in

samples SS-03, SS-05 and SS-01, located along Wissahickon Avenue exceed the RBC soil

industrial screening value of 7,800 ug/kg. The maximum detected concentration of

benzo(b)fluoranthene was 12,000 ug/kg in SS-01.

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene was detected in all nine surface soil samples and 8 of the 15 boring

locations with a maximum concentration of 8,800 ug/kg in SS-01. All detected concentrations

are below the RBC soil residential screening value of 230,000 ug/kg, but exceed the BTAG soil

flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg.

Benzo(k)fluoranthene was detected in 19 of 25 samples with a maximum concentration of 8,600

ug/kg in SS-01. All of the detected values are below the RBC soil residential screening value of

8,700 ug/kg, but all exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg.

The highest concentrations were all found in samples SS-01 through SS-05 collected along

Wissahickon Avenue (See Figure 4-11).

As indicated in Table 4-5, chrysene was detected in 20 of 25 samples, both onsite boring

locations and surface soil samples. The highest exceedance quotients were generated for

samples SS-01, SS-03, SS-04, and SS-05 located along the road. The maximum concentration

of 10,000 ug/kg was observed in SS-01. All of the detected concentrations are below the RBC

soil residential screening value of 87,000 ug/kg, but all exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna

screening value of 100 ug/kg.

4-n ^300562

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected in sample SS-06 at a concentration of 91 ug/kg, which

exceeds the RBC soil residential screening value of 87 ug/kg. Additionally, at 10 locations

detected concentrations exceeded both the RBC soil residential screening value of 87 ug/kg and

the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg. The concentrations detected i

samples SS-04, SS-01, SS-03 and SS-05 also exceed the RBC soil industrial screening value

of 780 ug/kg (See Figure 4-11). The maximum detected concentration of dibenz(a,h)anthracene

was 240,000 mg/kg in SS-05.

Fluoranthene was detected in 20 of 25 samples, with a maximum concentration of 2,000 ug/kg

observed in SS-01. All concentrations are below the RBC soil residential screening value of

310,000 ug/kg, but exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg. As

with most of the PAHs the highest exceedance quotient is generated from samples collected

along Wissahickon Avenue across from the site (See Table 4-5 and Figure 4-11).

Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene was detected in eight of nine surface soil samples collected along the

road and the railroad track at concentrations that exceed the RBC soil residential screening value

of 870 ug/kg. This compound was also detected in 11 onsite boring samples at concentrations

that exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg. The level of this

contaminant in sample SS-01 (11,000 ug/kg) is in excess of the RBC soil industrial screening

value of 7,800 ug/kg.

Naphthalene was detected in four of 25 samples, with a maximum observed concentration of

670 ug/kg in SB-26JM. All of the detected concentrations are below the RBC soil residential

screening value of 160,000 ug/kg, but all exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening

value of 100 ug/kg.

Phenanthrene was detected in 19 of 25 samples at concentrations that exceed the BTAG soil

flora and fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg. The highest exceedance quotient were generated

for results from surface soil samples SSJ)1 through SS-05 collected along Wissahickon Avenue

1R300563

(See Table 4-5 and Figure 4-11). The maximum detected value of 8,000 ug/kg was observed in

SS-01.

Pyrene was detected in 20 of 25 samples with a maximum concentration of 16,000 ug/kg

observed at SS-01. All values are below the RBC soil residential screening value of 230,000,

but all exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg. Samples

collected along the road way and near the railroad tracks generated the highest exceedance

quotients (See Table 4-5 and Figure 4-11). Pyrene concentrations detected in onsite boring

locations generated exceedance quotients of 17 or less with most below 4.0.

Other SVOCs

Three phenolic compounds detected in onsite surface soil samples exceeded BTAG screening

values. None of these compounds generated an exceedance quotient higher than 9,9. These

contaminants were detected in boring locations SB-23, SB-26, and SB-28, located at the south

end of the building and near the drum storage areas (See Figure 3-4).

As shown in Table 4-5, 2,4-dimethylphenol was detected in one of 25 samples (SB-23_0-1) at

a concentration of 550 ug/kg. This concentration does not exceed the RBC screening value of

160,000 ug/kg but does exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100 ug/kg.

2-Methylphenol was detected in samples SB-23JM, SB-26J)-! and SB-28JM at

concentrations of 260 ug/kg, 410 ug/kg, and 100 ug/kg, respectively. These concentrations are

below the RBC screening value of 390,000 ug/kg but exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna

value of 100 ug/kg.

4-Methylphenol was detected in 2 of 25 samples (SB-23_0-1 and SB-26J)-!) at

concentrations of 990 ug/kg and 510 ug/kg, respectively. These concentrations do not exceed

the RBC screening value of 39,000 ug/kg, but do exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna

screening value of 100 ug/kg.

4-19

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in nine of 25 samples, and exceeded the RBC soil

residential screening value of 46,000 ug/kg in two samples (See Table 4-5). Samples SB-26_0'

1 and SB-14_0-1 had detections of this compound at concentrations of 73,000 ug/kg and

130,000 ug/kg, respectively, exceeding the RBC soil residential value.

Phenol was detected in 2 of 25 samples (SB-26JM and SB-23_0-1) at concentrations of 200

ug/kg and 720 ug/kg, respectively. These concentrations are below the RBC soil residential

screening value of 4,700,000 ug/kg but exceed the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening

value of 100 ug/kg generating hazard quotients of 2.0 and 7.2, Both of these sample locations

are near the southern end of the building and in the vicinity of the drum storage area (See Figure

3-4).


Only one SVOC, benzo(a)pyrene, was detected in subsurface samples above the screening

values. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in five of 27 mid-depth samples with a maximum

concentration of 140 ug/kg detected in SB-29_0-1 (under the concrete pad). All detected

concentrations exceed the RBC soil residential screening value of 87 ug/kg (See Table 4-8).

Four of the five samples with exceedances for this compound were located either under the

concrete foundation or on the edge of this foundation and may be related to the fire that

destroyed the former plant building.

4.4.2.3 Pesticides and Polvchlorinated Biphenyls Exceedances

All soil samples were analyzed for TCL pesticides and PCBs. Results are presented below.


Twenty one pesticide/PCB compounds were detected in surface soil investigation samples and

two of these were detected at concentrations which exceed their respective screening values,

4-20

making them COPCs. These compounds and their respective concentrations are presented in

Table 4-6.

Aroclor-1254 was detected in eight of 25 samples and exceeded the screening values in six of

the samples with a maximum concentration of 1,400 ug/kg in SB-30_0-1. With the exception of

sample SB-24_0-1, all concentrations exceed both the RBC soil residential screening value of

320 ug/kg and the BTAG soil flora value of 100 ug/kg. The concentration detected in sample

SB-24_0-1 exceeds only the BTAG soil flora screening value. Areas where Aroclor 1254

exceed RBCs are presented on Figure 4-12. Three of the six locations (SB-26, SB-28, and

SB-30) are located at the southern end of the building and the drum storage areas. Two of the

locations with PCB exceedances, SB-23 and SB-24, are located along the railroad tracks, and

the final location, SB-14 is located in the southern corner of the parking lot. (See Figure 4-12).

Aroclor-1260 was detected in eight of 25 samples but only exceeded the screening values in six

of these samples with a maximum concentration of 3,600 ug/kg in SB-23_0-1. All of these

concentrations exceed both the RBC soil residential screening value of 320 ug/kg and the BTAG

soil flora screening value of 100 ug/kg. Areas where Aroclor-1260 exceed RBCs are presented

on Figure 4-12. As seen in this figure samples where Aroclor 1260 exceeded screening values

are co-located with the same samples where Aroclor 1254 was detected and exceed the

screening values.

Methoxychlor was detected in one of 25 sample (SS-01), located along Wissahickon Avenue,

at a concentration of 170 ug/kg. This concentration is below the RBC soil residential screening

value of 39,000 ug/kg but exceeds the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value of 100

ug/kg.


Aroclor- 1254 was detected in one of 27 samples (SB-23_l-2) at a concentration of 1,300

ug/kg which exceeds the RBC soil residential screening value of 320 ug/kg. Aroclor-1260 was

4_21 A R 3 0 0 5 6 6

also detected in this sample at a concentration of 350 ug/kg, also exceeding the RBC soil

residential screening value of 320 ug/kg. SB-23 is located at the southern end of the active plai

building and adjacent to the railroad tracks (see Table 4-8 and Figure 3-4),

4.4.2.4 Inorganic Exceedances

All samples collected during soil sampling activities associated with this RI were shipped to a

CLP laboratory where they were analyzed for TAL inorganics and cyanide. The following

sections document which inorganic compounds exceed the screening values and where these

metals were detected. These compounds and their respective concentrations are presented in

Tables 4-7 (surface soil) and 4-8 (subsurface soil). This table lists each sample and the

corresponding result and detection limit for each analyte. The RBC soil residential value and the

BTAG flora and fauna values are listed for each compound for comparison. The screening

criteria that are exceeded by the detected concentration are shown in bold. The final column

presents the exceedance quotient which is the analytical result divided by the screening value

which provides a measure of the degree of the exceedance. The higher the exceedance quotient

the greater the potential for negative impact from the contaminant.

4.4.2.4.1 Surface Soils

Aluminum was detected in every surface soil sample collected and exceeded the BTAG

screening value in each of these samples (See Table 4-7). The exceedance quotients generated

when comparing the aluminum concentrations to the screening value are very high ranging from

4,880 to 13,900. Aluminum was also detected in 19 other samples at concentrations that

exceed both the RBC soil residential screening value and BTAG soil flora screening value. The

maximum detected concentration of aluminum was 7,730 mg/kg in SS-07 located in front of the

site along the road. The highest aluminum concentrations were found in samples collected onsite

and were found on all sides of the facility and in the southern corner of the parking area (See

Table 4-7 and Figures 3-1 and 3-4).

4-22 f l R 3 0 0 5 6 7

Antimony was detected in six of 25 samples at concentrations that exceed the BTAG soil flora

value of 0.48 mg/kg. Sample SB-14_0-1 had an antimony concentration of 5.0 mg/kg, which

exceeds both the RBC soil residential screening value of 3.1 mg/kg and the BTAG soil flora

screening value.

Arsenic was detected in 21 of 25 samples that exceed the RBC soil residential screening value of

0.43 mg/kg, but are below the BTAG soil flora screening value of 328 mg/kg. These arsenic

concentrations were detected in surface soil samples collected on each side of the facility

building and across the road from the facility (See Figures 3-1 and 3-4 and Table 4-7). The

maximum detected concentration of arsenic was 42.8 mg/kg in SB-23_0-1 located behind the

plant building and adjacent to the railroad tracks.

Barium was detected above screening levels in seven of 25 samples distributed across the entire

property. The maximum concentration of 7,190 mg/kg was detected in SB-03_0-1 located

behind the plant building (See Figure 3-4). All concentrations exceed both the RBC soil

residential screening value of 550 mg/kg and the BTAG soil flora and soil fauna screening value

of 440 mg/kg.

Beryllium was detected above screening levels in 19 of 25 samples including surface samples

SS-01 through SS-04 located along the road across from the site and in 11 borings located on

site. The borings where this metal was detected are distributed around the entire property (See

Table 4-7 and Figure 3-4). The maximum concentration of 1.2 mg/kg was found in SB-01_0-1

and SB-04JM located behind the building near the railroad tracks. All concentrations are

below the RBC soil residential screening value of 16 mg/kg but above the BTAG soil flora

screening value of 0.02 mg/kg.

Cadmium was detected in 3 of 25 samples (SB-03 J)-l, SB-26 J)-l and SB-14JM) at

concentrations of 2.9 mg/kg, 3.1 mg/kg and 3.4 mg/kg, respectively. These results exceed the

BTAG soil flora screening value of 2.5 mg/kg. Sample SB-23_0-1 contained cadmium at a

concentration of 33.8 mg/kg which exceeds both the BTAG soil flora screening value and the

4-23 A R 3 0 0 5 S B

RBC soil residential screening value of 7.8 mg/kg (food value). Exceedance quotients generat

for cadmium were all less than 2 indicating low risk with the exception of the quotient calculat

for sample SB-23JM which generated a quotient of 13.5.

Chromium was detected and exceeded screening values in 21 of 25 samples including all of the

surface soil samples located along the road and along the railroad tracks. Chromium was also

detected in 15 boring locations distributed over the entire site (See Table 4-7 and Figure 3-4).

Chromium was detected with a maximum concentration of 183 mg/kg in SB-25JM located

next to and south of the old building foundation. All values exceed the BTAG soil fauna

screening value of 0.0075 mg/kg. Samples SB-03JM, SB-26JM and SB-14JM located

behind the building and in the parking area to south of the active building, had detections of

chromium at concentrations of 439 mg/kg, 550 mg/kg and 715 mg/kg, respectively. These

concentrations exceed both the BTAG soil fauna screening value and the RBC soil residential

screening value of 230 mg/kg. Detected concentrations of chromium generated very high

exceedance quotients ranging from 1720 to 95,333 indicating significant potential for risk to

human and ecological receptors. The highest quotients were generated based on the

concentrations detected in samples SB-03, SB-26, and SB-14.

Copper was detected and exceeded screening values in 23 of 25 samples distributed evenly

over the site property and along the road across from the site. A maximum concentration of 295

mg/kg detected in SB-24_0-1. All values exceed the BTAG soil flora screening value of 15

mg/kg but are below the RBC soil residential screening value of 310 mg/kg. Exceedance

quotients for copper ranged from 1 to 19, with most values below 10 (See Table 4-7).

Cyanide was detected and exceeded screening criteria in five of 25 samples with a maximum

concentration of 0.25 mg/kg detected in SS-05. All concentrations exceed the BTAG soil fauna

screening value of 0.005 mg/kg but are below the RBC soil residential screening value of 160

mg/kg. Exceedance quotients for cyanide ranged from 40 to 62.

4-24 A R 3 0 0 5 6 9

Iron was detected in all of the samples and exceeded screening values in 24 of 25 samples with a

maximum concentration of 30,400 mg/kg in SB-06_0-1. All values are above both the BTAG

soil fauna screening value of 12 mg/kg and the RBC soil residential screening value of 2,300

mg/kg. The highest concentrations of iron were detected in 12 sample locations on the plant

property and six of these were located behind the building along the railroad tracks (See Table

4-7 and Figures 3-1 and 3-4).

Lead was detected at concentrations exceeding screening criteria in 24 of 25 samples including

all of the surface soil samples and 15 boring locations onsite (See Table 4-7 and Figure 4-13).

Twenty samples were detected at concentrations that exceed the BTAG soil fauna screening

value of 0.01 mg/kg. Four samples had concentrations of lead that exceed both the BTAG soil

fauna screening value and the EPA OWSER soil residential screening value of 400 mg/kg.

These sample locations, SB-03, SB-08, SB-26, and SB-14 are located behind the building, and

in the gravel and paved parking areas to the north and south of the building. The maximum

detected concentration of lead was 1,570 mg/kg found in sample location SB-14 in the southern

parking lot area. The concentration in this sample exceeds the EPA soil industrial screening

value of 1000 mg/kg Areas where lead exceeds EPA screening values are presented on Figure

4-13. Exceedance quotients for lead were very high ranging from 3,510 to 157,000 indicating

significant potential for risk to human and ecological receptors (See Table 4-7).

Manganese was detected in 23 of 25 samples at concentrations that exceed the RBC soil

residential screening value of 160 mg/kg. Manganese was also detected in 20 samples at

concentrations that exceed both the RBC soil residential screening value and the BTAG soil flora

and soil fauna screening value of 330 mg/kg. These manganese exceedances were found in

samples collected along Wissahickon Avenue and from boring locations distributed over the

entire property (See Table 4-7 and Figure 3-1).

Mercury was detected in two of 25 samples (SB-04_0-1 and SS-09) at concentrations of 0.80

mg/kg and 5.6 mg/kg, respectively. These values exceed both the BTAG soil flora and soil

A R 3 0 0 5

fauna screening value of 0.058 mg/kg and the RBC soil residential screening value of 0.78

mg/kg. Both of these locations are along the railroad tracks to the rear of the building.

Nickel was detected and exceeded screening criteria in 24 of 25 samples with a maximum

concentration of 29.1 mg/kg in SB-14_0-1. Samples where nickel exceeded the screening

values were evenly distributed over the site property and in the surface soil samples collected

along the road. All values exceed the BTAG soil flora screening value of 2.0 mg/kg but are

below the RBC soil residential screening value of 160 mg/kg. Exceedance quotients for nickel

were not extremely high ranging from 2.9 to 14.

Silver was detected in 3 of 25 samples (SS-04, SB-14JM and SB-23JM) at concentrations

of 0.50 mg/kg, 0.78 mg/kg and 0.83 mg/kg respectively. These values exceed the BTAG soil

flora screening value of 0.00001 mg/kg, however, are below the RBC soil residential screening

value of 39.0 mg/kg.

Vanadium was detected and exceeded screening criteria in 24 samples distributed over the

entire site and along Wissahickon Avenue. A maximum concentration of 50.3 mg/kg detected ir

SB-06_0-1 (See Figure 3-4). All concentrations exceed the BTAG soil flora screening value of

0.50 mg/kg but are below the RBC soil residential screening value of 55 mg/kg. Exceedance

quotients for vanadium ranged from 34.8 to 101 indicating the potential for negative impacts to

ecological receptors.

Zinc was detected and exceeded screening criteria in 24 of 25 samples with a maximum

concentration of 1,460 mg/kg in SB-14_0-1. The highest concentrations of zinc were found

behind the building along the railroad right of way, near the southern end of the building and in

the southern parking lot (See Table 4-7 and Figure 3-4). All concentrations are above the

BTAG soil flora screening value of 10 mg/kg but below the RBC soil residential screening value

of 2,300 mg/kg. Exceedance quotients for zinc range from 4.7 to 146 (See Table 4-7).

4-26

4.4.2.4.2 Subsurface Soil Samples

Subsurface samples were analyzed for the same inorganic constituents as surface soil samples.

Table 4-8 presents a summary of the subsurface soil data that exceeds the RBC soil residential

screening value. Table 4-8 provides the concentration of metals detected, the sample the metal

was detected in, the RBC screening value, and the exceedance quotient.

Aluminum was detected and exceeded screening criteria in 33 of 45 subsurface soil samples,

with a maximum concentration of 22,900 mg/kg observed in SB-08J7-8. These samples were

collected from borings located over the entire site. All concentrations exceeds the RBC soil

residential screening value of 7,800 mg/kg (See Table 4-8).

Antimony exceeded screening criteria in one of 45 samples (SB-25_3-4) with a concentration of

9.2 mg/kg which exceeds the RBC soil residential screening value of 3.1 mg/kg.

Arsenic was detected in 3 of 45 samples (SB-25_7-8, SB-28_7-8 and SB-27 J7-8) at

concentrations of 1.9 mg/kg, 2.2 mg/kg and 3.1 mg/kg, respectively, which exceed the RBC soil

residential screening value of 0.43 mg/kg. Additionally both the RBC soil residential screening

value and the RBC soil industrial screening value of 3.8 mg/kg were exceeded in sixteen

samples. These highest arsenic concentrations were found near the southern end of the building.

The maximum detected concentration of arsenic was 12.8 mg/kg in SB-27_5-6. Exceedance

quotients for arsenic ranged from 4.4 to 29.8.

Chromium was detected in one of 45 samples (SB-19_2-3) at a concentration of 246 mg/kg

which exceed the RBC soil residential screening value of 230 mg/kg.

Iron was detected in 39 of 45 samples with a maximum concentration of 72,000 mg/kg

observed in SB-29_0-1. All concentrations are above the RBC soil residential screening value

of 2,300 mg/kg. Concentrations detected in samples SB-08J7-8 and SB-29_0-1 exceed the

4-27

RBC soil industrial screening value of 61,000 mg/kg as well. Only 4 of the samples had

detected iron values that generated an exceedance quotient above 15.

Lead exceeded screening criteria in one of 45 samples (SB-25_3-4) at a concentration of 442

mg/kg, which exceeds the RBC soil residential screening value of 400 mg/kg and generates an

exceedance value of 1.11 indicating a low potential for risk to human receptors.

Manganese exceeded screening criteria in 33 of 45 samples with a maximum concentration of

1,460 mg/kg observed in SB-23_6-7. All concentrations exceed the RBC soil residential

screening value of 160 mg/kg.

Vanadium exceeded the RBC value in one 45 samples (SB-08J7-8) at a concentration of 79.2

mg/kg which exceeds the RBC soil residential screening value of 55 mg/kg and generates an

exceedance quotient of 1.4

4.5 SUMMARY OF EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

4.5.1 VOLATILE ORGANIC CONTAMINATION

VOCs were detected in soil gas, shallow groundwater, and surface and subsurface soil samples.

• Soil gas screening confirmed the presence of chlorinated VOCs in 20 out of 30 soil gas

samples. The highest concentrations of VOCs were detected in samples collected from

the bedrock interface at locations near the southern end of the active building and old

foundation (sample locations SG-27, SG-28, and SG-22). Areas of elevated soil gas

concentrations match the areas of elevated soil contamination.

• Shallow groundwater samples were collected in 5 borings. Sixteen VOCs were

detected in these groundwater samples. The highest concentrations of VOCs in

4-28

groundwater were detected in boring location SB-24, near the location of the former

TCE tank.

• Three VOCs (ethylbenzene, toluene, and TCE) were detected at concentrations

exceeding BTAG screening values in three surface soil samples. These samples were all

located at the south end of the active building and concrete foundation. Exceedance

quotients for these compounds ranged from 21 to 870.

• TCE and VC were detected in subsurface samples at concentrations exceeding

screening criteria. TCE concentrations exceeded residential and industrial RBC soil

screening values in one location (SB-26) and was detected at high concentrations at

several other sample locations near SB-26. VC concentrations in mid-depth and

bedrock samples exceed the residential RBC value. The highest concentration of TCE

and VC were both centered around the southern end of the active facility and the

southern end of the old concrete foundation indicating that a probable source or sources

exist in this area. Surface soil concentrations and soil gas results were also high in this

area. The presence of VC indicates that biodegradation is occurring.

4.5.2 SEMIVOLATILE CONTAMINATION

• Twenty two SVOCs were detected in surface soil at concentrations that exceeded

screening criteria. Sixteen of these were PAHs which were detected very frequently on

and near the site. Of these PAHs, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene exceed the

human health and ecological screening values. Concentrations of these compounds

generated exceedance quotients ranging from 64 to 100. For each of these compounds

the highest concentrations were detected in the soil samples collected along the road

which is probably the source of the contamination.

4-29 4R300571,

• The remaining 11 PAHs exceeded the ecological screening values but did not generate

high exceedance quotients with the exception of fluoranthene. These remaining PAHs

were detected in samples collected along the road and the railroad tracks and are

probably the result of contamination from asphalt, tar, and creosote and not related to

site activities.

4.5.3 PESTICIDES AND PCB CONTAMINATION

• Two PCB compounds (Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260) were detected in six of 25

surface sample locations at concentrations that exceed both the RBC and ecological

screening criteria. Both PCB compounds detected in surface soil were co-located in the

same samples. These samples were located at the southern end of the active building

near the drum storage area, in the southern parking lot, and along the railroad tracks.

Exceedance quotients for Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 range from 5 to 14 and 1.7

to 36, respectively.

4.5.4 INORGANIC CONTAMINATION

• Seventeen metals were detected in surface soil samples at concentrations exceeding

human health and ecological screening values and thus selected as COPCs. Most of

these metals were detected at a high frequency from locations distributed across the

entire site. Nine of these metals, aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron,

lead, manganese, and mercury were detected at high concentrations and exceeded both

the RBC soil residential screening values and the ecological values. Lead also exceeded

the industrial RBC value. Of the nine metals exceeding the human health screening level,

aluminum, chromium, lead, and iron were detected a very high concentrations and

generated exceedance quotients ranging from 2000 to 157,000 indicating significant

potential to cause adverse effects.

4-30

• In subsurface samples eight metals were detected at concentrations exceeding the RBC

soil residential screening value. Of these eight metals only aluminum, iron, and

manganese were detected above screening levels in more than three samples. These

three metals were detected from samples collected across the entire site. None of the

metal COPCs detected in subsurface soil samples generated excessive exceedance

quotients. The highest exceedance quotients were generated for arsenic ranging from 4

to 29.

4.5.5 BACKGROUND CONTAMINATION

• VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and metals were detected in surface samples collected from

the two background locations. Metals were detected in the subsurface background

samples. Several of the VOCs and the SVOC caprolactum, detected in the background

surface sample are site specific compounds and indicate that site contamination extends

off of the site property and negates the use of these locations as background locations.

4-31

SectionFive

A R 3 U 0 5 7 7

5.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT

This chapter describes the fate and transport in the environment of the analytes identified in site

soil that exceed regulatory screening levels. An understanding of the fate and transport of

contaminants provided in this chapter is necessary to adequately evaluate future potential

exposure risks and to evaluate remedial technologies for the Feasibility Study.

This section provides the following:

• a discussion of the contaminant groups of concern and potential sources;

• a summary of potential contaminant transport pathways;

• the relevant physical-chemical properties of the contaminants; and

• a summary of the fate and transport characteristics of contaminants.

5.1 EXCEEDANCES OF REGULATORY SCREENING LEVELS

Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed as part of this investigation.

Regulatory exceedances for these media were determined based on comparisons of their

concentrations with EPA Region HI Residential Risk-based Concentrations, and EPA Region III

BTAG flora and fauna screening levels. Complete lists of all exceedances identified for this

investigation are presented in Tables 4-4 through 4-8.

The chemical classes of contaminants identified in surface soil at the Spra-Fin facility include:

chlorinated VOCs, phenols, chlorofluorocarbons, aromatics, PAHs, other SVOCs, pesticides,

PCBs, and inorganics. General classes of contaminants noted in the subsurface include:

chlorinated VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and inorganics.

5-1f l R 3 0 D 5 7 8

Site-related contaminants may have been physically released to the site soil by the improper

storage and handling of hazardous substances and waste materials derived from the degreasing

of metal parts and activities involving the application of liquid and powder coatings to metal

surfaces. Specifically, the presence of chlorinated VOCs and chlorofluorocarbons in site soil is

likely to be a result of improper waste and disposal of trichoroethylene and freon

(tricholofluoromethane) used for degreasing activities. Additionally, the aromatic compounds

toluene and xylene, as well as some SVOCs, such as caprolactam, associated with painting and

finishing processes have been released to site soil. Similarly, the presence of PCBs may be

related to the use of epoxy paints (Manahan, 1994). The presence of heavy metals and other

inorganics may be a result of metal manufacturing and finishing activities. The elevated levels of

lead observed in surface soils could be due to various site-related and non site-related sources,

such as the use of lead-based paints during metal finishing activities at the site. Conversely, lead

contamination could result from the historic use of leaded gasoline in automobiles or the presence

of lead-based paint on nearby buildings.

The presence of PAHs and pesticides in site soil is not likely to be related to site activities.

PAHs are ubiquitous in the environment as a result of various anthropogenic activities (Manahan,

1994). In addition, the fire which destroyed half of the Spra-Fin facility in 1997 is also probably

a source of PAHs at the site. As this area was agricultural prior to becoming industrial, the

presence of various pesticides in surface soils is likely to be due to the extensive historic use of

these chemicals for agricultural purposes.

5.2 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT PATHWAYS

The various environmental media onsite present several potential pathways for contaminant

migration. These pathways are discussed in the paragraphs that follow.

5-2

5.2.1 PROPERTIES OF SITE MEDIA INFLUENCING CONTAMINANT

TRANSPORT

The physical characteristics of the site are described in Chapters 1 and 2. The physical

characteristics that affect the transport of contaminants are briefly summarized below.

5.2.1.1 Topography/Surface Water Hydrology

The site slopes gently toward the northwest. Consequently, surface water runoff is directed to

the storm drains that line the western edge of Wissahickon Avenue, providing a conduit for

potential surficial contaminant transport. Water within the drainage system flows to Wissahickon

Creek, which lies 1,000 feet to the north of the site.

5.2.1.2 Surficial Geology

The site is underlain by the Brunswick Formation. The near-surface bedrock is characterized by

red and reddish brown shale, mudstone, and silt, above the bedrock is a natural soil horizon

composed of fine silty clay which ranges in thickness from eight to twelve inches, and above the

natural soil is a reworked soil or fill which ranges from three to six feet in thickness. The

composition of the fill is generally soft, gray-brown or red silty clay. The total thickness of soil

under investigation ranges from seven to eight feet across the site.

5.2.1.3 Shallow Groundwater Table

Groundwater was encountered in only five of the 28 soil borings advanced during the field

investigation (SB-15, -17, -19, -21, and -24). This random pattern of groundwater intrusion

suggests perched conditions within the overburden, which is confirmed by the observation in site

wells that the water table is contained in bedrock. Rainwater or spills in contact with the

overburden will be either absorbed by the fill material or infiltrate to the deeper weathered

5-3

Brunswick formation. Discussion of contaminant transport within the bedrock aquifer is not

within the scope of this investigation.

5.2.1.4 Soil Chemistry

The soil properties most affecting contaminant persistence and mobility include:

• redox potential (Eh);

• pH; and

total organic carbon content.

Redox potential of the subsurface affects the speciation of contaminants, and hence their mobility

or persistence in the environment. Microbial activity and organic contaminants may create

reducing conditions.

The pH of soils affects hydrolysis rates, contaminant solubility and biodegradability rates.

Specifically, acid-catalyzed hydrolysis reaction rates increase with increasing pH, while base-

catalyzed hydrolysis reaction rates decrease with pH (Knox, et al, 1993). Solubility of

inorganics generally increases as pH decreases. Biodegradation rates are typically maximized

when soil pH is between 5.5 and 8.5 (USEPA, 1989). As described in Section 2.3, the soil at

the site consists of made land (or fill material) and typically exhibits moderate to very high

degrees of acidity.

High total organic carbon content in the site soil increases contaminant absorption and hinders

the movement of contaminants through the soil. Soils which are composed of at least 0.1 %

organic matter are generally considered to be of high organic content (USEPA, 1997a). Since

the TOC of the soils at the Spra-Fin facility ranged from a maximum of 49,880 mg/kg (0.49%)

in surface soils to a minimum of 1,542 mg/kg (0.15%) in the subsurface, the organic content of

site soils should be considered to be high. However, it should be noted that movement of

solvent DNAPL is only slightly hindered by the sorption tendencies of soils (Pankow and

5 _ 4 A R 3 0 D 5 8 I

Cherry, 1996). Accordingly, the hindrance of the movement of TCE in areas of high

concentration is expected to be low at this site.

5.2.2 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT PATHWAYS

Several potential contaminant transport pathways for contaminants have been identified at the

site, including:

• surface runoff to nearby drainage channels, and ultimately to WissahickonCreek;

the downward migration of chemical contaminants in soil to the underlyingBrunswick Formation;

• the migration of chemical contaminants via windblown dusts;

• the volatilization of chemical contaminants in surface soil into the ambient air; and

• the uptake of contaminants in soil by biota.

5.3 CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CONTAMINANTS

To predict the persistence and potential migration of contaminants in soils, it is necessary to

identify which contaminants are likely to leach, degrade (biotically or abiotically), or volatilize.

This depends on a given chemical's physical and chemical properties and the properties of the

media through which it migrates. Table 5-1 presents the chemical and physical properties of the

contaminants. The following sections describe the persistence and mobility of the identified

contaminant groups, focusing on such properties as degradation, dissolution/precipitation,

volatilization, biotransformation, adsorption, and bioaccumulation or bioconcentration.

5.3.1 CONTAMINANT PERSISTENCE (FATE)

Contaminant persistence describes the length of time that a contaminant will remain in its original

5-5 flR

chemical state in the environment. The chemicals that will persist in a given medium are those that

form insoluble precipitates, or resist biodegradation, hydrolysis, and volatilization.

5.3.1.1 Processes that Affect Persistence

The major processes affecting the fate, or persistence, of each class of contaminants detected

above screening levels in site soils are shown on the following table.

Contaminant Group Fate Process in Site Soil

Pesticides/PCBs

PAHs

Phenols

Aromatic s

Chlorofluorocarbons

Inorganics

Chlorinated VOCs

Very, slow biodegradation; persistent in the

environment

Slow biodegradation

Rapid biodegradation

Moderate to rapid biodegradation and

photodegradation

Very slow biodegradation

Dissolution/precipitation - pH dependent

Moderate to rapid biodegradation/biotransformation

Degradation/Transformation describes the process by which a chemical will degrade or change

due to naturally occurring chemical and/or biological reactions. The chemical forms generated

may have significantly different environmental mobilities and toxicological properties than the

original chemical.

Biodegradation is the degradation of chemicals by microbes in the soil or water, either under

aerobic or anaerobic conditions. With the exception of VC, chlorinated VOCs are very

susceptible to biodegradation under anaerobic conditions. Phenols are very susceptible to

biodegradation under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Other organic compounds, such as

5-6 A R 3 0 0 5 8 3

pesticides/PCBs and PAHs are not very susceptible to biodegradation. Inorganics do not

degrade.

Hydrolysis is the direct reaction of dissolved compounds with water molecules. Hydrolysis of

chlorinated hydrocarbons is significant because many chlorinated compounds are not readily

degraded by reactions such as biodegradation. This hydrolysis of chlorinated compounds often

yields an alcohol or an alkene.

Volatilization is an important transformation process in the unsaturated zone; its importance is

determined by the area of contact between the compound and the unsaturated zone, the vapor

pressures of the compound, and the rate at which the compound diffuses in the subsurface. The

volatilization process is dependent upon physical properties of the chemical, the presence of

modifying materials, and the physical and chemical properties of the environment. Movement of

vapor away from residual spill material in the unsaturated zone is typically controlled by

molecular diffusion.

Dissolution and precipitation are processes by which the volume of a given metal in the

environment may be reduced or increased. Redox conditions and pH govern the stability of

inorganics and determine whether a metal will precipitate from solution and what ionic species of

dissolved inorganics will be present.

For organic compounds, dissolution is the process by which chemical compounds penetrate from

the unsaturated zone into the groundwater. When immiscible fluids reach the capillary fringe,

their behavior is controlled by the fluid's density relative to water. Fluids less dense than water

pool on the water table, while dense fluids penetrate into the groundwater. The dissolution

process is an especially important mechanism in the fate and transport of the denser fluids.

5-7

5.3.1.2 COC Persistence

The chemical, physical, and biological factors that affect the persistence of each chemical group

of contaminants are described in this section.

Chlorinated VOCs - The chlorinated solvents that have been identified at concentrations that

exceed regulatory guidelines (i.e., VC, trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-l,2-DCE, and

trans-l,2-dichloroethene (trans-l,2-DCE) are moderately persistent in the environment. They

are resistant to chemical degradation, but moderately susceptible to biodegradation under

anaerobic conditions.

Considering that only trichloroethene and its parent compound, tetrachloroethene, are known to

have been used at the site, the presence of all members of the tetrachloroethene decay chain

suggests that biodegradation of chlorinated VOCs is occurring in site soils. Trichloroethene

undergoes anaerobic degradation to produce dichloroethene and other chlorinated species, like

VC, with significant toxicological concerns, VC, is not readily degraded anaerobically and tends

to accumulate in anaerobic environments. Although the biodegradation of tetrachloroethene and

trichoroethene favors anaerobic environments, slow biodegradation is also possible in aerobic

environments (Pankow and Cherry, 1996).

Ch 1 orofl uorcarbons - The chlorofluorocarbon Freon-11 exceeded screening levels in surface

soil. Although this compound is resistant to biodegradation, it does not typically accumulate in

soils due to its rapid rate of volatilization and lack of ability to be adsorbed by soil particles

(Howard, 1991).

Aromatic s - Toluene and total xylenes were detected above screening levels in surface soil.

Biodegradation of toluene occurs in soils, but often slowly, particularly at higher concentrations,

which may be toxic to microorganisms. The various xylene isomers are also subject to

biodegradation. However, toluene and the xylene isomers also vaporize readily and are fairly

mobile in soils (Howard, 1991). As a result, this group would not typically accumulate in soils.

5-8 f lR30

In general, toluene and total xylene concentrations at the site tend to increase with depth. This

trend is consistent with the tendencies of these compounds to either volatilize or migrate to

groundwater.

PAHs - These compounds are relatively persistent in the environment. The degree of

persistence generally increases with the molecular wight of the compound. Biodegradation and

biotransformation are the ultimate fate mechanisms affecting most PAHs. The smaller PAHs are

readily biodegraded, with half-lives in soil measured in hours to weeks. The larger PAHs take

significantly longer to biodegrade, with half-lives measured in weeks to months. Benzo(a)pyrene

is the only PAH that has migrated to subsurface soils in quantities exceeding RBCs. It is unlikely

that the presence of PAHs is related to any site-related activities. Since a variety of PAHs are

present in surface soils, including some with smaller molecular weights, it is possible that some

volatilization is occurring.

Phenols/Other SVOCs - Phenols and other SVOCs exceeded screening values only in surface

soil. The phenols present at the site (2,4-dimethylphenol, 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, and

phenol) are all subject to rapid biodegradation (Howard, 1991). The other SVOCs frequently

detected in surface soil were caprolactam and carbazole. Caprolactam is subject to rapid

chemical degradation and biodegradation (Howard, 1991). Information regarding the

environmental persistence of carbazole was not available in the literature.

Pesticides - Several pesticides, including 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, endosulfan I,

endosulfan n, endosulfan sulfate, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, and methoxychlor exceeded

screening levels in surface soils. None of these pesticides were detected at concentrations above

screening levels in subsurface soils. Chlorinated pesticides, like the ones detected in surface

soils, are resistant to biodegradation, but not completely inert. Time for 95% disappearance

ranges from 1 to 25 years (University of Waterloo, 2001).

PCBs - Two PCB isomers, Arochlor 1254 and Arochlor 1260, exceeded screening levels in site

surface and subsurface soils. Both of these compounds are highly chlorinated and, as a result,

5-9 A R 3 0 f

are highly resistant to biodegradation, particularly under aerobic conditions (University of

Waterloo, 2001).

Inorganics. The persistence of inorganics will depend on the rates of leaching, amount of rainfall

and individual metal properties. Inorganic persistence is complicated by processes such as

precipitation and dissolution which are dependent upon pH, the presence of certain ions or

complexing agents and concentrations of the inorganics in solution. These factors are discussed

further under mobility.

5.3.2 CONTAMINANT MOBILITY (TRANSPORT)

The major processes affecting the transport, or mobility, of each chemical type in soils and

groundwater are shown in the following table.

Contaminant Group Transport Process

Chlorinated VOCs

Chlorofluorocarbons

Aromatic s

Pesticides/PCBs

PAHs

Inorganics

Volatilization, dissolution

Volatilization

Volatilization

Adsorption, bioaccumulation/bioconcentration

Adsorption, sedimentation

Adsorption, bioaccumulation, volatilization (Hg)

Volatilization. This is the process whereby chemicals partition from a liquid or solid phase into

the gas phase. The process is dependent on vapor pressure and temperature, water solubility,

and molecular weight. It is important at the soil/air interface. Highly water soluble compounds

generally have lower volatilization rates than water. Vapor pressure, a relative measure of the

volatility of chemicals in their pure state, range from 0.001 to 760 millimeters (mm) Hg for

liquids, with solids ranging down to 10"7 mm Hg.

5-10

Adsorption. The octanol-water partition coefficient (K^) and the organic carbon partition

coefficient (K^,) reflect the propensity of an organic compound to sorb to the organic matter

found in soil. The normal range of K^, values extends to 10+7, with higher values indicating

greater sorption potential.

Bioaccumulation/bioconcentration. Some chemicals, such as lead, pesticides and PCBs, tend to

bioaccumulate/bioconcentrate in animal or plant tissue. In fact, plant uptake is sometimes used

as a remedial strategy to remove these contaminants from soils and sediment.

Dissolution/precipitation. Whether a chemical is transported in a dissolved state in infiltrating rain

water or groundwater or is precipitated out of solution depends on the solubility of that chemical

relative to water. Highly soluble chemicals, such as chlorinated VOCs, are readily leached from

wastes and soils into groundwater, where they continue to be highly mobile as dissolved

contaminants. Chemicals with low solubility, such as pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs are not as

easily leached from the soils. The solubility of inorganics are variable since their solubility is

highly dependent upon redox conditions and pH.

5.3.2.1 Mobility of Organic Compounds

Chlorinated VOCs - Chlorinated VOCs are generally highly mobile in the environment. They

are highly volatile, do not adsorb readily to soils, and are highly soluble in water.

Spills associated with the historic use of TCE onsite, and possible leaks associated with a TCE

storage tank at the site may account for the presence of most chlorinated VOCs in site soils.

The TCE stored in the tank was reportedly impure and contained some PCE (Helmers, 2000).

The detection of PCE in site surface soils in the vicinity of the tank is consistent with this

information. Other potential sources of chlorinated solvents include the drum storage area,

building sump, and former machine shop (Figure 1-2).

A large fraction of the VOCs, when originally released, would have rapidly evaporated from the

surface soil due to their high vapor pressure. Then, since these chlorinated solvents are

moderately to highly soluble in water, and do not sorb to soils, the fraction remaining in the soil

would infiltrate through the unsaturated zone by partitioning between the liquid phase (soil

moisture) and the vapor phase and ultimately leaching into the groundwater. Accordingly,

concentrations of chlorinated VOCs were generally greater in subsurface soils than in surface

soils, which is consistent with the properties described above. The contaminant transport

pathways for VOCs from the surface soils are therefore, 1) volatilization to the air and, 2) direct

discharge to soils, with probable leaching to groundwater.

The highest concentration of TCE detected during this investigation was 710,000 ug/kg at the

top of bedrock in SB-26 (7 to 8 feet). The depth of this sample and the fact that this

concentration is greater than the calculated upper NAPL threshold for TCE of 456,000 ug/kg

(Appendix D), suggest the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). As DNAPL

migrates vertically through the subsurface it leaves a trail of residual DNAPL behind. The

degradation of this residual DNAPL accounts for the presence of TCE breakdown products in

the subsurface.

The data collected during this investigation suggests the presence one large source area in the

vicinity of SB-26 along with several other smaller source areas outside the eastern wall of the

existing building. SB-26 is located close to several large potential source areas including a

machine shop that was housed in the building that recently burned, a drum storage area, and a

sump. Specifically, the presence of TCE and products of TCE degradation in surficial samples

collected from SB-24, SB-03, SB-04, SB-06, SS-08, and SS-09 are more indicative of

potential small source areas than an area that has been impacted by DNAPL migration. Sample

locations are shown on Figure 3-4.

Contamination profiles suggest a primarily vertical migration of DNAPL through the unsaturated

to the top of bedrock. DNAPL may migrate horizontally along bedding planes in the direction of

the of bedding plane dips, until joints or fractures are encountered. At intersections of bedding

5-12 ^300539

planes and vertical joints or fractures, DNAPL will migrate downward along joint planes or

fractures, eventually reaching another bedding plane. In this manner, bedding and joint planes

form a system of primary and secondary conduits, respectively, along which DNAPL and other

site contaminants may access the water table, which is below the top of bedrock.

PAHs - In general, the PAH compounds exhibit low mobility, low to moderate solubility,

(naphthalene is moderate) and high organic partition coefficients. Consistent with these chemical

properties, concentrations of numerous PAHs exceeded screening values in surface soil, while

only one PAH, benzo(a)pyrene, was detected in subsurface soil above screening levels. Thus,

the PAHs have primarily remained sorbed to the surface soil near their apparent sources of

release and are not expected to migrate into the groundwater, but will remain mainly sorbed to

soils.

Chlorofluorocarbons - As discussed in Section 5.3.1.2, chlorofluorocarbons volatilize rapidly

and have low ability to adsorb to soil particles. As a result, the majority of Freon-11 will be

either lost to volatilization or transported to groundwater.

Aromatics - As discussed in Section 5.3.1.2, toluene and the xylene isomers vaporize readily

and are fairly mobile in soils. As a result, this group would tend to either volatilize or migrate to

groundwater. Observed concentrations of toluene and xylene generally increased with depth

throughout the site and, as such, were consistent with this model.

Phenols/Other SVOCs - The various phenolic compounds encountered at the site are all

considered moderately to highly mobile in soils (Howard, 1990). Additionally, each of these

compounds exhibits a tendency to biodegrade rapidly. As such, phenols may enter groundwater

if they are able to leach through the vadose zone prior to the completion of biodegradation. The

presence of higher levels of phenolic compounds in surface soils than in deeper samples

throughout the site suggests that biodegradation may be occurring before the leaching process is

completed.

• •"590

The other SVOCs frequently detected in surface soil were caprolactam and carbazole.

Caprolactam is subject to rapid chemical degradation and biodegradation, however, residual

levels may reach groundwater (Howard, 1991). Information regarding the environmental

transport properties of carbazole was not available in the literature.

Pesticides/PCBs - Pesticides and PCBs also have low mobility in soils because their chemical

properties are similar to PAHs. PCBs exceeded screening levels in both surface and subsurface

soils, while pesticides only exceeded screening levels in surface soils. Subsurface PCB screening

level exceedances were observed only in intervals immediately below the surface interval (1 to 2

feet). The most probable contaminant transport pathway for the PAHs, pesticides, and PCBs

detected is direct discharge and absorption to soils, surface runoff onto sediments, and uptake

by biota.

5.3.2.2 Mobility of Inorganics

A variety of factors affect the mobility of inorganics in soils, including:

the presence of water (soil moisture content);

• the presence of other complexing chemicals in solution;

• the pH and oxidation/reduction potential, which affect the speciation of allinorganics and complexing agents;

• the temperature; and

• soil properties, such as cation exchange, the presence of hydrous oxides of ironand magnesium, and the presence of organic matter.

Because of the wide range of soil conditions in the environment and the resulting high variability

of certain physical parameters, it is difficult to predict the mobility of inorganics. Soil sorption

constants may vary over several orders of magnitude for a given inorganic in different soils

and/or under different environmental conditions. Thus, there is no single sorption constant

describing the binding of inorganics in solution to soils and no one mobility prediction holds for al.

environmental conditions.

f l R 3 0 0 5 9

The inorganic analytes that exceed screening levels at the site are relatively insoluble in water.

As a result, they will generally adsorb to soil or organic matter in soil or remain suspended in

aqueous media. However, due to the varying properties of each inorganic analyte, and

dependent on environmental conditions, some inorganics will leach from areas of deposition into

aqueous media.

In a study of inorganics retention in soils, the relative mobility of 11 inorganics in various soil

types was assessed (USEPA, 1978 as cited in CDM Federal, 1999). The study concluded that

chromium, mercury, and nickel are among the most mobile, while lead and copper are the least

mobile. For the other inorganics studied, the mobility varied with the conditions, although the

order of mobility was generally:

Most Mobile--Arsenic>Vanadium>Selenium>Cadmium>Zinc>Beryllium-Least Mobile

The relative mobilities for some of the inorganic analytes found at the Spra-Fin site are described

below.

Arsenic - Arsenic is generally mobile and is known to volatilize when biological activity or highly

reducing conditions produce volatile arsenic compounds, such as, methylarsenics. Adsorption

may be significant.

Barium - Barium has a generally low solubility and readily forms insoluble carbonates and sulfate

salts. It is not soluble at more than a few ppm.

Chromium - The mobility of chromium in soils depends on its oxidation state. It is most often

found in the oxidation state Cr(HI) and, to a lesser extent, Cr(VI). Chromium can be adsorbed

or complexed to soil particles, metal oxides, or organic matter and is therefore rather immobile.

Most of the Cr(HI) found in soils is mixed Cr(IH) and Fe(iH) oxides or in the lattice of minerals,

although Cr(HI) complexed with organic ligands may stay in solution for over a year. Cr(III) is

mobilized only in very acidic soil media. Cr(VI), by contrast, is easily mobilized, independent of

5-15 A R 3 0 0 5 9 2

the soil pH. The absorption of chromium onto clays is pH dependent; Cr(HI) adsorption

increases as pH increases, whereas Cr(VI) adsorption decreases as pH increases.

Copper - Copper is one of the least mobile metals. Processes that render it relatively immobile

in soils are adsorption, precipitation, and organic complexation. The solubility of copper

decreases in the pH 7 to 8 range. Below pH 7, copper hydroxide cations are formed, and

above pH 8, anionic complexes are formed. Copper mobility is enhanced when organic

compounds, such as fulvic and humic acid, complex with copper.

Lead - Lead is virtually immobile in all but sandy soils. Its predominant fate in the environment is

sorption to soils and sediments. The adsorption of lead is pH dependent, increasing with

increasing pH. Above pH 7, virtually all lead in soil is sorbed. The acidic properties of soils in

southeastern Pennsylvania may allow some leaching to groundwater.

Manganese - Manganese exists in the soil in a variety of forms which have varying mobility. The

exact distribution depends on pH: the lower the pH, the more manganese in water soluble and

exchangeable fractions; the higher the pH, the more in the reducible fraction. Generally less than

2% of manganese is water soluble. Another 13% to 19% exists in fractions that are either

exchangeable, bound to organics, or bound to iron oxides. The largest fraction of the

manganese, 45%, is in the reducible fraction.

Nickel - Nickel appears to be only moderately retarded in its movement through soil. In studies

of the migration of metal through soil, nickel was found to be evenly distributed throughout the

column. Studies of sewage sludge and the leachability of inorganics, have found that nickel's

mobility was similar to that of zinc and cadmium. Nickel concentrations in Spra-Fin soils were

found to be evenly distributed throughout the vadose zone.

Vanadium - Vanadium is highly mobile in the environment; it is readily leached from soil columns

to which it is sorbed as an anion. The behavior is probably similar to that of phosphate, which is

adsorbed to ferric oxides and clays. The sorption of vanadium can be correlated with clay, free

1R300593

iron oxides, and surface area of the soil, with pH a major factor in controlling vanadium's

mobility.

Zinc - Suspended zinc may dissolve or sorb to suspended matter, whereas, dissolved zinc may

occur as free zinc ion or as dissolved complexes or compounds varying in stability and toxicity.

Cation exchange processes, such as, mobile cations competing with zinc for binding sites, may

affect zinc's mobility in the soil.

5.4 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT

The majority of the chemicals of concern detected in the soils of the site can be grouped into

three general categories that describe their persistence and mobility in the environment:

PCBs/Pesticides/PAHs

Persistent, non-volatile, and very slowly degradable organic chemicals such as PCBs,

pesticides, and PAHs. These chemicals strongly sorb to soils and are relatively immobile.

Accordingly, these chemical appear to be bound in surface soils at the site.

Concentrations present in soils will persist into the future, with very slow degradation.

These compounds are likely to remain in the soil for years.

Chlorinated VOCs

Chlorinated VOCs were detected in the subsurface soils and thus remain a likely source

of contamination to the groundwater, having the capacity to be transported vertically

through the soil into fracture and joint systems in the bedrock underlying the site. These

chemicals do not sorb strongly to soils and are relatively mobile in groundwater. Their

persistence will be determined by their rates of biodegradation, and their mobility by their

retardation coefficients (Kd). These chemicals, VOCs, are likely to be the main

constituents of concern in the groundwater at the North Penn Area 7 site.

5-17 A R 3 0 0 5 9 1 *

Inorganics

Inorganics are generally low to moderately mobile in clay and silty clay soils and show

high absorption to soils depending on the existing conditions (e.g., pH and the presence

of anions). Varying chemical properties affect the speciation and transport of inorganics

in the soil. Each inorganic compound will therefore behave differently.

5-i8

SectionSix

/ 1 R 3 0 0 5 9 6

6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents the results of an assessment of potential human health risks associated with

the presence of site-related contaminants in surface soil and soil (surface soil and subsurface soil

combined) at the Spra-Fin site. Analytical results from surface soil, soil (surface and subsurface

soil combined), and soil-gas screening were used to examine the potential human health risks at

the site. This baseline risk assessment was conducted to assess the potential human health

impacts from the site under current conditions, as well as to determine if any further actions are

needed at the site to be sufficiently protective of human health. This risk assessment has been

prepared utilizing conservative assumptions and feasible exposure pathways that are based on

current site conditions and current and potential future site usage. The risk assessment

incorporates the general methodology described in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund

(RAGS), Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A (USEPA, 1989), Risk

Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation

Manual, Pan D (USEPA, 1997b), and USEPA Region m Technical Guidance Manuals for

Risk Assessment. In addition, the risk assessment incorporates the Technical Approach Outline

submitted to USEPA on July 2, 2001 which provides the general approach to the risk

assessment (CDM Federal, 2001).

The results of the baseline human health risk assessment will be used to document the potential

for endangerment to human health, to provide a basis to select action levels, and to assist in

identifying the exposure media that may need to be addressed through remedial action.

6.1.1 OVERVIEW

The Spra-Fin site is an operating metal finishing facility located on 1.1 acres in North Wales,

Pennsylvania. Section 2.0 of this report provides a site location map and a detailed description

6-1

f l R 3 0 0 5 9 7

of the facility, its current configuration, and its history. The facility uses a powder coating

process for metal finishing and formerly used and stored TCE on site for process-related

applications. Spra-Fin is one of several PRPs associated with the North Penn Area 7 Superfund

Site (NP7). Spra-Fin was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) as a potential source for

contamination of soil and groundwater by chlorinated solvents including TCE, PCE, carbon

tetrachloride, MC and VC. Historical investigations have led to some remedial action, but

contaminated soil still remains on-site. A fire destroyed one-half of the Spra-Fin plant on

January 13, 1997. The facility is located in a light industrial/residential area that borders the

SEPTA commuter rail line to the east, beyond which is a vacant lot, and a residential property

adjacent to the property to the north, and Wissahickon Avenue to the southwest.

6.1.2 SCOPE OF RISK ASSESSMENT

The human health risk assessment is comprised of the following components:

Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern - identifies and characterizes the

distribution of COPCs found onsite. Chemicals identified in this screening are the focus

of the subsequent evaluation in the risk assessment.

Exposure Assessment - identifies potential pathways by which exposure could occur,

characterizes the potentially exposed populations (e.g., residents, workers, and

trespassers) and estimates the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposures.

Toxicity Assessment - identifies the types of adverse health effects associated with exposure

to COPCs, lists available toxicity factors (e.g., cancer slope factors and reference dose

values), and summarizes the relationship between magnitude of exposure and occurrence

of adverse health effects. This section also identifies related uncertainties (such as the

6-2

f l R 3 0 0 5 9 8

weight-of-evidence of a particular chemical's carcinogenicity in humans) associated with

these values.

Risk Characterization - integrates the results of the exposure assessment and toxicity

assessment to estimate the potential risks to human health. Both cancer and noncancer

human health effects are evaluated. Pathways that pose an unacceptable risk based on

quantitative risk characterization are identified.

Uncertainty Assessment - identifies sources of uncertainty associated with the data,

methodology, and the values used in the risk assessment estimation.

These components are described briefly in the following sections. Spreadsheets prepared in

accordance with USEPA's RAGS, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part D

were used to screen for COPCs, and to calculate estimated exposures and health risks

associated with the COPCs. These spreadsheets (Standard Tables 1 through 10) are presented

in Appendix B-l of this report.

6.2 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

The identification of COPCs includes data collection, data evaluation, and data screening steps.

The data used for the quantitative risk analysis were all validated and met data quality objectives

prior to use in the risk assessment. The data collection and evaluation steps involve gathering

and reviewing the available site data and identifying a set of data that is of acceptable quality for

the risk assessment. The Data Usability Worksheet in Appendix B-2 supports this evaluation.

This data set is then further screened against concentrations that are protective of human health

to reduce the data set to those chemicals and media of potential concern.

6-3

A R 3 0 0 5 9 9

Section 6.2.1 discusses the selection of data used for the quantitative risk assessment. The data

were selected from the set of validated data determined usable for risk assessment.

Section 6.2.2 discusses the methodology used to further reduce the risk assessment data set to

the constituents and media that are of primary concern to human health. Section 6.2.3 identifies

the COPCs that were quantitatively assessed in the risk assessment.

6.2.1 DATA EVALUATION AND SELECTION

The available data set includes data collected during the RI. Surface soil and subsurface soil

sample data were collected in November 2000. A soil gas survey was performed and limited

groundwater samples were collected as part of the RI. However, only the soil sample analytical

results and the soil-gas screening results are evaluated in the risk assessment. The groundwater

samples were collected in lieu of soil gas samples due to the shallow occurrence of groundwater

to those locations.

The environmental sampling and analysis conducted for the RI was designed to cover the range

of potential site contaminants associated with historical site activities. Data are available for

contaminant levels in surface soil and subsurface soil. A description of the field investigation and

sampling activities is presented in Section 3.0 of this report. Detailed results of the nature and

extent of contamination are presented in Section 4.0 of this report. A summary of data used in

the risk assessment is presented in this section. Table 6-1 summarizes the samples that were

used to estimate potential exposures and risks in each medium for the site.

Available data were reviewed to determine their reliability for the quantitative risk assessment. A

review of the data identified the following items to consider for data usability:

Estimated values, flagged with a J, K, L, +, or [ ] qualifier, were treated as unqualified detectedconcentrations.

6-4

3 R 3 0 0 6 0 0

• Data qualified with an R (rejected) were not used in the risk assessment and were notincluded in the total count of samples analyzed for a constituent.

• Data qualified with a B (blank contamination) were used in the risk assessment as if theywere non-detects, with the blank-related concentrations of each constituent used as thesample quantitation limit. One-half of the blank-related concentrations were used tocalculate exposure point concentrations in the risk assessment.

• One-half of the sample quantitation limit (SQL) was used in the risk assessment for caseswhere no detectable contaminant concentrations were found in that sample, but thecontaminant was detected in that medium at the site.

• For duplicate samples, the higher of the two concentrations was used. In calculating thefrequency of detection and the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL), the duplicates werecounted as a single sample.

• Appendix A presents the analytical results for the soil data used in the risk assessment.Please note that a "+" qualifier originally used during validation to indicate that a samplingresult was reported from a diluted analysis was replaced in the database with a "D"because the database cannot accept the "+" designation. Therefore, any sample resultthat was reported from a diluted sample is now indicated in the results in Appendix Awith a "D."

A Data Usability Worksheet was prepared for the site and is presented in Appendix B-2.

Data Summary

All soil samples collected during the RI were analyzed for TCL organic constituents (including

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides,

and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)); and TAL inorganic constituents (including metals and

cyanide). All soil-gas samples were analyzed onsite using a GC/MS for TCE, 1-1-DCE,

methylene chloride, PCE, 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-TCA, and

dichloromethane.

With the exception of the soil-gas screening data, all of the data used in the risk assessment

were validated following Region in Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines

(USEPA, 1993a and USEPA, 1994). Soil-gas screening data were not validated.

6-5

A R 3 0 0 6 0 !

For each medium, chemical-specific summary statistics are presented for the data set that was

used for risk calculations, including frequency of detection, minimum and maximum detected

values, normal and lognormal arithmetic mean, results of the Shapiro-Wilk W-test or the

Lilliefors test, and 95% UCLs for normal and lognormal distributions. Methods for calculating

exposure point concentrations, arithmetic mean, and the 95% UCL values for the detected

chemicals are discussed in Section 6.3.3.

6.2.1.1 Surface Soil

Surface soil samples were collected from 17 locations onsite and five locations offsite in

accordance with CDM Federal's technical standard operating procedure (TSOP) 1-3 and

USEPA CLP requirements. Samples were collected following the protocols described in

Section 3.0. Surface soil samples were collected from zero to one foot either as part of the

surface soil sampling activities or as part of the subsurface soil sampling activities. Surface soil

samples are designated as "SS"; subsurface soil samples collected from zero to one foot are

designated as "SB-0(M)-1". The surface soil samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs,

pesticides/PCBs, and TAL inorganics (metals and cyanide). Two samples (SS-02 and SB-

24_0-1) were analyzed for TOC and GS. Table 6-1 summarizes each sample and the

corresponding analysis.

Surface soil sampling locations are shown on Figures 3-1 and 3-4. Discussions of the nature

and extent of COPCs in surface soil can be found in Section 4.0. Appendix A-l presents the

analytical results for the surface soil data used in the risk assessment.

6.2.1.2 Subsurface Soil

A total of 63 subsurface soil samples from 24 locations were collected on-site. No off-site

subsurface samples were collected. Sample location rationale and sampling protocols are

6-6

f l R 3 0 0 6 Q 2

described in Section 3.0. Soil samples were collected using CDM Federal's TSOP 1-3 and

USEPA CLP requirements. The subsurface soil samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs,

SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and TAL inorganics (metals and cyanide). Four of the soil samples

(SB-24JM, SB-25J7-8, SB-28_3-4 and SB-09_2.5-3) were analyzed for TOC and GS in

addition to the aforementioned analyses. Table 6-1 summarizes each sample and the

corresponding analysis.

Subsurface soil sampling locations are shown on Figure 3-4. Discussions of the nature and

extent of COPCs detected in subsurface soils are presented in Section 4.0. Appendix A-l

presents the analytical results for the subsurface soil data used in the risk assessment.

6.2.1.3 Soil-Gas

A total of 30 soil-gas locations were sampled as part of the RI. Samples were collect at the

three, five and bedrock (seven to eight feet bgs) intervals. However, screening results from the

two closest locations are used in the risk assessment for the evaluation of soil-gas to indoor air

at the offsite resident's basement, which is located immediately north of the Spra-Fin plant.

These soil-gas samples are SG08-3, SG08-5, SG08-8, SG12-3, and SG12-5. These

locations are the closest to the residential property and were selected by USEPA for

consideration. They will be joined with results of samples collected from soil borings SB-08

and SB-09 for use in the evaluation of the offsite residential receptor exposed to soil vapor in

their basement.

Soil-gas sample location rationale and sampling protocols are described in Section 3.0. The

samples were analyzed for TCE, 1-1-DCE, methylene chloride, PCE, 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride,

chloroform, 1,1,1-TCA, and dichloromethane. Soil-gas samples are designated as "SG".

Soil-gas sampling locations are shown on Figure 3-2. Discussions of the nature and extent of

6-7

A R 3 Q 0 6 0 3

detected compounds are presented in Section 4.0. Table 4-1 provides a summary of soil-gas

survey analytical results,

6.2.2 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

As discussed in the Technical Approach Outline (CDM Federal, 2001), all of the detected

constituents were screened in accordance with USEPA Region ffl's Selection of Exposure

Routes and Contaminants of Concern by Risk-Based Screening (USEPA, 1993b). The

maximum detected concentration of each constituent in each medium was compared to the

RBC screening value to select the COPCs for the media. If the maximum concentration of a

constituent exceeded the screening value, the constituent was selected as a COPC and retained

for the risk evaluation.

Constituents that are essential nutrients (magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium) were not

considered further in the quantitative risk assessment as they are present at low concentrations

and are only toxic at very high doses.

Results of the screening process are shown on Standard Tables 2.1 through 2.7 in Appendix B-

1.

Comparison with Health-based Criteria for Soil:

Soil samples were collected on site in the immediate vicinity of the facility and offsite. Offsite

samples were collected on the opposite side of the Wissahickon Avenue from the site in a

drainage area. For purposes of the risk assessment, on-site and off-site exposures are

considered separately since the receptors are likely to be different and contaminants and

contaminant concentrations differ. Specifically, surface soil samples were separated because

the main COPC, TCE, was not detected in the offsite samples and PAH are higher offsite than

6-8

onsite due to the proximity of the sample locations to the road. The only other COPCs are

metals and they are much lower than those found onsite.

Site soil concentrations were compared to USEPA Region ffl RBCs for either residential or

industrial soil (USEPA, 2002a) depending on the exposure scenario being evaluated. In the

case of the soil vapor migrating into residents' basements scenario, soil and soil-gas

concentrations were converted into indoor air concentrations first by USEPA for the adult

resident only using the Johnson and Ettinger Soil-to-Indoor Air and Soil-Gas-to-Indoor Air

model (See Appendix B-9 for the modeling results). Indoor air concentrations were then

compared to USEPA Region ffl RBCs for ambient air.

For all screening, RBCs that are based on noncarcinogenie effects were divided by ten to

account for exposure to multiple constituents. RBCs based on carcinogenic effects were used

as presented in the RBC Table (USEPA, 2002a). Constituents with maximum detected

concentrations below the RBC were not retained as COPCs. Lead concentrations in soil were

compared to the USEPA soil screening values appropriate for the exposure scenario being

evaluated. If the lead concentration exceeded the screening value, it was evaluated

quantitatively with the appropriate USEPA lead models.

For the trespasser and industrial worker scenarios, exposure to surface soil is considered a

complete exposure pathway. Exposure to subsurface soil is not likely. For the construction

worker and future onsite residential scenarios, exposure to surface soil and subsurface soil

combined is considered since the subsurface soil may be combined with surface soil during

construction activities (including new home construction). Separate exposure to surface soil

and subsurface soil is not considered. For the current/future offsite residential scenario,

exposure to indoor air via soil and soil gas vapors, is considered a complete pathway.

6-9

For the non-residential scenarios (industrial worker and trespasser), maximum detected surface

soil concentrations were compared to current USEPA Region HI RBCs for industrial soil

(USEPA, 2002a)(Standard Tables 2.2 and 2.3 in Appendix B-l). Lead concentrations in soil

were compared to the soil screening value of 1000 ppm. If the lead concentration exceeded

the screening value, it was evaluated quantitatively using the adult lead model (USEPA, 1996b).

For the construction worker scenario, maximum detected soil (surface soil and subsurface soil

combined) concentrations were compared to USEPA Region in RBCs for industrial soil

(USEPA, 2002a) (Standard Tables 2.3 and 2.5 in Appendix B-l). Lead concentrations in soil

were compared to the USEPA industrial soil screening value of 1000 ppm. If the lead

concentration exceeded the screening value, it was evaluated quantitatively using the adult lead

model (USEPA, 19965).

For the future residential scenarios, maximum detected soil (surface soil and subsurface soil

combined) concentrations were compared to USEPA Region HI RBCs for residential soil

(USEPA, 2002a) (Standard Table 2.1 and 2.6 in Appendix B-l). Lead concentrations in soil

were compared to the USEPA soil screening value for children of 400 ppm as determined by

the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (ffiUBK) model (USEPA, 2001a). If the lead

concentration exceeded the screening value, it was evaluated quantitatively using the ffiUBK

model.

For the current/future offsite residential scenario, maximum indoor air concentrations calculated

using the Johnson and Ettinger model were compared to USEPA Region in RBCs for ambient

air (USEPA 2002J (Standard Table 2.7 in Appendix B-l).

6.2.3 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Table 6.2 list the chemicals that were selected as COPCs based on the screening methodology.

6-10

Results of the screening process are shown in Standard Tables 2.1 through 2.7 in Appendix B-

1. Note that no indoor air concentrations exceeded their respective RBC values for ambient air

(Standard Table 2.7 in Appendix B-l). Therefore, these contaminants shown on Standard

Table 2.7 are not a risk to the resident through this pathway and will not be evaluated further in

the risk assessment.

6.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Exposure refers to the potential contact of an individual with a chemical. The exposure

assessment identifies pathways and routes by which an individual may be exposed to the

COPCs and estimates the magnitude, frequency, and duration of potential exposure. The

magnitude of exposure is determined by estimating the amount of a constituent available at the

exchange boundaries (i.e., the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and skin). Chemical intakes and

associated health risks are only quantified for complete exposure pathways.

Contaminant fate and transport is evaluated in Section 4.0, which discusses the potential release

mechanisms at each site. A conceptual exposure model showing potential exposure scenarios

identified under current and potential future conditions is presented in Standard Table 1 in

Appendix B-l. The following sections discuss the three components of exposure assessment:

• Characterization of exposure setting

• Identification of exposure pathways

• Quantification of exposure

6-11

R 3 0 0 6 0 7

6.3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE SETTING

Characterizing an exposure setting consists of two parts: (1) presenting the physical

characteristics of the site as they relate to exposure, and (2) characterizing human populations

on or near the site.

6.3.1.1 Physical Characteristics

Basic site characteristics such as physical setting, climate, demographics, and geology are

summarized in Section 2.0.

6.3.1.2 Potentially Exposed Populations

Potentially exposed populations are identified based on their locations relative to the site, their

activity patterns, and the presence of potential sensitive subpopulations. Standard Table 1 in

Appendix B-l details the potentially exposed populations evaluated in this risk assessment and

is the site conceptual model for the site.

Current Land Use

The Spra-Fin site is an active metal finishing facility located on a 1.1 -acre property. The site is

comprised of a brick one-story 5,584 square-foot building and an onsite trailer. The trailer is

situated on a concrete pad, the former foundation of a second building that was destroyed by a

fire in 1996. The rest of the property is comprised of overgrown brush, outside storage areas

for defective products, and cleared areas used for parking. Directly adjacent to the production

facility to the north is a residence where the plant manager lives. The residence is

approximately 20 feet from the production building. A fence partially separates the residential

property from the facility but only extends halfway down the property line. This residence is

6-12

considered to be offsite for the purposes of this risk assessment. Airborne contaminants from

surface soil can migrate across the property line to the adjacent residence. There also is a

potential for VOCs in the onsite soil and soil-gas to migrate offsite into the adjacent resident's

basement. However, this pathway has been eliminated from further consideration since all the

modeled indoor air contaminant concentrations are below their respective RBC values (See

Standard Table 2.7).

The production operations are housed in the brick building; the onsite trailer is used as an office.

One production well is located on the property and is used as an industrial water source. The

property has no connection to public water or sewer. Employees may use the production well

water to wash their hands. Surface soil is accessible to trespassers and workers at the facility

(industrial workers).

The offsite area where surface soil samples were collected across Wissahickon Avenue is a

vegetated area bordered by the road to the northeast and trees to the southwest. Potential

receptors for the offsite area are trespassers and industrial workers.

Potential Future Use

Future land use at the site is expected to be either industrial or commercial. Although unlikely,

the most conservative future use of the site is residential development. The potential future

exposure scenarios assume that the subsurface soil will be excavated and become surface soil.

Therefore, potential future receptors (residents and construction workers) may be exposed to

the combined surface and subsurface soil. Excavation activities at the site may also expose the

construction worker to the soil. Surface soil is accessible to trespassers and industrial workers

in the future. Potential future receptors to off-site surface soil also include residents and

construction workers. There also is a potential for VOCs in the onsite soil and soil-gas to

migrate offsite into the adjacent resident's basement. However, this pathway has been

6-13

eliminated from further consideration since all the modeled indoor air contaminant

concentrations are below their respective RBC values (See Standard Table 2.7 ).

6.3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

An exposure pathway can be described as a mechanism that moves a COPC from its source to

an exposed population or individual, referred to as a receptor. An exposure pathway must be

complete or exposure cannot occur. A complete exposure pathway has five elements:

• A source (e.g., chemical residues in soil)

• A mechanism for release and migration of chemical (e.g., leaching)

• An environmental transport medium (e.g., groundwater)

• A point or site of potential human contact (exposure point, e.g., drinking water)

• A route of intake (e.g., ingestion of groundwater used as a drinking water source)

All five elements must be present for a pathway to be considered complete. If one or more

elements are not present, then the pathway is incomplete and there is no possibility of exposure.

The following subsections discuss the elements as they pertain to all three sites.

6.3.2.1 Contaminant Sources

The Spra-Fin facility historically used TCE for the degreasing of metal parts prior to painting

them. Prior to 1980, TCE was stored in an underground storage tank which was located

immediately outside of the southwestern corner of the Spra-Fin building. This tank, or a spill

near this tank, is believed to be a source of the TCE contamination beneath the Spra-Fin

property (Weston, 1999a). Other materials known to be used historically by Spra-Fin include

6-14

/ 5 R 3 0 0 6 / 0

xylol, MEK, alcohols, EB ether, solvesso 100 (solvent G), and iron phosphates (Spra-Fin,

1987), MEK is the only degreasing solvent currently used by Spra-Fin (PADEP, 2000).

6.3.2.2 Release and Transport Mechanisms

The fate and transport of chemicals in soil and groundwater are determined by physical

characteristics of the site as well as by the chemical and physical properties of the chemicals. A

detailed description of the fate and transport analysis of the site contamination conditions is

included in Section 4.0.

6.3.2.3 Potential Exposure Points and Exposure Routes

Exposure points are locations where humans could come in contact with contamination. Onsite

exposure points include surface soil and soil (surface and subsurface soil combined). Offsite

exposure points include the vegetated area across Wissahickon Avenue and the residence

adjacent to the facility.

Potential exposure routes are evaluated for current site use and potential future site use.

Exposure scenarios and potentially complete pathways of exposure evaluated in this risk

assessment are presented in Standard Table 1 in Appendix B-l.

6.3.2.4 Current Exposure Routes

Receptors for exposure to onsite and offsite surface soil and related airborne contaminants

include trespassers and industrial workers. Offsite residents could be potentially exposed to

airborne surface soil contaminants and to soil vapor migrating from the site into their basements.

In summary, the current exposure routes include:

6-15

Trespasser (adult, adolescent, child): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact withon-site and off-site surface soil; inhalation of airborne contaminants from surface soil;

Industrial worker (adult): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with on-site and off-site surface soil; inhalation of airborne contaminants from surface soil;

Resident - offsite (adult, child): inhalation of airborne contaminants from surface soiladjacent to the site.

Resident - offsite (adult): inhalation of soil vapor migrating from the site into residents'basements.

6.3.2.5 Future Exposure Routes

Receptors for exposure to on-site and off-site surface soil and related airborne contaminants

include trespassers and industrial workers. Residents and construction workers could

potentially be exposed to off-site surface soil and related airborne contaminants. Receptors for

exposure to on-site soil (surface soil and subsurface soil combined) and related airborne

contaminants include residents and construction workers. Offsite residents could be potentially

exposed to soil vapor migrating from the site into their basements. In summary, the future

exposure routes include:

Trespasser (adult, adolescent, child): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with on-site and off-site surface soil; inhalation of airborne contaminants from surface soil;

Industrial worker (adult): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with on-site and off-site surface soil; inhalation of airborne contaminants from surface soil;

Resident (adult, child): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with off-site surfacesoil; inhalation of airborne contaminants from off-site surface soil; incidental ingestion ofand dermal contact with on-site soil (surface soil and subsurface soil combined);

6-16

inhalation of airborne contaminants from on-site soil (surface soil and subsurface soilcombined);

Resident - offsite (adult): inhalation of soil vapor migrating from the site into residents'basements.

Construction worker (adult): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with off-sitesurface soil; inhalation of airborne contaminants from off-site surface soil; incidentalingestion of and dermal contact with on-site soil (surface soil and subsurface soilcombined); inhalation of airborne contaminants from on-site soil (surface soil andsubsurface soil combined).

All of these pathways were quantified for potential exposure, with the exception of the adult

residential exposure to soil vapor migrating from the site into the residents' basements. This

pathway has been eliminated during the RBC screening step from further evaluation because all

indoor air concentrations are below their respective RBC values.

6.3.3 ESTIMATION OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS

Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) are estimated chemical concentrations that a receptor

may contact and are specific to each exposure medium.

The USEPA contractor-developed program "ProUCL, Version 2.0" was used to calculate

upper confidence limits on the mean for the data. The program handles normal and lognormal

data and datasets that fail tests for normality and lognormality, since it presents several

nonparametric UCLs. The program recommends which UCL to use based on the

characteristics of the dataset. In addition to the program and corresponding Users Guide

recommendations for selection of appropriate UCLs, two other references were used to select

the UCL statistic. These references are EPA/600/R-97/006 "The Lognormal Distribution in

Environmental Applications" (USEPA, 1997c) and Draft Guidance on the Calculation of

6-17

•^300613

UCLs at Superfund Sites fUSEPA, undated), provided by the USEPA Region IE lexicologist

for this site.

The EPC for the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario is based on the 95 percent

upper confidence limit of the mean (95% UCL) for a medium in which ten or more samples

were collected. The maximum detected concentration was used in place of the 95% UCL

when the calculated 95% UCL was greater than the maximum detected value. For each

medium, a test was used to determine if the data fit a lognormal or normal distribution. The

Shapiro-Wilk W test was used for a medium in which 50 or less samples were collected. The

Lilliefors test was used for a medium in which greater than 50 samples were collected. If the

W-test or Lilliefors test was inconclusive, several nonparametric UCLs were calculated. For

datasets less than ten, the maximum concentration was used for the RME exposure point

concentration and the arithmetic mean was used for the central tendency (CT) exposure point

concentration.

For the surface soil data sets where the number of samples was small (< 30 samples), the

following UCL selection process was used. For lognormal distributions, the UCL

recommended by the ProUCL software was used for RME exposure point concentrations; the

mean of the logtransformed data was used for the CT exposure point concentration. For

normal distributions, the UCL recommended by the ProUCL software was used for RME

exposure point concentrations; the mean was used for the CT exposure point concentration.

Typically, the UCL value was the Student t value. For data that are neither normal nor

lognormal, the higher of the non-parametric Jackknife or Standard Bootstrap UCL was

selected as the RME exposure point concentration.

For the soil data sets where the number of samples was large (>30), the following UCL

selection process was used. For lognormal and normal distributions, the UCL recommended

by the ProUCL software was used for the RME exposure point concentration. For datasets

6-18

f l R 3 Q 0 6 ! i *

that are neither normal nor lognormal and are highly skewed, the adjusted Central Limit

Theorem (CLT) UCL was used. For datasets that are neither normal nor lognormal and are

slightly skewed, the CLT was used.

Tables 3.1 through 3.6 in Appendix B-l provide the exposure point concentrations for each

dataset and the corresponding statistical basis. The ProUCL result tables which provide the

statistical options and recommended statistic for each COPC are provided in Appendix B-3.

6.3.4 ESTIMATION OF CHEMICAL INTAKES FOR INDIVIDUAL PATHWAYS

Chemical intake is the amount of the chemical contaminant entering the receptor's body.

Chemical intakes are generally expressed as follows:

Where: / = CxCRxEFxED = (mg/kg/day)BWxAT

I = intake (mg/kg-day)

C = chemical concentration at exposure point (mg/L, mg/kg, mg/m3)

CR = contact rate, or amount of contaminated medium contacted per unit time or

event (L/day, mg/event, m3/day)

EF = exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = exposure duration (years)

BW = body weight of exposed individual (kg)

AT = averaging time, or period over which exposure is averaged (days)

The intake equation requires specific exposure parameters for each exposure pathway.

Exposure parameters are often assumed values, and their magnitude influences the estimates of

potential exposure (and risk). The reliability of the values chosen can also contribute

substantially to the uncertainty of the resulting risk estimates. Many of the exposure parameters

6-19

A R 3 0 0 G ! 5

have default values which were used for this assessment. These assumptions, based on

estimates of body weights, media intake levels, and exposure frequencies and duration are

provided by USEPA guidance. Other assumptions required consideration of location-specific

information and were determined using professional judgment. Standard Tables 4.1 through

4.30 in Appendix B-l present the exposure factors used for different scenarios. Both RME

and CT intake parameters are included in these tables.

For dermal contact with soil, an absorption factor is required. The absorption factors used for

this evaluation were 3 percent for volatile organics with vapor pressures lower than benzene;

0.05 percent for volatile organics with vapor pressures equal to or greater than benzene;

10 percent for semivolatile organics; 3.2 percent for arsenic; and 1 percent for other metals

(USEPA, 1995a). Volatilization factors used for exposure to soil contaminants in airborne dust

were calculated for VOCs and SVOCs. All dermal absorption values and volatilization factors

used in this risk assessment are presented in Appendices B-4 and B-5.

6.4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

Toxicity assessment defines the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and possible

severity of adverse effects, and weighs the quality of available toxicological evidence. Toxicity

assessment generally consists of two steps: hazard identification and dose-response assessment.

Hazard identification is the process of determining the potential adverse effects from exposure

to the chemical along with the type of health effect involved. Dose-response assessment is the

process of quantitatively evaluating the toxicity information and characterizing the relationship

between the dose of the contaminant administered or received and the incidence of adverse

health effects in the exposed population. Toxicity criteria (e.g., reference doses and slope

factors) are derived from the dose-response relationship. EPA has performed the toxicity

assessment step for many chemicals and has published the results in the Integrated Risk

6-20

• 4 * 3 0 0 6 / 6

Information System (IRIS) and Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST)

databases.

Health effects are divided into two broad groups: noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects.

This division is based on the different mechanisms of action currently associated with each

category. Chemicals causing noncarcinogenic health effects are evaluated independently from

those having carcinogenic effects. Some chemicals may produce both noncarcinogenic and

carcinogenic effects, and are therefore evaluated in both groups. This section discusses

noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects separately.

The primary source of toxicity values is the USEPA's IRIS database (USEPA, 2002b), which

contains up-to-date health risk and USEPA regulatory information. IRIS includes only

reference doses (RfDs) and slope factors (SFs) that have been verified by USEPA work-

groups. The IRIS database is the USEPA's preferred source of toxicity information. The

HEAST (USEPA, 1997d), which are issued by USEPA's Office of Research and

Development, were consulted when data was not available in IRIS. If no toxicity values were

available from either of these sources, then toxicity values found on the current USEPA Region

m RBC table (USEPA, 2002a) were used.

6.4.1 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS

Noncarcinogenic health effects include a variety of toxic effects on body systems, ranging from

renal toxicity (toxicity to the kidneys) to central nervous system disorders. Noncarcinogenic

health effects are grouped into two basic categories: acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. Acute

toxicity can occur after a single exposure (usually at high doses), where the effect is most often

seen immediately. Chronic toxicity generally occurs after repeated exposure (usually at low

doses) and is seen weeks, months, or years after the initial exposure. The toxicity of a chemical

6-21

is assessed through a review of toxic effects noted in short-term (acute) animal studies, long-

term (chronic) animal studies, and epidemiological investigations.

USEPA (USEPA, 1989) defines the chronic RfD as a dose which is likely to be without

appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime of exposure. Chronic RfDs are

specifically developed to be protective for long-term exposure to a compound (for example,

seven years to a lifetime), and consider uncertainty in the toxicological database and sensitive

receptors.

Chronic RfDs may be overly protective if used to evaluate the potential for adverse health

effects resulting from short-term exposure. USEPA's National Center for Environmental

Assessment (NCEA) develops subchronic RfDs for short-term exposure (two weeks to seven

years). Subchronic RfDs have been peer-reviewed by the Agency and outside reviewers, but

they have not undergone verification by an intra-Agency workgroup, and as a result are

considered interim rather than verified toxicity values. Chronic and subchronic RfDs are

developed for both the inhalation and oral exposures. In this risk assessment, subchronic RfDs

were used for the construction worker scenario because the exposure duration is 0.5 years, and

for the child resident, child trespasser, and adolescent trespasser because the exposure duration

is six years.

In the development of RfDs, all available studies examining the toxicity of a chemical following

exposure are considered based on their scientific merit. The lowest dose level at which an

observed toxic effect is occurring is identified as the "lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level"

(LOAEL) and the dose at which no effect is observed is identified as the "no-observed-

adverse-effect-level" (NOAEL). Several uncertainty factors (UFs) may be applied to account

for uncertainty. UFs account for uncertainties such as poor data quality, extrapolation of data

from animal studies to human exposures, or the use of subchronic studies to develop chronic

6-22

^300618

criteria. These UFs range from 10 to 10,000, and are based on professional judgment.

Therefore, there are varying degrees of uncertainty in the toxicity criteria.

USEPA-derived oral and inhalation chronic RfDs and associated UF and MF values available

for the COPCs for all the sites are listed in Standard Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in Appendix B-l.

Per USEPA guidance, oral toxicity values (RfDs and SFs) were adjusted from administered

dose to absorbed dose for evaluating dermal toxicity. The RfD and SF were adjusted using

oral absorption factors from USEPA (USEPA, 1999). The adjusted dermal RfDs for all the

sites are summarized in Standard Table 5.1 in Appendix B-l.

6.4.2 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS

Potential carcinogenic effects are quantified using oral cancer slope factors, inhalation slope

factors, or unit risk factors that convert estimated exposures directly to incremental lifetime

cancer risks. Slope factors are expressed in units of per milligram per kilogram of body weight

per day (mg/kg-day)4, and unit risk factors are expressed in units of per micrograms per cubic

meter

Cancer slope factors (CSFs) may be derived from the results of chronic animal bioassays,

human epidemiological studies, or both. Animal bioassays are usually conducted at dose levels

that are much higher than are likely to be encountered in the environment. This design detects

possible adverse effects in the relatively small test populations used in the studies.

A number of mathematical models and procedures have been developed to extrapolate from

the high doses used in the studies to the low doses typically associated with environmental

exposures.

6-23

The USEPA-preferred linearized multistage (LMS) model is usually used to estimate the largest

linear slope (within the upper 95% UCL) at low extrapolated doses that is consistent with the

data. The 95% UCL slope of the dose-response curve is subjected to various adjustments,

and an inter-species scaling factor is usually applied to derive a cancer slope factor or inhalation

unit risk factor for humans. It is assumed that if a cancer response occurs at the dose level in

the study, there is some probability that a response will occur at all lower exposure levels (i.e., a

dose-response relationship with no threshold is assumed). Dose-response data derived from

human epidemiological studies are fitted to dose-time-response curves on an ad hoc basis. In

both types of analyses, conservative (e.g., health protective) assumptions are applied and the

models are believed to provide rough estimates of the upper limits on potential lifetime risk.

Exposure is averaged over the average adult lifetime of 70 years. The actual risks from

exposure to a potential carcinogen are not likely to exceed the estimated risks, and are

probably much lower or even zero. EPA-derived oral and inhalation cancer slope factors for all

the sites are listed in Standard Tables 6.1 and 6.2 in Appendix B-l. The adjusted dermal SFs

for all the sites are summarized in Standard Table 6.1 in Appendix B-l.

In addition to deriving a quantitative estimate of cancer potency, USEPA also assigns weight-

of-evidence classifications to potential carcinogens. Chemicals are classified as Group A,

Group Bl, Group B2, Group C, Group D, or Group E carcinogens.

Group A chemicals (known human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence

to support the causal association between exposure to the agents in humans and cancer.

Group Bl chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited

evidence of possible carcinogenicity in humans with sufficient evidence of

carcinogenicity in laboratory animals.

6-24

Group B2 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient

evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate evidence in humans.

Group C chemicals (possible human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence

of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or a lack of human data.

Group D chemicals (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) are agents with inadequate

human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for which no data are available.

Group E chemicals (evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans) are agents for which there is no

evidence of carcinogenicity from human or animal studies, or both.

VC is a unique chemical because of the age-adjusted approach for toxicity. VC risks were

adjusted to account for early-life sensitivity as indicated in the VC lexicological Review (linked

to the IRIS summary for VC but not included in the IRIS summary itself) and in EPA Region

m's "Derivation of VC RBCs (USEPA, 2001b). VC is a COPC for exposure to onsite soil

via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation for residential receptors. VC risks for

the adult residential receptor were evaluated using the oral slope factor for "continuous lifetime

exposure during adulthood" with an oral-to-dermal adjustment factor of one applied. VC risks

were adjusted for the child residential receptor as indicated below.

For the child residential receptor, both a "continuous lifetime exposure from birth" and "continuous

exposure during adulthood" components were applied. Essentially, one-half of thecancer slope

factor from birth (one-half of 1.5E+00 per mg/kg/day for ingestion; one-half of 1.5E+00 per

mg/kg/day after applying the oral-to-dermal adjustment factor of one to the oral slope factor for

dermal contact; and one-half of 3. IE-02 per mg/kg/day for inhalation) is used in the risk calculation

and the risk calculation is split into two parts, one of which is prorated and one of which is not.

6-25

f l R 3 Q 0 6 2

Therefore, the cancer risks for exposure of the child resident from VC RME and CT

concentrations are estimated as follows:

Oral

Cancer Risk = [CsxIRxCFxEFx ED x 1/BW x I/AT x one-half CSF(from birth)] +[Cs x IR x CF x 1/BW x CSF(during adulthood)]

Dermal

Cancer Risk = [Cs x SA x CF x AF x AB x EF x ED x 1/BW x I/AT x one-halfCSF(from birth)] + [Cs x SA x CF x AF x AB x I/AT x CSF(during adulthood)]

Inhalation

Cancer Risk = [Cs x (1/PEF or 1/VF) x IR x ET x 1/BW x I/AT x one-half CSF(frombirth)] + [Cs x (1/PEF or 1/VF) x IR x ET x 1/BW x CSF(during adulthood)]

Where:

Cs = chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)

IR = ingestion/inhalation rate (mg/d or mVhr)

CF = conversion factor (kg/mg)

EF = exposure frequency (days/year)

SA = skin surface area (cm2)

AF = soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm2)

AB = absorption factor (unitless)

PEF = particulate emissions factor (m3/kg)

VF = volatilization factor (mVkg)

ET = exposure time (hours/day)

ED = exposure duration (years)

BW = body weight of exposed individual (kg)

AT = averaging time, or period over which exposure is averaged (days)

CSF = cancer slope factor (per mg/kg-day)

6-26

f l R 3 0 0 6 2 2

The cancer risk calculations and cancer risks for child residential exposure to VC in onsite soil

are presented on Standard Tables 8.20.RME, 8.23.RME, and 8.9.CT in Appendix B-l.

6.4.3 CHEMICALS FOR WHICH NO USEPA TOXICITY VALUES ARE

AVAILABLE

Most of the chemicals detected at the site have toxicity factors. In this assessment, lead does

not have available published toxicity factors. As a screening tool, maximum lead concentrations

are screened against 400 mg/kg in soil for the residential receptor and 1000 mg/kg in surface

soil and soil for non-residential receptors.

Risks associated with non-residential adult exposure to lead was evaluated based on

Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach

to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposure to Lead in Soil (USEPA, 1996b). This

approach utilizes a methodology to relate soil lead intake to blood lead concentrations in

women of child-bearing age. The methodology focuses on estimating fetal blood lead

concentration in women exposed to lead contaminated soils. This guidance provides a set of

default parameter values that can be used in cases where high quality data are not available to

support site-specific estimates.

The blood lead concentration in women of child-bearing age is given by the following equation:

adlluiCentrai fttalj o 95goal/GSD * R

PbS = (PbB adult, cemral -PbB adult,0 x AT)/(BKSF x Ir x AF x EF)

Where:

PbS = Soil lead concentration (ug/g)

PbB aduiuentrai = Central estimate of blood lead concentrations in adults exposed to the

6-27

A R 3 0 D 6 2 3

site (ug/dL)

PbB fetai. o.95goai = Goal for 95th % blood lead concentration (ug/dL)

GSD = Geometric standard deviation (dimensionless)

R = Constant of proportionality between fetal blood lead concentration at birth and

maternal blood lead concentration (dimensionless)

PbBadulti0 = Typical blood lead concentration in adults (i.e., women of child-bearing

age) in the absence of exposures to the site (ug/dL)

AT = Averaging time (days/ year)

BKSF = Biokinetic slope factor relating increase in typical blood lead concentration to

average daily lead uptake (ug / dL blood lead increase per ug/ day lead uptake)

Ir = Intake rate of soil (g/ day)

AF = Absolute gastrointestinal absorption fraction for ingested lead in soil and lead in

dust derived from soil (unitless)

EF = Exposure frequency (days/ year)

The equation was run for mean onsite surface soil and soil (surface soil and subsurface soil

combined) concentrations. Default values as specified in the supporting document were used

for the remaining parameters. These runs are presented in Appendix B-6 and are discussed

below.

The average detected lead concentrations for on-site surface soil and soil (surface soil and

subsurface soil combined) exceeded the soil screening value of 1,000 mg/kg, and lead was

retained as a COPC for on-site surface soil and soil (surface soil and subsurface soil

combined). For a surface soil mean concentration of 305.95 mg/kg (see Standard Table 3,1 in

Appendix B-l), women of child-bearing age would have blood lead concentrations in the range

of 2.16 to 2.66 ug/dL. For a soil mean concentration of 1 15.51 mg/kg (see Standard Table

3.4 in Appendix B-l), women of child-bearing age would have blood lead concentrations in the

range of 1.87 to 2.37 ug/dL. The predicted blood lead levels are less than 10 ug/dL, the blood

6-28

lead level of concern for protecting sensitive populations.

Lead is evaluated by USEPA based on blood-lead uptake using a physiologically-based

pharmakokinetic model referred to as EEUBK model, in the event of excess lead presence at

the site. Risks associated with residential child exposure to lead were evaluated based on the

EEUBK model Version 1.0. As a screening tool, lead is screened at the residential lead soil

screening level of 400 mg/kg.

The principal assumption associated with the use of the IEUBK model is that a child from age 0

to 7 is the receptor for the potential exposure to lead in surface soil and soil (surface soil and

subsurface soil combined). The results of the IEUBK modeling are presented in Appendix B-7.

For on-site surface soil, the IEUBK evaluation resulted in a geometric mean blood

concentrations of 4.3 ug/dL for children 0 to 84 months old exposed to the mean lead surface

soil concentration of 305.95 mg/kg. Approximately 3.44 percent of the population had a blood

lead level above USEPA's recommended level of 10 ug/dL when exposed to the mean lead

surface soil concentration. For on-site soil (surface soil and subsurface soil combined), the

IEUBK evaluation resulted in a geometric mean blood concentration of 2,7 ug/dL for children 0

to 84 months old exposed to the mean lead soil concentration of 115.51 mg/kg. Approximately

0.22 percent of the population had a blood lead level above USEPA's recommended level of

10 ug/dL when exposed to the mean on-site soil concentration. These concentrations are

below USEPA's recommended guidelines that 95% of the population has a blood lead level of

10 ug/dL or less. With the exception of the lead soil concentration (which was set equal to the

average site lead concentration), the default parameters associated with the IEUBK model were

used in the evaluations. Potential exposure to children by lead in the soil at the site is not

expected to result in blood-lead concentrations above USEPA's recommended levels.

6.4.4 TOXICITY PROFILES OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Appendix B-8 contains lexicological profiles for the risk drivers for the sites. More detailed

6-29

4 R 3 0 0 6 2 5

toxicity information can be found in USEPA's IRIS database, ATSDR's toxicological profiles,

and other published literature.

6.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

Risk characterization is the process of integrating the previous elements of the risk assessment

into quantitative and semi-quantitative expressions of risk. The quantification of risk is then used

an integral component in remedial decision making and selection of potential remedies or

actions.

6.5.1 NONCARCINOGENIC AND CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATION

METHODS

Potential human health risks are discussed independently for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic

contaminants because of the different toxicological endpoints, relevant exposure duration, and

methods used to characterize risk. Some chemicals may produce both noncarcinogenic and

carcinogenic effects, and were evaluated in both groups. The methodology used to estimate

noncarcinogenic hazards and carcinogenic risk are described below. Following the description

of the methodology, the noncarcinogenic hazards and carcinogenic risks are discussed.

Noncarcinogenic Hazard Estimation

Noncarcinogenic health risks are estimated by comparing the calculated exposure levels to

threshold concentrations (or RfDs). The calculated intake divided by the RfD is equal to the

hazard quotient (HQ):

Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake / RfD

6-30

06?c

The intake and RfD are expressed in the same units (mg/kg-day) and represent the same

exposure period (i.e., chronic and subchronic). The intake and RfD also represent the same

exposure route (i.e., inhalation intakes are divided by the inhalation RfD, oral intakes are

divided by the oral RfDs, and dermal intakes are divided by an adjusted oral RfD). An HQ that

exceeds 1.0 (i.e., intake exceeds the RfD) indicates that there is a potential for adverse health

effects associated with exposure to that chemical.

To assess the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects posed by exposure to multiple

chemicals, a "hazard index" approach is used (USEPA, 1989). This approach assumes that

noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to more than one chemical are additive.

Synergistic or antagonistic interactions between chemicals are not accounted for. The hazard

index (HI) may exceed 1.0 even if all of the individual HQs are less than one. The chemicals

may then be separated by similar mechanisms of toxicity and toxicological effects, and separate

His derived based on mechanism and target organ affected.

Carcinogenic Risk Estimation

The potential for carcinogenic effects due to exposure to site-related contamination is evaluated

by estimating the excess lifetime carcinogenic risk. Excess lifetime cancer risk is the incremental

increase in the probability of developing cancer during one's lifetime in addition to the

background probability of developing cancer.

Potential carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to individual carcinogens were calculated

using the CSFs presented in Section 6.4 and the intakes calculated in Section 6.3. The

carcinogenic risk is calculated by multiplying the intake by the CSF.

Risk = Intake x CSF

6-31

A R 3 0 D 6 2

The combined risk from exposure to multiple chemicals was evaluated by adding the risks from

individual chemicals. Risks were also added across the exposure routes if an individual would

be exposed through multiple pathways.

When a cumulative carcinogenic risk to an individual receptor under the assumed RME

exposure conditions at the site exceeds 100 in a million (10"4 excess cancer risk), CERCLA

generally requires remedial action to reduce the risks at the site (USEPA, 1991). If the

cumulative risk is less than 10"4, action is generally not required, but may be warranted if a risk-

based chemical specific standard (for example, maximum contaminant level is exceeded). A

risk-based remedial decision could be superceded by the presence of noncarcinogenic impact

or environmental impact requiring action at the sites.

6.5.2 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

RME risks were evaluated for all media and exposure scenarios. RME risks were evaluated

using upper-bound estimates of the exposure parameters (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 4.1

through 4.30) and the RME exposure point concentrations (Standard Tables 3.1 through 3.6

located in Appendix B-l). CT risks were calculated for those scenarios that had an RME HI

greater than 1.0 and/or RME carcinogenic risk greater than IE-05. CT risks were evaluated

using median estimates of the exposure parameters (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 4.1

through 4.30) and the CT exposure point concentrations (Standard Tables 3.1 through 3.6

located in Appendix B-l). Risks were evaluated for all of the complete exposure pathways

identified in Sections 6.3.2.4. and 6.3.2.5. The calculated risks are discussed below.

For residential soil exposure, lifetime risks were calculated for carcinogenic constituents by

summing the individual adult and child residential risks and are discussed below.

6-32

28

Onsite Surface Soil - Current

RME noncancer hazards and cancer risk estimates for exposure to airborne contaminants from

on-site surface soil to current offsite residents were calculated (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables

7.1.RME and 7.2.RME and 8.1 RME and 8.2.RME). The noncarcinogenic hazards

associated with exposure to onsite surface soil via inhalation for adult and child residents are

below USEPA's target HI of 1.0. The carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to onsite

surface soil for all receptors are below USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06.

Onsite Surface Soil - Current/Future

RME noncancer hazard and cancer risk estimates for exposure to surface soil via incidental

ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation were calculated for current/future adult, adolescent,

and child trespassers and industrial workers (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 7.3.RME through

7.6.RME, 7.11.RME through 7.14.RME, 8.3.RME through 8.6.RME, and 8.1 l.RME through

8.14.RME).

The RME noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to surface soil via incidental

ingestion and dermal contact for all receptors except the industrial worker are below USEPA's

target HI of 1.0. The noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to surface soil via

incidental ingestion and dermal contact for the industrial worker is 1.8, primarily due to dermal

exposure to chromium in the surface soil. The noncarcinogenic hazards associated with the

exposure to onsite surface soil via inhalation for trespassers and industrial workers are below

USEPA's target HI of 1.0.

The RME carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to surface soil via incidental ingestion,

dermal contact, and inhalation by all current/future trespassers and industrial workers are within

or below USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06.

6-33

b 2 9

Since the RME HI for the industrial worker exposure via incidental ingestion and dermal

contact is greater than 1.0 and the RME cancer risk estimate is greater than the target risk of

IE-05, CT calculations were performed for the industrial worker (Appendix B-l Standard

Tables 7.1.CT and 8.5.CT). The CT noncarcinogenic hazard associated with exposure to soil

via incidental ingestion and dermal contact for the industrial worker is 1.6, which exceeds

USEPA's target HI of 1.0. This is primarily due to dermal contact with chromium in the

surface soil. The carcinogenic risk associated with exposure to onsite surface soil for the

industrial worker is 4.7E-06, which is within USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06.

Lead was also selected as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration exceeded

the soil screening value of 1000 mg/kg. Therefore, the adult lead model was used to evaluate

the potential impacts on the receptors. The results of the modeling showed that for a surface

soil arithmetic mean concentration of 305.95 mg/kg, women of child-bearing age would have

blood lead concentrations in the range of 2.16 to 2.66 ug/dL. However, the arithmetic mean

concentration in the surface soil does not exceed the soil screening level, therefore, the lead in

surface soil is not expected to impact human health.

Onsite Soil - Future

RME noncancer hazard and cancer risk estimates for exposure to soil (surface soil and

subsurface soil combined) via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation were

calculated for future adult and child residents and construction workers (Appendix B-l,

Standard Tables 7.19.RME through 7.24.RME and 8.19.RME through 8.24.RME).

The RME noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to onsite soil via incidental

ingestion and dermal contact for all receptors are above USEPA's target HI of 1.0. The His

for the adult and child resident and the construction worker are 1.6, 5.5, and 2.0, respectively.

6-34

In most cases, the HI is primarily driven by TCE and iron via incidental ingestion and chromium

via dermal contact, with help from manganese and arsenic via incidental ingestion. .

The RME noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to airborne contaminants from soil

for all receptors are below the USEPA's target HI of 1.0.

The RME carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to onsite soil via incidental ingestion and

dermal contact by all receptors are within USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06. The

carcinogenic risk associated with exposure to soil via inhalation by future construction workers

is also within USEPA's target risk range. However, carcinogenic risks for both the adult and

child resident via inhalation exceed USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06, The adult

and child risks are 3.5E-04 and 2.4E-04, respectively, and are due to the presence of TCE in

the soil

Since the RME His for all receptors exposed to soil via incidental ingestion and dermal contact

are greater than 1.0, CT calculations were performed (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 7.2.CT,

7.4.CT and 7.6.CT). Since the RME cancer risk estimates for the adult and child resident via

incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation are above the target risk of IE-05, CT

calculations were performed for the adult and child resident (8.7.CT, 8.9.CT, 8.10.CT and

8.15.CT).

The CT noncarcinogenic hazard associated with exposure to soil via incidental ingestion and

dermal contact for the adult resident is below USEPA's target HI of 1.0. The CT

noncarcinogenic hazard for the child resident is 2.1, which exceeds USEPA's target HI of 1.0,

and is primarily driven by TCE and iron via incidental ingestion. The CT noncarcinogenic

hazard for the construction worker is 1.1, which slightly exceeds USEPA's target HI of 1.0,

and is primarily due to the presence of TCE, chromium, and iron in the soil.

The CT carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to soil for the adult resident and

6-35

f lR30063 l

construction worker via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation are within or below

USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06. The carcinogenic risk associated with exposure

to onsite soil for the child resident via incidental ingestion and dermal contact is within USEPA's

target risk range. However, the carcinogenic risk associated with the child resident via

inhalation is 1.6E-04 which exceeds USEPA's target risk range of IE-4 to IE-06, and is

primarily due to the presence of TCE.

Lead was also selected as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration exceeded

the soil screening value of 400 mg/kg. Therefore, the IEUBK model was used to evaluate the

potential impact of lead on the residential receptors. Potential exposure to children by lead in

the soil is not expected to result in blood-lead concentrations above USEPA's recommended

level as the predicted blood levels are less than 10 ug/dL for 95% of the population.

Offsite Surface Soil - Future

RME noncancer hazard and cancer risk estimates for exposure to offsite surface soil via

incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation were calculated for future adult and child

residents and construction workers (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 7.25.RME through

7.30.RME; 8.25.RME through 8.30.RME).

The RME noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to offsite surface soil via incidental

ingestion and dermal contact for all receptors except the future child resident are below

USEPA's target HI of 1.0. The noncarcinogenic hazard for the future child is 3.3, which

exceeds USEPA's target HI of 1.0, and is primarily due to the presence of iron and manganese

via incidental ingestion. The noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to airborne

contaminants from offsite surface soil for all receptors are below the USEPA's target HI of 1.0.

6-36


dermal contact, and inhalation for all receptors are within or below USEPA's target risk range

of IE-04 to IE-06, except for the future child resident exposure via incidental ingestion and

dermal contact. The risk for the child resident is 1.5E-04, and is primarily due to the presence

of PAHs and arsenic via the ingestion route.

Since the HI for the child resident is greater than 1.0, CT calculations were performed for the

child resident exposed to offsite soil via incidental ingestion and dermal contact (Appendix B-l

Standard Table 7.5.CT). Since the cancer risk estimates for the adult and child residents via

incidental ingestion and dermal contact with soil are above IE-05, CT calculations were

performed for the resident (Appendix B-l 8.8.CT and 8.1 l.CT). The CT noncarcinogenic

hazard associated with exposure to soil for the child resident is 1.2, which exceeds USEPA's

target HI of 1.0. This is primarily due to the presence of iron and manganese in the soil. The

carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to soil for the adult and child resident are within

USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06.

Lead was not selected as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration was below

the soil screening value of 400 mg/kg for the residential scenario and 1000 mg/kg for the

construction worker scenario.

Offsite Surface Soil - Current / Future

RME noncancer hazard and cancer risk estimates for exposure to offsite surface soil to

trespassers and industrial workers were calculated. RME hazard and risk estimates for

exposure to surface soil via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation were calculated

for current/future adult, adolescent, and child trespassers and industrial workers (Appendix B-

1, Standard Tables 7.7.RME through 7.10.RME, 7.15.RME through 7.18.RME, 8.7.RME

through 8.10.RME, and 8.15.RME through 8.18.RME).

6-37

A R 3 Q 0 5 3 3

The RME noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to surface soil via incidental

ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation for all receptors are below USEPA's target HI of 1.0,


dermal contact, and inhalation for all receptors are within or below USEPA's target risk range

of IE-04 to IE-06. However, since the estimated calculated cancer risks for the adult and

child trespasser and industrial worker are at or above IE-05, CT calculations were performed

for these receptors (8.2.CT, 8.4.CT, and 8.6.CT). The CT carcinogenic risks associated with

exposure to soil via incidental ingestion and dermal contact for these receptors are within

USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06.

Lead was not selected as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration was below

the soil screening value of 1000 mg/kg.

6.5.3 SUMMARY OF TOTAL RISKS ACROSS PATHWAYS AND MEDIA

Total potential risks were summarized for current adult and child residents, current/future adult,

adolescent, and child trespassers, current/future industrial workers, future adult and child

residents, and future adult construction workers. In addition, lifetime cancer risks were

calculated for the residential scenarios by summing the adult and child cancer risks together.

Standard Tables 9.1.RME through 9.11.RME summarize the RME total potential risks to each

receptor. Standard Tables 9.1.CT through 9.7.CT summarize the CT total potential risks for

receptors that have RME risks that exceed the target risk levels of IE-05 for cancer risk or an

HI greater than 1.0. Standard Table 10s present a summary that shows only the COPCs that

contribute a hazard greater than 0,1 or a carcinogenic risk greater than IE-06 to receptors with

noncarcinogenic hazards or carcinogenic risks greater than 1.0 or IE-05, respectively.

Standard Tables 9s and 10s are located in Appendix B-l.

6-38

6.5.3.1 Current Adult and Child Residents

It was assumed that current offsite adult and child residents could be exposed to surface soil

through inhalation of airborne contaminants from surface soil. The total RME noncarcinogenic

hazards to the adult and child residents are below USEPA's target level of 1.0. The total RME

carcinogenic risks to adult and child residents are below USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to

IE-06 (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 9.1.RME and 9.2.RME). Exposure to airborne

contaminants from surface soil by a lifetime resident (summing of the adult and child

carcinogenic risks) would result in a total carcinogenic risk value that is within USEPA's target

risk range (Appendix B-l, Standard Table 9.3.RME).

6.5.3.2 Current/ Future Trespassers

The risk assessment assumed that current/future adult, adolescent, and child trespassers may be

exposed to on-site and off-site surface soil and airborne contaminants from surface soil at the

site. The total RME noncarcinogenic hazards to trespassers are below USEPA's target HI of

1.0. The total RME carcinogenic risks to trespassers are within USEPA's target risk range of

IE-04 to IE-06 (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 9.4.RME through 9.6.RME). However,

since the total RME cancer risk exceeds IE-05 for both the adult and child trespasser, a CT

analysis was performed (Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 9.1.CT and9.2.CT). The total CT

carcinogenic risks to adult and child trespassers from on-site and off-site surface soil are 2.5E-

06 and 7.8E-06, respectively, values within USEPA's target risk range.

6.5.3.3 Current/Future Industrial Worker

The risk assessment assumed that current/future industrial workers may be exposed to on-site

and off-site surface soil and airborne contaminants from the surface soil at the site. The total

RME noncarcinogenic hazard to workers is 1.9, which exceeds USEPA's target HI of 1.0

6-39

A R 3 0 P 6 3 5

(Appendix B-l, Standard Table 9.7.RME). These hazards are primarily attributable to dermal

contact with chromium in the onsite surface soil. The total RME carcinogenic risk to industrial

workers is within USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06. Since the noncancer hazard is

greater than 1.0 and the cancer risk is greater than IE-05, a CT analysis was performed

(Appendix B-l, Standard Table 9.3.CT), The total CT noncarcinogenic risk to the industrial

worker is 1.6, primarily due to dermal contact with chromium in onsite surface soil. The total

CT carcinogenic risk is within USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06.

6.5.3.4 Future Adult and Child Residents

The risk assessment assumed that future adult and child residents could be exposed to on-site

soil (surface soil and subsurface soil combined), off-site surface soil and airborne contaminants

from on-site and off-site surface soil. Exposure to these media would result in noncarcinogenic

hazards above USEPA's target hazard index of 1.0 for both receptors (Appendix B-l,

Standard Table 9.8.RME and 9.9.RME). The adult and child HI exceedances are 2.7 and 9.5,

respectively, and are primarily due to TCE, arsenic, chromium, iron, and manganese in the

onsite soil and arsenic, chromium, iron, and manganese in the offsite soil.

The RME carcinogenic risks to the future adult and child resident are 4.4E-04 and 4.5E-04,

respectively, which exceed USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06. The exceedance is

primarily due to TCE contamination in the onsite surface soil, PAH contamination in the offsite

surface soil, and arsenic in both onsite and offsite soil. Exposure to these soils by a lifetime

resident (adult and child risks combined) (Appendix B-l Standard Table 9.10.RME) would

result in a total risk of 8.9E-04which exceeds USEPA's target risk range.

A CT risk analysis was conducted for exposure to soil for the adult, child, and lifetime resident

(Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 9.4.CT, 9.5.CT, and 9.6.CT). The CT carcinogenic risks for

all receptors exceed USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06. Again, TCE is the primary

6-40

"R300636

risk driver, with smaller contributions from some PAHs and arsenic. The CT noncarcinogenic

hazard for the adult and child residents are 1.3 and 3.4, respectively, which exceed USEPA's

target HI of 1.0. These exceedances are primarily due to TCE, chromium, and iron in the

onsite surface soil and chromium, iron, and manganese in the offsite surface soil.

6.5.3.5 Future Construction Worker

The risk assessment assumed that future construction workers may be exposed to on-site soil

(surface soil and subsurface soil combined) and off-site surface soil and airborne contaminants

from the onsite soil and the off-site surface soil at the site. The total RME noncarcinogenic

hazard to workers is 2.4, which exceeds USEPA's target level of 1.0 (Appendix B-l, Standard

Table 9.11.RME). These hazards are primarily attributable to the incidental ingestion of TCE

and iron and dermal contact with chromium in the onsite surface soil. The total RME

carcinogenic risk to industrial workers is within USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to IE-06.

A CT analysis was performed (Appendix B-l, Standard Table 9.7.CT), The total CT

noncarcinogenic hazard to the industrial worker is 1.2, which exceeds USEPA's target level of

1.0, and is primarily due to incidental ingestion of TCE and dermal exposure to chromium in the

onsite soil. The total CT carcinogenic risk is within the USEPA's target risk range of IE-04 to

IE-06.

6.6 UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT

The risk measures used in Superfund site risk assessments are not fully probabilistic estimates of

risk but are conditional estimates given that a set of assumptions about exposure and toxicity are

realized. Thus it is important to specify fully the assumptions and uncertainties inherent in the

risk assessment to place the risk estimates in proper perspective (USEPA, 1989).

6-41

f l R 3 0 P S 3 7

This risk assessment only examines the potential risks from exposure to contaminants in soil.

Receptors may be exposed to contaminants in other media (such as groundwater) which may

result in greater overall risks to receptors.

A qualitative/semi-quantitative analysis of each of the risk assessment components is sufficient

for most of the sites. A site-specific discussion on these individual components is presented in

the following sections.

6.6.1 GENERAL UNCERTAINTY IN COPC SELECTION

The sampling conducted at all the sites focused on areas of known or suspected contamination.

Therefore, the uncertainty in sampling and possibility of missing a contaminated location is

expected to be minimal at this site. The uncertainty associated with the data analysis is minimal,

as the data have been fully validated prior to use in the risk assessment. The general

assumptions used in the COPCs selection process were conservative to ensure that the true

COPCs were not eliminated from the quantitative risk assessment and that the highest possible

risk was estimated.

6.6.2 UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Some of the exposure pathways analyzed for are assumed, and exposure factors used for

quantitation of exposure are conservative and reflect worst-case or upper-bound assumptions

on the exposure.

The future soil exposure scenario adds additional conservatism by assuming that the subsurface

soil will become surface soil after the completion of any potential construction activities at the

site. During many construction projects, clean fill material is placed over soil that is disturbed

6-42

3 R 3 0 C 6

during excavation projects. The clean fill is generally needed to support growth of grass and

other landscape plants.

The percent of a chemical absorbed through the skin is likely to be affected by many

parameters. Some of the parameters include soil loading, soil moisture content, organic content,

pH, and presence of other constituents. The availability of a chemical depends on site-specific

fate and transport properties of the chemical species available for eventual absorption of skin.

Chemical concentrations, specific properties of the chemical, and soil release kinetics all impact

the amount of a chemical that is absorbed. These factors contribute to the uncertainty

associated with these estimates and make quantitation of the amount of certain chemicals

absorbed from soil difficult.

Site-related organic contamination would be expected to decrease with time. The risk

assessment assumed concentrations for all contaminants would remain constant throughout the

exposure period (30 years for the residential and trespasser scenarios, 25 years for the other

worker, and 0.5 years for the construction worker). This will result in an over-estimation of

risk.

6.6.3 UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

Uncertainty associated with the noncarcinogenic toxicity factors is included in Standard Tables

5.1 and 5.2 in Appendix B-l. The uncertainty associated with CSFs is mostly associated with

the low dose extrapolation where carcinogenicity at low doses is assumed to be straight-line

responses. This is a conservative assumption, which introduces a high uncertainty into slope

factors which are from this extrapolated area of the dose-response curve. However, most of

the experimental studies indicate existence of a threshold for carcinogenicity.

6-43

f l R 3 0 0 6 3 9

Carcinogenic slope factors developed by the USEPA represent upper bound estimates. Any

carcinogenic risks generated in this assessment should be regarded as an upper bound estimate

on the potential carcinogenic risks rather than an accurate representation of carcinogenic risk.

The true carcinogenic risk is likely to be less than the predicted value.

Additional uncertainty is in the prediction of relative sensitivities of different species of animals

and the applicability of animal data to humans.

There is a large degree of uncertainty associated with the oral to dermal adjustment factors

(based on chemical-specific gastrointestinal absorption) used to transform the oral RfDs and

CSFs based on administered doses to dermal RfDs and CSFs based on absorbed doses. It is

not known if the adjustment factors result in an underestimate or overestimate of the actual

toxicity associated with dermal exposure.

6.6.4 UNCERTAINTY IN RISK CHARACTERIZATION

The uncertainties identified in each component of risk assessment ultimately contribute to

uncertainty in risk characterization. The addition of risks and His across pathways and

chemicals contributes to uncertainty based on the interaction of chemicals such as additivity,

synergism, potentiation, and susceptibility of exposed receptors. The simple assumption of

additivity used for this assessment may or may not be accurate and may or may not over- or

under-estimate risk; however, a better alternative is not available at this time.

In general, assessment of uncertainty is important for sites with contaminant concentrations

presenting a risk at the acceptable limit level with questionable exceedance (for example, slightly

above the upper-bound risk ranges of 1 in 10,000 risk or HI of 1.0).

6-44

6.7 SUMMARY

This baseline risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential human health risks

associated with the presence of site-related surface soil and soil (surface and subsurface soil

combined) at the Spra-Fin facility in North Wales, Pennsylvania. This baseline risk assessment

was conducted to characterize the current and potential future human health risks if no

additional remediation is implemented.

Appendix B-l, Standard Tables 9.1.RME through 9.11.RME and Tables 9.1.CT through

9.7.CT summarize the RME and CT potential hazards and risks to each receptor. Appendix

B-l, Standard Tables 10.1.RME through 10.8.RME and 10.1.CT and 10.7.CT show only the

chemicals that contributed total His greater than 1.0 or total carcinogenic risks greater than IE-

05.

Current and future RME carcinogenic risks are within or below USEPA's risk range of IE-04

to IE-06 for all media for all exposure scenarios except for future adult, child and lifetime

(adult and child combined) residents receptors. A total risk was calculated of 4.4E-04 for the

adult, 4.5E-04 for the child, and a total lifetime resident risk of 8.9E-04, all which exceed

USEPA's target risk range. The main risk driver is TCE, with smaller contributions from PAHs

and arsenic. The CT carcinogenic risks for these receptors also exceed USEPA's target risk

range of IE-04 to IE-06.

Current and future RME hazards are below USEPA's target HI of 1.0 for all exposure

scenarios except for the current/future industrial worker, future adult and child resident, and

future construction worker, exposed to off-site and on-site soil.

RME and CT noncarcinogenic His of 1.9 and 1.6, respectively, exceed USEPA's target HI of

1.0 for the industrial worker. This is primarily due to dermal exposure to chromium in surface

6-45

A R 3 Q 0 6 M

soil. For the future adult resident (RME ffl=2.7 and CT HI = 1.3) and child resident (HI=9.5

and CT HI =3.4), both RME and CT noncarcinogenic His exceed USEPA's target HI of 1.0.

These exceedances are primarily due to TCE, arsenic, chromium, iron, and manganese in the

onsite soil and arsenic, chromium, iron, and manganese in the offsite soil.

For the future construction worker, the RME and CT noncarcinogenic HI are 2.4 and 1.2,

respectively, which exceed the USEPA target HI of 1.0. These exceedances are primarily due

to TCE, chromium, and iron in the onsite surface soil.

Lead was selected as a COPC in on-site surface soil and on-site soil (surface soil and

subsurface soil combined) because the maximum detected concentrations exceed soil screening

values. Potential exposure to children from lead in soil is not expected to result in blood-lead

concentrations above USEPA's recommended levels. Potential exposure to adults from lead in

surface soil and soil is not expected to impact human health.

6-46

t/1rcn!•*.O

SectionSeven

7.0 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This section of the RI report constitutes the SLERA, which addresses the ecological risk

associated with the site area investigated during the remedial investigation.

The objective of this SLERA is to identify, qualitatively and quantitatively (where appropriate),

the potential current and future environmental risks that would exist if no action is taken at the

site. Conservative assumptions were used in this SLERA to indicate which contaminants and

exposure pathways present at the site may present ecological risks.

This assessment was prepared in accordance with EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk

Assessments (Interim Final, EPA/540-R-97-006, June 1997) (ERAGS). This SLERA

represents the first two steps of the eight-step process provided in the ERAGS guidance; Step

1, Screening Level Ecological Effects Evaluation and Step 2, Screening Level Preliminary

Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation.

The SLERA is composed of the following components :

Screening Level Problem Formulation—a qualitative evaluation ofcontaminant release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants ofconcern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects of thecontaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study.

Screening Level Ecological Effects Evaluation—literature reviews, fieldstudies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentrations to effects onecological receptors.

7-1

f l R S Q O G H

Screening Level Exposure Assessment—a quantitative evaluation ofcontaminant release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathwaysand receptors; and measurement or estimation of exposure pointconcentrations.

Screening Level Risk Characterization — measurement or estimation of bothcurrent and future adverse effects.

Screening Level Uncertainty Assessment — presentation of factors thatprovide uncertainty to this risk assessment.

7.2 SCREENING LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION

7.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

7.2.1.1 Site Location and History

Descriptions of the site location and history are presented in Sections 1.2 and 1.3.

7.2.1.2 Habitat and Biota

A description of the environmental setting of the North Penn OU 2 Superfund site is provided in

Section 2.5 of this RI report.

Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern Species

The status of endangered or threatened species, and species of special concern located on or

within a two mile radius of the site was determined by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) and the Ecological Review section of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry.

A Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) review was completed by the PA Bureau

of Forestry. The PNDI review indicates that no endangered, threatened, or rare species are

7-2

known to occur within the project study area. The USFWS responded that except for

occasional transient species, no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species

are known to occur within the project study area. These letters are provided in Appendix C.

An additional letter has been sent to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. This section

will be updated when information is provided by the PA Fish and Boat Commission.

7.2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses

The site is located in an industrialized area northwest of the Borough of North Wales and south

of the Borough of Landsdale. The site is bordered to the south and west by Wissahickon

Avenue, to the east by SEPTA railroad tracks and an open field, and to the north by residential

and industrial properties. To the west of the site across Wissahickon Avenue is a densely

wooded plot that is 3.35 acres in size. See Section 2.5 for a detailed description of this

wooded area. The site and surrounding properties are zoned as either industrial or. light

industrial. Several residential dwellings are located near the industrial properties and several

homes are located within 1,000 feet of the site.

7.2.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

The source of analytical data used in this SLERA is from the remedial investigation completed

for Operable Unit 2, which investigates source area contamination at the Spra-Fin facility and

specifically investigates soil contamination. Analytical results of samples collected from two

background locations were used in addition to the data collected on the site property and

directly across the road from the site. The background samples were collected from two

locations within the wooded lot to the west of the site and were both taken approximately 160

feet from the site.

7-3

A R 3 Q 0 5 l > 6

Surface Soil

Results from surface soil samples that were collected from a depth of zero to six inches were

used in this SLERA to estimate risk to receptors exposed to surface soils. These samples were

collected from both on-site locations and from locations along the road across from the site (see

Figure 3-1). These samples were treated separately from the shallow subsurface soil samples

for several reasons. The two types of samples were collected using a different sampling

technique and were collected from slightly different depths. The surface soil samples were grab

samples collected from a depth of 0 to 6 inches using a stainless steel trowel. The surface soil

samples were collected from the edges and boundaries of the site to investigate possible

migration of contamination. The shallow subsurface soils were grab samples collected onsite

from a depth of zero to one foot using a direct push device (GeoProbe) which collected a soil

core. It was felt that the surface soil samples would possibly be influenced by various other

sources near the site such as the road and the railroad tracks. The Geoprobe samples collected

on site are thought to be more representative of soil contamination related to this site.

Shallow Subsurface Soil

Soil samples collected from a depth of zero to one foot with the Geoprobe sampler from onsite

locations were also used to evaluate risk to ecological receptors. While the biologically active

zone is considered to be from zero to two feet the other subsurface soils collected onsite were

taken from various depth intervals below two feet and were thus not used. Of the 20 sample

locations where subsurface samples were collected only 15 were used for the ecological risk

assessment. The remaining five locations were collected through a 4 - 6 inch thick concrete

slab overlying a foundation, or from paved areas where ecological receptors would not be

present. In general, soil conditions at the site consist of industrial fill mixed with clay, weathered

shale, and sandstone and was not ideal habitat for burrowing mammals. It is not believed that

burrowing mammals would be found anywhere on this active site, but to be conservative it was

7-4

assumed that animals might inhabit the areas other than the portions of the site covered by

foundations or asphalt. The samples are summarized below in groupings that have been set up

for the SLERA. Sample locations are depicted in Figures 3-1 and 3-4 of the RI report.

Duplicate samples are as indicated.

No. of Samples

Surface Soil Samples (0-6 inches) 10 (SS-01 through SS-09)

No. of Duplicates

1 (DSS-08 is a duplicate

of SS-08)

Onsite Shallow Soil Samples

(0-1 foot)

15 (SB-01, SB-23, SB-03,

SB-04, SB-06, SB-08, SB-

09, SB-14, SB-24, SB-28,

SB-18, SB-19, SB-25, SB-

26, SB-30)

None

Sample Summary

Sample analytical results are summarized in Appendix A. Since this is a screening level

ecological risk assessment and is meant to be conservative, the data were treated in the

following manner:

In instances where there were duplicate data, the maximum detectedconcentration of the two samples was used to represent the sample result.

If one of the results of the environmental sample or its duplicate had beenrejected (i.e., qualified with an "R"), the value for the non-rejected result wasused.

7-5

A R 3 0 0 6 U 8

Data qualified with an "R" (rejected) were not used in this assessment. Organic data qualified

with a "B" (analyte found in the associated blank as well as in the sample) were treated as non-

detected values.

7.2.3 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL MODEL

7.2.3.1 Exposure Pathways

An environmental exposure pathway is the means by which contaminants are transported from a

source to ecological receptors. As described previously, site related chemicals of potential

concern have been detected in surface and subsurface soil samples collected at the site and

across Wissahickon Avenue from the site.

Exposure pathways to site ecological receptors that are evaluated in this SLERA involve

exposure to contaminants in surface and subsurface soils. Figure 7-1 represents the conceptual

flow diagram for transport of contaminants of concern to ecological receptors.

Based on the preliminary conceptual model for the site as shown in Figure 7-1, complete

exposure pathways exist for exposure to contaminants in surface and subsurface soil on the

Spra-Fin property. Terrestrial receptors that burrow, nest, or feed, on the ground surface at

the site will be directly exposed to contaminants in the soil. Predators which hunt on this

property may be exposed to contaminants that have bioaccumulated in prey living on the site.

Based on this preliminary conceptual model surface water drainage and wind transport provide

complete pathways for transporting contaminants to surface soils located across Wissahickon

Avenue from the site. A few site contaminants were detected in shallow surface soil samples

collected along Wissahickon Avenue. Terrestrial receptors that burrow, nest or feed, on the

ground surface will be directly exposed to contaminants in this soil. Predators which hunt in this

area may be exposed to contaminants that have bioaccumulated in prey living in this area.

7-6

It is possible that if site contaminants could be transported across the street, soils could be

carried by surface water flow to storm drains located along Wissahickon Avenue and eventually

be transported to Wissahickon Creek. This pathway was not evaluated as the scope of this

remedial investigation was confined to surface and subsurface soil on or adjacent to the site

property. Ecological risk to receptors in Wissahickon Creek will be evaluated under the North

Penn Operable Unit 3 (OU3) investigation.

Shallow (perched) and deep groundwater samples collected on site were contaminated.

Recharge of contaminated groundwater to Wissahickon Creek is also a potential direct

exposure pathway. This pathway was not evaluated under this investigation but will be

evaluated as part of the OU 3 investigation.

It should be noted that the Spra-Fin site is a small (1.1 acre) active industrial site with poor

ecological habitat. Approximately 75 percent of the property is either paved or covered by

structures. These areas include a concrete pad/foundation in front of the building, concrete

storage areas, paved or gravel parking areas, and the active facility building. Small portions of

the site (approximately 25 %) are overgrown with weed species and surrounded by a small

buffer of trees and shrubs. The only receptors noted on site included an Eastern Cottontail

rabbit and several bird species including blue jays, American crow, and house sparrows. No

burrows or nests were noted on the property. Soils on the site consist of industrial fill classified

as Made Land which was formed by mixing soils of weathered shale and sandstone origin. This

soil is noted to have a low permeability, moisture content, and fertility.

The three-acre wooded lot across the street is more suitable habitat, however this remnant lot is

surrounded by developed industrial and light industrial properties.

7-7

f l R 3 f l i ? 6 5 0

7.2.3.2 Endpoints and Risk Hypotheses

Table 7-1 presents the endpoints and risk hypotheses used for the SLERA. Assessment

endpoints for this SLERA include the following:

• Protection of the soil invertebrate community from the toxic effects (on survivaland growth) of site-related chemicals present in the soil and to ensure thatcontaminant levels in soil invertebrate tissues are low enough to minimize therisk of contaminant bioaccumulation effects in higher trophic levels.

• Protection of mammals that live and feed on the site to ensure that directcontact with and ingestion of contaminants in soil and prey do not have anadverse impact on survival, reproduction, and growth.

Protection of the avian community that feeds on the site to ensure that directcontact with and ingestion of contaminants in soil and prey does not have anadverse impact on survival, reproduction, and growth.

Measurement endpoints are chosen to link the existing conditions to the goals established by the

assessment endpoints and are useful for assessment endpoint evaluation (e.g., effects are

measured by comparing exposure dose estimates to literature-based toxicity endpoints). For

this SLERA, measurement endpoints used to evaluate potential ecological impacts were the

following:

• Survival and growth of soil invertebrates are measured through comparison ofcontaminant exposure to contact ecotoxicity values for survival, reproduction,and growth and the protection of upper trophic organisms consuming soilinvertebrates.

Protection of mammals that feed on the site to ensure that ingestion ofcontaminants in soil/ sediment and prey do not have an adverse impact onsurvival, reproduction, and growth.

• Protection of the avian community that feeds on the site to ensure that ingestionof contaminants in soil/sediment and prey does not have an adverse impact onsurvival, reproduction, and growth.

7-f

f l R 3 U G 6 5

Selection of site receptors as a subset of all potential ecological receptors at the site is an

important part of the SLERA. Since it is not feasible to evaluate every species which may be

impacted, the selection of indicator species is an accepted step to focus the SLERA and allow

for characterization of site risk. Receptor selection is guided by the results of the site habitat

characterization, resident species information, and consideration of the criteria listed below:

• Species of statutory concern (such as Trustee species and those protectedunder Federal/State law)

• Rare, threatened, or endangered species

• Receptors which represent site trophic levels (to assess food chain impact andpotential concern for bioaccumulation)

In addition to the considerations presented above, receptor species should meet the following

additional guidelines to allow for quantification of impacts at hazardous waste sites:

• Habitat Suitability - Species chosen as receptors should inhabit habitats asfound onsite and/or within the area of impact. Adequate habitat must beavailable for species consideration.

• Occurrence - Species chosen as receptors should have been observed (orexpected to occur) with some frequency on-site or within the area of siteimpact.

Receptor species selected for the SLERA were chosen to be representative of trophic levels

and habitats that occur at the site. Receptor species selected to represent site biota are

identified in Table 7-1. Mammalian receptor species include the eastern cottontail as a

herbivore and the short-tailed shrew as an insectivore. Avian receptor species include the red-

tailed hawk as a carnivore and the American robin as an insectivore. Additionally, soil

invertebrates are included as receptor species as they form the base of the terrestrial food chain.

7-9

7.2.4 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS EVALUATION

7.2.4.1 Screening Values

The selection of COPCs is used to narrow the focus of the ecological risk assessment. The

selection process serves to identify dominant ecological site risk and to guide future remediation

selection decisions.

Selection of COPCs was specific to each medium evaluated in this SLERA (i.e., surface soil

and shallow subsurface soil). Therefore, only chemicals with environmental concentrations in

media representing potential ecological exposure pathways were considered. EPA Region HI

BTAG screening values (Draft, 1995) were used to screen maximum chemical concentrations

detected in the surface soil and subsurface soil. The BTAG screening values are based on the

lowest value from a combination of sources considered to be protective of the most sensitive

organism in a medium. The most conservative (lowest) appropriate BTAG screening values

were selected for use in comparing the maximum sample result. Chemicals with detected

concentrations greater than the BTAG screening values were considered COPCs. Table 7-2

provides a summary of the selected COPCs. Tables C-l and C-2 in Appendix C are the

actual screening tables and provide the screening process and the resulting COPCs.

Additionally, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were removed from further

consideration as COPCs because they are ubiquitous, occur naturally in high concentrations,

and are essential nutrients. Thus, they are not considered to be site-related contaminants.

As per Region in EPA BTAG policy, chemicals that were not detected, but had maximum

detection limits greater than the screening values associated with them, were retained as

COPCs. This method accounts for the potential presence of chemicals which were not

7-10

detected but may be present at concentrations at which potential adverse effects could occur to

ecological receptors.

7.2.4.2 Ingestion Screening Values

The goal of the ecological effects evaluation is to determine the toxic effects of COPCs at the

site on the selected ecological receptors. A database and literature search was performed to

identify the ingestion toxicity values for COPCs. Data sources reviewed included:

• Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB)

TERRETOX Database

Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS)

IRIS

Toxicity values were also obtained from several primary and secondary literature sources (as

referenced). Chronic no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for COPCs were

preferentially selected to represent the benchmark toxicity values used in this assessment as they

ensure that risk is not underestimated (USEPA, 1997e). Often, toxicity values were not

available as chronic NOAELs, but only as acute or chronic lowest observed adverse effects

levels (LOAELs) or median lethal doses (LD50s). Where necessary, adjustments were made to

these available toxicity values using safety factors to reflect levels of uncertainty. Currently there

is little guidance available for the appropriate value for safety factors (correction factors).

Based upon guidance provided by Calabrese and Baldwin (1993), an acute LD50 was

extrapolated to a chronic (NOAEL) by multiplication with a correction factor of 0.02 to obtain

the benchmark toxicity value. When a LOAEL was used as the basis for the benchmark value,

the following scheme was used to obtain a chronic NOAEL for the adjusted benchmark toxicity

value (Calabrese and Baldwin, 1993):

7-11

f l R 3 0 P 6 5 t *

for a chronic LOAEL (or chronic LD50), a correction factor of 0.1 was applied(multiplied); and

for an acute LOAEL, a correction factor of 0.04 was applied (multiplied).

When toxicity data were not available for the selected receptor species, the use of toxicity

values from other animal studies was necessary. No additional correction factors were applied

to the available toxicity value if the value was for an animal within the same taxonomic class as

the target receptor. Values from different taxonomic classes were not used. When more than

one value was applied, the most conservative value for the most closely-related species to the

target receptor(s) was used.

Ingestion toxicity values from the available ecotoxicity literature for the ingestion exposure route

are presented in Tables C-3 of Appendix C. Tables C-4 and C-5 of Appendix C provide the

adjusted ingestion toxicity values used for the surface soil and shallow subsurface soil food chain

models.

7.3 SCREENING LEVEL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this section is to evaluate the potential for receptor exposure to chemical

constituents at the site. This evaluation involves the characterization of pathways and ecological

receptors and determination of the magnitude of exposure to the selected ecological receptors.

7.3.1 RECEPTOR SPECIES EXPOSURE

Exposure scenarios were constructed for receptor species selected. Factors taken into

consideration in the selection of scenarios were the spatial and temporal variations in exposure,

mechanisms of migration, points of exposure, behavioral characteristics, and trophic

relationships.

7-12

Based upon the exposure scenarios, the following exposures will be evaluated in this SLERA

via by direct comparison of media concentrations with benchmark values:

CONTAMINATED MEDIA RECEPTORS EXPOSURES

Onsite and off-site surface Short-tailed shrew, eastern Ingestion of food items and

soils and onsite shallow cottontail, red-tailed hawk, incidental ingestion of surface soil

subsurface soils American robin,

Soil invertebrates** Direct surface soil exposure

* Exposures are estimated through food chain exposure modeling.

** Direct comparisons of soil contaminant exposures have been made to media quality

guidelines (screening values).

The inhalation route of chemical exposure was considered to have a negligible impact on the

total exposure of receptors, therefore, it was not considered in exposure dose calculations for

this SLERA. The dermal exposure pathway was considered to also have a lesser impact than

the ingestion exposure route on the total exposure of receptors. Considering this and the lack

of appropriate wildlife uptake rate information for the dermal exposure route, dermal exposure

was not factored into the exposure dose estimation of this SLERA.

7.3.2 EXPOSURE ESTIMATION

7.3.2.1 Food Chain Exposure Dose Estimation

This subsection discusses the methods by which chemical exposures are estimated for the

receptor species. The models used to estimate exposure doses, in micrograms of chemical

intake per kilogram of body weight per day (ug/kg/day), are presented here.

7-13

W00656

The level of potential dietary exposure (dose) was determined by multiplying the ingestion rate

of the receptor species by the estimated contaminant concentration in food items and the

portion of the food item in the diet, summing these values, and dividing the summed value by the

body weight of the receptor species. Bioaccumulation factors were included in the exposure

model when estimating the contaminant concentration in food items.

Dietary exposure estimates were generated for short-tailed shrew, eastern cottontail, red-tailed

hawk, and American robin for exposure to contaminants in surface soil and prey items.

The following equation expresses the method for the general determination of dose to individual

COPCs in the site soil:

Dose = [(IR x C x PS)+(IR x C x BAF x Pf)]/BW

where,

Dose = potential dietary exposure dose from contact with soil (ug chemical/kg

body weight/day)

IR = ingestion rate of food (kg diet/day)

C = concentration of COPC in soil (ug/kg)

Ps = proportion of diet that is soil (unitless)

Pf = proportion of diet for food item (unitless)

BAF = bioaccumulation factor specific for food item (unitless)

BW = body weight (kg)

More specifically, the following equations were used to determine the dietary exposure doses

for the modeled receptors:

7-14

Insectivorous food chain receptor (applicable to short-tailed shrew and American

robin)

Dose = [(IR x C x PS)+(IR x C x BAFt x Pj)]/BW

where,

Dose = potential dietary exposure dose from contact with surface soil (ug

chemical/kg body weight/day)


C = concentration of COPC in surface soil (ug/kg)

Ps = proportion of diet that is surface soil (unitless)

Pi = proportion of diet that is soil invertebrates (unitless)

BAFj = bioaccumulation factor specific for soil invertebrates (unitless)


Carnivorous food chain receptor (applicable to red-tailed hawk)

Dose = [(IR x C x PS)+(IR x C x BAFj x BAFm x PJ1/BW

where,

Dose = potential dietary exposure dose from contact with surface soil (



C = concentration of COPC in surface soil (ug/kg)

Ps = proportion of diet that is soil (unitless)

Pm = proportion of diet that is small mammals (unitless)

BAFj = bioaccumulation factor specific for soil invertebrates (unitless)

7-15

A R 3 G 0 6 5 8

BAFm= bioaccumulation factor specific for small mammals (unitless)


Herbivorous food chain receptor (eastern cottontail)

Dose = [(IR x Cs x PS)+(IR x Cs X BAFV X PV)]/BW

where,

Dose = potential dietary exposure dose from contact with surface soil (ug



Cs = concentration of COPC in surface soil (ug/kg)

Ps = proportion of diet that is surface soil (unitless)

Pv - proportion of diet that is vegetation (unitless)

BAFV = bioaccumulation factor specific for vegetation (unitless)


The percent of the receptor diet that a specific food item represents is given in Table 7-3.

Species-specific ingestion rates and body weights used in this assessment are also provided in

Table 7-3.

The ERAGs Guidance recommends for the screening level exposure estimate that the home

range for terrestrial animals equal the size of the site. Based on discussions with EPA Region in

BTA, and actual home range value was calculated for each receptor because the site is so small

and of such poor habitat quality. A home range factor was calculated for each receptor species

by dividing the size of site in acres by the home range of each receptor as referenced in the

literature. This factor was used to adjust the calculated dose values by taking into account

7-16

A R 3 G 0 6 5 9

whether the receptor feeds and lives exclusively on the site or spends little time at the site and

ranges over a much larger area. These values are listed in Table 7-3. The shrew and robin

have home ranges very similar to the size of the site and consequently have no adjustment to the

calculated dose.

The eastern cottontail has a home range approximately twice the size of the site and therefore

the rabbit was expected to feed on the site approximately half of the time. The hawk has a

home range of 148 acres and is expected to hunt and feed on the site in a very limited manner.

Realistically, because the habitat is so poor at the site and because the site is active, it is unlikely

that the hawk would actually hunt at the site.

To be conservative, the chemical concentration used in the dietary exposure dose

determinations was the maximum concentration detected in site samples.

The contaminant concentration of a food item was calculated by multiplying the contaminant

concentration in the medium by the food group-specific bioaccumulation factor. The

bioaccumulation factors used are presented in Table C-6 and C-7 of Appendix C. In an

attempt to be conservative, a value of one was applied when a suitable bioaccumulation factor

was not found in the literature.

Calculated exposure values (doses) for each of the selected receptor species are presented in

Tables C-8 through C-15 of Appendix C.

7.4 SCREENING LEVEL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

This section of the SLERA contains a discussion of screening level risk characterization for the

site.

7-17

A R 3 0 0 G 6 Q

The potential risk to ecological receptors at the site was assessed by two methods:

• Risks from exposure to contaminated soil were estimated for the generalinvertebrate community by comparing surface and subsurface soil contaminantconcentrations to soil quality criteria/guidance values derived for the protectionof invertebrate species.

• Food chain risks were estimated for modeled receptors (short-tailed shrew,red-tailed hawk, etc.) by comparing estimated exposure levels (daily doses)with conservative dose-based toxicological benchmarks. Risks to each of thesereceptors were evaluated using hazard quotients (HQs) which were determinedfor each COPC by dividing estimated daily contaminant doses by ingestiontoxicity values.

For each receptor, receptor hazard indices (His) were determined by summing all of the COPC

HQs for each target ecological receptor per medium. Cumulative His were ranked in

accordance with an EPA (1992) ranking scheme that was used to evaluate potential ecological

risks to individual organisms. The ranking scheme is as follows:

HI < 1 no adverse effects

HI >1 possible adverse effects

It is important to note that this methodology is not a measure of and cannot be used to

determine absolute quantitative risk. Use of this technique, however, can indicate the potential

for the target ecological receptor to be at risk to an adverse effect from exposure to site

COPCs.

7.4.1 ESTIMATION OF RISK TO SOIL INVERTEBRATES

Potential ecological risks from exposure to contaminants in shallow soils at the site were

assessed using direct comparisons of contaminant concentrations in site soils with reference

toxicity values.

7-18

f lR30066

Comparisons were made between the concentrations of the contaminants detected in soil and

EPA Region in screening values during the screening phase used for the selection of COPCs.

This resulted in numerous COPCs in both surface and shallow subsurface soil. For the soil

invertebrate community, the potential for adverse ecological risks appears to exist in surface and

shallow subsurface soil from exposure to VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and inorganics.

In the surface soil, fifteen metals exceeded the soil screening values based on detected

concentrations. Aluminum, chromium, lead, and silver concentrations in soil generated the

highest HQ values, all exceeding 9,000. See Table C-l for screening results. Chromium and

lead were detected in 10 out of 10 samples at high concentrations (HQs of 17,066 and 27,500,

respectively). Silver also generated a very high HQ but was only detected in one of 10

locations. The remaining metals were detected in most of the samples and generated HQ values

ranging from 1 to 249. Thallium was not detected but is listed as a COPC because the

detection limit exceeds the benchmark.

One PCB (Aroclor 1260) was detected in one onsite surface soil sample collected near the

railroad tracks and generated an HQ of 2.70. Methoxyclor was detected in one sample

located across the Wissahickon Avenue from the site and generated a HQ value of 1.70. Four

other pesticides are listed as COPCs because no benchmark value was available. Sixteen

SVOCs exceeded the soil screening values based on detected concentrations. Of the SVOC

compounds that exceeded the screening values several PAHs generated the highest HQ values

ranging between 100 and 200 (See Table C-l). The PAHs were detected in all of the surface

samples. Seven additional PAHs and three VOCs were listed as COPCs because no screening

value was available. Two PAHs were retained as COPCs because the detection limit

exceeded the benchmark value.

In the shallow subsurface samples collected onsite, sixteen metals exceeded the soil screening

values based on detected values. See Table C-2 for the screening results. Aluminum,

7-19

300652

chromium, lead, and silver concentrations in the soil generated the highest HQs, all exceeding

13,000 indicating significant risk to soil invertebrates. Lead was detected in all of the shallow

(0-1 foot) soil sample locations and generated a HQ value of 157,000. Silver was detected in

one sample. Of the remaining twelve detected metals; vanadium and zinc generated HQ values

of 100 and 146 and the remaining metals generated HQs less than 60 with eight metals having

HQ values less than 20. Thallium was not detected but is listed as a COPC because the

detection limit exceeds the benchmark value. Four metals were also listed as COPCs because

no screening value was available.

Two PCB compounds, four VOCs, and 16 SVOCs were detected in the onsite shallow

subsurface soil and exceeded the soil screening values indicating risk to soil invertebrates. One

PCB (Aroclor 1260) was detected in 8 of 15 soil samples and generated an HQ value of 36.

Three VOC compounds, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene were detected at concentrations

which generated HQ values of 340, 870, and 1600, respectively, indicating the potential for risk

to invertebrates. However, all of these VOCs were detected in one or two samples only. Of

the 16 detected SVOCs, fluoranthene concentrations in soil generated the highest HQ value of

13. The HQ values for the remaining 15 SVOCs were all less than 10. Six of the 16 SVOCs

that screened as COPCs were only detected in one or two samples (See Table C-2).

In addition to the COPCs selected based on detected values, eight SVOCs were selected as

COPCs because the analytical detection limits exceeded the screening value. Five pesticides,

10 SVOCs, and five VOCs were listed as COPCs because no screening value was available

for comparison (See Table C-2).

7-20

7.4.2 ESTIMATION OF FOOD CHAIN RISKS

Offsite and Onsite Surface Soil

The potential ecological risk from exposure to contamination via the food chain was calculated

for surface soil both on the site and across Wissahickon Avenue using maximum contaminant

concentrations detected in soil samples. Food chain modeling was completed in this media for

the short-tailed shrew, Eastern cottontail, American robin, and red-tailed hawk.

The potential risks from food chain exposure were assessed for each receptor by comparing

estimated exposure dose levels with dose-based toxicological benchmark values. The resultant

HQs for each COPC and His (cumulative HQs) for each receptor are presented in Tables C-8

through C-l 1 of Appendix C. The results indicate that there is a definite potential for food chain

risks to the shrew, robin and eastern cottontail from exposure to contaminants in surface soil.

These results are discussed below.

Calculated His for the shrew of 2060, cottontail of 28, and robin of 764 indicate the potential

for adverse effects resulting from chronic food chain exposure to contaminants detected in

surface soils on and near the site. No risk was indicated for the hawk. Primary contributors to

the potential risk for small mammals are aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,

thallium, zinc, benzo(a)pyrene, and phenanthrene. Chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and

zinc, are the primary contributors of risk to the robin. The high concentration of lead found in

the surface soil samples on the site property generated the highest HQ values for the robin and

eastern cottontail. Iron concentrations in soils generated the highest HQ value for the shrew

with lead concentrations generating the second highest risk value. The maximum detected

concentrations for the metals contributing to risk were found in surface soils collected onsite

with the exception of iron and manganese which were found in sample SS-04 located along

Wissahickon Avenue across from the site. The maximum concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and

7-21

phenanthrene were also detected in a sample (SS-01) located adjacent to the road and across

from the site property.

All of the COPCs contributing to the risk for all of the receptors were detected at

concentrations higher than background levels with the exception of aluminum and manganese.

Both of these metals were detected at higher concentrations in the background samples than in

the site samples indicating that risk from these metals is not site related and that the detected

levels may be naturally occurring. However, it should be noted that organic compounds relate

to the site were detected in the background samples. Therefore, the selected background

locations may not represent true background.

Onsitc Shallow Subsurface Soil

The potential risk from exposure to soil contamination via food chain exposure was calculated

for shallow onsite soils using maximum contaminant concentrations found in the 0 to 1.0' depth

interval on the site. Food chain modeling was completed for the short-tailed shrew, Eastern

cottontail, American robin, and red-tailed hawk.

The modeled food chain risks were assessed for each receptor by comparing estimated

exposure dose levels with dose-based toxicological benchmark values. The resultant HQs for

each COPC and His (cumulative HQs) for each receptor are presented in Tables C-12 through

C-15 of Appendix C. The results indicate that there is a definite potential for food chain risks

to the shrew, rabbit, and robin from exposure to contaminants in shallow soils on the site

property. No food chain risk was indicated for the hawk from exposure to contaminated soil at

the site. These results are discussed below,

His for the shrew of 5,210, cottontail of 94, and robin of 3,660 indicate the potential for

adverse effects resulting from chronic food chain exposure to contaminants in shallow soil at the

7-22

site. No risk was indicated for the hawk. Primary contributors to the potential risk for both

small mammals are aluminum, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, and zinc. Two organic

compounds, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and total xylenes also contributed significant risk to the

eastern cottontail. Cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc are the primary contributors of risk to

the robin. For all of the receptors lead generated the highest HQ value, contributing 37%,

49%, and 61% of the total risk for the shrew, rabbit, and robin, respectively. Sample SB-14,

where the maximum lead value was detected, is located in the parking lot area at the southern

most end of the site. Maximum detections of other metals including chromium and zinc were

also found at this location. The remaining metals were detected at maximum concentrations

near the railroad tracks behind the site building.

7.4.3 RISK SUMMARY

The primary objective of the SLERA was to screen the soil at the North Penn Area 7, OU2 site

(Spra-Fin facility) to determine if potential risks to ecological receptors warrant either: (1)

additional assessment beyond the conservative screening steps of the ERA (unacceptable

ecological risk has been identified), or (2) the removal of site AOCs from future ecological

consideration (no unacceptable ecological risks were identified). The screening process is also

used to identify data gaps and areas of uncertainty that require the collection of additional data

to support ecological evaluations beyond the screening level.

Using conservative assumptions this SLERA identified the potential for ecological risk, resulting

from exposure to chemicals detected in surface and shallow subsurface soil at the North Penn

Area 7, OU2 Superfund site. In surface soils collected on and adjacent to the site 17 metals, 6

PCB/Pesticides, 27 SVOCs, and 3 VOCs were identified as COPCs. Many of these

compounds are listed as COPCs because the detection limits exceeded the screening value or

no benchmark value was available.

7-23

In shallow subsurface soils collected on the site property 9 VOCs, 31 SVOCs, 7

pesticide/PCBs, and 18 inorganics were identified as COPCs based on detected values,

detection limits exceeding the screening values, or a lack of appropriate benchmark values for

comparison.

The identified COPCs were evaluated further using food chain models. Ecological risk from

food web exposure was indicated for both surface soil and shallow subsurface soil for three

receptors; the short-tail shrew, eastern cottontail, and American robin. Risk was not indicated

for the hawk due to food chain exposure at the site.

The calculated HI values for food web exposure based on contaminant levels in surface soil

indicated high risk for the shrew and robin with cumulative hazard quotients of 2,060 and 764.

The cumulative hazard quotient for the rabbit was 28 based on food web models calculated

using surface soil results. The calculated HI values were highest for all three receptors as a

result of exposure to concentrations of metals and two PAHs. For all of the receptors, the high

concentrations of lead detected in surface soil on the site contributed significantly to the risk

from exposure through the food chain.

Food web exposure risk calculated using onsite shallow subsurface soil also indicated risk for

the shrew, robin and eastern cottontail. Overall risk due to food web exposure was higher

when calculated using results from the onsite subsurface soil samples as compared to the risk

from exposure to surface soil. The cumulative hazard quotients for the shrew (5,210), robin

(3,660), and rabbit (94) indicated significant risk. Again the primary contributors to risk for all

of the receptors were metals, with lead concentrations contributing the most to the overall risk.

One PCB, 5 SVOCs, and 4 VOCs also contributed risk to the three receptors, although to a

minor degree when compared to the risk generated by exposure to the metals.

While the calculation of risk was done using conservative values it should be noted that many of

7-24

f l R 3 0 0 6 6 7

the detected contaminants were not evaluated in the SLERA because toxicity values are not

available to evaluate these compounds by food web modeling. Therefore, risk at the site may

be higher.

Using conservative assumptions this SLERA indicated risk to receptors from both direct

contact screening and food chain modeling. However, it is important to note that the site is a

small, active industrial property without good habitat. It is possible that many of the modeled

receptors are rarely present or never present on the site property. The surrounding properties

(lawns, fields and edge communities) while also not valuable habitat would be more likely to be

used by ecological receptors as they are larger and not actively disturbed by human activity.

Therefore, while risk was indicated at this site it may be overestimated as ecological receptors

would not be attracted to this property.

In addition, the majority of the indicated risk was due to metals and specifically lead in surface

and shallow subsurface soil. The highest lead contamination was limited to several smaller areas

including the gravel parking lot, and locations behind the plant building. This surface and

subsurface contamination could be removed during the site remedy thus removing a significant

portion of the risk to receptors. Other metals and organics were found in many areas of the site

but removal of this surface contamination over a one acre area could be easily achieved.

Because of the poor ecological habitat onsite and the potential to remove surface contamination

over this small area, a further investigation of ecological risk at this site is not recommended. An

evaluation of the potential impact of this site on the nearby Wissahickon Creek will be

completed under a separate assignment for North Penn Area 7, OU3. The Operable Unit 3

investigation will focus on groundwater impact to the creek but will also evaluate impact from

surface transport.

7-25

1R300668

7.5 SCREENING LEVEL UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

•-,

For any risk assessment, it is necessary to make assumptions. Assumptions carry with them

associated uncertainties which must be identified to put risk estimates in perspective. The

following describes the major assumptions used in this SLERA and their associated

uncertainties.

Some chemicals were retained as COPCs even when these chemicals were not detected in the

sampled medium. This occurred when the maximum detection limit exceeded BTAG screening

values. These chemicals were carried through the risk assessment using a concentration of one-

half the maximum detection limit. Modeled food chain exposure results and direct exposure

results are likely to be overestimated, since it is expected that at least some of these chemicals

may be absent from the media and, thus, are not contributing to risk.

The exposure models assumed that receptors will spend one hundred percent of the time

exposed to maximum contaminants detected levels within the area of concern if the site was the

same size as the receptors home range. The eastern cottontail was estimated to spend half of

the time onsite and exposed to contaminants. And the hawk with a very large range was

assumed to spend a very small amount of time at this site. In reality, most or all of the receptors

may spend very little or no time on this small industrial site. The variation in habitat usage would

likely affect the overall exposure of receptors to the contaminants. Modeled food chain

exposures are likely overestimated.

In accordance with EPA guidance for SLERAs (USEPA, 1997), modeled food chain exposure

estimates assumed that receptor diets were composed entirely of whichever type of food is

most contaminated. For the red-tailed hawk, this was expected to be insectivorous small

mammals (rather than herbivorous small mammals or other type of prey). The use of

insectivorous small mammal was estimated to be conservative, but may not be representative of

7-26

f l R 3 0 f ) 6 6 9

the actual diet of these hawks at the site. Thus, exposure estimates may be overestimated for

the hawk.

Bioaccumulation factors used to estimate the exposure of receptors via diet were limited and

may not have accurately represented actual site-specific conditions. Actual bioaccumulation

into food items is variable, depending upon such factors as chemical state, composition of the

media of exposure, and chemical concentration within the media of exposure. Thus, the

bioaccumulation factors used may have over- or underestimated receptor exposure.

In selecting benchmark toxicity values, generally the most conservative available toxicity value

was selected for each receptor from the literature searched. The use of these values may

overestimate ecological risk. Additionally, because of the unavailability of toxicity values

reflecting field conditions, some toxicity values are derived from experiments conducted under

laboratory conditions, with genetically-uniform individuals. The use of these values may have

over- or underestimated ecological risks.

In determining the benchmark toxicity values, toxicity correction factors were employed to

account for differences in toxicity between length of exposure (i.e., acute and chronic) and

toxicological endpoints (i.e., NOAELs, LOAELs, LD50s). Uncertainties associated with the

factors used may have resulted in over- or underestimation of risks to receptors. With regard

to interspecies differences, smaller animals have higher metabolic rates and are usually more

resistant to toxic chemicals because of their higher rates of detoxification (Opresko, et al.,

1993). In this assessment, benchmark toxicity values have not been normalized for receptor

body weights. This may have underestimated the risks to receptors that have a mass smaller

than the reported test species and overestimated the risks to receptors that have a mass larger

than the reported test species.

Additionally, the absence of toxicity values or guidance criteria resulted in some chemicals not

7-27

being included in the risk evaluation. This may have underestimated overall risk potential to

receptors.

Potential toxicological risks to individual receptors have been evaluated in this SLERA.

Sometimes, adverse effects on individuals will not be reflected on the population and community

level. The predicted risks may overestimate the actual population or community level effects.

Receptor risks were characterized from possible impacts from individual contaminants without

regard to interactions between contaminants. However, ecological receptors are simultaneously

exposed to a range of contaminants. These compounds may interact synergistically or

antagonistically to either mitigate or aggravate adverse health effects. This assumption may

overestimate or underestimate ecological risks.

7-28

fl R 3 0 0 6 7

COftni-»"»*•Os00

Eight

""300572

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall objective of this RI is to characterize the nature and extent of soil contamination at

the Spra-Fin facility soil operable unit (OU2). Additionally, this RI is a source area

investigation related to the entire North Penn Area 7 groundwater investigation. Soil at this site

is being evaluated to determine its potential as a historic or continuing source of contamination

that may be impacting regional groundwater quality. This section presents conclusions drawn

from the major findings of the RI, human health risk assessment, and screening level ecological

risk assessment, as well as recommendations for future actions.

8.1 CONCLUSIONS

In general, surface and subsurface soils at the Spra-Fin facility are contaminated with elevated

levels of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and inorganics. The presence of VOCs, non-PAH

SVOCs, PCBs, and some inorganics are likely to be the result of spills and illegal or

inappropriate waste handling practices at the facility. The presence of PAHs and pesticides in

surface soils is probably not a result of site-related activities. The following specific conclusions

have been reached based on the significant findings of the RI, human health risk assessment, and

screening level ecological risk assessment,

• The highest concentrations of chlorinated VOCs were found at the bedrock interface at

the southern end of the active plant building and under the concrete foundation of the

former plant building. Specifically, the area of highest contamination extends to either

side of a line drawn from boring SB-26 northwest to SB-22 and SB-27. The main

area of contamination extends west to SB-25 along the edge of the old foundation and

east under the active building to the location of the former TCE storage tank. High

concentrations of VOCs were detected in the mid-depth and surface samples collected

from this same area. The highest concentration of TCE at the surface was detected in

8-1

A R 3 Q 0 6 7 3

boring SB-28 at the east corner of the old foundation. This indicates that a source for

the deeper contamination existed at this location, although it is suspected that multiple

sources at the southern end of both buildings probably contributed to the contaminated

area. These potential sources include the TCE storage tank, a machine shop located in

the southeast corner of the old building (location of SB-28), floor drains, and drum

storage areas located to the south of the active building.

The highest concentration of TCE was detected at the bedrock surface in boring SB-26

at a concentration of 710,000 ug/kg. This concentration of TCE exceeds an upper

threshold value, calculated using the method of Feenstra et al. (1991), that indicates the

likely presence of DNAPL in soil. The detected sample concentration is almost double

the calculated upper DNAPL threshold value. The concentration in other samples

collected from the area at the southern end of the building and foundation did not

exceed the DNAPL threshold but are still high and could indicate residual DNAPL.

Analytical data collected during this investigation suggest that biodegradation of PCE

and TCE is occurring in soils at the Spra-Fin facility. Specifically, the presence of

degradation products such as 1,1-dichloroethane, cis-l,2-DCE, trans-l,2-DCE, and

VC is indicative of biodegradation processes. The occurrence of biodegradation

processes is further evidenced by the lack of historical documentation regarding the use

of any of the degradation products at the facility, and the collocation of the highest levels

of VC with relatively lower levels of TCE in the subsurface.

Site related contaminants, such as trichlorofluoromethane and caprolactam, were

detected in background surface soil samples negating the use of these locations as

background locations. These results also indicate that site contamination extends across

Wissahickon Avenue to the wooded area where the background samples were

collected. However, it should be noted that the primary contaminants of concern,

8 9-Z

chlorinated VOCs, were not detected in the background samples.

The presence of chlorinated VOCs in subsurface soils should be considered a major

source of groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Spra-Fin facility.

Concentrations of TCE and VC detected in all site soils exceed their respective EPA

soil to groundwater Soil Screening Levels. The SSLs are conservative screening values

that set a contaminant concentration in soil that is protective of chemical migration from

soil to groundwater. The concentrations of chlorinated VOCs detected in site soils

above the SSLs indicate that there is a significant potential for these compounds to

migrate from soil to groundwater at the site. This statement is further supported by the

presence of high levels of chlorinated VOCs detected in groundwater samples recently

collected from site monitoring wells as part of the comprehensive groundwater

investigation currently being conducted at the North Penn Area 7 site.

The highest detections of lead and chromium observed during this investigation were

located in SB-14. Since no other samples were collected within 100 feet of SB-14, the

horizontal extent of heavy metals contamination has not been completely delineated in

this area. Additional sampling is needed to properly characterize this area.

The levels of inorganic contaminants detected in samples collected from the drainage

areas along the western edge of Wissahickon Avenue (SS-1 through SS-5) indicate

that overland surface water transport from the Spra-Fin facility may be a source of

metals contamination to Wissahickon Creek. After traveling across Wissahickon

Avenue, surface runoff from the site is likely to flow north toward a series of storm

drains, and ultimately enter Wissahickon Creek.

Current and future risks to human health from exposure to site soils are within or below

USEPA's range of acceptable carcinogenic risk for all exposure scenarios (RME and

8-3

CT) except for future adult, child, and lifetime residents (adult and child combined).

The main risk driver is TCE in the onsite surface soil, with smaller contributions from

PAHs in the offsite surface soil and arsenic in both the onsite and offsite soil. The CT

carcinogenic risks for these receptors also exceed USEPA's target risk range of IE-04

TO IE-06.

• RME hazards are above USEPA's target HI of 1.0 for the current/future industrial

worker, future adult and child resident, and future construction worker exposed to

offsite and onsite soil. RME hazard drivers are arsenic, chromium, iron, and manganese

in onsite and offsite surface soil and TCE in the onsite soil. CT hazards also exceed

USEPA's target HI of 1.0 for all the above receptors.

• Risk to ecological receptors was indicated for receptors based on exposure to

contaminants in surface and shallow subsurface soil located onsite and offsite. Primary

risk for invertebrates is based on exposure to aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, silver,

fluoranthene, and pyrene for both onsite and offsite soils. Ethylbenzene, toluene, and

xylene also contributed to risk for onsite receptors only. Risk was evaluated for higher

order receptors using food chain modeling. Primary food chain risk for the small

mammals and robin is due to exposure to iron, lead, mercury, zinc, and benzo(a)pyrene

concentrations in surface soil and cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, zinc, and total xylene

concentrations in onsite shallow subsurface soil. Because of the poor ecological habitat

onsite and the potential to easily remove surface contamination further investigation of

ecological risk at the site is not recommended.

8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the conclusions developed as part of this investigation, CDM Federal supports the

following recommendations for future actions.

8-4

3 R 3 0 0 6 7 6

In order to more thoroughly delineate the northwestern edge of the chlorinated solvent

plume beneath the Spra-Fin facility, it would be helpful to install additional borings

within the southeastern portion of the building. Similarly, borings on the eastern side of

the railroad tracks, in the vicinity of SB-24 would be helpful in defining the eastern edge

of the plume.

Additional surface soil sampling should be conducted in the vicinity of SB-14. The

collection of additional samples from this area would allow for more complete

delineation of the surficial heavy metals contamination observed in SB-14.

The background samples collected as part of this investigation exhibited the presence of

some site-related organic compounds and elevated levels of some inorganics. As a

result, it may be advisable to collect additional samples that are more representative of

background conditions.

8-5

R R 3 Q Q 6 7 7

nnr+**•o3

ectionNine

9.0 REFERENCES

Baes, C.F. m, Sharp, R.D., Sjoreen, A.L., and Shor, R.W. 1984. A Review and Analysis ofParameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides throughAgriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. ORNL-5786.September.

Bell, Jeffrey W. 1983. Groundwater Contamination: Source Identification, Control, andMigration, 1982-1983. North Penn Water Resources Association and North Penn WaterAuthority.

Berg, T.M. and Dodge, C.M. 1981. Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangle Map ofPennsylvania, Pennsylvania Geological Survey 4th Series, Map 61.

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. LewisPublishers; Chelsea, MI.

CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal). Draft Remedial Investigation Report.Horseshoe Road Superfund Site. 1999.

CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal). 2000. North Penn Area 7 WellInventory. October 2.

CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal). 2001. North Penn Area 7 SuperfundSite, OU#2 Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study: Human Health Risk AssessmentInterim Deliverables (including an outline for the technical approach for risk assessment). July2.

CH2MHILL. 1992. North Penn Area 7 Phase IIRI/FS Work Plan. February.

Clement International Corporation (CIC). 1990. Toxicological Profile for Silver. U.S. PublicHealth Service; Atlanta, GA. Prepared for the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR). TP-90-24. December.

Clement International Corporation (CIC). 1992a. Toxicological Profile for Manganese.Prepared for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. PublicHealth Service; Atlanta, GA. TP-91/19. July.

Clement International Corporation (CIC). 1992b. Toxicological Profile for Vanadium.Prepared for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. PublicHealth Service; Atlanta, GA. TP-91/29. July.

Diercxsens, P., de Week, D., Borsinger, N., Rosset, B., and Tarradellas, J. 1985.Earthworm Contamination by PCBs and Heavy Metals. Chemosphere, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.511-522.

79

Eisler, R. 1985. Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, MD. BiologicalReport 85(1.2). Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 2. July.

Eisler, R. 1986a. Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, MD. BiologicalReport 85(1.6). Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 6. January.

Eisler, R. 1986b. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: ASynoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel,MD. Biological Report 85(1.7). April.

Eisler, R. 1987. Mercury Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, MD. BiologicalReport 85(1.10). April.

Eisler, R. 1988. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, MD. Biological Report85(1.14). April.

Eisler, R. 1993. Zinc Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 10. Contaminant HazardReviews Report 26. April.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1996. National Flood Insurance Program- Flood Insurance Rate Map. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Panel 259 of 451. Map #42091C0259E. December 19.

Fimreite, N. 1979. Accumulation and effects of mercury on birds. Chapter 22 in: Thebiogeochemistry of mercury in the environment, edited by J. Nriagu. Elsevier/North-HollandBiomedical Press; New York, NY.

Garten, C. T. and Trabalka, J. R. 1983. Evaluation of Models for Predicting TerrestrialFood Chain Behavior of Xenobiotics. Environmental Science Technology, pp. 590-595.

Geyer, A.R. and Wilshusen, J.P., 1982. Engineering Characteristics of the Rocks ofPennsylvania. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources,Office of Resources Management, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.

Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB). 1996. Data Bank on the National Library ofMedicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine Institutes ofHealth; Bethesda, MD.

Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB). 1998. Online. Data Bank on the National Libraryof Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine Institutesof Health; Bethesda, MD. Consulted from the World Wide Web @http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov.

9-2

Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB). 2001. Online. Data Bank on the National Libraryof Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine Institutesof Health; Bethesda, MD. Consulted from the World Wide Web @http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov.

Helmers, Mike. Personal Communication with Andrew Hopton of CDM Federal. 2000.

Howard, Philip, E. 1990. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data ForOrganic Chemicals. Volumes I. Lewis Publishers.

Howard, Philip, E. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data ForOrganic Chemicals. Volumes II. Lewis Publishers.

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), 1996. National Library of Medicine, Institutes ofHealth; Bethesda, MD. Database created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET).

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2001. National Library of Medicine, Institutes ofHealth; Bethesda, MD. Database created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET).

Knox, Robert C., Sabatini, David A., Canter, Larry W. 1993. Subsurface Transport andFate Processes. Lewis Publishers.

Kricher, J. C. and Morrison, G. 1988. A Field Guide to Eastern Forests - North America.Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Kruger, Gary (Morton Powder Coatings). 2000. Letter to Mike Helmers (Spra-Fin). June 1.

Lewis, Sr., R.J. 1992. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. Eighth Edition.New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Opreski, D.M., Sample, B.E., and G.W. Suter,1993. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge,TN. ES/ER/TM-86.

Llobet, J.M., Domingo, J.L., Colomina, M.T., Mayayo, E. and Corbella, J. 1988. SubchronicOral Toxicity of Zinc in Rats. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 41: 36-43.

Manahan, Stanley E. 1994. Environmental Chemistry, Lewis Publishers.

Martin, Lawrence M. 1981. Source Identification ofTCE and Other Chlorinated OrganicPollutants in the Upper Wissahickon Watershed-Phase II. Wissahickon Valley WatershedAssociation and North Penn Water Authority.

Menzie, C.A., Burmaster, D.E., Freshman, J.S., and Callahan, C.A. Assessment of Methodsfor Estimating Ecological Risk in the Terrestrial Components: A Case Study at the Baird& McGuire Superfund Site in Holbrook, Massachusetts. 1992. Environmental Toxicology& Chemistry, Vol. H, pp. 245-260.

9-3

R R 3 Q 0 6 8

Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Index. 1989,

Montgomery County Board of Assessments. 2001. Database of Properties. June 19.

National Weather Service. 2001. Internet Website (Philadelphia Climatological Data).

National Climatic Data Center. 1998. Climatic Wind Data for the United States. November.

NUS Corporation. 1986. Site Discovery of Groundwater Contamination in the NorthPennArea. July?.

Outridge, P.M. and Scheuhammer, A.M. 1993. Bioaccumulation and Toxicology ofChromium: Implications for Wildlife. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology130:31-71.

Patnaik, Pradyot. 1992. A Comprehensive Guide to the Hazardous Properties ofChemical Substances. Van Nostrand and Reinhold.

Peakall, D.B. 1975. Phthalate esters: Occurrence and biological effects. Residue Review. 54:1-41.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1987. Hazardous WasteInspection Report. June 5.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1988. Hazardous WasteInspection Report, Part C. May 6.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1992. Small Source VOCInspection Report. June 9.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 1998. Air Quality FacilityInspection Report. August 31.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 2000. Title V ReviewMemo - Spra-Fin. March 22.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 2001. SiteCharacterization Report - Blue Bell Gulf Station, Section Four - Physical Characteristicsof the Study Area.

Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), 1996. Database created by theNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the National Library of Medicine'sToxicology Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine , Institutes of Health;Bethesda, MD.

Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1995. Draft Toxicological Profile for PolychlorinatedBiphenyls. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Atlanta, GA.Prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

9-4

Rima, D.R., Meisler, H. and Longwill, S. 1962. Geology and Hydrology of the StocktonFormation in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Topographic and Geologic Survey, Bulletin W-4.Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Office of ResourcesManagement, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.

RoyF. Weston (Weston). 1999a. Sampling Plan North Penn Area?. June 18.

Roy F. Weston (Weston). 1999b. North Penn Area 7 Site - Analytical Results. July 29.

Ryan, J.A., Bell, R.M., Davidson, J.M., and O'Connor, G.A. 1989. Plant Uptake on Non-Ionic Organic Chemicals from Soils. Chemosphere, Vol. 17., No. 12, pp. 2299-2323.

Sevron, W.D., 2000. Map 13 - Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topogrphic andGeologic Survey.

Socolow, A.A. 1980. Geologic Map of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,Department of Environmental Resources, Topographic and Geologic Survey.

Shore, R.F. and Douben, P.E. 1994. The Ecotoxicological Significance of Cadmium Intakeand Residues in Terrestrial Small Mammals. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 29: 101-112.

Spra-Fin, Inc. 1987. Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Plan. March.

Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC). 1990. Toxicological Profile for Copper. Agency forToxic Substances for Disease Registry (ATSDR); Atlanta, GA. Prepared for ATSDR. U.S.Public Health Service. TP-90-08. December.

Suzuki, T. 1979. Dose-effect and dose-response relationships of mercury and its derivatives.Chapter 16 in: The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment, edited by J. Nriagu.Elsvier/North-Holland Biomedical Press; New York, NY.

TERRETOX, 1998. Database on ECOTOXicology Database System. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, National Health andEnvironmental Effects Research Laboratory; Duluth, MN.

Travis, C.C. and A.D. Arms. 1988. Bioconcentration ofOrganics in Beef, Milk andVegetation. Environmental Science Technology 22:3,

U. S. Census Bureau. 1990. Census of Population and Housing.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Montgomery County.1986.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 1994. Final Risk Assessment Handbook,Massachusetts Military Reservation, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. USDOE, Hazardous WasteRemedial Actions Program, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs;

9-5

A R 3 0 0 6 8 3

Oak Ridge, TN. Prepared for the U.S. Air National Guard, Massachusetts MilitaryReservation. September.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996Revision. Prepared by B.E, Sample, D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suterll of the RiskAssessment Program Health Sciences Research Division; Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. June.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Transport and Fate ofContaminants in the Subsurface. EPA/625/489/019. U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, and Robert S. Ken-Environmental Research Center, Ada, Oklahoma.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund, Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. EP A/540/1-89/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,Washington, D.C. December 1989.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Human Health EvaluationManual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors". OSWERDirective 9285.6-03.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993a. Region III Modifications to theNational Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. April 1993.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993b. Selection of Exposure Routesand Contaminants of Concern by Risk-Based Screening. Region ffi, Hazardous WasteManagement Division, Office of Superfund Programs. EPA/903/R-93-001. January 1993.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Region III Modifications to theNational Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. November 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. Revised Region III STAGScreening Levels. Technical Support Section. August 1995.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995a. Assessing Dermal Exposurefrom Soil. Region IH Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of Superfund Programs.EPA/903/K-95/003. December 1995.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995b. Health Effects AssessmentSummary Tables, FY-1995 Annual. EPA, Office of Research and Development; Washington,D.C. EPA/540/R-95/036. May.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996a. Soil Screening Guidance: User'sGuide. EPA/540/R-96/018. April 1996.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996b. Recommendations of the

9-6

Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an interim Approach to Assessing RisksAssociated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. December 1996.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997a. How Heat Can Enhance In-SituSoil and Aquifer Remediation: Important Chemical Properties and Guidance onChoosing the Appropriate Technique. April.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997b. Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund, Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part D. Interim. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. EPA/540/R-97/033. December 1997.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997c. Technology Support Center Issue -The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental Applications. EPA/600/R-97/006.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997d. Health Effects AssessmentSummary Tables. FY 1997 Update. EPA/540/R-97/036.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997e. Ecological Risk AssessmentGuidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments.Interim Final. EPA/540/R-97/006.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Oral Absorption Values for Oral-to-Dermal Extrapolation per RAGS Appendix A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.April 8, 1999.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001a. Integrated Exposure UptakeBiokinetic (ffiUBK) model. Version 1.0. May.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001b. Region ffl Derivation of VinylChloride RBCs. May 6, 2001.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. Region HI Updated Risk-BasedConcentration Table. October 9, 2002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002b. Integrated Risk InformationSystem. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Assessment,Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Undated. Draft Guidance on theCalculations of UCLs at Superfund Sites. Unpublished and undated.

Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory -LansdaleMap. 1981.

Van Hook, R.I., 1974. Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc Distributions between Earthworms andSoils; Potential for Biological Accumulation. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination &Toxicology. Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 509-512.

Venugopal, B. and Luckey, T.P. 1975. Toxicology of Non-Radioactive Heavy Metals andTheir Salts. In: Heavy Metal Toxicology, Safety and Hormology by T.D. Luckey, B.

9"7 A R 3 0 0 5 8 5

Venugopal and D. Hutcheson. Academic Press; New York, NY. Supplement Volume I toEnvironmental Quality and Safety.

University of Waterloo. 2001. Webpage.

9-8 WOOS86

Tables

A R 3 0 0 6 8 7

Tables

f l R 3 G Q 6 8 8

TABLE 4-1SUMMARY OF SOIL-GAS SURVEY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

SAMPLEIDENTIFICATION

SG-1 -3'SG-1-51

SG-1-8'SG-2-3'SG-2-5'SG-2-81

SG-3-3'SG-3-5*SG-3-8'SG-4-3'SG-4-5'

SG-4-S' dupSG-5-3'SG-5-5'SG-5-8'SG-6-31

SG-6-5'SG-6-8'SG-7-3'SG-7-5'SG-7-8'SG-8-31

SG-8-5'SG-8-8'SG-9-3'SG-9-51

SG-9-8'SG-1 0-3'SG-1 0-5'SG-10-8'

SG-10-8'dUpSG-1 1-3'SG-11-5'SG-1 1-7*SG-12-31

SG-1 2-5'SG-1 3-3'SG-13-51

SG-1 4-3'SG-1 4-5'SG-1 4-7'SG-1 6-3'SG-1 6-5'SG-1 8-3'SG-1 8-5'SG-1 8-7'

SG-1 8-7' dupSG-20-3'SG-20-51

SG-20-8'SG-22-3'SG-22-5'SG-22-7'SG-23-3'SG-23-5'SG-23-71

SG-24-3'SG-24-5'SG-25-3'SG-25-5'SG-25-8'SG-26-3'

SG-26-3' dupSG-26-5'SG-26-8'SG-27-3'SG-27-5'

DATEANALYZED

11/28/0011/28/0011/28/0011/28/0011/28/0011/28/0011/28/0011/28/0011/28/001 1/28/0011/28/0011/28/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/29/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0011/30/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/1/0012/4/0012/4/0012/4/0012/4/00

CH2CL2(ug/L)

0.4 U0.07 U0.4 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U24 U0.2 U0.2 U0.7 U0.7 U0.4 U0.2 U7 U

0.7 U7 U7 U

0.7 U7 U

0.7 U0.7 U

1,1 -DCEfog/L)

0.1 U0.03 U11

0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U0.07 U

9 U0.07 U0.07 U0.3 U0.3 U0.1 U

0.07 U3 U

0.3 U3 U3 U

0.33 U

0.3 U0.3 U

TOTAL1.2-DCE(nan.)

1 U0.2 U130.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.50.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.52

0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U0.5 U18

1402

0.5 U222322 U26464662085

CHCL3(Ml"-)

0.01 U0.003 U

3 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.0080.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.0070.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.007 U0.9 U

0.007 U0.007 U0.03 U0.03 U0.01 U0.007 U0.3 U0.03 U0.3 U0.3 U

0.03 U0.3 U

0.03 U0.03 U

TCA(ug/L)

0.007 U0.001 U0.8

0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.004 U0.5 U

0.004 U0.004 U0.01 U0.01 U0.007 U0.020.1 U0.01 U0.1 U0.1 U0.01 U0.1 U0.01 U0.01 U

TCE(ug/L)0.050.003 U0.7

0.008 U0.0080.010.008 U0.008 U0.008 U

. 0.008 U0.0080.0080.008 U0.008 U0.0080.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.020.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.008 U0.0080.020.010.008 U0.40.20.2

0.080.50.030.040.060.060.008 U0.008 U0.0080.144

1900170.21410102010194644250446425

PCE(H8VL)

0.050.002 U0.5

0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.010.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.020.0050.0050.005 U0.0080.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.005 U0.0212

3605

0.074225352221

0.81

vc(WU

4 U0.2 U1400.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.20.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U1 U

0.2 U0.20.20.20.2 U0.20.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.2 U0.21

700.70.21

0.20.20.21

0.2331

0.40.20.2

A R 3 0 0 6 8 9 1of2

TABLE 4-1SUMMARY OF SOIL-GAS SURVEY ANALYTICAL RESULTS


SG-27-9'SG-28-3'SG-28-5'SG-28-7'

SG-28-71 dupSG-29-31

SG-29-5'SG-29-71

SG-30-5'SG-30-r

SG-30-71 dup

DATEANALYZED

12/4/0012/4/0012/4/0012/4/0012/4/0012/5/0012/5/0012/5/0012/5/0012/5/0012/5/00

CH2CL2(H8/L)

0.7 U7 U33 U33 U22 U0.7 U0.7 U0.7 U532

1,1 -DCE(no/U

103 U13 U13120.3 U0.3 U0.3 U0.3 U0.3 U0.3 U

TOTAL1,2-DCE<WD2502099310320234191311

CHCL3(HO/L)

20.3 U1 U1 U

0.9 U0.03 U0.03 U0.03 U0.03 U0.03 U0.03 U

TCA(Hfl/L)

0.6 U0.1 U0.7 U45

0.01 U0.010.020.10.030.03

TCE(WL)

5500033002200290028003697831309872

PCE(W/L)

223330350.20.50.52

0.80.7

VC<WL)

16042070890.20.20.50.40.50.5

A R 3 0 0 5 9 0 2 of 2

TABLE 4-2SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS - ALL DETECTIONS


B-24-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-19-GWB-24-GWB-17-GWB-19-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-15-GWB-21-GWB-17-GWB-19-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-15-GWB-15-GWB-17-GWB-21-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-17-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-17-GWB-24-GWB-15-GWB-17-GWB-19-GWB-21-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-15-GWB-21-GWB-17-GWB-24-GWB-24-GWB-21-GWB-17-GWB-24-GWB-19-GWB-15-GWB-24-GWB-15-GWB-17-GWB-24-GW

CHEMICAL NAME

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane1,1 ,2-Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane

1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dich!orobenzene1 ,2-Dichloroethane

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2-Butanone2-Butanone2-Hexanone

4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneAcetoneAcetoneAcetoneAcetoneBenzene

Bromomethanecis-1 ,2-Dichloroethenecis-1 ,2-Dichloroethenecis-1 ,2-Dichloroethenecis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

DichiorodffluoromethaneEthylbenzeneEthyl benzene

IsopropylbenzeneMethyl Acetate

Methyl Tert-Butyl EtherMethylene ChlorideMethylene ChlorideMethylene ChlorideMethylene ChlorideMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroethene

TolueneTolueneTolueneToluene

trans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroetheneTrichloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideXylenes (total)Xylenes (total)Xylenes (total)

RESULT

110.00000350.00000

4.0000083.0000080.0000052.000002.000001.000004.000004.000004.000002.000002.000005.00000

12.0000013.0000018.000001.000003.000002.000002.00000

33.0000014000.00000

15.000002.00000

130.000002.000003.000003.000002.000002.000002.000002.000003.00000

55.000002.000002.000004.00000

370.0000045.00000

6.0000012.00000

200.000001 .000004.00000

2400.000004.00000

22.00000780.00000

QUALIFIER

DJ

JBBBBBBBBBBBBJJ

D

B

JBJBBBBB

BBB

BD

BB

BDJJDB

D

TAP WATER(ug/L)

320.000005900.00000

0.1900080.000000.0440055.000000.120000.47000

190.00000190.00000150.0000014.0000061.0000061.0000061.0000061.0000061 .000000.320000.850006.100006.100006.100006.1000035.00000130.00000130.0000066.00000610.00000630.000004.100004.100004.100004.100004.100001.10000

75.0000075.0000075.0000075.0000012.000001 .600001 .600001.600000.081000.081000.08100

1200.000001200.000001200.00000

UNIT

up/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

A R 3 0 0 6 9 1 of 1

Table 4-3List of Soil Samples

North Penn Area 7 - OU2 Soil - Spra-Fin Facility

Medium

Surface Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sample Locations

SS-01 through SS-09; SB-01 0-1, SB-03 0-1, SB-04 0-1, SB-06 0-1, SB-08 0-1, SB-09 0-1, SB-14 0-1, SB-18 0-1, SB-19 0-1,SB-23 0-1, SB-24 0-1, SB~25 0-1, SB-jSpJM, SB-28JM, and SB-30JM, DSS-08

SS-02; SB-24JM

SB-01 4-5, SB-01 6-7, SB-03 4-5, SB-03 7-8, SB-04 3-4, SB-04 4-5, SB-06 4-5,SB-06 7-8, SB-08 3-4, SB-08 7-8, SB-09 3-4, SB-09 7-8, SB-14 4-5, SB-14 7-8,SB-18 4-5, SB-18 7-8, SB-19 2-3, SB-20 0-1, SB-20 4-5, SB-20 7-8, SB-21 0-1,SB-21 4-5, SB-21 7-8, SB-22 0-1, SB-22 5-6, SB-22 7-8, SB-23 1-2, SB-23 6-7,SB-24 2-3, SB-24 4-5, SB-25 3-4, SB-25 7-8, SB-26 5-6, SB-26 7-8, SB-27 0-1,SB-27 5-6, SB-27 7-8, SB-28 3-4, SB-28 7-8, SB-29 0-1, SB-29 4-5, SB-29 6-7,SB-30 3-4, SB-30 7-8, DSB-09 7-8 (2),DSB-26_5-6 <3)

SB-25 7-8, SB-28 3-4, SB-09 2.5-3

Parameter

TCLVOCs,SVOCs,andPesticides/PCBs; TAL Inorganicsand Cyanide

TOQGS

TCL VOCs, SVOCs, andPesticides/PCBs; TAL Inorganicsand Cyanide

TOC, GS

VOC - Volatile Organic CompoundsSVOCs - Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundsPCBs - Polychlorinated BiphenylsTOC - Total Organic CarbonGS - Grain SizeNotes:(1) Duplicate of SS-08.(2) Duplicate of SB-09J7-8.(3) Duplicate of SB-26_5-6.

00 c q 90 J c

.COUJ_J0-SW

oCOUluu.KDCOZCOUJozQ111UJ53LUUJ

g!o OT= Q

.E4-

4A

UN

A S

CR

EE

NN

IC C

OM

POU

NI

sî8 o

«§O o^y ^fc^^CCoLLO1-m

"7

10IL

RE

SID

E!

inOaoru.OtK

E

DCO

UJ C0 (_ ci^ vuQ^^ ^^ b A

HI P S Ig S S ?S ^J M

£

z3^Z3

u.5sCD^Sou_CD

mUJ3

RBC

SO

ILR

ESID

ENTI

ALG

REE

NIN

G V

AL

CO

zoF t

UJQ

COUJEC

CH

EMIC

AL

zO

Uj H_i rfo- o3* r

< HCO zUJQ

COo

NIC

CO

MPO

UN

I

<OECOUJ

§O

3

tCD

OOT-

o9

Oooo"COf-

o

osCO

n

Ethy

lben

zen

T—

o(OCMCOCO

oCOCM

iCO

9

O9

OOOo"COr-.

o

CCCM"

aafs

a.0>.it

*7ooCOmCO

D

JO

S"co

1

oD

Ooooo(O

o

ooo_CO

Tolu

ene

*7ooCOCOCO

T—CM

fCD

DW

O3

OOoCO"in

o

ooirto

c

Trich

loro

ethe

•7oCOCsCDCO

• ~O

CO

CDCO

i

^J

COCO,-"o3)D

COCO

i

3CDCO

~

OCOCO ^

O CO Cco to ^CO -0 HJ

• £ 3^- TO o

IT o

' eo £

CD _T W c ®

1 T cj 3

uj i ffl *oCD ** Q)

a>" co « •£o - a) £

"1^1 80 CO g 3

_^ CO *- CO

(n 51 c5 <»WJ CM ^ fl)® CO w b]2 CO £ «o ^r w g

.—— j-i* "^ ^

« 1 15 **J3 CO > CO

E CD "c *^S « | °

*° O D) >1 CT S

g o 'E —<o i ffi St co 2. t3 CO u r~

CO CO ,

A R 3 0 0 S 9 3

1COUJ_J0.sCO-IoCO1U

COzCOUJu

i

EE

XC

EE

i*

IRE

EN

ING

OM

POU

NC

W o4 z z

TAD

STA

G S

OU

I-VO

LATI

LE C

*8ou.O

CD-I

FUJQWUJct

5(0oCDftLL.O

SU

MM

AR

Y

atUJ C

5 2 1 *Sa £•*S p M =

UJ £

HZD

ZDU.O

SOu.

imUJ

OQ|K uJ QJ

Ct CtOCO

DE

TEC

TIO

NLI

MIT

i-

coUJ

o£UJzo

zo

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

T

COUZ

octoUJ

o

oinin

f"a

oo

8

g

o<D

OCOCO

Oinm

"oU>a.c"SFaCM"

6CO

CDCO

OOT—

0)

3

OO

OO

Ooooa>

oCOCO

oo

~ocCOa

CD

CM

oCOCMCDCO

oCOCM

§"CD

oo

oo

ooooatCO

oCOCO

oCDCM

"ocCDa£CD2

CM

oCOCMCOCO

o

a

oo

oo

ooooO>CO

oCOCO

onr-

"6CD

ax:"S35

sCMCOCO

o

CD

CD

oo

oo

ooo.atCO

oCOCO

oin

"oc<Da.

"55

oCOCMCOCO

OO)o>

t"CB

OO

oo

ooCD

CO

OCOCO

oa>O)

"oCDx:a

*5

oCOCMCDCO

oCM

O)

§

§

§

OCOCO

or-CM

0

CD

-CatocCO

COoCOCO

oCM

f"a

oo

oo

oooor-

oCOCO

oCM

CD

CO

aCOcCD

o>o

CO

oCMCO

fCD

OO

oo

oooo

oCOCO

oCMCO

COc£Q.CO

1

oCOCO

oIf)

foo

oo

oooof-

oCOCO

oin

COCO

£

m

1

COoCOCO

oCO••fr

"5

oo

oo

oooor-

oCOCO

oCO

CD

CD

aCDcCD*

T"oCOCO

oCD

CO

oo

oo

oooor*-

oCOCO

oO)

0

o£a<DcCD

moCOCO

oCM

=1

oo

oo

oooor*-

oCOCO

oCM

CDcCDX

iaCO

1

CM9COCO

oCOCM

foo

oo

osor-

oCOCO

oCOCM

CDCD

,CT

aCOCO

f-oCOCO

oCOCO

f"CD

oo

oo

oooof-

oCOCO

o00CO

CD

<0

saCO

1

COoCOCO

oCM

t"CD

oo

oo

oooo

oCOCO

oCM

CD<D

JC

aCO

1

aioCOCO

o10

foo

oo

oooo

oCOCO

oID

CDCO

x:aCOCO*

inoCOCO

oc-m

1

oo

oo

oooo1*-

oCOCO

oh-tn

<DCO

£aCO

CO

9COCO

of-t*-

O)

oo

oo

oooo

oCOCO

oc-r-

CDCDIa.COCD

COoCOCO

oCOO)

t"a*

8

oo

oooo

oCOCO

oCOO)

CD

CD>J

iaCOCDu

oCOCO

oCM

"CD

oo

oo

oooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCM

CDCfiOCO

c

COoCOCO

oCM

CD

Oo

oo

oooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCM

COCOUCD.C

k

r-.oCOCO

oCO

CD

oo

oo

oooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCO

CDcu10£c

CMoCOCO

oCO(O

foo

oo

soooCOCM

oCOCO

o

CD

8"c

CO9COCO

of-f-

1

oo

oo

oooooCOCM

oCOCO

o1*-h-

<D

82i;k

O)oCOCO

oCM

foo

s

ooo

COCM

oCOCO

§

CDCDU2c

«*•oc6CO

oID

f

Oo

s

8oooCOCM

oCOCO

COT-

CDC

££c

COoCOCO

q

f

oo

8

o8&CM

OCOCO

8r-

CDC

2c

moCOCO

oCO

tCD

8

8

ooo8COCM

OCOCO

ooCO

CD

82

k

9COCO

o

CO

"en

oo

§

oCO

oCOCO

oT—

acen

e

£cCO(DON

CD

OCO

SCO

oCM

f

Oo

oo

o1*"CO

oCOCO

oCM

CDCDU2cCDONV

CO

O

CMCDCO

O

f

Oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

om

CD

§E

(0caoNCDm

6

CDCO

oCO

CD

"a

oo

8

oCD

oCOCO

oCO

CD

82cCOCOoN

CDCO

oCOomCO

or-.

f

§

oo

CO

oCOCO

oac

ene

x:cCDCOoN

<DCD

6oCDCO

oCMCM

tCD

oo

oo

oP"-03

oCOCO

oCMCM

acen

e

-CcCOCOoNcCDm

oinCMCOCO

oCN

1"CD

oo

oo

oh-co

oCOCO

oCM

acen

e

J=cCOnoN

CDCO

oCOCMCDCO

oO)CM

f"CO

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

§CM

CD

§1c<QCOoN

toCO

6

CDCO

•5

A R 3 0 0 6 9 1 *

1

Ul

D.SCO_J5COUlou.

COzCOUlozo

E EX

CEE

_J> (0

BLE

4-5

. FA

UN

A S

CR

EE

NIN

G>R

GAN

IC C

OM

POU

ND

TAD

BTA

G S

OU

I-VO

LATI

LE C

ZE< Ul

u.(Dh-CQ_f

FzUlaCOUlce-16COuGOKU.O

SU

MM

AR

Y

COUl C

z z « «< uj £-5^ h— O 3111 § - 5

t-z

z

u.om

s3U.O

RBC

SO

ILR

ES

IDE

NTI

AL

SC

RE

EN

ING

VA

LUE

DET

ECTI

ON

LIM

IT

i-

coUJ

-1osUlX

zo

1SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

ToCM

CO

3

OO

OO

Or--00

oCOCO

oCM

CDCDOEc

JO"tooN

CDCO

6o>CDCO

OCN

3

3

OO

OO

O00

oCOCO

s

CD

2

CJO."tooNCDm

tooCOCO

o•Jin

g

2

oo

oo

oN.CO

oCOCO

o"fr

toCDos£JO."CDoNcCD

CO

oeo

CDCO

oI"1"00

£CD

oo

oo

oN.00

oCOCO

oCO

CDCOus

JO."to"oN

CDCQ

oCOCO

oCM

3CO

oo

oo

o00

oCOCO

ooCM

CD

CDOE

JOCDONCD

CO

COOCOCO

oCO

sca

oo

oo

oc-00

oCOCO

ooCO

CDcCD

2c

JO"aToN

CDCO

CMoCOCO

om

s§•

§

oo

oh-00

oCOCO

ooin

CDcCDoE

JO

sCD

CO

O)oCOCO

oCDin

sCO

oo

oo

o00

oCOCO

osin

CDCDo2

JO.'co*oN

CDCO

oCOCO

o,—1*-

?§

s

oo

o00

oCOCO

ooN.

CD

CDo2£JO"5ToN

CDCO

COoCOCO

oCNf-

£CD

§

oo

oh-CO

oeoCO

ooCMh-

CD

Ic

JO.CDoN

CO

inoCOCO

oOl00

2OlD

oo

oo

or-00

oCOCO

oo0)CO

CD

0

£JO"ms

CO

t—oCOCO

CNo

£ca

oo

o

00

oCOCO

O)CO

CDr2n3N

CDCO

oooCOCO

CDo

CO

aD

oo

o

00

oCOCO

CMm

CDc

•5."o"NCD

CO

oCOCMCOCO

00CO

2CO

oo

o

r-00

oCOeo

oCM

CD

£

3"oN

CDCO

CDCO

CD

sCO

oo

o

00

oCOCO

o-a-

CDc2

CD

sCD

CO

oCOoCDCO

•JCN

1CO

oo

o

00

oCOCO

oT*CM

CDc£a..5"oN

CDCO

°COCO

*JCM

sca

oo

o

r-00

oCOCO

oCM

CDc2ft3cCDm

tCDCO

CN

sCO

oo

o

00

oCOCO

oCOCN

CD

Cl

sCDm

tCMCOCO

CDI*-CM

sa

g

o

00

oCOCO

oCM

CD

2ft3-"o"NcCD

CO

tCMtoCO

00COeo

0

CO

oo

o

b-00

oCOCO

oCMCO

eor2a3."o"CD

CO

CMCQCO

O)

1ca

oo

o

00

oCOCO

oCO

CDrCD

n.3>NcCDm

sCD(0

OlCMm

CO

oo

o

h-00

oCOeo

oCD

oc2R1CO

sI

COoCOCO

*JCO

103

ao

o

eo

oCOCO

oCDtn

CDr£n3-NcCDm

oCO

CO

in

gCO

oo

o

00

oeoCO

ooo

CDc2

3,

cCD

CO

h-oCOCO

CO

sCO

oo

o

r-00

oCOeo

§

r

n,3cCD

CQ

8COw

CO

$CO

oo

o

00

oeoCO

s

CDc:

3"o"NcCD

CO

00oCOCO

CO

3g>

oo

o

r-00

oCOCO

ooCO

CDc£ft_co*oN

CDCO

O)oCOCO

toCOh-

faoo

o

00

oeoCO

ooCO

CD

2

CD

scCD

CO

oCOCO

c-00

§0)

oo

o

00

oCOCO

sCOr-

CDc

s"o"N

CDm

eooCOCO

ID00CO

iO)

oo

o

N.00

oCOCO

oos-

CDrCD

ft"ETNcCDm

inoCOCO

CDCM

gCO

oo

o

00

oCOCO

o8

CD

aca"o"N

CDCO

oCOCO

oCO

2OJ

s

oo

or--00

oCOeo

8

CD

12s5=sroN

CDCO

6o>oCOCO

o001—

O3^s

CO

oo

oo

or-00

oeoCO

oCO

CDCD

cCOos.0oN

CDCO

1

oCQCO

o00

gCO

oo

oo

or*-00

oCOCO

oCO

CDcV£COo3

3"oNCD

CQ

oCO

mCO

oCOCM

gOl

oo

oo

o1*-00

oeoCO

oCOCM

CD

CD

cCOo375"oN

CDCO

1

oCDCO

o00CM

§CD

oo

oo

or-00

oCOCO

o00CM

CDCD

cao3S"oN

CDCO

o•fl-eaCO

o•r-CO

CO

CO

oo

8

gCO

oCOCO

oto

CDcCD

cCOo3

oN

CDCO

oTfCMCOCO

o•*!"CO

CO

CD

oo

oo

or-00

oCOCO

oCO

CDcCD

cCDo

3"oN

CDCQ

o

CM

CO

r-«-oCM

A R 3 0 0 6 9 5

(0Ul

D.E(0-1oCOUlou.£D(0zCOUlozQ

£ EX

CEE

L

GR

EEN

ING

OM

POU

ND

BLE

4-5

. FA

UN

A S

>RG

ANIC

C

TAD

BT

AG

SO

UI-V

OLA

TILE

C

Z5< UJ

2"Ou.OHffl-J

ZUloCOUJ

oCOoCD{£.u_O

SUM

MAR

Y

D>Ul C,

z z 5 *< uJ * 9-J~ 1— Jj[ 3

ui § 5 5u £

h-Z

Z3U.Oi-m

gou.

*-mUJ

u g |

cc ±uat

DE

TEC

TIO

NLI

MIT

COUJK

O£UJXCJ

zo

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

To'*•CO

1CO

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

or--co

0

0

"cCDO3

H

N0

CO

CMCOCO

OCOin

1

§

oo

o00

oCOCO

oCOin

00

CDo3cc

o"NC.0m

COoCOCO

omin

CO

"CD

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

omm

00

CDo3«=

"oNC0

CO

oCDCMCDCO

ooCD

£"S

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

ooCO

0c0"cCDo3

~oN

0CO

o00

COCO

oN.CO

CO

oo

oo

o00

o3

o(O

0§iCQo

S=

£t•5-CD

*COCO

oCM

ra

1

oo

oo

o00

oCOCO

ooCM

CD0

*ccoo

o*N

0CO

I*-oCOCO

o-

£"o

oo

oo

o00

oCOCO

oo

0c0"c

o3

;£.

"o"N0

CO

CMOCOCO

of>.CM

"co

Oo

oo

oGO

oCOCO

oor-CM

00£

1O3

ON0

CO

COOCOCO

oT—CO

£"co

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

ooCO

0

0

1o3tc.0,"5*N0

CO

O)oCOCO

o1—r-

1CO

oo

oo

o00

oCOCO

oor-

00

§o3

c*N

0CQ

oCOCO

o00r*-

1O)3

oo

oo

o00

oCOCO

ooCOr--

00

i1o3

o"N

0CO

COoCOCO

oCMCO

O9

oo

oo

o00

oCOCO

ooCMCO

0c0

1o5=

"o"0

CO

moCOCO

oCM

£O)3

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

ooo.CM"

0c0

1o3E=

"o"N

0CO

CDCOCO

o

ioo

oo

ooooCOCN

o

o

0

IJ~

Cu

c>

CM

COCO

o"

"En

oo

oo

8ooCOCN

oCOCO

o

CD00aJZ

"o"N

i

°COCO

oCM

1"co

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCM

0c00a..csioN

0CO

6oCOCO

o1

"co3

oo

§

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

o

0

&0a

JZa"oN

CDCO

°CMCOCO

oin

Ioo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oin

00

a£"oN0

CD

°COCO

oCD

CO

1oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCO

00CDa.Cro"o"0

CO

°CDCO

CM

£"co

oo

oo

gooCOCM

oCOCO

oCM

00

0QJ

x:

"6"N

0CO

6CO

COCO

oCMCO

£3

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCMCO

0

0

0a.j£

Benz

o(a

oCOCMmCO

o00CO

1en3

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCOCO

000a.ca*N

0CO

COoCOCO

o"00

"co

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

o

0

1c-C

1(Dm

oCOCO

oCOo>

od

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCOo)

c0&0ajf"o"N

CDCD

CNoCOCO

o,—

CD

"a

oo

oo

o

oCOCN

oCOCO

oo

0

0

cT0a..c

"5"N

1

00oCO

oCM

1CO

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

ooCM1—

0c0

0a.cSioN

0CO

oCOCO

o01

"co

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

8a>•<*•

00

RJZ

ITN

0CO

oCOCO

oinin

O)

S

oo

ootoCM

oCOCO

ooinin

0c0tSi£"o"N

0m

COoCOCO

oCOin

1CO

oo

oo

goCOCM

CO

ooCOin

0

0

0a.c2!oN0m

moCOCO

oCOCO

1oo

oo

o8oCOCM

otoCO

ooCOto

000a..c-2"o"N0

CQ

oCOCO

o

Ioo

oo

00

oCOCO

o

00

§o3

3£>NCDm

iCMCDCO

om

\oo

oo

oPCO

oCOCO

§

CD

1CDo5=

I0

CQ

otoCOCO

om

3

oo

§

ooCO

oCOCO

oin

00

"cCOo3

"oN

0CO

oCOCMCDCO

oCO

"ca

oo

§

ooCO

oCOCO

oCO

V0iCDo3

Benz

o(k)

°CNCDCO

oO)

CO

"co

oo

oo

oor-00

oCOCO

oo

0c0iCDo3

'o'N

0m

o

CDCO

oCOCM

a

3

oo

oo

ooh-GO

oCOCO

oCOCM

0c0£"ECOo

oN

0CO

o

oCOCO

o>*CM

CO

oo

oo

oor-00

oCOCO

oCN

0c0£cCQo3

Benz

o(k)

oo>CDCO

oCMCO

CO3

§

oo

ooh-CO

oCOCO

oCM

CDc0"cCOo3

"o"N

0CO

6inCNCDCO

r-t»_oCO

A R 3 0 0 6 9 6

TAB

LE 4

-5SU

MM

ARY

OF

RB

C S

OIL

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L, B

TAG

FLO

RA

AN

D B

TAG

SO

IL F

AUN

A S

CR

EEN

ING

VA

LUE

EXC

EED

ANC

ES IN

SU

RFA

CE

SO

IL S

AM

PLE

S -

SE

MI-V

OLA

TILE

OR

GA

NIC

CO

MPO

UN

DS

EX

CE

ED

AN

CE

1Q

UO

TIEN

T(re

sult/

scre

enin

gva

lue)

* |

j-zo

BTAG

FA

UN

AB

TAG

FLO

RA

RBC

SO

ILR

ES

IDE

NTI

AL

SCR

EEN

ING

VA

LUE

DET

ECTI

ON

LIM

ITR

ESU

LTC

HE

MIC

AL

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

TIO

Noo•*

1OS

oo

oo

ooh-00

oCOCO

oo•*

fluor

anth

ene

J£ON

CDco

COoCOCO

oCO•*

31

s

§

oo1*-CO

oCOCO

oCO••t

fluor

anth

ene

.*oNCDCO

tCMCDCO

OCOCD

fo>

oo

oo

oot*-oo

oCOCO

oCDCO

CDCCD.C

2o35=.*ONCDm

oCO

CDCO

o*»00

£CD3

Oo

§

8r*-00

oCOCO

o•*GO

CDCD.c

2oo=JdoNCDm

r*-oCOCO

oCM

§"3)

oo

oo

ooh-00

oCOCO

ooCM

CDCoc:(0o0=JCoNCDCD

CMO<hCO

oCO

1CD

OO

oo

oor*-00

oCOCO

ooCOY-

CDCCD

Croo=icJCoN<DCO

OOC/>CO

o-

Ioo

oo

?CO

oCOCO

oo-

CDcacao3cJ£oNCDCD

CDOCOCO

oO)• -

0

=J

OO

OO

oor-CO

oCOCO

ooO)•*

CDcCD

cCDO3CJCoNCDCQ

TfOCOCO

o<o

21

oo

oo

sr-.CO

oCOCO

sT-

co

CDCtoJZcCDO35=JCO2CDm

COoCOCO

oCD

CO

1

Oo

oo

oor-00

oCOCO

ooCD

CDCD

2o3CJ*ONCDCO

inoCOCO

oCDCO

21

oo

oo

ooh-co

oCOCO

ooCDCO

CDcCD.Cc<DO3CJ£ONVCO

OCOCO

O)ID

0)

3

O

o

ooo<0n

oCOCO

o8ro"r-

hexy

l)pht

haia

te

>>UJCM*V>3

6CDCMCOCO

COCOCNJ

S

§

O

o

ooo(D•*

OCOCO

ooooCO

iexy

l)pht

hala

te

>.£UJ&*<n2

t5CO

OCM

fO)

s

oo

ooob-co

oCOCO

oCMT—

Chry

sene

toCOCO

oO)

sO)oo

oo

ooof-oo

oCOCO

oO)

Chr

ysen

e

toCDCO

Oat

f"5)

oo

oo

ooor-oo

oCOCO

oO)

Chr

ysen

e

tCQCO

OoCM

01

r>

Oo

oo

ooor-co

oCOCO

ooCM

Chr

ysen

e

tCMmCO

omCM

fD)

OO

oo

ooor»-00

oCOCO

oinCM

Chr

ysen

e

toCDCO

O

CO

fO)oo

oo

ooor-.00

oCOCO

oCO

Chr

ysen

e

o*tCMCOCO

oT-

co

D^CD

OO

oo

8or-.00

oCOCO

oT-CO

Chr

ysen

e

SCMCDCO

OCMCO

1O)

§

oo

ooo1*-co

oCOCO

oCMCO

Chr

ysen

e

t<NCOCO

Or•*

SDO

OO

oo

o81*-co

oCOCO

o~•*

Chr

ysen

e

SCMCDCO

OCMin

2nn

oo

oo

ooof-oo

oCOCO

oCNin

Chr

ysen

e

COoCOCO

oCOin

q>

S1

oo

oo

§t -eo

oCOCO

oCOin

Chr

ysen

e

tCDCO

OKCO

sa

oo

oo

oooh-CO

oCOCO

or-CD

Chr

ysen

e

5COCO

oT-

3O3

Oo

oo

ooof-00

oCOCO

oo

Chr

ysen

e

r--oCOCO

oCDT*

9O)

oo

oo

oooc-00

oCOCO

ooCD

Chr

ysen

e

CMOCOCO

Ot -

DO

Oo

oo

8oI*.00

oCOCO

oor-

Chr

ysen

e

00oCOCO

oCO

51oo

§

§r-00

oCOCO

oo00

Chry

sene

O)oCOCO

os

a

!oo

oo

gr -CO

oCOCO

s•*CD

Chr

ysen

e

•*oCOCO

o00t»-

t"a

oo

oo

8or-00

oCOCO

ooCOr-

Chr

ysen

e

moCOCO

oT-00

!§

§

gN.CO

OCOCO

ICO

Chr

ysen

e

COoCOCO

oo

2•&

oo

oo

gN-CO

oCOCO

oooo"

Chr

ysen

e

oCOCO

inp

2"oo

oo

8

CO

oCOCO

a>h)

anth

race

ne

CDN<pJDD

CDOCOCO

COCM

D)^"cb

oo

oo

CD

OCOCO

o*—

h)an

thra

cene

CDN®JDQ

6CDCMCDCO

CMh-

D)X.

1

OO

Oo

oCOCO

oinhj

anth

race

ne

CDN

IQ

t—oCO

CDCO

00T-

CM

OX^"DJ3

OO

OO

OCOCO

oo>T-

hjan

thra

cene

(UNCD£>Q

1OCOCO

CMCMCO

D)^"a3

oo

oo

oCOCO

oCOCM

h)an

thra

cene

CDN0.QD

COoCOCO

COUlfi.E

5COUJou.

COzCOUluzQ

EEXC

EE

3

:REEN

INGO

MPO

UNC

CO U

BLE

4-5

. FA

UN

A)R

GAN

IC

TAD

BTA

G S

OU

I-VO

LATI

LE C

*8KOu.Oh-m_j"PzUJaCOUl

-IoCOumULo

SUM

MAR

Y

O)UJ e0 H cz z a> «

g§!*UJ £

HZ

ZD

O

m

g3u.O

mUl

O 2 (Dw Ul Zoof£ co ujCC UJ UJ

u(0

DET

ECTI

ON

LIM

IT

_jCOUI

Jrfo£Ulzo

z2

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

TCO

tCD

oo

oo

eo

oCO

oCO

<DC.CDCJ2.ccCDnCONCDXIn

o>oCOCO

CO

ioo

oo

CO

oCOCO

§

CO

CDuP£Cn^CDN

CDXIn

CMOCOCO

o>T—

"3i

oo

oo

eo

oCOCO

ooCO

Vcou2x:cCDJCmN

CO.an

9COCO

CM

"CD

oo

oo

co

oCOCO

ooCM

CDCCDOCD

J_!

rax:raN

VX>n

oCOCO

"*COCM

"3:

g

§

«o

oroCO

ooCOCM

COcCDUP_ccrax:raN

CDX)n

COoCOCO

CD

CM

H"3)

oo

oo

eo

oCOCO

ooCM

CDC

o2_Lcra.cmN

CO.0n

inoCOCO

ooCM

iO9

Oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

ooCM

CD

CDJZ

coo3

OOoCOCO

oCN

I

§

Oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

omCM

COc0)£1cno

oCOCMCDCO

oCMCO

£"3i

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

oCMCO

0cCDx:crao3

mCO

oCO

£3

oo

ao

ooooCO

oCOCO

oCO

CDcCDx:co

oCOoCOCO

oinCO

iCD3

oo

oo

o§oCO

oCOCO

oinCO

CDCD£cCDo3

o

CMCOCO

oh-CO

3

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

or-co

CDcCO£1cCOo

6COCMCDCO

oto

1a>

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

oin

CDcCD£1o3

o••*c>mCO

oCMCO

1on

oo

oo

osoCO

oCOCO

oCMCO

CDCD

2o

tCMCDCO

o("-

1CD

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

oh-r-

CD(n

£

2o3

tCMCDCO

ooT-

"5i

oo

oo

sooCO

oCOCO

ooo

CO

0>x:

1oa

r-CDCO

oo

£3

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

ooo

cX:

2o3

COoCOCO

oCOT-

13

oo

oo

ooooCO

oeoCO

ooCO

CDcCO

CDo

tCOCO

ooCM

C5

oo

oo

ooooCO

o

o

CM

Q)Hi)

fi1§

N.oCOCO

oCM

5?

§

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

ooCM

CDcCDn

2o3

COoCOCO

oCO

CD

3

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

gCO

CDcCDx:

2o3

CMoCOCO

oCO

1§

§

ooeo

oCOCO

ooCO

CDcCDx:rao3

a>oCOCO

oeo

1CD

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

goCO

oV

2o3

oCOCO

o

"ao3

oo

oo

ooCO

oCOCO

oooin"

CO

CDx:

2o

inoCOCO

oCO

1

g

§

goCO

oCOCO

ooto"

CDcCDJZ

2o3

COoCOCO

8CM

n"aoo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

oooo"CM

CDCDx:

2o

o

CO

o

fa3

oo

oo

goeo

oCOCO

o

CDc£oLU

f-oCOCO

ooCO

£i1

oo

oo

ooooCO

oCOCO

ooCO

CDc£ou!

a>oCOCO

n

oo

n"3>

oo

§

oCO

oCOCO

oo

CDCD

S:f^(J)

COCM

oCDTJc

1

CMmeo

K

o

£"3)

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

o

CDoayô

COCM

o(DTJc

oCOoCDCO

3

8

CD

oo

§

oCO

oCOCO

oCO

CDCD

&-J-JC)

COCN

o<Dc

o

oCOCO

0

oCO

Ioo

oo

oCO

oCOeo

o

CDCD

a.TJ6COCM

oCDT>c

«CMCDW

IJ

oCO

1

s

g

oCO

oCOCO

oCD

CD

£T)uCOCN

oCOTJc

o

COCO

b

oo>

CD

oo

oo

oeo

oeoCO

oa>

CDcCD

Q.T3uCOCM

oc0)TJc

»CMCDCO

J

ooCM

"ao3

oo

oo

oh-oo

oCOCO

ooCM

CDcCD

S:TJuCOCM

oCDTJc

6*—

COCO

b-

oCM

1

oo

oo

oh-00

oCOCO

o

CDCDQ.

TJoCOCM

oCD•oc

6

CDCO

oCO

£"a

oo

oo

or*-CO

oeoeo

oCO

CO

a>a.

T>oCOCM

oOJT)c

oCOCM

COCO

oCDCO

£"Si

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

oOJCO

CDCD

£TJoCOCM

oc(DTJc

oCO1

CDCO

m

COUJ

a.SCO

OCOUJo

K

COzCOUJCJzo

EE

XC

EE

3

GR

EEN

ING

OM

POU

ND

BLE

4-5

. FA

UN

A S

<)R

GAN

IC C

T»D

BTA

G S

OIL

I-VO

LATI

LE C

$S' n'

Ou.Ot-CQ

H

UJOCOuicc-IoCOoffioru_O

SUM

MAR

Y

C4UJ COl- Cz z * *Q C O *UJ 5 45 "5UJ 3 2 >

UJ £

HZ

Z

U.CD

msou.

2GO

SOIL

iNTIA

LJG

VA

LUE

RBC

RESI

DESC

REE

NS

DE

TEC

TIO

NLI

MIT

gCOUJ

-JCJSUJXCJ

zo

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

ToCO

£"a

oo

oo

oCO

oeoeo

Oeo

0

ffi

T3ueoCM

o0c

COoCOCO

oCOO)

£"CB

oo

oo

oeo

oCOCO

oCOo

0c0>Jdlu

COCM

offi•oc

r*-oCOCO

oT~

Ol1s

oo

oCO

oCOCO

ooT-

offiaueoCM

offic

CMoCOCO

oin

CO

"co

oo

oo

oeo

oeoeo

ooin

0

0a.o

COCM

oc0•DC

COoCOCO

or-

CO

"5

Oo

oo

oGO

oCOCO

oor-

0c0

•oV

COCM

O0C

01oCOCO

oCOCO

£"cb

oo

oo

oeo

oCOCO

ooeoCD

0c0a

T3oeoCM

offiTJC

oCOCO

ol _CO

sS1

§

§

o00

oeoeo

OOr-(D

offi

a•auCOCM

ocffi•ac

COoCOCO

o,_r-

fCO

oo

oo

oeo

oeoeo

oo

fficffi

So

COCM

O

0•ac

mCOCO

o

exCfl

oo

oo

oCO

oCOCO

ooo^™

0c0

T3U

COCM

OCffi

T3c

oCOCO

oUJCM

CO

Oo

oo

ooooCD

OCOCO

oinCM

00COJZ

aCOZ

COOCOCO

ftoCO

£CD

oo

oo

o

oCDT-

OCOCO

oo

0

0CO

aeoZ

OJoCOCO

oCM•<*•

£"a

oo

oo

ooooCOT-

oCOCO

oCM

fficffin£nCOz

oCOCMCOCO

or-co

£"CD

oo

oo

8ooCO

oCOCO

oCO

fficffira

JZ

nCOZ

tCMCOCO

OCO

CO

oo

oo

8ooCOCM

oeoeo

oCO

ffiIJZfmcffiD_

oCOCMCDCO

oeoT-

tCO

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCO

00JZreocffi

6CMCDCO

oI""-

£"coZt

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

or*-

0ffi

cfQcffi£

oCOoCOCO

or-r~

co

1oo

oo

ooooeoCM

oCOCO

of--

ffic0

cCOc0

o

CDCO

o*CM

CO

3

oo

oo

ooooeoCM

oeoeo

oCM

0cffi

rCOc0a

toCOCO

oCOCM

f"co

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oeoCO

oCOCM

00

cCDcffiJZa.

o

CMCDCO

o)*»CO

tCO

oo

oo

o

oCOCM

oCOCO

or-CO

0c0

cCOc0

a.

«CO

o"

1

oo

oo

ooooeoCM

oeoeo

oT-

fficJZrCOffiJZ0-

CMCDCO

oCMtf>

a1

§

oo

8ooeoCM

oCOCO

oCMin

ffiffi

cegc

£

o0)

CDCO

oCMin

CO

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCM

fficJZc(0cffi0.

COoCOCO

ooCD

fCO

oo

oo

ooooeoCM

oeoCO

ooCO

ffi0JZcCOcffi0-

0CMCOCO

oCOa>

a

oo

8

8ooCOCM

oeoeo

oCOD)

00

cCOcffi

COoCOCO

o

CB

oo

oo

sooCOCM

oCOCO

ooT—

CDc

•=Tcm1a.

iCO

oCO

a

3

oo

oo

osoCOCM

oeoto

ooCOT-

fficffiJZcCOc00-

O)oCOCO

oCO

fCD

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oeoeo

sCO

ffi0

JZr(00

a

CM9COCO

oO)tn

18

8

§oCOCM

oeoeo

so>in

ffi0

cCOcffia.

oCOCO

oCO

£"3)

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

CDt*-

0

0.crCO

1a.

moCOCO

oO)1*-

^v

CJ

oo

§

ooooCOCM

oeoeo

o8

ffi§cCOoJZQ_

COoCOCO

ooCO

1

oo

oo

ooooeoCM

oeoCO

oooCO

0iJZc(0cffi

Q_

oCOCO

ooCM

1

oo

oo

os8r--_

oCOeo

8CM

ocffi0.

oCOCMCDCO

oCMh-

"ob

oo

oo

§oo"or-._

CO

f".

oV

a

6COCMCOCO

o(O1—

CB^s

an

oo

8

ooooCOCM

oCOeo

oCO

0c0

0-

oO)oCDCO

ooCM

CO

oo

oo

ooooeoCM

oeoCO

8CM

fficon

oCOCMCDCO

oCDCM

=>

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oCDCM

fficffi

n

oCOoCOCO

oCOCM

s1

oo

oo

o

oCOCM

oCOCO

o

0c0

(T

o

CDCO

oCO

A R 3 0 0 6 9 9

COUJa.S(0-iOCOUJou_D(Oz(OUlo

1

EE

XC

EE

> CO

:REE

NING

OM

POU

ND

BLE

4-5

. FA

UN

A S

<)R

GA

NIC

C

TAD

BTA

G S

OU

I-VO

LATI

LE C

ITA

G F

LOR

A A

NSE

MS

IDE

NTI

AL,

E

UJtt

OCOoCQceu.O

SU

MM

AR

Y

O)UJ £^J L^ ^

z z * 3^

0 3 3 *x o MLi] 0)^v ^

z

z

1o

23u.O

mUl

RBC

RES

IDE

SC

RE

EN

!*

DE

TEC

TIO

NLI

MIT

RE

SU

LT

O

UJTU

zo

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

TSCO

toj

oo

oo

ooooCOCN

oCOCO

ooCO

oc<D

CL1

O

CNmCO

o(OCO

Ioo

oo

ooooCOCN

oCOCO

oCOCO

oc

CL

oCOCMCQCO

oCOCO

f"a

oo

oo

ooooCOCN

oCOCO

oCOCO

(D0)

0.

o

SCDCO

o

O)

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oo>

<DcID

0.

oinCNCDCO

oCMCD

O)

OO

oo

ooooCOM

OCOCO

oCMCD

<DCQ)>s

CL

O

COCMCDCO

OO00

O)

Oo

oo

ooooCOCM

OCOCO

ooCO

CDC<D

0.

(DOCOCO

O

CO

CT

O)

Oo

oo

ooooCOCN

OCOCO

or-00

<D<D0-

6o>

COCO

oo>

"ra

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oinen

ID

pa.

CD

COT—

COCO

q

O)

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oo

IDO

£

oCOCO

oCNCM

ta

oo

oo

ooooCOCN

oCOCO

o'oCMCM"

CD

0.

00oCOCO

oIf)CM

S>

oo

§

o

oCOCM

oCOCO

ooCM"

IDID

CMOCOCO

oCOCM

fO>

OO

Oo

ooooCOCN

OCOCO

ooCOCM"

CDo0.

cooCOCO

ooT-

a>

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oooo"

01ID

D_

oCOCO

oCO

D)

"S

oo

oo

ogoCOCM

ofOCO

oooCO"

V01

CL

COoCOCO

oCO

"&

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

oooco"

0)cV

£

inoCOCO

oCD

a1

oo

oo

ooooCOCM

oCOCO

ooo

<DcoQ.

oCOCO

T'CO

CDCO

5CO

5enomCO

3oCDCO

COoCDco ,_:

o co c:CD CO .gCO TJ JCO

V w oO, ,-T COCO S °

™ CO ~

O T-" § ">

.i. CD ® *

a> CO m "£O - 4) Q)

CO CD "S £

ra CM 3 ffiis CO £ 15£ ^- T3 >

o o 9? c

ss in

clude

SS-

_0-1

.SB

-24_

alues

that

exc

thre

e sc

reen

E co '£ Z.m to S oVt . 'E "^

g o> 'E —ra T ® <"•c co 2jE3 CO U

CO CO.

3 R 3 0 0 7 0 0

1COUl

0.ECO

owUlou.

(0zCOUluzoUlUlgUl MS3J >^t 2> Ul

z &Ul QUl UJ

0 S(0 Z»<s

alim "• ^^ — vjHSg

o fl

5 zSi2Z o

4 C

3aLJ. "•

^Hffl_T

IDE

NTI

AI

COUl

_iOCOu00ttU.O.

Q£

EECO

oUl Cy 1^ Hz z g *_^D p O 3gs f?*° 1Ul £

,

Z3

Z13U.05CO^3

3U.OfCQ

Ul_l -J

j ^ S5 P0 Q IS « ul°- Ul Ulcecc

oCO

zou 5Ul ~

Ulo

g(0UlIt

-1u2UlXCJ

zoIII H-

1 «(CL 0

< p"zUlQ

3z1J1COou

RIN

A1

3X^LJoa.QzCOUlo=nUlCL

oin

&£CD

o

oo

oCMCO

CO

oin

mCM

ouo

1o5CD

O

in

a1

o

oo

oCMCO

COCO

oCOin

tnCM

oCJo^

oCOCSI

CDCO

OCM.

a"s

o

oo

oCO

COCO

o

3CM

Ooo

o

CMCOCO

Oo

CD¥"5>

o

oo

oCNn

COCO

so

mCM

ooo^

o<oCMmCO

oO)

O)

o3

O

Oo

oCM

COCO

oO)

sCMiOoo^

1oCOCMCOCO

O

T-

o>O)

o

oo

oCMCO

COCO

oo

LDCNiOuorf

ooCOCD0)

oGO

D)g

O

oo

oCNCO

COCO

ooo

oCOCM

OOo^

6T—

COCO

oCOCO

O)

O)

o

oo

oCN

COCO

ooCOCO

oCOCM

oQ

5tf

oCOCMCDCO

oCO

at

"cb

o

oo

oCSIr>

COCO

oCO

oCOCM

ou1

1o

CMCDCO

oCO

„

O5

o

oo

oCMm

COCO

ooCO

oCOCM

oo2

oCOCMCQCO

oin

D)

"a

o

g

oCM

COCO

oin

oCDCM

ou2

oGOCMCDCO

oCOCM

oa

"a

o

oo

oCSI

COCO

ooCOCM

oCOCM

ou2

1ooCOmCO

or*-

a"01

1

oo

oooaCO

r-*~

o

£CJ

o"S

.oCOCO

t—oCO

COCO

5— .'

abCO,_"

1

O)oCDCO

603omCO•»7o(OoCDCO ^

- 1

5 °i^•' wo co c:c6 w .gCO T3 CD- g g_L -js

co'S 2' co £

CD ^»

O " m w

s'llitfl i CD ^3

fQ f* ffi

O> (O « "£O - 03 tO

«S| e

|2 |i^- V ® O)o o g ,ccO rf- jc SCO CM r mCD rn (D h"° Cft -C »-2 CDc "T 8 £~ 0 5 £« I CO —03 CO > <u°-^ CD £E m = —co frt ® oJX *^

—— . iy^ CJ *">

S 0 D> |

* 0) "£ —S T g 2•c CD 2 iE3 CO W

CO CO .

R 3 0 0 7 0

COUJ-1aSCO-16COUJu2Of

DA

NC

ES

IN S

U

UJUJ

UJUJ_J

CR

EEN

ING

BLE

4-7

. FA

UN

A S

RG

ANIC

S

5 = OCO —O

maz

Ou.O

3 '1VI1N

3C

COUJ

oCOOm£LLO

SUM

MAR

Y

UJ e0 H c5 Z 9 ft-fn >- S 3iu n * TSiu § S >

UJ q>

z

BTA

G F

AU

NA

$Ou.O2m

SO

ILE

NTI

AL

NG

VA

LUE

S S zS co uiK UJ UiKKu

CO

zoH to 5UJ £

o

H-

coUJtt

_JusUJXU

zo

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

T

RG

AN

ICS

OZ

oCO

Io

oo

o

oCO00

E3C

E3

OCOCMCOCO

O

CDin

E

o

ooCOs.

o

oCOCOin

E3C

E3

CD

COOohCO

or-

f

o

ooCO

o

os

£3

E

CO9coCO

oCO

s

o

ooCO

o

oCO

r-

EcE3

CM9COCO

oCOr*-

S

o

ooCO

o

oCOr--r--

E3C

E3

OCOCO

oCM

I

O

ooCO

o

oCM00

E3C

E3

in9COCO

oTt

^^

o

oo00

o

o

oS

E3C

E3

cf)COCMCOCO

O•t

I

O

ooCO

o

o

CO

E3C

E3

CDCOCO

O

£E

o

oo00

o

or-inCO

E3C

E3

T-O

COCO

oCOCOCO

o>

o

oo

o

oCOCDCO

EcE3

to9COCO

ooSCO

t

o

ooCO

o

o

CO

EcE3

1

COCO

oin00

^^

o

oo

o

oinCOCO

E3C

E3

TTOCOCO

O

en

I

o

ooCO

o

oCOen

E3C

E3

O

COCMCOCO

OCMCOen

1

o

oo

o

oCMCOen

EcE3

O

CMCDCO

Oin

£

o

ooCO

o

om

EcE3

COoCOCO

omen

t

o

ooCO

o

o

en

EcE3

3CDCO

OO)enen

£

o

oo

o

oenenen

EcE3

i

CMCDCO

OOCM

£

o

ooCO

o

ooCMi—

EcE3

6oCOCO

ooCO

i

o

ooCO

o

ooCO

EcE3

O

OCOCO

ooto

£"OB

o

ooCO

o

ooCD

EcE3

0CO

COCO

ooCO

£

o

ooCO

o

ooCOT—

Ec£3

CDCOOCOCO

OOCOCM

£

o

oo

o

ooCOCM

E3C

E3

OCOCO

ootoCM

OH

cs

o

ooCO

o

ooCOCM

E3cE3

CDCO

8enCO

I

o

ooCO

o

ooenCO

E3C

E3

OCOCO

CM

I

O

o

CO

CM

CO<~

CoEc

oo>ocbCO

r-

£

o

s?o

CM

OCM

rI"c

enoCOCO

00CO

O)

o

s?o

CM

CM

rcc

6COCMCOCO

00in

S

o

o

CO

CM

CMCM

t?OEc

oCOomCO

enN."t

I

o

00

o

CO

CM

COCM

CoE

5

3CMCDCO

CMin

ft

o

CO

o

CO

CM

inCM

roEc

COoCOCO

o

Io

o

CM

om

rc"c

o

CO

s

o

COCMCO

p»o

CM

COm

ocCOs

6

COCO

COm

I

o

00CMCO

CO

O

CM

CD

OC03£2

0COCOCO

COCO

Io

COCMCO

CO

o

CM

Or-

ocCDe

omCMCOCO

<oCO

1

o

COCMCO

eoo

CM

O*-

ocCD£2

9COCO

h-

t

o

COCMCO

O

CM

inf-

uc0)

%

CM9COCO

f-r*-

D9

O

COCMCO

CO

O

CM

COr-

CJc0)2

COoCOCO

COM—o

A R 3 0 0 7 0 2

TA

BLE

4-7

SU

MM

AR

Y O

F R

BC

SO

IL R

ES

IDE

NTI

AL,

BTA

G F

LOR

A A

ND

BTA

G S

OIL

FA

UN

A S

CR

EE

NIN

G V

ALU

E E

XC

EE

DA

NC

ES

IN S

UR

FAC

E S

OIL

SA

MP

LES

-IN

OR

GA

NIC

SE

XC

EE

DA

NC

EQ

UO

TIE

NT

(resu

lt/sc

reen

ing

valu

e)*

i-zD

BTA

G F

AU

NA

BTA

G F

LOR

AR

BC S

OIL

RE

SID

EN

TIA

LS

CR

EE

NIN

G V

ALU

E

Zop t

UJO

RES

ULT

CH

EM

ICA

LS

AM

PLE

IDE

NTI

FIC

ATI

ON

CO00T—

t

o

COCMCO

CO

o

CM

OCO

OcCDCO

O

CO

CDCO

CO00

p)

o

COCMCO

o

CM

CO

oc<De

OOJO£0CO

COCO

1

o

COCMto

eoo

CM

V

OCtDif)

inoCOCO

i—CMCM

"o

O

COCMCO

too

CM

mo>

ocCO

oO)

CDCO

COCMCM

fg

O

COCMCO

CO

o

CM

COo>

UcCD

OCD

COCO

COeoCM

DC^j

D>

O

COCMCO

eoo

CM

OO

U

tDW

OCO9COCO

O

CM

t

O

00CMto

CO

O

CM

eoo

oCD10

oCOCO

CM

CM

S1o

COCMCO

CO

o

CM

O

UCtDCO

CDOCOCO

CDmCM

a

1

o

COCMeo

too

CM

O

ocCDCO

6COOCOCO

inOJCM

1o

00

too

CM

f-CM

OCCDS2

o

COCO

00CMto

Io

COCMCO

too

CM

OCCDe

T-

6

CDCO

oCO

tCD

O

COCMCO

eoo

CM

CO

U

V

O)OCOCO

COto

1i?o

COCMCO

eo

o

CM

O)O)

OCCD12

r-oCOCO

in

^x

o

CO

CO

o

CM

CO

CM

CJCCDe

COcpCOCO

O)O)

Io

00CMCO

CO

o

CM

COCM

OC<DS2

t—oCOCM

CO

•«t

T-

&

CD

'

1

in

o

CMCOto

•c(0

CO

00oCOCO

COCO

sg

1

o3

oinm

o

O)CMCO

Bariu

m

oO)•r-

COCO

CMcn

Sgo

o

omin

o

CO

E

CDCD

O

OCDCO

toCOCM

V**

g

O

3

1

oinin

o

oo

.3

(DCO

6

mco

oeo

i^

g

O

o3

oinin

o

o

E•cCD

6

OCDCO

toeo

&

g

O

o3

omin

o

ocnin

E

CDCD

O

COCMCOCO

COCO

sI?o3

«in

o

oO)

E

COm

oCOomCO

inoCM

I

o

CMOo

CD

,_

O

E

CDCO

6COCMCOCO

inIOCM

sIf

o

oo

CO

ino

E3

CDm

CMoCOCO

mN.CM

Sg

O

CMOO

to

inino

E

CDCO

OCOOCDCO

S

£I"

o

CMOo

CD

o>ino

E

CDCO

6COCMCOCO

inCMCO

Io

CMOo

CO

mCOo

E

IDCO

Oo>oCDCO

OinCO

S•a

o

CMOo

CD

O

O

E

1

9COCO

minto

I

o

oo

to

£o

E

tDCO

O

COCMCOCO

minCO

Io

CMOo

CD

^_

O

E

fr<D

CO

6oCOCOCO

otoeo

E

o

CMOo

CO

CMr--o

E

CDCO

COOCOCO

oo

Io

CMOo

tD

OCOo

E

0)CD

O

CMCDCO

oT-

I

o

CM

O

<o

CMCDO

E3

frCD

CO

SCOCO

inCM

1

o

CMOo

CO

inCOo

E

CDCO

6CO

COCO

inCM

I

O

CMOo

CO

mCOo

£

CDCO

ocn

COCO

o•

s

o

CMOo

to

COCOo

E

frCD

CO

OCOoCOCO

oCO

t

o

CMOo

tD

toO)o

E

dCDCD

OinCMCOCO

ooin

f"cn

o

CMOO

CD

O

E

CDCO

o

CDCO

CO

"5CM

A R 3 0 0 7 0 3

iWUJ

a.5

SO

IL S

A

Ulu<u.tt3(0z(0UJuz<Q

. EX

CEE

=1

5

GR

EEN

ING

BLE

4-7

. FA

UN

A S

RG

AN

ICS

<*. = o1-05w -o2mQz<2oUu.o2

EN

TIA

L, E

OCOLJK_ioWoCQo:u_O

SU

MM

AR

Y

o>UJ COH c5 z £ *<u £"*Ss 8-2iu§2 38 § 3Q £

HZ3

<Z=3<U.OSmS3u.O<ffl

UJ

-*i8!=2

RBC

RE

SID

ISC

REE

NS

zO

SiIS 3UJo

SDtoUJ(±

<uEUXu

zo

1SA

MP

LEID

ENTI

F1C

AToinm

2I1

o

3o

CO

^-

E

>oCD

O(OOfflCO

oC)CO

o

NOO

(D

CNT—

ED

^0)

CO

6oCOen

ooCD

St

o

So

CO

CN

E-I"F0)m

oTTOCOco

to

?1

o

inoi

oob-

CDCM

E3(=T)COO

O

COOCOCO

s

2I8

o

IftN

CON-

co

En•otoO

oCOCMCDCO

COco

§g

o

mCN

oor-

TTCO

E3£•oCOO

o•*COCO

inCO

2if

o

inCN

COr-

00COCO

E73

T7COO

6COCNCDCO

oCNr*-

Siinooo

o

oCOCM

CN

O>CNT—

F3

Eo.cO

oCOCMmCO

r*-copCM

S

I?

inooo

o

oCOCM

CM

inCO

F3

Px:O

6CDCOCO

o00CDCM

3?

inooo

o

oCN

CN

OCN

F3Eo.CO

CMOCOCO

COmCOCM

1

inooo

o

oCOCM

<N

•*

CN

F31£O

CO9COCO

N.

SCN

Stin

§o

o

oCOCN

CN

CNCN

F3

Eo.CO

COoCOCO

COr-o>CN

3i

mooo

o

oCOCM

CN,

COCMCM

F3

oo

oooCOCO

oCOT-co

§1mooo

o

oCOCN

CN

r-coCN

F3

O£o

ooCO

COCO

h-oCOCO

2i

inooo

o

oCOCN

CN

OO•*CM

FD

O

O

oCOomCO

o00COCO

?w

§o

o

oCN

CM

CDr*-CM

FD

EoJZO

•*oCOCO

h-•*m•*

2O)

mooo

o

oCOCN

CN

T~

•*CO

F3

O

O

oCOCO

oCN«w

11inooo

o

oCN

CN

•*

•*

F3EoÔ

oCDOCOCO

r-CDCDCD

SO

inooo

o

oCOCN

CN

OOin

F3

oO

inoCOCO

r-00O)r--

$

t?

inooo

o

oCOCN

CM

O)O>m

FDoO

o>oCOCO

f-00CDCD

SD)

inooo

o

oCOCM

CM

•*rr-.co

F3Eo.CO

o•*!•OCOCO

r--CDOO)

O)X.O)

mooo

o

oCN

CM

oCOCO

FD

O

O

oCD

fflCO

oCNO)

2O)

inooo

o

oCOCM

CN

Tf

COCD

F2

Eoc.O

oT—OCOCO

oCN

o

S?m

§o

o

oCOCN

CM

CDir>N.

FsEo.CO

KOCOCO

COCOT-^

2Ifinooo

o

oCOCN

CN

COOT—

F3

PO

oCOCNfflCO

COCOinCO

*

mooo

o

oCN

CN

•*CNT—

F31j=O

§COw

COCOo>CO

2Ob

inooo

o

oCOCN

CN

CN•*T—

F3

Eo.CO

o•*'CMfflCO

OO•»*^~CN

2OB

inooo

o

SCN

CN

COCOT-

F3

1

O

ciinCMfflCO

COCOIOm

g

i

in

3o

o

omCN

CM

CD(O-fr

F3

P

6

oCOoCOCO

COCOCO

f-

cn

[f

inooo

o

oIN

CM

Omm

F=3

P

6

o<DCNCOCO

COCOCOmo>

£1inooo

o

ftM

CN

inr-

F3

P

6

o•*5CO

CDCO

S2

o

in

oCO

in

r-oCN

Oa.o.oO

oCOT-

COCO

CO•w

S?

o

in

oCO

in

CO

CN

0)aaoO

CMOCOCO

r^•*

2f

o

Ift

oCO

m

oCMCN

COaaoO

oenoCOCO

oCO

1fo

V)

oCO

in

o*fCN

0)aaoO

oCOCNCDCO

•CO

o

It

o

in

oCO

m

r--w

coaD.oO

r-~oCOCO

COCO

P)

t

o

IO

oCO

m

•*i -CM

CO5Ja.oO

(DOCOCO

h-O)

OSô

o

in

oCO

m

COO)CN

CDaaoO

o

offlCO

CO14——oCO

TAB

LE 4

-7SU

MM

ARY

OF

RB

C S

OIL

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L, B

TAG

FLO

RA

AN

D B

TAG

SO

IL F

AU

NA

SC

RE

EN

ING

VA

LUE

EX

CE

ED

AN

CE

S IN

SU

RFA

CE

SO

IL S

AM

PLE

S -

INO

RG

AN

ICS

EX

CE

ED

AN

CE

QU

OTI

EN

T(re

sult/

scre

enin

gva

lue)

*

b3

BTA

G F

AU

NA

BTA

G F

LOR

AR

BC S

OIL

RES

IDEN

TIAL

SC

RE

EN

ING

VA

LUE

DE

TEC

TIO

NLI

MIT

RES

ULT

CH

EM

ICA

LS

AM

PLE

IDE

NTI

FIC

ATI

ON

*~

CM

s

O

U)

oCO

m

1*-co

CDQ.Q.OO

Oo>mCO

CMCM

2

1

O

in

oCO

m

CMeoCO

Q>QQoo

V

6If)CMCDCO

(DCDCM

£

o

in

om

m

O>01CO

<DaQJoQ

oCOoVCO

rCM

f

O

u>

oCO

in

r-o•*

CDaaoO

SCOCO

COenCM

S"5

o

m

oCO

in

o•<*"*

£aOo

CO9COCO

§CO

?

o

in

oCO

in

CO<o•<t

CDoaoo

o<DocoCO

COr-co

t01o

n

oCO

m

oCOm

0)QaoO

r—OCOCO

tno•*

g

o

in

oCO

in

i--oCD

COaaoO

65CDCO

1*-in•*

1a

o

in

oCO

in

CO03CD

CDaaoO

tCMCDCO

inCOin

O)X.

o

in

oCO

m

COoCO

oQa.oO

moCOCO

COCOto

?O)

o

in

oCO

m

r-mO)

CDaaoO

toCOCO

o»

Io

in

oCO

m

mCOT—

CDaa.oO

6COCMCDCO

COCMT—

2

1

O

in

oCO

m

5

£aoO

00oCOCO

o>•*T-

s

o

IA

OCO

in

COCMCM

»aaoO

oTT—CDCO

1*CO

Io

m

oCO

in

5CM

0)aQ.OO

OJoCOCO

r-O)

21

o

in

oCO

«

SCM

Q>Q.a.oo

6*rCMCDCO

OO-

f"ra

inooo

o

o(O

ino

oCMO

CO•oCO>,o

CDOCOCO

OCN•*

I

So

o

oCD

mC3

CMo

cuTJcCO5

oinCMCOCO

o•*•*

f"S

inooo

o

oCO

ind

CMCMo

V•ocCD

5

6CDCMCDCO

ooin

SO)

inSo

o

8

ind

mCMO

<D•acCO>O

inoCOCO

oCMCO

Iinooo

o

8

tnd

COo

CDTJ

CO>!O

COoCOCOQ

h-o

5"1CM

O

os(M

OCM

OOCMCM

o

COotoCO

8

?a>N

o

oonCM

oCM

8CMCO

C.o

T—

6COCMCDCO

COoCO

1

CM

o

§eoCM

OCM

OOh-in

o

COoCOCO

r*-COCO

aZ

CM

O

1CM!

OCM

S

O

6COoCDCO

COCO«

fO)

M

O

OomCM

OCM

OO-*CO

co

oinCMCDCO

CM~in

S1CM

O

§P»CM

S

OOinCO

o

r—OCOCO

CMO>in

?

CM

O

Oo«CMJ

OCM

85

o

CMOCOCO

I".K

?

M

O

ooCOCM

OCM

8COoCM

O

*O

oCOCO

oin00

Sg

CM

O

CN

R

OSCMCM

O

O

SCDCO

COinCO

1

CM

O

OoMCM

OCM

SCOCMCM

O

h-OCOCO

SCO

ICM

O

OomCM

oCM

OOr--CMCM

o

m9COCO

oino>

2B.

CM

O

O5CM

R

8•vCOCM

O

ooeoCDCO

CMO)a>

ICM

O

OomCM

OCM

So>eoCM

o

68mCO

%vCM

1

CM

O

OoCOCM

OCM

OoCOCOCM

S

o•*CMCDCO

ooCMCM

1

CM

O

OortCM

oCM

SsCM

O

OCOCMCOCO

COoCMCM

t"5

CM

O

OonCM

OCM

OOinIDCM

o

oo>omCO

mCMCMCM

1

CM

O

§toCM

OCM

OOr-coCM

Co

oo>COCO

A R 3 0 0 7 0 5

1toUJQ.S

to-JO(0UJuLLK

toZtoUJozQ

VA

LUE

EXC

EESC

REE

NIN

GB

LE 4

-7.

FAU

NA

SR

GA

NIC

S

£§i» —ot-mQz

Su.o

ES

IDE

NTI

AL,

E

tt

6COomU.O

SUM

MAR

Y

:DA

NC

E 1

TIE

NT

.cre

enin

gue

)*

1g°l >a tj uf

£

i-z3

ZDU.O

BTA

G F

LOR

A:S

OIL

lEN

TIA

LN

G V

ALU

E

g « UJ

OCO

zoP bU 5paUJO

StoUlcc

_JuSLUXo

zo

SA

MP

LEID

EN

TIFI

CA

TooCOCM

3

M

O

OOeo

oCM

OOCOr-CM

P

6CO

COCO

COoeoCM

ICN

o

ooeoCN

oCM

oof-r-CN

co

00oCOCO

r-eoCM

Ies

o

o

CM

oCM

ooCO

CM

o

oTfr-

coCO

inCM

CN

1CJ

o

ooeoCN

oCM

ooO)CM

co

O)oCOCO

oinCM

CD

CM

o

ooeoCM

oCM

ooO)CM

co

6(DCMCOCO

CMO)

CM

31M

o

ooeoCM

oCM

ooo>OJCM

co

CDCOCO

COCOinCM

t

CN

o

ooeoCM

oCM

oooCO

E:o

CD

COoCOCO

oT—ineo

f"Sb

oo

o

oo

ineo

TJCDto_J

CDoCOCOCO

oO)inin

t"en

oo

o

S

oinin

T)COCD_J

CMoCOCO

8oCD

1

OO

o

oo

ooCD

TJCD0)_J

oooCOCO

oCOoCD

fCO

oo

o

oo

COoCD

TJCOc»

6CO

COCO

oCOCO

fCO

oo

o

oo

CO

CO

•oCO_J

tCDCOCO

oinr-

£g

oo

o

oo

inf*.

CDCD

COOCOCO

OinS

1oo

o

oo

CO

TJCDCD

CD

OCOCO

oCOo>

3

oo

o

oo

eoCOCD

TJCOCD

CDinCMCOCO

§CO*~

t

oo

o

oo

CO

TJCOCD-J

CDO

COCO

OoCMCM

Q3^x

ce

oo

o

oo

CMCM

T)CDCD_l

6oCOCO

ooCMCO

0)

E

oo

o

oo

CMCO

TJCDCD

COOCOCO

OO

••fr

3E

oo

o

oo

^

TJCOCD_J

O

COCMCOCO

8CO

CD

Oo

o

oo

CO

•oCDCD_J

OCOCO

oofr—

1oo

o

oo

r-

CDCD

oCOCO

ooCOCO

f"co

oo

o

oo

COCO

TJ(D0>

oCOCO

ooCJ)

CM

f

oo

o

oo

CJ)

CM

TJCOCD-J

inoCOCO

o8?!

I

oo

o

oo

oCM

T3CDCD

COCDCOCO

Ooo>mCM

t

oo

o

oo

(DinCM

TJCDCD

O

CMmCO

8oCM

1

Oo

o

oo

or-CM

TJCDCD

O)O

COCO

8mCOCO

1oo

o

oo

inCOCO

TJ(DCD_j

OCOCMCDCO

o

eo

I

oo

o

oo

CO

TJCD

OCOoCDCO

ooCOin

g

oo

o

oo

m

T>COCD

CD

COoCOCO

8T-CO

Ioo

o

o9

CD

CD-J

oCD'CMCOCO

ooor-.m

g

oo

o

oo

or--mT-

T)CD0)_t

O

COCO

CDO^

fgoCOeo

O

OCD

CO

or--

gane

se

CO

tCOCO

CO^-

1

Oeoeo

CO

O(0

eo

CMCMCM

gane

se

CO

otoCMCDCO

COinT—

^^

OCOCO

oCOCO

ott

COinCM

gane

se

i

ooSCO

COCOCM

^^

oCO

oCOCO

o(P

CO

COm

eseueE

CD

oCOCO

oCO

\^

oCOCO

oeoeo

CO

CNCO

gane

se

CD

6COoCOCO

COoeo

D)

oeoeo

oeoeo

oCD

inCO

gane

se

cCD

6

CMCOCO

CO1—CO

31oeoCO

oeoeo

o(D

CO

ooin

gane

se

CO

CMOCOCO

CO

•5in

f l R 3 0 0 7 0 6

(0UJ0.

owUJo<u.

(0ztoUloz<QUlUlo

OzzUlUlceo

< <

COCD<mQZ

O1LO2GO

ZUlQCOUJ£

OCOO01ccu.o

ESDCO

CQUJ COH c5 z S *Q P O a

g|P2 §

z3

Z3U.O

a

O-iu.(!)2m

UJ

-Mw S z0 0 |

oCO

zoHfc0 Sw s=Ula

h-3(0Ul£

ôiUlXo

zoUl P_J <Q. OS £S P

UJa

5CO

^v

if

oCOCO

oCOto

oCO

CO

inin

CD(0CDcto

oCDomCO

r*-CO

?i

oCOto

oCOCO

oto

CO

oCO

CDcCO

CD2

6inCMCOCO

inCOer>

^^

if

oCOCO

oto

oCO

ro

COCO

0CO0cCOCDCCD2

i*-oCOCO

T-COCO

Sif

oCOCO

ototo

oto

CO

inCMCO

0CO0cCO

m2

6CDCMmCO

COCM

"*

2?

ototo

ototo

oto

CO

CMCOCD

0CO

COO>CCD2

CO9COCO

5"*

3E

§

ototo

oCO

CO

oJ7

0CO0

CDCOCro

6CD

CDCO

ino>*

3

f

ototo

o

oto

CO

CMCO

0CO0CCDCDCCO2

o

mCO

CO00IO

2if

8CO

otoCO

oto

CO

f-eoCO

0w0cCDCOcCD

COOCOC/J

COa>in

\^

f

ototo

oCOCO

oto

CO

CD

w0COcto

oCOomCO

COOJin

CO

if

o(Oto

oCOCO

oto

CO

COinCO

0CO0cCO

cCO

inoCOCO

CDor*-

3t

oCOCO

ototo

oto

CO

oCOT—

0CO0cCO

CD

CDOCOCO

OlCD

^

?

OCOCO

ototo

oto

ro

oCOCM

0CO

CO

m

COoCOCO

inN-

^v

?

otoCO

oCOto

oto

ro

oCM

0CO0cto

CO

CO1

COCO

CDin00

§if

ototo

o8

oto

ro

oCO

0CO0cCD

CO

6orfl

COin00

0)

E

ototo

oCOCO

oto

CO

oto

0CO0cCDCD

ro

*COCO

COdT-

3en

ototo

oCOCO

oto

CO

oinCD

CDV)0cCD

CCO

cfCOCO

COCO

en

COIOod

lAod

COh-d

d

COo

t10

OCDCO

COCOO)

3E

COinod

COmod

GON-d

d

COm

>,

0

COoCOCO

inCOCM

3

if

o

CM

OCD

OO

O>in

0

Z

«'CMCOCO

oCO

3if

o

CM

OCO

CO

00CO

CJ

z

0COCQCO

inCO

*

3t

o

CM

OCD

m

r-OO

0CJ

z

tomCO

o

"*

gE

o

CM

OCO

CO

COCO

0CJz

CO9COCO

mw"*

3it

o

CM

OCD

OO

CO

0CJZ

CNOCOCO

inCD

"*

3

i?

o

CM

OCD

OO

COCO

0

Z

COOCOCO

oCMCD

CO

£?

o

tM

OCD

en

CM

0

CJZ

oCOC/J

oCOCO

t

o

CM

oCO

CO

COCM

1Z

6mCMroCO

inCOCO

3

if

o

CM

OCD

GO

r*-CM

0UZ

6CO

mCO

oCO

a

E

o

CM

OCO

CO

GOCM

0OZ

oCOCMdiCO

oCOCD

3t

o

CM

OCO

CO

CMro

1Z

OCOCO

inCO

tx

nj

o

tM

S

CO

inCO

0uZ

6COoCQCO

oor"

3E

o

CM

oCO

00

o•*

0Xuz

oCOCO

winh-

1CO

o

CM

OCD

CO

in

0uZ

O

COCO

inCMOO

9if

o

CM

OCO

CO

inCO

CJZ

6oCQCO

oCDOO

9

o

tM

OCO

CO

CM1*-

CJ

Z

6CDCMfhCO

inCDCO

?a

o

CM

OCD

CO

COr-.

0

uZ

OCOoCQCO

inr-00

9

O

CM

OCD

OO

mh-

0.*:uZ

6oCQCO

mCOCO

a%

o

N

oCD

OO

N-N-

0CJZ

oCO

COCO

inCMen

9

o

CM

OCO

OO

inCO

0uZ

moCOCO

00tfe-oCO

A R 3 0 0 7 0 7

(0UJa.

i_i6COUJu5V)Z10UJO<OUJUJOXUJUJ

§O

zLULUKO2I- <

COO5moz

ou.o2m

zUJQCOUJtt_J6(0um.

O

Of<S3(0

O)UJ eOH cz z « «O p u sUJ rt I? TELU 5 5 5

HZ

<Z3<U.

S£mS(rO_iu.S£CD

UJ3_l _j

-.<3K H >

S Z CDOT UJ ZS S z5 « UJCC QJ Mt

0:0:uCO

zop to sUJQ

J-3(0Ul

-I

USUJXcj

zoHI H_l <Q. Us o:< Pw Z

LUQ

Oino>

^x

O

N

OCO

00

oO)

"5uZ

COOCOCO

mCOcn

1

o

N

OCO

00

OJoi

"5

Z

O)oCOCO

•trCM

1

O

oCO

00

oqi

CM

"ooZ

oCOomCO

CO^

^x

o

CM

OCO

eo

T-

O3CM

"5

UZ

°l

COCO

oCMOin

^x

o

COCDoooooC)

cnCO

CM

omo

0

CO

SCOCO

CMcnins-

O)

o

tocn§oooo

CDCO

CM

CON;

O

03

CO

i

°l

COCO

^+

cnCD

CO

?

o

COCftoooooo

O)CO

CM

toCOo

CD

CO

«•CMCOCO

00^CO

1o

ino

inin

o

f^.

E•oCDCCD>

O00CMCOCO

CMCO

£g

O

ino

inin

o

^CM

E•oCDC

3

COOCOCO

00

1o

mo

inin

o

is_CM

E3

CDC

£

6inCMCDCO

CDinin

t

o

ino

inin

o

COr-CM

E3

CDC

3

SoCOCO

CM00m

I

o

ino

inin

o

cnCM

ETJCOC

3

SCMCDCO

Oatm

f

o

mo

inin

o

inCDCM

E3

CDCCD>

COoCOCO

CMo>m

I

o

ino

inin

o

COcnCM

E3•oCDCCD>

i

COCO

COo(D

£

o

ino

inin

o

COoCO

E3•DCOC

3CMCDCO

^,_CD

f

O

mo

inin

o

oCO

E3

T3CDCCD>

O1—OCOCO

^»—CD

O)

O

ino

inm

o

i--oCO

E3

CDC

°'COCO

^CDCD

I

O

ino

inm

o

CMCOCO

E3•oCOcCO>

CMOCOCO

ocnCD

1O)

o

ino

inin

o

in^>CO

E3T3CD

CO>

ICMCOCO

Ôr-

0)

o

mo

inin

o

CMinCO

E3

"Sat>

CO9COCO

o

Io

ino

inin

o

ininCO

E3•aCOcCD>

OCOCO

CNCOh-

t

O

ino

mm

o

COCOeo

E3

CDCO>

O

COoCDCO

CMCO

I

O

ino

in

o

CDCDCO

E3•oCOCO>

O)oCOCO

COCO

21

o

mo

inin

o

a>COCO

E3•oCO

CO>

5eoCDCO

în

I

o

mo

in

O

r--fs_CO

E3•oCO

CO>

oCOCO

CMCDN.

£f

o

mo

inin

o

00CO

E3•DCOCO>

O

T-

CDCO

00CD

I

O

mo

inm

o

00CO

E3TJCOCO>

«'OCDCO

^1

O)

Io

ino

inin

o

r-0)CO

£3•aCO

CO>

oCOCO

COo00

^x

o

ino

inin

o

**o

E3

COCO>

inoCOCO

^~COCO

f

o

HIO

inm

o

CM.

E3

T3CO

CO>

2'CDCO

t—O

ia

o

ino

inin

o

eoOm

E3

T3CO

CO>

tOmCO

00r-

D)

o

o

ooCOCM

COS.

U

Fj

toCDCO

oCMin

Io

o

ooeoCM

oCMin

uN

oeo

SCO

inin

I

o

o

§eoCM

in.

in

ocN

3CMCOCO

cnCOm

t

o

o

ooCOCM

cnCOin

oN

0'COCOCO

h-CDr*-

3

o

o

ooeoCM

tor-

oN

CMOCOCO

CD00r*~

^x

o

o

ooCOCM

CO00

ucNJ

(DOCOCO

T-^J

cn^x

O

O

ooCOCM

i—

OcN

oCDOCOCO

CD»•—O

3 R 3 0 0 7 Q 8

(AUla.

io(AUJU2(0Z(0UJo<QUJ111oXUlUJ

0

UJUJtfos«< o|z3 <5 o

. DC

M -O

maz

ou.O

m

UJaloUlceOCOu00a:u.Occ

=>(0

o»UJ CO i- cz z « *Q p b §UJ S » •=UJ O 33 5

8§3UJ £

**^

l-z3

Z3LL

O

&

3u.s1-caUJ

dp3w S °0 Q 1S»§D- UJ UJ

O(O

Zop to s

UJo

h-

toUJK

_l

U£UJXu

zoIj <a. o< p

zUJo

CMCO

H"a

o

o

ooCOCM

CMCO

OCN

COOCOCO

r-.CO

Q)

O

o

SCOCM

CO

UcN

T—

tp

COCO

• -in

I

o

o

ooCOCM

••*•in

ocN

ôCOCO

CDto

a

o

o

ooCOCM

COCO

UCN

^—6enCOCO

•*rO)

t

o

o

ooCOCM

"*cn

ucN

T—

«!

CMCDCO

^-cn

n"5b

o

o

ooCOCM

cn

ocN

f-pCOCO

COOCM

"S

O

O

ooCOCN

COOCM

UC

N

r-OCOCO

COCMCM

t

O

o

ooCOCM

COCMCM

OCM

T—

O

COCMCOCO

CO

CM

I

O

o

ooCOCM

CO

CM

CJCN

*—6oCDCO

CO

CM

1

O

o

ooCOCM

COr*-CM

ucN

^—6,oCOCO

COr-CM

f

O

O

ooCOCM

CO1*-CM

0CN

U7pCOCO

•»-

CO

1

O

o

ooCOCM

CO

ucIM

O)oCOCO

CMO)CO

Io

o

§COCM

CMO>CO

ucN

COpCOCO

^>CO

1

o

o

ooCOCM

CO"

oE:N

î

5CMCOCO

^

h-

I

o

o

ooCOCM

r-.

ocN

T"

O

COoCOCO

CMOT-

1

O

o

ootoCM

OCMOT—

OcN

T—

0CMCOCO

CD

a

E

o

o

ooCOCM

OCD

T—

OcN

T*

O

CDCO

1

00

mCO

5VabCO

5o>9COCO

-1

300oCOCOT—

CDpCDco ,_:

1 1

-*'^p CO 5co co -9CO TJ TO— • £ af^ CO oO ,_' CO

CO CM "

-« _"§o(T_- g gT- Ci *°

CO jQ > *y^ i CO ^3

*. CO *CI CDCO CO co "cO - CD 33«' T~ 3 m1 •= mco Q! « 2O) CV| «

O CO m 2£ CO C- CO

»- V <" O)o 6 g cCO _..' x c'J) {\j 1) CD

-o CO § b5 co £ «•Q - CO Q)c; "7 CD aj•""• O 3 i—JS 115 £

^ CO > CD

E co "c 2CD CO 3 O« ^. -c *-IS gSK cn E -O ^- ^ M«iSf ^^ QJ a)Cu i « .±--e co £ fE3 CO 0 ^

CO CO «

COtfc-oCO

A R 3 0 Q 7 0 9

TABLE 4-8SUMMARY OF RBC SOIL RESIDENTIAL SCREENING VALUE EXCEEDANCES IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES BY ANALYSIS

GROUP

SAMPLEIDENTIFICATION CHEMICAL RESULT QUALIFIER DETECTION

LIMIT

RBC SOILRESIDENTIAL

SCREENING VALUEUNIT

EXCEEDANCEQUOTIENT

(result/screeningvalue)

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSDSB-26 5-6SB-26 7-8SB-03 7-8SB-24 2-3SB-26 7-8SB-25 7-8SB-27 5-6SB-01 6-7SB-27 7-8SB-28 7-8SB-28 3-4SB-22 7-8SB-22 5-6SB-25 3-4

TrichloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVinyl ChlorideVtnyl ChlorideVinyl Chloride

76,000710,000

120120130160180210420420720740

1,6003,300

D

J

D

DJDJJD

1010101010101010101010101010

5800058000

909090909090909090909090

ug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgus/Kgug/Kgug/KgUS/KBug/Kgug/Kg

1.3112.21.331.331.441.782.002.334.674.678.008.2217.836.7

SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSSB-06 4-5SB-19 2-3SB-21 0-1SB-27 5-6SB-29 0-1

Benzo(a)pyreneBenzo{a)pyreneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)pyrene

PESTICIDES AND PCBsSB-23 1-2SB-23_1-2

Arodor-1260Arodor-1254

INORGANICSSB-04 4-5SB-01 4-5SB-24 2-3SB-21 4-5SB-18 4-5SB-30 3-4SB-18 7-8SB-03 7-8SB-26 5-6SB-27 7-8SB-26 7-8SB-23 6-7SB-06 7-8SB-06 4-5SB-22 0-1SB-20 7-8SB-09 3-4SB-27 5-6SB-22 5-6SB-29 6-7

DSB-26 5-6SB-19 2-3SB-20 4-5SB-22 7-8SB-14 4-5SB-04 3-4SB-21 7-8SB-14 7-8SB-20 0-1SB-09 7-8SB-28 3-4SB-29 4-5

DSB-09 7-8SB-08 7-8SB-25 3-4SB-25 7-8SB-28 7-8SB-27 7-8

AluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAluminumAntimonyArsenicArsenicArsenic

959991120140

1,300350

7,9207,9808,0608,0908,1808,3109,1209,1409,35010,20010L50010,90011.40011,70011,70011.80011,90012,30012,40012,40012,80013,00013,40013,70013.80013,90014,10014.50015,80016,10016,40017,30019,30022,900

9.21.92.23.1

JJJJJ

D

JK

330330330330330

3333

4040404040404040404040404040404040404040404040404040404040404040404012222

8787878787

320320

7,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007.8007,8007,8007,8007.8007,8007.8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,8007,800

3.10.430.430.43

ug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgug/Kgug/Kg

ug/Kgug/Kg

mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgjmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmo/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg_mg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg_mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg

1.091.141.051.381.61

4.061.09

1.021.021.031.041.051.071.171.171.201.311.351.401.461.501.501.511.531.581.591.591.641.671.721.761.771.781.811.862.032.062.102.222.472.942.974.425.127.21

f \ R 3 0 0 7 l O 10,3


GROUP


SB-28 3-4SB-08 7-8SB-27 0-1SB-30 3-4SB-06 4-5SB-14 4-5SB-04 4-5

DSB-26 5-6SB-29 4-5SB-22 0-1SB-19 2-3SB-18 4-5SB-04 3-4SB-25 3-4SB-20 0-1SB-27 5-6SB-19 2-3SB-20 7-8SB-24 4-5SB-01 6-7SB-03 7-8SB-27 0-1SB-25 7-8SB-26 7-8SB-08 3-4SB-27 7-8SB-30 7-8SB-18 7-8SB-28 7-8SB-03 4-5SB-21 0-1SB-01 4-5SB-18 4-5SB-24 2-3SB-30 3-4SB-19 2-3SB-26 5-6SB-06 4-5SB-09 7-8SB-29 6-7SB-04 4-5SB-06 7-8SB-23 6-7SB-04 3-4SB-14 7-8SB-28 3-4SB-22 5-6

DSB-26 5-6SB-09 3-4SB-20 4-5

DSB-09 7-8SB-27 5-6SB-20 0-1SB-25 3-4SB-22 7-8SB-14 4-5SB-29 4-5SB-21 7-8SB-21 4-5SB-22 0-1SB-08 7-8SB-29 0-1SB-25 3-4

CHEMICAL

ArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenicArsenic

ChromiumIronironIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIrontronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronIronLead

RESULT

5.75.96.16.56,97.07.18,18.48.69.910.610.810.811.312.8246

11,60013,30013,40014,20014.20015,00017,50018,20018,30018,30018,80019,50019.90020,50020,70022,20022,20022,30022,50023,60023,70024.30024,30025,00025.50025,50026,80027.60028,10028,50028,80029,70030,60032,30032.30032,60033.50034,00035,10036.40043,70045,30047,50063,90072,000

442

QUALIFIER

KK

KKJKKKKJJ

K

DETECTIONLIMIT

22222222222222222

2020202020

• 202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020201

RBC SOILRESIDENTIAL

SCREENING VALUE

0.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.430.43

0.43000230

2,3002,3002,3002.3002,3002,3002,3002,3002.3002,3002,3002,3002.3002,3002,3002,3002,3002.3002,3002,3002.3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002.3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,3002,300400

UNIT

ma/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kamg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kamg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kamg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg_mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Ksmg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg_mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg

EXCEEDANCEQUOTIENT

(result/screeningvalue)

13.313.714.215.116.016.316.518.819.520.023.024.725.125.126.329.81.075.045.785.836.176.176.527.617.917.967.968.178.488.658.919.009.659.659.709.7810.310.310.610.610.911.111.111.712.012.212.412.512.913.314.014.014.214.614.815.315.819.019.720.727.831.31.11

A R 3 0 0 7 2 of 3


GROUP


SB-18 4-5SB-27 0-1SB-22 5-6SB-30 7-8SB-29 4-5SB-29 6-7SB-20 4-5SB-26 5-6SB-09 3-4SB-03 4-5SB-21 7-8SB-24 4-5SB-25 3-4SB-28 7-8SB-21 4-5SB-06 7-8SB-22 0-1

DSB-26 5-6SB-24 2-3SB-21 0-1SB-14 4-5SB-29 0-1SB-14 7-8SB-19 2-3SB-01 6-7SB-26 7-8SB-20 0-1SB-06 4-5SB-08 7-8

DSB-09 7-8SB-09 7-8SB-01 4-5SB-23 6-7SB-08 7-8

CHEMICAL

ManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseManganeseVanadium

RESULT

161167170183189189227231234243248249274280282296306317336341467493536550638648674802998

1,1101,1801,2001.460

79

QUALIFIER

KK

K

K

KK

K

K

K

DETECTIONLIMIT

33333333333333333333333333333333310

RBC SOILRESIDENTIAL

SCREENING VALUE

160 j16016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016016055

UNIT

mg/Kgmg/Kflmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Ksmg/Kgmg/Kflms/Kgmg/Kgmo/Kamg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg

EXCEEDANCEQUOTIENT

(result/screeningvalue)1.011.041.061.141.181.181.421.441.461.521.551.561.711.751.76 -1.851.911.982.102.132.923.083.353.443.994.054.215.016.246.947.387.509.131.44

f l R S O n y 2 3 of 3

TABLE 5-1FATE TRANSPORT PROPERTIES OF COPCs

CONTAMINANTHenry's Law

Molec. Constant log KowWeight @20-25 C(g/mole) (atm-m A3/mol)

Water Specific Vaporlog Koc Solubility Density Pressure

@20-25 C @20-25 C @20-25 C(mg/1)*_________(mmHG)

Reference

TCL Volatile Organics

Acetone1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene1,1-Dichloroethane1,2-DichloroethaneBenzeneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethyl acetateMethylcyclohexaneMethyl tert-butyl etherTolueneTrichloroetheneTricbJorofluoromethanel,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethaneVinyl chlorideXylenes (Total)

TCL Semi-Volatile Organics - 1

1,1-Biphenyl2,4-Dimethylphenol2-Methyhiapthalene2-Methylphenol2-MethylnapthaleneBenzaldehydebis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamCaibazoleDibenzofiiranDi-n-butylphthalateFluorenePhenol

TCL Semi- Volatile Organics - 2 (PAH)

AcenaptheneAcenapthyleneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)perylenelndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyreneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneBis(2 -Ethylhexyl)PhthaIateNapthalenePhenantnrene

58.08147.0098.9698.9678.11106.17120.1974.0899.2088.0792.14131.39137.37187.3862.50106.17

154.20122.17142.20108.14142.20106.12390.57312.39113.16167.20168.20278.34166.2294.11

154.21152.20178.24202.26202.26228.30228.00252.32252.32252.32276.34276.34278.36390.57128.18178.24

3.97E-051.90E-035.45E-039.80E-045.40E-036.60E-03

NDANBANDANDA

6.70E-039.10E-031.10E-015.26E-011.22E-KK)7.10E-03

NDA6.55E-06

NDA1.23E-06

NDANDA

1.10E-051.3E-06NDANDANDANDA

2.10E-042.70E-07

1.70E-042.00E-046.50E-051.60E-021.09E-052.30E-067.26E-202.40E-061.20E-051.04E-031.40E-072.96E-207.33E-091.10E-054.60E-043.90E-05

-0.243.401.791.482.123.13NDANDANDANDA2.652.532.533.160.603.18

NDA2.424.111.934.11NDA4.654.91-0.19NDA4.17NDA4.181.46

4.134.074.455.225.095.905.616.006.576.857.107.706.364.653.364.52

-0.43e2.261,481.151,942.20NDANDANDANDA2.182.032.20NDA0.39e2.31

NDA2.07e3.931.343.93NDA5.00

0.8NDA4.00ENDA3.701.43

1.253.68e4.274.624.816.145.39e6.00e5.746.64e6.89e7.49e6.225.003.114.36

l.OOE+06l.OOE+025.50E+038.69E+031.75E+031.52E+02

INSOLUBLENDANDANDA

5.15E-KJ21.10E+031.10E-K)31.70E-H>2UOE+032.00E+02

INSOLUBLE6.20E+032.46E+012.50E+042.46E+01

NDA3.00E-012.69E+005.25E+06

INSOLUBLEl.OOE+01

NDA1.69E+008.20E+04

3.47E+003.93E+004.50E-022.40E-011.35E-011.20E-021.80E-033.90E-031.40E-025.50E-042.60E-046.20E-025.00E-033.00E-013.00E-K)!l.OOE+00

0.79061.30641.17571.25300.86800.8669NDANDANDANDA0.86691.46421.4870NDA

0.91060.8800

NDA0.96501.00581.02731.0058NDA0.9873NDANDANDA1.0886NDA1.20301.0576

1.02420.89881.26001.25201.27101.27401.27401.3510NDANDANDA0.06201.28200.98731.14501.1790

2.70E-K)2l.OOE+001.82E+026.40E+019.52E+017.08E+00

NDANDANDANDA

2.20E-K)!5.70E-KJ26.87E+023.63E+022.S8E+03l.OOE+01

NDA9.80E-02

NDA2.40E-01

NDANDA

2.00E-078.6E+061.9E-03NDANDANDA

7.00E-042.00E-01

1.55E-032.90E-021.95E-045.00E-062.50E-062.20E-086.30E-095.60E-095.00E-079.59E-111.01E-10l.OOE-10l.OOE-102.00E-075.40E-026.80E-04

Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993

Meick, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989

DerivedKnoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Howard, 1990

Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993

Merck, 1989Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993

Merck, 1989Knoxetal, 1993Howard, 1990Howard, 1990Merck, 1989

Knoxetal, 1993Merck, 1989

Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993

Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993

A R 3 0 0 7 I 3

TABLE 5-1FATE TRANSPORT PROPERTIES OF COPCs

CONTAMINANT

TCL Pesu'cides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD4,4'-DDE4,4'-DDTalpha-BHCAroclor 1254Aroclor 1260beta-BHCEndosulfan IEndosulfan IIEndrin AldehydeEndrin KetoneMethoxychlor

TAL Inorganics

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCobaltCopperCyanideIronLeadManganeseMercurySilverVanadiumZinc

Henry's LawMolec. ConstantWeight ©20-25 C(g/mole) (atm-m A3/mol)

320.05319.03354.49290.83327.00370.00290.83406.95406.95380.92380.93345.66

26.98122.0075.00137.009.00

112.0052.0059.0064.0026.0156.00207.2055.00201.00108.0050.9465.00

2.16E-052.34E-054.89E-055.30E-062.70E-037.10E-032.30E-07

NDANBA

3.86E-075.00E-07

NDA

NDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDANDA

logKow

5.995.776.193.776.476.913.96NDANDA5.604.564.40


logKoc

4.64e5.395.383.285.616.42e3.46NDANDA4.43e3.924.95


WaterSolubility@20-25C

(mg/1)*

2.00E-024.00E-025.00E-031.63E-H305.00E-028.00E-022.40E-01InsolubleInsoluble2.60E-012.30E-014.00E-02

InsolubleInsolubleInsoluble

DecomposesInsolubleInsolubleInsolubleInsolubleInsolubleSoluble

InsolubleInsoluble

DecomposesInsolubleInsolubleInsolubleInsoluble

Specific VaporDensity Pressure

@20-25 C ©20-25 C(mmHG)

1.4760NDA1.56001.87001.50501.56001.8900NDANDANDA1.65001.4100


1.02E-066.49E-061.90E-072.50E-05T-.7 IE-054.05E-052.80E-07

NDANDA

2.00E-077.00E-07

NDA


Reference

Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993

Merck, 1989Merck, 1989

Knoxetal, 1993Knoxetal, 1993Knox eta!, 1993

Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Patnaik, 1992Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989Merck, 1989

e - estimated values1 - Value for p-xylene was usedNDA - No data available

fl R 3 0 0 7

Table 6-1Summary of Data used in Human Health Risk Assessment

North Penn Area 7 - OU2 Soil - Spra-Fin Facility

Medium

Soil Gas

Offsite Surface Soil

Onsite Surface Soil

Onsite Soil (OnsiteSurface Soil andSubsurface SoilCombined)

Sample Locations

SG08-3, SG08-5, SG-08-8, SG12-3, and SG12-:

SS-01 through SS-05

SS-02

SS-06 through SS-09; SB-01_0-1, SB-03JM,SB-04_0-1, SB-06_0-1, SB-08,0-1, SB-09 J>-1SB-14JM, SB-18_0-1, SB-19JM, SB-23JM,SB-24 0-1, SB-26 0-1, and SB-30 0-1, DSS-08(1>

SB-24_0-1

SS-06 through SS-09; SB-01_0-1, SB-01.4-5,SB-01_6-7, SB-03JM. SB-03_4-5, SB-03_7-8,SB-04_0-1, SB-04_3-4, SB-04_4-5, SB-06_0-1;SB-06.4-5, SB-06_7-8, SB-08_0-1, SB-08_3-4,SB-08J7-8, SB-09_0-1, SB-09_3-4, SB-09.7-8,SB-14_0-1, SB-14_4-5, SB-14_7-8, SB-18JMSB-18.4-5, SB-18_7-8, SB-19JM, SB-19_2-3,SB-20_0-1, SB-20_4-5, SB-20_7-8, SB-21JMSB-21_4-5, SB-21_7-8, SB-22JM, SB-22_5-6SB-22J7-8, SB-23_0-1, SB-23_l-2, SB-23_6-7,SB-24_0-1, SB-24.2-3, SB-24.4-5, SB-25_0-1SB-25.3-4, SB-25_7-8, SB-26_0-1, SB-26..5-6,SB-26_7-8, SB-27_0-1, SB-27_5-6, SB-27 J7-8SB-28_0-1, SB-28_3-4, SB-28_7-8, SB-29_0-1,SB-29_4-5, SB-29_6-7, SB-30_0-1, SB-30_3-4SB-30 7-8, DSS-08 (1), DSB-09 7-8 (2>, DSB-26_5-6(3)

SB-24_0-1, SB-25.7-8, SB-28.3-4, SB-09_2.53

Parameter

Limited VOCs - Trichloroethylene,1,1-Dichloroethylene, MethyleneChloride, Tetrachloroethylene, 1,2-Dichloroethylene, Vinyl Chloride,Chloroform, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane,and Dichloromethane


TOC.GS


TOC, GS


TOC.GS

VOC - Volatile Organic CompoundsSVOCs - Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundsPCBs - Polychlorinated BiphenylsTOC - Total Organic CarbonGS - Grain SizeNotes:(1) Duplicate of SS-08.(2) Duplicate of SB-09_7-8.(3) Duplicate of SB-26__5-6.

R R 3 0 0 7 1 5

c u.

1 Ec P-o eno •

^ *S °° « E!•2 -s O^ C i

jj! r-CJ Mi- w<= <:

w Sz

'5"U

3 _CO n«J '£

ta •«O —

^ C i

!!to eS w

jE '«O oi

'5u a.

ol

i~-'o LJen a.u O

"HIen cu u*^ *o2 'Kc uo o;

^, o= u

.— to

c "g

Cu•a

'5en.r uc OOO

OU A

rocl

or 1

254

^

*

Aro

clor

1 2

60

^

*

1 B

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e

^

^

^

^

ucu

nNC

^

*

Benz

o(b)

nuor

anlh

ene

'a

Bis

(2-e

thyl

hexy

l)pht

hal

^

*

Di b

enz(

a,h)

anth

race

rie

^

^

*

lnde

no( 1

,2,3

-cd)

pyre

ne

^

*

^

Met

hylc

yclo

hexa

ne

^

Met

hyl T

ert B

utyl

Ettie

i

^

Tric

hlor

oeth

ylen

e

Vin

yl C

hlor

ide

*

*

Alu

min

um

*

c

c

^

^

^

^

^

Ars

enic

^

E_=n

CQ

*

Cad

miu

m

*

*

*

^

1 C

hrom

ium

^

^

^

o

v

\

V

•3n_J

^

*

Man

gane

se

*

t-3U

U

5 Vana

dium

A R 3 0 Q 7 ! 6

CMth~o<DO)no.

COI-0 UJ0. tO CO <

Sil£25uj K >-£ uj coU] o. za D z3 CO UJCO N Q-

2|S!i*^ in i£°- &liEg»gzsiCOCO

««"o«oCOk.oaau«)a

«*e*oa•cUJ**

«Et3MW0

in"3»a**oa>XJC«E

Asse

ssm

ent E

ndpo

ints

«*,

<oJUre.a03to.c"5w

® i_ ô X oc £ w£ -0 T30) CD =5 CD

•*= "S °. «0) (0 (0 eg•- 3 a) nm -y £ CD2 8^2« CD -£ .aO }= S .£-j- CD > -C* « £ CD£ 0?>

«*^C9 £ J2 i& 3 CO .-. .S S -^ £ £w O c <D*S d c « SO V (D (— -^

§ € 1 5W O T5 f° O)•c I: <S i cTO 5 c "cI°18|00=5 § g0 T. .£ 8 «

03CO

" 'Sio Sto _g ô <5™ *- m *-^ £ ro £E ^ "5 ~S " > «€l'| 80 « m 2-.3 = CD .QCO O J^ Q)CD m t: -cV ® E CDi 0 O >

^ f ^S**^ 3 rt* 7Ro » g o_W _C CD •*-CD *- <D °> C (0 JZ5 « fe ?^ w S »£ £ -g S< Q. CO O)

M S.0) *.

1 »

of s

oil i

nver

tebr

ate

com

mui

»xic

effe

cts

(on

surv

ival

and

site-

rela

ted

chem

icals

pres

il

III!u £ £ ol|l«> P ^- 3Q- «i= O) «

C15o£cn_oCD

<

0 «3 "K82°C ^ $ co0) -Q > —S- C <D -SCD .E — COTK >- "O -C£ .2 * m*^* -1—— Q

(0 -o {S 3e £ .= "5« 5 "S >o 3*^-iX-H g2u .^^ S.S§S £ .E o i<D <D T) 0 ~^ co •> « °>

IIP!« 0) -2 0 <DCO S 8 3 S|° 1 8 8t <-; a) Q. «o°^ $ S

" 0)a c £'o o en« ,« . c(0 (0 •—.E is .a §«;g-G „S'-iSc g g Se £ & »I ? £ SC "S T> no « c 20 03 TO ~CD CO _. 0— 3 15 CD(0 CO to

"S o'l~« r 5 °CD C . (0> CD £ «« 75 v CD~ IE i « P"e c g u CDi! 3 C U —< <O D) <0 CO

- J5ri ^h. -*—1UJ ^v *i^ CD S3 v- 2(0 o, 9-

of in

sect

ivor

ous

bird

s to

en

ion

of co

ntam

inan

ts in

soi

l,s d

oes

not h

ave

nega

tive

imsu

rviva

l, an

d re

prod

uctio

n

II |ir^ o> s8 -£ £ £

!!* =Q. £ re o

j£SreX•os*ro(7•Docr

'S »3 •»-

8?S£ =s S ^S0 -Q > ~

c5-£ * »"S •- "O -C£ £ o "*»- «rf Q)

co -a J5 =o JS E re^^« >o 3 • ^-jX^ 5-5^&5 «sga £s ^ Se « =5 3 -t=5 w > * w

l!!«CO HJ IS. CD CD•s i s § s&Q E 8 8s q 5 & 8O T- o CD CD

CD£

S c 500 —f ,K _> O)« fl) F.£ T3 > -i«|-§ s§5ii'E £ Q. IDI ¥ £ §c "2 "o oo co c L.o CD ro 9CD « _' •=-ti 3 CO F» 8 ! «^ ?* u0 o C „_J2 - g °* c . <o> CD JE W

— "O ? * (s.CD £ § U CDJ= 3 C 3 s-<, (fl O) (0 (O

0) "D C!= C 03 m . .

of ca

rniv

orou

s bi

rds

to e

nsio

n of

con

tam

inan

ts in

soi

l ;no

t hav

e a

nega

tive

impa

ctrv

ivai,

and

repr

oduc

tion

c 1o W 30 CD CD w

••== cn o _-8-s-of2 | £ 2D. S 0. O)

£x:tnT3^3ti:oCO

*K "5° 3 »»-82°c ^ $ toCO "D > •*•te s ^ ^5'In te "0 £2 £ CD **— is ®CO -O JO 3Q a E TO«s » 1o 3 « _ix 9 s-^s*. o S ^^S ?§o£: w .£ O IB co -o o *•15 ^55 S ÎIPw co J2 (n CDciS 8 ES&Q E S 81 q' S & 8O t- O <D CO

03 O).c cco "~ 'atIB =•en , «<O CD T5.£ t5 > SJ2^1 Essil1 S s. »i s e gC O TJ fco « 1 o0 o CO £CD « _- 0

.±± 3 CD <DCO CO > <fl*K '> --0 0 £ «_-22 - S ° 03 C . CO <>> CD n « 0)-2 i ? s «5 = 2=^< CO O) CD ±3

"o ^W os-£ a

of in

sect

ivoro

us m

amm

alstt i

nges

tion

of co

ntam

inant

slo

es n

ot h

ave

a ne

gativ

e irr

, sur

vival

, and

repr

oduc

tion

c JS -o j£o £ >*v""3 2 £ ICD fa Q. c;3 «TJ °>i- C C CQ. CD CO O

r-

r-.CDCDCOcr

tfiX

.93.0to

c."6o.T:cLU\no

CM>*—O

CMVTOtoo.

U)£uoaCO1-SaauoK

_jgco*soO

£"55CO

LLJ

COZo wa. tO CO <

E UJ (0_ 111 Q- Z7[ K 3 Z•*- D (0 UJUJ (0 CM Q-

5 «0 3 1te81-C .£ ® «8? 5«

co -Q « 3o S .i 13

to 13 •- o> to

o c „. •« -ofillSi&Q 1 8 8I p 5 & 8O t- O <D (0

S O« g ZsiCOCO

T3

s| S« c » 2

E § sis" s S1 ° "° TOo S Ac

*K •— C Q. CO — CD C or- CO . .£ Ô £ >• ffi W

S 3 - « SS C =5 ? &Q. 03 W C IT

gGO

_.O(DH-«"c"oQ.•oC

UJ

A R 3 0 0 7 I 8

CEP

TOR

S:

UJ

LLO

3

zUJoooLLoUJ

jg

^J

c3oc

duck

, am

erica

oo

TJ"o

CO.0CD

CD

w"CD

1n

CD

1

CO

1ToCOOCLCOJ5CDD)

COLLOCD

<

1O

oE*fiwSCD

1TJ£

11'S•c1

id sa

ndpi

pel

"o

1

TJ

§OQ.wjt

1TJO

"CD _5sfij18e Ec ®si!D *E xa a*1p -

l!6.1to -V® tCO Oft tOCD -•f »-llC CL!H TJ'6 raCO to

CDCD^

"SoQ.

QO)CO

CD

1ffl

TJ£"50.

j^

1TJ.CD

'•? Wi-sc-S

i Ec SS CO_ COc: CDo> .SI

If*c toO v-v

C Q)

- JSCD t

£> COCD -•t- *-is.c Ct~ TJ

o coCO w

CDo

ToCOoCLtobD3CD

COTJ

O

13

"oO.V)j£

COjrTJj>

5TJ£

!5o

1oCO

o

CD.O

CD

CD

2-Q

€0)

.E'oCO

CO0)1_

0)D)COo

COenCD

COu_LULLOCO

D

=

aste

rn c

otto

nte

CD

x"&•^~

iCOTJ

"_5ioJ=V)i_TCDCL'5.TJ

COCO

TJCD =

1 |TJ Sfi?- o15 £o 2*- V)C CDCO CDO .'C Xg £s-g-*~ *",O 5

H"8 •?O "C"c s=.CO «

rate

s, a

mer

itd

san

dpip

el

.Q *•'CO S

1 1

IICO £

c"5Q.TJOOLL

LU

CD

S

"CD£O)-

oTJ

oQ

^3CO2cCO

CD

CD

£CO

(ft"in

verte

brat

e

oroc.to£LL

TJCm

"S3

LL

JCcIj£k."«

JS

Q."Q.TJ

CO(0TJS"5

^T

1T)JJ

j2T)to *-r'^£ -^£ «5 I

, m

uskr

ai

jtcEcfS^CD

"co£en

oTJ•oo1-C~CO

(£=W

inve

rtebr

ate

b.£"5

tooLL

CD

OO)

CO

CD

W

O

CD

S

TO£O)ôTJTJ

8COoc

1CD

CD

J±CO

w"

inve

rtebr

ate

mus

krat

^CD C

lg.£ Cto o03 £.S- CDLL ^

u-

,>

_O

CO

55

X

A R 3 0 0 7 I 9

Table 7-2Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern

North Perm Area 7 - OU2 Soil - Spra-Fin Facility

Chemical of Potential ConcernAroclor 1254

Aroclor 1260

Bndosulfan 1

Endosul&n II

Endosulfan Sulfatc

Endrin Aldehyde

Endrin Ketone

Melhoxychlor

U-Biphenyl

2,4-Dichlorophenol

2,4-Dinitropheno]

2,4-Dimethylphenol

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

2-Chlorophenol

2-Methylnaphthalene

2-Methylphenol

4-Methylphenol (p-Crcsol)

4-Nitrophenol

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzaldehyde

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)peTylene

Benzo(k)fluoranthenc

Benzyl butyl phthalate

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Caprolactam

Carbazole

Chrysene

Dibenz(a,h)anthraccne

Dibenzofuran

Di-n-butylphthalate

Di-n-octylphthalate

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Offsite and Onsite Surface Soil || Onsite Shallow Soil (0-1 'bgs)

•*

•••••

•

•••••••••••••••••

••

•••••••

••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••

COcc

Table 7-2Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern

North Perm Area 7 - OU2 Soil - Spra-Fin Facility

Chemical of Potential Concern II Onsite and Offsite Surface Soil II Onsite Shallow Soil (0-1'bEs)Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

Naphthalene

Pentachlorophenol

Phenanthrene

Phenol

Pyrene

Acetone

Ethylbenzene

Isopropylbenzene

Methyl Acetate

Methylcyclohexane

Trichloroethylene

Trichlorofluoromethane

Toluene

Xylenes, total

Aluminum

Antimony

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

CyanideIron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Silver

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•bgs = below ground surface

f l R 3 0 0 7 2

U,

18.2 enA ,a- _r? « "5ti S wjs S sJ3 Q, 2

w0,

toZ

a>"3_,_ ,

coeCOCQUCOCQ

<

U,3"3

*s•coo.•9ft!

V-

—CC2

CL,<u1-1=3Oo.

W

CO

'3D.

00

euoooo38o•fcj

"3a-

(terri

tory

size

)

Cfl14-1UU

(N

d

d

CL>00

(2offi

s-*

ONCO

iJD

1*"o "o

CO CO

•£55co"•*•*oCOc

i1"o1<s.1

13s

cO*-o

T-H

d

,^

odcd

T— H

cd•O00~ob_

JUId

ctoU00

1 — 1

is"

1od

00

od

&

1

d

¥•o00

«— i U• -*-<O JD

<U13c.2toCD00

J3

•§>

00

r-od

ooodr--od

•4— >

00'S

oCQ

f5•5

.S S-S ?O r-C Oo••J J^

_CJ ,(3

Id

ood

'o?•H'wE?2•Eo4->

CO<L>£*juu

43Ot^r-i

oNO

00

1o

^«'5

CO

^ r®l/*JO\

CO

"3S1e

73i

UDph

ibia

ns, r

eptile

s,n,

dom

estic

ani

mal

smal

l mam

mals

, am

inse

cts,

bird

s, c

arrio

*-»5

i?1V)O

d

opê

ONdi-

toT-H

cd

00"SbI— 1 ^__^

zz "°O u-d 3

(DIdPC

.2toU00c

I-H

ed*

1od

00

d

•o

10od

•a00

ON —^<^J WO t!d "Jo

otsft!c.2

CO

00C

I-H

h-

•§

^

00

ONd

00

i

d

j=op"C

oCQ

^•a

"^ 1cd ,<Jffi 3•o Soj acd o

(2 S

SQJPouocd££31a*

ecta

res

| app

roxim

atel

y 0.

4 h

CO

c?

1so£

t-o'o

CO

^

t*ÔO

CO*U vC« s?

J3 ^|ir 1'S c

CO CO

I-*u•aoT3

J3

inse

cts,

wor

ms,

sna

iin

verte

brat

es

"SQ

>>•o

Sood

SP

odcd(-1

c2

ood

•a•5?ob'C'tN U

d *§

(D13ft!c.2

CO(D00C

Jd*•ojjfcood

00

od

ood

¥*V00

prj *3

CM E

d §

sft!c.2to00CI— 1

•§^

00

T-Hod

noONodV)

Od

Op'S

oCQ

•S'C

s£

J3

1X1 ^_^

JH *§' i *i

-2 cs

00 »fe

(Nl*HO

<NJc\j

oC jio .or

u cd

1 B-2 co

g3 CO

8 3«•

o SW g

(X

•§o2

CD73*>r^•*->CuCO

3coCO<

u5"ed

*OU•cOa.&

j-u*-*u§cd1

PH

ICAOa-0*fî

W

(A-'30)a.w

t*-uiO

CO

1••-fO4>

COt-^

OOo

CD00

C4u

offl

SUe'•aoCO

•0^

V}ON

Co'Sft>2* ^ Dg>^> v~>

Co"5cd•4-t4>00a>>%•aoo^

T3

CO•4—1

1a.(O3

herb

aceo

4-1<L>

S

$ob<j

p-Xi

• rONOCJ

S*-H

ed«-t2t*— 1

&W)

^4"fO\Oo

COcd•rt *

calcu

late

mam

mal

o•a

[nge

stio

n R

i

TDOOfe

&cd

ob

•-H

O

00-^r-H

ed1-1

c2eV

ob

«-H

2,¥cd•o

ob cr^ SS S°1 "So S

CDtd04C.2*<•— i

CACD00c1— 1feId£

oo34-^t-H

bO^r^

î— <

tNCO

i— i

1CD

^

"OO

CD«n

1*-*t&* -Hcd"5_o"O 05U 3

e c-SU ^3

« Ccd O

CQ SX

tsrnc_o

Vjo

.S"Ou13

D.CA

PH -teW J2

CDI-coOO,X

W

1 fellX> <L>O ^-^ WCD /-s

1°« ^

3 Q13 c> 2

13 00£ .SI? -S2 «Pi Cd

**• *

3 —

511 -il>S •*^ °2 o* =§S3 i'i K"* CO

rs oCD '•"CX CDCACDCO

O 3« S«» S> ci.> X£ wcd .CD

S -3'S OAi

CA CA =a s co c «2 D ffi

§ 2S 5o !>oo ^c ?•— CI-

TS Wo c/a

A R 3 0 0 7 2 3

OQ

Figures

Figures

A R 3 0 0 7 2 5

File Path c.\18gislspr\3pr_figures.apr

&-&f'^vfi$K-.'v& . ffi~ ''''f.*• .•*,.:'.tV.'"151'"-*/ .' ,f

Figure 1-1Site Location Map

y^tMik'^'K^ •+•/: -', $• •• . • i*i X-. »JX2«s^-' ' "'' " '""• v ' """ - • Cfl

"Westpoint•'^'V-'»-S^.*. """•, "x s e w a g e ^ - ' ^ f i ^ / y''.'•'•"'-.•• '•\v\:"--";St^7v?^ '""V- Di3p?>«™""'>-'' %.

AN

Q 10QQ 2000 Feet

Source: USGS Lansdale Quad, July 1992

Spra-Fin FacilityNorth Wales, Pennsylvania

CDM Federal Programs Cotporation

File Path; e.\18gil\spr\sprjlgurei.3pr

Gravel Drive""]

Location of Formerv"T \TCE Storage-Tank

Concrete Patf Approximate LofeatorrofFormer Machine Shop

Figure 1-2Site Map

LEGEND/V Road Edges/'-/ Railroad Right of Way

StreamsA/ Parking Lot BoundariesA/ Fences

VegetationConcrete PadFormer TCE Storage TankBuildings 0 70

N

140 FeetSpra-Fin Site

North Wales, PennsylvaniaFederal Programs Corporation

File Path: CA18glslSPR\ipr_n(jures.apr

AN

Scale: 1" = 200'(approx)

Source: Montgomery County Board of Assessments

Figure 1 -3Tax Map of Spra-Fin Property


CDMI Federal Programs Corporatio

•Path cMSgisVspAspfJigurBS »(•'

\

\

"^ 'V ' \\_\_^ Location of Former

TCE Storage Tank

\ V

, ^"V" Drum Storage Area

\ \ \

C ^crV- .

C 3

LEGENDO WVWA7NPWA Soil Boring Location (approx.)

0

AN50 100 Feet

Source: CH2M Hill, 1992

Figure 1-4WVWA/NPWA Soil Boring Locations


Federal Programs Corporation

File Path c USgistopi\sprjiflu res ipr

Old TCE Storage Tank Area

LEGENDO Weston Soil Sample Location (approx.)

0N

20 40 Feet

Source: Weston, 1999

Figure 1-5Weston Soil Sample Locations



File Path, c:\18gis\sprtspr_ligures api

UB - Unconsolidated Bottom EM - EmergentZ- Intermittently Exposed/Permanent 5 - Narrow-Leaved Persistenth - Diked/Impounded C - Seasonally Flooded

LEGENDA/ Groundsurface Contours (5 ft)

NWI Wetland Areas A300 600 Feet

f l R ' d U U / 3

Figure 2-1Land Features Map


CDM Federal Programs Corporatic

File Paid c\1Bgis\spr\spr_liguêsap

LEGEND• Surface Soil Samples•&• Approx. location of

drainage area

A40 80 Feet

Figure 3-1Surface Soil Sample Location Map


____ CDNI Federal Programs Corporatio

' ' R 3 G 0 7 3 2

File Path. c:\18gi3\spr\spF_Hgures apr

LEGEND® Soil-Gas Samples where VOCs were Identified® Soil-Gas Samples where VOCs were not Identified

Note: Circled locations denote locationswith detections that are not bounded by 0locations without detections.

A40 80 Feet

A R 3 0 0 7 3 3

Figure 3-2Soil-Gas Survey Points


CDnM Federal Programs Corporation

File Paid, c:\iagislspi\9pr_figures.api

LEGEND• Groundwater Samples A

N

30 60 Feet

A ft 3 01J 7 3

Figure 3-3Groundwater Sample Location Map



File Paid c VI Bgislsprtaprjigures api

LEGEND•A Background Soil Sample LocationE9 Soil Boring Location N

40 80 Feet

A H 3 (j n 7 3 5

Figure 3-4Soil Boring and Background

Soil Sample Location MapSpra-Facility


File Path. c.\18gi3Vsp(\5p(_fisiJres.apr

33198

2658300 2658400Easting (Feet)

2658500 2658600 X

Note: 5X Vertical Exaggeration

Figure 3-5Profile View of Soil Boring and

Background Soil Sample LocationsSpra-Fin Facility


AR30UT36

File Path, c:\18gis\spi\spr_ligurei.ap

Figure 4-1Map of TCE Concentrations in

Soil-Gas 3' Depth IntervalSpra-Fin Facility

North Wales, PennsylvaniaCDM Federal Programs Corpo

File Palh c \iagisi5pr\spr_fiflures.ap


Soil-Gas 5' Depth IntervalSpra-Fin Facility

North Wales, PennsylvaniaCDNI Federal Programs Corpo

File Path, e llSglsteprtsprJiaures ap


Soil-Gas, Bedrock DepthSpra-Fin Facility

North Wales. PennsylvaniaFederal Programs Corporation

File Pall", c:\18gislsprtspr_figiires. apr

Approximate Locationof Sum

Location of FormerTCE Storage Tank\

Approximate Location ofFormer Machine Snob • SB-23

Drum Storage Area

LEGENDSoil Boring Location

D Soil Boring Location Where VOCs Exceed RBC

Figure 4-4RBC Soil Exceedances:

VOCs in Surface SoilSpra-Facility

North Wales. PennsylvaniaFederal Programs Corporation

fl K J U U /1* 0

File Palh c;\1 Bflis\spA9pr_flgures apr

Figure 4-5Surface Soil Map ofTCE Concentrations

Spra-Fin FacilityNorth Wales. Pennsylvania

CDnl Federal Programs Corporation

File Path: c:\18glB\aprtapr flgures.apr

300000 ug/kg

100000 ug/kg

30000 ug/kg

10000 ug/kg

3000 ug/kg

1000 ug/kg

300 ug/kg

100 ug/kg

30 ug/kg

10 ug/kg

3 ug/kg

Note: The ICE RBC value of 58ug/kg was usedas the baseline screening value for this figure. N


Figure 4-6Subsurface Soil Map of

TCE Concentrations

File Path c.U8gis\spr\spr_tig

Figure 4-7Bedrock Map of TCE Concentrations



3

File Path. c:MBgis\spAspr_figuiBS apr

Figure 4-8Surface Soil Map of

Vinyl Chloride ConcentrationsSpra-Fin Facility

North Wales. PennsylvaniaCDNI Federal Programs Corporate

File Path. c.\iagJs\spAspr_figutes ap

Figure 4-9Subsurface Soil Map of

Vinyl Chloride ConcentrationsSpra-Fin Facility

North Wales, PennsylvaniaCDNI Federal Programs Corporal

File Path. c.\18fl>s\sprtspr__figurei.apr

AFigure 4-10

Bedrock Map of Vinyl Chloride ConcentrationsSpra-Fin Facility

North Wales, Pennsylvania_____________ CDNI Federal Programs Corporation

f l R 3 0 0 7 l * 6

File Palh c \1Bgis\spr\sprJiBU'ei.apr

D

SS-09SS-08a

Legendn RBC Soil Residential ExceedenceU Non-exceeding Locations A

N

30

Figure 4-11RBC Soil Exceedences

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Surface SoilSpra-Fin Facility

60 Feet North Wales, Pennsylvania_______________CDWI Federal Programs Corporate

f l R 3 0 0 7 ( } 7

File Palh. c:\1Bgislsprtsprjtgures apr

LEGEND• RBC Soil Industrial ExceedenceQ RBC Soil Residential ExceedenceH Non-exceeding Locations

AN

30


Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Surface SoilSpra-Fin Facility

60 Feet North Wales, Pennsylvania^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ CDWI Federal Programs Corporate

f* D o n n 7 f, QM n 0 u I1 / 4 u

File Path. c.M 8gis\spr\9p(__ligure! apt

SS-09SS-08

\ i

\ l

SB-03 SB-04 \ \-

LEGEND• RBC Soil Industrial ExceedenceD RBC Soil Residential ExceedenceU Non-exceeding Locations

A30 60 Feet

A K 3 U 0 7 I * 9


Lead in Surface SoilSpra-Fin Facility


O

O

•

•

•

•

•

._„V)0)O)

•

•

•

Dire

ct Co

ntac

t

LUOO

UJ Z O i*.

*$§2<22°SU- Q. >- <

« DC -,

S S^c3E Q. h-

^J z OSfe sQ- O

o(B TO

^

asI

o:

CD

COeo

OCO

'6CO

_O- O-

I Ia a

tt

Documents

RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT FOR REMEDIAL PLANNING … · Program Manager Approved by: ^ _____ Date: Deanna Moultrie Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AR30050