Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

RINCHEM COMPANY INCORPORATED
(a/k/a OLD RINCHEM INCORPORATED)
ALBUQUERQUE, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANT DATA

Explanation of Environmental Contaminant Data Tables

In the data tables that follow, the list of a contaminant in the table does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects from exposures. Instead, the list indicates which contaminants will be further evaluated in the public health assessment.

The data tables include the following abbreviations:
CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
CARC = Carcinogen
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
iEMEG = Intermediate Environmental Media Evaluation
LTHA = Lifetime Health Advisory for drinking water
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
ppm = parts per million
ppb = part per billion


Table 1.

TABLE 1. ON-SITE SURFACE SOIL, UNSPECIFIED DEPTH, 1984 and 1994
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION
ppm
COMPARISON VALUE
  1984 1994 ppm Source
tetrachloroethene

0.430

0.005

10 CREG
1,1,1-trichloroethane

0.010

-

NONE NONE
trichloroethene

0.066

0.005

60 CREG
methylene chloride 0.031 NA 90 CREG
total xylene 0.109 - 4,000 RMEG
toluene 0.147 - 400 RMEG


Table 2.

ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SOIL (1-50 FEET) , 1992-1995
CONTAMINANT MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
ppm
COMPARISON VALUE
  12/1992

24 soil bores

08/1993

2 soil bores

10/1993

2 soil bores

6/1995

2 soil bores

ppm Source
petroleum hydrocarbons 6.4 - - - NONE NONE
acetone 0.200 0.190 _ <0.02 200 RMEG
tetrachloroethene 0.131 - 0.013 <0.005 10 CREG
styrene 0.074 - - <0.005 NONE Carci-nogen
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.017 - - <0.005 NONE NONE
trichloroethene 0.073 - - <0.005 60 CREG


Table 3.

ON-SITE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, 1988-1993
CONTAMINANT 10/88 10/92 1/93 4/93 COMPARISON VALUE
  ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb Source
tetrachloroethene NA BDL*** BDL 6J* 0.7 CREG
trichloroethene 28* 28* 28** 45* 3 CREG
cis-1,2-dichloroethene NA 12* 8** 25* 70 LTHA
1,1,1-trichloroethane 76* 11* 11** 18* 200 LTHA
1,1-dichloroethane 21* 8* BDL 16* NONE CARC
1,1-dichloroethene 28* NA NA 6++ 0.06 CREG
acetone 71+ BDL BDL 9BJ 1,000 RMEG
Maximum concentrations were mainly found in OR 92-3 & OR 88-3A, some also found in OR 88-5 and OR 88-2.
*: Well OR 88-3A
**: Well OR 92-03
+: Well OR 88-2
++: Well OR88-5
***: Below detection limit


TABLE 3A

ON-SITE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION in 1994 and 1995
CONTAMINANT 7/94 11/94 3/95 6/95 COMPARISON VALUE
  ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb Source
tetrachloroethene BDL*** 3.4J** 3.3J** BDL*** 0.7 CREG
trichloroethene 6** 20** 9** 11** 3 CREG
cis-1,2-dichloroethene BDL 4.5J** 2.8J** BDL 70 LTHA
1,1,1-trichloroethane BDL 8.8** 2.8** 3.3J** 200 LTHA
1,1-dichloroethane BDL BDL BDL BDL NONE CARC
1,1-dichloroethene BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.06 CREG
acetone BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 RMEG
Maximum concentrations during 1994-5 were found in the monitoring well OR 92-3
**: Well OR 92-03
***: Below detection limit


APPENDIX B - PATHWAYS ANALYSES

Table 4.

POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PATHWAY NAME EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
Source Environmental Medium Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population
Groundwater Waste Groundwater Private Well Ingestion Residents Past,
Present,
Future
Air (Indoor) Waste Groundwater Indoor Air Inhalation Residents Past,
Present,
Future
Air (Outdoor) Waste Soil Outdoor Air Inhalation Workers Future


APPENDIX C - POPULATION AND HOUSING DATA TABLES

Table 5.

POPULATION DATA Rinchem Site, New Mexico

0.5-mile radius 1-mile radius

Total number of persons 2,018 8,133

% White 70.9 72.1
% Black 1.7 1.1
% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 2.7 2.5
% Asian or Pacific Islander 0.2 0.3
% Other races 24.5 23.9

% Hispanic origin 67.5 58.4

% age 6 and younger 11.6 10.4
% Under age 18 31.9 27.6
% Age 19-64 57.6 59.2
% Age 65 and older 10.5

13.2


Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 1B Extract on CD-ROM (New Mexico) [machine-readable data files]. Prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991.


Table 6.

HOUSING DATA Rinchem Site, New Mexico

  0.5-mile radius 1-mile radius

Households* 754 3,347
Persons per household 2.83 2.59

% Households, owner-occupied 68.4 58.9
% Households, renter-occupied 31.6 41.1

% Persons in group quarters 5.8 1.8

* A household is an occupied housing unit, but does not include group quarters such as military barracks, prisons, and college dormitories.

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 1B Extract on CD-ROM(New Mexico) [machine-readable data files]. Prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington,DC: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991.


APPENDIX D - FIGURE ONE - THREE

Site Location Map
Figure 1. Site Location Map

Old Richem Site Location Map
Figure 2. Old Richem Site Location Map

Geologic Cross Section Location Map
Figure 3. Geologic Cross Section Location Map


APPENDIX E - COMPARISON VALUE EXPLANATION

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) uses comparison values--contaminant concentrations in specific media that are considered protective of public health--to select contaminants for further evaluation. ATSDR and other agencies have developed the comparison values to provide guidelines for estimating media contaminant concentrations at which adverse health effects are not expected to occur. To derive these values, health scientists assume a standard daily ingestion rate and a standard body weight. The following comparison values are used in Appendix A:

CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide: Derived by ATSDR from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cancer slope factor. It represents a concentration in water, soil, or air at which excess cancer risk is not likely to exceed one case of cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime.
EMEG Environmental Media Evaluation Guide: Derived by ATSDR from ATSDR's minimal risk level. It is the concentration in water, soil, or air at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse noncancerous effects
RMEG Environmental Reference Dose Evaluation Guide: Derived by ATSDR from the EPA oral reference dose. It is the concentration in water or soil at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse noncancerous effects.
LTHA Lifetime Health Advisory: Derived by EPA. It is a drinking water concentration at which adverse noncancerous adverse health effects would not be expected.

EMEGs and CREGs are the first choices for comparison values. In addition, any contaminants will be contaminants of concern if they have no CREG, but have been designated as carcinogens or potential carcinogens by (1) the National Toxicology Program in the Department of Health and Human Services, (2) the EPA, or (3) the International Agency for Research on Cancer. If a contaminant is not a carcinogen and has no EMEG, then the following values (in order of preference) will be chosen for the comparison value if available: the RMEG, the LTHA or CLHA (whichever is lower), the MCLG, or the MCL.


APPENDIX F - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comment #one:

The CERCLA documentation refers the site as "Old Rinchem Site."Therefore, the site name on the title page should be changed from "Rinchem Company,Incorporated" to the "Old Rinchem Site."

Response:
The site name was "Rinchem Company, Inc." in the HRS Documentation Record prepared by U.S.EPA back in 1992. This name appeared in most computer databases and printed documents. The use of a current name retains the consistency among new and old documents. The text clearly stated that the new Rinchem facility is excluded from the proposed NPL site.

ATSDR added the alternative name of "a/k/a Old Rinchem, Incorporated" on thecover of this document. This name was used in the Record of Decision document issued byEPA Region 6 on 9/30/98. In the text, ATSDR generally referred this site as"old Rinchem Company, Inc."

Comment #two:

ATSDR raised the remote possibility that VOCs may migrate from subsurface soil toon-site building as a source for worker exposure. The unlikely worker's exposurewas examined and found to be well below the concentration of concern (e.g., OSHA'sPEL), based on VOCs in indoor air while drilling through a slab floor inside thebuilding.

Response:
Indoor air monitoring results have been added to the final edition of the document. The VOCs such as TCE in soil gas near the soil coring in the building had wide range of relative concentrations: from non-detectable through 75,059 to 1,609,770. ATSDR has modified the text and state that workers' exposure to indoor air was examined during indoor drilling through a concrete slab and found to be well below the level of concern. However, a precaution is needed if any excavation is to be performed in the four hot spots at the site.

Comment #three:

The EPA's updated information, on off-site groundwater sampling and analysis in 1995, is not included in the brown-cover edition of this report.

Response:
ATSDR has added the information that deep part of the (Santa Fe) aquifer is not contaminated by any heavy, undiluted solvents (e.g., TCE), which might fall to the deep part (180 feet) of the water body before it is diluted with water. NMED drilled two deep wells in 1995 to examined the possibility of dense, undiluted solvents settled to the deep part of the aquifer. NMED examined the deep water in 1998 and found no VOC contamination above drinking water standard (27).

Comment #four:

In 1997 public hearing, U.S.EPA indicated the well drilled east of the site have contaminants level below levels of detection. A well, indicated to be upgradient, had highest contaminant levels among the wells sampled in the area in 1995.

Response:
In June 1998 [sic] NMED examined 15 wells. Four wells including OR 88-3A were dried. The other wells, including the OR 92-3, had no VOC concentration above drinking water standard (27). This new information has been mentioned in the text. ATSDR also mentioned the fluctuating nature of the VOC concentration in the contaminated wells on the site.

As for the upgradient issue of well OR 92-3, U.S.EPA had responded in its Record ofDecision document in response to the oral comment in the meeting of 8/21/1997 held atNorth Valley Senior Citizen's Center. Over the time, the ground water gradientand elevations have changed such that current conditions do not reflect the original groundwater elevation and flow velocity and direction (27). For example, the water levels in thefive NMED wells dropped 12 feet in seven years, from 1988 to 1995. Especially, well OR88-2 quickly dropped 11 feet in the first four years (26) and affected the flow directions atnearby wells. The reverse of flow direction was also noted in the Rinchem memorandum of12/1/92.

Comment #five:

Rinchem installed at least 8 monitoring wells by the time of 1993. An additional 9th well was mentioned in the RI report by Canonie Environmental in 1995. The originalstatement of six wells has to be revised to keep up with new information.

Response:
The text in this PHA document has been revised to reflect this information. According to Table 5 in the 1995 (September 21) RI report by Canonie, Rinchem installed 7 wells in 1992 and one well in 1993. Rinchem installed no well in 1994 and 1995. The state installed 5 monitoring wells in 1988, and sampled the on-site supply well in 1984. This supply well was abandoned in 1994.

Comment #six:

The statement that the work at the Old Rinchem Site was performed without NMED or EPA oversight is incorrect.

Response:
The exact statement was that the NMED or U.S.EPA did not oversee all Rinchem's sampling efforts. Rinchem's groundwater sampling efforts had government oversight but other early work did not have oversight before the 1993 initial release of this document. The fact that data collected after 1993 was subjected to NMED and EPA oversight has been presented in this final release of this document.



Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #