Record of Decision ICRR Johnston '{ard Sile September 20 I 0

RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

ILLINOIS CENTRAL JOHNSTON YARD SITE MEMPHIS, TN

PREPARED BY:

U.S. ENVIRONl\IENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANT A, GEORGIA

September 2010

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 10746644 Record of Decision (eRR Johnston Yard Site Septemher 20 (0

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS and ABBREVIAnONS PART 1: THE DECLARATION ...... i 1.1 Site Narne and Location ...... i 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose ...... i 1.3 Assessment of Site ...... i 1.4 Description of Selected Remedy...... ii 1.5 Statutory Determinations ...... ii 1.6. Data Celtification Checklist...... iii 1.7. Authorizing Signature ...... iii PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY ...... 1 2.1 Site Name. Location. and Brief Description ...... 1 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities ...... 1 2.2.1 Previous Investigations and CERCLA Actions ...... 3 2.3 C01l1n1unity Participation ...... 4 2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action ...... 4 2.5 Site C.haracteristics ...... 5 2.5.1 Conceptual Site Models ...... 5 2.5.2 Site Overview ...... 5 2.5.3 Surface and Subsurface Features ...... 6 2.5.4 Sarnpling Strategy ...... 8 2.5.5 Known and/or Suspected Sources of Contamination...... 9 2.5.6 Types of Contamination and Affected Media ...... 9 2.5.6.1 Soil ...... 9 2.5.6.2 Groundwater ...... 10 2.5.6.3 Sedirl1ent ...... 11 2.5.6.4 Surface Water...... 11 2.5;7 Extent of Contamination and Potential for Migration ...... 11 2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Water Uses ...... 12 2.7 Sun1n1ary of Site Risks ...... 13 2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment...... 13 2.7.1.1 Identi fication of Chemicals of Concem ...... 13 2.7.1.2 Exposure Assessment...... 14 2.7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment ...... 15 2.7.1.4 Risk Characterization ...... - ...... 15 2.7.1.5 Unceltainties ...... 16 2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment ...... :.18 2.7.2.1 Environmental Setting ...... 18 2.7.2.2 Results of Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment...... 19 2.7.3 Basis for Action ...... 20 2.8 Remedial Action Objectives ...... 21 2.9 Description of Altematives ...... 22 2.9.1 Description of Remedy Components ...... , ...... 22 Record of Decision leRR Johnston 'ianj Site September 20 I I)

2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Altell1ative ...... 25 2.9.3 Expected Outcomes of Each Altell1ative ...... 25 2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ...... 26 2.l0.1 Overall Protection. of Human Health and the Environment...... 26 2.10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ...... 27 2.10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ...... 27 2.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment...... 28 2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ...... 29 2.10.6 Implementabil ity ...... 29 2.10.7 Cost ...... 30 2.10.8 State/Support Agency Acceptance ...... 30 2.10.9 Community Acceptance ...... 30 2.11 Principal Threat Wastes ...... 30 2.12 Selected Rernedy ...... 30 2.12.1 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy ...... 30 2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy ...... 31 2.12.3 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs ...... 33 2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy ...... 33 2.12.4.1 Available Use after Clean-up ...... 33 2.12.4.2 Final Clean-up Levels ...... 33 2.12.4.3 Anticipated Environmental and Ecological Benefits ...... 34 2.13 Statutory Determinations ...... 34 2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment...... 34 2.13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ...... 34 2.13.3 Cost Effectiveness ...... 34 2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Altell1ative Treatment (or Resource Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable .... :...... 35 2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ...... 35 2.13.6 Five-Year Requirements ...... 35 2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes from Preferred Alternative of Proposed Plan .....36 PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY...... 36

FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Extent of LNAP Plumes Figure 3 - Estimated Area of Historic Diesel Impacts in Soil Related to Fluvial Aquifer LNAPL

TABLES Table I - Conceptual Site Model (Human Receptors) Table 2 - Groundwater Contaminants Exceeding Groundwater Water Standards Table 3 - Site Wide Summary of Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Hazards Table 4 - Classification Yard Soils Summary of Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Hazards Table 5 - Cost Comparison for Alternatives Record of Decision ICRR Johnston Yard Sitl: September 20 I 0

. Table 6 - Detailed Cost Estimate of Selected Remedy Table 7 - Final Cleanup Levels Table 8 - Chemical Specific ARARs Table 9 - Summary of Action Specific ARAR Provisions

Appendix A: RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES

Site Wide Risk Assessment

Contaminants of Potential Concern for Various Media Human Health Exposure Point Concentrations Exposure Factors Chemical Specific Data for Dermal Risk Assessment Cancer Toxicity Data Non-Cancer Toxicity Data Pathway Specific Risk Calculations Adult Lead Model Spreadsheet

Focused Risk Assessment for Soils in Classification Yard . Contaminants of Potential Concem for Various Media Human Health Exposure Point Concentrations Exposure Factors for Soil Chemical Specific Data for Dermal Risk Assessment Cancer Toxicity Data Non-Cancer Toxicity Data Pathway Specific Risk Calculations Adult Lead Model Spreadsheet

Appendix B: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

Appendix C: STATE CONCURRENCE LETTER RecorJ of Decision Illinois Central Johnston YarJ Site September 20 I 0

LIST OF ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

AOC Administrative Order by Consent ALM Adult Lead Model ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulation AST Above Ground Storage Tank bgs below ground surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 COC Contaminant of Concern COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERA Ecological Risk Assessment HI Hazard Index HQ Hazard Quotient MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MEP Maximum Extent Practicable mg/kg milligrams per kilogram or parts per million (ppm) mg/L milligrams per liter NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan O&M Operation and Maintenance PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PEC Probable Effect Concentration ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million RAO Remedial Action Objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RVFS Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility Study RME . Reasonable Maximum Exposure ROD Record of Decision SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SRG Soil Remediation Goal SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound TAL Target Analyte List TCL Target Compound List TEC Threshold Effect Concentration TOC Total Organic Carbon TRV Toxicological Reference Value flg/L micrograms per Liter UST Underground Storage Tank VOC Volatile Organic Compound WP Work Plan Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

PART 1: THE DECLARATION

1.1 Site Name and Location

This Record of Decision (ROD) is for the Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site, which is located at 2921 Horn Lake Road in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee (TN). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Site Identification Number is TND073540783.

1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose

. This decision document presents the Selected Remedy for the Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The Site is considered a Superfund Alternative Approach Site and is not listed on the National Priorities List. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the Site. The State of Tennessee has indicated its concurrence with the Selected Remedy.

1.3 Assessment of Site

Diesel fuel, as free product, has been measured in some groundwater monitoring wells at the Site. Lead has been detected in samples of diesel fuel collected from some of the monitoring wells at the Site. Benzo(a)pyrene is a typical component of diesel and its presence above federal primary drinking water standards is likely in those wells where free product was measured. Lead and arsenic have also been detected in groundwater at levels above the federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs). The groundwater in the tluvial aquifer at the Site is classified as GA, a potential source of drinking water. Thus, a response action is warranted since chemical specific standards that define acceptable risk levels are exceeded and future exposure to contaminants above these acceptable levels is possible.

The CERCLA petroleum exclusion, which excludes CERCLA response authority for "petroleum", does not apply at this Site due to the presence of lead in the diesel samples. EPA has previously determined that the petroleum exclusion does not apply in situations where hazardous substances not normally found in petroleum are present. This previous determination is discussed in an EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response memo dated July 31, 19~7. As noted above, lead has been detected in samples of diesel fuel collected from some of the monitoring wells at the Site.

The response action selected in this Record of Decision is necessary to protect the public health or welfare and the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Record of Decision II Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September "0 I 0

1.4 Description of Selected Remedy

The overall clean-up strategy for this Site is to protect human health and the environment by reducing groundwater contamination to achieve compliance with ARARs, and to limit future use of the Site to industriallcommercialuses. The major components for the Selected Remedy include:

• Mobile-Enhanced Multi-Phase Extraction to extract and recover PSH from groundwater wells located within the contaminant plumes- 12 events completed over 2 years • Enhanced Bioremediation as necessary after the PSH recovery to address residual groundwater contamination- 10 years • Performance monitoring - 12 years (2 years of semi-annual sampling and 10 years of annual sampling). The first two years of monitoring will coincide with mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction, while the remaining 10 years coincides with enhanced bioremediation, if necessary. • Institutional controls on the property to limit future use of the Site to industriallcommercial uses and to prohibit potential future consumption of groundwater of the Site until cleanup levels and remedial action objectives have been met. • Additional groundwater monitoring as necessary until groundwater standards have been met.

The Site is being addressed as a single operable unit focusing on risks associated with diesel contaminated groundwater. The remedy addresses diesel and chemical contamination using diesel recovery, includes enhanced bioremediation, monitoring for inorganic contaminants, and will f1l11her evaluate natural attenuation. Diesel fuel has been observed as free product in some monitoring wells at the Site. The groundwater in the tluvial aquifer is considered a potential source of drinking water. The remedy will reduce the amount of diesel as free product and associated dissolved contaminants and reduce the potential for contaminant migration. Long term monitoring will document the reduction in contaminants, the potential for natural attenuation, and compliance with relevant groundwater standards.

1.5 Statutory Determinations

The Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, is cost effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and altemative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

The principal threat waste is the diesel PSH material. The recovered diesel PSH and groundwater will be routed to the rail yard ' s onsite wastewater treatment plant so that the resulting water can then be discharged to municipal sewer in accordance with existing permits. Record of Decision III Illinois Central Johnston Y Jrd Site September 20 I 0

The recovered diesel will be sent offsite to a licensed oil recycler. In addition, enhanced bioremediation will be used as necessary for an insitu groundwater treatment. The selected remedy satisfies the preference for treatment as a principal element.

Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite in soil above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted every five years after the start of the remedial action at the Site to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment. Contaminant levels in on-site soil do not pose an unacceptable risk for continued industrial/commercial lise, but may pose an unacceptable risk for residential use. Additional soil sampling would be necessary to further evaluate potential residential use of the Site and to determine if statutory reviews can be discontinued. If additional data supported the cessation of statutory reviews, then policy five year reviews would be conducted until groundwater standards had been met.

1.6 Data Certification Checklist

The following information is included in the Decision Summary section of this Record of Decision (Part 2). Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record file for this Site. y Chemicals (?t'concern and their respective concentrations (Table 2) y Baseline risk represented by the chemicals l?t'concem (p. 16) y Clean-up levels established for chemicals (?t' concern and the basis for these levels (p. 21. Table 7) Y Hmv source materials constitllting principal threats are addressed(pp. 30. 35) Y Current and reasonably ant;c'ipatedfitlllre land and grollndwater use assumptions used in the Baseline Risk Assessment and ROD (p. 12) Y Potential land and ground~vater lise that will be available at the Site as a result ofthe Selected Remecl.v (p. 32) Y Estimated capital. annllal operation and maintenance (O&M~. and total present worth costs. discollnt rate. and the number l?t'years over which the remedy cost estimates are projected (Table 6 ) Y Keyfactor(s) that led to selecting the remed.v (i.e. describe fUJII' the Selected Remedy provides the best balance (?l trade(?f/s with respect to the balancing and inodifyillg criteria. highlighting criteria key to the decision (p. 30)

Date Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY

2.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description

This Record of Decision (ROD) is for the Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site, which is located at 2921 Hom Lake Road in Memphis, Shelby County, Telmessee (see Figure 1 for Site Location). The United States Environmental Protection Agency O::PA) Site Identification Number is TND073540783. The lead agency for this Site is the EPA. The Tennessee DepaI1ment of Environment and Conservation, Division of Remediation, has served as the support agency and has provided a valuable local oversight presence. Site activities and actions have been conducted in compliance with the Administrative Order by Consent (No. CER-04­ 2003-3525) between the PRP (Illinois Central Railroad Company) and EPA Region 4. The PRP will fund and conduct the cleanup.

The Site, approximately two miles in length and encompassing about 288 acres, is owned by Canadian National which purchased Illinois Central Railroad ([CRR) in 1998. The Site is an active railroad classification yard, locomotive fueling and servicing center and car repair facility. The Site also included an intetmodal terminus which operated until around 2006 when it was relocated several miles west of the facility. The Site is bordered to the south by a residential neighborhood, to the east and northwest by light industry, and to the west and n0l1h by undeveloped parcels of land. Nonconnah Creek is about 300 yards north of center of the northern boundary of the Site.

2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities

The railyard has likely been in existence since the tum of the 20th century. According to the Phase [ Environmental Site Assessment, the first rail line through Memphis was completed in 1896. However, the roundhouse and car repair shop were probably not constmcted until the early 191Os. The railyard was originally known as the "NoncOimah Yards," but when the switching operation was converted from gravity switching to tlat switching in 1949, the name of the yard was changed to the "Johnston Yard" in honor of the ICRR president at that time, Wayne A. Johnston. The name of the yard was changed to the Han'ison Yard in 2009. EPA has continued to refer to the facility as the Johnston Yard for the sake of consistency with prior documents. [ntermodal operations were conducted at the Site between 1965 and 2005.

As a fueling and servicing center, the rail yard maintains a 500,000-gallon diesel fuel oil (DFO) aboveground storage tank (AST), a clean lubrication oil system, and a used oil collection system. Prior to 1993, diesel fuel oil was supplied to the rail yard by an underground/aboveground pipeline, which runs south from the former MAPCO refinery, presently owned by Premcor, crossing Nonconnah Creek near the Riverp0l1 Road overpass. The underground portion of the pipeline runs underground through the central portion of the classification yard before rising aboveground and running alongside the "mud track:' North of Record of Decision 2 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 2010 the SOO,OOO-gallon DFO AST, the line is piped underground before daylighting within the secondary containment of the SOO,OOO-gallon DFO AST.

Following discussions between the refinery and lCRR regarding ownership of the pipeline and potential liability, the pipeline was abandoned in-place in 1993. The abandonment procedures repOitedly included flushing the line of product and placing blind flanges at each end. Diesel fuel oil is now delivered to the railyard by tanker truck and off-loaded at a concrete-lined fuel delivery pad. Fuel is then transfeITed to the SOO,OOO-gallon DFO AST by way of aboveground piping. Actual fueling operations are conducted at the roundhouse-fueling apron. Diesel fuel oil is transfen·ed by way of aboveground piping from the SOO,OOO-gallon DFO AST to the locomotive fueling apron. The concrete fueling apron collects any spilled fuel oil and wastewater and transfers it to the wastewater treatment system.

Additional fuel tanks at the Site include two double-walled DPO ASTs, present near the northeast comer of the Car Shop, which supply diesel fuel oil to the Car Shop and a SSO-gallon gasoline AST, located south of the Car Shop.

The maintenance area includes several large buildings used for locomotive repair and equipment maintenance. Clean lubricating oil (2S,000-gallon AST), joumal oil (3,000-gallon AST), and used oil (2S,000-gallon AST) are stored inside secondary containment in Pump Building No.2 and are distributed and collected by way of aboveground piping. New oil can be delivered by rail or truck. Used oil is typically transfeITed offsite by truck. Pump Building No.3 is equipped with a concrete-lined unloading/loading pad.

Prior to 2005, wastewater containing used oil, which was generated during maintenance activities. was collected in numerous sumps throughout the maintenance area and routed to two clay-lined wastewater treatment lagoons at the eastem end of the maintenance area. The first treatment lagoon collected wastewater from the onsite shop and maintenance areas. Oil was removed from the wastewater using an oil belt skimmer or positive displacement pump. The oil was then discharged to an oil/water separator,just south of the SOO,OOO-gallon DFO AST, where it was temporarily stored until picked up by a local recycling company. The treated water was routed to the second treatment lagoon and ultimately to the City of Memphis Division of Public Works municipal sewer system under a pretreatment agreement. At the beginning of-200S. the lagoon system was decommissioned and replaced with a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment system. which includes aboveground wastewater holding tanks and a dissolved air floatation system.

Several ASTs and underground storage tanks (USTs) have been removed from the Site during facility upgrades and capital improvements. These include: • Four 10,000-gallon DFO ASTs near the northeast comer of the Car Shop:

• One 8,000-gallon UST that stored gasoline south of the Car Shop: and Record of Decision 3 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septelllber 20 I 0

• Three USTs at the former Intermodal Compound (a 17,OOO-gallon UST that stored diesel fuel oil at the former Distribution and Transportation Services' compound, a 10,000­ gallon UST that stored diesel fuel oil west of the former Intermodal Terminal Office, and a 300-gallon UST that stored gasoline near the crane maintenance pad).

The fonner Intermodal Compound served as a container loading and unloading facility, where semi-trailer trucks and cargo shipping containers were loaded onto and unloaded from rail cars by specialized cranes. The loading, unloading, and transportation of containers were permitted through a U.S. Department of Transportation permit. The former Intermodal Compound was closed in 2005 after a new, larger intermodal facility was constructed a few miles away.

Additional facility upgrades and capital improvements included the construction of a new locomotive repair center and the regarding of some soil and reconfiguration of some track lines in the classification yards along the center of the Site. Lead contaminated soil was remo·ved from a portion of the footprint of the new locomotive repair center in 2007. Several areas of on­ site soil were selected as a source of fill material for rail yard construction activities. Also, some tracks in the classification yards were regarded and tracks reconfigured during 2008. Soil sampling and project specific risk assessments were performed for these projects.

2.2.1 Previous Investigations and CERCLA Actions

A total of ten assessments, inspections, or investigations have been conducted at the Site between 1984 and 2003 and include:

• Potential Hazardous Waste Site - Preliminary Assessment (TDHE, 1984).

• Site Lnspectiol1 (Halliburton NUS, 1991).

• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Golder, 2000).

• Reassessment Report (Tetra Tech EMI, 2000).

• Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (TRC, 200n

• Expanded Site Inspection (Tetra Tech EMJ. 2002).

• Report of Oversight Activities for the USEPA Expanded Site Inspection (TRC, 2002).

• Supplemental Site Investigation (TRC, 2002).

• Phase IlIA Environmental Site Assessment (TRC, 2002). Record of Decision 4 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site· September 20 I 0

• Documentation Repolt for Monitoring Well Installation, Gauging, Sampling & Replacement and Soil Borings (TRC, 2003).

However, only six of these included the physical collection of environmental samples for chemical analyses. The environmental samples include surface and subsurface soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments. Prior to the initiation of the RI, a total of 35 groundwater-monitoring wells had been installed either at the Site or on properties adjacent to the Site. A synopsis of each of the assessments along with the analytical results is presented in the Compilarion of Existing Data Teehnieal Memorandlllnfor the Illinois Cel1tral Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Site (TRC, 2003).

In September 2003, EPA entered an Administrative Order by Consent (Consent Order) with Illinois Central Railroad (Respondent). The Respondent agreed to all terms and conditions of the Consent Order to conduct and implement the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RVFS).

2.3 Community Participation

In April 2005, EPA conducted some initial community interviews with local officials and residents and also issued a brief fact sheet regarding the Site status. A bulletin was issued in September 2005 notifying residents that EPA staff would be conducting additional interviews. Another fact sheet was issued in February 2007 regarding the Site activities.

The Proposed Plan Fact Sheet was mailed to the community on August 24, 2010. The Administrative Record file was made available to the public on August 20, 2010. It was placed in the information repository maintained at the EPA Region 4 Superfund Record Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and at the Memphis Shelby County Public Library, Levy Branch. The notice of the availability of the Administrative Record and an announcement of the Proposed Plan public meeting was published in the Commercial Appeal newspaper on August 22, 2010. A public comment period was held from August 25, 2010 to September 23,2010. The Proposed Plan was presented to the community in a public meeting on August 31, 2010 at the Mitchell Road Community Center. At this meeting, representatives from EPA answered questions about contamination at the Site and the remedial altematives. There were no verbal or written comments submitted by the public during the public comment period. Verbal comments from the public meeting are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary located in Part 3 of this ROD.

2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

EPA has chosen to manage this Site as a single Operable Unit; it will not be necessary to divide the cleanup into separate projects with separate remedies. The remedy is further explained in Section 2.12 of this ROD. This action will reduce the potential future risks to humans and will be protective of the environment. Record of Decision 5 Illinois Central Johnston 'Yard Site Septemher 2010

The remedy will include institutional controls to limit future use of the Site to commercial/industrial uses and to restrict groundwater use at the Site until groundwater cleanup levels and remedial action objectives are met.

2.5 Site Characteristics

2.5.1 Conceptual Site Models

The Conceptual Site Model for human exposures is presented in Table 1. Potential exposures are generally associated with surface and subsurface soil or groundwater in the former fuel ing areas or in areas of historic fill used in development of the Site.

Conceptual Site Model (Ecological Receptors)

Given the degree of development and use at this active railyard, a screening level ecological risk assessment was performed. Surface soil on almost all of the Site has been altered and is covered by asphalt pavement, railroad track or ballast. Vegetation cover is sparse and consists primarily of non-native species. More suitable habitats are associated with drainage features or nearby creeks. Aquatic organisms that may inhabit these areas are in contact with contaminants in sediment or surface water. Higher level receptors (such as a white footed mouse) may forage on macro invertebrates that are present in these areas.

2.5.2 Site Overview

The Site, which covers about 288 acres, is about two miles long. It is wider in the middle and narrows at both ends as the main rail lines enter and exit the property (see Figure 1). As noted previously, the facility has included fueling and servicing functions for decades.

The topography of the area is moderately to gently rolling with elevations ranging from 240 feet to 310 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Site is located at approximately 240 feet msl. The principle hydrologic features near the Site are Noncormah Creek, Riverport Harbor, Lake McKellar, and Cypress Creek. Additionally, three smaller drainages, the Northwest Drainage Ditch, the Double 36-inch Outfall Drainage Ditch, and the Eastern Drainage Ditch, convey overland flow at the Site.

The Nonconnah Creek watershed is a heavily urbanized watershed that drains approximately 281 square miles of sOLlthwestell1 Tennessee and northwestell1 Mississippi. Near the Site, Nonconnah Creek flows westward before emptying into Lake McKellar and hence to the Mississippi River. Directly east of the A Yard, Noncormah Creek shifts slightly to the north before continuing its westward course. Undeveloped woodlands border the Site to the north and separate the Site from Noncotmah Creek by approximately % mile. Record of Decision 6 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septemher 10 I 0

Riverport Harbor extending to the east from Lake McKellar is a manmade canal that was created to allow river traffic access to the Rivergate Industrial Park from the Mississippi River. Cypress Creek bounds the Site to the west flowing northward before reaching its confluence with Lake McKellar, west of Riverp0l1 Harbor.

The Northwest Drainage Ditch conveys surface water captured in the partially developed area south of the facility and north of Peebles Road. Flow is conveyed north across the facility by way of underground piping. Northwest of the fonner Intennodal Compound, flow is conveyed by way of an open ditch northward across undeveloped land toward Riverport Harbor, where the ditch outfalls west of the Fleischmann Yeast facility.

The Double 36-inch Outfall Drainage Ditch, located north of West Alcy Road, conveys storm water, captured in the central portion of the railyard and in the small wooded area, southwest of the communications tower, northward to Nonconnah Creek. The collected storm water passes through a baffle system equipped with an oil skimmer prior to being discharged. The stonn water network associated with the outfall includes a primary trunk line, consisting of two parallel 36-inch reinforced concrete pipes. The trunk line gathers runoff from rail yard catch basins and the wooded area, which receives overland flow from the neighborhood to the south of Peebles Road.

Drainage from the southeast side of the facility flows into the Eastern Drainage Ditch. The Eastern Drainage Ditch runs approximately 3,000 feet from its origination at the east end of the Car Shop to a box culvet110cated in the low-lying area just west of the viaduct. which calTies the railyard over Hom Lake Road. Underground piping transports the flow to the north side of the A-yard, where it daylights for a short interval before being piped under Rivergate Road, eventually daylighting at the east end of the abandoned channel of Nonconnah Creek. A small ancillary charmel, which collects surface water tlow from the grassy areas sUlTounding the Operations Center, joins the main channel just east of the main entrance off of Horn Lake Road. During periods of heavy rainfall, sheet flow from Horn Lake Road and properties located adjacent to the facility may also flow into the Eastern Drainage Ditch.

2.5.3 Surface and Subsurface Features

The surficial geology at the Site is primarily artificial fill (af) overlying Holocene and Pleistocene creek alluvium (Qa). In the south-central and southwestem parts of the Site, the fill material overlies Pliestocene loess (QI). In the western and central p0l1ion of the Site, the railyard is situated upon reworked silty clay that has been graded to accommodate the layout of the rail yard. However, in the eastem half of the Site, the railyard layout encroached upon the historic floodplain of NoncOlmah Creek. In this area roughly east and north of the Roundhouse, the natural ground surface has been raised several feet with fill material. This has resulted in the formation of a shallow perched groundwater tlow system, which overlies the natural ground surface. The Shallow Perched Zone is present in the east central portion of the Site and is confined to that area directly beneath the railyard. The Shallow Perched Zone begins approximately 10 feet below grade and has a maximum thickness of approximately 10 feet. Record of Decision 7 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

Groundwater in the Shallow Perched Zone flows to the east-northeast under unconfined conditions and is directly influenced by the topography upon which the fill material was laid. Phase-separated hydrocarbon (PSH) is present in three monitoring wells completed in the Shallow Perched Zone near the Car Shop AST farm (MW-04, MW-13, and MW-26) and has been historically present in one monitoring well in the Shallow Perched Zone north of the wastewater treatment lagoons (MW-09). However, the PSH in MW-09ceased to appear with the closure of the wastewater treatment lagoons. The term PSH indicates diesel that is separate and distinct from groundwater and may float on top of groundwater in samples collected from monitoring wells.

Beneath the fill material, silty clay forms the upper aquitard of the "Fluvial Aquifer." Boring logs indicate the silty clay is between 20 and 45 feet thick beneath the rail yard decreasing to approximately 16 feet in the vicinity of Nonconnah Creek.

Beneath the silty clay, natural alluvium and terrace deposits comprise the surficial or Fluvial Aquifer which is composed of sand, graveL silt. and clay. The fluvial deposits in the vicinity of Nonc01mah Creek are generally less than 50 feet thick. Two monitoring wells, MW­ 17 and MW-22, completed in the fluvial deposits in the central portion of the railyard, reached the lower aquitard approximately II to 12 feet after the top of the fluvial was encountered. However, monitoring well GW-03, installed to the southeast of the Car Shop during the ESt encountered more than 60 feet of fluvial material before being terminated at 98 feet below ground surface (bgs).

The water in the Fluvial Aquifer is below land surface and generally conforms to the topography. Infiltration of precipitation provides the primary recharge to the Fluvial Aquifer and is temporal. Groundwater in the Fluvial Aquifer flows to the north-northwest towards Nonconnah Creek and Lake McKellar under confined conditions. Measured gradients range between 0.013 and 0.017 ftift. Groundwater measurements obtained from monitoring wells completed in the Fluvial Aquifer and located near monitoring wells completed in the Shallow Perched Zone iildicate that a vertical gradient of nearly 20 feet exists between the Shallow Perched Zone and the Fluvial Aquifer. Since the completion of field activities in October 2005, PSH has been identified in four wells completed in the Fluvial Aquifer near the former fueling area; MW-33, MW-35, MW-36, and most recently MW-37. The PSH first discovered in March of 2006 in MW-35 has disappeared indicating the monitoring well is at the edge of the PSH plume. Similarly, PSH was discovered in MW-37 in July 2006; however the accumulated thickness, 0.06 feet. indicates the monitoring well is at the edge of the PSH plume.

Beneath the alluvium and telTace deposits lies the Jackson-Upper Claibome confining unit, which separates the Fluvial Aquifer from the Memphis Sands Aquifer, a confined aquifer located between the Jackson-upper Claibome confining unit and the Flour Island confining unit. The confining unit is generally composed of clay with some sand. Recent studies conducted by the USGS identified windows through the Jackson-Upper Claibome formation, which provided hydrologic conduits to the Memphis Aquifer: the nearest being a window below President's Record of Decision 8 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

Island, approximately 3 miles to the northwest of the Site. However, data contained within the same report and ascertained from geophysical logs interpreted and correlated during the study indicates that over 100 feet of the Jackson-upper Claibome confining unit is located beneath the Site. Beneath the Jackson-upper Claibome confining unit lies the Memphis Sand Formation, begirming at a depth of approximately 150 feet bgs. Geophysical logs indicate that the Memphis Sand is approximately 700 to 800 feet thick beneath the Site.

The Memphis Sand is the principal water-bearing formation providing water for municipal and industrial supplies east of the Mississippi River including the City of Memphis. The Memphis Sand aquifer supplies approximately 95 percent of the water used in the Memphis area for municipal and industrial purposes. The nearest public water supply well drawing water from the Memphis Sand aquifer is approximately two miles northeast of the Site at the MLGW Allen well field.

2.5.4 Sampling Strategy

During the course of the Remedial Investigation (RI), samples were collected from surface and subsurface soil, ground water, surface water, and sediment. The sampling strategy considered several factors including the potential for contaminant migration via surface water or groundwater flow. previous studies at the Site, and limitations associated with working around the various track lines at this active rail yard. Soil sampling was performed under cel1ain tracks prior to the regrading and reconfiguration of such tracks during a capital improvement project at the Site. Analytical parameters and the associated media for testing were selected based on expected Site related contaminants such as PAHs from petroleum and previous sampling results at the Site. Groundwater samples were also analyzed for volatile organic compounds, particularly from monitoring wells in the fluvial aquifer in the general area of the locomotive roundhouse where extensive maintenance activities occur.

Sampling was performed in several phases including the initial RI fieldwork and subsequent sampling in specific areas where facility construction or reconstruction was planned. These areas included the east end of the existing Car Shop and the classification yards. Sampling at the east end of the Car Shop area focused on lead in soil, while sampling from the classification, yards included analysis for metals, petroleum related compounds and pesticides.

Groundwater sampling was also performed in different phases including the initial RI fieldwork and subsequent sampling that focused on the presence of PSH in some portions of the fluvial aquifer. Cone penetrometer testing (CPT) coupled with a rapid optical screening tool (ROST) was used to further evaluate the shallow soils and to define the nature and extent of the potential PSH plumes in the Shallow Perched Zone and the Fluvial Aquifer. Additional monitoring wells were then installed based on the CPT results. Record of Decision 9 Illinois Central Johnston YarJ Site September 2010

2.5.5 Known and/or Suspected Sources of Contamination

The likely sources of petroleum contamination are the former fueling areas where historic spills or leaks of petroleum occurred during decades of fueling operations. Another potential source area was the former wastewater lagoons that handled wastewater containing used oil. These two lagoons were decommissioned and replaced with a new system including aboveground holding tanks and a dissolved air flotation system.

Phase separated hydrocarbons (PSH), in the form of weathered diesel, are present in some of the monitoring wells, particularly from the general area near the former fueling islands and former wastewater lagoons. The PSH was sampled from several monitoring wells and found to contain lead, a contaminant that is not normally found in diesel fuel. Since this PSH contains lead, a CERCLA hazardous substance, the weathered diesel is not excluded from CERCLA response actions.

Leaks from rail cars are a possible source of the scattered low level detections of other contaminants such as pesticides.

2.5.6 Types of Contamination and Affected Media

The common contaminants at the Site include PAHs and metals in various media at the Site. Diesel is present as PSH (also referred to as Light Non Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) in a few small areas at the Site. The thickness of the LNAPL in monitoring wells varies widely from several inches to several feet. There was no unacceptable risk from human exposure to various contaminants and media except potential future consumption of groundwater.

2.5.6.1 Soil

Metals and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) were detected in surface and subsurface soil samples collected during the RI. The highest levels of arsenic and lead detected in surface soil were 86 ppm and 3400 ppm, respectively. The exposure point concentrations were 18 ppm and 500 ppm respectively. The highest concentrations of TPHs were found in the general area near the former fueling islands and former wastewater lagoons as well as a small area on the northeast side of the former car shop. Individual PAH compounds were detected in soil, including benzo(a)pyrene which had concentrations ranging from 0.0078 ppm to 9.4 ppm.

After the Site wide RI field work was complete, there was additional sampling in specific areas associated with ongoing construction at the Site. During 2007, elevated lead levels were found adjacent to the former car shop. Lead levels ranged from 1,249 ppm - 3,449 ppm. Impacted soil in this area was removed for proper offsite disposal so that construction of a new locomotive repair center could proceed.

Another subsequent constntction project in 2008 included the reconfiguration of some rail lines and the regrading of the underlying soil primarily in the classification yard, located Record of Decision 10 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September ~O I 0 along the center of the rail yard. The soil was tested for certain pesticides, PAHS, and metals. Contaminant levels were generally consistent with the levels found during the initial RI, except that some of the metals were higher in some samples. Arsenic concentrations ranged from approximately 1 ppm to 757 pplll. A majority of arsenic concentrations in surface soil/fill material were below 20 ppm and almost 87% of the concentrations were below 100 ppm. Lead detections 'ranged from approximately 3 ppm to 11,400 ppm. Almost 94% of the lead concentrations were below 800 ppm.

2.5.6.2 Groundwater

Metals and TPH are found in some monitoring wells in the shallow groundwater (perched zone). As noted before, the perched zone exists because of fill material placed at the Site to raise the elevation particularly in that central portion of the Site. The most commonly detected metals were aluminum, manganese, and iron. Arsenic and lead were also detected in some wells. The highest level of arsenic was detected in MW-3. 'Subsequent resampling of that well indicated lower levels of arsenic, but still greater than 0.01 mgt\, In other shallow wells, arsenic was not detected or was just above a level of 0.010'mgt\. Lead was detected in some shallow wells at levels generally below 0.015 mgt\, One well, MW-10, had a lead concentration of 0.065 mgt\, MW-10 is located just south of the fonner wastewater lagoons. Free product has been noted in some wells in the perched zone onsite including MW-13 and RW-OL both located near the northeast comer of the existing car shop. Free product was also noted in piezometers located near the fonner wastewater treatment lagoons.

Metals and TPH are found in some monitoring wells in the tluvial groundwater. Aluminum and manganese were the most commonly detected metals in groundwater, but arsenic and lead were also detected in some wells. The highest level of arsenic, 0.985 mg/l, was detected in MW-15. Monitoring well GW-02 had initial concentrations of arsenic and lead equal to 0.180 and 0.044 mgtL respectively. Subsequent resampling of wells MW-15 and GW-02 indicated much lower levels of arsenic, but still greater than 0.01 mgtL the relevant groundwater standard.

TPH have been detected at levels above 1.0 mgtl in fluvial groundwater wells, particularly in the area near the former fueling island and wastewater lagoons. Free product has been noted in monitoring wells in this area including MW-33, -35, -36, -37, -38, -40, and -42.

TPH have been detected at or below 1.0 mgtl in fluvial monitoring wells MW-Ol, MW­ 31, MW-32, and GW-04 which are located in the northwest quadrant of the Site

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCS) such as perchloroethene and cis-L2 dichloroethene were detected in just two of the fluvial groundwater wells sampled during the RI. The concentrations were equal to or below 0.005 mgt\. Therefore, the concentrations of these VOCs did not exceed their respective MCLs. Record of Decision II Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

2.5.6.3 Sediment

Contaminants, primaril y P AHs and metals, were detected in sediments collected from the Northwest Drainage Ditch, the Double 36-inch outfall ditch, Cypress Creek, and NoncOlUlah Creek. Concentrations were higher in the Northwest Drainage Ditch and the Double 36-inch outfall ditch. Only a few samples exceeded the sediment quality benchmarks for metals and ·PAHs.

2.5.6.4 Surface Water

Contaminants, primarily metals, were detected in surface water collected from the Northwest Drainage Ditch, the Double 36-inch outfall ditch, Cypress Creek, and Nonconnah Creek. Concentrations tended to be higher in Nonconnah Cr~ek than in the other smaller waterways. However, similar levels of contaminants were observed in samples taken upgradient of the Site.

The contaminants in almost all surface water samples were below or marginally above their respective water quality benchrilarks. In some cases, results for pesticides indicated an exceedance of the benchmarks based on results that were labeled as non-detect. In such cases, the sample quantification limit exceeded the benchmarks; It is worth noting that pesticides were not detected in sediment samples collected in proximity to the surface water samples and that the quantification limits were below the sediment benchmarks.

2.5.7 Extent of Contamination and Potential for Migration

Elevated contaminant concentrations in sediment were found primarily in the NW Drainage Ditch and the Double 36-inch outfall ditch are similar. One of four sediment samples exceeded sediment benchmarks for PAHs or lead in the NW Drainage Ditch. NW-SD-Ol, the most upstream sampling location in the NW drainage ditch, had the highest concentration of P AHs. Samples downstream from this location had concentrations of PAHs that were at least an order of magnitude lower. Two of seven sediment samples exceeded sediment benchmarks for PAHs, lead, and/or arsenic in the Double 36-inch outfall ditch. The highest concentrations were found in sample DT-SD-05, located near the Double 36-inch outfall on the north side of the Site.

Given the scattered presence of elevated contaminant concentratiOlls, and that the detected concentrations were generally below sediment qual ity benchmarks, there seems to be little potential for migration of significant concentrations of contaminants. Also, given the low frequency of detection of contaminants in surface water, there seems to be Iittle potential for migration of significant concentrations of contaminants via surface water flow.

Contaminants, particularly TPHs and associated constituents, can migrate in groundwater as evidenced by the presence of TPH free product in some on-site monitoring wells in the fluvial aquifer. Groundwater now direction is generally towards the north. However, groundwater results from the RI indicate that the TPH plume in the fluvial aquifer has been delineated and is Record of Decision 12 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0 found in a limited area near the former fueling area and wastewater lagoons (see Figures 2 and 3).

2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Water Uses

Approximately 3,110 people live within a one-mile radius of the Site, with an additional 76,300 people living within a four-mile radius of the'Site. There are three schools within one mile to the south, and Fuller State Park is located one mile to the west. Approximately 250 workers are employed at the Site.

Land use within the vicinity of the Site is primarily industrial and residential. The nearest business is Worley Auto Pm1s and associated salvage yard, located adjacent to the southeast corner of the Site at,the intersection of Horn Lake Road and Peebles Road. Other industrial facilities adjacent to the Site to the southeast include NAPA Auto Parts and the Mid-South Ready Mix concrete plant. The former Biggs Landfill is located south and east of the Site between New Horn Lake Road and U.S. Highway 61. Approximately 20 to 30 residential properties are located adjacent to the Site, south of the Car Shop along Peebles Road. Additional homes are located south of Peebles Road

Rivergate Industrial Park is located along Riverport Road to the northwest of the former Intermodal Compound and abuts the Riverp0l1 Harbor. The principal tenants of the industrial park are Fleischmann's Yeast, and Lash Intermodal Terminal Company (a.k.a. LITCO). Excel TSD, Inc., a waste recycling facility; Wall Brothers Petroleum Co, Inc., a petroleum supply wholesaler; and Stericycle, a medical waste recycling firm, are located to the east of the industrial park on the north side of Rivergate Road. A small maintenance compound belonging to Belz Enterprises, Inc. is located northwest of the Intermodal Lead track. The remainder of the land to the north and west is undeveloped wooded acreage.

Memphis Light, Gas, and Water (MLGW) operates two well fields within three miles of the Site. The Allen Well field is located approximately two miles northeast of the Site, while the Davis Wellfield is located approximately 2.3 miles to the southwest of the Site. Fifteen municipal supply wells are located two to three miles from the Site, and thirty-one municipal supply wells are located three to four miles from the Site. There are no known private wells within one mile downgradient (north) of the Site.

The Site has been a railyard for nearly one hundred years. ICRR has recently upgraded tracks and buildings at the Site so continued use as a rail yard is likely. Groundwater in the fluvial aquifer under the Site has been classified by the State of Termessee as "GA", a potential source of drinking water. Diesel and associated contaminants have been detected in wells in the fluvial aquifer, particularly in the center of the Site near historic fueling areas. Record of Decision 13 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Scptemher 2010

2.7 Summary of Site Risks

The baseline risk assessment estimates what risks the Site poses if no action were taken. It provides the basis for taking action and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that need to be addressed by the remedial action. This section of the ROD summarizes the results of the baseline risk assessment for this Site.

The Site does not pose an unacceptable risk to people or the environment based on exposure to contaminants for the exposure scenarios evaluated at the Site and the continued industrial use of the Site (such as the cunent rail yard operations). However, weathered diesel and associated contaminants are present in groundwater under some portions of the Site. These contaminants exceed relevant groundwater standards thus providing the basis for remedial action.

2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment

2.7.1.1 Identification of Contaminants of Concern

Samples have been collected from soil, groundwater, surface water. and sediment at the Site. Chemicals detected in these samples were compared to screening values appropriate for each media to anive at contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). Soil sampling results were screened against the US EPA Region IX Industrial Soil Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs). Groundwater results were screened against the State of Tennessee General Water Quality Criteria for Domestic Water Supply and General Use Groundwater Standards, US EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels, and US EPA Region 1X PRGs for Tap Water. Surface water results were screened against the State of Telmessee General Water Quality Criteria for Domestic Water Supply and General Use Groundwater Standards, US EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels and US EPA Region IX PRGs for Tap Water. Sediment sampling results were screened against US EPA Region IX Industrial Soil PRGs.

Contaminants of Concern (COCS) are the COPCs that significantly contribute to an exposure pathway that exceed either a Ix 10-4 cumulative site cancer risk or exceed a non­ carcinogenic hazard index of 1. In addition. a contaminant may be retained as a COC if the observed concentration exceeds a state or federal chemical-specific ARAR or if they have the potential to leach to groundwater at levels exceeding a maximum contaminant level (MCL).

According to the site wide risk assessment and subsequent project specific risk assessments, exposure to contaminants at the Site for the exposure scenarios evaluated at the Site and based on continued industrial use (such as the current rail yard operations) does not pose an unacceptable risk to people or the environment. As such. there are no COCs that are risk drivers. However, weathered diesel (as free product) and associated contaminants are present in subsurface soil and groundwater under some portions of the Site, primarily in former fueling areas. Given that the risk assessment process did not indicate an unacceptable risk to human Re.cord of Decision 14 Illinois Central Johnston YarJ Site S~rtelllher 20 I 0 health, this section is accordingly abbreviated. However, various risk summary tables are included for the reader's convenience in Appendix B of this ROD.

However, another way to establish the potential for unacceptable risk is to consider when groundwater contaminants are present above primary federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs) or Tennessee requirements as noted in Table 2. Groundwater contaminants do not pose a risk to humans under current conditions at the Site since the groundwater is not used or consumed at this time. However, exceedances of these standards or requirements indicate the potential for future risk if the impacted groundwater were used as a source of drinking water.

It should be noted that benzo(a)pyrene was not detected in selected monitoring wells in the shallow perched aquifer or the underlying fluvial aquifer. However, some monitoring wells that were found to have PSH were not analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including benzo( a)pyrene, but their presence is highly likely.

2.7.1.2 Exposure Assessment

A Conceptual Site Model was developed for the Site to evaluate potential exposure pathways (see Table I). Data from several soil depths were used to evaluate the potential risk associated with direct contact with soils for the selected exposure pathways. A summary of exposure factors can be found in the attached risk assessment tables in Appendix B of this ROD.

Future residential use of the Site was not evaluated in the risk assessment because it does not appear to be a realistic future use of the Site. The railyard has operated at this location for nearly 100 years. It is likely that similar operations will continue given that the facility has undergone a significant capital improvement project.

The Site and nearby properties to the east and north currently have industrial uses. Residential properties are located south of Peebles Road which forms part of the southern border of the Site.

There are no known private wells within one mile downgradient of the Site. The nearest public water wellfields are approximately two miles nOl1heast of the Site.

Depth to groundwater in the shallow perched zone generally ranges from 1 to 10 feet bgs across the Site. Depth to groundwater in the fluvial aquifer generally ranges from 10 to 30 feet bgs across the Site. Although groundwater in the shallow perched zone at the Site is not used as a potable source, there is potential for onsite construction workers to be exposed to groundwater from that unit.

Future use of the groundwater at the Site will likely be industrial use, and residential use downgradient from the Site. Groundwater at the Site is classified by the State of Tennessee as "GA", a potential source of drinking water. Even though there are no current users of the Record of Decision 15 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Scptcmher 20 I 0 groundwater, it may potentially be used by potential industrial, commercial and residential receptors downgradient of the Site in the future. Therefore, federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs) or State of Tennessee requirements are used to indicate the potential for future risk from exposure to groundwater contamination.

2.7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment

Toxicity information for other contaminants evaluated in the risk assessment. but which were determined to not pose unacceptable risk, can be found in the attached risk assessment tables in Appendix B of this ROD. The potential risks associated with future commercial, industrial, and youth trespasser exposure to lead were evaluated with the Adult Lead Model (ALM).

2.7.1.4 Risk Characterization

For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of an individual's developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated from the following equation:

Risk =COl x SF where: 5 Risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2 x 10- ) of an individual's developing canc~r COl =chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day) SF =slope factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)-l

An excess lifetime cancer riskof 1x 10-6 indicates that an individual experiencing the RME estimate has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure. This is referred to as an "excess lifetime cancer risk" because it would be in addition to the' risks of cancer individuals face from other causes such as smoking or exposure to too much sun. The chance of an individual's developing cancer from all other causes has been estimated to be as high as one in three. EPA's generally acceptable risk range for site-related exposures is 4 6 1x10- to 1X 10- .

For non-carcinogenic effects, the potential is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified time period (e.g., life-time) with a reference dose (RtD) derived for a similar exposure period. An RID represents a level that an individual may be exposed to that is not expected to cause any deleterious effect. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a Hazard Quotient (HQ). A HQ less than I indicates that a receptor's dose of a single contaminant is less than the RtD, and that toxic noncarcinogenic effects from that chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index (HI) is generated by addiilg the HQs for all chemicai(s) of concern that affect the same target organ (e.g., liver) or that act through the same mechanism of action within a medium or across all media to which a given individual may reasonably be exposed. A HI less than 1 indicates that, based on the sum of all HQ's from different contaminants and exposure routes, Record of Decision 16 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 1010 toxic noncarcinogenic effects from all contaminants are unlikely. A HI greater than 1 indicates that site-related exposures may present a risk to human health. The HQ is calculated as follows:

Non-cancer HQ =COVRm where: COl =Chronic daily intake RfO =reference dose

COl and RtD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic, subchronic, or sh0l1-tenn)

The potential risks associated with the other contaminants do not exceed EPA's 4 6 acceptable risk range of 1xl0- to lxlO- . Also, the calculated non-cancer hazard indices are less than 1.0 (see Tables 3 and 4 for Risk Summary).

The potential risks associated with future commercial/industrial exposure to lead were evaluated with the Adult Lead Model (ALM). The ALM approach also considers the potential impacts to young children (such as a youth trespasser) of having elevated blood lead concentrations. To achieve this goal, adult lead exposures are modeled for a narrowly defined receptor population (i.e., an adult female worker of child-bearing age at a non-residential site or with non-residential exposure scenarios) and specific media such as soil. The Adult Lead Model (ALM) uses a simplified representation of lead biokinetics to predict quasi-steady state blood­ lead concentrations among adults who have relatively steady pattems of site exposures. In the ALM mathematic models, the assumption is made that if the calculated blood-lead concentrations are acceptable for the most conservative receptors, then the lead concentrations in soil will be acceptable for adult exposure scenarios as well. The results indicate that the presence of lead in surface and subsurface soil at the Site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health.

2.7.1.5 Uncertainties

The uncertainty analysis identifies the key uncertainties associated with the human health risk estimates. Uncertainties are present in the underlying inputs from each component of the risk assessment (i.e., data evaluation, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization). The goal of the risk assessment is to provide reasonable and conservative risk estimates to guide decision-making. By using standardized methodology guidelines, in particular USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1989), the risk characterization provides a basis for determining whether additional remediation needs to be considered. The risk assessment presented in this document is based upon assumptions and methodology that have been discussed, reviewed, and approved by the EPA (TRC, 2004b). The general and site-specific uncettainties associated with each component of the risk characterization are discussed below. Recoru of Decision 17 ,Illinois Central Johnston Yaru Site September 20 I 0

Surface and subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment samples were collected and analyzed for a variety of constituents including inorganics, YOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and pesticides. There are several potential sources of uncertainty associated with the collection and analysis of these samples.

First, the list of constituents analyzed for presence in the samples, although comprehensive, may not retlect all of the constituents present in environmental media. The impact on the risk assessment by this potential source of uncertainty is likely to be low due to the large number of samples collected for analyses and the suite of analyses performed. Another source of uncertainty associated with environmental sampling and analysis is that the sampling locations may not accurately retlect the range, frequency, and distribution of constituents at the Site. However, the impact on the risk assessment by this potential source of uncertainty is likely to be low due to the use of judgmental samples focused on areas of contamination. For risk assessment purposes, a receptor may be exposed at any location within an exposure area, such as the Johnston Yard, for the duration of exposure (e.g., 250 days per year for 25 years). However the sample data used in the HHRA were collected for the purpose of characterizing potential contaminated areas and were not collected randomly throughout the exposure areas. This will likely overestimate true risks to all receptors for all exposure scenarios.

There are uncertainties associated with the analytical methods and instruments usedin the analysis of samples. For example, the values reported as non-detected may actually range from non-detect (i.e., not present) up to the value of the SQL. The replacement of non-detects with a value equal to one-half the SQL is intended to be reasonably conservative, but could over- or under-estimate the actual constituent concentrations present in the environmental media. The impact on the risk assessment is likely to be low due to the low detection limits reported for the sample data limiting the impact on the EPC calculations.

The uncertainty associated with the exposure assessment is low based on the use of default US EPA-recommended exposure parameter values to characterize reasonable maximum exposure. Also, the exposure scenario~ are overly conservative for all receptors, since actual exposure to environmental media is likely to be lower than assumed for this HHRA. A central tendency HHRA was not conducted since the RME HHRA demonstrated that assumed high-end exposure by all receptors to the COPCs poses no unacceptable cancer risks or hazards.

There are several main sources of uncertainty related to the toxicity information. First, the availability and quality of toxicity data affects the ability of expe11s to derive toxicity criteria and the quality/certainty of the toxicity criteria that are derived.

The uncertainty associated with the toxicity values for each constituent contributes to the overall uncertainty in the risk characterization of the site. The possible sources of uncertainty for a given constituent include: the number of available studies in the toxicological literature; the quality of these studies; the consistency among the study results (e.g., across species, strains, sex and exposure pathways); the plausibility of the biological mechanism; and the existence and nature of a dose response relationship. The quality of individual studies is intluenced by some of Record of Decision 18 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0 these same factors as well as by the test species, the dose used, the route of exposure, the length of exposure, and other study design issues (e.g., sample size and statistical power). In addition, animal-to-human extrapolation, high dose to low dose extrapolation, and short-term to long-term extrapolation often introduce considerable uncertainty into the derivation of toxicity values by USEPA. The overall impact on the HHRA is unknown. However, the use of US EPA-approved toxicity criteria and the lack of significant contamination indicate that the overall cancer risks and noncancer hazards are likely to be low, as quantified in this HHRA. FUl1hermore, the USEPA approved toxicity criteria are conservative criteria that incorporate modifying and uncertainty factors designed to ensure that the criteria are conservative. Therefore, the uncel1ainty associated with the use of these toxicity criteria is likely to be low.

2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment

The objective of the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was to use site-specific data to evaluate potential ecological risks at the Site. The recent RI data used in the ERA included results from soiL sediment, and surface water.

The ERA process includes initial screening steps followed by more detailed steps, depending on the Site conditions and contaminant concentrations. The ERA process is described in EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Given the low level of contaminants in the selected environmental settings at this Site and the industrial nature of the Site, it was not necessary to proceed beyond the screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA).

According to the SLERA, there were no indications of significant ecological risk to ten-estrial trophic level receptors (i.e., white-footed mouse) associated with contaminants detected within the surface soils of non-aquatic habitats present in the vicinity of the Site. The SLERA also concluded that potential risks to ecological receptors from Site related contaminants are not significant within the Eastern Drainage Ditch, N0l1hwest Drainage Ditch, Cypress Creek, the Abandoned Channel of Nonconnah Creek, or NoncOimah Creek. Potential risks to benthic organisms from Site contaminants in the drainage features were also not significant.

2.7.2.1 Environmental Setting

The Site is an active railroad classification yard, locomotive fueling and servicing center, railcar maintenance facility and intermodal terminus encompassing approximately 288 acres located on property zoned for heavy industrial use. The Site has been in operation since approximately 1910. Based on historic land use and cun-ent development plans, it is reasonable to assume that the property will remain an active railroad facility for some years into the future.

Surface soil on almost all the Site has been altered and is covered by asphalt pavement, railroad track or ballast. Vegetation cover is sparse and consists primarily of non-native plants. Record of Decision 19 Illinois Cent!":!1 Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

Due to the highly disturbed nature, significant habitat for ecological receptors is not present in these areas. These non-significant habitat areas were not evaluated as part of the SLERA Habitat for ecological receptors is provided along the periphery of the Site where several drainage ways and creeks are present including the Eastem Drainage Ditch, Northwest Drainage Ditch, Double 36-inch Outfall Drainage Ditch, Cypress Creek and Nonconnah Creek (including a former channel that is now abandoned and isolated). Storm water at the Site is conveyed by a series of storm sewers and open chalmel earthen ditches. These ditches include the Eastem Drainage Ditch, the Double 36-inch Outfall Drainage Ditch, and the Northwest Drainage Ditch. Other surface water bodies present in the vicinity of the facility include Cypress Creek to the west and Nonconnah Creek to the north, both of which eventually discharge to Lake McKellar.

2.7.2.2 Results of Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Potential risks to environmental receptors in drainage features and nearby surface water bodies were evaluated by comparing sediment and surface water sampling results to appropriate screening and bench mark levels. The mean and maximum contaminant concentrations noted in sediment were screened against the EPA Region IV Ecological Screening Values. Sediment concentrations were then further screened against probable effects levels (PELs) for macro invertebrates (McDonald et aI., 2003). For surface water, EPA Region 4 freshwater surface water screening values were used to evaluate potential risks to aquatic species. These benchmarks represent the chronic ambient water quality criteria values for the protection of aquatic life.

Contaminant concentrations in sediment from Nonconnah Creek did not exceed their respective the sediment PE;Ls. The initial results for metals in surface water from Nonconnah Creek did indicate a few exceedances of screening levels. Additional sampling was also conducted to determine the dissolved concentrations that potentially could be more bioavailable. The results for dissolved lead and zinc were non-detect: the results for copper were below the R4 ESV of 6.54 ug/l.

PAH concentrations in sediment in Cypress Creek did not exceed the R4 ESVs. Certain metals in some locations did exceed the R4 ESVs. However, none of the metals in sediment exceeded their respective PELs. Metals, pesticides, and PAHs in surface water from Cypress Creek were either non-detect or did not exceed the respective R4 ESVs.

PAH concentrations in sediment from one location in the Double 36" outfall ditch exceeded the PELs. These locations were within a localized portion of the Double 36-Inch Outfall Drainage Ditch (near its cont1uence with Nonconnah Creek). However, three other subsequent nearby sample locations had lower levels of PAHs in sediment that generally did not exceed the PELs or the R4 ESVs. Lead exceeded the SQB injust one sediment sample. Metals, PAHs, and pesticides were generally either non-detect in surface water or did not exceed their respective R4ESVs, except for lead which slightly exceeded the chronic ESV in one surface water sample. Potential risks to environmental receptors do not appear to be significant along this drainage feature. Record of Decision 20 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

There was one out of six sediment samples from the NOlthwest Drainage Ditch that contained PAHs that exceeded the PEL. There was also one sediment sample that contained lead that was slightly above the PEL. However, nearby sediment samples had PAH andlor lead concentrations that did not exceed the PEL. Levels of dissolved metals in surface water were either non detect or below the chronic ambient water quality criteria. Given the limited presence of contaminants in the NW drainage· ditch, there is little potential for impacts to ecological receptors.

Potential risks to ten'estrial receptors (such as the white footed mouse) were evaluated by considering sediment from the Eastern Drainage Ditch as soil as well as soil from the abandoned channel of Nonconnah Creek. These two features did not contain water at the time of the sampling events. Also, these two areas represent more attractive vegetated habitat than the developed railyard. Food web modeling was used in the risk evaluation. The food web modeling approach uses site-specific data for soil and estimated concentrations in vegetation to estimate the potential oral dosage (in mg/kg-day) to the white footed mouse. The dosage estimates were then compared to Toxicological Reference Yalues (TRYs) to evaluate potential risks. The maximum estimated exposure intake by the mouse for each metal and PAH is generally equal to or below the TRY (no observed adverse effects level), although the resulting summed HI is greater than l.0. However, the TRYs are based on no observed effects levels, which is a conservative approach. Therefore, those contaminants are not likely to pose a significant risk to terrestrial receptors in the Eastern Drainage Ditch or the abandoned chaIUlel of Nonconnah Creek.

There are several sources of uncertainty associated with the Risk Characterization. For example, the ecotoxicological benchmarks are generic screening values. The benchmarks are generally conservative in nature so that constituents below the values are generally regarded as posing no risk. Concentrations exceeding the benchmarks are not evidence that ecological risks are occurring, but merely indicate that additional studies may be wm:ranted.

Although site-specific bioaccLll11ulation data is used in the food web model ing to estimate exposure point concentrations, additional unceltainty is associated with the assumptions required for exposure variables (e.g., food intake rate, dietary preference) and TRY s. To reduce the overall level of uncertainty, a range of exposure assumptions and TRYs are used to estimate Site risks (in the form of HQ values).

2.7.3 Basis for Action

Diesel fueL as free product, has been measured in some groundwater monitoring wells at the Site. Benzo(a)pyrene is a typical component of diesel and its presence above federal primary drinking water standards is assumed in those wells where free product was measured. Lead and arsenic have also been detected in groundwater at levels somewhat above federal primary drinking water standards. The groundwater in the tluvial aquifer at the Site is classified as Record of Decision 21 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septemher 20 I 0

"GA", a potential source of drinking water. TillIS, a response action is warranted since chemical specific standards that define acceptable risk levels are exceeded and exposure to contaminants above these acceptable levels is possible.

The CERCLA petroleum exclusion, which excludes CERCLA response authority for "petroleum", does not apply at this Site due to the presence of lead in the diesel samples. EPA has previously determined tha.t the petroleum exclusion does not apply in situations where hazardous substances not normally found in petroleum are present. Lead has been detected in samples of diesel fuel collected from some of the monitoring wells at the Site. According to literature from the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working Group, lead is not normally found in diesel fuel. At the time of this ROD, the PRP agrees with this assessment and remains willing to perform the work under CERCLA.

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present a potential future threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.

2.8 Remedial Action Objectives

The Remedial Action Objective~ (RAOs) for this Site include:

• Remove the diesel present as free product in the subsurface to the extent practicable • Stabilize the LNAPL plume in groundwater to prevent its potential offsite migration • Address the potential dissolved phase plume in groundwater to comply with ARARs

As noted in the "Basis for Action" section, a response action is warranted since chemical specific standards that define acceptable risk levels are exceeded and exposure to contaminants above these acceptable levels is possible. The groundwater in the fluvial aquifer at the Site is classified as GA, a potential source of drinking water. Once it has been established that a response is necessary, then a given response must comply with ARARs. Furthermore, the response should factor in those requirements classified as to be considered such as the State of Tennessee Division of Underground Storage Tanks' requirement to attempt removal if PSH thickness greater than 0.0 I foot in a well.

2.8.1 Cleanup Levels

Cleanup levels are based on ARARs or risk based. For this Site the groundwater cleanup levels are based on ARARs, the Federal MCLs (drinking water standards) and the Tennessee General Water Quality Criteria. The extent of extraction and recovery of PSH is based on the State of Telmessee Division of Underground Storage Tanks' Technical Guidance Document No. RecorJ of Decision 22 Illinois Central Johnston YarJ Site September 10 I 0

004, "Requirement for Free Product Management". Table 7 lists the contaminants, their respective cleanup levels and the basis.

2.9 Description of Alternatives

2.9.1 Description of Remedy Components

Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative is included in this FS, as required by the NCP. This altemative provides the baseline for evaluation of other alternatives. No remedial action or additional monitoring is included for the No Action altemative

Alternative 2- Monitored natural attenuation (lVINA) MNA is the reliance on natural attenuation processes to achieve site-specific remedial objectives within a time frame that is reasonable compared to that offered by other more active methqds. MNA relies on physical, chemical and biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or concentration of contaminants in soil and groundwater. These in-situ processes include biodegradation: dispersion: dilution: sorption; volatilization: and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants.

After collecting data semi-annually for two years, the sampling program will be reduced to annual sampling to verify continuing biodegradation. ICRR will seek to optimize the monitoring program throughout the life of the project based on a continuing evaluation of monitoring results. Additionally, ICRR may establish institutional controls at the Site, such as deed notices, that will limit future Site land use to industriallcommercialuses and limit the installation and use of water supply wells at the Site.

Alternative 3aJ3b - PSH Skimming

Alternatives 3A and 38 both use active skimmers that preferentially pump PSH from groundwater wells located within the plume. The proposed network includes two skimmers installed in monitoring wells MW-07 and MW-13. No configuration was designed for the PSH plume observed in the %-inch piezometers nOl1h of the former wastewater treatment lagoons, as it is unclear as to whether PSH is generally present in the Shallow Perched Zone in this area. Three 2-inch monitoring wells would be installed in the Shallow Perched Zone in the area of the former wastewater treatment lagoons in order to evaluate the potential presence of PSH. If PSH is confirmed in the Shallow Perched Zone, the additional wells would be incorporated into the selected alternative.

The proposed network also includes six skimmers installed in Fluvial Aquifer monitoring wells MW-33, MW-35, MW-36, MW-38, MW-40, and MW-42. Cunently, ICRR has active skimmers installed and operating in monitoring wells MW-33 and MW-36. Additionally, the Record of Decision 23 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0 network of 2-inch monitoring wells in the Fluvial Aquifer could be supplemented by the installation of 4-inch recovery wells.

Alternative 38 considers that after the PSH is removed to the maximum extent practicable, enhanced bioremediation will be conducted in areas appropriate for the application of oxygen-releasing compounds (ORC) to complete the remedial action. The total product volume of the three PSH plumes is calculated at approximately 14,000 gallons. It is impossible to know to what extent the PSH is recoverable: however for the purpose of evaluating the various alternatives. the total recoverable LNAPL is assumed to be 50% of the in-place volume. As a result. the volume of recoverable LNAPL is appro x imatel y 7.000 gallons. It should be noted that this volume is only an estimate and does not constitute a remedial goal. ICRR will continuously monitor the thickness of the PSH throughout the remedial action and will adjust the volumetric estimates as needed.

Alternative 4aJ4b - PSH Skimming with vacuum enhancement

Alternatives 4A and 48 are the same as Alternative 3A and 38 with the exception that a low vacuum is applied to each well such that the suction enhances recovery of PSH. The vacuum applied to the well is not only effective in incre~sing the free-phase PSH removal, but the induced flow of air through the subsluface results in hydrocarbons being volatilized and transported through the vadose zone by the flowing air to the recovery well. Additionally, air movement through the soil will help maintain aerobic conditions enhancing microbial activity. However, the hydrogeologic conditions at the Site would require significant manual adjustment of the system. which would reduce the system's effectiveness.

Alternative 48 considers that after the PSH is removed to the maximum extent practicable, enhanced bioremediation will be conducted if necessary to comply with ARARs and complete the remedial action. A likely technique would be to use oxygen-release cOll'lpounds (ORC) in the former recovery wells. The ORC would be placed in "socks" that would be placed in the wells and replaced annually.

The estimated time for removal of the PSH is three years based upon a removal rate of 10 gallons of PSH per day from the monitoring/recovery wells. Alternative 48 includes enhanced remediation after the PSH is recovered to the maximum extent practicable and reduces the overall timeframe by two years. As noted previously, the three year timeframe is based upon recovery of about 7,000 gallons bf LN APL. This volume is not a remedial goal but serves to fairly evaluate the performance of each alternative.

The system performance will be reviewed in order to optimize the remedial actions throughout the life of the project. Institutional controls. such as deed notices. may also be established at the Site, to limit future Site land use to industriallcommercialuses and limit the installation and use of water supply wells at the Site. R~conJ of Decision 24 Illinois Central Johnston YarJ Site September ~O I 0

The following tasks are anticipated to be performed for the following durations under Alternative 4A: • Vacuum-enhanced PSH recovery with eight skimmers - 3 years • Performance monitoring - IS years (2 years of semi-aJIDual sampling and 13 years of annual sampling). The first three years of monitoring will coincide with vacuum­ enhanced skimming.

The following tasks are anticipated to be performed for the following durations under Alternative 4B: • Vacuum-Enhanced PSH recovery with eight skimmers - 3 years • Enhanced Bioremediation - 10 years • Performance monitoring - 13 years (2 years of semi-aJIDual sampling and 11 years of annual sampling). The first three years of monitoring will coincide with vacuum-enhanced skimming, while the remaining 10 years coincides with enhanced bioremediation, if necessary.

Alternatives SA and 5B - Mobile-Enhanced Multi-Phase Extraction (MEME)

Alternatives SA and 5B consider the use of multi-phase extraction, and more specifically, mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction (MEME) to preferentially pump PSH from groundwater wells located within the plumes. The MEME technology utilizes high vacuum pumps mounted to tank tI'ucks that allow the recovery of PSH from wells without the capital cost associated with the construction of a permanent recovery system.

The MEME technology has been tested' at the Site during several events between 2008­ 2009. Almost 1400 gallons of PSH were recovered during these tests. The estimated use of the MEME technology includes its use on wells MW-13, RW-Ol, and MW-07 in the shallow perched zone. The MEME technology would be used on wells MW-33, MW-35, MW-36, MW­ 38, MW-40, and MW-42 in the deeper Fluvial aquifer. The system would remove the PSH to the maximum extent practicable. The MEME technology can easily be applied to other wells in either shallow perched zone or the tluvial aquifer as needed. See Figure 2 for the locations where the MEME technology would be applied to recover PSH from the deeper tluvial aquifer.

The system performance will be reviewed in order to optimize the remedial actions throughout the life of the project. Institutional controls, such as deed notices, may also be established at the Site, to limit future Site land use to industriallcol11mercialuses and limit the installation and use of water supply wells at the Site.

The estimated time for removal of the PSH is two years based upon a removal rate of 600 gallons of PSH per series of mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction events which will be conducted bimonthly during the first two years. Alternative 5B includes enhanced remediation after the PSH is recovered to the maximum extent practicable and reduces the overall timeframe by three years. Record of Decision 25 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septemher ~o I()

The following tasks are anticipated to be performed for the following durations under Altemative SA:

• Mobile-Enhanced Multi-Phase Extraction - 12 events completed over 2 years

• Performance monitoring - 15 years (2 years of semi-annual sampling and 13 years of annual sampling). The first two years of monitoring will coincide with mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction.

The following tasks are anticipated to be performed for the following durations under Altemative 5B: • Mobile~Enhanced Multi-Phase Extraction - 12 events completed over 2 years • Enhanced Bioremediation - 10 years • Performance monitoring - 12 years (2 years of semi-annual sampling and 10 years of annual sampling). The first two years of monitoring will coincide with mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction, while the remaining 10 years coincides with enhanced bioremediation, if necessary.

2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative

Altemative 1 is the No Action Altemative. This Altemative includes the 5-year review which would be required if this Altemative is chosen. Alternative 2 includes monitored natural attenuation. Alternatives 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b include skimming of petroleum from groundwater wells. Altematives 4A and 4B are the same as Altemative 3A and 3B with the exception that a low vacuum is applied to each well such that the suction enhances recovery of PSH. Alternatives 5A and 5B include the use of mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction (MEME) which provides a greater vacuum to preferentially pump PSH from groundwater wells located within the plumes. Alternatives 3b, 4b, and 5b include the addition of enhanced bioremediation as necessary to achieve groundwater standards. All alternatives, except Alternative 1, include long term groundwater monitoring.

2.9.3 Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative

The no Action altematives would leave the Site in its CUlTent condition with no current exposures or associated risk, but with the potential for future risk as if contaminated groundwater was used as a source of drinking water.

Altemative 2, MNA, would be protective in the short term given that there are no current exposure or associated risks. In addition, contaminant concentrations are expected to be reduced by MNA. However, the presence of diesel as PSH indicates that MNA may not be successful in achieving groundwater standards and reducing the risk associated with the potential future ingestion of groundwater with contaminants at levels above MCLs. Altematives 3a~ 3b, 4a, 4b, ~ ~ 5a, and 5b are expected to provide progressively faster recovery of diesel PSH and thus faster compliance with groundwater standards. Record of Decision 26 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

In this section, each alternative is evaluated using the nine evaluation criteria required in Section 300.430(f)(S)(i) of the NCP.

2.10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether each altell1ative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled, through treatment, engineering controls, and/or institutional controls.

The "no action" altell1ative (Altell1ative 1) may not be protective of human health or the environment under the cUlTent or future-use scenarios. Although the HHRA determined that there is no risk posed by the groundwater beneath the Site, the discovery of PSH in monitoring wells completed in the Shallow Perched Zone and the Fluvial Aquifer requires that the PSH is recovered to the maximum extent practicable.

The MNA alternative (Altell1ative 2) may not be protective of human health or the environment because there is no action to remove PS,H. Although, the HHRA determined that there is no risk posed by the groundwater beneath the Site, the discovery of PSH in monitoring wells completed in the Shallow Perched Zone and the Fluvial Aquifer requires that the risk be re­ evaluated after PSH is recovered to the maximum extent practicable. Similar to the no action alternative, if the plume moves down-gradient, the MNA altell1ative has no treatment or removal option.

Alternative 3A provides conditional protection of human health and the environment by removing the PSH, but does not address the potential dissolved-phase plume, which may remain. Altell1ative 38 provides protection of human health and the environment by the removal of PSH and the enhanced bioremediation may address any remaining dissolved-phase plumes. The MNA evaluation will reveal the effectiveness of the PSH removal.

Altell1ative 4A provides conditional protection of human health and the environment by removing the PSH, but does not address the potential dissolved-phase plume, which may remain. Alternative 48 provides protection of human health and the environment by the removal of PSH and the enhanced bioremediation may address any remaining dissolved-phase plumes. The long term monitoring will reveal the effectiveness of the PSH removal.

Altemati:ve SA provides conditional protection of human health and the environment by removing the PSH, but does not address the potential dissolved-phase plume, which may remain. Alternative 58 provides protection of human health and the environment by the removal of PSH and the enhanced bioremediation may address any remaining dissolved-phase plumes. The long term monitoring will reveal the effectiveness of the PSH removal. Record of Decision 27 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

2.10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Section 121(d) ofCERCLA and NCP §300.430(f)(1)(ii)(8) require that remedial actions at CERCLA sites at least attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations, which are collectively referred to as "ARARs," unless such ARARs are waived under CERCLA section 121 (d)(4).

Neither the no action alternative (Alternative 1) nor Alternative 2 will comply with ARARs, as the State of Telmessee requires that PSH be recovered to the maximum extent· practicable. Altemative 3A may not guarantee that the dissolved-phase constituents are remediated to concentrations below the chemical-specific ARARs. Alternative 38 should comply with all the ARARs. Alternative 4A may not guarantee that the dissolved-phase constituents are remediated to concentrations below the chemical-specific ARARs. Alternative 48 should comply w.ith all the ARARs. Alternative SA does not guarantee that the dissolved­ phase constit':lents are remediated to concentrations below the chemical-specific ARARs. Alternative 58 should comply with all the ARARs.

2.10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Long-term effectiveness and pem1anence refers to expected residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once clean-up levels have been met. This criterion includes the consideration of residual risk that will remain onsite following remediation and the adequacy and reliability of controls.

The potential for contaminant migration in groundwater at the Site is likely to be similar under both the no action alternative and Alternative 2. Under these alternatives, the Site will be subjected to adverse environmental conditions without the benefit of contaminant treatment. immobilization, containment or disposal. Impacted groundwater and PSH could potentially. migrate off the Site, though such migration is not likely to occur in the near future.

The potential for contaminant migration in groundwater at the Site is reduced under Alternative 3A and 38. Under the alternatives, the Site will benefit from the removal of the PSH, which will significantly reduce the hydrocarbon that may impact the groundwater. Evaluation of the MNA parameters will determine the robustness of the groundwater system in degrading dissolved-phase hydrocarbons. Enhancing the natural attenuation process using enhanced bioremediation will fUl1her shorten the duration of this project, if necessary.

The potential for contaminant migration in groundwater at the Site is reduced under Alternative 4A and 48. Under the alternatives, the Site will benefit from the removal of the PSH, which will significantly reduce the hydrocarbon that may impact the groundwater. Evaluation of the MNA parameters will determine the robustness of the groundwater system in degrading dissolved-phase hydrocarbons. Enhancing the natural attenuation process using enhanced bioremediation will further shorten the duration of this project. . Record of Decision 28 Illinois Celltral Johnston Yard Site September 20 I I)

The potential for contaminant migration in groundwater at the Site is reduced under Altemative 5A and 5B. Under the altematives, the Site will benefit from the removal of the PSH. which will significantly reduce the hydrocarbon that may impact the groundwater. Evaluation of the MNA parameters will determine the robustness of the groundwater system in degrading dissolved-phase hydrocarbons. Enhancing the natural attenuation process using enhanced bioremediation will further shorten the duration of this project.

2.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

This criteria evaluates an altemative's use of treatment to reduce the hamlful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the amount of contamination present.

The "no action" altemative includes no treatment component. Any reduction in mobility, toxicity or volume of impacted media will occur through natural processes such as biodegradation, adsorption, attenuation, and dilution.

Altemative 2 includes no treatment component. Any reduction in mobility, toxicity or volume of contaminated media will occur through natural processes such as biodegradation, adsorption, attenuation and dilution at a very slow rate. The groundwater data collected will provide infomlation on how well the biological system in the vicinity of the PSH plumes is working.

Both Altemative 3A and 3B remove the source of PSH from the groundwater, reduce the concentration of dissolved-phase constituents, and prevent the PSH from reaching off-site receptors. Altemative 3B includes enhanced bioremediation to accelerate the reduction of dissolved-phase constituents. The MNA evaluation of the groundwater system provides an indication of its ability to degrade hydrocarbon compounds.

Both Altemative 4A and 4B remove the source of PSH from the groundwater, reduce the concentration of dissolved-phase constituents, and prevent the PSH from reaching off-site receptors. The long term monitoring of the groundwater system provides an indication of its ability to degrade hydrocarbon compounds. Altemative 4B includes enhanced bioremediation to accelerate the reduction of dissolved-phase constituents.

Both Altemative 5A and 5B remove the source of PSH from the groundwater, reduce the concentration of dissolved-phase constituents, and prevent the PSH from reaching off-site receptors. Altemative 5B includes enhanced bioremediation to accelerate the reduction of dissolved-phase constituents. The MNA evaluation of the groundwater system provides an indication of its ability to degrade hydrocarbon compounds. Record of Decision 29 Illinois CentrJI Johnston Yard Site Septemner 20 I 0

2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to implement the remedy and any adverse impacts that may be posed to workers, the community, and the environment during construction and operation of the remedy until clean-up levels are achieved. Implementation of any of these altematives presents no short-term risks to nearby residents, as the PSH plume is stable, localized in extent, and contained wholly within the Site boundaries.

2.10.6 ImpIementability

Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy from design through construction and operation. Factors such as availability of services and materials, administrative feasibility, and coordination with other govemmental entities are also considered.

The "no action" altemative can be implemented immediately. Because no remedial actions are included, no schedule of completion is included. Altemative 2 can be implemented because it includes monitoring and reporting which is easily done. Altemative 3A can be implemented. The estimated timeframe for removal of the free-phase PSH is five years based upon a removal rate of 5 gallons of PSH per day from 8 monitoring wells collectively. This equates to roughly 3 years and 10 months, but for costing purposes the remedial action is set to occur for five years. The MNA monitoring is described in detail in Section 3, and applies to both Altemative 3A and 38. Altemalive 38 includes enhanced remediation after the PSH is recovered to the maximum extent practicable and reduces the overall timeframe by five years.

Altemative 4A or 48 can be implemented once the additional wells and skimmer systems are installed. However, as mentioned previollsly, the Site's hydrogeologic conditions (i.e., large fluctuations in the potentiometric surface) would require significant manual adjustment of the system, which would reduce the system's effectiveness. The estimated time for removal of the PSH is three years based upon a removal rate of 10 gallons of PSH per day from 8 monitoring wells collectively. This equates to roughly 1 year and 11 months, but for costing purposes the remedial action is set to occur for three years. Altemative 48 includes enhanced remediation after the PSH is recovered to the maximum extent practicable and reduces the overall timeframe by two years.

Altemative 5 (mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction) has been tested at the Site. About 1,400 gallons have been recovered from the Shallow Perched Zone and the Fluvial Aquifer. The estimated time for removal of the PSH is two years based upon a removal rate of 600 gallons of PSH per series of mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction events which will be conducted bimonthly during the first two years. Altemative 58 includes enhanced remediation after the PSH is recovered to the maximum extent practicable and reduces the overall timeframe by three years. Record of Decision 30 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

2.10.7 Cost

The estimated present worth costs for the alternatives, are presented in Table 5. The no action alternative is the cheapest, but there are still costs associated with perioqic five year reviews. The other active remedies vary in cost based on different capital costs and different timeframes estimated to achieve cleanup goals.

2.10.8 State/Support Agency Acceptance

TDEC has been the support agency for this Site and has stated their conCUlTence with the selected remedy.

2.10.9 Community Acceptance

There were no written or verbal comments submitted to EPA during the 30 day comment period. The questions or comments offered by the public at the Proposed Plan public meeting did not indicate a preference among the alternatives. The public comments called for the work to be performed safely and for the community to be informed if the remedy did not work as plmmed. In addition, some people objected to dust reportedly generated during construction as the rail yard reconfigured and expanded its rail lines at the Site.

2.11 Principal Threat Wastes

The NCP establishes and expectation that EPA will use treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable (NCP §300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). Identifying principal threat waste combines concepts of both hazard and risk. In generaL principal threat wastes are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile, which generally calmot be contained in a reliable maImer or would present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. The diesel PSH is viewed as the principal threat because it can be found as free product which is mobile and can also act as a source of dissolved contaminants in groundwater.

2.12 Selected Remedy

2.12.1 Description of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy

The rationale for this remedy is to first remove as much of the diesel PSH from the subsurface as possible using the MEME technique. Removal of the source material will increase the likelihood that enhanced bioremediation and natural processes will be more likely to reduce the remaining contamination and ultimately achieve groundwater standards. Long term monitoring will gauge the effectiveness of the remedy. Record of Decision 31 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 10 I 0

2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy is Alternative 5b. The major components (and estimated timeframes for the components) of the Selected Remedy include:

• Mobile-Enhanced Multi-Phase Extraction to extract and recover PSH from groundwater wells located within the contaminant plumes- 12 events completed over 2 years • Enhanced Bioremediation as necessary after the PSH recovery to address residual groundwater contamination- 10 years • Performance monitoring - 12 years (2 years of semi-armual sampling and 10 years of annual sampling). The first two years of monitoring will coincide with mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction, while the remaining 10 years coincides with enhanced bioremediation, if necessary. • Institutional controls on the property to limit future use of the Site to industrial/commercial uses and to prohibit potential future consumption of groundwater of the Site until cleanup levels and remedial action objectives have been met. • Additional groundwater monitoring as necessary until groundwater standards have been met.

The planned use of the MEME technology includes its application at wells MW-13, RW­ OLand MW-07 in the shallow perched zone. The MEME technology would be used on wells MW-33, MW-35, MW-36, MW-38, MW-40, and MW-42 in the deeper Fluvial aquifer. The system would remove the PSH to the maximum extent practicable. The MEME technology can easily be applied to other wells in either shallow perched zone or the fluvial aquifer as needed.

. The MEME technology will extract diesel PSH that is present in groundwater as well as extract a significant pOltion of diesel that may be present in nearby subsurface soil. Extracted PSH and groundwater will likely be routed to the railyard's existing wastewater treatment plant: Groundwater will be separated from the diesel and the groundwater could then be discharged to the municipal sewer system in accordance with existing permits. Recovered diesel would then be periodically picked up by a Iicensed waste oil recycler.

The estimated time for removal of the PSH is two years based upon a removal rate of 600 gallons of PSH per series of mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction events which will be conducted bimonthly during the first two years. Alternative 5B includes enhanced remediation after the PSH is recovered to the max il1lul1l extent practicable and reduces the overall timeframe to achieve groundwater standards by three years. Record of Decision 32 Illinois Cenlral Johnslon Yard Sile Seplember 2010

The groundwater monitoring will include natural attenuation parameters to determine if natural processes will also contribute to achievement of groundwater standards. The monitoring will also include periodic sampling for arsenic and lead in groundwater as these two contaminants were detected above federal MCLs in a few monitoring wells. Other inorganic parameters, including iron and manganese, that are typically associated with diesel plumes, will be included in the monitoring program

The system performance will be reviewed in order to optimize the remedial actions throughout the life of the project. The time frames noted above are approximate and will be adjusted based on performance monitoring. Institutional controls, such as deed notices, will be established at the Site, to limit future Site land use to industriallcommercialuses and limit the installation and use of water supply wells at the Site.

Institutional Controls (lCs)

The objective of the ICs is to maintain future Site uses that are consistent with the likely land use (industriallcommercial) as evaluated in the baseline risk assessment. Another objective of the ICs is to prevent the installation of drinking water wells on the Site until groundwater clean-up levels have been met.

The mechanism to 'implement t.he ICs are considered proprietary controls. These controls are based on State law and are intended to prohibit activities that may compromise the effectiveness of the remedy or restrict activities or future uses of resources that may result in unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. The Site will have notices placed on the Site property deed via restrictive covenants that run with the land to notify future interested pat1ies or owners of the presence of impacted soil and to limit future use of the Site to industriallcommercial uses. The notices will also prohibit the installation of drinking water wells at the Site. If proprietary controls caJUlot be implemented, then other types of controls may be necessary such as:

COI'emmental Controls - These controls impose land or resource restrictions using the authority of an existing unit of govemment. Typical examples of govemmental controls include zoning, building codes, drilling permit requirements and State or local groundwater use regulations.

£i{forcement and Permit Tools ~l'ith IC Components - These types of legal tools include orders, permits, and consent decrees. These instruments may be issued unilaterally or negotiated to compel a party to limit cel1ain Site activities as well as ensure the performance of affirmative obligations (e.g., to monitor and report on an IC's effectiveness). h{fonnationa/ Devices - These tools provide information or notification about whether a remedy is operating as designed and/or that residual or contained contamination may remain on-site. Typical information devices include State registries, deed notices, and advisories. Record of Decision 33 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 1010

The Institutional Controls must be explained in the Remedial Design (RD) and the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. These controls must stay in place as long as contamination remains at levels that would not allow unrestricted land use or as long as groundwater contamination remains above the final clean-up levels.

The PRPs will be responsible for implementing the ICs including any property surveys, fees. etc .. needed for the ICs. The PRPs will prepareO&M Reports or similar status reports such as an IC Implementation Report that summarizes all ICs implemented for the Site. EPA is responsible for monitoring (e.g., in O&M Report, in IC Implementation Report, during the 5 year reviews, etc.) the implementation and effectiveness of the ICs.

2.12.3 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs

The estimated net present value of the selected remedy is approximately $590,300. Additional detail can be found in Table 6.

2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy

2.12.4.1 Available Use after Clean-up

The Site is currently in use as a rail yard. The remedy does not affect the current or expected future use as a railyard. After the remedy has been implemented. the property will be available for industrial uses with restrictions on the use of groundwater.

2.12.4.2 Final Clean-up levels

As described in the risk assessment. the Site does not pose an unacceptable risk for industriallcommercialuse. The Site is currently a rail yard and that is the most likely future use. However. EPA did initially identify chell1icals of potential concem (COPCs) to develop the clean-up goals at the Site. The COPCs are the chemicals whose data are of sufficient quality for use in the quantitative risk assessment. are potentially site-related, are above background concentrations at the Site, and represent the most significant contaminants in terms of potential toxicity to humans.

Contaminants of Concern (COCs) are the COPCs that significantly contribute to an exposure pathway tha~ exceeds either a 1x 10-4 cumulative site cancer risk or exceeds a non­ carcinogenic hazard index of 1. In addition, a contaminant may be retained as a COC if the observed concentration exceeds a state or federal chemical-specific ARAR or if they have the potential to leach to groundwater at levels exceeding a maximum contaminant level (MCl).

Although there is no groundwater consumption at the Site at this time, groundwater at the Site is considered a potential source of drinking water. Therefore, groundwater clean-up levels

------Record of Decision 34 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

are based on groundwater ARARs which are based on the protection of human health. The Final Clean-up Levels in groundwater are listed in Table 7.

2.12.4.3 ~nticipated Environmental and Ecological Benefits

Groundwater qual ity will improve under the Site as a result of this action. More specifically, it is expected that the fluvial aquifer, which is considered a potential source of drinking water, may ultimately be restored to its intended use.

2.13 Statutory Determinations

2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy will adequately protect human health and the environment through treatment, engineering controls, and/or institutional controls (NCP §300.430(f)(5)(ii». Diesel PSH will be removed from groundwater and adjacent subsurface soil by the MEME technique. The recovered oil will be sent to a licensed waste oil recycler. Enhanced bioremediation will be used to ensure that contaminants associated with diesel are degraded so that cleanup levels are obtained.. Natural attenuation parameters will be included in the long term groundwater monitoring program to determine if natural processes will also aid in the breakdown of contaminants. Arsenic and lead will be monitored in groundwater until it can be shown that the cleanup levels have been met. Proprietary ICs will be placed on the property deed to warn potential propel1y purchasers of potentially contaminated groundwater and prohibitions against its use for drinking water. The lCs will also limit future use of the Site to industrial/commercial uses. These measures are not expected to cause unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media . impacts.

2.13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

The Federal and State ARARs that are relevant to the Site and the Selected Remedy are presented in Tables 8 and 9. The clean-up will comply with the substantative requirements of the ARARs.

2.13.3 Cost Effectiveness

This section explains how the Selected Remedy meets the statutory requirement that all Superfund remedies be cost-effective. A cost-effective remedy in the Superfund program is one whose "costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness" (NCP §300.430(f)(1 )(ii)(D». The "overall effectiveness" is determined by evaluating the following three of the five balancing criteria used in the detailed analysis of alternatives: (l) Long-term effectiveness and permanence: (2) Reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume (TMV) through treatment; and, (3) Short-term effectiveness. "Overall effectiveness is then compared to cost" to determine whether a remedy is cost-effective (NCP §300.430(f)( 1)(ii)(D). RecorJ of Decision 35 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 2010

The selected remedy is considered cost effective because it is a permanent solution that reduces potential future human health risks associated with exposure to contaminants above risk based ARARs in groundwater and the remedy costs less than other alternatives except for no action and MNA. It will be effective in the long term because it will first focus on the extraction of diesel PSH which will reduce the potential for migration and increase the likelihood that enhanced bioremediation or natural processes will further reduce contaminant levels un'til they comply with ARARs. The remedy includes long term monitoring for inorganic contaminants to ensure that these contaminants also meet their respective ARARs. It will be effective in the short term since it does not require the construction of an onsite extraction and treatment system instead relying upon a mobile system to extract the diesel PSH.

2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or Resource Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)

The selected remedy provides permanent solutions for the impacted media. The MEME technology will permanently remove as much diesel PSH, the Principal Threat Waste, as practicable. The extracted diesel PSH will be managed by a licensed waste oil recycler. Treatment by enhanced bioremediation will also be used as necessary to achieve the cleanup objectives for groundwater once the PSH has been recovered to the extent practicable.

2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The selected remedy satisfies the preference for treatment as a principal element because the recovered diesel PSH and groundwater will be routed to the railyard's onsite wastewater treatment plant so that the resulting water can then be discharged to municipal sewer in accordance with existing permits. In addition, enhanced bioremediation will be used as necessary for an insitu groundwater treatment.

2.13.6 Five-Year Requirements

Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite in soil above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted every five years after the start of the remedial action at the Site to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment. Contaminant levels in on-site soil do not pose an unacceptable risk for continued industrial/commercial use, but may pose an unacceptable risk for residential use. Additional soil sampling would be necessary to further evaluate potential residential use of the Site and to determine if statutory reviews can be discontinued. If additional data supported the cessation of statutory reviews, then policy five year reviews would be conducted until groundwater standards had been met. Record of Decision 36 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I0

2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes from PreferredAlternative of Proposed Plan

There were no significant changes from the Proposed Plan.

PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

There were no written or verbal comments submitted to EPA during the 30 day comment period. The only comments received from the community were those offered during the Proposed Plan public meeting that was held on August 3 L 2010.

The questions or comments offered by the public at the Proposed Plan public meeting did not indicate a preference among the alternatives. The public comments called for the work to be performed safely and for the community to be informed if the remedy did not work as planned. In addition, some people objected to dust reportedly generated during the transport of soil during constntction as the rail yard reconfigured and expanded its rail lines at the Site.

The work to be performed as pat1 of this selected remedy is an accepted and proven technique to recover diesel from the subsurface. Nevertheless, the cleanup contractor will be expected to conduct the work in a safe manner. EPA will inform the community if the selected remedy is not effective and it becomes necessary to consider other altematives not presented in the Proposed Plan. EPA understands that all significant expansion work at the Site has been completed so there should be no fUl1her transport of soil at the Site. Also, the selected remedy does not involve the excavation of soil at the Site. Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septemher 20 I 0

FIGURES ·-' ,, ./ ;' .I"

".«

.I f .

U R E

N o / /

'.: -'" ..-:~;V'/ .~'~-...:::...:~ y, ("

, .../.,. //f':f, j'

~~A' (~ !.. ~ ~ . .\,;.... . :: B_ \!..'."!.I ,•• ,:!:......

leRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS. 1f: t";~-I£SSE SCALE iN FEE r

SOUIlCE. FIGURE u.s G 5 '.5 MI"\JTE CU ....OIlAJ/CI.( >,lAPIS\. SOU7HWEST "''''''PfUS, TfIlNfSS£E·""I'''''''''SAS ''-'65. PHOTO'!EVISEO 1993 1 ------"

-• ...,.,.•

SHALLOW PERCHED ZONE EXISTING SHALL ~ ZONE RECOVERYo:w. PERCHED

~uvw.ITORIHGAQUIFER WEll.~ATER

PlUGGEOAKJMOHITORJNG~ED

...... _, ESTI.....TED - SEPARATEDBOUNDARY ~~PHA5E OF ~ POTENTIAL PLUME ...... ~~ARATED

EXTENT OF PHASE SEPARATED PLUME -'-'-'_"':"-' ~...•..•...•.~~~,,~.~~~~~!.. -... -- --­ -~~;.:-...... ~ .-....

.-_ ...... ~.._.------...--.~i'9"-- .-- ..... ------­ -'--,-­ _.- .•.. --­ ---..----­ ------.-­ ----..­------_._------_. ~~.;~~c::~:~==~~ _::.~. _____ .. __ ._,._. -_•..-­ ...... _....._.. -...­ ...... ­ .....­ ..­ ...... _ .....-._.. ­

CPTIROST BORING LOCATION.

REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION SOIL BORING LOCATION

SOIL TPH CONCENTRATION ABOVE 1,000 I'\II'kg

SOIL IMPACTS RELATED TO THE FLUVIAL AQUIFER PSH PLUME

ICRR JOHNSTON YARC MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE PROJECT NO.: 114470 IDATE, OMMOtO BY; O.F.

10011 MEAIXM'GlEN L.J.NE FIGURE SCALE IN FEET SUrrE100 1" = 150'-0" CTRC HOUSTON, TEXAS 77D42 113--244-1COJ 3 Record of Decision 2 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site St:ptember 20 I 0

TABLES R~cord of Decision 3 Illinois Central J(lhnston Yard Sit~ Sept~mb~r 2010

Table 1 Conceptual Site Model (Human Receptors)

Source Area Receptor Exposure Media Exposure Route Fuel infrastructure CUlTent: Industrial Surface Soil Dermal Contact (h istoric fuel Worker. Trespasser, Ingestion releases) Visitor Inhalation Fill material CUlTent: Industrial -Surface Soil Dermal Contact (Site work- placement Worker. Trespasser, Ingestion of fill) Visitor Inhalation

Fuel infrastructure Future: Industrial Surface Soil Dermal Contact (historic fuel Worker. Construction Ingestion releases) Worker, Trespasser, Inhalation Visitor Future: Construction Subsurface soil Dermal Contact Worker Ingestion Inhalation Future: Industrial Subsurface Soil Inhalation Worker, Trespasser, Visitor Future: Construction Shallow perched Dermal Contact Worker groundwater Ingestion Inhalation Future: Industrial Fluvial groundwater Dermal Contact Worker Ingestion Inhalation

Fill material Future: Industrial Surface Soil. Dermal Contact (Site work- placement Worker, Construction Ingestion of fill) Worker, Trespasser, Inhalation Visitor Future: Construction Subsurface soil Dermal Contact Worker Ingestion Inhalation Future: Industrial Subsurface soil Inhalation Worker, Trespasser, Visitor Future construction Shallow perched Dermal Contact worker groundwater Ingestion Inhalation Record of Decision 4 Illinois Ct:l1lral Johnston Yard Sill' Seplember 20 I 0

Table 2 Groundwater Contaminants Exceeding Primary Drinking Water Standards or State Groundwater Standards (Fluvial Aquifer)

Chemical Minimum Maximum units Detection Arithmetic Standard Concentration Concentration Frequency Average (%) Arsenic 0.012 0.98S..f mg/l 10 0.0036 0.010 I Lead 0.0096 0.230 mg/l 15 0.015 0.015 I I 0.005­ Benzo(a)pyrene ND NO) mg/l ND NO 0.0002 I PSH J

I Federal primary drinking water standard or action level 2 Tennessee General Water Quality Criteria :I State of Tennessee Division of Underground StorageTanks ' Technical Guidance Document No. 004, "Requirements for Free Product Management", (TDEC, 2007). Attempt removal if PSH thickness greater than 0.01 foot in a well. :r The initial result for MW-lS appears to be anomalous because subsequent sampling and analysis reported results of non-detect with a detection limit of 0.0075 mg/l. The average detected concentration of arsenic in groundwater listed above does not include a rep0l1ed concentration of 0.985 mg/lin MW-1S. 5 Wells that were found to have PSH were not analyzed for PAHs including benzo(a)pyrene, but the presence of individual PAHs is expected. Recoru of Decision 5 Illinois Central Johnston Yaru Site September 20 I 0

Table 3 Site Wide Risk Assessment Summary of Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Hazards

Receptor Exposure Media Cancer Risk Non-Cancer Hazard

Industrial Worker Surface Soil 2.0 E-5 0.2 Fluvial Groundwater 4.0 E-5 0.5 Construction Worker Surface/Subsurface Soil 2.0 E-6 0.6 Shallow Groundwater 6.0 E-8 0.03 Trespasser Surface/Subsurface Soil 7.0 E-8 0.002 Recreational Visitor Adult Surface Water 2.0 E-7 0.002 Youth Surface Water ·2.0 E-7 0.004 Child Surface Water 1.0 E-6 0.04

~ ote: Construction Worker and Industrial Worker were evaluated for lead exposure via shallow and lluvial groundwater. It was concluded tharboth waters did not pose an unacceptable risk. Also. the construction worker. industrial worker. and youth trespasser were evaluated for exposure to lead in soil. The results were all below the 1994 OSWER directive regarding projected blood lead levels. 6 Record of Decision Sc . tember 20 I 0 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site

Table 4 Classification Yard Soils Risk Assessment Summary of Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Hazards

Fill Material RCl:t:plor Exposure bthway Cancer Risk HI Constmction INorker lngesti(lu 8.312-06 S.SE-O I Dermal Contact 3.SE-07 3.St::-02 rIIha lation 0 rParticulates 7.9E-09 2.2[-06 CUllIulative Silt: Risks and Hazards S.7E-06 6.2[-0 I

Industrial Worker Ingestion 1.3E-05 9.7E-02 Dt"n1131 Contact I.3E-06 4.7E-m Cumulative Site Risks alld Hazards lAE-OS 1.0E-O I

Trespasser Ingestion 2.JE-07 4.SE-03 Denn:ll Conrad I.()E·OS 1.5E-04 Cumubti\'~ Site Risks and Hazards 2.5£:-07 4.7E-03

Silty ChlY Conslruct)(m \~/ orkcr Jngl'siiotl 2.7E-07 4.2E-02 Derma I Comac r 8.2E-09 1.3E-03 Inhalation of Particulates. 3.2E-1O NA Cumulative Sile Risks and Hazards 2.SE-07 4.4E-02

Industrial Workcr Ingestion 4.1 E-07 2.6[-03 Dermal Cuntact 2.7£-08 17E-04 Cumulative Sile Risks and Hazards 4.4E-07 2.7E-03

·rrespass.:r rn~~stion 7.7E-09 1.~E-04 Derma) ComJct 3.41--:-10 'i.4E-06 ClIlllulative Sik Risks and Hazard:,; 8.01:-09 1.2E-04

~ ote: The construction worker. industrial worker. and youth trespasser were evaluated for exposure to lead in soil. The results were all below the 1994 OSWER directive regarding projected blood lead levels. Record of Decision 7 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September ~O I 0

Table 5 Comparison of Costs for Each Alternative

Alternative Construction Maintenance Total Present Worth Cost or System ITesting/Reporting for Operation 12 to 30 years 1 (present worth) I 0 $213.400 $213.400 2 $30.400 $SI9.245 $S49.645 3a $90,900 $65(1091 $74.1 ,000

3b $90.000 $602.144 $692.144 4a $161. 000 $490.389 $6SI.400

4b $161. 000 $481.502 $642,500

5a $30.400 $584.909 $615.300

Sb $30.400 $560.905 $S91.300 Duration (years) Alternatives 1 and 2: 30: Alternatives 3a: 20. 3b: 15: 4a: IS. 4b: 13. 5a: IS. 5b: 12 Record of Decisioll 8 Illinois Cl'ntral Johnston YJrJ Sitt' S.:ptemht'r 20 I (I

Table 6 Detailed Cost Estimate Selected Remedy

TASK FREQUENCY ANNUAL COST NET PRESENT VALUE Install additional Year I $30.400 $30,400 monitoring wells Capital Costs $30,400 Conduct 12 MEME Years I and 2 $126,900 $242,760 events Enhanced Years 3 through 12 $2,800 $21,856 B ioremediation Monitoring and Years 1 and 2 $43,500 $83,216 Arulllal Report Years 3 through 12 $24,700 $192,803 Well Plugging and Year 12 $28,900 $20,270 Abandonment O&M Costs $560,905

, Total Costs $591.305 Nolt~s: I - NPY (Nel Prescnt Value) ba~cJ lIpon 3% Compound Interest Factors

Assumplions: Install 6 new wells Pcrform 12 EFR'R) events (6 per year) Scm i-annual l\l7\iA sampling for t",iO years measure watcr Ic\'cl & LNAPI.. thi(;kness - 32 wdls MNA parameter analyses - 19 wells Annual sall1pl jng j{)f '3 years measure water level & LNAPL thidncss - 32 wells ~....tNA par:lI11dcr analyses - 19 wells L\)w 110\\' purging and sampling (no LNAPL in \\cll) Di:';crde-inlerval sampkr Iwdls \... irh LNAPl.) Annual report to EPA 9 Record of Decision September 20 I 0 IIlim-'is Central Johnston Yard Site

TASK FREQlJENCY ANNUAL COST NPVl Install 6 new monitoring wt:lIs Year 1 '530.400 $30,400 Capital Cost $30,4041

Cunduct 12 EFR 11' t:vcnts Years I and :; S 126,900 $142,760 Enh

Notes: I - ~PV (Net PrescllI Value) based upon 3~/Q Compound Interest Factors

Assumptions: Install 6 new wells Perti.lr1n 12 EFR';H) ('vents (6 per year)

Semi-annual MNA sampling for !\.... l) yrars measure water level & LNAPL thickness - 32 wt:lIs '\INA parameter analyses .. 19 welb Annllal sampling for 13 years measure \.... atcr Ievd &. LNAPL thickness - 32 w.;lIs

\·t~A parameter 3nalyS1:s - JI) wells L~)w Ill'w purgillg and sampling (no LNAPL in well) Discrett:'-interval s:tlTlpkr (v,:dls with LNAPL) .Annual report to EPA Record of Decision 10 Illinois Central Johnstoll Yard Site September ~O I 0

Table 7 Final Clean-up Levels

MEDIA CONTAMINANT CLEAN-UP LEVEL SOURCE Groundwater Arsenic lO I-lg/L Tennessee General Water Quality Criteria (also Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard) Lead 5 I-lg/L Tennessee General Water Quality Criteria Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2ug/l Tennessee General Water Quality Criteria (also Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard) PSH Attempt removal if State of TetU1essee Division PSH thickness of Underground Storage greater than 0.01 foot Tanks' Technical Guidance in a well. Document No. 004, "Requirements for Free Product Management", (TDEC, 2007). Record of Decision II Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septemher ~O I 0

Table 8 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Provisions of the following Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations (Chemical-Specific) Selected Remedy

Action/Medium Requirements Prerequisite Citation Restoration of Except for naturally Presence of contaminants TDEC 1200-4-3­ groundwater to occurring levels, General in ground water of the .08(2 )(a) and (b) its designated Use Ground Water: (a) shall State designated as General use not contain constituents that Use as defined in TDEC exceed those levels specified 1200-4-3-.07(2)(b) and in Rules 1200-4-3-.03(l)j classified in TDEC 1200­ and k: and (b) shall contain 4-3-.07(4)(b) ­ no other constituents at Relevant and appropriate levels and conditions which pose an unreasonable risk to the public health or the environment. Record of Decision 12 Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 2010

Table 9 Action Specific ARARs

ActionlMedium Requirements Prerequisite Citation(s) Alternatives Groundwater Monitoring aDd Recovery WeIIlDstaIJatkm and CJc.ure " Installation and All wells shall be constructed in a manner that Construction, modification, and RuLes and Alternatives I maintenance of will guard against contamination of the repair of groundwater ReguLations of through 58 groundwater groundwater aquifers underlying S~elby monitoring and recovery wells. Wells in Shelby monitoring and County. - relevant and appropriate County, Section recovery wells. 6

All monitoring wells must be cased in a Construction of RCRA 40CFR manner that maintains the integrity of the groundwater monitoring wells. 264.97(c) monitoring well bore hole; this casing must be - relevant and appropriate IDEC 1200-1­ , screened or perforated and packed with gravel 11-.06(6)(hX3) or sand, where necessary, to enable collection of groundwater samples; the annular space above the sampling depth must be sealed to prevent contamination of groundwater and samples.

Abandonment of All wells shall be abandoned in such a way as Permanent plugging and RuLes and Alternatives I groundwater to restore as nearly as possible those abandoning of groundwater ReguLations of through 58 monitoring and subsurface conditions which existed before the monitoring and recovery wells. Wells in SheLby recovery wells. well was constructed. A well penetrating - relevant and appropriate County, Section several aquifers or formations, must be filled 9 and sealed in such a way as to prevent the vertical movement of water from one aquifer to another.

Well shall be completely fi lled and sealed in Permanent plugging and IDEC 1200-4­ such a manner that vertical movement of fluid abandonment of a well ­ 6-.09(6)(d) either into or between formation(s) containing relevant and appropriate groundwater classified pursuant to Rules of the IDEC Chap. 1200-4-6-.05(1) through the borehole is not allowed.

Groundwater andPSR Extradion

Free Product Recovery of free product must be attempted in Product greater than 0.. 0 I TDEC Alternatives 3A Management wells with greater than 0.01 foot measurable measured in any monitoring Technica L through 58 free product well-TBC Guidance Document 004

Injection of Injection wells for the purpose of improving The injection of surfactants, RuLes and Alternatives surfactants or groundwater quality may be considered under biological enhancements or ReguLations of 38 ,48 , SA, and biological Section 14.02, but approval of these wells will other innovative technologies Wells in Shelby 58 enhancements . not release the appellant of any applicable to expedite groundwater County, Section associated with requirements under state or federal law for the remediation. - relevant and 13 and 14 Innovative remediation of contaminated groundwater or appropriate Technologies materials at the site.

" , Waste Generation. Cbarac:terizattoa. Segregadon, aDd Storage Management of Recovered hydrocarbons separated from The treatment of recovered 40 CFR 279.20 Alternatives 3A Used Oil (recovered recovered groundwater are subject to the LNAPL and groundwater will and 40 CFR through 58 hydrocarbons) standards for the management of used oil necessitate the generation, on- 279.24 including their storage, transportation, and off- site storage, transportation, and site disposition. off-site disposition of recovered hydrocarbons. ­ applicable Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0 .

Table 9 (cont.) Action Specific ARARs

Action/Medium Requirements Prerequisite Citation(s) Alternadves Waste Generation, Cbaracterizatioll. Segregation, and Storage

Characterization of Must determine if solid waste is excluded from Generation of solid waste 40CFR Alternatives 3A Solid Waste regulation under 40 CFR 261.4(b); and as defmed in 40 CFR 262.II(a) through 58 261.2 and which is not TDEC 1200-1­ excluded under 40 CFR 11-.03(1)(b) (I) 261.4( a) - applicable

Must determine if waste is listed as hazardous waste Generation of solid waste 40CFR under 40 'CFR Part 261 ; or which is not excluded 262.II(b) under40CFR 261.4(a)­ TDEC 1200-1­ applicable 11 -.03(1 )(b) (2)

Must determine whether the waste is (characteristic 40CFR waste) identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 by 262.lI(c) either: TDEC 1200-1- (l) Testing the waste according to the methods set 11 -.03(1)(b)(3) forth in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261, or according to an equivalent method approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 260.2 1; ill (2) Applying knowledge of the hazard characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the processes used.

Must refer to Parts 261,262,264, 265, 266,268, Generation of solid waste, 40CFR and 273 of Chapter 40 for possible exclusions or which is determined to be 262.II(d) restrictions pertaining to management of the hazardous - applicable TDEC 1200- 1­ specific waste 11 -.03( 1)(b)(4) Characterization of Must obtain a detailed chemical and physical Generation of RCRA­ 40CFR Alternatives 3A Hazardous Waste analysis on a representative sample of the waste(s), hazardous waste for 264.13(a)( 1) through 58 (all primary and which at a minimum contains all the information storage, treatment or secondary wastes that must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the disposal - applicable waste in accordance with pertinent sections of 40 CFR 264 and 268.

Tl'IlDSpOI1ation of Waste

General Establishes responsibilities of Federal, State, and The disposal of treated 40CFR Alternatives 3A Pretreatment local government, industry and the public to groundwater to the local 403.5(d) through 58 Regulations for implement National Pretreatment Standards to POTW. - relevant and Existing and New control pollutants which pass through or interfere appropriate Sources of Pollution with treatment processes in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) or which may contaminate sewage sludge.

Industrial Identifies parameters and allowable levels for each The disposal of treated Agreement No. Alternative 3A Wastewater parameter for discharges from the yard into the City groundwater to the city S-NO I-023; through 58 Discharge of Memphis sewer system. The levels are consistent sewer works - applicable City of Agreement- City of with the city Sewer Use Ordinance and the State of Memphis Memphis and lCR- Tennessee and the US Environmental Protection Sewer Use Johnston Yard Agency regulations to preserve the integrity of the Ordinance, publicly owned treatment works. Section 33

ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement T8C = to be considered CFR = Code ofFederal Regulations TDEC =Rules of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Chapter as noted LNAPL = light non-aqueous phase liquids POTW = publicly-owned treatment works RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septemher 20 I 0

APPENDIX A: RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

Site Wide Risk Assessment Tables APPENDIX C • TABLE 2.3 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Johnston Yard· Eastern Drainage Ditch

Scenario Tlmeframe: CurrenVFuture Medium: Sediment Exposure Medium: Sediment

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Detection Range of Detection Limits Concentration Screening COPC Ralionale for Poinl Number Concentration Concentration Frequency Minimum Maximum Used for Toxicity Value Flag Selection or Delection Limit Detection limit Screening (N/C) (Y/N) Deletion

Surface Soil 7487·94·7 Mercury 4.8E-02 9.6E-02 mglkg 64% 1.6E-02 4.2E-ll2 3.IE+OI (1) nc N 2a 7440·38·2 Arsenic 4.5E+OO 2.3E+OI mg/'Kg 100% - - 1.6E+00 (I) ca Y 2b 7440-43·9 Cadmium 6.2E·Ol 1.8E+00 mg/'Kg 55% 1.8E-ll1 2.7E-ll1 4.5E+OI (I) nc N 2a 7440·50·8 Copper 5.6E+Ol 1.4E+02 mglkg 100% - - 4.IE+03 (I) nc N 2a 7439·92·1 Lead I.4E+02 4.1E+02 mg/'Kg 100% - - 8.0E+02 (1) nc N 2a 7440-02-0 Nickel I.2E+OI 3.0E+Ol mg/'Kg 100% - - 2.0E+03 (I) nc N 2a 7440-66-6 Zinc 1.7E+02 5.4E+02 mg/kg 100% .. - 3.IE+04 (I) nc N 2a 72·54-8 4,4'·DDT (p,p'·DDT) 1.8E-OI 1.8E-01 mglkg 13% 6.4E-03 8.5E-03 1.0E+Ol (I) ca N 2a 117·81·7 bis(2·Elhythexyt)phlhalale 1.5E-OI 4.1E·OI mglkg 25% I.IE-Ol 1.6E-Ol 1.2E+02 (1) ca N 2a 56·55·3 Benzo(a)anlhracene 4.2E·Ol 1.4E+00 mglkg 100% - - 2.1E+00 (I) ca N 2a 50·32·8 Benzo(a)pyrene 5.3E·OI 1.8E+OO mglkg 100% - - 2.IE·Ol (1) ca y 2b 205·99·2 Benzo(b)fluoranlhene 9.9E-O.1 2.7E+00 mg/'Kg 100% .. - 2.1E+00 (1) ca y 2b 207·08·9 Benzo(k )flumanthene 3.4E-OI 1.3E+00 mg/kg 100% - .. 2.1E+Ol (1) ca N 2a 218·01·9 Chrysene 6.IE·OI 1.9E+00 mglkg 100% - - 2.IE+02 (I) ca N 2a 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 6.BE-OI 2.6E+OO mglkg 100',," - .. 2.2E+03 (I) nc N 2a 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 2.IE-OI 1.2E+00 mg/'Kg 100% - - 1.9E+00 (I) nc N 2a 129-00·0 Pyrene 6.1E-OI 2.2E+00 mglkg 100% - .. 2.9E+03 (I) nc N 2.

(1) EPA Region IX Industrial Soil PRG (2005); Hazard Quotienl for noncarcinogens sel al 0.1; where PRG is reponed as Ihe saluralion (sal) or maximum (max) concentralion, value presenled in table is the risk-based concentration reported at HQ=O. 1 unless sat or max concentration is lower than this value (2) a: Essenlial nulrienl b: Below two limes average Background Concenlralion c: Below Screening Clitena d: Below Surrogale Screening Crileria (Naphlhalene) e: No Screening Crileria eslablished, retained

Page 1 of 1 '--- '--- ,--_. '--­ -' ._--'

APPENDIX C - TABLE 2.4 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Johnston Yard .. Northwest Drainage

Scenario Timeframe: CUrTenVFuture Medium: Sediment Exposure Medium: Sediment

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Detection Range of Deteclion Limits Concentration Screening COPC Rationale for Point Number Concentration Concentration Frequency Minimum Maximum Used for Toxiclly Value Flag Selection or Detection limit Detection Limit Screening (N/C) (YIN) Deletion

Sediment 7487-94-7 Mercury 7.4E-02 9.1E-02 mglkg 22% 1.7E-02 2.9E-02 3.1E+01 (1) nc N 2c 7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.9E+00 1.4E+01 mglkg 100% - - 1.6E+00 (1) ca Y 7440-43-9 Cadmium 2.8E-01 1.7E+00 mg/kg 56% 1.1E-01 VE-01 4.5E+01 (1) nc N 2c 7440-50-B Copper 1.5E+01 5.7E+01 mglkg 100% - -- 4.1E+03 (1) nc N 2c 7439-92-1 Lead 1.6E+01 1.5E+02 mgtkg 100% - -- BOO (1) nc N 2c 7440-02-0 Nickel 1.2E+01 1.9E+01 mglkg 100% - - 2.0E+03 (1) nc N 2c 7440-66-6 Zinc B.3E+01 3.1E+02 mg/kg 100% - - 3.1E+04 (1) nc N 2c 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.9E-01 9.9E-01 mg/kg 50% 1.1E-01 1.2E-01 1.2E+02 (1) ca N 2c 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anlhracene 1.9E-02 3.6E+00 mglkg 100% - -- 2.1E+00 (1) ca Y 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.3E-02 3.9E+00 mglkg 100% - - 2.1E-01 (1) ca Y 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranlhene 1.0E-01 7.5E+00 mglkg 100% - - 2.1E+00 (1) ca Y 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.0E-02 2.7E+00 mglkg 83% 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 2.1E+01 (1) ca N 2c 218-01-9 Chrysene 6.6E-02 7.0E+00 mgtkg 100% - - 2.1E+02 (1) ca N 2c 206-44-0 Fluoranlhene 3.7E-02 3.1E+00 mglkg 100% -- - 2.2E+03 (1) nc N 2c 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 7.4E-03 4.5E-01 mglkg 100% - - 1.9E+00 (1) nc N 2d 129-00-0 Pyrene 3.3E-02 3.2E+00 mglkg 100% - -- 2.9E+03 (1) nc N 2c

(1) EPA Region IX Induslrial Soil PRG (2005); Hazard Quotlenl for non carcinogens set at 0.1; where PRG Is reported as Ihe saturation (sat) or maximum (max) concenlration. value presented in lable is Ihe risk-based concentration reported at HQ::;:O.1 unless sat or max concentration is lower than this value (2) a: Essential nutrient b: Below two times average Background Concentration c: Below Screening Criteria d: Below Surrogate Screening Criteria (Naphthalene) e: No Screening Crileria established, relained

Page 1 of 1 :.--­ .~--'

APPENDIX C - TABLE 2.5

OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Johnston Yard - Doubl. 36 Dralnag.

Tlmetrame: CurrenVFuture IE Sediment Exposure Medium: Sediment

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Detection Range of Detection Limits Concentration Screening COPC Rationale for Point Number Concentration Concentration Frequency Minimum Maximum Vsedlor Toxicity Value Flag Selection or Detection Limit Detection limit Screening (N/C) (YIN) Deletion

SedIment 7467·94·7 Mercury 1.1E-Ol 1.1E-Ol mg/kg 13% 1.2E-02 4.5E-02 3.1E+Of (1) nc N 2c 7440·36·2 Arsenic 4.2E+00 3.3E+Ol mg/kg 100% - - f.6E+00 (1) ca Y 7440-43·9 Cadmium 6.7E-Ol 2.3E+00 mglkg 50% 1.6E-Ol 2.7E-Ol 4.SE+Of (f) nc N 2c 7440-S0-8 Copper f.6E+Ol 6.2E+Of mg/kg fOO% _. - 4.fE+03 (f) nc N 2c 7439·92·f Lead 2.fE+Ol 6.6E+02 mg/kg fOO% - -- 80 (1) nc Y 7440-02-0 Nickel f.5E+Ol 3.2E+Of mg/kg fOO% -- - 2.0E+03 (f) nc N 2c 7440·66-6 Zinc S.9E+Ol 4.0E+02 mg/kg 100% - - 3.fE+04 (f) nc N 2c 117-8f·7 bis(2-Ethylhexyf)phthalate 4.6E-Of 4.6E-Ol mglkg 20% f.3E·Ol I.SE-Ol 1.2E+02 (f) ca N 2c 56·5S·3 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.8E-02 2.5E+00 mglkg 100% - - 2.fE+00 (1) ca Y 50·32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.6E·02 2.7E+00 mglkg 100% -- - 2.fE-Of (f) ca y 20S-99·2 Benzo(b )fIuoranthene 4.3E·02 3.4E+00 mglkg fOO% _. .. 2.fE+00 (1) ca Y 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.0E-02 f.SE+OO mglkg 100% - - 2.1E+OI (1) ca N 2c 2f8-Of·9 Chrysene 3.0E-02 3.fE+00 mglkg fOO% - - 2.1E+02 (f) ca N 2c 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 3.7E-02 6.8E+00 mglkg fOO% - - 2.2E+03 (1) nc N 2c 85-01·8 Phenanthrene 1.IE-02 3.0E+00 mglkg 100% - - 1.9E-OO (1) nc Y 21 129·00-0 Pyrene 3.7E-02 4.8E+00 mg/kg fOO% - - 2.9E-03 (1) nc N 2c

(f) EPA Region IX Industrial Soil PRG (200S): Hazard Quotient lor noncarcinogens set at 0.1: where PRG is reported as the saturation (sat) or maximum (max) concentration, value presented in table is the riSk-based concentration reported at HQ=O.1 unless sat or max concentration is lower than this value (2) a: Essential nutrient b: Below two times average Background Concentration c: Below Screening Criteria d: Below Surrogate Screening Criteria (Naphthalene) e: No Screening Crtteria established. retained I: Above Surrogate Screening Criteria (Naphthalene). retained

Page 1 of 1 " '...--­ \~ '-' APPENDIX A • TABLE 2,1 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Johnston Yard

CurrenVFulure II=~~~edlum: Tlmerrame Surface 5011 re Medium: Surface Soli

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Unlls Detection Range of DetecUon Llmlls ConcenlraUon Two Times Average Screening COPC RaUonale for Point Number Concentration Concentration Frequency Minimum MaximLim Used for Background Toxicity Value Flag Selection or Detection LImit Detection Llml Screening Value (N/C) (YIN) Deletion

all Total P Total Phosphorus 1,3E+02 1,2E+03 mg/kg 95% 2,3E+01 2.SE+01 NA (ta 1,1E+03 NA N 2a 71·43·2 Benzene 1.1E·03 1.4E·03 mglkg 5% 3,OE·04 5,9E·04 1.4E+00 (1a ca N 2c 100-41·' Ethylbenzene 1.5E·03 1.5E·03 mg/kg 5% 2,5E·04 4,9E·04 4,OE+02 (lb nc N 2c 1330-20-7 Tolal Xylenes 3.SE·03 3.SE·03 mg/kg 5% 4,4E·04 8,BE-04 9.0E+01 (I. nc N 2c 108·88-3 TOluene I.1E·03 2,5E·03 mg/kg 29% 2,2E-04 4,3E·D4 2,2E+02 (1a nc N 2c 83·32·9 Acenaphthene 1.6E·03 4,OE+00 mg/kg 95% 3.8E·04 4,5E·04 2,9E+03 (1. nc N 2c 208-98-8 Acenaphthylene 1.4E·03 1.8E+00 mg/kg 90% B.BE·D4 1,2E·02 NA (I. NA Y 2e 120-12·7 Anthracene 2,8E·03 4.IE+00 mg/kg 98% 89E·D4 8,9E·D4 2.4E+D4 (I. nc N 2c 58-55-3 Benzo{a)anthracene 7,OE·03 1.0E+OI mg/kg 95% B.7E-D4 3,3E-03 2.IE+00 (Ia ca y 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.BE-OJ 9.4E+00 mg/kg 95% 4,OE·D4 2,OE-03 2.1E-OI (I. ca y 205·99-2 Benzo(bJfluoranthene 1.2E-02 1,2E+01 mg/kg 95% B,BE-D4 3,3E-03 2,IE+00 (1. ca y 191·24-2 Benzo(g,h,l)perylene 7.0E-03 5.5E+00 mglkg 93% 4.4E-D4 2,2E-03 NA (1. NA Y 2e 207-08-9 Benzo(k)ftuoranthene B,OE-03 B.2E+DD mglkg 90% 4.5E-04 8,1E-03 2,lE+01 (I. ca N 2c 218-01·9 Chrysene 1.3E·03 1,IE+OI mglkg 98% 9.5E-D4 9.5E-D4 2.1E+02 (Ia ca N 2c 53-70-3 pibenz(a,h)anthracene 4.0E-03 1.5E+00 mg/kg 93% B.BE-D4 4,3E-03 2,lE-OI (1. ca y 208-44-0 Fluoranthene 3,BE·03 2.5E+OI mg/kg 9B% B,3E-D4 6.3E-04 2,2E+03 (I. nc N 2c B8-73·7 Fluorene 2,5E-03 5,6E+00 mglkg 95% 3,7E-04 4.4E-D4 2,BE+03 (1. nc N 2c 193-39-5 Indeno( 1 ,2,3-ed)pyrene 5,BE-03 4,7E+DD mglkg 93% 5.7E-04 2,8E-03 2,lE+00 (1. ea y 91-20-3 Naphthalene 4,2E-03 5.3E+00 mglkg 98% B,4E-D4 B.4E-D4 1,9E+01 (I. ne N 2b 65-01-6 Phenanthrene 1.7E-02 2.1E+01 mg/kg 98% 2,1E·03 2,1E·03 1,9E+01 (1. ne Y 2d 129-00-0 Pyrene 9,2E-03 1,7E+01 mgfkg 98% B.4E-D4 6.4E-04 2,9E+03 (1. no N 2c 7429-90-5 Aluminum 6,BE+03 1,2E+04 mg/kg 100% - - 9.2E+D4 (1. 2.BE+04 ne N 2c 7440-38-2 ArseniC 9,1E-01 8,BE+OI mglkg 100% - - 1,BE+00 (1. 1.4E+01 c. Y 7440-39-3 Barium 6.5E+01 1.4E+02 mglkg 100% .­ - 6,7E+03 (1. 1.8E+02 ne N 2b 7440-43-9 Cadmium 2,7E-Ol 5,1E+00 mg/kg 100% - -- 4,5E+Ol (1. B,BE·Ol ne N 2e Total Cr Chromium 1.5E+OI 7,9E+02 mg/kg 100% -- -- 4,5E+02 (1& 3.1E+Ol ea Y 7440-50-6 Copper 1,4E+Ol 1,8E+02 mg/kg 100% -- - 4,lE+03 (1& 3,2E+01 ne N 2c 7439-89-B Iron 1,OE+04 1,2E+D5 mg/kg 100% - - 3,1E+D4 (1. 2,9E+D4 ne Y 7439-92-1 Lead 1,1E+Ol 3.4E+03 mglkg 100% -- - 8,OE+02 (1a 8,5E+01 ne Y 7439-95-5 Manganese 3,9E+02 5.5E+02 mg/kg 100% -- - 1,9E+03 (la 1,BE+03 ne N 2b 7440-02-0 Nickel 1,3E+01 2.3E+Ol mglkg 100% - -- 2,OE+03 (I. 2.3E+Ol ne N 2e 7782-49-2 Selenium 7.8E-Ol 1,lE+00 mg/kg 100% - - 5,lE+02 (1. 1,BE+00 nc N 2b 7440-22-4 Silver 4,6E-02 4,4E-01 mglkg 100% - - 5,lE+02 (1& 1,9E-Ol nc N 2e 7440-62-2 Vanadium 6,BE-02 8,8E+01 mglkg 100% - - 1,OE+02 (I. 5.BE+Ol nc N 2c 7440-B8-6 Zinc 4,4E+01 1,OE+03 mglkg 100% -- .­ 3.1E+D4 (I. 1,SE+02 ne N 2c 7487·94-7 Mercury 2.1E-02 1,7E-01 mg/kg 100% - - 3,lE+Ol (I. 1,3E-Ol ne N 2c

(1) a: USEPA Region IX Indus1rlal Soil PRG (2004e) where the value listed for none.relnogens represenls a Hazard Quotient set ., 0.1 b: The value reported for this noncarcinogenic chemical is the saturation concentration provided by USEPA Region IX. which is lower than the noncarcinogenic PRG set at a Hazard Quotient of 0.1 (2) a: Essenllal nutrient b: Below two times average Background Concentration c: Below Screening Cnteria d: Below Surrogate Screening Criteria (Naphthalene) e: No Screening Criteria established. retained

Page 1 of 1 '­ APPENDIX A • TABLE 2.2 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Johneton Veret

'U'. rfaca SoN ~ace/Subsurface So~

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Detection Range of Detection limits Conce.ntratl0 Two itmes Average SCrHnlng COPC Rationale tor

Point Number Concentration Concentr81ion Frequency Minimum Maximum Used for Background Toxicity Value Flag Selection or

Detection Umlt Detection limit Screening V.."" (N/C) (YIN) Deletion

Surface/Subsurface Soli Total P Total Phosphorus 1.1E+02 1.2E+03 9'% 2.3E+01 2_8E+01 NA 1.1E+03 N 2a,2b 79-00-S 1.1,2-Trichloroethane 12E-03 1.2E-OJ 3% 3.5E-04 2.0E-02 1.6E+OO (1. N 2c 107-00-2 1,2-Dlchloroethane 1_JE-OJ 1.3E-03 3% 8.2E-04 1.5E-02 6.0E-01 (111 N 2c 76-93-3 2-8IJtanone (Methyl ethyl ketone) S_OE-OJ 8_0E-03 3% 2.SE-03 7_3E-02 '_1E+04 (111 N 2c 157-64-1 Acelollll 4.1E-OJ 3.gE-02 45% 2.9E-OJ 4.7E-01 S4E+03 (1a N 2c 71-43-2 Benzene '.lE-OJ 9.4E-03 7% 3.0E-04 1_2E-02 1_4E+OO (121 N 2c 75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 1.4E-03 1.2E-02 39% 2.5E-04 2.4E-02 1_2Et02 (121 2c 110-S2-7 Cyctohellat'lll '_SE-03 4.9E+OO 52% 3.gE-04 1.8E-02 1.4E+02 (1b "N 2c 100-41-4 E:thylbenzene 1.SE-OJ 2.SEtOa ,0% 2.5E-04 1.SE-02 4.0E+02 (1b N 2c 98-82-8 lsopropytbenzene (Q.u.... ne) 1.6E-OJ 9.SE-01 ,2% 3.2E-D4 1.1E-D2 2.0E+02 (11 N 2c 1330-20-7 Total Xy{enes 19E-OJ 7.2E+OO '2% 4_4E-04 2.SE-02 9.0E+01 (111 N 2c 10e-e7·2 MethylcycloheXane 2.8E-OJ 2.1E+01 55% 3_5E·Q4 1.2E+01 8.7E+02 (111 N 2c 75-09-2 Methylene chloride 1.4E-03 8.eE-01 39% 3_2E·Q4 5.eE-04 2_1E+01 (121 N 2c 108-86-3 Toluene l.lE-OJ 1.1E-01 ,5% 2_2E-04 1.4E-02 2_2E+02 (111 N 2c 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 1.SE-03 4_2E+OO 7'% 3.8E-04 S.1E-04 2.9E+03 (1a 2c 2()8..9&-8 .o.c.naphthylene 1.4E-03 1.8E+00 59% 6.SE-04 3.4E-02 NA NA 2. 12()..12·7 AnUvacene 1.JE-03 4.1E+00 "% 8.7E-D4 9.2E-04 2.4E+04 (1a N 2c 56-55-3 8enzo(e)anlhtacene 1.6E-OJ 1.0E+01 ,,% e.6E-04 3.4E-02 2.1E+OO (111 50-32-8 6enzo(a)pyrene 1.7E-OJ 9.4E+OO 73% 4.0E-04 2.2E-02 2.1E-01 (1a 205-99-2 Benzo(b)nuoranlhelne 1.6E-OJ 1.2E+01 .,% 6_SE-04 3.4E-02 2.1E+oo (1a ''''·24-2 BenzO(9,h,l)peryle,.. '_2E-OJ 5.5E-IoOO 73% 4_3E-04 2.2E--02 NA NA 2. 207·06-9 BenzO{k)fluofantneno 1.JE-OJ S.2E+00 ,9% 4_4E-04 2_3E·02 2.1E+01 (1. N 2c 218.01·9 Ctvysene 1_3E-03 1_1E+01 83% g.3E-04 4.6E-02 2.1E+02 (111 N 2c 53·70-3 Dlbenz(a.h)anUvacene 1.3E-OJ 1.5E+OO 59% 8_6E-04 4_4E·02 2.1E-01 (121 Y ZQe..44.0 F'luoranthen8 1,7E-03 2_5E+01 9'% 6.3E-04 4_0E-03 2.2E+03 (1a N 2c M·73-7 Fluorene 1.3E-OJ 6.0E+00 ,,% 3.7E·04 4.9E-04 2.6E+03 (1. N 2c 193-3Q..5 Indeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene 1.3E-03 4_7E+oo 70% 6.8E-04 2.9E-02 2.1E+OO (1a Y 91·20-3 NaphlhaJene 1.7E-03 5.3E+OO 80% 6.3E-04 6.3E-03 1_9E+01 (1a N 2c 65-01·8 Phenanthrene 2.5E-03 2_1E+01 "II 2.0E-03 2_2E-03 1.9E+Ol (1a NA 20 129-00.0 Pyrene 1.7E-03 1.7E+01 90% e.4E-04 2.4E-03 2.9E+03 (18 2c 742g.Qo.5 Aluminum 88E+03 1.6E+04 '00% 9.2E+04 (111 2.7E+04 no 2b 744()..36-2 Arsenic 9_1E-01 S.6E+01 99" 3.4E-01 3.4E-01 1.6E+OO (1. 1.6E+01 y 7440.'39-3 Barium 84E+01 2.7E+02 '00% 6.7E+03 (1a 2.BE+02 N 2b 744043·9 Cadmium 9.4E·Q2 5.1E+00 93% 1_2E-01 1_3E-01 4.SE+01 (121 e.4E-01 N 2c Total Ct ChrOmh.im 1.2E+01 7.9E+02 '00" 4.SE+02 (1a 3.4E+01 2b 7440-50-8 Copper S.3E+OO 1.eE+02 100% 4.1E+03 (1. 3.2E+01 nc N 2b 7439-89-6 Iron 1.1E+03 1_2E+05 ,00% 3_1E-t04 (121 3AE+04 Y 743g..92·1 Lead 7.SE+00 3.4E+03 100'1. 8.0E+01 (1. 5.3E+01 Y 2c 7439-96-5 Manganese 3.3E+02 1_0E+03 '00% 1_BE+03 (1a 1_4E+OO N 2b 7440-02·0 Nickel e.7E+OO 2.9E~01 '00% 2_0E+03 (1a 3_3E+01 nc N 2b 7782-49-2 Selenium 4.6E-01 1.1E+OO ,00% S.1E+02 (1a 1.4E+OO 2b 7440-22-4 Sliver 3_1E-02 4.4E-01 mglkg 93" 2.BE-02 5.1E+02 (1a 1_SE-01 2c 7440-152·2 Vanadium 6.6E-02 !UIE+01 mglkg ,00% 1.0E+02 (1. 6_,E+01 2b 7440-66-6 Zmc 3.2E+01 1.0E+03 mglkg '00" 3.1E+04 (1a 1_5E+02 2c 7467·94-7 Mercury 2.1E-02 1.7E-01 mgIkg 90% 1.7E-02 1.7E·02 3.1E+01 (1a 9.BE·02 N 2b

(1) II· USEPA Region IX Industrial SOW PRG (2004c) where tne value listed for noncltrcinogens represents a Hillard Quotient set 211 0.1 b: The vallie reported for this noncarcinogenic Chemical is lhe slIturetlon concentration provided by USEPA Region IX. which Is lower than the norv::an:lnogenic PRO _t at a Hazard Quotient of 0.1 (2) a: Essenllal nutrient b: Below two limes average Background Concentration c. Belo..... Screening Criteria d. Below Surrogate Saeenlng Criteria (Naphthalene)

Page 1 of 1 '-.-­

APPENDIX A • TABLE 2.3 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Johnston Yard· Cypress Cr.ek

Scenario Timeframe: CurrentfFuture Medium: Surface Waler Exposure Medillm: Surface water

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Detection Range of Detection Limits Concentration Screening COPC Rationale for Point Number Concenlration Concentration Frequency Mlnimum Maximum Used for Toxicity Value Flag Selecllon or Detection LImit Detection Limit Screening (N/C) (YIN) Deletion

Surface Water 7440-38-2 Arsenic (Total) S.2E-03 1.3E-02 mglL 100% -- 1.0E-02 (la) ca Y 7440-S0-8 Copper (Total) 7.6E-04 1.4E-03 mglL 100% - - 1.0E+00 (lb) nc N 2c 7439-92-1 Lead (Total) 1.2E-04 3.0E-04 mglL 100% -­ - S.OE-03 (Ia) nc N 2c 7440-02-0 Nickel (T otal) I.4E-03 1.9E-03 mg/L 100% - - I.OE·OI (Ia) nc N 2c 7440·66-6 Zinc (Total) 5.2E·03 I.4E-02 mglL 100% - - 5.0E+00 (Ib) nc N 2c 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 6.0E-OS 1.2E-04 mgiL 40% 3.SE·OS 3.SE-05 I.SE+OO (Ic) nc N 2c 8S·01·8 Phenanthrene 5.0E·OS S.OE-OS mglL 20% 3.SE-OS 3.5E-OS 6.2E-03 (Id) nc N 2c 129-00·0 Pyrene 6.0E-OS 7.0E-OS mg/L 40% 3.4E-OS 3.4E·OS I.BE·OI (Ic) nc N 2c

(1) a: TN GWQC Domestic Water Supply b: TN GWQC General Use Groundwater

c: EPA Region Q PRG Tap Water d: EPA Region 9 PRG Tap Water· Naphthalene used as Surrogate (2) a: Esseniiaillutrient b: Below two times average Background Concentration c: Below Screening Criteria d: Below Surrogate Screening Criteria (Naphthalene) e: No Screening Crtteria established, retained

Page 1 of 1 :~--~ ---'

APPENDIX A - TABLE 2.4 OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION. AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Johnston Yard - Fluvial Aquifer

Scenario Tlmeframe: Future Medium: Fluvial Groundwater Exposure Medium: Fluvial Groundwater

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Delectlon Range 01 Detection Limits Concentration Screening cope Rationale for pOint Number Concentration Concentration Frequency Minimum Maximum Used lor Toxicity Value Flag Selection or Detection Limit Detection L1ml Screening (NIC) (YIN) Deletion

Groundwater 7429-90-S Aluminum (Total) 1.BE-Ol 6.4E+00 mglL 60r. 3.SE·02 3.SE-02 2.0E-Ol (lb) nc y 7440-38-2 Arsenic 1.2E-02 1.BE-02 mglL 10% 4.4E-03 7.SE-03 1.0E-02 (la) ca Y Total Cr Chromium 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 mglL 7% 4.4E-03 4.4E-03 1.0E-Ol (la) nc N 2c 7439-B9-6 Iron 1.7E-Ol 3.2E+Ol mglL 70% t.9E-02 t.9E-02 1.0E+Ol (lb) nc y 74:39·92-1 Lead 9.6E-03 2.3E-Ol mglL lS% 2.7E-03 2.7E-03 S.OE-03 (1a) nc y

7439-96-S Manganese 1.BE-02 5.SE+00 mglL 90% 2.9E-03 2.9E-03 S.OE-01 (1b) nc y 74·10-02·0 Nickel 4.0E-02 2.3E-01 mglL 10% S.3E-03 S.3E-03 1.0E-01 (la) nc y

74010-66-6 Zinc 2.SE-02 1.1 E+OO mglL 43% 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 S.OE'OO (lb) nc N 2c 67·64-1 Acetone 1.BE-03 1.BE-03 mglL 11% 1.7E·03 6.0E-03 S.SE..{lO (1c) nc N 2c lSo..S9-2 cls-1,2-Dlchloroelhane 4.6E-03 4.6E·03 mglL 11% 7.9E-04 B.3E-04 7.0E-02 (1a) nc N 2c

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 1.1E·03 1.lE-03 mglL 6% 6.2E-04 7.3E-04 7.0E-01 (la) nc N 2c

1330·20·7 Total Xylenes 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 mglL 6-/0 9.2E-04 1.2E-03 1.0E.Ol (la) nc N 2c 75-09-2 Methylene chloride 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 mglL 130/0 1.0E-03 1.SE-03 4.3E-03 (lc) nc N 2c

127-1B-4 Tetrachloroethane 1.lE-03 2.3E-03 mglL 22% S.4E-04 6.9E-04 S.OE·03 (la) ca N 2c B7·B6-S Pentachlorophenol 4.1E-02 4.1E-02 mglL 6% 2.4E-03 9.SE-03 1.0E-03 (1a) ca y

B3-32·9 Acenaphthene 4.9E·04 2.0E-02 mglL 21% 3.6E-OS 3.6E-OS 3.7E-Ol (1c) nc N 2c

20ft-96-B Acenaphlhylene S.SE-04 3.9E-03 mglL 14% 3.6E-OS 3.6E-OS NA Y 2e

120-12·7 Anthracene 4.0E-OS 2.6E-03 mglL 71% 3.SE-OS 3.SE-OS 1.BE'00 (lC) nc N 2c S6-S5-3 Benzo(a)anthracene S.OE·04 S.OE-04 mglL 7% 3.SE-OS 3.SE-OS 9.2E-OS (lc) ca y

20:>-99·2 Benzo(b)nuoranlhene 2.SE-04 2.SE-04 mglL 7% 4.3E-OS 4.3E-OS 9.2E-OS (1c) ca y

21fCOl-9 Chrysene 7.0E-04 7.0E-04 mglL 7% 3.4E-OS 3.4E·OS 9.2E-03 (1c) ca N 2c

20f>-44-0 Fluornnthene 1.4E-04 3.SE-03 mglL 21% 3.5E·OS 3.SE-OS 1.SE_OO (1c) nc N 2c

B6·73-7 Fluorene 4.0E-04 2.0E-02 mglL 21". 3.0E-OS 3.0E-OS 2.4E·01 (lC) nc N 2c

91-20-3 Naphlhalene 1.4E·04 S.2E-03 mglL 21% HE-OS 3.4E-OS 6.2E-03 (1c) nc N 2c

85-01-8 Phenan1hrene 6.0E·OS 4.3E-02 mglL 29% 3.SE-OS 3.SE·OS S.2E-03 (1d) nc Y 21

129-00·0 Pyrene 4.0E·OS 6.0E-03 mglL 29% 3.4E-OS HE·OS 1.BE-01 (1c) nc N 2c

(1) a: TN GWQC DOnlestic Water Supply b: TN GWQC General Usa Groundwater c: EPA Region 9 PRG Tap Water d: EPA Region 9 PRG Tap Water - Naphthalene used as Surrogate (2) a: Essential nulrient b: Below two times average Background Concentration c: Below Screening Crlterta d: Below Surrogate Screening Crtterta (Naphthalene) e: No Screening Criteria established, retained I: Above Surrogate Screening Criteria (Naphthalene). retained

Page 1 of 1 ...... ------

;~-- .~.

APPENDIX A· TABLE 2.5 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Johnston Yard· Perched Aquifer

Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Perched Groundwater Exposure Medium: Perched Groundwater

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Detection Range of Detection limits Concentration Screening cope Rationale for point Number Concentration Concentration Frequency Minimum Maximum Used lor Toxicity Value Flag Selection or Detection Limit Detection Umi Screening (NIC) (YIN) Deletion

GroundWater 7429-90-5 Aluminum 2.9E-Ol 2.8E+00 mglL 64% 2.9E-Ol 2.8E+00 2.0E-Ol (lb) nc Y 7440-38-2 Arsenic (Total) 1.0E-02 9.8E-02 mglL 45% 1.0E-02 9.8E-02 1.0E-02 (la) ca Y 7439-89-6 Iron 6.2E-Ol 3.5E+Ol mglL 100% 6.2E-Ol 3.5E+Ol 1.0E+Ol (lb) nc Y 7439-92-1 Lead 6.9E-03 6.5E-02 mglL 27% 6.9E-03 6.5E-02 5.0E-03 (la) nc Y 7439-96-5 Manganese 4.2E-Ol 3.5E+00 mglL 100% 4.2E-Ol 3.5E+00 5.0E-01 (lb) nc Y 7440-66-5 Zinc 5.2E-02 8.8E-02 mglL 50% 5.2E-02 8.8E-02 5.0E+00 (lb) nc N 2c

83-32-9 Acenaphthene 2.1E-03 1.4E-02 mglL 100% 2.1E-03 1.4E-02 3.7E-Ol (lc) nc N 2c 208-96-8 Acenaphthytene 2.1E-04 9.8E-04 mglL 100% 2.1E-04 9.8E-04 NA Y 2e

120-12-7 Anthracene 3.5E-04 6.7E-04 mglL 75% 3.5E-04 6.7E-04 1.8E+00 (lc) nc N 2c

206-44·0 Fluoranthene 6.0E-05 4.8E-04 mglL 100% 6.0E-05 4.8E-04 1.5E+00 (1c) nc N 2c

86-73-7 Fluorene 2.8E-03 8.9E-03 mglL 50% 2.8E-03 8.9E-03 2.4E-Ol (lc) nc N 2c

91-20-3 Naphthalene 2.7E-04 2.7E-04 mglL 25% 2.7E-04 2.7E-04 6.2E-03 (lc) nc N 2c 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 8.0E-04 7.5E-03 mglL 50% 8.0E-04 7.5E-03 6.2E-03 (1d) nc Y 21

129-00-0 Pyrene 9.0E-05 3.8E-04 mglL 100% 9.0E-05 3.8E-04 1.8E-Ol (lc) ca N 2c

(1) a: TN GWOC Domestic Water Supply b: TN GWOC General Use Groundwater c: EPA Region 9 PRG Tap Water d: EPA Region 9 PRG Tap Water - Naphthalene used as Surrogate (2) a: Essential nutrient b: Selow two times average Background Concentration c: Selow Screening Criteria d: Setow Surrogate Screening Critena (Naphthalene) e: No Screening Criteria established. retained I: Above Surrogate Screening Criteria (Naphthalene). retained

Page 1 of 1 I ; .~ c..------~-. ~

APPENDIX A - TABLE 3.1.RME EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil

xposure Poin Chemical of Units Arithmetic UCL Maximum Exposure Point Concentration Potential Concern Mean Concentration Value Units Statistic Rationale (1 ) (2)

Surfaco Soil Acenaphthylene mg/kg 2.7E-01 4.7E-01 1.8E+00 4.7E-01 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 1.2E+00 1.8E+00 1.0E+01 1.8E+00 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 1.3E+00 1.7E+00 9.4E+00 1.7E+00 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Benzo(b )f1uoranthene mg/kg 1.9E+00 2.6E+00 1.2E+01 2.6E+00 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 1.0E+00 1.5E+00 5.5E+00 1.5E+00 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 2.4E-01 3.3E-01 1.5E+00 3.3E-01 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 8.9E-01 1.3E+00 4.7E+00 1.3E+00 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Phenanthrene mg/kg 2.9E+00 6.8E+00 2.1E+01 6.8E+00 mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Arsenic mg/kg 1.5E+01 1.8E+01 8.6E+01 1.8E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL-T ProUCL Chromium mglkg 6.6E+01 1.9E+02 7.9E+02 1.9E+02 mg/kg 95% UCL-NP ProUCL Iron mg/kg 3.5E+04 4.1E+04 1.2E+05 4.1E+04 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL Lead mg/kg 3.6E+02 5.0E+02 3.4E+03 5.0E+02 mg/kg 95% UCL-G ProUCL

(1) Note that EPA's ProUCL Version 3.0 used to calculate UCLs (2) 95% UCL-G: 95% Approximate Gamma Distribution 95% UCL-NP: 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 95% UCL-T: 95% H-UCL 99% UCL-NP: 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL

Page 1 of 1 -'...-..-:- -.--."."

APPENDIX A - TABLE 3.2.RME EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard

Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Surface/Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface/Subsurface Soil

Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic UCL Maximu!l1 Exposure Point Concentration Potential Concern Mean Concentration Value Units Statistic Rationale (1 ) (2)

Surface/Subsurface Soil Acenaphthylene mg/kg 1.6E-01 4.7E-01 1.BE+00 4.7E-01 mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 6.3E-01 1.9E+00 1.0E+01 1.9E+00 mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 6.2E-01 1.BE+00 9.4E+00 1.BE+00 mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 9.2E-01 2.3E+00 1.2E+01 2.3E+00 mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 5.2E-01 1.6E+00 5.5E+00 1.6E+00 mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 1.2E-01 3.3E-01 1.5E+00 3.3E-01 mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 4.6E-01 1.4E+00 4.7E+00 1.4E+OO mg/kg 99% UCL-NP ProUCL Phenanthrene mg/kg 2.5E+00 3.5E+00 2.1E+01 3.5E+00 mg/kg 95% UCL-AG ProUCL Arsenic mg/kg 1.1E+01 1.6E+01 B.6E+01 1.6E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL-NP ProUCL Chromium mg/kg 4.5E+01 1.2E+02 7.9E+02 1.2E+02 mg/kg 95% UCL-NP ProUCL Iron mg/kg 2.7E+04 3.6E+04 1.2E+05 3.6E+04 mg/kg 95% UCL-NP ProUCL Lead mg/kg 2.0E+02 4.BE+02 3.4E+03 4.BE+02 mg/kg 97.5 UCL-NP ProUCL

(1) Note that EPA's ProUCL Version 3.0 used to calculate UCLs (2) 95% UCL-NP: 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 95% UCL-AG: 95% Adjusted Gamma 97.5% UCL-NP: 97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 99% UCL-NP: 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL"

Page 1 of 1 ----..I '--" "-~. "-~" --"

APPENDIX A· TABLE 3.3.RME EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard· Cypress Creek

Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture Medium: Surface Water Exposure Medium: Surface Water

Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Maximum Exposure Point Concentration Potential Concern Mean Concentration Value Units Statistic Rationale (1 ) (2)

Surface Water Arsenic (Total) mg/L 9.3E·03 1.3E·02 1.3E·02 1.3E·02 mg/L 95% UCL·N/Max ProUCL

(1) Note that EPA's ProUCL Version 3.0 used to calculate UCLs (2) 95%-N: 95% Student's-t UCL 95% UCL-G: 95% Approximate Gamma UCL Max: Maximum detected concentration

Page 1 of 1 --'

APPENDIX A - TABLE 3.4.RME EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard - Fluvial Aquifer

Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 9S% UCL Maximum Exposure Point Concentration Potential Concern Mean Concentration Value Units Statistic Rationale (1 )

Groundwater Aluminum (Total) mg/L 7.9E-01 NA 6.4E+OO 7.9E-01 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Arsenic mg/L 3.6E-03 NA 1.BE-02 3.6E-03 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Iron mg/L S.6E+OO NA 3.2E+01 S.6E+OO mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Lead mg/L 1.SE-02 NA 2.3E-01 1.SE-02 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Manganese mg/L 1.SE+OO NA S.SE+OO 1.5E+OO mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Nickel mg/L 1.6E-02 NA 2.3E-01 1.6E-02 mglL Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Pentachlorophenol mg/L 3.6E-03 NA 4.1E-02 3.6E-03 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Acenaphthylene mg/L 3.3E-04 NA 3.9E-03 3.3E-04 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Benzo(a)anthracene mg/L S.2E-OS NA S.OE-04 S.2E-OS mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Benzo(b )fluoranthene mg/L 3.BE-OS NA 2.SE-04 3.BE-OS mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Phenanthrene mg/L 3.SE-03 NA 4.3E-02 3.SE-03 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1

(1) Per EPA Region IV Guidance. EPC is mean of source area concentrations.

Page 1 of 1 ,---­ --'

APPENDIX A· TABLE 3.S.RME EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard· Perched Groundwater

Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 9S% UCL Maximum Exposure Point Concentration Potential Concern Mean Concentration Value Units Statistic Rationale (1 )

Groundwater Aluminum mg/L 7.1E-01 NA 2.8E+OO 7.1E·01 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Arsenic (Total) mg/L 1.4E-02 NA 9.8E-02 1.4E-02 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Iron mg/L 1.0E+01 NA 3.SE+01 1.0E+01 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Lead mg/L 9.2E-03 NA 6.SE-02 9.2E-03 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Manganese m$l/L 1.4E+OO NA 3.SE+OO 1.4E+OO mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Acenaphthylene mg/L 6.0E-04 NA 9.8E-04 6.0E-04 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1 Phenanthrene mg/L 2.1E-03 NA 7.SE-03 2.1E-03 mg/L Arithmetic Average of Source Area 1

(1) Per EPA Region IV Guidance, EPC is mean of source area concentrations.

Page 1 of 1 I. i.,..-.­ '--- .-----

APPENDIX A· TABLE 4.1.RME VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard· Facility

Scenario Timeframe; CurrenUFuture Medium: Surlace Soli Exposure Medium: Surface Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rallonalel Intake Equallon/ Code Reference Model Name

ADD = es x tR·S x EF x ED/ (AT x BW) es Chemical Concentration In 5011 mgll

IR·S Ingesllon Rate of Soli 100 mg/day USEPA,2000 USEPA's Adult Lead Model (USEPA 2003) will be used to evaluated Industrial Worker exposure to Lead In solis via Ingestion Industrial Worker Adult Surface 5011 EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/year USEPA,2000 the Ingestion exposure route. ED Exposure Duration 25 years USEPA, 2000 AT Averaging Time 25 years USEPA,2000 SW BodyWeighl 70 Kg USEPA,1989 CS Chemical Concentration In Soil mg/kg IR·S Ingesllon Rate of 5011 12.5 mg/day USEPA,2001 EF Exposure Frequency 12 dayslyear BPJ Ingestion Trespasser Youth SurfaceSolt ED Exposure Duration 10 years USEPA,2000 AT Averaging Time 10 years USEPA,2000 BW Body Weight 45 kg USEPA,1969 es Chemical Concentration In Soli mgll

(1) assumes face, arms and hands exposed (EPA, 2004b) (2) assumes face, lower arms, hands, and lower legs exposed

Page 1 of 1 . , ~. ·-----, ~.

APPENDIX A· TABLE 4.2.RME VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard. Facility

Scenario Tlmeframe: Fulure Medium: Surface/Subsurface Soli Exposure Medium: Surface/Subsurface Sail

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter DeMition Value Units Ratlanale/ Intake EquatiarV Code Reference Model Name

CS Chemical Concentration in Soli mg/kg ADD =CS x IR-S x EF x EDI (AT x BW) IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soli 330 mglday USEPA,2oo1 EF Exposure Frequency 250 daysiyear USEPA,2ooo IngestJon Construction Work.er Adult Surface/Subsurface Sail ED Exposure DUration 1 year USEPA,2oo1 AT Averaging Time 1 year USEPA,2oo1 BW BadyWelghl 70 kg USEPA,1989 DAevent Absorbed Dose per event mgIcm:l~event EPA,2004b OAD=(OAevenIxE\lx levenl x CFxEFxEOxSA)/(BWxAT) OAevenl Madel- EPA RAGS Part E (2004b) EV Event Frequency 1 evenUday BPJ t.....nt Event Duration 8 hours/day BPJ CF Conversion Factor 0.042 days/hour Dermal Contact Construction Worker Adull Surface/Subsurface Soli EF Exposure Frequency 250 daysiyear USEPA,2OOO EO Exposure Duration 1 year USEPA, 2001

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (1) EPA,2004b 3300 em' AT Averaging Time 1 year USEPA,2oo1 BW Body Welghl 70 kg USEPA,1989

CS Chemical Concentralion In Soil mg/kg ADD=CS x (IR·A x 1IPEF x EF x EDI (AT x BW) PEF model- EPA Supplemental SSL Guidance (EPA 2001) IR-A Inhalatlon Rate 20 m3Jday USEPA,2oo1 PEF Partlculate Emission Factor m3/kg USEPA.2001 Inhalation 01 Fugltlve Ousl Constructlon Worker Adull Surface/Subsurface Sail EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/year USEPA,2ooo EO Exposure Duration 1 year USEPA,2oo1 AT Averaging Time 1 year USEPA, 2001 BW BadyWelghl 70 kg USEPA,1989

1

(1) assumes lace, arms and hands exposed (EPA. 2004b)

Page 1 of 1 I ------, .~ ~;

APPENDIX A· TABLE 4.1.RME VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE JohnsIon Yard· Cypress Creek

Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture Medium: Surface Water Exposure Medium: Surface Water

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parnmeter Definition Value Units Rationalel Intake Equalion/ Code Reference Model Name

CW Chemical Concentration in Surface Water mglL ADD ~ CW x IR-SW x ET x EF x ED/ (AT x BW) IR-SW Ingestion Rate of Surface Water 0.01 l.Ihr USEPA,2000 ET Exposure Time 2 hr/day BPJ Adull Surface Water EF Exposure Frequency 45 days/year USEPA.2000 ED Exposure Duration 14 years USEPA.2000 AT Averaging Time 14 years USEPA.2000 BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA. 1989 CW Chemical Concentration In Surface Water mglL IR-SW Ingestion Rate of Surface Water 0.01 Uhr USEPA,2000 ET Exposure Time 2 hr/day BPJ Ingestion Recreational Person Youth Surface Water EF Exposure Frequency 45 days/year USEPA,2000 ED Exposure Duration 10 years USEPA,2000 AT Averaging Time 10 years USEPA.2000 BW Body Weight 45 kg USEPA. 1989 CW Chemical Concentration In Surface Water mg/L IR-SW Ingestion Rate of Surface Water 0.05 Uhr USEPA.2000 ET Exposure Time 2 hr/day BPJ Child Surface Water EF Exposure Frequency 45 days/year USEPA,2000 ED Exposure Duration 6 years USEPA, 2000 AT Averaging Time 6 years USEPA.2000 BW Body Weight 15 kg USEPA, 2004c

Page 1 of 2 . , "--- -~-' ---' ---­

APPENDIX A· TABLE 4;3.RME VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard· Cypress Cr.ek

Scenario Timeframe: CurrenUFuture Medium: Surtace Waler Exposure Medium: Surface Waler

Exposure Route Receplor Population Receplor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationalel Intake Equationl Code Reference Model Name

CW Chemical Concentration in Surface Waler mglL USEPA, 2004b DAD=DAeventxEVxEFxEDxSAI(BWxAT) DAevenl Model· EPA RAGS Part E (2004b) DAevenl Absoroed Dose per event mglcrrf-evenl USEPA, 2004b

t..~, Exposure Duration 2 hours/day BPJ EV Event Frequency 1 evenUday BPJ Adull Surface Waler EF Exposure Frequency 45 dayslyear USEPA,2000 ED Exposure Duration 14 years US EPA, 2000 SA Skin Surface Area Available 'for Contact (1) 5574 em' USEPA, 2004b AT Averaging Time 14 years USEPA,2000 BW Body Weight 70 kg USEPA,1989 CW Chemical Concentration in Surface Waler mglL USEPA, 2004b DAevenl Absoroed Dose per evenl mglcrrf-evenl USEPA, 2004b

t..~, Exposure Duralion 2 hours/day BPJ EV Evenl Frequency 1 evenUday BPJ Dennal Contacl Recreational Person Youlh Surface Waler EF Exposure Frequency 45 days/year US EPA, 2000 ED Exposure Duration 10 , years USEPA,2000 SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (1) 5413 em' USEPA, 2004b AT Averaging Time 10 years USEPA,2000 BW BodyWeighl 45 kg USEPA,2000 CW Chemical Concentration in Surface Water mglL USEPA, 2004b DAevent Absoroed Dose per evenl mgicrrf-event USEPA, 2004b t. __MI Evenl Duralion 2 hours/day BPJ EV Event Frequency \ evenUday BPJ Child Surface Water EF Exposure Frequency 45 dayslyear US EPA, 2000 ED Exposure Duralion 6 years USEPA,2000

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contacl (1) 3633 em' U~EPA, 2004b AT Averaging Time 6 years USEPA,2000 BW Body Weight 15 kg USEPA. 2004c

(1) assumes face. lower anns, hands, lower legs and feel exposed

Page 20f2 ._-_.

APPENDIX A· TABLE 4.4.RME VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard· Facility

Future Fluvlat GW Fluvial GW

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationalel Intake Equation! Code Reference Modet Name

ADD = CW x tR-GW x EF x EDI (AT x BW) CW Chemical Concentration In Water mg/L

IR-GW Ingestion Rate of Groundwater 1 Uday USEPA,2000

Ingestion Industrial Wor'Ker Adult Grounctwater EF Exposure Frequency 250 daystyear USEPA, 2000 ED Exposure Duration 25 year USEPA, 2001 AT Averaging Time 25 year US EPA, 2001 BW Body Weight 70 kg USEPA,1969

Z DAevent Absorbed Dose per event mg/cm -event USEPA, 2004b DAD=(DAeventxEVxEFxEDxSAY(BWxAT) DAevent Model- EPA RAGS Part E (2004b) t..." Event Duration 0.25 hour/event USEPA, 2004b EV Event Frequency 1 evenVday BPJ EF Exposure Frequency 250 days/year USEPA,2000 Dermal Contact Industrial Worker Adult Groundwater ED Exposure Duration 25 year USEPA,2001

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (1) 16150 em' USEPA, 2004b AT Averaging Time 25 year USEPA,2001 BW Body Weight 70 kg USEPA,1989

(1) Assumes Whole body exposure

Page 1 of 1 :....~.--. --"­

APPENDIX A· TABLE 4.5.RME VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE Johnston Yard· Facility

cenario Tlmeframe: Future MedIum: PerChedGW Exr-:>5ure MedIum: Perched GW

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor AQe Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale! Intake Equation! Code Reference Model Name

CW Chemical Concentration in Water mgIL ADD = CW x IR·GW x EF x EDI (AT x BW)

IR·GW Ingestion Rate of Groundwater 0.08 Uday BPJ • 10 mUhOur for 8 hours

BPJ· 1/4 of constructton project at EF Exposure Frequency 63 dayslyear Ingestion Construction Worker Adun Groundwater depth of perdled GW ED Exposure Duration 1 year USEPA.2oo1 AT AveragIng Time 1 year USEPA.2oo1 BW Body Weight 70 kg USEPA.1969 DAevent Absorbed Dose per event mg/cm 2.event USEPA.2004b DAD=(DAeventxEVxEFxEDxSAV(BWxAT) DAevenl Model· EPA RAGS Part E (2001b) teve.nt Evefrt Duration 2 hourrJday BPJ EV Event Frequency 1 event/day BPJ BPJ· 1/4 of constnJClion project at Exposure Frequency Dermal Contad Construction Worker Adun Groundwater EF 63 days/year depth of perdled GW ED Exposure Durallon 1 .year USEPA.2oo1 SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 3300 em' USEPA. 2004b AT Averaging Time 1 year USEPA.2oo1 BW Body Weight 70 kg USEPA,1989

(1) assumes face. anns and hands exposed (EPA, 2004b)

Page 1 of 1 '--_.

APPENDIX A • TABLE 5.1 NON·CANCER TOXICITY DATA·· ORAUDERMAL Johnston Yard

Chemical Chronicl Oral RID Oral Absorption Absorbed RID for Dermal Primary Combined RID:Target Organ(s) of Potential Subchronic Efficiency Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units for Dermal Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

87865 Pentachlorophenol Chronic 3E-02 mg/kg-day 76% (la 3E-02 mg/kg-day liver, kidney 100 IRIS 01/13/06 208968 Acenaphthylene ChroniclSubchronic NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/13/06 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene ChroniclSubchronic NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/13/06 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene ChroniclSubchronlc NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01113106 205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ChroniclSubchronic NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/13106 191242 Benzo(g,h,l)perylene ChronlclSubchronic NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01113106 53703 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ChroniclSubchronic NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01113/06 193395 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ChroniclSubchronic NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01113/06 85018 Phenanthrene Chronic 2E-02 mg/kg-day 58% (la 2E-02 mglkg-day body weight 3000 IRIS (2) 01113/06 7429905 Aluminum (Total) Chronic NA IRISIEPA Regions 3 and 9 01113106 7440382 Arsenic ChronlclSubchronlc 3E-04 mg/kg-day 95% (la 3E-04 mg/kg-day skin, vascular 3 IRIS 01113106 16065831 Chromium ChroniclSubchronic 2E+00 mg/kg-day 1% (la 2E-02 mgikg-day NOAEL 1000 IRIS (3) 01113/06 7439896 Iron ChronlclSubchronlc 3E-01 mglkg-day 20% (lb 6E-02 mgikg-day NS NS EPA Region 9 12128/04 7439921 Lead ChronlclSubchronic NA IRISIEPA Regions 3 and 9 01113106 7439965 Manganese Chronic lE-Ol mglkg-day 4% (la BE-03 mglkg-day CNS 1 IRIS 01113/06 7440020 Nickel Chronic 2E-02 mgikg-day 4% (la BE-04 mg/kg-day body weight 300 IRIS 01113106

(1) a: EPA RAGS Vol 1, Part E b: EPA Region 4 HHRA Bulletin (2) Napthalene used as a surrogate (3) EPA Region 9 Total Chromium toxicity criteria used

Page 1 of 1 --~

APPENDIX A - TABLE 5.2 NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA --INHALATION Johnston Yard

Chemical Chronic/ Inhalation RfC Extrapolated RfD Primary Combined . RfC : Target Organ(s) of Potential Subchronic Target Uncertainty/Modifying Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

87865 Pentachlorophenol Chronic 3E-02 mg/kg-d liver, kidney 100 IRIS (1) 1/13/2006 208968 Acenaphthylene ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/13/2006 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene Chronic/Subchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 205992 Benzo(b )f1uoranthene Chronic/Subchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 191242 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 53703 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 193395 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 3 85018 Phenanthrene Chronic 3E-03 mg/m 9E-04 mg/kg-d nasal effects 3000 IRIS (2) 1/13/2006 7429905 Aluminum (Total) Chronic 1E-03 mg/kg-d NS NS IRIS (1) 1/13/2006 7440382 Arsenic ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 16065831 Chromium ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 7439896 Iron ChroniclSubchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 7439921 Lead Chronic/Subchronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06 3 7439965 Manganese Chronic 5E-05 mg/m 1E-05 mg/kg-d CNS 1000 IRIS 1/13/2006 7440020 Nickel Chronic NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 01/16/06

(1) Toxicity criteria from IRIS, route-to-route extrapolation per EPA Region 9 PRG Table (2) Naphthalene used as a surrogate

Page 1 of 1 APPENDIXA- TABLE 8.1 CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAlJDERMAL Johnston Yard

Chemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Welghl of Evidence! Or.1 CSF of Potential Effldency for Dermal Cancer Guideline Concern Value Units Tumor for Dermal Value Units Description Source(s) Dale(s) Type

hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma. pheochromocytoma/malignant 87865 Pentachlorophenol 1.2E-Ol (mg/kg-d)-l 58% (1 lE·Ot (mg/kg·d)-1 B2 IRIS 01116105 ·pheochromocytoma. hemangiosarcomalhemangloma (pooled Incidence) 208968 Acenaphthylene NA NA D IRIS 01l161OS 56553 8enzo(a)anthracene 7.3E-Ol (mg/kg-d)-1 NS 58% (1 7E-Ol (m;j/kg-

NA: Not Available NS: Nol Specified

(1) EPA RAGS Vall. Part E (2) EPA Region 9 Total Chromium toxicity crlleria used (3) Toxicity crllena based on the Toxic Equivalence Fador for cPAHS per EPA Region 4 HHRA Bullelln

Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A - TABLE 6.2 CANCER TOXICITY DATA -INHALATION Johnston Yard

Chemical Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence! Unit Risk: Inhalation CSF of Potential Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

87865 Pentachlorophenol 1.20E-D1 (mg/kg-d)-1 IRIS (1) 1/1612006 208968 Acenaphthylene NA NA D IRISIEPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene NA 7.30E-01 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS (3) 1/16/2006 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene NA 7.30E+00 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS (3) 1116/2006 205992 Benzo(b )fluoranthene NA 7.30E-01 (mg/kg-d )-1 B2 IRIS (3) 1/16/2006 191242 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene NA NA D IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006 53703 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene NA 7.30E+00 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS (3) 1/16/2006 193395 Indeno( 1,2, 3-cd)pyrene NA 7.30E-01 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS (3) 1/16/2006 85018 Phenanthrene NA NA 0 IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006 7429905 Aluminum (Total) NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006 7440382 Arsenic 4.3E-03 (ug/m 3)_1 1.51E-02 (mg/kg-d)-1 A IRIS 1/16/2006 16065831 Chromium NA 4.20E+01 (mglkg-d)-1 NS EPA Region 9 (2) 1212812004 7439896 Iron NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006 7439921 Lead NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006 7439965 Manganese NA NA 0 IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006 7440020 Nickel NA NA IRIS/EPA Regions 3 and 9 1/16/2006

NA: Not Available NS: Not Specified (1) Toxicity criteria from IRIS, route-to-route extrapolation per EPA Region 9 PRG Table (2) EPA Region 9 Total Chromium toxicity criteria used (3) Toxicity criteria based on the Toxic Equivalence Factor for cPAHS per EPA Region 4 HHRA Bulletin

Page 1 of 1 r , '---' ._--' __l

APPENDIX A - TABLE 7.1.RME

CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RlSKI!I AND NON·CANCER HAZARDS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ICRR • John.lon Y.,.d

.,rio Tlmarrame' Cu"~VFut~a Indu.lli8lWorllw """"

Exposura Roule EPC Cencer RI~k Clllculetlon, Non-CBnCeI" Ha.zerd ClIlculaUons Villu. Unit' ~tak"'Expo,ura Concantration CSF/Unlt Risk CllnClllr R;.k II-,n.:.:'ok--:"-=Ex",PO:..:.:.:''''T,..:Conc=,"=",::IIon=t---,.---,.-,RI''T'''",RI--:C-,._-l Hazlll'"d QuoUen 1~~~~~=9==~~~~==+===~~~~==~==~~====~~~~====~~~+=~~~~V~."§'~=F==~"'~"~9=~V~.~"'~=F.~U~N~"~~~~~~p~V~.~~~=F~U~N~"~=F~V.~"~'~==~U~N~''~=F==~==~I Surf~ SoU Surf.::a SoIl SUrhw:. Soil Ingestion BIInzo(e)lIIlttvaceM 1.8E+OO mg/kg 6.29019E-a7 mg!kg-clay 0.73 (mgIo:g-day)-l <4.6E-07 s.r.z.o(.)py,..... 1.7E+oo rnQi'I<.g 5.9E-07 ITlQI'Kg-dav 7.3E+-oo {rngh.go-d")')-l 4.3E-M

B.nlo(b)nuarlllltheM 2.I5E+oo mg/Kg 9.1E-a7 mglkg·day 7.3E-01 (~g-clay)-1 15.6E-07 o'benz(a.h)lIIllhracana 3.3E-01 mglkg 1.2E-07 mglkg-day 7.3E+OO (m;!kg-day)-1 1!I.<4E-07 lndeno{1,2.3-ed)pyrane '.3E+OO mglkg <4.5E-07 mglkg·day 7.3E-Ol (rn;/II.;-clay)-' 3.3E-07 P'henllllthrane 6.7E-06 mglkd-dsy 2.0E-02 m;I\-".d-dIlY 0.0003 1.I!IE+Ol mglkg 62E-06 mglkg-day 1.5E+OO (rn;/II.g-dlly)-l 9.2E-06 1.7E-Os mglkd--dav 3 OE-0-4 mg/kd-dIlY 0.06 1.9E-Q.4 mglkd-day 0.0001 <4.0E-a2 mgtltc:klay 0.1

Exp. Roule Tole! 2.E-as 0.2 1.eE+OO mglkg 1.l!Ile-07 mglkg·day 130E-Ol (~g-dey)-1 1.32E-07 Banzc(ajpyren. 1.7E+OO mg/kg 1.7E-07 mglkg-day 1.3E+OO (mglkg-clayj-l 1.3E-06 Ben.zo{b)"uorenthane 2.6E+OO mglkg 2.6E-07 rng.ot:.g-clay 7.3E-a1 (mglkg-clay)-l 1.9E-a7

Oibtnz(e,h)lII1thrac-n. 3.3E-a1 mglkg 3.3E-a1!l m~g-clay 7.3E+oo (mglkg-clay)-l 2.<4E..Q7

Irdano(1.2..l-ed)?'1'"_ 1.3E...oo n¢g 1.3E-07 rr¢g-cl~ 7.'lE-Ol (rrq'II.g-d~}-' 96t-Of.

Pl-IDr'wlthran. 1.5E-07 ~d-cl.y 2.0E-02 0.00001 Arsenic 1.eE-+Ol 1J1GI"k; <4. 1e-a7 mgl'kg-day l.sEtOO (mglkg-dayj-l 15. 1E-a7 1.1E-06 rng.o\d-day 3.0E-a<4 0....

ChromlUTI <4.2E-a7 mg/I

Exp. Roule TollII 3E·06 0.01 ~ 0.2 ~~~~-=~==~=====91~1F-====~~=-======9}==~0~.2~~1

FlwialAqu:ir.t FlwleiAqUirar FllNlaJ Aqulfar IngasUon Penlrd"ltorophanol <4E..Q3 IT'gIL 1.3E-Os mg/kg-day 1.2E-Ol (mglkg-day}-1 1.5E-06 3.5E-Os mglkd-day 3.0E-02 mglkd-day 0.001

(jroundwalar O.oundwaler OroundW'lIlar Ben.zo(e)enlhfacana 5E-Os mg/L 1.I!IE-07 mgl'kg·dey 7.3E-Ol (mglkg-drsV}-1 1.3E-07 Benlo(b)ftuorenlhaM <4E-Os mgIl. 1.3E·07 mgl'kg-dey 7.3E-Ol (mg.-1!.Q-deyj-l 9.6E-oe

Phenanlhren. 3.<4E·05 "¢d-

Exp. Route Total 0.' Dermal Conlacl PenlKhlorophanoi <4E-03 mg/L 1.3E·04 mgJ\g-dey 1.2E-Ol (rn;/II.g-day)., 1.6E-Os 3.7E-04 mgJ\d-day 3.0E-02 mglkd-day 0.01 Show..-In; BIInzo(a)enlhrec:en. sE-as mglL 3.1E-06 mgr"llg-day 7.3E-Ol (m;lkQ-day}--1 2.2E-06 8enzo(blnUCIIllllihane <4E-aS IT'gIL 2.6E-06 mg.'kg·day 7.3E-Ol (mg/1o.rrdey)-1 1.9E-06 Phenanltnne

Ar.enlc <4E·03 m;II... 5.7E-oe 1.5E+OO (mglkg-clay)-l 1!I.6E-aa 1.6E-07 mglkd-day 3.0E-Q.4 mg/kd-day 0.0005 2.5E-04 mglkd-ciay 6.0E·02 rr'O'1<.d-day OOIM 6.9E-05 mglkd-clay 5.6E·03 mglkd-clay 001 1.<4E·07 mglkd-day 1!I.0E·04 mgltcd-day 0.0002

2.E-05 0.03 Exposura Point Total <4.E-aS 0.' 0.' Air • Snaw.rtng 3E-a3 rnWl mg/kd-day 20E-02 mglkd-day 0.003 VoIe.\IIu- Shc:Joo.«lng Exp. Roula Total JI 0.E1"OO II 0.003 Exposur. PoInl Total O.E+OO II 0.003 O.E+OO II 0.003 1~~~~,"m~TO~'~~______---,.______~______~______---,..,:~~-----,~--~------'r--~0~.5--..,1 Tole! or Rae.ploT" RI,k., ActOIl All MadIa ~ Total 01 Rec:a.plor Ha.z:ard, Aerou All Madia 0.6

Page 1 Ofl __I

APPENDIX A • TABLE. 7.2.RME CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CAJ\lCER HAZARDS REASONABLf MAXIMUM EXPOSURE leRR • John,ton Yard

Tlm.!r.",.: CYfrenUFulJre PopuI.don: Con.trueilan Worker

e..POIYf. M.oum CMmIc.-lol EPC Po,*,Il.-l Concern Unill Inllkw&.poRJt. Cone.lIution CSFlUnllRilk Unitl; UntlS Surl,,::wSublurllllCtl l,.,g.stIotl B-nto(l~tI'v.:et\. 1.9E+OO ~g 8.7E-08 mgl'>:g-o,y 0.73 ."" Sod B.nzo(I)pyr.ne 18E-tOO ~g 8.5E-08 rng/I.g-day 7.3E+OO (l'I'IgI1o;g-dIy)-1 6.2E-07 B.nlo{b)f!uountNne 'Z 3E...a0 mg.'Kg 1.1E-07 mg.'Ag-o.y 7.3E-01 (rT9'kg-d'V)-1 7.9E..o8

Oib.n.z( • .hlllfltv-=­ 33E-01 """,-g 1.5E-08 m~IiI-o,y 7.3E+oo (rngI\g-d.y)-1 1.1E-07

l...a.no(1.2.l<.d)pyr.ne 14E.00 rngIIr.g 15.3E-08 ~-o'Y 7.3E-Ol (~'yl-l ~.6E.(I8 1.6E+Ol mg/IIg 7.4E-07 rngfI:g-oIV 1.5E+OO (rng.-1

2.E-Ofi 0.6

Dwm.-l Contact Blfu:o('l..,avK.n.I l.ie..oo mgJ!o.g 1.15E-015 ~1iI-d·y 7.3OE-Ol (mv'kg-d.y)-1 15.4E-09

B..uo(')PY'.ne 1.I5E·OO "9'kg 1.1E-08 mgl\g-d..,. 7.lE+-OCl (~fl-d..,.)-1 15.1E-015

B.nzo(blllucw..,1h1ltMl 2.3E..00 n-grt.g 1.4E-08 ~-d.y 7.lE-Ol (~g-d..,.)-1 1.0E-015 CIbIn:z(a,h}ltlItv..::enl 3 lE-Ol mgb.g 2.0E-09 _0<>" 1.lE+OO (1T"9'\g.-d.y)-1 1.5E.(I5 IndlOO(l.2,3-cdlpyren. 1.4e.00 mgfJ.g 8lE-OD mgi\::9-d'y 7.lE-01 (mglkg-dIly)-1 6.1E.(I9

Arunlc: 2.2E-08 m~-d.y 1.5E.00 (mW'kg-dIl)')-1 l.4E.(I15 1.8E-06 0.01 Phonlltlthr_ 3.5E+00 -.mgkg 1.1E-01 mglkd-d.y 2.0E-02 mglkd-d.y 0.00001 Chromium lE+02 mglkg l.9E-01 I"ng/'kd-

~.RouIiToll! 2.E-07 001

1~ 0.5 ~~~~~'~""~M~~~'rn~T~~~====~AA~====~~~~.~",=,=,~r=p,B~==~='=J~~W~k~~~'='~'~E~~T=~~~iF=~3~6E~.=11~r==~~~~=r~'~.'E~~~,~r=(m=w~~~r~1=~~}=====~======r=====,======~==~0~.6~091 P.-tINatlll BaruO(I)Pyl_ 4E-OSl rngIrn3 3.5E·11 "9'rnl 2.1E.00 (rnglmJ)-l 1.3E·11 Ban:.o(bllluclf&nthan. 5E-09 rT9'ml 4.5E·11 rngImJ 2.1E.Q1 (rnglmJ)-l 9.3E·12 Oibenz(a.h)ltIlhr..::ooe JE-09 rngfrn3 153E·12 mglm3 2.1E.00 (rngIrnl)-1 l.lE·" Indeno(I.2.l<.d)pyran. 6E·l0 mghn3 2.6E·lt mglmJ 2.1 E-01 (mgfm3)-1 5.5E·12

Ar.eNe lE-09 m~m) 3.1E·l0 mglml (rnglm3)-1 l.lE-09 Chromlum 7E-09 mg/ml 2.3E·09 mglmJ (mglm3)-1 2.1E-015 PhenanU'IIene 4.7E-09 """m3 3.2E-03 0.000001

Exp. RouliTotai 3.E-015

E.x~u(ePoI.,tTot" 0.000001 Expo.Llle Medium TOll! l.E-08 0.000001 Medium Total 2.E-06 0.6

Shilow Perched ShlD'ow Perd\~ ShIllowPIfc:hed Ingaltlon Ar.atlic:(Toll!.ll lE-02 .,..,. -4.0E..oe 2.BE-06 rngIkd-d1y 3.0E-04 001 Aqutl.,Greu"\dw1l.ll r,~ lEt-Ol .,..,. 2.1E-03 rngIkd-d..,. 3.0E-Ol 0.01 M~_•• ,E'" 2.7E-04 ~d-drry 1.4E.o""l a.OO2 Ph.nanttv_ 2E-03 -m... -4.1E-01 mg/kd-day 2.0E-02 mg.1ui-day 0.00002 Exp. RoUIl TOlal 6.E-08 0.02 Oalmlll ContKt Ars.Ne (TolII) 3.3E-09 1.5E+OO (mglkg-d.y)-1 49E-09 2.lE-07 mglkd-d.y JOE..Q4 mglkd--day O.OOOB

lIon 1.1E-04 mglkd-dIlY 8.0E-02 m~.y 0003 Mangin••• 2.3E-05 m9o'\d-d.y 5.6E-03 rngIkd-day 0.0004 Phlnanltlrane 9.5E-06 mgfKd-dly 2.0E-02 mgfItd-d.." 0.0005

Exp. Roule Toll! 5.E-09 0.01 I5.E-015 0.03 6.E-015 0.03 Inh.-liltion '" Pnenlntrv.n. 5.5E-04 HE+OO ",",m3 0.0002 Votath.

Medium Totll 6.E..Q8 II 0.Q3 Tot.. of Rea ..,.. RJ.kI AO"o" All Medi. 2E-06 II Tolli of Rae• ..,.. Hazll'd. AaoI, All MedIa 08

Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A • TABLE 7.l.RME CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON·CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE leRR . Johnston Yard

Tlmeframe: CurrenUFuture

Population: TrespOiIsser A e: Youth

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of j~cancerHazard Calculations Potential Concern ~'-~'--entration C5F/Unit Risk Ion RrD/RfC Hazard auotien Units Value Units Value Units Surface Soil Surlace Soil Surface Soil Ingestion Benlo(a)anthracene 1.BE+OO mg/kg 2,3E·09 mg/kg·day 7.3E-01 (mgJkg-day)·' L7E·Q9 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.7E+OO "'II/kg 22E-09 mg/kg-day 7.3E+OO (mglkg-day)-l LeE-oe

Benzo(b)nuoranthene 2.6E+OO mgfkg 3.~E-09 mg/kg-day 7.3E-Ol (mg/kg·day~l 2.SE-09

Olbent(3,h)anthracene 3.3E-Ol mglkg '.3E-l0 mglkg-day 1.3E+OO (mglkg-day~ 1 3.1E-W

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.3E+OO mglkg 1.7E-09 "'II/kg-day 7.3E-Ol (mglkg-day~ 1 L2E-09 Phenanthrene 6.BE+OO mglkg 6.2E-Oe mg/kd-day 2.0E-02 mglkd-day 0.000003

Arsenic 1.BE+01 "'II/kg 2.3E-oe mg/kg-day LSE+oo (mg/kg-day~ 1 HE·Oe 1.SE·07 mglkd·day 3.0E-~ mg/kd-day O.OOOS Chromium 1.9E+02 mg/kg 1.6E-OO mglkd-day 1.SE+DO mglkd-day 0.000001

Iron 4,1e.Q.4 "'II/kg 3.7E-~ mglkd-day 3.0E-Ol mg/kd-day 0.001

I Exp_ Route Total I I 6.E-Oe I I 0.002 I Dermal Contact Benzo(a)anthracene 1.6E+OO "'II/kg UE-l0 mglkg-day 7.3E-Ol (mglkg-day)-l 3.3E-l0

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.7E+OO mglkg '.3E·l0 mg/kg-day 7.3E+OO (mglkg-day~l 3.1E·Oa

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.eE+00 mg/kg 6.6E-l0 mgikg-day 7.3E-Ol (mglkg-day~l UE-l0

Dlbenz(a,h)anthracene 3.3E-Ol mg/kg e 4E-ll mg/kg-day 7.3E+OO (mg/kg-day~l 6.1E-l0

lndeno( 1,2,3-cx:I)pyrene 1.3E+OO mg/kg 3.3E·l0 mglkg-day 7.3E-Ol (mglkg-day)-l 2.~E-l0 Phenanthrene 6.6E+OO "'II/kg a.3E-l0 mglkd-day 2.0E-02 mg/kd-day 0.00000005

A~senic 2E+01 "'II/kg LOE-09 mg/kg-day 1.SE+OO (mglkg-d.y~ 1 LSE-09 7.2E-09 mg/kd-day 3.0E-~ mg/kd-day 0.00002 Chromium 2E+02 mg/kg 2.7E-09 mg/kd-day 1.SE-02 mglkd--day 0.0000002 Iron 4E+04 "'II/kg S.6E-07 mglkd-day e.OE-02 mg/kd--day 0.000009

I Exp. Route Total I e.E-09 0.00003 Exposure Point Total 7.E-OB Eltposure Medium Total ~~I Medium Total I ~~ II 0.002 II Tol;:!;i of Receptor Risks Across All Media I 7.E-Oe II Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media I 0.002 II

Page 1 of 1 '--­ _~I ---'

APPENDIX A • TABLE 7.4.RME CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

leRR ~ Johnston Yard

$ce-narto Tlmeframe: CurrenUFuture Receptor Population: Recreational User f(eceptor Age·. Adull

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non·Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unil Risk Cancer Risk IntakelExposure Concentration RlD/RfC Hazard QuoUen Value I Units Value I Units Value I Units Value I UnllS Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Ingestion Arsenic (Total) 1.3E·02 mg/L 9.1E-OB mg/kg-day 1.5E+OO I(mglkg-day~l 1.4E-07 4.5E-07 mglkd-day 3.0E-D4 mg/kd-day 0.002 I I I I Exp. Route Tolal I 1.4E-07 0.002 :: Dermal Contact Arsenic (Tolal) 1.3E-02 mg/L 5.1E·OB I mglkg-day l5E+OO I(mglkg-day~l 7.6E-OB 2.SE-07 mglkd-day 3.0E-04 I mg/kd-day O.OOOB I I Exp. Route Total I I Exposure Point Tolal I IExposure Medium Tolal O. II m~ Medium Total I 2 E-D7 II 0.002 Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media I 2.E-07 I Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media I ~0.002 I

Page 1 of 1 ._-_! ,---' \_--

APPENDIX A • TABLE 7.S.RME CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON·CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

leRR ~ Johnston Yard

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational User Rece tor A e: Youth

Medium Ex.posure Medium EKposure Point Exposure Route ChemJ.calof Cancer Risk Calcuiations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value CanrerR~k 1f---~~-'~~-'---+------r------1 Units Value Un!t.s Value Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Ingestion Arsenic (Total) 7.1E·07

Exp. Route TOlal 1.5E-07 Dermal Contact ArseniC (Tolal)

Exposure Medium Total Medium T etal Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media Total of Receptor Hazards Acress All Media

Page 1 of 1 I .---i --'

APPENDIX A· TABLE T.o.RME CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NONoCANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE leRR . Johnston Yard

CurrenVFuture Population: Recreational User

Child

Medium Exposure Medium EJCposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value ===;:..;:.:=:.:...c:...::..+----r-'----~ Hazard Quotient Units Surface Water Surface Water Surface Waler Ingestion Arsenic (Total) 1.3E-02 mgfl 9.1E-OT 0.04

Exp. Route Total 0.04 Dermal COntact Arsenic (Total) mg/L ME-OS

Exp. Route Total Exposure Point Total

Medium Total Total of Receptor Hnards Across All Media

Page 1 of 1 '-..--'

APPENDIX A • TABLE 7.•.RME CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON·CANCER HAZARDS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE leRR • Johnston Yard

CurrentlF utu(e r Population: Recreational User rAe: Cnild

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Cancer Risk I~=~=~;":'~~--+---.....,r-':""---j Hazard Quotient uni15 value Units. Value Units Surface Waler Surface Water Surface Waler Ingestion Anienic (Total) 0.04

Exp, Route Total Oermal Contact Arsenic (Total}

Exp, Route Total Exposure Point Total

Medium Total Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media Total 01 Receptor Hazards Across All Media

Page 1 of 1 I .----.J

APPENDIX A· TABLE 9.1.RME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ICRR· John.lonYard

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Industriat Worker Recelltor Age: Adul!

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Point of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary I Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Routes Total argelOrgan(s Routes Total Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil Benzo(a)anlhracene 4.6E'()7 1.3E'()7 S.9E·07

Benzo(a)pyrene 4.3E'()6 1.3E'()6 S.6E'()6

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.6E·07 1.9E·07 B.SE·07

Dibenz(a.h)anlhracen 8AE'()7 2AE·07 1.1E-06

Indeno(I.2.3-cd)pyren' 3.3E-07 9.6E'()8 4.3E-07

Phenanthrene 0.0003 0.000007 0.0003

Arsenic 9.2E-06 6.1E-07 9.BE-06 0.06 0.004 0.06

Chromium 0.0001 0.00003 0.0002

Iron 0.1 0.001 0.1

E

!Chemical Tolal 4.E-05 I I I 1 OA 1 IExposure Paint Total 4.E-OS 0.4 I I I I I I Exposure Medium Total II II 4.E-OS 0.4 I Air Air Phenanthrene 0.003 0.003 II I IChemical Total I O.E+OO I I I 0.003 I Exposure Point Total O.E+OO I 0.003 I II I Exposure Medium Total O.E+OO 0.003 I I I II I Medium Total 4.E-05 IL O.S Receptor Total 6.E-OS Receptor HI Total II ·0.6

Total Organ 1 HI Across All Media = NA Total Organ 2 HI Across AI! Media = NA

Page 1 of 1 ___I .--~, --_. "PPENDIX " • T"BlE '.1.RME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR cope. REASONI-BlE MJUCIMUM EXPOSURE

leRR A JohnstonYard

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Construdion Worker Rete tor A e: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenlc Hazard Quotient Medium Point of Potential Concern ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary I Ingestion Inhalallon Dermal Exposure Routes Total Tarcel Oman s Routes Tolal Surface/Subsurface Surface/Subsurface Surface/Subsurface 8enzo(a)anthracene 6.4E-06 8.4E-09 7.2E·08 Soil Soli Soil 8enzo(a)pyrene 6.2E·07 8.IE·08 7.0E'()7

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.9E'()8 1.0E-06 8.9E·08 Dlbenz(a,h)anthracel"M 1.1E·07 1.5E·08 1.3E'()7 Indeno(1,2,3.cdlpyren 4.6E·08 8.1E'()9 5.2E.()8 Arsenic 1.1E·06 3.4E·08 1.1E·06 0.2 0.005 0.2

Phenanttuene 0.0006 0,000006 0.001

Chromium 0.0003 0.000026 0.0003 Iron 0.• 0.002 0.4

Chemical Totc.ll 2.E-06 0.6 Exposure Point Total 2.E-OB I 0.6 I EAposure Medium Total 2.E-06 I 0.6 I Air Air Benzo(a)anlhracene 7.5E·12 7.SE-12 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3E·11 7.3E·11 Benzo(b)nuOranthene 9.3E·12 9.3E·12 DibenZ(a'h~a:~~::: 1.3E-11 1.3E·11 Indeno(1.2,3 5.5E·12 5.5E·12 Arsenic 1,3E'()9 1.3E·09 Phenanthrene 0.000001 0.000001 Chromium 2.7E-OB 2.7E-08 ITDn

3 Exposure Point Tota! 3. Exposure Medium Total 3. t=:t0.000001 Medium Total 2.E'()6 0.6 Shallow Perched Shallow Perched ShaUow Perched Arsenic (Total) 6.0E·08 4.9E'()9 6.5E·08 0.009 0.0008 0.01 Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Iron 0.007 0.003 0.010 Manganese 0.002 0.00. 0.006 Phenanthrene 0.00002 0.0005 0.0005

Chemical Total 6.E·08 0.03 Exposure Point Total 6.E-06 I 0.03 I Exposure Medium Total 6.E·08 0.03 Air Air Phenanthrene 0.0002 0.0002

IIChemlcal Tolal O.E+OO I I 0.0002 E.'(posure Poln! Total O.E+OO 0.0002 Exposure Medium Total O.E+OO 0.0002 MedIum Total 6£-06 I 0.03 Receptor Total 2.E-06 Receptor HI Total 0.6

Total Organ 1 HI Across All Media = NA

Total Organ 2 HI Aaoss All Media c NA

Page 1 of 1 _~i 1_­ --'

APPENDIX A· TABLE 9.3.RME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ICRR • JohnstonYard

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Youth

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Point of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary I Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Routes Total h"arQet OrQan(s Routes Total Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil Benzo(a)anthracene 1.7E-09 3.3E-10 2.0E-09

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.6E'{)8 3.1E-09 1.9E-08

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.5E'{)9 4.BE-10 3.0E-09

Dibenz(a,h)anlhracenE 3.1E-09 6.1E-10 3.8E-09

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyren 1.2E-09 2.4E-10 1.5E-09

Phenanthrene 0.000003 0.00000005 0.00000

Arsenic 3.4E-08 1.5E-09 3.6E'{)8 0.0005 0.00002 0.001

Chromium 0.000001 0.0000002 0.000001

Iron 0.001 0.000009 0.001

IChemical Total I I 7.E-08 I 0.002 I IEx~osure Point Total I I 7.E-08 I 0.002 I Exposure Medium Total 7.E-08 0.002 I II II II I !Medium Total II 7.E-08 0.002 :Receptor Tolal II 7.E-08 Receptor HI Total II 0.002 I

Total Organ 1 HI Across All Media = NA Total Organ 2 HI Across All Media = NA

Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A - TABLE 9.4.RME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ICRR - Johnston Yard

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Recreational User Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Point of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary I Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Routes Total ~arget Organ(s Routes Total Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Arsenic (Total) 1.4E-07 7.6E-OB 2.1E-07 0.002 0.0008 0.002

IChemical Total I I 2.E-07 I I 0.002 I IEx20sure Point Total I 2.E-07 I 0.002 I Exposure Medium Total 2.E-07 I 0.002 I Medium Total 2.E-07 0.002 Receptor Total 2.E-07 Receptor HI Total I 0.002 I

Total Organ 1 HI Across All Media = NA

Total Organ 2 HI Across All Media = NA

Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A - TABLE 9.S.RME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ICRR - Johnston Yard

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Recreational User Receptor Age: Youth

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Point of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary I Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Routes Total Irarget Organ(s Routes Total

Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Arsenic (Total) 111.SE-07 B.2E·OB 2.~<=_n7 0.002 0.001 0.004

Chemical To 2.E-07 O. IEx~osure Point Total I '---­ 2.E-07 0.004 Exposure Medium Total 0.004 I I 2.E-07 I II I Medium Total 2.E-07 0.004 Receptor Total 2.E-07 I Receptor HI Total II 0.004 I

Total Organ 1 HI Across All Media = NA Total Organ 2 HI Across All Media = NA

Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A - TABLE 9.S.RME SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE ICRR - Johnston Yard

Scenario Timeframe: Future RecEIptor Population: Recreational User RecEIptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Point of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

ISurf;;lce Water Surface Water Surface Water Arsenic (Total) 1.4E-06 9.9E-08 1.5E-06 0.04 0.003 0.04

IChemical Total 1.E-06 I I 0.04 I IExposure Point Total I I 1.E-06 Exposure Medium Total I II II 1.E-06 I Medium Total II II 1.E-06 1~ Receptor Total II 1.E-06 Receptor HI Total II 0.04

Total Organ 1 HI Across All Media = NA

Total Organ 2 HI Across All Media = NA

Page 1 of 1 l CalculatloDl ofPrellmiaary Remedlalio. Goa" (PRGs)

ICRR- Jo~._ Vard l Adult Lead Mood Sp....dJ~ed Industrial Worker, Coastnacdion Worker ••d Trapauer Youth Exponre Scenarior

CalculatloDS of Blood Lad CODCCIltratioDl (pbBa) u.s. EPA T... olcaI ...... w...... , r... Lad, A4aIt Lad Co"-"

Venioto ..... 05/U/UJ

.'·1

0SDi 0(2.0 &om NHANES mJbrall,...{IIdIaicity .... SoutIa Ro.poa ...... MIANES 1U ....o -.-...... 1)' &.rib...... RaP>o

I PbB_­ PbB!:::I:U'­

]

. J

10-= 'V..!J.UA(ItH)...... douol.TecUkal ...... Worq,..,forl.-d ror .. r...... AppNIIU to ...... JUIlu ...... '.UCI wltII A4uk &zpo...... 1.-d .. SoU Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

Classification Yard Soils Risk Assessment Tables TABLE 3. SUMMARY STATISTICS FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPms, TENNESSEE '.­

TABLE 3. SUMMARY STATISTICS FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

if.]. ~;~tf~{~. . . '~ ' 2~ '1 ·....:: c'''C· \. ~J,£';~"' '~.:~ ,,.::t<>.•~>r i~ !.~ ,;.:,...t l,~#, ~; ~~. :c>"~~id! ~ ~\: !'f':"""~ 75-11-8 9 0 ND -- 1,,-­2.71!41 ..5~3 - 1()0-41-4 8thvlbcnzcoc 32 0 ND -- ,.31!41 1.3B.j)3 - 98-82-8 ,(Currme) 9 .1% 3.9B.j)3 3 . 9~3 9.08.j)5 ..28-04 4.88-04 200 B0-20-, Imlo-Xvlene 32 _0 ~ .". - ~. 01!4l ..5~ 79-20-9 MethyllCC1ate 9 0 ND - - 8.78-04 4.9B.j)3 - 108-87-2 0 0 ND - -- - - 75.j)9-2 Methylene cbloride 9 .1% 2.08.j)3 2.08.j)3 4.0B-04 2 . 3~3 5.28-04 21 1634~ 1­ 32 0 NO -- 2.38-04 7.38.j)3 - 95-4:'';; .Xvlene 32 0 NO - - 8 . 6~5 7.3B.j)3 - 100-42-5 Styrene 9 0 NO - - 1.21!41 6.61!41 - 127-18-4 9 .1% 4 . 8~ 4.88.j)2 1.78-04 9.48-04 5.5~3 .3 108-88-3 Tolumc 32 5 15.6% 1~ 2 . 5~ 9.0B.j)5 .3B.j)3 .38.j)3 220 156-6().5 9 0 NO -- 3.3B-04 1.98.j)3 - l0061.j)2';; trans- ,3-J . 9 0 ND - - 1.88-04 1.0B.j)3 - 79.j)1';; 9 0 NO -- 1.48-04 7.8B-04 - 75';;9-4 9 Jl Jill :­ -=­ 3.81!41 2,!ll,03 -=­ 75.j)1-4 Vinyl cbloride 9 0 NO -- 2.21!41 .38.j)3 - '90-12.j) 4 3 75.0% .2B.j)1 ..48+01 5.78-04 5.78-04 3.7B_ 420 1-57';; 5: 5, ~ . g>~ .78+Ol 6.68-04 .6.6B:Oi !B+OO _.420 ,83-32-9 76 54 71.1% 8 . 9~3 4.08_ 4.51!41 2.08_ 2.6B.j)1 2900 .208-96-8 76 61 80.3% ..O~ 8.48.j)1 6.68-04 2.08_ 1 . 3~1 NA 120­ Antbncene 76 65 .85.5% ..4~ 3.28_ 8.98-04 2.08_ 3.4~1 100000 ,56-55-3 80 71 88.8% 2.2~ 1.78+01 6.1B-04 4.8B.j)1 8.2~1 2. COPC :50-32-8 89 78 '.6% 9.8B.j)3 1.9E+Ol 4.0E-04 6.4B.j)1 8 . 0~1 0.21 ope 1205-99-2 82 93.9% 2 . 0~ 2.2B+Ol 6.61!41 4.8B.j)1 .3B_ 2. COPC 191-24-2 76 65 85.5% 1.08.j)2 5.5B_ 4.41!41 2.0E_ 3 . 7~1 NA 1207.j)8-9 76 57 75.0% 9 . 3~3 3.1E-KlQ 4.51!41 2.0B+QO 3.0B.j)1 18.j)1-9 C1uysenc 76 69 90.8% 2 . 7~ 5.6B_ 9.51!41 4.8£-01 7.0B.j)1 210 153-70-3 80 59 1.8% 4.4~3 4.4E_ 8.6B-04 !.OE_ !.0B.j)1 0.21 COPC 1206-44-0 'luorantbene 76 69 90.8% 4.5E.j)2 .3E+Ol 6.38-04 4.8E.j)1 1.2E_ 2200 186-73-7 PI..,...., 76 55 72.4% 1.9E.j)3 5.8B_ 4.41!41 2.08_ 3 . 0~1 2600 1~~-s.. lDdmoI . 76 65 85.5% 6.8B.j)3 4.68_ 5.78-04 2.08_ 3.3B.j)1 2. COPC 1-20-3 Napbthalene 76 67 88.2% 4.6E.j)3 5.3E_ 6.41!41 2.0B_ 5.9E.j)1 19 185.j)1-8 76 70 92. 1% 4.3B.j)2 2.1E+01 2. 1E.j)3 '.OB_ .38_ 19 OPC 129.j)Q-Q .Pyrme 76 71 93.4% 9.2B.j)3 9.08_ 6.41!41 4.88.j)1 18_ 2900 17440-38-2 ,AnaUC 15 78 ,67.8% 6.4~1 1.68+02 5.4B.j)1 .5E_ .4·.8.!L+Ql 16.19. 1.6 OPC 17440-39-3 .Barium 49 49 100.0% 9.18+00 6.4B+02 -- 1.4E+02 287. 6700 17440-43-9 ::adrRum 36 50.()% 1.2E.j)1 6.78_ 7.48.j)2 · . 3~1 .8~0B.j)1 0.636 45 17440-47-3 cmmlDD 72 72 100.0% 1.48_ 7.98+02 - - 2.78+01 34 450 cope 17439-89';; ilron 24 24 .1CJQ..~ 6.5B+03 .28+05 - - 1,4B+04 34100 1000 ope 17439-92-1 Lead 80 80 100.0% 2.88_ .18+04 - - 4.7E+02 h14 800 COPC 17782-49-2 Sdmium 49 ~ 2.0% .~ L4i!+01 .. 5E_ 2.9E+OO .4E_ ..372 5lQ. 17440-22-4 'SiIv..­ 72 20 27.8% 6.98.j)2 3.38_ . 7~1 .5B_ 3.38.j)1 0. 1645 510 1744O-66-

TABLE 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

, " Muiimum . Maximum Miriimwn Maximum ; EPA Region 9' '·COPC." Number Number. Frequency Delected Detected Non-Detected . . Non-Detected Mean BackgrolJIl!l' lnduSlri.iJ ' . Base,rOn' .. of of. of Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Conccntratic:m Concentration • '­ PRG. ,M~wn' . ;CoDsrifuenl .Samples (a) . Delects "­ Detection (mgil

TABLE 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Minimwn Maximum Minimwn Maximum EPARegion 9. cope Number Number Frequency Detected Detected . Non'Detected Non· Detected Mean Bacicgrowul Industrial· Based on of of of Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentratioo _. Conccntranon Con~tration .PRG Maximum _Constituent· . Samples (.) Detects Detcction (rn8fkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (rn8fkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) - (mglkg) ".Concenttation 124-48-1 Dibromoc:h1oromethane 14 I 7.1% 0.00376 0.00376 0.000193 0.00706 8.3E-04 2.6 75-71-8 Dich1orodifluoromethane 14 0 NO - -­ 0.000308 0.0787 -­ 10Q-.41-4 Ethylbenzene 14 3 21.4% 0.0034 2.5 0.000147 0.0128 l.8E-01 400 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 14 5 35.7% 0.000969 0.977 0.000105 0.0112 8.7E-02 200 1330-20-7 m&p-Xylene 14 3 214% 0.00461 4.99 0.000228 0.022 HE-Ol 10 79-20-9 Methyl acetate 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.000994 0.157 -­ 108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane 4 2 500% 0 21.4 0.00038 0.0401 4.4E+{)0 75-09-2 Methylene chloride 14 2 14.3% 0.0012 0.881 0.000365 0.105 6.7E-02 21 1634-04-4 Methyl-ten-butyl ether 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.000261 0.0553 -­ 95-47-6 (}-Xylene 14 4 28.6% 0.000778 2.24 0.0000998 0.0137 l.8E-Ol 10 100-42-5 Styrene 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.000134 0.0125 -­ 127-18-4 Tetrachlorocthene 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.00019 0.0131 -­ 1.3 108-88-3 Toluene 14 I 7.1% 0.00722 0.00722 0.000103 0.0136 l.5E-03 220 156-60-5 trans-I.2-Dichloroethene 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.00038 0.0257 -­ 10061-02-6 trans-I.3-Dichloropropene 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.000206 0.0154 - 79-01-6 Trichloroelhene 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.000159 0.0121 -­ 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 14 0 NO -­ -­ 0.000401 0.0311 -­ 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride 14 I 71% 0.000634 0.000634 0.000261 0.031 2.3E-03 0.75 90-12-0 I-Methylnaphthalene 4 4 100.0% 0 19.3 -­ -­ 5.7E+OO 420 91-57-6 2-Methvtnaphthalene 52 50 96.2% 0.00253 26.4 0.00226 0.00232 8.0E-Ol 420 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 52 30 57.7% 0.0021 2.58 0.000462 0.00202 UE-OI 2900 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 52 25 48.1% 0.00209 0.378 0.000675 0.0335 1.2E-02 NA 120-12-7 Anthracene 52 40 76.9% 0.00165 1.01 0.000914 0.00167 6.7E-02 100000 56-55-3 Benzo(a anthracene 55 44 80.0% 0.0017 0.3 0.000688 0.0341 2.7E-02 2.1 50-32-8 Benzo(.)pyrene 55 40 72.7% 0.00168 0.208 0.000408 00231 I.5E-02 0.21 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 55 42 76.4% 0.0021 0.404 0.000676 0.0335 2.8E-02 2.1 191-24-2 Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 52 33 63.5% 0.001185 0.14 0.000448 0.0222 9.4E-03 NA 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthenc 52 28 53.8% 0.00206 0.116 0.000462 0.0357 6.9E-03 21 218-01-9 Chrysene 52 43 82.7% 0.0017 0.326 0.000977 0.0484 3.2E-02 210 53-70-3 Dibenz(a.h anthracene 55 20 36.4% 0.00129 0.0508 0.000821 0.0437 4.IE-03 0.21 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 52 46 88.5% 0.0017 0.825 0.000646 0.032 8.IE-02 2200 86-73-7 Fluorene 52 32 61.5% 0.00168 3.27 0.000448 0.00171 l.6E-01 2600 193-39-5 lndeno( 1.2.3 -cd)pyrene 52 31 596% 0.00124 0.125 0.000586 0.0291 8.8E-03 2 I 91-20-3 Naphthalene 52 47 904% 0.00247 1.48 000216 0.0325 9.6E-02 19 85-01 -8 Phenanthrene 52 49 942% 0.0017 10.1 0.0014 0.00213 4.3E-OI 19 129-00-0 Pyrone 52 44 84.6% 0.0021 0.874 0.000656 0.00153 8.3E-02 2900 7440-38-2 Arsenic 55 17 309% US 265 0.856 1.21 2.0E+OO 16.19 l.6 COPC 7440-39-3 Barium 48 48 100.0% 48.7 247 -­ -­ I.5E+{)2 287.1 6700 7440-43-9 Cadmium 48 3 6.3% 0.348 3.76 0.085 0.121 1.6E-OI 0.636 45 7440-47-3 Chromium 48 48 100.0% 5.93 20.2 -­ -­ I 2E+{)1 34 450 7439-92-1 Lead 51 50 98.0% 11.55 400 0.571 0.571 3.6E+{)1 53.14 800 7782-49-2 Selenium 48 0 NO -­ -­ l.67 2.37 -­ 1.372 510 7440-22-4 Silver 48 0 NO -­ -­ 0.199 0.282 -­ 0.1645 510 J.

TABLE 5. EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION FILL MATERIAL 1 ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPIDS, TENNESSEE i

1. TABLE 6. EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SILTY CLAY "j '. I ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

E~posurePoint , J Constituent Concentration" (mg/kg)

\ 7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.9E+OO \ I

1

}

.I TABLE 7. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL INGESTION - SOIL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD ~~EUS,TENNESSEE

-35· Toxaphene 5.5E+00 2.5E-07 1.8E-05 1.lE+00 NA NA Benzo(a)anthracene 2.8E+OO l.3E-07 9.1E-06 7.3E-Ol NA 9.4E-08 NA Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E+OO 1.2E-07 8.6E-06 7.3E+00 NA 8.9E-07 NA Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.1E+OO 1.9E-07 1.3E-05 7.3E-Ol NA 1.4E-07 NA Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0E-Ol 3.2E-OS 2.3E-06 7.3E+00 NA 2.4E-07 NA 193-39-5 Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5E-Ol 4.4E-08 3.1E-06 7.3E-Ol NA 3.2E-08 NA -S Phenanthrene 5.0E+OO 2.3E-07 1.6E-05 NA 2.0E-02 NA 8.1E-04 9.5E+Ol 4.4E-06 3.1E-04 1.5E+OO 3.0E-04 6.6E-06 NA 3.0E+Ol 1.4E-06 9.7E-05 NA 1.5E+OO NA 6.5E-05 5.3E+04 2.5E-03 1.7E-01 NA 3.0E-Ol NA 5.SE-Ol

NA - Not Available/Applicable

Where:

ADD=EPCxCFxIRxEFxEDIATxBW Cancer HI Cancer Risk = ADD x Slope Factor Risk Hazard Quotient = ADD I Reference Dose Total: S.3E-06 5.SE-Ol

Conversion Factor (CF) l.OOE-06 kg/mg Exposure Frequency RME (EF): 250 days/year Ingestion Rate RME (IR): 330 mg/day Exposure Duration (ED): I years Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (AT): 25550 days (cancer) 365 days (non-cancer) .­

TABLE 8. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPIDS, TENNESSEE

Toxaphene 5.5E+OO 1.6E"()8 1.8E"()7 l.lE+OO NA 5.ooE"() 1 NA 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.8E+OO l.lE"()7 1.7E"()8 1.2E"()6 7.3E"() 1 NA 8.90E"() 1 NA 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E+OO 1.0E"()7 1.6E"()8 l.lE"()6 7.3E+OO NA 8.90E"()1 1.2E"()7 NA 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.1E+OO 1.6E"()7 2.5E..()8 1.8E..()6 7.3E"() 1 NA 8.90E"()1 1.8E"()8 NA 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0E..() 1 2.7E"()8 4.3E"()9 3.0E"()7 7.3E+OO NA 8.90E"() 1 3.lE"()8 NA 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5E"()1 3.7E"()8 5.7E"()9 4.0E"()7 7.3E"() 1 NA 8.90E..()1 4.2E"()9 NA 85"()1-8 Phenanthrene 5.0E+OO 2.0E"()7 3.lE"()8 2. 1E"()6 NA 2.0E"()2 8.90E..() 1 NA l.lE"()4 7440-38-2 Arsenic 9.5E-t{)1 8.5E"()7 l.3E"()7 9.3E"()6 1.5E+OO 3.0E-04 9.50E"()1 2.0E"()7 3. 1E"()2 7440-47-3 Chromium 3.0E-t{)1 9.0E"()9 1.4E"()9 9.8E"()8 NA l.5E+OO 5.ooE"()3 NA l.3E"()5 7439-89-6 Iron 5.3E-t{)4 1.6E"()5 2.5E"()6 1.7E-04 NA 3.0E"()1 1.50E"()1 NA 3.9E"()3

NA - Not Available/Applicable

Where: DAD=(DA.,...,xEVx tevent x CFxEFxEDxSA)I(BWxAT) RME Cancer Risk HI Constituent Specific (CS) Total 3.8E"()7 3.5E"()2 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA.,....) CS Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (Adult): 3300 cm2 Gastrointestinal Absorption Factor (GAF) = CS (-) Event Frequency (EV) events/day Exposure Frequency RME (EF): 250 days/year Exposure Duration (ED): 1 year Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (ATc:aoa:r): 25550 days (cancer) 365 days (non-cancer) Event Duration (tevent) 8 hours/day Conversion Factor (CF) 0.042 days/hour ------

TABLE SA. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL DAEVENT MODEL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Toxaphene l.6E-08 0.01 5.5E+00 Benzo{a)anthracene l.IE-07 0.13 2.8E+OO Benzo(a)pyrene l.OE-07 0.13 2.7E+00 Benzo(b)fluoranthene l.6E-07 0.13 4.IE+00 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.7E-08 0.13 7.0E-Ol Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3.7E-08 0.13 9.5E-Ol Phenanthrene 2.0E-07 0.13 5.0E+OO Arsenic 8.5E-07 0.03 9.5E+Ol Chromium 9.0E-09 0.001 3.0E+Ol Iron 1.6E-05 0.001 5.3E+04

Where:

DAevent =Csoil x CF x AF x ABSd

Chemical Specific (CS) = Soil Concentration {CsoiJ = CS mglkg Conversion Factor (CF) = 1.00E-06 kg/mg 2 Adherence Factor (AFAdulJ = 0.3 mg/cm Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABS~ = CS TABLE 9. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INHALATION OF PARTICULATES - SOIL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD ~~EUS,TENNESSEE

Toxaphene 5.5E+00 1.lE-08 l.04E-lO NA IE-lO NA 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.8E+OO 5.5E-09 5.34E-ll NA NA NA NA NA 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E+OO 5.2E-09 5.05E-ll NA NA NA NA NA 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.1E+OO 8.1E-09 7.90E-ll NA NA NA NA NA 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0E-Ol 1.4E-09 1.34E-ll NA NA NA NA NA 193-39-5 Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5E-Ol 1.8E-09 1.81E-ll NA NA NA NA NA 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 5.0E+OO 9.8E-09 9.61E-ll 6.7E-09 NA 3.0E-03 NA 2.2E-06 Arsenic 9.5E+Ol 1.8E-07 1.81E-09 NA 4.3E+OO NA 8E-09 NA 7440-47-3 Chromium 3.0E+Ol 5.9E-08 5.74E-I0 NA NA NA NA NA 7439-89-6 Iron 5.3E+04 1.0E-04 1.02E-06 NA NA NA NA NA

NA - Not Available/Applicable

Where: Cancer Hazard Risk Index Modeled Particulate Concentration (MPC)= Soil Concentration x IIPEF TOTAL: 8E-09 2E-06 Average Daily Exposure (cancer) =MPC x EF x ED/ ATc Average Daily Exposure (noncancer) =MPC x EF x ED/ ATnc Cancer Risk = ADE (cancer) x Unit Risk Hazard Quotient = ADE (noncancer) / Reference Concentration

Particulate Emission Factor (PEF) = 5.IE+08 Site-specific Exposure Frequency (EF) = 250 days/year Exposure Duration (ED) = 1 year Averaging Time (AT) = 25550 days 365 days ~------­

TABLE 10. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL INGESTION - SOn. FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD ~~EUS,TENNESSEE

r~~ __'!1"'~_-""',,"Y~»" .: '. I : ••' 1'" __ ._~'''' '.c..'. .,," ..>e."­ ;, '~'f'...... ,' I ~.j ;':~=~;;t.:")"~~~- ~\~'.'t. - ..: '-""1.:-' ' • ·';'1 • ~.! r L. ,~or.,;.:! " '" ""fJ,"-::­ ,..., (' , ~ . ~ .' I ~~"..Q '-'"jrJ!:;. , . ..,,, •.< • -­ . . - . I I§;"'~·""'.~I""~~'·~ '.' ::;'---.-. " -:----~~ '"""--~- "- ---.­ ~'·~~':>~~~~'''''':~~:''~U-.-:~~::-!: ,,~-~~~", :''';~r' --;-:-.' ~ .. ~:.. -,­

~~i~k~j,~~!C+~~>-: '7:"'~r~-'-' >-~,,-:;;>~. -~ I ~~~- .-.~ .....::...... --.-.~"'--...=...-...~ -· ~~. ,', :­ '. ", (- .,,' I 60-57-1 Dieldrin 6.SE-02 4.SE-09 1.3E-OS 1.6E+Ol 5.0E-05 7.6E-OS 2.7E-04 Sool-35- Toxaphene 5.5E+OO 3.SE-07 l.lE-06 l.lE+OO NA 4.2E-07 NA 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.8E+OO 2.0E-07 5.5E-07 7.3E-OI NA l.4E-07 NA 50-32-S Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E+OO 1.9E-07 5.2E-07 7.3E+OO NA l.4E-06 NA 205-99-2 Benzo{b )fluoranthene 4.lE+OO 2.9E-07 S.lE-07 7.3E-Ol NA 2.1E-07 NA 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0E-Ol 4.9E-OS 1.4E-07 7.3E+OO NA 3.6E-07 NA 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5E-OI 6.6E-OS l.9E-07 7.3E-OI NA 4.SE-OS NA 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 5.0E+OO 3.5E-07 9.9E-07 NA 2.0E-02 NA 4.9E-05 7440-38- Arsenic 9.5E+OI 6.6E-06 1.9E-05 1.5E+OO 3.0E-04 l.OE-05 6.2E-02 744047- Chromium 3.0E+01 2.1E-06 5.9E-06 NA l.5E+OO NA 3.9E-06 7439-S9- Iron 5.3E+04 3.7E-03 l.OE-02 NA 3.0E-01 NA 3.5E-02

NA - Not Available/Applicable

Where:

ADD=EPCxCFxIRxEFxFAxED/ ATxBW Cancer HI Cancer Risk =ADD x Slope Factor Risk Hazard Quotient =ADD / Reference Dose Total: l.3E-05 9.7E-02

Conversion Factor (CF) l.00E-06 kg/mg Exposure Frequency (EF): 250 days/year Area Use Fraction (FA): 0.2 Ingestion Rate modified (IR): 100 mg/day Exposure Duration (ED): 25 years Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (AT): 25550 days (cancer) 9125 days (non-cancer) TABLE 11. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD ~~EUS,TENNESSEE

Sool-35-2 Toxaphene 5.5E+OO l.lE-OS S.5E-09 2.4E-OS l.lE+{)O NA 5.00E-OI 9.3E-09 NA 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.SE+OO 7.3E-OS 5.7E-OS 1.6E-07 7.3E-OI NA S.90E-OI 4.1E-OS NA 50-32-S Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E+OO 6.9E-Og 5.3E-OS 1.5E-07 7.3E+00 NA S.90E-OI 3.9E-07 NA 205-99-2 Benzo(b)lIuoranthene 4.lE+OO l.lE-07 S.4E-OS 2.3E-07 7.3E-OI NA S.90E-OI 6.IE-OS NA 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0E-OI l.SE-OS I.4E-OS 4.0E-OS 7.3E+OO NA S.90E-OI 1.0E-07 NA 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5E-Ol 2.5E-OS 1.9E-OS 5.4E-OS 7.3E-Ol NA S.90E-OI 1.4E-OS NA S5-01-S Phenanthrene 5.0E+OO l.3E-07 1.0E-07 2.SE-07 NA 2.0E-02 S.90E-01 NA 1.4E-05 744O-3S-2 Arsenic 9.5E+{)1 5.7E-07 4.4E-07 1.2E-06 l.5E+OO 3.0E-04 9.50E-01 6.6E-07 4.1E-03 7440-47-3 Chromium 3.0E+{) 1 6.0E-09 4.7E-09 I.3E-OS NA 1.5E+00 5.00E-03 NA J.7E-06 Iron 5.3E+{)4 l.lE-05 S.3E-06 2.3E-05 NA 3.0E-Ol 1.50E-Oi NA 5.2E-04

NA - Not Available/Applicable

Where: Cancer DAD=(DA.-,xEVx tevent x CFxEFxFAxEDxSA)/(BWxAn Risk III Total I.3E-06 4.7E-03 Constituent Specific (CS) Absorbed Dose per Event (DA.-J CS 2 Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (Adult): 3300 cm Gastrointestinal Absorption Factor (GAF) = CS (-) [I] Event Frequency (EV) events/day Exposure Frequency (EF): 250 days/year Area Use Fraction (FA): 0.2 Exposure Duration (ED): 25 year Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (AT.,...,.,): 25550 days (cancer) 9125 days (non-cancer) Event Duration (tevent) S hours/day Conversion Factor (CF) 0.042 dayslhour I , I J L--.... '-----.J ~

TABLE l1A. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL DAEVENT MODEL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPIDS, TENNESSEE

Toxaphene 0.01 5.5E+00 Benzo(a)anthracene 7.3E-08 0.13 2.8E+00 Benzo(a)pyrene 6.9E-08 0.13 2.7E+00 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.1E-07 0.13 4.1E+00 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.8E-08 0.13 7.0E-01 Jndeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.5E-08 0.13 9.5E-01 Phenanthrene 1.3E-07 0.13 5.0E+00 Arsenic 5.7E-07 0.03 9.5E+Ol Chromium 6.0E-09 0.001 3.0E+Ol Iron 1.1E-05 0.001 5.3E+04

Where:

DAevent = Csoil x CF x AF x ABSd

Chemical Specific (CS) = Soil Concentration (Csoil) = CS mglkg Conversion Factor (CF) = 1.00E-06 kg/mg 2 Adherence Factor (AFAdulJ = 0.2 mg/cm Dennal Absorption Fraction (ABS~ = CS L_ .~-.

TABLE 12. CURRENTIFUTURE TRESPASSER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL INGESTION - SOIL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD ~~EUS,TENNESSEE

1-35- Toxaphene 5.5E+00 7.1E-09 1.1E+OO Benzo( a)anthracene 2.8E+OO 3.7E-09 2.6E-08 7.3E-Ol NA 2.7E-09 NA Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E+00 3.5E-09 2.4E-08 7.3E+00 NA 2.5E-08 NA Benzo(b )fluoranthene 4.1E+00 5.4E-09 3.8E-08 7.3E-Ol NA 4.0E-09 NA Dibenz( a,h)anthracene 7.0E-Ol 9.2E-I0 6.4E-09 7.3E+00 NA 6.7E-09 NA -39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5E-Ol 1.2E-09 8.7E-09 7.3E-Ol NA 9.0E-I0 NA 1-8 Phenanthrene 5.0E+OO 6.6E-09 4.6E-08 NA 2.0E-02 NA 2.3E-06 9.5E+Ol 1.2E-07 8.7E-07 I.5E+OO 3.0E-04 1.9E-07 2.9E-03 3.0E+Ol 3.9E-08 2.8E-07 NA 1.5E+00 NA 1.8E-07 5.3E+04 7.0E-05 4.9E-04 NA 3.0E-Ol NA 1.6E-03

NA - Not "Available!Applicable

Where:

ADD=EPCxCFxIRxEFxEDIA TxBW Cancer HI Cancer Risk = ADD x Slope Factor Risk Hazard Quotient = ADD I Reference Dose Total: 2.3E-07 4.5E-03

Conversion Factor (CF) 1.00E-06 kg/mg Exposure Frequency (EF): 12 days/year Ingestion Rate RME (IR): 12.5 mg/day Exposure Duration (ED): 10 years Body Weight (BW): 45 kg Averaging Time (AT): 25550 days (cancer) " 3650 days (non-cancer) TABLE 13. CURRENTIFUTURE TRESPASSER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPIDS, TENNESSEE

Sool-35-2 Toxaphene 5.5E+OO 5.5E-09 1.1E-I0 7.5E-I0 1.1E+OO NA 1.2E-I0 NA 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.SE+OO 3.6E-OS 7.1E-I0 5.0E-09 7.3E-Ol NA S.90E-Ol 5.2E-I0 NA 50-32-S Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E+00 3.4E-OS 6.7E-I0 4.7E-09 7.3E+00 NA S.90E-Ol 4.9E-09 NA 205-99-2 Benzo(b)t1uoranthene 4.lE+00 5.4E-OS 1.1E-09 7.4E-09 7.3E-Ol NA S.90E-Ol 7.7E-I0 NA 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0E-Ol 9.2E-09 I.SE-I0 1.2E-09 7.3E+00 NA S.90E-Ol 1.3E-09 NA 193-39-5 lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5E-Ol 1.2E-OS 2.4E-1O 1.7E-09 7.3E-Ol NA S.90E-Ol I.SE-I0 NA S.5-01-S Phenanthrene 5.0E+00 6.6E-OS 1.3E-09 9.0E-09 NA 2.0E-02 S.90E-Ol NA 4.5E-07 7440-3S-2 Arsenic 9.5E+Ol 2.SE-07 5.6E-09 3.9E-OS l.5E+00 3.0E-04 9.50E-Ol S.3E-09 1.3E-04 7440-47-3 Chromium 3.0E+Ol 3.0E-09 5.9E-ll 4.1E-I0 NA 1.5E+OO 5.00E-03 NA 5.5E-OS 7439-S9-6 Iron 5.3E+04 5.3E-06 1.0E-07 7.3E-07 NA 3.0E-Ol 1.50E-Ol NA 1.6E-05

NA - Not Available/Applicable

Where: DAD=(DA....uxEVx tevent x CFxEFxEDxSA)/(BWxAT) RME Cancer Risk III Constituent Specific (CS) Total 1.6E-OS 1.5E-04 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA..""J CS 2 Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (Youth): 4451 cm Event Frequency (EY) events/day Exposure Frequency (EF): 12 days/year Exposure Duration (ED): 10 year Body Weight (BW): 45 kg Averaging Time (ATcancer): 25550 days (cancer) 3650 days (non-cancer) Event Duration (tevent) 1 hours/day Conversion Factor (CF) 0.042 days/hour Gastrointestinal Absorption Fraction (GAF) CS TABLE 13A. CURRENTIFUTURE TRESPASSER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL DAEVENT MODEL FILL MATERIAL ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPmS, TENNESSEE

Toxaphene 5.5E-09 0.01 5.5E+OO Benzo(a)antbracene 3.6E-OS 0.13 2.SE+OO Benzo(a)pyrene 3.4E-OS 0.13 2.7E+OO Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5.4E-OS 0.13 4.1E+OO Dibenz(a,h)antbracene 9.2E-09 0.13 7.0E-01 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.2E-OS 0.13 9.5E-01 Phenanthrene 6.6E-OS 0.13 5.0E+OO Arsenic 2.SE-07 0.03 9.5E+01 Chromium 3.0E-09 0.001 3.0E+01 Iron 5.3E-06 0.001 5.3E+04

Where:

DAevent = Csoil x CF x AF x ABSd

Chemical Specific (CS) = Soil Concentration (Csoil) = CS mg/kg Conversion Factor (CF) = 1.00E-06 kg/mg Adherence Factor (AFYouth) = 0.1 mg/cm2 Dennal Absotption Fraction (ABS~ = CS ------:

TABLE 14. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL INGESTION - SOIL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

-·Tox.i~ity Valu~s: >···l> Exposure Average DailyDose Cancer cChronic - . .' .RME .. · ',. '. ·i. - Point Con~eiItration . , .... '::. can~~ncancer :~:: R·~::tC~;;",i~:~~f21.\ Constituent (mgikg) (mg!kg.,.d) (mg/kg..d) (mglkg';d).,.l (mglkgd) . (..) ..' . ( .).-,.

7440-38- Arsenic 3.9E+00 1.8E-07 1.3E-05 1.5E+00 3.0E-04 2.7E-07 4.2E-02

Where:

ADD=EPCxCFxIRxEFxED/ATxBW Cancer HI Cancer Risk = ADD x Slope Factor Risk Hazard Quotient = ADD / Reference Dose Total: 2.7E-07 4.2E-02

Conversion Factor (CF) 1.00E-06 kg/mg Exposure Frequency (EF): 250 days/year Ingestion Rate (IR): 330 mg/day Exposure Duration (ED): 1 years Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (AT): 25550 days (cancer) 365 days (non-cancer) TABLE 15. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

- , Dermal ,RiskEstimates ," Exposure Absorbed Absorbed Toxicity Values GAF .Canc;:er _• Non~C.ancet: Point Dose Dose Chronic Risk . Hazard,. Concentration' Per Event RME Cancer Reference '> ',Qu0t.i~n~', Cancer Noncancer ' Slope Factor Dose RME ;: . .,." :

c.onstituent (mg/kg) (~g/cml-~vent) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-dH' (mg/kg-d) . (--) : (~-)' (-~)

7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.9E+00 3.5E-08 5.5E-09 3.8E-07 1.5E+00 3.0E-04 9.50E-OI 8.2E-09 1.3E-03

NA - Volatile organic compounds not considered for dermal exposure (EPA, 2004) Where: Cancer DAD=(DAeventxEVx tevent x CFxEFxEDxSA)/(BWxAT) Risk HI Total 8.2E-09 1.3E-03 Constituent Specific (CS) Absorbed Dose per Event (DAevenJ CS Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (Adult): 3300 Gastrointestinal Absorption Factor (GAF) = CS (--) Event Frequency (EV) events/day Exposure Frequency (EF): 250 days/year Exposure Duration (ED): I year Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (ATeanee,): 25550 days (cancer) 365 days (non-cancer) Event Duration (tevent) 8 hours/day Conversion Factor (CF) 0.042 days/hour TABLE 15A. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL DAEVENT MODEL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

...... ".'

2 ,Constituent (mglcm -event) "(mg/kg)

7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.5E~08 0.03 3.9E+OO

Where:

DAevent = Csoi1 x CF x AF x ABSd

Chemical Specific (CS) =

Soil Concentration (Csoil ) = CS mg/kg Conversion Factor (CF) = 1.00E-06 kg/mg 2 Adherence Factor (AF Adult) = 0.3 mg/cm

Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABSd) = CS L. __ -_.

TABLE 16. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE INHALATION OF PARTICULATES - SOIL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

EP(: Exposure Estimates " .....

- '.: ,',. - ':, - . . ·,Cheinical . ... Modeled Average Daily Exposure \::' :.;',..... , ... ,., .... Concentration .. ~a:rticuhite Unit· '. in Soil Cone. Cancer Noncancer Risk . Constituent (mglkg) (mglm3) (mglm3) (mglm3) (mglm3)"J

7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.9E+00 7.6E-09 7.47E-ll NA 4.3E+00 NA 3E-1O NA

NA - Not Available/Applicable

Where: Cancer Hazard Risk Index Modeled Particulate Concentration (MPC)= Soil Concentration x llPEF TOTAL: 3E-IO NA Average Daily Exposure (cancer) = MPC x EF x ED/ ATc Average Daily Exposure (noncancer) = MPC x EF x ED/ A Tnc Cancer Risk = ADE (cancer) x Unit Risk Hazard Quotient = ADE (noncancer) / Reference Concentration

Particulate Emission Factor (PEF) = 5.lE+08 Site-specific Exposure Frequency (EF) = 250 days/year Exposure Duration (ED) = 1 year Averaging Time (AT) = 25550 days 365 days L __ --' ._-'­

TABLE 17. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL INGESTION - SOIL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

- . Exposure ToxicityValu,es': ', . .,: , '-, Point A verage Daily Dose Cancer ·Chronic.·. i IW'1j:,..· " Concentration RME Slope. Reference:· , ':Canc~r . -·,;··~HaZa:~d.~- -, ' Cancer· Noncancer Factor Dose Risk. .Quotient',· Constituent '(mg/kg) (mglkg-d) (mglkg-d) (mglkg-d)-l (mglkg-d) (- -) (- -)

7440-38- Arsenic 3.9E+00 2.7E-07 7.7E-07 1.5E+00 3.0E-04 4.1E-07 2.6E-03

Where:

ADD=EPCxCFxlRxEFxFAxED/ATxBW Cancer HI Cancer Risk = ADD x Slope Factor Risk Hazard Quotient = ADD / Reference Dose Total: 4.1E-07 2.6E-03

Conversion Factor (CF) 1.00E-06 kg/mg Exposure Frequency (EF): 250 days/year Area Use Fraction (FA): 0.2 Ingestion Rate (lR): 100 mg/day Exposure Duration (ED): 25 years Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (AT): 25550 days (cancer) 9125 days (non-cancer) __I

TABLE 18. FUTURE INDUSTRlIAL WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL SILTY CLAY IeRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENESSEE

Dermal , ," .'RJSk Estimates ' , Exposure Absorbed Absorbed Toxicity Values GAF, , " ,Cancer," 'Noli-cancer Point Dose Dose (:hronic ':imk '"':.·Haz~rd '. Concentration Per 'Event RME Cancer Reference , :~;Quotieilt Cancer Noncancer Slope Factor ,Dose .,"RMF;.',

(fuglkg) (mg/c~2-event) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)-l (mg/kg-d) :(-) (-) " (~).

7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.9E+00 2.4E-08 1.8E-08 5.IE-08 1.5E+00 3.0E-04 9.50E-0! 2.7E-08 I.7E-04

Where: Cancer DAD=(DAevenlxEVx tevent x CFxEFxFAxEDxSA)/(BWxA T) Risk HI Total 2.7E-08 I.7E-04 Constituent Specific (CS) Absorbed Dose per Event (DAevenJ CS Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (Adult): 3300 Gastrointestinal Absorption Factor (GAF) = CS (--)[1] Event Frequency (EV) I events/day Exposure Frequency (EF): 250 days/year Area Use Fraction (FA): 0.2 Exposure Duration (ED): 25 year Body Weight (BW): 70 kg Averaging Time (ATcancer): 25550 days (cancer) 9125 days (non-cancer) Event Duration (tevent) 8 hours/day Conversion Factor (CF) 0.042 dayslhour l_

TABLE 18A. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL DAEvENT MODEL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

'.: '.. - .~. A~sorbed. Dose. ,Dermal· .... ". .,;C,lielriidlr: ..,' .... :­ . . ". .' .;;. Per Event .Absorption .. "Co~c:entraii~n .~~: ,,', .-" . ~:. ',­ adult . Fnlcti~il .' . in8oil· Constituent (mg/cm2-event) (mglkg) •

7440-38-2 Arsenic 2.4E-08 0.03 3.9E+00

Where:

DAevent == Csoil x CF x AF x ABSd

Chemical Specific (CS) == Soil Concentration (Csoil) = CS mg/kg Conversion Factor (CF) = 1.00E-06 kg/mg 2 Adherence Factor (AFAdult) = 0.2 mg/cm Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABSd) = CS __I 1__­

TABLE 19. CURRENT/FUTURE TRESPASSER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL INGESTION - SOIL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

",.-:. . -",,-,';

,. : .~'. .:.:' . -'. Exposure . " . ~., - " Point .",' " _Concentration Constituent- (~g/kg)

7440-38- Arsenic 3.9E+00 5.1E-09 3.6E-08 1.5E+00 3.0E-04 7.7E-09 1.2E-04

Where:

ADD=EPCxCFxIRxEFxED/ATxBW Cancer HI Cancer Risk = ADD x Slope Factor Risk Hazard Quotient = ADD / Reference Dose Total: 7.7E-09 1.2E-04

Conversion Factor (CF) 1.00E-06 kg/mg Exposure Frequency (EF): 12 days/year Ingestion Rate (IR): 12.5 mg/day Exposure Duration (ED): 10 years Body Weight (BW): 45 kg Averaging Time (AT): 25550 days (cancer) 3650 days (non-cancer) TABLE 20. CURRENT/FUTURE TRESPASSER EXPOSURE INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

.' Dermal :..: ~ ... Expos'ure AJ;}sorbed Absorbed Toxicity Values .' GA~ ..·.·.'cE~1'~t~~ Point Dose Dose Chronic .- '...... 'Concentration' Per Event· RME Cancer Refer~nce . . QU,otient .. Cancer Noncancer Slope Factor Dose RME .. . Constituent (ing/kg) (mgl~m2-event) (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) . (mg/kg-d)-l (mg/kg-d) (-) (".;.) .. (--)

7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.9E+00 1.2E-08 2.3E-IO 1.6E-09 1.5E+00 3.0E-04 9.50E-01 3.4E- \0 5.4E-06

NA - Volatile organic compounds not considered for dennal exposure (EPA, 2004)

Where: Cancer DAD=(DAeventxEVx tevent x CFxEFxEDxSA)/(BWxAT) Risk HI Total 3.4E-\0 5.4E-06 Constituent Specific (CS) Absorbed Dose per Event (DAevenJ CS Skin Surface Area A vailable for Contact (Adult): 4451 cm 2 Event Frequency (EV) events/day Exposure Frequency (EF): 12 days/year Exposure Duration (ED): 10 year Body Weight (BW): 45 kg Averaging Time (ATcancer): 25550 days (cancer) 3650 days (non-cancer) Event Duration (tevent) \ hours/day Conversion Factor (CF) 0.042 days/hour Gastrointestinal Absorption Fraction (GAF) CS ------

TABLE 20A. CURRENT/FUTURE TRESPASSER EXPOSURE DAEVENT MODEL INCIDENTAL DERMAL EXPOSURE - SOIL SILTY CLAY ICRR JOHNSTON YARD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Absorbed Dose Dermal. . ".-. . -.. ". Per Event Absorption Concentration Fraction in S~rf~ce·Soil Constituent (mglcm2-event) (oig/kg)

7440-38-2 Arsenic 1.2E-08 0.03 3.9E+00

Where:

DAevent = Csoi1 x CF x AF x ABSd

Chemical Specific (CS) = Soil Concentration (Csoi1) = CS mglkg Conversion Factor (CF) = 1.00E-06 kg/mg 2 Adherence Factor RME (AFYouth) = 0.1 mg/cm [1]

Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABSd) = CS

[1] USEP A 2004 - AF for soccer player (teens, moist conditions) CaIc:uladous ofPrelimluary Remedladou Goals (PRGs) l Table 22 ICRR - Classification Yard Adult Lead Model Spreadsheet Industrial Worker, Construction Worker and Trespasser Youth Exposure Scenarios

CaIc:uladons of Blood Lead Conc:entradons (PbBs) u.s. EPA Teduakal Review Workcroup for Lead, Adalt Lead Committee

VenioD date 05119103

. 1

GSDi ofl.O110m NHANES ill for all rw:sIcdmioity for the South Rqpoo Baseline PbB 110m NHANES mfor all ..C

**EquatloD 2, .It...... te .ppro.'" bared OD Eq. 1,2, aad A-Ill 1ft USEPA (1996).

PbB_ - PbB 035 ­

J

. 1

I J

So.....: u.s. EPA (1996). rIbeTecIIIIkaI_WorqrollpForLead For aa laurtm Approada 10_do -asRlska... Auodated willi Adult E_..... IO Lead 18 SolI Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Septemher 20 I 0

APPENDIX B: R ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX 08/10/2010 11 :29 am [ Draft ] Administrative Record Index for the ILLINOIS CENTRAL RR CO'S JOHNSTON YARD SUPERFUND SITE Superfund Alternative Site (Operable Unit #1) TND073540783 .

3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI)

3. 2 Sampling and Analysis Data

1. "Field Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Illinois Central Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Site," TRC Environmental. (April 2004) 3. 4 Work Plans and Progress Reports

1. "Remediallnvestigation/Feasibility Study Workplan for the Illinois Central Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Site," TRC. (April 2004) 3. 8 Interim Deliverables

1. "Health and Safety Plan for the Illinois Central Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Site," TRC Environmental. (April 2004) 2. "Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Illinois Central Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Site," TRC Environmental. (April 2004) 3.10 Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports

1. "Remedial Investigation Report, Illinois Central Railroad Johnston Yard Site, Volume II," TRC. (May 2006) 2. "Remedial Investigation Report, Illinois Central Railroad Johnston Yard Site," TRC. (October 2006) 3. "Addendum to the Remedial Investigation Report, Illinois Central Railroad Johnsfon Yard Site," TRC. (February 2009) 3.11 Health Assessments

1. "Risk Assessment - Construction Worker Exposure, Illinois Central Railroad Johnston Yard Site," TRC Environmental. (December 2005) 2. "Human Health Risk Assessment, Illinois Central Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Site," TRC Environmental. (January 2007) 3. Letter from Charles Thomas, TRC to Randy Bryant, USEPA. Subject: Revised Risk Assessment and Soil Management Plan Associated with the Grading of Soils from the Classification Yard, ICRR Johnston Yard Site. (June 06, 2008) 3.12 Endangerment Assessments

1. "Screening Le·vel Ecological Risk Assessment, The Illinois Central Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Site, Memphis, Tennessee," TRC Environmental. (March 2005) 2. Letter from Tim Wippold, TRC to Randy Bryant, USEPA. Subject: Ecological Risk Assessment Update - Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site. (October 17, 2005)

4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)

4. 9 Feasibility Study (FS) Reports

1. "Feasibility Study, Illinois Central Railroad Johnston Yard Site," TRC Environmental. (January 2010) 08/10/2010 11 :29 am [ Draft] Administrative Record Index for the ILLINOIS CENTRAL RR CO'S JOHNSTON YARD SUPERFUND SITE Superfund Alternative Site . (Operable Unit #1)

4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) 4.10 Proposed Plans for Selected Remedial Action

1. "Superfund Proposed Plan Fact Sheet, Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site, Memphis, Tennessee," EPA Region 4: (August 2010)

10.0 ENFORCEMENT 10.11 EPA Administrative Orders

1. Administrative Order By Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, In the Matter of Illinois Central Railroad Company's Johnston Yard Superfund Site, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Respondent, EPA Docket No. CER-04-2003-3525. (September 19, 2003)

2 Record of Decision Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site September 20 I 0

APPENDIX C: STATE CONCURRENCE LETTER STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF REMEDIATION 401 CHURCH STREET, 4TH FLOOR L&C ANNEX NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243

September 30, 2010 Mr. Randy Byrant Remediation Project Manager United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, North Site Management Branch Waste Management Division 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104

Re: Record of Decision Concurrence Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Memphis, Tennessee, TN # 79-753

Dear Mr. Bryant:

The Tennessee Division of Remediation (TDOR) received the Illinois Central Johnston Yard Site Record of Decision Summary of Remediation Alternative Selection in Memphis, Telmessee, on August 25,2010.

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) concurs with EPA's selected remedy (Alternative 5B) which includes mobile-enhanced multi-phase extraction (MEME), enhanced bioremediation and performance monitoring.

If you have any questions, please contact Jordan English at (901) 371-3039 or J [email protected].

Sincerely, ~~r~t~ TDEClDivision of Remediation

cc: DORINCO DORIMEFO

'------­ ------