Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
2002­
0001­
0072
HRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD
COVER
SHEET
Name
of
Site:
Lammers
Barrel
EPA
ID
No.
OHD981537582
Contact
Persons
Site
Investigation:
Rosita
Clarke­
Moreno(
312)
886­
7251
US
EPA
Region
5
Chicago,
Illinois
Scott
R.
Glum
(937)
285­
6357
Ohio
EPA
Dayton,
Ohio
Documentation
Record:
Jeanne
Griffin
(312)
886­
3007
US
EPA
Region
5
Chicago,
Illinois
Julia
Barr
DynCorp
I&
ET
Alexandria,
Virginia
Pathways,
Components,
or
Threats
Not
Scored
The
Soil
Exposure
Pathway
and
Air
Pathway
were
not
evaluated
at
this
time
because
of
a
lack
of
sufficient
documentation
to
support
a
scoring
analysis.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
1
HRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD
Name
of
Site:
Lammers
Barrel
EPA
Region:
Region
5
Date
Prepared:
December
2001
Street
Address
of
Site:
3990
East
Patterson
Road
City,
County,
State:
Beavercreek,
Greene,
Ohio,
45430
General
Location
in
the
State:
South­
west
Ohio,
South­
east
suburb
of
Dayton
Topographic
Map:
Bellbrook,
Ohio
1991
(Ref.
3)

Latitude:
39
o
43
'
35"
North
Longitude:
84
o
5
'
3.5"
West
Reference
point:
Southwest
corner
of
property
at
intersection
of
Grange
Hall
Road
and
East
Patterson
Road
(Ref.
4)

Scores
Air
Pathway
NS
Ground
Water
Pathway
100
Soil
Exposure
Pathway
NS
Surface
Water
Pathway
96.06
HRS
SITE
SCORE
69.33
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
2
WORKSHEET
FOR
COMPUTING
HRS
SITE
SCORE
S
S
2
1.
Ground
Water
Migration
Pathway
Score
(Sgw
)
(from
Table
3­
1,
line
13)
100
10,000
2a.
Surface
Water
Overland/
Flood
Migration
Component
(from
Table
4­
1,
line
30)
96.06
2b.
Ground
Water
to
Surface
Water
Migration
Component
(from
Table
4­
25,
line
28)
NS
2c.
Surface
Water
Migration
Pathway
Score
(Ssw
Enter
the
larger
of
lines
2a
and
2b
as
the
pathway
score.
96.06
9227.5236
3.
Soil
Exposure
Pathway
Score
(Ss
(from
Table
5­
1,
line
22)
NS
NS
4.
Air
Migration
Pathway
Score
(Sa
)
(from
Table
6­
1,
line
12)
NS
NS
5.
Total
of
Sgw
2
+
Ssw
2
+
Ss
2
+
Sa
2
19227.5236
6.
HRS
Site
Score
Divide
the
value
on
line
5
by
4
and
take
the
square
root
69.33
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
3
TABLE
3­
1
GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
SCORESHEET
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
Likelihood
of
Release
to
an
Aquifer
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
1.
Observed
Release
550
550
2.
Potential
to
Release
2a.
Containment
10
NS
2b.
Net
Precipitation
10
NS
2c.
Depth
to
Aquifer
5
NS
2d.
Travel
Time
35
NS
2e.
Potential
to
Release
[lines
2a
x
(2b
+
2c
+
2d)]
500
NS
3.
Likelihood
of
Release
(higher
of
lines
1
and
2e)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
4.
Toxicity/
Mobility
a
10,
000
5.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
a
100
6.
Waste
Characteristics
100
32
Targets
7.
Nearest
Well
50
50
8.
Population
8a.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
222
8b.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
21.2
8c.
Potential
Contamination
b
532
8d.
Population
(lines
8a
+
8b
+
8c)
b
775.2
9.
Resources
5
0
10.
Wellhead
Protection
Area
20
5
11.
Targets
(lines
7
+
8d
+
9
+
10)
b
830.2
GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
SCORE
FOR
AN
AQUIFER
12.
Aquifer
Score
[(
lines
3
x
6
x
11)/
82,500]
c
100
100
GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
SCORE
13.
Pathway
Score
(Sgw
),
(highest
value
from
line
12
for
all
aquifers
evaluated)
c
100
100
TABLE
4­
1
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
4
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORESHEET
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
DRINKING
WATER
THREAT
Likelihood
of
Release
1.
Observed
Release
550
550
2.
Potential
to
Release
by
Overland
Flow
2a.
Containment
10
NS
2b.
Runoff
25
NS
2c.
Distance
to
Surface
Water
25
NS
2d.
Potential
to
Release
by
Overland
Flow
(lines
2a
x
[2b
+
2c])
500
NS
3.
Potential
to
Release
by
Flood
3a.
Containment
(Flood)
10
NS
3b.
Flood
Frequency
50
NS
3c.
Potential
to
Release
by
Flood
(lines
3a
x
3b)
500
NS
4.
Potential
to
Release
(lines
2d
+
3c,
subject
to
a
maximum
of
500)
500
NS
5.
Likelihood
of
Release
(higher
of
lines
1
and
4)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
6.
Toxicity/
Persistence
a
NS
7.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
a
NS
8.
Waste
Characteristics
100
NS
Targets
9.
Nearest
Intake
50
NS
10.
Population
10a.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
NS
10b.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
NS
10c.
Potential
Contamination
b
NS
10d.
Population
(lines
10a
+
10b
+
10c)
b
NS
11.
Resources
5
NS
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
5
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
DRINKING
WATER
THREAT
(Concluded)

12.
Targets
(lines
9
+
10d
+
11)
b
NS
Drinking
Water
Threat
Score
13.
Drinking
Water
Threat
Score
([
lines
5
x
8
x
12]/
82,500,
subject
to
a
maximum
of
100)
100
NS
HUMAN
FOOD
CHAIN
THREAT
Likelihood
of
Release
14.
Likelihood
of
Release
(same
value
as
line
5)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
15.
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
a
5
x
10
8
16.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
a
100
17.
Waste
Characteristics
1,
000
320
Targets
18.
Food
Chain
Individual
50
45
19.
Population
19a.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
0
19b.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
0.
03
19c.
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
b
0
19d.
Population
(lines
19a
+
19b
+
19c)
b
0.
03
20.
Targets
(lines
18
+
19d)
b
45.03
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Score
21.
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Score
([
lines
14
x
17
x
20]/
82,500)
(subject
to
a
maximum
of
100)
100
96.06
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
6
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
ENVIRONMENTAL
THREAT
Likelihood
of
Release
22.
Likelihood
of
Release
(same
value
as
line
5)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
23.
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
a
NS
24.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
a
NS
25.
Waste
Characteristics
1,
000
NS
Targets
26.
Sensitive
Environments
26a.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
NS
26b.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
NS
26c.
Potential
Contamination
b
NS
26d.
Sensitive
Environments
(lines
26a
+
26b
+
26c)
b
NS
27.
Targets
(value
from
26d)
b
NS
Environmental
Threat
Score
28.
Environmental
Threat
Score
([
lines
22
x
25
x
27]/
82,500)
(subject
to
a
maximum
of
60)
60
NS
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORE
FOR
A
WATERSHED
29.
Watershed
Score
c
(lines
13
+
21
+
28)
(subject
to
a
maximum
of
100)
100
96.06
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORE
30.
Component
Score
(Sof
)
c
,
(highest
score
from
line
29
for
all
watersheds
evaluated,
subject
to
a
maximum
of
100)
100
96.06
a
Maximum=
value
applies
to
waste
characteristics
category.
b
Maximum
value
not
applicable.
c
Do
not
round
to
nearest
integer.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
7
Source:
Base
Map
is
a
portion
of
the
following
7.5
Minute
Series
U.
S.
G.
S.
Quadrangle:
Bellbrook,
OH,
1991
FIGURE
1
SITE
LOCATION
MAP
0
0.5
1
Miles
LAMMERS
BARREL
BEAVERCREEK,
OHIO
DATE:
NOVEMBER
9,
2001
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
8
Source:
Sample
Location
Map
from
Phase
II
Hydrogeologic
Characterization
Activities,
June
27,
2000
(Ref.
7,
figure
1)

FIGURE
2
SOURCE
LOCATION
MAP
LAMMERS
BARREL
BEAVERCREEK,
OHIO
DATE:
DECEMBER
5,
2001
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
9
REFERENCES
Ref.
No.
Description
of
the
Reference
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).
Hazard
Ranking
System,
55
FR
51333
(40
CFR
Part
300,
Appendix
A).
December
14,
1990.
165
pages.

2.
EPA.
Superfund
Chemical
Data
Matrix
(excerpt).
June
1996.
14
pages.

3.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(USGS).
Bellbrook,
Ohio,
1991;
Waynesville,
Ohio,
1981
Quadrangles,
7.5
Minute
Series,
Topographic
Maps.
2
Maps.

4.
EPA.
Latitude
and
Longitude
Calculation
Worksheet.
1
page,
2
maps.

5.
Ecology
and
Environment,
Inc.
Engineering
Evaluation/
Cost
Analysis
Report
for
the
Lammars
Barrel
Factory
Site,
Beavercreek,
Greene
County,
Ohio.
Prepared
for
the
U.
S.
EPA.
February
6,
1998.
349
pages.

6.
Adrian
Brown.
Executive
Summary
of
Hydrogeologic
Characterization
Activities,
Lammers
Barrel
Facility,
Beavercreek,
Ohio.
Prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
June
27,
2000.
233
pages.

7.
Adrian
Brown.
Draft
Report
­
Phase
II
Hydrogeologic
Characterization
Activities,
Lammers
Barrel
Facility,
Beavercreek,
Ohio.
Prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
November
10,
2000.
207
pages.

8.
Ecology
and
Environment,
Inc.
Sample
Analytical
Data
Report,
The
Lammars
Barrel
Factory
Site,
Beavercreek,
Greene
County,
Ohio.
Prepared
for
the
U.
S.
EPA.
May
15,
1997.
570
pages.

9.
U.
S.
EPA
Quick
Reference
Fact
Sheet,
Using
Qualified
Data
to
Document
an
Observed
Release
and
Observed
Contamination,
Publication
9285.7­
14FS,
November
1996.
18
pages.

10.
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Emergency
&
Remedial
Response.
Site
Inspection
(SI)
Report,
Lammars
Barrel
Factory/
Valleywood
Subdivision,
Beavercreek,
Greene
County,
Ohio.
September
21,
1992.
66
pages.

11.
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Emergency
&
Remedial
Response.
Endangered
Species
Report
Within
Radius
of
Site.
May,
01,
2001.
4
pages
and
1
map.

12.
Ohio
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Ohio
Division
of
Natural
Areas
and
Preserves,
Little
Miami
State
and
National
Scenic
River.
URL
http://
www.
dnr.
state.
oh.
us/
odnr/
dnap/
sr/
lmiami.
html
.
Accessed
on
July
25,
2001.
3
pages.

13.
USGS.
Streamflow
data
for
the
Little
Miami
River
at
Spring
Valley.
URL
http://
water.
usgs.
gov/
oh/
nwis/
annual/?
stie_
no=
03242050&
agency_
cd=
usgs
.
Accessed
on
July
24,
2001.
1
page.

14.
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Drinking
and
Ground
Waters.
Wellhead
Protection
Areas
Within
4
miles
of
the
Lammers
Barrel
Site
and
Ground
Water
Protection
Plans
Endorsed
Under
Ohio's
Wellhead
Protection
Program.
URL
http://
www.
epa.
state.
oh.
us/
ddagw/
pdu/
swap_
whpplans.
html
.
Accessed
July
24,
2001.
3
pages.

15.
U.
S.
Census
Bureau.
Table
DP­
1
­
Profile
of
General
Demographic
Characteristics:
2000,
Geographic
Area:
Beavercreek
Township,
Greene
County,
Ohio.
p.
437.
1
page.

16.
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
National
Wetlands
Inventory
map
for
the
base
map
of
Bellbrook,
Ohio,
Draft.
October
21,
1993.
1
map.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
10
17.
Crawford,
T.
E.,
Chief
of
the
Beavercreek
Fire
Department.
Fire
Report
for
Kohnen
and
Lammers
Chemical
Co.
Undated.
5
pages.

18.
Severn
Trent
Laboratories.
Analytical
Report
for
Ohio
EPA.
July
19,
2000.
31
pages.

19.
Ohio
Department
of
Natural
Resources
­
Division
of
Water.
The
Water
Resources
of
Greene
County,
Ohio.
Bulletin
19.
September
1956.
6
pages.

20.
Jacobs
Engineering
Group,
Inc.
Environmental
Systems
Division.
Potentially
Responsible
Party
Search
Volume
I:
Final
Report
for
Lammers
Barrel
Site,
Beavercreek,
Ohio,
for
EPA
Region
5.
December
1988.
44
pages.

21.
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Emergency
&
Remedial
Response.
Inter­
office
Communication
from
Scott
Glum,
Site
coordinator
to
Lammers
Barrel
Factory
file.
April
and
May
2001.
4
pages.

22.
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Emergency
&
Remedial
Response.
Community
Public
Water
Supply
Systems
within
15
miles
of
Lammers
Barrel
Factory.
May
1,
2001.
2
Maps
and
11
pages.

23.
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
Waste
Management
Division
Emergency
Response
Section.
On
Scene
Coordinator's
Report,
CERCLA
Immediate
Removal
Action,
Valleywood
Subdivision,
Beavercreek,
Ohio.
February
12,
1987.
30
pages.

24.
Weston­
Sper
Technical
Assistance
Team
(TAT)
Region
5.
Site
Assessment
for
Valleywood
Groundwater
Contamination,
Beavercreek,
Ohio
prepared
for
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5.
March
1986.
51
pages.

25.
Ecology
and
Environment.
Telecon
Note
from
Steven
Clarke
of
conversation
with
Greg
Buthker,
Ohio
EPA­
SW
District,
Re:
Geology
and
general
information
about
the
site.
October
21,
1986.
1
page.

26.
Ohio
EPA
­
Division
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response.
Division
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
sites
in
Greene
County,
OH.
May
17,
2001.
1
page
and
1
map.

27.
Ecology
and
Environment,
Inc.
Phillips
Sand
and
Gravel
Site
Inspection
Report,
for
Ohio
EPA.
February
19,
1981.
17
pages.

28.
U.
S.
EPA.
Pollution
Report
for
the
Durnbaugh
Road
Emergency
Response,
Beavercreek,
Greene
County,
Ohio.
February
16,
2001.
11
pages.

29.
Ohio
EPA
­
Division
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response.
CERCLIS
sites
located
within
Greene
County
Ohio
­
NuGlo
Laboratories.
URL
http://
swdoweb.
epa.
state.
oh.
us/
nuglo.
html
.
Accessed
May
18,
2001.
1
page.

30.
Ecology
and
Environment.
Telecon
Note
from
Steven
Clarke
of
conversation
with
Greg
Buthker,
Ohio
EPA­
SW
District,
Re:
Recreational
use
of
Little
Beaver
Creek.
October
27,
1986.
1
page.

31.
Ecology
and
Environment.
Telecon
Note
from
Steven
Clarke
of
conversation
with
Tony
Kohnen,
KohnenLammer
Chemical
Company,
Re:
Types
of
solvents/
flammables
accepted
for
recycling.
November
13,
1986.
1
page.

32.
DynCorp
I&
ET.
Project
Note
from
Julia
Barr
to
Lammers
Barrel
File,
Subject:
Residential
Well
Number
Cross
Reference.
October
2,
2001.
1
page
and
1
map.

33.
U.
S.
EPA
EnviroMapper.
Map
of
EPA
regulated
sites
within
1
mile
of
Lammers
Barrel.
URL
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
enviro/
html/
em/
index.
html.
Accessed
November
16,
2001
with
attachment
of
RCRA
Query
November
13,
2001.
10
pages.

34.
In
re
Lammers
Barrel
Factory
Site,
Deposition
of
Anthony
H.
Kohnen
(
June
6,
2001).
279
pages.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
11
35.
Missouri
State
Census
Data
Center.
Basic
Demographic
Trend
Report
for
Greene
County,
Ohio.
URL
http://
www.
oseda.
missouri.
edu/
mscdc/
census/
us/
trend/
counties/
S39)
H/
C39057.
Accessed
January
7,
2002.
2
pages.

36.
U.
S.
EPA.
Test
Methods
for
Evaluating
Solid
Wastes
Physical/
Chemical
Methods.
Method
8082
for
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(PCBs)
by
Gas
Chromatography.
EPA
Publication
No.
SW­
846.
December
1996.
41
pages.

37.
U.
S.
EPA.
Test
Methods
for
Evaluating
Solid
Wastes
Physical/
Chemical
Methods.
Method
8270C
for
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
by
Gas
Chromatography/
Mass
Spectrometry
(GC/
MS).
EPA
Publication
No.
SW­
846.
December
1996.
54
pages.

38.
U.
S.
EPA.
Test
Methods
for
Evaluating
Solid
Wastes
Physical/
Chemical
Methods.
Method
8260B
for
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
by
Gas
Chromatography/
Mass
Spectrometry
(GC/
MS).
EPA
Publication
No.
SW­
846.
December
1996.
86
pages.

39.
U.
S.
EPA
National
Primary
Water
Regulations:
Analytical
Methods
for
Regulated
Drinking
Water
Contaminants,
63
FR
47097
(40
CFR
Parts
141
and
143),
September
3,1998
with
attached
analytical
methods
502.2
and
524.2.
101
Pages.

40.
DynCorp
I&
ET.
Project
Note
from
Julia
Barr
to
Lammers
Barrel
File,
Subject:
Test
Pit
Logs
and
Chain
of
Custody
forms.
January
8,
2002.
13
pages.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
12
Site
Description
The
Lammers
Barrel
property
is
now
a
vacant
lot,
approximately
two
acres
in
size,
located
in
Beavercreek,
Ohio.
The
property
is
bisected
by
Little
Beaver
Creek
which
flows
west
to
east
through
the
site.
The
property
is
bordered
to
the
west
and
south
by
Grange
Hall
Road
and
East
Patterson
Road,
respectively.
An
abandoned
railroad
right
of
way
makes
up
the
northern
border.
The
facility
experienced
a
fire
in
1969,
that
completely
destroyed
the
buildings.
The
only
structures
remaining
are
a
concrete
pad,
a
non­
functional
production
well,
and
pipes
that
appear
to
run
from
the
former
facility
to
the
creek.

Operations
began
at
Lammers
Barrel
Factory
in
1953
and
continued
until
the
fire
in
October
1969.
According
to
former
employees,
the
facility
bought,
sold
and
reclaimed
all
types
of
solvents.
Any
inventories
of
chemicals
handled
at
the
facility
were
reportedly
destroyed
in
the
fire.
During
operation,
the
facility
had
an
above­
ground
storage
capacity
of
over
500,000
gallons.
This
consisted
of
eighteen
vertical
tanks,
ranging
in
size
from
2,500
to
25,000
gallons
and
approximately
6,000
55­
gallon
drums.

Sampling
of
residential
wells
began
in
the
mid­
1980s.
In
1985,
analyses
of
approximately
90
residential
well
samples
throughout
Beavercreek
identified
an
area
of
ground
water
contamination
along
the
northern
end
of
the
Valleywood
subdivision,
located
southeast
of
the
facility.
Sampling
revealed
that
the
presence
of
vinyl
chloride
was
above
the
federal
maximum
contaminant
level
(MCL)
for
drinking
water
in
some
wells.
Several
wells
contained
other
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs),
such
as
chloroethane,
1,2­
dichloroethene,
perchloroethylene,
and
trichloroethylene.
As
a
result,
the
Ohio
National
Guard
brought
a
350­
gallon
mobile
water
tank
as
an
emergency
water
supply
to
five
homes
along
Patterson
Road.
Nine
homes
that
exceeded
removal
action
levels
of
VOCs
in
drinking
water
were
subsequently
connected
to
the
county
municipal
water
system.

Periodic
ground
water
sampling
has
continued
since
1985,
resulting
in
the
extension
of
the
county
water
line
or
installation
of
filtration
systems
at
several
homes.
Sampling
efforts
in
1988,
1991
and
1997
show
that
the
contaminated
ground
water
plume
has
advanced
into
the
adjacent
Valleywood
subdivision.
In
1992,
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
conducted
a
Site
Inspection
(SI)
at
the
site.
Six
soil
samples,
four
sediment
and
four
surface
water
samples
from
Little
Beaver
Creek
were
collected
along
with
additional
residential
well
samples.
The
six
soil
samples
from
the
site
indicate
the
presence
of
VOCs,
lead
and
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs).
The
creek
sediment
samples
revealed
low
concentrations
of
xylenes
and
heavy
metals.

An
Engineering
Evaluation/
Cost
Analysis
(EE/
CA)
was
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
EPA
in
1997.
Soil,
sediment
and
ground
water
samples
were
collected
in
March,
April,
June
and
August
of
1997.
A
total
of
71
residential
well
samples
from
54
homes
were
collected.
VOCs
were
detected
in
28
of
the
wells
sampled
serving
54
homes.
Most
of
the
homes
sampled
had
been
sampled
in
previous
investigations.
Some
samples
were
collected
from
residential
wells
at
homes
that
had
already
been
connected
to
the
municipal
system
to
identify
the
extent
of
the
plume.
Sediment
samples
collected
from
Little
Beaver
Creek
identified
the
presence
of
VOCs
and
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds
(SVOCs).

Soil
contaminant
concentrations
indicate
two
potential
source
areas
for
ground
water
contamination,
on
each
side
of
Little
Beaver
Creek.
Both
areas
of
subsurface
soil
contamination
lie
near
the
level
of
the
water
table.
Similar
VOCs
were
detected
in
both
on­
site
soil
and
monitoring
well
samples,
and
off­
site
residential
well
samples.
Concentrations
of
VOCs
in
on­
site
soils
indicate
that
they
may
be
the
source
of
the
ground
water
contamination
plume.

Similar
contaminants
were
also
detected
in
on­
site
sediment
and
soil
samples,
indicating
that
the
site
may
actually
be
impacting
the
sediments
and
associated
water
quality
of
Little
Beaver
Creek.
Little
Beaver
Creek
flows
into
the
Little
Miami
National
and
State
Scenic
River,
a
popular
recreation
and
wildlife
area.
Possible
targets
along
the
river
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site
include
a
human
food
chain
fishery,
wetlands
and
a
state
threatened
species.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
13
2.2
SOURCE
CHARACTERIZATION
2.2.1
SOURCE
IDENTIFICATION
Name
of
source:
Contaminated
Soil
Number
of
source:
1
Source
Type:
Contaminated
Soil
Description
and
Location
of
Source:

The
Lammers
Barrel
property
is
now
vacant,
approximately
two
acres
in
size,
and
located
in
Beavercreek,
Ohio
(Ref.
7,
p.
2,
Figures
1
and
2).
The
property
is
bisected
by
Little
Beaver
Creek
which
flows
west
to
east
through
the
site.
The
property
is
bordered
to
the
west
and
south
by
Grange
Hall
Road
and
East
Patterson
Road,
respectively.
An
abandoned
railroad
right
of
way
makes
up
the
northern
border
(Ref.
7,
p.
1;
figure
1).
The
facility
experienced
a
fire
in
1969
that
completely
destroyed
the
buildings
and
any
record
of
operations
(Ref.
17,
p.
2).
The
only
structures
remaining
are
a
concrete
pad,
a
non­
functional
production
well,
and
pipes
that
appear
to
run
from
the
former
facility
to
the
creek
(Ref.
10,
p.
3).

Operations
began
at
Lammers
Barrel
Factory
in
1953
and
continued
until
the
fire
in
October
1969
(Ref.
10,
p.
5).
According
to
Anthony
Kohnen,
the
co­
owner
of
Lammers
Barrel
Factory,
the
facility
bought,
sold
and
reclaimed
most
all
industrial
solvents
(Ref.
10,
p.
6).
Any
inventories
of
chemicals
handled
at
the
facility
were
reportedly
destroyed
in
the
fire
(Ref.
17,
p.
2).
During
operation,
the
facility
had
an
above­
ground
storage
capacity
of
over
500,000
gallons
(Ref.
6,
p.
2).
This
consisted
of
eighteen
vertical
tanks,
ranging
in
size
from
2,500
to
25,000
gallons
and
approximately
6,000
55­
gallon
drums
(Ref.
10,
p.
5).
The
amount
of
chemicals
onsite
at
the
time
of
the
fire
is
unknown.
It
is
believed
that
the
contaminated
soil
resulted
from
normal
operations
and
exploding
drums
and
tanks
during
the
fire
(Ref.
17,
p.
2)

Little
Beaver
Creek
flows
from
west
to
east
through
the
site
and
divides
it
into
two
areas.
The
contaminated
soil
at
the
site
is
located
on
either
side
of
Little
Beaver
Creek.
Both
areas
of
subsurface
soil
contamination
lie
near
the
level
of
the
water
table
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
18).
Approximately
two­
thirds
of
the
contaminated
soil
is
located
on
the
southern
portion
of
the
property
where
the
structures
at
the
facility
were
once
located
(Ref.
7,
figure
7).
Four
above
ground
storage
tanks,
used
to
store
`dirty'
solvents
from
customers,
and
a
pump
house
were
formerly
located
on
the
property
between
the
creek
and
the
railroad
(Ref.
34,
p.
130­
131).

Geoprobe®
samples
were
collected
from
depths
of
0
to
13
feet
below
ground
surface
on
the
northern
and
southern
portions
of
the
site
(Ref.
6,
p.
3).
Based
on
the
soil
analytical
results,
the
minimum
amount
of
soil
contaminated
by
VOCs
above
the
site
remedial
action
levels
is
estimated
at
1.04
million
cubic
feet
or
38,700
cubic
yards
(based
on
a
depth
of
contamination
of
20
feet)
(Ref.
7,
p.
10,
Tables
2­
3).
More
contaminated
soil
may
be
located
at
the
site
with
concentrations
below
the
remedial
action
levels
(Ref.
7,
Table
2
and
3).
It
is
believed
that
the
soil
became
contaminated
during
normal
operations
at
the
facility
and
as
a
result
of
damage
to
the
storage
tanks
and
drums
during
the
fire
(Ref.
5,
p.
3­
2).
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
14
2.2.2
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
ASSOCIATED
WITH
THE
SOURCE
Soil
samples
collected
in
April
2000
were
part
of
a
hydrogeologic
characterization
performed
at
the
request
of
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(USACE).
The
study
was
intended
to
assess
the
horizontal
and
vertical
extent
of
contamination
at
the
site
(Ref.
6,
p.
1).
Samples
collected
in
August
2000
were
part
of
the
second
phase
of
hydrogeologic
characterization
at
the
facility
also
requested
by
the
USACE.
They
were
intended
to
provide
additional
information
on
perched
water
zones,
contaminated
site
soils
and
ground
water
and
information
on
soil
and
ground
water
conditions
along
the
proposed
water
line
extension
(Ref.
7,
p.
1).

­
Background
Concentrations:
Background
samples
were
collected
along
the
north
and
west
perimeter
of
the
facility
property
outside
the
apparent
area
of
contamination
using
a
geoprobe
rig
(Ref.
7,
p.
5;
Figure
2).
Samples
were
collected
approximately
60
to
180
feet
from
the
former
facility
(Figure
2).
On­
site
sampling
was
performed
by
Matrix
Tech
and
off­
site
samples
were
sent
to
Burgess
and
Niple,
an
EPA
contracted
laboratory
(Ref.
7,
pp.
6,
B­
3,
D­
1).
Numbers
in
parentheses
indicate
depth
of
sample.

Sample
ID
Sample
Medium
Date
Reference
GP­
11
(12­
16)
Soil
4/
12/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
154
GP­
14
(5­
6)
Soil
8/
17/
2000
7,
p.
A­
2
GP­
14
(16­
17)
Soil
8/
17/
2000
7,
p.
A­
2
GP­
19
(10­
13)
Soil
8/
21/
2000
7,
p.
A­
7;
40,
p.
12
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
kg)*
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
kg)*
Reference
1,1
Dichloroethane
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
105
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
3.
5
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
3.5
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.04
7,
p.
D­
25
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.08
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
1.
8
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
1.8
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.08
7,
p.
D­
26
1,2­
Dichloroethane
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
105
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
1.
9
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
1.9
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.06
7,
p.
D­
25
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
.32
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
Benzene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
8
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
105
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
0.
8
7,
p.
C­
19
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
kg)*
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
kg)*
Reference
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
15
Benzene
(cont.)
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
0.8
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
23
0.04
7,
p.
D­
25
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
105
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
2.
3
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
5
2.
3
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.12
7,
p.
D­
25
Ethylbenzene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
300
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
1.
9
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
1.9
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
1,300
D
0.
06
7,
p.
D­
26
Styrene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
19
(10­
13)
8
0.
04
7,
p.
D­
26
Tetrachloroethene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.14
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
1.
4
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
6
1.
4
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.14
7,
p.
D­
26
Toluene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
2.
5
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
2.5
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
1,300
D
0.
11
7,
p.
D­
26
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
3.
2
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
3.2
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.06
7,
p.
D­
25
Trichloroethene
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
1.
8
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
6
1.
8
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.19
7,
p.
D­
26
Vinyl
chloride
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
7.
2
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
7.2
7,
p.
C­
20
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
kg)*
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
kg)*
Reference
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
16
Vinyl
Chloride
(cont.)
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
0.17
7,
p.
D­
26
Xylenes
(total)
GP­
11
(12­
16)
180
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
106
GP­
14
(5­
6)
ND
3.
1
7,
p.
C­
19
GP­
14
(16­
17)
ND
3.1
7,
p.
C­
20
GP­
19
(10­
13)
3,800
D
0.
13
7,
p.
D­
26
Anthracene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
660
7,
p.
D­
27
Benzo(
a)
anthracene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
660
7,
p.
D­
27
Benzo(
a)
pyrene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
660
7,
p.
D­
27
Chrysene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
660
7,
p.
D­
27
Fluoranthene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
660
7,
p.
D­
28
2­
Methylnaphthalene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
860
660
7,
p.
D­
28
Naphthalene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
2,700
660
7,
p.
D­
28
Phenanthrene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
660
7,
p.
D­
28
Pyrene
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
660
7,
p.
D­
28
Aroclor
1248
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
70
6,
Att.
3,
p.
107
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
70
7,
p.
D­
28
Aroclor
1254
GP­
11
(12­
16)
ND
70
6,
Att.
3,
p.
107
GP­
19
(10­
13)
ND
70
7,
p.
D­
28
ND
Hazardous
substance
concentration
below
detection
limits
of
analysis
D
Result
from
diluted
analysis
­
has
no
effect
on
contaminant
identification
or
quantification
(
)
Numbers
in
parentheses
denote
sample
depth
Items
shaded
indicate
the
highest
background
concentration
for
the
hazardous
substance.
This
concentration
was
used
for
comparison
with
the
source
samples.
*
MDLs
are
from
References
36,
p.
2;
37,
pp.
31­
35;
38,
pp.
30­
32.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
17
­
Source
Samples:
Source
samples
were
collected
from
the
center
of
the
property
where
normal
operations
were
believed
to
take
place
at
the
facility
(Ref.
7,
figure
1).
TP­#
samples
were
collected
from
the
excavated
material
of
test
trenches
at
various
depths
during
the
Phase
II
characterization
activities
(Ref.
7,
p.
9).
The
source
samples
are
compared
with
the
highest
background
concentration
for
each
substance
regardless
of
sample
depth.

Sample
ID
Sample
Medium
Date
Reference
Sample
ID
Sample
Medium
Date
Reference
GP­
1
(20­
24)
Soil
4/
4/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
148
GP­
8
(8­
12)
Soil
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
GP­
3
(16­
20)
Soil
4/
5/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
149
GP­
8
(16­
20)
Soil
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
GP­
3
(20­
24)
Soil
4/
5/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
149
GP­
9
(16­
20)
Soil
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
GP­
4
(34­
36)
Soil
4/
6/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
149
GP­
10
(8­
12)
Soil
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
154
GP­
5
(16­
20)
Soil
4/
6/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
150
GP­
15
(surface)
Soil
8/
17/
2000
7,
p.
C­
21
GP­
6
(12­
16)
Soil
4/
7/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
151
GP­
15
(11­
12)
Soil
8/
17/
2000
7,
p.
A­
3
GP­
6
(16­
20)
Soil
4/
7/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
151
TP­
5
(8­
9)
Soil
8/
23/
2000
7,
p.
A­
7;
40,
p.
2,
13
GP­
7
(16­
20)
Soil
4/
10/
200
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
TP­
6
(9­
10)
Soil
8/
23/
2000
7,
p.
A­
37;
40,
p.
3,
13
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
kg)
Method
Detection
Limit(
MDL)
*
(µg/
kg)
Reference
1,1­
Dichloroethane
GP­
3
(16­
20)
ND
120
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
3
(20­
24)
ND
8
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
19
GP­
5
(16­
20)
ND
8
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
28
GP­
7
(16­
20)
ND
190
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
82
TP­
5
ND
880
0.04
7,
p.
D­
7
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
GP­
7
(16­
20)
ND
58
0.08
6,
Att.
3,
p.
83
TP­
5
ND
990
0.08
7,
p.
D­
8
1,2­
Dichloroethane
GP­
7
(16­
20)
ND
15
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
82
TP­
5
ND
220
0.06
7,
p.
D­
7
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
GP­
3
(16­
20)
ND
63
.32
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
10
(8­
12)
ND
24
.32
6,
Att.
3,
p.
100
Benzene
GP­
7
(16­
20)
23
74
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
82
GP­
8
(8­
12)
23
15,000
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
85
GP­
8
(16­
20)
23
330
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
88
GP­
10
(8­
12)
23
99
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
99
TP­
5
23
11,000
D
0.
04
7,
p.
D­
7
cis­
1,2­
dichloroethene
GP­
3
(16­
20)
5
450
.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
kg)
Method
Detection
Limit(
MDL)
*
(µg/
kg)
Reference
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
18
cis­
1,2­
dichloroethene
(cont.)
GP­
4
(34­
36)
5
84
0.
12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
25
GP­
5
(16­
20)
5
40,000
D
.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
28
GP­
6
(16­
20)
5
15
.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
57
GP­
7
(16­
20)
5
320
.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
82
GP­
8
(8­
12)
5
810
.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
85
TP­
5
5
6,
700
D
.12
7,
p.
D­
7
Ethylbenzene
GP­
3
(16­
20)
1,300
7,700
D
0.
06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
8
(8­
12)
1,300
76,000
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
86
GP­
9
(16­
20)
1,300
20,000
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
92
GP­
15
(11­
12)
1,300
46,000
0.06
7,
p.
C­
22
TP­
5
1,300
710,000
D
0.
06
7,
p.
D­
8
Styrene
GP­
3
(16­
20)
8
56
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
8
(8­
12)
8
460
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
86
GP­
8
(16­
20)
8
73
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
89
GP­
9
(16­
20)
8
57
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
92
TP­
5
8
200
0.04
7,
p.
D­
8
Tetrachloroethene
GP­
3
(16­
20)
6
220
0.14
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
8
(8­
12)
6
220
0.14
6,
Att.
3,
p.
86
GP­
15
(surface)
6
60
J
0.
14
7,
p.
C­
21
TP­
5
6
12,000
D
0.
14
7,
p.
D­
8
Toluene
GP­
3
(16­
20)
1,300
11,000
D
0.
11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
8
(8­
12)
1,300
120,000
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
86
GP­
9
(16­
20)
1,300
14,000
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
92
GP­
15
(11­
12)
1,300
12,000
0.11
7,
p.
C­
22
TP­
5
1,300
4,200,000
D
0.
11
7,
p.
D­
8
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
GP­
3
(16­
20)
ND
37
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
5
(16­
20)
ND
37
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
28
Trichloroethene
GP­
3
(16­
20)
6
370
0.19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
16
GP­
4
(34­
36)
6
65
0.
19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
25
GP­
5
(16­
20)
6
6,
500
D
0.
19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
28
TP­
5
6
11,000
D
0.
19
7,
p.
D­
8
Vinyl
chloride
GP­
1
(20­
24)
ND
51
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
2
GP­
3
(16­
20)
ND
89
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
17
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
kg)
Method
Detection
Limit(
MDL)
*
(µg/
kg)
Reference
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
19
Vinyl
chloride
(cont.)
GP­
3
(20­
24)
ND
3
0.
17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
21
GP­
5
(16­
20)
ND
53
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
28
GP­
6
(16­
20)
ND
54
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
57
Xylenes
(total)
GP­
3
(16­
20)
3,800
30,000
D
0.
13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
17
GP­
6
(12­
16)
3,800
21,000
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
54
GP­
8
(8­
12)
3,800
320,000
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
86
GP­
9
(16­
20)
3,800
87,000
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
92
GP­
15
(11­
12)
3,800
1,100,000
0.13
7,
p.
C­
22
TP­
5
3,800
3,500,000
D
0.
13
7,
p.
D­
8
Anthracene
TP­
5
ND
1,
000
660
7,
p.
D­
9
Benzo(
a)
anthracene
TP­
5
ND
860
660
7,
p.
D­
9
Benzo(
a)
pyrene
TP­
5
ND
520
660
7,
p.
D­
9
Chrysene
TP­
5
ND
970
660
7,
p.
D­
9
Fluoranthene
TP­
5
ND
2,
200
660
7,
p.
D­
10
2­
Methylnaphthalene
TP­
5
1,600
9,700
D
660
7,
p.
D­
10
Naphthalene
TP­
5
2,600
47,000
D
660
7,
p.
D­
10
Phenanthrene
TP­
5
ND
4,100
660
7,
p.
D­
10
Pyrene
TP­
5
ND
2,800
660
7,
p.
D­
10
Aroclor
1248
TP­
6
ND
6,200
70
7,
p.
D­
40
Aroclor
1254
TP­
5
ND
31,500
70
7,
p.
D­
11
GP­
8
(8­
12)
ND
26,000
70
6,
Att.
3,
p.
87
GP­
8
(16­
20)
ND
5,000
70
6,
Att.
3,
p.
90
D­
Result
from
diluted
analysis
­
has
no
effect
on
contaminant
identification
or
quantification.
J
­
While
the
concentration
cannot
be
quantified,
the
presence
of
the
hazardous
substance
is
not
in
question.
*
MDLs
are
from
References
36,
p.
2;
38,
pp.
30­
32
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
20
2.2.3
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
AVAILABLE
TO
A
PATHWAY
Containment
Description
Containment
Factor
Value
Ref.

Gas
release
to
air:
NS
Particulate
release
to
air:
NS
Release
to
ground
water:
Residential
and
monitoring
well
samples
provide
evidence
of
hazardous
substance
migration
from
the
source
area,
and
none
of
the
following
are
present
at
the
source:
liner,
maintained
engineered
cover,
functioning
and
maintained
run­
on
control
system
and
runoff
management
system,
or
functioning
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
immediately
above
a
liner.
10
10,
p.
19
Release
via
overland
migration:
Samples
collected
from
Little
Beaver
Creek
show
hazardous
substances
in
the
creek
sediments.
The
site
was
covered
with
a
thin
layer
of
gravel
and
soil
after
the
fire
in
1969,
however,
there
is
no
maintained
containment
system
to
prevent
the
overland
flow
of
water
from
the
site
into
Little
Beaver
Creek.
10
10,
p.
21
Notes:
NS
Not
Scored
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
21
2.2.4
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
QUANTITY
2.4.2.1.1.
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Assigned
Value:
NS
2.4.2.1.2.
Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Assigned
Value:
NS
2.4.2.1.3.
Volume
The
Volume
of
contaminated
soil
was
calculated
for
the
site
during
the
USACE
Phase
II
Hydrogeologic
Characterization
at
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility,
in
June
2000.
Hazardous
substances
were
found
at
a
depth
up
to
20
feet
below
ground
surface,
although
some
substances
were
reported
as
deep
as
34
feet
(Ref.
7,
p.
10).
38,700
cubic
yards
of
contaminated
soil
were
measured
assuming
a
20
foot
depth
throughout.
Based
on
the
samples
collected
it
is
not
known
if
the
contamination
is
vertically
continuous,
therefore
a
complete
volume
estimate
could
not
be
generated.
Volume
Assigned
Value:
NS
2.4.2.1.4.
Area
The
area
of
the
contaminated
soil
is
used
to
determine
the
source
hazardous
waste
quantity
value.
Based
on
the
USACE
Phase
II
estimate
of
the
extent
of
the
soil
contamination,
the
surface
area
of
the
contaminated
soil
is
5,805
yd
2
(52,245
ft
2
).
This
figure
was
derived
by
factoring
out
the
20
foot
depth
assumption.

Source
Type
Units
(ft
2
)
References
Contaminated
Soil
52,245
Ref.
7,
p.
10
Sum
(ft
2
):
52,245
Equation
for
Assigning
Value
(Table
2­
5):
52,245
/
34,000
Area
Assigned
Value:
1.54
2.4.2.1.5.
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
Highest
assigned
value
assigned
from
Table
2­
5:
1.54
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
Source
Characterization
22
SUMMARY
OF
SOURCE
DESCRIPTIONS
Source
No.
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
Source
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Complete?
(Y/
N)
Containment
Factor
Value
by
Pathway
Ground
Water
(GW)
(Ref.
1,
Table
3­
2)
Surface
Water
(SW)
Air
Overland
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
2)
GW
to
SW
(Ref.
1,
Table
3­
2)
Gas
(Ref.
1,
Table
6­
3)
Particulate
(Ref.
1,
Table
6­
9)

1
1.
54
N
10
10
NS
NS
NS
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
General
23
3.0
GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
3.0.1
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Ground
Water
Migration
Pathway
Description
­
Aquifer/
Stratum
1
(uppermost):
surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
Three
buried
valley
tributaries
form
the
broad
lowland
area
in
the
location
of
Beaver
Creek
Township.
This
area
is
underlain
with
permeable
sands
and
gravels
and
is
traversed
by
the
Little
Miami
River
and
Beaver
Creek
(Ref.
19,
p.
4).
The
buried
valley
aquifer
consists
of
Wisconsin­
age,
well
sorted
glacial
outwash
sand
and
gravel
deposits
(Ref.
23,
p.
1).
The
uppermost
aquifer
is
located
at
depths
between
25
and
80
feet
and
is
composed
of
highly
permeable
outwash
deposits
of
sand
and
gravel
(Refs.
23,
p.
1;
24,
p.
5).
These
deposits
provide
water
to
shallow
private
residential
wells
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site
(Ref.
23,
p.
1).
The
unconsolidated
glacial
deposits
in
the
area
are
lying
unconformably
atop
the
Ordovician
Richmond
limestone
and
Maysville
shale
bedrock
(Ref.
23,
p.
1).
The
direction
of
local
ground
water
flow
in
the
area
of
the
site
is
to
the
southeast
and
influenced
by
the
dip
of
the
bedrock
units
(Ref.
24,
p.
5).

In
most
cases,
private
water
supply
wells
have
been
installed
at
depths
of
approximately
40
to
50
feet
below
ground
surface
(BGS)
[800
to
810
feet
above
mean
sea
level
(amsl)]
(Refs.
5,
p.
2­
4;
10,
p.
4;
25).
Static
water
levels
are
generally
from
5
to
25
feet
BGS
(845­
825
feet
amsl).
Yields
of
up
to
50
gallons
per
minute
have
been
reported
for
this
aquifer.
Wells
were
generally
developed
at
flow
rates
of
8
to
10
gallons
per
minute
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
4).
Ground
water
flow
direction
in
the
area
is
heavily
influenced
by
the
rate
of
pumping
in
local
residential
wells.
These
local
residential
wells
are
typically
not
pumped
at
a
constant
rate.
A
number
of
the
wells
are
no
longer
heavily
utilized
since
residences
were
connected
to
the
county
water
supply.
Therefore,
it
is
possible
that
the
spread
of
ground
water
contamination
in
the
area
at
any
one
time
is
a
result
of
shifts
in
ground
water
flow
direction
as
the
utilization
rates
of
residential
wells
shifted
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
4).

SUMMARY
OF
AQUIFER(
S)
BEING
EVALUATED
Aquifer
No.
Aquifer
Name
Is
Aquifer
Continuous
within
4­
mile
TDL?
(Y/
N)
Is
Aquifer
Karst?
(Y/
N)

1
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
Yes
No
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
24
3.1
LIKELIHOOD
OF
RELEASE
3.
1.
1
OBSERVED
RELEASE
Chemical
Analysis
Samples
collected
in
April
2000
were
part
of
a
hydrogeologic
characterization
performed
at
the
request
of
the
USACE.
The
study
was
intended
to
assess
the
horizontal
and
vertical
extent
of
contamination
at
the
site
(Ref.
6,
p.
1).
Samples
were
collected
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
of
surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits.
Samples
were
sent
to
an
EPA
contracted
laboratory
(Burgess
&
Niple)
for
analysis
using
EPA
method
8260
(Ref.
6,
p.
5).

Monitoring
well
samples
­
April
2000
­
Background
Concentrations:
The
background
sample
was
collected
from
MW1,
located
hydrogeologicaly
upgradient
of
wells
MW2
and
MW3
(Ref.
6,
figure
1).
Well
MW1
was
drilled
during
the
same
sampling
event
as
wells
MW­
2
and
MW­
3
(March­
April
1997)
and
approximately
the
same
screened
interval
(Ref.
5,
p.
A­
2,
A­
4,
A­
7).

Sample
ID
Screened
Interval
(feet
amsl)
Date
Reference
MW1
829.5
­
839.5
4/
13/
2000
5,
p.
A­
2;
6,
p.
3­
155
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
4/
1997
(µg/
L)
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
L)*
Reference
MW1
Benzene
ND
0.
04
6,
p.
3­
115
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
0.12
6,
p.
3­
115
Ethylbenzene
ND
0.
06
6,
p.
3­
116
Trichloroethene
ND
0.
19
6,
p.
3­
116
Xylenes
(total)
ND
0.
13
6,
p.
3­
116
*
MDLs
are
from
Reference
38,
pp.
30­
32.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
25
­
Contaminated
Samples:

Sample
ID
Screened
Interval
(feet
amsl)
Date
Reference
MW2
828.25
­
838.25
4/
13/
2000
5,
p.
A­
4;
6,
p.
3­
155
MW3
814.69
­
824.69
4/
12/
2000
5,
p.
A­
7;
6,
p.
3­
154
Hazardous
Substance
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
MW1
Contaminated
Samples
(µg/
L)
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
L)*
MW2
MW3
Benzene
ND
13
ND
0.04
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
ND
12
0.12
Ethylbenzene
ND
30
ND
0.06
Trichloroethene
ND
ND
7
0.19
Xylenes
(total)
ND
25
ND
0.13
References:
6,
pp.
3­
109­
110,
3:
118­
119;
38,
pp.
30­
32
Notes:
µg/
L
micrograms
per
liter
Concentrations
shaded
and
in
bold
indicate
samples
significantly
above
background
concentrations.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
26
Geoprobe®
Ground
water
samples
Samples
collected
in
April
2000
were
part
of
a
hydrogeologic
characterization
performed
at
the
request
of
the
USACE.
The
study
was
intended
to
assess
the
horizontal
and
vertical
extent
of
contamination
at
the
site
(Ref.
6,
p.
1).
Samples
collected
in
August
2000
were
part
of
the
second
phase
of
hydrogeologic
characterization
at
the
facility
also
requested
by
the
USACE.
They
were
intended
to
provide
additional
information
on
perched
water
zones,
contaminated
site
soils
and
ground
water
and
information
on
soil
and
ground
water
conditions
along
the
proposed
water
line
extension
(Ref.
7,
p.
1).

­
Background
Concentrations:

Background
samples
were
collected
along
the
perimeter
of
the
facility
property
upgradient
of
the
apparent
area
of
contamination
(Ref.
7,
figure
1).
The
property
at
the
facility
is
approximately
900
feet
amsl
(Ref.
3).
Water
samples
were
collected
from
approximately
16­
20
and
28­
32
feet
BGS
in
the
surficial
glacial
deposits.
On­
site
sampling
was
performed
by
Matrix
Tech
and
off­
site
samples
were
sent
to
Burgess
and
Niple,
and
EPA
contracted
laboratory
(Ref.
7,
pp.
6,
B­
3,
D­
1).

Sample
ID
Screened
Interval
(feet
BGS)
Date
Reference
GP­
11
28­
32
4/
12/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
154
GP­
17
16­
20
8/
18/
2000
7,
p.
A­
5
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
L)*
Reference
1,1­
Dichloroethane
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
04,
0.4
6,
Att.
3,
p.
126;
7,
p.
C­
12
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
08,
0.35
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127;
7,
p.
C­
12
Benzene
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
04,
0.15
6,
Att.
3,
p.
126;
7,
p.
C­
12
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
12,
0.45
6,
Att.
3,
p.
126;
7,
p.
C­
12
Ethylbenzene
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
06,
0.38
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127;
7,
p.
C­
12
Styrene
GP­
11
ND
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127
Tetrachloroethene
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
14,
0.27
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127;
7,
p.
C­
12
Toluene
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
11,
0.49
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127;
7,
p.
C­
12
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
06,
0.43
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127;
7,
p.
C­
12
Trichloroethene
GP­
11,
GP­
17
ND
0.
19,
0.36
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127;
7,
p.
C­
12
Vinyl
chloride
GP­
11
ND
0.
17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127
Xylenes
(total)
GP­
11
ND
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
127
GP­
17
6
0.41
7,
p.
C­
12
*
MDLs
are
from
References
37,
pp.
31­
35;
38,
pp.
30­
32
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
27
­
Contaminated
Samples:
These
samples
were
collected
during
the
same
sampling
events
as
the
background
samples.
Numbers
in
parentheses
indicate
feet
BGS.

Sample
ID
Screened
Interval
(feet
BGS)
Date
Reference
Sample
ID
Screened
Interval
(feet
BGS)
Date
Reference
GP­
1
36­
40
4/
4/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
148
GP­
7
22­
26
4/
10/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
GP­
2
20­
24
4/
4/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
148
GP­
8
20­
24
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
GP­
2
34­
38
4/
4/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
149
GP­
8
28­
32
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
GP­
3
18­
22
4/
5/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
149
GP­
9
20­
24
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
152
GP­
3
34­
38
4/
5/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
149
GP­
9
28­
32
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
153
GP­
4
20­
24
4/
6/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
149
GP­
10
24­
28
4/
11/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
154
GP­
4
32­
36
4/
6/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
150
GP–
16
16­
20
8/
18/
2000
7,
p.
A­
4
GP­
5
10­
14
4/
6/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
150
GP­
18
16­
20
8/
21/
2000
7,
p.
A­
6
GP­
6
8­
12
4/
7/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
151
GP­
20
16­
20
8/
22/
2000
7,
p.
A­
1;
40,
p.
12
GP­
6
30­
34
4/
7/
2000
6,
Att.
3,
p.
151
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Hazardous*
Substance
Concentration
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(SQL)*
References
1,1­
Dichloroethane
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
16
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
8
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
9
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
190
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
20
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
38
GP­
3
(34­
38)
ND
35
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
31
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
8
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
35
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
17
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
45
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
1,200
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
60
GP­
7
(22­
26)
ND
32
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
64
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
83
0.08
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
1,900
D
0.
08
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
14
0.08
6,
Att.
3,
p.
36
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
72
0.08
6,
Att.
3,
p.
46
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
100
0.08
6,
Att.
3,
p.
60
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Hazardous*
Substance
Concentration
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(SQL)*
References
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
28
Benzene
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
44
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
7
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
69
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
41
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
29
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
37
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
15
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
35
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
6
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
45
GP­
5
(10­
14)
ND
29
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
47
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
130
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
59
GP­
7
(22­
26)
ND
9
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
64
GP­
8
(20­
24)
ND
58
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
68
GP­
8
(28­
32)
ND
6
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
70
GP­
9
(20­
24)
ND
5
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
72
GP­
10
(24­
28)
ND
8
0.
04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
128
GP­
16
(16­
20)
ND
14
0.15
7,
p.
C­
11
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
440
D
0.
12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
8
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
49
0.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
770
0.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
50
0.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
36
GP­
3
(34­
38)
ND
580
0.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
31
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
25
0.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
35
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
500
D
0.
12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
45
GP­
5
(10­
14)
ND
1,900
D
0.
12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
48
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
4,100
D
0.
12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
60
GP­
8
(20­
24)
ND
11
0.12
6,
Att.
3,
p.
68
GP­
20
(16­
20)
ND
780
0.45
7,
p.
C­
16
Ethylbenzene
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
820
D
0.
06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
8
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
61
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
640
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
400
D
0.
06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
38
GP­
3
(34­
38)
ND
210
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
31
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
130
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
36
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Hazardous*
Substance
Concentration
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(SQL)*
References
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
29
Ethylbenzene
(cont.)
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
85
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
46
GP­
5
(10­
14)
ND
10
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
48
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
15,000
D
0.
06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
60
GP­
6
(30­
34)
ND
16
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
63
GP­
8
(20­
24)
ND
290
D
0.
06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
69
GP­
8
(28­
32)
ND
48
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
71
GP­
9
(20­
24)
ND
290
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
73
GP­
9
(28­
32)
ND
84
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
77
GP­
10
(24­
28)
ND
82
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
129
GP­
18
(16­
20)
ND
200
0.38
7,
p.
C­
14
GP­
20
(16­
20)
ND
31
0.38
7,
p.
C­
16
Styrene
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
16
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
8
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
33
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
10
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
38
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
200
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
60
GP­
8
(20­
24)
ND
12
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
69
GP­
9
(20­
24)
ND
10
0.04
6,
Att.
3,
p.
73
Tetrachloroethene
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
7
0.
14
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
84
0.14
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
29
0.14
6,
Att.
3,
p.
38
GP­
8
(20­
24)
ND
6
0.
14
6,
Att.
3,
p.
69
GP­
18
(16­
20)
ND
14
0.27
7,
p.
C­
14
Toluene
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
3,600
D
0.
11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
8
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
770
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
17,000
D
0.
11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
660
D
0.
11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
38
GP­
3
(34­
38)
ND
140
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
31
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
110
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
36
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
140
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
46
GP­
5
(10­
14)
ND
86
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
48
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Hazardous*
Substance
Concentration
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(SQL)*
References
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
30
Toluene
(cont.)
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
62,000
D
0.
11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
60
GP­
6
(30­
34)
ND
56
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
63
GP­
7
(22­
26)
ND
20
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
65
GP­
8
(20­
24)
ND
960
D
0.
11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
69
GP­
8
(28­
32)
ND
140
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
71
GP­
9
(20­
24)
ND
280
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
73
GP­
9
(28­
32)
ND
52
0.11
6,
Att.
3,
p.
77
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
5
0.
06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
80
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
5
0.
06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
46
GP­
5
(10­
14)
ND
14
0.06
6,
Att.
3,
p.
48
Trichloroethene
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
2,600
D
0.
19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
8
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
48
0.19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
2,100
D
0.
19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
42
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
30
0.19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
38
GP­
3
(34­
38)
ND
24
0.19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
31
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
10
0.19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
36
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
99
0.19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
46
GP­
5
(10­
14)
ND
380
D
0.
19
6,
Att.
3,
p.
48
Vinyl
chloride
GP­
1
(36­
40)
ND
5
0.
17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
9
GP­
2
(20­
24)
ND
12
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
ND
12
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
43
GP­
3
(18­
22)
ND
29
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
38
GP­
3
(34­
38)
ND
33
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
31
GP­
4
(20­
24)
ND
6
0.
17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
36
GP­
4
(32­
36)
ND
28
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
46
GP­
5
(10­
14)
ND
140
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
48
GP­
6
(8­
12)
ND
1,600
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
61
GP­
7
(22­
26)
ND
28
0.17
6,
Att.
3,
p.
65
GP­
20
(16­
20)
ND
1,700D
1.43
7,
p.
C­
16
Hazardous
Substance
Sample
ID
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Hazardous*
Substance
Concentration
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(SQL)*
References
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
31
Xylenes
(total)
GP­
1
(36­
40)
6
2,
700
D
0.
13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
9
GP­
2
(20­
24)
6
350
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
12
GP­
2
(34­
38)
6
5,
400
D
0.
13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
43
GP­
3
(18­
22)
6
1,
800
D
0.
13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
39
GP­
3
(34­
38)
6
880
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
31
GP­
4
(20­
24)
6
780
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
36
GP­
4
(32­
36)
6
470
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
46
GP­
5
(10­
14)
6
110
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
49
GP­
6
(8­
12)
6
56,000
D
0.
13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
61
GP­
6
(30­
34)
6
73
0.
13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
63
GP­
8
(20­
24)
6
1,
400
D
0.
13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
69
GP­
8
(28­
32)
6
240
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
71
GP­
9
(20­
24)
6
1,
400
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
73
GP­
9
(28­
32)
6
340
0.13
6,
Att.
3,
p.
77
GP­
18
(16­
20)
6
950D
0.41
7,
p.
C­
14
GP­
20
(16­
20)
6
580D
0.41
7,
p.
C­
16
*
Notes:
µg/
L
micrograms
per
liter
D
Result
from
diluted
analysis
­
has
no
effect
on
contaminant
identification
or
quantification.
*
MDLs
are
from
References
37,
pp.
31­
35;
38,
pp.
30­
32
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
32
Residential
well
samples
Samples
were
collected
as
part
of
the
Engineering
Evaluation/
Cost
Analysis
Report
for
the
USEPA
in
March
1997
(Ref.
5).
Release
samples
collected
before
1997
are
listed
in
the
residential
well
database
(Ref.
5,
App.
B).

­
Background
Concentrations:

Background
samples
were
collected
from
residential
wells
located
north
west
of
the
contaminated
ground
water
plume
and
show
no
contamination
since
1985
(Ref.
5,
App.
B,
p.
10,
12).

Sample
ID
Aquifer
screened
Date
Reference
RW1
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
10;
32
RW43
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
12;
32
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
L)*
Reference
RW1
1,
1­
Dichloroethane
ND
0.
04
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
4
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
ND
0.
08
5,
p.
2­
42;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
4
Benzene
ND
0.
04
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
4
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
(DCE)
ND
0.
12
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
4
trans­
1,2­
dichloroethene
ND
0.06
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
4
Trichloroethene
(TCE)
ND
0.
19
5,
p.
2­
42;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
4
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
0.17
5,
p.
2­
42;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
4
RW43
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
0.04
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
115
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
ND
0.
08
5,
p.
2­
42;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
115
Benzene
ND
0.
04
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
115
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
(DCE)
ND
0.
12
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
115
trans­
1,2­
dichloroethene
ND
0.06
5,
p.
2­
41;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
115
Trichloroethene
(TCE)
ND
0.
19
5,
p.
2­
42;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
115
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
0.17
5,
p.
2­
42;
8,
Att.
2,
p.
115
*
MDLs
are
from
Reference
39,
pp.
524.2­
35
­
524.2­
36.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
33
­
Contaminated
Samples:
The
wells
below
show
contamination
at
similar
depths
and
are
most
likely
to
be
screened
in
the
same
part
of
the
aquifer.
In
most
cases,
private
water
supply
wells
have
been
installed
at
depths
of
approximately
40
to
50
feet
(810
to
800
feet
amsl)
(Ref.
10,
p.
4).
Wells
50
­
104
were
included
to
show
continuous
contamination
since
sampling
began
in
1985,
through
the
present.
Concentrations
of
hazardous
substances
were
obtained
from
the
residential
well
database.
Analytical
information
was
not
available.
These
wells
were
identified
as
having
concentrations
above
EPA
safe
drinking
water
standards
and
placed
on
the
municipal
water
system
prior
to
1997
(Ref.
10,
p.
5).

Sample
ID
Aquifer
Screened
Date
Reference
RW2
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
11;
32
RW3
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
10;
32
RW10
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
10;
32
RW4
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
10;
32
RW5
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
9;
32
RW6
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
9;
32
RW13
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
8;
32
RW14
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
8;
32
RW16
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
21;
32
RW18
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
23;
32
RW19
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
22;
32
RW20
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
22;
32
RW21
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
22;
32
RW23
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
15;
32
RW24
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
15;
32
RW30
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
15;
32
RW31
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
15;
32
RW35
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
24;
32
RW41
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
3/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
8;
32
RW50
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
6/
1997
5,
App.
B,
p.
22;
32
RW101
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
6/
1988
5,
App.
B,
p.
8;
32
RW104
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
12/
1985
5,
App.
B,
p.
23;
32
RW103
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
11/
1985
5,
App.
B,
p.
9;
32
RW102
Surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits
1/
1986
5,
App.
B,
p.
7;
32
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
34
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
L)
Reference
RW2
Benzene
ND
1.
03
0.
04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
6
RW3
1,
1­
Dichloroethane
ND
1.
95
0.
04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
8
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
70.3
0.
12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
10
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
45.9
0.
17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
10
RW4
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
8.
64
0.
12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
16
RW5
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
17.8
0.
12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
18
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
103
0.17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
20
RW6
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
47.8
0.
17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
26
RW10
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
2.03
0.04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
12
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
75.7
0.
12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
14
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
46.1
0.
17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
14
RW13
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
1.44
0.04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
41
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
7.13
0.12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
41
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
2.05
0.06
8,
Att.
2,
p.
41
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
1.90
0.17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
41
RW14
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
1.71
0.17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
43
RW16
Trichloroethene
ND
1.
09
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
47
RW18
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
1.78
0.04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
51
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
ND
1.
47
0.
08
8,
Att.
2,
p.
51
Trichloroethene
ND
.782
0.19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
51
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
3.69
0.17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
51
RW19
Trichloroethene
ND
6.
76
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
53
RW20
Trichloroethene
ND
2.
33
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
55
RW21
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
1.85
0.04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
57
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
2.91
0.12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
57
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
0.809
0.06
8,
Att.
2,
p.
57
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
ND
2.
22
0.
08
8,
Att.
2,
p.
57
Trichloroethene
ND
5.
01
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
57
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Background
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Method
Detection
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
L)
Reference
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
35
RW23
Trichloroethene
ND
2.
22
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
61
RW24
Trichloroethene
ND
1.
85
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
63
RW30
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
11.8
0.
04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
80
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
5.89
0.12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
80
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
1.35
0.06
8,
Att.
2,
p.
80
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
ND
5.
02
0.
08
8,
Att.
2,
p.
80
Trichloroethene
ND
5.
94
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
80
RW31
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
11.7
0.
04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
82
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
5.84
0.12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
82
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
1.37
0.06
8,
Att.
2,
p.
82
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
ND
4.
98
0.
08
8,
Att.
2,
p.
82
Trichloroethene
ND
5.
87
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
82
RW35
1,1­
Dichloroethane
ND
6.06
0.04
8,
Att.
2,
p.
90
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
2.56
0.12
8,
Att.
2,
p.
90
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
ND
0.862
0.06
8,
Att.
2,
p.
90
Trichloroethene
ND
4.
61
0.
19
8,
Att.
2,
p.
90
RW41
Vinyl
Chloride
ND
36.5
0.
17
8,
Att.
2,
p.
111
Notes:
µg/
L
micrograms
per
liter
*
MDLs
are
from
Reference
39,
pp.
524.2­
35
­
524.2­
36.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
36
Level
I
Samples
Wells
in
this
table
were
found
to
have
concentrations
of
hazardous
substances
above
the
maximum
limits
established
in
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(1996).
These
wells
have
been
systematically
closed
and
the
residents
placed
on
municipal
water
systems.

Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Benchmark
Concentration
(µg/
L)
Benchmark
Reference
for
Benchmark
RW
3
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
70.3
70
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
29
Vinyl
Chloride
45.9
2
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
41
RW5
Vinyl
Chloride
103
2
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
41
RW6
Vinyl
Chloride
47.8
2
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
41
RW10
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
75.7
70
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
29
Vinyl
Chloride
46.1
2
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
41
RW18
Vinyl
Chloride
3.69
2
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
41
RW19
Trichloroethene
6.
76
5
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
40
RW21
Trichloroethene
5.
01
5
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
40
RW30
Trichloroethene
5.
94
5
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
40
RW31
Trichloroethene
5.
87
5
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
40
RW41
Vinyl
Chloride
36.5
2
MCL/
MCLG
2,
p.
B­
41
Notes:
MCL/
MCLG
Maximum
Contaminant
Level/
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
as
defined
in
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(1996).
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
37
Attribution
Between
1953
and
1969
Lammers,
Inc.
operated
a
waste
storage
and
reclamation
facility
for
all
types
of
industrial
solvents
and
flammables
on
the
site.
The
company
would
take
in
approximately
4,000
to
5,000
gallons
of
chemicals
per
day
from
various
generators,
purify
the
solvents
and
then
return
them
to
the
generators.
According
to
former
and
present
government
officials
and
employees
familiar
with
the
site,
Lammers,
Inc.
ran
a
"sloppy
operation."
Frequent
spills
occurred
on
the
site
and
chemical
wastes
were
dumped
into
Little
Beaver
Creek,
which
runs
through
the
facility
property
(Ref.
20,
p.
5­
3).
Tony
Kohnen,
former
co­
owner
of
Kohnen­
Lammer
Chemical
Company,
stated
that
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
accepted
most
all
industrial
solvents
primarily
from
the
paint
and
automobile
industries
including
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
(Ref.
31).

Lammers,
Inc.
's
Articles
of
Incorporation
indicate
that
the
purpose
for
which
the
Company
was
formed
included
"To
manufacture,
reclaim,
compound,
assemble,
formulate,
amalgamate,
distill,
analyze,
manipulate,
mix,
prepare
for
market,
buy,
broker,
market,
sell,
vend,
deal
and
trade
in,
import,
export,
transport,
and
distribute,
or
in
any
manner
turn
to
account
or
dispose
of
solvents,
oil,
grease,
gasoline,
alcohol
benzol,
auto
accessories
and
parts,
tires,
or
chemical
compounds
for
treating
gasoline
and
other
liquid
fuels
and
also
for
treating
lubricating
oils
and
other
purposes,
and
any
other
compounds
or
products
known
in
industrial
chemistry
or
any
of
the
ingredients
thereof..."
(Ref.
20,
p.
5­
4).
While
petroleum
related
contaminants
are
found
in
soil
and
ground
water
samples,
these
substances
were
received
by
the
facility
as
part
of
a
mixed
waste
containing
other
man­
made
contaminants
(i.
e.
chlorinated
solvents).
Further,
no
evidence
suggests
that
the
contamination
in
the
sources
was
the
result
of
a
spill
of
petroleum
product.

Because
as
much
as
500,000
gallons
of
solvents
spilled
or
burned
at
Lammers
Barrel
and
chlorinated
solvents
were
stored
on
site,
the
samples
taken
during
the
1992
SI,
the
1997
EE/
CA,
and
the
2000
Phase
II
Hydrogeologic
Characterization
Activities,
indicated
extremely
high
levels
of
solvent
and
chlorinated
solvent
in
the
soil
(Refs.
5;
7;
10).
Substances
shown
to
have
been
released
to
the
ground
water
are
also
present
in
the
soil
at
the
facility.
Geoprobe
samples
collected
from
the
facility
show
continuous
vertical
contamination
from
as
shallow
as
12
feet
to
as
deep
as
40
feet
below
the
ground
surface
(Refs.
6,
pp.
3­
148
­
3­
154;
7,
pp.
A­
1,
A­
4,
A­
6).
This
is
characterized
by
geoprobe
location
GP­
6,
where
high
concentrations
of
ethylbenzene,
toluene
and
xylene
are
not
only
found
in
shallow
samples
(8­
12
ft),
but
also
deep
samples
(30­
34
ft)
at
the
same
location
(Ref.
6,
pp.
3­
60,
3­
61,
3­
63).

The
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
lists
three
sites
within
1.5
miles
of
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
that
could
contribute
similar
contaminants
to
the
ground
water
(Ref.
26,
Figure
1).
These
sites
are
all
located
hydrogeologicaly
down
gradient
from
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
and
drinking
water
wells
listed
in
this
document
(Ref.
26,
Figure
1).
The
Durnbaugh
Road,
NuGlo
and
Phillips
Sand
and
Gravel
sites
have
not
been
shown
to
be
contributing
to
the
ground
water
contamination
in
the
Valleywood
subdivision
adjacent
to
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
(Refs.
27,
p.
1;
28,
pp.
7
­
10;
29).
In
addition,
the
USEPA's
listing
of
hazardous
waste
handlers
documents
that
there
have
been
no
known
releases
to
the
ground
water
upgradient
of
the
site
within
1
mile
(Ref.
33).

Hazardous
Substances
Released
Benzene
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
(total)
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Vinyl
Chloride
1,1­
Dichloroethane
trans­
1,2­
dichloroethene
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
Ground
Water
Observed
Release
Factor
Value:
550
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Waste
Characteristics
38
3.2
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1
TOXICITY/
MOBILITY
Hazardous
Substance
Source
No.
Toxicity
Factor
Value
Mobility
Factor
Value*
Does
Haz.
Substance
Meet
Observed
Release?
Toxicity/
Mobility
(Ref.
1,
Table
3­
9)
Reference
1,1­
Dichloroethane
1
10
1
Yes
10
2,
p.
B­
7
1,1,1­
Trichlorethane
1
1
1
Yes
1
2,
p.
B­
19
1,2­
Dichloroethene
(total)
1
100
1
Yes
100
2,
p.
B­
7
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
1
10,000
1
No
10,000
2,
p.
B­
20
2­
Methylnaphthalene
1
NA
0.
01
No
NA
2,
p.
B­
14
Anthracene
1
10
0.01
No
0.1
2,
p.
B­
2
Aroclor
1254
1
10,000
0.0001
No
1
2,
p.
B­
16
Aroclor
1248
1
10,000
0.0001
No
1
2,
p.
B­
16
Benzene
1
100
1
Yes
100
2,
p.
B­
2
Benzo
(a)
anthracene
1
1000
0.01
No
10
2,
p.
B­
2
Benzo
(a)
pyrene
1
10,000
0.0001
No
1
2,
p.
B­
2
Chrysene
1
10
0.
01
No
0.
1
2,
p.
B­
5
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
1
100
1
Yes
100
2,
p.
B­
8
Ethylbenzene
1
10
1
Yes
10
2,
p.
B­
10
Fluoranthene
1
100
0.01
No
1
2,
p.
B­
10
Naphthalene
1
100
1
No
100
2,
p.
B­
14
Phenanthrene
1
NA
0.
01
No
NA
2,
p.
B­
16
Pyrene
1
100
0.01
No
1
2,
p.
B­
17
Styrene
1
10
1
Yes
10
2,
p.
B­
18
Tetrachloroethene
1
100
1
Yes
100
2,
p.
B­
18
Toluene
1
10
1
Yes
10
2,
p.
B­
19
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
1
100
1
Yes
100
2,
p.
B­
8
Trichloroethene
1
10
1
Yes
10
2,
p.
B­
19
Vinyl
chloride
1
10,000
1
Yes
10,000
2,
p.
B­
20
Xylene
(total)
1
1
1
Yes
10
2,
p.
B­
20
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Waste
Characteristics
39
*
Liquid,
non­
karst
mobility
factor
value
or
substances
found
in
the
observed
release
received
a
mobility
factor
value
of
1
(Ref.
1,
Sec.
3.2.1.2).

1,2,3­
trichloropropane
and
vinyl
chloride
are
the
hazardous
substances
with
the
highest
toxicity/
mobility
factor
value
of
10,000.

Toxicity/
Mobility
Factor
Value:
10,
000
(Ref.
1,
Table
3­
9)
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Waste
Characteristics
40
3.2.2
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
QUANTITY
Source
No.
Source
Type
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
1
Contaminated
Soil
1.54
Sum
of
Values:
1.54
A
minimum
value
of
100
was
used
for
the
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value
because
Level
I
and
Level
II
targets
have
been
identified
(Ref.
1,
sec.
2.4.2.2).

Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
(Level
I
and
II
targets)
(Ref.
1,
Section
2.4.2.2)

3.2.3
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
FACTOR
CATEGORY
VALUE
Toxicity/
Mobility
Factor
Value:
10,
000
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
Toxicity/
Mobility
Factor
Value
X
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
1
x
10
6
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
32
(Ref.
1,
Table
2­
7)
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Targets
41
3.3
TARGETS
3.3.1
NEAREST
WELL
Well
ID:
RW3,
RW10
Level
of
Contamination
(I,
II,
or
potential):
Level
I
If
potential
contamination,
distance
from
source
in
miles:
NA
Nearest
Well
Factor
Value:
50
(Ref.
1,
Table
3­
11)

3.3.2
POPULATION
3.3.2.1
Level
of
Contamination
3.3.2.2
Level
I
Concentrations
The
following
residential
wells
from
the
Valleywood
subdivision,
were
identified
as
having
concentrations
above
the
MCL/
MCLG.
These
wells
have
been
abandoned
for
drinking
water
purposes.
The
residents
are
using
the
municipal
water
system
as
a
result
of
the
contamination.
Wells
RW3,
RW10
and
RW30,
RW31
serve
the
same
households.
The
county
average
of
2.65
was
used
from
the
2000
census
(Ref.
15).

Level
I
Well
Aquifer
No.*
Population**
Reference
RW3,
RW10
(abandoned
in
1985)
1
2.
9
35;
32
RW5
(abandoned
in
1985)
1
2.
9
35;
32
RW6
(abandoned
in
1985)
1
2.
9
35;
32
RW18
(abandoned
in
1985)
1
2.
9
35;
32
RW19
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW21
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW30,
RW31
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW41
1
2.
65
15;
32
*
Aquifer
1
is
composed
of
surficial
glacial
outwash
deposits.
**
Wells
abandoned
in
1985
use
the
county
average
of
2.9
from
the
1980
census
(Ref.
35).

Sum
of
Population
Served
by
Level
I
Wells:
22.2
Sum
of
Population
Served
by
Level
I
Wells
x
10:
222
Level
I
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
222
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Targets
42
3.3.2.3
Level
II
Concentrations
There
are
10
residential
wells
that
have
hazardous
substances
that
meet
Level
II
concentration
criteria.
The
county
average
of
2.65
was
used
(Ref.
15).
Well
RW13
was
abandoned
in
1985
and
has
not
been
included
in
the
target
score,
however
current
samples
show
contamination
is
present
at
levels
significantly
higher
than
background.

Level
II
Well
Aquifer
No.
Population
Reference
RW2
1
2.65
15;
32
RW4
1
2.65
15;
32
RW13
(abandoned
in
1985)
1
32
RW14
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW16
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW20
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW23
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW24
1
2.
65
15;
32
RW35
1
2.
65
15;
32
Sum
of
Population
Served
by
Level
II
Wells:
21.2
Level
II
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
21.2
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
GW­
Targets
43
3.3.2.4
Potential
Contamination
Potential
contamination
targets
are
calculated
from
community
and
non­
community
public
wells
located
within
four
miles
of
the
sources
at
the
site.
The
summed
population
used
is
lower
than
the
total
population
of
the
area,
however
the
exact
number
of
people
using
the
ground
water
within
each
distance
category
were
not
available.
Populations
scored
as
level
I
and
level
II
above,
were
not
considered
in
the
following
calculations.
Well
information
and
population
values
were
collected
from
the
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response.
The
location
of
the
wells
and
population
breakdown
per
well
is
found
in
reference
22.

Distance
Category
Population
Reference
Distance­
Weighted
Population
Value
(Table
3­
12)

0
­1/
4
205
(5
wells)
22,
pp.
7,
8
164
1/
4
­
1/
2
240
(4
wells)
22,
pp.
7,
8,
11
102
1/
2
­
1
2,
030
(27
wells)
22,
pp.
7,
8,
11
523
1
­
2
1,
623
(21
wells)
22,
pp.
1,
6,
7,
8,
11
294
2
­
3
614
(8
wells)
22,
pp.
6,
8,
11
68
3
­
4
38,960
(17
wells)
22,
pp.
1,
6,
8,
9,
11
4,171
Calculations:

Sum
of
Distance­
Weighted
Population
Values:
5,322
Sum
of
Distance­
Weighted
Population
Values/
10:
532.2
(Ref.
1,
Section
3.3.2.4)
Potential
Contamination
Factor
Value:
532
3.3.3
RESOURCES
There
are
no
documented
resources
using
ground
water
within
four
miles
of
the
sources
at
the
site.

3.
3.
4
WELLHEAD
PROTECTION
AREA
Part
of
the
wellhead
protection
area
for
the
Dayton
public
water
system
is
located
within
4
miles
of
the
sources
at
the
site
(Ref.
14).

Wellhead
Protection
Area
Factor
Value:
5
(Ref.
1,
Section
3.3.4)
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
44
4.0
SURFACE
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
4.1
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
4.1.1.1
Definition
of
Hazardous
Substance
Migration
Path
for
Overland/
flood
Component
The
two­
acre
Lammers
Barrel
facility
is
located
at
the
intersection
of
Grange
Hall
Road
and
East
Patterson
Road.
Little
Beaver
Creek
divides
the
property
into
northern
and
southern
portions,
which
are
approximately
equal
in
size.
Little
Beaver
Creek
flows
from
west
to
east
across
the
property
(Ref.
7,
pp.
1,
2;
Figure
1).
Several
pipes
can
be
observed
leading
from
the
southern
portion
of
the
property
into
the
creek.
On
the
southern
side
of
the
property,
the
creek
banks
slope
steeply
downward
eight
to
ten
feet
to
the
creek.
The
remainder
of
the
southern
portion
of
the
property
is
flat
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
2).
Evidence
of
concrete
building
foundations
remain
on
portions
of
the
southern
side
of
the
property.
Small
trees
and
brush
cover
the
area
between
the
concrete
foundations
and
the
southern
bank
of
the
creek
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
2).
The
northern
portion
of
the
property
also
has
steeply
sloping
banks
down
to
the
creek.
In
this
area,
there
are
numerous
small,
vegetation­
covered
soil
piles
adjacent
to
the
creek.
Remnants
of
a
dirt
access
road
are
visible
along
the
railroad
right­
of­
way,
comprising
the
northern
border
of
the
property.
The
northern
portion
of
the
property
is
more
heavily
vegetated
than
the
southern
portion
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
2).

Runoff
from
rainfall
on
the
contaminated
soil,
in
the
northern
portion
and
southern
portion
of
the
property,
drains
into
Little
Beaver
Creek
(Ref.
3).
Because
there
are
many
locations
along
the
creek
bed
that
hazardous
substances
can
enter
the
stream,
the
entire
length
of
the
stream
segment
is
considered
the
probable
point
of
entry
(PPE)
for
the
contaminated
soil
source
(Ref.
3).
Little
Beaver
Creek
extends
from
the
most
downstream
PPE
at
the
site,
3.
4
miles
to
the
confluence
of
Beaver
Creek.
Beaver
Creek
flows
south
into
the
Little
Miami
River
1.
1
miles
from
the
previous
confluence.
The
target
distance
limit
(TDL)
is
located
10.
5
miles
downstream
in
the
Little
Miami
River,
south
of
the
town
of
Spring
Valley
(Ref.
3).
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
45
4.1.2.1
Likelihood
of
Release
4.1.2.1.1
Observed
Release
Direct
Observation
There
is
no
documentation
to
support
an
observed
release
by
direct
observation.

Chemical
Analysis
Sediment
samples
were
collected
as
part
of
the
EE/
CA
Report
for
the
USEPA.
Three
samples
and
two
duplicate
samples
were
collected
from
location
in
the
portion
of
the
creek
passing
through
the
Lammers
Barrel
property.
Sediment
samples
were
collected
at
depths
of
0
to
6
inches
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
9).
The
background
sample
(SED7)
was
collected
in
Little
Beaver
Creek,
upstream
from
the
influence
of
the
site
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
27).

­
Background
Concentrations:

Sample
ID
Sample
Medium
Sample
Location
Date
Reference
SED7
Sediment
Upstream
of
Grange
Hall
Road
4/
3/
1997
5,
p.
2­
27;
8,
p.
6­
1
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(µg/
kg)
Method
Detection
*
Limit
(MDL)
(µg/
kg)
Reference
SED7
Chrysene
ND
(110J)
660
5,
p.
2­
73;
8,
p.
6­
22
Ethylbenzene
ND
0.
06
8,
p.
4­
18
Fluoranthene
ND
(230J)
660
5,
p.
2­
74;
8,
p.
6­
22
Phenanthrene
ND
(120J)
660
5,
p.
2­
74;
8,
p.
6­
22
Xylene
(total)
ND
0.
06
8,
4­
18
Notes:
J
­
The
associated
numerical
value
is
an
estimated
quantity
because
the
reported
concentrations
were
less
than
the
required
detection
limits
(Ref.
8,
p.
6­
3).

*
MDLs
are
from
References
37,
pp.
32­
34;
38,
p.
31.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
46
­
Contaminated
Samples:
Sediment
samples
were
collected
as
part
of
the
EE/
CA
Report
for
the
USEPA.
Three
samples
and
two
duplicate
samples
were
collected
from
location
in
the
portion
of
the
creek
passing
through
the
Lammers
Barrel
property.
Sediment
samples
were
collected
at
depths
of
0
to
6
inches
(Ref.
5,
p.
2­
9).
Sample
locations
are
shown
in
figure
2­
9
in
reference
5.

Sample
ID
Sample
Medium
Sample
Location
Distance
from
PPE
Date
Reference
SED2
Sediment
Most
downstream
sample
location
on
property
0
4/
3/
1997
5,
p.
2­
27;
8,
Att.
6,
p.
1
SED3/
DUP2
Sediment
Most
downstream
sample
location
on
property
0
4/
3/
1997
5,
p.
2­
27;
8,
Att.
6,
p.
1
SED4
Sediment
Stream
bed
on
property
to
the
east
of
center
0
4/
3/
1997
5,
p.
2­
27;
8,
Att.
6,
p.
1
SED5/
DUP4
Sediment
Stream
bed
on
property
to
the
east
of
center
0
4/
3/
1997
5,
p.
2­
27;
8,
Att.
6,
p.
1
SED6
Sediment
Center
of
stream
segment,
where
pipes
enter
surface
water
0
4/
3/
1997
5,
p.
2­
27;
8,
Att.
6,
p.
1
Hazardous
Substance
Background
Concentration
SED7
Contaminated
Samples
(µg/
kg)*

SED2
SED3
SED4
SED5
SED6
Chrysene
ND
680J
730J
500
510J
ND
Ethylbenzene
ND
ND
4,000
6,100
3,100
770D
Fluoranthene
ND
ND
ND
900
1,100
ND
Phenanthrene
ND
450J
ND
590
800
ND
Xylene
(total)
ND
37,000
97,000
1,400J
900J
590D
References
5,
p.
2­
73,
2­
74
8,
Att.
4,
p.
6,
Att.
6,
p.
8
8,
Att.
4,
p.
8,
Att.
6,
p.
11
8,
Att.
4,
p.
10,
Att.
6,
p.
14
8,
Att.
4,
p.
12,
Att.
6,
p.
17
8,
Att.
4,
p.
16,
Att.
6,
p.
20
Notes:
J
­
The
associated
numerical
value
is
an
estimated
quantity
because
the
percent
difference
between
the
initial
calibration
and
continuing
calibration
were
not
within
the
recommended
limits
of
less
than
or
equal
to
25%(
Ref.
8,
pp.
6­
2).
Adjusted
value
shown
in
parentheses
for
samples
significantly
above
background(
Ref.
9,
p.
14).

D
­
Diluted
Concentration
­
has
no
effect
on
contaminant
identification
or
quantification.

*
­
Concentrations
in
bold
denote
an
observed
release
to
surface
water.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
47
Attribution
Between
1953
and
1969
Lammers,
Inc.
operated
a
waste
storage
and
reclamation
facility
for
all
types
of
industrial
solvents
and
flammables
on
the
site.
The
company
would
take
in
approximately
4,000
to
5,000
gallons
of
chemicals
per
day
from
various
generators,
purify
the
solvents
and
then
return
them
to
the
generators.
According
to
former
and
present
government
officials
and
employees
familiar
with
the
site,
Lammers,
Inc.
ran
a
"sloppy
operation."
Frequent
spills
occurred
on
the
site
and
chemical
wastes
were
dumped
into
Little
Beaver
Creek,
which
runs
through
the
facility
property
(Ref.
20,
p.
5­
3).
Tony
Kohnen,
former
co­
owner
of
Kohnen­
Lammer
Chemical
Company,
stated
that
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
accepted
most
all
industrial
solvents
primarily
from
the
paint
and
automobile
industries
(Ref.
31).
The
substances
identified
in
the
observed
release
to
surface
water
were
also
found
in
the
contaminated
soil
on­
site.

Lammers,
Inc.
's
Articles
of
Incorporation
indicate
that
the
purpose
for
which
the
Company
was
formed
included
"To
manufacture,
reclaim,
compound,
assemble,
formulate,
amalgamate,
distill,
analyze,
manipulate,
mix,
prepare
for
market,
buy,
broker,
market,
sell,
vend,
deal
and
trade
in,
import,
export,
transport,
and
distribute,
or
in
any
manner
turn
to
account
or
dispose
of
solvents,
oil,
grease,
gasoline,
alcohol
benzol,
auto
accessories
and
parts,
tires,
or
chemical
compounds
for
treating
gasoline
and
other
liquid
fuels
and
also
for
treating
lubricating
oils
and
other
purposes,
and
any
other
compounds
or
products
known
in
industrial
chemistry
or
any
of
the
ingredients
thereof..."
(Ref.
20,
p.
5­
4).
While
petroleum
related
contaminants
are
found
in
soil
and
ground
water
samples,
these
substances
were
received
by
the
facility
as
part
of
a
mixed
waste
containing
other
man­
made
contaminants
(i.
e.
chlorinated
solvents).
Further,
no
evidence
suggests
that
the
contamination
in
the
sources
was
the
result
of
a
spill
of
petroleum
product.

The
Ohio
EPA
Division
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
lists
three
sites
within
1.5
miles
of
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
that
could
contribute
similar
contaminants
to
the
ground
water
(Ref.
26,
Figure
1).
These
sites
are
located
downstream
from
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
and
would
not
be
able
to
contribute
to
the
contaminated
sediment
located
in
the
stream
segment
on
the
property
(Ref.
26,
Figure
1).
Upstream
from
the
facility
is
a
waste
water
treatment
plant.
This
plant
has
not
contributed
to
the
contamination
on­
site
according
to
samples
collected
between
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
and
the
treatment
plant
(Ref.
5,
pp.
2­
73,
2­
74;
8,
pp.
4­
18,
6­
22).
In
addition,
the
USEPA's
listing
of
hazardous
waste
handlers
documents
that
there
have
been
no
known
releases
to
the
surface
water
upstream
of
the
site
within
1
mile
(Ref.
33).

Hazardous
Substances
Released
Chrysene
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Xylene
(total)

Surface
Water
Observed
Release
Factor
Value:
550
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW/
HFC­
Waste
Characteristics
48
4.1.3.2
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Waste
Characteristics
4.1.3.2.1
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Source
No.
Toxicity
Factor
Value
Persistence
Factor
Value*
Bioaccumulation
Value**
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
(Table
4­
16)
Ref.

1,1­
Dichloroethane
1
10
0.
4
5
20
2,
p.
B­
7
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
1
1
0.
4
5
2
2,
p.
B­
19
1,2­
Dichloroethane
1
100
0.4
5
200
2,
p.
B­
7
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
1
10,000
0.4
50
2
x
10
5
2,
p.
B­
20
2­
Methylnaphthalene
1
NA
0.
4
5,000
NA
2,
p.
B­
14
Anthracene
1
10
1
5,000
5
x
10
4
2,
p.
B­
2
Aroclor
1248
1
10,000
1
50,000
5
x
10
8
2,
p.
B­
16
Aroclor
1254
1
10,000
1
50,000
5
x
10
8
2,
p.
B­
16
Benzene
1
100
0.4
5,
000
2
x
10
5
2,
p.
B­
2
Benzo(
a)
anthracene
1
1,
000
1
50,000
5
x
10
7
2,
p.
B­
2
Benzo(
a)
pyrene
1
10,000
1
50,000
5
x
10
8
2,
p.
B­
2
Chrysene
1,
OR
10
1
500
5,000
2,
p.
B­
5
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
1
100
0.4
5
200
2,
p.
B­
8
Ethylbenzene
1,
OR
10
0.4
50
200
2,
p.
B­
10
Fluoranthene
1,
OR
100
1
5,
000
5
x
10
5
2,
p.
B­
10
Naphthalene
1
100
0.4
500
2
x
10
4
2,
p.
B­
14
Phenanthrene
1,
OR
NA
1
50
NA
2,
p.
B­
16
Pyrene
1
100
1
50
5,
000
2,
p.
B­
17
Styrene
1
10
0.4
50
200
2,
p.
B­
18
Tetrachloroethene
1
100
0.4
50
2,
000
2,
p.
B­
18
Toluene
1
10
0.4
50
200
2,
p.
B­
19
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
1
100
0.4
50
2,
000
2,
p.
B­
8
Trichloroethene
1
10
0.4
50
200
2,
p.
B­
20
Vinyl
chloride
1
10,000
0.0007
5
35
2,
p.
B­
20
Xylene
(total)
1,
OR
1
0.
4
50
20
2,
p.
B­
20
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW/
HFC­
Waste
Characteristics
49
Notes:
*
Persistence
value
for
Rivers
**
Bioaccumulation
factor
value
for
Freshwater
The
hazardous
substances
with
the
highest
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
factor
value
are
Aroclor
1248,
Aroclor
1254,
and
benzo(
a)
pyrene
(5
x
10
8
).

Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value:
5
x
10
8
4.1.3.2.2
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Source
No.
Source
Type
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
1
Contaminated
Soil
1.54
Sum
of
Values:
1.54
A
maximum
value
of
100
was
used
for
the
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value
because
Level
II
targets
have
been
identified
(Ref.
1,
Sec.
2.4.2.2).

Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
(Level
II
targets)
(Ref.
1,
Section
2.4.2.2)

4.1.3.2.3
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value:
10,000
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value:
50,000
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value
x
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
1
x
10
6
(Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value
x
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value)
x
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
:
5x10
10
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
320
(Ref.
1,
Table
2­
7)
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW/
HFC­
Targets
50
4.1.3.3
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Targets
Little
Beaver
Creek
is
used
for
fishing
(Ref.
30).
During
an
April
2001
site
visit,
fishing
lures
and
bait
were
seen
on
the
banks
of
the
Lammers
Barrel
property
(Ref.
21).
Some
of
the
fish
species
found
in
Little
Beaver
Creek
include:
white
sucker
(Catostomus
commersoni),
common
carp
(Cyprinus
carpio),
creek
chub
(Semotilus
atromaculatus),
yellow
bullhead
(Ameiurus
natalis),
Largemouth
bass
(micropterus
salmoides),
and
gizzard
shad
(Dorosoma
cepedianum)
(Ref.
5,
p.
3­
95).

Actual
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
The
following
substances
were
detected
in
the
surface
water
pathway
and
have
a
bioaccumulation
factor
value
of
500
or
higher
(Ref.
1,
section
4.1.3.3).

Sample
ID
Sample
Medium
Distance
from
PPE
Hazardous
Substance
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
Refs.

SED2­
SED5
Sediment
0
Chrysene
500
2,
p.
B­
5;
5,
p.
2­
27
SED2,
SED3
Sediment
0
bis(
2­
Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
50,000
2,
p.
B­
3;
5,
p.
2­
27
SED4,
SED5
Sediment
0
Fluoranthene
5,
000
2,
p.
B­
10;
5
,
p.
2­
27
Level
I
Concentrations
There
are
no
Level
I
concentrations
within
the
Target
Distance
Limit
(TDL).

Most
Distant
Level
II
Sample
Sample
ID:
SED2,
SED3
Distance
from
the
probable
point
of
entry:
0
feet
Reference:
5,
p.
2­
27
Level
II
Fisheries
Identity
of
Fishery
Extent
of
Level
II
Fishery
(Relative
to
PPE
or
Level
I
Fishery)
Refs.

Little
Beaver
Creek
Level
II
fishery
ends
at
SED2,
0
feet
from
PPE
5,
p.
2­
27
4.1.3.3.1
Food
Chain
Individual
The
substances
listed
below
were
found
in
the
observed
release
samples.
They
all
have
bioaccumulation
factor
values
of
500
or
higher.

Sample
ID:
SED
2,
SED3
Level
I/
Level
II/
or
Potential:
Level
II
Hazardous
Substance:
bis(
2­
Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
(50,000),
chrysene
(500),
fluoranthene
(5,000)
Bioaccumulation
Potential:
50,000
Food
Chain
Individual
Factor
Value:
45
(Ref.
1,
Section
4.1.3.3.1)
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW/
HFC­
Targets
51
4.1.3.3.2
Population
4.1.3.3.2.1
Level
I
Concentrations
There
are
no
documented
level
I
concentrations
within
the
TDL.

4.1.3.3.2.2
Level
II
Concentrations
Little
Beaver
Creek
is
fished
by
local
residents
(Ref.
30).
During
an
April
2001
site
visit,
fishing
lures
and
bait
were
seen
on
the
banks
of
the
Lammers
Barrel
property
(Ref.
21).
Some
of
the
fish
species
found
in
Little
Beaver
Creek
include:
white
sucker
(Catostomus
commersoni),
common
carp
(Cyprinus
carpio),
creek
chub
(Semotilus
atromaculatus),
yellow
bullhead
(Ameiurus
natalis),
Largemouth
bass
(micropterus
salmoides),
and
gizzard
shad
(Dorosoma
cepedianum)
(Ref.
5,
p.
3­
95).

Identity
of
Fishery
Annual
Production
(pounds)
References
Human
Food
Chain
Population
Value
(Table
4­
18)

Little
Beaver
Creek
from
Grange
Hall
Road
to
sample
SED2/
SED3.
>
0
5,
pp.
2­
27,
3­
95;
21
0.03
While
Little
Beaver
Creek
is
known
to
be
a
fishery,
the
annual
production
is
greater
than
0,
however
the
exact
amount
is
unknown.

Sum
of
Level
II
Human
Food
Chain
Population
Values:

Level
II
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
0.03
4.1.3.3.2.3
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
Potential
targets
exist
downstream
of
the
site,
however
they
were
not
scored
because
they
would
not
significantly
impact
the
site
score.
Enforcement
Confidential
Draft
­
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
SW/
ENV­
Targets
52
4.1.4
Environmental
Threat
The
environmental
threat
for
the
surface
water
pathway
was
not
scored.
However,
the
environmental
threat
posed
by
the
Lammers
Barrel
facility
extends
from
Little
Beaver
Creek
down
to
the
Little
Miami
River.
Within
this
15
mile
TDL
are
several
sensitive
environments.
Sensitive
environments
within
this
area
include
the
habitat
of
the
snuffbox
(Epioblasma
Triquetra)
and
the
Little
Miami
Scenic
River,
federal
and
state
designated
(Refs.
11,
p.
4
and
map;
12).
Wetlands
along
the
Little
Beaver
Creek
and
Little
Miami
River
are
also
potential
targets
of
contamination
from
the
Lammers
Barrel
Facility.
Approximately
0.1
miles
of
wetlands
along
the
Little
Beaver
Creek
and
0.25
miles
of
wetlands
along
the
Little
Miami
River
are
threatened
(Ref.
16).
