terry e. branstad, governor department op natural

TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCESLARRY J. WILSON. DIRECTOR

March 17, 1992I

Ms. Nancy Johnson, P.E.Superfund Branch USEPA Region VII726 Minnesota Ave. 'Kansas City, Kansas 66101

SUBJECT: Review of Chemplex documents - Treatability Study and First Operable Unit Supplemental RDI and Conceptual Design Report

Dear Ms. Johnson:

I have had a chance to review both the Treatability Study Report and the First Operable Unit Supplemental RDI and Conceptual Design Report. The better part of two weeks was spent in this pursuit. In that amount of time I was really only able to read these documents at a level to familiarize me with the contents of the reports rather than at a level which would be required to critically review them to furnish comments to EPA. Clearly your consultant, Jacobs Engineering, is in a far better position to critically review them. I am also certain that they are far more technically qualified to evaluate I the Treatability Study.

There doesn’t appear to be anything in the "First Operable Unit..." report which is of particular concern to the state. The expansion of the "Point of Compliance", mentioned in that report, does not come as a surprise. While we cannot say we are pleased by the prospect, we do understand the technical rationale. We also concur with the need for establishing real background values for metal contamination. The use of published values to this end is prone to abuse, in our experience. Beyond these items I really have nothing to add concerning this report though we would be anxious to consider the comments which Jacobs or EPA might have. It is entirely possible that you have noted items which I have overlooked.

With regard to the Treatability Study, I am not in a position to offer any substantive comment. I think the IDNR will be more interested in seeing how the findings are applied in terms of the ultimate remedial actions selected

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. We received the Endangerment Assessment document on March 16, 1992 and will be reviewing that in the immediate future.

for the site.

Cal Lundberg \Environmental Specialist Solid Waste Section

30307127

Superfund

WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING / DES MOINES, IOWA50319/515-281-5145/TDD 515-242-5967/ FAX515-281-8895

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES

^CAI

GC/MS SVO RESULTS LAB SAMPLE #11116-4

BECHTEL CHEMPLEX Black Clay Sample #3BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): EXTRACTED (Date / Init) :

Dilution Factor: 389.4 Extract Method: 3550

12/4/91, BJ 12/9/91,15:51, DLC 12/9/91, ASI

Sample Matrix: SOLID

% Moisture: 14.4 Dry-weight Basis Concentration

ur/Kk

Apparent Blank Cone.

ug/KgTARGET COMPOUND LIST 1 CAS Number MDL POL

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 700.9 3426.7 ND NDDi-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 272.6 1246.1 ND ND

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 77.9 311.5 1700 NDFluorene 7782-41-4 194.7 973.5 2100 ND

Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 233.6 1051.4 ND NDHexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 155.8 662.0 ND ND

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 700.9 3426.7 ND NDHexachloroethane 67-72-1 272.6 1207.1 ND ND

Indenof 123-cdl pyrene 193-39-5 116.8 5062 <MDL NDIsophorone 78-59-1 116.8 584.1 ND ND

2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 77.9 389.4 3500 ND2-Methylphenol 95-48-7 116.8 506.2 ND ND

^ 4-Methylphenol 106-44-5 155.8 584.1 ND ND■ Naphthalene 91-20-3 77.9 233.6 3600 ND

2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 194.7 856.7 ND ND3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 662.0 3309.9 ND ND4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 350.5 1635.5 ND NDNitrobenzene 98-95-3 116.8 584.1 ND ND2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 233.6 10903 ND ND4-Nitrophenol 100-01-6 2531.1 12539 ND ND

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine* 86-30-6 77.9 311.5 ND NDN-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 155.8 778.8 ND ND

Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 2998.4 15031 ND NDPhenanthrene 85-01-8 77.9 311.5 13,000 ND

Phenol 108-95-2 116.8 5452 ND NDPyrene 129-00-0 194.7 934.6 4600 ND

1 2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 155.8 739.9 ND ND2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 5452 2725.8 ND ND2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 817.7 4088.7 ND ND

2-Fluorophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=25-121] Diluted Out 38Phenol-d6 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=24-113] Diluted Out 38

Nitrobenzene-d5 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=23-120] Diluted Out 562-Fluorobiphenyl (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=30-115] Diluted Out 38

^ 2,4,6-Tribromophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK= 19-122] Diluted Out 88Terphenyl-dl4 (surrogate std) % Recovery fOK= 18-1371 Diluted Out 47

Estimated, ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection LimitPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

*as diphenylamine

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES SAMPLE#: 11116-4

TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS by GC

KAI SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/18/91, BJBECHTEL CHEMPLEX EXTRACTED (Date / Init) : 12/16/91, BVTBlack Clay ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/17/91,16:57, BVTSample #3BC

MATRIX: SOLIDMETHOD :CAL-DHS Semivolatiles

mg/Kg mg/KgCOMPONENT MDL Concentration Blank Cone.

Diesel 0.5 ND NDKerosene 0.5 ND ND

oa 0.5 ND NDOther Semivolatae HC 0.5 34,000 ND

ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection Limit

HYDROCARBON PATTERN DESCRIPTION: HIGH MW PARAFFINS

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES SAMPLE #: 11116-4


KAIBECHTEL CHEMPLEX Black Clay Sample #3BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/17/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 11/17/91,17:34, DLC

MATRIX: SOLIDMETHOD :CAL-DHS Volatiles (8015M)


Gasoline 0.5 ND NDNaphtha 0.5 ND ND

Spirits ' 0.5 ND NDOther Volatile HC 0.5 1.7 ND


HYDROCARBON PATTERN DESCRIPTION: C8-C11 AROMATICS ANDC7-C9 PARAFFINICS

TCLPBLACK CLAY

PL & CBII

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES GC/MS VOA RESULTS LAB SAMPLE # 11116-4

^Pbechtel CHEMPLEX

Black Clay Sample #3BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/27/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/2/91, 22:36, DLC Dilution Factor: 1.000 Sample Matrix: WATER

; Analysis Method: 8260

TCLP EXTRACT ug/L Ug/L1 TARGET COMPOUND LIST 1 CAS Number MDL PQL Concentration Blank Cone.

Acetone 67-64-1 12.00 60.0 ND NDBenzene 71-43-2 0.13 0.6 02E ND

Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.14 0.7 ND NDBromoform 75-25-2 0.11 0.6 ND ND

Bromomethane 74413-9 0.22 1.1 ND ND2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone) 78-93-3 18.00 90.0 ND ND

Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 0.14 0.7 02E NDCarbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 020 1.0 ND ND

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.19 0.9 ND <MDLChloroethane 75-00-3 2.00 10.0 ND NDChloroform 67-66-3 021 1.0 ND ND

Chloromethane 74-87-3 2.00 10.0 ND NDDibromochloromethane 124-48-1 0.07 0.4 ND ND

1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 0.15 0.7 ND ND^ 12-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.10 0.5 ND ND■ 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.17 0.9 ND ND^ 12-Dichloroethene (total) 540-59-0 0.14 0.7 ND ND

12-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.12 0.6 ND NDds-13-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 021 1.1 ND ND

trans-l,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 0.05 03 ND NDEthylbenzene 100-41-4 0.11 0.5 9.4 032-Hexanone 591-78-6 2.00 10.0 ND ND

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 0.90 4.5 ND 1.1E4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 2.00 10.0 ND ND

Styrene 100-42-5 0.14 0.7 0 9 0.2E1,12,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.17 0.9 ND ND

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.12 0.6 0.4E NDToluene 108-88-3 020 1.0 7.7 <MDL

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 0.68 3.4 0.9E ND1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.12 0.6 ND ND

Trichloroethene 79-01-6 021 1.0 0.6E NDVinyl acetate 108-05-4 0.14 0.7 ND NDVinyl chloride 75-01-4 2.00 10.0 ND NDXylenes (total) 1330-20-7 022 1.1 29 1.7

12-Dichloroethane-d4 (surrogate) % Recovery [OK=76-114] 76 105^uene-d8 (surrogate) % Recovery [OK=88-110] 104 105^vnofluorobenzene (surrogate) % Recovery rOK=86-1151 94 104ETEstimated, ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection Limit.PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES GC/MS SVO RESULTS LAB SAMPLE # 11116-4

Acai

^BECHTEL CHEMPLEX

Black Clay Sample #3BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/18/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/6/91,12:57, DLC EXTRACTED (Date / Init) : 12/2/91, CSH

Dilution Factor: 2 Sample Matrix: WATERExtract Method: 3510 Analysis Method: 8270

TCLP EXTRACT 1 Concentrationufi/L

Blank Cone. ug/LTARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL PQL |

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 0.8 4.0 6.0 ND

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 1.0 42 5.0 NDAnthracene 120-12-7 0.6 2.6 <MDL ND

Benzfalanthracene 56-55-3 0.4 2.0 ND NDBenzo [blfluoranthene 205-99-2 0.6 2.4 ND NDBenzo|lc] fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.4 1.6 ND ND

Benzoic acid 65-85-0 13.0 64.6 23E NDBenzofghilperylene 191-24-2 0.4 13 ND ND

Benzofa] pyrene 50-32-8 0.4 2.0 ND NDBenzyl alcohol 100-51-6 0.6 3.0 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 0.6 2.4 ND NDbis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 0.6 2.8 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 108-60-1 1.0 42 ND ND^ bis(2-EthylhexyI)phthalate 117-81-7 03 4.0 <MDL 1.0EW 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3 0.8 32 ND ND

Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 1.0 4.2 ND ND4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 03 2.4 ND ND

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7 12 5.4 ND ND2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 0.6 22 ND ND

2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 0.4 2.0 ND ND4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 59-50-7 12 5.4 ND ND

Chrysene 218-01-9 03 33 ND NDDibenzfa,h]anthracene 53-70-3 0.4 1.8 ND ND

Dibenzofuran 132-64-9 1.0 5.0 ND NDDi-n-butylphthalate 84-74-2 0.6 2.4 2.2E 1.6E1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.4 2.0 ND ND13-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.6 2.6 ND ND1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.6 2.4 ND ND

33’-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 1.4 6.6 ND ND2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 1.0 42 ND ND

Diethylphthalate 84-66-2 03 4.0 ND ND2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 12 5.4 ND NDDimethylphthalate 131-11-3 0.8 32 ND ND

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenoI 534-52-1 19.2 95.4 ND ND2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 30.4 151.4 ND ND

B 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 5.2 25.6 ND NDE: Estimated, ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection LimitPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES GC/MSSVO RESULTS LAB SAMPLE # 11116-4

CAIBECHTEL CHEMPLEXBlack Clay Sample #3BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/18/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/6/91,12:57, DLC EXTRACTED (Date / Init) : 12/2/91, CSH

Dilution Factor: 2 Sample Matrix: WATERExtract Method: 3510 Analysis Method: 8270

TCLP EXTRACT 1 Concentration Blank Cone.TARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL PQL ug/L ug/L

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 3.6 17.6 ND NDDi-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 1.4 6.4 ND ND

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 0.4 1.6 ND NDFluorene 7782-41-4 1.0 5.0 <MDL ND

Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 12 5.4 ND NDHexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.8 3.4 ND ND


Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene 193-39-5 0.6 2.6 ND NDIsophorone 78-59-1 0.6 3.0 ND ND

2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 0.4 2.0 9.6 ND- 2-Methylphenol 95-48-7 0.6 2.6 ND ND

4-Methylphenol 106-44-5 0.8 3.0 ND NDNaphthalene 91-20-3 0.4 1.2 32 ND

'"" 2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 1.0 4.4 ND ND3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 3.4 17.0 ND ND4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 1.8 8.4 ND NDNitrobenzene 98-95-3 0.6 3.0 ND ND2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 12 5.6 ND ND4-Nitrophenol 100-01-6 13.0 64.4 ND ND


Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 15.4 77 2 ND NDPhenanthrene 85-01-8 0.4 1.6 1.8 ND

Phenol 108-95-2 0.6 2.8 ND NDPyrene 129-00-0 1.0 4.8 ND ND

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.8 3.8 ND ND2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 2£ 14.0 ND ND2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 4.2 21.0 ND ND

2-Fluorophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=21-110] NA 23Phenol-d6 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK= 10-110] NA 26

Nitrobenzene-d5 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=35-114] 106 652-Fluorobiphenyl (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=43-116] 77 47

^^2,4,6-Tribromophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK= 10-123] NA 56H Terphenyl-dl4 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=33-1411 77 47E: Estimated, ND: Not Detected *as diphenylamineMDL: Method Detection Limit, NA: Not AddedPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

1

TWABLACK CLAY

WASTECH

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES GC/MS VO A RESULTS LAB SAMPLE # 11105-2

^CAI^pECECHTEL-CHEMPLEX

Black Clay-Wastech Sample #1BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/27/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/3/91, 05:00, DLC Dilution Factor: 1.006 Sample Matrix: SOLID% Moisture: 7.1 Analysis Method: 8260

(

Dry-weight Basis Concentration

ur/Kk


ue/KgTARGET COMPOUND LIST 1 CAS Number 1 MDL PQLAcetone 67-64-1 12.07 60.4 82 NDBenzene 71-43-2 0.13 0.6 0.7 ND

Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.14 0.7 ND NDBromoform 75-25-2 0.11 0.6 ND ND

Bromomethane 74-83-9 0.22 1.1 ND ND2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone) 78-93-3 18.11 90.5 <MDL ND

Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 0.14 0.7 ND NDCarbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.20 1.0 ND ND

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.19 1.0 02E NDChloroethane 75-00-3 2.01 10.1 ND NDChloroform 67-66-3 0.21 1.0 ND ND

Chloromethane 74-87-3 2.01 10.1 ND NDDibromochloromethane 124-48-1 0.07 0.4 ND ND

1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 0.15 0.7 ND ND12-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.10 0.5 ND ND

^ 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.18 0.9 ND ND^ 12-Dichloroethene (total) 540-59-0 0.14 0.7 ND ND

12-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.12 0.6 ND NDcis-13-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 021 1.1 ND ND

trans-13-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 0.05 03 ND NDEthylbenzene 100-41-4 0.11 0.5 7£ ND2-Hexanone 591-78-6 2.01 10.1 ND ND

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 0.91 4.5 ND ND4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 2.01 10.1 ND ND

Styrene 100-42-5 0.14 0.7 5.1 ND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.17 05 ND ND

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.12 0.6 0.5E NDToluene 108-88-3 020 1.0 62 ND

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 0.69 3.4 <MDL ND1,12-Trichlor oethane 794)0-5 0.12 0.6 ND ND

Trichloroethene 79-01-6 021 1.0 ND NDVinyl acetate 108-05-4 0.14 0.7 ND NDVinyl chloride 75-01-4 2.01 10.1 ND NDXylenes (total) 1330-20-7 0.22 1.1 22 03E

l,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (surrogate) % Recovery [OK=70-121] 85 91^oluene-dS (surrogate) % Recovery [OK=84-138] 112 106fcromofluorobenzene (surrogate) % Recovery fOK=59-1131 80 98

;: Estimated, ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection LimitPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit


^KAI

WBECHTEL-CHEMPLEX Black Clay-Wastech Sample #1BC


11/25/91, BJ 12/6/91, 20:25, DLC 11/27/91, RF


Sample Matrix: SOLID 8270

% Moisture: 7.1 Dry-weight Basis Apparent- ug/Kg ug/Kg

TARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL POL Concentration Blank Cone.Acenaphthene 83-32-9 24.6 122.9 1600 ND

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 30.7 129.0 2500 NDAnthracene 120-12-7 18.4 199 1000 ND

Benzralanthracene 56-55-3 12.3 61.4 230 NDBenzofbl fluoranthene 205-99-2 18.4 73.7 81 NDBenzofklfluoranthene 207-08-9 123 49.2 18E ND

Benzoic acid 65-85-0 399.4 1984.5 ND NDBenzof ghi] perylene 191-24-2 12.3 55.3 29E ND

Benzofa]pyrene 50-32-8 12.3 61.4 80 NDBenzyl alcohol 100-51-6 18.4 92.2 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 18.4 73.7 ND NDbis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 18.4 86.0 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 108-60-1 30.7 129.0 ND ND^ bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 24.6 122.9 32E 31EV 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3 24.6 983 ND ND

Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 30.7 129.0 ND ND4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 18.4 73.7 ND ND

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7 36.9 165.9 ND ND2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 18.4 67.6 ND ND

2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 12.3 61.4 ND ND4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 59-50-7 36.9 165.9 ND ND

Chrysene 218-01-9 24.6 116.7 210 NDDibenzfa,h]anthracene 53-70-3 123 55.3 <MDL ND

Dibenzofuran 132^64-9 30.7 153.6 34E NDDi-n-butylphthalate 84-74-2 18.4 73.7 ND <MDL1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 12.3 61.4 ND ND13-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 18.4 79.9 ND ND1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 18.4 73.7 ND ND

33’-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 43.0 202.8 ND ND2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 30.7 129.0 ND ND

Diethylphthalate 84-66-2 24.6 122.9 ND ND2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 36.9 165.9 ND NDDimethylphthalate 131-11-3 24.6 98.3 ND ND

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1 589.8 2930.7 ND ND^ 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 933.9 4651.0 ND NDV 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 159.7 786.4 ND NDE: Estimated, ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection LimitPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

C^AI

BECHTEL-CHEMPLEX Black Clay-Wastech Sample #1BC


SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/25/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/6/91, 20:25, DLC EXTRACTED (Date / Init): 11/27/91, RF


Sample Matrix: SOLID

% Moisture:Low acid surrogate recoveries due to GPC cleanup.

7.1 Dry-weight Basis Concentration

ug/Kg


ug/KgTARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL POL2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 110.6 540.7 ND ND

Di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 43.0 196.6 49E NDFluoranthene 206-44-0 123 493 680 ND

Fluorene 7782-41-4 30.7 153.6 2700 NDHexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 36.9 165.9 ND ND

Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 24.6 104.4 ND NDHexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 110.6 540.7 ND ND

Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 43.0 190.5 ND NDIndenofl^3-cdlPyrene 193-39-5 18.4 79.9 ND ND

Isophorone 78-59-1 18.4 92.2 ND ND2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 12.3 61.4 2700 ND

2-Methylphenol 95-48-7 18.4 79.9 ND ND^ 4-Methylphenol 106-44-5 24.6 92.2 ND NDW Naphthalene 91-20-3 12.3 36.9 2700 ND

2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 30.7 135.2 ND ND3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 104.4 5223 ND ND4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 55.3 258.0 ND NDNitrobenzene 98-95-3 18.4 923 ND ND2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 36.9 172.0 ND ND4-Nitrophenol 100-01-6 399.4 1978.4 ND ND


Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 473.1 2371.6 ND NDPhenanthrene 85-01-8 12.3 49.2 5300 ND

Phenol 108-95-2 18.4 86.0 ND NDPyrene 129-00-0 30.7 147.5 1500 ND

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 24.6 116.7 ND ND2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 86.0 430.1 ND ND2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 129.0 645.1 ND ND

2-Fluorophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=25-121] 2 38Phenol-d6 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=24-113] 1 38

Nitrobenzene-d5 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=23-120] 54 562-Fluorobiphenyl (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=30-115] 73 38

^ 2,4,6-Tribromophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK= 19-122] 33 88B Terphenyl-dl4 (surrogate std) % Recovery fOK=18-1371 87 47"E: Estimated, ND: Not Detected

MDL: Method Detection LimitPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

*as diphenylamine

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES SAMPLE #: 11105-2


KAIBECHTEL-CHEMPLEX Black Clay-Wastech Sample #1BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/5/91, BJ EXTRACTED (Date / Init) : 12/16/91, BVT ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/16/91, 21:49, BVT

MATRIX: SOLIDMETHOD: CAL-DHS Semivolatiles

TCLP EXTRACT mg/Kg mg/KgCOMPONENT MDL Concentration Blank Cone.

Diesel 0.5 ND NDKerosene 0.5 ND ND

Oil 0.5 ND NDOther Semivolatile HC 0.5 4100 ND


HYDROCARBON PATTERN DESCRIPTION: HIGH MW PARAFFINS

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES SAMPLE # : 11105-2


KAIBECHTEL-CHEMPLEX Black Clay-Wastech Sample #1BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/5/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/3/91, 05:00, DLC

MATRIX: SOLIDMETHOD :CAL-DHS Volatiles (8015M)


Gasoline 0.5 ND NDNaphtha 0.5 ND ND

Spirits 0.5 ND NDOther Volatile HC 0.5 0.6 ND


HYDROCARBON PATTERN DESCRIPTION: C8-C11 AROMATICS ANDC7-C9 PARAFFINICS

I

BLACK CLAY WASTECH

TCLP

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES GC/MS VOA RESULTS LAB SAMPLE # 11105-2

m

CHTEL-CHEMPLEXBlack Clay-Wastech Sample #1BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/27/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/2/91,17:16, DLC Dilution Factor: 1.000 Sample Matrix: WATER

Analysis Method: 8260

TCLP EXTRACT Ug/L Ug/L

1 TARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL PQL Concentration Blank Cone.Acetone 67-64-1 12.00 60.0 42E ND

Benzene 71-43-2 0.13 0.6 0.2E ND

Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.14 0.7 ND ND

Bromoform 75-25-2 0.11 0.6 ND ND

Bromomethane 74-83-9 0.22 1.1 ND ND

2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone) 78-93-3 18.00 90.0 ND ND

Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 0.14 0.7 ND ND

Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.20 1.0 ND ND

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.19 0.9 <MDL <MDLChloroethane 75-00-3 2.00 10.0 ND ND

Chloroform 67-66-3 0.21 1.0 ND NDChloromethane 74-87-3 2.00 10.0 ND ND

Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 0.07 0.4 ND ND1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 0.15 0.7 ND ND

^ 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.10 0.5 ND ND1 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.17 0.9 ND ND

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total) 540-59-0 0.14 0.7 ND ND1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.12 0.6 ND ND

cis-13-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 0.21 1.1 ND NDtrans-13-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 0.05 0.3 ND ND

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.11 0.5 29 0.52-Hexanone 591-78-6 2.00 10.0 ND ND

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 0.90 4.5 ND 1.1E4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 2.00 10.0 ND ND

Styrene 100-42-5 0.14 0.7 1.1 0.2E1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.17 0.9 ND ND

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.12 0.6 02E NDToluene 108-88-3 0.20 1.0 18 <MDL

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 0.68 3.4 2.6E ND1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.12 0.6 ND ND

Trichloroethene 79-01-6 0.21 1.0 ND NDVinyl acetate 108-05-4 0.14 0.7 ND NDVinyl chloride 75-01-4 2.00 10.0 ND ND

Xylenes (total) 1330-20-7 0.22 1.1 140 1.71,2-DichIoroethane-d4 (surrogate) % Recovery [OK=76-114] 83 105

Toluene-d8 (surrogate) % Recovery [OK=88-110] 103 105

(Bromofluorobenzene (surrogate) % Recovery rOK=86-1151 100 104

E: Estimated, ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection LimitPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit


;WKAI^pBECHTEL-CHEMPLEX

Black Clay-Wastech Sample #1BC

SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/5/91, BJ ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/6/91,17:24, DLC EXTRACTED (Date / Init) : 11/10/91, JS

Dilution Factor: 1.000 Sample Matrix: WATERExtract Method: 3510 Analysis Method: 8270

TCLP EXTRACT Concentrationue/L

Blank Cone. ug/LTARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL PQL |

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 0.4 2.0 41 NDAcenaphthylene 208-96-8 0.5 2.1 51 ND

Anthracene 120-12-7 0.3 13 5.9 NDBenz[a]anthracene 56-55-3 03 1.0 <MDL ND

Benzofbl fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.3 13 ND NDBenzofk] fluoranthene 207-08-9 03 03 ND ND

Benzoic acid 65-85-0 6.5 32.3 <MDL NDBenzofghflperylene 191-24-2 03 0.9 ND ND

Benzofa] pyrene 50-32-8 0.2 1.0 ND NDBenzyl alcohol 100-51-6 0.3 1.5 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 0.3 13 ND NDbis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 0.3 1.4 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 108-60-1 0.5 2.1 ND NDbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 0.4 2.0 2.3 0.8E

£ | 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3 0.4 1.6 ND ND

n

Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 0.5 2.1 ND ND4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 0.3 13 ND ND

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7 0.6 2.7 ND ND2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 0.3 1.1 ND ND

2-ChIorophenol 95-57-8 03 1.0 ND ND4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 59-50-7 0.6 2.7 ND ND

Chrysene 218-01-9 0.4 1.9 ND NDDibenzfaji] anthracene 53-70-3 03 0.9 ND ND

Dibenzofuran 132-64-9 0.5 2.5 <MDL NDDi-n-butylphthalate 84-74-2 03 1.2 0.9E 0.9E1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 03 1.0 ND ND13-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.3 1.3 ND ND1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.3 13 ND ND

33’-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0.7 3.3 ND ND2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 03 2.1 ND ND

Diethylphthalate 84-66-2 0.4 2.0 ND ND2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 0.6 2.7 ND NDDimethylphthalate 131-11-3 0.4 1.6 ND ND

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1 9.6 47.7 ND ND

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 153 75.7 ND ND

\ 2,4-DinitrotoIuene 121-14-2 2.6 12.8 ND NDj£: Estimated, ND: Not DetectedMDL: Method Detection LimitPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES GC/MS SVQ RESULTS LAB SAMPLE # 11105-2

KAI SAMPLED (Date/Time/Init): 11/5/91, BJBECHTEL-CHEMPLEX ANALYSIS (Date/Time/Init): 12/6/91,17:24, DLCBlack Clay-Wastech EXTRACTED (Date / Init) : 11/10/91, JSSample #1BC

Dilution Factor: 1.000 Sample Matrix: WATERExtract Method: 3510 Analysis Method: 8270

TCLP EXTRACT 1 Concentration Blank Cone.TARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL PQL ue/L ue/L

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 1.8 8.8 ND NDDi-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 0.7 32 1.7E ND

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 0 2 03 0.7E NDFluorene 7782-41-4 0.5 23 60 ND

Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.6 2.7 ND NDHexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.4 1.7 ND ND


Indenofl,23-cdlpyrene 193-39-5 0.3 13 ND NDIsophorone 78-59-1 0.3 1.5 ND ND

2-MethylnaphthaIene 91-57-6 02 1.0 84 ND2-Methylphenol 95-48-7 0.3 13 ND ND4-Methylphenol 106-44-5 0.4 13 ND ND

Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.2 0.6 120 ND2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 0.5 22 ND ND3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 1.7 8.5 ND ND4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 0.9 42 ND NDNitrobenzene 98-95-3 0.3 13 ND ND2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 0.6 2.8 ND ND4-Nitrophenol 100-01-6 6.5 322 ND ND

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine* 86-30-6 02 0.8 ND NDN-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 0.4 2.0 ND ND

Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 7.7 38.6 ND NDPhenanthrene 85-01-8 02 03 44 ND

Phenol 108-95-2 03 1.4 ND NDPyrene 129-00-0 0.5 2.4 13E ND

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.4 1.9 ND ND2,44-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 1.4 7.0 ND ND2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 2.1 10.5 ND ND

2-Fluorophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=21-110] 22 25Phenol-d6 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=10-110] 29 15

Nitrobenzene-d5 (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=35-114] I 582-Fluorobiphenyl (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK=43-116] 52 43

2,4,6-Tribromophenol (surrogate std) % Recovery [OK= 10-123] 99 90k Terphenyl-dl4 (surrogate std) % Recovery fOK=33-1411 44 46

E: Estimated, ND: Not Detected *as diphenylamineMDL: Method Detection Limit, I: Gross InterferencesPQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

APPENDIX HFINAL PHYSICAL PROPERTY TEST REPORTS

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS REPORT

Permeability, Specific Gravity, UCS

GeoSyntec Consultants (formerly GeoServices Inc. Consulting Engineers)

Geo mechanics and Environmental Laboratory 1600 Oakbrook Drive, Suite S6S

Norcross, Georgia 30093 USA Telephone: (404)242-7624

Telefax: (404)242-8615

26 November 1991

Mr. Neville W. Kingham Kiber Associates, Inc.4000 Dekalb Technology Parkway Suite 200Atlanta, Georgia 30340

Subject: Letter ReportLaboratory Testing of Stabilized/Solidified Sludge Bechtel-Chemplex Project

Dear Mr. Kingham:

GeoSyntec Consultants is pleased to present this letter report of laboratory test results to Kiber Associates, Inc. (Kiber). The laboratory testing program was authorized by Mr. Stephen J. Zarlinski, E.I.T. of Kiber during a 29 October 1991 telephone conversation with Dr. Nader S. Rad, P.E. of GeoSyntec Consultants. As shown in Table 1, the test specimens were delivered to GeoSyntec Consultants' Geomechanics and Environmental Laboratory by Kiber during the period of 4 November to 18 November 1991.

It is GeoSyntec Consultants' understanding that the specimens were part of Kiber's Bechtel-Chemplex project. The purpose of the testing program was to evaluate the unconfined compressive strength, the hydraulic conductivity and the specific gravity of the specimens. The remaining sections of this report provide: (i) a description of the test specimens; (ii) a summary of the testing procedures and conditions; and (iii) a summary of the test results.

DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS

All the test specimens were prepared by Kiber and provided to GeoSyntec Consultants for testing. GeoSyntec Consultants understands that the untreated materials used to form the test specimens were from a landfill at a high density polyethylene (HDPE) manufacturing facility,

GL1687/GEL91275

Corporate Office: (407)736-4600 Boynton Beach, FL Office: (407)736-5400 WtmMTv-tnn Rr*.?rh. O.A Office: C7|4i R43-6R66

Norcross, GA Office: (404) 448-5400 Materials Testinp Laboratory: (407)732-9910

GeoSyntec Consultants

Mr. Neville W. Kingham26 November 1991Page 2

and known to be contaminated to varying degrees with semi-volatile and volatile organic compounds as well as heavy metals. The chemical analyses of the untreated materials, provided to GeoSyntec Consultants by Kiber, is given in Appendix A. The specimens were stabilized/solidified utilizing Portland cement, fly ash and some proprietary materials. Based on this information all testing was conducted using USEPA Level D protection. All material tested will be returned to Kiber within a month of the date of this report.

TESTING PROCEDURES AND CONDITIONS

Permeability Testing

Permeability testing was conducted using guidelines established in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 5084, "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials using a Flexible-Mall Permeameter". The test conditionsrequested by Kiber were as follows:

• nine samples were provided to GeoSyntec Consultants for testing;

• testing was conducted using flexible-wall permeameters;

• the samples were approximately 3 in. (75 mm) in diameter and were trimmed to a height of approximately 2 in. (50 mm) to 4 in. (100 mm) to obtain specimens for testing;

• the specimens were assembled in the following test configuration(from bottom to top): base platen/porous stone/filter paper/specimen/filter paper/porous stone/top platen;

• back-pressure saturation of the test specimens was accomplished using de-aired tap water at an effective stress of approximately 1 psi (7 kPa);

GL1687/GEL91275


• consolidation of the saturated specimens was performed at an effective stress of 5 psi (35 kPa); pore-water displacement was monitored until primary consolidation was complete;

• flow was induced with de-aired tap water using falling-head hydraulic gradients ranging from 10 to 1 to determine the hydraulic conductivity of each specimen; and

• permeation continued until at least three consistent values of hydraulic conductivity were obtained and the inflow and outflow rates were approximately equivalent.

Unconfined Compression Testing

Unconfined compression testing was conducted using guidelines established in ASTM D 2166, "Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil". The conditions requested by Kiber for this testing were as follows:

• three specimens were tested;

• each specimen was provided to GeoSyntec Consultants with initial dimensions of approximately 4 in. (100 mm) in height and approximately 2 in. (50 mm) in diameter;

• the specimens were tested in unconfined compression at a rate of 1 percent axial strain per minute;

• all load and deformation data were acquired using a computer- aided data acquisition system;

• testing was terminated when the load decreased with increasing strain or when 15 percent axial strain was achieved; and


GL1687/GEL91275



• water content determinations were conducted using trimmings obtained froqi each specimen after completion of the unconfined compression test.

i

Specific Gravity Determination Testing

Specific gravity determination testing was conducted using guidelines established in ASTM D 854, "Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils". The conditions requested by Kiber for this testing were as follows:

• three specimens were tested; and

• the tests were performed on trimmings obtained from the specimens used in the unconfined compression tests after completion of the tests.

TEST RESULTS

Permeability Testing

Permeability test results are presented in Table 2. This table includes physical conditions of each specimen before and after testing, and the measured hydraulic conductivity of each specimen.

Unconfined Compression Testing

Unconfined compression test results are presented in Table 3. The table presents the physical conditions and unconfined compressive strength of each test specimen. The graphical presentations of the axial stress versus axial strain are shown in Figures 1 to 3.

The unconfined compressive strengths are believed to be accurate to within 1 psi (7 kPa). The computer-generated figures used representative

GL1687/GEL91275


load and displacement data recorded during the test. No interpretation of the test results, as related to a specific application, is provided.

Specific Gravity Determination Testing

The specific gravity test results are presented in Table 4.


The reported results apply only to the materials tested and do not necessarily apply to other materials or test conditions. The testing was performed in accordance with general engineering testing standards and requirements. This testing report is submitted for the exclusive use of Kiber.

GeoSyntec Consultants appreciates the opportunity to provide testing services to Kiber. Should you have any questions regarding the information presented in this report, or if further services may be provided, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned.

CLOSURE

Sincerely,

Nader S. Rad, Ph.D., P.E. Laboratory Director

Robert C. Bachus, Ph.D. Senior Project Manager

Attachments

GL1687/GEL91275

TABLE 1

SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS

SAMPLE NUMBER

KIBERSAMPLENUMBEk

SAMPLEDELIVERY

DATETEST

PERFORMED

SAMPLETESTDATE

EL261a 1BC 4 November 1991 Permeability 7 November 1991

EL261b 1BC 4 November 1991 Unconfined Compression 6 November 1991

EL261b 1BC 4 November 1991 Specific Gravity 8 November 1991

EL262a 1WS 4 November 1991 Permeability 7 November 1991

EL262b 1WS 4 November 1991 Unconfined Compression 6 November 1991

EL262b 1WS 4 November 1991 Specific Gravity 8 November 1991

EL263a 4BS 4 November 1991 Permeability 7 November 1991

EL263b 4BS 4 November 1991 Unconfined Compression 6 November 1991

EL263b 4BS 4 November 1991 Specific Gravity 8 November 1991

( EL278 2BS 13 November 1991 Permeability 14 November 1991

• EL279 2BC 18 November 1991 Permeability 19 November 1991

EL280 3WS 18 November 1991 Permeability 19 November 1991

EL281 3BC 18 November 1991 Permeability 20 November 1991

EL282 2WS 18 November 1991 Permeability 20 November 1991

EL283 3BS 18 November 1991 Permeability 19 November 1991

GL1687/GEL91275

TABLE 2

PERMEABILITY TESTING SPECIMEN CONDITIONS AND TEST RESULTS

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.

KIBER SAMPLE NO.

HEIGHT (In.) DIAMETER (In.) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) WATER CONTENT (%) HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

(cm/sec)INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL INITIAL FINAL

EL261a 1BC 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 89.4 89.4 25.7 30.5 3.2 x 10'8

EL279 2BC 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 83.8 85.0 29.5 33.9 1.5 x 10‘8

EL281 3BC 1.6 1.6 3.0 3.0 80.7 80.7 32.8 36.0 3.7 x 10'6

EL262a 1WS 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 72.1 72.1 28.0 34.5 1.6 x 10*7

EL282 2WS 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 72.8 72.8 28.1 33.3 5.7 x 10'8

EL280 3WS 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 68.0 68.5 32.6 37.0 1.6 x 10‘6

EL278 2BS 2.1 2.1 3.0 3.0 65.7 67.8 42.1 48.3 1.3 x 10'6

EL283 3BS 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 79.0 79.5 33.4 37.2 2.8 x 10'6

EL263a 4BS 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.0 79.5 79.5 32.2 36.8 2.1 x 10'8

TABLE 3

UNCONFINEO COMPRESSION TESTING SPECIMEN CONDITIONS AND TEST RESULTS


KIBER SAMPLE NO.

DRYUNIT

WEIGHT(pcf)

WATERCONTENT

(%)

UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH(psi)

EL261b 1BC 93.3 20.3 817.6

EL262b 1WS 71.7 22.0 671.7

EL263b 4BS 81.0 27.8 1030.3

GL1687/GEL91275

TABLE 4

SPECIFIC GRAVITY DETERMINATION TESTING

l


KIBERSAMPLE NO.

SPECIFICGRAVITY

EL261b 1BC 2.4

EL262b 1WS 1.8

EL263b 4BS 2.3

GL1687/GEL91275

KIBER ASSOCIATES, INC. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTING

FIGURE NO. 1 I

JmSSm. GeoSyntec ConsultantsGEOMECHANICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

PROJECT NO. GL1687OOCUMENT NO. GEL91275PAGE NO.

JOeUtJ


STRAIN (*)

^5S3bl GeoSyntec Consultants

GEOMECHANICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

FIGURE NO. 2

PROJECT NO. GL1687

DOCUMENT NO. GEL91275PAGE NO.


FIGURE NO. 3

jSSSk. GeoSyntec Consultants PROJECT NO. GL1687OOCUMENT no. GEL91275

GEOMECHANICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORYPAGE NO.

KIBER TEST RESULTS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

PROJECT: Bechtel - ChemplexPROJECT No.: j__SAMPLE No.: 2WS_TESTING DATE: _________22 Nov. ‘91TESTED BY: SJZ_

LOAD CELL:DATE CALIBRATED: DIAL GAGE: LOADING RATE: REVIEWED BY:

50001b.13 November 1891

No. 10.04 In./min.

SJZ

SOIL SPECIMEN DIMENSIONSDIAMETER: LENGTH

No. 1 2.00 in. 4.05 In.No. 2 2.00 in. 4.05 In.No. 3 2.00 In. 4.05 in.Average 2.00 in. 4.05 in.

MOISTURE CONTENT (Di 1. MOISTURE TIN NO. 2WS-UCS2. WT MOISTURE TIN (tare weight) 1.36 g3. WT WET SOIL + TARE 26.23 a4. WT DRY SOIL + TARE 21.62 g5. WT WATER. Ww 4.61 g6. WT DRY SOIL. W* 20.26 g7. MOISTURE CONTENT. W 22.75 %

Initial Specimen 1WT. Wo 293.4 gInitial Area. Ao 3.15 in2

Initial Volume. Vo 12.75 In3

Initial Bulk Unit Weight 87.6 pcfInitial Dry Unit Weight 71.4 pcf15% Strain (0.15 Lo) 0.61 in.UCS 609.4 psi

COMPRESSIVELOAD

DIAL GAGE READING

...... ...............

SPECIMENDEFORMATION

(in.1

CORRECTED ' AREA .

3.148

AXIALSTRAIN

0.0000

UNCONRNEDCOMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH(psi)

0 1.805 0 0.05 1.604 0.001 3.148 0.0002 1.6

10 1.801 0.004 3.161 0.0010 6.034 1.660 0.006 3.153 0.0015 10.6eo 1.687 0.008 3.154 0.0020 18.0

100 1.865 0.01 3.156 0.0025 31.7

174 1.883 0.012 3.157 0.0030 55.1

250 1.661 0.014 3.150 0.0035 70.1

341 1.670 0.016 3.160 0.0040 107.0

428 1.877 0.016 3.162 0.0044 135.4

530 1.874 0.021 3.164 0.0052 167.5

615 1.872 0.023 3.166 0.0057 184.3

714 1.660 0.026 3.168 0.0064 225.4

604 1.668 0.020 3.171 0.0072 253.6

807 1.663 0.032 3.173 0.0070 285.6

1008 1.660 0.035 3.175 0.0086 317.8

1128 1.657 0.038 3.178 0.0004 355.0

1284 1.653 0.042 3.161 0.0104 403.6

1406 1.650 0.045 3.163 0.0111 441,7

1546 1.646 0.048 3.167 0.0121 485.2

1702 1.842 0.053 3.100 0.0131 533.6

1606 1.838 0.057 3.103 0.0141 565.6

1684 1.835 0.06 3.105 0.0148 580.6

1837 1.632 0.063 3.108 0.0156 605.7

1040 1.826 0.067 3.201 0.0165 608.0

1852 1.625 0.07 3.203 0.0173 608.4

1654 1.820 0.075 3.207 0.0185 515.7

220 1.765 0.11 3.236 0.0272 68.0104 1.775 0.12 3.244 0.0206 50.8

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTINGSample No. 2WS

Axial Strain (in/in)


PROJECT: PROJECT No.: SAMPLE No.: TESTING DATE: TESTED BY:

Bechtel - Chemplex

3WS22 Nov. ’91

SJ2

LOAD CELL:DATE CAUBRATED: DIAL GAGE: LOADING RATE: REVIEWED BY:

50001b.13 November 1991

No. 10.04 in./min.

SJZ _____

SOIL SPECIMEN DIMENSIONSDIAMETER LENGTH

No. 1 1.99 in. 3.99 in.No. 2 1.99 in. 4.01 In.No. 3 1.99 in. 3.99 in.Average 1.99 in. 4.00 in.

?MOISTURE CONTENT (DrvBaaia)1. MOISTURE TIN NO. 3WS-UCS2. WT MOISTURE TIN (tare weight) 1.35 g3. WT WET SOIL + TARE 29.11 g4. WT DRY SOIL + TARE 24.22 g5. WT WATER. Ww 4.89 g6. WT DRY SOIL. We 22.87 g7. MOISTURE CONTENT. W 21.36 % SPECIMEN CONDI71

Initial Specimen WT. Wo5NS287.0 g

Initial Area. Ao 3.12 In2


Initial Bulk Unit Weight 87.7 pcfInitial Dry Unit Weight 72.3 pcf15% Strain (0.15 Lo) 0.60 in.UCS 53.3 psi

COMPRESSIVELOADflbs.1

DIAL GAGE READING

(in.)

SPECIMEN DEFORMATION ......... fin.)

CORRECTED: AXIALSTRAIN(in/in)

UNCONRNEDCOMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH

0 1.705 0 3.117 0.0000 0.0

4 1.704 0.001 3.117 0.0003 1.3

10 1.701 0.004 3.120 0.0010 3.2

19 1.786 0.007 3.122 0.0018 4.8

20 1.784 0.011 3.129 0.0026 6.4

» 1.760 0.019 3.126 0.0030 8.3

38 1.776 0.010 3.131 0.0046 12.1

60 1.773 0.022 3.134 0.0055 16.0

63 1.770 0.025 3.136 0.0063 20.1

79 1.767 0.026 3.130 0.0070 23.0

00 1.763 0.032 3.142 0.0060 26.6

103 1.760 0.033 3.144 0.0066 32.8

126 1.762 0.043 3.150 0.0106 40.0

136 1.748 0.047 3.154 0.0116 43.1

147 1.743 0.032 3.188 0.0130 46.6

196 1.730 0.056 3.161 0.0140 40.4

161 1.733 0.06 3.164 0.0150 90.0

166 1.730 0.083 3.166 0.0163 62.4

160 1.725 0.07 3.172 0.0178 63.3

169 1.720 0.073 3.176 0.0168 63.2

167 1.717 0.076 3.178 0.0169 52.5

184 1.712 0.083 3.183 0.0208 91.5

192 1.707 0.068 3.187 0.0220 47.7

147 1.702 0.003 3.101 0.0233 46.1

136 1.605 0.1 3.107 0.0250 42.5

131 1.600 0.103 3.201 0.0263 40.0

110 1.660 0.115 3.208 0.0288 37.1

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTINGSample No. 3WS

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20




Bechtel - Chemplox

2BC22 Nov. '91

SJZ

LOAD CELL:DATE CAUBRATED: DIAL GAGE: LOADING RATE: REVIEWED BY:

5000 lb.13 November 1991

No. 10.04 In./mln.

SJZ


No. 1 1.99 in. 4.02 in.No. 2 1.99 In. 4.00 in.No. 3 1.98 In. 4.02 in.Average 1.99 in. 4.01 in.

MOISTURE CONTENT *Drv Baste)

1. MOISTURE TIN NO. 2BC-UCS2. WT MOISTURE TIN (tare weight) 1.35 g3. WT WET SOIL + TARE 32.50 g4. WT DRY SOIL + TARE 25.65 65. WT WATER. Ww 6.85 g6. WT DRY SOIL Ws 24.30 g7. MOISTURE CONTENT. W 28.19 % SPECIMEN CONDITIONS

Initial Specimen WT. Wo 350.0 gInitial Area. Ao 3.11 in2

Initial Volume, Vo 12.47 in2

Initial Bulk Unit Weight. 106.9 pcfInitial Dry Unit Weight 83.4 pel15% Strain (0.15 Lo) 0.60 in.UCS 521.9 psl

COMPRESSIVELOADfibs.)

DIAL GAGE : READING

SPECIMENDEFORMATION

(in.)

CORRECTEDAREA(in*)

AXIALSTRAIN(in/in)

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH ;

0 1.006 0 3.106 0.0000 0.0

4 1.607 0.001 3.107 0.0002 1.3

6 1.605 0.003 3.100 0.0007 2.0

IS 1.003 0.005 3.110 0.0012 4.8

27 1.000 0.000 3.112 0.0020 0.7

45 1.006 0.012 3.115 0.0030 14.4

73 1.882 0.018 3.110 0.0040 23.4

106 1.676 0.02 3.122 0.0050 34.0

144 1.075 0.023 3.124 0.0057 46.1

109 1.072 0.026 3.126 0.0065 63.7

266 1.660 0.028 3.128 0.0072 65.0

347 1.666 0.032 3.131 0.0060 110.0

431 1.064 0.034 3.133 0.0085 137.6

520 1.862 0.036 3.134 0.0000 166.6

628 1.060 0.036 3.136 0.0085 200.6

006 1.050 0.04 3.137 0.0100 256.0

045 1.656 0.042 3.130 0.0105 301.0

1110 1.054 0.044 3.141 0.0110 356.0

1287 1.052 0.046 3.142 0.0115 400.6

1413 1.850 0.048 3.144 0.0120 448.5

1567 1.647 0.051 3.146 0.0127 504.4

1617 1.043 0.055 3.140 0.0137 513.4

1644 1.642 0.056 3.150 0.0140 521.8

1562 1.040 0.056 3.152 0.0145 405.6

1445 1.635 0.063 3.156 0.0157 457.0

1250 1.030 0.068 3.160 0.0160 305.6

1060 1.625 0.073 3.164 0.0162 341.4

026 1.020 0.076 3.166 0.0104 203.0

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTINGSample No. 2BC




Bechtel - Chemplox

3BC22 Nov. 'fl1

SJZ


5000 lb-13 November 1991

No. 10.04 In ./min.

SJZ


No. 1 1.94 in. 3.96 in.No. 2 1.96 in. 3.98 in.No. 3 1.94 In. 3.98 in.Average 1.95 in. 3.97 in.

MOISTURE CONTENT (Drv Sasie)1. MOISTURE TIN NO. 3BC-UCS2. WT MOISTURE TIN (tare weight) 1.35 g3. WT WET SOIL + TARE 34.08 g4. WT DRY SOIL + TARE 29.81 g5. WT WATER. Ww 4.27 fl6. WT DRY SOIL We 28.46 g7. MOISTURE CONTENT. W 15.00 % SPECIMEN CONDITIONS

Initial Specimen WT. Wo 310.0 aInitial Area. Ao 2.98 lnz


Initial Bulk Unit Weight. 99.6 pcfInitial Dry Unit Weight 86.6 pcf15% Strain (0.15 Lo) 0.60 In.UCS 71.9 pel

COMPRESSIVELOAD(lbs.)

DIAL GAGE READING

(InJ

SPECIMENDEFORMATION

fin.)

CORRECTEDAREA(In2)

AXIALSTRAIN(In/in)

UNCONRNED COMPRESSIVE;

STRENGTH.. 1 fpsi)

0 1.794 0 2.862 0.0000 0.0

4 1.791 0.003 2.985 0.0008 1.3

7 1.787 0.007 2.988 0.0018 2.3

17 1.760 . 0.014 2.993 0.0035 5.7

29 1.774 0.02 2.987 0.0050 9.7

39 1.771 0.023 3.000 0.0056 11.7

52 1.764 0.03 3.005 0.0076 17.3

62 1.761 0.033 3.007 0.0083 20.6

61 1.753 0.041 3.013 0.0103 26.9

98 1.746 0.048 3.019 0.0121 32.5

118 1.736 0.096 3.029 0.0141 39.0

129 1.732 0.062 3.030 0.0156 42.6

151 1.782 0.072 3.037 0.0161 49.7

167 1.712 0.082 3.045 0.0206 54.0

179 1.704 0.09 3.051 0.0227 56.7

169 1.606 0.006 3.096 0.0247 01.6

199 1.686 0.106 3.064 0.0267 64.9

807 1.670 0.115 3.071 0.0289 67.4

812 1.674 0.12 3.075 0.0302 68.9

213 1.671 0.123 3.078 0.0310 69.2

217 1.666 0.126 3.062 0.0322 70.4

220 1.661 0.133 3.086 0.0335 71.3

222 1.656 0.136 3.080 0.0347 71.9

222 1.650 0.144 3.094 0.0362 71.7

282 1.645 0.149 3.089 0.0375 71.6

817 1.633 0.161 3.106 0.0405 69.8

208 1.623 0.171 3.116 0.0430 66.7

195 1.610 0.184 3.127 0.0463 62.4

184 1.600 0.164 3.135 0.0488 96.7

164 1.590 0.204 3.144 0.0513 52.2

00

<D>cn co O*-iCLaoOoG

GOoGP

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTINGSample No. 3BC

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20




Bechtel - Chemplex

3BS22 Nov. ‘91

SJ2

LOAD CELL- DATE CALIBRATED: DIAL GAGE: LOADING RATE: REVIEWED BY:

5000 lb-13 November 1991

No. 10.04 In ./min.

SJZ_______


4.02 in.No. 1 2.00 In.No. 2 1.99 In. 4.01 in.No. 3 1.99 in. 4.02 in.Average 1.99 in. 4.02 in.

MOISTURE CONTENT (Div Baals)1. MOISTURE TIN NO. 3BS-UCS2. WT MOISTURE TIN (tare weight) 1.35 g3. WT WET SOIL + TARE 29.87 g4. WT DRY SOIL + TARE 23.09 g5. WT WATER. Ww 6.78 fl6. WT DRY SOIL. Wa 21.74 g7. MOISTURE CONTENT. W 31.19 % SPECIMEN CONDITIONS

Initial Specimen WT. Wo 325.6 0Initial Area. Ao

3~13 In2

Initial Volume, Vo 12.56 in3

Initial Bulk Unit Weight 98.7 DelInitial Dry Unit Weight 75.2 pet15% Strain (0.15 Lo) 0.60 in.UCS 515.7 pel

COMPRESSIVELOADflbs.)

DIAL GAGE READING

(inD

SPECIMENDEFORMATION

tin.)

CORRECTED

(in*)

AXIALSTRAIN

Cm/in)


STRENGTH

0.06 1.690 0 3.127 0.00004 1.869 0.001 3.128 0.0002 1.3

14 1.805 0.005 3.131 0.0012 4.5

43 1.681 0.009 3.134 0.0022 13.7

80 1.879 0.011 3.136 0.0027 25.6

144 1.877 0.013 3.137 0.0032 45.9

220 1.875 0.018 3.139 0.0037 72.6

334 1.873 0.017 3.140 0.0042 106.4

443 1.671 0.019 3.142 0.0047 141.0

542 1.669 0.021 3.143 0.0052 172.4

840 1.867 0.023 3.145 0.0057 206.4

748 1.665 0.025 3.147 0.0062 237.7

851 1.663 0.027 3.148 0.0067 270.3

940 1.661 0.020 3.150 0.0072 206.4

1014 1.859 0.031 3.151 0.0077 321.8

1108 1.656 0.034 3.154 0.0085 351.3

1239 1.653 0.037 3.156 0.0092 302.6

1358 1.648 0.042 3.160 0.0105 429.7

1425 1.645 0.045 3.162 0.0112 450.6

1526 1.041 0.048 3.166 0.0122 482.7

1586 1.836 0.052 3.168 0.0129 500.6

1632 1.633 0.057 3.172 0.0142 514.5

1637 1.830 0.06 3.174 0.0149 516.7

1619 1.832 0.056 3.173 0.0144 510.3

1350 1.820 0.07 3.163 0.0174 424.2

as/ 1.805 0.085 3.195 0.0212 268.3

644 1.790 0.1 3.207 0.0249 200.8

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTINGSample No. 3BS

(

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20




Bechtel - Chemplex

2BS22 Nov. ‘91

SJZ


5000 lb.13 November 1991

No. 10.04 In./mln.

SJZ


No. 1 1.97 In. 3.95 in.No. 2 1.97 In. 3.96 in.No. 3 1.96 in. 3.95 in.Average 1.97 in. 3.95 in.

MOISTURE CONTENT (Dry Baits)1. MOISTURE TIN NO. 2BS-UCS2. WT MOISTURE TIN (tare weight) 1.35 g3. WT WET SOIL + TARE 33.56 g4. WT DRY SOIL + TARE 28.92 g5. WT WATER. Ww 4.64 g6. WT DRY SOIL. Ws 27.57 g7. MOISTURE CONTENT. W 16.83 % SPECIMEN CONDITIONS

Initial Specimen WT. Wo 290.3 oInitial Area. Ao 3.04 in2

Initial Volume. Vo 12.03 in3

Initial Bulk Unit Weight 91.9 pcfInitial Dry Unit Weight 78.6 pcf15 % Strain (0.15 Lo) 0.59 In.UCS 83.0 psi

COMPRESSIVE LOAD fibs A

PIALGAGE ' READING

(InA

: SPECIMEN DEFORMATION

(In.)

CORRECTEDAREA(in*)

AXIAL STRAIN •

(in/in)


8TRENGTHfcsl)

0 1.794 0 3.044 0.0000 0.0

4 1.793 0.001 3.045 0.0003 1.3

10 1.789 0.005 3.046 0.0013 3.3

IS 1.765 0.009 3.051 0.0023 6.2

28 1.782 0.012 3.053 0.0030 9.5

42 1.779 0.015 3.056 0.0038 13.7

53 1.776 0.018 3.058 0.0046 17.3

75 1.772 0.022 3.061 0.0056 24.5

95 1.767 0.027 3.065 0.0066 31.0

114 1.762 0.032 3.069 0.0061 37.1

128 1.750 0.036 3.072 0.0091 42.0

147 1.763 0.041 3.076 0.0104 47.6

166 1.747 0.047 3.061 0.0119 53.9

179 1.742 0.052 3.065 0.0132 56.0

180 1.737 0.057 3.088 0.0144 61.6

200 1.733 0.061 3.092 0.0154 64.7

208 1.729 0.055 3.095 0.0164 67.2

215 1.725 0.069 3.096 0.0175 69.4

222 1.720 0.074 3.102 0.0167 71.6

233 1.715 0.079 3.106 0.0200 75.0

240 1.710 0.064 3.110 0.0212 77.2

246 1.705 0.089 3.114 0.0225 79.0

251 1.700 0.094 3.116 0.0238 60.5

256 1.692 0.102 3.125 0.0258 61.9

256 1.687 0.107 3.129 0.0271 62.5

260 1.662 0.112 3.133 0.0263 63.0

260 1.677 0.117 3.137 0.0296 02.9

255 1.670 0.124 3.143 0.0314 81.1

241 1.660 0.134 3.151 0.0339 76.5

213 1.650 0.144 3.159 0.0364 67.4

164 1.630 0.164 3.176 0.0415 51.6

141 1.620 0.174 3.164 0.0440 44.3

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTINGSample No. 2BS


L

BORING LOGS FROM THE LANDFILL AREA - STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG

PROJECT NO.21073-001

CHEKPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START

7-23-91DATE COMPLETE

7-23-91BONING

11-1SHEET «

1 Of 1

LOCATIONLandfill

COORDINATES

N

ANGLE/BEARING

90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE

8.0 In.TOTAL DEPTH

15 ft.

CORE RECOVERY (FT/X)

NA

CORE BOXES

NA

SAMPLES

None

GROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCK

NA

OEPTH/EL. GR0LM5 WATER

SAMPLE HAMMER UEIGHT/FALL

NA

DRILLERLeyne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MOOELMobile B-S7

LOGGED BY

R. N. Yeager

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET

LOG DESCRIPTION COMCNTS

\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\a • • a • • • •

\\\\

0 * 4.5 ft. CLAY fILL; light brown silty, sandy, w/ trace of gravel; becomes dark brown 8 4'.

4.25 In. ID Auger

Log based on auger cuttings.

5 — 4.5 * 7.5 ft. CLAY: brown, soft to moderately stiff, sandy in places.

10 —

15

oooo0000

0000

20 —

25 —

7.5 - 13 ft. CLAY: light brown, interbedded w/ gravel layers a 12.5-13*.

13 - 15 ft. GRAVEL: brown, w/ sand.

Drilled to locate black sludge south of Trench EB-6; no wastes were encountered in this hole.

T.D. 15 ft.

* SS Split SpoonST Thin-wall Tube

C Coring

A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEHPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START7-23-91

DATE COMPLETE7-23-91

BORING #L1-2

SHEET »1 OF 1

LOCATIONLandfill

COORDINATES

N

ANGLE/BEARING90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE S.O in.

TOTAL DEPTH19 ft.


NA

CORE BOXES

NA

SAMPLES

None


NA

DEPTH/EL. GROUND WATER

SAMPLE HAMMER WEIGHT/FALLHA

DRILLERLayne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MOOELMobile B-57

LOGGED BYR. N. Yeager

SAMPLE

TYPE RIM/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET

LOG DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

5 —

\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\W\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\

0 • 9 ft. CLAY FILL: light brown silty, sandy w/ trace of gravel.

4.25 in. ID Auger


10 —KISSROSSKISSKISSKISSKISSKBSKISSKISS

9 • 14 ft. WHITE CLAY-LIKE MATERIAL; soft.

15K • 19 ft. CLAY; brown-gray, w/ abundant plastic beads.

Beads becoming less abundant with depth.

T.D. 19 ft.20 —

Drilled 10' east of Boring Ll*1 fn an attempt to locate black sludge south of Trench EB-6.

25 —

* SS Split Spoon

ST Thin-wall Tube

C Coring

A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START7-23-91


BORING #LI-3

SHEET «

1 Of 1

LOCATIONLandfi1(

COORDINATES

N


HOLE SIZE5.0 in.

TOTAL DEPTH16.5 ft.


NA

CORE BOXES

NASAMPLES

1GROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCK

NADEPTH/EL. GROUND WATER

SAMPLE HAMMER WEIGHT/FALL DRILLERLayne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MOOELMobile B-57

LOGGED BY

R. N. Yeager

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET

La DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

\\\\ 0 - 13 ft. CLAY AND GRAVEL FILL A.25 In. ID Auger\\\\\\\\\\w Log based on

0000 auger cuttings

0000 and one thin-

m walled tube.

ww5 — ww

• •• •wwww

— ww

— ww—J

• •• •wwwwww

10 — wwww

— 0000Im

— ww

fftSHE 13 • 16 ft. WHITE CLAY-LIKE MATERIAL:

— KDSff wet.

— fcsra15 — EKtt

BE*

16 • 16.25+/- ft. BLACK SLUDGE:w/ trace of plastic beads and

— cardboard.

T.D. 16.5 ft.This hole was drilled 10' east of (Shelby tubeLI-2 and is typical of holes from refusal)

20 — which Shelby tube samples were

-

taken in BLACK SLUDGE.

25 —

—

ST 0.5/0.25

* SS Split SpoonST Thin-wall TiA»

C Coring

A Auger

GEOLOGICDRILL LOG


CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START7-22-91


BORING #L2-1

SHEET #1 Of 1

LOCATIONLandfill

COORDINATES

N

ANCLE/BEARING

90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE8.0 in.

TOTAL DCPTN10 ft.


NA

CORE BOXES

NASAMPLES

None


NA

DEPTH/EL. GROLM) WATER

SAMPLE HAMMER WEIGHT/FALL DRILLER

Leyne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MODELGus Pech / BRAT-22S

LOGGED BY

L. R. West

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVOEPTH

INFEET

LOG DESCRIPTION COWENTS

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

5 —

\\\\

\\\\\\\\

10

15 -

20 -

25 -

• 4 ft. SILTY CLAY: light tan w/ general change to brown 81'; aioist; plastic sheeting and clay 8 3' w/ white plastic beads.

4.25 in. 10 Auger


4 - 9.5 ft. WHITE PLASTIC/SILTY CLAY: brown clay and plastic beads and sheeting.

9.5 -10 ft. SILTY CLAY: lightbrown; native soil.

T.0. 10 ft.

* SS Split Spoon C Coring

ST Thin-wall TU* A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOUA

DATE START7-22-91


BORING fL 2-2

SHEET #1 Of 1

LOCATIONLandfill

COORDINATES

N

ANGLE/BEARING

90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE

8.0 in.TOTAL DEPTH

8 ft.

CORE RECOVERY (FT/X)HA

CORE BOXESHA

SAMPLES

None

GROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCKHA


SAMPLE HAMMER UEIGHT/FALLHA

DRILLER

layne Northwest

ORILL HAKE/MOOEL

Gus Pech / BRAT-22R

LOGGED BY

L. R. West

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET


\\\\\\\\

0 - 8 ft. SILTY CLAY/CLAY: light tan to light brown silty clay to black, clay, some Minor gravel in upper 4' noist below 4*.

5 —

\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\

4.2S in. ID Auger


\\\\\\\\\\\\

T.D. 8 ft

10 —

15 —

20 —

25 —

* SS Split Spoon

ST Thin-wall Tube

C Coring

A Auger

GEOLOGIC

08 ILL LOG


CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOUA

DATE START7-24-91

DATE COMPLETE7-24*91

SORING 013-1

SHEET 01 OF T

LOCATIONLand/111

COORDINATES

N

ANGLE/BEARING

90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE

6.0 In.TOTAL DEPTH

15 ft.


NA

CORE BOXES

NA

SAMPLES

HoneGROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCK

NA


SAMPLE HAMMER WEIGHT/FALL

NA


DRILL MAKE/MOOEl

Gus Pech 8RAT-22R

LOGGED BY

l. R. West

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET


5 —

10 —

15

0 * 3 ft. SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL: fll grained, tight tan sand.

XJCOC

4.25 In. ID Auger


3 • 3.5 ft. SILTY CLAY: light brown

3.5 • 12.5 ft. CLAY: black, with gravel (crushed stone) to 5*.

20

25 —

Plastic beads a 9'.

Chunks of Uiite plastic t crushed limestone a 10'.

Strips of white plastic/steel dria a 11-12.5*.

12.5 • 15 ft. BLACK SLUDGE: wet, w/ plasic beads.

T.D. 15 ft.

* SS Split Spoon C Coring

ST Thin-wall Tube A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START7-22-91


BORING »14-1

SHEET <

1 OF 1

LOCATIONlandfill

COORDINATES

N

ANCLE/BEARING90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE6.0 in.

TOTAL DEPTH12 ft.

CORE RECOVERY (FT/%)

NA

CORE BOXES

NA

SAMPLES

None


NA


SAMPLE HAMMER UEIGHT/FALL

NADRILLER

layne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MOOElGus Pech / BRAT-22R

LOGGED BYL. R. West

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

IN FEET


\\\\\\\\

w

\\\\

0 • 4 ft. SILTY CLAY; white l tan to dark brown, w/ gravel; plastic beads S 3*.

4.25 in. ID Auger


5 —4 - 7 ft. CLAY: black, u/ plastic beads, moist.

Some white clay-like material 8 6-7'

\\\\\\\\\\\\

7 - 9 ft. SILTY CLAY: brown, w/ plastic beads.

10 —9 - 10.5 ft. CLAY: black, w/ some plastic beads

\\\\\\\\

10.5 - 12 ft. SILTY CLAY: native soil.

T.D. 12 ft.

15 —

20

25 —

SS Split Spoon

ST Thin-watl Tube

C Coring

A Auger

a

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG

PROJECT NO. 21073001

CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON. IOWA

DATE START

7-19-91


BORING fL5-1

SHEET $1 OF 1

LOCATIONLandfill

COORDINATES

N


HOLE SIZE8.0 In.

TOTAL DEPTH11 ft.


NA

CORE BOXES

NA

SAMPLES

None

CROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCK

NA

DEPTH/EL. GROUND UATER

SAMPLE HAMMER UEIGHT/FALl

NA

ORILLERlayne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MOOELCus Pech / BRAT-22R

LOGGED BYL. R. West

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET

LOG DESCRIPTION C0M1ENTS

\\\\0000UU

0 • 2 ft. SILTY CLAY; tight brown M/ small gravel.

5 —

UUUUUUUUUU0000UUUUUUUUUU

2 • 8 ft. SILTY CLAY: dark brown w/ small gravel and minor anoint of amber and white plastic beads 8 5*j 8 6' change to very dark brown, silty clay with amber/white beads; very damp.

4.25 in. ID Auger


10

8 - 11 ft. CLAY; black w/ plastic beads.

T.D. 11 ft.

15 -

20 -

25 -

* SS Split Spoon

ST Thin-wall Tube

C Coring

A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEHPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START7-19-91


BORING #

15-2

SHEET «

1 OF 1

LOCATIONLandfill

COORDINATES

N


HOLE SIZE8.0 in.

TOTAL DEPTH7 ft.

CORE RECOVERY (FTA)

NA

CORE BOXES

NA

SAMPLES

None

GROUND ELEVATION OEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCK

NA


SAMPLE HAMMER WEIGHT/FALL

NA


DRILL HAKE/MOOELGus Pech / BRAT-22R

LOGGED BYL. R. West

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/ RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET


5 —

\\\\\\\\

CffiKm

wwsussmsm

wwm

0 • 7 ft. SILTY CLAY AND WHITE CLAY-LIKE MATERIAL: alternate layers light brown silty clay m/ WCLM 8 1-2', 3.5-5*, and 6-6.5*; locally with plastic beads. Native toil 8 6': clay, light brown, acist.

4.25 in. ID Auger


T.D. 7 ft.

10 —

15 —

20 —

25 —

* SS Split Spoon

ST Thln-wall Tube

C Coring

A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEHPIEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START7-19-91


BORING $L6-1

SHEET «

1 or 1LOCATION

LandfillCOORDINATES

N


HOLE SIZE8.0 in.

TOTAL DEPTH17 ft.

CORE RECOVERY (FT/*)

NA

CORE BOXES

NASAMPLES

3GROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCK

NA


SAMPLE HAIttER WEIGHT/FALL HO lb / 30 In.


DRILL HAKE/MODELMobile B-57


SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT*

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET


0 ■ 2 ft. FILL; aedivn brown, sandy, dry.

10

ss 2.0/0.9 NR

SS 2.0/0.0 NR

SS

BKff DD55 CDStt OCSfCEnm

— mi mi CtSEtf BIBB mi

15 —

2.0/0.25 NR

2 ■ 5 ft. CLAY; black w/ abundant shredded plastic.

4.25 In. ID Auger

Log based on auger cuttings and 2 samples.

5 ■ 9.5 ft. PLASTIC: shredded plasti and plastic beads, w/ black clay below 6'.

9.5*/* • 15 ft. CLAY AND WHITE CLAY-LIKE MATERIAL; brown, very sandy clay, very wet; WCLM-wet and very soft.

Split spoon 8 10-12'

out wet

Very little

recovery

15 - 17 ft. CLAY; green-gray, mediua stiff; native soil; refusal 8 17'.

20—

25 —

T.D. 17 ft.

This hole was drilled in an attaopt to find sufficient quantities of WCLM. Hole located on west side of Trench EB-49.

Insufficient quantity of WCLM at this location.

* SS Split Spoon

ST Thin-wall Tite

C Coring NR Not Recorded

A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON, IOWA

DATE START7-19-91


BORING #L6-2

SHEET §1 Of 1

LOCATION

Landfill

COORDINATES

N

ANGLE/BEARING

90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE8.0 In.

TOTAL DEPTH

15 ft.

CORE RECOVERY (FTA) CORE BOXES

NASAMPLES

2GROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP Of ROCK

HADEPTH/EL. GROUND UATER

SAMPLE HAM4ER WEIGNT/FALL DRILLERLayne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MODELMobile B-57

LOGGED BY

R. N. Yeager

SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT*

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

IN FEET

LOG DESCRIPTION COWCHTS

ST 2.S/2.5 NR

ST 2.S/0.0 NR

0-10 ft. SAND AND CUT: brown, u/ plastic beads.

4.25 in. ID Auger

Log based on auger cuttings and 1 sa^>le.

5 —

1010 • 12.5V- ft. PLASTIC BEADS: red brown, sand-size; bottoa 1" of tube in white clay-like material.

NO RECOVERY

15T.D. 15 ft.

Second hole drilled on west tide of Trench EB-49.

Insufficient quantity of WCLM for sampling at this location.

20 —

25 —

* SS Split Spoon ST Thin*wall Tuba

C Coring NR Not Recorded

A Auger

GEOLOGIC

DRILL LOG


CHEMPLEX SITE

CLINTON. JOUA

DATE START7-22-91


SORING fL6-3

SHEET i

1 OF 1

LOCATIONLandfill

COORDINATES

N

ANGLE/BEARIHG90 Deg.

HOLE SIZE8.0 In.

TOTAL OEPTN13.5 ft.

CORE RECOVERY (FTA)HA

CORE BOXES SAMPLES3

GROUND ELEVATION DEPTH/EL. TOP OF ROCKHA


SAMPLE HAMMER WEIGHT/FAUHA

DRILLERlayne Northwest

DRILL MAKE/MOOELMobile 1-57


SAMPLE

TYPE RUN/RECOVERY

BLOWCOUNT

ASSIGNEDNUMBER

ELEVDEPTH

INFEET


ST 2.5/2.5

ST 2.5/2.5

ST 2.5/0.0

0 - 2 ft. GRAVEL FILL: brown.

• •• • • •• •

2 • 4 ft. CLAY; aixed w/ car&oard and plastic beads.

4.25 In. ID Auger

Log based on auger cuttings and 2 sasples.

5 —4 * 5.5 ft. CLAY; v.soft, offwhite.

5.5 • 8.5 ft. PLASTIC BEADS

6.5 - 11 ft. WCLM m/ plastic beads

10 —

NO RECOVERY

T.D. 13.5 ft.

15 — Hole was drilled on east side of trench EB-49. Hole is typical of the remaining holes from which WHITE CLAY-LIKE MATERIAL was SMpled. Depth of WCLM was highly variable between closely-spaced boreholes.

20

25 —

* SS Split Spoon

ST Thin-wall Tube

C Coring

A Auger

KIBER ANALYTICAL SERVICES GC/MS SVO RESULTS LAB SAMPLE #11116-4

^KAI[(■BECHTEL CHEMPLEX ^^^Black Clay

Sample #3BC


12/4/91, BJ 12/9/91,15:51, DLC 12/9/91, ASI


Sample Matrix: SOLID 8270

% Moisture: 14.4 Dry-weight Basis ug/Kg

Concentration

Apparentug/Kg

Blank Cone.TARGET COMPOUND LIST CAS Number MDL POLAcenaphthene 83-32-9 155.8 778.8 4300 ND

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 194.7 817.7 6000 NDAnthracene 120-12-7 116.8 506.2 2200 ND

Benzralanthracene 56-55-3 77.9 389.4 - 760 NDBenzo[blfluoranthene 205-99-2 116.8 467.3 230E NDBenzofk] fluoranthene 207-08-9 77.9 3113 <MDL ND

Benzoic acid 65-85-0 2531.1 12578 ND NDBenzorghil perylene 191-24-2 77.9 350.5 100E ND

Benzofa]pyrene 50-32-8 77.9 389.4 210E NDBenzyl alcohol 100-51-6 116.8 584.1 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 1163 4673 ND NDbis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 116.8 5453 ND ND

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 108-60-1 194.7 817.7 ND NDbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 155.8 778.8 240E 200E

\ 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3 155.8 623.0 ND ND^ Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 194.7 817.7 ND ND

4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 116.8 4673 ND ND4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7 233.6 1051.4 ND ND

2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 116.8 428.3 ND ND2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 119 389.4 ND ND

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 59-50-7 233.6 1051.4 ND NDChrysene 218-01-9 155.8 739.9 620E ND

Dibenzfa^ilanthracene 53-70-3 77.9 3503 ND NDDibenzofuran 132-64-9 194.7 9733 <MDL ND

Di-n-butylphthalate 84-74-2 1163 467.3 440E <MDL1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 77.9 389.4 ND ND13-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 116.8 5063 ND ND1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 116.8 4673 ND ND

33’-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 272.6 1285.0 ND ND2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 194.7 817.7 ND ND

Diethylphthalate 84-66-2 155.8 7783 ND ND2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 233.6 1051.4 ND NDDimethylphthalate 131-11-3 155.8 623.0 ND ND

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1 3738.2 18574 ND ND2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 5918.9 29478 ND ND

^ 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 1012.4 4984.3 ND NDL

■rEstimated, ND: Not Detected

MDL: Method Detection Limit PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit

508 635 9180 P.0207/01/1992 14:57 ENSR ACTON Ma.

Monte Carlo Analysis of Risks Associated with Soli Exposures

Supplemental Endangerment Assessment (SEA) Chemplex Site: Clinton, IA

Risk assessments typically rely on single point estimates for each of the Input parameters to estimate risks for a particular Individual. Because of the conservative nature of most of the assumptions, the risk estimated is considered to protect a reasonably maximally exposed Individual (RME), and by Inference, all less highly exposed individuals. This single point estimate Is formed by the combination of a number of assumptions, some of which are averages (e.g. body weight) and some of which are upper bound values (e.g. Ingestion rates, exposure duration, and chemical concentration). The result of this combination of parameters Is a single risk ostimate, and there Is no way to evaluate the level of conservatism or protection associated with It. An alternative approach that Is Increasingly being acknowledged by the risk assessment community and among rogulatory agencies including EPA (Hablcht, 1992) as a more accurate and Informative tool, is Monte Carlo analysis. This technique utilizes all available and valid data to estimate the range of risks and the probabilities associated with them. Monte Carlo analysis allows the single point estimates calculated in traditional risk assessments to be put into a ‘real life1 context.

In the SEA, the on*Slte Worker at Former Waste Pile F scenario showed the highest potential risk. This scenario wilt be used to illustrate the effects of a number of conservative single point estimates to develop an estimate of risk. For this sconarlo, the parameters used In the characterization of potential risk Included: concentration of the chemicals, body weight, exposure frequency, exposure duration, soil Ingestion rate, fraction soil Ingested, skin contacting medium, and soli on skin. In the SEA, single point estimates were used for each of these parameters, based on a highly exposed worker. One of the results of this approach is that no estimates are provided for the distribution of risks to other hypothetical workers that might be less highly exposed. The Monte Carlo approach uses distributions for each of the parameters to present the range of values. A targe number of iterations are run taking a single point from each of the distributions to construct a distribution of risk estimates. This distribution can then be used to put the single point estimate determined above into perspective and to obtain more quantitative Information on the distribution of risks. A technical description of the exposure distributions used can be found in Attachment A.

A Monte Carlo simulation was performed using Input distributions described In Attachment A, and the results are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. The figure and table illustrates the power ot the Monte Carlo simulation approach. The maximum observed risk using the most conservative assumptions from each of the distributions was 1.15E-04 while the minimum value was 6.72E*12. The expected or average value for the entire range of values for each of the distributions was 6.56E-07. The value calculated previously for the SEA using single point estimates was 1.09E-05. This value was greater than 99.26 percent of the values calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation approach. This shows that less than one percent of the population described by the possible scenarios derived from this analysis would expect a calculated risk greater than 1.09E*05. In other words, there Is a 99 percent probability that the actual risk for the on-Site worker scenario Is less than 1.09E-05. The Monte Carlo approach thus allows the single point estimate to be evaluated in the context of the range of possible values and the highly conservative nature of this single point estimate can be demonstrated.

TO

TA

L P.02

Monte Carlo Analysis: On-Site Worker Former Waste Pile F

Probability

90%

Expected Value = 6.7E-07

SEASingle Point

Estimate of Risk

Maximum Estimate of Risk

1.0E-07 2E-07 5E-07 1E-06 2E-06 5E-06 1E-05

Range of Potential Risk Estimates

2E-05 6E-05 1E-04 2E-04

ID

ID

U

sM8207I3

JLL

-08-1932

16=00 F

RO

M E

NS

R A

CT

ON

,Ma.

508 635 9180 P.0407/01/1992 14:58 ENSR ACTON Ma.

TABLE 1FORMER WASTE PILE F ©RISK SIMULATION: ON-SITE WORKER HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION CHEMPLEX SITE: CLINTON, IA

'3i-'.: Simufatfoh'Results

Maximum value 1.15E-04

Upper 95th percentile 2.54E-06

Expected value 6.56E-07

Minimum value 6.75E-12

07/01/1992 14:58 ENSR ACTON Ma. 508 635 9180 P.05

Attachment A

The data sources used to construct distributions for the various parameters Included In the Monte Carlo analysis are described In this attachment. Distributions were fit to the following seven exposure parameters, as well as the concentration of benzo(a)pyrene toxic equivalents (TE) detected In Former Waste Pile F:

Exposure Parametersconcentration (ug/kg)body weight (kg)exposure frequency (days)exposure duration (years)soil Ingestion rate (mg/day)fraction ingested (unitless)skin surface area (cm*)soil on skin adherence factor (mg/cm9)

Concentration

The concentrations of the carcinogenic PAH for surface soil at Former Waste Pile F were Identified and concentrations of the Individual PAH were converted to B(a)P-TE according to their sampling location. Tha data were converted to B(a)P-TE using the ICF/Clement TEFs. A cumulative frequency distribution showed that the data were distributed In a lognormal manner. The geometric mean and standard deviation of the data were calculated to use In the development of a lognormal distribution to represent the data. The geometric mean of the data was 0.77 ug/kg and the standard deviation of the lognormal distribution of the data was 2.95 ug/kg.

Bodywelght

The U.S. EPA typically assumes an adult bodyweight of 70 kilograms (U.S. EPA, 1989a, b) for both men and women. Supporting documentation for this assumption has been provided by Anderson et el. (1985) who present percentile distributions for bodyweights for different age groups of males and females. They also provide summary distributions for male and female adult bodyweights for ages 18 to 75, which upon examination, are clearly normally distributed. However, Insufficient raw data were presented In Anderson et a). (1985) to adequately test the normality of the distributions.

Based on the apparent normality ot the distributions, the following equation was used to estimate the standard deviation of the distributions:

Z = (Y-u)/sigma

where: 2 ** 1.645 for the &5th percentile (one tall),Y = the weight reported for the 95th percentile,u « the moan of the sample, andsigma = the standard deviation to be calculated.

07/01/1992 14:59 ENSR ACTON Ma. 508 635 9100 P.06

For both adult summary distributions, the U.S. EPA estimated mean adult bodywelght of 70 kilograms was used. The 95th percentile data from Anderson et at. (1965) for males and females were used, and the resulting estimated standard deviations were calculated. The calculated standard deviation for adult male bodyweights was 19.27 kilograms while the calculated standard deviation for adult female bodyweights was 13.56 kilograms. The larger of the two standard deviations (19 kg) was used to construct a distribution of adult bodyweight, using a mean bodywelght of 70 kg.

Exposure Frequency

EPA typically assumes that the average worker Is ‘routinely exposed to the contaminated media.* As such, EPA assumes that a worker spends five days a week for 50 weeks of the year (for a total of 250 days/year) at the location of concern (EPA, 1991). For the Chemplex site, K Is highly unlikely that any worker would visit the Former Waste Pile F, which te covered with grass during the summer months and snow during the winter months. In this case, assuming dally year round exposure Is clearly a maximum possible exposure frequency. It Is more likely that a Chemplex worker would occasionally visit the site tor maintenance of the area or possibly sampling activities. However, to be conservative, ENSR assumed that the likelihood of a worker visiting Former Waste Pile F for any exposure frequency between 0 and 250 days Is of equal probability. Hence, the distribution used to characterize exposure frequency Is a uniform distribution with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 260.

Exposure Duration

EPA also assumes that a worker spends 25 years at the same job, with the same probability of exposure throughout that period of time. In fact, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Indicate that this length of time at one job is the upper 95th percentile on the distribution of time spent at a job (EPA, 1991). Discussions with staff at the BLS reveal that the median length of time spent at one job for a chemical Industry worker is on the order of 7 years. However, this value represents time already spent working at a job, but does not Indicate how much longer a worker spends at the same job'.

Therefore, given the limited data on this subject, ENSR conservatively assumed that a worker could spend any length of time between 0.5 years and 50 years at the same job, with a most likely duration of 25 years. The distribution used to characterize exposure duration Is a triangular distribution with a minimum of 0.5, a most likely value of 25, and a maximum of 50.

Soil Ingestion Rate

There are limited data on the amount of soli ingested by workers, and for that matter, adults. One study has measured soil Ingestion by adulls who work outside of the home (Calabrese et a!., 1990). This study has Rs limitations, in that it had only a few subjects (n«6), and did not associate findings with any particular activity pattern. However, It is the only study that did not rely on modeling to estimate soil ingestion. Calabrese et at. (1990} estimated an average of 39.25 mg/day for the four most valid tracer elements, which approximates an Ingestion rate of 50 mg/day. Consequently, the EPA’s Standard Default Exposure Factors guidance (EPA, 1991) slales that the Calabrese et al. (1990) estimate of 50 mg/day Is the ‘interim default for adult Ingestion of soil and dust In the ’typical’ workplace.' LaGoy (1987) also stales that 50 mg/day can be used as an average soil Ingestion rate for people who are In direct contact with contaminated soil, and that a rate of 25 mg/day is a reasonable estimate for adults under most

07/01/1992 15:00 ENSR ACTON Ma. 506 635 9100 P.07

conditions. LaGoy (1987) also reports that 100 mg/day represents the maximum case for soil Ingestion by Individuals over 11 years of age.

Given these data, ENSR assumed that soil Ingestion by workers can be represented by a triangular distribution with a minimum of 0 mg/day, a most likely value of 50 mg/day, and a maximum of 100 mg/day.

Fraction Ingested

The parameter "fraction Ingested" can be used to account for the fraction of soli or dust contacted that Is presumed to be contaminated, and should consider the location of contamination and population activity patterns (EPA, 1989). Essentially, the fraction Ingested parameter recognizes that someone comes into contact with soils In a variety of different locations, not all of which are present at a site, and not all of which are contaminated. To account for this possibility, a distribution representing the fraction of affected soils was used In this analysis. A triangular distribution was used with a minimum of 0, a most likely of 0.5 (50%), and a maximum of 1 (100%).

Skin Surface Area

The skin surface area parameter represents the actual area of skin potentially exposed. For the SEA, It was assumed that the hands and forearm would be exposed. Supporting data for the surface area of the hands and forearms were obtained from Anderson et at. (1985) for this assumption and summed. Anderson et al. (1985) also presented percentile distributions for the surface areas of differing body parts (e.g. head, trunk, upper arms, forearms, etc.) for males and females. These summary distributions for male and female adult hands and forearm surface areas did not clearly tit a particular distribution. Insufficient raw data were presented in Anderson et al. (1985) to adequately test the normality of the distribution. Therefore, the Individual percentile values for hands and forearms were summed to create a new combined distribution. This combined distribution was used In this analysis.

Soil on Skin Adherence

At the time the risk assessment for the Chemplex SEA was performed, EPA assumed that soli with the consistency of potting soli adhered to skin at a rate of 1.45 mg of soil per square centimeter of skin (EPA, 1989). In its recently released interim draft permeability guidance, EPA estimates that the soli on skin adherence rate is 1.0 mg/cm* skin (EPA, 1991). Thompson and Burmaster (1992) assumed that the distribution of soil on skin adherence Is uniform, and ranges from 0.75 mg/cm* to 1.25 mg/cm*. The midpoint of this range Is 1.0, which Is consistent with EPA’s latest point estimate. ENSR also assumed that the distribution of soli on skin adherence is uniform with a minimum of 0.75 and a maximum of 1.25.

07/01/1992 15=00 ENSR ACTON Ma. 508 835 9180 P.08

REFERENCES

Anderson, E., N. Browne, S. Duletsky, J. Ramlg, and T. Warn. 1985. Development of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors used In Exposure Assessments. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Exposure Assessment Group, Washington, D.C. January 1985.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 1992. Personal Communication. Labor Force Statistics. June 30,1992.

Calabrese, EJ. et al. 1990. Preliminary Adult Soil Ingestion Estimates: Results of a Pilot Study. Rea. Tox. and Pharm. 12:88-95.

LaGoy, P.K. 1987. Estimate Soil Ingesllon Rates for Use In Risk Assessment. Risk AnatvRlR. 7(3):355-359.

Hablcht, F.H. Memorandum to Assistant and Regional Administrators dated February 28,1992, entitled, ’Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors.' U.S. EPA. Office of the Administrator. Washington, DC.

Thompson K.M. and D.E. Burmaster. 1991. Parametric Distributions for Soil Ingestion by Children. Risk Analysis 11(2):339-342.

U.S. EPA. 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. July 1989.

U.S. EPA. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. December 1989.

U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: 'Standard Default Exposure Factors.' OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March 25.1991.

U.S. EPA. 1991b. Interim Guidance for Dermal Exposure Assessment. Review Draft. OHEA-E- 367. March 1991.

TOTAL P.08

RECORD OF DECISION

i

FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION SITE

FAIRFIELD, IOWA

Prepared by:

U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

SEPTEMBER 1990

provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper-bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer slope factors are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied. The SFs are listed in Table 11.

4.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ), or the ratio of the estimated intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's reference dose. By adding the HQs for all contaminants vithin a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media.

A HI was calculated for each pathway evaluated. An HI of less than 1.0 (unity) indicates that the risks associated with that pathway are low. An HI above 1.0 indicates that some risk of noncarcinogenic effects exist and these risks increase proportional to the HI value. The HI value for current off-site residents is at unity, indicating that they are not currently at risk, but treatment of contaminants to reduce the spread is necessary. The future risk to off-site residents through the ground water pathway was evaluated and the HI was calculated to be 50, which indicates that treatment of the source, soil and ground water is essential at this site. The HI for future workers on-site and off-site was determined to be less than one, indicating no significant noncarcinogenic risks.

Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake levels with the cancer slope factors. These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation. An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 X 10”6 indicates

that, as a plausible upper bound limit, an individual has a one in a million chance of developed cancer as a result of site- related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at a site.

The carcinogenic risks were also calculated for the evaluated pathways at the site. The risk associated with each pathway is summed for each receptor. The carcinogenic risk to current residents is 4 X 10“ . The risk to future off-site residents is 7 X 10" . The risk to future off-site workers at the site was calculated to be 3 X 10"5 and the risk to future onsite workers was 5 X 10"4.

9

Accordingly, EPA has determined that the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present a current or potential threat to the public health, velfare or the environment.

4.6 REMEDIATION GOALS

Federal and state soil cleanup standards for the contaminants of concern have not been established at this time. Therefore, it is appropriate to determine soil cleanup levels on a site-specific basis using the risk assessment's carcinogenic risk factors. At the Fairfield site, the 10“® risk level would be protective if no institutional controls were in place. With proper institutional controls at the site, the cleanup of soil to a 10”4 risk level at this site would be protective of human health and the environment. Based on this risk level, the cleanup level for soil will be 500 ppm for total PAH contaminants and 100 ^pa carcinogenic PAH contaminants.. The 10”4 level will also be used to determine the'cleanup level for benzene in soil.

The NCP states that preliminary remediation goals are to be set at a 10“® excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk level as a point of departure, but may be revised to a risk level in the acceptable range (10-4 to 10“®) based on consideration of

appropriate factors, including uncertainty, technical and exposure factors.

For chronic and lifetime exposures"* an assumption was employed that all concentration values will remain constant.This may result in some overestimation of chronic and lifetime exposure since the volatile organic compounds, and to some extent the PAHs, have the potential to break down and evaporate, resulting in some reduction of risk. A technical factor for soil that should be considered is the practical limit to which soil can be remediated. The 10”® risk level for carcinogenic PAHs is

_ 0.4 3 ppm. It would be technically impractical to remediate soil to this level based on the volume of soil that would be generated. Finally, institutional controls will be implemented

- at the site, reducing the potential for exposure. "For""these* reasons, cleanup of soil at the site to the 10~1- risk level-^would

be protective.

Federal and state ground water cleanup standards have been established for some of the contaminants of concern at the site. EPA has established the Safe Drinking Water Act National Primary Drinking Water Standards' Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as cleanup criteria for drinking water. The Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 133, effective August 16, 1989, established cleanup levels for contaminated ground water in Iowa. The level to first be considered is the EPA negligible risk level (NRL) , then the EPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL), and finally MCLs.

For the Fairfield site, EPA believes that a clean-up level of l ppb benzene, the most abundant volatile organic present in the contaminated ground vater, would be protective of himan health, based on the NRL for benzene. This level coordinates to a protective risk level of 10" .

For carcinogenic PAHs for which there are no state or federal standards, the proposed cleanup levels will be established using the detection limits for each specific ■, compound, based on the best available technology at the time of the signing of this ROD. The goal for these cleanup levels is to achieve a level protective of human health and the environment. EPA believes that a level established using the current best available detection limits will fulfill this goal. The minimum laboratory detection limits that can be achieved under ideal conditions for carcinogenic PAHs coordinate to a protective risk , level of 10" . The best level that can be measured practically during routine laboratory operating conditions coordinates to a protective risk level of 10“ . The 10"4 risk level is considered!appropriate for this site based on the uncertainty factor previously discussed and the technical factors associated with the detection/quantification limits for contaminants.

The levels discussed in this section have been reviewed and approved by ATSDR. Table 12 lists the remediation levels that will be used for ground water remediation at this site, including the detection limits for the carcinogenic PAHs.

5.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

The NCP requires that certain alternatives be developed for evaluation in the FS:

• An alternative that removes or destroys the hazardous constituents to the maximum extent feasible and eliminates the need for long-term monitoring and management;

• One or more additional alternatives that reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous constituents;

• One or more alternatives that involve little or no treatment, but provide protection of human health and the environment by containing the hazardous constituents to control exposure to the wastes; •

• One or more innovative treatment technology alternatives if those technologies offer the potential for comparable or superior performance or implementability, fewer adverse effects, or lower costs than demonstrated technologies;

11

Prepared by:

U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

SEPTEMBER 1991

carcinogenic risks were calculated for the evaluated pathways at the site. The carcinogenic risk to future onsite residents is3.7 X 10"4. The risk to future offsite residents is 1.7 X 10". Onsite risk to future construction workers at the site was calculated to be 3.4 X 10"5 and the risk to future onsite workers at the public works garage is 1.1 X 10". Table 7 summarizes site risks for the various pathways.

4.5.3 RISKS FROM EXPOSURE TO SOILS

Based on the pathway analysis it was also determined that exposure to site soils results in an unacceptable risk to persons having direct contact with these site soils. Site soils contaminated with carcinogenic PAHs are the principal threat at the Peoples site due to the threat of direct exposure by public works garage workers to these soils. The risk for residential exposure by ingestion of chemicals in the soil by children is 1.2 x 10"3 (Table 8). The risk for residential exposure by ingestion of chemicals in the soil by adults is 2.0 x 10"4 (Table 9). The risk to workers at the public works garage is 1.1 x 10"2 based on exposure by ingestion of chemicals in the soil (Table 10). The risk for residential exposure by ingestion of chemicals in soil by construction workers is 3.4 x 10"5 (Table 11).

4.5.4 RISKS -FROM EXPOSURE TO GROUND WATER

It was determined that exposure could result from ground water in zones contaminated by chemical compounds from the site, based on the potential ground water yield and consumption from both the silty sand and alluvial aquifers. A listing of well locations, compounds, and contaminant concentrations used in the risk calculations is provided in Table 12. The alluvial aquifer presents a carcinogenic risk of 1.70 x 10"4 for residential

consumption of ground water by adults (Table 13).

4.5.4 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, based on the results of the risk assessment, EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not remediated by the selected remedy may present a current or potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.

4.6 REMEDIATION GOALS

No federal and state cleanup standards for the contaminants of concern in soil have been established at this time. Therefore, it is appropriate to determine soil cleanup levels on a site-specific basis using the carcinogenic risk factors developed in the risk assessment. At this site, the 10"® risk level would be protective if no institutional controls were in place. Using the proper institutional controls at the site, EPA believes that

9

the cleanup of soil at this site would be adequately protective of human health and the environment when using the 10” risk level. Based on this risk level, EPA considers a cleanup level for soil, from surface level to six feet below surface, of 500 mg/kg for total PAH contaminants and 100 mg/kg carcinogenic PAH contaminants to be protective of human health. This cleanup level calculated to a risk of 5.8 x 10 "4 for incidental soil ingestion by public works garage workers, the population with the highest potential for incidental exposure. fPAH contaminants below 6 feet are not considered by EPA to constitute a direct contact threat to persons at the site. The purpose of clean up of soils below 6 feet would be to protect ground water from contamination from coal tar materials. The developed cleanup levels specify a concentration in the soil that is sufficiently protective of human health and the environment when considering institutional controls required at the site. ;

The 40 C.F.R. 300.430 states that preliminary remediation „ goals are to be set at a io“° excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk level as a point of departure, but may be revised to a risk / level in the acceptable range (10“4 to 10”®) based on consideration of appropriate factors, including uncertainty, technical, and exposure factors.

Federal and state cleanup standards have been established for ground water. EPA has established the Safe Drinking Water Act National Primary Drinking Water Standards' Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as cleanup criteria for drinking water aquifers. The Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 133, effective August 16, 1989, established action levels for contaminated ground water in Iowa. The level to first be considered is the EPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL), then the EPA negligible risk level (NRL), and finally MCLs. The most stringent level is considered to be the appropriate cleanup criteria for contaminated ground water. These levels correspond to a protective risk level of 10” .

For the Peoples site, EPA believes that a cleanup level of 1 ug/1 (parts per billion) benzene, the most abundant volatile organic present in the contaminated ground water, would be protective of human health, based on the NRL. The level that EPA believes would be protective for carcinogenic PAHs such as benzo(a)pyrene is 0.2 ug/1 (parts per billion), based on the analytical detection limit.

For carcinogenic PAHs for which there are no state or federal standards, the proposed cleanup levels will be established using the detection limits for each specific compound, based on the best available technology at the time of the signing of this ROD. The goal for these cleanup levels is to achieve a level protective of human health and the environment. EPA believes that a level established using the current best available detec

10

tion limits will fulfill this goal. The minimum laboratory detection limits that can be achieved under ideal conditions for carcinogenic PAHs corresponds to a protective risk level of 10“ . The best level that can be measured practically during routine laboratory operating conditions correspond to a protective risk level of 10” . The 10”4 risk level is considered appropriate for this site based on the uncertainty factor and the technical factors associated with the detection/quantification limits for contaminants.

The levels discussed in this section have been reviewed and approved by ATSDR. Table 5 lists the remediation levels that will be used for ground water remediation at this site, including the practical detection limits for the carcinogenic PAHs.

4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages 194,000 acres of the upper Mississippi River from Wabasha, Minnesota to Rock Island, Illinois as the Upper Mississippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Although the industrial corridor of Dubuque is not managed as part of the refuge, areas in Wisconsin and Illinois directly across form Dubuque are included in the refuge. The USFWS has identified two endangered species that may be located in the general vicinity of Dubuque. These species are the Higgins eye pearly mussel and the bald eagle. The USFWS indicated that the selected remedy will not impact these species or other aquatic organisms associated with the Mississippi River if discharged site-related waters are treated to meet ARARs.

The principal threat to ground water is coal tar contaminated source materials which will be treated in the selected remedy. Remediation of the source materials will also diminish environmental exposures by removing the direct contact threat to contaminated soils.

5.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

The National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, requires that certain alternatives be developed for evaluation in the Proposed Plan:

• An alternative that removes or destroys the hazardous constituents to the maximum extent feasible and eliminates the need for long-term monitoring and management;

• One or more additional alternatives that reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous constituents; •

• One or more alternatives that involve little or no treatment, but provide protection of human health and the

11

E

V_.

LARAYE OSBORNE FAX NO. 1JUL- 7-92 TUE 13:05 P. 02

Brier &Kallnowski, Inc.

6 July 1992

MEMORANDUM

To: Kevin McAnaney, Dewey Ballantine

From: Theodore G. Erler, P.E.Carey E. Peabody, Ph.D.

Subject: PAH Transport Modeling, Chemplex Site, Clinton,Iowa

In response to your request, chemical transport codes (SESOIL and AT123D) have been used to predict the transport of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from source soil to the Point of Compliance (POC) at the Chemplex site. The objective of the model effort is to determine the concentration of PAHs in soil that could be left in place such that Cleanup Standards in groundwater are met at the POC. These calculations supplement transport model simulations performed for perchloroethylene (PCE), as discussed in letters from Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. ("EKI") to EPA, dated 20 March 1992 and 2 June 1992.

Model runs have focussed on the Previous Basin rather than the Eastern Landfill, the DAC Storage and Truck Loading Area, and Surface Impoundment C, because elevated concentrations of PAHs have been measured in the Previous Basin and there is a short travel path to the POC. Because of the short travel path, PAH compounds migrating to the POC will have undergone relatively little degradation or dispersion. For other source areas which are farther from the POC, greater degradation and dispersion would occur between the source area and the POC. Thus, for these other source areas, Cleanup Standards in groundwater could be met at the POC with higher levels of PAHs in the source soils. The Previous Basin analysis would result in the lowest levels of PAHs permissible in soil.

Model runs were performed for naphthalene, the most mobile and abundant of the non-carcinogenic PAHs, and for benzo(a)pyrene, a carcinogenic PAH which has been detected at the site. The groundwater Cleanup Standards for these two compounds are 20 ppb and 0.2 ppb, respectively. These two compounds are thought to be generally representative of the transport behavior of their respective chemical classes. Model runs were performed for both the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic PAHs in order to determine which class would control the permissible levels of PAHs in coil at the site.

JUL- 7-92 TUE 13:05 LARAYE OSBORNE FAX NO. 1 P. 03

PAH Model Results KaHnowskl, Inc.6 July 1992 Page 2

I. Previous Basin Scenario Input Parameters

The input parameters used for the Previous Basin model runs are only slightly modified from those used for the PCE Transport Model, discussed in the 20 March 1992 EKI letter to EPA. For example, the geometry of the Previous Basin has been modified based on the most recent data available from the April 1992 Draft Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation ("SOURI"). The final input parameters are summarized on Table l.

II. naphthalene Input Parameters and Model Results

The naphthalene input parameters that were used for the model runs are summarized in Table 2.

The Treatability Studies conducted by Bechtel (April, 1992) indicate that naphthalene and other PAHs are amenable to biodegradation when exposed to an adequate supply of oxygen and nutrients. Microbial viability of the soils was demonstrated by the high numbers of total heterotrophic and PAH-degrading organisms detected and by the high respiration rates observed in nutrient-amended soils. Total PAH removals of 77 to 87 percent were demonstrated during an 8“ week solid-phase laboratory study. The majority of the PAH removal, about 75 percent, was attributed to biological activity. PAH half-lives for the solid-phase study (carried out at 18-24°C) were calculated to be 21 to 26 days.

Bechtel concluded that conditions for biodegradation are not optimum at the site primarily due to limited oxygen.However, given the occurrence of PAH-degrading organisms in site soils, biodegradation is occurring, albeit at a slower rate than was achieved by Bechtel in the solid-phase study. Degradation rates are available for naphthalene in Howard and others (1991). The slowest degradation rate reported in this reference is a half life of 258 days for anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions. Inasmuch as anaerobic conditions have not been documented at Chemplex, this degradation rate is considered to be a reasonable and somewhat conservative estimate for the site.

On the basis of PAH data reported in the SOURI, the maximum concentration of Total PAH measured at the 9ite is 3683 mg/kg in soil. In order to obtain a conservatively high prediction of the concentration of naphthalene that could occur in downgradient groundwater at the POC, an average concentration of 4000 mg/kg was input to the model for the Previous Basin. It should be noted that this value vastly overestimates the actual average concentration of Total PAH in the Previous Basin soil and assumes that the

2

JUL- 7-92 TUE 13:06 LARAYE OSBORNE FAX NO. 1

Eiier &Kalinowski, Inc.

04

PAH Model Results 6 July 1992 Page 3

PAH compounds that are present are all as mobile as naphthalene.

Given 4000 mg/kg naphthalene in the soil at the Previous Basin, with a degradation half-life of 258 days, 0.0065 ug/1 naphthalene in groundwater is predicted at the POC. To test the sensitivity of the result to the biodegradation rate, the model was also run assuming a half-life of 500 days. Under these conditions, 4000 mg/kg naphthalene in the soil gives rise to 0.645 ug/1 in groundwater at the POC. On the basis of these results, significant groundwater impacts are not predicted.

Inasmuch as the Cleanup Standard for non-carcinogenic PAHs is 20 ug/1, the current concentrations of naphthalene (and the other less mobile non-carcinogenic PAHs) in soil do not appear to be of concern.

III. Benzo(a)pyrene Input Parameters and Model Results

The chemical input parameters for benzo(a)pyrene are summarized in Table 2. For these runs, no degradation was assumed.

Given the extremely low solubility in water and high adsorption coefficent for benzo(a)pyrene, transport of this compound is extremely slow. Model results indicate that it is transported in the unsaturated zone only 1 cm in 99 years. Other carcinogenic PAHs have similarly low solubilities in water and high adsorption coefficients. Therefore, transport via dissolution in groundwater does not appear to be of concern for carcinogenic PAHs.

IV. Comparison to Field Observations

To provide a check on these model results, chemical data for groundwater with the exception of the JMM data set, were reviewed. Data from the ENSR Supplemental RDI indicate that PAHs have been detected in groundwater in three narrowly defined areas: the western landfill, the polishing basin, and the DAC truck storage and loading area. The highest concentrations coincide with wells which are known to have contained LNAPL including TW-3, MW-6, and K-l. No PAHs were detected at the POC. Steep concentration gradients are compatible with the occurrence of PAH in LNAPL and the disappearance of PAH due to degradation.

Concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs have been reported for groundwater from a small number of monitoring wells (Table 3). Note that most of these analytical results are qualified as estimated. Unqualified analytical results for carcinogenic PAH concentrations have been measured from

3

JUL- 7-92 TUE 13:07 LARAYE OSBORNE FAX NO. 1 P. 05

PAH Model Results 6 July 1992 Page 4

Erier*Kallnowskl, Ino.

monitoring wells K-l and MW-7. Though PAH data have been reported for groundwater from monitoring wells TOW-1, TOW-2, TOW-4, TOW-5, TOW-6, and TOW-13, it should be noted that no data qualifiers were given for these results (Terracon,1991). Thus, carcinogenic PAHs have been measured in very few locations and these are areas in which LNAPL has been observed. This is consistent with the fact that carcinogenic PAHs are a component of LNAPL.

Because carcinogenic PAHs are a component of LNAPL, they can be transported by LNAPL migration. In contrast, the transport of carcinogenic PAHs dissolved in groundwater is extremely slow. This suggests that the migration of carcinogenic PAHs can best be achieved through control of LNAPL migration, rather than soil remediation.

REFERENCE

Howard. P. H., Boethling, R. S., Jarvis, W. F., Meylan W.M-, Michalenko, E. M. (1991) Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan 725 p.

4

LARAYE OSBORNE FAX NO. 1JUL- 7-92 TUE 13:07 P. 06

TABLE 1

PREVIOUS BASIN INPUT PARAMETERS

Soil input

Porosity organic carbon Disconnectednes sDensity

Soil Interval

0 to 4 feet

4 to 11 feet

Index

Intrinsic Permeability

6 x 10“10

3.5 X 10”1

0.30.3%61.9 g/cm3

Soilcm2l Type

clay

silty loam

11 to 12 feet 5 x 10"11 silt

Groundwater at 12 feet

Groundwater Input

Aquifer Thickness PorosityHydraulic Conductivity Hydraulic Gradient Longitudinal Dispersion Transverse Dispersion Vertical Dispersion

2.1 m0.30.16 m/hr 0.0158.2 m 0.82 m 0.027 m

I

67 m

67 m Distance to POC 119 m

Note: Geometry input parameters are from April 1992 Draft SOURI.All other values are the same as those given in the 20 ! March 1992 EKI letter to EPA on PCE Transport Modeling.

LAME OSBORNE FAX NO. 1JUL- 7-92 TUE 13:08 P. 07

TABLE 2

PREVIOUS BASIN

PAH Chemical Input Parameters

Molecular Weight

Henry’s Constant (atm-m3/mol)

Aqueous Solubility (mg/L)

Air Diffusion Coefficient

(cm2/s)

Naphthalene

128.16

4.83 X 10"4 (a)

31.7 (b)

0.0648 (C)

Organic Carbon Adsorption 933 (d) Constant

(ml/g)

Biodegradation 258 (e)Half-life .

(days)

Benzo(a^ nvrene

252.32

2.4 X 10“6 (f)

0.003 (f)

0.04946 (C)

‘ 4 X 105 (f>

0

a. Mackay, et. al., Environmental Science and Technology, 1981,13i 333-336.

b. Riddick, et. al., organic Solvents: Physical Properties and_ Methods of Purification, 4th ed., John Wiley and Sons, NewYork, 1986.

c. Lyman, et. al., Handbook of Chemical Property EstimationMethods, McGraw Hill, New York, 1982.

d. Mabey, Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic PriorityPollutants, EPA 440/4/81/014, 1982.

e. Howard, et. al., Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates,Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, 1991.

f. Montgomery and Welkom, Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference,Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, 1990.

FAX NO. 1JUL- 7-92 TUE 13:08 LARAYE OSBORNE.. *

P. 08

TABLE 3

CARCINOGENIC PAH'S DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER (UG/L)

LOCATOR LAB SAMPLE NUMBER

BENZO (a) PYRENE

BENZO (a) ANTHRACENE

BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE

UG/L

DG-22 IS 156013 25.Q0J 45.00J 36.00J

DG-22 378436 3.00J 6.00J 3.00JDG-24 378443 8.00J 46.00JXDG-25 378458 2.00J 6.00JXK-1 378150 6.00J 160.00MW-7 377744 1.00J 10.00TOW-01 800030178 3.30TOW-02 800030160 56.00TOW-04 800030186 16.00TOW-05 800030194 17.00TOW-06 800030151 35.00TOW-13 800029811 1.80TW-3 379534 90.00J

terry e. branstad, governor department op natural

Documents