Name
of
Sitc
Contact
Perf
U.
S.
Environ
North
Caroli
<

Roy
F.
Wesl
Pathways,
C
Grol
obse
The
targc
SUI%
there
soil
1
l
i
v
i
n
g
A
i
r
8
collel
SFUND­
2001­
0009­
0010
IRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD
­REVIEW
COVER
SHEET
Reasor
Chemical
Company
NCD
986
187
094.
,

Is:
ental
Protection
Agency,
Region
4:

Pame)
(Telephone)
Samantha
Urquhart­
Foster,
RemedialProjectManager(
404)
562­
8760
Cynthia
Gurley,
NPL
Coordinator
(494)

L
Depkent
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
Site
Inspection:
Stuart
Parker,
Hydrogeologist(
919)
733­
2801
Documentation
Record:
JeanetteStanley,
Chemist
(919)
'733­
2801
ext.
318
1:

Remedial
Investigation:
DavidNelson.
P.
G.
(770)
263­
5400
monents.
or
Threats
Not
Scored:

dwater
Migration
Pathway
­
The
groundwater
pathway
was
not
scored
because
no
ed
release
of
site
contaminants
to
surrounding
drvlking
water
wells
was
documented.
oundwater
pathway
would
not
contribute
significantly
to
the
site
score
based
on
potential
e
Water
Drinking
Water
.Threat
­
The
drinking
water
threat
was
not
scored
because
no
drinking
water
intake
downstream
of
the
site.

gosure
Pathway
­
The
soil
exposure
pathway
was
not
scored
because
there
is
no
one
e
and
within
200'
of
the
areas
of
contamination.

gration
Pathway
­
The
air
pathway
was
not
scored
because
no
air
samples
were
:d
The
air
pathway
would
not
contribute
significantly
to
the
site
score
based
on
1
HRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD
Name
of
Site:
ReasorChemicalCompany
NCD
986
187
094
EPA
StreetAddress
of
Site:
5
100
NorthCollegeRoad
CountyandState:
NewHanoverCounty,
NC
General
Location
in
the
State:
Southeast
Coastal
Plain,
near
Wilmington,
NC
TopographicMap:
CastleHayne,
North
Carolina,
1980
(Orthophotograph,
no
topographic
map
available)
(Ref
10)

Latitude:
34'20'36S''NLongitude:
77'53'3
1
"W
(Ref
14)

Scores
Air
Pathway
­
Not
Scored
Ground
Water
Pathway
­
Not
Scored
Soil
Exposure
Pathway
­
Not
Scored
Surface
Water
Pathway
­
64.27
HRS
SITE
SCORE
'
32.14
2
1.

2a.

3.

4.

5.

6.
Groun
Surfac
Drinla
Food
En\
rirc
Surfac
Soil
E
Ail"

Total
1
HRS
I
..

WORKSHEET
FOR
SITE
SCORE
S
S2
X
WaterMigrationPathwayScoreNotScored
:
Water
OverlandElood
Migration
­­

lg
Water
Threat
Not
Scored
:hain
Threat*
4.27
mental
Threat
60
i
WaterOverlandEloodMigrationComponent
64.27
4130.63
cposure
Not
Scored
gration
Not
Scored
If
SP2
+
s,
2
+
s,
2
+
s,"
=
4130.63
,ite
Score:
Valueonline
5.
divided
by
four,
.

then
take
the
square
root
32.14
'
3
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLANDIFLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORESHEET
1
Factor
I
Maximum
Value
I
V
a
l
u
e
A
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
II
I
DRINKING
I
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
I
550
I
2.
Potential
to
Release
by
Overland
Flow:
..

2
a
.
10
2
b
.
25
­

2
c
.
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
,
25
­

2d.
Potential
to
Release
by
Overland
Flow
(lines
2a
x
:.+
.,
t
[2b
+
2cj)
.
500
..
i
­
,#

3.
Potential
to
Release
by
Flood:

10.
Population:

loa.
Level
I
Concentrations
­
b
1
Ob.
Level
I1
Concentrations
­
b
~~~~

1Oc.
Potential
Contamination
10d.
Population
­
b
(lines
1
Oa
+
1
Ob
+
1
Oc)

­
5
11.
Resources
­
b
4
I
12.
TargetsI(
1ines
9
+
10d
+
11)
I
b
I
­
NS
I
F
a
c
t
o
r
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
i
s
a
n
d
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
I
1
I
DRINKING
WATER
THREAT
(Concluded)
I
13.
Drinking
Water
Threat
Score
([
lines
3l.
x
8
x
12]/
82,500,
subject
to
a
maximum
of
100)
100
­
NS
HUMAN
FOOD
CHAIN
THREAT
I
14.
Likeljb
ood
of
Release
(same
value
as
line
5)
550
I
15.

100
a
Waste
Quantity
16.
Hazardbus
5x108
a
Toxiciky/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
I
1,000
1
320
I
5
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORESHEET
(CONCLUDED)

6
REASOR
CHEMICAL
NCD
986
187
094
CASTLE
HAYNE,
NEW
HANOVER
CO.,
NC
LIST
OF
REFERENCES
Protection
Agency,
Hazard
Ranking
System,
Final
Rule,
55
FR
51
532,1990
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(42
U.
S.
C.
cover
page
provided)

2.
USEvironmentalProtectionAgency,
SuperfundChemicalDataMatrix(
SCDM).
Officeof
'*
Solid
aste
and
Emergency
Response.
Directive
9345.1­
13.
September
1996.
3
1
pages.
(Only
cover
page
provided)

I
3.
RoyF.
Weston,
Inc.,
ReasorChemicalCompanySiteRemedialInvestigationReportwith
Appe
dices,
Revision
2,
U.
S.
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
W7­
0026,
Work
Assignment
No.
042­
RICO
A424,
December
1999.
654
pages.

Analyhcal
Data
for
Remedial
Investigation
Report,
Reasor
Chemical
Company
site,
New
Hanover
County,
North
Grolina,
Work
Assignment
No.
77­
4RI24,
US
No
68­
W9­
0057,
Roy
F.
Weston
Work
Order
No.
04400­
077­
096­
0015­
00,
and
Analytical
data
fi­
om
followup
samples
collected
May
1999.
602
pages.

'.
NOTE:
This
reference
only
includes
surface
water
and
sediment
sample
data.
No
groundwater,
swface
soil,
or
subsurface
soil
data
were
included
in
this
package.

NC
Department
of
Transportation
Photogrammetry
Unit,
Mission
1432,
December
23,
1978.
1
page.

Hydrogeologist,
NC
Superfund
Section,
"Site
Inspection,
Reasor
Chemical
31,1995.
271pages.

Map,
US
Department
of
the
Interior,
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
National
Castle
Hayne,
NC,
1994
and
Totes
to
Users",
May
1988.
10
pages.

Jeanette
S.,
Memo
to
file,
August
2,2000;
US
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Response
Publication
Numbers
9240.0­
08­
FSDY
9240.0­
33FS,
both
dated
January
February
2000.
SUBJECT:
CRQLKRDL.
13
pages.

9.
Stanle
,
Jeanette
Y.,
Memo
to
file,
July
5,2000,
Targetsitingdocumentation,
andNC
NamJ
Herita
e
Program
List'of
Sigtllficant
Natural
Heritage
Areas,
1999.
SUBJECT:
Surface
Water
Pathw
y
Targets.
7
pages.

H
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
REASOR
CHEMICAL
NCD
986
187
094
CASTLE
hYNE,
NEW
HANOVER
CO.,
NC
LIST
OF
REFERENCES
US
Geological
Survey,
7.5­
minute
orthophotograph,
Castle
Hayne,
NC,
1980;
and
topographic
quadrangkmaps:
Rocky
Point,
NC,
1970,
photorevised
1988;
Mooretown,
NC,
1970;
Scott's
Hill,
NC,
1970.
NOTE:
Castle
Hayne'topographic
quadrangle
map
not
available.

US
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
"Using
Qualified
Data
to
Document
an
Observed
Release
and
Observed
Contamination",
EPA
540­
F­
904­
28,
OSWER
9285.7­
14FSY
PB94­
963311
,
November
18
pages.
:2,­

USGS
Water
Supply
Paper
2221
,
Hydrology
o
f
Major
Estuaries
and
Sounds
of
North
Carolina,
1985;
and
National
Flood
Ipsurance
Program
Flood
Insurance
Rate
Map,
Community
Panel
Number
370168
0030
D,
April
15,1986:
SUBJECT:
Surface
Water
Pathway.
6
.
,

pages.

Field
Log
Notes,
August
4,
1997
­
May
13,1999.
302
pages,

US
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
"Stanpard
Operating
Procedure
to
Determine
Site
Latitude
and
Longitude
Coordinates,"
1991.
Calculation
worksheet
for
Reasor
Chemical
Co.,
Stuart
Parker,
July
18,1994.
2
pages.

h
e
y
.
W.
A,
Attorney,
letter
to
Jack
Butler,
NC
Superfhd
Section
with
attachment
"Notification
of
An
Inactive
Hazardous
Substance
or
Waste
Disposal
Site,
August
3
1,1990.
7
pages.

Nicholson,
Bruce,
Chemical
Engineer,
NC
Superfhd
Section,
Pre]
lrmnary
Assessment
On
Reasor
Chemical
Co.
Site,
September
6,
1991.
.,
9
pages.

Kirk
Othmer
Encyclopedia
of
Chemical
Technology,
Third
Edition,
Volume
.24,:.
1984,
pp.
601;
747,749,750.
5
pages.

MacDonald,
Ronald
G,
Pulp
and
Paper
Manufacture,
Second
Edition,
Volume
I,
'The
Pulping
of
Wood",.
McGraw­
Hill
Book
Co.,
pp.
64,66,68.
4
pages.

Lewis,
Richard
J.,
Hawley's
Condensed
Chemical
Dictionary,
Twelfth
Edition,
Van
JYTostrand
Reinhold
Company,
1993,
pp.
322,323,480,1157,1194
­
1195,1235.
9
pages.

Paddock,
Todd,
"Dioxins
and
Furans:
Were
They
Come
From",
Academy
of
Natural
Sciences,
July
1989.
3
pages.

8
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.
REASOR
CHEMICAL
NCD
986
187
094
CASTLE
HAYNE,
NEW
HANOVER
CO.,
NC
LIST
OF
REFERENCES
NC
S
u
p
e
h
d
Section,
Memo
to
File,
July
20,
1994;
NC
Superfund
Section,
Memo
to
File,
August
29,1991;
Selected
Sites
on
Streams
in
North
Carolina",
Open­
File
83­
21
1,
US
Department
of
the
Interior
Geological
Survey,
1983,
pp.
79
­
80;
and
R,
et
al,
"Map
of
the
Mean
Annd
Runoff
for
the
Northeastem,
Southeastern
United
States,
Water
Years
1951
­
80,
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Water
Report
88­
4094,
1990.
SUBJECT:
Surface
Water
Pathway
Flow
SuperfUnd
Section,
MEMO
to
File,
September
29,
and
fishing
at
Reasor
Chemical,
April
4,2001.

­
Sept.
29,
1999.
17
pages
April
30,2001
and
May
3
1,2001,
Interviews
with
former
Co.
sites,
and
US
EPA
Region
4
Mississippi
NPL
Site
T
Photogrammetry
Unit,
Aerial
Photograph,
Mission
347,
h
e
38,
March
24,
1963.

Yvonne
C.,
Assistant
General
Counsel,
Martin
Marietta
Materials,
Letter
to
Ms
Giezelle
US
EPA,
October
11,
1996.
3
pages.

Ham
Ranking
System
Guidance
Manual,
EPA540­
R­
92­
026,
OSWER
Directive
9345.1­
07,
Noverflber
d
1992.
43
1
pages
plus
Appendices.
(Only
cover
page
provided).

Jeanette
S.,
Memo
to
file
with
attachments,
August
9,2000.
STJBECT:
Wetlands
and
property
usage,
8
pages.

Georg
,
Linda
S.,
Office
of
Technical
Services,
US
EPA
Region
4,
Site
Visit
Comments,
Reaso
4
Chemical
Site,
September
12,2000.
3
pages.

Region
4
SESD,
Selected
Surface
Soil
Data
Sheets,
Projects
97­
0353,97­
0357,
and
August
1997.
50
pages.

9
i
REASOR
CHEMICAL
NCD
986
187
094
CASTLE
WAYNE,
NEW
HANOVER
CO.,
NC
LIST
OF
FIGURES
1.
SiteLocationMap,
ReasorChemical
Co.,
June
18,1998.

2.
ReasorChemicalCo.
SurfaceWaterSamplingLocations,
09/
08/
98.

3.
ReasorChemical
Co.
Sediment
Sampling
Locations,
05/
19/
99.

4.
ReasorChemicalCo.
Surface
Soil
SamplingLocations,
05/
19/
99.

10
,f
""
i
.
."
.
'.

SD
­Characterization
and
Containment
SourceNo.:
1
(Pond
1)

SOURCE
DESCRIPTION
2.2
Source
Characterization
impoundment
(Ref.
1,
Table
2­
5)

Pond
contains
fiee
liquids
and
is
the
most
downgradient
pond
fiom
the
extractor
unit
(Refs.
3,
pp.
3­
i
,3­
37;
Ref
5;
Figures
3,4).
The
Reasor
facility
was
mostly
demolished
by
the
time
investgations
started
(Ref
16,
p.
4).
A
1970
appraisal
map
of
the
Reasor
Chemical
Co.
site
shows
Lagoon"
Wo
ponds
defined
as
Waste
Lagoons
(Ref.
26,
pp.
1
­
3).
The
southernmost
"Waste
of
the
pond
relative
to
other
site
features
(Ref
3,
p.
3­
8;
ReK5),
and
statements
by
a
location
1978
aerial
photograph
(Ref.
5).
Based
on
the
rectangular
shape
of
Pond
1
(Ref.
5),
the
,the
shown
on
the
1970
Appraisal
map
(Ref.
26,
p.
2)
is
in
the
area
of
Ponds
1
and
2
on
.
­
.
.­
forme::­
employee
of
a
sister
facility
(Ref
24,
p.
l),
it
is
likely
that
Pond
1
was
constructed
for
the
purpose
of
receiving
discharge
fiom
the
facility
during
o
p
t
i
o
n
.

Reasor
Chemical
Co.
produced
turpentine,
resin,
pine
oil,
and
related
compounds
fiom
pine
tree
stumps
(Refs.
6,
p.
4;
16,
p.
4;
24,
pp.
1,2).
A
review
of
standard
industrial
practices
for
pine
stump
rendering
facilities
has
revealed
that
solvent
extraction
followed
by
steam
stripping,
and
fractional
and/
or
destructive
distillation
were
processes
typically
used
(Refs.
17,
18,
pp.
2
­
4;
19,
p.
7).
Naptha­
extraction
of
pine
stumps
occurred
on
this
site
(Ref.
Typical
hazardous
wastes
include
but
are
not
limited
to
spent
solvents,
semivolatile
dioxins
(fkom
manufacbg
and
coppa
reclamation),
and
metals
(Refs.
17,
­
4;
19,
pp.
7,
s;
20,
pp.
1
­
3).

Location
of
de
source,
with
reference
to
a
map
of
the
site:

Containmentactor:
10
f
(Ref.
1,
Table
3­
2,
section
3.1.2.1)
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
SourceNo.:
1
(Pond
1)
2.4.1
Hazardous
Substances
Hazardous
substances
attributable
to
Pond
1
include:
0
thallium,
il
1
,2,3,4,6,7,8,9­
octachlorodibenzodioxin7
0
total
heptachlorodibenzodioxin,
and
il
totalestimatedTCDD.

This
is
based
on
sediment
sample
SE­
26
collected
from
Pond
1
center
on
8/
18/
98
which
was
analyzed
for
organic
constituents
and
sediment
sample
SE­
01.
collected
as
a
5­
point
composite
on
5/
13/
99
and
analyzed
for
metals.
(pond
1
se&&
t
had
not
been
previously
analyzed&
or
metals.)

Pond
1
Samdes
and
References
L'*
,.,
.
'j_

V
=
Volatiles;
S
=
Semivolatdes;
D
=
D
i
o
x
i
n
s
'
'.

Contaminants
in
Pond
1
pgkg
=
micrograms/
kilogram,
or
parts
per
billion
(ppb)
'
mg/
kg
=
milligrams/
lalogram,
or
parts
per
d
o
n
(ppm>
*Note
that
the
table
showing
dioxin
results,
Table
5­
14
which
appears
'in
Ref.
3,
p.
5­
61,
incorrectly
reports
60,000
ngikg
for
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
heptachloro&
benzofkan
Analytical
results
(Ref
4,
p.
E9)
show
that
this
concdrit&
on
should
have
been
reported
for
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9­
octachlorodibenzodioxin.
,.

12
Backmound
Four
08/
24/
97
(Fig
Pond
1
sedin
naturally
oca
were
either
n
level
ieportec
D45,
D49).
collected
on
I
pp.
B2
1
­B24
between
the
1
Backgiound
V
=
Volatiles
(
)
=
Detectio
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
1(
Pond1)

d
ONOC
Samples
lckgi­
oundupgadient
ditch
soil
samples
(SE­
1,
SE­
2,
SE­
3,
SE­
4)
were
collected
on
­e
3)
and
analyzed
for
organics,
inorganics,
and
dioxins.
Due
to
the
presence
of
metals
in
It,
these
ditch
soil
samples
are
used
to
determine
the
background
concentmtions
of
ing
metals.
AU
of
the
contaminants
listed
above
as
contaminants
in
Pond
1
sediment
1­
detect
iri
these
background
samples
or
were
detected
at
levels
less
than
one
third
of
the
n
the
Pond
1
sediment
samples.
(Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
32,5­
60,5­
62;
Ref
3,
Appendix
D,
pp.
sediment
sample
and'its
duplicate,
SE­
11
and
RESEl
DUP,
respectively,
were
?4/
97
&d
analyzed
for
volatiles
and
semivolatiles
(Ref.
13,
p.
188;
Ref
4,
Appendix
D,
Z25­
27,
D46­
47,
Fl­
F6).
With
the
exception
of
acetone,
results
were
comparable
o
samples.

mples
ICustodyRecordIFieldnotes
Inorganics
in
background
ditch
samples:
az.
Sub.
IAnalytes
bE­
1
IV,
S,
P,
I,
D
:I450
(ND
(0.22)
11
­
=
Semivolatiles;
P
=
PesticidesPCBs;
I
=
Inorganics;
D
=
Dioxins
'

Limit
or
reportable
quantitation
limit,
where
different
&om
the
CRQLICRDL
13
SD­
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Source
No.:
1(
Pond
1)

2.4.2HazardousWasteQuantity
2.4.2.1.1HazardousConstituentQuantity
Sufficient
information
is
imvailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

2.4.2.1.2HazardousWastestreamQuantity
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
wastestream
quantity
2.4.2.1.3
Volume
Sufficientinformation
is
unavailable
to
valuate
volume
,
+*,
,.

2.4.2.1.4
­
Area
Surface
Impoundment
size
measured
on
aerial
photograph
using
a
ruler
and
the
indicated
scale
to
determine
dimensions
(Ref
5).

Area
of
source
(ft2):
7,800square
ft.

Area
assigned
value
=
N13
=
7,800/
13
=
600
(Ref
1,
Table
2­
5).
Reference:
5
2.4.2.1.5SourceHazardousWasteQuantity.
Value
=&
QQ
14
2.2
Sourceharacterization
9
Number
oftti.
Source
:
2
SD
­Characterization
and
Containment
Source:
2
(Pond
2)

e
impoundment
(Ref.
1,
Table
2­
5)

from
Pond
1
(Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
8,3­
37;
Ref.
5
;
shed
by
the
time
investigations
started
(Ref,
cal
Co.
site
shows
two
ponds
defined
as
the
two
"Waste
Lagoons"
shown
on
the
at
the
downgradient
(southern)
edge
s
1
and
2
on
the
1978
aerial
appears
to
be
fed
by
a
ditch
(ReE`
5)

p.
l),
it
is
likely
that
Pond
2
was
ed
compounds
fiorn
pine
tree
dustrial
practices
for
pine
by
steam
stripping,
cally.
used
eefs.
17,

ge
ditch,
labeled
"Pond
2"
on
aerial
d
water
­
Not
Evaluated
.
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
2;
Ref.
3,
p.
2­
3;
Ref.
5).
Part
of
site
in
the
100­
year
flood
plain
15
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
2
(Pond
2)

2.4.1
Hazardous
Substances
Hazardous
substances
attributable
to
Pond
2
include:
0
xylenes,
[I
copper,
0
nickel,
and
0
Zinc.

This
is
based
on
sediment
samples
collected
on
8/
25/
97
and
8/
18/
98
which
were
analyzed
for
organic
constituents
and
a
sediment
sample
collected
on
5/
13/
99
which
was
analyzed
for
metals.

***
E
is
an
estimated
value
(Ref.
4,
p.
G­
111)
'
'
:"
'
.­

16
collected
during
a
previous
sampling
event
indicated
the
presence
of
toluene,

Discussion
Sediment
Sample
SE­
14,
a
3­
point
composite,
was
collected
at
shoreline
(Ref
3,
p.
fiaction
of
the
sample
was
immediately
placed
in
appropriate
laboratory
glassware,
sited
in
a
stainless
steel
bowl
before
being
placed
into
(Ref
3,
p.
3­
35).
VOCs
and
SVOCs
had
very
high
detection
limits
(Ref.
4,
pp.
Because
xylene
is
insoluble
in
and
is
less
dense
than
water
(Ref.
19,
p.
9)
(i.
e.
it
ected
that
xylene
would
be
detected
at
a
higher
level
in
sediment
along
the
d
fiom
pond
center
(Ref
3,
p.
3­
35).
­Although
no
SVOCs
were
m
for
most
compounds
and
as
high
as
600
ppm
for
some
SVOCs
could
be
present
in
the
sediments
at
levels
lower
than
17
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
2(
Pond2)

Background
Ditch
Soil
samules
Four
backgroundupgradient
ditch
soil
samples
(SE­
I,
SE­
2,
SE­
3,
SE­
4)
were
collected
on
08/
24/
97
and
analyzed
for
organics,
inorganics,
and
dioxins
(Figure
3).
The
level
of
inorganics
in
the
four
background
ditch
soil
samples
was
used
to
deten;
line
the
.level
of
naturally
occurring
metals
upgradient
fiom
the
site.
All
of
the
contaminants
listed
in
Pond
2
sediment
were
either
non­
detect
in
these
background
samples
or
were
detected
at
'levels
less
than
one
third
of
the
level
reported
in
the
Pond
2
sediment
samples.(
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
32,5­
60,5­
62;
Ref.
'3,
Appendix
D,
pp.
D45,
D49;
Ref.
4,
pp.
,I
B13­
Bl6,
B­
57­
B72;
C41­
C43,
C48­
C59).

bE­
4
18/
24/
97
1915
IRef.
3,
pp.
3­
32;
5­
53;
IRef.
4,
ppl
B69­
72;
IRef.
3,
App.
D,
pp"
k
e
f
.
13,
pp.
38,
~~~~
~
~

V
=

o
=
Volatiles;
S
Detection
L
~~
~~
~

­
=
Semivola&
es;
P
=
Pesticides/
PCQs;
I
=
,horganics;
D
=
Dioxins
3rd
or
reportable
quantitation
'knit,
'
where
diBerent
from
the
CRQL/
CRDL
18
2.4.2
Hazl
2.4.2.1.1
2.4.2.1.2
I'
,

2.4.2.1.3
2.4.2.1.4
2.4.2.1.5
i
.,

.
.,
,
.
"'
'
.
'
~",;~~­"~~.,:~:,~~;~~~~~
.­
.
,
­
­;.*
x,.
;~~.:?'
~~~~~~,.~~~~!~?­~~:~~.:.
I..,
.
;,
?

..
..
.?,

SD­
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Source
No.:
2
(Pond
2)

IUS
Waste
Quantity
Hazardous
Constituent
Ouantity
Sufficient
informaion
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
wastestream
quantity
Volume
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
volume
Area
Surface
Impoundment
size
measured
on
aerial
photograph
using
a
ruler
and
the
indicated
scale
to
determine
dimensions
(Ref
5)

Area
ofsource
(fi2):
3,900square
ft.

Area
assigned
value
=
All3
=
3,900/
13
=
300
(Ref.
1
,
Table
2­
5).
Reference:
5
'Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
=
300
19
SD
­Characterization
and
Containment
Source:
3
(Pond
3)
2.2
Source
Characterization
Number
of
the
Source:
3
Name
and
description
of
the
source:
Pond
3,
Source
type:
surface
impoundment
(Ref
1
,
Table
2­
5)

Pond
3
contains
free
liquids
and
is
downgradient
from
the
former
distillation
unit
(Ref
3,
p.
3­
8,
3­
37;
Ref
5
;
Figures
3,4).
The
Reasor
facility
was
mostly
demolished
by
the
time
investigations
started
(Ref
16,
p.
4).
Based
on
the
rectangular
shape
of
the
pond
(Ref.
5),
thelocation
of
the
pond
relative
to
other
site
features
@if.
3,
b.
3­
8;
Ref.
5),
and
statements
by
a:&
mner
employee
of
a
sister
facility
(Ref.
24,
p.
11,
it
is
likely
that
Pond
3
was
constructed
for
the,
purpose
of
receiving
discharge
from
the
facility
during
operation.

Location
of
the
source.
with
reference
to
a
map
of
the.
site:
Pond
along
drainage
ditch,
labeled
"Pond
3''
on
aerial
photograph
(Ref
5).

Containment
Release
to
ground
water
­
Not
Evaluated
Release
via
overland
migration
aidor
flood
­

Surface
impoundrnent
has
free
liquids
present
and
there
is
no
regular
inspection
or
maintenance
of
ddung.
(Ref
1,
Table
4­
2;
Ref
3,
p.
2­
3;
Ref
5).
Part
of
site
in
the
100­
year
flood
plain
(Ref
12).

Containment
factor:
10
(Ref
1
,
Table
3­
2,
section
3.1.2.1)

20
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
3(
Pond3)

to
Pond
3
are:
toluene,
3/
4­
methylphenol
[a
synonym
is
cresol
(Ref
19,
p.
3)],
copper,
zinc,
and
xylenes.

is
based
on
sediment
and
water
samples
collected
on
8/
24/
97
and
8/
18/
98
which
were
organic
constituents,
and
sediment
and
tar
samples
collected
on
5/
13/
99
and
5/
14/
99
which
d
for
metals.
The
tar
sample
was
also
analyzed
for
SVOCs.
Several
volatile
contaminants
with
J'd
values
due
to
very
high
detection
limits.

Pond
3
Sar&
les
and
References
­.

*
=
314
methylpl
**
E'is
an
estirna
ytes
]Toluene
IXylenes
13/
4*
11
101
(a
synonym
is
cresol
(Ref.
19,
p.
3))
3
value
(Ref.
4,
p.
G­
111)

21
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
3(
Pond3)

Discussion
Sediment
sample
SE­
12
was
collected
as
a
3­
point
composite
at
shoreline
(Ref
3,
p.
3­
35).
VOCs
and
SVOCs
had
very
high
detection
limits
(Ref.
4,
pp.
B25
­
B28,
C21­
C24>.
VOCs
were
not
composited,
but
were
clumped
together.
Xylenes
and
3/
4
methylphenol
[(
a
synonym
is
cresol
(Ref
19,
p.
3)]
were
J'd
as
value
was
less
than
the
very
high
qwntitation
limit
(Ref.
4,
pp.
100,101).

3
Sedimentsample
SE­
25
wascollected
from
Pond
3
center(
Ref
3,
p.
3­
35)
andanalyzedfor
organic
compounds
and
dioxins.
Although
no
'$
WOCs
we&
reported,
the
detection
lwt
was
250
ppm
for
most
compounds
and
as
high
as
1,200
ppm
for
some
SVOCs
(Ref
4,
pp.
El­
E5),+
ms
indicates
that
there
could
be
SVOCs
present
in
pond
sedjrnent
at
ley+
greater
than
three
times
background
levels,
but
this
could
not
be
documented
due
to
the
high
detection
limits.
Xylenes
were
?d
due
to
this
high
detection
limit
(Ref
4,
p.
E3).

Toluene
was
detected
in
pond
3
sediment
sample
SE­
12
at
7,600
pg/
kg,
collected
on
08/
24/
97
at
1345
(Ref.
4,
p.
C22)
and
in
sediment
sample
SE­
25
at
29,000
pg/
kg
collected
on
08/
1
8/
98
at
1520
(Ref.
4,
p.
E3).
The
attfibution
section
of
this
documentation
recosd
discusses
background
&tch
results
in
more
detail,
but
the
results
ofthe
back&
oupd
ditch
samples
are
discussed
herein
for
the
sake
of
further
clarification
of
the
presence
of
toluene
$'this
sowe.
Of
the
six
background
ditch
samples
collected,
the
highest
background
ditch
level
of
JolueGe
was
reported
as
16
J
pg/
kg,
in
sample
SE­
5
(Ref
4,
p.
C45).
This
level
was
J'd
as
it
w&
less:
than
the
qq&
htation
limit
(Ref.
4,
p.
100)
of
20
pgikg
.
Even
if
assuming
that
this
is
a
low
biy
aqd
adjusting
accordingly
by
mdtiplfig
by
the
factor
for
toluene
in
soil
of
1.63
(Ref
11,
p.
12)
[16
x
1.63
=l:
26.1
pg/
kg],
the
resulting
adjusted
value
of
26.1
pgkg
shows
that
this
leGel
of
toluene
in
the'
sod
i­@&
ins
sigmfjcantly
greater
than
three
times
the
background
ditch
soil
level.
/I
.
8:.
,
.
.
I
_*I
,
P
l
d
,
,'

*>
,#
"
i
A
sample
of
the
liquid
tar
layer
above
sediments
in
Pond
3
was
collected
on
05/
14/
99
and
analyzed
for
SVOCs
and
metals.
At
least
30
unidentified
,,~
SVOCs
were
listed
in
the
analytical
data
(Ref.
4,
p.
G49).
.$

'
:
j
,
,

'
1
It
is
worth
noting
that
toluene
and
cresol
&main
in
pond
water
thrty
years
after.%
e
facility
ceased
op6rations.
These
contaminants
listed
'above
as
present
in
Pond
3
water
were
either
non­
detect
in
the
background
ditch
water
samples
or
were
{eteded
in
the
background
ditch
water
samples
at
levels
less
than
one
third
of
the
level
reported
in
the
Pond
,,
I
3
water
samples.
Background
ditch
water.
sample
results
are
discussed
in
the
attribution
section.
~

ii
.­

~.

22
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
3
(Pond
3)

Backmound
Dhch
Soil
Samples
ditch
soil
samples
(SE­
1,
SE­
2,
SE­
3,
SE­
4,
SE­
5
and
SE­
6;
(Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
32,
5­
60,5­
62;
Ref.
3,
Appendix
D,
pp.
D45,
of
these
were
analyzed
for
inorganics.
All
of
the
confaminants
in
these
background
samples
or
were
.detected
at
levels
3
sediment
samples
(Ref.
4,
pp.
B13­
B1$,
B­
57­

was
less
than
the
quanti@
tion
limit
(Ref
4,
p.
level
of
toluene
was
reported
as
16J
pg/
kg
in
"(
Ref.
1
I
,
p.
12).
Multiplying
16
x
1.63
=
26.1
ditch
soil
levels
are
shown
below.

SE­
48/
24/
97915
!Ref.
4,
pp.
B69­
72,
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
pp.
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,
'C48,49,58,59,72
D45,
D49,53
I
Background
Ditch
Soil
Sample
Results
az.
Sub.
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
s
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
IXylenes
13/
4*
c
u
I
r
o
n
Z
n
I
is
cresol
(Ref.
19,
p.
3))
P
=
PesticidedPCBs;
I
=
Inorganics;
D
=
Dioxins
quantitation
limit,
where
different
from
the
CRQLICRDL
23
SD­
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Soace
No.:
3
(Pond
3)

2.4.2
HazardousWasteQuantity
2.4.2.1.1
HazardousConstituentQuantity
Suffkient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

2.4.2.1.2
HazardousWastestreamQuanti
Sufficient
information
is
unavai;
le
to
evaluate
hazardous
wastestream
quantity
2.4.2.1.3
Volume
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
volume­
not
evaluated;$::

i'l,
',?

2.4.2.1.4
Area
Surface
Impoundment
size
measwed
on
aerial
photogmph
using
a
ruler
and
the
indicated
scale
to
determine
dimensions
(Ref.
5)

Area
of
source
(fi2):
3650
square
ft.

N13
=
3,650/
13
=
280
(Ref
1,
Table
2­
5)
References:
5.

2.4.2.1.5
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quaritity
Value
=
280
SD
­Characterization
and
Containment
Source:
4
(Pond
4)

2.2
Source
Characterization
(Ref.
1
,
Table
2­
5)

es
not
contain
free
liquids.
It
is
near
the
distillation
unit
and
is
the
most
upgradient
of
.
3­
8,
3­
37;
Ref.
5;
Figures
3,4).
The
facility
was
lished
by
the
time
investigations
started
(Ref.
16,
p.
4).
Based
on
the
rectangular
ond
(Ref
5)
and
a
1970
diagram
of
the
facility
showing
Pond
4
labeled
as
"Waste
26,
pp.
1
,
2),
it
is
likely
that
this
pond
was
constructed
for
the
purpose
of
.
Statements
by
a
former
employee
of
a
sister
facility
(Ref
24,
p.
1)
indicate
that
constructed
for
the
purpose
of
receiving
discharge
fiom
the
facility.
The
d
relative
to
other
site
features
(Ref
3,
p.
3­
8;
Ref.
5)
and
a
visible
ditch
m
the
North
Tank
Cradle
and
Drum
Disposal
Areas
into
Pond
4
(Figures
3,4,5;
Ref
this
pond
was
used
as
a
waste
lagoon.
A
,former
employee
of
this
Reasor
(Ref.
24,
p.
2)
has
reported
that
Pond
4
received
spillage
fiom
facility
resin,
pine
oil,
and
related
compounds
h
m
pirie
tree
.
Naptha­
extraction
of
pine
stumps
occurred
on
of
standard
industrial
practices
for
pine
sturnp
renderhg
wastes
include
but
are
not
limited
to
spent
solvents,
(from
mandacturipg
and
copper
reclamation),
and
;
19,
pp.
7,
8;
20,
pp.
1
­
3).

Location
oft&
source.
with
reference
to
a
map
ofthe
site:
Northernmost
pond
along
binage
ditch,
labeled
"Pond
4"
on
aerial
photograph
(Ref.
5).

Release
to
gro
d
water
­
Not
Evaluated
i.
1
migration
and/
or
flood
­

has
no
regular
inspection
or
maintenance
of
diking.
(Ref
1
,
Table
4­
2;
site
in
the
100­
year
flood
plain
(Ref.
12).

Containment
f
ctor:
10
a
(Ref
1,
Table
3­
2,
section
3.1.2.1)

I
25
2.4.1
Hazardous
Substances
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
4
(Pond
4)

Hazardous
substances
attributable
to
Pond
4
include:
0
toluene,
0
ethylbenzene,
0
3/
4­
methylphenol[
asynonymis
cresol
(Ref.
19,
p.
3)],
0
arsenic,
0
copper,
0
lead,
0
mercury,
0
nickel,
0
Zinc,
0
Total2,3,7,8­
TCDDToxicityEquivalent
(TEQ)

0
TCDD(
estimatedtotal).
0
'
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
(and
total)­
heptachlorodibenzofixan,
and
This
is
based
on
sediment
sa&
ples
collected
on
8/
24/
97
and
8/
18/
98
which
were
analyzed
for
organic
constituents
and
a
sediment
sample
collected
on
5/
13/
99
which
was
analyzed
for
metals.

Pond
4
Samples
and
References
Sample
Ref.
13,
pp.
Ref.
3,
App.
d,
P.
D45
Ref.
4,
pp.
B17­
B20,
Figure
3;
Ref.
3,
p.
3­
32,
08/
24/
97;
1315
SE­
10
Field
notes
Custody
records
Results
Reference
Datehime
3­
33,3­
35,
Fig.
3­
6
38,187
C28­
C31
'
.,

SE­
23
Ref.
23,
p.
2
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
p.
D90
Rd.
4,
p.
GI18
Figure
3;
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
32
­
05/
13/
99;
0900
SE­
04
Ref.
23,
p.
2
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
P.
D88.1
Ref.
4,
pp.
E35­
E39
Figure
3,
Ref.
3,
p.
3­
35
08/
18/
98;
1650
.r
1
c
and
Dioxin
Contamin
**
TCDD
=
tetrachlozodibenzodio~,­
n
(TCDD),
(estimated
total)
ndkg
2:
nanogram/&,
Or
parts
Per
trillion
***
Hepta
=
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(1,2,3,436,7,8
and
total)
"
*g/
kg
=
micrograms/
kg,
or
ppb
****
Tot.
TCDD
=
Total
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
Toxicity
Equivalent
(TEQ)
''
LTL
26
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
~

Source
No.:
4
(Pond
4)

Discussion
I
sample
SE­
10
was
collected
on
08/
24/
97
at
13
1
5
as
a
3­
point
composite
at
the
shoreline
VOCs
and
SVOCs.
The
VOCs
were
not
composited,
but
clumped
together
(Ref.
3,
p.
s
had
a
detection
limit
of
32,000
pgkg
and
most
SVOCs
had
a
detection
limit
of
6
1,000
17­
B20,
C28­
C31).
This
indicates
that
there
could
be
sigdicant
levels
ofVOCs
and
but
this
could
not
be
verified.
3/
4
methylphenol
[(
a
synonym
is
cresol
(Ref.
19,
p.
re
J'd
because
the
levels
reported
were
less
'than
the
high
quantitation
hts
of
0
pg/
kg,
respectively(
Ref
4,
pp.
99,
101).
Neitherethylbenzene
nor
3/
4
determine
waste
characteristics
or
an
observed
release.

E­
23
was
collected
on
08/
18/
98
fiom
Pond
4
center.
No
VOCs
or
SVOCs
e
(Ref
4,
pp.
E35­
E39).

S
e
d
e
n
t
sample
SE­
04
was
collected
fiom
Pond
4
on
05/
13/
99
at
0900
as
a
5­
point
composite
I
27
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
4
(Pond
4)

Backaound
Ditch
Soil
samdes
Four
backgroydhpgradient
ditch
soil
samples
(SE­
I,
SE­
2,
SE­
3,
SE­
4)
were
collected30n
08/
24/
97
and
analyzed
for
organics,
inorganics,
and
dioxins
(Figure
3).
(Two
other
background
ditch
soil
samples,
SE­
5
and
SE­
6
were
analyzed
for
organics
only.)
The
levels
of
naturally
occurring
metals
in
these
four
samples
serve
to
document
background
'concenktions
for
comparison
to
pond
sediments.
These
background
ditch
soilresults
are
shown
mthe
table
below.
All
ofthe
contaminants
listed
in
Pond
4
sediment
were
either
non­
detect
in
these
background
samples
or
were
detected
at
levels
less
than
one
third
of
the
level
reported
in
the
Pond
4
sediment
sahples.
..
,­

Background
Ditch
Soil
Sample
References
Sample
Date
Time
Results
I
CustodyForms
I
Fieldnotes
ll
Ref.
3
,
App.
D,
pp.
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,
D45,49,53
I
39,186
I
ISE"
I
I
I
c
5
4
.
5
5
.7
0
'
1~
45.49.53
139.186
8/
24/
97
822
Ref.
4,
pp,
B6l­
64,
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
pp.
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,

Ref.
4,
pp.
B65­
68,
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
pp­
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,
C50.
56.
57.
71
I
D45.49.53
I
39.186
I
*J'd
because
Matrix
Spike
recovery
74.3%,
therefore
results
biased
low
(Ref.
4,
p.
73).
[
]
=
Estimated
concentration
adjusted
according
@e
fact
sheet
''tJs&
g
Qualltiea
Data
to
Document
an
Observed
Release
and
Observed
Contamination"
(Ref.
1
1,
p.
18).
V
=
Volatiles;
S
­
=
Semivolatiles;
P
=
PesticidesPCBs;
I
=
Inorganics;
D
=
Dioxins
(
)
=
Detection
Limit
or
reportable
quantitation
limit,
where
different
fiom
the
CRQL/
CRDL
28
2.4.2
Haza
2.4.2.1.1
2.4.2.1.2
2.4.2.1.3
2.4.2.1.4
2.4.2.1.5
I
I
,
.>
.'
i
.*,,.?
..
.

­+,,.,
.I,
~

.
.*.
z.
l&.
.'
,
..
.
'
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~j
.;<
,
­
~

..;
l.
lr
..
.
~
.
..

SD­
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Source
No.:
4
(Pond
4)

ous
Waste
Quantity
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Sufficient
idoxmation
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

Hazardous
Wastestream
Ouantity
Sufficient
idoxmation
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
wadestream
quantity
Volume
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
volume
Area
Surface
Impoundment
size
measured
on
aerial
photograph
using
a
ruler
and
the
indicated
scale
to
determine
dimensions
(Ref
5)

Areaofsource
(ft2):
4,900square
ft.

A/
13
=
4,900/
13
=
377
(Ref.
1,
Table
2­
5)
Reference:
5
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
=
377
29
SD
­Characterization
and
Containment
Source:
5
(Former
Laboratory)

2.2
Source
Characterization
Number
of
the
Source
:
5
Name
and
description
of
the
source:
Contaminated
soil,
near
former
laboratory
(Ref.
1
,
Table
2­
5)

This
source
is
contaminated
soil
in
an
area
identilied
as
the
former
laboratory
(Figures
3,4;
Ref
25;
Ref.
26,
p.
2).

Location
of
the
source.
with
reference
to
a
map
of
the
site:
Slightly
east
of
center
of
property,
south
of
'"
North
Tank
Cradle
area"
(Ref
5
;
Ref.
25;
Ref
26,
p.
2).

Containment
Release
to
ground­
water
­
Not
Evaluated
Release
via
overland
migration
andor
flood
­

No
containment
features
have
been
documented
for
the
source
(Ref.
1
,
Table
4­
2;
Ref.
3,
p.
2­
3).
Part
of
site
in
the
1
00­
year
flood
plain
(Ref
12).

Containment
factor:
10
(Ref.
1,
Table
3­
2,
section
3.1.2.1)

30
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
5
(Former
Laboratory)

2.4.1
Hazard&
Substances
inthe
area
ofthe
former
laboratory
(Ref
3,
Figure
5­
1;
pp.
SS­
18
collected
on
August
15,1997
at
1045
showed
Ref.
4,
pp.
11­
13;
Ref.
30,
pp.
1,2).
Reference
Mercury
collected
and
analyzed
for
inorganics
(SS­
98,
SS­
99,
D,
pp.
D­
39,
D­
40,
D­
43,
D­
54;
Ref
13,
pp.
are
provided
in
the
tables
below.

I
Back
(
)
=
Detectio
Limit
or
reportable
q
u
1,
lti
ound
Surface
Soil
Sample
Data
tation
limit,
where
merent
fiom
the
CRQLKRDL
31
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
5
(Former
Laboratory)

Discussion
An
unknown
volume
and
area
of
soil
near
the
former
laboratory
is
contaminated
with
mercury.

32
2.4.2
H
z
2.4.2.1.1
2.4.2.1.2
2.4.2.1.3
2.4.2.1.4
2.4.2.1.5
SD­
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Source
No.:
5
(Former
Laboratory)

ous
Waste
Quantity
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Sufficient
idormation
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

JQf
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
wastestream
quantity
V
o
h
e
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
volume
Area
unknown
but
>
0
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
=

Unknown
but
>
0
33
SD
­Characterization
and
Containment
Source:
6
(D
m
Disposal
area)

2.2
Source
Characterization
Nuinber
of
the
Source
:
6
Name
and
description
of
the
source:
Contaminated
soil,
near
former
drum
disposal
area
(Ref
1,
Table
2­
5)

This
source
is
contaminated
soil
in
anarea
identified
as
the
drum
disposal
area
in
Figures
3
and
5.
While
the
facility
was
mostly
demohhed
by
the
time
investigations
started
(Ref.,.
16,
p.
4),
during
the
1997
sampling
event,
drums
were
noted
in
this
area
(Ref.
3,
p.
3­
9;
Ref.
135pp.
167
­
173).
Samples
were
collected
of
soil
in
the
vicipityofthe
drums.
The
drum
disposal
area
was
near
a
ditch
leading
from
the
"North
Tank
Cradle
Area"
(as
described
m
Figure
2),
or
`Finish
Tanks"
(as
8
described
in
Ref.
26,
p.
2),
that
drained
to
Pond
4.
Some
of
the
dnuns
and
the
ditch
are
visible
in
the
1978
aerial
photograph
(Ref
5).

Location
of
the
source.
with
reference
to
a
map
of
the
site:
(Figures
3'4'5;
Ref.
5).

containment
Release
to
ground
water
­
Not
Evaluated
Release
via
overland
migration
andor
flood
­
No
containment
features
have
beendocumented
forthe
source
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
2;
Ref.
3,
p.
2­
3).
Part
of
site
in
the
100­
year
flood
plain
(Ref.
12).

Containment
factor:
10
(Ref
1,
Table
3­
2,
section
3.1.2.1)

.I
,x....

::..>
i
,

34
2.4.1
Hazard
SUfi
described
m
signhcant
le,
1997
at
101'
samples
werl
results
(Ref
detected
in
tl
folloyhg
tab
p.
5­
i5).

Semi
greater
that
phenanthnc
*J'd
1
b
c
c
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
6
(Drum
Disposal
area)

s
Substances
soil
samples
were
collected
in
the
area
identified
as
the
drum
disposal
area
inFigure
4
and
)re
detail
in
Ref.
3,
p.
3­
9
and
Ref.
13,
pp.
167
­
173.
Two
of
these
samples
showed
of
semivolatile
contaminants.
Samples
SS­
23
and
SS­
26
were
collected
on
August
1
8,
Id
1055,
respectively
(Ref
3,
p.
5­
6;
D­
22,
D­
23;
Ret
13,
pp.
32,159
­
160).
The
1997
nalyzed
for
volatiles
and
semivolatile
organic
contaminants
only.
Signdicant
semivolatile
7.
1
18;
Ref
30,
pp.
3
­
10)
are
summarized
below.
No
volatile
organic
constituents
were
e
samples
(Ref
3,
p.
5­
6;
Ref.
30,
p
p
3,
7).
Reference
information
is
repeated
in
the
,
Surface
soil
was
also
collected
in
this
area
in
1999
and
analyzed
for
metals
only
(Ref.
3,

latile
organic
hazardous
substances
found
in
surface
soil
in
the
drum
Mesal
area
at
levels
etimesbackground
includebenzo
(a)
anthracene,
benzo
(a)
pyrene,
chrysene,
fluoranthene,
nd
p
y
k
e
m
SS­
26
and
phenanthrene
and
pyrene
in
SS­
23.
Data
is
summarized
below.

Organic
Contaminants
in
Source
6
ause
less
than
quantitation
limit
(Ref.
4,
p.
1
18).
Data
not
used­
to
document
source.

35
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.:
6
(Drum
Disposal
area)

Surface
Soil
Reference
Information
30,
pp.
3
­
6;
Ref.
4,
p.

I
I
I
13­
19,
5­
6,
5­
10
1184,
185
I
Backmounds:

Relevant
reference
idormation
is
providedh
the
table
below
Six
background
surface
soil
samples
were
collected
and
analyzed
for
organic
constituents.

Background
Surface
Soil
Results
Sample
(pglkg):
ss­
97
SS­
98
ss­
99
ss­
100
Benzo
(a)
anthracene
U
(350)
U
(390)
U
(3
80)
U
(390)

b
i
n
z
o
(a)
pyrene
l
U
(350)
l
U
(390)
'
l
U
(380)
l
U
(390)

Eluoranthene
U
(350)
u
(390)
U
(380)
u
(390)

Phenanthrene
U
(350)
U
(390)
U
(3
80)
U
(390)

yrene
U
(350)
U
(390)
U.(
380>
U
(380)

(
)
=
Detection
Limit
or
reportable
quantitation
limit,
'
where
different
from
the
CRQL/
CRC
ss­
I
0
1
ss­
102
?.
J
(380)
U
(390)

U
(38,
O)
U
t390)

U
(380)

36
2.4.2
Ham]

2.4.2.1.1
2.4.2.1.2
2.4.2.1.3
2.4.2.1.4
2.4.2.1.5
SD­
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Source
No.:
6
(Drum
Disposal
area)

US
Waste
Quantity
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
hazardous
wastestream
quantity
Volume
sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
volume
Sufficient
information
is
unavailable
to
evaluate
area
Area
is
unknown
but
>
0
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
=
unknown
but
>
0
37
SD­
Other
Potential
Sources
Other
Potential
Sources
Not
Evaluated:

0
0
Scrap
Copper
Area
The
scrap
copper
area,
while
showing
numerous
semivolatile,
inorganic,
and
dioxin
contaminants
(Ref.
3,
pp.
5­
5,5­
13,5­
17,5­
18)
was
not
documented
as
a
source
in
this
documentation
package.
Neither
the
source
size
nor
the
overland
pathway
to
surface
water
were
clearly
defined
during
the
sampling
event.
Documenting
an
additional
source,
above
the
s+
already
provided,
did
not
result
in
a
higher
site
score.

"Sluice
Area"
This
area
was
sampled
as
a
potential
source,`
but
no
significant
site­
related
contaminants
were
detected
in
this
area
(Ref
3,
pp.
5­
5,5­
15).
A
former
employee
reported
that
this
was
the
area
was
used
to
deposit
spent
wood
chips
(Ref.
24,
p.
2).
I
,

I
X
f
0
"SettlingPond"
The
pond
labeled
as
"Settling
Pond"
in
the
Figures
3
and
4
was
sampled
as
a
potential
source.
Data
tables
in
the
RI
report
(Ref
3,
pp.
5­,
535­
64)
reflect
this
pond
title.
The
1970
Appraisal
map
(Ref.
26,
pi
2)
shows
this
site
feature
as
a
lake,
with
an
associated
pump
house.
A
former
employee
reported
that
this
pond
was
used
for
cooling
water
for
the
boiler
(Ref
24,
p.
2).

0
OtherPotentialsources
Other
potential
source
areas,
such
as
the
Former
Rosin
Warehouse,
shown
in
Figures
3,
4
and
5
were
sampled
as
a
part
of
the
Remedial
Investigation
on
the
site.
Documenting
additional
sources,
above
the
&­
already
documented,
did
not
result
in
a
higher
site
score.

.
_.
SD­
SLUIXIIZIIY
SITE
SUMMARY
OF
SOURCE
DESCRIPTIONS
Quantity
Values
=
600
+
300
+
280
+
377
+
>O
+
>O
=
1557.

the
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value
=
100.

is
subject
to
Level
I
or
Level
11
concentrations,
assign
either
the
whichever
is
greater"
(Ref
1,
section
2.4.2,.
2)

~~

Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value
=
100
39
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
FlowElood
Migration
Pathway
4.1
OVERLAND/
FLOODMIGRATIONCOMPONENT
4.1.1.1
DEFINlTION
OF
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE
MIGRATION
PATH
FOR
OVERLAND/;
LOOD
COMPONEHT
Overland
flow
from
sources
enters
the
same
southerly­
flowing
ditch
at
different
points
on
the
eastem
side
of
the
Reasor
Chemical
Co.
property
(Ref.
5,
Ref.
10).
This
ditch
enters
a
Palustrine­
Forested
deciduous/
evergreen
seasonally
flooded
@FO1/
4C)
wetland,
at
the
probable
point
of
entry
(PPE)
(Figures
3,4;
Refs.
5;
7,
pp.
1,
7;
21,
p.
1;:
28,
pp.
1,
3;
29,
pp.
1,2).
This
PFOl/
4C
wetland
is
southandsoutheastofthefacility,
extendingwell
ofthe
backgroundsamplinglocations(
Refs.
7,
p.
I;
28,
pp.
1­
2)
and
Prince
George
Creek
flows
through
this
wetland
(Ref.
7).
Ther,
e
is
no
clearly
defined
channel;
between
the
PPE
into
the
wetlwd
Ad
Prince
George
Creek
(Refs.
7;
.$
I,
p.
1;
28,
pp.
1,3,6
­
8;
Ref.
29,
pp.
1,2).
Prince
George'Creek
+e
~
flows
through
an
adjoinhig
yet
different
type
of
wetland,
a
Palustrine
Forested
Deciduous
Se&
P&­&
nently
Flooded
wetland
(PFOGF),
(
Ref.
7,
p,
1).
This
PF06F
wetland
lies
along
the
southern
edge
ofthi
Reasor
site
and
adjoins
the
PFO1/
4C
wetland
described
previously.
.,

r
,
,.
,
.,.>;
<
.
,
.
,
,

Prince
George
Creek
flows
westward
through
these
wetlands
and
enters
a
culvert
under
Highway
132.
Photographs
taken
of
the
stream
both
upstream
and
downstream
of
this
culvert
confirm
that
it
is
not
channelized
at
this
point
(Ref
28,
pp.
6
­
8)
prince
George
Creek,
then
continues
flowing
generally
westward
toward
the
Northeast
Cape
Fear
River.
Downstream
of
US
Route
1
17,
approximately
1
mile
downstream
from
the
site,
Prince
George
Creek
is
reported
to
experience
flow
reversal
due
to
tidal
influence.
The
creek
does
not
experience
flow
reversal
upstream
of
this
location
(Ref.
21,
p.
3).
The
portion
of
the
CreekXhat
experiences
tidal
reversal
and
salt
water
intrusion
is
brackishhalt
water.
The
first
mile
of
the
surface
water
pathway
is
fresh
water
(Ref.
2
1,
p.
3).
,
The
mean
annual
flow
along
the
nonltidal
segment
of
Prince.
George
Creek
is
estimated
to
Pe
13.6
cfs.
The
remainder
of
the
creek
has
an
estimated
mean
annual
flow
of
20.2
cfs.
(Ref.
21,
p.
2).

Prince
George
Creek
enters
the
Northeast
Cape
Fear
River
5.5
miles
downstrq
from
the
PPE.
The
mean
annual
discharge
of
the
Northeast
Cape
Fear
Riyer
downstream
of
the:&
nce
George
Creek
confluence
is
approximately
2370
cfs
(Ref.
21,
'p.
2).
The
Northeast
Cape
Fear
River
undergoes
tidal
dong
its
main
channelasfaras
6.5
mjles
upstreamofthemouthofPrinceGeorgeCreek
(Ref.
2
1,
p.
1).
Therefore,
the
surface
water
pathway'
divides
at
the
mouth
of
Prince
George
Creek
continuing
9.5
miles
downstream
and
6.5
miles
ups@&
along
the
main
Northeast
Cape
Fear
River
channel.
~

Tidallyinfluencedportions
of
its
&butares
1.5
water
miles
&om
the
site
are
also
within
the
pathway
(Ref.
10,
Ref.
21).
,.
.

40
4.1.2.1.1
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
Flow/
Flood
Migration
Pathway
LILIKELIHOOD
OF
RELEASE
table
of
Background
Sample
IDS,
Dates,
Times
and
References
is
given
below.

EPA
Contract
Laboratory
Program,
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
Final
Rule
(Ref
1,
that
when
the
background
concentration
is
not
detected
or
is
less
than
the
detection
ion
Limit
(SQL),
or
if
this
can
not
be
determined,
the
Contract­
Required
Quantitation
V
=
Volatiles;
Limit
or
reportable
quantitation
limit,
where
LiiEerent
from
the
CRQLKRDL
(
)
=
Detection
S
­
=
Semivolatiles;
P
=
PesticidesPCBs;
I
=
Inorganics;
D
=
Dioxins
I
41
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
Flow/
Flood
Migration
Pathway
Backa­
ound
_
Concentrations
­
Surface
Water
wetlands
upgradient
fi­
om
the
PPE
fi­
om
the
ditch
draining
the
somces.
Surface
water
background
sample
SW­
16
was
analyzed
for
organics.
Surface
water
background
sample
SW­
19
was
analyzed
for
inorganics.
A
sumtnary
table
of
Background
Sample
IDS,
Dates,
Times
and
References
is
given
below.
A
surface
water
sample
and
a
duplicate,
SW­
12
and
RCSWIDUP,
were
collected
on
8/
25/
97
(Ref.
13,
p.
189,
Ref.
4,
pp.
A45­
A­
50,
F7­
12).
Two'background
sdace
water
samples
(Figure
2)
were
collected
in
the
Prince
George
Creek
SW­
19**
11
only
V
=
Volatiles;
S
=
Semivolatiles;
P
=
PesticideWCBs;
I
=
Inorganics;
D
=
Dioxins
**
These
background
water
samples
were
not
analfled.
for
&ox@.
No
dioxins
were
background
ditch
water
samples
SW­
1
­
SWL4'(
Ref.
4,
pp."
A77­
A80).
,,
,.

detected
in
the
42
1
~
.
"*
­
~.
"
."
~
~.
.
~
­~
~~
~5
1
"<"
.
i.
V"
i
.*:+
s
?+.
~­
."
"
.:
..
?.
.

1
'
'
I
.~
>
."

I
,
..\
.
'
'
L
~
"1
i
I
2.

I
,,>??>>
L\
.
C,:
d..,
_.
4
.
+&$+&&
f+;:
J
'
'

_I.:
.
,
T
,:­
'p,
,,
,
q.
e<
yk*,
:.
r::
~
":
.>
t
~

SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
FlowElood
Migration
Pathway
have
been
collected
downgradient
from
the
site
(Figure
3).
Samples
collected
on
08/
25/
97.
Sample
times
and
references
are
provided
in
f
toluene
in
sample
SE­
21
was
reported
at
460
J
pgkg.
There
has
been
due
to
a
low
surrogate
recovery
(Ref.
4,
p.
99),
and
is
therefore
ased
release
sample
does
not
require
adjustment
(Ref.
1
I,
p.
S).
'
The
­1
9)
showed
a
non­
detect
for
toluene.
As
an
additional
so
made
to
background
ditch
soil
samples
(data
and
references
sion).
The
highest
level
found
in
these
six
soil
samples,
was
165
4,
pp.
(244­
47).
This
level
was
J'd
because
it
was
less
than
the
20
pgkg.
Even
if
this
were
adjusted
king
the
adjustment
factor
for
lying
16
x
1.63,
the
adjusted
background
result
of
26.1
clgikg
is
sample
result.
Because
the
release
sample
is
low­
biased,
.the
f
1
1,
p.
51,
and
documents
a
Level
11
observed
release
of
01
(Ref
19,
p.
3)]
was
present
in
sowces
3
and
4,
sample
and
it
was
shown
in
the
release
sample
SE­
21
at
ease
because
the
level
reported
is
less
than
the
43
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
FlowElood
Migration
Pathway
Observed
Release
to
Sediment:

Prince
Geor
e
Creek
wetland
sediment
release
sam
les
~

Field
notes
'Ref.
13,
pp.
38,40,
192
~~~

Ref.
13,
pp.
38,44,
192
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,
193
~~~

..i
Ref.
23
BOLD
indicates
contaminants
determined
to
be
an
observed
release
V
=
Volatiles;
S
­
=
Semivolatiles;
P
=
Pesticides/
PCBs;
I
=
Inorganics;
D
=
Dioxins
(
)
=
Detection
Limit
or
reportable
quantitation
limit,
where
different
from
the
CRQLKRDL
*
Toluene
J'd
due
to
low
internal
standard
recovery
(Ref.
4,
p.
99).
This
is'a
low­
biased
sample.
**
J'd
as
<
quantitation
limit
(Ref.
4,
p.
101)

44
Surface
Watt
Threc
,
Samplerefeu
AWQC
stan(
background
(

the
surface
vc
08/
18/
98.
Hc
been
used
to
but
documen
Suds
xylene.
Xyle
Prince
Georg
been
docume
SW­
18
shop
SW­
6);
how€
Surfa
0.2
ng/
L
octa
(Ref
4,
p.
AI
(Sources
1
ar
water
sample
not
scored.
(SW­
1
­
SF
....
i',"
,
.
­­
.
.,
.
.­;

.
..
.
p
L:,&+.<.
;;;&;.
':,
,
~:?

.
.
.
,­.~
A.
..
.*;
c.~~~~~,,~~!.~,~
id4..~~.~
__
­j
,m,!:
+;­:
+
­
'
'
,.
i
.

SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
FlowFlood
Migration
Pathway
*
Release
Samples
downstream
surface
water
samples
were
collected
in
the
Prince
George
Creek
wetlands:
ices
and
data
are
shown
in
the
tables
below.
Figure
2
provides
sample
locations.
Sample
:d
13,000
pgL.
iron
and
sample
SW­
20
showed
3,690
pg/
L
iron,
both
greater
than
the
Kd
and
greater
than
three
times
the
backgroimd
level
shown
in
any
of
the
12/
02/
97
tch
water
samples
and
also
greater
than
three
times
the
level
detected
in
sample
SW­
19,
.ter
wetland
background
sample
collected
in
Prince
George
Creek
on
the
same
day,
wever,
iron
is
not
a
CERCLA
hazardous
substance,
and
it's
release
from
the
site
has
not
roduce
the
site
score.
Iron
may
be
shown
to
be
a
pollutantkontaminant
in
hture
studies,
ng
iron's
release
fiomthe
site
is
not
critical
to
the
site
score.

e
water
sample
SW­
21
collected
in
the
Prince
George
Creek
wetland
showed
25
pgL
le
was
detected
in
at
least
one
source,
xylene
was
not
detected
in
either
the
background
Creek
wetland
sample
(SW­
16)
or
any
of
the
background
ditch
water
samples
(SW­
1
­

r
e
r
,
because
this
level
was
less
than
the
CRQL,
an
observed
release
of
xylene
has
not
ted.

e
water
sample
SW­
18
was
the
only
surface
water
sample
that
was
analyzed
for
dioxins.
hlorodibenzodioxin
and
J'd
levels
of
heptachlorodibenzodioxin
(1,2,3,4,6,7,8
and
total)
l
)
were
detected
in
this
surface
water
sample.
Dioxins
were
detected
in
two
sources
1
4)
and
these
compouids
were
not
detected
in
the
background
ditch
water
samples
­4);
however,
because
neither
of
the
two
Prince
George
Creek
background
surface
were
analyzed
for
dioxins,
an
observed
release
of
dioxins
to
surface
water
pathway
was
45
Surface
Water
Rele:

SampleDate
SW­
1808/
26/
97
SW­
2008/
18/
98
SW­
2108/
18/
98
S
WOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
Flow/
Flood
Migration
Pathway
e
Samples
(Figure
2)
rime
IRefs.
1Results
Forms
315
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
Ref.
4,
pp.
A61­
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
36,37;
5­
62
­
5­
pp.
D47,
D49
A68;
A82
68
,.

1130­
Ref
3,
App.
D,
Re&
4,
pp.
E27­
'
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
'
'~

36,37;
5­
62
­
5­
p.
D88.1
'
I
E29
68
1007
Ref.
3,
App,
D,
Ref.
4,
pp.
E30­
,'
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
,
'

36,37;
5­
62
­
5­
p.
D88.1
E33
Field
Notes
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,40,45,
192
Ref.
23,
p.
2
~~

46
I
',

Observed
Rklease
to
Surface
Water
Attribution
­!­­

ey
of
local
businesses
was
conducted
on
March
29,2001
(Ref.
28,
pp.
1,4,5).
Several
noted
to
the
southeast
of
the
site,
particularly
"Automated
Plastic
Engineering",
and
Salvage
&
Sales".
These
businesses
do
not
appear
to
be
upgradient
of
the
site
(Ref
further
document
attribution
of
the
observed
release
to
the
surface
water
pathway,
a
ditch
samples
(soil
and
water)
collected
upgradient
and
downgradient
from
the
,4
Back
ound
itch
Soil
ck­
ground­
ditch
soil
samples
were
collected
upgradient
from
sources
and
releases
(SE­
1,
SE­
5
and
SE­
6)
on
08/
24/
97
(Figure
2).
Four
of
these
samples
were
analyzed
for
and
dioxins.
Ditch
soil
dioxin
data
is
not
included.
The
other
two
(SE­
5
and
SE­
6)
only.
References
for
the
analytical
results,
chains
of
custody
and
field
log
below.
Ditch
soil
samples
were
also
collected
downgradient
from
the
were
found
in
the
downgradient
ditch
soil
samples
at
levels
geater
background
ditch
soil
samples.
Background
&ta
on
these
I
47
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
Flow/
Flood
Migration
Pathway
Background
Ditch
Soil
Inorganic
Soil
Resullis
SE­
2
V,
S,
P,
I,
D
ND
(0.23)
ND
(0.46)
880
2.8
J*
[4.03]
ND
(0.05)
ND
(2.3)
ND
(0.23)
ND
(0.91)

SE­
3
V,
S,
P,
I,
D
ND
(1)
ND
(2)
100
6.2
J*
'(
8.931
ND
(0.05)
ND(
2.1)
ND(
0.22)
7.5
PE­
4
V,
S,
P,
I,
D
ND
(1)
ND(
2)
1700
7.9
J*
'
[I
1.381
ND
(0.07)
ND
(2.6)
ND
(0.26)
10
.,
1
.,

Background
Ditch
Soil
Organic
Sample
Results
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
s
314­
Zylene
,.

(
)
=
Detection
Limit
or
reportable
quantitation'@$
it7
where
diffei.
ent
from
the
CRQL/
CRDL
**
J'd
because
less
than
quantitation
limit
of
20
i
g
k
g
(Ref
4,
p.
'
100)
*J'd
because
Matrix
Spike
recovery
74.3%;$
erefor?
results
biased
low
(Ref.
4,
p.
73).
[
]
=
Estimated
concentration
adjusted
accordihg
the
fact
sheet","
Ushg
Quahfied
Data
to
Document
an
Observed
Release
and
Observed
Conta&$
ation;,
(Ref.
1
1
7
'
p
18).
pgkg
=
microgram/
lulogram,
or
parts
per
b&
o+
bpb);
@
=
microgmnshter,
or
ppb
mg/
kg
=
milligram^
/
UO­
or
parts
;"
'""
1;"!
Fpm);
CRQL
=
Contract­
Required
Quantitation
Limit;;
'CPLDL
=
Contract
Required
Detection
Limit
',
'&,
I
,y;,,

*y
,'
'
1
,
,,

,,
.
,,
,
?"!
.

48
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
Flow/
Flood
Migration
Pathway
Attribution
­~
downgmdent
samples
Overland
FIo$
samples
­­
in
ditch
between
backgxound
samples
and
release
samples
m
Hazardous
phenol
Substance
cu
Toluene
3
/4
methyl
Analytes
P
I""
I
semivolatile
compoundsi
found
in
Source
6
were
also
reported
in
this
downgradient
limit
(Ref
4,
p.
1
13).
Reorted
semivolatiles
included
naphthalene,
however,
all
of
the
serdivolatile
organic
conarninants
reported
were
J'd
as
they
were
fluorene,
fhoranthene,
~pyrene.
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
FlowIFlood
Migration
Pathway
>

Attribution
­
Ditch
Water
Background
Ditch
Water
Samples
As
part
of
the
Remedial
Investigation,
five
background
ditch
water
samples
were
collected
on
12/
2/
97
(SW­
1,
SW­
2,
SW­
3,
SW­
4,
and
SW­
6).
FOG
of
these
3amples
were
analyzed
for
org&
ics,
inorganics,
and
dioxins.
SW­
6
was
analyzed,
for
organics
only.
Downgradient
ditch
water
samples
were
collected
on
the
same
day
as
the
backgro~
d
ditch
water
samples.
Ditch
water
samples
were
not
collected
at,
the
same
time
as
the
ditch
soil
and
the
surface.
water
and
sediment
background
and
release
samples
(collected
08/
24/
97)
because
the
ditches
were
dry
at
that
time
(Ref.
3,
p.
3­
37.;,
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,39,68,
73).
These
background
and
downgradient
'ditch
water
samples
serve
to
f&$
er
document
that
sources:
release
conkupinants
to
@e
overl&
pathway.
The'compounds
lided
belo%&
the
background
ditch
water
sample
results
we&
detected
at
least
one
source
and
in
at
least
one
downgradient
ditch
water
sample
at
a
level.&
)east
thr&
i&
ies
greater
than
background.
For
compounds
not
detected
in
the
backgroqd,
:thq
CRQLICRDL
afid
detection
limit
(if
diffaent
from
CRQLICRDL)
are
given.
,,
,,

1
1,,!
,.
"
'
('
I"
'.
,
':,
,
,
,>,
'
,
,I
,

I
'
,

Background
Ditch
Water
Samples
­­
upgradient
from
site
Sample
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,39,
Ref.
3.
App.
D,
pp.
Ref.
4,
pp.
A5­
A6.1,
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,3­
0915
12/
02/
97,
SW­
1
Field
notes
Custody
Forms
Results
Refs.
Time
Date
39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
68,73
D70,72,74
A77
"

SW­
2
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,39,
pef.
3.
App.
D;
pp.
Ref'.
4;
pp.
A7­
AI0,
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,3­
1015
12/
02/
97
39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
'
A78
68,73
D71,72,74
SW­
3
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,
39,
Ref.
3.
App.
D,
pp.
pp.
A
l
I
~~l
4
;
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,3­
1200
12/
02/
97
39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
68,73
D71,72,74
A79
I
,

SW­
4
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,39,
Ref.
3.
App.
D,
p.
'1
kef.
84;
$i'A25­
k26
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,3­
1410
12/
02197
SW­
6
Ref.
1
3
,
pp.
38,39,
Ref.
3.
App.
D,
pp.
Ref;
4,
pp.
'A15­
418
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,3:
f215
12/
02/
97
39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
.
68;
73
b71,72,74
(V;
S
,
6,$,
480
,(
D)
,

39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
,
68,73
D71
(Y,
S)

V
=
Volatiles;
S
=
Semivolatiles;
P
=
PesticidesPCBs;
.
,:.
I
=
Inorg&
cs;
D
=
Dioxins
50
I
'

I
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
Flow/
Flood
Migration
Pathway
*
3/
4
=
314
$ethylphenol
(a
synonym
is
cresol
(Ref
19,
p.
3))
­
~­

were
detected
in
the
overland
flow
background
surface
water
samples
P
=
PesticidesRCBs;
I
=
Inorganics;
D
=
Dioxins
quantitation
limit,
where
different
from
CRQLICRDL
billion
(ppb);
CRDL
=
Contract
Required
Detection
Limit
Limit
(Ref
8,
p.
3);

51
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
Flow/
Flood
Migration
Pathway
Attribution
­
Downaadient
Ditch
Water
Sample
SW­
8
was
collected
upgradient
of
all
ponds
(Figure
2)
and
analyzed
for
organics
only.
Sample
SW­
9
was
collected
between
Ponds
3
and
4.
Sample
SW­
13
was
collected
downgradient
of
all
ponds,
but
upgradient
of
surface
water
a
d
wetlands.
Copper,
iron,
ind
lead
were
found
in
SW­
13
at
levels
greater
than
three
times
all
of
the
background
samples.
Silver
and
zinc
were
also
detected
in
this
sample
at
elevated
levels,
three
times
greater
than
most
of
the
background
ditch
water
samples.
SW­
13
results
demonstrate
that
source
contaminants
were
detected
in
the
overland
flow
sample
between
the
sources
and
the
surface
water,
and
levels
'were
three
&es
greater
than
the
background
ditch
water
samples
collected?
on
the
same
date.
Dioxirq
were
.
._
not
detected
ih
SW­
13
(Ref
4,
p.
,
A84).
,I..
,.

'
.
..
w
4,.
,
I
a
,.

SW­
8
12/
2/
97
1450
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,
,
'
Ref:
4;
pplA21­
A22,
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
p.
Ref.,
l3,
pp.
38,
3­
39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
,
'
D
70
39,
69,
73
SW­
9
12/
2/
91
1450
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,,
Ref.
4;
pp.
A27­
A2,8
,,
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
p.
Ref.
1
3
,~~.
38,

3W­
13
12/
2/
97
1515
Ref.
3,
pp.
3­
37,
Ref.
4,
'pp:
AllA4,
'
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
pp.
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,
3­
39;
5­
62
­
5­
6%
,,.>
.
D7
1
'
39,69,73
'
'
I
I
I
I
I
13­
39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
!A84
ID70,72,73
139.
69,,
73,
190
r
_.
~
h
,'

bampIe
IDate
IT&
IRefs.
IResults
'
,
lcustody
FormsIFieldnotes
I
I
I
13­
39;
5­
62
­
5­
68
lA84
[D70,72,73
139.
69,,
73,
190
1
r
_.

Downgradient
Ditch
Water
Sample
Results
kazardous
Substance
I
h
l
y
t
e
s
(Lead
ISilver
IZinc
52
Hazardous
I
U
IrOK
D49,
D88.1
and
has
not
surface
watt
D88.1;
4,
p
3/
4
they
were
IC
­Cop
water
down
surface
watt
sources
at
1~
release
to
W
I
downgradie~
for
these
COI
Die
detected
in
E
collected
in
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
FlowRlood
Migration
Pathway
bstances
released
to
the
Surface
Water
Pathway:

Toluene
(to
sediment)
at
460
pgkg
(Ref.
3,
p.
D48;
Ref.
4,
pp.
C63­
C67)

vas
documented
in
wetlands
at
a
level
greater
than
the
AWQC
(Ref.
2;
Ref
3,
pp.
D47,
Ref.
4,
pp.
A61­
A68,
E27­
E29);
however,
iron
is
not
a
CERCLA
Hazardous
Substance
een
established
as
a
pollutant
or
contaminant
(40
CFR
302.4).
Xylene
was
detected
in
in
wetlands
at
a
J'd
value,
J'd
because
it
was
less
than
the
quantitation
limit
(Ret
3,
p.
E30­
E33).

nethylphenol
was
detected
in
wetland
sediment
at
J'd
values,
but
these
levels
were
J'd
as
j
than
the
quantitation
limit
(Ref
3,
p.
D48;
Ref.
4,
pp.
EM9­
B52).

er,
iron
and
lead
were
detected
at
levels
greater
than
three
times
background
in
ditch
.adient
fiom
the
sources,
but
neither
copper
nor
lead
were
found
in
the
observed
release
to
in
the
wetlands.
Copper,
zinc,
and
iron
were
found
in
ditch
soil
downgradient
from
the
els
greater
than
three
times
background,
but
they
were
not
documented
in
the
observed
land
sediment.
A
number
of
semivolatile
organic
contaminants
were
detected
in
ditch
soil
from
the
sources,
but
these
levels
were
J'd
as
results
were
less
than
the
quantitation
limit
'

pounds.

ns
could
possibly
have
been
documented
as
observed
release
to
sediment.
They
were
urces
and
in
the
downgradient
sediment,
but
the
background
wetlands
sediment
sample
ince
George
Creek
was
not
analyzed
for
dioxins.

~
Surface
Water
Sediment
Observed
Release
Factor
Value­
550
53
SWOF
­
Surface
Water
Overland
FlowBlood
Migation
Pathway
4.1.2.1.2POTENTIAL
TO
RELEASE
i
4.1.2.1.2.1POTENTIALTORELEASEbyOverlandFlow
Potential
to
Release
was
not
evaluated
because
an
observed
releases
to
sediment
was
established
by
chemical
analysis
(see
section
4.1.2.
I.
1.
of
this
HRS
documentation
record).

54
4.1.3.2
4.1.3.2.1
AlthOl
documented
tl
evaluated.
Do
the
higher
of
tl
instance
(ReE
contajnment
fi
t
t
L
t
L
t
c
L
SWOF/
FOOD
CHAIN
TOXICITY/
PERSISTENCE/
BIOACCUMULATIOIV
HUMAN
FOOD
CHAIN
THREAT
­WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
ToxicityPersistenceh3ioaccumulation
$I
fishing
as
been
observed
in
the
wetland
area
near
the
site
(Ref22,
p.
l),
it
has
not
been
~t
fish
collected
near
the
site
have
been
cogsumed,
so
only
the
potential
to
release
is
being
mtream
fisheries
are
located
in
both
salt
water
and
fi­
esh
water,
and
HRS
instructs
that
:
two
Bioaccmulation
Potential
Factor
Value
@PFV)
values
should
be
used
in
this
,
section
4.1.3.2.1.3).
(All
sources
are
available
for
overland
flow
migration
because
fie
%or
for
all
sources
is
10).
&stance
I
Source1
Tox.
Factor1
PF'I
BPFV*
I
TIP
value1
TIPIBPFV
No.
value
(Table
4­
16)

4
10,000
I
500
10,000
5x
IO6
'ene
6
10,000
1
50,000
10,000
5
x
10s
hracene
6
1,000
1
50,000
1,000
5
x
107
6
10
1
500
10
5
x
lo3
6
100
1
5,000
100
5
x
lo5
I
I
61
""""
""""

ToxicityLPersi&
nce/
Bioaccmulation
Factor
Value:
=
5
x
1
O8
I
55
SWOF
­­
Food
Chain
4.1.3.2.2HazardousWasteQuantity
HRS
(Ref
l),
Section
4.1.3.2.2
instructs
to
assign
the
same
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
as
is
assigned
for
the
drinking
water
threat,
as
instructed
in
4.1.2.2.2.
Section
4.1.2.2.2
instructs
that
the
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
is
the
same
as
determined
HR?
Seetion
2.4.2.
This
value
has
previously
been
determined
in
Section
2.4.2
of
this
HRS
documentation
package.

SumofValues:
1.557
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
=
100
(Calculations
shown
in
section
2.4.2
and,
(TabIe,
2­
6).
,y4;>,

Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value
=
100
Value
entered
in
Table
4­
1.
*,$<
j
,.
.
,
8
,

4.1.3.2.3HumanFoodChainThreatWasteCharacteristicsFactorCategoryValue:

For
Benzo
(a)
pyrene
:
ToxicityPersistence
Value
=
10,000,
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Factor
Value
=
50,000
ToxicityPersistence
Value
x
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
10,000
x
100
=
1
x
lo6.
'
.

ToxicityPersistence
x
Hazardous,
Waste
Quantity
Value
x
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Value:
1
x
lo6
x
50,000
=
5
x
16"
I
"_""
HumanFoodCha@
HazardousWasteQ&
tity
Assigned
Value:
'2
Human
Food
Chain
!Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
V$
ue
I
(Ref.
I,
Table
2
­
7;
Sections
4.1.3.2.3
and
2.4.3.1):
'
320
56
SWOF/
Food
Chain
4.1.3.3
FOOD
CHAIN
THREAT
­
TARGETS
Actual
H
d
Food
Chain
Contamination
Observed
Release
to
Surface
water
documented
in
Section
4.1.3.1
.

Level
II
release
to
a
fishery
documented.
Because
the
BCF
of
toluene
is
50,
documenting
which
toluene
was
released
is
a
fishery
would
not
elevate
the
site
score.

4.1.3.3.1
1
'
Food
Chainhdividual
Bec
use
there
is
no
observed
release
to
sediment
of
a
hazardous
substance
having
a
Bioaccumul
*on
potential
factor
value
of
500
or
greater,
the
Food
chain
individual
value
is
determined
as
follows
(
i
ef
1,
Section
4.1.3.3.1)

Prince
George
Creek
Small
to
moderate
stream
Ref
22.
0.1
­
The
mean
annual
flow
along
the
non­
tidal
segment
of
Prince
George
Creek
is
estimated
to
be
13.6
cfs.
The
remainder
of
the
creek
has
an
estimated
mean
annual
flow
of
20.2
cfs.
(Ref
1,
Table
4­
13;
Ref.
21,
p­
2).

of
nearest
fishery
x
food
chain
individual
factor
value
(Ref
1,
Section
4.1
3.3.1)
=
0.1
x
20
=
2
""""_

Food
Chain
Individual
Factor
Value
=
2
Entered
in
Table
4­
1,
line
18
NOTE:
sample
SW­
18
was
the
only
surface
water
release
sample
that
was
analyzed
for
octachlorodibenzdoxin
and
J'd
levels
of
heptachlorodibenzdoxjn
4,
p.
A82)
were
detected
in
this
surface
water
sample.
were
detected
in
Sources
1
and
4
and
these
compounds
were
not
ditch
water
samples
(SW­
1
­
SW­
4);
however,
because
neither
of
background
surface
water
samples
were
analyzed
for
dioxins,
an
surface
water
pathway
was
not
used
to
produce
the
site
score.
­

57
SWOF/
Food
Chain
4.1.3.3.2
FoodChainPopulation
4.1
.3.3.2.1Potential
Human
Food
ChainContamination
Identity
of
Fishery
=
Cape
Fear
River
Annual
Production
(pounds)
=
>O
(Ref.
2i,
p.
1)
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body
=
Large
Stream
to
River
Average
Annual
Flow
=
The
me?
&ual
discharge
of
the
river
downstream
of
hce
Population
Value
(Pi)
=
0.03
(Ref
1,
Table
4­
18)
Dilution
Weight
@1)
=
0.001
George
Creek
is
approximately
2370
cfs
(Ref,
2
1,
p.
2).

Pi
X
Di
=
0.00003
Sum
ofPi
x
Di
:
0.00003
Sqn
of
(Pi
x
Q)/
IO:
0.000003
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
Factor
Value
:
0.000003
58
4.1.3.3.2.2
4.1.3.3.2.3
4.1.3.3.3
Likelihoodv
,
"
­".
z*~.
~

.
x.,
.

SWOFIFood
Chain
Level
I
Concentrations
­­
NONE
DOCUMENTED
Level
I1
Concentrations
­­
NONE
DOCUMENTED
Calculation
of
Human
Food
chain
threat
score
for
a
watershed.

Lelease
x
Waste
Characteristics
x
Targets
/82,500
=
550
x
320
x
2
/
82,500
=­

59
~1
SWOFEnvironment
4.1.4
ENVIRONMENTAL,
THREAT
4.1.4.2
ENVIRONMENTAL
THREAT
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
While
the
Hazard
Ranking
system
(Ref
1,
section
4.1.4.2.1.1)
calls
for
using
Table
4­
19
in
order
to
as­
sign
an
ecosystem
toxicity
factor
value
for
each
substance,
SCDM
(Ref.
2)
provides
these
values.
Because
there
was
an
observed
release
of
toluene
to
sediment
in
the
wetlands,
and
the
portion
of
the
surface
water
pathway
where
this
release
occyred
is
fi­
esh
water,
only
the
fi­
esh
water
toxicity
values
were
used.

4.1.4.2.1
Ecosystem
ToxicityPersistenceA3ioaccumulation
#PF
=Persistence
Factor
Value
*Ecosystem
Toxicity
Factor
Value
(Ref.
2)
(fresh
water)
**
Eco.
toxicity/
persistence
factor
value
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
20;
Ref.
2)
***
Tox/
Persist/
Bioaccumulation
Potential
FactorYalue
(fresh
water)
(Ref:
l,
Tables
4­
19
and
4­
21;
Ref.
2)

Ecosystem
ToxicityL'ersistenceBioaccumuIation
Factor
Value
=
5
x
1
Os
60
S
WOFEnvironment
4.1.4.2.2
4.1.4.2.3
For
Benzo
(:

Ecosystem
T
10,
ot
Ecosystem
TI
Value:
1
x
1
Ref.

Envit
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value
=
100
Environmen@
threat
­
waste
characteristics
factor
category
value.

pyrene,
or
benzo
(a)
anthracene
:
Ecosystem
dpxicityPersistence
Factor
Value
=
10,000
Ecosystem
B
oaccumdation
Potential
Factor
Value
=
50,000
1
CicityPersistedce
Factor
Value
x
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
)x
loo=
1
x
i
o
6
ticityPersistenLe
x
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
x
Bioaccutndztion
Potential
Factor
j
x
50,000
=
5Ix
10''

Table
2
­
7
(S
k
ction
2.4.3.1)
assigned
value
=
320
I
mental
Threat
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
320
..

61
SWOF/
Environment
4.1.4.3
ENVIRONMENTK~
THREAT
­
TARGETS
Level
I
concentrations
None
Documented.

Most
Distant
Level
I1
Sample
Sample
SE­
21
collected
in
the
wetland
showed
toluene
at
levels
greater
than
three
times
background.
SE­
21
also
contained
xylene
and
3/
4
methylphenol
at
levels
less
than
the
sample
quantitation
hit,
so
these
contaminants
were
not
documented
in
the
observed
release.
Wetland
li­
ontage
between
the
PPE
and
sample
SE­
21,
measured
along
the
perjrneter
of
the
unchnneked
wetland,
is
0.8
miles
(Refs.
3,
pp.
3­
36
­
3­
39;
7;
28,
pp.
1­
3,6­
8;
Figures
3,4).
The
remainder
of
the
surface
water
pathway
has
a
potential
for
contamination,
but
no
site­
related
contamination
has
been
documented
M
e
r
downstream
than
sample
SE­
2
1.

Sample
ID:
SE­
2
1
;
460J
ygkg
toluene
Distance
from
the
Probable
Point
of
Entry:
0.9
mile
Reference:
Ref.
4,
pp.
B49­
B52,
C63­
C67;
Ref.
3,
App.
D,
pp.
D48;
Ref
3,
pp.
3­
36­
39;
Ref.
7;
Ref.
28;
Ref.
13,
pp.
38,44,
192
62
4.1.4.3.1
4.1.4.3.1.1
No
Level
I
c
4.1.4.3.1.2
Sensitive
EnT
Wetlands
Wetland
PF01/
4C
an
Sum
of
Sensii
Level
I1
Con(
SWOFEnvironment
Sensitive
Environments
Level
I
Concentrations
centrations
documented.

Level
I1
Concentrations
Klrnmts:

PF06F
Wetland
Frontage
Reference
0.9
mile
(Refs.
5,
7;
28,
p­
3;
Figure
4).
(Ref
1,
Table
4­
24)
­
Value
25
TotalWetlandFrontageexposedtoLevel
II
contamination:
0.9
miles
WetlandValue:
25
(Ref
1,
Table
4­
24)

2
EnvironmentsValue
+
WetlandValue:
25
Itrations
Factor
Value
=
25
'
.

Level
I1
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
25
63
,

­
..
SWOFEnvironment
'

4.1.4.3.1
.3
PotentialContamination
Sensitive
Environments
Type
of
Suface
Water
Body
Sensitive
Environment:

Reference:
SensitiveEnvironmentValue:
75
Wetlands
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body:

Wetland
Frontage:

Reference:
Wetlands
Value
for
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body:

Type
of
Surface
Water
Body:

Wetland
Frontage:
Reference:
Wetlands
Value
for
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body:
Small­
to­
moderate
stream
(dilution
weight
0.1)
and
Large
stream­
to­
river
(dilution
weight
0.001)
(Ref
1
,
Table
4­
1
3;
Ref
2
1,
p.
2)
Habitat
known
to
be
used
by
Federal
designated
or
proposed
endangered
or
threatened
species
(Ref.
1,
section
4.1.4.3.1.3,
Table
4­
23;
Ref.
9)

.',..<

.p
.
,e>.
~.
7
Small­
to­
moderate
s&&
(dilution
weight
0.1)
(Ref
1;
Table
4­
1
3;
Ref
21,
p.
2)
Total
Prince
George
Creek
wetland
fi­
ontage:
9.5
miles
less
Level
II
frontage
(0.9
miles)
=
8.6
miles
(Refs.
4,
pp.
21;
Ref.
7;
Ref
28,
pp.
1­
3)
,.

­
250
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
24)

Large
stream­
to­
river
(dilution
weight
0.001)
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
13;
Ref.
2
1,
p.
2)
TotalCapeFearwetlandfiontage:
62.2
miles
(Ref.
2
I,
p;
2)

­
500
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
24)

Sum
ofQ(
Wj
+
Sj):
33
(Sum
of
Q(
Wj
+
Sj))/
lO:
3.3
Potential
Contamination
Factor
Value:
3.3
64
SOURCE:
S
OlTS
HILL
&
CASTLE
HAYNE
QUADRANGLE
NORTH
CAROLINA
7.5
MIN.
SERIES
(TOPOGRAPHIC)

P
NORTH
~AROLINA
GRAPHtC
SCALE
0
2000'
4000'

f
.
.
.
