DRAFT

SUPPLEMENTAL BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

CHEMICAL COMMODITIES, INC.OLATHE, KANSAS

March 2002

Prepared by

MWH777 Campus Commons, Suite 175

Sacramento, California 95825916-924-8844

RECEIVED

MAR 42002SUPERFUNO DIVISION

Prepared by:

Mark Kr Jones

Mark A. Rowland

Reviewed by:

</rsfc£Lee R. Shull, Ph.D.

Richard G. AndrachekProject Director

MWH

D r . i t t S i i [ i | i l i - m i - m . i l Hasd in r K i ^ k \ - -M-SMIR-II I Report( h i - m u , i l < I ' M i n i i ' i l i i i i ^ IIK . ( H.i ihi ' . K.msns

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................ ^1.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 11.2 METHODOLOGY AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE..................................................2

1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR THE CCI SITE............... 21.4 ORGANIZATION.............................................................................................................^

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION

2.1 PREVIOUS RISK ASSESSMENTS ..................................................................................6

2.2 RESULTS OF RECENT INVESTIGATIONS................................................................... 82.2.1 Data Collected During the RI82.2.2 Data Collected by EPA ......................................................................................... 10

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN........................ 123.1 COPC SELECTION STEPS............................................................................................. 12

3.2 DATA USABILITY ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF USABLE DATA SETS ....... 13

3.3 DETERMINATION OF BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS OFMETALS/INORGANICS................................................................................................. 15

3.4 SELECTION OF COPCS ................................................................................................. 163.4.1 Sediments.................................................................................................................. 173.4.2 Surface Water............................................................................................................ 173.4.3 Groundwater.............................................................................................................. 183.4.4 Indoor Air.................................................................................................................. 183.4.5 Sump Water............................................................................................................... 19

4.0 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT........................................................... 194.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL........................................................................................19

4.1.1 Potential Human Receptors.......................................................................................204.1.2 Exposure Pathways ...................................................................................................20

4.2 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS.................................................................... 214.2.1 Sediments.................................................................................................................. 214.2.2 Indoor Air.................................................................................................................. 22

MWHY WATSON HAAJA

D n i t t S u p p l i - n v r i i . i l H i i M - l i n c R i s k Assessment Report( IK-HI K . I ! ( 'i > r i i i i ) m i i i i i - s l i u ' . < M.uli i ' . K.i lisas M.iu h .N

CONTENTS(Continued)

4.3 QUANTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE............................................................................. 234.3.1 Sediments.................................................................................................................. 234.3.2 Indoor Air.................................................................................................................. 24

5.0 HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 275.1 TOXICITY CRITERIA USED FOR SEDIMENT EXPOSURES................................... 28

5.2 TOXICITY VALUES USED FOR INDOOR AIR EXPOSURES................................... 29

6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................306.1 NON-CANCER EFFECTS ESTIMATE..........................................................................30

6.1.1 Drainage Sediments................................................................................................... 306.1.2 Indoor Air.................................................................................................................. 31

6.2 CANCER EFFECTS ESTIMATE....................................................................................316.2.1 Drainage Sediments................................................................................................... 316.2.2 Indoor Air.................................................................................................................. 32

6.3 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................... 32

6.3.1 Drainage Sediments................................................................................................... 326.3.2 Measured Indoor Air.................................................................................................336.3.3 Modeled Indoor Air................................................................................................... 34

6.4 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS.......................................................................................... 34

6.4.1 Indoor Air Concentrations......................................................................................... 356.4.2 Sump Water............................................................................................................... 356.4.3 Qualitative Analysis of Previous Risk Assessment Results - On-Site Residential

Results...................................................................................................................... 366.4.4 Qualitative Analysis of Previous Risk Assessment Results - Near-Site Residential

Results...................................................................................................................... 37

MWHMCwrcoMf itr WA TSON HAHZA j j j

D i . i l i S n p f i k ' i i i i T i i . i l H . i M - l m r K i ^ k A^i- ' -Nmcii l Report( ' t i t - i n k , i l i '< • m m i n l i i i i - - - I IK . ( > L i l h c . K. inxas M.iiv

CONTENTS(Continued)

7.0 OFF-SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT.................................377.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION FOR OFF-SITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS.............38

7.2 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL CONCERN........... 39

7.3 OFF-SITE ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY ASSESSMENT .................407.4 OFF-SITE ECOLOGICAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION............................................407.5 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS ..........................................................40

8.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................41

9.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................42

MWHivUON rcouf »v WA rso* H

c l i t u - K K k Vs i -NMncn t ReportI lK ' . Ol. l l lK' , K i l l l M I S \1. I l l ' 1 1 J(H I.1

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

1 Site Location Map2 Site Vicinity Map3 Conceptual Site Model4 Sediment Sampling Locations and Results5 Groundwater Sampling Locations6 Indoor/Outdoor Air Sampling Locations7 Isoconcentration Map of TCE in Groundwater8 Isoconcentration Map of PCE in Groundwater9 Groundwater Well Locations for Indoor Air Modeling

TABLES1 Summary of 1996 Fluor Daniel GTI Human Health Risk Assessment Results2 Sediment Analytical Results3 Volatile Organic Compound Groundwater Analytical Results4 Measured Indoor and Outdoor Air Analytical Results5 Sump Water Analytical Results6 Off-Site Residential Soil Analytical Results7 Background Soil Analytical Results8 Human Health Sediment COPC Selection Results9 Human Health Surface Water COPC Selection Results

10 Human Health Indoor Air COPC Selection Results11 Johnson and Ettinger Model Indoor Air Concentrations—Effect of Groundwater Depth12 Soil Parameters13 Johnson and Ettinger Model Indoor Air Concentrations—Effect of Soil Stratification14 Comparison of Johnson and Ettinger Indoor Air Concentrations with Measured Indoor

Air Concentrations15 Johnson and Ettinger Indoor Air Model Results16 Sediment Toxicity Criteria—EPA17 Air Toxicity Criteria—ATSDR MULs18 Human Health Sediment Risk Assessment Results19 Human Health Indoor Air Risk Assessment Results20 Sediment COPEC Selection Results for Ecological Screening21 Surface Water COPEC Selection Results for Ecological Screening22 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Results

MWH

-m, -m.il lia^chnr Risk Assessment Report>ni t nudities In*. . < M.illie. K.ms;is

ABBREVIATIONS

ADDAOCATSDRAWQCbgsB1RABNSFCCIcmcm/sCOPCCOPECCSFCSMDCADCEODDDDEDOTEPAft/ftHEASTHIILCRIRISJacobsJ&EKDHELADDMCL

mg/kgMRLMWNCEAORNLPAHsPCBPCEPROQA/QCRBCRI

average daily doseAdministrative Order on ConsentAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registryambient water quality criteriabelow ground surfacebaseline risk assessmentBurlington Northern Santa Fe Railway CompanyChemical Commodities, Inccentimetercentimeter per secondchemical of potential concernchemical of potential ecological concerncancer slope factorconceptual site modeldichloroethanedichloroethene1,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane1,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis(chlorophenyl) ethylene1,1,1 -trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethaneU.S. Environmental Protection Agencyfeet per footHealth Effects Assessment Summary Tableshazard indexincremental lifetime cancer riskIntegrated Risk Information SystemJacobs Engineering, Inc.Johnson and EttingerKansas Department of Health and Environmentlifetime average daily dosemaximum contaminant levelmicrogram per litermilligram per kilogramMinimal Risk LevelMontgomery WatsonNational Center for Environmental AssessmentOak Ridge National Laboratorypolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonspolychlorinated biphenylstetrachloroethenepreliminary remediation goalquality assurance/quality controlrisk-based concentrationremedial investigation

MWHMOwrcoMf try WA r$o* M VI

Ri--k -V Moment Report. ((l.iiho, K.iiis;is

ABBREVIATIONS(Continued)

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility studyRfD reference doseSERA screening ecological risk assessmentSVOC semi-volatile organic compoundsTCA trichloroethaneTCE trichloroetheneUCL upper confidence limitUTL upper tolerance limitVOC volatile organic compounds

MWHf Wr WATSQM HAMJA VII

D u l l S i i n p l r m i - M i . i l H i i s c l m c R i s k V^-^ment Report( hc i i i k .il i ' i > n m i ' u l i i K ' s IIK . OLilhc. ' . K.tn.x;is __________ ________________________M;nvh .'DO.''

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the supplemental deterministic baseline risk assessment (BIRA) for the

Chemical Commodities, Inc. (CCI) Site (Site). The CCI Site is located at 320 South Blake Street

in the City of Olathe, Johnson County, Kansas. The BIRA supplements the previous risk

assessment reports prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) in 1995 and by Fluor

Daniel Groundwater Technology, Inc. (Fluor Daniel GTI) in 1996. The supplemental BIRA andthe two previous risk assessments, together comprise a complete risk assessment for the Site.

The supplemental BIRA conforms to the Work Plan prepared for the Site and approved by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the supplemental BIRA is to

estimate the potential off-site human health and ecological risks associated with the CCI Site.

The previous risk assessment reports prepared by Jacobs and Fluor Daniel GTI addressed theissues related to on-site and near-site human health and ecological risks. The supplemental

BIRA addresses various comments submitted by regulatory agencies regarding the previous

human health and ecological risk assessments. The Kansas Department of Health and

Environment's (KDHE) concerns regarding use of on-site data sets to estimate future potentialon-site residential receptor exposure point concentrations in the 1996 Fluor Daniel GTI risk

assessment are addressed through a qualitative evaluation of the impact to risk values if the

maximum concentration for each detected compound at the Site were used to estimate risks.

The supplemental BIRA evaluates both current conditions and relevant potential future

conditions. The supplemental BIRA is based upon the off-site data collected by MWH as part of

the remedial investigation (RI) conducted at the Site. In addition, data collected by EPA

Region 7, including air, soil and sump water collected from homes located north and west of the

CCI Site, are addressed in the supplemental BIRA.

The data collected during the RI, as well as data collected by EPA include: sediments from twodrainages near the Site that lead to Mill Creek, off-site groundwater within the dissolved volatile

organic compound (VOC) plume in the transition zone groundwater, residential indoor air, and

residential sump water. Off-site sump water samples collected from residences are only

MWHWA HA A Vlll

D i ' . i l i S u p p l i - m i - n i . i l Und ine l\Vk Assessment Report( he m K ,i! I "in mi nil l i e s I IK' . I 11.11 lu1. Kansas M . i u ' l i ?0()r

addressed qualitatively. Potential off-site sediment exposures are quan t i t a t ive ly evaluated for

both recreational human receptors and ecological receptors. Potential indoor air exposures are

evaluated based on comparisons with previous studies conducted by the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). These studies were conducted by the ATSDR on

behalf of and at the request of EPA using data collected by EPA and its contractors. In addition,

although surface water was not sampled, it is evaluated for potential ecological receptors by

considering the potential discharge of off-site groundwater into drainages leading to Mill Creek.

The methodology used to identify chemicals of potential concern for evaluation in the

supplemental B1RA conforms to that identified in the B1RA Work Plan. The potential humanreceptors evaluated in the supplemental B1RA are current and future off-site residents and

recreational visitors to the off-site drainages. Evaluation of the recreational visitor receptor is an

addition to those receptors identified in the approved B1RA Work Plan and was included after

several chemicals were detected in off-site sediment in excess of screening levels. The potential

complete exposure pathways evaluated for these receptors were inhalation of VOCs in residential

indoor air and incidental ingestion of and direct contact with sediments by recreational receptors.

The results of the supplemental B1RA for potential human exposures show the estimated hazard

indices (His) for sediment exposures at off-site drainages leading to Mill Creek (Drainage A and

Drainage B, see Figure 4 for locations) are 0.031 and 0.021, respectively. The calculated

theoretical upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer risks (ILCRs) for exposures at Drainage A

and Drainage B were 2 x 10 6 and 1 x 10"6, respectively. These results indicate that non-cancer

His and theoretical upper-bound ILCR estimates are wi th in acceptable levels (non-cancer

HI = 1.0; and acceptable cancer risk range of 10"6 to 104, as established by EPA). Therefore,

chemicals in sediments within these drainages do not pose an unacceptable risk to potential

human receptors recreating in these drainages.

ATSDR has concluded that exposure to the measured concentrations of potentially site-related

chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in indoor air do not pose a risk of increased cancerincidence. The work performed in this risk assessment shows that all the modeled values ofCOPCs in indoor air from groundwater are near or below the measured indoor air values.

MWHMOM rGOAff ttV WA TSOM MJUIJA IX

I t r a i l S n p p k - i M i - M i . i l l i : i M - ! n i i - kVk •Vs i - ^Mi i cn l Report( ncnik ' . i l i I > M I M ) I u l i i u - s l ik . ( i l . nhc . K.msus M.iu ' l i

Therefore, off-site grounduatcr does not pose an unacceptable risk to residents located above the

dissolved VOC groundwater plume.

Results of the off-site screening ecological risk assessment indicate that risks to potential

ecological receptors in drainages leading to Mill Creek from exposure to chemicals in both

sediments and surface water are negligible.

MWH**O* TGOMt ** WA fSOW HAHZA

l ) i a t l Snpploiivnt . i l M . i s c l i t u ' l \ i - k \-.M.-ssim-nt Report( ' t K - i n i i . i l ( ' i i n n i i i H t i l u - N I IK- . ( M . i l l K - . K.i i is ; is M.i

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the supplemental deterministic baseline risk assessment (B1RA) for the

Chemical Commodities, Inc. (CCI) Site (referred to hereinafter as "the Site" or "the CCI Site")

in Olathe, Kansas (Figure 1). Section 1.3 describes the relationship between this supplemental

B1RA and the previous risk assessments that have been conducted at the Site. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 7, The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the U.S.

Defense Logistics Agency, have entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to

perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), of which this supplemental

B1RA is a part. The AOC is catalogued under EPA Docket Number CERCLA-7-2000-0019.

The CCI Site is located at 320 South Blake Street (Figure 2). The property is approximately 1.5

acres in size, resides in the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Range 23

East, Township 13 South, and is located in the City of Olathe, Johnson County, Kansas.

Properties surrounding the Site include the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company

(BNSF) to the east, a vacant lot to the south, and residential areas to the north and west.

Additional residential areas and some light industrial occupy the area east of the railroad.

1.1 Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this evaluation is to estimate the potential off-site (as defined in Section 1.3)

human health and ecological risks associated with the CCI Site. Previous work by JacobsEngineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) in 1995 and by Fluor Daniel Groundwater Technology, Inc.

(Fluor Daniel GTI) in September of 1996 (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996) has addressed the issues

related to on-site and near-site human health and ecological risks. This supplemental B1RA

addresses various comments submitted by regulatory agencies regarding the previous human

health and ecological risk assessments (Kansas Department of Health and Environment [KDHE],1996; EPA, 1996).

MWHWCWTGOMf mr HA ISO* MMM

l i i a l i S n | i p l r i i u ' n : . i ] H ; i s r l i n c K i s k AsM/^mcii t Report( he m K ,il ( c ' i i i i ni uii I K ' S I IK . ( M.I I IK'. K. in VMS

This supplemental B1RA evaluates both current conditions and any relevant potential future

conditions. The evaluation assesses exposure scenarios that were not considered in the previous

risk assessment work performed for the Site. This supplemental B1RA is based upon the off-site

data collected by MWH as part of the remedial investigation (RI) conducted at the Site (MWH,

2001). In addition, potential health impacts associated with data collected by EPA Region 7,

including air, soil and sump water collected from homes located north and west of the CCI Site,

are addressed in this supplemental B1RA.

1.2 Methodology and Regulatory Guidance

This supplemental B1RA follows the basic procedures outlined in EPA's Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1989). Other

guidance documents consulted include:

EPA. 199la. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I—Human HealthEvaluation Manual. Supplemental Guidance

EPA. 1992a. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment

EPA. 1998. Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund RiskAssessments (Part D)

EPA, 1997a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designingand Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments

This supplemental B1RA conforms to the Work Plan prepared for the Site (Montgomery Watson

[MW], 2000) and approved by EPA on November 21, 2000.

1.3 Overview of the Risk Assessment Process for the CCI Site

This B1RA supplements the previous risk assessment reports prepared by Jacobs in 1995 and

Fluor Daniel GTI in 1996. This supplemental B1RA and the two previous risk assessments,

together comprise a complete risk assessment for the RI/FS. The following describes how the

MWH

D i a l l S u p p l ' - i n i ' M 1 H H . i - r l m c R i s k .-VsOMiKTll Report( h o i n u ' . i l < ' o M i i M i x l i i n . ' x I in . < H . i i h iv K.ins:is

previous risk assessments and this supplemental B1RA collectively comprise a complete risk

assessment.

In the previous risk assessments, the Site was divided into:

An "on-site" area, defined by CCI's operating area (see Figure 2 for site boundaries),and

A "near-site" or adjacent property area, which are those areas physically adjacent to andcontiguous with the CCI site. This area included seven residences located directly northand west of the CCI Site.

The 1995 Jacobs risk assessment was performed in the absence of sufficient site characterization

data, but identified that there are no on-site ecological issues to be addressed. The Fluor Daniel

GTI work completed the "on-site" characterization and presented a risk assessment that

addressed both the "on-site" and "near-site" areas. Because no samples had been collected from

near-site soils, data from on-site soils along the western border of the CCI site were used as

surrogate data that were assumed to represent "near-site" soils.

This supplemental risk assessment characterizes and quantifies, where necessary, both human

health and ecological risks associated with potential exposures that are "off-site", i.e., those

potential exposures outside of the CCI Site, including those that were previously characterized inthe area defined as "near-site" in the Fluor Daniel GTI 1996 risk assessment. The "off-site"

areas include those areas above the dissolved volatile organic compound (VOC) plume in

transition zone groundwater (referred to hereinafter as "the dissolved VOC plume" or "off-site

groundwater") and those areas along surface water drainages leading from the CCI Site.

Off-site groundwater and surface water drainages were characterized during the remedialinvestigation (RI) (MWH 2001). Additionally, EPA collected and analyzed samples of indoor

air from residences located primarily to the west of the CCI Site (Agency for Toxic Substances

Disease Registry [ATSDR], 2001a, EPA, 2001a). Potential risks associated with exposure to the

chemicals detected in indoor air were evaluated by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR, 2001b) on behalf of and at the request of EPA.

MWHr WA r$o* HAAZA \

| ) i . i l i S i i | i p l r m r m . i l M . I N I - I I I K - K i > k A( 'he ITI it. 1 1 ( i > in 1 1 i»<l i l i e - - I no . < ' l .uhe.

ReportM.iioh Jt

As indicated in the conceptual site model (CSM, [Figure 3]). all potentially complete exposure

pathways have been addressed by at least one of the above-described risk assessments. The

above-described work collectively characterizes and assesses the risks of chemical releases that

may have originated from the CCI Site.

1.4 Organization

This report is comprised of nine sections that present important foundational information and

evaluation results. The following is a brief description of each section:

Section 1. Introduction. Presents report objectives, general methods and regulatory guidance.

Section 2. Pertinent Background Information and Site Characterization Summary. Summarizesthe historical land uses, provides a description of the physical setting andsummarizes previous environmental investigations.

Section 3. Identification of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern. The chemicalsdetected in applicable media during various site investigations are identified anddiscussed in this section. Based on an evaluation of the data, human health chemicalsof potential concern (COPCs) are selected for further evaluation.

Section 4. Human Health Exposure Assessment. The potential pathways by which humanpopulations may be exposed to COPCs are discussed and exposure pathways areselected for further evaluation. For each pathway selected for quantitativeevaluation, the chemical concentrations at the point of potential exposure arecalculated, the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure are estimated, andthe exposures are quantified.

Section 5. Human Health Toxicity Assessment. The methodology used to describe thepotential toxicity of chemicals to humans and the range of toxic effects for eachCOPC are presented in this section. Sources and discussion of chemical-specifictoxicity criteria to be used in the supplemental B1RA are presented.

Section 6. Human Health Risk Characterization. The risk characterization compares the levelsof COPCs to which people could potentially be exposed to chemical toxicity criteria.The risk characterization provides a quantitative estimation of the carcinogenic risksand non-cancer adverse health threats associated with the estimated potentialexposures to the COPCs. Additionally, the uncertainty associated with the potentialexposure and toxicity estimates is discussed.

MWH

Oi . i t t S u p p l i ' t i k ' n i . i l H;isclme K i s k AsM"-Mncnt Report( ' h o n i K ' . i l l ' < > i i i i i i ' " l i n o - l ik . i i l a l l k ' , K<ins ; i s Mi i ivh ."00?.

Section 7. Off-Site Screening Ecological Risk Assessment. This portion of the supplementalB1RA provides a screening level ecological risk assessment for possible exposure toaquatic receptors in Mill Creek.

Section 8. Summary and Conclusions

Section 9. References

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SITE CHARACTERIZATIONSUMMARY

Information about the CCI Site has been compiled into the following reports:

Site Characterization Report, Former Chemical Commodities, Inc. (Fluor Daniel GTI,1996).Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Chemical Commodities, Inc. (MWH, 2001).

Appendix A provides an overview and summary of the characteristics of the CCI Site and

additional detail on the Site can be found in the RI report1 (MWH, 2001). Extensive

environmental activities have been conducted at CCI since 1981. These activities have included

the performance of removal actions by EPA in 1989 and 1991, which included the excavation

and off-site disposal of the most heavily impacted soil, site characterization work by Fluor

Daniel GTI in 1995 and the RI and treatability study work performed by MWH in 2000/2001.Remnants of the removal action work performed by EPA in 1991 include soils that were

consolidated into a pile that is located outside the southwest corner of the warehouse (see

Figure 2) and an underground interceptor trench. EPA installed the interceptor trench in an

effort to collect and recover dense non-aqueous phase liquids. The location of the trench can be

seen in Figure 2.

' Although the actual reference referred to here is titled "Draft Remedial Investigation Report", the majority of theRI was approved by EPA in a letter to Boeing dated December 20, 2001. Hence this report is further referred to inthis document as the "RI Report."

MWH

H i . i l l S u p p l i ' t i K ' M i . i l M . i ^ d i r n - R i s k •Wc'-MiR-nt Report( ' h o m i i . i l > ' I ' m n i ' n l i l u - s I IK- . < ' l . i l he . K.nisas________________________________________M.iuh 2DQ.''

Both surface and subsurface soils at the Site have been impacted by a number of chlorinated

VOCs. Surface soil has also been impacted by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

throughout the Site. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides occur at isolated locations

in surface soils and subsurface soils beneath the site. Metals are also present in surface soil

above previously established background concentrations over a significant area of the site.

Consistent with their physical properties, PCBs, pesticides and metals attenuate sharply with

depth in subsurface soil. PAHs also attenuate with depth in subsurface soil, but the rate ofattenuation is lower. Perchlorate was not detected in samples collected from the soil pile that

was created during EPA's 1991 removal action. Soil vapor and vapor flux chamber

measurements that were collected from the CCI Site during the 1995 site characterization

showed VOCs to be present in subsurface soil gas and at the ground surface. Both chlorinated

and non-chlorinated VOCs are present in groundwater that occurs in the residuum, transition

/.one and bedrock (see Appendix A for a description of the geology and hydrogeology defining

these hydrostratigraphic units). Work performed during the RI shows that drainages conveying

surface water runoff from the east-side of the Site are minimally impacted by site-related

chemicals.

A summary of previous risk assessment work performed at the Site, and results of recent

investigations, which includes data obtained during both the RI and EPA sampling events are

provided below.

2.1 Previous Risk Assessments

In April of 1995, an on-site screening ecological risk assessment (SERA) was performed by

Jacobs (1995). The Jacobs 1995 SERA consisted of an ecological exposure assessment

(preliminary problem formulation), selection of chemicals of potential ecological concern(COPECs), toxicity assessment, and risk characterization phase. Although based upon limited

site characterization data, the 1995 Jacobs risk assessment identified that there are no on-site

ecological issues to be addressed.

MWH

Dull Su|>pli-iMiTii. i l H,incline Risk VM-->,mrnt Report( hi-m K '.i I l 'mnmi ' t l i Mi's I iu" . O1.11 ho, K.I lisas __ ______________M.iu'li ."'IK).?

In 1996, Fluor Daniel GTI completed a human health risk assessment for future potential on-sitc

and near-site receptors. As shown in Figure 3, potential receptors evaluated included:

Future potential on-site residents

Future potential on-site construction workers

Future potential on-site recreational users/trespassers

Future potential on-site commercial workers

. Near-site residents

Pathways assessed included:

Direct contact with soils including ingestion and dermal contact: all receptors

Inhalation of fugitive dust: all receptors

Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from soil into ambient outdoor air: all receptors

Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from on-site groundwater into ambient outdoor air:future potential on-site resident, future potential on-site commercial worker.

Exposure areas were defined for each receptor and statistically-derived exposure pointconcentrations were used where possible. Where the statistically-derived exposure point

concentrations exceeded maximum detected concentrations, the maximum concentration was

used.

The results of the 1996 Fluor Daniel GTI risk assessment are summarized in Table 1. These

results indicate that either the calculated theoretical current and future cancer risks or the

non-cancer hazards exceeded acceptable levels of risk (106 to 10~4 for cancer risk, and hazard

index [HI] of 1.0) for all receptors.

For on-site receptors, theoretical exposures to groundwater chemicals of interest contributed

most to calculated non-cancer hazard, while potential exposures to chemicals in soil contributed

MWH

l ) i . : l t S ; i [ ' [ ' l i ' i r i i v i l . i l l i ; i M . ' l i n c R i s k Assessment Report( h c n i K , i l I ' I ' l n i n i i J i lu ' s I I K V . I > l . i l h c , K , I M S , i s Maiv l ) J l

most to the theoretical upper-hound cancer risk. Potential exposures of near-site residents or

on-site recreational or construction receptors to groundwater were not evaluated. Risk-based

cleanup levels were generated based on the results of the assessment.

Comments received from the regulatory agencies were related to the methodology used to

calculate exposure point concentrations. Specifically, these comments involved on-site data sets

for determining exposure point concentrations for potential residential exposures. In the KDHE

letter dated November 7, 1996, the agency disagreed with how the data sets were selected for theresidential exposure scenario. It was the intention in the Fluor Daniel GTI report (1996) to

calculate risk estimates for a residential data set that would generally represent the locations of

the highest detected concentrations for each compound. However, the highest concentrations for

specific compounds were not always co-located within the residential footprint.

In order to address this concern, this supplemental B1RA includes a qualitative discussion of the

impact to risk estimates if the maximum concentration for each detected compound at the Site

were used to estimate risks, even though the highest concentrations are not co-located. As

outlined in the B1RA Work Plan (MW, 2000), this discussion is included as part of the

uncertainty analysis (Section 6.4) of this supplemental B1RA.

2.2 Results or Recent Investigations

The detailed results of recent investigations at the CCI Site are presented in the RI report

(MWH, 2001), and are discussed briefly here, for sediments and groundwater, the two media of

interest for the B1RA. The results of EPA (ATSDR, 200la, EPA 200la) sampling at off-sitelocations are also described.

2.2.1 Data Collected During the RI2.2.1.1 SedimentsThe objective of the sediment investigation completed during the RI was to determine ifsite-related chemicals are present in drainages that lead to Mill Creek. Sediment samples were

collected from two drainages near the Site that lead to Mill Creek (Figure 4). The first drainage

MWH

|)i;ill Suppk-iiK-nl.il U;IM-|IHC Risk A-^i'.xMTlcnt Report( hrmu'.il ( ".-mil l 'ni l IK'S I IK- . Ol.ilhe. K.invis __ Maivh . 1)0.'

sampled is the north-south drainage that leaves the Site at its eastern boundary (referred to

hereinafter as "Drainage A"). The second drainage leads from North Frisco Lake and empties

into Mill Creek (referred to hereinafter as "Drainage B").

Sediment samples were collected from three locations within Drainage A. Sediment samples

were analyzed for perchlorate, and specific pesticides and PCBs detected in on-site soil samples

collected during the site characterization (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996). Sediment samples were also

analyzed for metals that were detected above background levels during the Fluor Daniel GTI

investigation (1996). VOCs were not analyzed because they are not expected to persist in surface

soils and sediments along this normally dry drainage.

Sediment sampling results are presented in Table 2. The results of the sampling showed no

detected pesticides in Drainage A. PCBs were detected in a single sample, located closest to the

Site, with an Aroclor 1260 concentration of 0.24 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The other

samples had detection limits for PCBs of 0.01 mg/kg. Metals were also detected and included

arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, selenium, and silver.

Samples were also collected at six locations along Drainage B. These samples were analyzed for

VOCs and metals. Low concentrations of acetone, 2-butanone, toluene, benzene and carbon

disulfide were detected in these samples. Persistent organic chemicals were not included amongthe tested analytes because the extent of migration had already been established in Drainage A.

2.2.1.2 Groundwater

Groundwater samples were collected from 60 locations (both hydro-punch and monitoring wells)

during the RI (Figure 5). The majority of groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, while a

smaller set was analyzed for perchlorate and major ions. Groundwater sampling results arepresented in Table 3.

Chlorinated VOCs were the predominant groundwater contaminants. Trichloroethene (TCE)

was detected in 80 percent of the samples and tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in 51percent of the groundwater samples. Based on prevalence, distribution and toxicity, these two

MWHf *r MM rso* H

I h . i t i s t i p p l i - i i h ' n i . i l U ; i M ' l i i H - l \ i s k - \ v - i / v ^ i i i c i i t Report( ' h e i n u ,il i " I ' l i i i i i m l i i i i ' v Ilk . i H . i l l K ' , K<ins ; i s ___________ ______ ____________M.iivh 200.''

VOCs. along with cis-l,2-dichloroethene (DCE), 1,1,1-trichlorocthane (TCA), carbon

tctrachloride and chloroform, were selected as representative of site impacts to the groundwater.

TCE was the compound detected most often and at the highest concentration (1,100,000

micrograms per liter [/xg/L] at TMW-007). TCE concentrations above the maximum

contaminant level (MCL) of 5 jxg/L do not extend east from the Site. A TCE concentration of

0.4 /xg/L was detected at MW-19, south of the Site, just east of the rail tracks. TCE

concentrations above the MCL extend more than 800 feet west and 600 feet south from the CCI

fence line. The TCE plume exhibits a bifurcation that may be correlated to slight undulations in

the top-of-bedrock.

PCE is generally found at lower concentrations, which is to be expected because its aqueous

solubility is an order of magnitude lower than that of TCE. The plume does not extend as far to

the west (approximately 700 feet from the fence line) and south (approximately 60 feet south and

500 feet southwest of the fence line). The cis-l,2-DCE plume extends west approximately 900

feet from the CCI Site fence line. 1,1,1-TCA, carbon tetrachloride and chloroform also show the

same general plume shape as TCE. Similar to PCE, these plumes extend to a lesser distancefrom the Site. Other compounds that were detected in groundwater samples, at lower

concentrations, include acetone, benzene, 1,2-dichloroben/ene and toluene.

Although many samples of groundwater were collected to the east of the BNSF railroad tracks

there were no substantial VOC detections. Perchlorate was not detected in any of thegroundwater samples collected in the recent field investigations.

2.2.2 Data Collected by EPA2.2.2.7 AirSeveral sampling events were conducted by EPA and its contractors in an attempt to identifywhether off-site locations (i.e., residences) contain concentrations of chemicals in indoor air that

are potentially site-related. Figure 6 shows the locations of off-site residential dwellings where

indoor and outdoor air samples were collected. This figure also depicts the extent and

MWHMOM rcoMFirr w* r$o* HAMZA 1 Q

Dul l S n p i ' l ' - m c n l . i l H;isdi!K' R i s k -Wo^mi'iit Report( ' t i c i n i c . i l I ' t ' t n i n i H l i i i c s I IK . ( > l . i l h o . K.i i is ; !^ ________________________ ____M.ii* l i .^ i 11). '

concentrations for the dissolved TCE and PCE groundwater plumes. Table 4 summan/cs the

chemicals detected in any of the air samples collected off-site.

In October and November of 2000, EPA collected three indoor air samples in each of five

residences (labeled A through E) located near the Site (ATSDR, 2001a). The homes were

chosen based on their proximity to the dissolved VOC plume believed to be associated with theSite. The results of the sampling (see Table 4) showed low concentrations of the following

chemicals in indoor air: TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, chloroform, cis-l,2-DCE, carbon tetrachloride,

1,1,2,2-perchloroethane, methylene chloride and other chlorinated solvents, benzene, toluene,

xylenes, acetone, 2-butanone, and trimethylbenzenes (ATSDR. 200la).

As part of the October and November 2000 air sampling event (ATSDR, 200la), EPA also

collected outdoor air samples at four of the five residences (residences A through D). Sampling

outdoor air concurrent with indoor air sampling is important because non-site related chemicals

present in outdoor air can be a source for chemicals detected in indoor air samples. Chemicalsdetected in outdoor air samples included: PCE, methylene chloride, benzene, ethylbenzene,

toluene, xylenes, propanol, pentane, acetone, and chloromethane.

EPA collected additional indoor air samples in May 2001 to characterize the potential seasonal

variability of indoor air concentrations. Nine off-site residences were sampled (labeled A, and Fthrough M; see Figure 6), and one blank was collected within the CCI fenced area, but away

from the warehouse. Chemicals found in indoor air at the residences included low levels of

acetone, benzene, chloroform, chloromethane, methylene chloride, tetrahydrofuran, and

tri-methylbenzenes (EPA, 2001 a). Chemicals detected in the blank sample included acetone,

toluene, and TCE (see Table 4).

2.2.2.2 Sump Water

As part of the May 2001 sampling effort (EPA, 2001a), sump water was collected from five

homes with sufficient access and volume of sump water to allow sample collection. Chemicals

were detected in samples from three of the five homes. Detected chemicals included TCE,

MWHJWOWrGOMf*rW>«rSOAH4ft74 1 1

D I ; I ! I S i i p p l c i ' k - ' i i . i l R . i s c l i n r R i s k \^M".xmcnt Report( ' l K M i i i o . i l I oin mud i l ies I IK' . ( > l.i I IK' . K.inxas__________________________________________Mauh .'DO."*

chloroform, and PCE (EPA, 2001a). The results of the sump water sampling are presented in

Table 5.

2.2.2.3 Off-Site SoilAs part of the May 2001 sampling effort (EPA, 2001a), eight surface (zero to six inches below

ground surface [bgs]) and eight subsurface (six inches to four feet bgs) soil samples were

collected from off-site residential properties. Soil samples were analyzed for organochlorine

pesticides, metals, PCBs, organophosphate pesticides, and semi-volatile organic compounds(SVOCs). Subsurface samples were also analyzed for VOCs. The results of the soil sampling arepresented in Table 6. Low levels of metals, several SVOCs including fluoranthene,

phenanthrene and pyrene, and low levels of several chlorinated pesticides including

l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane (DDD), l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(chlorophenyl) ethylene

(DDE), l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT), chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor

epoxide, and endrin aldehyde were detected. In addition, low levels of several VOCs including

toluene, cis-l,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and chloroform were also detected in the off-site subsurface

soil samples (EPA, 200la).

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

The methodology used in the identification of human health COPCs for this supplemental B1RA

parallels that in the previous risk assessment for the Site performed by Fluor Daniel GTI (1996)

and is consistent with that identified in the B1RA Work Plan (MW, 2000). The following

identifies the COPC selection steps, review of remedial investigation data, data usability and

identification of data sets, determination of background concentrations of metals/inorganics, and

final selection of COPCs.

3.1 COPC Selection Steps

The four steps involved in selecting COPCs are:

1. Review Remedial Investigation Data (completed in Section 2).

MWHf *r MMTSOA HMVA 1 ^

l > i , i l l S i i j ' p l c i i u - n l . i i H. i -dme R i s k \ \ - i ' - .s inait Report( hrmii ,il t ommmliik's lik' . ( H. i i t iL 1 , K.ms.is M.nvh ."'(H).'

2. Perform Data Usability Analysis and Select Usable Data Sets. Off-site data collected duringthe RI and by EPA were reviewed for completeness and usability. An appropriate data set forthe off-site data collected in the RI was evaluated. The selection process consisted ofsegregating data into appropriate subgroups in order to evaluate each potential exposurepathway (see Section 3.2 below).

3. Determine Background Concentrations of Inorganics/Metals. Background concentrations forinorganic constituents are presented (Section 3.3).

4. Select COPCs. Application of the selection criteria to identify chemicals to be carriedthrough the rest of the supplemental B1RA (Section 3.4).

A complete description of the COPC selection process is provided below.

3.2 Data Usability Analysis and Selection of Usable Data Sets

A data review and usability evaluation was conducted for the data presented as part of this

assessment. The primary objective of the data review and usability evaluation was to identify

appropriate data for use in this risk assessment. The analytical data were reviewed for

applicability and usability following the principles of the Guidance for Data Usability in Risk

Assessment (Part A; EPA, 1992b) and Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:

Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual EPA (1989). A rigorous quality assurance/quality

control (QA/QC) review of the analytical results was conducted during the sampling events

(ATSDR, 200la, EPA, 200la, MWH, 2001). According to the EPA Data Usability Guidance,

there are six principal criteria by which data are determined usable for risk assessment purposes.

The six criteria are:

Reports to the risk assessor

DocumentationData sourcesAnalytical methods and detection limitsData review

Data quality indicators, which include completeness, comparability, representativeness,precision, and accuracy

MWH

D i . i l i S u p p l i - i i k ' M i . i l M ; i s o l n i f R i s k •Vsc^x incn l Report( ' h c i i i K , t l ( I ' t m m n l i i u ' s Inc . ( ' l a l l i o . K.msns M.iu'l

These data qua l i ty indicators, as they pertain to this supplemental B1RA, are presented in the

source documents for the data used, namely, the RI report (MWH, 2001) and agency documents

(ATSDR, 2001a, EPA, 2001a), which contain the sampling results. The data were determined to

be acceptable and usable as qualified.

The activities conducted by MWH during the RI and by EPA for indoor air, sump water, and

residential soil characterization, have resulted in the collection of samples from various

environmental media at off-site locations. Sampled media include sediments in two drainages

that lead to Mill Creek, groundwater, outdoor and indoor air samples at off-site residences, andsump water from several off-site residences above the dissolved VOC plume. Surface water was

not sampled but is evaluated in this supplemental B1RA by considering the potential discharge of

off-site groundwater into surface water drainages in off-site areas.

Monitoring wells MW-21 and MW-22 are closest to drainages leading to Mill Creek and areconsidered as surrogates for potential discharges of off-site groundwater into surface water.Their locations relative to the Site and Mill Creek are shown in Figure 5. This figure also depicts

the potentiometric surface in the transition zone groundwatcr from which general groundwater

flow directions can be inferred. The chemical concentration data from these wells areconservatively used as surrogates and are the basis for the surface water evaluation. This isdiscussed further in Section 3.4.2.

The off-site data collected during the RI, as well as data collected by EPA, constitutes the dataset for this supplemental B1RA. These data have been broken into the following categories for

selecting COPCs and ultimately, estimating exposure point concentrations:

Off-site sedimentsOff-site groundwater (within the dissolved VOC plume)Off-site indoor air

Off-site sump water

MWHmnofiiuitu IA

M i . i l l S u p p l r m r m . i l l i . i s r l m r R i s k Assessment Report( hc t i iK . i l ( 1 ' i imi 'H. l i tK 's Inc . OKiiho, Kansas March .?

In the BIRA Work Plan (MW, 2000), it was anticipated that pesticides, PCBs, and metals would

he transported by overland sediment deposition processes and hound to creek sediments rather

than heing dissolved in groundwater. These analytes would not be transported effectively by

groundwater due to their low migration potential in groundwater. For this reason, it would not

be appropriate to predict surface water concentrations for these constituents even if off-site

groundwater were to discharge to the creek. Groundwater discharge into Mill Creek is only

considered for VOCs.

The dissolved VOC plume is a potential source of vapors that could migrate into residences and,

by definition, the only chemicals that may be a part of this potential pathway are VOCs. This

potential pathway will be discussed further in Section 4. Consistent with the BIRA Work Plan

(MW, 2000), there are no direct exposure pathways for off-site groundwater, including the use

of the groundwater as tap water, or that are considered potentially complete in the future.

Accordingly, VOCs present in off-site groundwater are the only potentially site-related

constituents in indoor air.

The on-site and off-site groundwater data collected during the last two characterization efforts

were compiled and tabulated and are presented in Table 3. Those chemicals detected in indoor

air but not in groundwater at the Site are considered to be related to another source distinct from

the Site and therefore, are not considered COPCs.

3.3 Determination of Background Concentrations of Metals/Inorganics

In the previous site characterization effort (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996), 12 soil samples were

collected from near-site locations to determine background levels of seven inorganic

constituents: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, selenium, and silver. Six of these

soil samples were collected near the surface, and six samples were collected at 7.5 feet bgs. The

results of this sampling are presented in Table 7.

In determining an appropriate value to use as the estimate of background for the data collected, a

statistical calculation was performed to estimate the upper hound of naturally occurring levels of

MWHf *T WATSO* HAttr* I C

DM!I S i i | i [ i | < . - i M i T i i . i l l i . i s c l i n c K i ^ k Assessment Report( ' h e m K M I ( '. » i i i ni' nil l i i - s I IK- . ( H . i i l u - . K.msMS________________ ________________M.nvli JOOJ*

metals in the area where the Site is located. The 95 percent upper tolerance l imi t (UTL) was

calculated for this purpose. The 95 percent UTL is the concentration at which 95 percent of

samples collected from background areas would contain concentrations of chemicals at or below

this value. By natural variability, five percent of a background population could fall above this

value. The 95 percent UTL was calculated using the following formula:

X = a + Kswhere:

X = 95 percent upper tolerance limita = mean of the data

K = factor for upper tolerance limits = standard deviation of the data

Based on this desired level of confidence, and the concentrations of metals in samples collectedfrom background locations, the estimates of the background concentrations at the 95 percent

UTL for the seven metals are presented in Table 7 (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996). Pursuant to the

B1RA Work Plan (MW, 2000), these background concentrations are used in the COPCs selection

process.

3.4 Selection of COPCs

The process for selecting COPCs follows the process used in the Fluor Daniel GTI baseline

health risk assessment with the following three exceptions, consistent with the B1RA Work Plan

(MW, 2000):

1. Fluor Daniel GTI used EPA Region 3 risk-based concentrations (RBCs) to help selectCOPCs. At that time, EPA Region 7 had supported the use of the Region 3 values. However,EPA Region 7 currently uses EPA Region 9's preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) asscreening values. Consequently, these PRGs have been utilized to screen soil COPCs in aconservative manner, by comparing the maximum detected concentration with the PRG forthe specific chemical. MCLs were applied to screen groundwater chemicals used as potentialsurface water surrogate measurements.

2. Chemical concentrations in sediments were compared to EPA Region 9 soil PRGs as well asto the soil background concentrations (where applicable). In the absence of PRG-basedscreening criteria specifically for sediments (which are not currently available to assesspotential human exposures), use of soil PRGs is a conservative approach because the

MWHt*OHTGO**€*T MMfSOM HAMZ* I f.

l ) i . i ! i S i i p p k - t r u - n i . i l H. ixclmc R i s k -VM^smcnt Report( h o n i K - . i l ' ' . - m m o i l i i u - s hu- . t > l . i l l u - . K.ins;is_______________ _ _____________________M.uvh :i)()2

magnitude of potential sediment exposure (in frequency and intensi ty) would he substantiallyless than soil exposure. This comparison is a conservative COPC selection tool for humanhealth.

3. Frequency of detection to further eliminate COPCs was not applied. This is consistent withcurrent EPA Region 7 guidance and the B1RA Work Plan (MW, 2000). The selectionprocess is described in detail below.

3.4.1 SedimentsTwo COPCs were identified in sediments: Aroclor 1260 and arsenic (Table 8). Aroclor 1260 was

identified as a COPC based on a single detection of Aroclor 1260 in a sample in Drainage A.

Arsenic concentrations were above both the measured background concentration (95 percent

UTL) and the residential soil PRO in samples from both Drainage A and Drainage B.

3.4.2 Surface WaterSurface water was not sampled during the RI. In the B1RA Work Plan (MW, 2000), it was stated

that surface water would be evaluated based on modeling of groundwater discharge and surface

water runoff into drainages leading to Mill Creek, but only if this appeared appropriate based on

the results of the RI. Monitoring wells MW-21 and MW-22 are the wells nearest drainages

leading to Mill Creek; they are located upgradient of this drainage, and downgradient from the

Site. Therefore, screening concentrations for surface water are the results of sampling conducted

at these two wells as a conservative first comparison for the surface water pathway. Maximum

detected groundwater concentrations in MW-21 and MW-22 were used as surrogate data for

potential surface water concentrations of site-related chemicals.

These concentrations were compared to MCLs, which are the highest levels of contaminants that

are allowed in public drinking water supplies (EPA, 2002a). In the absence of surface water

PRGs, which are not currently available to assess potential human exposures, use of MCLs for

this purpose is a conservative approach. Potential surface water exposures would be

substantially less than drinking water exposures because the contribution of groundwater to the

overall surface water flow in this drainage would be small. This comparison is a conservative

COPC selection tool for human health. Background values for surface water were not collected.The results of the COPC selection process for surface water are presented in Table 9.

MWH4TSOM HAHZA 1 *7

M r , i l l Snpp lcmi . -Mi . i l M.iM' lmi: R i s k •Vxi'sMiienl Report( | H . M I I I > . . I | ( o r n m i M . l i t k ' N I I K ' . ( >|,I||K\ k,ms;is ___ ___________M.uvh JD02

Only two VOCs were detected, TCE and 1,2-dichloroethanc (DCA), both of which were found

only in MW-22 at concentrations below their respective MCLs. Groundwater samples from

MW-21 did not contain any VOCs above the reporting l imit . Therefore, no COPCs were

selected for surface water and surface water is not further evaluated in this supplemental B1RA.

3.4.3 GroundwaterGroundwater is not considered a current or potential future source of domestic water (based on aprivate well survey and low aquifer yield and the availabil i ty of a public water supply in the

off-site area). Therefore, there are no current or future direct chemical exposures associated with

groundwater (MW, 2000; MWH, 2001). However, groundwater is considered a potential source

of COPCs to indoor air in off-site residences that overlie the dissolved VOC plume.

Indoor air samples have been collected from 13 off-site residential dwellings. These indoor air

samples were found to contain detected VOCs, which can come from numerous potential sources

(e.g., volatilization from synthetic materials used in the construction of the homes, from

dry-cleaned clothing, from consumer products used in the home, from cigarette smoke, from

outdoor sources not related to the Site). Because of these additional potential sources, not all

VOCs detected in indoor air are considered COPCs. Only those constituents that were detectedin both indoor air and in the groundwater are considered potential indoor air COPCs (see below).

3.4.4 Indoor AirBoth outdoor and indoor air samples were collected at off-site residences (sec Table 4). As

described above, chemicals detected in both indoor air and off-site groundwater are consideredCOPCs. The indoor air COPCs selected are 1,1,1-TCA, acetone, benzene, carbon disulfide,

chloroform, methylene chloride, PCE, toluene, TCE, total xylenes, and 2-butanone. Thesechemicals are also identified and the rationale for their selection is given in Table 10.

Chemicals detected in indoor air but excluded as COPCs because they were not detected in

off-site groundwater are 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, butanal, 1-butanol,

MWH**o*rco«f *Y WA rsow HA*ZA | o

D i . i l i . S i i | i p k - i n i - i i l . i l H . iM' lmc R i x k -Vsi'sMnnit Report( ' h f i n u - . i l ( ' o m i n t K l i i i i ' v I IK' . Ol. i lho. K,ms;i>- __ _____ M.uvl i ?(W

dccane, ethanol, ethylben/.ene, pentanal, propanal, 1-propanol, 2-propanol, styrcnc, and

tetrahydrofuran.

3.4.5 Sump WaterSump water samples were collected from five off-site homes during EPA's May 2001 sampling

effort (see Table 5). However, given the relatively low concentrations (less than 0.1 mg/L; see

Table 5) of VOCs detected in these samples, and the low exposure potential to this medium, a

quantitative assessment for sump water samples is not addressed in this report. This medium and

sampling results are addressed qualitatively in Section 6.4.

4.0 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

This step of the risk assessment combines information about the chemical concentrations in the

media of interest with assumptions about how a potential receptor could contact the impacted

media. The result is an estimation of the level of intake, or dose, of a chemical.

The ways in which potential human receptors at the Site could be exposed to the COPCs insediments, off-site groundwater, and indoor air are identified and discussed below. The

concentrations of COPCs detected in media at locations where receptors might be exposed are

represented by both measured data and modeling results. Assumptions regarding the activities of

potential receptors, such as the frequency with which a person could come into contact with

COPCs in sediments and indoor air, are also discussed. Finally, the methods used to estimate

daily doses at the points of potential human contact, using the exposure assumptions and the

COPC concentrations, are presented.

4.1 Conceptual Site Model

The CSM is a commonly used tool in risk assessment to describe relationships between COPCsand potentially exposed populations, delineating the relationships between the suspected sources

of chemicals identified at a property, the mechanisms by which the chemicals could be released

and transported in the environment, and the means by which relevant receptors could come in

MWHWOW rCOMf «V MM TtOH HAAJA 1 Q

D I . . I : S i i p [ ' k - H k - : i u l l i . i n l i n e R i s k -Wi-vMm-nt Report' ' h i ' i n u ' . i l I '"mm' ". l i l ies I I K - . O l . i i ho , K;tns:is

contact wi th the chemicals. The CSM (Figure 3) represents the range of potential exposure

pathways that have been assessed in this supplemental BIRA, the Fluor Daniel GTI (1996) nsk

assessment, and the Jacobs (1995) risk assessment.

4.1.1 Potential Human ReceptorsFor this supplemental BIRA the potential human receptors consist of:

Current and future off-site residents;Recreational visitors to Drainage A on the eastern portion of the property; and

Recreational visitors to Drainage B that leads from North Frisco Lake to Mill Creek.

Evaluation of the recreational visitor receptor is an addition to those receptors identified in the

approved BIRA Work Plan and was included after several chemicals were detected in off-site

sediment in excess of screening levels. While both adults and children could recreate in these

drainages, the most likely population to do this for an extended period of time is considered to be

children from ages seven to 16. The distance from residential areas and steep banks will limit

access by younger children, and the attractiveness to adults is more limited than to children.

4.1.2 Exposure PathwaysAn exposure pathway is a description of ways in which a person could be exposed to COPCs andis defined by four elements: (1) a source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment;

(2) an environmental transport medium (e.g., air) for the released chemical; (3) a point of

potential contact with the contaminated medium (the exposure point); and (4) an exposure route

(e.g., inhalation) at the contact point. All four elements must be present for an exposure pathway

to be considered potentially complete.

Based on the access points described above and the presence of impacted off-site groundwater

and impacted sediment in off-site drainages, as illustrated in Figure 3, several potential exposure

pathways exist for off-site recreational receptors and current and future off-site residences.

These pathways include:

MWHMOMrcoMftr MMrsow MAJUA o/\

| ) i , i l i S i i p p l c i i u - M i . i l H j s c l i i K - R i s k .VsoMiicnl Report( ' l i L ' i i i K \ i l ( ' i i i i n n i ' i l i i k - v IIK . ( i Li I (K-. K.in MIS M.HV. h .

Inhalation of VOCs in residential indoor air

Incidental ingestion of and direct contact with sediments in the drainage areas byrecreational receptors

These potential exposure pathways are further evaluated in this supplemental B1RA for the

applicable receptors identified in Section 4.1.1.

4.2 Exposure Point Concentrations

4.2.1 SedimentsAs described above, two off-site drainages have been sampled as part of the RI: Drainage A, and

Drainage B. Because there are an inadequate number of samples in Drainage A to calculate a

statistically-based exposure point concentration, the maximum detected concentration of eachCOPC is used (22.3 mg/kg for arsenic and 0.24 mg/kg for Aroclor 1260).

For Drainage B, the arsenic exposure point concentration is a calculated conservative estimate of

the average measured concentration (see Table 2 for data). EPA recommends using the 95

percent upper confidence limit (95 percent UCL) of the arithmetic mean as the representative

COPC concentration to which an individual could be exposed over time (EPA, 1992c). Use of

the 95 percent UCL provides reasonable confidence that the true COPC average at a potential

exposure point wil l not be underestimated.

Calculation of 95 percent UCL values is a function of data distribution, which is determined

using the Shapiro-Wilk W Test (W-Test; Gilbert, 1987). Three different types of distributionprofiles are possible: normal distribution, lognormal distribution, and non-parametric (that is,

neither normal nor lognormal). Using the Shapiro-Wilk W Test, sediment arsenic concentration

data were determined to be normally distributed.

For normally distributed data, the 95 percent UCL concentration is calculated as follows:

MWH

D i . i l ! S i i p i ' l i - i i K ' i i i . i l H a i r l i n e R i s k •Vsf-MiK'nt Report( hcinu ,il ( " i i i n i n i ' i l i i i i -s liu . i tl.ulic. K.uisas \1ai\ h

where:

UCL = 95 percent confidence limit/i = mean of the datat = Student t statistic (from Gilbert, 1987)s = standard deviation of the datan = number of samples

Application of the above equation in Drainage B yields an exposure point concentration for

arsenic of 17.8 mg/kg. This value is used in the human health exposure assessment

(Section 4.3.1).

4.2.2 Indoor Air

4.2.2.1 Measured Indoor Air Concentrations

Concentrations of COPCs in indoor air in 13 off-site residential dwellings were measured by

EPA (ATSDR, 200la, EPA, 200la). The results from sampling events conducted by EPA in the

l iving space of these homes (Fall of 2000 and Spring of 2001) are presented in Table 4.Exposure point concentrations for indoor air analyses for those homes are represented by the

measured COPC concentrations.

4.2.2.2 Modeled Indoor Air Concentrations

The residential dwellings sampled in EPA's indoor air study are within the area containing

among the highest measured concentrations of TCE (Figure 7) and PCE (Figure 8) ingroundwater. Although these homes are expected to represent high-end exposure potential for

off-site residents, other residential dwellings overlying the dissolved VOC plume in the vicinity

not sampled by EPA are of potential interest. To estimate indoor air concentrations in these

residential dwellings, the Johnson and Ettinger (J&E) model (EPA, 2000a) was applied. This

model estimates indoor air concentrations of VOCs that could be produced from groundwaterconsidering subsurface soil conditions (e.g., soil types, physical characteristics including bulk

density, etc.) and home characteristics (e.g., presence of a basement). Indoor air concentrations

were estimated using data from 18 off-site groundwater sample locations (see Section 4.3.2.2

MWH

Dul l S i i | i | i | i . M i u ' N i . i l H ; i M - h n e R i s k Assessment Report( lu' in i L.I I ( 'on i n ii K!I i ios I iv . Ol.il he, K.I lisas \1aivl

below). For each sample location, the maximum detected concentration of any VOC detected

since 1989 was used as the input concentration for the modeling. This approach is considered

conservative because COPCs detected in groundwater are anticipated to vary over time.

Moreover, VOC concentrations in groundwater are expected to decline due primarily to

molecular diffusion in the silty clay residuum soils (MWH, 2001).

4.3 Quantification of Exposure

4.3.1 SedimentsIn this section, the concentrations of COPCs at the points of potential human exposure are

combined with assumptions about the behavior of the populations potentially at risk in order to

estimate the average daily doses (ADDs) and lifetime average daily doses (LADDs) of receptors

to the COPCs. The method used to estimate the ADDs and LADDs of the COPCs associated

with each of the potentially complete exposure pathways is consistent with EPA guidance (1989,

1992a). For carcinogens, LADD estimates are calculated as chronic lifetime exposures,

extrapolated over the estimated average lifetime (assumed to be 70 years). For non-carcinogens,

ADD estimates are calculated averages of the estimated exposure period.

For sediments, while both adults and children could recreate in drainages that lead to Mill Creek,

the most likely population to do this for an extended period of time is considered to be children

from ages seven to 16 (as indicated above). The equations used to evaluate incidental ingestionand dermal exposure to COPCs in sediments are:

Incidental Ingestion

A™ , A n n / n, A » (CsxCF x IngRx EF x EDx BIO)ADD or LADD me/kg - day) = - ——————— - ———————————ATxBW

where:

ADD/LADD = average daily dose/lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)Cs = COPC sediment concentration (mg/kg)CF = media conversion factors (i.e., 1 x 106kg/mg)

IngR = sediment intake rate (100 mg/day)EF = exposure frequency (52 days/year)ED = exposure duration (10 years)

BIO = bioavailability of the COPC in sediment (percent)

MWHr WA rso* HA*ZA

I J i . i l i S i i p p l f i i i i - M i . i l H i i s i ' l i i u - R i s k -V-;.-sxmenl Report( h f i n K ' . i l C . i MI n n nil l ies l i i v ' . t 'l.i l In.-, k.in.sa1- Man h

AT = averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged; 25,550 days [70years] for cancer effects, 3,650 days [10 years] for non-carcinogenic effects

BW = body weight (43 kilograms)

These assumptions are predicated on children ages seven to 16 years visiting the drainages thatfeed into Mill Creek (Drainage A and Drainage B) two days per week during the warmer months(assumed to be 26 weeks per year). The sediment ingestion rate assumes that all daily soil

ingestion comes from this activity. The body weight is the mean for boys and girls, ages seven

to 16 years.

Dermal Contact

Ann ,Ann, /i A \ (Cs *CFxSAx AF x EvF x EF x ED x ABS)ADD or LADD (mg/kg - day) = ——————————————————————————ATxBW

where:ADD/LADD = average daily dose/lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)

Cs = COPC sediment concentration (mg/kg)SA = skin surface area (3,300 cm2)AF = adherence factor (0.07 mg/cmz-event)

EvF = event frequency (I/day)ABS = dermal absorption factor (0.03 for arsenic; 0.14 for PCBs)

The skin surface area is 25 percent of the total surface area for children ages seven to 16 (EPA,1997b) at the 95th percentile, while the adherence factor is based on gardening (EPA, 2000c),

which is assumed to represent a reasonable estimate of the degree of soil adherence to the skin

that could occur. These exposure assumptions are consistent with exposure assumptions

recommended in EPA's recently released Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I:

Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk

Assessment), Interim. Review Draft for Public Comment (200Ib).

4.3.2 Indoor Air

EPA's recently developed spreadsheet-based version of the J&E model (EPA, 2000a, 2001b)was employed in estimating indoor air concentrations. There are several soil and groundwaterparameters that can be input into the model to reflect site-specific conditions. To determine the

MWHHONTGOMf *Y WATSON HAftA JA

pli'iiii'MUl H.iM'lmc Risk A>~r\Miicnt ReportC nnimodiiii^ IIK . Ol.iihi-. K.m^is

most appropriate methodologies and parameters to apply in the J&E modeling, the sensitivity of

the model to changes in modeling approach or selection of source parameters for the off-site

locations was investigated.

4.3.2.1 J&E Model Sensitivity AnalysisGroundwater Depth. The depth to groundwater has fluctuated over time (see Table 3-5 of the

RI report [MWH, 2001]). Keeping all other parameters constant, depth to groundwater was

varied between 12 and 18 feet bgs to determine the sensitivity of the model results to thisparameter. As presented in Table 1 1, predicted TCE and PCE indoor air concentrations are only

two-fold greater for groundwater at 12 versus 18 feet bgs. These results suggest that depth to

groundwater has little impact on the predicted indoor air concentrations. Therefore, an average

depth to groundwater of 15 feet was used to estimate indoor air concentrations throughout the

off-site groundwater plume using the J&E model as described in Section 4.3.2.2 below.

Soil Stratification. The model allows for including up to three strata in the soil column. The

effect of treating the soil column as three separate strata, versus creating one stratum using

average soil-physical parameters to represent the entire soil column, was evaluated. Table 12

summarizes the soil sample locations where soil physical parameters were measured, as reported

in Appendix C of the Fluor Daniel GTI (1996) report and in Table 3-3 of the RI report (MWH,

2001). Table 12 also presents the soil parameters for each soil layer assessed, and also the

average soil parameters (assumed single soil layer) used in the modeling. As shown in Table 13,

only a seven percent to 56 percent difference in the predicted indoor air concentrations of TCEand PCE was demonstrated. These results indicate there is no substantial difference in predicted

indoor air concentrations when using the multiple soil layers versus a single layer comprised of

average values in the modeling approach. Therefore, average soil properties for a single stratum

were used for subsequent indoor air modeling.

J&E Predictions Compared to EPA Indoor Air Measurements. Modeled indoor airconcentrations of TCE and PCE were compared with the indoor air samples previously collected

by EPA. Groundwater sample locations (EPA-2, GP-13, MW-23) were chosen for J&E

modeling because of their proximity to a residence where EPA collected indoor air samples.

MWHMO«rco*tf *r WA rsow HAAZA 9*

l ) i ; i l t S u p p l i ' i i K - m . i l Busi ' lmc k i v k A^M- ' -Mi iont Report( t n . - i i i K . i l < < > m i i i < M . | i t K ' s I MI . ( ) 1. 1 1 he, K.uis:i> M.uvl i 2

EPA-2 also most closely represents the maximum detected TCE groundwater concentration at an

off-site location and is located near an EPA-sampled residence. As presented in Table 14, the

J&E model predicted TCE and PCE concentrations in indoor air from well EPA-2 and from

geoprobc location GP-13 that are similar to EPA's measured indoor air concentrations. In the

case of PCE, predicted concentrations are lower than those measured. This could be explained

by the presence of other common PCE sources in the houses sampled, such as dry-cleanedgarments. In MW-23, neither PCE nor TCE was detected. However, as presented in Table 14,

EPA measured an indoor air concentration of 14 ug/m3 PCE at a nearby residence. This

indicates that there is likely an alternative source of VOCs that were measured in indoor air

other than the off-site groundwater plume.

Sensitivity Analysis ConclusionsPredicted indoor air concentrations of TCE and PCE are relatively independent of depthto groundwater (within a factor of two). Therefore, an average depth of 15 feet bgs wasused in all subsequent modeling;

Available site-specific data are sufficient to incorporate soil parameter information intothe J&E model for some locations. Stratifying soil into multiple layers in the modelresulted in little difference (7 percent to 56 percent) in the predicted indoor airconcentrations. Therefore, average soil properties (a single layer) were used in allsubsequent modeling; and

The J&E model predicted indoor air concentrations of TCE and PCE that are fairlyconsistent with measured indoor air concentrations of these chemicals. Therefore, themodel is an adequate screening tool for estimating indoor air concentrations for off-siteresidential dwellings that were not sampled in the EPA program.

4.3.2.2 J&E Modeling for Off-Site ResidencesInput Concentrations. Indoor air concentrations were estimated at the 18 off-site groundwater

sample locations shown in Figure 9. It was assumed that each sample location represented a

potential residential unit . For each sample location, the maximum detected concentration of any

chemical detected since 1989 was used as the input concentration for the modeling. This is

considered a conservative assumption in view of the expectation stated in the RI Report (MWH

2001) that VOC concentrations in groundwater will decline in the future.

MWHf *V WATSO* HAMIA

l ) l ; i l l S l I p p l f l l K ' M l . l l B . I M - l l M f R i s k :WfSMMfl i t

( h r l l l U ,il I ' n i l I I i n nil I ION I lk ' . ( ) I.I 111C. K.l l l .sas M.uvli .

Model Parameters. The following model parameters were used in the i&E modeling conducted

for the Site:

ParameterAverage soil-groundwater temperatureDepth below grade to bottom of enclosedfloor space

Depth below grade to water table

SCS soil type directly above water tableAverage dry bulk densityAverage total porosityAverage water filled porosityEnclosed space floor thicknessSoil-building pressure differentialEnclosed space floor length

Enclosed space floor widthEnclosed space heightFloor-wall seam crack widthIndoor air exchange rate

Value10°C

200cm

15 Feet(460 cm)

Clay loam1.70g/cnr

0.404 (unitless)0.363 (unitless)

15cm40 g/cm-s2

961 cm961 cm488cm0.1 cm

0.45 1/hr

Basismodel default

assumes basement(conservative)

depth to groundwater(see RI)

site data (see RI)Measured (Table 12)Measured (Table 12)Measured (Table 12)

Model defaultmodel defaultmodel defaultmodel defaultmodel defaultmodel defaultmodel default

Modeling results. The modeling results are presented in Table 15.

5.0 HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

The intent of a toxicity assessment is to establish the magnitude of the cause-effect relationship

between a level of potential exposure and an adverse effect for each COPC. These relationships,

which are established for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances using different scientific

methods for each type, are expressions of lexicological potency, and are called toxicity criteria.

MWHf ffr w>irs0* H 27

1 1 1 . i l l S n | i p | i . - i ; K ' n i . i l H . i s e l i n o Ri4, A-M>Mm-nt Report( h f i n K . i l i I ' l t i u i i H l i i k ' N I I K ' . < > | , I I ( K - . K.uisas

5.1 Toxicity Criteria Used for Sediment Exposures

Toxicity criteria, when available, are published by EPA in the on-line Integrated Risk

Information System ([IRIS]; EPA, 2002b). Cancer slope factors (CSFs) are chemical-specific

and experimentally-derived potency values that are used to calculate the theoretical upper-bound

risk of cancer resulting from exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. A higher value

implies a more potent carcinogen. Reference doses (RfDs) are experimentally derived

"no-effect" levels used to quantify the extent of toxic effects other than cancer due to potential

chemical exposure. With RfDs, a lower value implies a more potent toxicant. These criteria are

generally developed by EPA risk assessment work groups and listed in various EPA risk

assessment guidance documents and databases. MWH did not develop toxicity criteria for

substances that do not have published criteria. Pursuant to the B1RA Work Plan (MW, 2000),the following hierarchy for selecting toxicity criteria has been used:

1. IRIS;

2. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST); and,

3. National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA, or other current EPA sources).

Table 16 presents the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity criteria used in evaluating

potential sediment exposures and identifies the source of the values.

Although EPA has developed toxicity criteria for the oral and inhalation routes of exposure, they

have not developed toxicity criteria for the dermal route of exposure. EPA has proposed a

method for extrapolating oral toxicity criteria to the dermal route in the recently released Risk

Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E,Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), Interim. Review Draft for Public

Comment (200 Ib). Although a review draft, EPA stated that the adjustment of the oral toxicity

factor for dermal exposures is necessary only when the oral-gastrointestinal absorption efficiency

of the chemical of interest is less than 50 percent (due to the variability inherent in absorption

studies). In the case of arsenic and PCBs (Aroclor 1260), the only two COPCs for which dermal

exposure might occur at the Site, the oral-gastrointestinal absorption efficiency is 95 percent or

MWHHOMTGOitfitY MM rso* HAM/A O O

O i . i l i S i i p p l i ' i n c t i i . i l H ; i s d i t K - R i s k AvM.-'.Mm'nl Report( ' i n 1 i n i v ' . i l ( 'om nil H!I l ies l"i' . ' M t i l l u 1 , K.nisas M.uvh JIN I.1

greater for both. Therefore, the EPA indicated adjustment of the oral toxicity criteria to generate

dermal criteria is unnecessary. Subsequently, oral toxici ty values arc used for dermal toxicity

assessment for arsenic and A roc lor 1260 sediment exposures.

5.2 Toxicity Values Used for Indoor Air Exposures

The ATSDR has prepared two health consultation studies at the request of and on behalf of EPA

at the Site using off-site data collected by EPA (ATSDR, 2001a,b). In these studies, ATSDRcompared measured indoor air concentrations with ATSDR-derived comparison values

(non-cancer toxicity criteria) for the purpose of ascertaining potential adverse health effects.

Therefore, to be consistent with the existing health consultation studies prepared for the Site, theATSDR Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) are used to evaluate potential exposure relative to a

toxicity reference value. ATSDR establishes MRLs for exposures to substances using the

available medical, lexicological and epidemiological data. Often, these data are from studies on

people exposed to chemicals in the workplace, and laboratory animal studies. Because of the

uncertainties in applying both the worker studies and the animal studies to the generalpopulation, these MRLs are often 100 to 1,000 times lower than the level that may have resulted

in an observed health effect. As such, the MRLs are conservative values below which no

adverse health effects are expected to occur.

MRLs are established for routes (e.g., breathing) and durations of exposure (acute, intermediate,or chronic). Chronic MRLs are applicable to a lifetime exposure. In this B1RA, where chronic

MRLs for inhalation exposures are not available, intermediate duration values are used. The

MRLs used for the COPCs in this residential indoor air assessment are presented in Table 17.

These are the same MRLs used by ATSDR in their consultation to EPA.

In the health consultations prepared for the Site, ATSDR also compared measured indoor air

concentrations with human and animal data for known or suspected human carcinogens to reach

an opinion as to whether the potential for increased cancer risk would be expected. Indoor airconcentrations of COPCs in this assessment are compared to these ATSDR consultation resultsto estimate the potential for increased cancer risks at the Site.

MWH

Di;itl Sup|'vl<.'"ii.1i]|,il Biisrhnr Ki- -k •Wcvxment Report( hcniK.il ( 'iirnnii Mines IIK . < 'Lulu-. K,m-.;is M.iu'h

6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION

In the risk characterization, which is the final step of a risk assessment, the estimated levels of a

chemical to which a person may be exposed are compared wi th information about the toxicity of

that chemical to estimate the potential risks to human health posed by potential exposure to thechemical. Methodologies for estimating non-cancer and cancer effects for potential exposures to

COPCs in sediments and residential indoor air, and the results of these estimations, are

discussed. The results of the qualitative evaluation of off-site sump water analytical results are

also described. Finally, a discussion of the uncertainties associated with the estimates of non-

cancer and cancer effects potential, as well as uncertainties associated with key past on-site and

near-site risk assessment efforts, is presented.

6.1 Non-Cancer Effects Estimate

6.1.1 Drainage SedimentsFor drainage sediments, non-cancer health effects are estimated by comparing the estimated

ADDs with the toxicity criteria RfDs listed in Table 16, as follows:

. . . A D DHazard Quotient = ———RfD

The hazard quotients for each COPC and each pathway are summed to determine whether

potential exposure to a combination of pathways and COPCs poses a health concern. This sum

of the hazard quotients is known as the HI.

Hazard Index = X Hazard Quotients

If the HI is less than one, the estimated potential exposures are considered unlikely to pose a

non-carcinogenic health hazard to individuals under the given exposure conditions.

MWHM rsow HAAIA O/\

Dul l S u p n l i . - i r u v i l . i l H . i s d r r u - R i s k A^osiiKvlt Report( lu . - inu- . i l ( 'mi n ii' >it i lux I IK- . ( 1 1. 1 1 IK- . K, ins , i> Vl . i ivl

6.1.2 Indoor AirThe potential for non-cancer health effects from potential exposure to indoor air are estimated by

comparing the measured and estimated concentrations wi th ATSDR MRLs listed in Table 17.

Where measured and estimated indoor air concentrations are below the MRL, then potential

exposure to the COPC(s) is considered unlikely to pose a non-carcinogenic health hazard.

6.2 Cancer Effects Estimate

6.2.1 Drainage SedimentsCarcinogenic risks for drainage sediments are estimated as the theoretical upper-bound

incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of a

chemical exposure (i.e., theoretical upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer risk, or ILCR).

ILCRs arc calculated by mult iplying the LADD derived in the exposure assessment by the

chemical's CSF (listed in Table 16). The CSF converts estimated daily intakes averaged over a

lifetime to incremental risk of an individual developing cancer. Because cancer risks are

averaged over a person's lifetime, longer-term exposure to a carcinogen will result in higher

risks than shorter-term exposure to the same carcinogen, if all other exposure assumptions are

constant.

ILCRs associated with low levels of environmental exposure in humans are assumed to be

directly related to an observed cancer incidence in animals associated with experimental levels of

exposure that are generally much higher than the environmental levels to which humans would

be exposed. The assumption is that both humans and animals wi l l respond similarly to exposure

to carcinogens even though significant biological differences exist (e.g., lifespan, body size,

metabolism), and levels of exposure are vastly different (i.e., laboratory animals are administered

maximum tolerable dosages for a during lifetime testing). According to EPA (1989), this

approach is appropriate for theoretical upper-bound cancer risks of less than 1 x 10 2. For each

COPC under each pathway, the following equations were used to calculate COPC-specific risks

and total risks:

MWH

| ) i a l l S u p p l c i T K ' n l . i ! Base l ine R i s k Assessment Report( l i c i i i u - . i l ( ' n m n i i ' J i l i c s Ine . ( > | . I I ! K - . K, ins. is M a i e h

Risk = LADD x CSI-'and

Total Carcinogenic Risk = Z Individual Risk

The total theoretical upper-bound cancer risk is the sum of all potential exposure pathway and

COPC-specific cancer risks.

6.2.2 Indoor AirFor measured indoor air, the conclusions reached as part of ATSDR's health consultations

(ATSDR, 2001a,b) are presented in Section 6.3.2. The estimated indoor air concentrations are

compared with the measured air and the associated health consultation results to determine

whether the modeled values potentially pose an unacceptable theoretical upper-bound risk of

cancer to exposed populations.

6.3 Results

6.3.1 Drainage SedimentsThe calculated drainage sediment hazard indices (His) and theoretical upper-bound ILCRs of

arsenic and Aroclor 1260 for potential recreational receptors are presented in Table 18. The His

for potential sediment exposures at Drainage A and Drainage B were 0.031 and 0.021,

respectively. The calculated theoretical upper-bound ILCRs for Drainage A and Drainage B

were 2 x 10 6 and 1 x 10"6, respectively. Because these His and theoretical upper-bound ICLR

estimates are within acceptable risk levels as determined by EPA (HI = 1.0, EPA, 1989; and

acceptable cancer risk range of 10"* to 10"*, EPA, 1991b), COPCs in sediments within these

drainages do not pose an unacceptable risk to potential receptors of greatest concern (a child7- 16 years of age) that might recreate in these drainages.

MWHm> wt rsoM wait

l ) i , i l l S i i p p l r t r u - n i . i l B a s e l i n e R i s k Assessment Report( hem K.I I ( ' i > n i n n Mines I ne . I Hame, Kansas Mareh ."'(XI.1

6.3.2 Measured Indoor AirThe results of the measured indoor air analyses are presented in Table 19. The concentrations of

all potentially site-related COPCs detected in indoor air, except one, are below companson

values.

6.3.2.1 Non-Cancer ImpactsFor potentially site-related chemicals detected in indoor air (except benzene), "Amounts of othercontaminants found in indoor air are below CVs [companson values], and not anticipated to

pose a health hazard..." (ATSDR, 2001b). ATSDR has not established an MRL for 2-butanone.

However, regarding the indoor air concentrations measured during the 2000 sampling effort,

ATSDR concluded that "MRLs do not exist for many...alcohols, ketones and aldehydes.

However, these compounds are generally readily metabolized by our bodies...The small amounts

found in indoor air do not pose a health hazard..." (ATSDR, 200la). Although the amounts

found in the 2001 sampling are greater than the 2000 indoor air results, the concentrations are

still not considered to pose a health hazard. This is supported by the conclusions in the ATSDR

health consultation conducted on the 2001 data, which stated "the levels of [potentially

site-related] chemicals detected in the indoor air of homes...are not expected to cause adverse

health effects..." (ATSDR, 200Ib).

Benzene was the only potentially site-related chemical detected at a concentration exceeding its

MRL. This condition occurred at one residence and the detection l imit in a sample from another

residence exceeded the MRL. However, ATSDR has concluded that the maximum detected

concentration and maximum non-detect of benzene in a home (<25 ng/m3) are at least "325 times

lower than the LOAEL [lowest observable adverse effect level] for non-cancer effects in humans.

These levels do not pose a health hazard for non-cancer health effects..." (ATSDR, 2001b).

Furthermore, inspection of the presence and distribution of benzene in off-site groundwater

presented in Table 3 indicates that the benzene detected above the MRL in this home may not be

site-related. Benzene concentrations in wells located closer to the site (TMW-008 throughTMW-011) than the residence where it was detected in indoor air (sample location I on Figure 6)

are less than 0.5 fig/L. These data indicate that the benzene detected in indoor air may not be

related to groundwater emanating from the site.

MWH

Dull S n p n k - n i i . - M i . i l M i M - l i r u - R i s k •V-i-^mi-nt Report( r V i i i k . i l ( ' . M I I I I H U . I I I K - S liu . I M. i ih i - . K.I n.sas_________________ _______ __________Maivh .""On?

6.3.2.2 Cancer Risk

Measured COPC concentrations in indoor air are also not believed to pose an unacceptable

cancer risk. ATSDR concluded: "For all chemicals addressed here, the measured levels in

these...homes are far below the levels which have been seen to produce cancers in animal or

human studies... In practical terms, there is no expectation of increased incidence of cancer due

to chronic exposures to these chemicals, taken either singly or together, at the measured

levels..." (ATSDR, 2001a); and "For all contaminants addressed in this consult, the measured

levels in these...homes are far below the levels which have been seen to produce cancers in

animal and human studies, except for benzene, but those concentrations are several times lower

than concentrations documented in studies of cancerous effects... There is no expectation of

increased cancer due to chronic exposures to these chemicals..." (ATSDR, 2001 b).

6.3.3 Modeled Indoor AirThe results of the modeled indoor air assessment are presented in Table 19. The concentrations

of all potentially site-related chemicals estimated in indoor air are below comparison values. As

discussed in Section 6.3.2., ATSDR has concluded that exposure to the measured concentrations

of potentially site-related COPCs in indoor air do not pose a risk of increased cancer incidence.Additionally, the estimated concentrations of COPCs in indoor air using the J&E model are

fairly consistent with the measured concentrations as stated in Section 4.3.2.1. Therefore, the

presence of VOCs in off-site groundwater are considered to pose no unacceptable risk to

potential human receptors through the inhalation pathway.

6.4 Uncertainty Analysis

A health risk assessment is not intended to estimate actual health risks to a person or population

in conjunction with potential exposure to chemicals in the environment. In fact, estimating

actual risks is impossible because of the variability in the exposed or potentially exposed

populations. Therefore, risk assessment is a means of estimating the probability that an adversehealth effect (for example, cancer) will occur in a person or population at some point in the

future. Risk estimates are calculated by combining site data, assumptions about the potential

exposures to impacted media, and toxicity data. As with any type of risk-based analysis,

MWHf ffV WATSON MA*JA

D i . i l i S u p p l i ' i i K ' t i L i I H . i se lmr K i ^ k ASM-SMTKMII Reportl ( . ' innn H ! I | I C N IIK . ( > l , i i t u > . K.ms;is

uncertainties exist because of the assumptions used throughout the process. Risk estimates l ike ly

overestimate real risk due to the numerous conservative assumptions used in the process.

6.4.1 Indoor Air ConcentrationsConcentrations of chemicals in indoor air, including those found in groundwater that are

considered possibly site related, can have many sources. These sources may include

volatilization from dry-cleaned clothing, from consumer products used in the home, from

outdoor sources not related to the Site, as well as from groundwater potentially impacted from

site activities. Indoor air measurements will detect whatever is present in the air regardless of

whether it is site-related. Therefore, although COPC selection has included criteria to select

chemicals that are potentially site related, the estimations of risk and hazard potential from

indoor air COPCs can be related to both potential Site as well as non-site related sources.

6.4.2 Sump WaterPotential exposures to COPCs detected in sump water at off-site residences were not quantified

in this assessment. It is possible that both adults and children could be exposed to sump water,however, an evaluation of the exposure to children is more conservative. Although unlikely,

children could play in sump water resulting in potential dermal and incidental ingestionexposures. Due to the small volume of water available in a sump environment, dermal exposures

would likely be the largest potential source of exposure to sump water. Similar to the potentialsediment exposures above, the most likely population for this exposure for a limited period of

time is considered to be children from ages 7 to 16.

Although TCE and PCE were detected at concentrations that exceed MCLs, sump water is not

considered an important source of potential exposure to COPCs in this assessment. First, the

total mass of detected VOCs in sump water is small. Assuming two gallons of sump water are

available at sampling location W04 (see Table 5), the total mass of VOCs present in the water

would be approximately one-half milligram. Therefore, the total mass of VOC present to which

a receptor might be exposed is limited. Additionally, because the two sump water samples

containing detectable concentrations of VOCs were collected from a crawl space under a house

and from a sump with a plastic cover, access to impacted sump water and exposure potential

MWHtl*Y *A TSO* KAMA ^ C

H i , i l l S u p p k - i i H T i i . i l B a s e l i n e R f - k -\ssc--smcnt Report( I K M I I K <il ( i HIi mi nil I K - S I IK' . ( > L i l h i - . Kansas \1au h ?(ID.1

from this sump water arc considered negligible. Because both available chemical mass and

exposure potential are small, the chemicals present in sump water are not expected to represent

sufficient potential to cause adverse health effects.

This conclusion is supported by the ATSDR health consultation (200Ib), which quantified the

potential doses and risk from dermal contact and concluded that the concentrations of chemicals

detected in these sump waters are not expected to cause adverse effects and do not represent a

health risk.

6.4.3 Qualitative Analysis of Previous Risk Assessment Results - On-Site ResidentialResults

In its comments on the 1996 Fluor Daniel GTI risk assessment, KDHE expressed concern

regarding use of on-site data sets to estimate future on-site residential receptor exposure point

concentrations (KDHE, 1996). As outlined in the B1RA Work Plan, this supplemental B1RA

addresses this concern through an evaluation of the impact to risk values if the maximum

concentration for each detected compound at the Site were used to estimate risks. It should be

noted that the use of maximum concentration for each detected compound is not consistent withEPA guidance (EPA, 1989) and the recommended use of the reasonable maximum exposure to

determine site-related risk to human receptors.

In estimating the risk to future potential on-site receptors, theoretical upper-bound cancer risks

and/or non-cancer hazards were estimated for 22 COPCs (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996). Themaximum detected concentration was used in the calculation of dose and risk estimates for eightof these chemicals. For the other 14 chemicals assessed, the 95 percent UCL of the arithmetic

mean was used. For those 14 chemicals, the maximum detected concentration was between 2.5

to 11 times greater than the 95 percent UCL concentration. Use of the maximum detected

concentration for each COPC would result in a roughly four-fold increase in both the cumulative

non-cancer hazard and theoretical upper-bound cancer risk estimates. This increase in the risk

estimates would not result in altering any decisions regarding the on-site risks, i.e., the previous

estimates indicated that the risks exceeded acceptable levels. It should be noted, however, that it

is conservatively assumed in the Fluor Daniel GTI risk assessment (1996) that all chromium is in

MWH

S i i [ i | i l c i i H ' M l . i l Busdmr R i s k VM-.MWIII Reportu ^ a l ( ' u r n i i n "Jil i i 's l i u . . ( ) l . i l h c , K.tn>;is Mau h J

the hcxavalcnt form. This assumption can greatly overestimate the risks at the Site, as tr ivalent

chromium is not known to be carcinogenic, and the chromium risks dominate the risk estimates

for the Site.

6.4.4 Qualitative Analysis of Previous Risk Assessment Results • Near-Site ResidentialResults

The previous Fluor Daniel GTI risk assessment used on-site soil data from areas bordering

off-site residential areas as surrogate data in the assessment of potential near-site residential

exposures. EPA (2001a) recently collected off-site surface and subsurface soil data (see

Table 6), as described in Section 2.4.2.3, to fill this data gap. The EPA-colIected off-site soil

samples were compared to Fluor Daniel GTI (1996) near-site resident exposure point

concentrations to evaluate the risk assessment that was performed for this receptor population.

This comparison revealed that using the maximum concentration for each chemical detected in

EPA off-site samples yields approximately a four-fold lower cancer risk and HI estimates than

those estimated in the previous risk assessment (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996). The resulting cancernsk and HI estimates are within or below the acceptable risk range (10"6 to 10~4; EPA, 1991b)

and target HI (HI = 1.0; EPA, 1989). These results are further supported by ATSDR conclusions

regarding the EPA off-site soil data: "Levels detected did not indicate adverse health effects,

therefore, common contact with soils at the homes sampled should not be a public health

hazard... The residential soils sampled, are not expected to cause adverse health effects, based

on the sample data" (ATSDR, 2001b). Therefore, potential exposure to chemicals detected in

off-site residential soils are not expected to result in an unacceptable health risk.

7.0 OFF-SITE SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

In April of 1995, an on-site screening ecological risk assessment (SERA) was performed by

Jacobs (1995). However, no evaluation of the potential for off-site groundwater to migrate to

and discharge to Mill Creek was conducted in the Jacobs 1995 SERA. In addition, no sediment

data were collected from Mill Creek for evaluation of potential impact to aquatic receptors.

Therefore, pursuant to the B1RA Work Plan (MW, 2000), the purpose of this section of the

MWHr MMFSOW M4A/4

l ) i , i l i S i i p p k ' U K ' M i . i l H i i s i - l i i K 1 R i s k AsH ' s s iTK ' i i i Report( hi1 in k'. 1 1 (. 'mi Min nil l i i 's l i i i . I > 1. 1 1 In1, kji l .sus Maivl

supplemental B1RA is to address the potential off-site ecological effects not evaluated in the

Jacobs 1995 SERA.

The following is a summary of the important findings of the on-site ecological evaluationconducted in the Jacobs 1995 SERA. Given the CCI Site is within the City of Olathe, and

because little natural habitat exists on site (and is limited to man-made structures), few potential

terrestrial receptors of concern are assumed to exist on, or inhabit , the Site. Exposed areas of the

Site are covered by either concrete or mowed grass. Some weedy areas are present in the

southeast corner of the fence line, but do not comprise critical habitat. Important prey species

have not been identified on-site and because of lack of habitat, there is little potential for the

presence of keystone, endangered, threatened, or other important species. The Kansas Natural

Heritage Inventory identifies the potential for the presence of Clanton's cave amphipod

(Stygobromus clantoni), a small crustacean that inhabits interstitial habitats (crevices, fracture

lines, caves, etc.) in shallow groundwater and is known to live in other locations in Johnson

County. However, given the soils and subsurface soil and bedrock structure that underlies theSite, the presence of Stygobromus clantoni is highly unlikely (Jacobs, 1995).

The sections following describe the problem formulation, the selection of COPECs, the potential

ecological exposure and toxicity assessment, ecological risk characterization, and results.

7.1 Problem Formulation Tor Off-Site Ecological Receptors

The problem formulation focuses strictly on identifying potential off-site COPECs that may be

present in Mill Creek and drainages, sediments and surface water (as predicted from off-site

groundwater discharge). Based upon the identification of COPECs, the associated potentially

complete exposure pathways are also identified. Sediment data has been collected from Drainage

A and Drainage B. Drainage A likely only runs during substantial storm events. Accordingly,

this drainage is not considered viable ecological habitat. Drainage B runs frequently due to

discharges from North Frisco Lake. Potential ecological receptors in Mill Creek will beevaluated by using the sediment data collected from Drainage B and the groundwater data fromMW-21 andMW-22.

MWHMOW rcow *r WA rsoft HAKZA O fi

Dr. ih S M | V | , • i n i - i i i . i l B : i M - h i n - R i s k Nsst /ss i iu ' i i t Report( IK- i ii u.i I I ' » m i n " i l i i K - \ I IK . ( ' l , i (h i - . Kansas Mau' l i .^ ( ) ( ) . "

This section of the supplemental B1RA focuses on evaluat ing potential risks of VOC, pesticide,

PCB, and metals exposure to aquatic receptors within Mi l l Creek. Sediment samples have been

collected from Drainage B leading to Mill Creek from the Site and analyzed for selected

pesticides, PCBs, and metals as shown in Table 2. These off-site drainage sediment samplingresults are used as surrogates for Mill Creek sediments. Surface water concentrations are

predicted from potential off-site groundwater discharge, with the VOC data from monitoring

wells MW-21 and MW-22 considered as surrogates for potential releases into the creek.

7.2 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern

The process for selecting COPECs is the same as for COPCs, with the exception that PRGs and

MCLs are replaced by sediment benchmarks derived by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment

as presented by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL, 1997a), and ambient water quality

criteria (AWQC) (ORNL, 1996).

Table 20 presents a comparison of sediment concentrations in Drainage B to sediment

benchmarks (the analyte list varies from that in Table 2 because some constituents were only

detected in Drainage A, which is not being evaluated for ecological purposes). The VOCs

acetone, 2-butanone, and carbon disulfide were detected in sediments, but do not have sediment

benchmark criteria. Therefore, these constituents are considered COPECs, and are further

evaluated in this supplemental SERA. Arsenic and selenium are also considered COPECs based

on exceeding background concentrations, and in the case of arsenic, its sediment benchmark.No sediment benchmark was available for selenium, therefore, it also is considered a COPEC.

Table 21 presents a comparison of chemical concentrations in MW-21 and MW-22 to AWQC.

As shown, concentrations of TCE and 1,2-DCA are the only VOCs detected in MW-21 andMW-22, and their concentrations are less than the respective AWQCs. Therefore, these VOCs

are not selected as COPECs and surface water is not evaluated further in this supplemental

SERA.

MWHfOMrcoMfffrwArso* HAAZA on

D i . i t l S n p p k - i i ! : - i : M l l i i i s c h n c R i s l V^^sim-ii! Report( t n . M l l K . i l ( > ' H l l l l " l . l l l K - s I IK' . ( H . l l l l C . K,llls,l>____________________________________ __________________M.livll ."* ()().''

7.3 Off-Site Ecological Exposure and Toxicity Assessment

For the selected COPECs, a single potential exposure scenario is evaluated further in this

supplemental SERA, the potential for aquatic receptor exposure to possible metal and

VOC-contaminated sediments. According to guidance (EPA, 1997a), assessment and

measurement endpoints are developed based on generic endpoints assumed to be widely

applicable to a screening-level approach. For this supplemental SERA, the screening level

assessment endpoints are any adverse effects to potential aquatic receptors in Mill Creek. The

measurement endpoints for off-site ecological risks are the presence or absence of chemicals

exceeding ccotoxicity screening values. Contaminant concentrations in sediment samples are

compared directly to toxicological benchmark values (see Section 7.4).

7.4 Off-Site Ecological Risk Characterization

Calculation of the quantitative risk estimates associated with potential exposure scenarios for

contaminated sediments generally follows EPA guidelines (EPA 1997a). The screening level

ecological risks are determined by comparing maximum concentrations detected in sediments to

ecological benchmarks obtained from the literature to derive an ecological HQ. For the purpose

of this screening, an ecological HQ greater than 1.0 may indicate the need for further evaluation.

Chemical concentrations detected in sediments are compared to ecological benchmark values

developed by ORNL in its Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints (ORNL,

1997b).

7.5 Ecological Risk Assessment Results

This off-site supplemental SERA is focused on potential risks to ecological receptors from

exposure to COPECs in sediments and surface water in Mill Creek. It is important to note thatthis assessment relies on concentration data from groundwater and Drainage B. Therefore, theresults are conservative estimates of potential exposures in Mill Creek.

Table 22 presents the results of the sediment screening assessment for the Site. Sediment

screening benchmarks are based on equilibrium partitioning from water quality standards. There

MWHAT*OHHA*JA Af\

M i . i l i S n | i [ i l c i ! H - n l . i l I v i s c l i n c R i s k \sst.--,sincnl Report( 'homiv-.i l ' 'ominniliiio hu . ( 'l.iihc. K.insas_______________ _____________________M.nvli ."DO.'

arc no AWQCs established for acetone, 2-butanone, or carbon disulfide. Therefore, sediment

screening benchmarks are derived from freshwater secondary acute and chronic values

developed by ORNL (1997a). The chronic values are intended to be used as lower screening

benchmarks, while acute values are used as reasonable upper screening benchmarks

(ORNL, 1997a). Because of the considerable uncertainty associated with the sediment screening

benchmarks and their conservatism, exceedance of only a single benchmark provides inadequate

evidence of potential real effects.

Maximum sediment concentrations of each of the COPECs are below, or at the most one order of

magnitude above chronic screening benchmark values, and all are below their respective acutescreening benchmark values (Table 22). Because of the uncertainty associated with the sediment

screening benchmark values, and the low detected concentrations for those chemicals that exceed

their chronic screening benchmark values (i.e., acetone and carbon disulfide), risks to ecological

receptors in Mill Creek from potential exposure to chemicals in sediments are considered

negligible. As an example, the highest concentration of acetone detected and all detections of

carbon disulfide are estimated values that are below the reporting limit.

No water quality or sediment screening benchmarks have been established for selenium.

However, the maximum selenium concentration in sediments of 0.55 mg/kg only slightly

exceeds its background UTL of 0.5 mg/kg. However the background UTL for selenium is basedon one-half the reporting limit of 1.0 mg/kg since selenium was not detected above this value in

any of the eleven background samples. Therefore, the only detection of selenium in sediments

from Drainage B is below the background reporting limit , and likely wi thin the background

range. This becomes evident when inspecting the data collected from off-site residential soils as

shown on Table 6. The data show that selenium was detected in residential soils near or slightly

above 1.0 mg/kg.

8.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This supplemental BIRA has evaluated potential off-site human health and ecological risks

associated with the CCI Site. This BIRA supplements the previous risk assessment reports

MWHMowrcour*r kKirsov HAUL* A i

Report

prepared hy Jacobs in 1995 and Fluor Daniel GTI in 1996. As shown in Figure 3, this

supplemental B1RA and the two previous risk assessments, together comprise a complete risk

assessment for RI/FS purposes (that is, all potentially complete exposure pathways have been

evaluated for the CCI Site). Only the results of this supplemental B1RA are summarized below.

Non-cancer HI and theoretical upper-bound ILCR estimates for recreational receptors potentially

exposed to off-site sediments in drainages leading to Mill Creek are below acceptable risk levels

(non-cancer HI = 1.0; and acceptable cancer risk range of 10~6 to 10"4). Therefore, chemicals in

sediments within these drainages do not pose an unacceptable risk to potential human receptors

recreating in these drainages.

The concentrations of all potentially site-related chemicals estimated to be present in indoor air

using the J&E model are below those values used by the ATSDR in its health consultation. In

addition, ATSDR has concluded that exposure to the measured concentrations of potentially

site-related COPCs in indoor air do not pose a risk of increased cancer incidence. All the

modeled values of COPCs in indoor air from groundwater are near or below the measured indoor

air values. Therefore, off-site groundwater does not pose an unacceptable risk to residents

located above the off-site groundwater plume.

Results of the off-site screening ecological risk assessment indicate that risks to ecological

receptors in Mill Creek from potential exposure to chemicals in both sediments and surface water

are negligible.

Risk-based cleanup levels were not calculated because this supplemental B1RA shows nounacceptable risk to either human or ecological receptors.

9.0 REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 200la. Health Consultation.Chemical Commodities, Incorporated Site (a/k/a Chemical Commodities, Incorporated).Olathe, Johnson County, Kansas. EPA Facility ID: KSD031349624. June 15.

MWH

l ) i , i l l S i i p p k - m e n l . i l |!;IS(.-|HIC R i s k A >. "-MIIC l i t Report( ' l lO HI K.I I ( i ' I I I I l)"l . l l l l i :s I I K ' . . ( > Ll I he. K.I lisas N 1 . l t I ' l l .''IM).''

ATSDR, 200 Ih. Health Consultation. Chemical Commodities, Incorporated Site (a/k/a ChemicalCommodities, Incorporated). Olathe, Johnson County, Kansas. EPA Facility ID:KSD03 1349624. September 25.

ATSDR, 2001c. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Ha/.ardous Substances. On-line database.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html.

Fluor Daniel Groundwater Technology, Inc. (Fluor Daniel GTI), 1996. Site CharacterizationReport. Former Chemical Commodities, Inc. 320 South Blake Street, Olathe, JohnsonCounty, Kansas. September 17.

Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van NostrandReinhold, New York, New York.

Jacobs Engineering (Jacobs), 1995. Baseline Risk Assessment, Chemical Commodities, Inc.Olathe Site.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), 1996. KDHE comments on RevisedDraft Site Characterization Report including the BHRA, Former CCI Site, Olathe, Kansas(letter dated November 7, 1996).

Montgomery Watson (MW), 2000. Baseline Risk Assessment Work Plan, ChemicalCommodities, Inc., Olathe, Kansas. October 2000.

MWH, 2001. Draft Remedial Investigation Report for Chemical Commodities Inc., Olathe,Kansas. August.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for ScreeningContaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. Prepared byG.W. Suter II and C.L. Tsao. ES/ER/TM-96/R2.

ORNL, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern forEffects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. Prepared by D.S. Jones, G.W. Suter II,and R. N. Hull. ES/ER/TM-95/R4. November.

ORNL, 1997b. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. ES/ER/TM-162/R2.August.

MWH

I K i M S i i p - ' l i - n v M i . ! ] U . iM- lmc R i s k A'-M^mcnt Report( h c i H K . i l i . > n > m < M ) H K ' x IIK . ( > l .uh i ' . K.insas M.nvl i ." '

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:Volume I-Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency andRemedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.

EPA, 199la. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I-Human Health EvaluationManual. Supplemental Guidance 'Standard Default Exposure Factors'. Office of Emergencyand Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.3-03. March.

EPA, 1991b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register / Vol.56, No. 20, Page 3535 / Wednesday, January 30, 1991.

EPA, 1992a. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. FRL-4129-5. Office of Health andEnvironmental Assessment, Washington, DC. May.

EPA, 1992b. Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment (Part A). Office of Emergency andRemedial Response, Washington, DC. Publication 9285.7-09A. April.

EPA, 1992c. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. Publication 9285.7-081. May.

EPA, 1996. U.S. EPA comments on the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) datedOctober 29, 1996 for CCI Site, Olathe, Kansas, including comments on the BHRA (letterdated November 21, 1996).

EPA, 1997a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing andConducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-25. June.

EPA, 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development, WashingtonDC. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa-c. August.

EPA, 1998. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual(Part D: Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments)Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive9285.7-0ID. January.

EPA, 2000a. User's Guide for the J&E (1991) Model for Subsurface Vapor Intrusion intoBuildings (Revised). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. December.

MWHVOHTGQMt »r WATSON MAAM AA

Dul l S u p p l c m r n u l l i . i x c . - l n R - K i \ k A v s c ^ M i i c n t ReportC t i c i n i i - . i l ( I 'mmoiJihi . -s I I K - . i t l . i i t k - , KJI IS ; IS M.nvh .'"no.1

EPA, 2000H. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs).

EPA, 2001 a. Removal Site Evaluation, Chemical Commodities Inc., Olathe, Kansas. U.S. EPARegion 7 START 2, Contract No. 68-S7-01-41, Task Order 0031. July 13.

EPA, 200Ib. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health EvaluationManual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), Interim. Review Draftfor Public Comment. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. September.

EPA, 2001c. J&E-Based 3-Phase Model from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/airmodel/johnson_ettinger.htm, GW-ADV.xls, version 2.3. March.

EPA, 2002a. Drinking Water Standards. On-line database, Washington, DC.http://www.epa.gov/safewater/creg.html.

EPA, 2002b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). On-line database, Washington, DC.http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html.

Weston, 1989. Final Report for Extent of Contamination Determination, BuildingDecontamination Guidelines, and Bench-Scale Remedial Tests for the Chemical CommoditiesInc., Site, Olathe, Kansas, Roy F. Weston, Inc. December 21.

MWHy w* TSO* HA*?A A <

DRAINAGE LEACHNO TO MILL CREEK

NORTH WATERWORKSNORTH FRISCO LAKERS

SOUTH FRISCO LAKEOifATHt£^W

SOUTH WATERWORKS

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1991OLATHE AND OCHELTREE QUADRANGLES

KANSAS-JOHNSON CO.7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)

0 2000

SCALE IN FEET

MWHUONTGOmCfY WATSON HAKZA

CHEMICAL COMMOOmES, INC.OLATHE, KANSAS

MARCH 2002

FIGURE

SITE LOCATION MAP 1

•J;-' \ '"' vi•/;«:< ! »r.J

MWHMOHJOOMfHY WATSON HMZA

N

0 250

SCALE IN FEET

. 328 RESIDENCE AND STREET ADDRESS

•——- CCI SITE

, . BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FERAILROAD (BNSF)

H050- TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR (FEET ASL)

- - - SHORELINE

SOURCE:1998 TOPOGRAPHY AND PLANIMETRICS PROVDEDBY JOHNSON COUNTY. KANSAS - AUTOMATEDMFORMATION MAPPMG SYSTEMS.

CHEMICAL COMMODITIES, INC.OLATHE, KANSAS SITE VICINITY MAP

FIGURE

2

Primary SecondaryPrimary Release Secondary Release Contact ExposureSources Mechanisms Sources Mechanisms Media Route

Surface Soil

Sub-Surface ISoil 1

• - Potentially ccc - Incomplete oIncludes upstrec2lndoor air exposor 1 995 risk ass(supplemental Bllnear-site, and of

I -1 *1

Infiltration/ 1 Sub-Surface w.iaiin ii/i,, » °* _ . _ I— * _,. - * Volatilization — "•»Percolation | Soil

> Infiltration/ _ * GPercolation Gro

VotaUU-.tlon L ft C

| InI* <»"«• L

Groundwater |

U ****. __•£

_ . _ _ I Storm Sewer I Sewer Outfall SeL* Surface Runoff 1 — * _ . 1 — * _. . — *| Drainage | Discharges (Mi

mplete exposure pathway (current and/or future),r insignificant exposure pathway,am site-related drainages.>ures not evaluated for near-site residents in the 1996jssments, but addressed in the 2002 MWHRA as off-site; see Section 1 .3 for definitions of on-site,f-site.

•n-Slte 1soil n>n-Site L.Air h

>n-Slte !_„jndwater |

ice Water1 1.II Creek) |^

diment1

II Creek)

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Inhalation

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Inhalation

Inhalation I

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

- Evaluated in

- Evaluated in

Potential ReceptorsHuman

On-Site Near-Site Recreational/ Commercial/ Construction Off-Site

Residential Residential Trespasser Industrial Worker Residential

•

•

•

P

P

•

D

•

"

"

P

P

P

• *

P

P

P

P

P

P

"

"

»

P

P

P

D

•

•

•

P

P

•

D

•

•

P

P

•

•

P

P

•

•

•

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

•

Ecological

Terrestrial Aquatic

•

•

•

P

P

P

D

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

•

•

P

P

•

•

|

1995 Jacobs Baseline Risk Assessment.

1996 Fluor Daniel GTI Baseline Risk Assessment.

- Evaluated in 2002 MWH Supplemental Baseline Risk Assessment.

© MWHMONTGOMERY WATSON HAKZA

CHEMICAL COMMOCHTIES, INC.OLATNE, KANSAS

MARCH 2002

FIGURE

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3

I**>

' W.

\n i

III'••*?-.»«j.-'

9 ' ' /

'- ! / Itna : • ,' / /,„.„...J « // // ill• //cci SITE

j**

&•'•-»x

:»'t..

V N

Drainage A

r^nnnCi ^ [?n i"-1....J '•—' ~- >-'-—

^Drainage B

- _ DRAINAGE LEADINGx TO MILL CREEK \

-^-* ^

ND

J

0 250

TCALE//VFEET

SEDIMENT SAMPLE

NOT DETECTED ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT

RESULT IS LESS THAN REPORTING LIMITBUT GREATER THAN DETECTION LIMIT

ccisrrE

NOTES!1. DUP - DUPLICATE RESULTS.

2. ALL RESULTS IN MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM (mgfeg).

3. NORTH SOUTH DRAINAGE FROM CCI SAMPLES (SS-001THROUGH SS-003) WERE SAMPLED FOR METALS.PESTICIDES. PCBs. AND PERCHLORATE.

4. ONLY METALS DETECTED ABOVE SCREENING LEVELSARE SHOWN.

5. NO PERCHLORATE OR PESTICIDES WERE DETECTEDABOVE THE REPORTING LIMIT.

6. AROCLOR 1260 WAS THE ONLY PCB DETECTEDABOVE THE REPORTING LIMIT AT ONE LOCATION(SS-001).

7. DRAINAGE LEADING TO MILL CREEK SAMPLES(MC-SS-004 THROUGH MC-SS-009) WERE SAMPLEDFOR METALS AND VOCs.

8. ACETONE & 2-BUTANONE WERE THE ONLY VOCsDETECTED ABOVE THE REPORTING LIMIT INDRAINAGE LEADING TO MILL CREEK SAMPLES.

2-aummOMt \ ' .

ND i MWHMOVTGOMfffYWAfSOV HARZA

CHEMICAL COMMODfTIES, INC.OLATHE,KANSAS

MARCH 2002

SEDIMENT SAMPLINGLOCATIONS AND RESULTS

FIGURE

aUiSAOELEAOWpTOMLLCggW

N

MW-21*

0 250

SCALE IN FEET

DIRECT PUSH SAMPLE

MONITORING WELL

WELLS USED FOR CONTOURING

CCISITE

- mil— ELEVATION CONTOUR LINE.7IAK> DASHED WERE INFERRED

• STAFF GAUGE

NOTES:1. WATER LEVEL DATA ON THIS MAP WAS COLLECTED

ON JUNE 12, 2001. IT INCLUDES THE SURFACEWATER LEVEL MEASURED AT NORTH FRISCOLAKE AND THE GROUNDWATER LEVELS COLLECTEDFROM THE MONITORING WELLS AND PIEZOMETERSSCREENED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE. THE CONTOURLINES WERE DEVELOPED TO REPRESENT THEBEST ESTIMATE OF THE POTENTIOMETRIC LEVEL INTHE TRANSITION ZONE BASED ON THOSE DATA.

2. A GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IS NOT POSTED FORPP-2D BECAUSE THE BORING LOG THAT WASRECORDED DURING INSTALLATION OF THEPIEZOMETER DID NOT SHOW THE TRANSITION ZONETO BE PRESENT AT THIS LOCATION.

MWHMOMTGQMfRYWATSON HAR2A

CHEMICAL COMMODITIES. INC.OLATHE,KANSAS

MARCH 2002

GROUNDWATERSAMPLING LOCATIONS

FIGURE

5

CdSfTEN

200

SCALE IN FEET

....f

B

H

SOLPUS

A

RESIDENCE AND STREET ADDRESS

RESIDENCE WITH 2000 INDOOR/OUTDOORAIR SAMPLES. AND 2001 INDOOR AIR SAMPLES

RESIDENCE WITH 2000 INDOOR/OUTDOORAIR SAMPLES

RESIDENCE WITH 2000 MDOORAR SAMPLES

RESCOCE WITH 2001 WDOORAR SAMPLES

CCISITE

TCE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)

PCE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)

RESIDENCE WITH SUMP WATER SAMPLE

LETTER REFERS TO SAMPLED RESIDENCES

M

MWHMONTGOMERY WATSON HAKZA

CHEMICAL COMMODITIES, INC.OLATHE. KANSAS

MARCH 2002

INDOOR/OUTDOOR AIRSAMPLING LOCATIONS

FIGURE

6

•.seas \ ;.4t?c • '. M*a....:

DRA»4A^ LEACfeG TO MLL 2^6^

MWHMONJGOMIRY WA TSOM HARZA

O

•

220

MD

N

0 250

SC/U£ /W FEET

MONITORING WELL

DIRECT PUSH SAMPLE

PIEZOMETERS

CCISITE

TCE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)CONCENTRATION INMICROGRAMS PER LITER (pgfl.)NOT DETECTED ABOVE REPORTING UMTT

CHEMICAL COMMODITIES. INC.OLATHE. KANSAS

ISOCONCENTRATION MAPOF TCE IN GROUNDWATER

(11/28/00-5/8/01)

FIGURE

QOPsI /// » *•>*.<HVCJ- MW.lt

^

O

•

220

MD

N

250

SCAi£ /W FEET

MONITORING WELL

DIRECT PUSH SAMPLE

PIEZOMETERS

CCISFTE

PCE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)CONCENTRATION INMICROGRAMS PER LITER (port.)NOT DETECTED ABOVE REPORTING UMTT

,r, I..NO;

-%

\ DRAfUG|L£ADNO TO I£U. CREEP

MWHMOVTCOMf fTYWATSON HARZA

CHEMICAL COMMODITIES, INC.OLATHE. KANSAS

MARCH 2002

ISOCONCENTRATION MAPOF PCE IN GROUNDWATER

(11/28/00-5/8/01)

FIGURE

8

491

N

0 250

SCALE IN FEET

MONITORING WELL

DIRECT PUSH SAMPLE

PIEZOMETERS

CCISTTE

WELL LOCATKDNS INCLUDED ININDOOR AIR MOOEUNO

\ .\

* {y J MW-21"~ C~*

> /•C i

- - \/

/I\tv

DRAJNAOC l£AOJNO TO IAL 2^^

"" MWHMONTGOMERY WATSON HAK2A

CHEMICAL COMWlODmES, INC.OLATHE. KANSAS

MARCH 2002

GROUNDWATER WELLLOCATIONS FOR

INDOOR AIR MODELING

FIGURE

Table 1Summary of 1996 Fluor Daniel GTI Human Health Risk Assessment Results

Chemical Commodities. Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Receptor"Near-Site ResidentOn-Site ResidentOn-Site Commercial WorkerOn-Site Recreational UserOn-Site Construction Worker

SoUHazard

Risk Index2 E-4 0.878 E-3 0.528 E-4 0.601 E-3 0.496 E-3 2.4

(iroundwaterHazard

Risk IndexNE NE

4 E-4 261 E-5 2.0NE NENE NE

TotalHazard

Risk Index2 E-4 0.878 E-4 278 E-4 2.61 E-3 0.496 E-3 2.4

NE = Not evaluated.aSee Section 1.3 for receptor definitions.Source: Fluor Daniel GTI (1996).

Table 2Sediment Analytical Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical UnitsVOCs (Method 8260)'

Acetone /ig/kg2-Butanone /ig/kg

Benzene /ig/kgCarbon Disulfide fig/kg

Toluene /ig/kgPesticides (Method 8081)

Group 1 Pesticides'1 Mg/kgGroup 1 Pesticides' Mg/kg

Methoxychlor fig/kgToxapheoe pg/kg

PCBs (Method 8082)' /ig/kgMetals (Method 6010)"

Arsenic mg/kgBarium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kgChromium mg/kg

Mercury' mg/kgSelenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kgPerchlorate tig/kg

North-South Drainage (Drainage A)1

SS001

NANANANANA

<11<21<110<210240*

20.61775.6

65.61.2

0.960.42<40

SS002

NANANANANA

<52<100<520

<1.000<10

22.31267.4

26.30.37

10.31 J<38

SS002Dup

NANANANANA

<52<100<520

<1,000<10

21.11177.2

24.10.320.77

0.25 JNA

SS003

NANANANANA

<10<20

<100<200<10

8.893.321.113.40.11

0.19 J0.14J<39

MC-SS004

93 J613 J<83J

NANANANANA

3.565.12.65.4

<0.060.55

0.37 JNA

North Frisco Lake Drainage (Drainage B)b

MC-SS005 MC-SS006 MC-SS007 MC-SS0081C-SS008DuMC-SS009

58<62 J3 J3J

NANANANANA

6.91052 19.4

<0.05<0.24<0.09NA

58<8<8<8<8

NANANANANA

14.62111.4

11.1<0.05<0.24<0.09NA

8113<6<6<6

NANANANANA

9.22030.8717.9

<0.05<0.25<0.09NA

38<7<73J<7

NANANANANA

131820.815

<0.05<0.27<0.10NA

76<72 J3J2 J

NANANANANA

25.93441.7

16.8<0.05<0.26<0.10NA

<6<6<6<6<6

NANANANANA

6.3150

0.05 J19.3

<0.05<0.24<0.09NA

Samples from Drainage A were analyzed for pesticides, PCBs, and metals; sec text.Samples from Drainage B were analyzed for VOCs and metals; see text.

'Only VOCs detected above the reporting limit are presented.dPesticides analyzed for include: a-BHC. b-BHC, d-BHC, g-BHC (lindane), heptachlor, aldnn, heptachlor epoxide, endosulfan I, a-chlordane, g-chlordane.'Pesticides analyzed for include: dieldrin, 4,4-DDE, endrin, endosulfan n, 4,4-DDD, endosulfan sulfate, 4,4-DDT, endrin aldehyde, and endrin ketone.'PCBs analyzed for include: Aroclor 1016, Aroclor 1221, Aroclor 1232, Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260.'Detection for Aroclor 1260.Full list of metals by Method 6010 were analyzed (23 metals analyzed). Only metals with associated screening level concentrations are listed here.Screening levels used for sediment arc equivalent to background soil concentrations as listed in Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996.

' Mercury analyzed by Method 7471.< - Less than the reporting limit DUP - Duplicate resultJ - Estimated value. Result is less than the reporting limit but greater than the detection limit. NA - Not analyzed for this parameter.Source: MWH (2001).

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical Resuls

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

S*npfc LocMun -Simple D*r =

C-bcmkalCNoromntMorVnylCNonleI.I DirhbnxihmAcrtuneMnhytrnc Chtondctrwu- 1 .2 DicMoroetheocMrthyi- «n bwiy*-«thcT1.1 Dchlofontmeci»- 1 .2 - DcNDrortheneOlioiofonnI.I.I TrchloTorttanrCirtTO TaractibndeBamrUDKhfcro«J»o.TricUatMfaKU-DicMonfnpMniii in nMMM.iTafaMI.IJ-THiM iniltMiTmcMam^MCMiiiihamE&ytmitKI.IJJ TcaxttomitmxXylcoci (Toul)'1.1 D«.hk>ruteTUHir1 .4 Dxhkimhmri*1.: Dxhl>rohmn-i«2 ButmontC«t»n DaulfiJr

1.1 r>«.hk»n>pfxipn)eBromnform

1 . 1 . 1 .2 TrtrKhkxurttane

n Propyfrnume

1 . 1 .5 Trmvihy Rm/rar

1 .2.4 Tnnrthylbcnzftie

1 .2 Dihft>n*v 3-Oikmfrofm1 .2.4 Tnchtnrubcazeiir

Me ucNnrnbuudneS rtJmJmeDicMnmdAjufucneihMirTnchkm>flttXvnKtlMar

BlltlltHIKllMUC

BrormdlcMDfOfnrUwaePllBIIIIIIIIB lllMl

1.2 DthrtxnDfnnlMaeDArofixxhfcrcmrttMor

GP-II1/29OO

*05<05

1<21

<05<0505

1160

233

<05<05230<0.5<2

OJJ0334

<as<o.3it

<OS<05< O S^0<<J

<2NA

<05SANA

NANANANANA<05NANA<O5<O5NANA<05

cp-212/2 M»

<05•cOS

24

<05<05<05<05

7

<05<05<05<05

577

<a5<21

«OJa*<0.5<05<05

1<;05<05

O S<.2

<2NA

<05NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

<05NANA<05<05NANA<05

GP-JI2^1«0

<O5<05<O«

9<05<05<05<05<05<O5<O5<OS<05<0.5tt3)<O5<21

4&5

<as<as<05<05<05<O5<0 S<OS<2

0 4 JNA

<O5NA

NA

NA

NA

NANA

NA

<05NA

NA

<05<05NA

NA

<05

CP-4I2/IOO

<O5<O5<O5<2

<05<05<05•cOS<05<05<05<0507<050.4 1<as<22

<OJ<as<05041<05

1<os<os<05

<2<2NA

<r05NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

<05

NA

NA

<05<05NANA<05

GP-5ll/XVDO

<05<05<05

3<05<05•cOS<O5<05•cOS<0509

0 2 J<0.5

2<05<20.1<05<OJ<0502 J<OS06<05<U5

<os<2

<2NA

«05NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

•cOSNANA<O5<OSNANA<05

GP»

DRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRYDRY

CP-712/2HTO

<0!<O«<08<3

<OI<OS<0«•cOI

3<OI•C08•cO!<OI

234

<ai<31

<at05 J<OI<OIfOtO S )<og<O8cO»«.*<1NA<O«NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA<OINANA<OI<08NA

NA<0t

CP-«1I/28XB

^050 3 )

25

<05

0 4 1

•cOS4

91

<0507<0503 J

5120

04 J<3a*<asai

0-4 J

<05<05<^S<OS<05^ O S<2<2NA<O5NASA

N\NANANANA<05NASA

<05<05NASA

GP-»\\m*x

<os0 5<05

9<05

4

<050 4 J

22<05<05

4

<05<0.5

10<as<2at<O5<05<05<05<05

1<05< O S<05<2

i.'NA<05SA

NANANANANANA<05NANA<05<05NA

NA

<05 <05

GP 1011/^/CO

<05<05<05<2

<05<05<050815

<05<05

6041<as

10<as<2I

<a5<05<0503 J<f)5<O5<05<OS<05<2<2N*<05NA

SASA

NA

NANA

NA

<05NANA

•cOS<05NANA<05

GP 11\f>n\

<05<05<05

12<05<OS<050 3 J

1<05<05<05<05<OJ

»<a><21

<0.5<as<05<05<0506<05<05.05

244

NA

<05NASA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

<05NANA

<05<05NANA

•cOS

GP-12HOOflO

<2<230

<IO<2<2<2<2<24014

250<2351104

•002<2333

•c2<3<2<2<:!

<10<10NA

<2NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA<2NANA<2<2NA

NA

<2

GP-13\iwao

<I2<I2120<50121<12<I2<I210069076690101760

16,000250<SO<I223720120<1228

<12<12<12110cSO

<V)NA

<I2NA

NASA

NA

NANANA<I2NANA

<12

<12NANA<12

GP-14IZ-28/00

< 0 5<05

1<2

<<>505 J<05

2

2()0Of.

<n 5<05<05

4

1504

<2O6O.I5

09<05

1

0 4 )

.n *>• •) s(i r.

NA'0 5

NANA

S\

NA

NA

SA

SA

<05SA

NA

<05<05NA

SA<0 S

"Total Xytene* delude p&rrnytene phu c^Weitoa, 1989 **1irttn rrporuof IMTWI f

xylenr for the Westna (19$^). MM] Fhior Daiuel GTI (1996) dau. Ana>ytKaJ dau a rrponed>r ihu lanplr u greater than the moanon reponng ton* hsted here

< Not detected above repormg hnviDUP

u Toul Xyknes for 2000 and 2001 dMJ • Emrnaied value helow rcportaf Ivnt hut aboveNA Not analyzed for thn parameterNote AD cuKCOtraUons jifA-Sourcc MWH(200I)

rrrthnd detect KM hrrat

Page 1 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical Resuls

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Sanv^k LocaCE>a =

Sample DMC«

CkoiiicalChloromethancVDj-KTikxTCk:

I.I ChchtDroethrnt

AcetoarMcthylcnt ChkioJe

mm- 1.2 DchkxoettnirMethyl- Icfl- Nil yVcthri

1.1-DKhlorocttM*cit.1.2 Dichloro«hn»

ChloroformI.I.I TnchbrotlMCirtoo TetncttkmdeBauraeU DthtoroediaoaTrtchtoroMh-.U-DhMonpe...

TohMH

1 11 Till Mil 111 illMiTxnctatoradco;CUatotieaMWEihytmaie1.1.2.2 TctrachkwocthaotXvlcnrt (Total)'1.1 D«.hk>mhenzfne1.* D«;hkm.hctiKtK

1.2 DKMwnteiuene2 ButannneCarton DuutfUc

1.1- DKhloropnipeneBromnfofTii1 . 1 . 1 .2 T«nch«>ructhanfn Propyttirturne

l.VS Tnmrthylbriurne

1.2.4- TlBlcthyDweor

1.2 Dibromn }-Ch*orofwwp«ne1 .2 .*- TnchkHubemeneHeuctltoroKiufttacNapKtakacDKhlorodifluofumrlhne

TnchlurofXiofTxnettMoeBromDfnrtbanrBronKKlKhlDromtttiMieDibronumrthanc1.2 DibromomrthaiieDihronvchlDrDRYthane

CP-U\\rtOKO \\nofao

(Dl.'P)

<05 <05cOS <05cOS <05<2 <2

COS <05cOS cOScOS cOSc05 <05<05 COS<OS <05cOS <05cOS <OS<O.5 COS<05 <O.SOJJ <0.5<O5 <A5<2 <21 0.41

<&5 <O.S<OJ <05<ft5 <05<05 <05cOS cOScOS cOS<05 cOS<0 5 <0 5<O5 cOSc2 c2<2 <2NA NAt05 <05NA NA

NA NANA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

<05 <05NA NA

NA NA

<O5 <05<O5 <05NA NANA NA

<O5 <OS

CP-A\f>n\

<05<os<O5II

<05*05<0i<05<05<O5<05<05<as<051

«O5<2

<ft5<as<0.5<05<O50 4 1

<O5<05<05<2<2NA

<O5NANANA

NANA

NA

NA

<05NA

NA

<os<05NANA<05

GP-B1/11O1

<05<05<05

8cOSc05c05<05cO5cOScOScOScOS<05cas<O5<21

«X3<ascOScOScOS09

cOSc05cO5

9c2NA

COSNANANA

NA

NA

NA

NA

cl 0

NA

NA

COScOSNANAcOS

(.r Hi/iaoi i/iox)i

(DUP)cOS cOScOS cOScOS cOS

4 )

cOS cOScOS cOScOS cOScOS cOScOS cOScOS cOScOS cOScOS COS04; 04 jcOS COS04 J COScas <as<2 <3i at

<as <O5cos <ascOS cOScas coscOS cOS0 8 0 5 J

cOS cOScOS <O5cOS cOS

1 <2c2 c2NA NA

cOS COSNA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

cl 0 <> 0NA NA

NA NAcOS cOSc05 cOSNA NA

NA NA

COS cOS

GP-Il««l

cOSCOScOS

5cOScOScOScOScOScOScOScOScOS<A50.5cas<2

<0.5cascOScOScO.5cOScOS

cOScOS

cO5c2c2NA

cOSNA

NA

NANANANANA

cOS

NA

NA

cOSCOSNANA

cOS

CP-Ji/ia/oi i/ittoi

(Dl'P.

cOS cOScOS cOScOS cOSc2 c2

cOS cOS06 08

cOS cOS06 076 7

cOS COS

cOS COScOS cOScOS cOSCOS <05n 3i

cas cos<3 <21 14 5

COS cOS<05 <OSOil 0311 1

05 J OS)<05 cOS<O 5 cO S<0 5 <0 S<2 <2

e2 c2NA NA

cOS COS

NA SA

NA NANA NA

NA SA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

cl 0 cl 0

NA NA

NA NA

cOS COS

cOS cOSNA NA

NA NA

cOS cOS

CP-K1/llfll

cOScOSO S6

cOScOScOSO J J

4

3cOS09

0 3 )1

24

<05<2ati

03)<as<05cOScOScOS<05.05

6<2NA

cOSNA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAcl 0

NA

NA

cOSCOSNA

NA

COS

GP-L1/10/OI

cOScOScOS

5cOScOScOScOScOScOSCOScOScOSCOSa4i<as<2(Ul<ascascas<05cOScOScOSCOScOS<2

c2NA

cOSNANANANA

NA

NA

NAcl 0

NANA

cOS

cOSNANA

cOS

GP-MI/II«JI

cOScOS

14c2

0 5 )cOScOS07

1214

680524

540S•a2

<aj212

04 ]

cOS1

c05cOS

1c2

0 5 )

NA

cOSNA

NA

NANA

NA

NANAcl 0

NA

NA

cOScOS

NANA

cOS

CP-N\nn\

cOScO5cOS

5cOScOScOScOScOS06cOS0 3 )cOSCOSIS

cas<21

ctt5at<oscOScOScOScOScOScOS

12<• 2

NA

cOS

NANA

NANA

NANANA

cOSNANACOScOSNA

NAcOS

GP-OI/19OI

<05< O SO fII

<OS

cfl S

cOS

<OS

4

.-0 S

1

c05c<> 5

8120a3i<23

<0.54

cOS<05< O S.(i 5.0 ^>() s

10,;s*

<() S

NA

NA

NA

NA

N*.

NASA

cl 0

SA

SA

<05<05

SA

SA<0 S

*Toul Xyktoct nclwk p&m-iykne plui*Wetton. IW) nd.caies rtptxi-nf tvrvs

o xylrne for the WItX thu HfTipfe tS (Tt-MCT

(19S9). Mid Flux DMUT! GT1 (1996) dthan the rrviVTiUn. rrpunng tan* kited hen

< Not detected above rrportni kmDtT-

) u Tout Xytroet for XlOO ««J 2001 du*.J - Estvrmted vahir helnw refionnf bnw but atww rmhixl detection bnwNA Not Kutyzed d>f thu p«nmrterNote AD conceotr*tx>af ^tj/LSource MWH (2001)

Page 2 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical ResuLs

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

S«n >ir LOCMKHI *Sm^kDtu-

ClM calChkmmvOMnrVevl Oik>r«icI.I D«.hluiixthnxAirtooc

Mrthytci* Qifcmletma-1.2 DcMoroctheocMethyl un buyt-ettn

I.I Dicltoroettaiccu 1.2-DKhkxuethrnr

ChknoformI.I.I Tnd*>roci»«BCOtoo TemcttDrakBom1.7 ril*iiiinl»»iTraMonMlMBU-DiLMu.UK^»< >!•%! 2-HM»o«»TbfcBii iTTiHfriniAMiTilmMniiiiiltoaiOtontmcotEtbjribcBMC1.1.2.2 TctrctturnctlwitXylmri (Toul)1

1.3 I>Khk>rohcn/«K

1 * 1 hthk rohen/enr1 .2 Dthk rohrnirne

2 Buunnne

C«t«in Duutfkk

I.I DKhloroprupencBmmoform1 . 1 . 1 .2 Trtrxhloroctlm

n PropyfcenOTc1 . 1 .5 • Tnmrthyfrcmme

1.2.4-TnmrthyRmxenr

1 .2 DferucTO- 3-Chfcxuprup«De1 ,2.4-TnLhlnmtrnzeneHcucMurotxiudKiKS rthaJrot

DKhkxudrf)uon>nirth*nrTncMuronuomnvthMxBmmMTYtlmc

BrnmDdKhkxTHiYihtmDitnxmmhuc1 .2 - DtvronxnrUMneDtoocnDchkNTxivthaar

CP-Plrt/01

<052594

1

06cOS0996177

2702

525.200

22<212

500S

03 J9

1

cOScOS

110

0 5 JNA<05NANA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

<OSNANA

cOSc05NA

NA

cOS

GP-O.l/IO/OI

<O5<05cOS

4

•cOS<05<05<O5

4

0 4 J

<O5<05a?

<05It

<O5<2a*<asas<0.5<05<O5O S )cOScOS<O5c2<2NA<O5NANANA

NA

NANA

NA

< IONANA<O5<O5NANA

<05

CP-R1/llVI

<05<05<O5

9<O5<05<O5<05<05<05<05<05<05<0505 J<as<2

<ft3<aj<as<as<05<05<05<05<05<O5

3<2NA<05NA

NA

NANA

NA

NA

NA

<l 0NANA

<05

<05NA

NA

<05

CP-TI/10A)I

<os<05<05

6<os•cOS<OS<05<05<OS<05<OS<05<05«05<OJ<2OJ<O5<05<as<05<05

1<05< O S<O5<i<JNA

<05NA

NA

NA

NA

NANA

NA

<10NA

NA

<05<05NA

NA

<O5

CP-l)1/19/01

<05<05<OS

7

<05<05<OS<05•cOS<05<05•cOS•cOScO.5

4<OJ<21

<as<0.5«05<O5<05<os<05<05<OS

9<2NA<OSNANANANA

NANA

NA

< I ONA

NA

•cOS•cOSNANA<05

GP-AA2/IV01

<042

097

<03<03II0145

<03<03<03021<021

04)<a»O5<ft4<03<02<02<02<05<03<02<OJ<2

•cOSNA<02NANANA

NA

NA

NA

NA

<lSANA<O4

<02NANA

<02

GP-BB2/I3AJI

<04

<03<03

4

<OJ<03<OJ<01<03<03<03<03<O2•OCL2tt7<ai<a»0.6

•cO-4

<ft3<az<02<02<05<O3<o:<03<2

<05NA<O2NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

<l

NA

NA<04

<02NANA

<O2

GP-CC2/IMJI

<O4<03<03

5<03<03<O3<O3<O3<03<O3<03<02<02<O3<0.2<a90.51<04

•C0.3<02<02<02<O5<<) t<02<<l <^2

«<)S

NA

<02NA

SASA

NANA

NA

NA<1

NA

NA<04

<02NASA

<02

MW-ll2/27*) 1 5/M)l

<04 <04<O3 <03<03 <03<2 <2

<O3 <03<O3 <03<03 <03<03 <03<01 <O3031 <0 3<03 <03<03 <03<02 <02<02 <0206 <03

•cO-2 <02<a9 <a»<O2 <ft2<a4 <04

1 <03<02 <02<02 <02<O2 <02<05 <OS

<0 1 <0 3<<I2 <02<0 > <0 3<2 <2

<OS cOSNA NA

•C02 <02NA NANA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

SA SA

SA SA

<1 <l

NA NA

SA SA<04 <04

c02 <r02

SA NA

SA NA

Oil <02

MW-19imm s/4A)i s/4^)i

'1)1 'Klc04 CO 4 <04

<03 CO 3 cO 1

<O 3 cO 3 -Mi,<2 c2 H

cO 3 cO 3 cO 1<0 3 <0 3 .01cO 3 <O 3 <<) >cO 3 cO 3 cO t<0 3 <0 3 <0 1<0 3 <0 3 <0 3cO 3 cO 3 <0 3cO 3 cO 3 <0 3<O2 <O2 c02c02 <a2 <0204 J OS) c03<a2 <02 <02<a» <a« <a9<O2 •aO.l <02<O4 <a4 <O4<03 <03 <O3<tt2 <0.2 <02<0 2 <0 2 cO 2<02 <02 <02<0 5 cO 5 .05<0 3 <0 3 .0 i<0 2 «0 2 • (1 :<0 3 <0 3 .() (<2 c2

cOS cOS ..(isNA NA S*

cO 2 cO 2 <() 2NA SA \<V

SA SA \*

SA NA V*

SA NA S\

NA NA NA

SA NA SA

SA NA NA

<1 <1 clNA NA SA

NA NA NAcO 4 <0 4 .:O 4

cO 2 cO 2 cO 2

NA NA SANA NA SA

c02 <02 c02

Total XyleaesnJudep&irvxyfenephuo xytene for the Wesuwi (1989). and Ruor Daruel GT1 < 1996) data. Analytical dau^Wettoo. 1989 axbcatei rrportnc bnm for ihn tampfc as greater than the miumim rrponnf bnw beted here

< • Not detected above report*^ bnvtDUP Dupbcatr

a reported u Total Xyirnri for 2000 aod 2001 dataJ EjivnaceO value belo* rrportnf bnn but above methixl dctectun brratNA • Not analyzed for ihtx paramrterNote Afl cuncentraiKHu pl/\-~Source MWK(200I)

Page 3 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical Resuls

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Svr^4c Locauon =S«n*D«c =

(literalChkmmrthjneVnyl ChbndcI.I DrhbnvthcnrAcwooeMnhykn Chtunktno»- 1 .2 Dthk»oc«he»eMethyi- i«i • butyt-etterI.I DKtilnn>«>»ntCB 1.2 DKNoroetlraeOtofotonn1.1.1 TnchbronlmieCjrtxxi TctraditonieBoom1 TrtiHiii inlMTridfeKMdwn r»M»u|in|i^4-Mi t-2-f>MBOBl•MMI.U-TrthtiiiiiAMiTim III ii nliiiChkxntnjmEtfcytnuoK1.1.2.2 Trtm*l»mcth«>tX>trori (TotaT)'1.3 Dichktrohrnzene1 A DKhJnrohrozroe1.2 Dvrhlofuhnucne2 ButanuorCtrtuD DvuIfUr1 . 1 - DitNDropropeneBTum>fc>rm1.1.1.2-TemcMnmclhineD PmpyRiciiz«ic1.3.5 Tramhylhenzenc1.2.4-Tmnhyfcenzrar1 .2 Dftronr>- 3-Chk»tvprwp«ne1.2.4 TnuMofvtTnOTcHeuchforobuudKncN«pt«l»ki»DithkmMlifluuTOmetjMaeTnthtorDfluonMnrtlmeBnHtTHTVttlMW

BmnrNhcMommrtfMneDit<n>m>imhnc1.2 Dibn>fmmrth*nrDtfvufTucMummetime

MW-202/27WI 5/KCI

<04 <04

<03 <03<03 <0325 3

<03 <O3<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <0303J <03<O3 <03<03 <03<02 <02<02 <ft2<ttJ <03<aj <o.J4ft» <ft»

a* «oj<a4 <a4a? <ai

<0.2 <02<02 <02<02 <02<05 <05<0 3 <0 3«02 <02<0 3 <0 3

5 <2<05 <05NA NA<02 <02NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA< l < lNA NANA NA<04 <04

<02 <02NA NANA NA<02 <02

MW 212/27/D1 5/3>OI

<04 <04rf)3 <03<O3 <03<2 <2

<O3 <03<O3 <03<03 <03<03 <03<O3 <03<O3 <03<03 <03<03 <03<O.2 <02<02 <O2<o.3 <aj<O.I <O2<a» <a»<O2 "O2<A4 <O4<ft3 «03<02 <02<02 <02<O2 <02<O5 <OS<O 3 <0 3<O2 <02<0 3 rf) 3<2 <2

<05 rf)5NA NA<02 <02NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA<l < lNA NANA NA<04 <04

<02 <02NA NANA NA<02 <02

MW-222/27/01 S/WN

<04 <04

<03 <03<03 <03<2 <2

<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 «03<03 <03<03 <O3<02 <02041 <02

2 <03<a2 <<X2<a« <a»<ft2 <O2<ft4 <tt4<03 <ai<02 <02<02 <02<02 <02<05 <O5<0 3 <O3<02 <02<03 <03<2 <2

<O5 <O5NA NA<02 <O2NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA<l <1NA NANA NA<0 4 <0 4

<O2 <02NA NANA NA<02 <O2

MW-2Jifnn\ 5/}«i

<04 .04

<03 <O3<03 <O3

11 3<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<03 <03<02 <02<02 <O2<O.3 <03<a2 <ft2<a» <o.«tt3) <O2<n.4 <a4<03 <03<02 <02<02 <02<02 <O2<05 <O5<0 3 <0 3<O2 <0:<03 »01

3 <2<O5 <OSNA NA<02 <02NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA<1 < lNA NANA NA

<O4 <O 4

<02 «O2NA NANA NA<02 cO2

MW-24imiO\ 5/M)l

<04 <04

<03 <03<03 <03

3 2<0 3 <03<O3 <03<O3 <03<0 3 <0 3<O3 <03<03 <03<03 <0 3<03 <03<02 <02<02 <02

1 <03<a2 <a2<a» <a*<ai <a2<04 <O405 <03

<02 <02<02 <02<O2 <02<O^ <05<0 1 <0 3•X) 2 <0 2<0 3 <0 3<2 <2

<O5 <05NA NA<02 <02NA NANA SANA XANA SANA NANA SANA SA<1 <lNA NANA NA<04 <O4

<02 <02NA SANA SA

MW-25vnn\ vnn\ 4*01

(DUP)<04 <04 <04

<03 <03 <03<0 3 <O 3 <0 3

2 2 <2<03 <03 <03<03 <03 <03<03 <03 <<D3<O3 <O3 <030 4 1 0 4 ) < O 3<O3 <O3 <03<0 3 <0 3 <0 3<03 <03 <03<02 <02 <02<O.2 <D2 <02

3 3 24X2 <0.2 <ft2<a» <a» <a*<O2 <ftl <O2<a4 <a4 <04<ft3 <O3 <03<O2 <02 <02<02 <02 <02<02 <02 <02<05 <05 <OS<0 3 <0 3 <0 3<0 2 <0 2 <0 2<O 3 <0 1 <0 3<2 <2 <2

<O5 <O5 <O5NA NA NA

<O2 <O2 <O2NA NA NANA NA SANA SA SANA NA NANA NA NANA NA NANA NA NA< l < l < lNA NA NANA NA NA

<0 4 <O 4 <0 4

<O2 <O2 <02NA NA NANA NA NA

<02 fC2 <02 <02 <02

rr «2/2?«l

•'04

-0 3120<2I I2

<034

I S

1 ]«)11

4\0

6

5507.400130

<09110

28041

<021

^ O S0 I I

2201

0 ( > JN A

<fl 2SASASASA

SASANA« lSA

SA

< 0 4<0 2

SASA

<0 2"Total Xytrar* Delude p&m-iytene pluio-iyfcne for the Westoti (1989). and Fluor Daniel GT1 (1996) dau AnatyiKal data u rrporte*! i

Mi for thu lampfe as gnmrr than the mnnun rrponnf km bMed hereTotal Xylenei for 2000 and 2001 data.

< Not defected above rcportnf hmtDt'P.Dupbcate

J fjtwimud value hek>« reportnf hrm but abo«r method Jctrctmu bmrtNA Sol analyzed for thu parameterNote AH cooucncratKini fifA'Source MWH(200I)

Page 4 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical Resuls

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

SampktDate.OttBtol

Vnyl Chbnde1.1 DKhbronheneAcetoneMethyteoe Oaundctram- 1.2 OcnfaroeihroeMethyl- ten -butyl-etherI.I DKhtoroethanecu- 1 .2 • DKMometheoeChloroform1.1.1 TrKhkiroethaoeCwtMM TcmcMui •!•Beeoeaa1.2 DfcMDeoateeTiliMiiniaiiii

\Juu^"'!^mTohaaaI.IJTricranroetbaneTetnchtoroetbneCrJomhenxeneEthvlhetume1.1.2.2 Tctrav.h«>roetlianeX>lenei(Tinal)'1.3 Dth«>nit*rurne1 .4 Dithkirohetuene1.2 Da:hlororeiuene2 ButaooaeCartwn Duulfide1.1 [>Khtoropn>peneBroinnform1.1.1.2 Tetrachk.roethanen Propy»ieTuei>e1 .3.5-TnmcthylbemeTJe1.2.4 TnnrthyfcenzctK1 ,2 • [>ihrurra>- 1 Chkxopmpane1 .2.4-TrKhlorornrer*HexachtorobutadvneNaphthaleneDKhtoroWViororrrthaneTncraDroflunrornrthaDeBrornomethaneBromDdKhtoromrthaneDthrumDrnrthane1.2 DibrornDTnrthaneDibrompchlprometliaue

2/24/89

< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*

4.200< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*

1.9004.300

tlO.OOO*17.000

nouooo•jt j__><ioootr

< 10.000*< 10.000*

3.700< 10.000*< 10.000*

2.500< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*

8JOO< 10.000*33.000

< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*< 10.000*

*Wenoo. 19W aidicatei reponaaj tarati lot ihtt urnr*1 NAPL lamr*< • Not detected above reportBM] laratDUP Dupbcate

8/12/89

933

285<IOb9114

<10b7

4.220254277

1J45<10b

11.11014.11]

<10b517

217221

1281

14

98

<10*<10*<10*

11

<10*<10*

1<10*<10*<10*<IO*<10*<10*

1<10*<IO*

39,10*

9/14^9

<2.000<2.0001 J20

<2.000<2.000<2.000<2.000<2.000<2.0003.0206.46042.920<2.00020JOO2«,1»

IjHO

OAO<2JJOO4.7601JOO

<2.000<2.000<2.000<2.000<2.0002.960

<2.000<2.000<2.000<2.0002.140

<2.000<2.000<2.000<2,000<2,000<2.000<2.000C2.000<J.OOO<2.000<2.000<2.000

900•eJ.OOO

12/1/95

<5830<201454<56772800

1.40057.000

<535.0001«XOOO

<JO3»46

1JOO170<51*0<52251

240<20<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<J<5<J

<10<5

<10<5<5NA<5

11/28X10 2/24/89

<I2 <13.000*<12 <13.000*420 3.600<SO <I3.000*18 8.900

1 1 1 43.000<12 «13.000*18 <13.000*

2.800 < 11.000***0 <1J.OOO*330 43.000

2.100 34.000'4 <13.000*

3JOO 30.00042jooo ysum

HO <13JDOO*<» <13jOOO*

J» <u.ooo*760 34.00028 < 13.000*

<>2 <13.000*no <n.ono*"2 <i inno*11 <11000*15 <13.000*

10) ^13.000*<50 < 13.000*<50 < 11.000*NA < 13.000*<:12 <13.000*NA < 13.000*NA < 13.000*NA < 13.000*NA < 13.000*NA < 13.000*NA <11.000*NA <13.000*<12 <13.000*NA <13.000*NA < 13.000*<12 <13.000*<12 <13.00<fNA < 13.000*NA <13.00O*

__^ ——— < 13.000*Analytical data u reported as

2/24/«9

<23.000*<23.000*<23.000*<23.000*

6.30042.000

<23.000*<23.000*<r23.000*<21.000*47.00035.000

<23.000*31.000460.000

^^___ J . f : £<21jOtMT

<23.000*<23.000*^S.COO*<23.000*<:i.ooo*<2i,ndO*<:21(»JO*

<21.U110'<21.000*<23.000*<23.000*<23.000*<23.000*<23.000*<:23.000*<21.000*<21.000*<23.000*<23.00C*<23.000*C23.000*C23.000*<23.000*•C23.000*•C23.000*<23.000*<23.000*

VI 2/89

<10*<10*527<10*

86

.10*691

1.497

1.466

6.84037

13.00092.500

MS551104

1J7044

1.121411

1 12148

<10*

<10*<10*

64

<10*34

<10*<10*<10*<10*<10*<10*<10*<10*<10*222700

9/14/89

<500<500<5OO<5OO<500<WO<500<SOO<5OO<500c5OO<5OO<5OO<500<500<5OO•000<500<SOO<500<500<500<500^SOO<^no<V«I

775

<500<5OO<500<500405

<500<5OO<500<500<JOOOOO<500<500000<500<5OOt5OO<5OO<5OO

12/W5

2 2 )6126<389<510

14.0001703524<5

1.4006,600

<5

^14SO12<J19<5101156

<20«j<5<5<5<1<5<S<5fi<5<}

<IO<J

<100^5NAt5

2^8fll 12/1/05

56 <10<3I <5200 <5

<170 <20<32 <5371 <^<32 <5<29 <5

14.000 <5280 <568 <581 <5

<21 <52.000 <517.000 5

J5 <S<S7 <30<32 <J<35 <3340 <J291 <3<22 <5<23 <5<46 <5<26 <10:sj <io150 <10

<170 <20<49 <5NA <5<25 <5NA <5NA <5SA <5NA <5NA <5NA <5NA <5

<HO <5NA <IONA <5<39 <10<24 <5NA <SNA NA

EPA.3WW,

<<) 1<<) 1<2

•cO 1•-0 1<0 1<0 1<Q 3<0 l<0 1<01<02<02

3<02

<02<O408<02

<fl 2• 1 ) 5.0 <.-(1 ^

• o :.;

.OS

s\•-02s\SASA

SASA

SA

SA< i

SA

SA<O4

<02SA

SA

Total Xybem for 2000 and 2001 dataat greater ihan the naOKTaim reportaif hnvt hfted rcre J F_u«mlt-j vaKie htln» rerortnf hrral hul above n

NA Not analyzed tor that parameterNote AH cooceatraUDra af/l-Source MWXi 2001i

vthod detect ion tatw

Page 5 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical Resuls

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Sw^fe Location -

Sampfc Date •rhciBtnJ

ChJuromrtJiMKVnylChlondr1.1 rhthloroeihroAcetoneMethykne CMonleUMII- 1 J DEhlonxthrncMethyt-len-butyV«herI.I DKhhnxtlm

ci* 1 .2 DdilnmnlKiKCMDtofonn1.1.1 TnchbmcthncC.rtv>o TetrachlondeBenzeneU DcttocoettaKTnchloroahM1 J DKntanpnBM4- MMky 2*nHiMOMTahMI.U-T>IMr 1*11TtmcttHMlMCMOfDDHMM

Ethjtinm.iI.UJ.TeOTchkjraKtaneXytenei (ToltD"

1 .3 [>Khktn»hrnjene14 [h .n iuoir

1.2 I*:hl>n*eiuri)e2 BuunoncC«rtx>o DuulftJe

1.1 Dx:hkm>p»T>peneBnnnofonnl.l.U TetncMorceltairD Pmpy«Kntenf

1.3.5 Tnmrthylbnucne1 .2,4-Trwnrthjlbenzeoe1.2 l>ihn>[iv-3 Chkxr>prop«ie1.2.4- TnthkifohetueneHe uchkxutaudxnrN^VitmlcncPichlnfodifluoronietjMOeTnchtorofluotTMigUaucBmnxHnetlMDeBromxlKhlorocirthMaeOilTOcrc.mrth.ir

1.2 DtfrommrOwneDihrnmDchlnronrthne

ERT-18/12/89 9/14/89 12/1/^5 Vl«l

47 <2.000 111 <44

22 c2.000 c2.5OO c3l17.060 15.140 23,000 4.000

269 <2.000 < 10.000 <170164 C2.000 C2.500 <3255 C2.000 C2.JOO <31

<10 C2.000 C2.SOO <32989 C2.000 <2JOO <29

10.900 6,500 C2.500 17011.040 1.420 4.600 1.00025.660 24.460 17.000 1.600238.520 212.440 160.000 32.000

<IO C2.000 <2JOO <2I12.3*0 31.120 49.000 8.400317.060 345.UO 290,000 77.000

<IO <2.000 <2JOO <2I35 <zaao <iaaoo <t?

4.IW 5.140 5^00 UOIflS ^yi^ ^7 f^yi <33

IJM I.MO J.600 30020 <&000 <2J5QO <2320* <2.000 <2JOO <22

6.3*0 7.360 6JOO 1.0001.004 760 <2JOO <46

50 <2.000 <5.000 <26251 <2.000 <5.000 <23

1.943 2.100 <5.000 480119 <2.000 <10.000 <170414 <2.UOO <2.SOO <49

5 <2.000 <2JOO NA<IO <2.000 <2.500 <2510 <2.000 <2300 NA67 <2.000 <2,5OO SA115 <2.000 <2JOO NA404 <2.000 <2.5OO NA22 <2,000 C2JOO NA

<10 <2.000 <2300 NA<IO <2.000 <2JOO NA

9 <2.000 <2300 <1IO<IO <2.000 cS.OOO NA<IO <2.000 <23OO NA<10 <2.000 C5.000 <39<10 O.OOO <2JOO <24<10 <2.000 <2JOO NA<10 <2.000 NA NA<IO <2.000 <2JOO <24

ERT-28/1Z/S9 9/14^9 8/12.WMiklk M«ldk Bouom

<IOO <2,000 70.000<100 <2.000 <6.90010.953 6.220 1.012.000<IOO 8.780 <6.900

16.174 13.120 351.000265 <2,000 25.000

<100 <2.000 <6.900279 <2,000 11.000

1.053 <2.000 45.0003360 <2.000 450.00032.660 49.800 33.900.0003.162 <2.000 4JOO.OOO

30 <2.000 <6.9005.279 4.010 119.000

401.960 564.000 661.000.000<IOO <2.000 <6.90022 <2.000 <4.900sos <uooo tnjaoo«M <2JW) IIJOO

30J20 34,400 J 16.900.000<100 <2.000 5.000<100 <2.000 20.000

108,760 M.220 13.127.000<IOO <:2.000 82.000<ioo <2.ooo ..t,.<xe<ioo c2.ooo 5.rxn<100 <2.000 118.000<IOO <2.000 62.000<\OO <2.000 <6.WO<IOO <2,000 <6.900<IOO <2.000 4.000<100 <2.000 113.000<IOO <2.000 <6900<IOO <2.000 8.000<100 <2.000 22.000<100 <2.000 t6.900<IOO <2.000 8.000<IOO <2.000 12.000<IOO <2.000 58.000<IOO <2.0OO <6.900<100 <2.000 <6.900<100 <2,000 < 6.900<100 <2.000 <6.900

57 <2.000 <r6.900<IOO <2.000 <6.900<IOO <2.000 <6.900

ERTO39C9/S9'

<5.000<5.000<5.000<5.000<5.000<5.000<5.000<5.000<5.0OOcS.OOO

4.890.000<5.000<J.OOO<5.000

4t.400.000cS.OOO<s.ooo<JXJOO<5jOOO

24.IOOOOO<5.000<5.000cS.OOO<5.000<5.000<S.OOO<5.000<^.OOO<5.000<5.000<5.000<5.0(10cS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOOcS.OOO

ERT-349/29/89

<IO

clO129<10<IOclOclO33468790

3.440clOclOclO

11.000clOclO31<IO1200clO

5clOClO

<10

«10

^10

••10<10<10C l O

ClO

<IO<10<IOClO

ClO

ClO

clOclOclOclOclO<10<IOClO

KDHK-l2/24^9 8/I2/S9 9 14.-89

c4.200' 26 cldOC4.200' <10 clou4.200 7.820 1.1902.500 clO clin33.000 33.040 7.4 IS

750 113 clOOC4.200' ClO <!<X>

C4.200* 62 cl(10

C4.200* W9 1 .n.M680 1.332 SO

22.000 I5JOO 1.718

C4.200* 149 iinoC4.200' 29 <\00

2.4OO 1.640 46470.000 83JOO 8.850

<4JOO* <IO clOO<4JOOk 1* clOO<AJOtf 31 «7<tyxf 4*7 120140.000 157340 93.160<4JOO* 5 clOOc4JOOi 4 1411.000 15.440 1649

C4.200' « <:'«>c4.:oo* cio • . : < « ><t Ji»' <10 • :i»)<t ;oo' 7 ''•'*>3.000 3 .100

<4.200* <10 <100C4.200* <IO '100C4.200' clO '100c4.20O> 287 105c4.200* clO '100<4.200' «IO <100<4.200* <IO <1°0c4.200> <IO <100c4.200* <IO «100c4.200* clO <100C4.2OO' clO <IOOC4.2O01 clO '100c4.200> 13 <100C4.200* <IO '100C4.200" 5 '100<4.2OO* clO '100C4.2OU* clO '100c4^00* clO '100

Total Xylenes ncludc p&nvxylene plus n tytnv for the Wnton (1989), and Fluor Datuel GT1 (I996)dau AnatytKal data is r*Wttton. ] 989 ndfcaies rrpon«if hmrts for thu tan^tr as jrcairr than the mnanim rrportmf Ivrai haed hert

< - Not detected •how repnrm| IvmDtT-

TotaJ Xyfcwi for 2000 aid 2001 dauJ • Fat.m,ued value he low rcponm| Ivm but above method dnectvo kmNA Not autyzcJ for thu jwrmmaNote AD concencmr>ni ttA-Source MWH(2001)

Page 6 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical Resuls

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Sampfc Locatuo =Sample Date =

ChnakxlChJoronvthaneVajyl ChlorateI.I DKhtotutthmeAcetootMethytrne ChkwYktrao»- 1 .2-DKhlorortheaeMethyVten butyl-ether1.1 Dctiloroelhaaects 1.2 DtctabroethraeChloroformI . I . I TrchloroelhancCarbon TetncMondeBenierc1.2 DtUaijiutlhaa.TrirMmniKlaMU-DUabrot^e^

Totaaajaj1 . 1 J-TrtchfcroolBiaBTiiiaiHiinillaniChbrohcaneieEihytaucae1.1.2.2 TnrachbroethantXvlene. (Total)'1 .3 l>».hlorohen/ene1 4 [>ichloroSrn/enr1 .2 l>Khlorohei«ene2 ButanontCarbon DisulMe1 . 1 DKhk>rocrutieneBromDfcmn1.1.1.2 Trtn-hlorvvrthanen-Pn>py (hen/me1.3.5 TnmelhvlhMuene1.24-rnrrrthvlheiuene1.2 Oihrofm-3-ailoroprop.ne1.2.4- TnchlwnheazrneHexathlorohkitadKneNaphlhafcnrDKhlorudifluorumr thaneTnchtorofluorocntthaneBrotnDcntthaDeBromodKhfcxurrrthaneDarotnonrthane1 .2 - DthromnmethaneDibroinDchbronrthane

2/24/J9

< 10.000< 10.000< 10.00013.00011.000

< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.0002OO.OOO< 10,000< 10.00037.000

< 10000•clOjOOOOOlOOO<IOOOO

1.600<IO.OOO< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000

7.800< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000<IO.OOO<: 10.000<; 10.000<: 10.000< 10.000< 10.000•c 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000< 10.000

KDHE-2J/12/J9 9/14/89 12/1«5

24< l33< l1031<l12

395233111

33.950<l455

6.96613<|4*

22*51

571118

<1< l<1< >

1< l<1<1<1<1< l< l< l< l< l2

< l< l<1

<250<250«250<2SO<250<250<250<2501.140<250203

16.740<250135

4.018<2SO<250490<2SO423<250<250<250<250<2S«<250<250e250<250<250<250T250<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<2JO

< I O<513

<M27110<532

1.00019023

1.200<5

1.400630<5<20<5»l24<3<321<5

< I O8 4 |

25<20<5<S<5<5<5e5<5<5<5<:5<5

<10<5

<10<5<5NA

<s

in 4/»9

<330*<330*

140240260

<330"<330>

<330'oxf

140

3302.900<3Xf340

7.600<330*<3Xt<330*<330*

77<330*<330*

71

<330'clvO*<3vO>

<130>

220

<330'<330'<330*<330'<330*<330><330>

<330*<330"<330*<33tf<330"<330'<330'<330«<)Kf<3JO»

<330»

8/12y»9

<50<5044

<SO<50<50<50<50<508587730<5090

2J43<SO<JO23<5027II

<50<50<50<50<50<5018

<50<50<50<SO<50<50<50<50<50<50<50<50c50<50<50<50<50<50

KDIIE-38/12^9(DLTi

cSO<50487

<50<50<50OOc507492721<50100

2.433<30<JO22<50269

<50<50<50<.so<50<SO

15<50<50<50<50<-50

<50<50c50<50<50<50

13<50<50<50<50<50<50

M«,

<250<250278

1.510<250<250<250<250<250<250850

8.530<250555

15361<2SO<2SO<25O<250213

<250<2SO<250<:50<:sn<:MJ<:w<:so<250<250<250<250<250<2.VO<250<250<250<250<250<250<250<2SO<250<250<250<250

,2/1.5

1 1 J<J26

<20c5<5<5<5<5248

170<5J7190<J•ex<5<5I I<5<5c5<5

»100 7 J<10<20<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5

<10<5

< I O<5<5NA

<5

KDIIE-4muVt 8/12^9 9/14^9 12/1195

<5' <1 <;! <!()<3 < l <1 47)

<5 t <l <1 21<J* <1 <l <20<S" <l <1 <5<5' <l <l -i<5* <1 <l '5<5* <l 4 <5<5' <l <1 260<5' 1 3 19<5* <i 8 42<5' <1 96 430<5* 1 <1 <5tf <1 6 736 4 177 990

<J* <l <l <5<f <t <l <20<f <1 <l <5<5* <1 <1 <53 1 II 23

<3* <l <1 <5<? <l <1 <5

<5* <1 <l 15

<S' <l <1 ..5

<5' c! «1 <IO. 5* < l <1 ' iO<5* <1 1 • 10<5' <.! <1 -JO<5* <1 <1 <5<5> <l <1 .-5<5* <l <l f5<5* <l 3 .5<5' <l <1 «5^5' <1 <l <s<5' <1 <1 <5<5' <\ <l <5<5' <;! <1 <s<5» <l 1 <5<S> <1 tl «5<5% <l <l <10<J* <l <1 <5c5' <l <1 <10<5* < 1 < 1 <5<5* <l '1 <5<5' <1 <1 NA<f <1 <l <5

Toul Xykm ncludc pAnv >ykac pku. 1989 BuhrMn irponnl hnw

yleae (of UK Weaoo (1989). •>! FVu> Dncl GTI (199«) du.for thu Mmr4e u frealer th«) the mnorun rr^vnnf Iknt listed here

< • Noi detected above rtporanf bnalDUP

a repotud •> Tot*l XytaM (™ 2000 nd 2001 dau.J - EstBTvted vmlue bebw rcpurtn( ami bul above method detection bNA • Sot analyzed for thai panmrterNote An concentntKxu |i|/lSourte MWH(2001)

Page 7 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical ResuLs

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Svipk Loc«uon -

SanpfcDau-

CboBka)ChbroraethmeVnylChbnitI.l-DichloroclhnieAcetoneMethyfcne Chkwide

wr* 1.2 DKhtorodtieneMethyl len-bwyl-ethrr1 1 Dich»Dro«h«jeen 1 .2 - DcMoroethcorChinrolormU.I-TnctllottietfMK

Ciitoa TetncMondcBOUOKIT riiHiiinilhMiTreHocoMfcmIJ-DUfenpop..•iiiftjiiriMimTofeW

UJ-THrMninilhMTemMoratfMM

CMocobnmtBthytntt1 . 1 .U-TetncMaroalnXvfenes (TouD*

1,1 Ihchlnmheiume14 [>tch]omhen7enc] .2 I)KhV>robenzene

2 buiannneCirfaoo DauftJe1.1 DichloropropeaeBrxtnuform

1 1.1.2-TetmAkiructhnrn PnipyKrnirrne

1 .3.5 Tnrnethyfcetueue1 ,2.4-Trtnethytieturne1 . 2 - Drfmmo - 3 - Chkiroprnrwrje1 ,2.4-Tnct»k>fo*ieMenr

HexKNombuulKiicNqiritMkor[)ichjnradrf)unrofnnh«eT ncMnroflunrnmethfiieBmmrxnethmeBromndictynfnfiYlhMieD*»oni>ii«tJi«ie

1 .2 DihromnmrttMneDihroraDchknvmrOMae

TMW-001Il/29rt5 11/28X10

<10 <12190 290

13.000 11.000<20 110150 ISO93 350<5 <1215O 1.100

6.700 100.000600 570

3.000 4102.100 <12

<5 2519.000 16,000170,000 56,000

MO 6K>4t Jtll« «41 110

JJOO 1.4007W 4K19 <12ISO 62057 2148 30200 61

1.800 520<20 <50<J <50<5 NA<5 <12<5 NA<5 SA

1 1 NA

22 NA<5 NA<5 NAfi NA11 <12

<IO NA

<5 SA<IO <I2<5 <12<i NA

NA NA<5 <I2

TMW-OOJ2/27*>l

13,000<3.100<3.4OO< 17.000<3.200<3.IOO<3.2OO<2.9OO17.000<2.9OO3.4OOJ<3.100<2.IOO120.000440.0002.4001<S,700»jMO<JJOO»JOO<2JOO<2.200<2.300<4.600<2.6OO<2.30023.000

< 17.000<4.9OO

NA

<2.5OONANA

NANA

NA

NA

NA< 11, 000

NANA

<3.9OO<2.4OO

NANA

<2.4OO

TMW-00311/29*5 2/2&OI

31 ) <41 J 7

1.100 130<20 <171.300 1404» 76<5 <336 41

1.600 29.0001,600 11.0003.100 504.100 <3270 530530 640

9X000 22.0003.700 2.100<X <9140 C120 IT

7.700 2.600» 61<5 4J

t.MO 1 1018 19

<10 <351 <264 6

<20 <17<5 <5<5 NA<5 <235 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA

<J NA

<5 NA

<5 <11<10 NA12 NA<10 <4

<3 <2<5 NANA NA

<5 <2

TMW^XM2^8A)1

<440<310<MO

<1.700<320<310<320<2901.100

12.000<290

200.000<2IO1JOO

390.000<210<S70510<J»2JOO<230<220<230720

<26O<2W<260

< 1.700<490NA

<250NANANANA

NA

NANA

<1.100NA

NA

<390<240NANA

<240

TMW-0052^8A)1

<44

<31570

<170<3291<3286

2.500ISO

1.8005i

<21120

120.000SI<n351110

5.900<23<22

15.000<46<26^21<26

<I70

<49

NA

<25NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

<1IO

NA

NA<39<24NA

NA<24

TMW4»»11/29^5

<10350680<204564<517

2.000180310

6.100<5

2.60022.000

22<20*IO43

15.00025.000

440ISO

46041

ISO

i.vn<2()<5

<s<5<542tt

5 3<5<5<56 2<10<5

<10<5<5

NA<5

TMW^WTin.wi\

<440

<31026.00060.0004 IOJ<310<320<29013.0005.700

42.00065.000<210

160.0001.100.000

<21017.000taooIJOO6.400<230<2201.900840

<26O

<:,!«VU) J

<1.7(»

<490

NA<250NANA

NA

NA

NA

NANA

<1.100NANA

<390<240NA

NA

<240

TMW4MI1/29W5 VIW1

<10 <04<5 <03

18) <03<20 <2<5 <0311 <03<5 <03<5 <0314 04)<5 <03<5 rf>363 06<5 <02

21 1 <a26* 6<5 <ft2<» <a»<5 «0.2<5 <a451 O4I<5 <02<5 <0291 <02<5 <05

<IO <03<10 <02»IO <0 3<20 <:2<5 <05<5 NA<5 <02<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 <\<10 NA<5 NA<!0 <04<5 <02<5 NANA NA<5 <02

TMW^XH11^29^5 VIA)1 3/lfll

(1)1 'P)1 7 J <O4 <041 ) <0 3 • ( ) (

920 71 J6

<20 <2 .:<5 <0 3 <0\<5 <O 3 <0 3<5 <O 3 <0 115 1 147 15 16

650 53 45710 19 <1M

6.000 I90 1 70<3 <02 <02

1 .400 66 6443.000 2.600 2.500

73 <21 5<20 <ft» <0914 <tt2 <O212 O7 0.1

1JOO 110 100200 2 2<i <02 <0264 1 l176 <fl 5 .05< 1 0 <o 3 <0347 <o2 -o:

4 8 0 O K O H

<20 <2 •:<5 <0 5 -0 5<5 NA NA

<5 <O 2 rCi 2<5 NA NA

<5 NA NA

<5 NA N\

<5 NA NA

<5 NA NA

<5 NA NA<5 NA N'V65 < l r \

<10 NA NA

<5 NA NA<10 <O 4 <0 4

cs <O2 <o:<5 NA NA

NA NA NA

<5 <O 2 <0 2o(al Xyknci Delude pAnvtyfeac phu o lyiene for the We«on (1989). Mid Fluor D*uel GTI (1996) dM& An«lyiiesioa. 1989 n-fK'Urt rcportnf brrais for tha sample •> (irater th«i the nvivmm repnrTMif tem kned here.

< Not detected above reportvif bm*DLT Dupfcate

is rrponrd M Total Xyfeoet For 2000 and 2001 data.\ • E*tBn*e*l va>je bck>w rrportng tam butNA Not MW^yzrd for thtt pnneterNote AD ooooeotr«tK>u ^i|/LSource MWH(2001)

•hove mthod detectKin tvntf

Page 8 of 9

Table 3Volatile Organic Compounds

Groundwater Analytical Resuls

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Sampk Location =S«T*D«t =

(VrotralOferumeUMnrVnylOikxidc1.1 DKMunxthrncAcetoneMcthyknc Utondetrara- 1 .2-DKhJnroetheiirMethyl- ten- hut yi «hrr1.1 DKhtoroclhntc»- 1 .2-DKhJufurthrneChkimfotm1.1.1 TrehloroetlwxCarton TetndtondeBenzeneU-DKtkxMhaKTncfalococtbaM1 J Dttfenaraaat4-M*%M-f*BlBKlBTahM*1 nTili Mini ilaj.1Ti n • l*iin •!»«•CMarahmweihytnzeat1.1.2.2-TenadtkmedmXylrnci (TixmD'1.3 Darhlorobrazn*1.4 DKhbrohenzrar1 .2 Dm.hk)n>bmzmr2-ButaDL>nrC«rH>n DmilMc1 . 1 DvhbropruprneBtT*fnoft>nn1 . 1 . 1 .2 T«nchkm«th«xn- PmpyRienzene1 . 3 . 5 • Tmrthy tmzmr1 .2.4-Tnn«thylhmz*w1 .2 - Dihrui™>. 3-Ch*oro(WT»p«ne1.2.4. TnchtorotaucorHeKachkwotwtaJcnrN«|4th«lnKDKhJnmdrfVjofamrthaneTnchJoroflunnxntttMneBranxiKttacBrr>tipdKt»t»oii»t>»«DitwtxnDmetlMnc1.2 DtbronomntexDttrocnDchkxonvthaiie

TMW41*3/IWI

<04<03

S6

<03<03<03

3102

<79

<aj14

5701

<0i*a?

«0.4)220.5<02

4

<05<03<O2

2<2

<05NA<02NANANANANANANA< lNANA

<O4

<02NANA<02

TMW-«H11/29^5 12/IW Vl«l

<IO <IO <04<5 <5 <0 349 54 67<20 <20 <29 5 I I 4<i <5 1<5 <5 <0 357 55 915 IS 17!7 110 170SS 1 10 6396 ISO 690<5 <3 5130 160 59290 3.900 1.40019 110 170

<20 <20 <a*<5 <5 «O25.2 « 4210 3X 97054 66 16<5 <S <02260 2M) 95<5 <5 <05

< I O < I O < 0 349) <10 08

50 58 7<M <20 <2<5 c5 <05<5 <5 NA<5 <S <02<5 <5 NA<5 <5 NA<5 <5 NA<J <5 NA<5 <5 NA<5 <5 NA<J <5 NA<J <5 <1

<IO <10 NA<5 <3 NA

< I O < I O < 0 4<5 <5 <0 2<5 <J NANA NA NA<5 <5 <02

TMW41111/29^5 2/2M>l

<10 <04<5 <035S 1

<20 <2<5 <03fi c03<5 <O3<5 <O3<5 775 146 05J

1.100 11<J <O217 01

3.MO II<5 <ttJOO <0.9<S <OJ<5 <a432 312 <02<5 <0264 <02<5 <05

<10 <031 2 J <02

14 1<20 <2<5 <05<5 NA<5 <02<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 NA<5 <1

< I O N A<5 NA

<10 <04<5 <02

0 64 1 NANA NA<5 <O2

TMW-«1311/29W5

< I O<534

<20<5<5<5<5<J

4 1 J

27052<:579

4JOO<5<20<5<5570<5<3150<5

<10<10

^10

<20<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5

<10<5

<10<5<5NA<5

TMW-«14ll/29«5

<10<5

044J

<20<5<5<5<5<5<5<5

3 S J<514]36<5<20<S<5

45 J<5<5<5<5

<10<10<10<20<5c5<5<J<5<5<5<5<5<5<5

< I O<5

<10<5<5NA<J.

TMW^)152y7«A)i

<44<!l

9. SOO<170<32<3I<32<29420530

24.00035.000

<2\450

210.000<2I•47220<35

70.000<23<22

5.200<46<J6

<2l<:6

<170<49NA<25NANANANANANANA

<UONANA<39<24NANA<24

TMW4UDI1/21WX)

<1210 J

21.000<504721

< I 256

2800930

12.0006.100

2014.000

320.00067011015072

13.00019010111064

12 161

810<50<50NA<12NANANANANANANA32NANA<12< I 2NANA<12

TMW^lTDII/2SXX) 11/2800

-nrpi< 1 2 < 1 2170 170

3.800 4,70094 91

84 16

65 M< 1 2 » I 2110 110

25.000 2<).0001.000 1.VX)1.900 2JOO9.000 11.000

39 3711.000 12.000160.000 150.000

660 74071 <50210 2*0n n

3JOO 4.000610 600I I SJ110 It48 4f>

11 «>KiO 1«)

1.400 l . ' ( K )

<50 -:SO

<50 <".0

NA NA

< 1 2 < 1 2NA S *

NA S*NA NANA NA

NA SANA S<\NA NA<12 .-12NA NANA NA< 1 2 < 1 2< 1 2 < 1 2NA NANA NA<12 .12

Tot*J Xykrortanttudr pAirviytrnc p*u»'> «>Irne for the Wrucm (1989). and Huor Dan*l GT1 (19%)daiA .,*WrstoD. 1989 ndKain rrport.n| bnau for tha uns k as prMti than the imrtum repnrta.f hmt bsted here*NAPLiamc4e< - Not detected above reponnc braiDUP Dupfaatc

i reported at Total Xyleoe* for 2000 and 2001 dat*J Envnated v&lue hck>w rrponof bmt hul above mrthcxl Jtttctmn bmtNA Not aoaryzed for thu parameterNote Afl coocci)tr.M.uctt |i|/LSource MWH(2001».

Page 9 of 9

Table 4Measured Indoor and Outdoor Air Analytical Results

Chcmcial Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical1,1,1 -Trichloroethane1 ,2,4-Trimcthylbenzenc1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene2-Butanone2-PropanolAcetoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfidcChloroformEthanolEthylbenzeneFreonl2Hexancm,p-XylenesMethylene Chlorideo-XylcneStyreneTetrachloroethencTetrahydrofuranTolueneTrichloroethene1-Butanol1 -PropanolButanalDecaneHeptanalPentanalPropanal2-Hexanone4-Methyl-2-penanoneChloromethane

318S.Keeler<2.8<2.5<2.5

135.9972.6

<6.3<2.5NA<2.2NAND4.92

<2.2<2.2<3.4NA214.912<518

<12<9.5<7.2

15<8.3<8.33.4

318S.Keeler<2.8<2.5<2.5<6NDNDND<6.3<2.5NA<2.2NAND<2.2ND<2.2<2.2<3.4NAND

<2.7<6.2<5ND<12<9.5<7.2<4.8<8.3<8.3<1

318S.Keeler<2.8<2.5<2.5<6NDNDND<6.3<2.5NA<2.2NAND<2.2ND<2.2<2.2<3.4NAND

<2.7<6.2<5ND<12<9.5<7.2<4.8<8.3<8.3<1

316S.Keeler<2.8<2.5<2.5<636394.1

<6.3<2.5NA<2.2NAND6.13

<2.2<2.2<3.4NA8.55.2

<6.2<59.9<12<9.5<7.25.8

<8.3<8.32.6

EPA2000316S.Keeler<2.8<2.5<2.59.137344.8

<6.3<2.5NA<2.2NAND4.62

<2.2<2.2

14NA12

5.2<6.2<513

<12<9.5<7.2

7<8.3<8.35.8

Indoor Air*

316S.Keeler<2.8<2.5<2.5

116.7344.7

<6.34

NA<2.2NAND4.72.32.3

<2.29.3NA15

6.2<6.2<58.3<12<9.5<7.2<4.8<8.3<8.35.6

312S.Keeler

2911

4.17.47.730ND<6.3<2.5NA<2.2NAND3.34

7.1<2.2<3.4NA402.717<514

<12<9.5<7.2

13<8.3<8.3<1

312 S.Keeler

298.23.36.98.954ND

<6.34

NA<2.2NAND2.54.34.7

<2.2<3.4NA41

<2.7<6.2<56.4<12<9.5<7.25.4

<8.3<8.3<1

312 S.Keeler

378.93.11510663.2

<6.36.1NA<2.2NAND3.95.45

<2.2<3.4NA56

<2.78.3<516

<12<9.5<7.2

12<8.3<8.31.9

300 S.Keeler

18<2.5<2.5<61801104.86.8

<2.5NA<2.2NAND2.76.4

<2.2<2 2<3.4NA15

<2.716<5<6

<12<9.5<7.27.5

<8.3<8.3

2NA = not analyzedND = not detected

Note: All concentrations

Page 1 of 3

Table 4Measured Indoor and Outdoor Air Analytical Results

Chcmcial Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical1,1,1 -Tnchlorocthanc1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzenc2-Butanonc2-PropanolAcetoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfideChloroformEthanolEtfaylbenzeneFreonl2Hexanem.p-XylenesMethylene Chlorideo-XyleneStyrcneTetrachloroethencTetrahydrofuranTolueneTrichloroethene1-Butanol1-PropanolButanalDccancHeptanalPentanalPropanal2-Hexanone4-Methyl-2-penanoncChloromethane

300 S.Keeler

262.9

<2.5<63104407.78.7

<2.5NA2.6NAND5.8112.2

<2.2<3.4NA38

<2.7<6.2<5<6<12<9.5<7.2<4.8<8.3<8.32.3

EPA300 S.Keeler

37<3.2<3.2

143705003.9<8

<2.5NA<2.8NAND3.116

<2.8<2.7<4.4NA41

<3.5<7.8<5

<7.6<15<12<9.122

<10103.4

2000 Indoor

302 S.Keeler<2.89.63.12351774.8

<6.32.7NA6.7NAND262.68.85.2

<3.4NA154.8291117

<12189

9.421955.1

Air*302 S.Keeler<2.89.74.414100467.7

<6.3<2.5NA8

NAND312.112

4.47.4NA383.68.8<51421

<9.5<7.2<4.89.6623.9

302 S.Keeler<2.8328

<6480403.9

<6.3<2.5NA3.4NAND71

<1.837

<2.2<3.4NA41

<2.7<6.2<5<6

<12<9.5<7.2<4.8<8.38.34.2

319 S.Keeler

<18<16<16<39

2,200150<10<41<16

2,100<14<16<46<14<11<14<14<22<39<12<18NANANANANANANA<54<54<6.8

EPA

331 S.Keeler

37<16<16<39<3233

<10<41<16

2,000<14<16<46<14<11<14<14<22<39<12<18NA .NANANANANANA<54<54<6.8

2001 Indoor

4408Ocheltree

6.811

4.4332013018

<9.4<3.7910e8.6

<3.722362.98.7

<3.2<5.1<8.940

<4.1NANANANANANANA<12<12<1.6

Air"

4414Lane Street

<414

4.31807.7110

<2.3343.762

<3.27.5116.7193.5

<3.11416022

<3.9NANANANANANANA<12<12<1.5

4404Ocheltree

<5<4.5<4.528

<8.949

<2.9<11<4.467

<3.99

<13<4

<3.2<4

<3.9<6.2<11

14<4.9NANANANANANANA<15<15<1.9

NA = not analyzedND = not detected

Note: All concentrations ;ig/m .e = exceeds instrument calibration range

Page 2 of 3

Table 4Measured Indoor and Outdoor Air Analytical Results

Chemcial Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathc, Kansas

Chemical1,1,1-Trichloroethane1 ,2.4-Trimethylbcnzene1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene2-Butanone2-PropanolAcetoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfideChloroformEthanolEthylbenzeneFreon 12Hexanem,p-XylenesMethylenc Chlorideo-XyleneStyrcneTetrachloroetheneTctrahydrofuranTolueneTrichlorocthenc1-Butanol1-PropanolButanalDecaneHeptanalPentanalPropanal2-Hexanone4-Methyl-2-penanoneChloromethane

4405Ocheltree

<7.412

<6.77601478

<4.4<17<6.6

18<5.9<6.7<19<5.9180

<5.928

<9.2<164111

NANANANANANANA<22<22<2.8

EPA 2001

401S. Kecler

<3.8<3.4<3.433

<6.8302.5

<8.63.8300<33.5

<9.73.66.4<3

<2.9<4.7<8.2

10<3.7NANANANANANANA<11<11<1.4

Indoor Airb

4402Ocheltree

<43<39<39140<77<75<25<98<38

12,000<34<39<110<34<27<34<34<53<93<30<42NANANANANANANA

<130<130<16

318S.Keeler<4.4<3.9<3.9<9.54114

<2.6<10<3.962

<3.5<4<11<3.5<2.8<3.5<3.4<5.4<9.54.0

<4.3NANANANANANANA<13<13<1.6

IndoorMin

detect6.82.93.16.95.914

2.56.82.7182.63.5112.52

2.24.47.41604

2.78.311

6.421189

5.49.68.31.9

AirMax

detect37328

7602,20050018346.1

12,0008.6922711803728141605611291118211892221955.8

EPA 2000 Outdoor Air*Concentration

Min MaxNDNDNDND13

1503.6NDNDND4.3NDND<4.5440<4.5NDNDND<4NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

<2.2

NDNDNDND83

2304.3NDNDND5.0NDND21.381021.3NDNDND120NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND2.8

EPA2001

Blank"<4.6<4.2<4.2<10

138.4

<2.7<11<4.2

14<3.7<4.2<12<3.7<3

<3.7<3.60.8<103.813

NANANANANANANA

<1.8<14<14

NA = not analyzed Note: All concentrations /ig/mND = not detected'Collected during EPA 2000 (2000a) sampling. Indoor air samples collected over 24 hours at each residence on three different days.""Collected during EPA 2001 (200la) sampling effort. See text for explanation.

Page 3 of 3

Table 5Sump Water Analytical Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Sample/ParameterW01W02W03W04W05Field Blank

Toluene<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0016

Chloroform<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0023<0.001<0.001

PCE<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0069<0.001<0.001

TCE<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0637<0.0010.0023

Note: All concentrations mg/L.Source: EPA (2001a).

Table 6Off-Site Residential Soil Analytical Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

ChemicalAluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverThalliumVanadiumZincFluoranthenePhenanthrenePyrene4.4-DDD4,4-DDE4,4-DDTGamma-chlordaneDieldrinHeptachlor EpoxideAlpha-chlordaneEndrin aldehydeToluenecis- 1 ,2-DichloroethcneTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneChloroform

S01S/777623,710<9.718.93169

<0.971<0.9714,310

16.314.820.6

13,00098.1823

1,3600.12821.71.0601.36

<0.971<0.971

15.3217

<1.65<1.65<1.65

0.009660.0470.04060.0173<0.00330.01330.00799<0.0033

NANANANANA

S01D/6227125,700<10.0

6.8250

<1.00<1.003,260

223.24.8

17,8007

3,510210

<0.10110.8

3.3301.6

<1.00<1.0041.244.2

<0.330<0.330<0.330<0.0033<0.0033<0.0033<0.00166<0.0033<0.00166<0.00166<0.00330.0042

<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020

S02S/777636,000<9.5212.2217

<0.952<0.9524,86012.49.5224

12,100137

1,290697

<0.95213.71,2701.52

<0.952<0.952

21.8208

<0.330<0.330<0.3300.1270.406

1.860.0386<0.0033<0.00166

0.042<0.0033

NANANANANA

S02D/622752.050<9.869.27144

<0.986<0.9864,27092.98.8816.2

6,80055.2481716

<0.09912.8422

<0.986<0.986<0.986

18.1235

<1.65<1.65<1.650.04960.08990.1150.0256<0.0033<0.00166

0.0226<0.0033<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020

S03S/777644.270<9.90

9.5190

<0.990<0.99021,100

6.7310.514.9

9,970119

1,540988

0.10914.57011.S8

<0.990<0.990

18.6132

<0.330<0.330<0.3300.01260.0320.0212

0.160.384

<0.001660.14

<0.0033NANANANANA

S03D/8354813,300<10.03.61130

<1.00<1.003,27013.52.615.22

10,8007.632,680255

<0.0979.241,210<1.00<1.00<1.0017.938.4

<0.330<0.330<0.330<0.0033<0.0033<0.0033<0.00166<0.0033<0.00166<0.00166<0.00330.0033

<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020

S04S/777654,420<9.88

12.1170

<0.988<0.98815,1007.515.3420.9

9,870130

1,210464

<0.09810.11.0301.19

<0.988<0.988

16.8187

0.4290.330.396

<0.00330.0316

0.110.0147<0.0033

<0.001660.0190.0999

NANANANANA

S04D/8354925,200<9.868.28207

<0.986<0.9862,96021.15.925.13

19.50011.2

3,460538

<0.10114.8

2.5801.18

<0.986<0.986

42.246.5

<0.330<0.330<0.330<0.0033<0.0033<0.0033

<0.00166<0.0033<0.00166<0.00166<0.00330.0026

<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020

< Not detected at indicated reporting limit.Note: All concentrations mg/kg.Sample Key: SOI = 300 S. Keeler

S02 = 302 S. Keeler

NA = Not analyzed for this parameter/Not available.Source: EPA (2001a).

503 = 319S. Keeler504 = 331 S. Keelcr

505 = 3185. Keeler506 = 312S. Keeler

507 = 316S. Keeler508 = 401 S. Keelcr

Page 1 of 2

Table 6Off-Site Residential Soil Analytical Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

ChemicalAluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverThalliumVanadiumZincFluoranthenePhenanthrenePyrcne4,4-DDD4,4-DDE4,4-DDTGamma-chlordaneDieldrinHeptachlor EpoxideAlpha-chlordaneEndrin aldehydeToluenecis- 1 ,2-DichloroethcneTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneChloroform

S05S/777665,430<9.759.94161

<0.975<0.9754,6208.974.878.589,330

321,230394

<0.0999.16940

<0.975<0.975<0.975

19.573.3

<0.330<0.330<0.330

<0.00330.006330.008660.00266<0.0033<0.001660.00533<0.0033

NANANANANA

S05D/8355013,100<9.52

6.1208

<0.952<0.9522,980

12.27.053.81

13,2007.24

2,6501,660

<0.10017.7

1,2401.52

<0.952<0.952

21.138.3

<0.330<0.330<0.330

<0.0033<0.0033<0.0033<0.00166<0.0033<0.00166<0.00166<0.00330.01760.421

0.02950.142

<0.0020

S06JJ/777675,600<9.949.94178

<0.994<0.9947,68062.410.517.1

10,70097.61.340877

0.12217.9893

0.994<0.994<0.994

18.5211

<1.65<1.65<1.65

0.009990.03230.03530.06660.0143

<0.001660.0599<0.0033

NANANANANA

S06D/622762,510<9.715.6352.6

<0.971<0.9713,3004.855.245.44

5,31014.4928384

<0.0985.24110

<0.971<0.971<0.971

13.615.5

<0.330<0.330<0.330

<0.0033<0.0033<0.0033<0.00166<0.0033<0.00166<0.00166<0.0033

0.013<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020

S07S/6228518,000<9.94

13.1314

<0.994<0.9947,78094.48.1554.7

19,500223

2,330517

0.19121.53,070<0.994<0.994<0.994

43.1449

<1.65<1.65<1.650.02360.1180.1250.09490.0882

<0.001660.0799

<0.0033NANANANANA

S07D/6227716,200<9.547.82248

<0.954<0.9544,150

347.0614.7

15,90032.4

2.310315

<0.10014.3

1,910<0.954<0.954<0.954

35.5133

<0.330<0.330<0.3300.01170.00566

0.013<0.00166

0.0183<0.00166<0.00166<0.00330.00560.03550.01490.00290.0087

S08S/6228619,800<9.52

11.6229

0.9521.52

15,80023.29.3320.8

21,700103

2,880592

<0.10023

3,200<0.952<0.952<0.952

46.1423

<0.330<0.330<0.330<0.0033<0.00330.05330.07160.1480.03430.153

<0.0033NANANANANA

S08D/6227819.500<9.67

10.4309

0.967<0.9674,52020.916.214.1

20,70048.22,4701.100

<0.10019.7

2430<0.967<0.967<0.967

50.788.8

<0.330<0.330<0.330

<0.0033<0.0033<0.0033<0.00166<0.0033<0.00166<0.00166<0.0033<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020<0.0020

< Not detected at indicated reporting limit.Note: All concentrations mg/kg.Sample Key: SOI = 300 S. Keeler

S02 = 302 S. Keclcr

NA = Not analyzed for Ihis parameter/Not available.Source: EPA (200la).

503 = 319S. Keeler504 = 331 S. Keeler

505 = 318S. Keeler506 =3128 . Keeler

507 = 3165. Keeler508 = 401 S. Keeler

Page 2 of 2

Table 7Background Soil Analytical Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathc, Kansas

SampleLocation Sample ID

SB-26SB-26SB-27SB-27SB-28SB-28SB -29SB-29SB-31SB-31SB-32SB-32

SB026-NP@4-5SB026-NP@7-8SB027-NP@0-1SB027-NP@7-8SB028-NP@0-1SB028-NP@7-8SB029-NP@l-2SB029-NP@7-8

SB031-NP@2.5-3SB031-NP®7-8SB032-NP92-3SB032-NP®7-8

Date Depth (ft)1 1/7/951 1/7/9511/7/9511/7/9511/7/9511/7/9511/7/9511/7/9511/8/9511/8/9511/8/9511/8/95

4.57.50.57.50.57.51.57.53

7.52.57.5

95% UTL Background Concentration (mg/kg)

Arsenic6.4

(2.6)9.7

(3.4)5.4

(2.1)(3.4)(2.6)(4.7)(3.1)6.25.210

Barium27012022021021015023097250110150NA327

Cadmium<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<22.9<2<2NA3

MetalChromium

1915141115132213191312

NA23

Mercury Selenium<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1<0.25 <1NA NA0.1 0.5

Silver<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<21

Note: All concentrations mg/kg.() Less than Detection Limit< Not detected at indicated reporting limit.NA = Not analyzed for this parameter/Not available.Note: 95 percent UTL background soil concentrations were obtained from the Site Characterization Report (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996).

Table 8Human Health Sediment COPC Selection Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical*Acetone2-ButanoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfideTolueneAroclor 1260Arsenic'BariumCadmiumChromium*1

MercurySeleniumSilver

U.S. EPARegion 9

ResidentialSoilPRG

1,6007,3000.653605200.220.395,400

3721023390390

95% UTLBackground

ConcentrationNANANANANANA10

3273.0230.10.51.0

MinimumDetected

Concentration(Excluding

Background)0.0380.061

0.002 J0.003 J0.002 J

0.243.5

93.30.795.4

0.110.550.14

MaximumDetected

Concentration(Excluding

Background)0.093 J0.061

0.003 J0.003 J0.003 J

0.242634421.165.61.2

10.42

COPC?NoNoNoNoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo

Rationale for Selection or Rejection as COPCMaximum detection less than PROMaximum detection less than PRGMaximum detection less than PRGMaximum detection less than PRGMaximum detection less than PRGDetected concentration greater than PRGMaximum detect greater than PRG and backgroundMaximum detection less than PRGMaximum detection less than PRGMaximum detection less than PRGMaximum detection less than PRGMaximum detection less than PRGDetects less than PRG and background

Note: All concentrations mg/kg.'Only VOCs detected above reporting limit have been listed.b95 percent UTL background soil concentrations were obtained from the Site Characterization Repon (Fluor Daniel GTI, 1996).cCancer endpoint. PRG for non-cancer endpoint is 22 mg/kg.dPRG based on total chromium.NA = Not analyzed for this parameter (analytical results) or not available (criteria)J values indicate estimated results

- Shading indicates chemical selected as COPC for further evaluation.

Table 9Human Health Surface Water COPC Selection Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathc, Kansas

Chemical*

1,2-Dichloroe thane

Trichloroethene

U.S. EPAMCL

5.0

5.0

MinimumDetected

Concentration"

0.4 J

2

MaximumDetected

Concentration11

0.4 J

2

COPC?

No

No

Rationale

Maximum detection lessthan MCLMaximum detection lessthan MCL

Note: All concentrations /ig/L.MCL - Maximum Contaminant LevelCOPC = chemical of potential concernJ values indicate estimated results"Only VOCs detected above reporting limits have been listed.^"rom MWH (2001). Detected concentrations at MW-21 and MW-22 are used as surrogates. SeeSection 3.4.2 of text.

Table 10Human Health Indoor Air COPC Selection Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical,1,1 -Trichloroethane,2,4-Trimethylbenzene,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1 ,2-Tnchloroethane,1-Dichlorocthanc,1-Dichloroethenc

1 ,2-Dichlorobcnzene1.2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloropropane1,4-DichlorobenzeneAcetoneBenzeneButanal1-ButanolCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformcis- 1 ,2-DichloroetheneDecancEthanolEthylbenzeneFreon 12HeptanalHexane2-Hexanone4-Methyl-2-penanoneMethylene ChloridePentanalPropanal1 -Propanol2-Propanol

Detected inOff-site

Groundwater?YesNoNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesYesYesYesNoNoYesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoNoNoNo

Detected inIndoorAir?YesYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYesYesYesYesNoNoYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesYes

Outdoor AirConcentration

Min MaxND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND ND150 2303.6 4.3ND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND NDND ND4.3 5.0ND NDND NDND NDND NDND ND440 810ND NDND NDND ND13 83

2001Blank<4.6<4.2<4.2<5.9<4.6<3.4<3.4<5.1<3.4<3.9<5.18.4

<2.7NAND<11<5.4<3.9<4.2<3.4NA14

<3.7<4.2NA<12<1.8<14<3NANANA13

IndoorAir

COPC?YesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYesNoNoYesNoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYesNoNoNoNo

Rationale*Detected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-siteNot detected in groundwater off-site

Page 1 of 2

Table 10Human Health Indoor Air COPC Selection Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

ChemicalStyreneTetrachloroetheneTetrahydrofuranToluenetrans- 1 ,2-DichloroethcneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideXylenes (total)Naphthalene2-ButanoneChloromethane1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene1,1,1 ,2-TetrachloroethaneDibromomethane

Detected inOff-site

Groundwater?NoYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes

Detected inIndoorAir?YesYesYesYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoNoNoNo

Outdoor AirConcentration

Min MaxND NDND NDND ND<4 120ND NDND NDND ND<4.5 21.3NA NAND ND<2.2 2.8ND NDND NDNA NA

2001Blank<3.6<5.8<103.8

<3.413.0<2.2<3.7NA<10<1.8<5.1<5.9NA

IndoorAir

COPC?NoYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoNoNoNo

Rationale*Not detected in groundwater off-siteDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in groundwater off-siteDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in measured indoor airDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in measured indoor airDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in measured indoor airDetected in measured indoor and and present in GWNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor airNot detected in measured indoor air

Note: All concentrations /xg/m .ND - Not detected; NA = Not analyzed< Not detected at indicated reporting limit'See Section 3.4.4 of text for criteria used in selection

- Shading indicates chemical selected as COPC for further evaluation.

Page 2 of 2

Table 11Johnson and Ettinger Model

Indoor Air Concentrations • Effect of Groundwater Depth

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

GroundwaterChemical Concentration (jig/L)TCE 17,000PCE 340

Groundwater Depth12 feet

11.80.27

15 feet7.8

0.18

18 feet5.9

0.14Note: All air concentrations ug/m .

Table 12Soil Parameters

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Measured SoilPhysical Parameters" Depth

SB-31 (TMW013) 7-8'14-15'

SB-32 (TMW014) 7-8'14-15'

SB-27 (TMW009) 7-8'14-15'

SB-28 (TMW010) 7-8'14-15'

TMW016 11-13'MW-18 10-12'MW-22 4-6'

' Source: MWH (2001)hporosity x pore fluid saturation

Calculated Soil Physical Parameters

Soil Vapor Permeability (k y )Soil water-filled porosityResidual soil water contentSoil total porosityEffective total fluid saturationvan Genuchten shape parameterRelative air permeabilitySoil intrinsic permeabilitySoil vapor permeability

Soil Bulk Density ( r b )Bulk density, stratum A (4-8 feet)Bulk density, stratum B (9-12 feet)Bulk density, stratum C (12-15 feet)Bulk density, average

Soil Porosity (n)Porosity, stratum A (4-8 feet)Soil water-filled porosity, stratum APorosity, stratum B (9-12 feet)Soil water-filled porosity, stratum BPorosity, stratum C ( 12-15 feet)Soil water-filled porosity, stratum CPorosity, averageSoil water-filled porosity, average

Porosity(percent)

39.9%38.6%36%

38.6%40.2%33.3%38.9%36%

45.3%42.6%39.5%

AbbrevewernS.Mk.k,kv

PMP».tPb.C

Pb.D

"AQW.A

HBe.,nc

e..c"D

e.j>

Moisture(% wt/wt)

23.7%28.4%28.5%25.1%23.6%22%

27.7%21.1%26.8%

NANA

Value0.3580.1110.4250.7870.2430.367

5.7 E-82.08 E-8

1.6741.831.711.70

0.3890.3750.4400.3500.3840.3640.4040.363

BulkDensity(g/cmj)

1.591.621.6

1.63.58.751.6.73.82.83

2.0

Unitscm /cmcm /cmcm /cm3

cm /cmunitlesscm /cm

cm2

cm"

g/cm3

g/cm3

g/cm3

g/cm3

cm /cmcm3/cm3

cm3/cm3

cm3/cm3

cm" /cmcm /cmcm3/cm3

cm3/cm3

Pore Water-Fluid Filled Soil

Saturation porosity Permeability(% vol) (cm'/cmY (cm1)93.8% 0.374 1.2 E-899.6% 0.384 6.1 E-899.5 % 0.358 9.7 E-899.7 % 0.385 9.9 E-995.5 % 0.384 2.7 E-899.5% 0.331 1.1 E-799.7 % 0.388 8.2 E-899.5% 0.358 6.1 E-879.6% 0.361 NA79.6 % 0.339 NA94% 0.371 NA

Table 13Johnson and Ettinger Model

Indoor Air Concentrations • Effect of Soil Stratification

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

GroundwaterConcentration 0*g/L)

TCE 17,000PCE 340

Air Concentration (/ig/nV )Single Layer

12 feet 15 feet 18 feet

11.8 7.8 5.90.27 0.18 0.14

Multiple Layers12 feet 15 feet 18 feet

17.4 7.3 4.70.34 0.14 0.09

% Difference Using Strata12 feet 15 feet 18 feet

32.0% -7.1% -25.4%18.5% -31.6% -55.8%

Table 14Comparison of Johnson and Kttinger

Indoor Air Concentrations with Measured Indoor Air Concentrations

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical

TCEPCE

GroundwaterCone. (ng/L)

17,000340

12 Feet

11.80.27

EPA-2

J&E Results15 Feet

7.80.18

NfW-23

18 Feet

5.90.14

Measured316

S. Keeler

5.2-6.2<3.4-14

Air Cone318

S. Kccler

<2. 8-4.9<3.4-<5.4

GP-13Measured Air Cone

Groundwater J&E Results 4402 4404 4405Cone. (ng/L) 12 Feet 15 Feet 18 Feet Ochcltrec Ocheltrec Ocheltrce

16.000 111 7.2 5.5 <42 <4.9 11720 0.58 039 0.30 <53 <6.2 <9

Measured Air Cone.

Chemical

TCEPCE

GroundwaterCone. (jig/L)

<0.3<0.3

12 Feet

0.000100.00012

J&E Results15 Feet

0.000070.00008

18 Feet

0.000050.00006

4414Lane

<3.914

Blank

13<5.8

ME = not evaluated.Note: All air concentrations in ug/m'

Table 15Johnson and Ettinger Indoor Air Model Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

COPC1,1,1 -TrichloroethaneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfidcChloroformEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroethencTolueneTrichloroetheneXylenes (total)2-ButanoneChloromethane

Model ResultsEPA-20.0410.0031

NDND0.10NDND0.18ND7.7NDND

0.061

EPA-3NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.0023NDNDND

GP-10.0012

NDNDND

0.058ND

0.00040.01820.00010.0996

NDNDND

GP-1 30.046

ND0.0039

ND0.25ND

0.00430.39ND7.2NDNDND

GP-14NDNDNDND

0.0002NDND

0.00270.00020.0680.0001

NDND

GP-O0.00060.0013

NDNDNDNDND

0.00210.00110.054ND

0.0008ND

GP-P0.0470.00050.00080.00060.0250.00010.0004

0.270.0004

2.40.00030.0008

ND

MW-19ND

0.0010NDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.0002NDNDND

MW-20ND

0.0030NDND

0.0001NDND

0.00040.0003

NDND

0.0004ND

MW-22NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.0009NDNDND

MW-23ND

0.0013NDNDNDNDNDND

0.0001NDND

0.0003ND

MW-24ND

0.0004NDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.0005NDNDND

MW-25ND

0.0002NDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.0014NDNDND

Note: All concentrations ng/m3

ND - Not detected in groundwater at this location.

P»ge 1 of 2

Table 15Johnson and Ettinger Indoor Air Model Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

COPC1,1,1 -TrichloroethancAcetoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfideChloroformEthylbenzcneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneXyleaes (total)2-ButanoneChloromethane

Model ResultsTMW-008 TMW-009 TMW-010 TMW-01 1 TMW-012

ND 0.43 ND 0.067 0.028ND ND 0.0007 ND NDND ND ND 0.0019 NDND ND ND ND NDND 0.24 0.0007 0.0616 0.027ND ND ND ND NDND ND ND 0.0039 ND

0.0031 0.80 0.012 0.52 0.017ND 0.0051 0.0003 ND ND

0.031 19.5 0.26 3.8 1.7ND 0.0056 ND ND NDND ND ND ND NDND 0.0018 ND ND ND

Detected IndoorAir Cone.'

Min. Max.<2.8 37

14 500<1.6 18<6.3 34<2.5 6.1<2.2 8.6<1.8 180<3.4 14

4 56<2.7 11<2.2 108<6 760<1 5.8

Detected OutdoorAir Cone*

Min. Average Max.ND ND ND150 193 2303.6 4.0 4.3ND ND NDND ND ND4.3 4.5 5.0440 610 810ND ND ND<4 45 120ND ND ND<4.5 16.7 21.3ND ND ND<2.2 2.5 2.8

ERA2001

Blank*<4.68.4

<2.7<11<4.2<3.7<3

<5.83.813.0<3.7<10<1.8

ModeledConcentrationMin. Max.

0.0006 0.430.00024 0.003 10.00077 0.00390.00061 0.000610.0001 1 0.250.00010 0.000100.00035 0.00430.00037 0.800.00007 0.005 10.00023 19.50.00013 0.00560.00025 0.000840.0018 0.061

Note: All concentrations ng/m5

ND - Not detected in groundwater;ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryMRL = Minimal Risk LevelI = Intermediate duration MRLc = Chronic duration MRL'See Table 4.

Page 2 of 2

Table 16Sediment Toxicity Criteria - KPA

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

_____Oral_____ ___Inhalation___ CancerRfD CSF RfD CSF Weight of Oral Dermal

COPC (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)'1 (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)'1 Evidence BIOb ABSC

Arsenic 3.0 x 10"4" 1.5 x 10° 3.0 x 10"4" 1.5 x 10lb

Aroclor 1260 2.0 x 10"5a 2.0 x 10° 2.0 x 105a 2.0 x 100b

ABl

1.0

1.0

0.030.14

aEPA (2002b) IRIS database.bOral bioavailability.cFrom ERA (2000c) PRO tables.

Table 17Air Toxicity Criteria - ATSDR MRLs

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

COPC1,1,1 -TrichloroethaneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfideChloroformEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneXylenes (total)2-ButanoneChloromethane

ATSDR MRL'Value Note3,873

31,36413

94899

4,3001,000270

1,500537430

No MRL21

IcIccIcccIc

cNote: All concentrationsATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryMRL = Minimal Risk LevelI = Intermediate duration MRLc = Chronic duration MRL"Source: ATSDR (2001c).

Table 18Human Health Sediment Risk Assessment Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

COPCDrainage AArsenicAroclor 1260

TotalDrainage BArsenicAroclor 1260

Total

Numberof

Samples

33

66

Numberof

Detects

31

60

Minimum(mg/kg)

NANA

3.5NA

Maximum(mg/kg)

NANA

26NA

Mean(mg/kg)

NANA

11NA

StandardDeviation

NANA

8.2NA

Distribution

NANA

NormalNA

ExposurePoint Cone,

(mg/kg)

220.24

17.8NA

ILCR

2E-63E-82E-6

IE-6NAIE-6

HazardQuotient

0.0260.00520.031

0.021NA

0.021NA = not applicable

Table 19Human Health Indoor Air Risk Assessment Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

COPC1,1,1 -TrichloroethaneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfideChloroformEthylbenzencMethylene ChlorideTetnchloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneXylenes (total)2-ButanoneChloromethane

Detected OutdoorAir ConcentrationsMm Average MaxND ND ND150 193 2303.6 4.0 4.3ND ND NDND ND ND4.3 4.5 5.0440 610 810ND ND ND<4 45 120ND ND ND<4.5 16.7 21.3ND ND ND

<2.2 2.5 2.8

EPA2001

Blank<4.68.4

<2.7<11<4.2<3.7<3

<5.83.813

<3.7<10<1.8

ATSDR MRLValue Note3,873 I31,364 c

13 1948 c99 c

4,300 I1,000 c270 c

1400 c537 I430 c

Mo MRL21 c

Measured MeasuredIndoor Cone. Maximum Inter-Min. Max. >MRL? pretation<2.8 37 FALSE NSR"<75 500 FALSE NSR1

<1.6 18 TRUE NSRb

<6.3 34 FALSE NSR1

<2.5 6 FALSE NSRC

<2.2 9 FALSE NSR1

<1.8 180 FALSE NSRC

<3.4 14 FALSE NSRe

4.0 56 FALSE NSR1

<2.7 11 FALSE NSRC

<2.2 108 FALSE NSR1

<6 760 No MRL NSRd

<1 6 FALSE NSRC

Modeled ModeledIndoor Cone. Maximum Inter-Min. Max. >MRL? pretation

0.0006 0.43 FALSE NSR1

0.00024 0.0031 FALSE NSR1

0.00077 0.0039 FALSE NSRe

0.00061 0.00061 FALSE NSR1

0.00011 0.25 FALSE NSRC

0.00010 0.00010 FALSE NSR"0.00035 0.0043 FALSE NSRe

0.00037 0.80 FALSE NSR'0.00007 0.0051 FALSE NSR1

0.00023 19.5 FALSE NSR'0.00013 0.0056 FALSE NSR1

0.00025 0.00084 No MRL NSRd

0.0018 0.061 FALSE NSRC

Note: All concentrationsND - Not detected.NSR = No Significant RiskATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryMRL = Minimal Risk LevelI = Intermediate duration MRLc = Chronic duration MRLConcentration below comparision screening value for non-cancer health effects.Concentration above the screening value, but below a level considered likely by ATSDR to pose a risk of non-cancer health effects (see Section 6.3ATSDR (200Ib) concluded this concentration does not pose a significant risk of cancer to humans.

'Concentration below comparision screening value for non-cancer health effects. ATSDR (2001a,b) concluded this concentration does not posesignificant risk of cancer in humans.

dNo MRL available. ATSDR (2001a,b) concluded concentrations of these detected chemical class are not expected to cause adverse health effects.'Concentration below comparision screening value for non-cancer health effects and substantially lower than concentrations ATSDR (2001a,b) hasconcluded do not pose a significant risk of cancer to humans.

2).

Table 20Sediment COPEC Selection Results for Ecological Screening

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical*Acetone2-ButanoneBenzeneCarbon DisulfideToluene

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Selenium

FreshwaterSediment

Benchmark1*NVNV

0.057NV0.67

6.0

0.6

26NV

95 Percent UTLBackground

Concentration'NANANANANA

10

3

23

0.5

MinimumDetected

Concentration0.0380.061

0.002 J0.003 J0.002 J

3.5

0.79

5.4

0.55

MaximumDetected

Concentration0.093 J0.061

0.003 J0.003 J0.003 J

26

2.6

19.3

0.55

COPEC?YesYesNoYesNo

Yes

No

No

Yes

Rationale for Selection or Rejection as COPCChemical detected in sedimentChemical detected in sedimentEstimated detection less than ecological benchmarkChemical detected in sedimentEstimated detection less than ecological benchmarkMaximum detection exceeds ecological benchmarkand background concentrationMaximum detection does not exceed backgroundconcentrationMaximum detection does not exceed backgroundconcentrationDetection exceeds background concentration

Note: All concentrations mg/kg.COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concern.'Only VOCs detected above reporting limit have been listed. With the exception of metals, nondetccted chemicals are not listed.bORNL (1997a) Table 4. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) - Low Values.C95 percent UTL background soil concentrations were obtained from the Site Characterization Report (Fluor Daniel GTI 1996).NA = Not analyzed for this parameter (analytical results) or not available (criteria).NV = No value available for this benchmark.J values indicate estimated results,mg/kg - milligram per kilogram

- Shading indicates chemical selected as COPEC for further evaluation.

Table 21Surface Water COPEC Selection Results for Ecological Screening

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

Chemical*

AmbientWater Minimum Maximum

Quality Detected DetectedCriterion" Concentration Concentration COPEC?

Rational for Selection orRejection as COPC

1,2-Dichloroethane 910

Trichloroethene 47

0.4 J 0.4 JMaximum detected

No concentration less than ambientwater quality criterionMaximum detected

No concentration less than ambientwater quality criterion

Note: All concentrations Hg/L.'Only VOCs detected above reporting limit have been listed.bAmbicnt water quality criteria represent secondary chronic values (ORNL, 1996).J values indicate estimated results.

Table 22Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Results

Chemical Commodities, Inc. SiteOlathe, Kansas

COPECAcetone2-ButanoneCarbon DisulfideArsenicSelenium

ORNLPRG*0.0091

0.270.00086

42NE

SecondaryAcuteValue"

0.164.7

0.016NANE

MaximumDetected

Concentration0.093 J0.061

0.003 J26

0.55

ChronicEcological

HQ10.20.233.5

0.62NA

AcuteEcological

HQ0.58

0.0130.19NANA

Note: All concentrations mg/kg.aORNL Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints (1997b).Calculated based on ORNL (1997a) equilibrium partitioning equation and parameters,and acute freshwater criteria from ORNL (1996).NA = Not applicable.NE = None established.J values indicate estimated results.

APPENDIX A

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF CCI SITE CHARACTERIZATION

MWHY WATSON HAA2A

P i , i l l S n p n l c n i i - t i i . i l Base l ine R i s k Assessment ReportCl io i t iu - . i l ( ' n n i i M ' H l t i k ' s Iiv . Ol.ilhe, K. IMS;IS M.iivh 2002

APPENDIX A

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF CCI SITE CHARACTERIZATION

A complete description of the site history and environmental characterization work at Chemical

Commodities, Inc. (CCI) can be found in the Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (MWH, 2001).

However, an overview and summary are provided here to acquaint the reviewer of this DraftSupplemental Baseline Risk Assessment (B1RA). The overview and summary briefly describe

the Site and its location, historical operations and previous environmental work. This is followed

by a brief description of the site-specific geology, hydrogeology and chemical impacts to

sediment, soil, soil vapor and groundwater. An overview of the historical presence of dense non-

aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) is also provided.

A.I SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The CCI Site (Site) is located at 320 South Blake Street (in the southwest quarter of the northeast

quarter of Section 36, Range 23 East, Township 13 South), in the City of Olathe, JohnsonCounty, Kansas (see Figure 1 of the main body of the supplemental B1RA). A site plan and asite vicinity map are presented in Figure A-l and in Figure 2 of the main body of the

supplemental B1RA, respectively. The facility occupied approximately 1.5 acres in the southeast

portion of Olathe. The approximate ground surface elevation is 1,060 feet mean sea level (msl).

Operations were also conducted by CCI on property that is owned by Burlington Northern Santa

Fe Railway Company (BNSF). The BNSF property used by CCI was located to the northeast of

the CCI property. Storage areas referred to as "Sheds J, K and L" were located here as depicted

on Figure A-2. Surrounding properties include land owned by BNSF to the east, with light

industry and residences beyond the railroad; a vacant lot to the south; Keeler Street andresidential areas to the west; and residences to the north. A warehouse is the sole buildingremaining on-site. This warehouse, which was decontaminated by United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), has been inspected by the City of Olathe and has been characterized

as being in imminent danger of collapse. Warning signs have been posted on the building and on

MWH A.UONTOOtlfKYtHTSOHHMtU " *

Dr. i l t S u p p l e n K ' n i . i l H,i*.dme R i s k •\>-M isviiK ini Report( h c n i k ,il I i TII i ni nil l ies 11 !>.• . () la I he, Kansas M.iivh 2(H)2

the security fence around the property. The City of Olathe, EPA, the property owner, and the

community are developing a plan for addressing the warehouse building. The Site is unpaved

and is enclosed by a chain-link fence six-foot high; the gates are locked, except when authorized

personnel are on Site.

North Frisco Lake is located approximately 700 feet south of the Site. Three other man-madereservoirs are also located south of the Site as shown on Figure 1 of the main body of thesupplemental B1RA. Mill Creek runs northward approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the Siteand captures the surface drainage from the Site. Average annual rainfall in and near Olathe is

approximately 40 inches per year.

A.2 HISTORICAL FACILITY OPERATIONS

Chemical Commodities, Inc. operated from 1951 until 1989. Business operations ceased at the

CCI Site on December 31, 1989. CCI was a broker and chemical recycling facility that bought

and sold used, off-specification, and surplus chemicals of all types. CCI obtained these materials

from many sources including both private companies and the United States government. CCIalso sold new, unused chemicals serving as a sales representative for chemical manufacturing.

Chemicals were stored in a variety of containers including aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), at

least one tanker trailer, underground storage tanks (USTs), drums, barrels, boxes, sheds, andother miscellaneous containers not documented. Chemical storage containers varied in size and

description over the years of operation. CCI stored, resold and/or recycled a variety ofhazardous substances, including tetrachloroethene (also known as tetrachloroethylene,

perchloroethylene or PCE), dichlorobenzene, acetone, 1,2 dichloroethane (DCA),

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethene

(TCE), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

and metals. The historic layout of the Site is shown on Figure A-2.

MWH

Dull S u p p k - i i k - n i . i l Basdmi- R i s k .VM>>miMil Report( ' h i . - i n u - . i l ( ' omni i 'd i i i i ' s Inc . . Ol.ilhi-. K.nisas_____________________________________Maivh 21X1.?

A.3 OVKRVIEVV OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL WORK

Since the shutdown of operations at CCI in 1989, there have been significant efforts to remove

the most serious threats of chemical exposure while evaluating site conditions in order to identify

the remedial alternatives for the Site. The historical work summarized in Appendix A of the RI

Report provides additional information on the nature and extent of releases of chemicals to the

various environmental media that have been investigated. Previous removal actions, performed

by EPA and its contractors between 1989 and 1991, abated the immediate threats to humanhealth and the environment by removal of chemical sources and the most heavily contaminated

soil. Additional site characterization activities in 1995 expanded the understanding of theoccurrence and distribution of chemicals in soils and groundwater primarily beneath the CCI

Site. The field activities performed and data collected during the RI furthered the understanding

of chemical distribution mainly in off-site environmental media (e.g., groundwater and sediment

in off-site drainages) and eliminated some chemicals from further concern that had not been

previously characterized, namely perchlorate.

A.4 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY

The site-specific geology that underlies CCI consists of approximately 20 feet of residuum,followed by a transition zone and then alternating intervals of limestone and shale bedrock to the

depth investigated, which is about 75 feet below ground surface (bgs). The site-specific

stratigraphy is shown on Table A-l. The residuum is comprised primarily of silty clay within

two zones; the freeze-thaw zone, which extends from ground surface to about five feet bgs and

the intermediate zone from five feet bgs to the top of the next underlying unit, which is the

transition zone. The transition zone is a very thin zone (centimeters) where the residuum

transitions into competent bedrock. This zone is characterized by a mixture of silty clay and

coarser-grained material derived from the partial weathering of underlying bedrock. The firstbedrock formation encountered beneath the transition zone in the vicinity of the CCI facility is

the Stanton Hill Formation, which is approximately 45 feet thick. The Vilas Formation, which is

a shale unit, underlies the Stanton Hill Formation. Structure contours drawn on specific contacts

MWHMO* TOOMf KY WA TSOH HAA2A A*3

H i , i l l S u f i p l c i i k ' n i . i l Uasdint . - R i s k Assessment Report( h c i m c a l ( cmmi 'd i i i c s I nc . . Oli i the, Kansas ___ Maivh 2002

between beds indicate that the bedrock underlying the Site strikes about N 35° and dips about

0.16° northwest.

A.5 HYDROGEOLOGY

Investigations performed during the RI showed that the intermediate zone of the residuum, the

transition zone and the bedrock are hydrostratigraphic units as shown on Table A-l . Regionally,

the groundwater system within the bedrock has not been developed as a significant resource for

municipal, agricultural or industrial supply since well yields are typically less than 10 gallons per

minute (gpm) and natural groundwater quality is variable. Furthermore, water supply wells are

typically several hundred feet deep. Various hydraulic measurements were made during

previous investigations and during the RI. These measurements showed that the horizontal

hydraulic gradient within the transition zone is moderate (0.03 feet per foot [ft/ft]) and that the

vertical gradients from the transition zone to the bedrock and within the bedrock are downward

and steep (-0.4 ft/ft). There is a steep upward hydraulic gradient (-0.4 ft/ft) from the transition

zone to the residuum. The measurements also indicate that the intergranular hydraulic

conductivity of the residuum is very low (5xlO'9 centimeters per second [cm/s]) and that the

hydraulic conductivity of the transition zone is low ( I x l O 5 cm/s). The bulk hydraulic

conductivity of the residuum is higher than the intergranular hydraulic conductivity due to the

presence of small natural fractures (i.e., one to tens of microns), which have likely resulted fromweathering over geologic time scales. The hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock has not been

measured, but a water balance calculation shows that it is likely in the range of 1x10"* cm/s. The

low and high estimates of the horizontal groundwater flow velocities within the transition zonerange between 1 to 30 feet per year. Estimates also indicate that the bulk of the groundwater

within the transition zone discharges vertically into the bedrock.

A.6 IMPACTS TO SEDIMENT, SOIL AND SOIL VAPOR

The nature and extent of contamination has been determined from the historical data and the data

that were collected during the RI. Work performed during the RI shows that drainages

conveying surface water runoff from the east side of the Site are minimally impacted by site

MWH

I ) i ; i t t Supplciiicni.il H.iM-linc Risk AssoMncnt Report( hemic.il I'oinmiKlilio* Inc.. OLida1. K,ins;is ___ M;nvh 2(K)2

related chemicals. Both surface and subsurface soils that comprise the residuum at the Site have

been impacted by a number of chlorinated VOCs. Surface soil has also been impacted by PAHs

throughout the Site, and PCBs and pesticides occur at isolated locations beneath it. Metals are

also present in surface soil above previously established background concentrations over a

significant area of the Site. Consistent with their physical properties, PCBs, pesticides and

metals attenuate sharply with depth in subsurface soil. PAHs also attenuate with depth in

subsurface soil, but the rate of attenuation is lower. Perchlorate was not detected in samples

collected from the soil pile that was created during EPA's 1991 removal action. Soil vapor and

vapor flux chamber measurements that were collected from the CCI Site during the 1995 site

characterization showed volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to be present in subsurface soil gas

and at the ground surface.

A.7 DNAPL

DNAPL were reported to have been present in two wells during investigations performed in

1989 and in three wells during the 1995 site characterization work. The DNAPL found in 1989

consisted mostly of TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. None was found

during the remedial investigation. Most DNAPL (defined as measurable amounts of oily-phase

liquid) has dissolved away through dissolution and molecular diffusion into the silty clays that

comprise the residuum and transition zone.

A.8 IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER

Groundwater within the residuum, transition zone and bedrock has been impacted by VOCs. A

plume of dissolved chlorinated VOCs exists in the transition zone, with higher concentrationlobes extending to the west and southwest of the Site as shown on Figure 7 of the main body of

the supplemental B1RA, which depicts the dissolved plume of TCE. The plume extendsapproximately 1,000 feet from the Site to the west. Data collected during the RI indicate that the

plume does not extend appreciable distances to the north and east of the Site, nor does it appear

to extend to North Frisco Lake. The plume within the transition zone is likely stable, withtransport rates being very low. Transformation (i.e., degradation) of chlorinated VOCs is

MWHVOHTGOMfKY WATSON HAA2A A~5

Dull . S n p p l L - i i H - n i . i l H; isdi tu- Risk ASM^MUL-III Report( ' hcmi i . i l ( 'ommodii i i -s liv . Olalho, Kans:is_____________________________________M;nvli J*(K)2

occurring beneath the Site and at the outer limits of the plume. Complete degradation of some of

the chlorinated VOC mass may be occurring at various locations, including at the front of the

plume.

Calculations were made to evaluate the magnitude of VOCs that may be discharged upward

through the vadose zone to the atmosphere from the dissolved plume in the transition zone.These calculations show this discharge would be very low, primarily due to the high watersaturations that exist within the vadose zone. The values provided by these calculations correlatewell with the flux chamber measurements collected during the 1995 site characterization.

Samples of groundwater collected in 1989 and 1995 and analyzed for pesticides, PAHs, PCBs

and metals showed isolated detections of PCBs and PAHs at concentrations at or below one

micrograms per liter (/xg/L). Groundwater samples that were collected during the RI and

analyzed for perchlorate showed none to be present. Characterization of the bedrock revealed

the presence of VOCs within porewater to the total depth investigated, which is about 75 feet

bgs. Maximum concentrations occur at shallow depths. The concentrations generally decline

with depth with most of the VOC mass occurring in the transition zone.

MWHUONTGOMOTY WATSON HAA2A A*O

APPENDIX A

FIGURES

MWH

D

D

a

aa

aa

D

CONCRETEDRAINAGECULVERTS

CONCRETEDRAINAGECULVERTS

LEGEND:

- X —— FENCE LINE/OPERATIONAL BOUNDARY— - — HISTORIC AREA OF OPERATION NOT

INSIDE CURRENT CCI FENCE LINE

RAILROAD

MWHMONTGOMCRY WATSON HAKZA

CHEMICAL COMMODITIES, INC.OLATHE, KANSAS

MARCH 2002SITE PLAN

FIGURE

A-1

RESCENTMt.

FORMERFORMER >• NURSERYNURSERY

AST ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK

'."'}• REMOVED STRUCTURES

~<> POWER POLE

™A FIRE HYDRANT-x— FENCE LINE / OPERATIONAL BOUNDARY

- - — AREA OF OPERATION NOT INSIDE CURRENTCCI FENCE LINEFORMER EDGE OF ASPHALT

NOTE:THE CHEMICAL COMMODITIES. INC. FACILITY WASIN OPERATION FROM 1951 TO 1989.

MWHMONJGOMtRY WA TSON HARZA

CHEMICAL COMMODITES, INC.OLATHE, KANSAS

MARCH 2002HISTORIC SITE MAP

FIGURE

A-2

APPENDIX A

TABLES

MWHWATSON HAAZA

Table A-1Sitt-Spedflc Stratigraphy

Chemical Commodities. Inc. SiteOlathe. Kansas

GEOLOGIC UNIT

RESIDUUM

HYDROGEOLOGICUNIT

FREEZE THAW 7X)NE

INTERMEDIATE ZONE

TRANSITION ZONE

PENNSYLVANIAN AGE BEDROCK

APPROXIMATETHICKNESS SECTION

4-5 FEET

5-15 FEET

0-0 2 FOOT

>2oo FEET

DESCRIPTION OF SITE GEOLOGY

[FREEZE THAW ZONE • Characterized by lopvnl and subsurface zone of increasedIpermeabiliry due to freeze-thaw cycles Generally unsaturaled SiltyClay

I INTERMEDIATE ZONE Characterized by (tout, low permeability, relatively homogenousItUfyclay. Bc«h foe vadw and tacuraatd coeKlinom occur IB thu zone

TRANSITION ZONE - Oiaracterlred by sihy clay wieh cone framed material origmaringfrom recent weathering of the uppermost bedrock The coane grained fraction u coiuuoatdof limeMone. undnnne. or ihale. depeodinf on the uppermost bedrock at a given locationThii zone ti frequently saturated, though dry under some conditions Believed to be morepermeable than overlying residuum or underlvini bedrock

IBFDROCK Upper 50 feet comprised of the Stanton Umestone and Vilas Shale Formationi•The SUMtott Umtrtom Formation consists of five members (from youngest to oldest)

lhbnd Llantone (45 ft ) very Tine pained, light gray to gray. hard, thick bedded, some• hairline fractures, some pinhok voids (vugs), fossiliferous and dry. Rock Lake Shale (2 3-4•ft ) innerbedded siltstone. sandstone and shale, silty to Tine-grained, dark yellowish brown to• very dark gray, moderately soft to moderately hard and moist. Stoner Limestone < 20 ft ) fine• to medium- grained, light gray to gray, vrry hard, very thick bedded with shaley• partings, some hairline fractures (associated with panings). some vugs, fossiliferous and dry.IKodora Shafe 168 ft I plary. black, moderately bedded, few fossils and dry. and Captain• Crrek Limestone (7-8 ft ) gray to bluish gray, very fine-grained, light gray to gray. hard.• moderately bedded, hairttne fractures (vertical fracture in B 3). some vugs, fossiliferous and•dry The Vita Sftatt Pomutiom is approximately 5 feet thick Older rocks (I e . those below• upper U) fret) are characterized by repeating cycles of limestone, sandstone and shale{Generally of low permeability Wells screened in the Pennsylvaruan strata yield water ofI variable quantity and quality