PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

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

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANT DATA

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

APPENDIX B - PATHWAYS ANALYSES

APPENDIX C - POPULATION AND HOUSING DATA TABLES

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.

* 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

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Old Richem Site 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:

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