COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

«

P E N N S Y L V A N I ALee Park, Suite 6010

555 North LaneConshohocKen, PA 19428-2233

September 21, 1994

- ••- - •-- (610)832-6200southeast Regional Office

Ms. Ruth O'Connor, RPM (3HW21)United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107-4431

Dear Ms. O'Connor,

The Department's comments on the Draft ROD (dated 8/26/94, asrevised on 9/8/94) for the Stanley Kessler Site are as follows:

1. The ROD should address metals contamination in soils andgroundwater. "The ROD should note in section II and in section Vthat soil sampling data in Table 4-7 reveal concentrations ofberyllium (at depths of 2 to 54 feet) exceeding the standard ina 5/16/94 addition to Table IB of the Department's CleanupStandards for Contaminated Soils fCSCS) in many instances; thesestandards are Pennsylvania TBC requirements, which are based onPennsylvania ARARs. However the standards in Table IB are basedon direct contact/plant toxicity and are therefore generallyinappropriate_to apply to soils at depths below 10 feet (to thatdepth it is considered possible that soils will be exposedduring potential future excavations); shallower contaminationshould be addressed.

2. The ROD should also note that concentrations of total metalsin groundwater have at times exceeded Maximum Contaminant Levels(MCLs), Drinking Water Equivalent Levels (DWELs) or ActionLevels for silver, barium, beryllium, cadmium, sodium, lead andantimony (see DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS AND HEALTH ADVISORIES,EPA 822-R-94-001, May 1994): dissolved metals were below thesestandards. The proposed remedy for VOC contamination would alsomitigate metals contamination in that (after carbon filtrationto remove VOCs) the metals-contaminated effluent would bedisposed of, removing metals from site groundwater. It islikely that pretreatment to remove metals would be requiredprior to discharge of this water to the stream. Furthermonitoring of metals in groundwater, however, is warranted andshould be included in the ROD.

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer . H H O U £ d 0 I Recycled Paper

3, The applicable acetone cleanup standard (based on protectionof groundwater) is also exceeded. --However, due to -its commpn •occurrence as a laboratory contaminant,__ confirmatory" samplihg" isappropriate before a. decision is made to remediate .the _ ,. .:;_contamination. The decision may be" made during remedial design.If confirmatory sampling is not completed before, tie, ROD, the ".subject should be addressed in the ROD. ! \~ " _ :

4. Page 2, 2nd paragraph: "UMR" has been provided .above in thedraft ROD as the abbreviation for ."Upper' Merion Reservoir" ,.ilastsentence of. Section I) and need not be repeated here. The .abbreviation "PADER" has not been previously explained;" :11 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources ("PADER")"should be used here.

5. "Page 5; Nature and Extent of Contamination, 2nd paragraph:The last sentence of this paragraph^ should indicate" the .chemicalcompounds that exceed the MCL (including metals) .' /Also, thesoil sampling location map is labelled "Figure 2"., which should.be the Conceptual Site Model, according to the text of this ; . _.paragraph.

6. Page 6, I, Soils, "These concentrations are notsignificant".": The sentence is ambiguous and shbuld-be..-reworded("These concentrations do "not pose-a significant ; threat. to::humanhealth or the environment."?) or omitted. " .. ..: "_ . f

7. Page 6; 3. Ground Water: A map of monitoring well locationsshould be-included and referenced-in this paragraph.

8. Page 10; Common Components 2nd paragraph^-- As you have_,, .noted, the Department does not accept the PRP.'s method .for.the ;.determination of background. ~ ~. -- - --

9. Page 18; State Acceptance: This, sentence^must ,be rewordedto reflect.the Department's concurrence afterTthe.preview andcomment period, and should be included only when;a"final ROD hasreceived the Department's written approval.

10... Page 20; Performance Standards: The 1st and 2nd sentence ...of this section must cite the background groundwater performancestandard as the Pennsylvania standard for remediation whether ornot the background concentrations exceed the MCL, "" CERCLA,;section 121, (d)(2)(B)(ii), regarding Alternate ConcentrationLevels, should be .evaluated to address this issue. DERrs":Groundwater. Policy refers to background,as the standard .regardless of an MCL or health-based standard, .i.:.t~ ':

11. Page 21, 1st paragraph: This section should specify ;monitoring for VQCs and metals (total.) . ". ."" :\_ . _.

AR3D2252

12, Page 24; Five-Year Reviews: This paragraph should clarifythat 5-year reviews will be conducted "during" the groundwaterremedy implementation and continue after the remedy is completeto assure protection of human health and the environment.

13. Page 25; Chemical-Specific ARARs, 4th paragraph: Seecomment 10 above.

14.- Tables and figures must be clearly renumbered to match thenumbering cited in the text. ^

Sincerely,

David EwaldProject OfficerHazardous Sites Cleanup Program

cc: R. ZangG. DanyliwB. BeitlerB. McciainA. TremontA. HartzellC. QlewilerD. HessD. BeckerR. Orwan

flR302253

£ its it

From time to time, I receive requests for .generic cleanupstandards for soils contaminated .with compounds/constituents thatare not included in the interim December 1993 documefit, "Thefollowing lists have been developed (and will be updated toinclude .additional contaminants/constituents' as requested) for !..-_.your use. The "rules" used to develop these levels are-"the sameones that are specified and discussed in Chapter 2 of ..the CRESTuser's manual (with a few minor exceptions). The format used inTables 1A and IB of the standards document _is also used here. ..

It is intended, that these contaminants/constituents will be_included in future revisions of - the. standards doaument (if.Tand'when such revisions occur). . . . .

Table..IA Additions

Generic Soil Standards fogrQrganic Compounds

Grbuiid Water:.....Direct . ..1x10-6 * ProtectionContact Excess Cancer .;Levei . ;. .

Compound/Contaminant Nbn-Cancer Risk Level . .1 .. ;i.,_. 2 (~CASRN_____________" (mg/kg) [CRL] mg/kg mg/kg . mg/kg '

Acetone 8000 . . .NA 0.006 ,.;. 0'.. 03-, "67-64-1 .... ~~~~ "" : " "--; " "" '•

Aniline - . __ 100 [1.3x10-7] 800 0.03.:.-.:. 0.., 1 ;62-53-3 -... _ ^ ....... L_I -. ;

Atrazine . 3000 .. . __.:NA 2 -6 r..1912-24-9 . . _...._. .„. . ._ .__ ;."_" " _'_ ' _

Azobenzene NA -40 _ ..Solubility data103-33-3 .... .. ._-- •"unavailable.

Benz [a] anthracene - NA , 6.. . 200. ,^_ SX30 .;.. .56-55-3 ' .. __ - —- - ^__ ' -" ;

Benzo [b] f luoranthene NA 6 500, ...... 5.00 .205-99-2- ... .. . ... . .... _ _ _ __ _ :

Benzo[k] fluoranthene NA 60 500 " 500 ,207-08-9

Benzo [ghilperylene Toxicological data unavailable. 5.DQ. "." 500. ~:191-24-2 ----_ "" ...- " .... .. -"' ~-""" "- :~- '_ '_; :;alpha-BHC ._ NA 0.71 .. 8 . ... 30 _319-84-6 ;._ "

beta-BHC Toxicological data unavailable. 10 ... 40 _319-85-7 - -•

3R30225U

delt.ar-BHC .".lexicological..' data'.uriayailablf , ".;.". 8 . . . J3Q319-86-8. ..:.v. .'::-:: ":~-.- "" .V~v". ..: „; .V/I l" 1, 7-':: "J".T_\ L. . - - = = .

Bis..{2.-ethylliexyl}~V;""" """."" "".". i:; OJDO"::[3". 1x1:0-6] ": 300" ;~:L. r'"lpO 400

117-B1V7 . :' • 77."". _.".•_"„ ._"f_-";~._".Ll__I ;i/ _IT ~ "-""."."":" . " "

_. " " 1' 7 3"098-06-6" : : ' ~ ;;;;f2 - -=^ ;_:7-7"-_ .;-"_:-" "i; "7.7. L-. .-:rvr.: ._ " .

Butyl benzyl phthalate 16,000.. ,'";: .",. ;,-NA_. . -30 1.0.0

Carbon, dlsurf Ida. :..V~-r.- 7000..".""-, --"":" """ -.-."."""HAI"7"." " . .. - - Q.,2 . 0.. 875-15-n ==i 7.r_..:."-=rr~ ,_.":: .. ,. ..-^~"_ ------..= • : -.Chrysene " ; -.~"--^~^i-iiJSA ._•..; .. :;_::, ::_::. ::.600;:": ; :: 300"". 50021.8 01-3- _:/-_:. ./:i_r: :;-;:";-- -•.- L.__~ i.. , ":. '- r: '.' " " . • . '.:._._.. ..

Cumene. = v.-= -T ::r -v:~r300"0" 7a "T \-\ :i...." NA __,„ .. :3. ".: - 1098-82-8 ..__. T." ""r.ilMV : 'r . ::._ : "- ::'!ji.:- -.':--- -• - - - ~ : =' -••-.-

Dibenz [ah].anthradMe .."VHH"T7"£L7\.-. - ,v ."-".-T T:.Q. ."-"T; . 5:QO_ " " .500.53-70-3 ";.-v" \ ,iLi = :~r " ~—'~~~~. '..'".:;.*:'-"-. r"~ ,,t;; ;" ;::": ""•_; . . .:_L. : "T, -".-"_u..i..Dibenzofuran ,;:.T-o_xi_c61.ogical '4a.ta .unavailable".,; ...8 . 3.0.132-64-9 -.7 - .. 1H,-.:... ,.:... -.~ >-. .:,. .::;::--- r:-rr:. _—— ..J .. f. .. . ' H_,... . ..

Dlbutyl phthalate ;/..,,:. ,.700'Q.. . V.:.: ,„"..,..: :NA '\ 70 30084-74-2- ""*•'• ~- - ~_ - - r Zil " -!:!:'---=:..--- -rrr .tftt-' ^~""«r~ ::--:.. . :._:±t' ." ..... . ..., . . — - = --. ,:

Dicamba _- ~ .::- —— :. _.:,: - .2300" ",".." .= _.•-, ,

1,3-nichlorobenzene541-73-1..- -.-••___..... /-":

l/2-Dichlo..ropropane . i.^NA _" ^ . :; _ . 6&_ . .. Q-2.- 0.978-87-5. ""- ;-=~~v~.-: --- -^T:-"-™-. --.„. _-_;.v;-,. .. -= : - - - - - - " - . : " - • :

Diethyl phthalate . -_, =ZT_53_, 0_£0: ,.. _ .,V.,...84^.56-2-- = '---— ' -v--- ':"i -VrjI. --"1 -. -' '•-c ...":""'

Dimethyl phtha.late..j,-,.,...7..80/ 00.0. __ " . " . _!::NS.i . ' "~- ..0.1 0,6131-11-3 . ! r E-T TZ™-- - :"-- -.T.".-,":1:. ...L.- .::: ":..-'." .t-..- ..-: ... ' ..:,. ,; " "

. - . . . .,5-00 . ; -500,

Endosulfan :— -- --^™--""4"7?r._J"":""V^ ."..Tl_ :i7:"7JWA.. See, specific .Endosulfan115-2.9 7—.- -T__ :" — i" ..".-.." ._ :".' "" "".•.. . '. .:i~.. -.isQmers.

302255

Endosulfan I See ' Endosulfan. ----- :-IQ - go959-98-8

Endosulfan II - ~~ See Endosulfan,.- . _. . . .-2-0 :_ZU_ 60.33213-65-9 - .:_._ . , _L,_. -

Endosulfan sulfate Toxicological ."data unavailable. 20! - 801031-07-8

Formaldehyde 10,000 ; .... NA . O.OQ5. _.,. 0*0250-00-0

Freon 11 _____ 20, 000 - ..--KA .0.4.__- 2{trichlorofluoromethane)75-69-4 . == :

Freon 12 10,000 .__ NA "0,3 ;_.:,. 1(dichlorodifluoromethane)75-71-8 :-

Heptachlor epoxide . 3_. [2.0x10-6] . 0,5.. --100~:.__.. 5001024-57-3 . - .- • • . . - --

Hexachlorobenzene 60 [2.1x10-5]" """"3 . 'lOO::;: ::; r 500 "118-74-1

Hexachloroe thane 80 .._ .. _ — -NA ..8. _. : 30 ,. ._ __.67-72-1 - - . . .. . = :.--:-.

Indenod, 2,3-cd) - — =- ------ ----- :-==-pyrene - - NA 6. 500;. :::_.. 500 , ;, .193-39-5. . _ _-__!_.... . .:„- . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . ._ .

Isopropylbenzene —.-See .cumene. — - •-- — • ; -.----- - - - - - - -

4-Isopropyltoluene Toxicological data Unavailable. 7. , . 30 :99-87-6 .-" " - • _, - -

Kepone ,-.,. NA ' ;. 0.2 .. . .. _90: . . 400 ;. . . . .143-50-0

MCPA 39 . NA .. .0.4, .. . 2 '94-74-6 ' - " ' : -

MCPP .78 - NA 0.5: . 2 ^93-65-2 . ..... ._.. . : :__._ :. :

Mecoprop -- See MCPP

Methanol . .._..._.._ .39,000 - NA ..T:0 . OCT4 ' "• 0.0r:_ :- :.67-56-1- - . . - - -- ... -.. . . —.. — .. .:..:- -.._„.!. .. _._. ...„-...

2-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid.-- See: MCPP . .i.AR302256

2 -Methyl- 4 -.chlorophenoxyac6t.ic_ acid - -. See .M.CPJV - --;

Methyl isobutyl Jcetone . 6"0 ;_T_;;I, ;,,;_;. !rm_-= 0.05.. ~Q'.2" "" " "" " "

Mirex-; \-~— — •-.:.--_ . _ ....2 01." [6 .3 10.-.] _ ...2. _" .60" " 2002385-S5.-5 . - .:~-~=- ~.--:.. ----- --:-=-• V-" . . ;.:-._- ..-.-..••.-..-... :— ; .- : :::.- -_:: =:

MTBE :.-rv- :_•;:--. "-/=; _ r •• -r .qpg/v. -- ,;i:;:v":~ -::3SA' /;;;-. .. ..0.05 . 0.2(Methyl, fcert-butyl ..""", . .,; . ./ : ,/ _ ". ._"JC. . ether) ._ _ _..._.. _.._. .. .._ ......._._...__ . . . ...___..._1.634-04-4 ... . ,,..__,.__._ .... :..-,.-_ ... :,,;, c "....;: ._;".". ._..:.=:;: :. ;~:-_4-Nitrophenol - -.-.. \,_ifim3- ~-. -- : " -rES. . .:..~: ... -,.0.i:\.; " 0..5100-02. 7 ,:: r--~-™: ;-:-"; - . -— -r:-- --- -- - -—-... •"•-;.•"

Pentachloro-etiiarie, Jlpxi^pjlogical data,. Unavailable ... D . 5 : _ 2.76-01-7 • "".'""" ~ — • •;...v~ ,.:;...,;* ::,.-,;•"•*. _".:.".~v""~r:"~ r " . " .

n-Propylbenzene TQxic£>logica; £a.ta_. jii ^ ^ ; -10103-6S-1 ' --.: "--~- ~ '-'" -: ~~~- ^ .'.."-..-.--•- '''L -.~:~~::i." :,!" '" ~ --.'—.- "— ; ~'-V"' -

A Styrene ..-.. .:.^ — ,; XQ..QOQ

ethane . . . ,-..:.:_. .tr j A . - . . . . - r ..._ 2p;V., ., ..„ 0.3

100-4.2 5.... -—- •-.- • —.:.- -- .::._ L:": -r^^-^r-f/-; "::-T "-:-:_r - ,;; \:

2,3',7',8-TCDD . .. . . _,_JKIA.'.-_, ;„„ ;::;„.. ;r~ZCC-_PP.Op"3. -,500"--.-::.".. 500

Tetrahydrofuran" .. Toxl logic l . t a. unavailable. 0 . 02 ^ 0 . 07109 -3 a -a... "~ ::".:E,:- . .i.".."; :".::.: ":t::/..;r::rx:_.__,:_: r'""" ":"~ • .;.:"*'_"./.•: , .1, 2,4-Trichlorobenzene. .aQQ..,-.."-,,..::.. ---..-; ... .NS : _._..__ :.-" _6 20i2Cf=8:2--ii: v: i-r" ..-;"_; i_ . „..._;_.. .„"•.„..,. ".:".""."/.., .,_.\ ...""::._:.-. " ...,....:_.. .

.,.. . . . = . :.::/—.9... . - 4 01582-09-8' : " .v'-r:- -^-' . :";:.r"7": "v rr; -'::;- . -. ,.:. •'.- :.;.....:.:-:-: . ••;, 2,4-ITrimethylbenzeiie- 40 NA_. _, 3 10

1, 3, 5--Trimethylbenzen6"" .30108 -.67- B :: ""-"- " " "7.. -_•::._: . ..: : -Vinyl chloride .......,- :"-NA . . " ... "~'~.~:"~2_ _ .3 1075-01-4- - .--. . •_•_•." ••- .:-:-.":--:--.._—:.:..;:: . - - - - . - - ._.

Table IB "Additions

flR302257

Generic Soil Standards for Metals and Other Inorganic Contaminants

CleanupStandard

Contaminant CASR3ST

Antimony 7440-3.6-0 - 30

Beryllium 7440-41-7 " 1

Boron - 7440-42-8 7000

Manganese .. . ..-..:- - . . ... 7439-96-5 - . 40Q

Silver . : - ----- : 7440-22-4"; :" . --"" ..

Thallium 7440-28-0"" _

AR302258

INTERIM

Cleanup5ta.nda.rds

fnrUnntaminated

Snils

Daparfcwnt of Snvironaental ResourcesDecember 1993

flR302259

INTERIMTABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................... l

I. Implementation of Generic Soil Standards....................... 2

Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number.....................4

Direct Contact Non-Cancer Standard.............................4

Cancer Risk Level.............................................. 4

Ground Water Protection Levels................................. 5

II. Land Use and the Use of Institutional and EngineeringControls....................................................... 5

III. Explanatory Notes for Tables 1A and IB......................... 6

Table 1A List of Generic Soil Standards for Organic Compounds....... a

Table IB List of Generic Soil Standards for Metals and OtherInorganic Contaminants.................................... 13

Table 2 Exposure Assumptions Used in Development of DirectContact Generic Soil Standards and Estimation ofCancer Risk Levels........................................ 14

Table 3 General Assumptions/Rationale Used in Developmentof Ground Water Protection Generic Soil Standards......... 15

flR302260 „__toRecycled Paper

INTERIM

INTRODUCTION

One of the touchstones or key element's of any environmental cleanupis the need to determine how much of the contamination must beremoved, treated or otherwise isolated from the environment, i.e.,"How clean i~s~-clean?", The "science" of developing cleanupstandards"often involves the synergism of many disciplines, such astoxicology, statistics/ chemistry, geology, soil science, law, etc.Cleanup standards are often established through modeling and areeither generic or site-specific.

This guidance document contains a listing of generic soil cleanupstandards and generally describes the methods and assumptions usedto arrive at the standards. These standards are intended to guideremediations at both voluntary and enforcement-related sites. Basedupon current scientific knowledge, these generic soil cleanupstandards are designed to protect public health and the environment,including protection of ground water in accordance with applicablelaws and as described by the Commonwealth's Ground Water QualityProtection Strategy. This guidance is a living document and will berevised as appropriate, such as when new toxicological informationbecomes available and warrants a change. Additions andmodifications to the list of generic soil cleanup standards willoccur periodically.

Guidance is not a substitute for nor does it supersede applicablelaw or regulations including, but not limited to, those requirementsset forth in the Department's Hazardous Waste Management or ResidualWaste Regulations. For instance, cleaning up hazardous waste tolevels stated in the tables does not relieve persons fromobligations to comply with the hazardous waste managementregulations. This guidance does, however, replace the documententitled "Interim Guidance - Protective Levels for the Excavation,Treatment, Cleanup and Disposal of Virgin Fuel Contaminated Soils"previously issued by the Department.

These soil cleanup standards are "deemed to T5e acceptable under theresidual was't regulations provided that the remediation plans aredeveloped and implemented in association with achieving the cleanupstandards. As a minimum, in the course of achieving the standards,the responsible party shall develop and implement remediation plansthat address relevant provisions of Section 287.117 (relating toclosure plans), Section 287.123 (relating to site access), Section287.132 (relating to chemical analysis), Section 287.341(g)(4)(relating to releases), Sections 287.342(d),(g), and (h) (relatingto final closure), and other pertinent provisions of the residualwaste regulations.

Any questions concerning the values contained in this guidance orrequests for including additional soil cleanup standards should bedirected to the Bureau of Waste Management, Division of Remediationat (717) 783-9475.

flR30226

INTERIM

Implementation of Generic Soil Standards

The following procedure is to be used to implement the generic soilcleanup standards.

1. For the specific organic contaminant of interest in Table IA,use, as the generic standard, the lowest of the direct contactnon-cancer standard, the lxlO~6 cRL value for carcinogens, or theapplicable ground water protection level. For example, benzenehas a non-cancer standard of 1000 rag/kg, a IxlO"6 CRL value ofapproximately 100 mg/kg (1000/6.5 rounded down to one significantfigure), and ground water protection levels of 0.2 mg/kg and0.8 mg/kg. The value which should be used as the genericstandard is one of the ground water protection values (dependingon the residence time of benzene in the soil) .

As another example, p,p'-DDT has a non-cancer standard of 30mg/kg, a lxlO~6 CRL value of approximately 10 mg/kg (30/2.3rounded down to one significant figure) , and ground waterprotection levels of 500 mg/kg (for both) . The value whichshould be used as the generic standard is 10 mg/kg based on the1x10-6

2. For specific inorganic contaminants of interest in Table IB, use,as the generic standard, the level listed as the cleanupstandard. It is assumed that these levels also protectecological receptors, direct contact, and ground water concerns.If that is not true at the site, levels must be used that protectthese concerns .

3. For cleanups involving carcinogens, a lxlO~6 (one in one million)excess cancer -risk level must be achieved, if feasible, at allsoil remediation projects by:

(a) utilizing treatment and/or removal technologies that directlymeet the cancer risk level of lxlO~6, or

(b) utilizing treatment and/or removal technologies that at leastachieve a 1x10*4 excess cancer risk level and aresupplemented by engineering and institutional controls whichincrease the overall level of protectiveness to

The responsible party has the choice of achieving the lxlO-6level of protectiveness through either option (a) or (b) .Regardless of the manner in which the required protectivenesslevel is achieved, the responsible party will generally not beexpected to perform additional remediation, unless one of thefollowing circumstances occur: 1) falsification of data, 2)changes in toxicological information, 3) new information aboutthe site, or 4) the remedy fails or does not achieve theperformance it was designed to meet.

flR302262

INTERIM

If it is not -feasible to meet at" least the 1x10-4 excess cancerrisk level through the utilization o'f treatment and/or removaltechnologies, engineering and institutional controls must beemployed to increase" the overall protectiveness to lxlO~6. insuch cases the responsible party will generally not be expectedto perform additional remediation, unless one of the followingcircumstances occur: 1) falsification of data, 2) changes intoxicological information, 3) new _information about the site,4} the remedy fails or does not achieve the performance it wasdesigned to meet, or 5) technology is developed which issignificantly more feasible and is capable of achieving at leasta lxl-0^4-excess cancer risk level.

Screening of remedies should be conducted to ensure that theapplication-of the most effective feasible technology, to treator remove contaminated soil, is evaluated against any remainingneed to implement institutional or engineering controls, so thatthe use of controls is minimized.

The lxlO""6 protectiveness level in soil is applicable regardlessof the land use. However, two exposure assumptions will be usedin the application of site-specific models and direct contactgeneric soil standards that consider the historic and reasonablyexpected future use of the property. The cleanup level forunrestricted uses, such as residential and agriculturalactivities, will be based upon conservative assumptions for bodyweight (child), exposure frequency, duration, averaging time,etc. For restricted uses, such as industrial and manufacturingactivities, exposure "assumptions will again be directly relatedto the use and be based upon appropriate body weight (adult),exposure frequency, duration, averaging time, etc. Ecologicalreceptors will be considered on a site-by-site basis and theirprotection will be factored into the overall remediationdecision.

Deed restrictions will be required whenever the lxlo~€ level" hasnot been met through treatment or removal. Should there be aproposal to change land use from restricted use to anunrestricted use, further remediation to provide protectivenesstor. the new land use may be necessary.

The cleanup standards that are to be applied should be evaluatedto ensure that ecological receptors are not adversely affected atthe level of the cleanup standards. This evaluation shouldconsider effects on all trophic levels within the food chain atthe site to include plants as well as animals. Particularconsideration should be given to (1) rare, threatened, orendangered species, (2) species of special concern as identifiedby the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Fish andBoat Commission, or the DER, (3) protection of populations(herds, flocks, etc.) of ecological receptors, and (4) protectionof important habitats.

flR302263

INTERIM

The attached Tables 1A and IB contain generic soil standards foreach of the compounds/contaminants listed. Table 1A includes onlyorganic compounds, and Table IB includes only metals and otherinorganic contaminants. The general format for eachcompound/contaminant in Table 1A includes: the CASRN (ChemicalAbstract Services Registry Number); the direct contact non-cancerstandard; the cancer risk level (CRL) as applicable; and the groundwater protection standards levels 1 and 2. The general format foreach contaminant in Table IB includes: the CASRN and the genericsoil standard. The following is a brief explanation of each ofthese:

CASRN (Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number)

It is not uncommon for compounds to be referred to by various names.The CASRN noted in Tables 1A and IB is a number unique to a specificcompound or contaminant irrespective of the common name(s) for thecompound. The CASRN can be used to find any compound or contaminanton a list provided that the contaminant has a CASRN. For example,2-methylphenol cannot be found in Table 1A under that name. TheCASRN for 2-methylphenol is 95-48-7 which is in Table 1A aso-cresol. o-cresol and 2-methylphenol are different names for thesame compound.

Direct Contact Non-Cancer Standard

The direct contact non-cancer standard in Table 1A is the genericsoil cleanup standard for each compound based on non-cancer effects.The direct contact non-cancer standard is estimated by applyingresidential exposure assumptions to an oral reference dose obtainedfrom EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA HealthEffects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), or derived from smallmammal bioassay data (in the absence of IRIS and HEAST data).The assumptions used to estimate the direct contact non-cancerstandards in Table 1A are contained in Table 2 of this document.

fCRLI (Cancer Risk Level^

[CRL] is the estimated cancer risk level associated with the directcontact non-cancer standard in Table 1A for each compound which is acarcinogen and for which a cancer potency factor has beenestablished. This value is useful in estimating a contaminantconcentration in soil for a desired cancer risk level which differsfrom the [CRL] value. For example, if you want to know theconcentration of benzene in soil which is equivalent to a lxlO~6cancer risk level, you simply multiply the direct contact non-cancerstandard in Table 1A by the ratio of the desired cancer risk levelto the [CRL]. The lxlO"€ cancer risk level for benzene is thencalculated as 1000(1x10-6/6.5x10-6) or 154 rag/kg. The desiredcancer risk level should never exceed the value within brackets

flR30226U

INTERIM

• i * %j|- '»** •[CRL]. This would yield a^value in excess of the direct contactnon-cancer standard meaning that the resulting level would no longerbe protective based on non-cancer effects. The assumptions used toestimate these cancer risk levels are contained in Table 2 of this

, document. _.:_ "". —--- •- •_•__ --- •; --- _ =_ -

Ground Water Protection Levels

The generic soil standards contained in this portion of Table 1A arebased on the potential of a contaminant or compound to migrate toground water. These standards are based on the concepts ofdesorption non-equilibrium and are designed to actually beprotective of soil pore water. Two different standards are providedfor each organic compound on the list depending on how recently thesoil has become contaminated. Level 1 is applicable to soils thathave been contaminated as a result of recent or continuing spills,leaks, or discharges. Level 2 applies to soils that have beencontaminated by spills, leaks, or discharges which occurred, intotal, more than one year ago. All releases will be assumed to beLevel 1 unless "clear and~~convincing evidence supports the use ofLevel 2. In order to be eligible to use Level 2, the responsibleparty must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence .that therelease has been in the soil for more than one year and that theresponsible party acted in good faith (for example, by not delayingremediation to take advantage of the Level 2 standard). It isincumbent upon the responsible party to respond to spills andreleases in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

The general assumptions and rationale used to estimate the genericsoil standards for ground water protection are contained in Table 3of this document*

II. Lancl Ustt and th« Us* of Institutional and Engineering Controls

Remedies which continue to protect human health, all uses of water,all ecological receptors, and which protect the current andreasonably expected future uses of land are the goal. Whereremediations meet this goal, responsible parties will have noongoing obligation to augment_the initial remedy as long as land useremains the same.

In those situations where it is not feasible to remove or treatcontamination to an acceptable level, the use of institutional orengineering controls is necessary to ensure that the overallprotectiveness level of the remedy meets an acceptable level. Anycontrol of this type will eliminate uses or limit the use of theproperty. These controls include, but are not limited to, caps,fences, land use restrictions, and water use restrictions. Cleanupplans which include land use restrictions should incorporateappropriate deed restrictions.

BR302265

INTERIM

In order for remedies to be as permanent as practicable, engineeringand institutional controls should be used in a manner which protectsor restores as many uses as possible. For instance, it may bepossible to remove contamination to a level that is safe for workerprotection instead of simply capping the contamination andeliminating all uses. Or, it may be possible to treat or remove thetop layers of soil.to address a direct contact threat, withrestrictions for excavation below that point.

Also, unless the land use is only temporarily lost or restricted,active engineering controls are preferred instead of or in additionto passive institutional controls.

The reliance on engineering or institutional controls to make aremedy protective of human health and safety and the environmentwill carry ongoing obligations for the responsible party. Controlsmust be maintained in order for the remedy to remain protective.Therefore, fences must be repaired, deed restrictions must beadhered to, and caps must be inspected and, if necessary, repaired.Short term or permanent loss or restriction of uses of naturalresources also may subject responsible parties to natural resourcedamage claims.

III. Explanatory Hot** for Tables 1A and IB

1. The lists in Tables 1A and IB are not meant to be exhaustive butrepresent the more common compounds/contaminants that areencountered in soil.

2. Direct contact non-cancer standards and [CRL] values in Table 1Amay change as toxicological data change. Similarly, the valuesin Table IB may change as toxicological data change for metalsand other inorganics. The values in Tables 1A and IB will beupdated periodically to reflect changes and additions.

3. For soils with multiple organic contaminants, the sum of theconcentrations of specific compounds should never exceed 500mg/kg when attempting to meet the generic ground water protectionstandards. The reason for this has to do with the desorptionnon-equilibrium equations upon which the ground water protectionstandards are based. For example, suppose soil contains150 mg/kg endrin; 50 mg/kg aldrin; and 350 mg/kg chlordane. Eventhough the generic ground water protection standard for eachindividual compound has been met, the sum of their concentrationsexceeds 500 mg/kg; therefore, the sum of their concentrationswould have to be reduced by 50 mg/kg to ensure that they areprotective of ground water.

flR302266

INTERIM

In addition to the generic standards in Table 1A, an unsaturatedzone contaminant migration model also has been developed and is acomponent of the Criteria Estimation Modeling System (CREST).The model in CREST (dr other models approved by the* Department)may_be. used Jio demonstrate that soil contaminant levels whichexceed the generic soil standard for ground water protectionare still protective of gjfoTfnd wate'r" "based on site-specificconditions/ rThis model is based on desorption non-equilibriumand is applicable to organic compounds in soil. Another modelwhich exists in CREST and which is based on equilibriumpartitioning could be used to model.migration of inorganics inconjunction with site-specific leachate data.

-The generic cleanup standards listed in Table IB are based eitheron the exposure assumptions listed in Table 2 of this document orthe maximum cumulative metal loading applied to soil through theland application of bibsblids as set forth in 40 CFR Part 503fStandards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge). whicheveris more protective. The loading rates in 40 CFR Part 503 arebased on the methodology and assumptions set forth in theTechnical Support Document for Land Application of Sewage sludge(EPA 822/R-93-001a and b - November 1992).

Standards based on ground water protection have not been includedfor the inorganics in Table IB because the desorptionnon-equilibrium equations used in that methodology apply only toorganics. In order to determine standards "for metals and otherinorganics that are protective of ground water, leachate datashould be used either directly or indirectly.

BR302267

INTERIM

Table 1A

Generic Soil Standards for Organic Compounds*

Ground WaterDirect lxlO-6 ProtectionContact Excess Cancer Level

Compound/Contaminant Non-Cancer Risk Level i 2CASRN____________ fma/kq) FCRL1 mg/ka ma /kg me

Acenaphthene 4000 NA 7 3083-32-9

Aldrin 2 [6.5x10-6] o.3 100 500309-00-2

Anthracene 20,000 NA 20 70120-12-7

Benzene 1000 [6.5x10-6] 100 0.2 O.S71-43-2

Benzo[a]pyrene 10 [1.6x10-53 0.6 50050050-32-8

Chlordane 4 [1.2x10-6] 3 400 5057-74-9

Chlorobenzene 1000 NA 0.6 3108-90-7

Chloroform " 700 [9.6x10-7] — 0.1 0.567-66-3

Cresol, o- 3000 NA 0.10.595-48-7 "

Cresol, p- 300 NA 0.1 0.4106-44-5

Dr 2,4- 700 NA 0.6 294-75-7

DDD, p,p'- 40 [2.1X10-6] 20 400 50072-54-8

DDE 300 [2.3X10-5] 10 200 50072-55-9

DOT, p,p'- 30 [2.3x10-6] 10 500 50050-29-3

8

flR302268: ""•

INTERIM

JTable'1A (continued)

Generic Soil standards for Organic Compounds*

Ground Water:- -- Direct 1x10-5 Protection

.Contact Excess Cancer LevelCompound/Contaminant ~ "~ Non-Cancer Risk Level 1 2CASRN______- ...____ ..... . - froa/kcn TCRLT ma/ka____ ma/ka mq/ka

Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- 7000 NA 2795-50-1 ........:.: .__:.!.- : ._:_.:;. ...:_.::_... ———. -__ -

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- " 100 [5.4x10-7] — 27106-46-7 - - —•• - — - - - - - - . . . _ . . .

Dichloroethane, 1,1- .. . 7000 NA 0.1 0.575-34-3 ~. ::.".____._ :_2_" : __~" " ":~;r~~: "~"V~."Y~~; ._ ~ .. .-Dichloroethane, 1,2- 300 [6.1x10-6] 50 0.07 0.3107-06-2 -..•--• ---.-._ - -.-;:- .;.- - .;;T-

Dichloroethylene, 1,1- 700 NA 0.2 15-35-4

Dichloroethylene, 1,2- (trans) 1000 NA 0.2 0.6156-60-5 ... .--: .:\. ;-•;:.-:::_ ..._ ......;~i. ...........i::...Dleldrin " ----——-- •- 3 '[1.1x10*5] o.3 20 9060-57-1 - " ' -/- • .. --- ' -—•:-.- v —_rr--.—- '-- :/ ~- -•

Endrin 20 NA 200 50072-20-8

Ethylbenzene _ 7000 NA 15100-41-4-. ..__.._. .'.'.". ~.'~'.~-_. ._...:„_._.Fluoranthene 3000 NA 100.400206-44-0

Fluorene 3000 NA 10 4086-73-7

Heptachlor .. -._.__...__. 30 [3.0x10-5] i 90 40076-44-8

Lindane "" 20 [5.8x10-6] 3 3 1058-89-9- ....__.._.._.._.____ _ .

Methoxychlor .... ....._._...__.._....300___ _ _ NA 60 20072-43-5 : :. :: .:.. _. ._. . - . - -

'4R302269

INTERIM

Table 1A (continued)

Generic Soil Standards for Organic Co-poounds*

Ground WaterDirect 1x10-6 ProtectionContact Excess Cancer Level

Compound/Contaminant Non-Cancer Risk Level l 2CASRN____________ fma/kcM PCRL1 ma/ka____ mg/kcr ing/kg

Methylene chloride 4000 [6.7x10-6] £00 0.05 0,275-09-2

Methyl ethyl ketone 40,000 NA 0.01 0.0578-93-3 , _

Methylnaphthalene, 1- 1000 NA 5 2090-12-0

Methylnaphthalene, 2- 1000 NA 5 2091-57-6 - . _ . _ .

Naphthalene 600 NA 291-20-3

Pentachlorophenol 2000 [5.4x10-5] 40 50 20087-86-5

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (?HC)** 200** 500(for fuel-contaminated soil only)

Phenanthrene 200 NA 20 3085-01-8 . . . .

Phenol 40,000 NA 0.05 0.2108-95-2

Polychlorinated Biphenyls***. 5 [1x10-6]***(PCBs)1336-36-3

Pyrene - 2000 NA 80 300129-00-0

TP, 2,4,5- (Silvex) 600 NA 0.6 393-72-1

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 2000 NA 1630-20-6

10

flR3'02270

INTERIM

•- - -•- - -——-———•• —-Table 1A (continued)

"Generic Soil Standards for Organic Compounds*

----- ••— --•-— -— - - --• •- - Ground Water_ . . . . . _ ___Direct __ . . .._.. 1x10-6 Protection

Contact Excess Cancer LevelCompound/Contaminant Non-Cancer Risk Level i_ 2CASRN______________ ... _., fma/kg) TCRL1 ma/kg ma/kg ing/kg

Tetrachloroethylene . 700 NA 0.6 2127-18-4 - - - -

Toluene 10,000 " " NA 0.5 2108-88-3

Toxaphene 30 [7.4x10-6] 4 5 208001-35-2

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- " 7000 NA 0.3 i71-55-6" . - . . " " -"""" " - "" -

Trichloroethane,1,1,2- 300 NA 0.20.879-00-5 . _ _ _ - - - .

Trichloroethylene " 1000 [2._5xlp-6j 400 0.4 279-01-6 - - -" T - —

Xylenes, total - " -100,600 NA1330-20-7 :-:...— - " ' -_^ ~ . . : - - - . . " - ~ "

Xylene, o- - v-Lr —v"-::_ ~ ".:" " ~—'~^-^.- ~" ' 0 - 7 395-47-6 -~ ---_-—-----".- • - •- „

Xylene, m- "" ------ --- ----- " "" " . . . . . . - - ^ 5108-38-3 -:i

Xylene, p - 1 5106-42-3 - --——- - - - - - — - - --"-- - - - - - -

* All generic soil standards listed in this table are on a dryweight basis. . . _ . . . . . . . .

** This standard applies only to soils contaminated with virgin fuelswhich are defined for this document as unused distillate andresidual petroleum fuels including, but not limited to, heatingor fuel oils, diesel fuels, aviation fuels, kerosene, orgasoline. Virgin fuels do not include blended fuels containingused oil or other waste materials.

3R3022

INTERIM

The analytical methodology to be us-ed to make this PHCdetermination is gas chromatography using a flame ionizationdetector (GC-FID) developed for the American PetroleumInstitute (API, 1992). Other recognized methods may be used ifapproved by the Department. Fuels that contain substantialamounts of PHCs above C28 may require alternative analyticalmethodologies for quantitation. The Department should becontacted for specific guidance on analytical methodologieswhen dealing with these types of fuels.

(See: American Petroleum Institute (API). February 1992.Methods for th» Measurement of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: GasolineRange/Diesel Range, as updated.)

*** This standard is based directly on a' CRL of 1x10-6 and is notbased on non-cancer effects.

— The lxiO-6 excess cancer risk level exceeds the direct contactnon-cancer standard (see text).

AR302272

INTERIM

,., --, - --;;=.-. Table IB

Generic Soil Standards for.Metals and Other Inorganic Contaminants!

_ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ Cleanup..- ..__!- ,-,-,. --...,„... ,, -.-v .-..—*- ..-* -- - - - - - • = ,- .. - - -____-.- standardContaminant ... _ _. _ CASRN ._. fmg/ka.

Arsenic 7440-38-2 202

Barium "" 7440-39-3 50002

Cadmium 7440-43-9 203

Chromium (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3002

Chromium (total) 7440-47-3 10003

Copper 7440-50-8 7003

Cyanide 57-12-5 10003

Mercury 7439-97-6 202

Nickel _ 7440-02-0 2003

Selenium 7782-49-2 603

Zinc 7440-66-6 10003

1 All cleanup standards listed in this table are on a dryweight basis and have been rounded to one significantfigure.

2 These cleanup standards are based on the assumptions setforth in Table 2 of this document.

3 These cleanup standards are based on the 40 CFR Part 503cumulative metals loading rates which have been convertedto concentrations in soil by assuming a six-inch plowzone depth. Loading rates that are based on a humandirect contact exposure (as described in the TechnicalSupport Document for Land Application of Sewage Sludge -November 1992) have not been used to estimate cleanupstandards.

3R302273

INTERIM

Table 2

Exposure Assumptions Used in Development of Direct ContactGeneric Soil Standards and Estimation of Cancer Risk Levels

Assumptions for Non-Carcinogenic Effects

Incidental soil ingestion rate, child 200 rag/day*

Body weight, child 15 kg

Exposure frequency 350 days/yr**

Exposure duration, child 6 years

Averaging time, child • 6 years

Oral absorption fraction 1

Assumptions for Carcinogens

Incidental soil ingestion rate, child 100 ing/day*

Incidental soil ingestion rate, adult 50 ing/day*

Body weight, child 15 kg

Body weight, adult 70 kg

Exposure frequency, child . . 100 days/yr**

Exposure frequency, adult 100 days/yr**

Exposure duration, child . ... _ 6 years

Exposure duration, adult 24 years

Averaging time 70 years

oral absorption fraction 1

* The us* of different soil ingestion rates for carcinogens versusnon-carcinogenic effects is from the Proposed RCRA CorrectiveAction Regulations. 200 mg/day represents an upper bound value:100 mg/day and 50 mg/day represent "average" or median values.

** The 350 day/yr exposure frequency is from CERCLA guidancedirectives: the 100 day/yr exposure frequency is based on thenumber of frost free days in Pennsylvania.

fl~R'30227it

INTERIM

Table 3

General Assumptions/Rationale Used in Development ofGround Water Protection Generic Soil Standards

* Equations based on non-equilibrium desorption of organic :".compounds from soil are appropriate in estimating generic soilstandards.

* standard equilibrium partitioning equations (such as theFreundlich Equation) do not adequately address desorption oforganic compounds from unsaturated zone soil.

* .Analytical data for unsaturated zone soils do not support theuse of standard equilibrium partitioning equations.

* Non-equilibrium desorption of organics from soil (as presentedin numerous research papers) is supported by analytical data forunsaturated zone soils.

* As organic compounds remain in unsaturated zone soil for longerand longer periods of time, their tendency to desorb from thesoil decreases.

* In the determination of the generic soil standards, nodilution/attenuation of the contaminant is assumed to occurbetween contaminated soil and the aquifer.

15

3R302275