NCD087336335_20020828_Triangle Pacific Corp._FRBCERCLA FS_Technical Review Comments-OCR

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
August 28, 2002
Mr. David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
•
RE: Ttiangle Pacific Site
Dear Mr. Mattison;
Enclosed is a copy of the revised document with two sets of comments. The revised set of
comments is B& V assessment of how Obrien & Gere responded to the issues derived during the
meeting/conference call. The other set is a straight review of the document which outlines some
deficiencies that were not discussed in that meeting and were new to the process. 1 am a little
concern about adding new issues after the fact, but on the other hand I need to make sure the new
comments, if not addressed don't flaw the final document.
Michael F. Townsen ProJeci Manager ..
USEPA
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable• Printed with Vegetable OIi Based Inks on Recycied Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumet)
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
REVISED STEPS 1, 2, AND 3
PRELIMINARY SCREENING-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND
BASELINE PROBLEM FORMULATION
April 2002
for the
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
at
TRIANGLE PACIFIC SITE
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
The following comments were developed while conducting a technical review of the Ap1il 2002
Preliminary Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment and Baseline Problem Formulation forthe
Rl/FS at the Triangle Pacific site located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The April 2002 version
of this document was to incorporate comments generated during the review of the August 2000
version of this document as discussed during the October-16, 2001, meeting at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.
The screening level ecological risk assessment (Steps 1 and 2) for this site is now acceptable;
however, Step 3 is•still not complete and should be reevaluated prior to moving on to Step 4 of the
ecological risk assessment process. At the EPA RPM's request, no additional comments have been .
prepared for this document at this time. Rather, this submittal is designed to evaluate the response
to the original comments and October 16, 2001, meeting discussion as presented in the April 2002
Preliminary Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment and Baseline Problem Formulation ,
document.
The original comments to the August 2000 version of the document is provided with the reviewer's
assessment of the response to the comment (including comments made during the October 16,200 I,
meeting) provided in italics under the comment.
GENERAL COMMENTS
I. It is recommended that t,he title and appropriate portions of this document be changed to
reflect that only Steps 1, 2 and COPC refinement (which,is only part of Step 3) are presented
in this document. This :will make it clear that additional work (SMDP meeting and the
remaining steps included in Step 3 of EPA's 8 step process) needs to be completed prior to
conducting any sampling to support the ecologic;al risk assessment. ·
i This comment does not JJpear to have been aqdre~s~d, since the ti/le of the documen_t,ftas
nor been revised. While, some additional analysis. was added to this report, it is still
insufficient as a complete step 3. Only one~ the path forward ·at the site is clear pnd
transparent cw1 Step 3 bt considered'~~mplete. ,. · . ·· · · ,
•
•
2.
3.
The largest data gap in the ecological risk assessment is the lack of any discussion regarding
the operations that took place at the facilities present at the site. It is recommended that a
summary be included that describes all known operational processes that occurred at the site.
The summary should include the following information: ( I) a figure should be generated that
shows all areas used by Triangle Pacific in the processes while the facility was active; (2)
chemicals and other products used in the processes; (3) waste streams generated (and
estimated volumes) during the processes; (4) waste handling practices; and (5) waste disposal
practices (including identifying all on site disposal areas on a figure). This information is of
great use during Step 3 and can be included in the rationale for including or excluding CO PCs
identified during the abiotic screen that appear to be (or not to be) related to Triangle Pacific
operations.
The revised document adequately addresses this co111111ent.
It is recommended that for the purposes of the ecological risk assessment, the data generated
in separate sampling events be combined into one database for the abiotic screen. While the
current methodology does a good job summarizing the sampling events that have taken place,
it is difficult to follow the evaluation of COPCs as currently presented. The current
. methodology has led to multiple discussions of CO PCs that often result in different lists of
CO PCs. It is recommended that all the site data be screened at one time (including data from
all three sampling events) and one list of CO PCs be developed. The tables provided during
the site visit (Table I) containing all the data should make this change relatively expedient .
All background samples could also be pooled to come up with one site reference value for
comparison in Step 3 COPC refinement. Once this evaluation has been completed, a list of
final COPCs can be discussed and agreed upon during the SMDP.
The revised document has addressed this comment and the three table methodology
presented during the meeting was used. However, it would be helpful if the tables were
named clearly so the reader can easily identify what each table is.
4. A review of aerial photographs indicates that numerous potential waste disposal areas around
the site have not been adequately sampled [for example, the area to the south and west of the
inactive sewage treatment plant and incinerator (the wetland area) was used for waste
disposal from prior to 1953 through at least 1975 (EPA 1999)]. A closer review of the Aerial
Photographic Analysis should be conducted as part of the remaining Step 3 activities. The
SMDP for the site should include a comparison of the histo1ical write up of process activities
and waste disposal at the site, aerial photographs, site figures, and the tables (Table 1) handed
out during the site visit to identify areas of potential complete exposure pathways that need
further evaluation.
This comment was not satisfactorily addressed in the revised document. The historical
activities in area of the sewage treatment plant and incinerator are still not adequately
discussed in the text of the document .
3
•
•
5. The uncertainty section should include information about the uncertainty involved with the
data sets. The two most notable uncertainties to be added include the lack of any sample
quantitation limits and the compounds that were tentatively identified (TICs), or listed as
unidentified. It is recommended that the Tl Cs and other unidentified compounds be included
in a summary table in this report. Simply listing them in the text does not provide the reader
with adequate information on the magnitude and/or frequency of these contaminants detected
during sample analysis.
This com111e111 was adequately addressed in the revised report.
-6. Due to the lack of sample quantitation limits, it is not technically defensible to eliminate any
contaminants based on frequency of detection.
This co111111ent was 1101 adequately addressed within the revised document. Many
contaminants ( PCBsforexamp/e) are eliminated based on frequency of detection; however,
if"you look at the summary tables, the locations where many of the ND is reported has a SQL
greater than the screening value (20 ppb). For this reason PCBs and other conta111i11ants
with elevated SQLs should not be eliminated based onjrequency of detection.
7. Since most PAHs have similar mechanisms of toxicity, it may be a useful tool to evaluate
these contaminants as total PAHs for all media at the site.
8.
This co111111ent was adequately addressed in the revised report .
In the refinement ofCOPC portion of Step 3, it is important to include the original reference
for additional screening values and a short description of where the value was identified, how
the value was developed, and its intended purpose (What type of threshold does the value
represent?). This discussion should assist in the decision to include or exclude the
contaminants as a COPC for the risk assessnient.
This comment was adequately addressed in the revised report.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
I.
2.
Page 20, Section 2.4.7. This section should contain a discussion of contaminants associated
with the Triangle Pacific processes conducted at the site. This discussion will assist with
selection of COPCs during the Baseline Problem Formulation steps conducted later in this
document.
This comment was adequately addressed in the revised report.
Page 26, Section 2.4.9. It is inappropriate to assume a pathway is incomplete based on the
habitat quality during a screening level risk assessment. The screen should identify all
potentially complete exposure pathways present at the site. Unless a contaminant physically
4
•
3.
4.
5.
could not reach an ecological receptor, the pathway should be assumed to be complete at this
point. In Step 3, after COPC refinement, a re-evaluation of the pathways is conducted to
focus the remaining investigation on the most relevant pathways at the site. While it may be
approp,iate to include site specific details that may make a potential pathway more or less
important compared to others, they should not be used to assume the pathway is incomplete.
This comment was adequately addressed in the revised report.
Page 27 and 28, Section 2.6. It is recommended for the screening level risk assessment the
assessment endpoint remain as it is presented in the first paragraph in this section. Until
additional information has been evaluated (Step 3 -Baseline Problem Formulation), it is not
possible to accurately identify assessment endpoints. During the SMDP to be conducted to
discuss baseline problem formulation, all involved parties (Triangle Pacific, EPA, State, and
resource trustees) should develop at a mutually agreeable list of assessment endpoints to
focus the remaining steps of the risk assessment.
This comment was adequately addressed in the revised report.
Page 28, Section 2.7. Measurement endpoints do not include estimations of habitat
suitability and should be removed from the text.
The 111easure111ent endpoints as presented in Step 3 of the revised docu111ent still contain
estimations of habitat suitability. These estimations should be included in the uncertainty
sections and not in the measurement endpoints.
Pages 48 through 55, Section 4.1.1, 4.1.2; and 4.1.3. Throughout this section (beginning
with the evaluation of VOCs in surface soil), NOAELs are given (as mg/kg/day), however,
no explanation of how this NOAEL was used (or is planned to be used) was included in the
text. Some explanation of the methodology for applying these NOAELs to the analytical
results presented in the tables needs to be included in this repo11.
This comment was adequately addressed in the revised report.
6. Page 51, Section 4.1.1. Based on specific comment number 2, vanadium should not be
eliminated solely on the rationale of exposure pathway. If additional reasons exist to eliminate
vanadium exist they should be added to this section.
This comment was adequately addressed in the revised report.
'
Reference
EPA 1999. Aerial Photographic Analysis. Triangle Pacific, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. TS-
PIC-20004462S. November.
5
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
PRELIMINARY SCREENING-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND
BASELINE PROBLEM FORMULATION
for the
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/ FEASIBILITY STUDY
at
TRIANGLE PACIFIC SITE
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
In general, the document is well written and provides the reader with a good mental picture of the site and
the habitats located on site. However, the following comments were identified during the review and are
presented in the form of general and specific comments.
GENERAL COMMENTS
2. It is recommended that the title and approp,iate portions of this document be changed to reflect that only
Steps 1,2 and COPC refinement (which is only part of Step 3) are presented in this document. This will
make it clear that additional work (SMDP meeting and the remaining steps included in Step 3 of EPA 's 8
step process) needs to be completed prior to conducting any sampling to support the ecological risk
assessment.
3. The largest data gap in the ecological risk assessment is the lack of any discussion regarding the
operations that took place at the facilities present at the site. It is recommended that a summary be included
that describes all known operational processes that occurred at the site. The summary should include the
• following information: (I) a figure should be generated that shows all areas used by Triangle Pacific in the
processes while the facility was active; (2) chemicals and other products used in the processes; (3) waste
streams generated (and estimated volumes) during the processes; (4) waste handling practices; and (5) waste
disposal practices (including identifying all on site disposal areas on a figure). This information is of great
use during Step 3 and can be included in the rationale for including or excluding COP.Cs identified during the
abiotic screen that appear to be ( or not to be) related to Triangle Pacific operations.
4. It is recommended that for the purposes of the ecological risk assessment, the data generated in separate
sampling events be combined into one database for the abiotic screen. While the current methodology does a
goodjob· summarizing the sampling events that have taken place, it is difficult to follow the evaluation of
COPCs as currently presented. The current methodology has led to multiple discussions of COPCs that
often result in different lists of COPCs. It is recommended that all the site data be screened at one time
(including data from all three sampling events) and one list of COPCs be developed. The tables provided
during the site visit (Table I) containing all the data should make this change relatively expedient. All
background samples could also be pooled to come up with one site reference value for comparison in Step 3
COPC refinement. Once this evaluation has been completed, a list of final COPCs can be discussed and
agreed upon during the SMDP .
5. A review of aerial photographs.indicates that numerous potential waste disposal areas around the site
have not been adequately sampled [for example, the area to the south and west of the inactive sewage
treatment plant and incinerator (the wetland area) was used for waste disposal from p1ior to I 953 through at
least 1975 (EPA 1999)). A closer review of the Aerial Photographic Analysis should be conducted as patt of
the remaining Step 3 activities. The SMDP for the site should include a comparison of the historical write up
of process activities and waste disposal at the site, aerial photographs, site figures, and the tables (Table 1)
handed out during the site visit to identify areas of potential complete exposure pathways that need further
evaluation.
6. The uncertainty section should include information about the uncertainty involved with the data sets. The
two most notable uncertainties to be added include the lack of any sample quantitation limits and the
compounds that were tentatively.identified (T!Cs), or listed as unidentified. It is recommended that the TICs ft and other unidentified compounds be included in a summary table in this report. Simply listing them in the
text does not provide the reader with adequate information on the magnitude and/or frequency of these
contaminants detected during sample analysis.
7. Due to the lack of sample quantitation limits, it is not technically defensible to eliminate any contaminants
based on frequency of detection.
8. Since most PAHs have similar mechanisms of toxicity it may be a useful. tool to evaluate these
contaminants as total P AHs for all media at the.site.
9. In the refinement of COPC portion of Step 3, it is important to include the original reference for
additional screening values and a short description of where the value was identified, how the value was
developed, and its intended purpose (What type of threshold does the value represent?). This discussion
should assist in the decision to include or exclude the contaminants as a COPC for the risk assessment.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Page 20, Section 2.4.7. This section should contain a discussion of contaminants associated with the
Triangle Pacific processes conducted at the site. This discussion will assist with selection of COPCs during
the Baseline Problem Formulation steps conducted later in this document.
A 2. Page 26, Section 2.4.9. It is inappropriate to assume a pathway is incomplete based on the habitat quality
., during a screening level risk assessment. The screen should identify all potentially complete exposure
pathways present at the site. Unless a contaminant physically could not reach an ecological receptor, the
pathway should be assumed to be complete at this point. In Step 3, after COPC refinement, a re-evaluation
of the pathways is conducted to focus the remaining investigation on the most relevant pathways·at.the site.
While it may be appropriate to include site specific details that may make a potential pathway more or less
important compared to others, they should not be used to assume the pathway is incomplete.
•
3. Page 27 and 28, Section 2.6. It is recommended for the screening level risk assessment the assessment
endpoint remain as it is presented in the first paragraph in this section. Until additional information has been
evaluated (Step 3 -Baseline Problem Formulation), it is not possible to accurately identify assessment
endpoints. During the SMDP to be conducted to discuss baseline problem formulation, all involved parties
(Triangle Pacific, EP A, State, and resource trustees) should develop at a mutually agreeable list of
assessment endpoints to focus the remaining steps of the risk assessment.
4. Page 28, Section 2.7. Measurement endpoints do not include estimations of habitat suitability and should
be removed from the text.
5. Pages 48 through 55, Section 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3. Throughout this section (beginning with the
evaluation of YOCs in surface soil), NOAELs are given (as mg/kg/day), however, no explanation of how
this NOAEL was used (or is planned to be used) was included in the text. Some explanation of the
methodology for applying these NOAELs to the analytical results presented in the tables needs to be
included in this report.
6. Page 51, Section 4.1.1. Based on specific comment number 2, vanadium should not be eliminated solely
on the rationale of exposure patliway. If additional reasons exist to eliminate vanadium, they should be
added to this section. ·
Reference
•
•
EPA 1999. Aerial Photographic Analysis. Triangle Pacific, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. TS-PIC-
20004462S. November.
3
' . 'I • ,I ·. -. . . ,, I .
I
,I ·,. , .;
i
'
.•·
,'
" ' .
,,
·1· ., .
'.•.
. ,, .
. :., .. '
· R~vised Steps 1, 2, and 3 • ·
. \
.· Prelimina·ry Scre:e11.i11g-Levei ·_
·E~-ological Ris}{ A·s~~~stnent an() ·
-. ·Baseli~e .Problem Formulation ·ror
.-Re~~dial:lnve.~tigat~o_./ ·
· . -: Feasibility Study .. ----
• _ · . T·ri~ngle· Pa.cific Site_ -
.··. .Elizabeth City,-N<>rth Carolin~f
·· Prei,are'd for:
· Vi~coni, Inc~ :: - , ,
-' Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania arid · -.• __ _
-Triangle Pacific Corporation'· . · : · ·
·. ' Dallas; Texas . ' .
-·: Presented to:
-: US Environmental Protection Agency -Region·iv .
. . . . . . . . . . ' . . \_ ' . . .· _. · .. : · __ A!l.anta, c·eorgi~ · _ · · · · · ·
.~' -. . .
J ••
, -- -April2002_ -. --: : .
----O'BRIEN 6 GERI: I ·'•
-=-= E_NGINEERS,.INC .
... \
•
0
•
I 06 79\26609
Revised Steps I, 2, and 3
Preliminary Screening-Level
Ecological Risk Assessment and
Baseline Problem Formulation for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Viacom, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
and
Triangle Pacific Corporation, Dallas Texas
Presented to:
US Environmental Protection Agency -Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
April 2002
O'BRIEN 6 GERE = -= ENGINEERS, INC .
95 I Aviation Parkway, Suite 1400
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
0
•
•
TAllLE OF CONTENTS
I.II INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... I
I. I TASK PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.
1.2 TASK APPR01\CI[ ..
. I
.2
2.11 STEP I: PRELIMINARY SCREENING-LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION ............................... 5
2. I ENVIRON~IENTAL SETrJ:-;G ..
2.2 BIOTIC CONDITIONS ..
2.2.1 Land Use ..
2.2.2 Wetlands ..... .
2.2.J Listed Species and Sensitive/Critical Habitats
2.2.4 Flora and Fauna
2.2.5 Arca Fisheries ....
2.2.6 On-Site Habitats ....
2.3 CUL'11JRAL RESOURCES
2A AmOTIC CONDITIONS ..
2.4.1 General Setting ..... .
2.4.2 Tides and Salinity .. .
2.4.J Climate and Meteorology ........... .
2.4.4 Geology .................... .
2.4.5 Groundwater and Surface Water.
2.4.6 Soils ............ .
2.4. 7 Potential Constituents ................ .
2.4.8 Chemical Bioavailability .............. .
2.4.9 Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways
2.5 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL .... .
2.6 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS ................ .
2. 7 MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS ... .
2.8 SCREENI:>iG-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS EVALUATION
.5
6
. ..... 7
. ........ 8
IO
I I
.. 12
12
························ 15 . ............... 16
.. 16
. ............... 16
························· 17
·························•· 18
········ 19
. ....... 19
. ............. 20
. ....... 22
.......... 27
····· 30
30
.30
. 3 l
3.0 STEP 2: PRELIMINARY SCREENING-LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATE AND RISK CALCULATION .....................................................................................................•.......................................... 33
3.1 EPA REGION IV PRELJ~IINARY SCREENING-LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATE AND RlSK CALCULATiml: TIIE "T!IREE~TAilLE" APPROACll ....... .
3.2 DATA CONSIDERATIONS ............. .
3.2.1 Surface Soils ......... .
3.2.1.1 Grccnhorne & O'Mara, Inc. (1990)-Phasc II Screening Site Investigation 3.2.1.2 USEPA Region IV (I 995}---Supplemcnial Screening Inspection ..... 3.2.1.3 S&ME, Inc. (1998)-Expandcd Site Investigation .. 3.2.2 Surface Water ............ .
3.2.2. l Grccnhornc & O'Mara, Inc. (1990}-Phasc II Screening Site Investigation .. 3.2.2.2 USEPA Region IV (1995}---Supplemcntal Screening ~tspcction .... 3.2.2.3 S&ME, Inc. (I 998}---Expandcd Site Investigation ..
3.2.J Sediment.
3.2.3.1 Grecnhornc & O' Mara, Inc. ( 1990}-Phasc II Screening Site Investigation .. 3.2.3.2 USEP/\ Region IV (1995}---Supplcmcnt Screening Inspection .. 3.2.3.3 S&ME, Inc. (1998}---Expandcd Site Investigation ..
3.3 SCREENING-LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATE ....
. .. 33
.34
. .. 34
........... 34
.. 34
35
35
.. 35
.. 36
.. 36
.36
.. 36
.37
.. 37
.38
Final: April 16, 2002 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I : \ralci gh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \ final era. doc
J.4 SCREENING-LEVEL RISK Cil.-\lLICTEll!ZATION _ ..
J.4.1 Preliminary Surface Soil Screening __
J.4.2 Preliminary Surface Water Scrc'Cning __
3.4.J Preliminary Sediment Screening_
3_5 SCJENTIFIC/MAN.-\GEMENT DECISION POINT __
.. 38
_39
--42
_ 42
--45
4.11 STEP J: PRELIMINARY BASELINE PROBLEM FORMULATION .................................................. 47
4_ I REFINEMENT OF PREl.l~IINARY CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN_ _ ________ 47 4. I. I Refinement of Surface Soil CO PCs__ __ 48 4.1.2 Refinement of Surface Water COPCs___ _ 50 4.1.J Refinement of Sediment CO PCs___ _ __ 51 4_2 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS __ 53 4_3 PRELIMINARY BASEI.INE PROBLEM FOR~IULATION__ __ 5G 4.4 SCIENTIFIC/MANAGEMENT DECISION POINT__ G3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND A TIO NS ................... -................................................................. 65
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 67
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc_ JI Final: April 16, 2002 I; \ral eigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final em. doc
•
•
0
•
•
Table I.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
LIST OF TABLES
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis) Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis) Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons,
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis) Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Analytical Results from Background Surface Soil Samples for the Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Analytical Results from Background Surface Water Samples for the Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Analytical Results from Background Sediment Samples for the Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil -Derived from Table I, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil -Derived from Table 2, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina ·
Final: April 16, 2002 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I :\raleigh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \f ma! era. doc
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil -Derived from Table 3, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological core Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Water -Derived from
Table 4, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Water -Derived from Table 5, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological core Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Water -Derived from Table 6, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Sediment -Derived from Table 7, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Sediment -Derived from Table 8, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Sediment -Derived from
Table 9, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North tarolina
Potential Ecological COPCs Remaining after Step 3 Eco-Risk Refinement with Maximum Concentration Noted, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. IV Final: April 16, 2002 I: Ira! cigh \proj\ I 067912 6609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
•
•
•
Figure I.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Final: April 16, 2002
I: \ral i.:i gh \proj\ l 0679\26609\5\cra \final era. doc
LIST OF FIGURES
Site location map (Triangle Pacific Site).
Current site map (Triangle Pacific Site).
Land use in immediate vicinity of the Triangle
Pacific RI/FS Site near Elizabeth City, Pasquotank
.County, North Carolina.
Land use within a one-mile radius of the Triangle
Pacific RI/FS site near Elizabeth City, Pasquotank
County, North Carolina.
National Wetlands Inventory wetlands identified
within a one-mile radius of the Triangle Pacific
RJ/FS site near Elizabeth City, Pasquotank County,
North Carolina.
Preliminary Conceptual Site Model, Step I for
ecological risk assessment (preliminary screening
level: steps I through 3), Triangle Pacific RI/FS
Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
Surface soil (0 -

6

inches bis) sample locations on
Triangle Pacific Site from previous site
investigations.
Surface water/sediment sample locations on Triangle
Pacific Site from previous site investigations.
Distribution of CO PCs Surviving Step 3 ERA
Screening in Surface Soil, Triangle Pacific Site,
Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
Distribution of CO PCs Surviving Step 3 ERA
Screening in Surface Water and Sediment, Triangle
Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina .
V O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I: \ral eigh \proj \ I 0679\2 6609\S\era \finalera. doc
LIST OF APPENDICES
Eight-Step Ecological Risk Assessment Process for
Superfund
EPA Checklist for Ecological Assessment and
Sampling (for the Triangle Pacific Site near Elizabeth
City, North Carolina)
Lists of flora and fauna species potentially occurring on
or near the Triangle Pacific Site near Elizabeth City,
North Carolina
EPA Technical Review Comments for the Preliminary
Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment and
Baseline Problem Formulation received August 21, 200!
VI Final: April 16, 2002
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Task Purpose and Objectives
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. (O'Brien & Gere) has conducted the preliminary ecological risk screening, refinement assessment, and baseline problem formulation (Steps I through 3) of the ecological risk assessment (ERA) for the Triangle Pacific Corporation Site in Elizabeth City, North Carolina (the Site). This effort is part of the work scope being conducted to complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RJ/FS) for the Site under an Administrative Order by Consent entered between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV (EPA), and Triangle Pacific Corporation and CBS Corporation (CBS).1 · Triangle Pacific Corporation and CBS arc collectively referred to in the AOC and in this report as the "Respondents". This work is proceeding under Sections 104, 122(a), and 122 (d)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Action of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9604 and 9622. In addition to EPA involvement at this Site, the Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has participated in previous studies of this Site and other Site-related activities.
One element of the RJ/FS for this Site is the preparation of an ERA. The EPA ERA process is an eight-step procedure, which includes six scientific management decision points (SMDPs) to
determine if the assessment process should be truncated or proceed to the next step. The ERA is a sequential process, and this document presents the preliminary findings of Steps I through 3 .
Overall, the purpose of the ERA task of the RJ/FS is to evaluate if potential ecological receptors exist on or adjacent to the Site, if those potential ecological receptors may be exposed to constituents related to former activities or releases originating from the Site, and if, through a conservative abiotic screening process, exposure to those constituents represents a potential risk to those ecological receptors. This document presents the results of the preliminary screening-
level ERA (Steps I through 3), which is intended to meet the requirements for a preliminary or qualitative risk evaluation to facilitate the determination of whether a quantitative risk evaluation is required for this Site. ·
Based on the findings of this report, additional assessment may be proposed to further evaluate potential risk to ecological receptors at the Site. The RJ/FS Work Plan provides for a biota sampling program in the event that the conclusions of this screening-level assessment indicate that further ecological evaluation is necessary. This document is prepared and provided to EPA and NCDENR for review and approval.
This document has been organized into the following sections:
• Section I (Introduction) summarizes the purpose of the ERA and includes an
overview of the task objectives and approach.
1 Viacom, Inc. is the successor by corporate merger to CBS Corporation .
Final: April 16, 2002 I O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ral eigh \proj\ I 06 79\2 6609\5\era \final era. doc
• Section 2 (Step I·. Preliminary Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation) presents the initial step of the ERA, including information on the environmental setting; potential Site-related constituents, and chemical conceptual Site model (CSM); assessment and measurement endpoints; and ecological effects evaluation.
• Section 3 (Step 2: Preliminary Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation) presents the estimate of exposure levels and preliminary data screening to evaluate potential risk to potential ecological receptors.
• Section 4 (Step 3: Baseline Risk Assessment Problem Formulation) presents the refinement of problem formulation developed in the screening-level assessment in the Steps I and 2 of the ERA.
• Section 5 (Conclusions and Recommendations) summarizes the preliminary findings of Steps I through 3 of this ERA, and recommends whether additional Site-related and background data should be collected as part of the RI/FS to further evaluate the potential risks to potential ecological receptors associated with the Site.
1.2 Task Approach
•
This ERA was performed in accordance with the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final (EPA 1997). As presented in Appendix A, the current EPA ecological risk • assessment process consists of eight general steps and six SMDPs of which Steps I, 2, and 3 were completed in this preliminary assessment. The eight steps and defined SMDPs for each step in the ERA process consist of the following:
• Step I: Screening-level problem formulation and ecological effects evaluation
• Step 2: Screening-level exposure estimate and risk calculation
• SMDP
• Step 3: Baseline risk assessment problem formulation
• SMDP
• Step 4: Study design and data quality objective process
• SMDP
• Step 5: Field verification of sampling design
• SMDP
• Step 6: Site investigation and analysis phase
• SMDP
• Step 7: Risk characterization
• Step 8: Risk Management
• SMDP
The information and conclusions presented in this report are based on the preliminary screening of available historical data collected from abiotic media at the Site. The source documents for this historical screening data include the following: •
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 2 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral ci gh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\cra \final era. doc
0
•
•
• Phase I Screening Site Investigation of Triangle Pacific Corporation (NCO
087336335), June 1990, by Grcenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. (G&O), for tlic State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management, Superfund Section.
• Phase II Screening Site Investigation for the Triangle Pacific IXL Division
Site, Pasquotank County, North Carolina (NCO 087336335), December
1990, by G&O for the State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health,. and Natural Resources, Divi_sion of Solid Waste Management.
• Supplemental Screening Inspection Report, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth
City, Pasquotank County, North Carolina, ESD Project No. 95-0370. 1995.
U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Athens, Georgia.
• Expanded Site Investigation Report: Task 4 -Administrative Order of
Consent-Docket No. 98-02-C, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, September
1998, prepared by Soils and Materials Engineers, Inc. (S&ME), Inc. on behalf of Triangle Pacific Corporation and CBS Corporation and presented to US EPA Region IV and NCDENR.
The evaluation and preliminary ecological screening of this historical database should be conducted with the following considerations and uncertainties:
Final: April 16, 2002
I) Historical data were collected by different parties (e.g. G&O; EPA; S&ME) at different times, ranging from I 990 to 1998. Thus, different personnel
from different firms/agencies collected samples using different methods and
submitted the samples to different analytical laboratories for analysis of different combinations of analytes. These considerations all represent
confounding factors for data comparability.
2) Historical data were collected from different media from different portions of
the Site at different times. In other words, a soil sample collected at location "X" on the Site in 1990 was not followed up with an additional sample
collected at the same location at a later date to allow for evaluation of
potential changes in concentration over time. Thus, the historical database limits evaluation of temporal changes, if any.
3) Data handling and reporting methods, data validation approaches and data qualification techniques varied among sampling events, resulting in data that arc not directly comparable. Some data were validated, some were not, and the evaluation of data quality in other instances is unknown,
4) The historical reports generally provided summary data tables in which the reported data only included anal)tes with reported concentrations. Original
laboratory packages were obtained for examination; however it was still not possible to reconstruct the entire database, including method detection limits and some quantitation limits. In some cases, quantitation limits were not provided and are unknown. These considerations hamper data interpretation and comparability, as well as certain aspects of the EPA Region IV risk
screening process. On one hand, maximum concentrations for analytcs were available which represent the key data in the EPA Region IV risk screening.
3 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ralcigh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \finalera. doc
On the other hand, sample quantitation limits arc not available for some non-•
detected analytcs, and frequency information is not available for the Step 3
risk refinement process. Such considerations affect the quality,
completeness, and uncertainty of the processes in this report.
5) Limited background samples were collected, so that information is available
for the Step 3 refinement in the preliminary risk screening process.
The preceding considerations arc relevant to screening data quality and comparability and to the conformance of the database to the desired EPA Region IV screening level
guidance and format. Therefore, the preliminary ecological risk screening process and
results presented in this report will conform to EPA Region IV eco-risk guidance as
closely as the historical database permits, given the aforementioned limits and
uncertainties.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 4 Final: April 16, 2002 I: l.raleigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\cra \final era. doc
•
•
•
•
2.0 STEP 1: PRELIMINARY SCREENING-LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS EVALUATION
The preliminary screening-level problem formulation (Step I of the ERA) presents relevant background information, including biotic and abiotic conditions that may influence potential exposure to Site-related constituents in soil, surface water, groundwater, and sediment. The objective of screening-level problem formulation is to assist in the development of the CSM for risk assessment purposes. This section presents the following background information obtained as part of the problem formulation process:
• Determination of environmental setting through on-Site visit and available literature review, including identification of ecological habitats, dominant species, bodies of water, wetlands, and sensitive environments.
• Completion of checklist for ecological assessments.
• Evaluation of constituent bioavailability including fate and transport mechanisms and chemical properties that may exist at the Site.
• Identification of ecotoxicity mechanisms associated with Site constituents and likely categories of ecological receptors that may be affected in the area of the Site. • Identification of complete exposure pathways that may exist, in which the receptor may be exposed to chemical and physical agents at or originating from the Site.
• Selection of endpoints to screen for ecological risk (protective for adverse effects on ecological receptors including plant and animal populations and communities, habitats, and sensitive environments) .
2.1 Environm_ental Setting
The.Site comprises approximately 188 acres, located in Pasquotank County in northeastern North Carolina, approximately 5.5 miles southeast of Elizabeth City (Figure l). The Site is situated on the southern portion ofa small peninsula formed by the Pasquotank River on the east and Newbegun Creek on the south (Figure I). A tributary ofNewbegun Creek, known as Pailin Creek, borders the ~ite on the west (Figure 2).
The topography of the Site is virtually flat with no significant topographic relief. The land surface is at a nominal elevation of less than l O feet above mean sea level. Soils at the Site generally consist of 6 to 10 feet of clays and sandy clays underlain by the fine to medium sands of the Yorktown Formation. Groundwater is encountered 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface.
Newbegun Creek and its tributary, Pailin Creek, which borders the west and south boundaries of the Site are shallow, fresh water streams that are occasionally influenced· by wind-driven tides. Newbegun Creek is joined at the southernmost tip of the Site by Pailin Creek. Both Newbegun and Pailin Creek are bordered by wetlands. Newbegun Creek joins with the Pasquotank River approximately 2 miles southeast of the Site. The Pasquotank River, in tum, empties into Albermarle Sound approximately 8 miles downstream (see Figures I and 2) .
Final: April I 6, 2002 5 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. l;',ralcigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
The cast cen_tral portion of the Site, as shown on Figure 2, is occupied by a large blimp hangar that is still in use today by a firm that manufactures and tests lighter-than-air vessels at this location. The area west of the blimp hangar is occupied by buildings, former buildings in various states of deterioration, and concrete and asphalt roads and pads, some of which were used for drum and tank storage in the past. This central operations area is surrounded by asphalt or crushed rock parking or staging areas, which, in some cases, have deteriorated to the point that turf grasses have colonized these areas. The central operations area is surrounded by mowed and maintained grassy turf. A former sewage treatment plant is located southwest of the central operations area near Pailin Creek. A closed landfill encompassing approximately 22 acres is located south of the central operations area. Herbaceous plants in stages of old field succession represent the landfill cover. This cover is not mowed, although woody plants have not invaded this area at this time. In general, the Site is quite open with most natural cover consisting of ·mowed and maintained grasses. Trees, shrubs, and vines have colonized the banks and adjacent areas of streams and tributaries on the Site, as depicted in Figure 2.
A mixture of agricultural and residential ar~as surrounds the Site. Agricultural areas border the Site to the north, northwest, west, and south (across Newbegun Creek), ·
•
including both cover and row crops. These areas are intensively farmed except for the wooded communities bordering area streams and tributaries. As noted earlier, the Site is • ,· .. , located in the southern portion ofa peninsula, bordered by the P_asquotank Ri,ver on the :f:/··~.} east, Newbegun Creek on the south, and Pailin Creek on the west (Figure I). _Upscale . ·::0\:,"·, ·-.~: .. ·, .. , .. residences on large lots occupy the perimeter of this peninsula; especially the area"'·. · ... </,:~ff, ,_ ;,. ; : -~. bordering the Pasquotank River iajd ilie'area east of the Site borae.ring Ne\~•~egun. C~eek..Y~1 ;',,, )\'. , These residential areas are well wooded. ', · . •·:' .. ·•. , 11;' 1:·;,t~\ . ,,..,t"·· ''{... :, : . . ._~ ...... ·:•. ./,_:: · . -~:'.:.,1.::_,~1,):.~·;. .. ::: .. ·-{l.d;.:(: · .. ·:~:~;/~-: .. ~i . ::-: The area that is the subject of this assessment consists of the Site itself, incl.tiding the . ·\.?, :. '." · ·( · . ' ' ... ,~. • • • . . ' ··: '\ • ·• •,;.1 .,, ' ', " . ..-\ ....... .,,. • • · "central operations area and adjacent areas and the landfill, as well as Pailin Creek'ilnd ,/ · · • ·, f ·: " ·. , · " • · ~ •.. , •. • ,.~,,.1~•~-, ~ ~•l'·---·--l';:r.., . .,1. .·,:._ ...... ,11,1-':•.:\ hmited portions ofNewbegun Creek. These areas were all locations from which samples,/,:,,.;·. • • ' ,• •, '•••i~I. · · , J ,~ •• ;. .. ,•4 ;,~. ,-'","'";', •~~~•••, • ;' .•.•t, J" , of s01l, sediment, and surface water. were collected and analyzed dunng prev10us .studies.·· :: i ·
2.2 Biotic Conditions ·
. ,,.-. . ~ ~:_,~:1.{. .. ·-:!;~1,:_~: _.,: .. ,·;, ,/ . . ., .. '
.. · f.\' . <.···) <·>·f~),_f. :: : '. /'..';,~\ :'.:( '· -: '' ' ' Site-specific information about biota is veiy limited. Plant or animal surveys have not been conducted on the Site or adjacent to it. O'Brien & Gere conciucteia brief Site . reconnaissance on March 14, 2000, but observations were li~ited to those'iiecessaiy to complete the EPA Checklist for Ecological Assessment'ancl Salhpling (Appendix B). ,. Additional input for the EPA checklist was provided by mapping and quantifying land uses from aerial photographs of the Site and surrounding areas. These data were supplemented by information from the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North · · Carolina Natural Heritage Program, the NCDENR, plant and animal identification guides and range maps, and similar resources. This information provided data for the characterization of biotic conditions at this Site and adjacent areas.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 6. Final: April 16, 2002 I :~alcigh \proj\ l 0679\26609\j\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
2.2. l Land Use
Prior to discussing the natural habitats located on the Site and adjacent areas, an analysis of land use in the area provides insight into local natural communities. Figure 3 depicts the Site as well as the areas immediately adjacent to it. The Site itself encompasses approximately 188 acres within the approximately 383 acres shown in Figure 3. Land use in the area immediately surrounding and encompassing the Site may be described as follows:
Land Use
• Former Manufacturing Arca
Plus Sewage Treatment Plant
• Open Fields-maintained areas,
agricultural areas, old fields, and
non-maintained grassy areas
• Wooded Areas
• Open Water-Pailin Creek and
portion ofNewbegun Creek
Percentage of Total
Arca
14.3%
47.3%
28.6%
7.0%
The on-Site landfill has been included in the Open Fields category on Figure 3 because it supports herbaceous cover, a consideration from a habitat perspective.
Additional land use perspective is provided in Figure 4, which depicts a refinement of land use within a one-mile radius of the Site. This two-mile diameter circle encompasses approximately 2,011 acres. Land use within a one-mile radius of the Site may be described as follows:
Final: April I 6, 2002
Land Use
• Former Manufacturing Area
Plus Sewage Treatment Plant
• Open Fields-maintained areas,
agricultural areas, old fields, and
non-maintained grassy areas
• Wooded Areas
• Open Water-Pailin Creek, Newbegun
Creek, and Pasquotank River
• Wooded Residential Areas
7
I: \ralci gh \proj\ I 0679\2 6609\5\era \final era. doc
Percentage of Total
Area
2.8%
42.6%
6.6%
33.5%
16.5%
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
As was the case with Figure 3, the on-Site landfill has been included in the Open Fields category of land use because of habitat considerations. The residential areas bordering portions ofNewbegun Creek and the Pasquotank River are characterized by upscale homes on large lots heavily wooded with mature trees. As shown on the aerial photograph in Figure 4, the canopy of these residential lots is nearly complete. Early aerial photographs of these residential areas indicate that prior to development,
woodlands similar to those found elsewhere in the vicinity characterized these areas. It appears that development occurred with limited disturbance to mature trees comprising the canopy.
A comparison of Figures 3 and 4 indicates the following trends in land use in the area:
• As one moves away from the central operations area at the Site, agricultural activities, open fields, and open water increasingly dominate land use. This trend is reinforced by the obvious land uses shown on Figure 4 outside of the one-mile radius ring. Areas to the north, northwest, west, and south (across
Newbegun Creek) are dominated by agricultural activities, both row crops and cover crops, except for limited wooded areas adjacent to watercourses.
The heavily agricultural land uses near the Site may be relevant to the
analysis of constituents found on the Site in view of the intense use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides in modern agricultural practices. The wide Pasquotank River dominates areas to the east.
•
• The Site is located on a small peninsula and is surrounded by water, as well •· as the wooded areas associated with that water. Therefore, the percentage of
wooded cover closest to the Site (Figure 3) is more than four times as great as areas more distant from the Site (Figure 4).
• The central operations area of the Site is largely hard-surfaced and
maintained to the degree that it does not provide desirable habitat for
wildlife. As one moves west, southwest, south, and southeast of this former facilities area, wildlife habitats become increasingly more desirable,
especially as one approaches Pailin Creek and Newbegun Creek.
This analysis ofland use in the vicinity of the Site provides a basis for analyzing Site habitats and biotic conditions in this area.
2.2.2 Wetlands
The presence of wetlands on or near the Site was addressed both through a literature review, including area maps of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and through a Site visit by a biologist competent in wetland delineation. The 1987 U, S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual defines wetlands as "areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Three criteria must be met for a determination of jurisdictional wetlands according to the COE: (I) hydric soils, (2)
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 8 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral eigh \proj\ l 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
0
•
•
hydrophytic vegetation, and (3) wetland hydrology. All three criteria must be met for an area to be classified as a jurisdictional wetland.
NWI maps arc generated by USFWS. The USFWS developed the NWI maps by examining aerial photographs and categorizing the features observed on these photographs into broad classifications of potential wetlands. It is important to note that the USFWS wetlands identified on NWI maps need to meet only one of the three criteria listed for the COE, so that wetlands identified on NWI maps may not be jurisdictional wetlands.
The NWI maps arc based on U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) 7 .5-minute topographic quadrangle maps. In the case of the Triangle Pacific Site, three NWI maps were examined including the quadrangles for Wecksville, North Carolina; Elizabeth City, North Carolina; and Wade Point, North Carolina. A review of these NWI maps indicated the presence of wetlands both on the Site and near it. The wetlands were notably associated with areas adjacent to Pailin Creek and its tributaries and areas adjacent to Newbegun Creek and the Pasquotank River. Field investigation confirmed that these NW! wetlands arc also probably COE jurisdictional wetlands because they meet all three criteria.
The NWI wetlands on and adjacent to the Site arc all classified by the USFWS as Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leafed Deciduous Wetlands designation. In addition, all wetlands on the Site were characterized as freshwater wetlands having a non-tidal, seasonally flooded water regime. Certain of the wetlands on adjacent properties were characterized as having temporarily flooded or semi-permanently flooded water regimes.
O'Brien & Gere biologists conducting the Site field reconnaissance confirmed and concurred with the NW! wetlands designations and descriptions with the two following modifications:
• The NWI palustrine, forested, broad-leafed deciduous wetlands, especially those associated with Pailin Creek are rather densely populated with and, in the wettest areas, dominated by bald cypress trees. Technically, bald cypress trees are deciduous because they shed their leaves, but many laypersons view them as "evergreens" because of the appearance of the leaves.
• Virtually all of the wetlands identified on the NWI maps were "wooded" or "swamps". However, one inlet from Newbegun Creek that lies just east of the Site was, in fact, a freshwater marsh, dominated by herbaceous aquatic vegetation. That area was mistakenly identified as "forested" on the NW! map. This marsh should be designated as Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent Freshwater Marsh designation with a non-tidal water regime.
A map of the wetlands found within a one-mile radius of central Site operations area is provided in Figure 5.
The NWI wetlands include generalized descriptions of anticipated vegetative associations in given Site-specific conditions. For example, the following communities have been identified by the USFWS on the Site and in adjoining areas as wetlands communities:
Final: April 16, 2002 9 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh\proj\ l 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
• PFO I A (palustrinc, forested, broad-leafed deciduous with non-tidal,
temporarily flooded, freshwater rcgimc)-bottomland or coastal forest where stream flow is moderate and alluvium is fairly well-drained; dominant trees arc river birch, swcctgum, red maple, yellow poplar, sycamore, American elm, sugarbcrry, bitternut hickory, swamp chestnut oak, and box cider. Loblolly pine may be present on the driest bottomlands of the coastal plain.
• PFO I B (palustrinc, forested, broad-leafed deciduous with non-tidal, temporarily flooded, freshwater rcgime)-non-alluvial hardwood swamps, dominated by swcctgum or red maple and black gum.
• PFO IC (palustrinc, forested, broad-leafed deciduous with non-tidal, temporarily flooded, freshwater rcgimc)-specics similar to PFOIA with increased dominance of swamp chestnut oak, overcup oak, black gum, southern red oak, shumard oak, laurel oak, willow oak, river birch, and water hickory.
These generalized descriptions are rather inclusive but are indicative of some of the species dominating the forested wetlands on or adjacent to the Site. In addition, as noted earlier, bald cypress is common to dominant in wetter portions of the Site.
2.2.3 Listed Species and Sensitive/Critical Habitats
In a July 6, 1998 memorandum, Stephanie L. Kozel, Hydrogeologist, Superfund Section of the NCDENR, indicated that she had reviewed the 7.5-minute quadrangle maiis of Elizabeth City, Shiloh, Weeksville, and Wade Point at the North Carolina Hefitage ·. Program of the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Department in Raleigh, ·Ncirth · .:,~~ ,.., ·r" "., ., .. ~. I. ' Carolina. The purpose of her review was to identify the presence of any listed species or · sensitive habitats on or in the vicinity of the Site. One threatened plant, Li/aeopiti' -, attenuata (formerly L. carolinensis, Carolina Grasswort), was located within the four-·.:· mile radius of the Site. One significantly rare plant, Ludwigia ala ta (Winged Seedbox), was located within the four-mile radius of the Site and along the 15-mile surface water pathway. ·
A survey of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database on July 6, 2000 confirmed the records for the two listed plants described in the preceding paragraph. In addition, another significantly rare plant, Heteranthera multi flora (Multiflowered Mud-plantain), was found historically in Pasquotank County. An endangered fish, Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon), was also found historically in Pasquotank County. Finally, an endangered bird, Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle), and a threatened mammal, Sorex: longirostris jisheri (Dismal Swamp Southeastern Shrew), are also found in Pasquotank County; however, these latter two species are both currently undergoing delisting as federal species. None of the listed species identified in the preceding discussion has been found to date on or adjacent to the Site.
In addition to the listed species, several sensitive natural communities have been identified in Pasquotank County, including the following:
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. IO Final: April 16, 2002 I: 'raleigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
;~ .--.
~:l
•
•
•
...
Status
• Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pinc Forest S3
• Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) S4
• Nonrivcrine Swamp Forest S3
• Nonrivcrinc Wet Hardwood Forest SI
• Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest S2
• Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp S3 • Tidal Freshwater Marsh S3
The status designations are described as follows:
SI critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state
S2 imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the state
S3 rare or uncommon in North Carolina
S4 apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences
The presence of these particular sensitive natural communities has not been confirmed on or near the Site. The wetlands present at the Site would be considered sensitive habitats.
2.2.4 Flora and Fauna
Lists of the floral and fauna! species that may potentially occur at the Site or in the· vicinity of the Site are provided in Appendix C. These lists were compiled using area identification guides, range maps, and other similar literature-based sources. The lists provided in Appendix C include fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, grasses, trees, vines, and shrubs. It must be noted that the species identified in Appendix C may or may not be found on the Site at any given time. In addition, specific niche requirements, including microhabitat and microclimatic factors, may preclude the presence on the Site of some of the identified species. Finally, many of the species identified in Appendix C (especially birds) have migratory habits and their presence, if any, at or near the Site may be transient.
The potential presence of Federal-or State-listed endangered, threatened, rare, or special concern species was addressed in detail in Section 2.2.3. Such species have not been identified on the Site or in the immediate vicinity of the Site .
Final: April 16, 2002 11 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. l: \ral eigh \proj\ I 0679\2 6609\5\erll \f malera. doc
2.2.5 Area Fisheries
As noted previously, the Site is bordered on two sides by freshwater, as represented by Pail in Creek to the west and Newbegun Creek to the south. Some information was available concerning the fisheries in those two watercourses, although those data were limited and general.
Fauna! surveys have not been conducted on the Site. The G&O June 1990 Phase I Site Screening Investigation (SSI) indicated that the Pasquotank River and Ncwbegun Creek were spawning areas for river herring. The same document characterized N cwbegun Creek as an excellent sport fishery for bluegill, black crappie, and white perch.
The December 22, 1998 report developed by NCDENR from the Expanded Site Investigation (ES!) characterized the Pailin Creek fishery as including striped bass, largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, and catfish. The same document suggested that the fisheries ofNewbegun Creek, the Pasquotank River, and Albermarle Sound included these same species plus flounder, "bass", "perch", and other shellfish and finfish.
A memorandum, dated October 29, 1998, from Stephanie L. Kozel, a hydrogeologist with the Superfund Section ofNCDENR, to her file provided additional fisheries information that Ms. Kozel had obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Her sources indicated that recreational fishing occurred on Pailin Creek, as evidenced by personal observation and the presence ofbobbers, fishing line, and other
•
fishing paraphernalia suspended from utility lines and vegetation near bridge and railroad • crossings. Both recreational and commercial fishing are known to occur at the confluence of Pailin and Newbegun Creeks. Preferred recreational sport fishes include striped bass, white perch, largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, and several species of catfishes. Recreational and commercial fishing for these same species are known to occur in the Pasquotank River and Albermarle Sound.
2.2.6 On-Site Habitats
The on-Site and immediately adjacent habitats may be identified in the following sub-sections, based·on observed characteristics.
Ruderal -The Site operations area is still in use for industrial purposes. Areas to the immediate west and southwest of this central area consist of asphalt/paved roads, storage pads, buildings in various stages of deterioration, and other remnants of past human manufacturing and Navy base activities at the Site. These areas are relatively open with vegetation limited to maintained ground cover or patches of weedy vegetation in non-hard-surfaced areas. The substrates in this area consist largely of asphalt, concrete, or crushed rock (gravel). In addition, due to on-going industrial activities at the Site, as well as residential traffic, human activity is always present, a hindrance to wildlife. This area represents extremely poor habitat for wildlife, lacking food, water, cover, and 'security. Transient species may be observed resting or moving through this area .
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 12 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ralei gh \proj\l 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
•
Final: April 16, 2002
Maintained Turf Grasses -Portions of the Site surrounding the rudcral area
consist of open areas, especially to the north, cast, and south. The substrates in these areas arc usually either native soils or crushed rock. Ground cover consists
of turf grasses and invasive herbaceous vegetation, all of which is closely mowed
and maintained for on-going Site manufacturing activities. These maintained
areas arc also of limited value as wildlife habitat due to openness and limited
cover. Transients and insectivorous birds may use this area.
Agricultural Fields -As noted previously, areas surrounding the Site are heavily agricultural with cover consisting of both row crops and cover crops. This land use/habitat type is found on northern and western portions of the Site. This area can provide good wildlife habitat at least on a seasonal basis because these fields
provide excellent food and cover for many species, including birds, small
mammals, and similar species. The vegetation in this habitat tends to be
monocultural and is planted and removed on a seasonal basis. Nevertheless,
animal species residing in adjacent permanent cover may use this habitat for
feeding.
Old Fields -Portions of the Site to the west, southwest, and south of the former
manufacturing areas exhibit unmaintained herbaceous vegetative communities.
This habitat includes the approximately 22-acre on-Site landfill. This habitat is best described as "old field", consisting of mature, unmaintained grasses and forbs that are undergoing ecological succession. However, the succession in these areas has not progressed to the point that woody shrubs have invaded the area. This area provides excellent wildlife habitat for grassland species,
including ample food and cover for such species. The vegetative community
tends to range from one to four feet in height in this habitat.
Native Forested Areas -This habitat generally occupies portions of the Site between the open areas (ruderal, maintained turf grasses, agricultural fields, and old fields) and the watercourses that border the Site. In general, these wooded areas are vegetated by native trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover. The forested habitat on the Site really represents a continuum of wooded habitats as follows:
"Upland" Hardwood Forest-This description is something ofa
misnomer because the Site lies on the coastal plain a few feet
above sea level and above the water table. On the other hand,
this portion of the wooded area cannot be distinguished as
"bottomland" because this area does not flood and it lies in an
area without topographic relief The native wooded areas
adjacent to open areas tend to occupy well-drained soils a few
feet above sea level, dominated by hardwoods as described in
Section 2.2.2.
Swamp -The wooded areas adjacent to and in the shallow
portions of the watercourses bordering the Site consist of bald
cypress, gum, and often typical swamp species as described in
. Section 2.2.2. This habitat, of course, is a classic wetland
community and was identified and delineated on Figure 5.
13 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I :\ral cigh \proj\ 106 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
Transition/Continuum Forest -The wooded area between the
"upland" hardwood forest and the swamp represents a zone of
transition. A transect from the open areas through the wooded
zone to the stream results in a declining land surface elevation, a
water table closer to the land surface, moister soils (approaching
saturation), a greater likelihood of flooding, and changing
microclimatic conditions. These changes result in changes in
woody vegetation composition and species according to the
niches created in this continuum.
•
Thus, the native forested areas on the Site are hardwood forests displaying
considerable diversity due to transitional changes from the higher elevations to the edge of water. The portion of these forested areas closest to watercourses, especially Pailin Creek, have been classified as wetlands, as shown on Figure 5 and described in Section 2.2.2, including species composition. The diversity in this natural transitional community provides good wildlife habitat including, food, water, cover, and security. A level ofnatural stress is placed on the wooded areas closest to water as a result of periodic flooding and water level changes. Water marks on vegetation, as well as the general height of cypress "knees", indicates the water level fluctuations are_ generally 6 to 8 inches or less.
Wooded Residential Areas:-Portions_ofth~ peniri:~;a where the Site is located, "/. ~;~·· have been developed as res1dent1al areas with upscale homes on large lots and. ·. )'.;i,.J'\, acreages .. These residential areas bo~cler :t:i.ewbegJn ~Creek and ~e Pasquotank.:·::: • ;: . -~-:;, River. Pnor to development, this area was occup1~d _by ''.upland' hard"".ood . , .. ·. ·.· },;.;, .... :. • forest as described in the preceding'section. Land elevaiion is ii few feet above· .. :..: '\"'.,:,':.\.-sea level but soils appeiir to be well drain.ea., The_ devel_opment of this area .: .. C: .••• i):'. (:·:. resulted in the removal of all understory arid replaceirieiitwith highly maintained· ; .';f ,}-_'::·. •. .,. \. ' I --

,

•

• ~-., ·'--•. -;: • ',: , • -,.. ' ,. turf grasses and ornamental shrubs.' However, the developers obviously ' ·' · '.; ;.--.,; ;:-. expended effort to 'maintain as many of the mature trees as possible, resulting in. ·.,.:. ,· ,-,: ,· . considerable canopy as shown in Figure 4. While these developed areas have .· ;,_( · ·: :· less wildlife habitat value than the more natural areas of the peninsula, the. . '. •.• residential areas will support many typical yard species including squirrels, various bird species, some small mammals, and similar fauna. The mature trees also provide mast for food and nesting and roosting areas for fauna. , ... · , • • •• , >. ' • • \ • ' ~ -. '
Freshwater Marsh -A small inlefor cove from Newbegun Creek lies between the sewage treatment plant and the residential development in the southern
portion of the peninsula. This cove has been colonized by emergent aquatic macrophytes, such as cattails (Typha spp.), rushes (Scirpus spp.), and similar wetland plant species. Unlike the other wetlands on the peninsula, this habitat is not dominated by woody species. Typical freshwater marsh flora and fauna are found in this habitat. The quality of this wetland habitat is quite good but it is limited in size and is isolated from other similar habitats.
In summary, areas adjacent to the length of Pailin Creek, and to a lesser extent nearby adjacent portions ofNewbegun Creek, are occupied by wooded wetlands, consisting of cypress and other obligate'and facultative wetland species (palustrine, forested, broad-leafed deciduous, seasonally flooded), and marshes dominated by cattails and rushes. •.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 14 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral cigh \proj\l 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
• Deciduous trees and shrubs populate the more upland areas that have not been cleared.
•
•
Most of the Site; including the landfill, was cleared and maintained at one time, and herbaceous cover represents these areas.
' 2.3 Cultural Resources
The presence or potential presence of cultural resources on or near the Site assumes the following three forms: !) historic resources; 2) archaeological resources or sites; and 3) Federal or state land holdings such as public parks, public forestlands, military bases, and similar public resources. O'Brien & Gere contacted the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) concerning the presence of historic and archeological
resources in the vicinity of the Site. The SHPO quadrangle maps for Wceksvillc, Wade
Point, and Elizabeth City (last surveyed by SHPO in 1985) were reviewed for resources
in the Archeology and Natural Heritage Program within a two-mile radius of the Site, with the following results:
• Historic Resources -SHPO identifies any structure or historic artifact greater
than 50 years of age on its maps as candidates for potential designation as
historic sites. A review process refines this list to sites deemed worthy of
official designation. At this time, no natural heritage (historic) sites are
located within the two-mile radius of the Site. However, 25 locations arc
under review and consideration within the two-mile radius. With one
exception, these locations are over one mile from the Site. The lone ·
exception is the Site itself, which is under consideration as a natural heritage
site due to its historic usage as a blimp base. If a historic designation occurs,
it will encompass the entire Site, as well as other portions of the former Navy
blimp base.
• Archeological Resources -SHPO identifies four archeological resource sites
within a two-mile radius of the Site. All four of these archeological
resources are distributed on properties south ofNewbegun Creek in Salem
Township. A fifth archeological resource was identified near the U. S. Coast
Guard Air Base, just outside of the two-mile radius of the Site.
• Federal or State Land Holdings -Public parks, public forest lands, military
bases, and other similar public land holdings are not found within a two-mile
radius of the Site. The U.S. Coast Guard Air Base lies northwest of the Site
just bey~nd the two-mile radius.
The cultural resources review indicates that with one exception, the Site does not contain,
is not adjacent to, nor is expected to affect any historic resources, archeological
resources, or public holdings. The single exception is consideration of the Site itself for potential designation as a natural heritage site by SHPO. The Site is on the study list for designation before the National Register listing. In addition to the former Navy blimp base, two other sites within the two-mile radius are on the study list before the National
Register Listing. The Weeksville Brick Road site and Morris-Meads Farm arc located . west of the Site, with the closest location more than one mile away .
Final: April 16, 2002 · 15 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\!i\era \final era. doc
2.4 Abiotic Conditions
The following information presented in this section regarding abiotic condition on the Site is based on historical data collected on-site and a review of available historical and technical literature. · This information is provided to identify considerations that may influence the frequency and magnitude of potential ecological exposure at or near the Site.
2.4.1 General Setting
The Site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Site area is characterized by subdued topography that is a submaturely dissected and partially submerged terraced coastal plain surface that slopes gently to the southeast. Broad, flat interstream areas, swampland, and linear sand ridges are the dominant features;
moderately dissected parts of the area are limited to narrow margins of the major streams and sounds (Harris and Wilder 1966).
2.4.2 Tides and Salinity
Pailin Creek and Newbegun Creek are minimally affected by tides, if at all, and are both fresh water systems. Under certain extreme wind conditions ( direction is also relevant), r · some "tidal" effects may be observed, but this situation is not representative:::·'ibe tidal ,·· :, · and salinity issues are addressed as follows: · :; · ·
' • '•\.1 • •. ·,,·-•. T;•;:.~ _,. · I) The USGS (1993) operates continuous water-quality m6ni~oring sites in the. Albemarle Sound, including a location at the mouth oft!_ie Pasquotank River,
a location approximate I~ 8 or 9 miles downstre:i!ti !':9~ J!1r~/\,e~;Pu~~n~ f; .. year of continuous momtonng ( 1991) at the Pasquotank River-mouth , ·.; '•0·./ ,, -, •··• . • ,.,..,.,.., .. --~.,•••~4.~·• .. ·•· .. ,• e .,; location, the rriaxirimm recorded salinity concentrationwas3.6"pa:rts per"··, ;: thousand (ppt) o~ March 10, and the minimum value was o:3°ppfon~April 22. Daily mean values during that year generally ranged fro~ 1.0 to).5 ppti"c . . Because of the location of the USGS Pasquotank River monitoring station; ..
the water in Newbegun Creek and Pailin Creek should be even less salirie than recorded at the USGS monitoring stations. · · · ·
• . ·, '. ,f' :, ~ • .. ,, •• : .,',,,, • •. • ·,' _, •, , • -'. •,:' •:I 2) The plants and animals known to inhabit Pailin Creek and adjacent portions
ofNewbegun Creek are freshwater species, many of which are intolerant of
salinity. Freshwater pelecypods (clams) are found in waters adjacent to the Site. Such biota would not be present if waters were brackish.
3) Information developed by the State Climate Office of North Carolina at North Carolina State University, as well as USGS studies, indicates that the area occupied by the Site experiences tides in the 0-to 6-inch range, the
lowest category available. Inclusion in this category does not indicate the
presence of a tidal influence; a location without tidal influence would be included in this category as well.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, inc. 16 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \raleigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
, ' •, .• ~--·.'
. -::,:~\:•:.~
-,l· ·~· \,,>•
••
0
•
4) Water lines on trees growing adjacent to Pailin Creek indicate water level fluctuations of 6 to 8 inches or less, well within the range of water level fluctuation from surface runoff flooding following a major stonn. In addition, cypress "knees" growing in this same area are of a height
suggesting similar limited water level fluctuations. These trees arc mature and of considerable age, an indication that their survival was in part due to "knees" that were not inundated. Cypress "knees" arc roots that must remain
above water to ensure oxygen availability to a root system located in saturated, sometimes anaerobic conditions. These biological indicators arc strong Site-specific evidence supporting the State Climate Office findings concerning tidal influence or lack thereof.
5) The USFWS NW! maps of the wetlands on or adjacent to the Site have a fresh water, non-tidal regime. (Section 2.2.2).
Thus, the available sci en ti fie evidence indicates that surface waters on and near the site arc both fresh and non-tidal. Observed water level fluctuations arc likely due to surface runoff following major stonn events.
2.4.3 Climate and Meteorology
The State Climate Office of North Carolina at North Carolina State University provided the following information about climatic conditions in the vicinity of the Site (Elizabeth City Airport, 2-3 miles northwest of the Site):
Final: April 16. 2002
I) Wind-The prevalent wind direction is from the southwest, especially during the wanner summer months. The secondary wind direction is from the northeast, especially during the winter months. It should be noted that · neither of these prevalent wind directions is conducive to generating wind-driven tides in the Pailin Creek vicinity.
2) Temperature -The average annual temperature near the Site is 60.0°F, with the annual average ranging from 50.6°F to 69.4°F. Daily extremes range from a low of6.0°F in January to a high of 103.0°F in August. Average daily temperatures in January, April, July, and October are 40.7°, 58.6°, 78.2°, and 6 l.5°F, respectively. January is the coldest month and July is the hottest month. Average seasonal temperatures are as follows: winter 42.6°; spring, 58.6°; summer, 76.7°; and fall, 62.2°.
3) Precipitation -In the Elizabeth City area, the mean annual precipitation is approximately 48 inches with historical variations of 36.95 inches in 1983 to 62.13 inches in 1979. The one-day maximum precipitation was 8.52 inches, recorded on a September day. August is normally the wettest month with 4.89 inches of precipitation, with September the second wettest month with 4.68 inches. The wettest month on record was September 1979 with 14.55 inches of precipitation. The driest month on record was December 1965 with 0.35 inches. On average, November is the driest month with 2.86 inches of precipitation and April is second driest with 2.96 inches .
17 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \finalera.doc
The mean annual lake evaporation is approximately 40 inches, so that the net • annual precipitation is 8.0 inches. The l-year/24-hour rainfall in this area is approximately 3.0 -3.5 inches. The 2-ycar/24-hour rainfall is approximately 4 inches.
Lying in the coastal plain, the Site is subject to severe storms, such as hurricanes, which can affect and alter Site conditions on a periodic basis.
2.4.4 Geology
In Pasquotank County as noted in the June I 990 Phase I report, four geological Formations underlie most of the county:
•
•
•
•
Paleocene age Beaufort Formation;
Middle Miocene age undifferentiated, unnamed unit;
Yorktown Formation of the Upper Miocene age; and
Unnamed surficial sands and clays of the post-Miocene age .
The Paleocene age Beaufort Formation consists predominantly of an impure limestone section more than 150 feet thick underlain by glauconitic sands which grade downward into sandy glauconitic clays. The base of the Beaufort Formation has not been penetrated • by test holes in the southern part of the county; therefore, its total thickness in this area is unknown.
The Middle Miocene age undifferentiated, unnamed unit overlies the Beaufort Formation. This unit consists of hard blue-to-gray slightly calcareous clay, white clay and shells, with phosphatic quartz sands in a clay matrix. The thickness of this unit ranges from 182 feet in the northern part of the county to 218 feet in the southern part of the county.
The Yorktown Formation, which conformably overlies the Middle Miocene-age unnamed unit throughout Pasquotank County, consists of beds of soft to hard, massive, marine clay and sandy gray-to-blue clay, overlain by coquina, medium to coarse-grained sand, gravel, and indurated shell marl. The Yorktown Formation ranges in thickness from 135 feet in northern Pasquotank County, to 185 feet in the southern part of the county.
The Post-Miocene age surficial interbedded sands and clays blanket the entire county. These surficial deposits are approximately 60 feet thick in southern Pasquotank County, but may be as much as 140 feet thick along the Pasquotank River and parts of Albemarle Sound.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 18 Final: April 16, 2002 I :lrnleigh\proj\ I 06 79\266091.5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
2.4.5 Groundwater and Surface Water
Three aquifers arc used to obtain potable water in Pasquotank County as noted in the June I 990 Phase I report:
•
•
•
Yorktown lower aquifer
Yorktown upper aquifer; and
Water-table aquifer .
Two of these aquifers, the water-table aquifer and the Yorktown upper aquifer, arc used for drinking water purposes in the vicinity of the Site.
The confined Yorktown upper and lower aquifers contain their potable water in the sands, coquinas, and induratcd shell marls of the Yorktown Formation, and arc under artesian pressure. Wells located throughout the county in the Yorktown upper aquifer range in depths from 60 to 123 feet, and yield from 2 to 50 gallons per minute (gpm) from wells with diameters of 2 inches. Specific yields of wells screened in the Yorktown upper aquifer range from 0.15 to 2.50 gpm per foot of drawdown for wells of 2-inch diameter. The Yorktown upper aquifer generally yields fresh waters that are very hard and contain objectionable amounts of iron. Throughout most of the county, chloride concentrations in the aquifer arc less than 50 parts per million. Higher concentrations may be found near Elizabeth City due to the influence of cones of depression in the piezometric surface causing it to fall below mean sea level. In the Yorktown lower aquifer, present only in the southern and east-central parts of the county, wells range in depths from 124 to 169 feet, and yield from 5 to 47 gpm. Specific yields of wells screened in the Yorktown lower aquifer range from 0.20 to 0.28 gpm per feet of drawdown. In the southern part of the county, no potable aquifers occur below the Yorktown upper aquifer because the aquifers contain brackish or saline water.
The water-table aquifer supplies unconfined groundwater from the surficial sands of the post-Miocene. Depths of the wells in this aquifer in the county range from 8 to 50 feet, and well yields range from 1.5 to 8 gpm. Specific yields for wells screened in the water-table aquifer range from 0.16 to 3.33 gpm per foot of drawdown. The water-table aquifer has the least mineralized water in Pasquotank County; however, most of the water-table waters are acidic, and corrosion of metal pipes and pumps arc a common problem.
Recharge of the water-table aquifer is from local precipitation and upward leakage from the underlying artesian aquifers.
2.4.6 Soils
According to the Soil Survey of Pasquotank County, soils centrally located at the Site (the blimp hangars) are classified as Bertie Very Fine Sandy Loam (Bh), a soil type typically found within the Augusta series. The Augusta series consists of somewhat
poorly drained soils that formed in loamy marine and fluvial sediments. Soils are slightly acidic and slopes range from Oto 2 percent. Soils away from the central hangar, including the landfill area of the Site, are classified as Elkton Silt Loam (Eb), a soil characterizing the Roanoke soil series. The Roanoke series consists of poorly drained
Final: April 16, 2002 19 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \finalera. doc
soils that formed in clayey flu vial and marine sediments. Soils of the Roanoke series may be more strongly acidic and have slopes that also range from Oto 2 percent.
Areas of the Site that border Pail in Creek and Ncwbcgun Creek arc shown as Swamp (Sd), which is part of the Doro van soil series. Doro van soils consist of very poor! y drained organic soils. The organic layers arc typically greater than four feet deep over unconsolidated fluvial sediments. The organic soils arc very acidic and slopes arc less than I percent.
In general, soils in this vicinity typically consist of 6 to IO feet of clays and sandy clays. Below these clays, to the top of the Yorktown Formation, are fine to medium sands containing some clay lenses. A water table aquifer that is approximately 60 feet thick lies within the unconsolidated sands and clays. The Yorktown Formation is comprised of beds of marine clay and sandy gray-to-blue clay, overlain by coarse-grained sands, gravel, and shell marl.
2.4. 7 Potential Constituents
•
The Site is part of the former Weeksville Naval Air Facility. From 1943 to 1960, the Navy used this facility as a blimp base. From 1960 to 1964, the Hayes Corporation, a Navy subcontractor, used the facility for overhauling seaplanes. In 1964, the U. S. Government sold most of the former Weeksville Naval Air Facility site to the North Carolina State Port Authority. During this period from 1943 to 1967, little is known about Site activities and the contribution of constituents to the Site. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse) purchased the land from the North Carolina State • Port Authority in 1967, and immediately sold most of the former base. Westinghouse retained what is now considered the "Site" for the manufacture of wooden kitchen and bathroom cabinets. In 1977, Triangle Pacific Corporation purchased both the Site and cabinet-making business from Westinghouse and continued operations on the Site until 1996. In 1996, TCOM, L.P., purchased the Site and now manufactures and tests lighter-than-air vessels at the location.
The December 1990 Phase II Screening Site Investigation performed by G&O evaluated the types and quantities of wastes associated with the cabinet-making activities ongoing at the Site at that time. These cabinet-making activities (performed by Westinghouse and Triangle Pacific) spanned the period from 1967 to 1996. The Site generated two separate hazardous waste streams from the manufacturing of wooden cabinets, as well as one non-hazardous waste stream. The hazardous waste streams were as follows:
• Spent non-halogenated solvent base toner and lacquer thinner; and
• Lacquer dust.
The lacquer thinner and toner were generated from the finishing and painting of the cabinets, and these two wastes were blended together and drummed. The drums were stored outside on a concrete pad until collected by the Oldover Corporation of Cascade, Virginia. Pre-1980 handling ofthis waste stream is not documented.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 20 Final: April 16, 2002 I: "J-al eigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\.S\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
The lacquer thinner and toner reportedly contained the following constituents:
Compound
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Acetone
Isobutanol
Cadmium
Arsenic
Concentration
15%
15%
21%
5%
0.5 ppm
l.0ppm
The lacquer thinner also contained methanol and isopropyl acetate.
The lacquer dust was generated from overspray of the lacquer paint and toner in the spray booths. These booths were scraped daily of overspray build-up. The dust was incinerated in the boiler house located on-Site. The lacquer dust was a hazardous waste regulated by state and Federal regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Until I 987, the lacquer dust was sent to the Pasquotank County Landfill.
The non-hazardous waste stream was generated from the sanding and cutting of the wooden cabinets. Sawdust and scrap wood were ground and transported to the boiler house, where they were incinerated. The on-Site landfill was apparently in operation from 1972 to I 979 and was reported to have received only non-hazardous manufacturing waste generated from the facility. The composition and quantity of the waste in the landfill is unknown .
The cabinet-making facility generated approximately 400 to 500 gallons of waste lacquer thi_nner and toner every two to three months, and generated approximately 200 pounds of l;icquer dust per week. ·
Little is known about waste quantities generated and waste disposal practices at the Site priorto 1975. For a 22-year period, the Site was part of the Weeksville Naval Air Facility, the last four of which the Hayes Corporation, a Navy contractor, used it as a maintenance facility for seaplanes. It is unknown what hazardous and/or nonhazardous wastes were generated during those activities. The extent of use of the on-Site landfill area by the Navy and its contractors is also unknown.
Previous studies have documented the presence of an approximate 22-acre landfill in the southern portion of the Site. The type and amount of waste and the amount disposed in the landfill are unknown.
Analysis of groundwater, soil, and sediment samples collected during previous studies of the Site detected the following constituents in various Site media and locations:
Final: April 16, 2002
• Groundwater -acetone, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP), aluminum, iron, magnesium, manganese, and toxaphene;
• Storm Water Outfall Sediment -ch!orobenzene, benzene, phenanthrene,
fluoranthene, pyrenc, and BEHP;
21 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ral eigh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\cra \final era. doc
2.4.8
• Newbegun Creek Sediment -acetone, benzene, chlorobcnzcnc, xylcncs, BEHP, • I, 4-dichlorobenzcne, 2-mcthy lnapthalene, di-n-octylphthalate;
• On-Site Surface Soils -acetone, BEHP, lead, toluene, chlorobenzenc, fluorcnc, 2-mcthylphthalate, barium, and cadmium;
• Pailin Creek Sediments -polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), BEHP,
chlorobenzene, tetrachloroethene, xylencs, and pesticides;
• Storage Tank Area Soils -PCBs, chromium, copper, barium, I, I,!-
trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, methylene chloride, toluene,
trichloroethe~e. and di-n-octylphthalate;
• Warehouse/Drum Storage Area Soils -polynucleated aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), methylene chloride, and tetrachloroethene;
• Boiler House Area Soils -arsenic, beta-BHC, tetrachloroethene, and toluene;
• Tar-Stained Soils -acetone and dieldrin;
•
•
Stacker Building Soils -endrin, toxaphene, anthracene, chrysene, and fluoranthene; and
. . ' .~
Landfill Soils -BEHP, di-n-oetylphthalate, methylene chiorid·e·,
tetrachloroetherie, toluene, and xylenes. · ' :. ·
Many of these detected constituents were· fo~nd i_n only one or twci"i;amples ai
concentrations that ,:ipproximate the quantitatioidiriiit. ·.:·:;I-'' · · ··.-·· ?~;. ·~,~-,'.
. , ,;: . ' Chemical Bi~availability
•. r-·~· • l .. . ..-:,:-. . ·:,~~ ·,,, Bioavailability addresses general fate and transport processes and sorptive properties of chemicals based on their physical characteristics. Based on the detected constituents from the historical analytical data, a brief summary ofthe,general ch;uacteristics of bioavailability is presented for volatile organic compounds (V_OCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs),' metals (excluding essential nutrients such as c~lcium, iron, .. ·.
magnesium, potassium, and sodium), pesticides and PCBs. Available information from EPA's Chemical Fact Sheets and the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATS DR) is provided for toxic and persistent constituents detected at the Site at levels of potential concern (with the exception of essential nutrients).
voes:
• Acetone (USEP A I 999)
Volatilization and leaching are primary transport properties in soil;
volatilization more significant than leaching;
Rapidly degrades in soil;
Volatilization and biodegradation are major factors in surface water; Volatilization half-life in surface water of I 8 hours;
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 22 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \,raleigh \proj\ 10679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
Final: April 16, 2002
Highly soluble in water so docs not partition well to sediments;
Biodcgradation significant in water;
Bioaccumulation docs not occur in aquatic organisms due to low octanol-
water partitioning coefficient (K0w);
Biomagnification along aquatic food chain insignificant due to low Kaw; and .
Wildlife receptors will not accumulate in tissues-excrete acetone
through lungs and urine.
• Toluene (ATSDR l 994t)
•
•
Not ·very persistent in the environment;
Readily degraded by microorganisms in the soil;
Evaporates quickly from soil and surface water into air; and
May be taken up by fish, shellfish, plants, and animals living in water,
but high levels do not bioaccumulate.
Trichloroethene (USEP A 1986b)
Highly volatile into air and slightly persistent in water (chemical half-life
of 2 days); and
Some bioconcentration may occur in fish, and moderate toxicity to aquatic life. · · -~~-,· ':., -. l
Xylene (USEPA 1989b) .. . , Non-persisient in ·water and highly volatile ( chemi~al half-life of less. · than 2 days); and · ·· . ·'. -,·,'.· :;'_ ".:
Some bi9coi:tcentration may ~ccur in aquatic organisms incl~ding fish, · .. :1• and high toxicity to aquatic)ife. · . "· ·_:.\;' \ : · · ' .. , ' ' ., ~~ .::2-::.~:/~ '. /.,~ :-·~
SVOCs: ·1
Most of the SVOCs detected in surface soil and in sediment at the Site are , classified as PAHs. A general summary of P AH bioavailability follows:
•
..
PAHs (ASTOR 1995b)
Can break down by reacting with' sunlight (photolysis) and other chemicals over' a period of days to weeks;
Microorganisms can break down P AHs in soil or water after a period of weeks to months;
The partition coefficients range from relatively low to high. Low partition coefficients suggest a tendency to be more mobile and less likely to sorb to soil particles;
P AHs with a high partition coefficient have a strong tendency to sorb to soil particles rather than partitioning into water;
Have high Kaw values and tend to bind to organic material in soil and
sediment; and
Have a tendency to bioaccumulate in plants and animals; PAH concentrations in plants and animals may be much higher than the P AH concentrations in soil or water in which they live .
23 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I :\ral eigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era.doc
• BEHP (USEPA 1999) • Absorbs strongly to soil and sediment;
Biodcgradcs in aerobic conditions;
Low water solubility;
Exposure by oral, inhalation, dermal routes, and ingestion;
Bioconcentration generally low in aquatic organisms; significant food chain biomagnification in upper trophic level fish unlikely; and
Mammals and birds metabolize and eliminate so biomagnification docs not occur.
• Di-n-octylphthalate (USEPA 1999)
Low water solubility; absorbs strongly to soil and sediment;
Accumulates to increasing concentrations in algae, aquatic invertebrates,
and fish, and accumulates to low levels in terrestrial wildlife;
Metabolized quickly by higher-trophic-lcvei receptors so docs not biomagnify in food chains; and
Degrades very slowly in soil and aquatic environments, especially under anaerobic conditions.
Pesticides:
• Aldrin (ATSDR 1993a)
Sunlight and bacteria transform aldrin to dieldrin; transformed aldrin (dieldrin) is found most often in the environment;
Binds tightly tci soil and slowly evaporaies ·to the air;
Dieldrin breaks down very slowly; · :
Plants take in and store aldrin and dieldrin from the soil;
Aldrin is rapidly transformed to dieldrin in plants arid animals; 'and · .. _
Dieldrin is stored in the fat and is metabolized very slo.wly in animals .... ;~ ·. ~-..
• Chlordane (ATSDR 1994b)
Strongly sortied to so.ii particles at the surface and is not likely to enter ''f .. groundwater.
Can stay in the soil for over 20 years; , • Most chlordane leaves soil by evaporation ·to.the air;
Breaks down very slowly; · ·
Does not dissolve easily in water; and
Builds up in the tissues of fish, birds, and mammals. ~,
• 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE (ATSDR 1994c)
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Remains in the air for limited period, and lasts in soil for relatively long period (chemical half-life is less than two days in air and two to fifteen
years in soil);
Does not readily dissolve in water;
Strongly sorbed to soil particles and does not migrate quickly to ground
water~
Some DDT will evaporate from soil and surface water into the air, and
some degrades by photolysis or by microorganisms in soil or surface water; .. -
24 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral eigh\proj\ I 0679\26609\S\era \final era. doc
•
•
Final: April 16, 2002
•
•
•
DDT in soil usually degrades into DDD or DDE; and
Levels build up in plants and in the fatty tissues of fish, birds, and other animals.
Endosulfan (ATSDR 1993c)
Docs not dissolve easily in water;
In soil, some cndosulfan evaporates into air and some breaks down;
May stay in soil for several years before it all breaks down; and
May accumulate in the bodies of fish and other organisms that live in endosulfan-contaminated water.
Heptachlor and Hcptachlor Epoxide (ATSDR 1993d)
Does not dissolve easily in water (heptachlor epoxide dissolves more
easily);
Strongly adheres to soil particles and evaporates slowly to air;
Heptachlor epoxide can stay in the soil and water for many years;
Animals metabolize heptachlor to the epoxide form;
Plants can take up heptachlor from the soil; and
Levels build up in the tissues of fish and mammals .
PCBs:
•
25 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 1:1.ralcigh \proj\1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
Metals:
• Aluminum (ATSDR 1992a)
Binds to particles in' the air that can be inhaled by terrestrial species;
Dissolves in lakes, streams, and rivers, which can be absorbed by aquatic species;
Acidic conditions (such as low pH) may dissolve aluminum from soil; Potential uptake by some plants from the soil.
• Arsenic (USEP A 1999)
•
•
•
•
Tightly bound in soil; bioconcentration in soil invertebrates and aquatic species is low;
Biomagnification through food chain minimal because metabolized
forms rapidly excreted;
Toxicity difficult to evaluate at low levels because arsenic is essential to reproduction and development in some mammals; and
Mammals exposed through diet with herbivores bioaccumulating less than omnivores, which accumulate less than carnivores; however, arsenic . is rapidly metabolized in mammals and does not readily bioaccumulate.
Barium (USEPA I 986a) . . . .
Highly persistent in water with a chemical half-life greater than 200 days· , · , .. : .. '' .. , ., . ", · · · >,, ' · i.' · ••
Mod~rate toxicity to aquatic lif::: ..
0 ·: : · ; ·.~.
Cadmium (USEPA_ 1999) .. ; .. · , :, ·: ..... ;; · .,::: , .·,. , . · . Exposure routes for aquatic'organisms are ingestion and gill_uptake;'· Freshwater biota are most sensitive io cadmium;'foxicity inversely proportional to water har~e;s/.{:. '. . . ' ,·, .. "l e ' • '<''. '. .·
Bioaccumulates in both aquaticf and terrestrial animals' with higher : . bioconcentration in aquatic orgirusms; and
Stable in soil and not subject to 'degradation.
Chromium (ATSDR 1993b)
Particles settle from air in less than 10 days;
Chromium is strongly sorbed to soil particles, and small amounts are transported from soil to grou·nd water; ,
Most chromium in water is sorbed to suspended sediment, which settles to the bottom, and only small amount dissolves in water; and
Fish do not take up or store chromium in body tissues.
Copper (USEP A 1999)
Binds to soil and sediment;
Does not degrade or transform;
Most copper in surface water settles or absorbs to sediment;
Bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms;
Does not biomagnify in aquatic food chains;
Micronutrient for plants; and
Moderate toxicity depending on form and concentration
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 26 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ml eigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
0
•
•
• Lead (A TSDR 1993c)
Docs not degrade and is persistent in soil and ground water, but lead 1 compounds arc transformed by sunlight, air, and water;
Remains about ten days if released into air; most of the lead in soil is due to particulate deposition from air; and
Adheres to soil particles, and docs not move from soil to ground water unless soil conditions or precipitation are acidic.
• Manganese (US EPA 1989a)
Highly persistent in water with a chemical half-life greater than 200 days;and
Moderate toxicity to aquatic life.
• Mercury (ATSDR 1994d)
Methylmercury may be formed in water and soil by bacteria;
Methylmercury builds up in the tissues of fish and other organisms; and Levels in animal tissues biomagnify in upper trophic levels of the food chain.
• Vanadium (ATSDR I 992d)
Persistent in air, water, and soil;
Dissolves slowly in ~ater; and adheres to soil and sediment;
Combines with other elements and particles; and
Low levels have been found in plants, but not likely to accumulate in animal tissues.
• Zinc (ATSDR 1994g)
Adheres to soil, sediment, and particles in air;
Precipitation removes zinc dust particles from the air;
Zinc compounds can migrate from soil into the ground water and into lakes, streams, and rivers;
Most of the zinc in soil remains bound to soil particles; and
Bioaccumulates in fish and other organisms, but does not bioaccumulate in plants.
2.4.9 Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways
An exposure pathway describes the course a chemical follows from the source of the chemical to the exposed receptor. An exposure pathway analysis links the sources, locations, and types of environmental releases of potential CO PCs with ecological receptor population locations and activity patterns to determine the significant and complete pathways for ecological receptor exposure. An exposure pathway consists of the following four elements:
Final: April 16, 2002
• A source and mechanism of chemical release;
• A retention or transport medium for the chemical(s);
• A point of potential ecological receptor contact with the contaminated medium (referred to as the exposure point); and
27 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. l: \:"aleigh\proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \finalera.doc
• An exposure route or uptake route (e.g., ingestion, dcnnal contact, and inhalation) and the contact point.
The exposure pathway is considered complete if the· conditions above exist for that pathway. If one or more of these conditions arc not met, a physical means docs not exist for a receptor to be exposed to the COPC; and the exposure pathway is considered incomplete. Incomplete exposure pathways, once identified, arc not considered further in the ERA.
Potential COPC exposure pathways can potentially occur at the Site through six different processes: air, soil, groundwater, sediment, surface water, and biota (via the food chain, Figure 6). A discussion of each of these exposure possibilities follows:
Air Exposure Pathway
Conventional practice has demonstrated that soil chemicals, including volatile compounds, typically do not affect overlying atmospheres. The effects of dilution and prevailing winds disperse and reduce potential concentrations very rapidly. Also, potential volatilization is unlikely at this time, several years after potential deposition. Therefore, the air exposure pathway is considered
insignificant for ecological receptors frequenting ·surface areas. Some terrestrial organisms could potentially be exposed to airborne contaminant concentrations while inhabiting burrows. The confined environment and lack of airflow could allow volatile soil CO PCs to concentrate in burrow air and could increase the • • ' ' ·•!•,,·,. potential for inhalation of certain CO PCs. This possibility_is '_offset by the :· likelihood that such an organism would readily abandon a burrow with odor-bearing volatiles and thus would experience very limited°and short~term.. ' exposure. The avoidance mechanisms of free-ranging 'aniinals are well · documented. Thus the air exposure pathway is pr?bably iric:Ci/nplcte· cir .. · qualitative. · " • ·
Soil Exposure Pathway
Terrestrial receptors, including ground feeding animals, could be exposed to CO PCs in soils that adhere to or bioaccumulate in terrestrial food sources, such as vegetation, seeds, grit, and soil invertebrates .. · Various CO PCs were detected · in surface and subsurface soils at the Site. Therefore, the soil exposure pathway appears to be complete .via ingestion and dennal contact.
Groundwater Exposure Pathway
Groundwater by definition is subterranean. Wildlife inhabiting the Site is not likely to contact groundwater because most wildlife food sources occur above ground or in shallow soils, and dens or burrows are not excavated or inhabited below the water tab.le. Therefore, the groundwater exposure pathway is incomplete, and groundwater data will not be screened in this ERA. Any communication between constituents in local groundwater and surface water or sediment is unknown at this time and has not been established. However,
•
groundwater may discharge to area surface waters and/or sediments, co-mingling • with them. Therefore, any screening of surface water or sediment data.will also .
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 28 Final: April 16, 2002 I: lraleigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
represent the screening of any groundwater contribution to any surface water or sediment CO PCs. Further consideration of groundwater in this ERA is not warranted.
Sediment Exposure Pathway
Aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals inhabiting surface water habitats, such as Newbcgun Creek and Pailin Creek adjacent to the Site, and migrating or resident shore and wading birds and mammals arc potential ecological receptors of CO PCs in sediments at the Site. Various COPCs were detected in sediments at the Site. Therefore, the sediment exposure pathway appears to be complete via ingestion and dermal contact.
Surface Water Exposure Pathway
The same potential ecological receptors identified under the sediment exposure pathway discussion in the preceding paragraph are also potential receptors of CO PCs in surface waters. In addition, terrestrial animals that utilize surface waters for drinking or wallowing arc potential receptors. Various COPCs were detected in surface waters adjacent to the Site. Therefore, the surface water exposure pathway appears to be complete via ingestion and dermal contact.
Food Chain Exposure Pathway
Plant and animal tissues may uptake Site-related CO PCs. Algae, aquatic
macrophytes, and terrestrial vegetation may bioaccumulate Site-related CO PCs. Primary and secondary consumption (ingestion) by benthic and soil macroinvertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals may result in bioaccumulation and biomagnification of some of those COPCs. Therefore, the food chain exposure pathway is considered complete.
An exposure pathway is considered complete if a constituent is transferable from its source to ecological receptors, and is incorporated into the receptor by one or more exposure routes (EPA I 997). Incomplete exposure path\~ays are characterized by either a disruption in chemical transport to receptors (e.g., presence of pavements or buildings; lack ofbioavailability; and similar considerations) or by the presence of non-detected or low chemical concentrations that are not likely to pose unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. The identification of complete or potentially complete exposure pathways prior to quantitative evaluation of potential risks allows the assessment to focus on only those constituents to which ecological receptors may be exposed.
In summary, potentially complete exposure pathways were identified for CO PCs in soil, sediment, surface water, and biota. Incomplete and/or insignificant exposure pathways were noted for air and groundwater. This screening-level ERA evaluates constituents detected in surface soil (0-6 in bis), surface water, and sediment that may be associated with potentially complete exposure pathways to potential ecological receptors. The evaluation of the food chain exposure pathway occurs at later steps in the ERA process .
Final: April 16, 2002 29 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \J-al ei gh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
)
1
2.5 Conceptual Site Model
The preliminary ecological CSM for the Site is presented as Figure 6. This CSM is based on the preliminary formulation step and considers potentially complete exposure routes including inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption for terrestrial animals; and absorption for terrestrial plants. Potentially complete exposure pathways for aquatic animals are via direct contact with surface water and sediment; and ingestion of food and incidental sediment. For aquatic plants potentially complete exposure pathways arc via direct contact with surface water and sediment. Potential exposures via the food chain are also identified on the CSM, although such considerations arc not considered in the abiotic preliminary risk screening process in EPA Region IV. Food chain issues may arise in later steps of the ERA. Based on this preliminary CSM, potentially complete exposure pathways exist for the following:
•
•
Terrestrial receptors (e.g. small mammal, upland birds, and terrestrial plants) that may be exposed to constituents in the soil and surface water and via food chain exposures; and
Aquatic/wetland receptors ( e.g. wetland birds, fish, and aquatic/wetland
plants) that may be exposed to constituents in surface water and sediment from potentially affected aquatic or wetland areas on or bordering the Site and via food chain exposures.
·Food chain exposures also represent potentially complete pathways for higher trophic level organisms.
2.6 Assessment Endpoints
In the screening-level ERA, assessment endpoints are any adverse effects on ecological receptors, including plant and animal populations, habitats, and sensitive environments (EPA 1997). Adverse effects may be inferred from measures related to impaired reproduction, growth, and survival; adverse effects on communities may be inferred from changes in community structure or function; and adverse effects on habitats may be inferred from changes in composition and characteristics that reduce the habitat's ability to support plant and animal populations and communities (EPA 1997). Because assessment endpoints focus the risk assessment design and analysis, the appropriate selection and definition of these endpoints are important to the ERA study design (EPA · 1997). After Step 3 of the risk assessment has been completed, a list of assessment endpoints that will focus the remaining steps of the risk assessment (if necessary) will be included in the Step 3 SMDP.
2. 7 Measurement En_dpoints
•
•
A measurement endpoint represents a measurable biological response to a chemical that can be related to the valued characteristic chosen as the assessment endpoint (USEPA 1992). This preliminary screening-level assessment presents qualitative measures of exposure and ecological effects to identify potential biological responses associated with concentrations of detected constituents at the Site. Measures of potential exposures include concentrations detected in soil, sediment, and surface water. Measures of •
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 30 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral eigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
2.8
ecological effects involve comparison of historical analytical data from abiotie media to scrccning-lcvcl benchmarks in order to evaluate potential ecological effects on potential ecological receptors associated with the Site.
Screening-Level Ecological Effects Evaluation
The screening-level step involves the establishment of constituent exposure levels that represent conservative thresholds for potential adverse ecological effects (ecotoxicity values). Site-specific ecological chemicals of potential concern COPCs arc identified based on comparison of maximum detected constituent concentrations in Site media to the lowest value from the ecotoxicity screening criteria for soil, sediment, and surface water. For Step 2 Screening, soil, sediment, and surface water concentrations arc compared to the ecotoxicity criteria given by EPA Region IV Waste Management Division (October 1998):
• Soil: "Waste Management Soil Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites," Table 4;
• Sediment: "Waste Management Sediment Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites," Table 3; and
• Surface Water: "Waste Management Surface Water Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites," Table I
For Step 3 Refinement, soil, sediment, and surface water concentrations are compared to the ecotoxicity criteria given by:
Beyer, W. N. 1990. Evaluating soil contamination. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(2).
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environme~t (CCME). 1997.
Recommended Canadian soil quality guidelines. CCME, Winnipeg,
Manitoba. March 1997.
Efroymson, R. A., M. E. Will, and G. W. Suter. 1997. Toxicological
benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on soil and litter invertebrates and heterotropic process: 1997 revision.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ES/ER/fM-
85/R3. <h.\!Q://www.hsrd.oml.gov/ecorisk/reports.html)
Environment Canada. 1995. Interim sediment quality guidelines. Soil and Sediment Quality Section Guidelines Division, Ecosystem Conservation
Directorate, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Ottawa, Ontario. September 1995.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Ecotox thresholds, ECO Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, lntennittent Bulletin. Vol.3, No. 2, Publication 9345. 0-12FSI, EPA 540/F-95-038 PB95-
963324. ?anuary 1996 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/r 19/ecotox)
Final: April 16, 2002 31 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment (MHSPE). 1994.
Intervention values and target values -soil quality standards.
Directorate-General for Environmental Protection, Department of Soil Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands. 9 May 1994.
Friday, G. P. 1998. Ecological screening values for surface water, sediment, and soi1°. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-98-00110, November 1998.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 32 FinaJ: April 16, 2002 I: \ral ei gh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
•
•
3.0 STEP 2: PRELIMINARY SCREENING-LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATE AND RISK CALCULATION
The objective of screening-level exposure estimation and risk calculation is to evaluate potential exposures based on site ERA screening COPC levels and potential ecological receptors identified during the Step 1 process. The preliminary screening-level exposure estimate and theoretical risk calculation (Step 2) includes the estimation of exposure levels and screening for potential ecological risks as the second phase of the screening-level in this ERA. At the end of this step, a SMDP is made to determine if potential theoretical ecological risks arc acceptable, or if further evaluation is warranted for the Site.
3.1 EPA Region IV Preliminary Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation: The "Three-Table" Approach
Although EPA Region IV has not officially presented revised guidance for Step 2 of the ecological risk screening process, the agency has requested that screening for this step be ·conducted in a "three-table" manner. Previously, data were "pre-screened" (i.e., data were evaluated and only analytes with detectable concentrations were retained for screening in Step 2) so that only those analytcs with at least one detectable concentration were included in the Step 2 screening process. In addition, all detected analytes were included in one table, regardless of whether or not EPA Region IV screening criteria were available. In the revised "three-table" approach for Step 2, data are not pre-c screened. All analytes are separated by medium (surface soil, surface water, and sediment) and arc retained and placed into on.e of three tables based on the following classifications:
• All analytes containing at least one quantifiable concentration of a given
parameter with the maximum detected concentrations of those analytes
compared to preliminary EPA Region IV ecological risk screening criteria
specific to those analytes.
' • All analytes with detected quantifiable concentrations for which preliminary
EPA Region IV ecological risk screening criteria are not available.
• All analytes in which quantifiable concentrations of a given parameter were
not detected in any samples. In addition, the range of sample quantitation
limits is provided for each analyte and compared to preliminary EPA Region IV ecological risk screening criteria specific to those analytcs, if available.
The purpose of this approach is to document all the analyzed parameters, and all three tables combined comprise the entire database. Compounds that are not eliminated in the preliminary screening-level exposure estimate and risk calculation are retained as potential CO PCs and are refined during the preliminary baseline problem formulation (Step 3). Although analytes that were not detected might be retained as potential COPCs after preliminary screening (based on screening of the maximum sample quantitation limits against preliminary ecological risk screening criteria), such analytes will be eliminated during the baseline problem formulation .
Final: April 16, 2002 33 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ral ei gh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\cra \final era. doc
3.2 Data Considerations
3.2.1 Surface Soils
3.2.1.1 Greenhome & O'Mara, Inc. (1990)-Phase II Screening Site Investigation
G&O conducted a Phase II SSI of the Site in September 1990. It should be noted that G&O generated two Site investigation reports in 1990, one dated June 1990 and one dated December 1990. However, analytical data were not generated in the June 1990 report, while the September 1990 data collection was reported in the December 1990 document. During the course of the investigation, G&O collected two surface soil samples (SS0 I and SS02) from Oto 6 inches below land surface (bis). The exact locations of these soil samples arc unknown, as the appendix containing the sample location map was missing from the report. The documents used for this work were all copied from the NCDENR public files. NCDENR selected the final sample locations. Samples were analyzed by Industrial & Environmental Analysts, Inc. in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (!EA) for Level IV Routine Analytical Service (RAS) Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data. No analyte list was provided. G&O noted that, at the request ofNCDENR, the samples were not analyzed for pesticides or PCBs, nor were the data validated.
•
While two soil samples were collected, only SS0 I was discussed in the SSI report; therefore, SS0! was the only sample screened in Steps 2 and 3 of the ERA. The analytical concentrations for this soil sample were used as the maximum concentrations for the screening process. While the SSI report mentions and compares results to a background • soil sample, results for only BEHP and lead for this sample are provided in this report. Sample SS02 was designated as a background sample. Data from this sample were included in calculations for background screening concentrations.
The SSI report mentions that data for the soil samples are included in Appendix A; however, this section was missing from the report. As a result, analytical data for these two samples were obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. VOC and SVOC tentatively identified compounds (Tl Cs) were included in the analytical data. These analytes were also included in the screening process. There were no method detection limits provided in the analytical data, and sample quantitation limits were only available for those analytes that were not detected.
3.2.1.2 USEPA Region IV /1995)-Supplemental Screening Inspection
The EPA conducted a supplemental screening inspection (SI) of the Triangle Pacific Site in August 1995. During the course of the investigation, EPA collected five surface soil samples (TP-001-SS Control, TP-00IS-SS, TP-002-SS, TP-003-SS, and TP-004-SS). While it was not mentioned in the SI report, TP-001-SS Control was identified as the background sample based on its location and sample designation; TP-00IS-SS was a split sample ofTP-001-SS Control collected by Triangle Pacific Corporation. No sample depths were given in the supplemental SI report. Samples were analyzed for the Target Analyte List/Target Compound List (TAUTCL) compounds. Only those analytes with concentrations above analytical quantitation limits were reported. As a result, analytical data for these samples.were obtained by a FOIA request. There were no method •
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 34 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \raleigh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\.5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
detection limits provided in the analytical data, and sample quantitation limits were only available for those analytes that were not detected.
In addition, several compounds (listed as TICs) were listed in the data table that arc not included on the current TALrrCL list:
• pinene (VOC TIC) • dimcthylphenanthrcnc (SVOC TIC) • dimethylnaphthalcne (SVOC TIC) • cyclopentaphcnanthrcnc (SVOC TIC) • methylanthracene (SVOC TIC) • bcnzofluorcnc (SVOC TIC)
• methylpyrene (SVOC TIC) • methylpyrcnc (SVOC TIC)
• ethylnaphthalene (SVOC TIC) • methylphcnanthrcne (SVOC TIC) • methylanthracene (SVOC TIC) • hexadecanoic acid
The table also listed several unidentified compounds and their concentrations. These TI Cs and unidentified compounds were also included in the screening process.
3.2.1.3 S&ME, Inc. (1998}=Expanded Site Investigation
In May 1998, S&ME conducted the sampling and analysis associated with the ES! for the Site. During the course of the ES!, S&ME collected nine surface soil samples (A-SS-1, B-SS-1 grab, B-SS-1 comp, D-SS-1, E-SS-1, F-SS-1, G-SS-1, H-SS-1, and U-SS-1) from 0 to 6 inches bis. S&ME also collected several shallow soil samples (A-SS-1, B-SS-1 grab, B-SS-1 comp, D-SS-1, E-SS-1, F-SS-1, G-SS-1, H-SS-1, and U-SS-1) from 12 to 24 in bis, and subsurface soil samples (greater than 24 inches bis). The subsurface soil samples and the shallow landfill samples were not screened in this ERA because they were either located inside bu_ildings/process areas or the water table levels arc quite high, respectively, making these exposure pathways incomplete. . .
Samples were analyzed by Sa;fumah Laboratories and Environmental Services, Inc. in Savannah, Georgia, (SLES) fa~ the T ALrrCL compounds. Environmental Standards Midwest, Inc. (ESMI) of Belleville; Illinois, validated the laboratory results and the validated data was used in the ecological risk screening and refinement. It should be noted that method detection limits were not included in this report or in the analytical data received from the laboratory. In addition, sample quantitation limits were only · available for non-detected compounds.
3.2.2 Surface Water
3.2.2.1 Greenhome & O'Mara, Inc. /1990)-Phase II Screening Site Investigation
G&O collected two surface water samples (SW0 I and SW02) during the Phase II SSI of the Site in September 1990. The exact locations of these surface water samples are unknown, as the appendix containing the sample location map was missing from the report as found in the NCDENR files. NCDENR selected the final sample locations. !EA analyzed the sample Level IV RAS CLP data. No analyte list was provided. As a result, analytical data for these two samples were obtained by a FOIA request. G&O noted that, at the request ofNCDENR, the samples were not analyzed for pesticides or PCBs, nor were the data validated: ·
Final: April 16, 2002 35 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: 'u-alei gh \proj\1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
' /:i,:.: ·.~ .
While two surface water samples were collected, only SW0 I was discussed in the SSI report; and, the only analytical results provided were for SVOC TI Cs. The SSI report mentions that data for the surface samples were included in Appendix A; however, this section was missing from the report as found in the NCDENR files. As a result, analytical data for these samples were obtained by a FOIA request. In addition, method detection limits were not included in this report. Sample quantitation limits arc provided only for certain non-detected analytes. SW02 was used as a background sample in the screening process.
3.2.2.2 USEPA Region IV /1995)-Supplcmental Screening Inspection
EPA did not collect surface water samples during the supplemental SSL
3.2.2.3 S&ME. Inc. /19981=Expanded Site Investigation
S&ME collected eight surface water samples [K-SW-1, K-SW-1 (Dupl), L-SW-1, M-SW-I, N-SW-1, Q-SW-1, R-SW-1, and P-SW-1] during the ESI at the Site in May 1998. K-SW-1 (Dupl) was a duplicate sample and was not utilized in the ecological risk screening and refinement. Q-SW-1 and R-SW-1 were the background samples. SLES analyzed the samples for T AL/fCL analytes, and ESMI validated the laboratory data. The validated data were used in the ecological risk screening and refinement. Method detection limits were not included in this report or in the analytical data received from the laboratory. Sample quantitation limits were only provided for certain non-detected analytes. ·
3.2.3 Sediment
3.2.3.1 Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. /19901=Phase II Screening Site Jnv~stig~tion
..
G&O collected three sedi~ent samples (SD0I, SD02, and SD03) d~ring thePh~se II SSI of the Tri/mgle Pacific Site in September 1990. The exact locations orthes:e sediment samples are unknown, as the appendix containing the sample location map-was missing from the report. NCDENR selected the final sample locations. Samples were analyzed by IEA for Level IV RAS CLP data. ,No analyte list was provided. G&O noted that, at the request ofNCDENR, the samples were not analyzed for pesticides or PCBs, nor were the data validated.
The SSI report mentions and compares analytical results to a background soil sample (SD03), and results for this sample are provided in that report. However, G&O stressed repeatedly that "the background sample may be affected by the site because it is located on a tidally influenced body of water," and "concentrations of contaminants can be attributed to the Site [ and due to the tidal influences] contaminants would be flushed throughout the surface water body making it difficult to obtain a true upstream (background) sample." As discussed in Section 2.4.2, however, this understanding of tidal influences at this location is mistaken. SD03 was treated as a background sample. G&O also suggested that concentrations of acetone and chloroform in SD02 and chloroform in SD03 should not be used in assessing the Site because these constituents were also associated with the laboratory blanks. Because this suggestion was not
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 36 Final: April 16, 2002 I :\ralcigh \proj\ l 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
~ ..
~-'· :_ :-'.,. , ., •. ·;_
.· ' . . . ,, . ;:' ''.1
•
•
•
confirmed through data validation, these analytcs were included in the risk screening and refinement.
The SSI report mentions that data for the sediment samples arc included in Appendix A; however, this section was missing from the report as found in the NCDENR files. As a result, analytical data for these samples were obtained by a FOIA request. Method detection limits were not included in this report, and sample quantitation limits were provided only for certain non-detected analytes.
3 .2.3.2 USEPA Region IV (I 995}=Supplcment Screening Inspection
3.2.3.3
EPA collected four sediment samples (TP-001-SD Control, TP--002-SD, TP--003-SD, and TP-004-SD) during the supplemental SI of the Site in August 1995. While it was not mentioned in the supplemental SI report, TP-001-SD Control was identified as the background sample based on its location and sample designation. Samples were analyzed for the TAL/fCL compounds. Only those analytes with concentrations above analytical quantitation limits were reported. Neither these quantitation limits nor method detection limits were provided in the supplemental SI report. As a result, analytical data for these ;;;;;~zi;;; ;, ;:-~t~~ ~r ]~)""':'.; "" )'~,i
• dimeihyl sulfide'(VOC TIC) , · .. ';, ...... phthali~ aitltydride. '. : '/,;"_ k::·.:· :.;,:"J,~?t( -' •• . • . . ,, .,. •. ' ?•.• ,.?I .~ .. ,,~ : • ·, . -• ·• ·_-;f:: '1,C • dimethyl di5,ulfide _(VQC TIC) : .,. : .· .• .° .;1·~.e~7~l)~S~tic,.~ci_~, / :· .. : · : ··}f ,':i·,. ;;; ,\:,:i[i;,t"•; • dimethyl trisulfide (VOC TIC) · : · . ,'.·i . ,• tetradecanciic acid: . -. ·. :/:. ,, ·. ·~-~-~;:_,.; .. )' ·,;-~·•:¥.Ji a': · · •· ·~ · · ' · · •.,,. · •. ~•·""-.• ·, •··~::t)';)::',•!•-~•--: • ~-·'·.'<': ~-, ..• ,11~-,..;i• •. ,",, ·,~~~·r . ...,._.., ·:,;. • methyl(methylethyl)b~nzene (VOC TIC) ; :.:".• :· hexahydrohyroxyt_rimethyl(methylethyl) t::.'~ , ·:t<'.):':; · ' • ? ' •, ~ •~• ,,,-,._ •• , '• • 1 1•;,h l ''• · ,., •.-, ,,,',-., '_ •-•1 • It'~:,• ,:,f!1 ·,, • pi~en_~ (Y9C.-~f) :. -' .. ~ i._~. :.'.: .-::•.,1 :ph~';lt¥!µ_r_~n~~e /,"_i;·r :: \t1·~r::r~t: .11:~ ~::t';·;_ •_;Vj•~t-if~~(· • acetoPheriorie•·:>'t·,:'--. ::-_~er! diinetliy'Ifufari6ne~:.:'.,'.' --,:.'<t ,>~ '•., ·1~•:',•-.'., :~ :/·~~-~\f ' • , \¥, ' (. ' ,1 .,.~-.~~. · •• , 11, • -..... , ,,, • ~i'· ' ..... J,.i,•·_•-1•-t • benzciic acid · :, :•, · hexadecanoic acid.'. . . :; . ' t ~:,.:.-:> ',;'"·,. •• . • ••~ ,• •· t\.'~v• ,-~: .•. •.:~_,,,I' .•;~~ , •.~:>~::•~:: The table also listed several unidentified compounds and their concfiiirations: These · } • .. Y,:.· ( TI Cs and unidentified coinpoimds'are screened in Steps 2 and ·3 of this ERA. · ·. ·: -·· ' ., -· . ., , .. : .
S&ME, Inc. (1998}=Expanded Site In;estig~tion · . . .. , [-..:-:.:, .. -..
S&ME collected eight sediment samples (K-SD-1, K-SD-1 (Dupl), L-SD-1, M-SD-1, N-SD-1, Q-SD-1, R-SD-1, and P-SD-1) during the ES! at the Site in May 1998. K-SD-1 (Dupl) was a duplicate sample and was,not utilized in the ecological risk screening and refinement. Q-SD-1 and R-SD-1 were the background samples. SLES analyzed the samples for T AL/TCL analytes, and ESMI validated the data. The validated data were used in the ecological risk screening and refinement. It should be noted that method detection limits were not included in this report or in the analytical data received from the laboratory. Sample quantitation limits were only available for certain non-detected compounds .
Final: April 16, 2002 37 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh\proj\10679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
3.3 Screening-Level Exposure Estimate
In the screening-level exposure estimate, the highest measured (maximum detected) ERA screening-level COPC concentration in the surface soil, surface water, and sediment associated with the Site were used to represent the exposure point concentrations for evaluating potential exposures to potential ecological receptors. Only potentially complete pathways were considered. ·
The screening-level risk characterization was conducted using the hazard quotient (HQ) approach. Screening-level risk calculations (hazard quotients or HQs) were performed for ERA screening CO PCs in Site media by comparing detected maximum ERA screening COPC concentrations in surf.ice soil, surface water, and sediment to ecotoxicity screening criteria to evaluate the potential for adverse impacts to poten.tial ecological receptors. At the request of EPA, analytical concentrations for P AHs were summed and total PAHs were screened for this ERA (when an individual PAH was not detected, one-half the sample quantitation iimit was used in the calculations). Individual HQs were calculated for individual PAHs; where possible; however, total PAHs were . -·~-. <.: '.{ .... ,, ;,_:· :.:,_-::. ___ ,·: ,., .. ;' ', .. ,,. ;£i: /.:· , : . -: •, . .: .
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I:\raleigh\prOj\10679\26609\.5\era\finalera.doc ·· 11 ;_,
. _ _-. final: April 16, 2002
•
••• . .
•
•
•
critical for this ERA. Therefore, in any screening step where individual PAHs.survivc
the screening process, they arc treated as total PAI-ls.
An HQ less than I indicates that the ERA screening COPC is not likely to pose adverse effects to potential ecological receptors, arid therefore, docs not require further evaluation in this ERA. An ERA screening COPC with a HQ greater than or equal to I is considered as a potential ecological risk, and retained as a COPC for further evaluation in Step 3. ERA screening CO PCs that were not detected in any sample were retained as potential COPCs for further evaluation in Step 3 if their respective maximum sample quantitation limits were greater than ccotoxicity screening criteria, if available. ERA
screening CO PCs (including those that arc not detected) that do not have available
screening criteria for comparison were also retained as ERA screening CO PCs for further evaluation in Step 3. The results of the HQ analyses for surface soil, surface water, and sediment arc summarized in the following subsections.
The preliminary risk screening was applied to surface soil, surface water, and sediment analytical data from all previous investigations at the Site (September 1990, August 1995, and May 1998). Data from all three sampling events were combined, at EPA's request, for screening purposes. Only the May 1998 data underwent data validation. The data validation led to the rejection of a limited amount of data and the qualification of other data. In order to conduct the risk screening and to provide insights about the database, statistical calculations were performed on the database with the results provided in the , screening tables. The data used in this preliminary risk screening is provided in Tables Ii through 10, and the locations of the samples arc shown on Figures 7 and 8. '
3.4. l Preliminary Surface Soil Screening
A total of 16 surface soil samples were collected during previous investigations at the Site. G&O collected two surface soil samples as part of the 1990 Phase II SSL One of the samples (SS02) was a background sample; therefore, SS0 I was the only soil sample from 1990 screened in this step of the ERA. EPA collected five surface soil samples (two of these were background samples) during the 1995 Supplemental SI. Three of these samples, TP-002-SS, TP-003-SS, and TP-004-SS were screened in Step 2 of this ERA. S&ME collected nine surface soil samples (one of these was a background sample, H-SS-1) during the 1998 ESL Seven of these samples (A-SS-1, B-SS-1 grab, B-SS-1 comp, D-SS-1, E-SS-1, F-SS-1, G-SS-1, and U-SS-1) were screened in Step 2 of this ERA. A duplicate sample, K-SS-l(Dupl), was treated as a quality control sample and was not evaluated in this screening process. These three sets of analytical data were combined and,screened. The analytical data for the surface soil samples presented in this ERA arc summarized in Tables I, 2, and 3.
The maximum detected concentrations of all ERA screening CO PCs in these surface soil samples were compared to EPA Region IV ecotoxicity screening criteria for the protection of terrestrial organisms and ERA screening COPC-specific HQs were calculated in this step, as presented on Table I. The following constituents (with respective estimated HQs and year of detected maximum concentration) were identified as ERA screening COPCs in surface soil and were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA based on screening cxceedenccs with HQs greater than or equal to I:
Final: April 16, 2002 39 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I; lraleigh \proj \ I 06 79\26609\S\era \final era. doc
voes:
Tctrachlorocthcnc (HQ= 24.0; 1998)
Toluene (HQ= 5.6; 1998)
SVOCs:
Total PAHs (HQ= 66 7; 1998)
Pesticides:
bcta-BHC (HQ= 13; 1998)
Total DOD/DOE/DDT (HQ =34.8; 1995)
Total PCBs-as Aroclors 1254, 1260 (HQ= 380; 1998)
Metals:
Aluminum (HQ= 320; 1995)
Antimony (HQ = 4.86; 1990)
Arsenic (HQ = 1.32; 1998)
Barium (HQ= 1.99; 1998)
Beryllium (HQ= 1.09; 1998)
Cadmium (HQ= 5 .5; 1990)
Chromium (HQ= 156.75; 1990)
Cobalt (HQ= 1.56; 1990)
Copper (HQ = 2.39; 1998)
Iron (HQ= 78.5; 1998)
Lead (HQ= 11.86; I 990)
Manganese (HQ= 3.54; 1990)
Mercury (HQ= 2.1; 1995)
Vanadium (HQ= 12.5; 1995)
Zinc (HQ= 20.8; 1998)
Cyanide, total (HQ= 1.89; 1998)
In this preliminary screening, ERA screening CO PC-specific screening criteria were not available for several ERA screening COPCs (Table 2):
VOCs:
Acetone
l ,2~Dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
I,!, I-Trichloroethane
Trichlorocthenc
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 40
I: \ral eigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
Final: April 16, 2002
•
•
•
•
•
•
SVOCs:
BEHP
Buthyl benzyl phthalate
Pesticides:
delta-BHC
alpha Chlordane
gamma Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptaehlor
Heptaehlor epoxide
Aroelor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Metals:
Calcium
Magnesium
.Potassium
Hexadecanoic acid
Methylphenanthrene
I unidentified compound
Therefore, these ERA screening COPCs in surface soil were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA.
In this preliminary screening, several VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, metals, and T!Cs were not detected in any of the samples (Table 3). The maximum quantitation limits for these analytes were compared to ERA CO PC-specific screening criteria, if available, and the analytes with maximum SQLs less than the screening criteria were eliminated as potential COPCs. As a result, one VOC (carbon tetrachloride), eight SVOCs (diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, 2,4-dinitrophenol, fluorene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
nitrobenzene, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol), and one metal (selenium) were eliminated as potential CO PCs· (Table 3). The remaining non-detected analytes were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA .
Final: April 16, 2002 41 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh \proj\ l 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
3.4.2 Preliminary Surface Water Screening
A total of nine surface water samples were collected during previous investigations at the Site. G&O collected two surface water samples (SW0I and SW02) as part of the 1990 Phase II SSL SW02 was a background sample; therefore, SW0 I was the only surface water sample screened from 1990. EPA did not collect any surface water samples during the 1995 Supplemental SL S&ME collected seven surface water samples (two of these were background samples, Q-SW-1 and R-SW-1) during the 1998 ESL Five of these samples (K-SW-1, L-SW-1, M-SW-1, N-SW-1, and P-SW-1) were screened in Step 2 of this ERA. These two sets of analytical data were combined and screened. The analytical data for the surface water samples presented in this ERA arc summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6.
The quantitatcd concentrations of all ERA screening eoPes in surface water were compared to EPA Region IV ecotoxicity screening criteria for the protection of aquatic/wetland organisms and ERA screening eoPe-spccific HQs were calculated in this step, as presented on Table 4. The following ERA screening eoPes (with respective estimated HQs and year of detected maximum concentration) were identified as ERA screening eoPes in surface water and were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA based on screening excccdences with HQs greater than or equal to I:
Metals:
Aluminum (HQ= 33.68; 1990)
Iron (HQ = 2.42; 1990)
Lead (HQ= 5.45; 1990)
In this preliminary screening, ERA screening eOPe-specific screening criteria were not available for several ERA screening eOPes, including one voe (tetrachloroethene) and six metals (barium, calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and sodium) (Table 5). Therefore, these ERA screening eoPes in surface water were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA.
The remaining TAL/TeL analytes were not detected in any of the surface water samples (Table 6). In this preliminary screening, voes, SVOes, pesticides, and metals were not detected in any of the samples (Table 6). The maximum quantitation limits for these analytes were compared to ERA eoPe-specific screening criteria, if available, and the analytes with maximum SQ Ls less than the screening criteria were eliminated as potential eOPes. As a result, nine voes, eighteen SVOes, six pesticides, and four metals were eliminated as potential eOPes in surface water (Table 6).
3.4.3 Preliminary Sediment Screening
•
•
A total of 14 sediment samples were collected during previous investigations at the Site. G&O collected three sediment samples (one of these was·a background sample, SD03) during the 1990 Phase II SSL Two of these samples (SD0 I and SD02) were screened in Step 2 of this ERA. EPA collected four sediment samples (one of these was a background sample, TP-001-SD) during the 1995 Supplemental SI. Three of these samples (TP-002-SD, TP-003-SD, and TP-004-SD) were screened in Step 2 of this ERA. •
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 42 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral eigh\proj\ I 06 79\26609\.5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
S&ME collected seven sediment samples (two of these were background samples, Q-SD-1 and R-SD-1) during the 1998 ESI. Five of these sediment samples (K-SD-1, L-SD;l, M-SD-1, N-SD-1, and P-SD-1) were screened in Step 2 of this ERA. These three sct_s of analytical data were combined and screened. The analytical data for the sediment samples presented in this ERA arc summarized in Tables 7, 8, and 9.
The quantitatcd concentrations of all ERA screening CO PCs in sediment were compared to EPA Region IV ccotoxicity screening criteria for the protection of aquatic/wetland organisms and ERA screening COPC-specific HQs were calculated in this step, as presented in Table 7. The following ERA screening COPCs (with respective estimated HQs and year of maximum detected concentration) were identified as ERA screening COPCs in sediment and were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA based on screening cxcccdcnccs with HQs greater than or equal to I:
SVOCs:
BEHP (HQ= 379.12; 1998)
Total PAI-ls (HQ= 137.77; 1998)
Pesticides:
Metals:
4,4'-DDD (HQ= I 1.82; 1998)
4,4'-DDE (HQ= 13.03; 1998)
Total DDD/DDE/DDT (HQ= 24.85; 1998)
Dieldrin (HQ= 5. 76; I 998)
Total PCBs -as Aroclors 1254, 1260 (HQ= 39.39; 1998)
Cadmium (HQ= 3.4; 1990)
Copper (HQ= 192; 1990)
Lead (HQ= 4.34; 1998)
Mercury (HQ= 3.85; 1990)
Zinc (HQ= 2.06; 1990)
In this preliminary screening, EPA Region IV screening COPC-spccific screening criteria were not available for several ERA screening COPCs (Table 8):
VOCs:
FinaL April I 6, 2002
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzcne
I ,2-Dichloropropane
Tetrachlorocthene
I, I, I-Trichloroethane
43
I :\ral cigh \proj\ l 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Trichlorocthcnc
Xylcncs, total
SVOCs:
Carbazolc
1,4-Dichlorobcnzene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Pesticides:
PCBs:
Metals:
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
delta-BHC
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
11 unknown compounds (total)
1-(2,6-dihyd)-2-Propen-l -one
18 unidentified compounds (total)
6 unknown PNAs
Acetophenone
I, 4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzeneacetic acid
Benzoic acid
Decane
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl trisulfide
Dimethylfuranonc
Hexadccanoic acid
7-Ethenyl-1,2-phenanthrene
44
I: \ral eigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
• Final: April 16, 2002
•
3.5
Ph~nanthrenone
Therefore, these detected ERA screening eOPes in sediment were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA.
The remaining TALffeL analytes were not detected in any of the sediment samples collected (Table 9). In this preliminary screening, voes, SVOes, pesticides, PeBs, and metals were not detected in any of the samples (Table 9). The maximum quantitation limits for these analytes were compared to ERA eOPe-specific screening criteria, if available, and the analytes with maximum SQLs less than the screening criteria were eliminated as potential eores. As a result, all twenty-six voes, fifty SVOes, fifteen pesticides, five PeBs, six metals, and six Ties were retained for further evaluation in Step 3 of this ERA.
Scientific/Management Decision Point
The results of the screening-level problem formulation and ecological effects evaluation (Step I) and the screening-level exposure estimate and risk calculation (Step 2) of this preliminary ERA indicate that further evaluation is required for the Site. Based on the surface soil screening results in Step 2 of this ERA, the information regarding screening-level theoretical risk to potential terrestrial receptors is either inadequate or indicates the potential for adverse ecological effects. Based on the surface water and sediment screening results in Step 2 of this ERA, the information regarding screening-level
theoretical risk to potential aquatic/wetland receptors is also either inadequate or indicates the potential for adverse ecological effects. Therefore, further assessment of ecological risk is warranted; and ERA screening eOPes in surface soil, surface water, and sediment identified in Step 2 are further evaluated in Step 3 .
Final: April 16, 2002 45 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I; lralcigh lproj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \finalcra. doc
•
[This page intcntionall y left blank]
•
• O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. · 46 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral cigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \finalera. doc
•
•
•
4.0 STEP 3: PRELIMINARY BASELINE PROBLEM FORMULATION
The objective of the baseline risk assessment problem formulation is to evaluate the scope and the goals of the ERA using the results of the screening assessment and additional Site-specific information. The preliminary problem formulation in this step consists of the refinement of the initial ERA screening COPCs identified in Step 2 of this ERA, as presented in this section. At the end of this step, a SMDP is made to determine if ecological risks arc acceptable, or if further evaluation beyond Step 3 is warranted for the Site.
4.1 Refinement of Preliminary Chemicals of Potential Concern
Using the conservative default assumptions employed during the screening-level Steps 1 and 2, some of the ERA screening CO PCs retained for Step 3 would be interpreted as potentially posing unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. Therefore, further evaluation of the assumptions used and other Site-specific information arc considered in this phase of Step 3 to refine the ERA screening CO PCs identified in surface soil, surface .water, and sediment during the preliminary screening (Step 2). The refinement process includes consideration of several factors for the further evaluation of CO PCs and HQs based on conservative assumptions for this risk assessment including the following:
• Screening of essential nutrients not likely to pose adverse effects to ecological receptors based on low toxicity;
• Magnitude and frequency and location of chemical detection;
• Re-evaluation of exposure parameters used for risk estimation (i.e.,
consideration of actual chemical bioavailability of ERA screening
COPCs identified in Site media); and
• Alternative ecological screening criteria in addition to the EPA
Region IV screening criteria used in Step 2. These additional criteria
were selected because they were the lowest possible criteria that were larger than the EPA Region IV screening criteria. If screening
criteria greater than the EPA Region IV screening criteria were not
available, additional HQs were not calculated. Where possible, chronic, long-term effects screening criteria were utilized in this
screening step. These values are more representative of potential
exposure to CO PCs to potential ecological receptors over time.
Background surface soil, surface water, and sediment sampling was also conducted as part of the previous investigations for comparison to respective ERA screening COPC concentrations in surface soil, surface water, and sediment associated with the Site. Data from all three years of sample collection were combined to obtain one background screening concentration per analyte (background screening criteria are twice the mean of the background screening concentrations for each analyte). The analytical data for background surface soil, surface water, and sediment are summarized on Table l 0 (surface soil), Table 11 (surface water), and Table 12 (sediment). As part of the refinement process in the ERA, maximum detected concentrations of retained CO PCs identified in Step 2 were compared to respective background concentrations .
Final: April 16, 2002 47 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ralcigh \proj\ l 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
4.1.1 Refinement of Surface Soil CO PCs
A re-evaluation of the ERA screening COPCs identified in surface soil associated with the Site is presented on Tables 13, 14, and 15. Additional comparisons of maximum detected concentrations to alternative, additional ecological screening criteria, respective background concentrations, and consideration of detection frequency and magnitude arc also included on these tables.
Three of the seven VOCs retained as ERA screening CO PCs ( 1,2-dichloropropanc, tetrachloroethenc, and toluene) were eliminated as ERA screening CO PCs based on calculation of additional HQs using alternative screening criteria (2.29 x 10·', 0.063, and 0.2, respectively; Tables 13 and 14). 1,2-Dichloropropane was also only detected in one out of clevcn·samples. The remaining four VOCs retained as ERA screening COPCs (acetone, methylene chloride, I, I, 1-trichlorocthanc, and trichlorocthenc) continued in the screening process because ofa lack of screening criteria for these ERA screening COPCs. The maximum concentrations of all four VOCs also exceeded the background screening concentrations. Consequently, acetone, methylene chloride, I, I,!-trichloroethane, and trichlorocthene were considered ERA screening COPCs in surface soil. Acetone, however, volatilizes and degrades rapidly in soil, and wildlife receptors excrete it through their lungs and in their urine and will not accumulate it in their tissues (US EPA 1999). In addition, acetone was only
•
detected in one out of eleven samples and was not detected in subsequent surface • soil samples collected in 1995 and I 998. Acetone in surface soil is not expected to pose adverse ecological effects to potential ecological receptors associated with the Site and should not be considered for further evaluation in this ERA. In addition, methylene chloride, I, l, I -trichloroethane and trichloroethene also
SVOCs
volatilize rapidly from soils (ATSDR l993f, 1995c, 1986b). These VOCs in surface soils are not expected to pose adverse ecological effects to potential ecological receptors at the Site and arc not considered for further evaluation in this ERA.
The three remaining SVOCs (butyl benzyl phthalate, BEHP, and total P AHs] were retained as ERA screening COPCs because additional HQs were not less than I and/or the maximum concentrations exceeded background screening concentrations (Tables 13 and 14). Therefore, there are three SVOC COPCs for this ERA: butyl benzyl phthalate, BEHP, and total PAHs.
Pesticides
None of the eleven pesticides retained as screening COPCs were eliminated as ERA screening CO PCs (Tables 13 and 14). For the purpose of ecological risk screening, EPA has requested that DDT and its daughter products should be summed and treated as one COPC. In addition, it should be noted that two pesticides (endrin aldehyde and heptachlor) were only detected in 10% of surface •
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 48 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral eigh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
PC/Js
Meta/.f
Final: April 16, 2002
soil samples. Therefore, eight pesticides arc retained as ERA screening COPCs in surface soils: bcta-BHC, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, cndosulfan sulfate, cndrin aldehyde, hcptachlor, hcptachlor cpoxidc, and total
DDD/DDE/DDT.
In order to screen PCBs in surface soil, concentrations of the detected Aroclors were summed and screened against ecological screening criteria for total PCBs. (Individual screening criteria for Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 were not available.) Total PCBs (as Aroclors 1254 and 1260) continued in the screening process because the HQ exceeded I (HQ= 152), and the maximum concentration exceeded the background screening concentration (Table 13). Total PCBs arc retained as ERA screening COPCs in surface soil.
Of the twenty metals retained as ERA screening COPCs, available alternative screening criteria, resulting in HQs less than I, eliminated arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, manganese, and mercury (HQs = 0.69, 0.12, 0.68, 0.62, 0.71, and 0.105, respectively; Table 13). Seven additional metals (aluminum, antimony, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and vanadium) were eliminated as ERA screening COPCs because they did not exceed respective background screening concentrations (Tables 13 and 14). Calcium, magnesium, and
potassium are all also essential nutrients. The remaining five metals (barium,
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc) continued in the screening process because the HQs exceeded 1, and the maximum concentrations exceeded the background screening concentrations. However, an additional consideration eliminates copper as a COPC from further screening, as follows:
• The physicochemical form of copper is important in considering its behavior in the environment and availability to biota. For example, the copper incorporated in mineral lattices is inert and unlikely to have ecological significance. Most analytical methods for copper do not distinguish the form of copper present (i.e., the total copper present is known, but not the nature of the copper compounds or complexes present or how labile or available they are). The available data indicate that the labile nature of copper varies considerably according to its environment. In general, most copper in soil is in mineral form or tightly bound to organic matter (A TSDR 1990). Copper is also an essential nutrient. Adverse effects from copper exposure generally do not occur until concentrations exceed the maximum concentration encountered at the site (96 mg/kg) (ATSDR 1990). Therefore, copper is not considered for further evaluation in this ERA.
Barium, chromium, lead, and zinc are retained as ERA screening COPCs in surface soil. Total cyanide is eliminated as an ERA screening COPC in surface soil because the maximum concentration did not exceed the background
screening concentration. , .
49 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ral eigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
The analytical results were all non-detect for the presence of the respective analytcs listed in Table 15. Some of these analytcs were eliminated as COPCs because their SQLs were less than additional alternative screening criteria and/or background screening concentrations. However, all of the analytcs listed in Table 15 arc not considered further as potential ecological COPCs because they were all non-detect results. In addition, TICs were eliminated as COPCs in surface soil because these analytcs arc present in such small quantities that they cannot be positively identified. Screening criteria arc not available for T!Cs, and it is unlikely that these compounds would pose any potential adverse ecological effects (sec Section 4.2).
4.1.2 Refinement of Surface Water COPCs
A re-evaluation of the ERA screening CO PCs identified in surface water associated with the Site is presented on Tables 16, 17, and 18. Additional comparisons of maximum detected concentrations to alternative ecological screening criteria, respective background concentrations, and consideration of detection frequency and magnitude arc also included on these tables.
voes
The one VOC (tetrachloroethene) retained as an ERA screening COPC in surface water samples was eliminated as an ERA screening COPC based on available
•
alternative screening criteria resulting in a HQ less than I (Table 17). Its • maximum concentration did not exceed the background screening concentration,
Metals
and it was only detected in one sample. Tetrachloroethene is not considered for further evaluation in this ERA.
Five of the nine metals retained as ERA screening COPCs in surface water samples (calcium, lead, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) were eliminated as ERA screening CO PCs based on available alternative screening criteria resulting in HQs less than I (Tables 16 and 17). Manganese was eliminated as an ERA screening COPC because it did not exceed its respective background concentration. The HQs for aluminum, barium, and iron exceeded I based on the maximum detected concentrations. The maximum concentrations of aluminum, barium, and iron also exceeded the background screening concentrations. The screening value for aluminum, however, was derived from effects attributed to aluminum chloride. Most forms of aluminum found in the environment arc typically aluminum oxides, which do not pose the potential risks to potential ecological risk receptors that are associated with aluminum chloride. Therefore, aluminum is not considered for further evaluation in this ERA. In addition, iron is found in high concentrations in this area of North Carolina. In fact, water from the Yorktown Lower Aquifer is not used to supply local drinking water because it contains objectionable amounts of iron. Therefore, iron is not considered for further evaluation in this ERA. Barium is retained as an ERA screening COPC in surface water.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 50 Final: April 16, 2002 I:\ral eigh\proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
•
4.1.3
The analytical results were all non-detect for the presence of the respective analytcs listed in Table 18. Some of these analytcs were eliminated as cores because their SQLs were less than additional alternative screening criteria and/or background screening concentrations. However, all of the analytcs listed in this table arc not considered further as potential ecological cores because they were all non-detect results. Therefore, all analytcs listed in Table 18 arc not considered further as potential ecological cores (sec Section 4.2).
Refinement of Sediment CO PCs
A re-evaluation of the ERA screening COPCs identified in sediment associated with the Site is presented on Tables 19, 20, and 21. Additional comparisons of maximum detected concentrations to alternative ecological screening criteria, respective background concentrations, and consideration of detection frequency and magnitude arc also included on these tables.
VQCs
Two of the nine VOCs retained as ERA screening COPCs (1,1,l-trichloroethane,
and total xylencs) were eliminated as ERA screening CO PCs in sediment
because additional screening criteria resulted in HQs less than l and their maximum concentrations were less than their respective background screening concentrations (Table 20). Acetone, carbon disulfide, 1,2-dichloropropane,
tetrachloroethene, l, I, I-trichloroethane, and trichloroethenc were eliminated as ERA screening Cores because their maximum concentrations did not exceed their respective background screening concentrations. In addition, it should be noted that acetone, carbon disulfide, 1,2-dichloropropanc, and tetrachlorocthenc
were only detected in 10% of samples. These VOCs in sediment are not considered for further evaluation in this ERA. The remaining two VOCs retained as ERA screening COPCs (benzene and chlorobenzene) continued in the screening process because additional screening criteria did not produce HQs less than I for these ERA screening COPCs. These VOCs also exceeded their respective background concentrations. Benzene, however, does not bioaccumulate in animals or plants (ATSDR 1995a), and is not considered for further evaluation in this ERA because the screening criteria are developed from chronic exposures. Chlorobcnzcne is considered an ERA screening COPC in sediment.
SVOCs
Of the six SVOCs retained as ERA screening cores in sediment, three (carbazole, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and 4-methylphcnol) were eliminated as ERA screening cores because the maximum concentrations did not exceed the respective background screening concentrations. In addition, an additional screening criterion resulted in a HQ less than I for 1,4-diclorobenzcne. Carbazole and 1,4-dichlorobenzenc were only detected in 10% (=!) of the samples. Di-n-octyl phthalate was eliminated as an ERA screening core because it is metabolized quickly by higher trophic level receptors and so docs
Final: April 16, 2002 51 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I :lral eigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\!i\era \final era. doc
not biomagnify in the food chain. It was also only detected in one sample. BEHP • and total PAHs arc retained as ERA screening COPCs in sediment.
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals
Two of the six pesticides retained as ERA screening CO PCs in sediment (dicldrin and cndrin ketone) were eliminated as ERA screening COPCs because additional screening criteria produced HQs less than I (Tables 19 and 20). Total DDD/DDE/DDT, dclta-BHC, cndrin ketone, and hcptachlor were also eliminated as ERA screening COPCs because the maximum concentrations did not exceed the background screening concentrations. Dclta-BHC, dicldrin, and cndrin ketone were also only detected in one sample. 4,4'-DDE was retained as an ERA screening COPC; however, since, total DDD/DDE/DDT was eliminated, 4,4'-DDE will be eliminated as well. Pesticides arc not retained as ERA screening COPCs in sediment.
Total PCBs (as Aroclors 1254 and 1260) retained as ERA screening COPCs in sediment continued in the screening process because additional screening criteria did not produce a HQ less than I. Also, the maximum concentration of total PCBs exceeded the background screening concentration. Consequently, total PCBs arc considered ERA screening COPCs in sediment.
Two of the fifteen metals retained as ERA screening COPCs in sediment (barium and cobalt) were eliminated as ERA screening COPCs because additional screening criteria produced HQs less than one and because the maximum concentrations of these metals did not exceed the respective background screening concentrations. Ten additional metals (aluminum, cadmium, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, selenium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc) were eliminated as ERA screening COPCs in sediment because the maximum concentrations of these metals did not exceed the respective background screening concentrations. Aluminum, barium, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, vanadium, and zinc are not considered for further evaluation in this ERA. The remaining three metals (lead, manganese, and mercury) continued in the screening process because additional screening criteria did not produce HQs less than I, and the maximum concentration of these metals exceeded the respective background screening concentrations. Therefore, lead, manganese, and mercury are considered ERA screening CO PCs in sediment.
The analytical results were all non-detect for the presence of the respective analytes listed in Table 21. Some of these analytcs were eliminated as COPCs because their SQ Ls were less than additional alternative screening criteria and/or background screening concentrations. However, all of the analytes listed in this table arc not considered further as potential ecological CO PCs because they were all non-detect results. Therefore all analytes listed in Table 21 are not considered further as potential ecological COPCs. In addition, TICs were eliminated as
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 52 Final: April 16, 2002 I: lralcigh \proj\l 0679\26609\S\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
•
•
4.2
eores in sediment because these analytcs arc present in such small quantities that they cannot be positively identified. Screening criteria arc not available for Ties, and it is unlikely that these compounds would pose any potential adverse ecological effects (sec Section 4.2)
Uncertainty Analysis
Uncertainty is inherent to each step of the ERA process. The following paragraphs summarize the major factors contributing to the uncertainty associated with these preliminary screening steps (Steps 2 and 3) of this ERA.
There arc several data considerations that add uncertainty to these preliminary screening
. Steps 2 and 3:
• In 1990, G&O collected and analyzed two surface soil samples (0-6 in bis}, two surface water samples, and three sediment samples. The exact locations of these samples arc unknown. The samples were not analyzed for pesticides or PeBs at the request ofNeDENR. The results for these samples were not validated. Also, method detection limits for these samples were not included in this report. voe and/or SVOe Ties were included in the screening even though Ties cannot technically be screened against screening criteria because their identities arc unknown. The G&O report suggested that concentrations of acetone and chloroform in sediment samples should not be used in assessing the Site because these constituents were also associated with laboratory blanks. However, because this suggestion was .not confirmed through data validation, these analytcs were included in the risk screening and refinement.
• In 1995, USEPA collected and analyzed five surface soil samples and four sediment samples. Surface water samples were not collected. No method detection limits for these samples were included in this report. voe and/or SVOe Ties were included in the screening even though Ties cannot technically be screened against screening criteria because their identities are unknown. In addition, sample depths were not given for the surface soil samples.
• In I 998, S&ME collected and analyzed nine surface soil samples (0-6 in bis), nine shallow soil samples (12-24 in bis), two soil/groundwater interface soil samples, six shallow landfill soil samples (12-24 in bis}, eight surface water samples, and eight sediment samples. Since most of these samples were under pavement in former processing areas water table levels tend to be high in this area (and as a result, biota are mostly limited to the uppermost 12 inches of soil), the shallow soil samples, soil/groundwater interface soil samples and shallow landfill soil samples were not included in the Steps 2 and 3 screening.
All analytes listed in Tables 3, 6, 9, 15, 18, and 21 were "non-detect" for the presence of the TALrreL analytes. For those analytes for which sample quantitation limits were available, those analytes with sample quantitation limits less than corresponding ecological screening criteria and/or background screening concentrations could be eliminated from further screening and consideration as ERA screening eores without reservation. In other cases, when sample quantitation limits exceed corresponding
FinaL April I 6, 2002 .53 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ralcigh \proj \ 1 0679\26609\5\cra \finalera. doc
ecological screening criteria and/or background screening concentrations, or sample quantitation limits arc not available, a measure of uncertainty is introduced into the risk-screening process. Nevertheless, the analytical results arc all non-detect for the presence of the respective analytes so all analytcs listed in Tables 3, 6, 9, 15, 18, and 21 arc not considered further as potential ecological COPCs. Tables 3, 6, 9, 15, 18, and 2-1 document those analytes, and the uncertainty associated with them is acceptable.
Additional uncertainty is summarized as follows:
• For Preliminary Screening-Level Problem Formulation G'itep I): The characterization of species and associated habitats was a qualitative assessment based on literature review and visual observation during the site visit, and quantitative evaluation of actual species abundance and distribution is not performed as part of this screening level ERA.
• For Preliminary Screening-Level Exposure Eftimate and Risk Calculation G'itep 2): The preliminary comparisons of available analytical surface soil, surface water, and sediment (abiotic) data to respective applicable screening criteria were based on historical, validated and unvalidated data with several data issues identified for this information. Data collccied in 1990 and 1995 were not validated in accordance with EPA guidance for quality assurance/quality control requirements in support of risk assessment purposes. These data reflect historical conditions at the site and do not necessarily reflect current site conditions.
•
Historical surface water analytical data were not collected in 1995, and surface soil • and sediment samples were not collected at identical locations to allow comparisons ofanalyte concentrations over time. Several of the surface soil samples were collected in former processing areas of the Site, and these areas represent poor habitat for potential ecological receptors (i.e., very little vegetation for cover and forage; concrete, asphalt, and gravel substrates; and extensive human activity).
The prelin)inary comparisons of analytical surface soil, surface water, and sediment datd:o respective applicable screening criteria were based on maximum detected concentrations, which are assumed to be uniform across the site, resulting in overestimations of actual ecological risk. Screening-level benchmarks and risk evaluations are based on estimates of potential adverse effects levels derived from laboratory studies that may not reflect actual receptor exposures at the site, and probably overestimate such actual exposures. In addition, some sample locations were targeted toward areas anticipated to contain the highest concentrations of ERA screening CO PCs, another conservative bias resulting in a proba9lc overestimation of actual risk. Also, at the request of US EPA, all three databases were combined into one database and screened as a unit. Based on the previously mentioned data considerations, the combined data arc of varying quality and of limited usability (specifically the historical data), so these factors must be kept in mind when evaluating the COPCs retained from the screening process.
• For Preliminary Baseline Problem Formulation (Step 3): As noted in the uncertainty discussion under Step 2, the combined ( 1990, 1995, and I 998) unvalidated/validated,
historical analytical surface soil, surface water, and sediment data were also • evaluated in this preliminary step. In addition to screening maximum detected
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 54 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \raleigh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \finalera. doc
•
•
•
concentrations of potential CO PCs against additional screening criteria, maximum concentrations arc also screened against background screening concentrations. These concentrations arc equivalent to twice the mean of the background concentrations of each analytc. It is accepted statistical convention to use one-half of the quantitation limit/reporting limit for non-detected concentrations in calculations (i.e., the calculation of the mean). This method was employed when quantitation limits were available. Using onc-halfofthc quantitation limit in calculations (instead of"0") adds a measure of conservatism to the calculations.
At the request of US EPA, the results of background sample collections were combined from all three sampling events to obtain background screening concentrations for the Site.
Final: April 16, 2002
In accordance with EPA ecological risk screening guidance, default parameters were considered in the potential exposure estimates to ecological receptors, including the 100 percent area-use factor, 100 percent bioavailability, maximum potential dose based on minimum body weight and maximum ingestion rate, and I 00 percent dietary composition. As such, these assumptions overestimate potential risk to potential ecological receptors exposed to Site media. Chemical bioaccumulation and bioconcentration in the food chain, if any, is not evaluated in the preliminary assessment. In accordance with EPA guidance, potential effects of ERA screening CO PCs through the food chain would be evaluated in the baseline ERA (Steps 4-8), if applicable .
Many, if not most, of the realistic potential ecological receptors associated with this site arc animals. As such, these organisms are mobile so the animals encounter both ERA screening COPC-containing and non-COPC-containing areas during their activities. Their actual exposures are more realistically represented by the average values of ERA screening CO PCs they encounter than by using either maximum concentrations or 95 percent upper confidence intervals (limits). Animals do not "hover" over "hot spots" of ERA screening CO PCs but move freely. In addition, many of the surface soil sample locations are in fonner processing areas of the Site with little or no vegetative cover for forage and other wildlife usage. Potential animal receptors are not likely to use these areas except on a minimal, transitory basis. Thus the default assumption of I 00 percent ingestion of a diet with all maximum values is not realistic for the Site.
Total organic content of the sediment and soil samples was not analyzed; however, the sediment samples were collected in wetland areas (which typically have a very high organic content due to detrital matter), and area soils arc known to have considerable clay content. Both clay particles and organic matter arc known to bind with many of the ERA screening COPCs found at the site, thereby reducing the bioavailability of these analytes to potential ecological receptors. This site-specific consideration indicates that the default assumption of I 00 percent bioavailability of ERA screening COPCs is not realistic.
Thus,whi_lc the EPA default assumptions were used in the preparation of this ecological risk screening assessment per EPA ERA guidance, those assumptions are overly conservative, resulting in an overestimation of potential ecological risk
55 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ral ei gh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\.5\era \final era. doc
associated with this Site. l11is uncertainty will be addressed in subsequent steps of • the ERA.
4.3 Preliminary Baseline Problem Formulation
Based on the refinement process in Step 3, the following ERA screening COPCs were identified in Site-media and not screened from further evaluation and consideration in this ERA:
Surface
COPC Surface Soil Water Sediment voes
• Chlorobenzene X
SVOCs
• BEHP X X • Butyl benzyl phthalate X
• Total PAHs X X
Pesticides
• bcta-BHC X
• aloha-Chlordane X
• gamma-Chlordane X
• Endosulfan sulfate X
• Endrin aldehyde X
• Heotachlor X
• Heptachlor epoxide X
• Total ODD/DOE/DDT X
Total PCBs (as Aroclor X X 1254, 1260)
Metals
• Barium X X
• Chromium X
• Lead X X • Manganese
• Mercurv X
• Zinc X X
Only BEHP, total PAHs, total PCBs, and lead were retained as COPCs in both surface soil and sediment. Barium was the only analyte retained as a COPC in both surface soil and surface water. · The majority of the remaining CO PCs were found in surface soils. No one analyte was retained in all three media. Figures 9 and IO show the distribution of the remaining CO PCs in surface soil and surface water/sediment, respectively, at the Site .
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 56 Final: April I 6, 2002 I: \ral eigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
Q
•
Distribution and Magnitude of CO PCs in Soils
SVOCs
Bis(2-cthylhcxyl)phthalatc is present in surface soils in large quantities; however, the area of greatest concentration is located in former processing areas to the south of the current hanger building. BEHP is commonly detected in environmental samples. BEHP is a platicizcr and is used in the manufacture of lighter-than-air craft (the current operation at the Site), is common in plastics, and dissolves readily in gas and oil. BEHP sorbs very strongly to soils and is not very mobile (ATSDR 1997b). Field personnel who collected the soil samples noted "a white plastic layer" in the soil samples collected adjacent to the existing hangar (A·SS-1 and B-SS-1). This layer may account for the exceptionally high concentrations of BEHP in these samples. Even if these two samples arc eliminated from consideration and the mean concentration of the remaining samples is used to estimate potential risk (mean= 8661.25 ug/kg), BEHP is still retained as a COPC because it exceeds-background screening concentrations. However, BEHP sorbs strongly to soils and does not dissolve readily in water. Because of its chemical properties, it is most likely not bioavailable to any potential ecological receptors at the Site. In addition, the greatest concentrations of BEHP are in areas that provide very poor habitat for potential ecological receptors: the areas are currently or formerly paved, vegetative cover is not adequate for food or shelter, and there is a fair amount of human activity, all deterrents to receptor usage. Any potential ecological receptors that use this area would do so on a transient basis. ·
Butyl benzyl phthalate is also present in surface soils, but in smaller quantities (maximum concentration= 8200 ug/kg, mean concentration= 1249.5 ug/kg) and closer to the hangar. It should be noted that by eliminating the maximum concentration from the mean calculation, the new mean concentration is 4 77 ug/kg, only slightly more than the background screening concentration (437.5 ug/kg). As with BEHP, butyl benzyl phthalate is common in plastics and may also be a by-product of current Site operations. Butyl benzyl phthalate also sorbs strongly to soils and docs not dissolve readily in water. As a result, it is most likely not bioavailable to potential ecological receptors at the Site. Butyl benzyl phtha!ate was only detected at three locations on the Site, in areas that provide poor habitat potential ecological receptors. These areas are paved/formerly paved with little vegetative cover. Any potential ecological receptors that use this area would do so on a transient basis.
Total P AHs are also present in the former processing areas. The highest concentrations of P AHs are located adjacent to the existing hangar and Former Boiler Room/Incinerator area. The P AHs are concentrated in the upper six inches of soil. This entire area is currently and/or was formerly paved. The asphalt in many of these areas is crumbling, and.PAHs are a by-product of the breakdown of asphalt. Secondarily, because Westinghouse and Triangle Pacific burned the by-products of their cabinet-making operations (scrap wood, sawdust, and lacquer dust), the presence of P AHs is to be expected (PAHs are by-product of burning). However, it should be noted, that PAHs were not detected further away from the hangar in I 998 in samples F-SS-1, G-SS-1, H· SS-1, and U-SS-1 (values are listed in Figure 9 because one-half of the SQLs were used for calculation purposes). · Once again, the greatest concentrations of P AHs arc in areas
Final: April 16, 2002 57 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh \proj\ I 0679\26609\.5\era \final era. doc
that provide very poor habitat for potential ecological receptors due to the same reasons • mentioned for BEHP and butyl bcnzyl phthalatc.
In summary, although BEHP and total P AHs, and to a lesser extent butyl bcnzyl phthalatc, arc widely distributed in surface soils at the Site, they arc concentrated in areas that provide poor wildlife habitat, that arc paved or formerly paved, and have a high level of human activity. Activities of potential ecological receptors in these areas will be limited and transient at best. Because of habitat considerations, the default assumptions of 100 percent area-use factor, 100 percent bioavailability of constituents, and 100 percent dietary composition of the COPCs arc invalidated, and these COPCs in surface soils should not be considered for further evaluation in future steps of the ERA.
Pesticides
Several pesticides were detected in surface soil samples across the Site in varying quantities and combinations: beta-BHC, alpha-and gamma-chlordane, cndosulfan sulfate, endrin aldehyde, hcptachlor, hcptachlor cpoxidc, and DDT and its daughter products. Generally, pesticide concentrations increase further from the processing areas of the Site, and the maximum concentrations of individual pesticides do not exceed 0.08 mg/kg. Dclta-BHC, cndrin aldehyde, and hcptachlor were only detected in one sample out often (10%). While pesticides may have been used throughout the Site's history for pest control (information concerning pesticide use at the Site is not available), the majority of pesticides present further away from the hangar are most likely due to agricultural nm-off from the adjacent farming areas-approximately 43% of the surrounding land usage arc dedicated to agriculture (Figure 4). As a result, these COPCs • in surface soils should not be considered for further evaluation in future steps of the ERA.
PCBs
PCBs were detected only adjacent to the hangar (A-SS-1 and B-SS-1) and in the background location (H-SS-1). Since the greatest concentrations arc located adjacent to the hangar, the default assumptions of 100 percent area-use factor, 100 percent bioavailability of constituents, and 100 percent dietary composition of the CO PCs arc invalidated due to the habitat considerations mentioned above. PCBs in surface soils _should not be ~onsider for further evaluation in future steps of the ERA.
Metals
Four metals were retained as COPCs in surface soils. These metals are distributed across the Site, and concentrations arc generally greater closer to the hangar and in the former processing areas. Since mean calculations arc more representative of potential exposure to ecological receptors than maximum values, metals were re-evaluated using mean concentrations;with certain considerations noted below:
• Barium has many uses, including as a stabilizer for plastics, in lubricating oils and jct fuels, and in pesticides (ATSDR 1992b). It sorbs very strongly to soil, especially those with a high clay content, like the soils of the Site. It is likely that barium is a by-product of the lighter-than-air craft manufacture process, is a remnant from the seaplane refurbishing processes, and is associated with the pesticides that are .• distributed across the Site. The maximum concentration of barium was 329 mg/kg;
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 58 Final: April 16, 2002 1: \ral eigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \finalera. doc
•
•
the mean concentration was I 06.45 mg/kg. A HQ calculated using the mean concentration of barium is less than I (HQ= 0.65). Barium should, therefore, not be considered further in this ERA.
• It is possible that the chromium and lead arc by-products of paint (lead chromate in pigments) that was used at the Site. Bioaccumulation of chromium from soil to above-ground parts of plants is unlikely. There is also no indication of biomagnification of chromium along the terrestrial food chain (ATSDR 1993b). The maximum concentration of chromium was 62. 7 mg/kg; the mean concentration was 25.93 mg/kg. The mean concentration is less than background concentrations surrounding the Site (29.75 mg/kg); therefore, chromium should not be considered further in this ERA.
• The maximum concentration of lead, 593 mg/kg, was detected in 1990. The location of this sample is uncertain. The second greatest concentration of lead was detected in 1998 at D-SS-1 (in the paved area south of the hangar). While the mean concentration including those samples still provides a HQ greater than l, a mean calculated without these values (due to their limited distribution, and the very low concentrations of lead throughout the rest of the Site) docs provide a HQ less than l (HQ= 0.71, mean= 35.5 mg/kg). This value is also far less than the screening background concentration (84.05 mg/kg). Lead should not be considered further in this ERA.
• Zinc salts have numerous applications, including as a protective coating for other metals, wood preservation, vulcanization accelerator for rubber, fertilizers, pigments, and batteries (ATSDR 1994g). A HQ calculated using the mean concentration of zinc instead of the maximum concentration yields a HQ only slightly greater than 1 . If the mean is calculated without the maximum concentration (the majority of the other zinc concentrations are less than half the magnitude of the maximum concentration), zinc would be eliminated in Step 3 with a HQ= 0.92. Zinc should not be considered further in this ERA.
According to Section 2.4.7, none of the four metals retained as COPCs (barium, chromium, lead, and zinc) were listed as components of any of the waste streams generated by the cabinet manufacture process. Therefore, these metals in surface soils should not be considered further in this ERA.
In summary, the greatest concentrations of CO PCs are in the former manufacturing/ process areas, and the greatest values are at A-SS-1 and 8-SS-l (Figure 9) adjacent to the hangar. Most of these COPCs are concentrated in the upper six inches of the soil, and most of the CO PCs appear to be the result of current Site operations or surrounding agricultural practices. There does not appear to be a defined source area for the CO PCs mentioned above. In addition this area of the Site is paved or covered with crushed rock and supports little invasive vegetation, mostly mowed, maintained grasses and forbs. These areas do not provide suitable habitat for potential ecological receptors, and potential ecological receptors in this area would be present on a transient basis .
Final: April 16, 2002 59 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ral eigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\cra \finalcra. doc
Distribution and Magnitude ofCOPCs in Surface Water
Metals
The only analyte retained as a COPC in surface water was barium. Barium was only detected in the 1990 surface water samples. The locations of the 1990 surface water samples arc not known. In aquatic media, barium tends to precipitate out of solution as an insoluble salt. Sedimentation of suspended solids removes a large portion of the barium content from surface waters (ATSDR 1992b). Since barium was not detected in surface water samples in 1998, it is likely that any barium that may have been present in the surface water in 1990 settled into the sediments. Since barium was not retained as a COPC in sediment, it should not be considered further as a COPC in surface water.
Distribution and Magnitude of CO PCs in Sediment
voes
Only chlorobenzene was retained as a COPC in sediment. Chlorobenzene was detected in one location slightly upstream of the Site in 1995, and in the channel/outfall leading to Pailin Creek in 1998. The widespead distribution throughout the creek sediments of these volatile compounds suggests deposition by run-off from all areas surrounding the Site. Chlorobenzene is used in pesticide formulations and as a degreaser for automobile parts. This volatile compound is not readily absorbed by potential ecological receptors as it sorbs strongly to sediments (A TSDR 1997a). Both the maximum concentration (82,000 ug/kg) and the mean concentration (9629.1 ug/kg) yield HQs greater than I and arc • greater than the background screening concentration. However, since chlorobenzenc sorbs strongly to sediments, it will not be readily absorbed by potential ecological receptors. If the two largest concentrations are removed (at K-SD-1 and SD-01) from the mean calculation, the mean becomes 410 ug/kg. This value yields a HQ of0.5. Chlorobenzcne most likely poses little potential adverse effects to potential ecological receptors.
SVOCs
BEHP and total P AHs were retained as COPCs in sediment. BEHP was detected upstream of the Site in Pailin Creek and downstream of the Site at the confluence of Newbegun and Pailin Creeks. BEHP was also detected in the outfall to Pailin Creek. BEHP s~rbs very strongly to sediments and is not highly mobile. While BEHP bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms, accumulation is minimized by metabolism and extensive biomagnification is not expected (ASTOR 1997b).
P AHs were also concentrated in the outfall to Pailin Creek; however, they were also detected upstream and downstream of the Site, suggesting deposition by bulk surface water run-off
Both BEHP and PAHs are not very mobile in sediments and will have limited bioavailability for potential ecological receptors.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 60 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ralci gh \proj\ l 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
••
•
•
•
Total l'CH.1·
Total PCBs as Aroclors 1254 and 1260 were retained as COPCs in sediments. Concentrations of PCBs were in the outfall to Pail in Creek and upstream of the Site. PCBs were not detected downstream of the Site. There is an electrical transformer at the bridge crossing Pailin Creek upstream of the Site, which may responsible for the PCBs in the upstream sampling locations. PCBs in the outfall arc probably due to run-off from the Site. The maximum concentration of PCBs in sediment is 1.3 mg/kg. PCBs in sediments may require further evaluation due to their ability to bioaccumubtc in aquatic organisms. ·
Metals
Three metals-lead, manganese, and mercury-were retained as COPCs in sediment. These metals were distributed throughout the sediments upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of the Site. The greatest concentrations of manganese and mercury were detected in the 1990 sediment samples. The locations of these samples arc unknown. The highest concentrations of lead in later samples were in the outfall to Pail in Creek; however, lead was also detected in substantial quantities upstream of the Site. • The maximum concentration of lead was 13 I mg/kg and the mean concentration of lead was 53 .53 mg/kg. Since the mean concentration is more representative of potential exposure, lead was re-evaluated using the mean. Calculation of a HQ using the mean yields a HQ= 1.53; the mean concentration is also less than the background screening concentration .
• The maximum concentration of manganese was 358 mg/kg, and the mean concentration was 99.89 mg/kg. There are no screening criteria for manganese in sediment, so HQs could not be calculated. However, the mean concentration of manganese is less than the background screening concentration (228.75 mg/kg). • The maximum concentration of mercury was O .5 mg/kg, and the mean concentration was 0.184 mg/kg. Recalculation of a HQ using the mean and alternative screening criteria yields a HQ= 1.05. In addition, the mean is less than the background screening concentration (0.418 mg/kg).
Lead and manganese do not biomagnify in aquatic food chains; however, they do bioconcentrate at lower trophic levels. All of these metals sorb strongly to sediment particles (especially in sediments with high organic and clay content, like those at the Site), so they may not be readily bioavailable.
In summary, chlorobenzcne is present in background samples, in the outfall to Pailin Creek, and downstream of the Site. BEHP, total PAHs, and metals are distributed throughout the creek sediments. PCBs were detected in background locations and in areas adjacent to the Site, but not downstream in Newbegun Creek. There is not an apparent source for these CO PCs in sediment; their widespread distribution may be attributed to run-off from surrounding areas. Many of these COPCs sorb strongly to sediment particles and are not readily bioavailablc; as a result, they should not be considered further in this ERA. PCBs, however, do bioaccumulate in aquatic receptors, and arc present throughout Pailin Creek adjacent to the Site. PCBs may require further evaluation in this ERA .
Final: April 16, 2002 61 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ralci gh \proj\ I 0679\26609\.5\era \final era.doc
Assessment Endpoints
In the screening-level ERA, assessment endpoints arc any adverse effects on ecological receptors, including plant and animal populations and sensitive environments (EPA I 997). Adverse effects may be inferred from measures related to impaired reproduction, growth, and survival: adverse effects on communities may be inferred from changes in community stnicturc or function: and adverse effects on environments may be inferred from changes in composition and characteristics that reduce the habitat's ability to support plant and animal populations and communities (EPA 1997).
Because assessment endpoints focus the risk assessment design and analysis, the appropriate selection and definition of these endpoints arc important to the ERA study design (EPA 1997). Based on current conditions, the aquatic areas, the forested areas, the wetland areas (both woody and herbaceous), and the open grassy portions of the Site provide suitable habitat for both potential terrestrial and aquatic/wetland ecological receptors. The areas associated with present and former industrial activities provide very poor potential habitat. Agricultural areas and wooded residential areas located adjacent to the Site provide moderate to good quality habitats for certain species of potential receptors that may also utilize other habitats on the Site. Based on the preliminary information in this ERA, the following four assessment endpoints have been preliminarily selected to evaluate potential risk to ecological receptors associated with the Site:
• Maintenance of existing terrestrial and aquatic/wetland community composition associated with the Site;
• Protection of upland birds and mammals potentially exposed to constituents that may accumulate in terrestrial food chain items;
• Protection of fish with recreational and commercial importance and representing the top of the aquatic food chain and the potential accumulation of constituents via that food chain; and
• Protection of piscivorous birds and mammals potentially exposed to constituents that may accumulate in fish via aquatic food chain items.
Measurement Endpoints
A measurement endpoint represents a measurable biological response to a chemical that can be related to the valued characteristic chosen as the assessment endpoint (EPA 1992). This preliminary screening-level assessment presents qualitative measures of exposure and ecological effects to identify potential biological responses associated with concentrations of detected constituents at the Site. Measures of potential exposures included concentrations detected in soil, sediment, and surface water. Measures of ecological effects involve comparison of historical analytical data from abiotic media to screening-level benchmarks using default exposure assumptions to evaluate potential ecological effects on potential ecological receptors associated with the Site.
At this Site, constituents of potential concern in soil are BEHP, total PAHs, some pesticides, PCBs, and limited metals. These COPCs are located in former processing areas of the Site, and exposure to these COPCs by potential ecological receptors will be limited, at best. The majority of samples are located in paved areas, inside buildings, or in heavily trafficked areas. These areas have limited habitat suitability for terrestrial
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 62 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ralci gh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
0
•
•
receptors: vegetation for foraging and cover is limited, and human presence is a deterrent. Potential terrestrial ecological receptors in these areas would be present on a transient basis, and the potential exposure risk would be reduced. Elevated concentrations
adjacent to the hangar could be addressed by limited soil removal.
Constituents of potential concern in sediment arc limited to BEHP, total PAl·IS, PCBs and limited metals. Because of the reasons listed in the section addressing the distribution and magnitude of sediment CO PCs, PCBs may require further evaluation. O'Brien & Gere proposed limited biota sampling to address potential COPCs in the Draft Work Plan submitted to EPA in July 2000. Fish sampling and analysis would evaluate any potential bioaccumulation effects from COPCs in sediment, as well as provide a basis for evaluating higher trophic level piscivorous birds and mammals. Members of the Ccntrarchidae (sunfish family), specifically bluegill, were suggested for sampling purposes, as these fish have limited home ranges and arc thus representative of Site conditions; and they represent the top of the food chain in these creeks and therefore, the culmination of any potential bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms.
In addition, bcnthos sampling was suggested for evaluating the composition and health of the bcnthic community living in the sediments adjacent to the Site. Bcnthic organisms arc immobile and representative of Site conditions. The resulting data would be analyzed for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
taxa richness (reflecting the health of the community),
abundance,
EPT Index (mayflies/stoneflies/caddisflies-the most sensitive to pollution), EPT/EPT + Chironomidae (midgeflies) Ratio (balance in the community),
Percentage Dominant Taxon (a measure of impairment),
Biotic Index (pollution tolerance),
Percentage Model Affinity, Cluster Analysis (both the Jaccard and the Bray-Curtis coefficients and Sigtrce analysis), and
other similar indicators of community condition .
Such a quantitative/qualitative approach using fish and benthos sampling provides a scientifically sound assessment of ecological conditions in Pailin Creek and Newbegun Creek.
4.4 Scientific/Management Decision Point
Based on the findings from this preliminary screening-level ecological assessment and refinement, further assessment of potential ecological risk is warranted for the sediments in Pailin Creek adjacent to this Site. The preliminary information provided in this document is not adequate to completely evaluate potential risks to terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors associated with Site habitats. As noted in the draft Rl/FS Work Plan, additional sampling and information gathering is proposed to refine and address these ecological risk issues on a Site-specific and empirical basis in subsequent steps of the ERA for this Site.
Finally, while the CO PCs identified in Table 22 rcqulre additional assessment and evaluation, those constituents do not necessarily pose unacceptable risks to potential
Final: April 16, 2002 63 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. · I:lraleigh\proj\10679\26609\.5\era\finalera.doc
ecological receptors at the Site. The screening process provided in this document simply • indicates that these constituents should be addressed in greater detail, as afforded by later steps of the ERA.
•
• O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 64 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral ci gh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\cra \final era. doc
•
•
•
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the preliminary findings of Steps l through 3 of the ERA, further evaluation of potential risk to ecological receptors is proposed for the Site. The SMDP at Step 3 indicated that available information is not adequate to completely evaluate potential risk from Site constituents to both terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors associated with habitats on or near the Site.
The following conclusions arc evident from the preliminary findings of Steps I through 3 of this ERA:
l) Although three SVOCs, eight pesticides, PCBs and four metals were retained as CO PCs at the completion of Step 3 screening, there does not appear to be a defined source area for these COPCs. The greatest concentrations of these CO PCs were located adjacent to the hangar at locations A-SS-1 and B-SS-1. These areas could be addressed by a limited soil removal, if necessary. The rest of the Site where these CO PCs were detected in surface soil provides very poor habitat for potential ecological receptors. These samples were collected from paved or formerly paved areas. Vegetative cover is limited to mowed and maintained grasses and forbs, and there is human activity in this area. All of these factors discourage wildlife activity, so potential exposure to these CO PCs would be transient, at best.
2) Barium was initially retained as a COPC ill surface water. However, it was only detected in surface water in I 990, and was not detected in subsequent sampling events. Due to its chemical nature, barium sorbs strongly to sediments, so it could be assumed that the barium that was detected in surface water in 1990 has partitioned to sediments. Barium, however, was not retained as a COPC in sediment, so it should not be considered for further evaluation.
3) Although one VOC, two SVOCs, PCBs, and three metals were retained as COPCs at the completion of Step 3 screening, all except PCBs appear to be of limited concern for potential ecological receptors due to limited bioavailability. PCBs, however, do bioaccumulate and are present in sufficient quantities in the Pailin Creek sediments to warrant further evaluation.
The following activities are recommended for additional evaluation of potential ecological risk at this Site:
l) This document is provided to EPA Region IV and the NCDENR for review, consideration, comments, and approval. Concurrence with the results of this initial ecological risk screening process is essential to implementing subsequent steps in the ERA.
2) A Site visit with the USEPA, NCDENR, NOAA, and Respondents was conducted in November 2000. The Site visit aided in identifying Site-specific ecological receptors, identifying complete exposure pathways, identifying ecosystems potentially at risk, selecting assessment endpoints, and developing a conceptual
. Final: April 16, 2002 65 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc . I: \ral ei gh \proj\ l 06 79\26609\5\era \final !!ra. doc
model with working hypotheses or questions that the Site investigation will address . Certain of these considerations were described in preliminary form in Step I of this document. The Site visit and a subsequent meeting at USEPA on October 16, 2001 provided the opportunity to refine those preliminary considerations in the context of the information provided in this document and with the concurrence and participation of the involved parties. As a result of those meetings, this screening-level ERA was revised to provide a coherent list of Site CO PCs and propose potential measurement and assessment endpoints. The baseline risk assessment problem formulation was prepared and is now presented to EPA Region IV and the NCDENR for review, comment, and approval. That approval will lead to Step 4 of the ERA process.
3) It may be necessary for the Respondents and EPA Region IV and the NCDENR to meet and discuss the assessment and measurement endpoints for further evaluation that may be required at this Site.
4) A program for addressing many of the potential ecological risk issues. was prepared as Task 7 of the Draft RI/FS Work Plan. Upon approval, and as appropriate, that program will be implemented as a portion of the continuing steps of the ERA for the Site and per the Draft Work Plan Schedule.
5) Since the CO PCs in soils appear to be associated with crumbling asphalt, no further action is recommended, except potentially limited soil removal in the vicinity of A-SS-I and B-SS-1. However, it should be noted that there is a data gap in soil samples in the southern portion of the Site adjacent to Pailin Creek (vicinity of the former Sewage Treatment Plant). This area is a wetland that provides suitable habitat for potential terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors. O'Brien & Gere has proposed limited sampling in this area to address any data gaps. A limited ecological evaluation of this area may be required.
6) No further action is recommended for surface water adjacent to the Site.
7) In order to evaluate PCBs in Pailin Creek sediments, limited sampling offish tissue and benthos is recommended as was proposed in the Draft Work Plan submitted to EPA by O'Brien & Gere in July 2000. Fish sampling and analysis would evaluate any potential bioaccumulation effects from COPCs in sediment, as well as provide a basis for evaluating higher trophic level piscivorous birds and mammals. In addition, benthos sampling was suggested for evaluating the composition and health of the benthic community living in the sediments adjacent to the Site. Benthic organisms are immobile and representative of Site conditions. Such a quantitative/qualitative approach using fish and benthos sampling provides a scientifically sound assessment of ecological conditions in Pailin Creek and Newbegun Creek.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 66 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral eigh \proj \ 1 0679\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
0
•
•
6.0 REFERENCES
This section provides a compendium of scientific literature, reports, and documents used or cited in the preparation of this ecological risk screening document.
Booth, E. S. 1971. How to know the mammals. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. 205 pp.
Brockman, C. F. 1968. Trees of North America. Golden Press, New York. 280 pp.
Bull, J. and J. Farrand, Jr. I 977. The Audubon Society field guide to North American birds. Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 784 pp.
Conant, R. I 975. Afield guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. Peterson Series. 2"' ed. Houghton Miffiin Company, Boston. 429 pp.
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. I 987. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Eisler, R. 1985-I 995. Contaminant Hazards Review Series, Biological Report Series, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD .
Expanded Site Investigation Report: Task 4 -Administrative Order by Consent -Docket No. 98-02-C, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, September I 998, prepared by S&ME, Inc. on behalf of Triangle Pacific Corporation and CBS Corporation and presented to US EPA Region IV and NCDENR.
Fasset, N. C. 1972". A manual of aquatic plants. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 405 pp.
Friday, G. P. I 998. Ecological screening values for surface water, sediment, and soil°. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. USRC-TR-98-00110, November !998.
Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. I 979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. 2 Vols. University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia.
Harris, W. H. and Wilder, H. 8., !966, Geology and Ground-water Resources of the Hertford-Elizabeth City Area North Carolina, Groundwater Bulletin No. JO, North Carolina Department of Water Resources.
Leithead, H. L., L. L. Yarlett, and T. N. Shiflet. 1976. JOO native forage grasses in 11 southern states. Agriculture Handbook No. 389, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 216 pp .
Final: April 16, 2002 67 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \raleigh \proj\ l 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A Jield guide to Jre.1·/11vater Jishes, North America north of ,\4exico. Peterson Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York. 432 pp.
Phase I Screening Site Investigation of Triangle J>acijic Corporation (NCI) 087 336335), June 1990, by Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. for State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management, Superfund Section.
Phase fl Screening Site lnvestigationji,r the Triangle J>acijic IXL Division Site, Pasquotank County, North Carolina (NCI) 087336335), December 1990, by Grccnhornc & O'Mara, Inc., for State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management.
Sample, B., D. Oprcsko, and G. Suter. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. US Department of Energy, Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge, TN.
Soil Survey of Pasquotank County, North Carolina. March I 997. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Supplemental Screening Inspection Report, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, Pasquotank County, North Carolina. 1995. ESD Project No. 95-0370. U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division. Athens, Georgia.
USFWS. 1995. Species Accounts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. Source material: Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). FWS, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
Water quality data from continuously monitored sites in the Albemarle Sound estuarine system, North Carolina, 1989-1991. 1993. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 93-69. Prepared in cooperation with the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR)
PUBLICATIONS
1990. A TSDR. Toxicological Profile for Copper. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1992a. ATS DR Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1992b. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Barium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1992c. ATS DR. Toxicological Profile for Manganese. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
•
•
1992d. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Vanadium. U.S. Department of Health and Human • Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 68 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral ci gh \proj \ I 06 79\26609\.5\era \final era. doc
•
•
•
1993a. ATSDR. Toxicological Proji/eji>r Aldrin/Dieldrin. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1993b. ATSDR. Tox1co/ogical Projilejbr Chromium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1993c. ATS DR. Toxicological Profile ji>r Endosulfan. U. S. Department of Health and Human
1993d.
1993c.
1993f.
1994a.
1994b.
1994c.
1994d.
1994e.
!994f.
1994g.
Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATS DR. Toxicological Projilejbr Heptach/or and Heptachlor Epoxide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR. Toxicological Profi/ejiJr Lead. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ~ublic Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
A TSDR. Toxicological Projile for Methylene Chloride. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Carbon Disulfide. U.S. Department of Health and Human_ Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATS DR. Toxicological Profile for Chlordane. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia. •
ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for 4,4'-DDT. 4,4'-DDE. and 4-4'-DDD. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Methoxych/or. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Toluene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR. Toxico/ogial Profile for Zinc. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1995a. A TSDR. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1995b. A TSDR. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1995c. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for l.].}-Trichloroethane. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia .
Final: April 16, 2002 69 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: \ral eigh \proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era \finalera. doc
1995d. ATS DR. fox1cological Profile ji,r Trichloroe1/iene. U. S. Department of Health and • Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1996. ATS DR. Toxicological Profileji,r Polychlorinated Hiphenyls. U S. Department of Health and Hum:111 Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1997a. ATS DR. Toxicological Projile ji,r Chlorobenzene. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
1997b. ATS DR. Toxicological Profile ji,r Di(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
1986a. USEPA. Chemical Fact Sheetji,r Barium. On line. (http://mail/odsnct.com/tTRIFacts), September 1998.
1986b. USEPA. Chemical Fact Sheetji,r Trichloroethene. On line.
(http://mail/odsnct.com/tTRIFacts), September 1998.
1988. USEPA. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA Interim Final. EPA, October 1988.
1989a. ,USEP A. Chemical Fact Sheet for Manganese. January 1989. Online. http://mail/odsnct.com/tTRIFacts), September 1998
1989b. USEPA. EPA Chemical Fact Sheet for Xylenes. May 1989. Online.
(http://mail/odsnct.com/tTRIFacts), September 1998.
1990. USEP A. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. Washington D.C. Office of Water; EPN600/4-90/030.
1992. USEPA. Framework/or Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, D. C. Risk Assessment Forum. EPN630/R-92/0l l.
1994a. US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/E-94/012. Washington, D. C.
1994b. US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D. C.
1995a. USEP A. Determination of Background Concentration of lnorganics in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites. December 1995. EPN540/S-96/500.
1995b. USEPA. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins Ecological Risk Assessment. November 1995.
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 70 Final: April 16, 2002 I: \ral ei gh \proj \ I 06 7912 6609\S\cra \final era. doc
•
•
0
•
•
1996. US EPA. Test Merhot!s jiJr lc'va!uating Solid Waste l'hys1cal/Chemica! Method,· (SW-8./6), Third Edition. Washington, D. C.
1997. US EPA. Fcological Risk Assessment Guidance Ji Jr Superfimd: Process for Designing and Conducting 1,:cological /lisk Assessmenl. Interim Final. EPA 540-R-97-006. June 1997.
1998a. USEPA. EPA Region IV, Waste Management Division, Region IV. Waste Management Division Soil Screening Values jiJr Hazardous Waste Sites, Table 4. October 1998.
19986. USEPA. EPA Region IV, Waste Management Division, Region IV. Waste Management Division Sediment Screening ValuesjiJr Hazardous Waste Sites, Table 3. October 1998.
1998c. USEPA. EPA Region IV, Waste Management Division, Region IV. Waste Management Division Surface Water Screening Valuesji;r Hazardous Waste Sites, Table 1. October I 998.
1999 USEPA. Appendix H, toxicological profiles, screening level ecological risk assessment protocol (August 1999) !!] Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Volume I. EPA 530-D-99-00IA .
Final: April 16, 2002 71 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. I: lral ci gh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
[This page intentionally left blank]
•
• O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 72 Final: April 16, 2002 I :lraleigh \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5\era \final era. doc
•
•
Table I Surface Soil (0-6 in bis) Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
Anal\/te/Paramet!!r
voes
Chlorobenzene
T etrachloroethene
Toluene
SVOCs
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Pesticides
beta-BHC
Total ODD/DOE/DDT
PCBs
Total PCBs
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium • Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
• Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium ' -Zinc -
General Chemistry
Total cyanide
3/12/2002
Number of
Analytical Number of Quantitated'
CAS Number
Tabin 1
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis), Ecological Risk A:'lqossmont. Stop 2. A biotic Comparisons
Trianglo Pacific Sito, Elizahoth City, North Carolina
Frequency of 95% Upper
Detection Mean Standard ConfldC!nce Minimum Ma)(imum
Preliminary Ma)(lmum
Sample Number Eco-risk Concentration
Range of with Ma)(imum Screening E)(ceeds Hazard Mothod Sami::les (Al Units Detectlons (B) 18/A) Concentration: De"iation: Limit (UCL)2 Concentration Concentration Concentrations1 Concentration Crit!!ria4 Criterion? Ouotient5
108907 8260B 11 ug/kg 1, 9.09% 47.6364 12.58423 55.0730 ND 4 , 4 003-SS 50 No 0.08 127184 8260B 11 ug/kg 5 45.45% 79.55 13.25 87.37 4 240 236 D-SS-1 10 Yes 24.00 108883 82508 11 ugfkg 8 72.73% 103.95 13.20 111.75 6 280 274 B-SS-1 (grab) 50 Yes 5.60
120127 8270C 10 Uf]fkg 1 -10.00% 423.00 69.50 466.07 NO 260 260 D-SS-1 100 Yes 2.60 50328 87.71JC 10 ugtkg 4 40.00% 872.50 136.73 . !157.25 750 4600 / 3850 A-SS-1 iOO Yes 46.00 117840 8270C 10 ugtkg 5 50.00% 1145.00 118.99 1218.75 260 3000 2740 B-SS-1 {comp.) :woooo No 0.02 205440 8270C 10 ugfkg 6 60.00% 1213.60 183.71 1327.47 76 5800 5724 A-SS-1 100 Yes 58.00 85018 8270C 10 ug/kg 6 60.00% 920.30 134.08 1003.40 83 4400 4317 A-SS-1 100 Yes 44.00 129000 8270C 10 ugfkg 6 --60.00% 2796,00 495.53 3103.13 74 15000 14926 A-SS-1 100 Yes 150.00 8270C 10 uglkg 1_0 100.00% 13029.50 1983.40 14258.80 2310 66700 64390 A-SS-1 1000 Yes 66.70
319857 8081A 10 ug/kg 4 40.00% 4.00 0.47 4.29 4,5 13.0 8-5 A-SS-1 1 ' Yes 13.00 8081A 10 ugfkg 5 50.00% 35.48 3.38 37.58 46.0 87.0 41.0 004-SS 2,5 Yes 34.80 .
8082 11 ' -ugtkg 3 27.27% 1032.64 211.17 1157.43 950 7600 6650 A-SS-1 20 Yes 380.00
7429905 60108 11 mg/kg 11 100.00% 8989,09 313.08 9174.11 4700 16000 11300 003-SS 50 Yes 320.00 7440360 6010B 11 mg/kg 2 18.18% 4.29 0.51 4.59 1,3 17.0 15.7 SS01 (GN013) 3,5 Yes 4.86 7440382 60108 11 mg/kg 7 63.64% 3.65 0.33 3.85 3,1 13.2 10.1 F-SS-1 10 Yes 1.32 7440393 60108 11 mg/kg 11 100.00% 106.45 7.66 110.97 35.4 329 293.6 B-SS-1 (comp.) 165 Yes 1.99 7440417 6010B 11 mg/kg 5 45.45% 0.49 0.03 0.51 0.54 1-2 0.66 F-SS-1 1,1 Yes 1.09 7440439 60108 11 mg/kg 4 36.36% 0.85 0.09 0,91 0,83 2,6 1.77 SS01 (GN013) 1,6 Yes 5.50 7440473 60108 11 mglkg 11 100.00% 25.93 1.62 26.88 12.0 62.7 50.7 SS01 (GN013) 0-4 Yes 156.75 7440484 B0108 11 mg/kg 10 90.91% 6,57 0.77 7.03 2,2 31.2 29.0 SS01 (GN013) 20 Yes 1.56 7440508 60108 11
I
mg/kg 8 72.73% 23.36 2.40 24.78 8.7 95.6 86.9 A-SS-1 40 Yes 2.39 7439896 6010B 11 mg/kg 9 81.82% 7954.55 438.59 8213.73 6830 15700 8870 D-SS-1 200 Yes 78.50 7439921 60108 11 ' mg/kg 11 100.00% 150,15 19.15 161.46 12.0 593 581 SS01 (GN013) 50 Yes 11.86 7439965 60108 11 mg/kg 11
, )
100.00% 176.09 7.20 180.35 90 354 264 SS01 (GN013) ·100 Yes 3.54 74369976 7471A 11 mg/kg 8 72.73% 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.21 0.18 004-SS 0,1 Yes 2.10 7440020 6010B 11 mgfkg 10 90.91% 7.78 0.28 7.95 3,2 12.1 8,9 A-SS-1 30 No 0.40 7440224 6010B 11 mg/kg 2 18.18% 0.28 0.03 0.30 0.39 1.20 0.81 SS01 {GN013) 2 No 0.60,, 7440622 60108 11 mg/kg 9 81.82% 14.77 0.40 15.01 8_9 25 16.1 003-SS 2 Yes 12.50' 7440666 60108 --A-SS-1 50 Yes 11 mg/kg .11 ' 100.00% 262.55 27.65 278.89 3.25 1040 1036.75 20.80
'i 57125· 90108/9014 8 mg/kg 5 62.50% 0.63 0.08 0.68 0.21 1,7 1.49 A-SS-1 0,9 Yes 1.89
Footnotes:
1
Includes both estimated (J, BJ and quantitated results. Contains analytes in surface soil (0·6 in bis), comparing maximum detected concentrations of each anaJyte to preliminary ecological risk screening criteria, excluding analytes lacking any detected, quantified concentration. 2 A value equal to one-half the SOL for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detect" results. 3 Value= maximum concentration. minimum concentraiion.
USEPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria. Waste Management Division, Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites ·(Acute and Chronic), October 1998. (see http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/oftecser/ecobul.htm -Tables 1, 3, ,md 4)
Hazard quotient= maximum detected concentration/preliminary eco-risk screening criterion 6 Reasons for COPC Selection/Deletion:
ASC = maximum detected concentraiion exceeds screening criterion {HQ> 1).
BSC = maximum detected concentration is less than screening criterion (HO< 1).
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functicnal Guidelines for Organic Data Review.
EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington. D.C.)
J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity be!ow the reporting limit for an organic analyte.
B • The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte.
R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified for the existing data. Resamp!ing and analysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte.
UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above Iha analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit is an estimated value.
SOL· sample quantitation limit; for those analytes that do not have SQLs listed, the SOLS were not provided in the analytical data
ND -not detected
Note: B-SS-1 (grab) analyzed for VOCs and PCBs only; B-SS-1 (comp.) analyzed for SVOCs, Pesticides, PCBs, metals, and total cyanide only; 1995 surface soil samples not analyzed for total cyanide.
-
\
Reason for
Anatyte COPC
Retained as Selection or
COPC? Deletions
No BSC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
No BSC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
, Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
No BSC
No BSC
Yes ASC
Yes ASC
-Yes ASC
Page1ofJ i:\rare,gh\;'lrojectsl1C679126609\.51era•revised\lables\allsurfacesod7.xls·Step 2-Screen1
•
Analvte/Parameter
voes
Chlorobenzene
T etrachloroethene
Toluene
SVOCs
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
T_otal PAHs
Pesticides
beta-BHC
Total DOD/ODE/DDT
PCBs
Total PCBs
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium • Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
General Chemistry
Total cyanide
•
3113/2002
Sample ID: A-55-1
Sarf!ple l;}epth: 0-6''
Sample Date: 05/19/98
Data
Tahlo 1
Surfaco Soil (0-6 in bis), Ecological Risk A!l!lossmont, SJop 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Tri~nglo Pacific Sito, Elizahoth City, North Carolina
B-SS-1 (grab) B-SS-1 (comp.) D-SS-1
0-6" 0-6" 0-6"
05/20/98 05120198 05/19198
Data Data Data
E-SS-1 F-SS-1
-0-6" 0-6"
05119/98 5119/1998
Data Data Concentration Qualifier7 SQL8 Concentration Qualifier7 SQL8 Concentration Qualifier7 SQL8 Concentration Qualifier7 SQL8 Concentration Qualifior7 SOL" Concentration Oualifier7 SOL8
ND UJ 15 ND UJ 12 ND 13 ND 11 ND 13 47 J 15 74 J 12 240 66 ND 11 ND 13 45 J 15 280 24 ND 13 79 J 23 150 13
ND 4800 ND 390 260 J 430 ND 330 ND 430 4600 J 4800 750 J 390 1300 430 390 380 ND 430 ND UJ 4800 3006 J 390 2900 J 4100 1400 380 710 J 860 5800 J 4800 1600 J 390 2800 J 4100 940 J 380 ND 430 4400 J 4800 1300 J 390 1600 430 930 380 ND 430 15000 J 4800 8000 J 390 3000 J 4100 1000 380 ND 430 66700 18655 17060 9670 3655
13 J 25 4.5 2 ND 2.2 4.6 2 12 2.2 ND 48 ND 3.9 49 J 4.3 82 J 3.8" 59 J 4.3
7600 480 950 J 2650 J 200 ND 43 ND 38 ND 43
5060 J 8620 J 10900 J 10900 J 9700 J 1.3 J ND R 1 ND R 1.3 ND R 1.1 ND R 1.2 5.1 4 3.8 4.2 13.2 76 329 116 68.6 172 ND 0.66 B 0.63 B 0.54 B 1.2 B 2.2 1.9 0.83 B ND ND 59.4 21.2 25.8 17.5 15.9 9.8 B 3.9 B 3.4 B 3.9 B 4.7 B 95.6 30.9 13.2 11 14.6 ND ND 15700 6830 7230 209, J 58.2 J 530 J 53.6 J 68.1 J 200 J 257 J 190 J 183 J 203 J 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.03 B 0.1 12.1 7.7 B 7.5 B 7.2 B 9.9 ND 0.28 ND 0.23 ND 0.28 ND 0.24 ND 0.27 C 14.9 12.7 16.7 16.8 17 ' 1040 · J 323 J 292 J 90.1 J 68:7 J
-1.7 0.38 B 0.84 ND 0.21 0.21 B
Footnotes:
1 Includes both estimated (J, B) and quantitated results. Contains analytes in surface soil (0-6 in bis), comparing maximum detected concentrations of each analyte to preliminary ecological risk screening criteria, excluding analytes lacking any detected. quantified concentration. 2 A value equal to one-half the SOL for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detect" results. 3 Value = maximum concentration -minimum concentration.
USEPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria, Waste Management Division, Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (Acute and Chonic), October 1998 (see http://www.epa.gov/region4fwastepgs/oftecser/ecobul.htm-Tables 1, 3, and 4) 5 Hazard quotient-= maximum detected concentration/preliminary eco-risk screening criterion 6 Reasons for COPC Selection/Deletion:
ASC = maximum detected concentration exceeds screening criterion {HQ> 1).
BSC = maximum detected concentration is fess than screening criterion (HO< 1).
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U. S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functic-nal Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.) J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. B -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting lim·11 for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the ana!yte could not be venfied for the existing data. Resampling and analysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte UJ -The analyle was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above tha analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit is an estimated value. SOL -sample quantitation limit; for those analytes that do not have SOLs listed, the SOLs were not provided in the analytical data ND -not detected
Note: B-SS-1 (grab) analyzed for voes and PCBs only; B-SS-1 (comp.) analyzed for SVOCs, Pesticides. PCBs, metals. and total cyanide only: 1995 surface soil samples not analyzed for total cyanide.
Page 2 of 3 i .\raleignl+Jrojects\ 10679\26609\51era-revised\lableslallsur1acesoil7 _)1"Is·Step 2-Screen 1 .,..
Analvte/Parameter
voes
Chlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
SVOCs
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Pesticides
beta-BHC
Total DDD/DDE/ODT
PCBs
Total PCBs
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium • Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
General Chemistry
Total cyanide
3112/2002
G-SS-1 . U-SS-1
0-6" 0-6"
05/1!3/98 05/20/98
Data Data
Concentration Oualifier7 SOL' Concentration Qualifier7 SQL8
NO 11 NO 12
16 11 " J 12 48 11 NO 12
NO 380 NO 410 NO 380 NO 4i0
260 J 380 NO 410 NO UJ 380 NO 410
ND 380 NO 410 NO 380 NO 410
3230 3485
ND 1.9 NO 2.1
46 J 3.7 NO 4.1
NO 38 NO 41
4700 J 11700 J ND 1 1 NO R 1.1
NO NO
35.4 B 64.1
NO 0.56 B NO NO
14.2 15.5
2.2 B 3 B
9.4 8.7
10000 8740
28.2 J 18.5 J
113 J 123 J
0.05 B 0.05
3.2 B 9.9
NO 0.23 0.39 B
8.9 .B 13.8
174 \ J 3.25 J
0.21 B NO 0.22
Footnotes:
Tabl•J 1
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis). Ecological Risk A't<;1JSsmont. Step 2 -A biotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizahllth City, North Carolina
003-SS 004-SS
0-6" .. 0-6"
08/08/95 08/08195
Data Data
SS01 (GN013)
0-6"
09/24/90
Data
Concentration Qualifier1 SOL~ Conr:nntration Qualifior7 SQL8 Concentration Qualifier1
4 J 11 cm UJ 12 NO
ND UJ 11 NO UJ 12 NO
6 J 11 19 J 12 NO
ND 380 NO 390 R NO 380 NO 390 R
NO 380 NO 390 R
120 J 380 76 J 390 R
83 J 380 90 J 390 R
86 J 380 74 J 390 R
2490 2310
ND 1.9 NO 1.9
NO 3.8 87 3.9
ND _ 38 NO -39
16000 9000 4700
NO 20 NO 11 17 R NO UJ 3 4.3 J 3.1 J
49 130 83.8
ND 1 NO 1 ND
NO 0.73 NO UJ 1 2.6 J
20 J 21 J 62.7 J
4.5 J 4.2 J 31.2
NO 20 NO 20 43.6 J
9500 J 8300 J 14000
12 42 593 J
90 130 354 J NO 0.08 0.21 NO
11 8.9 J 6.2
NO 0.52 NO 0.53 1.2
25 J NO UJ 30 11.7 J
33 250 549 J
NO
SOL8
930
930
930
0.62
0.13
2.9
1
Includes both estimated (J, B) and quantitated results. Contains analytes in surface soil (0-6 in bis), comparing maximum detected ccncentrations of each analy:e to preliminary ecological risk screening criteria, excluding analytes lacking any detected, quantifie 2 A value equal to one-half the SOL for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detect" results.
' Value = maximum concentration -minimum concentration.
USEPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria, Waste Management Division, Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (Acute and Chronic}. October 1998. (see http:11,.v,...,w.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/oftecser/ecobul.htm -Tables 1, 3,,and 4)
Hazard quotient= maximum detei:ted concentration/preliminary eco-nsk screening criterion
6 Reasons for COPC Selection/Deletion:
ASC = maximum detected concentration exceeds screening criterion {HQ> 1)
BSC = maximum detected concentration is less than screening criterion (HQ< 1).
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U. S. EPA. 1994. USE PA Contract Laboratof'j Program National Functicnal Guidelines for Organic
EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington.' D.C. and USEPA Contract laboratory Program Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review EPA-540/R-941013. Washington. D.C.)
J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte.
B -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte.
R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the anatyte could not be verified for the existing data. Resampling and analysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte.
UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above tha analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit is an estimated value.
SOL -sample quantitation limit: for those analytes that do not have SQls listed. the SOls were not provided in the analytical data
ND -not detected
Note: B-SS-1 (grab) analyzed for VOCs and PCBs only; B-SS-1 (comp.) analyzed for SVOCs. Pesticides. PCBs, metals. and total cyanide only; 1995 surface soil samples not analyzed for total cyanide.
Page 3 or 3 ,:i.21e,gh\projects\ 1G679\26609151era-<evisei:!\laoles\allsur1acesrnl7. xls·Step 2-Screen 1
•
•
Table 2
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis) Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -A biotic Comparisons Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
Analvte/Parameter
voes
Acetone
1.2-0ichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1.1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroct11ene
SVOCs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo{b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phlhalate
Chrysene
lndeno( 1.2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Pesticidos
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DDO
4.4'-DDE
4-4'-00T • Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachtor epoxide
PCBs
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1 260
Metals
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
TICs
Hexadecanoic Acid
Methytphenanthrene
1 Unidentified
•
3/1212002
Table 2
Surface Soil (0-6 in his), Ecological Risk Assossment, Step 2. Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizahoth City, North Carolina
Number of Number of Frequency of 95% Upper Sample Number with Analytical Samples Quantitated1 Detection Mean Standard Confidence Limit Minimum Maximurtl Range of Maximum CAS Number 'Method (Al Detections (B) (BIA) Units Concentration2 Deviation2 /UCL)2 Concentration Concentration Concentrations3 Concentration
67641 82608 11 1 9.09% ug/kg 223.6318 65.6185 262.4591 NO 2400 78875 82608 11 1 9.09% ug/kg 48.68 12.56 56.10 NO 16 75092 82608 11 3 27.27% ug/kg 63.32 12.51 70.71 25 120 71556 82608 11 4 36.36% ug/kg 56.95 12.43 s,po 7 58 79016 82608 11 3 27.27% ug/kg 54.45 12.46 61.82 2 47
56553 8270C 10 5 50.00% ug/kg 946.40 133.10 1028.90 44 4200 205992 8270C 10 6 60.00% ug/kg 801.60 115.66 873.29 66 3800 207089 8270C 7 4 57.14% ug/kg 890.00 143.59 996.37 580 3000 191242 8270C 10 3 30.00% ug/kg 474.50 ·68.31 516.84 320 440 85687 8270C 10 3 30.00% ug/kg 1249.50 253.60 1406.68 290 8200 117817 8270C 1 o 9 90.00% ug/kg 173729.00 50156.88 204815.94 900 1600000 218019 8270C 10 6 60.00% ug/kg 762.20 99.38 823.80 45 3200 193365 8270C 10, 4 40.00% ug/kg 698.50 102.39 761.96 620 3500 91576 8270C .10 1 10.00% ug/kg 405.40 70.22 448.92 ND 64
319868 8081A 10 1 10.00% ug/kg 1.15 0.05 1.18 ND 2.5 , 57749 8081A 10 3 30.00% ug/kg 8.93 1.83 10.07 1.7 60 57749 8081A 10 5 50.00% ug/kg 8.38 1.58 9.36 0.7 52 71548 8081A 10 3 30.00% ug/kg 5.75 0.74 6.20 3 14 72559 8081A 10 5 50.00% ug/kg 15.38 1.76 16.47 5 58 50293 8081A 10 ? 50.00% ug/kg 21.18 1.84 22.32 22 50 1031078 8081A 10 4 40.00% ug/kg 15.78 1.57 16.75 18 41 7421934 8081A 10 1 10.00% ug/kg 4.67 0.70 5.10 NO 7 76448 8081A 10 1 10.00% ug/kg 2.31 0.36 2.53 NO 2.6 1024573 8081A 10 4 40.00% ug/kg 3.67 0.54 4.00 0.4 15
11097691 8082 10" 2 20.00% ug/kg 705.90 166.50 809.10 1700. 5200 11096826 8082 ·. ,,, 11 ,· 3 27.27% ug/kg 406.32 68.95 447.06 950 2400
7440702 60108 11 4 36.36% mg/kg 3905.45 655.07 4292.57 2900 22000 7439954 60108 11 11 100.00% mg/kg 1390.09 38.94 1413.10 921 2200 7440097 60108 11 7 63.64% mg/kg 642.09 33.60 661.95 216 1500
8270C 3 1 33.33% ug/kg ND 90 8270C 3 1 33.33% ug/kg . . NO 80 8270C 3 1 33.33% ug/kg . ND 2000
Footnotes:
Includes both estimated (J, B) and quantitated results. Contains analytes in surface soil (0-6 in bis) with detected, quantified concentrations for which preliminary ecological risk screening criteria are not available
A value equal to one-half of the sample quantilation limit for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detect" results.
Value equal to maximum concentration minus minimum concentration.
2400
16
95
51
45
4156
3734
2420
120
7910
1599100
3155
2880
64
2.5
58.3
51.3
11
53
28
23
7
2.6
14.6
3500
1450
19100
1279
1284
90
80
2000
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Lab9ratory Program National Functional
Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.)
Data qualifiers are" as follows:
U -The analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was not detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit.
J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte.
SS01 (GN013)
8-SS-1 (grab)
O-SS-1
8-SS-1 (grab)
D-SS-1
A-SS-1
A-SS-1
A-SS-1
O-SS-1
E-SS-1
A-SS-1
A-SS-1
A-SS-1
004-SS
A-SS-1
E·SS-1
E-SS-1
E-SS-1
004-SS
E-SS-1
E-SS-1
O-SS-1
E-SS-1
E-SS-1
A-SS-1
A-SS-1
002-SS
003-SS
E-SS-1
002-SS
004-SS
002-SS
8 -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte.
R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampfing and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/of concentration of the rejected analyte.
JN -There was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification and the associated analytical reporting limit was an estimated quantity.
UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above the analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit was an estimated value. 5 SOL -sample quantitation limit
ND -not detected
-not calculated
Note: B-SS-1 (grab) analyzed for VOCs and PCBs only; B-SS-1 (comp.) analyzed for SVOCs, Pesticides, PCBs, metals, and total cyanide only; 1995 surface soil samples not analyzed for total cyanide.
Page 1 of 3 i:\raleighlprojects\ 1 067912660915\era-rev,sed\tables\allsurfacesoil?. xis· Step 2-Screen 3
•
Analvte/Parameter
voes
Acetone
1,2-0ichloropropane
Methylene chloride
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
T richloroethene
SVOCs
Benzo(a )anthracene
Benzo{b)fluoranthene
Benzo{k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexy!)phthalate
Chrysene
lndeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Pesticides
de!ta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-0DD
4,4'-DDE • 4-4'-00T
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrln aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
PCBs
Aroclor 1254
ArocJor 1260
Metals
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
TICs
Hexadecanoic Acid
Methylphenanthrene
1 Unidentified
•
3/12/2002
:::;ampI0 Iu: A-SS-1
Sample Depth: 0-6"
Sample Dato: 5/19/1998 .
Data
Concentration Qualifier4 SQL5
ND UJ 15
ND UJ 15
25 J 15
53 .J 15
ND UJ 15
4200 J 4800
3800 J 4800
3000 J 4800
ND 4800
ND UJ 4800
1600000 J 970000
3200 J 4800
3500 J 4800
ND 4800
2.5 J 2.5
ND 25
ND 25
ND 48
ND 48
ND 48
ND 48
ND 48
ND 25
ND 25
5200 480
2400 480
ND
1190 B
216 B
'
Footnotes:
Tahiti 2
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis), Ecological Risk A!l:o;~ssment, Step 2 • A biotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizahoth City, North Carolina
B-SS-1 (grab) 8-22-1 (comp) D-SS-1
0-6" 0-6" 0-6"
5/20/1998 5/20/1998 5/19/1998
Data Data · Data
Concentration Qualifier4 SQL5 Concentration Qualifier • SQL5 Concentration Qualifier
ND 12 ND 16 12 ND 46 12 120
58 12 ND 43 12 47 J
2200 J 390 1300 J
620 J 390 1500
580 J 390 1200
320 J 390 440
420 J 390 290 J
68000 J 20000 19000 J
1300 J 390 1400
620 J 390 970
ND 390 ND
ND 2 ND
ND 2 7.1 J
ND 2 7.5 J
ND 3.9 4 J ND 3.9 5 J
ND 3.9 40
ND 3.9 33 J
ND 3.9 7 J
ND 2 ND ND 2 ND
1700 200 ND 950 J 950 . J . 200 ND
ND ND
1190 B 1010 B
427 B 485 B
E-SS-1
0-6"
5119/1998
Data • SQL5 Concentration Qualifier'4
13 ND
13 ND
13 ND
13 ND
13 ND
430 730 J
430 1100
430 840
430 400
430 8200 ; J
4100 29000 J
430 800
430 710
430 ND
2.2 ND
2.2 60 J
2.2 52 .. J
4.3 14 J
4.3 18 J
4.3 50 J
4.3 41 J
4.3 ND
2.2 2.6 J
2.2 15 . J I
43 ND
43 ND
ND
1090 B
1500
1
Includes both estimated (J, B) and quantitated results. Contains analytes in surface soil {0-6 in bis) with detected. quantified concentrations for which preliminary ecological risk screening criteria are not available 2 A value equal to one-half of the sample quanlitation limit for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detect" results. 3 Value equal to maximum concentration minus minimum concentration.
SQL5
11
11
11
11
11
380
380
380
380
7600
7600
380
380
380
2
9.8
9.8
19
19
19
19
3.8
2
19
38
38
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan {CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines {U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Pro9ram National Functional
Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, O.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington. O.C.)
Data qualifiers are as follows:
U (N.D.) • The ana!yte was analyzed for its potential presence but was flat detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit.
J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte.
B -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte.
R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentra:ion of the rejected analyte.
JN • There was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification and the associated analytical reporting limit was an estimated quantity.
UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above the analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit was an estimated value . 5 SOL -sample quantitation limit
ND -not detected
-not calculated
Note: B-SS-1 (grab) analyzed for VOCs and PCBs only; B-SS-1 {comp.) analyzed for SVOCs, Pesticides, PCBs, metals, and total cyanide only; 1995 surface soil samples not analyzed for total cyanide.
F-SS-1
0-6"
5/19/1998
Data
Concentration Oualifier4 SQL5
ND 13
ND 13
ND 13
ND 13
ND ·13
ND 430
ND R 430
ND 430
ND 430
ND 430
4800 J 860
ND 430
ND 430
ND UJ 430
ND 2.2
ND 2.2
1.5 J 2.2
ND 4.3
20 J 4.3
39 4.3
32 J 4,3
ND 4.3
ND 2.2
ND 2.2
ND 43
ND 43
ND
1800
510 B
Page 2 of 3 i.\raleigh\projectsl 1067 9\26609\Slera-revised\tableslaUsuriacesoili. xls: Step 2-Screen 3
Analyte/Parameter
voes
Acetone
1.2.Qichlof()propane
Methylene Chloride
1, 1, 1-Trict1lo1uethane
Trichloroelhrine
svocs
Benzo(a)antt1racene
Benzo(b)Ouoranthene
Benzo(k)fl11or ;inthene
Benzo(ghi)pmylene
Butyl benzyl ptithalate
bis(2-Ethylhuxyl)phlhalate
Chrysene
lndeno( 1,2,3·cd)pyrene
2-Melh yin a pht hale n_e
Pesticides
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-000
4,4'-0DE • 4-4'-DDT
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
PCBs
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Metals
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
TICs
Hexadecanoic Acid
Methylphenanthrene
1 Unidentified
•
3/12/2002 ---
Tahlo 2
Surface Soil (Q.6 in his), Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -A biotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizahoth City. North Carolina
G-SS-1 U-SS-1 002-SS 003-SS 004-SS SS01 (GN01J) 0-6" 0-6" 0-6" 0-6" 0-6" 0-6" 5/19/1998 5/20/1998 8/8/1995 8/8/1995 8/8/1995 9/24/1990
Data Data Data Data Data Data Concentration Qualifier ' SOL' Concentration Qualifier4 SOL' Concentration Qualifier4 soL' Concentration Qualifier ' SOL' Concentration Qualifier ' SOL5 Concentration Qualifier4
flO 11 ND 12 NO 11 ND 11 flD 12 rJD 11 ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 12 rm 11 ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 12 8 J 11 7 J 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 12 NO 11 2 J 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 12
'
ND 380 ND 410 ND 380 ND 380 44 J 390 ND 380 ND 410 NO 380 66 J 380 130 J 390 ND 380 ND 410 ND 380 ND 410 ND 380 ND 380 ND 390 ND UJ 380 ND 410 NO 380 ND 380 ND 390 2800 J 380 900 J 410 ND 380 3000 380 9600 390 ND 380 NO 410 ND 380 45 J 380 77 J 390 ND 380 ND 410 ND 380 ND 380 ND 390 ND 380 ND 410 ND 380 ND 380 64 J 390
ND 1.9 ND 2 1 ND 1.8 ND 1.9 ND 1.9 1.7 J 1.9 ND 2.1 ND 1.8 NO 1.9 ND 6 NO 1.9 ND 2.1 ND -1.8 0.7 J 1.9 5.7 1.9 3 J 3.7 ND 4.1 NO 3.8 ND 3.8 ND 5 21 3.7 ND 4.1 ND 3.8 ND 3.8 58 3.9 22 3.7 ND 4.1 ND 3.8 ND 3.8 29 3.9 18 3.7 ND 4.1 NO 3.8 ND 3.8 NO 3.9 NO 3.7 ND 4.1 ND 3.8 ND 3.8 ND 3.9 ND 1.9 ND 2.1 ND 1.8 ND 1.9 ND 1.9 1.9 J 1.9 ND 2.1 ND 1.8 0.4 J 1.9 1.7 JN 1.9
ND 38 ND 41 ND 38 ND 38 ND 39 ND ND 41 ND 38 ND ---38 ND 60 38
' ND ND 22000 J 2900 13000 J 1140 B 1150 1900 ' 2200 "---1700 1030 B 865 B ND 1400 ND 780 NO 1200
.
90 JN . 80 JN
2000 J
Footnotes:
, Includes both estimated (J, B) and quantltated results. Contains anatytes in surface soil (0-6 in bis) with detected, quantified concentrations for which preliminary ecological risk screening criteria are no~ available 2 A va!ue equal to one-half of the sample quantitation limit for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detecf results.
Value equal to maximum concentration minus minimum concentration.
2400
ND
ND
ND
ND
.
5060
921
NO
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program {CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Labofatory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-/;40/R~94/013. Washington, D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows:
U (N.O.) -The analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was ,r_,ot detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit. J · The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. 8 -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. JN -There was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification and the associated analytical reporting limit was an estimated quanllly. UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above the analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit was an estimated value . 5 SOL -sample quantilation limit
ND -not detected
-not calculated
Note: B-SS-1 {grab) analyzed forVOCs and PCBs only; B-SS-1 (comp.) analyzed for SVOCs. Pesticides, PCBs, metals. and total cyanide only; 1995 surface soil samples not analyzed for total cyanide.
J
UJ
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
J
SOL'
1900
930
930
930
930
680
Page 3 of J i \:"aleighlproiectsl 1 0679126609\51era.revised\tableslallsurfacesoil7 .x Is· Step 2 •Screen 3
•
•
•
Table 3
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis) Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
• -
-
GAS Analytical
Analyte/Parameter Number Method
voes
Benzene 71432 82608
Bromodichloromethane 75274 82608
Bromoform 75252 82608
Bromomethane 74839 82608
2-Butanone 78933 82608
Carbon disulfide 75150 82608
Carbon tetrachloride 56235 82608
Chloroethane 75003 82608
Chloroform 67663 82608
Chloromethane 74873 82608
Dibromochloromethane 124481 82608
1, 1-Dichloroethane 75343 82608
1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 82608
1, 1-Dichloroethene 75354 82608 • cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156592 8260B
1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 540590 82608
cis-1, 3-Dichloropropene 10061015 82608
trans-1, 3-Dichloropropene 10061026 82608
Ethyl benzene 100414 82608
2-Hexanone 73663715 82608
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108101 82608
Styrene 100425 82608
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 82608
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 82608
Vinyl acetate 108054 82608
Vinyl chloride 75014 82608
Xylenes (total) 1330207 82608
SVOCs
Acenaphthene 83329 8270C
Acenaphthylene 208968 8270C
Benzoic acid 65850 8270C
Benzyl alcohol 100516 8270C
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111911 8270C
bis(2-Chloroethyl)-ether 111444 8270C
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101553 8270C
Carbazole 86748 8270C
4-Chloroaniline 106478 8270C
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59507 8270C • 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 8270C
2-Chlorophenol 95578 8270C
3/13/2002
Table 3
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis), Ecological Risk Assessment Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Range of Sample Analytical Quantitation
Limits
Date Samples
Collected Number of Frequency of Minimum Sample Maximum Sample
(Month/Year) Samples Units Detection Quantitation Limit Quantitation Limit
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 1·1 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 7 ug/kg 0.00% 11 15
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% .11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 1 ug/kg 0.00% 1900 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 1900
Sep-90 -May-98 11 ug/kg 0.00% 11 930
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 1 ug/kg 0.00% 3000 3000
Sep-90 -May-98 1 ug/kg 0.00% 610 610
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Page 1 of 3
Analytical
Quantitation Analyte
Limit Exceeds Retained as
Preliminary Eco-Screening Potential
risk Screening Criteria? COPC?
Criteria 1 (Yes or No) (Yes or No)
50 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
1000000 No No
-No Criteria Yes
0.001 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-400 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
50 Yes Yes
--No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
100 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes --No Criteria Yes
10 Yes Yes
50 Yes Yes
2000 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes • -No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
1000 Yes Yes
10 Yes Yes
i:\ral\proj\ 10679\26609\5\era-revised\allsurfacesoil7 .xis: Step 2-Screen2
• -
GAS Analytical
Analyte/Paramoter Number Method
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005723 8270C
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53703 8270C
Dibenzofuran 132649 8270C
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84742 8270C
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 8270C
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 641731 8270C
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 8270C
3, 3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91941 8270C
2,4-Dichlorophenol 51285 8270C
Diethyl phthalate 84662 8270C
2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679 8270C
Dimethyl phthalate 131113 8270C
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534521 8270C
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51285 8270C
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 12142 8270C • 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606202 8270C
Fluorene 8673_7 8270C
Hexachlorobenzene 118741 8270C
Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 8270C
Hexachlorocylopentadiene 77474 8270C
Hexachloroethane 67721 8270C
lsophorone 78591 8270C
2-Methylphenol 95487 8270C
4-Methylphenol 108394 8270C
Naphthalene 91203 8270C
2-Nitroaniline 88744 8270C
3-Nitroaniline 99092 8270C
4-Nitroaniline 100016 8270C
Nitrobenzene 98953 8270C
2-Nitrophenol 88755 8270C
4-Nitrophenol 100027 8270C
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86306 8270C
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621647 8270C
2, 2'-oxybi s( 1-C hloropropane) 108601 8270C
Pentachlorophenol 87865 8270C
Phenol 108952 8270C
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 8270C
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95954 8270C
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88062 8270C •·
3/13/2002
Table 3
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis), Ecological Risk Assessment Step 2. Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
--
Range of Sample Analytical Quantitation
Limits
Date Samples
Collected Number of Frequency of Minimum Sample Maximum Sample
(Month/Year) Samples Units Detection Quantitation Limit Quantitation Limit
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 . May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 . May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 Liglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 . May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 940 12000
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 940 12000
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 940 12000
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 940 12000
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 940 12000
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 940 12000
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 940 12000
Sep-90 . May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 380 4800
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 340 12000
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 380 4800
Page 2 of 3
Analytical
Quantitation Analyte
Limit Exceeds Retained as
Preliminary Eco-Screening Potential
risk Screening Criteria? COPC?
Criteria 1 (Yes or No) (Yes or No) --No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
. No Criteria Yes ' : -No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
. No Criteria Yes
. No Criteria Yes
. No Criteria Yes
100000 No No
-No Criteria Yes
200000 No No ' . No Criteria Yes
20000 No No
-No Criteria Yes
. No Criteria Yes
30000 No No
2.5 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
10000 No No
. No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
' -No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
100 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
40000 No No
., -No Criteria Yes
7000 Yes Yes
20000 No No
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
2.0 Yes Yes
50 Yes Yes
10 Yes Yes
4000 Yes Yes
10000 No No
i:\ral\proj\ 10679\26609\5\era-revised\allsurfacesoil? .xls:Step 2-Screen2
•
Analyte/Parameter
Pesticides
Aldrin
alpha-8HC
gamma-8HC (Lindane)
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I (alpha)
Endosulfan II (beta)
Endrin
Endrin ketone
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221 • Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Metals
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
TICs
8enzofiuorene
Cyclopentaphenanthrenone
Dimethylnaphthalene
Dimethylphenanthrene
Ethenylnaphthalene
Methylanthracene
Methylpyrene
Pinene
5 Unidentified
•
3/13/2002
GAS Analytical
Number Method
309002 8081A
319846 8081A
58899 8081A
60571 8081A
959988 8081A
33213659 8081A
72208 8081A
53494705 8081A
72435 8081A
8001352 8081A
12674112 8082
11104282 8082
11141105 8082
53469219 8082
12572205 8082
7782492 60108
7440235 60108
7440280 60108
8270C
8270C
8270C
8270C
8270C
8270C
8270C
8270C
8270C
Footnotes:
Table 3
Surface Soil (0-6 in bis), Ecological Risk Assessment Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Range of Sample Analytical Quantitation
limits
Date Samples
Collected Number of Frequency of Minimum Sample Maximum Sample
(Month/Year) Samples Units Detection Ouantitation Limit Quantitation Limit
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 2 25
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 2 25
Sep-90 -May-98 10 uglkg 0.00% 2 25
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 4 48
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 2 25
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 4 48
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 4 48
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 4 48
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 18 250
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 180 2500
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 38 480
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 75 980
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 38 480
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 38 480
Sep-90 -May-98 10 ug/kg 0.00% 38 480
Sep-90 -May-98 11 mg/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 11 mg/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 11 mg/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 3 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 3 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 3 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 0 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 0 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 0 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 0 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 0 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Sep-90 -May-98 0 ug/kg 0.00% NA NA
Analytical
Quantitation Analyte
limit Exceeds Retained as
Preliminary Eco-' Screening Potential
risk'Screening Criteria? COPC? /
Criteria 1 (Yes or No) (Yes or No)
2.5 Yes Yes
2.5 Yes Yes
-Yes Yes
0.50 . Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes ' -No Criteria Yes
1.0 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes ' -No Criteria Yes
0.81 No No
-No Criteria Yes
1.0 Yes Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
-No Criteria Yes
1 USEPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria, Waste Management Division, Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (Acute and Chronic), October 1998. (see http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/of Contains analytes in surface soil (0-6 in bis) comparing sample quantitaiton (detection) limits to preliminary ecological risk screening criteria, when analytes were not dete.cted in any samples -no screen·,ng criterion available ,
Page 3 of 3 i:\ra!\proj\ 1 0679\26609\5\era•revised\al!surfacesoil? .xls:Step 2-Screen2
•
•
•
Table 4
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
AnalvtelParameter
voes
Chlorobenzene
Methylene crilonde
Toluene
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
lcon
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
General Chemistry
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
Turbidity
e
•
l/1212002
..
Number Number of
of L Quantitatcd1 Frequency o
An,1lytlcal SamplOs Detections Detection Mean
CAS Numbo Method !AJ. 1(81 /2BIA\ Concentration1
A'v ✓ / 108907 82G08 ug/L :✓ 33.33% 4 42
75092 82G08 ·1 ugll 66.67% 3 OB i088B3 82008 6 ugll l/ 1667% 7.42 /
;1 /100 00% 7429905 G0108 6 ugil 1234.50
7440382 60108 6 ugll 33.33% 0.98 7439896 G010B 6 ugll 6 10000% 13G2.50
7439921 60108 6 ugll 5 83 33% 2.50
7440020 60108 6 ugil l 16.67% 2.00
7782492 60108 6 ugll f _..,......1667% 1.32 7440280 60108 6 ugll l 16.67% 0.62 7440666 6010B 6 ugll l ✓ 1667% 5 73
5 5 100.00% 6.58
5 ·c 5 100.00% 24,68
5 uS/cm 5 100.00% 730 40
' 5 NTUs 5 100 00% 866 '1 J Foo,ao,,.
Tablo 4
Surface Wator Ecological Risk Assossmont, Stop 2 -

A

biotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Eli~aboth City, North Carolina
95¼ Upper Sample Number Standard Confidence Minimum Maximum Range of with Maximum
Oeviation1 limll IUCL)1 Concentration Concentration Concentrationsl Concentration
0.17 4.55 4 5 l K-SW-1
0.17 3.22 2 3 l l-SW-1
1.20 8 38 ND 22 22 l-SW-1
162.97 1364 90 253 2930 2677 SW-01 (GN021)
0 09 f.06 1., 1.9 0.5 N-SW-1
96.13 1379.42 859 2420 1561 SW-01 (GN021)
0.40 2.82 1A 7.2 58 SW-01 (GN021)
0.53 2,43 NO f.J 13 , M-SW-1 0.17 1.45 ND " " sw,-01 (GN021J 005 0 65 ND 1.2 12 M-SW-1 2.26 7.54 ND 33.4 33.4 SW-01 (GN021)
0.07 6 64 6.2 7. f 09 M-SW-1
050 25.12 22.J 28' 61 M-SW-1 4.74 734,55 704 755 Sf M-SW-1 0.49 9 09 60 11.3 5.3 N-SW-1
Preliminary
Eco-risk Maximum
Screening Concentration
Criteria Ex.coeds
!uo/L)• Criterion?
,,..----;;; 195 00 f/
193000,,,, v~o 175.00 -No
C::::::v~es 87.00 \...-
190.00 '-~No 1000D0 v:es ' Yes
87.17 'i v No
?' No ,ook No
·58.9 No
I f
1 '] , ' Includes both estimated {J, BJ aiid quantLtated results Contains analytes In surlace water comparing maximum detected concentrations of each anal;10 10 prel1m1nary ecological risk screening cntena )~ 2 A value equal to one-half the SQL for a given sample result was used ror ca1cvlat10n purposes for all Mnon-detect" results ....S 3 Value = maximum concentration -minimum concentration ~ V • US EPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria, Waste Management D1v1s1on, Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (Acute and Chronic) October 1998 (see http //www epa gov/reg1on41wastepgsJoftecserlecobul htrn • Tables 1 3 and 4) ~ s Hazard quotient = maximum de1ected concentration/preliminary eco-risk screening crIterron ~ 1 Reasons for COPC Selection/Delet1on
ASC = maximum detected concentration exceeds screening cnterion (HQ > 1 ). BSC "' maximum detected concentration is less than screening criterion (HQ < 1 J.
Reason for
Analyte_. COPC
Hai:ard Retained as Selection or
Ouotient1 COPC? Deletion'
0 026 No BSC
0 002 No BSC
0,126 No 85C
3368 y,. ASC .,,
0,01 No BSC / 2.42 y., ASC
5.45 Yo, ASC V
0.01 No BSC
0 68 No BSC
0.30 No 85C
0,57 No BSC
1 Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U. S. EPA 1994 USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review.
/
EPA-540/R.941012, Washington, O.C. and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Functional Guidelines for lnOfganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, O.C.) J • The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. B -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be venfied for the existing data. Resamplmg and analysis would bo necessary for venfication of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyle. UJ • The anatyte was analyzed for its presence. but was not detected above tha ana!ytical reporting hm1I. The associated reporting hmIt is an estimated value 1 SOL -sample quantitation limit: for those analytes that do not have SQ Ls listed. the SQLs were not provided in the analytical data NO -not detected
Pall" l 012
Sample ID: K-SW-1
Sample Depth: surface
Sample Date: 05/21198
Data
Concentration Qualifier' SQL'
5 J 10
2 J 10
ND 10
,...--
253
NO 1.3
1330
1.i B
ND 1.1
ND 1.8
ND l
ND 04
66
22.3
"' 6
Analvte/Parameter
voes
Chlorobenzene
Methylene c11Iorn:1e
Toluene
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Jron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
General Chemistry
pH
Temperature
Conduct1v'rty
Turbidity
•
•
311:z.7002
L-SW-1 M-SW-1
surface surface
05121198 05121/98
Data Data
Tablo 4
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assossment. Stop 2. Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
N-SW-1 P-SW-1 SW-01 (GN021)
surface surface surface
05122/98 05122198 09124190
Data Data Data Concentration Qualifier' SOL' Concentration Qualifier' SOL' Concentration Qualifier7 SOL1 Concenrration Qualifier· SOL' Concentration Quahfier' SOL1
4 J 10 NO 10 NO 10 NO 10 NO 5 3 J 10 NO 10 3 J 10 3 -J 10 ND 5 22 10 ND 10 NO 10 NO 10 ND 5
36< 1110 1630 1120 2930 NO 1 3 ND 1.3 1.9 B 1.3 NO 13 H J 1240 916 1050 fl',9 2420 2.6 B 1.6 B NO 1 " B 7.2 NO 11 1.3 B 1.1 NO 1.1 NO 1.1 ND 17 NO 1.8 NO 1.8 ND 1.8 ND 1.8 3.4 J NO 1 1.2 B 1 ND 1 NO 1 NO UJ 1 NO 04 NO 0.4 ND 0.4 NO o, 33' J
6.7 7.1 6.3 62 24.3 28.4 22.6 26 8 7'5 755 706 704 61 9.9 11,3 10
Footnotes: 1 Includes both estimated {J. BJ and quantitated results .Contains analytes in surface water comparing maximum detected concenltations ot each ana!yte 10 preliminary ecological risk screening criteria, e~cluding analytes laci<ing any detected, quant1f1ad concentration 1 A value equal to one-half the SOL for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detect· results. 1 Value= maximum concentra11on. minimum concentration.
• USE PA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria. Wasta Management Division, Saeening Values for Hazardous Waste S,tes (Ao.ite and Chronic), October 1998. (see http:/lwww.epa.gov/regKln4lwastepgs/oflecser/ecobol.htm -Tables 1. 3, and 4) $ Hazard quotient = maximum detected concentrat10n/preliminary eco-risk screening cnterion
e Reasons for COPC Selection/Deletion:
ASC = maximum detected concentration exceeds screening ct1terKln (HO > 1 ). SSC= ma~imum detected concentration is !ess than screening ctIterKln (HO< 1). 1 Data validat10n Qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U. S. EPA 1994 USEPA Conrract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines far Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-941012. Washington, O.C. and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Functional Guidelines for lnorgan·1c Data Review, EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington. D.C.) J -The assoc,ated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting hmit tor an organic analyte 8 -The associated numerical value was an estimated quanti1y below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified for the existing data. Resampling Jnd analysis would be necessary for vonfrcatIon of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. UJ -The analyta was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above tha analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit is an estimated value. SOL -sample quantita11on limit; for those analytas that do not have SOLs tisted, the SQ Ls were not provided in the analytical data ND • not detected -
Page 2 ot 2
•
•
•
Table 5
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
Anatyte/Parameter
voes
T etrach!fJm<Jlhene
Metals
B.iflum
Calcium
Mag;-ies,urn
Mangan<1'lJJ
Potassium
Sodium
General Chomistry
pH
T emperntlJr<J
Conduct1v1ly
Turtiid,ty
•
•
311212002
Number of Number of Frequency of
Analytical Samples Quantitated1 Detection
CAS Number Method fAl Detections 18) lB/AJ
127184 8260~ 6 1 1667%
l,140393 80108 5 1 1667%
7440702 6010B 5 ' 16.67%
;439954 60108 6 ' 16 67%
1439965 60108 5 6 100 00%
1440097 60108 6 I 1667%
,'440235 60106 6 6 10000%
5 5 100 00%
5 5 100,00%
5 5 100.00%
5 5 10000%
Footnotes
fable 5
Surfacn Water Ecological Risk Ass11ssment, Step 2 . Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
.. ~So/. Upper Mean Standard Confidence limit Minimum
Units Concentration2 Deviation '{UCL} Concentration
ugll 3 es 0 31 ·l.10 NO
ugll 13.13 '82 14.58 NO
ogll 8386 67 784 ]2 9014,24 NO
ogll 11158 33 1457 :n 12324 42 NO
ogll 127.30 12 '.il 137.63 44, 1
ugll 5110.00 563 11} , -5560 61---NO
ugll 126816.67 9388 '33 -134329 14 ' 93400 \
i
6 5800 , 0 0713 6.6425 62
'C 24 6800 / 0.5023 25.1203 22.3
uS/cm 730,4000 4.738A 734.5533 70A
NTUs 8 6600 0.4892 90888 6
Maximum
Concentration
05
35 2
16200
29000
219
12000
241000
7.1
28.4
755
11.3
' Includes both estimated {J, BJ and quantitated results. Contains analytes in surface water with detected, quantified concentrations tor which preJ1mtflary ecological risk screernng criteria are not available.
: A value equal to one-half of the analytical quan\1tation limit for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non.(jotoct" results -
' Value equal to ma~imum concentration minus minimum concentration
Sample Number
Range of with Maximum
Concentrations1 Concentration
05 K-S\'/-1
352 SW-01 (GN021)
16200 S'IJ-01 {G/'.021)
29000 SW-01 (GN021)
174.9 K•SW-i
'2000 SW-01 (GN021)
147600 SW-01 (GN021)
09 M-SW-1
6.1 M•SW-1
5l M-SW-1
53 N-SW-1
' Data validation qualifiers based on ;t,e project Ouahty Assurance Projed P'3n (CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA 199A. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Funct,onat
GuidelITTes for Organic Data Review. EPA·S40/R•94/012. Washington.DC. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Fundional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washing1on. D.C.)
Data quahfiers aro as follows·
U {N.0.} -Ttie analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was not detected above the associated analytical quant1tation reporting hm1t.
J -The associated numerical value was an estllllatod quantity below ttie reporting limit for an organic analyte.
8 · Ttie associa1od numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting hm1t for an inorganic ana!yte.
R -The data wore unusable. Ttia presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data Resampling anti reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of ttie rejected analyte
UJ • The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above ttie analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting ljm1t was an estimated value
s SOL -sample quant1tatior. lim1t: for those analytes ttiat do not nave SQLs listed. ttie SOLs were not provided in ttie analytical data.
ND -not cetec:ed
Page 1 o!2
,;,amp,e lU: K-SW-1
Sampto Depth: surface
Sample Date: 5121/1998
Data
Concentration Qualifier' SQL5
06 J 10
NO 209
NO 21200
NO 15400
219
NO 7180
93400
6.6
223
742
6
i. \/aleigh'.proiects\ 1 06 7S'26509\51era-re....s'1l'Jat)jes\alsurtacewater1 .~Is. 51ep 2-Screen 3
•
Anal'ite/Parameter
voes
T etractiloroethene
Metals
Barium
Calcium
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodrum
General Chemistry
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
Turt.>il.1ity
•
•
J/12/2002
l-SW-1 M-~W-1
surface surface
512111998 512111998
Data Data
Concentration Qualifier• SQL5 Concentration Qualifier• SQL5
ND 10 ND 1D
ND 198 ND 16.9
ND 19300 ND 10600
ND 15600 ND 15700
"' 82.1
ND 7310 ND 8050
99500 112000
6.7 7.1
24.3 28.4
745 755
6.1 9.9
Footno1es·
Table 5
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 • Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Sito, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
N-SW-1 P-SW-1 SW-01 (GN021)
surface surface surface
5/22/1998 5/22(1998 912411990
Data Data Data I
Concentration Qualifier . SOL1 Concentration Qualifior• SOL' Concentration Qualifier'
ND 10 ND 1D ND
ND 15 5 ND " 35 2
ND 8720 ND 8420 16200
ND 14700 ND 14500 29000
57.6 44,1 213 J
ND 7500 ND 7280 12000 J
108000 107000 241000 J
6.3 62
22.6 25.8
706 704
11.3 1D
1 Includes both estimated (J, 8) end quantitated results. Contains analytes in surface water with detected. quantified concontration, ror which preliminary ecological risk. screening criteria are not available.
1 A value equal to one-hatf of the analytical quant1tation limit for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all ""non-detect"" results.
l Value equal to maximum concentration minus minimum concenlfalion.
SQL5
5
• Data validation qua!<fiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional
Guidelines fOf Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington. O.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Coolfact Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington. D.C.)
Data qualifiers are as follows·
U {N.D,) • The analyte was analyzed for its potential presenca but was not detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit.
J • The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte.
B • The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte
R • The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Re.sampling and reanalysis would oe necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte
UJ • The analyte was analyzed for its presence. but was not detected above tlie analytical reporting limit. The associated repor11ng !1m11 was an estimated value.
s SOL· sample quanlltation limit: for those analytes that do not have SQ Ls listed, !ha SQls were not provided in the analytical data,
ND -not detected
Page 2 of 2 , V"ale,gh\prO)'!ctsl 1 0679\26609\S\e,a-rev,sedl!ables\allsur1acewaler1 As: 51ep 2-Screen J
•
•
Table 6
Surface Water Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2-Abiotic Comparisons Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
CAS Analytical
Analvte/Parameter Number Method
voes
Acetone 67641 82608
Benzene 71432 82606
Bromod1ch!orom ethane 75274 8260B
Bromoform 75252 82608
Bromomethane 74839 82608
2-Butanone 78933 8260B
Carbon disulfide 75150 8260B
Carbon tetrachloride 56235 8260B
Chloroethane 75003 8260B
Chloroform 67663 82606
Chloromethane 74873 8260B
01bromochloromethane 124481 82608
1, 1-Dichloroethane 75343 82608
1,2-Dichloroethana 107062 8260B
1, 1-0ichloroethene 75354 8260B
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156592 8260B
1,2-Dichloroethene (T 01al) 540590 8260B
1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 8260B
cis-1,3-0ichloropropene 10061015 82606
trans-1, 3-0ichloropJOpene 10061026 82606
Ethylbenzene 100414 8260B
2-Hexanone 73663715 8260B
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108101 82606
Styrene 100425 8260B
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 82606
1, 1, 1-Trichtoroethane 71556 8260B
1.1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 82606
Trichloroethane 79016 82608
Vinyl acetate 108054 82608
Vinyl chlonde 75014 82608
Xylenes (total) 1330207 82608
SVOCs
Acenaphthene 83329 8270C
Acenaphthylene 208968 8270C
Anthfacene 120127 8270C
6enzo( a Janthracene 56553 8270C
Benzo(b)f!uoranthene 205992 8270C
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 8270C
Benzo(ghi)perylene 191242 8270C
Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 8270C
Benzoic acid 65850 8270C
Benzyl alcohol 100516 8270C
Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 8270C
bis{2-Chtocoethoxy)methane 111911 8270C
bis(2-Chloroethyl)-ether 111444 8270C
bis(2-Ethylhexyl )phthalate 117817 8270C
4-Bromopheny1 phenyl ether 101553 8270C
Carbazole 86748 8270C
4-Ch/oroaniline 106478 8270C
4-Chloro-3-methylpheno1 59507 8270C
2-Chlornnaphthalene 91587 8270C
2-Chlorophenol 95578 8270C
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005723 8270C
Chrysene 218019 8270C
D1benz( a,h)anthracene 53703 8270C
Dibenzofuran 132649 8270C
3/12/2002
s,rtm Wat" Ecolog;car R;,k •• .:,., S"P 2. Ab;ou, Compan,on, Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, Nor1h Carolina
Range of Sample Analytical Quantilation
Limits
Date Samples Number
Collected of Frequency Minimum Sample Maximum Sample
IMonthNear' Samoles Units of Detection Quantitation Limit Quantitation Limit
Sep-90 May-98 6 ""'' 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 0.00".4 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000-. 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% s 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 """ 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -OOO"AI 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 0.00% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 5 ,g/l 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l o oo•A> 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 0.OO•A> 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ""'' 000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 0.00% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May.98 6 ,g/l 000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ""'' 000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 000% s 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 000% 5 10
Sep-90 May-98 1 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% s 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 1 -000% 50 50
Sep-90 May-98 1 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% ,0 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ""'' 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 s -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ,g/l 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ""'' 000% ,0 10
Sep-90 . May-98 6 ,g/l 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 -0.00% 10 10
Page 1 013
Analytical
Preliminary Quanlilation Arialyle
Ecoa.fisk Limit Exceeds Reu;ined ,u,
Screening Screening Potentia.J
Criteria Criteria? CQPC?
(unlll' (Yes or Nol tYes or Nol
' 53 NO ''° No Cntena y.,
. NoCr,:<11,a v,,
. No Cr11er1a Yes
. N0Cn1eria v ..
. No Cn1e11a Yo,
. No Crneria Yo,
352 No No .. No Cri:er1a v ..
289 NO No
. No Cntena v ..
.. No Cnte11a y.,
2000, No No
.. No crneria y.,
. No Crne1,a Ye,
.. No cr,Ieria y.,
.. No Cnte1,a Yo,
525 No No
.. No Crnena Yo,
.. No cr,tena Yo,
453 No No .. No Cri1eria Yo,
, No Cfller1a Vos
.. No Criteria y.,
240 ' No No
528 No No
940 No No
. No Criteria y.,
. No C11tena Yo,
. No Cr~eria Vos
. No Cnl;;n.i Yu
' 17 ' No No .. No Crnena y.,
-· No Criteria Yo,
-· No C11te11a y.,
.. No Criteria Yo,
.. No Criteria y.,
. No Criteria y.,
No Cflteria Yo,
. No Cr,1eria y.,
. No Crneria Yo,
22 No/ No .. No 6,:eria y.,
2380 No No
03 Vas y.,
12 2 No t.o
No cri1ena Yo,
.. No Criteria y.,
03 I vo, Ye,
No Criteria y.,
43.8 ../ No No
. No Cnteri.i y.,
O 33 Yes Yo,
0,33 ..... Yes Yo, -No Criteria Yo,
1 \raleighlprojec!sl10679\26609\S\era-rev1sed\labfes·s1ep 2-Screen:?
CAS Analytical
Analvte/Parameter Number Method
Oi-n-bc.Jtyl phthalate 84742 8270C
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 8270C
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 641731 8270C
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 B270C
J ,J' -Dichlorobenzid1ne 91941 B270C
2. 4-Dichlorophenol 51285 8270C
Diethyl phthalale 84662 8270C
2,4-Dimelhylphenol 105679 8270C
Dimethyl phlhalate 131113 8270C
Di-n-octyl pllthalate 117840 8270C
4,6-Dinitro-2-methytphenol 534521 8270C
2,4-Din'itrophenol 51285 8270C
2,4-0initrololuene 12142 8270C
2,6-Dimtrotoluene 606202 8270C
Fluoranthene 206440 8270C
Fluorene 86737 8270C
Hexachlorobenzene 118741 8270C
Hexachlorobutad1ene 87683 8270C
Hexachlorocylopentadiene 77474 8270C
Hexachloroethane 67721 8270C
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene 193365 8270C
lsophorone 78591 8270C
2-Methylnaphthalene 91576 8270C
2-Methylphenol 95487 8270C
4-Methylphenot 108394 8270C
Naphthalene 91203 8270C
2-Nitroaniline 88744 8270C
3-Nitroamhne 99092 8270C
4-Nitroaniline 100016 8270C
N1trobenzene 98953 8270C
2-NitrophenoJ 88755 8270C
4-Nitrophenol 100027 8270C
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86306 8270C
n-N1trosodi-n-propylamine 621647 8270C
2,2' -oxybis( 1-Ch!oropropane) 108601 8270C
Pentachlorophenol 87865 8270C
Phenanthrene 85018 8270C
Phenol 108952 8270C
Pyrene 129000 8270C
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene 120821 8270C
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95954 a270C
2,4,6-Trich/orophenol 86062 8270C
Total PAHs 8270C
Pesticides
Aldrin 309002 6081A
alpha-BHC 319846 808\A
beta-BHC 319857 8081A
delta-BHC 319866 8081A
gamma-BHC (lindane) 58899 6081A
alpha-Chlordane 57749 8081A
gamma-Chlordane 57749 8081A
4,4'-DDD 71548 8081A
""
4,4'-DDE 72559 8081A
4.4'-DDT 50293 8081A
7 Total DOD/DOE/DDT 8081A
Dieldrin 60571 8081A -Endosulfan I 959988 8081A
311212002
Surt•c• W•to, Ecologic•! Ri>k .9.:,o,, S••P 2 -Abio,io Compan,on,
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Range ol Sample Analytical Quantitalion
Umits
Date Samples Number
Collected of Frequency Minimum Sample Maximum Sample
(Month/Yearl Samnles Units of Detection Quanlitation Limit Quantitation Limit
Sep-90 May-98 6 ugil 0.00°4 ,0 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ugll 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 20
Sep-90 May-98 6 "g/L 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ug/L 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 "gll 0 00°4 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 ugll 000% 25 50
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 25 50
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL OJXJ% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 "gll 000°-', 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 "gll 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 25 50
Sep-90 May-98 6 "gll 000% 25 50
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000-.4 25 50
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 2S 50
Sep-90 May-98 6 "gll 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 "gll 000% 25 50
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep-90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 10 10
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 000% 25 50
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% 10 10
Sep--90 May-98 6 uglL 0.00% --
Sep--90 May-98 5 uglL 000% 005 005
Sep-90 May-98 5 uglL 000% 005 0 os
Sep-90 May-98 5 uglL 000% oos 005
Sep-90 May-98 5 "gll 000% oos 0 05
Sep-90 May-98 5 uglL 000% 005 005
Sep-90 May-98 s uglL 000% 005 005
Sep-90 May-98 5 uglL OJXI% 0 05 005
Sep-90 May-98 5 "gll 0.00% 0.1 01
Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/L 000% 0.1 0 1
Sep-90 May-98 5 uglL 000% 0.1 0 1
Sep-90 May-98 5 uglL 000% 01 0.1
Sep,90 May-98 5 uglL 000% 01 01
Sep-90 May-98 s uglL 0.00% 0 OS 005
Page 2 or 3
Analytical
Preliminary Quantitation Analyte
Eco-risk Limit Eiceeds Retained ;is
Screening Screening Potential
Criteria Criteria? COPC?
'ua!LI' !Yes or Nol /Yes or Nol
.. No Cotena y.,
158 No No
50 2 No No
11,2, No No
.. No Crnena y.,
J6 5 , No No
521 No No
21.2 No No
330 No tJo
94 Yes Yo,
23 y., y.,
62 v .. Yes
310 No No -No Cnter1a Yo,
39 8 No No
.. No Crnena y.,
No Cr1ter1a "' O 93 / Yes y.,
0007 Yes Yo,
98 Yes y.,
.. No Crner1a y.,
-No Cflteria Yu
-No Cn:ena Yu
--No Criteria y.,
-No Criteria Yu
62 No No
-No Cnte11a y.,
-No Criteria y.,
.. / No Crneria ,.,Y_es
No Criteria -ves-
r :;3so No No
82 8 N0 No
S8S I No No
-No Cr1ter1a y.,
-No Criteria Y•• .. No Crner13 Y•> -No Cr11<:ma y.,
.. No Cr1ier•<> y.,
•· No CriIeria Yo>
.. No Crner,a Yo,
-No Criteria v.. -No Cntena y.,
-No Cr,1ena y.,
03 " No No
500 No No
5000 , No No
-No Criteria y.,
008 No No
0 0043 Y•> y.,
0.0043 Ye, y.,
00064 Yes Yo,
105 No No
0001 Yes Yoo
0.0019 Yeo y.,
0 056 __ ,. Ye> y.,
0056 / No No
,.\rale,gh\pr0jeC\SI 1Q679\26609\S'.era-re01sed~at,les Step :,. Scseen:>
3/1212002
• •• •
1
Surface Water Ecological Risk Asses!.ment, Step 2. Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Sile, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Range of Sample Analytical Quantitation Analytical Limits Preliminary Quantitation An~yte
Eco-risk Umil Exceeds Retained as
Date Samples Number Screening Screening Potentul
CAS Analytical Cotlec1ed of Frequency Minimum Sample Maximum Sample Criteria Criteria? COPC7
Analvte/Parameter Number Method {MonthNear) Samnles Units of Detection Ouantitation Limit Quantitation Limit /un/Ll1 fYes or Nol _!Yes or Nol
Endosulfan II 33213659 8081A Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 0.1 01 -No Cntena y.,
Endosulfan sulfate 1031078 8081A Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 0.1 0.1 0 0023 '!-Yes y.,
Endrin 72208 8081A Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 0.1 01 -~ No Criteria Yu
Endrin aldehyde 7421934 8081A Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 0.1 0.1 -No Criteria Yu
Endrin ketone 53494705 8081A Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 0.1 01 00038 v., Yes Heptachlor 76448 8081A Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 0.05 0 05 0.0038 Yes y.,
Heptachlo, epoxide 1024573 8081A Sep-90 May-98 5 ,gll 000% 005 005 003 Yes Yo,
Melho;,cychlor 72435 8081A Sep--90 May-98 5 ,gll 0.00% 05 0.5 0 OOC2 Yo, y.,
To)(aphene 8001352 8081A Sep--90 May-98 5 ug/1. 000% 50000 50000 OOOC2 Yos y.,
PCBs
Aroclor 1016 12674112 8082 Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 1 1 0014 Yes Yo,
Aroclor 1221 11104282 8082 Sep--90 May-98 5 ,gll 000% 2 2 0014 Yes y.,
Aroc/or 1232 11141105 8082 Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 000% 1 1 o_,.· .... Yes Yo,
Aroclor 1242 53469219 8082 Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 1 1 0014 Yes y.,
Aroclor 1248 12572205 8082 Sep-90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 1 ' 0014 Yes Yo,
Aroclor 1254 11097691 8082 Sep--90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 1 1 0014 • y., y.,
Aroclor 1260 11096826 8082 Sep--90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 1 1 0 014 Ye, y.,
"Total PCBs 8082 Sep--90 May-98 5 ug/1. 0.00% 1 1 0014 Yes y.,
Metals
Antimony 7440360 6010B Sep--90 May-98 6 ug/1. 0.00% 5 55 160 No No Beryllium 7440417 60108 Sep--90 May-98 6 ug/1. 000% 0.1 2 0 53 Yos y.,
Cadmium 7440439 60108 Sep--90 May-98 6 ug/1. 000% 0.3 ' 066 Yes Yes
Chromium 7440473 6010B Sep--90 May-98 6 ug/1. 000% 086 6 117.32 No No
Cobalt 7440484 60100 Sep--90 May-98 6 ug/1. 000% 09 16 -No Cri1ena No Copper 7440508 60108 Sep-90 May-98 6 ug/1. 0.00% ,.. 6 6" No No Mercury 74369976 7471A Sep-90 May-98 6 -000% 0.1 02 0 012 Yes Ye,
Sitver 7440224 60108 Sep-90 May-98 6 ug/1. 0.00% u ' 0012 Ye, y.,
Vanadium 7440622 6010B Sep-90 May-98 6 ug/1. 000% 1A 13 -No Cnteria Yu
General Chemistry
Total cyanide 57125 90108J9014 Sep-90 May-98 6 ug/1. 000% 37 10 52 Yes YH
Footnotes:
' US EPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria, Waste Management Oivisioo, Screening Values fOf Hazardous waste Sites (Arutll and Chronic). October 1998. {see http://www.epa gov/region-4/wastepgs/oftecser/ecobul htm -Table
-No screening cr11erion available
Page 3 ol 3 i:\raleigh\projects\10679\26609\5\era•reviseCl\labtes Step 2· Screen:?
•
•
Table 7
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
Analvte/Parameter
SVOCs
Aceriaphthene
Antnracerie
8en20( a )anthracene
bis(2-Ethylhoxyl)phthalat
Chrysene
Fluorantheno
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Total PAHs
Pes1icides
4,4'-0DD
.:1.4'-0DE
Total ODO/DOE/DDT
Oiek:Jrin
PCBs
Total PCBs
Melals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
•
•
311212002
Number of Number of Frequoncy ol
CAS Analytical Samplu Quanlitated' Detection Mean Standard
T,bl• 7
Serllmorit Ecologiul Risk Au.oumerit, Step 2 -Ablotlc Comparlsoris
Trlariglo Pacinc Slte, Eliub•lh City, Nol1h Carotiria
95% Upper Sample Number Confidence Mirilmum Maximum Range of with Maximum
Proliminary Maximum
Eco-risk Coriceritration
Screeriing E•ceods Hallrd Number Method fAI Units Detec!lons 181 18/AI Concentration1 Devlation1 Limit /UCll1 Concentration Conceritrallon ConcentratlonsJ Concentration Criteria' Criterion? Ouotlent1
03329 8270C 10 .· ugl>g 1 10,00% 2595.0 484.34 2895.19 ND 130 00 130 00 ', 002-SD 330,00 No 120127 8270C 10 ug!Plg 1 10,00% 2614 0 483 30 2913 55 ND 32000 320 00 002-SD 330 00 No !.,(,553 8270C 10 ogil<g 1 10.00% 2669,0 480 70 2966.94 ND 87000 87000 002-SD 330.00 Yes 1 ll817 8270C 10 ugl>g 6 60.00% 19973.5 2966 54 21812.14 950 00 69000 00 68050 00 L-SD,1 182.00 Yo, 218019 8270C 10 ogil<g 1 10.00% 2692.0 479 80 2989 38 ND 11000000 1100 002-SD 330 y,. 706440 8270C 10 ugl>g 2 20.00% 3752.0 722.85 4200 02 2200 00 22000 00 19800 K-SD-1 330 Yo, 01576 8270C 10 ug/1,.g 1 10.00% 2595.0 484.34 2895.19 ND 13000 130 002-SD 330 No 01203 8270C 10 ugl>g 1 10.00% 2594.0 484.39 2894 22 ND 120 00 120 002-SD 330 No U5018 8270C to ug/1-.g 2 20.00% 3162.0 589 54 3527 . .:!5 1300.00 1700000 15700 K-SD-1 330 Yo, 8270C ,o ""'' 10 100.00% 46986.5 8640.73 52341.97 ND 232000 00 232000 K-SD-1 1684 y.,
71548 8081A 8 ugl>g 3 37.50% 14.90 1.92 1623 12.00 3900 27 M-SD-1 33 Yoo 72559 8081A 8 ogil<g 2 25,00% 10.42 1.81 11.67 1.30 4300 41.7 M-SD-1 33 Yo, 8081A 8 ug/1'.g 3 37.50% 20.34 3.45 22.73 12.00 8200 70 M-SD-1 33 Ye, 60571 8081A 8 og/kg 1 12.50% 5.69 0 71 6.19 ND 1900 19 L-SD-1 33 Ya,
8082 8 ' -ugl>g 4 50,00% 499.9 68,06 547.10 720.00 1300 00 580 K-SD-1 33 Yo, -7"40382 60108 ,o ogil<g 8 80.00% 2.51 0 20 2.64 0 56 5.80 524 K-SD-1 7,24 No 7""0439 60108 10 ogil<g 2 2000% 1.05 0.13 1.13 3.20 3AO 02 SD-01 (GN010) 1 Yo, 7"40473 60108 10 ogAg 10 100.00°k 22.30 1.49 23 22 5.20 41.10 35.9 L·S□-1 52.3 No 74"0508 60108 10 ogil<g 5 50,00% 16.45 1.36 17.29 19.90 35.90 16 SD-01 (GN010J 18.7 Yoo 7"39921 60108 10 ogil<g 10 100.00% 53.53 4,44 56.28 4.30 131.00 126,7 L-SD-1 30.2 Yo, 74)69976 7471A 10 og/kg 5 50.00% 0.164 0.02 0,19 0.16 0.50 0.34 S0-02 (GN011) 0.13 Yo, 7""0666 60108 10 og/kg 5 50,00% 98.90 9.99 105.09 140.00 25600 116 S0-01 (GN010) 124 Yoo
Footnotes:
1 Includes both estimated {J. BJ and quent1tated results. Coritains anatytes in sediment comparing ma,dmum detected concentrations of each analyte to preliminary ecological risk screeing cnteria. excluding any anatytes tacking any dote-cted quantified concentratiori . l A value equal to one•half the SOL for a given sample result was used for calcuiatiori purposes for all "non-detect~ results,
l Volue = mai1mum concaritration • minimum concentration. ~ USEPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria. Waste Management Division, Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites {Acute and Chronic). October 1998. (see http:/Mv.w.epa.gov/region4fwastepgs/oftecser/ecobul.htm -Tables 1, 3. and 4) 5 Hazard quotient= maximum detected concentration/preliminary eco-<isk screening criteriori
a Reasons for COPC Selection/Deletion:
ASC = maximum detected conceritratiori exceeds screening criterion (HO> 1).
BSC = ma•imum detected coricentration is less than scrnening criterion (HQ< 1).
OJ9
0 07
2.64
379, 12
333
6667
0 Jg
0 3G
51.52
137.77
11.82
13 03
24 85
5,76
39.39
080
340
0.79
1.92
434
3.85
2.06
7 Oa1a va!idatiori qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washingtori, D.C. and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program FurictiOf'lal Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington. 0.C,) J -The associated numerical valuo was an estimated quaritity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. B • The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity be!ow the report~ limit for ari iriorgariic anatyte R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of lhe analyte could not be verified for the e•isting data. Resamplirig and analysis would be necessary for vunf1catiori of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte UJ -The anatyte was anatyzed for its presence, but was riot detected above Iha analytical reporting limit. The associated reportu,g limit is an estimated value. SOL -sample quantrtation limit; for those analytes that do riot have SOLS listed, the SQls were not provided in the analytical data NO • not detected
Page 1 of 2
Samplo ID·. K-SD-1
Sample Depth: Sedimerit Reason lor Sample Date: 05121198 Analyto COPC
Ret.ained as Selection or Data
COPC7 DoleUon1 Concentration Qualifier' SQL1
No BSC ND 25000.00
No BSC ND 25000.00
Yo, ASC ND 25000 00 y., ASC 57000 25000.00 y., ASC ND 25000
~Yes ASC 22000 J 25000
r!o BSC ND 25000
No BSC ND 25000 y., ASC 17000 J 25000
Yo, ASC 232000
Vos ASC 12 J 13
Yes ASC ND 13
Yos ASC 12 J 13
Yu ASC ND 13
Yes ASC 1300 130
No BSC 58 B
Yes ASC ND
No BSC 24 2
Yu ASC 251 y,. ASC 89
Yes ASC 0.16 B \es ASC 140
i.\raleigh\projects\10679\26609\5\era-revisea'\a!I sidtment3.xls:Table-7
• -
AnalvtelParameter
SVOCs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo( a)anthracene
bis(2 -Ethylhexyl)phthalat
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Total PAHs
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-0DE
Total DOD/ODE/DDT
Dieldnn
PCBs
Total PCBs
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
•
•
3/12/2002
L-SD-1 M-SD-1 N-SD-1 --Sediment· Sediment --S11dimenl 05121/96 05121/96 05122/96
Data Data Data
Concentration Oualifier7 SOL' Concentration Qualifier1 SOL' Concentration Qualifier' SOL'
NO 22000 . -NO 1300 NO 470 NO 22000 NO 1300 NO 470 NO 22000 NO 1300 NO 470 69000 J 22000 3700 1300 950 470 NO 22000 ND 1300 NO 470 NO 22000 NO 1300 NO 470 NO 22000 NO 1300 NO 470 NO 22000 NO 1300 NO 470 NO 22000 NO 1300 NO 470 187000 11050, 3995
29 11 J9 J 13 ND 4.7 NO 11 43 13 NO 4.7 29 UJ 11 82 ·-J 13 NO UJ 4.7 19 11 NO 13 NO 4.7
930 110 720 130 NO 47
4.7 B 4.7 B 1.3 B NO 32 B NO 0.09 41.1 37.4 6 32.3 23.3 NO 131 79,9 4.3 0.25 0.3 ND 0.03 204 194 NO
'
Footnotes:
T.at.11!1 7
Sediment Ecological Risk Asseum.nl, St11p 2 -Abiotic Comparison•
Triangl11 Pacific Sit11. El1UtH1!h City, North Carolina
-P-SD·_1 ----002-SD •
S11diment Sediment
05122/96 61611995
Data Data
Concentration Qualifler1 SOL1 Conc11ntration Qualifler1 SOL1
NO 520 130 J NO 520 320 J NO 520 f:l/0
NO 520 62000
NO 520 1100
NO 520 2200
NO 520 130 J NO 520 120 J NO 520 1300
4420 11540
NO 5.2 NO 60 NO 5.2 NO 40
NO UJ 5.2 NO 60 NO 5.2 NO 87
NO 52 1000
2.1 B 2.B J
NO 0.09 NO UJ 2 9 30 J NO NO 40 7.6 66
NO D 04 NO 0.2
NO 150
003-SD 004-SD •
Sediment Sediment
61611995 6/6/1995
Data Data
Concentration Qualifier ' SQL1 Concentration Qual!fler7
NO 430 NO
NO 430 ND
ND 430 NO
NO 430 NO
NO 430 NO
NO 430 ND
ND 430 NO
NO 430 NO
NO 430 ND
3440 3570
NO 4.3 ND
1.3 J 4.3 NO
NO J 4.3 NO
NO 4.3 NO
NO ND
NO 0.66 NO
NO 0.89 ND
6.1 J 5.2 J
NO 7 NO
6.2 15
NO 0.07 ND
NO 20 NO
' Includes both estimated (J. B) and quantitated results Contains analytH in sediment comparing maximum detected concentrations of each analyte to'Preliminary ecological risk screeing cntena, excluding any analytes lacking any detected quantified concentration 2 A value equal to one-half the SOL for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all "non-detect"' results. ' Value= maximum concentration -minimum concentration.
• USEPA Region IV Eco Screening Criteria, Waste Management Division, Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (Acute and Chronic). October 1998 (see http:ffwww.epa.gov/region4lwastepgs/oflecserlecobul.htm -Tables 1, 3, and 4) $ Hazard quotient = maximum detected concentration/preliminary eco-risk screening criterion
$ Reasons for COPC Selection/Deletion·
ASC = maximum detected concenlration exceeds screening criterion (HQ> 1).
SSC = maximum detected concentration is less than screening criterion (HQ < 1 ).
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U. S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Con/rad Laboratory Program National Func/iona/Guidefines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.) J -The associated numerbil value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. B -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte R • The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified for the existing data. Resampling and analysis would be necessary for.venf1cation of the presence anc!/or concentrafron of the rejected anafyte. UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence. but was not detected above tha analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit is an estimated value. SOL· sample quantitalion limit: for those analytes that do not have SQls listed, the SQ Ls were not provided in the analytical data. ND -not detected
Page 2 of 2
SD--01 (GN010) SD-02 {GN011J
Sediment Sediment
9/2411990 9/24/1990
Data Data
SOL' Concentration Qualifier1 SOL' Concentration Qualifier' SQL1
420 NO R NO 1500
420 NO R ND 1500 420 NO R NO 1500
420 NO R 6400
420 NO R NO 1500 420 NO R NO 1500
420 ND R NO 1500 410 NO R NO 1500 420 NO R ND 1500
12750
4.2
42
5.2
"
0.68 0.56 J 2.5 J
0.91 3.4 J NO UJ 3.8 40.8 J 23 2 J 7 35.9 J 19.9 J 90,1 J 46 J
0.07 0.42 0.5 ~o 256 J NO so
i:\raleigh\projects\ 10679\.26609\5\era-revised\all sediment3. xis: Table-7
•
•
Table 8
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Analvte/Parameter
voe,
Acetone
Benzene
CarbOn dlSUll1de
Chiaro benzene
1,2-DienJoropropam,
T etrach!oroethene
1. 1, 1-Tnchloroethane
TnetdoroetheM
Xylenes (!olal)
SVOCs
Benz.o(ghl)perylen11
Cartiazole
1, •·Dichlorobenzenq
Oi-n-octyl pllthalata
lndeno( 1.2 ,3-cd)py,une
4-Methylpllenol
Pyrene
Pe1tieldel
delta-BHC
Endrin ketone
HeptachlOr
PCB,
Arodor 1254
Arodor 1260
Metals
Aluminum ··-Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganue
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Tentstlvely Identified Compounds (TICsJ
2 Unknown Compounds (Total)
2-Propen-1-one, 1-(2,6-d,llyd)
• Unidentified Compounds
5 Unidentified Compounds
6 Unknown PNAs (Total)
9 UnidenMied Compounds
9 Unknown Compounds (Tot.al)
Aeetopnenone
Benzene, 1.4-dichloro
Benzeneacelic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Oecane
O.methyl Disulfide
Dll'nethyl Sulfide
Dimethyl Trisulflde
Dimethyll\Jranone
Heudecanoic Aod
Pllenanthrene. 7-ettJenyi-1.2.
Phenanthrenone
Phenantllrenone, 2,3.4
Phthalic Anhydnde
P1nene
T etradecanoic Acid
Unknown
Unknown Alkana
Unknown Hydrocartx,n
Unknown Phlhatate
•
3/13/2002
Number of
Number of QuanUtated1 Frequency of ·cAs Analytical Samples Detections Detection
Number Method (Al '"' f8/Al
67641 82608 '° L 1 1000%
71432 '™' 10 J 3000%
75\50 8260B 1D 1 10.00%
106907 82508 10 ' 4000%
78875 82608 1D 1 10.00% 127184 8260B 1D 1 1000%
71556 8260B 1D 1 10.00%
79018 82608 10 1 1000% 1330207 82608 ,D 2 2000%
191242 8270C 10 1 1000% 80748 8270C 9 1 11.11% 106487 8270C 10 1 10.00%
117840 8270C 1D 1 10.00% 193365 8270C 10 1 10.00% 108394 B270C 10 2 2000%
129000 8270C 10 2 2000%
319888 8081A. ' 1 12.50% 53494705 8081A ' 1 12.50% 78448 8081A ' 2 25 00%
11097891 8082 ' J 37.50%
11096828 8082 ' ' 50.00%
7429905 60100· 10 10 100,00%
7440393 80108 10 ' 90.00%
7440702 60108 10 5 50.00% 7•40484 60108 10 6 80.00% 7439896 60108 10 1D 100,00% 7439954 80108 10 5 5000%
7439965 60108 10 10 100.00%
7782492 60108 10 5 50,00%
7440235 80108 10 3 30,00% 7440622 60108 10 ' 60,00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
18958155 8270C 1 ' 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100,00%
108487 8270C 1 1 100,00%
8270C ' 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100 00% 124185 8270C 1 1 100.00%
82608 1 1 100,00%
8260B ' 1 100.00%
82608 ' 1 100,00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 2 2 100.00% 1686582 8270C ' 1 100.00%
8270C ' 1 100.00%
511057 8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 ' 100.00%
8270C 1 ' 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
8270C 2 2 100.00%
8270C 1 1 100.00%
Footnotes·
Table 8
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
95"1. Upper
Mean Standard Conlldonce Minimum Maximum Range of
Units ConcentratJon1 OevlaUon2 Limit (UCL\2 Concentration Concentration Concentra1fons1
""'' 22 35 1 68 23 39 ND 52 ' 52 u~l,,g 320.50 94, 18 3i8 87 5' 3000 ,,..,
""'' 12.20 0,57 t.2 55 ND ' ' ugfl<g 9629.10 2566 46 11219 78 35 82000 81S65 ugil<g 12 65 0 52 12.97 ND 10 10 ""'' 14 65 0.74 15 11 ND 30 JO ""'' 12.75 0 51 13 07 NO 11 11 ugfl<g 12.45 0.53 12.78 ND ' ' ug/'kg 1305 0 57 13 40 ' 19 11
ugfkg 2644 00 481,81 29-12 02 ND 620 620 """' 2802.22 565,52 3171 69 NO 150 150 ""'' 2601.00 484.00 2900 98 ND 190 190 ""'' 3082.00 481,27 3380 29 ND 5000 5000 """' 2633 00 482.33 2931,95 ND 510 510 ""'' 2609 20 483 83 2908 95 " 170 " ugll<g 3302.00 614.89 381l2.98 1700 1BOOO 18300
"""' 4.13 0.78 '85 ND 10 10 """' 8.18 0 5' 856 ND 9.1 9.1 ""'' 5.41 1.15 820 ,.5 " 23.5
"""' 130.89 18.21 143,30 250 350 100 ""'' 391.50 54.05 428.96 ,10 1000 59D
""'' 11375.00 839.08 11895.06 2520 23000 20480 ""'' .... J" 49 24 ' 102 " ""'' 1858.00 218.99 1791.73 82D 5090 «7D ""'' 3.81 0.27 3.97 1,5 7.7 82 ""'' 8837.00 397.92 7083 83 2300 11700 9'00 ""'' 999.00 142,43 1087.28 BOO 3000 2800 ""'' 99.89 10.03 108.10 25.9 358 332.1 ""'' 0.90 0.06 0.9' 0.54 2 1.46 ""'' 457.00 70.6888 500" 560 2200 1820 ""'' 14.85 1.0768 15 52 7.7 31.8 24.1
""'' 700 0000 -.. ND 700 700 ""'' 3000.0000 --NO 3000 3000 ""'' ,0000 0000 -.. ND 10000 10000 ""'' 6000.0000 .. .. NO 6000 0000 ""'' 730000000 -.. NO 73000 73000
""'' 10000 0000 --NO 10000 10000 ""'' 43000.0000 --ND '3000 '3000 ""'' 300.0000 -.. ND 300 JOO ""'' 800.0000 --NO BOO 800 ""'' 200.0000 --NO 200 200
""'' . 300 0000 --NO JOO JOO ""'' 700.0000 .. -ND 700 700 ""'' 10.0000 --ND 10 1D ""'' 20.0000 --NO 20 20 """' 7.0000 --NO 7 7 ug/'kg 300.0000 --NO 300 300 ""'' 900.0000 70.7107 997.9981 ,oo 1000 200 """' 3000 0000 -ND 3000 3000 """' 300 0000 --ND 300 300 """' 2000.0000 --NO 2000 2000
"""' 300.0000 --NO JOO JOO """' 300.0000 --ND 300 JOO """' 200.0000 --ND 200 200 ug/kg 3-0.0000 --ND JO JO ugfkg 400,0000 --ND ,oo ,oo """' 1000.0000 --2000 2000 0 """' 4000.0000 .. ND <COO ,ooo
' lndudes both estimated (J. BJ and quan~taled results. Contains anatytes in secf,ment w'1th detected, quantified omcentrations for which preliminary ecological so-eening cnteria are not available. 1 A value equal to one-llal1 of the analytlcal quant,tatJOO ri.mit for a given sample result was used ror calculation purposes for all "non-detect" results. 3 Value equal to maximum coneentratlon minus minimum coneentration.
Sample Number
with Maximum
Concentration
K-SD-1
K-SD-1
003-SD
K-S0·1
P-SD-1
p.5[)..1
P-SD-1
P-S0·1
P-S0-1
002-SD
002-SD
002-SD
002-SD
002-50
003-50
K-SD-1
002-50
N-SD-1
002-50
K-50-1
002-50
L-50-1
L-5[)..1
SD-01 (GN010)
50-01 (GN010J
K-SD-1
002-SD
SD-02 (GN011)
K-$[)..1
002-SD
L-SD-1
SD-01 (GN010)
SD-02 (GN011)
002-SD
003-50
SD-02 (GN011)
004.50
SD-02 (GN011)
002-SO
SD-01 (GN010)
003-SD
002-50
SD-01 (GN010)
003-50
OOJ-.S0
003-50
004-50
OOJ.SD
s0-02 cm1011)
004-SO
SD-02 (GN011)
002-SO
002-SD
003-SD
SD-02 (GN011)
SD-01 {GN010)
SD-02 (GN011)
50-02 (GN011)
• Data validatlon qual<fiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program {CLP) Functional Guidehnes (U.S EPA. 1994. USEPA Contr.:ict Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines ror Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-941012. Washington. D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USE PA Coolfac, laboratory Program Nation a\ Functional Guidelines for 1norgarne Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Wasllington, D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows·
U (N.D.) • The analyte was analyzed for its potentlal presenee but was not deteCled above the associated ana)ytteal quantit.ation reporting limit J • The associated numerical value was an estimated quanbly below the reporting limit for an organie anatyte 8 • Tile a,sociated numerical value was an estimated quanbty below the reporting limij for an ·inorganic anatyte. R • Tile data were unusable. The presence or absenca of the analyte could not be venfied from the existing data Resampling and reanalysis would be neeessary for venficaMn of the presence and/or concentration or the rejeCled analyte. JN • There was presumpllve evidenee to make a tentative identification and the associated analytical raportmg Um1t was an es11mated quanbty UJ • The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not deteded abo~e the analytical reporting limit. The auocialed reporting r,mit was an estimated value. 5 SOL• sample quantitalion limit; for those analytes Iha\ do not nave SQ Ls liste-d, the SO Ls were not provided in tile analytical data. ND· not detected
-not cak:ulated
P•5J'I I a/2
S.r.mple ID: K-SD-1 L·SD-1
Sample Oept:J: S.dlmenl S11dlmen1
Sampte Date: 512111998 5/2111998
0,111 0111
Concentntion Qu11iner' SQL1 Concentr1tion Ou,hfler' SOL1
52 J 38 ND UJ 33
3000 J 38 ND UJ 33
NO 38 NO UJ 33
82000 38 NO UJ 33,
NO 38 ND UJ 33.
ND " NO UJ 33
NO 38 NO UJ 33
NO 38 ND UJ 33
ND 38 NO UJ 33
NO 25000 ND 22000
ND 25000 NO 22000
NO 25000 NO 22000
NO 25000 ND UJ 22000
NO 25000 ND 22000
NO 25000 NO 22000
18000 J 25000 NO 22000
ND 6.5 NO 5.7
ND 13 NO 11
,.5 J 8.5 NO UJ 5.7
350 13D 250 110
950 130 '" ,10
12400 23000
78.1 B 102 ' ND NO
5,5 B ' B
11700 11700
NO ND
"' 130
2 J 1,5 J
ND ND
19.4 B 31.8
•
Analvte/Parameter
voe,
Acetone
Senzene
Carbon oisulflde
Clllorobern:ene
1,2·0ichlOroPfOpane
Tetracntoroelhe11e
1.1. 1-Tnchloroell'lane
Tricnloroelhene
Xylenes (total)
svoc,
Benz0(ghi)pery!ene
Cart:,aiole
1, 4-0ichlorobenzene
Oi-n-0ctyl phlhalate
lnden0{ 1,2,3-<:d)pyrene
<1-Melhylpnen0I
Pyrene
PtstlcldH
delta-BHC
Endnn ketone
Heptac:hl0<
PCBs
Arocior 1254
Aroclor 1260
Metals
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
lroo
Magnesium • Manganese
Selenium
Sodium
vanadium
Tentatlvely ldentined Compound• (TICs)
2 Unknown Compounds (Total)
2-Propen-1-one, 1-(2.6-d,hyd)
4 Unidentified Compounds
5 Unidenlltied Compounds
6 Unknown PNAs (Total)
9 Unidenllfied Compounds
9 Unknown Compounds (Total)
Acet0phenone
Benzene, 1,◄-dichlorn
Benzeneacetic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Oocarn•
Dimethyl Disulfide
Ounelhyl Sulfide
Dimethyl Trisulfide
Dimelhytturaoone
Hexadecanoic Acid
Phenanlhrene, 7-elhenyi-1,2,
Pnenanlhrenone
Phenanthrenone, 2,3,4
Phlhalic Anhydnde
Pinene
T etradecanoic Acid
Unknown
Unknown Alkane
Unknown Hydrocalbon
Unknown Phlhalate
•
M•S0-1 N•SD•I
Sediment Sediment
512111991! S/22/1998 ,
D111 Data
Tablo 8
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessmont, Step 2 -Abiotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
P-S0-1 002-SD OOJ-SD
Sediment S.dlment Sediment
S/22/1998 81111995 aia,1995
Oa!ll 0111 01111
004-SD 50-01 {GN0\01
Sedimenl Sedime,u
a/6.J1995 912411990
Dau 0111 Concentr11lon OuaUfJer' SQL1 Concentration Qualifier' SOL' Concentration Qualifier ' SOL1 Concentr11/on Ollllifier' SOL' Concen1r1tlon Qualifier' SOL1 Concentration • Qu1lifier ' SOL' Concentration Quahrler'
NO 38 NO " NO 16 NO NO ,. NO " NO " " NO 38 NO " NO 16 NO JS J 38 NO " NO 16 3200 :N□ 38 NO " ,0 J 16 NO NO 38 NO " 30 16 NO NO 38 NO " " J " NO NO 38 ND " 8 J 16 NO NO 38 NO " " " 8 J
NO \300 NO 470 NO 520 820 J ND 1300 NO 4i0 ND 520 '50 J NO \300 NO '70 NO 520 ''° J NO \300 NO '70 NO 520 5000 J NO '300 NO '70 NO 520 5,0 J NO '300 NO '70 NO 520 NO NO 1300 NO '70 NO 520 '700
NO 8.5 NO 2.4 NO 2.7 " NO " 8., J ,.1 NO 52 NO NO 85 NO UJ , .. NO UJ 2.7 28
3'0 '" NO " NO 52 NO "o ''° NO ., NO 52 ,ooo
17700 3850 5980 23000 06.2 B NO 18.3 B " NO NO NO '300 3.8 B ,.5 8 ,.8 B ND 0650 3090 3400 "000 J NO NO NO 3800 72 25.9 38 ',0 u J 05< J ' J NO NO NO NO 2200 24.5 B NO 11.4 B NO UJ
,0000 J
300 JN
300 JN
300 JN
300 JN
Footnotes:
' Includes both esbmated and quanbtated rnu!ts. 1 A value equal to one-half 0I lhe analytical quant,tati0n limit for a given sample result was used tor calculat,on purposes for all ·non-detect" results. ' Value equal 10 ma~imum concentr.ltion minus minimum concentr.ltion.
60 NO 13 NO " NO 13 ''° 12
" • J 13 ND " " NO \3 ND " " NO 13 NO " " NO \3 ND 12 " NO \3 NO " " NO 13 NO " NO " NO "
ND '30 ND '20
NO '30 NO '20
NO '30 NO "' NO '30 NO "' NO '30 NO '20
870 '70 J '30 92 J
NO ''° NO '20
NO 22 NO 2 30 NO •. 3 NO ,2
NO 22 NO 2
87 NO " NO .,
NO " NO .,
◄300 3200 ,0 8
820 J '800 J 5 NO 2 NO 2 3000 J 2300 J
980 800
" 28
t5 NO 0.64 NO 0,85
580 820
" NO UJ 8 NO UJ 8
6000 JN
,0000 J
200 JN
,0 JN
20 JN
7 JN
300 JN ,ooo JN 800 JN
300 JN
200 JN
' Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quahty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines {U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines ror Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratoiy Program Nat1onal Functional Guidehnes l0r Inorganic Data Review EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.} Data qualifiers are as follows
U (N.0.) -The analyte was analyzed for its potentlal presence but was not detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit. J -The associated numencal value was an astimated quanbty below the reporting limit 10r an organic analyte . 8 -The assoaated numencal value was an estimated quant,ty below tne reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be venfied from the existing data. Re sampling and reanalysis would be necessaiy for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte JN -There was presumptive evidence to make a tentative iden@cation and the associated analytical reponing limit was an est1ma1ea quantity. UJ -The analyte was analyzed !or its presence. but was not detected above the analytical reporting limit The associated report,ng limit was an estimated value. ' SOL• sample quantitatI011 lim,t
1 MOL. method detectio11 fim,t
Poge2of2
NO
76
ND ,,ooo
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO R
NO R
NO R
NO R
NO R
NO R
NO R
2520
29.1
5090 J
7.7
5030
1070
53 J
NO UJ
NO
7.7 J
700 J
800 J
700 J
,oo J
S0-<12 (GN01 I)
Seolment
912.U1990
0111
SOL1 Concentnt/on Qualifier" SOL'
70 NO 67
NO ,.
JS NO ,.
JS NO ,.
JS NO ,.
JS NO 2•
JS ND ,.
JS NO ,.
JS NO ,.
NO '500
NO '500
NO ,soo
ND '500
ND ,soo
NO '500
17800
60.8
'750 J
NO " ,0500
35'0
358 J
0.29 NO UJ 0.97
2'0 ND '700
25.2 J
3000 J
73000 J
'3000 J
3000 J
2000 J
30 J
2000 J ,ooo J
•
•
•
Table 9
Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, Step 2 -A biotic Comparisons
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
' I •
• i
H i 0
I I I § I I I I I I I I I I I I I § I I I i I I I I I I I § I I § I I I I I I I I I l I I I I! I I I I 1 I I I I I I
•
• ··-c .. An.olyt,c.aJ AnaMe/Parameter Number Melhod H<"nchloloeltlAne 67721 8270C lsoph<>rone 78591 e21oc NAelhylphenol 9~87 8210C 2-N,troanihne 88744 e21oc 3-N,troarwne '""' 8270C 4-N,troan,hne HKl016 8270C Notrobef'llene 98953 8270C 2-N,trophenol 88755 e21oc 4-N,tropl,enol "'"" 8270C n-N,trosodiphen)'!amine "= 8270C n-Nitros0d1-<1-p,op)'lamine 6216(7 8270C 2 ,2·-0,yt.s( 1-Chlo,op,opane) t0SS-01 8270C Pen1achlo,ophenol 871165 e21oc "'""" 1U9S2 8270C 1.2 ,4• Trichlerebeniene 120821 !270C 2.4.5.frichl01ophniol 959S. 827oc 2.4.6• T 11chl0<ophencl 88062 o,,oc Pe,t,codes (ugl~gl N•• ""'' 8081A alpha•BHC 3198◄6 8081A beta-BHC 319857 8081A gamm.,·BHC {Lindane) 58899 8041A alpha·Chl0<dane 57749 8081A i;;amma·Chlotdono 57749 8081A 4.4•.ooT '"" 8081A EndosuUan I 9599!5 """ Endosulfan II 3J21l659 808tA Endes.ul1"" sulfate 1031078 ..... Endrm 71208 8081A Endrlf'I Aldehyde 7◄219~ 8081A HeplaChlot epc,lde 102457J 8081A Melho,ychlo, 72435 eoetA Touphene !001352 8081A PCBs (ug!1'gl Al<>cl0< 1016 12674112 8082 Aiodof 1121 11104282 "" Aloclo, 1232 111 ◄11~ ""' A,Ddo, 12◄ 2 53-'69219 ""' Alodof 120 12572205 ""' Met.al• (mgllo.g) Ann,,_,, 7U0J.60 60106 Berylfoum 7◄◄0417 60106 Nickel 7◄◄0020 ""' Potassium 7◄◄0097 60108 """ 7 ◄◄0224 60108 Th•U•um 7440280 60106 General Chemidry jmglkg) Total cyanide 57125 901061901◄ F001n01es: • , .... Sedffl!'RI Ecologic.al Risk Aneu,,_,t St.fl 2 • A biotic Comp.arison1 Triangle Pacdlc SIUP, Eliiabdl Clly. Hof1h CU'OmJI ~ o4 S-,pl,eA~O.....uutoon , .... Dale SamplH ""'-'--~-,..,_, M.,imumSa,nple MuimumSample IMonth/Yu.i Samole~ Unit,; ... _ O...anuution Limn 0..-ULilllOn Limit ,.,.., • May-98 '" .,,, 000% "' ,sooo Sep-90 May-98 '" ""' 000% "" ,_ Sep-90 May-98 '" ug/);g 000% "' ,SOOO "'•" May-98 '" .... , o= ,ooo 0<000 Sep-90 May-93 '" .,,, 0 = "'" 0<000 Sep-90 Mcay-98 '" ..,, o= "o ""' Sep-90 May-98 '" ""'' o= "" ,_ ... ., May•9& '" ""'' o= "" ,_ Sep-90 May-98 '" ""'' 0 00% .,0 ,_ ,.,.., May-93 '" .,,, 0 = "" ,_ ,.,.., May-98 '" ""'' 000% "' ,sooo ,.,., • M.ay-98 '" ..... o= "" ,_ Sep-90 • May•98 " ""'' . "' '"' 0<000 ,..., May.Se " .,,, •= .,, """ ,.,.., May•98 '" .,,, • = '" ,sooo ,.,., • May•9a '" ""'' • = ,ooo 0<000 ,.,.., M..,-·98 '" .,,, 000% '" ,sooo Sop-90 • May-98 ...... •= ' " ,.,.., May-98 .... •= ' " Sep-90 May•S8 ""' • = ' " ,.,.., ...... ..,., 000% ' " ,.,.., May-98 .... , 000% , '" ,.,,, May-98 ...... o= ' DO Sep-90 May·98 ""'' o= ., ,, ,..., ....... .... •= , " ,.,.., • May-98 ... , •= ., "' ,.,.., • Mq,-98 ..,,., • = ., " ,.,.., May-98 .... , 000% ., " ,..., May.98 ..... o= ., " ,.,., • May-ta ...... •= ' " ,.,.., • May-i& ..,., •= " " ... ., M•y-98 ..... 000% "' '"' ,..., ...,_,. ~·· o= ., '" ,..., May-i& • ""'' • = M "' ,.,., ...,_,. • """ o= ., '" ,..., • M.-y-9!1 • .,,, 000% ., '" ,..., M,ay.9!f • .,.,, o= ., '" ,.,., May·9ll '" .... o= , .. 51.7 Sep-90 May-98 " ..,,., o= "' , ,.,.., • Maoy·i& " ..,,., o= . ' " ,.,.., IMy-98 '" .,,, • = "" ""' ,.,.., IMy-98 '" ""'' 000% 0.31 " ,..., • May•i& '" ""'' 000% '" • ,..., • Mar·9!1 ' .,,., . = ,,, 0" Analytic.I --,,..,,.. Prei.ninMy lnwlhc.e-e<:11 R---,u Eco--n•-Scnening ,--Sc,-.,ing c~ru.1 COPC7 cmena' !Yu Of Nol !Yes Of Nol -N0C1>lena ,., -No Cnlr<1a ,.. -No Cn1e11a •.. -NoCm..,,a ••• -No Cmeua ... -No Cntena ... -N0Crne11a ... -N0Cnten<1 ... -No erne,,., •.. -No Crne<ia ••• -No Crnnia •.. -Ne Cme11• ... -NoCntena ... -Ne Cnleua ••• -No Cntet,.-... -No Cn1011• •.. -No en,..,.,. ... -NoCmena ... -N0Cu1n1a ... -No Crnoo• ... " ... .. . " •.. •.. u ,., •.. " ... . .. -Ne Cutoo• •.. -Ne c,~..,..., ••• -Ne Cuien• •.. -NoCnln"" ... -Na C.rte<"" ... -Ne C,,twa ,., -No Cmn,a ••• Ne Cmena ... -Ne C,~~"" ... -,,c..... ... -~c..... ... -~c,-... -Ne cm .. ,,. ... " ... . .. -Na c,~.,.,. . .. ". ... . .. -No C.rte,,,. ... ' ••• . .. -NoC,n"""" , .. " ,., ... ' USE PA ReQ100 !V Eco Saeening Crne,, •. Waste Management DMsloo, Saeenong Values IDI' Huardcu$ W8$le Siles (A<:ule -Chrcnic). 0c:loba 1998. c-Nl;ltlwww e~ g,c,,,ll"g,°"'lw.aslepps/olteae,/e<ODul Nm· T atoln I. -no 1aeerw,g cr,tnion avdat,fe • P-.hU ,._ .......... """'9--5.., •• ..-.. __ ..,, .. 1-•
•
•
•
Table I 0
Analytical Results from Background Surface Soil Samples
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
T;iDIII lO
Analytical Re"lults rrom Backt.iround Surface Soil Samples /or tho Triangle P;ici/lc Sito, Elizabeth CJty, North Carolina
Sample to: H-SS-1 001-SS 01S-SS SS02 (GN014) Sample Depth: 0-6R 0-6R 0-1::R O-r Numb11r of .
Sample 0,11e: 512111998 8/8/1995 8/811995 912411990 Number or Quanlilatod1 Frequency of
CAS Analytical Sample, DolocUons Detection Mean Minimum Maximum Range of Data Data Data Data Analyte/Parameter Number Method (A( (0) (BIA) Concentration2 Concentra!ion Concentration Concentrations1 Concenlra1ion Qualifier' SOL' Concentration Qualirier' S0L1 Conconlration Qualifier' SOL1 Concentration Oua!if!er1 S0L1 voe, (ugtkgJ
Acetone r,7~1 82608 ,, ' 25.00% 6.00 ND 9 00 900 ' ' J 12 ND 11 ti[) 11 ND UJ 18 8en.::ene /1432 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5 38 ND ND ND //0 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 Bromodicnlorome:hane i527.1 8260B ,, 0 0.00% 5 38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 8romolorm /5252 82608 ,, D 000% 5 38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ''° 11 ND 9 8romomethane ,',1839 82608 ' 0 000% 6 50 ND ND ND //0 12 ND UJ 11 ND UJ 11 ND 18 2-8utanone /8933 82608 ' 0 0.00% 6.50 ND ND NO ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 18 Carbon c:1sulfide /5150 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5 38 ND ND ND ND UJ 12 ND 11 NO 11 ND 9 Carbon tetrachlorode 56235 82608 ,, 0 0.00% 5 38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 Chlorobenzene 108907 8260B ' 0 000% 5.38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 NO 11 ND 9 Chloroethane ,'5003 82608 ' 0 000% 6.50 ND ND NO ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND UJ " Chloroform 137563 82608 ,, 0 0.00% 5 00 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 6 Chloromethane ,'4873 82608 ' 0 000% 6 50 ND ND ND ND 12 NO /l ND 11 ND " D1brom0Chloromethane 124481 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5.38 ND NO ND ND 12 ND 11 /,0 ' 11 NO 9 1, 1-0ichloroelhane 15343 82608 ' 0 000% 5 38 ND NO ND ND 12 ND 11 NO 11 NO 9 1.2-01chloroethane 107062 82608 ' D 0.00% 5.38 ND NO NO ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 1.1-0ichloroethene 15354 82608 ' 0 000% 5.38 ND ND ND ND UJ 12 ND 11 ND l 11 ND 9 1,2-0ichloroethene (Total) 156605 8260B ' 0 0.00% 5.38 NO ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 8260B ' 0 0.00% 5.38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 NO 11 NO 9 cis-1 , 3-DiChloropropene 10061015 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5.38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 NO 11 ND 9 trans-1, 3-0ichloropropene 10061026 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5.38 ND ND NO ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 Ethylbenzene 100414 82608 ' 0 000% 5 38 NO ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 2-Hexanone 73663715 82608 ' 0 0.00% 650 ND ND ND ND UJ 12 ND 11 NO 11 ND 18 Methylene chloride 75092 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5 38 ND NO NO ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108101 82608 ' D 0.00% 6.50 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND ,8 Styrene 100425 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5.38 NO ND ND ND 12 ND 11 NO " NO 9 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroelhane 79345 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5.38 ND ND NO ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 Tetrachloroethene 127184 82608 ' 0 000% 5.38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 Toluene 108883 8260B ' 0 0.00% 5.38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND " ND 11 ND 9 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane 71556 82608 ' l 25.00% 4.88 ND 5.50 5.50 ' J 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 • 1. 1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 82608 ' D 0.00% 5.38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 NO 9 Trichloroethene 79016 8260B 4 0 0.00°4 5.38 ND ND NO ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND 9 Vinyl acetate 108054 82608 ' 0 0.00°4 9.00 ND ND ND ND ,8 Vinyl chloride 75014 82608 ' 0 0.00% 650 NO ND ND ND 12 ND 11 NO 11 ND 18 Xy!enes (total) 1330207 82608 ' 0 0.00% 5 38 ND ND ND ND 12 ND 11 ND 11 ND & svocs
Aceriaphthene 83329 8270C ' ' 25.00% 181.25 NO 305.00 305.00 ND 380 '° J 380 ND 380 ND 610 Acenaphthyfene 208968 8270C ' 2 50.00% 398.75 190.00 630,00 440.00 ND 380 630 380 '70 380 ND 610 Anthracene 120127 8270C ' 2 50.~/4-278.75 190.00 ,0000 210.00 ND 380 ,oo 380 220 J 380 NO 610 Benzo( a)anlhracene 56553 8270C ' 2 50.00% 456.25 190.00 780.00 590.00 ND UJ 380 780 380 550 380 ND 610 Bonzo( b )fluoranlhene 205992 8270C ' 2 50.00% 798.75 ,,ooo 1600,00 1410.00 ND 380 1600 360 1100 380 NO 610 Benzo{k)fluoranthene 207089 8270C 2 0 0.00% 247.50 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 610 8enzo(ghi)perylene 191242 8270C ' 2 50.00% 468.75 190.00 730.00 540.00 ND 380 730 380 650 380 ND 610 Bem::o(a)pyrene 50328 8270C ' 0 0.00% 385.00 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 1200 NO 890 NO 610 Benzoic acid 65850 8270C 1 0 0.00% 1500.00 NO ND ND ND 3000 8enzyl alcohol 100516 8270C 1 0 0.00% 305.00 NO ND ND ND 610 Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND NO NO ND 380 ND 380 NO 380 NO 610 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111911 8270C • ' 0 0.00% 218.75 NO ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 bis(2-Chloroethyt)--ether 111444 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha!ate 117817 8270C ' 2 50.00% 460.00 190.00 830.00 640.00 830 380 ND 380 ND 380 630 4-8romophenyt phenyl etrier 101553 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 Carbazole 86748 8270C 3 0 0.00% 190.00 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND ' 380 4-Chloroaniline 106478 8270C ' 0 000% 218.75 ND ND NO ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 NO 610 4-Chloro-3-methy!phenol 59507 8270C 4 0 000% 218.75 ND NO ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 NO 610 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 380 NO 380 ND 610 2-Chlorophenol 95578 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 NO ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7()()5723 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 NO ND NO ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 NO 610 Chrysene 218019 8270C ' 2 50.00% 431.25 ,,ooo 670 00 480.00 ND 380 670 380 560 380 ND 610 01ben.::{a.h)anthracene 53703 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND NO ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 Dibenzofuran 132649 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 NO ND ND ND 380 ND 360 ND 380 ND 610 Di-n-butyl phthalate 84742 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND NO ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 NO 610 1.2-0ichlorobenzene 95501 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 641731 82iOC ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 1.4-0,chlorobenzene 106467 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 NO ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 3,3'-0ichlorobenzidine 91941 8270C ' 0 0.00% 292.50 ND ND NO ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 1200 2.4-0ichlorophenol 51285 8270C 4 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND ND ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 •
3/1312002
Pago 1 of3 i:\raleighlprojectsl 1 0679\26609\Slera-revisedlallsurtacesrnl7. xis: Background-Sediment
hbla 10
Analytical Results rrom Background Surface Soil Samples f•ir the Trtangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, Nonh C.irollna
• Sampta IU: H-SS-1 001-SS 01S-S5 5502 (GN014J Sample Da11th: 0•6H 0-6H 0-6H 0-6H Numi;er()f S.ample o .. 11t: 5121/1998 8/a/1995 . 8/811995 9/24/1990 Numhftr ol Qu.anlit.ated' Frequency ol GAS An.atytic.at S.ampto1 Ootections Detection Mean Minimum Ma\imum Range of □ala I om Data Oat.1 Analyte/Parameter Number Method ,., 18) {BIA) Concenfrationl Concentration Concontration Concentrations1 Concentration Qualifier' SQL1 Concentration Qualifier' SQL1 Concentration Qualifier' SQL1 Concentration Qualifier' SQL1 Diethyl phthalate 84662 8270C ., 0 0.00'¼ 218,75 NO NO ND NO 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 2,4-0imethylpnenol 105679 8270C ., D 0 00'¼ 218,75 NO NO ND NO 380 ND 380 ND 380 ND 610 □,methyl phtnalate 131113 8270C ., D 000'¼ 218 75 NO NO NO NO 380 ND 380 NO 380 ND 610 Oi-n-oc:yl phthalate 117840 8270C ., 0 000"1. 218.75 NO ND NO ND 380 ND 380 NO 380 NO 610 4. 6-Dirntro-2-methylphenol 534521 8270C ' 0 000% 727.50 ND ND NO NO UJ 960 NO 930 NO 930 ! NO 3000 2,4-0irntrophenol 51285 B270C ' 0 000% 727.50 ND ND NO NO 960 NO 930 ND 930 NO 3000 2.4-0,rntrotoluene 12142 8270C ., 0 000"1. 218.75 ND ND NO NO 380 ND 380 ND 380 NO 610 2.6-0in1tro1oluene 606202 8270C ., 0 000% 218.75 ND ND NO NO 380 ND 380 NO 380 ND 610 Fluorantheno 206440 8270C ., 2 5000% 531.25 190,00 850 00 660 00 NO UJ 380 85D 38D 78D 380 ND 610 Fluorene 86737 8270C ' ·' 2500% 198.75 ND 305 00 305 00 NO 380 NO 380 1'0 1 38D ND 610 HexaC/llorobenzene 118741 8270C ., 0 000% 218.75 ND ND NO NO 380 NO 380 NO 380 NO 6i0 He\aChlorobutadiene 87683 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND NO NO 380 ND 380 NO 380 ND 610 He\achlorocytopentadiene ]7474 8270C ., 0 000'½ 218.75 NO ND ND ND 360 NO 380 NO 380 NO 610 Hexachloroethane 67721 B270C ' 0 000% 218.75 ND ND NO NO 380 NO 360 ND 380 ND 610 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193365 8270C ' 2 50 00~,4 386.25 19000 620.00 43000 NO 380 620 380 '30 380 ND 610 lsophorone 7B591 8270C 4 0 000% 218.75 NO NO ND NO 380 ND 380 NO 380 ND 610 2-Methylnaphtha!ene 91576 8270C ., 0 000¾ 218.75 NO NO ND NO 380 ND 380 NO 380 NO 610 2-Methylphenol 95487 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND ND NO ND 380 ND 380 NO 380 NO 610 4-Me\hylphenol 108394 8270C 4 0 000¾ 218.75 ND ND NO ND 380 ND 380 NO 380 NO 610 Napthalene 91203 8270C 4 0 000% 218.75 NO ND NO NO 380 NO 380 ND . 380 ND 610 2-Nitroandine 88744 8270C ' 0 0.00% 727.50 NO NO ND NO 960 ND 930 NO 930 ND 3000 3-Nitroaniline 99092 8270C 4 0 0 00'½ 727,50 NO ND NO NO 960 ND 930 NO 930 NO 3000 4-Nitroaniline 100016 8270C 4 0 0.00% 727.50 ND ND NO ND 960 NO 930 NO 930 NO 3000 N,trobenzene 98953 8270C 4 0 0.00% 218.75 NO ND NO NO 380 NO 380 ND 380 ND 610 2-N,trophenot 88755 8270C ' 0 000% 218.75 ND NO ND NO 380 ND 360 NO 380 ND 610 4-N,trophenol 100027 8270C 4 0 000'½ 727.50 ND NO NO ND UJ 960 ND 930 NO 930 NO 3000 n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 85306 8270C ' 0 000% 218.75 ND ND NO NO 380 NO 380 ND 380 ND 610 n-Nitrosodi•n-propylamine 621647 8270C 4 0 000'4 218.75 NO NO ND NO 380 ND 380 NO 380 ND 610 2. 2· -oxybis( 1-Ch!oropropane) 108601 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 ND NO NO ND 380 ND 380 ND 380 NO 610 Pentachlorophenol 87865 8270C 4 0 0.00% 727.50 ND ND ND NO 960 NO 930 ND 930 ND 3000 Phenanthrene 85018 8270C ' ·' 5000'½ 306.25 190.00 400.00 210.00 NO 380 400 380 330 J 380 ND 610 Phenol 108952 8270C 4 0 0.00°,4 218.75 ND ND NO ND 380 NO 380 NO 380 ND 610 Pyrene 129000 8270C 4 2 5000¾ 873.75 190.00 1500.00 131000 NO 380 1500 380 1500 380 ND 610 1.2.4-Trichlorobem:ene 120821 8270C 4 0 0.00% 218.75 NO NO ND NO 380 ND 380 NO 380 ND 610 2.4,5-Trichlorophenol 95954 8270C 4 D 0.00% 727.50 ND ND ND NO 960 ND 930 ND 930 ND 3000 2,4.6-Trichlorophenol 88062 8270C ' 0 0.00% 218.75 NO NO ND NO 380 ND 380 ND 380 NO 610 Total PAHs
3230 9580 7905 5185
Pesticides (ug/kg)
Aldrin 309002 8081A 3 0 0.00'½ 0.95 NO NO ND NO 2.0 ND 1.9 NO 1.8 atpha-BHC 319846 8081A 3 0 000¾ 0.95 NO ND NO ND 2.0 NO 1.9 NO 1,8 beta-BHC 319857 8081A 3 0 0.00'½ 0.95 ND ND ND NO 2.0 ND 1.9 ND 18 delta-BHC 319868 8081A 3 0 000% 0.98 NO NO ND ND 2.0 ND 1.9 NO 2 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 58899 8081A 3 0 o.oo•~ 0.95 No· ND NO ND 2.0 NO 1.9 NO 1.8 alpha-Chlordane 57749 8081A 3 0 0.00% 0.95 NO ND NO NO 2.0 ND 1.9 ND 18 gamma-Chlordane 57749 8081A 3 0 0.00% 0.95 NO NO ND ND 2.0 ND 1.9 NO 1.8 4,4'-00D 71548 ,) 8081A 3 1 33 33% 4.33 ND 9.20 9.20 9.2 1 3.8 NO 38 NO 3.8 4.4'-DOE 72559 8081A 3 1 33.33% 25,60 NO 7300 73.00 73 7.7 ND 38 ND 38 A.4'·□DT 50293 8081A 3 1 33.33% 7.27 NO 18.00 18.00 18 J 7,7 ND 3.8 NO 38 Total 000/00EJDDT 8081A 3 1 33.33% 3A.67 ND 100.20 100.20 100.2 J 7.7 NO 3,8 NO 3.8 Oieldrin 60571 8081A 3 0 0.00% 1.90 ND ND ND NO 3.8 ND 3.8 ND 38 Endosulfan I 959988 8081A 3 0 0.00% 0.95 NO NO ND NO 2.0 ND 1.9 ND 1.8 Endosu1fan ll 33213659 8081A 3 0 0.00% 2.10 NO NO NO ND 3.8 ND 3.8 NO 5 Endosulfan sulfate 1031078 8081A 3 1 33.33% 6.27 ND 15.00 15.00 15 J 7.7 ND 3,8 NO 3.8 Endrin 72208 8081A 3 0 0.00% 1,90 NO ND ND NO 3.8 ND 38 ND 3.8 Endrin aldehyde 7421934 8081A 3 0 0.00% 1.90 NO ND NO ND 3.8 ND 3.8 ND 3.8 Endnn ketone 53494705 8081A 3 0 0.00% 1.90 NO ND NO ND 3.8 NO 3.8 NO 38 HeptachJor 76AA8 8081A 3 0 0.00% 0.95 NO ND NO NO 2.0 ND 1.9 NO 1.8 Heptach!or epo\ide 102A573 8081A 3 0 0.00% · 0.95 ND ND ND NO 2.0 ND 1.9 NO 18 MelhO\ychlor 72A35 8081A 3 0 0.00% 9.50 NO NO ND ND 20 ND 19 ND 18 To\aphene 8001352 8081A 3 0 000% 95.00 ND ND NO NO 200 ND 190 NO 180 PCBs (ug/kg)
Arce/or 1 O 16 1267A112 6082 3 0 0.00% 19.00 ND NO NO ND 38 ND 38 ND 38 Aroclor 1221 111042B2 8082 3 0 0.00% 38.17 ND NO NO NO 78 ND 76 NO 75 Aroclor 1232 11141105 8082 3 0 0.00% 19.00 ND ND ND NO 38 ND 38 ND 38 Arocior 1242 53469219 8082 3 D 000% 1900 ND ND ND NO 38 ND 38 NO 38 Aroclor 1248 12572205 8082 3 0 000¾ 19.00 NO ND NO ND 38 ND 38 ND 38 Aroclor 1254 11097691 8082 3 0 0.00% 19.00 NO NO ND ND 38 ND 38 NO 38 Aroclor 1260 11096826 8082 3 1 3333% 21.00 NO 25.00 25.00 25 1 38 ND 38 NO 38 Total PCBs 6082 3 1 3333% 21.00 NO 25.00 25.00 25 J 38 ND 38 ND 38
3/1312002
Pag,i 2 of'3 i. \raleigh\projects\ 1 0679\26609\5\era-revised\allsurfacesoil7 .\Is: Background-Sediment
•
•
•
Tab1'1 10
Ana1yUcal Rosults lrom Bac~c,round Surface Soil Samples !or the Trlanglo Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, Nonh CaroUna
Number of
Number of Quant~atod1 Frequency of -
CAS Analytical Samptn Oe1oc1ions Detection Moan Minimum Maximum Range of Analyte/Paramotcr Number Method ,., ,., (BIA) Concenlration1 Concentration Concentration Concentrations1 Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum ;,129905 60108 ' ' 100.00% 10452.50 351000 27000 00 Antimony f-140360 6010B ' 1 2500% 10.53 ND 21.60 Arsenic ,',J.10382 6010B ' 1 2500% 0.83 ND 2.80 Banum l440393 60108 -1 ' 100.00% 49 58 28.00 94,40 Beryllium /-140417 60108 ' 0 000% 0 35 ND NO Cadmium {,1,10439 60108 ' 1 25.00% 0,56 NO 080 Calcium /.\,10702 60108 ' ' 100.00% 11787.50 1350 00 6690000 Chromium i,\40473 60108 ' ' 100.00% 14.88 8 20 32.10 Cobalt ,",140484 60108 ' 3 75.00% ''3 2.60 7.70 Copper l-140508 60108 ' 2 50.00% 10.33 10 00 11.00 Iron 14398::,/3 60108 ' ' 100 00% 8597 SO 1390.00 11600 00 Lead /439921 60108 ' ' HXJ.00% 42.03 550 127.00 Magnesium /439954 60108 ' ' 100.00% 2025,00 1700 00 2290,00 Manganese /,139965 60106 ' 4 100 00% 149.75 140.00 165.00 Mercury ;,13159975 7471A ' 2 5000% 0.09 003 0.25 Nickel /,\40020 60106 ' 2 5000% 4_63 2.00 11.00 Potassium (440097 60108 ' 1 25.00% 1147.50 ND 1790.00 Selenium I i82492 6010B ' 0 000% 0,33 ND ND Silver 7-140224 60108 ' 0 000% 0,36 ND ND Sodium 1440235 60108 ' 0 0.00% 90.00 ND ND Thallium 7440280 60108 ' 0 0.00% 0.70 ND ND Vanadium 7440622 60108 ' 2 50.00% 15.63 1000 30.30 Zinc 7440666 60108 ' ' 10000% 63 18 39 00 95 40
General Chemislry
Total cyanide 57125 90108/9014 2 0 0.00% 1.13 ND ND
nc,
8enzofluorene 8270C 1 1 100.00% 200.00 ND 000 Cyclopentaphenanthrenone 8270C 1 1 10000% 300.00 ND 0.00 Oimethylnaphthalene 8270C 2 2 100,00% 200.00 100.00 100.00 Oimethylphenanthrene 8270C 1 1 100.00% 300.00 ND 300.00 Ethenylnaphthalene 8270C 1 1 100.00% 200.00 ND 0.00 Hexadecanoic Acid 8270C 0 0 #ON/0! ND ND ND Methylanlhracene 8270C 2 2 100.00% 300.00 200.00 200.00 Methylphenanthrene 8270C 1 1 10000% 100.00 ND 100.00 Methylpyrene 8270C 2 2 Hl0.00% 450.00 200.00 200.00 Pinene 8270C 2 2 100.00% 300.00 10000 100,00 1 Unidenllfied 8270C 1 1 100.00% 900.00 ND 900.00 5 Unidentified 8270C 1 1 100.00% 4000.00 ND 0 00 Hexanediolc Acid. Dioctyl Es 123.79.5 8270C 1 1 100,00"/o 20000.00 ND 20000.00 Unknown Aromatic 8270C 1 1 10000% 300.00 ND 30000 10 Unknown Compounds 8270C 1 1 100.00% 7300.00 ND 7300 00
Footnotes·
' Includes both estimated (J. 8) and quant1tated results. 2 A value equal to one-half the analytical quanlltation limit for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all ""non--detect"" results and other non-quantifiable results 3 Value equal to maximum concentration minus minimum concentration
23490 00
21.60
2.80
66-:0
NO
0 80
65550 00
23 90
5.10
1.00
4210 00
121.50
59000
25.00
0.22
9 00
1790 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
20.30
96 ,o
ND
000
0.00
000
300.00
0.00
ND
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
900.00
0 00
20000.00
300,00
7300.00
Samplo ID: H-SS-1
Sample 011pth: 0-6"'
Sampl11 0.1te: 5/2111998
-
D.11a
Concentr.1tion Qualifier'
3510 J
ND
NO
<09 8
ND
014 8
66900
" 2.5 8
10 3
7350
127 J
2290
1<' J
0.04 8
3 8
1790
ND UJ
ND
ND
ND
122
77.3 J
ND
4 Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-941012. Washington, O.C. and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Dara Review EPA-540/R-941013 Washington, O.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows: · U (N.0.)-The analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was not detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit. J • The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below tho reporting limit for an organic analyte B -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampl1ng and reanalysis would be necessary for verif1ca1ion of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte NJ -There was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification and the associated analytical reporting limit was an estimated quantity
5
UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its p1osence. but was not detected above the analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit was an estimated value SOL -sample quant1tat1on hm11: for thoso analytes that do not have SQLs listed. the SOLs were not provided in the analytical data NO • not-detected
3/1312002
Page 3 of 3
001-SS
0-6-
8/811995
Dal.a
SOL1 Concentration Qualifier'
4100
1 0 ND
NO
28
ND
ND
1500 J
82 J
ND
ND
7500 J
55
1700 J
1'0
ND
ND
ND
0 32 ND
0.23 ND
ND
020 ND
ND UJ
39
021
100 JN
300 JN
200 JN
100 JN
200 JN
100 JN
900 J
OIS-SS SS02 (GN014J
0-6-0-6-
8/811995 9/2411990
Data Daza
SOL1 Concentration Qu.ali!ier' SOL' Concentration Qualifier' SOL'
%00 2i'OOO
20 NO 20 21,6 R 0 52 NO 0 53 2.8 J
35 '" 1 ND 1 NO 0.78 Oi'l ND 0.72 ND UJ 1.6
1400 J 1350 J
" J 32.1 J
8 3' J 7.7
20 ND 20 11 J
7')00 J 11600
'7 30.9 J
1900 2210
150 165 J 0 06 NO 0 06 0 25
4 ND 5 11
2000 ND 2400 ND 1200 066 ND 067 NO UJ 0 98
0.5 NO 0.51 ND 1.6 110 ND 150 ND 460
2 ND J 3 ND UJ 0,39
20 ND UJ 20 30.3 J
" 95.4 J
NO '·'
200 JN
300 JN
300 JN
200 Jll
,oo JN
700 JN
500 JN
,ooo J
20000 J
300 J
7300 J
i:\raleigh\projects\10679\26609\Slera-revised\a!lsurtacesoit7.xls:8ackground-Sed1ment
•
•
•
Table 11
Analytical Results from Background Surface Water Samples
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
• -
Number of
Number ot Quantltatcd1 Frequency ol Mean
CAS Analytical Samples Detections Oetectlan Concentratlon1
Analvtc/Parameter1 Number Method (Al 18) (8/A) fun/LI voes
Acetone 67641 82608. 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Benzene 71432 32608 3 0 0.00% 4,17 Bromodichloromethane 75274 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 8romoform 75252 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 8romomethane 74839 82608 3 0 0.00% 5,00 2-Butanone 78933 82608 3 0 0.00% 5.oo· Cartion disulfide 75150 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Carbon tetrachloride 56235 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Chlorobenzene 108907 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Chloroethane 75003 82608 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Chloroform 67663 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Chloromethane 74873 82608 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Oibromochloromethane 124481 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 1. 1-0ichloroethane 75343 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 1.2-Dichlorcethane 107062 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 1, 1-Dichloroethene 75354 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 540590 82608 3 0 0.00% 4,17 1.2-Dichloropropane 78875 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene 10061015 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 trans-1, 3-Dichloropropene 10061026 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Ethylbenzene 100414 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 2-Hexanone 73663715 8260B 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Methylene chloride 75092 82608 3 2 66.67% 2.50 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108101 82608 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Styrene 100425 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 8260B 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Tetrachloroethene 127184 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 • Toluene 108883 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 71556 82609 3 0 0.00% 4.17 1.1.2-Trichloroethane 79005 8260B 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Trich!oroethene 79016 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17 Vinyl acetate 108054 82608 1 0 0.00% 5.00 Vinyl chloride 75014 82608 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Xylenes (total) 1330207 82608 3 0 0.00% 4.17
SVOCs
Acenapthene 83329 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.0C Acenapthylene 208968 8270C 3 0 000% 5.00 Anthracene 120127 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Benzo(a)anthracene 56553 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Benzo{b)fluoranthene 205992 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Benzo(k.Jfluoranthene 207089 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.0C Benzo(ghi)pery!ene 191242 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 8enzo(a)pyrene 50328 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.0C 8enzoic acid 65850 8270C 1 0 0.00% 25.00 8enzyl a!cohol 100516 8270C 1 0 0.00% 5.00 Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111911 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 bis{2-Chloroethyl)-ether 111444 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha!ate 117817 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.0C 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101553 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Carbazole 86748 8270C 2 0 0.00% 5.00 4-Chloroaniline 106478 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 4-Ch!oro-3-methylphenol 59507 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.0C 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2-Chlorophenol 95578 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005723 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Chrysene 218019 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Oibenz(a,h)anthracene 53703 8270C 3 0 Q.00% 5.00 Oibenzofuran 132649 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.0C Di-n-butyf phthalate 84742 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 8270C 3 0 O.OO"lo 5.00 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 641731 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 •
3/1212002
TabltJ 11 ' Analytical Results from Bacl<.grnund Surface Water Samplo9
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizahoth City, North Carolina
Samplo ID:
Sample Depth:
Samplo Date:
Minimum Ma~imum
Concentration Concentration Range ol
(uo/Ll (uo/L) Concontratlonsl
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND NO
ND ND ND
ND tJD ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
2.00 3.00 1.00
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND NO
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
Page 1 0r3
Q-SW-1
surface
512111998
Concentration Data
(ug/L) Qualifier• SOLS
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
2 J 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND \0
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
R-SW-1 SW-02 (GN022)
surface surface
5/22/1998 9/2411990
I Concontra!Jon Data Concentration Data
{ug/L) Oual!ller ' SOL' (ug/l) Quallller . SOLS
ND \0 ND UJ 10 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 NO UJ 5 ND \0 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ \0 ND 10 ND UJ 10 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 NO 10 ND UJ 10 ND \0 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 10
NO 10 ND UJ 5 NO 10 ND UJ 5 ND \0 NO UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5
ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 10
3 J 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 10 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5 ND 10 ND UJ 5
ND UJ 10 ND 10 ND UJ 10
ND 10 ND UJ 5
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND u 50
ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u \0 NO \0 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10
ND \0 ND u 10
ND 10 ND UJ 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND UJ 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u \0 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
,.\r.1leigh\pr0jects\106791256O9\5'-era-revised\1ables'.allsurfacewaler1.xls:Background--Surface Waler
• Number of
Number of Quantltated1 Frequency of Mean
CAS Analytical Samples Detections Detection Concentratlon1
A natyte/Parametor1 Number Method )A) )8) fB/AI {uQ/Ll
1,4-Diehloroben,one 106467 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 3 ,3' -Dichlornben ,'. ICline 91941 8270C 3 0 0.00% 6.67 2.4-Dichloropnonol 51285 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Diethyl phthalato 84662 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2.4-Dimethylphonot 105679 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Dimelhyt phthal;no 131113 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Di-n-octy! phthal;1te 117840 8270C 3 0 0,00% 5.00 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534521 8270C 3 0 0.00% 16.67 2.4-Din11rophenoI 51285 8270C 3 0 0.00% 16.67 2,4-Dinitrotolueno 12142 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2,6-Dinrtroto!ueno 606202 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Fluoranthene 206440 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Fluorene 86737 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Hexach!orobenzone 118741 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Hexachlorocylopontadien e 77474 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5,00 Hexaehloroethano 67721 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 lndeno( 1.2,3-cd)pyrene 193365 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 lsophorone 78591 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2-Methylnaphthalone 91576 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2•Methylphenol 95487 8270C 3 0 0,00% 5.00 4-Methylphenol 108394 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Napthalene 91203 B270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2-Nitroaniline 88744 B270C 3 0 0.00% 16.67 3•N1troaniline 99092 8270C 3 0 0.00% 16.67 4-Nitroaniline 100016 8270C 3 0 0.00% 16.67 Nrtrobenzene 98953 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2-Nitrophenol 88755 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 4-Nitrophenol 100027 8270C 3 0 0.00% 16.67 n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86306 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 n-N1trosodi-n-propylamine 621647 8270c' 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2 ,2' -oxybis( 1-Chtoropropane) 108601 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Pentachlorophonol 87865 8270C 3 0 0.00% 16.57 Phenanthrene 85018 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Phenol 108952 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Pyrene 129000 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 95954 8270C 3 0 0.00% 16.57 2.4,6-Trich!orophenol 88062 8270C 3 0 0.00% 5.00 Total PAHs 8270C 3 3 100.00% 85 00
Pesticides
Aldrin 309002 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.03 alpha-BHC 319846 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0,03 beta-BHC 319857 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.03 delta-BHC 319868 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.03 gamma-BHC (lindane) 58899 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.03 alpha-Chlordane 57749 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.03 gamma-Chlordane 57749 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.03 4.4'-00D 71548 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 4.4'-DOE 72559 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 4.4'-DDT 50293 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 Tota! ODDIDDE/DDT 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 Oieldrin 60571 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.04 Endosu!fan I 959988 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.04 Endosulfan II 33213659 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 Endosutfan sulfate 1031078 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 Endrin 72208 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 Endrin aldehyde 7421934 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.05 Endrin ketone 53494705 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.04 HeptachJor 76448 8081A 2 0 0.00% O.D3 Heptachlor epoxide 1024573 8081A 2 0 0.00% 0.14 Methoxyehlor 72435 8081A 2 0 0.00% 1.38 Toxaphene 8001352 8081A 2 0 0.00% 2.50 •
3112/2002
Tabh1 11
Analytical Results from Background Surface Water Samples
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizaholh City, North Carolina
Sample ID;
Sample Depth:
Sample Date:
Minimum Maximum
Concentration Concentration Range of
luofl] (ug/L) Concentratlonsi
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
85.00 85.00 0.00
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
Page 2 of J
Q-SW-1
surface
5/21/1998
I Concentration Data
(ug/L) Qualllier' SQL1
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND R 25
ND R 25
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 25
ND 25
ND 25
ND 10
ND 10
ND 25
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 25
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 25
ND 10
85
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.05
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.5
ND 5
R-SW-1 SW-02 (GN022)
surface surface
512211998 912411990
Concontratlon Data Concentrallon Data
(ug/L) Qualifier' SOL' (ug/L) Qual!fler . SOLS
ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ClD u 20 rm 10 ND UJ 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND UJ 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND R 25 ND UJ 50
ND R 25 ND UJ 50 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND UJ 10
ND 10 ND UJ 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 25 ND u 50 ND 25 ND u 50
ND 25 ND u 50 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND UJ 10 ND 25 ND UJ 50
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 25 ND UJ 50
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND UJ 10
ND 10 ND u 10 ND 10 ND u 10 ND 25 ND UJ 50 ND 10 ND UJ 10
85 85
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0,05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.05
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.1
ND 0.05
ND 0.05
ND 0.5
ND 5
i.\r.ileigh'.prcjeets\ 106 79'.:26609\5'era.,evised\!ables\allsur1a~.i1er1 xis· Background-Surface Water
•
•
•
3/1212002
.
,
Number of
Number of QuantttatedI
CAS Analytical Samplos Oetecttons Analvte/Parameter 1 Number Method (Al (Bl
PCBs
Aroclor 1016 12674112 8082 2 0 Aroclor 1221 11104282 8082 2 0 Aroclor 1232 11141105 8082 2 0 Aroclor 1242 53469219 8082 2 0 Aroclor 1248 12572205 8082 2 0 Aroclor 1254 11097691 8082 2 0 Aroclor 1 260 11096826 8082 2 0 Total PCBs 8082 2 0 Metals
Aluminum 7429905 60108 3 3 Antimony 7440360 60108 3 0 Arsenic 7440382 60108 3 3 Barium 7440393 60108 3 1 Beryllium 7440417 60108 3 0 Cadmium 7440439 60108 3 0 Calcium 7440702 60108 3 1 Chromium 7440473 60108 3 0 Cobalt 7440484 60108 3 0 Copper 7440508 60108 3 0 lron 7439896 60108 3 3 Lead 7439921 60108 3 1 Magnesium 7439954 60108 3 1 Manganese 7439965 60108 3 3 Mercury 74369976 7471A 3 0 Nickel 7440020 60108 3 0 Potassium 7440097 60108 3 0 Selenium 7782492 60108 3 1 Silver 7440224 60108 3 0 Sodium 7440235 60109 3 3 Thallium 7440280 60108 3 0 Vanadium 7440622 60108 3 0 Zinc 7440666 60108 3 1
General Chemistry
pH 2 2 Total cyanide 57125 9010819014 3 0 Temperature 2 2 Conductivity 2 2 Turbidity 2 2
Footnotes:
1 Includes both estimated (J, 8) and quantrtated results.
Frequency of Mean
Detection Concentrat!on1
{BIAI fuq/L)
0.00% 0.75
0.00% 0.75
0.00% 0.50
0.00% a.so
0.00% 0.50
0.00% 0.50
0.00% 0.25
0.00% 0.00
100.00% 301.33
0.00% 10.00
100.00% 1.73
33.33% 4.90
0.00% 0.40
0.00% 0.72
33.33% 5266.67
0.00% 1.15
0.00% 2.92
0.00% 1.10
100.00% 871.00
33.33% 1.27
33.33% 4566.67
100.00% 159.00
0.00% 0.23
0.00% 3.02
0.00% 1400.30
33.33% 1.00
0.00% 0.85
100.00% 104966.67
0.00% 0.33
0.00% 2.23
33.33% 8.70
100.00% 6.75
0.00% 2.28
100.00% 23.05
100.00% 787.5
100.00% 2.25
Tablri 11
Analytical Results from Backgr,11rnd Surface Waler Samplo-1
Triangle Pacific Sile, Elizahqth City, North Carolina
Sample 10:
Samplo Depth:
Sample Date:
Minimum Maximum
Concentration Concentration Rango or
(uq/LI /uq/LJ Concentrations •
NO NO NO
NO NO NO ND NO NO
ND NO NO
ND NO NO
ND NO NO
NO NO NO
ND NO NO
169.00 271.00 102.00
ND NO NO
1.90 2.10 0.20
ND 0.00 0,00
ND NO NO
ND NO NO ND 0.00 0.00
NO NO NO ND NO NO ND NO NO
706.00 1300,00 594.00
NO 0.50 0.50
ND 0.00 0,00
112.00 323,00 211.00
NO
' NO NO NO NO ND
ND NO NO ND 0.90 0.90
ND NO NO
110000.00 112000.00 2000.00
ND NO NO ND ND ND
ND 0.20 0.20
6.70 6.80 0.10 ND ND NO
22.6 23.5 0.9
778 797 19
2.1 2.4 0.3
2 A value equal to one-hatf the analytical quantitation limit for a given sample result was used for calculation purposes for all 'non-detect" results and other non-quanf1f1able results. 3 Value equal to maximum concentration minus minimum concentration.
Q-SW-1
surface
512111998
Concentration Data
(ug/L) Qualifier'
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
169 8
NO
2.1 8
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
1300
NO
NO
323
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
110000
NO
ND
NO
6.8
ND
22.6
797
2.1
~ Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program {CLP) Functional Guidelines {U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract LaOorato,y Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-941012. Washington. D.C. and USE PA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington. O.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows:
U (N.O.) -The analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was not detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit. J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. B · The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be venfied from the existing data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verif,cation of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. NJ -There was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification and the assoClated analytical reporting limit was an estimated quantity. 5 SOL -sample quantitation limit; for those analytes that do not have SOLs listed. the SOLs were not provided in the analytical data. ND -not detected
Page 3 or J
F.-SW-1 SW-02 (GN022)
surface surface
512211998 912411990
Concentration Data Concentration Cata
SOLS (uglL) Quallfler' SOL1 (ug/LJ Qualifier' SOL1
1 NO 1
2 NO 2
1 NO 1
1 NO 1
1 NO 1
1 NO 1
1 NO 1 NO
271 464
5 NO 5 NO u 55 1.9 8 1.2 J NO 14.7
0.1 NO 0.1 NO u 2 0.3 NO 0.3 NO UJ 4 ND 15800 NO NO u 6 0.9 NO 0.9 NO u 16 0.6 NO 0.6 NO UJ 6 706 607
1 NO 1 2.8 NO 13700
112 42 J 0.1 ND 0.1 NO u 0.2
1.1 NO 1.1 ND u 17 NO NO u 8400
1.8 ND 1.8 1.2 J 1.1 NO 1.1 NO u 4
112000 92900 J 1 ND ' 1 NO UJ 1 ND NO u 13 0.4 NO 0.4 25.7 J
6.7
3.7 NO 3.7 NO u 10 23.5
778
2.4
i:1"aleigh\projec1s\ 1 06791256091Slera-revised\!abjes\ai\surfacewa1er 1 xls:BacKground-Surfa~ Waler
•
•
•
Table 12
Analytical Results from Background Sediment Samples
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Tabl•~ 12
An.1lytlcal Res1Jlts from 8.1ck(Jf')Und Sediment Samples !or the Triangle Pacific Site. Eliz..1belh City, North Carolina
SJl'l'IPl'l ID-C-S0-1 R-S0-1 001-SO S0--03 (GN012) Sample Q'lp!h: Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Number 01 S.1mpl1! 0,1tl!: 5121/1998 512211998 8/8/1 'J95 91241\990 • Number nl auantiwted' Frequency or
I I I I I
GAS Analyucal Sample .. 01!(1!Cl10f'I<; Detection Mean M1mmum Maximum Range of Data 0,lt.t I o,u o,w I Anatvte/P,1rametl!r ~lumber Method 1'1 161 (8/Al Concl!ntratron1 Concentra110n ConcentrJl1on <::oncentr.111on-.i Concentrauon Cu;111tier' SOL' Concentration Cuar111er' SCL1 Concentr:mor. Quar1fier' SOL1 Concen1r;1t1on Quallf1er1 SOL: u voe-. !uglkgJ
.A.cetone •J/<,41 82608 ., ' 2500% 26 625 r,o '5 00 ,5 00 UD ,, " :a r,o ,\J uo UJ 90 Ben;:ene /1.112 82508 ., 0 000% 17 5 iJO UC "D .ID " ;m 28 ,'ID " rm '5 Bromod1chlaro methane ,"i274 8260B ., 0 000% 17.5 "D ND "D UD " UD " UC .13 r,o '5 Bromotorm /'i252 8260B ' 0 000% 17,5 IJD ;m UD UD " UD " IJD '3 r,o 45 Sromomethane /,lH39 82608 4 ' 25 00% 28 5 NO 45 00 45 00 UD 2·1 r,o :a '3 UJ 110 LJJ 90 2-Butancne /11933 82508 ' 0 000% 23 1::!5 ND 110 1m :io ,, UD " llD '3 UD UJ 90 Carbon disulfide /'i150 82608 ., 0 000% 17.5 1m NO UD :m ,, ND 28 ;JD '3 NO 45 Carbon tetrachloride 'i0235 8260B ' 0 000% 17.5 NO tm NO ND " NO 28 rm '3 uo 45 Chlcrobenzene 1()~907 82608 ' 0 0.00% 17 5 r,o NO ''° r:□ 24 r,o 28 r,o 43 1,0 45 Chloroethane i',003 82608 4 0 000'½ 23.125 NO r,o r,o tlD " tlO 28 no " rm UJ 90 Chloroform 1)7',63 B:60B 4 ' 25.00% 20 375 :JD 34 00 34.00 :m 2.: ND 28 MO 43 34 J Chlorcmethane l-1873 S260B 4 0 000% 23 125 NO 1m r,o :m 24 ;m 28 :m 43 r,o UJ 90 Oibromochloromethane 1;',1481 82608 ' 0 COG% 17.5 NO ND NO ;,c ,, NO 28 NO " :10 45 1.1-0ichtoroethane /'jJ43 82608 ' 0 000% 17.5 NO NO r,o ,'10 " no 28 ,'10 43 ''° 45 1,2-Dichloroetnane HJ7062 82608 ' 0 000% 17.5 r,o ND NO 110 " NO 28 fl□ 43 uo 45 1, 1-Dichlcroethene /5354 82608 ' 0 000% 17,5 NO "D MD IJD " ~JO 28 rm 43 uo 45 1.2-0ichloro~thene (Total) !j4Q590 82608 ' 0 000% 17.5 NO ND NO :m 24 "D 28 NO '3 r,o 45 1,2-Dtch!oropropane ,'{JB75 82608 ' 0 000% 17.5 tlD ND NO ND 24 r,o 28 UD 43 "D 45 c1s-1,3-0ichtoropropene 10061015 82608 4 0 000% 17.5 NO NO ND r,o " NO 28 uo 43 1,0 45 trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene 10()61026 8260B ' 0 0,00% 17.5 NO NO ND NO " ND 28 NO 43 r,o 45 Ethylbeniene 100414 82608 4 0 0,00% 17,5 r,o NO ND NO ,, ND 28 NO 43 r,o " 2-He~anone l:J003715 82608 4 0 0.00% 23.125 ND NO NO ,m '4 ND 28 r,o 43 NO 90 Methylene chlonde 15092 82608 4 0 000% 17,5 NO ND NO ND " ND 28 NO 43 ND 45 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108101 82608 4 0 000% 23.125 ND ND NO ND 24 NO 28 1,0 43 rm 90 Styrene \00425 82608 4 0 000% 17.5 NO ND ND UD 24 NO 28 tlO 43 NO 45 1, 1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane 7[}345 82608 4 0 0,00% 17.5 ND NO ND NO ,, ND 28 NO 43 NO 45 T etrach/oroethene 127184 82608 4 1 2500% 18.25 ND 22 50 22.50 " J 24 ND 28 rm 43 1m 45 Toluene 108883 82608 4 ' 2500% 23.625 ND 47.00 47.00 ND 24 NO 28 NO 43 47 J 1.1.1 • Trichloioethane 71556 82608 4 ' 25.00% 16.75 NO 22.50 22.50 9 J 24 NO 28 NO 43 NO 45 1, 1,2-Tnchloroethan11 70005 82608 4 0 0,00% 17.5 ND NO NO 1m 24 NO 28 NO 43 NO 45 Trichloroethene 79016 82608 4 ' 2500% 15.75 ND 22.50 22.50 5 J " ND 28 ND 43 1m 45 Vinyl acetate 108054 82608 ' 0 0.00% 11.25 NO NO ND IJD 90 Vinyl chloride 75014 82608 4 0 000% 23.125 NO NO ND NO 24 ND 28 NO 43 NO UJ 90 Xylenes (total) 1330207 82608 4 0 0.00% 17.5 ND ND NO ND 24 NO 28 NO 43 NO 45 0 svocs
Acenaphthene 63329 8270C 4 ' 25.00% 697.5 NO 1450.00 1450.00 NO 800 ND 920 480 J NO 2900 Acenapnthylene 208968 8270C 4 0 000% 752.5 ND NO NO ND 800 NO 920 ND 1400 ND 2900 Anthracene 120127 8270C •4 ' 25.00% 737,5 ND 14S0.00 1450.00 ND 800 ND 920 640 J NO 2900 Benzo(a)anth racene 56553 8270C 4 ' 25.00% 1202.5 NO 1450,00 1450.00 NO 800 ND 920 2500 ND 2900 Benzo(b) fluoranthene 205992 8270C 4 2 5000% 1605 400.00 1450.00 1050.00 ND 800 470 J 920 4'00 J ND 2900 8enzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 8270C 3 0 0.00% 577.5 NO ND ND ND 800 NO 920 NO 2900 Benzo(ghi)perylene 191242, 8270C 4 1 25.00% 722.5 ND 1450,00 1450.00 ND 800 ND 920 580 J ND 2900 Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 8270C 4 0 0.00% 777.5 ND ND NO ND 800 NO 920 NO 1600 NO 2900 Benzoic acid 65850 8270C 1 0 0.00% 1875 NO ND NO ND 15000 Benzyl alcohol 100515 8270C 1 0 0.00% 362.5 ND NO NO ND 2900 Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 8270C 4 0 0.00% 802,5 ND ND ND ND 800 NO 920 ND 1800 NO 2900 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111911 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO NO NO ND 800 ND 920 NO 1400 ND 2900 bis{2-Chloroethyl)-ether 111444 8270C 4 0 000% 752.5 ND ND NO ,m 800 ND 920 ND 1400 ND 2900 bis('2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117817 8270C 4 3 75.00% 3757.5 73000 12000.00 11270.00 1300 800 730 J 920 NO 2000 12000 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101553 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO NO NO ND 800 ND 920 NO 1'00 ND 2900 Carbazole 86748 8270C 3 1 33,33% 366.7 ND 45000 460.00 ND 800 ND 920 240 J 4-Chloroanihne 106478 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND ND ND ND 800 NO 920 NO 1400 NO 2900 4-Chtoro-3-methylphenot 59507 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND NO NO 800 ND 920 ND '400 ND 2900 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO NO ND ND 800 ND 920 ND 1'00 ND 2900 2-Chlorophenol 95578 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND ND ND ND 800 NO 920 NO 1400 NO 2900 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005723 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND NO ND 800 ND 920 NO 1400 NO 2900 Chrysene 218019 8270C 4 2 50.00% 1457.5 400,00 1450,00 1050 00 ND 800 480 J 920 3500 NO 2900 Di benz(a. h)anth racene 53703 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND ND ND ND 800 NO 920 ND 1400 ND 2900 Oibenzofuran 132649 8270C 4 1 25.00% 665 ND 1450.00 1450.00 NO 800 ND 920 350 J NO 2900 Oi-n-butyl phthalate 84742 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND NO ND 800 ND 920 NO 1400 NO 2900 1,2-0ichlorobenzene 95501 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO NO ND ND 800 ND 920 IJD 1400 ND 2900 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541731 8270C 4 0 000% 752.5 ND ND ND UD 800 NO 920 ND 1400 NO 2900 1,4-0ichlorobenzene 106467 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND ND NO NO 800 ND 920 ND 1400 NO 2900 3,3' -Oichlorobenzidine 91941 8270C 4 0 0.00% 1115 NO ND NO ND 800 ND 920 NO 1400 ND 5800 2, 4-Dich lorophenol 51285 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND ND ND 800 ND 920 ND 1400 1m 2900 Diethyl phthalate 84862 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND NO NO ND 800 NO 920 NO 1400 NO 2900 2,4-0imethylphenol 105579 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752,5 ND ND NO NO 800 ND 920 ND 1400 NO 2900 Dimethyl phthalate 131113 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND ND NO ND 800 ND 920 NO '400 ND 2900 Di-n-octyt phthalate 117840 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND ND ND 800 ND 920 ND "00 NO 2900 4,6-Dinitro.2-methyfphenol 534521 8270C 4 0 0.00% 2882.5 NO NC ND rm R 2000 ND R 2300 ND 3600 NO 15000 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51285 8270C ' 0 0.00% 2862.5 NO NO NO NO R 2000 ND R 2300 rm 3600 NO UJ 15000 2,4-Dinitro:oluene 12142 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND NO NO NO 800 ND 920 ND 1.:00 ND 29GO 2, 8-Dinitrotoluene 606202 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NC ND NO ND 800 r,o 920 NO 1'00 NO 2900 Fluoranthene 206440 8270C 4 ' 50.00% 2705 400.00 1450.00 1050.00 ND 800 770 J 920 8200 NO 2900 F!uorene 86737 5270C 4 ' 25.00% no NO 1450.00 1450.00 ND 800 NO 920 570 J ND 2900 Hexachlorobenzene 118741 S270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND NO NO NO 800 ND 920 ND 1400 ND 2900 Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND NO ND ND 800 ND 920 ND 1400 NO 2900 Hexachlorocylo pentad iene 77474 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752 5 ND ND ND ND 800 ND 920 ND I 1400 NO UJ 2900 Hexac~loroethane 87721 8270C 4 0 0,00% 752.5 ND ND NO ND 800 ND 920 ND I 1400 ND 2900
31121:002
i_lnleiQh\prOJ•otsl 1 0579\25609\!:ler.He,-,Sed\a.l ••d,ment.'.1.,1,: Table-12
T,1t,l1'! 12
Analytical Results tram Background Sediment Samples for !he Triangle Pacific Site, Elii:abeth City, Norlh C.irolina
. SJm~11110 C-S0-1 R-S0-1 001-SO SO-OJ (GN012) S.tmp1, 0111,111: Sedtmenl Sed1men1 • Sediment Sea1men1 Number or S,1mcreo.,1e: 5/2111998 512211998 l!/8/1995 91241\990 • Number ol Qu,m111a1ea' Frequency or
I I
CAS Analyucal S,1mplo• Detectic:in-. Oetec11on Mean Minimum MJx1mum R;-mge of D,tta O;it.1 O;ita 0,,1.1 An;il•"e/P;irameler Number Method IA> ,., 18/Al Concenlr,1t1on1 Concentriltlon Concentration Concen1rnt1on .. i Concentr,lllon Quahrlor" SOL~ Concentr;i11on Qu;i11tier• SQL~ Concen1r;i11on Qu,111tter1 SQL1 Concentrnt1on Qu;111tier1 SQL1 lnaeno(1,:",3-cd)pyrene 193365 a::>i"OC 4 I :"500% 7:"2.5 /ID 1450 00 1450 00 /ID 800 :JD 9:"0 580 J 110 :;>900 lsophorone 18591 0270C ., 0 000% 752.5 MD jJD NO no 300 /,0 920 tJD 141)0 rm :soo 2-Methyfnaph:ha lene 91575 B270C 4 0 000% 752.5 ;10 f,0 tJO 110 800 ND s::o 110 1,101) tl□ 2GOO 2-Methylphenol 95481 C270C 4 0 000% 75::' 5 110 f,0 ND ;JD 800 NO 920 /ID 1.:00 NO woo 4-Methylpnenol 108394 a2,oc 4 0 0.00% 75::>.5 .. m /ID NC :JD 800 NO 9::>0 NO 1,100 110 2900 Naptha!ene 91:03 3:;oc 4 0 000¾ 75'2.5 :10 :10 NO 110 800 t:D 920 t~D 1'00 NO :900 2-r:i:roanilir.e 88/ 4-l 8270C 4 0 000% 2862.5 ND ,,o ;JO 110 :ooo ND 2300 rm 3000 NO 15000 3-Nitroaniline 99092 a21oc 4 0 000% :86::>.S NO rm tJD tJD :000 :JD 2300 ND "JUOO no 15000 4-Nitroanihne 1000:5 32/0C ' 0 000% 2862 5 iJD NO ,'JO 11D :ooo fJD 2300 ND 3600 /JD 15000 N1trcben.::ene 98953 8270C 4 0 000% 752 5 i:o NO NO :JO 800 NO 920 iJD 1'00 no 2900 2-Nitroohenol 88755 3270C 4 0 000% 752.5 NO ND tJO 110 aoo ND 9::,0 NO 1400 r:o 2900 4-N,trophenol 1000:27 8270C 4 0 000% :862.5 NO fJO ND NO 2000 rm 2300 ND 3600 fJD 15000 n-N,trasoc!i chenylamine 86306 8270C ' 0 000% 752.5 NO NO NO t/0 800 ND 920 ilD 1·100 NO 2900 n-N1trosodi-n-propylamine 62i647 8270C ' 0 0,00% 752.5 NO ND ;JO rm 800 NO 920 ,m 1400 ND 2900 2. 2' -oxybis(l -Chloropropane) 108601 8270C ' 0 0,00% 752.5 NO ND NO NO 800 NO 920 ND 1400 NO 2900 Pentachloro phenol 87865 3270C ' 0 0,00% ::>862.5 fJO ND ND NO 2000 ND 2300 ND 3600 NO 15000 Phenanlhrene 85018 8270C ' 1 25 00% 877.5 ND 1450 00 1450 00 /·JO 800 ND 920 1200 J NO 2900 Phenol 108952 8270C ' 0 000% 752 5 rm fJD NO NO 800 NO 920 NO 1400 NO 2900 Pyrene 129000 8270C 4 ' 5000% 2212.5 400 00 1450 00 1050.00 ND 800 1000 920 8000 NO 2900 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 8270C 4 0 0.00% 752.5 ND ND ND ND 800 ND 920 )JD 1400 tJD 2900 2.4,5-Trich!oroph encl 95954 8270C 4 0 0.00% 2862 5 /ID NO ND ND 2000 ND 2300 ND 3600 ND 15000 2,4.6-T,ichlorophenol 88062 8270C ' 0 000% 752 S NO NO ND ND 800 f,0 920 ND 1'00 NO 2900 Total PAHs 8270C ' 4 100 00% 18025 5800 00 24650.00 17850 00 6800 87C-O 31950 24650 0 Pesticides (ug/kg)
Aldrin 309002 8081A 3 0 000"'1, 17,5 NO NO ND ND ,.1 ND ,.7 NO 7 alpha-BHC 319846 8081A 3 0 000% 17.5 NO ND NO ND 4.1 ND 4_7 ND 7 beta-8HC 319857 8081A 3 0 0.00% 11.25 ND ND ND ND 4.1 NO 4,7 ND 7 delta-8HC 319868 8081A 3 0 0.00% 23.125 ND NO ND ND ,.1 NO 4,7 ND 7 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 58899 8081A 3 0 0.00% 17.5 ND NO ND NO 4.1 ND 4.7 ND 7 alpha-Chlordane 57749 8081A 3 1 33.33% 2.75 NO 2. 70 2.70 ND 4.1 2.7 J 4.7 ND 7 gamma-Chlordane 57749 8081A 3 1 33.33% 4.0S NO 6.60 650 ND 4.1 6.5 J ,.7 ND 7 4-4"-DOD 71548 8081A 3 2 66.67% 18 17.00 27.00 10 00 17 80 27 J 92 NO 20 4-4'-DDE 72559 8081A 3 3 100,00% 80 62.00 100,00 38.00 62 8.0 100 92 18 4-4'-DDT 50293 8081A 3 1 33 33% 6.43 NO 7.70 7.70 7.7 J 8.0 ND UJ 9.2 ND 14 Total ODD/DOE/DDT 8081A 2 2 100.00% 56.8S 27.00 86,70 59.70 86.7 J 80 27 J 9.2 Dieldrin 60571 8081A 3 1 33,33% 5.35 NO 7.00 7.00 NO 4.1 7 4.7 NO 14 Endosulfan I 959988 8081A 3 1 33.33% 4.18 ND 7.00 7 00 ND 4.1 7 ,.7 ND 7 Endosulfan II 33213659 8081A 3 0 0.00% 577.5 ND NO ND ND 80 NO 9.2 ND 14 Endosullan sulfate 1031018 6081A 3 1 33.33% 6.17 NO 6.90 6,90 69 J 80 ND 9.2 ND 14 Endrin 72208 6081A 3 0 0.00% 1875 NO NO ND ND 8.D ND 9.2 NO 10 Endrin aldehyde 7421934 8081A 3 1 33.33% 5.87 NO 6.00 6 00 6 J 8.0 ND 92 NO 14 Endrin ketone 53494705 8081A 3 0 0.00% 802.5 NO ND ND ND 80 ND 9.2 NO 14 Heptachlor 76448 6081A 3 0 0.00% 752.5 ND ND ND ND ,.1 NO UJ 4.7 ND 7 Heptachlor epoxide 1024573 8081A 3 0 0.00% 752.5 ND NO ND ND 4.1 NO 4.7 ND 7 Methoxychlor 72435 8081A 3 0 0.00% 485 NO ND NO ND 41 NO 47 ND 70 Toxaphene 8001352 8081A 3 0 000% 752.5 NO ND NO ND 410 ND 470 ND 700 0 PCBs (ug/kg) . Aroclor 1016 12674112 8082 3 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND ND ND 80 ND 92 ND 1'0 Aroclor 1221 11104282 8082 3 0 0.00% 752.5 ND NO ND ND 160 NO 190 ND 290 Aroclor 1232 11141165 8082 3 0 0.00% 752.5 NO NO NO ND so NO 92 ND 140 Aroclor 1242 53469219 8082 3 0 0.00% 752 5 NO NO ND NO 60 ND 92 ND 140 Aroclor 1248 12672296 8082 3 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND ND ND 80 ND 92 NO 140 Aroclor 1254 11097691 8082 3 1 33.33% 80 NO 130.00 130.00 ND 60 13D 92 ND 140 Aroclor 1260 1109682S 6082 3 2 66.67% 116 67 120,00 160.00 40.00 120 80 160 92 ND 140 Total PC6's 8082 2 2 100.00% 205 120.00 29000 170.00 120 80 290 92 □ Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum 7429905 6010B 4 4 100.00% 32775 27800.00 33000.00 5200.00 33000 30300 40000 27800 Antimony 7440360 60108 4 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND ND ND R 2.3 fJO R 2.5 NO 60 ND R Arsenic 7440382 60106 4 3 75.00% 4.95 5.10 6.60 1.50 6.1 6.6 ND UJ 4 5.1 J Barium 7440393 60108 4 4 100,00% 105.45 95.80 114.00 18.20 95.8 114 100 112 Beryllium 7440417 60108 4 1 25.00% 0.9 ND 1 .70 170 09 8 NO ND 2 ND 3.4 Cadmium 7440439 60106 ' 1 2500% 2.3425 NO 4,40 4,40 ND 0.14 44 NO 3.1 NO UJ 6.7 Calcium 7440702 60108 4 2 50.00% 2820 0.00 6280.00 6280.00 NO ND 5000 J 6280 J Chromium 7440473 60108 ' 4 100.00% 45 4 37.10 61.30 24 20 37.1 61.3 " J 37.2 J Cotalt 7440484 6010B 4 3 75.00% 8,875 4.70 13 40 8.70 4.7 B 7.6 B 9.8 J ND 26.8 Copper 7440508 60106 4 3 75.00% 23,8 10.50 32.40 21.90 10 5 B 32.4 ND 50 26.5 J Iron 7439896 60106 4 4 100.00% ;5700 12400.00 16800.00 4400.00 12-100 i6800 24000 J 136C-O Lead 7"-39921 6010B ' 4 100.00% 56.55 43.50 78.00 34 50 43.5 65.7 39 78 J Magnesium 7439954 60108 4 2 50.00% 2317.5 0.00 3670.00 3670.00 ND ND 5600 ' 3570 Manganese 7439965 60108 ' 3 75 00'!', 114.375 S9.50 113,00 53.50 59 5 113 180 ,m 210 Mercury 74369976 7471A 4 2 5000% 0.20875 0.13 0.38 0.25 0.13 02 NO 0.25 ND 0,76 Nickel 7440020 60108 4 1 25.00% 10.4375 NO 17.50 17.50 ND 17.5 B fJO 20 ND 28.5 Potassium 7440097 60108 ' 1 25.00% 750.275 NO 900.00 900.00 1.1 J NO ND I 4200 NO 1800 Selenium 7782492 6010B ' 0 000% 752.5 ND fJO NO ND ND UJ 0,87 ND 2.9 NO UJ 1.9 Silver 7440224 60108 4 1 25 00% 1.33625 NO 3.35 335 ND 0.51 0,64 B NO ! 2.2 NO 6.7 Sodium 7440235 6010B 4 1 25 00% 1575 NO 900,00 900.00 ND NO 5400 i NO 1800 Thallium 7440280 80108 ' 0 0.00% 752.5 NO ND ND ND 0" ND ND 9.00 NO UJ 1.90 Vanadium 7440622 60108 4 3 75.00% 34.525 30.40 40,20 9.80 37.5 30.4 NO i UJ 60 40 2 J Zinc 7440666 60108 4 3 75.00% 153.35 60 00 310,00 250.00 73 4 310 170 ! ND 120.00 O General Chemistry
I I
Total cyanide (mg/kg) 57125 90108/9014 2 1 50.00% 0.4675 NO 0.59 0,69 O.i:9 8 NO 0.49
•
•
•
Tablll 12 An~lytical Results from Background Sediment Samples for the Triangle Pacific Sile, Elizabelh City, North Carolina
Number or
Number ol Quanut.:ited' Frequency of CAS Anary11cal S-1mplo11 Detection, Detection Mean Minimum Ma)(Imum Ran9e of AnalvtofParameter /lumber Method ,., fBI fBfAl -Concentratlon1 Concentration Concentration Concentration'>' Tenta1Ivety lden11Ued Compound'> (TIC'>]
Gamma -Te1pinene !,0,'!54 8:270C 1 l -100.00% WO flD :-oo H<!xaned1oic Ac,d, Diocty! Es 1;']795 s:7oc 1 l 10000% 80000 r,O 60000 Unknown Hydrocarbon 8270C l 1 100.00% 7000 f/0 ,000 14 Unknown Compounds (Total) 8270C 1 l 10000% 125000 fJD 125000 2 Unknown Acids (Tot.ii) 6270C 1 1 100.00% 1200 ND 1200 10 Umdent1f1ed Compounds 8270C 1 l 100,00% ,0000 f/0 ,0000 Pmene 8270C 1 1 100.00% 2000 f/0 2000 Methyl(Methyle!hyl)Ben.:ene 8270C 1 1 100.00% 1000 NO 1000 Tetradecanoic Acid 8270C 1 1 100.00% 600 1/0 600 Hexadecenoic Acid 8270C 1 1 100 00% 5000 NO 500C Hexadecanoic Acid 8270C 1 1 100.00% 600C 1/0 6<100 Ben.:onuo,an:hene 8270C 1 1 10000% 2000 NO 2000
Footnotes·
Includes both estimated (J, BJ arid quarllI!.1ted results,
A value equal to one-half the analytical '11J,rnt1ta:Ion limit for a given sampln rr,,;ult was used tor calculation purposes for all Mnon-detecr results and other non-quant1fial:le result,; Va!ue equal to maximum concentration mmus minimum concen1ratI0n.
,00
60000
7000
1250,,,"0
1200
20000
200C
1000
600
50<)0
6000
2000
S.impllJ ID: □-SD-1
S.impht O•plh: SodImon1
Samplo O~to: 512111 !:198
Concentrauon I Data
Qua@et'
Data validation quahf1ers based on the PmIect Quality Assurance Project Pl,1n (QAPP) and U.S EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 19g4_ USEP4 ContT.:ict Laborator,· Pr01Jram National Functional Goidelines for Organic Oala Review. EPA-540/R-941012. Washington, D.C and USEPA ContNJC/ Laboratory Pr09ram National Fvnc1iona/ Guidelines for Inorganic Data Reviaw. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows·
U (N.D.) • The analyte was analyzed lor •I~ potential presence but was not d'llected above the associated analytical quanhtatIon reportmg limit J • The associated numerical valuo was ,m estimated qua11tIty below the reporting hm1t for an organic ana!yte B • The associated numerical value was -ln estimated quantity below the r11portmg tim1t for an inorganic analyte. R • The d.ita were unusable. The presence or absence cf the anatyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verif1cat1on of the presence and/or concentration o! the rejected analyte. NJ· There was presumptive evidence to m.i~e a tentative ide1111ficat1on and the associated analytical reporting limit was an estimated quantity. UJ • The analyte was analyzed for I~ pre,.r.r1ce. but was not detected above th11 anal~ticaf reporting limit. The associated reportmg limit was an estimated value. ~ SQL • sample quan11tation limit. for tho,.11 ;malytes that do not have SQls h,ted, the SQls were not provided in the analytical data ND -not detected
l/1212002
PaQ• 3 01 3
R-SD-1
Sed1mon1
5122/1998
I Concentration I Data
SCL~ Qualifier"
00\-SO S0-03 (GN012)
Sediment SodIment
81811995 9n411990
I SCL' I o,u I Concentra1Ion Qua111·1a,-SQL1 Concentration I o.,u I
cualif1er' SQL1
,oo J
80000 J
7000 J
1:::sooo J
1200 J wooo J
200C JtJ
1000 JN
600 Jt{
5000 JN
5000 JN
2000 JN
•
•
•
Table 13
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil
Derived from Table I
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
•
•
3/1212002
' ' Maximum Sample
CAS Detected Data Quantitation Analvte/Parameter 1 Number Concentration Oualifior2 Limit voes (ug/kg)
T etrach!oroethene 127184 2·10 66
Toluene 108883 280 24
SVOCs
Anthracene 120127 260 J 430 Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 4600 J 4800
Fluoranthene 206440 5800 J 4800 Phenanthrene 85018 4400 J 4800
Pyrene 129000 15000 J 4800 Total PAHs 66700
Pesticides (ug/kg)
beta-BHC 319857 13 J 25
Total DDD/DDEIDDT 87 3.9 PCBs (ug/kg)
Total PCBs 7600 480
Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum 7429905 16000 NA Antimony 7440360 17 R NA Arsenic 7440382 13.2 NA Barium 7440393 329 NA Beryllium 7440417 1.2 B NA Cadmium 7440439 2.6 J NA Chromium 7440473 62.7 J NA Cobalt 7440484 31.2 NA Copper 7440508 95.6 NA
Iron 7439896 15700 NA Lead 7439921 593 J NA Manganese 7439965 354 J NA Vanadium 7440622 25 J NA Zinc 7440666 1040 J NA
General Chemistry
Total cyanide {mg/kg 57125 1,7 NA
Footnotes:
Table 13
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil
Derived From Table 1
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Location 0-f Number of
Maximum Number of Quantitated Frequency of Additional
Detected Samples Detections Detection Screening Hazard
Concentration (Al (Bl (B/AI Criterion QuotientJ
o.ss.1 11 5 45.45% 3800 0.063
B·SS• 1 (grab) 11 8 72.73% 1400 0.20
D-SS-1 10 1 10.00% 10000 0.026 A-SS-1 10 4 40.00% 700 6.57
A-SS-1 10 6 60.00% 10000 0.58 A-SS-1 10 6 60.00% 5000 0.88
A-SS-1 10 6 60.00% 10000 1.50 A-SS-1 10 10 100.00% 20000 2.41
A-SS-1 10 4 40.00% .. ..
004-SS 10 5 50.00% .. ..
A-SS-1 11 3 27.27% 50 152.00
003-SS 11 11 100.00% 600 26.67 SS01 (GN013) 11 2 18.18% 5 3.4 F-SS-1 11 7 63.64% 19 0.69 B-SS-1 (comp.) 11 11 100.00% 200 1.65
F-SS-1 11 s 45.45% 10 0.12 S501 (GN013) 11 4 36.36% 3.8 0.68
S501 (GN0131 11 11 100.00% 1 62.70
S501 (GN013) 11 10 90.91% so 0.62
A-SS-1 11 8 72.73% 63 1.52 D-SS-1 11 9 81.82% .. ..
SS01 (GN013) 11 11 100.00% 70 8.47
S501 (GN013) 11 11 100.00% 500 0.71 003-SS 11 9 81.82% 20 1.25
A-SS-1 11 11 100.00% 200 5.20
A-SS-1 8 5 62,50% 1.0 1.70
1 Only includes analytes retained as potential ecological COPCs from Step 2 preliminary ecological screening in Table 1.
Maximum Frequency,
Concentration Magnitude, Analyte Screening Exceeds and Pattern Retained as Background Background? Issues COPC?
Concentration4 (Yes or No) (Yes or No) {Yes or No)
10.75 Yes No No
10.75 Yes No No
557.5 No Yes No
770 Yes No Yes
1062.5 Yes No No
612.5 Yes No No
1747.5 Yes No Yes
377.78 Yes No Yes
1.9 Yes No Yes
69.33 Yes No Yes
42 Yes No Yes
20905 No No No
21.05 No Yes No
1.6625 Yes No No
99.15 Yes No Yes
0.695 Yes No No
1.1275 Yes No No
29.75 Yes No Yes
8.85 Yes No No
20.65 Yes No Yes
17195 No No No
84.05 Yes No Yes
299.5 Yes No No
31.25 No No No
126.35 Yes No Yes
2.255 No No No
2 Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines {U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, O.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows:
J · The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. B · The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resamp!ing and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. J Hazard quotient = maximum analyte concentration/additional screening criterion
Screening background concentration for each ana!yte is two times the mean concentration for that analyte in background samples collected at the Site (Table 10). 5 Reason$ for Potential GOPC Deletion
(1 j -Hazard Quotient < 1 for additional screening criteria
[2] -Maximum concentration less than background screening concentration
{3] -Frequency, Magnitude, or Pattern Issue -discussed in text
Reason(s)
for COPC
Deletion5
[1[
[11
[11,[31
{11
[11
[21
121,[31
111
[11
[11
111
[21
(11
111
[21
6 Sources of additional screening criteria from Friday, G. P. 1998. Ecological Screening VaJues for Surface Water, Sediment. and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site. Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-0010. 67 PP-1 · Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). March 1997. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. CCME, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 2 -Beyer, W. N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(2).
Source of
Additional
Analyte Retained as Screening
Potential COPC Criterion'
1
1
2
Benzo(a)pyrene 1
2
2
Pyrene 2
Total PAHs 3
beta-BHC
Total ODO/DOE/DDT
Total PCBs 2
3
4
1
Barium 2
4
1
Chromium 3
2
Copper 1
Lead 1
4
2
Zinc 3
2
2
3 -Efroymson. R. A., M. E. Will, and G. W. Suter. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National laboratory, Oak Ridge~ TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. 4 · Efroymson, R. A., M. E. Will, G. W. Suter, and AC. Wooten. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3 . 5 -Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment (MHSPE). 9 May 1994. Intervention Values and Target Values -Soil Quality Standards. Directorate-General for Environmental Protection. Department of Soil Protection. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Page 1 ar 1 i. lraleigh\proJects\ 1 0679126609\51era-rev1sed\allsurfaceso117 .xis. Step3-Screen 1
•
•
•
Table 14
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil
Derived from Table 2
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
•
3/1312002
Maximum
CAS Detected Data
Analyte/Parameter 1 NurnbN Concentration Qualifier2
o voes (uglkg)
Acetor1ii 676•11 2400 J 1.2-0ir.tiroropropane I 88"i5 16
Methyf•:ne chloride 750!:Q 120
1, 1, 1 -Trrchloroethane 7155G 58
Tnchlorn<:.!!hene 7901G 47 J
O SVOCs
Benzo(;1)anthracene 56553 4200 J Benzo(t>)nuoranthene 2059!:l2 3800 J Benzo(k)nuoranthene 2070tl9 3000 J Ben2o(gh1)perylene 191242 440
Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 8200 J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117817 1600000 J Chrysene 21801~ 3200 J lndeno(1,2, 3-cd)pyrene 193365 3500 J 2-Methylnaphthalene 91576 64 J
D Pestlcldes (uglkg)
alpha-Chlordane 57749 60 J gamma-Chlordane 57749 52 J 4.4"-0DD 71548 14 J 4,4'-DDE 72559 58
4,4'-00T 50293 so J Endosullan sulfate 1031078 41 J
Endrin aldehyde 7421934 7 J Heptachlor 76448 2.6 J Heptachlor epoxide 1024573 15 J
D PCBs {ug/kg) . Aroc!or 1254 11097691 5200
Aroclor 1260 11096826 2400
D Metals (mgfkg)
Calcium 7440702 22000 J Magnesium 7439954 2200
Potassium 7440097 1500
□ Tics
Hexadecanoic Acid 90
Methy!phenanthrene 60
1 Unidentified 2000
Footnotes:
Sample
Quantitation
Limit
1900
12
13
12
13
4800
4800
4800
430
7600
970000
4800
4800
390
9.8
9.8
19
3.9
19
19
4.3
2
19
460
460
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 14
Potential Ecological COPC Rorlnement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil
OerlVlld From Table 2
Trlangle Pacific Silo, Elizabeth City, North CaroUna
Number of Frequency
Number of Quantitated ot Additional
Location of Maximum Samples Detections Detection Screening Detected Concentration !Al 181 18/Al Criterion
SS01 (GN013) 11 1 9.09% ..
8-SS-1 (grab) 11 1 9.09% 700000 O-SS-1 11 3 27.27% ..
8-SS-1 (grab) 11 4 36.36% ..
D-SS-1 11 3 27.27% ..
A-SS-1 10 5 50.00%
A-SS-1 10 6 60.00%
A-SS-1 7 4 57.14%
0-SS-1 10 3 30.00% ..
E-SS-1 10 3 30.00% ..
A-SS-1 10 9 90.00% ..
A-SS-1 10 6 60.00% ..
A-SS-1 10 4 40.00%
004-SS 10 1 10.00%
E-SS-1 10 3 30.00% ..
E-SS-1 10 5 50.00% ..
E-SS-1 10 3 30.00%
004-SS 10 5 50.00% ..
E-SS-1 10 5 50.00% ..
E-SS-1 10 4 40.00% •·
O-SS-1 10 1 10.00% ..
E-SS-1 10 1 10.00% ..
E-SS-1 10 4 40.00% ..
A-SS-1 10 2 20.00% ..
A-SS-1 11 3 27.27% ..
002-SS 11 4 36.36% ..
003-SS 11 11 100.00% ..
E-SS-1 11 7 63.64%
002-SS 3 1 33.33% ..
004-SS 3 1 33.33%
002-SS 3 1 33.33%
1 Only includes analytes retained as potential ecological COPCs from Step 2 preliminary ecological screening in Table 2.
Maximum Frequency,
Concenlration Magnitude,
Screening Exceeds and Pattern
Haz;:ird Background Background? Issues
Quotient3 Concentration' (Yes or Nol /Yes or No)
.. 12 Yes No
2.29E-05 10.75 Yes Yes
.. 10.75 Yes No
.. 9.75 Yes t-Jo
10.75 Yes No
912.5 Yes No
1597.5 Yes Clo
495 Yes No .. 937.5 No No
.. 437.5 Yes No
.. 920 Yes Clo
862.5 Yes No
772.5 Yes No
.. 437.5 No Yes
.. 1.90 Yes No .. 1.90 Yes No
.. 8.67 Yes No .. 51.2 Yes No .. 14.5 Yes No .. 12.5 Yes No
.. 3.80 Yes No .. 1.90 Yes No .. 1.90 Yes No
.. 38.00 Yes No
42 Yes No
.. 35575 No No .. 4050 No No .. 2295 No No
.. 0 Yes Yes
.. 0 Yes Yes .. 0 Yes Yes
2 Data validation qualifiers based on the proJect Quality Assurance Project Plan (GAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-941012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Funct'1onal Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows:
J · The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte, B · The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R • The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. Hazard quotient= maximum analyte concentrationladd1tional screening cr1tenon
Screening background concentration for each analyte Is two times the mean concentration for that analyte in background samples collected at the Site (Table 10) 5 Reason<; for Potential COPC Deletion
[1) • Hazard Quotient <1 for additional screening criteria
{2] -Maximum concentration less than background screening concentration
[3] • Frequency, Magnitude, or Panern Issue. discussed in text
Analyte
Retained as
COPC?
!Yes or No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
6 Sources of additional screening criteria from Friday, G. P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surface Water, Sediment. and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, ·south Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-0010. 67 pp. 1 • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). March 1997. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines, CCME, Winnipeg, Manitoba 2 • Beyer, W. N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(2),
Reason(sJ
for COPC Analyte Retained as Polenlial
·oeletion) COPC
Acetone
{1 l.[31
Methylene chloride
1.1, 1-Tnchloroethane
Trichloroethene
·•
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoran!hene
Benzo(k)nuoranthene
[21
Butyl benzy1 phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
lndeno( 1, 2.3-cd)pyrene
[2]
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DOO
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endosu!fan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
{21
{2]
{2]
Hexadecanoic Acid
Methylphenanthrene
1 Unidentified
3 • Efroymson, R. A, M. E. Will, and G. W. Suter. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and l.11ter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Rioge, TN ES/ERfTM-126/R2 4 · Efroymson, R. A, M. E. Will. G. W. Suter, and AC. Wooten. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plarns: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ERfTM-85/R3. 5 • Ministry ot Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment (MHSPE). g May 1994. lnteNention Values and Target Va"lues. Soil Quality Standards. Directorate-General for Environmental Protection, Department of Soil Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands. •· not available
NA not available
Source of
Additional
Screening
Criterion8
3
1
5 (endrin
used as a
surrogate)
PBge 1 of 1 i.va1e,gh'projects\1067S\26609\5\e111-re"'sed'latlles\akU"faees0117.ids·Step3-SereenJ
•
•
•
Table 15
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Soil
Derived from Table 3
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Ana Iv to/Parameter 1 CAS Numbor
voes (ug/kg)
Benzene 71432
Bromodichloromcthane 75274
Bromoform 75252
Bromomethane 74839
2-Butanone 78933
Carbon disulfide 75150
Carbon tetrachloride 56235
Chloroethane 75003
Chloroform 67663
Chloromethane 74873
Dibromochloromethane 124481
1, 1-Dichloroethane 75343
1,2-Dichloroethane 107062
1, 1-Dichloroethenc 75354
cis-1,2-Dich!oroethene 156592
1,2-Dichloroethenc (Total) 540590
1,2-Dichloropropane 78875
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061015
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061026
Ethylbenzene 100414
2-Hexanone 73663715
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108101
Styrene -100425
1, 1,2,2-Tetrach!oroethane 79345
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 79005
Vinyl acetate 108054
Vinyl chloride 75014
Xylenes (total) 1330207
SVOCs
Acenaphthene 83329
Acenaphlhylene 208968
Benzoic acid 65850
Benzyl alcohol 100516
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111911
bis(2-Chloroethyl)-ether 111444
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101553
Carbazole 86748
4-Chloroaniline 106478
4-Chloro-3-methy!phenol 59507
2-Chloronaphthalene 91587
2-Chlorophenol 95578
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005723
Oibenz( a,h)anthracene 53703
Dibenzofuran 132649
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84742
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501
1,3-Dichtorobenzene ' 641731
1.4-Dichlorobenzene 106467
3/13/2002
Tablo 15
Potontial Ecological COPC Rofinemont Procoss (Stop 3) for Surfaco Soil
Dorivod From Tablo 3
Triangle Pacific Sito, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Maximum
Ranno of Samplo Quantitatlon Limits SOL Maximum SQL
Minimum Maximum Exceeds Exceeds
Sample Sample Additional Additional Screening Background
Quantitation Data Quantitation Data Screening Criterion? Background Concentration?
Limit Oualifier2 Limit Qualifier2 Critorion3 (Yos or No) Concentration' (Yes or No)
11 930 500 Yes 10.75 Yes
11 930 --tfo Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 930 --rJo Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 1900 --/ lo Criterion 13 Yes
11 1900 UJ --No Criterion 13 Yes
11 UJ 930 --fJo Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 930 UJ --No Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 1900 UJ --No Criterion 13 Yes
11 930 --r Jo Criterion 10 Yes
11 1900 --No Criterion 13 Yes
11 930 --f1o Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 930 --/Jo Criterion 10.75 Yes 11 930 4000 No 10.75 Yes 11 UJ 930 --No Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 15 UJ --f-/o Criterion 3 Yes
11 930 ---No Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 930 --No Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 930 --I Jo Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 930 --l·lo Criterion 10.75 Yes 11 930 1200 No 10.75 Yes 11 1900 --r Jo Criterion 13 Yes
11 1900 --t lo Criterion 13 Yes
11 930 5000 No 10.75 Yes
11 930 --I-./o Criterion 10.75 Yes
11 930 --No Criterion 10.75 Yes 1900 1900 --tlo Criterion 18 Yes 11 1900 100 Yes 13 Yes
11 930 1000 No 10.75 Yes
380 4800 20000 No 362.5 Yes
380 4800 --!Jo Criterion 797.5 Yes
3000 3000 --r lo Criterion 3000 No
610 610 --t lo Criterion 610 No
380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --t lo Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --tlo Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --tJo Criterion 380 Yes
380 4800 --r lo Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --tlo Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 1000 No 437.5 Yes
380 4800 10 No 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --tJo Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --Uo Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 --f-./o Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --tlo Criterion 437.5 Yes
380 4800 --fJo Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 -ffo Criterion 437.5 Yes
Page 1 of 3
Analyto Source of
Retained as Reason(s) Additional
COPC? forCOPC Remaining Not-Detected Screening
(Yes or No) Deletion5 Analvtes Criterion6
Yes Benzene 2
Yes Bromod ichlo ram ethane
Yes Bromoform
Yes Bromomethane
Yes 2-Butanone
Yes Carbon di.sulfide
Yos Carbon tetrachloride
Yos Chloroethane
Yos Chloroform
Yos Chloromethane
Yes Oibromochtoromethane
Yos 1, 1-Dichloroethane
No 11 I 5
Yos 1, 1-Dichloroethene
Yes cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Yes 1,2-Dich1oroethene (Total)
Yes 1,2-Dich!oropropane
Yes cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Yes trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
No [1] 1
Yes 2-Hexanone
Yes 4-Methyl-2-pentanone
No [1] 2
Yes 1, 1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Yes 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Yes Vinyl chloride 5
No [1] 1
Yes Acenapthene 4
Yes Acenapthylene
No [2]
No [2]
Yes bis(2-Chlo;oethoxy)methane
Yes bis(2-Chloroethyl)-ether
Yes 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Yes Carbazole
Yes 4-Chloroani!ine
Yes 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Yes 2-Chloronz.:phthalene
Yes 2-Chlorophenol 1
Yes 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Yes Oibenz(a ,h)anthracene
Yes Dibenzofuran
Yes Oi-n-butyl phtha!ate
Yes 1,2-Dichloiobenzene
Yes 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Yes 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
i.\raleighlprcjectsl 106 i91.25609\5lera-revised\tables\allsurtacesoil7 .~ls· Step3-Screen2
Analvte/Paramoter1 CAS Number
3 ,3'-Oichlorobenzidine 91941
2 ,4-0ichlorophenol 51285
2. 4-Dimethytphenol 105679
4. 6-Din itro-2-m ethylp he nor 534521
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 12142
2 ,6-Dinitrotoluene 606202
Hexachlorobenzene 118741
Hexachlorobutadiene 87683
Hexachloroethane 67721
lsophorone 78591
2-Methylphenol 95487
4-Methylphenol 108394
Napthalene 91203
2-Nilroaniline 88744
3-Nitroaniline 99092
4-Nitroaniline 100016
2-Nitrophenol 88755
4-Nitrophenol 100027
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621647
2 ,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 108601
Pentachlorophenol 87865 • Phenol 108952
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95954
Pesticides (ug/kg)
Aldrin 309002
alpha-BHC 319846
gamma-BHC (Undane) 58899
Dieldrin 60571
Endosulfan I 959988
Endosulfan II 33213659
Endrin 72208
Endrin ketone 53494705
Methoxych!or 72435
Toxaphene
PCBs (ug/k9)
Aroclor 1016 12674112
Aroclor 1221 11104282
Aroclor 1232 11141105
Arocior 1242 53469219
Aroclor 1248 12572205
•
3/13/2002
Table 15
Potential Ecological COPC Roflnemont Procoss (Step 3) for Surface Soil
Dorivod From Tablo 3
Trlanglo Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Maximum Rango of Sample Quantltation Limits SQL Maximum SOL Minimum Maximum Exceeds Exceeds
Samplo Sample Additional Additional Screening Background Quantitation Data Quantitation Data Screening Criterion? Background Concentration? Limit Qualifier2 Limit Qualifier2 Critorion3 (Vos or No) Concentration• (Yes or No)
380 4800 UJ --t lo Criterion 585 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 940 R 12000 R 200000 No 1455 Yes 380 4800 UJ --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 UJ 4800 UJ --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 2.5 No 43?.5 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 100 No 437.5 Yes 940 12000 --No Criterion 1455 Yes 940 12000 --No Criterion 1455 Yes 940 UJ 12000 --No Criterion 1455 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 940 UJ 12000 7000 No 1455 Yes 380 4800 --No Criterion 437.5 Yes 380 4800 ·-No Criterion 437.5 Yes 940 12000 2 No 1455 Yes 380 4800 50 No 437.5 Yes 380 4800 10 No 437.5 Yes 340 12000 4000 No 1455 Yes
1.8 25 2.5 No 1.9 Yes 1.8 25 2.5 No 1.9 Yes 1.8 25 0.05 No 1.9 Yes 3.7 48 0.5 No 3.8 Yes 1.8 25 --No Criterion 1.9 Yes 3.7 48 --No Criterion 4.2 Yes 3.7 48 1 No 3.8 Yes 3.7 48 --No Criterion 3.8 Yes 18 250 UJ --No Criterion 19 Yes 180 2500 --No Criterion 190 Yes
38 480 ·-No Criterion 38 Yes ?5 980 --No Criterion 76.3 Yes 38 480 --No Criterion 38 Yes 38 480 -No Criterion 38 Yes 38 480 --No Criterion 38 Yes
Page 2 of 3
Analyte Source of
Rota/nod as Reason(s) Additional
COPC? for COPC Remaining Not-Detected Screening
/Yes or Nol Deletion5 Analytes Criterlon6
Yes 3,3'-0ichlorobenzidine
Yes 2 ,4-Oichlorophenol
Yes 2,4-Oimethylphenol
Yes 4 ,6-Dinitro-2-meth ylphenol
Yes 2,4-Oinitrotoluene
Yes 2 ,6-Dinitrototuene
Yes Hexachlorobenzene 5
Yes Hexachlorobutadiene
Yes Hexachloroethane
Yes lsophorone
Yes 2-Methylphenol
Yes 4-Methylphenol
Yes Naptha!ene 2
Yes 2-Nitroani)ine
Yes 3-Nitroaniline
Yes 4-Nitroanitine
Yes 2-Nitrophenol
Yes 4-Nitrophenol 3
Yes n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Yes 2 ,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane)
Yes Pentachlorophenol 5
Yes Phenol 5
Yes 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Yes 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 4
Yes Aldrin 5
Yes alpha-BHC 5
Yes gamma-BHC (Lindane) 5
Yes Dieldrin 5
Yes Endosulfan I
Yes Endosulfan II
Yes Endrin 5
Yes Endrin ketone
Yes Methoxychlor
Yes Toxaphene
Yes Aroclor 1016
Yes Aroclor 1221
Yes Aroclor 1232
Yes Aroclor 1242
Yes Aroclor 1248
i.\raleigh\+lrojects\10679\26609\Slera-revised\tables\allsurtacesoil7.xls:Step3-Screen2
•
3113/2002
Analyte/Parametor' CAS Number
Metals (mg/kg)
Sodium 7440235
Thallium 7440280
TICs
Benzofluorene
Cyclopentaphenanthrenone
Oimethylnaphthalone
Dimethylphenanthrene
Ethenylnaphthalene
Methylanthraceno
Methylpyrene
Pinene
5 Unidentified
Footnotes:
Table15
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Procoss (Stop 3) for Surface Soll
Derived From Table J
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Maximum Ranae of Samele Quantitation Limits SQL Maximum SOL Minimum Maximum Exceeds Exceeds Sample Sample Additional Additional Screening Background Quantitation Data Quantitation Data Screening Criterion? Background Concentration? Limit Qualifier2 Limit Qualifier2 Criterion3 IYos or Nol Concentration' (Yes or Nol
120 220 .. No Criterion 180 Yes 0.22 2.0 1 Yes 1.3975 Yes
NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes NA NA .. No Criterion .. Yes
1 Only includes analytes retained as potential ecological COPCs from Step 2 preliminary ecological screening in Table 3.
Analyto
Retained as Reason(s)
COPC? forCOPC Remainirlg Not-Detected
(Yes or No) Delotion5 Analytes
Yes Sodium ' Yes Thallium
Yes Benzofluorene
Yes Cyclopent3phenanthrenone
Yes Dimethylnaphthalene
Yes Dimethylphenanthrene
Yes Ethenylnaphthalene
Yes Methy1anthracene
Yes Methylpyrene
Yes Pinene
Yes 5 Unidentified
2 Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington. D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows: ·
J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte . 8 -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the exisflng data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. Hazard quotient = maximum analyte concentration/additional screening criterion
Screening background concentration for each analyte is two times the mean concentration for that analyte in background samples collected at the Site (Table 10). Reasons for Potential COPC Deletion
[1] -Hazard Quotient <1 for additional screening criteria
(2] -Maximum concentration less than background screening concentration
(3] -Frequency, Magnitude, or Pattern Issue. discussed in text
Source of
Additional
Screening
Criterion'
4
e Sources of additional screening criteria from Friday, G. P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Suriace Water. Sediment, and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-0010. 67 pp. 1 -Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). March 1997. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines, CCME, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 2 -Beyer, W. N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(2). 3 -Efroymson, R. A .. M. E. Will, and G. W. Suter. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Utter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision, Oak Ridge National laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.
-not available
NA not available
Page 3 of 3 i.\raleighlprojects\10679\.26609\5\era-ravisedltableslallsurfacasoil7.xls:Step3-Screen2
•
•
Table 16
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface \Vater
Derived from Table 4
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
•
•
3/12/2002
Maximum Sample
Table16
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Water
Derived from Table 4
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
.
Location of Number Number of
Maximum Frequency,
Screening Concentration Magnitude, Analyte Detected Quantitation Maximum of Quantitated Frequency Additional Background Exceeds and Pattern Retained a Reason(s) CAS Concentration Data Limit Detected Samples Detections of Detection Screening Hazard Concentration ' Background? Issues COPC? for COPC Analyte/Parameter 1 Number (uo/L) Qualifier' (uo/L) Concentration (Al (B) (B/A) Criterion Quotient3 (uq/L) (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (Yes or No) Deletion5 Metals
Aluminum 7429905 2930 NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 6 100.00% 460 6.37 602.667 Yes No Yes Iron 7439896 2420 NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 6 100.00% 1300 1.86 1742 Yes No Yes Lead 7439921 72 NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 5 83.33% 12.3 0.59 2.533 Yes No No
Footnotes:
1 Only includes analytes retained as potential ecological COPCs from Step 2 preliminary ecological screening in Table 4. 2 Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington. D.C. and U.S. EPA 1994. US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows:
U (N.O.) -The analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was not detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit. J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte. 8 -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above the analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit was an estimated value. 3 Friday, G.P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surface Water, Sediment, and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-00110. 67 pp . ' Screening background concentration for each analyte is two times the mean concentration for that analyte in background samples collected at the Site (Table 11). 5 Reasons for Potential COPC Deletion
[1] -Hazard Quotient <1 for additional screening criteria
[2] -Maximum concentration less than background screening concentration
[3J -Frequency, Magnitude, or Pattern Issue -discussed in text
11 I
Analyte
Retained as
Potential COPC
Aluminum
Iron
6 Sources of additional screening criteria from Friday, G. P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surface Water, Sediment, and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-0010. 67 pp. 1 -Suter, G. W. and C. L. Tsao. June 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision, ORNL Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. 2 -Environmental Protection Agency. November 1995. Ecological Screening Values. tn: Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins-Ecological Risk Assessment, Bull. No. 2. Atlanta, GA 3 -Environmental Protection Agency. January 1996. Ecotox Thresholds, ECO Update, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Intermittent Bulletin Vol. 3, No. 2, Publication 9345.0-12FSI, EPA 540/F--95-038 PB95-963324. 4 -Environment Canada. 1998. "Summary of Canadian Water Quality Guidelines tor the Protection of Aquatic Life". Interim draft guidelines transmitted on 20 April 1998 to G. P. Friday from Robert Kent, Head, Water Quality Guidelines and Assessments Section, NA Not available
Page 1 of 1 i: \raleig h\pro jects\ 1 06 79\26609\5\era-revised\ta b! es \a Usu rfacewa ter 1 . xis: Step3-Screen 1
•
•
•
Table 17
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface \Vater
Derived from Table 5
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
•
Maximum Sample
Detected Quantitati
GAS Concentration Data on Limit
Analvte/Parameter 1 Number
Table 17
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Water
Derived from Table 5
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Location of Number Number of Frequency Screening
Maximum of Quantitated of Additional Background
Detected Samples Detections Detection Screening Hazard Concentration4
Maximum Frequency,
Concentration Magnitude, Analyte
Exceeds and Pattern Retained as Reason(s) Analyte
Background? Issues COPC? for COPC Retained aS (uolL)
voes
Qualifier2 (uglL) Concentration (A) (8) (BIA) Criterion Quotient3 (uolL) (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (Yes or No) Deletion5 Potential COPC
T etrach!oroethene 127184 0.6 J 10 K-SW-1 6 1 16.67% 84 0.01 8.33 No Yes No Metals
Barium 7440393 35.2 NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 1 16.67% 3.9 9 03 9.8 Yes Yes Yes Calcium 7440702 16200 NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 1 16.67% 116000 0.14 10533.33 Yes Yes No Magnesium 7439954 29000 NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 1 16.67% 82000 0.35 9133.33 Yes Yes No Manganese 7439965 219 NA K-SW-1 6 6 100.00% 80 2.74 318 No No No Potassium 7440097 12000 J NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 1 16.67% 53000 0.23 2800.6 Yes Yes No Sodium 7440235 241000 J NA SW-01 (GN021) 6 6 100.00% 680000 0.35 209933.33 Yes No No
<
Footnotes:
1
Only includes analytes from Table 5 in Step 2 preliminary ecological screening. Analytes did not have preliminary ecological screening criteria (EPA Region IV). 2
Data validation qualifiers based on the project Ouality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional
Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-5401R-94/01i Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.)
Data qualifiers are as follows:
J -The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte.
3
Friday, G.P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surface Water, Sediment, and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-00110. 67 pp. 4
Screening background concentration for each analyte is two times the mean concentration for that analyte in background samples collected at the Site (Table 11). 5 Reasons for Potential COPC Deletion
!1] -Hazard Quotient <1 for additional screening criteria
[2] -Maximum concentration less than background screening concentration
[3] -Frequency, Magnitude, or Pattern Issue -discussed in text
[1j,[2J,[3]
[1 J,[3]
[1],[3]
[2]
[1],[3]
11 I
6
Sources of additional screening criteria from Friday, G. P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surface Water, Sediment, and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-0010. 67 pp.
1 -Suter, G. Wand C. L. Tsao. June 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision, ORNL Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ERfTM-96/R2.
2 -Environmental Protection Agency. November 1995. Ecological Screening Values. In: Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins-Ecological Risk Assessment, Bull. No. 2, Atlanta, GA ,
3 -Environmental Protection Agency. January 1996. Ecotox Thresholds, ECO Update, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Intermittent Bulletin Vol. 3, No. 2, Publication 9345.0-12FSI, EPA 540/F--95-038 PB95-963324.
4 -Environment Canada. 1998. "Summary of Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life". Interim draft guidelines transmitted on 20 April 1998 to G. P. Friday from Robert Kent, Head
Water Quality Guidelines and Assessments Section, Guidelines and Standards Division, Environment Canada.
NA Not available
3/13/2002
Barium
Source of
Additional
Screening
Criterion6
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
Page 1 of 1 i:\l'a!e)g hlprojects \ 1 06 79\26609\5 \era-revisedlta b!es\aflsurfacewater1 _ xis: Step3-Screen 3
•
•
Table 18
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Surface Water
Derived from Table 6
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
CAS
Anatvte/Par ameler' Number voes
Benzer,e 71-132
BromoC11c.hloromemane 75274
Bromolorm 75252
Bromomcthane 74839
2-Bctanone 78933
Carllcn dISul[1de 75150
Chloroethano 75003
• Ch!oromettlane 74873
O,bromoehloromethane 124481
1.2-0icnIoroethane 107062
1, 1-01cnIoroethene 75354
cis-1.2-Dicnioroethene 156592
1.2-01Chloroe111ene {Total) 540590
os-1,3-0ic.hloropropene 10061015
tran s-1. 3-D1cnIoropropene 10061026
2-Hexanone 73663715
4-M ethyl-2-pentanone 108101
Styrene 100425
Tnchloroeltlene 79016
Vinyl cnlonde 75014
Xylenes (total) 1330207
SVOC$
Acenapntnyrene 208968
Anlhracene 120127
Benzo(a)anlhracene 56553
Benzo(D)tluoranlllene 205992
Benzo{k)tluoranlllene 207089
Benzo{ghi)perylene 191242
Benzo(a)pyrene 50328
biS(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111911 • bis(2-Ethylhexyl )phllla!ate 117817
Carbazole 86748
4-Chloroaniline 106-478
4-Chloro.3-methylphenol 59507
2-Chloronaphthalene 91587
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005723
Chryseno 218019
01benz( a.h}antllracene 53703
Oitenzofuran 132549
0,-n-butyl pnthalate 84742
3,3' -Dic.'llorobenzidine 91941
01-11-oc:yl phthalate 117840
4.6-0In1tro-2-methylpheno! 534521
2.4-0initrophenol 51285
2.6-Dinitrototuene 606202
Fluorene 867ilit,.
Hexacnlorotenzene 116741
Hexac.h!orobutadiene 67683
Hexac.h!orocylopentadiene 77474
Hexac.hloroethane 67721
lndeno( 1,2 ,3-cd)pyrene 193365
lsophorone 78591
2-MelllyJnaphthalene 91576
2-Methytphenol 95487
4-Methylphenol 108394
2-Nitroaniline 88744
3-Nitroaniline 99092
4-N1troan·1Iine 100016
Nitrooenzene 98953
n-N1trosoo1-n-propylamine 621647
2,2" -oxy bis{ 1-Chloropropane) 108601
Pentac.hlorophenol 87865
Phenanlhrene 85018
Phenol 108952
Pyrene 129000
1.2 .4-T nct1lorobenzene 120821
2. 4, 5-T ncnlorophenol 95954
2. -1.6-T nChlorophenor 88062
Total PAHs •
3112/2002
T.101■ HI
Po1entt.11I Ecoloqlc.111 COPC Refinement Proceu fSlr.p 31 for SurOco W.111cr Oerlved rrom Table 6
Trlangle Pac1!lc Site, El1uhr.lh City, North C.11rol!na
Ranne or Sample Quantltatlon Umlt11 Muimum Minimum Mulmum SCL Mulmum SOL Simple Sample EiCeed1 Screening Exceeds Analyte Qu.11ntltatlon Qu.11ntltaUo Addltlonal Additlon.111 Background Background Retained a Limit Data Limit Data Screening Cr1ter1on? Concentutlon Concentration? COPC? (Ye !UQIL) Oualitler" fuqlll Qu.1111ner' Criterion' !Yes or Nol /UQ/L)' {Yes or No) or No)
s 10 46 llo 83 y,. No 5 /0 No Critrmnn 8.3 Yes Ye, 5 10 293 No 83 y,. No /0 /0 -No Cn:rirmn 10 No ,,,
10 ,o 14000 No 10 ,,, No s 10 0.92 Yi!S 83 v., y,. 10 10 N0Cr1Im1on 10 No No 10 10 .. /~o Cntenon 10 NO No 5 /0 No Cn\Ofll)n 83 v,, Yes 5 10 100 No 83 Yo, No 5 /0 25 No 83 yo, Ye, /0 10 No Cntcrion 10 NO No 5 10 100 ''° 8.3 y,s No 5 10 2-1,4 No 83 y,. No 5 10 2-1 4 No 83 y,. No 10 10 99 No 10 NO No 10 10 170 No 10 No No 5 10 No Cnter100 83 m y., 5 10 20 No 8.3 y,, No 10 10 No Cntenon 10 No No 5 10 13 No 83 vo, No
10 10 6 y,. 10 NO No 10 10 0.01 Yes 10 NO No 10 10 0,02 Ye, 10 NO No 10 10 .. No Cntenon 10 NO No 10 10 .. No Cn:erion 10 NO No 10 10 .. No Cntenon 10 NO No 10 10 0.01 Ye, 10 No No 10 10 .. No Cntenon 10 NO No 10 10 15 No 10 NO No 10 10 .. No Cntenon 10 No No 10 10 .. No Cntenon 10 NO No 10 10 0.3 Ye, 10 No No 10 10 -No Cn:enon 10 NO No 10 10 .. No Cnlenon 10 NO No 10 10 -No Cntenon 10 NO No 10 10 .. NoCntenon 10 No No 10 10 37 Ye, 10 No No 10 10 -No Cntenon 10 No No 10 20 .. No Cnlenon 13.3 ve, Yes 10 10 708 No 10 No No 25 R 50 2.3 Yes 33.3 Yes Yes 25 R 50 6.2 Yes 333 Yo, Yes 10 10 -No Cntenon 10 No No 10 10 3.9 y,. 10 No No 10 10 0.07 Y,s 10 NO No 10 10 No Cnlenon 10 No No 10 10 0.1 Yes 10 No No 10 10 12 No 10 No No 10 10 -No Cn!enon 10 No No 10 10 1170 No 10 No No 10 10 2.1 Yes 10 No No 10 /0 13 No 10 No No 10 10 -No Cn!erion 10 No No 25 so .. No Cnienon 333 yo, Yes 25 50 .. No Cnterion 33.3 y,. Yes 25 50 -No Cn:enon 33.3 y,. Yes 10 10 270 No 10 No No 10 10 -No Cntenon 10 NO No 10 10 .. No Crilcnon 10 NO No 25 50 05 Y,s 333 Yes ve,
10 10 04 Y,s 10 No No 10 10 1.0 Y,s 10 NO No 10 10 0,02 Yes 10 NO No 10 10 24 No 10 No No 2S 50 -No Cntenon 33,3 Yes Yes
10 10 32 Yes 10 NO No 25 25 3.2 y,, 85 No No
Page 1 or 2
Source ol
Reason(s) Addltlonat
for COPC Screening
Delellon' Remainina Not,Oetected Anal.,tes Criterion'
[1) 3
Brom0d1c.hloromethane
[1) 2 (:Z)
[1].[2] 2
Camon d1sutf1de 2
[2) .. [2)
0,t;romochlorometnano
[1) ' 1.1-D1chloroethene
[2)
[1) ' [11 2
[1) 2
{11.12] 2
[1].{2] 2
Styrene
{1) ' 121
{11 1
[21 ' [2) ' 121 ' [21
[21
[21
[2) ' [21
(1), [2) ' . [21
[21
[2) 2
[21
[21
[21
[21
[2) 1
121
3. 3' -DicnJorobenzidine
[1], [2) 1
4,6-0initro-2-methylphenol 2
2,4-Dinitrophenol 2
[21
121 3
[21
[21 ' [2) 2 [1]. {2] 2
[21
{1]. [2] 2
[21 1
[1J. [2] 3
[2)
2-Nitroaniline
3.N1troaniline
4-Nitroaniline 2 [1J. [2]
[2)
[2)
Pentac.hlorophenol 4
[21 4 . [21 4
[21 ' [1], {2] ' 2 .4 ,5-T nchlorophenol
121 2
121
i:Valeigh'.projects\ 10079\26609\5'.era.re,rise<l'.!ables:Step:J..-Screen2
•
•
•
311212002
CAS
Anillvfe/Puameter' Number
Pesticides
delta•BHC 319868
alOha-Crdordane 57749
gamma•Chlordane 57749
4_4•.000 71548
4,4\0DT 50293
Total DDO!ODE/ODT
D1eldnn 60571
Endosulfan II 33213659
Endosullan sulrate 1031078
Endnn 72208
Enann aldehyde 7421934
Endnn ketone 53494705
Heptachlor 76448
Heotacnlor epoxide 1024573
Me!hoxychlor 72435 To~aphene 8001352
Pee,
Aroclor 1016 12674112
Aroclor 1221 11104282
Aroctor 1232 11141105
AroclOI' 1242 53469219
Aroclor 1248 12572205
Aroclor 1254 11097691
Aroclor 1260 11096826
Total PCBs
Metals
Beryllium 7440417
Cadmium 7440439
Cobalt 7440484
""""' 74369976
Sil,..er 7440224
Vanadium 7440622
Gtner~I Chemistry
Total cyanide 57125
Footnotes
Tltll• U
Potentl.il Ecologic.ii COPC Rellnemenf Proc,u !!'Uep J) tor Surf.ice W.iler Oerl,..ed lrom T.ible 6
Trt•ngfe P.icmc Site, flli.h11th Clty, North C.iroUn.i
Ranae ol Samnle Quantllatlon Limits M.ulmum
Minimum M.uimum SOL M.i•lmum SOL
Sample Sample Exce.1.1, Screening Exceeds Analyte Qu.intlt.itlon ou.1nutatlo Addltlon.11 AddUlon,1 8.ickground 8.1ckground Retained .i Limit Oata liinit Oata Screening Criterion? Concentration Concentra!lon7 COPC? (Ye /uo!ll Ouallrler2 fun/LI Ouallner2 Cl1terlon1 IYes or ffol lun/LI' tYes or Nol or Nol
O.IJ5 005 .. tloCnhmon 0 05 "o No 005 0 05 1.09 '" 0 05 No No 005 0 05 1.09 :Jo 0.05 No No 0.1 0.1 1 69 '" 01 tJo No 0.1 0.1 03 rm 01 No No 0 1 0.1 .. No c111ur1on 0.1 /Jo No 0.1 0.1 0062 , .. 0 075 Yes y.,
0.1 0.1 0051 "' 0.1 No No 01 0.1 .. No c111.,,1on 0.1 No No 0.1 0.1 0061 y,. 0.1 No No 0.1 0.1 0,061 "' 0.1 No No 0 1 0 1 0 061 "' 0 075 Yes Yu 0.05 0 OS 0.0069 '" 0.05 No No 0.05 0 05 0 52 No 0 275 r~o No 0.5 05 0,019 y,. 2.75 No No 5 5 0008 y,. 5 No No
1 1 02 , .. 1.5 No No 2 2 028 y,. 1.5 "' y ..
1 1 0,58 rn 1 No No 1 1 0.053 rn 1 No No 1 1 0.081 "' 1 No No 1 1 0.033 "' 1 No No 1 1 " '" OS '" No 1 1 0.14 rn NA ye, Yu
0.1 2 066 Y•ll 0.8 Yes y.,
03 4 UJ 1.0 yo, 1.4 y,, Yo, 0.9 16 3.0 y,. 58 y., y.,
01 02 0.1 y,. 0.5 No No 1,1 4 0.1 y., 1.7 y., y.,
1.4 13 19 No 4.5 Yes No
3.7 10 700 y,. 4.6 y,, Yu
ReuonfsJ
lor COPC
Deletion' Remaininq Not.Detected Analvtes
(2!
[1], (2)
{1]. (2]
{11. [2]
(1].12)
[21
01elctnn
[21
[2!
[21
[21
Endnn ketone
[21
(11. (2)
[21
121
[21
Afoclor 1221
121
121
[21
[21
[11
Total PCBs
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
[21
Silver
[11
Total cyanide
' Only IOdudes analytes from Table 6 in which !he maximum sample quanlltation lima exceeded Step 2 preliminary ecological screening critena (EPA Region IV} or !he analyte lacked corresponding cntena 1 Data ,..alidallon qualifiers based on !he project Quality Assurance Projeci Plan (CAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Progrem (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboraiory Program Na/Iona/ Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Re,..iew. EPA·540/R.94/012. Washington. O.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA•54QfR.94/013. V','ashington. D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows·
U (N.D.) • The analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was not detected abo,..e !he assoaated analytical quant1ta6on rcpor1ing 11m1t J • Tt1e associated numencal value was an estimated quantity below !he repor11ng limit for an organic analyte, B • The associated numencal ,..afue was an esllmated quantity below lhe tepoltlng limit for an inorgamc analyte. NJ· There was prnsumpt1,..e evidence to make a tentah"'e ident1ficallon and !he associated analytical reportmg limit was an es11r.iatod quanllty. UJ • The analyte was analyzod for its presence, but was not detected abo,..e !he analytical reporting !im1t. The associated reportmg limit was an es:imated ,..alue. • Fnday, G.P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surtace water, Sediment, and Soil. Westinghouse Sa,..annah River Company, Savannah River Site. Aiken. South Carolina, vVSRC.TR·90-001 lO. 67 pp • Screening background concentration for each analyte is two times lhe mean concentrallon for that analyte in background samp1os collected at the Sile (Table 11 J s Reasons fnr Poteotial COPC Deletion , {1] • Hazard Quotient < 1 tor additional screening en ten a
{2] • Maicimum concentrallon ress lhan backgrcund screening concentrahon
(3] -Ftequency. Magnitude, or Pattern issue -discussed in text
Source ol
Addition.ii
Screening
Crlterlon•
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
3
1
• Sources of additional screon.ing cntena from Fnday. G. P. 1998. Ecological Screen.ing Values for Sur1ace \l'.'a:er, Sediment. ana S011. Wesllnghouse Savannah River Company, Sa,..annah Ri,..er Site. Aiken. South Carolina. vVSRC·TR·90-0010, 67 pp 1 • Suter. G. W. and C. L. Tsao. June 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potenllal Contaminants of Concern for Errocts on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Re,..ision. ORNL En,..ironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM•96fR2. 2 • Environmental Protection Agency. No,..ember 1995, Ecological Screening Values. In: Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Regron 4 Bu!le!lns-Ecologica! Risk Assessment. Bull. No. 2. Atlanta. GA. 3 • Environmental Protection Agency. January 1996. Ecotox Thresholds. ECO Up<;iate. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, lnterrruttent Bullelln Vol. 3, No_ 2, Publ1ca11on 9J45.0-12FSI. EPA 540/F-95--038 PB95•963324 4 • Environment Canada. 1998. "Summary of Canadian Water Quality Guidelines lor !he Protection ol Aqua Ile u:e·. lntenm drart guidelines transmitted on 20 Apnl 1998 to G. P. Fnday from Robert Kent, Head water Quality Guidelines and Assessments Section, Gu'1delines and Standards Division. En,..ironment Canada NA Not available
-No screening critenon a,..a1lable
i.\ra1e;gh\pmjec1s\ 1 0679\26609\5'.era-re,..ised'lable5 ·.Sle p3-Screen2
••
•
Table 19
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Sediment
Derived from Table 7
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
•
•
3/12/2002
Maximum Sample Location of CAS Det~cted Data Quantltation Maximum Detected Analvte/Parameter1 Numbor Concentration Ouauner2 Limit Concentration SVOCs (ug/kg)
Benzo(a)anthracene 56553 870 NA 002-SD bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117817 69000 J 22000 L-SD-1 Chrysene 218019 1100 NA 002-SD Fluoranthene 206440 22000 J 25000 K-SD-1 Phenanthrene 85018 17000 J 25000 K-SD-1 Total PAHs 232000 NA K-SD-1
Pesticides (ug/kg)
4,4'-DDD 71548 39 J 13 M-SD-1 4,4'-DDE 72559 43 13 M-SD-1 . Total ODD/DOE/DDT 82 J 13 M-S0-1 Dieldrin 60571 19 11 L-SD-1 PCBs (ug/kg)
Total PCBs 1300 130 K-SD-1 Metals (mg/kg)
Cadmium 7440439 3.4 J NA S0-01 (GN010) Copper 7440508 35;9 J NA S0-01 (GN010) Lead 7439921 131 NA L-SD-1 Mercury 74369976 0.5 NA ·SD-02 (GN011) Zinc 7440888 256 J NA S0-01 (GN010) ..
Footnotes:·
Table 19
Potential Ecological COPC Reflnoment Process (Step 3) For Sediment
Derived from Table 7
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Number of Number of Frequency of Additional
Samples Quantltated Detection Screening Hazard
IA) Detections tB (BIA) Criterion Quotlent3
10 1 10,00% .. ..
10 6 60,00% .. ..
10 1 10.00% .. ..
10 2 20.00% 600 36.67
10 2 20.00% 515 33.01
10 10 100.00% .. ..
8 3 37.50% .. ..
8 2 25.00% .. ..
8 3 37.50% 2.5 32.80
8 1 12.50% 52 0.37
8 4 50.00% 34.1 38.12
10 2 20.00% 1.2 2.83
10 5 50.00% 35,7 1.01
10 10 100.00% 35 3.74
10 5 50.00% 0.174 2.87
10 5 50.00% 140 1.83
Maximum
Concentration Screening Exceeds
Background Background?
Concentration' (Yes or No)
2405 No
7515 Yes
2915 No
5410 Yes
1755 Yes
36050 Yes
36 Yes
120 No
113.7 No
10.70 Yes
410 Yes
4.685 No
47.2 No
113.1 Yes
0.4175 Yes
306.7 No
1 Only includes analytes retained as potential ecological COPCs from si(!p 2 preliminary ecological screening in Table 7. 2 Data Validation· qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows:
J • The SSSociated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an organic analyte .. 8. The associated numerical value was an estimated quantity below the reporting limit for an inorganic analyte. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. 3 Hazard quotient = maximum analyte concentratlon/additional screening criterion ~ Screening background C:Oncentration for each analyte is two times the mean concentration for that analyte in background samples collected at the Site (Table 12). s Reasons for Potential COPC Deletion
{1] -Hazard Quotient <1 for additional screening criteria
{2] -Maximum concentration less than background saeening concentration
(3]. Frequency, Magnitude, or Pattern Issue -discussed in text
Frequency,
Magnitude,
and Pattern
Issues
(Yes or No\
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
6 Sources of additional screening criteria from Friday, G. P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surface Water, Sediment, and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-0010. 67 pp.
Analyte
Retained
as COPC?
Yes or No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
'
1 • Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment (MHSPE). 9 May 1994. Intervention Values and Target Values-Soil Quality Standards. Directorate-General for Environmental Protection, Department of Soil Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands. 2 -Environmental Protection Agency. January 1996. Ecotox Thresholds, ECO Update, Office of Solid waste and Emergency Response, Intermittent Bulletin Vol. 3, No. 2. Publication 9345.0-12FSI, EPA 540/F--95-038 PB95-963324. 3 -Environment Canada. 1995. Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines, Soil and Sediment Quality Section Guidelines Division, Ecosystem Conservation Directorate, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Ottawa, Ontario. -not available
Page, 1 ol 1
source of
Reason(s) Addltlonal
for COPC Analyte Retained as Screening
Oeletlon1 Potential COPC Criterion'
121,fJI
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha!ate
121. fJI
Fluoranthene 2
Phenanthrene 3
Total PAHs
4,4'-000
121
121 1
111,131 2
Total PCBs 3
121 2
121 3
lead 3
Mercury 3
121 1
i:\raleighlprojects\ 1 06 79126609\Slera-reviSfld\allsed1ment3.xls: Table-19
•
•
•
Table 20
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Sediment
Derived from Table 8
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
...
• • • i:\c.ape_can\pr'Oj@ctll 1 0679.CSS_ n>C\25609\-l_n_ d'IERA 1-31,se<)menll 998.ffl (S!epJ..Scrtenl) Mulrnum Semple "' 0.tKI ... ••• Ouantlla1ion AnaM.n>ararnelar' Nu,nbar c-... 1,.iion Oua1.n.,' """' voe. (ug11<111 Acatone 67~1 " , ,. Senze,r,e 71'32 "'"' Carbon dl1ullde 7S1~ • , ,, Chlorobennne 108907 """ ,. 1.2-0ichlo,op~ane 7!87$ " , " Tetad'llc.-ot!hena 1271M " 1.1.l·Tridiior~tt,.ane 71$5,6 " Tnchlor0<11rlene 79016 • :W:ytenn (lot.i) 1330207 ,, " SVOC1 (u;lkg) Senzl)(Qhi)pc<ytene 1912•2 827QC , "' C&rt>azote 1167~8 ,,, , "' 1.(.0ichlo,ot>enze,r,e 106467 ,,, , "' [)i.n-oc1ylpt,!hala1, 117UO '"'' , "' ln~no,( 1 .2 .]--od)pyren• 193J8S "' , "' ••Me!hylpt,enot 10839-4 "' , .,, ,,,_ """" """ , '""' Pullc.ldH (uglkgl llelLl·8HC 319868 " "' Endrln keton• 53'9-470$ '' , ., H-,.,,. " "' PCB1 (ug/'1<11) Afodc.-12S4 110976111 ,,, "' ArodC.-1260 110'ile8<'1! '"" 0 Met.111 jmg/kgl -742990$ '""' "' ..... 7U03i3 ,02 • "' Calcium 7440702 .... , "' , .. .., 7"4048<1 ,., "' .., 743118911 11700 "' Magnnlum 7439954 ""' "' Mang&nHI 74JIINS ,,, , NA ..,..., nai•" 2 , "' ..... 7UQ23$ ""' "' v.,.adlum ,~..,, 31.8 "' Tentalhr•ly ldanltf>ad eon,pound1 (TlC•I 2 Un~ CompotXIOI (Total) '"' , "' 2~1-one, 1{2,&.dhyd) 18115111$$ ""' , "' 4Unidenllhd C~dt '""" , "' 5 Uniden~hd C<,~ '"" ,. NA e Unknown P~ (Total) """' , NA II Unlden~fted Comp<IIA'lda '""" , NA II Unknown Compounds (Tou,I) """ , NA Al:elopMnone '"' ,. "' 8"':ene. 1,4-dichloro "''"" '"' , "' BenzenH"'Oc Acid 200 ,. NA Senzoic: Acid '"' ,. "' 0.un• 124185 '"' , NA Dimethyl Dit;utftde " ,. "' O,rna!h-,1 Sutlde 20 ,. "' Oirna!h-,1Triautlde ' ,. "' Cl!rnelhyttnnone '"' ,. NA Hende~Acid '"" ,. "' Heude<:enoic Acid 2000 ,. NA Ph1t11•nlhlene, 7-,,!heny!-1.2. 16.!65.62 ""' , "' Phenan#V1t11one ,., ,. "' Phenan!hrenone, 2,3,4 511057 2000 , "' Pt.lhalc Anhydride '"' ,. NA ... ffl. '"' ,. "' T eUdecanoic Acid '"' ,. "' Unknown " , "' Unknown AJkane '"' , "' Unknown Hy~ 2000 , NA Unknown Ph!hala!e '""' , NA Footnctn: --.. Mnlrnum ........ Conc.,,1ra110ft K·SO..I OOJ-S0 K.so.1 P·SO..t P·SO·! 002-SO 002.SO 002·SO 002.so 002.so OOl·SO K·S0.1 002.so N-S0.1 002·SD K·SD·1 002-SO l.S0.1 L-S0.1 SO-O\ (GN0l0) S0-01 (GN010J K-S0.1 00,~0 SQ.02(GN011) K-S0.1 002.so l·S0..1 S0-<11 (GNOtO) 50-02(GN011) 002.so OO>SO S0~2{GN011) ~.so So.o2(GNOl1) 002-SO SO.OI (GN010) 003-SO 002-SO S0..01 (GNO\O) 003-SO .,,... oo,-so 00(.$0 003·$0 OO~·SO SD-ll2 (GNOfl) oo,.so SO.c2(GN011) 002.SD 002·SO 001.so SD-ll2(GN011) SM1 (GN010) S0-02(GN01t) SQ..ll2{GN01\J hblo:O ,..._i,.1 Ec.olaigoc.al COPC A~ ,,ocao (Slap lJ fol' s..i......,, O.ffi ... F""" Jal>lo I Trian9la Pacdlc: Site, EILubettl City, "'-nh Cal'OI-,. Numbarol Numbar of Ouanlllat..i F""!uency o AddtUonal .,_., lemplH Oelecllon, ,,......, krHnir>',I ,u_ Back9round ,, '" /BIA.I c,11.no,, __ , Conc..,1ra110n' " ' " ---S3 2S " ' ]000% " ., " " , 1000% --" " • .. -"' '"' " " , """ --" " ' " -" ' '" " , ""' ,,, .. ,, ,,, " , " -,. • )1.5 " 2 20 00% ,. "' " " , " ---!US ' , 11.11% --733 33 " , 10.00% "' ,~ ,,,, " , 10.00% --,,,, " ' 10.00% --1us " 2 2000% --"'" " 2 20.00% "' 21 21 ,,2s • ' 12 SC% --41525 • ' 12.50% """" 0($$ ""' • 2 " -.. ... , ,,,,, • ' 37.50% -0 , .. • • $000% -0 233 33 ,0 " "' ---6$$$0 " ' "·"" '"' .,, 210 II " , """ --, ... " • 60.00% 20 0.38$ 17.1$ " " 100.00% --"'"' ,0 , "' ---41535 ,0 " 100.00% --228.7$ " ' "·"" --""' " ' """ --"" " • "'"" --HO$ < ' 100.00% --"' ' ' 100.00% --NA ' ' 100.00% --NA , ' 100.00% --"' ' , '"' ---"' , , 100.00% --"' ' , \00,00% --"' ' ' 100.00% --"' < ' 100.00% --NA , ' 100.00% --"' , , 100.00% --"' ' , 10000% --"' ' , 100.00% --NA ' , 100.00% --"' ' ' 100.00% --"' < ' 100.00% C -"' 2 2 100,00% --"' ' , 100.00% --"' ' , 100.00% --NA ' ' 100.00% --"' , ' 100.00% --"' , ' 100.00% --NA , ' 100.00% --"' ' , 100.00% --"' ' , 10000% --"' ' ' 100.00% --"' 2 2 '"'""' --NA < , 100.00% --NA ' Only includes analytes tram Table 8 in Step 2 prdminary ecologjcal saeening. Analytes did not have pre~rronary ecatog,cal screening cnten• (EPA Reg,on IV). Muimutn F""lu....:y, c-.,,11•1ion Mao;inotude, Eu .. ,:h .and P•n•m Back9round7 lnu•• fYHorNo• fYH or No• No "' "' "' "' , .. , .. No No "' No "' No , .. No "' No , .. , .. "' No , .. No , .. "' "' No "' No No "' No No "' No , .. No '" , .. No , .. "' No No No No No No No No No No No No '" No No No No No No No , .. , .. , .. '" , .. '" '" "' , .. "' '" , .. ,., , .. '" , .. ,.. , .. , .. '" "' "' , .. "' , .. "' , .. '" ,.. , .. , .. , .. , .. '" "' , .. ,.. , .. , .. "' , .. , .. ,., , .. , .. , .. ,.. , .. "' "' "' ,.. , .. ,.. , .. , .. ' Cata validauon qual<fien band on the p,oject Q....,lrty Assuranu ProJect Plan (OAPP) ""d U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) F11ne11onal Guiddnn (1J S. EPA. 199-4. US EPA Conaxt Lr~ Program NallOnM func:,cr,M Guidelinet lor Organic Cata Review, EPA·5'0/R-!MI012. Walhlng[On. 0.C. and U.S. EPA. 199-4. US EPA Conlr1a Lab..-atory Pr091"am Na110t1al Foodlonal Guidelines !c.-1.-ganic Data Review. EPA·S.0/R•!M/013. W..$1'w"l!)ton. 0.C.) Data quaUen •n as lolows: U (N 0.) · The analyte wll analyzed for ,ta potenllal l)feunce but-snot detected above the asoooated arn,lybcal quanlltabon repon,ng tirrot. J. The naociated numencal value was an Hllmated quanllty below the repo,Wlg hmt ,,,, an ..-gani-c analyte D • The n•ociated numencal value was ,n eomated quanllty below the reporting 1<m1 for an inofganic analy!e. 1 Hazard quo~enl ~ ma~1mum analyte concenlration/addi11ooal 1creening criterion ' Saeening background concentnoijon le.-each analyte is two Dmes the mean concentratron for !hat •nalyle in baci;i,-ound ump/n colected at the Si!• (Ttbt• 10). ' Bn•m t,,, PoteotJrl CQPG Ptlenon 111. Huard Ouotient <1 for aodillona/ scre,ening cntena 121 · Ma•imu,n concentraQon Ins than backi,-ound screening concentrauon [3] • Fre"-'ency, Magnitude, o, Panern Issue. discussed in lex1 1 Friday. G.P. 1998. Ecological Screening V-'un lor Surlaco Watff, Sediment and Soil. Wesijnlfrous• ShaM•II Rive< Company, SavaMah Rive< Stte • .a.ken, South Car<>bna. WSRC-TR·90-00110. 67 f>P. An.aly1e R•tain.-1 u ll•uon(•I tor COPC7 (YH COPC or No• O.lal>otl' No /2UJJ , .. No 121.PI , .. No [2UlJ No f.!Ull No [tU2U31 No '" No [11.12) '" No f.!UJI No [1J.!2!~ll , .. No [2Jlll No 121 , .. No 121~JI No [11J2U3] No '" , .. , .. No "' No 111.121 No 121 No (11.f.!I No "' No "' '" No "' No "' No ,,, '" '" , .. '" , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. "' , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. '" , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. I • Mmislry ol Housrng, $pallal PlalYlmg, and Enwonment (MHSPE). 9 May 199-4, lnter.enbon ValuH and T.-get ValuH · Soil OuUty Standards. 0.ectorala--Ge,r,e,-at 1or Envirc.-mient:al PrOll!"QOn. Oepa,1rnent of SOIi Protection. The HaQlle. The f'Jet)le<lands 2 • Enw0t1rnent31 Protecllc,, Agency. January 1996. Ecoto• Tlvesl>otd$, ECO Update, 01lee of Solid Wnle and Emergency R~t. 1nletmlttent Dulelln Vol. l. No. 2. Pul>lica'aon 9:WS.0-12FSI. EPA S<IOIF-95--038 PB9S-96"24. 3 • Enwonment Canada. 1995. Lntenm Sadmem Quality G.-.nes, Soil ..,,d Sediment Ouakty Section Gu,del.,n OM$ion. Ecosystem CoMer.,IJllon OnCIO<ate, Evaluabon and lnlerpretallon S,anc:h. ~-Onta:,o. NA Not avaUbte -l'IOt hall•bte Paga 1 011 Sourca of Add Ilion.al A"'"Jy,. ll•talrM<I H POl.,,t,al 5,c,_,.,11 COPC Clflariott' Den,ene , Chlof~enzene 2 ' ' , , Sen,Qo(g,l'lo)pc<ytene 2 0.-n-ocl'yl p/l!hala!e ,,,ffl. 2 2(en'2'onut.d H a IIU'l"oga11J ,._ epo1kle ... ..., " 11...-rogatel Hodor 12$4 A,Ddor 1250 ' , Manganne 2 Uniu-c.,mpounco (Tota:} 2.Pr~1-•. 1{2.&-dihyd) 4 Unidenuled Co,npoundo S Unidendad Co,npoundo 8 Unknown PNAt (T oW) II UnldenUlad Compour1dl II Unirnown Co,npaundt {Tot1;J Acelol>hfflon• l!en.zene, 1.•-<kf>lc.-0 8fflzeneace~c Acid Benzoic Acid D,_ Ou-ne!h-,1 O,wtlde Dlmet,yl Sullde Dime!h-,1Tnautlde Dime!hylM•non• ' Hexacleanolc Acid Heudecenolc Acid Phenanltvent. 7-o11ien-,1--t.2. Phenanthlenone Phenanttvenone. 2.3.• Ph!haic AnhYdtJde Pmene T elradecanoic Acid """'-Unknown Al<•ne Unknown ttydl'ocalbon : Unknown Ph!h•la!e
•
•
•
Table 21
Potential Ecological COPC Refinement Process (Step 3) for Sediment
Derived from Table 9
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Ran
Minimum
Sample
CAS Ouantitation
Analyte/Parameter1 Number Limit
voes (ug/kg)
Bromodichloromethane 75274 12
Bromoform 75252 12
Bromomethane 74839 12
2-Butanone 78933 12
Carbon tetrachloride 56235 12
Chloroethane 75003 12
Chloroform 67663 12
Chloromethane 74873 12
Oibromochtoromethane 124481 12
1. 1-Dichloroethane 75343 12
1. 2-Dichloroeth"ane 107062 12
1. 1-Dich!oroethene 75354 12
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156592 14
1, 2-0ichloroethene (Total) 540590 12
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061015 12
trans-1,3-0ichloropropene 10061026 12
Ethylbenzene 100414 12
2-Hexanone 73663715 12
Methylene chloride 75092 12
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108101 12
Styrene 100425 12
1, 1,2, 2-T etrachloroethane 79345 12
Toluene 108883 12
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 12
Vinyl acetate 108054 47 • Vinyl chloride 75014 12
SVOCs (ug/kg)
Acenaphthy!ene 208968 420
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205992 420
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 420
Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 420
Benzoic acid 65850 7600 ' Benzyl alcohol 100516 1500
Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 420
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111911 420
bis(2-Chloroethyl)-ether 111444 420
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101553 420
4-Chloroaniline 106478 420
4-Ch!oro-3-methy!phenol 59507 420
2-Chloronaphtha!ene 91587 420
2-Chlorophenol 95578 420
4-Ch!orophenyl phenyl ether 7005723 420
Oibenz(a. h)anthracene 53703 420
Dlbenzofuran 132649 420
Di-n-butyl phthalate ,. 84742 420
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 420
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene 641731 420
3, 3'-0ichlorobenzidine 91941 420
2,4-Dichlorophenol 51285 420
Diethyl phthalate 84662 420
2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679 420
Dimethyl phthalate 131113 420
Di-n-octyl phthalate 117840 420
4.6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534521 1000
•
3/1312002
LttJlo 21
Potential Ecological COPC Rcfini>ment Process (Step 3) for Sediment
Derived From Table 9
Triangle Pacific Site, Eliubeth City, North Carolina
o of Samele Quantitation Limits Ma.r:imum SOL
Maximum E.r:ceeds
Sample Additional Additional Screening
Data Ouantitation . Data Screening Criterion? (Yes Background
Oualifier2 Limit Qualifier2 Criterionl or No) Concentration'
38 .. NA 35
38 .. NA 35
UJ 70 ·• NA 57
70 .. NA 46.25
38 .. NA 35
70 .. NA 46.25
38 .. NA 40.75
70 .. NA 46.25
38 .. NA 35
38 .. NA 35
38 .. NA 35
38 .. NA 35
38 .. NA 13
38 .. NA 35
38 .. NA 35
38 .. NA 35
38 50 No 35
70 .. NA. 46.25
38 .. NA 35
70 -NA 46.25
38 100 No 35
38 940 No 35
38 50 No 47.25
38 .. NA 35
70 .. NA 22.5
70 .. NA 46.25
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 3210
25000 .. NA 1155
25000 430 Yes 1555
7600 .. NA 3750
1500 .. NA 725
25000 -NA 1605
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 -NA 1505
25000 1300 Yes 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 -NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 2000 Yes 1330
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 340 Yes 1505
25000 1700 Yes 1505
25000 .. NA 2230
25000 3.0 Yes 1505
25000 630 Yes 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 -NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
64000 R .. NA 5725
Page 1 ol 3
Maximum SOL
Exceeds Analyte Source of
Background Retained as Reason(s) fa Additional
Concentration? COPC? CQPC Remaining Not-Detected Screening
(Yes or No) (Yes or No) Deletion5 Anal,,,tc!i Criterion •
Yes Yes Bromodichloromethane
Yes Yes Bromoform
Yes Yes Bromomethane
Yes Yes 2-Butanone
Yes Yes Carbon tetrachloride
Yes Yes Chloroethane
No No 121
Yes Yes Chioromethane
Yes Yes Dibromochloromethane
Yes Yes 1, 1-0ichforoethane
Yes Yes 1.2-0ichloroethane
Yes Yes 1, 1-Dichloroethene
Yes Yes cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
Yes Yes 1,2-Dichloroethene (Total)
Yes Yes cis-1,3-Dich!oropropene
Yes Yes trans-1, 3-Dichloropropene
Yes No 111 1
Yes Yes 2-Hexanone
Yes Yes Methylene chloride
Yes Yes 4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Yes No 111 1
Yes No 111 2
No No 111.121 1
Yes Yes 1, 1,2-Trich!oroethane
Yes Yes V,nyl acetate
Yes Yes Vinyl chloride
Yes Yes A:enapthylene
Yes Yes Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Yes Yes Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Yes Yes Benzo(a)pyrene 2
Yes Yes Benzoic acid
Yes Yes Benzyl alcohol
Yes Yes Butyl benzyl phthalate
Yes Yes bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Yes Yes bis(2-Chloroethyl)-ether 2
Yes Yes 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Yes Yes 4-Ch!oroaniline
Yes Yes 4-Ch!oro-3-methylphenol
Yes Yes 2-Chloronaphthalene
Yes Yes 2-Chlorophenot
Yes Yes 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Yes Yes Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Yes Yes Dibenzofuran 2
Yes Yes Di-n-butyl phthalate
Yes Yes 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2
Yes Yes 1,3-Dich!orobenzene 2
Yes Yes 3,3'-0ichlorobenzidine
Yes Yes 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Yes Yes Diethyl phthalate
Yes Yes 2.4-Dimethy/phenol 1
Yes Yes Di:nethyt phtha1ate 2
Yes Yes Di-n-octyl phthalate
Yes Yes 4. 6-Dinitro-2-methy!phenol
i .V"aleigh\projects\ 1 0679126609\5\era-fevised\al!sed1men13. ids: Step3-Screen2
• Ran
Minimum
Sample
CAS Quantitation
Analvte/Parameter1 Number Limit
2,4-0initrophenol 51285 1000
2,4-0initrotoluene 12142 420
2, 6-0ini1ro1oluene 606202 420
F!uorene 86737 420
Hexachlorobenzene 118741 420
Hexach!orobutadiene 87683 420
Hexachlorocylopentadieno 77474 420
Hexachloroethane 67721 420
lsophorone 78591 420
2-Methylphenol 95487 420
2-Nitroaniline 88744 1000
3-Nitroanihne 99092 1000
4-Nitroaniline 100016 520
Nitrobenzene . 98953 420
2-Nitrophenol 88755 420
4-Nitrophenol 100027 470
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86306 420
n-Nitrosodi-n-propyfamine 621647 420
2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 108601 420
Pentachlorophenol 87865 1000
Phenol 108952 420
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 420
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95954 1000
2,4,6• Trichlorophenol 88062 420
• Pesticides (ug/kg)
Aldrin 309002 2
alpha-BHC 319846 2
beta-BHC 319857 2
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 58899 2
alpha-Chlordane 57749 2
gamma-Chlordane 57749 2
4.4'-DOT ; 50293 4.2
Endosu/fan I 959988 2 Endosulfan II 33213659 4.2
Endosulfan sulfate 1031078 4.2
Endrin 72208 4.2
Endrin aldehyde 7421934 4.2
Heptach!or epoxide 1024573 2
Methoxychlor 72435 20
Toxaphene 8001352 200
•
3/13n002
T .thlo 21
Potential Ecological COPC Refin,,ment Process (Step J) for Sediment
Derived From Table 9
Triangle Pacific Site, Ellubeth City, North Carolina
e of Samole Quantitation Limits
Ma,dmum SOL
Maximum Exceeds
Sample Additional Additional Screening
Data Ouantitation Data Screening Crltorion? (Yes Background
Qualifier2 Limit Oualifier2 Criterion] or No) Concentration'
64000 R --NA 5725
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 UJ --NA 1505
25000 540 Yes 1440
25000 2.5 Yes 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 1000 Yes 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
64000 --NA 5725
64000 .. NA 5725
64000 .. NA 5725
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 --NA 5725
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
25000 .. NA 1505
64000 2 Yes 5725
25000 50 Yes 1505
25000 9200 Yes 1505
64000 1 Yes 5725
25000 1 Yes 1505
6.5 2.5 Yes 35
6.5 2.5 Yes 35
6.5 1.0 Yes 22.5
6.~ 3.7 Yes 35
110 4.5 Yes 5.5
130 4.5 Yes 8.1
20 .. NA 12.87
6.5 2.9 Yes 8.37
50 14 Yes 1155.00
13 -NA 12.33
30 20 Yes 3750.00
13 .. NA 11.73
10 0.6 Yes 1505
65 19 Yes 930
650 0_955 Yes 1505
Page2of3
Maximum SOL
Exceeds Analyte Source of
Background Retained as Reason(s) fo Additional
Concentration? COPC? COPC Remaining Not-Detected Screening
(Yes or No) {Yes or No) Deletion5 Analvtes Criterion'
Yes Yes 2,4-0initrophenol
Yes Yes 2,4-0initroto!uene
Yes Yes 2,6-0initrotoluene
Yes Yes F!uorene 2 Yes Yes Hexachlorobenzene 2
Yes Yes Hexach!orobutadiene
Yes Yes Hexachlorocylopentadiene
Yes Yes Hexachloroethane 2
Yes Yes lsophorone
Yes Yes 2-Methylphenol
Yes Yes 2-Nitroaniline
Yes Yes 3-Nitroani!ine
Yes Yes 4-Nitroaniline
Yes Yes Nitrobenzene
Yes Yes .2-Nitrophenol
Yes Yes 4-Nitrophenol
Yes Yes n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Yes Yes n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Yes Yes 2.2'-oxybis( 1-Ch!oropropane)
Yes Yes Pentachlorophenol 1 Yes Yes Phenol 1
Yes Yes 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2 Yes Yes 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Yes Yes 2,4,6-T rich/orophenol
No No 121 1 No No 121 1 No No 121 1 No No 121 2
3 (chlordane used
Yes Yes alpha-Chlordane as a surrogate)
3 (chlordane used Yes Yes Qamma-Chlordane as a surrogate)
Yes Yes 4,4'-00T
No No 121 2 No No [2]
Yes Yes Endosulfan sulfate No No 121
2 (endrin used as a Yes Yes Endrin aldehyde surrogate) No No 121 3 No No 121 2 No No 121 3
1:lraleign\+)rojects\ 1 0079\26609\5\era-revised\allsediment3. x!s: Step3-Screen2
•
•
•
3J13r.'002
Ran
Minimum
SampJE!
CAS Ouantitation
Analvte/Parameter 1 Number Limit
PCBs (ug/kg)
Aroc!or 1016 12674112 42
Aroclor 1221 11104282 84
Aroclor 1232 11141105 42
Aroc!or 1242 53469219 42
Aroclor 1248 12572205 42
Metals (mg/kg)
Antimony 7440360 1.4 Beryllium 7440417 0.54
Nickel 7440020 4.1
Potassium 7440097 290
Silver 7440224 0.31 Thallium . 7440280 0.25
General Chemistry
Total cyanide (mg/kg) 57125 0.27
Footnotes:
T.lhlo 21
Potential Ecological COPC Refin<1mont Process (Slop J) for Sediment
Derived From Table 9
Triangle Pacific Site, EliLabeth City, North Carolina
o of Sample Quantitation Limits
Maximum SOL
Maximum Exceeds
Sample Additional Additional Screening
Data Quantitation Data Screening Criterion? (Yes Background
Oualifie? Limit Qualifier1 Criterionl or No) Concentration'
130 .. NA 1505
260 67 Yes 1505
130 .. NA 1505
130 .. NA 1505
130 --NA 1505
R 51.7 R 12 Yes ,sos
2 .. NA 1.8
20 18 Yes 20.875
1500 .. NA 1500.55
3.8 .. NA 2.6725
4 .. NA 1505
0.71 Yes 0.935
Maximum SOL
Exceeds Analyte
Background Retained as
Concentration? COPC?
(Yes or No) {Yes or No)
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
Yes Yes
No No
No No
Yes Yes
No No
No No
1 Only includes analytes from Table 9 in which the maximum sample quantitation limit exceeded Step 2 preliminary ecological screening criteria (EPA Region JV) or the anafyte tacked correspond"1ng criteria.
.
Reason(s) fo
COPC Remaining Not-Detected
Deletion5 Analytes
121 Aroclor 1016
121 Aroclor 1221
121 Aroclor 1232
121 Aroc!or 1242
121 Aroclor 1248
121
Beryllium
Silver
111.121
2 Data validation qualifiers based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and U.S. EPA Contract laboratory Program (CLP) Functional Guidelines (U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/012. Washington, D.C. and U.S. EPA. 1994. USEPA Contract laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA-540/R-94/013. Washington, D.C.) Data qualifiers are as follows:
U (N.O.) · The analyte was analyzed for its potential presence but was not detected above the associated analytical quantitation reporting limit. R -The data were unusable. The presence or absence of the analyte could not be verified from the existing data. Resampling and reanalysis would be necessary for verification of the presence and/or concentration of the rejected analyte. UJ -The analyte was analyzed for its presence, but was not detected above the analytical reporting limit. The associated reporting limit was an estimated value . 3 Screening background concentration for each analyte is two times the mean concentration for that analyte in background samples collected at the Site {Table 10). Reasons fQr Potential COPC Oele1ion
(1] • Hazard Quotient< 1 for additional screening criteria
12] -Maximum concentration less than background screening concentration
{3) -Frequency, Magnitude, or Pattern Issue. discussed in text
5 Friday, G.P. 1998. Ecological Screening Values for Surface Water, Sediment. and Soil. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. WSRC-TR-90-00110. 67 pp. 1 • Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning. and Environment (MHSPE). 9 May 1994. Intervention Values and Target Values• Soi! Quality Standards. Directorate-General for Environmental Protection, Department of Soil Protection, The,Hague, The Netherlands. 2 • Environmental Protection Agency. January 1996. Ecotox Thresholds, ECO Update, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Intermittent Bulletin Vol. 3, No. 2, Publication 9345.0-12FSI. EPA 540/F--95-038 PB95-963324. 3 • Environment Canada, 1995. Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines, Soil and Sediment Quality Section Guidelines Division, Ecosystem Conservation Directorate, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Ottawa, Ontario. 4 • Environmental Protection Agency. November 1995. Ecological Screening Values. In: Supplemental Guidance to RAGS·. Region 4 Bulletins. Ecological R"1sk Assessment. Bull. No. 2, Atlanta, Georg·1a. NA Not available
•• not available
Source of
Additional
Screening
Criterion•
4
4
3
1
Page 3 ofJ i.\J"ale1ghlprojec\s\ 106 79\26609\5\era-revised\allsed,ment3.x!s: Step3--Screen2
'
•
•
•
Table 22
Potential Ecological COPCs Remaining after Step 3 Eco-Risk Refinement
with Maximum Concentration Noted
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
•
•
•
Table 22
Potential Ecological COPCs Remaining after Step 3 Eco-Risk Refinement
With Maximum Concentration and Year Noted
Triangle Pacific Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Maximum Concentrations
Surface Soil Sediment Surface Water
Concentration Potential Ecoloaical COPCs Concentration 1 Year Concentration 1 Year luo/LI
voes
Chlorobenzene 82,000 1998
SVOCs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1,600,000 1998 69,000 1998 Butyl benzyl phthalate 8200 1998
Total PAHs 66,700 1998 232,000 1998
Pesticides
beta-BHC 13 1998
alpha-Chlordane 60 1998
gamma-Chlordane 52 1998
Endosulfan sulrate 41 1998
Endrin aldehyde 7 1998 Heptachlor 2.6 1998
Heptachlor epoxide 15 1998
Total DDD/DDE/DDT 87 1995
PCBs
Total PCBs (as Aroclors 1254, 1260) 7600 1998 1300 1998
Metals
Barium 329 1998 35.2 Chomium 62.7 1990
Lead 593 1990 131 1998 Manganese 354 1990 358 1990 Mercury 0.5 1990 Zinc 1040 1998
Footnotes:
1 VOCs, SVQ_Cs, pesticides, and PCBs concentrations in ug/kg; metals concentrations in mg/kg .
Year
1990
3/12/2002 Page 1 of 1 i :\raleigh\projects\ 1 0679\26609\5\era-revised\lables\table22. xis
a,~------------------------------------------------~ • ~
•
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI / FS SITE NEAR ELIZABETH CITY
WEEKSVILLE, N.C.
MAP SOURCE: USGS 7.5-MIN. SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE "WEEKSVILLE. NC"
0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
5 0 1 KILOMETER
FILE NO, 26609 SCALE: 1 :24000
' li.j 013RIEN6GEAE
-'--ENGINEERS, INC.
•
CURRENT SITE MAP
TASK •--AOC-:--DOCKET NO. 98-02-C
ELIZABETH CITY. NORTH CAROLINA
• •
illtl!O
-" -Sm: BOUN!lARY
,,,_-,.,i,.,u,
Job No. 1054-97-Cey9
Scale: 1 • • 4001
Fig No.
•
~!, ...........
' '· ,., ,
~
· 960 0
1 "-960' ,_... w -~-
TOTAL AREA INSIDE POLYGON -383 ACRES
960
'
• PERCENTAGE FORMER MANUFACTURING AREA 14.3%
• PERCENTAGE OPEN FIELD 47.3%
• PERCENTAGE WOODED AREA 28.6%
• PERCENTAGE OPEN WATER 7.0%
<f--------.------------------,=:-=--c:-:-------, FILE NO.
LAND USE IN IN MEDIATE VICINITY OF THE 26609.010.001
TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE NEAR DATE
~ amWJ_JIERE ~ ENGINEERS INC.
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, MARCH 2002
NORTH CAROLINA DWG NO. ~ FIGURE 3 L_ ______ ___JL_ _________________ ,__ ____ __J
.. I " 0:: i / 0 ::, "' " -"' " l!;
I ,.
~ w N / ~ I ~ 0 I .. " w 0
i ~ a. / ~ I "' ~
~ a.
~
•
I [;?
,,
1800 0
1"-1800' r--1-----~-1800
'
TOTAL AREA WITHIN ONE-MILE RADIUS OF SITE-2011 ACRES
• PERCENTAGE FORMER MANUFACTURING AREA 2.8%
• PERCENTAGE OPEN FIELDS 42.6%
• PERCENTAGE WOODED AREA 6.6%
• PERCENTAGE OPEN WATER 33.5%
• PERCENTAGE WOODED RESIDENTIAL AREA 16.5%
"'J---------~------------------~---------l
.. It;!! aa111SR!UENJBIIBIE
FILE NO.
26609.010.001
DATE ~ ENGINEERS INC.
~
LAND USE WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS
OF THE TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE NEAR
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2002
DWG ND.
FIGURE 4
•
LEGEND
j
!;l
' >•., ..
-~ .... " .. ,,
/'-j
~ .. -:-7 "-,c_;
1800 0
1 "-18QQ' r-"\ WW --~
WETLANDS
,c."
1800
l
<1----------------------------------< NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY WETLANDS IDENTIFIED
N ~Ii
•
-_ DCJBIBlmWJ:ril&GERE
ENGINEERS INC.
~
FILE NO,
WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF THE 26609.010,001
TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE NEAR DATE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, MARCH 2002
NORTH CAROLINA DWG NO, ~ FIGURE 5 L_ ______ __J_ _________________ L_ _ _;_-=----=---___J
•
•
•
Figure 6
Preliminary Conceptual Site Model
Step I for Ecological Risk Assessment (Preliminary Screening Level: Steps I through 3)
Triangle Pacific RI/FS Site, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
POTENTIAL
PRIMARY
SOURCE
Waste Disposal
Former Manufacturing Activities
* Storage Tank Arca
I
I
~
POTENTIAL
PRIMARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
Boiler House
Potential Discharges
* Leaks
i--
➔
POTENTIAL
SECONDARY
RELEASE
Air
Surface Soils
------➔
-
:::
POTENTIAL
SECONDARY
RELEASE
MECllANISM
Volatilazation
Fugitive Dust
Gcncrntion
-J
-J
POTE1''TIAL
PATHWAY
Air
(Volatiles)
Air
(Paniculatcs)
* Concrete Pad• Warehouse * Spills Direct Contact
* Stacker Building ' * Tar.Stained Soil Area
Legend:
------+ •
0
I-+ Biota Uptake
On•Site Landfill ~
➔ Runoff
l
Infiltration Subsurface ➔ . Leaching . Percolation Soils -
= Potentially complete exposure pathway of concern addressed in this risk ac;sessment
= Principal pathway for quantative evaluation in this risk assessment.
= Principal pathway for quali1itivc evaluation in this risk assessment.
1-J
►
►
►
➔
= Incomplete pathway or lacking information -exposure route not evaluated in this risk assessment.
(I). Potential ecological receptors under reasonable current and future land use scenarios.
(2). Key Issues for Ecological Receptor Selection:
For Terrestrial Biota·
Small Mammals
Trophic Level 3 -omnivorous
Potential occurrence for species within vicinity of site
Biota
Sediment
Surface Water
Ground W atcr
(3)
i.e. Raccon(Procyon iotor) Dominant in various terrestrial plant communities (forested and open areas)
Toxicological reference data for risk evaluation
Upland Birds
i.e. Bald Eagle (Jlaliaeetus leucocephalus)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Coopers Hawk (Accipiter cooperi)
Trophic Level 4 -carnivorous (fish. birds, mammals)
Potential occurrence for species within vicinity of site
Dominant in various terrestrial plant communities (swamp. grasslands, and hardwoods)
Toxicological reference data for risk evaluation -less for birds than mammals
ron::NTIAL
EXPOSURE
PATHWAY
~ Inhalation I
~I Inhalation
Uptake
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
-.r Ingestion
Uptake
Ingestion
➔ Dermal Contact
Uptake
Ingestion -.-Dermal Contact
Uptake
Ingestion
I➔ Inhalation
Dermal Contact
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS (I)
~ ~
TERRESTRJAL (SOIL) BIOTA (2) WETLAND/AQUATIC BIOTA (2)
S:SIALI. MA:Sl,1.-\LS
0
0
•
0
•
UPLASD BIRDS PLAZ\'TS \\'ETLA:-'D BIRDS FISH PLA:-.'TS
I 0 I
I
• •
0
• I 0 I 0
• • •
0 0
0 • • •
0 0
(2). Key Issues for Ecological Receptor Selection (cont):
For IVetland/Aquatic Biota
Wading Birds
i.e. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
Freshwater Fish
i.e. Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)
For Terrestrial and Wetland/Aquatic Plants:
Trophic Level 3 -piscivorous (assorted fish spp.)
Potential occurrence for species within vicinity of site
Dominan1 in wetland areas (marshes, ponds, lakes)
Toxicological reference data for risk evaluation -less for birds than mammals
Trophic Level 3 -carnivorous/piscivorous
Potential occurrence for species within vicinity of site based on habitat type and location
Potential species for biota sample collection to evaluate human and ecological risk
Dorninam in fresh water lcntic systems
Some toxicological reference data for risk evaluation -less for fish than mammals/birds
i.e. Cattail (J)pha sp.) Trophic Level I -primary producer
Willow (Salix sp.) Potential occurrence for species within vicinity of site
Cypress (Taxodium sp.) Dominant in terrestrial communities and wetland areas (marshes. ponds. lakes)
Little toxicological reference data for risk evaluation -less than animals
(3). Groundwater to surface water exposure pathway to be a.~sessed based upon the ground water/surface water ernluation as part of the ground water monitoring and evaluation activities.
i :\cape_ can lprojccts\3356\2299218 _ d,,g\techmemo\era 1-31fig4 ·ds Page I of l 4116/02
... --------------,--------------,..-,------------------"----, I ! I • TP-001-SS
(CONTROL)
j --
~-L~,/
~
... ~-L-~. --------~-t
•i! .~ ----~·-~
....,, __ ~---"'-C. '
----,-_ ---=-~ ~ ----~ -----.:.,,_~~-+ ----......:., -
-. -'· i
TP-002-SS
·I◊
-~b~=~
'' ( :
[ I
I I : .
' .
; :
'
C '
~ • TP-004-SS
.--~----:;:--,__ --~
J
f'J
J
<-,... ;;.,,.-_,.__.
irom11m
VlJNl[iJ!lfllL[L
~~r~
~--·-...,...
. -r'J
. ·,
" l ,
J ~ L _____ '-_· ---------------:'...." ______________________________ __.
,FIGURE 7
LEGEND
EPA SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
1995
S&ME SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
1998
PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT (STEPS 1 -3)
SURFACE SOIL (0-6" bis)
SAMPLE LOCATIONS ON
TRIANGLE PACIFIC SITE
FROM PREVIOUS SITE
INVESTIGATIONS
FILE NO. 26609.004.001
MARCH 2002
f!!! ct& EN&DERE
;;, ENGINEERS INC.
"' I C)
0: ::;-
I
~ w ,
::,
I :i
:,:
i '
.I / O> 5! <O N ! u I ~ <O 0 ;;;.
~ .J .. ~
~ ..
~ \
@=\ffi!)= j)~
@=ffi=le) '-
TP-001-SD
i 0 "' <
' "' 0
8 2§
15 ~ ,. ..
'-TP-002-SD
~
I
\
'Ii
·~~··
-~
TP-004-SD
•
-&
FIGURE 8
LEGEND
EPA SEDIMENT SAMPLE
1995
S&ME SEDIMENT SAMPLE
1998
S&ME SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
1998
PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT (STEPS 1-3)
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATIONS ON
TRIANGLE PACIFIC SITE
FROM PREVIOUS SITE
INVESTIGATIONS
FILE NO. 26609.004.001
MARCH 2002
di!: DBRIEWBDBIE Iii ENGINEERS INC.
""'
~
~ 13
TP-001-SS (Background)
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromiu m
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
D-SS-1
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
To tal PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heplachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
E-SS -1
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
En dosulfan sulfate
En drin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
H-SS-1 (Background)
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Hept achlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
ND
ND
9580 ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 00.2J ug/kg
ND
28 mg/kg
8.2J mg/kg
5.5 mg/kg
140 mg/kg
39 mg/kg
NA.
19,000J ug kg
290J ug/kg
17,060 ug/kg
ND
7.1 J ug/kg
7.5J ug/kg
33J ug/lg
7J ug/lg
ND
ND
49J ug/kg
ND
116 mg/kg
25.8 mg/kg
53DJ mg/kg
19DJ mg/kg
292J mg/kg
0.84 m k
29,000J ug kg
8200J ug/kg •
A-SS -1
' BEHP I
Butyl benz/" phthalate
Total PAHs.
beta-BHC 1 alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan• sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlorl
Heptachlar ! epoxide
Total DDD;iDD E/DDT
Total PCBs'
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
1 ,600,000J ug/kg •
ND
66,700 ug/kg *
13J ug/kg *
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7600 ug/kg *
76 mg/kg
59.4 mg/kg
209J mg/kg
200J mg/kg
1 D40J mg/kg *
17 mg/kg
9670 ug/kg f------
4. 6 ug/kg
60J ug/kg •
52J ug/kg •
41 J ug/kg •
ND
2.6J ug/kg
15J ug/kg •
82J ug/kg
ND
68.6 mg/kg
17.5 mg/kg
53.6J mg/kg
l 83J mg/kg
90.1 J mg/kg
ND
830 ug/kg
ND
3230 ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
15J ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
25J ug/kg
40.98 mg/kg
9.8 mg/kg
127J mg/kg
144J mg/kg
77.3 mg/kg
ND
TP-002-SS
BEHP ND
Butyl t!enzyl phtholate ND
Total PAHs 3040 ug/kg
bet a -BHC ND
alpha-Chlordane ND
gammd-Chlordone ND
Endosulfan sulfate ND
Endrin aldehyde ND
Heptachlor ND
Heptachlor epoxide ND ' Total 4lD D/DDE/DDT ND
Total 9CBs ND
Barium; 47 mg/kg
Chromium 12J mg/kg
Lead ' 39 mg/kg
Manganese 94 mg/kg
Zinc ~; 65 mg/kg
Cyanide NA
B-SS-1
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta -BHC
alpha -Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Tot al PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
TP-004-SS
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha -Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
68,000J ug/kg
420J ug/kg
18655 ug/kg
4.5 ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2650 ug/kg
329 mg/kg *
21.2 mg/kg
58.2J mg/kg
257J mg/kg
323J mg/kg
0.388 mg/kg
9600 ug/kg
ND
2310 ug/kg
ND
ND
5.7 ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
1.7JN ug/kg
87 ug/kg *
ND
130 mg/kg
21 J mg/kg
42 mg/kg
130 mg/kg
250 mg/kg
NA
F-SS-1
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
4800J ug kg
ND
3655 ug/kg
12 ug/kg
ND
1.5J ug/kg
32J ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
59J ug/kg
ND
172 mg/kg
15.9 mg/kg
68.1 J mg/kg
203J mg/kg
68.7J mg/kg
0.218 mg/kg
SS02 Not shown
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
al oha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptach lor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Mang a nese
Zinc
C anide
SS01 (Not shown)
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta -BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endasulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
U-SS -1
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalat e
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
__.------1 Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
TP -003-SS
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phtha late
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha-Ch lardane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
+-------1Endrin aldehyde
He ptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
Total PCBs
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
G-SS-1
BEHP
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Total PAHs
beta-BHC
alpha -Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptochlor epoxide
'----+rota! DDD/DDE/DD-
Total PCBs
Barium
Chrom ium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Cyanide
630 ug/kg
ND
5185 ug/kg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
94.4 mg/kg
32.1J mg/kg
30.9J mg/kg
165J mg/kg
95.4J mg/kg
ND
R
R
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
83.B mg/kg
62. 7 J mg/kg *
593J mg/kg*
354,J mg/kg*
549J mg/kg
ND
9DOJ ug/kg
ND
34B5 ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
641 mg/kg
15.5 mg/kg
1 B.5J mg/kg
123J mg/kg
3.25J mg/kg
ND
3000 ug/kg
ND
2490 ug/kg
ND
ND
0.7J ug/kg
ND
ND
ND
0.4J ug/kg
ND
ND
49 mg/kg
20J mg/kg
12 mg/kg
90 mg/kg
33 mg/kg
NA
2800J ug/kg
ND
3230 ug/kg
ND
1.7J ug/kg
ND
18 ug/kg
ND
ND
1.9J ug/kg
46J ug/kg
ND
35.48 mg/kg
14.2 mg/kg
28.2J mg/kg
113J mg/kg
174J mg/kg
0 .218 mq/kg
FIGURE 9
LEGEND
EPA Surface Soil Sample
1995
"' ,, ._'A·~ \ ,·s.
'S&ME Surf dee Soil Sample·
1998
* Location with maximum
analyte concentration
ND Non -detect
NA Not analyzed
ug/kg Micrograms per kilogram
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
ug/L Micrograms per Liter
J Estimated result for organic
analyte
'
8 Estimated result for inorganic
analyte
All Pott data rejected
therefore no summation
possible
PRELIMINARY
ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT
(STEPS 1-3)
COPCs
SURVMNG STEP 3
ERA SCREENING IN
SURFACE
.,SOIL {0-6" bis)
'FROM PREVIOUS SITE
INVESTIGATIONS
TRIANGLE PACIFIC SITE
FILE NO. 26609.004.001
MARCH 2002
---OBRIEN 6 GERE
ENGINEERS, INC.
Q
~L----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------''-----------__J
,. ;
Q-SW -1 (Background)
Barium
Q-SD -1 (Background)
Chlorobenzene
BEHP
1atal PAHs
Total PCBs
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
TP -001-SD
Chlorobenzene
BEHP
Total PAHs
To tal PCBs
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
~
,
·'
I ' .I
ND j
I
ND
1300 ugy'kg
6800 ugy kg
120 ug1kg
43.5 mg1/kg
59 .5 mgVkg
0.13 mgy'kg
·I '
ND
ND
31,950 ug/kg
ND
1' 39 mg/kg
180 mg/kg
ND
R-SW-1 (Background) K-SW-1
Barium ND Barium
R-SD -1 (Background) K-SD -1
Ch iorobenzene ND Chlo robenzene
BEHP 730J ug/kg EHP
Total PAHs 8700 PAHs
Total PCBs 290 ug/kg
Lead 65.7 mg/kg Lead
Manganese 113 mg/kg Manganese
Mercury 0.2 mg/kg Mercury
SW -01 (Not Shown)
!Barium
TP-002-SD SD "~01
Ch lorobenzene 3200 ug/kg Chlorobenzene
BEH P 62,000 ug/kg BEHP
Total PAHs 11,640 ug/kg Total PAHs
Total PCBs 1000 ug/kg Total PCBs
Lead 66 mg/kg Lead
Manganese 110 mg/kg Manganese
Mercury 150 mg/kg Mercury
. '. -, • I ' • . • •
ND
82,000 ug/kg *
57,DOD ug/kg
232,000 ug/kg
1300 ug/kg *
89 mg/kg
143 mg/kg
0.168 mg/kg
SW-02 (Not Shown, Backgrou nd)
35.2 ug/L* I Barium 2.8 ug/L
SD-02
11,000 ug/kg Chlorobenzene ND
ND BEH P 6400 ug/kg ND Tota l PAHs 12,750 ug/kg
I NA Total PCBs NA 90.1 J mg/kg Lead 46J mg/kg 53J mg/kg Manganese 358J mg/kg • 0.42 mg/kg Mercury 0.5 mg/kg •
L-SW -1
Ba rium
L-SD-1
Ch lorobe nzen e
BEHP
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
M-SW-1
Barium
M-SD-1
Chlorobenzene
BEHP
.,,----,
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
TP -004-SD
Chlorobenzene
BEHP
Total PAHs
Total PCBs ------t Lead
Manganese
Mercury
TP-003-SD
Ch !orobenzene
BEHP
Total PAHs
Total PCBs -----I Lead
Manganese
Mercury
P-SW-1
'-----1 B a ri um
i
• I
ND
N,D
69,000J ug/kg
187,ooo: ug/kg
930 ug/kg
131 mg/kg*
72 mg/kg
0.25 mg/kg
ND
35J ug/kg
3700 ug/kg
11,050 ug/kg
720 ug/kg
79.9 mg/kg
72 mg/kg
0.3 mg/kg
" ,
ND
~D
35701 ug/kg
No
15 mg/kg
26 rng/kg
MD
ND
ND
3440 ug/kg
ND
6.2 mg/kg
43 mg/kg
110
N) L._-------------+----'
P-SD-1
Chlorobenzene
BEHP
Total PAHs
'---,Total PCBs
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
N-SW-1
Barium
N-S0 -1
Chlorobenzene
BEHP
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
Leed
Manganese
Mercury
ND
ND
4420 ug/kg
ND
7.8 mg/kg
38 mg/kg
ND
ND
ND
950 .Jg/kg
3995 ug/kg
ND
4.3 rig/kg
25.9 .cng/kg
NO
FIGURE 10
LEGEND
EPA Sediment Sample 1995
a S&ME Sediment Sample
1998
S&ME Surface Water Sa m ple
1998
•.* ·•· Lbc'atidn ~,Wi{h rl'raxirt7'um
analyte concentratio·n
ND Non -detect
NA
ug/kg
mg/kg
uo/L
Not analyzed
Micrograms per kilogram
Miliigroms per kilogram
Micrograms per Liter
J
8
Estimated result far organic
anolyte
Estimated result for inorganic
analyte
PRELIMINARY
ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT
(STEPS 1-3)
COPCs
SURVMNG STEP 3
ERA SCREENING IN
SURFACE WATER/
SEDIMENT
FROM PREVIOUS SITE
INVESTIGATIONS
TRIANGLE PACIFIC SITE
FILE NO. 26609.004.001
MARCH 2002
O'BRIEN 6 GERE
ENGINEERS, INC.
~L------------~-----------------+---------------------------------___,
' '
•
•
•
Appendix A
Eight-Step Ecological Risk
Assessment Process for Superfund
•
•
Cl C -·.;: C .':!? 0 >< ·.;: Wm ~ E ·a. .E E E a 0
-
C: 0 ·u
~ 0 0
m 1ii 0
-
-.
Ei;.!,ht-Stcp Ecolog,ic~II Risk Assessment Proccs.•/
Ecological Risk J\sscssmt:nl fnr
Trian~lc Pat:ilic Sih::, Elizahl!th City. North Carolina
STEP 1: SCREENING LEVEL:
Site Visit
Problem Formulation
Toxicity Evaluation
STEP 2: SCREENING LEVEL:
Exposure Esitimate
Risk Calculation
STEP 3: PROBLEM FORMULATION:
I Toxicity Evaluation I • •
Assessment Conceptual Model
Endpoints . Exposure Pathways
t t
I Questions/Hypotheses I
STEP 4: STUDY DESIGN AND DQO PROCESS
Lines of Evidence
Measurement Endpoints
Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan
STEP 5: VERIFICATION OF FIELD SAMPLING DESIGN
STEP 6: SITE INVESTIGATION AND DATA ANAYLSIS
STEP 7: SITE CHARACTERIZATION:
. .
. I
~1
~1 _,
Risk Assesso rand
ger Risk Mana
Agreeme nt
,.
SMDP I
SMDP I
SMDP I
SMDP I
SMDP I
.___ ______ s_T_E_P_a_: -R-IS_K_M_A_N_A_G_E_M_E_N_T ______ _.ri~_s_M_D_P_
liot.c.a:.
1 -Eight-Step Process from Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessment.
Interim Final. EPA-540-R-97-006, June 1997.
SMDP -Scientific Management Decision Point
Highlighted Information {Steps 1 through 3) are presented in this technical memorandum report.
i :I ral\ ! 06 7')\ :!(ihl )(J\5 _rptsl cral.appcn<li ;.;I app,::n<la. xis l'agclnfl
•
•
•
Appendix B
EPA Checklist for Ecological
Assessment and Sampling (for the
Triangle Pacific Site near Elizabeth
City, North Carolina)
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
!ntro<lw.;I ion
The chccklist that follows provides guidance in making observations for an ecological assessment. It is not intern.led for limited or
cincrgcncy response actions ( c.g., removal of a few <lrnms) or for purely industrial sctlings with no discharges. 'IlH! checklist is a
screening tool for preliminary site evaluation and may also be useful in planning 'more extensive site investigations. It must be
compli.:u.:d us thoroughly as time allows. ·inc results of the checklist will serve as a starting point for the collection of appropriate
biological data to be used in developing a response action. It is recognized that certain questions in this checklist arc not
univcr:mlly applicable and that site-specific conditions will influence interpretation. Therefore, a site synopsis is rcqui::stcd to
facilitate final review of the checklist by a trained ecologist.
Checklist
The checklist has been divided into sections that correspond to data collection methods and ecosystem types. 'Ibcsc sections arc:
L Site Description
IA. Summary of Observations and Site Setting
II. Terrestrial Habitat Checklist
!IA. Wooded
IIB. Shrub/Scrub
ITC. Open Field
IID. Miscellaneous
Ill. Aquatic Habitat Checklist -Non-Flowing Systems
JV. Aquatic Habitat Checklist--Flowing Systems
V. Wetlands Habitat Checklist
July 2000 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I:Cape _ Can\Projccts\I 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA'v\ppx _ B.doc
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle racific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
I. SITE DESCRIPTION
I. Site Name: Triangle Pacific Corporation Site
2. Location: 1268 Toxey Road
County: Pasquotank City: Elizabeth City State: North Carolina 27909
I ,atitu<lc: 36°13' 15" North Longitude: 76°08' l-4"Wcst
3. What is the approximate area of the site? The site is approximately 188 acres.
4. Is this the first site visit? {X ] yes [ J no Ifno, altach trip report of previous site visit(s), if available.
Datc(s) of previous site visit(s): March 14, 2000
S. Please attach to the checklist USGS topographic map(s) of the site, if available.
The site is located on the Wccksvillc, North Carolina Quadrangle (1982). In addition, the Wade Point NC quadrangle to the cast and the Elizabeth City NC quadrangle to the north provide area perspective.
6. Arc aerial or other site photographs available? [X] yes [ ] no If yes, please uttach any available photo(s) to the site
map at the conclusion of this section.
U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial photos available beginning in 1950s and continuing to 1998. In addition, the later photos were taken at infrared frequencies. Please sec the figures to the parent document of this appendix.
7. The land use on the site:
__ 0_%Urban
...!!ill.._% Rural
__ 0_% Residential
_14 __ % Industrial (light)
~%Agricultural
(Crops: Row and cover crops)
__ n_ % Recreational
(Describe~ note ifit is a park, etc.)
__JL % Undisturbed
_]_§___ %Other
8. The area surrounding the site is one mile radius
__ 0_%Urban
-1Q!L % Rural
---1.2d ¾ Residential
-1J! ¾Industrial (light)
---1Q__ % Agricultural
(Crops: Row and cover crops)
__ o_ % Recreational
(Describe; note if it is a park, etc.)
_____:!!!_ % Undisturbed
_fil_ % Other
Please see land use maps in Figures 3 and 4 of the parent document to this appendix.
July 2000 2 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
!:Cape_ Can\Projects\ 1 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ B.doc
•
•
•
Appendix D
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
8. Has any movement of soil taken place at the sik? jX I yes [] no. rrycs, please identify the most likely cause of this disturbance:
__ X_Agricultural Use
__ X_Naturnl Events
Please describe: •
•
•
•
___ Heavy Equipment
__ X_Erosion
Agriculture -normal tillage of soil with wind and water cro.-1ion
Natural events -wind erosion and surface runoff erosion
___ Mining
Construction -some ."ioil may have been moved during construction activities
including when site was a Navy Base
On-."iitC Lane.Ifill -the operation of the approximately 22-acrc on-site landfill and
its closure and capping involved movement of .rnil
9. Do any potentially sensitive environmental areas exist adjacent to or in proximity to the site, e.g., Federal and State
parks, National and State monuments, wetlands, and prairie potholes? Remember, flood plains and wetlands arc not
always obvious; do not answer "no" without confinning information .
P11lustrine, forested, broad-leafed deciduous wetlands and freshwater marsh arc found on the site.
Sec Figure 5 in the parent document to this appendix.
Please provide the source(s) ofinfonnation used to identify these sensitive areas, and indicate their general location on the site map.
The sources were the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory maps and confirmation by the site visit. The location of the wetlands arc provided in Figure 5 in the parent document to this appendix.
lO. What type of facility is located at the site?
I ] Chemical [ X ] Manufacturing [ ] Mixing [ ] Waste disposal
fX ] Other (specify): Former blimp base and former cabinet-making facilities; now manufacture and testing of
lighter-than-air craft
11. What arc the suspected contaminants of concern at the site? If known, what arc the maximum concentration levels?
Acetone, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, aluminum, iron, magnesium, manganese, toxaphcne, chlorobem.ene, benzene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, xylcnes, 1,4-dichlorobcnzcnc, 2-mcthylnapthalene, di-n-octylphthalatc, lead,
barium, cadmium, PCBs, tctrachloroethylene, pesticides, chromium, copper, toluene, fluorene, 2-mcthylphthalatc, 1,1,-
trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropanc, methylene chloride, trichloroethcne, PAHs, tetrachloroethanc, arsenic, beta-
BHC, tctrachloroethane, dieldrin, cndrin, anthracene, chryscne. Maximum concentrations for these constituents arc
provided in the parent document to this appendix .
July 2000 3 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I:Capc _ Can\Projects\l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ B.doc
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
12. Check any potential routes of off-site migration of contaminants observed at the site:
IX I Swales
[X I RunolT
[ J Depressions
[ X ] Windblo\\11 particulates
[ X ] Other (specify) Storm water c..lrainagc W!'itcm
l X l Drainage ditches
[ X ] Vehicular trallic
13. If kno\\11, what is the approximate depth to the water table? 4 to 6 feet
14. Is the dircctioti. of surface runoff apparent from site observations? [ I yes [ X J no If yes, to which of the following docs
the surface runoIT discharge? Indicate all that apply.
I ] Surface water [ ] Groundwater [ ] Sewer [ ] Collection impoundment
15. Is there a navigable watcrbody or tributary to a navigable watcrbody? [X]ycs[]no
16. Is there a watcrbody anywhere on or in the vicinity of the site? If yes, also complete Section ITI: Aquatic Habitat Checklist
-Non-Flowing Systems an<l/or Section IV: Aquatic Habitat Checklist -Flowing Systems.
[ X ] yes (approx. distance adjacent) [ ] no
17. Is there evidence of flooding? { X ] yes { ] no (Wetlands and flood plains arc not always obvious~ do not answer 0no"
without confirining information. If yes, complete Section V: Wetland Habitat Checklist).
18. If a field guide was used to aid any of the identifications. please provide a reference. Also, estimate the time spent
identifying fauna. [Use a blank sheet if additional space is needed for text.] NIA
19. Arc any threatened an<l/or endangered species (plant or animal) known lo inhabit the area of the site? [ ] yes [ X ] no (!f
yes, you are required to verify this information with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If species' identities arc known,
please list them next).
As noted in the parent document to this appendix, two species of listed plants have been identified within 4 miles of
the site but these species arc not known to occur on the site or areas near it. Please sec section 2.2.3 in the parent
document to this appendix.
20. Record wcathCr conditions at the time thi~ checklist was prepared:
Date: March I 4, 2000
Tern perat ure: I ow 60° s F
July 2000 4 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
!:Cape_ Can\Projects\l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _B.doc
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Wind (<lircction/spcc<l): SE 10 mph
Clow.I cover: clear
Prccipilation (rain, snow): none
Normal daily high temperature: unknown
July 2000 5. 0 'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I: Cape_ Can \Projects\ I 0679-CBS _TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA \Appx _ 8.doc
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle racific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
IA. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND SITE SETTING
Thi." information i., provided in great detail in Section 2.0 of the parent document to this appendix ~rnd will not he repeated here. The written descriptions in the text arc accompanied hy species lists, lii,.:urc.'i featuring acri:11 photogrnphs and similar supporting documentation.~. '
Completed by ______________ _ Affiliation --------------
Additional Preparers----------------------------------
Site Manager ____________________________________ _
Date ____________________ _
July 2000 6 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I:Capc _ Can\Projccts\l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ B.doc
•
•
•
Appendix 11
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
11. ·1l:RRESTRIAI, HAIJITAT CIIECKLIST
IIA WOODED
I. Arc there any wooded areas at the site? [ X ] yes [ I no If no, go to Section !ID: Shrub/Scrub.
2. What percentage or area of the site is woOUcd? (28% 107 acres). Indicate the wooded area on the site map, \Vhich is
attached to a copy of this checklist. Pli.:asc identify what infonnation was used to <lctcnnint.! the woolk<l area of thc site.
Please sec Figure 3, -1, and 5 of parent document to thh appendix. Aerial photos and site visit confirmed wooded lrnhitats.
3. What is the dominant type of vegetation in the wooded area? (Circle one: Evcrgrccn/(Dccit.luous)/Mixcd) Provide a
photograph, if available.
Dominant plant, if known: large variety of mccic:ii
4. What is the predominant size of the trees at the site? Use diameter at breast height.
I I 0-6 in. (>95%) I J 6-12 in. (<5¾) [XI> 12 in.
5. Specify type of undcrstory present, if known. Provide a photograph, if available .
Ill. SIIRUB/SCRUl3
I. Is shrub/scrub vegetation present at the site? [ ] yes [ X] no Ifno, go to Section ITC: Open Field.
2. What percentage of the site is covered by scrub/shrub vegetation?. Indicate the areas of shmb/scrub on ~e site map.
Please identify what inforrniition was used to determine this area.
3. What is the dominant type of scrub/shrub vegetation, if known? Provide a photograph, if available.
4. What is the approximate average height of the scrub/shrub vegetation?
I I 0.2 fl []2-5fl. I J >5 fl
5. Based on site observations, how dense is the scrub/shrub vegetation?
I I Dense [ J Patchy II Sparse
ITC. OPEN FIELD
I. Arc there open (bare, barren) field areas present at the site? [ X ] yes [ ] no If yes, please indicate the type below:
l Prairie/plains [ ] Savannah [ X ] Old field [ X ] Other maintained turf gras.~cs and
agricultural fields
July 2000 7 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
!:Cape_ Can\Projects\ l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ 8.doc
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
2. Whal percentage of the site is open Jidd? ( 47%_180 acres). Indicate the open ticl<ls on the site.: map
Sec Figure 3 in parent document to lhi.'i appendix.
3. What is/arc the dominant plant(s)? Provide a photograph, if available
Grasses and forhs in olt.1 field; turf grasses; and agricultural cover crop,.
4. What is the approximate avcragc height of the dominant plant? Varies from 4 inches to 4 feet
5. Describe the vegetation cover: IX I Dense I I Sparse I I Patchy
IID. MISCELLANEOUS
I. Arc other types of terrestrial habitats present at thc site, other than woods, scrub/shrub, and open field? [ J yes [ X J no
If yes, identify and describe them below.
2.
3.
4 .
Describe the terrestrial miscellaneous habitat(s) and identify these arca(s) on the site map.
What observations, if nny, were made at the site regarding the presence nnd/or absence of insects, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
Probably present but few direct observations. Some sign present. Birds were most visible biota .
Review the questions in Section I to dctennine if any additional habitat checklists should be completed for this site.
July 2000 8 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
!:Cape_ Can\Projects\l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ER~\Appx _ B.doc
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
Ill. AQUATIC IIA!l!TAT CIIECKI.IST--NON-FLOWINC, SYSTEMS
Note: Aquatic :-;ystcms arc olkn associated with wetland habitats. Please rdCr to Section V, Wdlan<l Hahitat Check I isl.
I. What type of open-water, non-tlowing systt.:m is present at thr.: site?
I Natural (pond, lake)
I /\rtilicially created (lagoon, reservoir, canal, and impoun<lmcnt)
2. If known, what is the namc(s) of the watcrbo<ly(ics) on or adjacent to the site?
3. If a watcrbody is present, what arc its known uses ( e.g.: recreation, navigation, etc.)?
4. What is the approximate size of the watcrbo<ly(ics)? _________ ucre(s).
5, Is any aquatic vegetation present? [ J yes [ ] no Ifycs, please identify the type of vegetation present if known.
[ I Emergent [ I Submergent [ I Floating
6. If known, what is the depth of the water? ______________ _
7. Whut is the general composition of the substrate? Check ull that apply.
I l3cdrock ] Sand (coarse)
] 13oulder (>IO in.) I Silt (fine)
J Cobble (2.5-10 in.) ] Marl (shells)
] Gravel (0.1-2.5 in.) ] Clay (slick)
I Other (specify)
8. What is the source of water in the waterbody?
I River/Stream/Creek
] lndustrial discharge
[ ] Groundwater
[ ] Surface runo!T
] Muck (fine/black)
] Debris
] Detritus
1 Concrete
[ ] Other (specify)
9. Is there a discharge from the site to the waterbody? [ ] yes [ ] no Ifycs, please describe this discharge and its path.
I 0. ls there a discharge from the watcrbody? [ ] yes [ ] no If yes, and the information is available, identify from the list
bdow the environment into which the watcrbody discharges.
I River/Stream/Creek ] onsite ] o!Tsitc Distance ____ _
I Groundwater J onsite ] o!Tsitc
I Wetland ] onsite ] o!Tsite Distance ____ _
I Impoundrnent J onsite ] o!Tsitc
July 2000 9 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
!:Cape_ Can\I~rojects\l 0679~CI3S _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ B.doc
•
•
Appendix Il
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
! I. Identify any !idd mca:1urcmcnts and observations of water quality that wcn: made. For tho!-ie parameters for whidt data
were colh.:ctc<l provide the measurement an<l thc units of mi.:asurc hdow:
!\rca
Depth (average)
Temperature ( depth of the water at which the reading was taken: ___________ _
pH
Dissolved oxygen
Salinity
Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque) (Secchi disk depth): _________ _
Other (specify)
12. Dc.:scribc observed color and area of coloration.
13. Mark the open-water, non-flowing system on the site map attached to this checklist.
14. What observations, if any, were made at the watcrbody regarding the presence and/or absence of bcnthic
macroinvcrtcbratcs, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
July 2000 10 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
!:Cape_ Can\Projccts\l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ Ildoc
•
•
•
Appendix IJ
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
IV. i\()IJATIC Hi\Il!Ti\T CHECKLIST --FLOWING SYSTEMS
Noti.:: Aquatic systcms an.: o!kn associati.:<l with wctlam.l hahitats. Ph:asc refer In Section V, Wetland Habitat Chi.::cklist.
I. What typc(s) of 110\ving water systcm(s) is (arc) present al the.! sit!.!?
X I River
I Dry wash
I X I i\rtilieially
crcatc<l (ditch, etc.)
X I Stream
I Arroyo
] Inh.:nniltcnt Stream
IX I Creek
I I Ilrook
] Channeling
] Other (specify) _________ _
2. If known, what is the name of the watcrbo<ly? Pailin Creek, Ncwbcgun Creek, and Pasquotank River
3. For natural systems, arc there any indicators of physical alteration (e.g., channeling, debris, etc. )7
X ] yes [ J no If yes, please describe indicators that were observed.
Artificially created ditches to drain agricultural fields and turf area~dhcharging to nearby .1treams.
4. What is the general composition of the substrate? Check nil that apply .
I Bedrock
j Boulder (>IO in.)
I Coqblc (2.5-10 in.)
I Gravel (0.1-2.5 in.)
[ X] Sand (coarse)
[ X ] Silt (fine)
[ X] Marl (shells)
[ X] Clay (slick)
[Xj Muck (fine/black)
[ ] Debris
[X j Detritus
[ ] Concrete
I Otl1er (specify). _________________________ _
5. What is the condition of the bank (e.g., height, slope, extent of vegetative cover)?
Slopes arc well vegetated to water's edge and slope is very gradual.
6. Is the system influenced by tides? [ ] yes [ X ] no What information was used to make this dctcnnination?
Regional literature, direct obsen·ation, ,,,ater marks on "'egetation, size of cypress "knees". Under certain conditions, limited wind-driven tides may be generated but the magnitude will be less than 6 inches.
7. Is the flow intermittent? [ ] yes [ X ] no. If yes, please note the information that was used in making this determination.
Aerial photos, discussions with local personnel, and the sizes of the three water courses.
8. Is there a discharge from the site to the waterbody? [ X ] yes [ ] no. If yes, please describe the discharge and its path.
Surface runoff can flow to all three perimeter water courses. In addition, a storm water collection system discharges through a pipe into Pailin Creek.
9. Is there a discharge from the waterbody? [ X ] yes [ ] no. If yes, and the information is available, please identify what
July 2000 11 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
!:Cape_ Can\Projccts\ 10679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ B.doc
I
I
I
l
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
the watcrhody discharges to an<l whl!lhi.:r the discharge is on site or off sit<.:.
Pailin Creek di.<ichargcs into Ncwhcgun Creek, which di.-.chargcs into the Pa\quotank River, which discharges into
Albemarle Sound, which C\'cntually discharges into the Atlantic Ocean. All of thc.-.c discharges arc off-site, with
the potential exception of the first one.
l 0. I<lcnti.fy any lidd measurements and observations of water quality that were mad!.!. For those paramclcrs for which data
were collected, provide the measurement and the units of measure in the appropriutc space hdow:
X Width (a.) Pailin Creek
Depth (fi.)
5 to 10 feet wide upstream
60-80 yards wide near sewer plant
Ncwbcgun Creek
0.S mile wide
Pasquotank River
2~3 miles wide
Velocity (specify units): __________ _
Temperature (depth of the water at which the reading was taken ____________ ~
Dissolved oxygen
pH
Salinity Freshwater system -maximum 1~2 parts per thousand
presence of freshwater clams
Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque) (Secchi disk depth ___ ~
_x_ Other (specify) Blackwater system due to presence of natural tannins
11. Describe observed color and area of coloration.
Pailin Creek waters arc clear but arc "black" water due to the presence of high concentrations of natural tannins
12. Is any aquatic vegetation present?? [X ] yes [ ] no. Ifycs, please identify the type of vegetation present, if known.
[ X ] Emergent [ ] Submergent [ ] Floating
13. Mark the flowing water system on the attached site map.
Sec figures in parent document to this appendix.
14. What observations, if any, were made at the watcrbody regarding the· presence and/or absence of bcnthic
macroinvertcbrates, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
ObscITed waterfmYI (mallard ducks), freshwater clams, water striders, and bullfrogs (plentiful)
July 2000 12 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :Cape_ Can\Projects\l 0679-CBS _TPC\26609\5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx_ 8.doc
•
•
•
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Eli,.abeth City, North Carolina
V. WETI.IIND 11/\IJITIIT CHECKLIST
I. Based on obscrvations an<l/or available infonnation, arc designated or known wetlands lklinitcly present at the site? IX!ycs I !no
Pic.1sc note the sources of observations and information used (e.g., USGS Topographic Maps, National Wi.:tlan<l Inventory,
Federal or State Agency, etc.) to make this determination.
N,1tural Wetland Inventory maps coupled with .'iitC observations made hy biolo~ist trained in wetland delineation.
2. Based on the location of the site (e.g., along a watcrbody, in a noo<lplain) and siti.: conditions (e.g., standing water: dark,
wet soils~ mud cracks: debris line; water marks), arc wetland habitats suspected?
( X J yes .[ J no If yes, proceed \I/1th lhe remainder of lhe wetland habitat identification checklist.
3. What type(s) of vegetation are present in the wetland?
] Submergent
] Scrub/Shrub
] Other (specify) _______ _
[ X ] Emergent
IX] Wooded
4. Provide a general description of the vegetation present in and around the wetland (height, color, etc.). Provide a
photograph of the known or suspected wetlands, if available.
• Most site wetlands arc palustrinc, forested, broad-leafed deciduous dominated by bald cypress, willow, gum,
and other wetland trees.
• One portion of the site supports a freshwater marsh, domillated by emergent aquatic macrophytes such as
cattails and rushes.
5. ls standing water present? [ X] yes I] no If yes, is this water: [ X) Fresh [ ) Brackish
What is the approximate area of water (sq.ft.)? 10' s of acres
Please complete questions4, 11, 12 in Checklist Ill -Aquatic Habitat -Non-Flowing Systems.
6. Is there evidence of flooding at the site? What observations were noted?
I I Buttressing (slight)
[ X ] Debris line
[ X ] Watermarks
[ X] Other (describe below)
height of cypress knees
7. If known, what is the source of the water in the wetland?
] Mud cracks
[ X ] Stream/River/Creek/Lake/Pond
[ X ] Flooding
[ X ] Groundwater
[ X ] Surface Runoff
July 2000 13
!:Cape_ Can\Projccts\l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\.5 _ rpts\ERA\Appx _ B.doc
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
•
•
•
Appendix Il
Checklist for Ecological Assessments and Sampling
Triangle Pacific Site
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
8. ls tiH.:rc a discharge from the site to a known or suspected wctlam.l'? / X ] yes! I no If yes, pkasc Jcscrihc.
The Jtorm water dr:iin.11,!C sy.~tcm frorri the site discharges through a pipe into Pailin Creek.
9. Is there a discharge from the wetland? IX] yes [ I no. [fycs, to what walcrhody is discharge rclc.isc<l?
I X [ Surface Stream/River [ I Groundwater [ [ Lakeil'ond [ I Marine
10. !fa soil sample was colkctcd, describe the appearance of the soil in the wetland area. Circle or \\.Tile in the best response.
Color (blue/gray, brown, black, mottled) __________________________ _
Water content (dry, wet, saturated/unsaturated) __________________________ _
11. Mark the observed wetland arca(s) on the attached site map.
Please sec Figure 5 in the attached parent document to this appendix .
July 2000 14 0 'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I:Cape _ Can\Prpject<i\l 0679-CBS _ TPC\26609\5 _ rpL~\ERA\Appx _ B.doc
•
•
Appendix C
Lists of flora and fauna species
potentially occurring on or near the
Triangle Pacific Site near Elizabeth
City, North Carolina
I.
•
•
APPENDIX C
ANIMALS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name
F rcsh water Fishes
A. Lamprevs Sea Lamprev Petromvzon marinus
13. Sturgeons Shortnose Sturgeon Acinenser hrevirostrum
Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxvrhvnchus
C Gars Longnose Gar l.episosteus osseus
D. Bowfins Bowfin Amia calva
E. Freshwater Eels American Eel Anf!,uil/a roslrata
F. Herrings Blueback Herring Alosa aestiva/is
Alewife Absa oseudohareneus
Hickory Shad Alosa mediocris
American Shad A Losa sapidissi ma
Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum
G. Mudminnows Eastern Mudminnow Umbra nvPmaea
H. Pikes Grass or Redfin Pickerel E:sox americanus
vermiculatus/americanus
Chain Pickerel Esox nif!,er
I. Minnows Golden Shiner Notemif!,onus crvso/eucas
Creek Chub Semotilus alromacu/atus
Eastern Silvery Minnow Hyboenathus rel!,ius
White Shiner Luxi/11s a/beo/us
Satinfin Shiner Cvorinella ana/ostana
Fathead Minnow Pimeoha/es promelas
Comelv Shiner Notroois amoenus
Ironcolor Shiner Notropis cha/vbaeus
Swallowtail Shiner Notropis procne
Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius
Creek Chubsucker Erimvzon ob/on£us
Lake Chubsucker Erimvzon sucella
J. Suckers Shorthcad Redhorse Moxostoma macro/epidotum
Silver Redhorse Moxotoma anisun,m
K. Catfishes White catfish Ameiurus catus -Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus nata/is
Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus
Tadpole Madtom Notun,s QVrinus
L. Pirate Perches Pirate Perch Aohredoderus savanus
M. Cavefishes Swampfish Choio£aster cornuta
N. Kill fish Banded Killifish F11nd11l11s diaohanus
Lined Toominnow Fundu/us /ineolatus
Rainwater Killifish Lucania parva
0. Livebearers Mosquitofish Gambusia a/finis
P. Silversides Inland Silverside Menidia bery/lina
Q. Sticklebacks Foursoine Stickleback Aoe/fes ouadracus
R. Temperate Basses S tri oed Bass Marone saxali /is
July 2000 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5 _ rpts\cra \appcndi ccs\spcci esta blc. doc
•
•
•
11.
APPENDIX C
ANli\ULS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name
R. Tcmn. Basses (con 'td) White Perch /\1/orone americana
S. Sunlishes Flier Centrarchus macrof)lerus
Bbck Crannie Pomoxis nieromaculatus
Mud Sunfish Acantharch11s nomotis
Banded Sunfish Enneacanth11s obes11s
Bluesootted Sunfish Enneacanthus elorio.\·us
Blackbandcd Sunfish Enneacanth11s chaetodon
Largemouth Bass Microoter11s salmoides
Warmouth Leomis eulosus
Pumokinseed Leoomis eibbo.rns
Redbreast Sunfish Lenomis auritus T Perches Yell ow Perch Perea f/avescens
Shield Darter Percina oeltata
Glassv Darter Etheostoma vitreum
Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Swamn Darter Etheostoma lusi/i,rme
Sawcheek Darter Etheostoma serrifer Anmhibians
A. Salamanders Mabee' s Salamander Ambvstoma Mabeei
Eastern Tiucr Salamander Ambvstoma tizrinum
Snotted Salamander Ambvstoma maculatum
Marbled Salamander Ambvstoma ooacum
Southern Duskv Salamander Desmognathus auriculatus
Northern Red Salamander Pseudotriton n1ber
Eastern Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus
Manv-Lined Salamander Stereochilus mar2inatus
Slimv Salamander Plethodon g/utinosus
Red-Backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus
Four-Toed Salamander Hemidactvlium scutat11m
Southern Two-Lined Salamander Eurvcea bislineata
Three-lined Lonu-Tailcd Salamander Eurvcea lon2icauda
Greater Siren Siren lacertina
Two-Toed Amohiuma Amohiuma means
Dwarf Waterdou Necturus ounctatus
Red-Snotted Ne"1 Notoohthalmus viridescens
8. Toads Eastern Soadefoot Toad Scaohioous holbrooki
Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad Gastroohrvne carolinensis
Southern Toad Bufo terrestris
Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousei
Oak Toad Bulb auercicus
C. Fro<>s Barkinu Treefrou Hvla vraliosa
Northern Snrin<> Peencr Hvla cn,cifer
July 2000 2 0' Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5 _ rpts \era \appendi ce~\speci establ e. doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C ANIMALS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/I'S SITE ELIZABETII CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scicntilic Name C. frogs (cont'd) Green Trcefrog Hvla souirclla Pinc Woods Trccfrog Hy/a /emoralis
Grav Treefrog Hvla vcrsico/or Little Grass F rag Limnaocdus ocu/aris Upland Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata Brimlcv's Chorus frog J'seudacris brimlcvi
Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans Southern Cricket Fro_g Acri.,· wyllus Green Frog Rana c/amitans
Bullfrog Rana catcsbeiana
Southern Leonard F rag Rana utricu/aria
Pickerel Frog Rana pa/ustris
Carpenter Frog Rana vir.wtipes
III. Reptiles
A. Turtles Common Snanning Turtle Chelvdra sementina Snotted Turtle Clemmvs f!lll/ata Stinkoot Sternotherus odoratus Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon subn,brum
sub rub rum Diamondback Terrapin Ma/ac/emys terrapin
Eastern Painted Turtle Chrvsemvs victa River Cooter Chrysemys concinna Florida Cooter Chrysemvs (loridana Yellow-Bellied Pond Slider Chrvsemvs scrip/a Red-Bellied Turtle Chrvsemvs rubriventris Eastern Box Turtle Terravene carolina
B. Lizards Green Anole Ano/is carolinensis
Northern Fence Lizard Scelovon,s undu/atus Ground Skink leio/opisma laterale Five-Lined Skink Eumeces fascia/us
Broad-Headed Skink Eumeces laticeps Southeastern Five-Lined Skink Eumeces inexpeclatus Six-Lined Racerunners Cnemidophorus sexlinealus Eastern Glass Lizard Ovhisaurus ventralis Eastern Slender Glass Lizards Ophisaurus allenawus
C. Snakes Northern Water Snakes Natrix sivedon Banded Water Snakes Natrix fascia/a Red-Bellied Water Snakes Natrix ervthrof!aster
Brown Water Snake Natrix taxispi/ota
Eastern Glossy Water Snakes Natrix rif!ida
July 2000 3 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
l:ral\proj\ I 0679126609\5 _ rpts\cra\appendiccs\spcciestablc.doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
ANIMALS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name C. Snakes (cont'd) Carolina lllack Swamp Snakes Seminatrix nv.'l!aea
Eastern Garter Snakes Thamnovhi.,· sirtalis
Eastern Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sa11rit11.1·
Rough Earth Snake ' Virginia striatulu
Eastern Smooth Earth Snake Vir!!.inia valeriae
Northern Red-Bellied Snake Storer/a occipitomaculata
Midland Brown Snake Storer/a dekayi
Northern Brown Snake Storeria dekavi
Eastern Hounose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos
Eastern Worm Snake Carphophis amoen11s
Southern Rin_gncck Snakes Diadoohis vunctarus
Rough Green Snake Ovheodrvs aestiv11s
Rainbow Snake Farancia erytrogramma
Eastern Mud Snakes Farone/a abacura
Northern Black Racer Col11her constrictor
Black Ratsnakc Elavhe obsoleta
Com Snake Elavhe f!Ullata
Northern Scarlet Snake Cemophora coccinea
Eastern Milk Snake Lampropeltis trian5!,11l11m
Mole Snake (Kingsnake) Lamprope//is calli!!.aster
Eastern Kingsnake Lamvroveltis f!etulus
Eastern Cottonmouth Al!kistrodon piscivorus
Northern Coooerhead Af!,kistrodon contortrix
Southern Cooocrhcad A!!.kistrodon contortrix
Carolina Pv~rnv Rattlesnake Sistnirus mi/iarius
Canebrake Rattlesnake Crotalus horrid11s IV. BIRDS
A. Seashore Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus
Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis
Raval Tern Sterna maxima
Least Tern Sterna albifrons
Black Skimmer Rvnchoos nif!er
Gannet Marus bassanus
Red-breasted Merganser Mer!!_US serrator
Oldsquaw Clan!!_ula hyema/is
Common Goldeneve Bucepha/a dan!!.ula
Bufflehead Bueceohala albeola
Surf Seater Melanitta perspicillata
Black Seater "Common Seater" Melani/ta n/5?.ra
Homed Grebe Podiceps auritus
Dunlin Ca/idris alpina
Sanderling Calidris alba
Black-bellied Plover Pluvia/is squatarola
July 2000 4 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral\proj\ l ~)679\2660 9\5 _ rpts \era \appc ndi ces\spcci esta bl e. doc
•
•
•
APPENOIX C
ANIM,\LS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name A. Seashore (cont'd) Ruddv Turnstone A cenaria internre.,·
Purple Sandoipcr Calidris maritima
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri
Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia
American Ovstcrcatchcr Haema/0011.1· oalliat11.1·
Fish Crow Corvus ossifra?,us
B. Salt Marshes Snowv Egret Egrella !hula
Louisiana Heron E£rclla tricolor
Glossv Ibis l'le1:adis (alcinel!us
Laughing Gull !,ams atricil!a
Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri
Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica
Black Duck Anas rubripe.1·
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens
Brant Bran/a bernic/a
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalma/11.1·
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus sco/opaceus
Greater Y ellowlegs Trimm melanoleuca
Clanncr Rail Rallus /on)!.irostris
Black Rail Lateral/us jamaicensi.\·
Boat-tailed Grackle Ouisca/uis major
Seaside Sparrow Ammospiza maritima
C. Freshwater marshes Great faret Casmerodius a/bus
Little Blue Heron Egrel/a caeru/ea
Least Bittern Jxobrvchus exilis
Y ellow-erowned Night Heron Nycticorax violacea
Black-crowned Night Heron Nvcticorax nvcticorax
American Bittern Botaun1s lentieinosus
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca
Ruddv Duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Pintail Anas acuta
American Coot Fulica americana
Gadwall Anas streoera
Blue-Winged Teal Anas discors
Pied-Billed Grebe Podilvmbus oodiceos
Common Gallinule Gal/inula chloroous
Purple Gallinule Porohvrula martinica
Sora Porzana cardina
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola
King Rail Rallus eie)!.ans
Common Snipe Capella f!,a//inaf!,o
Short-cared Owl Asia f/ammeus
July 2000 5 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral\proj\ l 06 79\2 6609\5 _ rpts \era \appendices \speci cstablc. doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
ANIMALS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name C. F resit water marshes Marsh Hawk Circus c:vaneus (cont'c.l) Long-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustriris
Swamo S11arrow kfe/ospiza !!COr);iana
Red-winued Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
D. Lakes, Ponds, Rivers Great Blue Heron Ardea hcrodias
Green Heron /3utoridcs stria/us
Herring Gull Larus argentatus
Rinu-billed Gull Larus dclawarcm·i.1·
Bonaoarte's Gull Larus philade/phia
Caspian Tern Sterno caspia
Double-crested Cormorant Pha/acrocorax a11rit11s
Anhinga Anhin!!a anhin1;a
Mallard Anas nlatvrhvnchos
Redhead Aythya americana
Canvasback Avthya va/isineria
Common Merganser Merf!.US menzanser
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Ring-Necked Duck Aythya co/loris
Lesser Scaup Avthva affmis
Greater Scauo Avthva marila Hooded Merganser Lonhodvtes cucullatus
Canada Goose Bran/a canadensis
Whistling Swan Olar columbianus
Common Loon Gavia immer
Bald Eagle Ha/iaeetus /e11coceohal11s
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Peregrine Falcon Falco pere?,rinus
Tree Swallow f ridoprocne 'bi color
Rough-winged Swallow Ste/2)dontervx ru/icol/is Belted Kingfisher Me1;acery/e alcvon
E. Grasslands Cattle Egret B11hulcus ibis
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Bobwhite Colinus vir?,inianus
Common Nighthawk Chordei/es minor Barn Owl Tvto alba
American Kestrel "Soarrow Hawk" Falco sparverius
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Red-Headed Woodoecker Melanernes ervthroceohalus
Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum
American Goldfinch Cardue/is Iris/is Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus
July 2000 6 0 'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I:ral\proj\ I 0679\26609\5 _ rptslcra\appendiccs\speciestable.doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
ANIMALS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
l~LIZABETII CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name E. Grasslands (cont'd) Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus rvrannus
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis
Field Sparrow Spizel/a pusi!la
Grasshoooer Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum
Henslow's Sparrow Passerherbu/us henslowii
Water Pioit Anthu.1· .1•pinole11a
Savannah Sparrow incl. "Ipswich Passerculus sandwichensis Sparrow"
Vesper Sparrow l'ooecetes ~rmnineus
Homed Lark Eremophila a/pestris
F. Citv Parks and Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Suburban Areas Rock Dove Columba livia
Purple Martin Pro?,ne subis
Chimney Swift Chaetura pe/a?,ica
Common Flicker Co/af){es aura/us
American Robin Turdus mivatori11s
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
Mockingbird Mimus po/w/ollos
Grav Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Dark-eved Junco Junco hyemalis
Blue Jay Cyanocilla cristata
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe
Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archi/ochus co/ubris
House Wren Tro1!.l odvtes aedon
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma ndi1m
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Brown-Headed Cowbird Molothn1s ater
House Soarrow Passer domes lieus
Chiooing Soarrow Soizella oasserina
Song Sparrow Melospiza me/odia
Starling Sturnus vo!u?,aris
Common Crackle Ouiscalus quiscula
Common Crow Corvus brachyrhvnchos
E. Thickets and Second
Growth
Yellow Warbler Dendroica oetechia
Yellow-Breasted Chat Jcteria virens
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
Common Y ello\\1hroat Geothylpis trichas
White-eyed Vireo Vireo ?,riseus
Rufous-sided Towhee Pipi/o erythrophthalmus
Cardinal Cardina/is cardinalis
July 2000 7 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral\proj\ I 0679\26609\5 _ rpts\era \a ppcndi ccs\spcci cstabl e. doc
•
•
E.
G.
APPENDIX C
ANIMALS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name
Thickets and Second Indigo Bunting J>asserina cvanea
Growth (cont'd) Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea
Carolina Wren Thrvvorhorus l11dovicia1111s
Black-Billed Cuckoo Coccvzu.,· eryrhroprhalmus
Y ellow-billcd Cuckoo Coccvzus amcricanus
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia a/hicollis
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia /eucophrvs
Fox Sparrow Passere/la iliaca
Bachman's Sparrow Aimoohila aestiva/is
Deciduous Forests American Woodcock Philohela minor
Turkcv Me/eav.ris .<!.a/lopavo
Chuck-Will's-Widow Caprim11/g11s caro/inensis
Screech Owl Otus asio
Barred Owl Srix varia
Saw-Whet Owl Aerolius acadicus
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Broad-Winged Hawk Buteo p/atvoterus
Red-Shouldered Hawk Buteo Linea/us
Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo iamaicensis
Turkcv Vulture Cathartes aura
Black Vulture CoraPvos atratus
Downv Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Hairv Woodocckcr Picoides villosus
Y cllow-Bcllicd Saosuckcr Sphyrapicus varius
Red-Bellied Woodpecker Cent1m1s cero/inus
Pilcatcd Woodpecker Drvocopus pi/eatus
White-Breasted Nuthatch Silla caro/inensis
Brown Creeper Certhia fami/iaris
Prothonotarv Warbler Protonotaria citrea
Yellow-Throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons
Hooded Warbler Wi/sonia citrina
Kentucky Warbler Oporonis (ormosus
Orchard Oriole lcterus spurius
Summer Tanager Piranrw n1bra
Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis
Tufted Titmouse Parus bico/or
Bluc-grav Gnatcatcher Poliopti/a caeru/ea
Rcd-evcd Vireo Vireo olivaceus
Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax vi rescens
Eastern Wood Pewee Con/opus virens
Great Crested Flycatcher Mviarchus crinitus
Wood Thrush Hvlocichla muste/ina
. Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla
July 2000 8 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral \proj\ I 06 79\26609\5 _ rpts\era \a ppcndices \spcci cstab\c. doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
ANIM,\LS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name
G. Deciduous Forests Worm-Eating Warbler Helmitheos vermivorus (cont'd) Swainson 's Warbler Limnothlvpis swainsonii
131ack-And-White Warbler At/nioti!ta varia
H. Coniferous Forests Long-Eared Owl Asio otus
Great Homed Owl Bubo vir2inianus
Sham-Shinned Hawk Accioiter stria/us
Rcd-Cockadcd Woodpecker Picoides borea/is
Red-Breasted Nuthatch Silla canadensis
Brown-headed Nuthatch Silla ousilla
Pinc Warbler Dendroica pim1.\'
Black-Throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens
Yellow-Throated Warbler Dendroica dominica
Myrtle Warbler Dendroica corona/a
Purolc Finch Camodacus oumureus
Northern Parula "Parula Warbler" Panila americana
Golden-Crowned Kinglet Re2ulus satrapa
Rubv-Crowned Kinglet Rerulus ca/endula
Winter Wren 1'roi!lodvtes trordodytes
Hermit Thrush Catharus 2uttatus
Pinc Siskin Carduelis pinus
Rustv Blackbird Euohapus caro/inus
V. MAMMALS
A. Order Marsuoialia Opossum Didelohis marsuoia/is
8. Order lnscctivora Star-Nosed Mole Condvlura eris ta ta
Praric Mole Sea/opus aquaticus
Hairy-Tailed Mole/Brewer Mole Parasca/ops breweri
Least Shrew Crvntotis oarva
Short-tailed Shrew 13/arina brevicauda
Bachman Shrew Sorex Ion pi rostris
C. Order Chiroptera Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivazans
Hoarv Bat Lasiurus cinereus
Red Bat Lasiurus borea/is
Lump-nosed Bat Plecotus townsendii
Pygmy Bat Pipistrellus sub(lavus
Common Bat Mvotis subulatus
M soda/is
M luci/i1?,us
July 2000 9 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral lproj \ I 06 79\2660915 _ rpts \era lappcndiccs\speci esta bl c. doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
ANIMALS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name D. Order Lagomoroha Eastern Cottontail Svlvi/a,!11S f/oridan11s
Marsh Rabbit Sylvila!!,11S oa/11stris
E. Order Rodentia Eastern Grav Squirrel Sciurus carolincn.ri.\'
Common Marmot or Woodchuck Marmota monax
Eastern Flving Squirrel G/aucomvs volans
American Beaver Castor canadensis
Eastern Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomvs humu/is
Golden Mouse Peromvscus nutta//ii
Wood Mouse Peromyscus /eucopus
Cotton Mouse Peromyscus 51.ossvpinus
Rice Rat or Marsh Rat Orvzomvs oa/ustri.v
Cotton Rat Sif!modon hisoidus
Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Eastern Meadow Mouse Micro/us pennsy/vanicus
Pinc Vole Microtus pinetorum
European Mouse or House Mouse Mus muscu/us
European Rat, Wharf Rat, Roof Rat, Rattus rattus
Barn Rat. or Black Rat
Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius
F. Order Camivora Grav Fox Urocvon cineroar!!enteus
Red Fox, Black Fox, Cross Fox, or Vulpes fulva
Silver Fox
Raccoon Procyon lotor
American Otter Lutra canadensis
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis
Mink Mustela vison
Long-tailed Weasel Muste/a frenata
Bobcat Lvnx rufus
G. Order Artiodactvla White-Tailed Deer Odocoileus vir5<inianus
July 2000 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I: ral\proj\ I 0679\~6609\.5 _ rpts \era \a ppcndi ces-\speci est a hie. doc
•
I.
•
•
APPENDIX C
PLANTS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name
TREES
A. Gvrnnosncrms
Shortlcaf Pinc l'in,1.1· echinata
Virn.inia Pinc Pinus virf!iniana
Loblollv Pinc Pin11s taeda
Longleaf Pinc Pinus pa/ustris
Pond Pinc J!inus serotina
Baldcvmcss Taxodium distichum
Atlantic White-Cedar Chamuaec•maris thyoides
Eastern Red-Cedar Juniperus vir)!iniana
B. Anuiosocrms
Black Willow Salix ni1>ra
Coastal Plain Willow . Salix caroliniana
Eastern Cottonwood Povulus deltoides
Swamo Cottonwood Povulus heterovhvlla
Southern Bavberrv !vfvrica cerifera
Black Walnut Juf!!ans nif!ra
Shaobark Hickorv Carva ovata
Mockernut Hickorv Carva tomentosa
Pi11nut Hickorv Carva f!iabra
Water Hickorv Carva aauatica
Pecan Carva illinoensis
River Birch Betula nif!.ra
Eastern Hoohornbeam Ostrva vireiniana
American Hornbeam Caruinus caro/iniana
American Beech Fa!!us vrandifolia
Alleohenv Chinkanin Castanea uumila
White Oak Ouercus alba
Overcuo Oak Ouercus lvrata
Post Oak Ouercus stel/ata
Swamo Chestnut Oak Ouercus michauxii
Black Oak ( uercus velutina
Southern Red Oak uercus-falcata
Black Jack Oak uercus marilandica
Turkev Oak Ouercus laevis
Blueiack Oak Ouercus incana
Bear Oak Ouercus i/ici(olia
Willow Oak Ouercus vhellos
Water Oak I uercus nir,ra
Laurel Oak uercus lauri(olia
Live Oak C uercus vir9.iniana
American Elm Ulmus americana
July 2000 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral\proj\ I 06 79\2 6609\S _ i'pts\cra \a ppcndi x\p lantsta bl e. doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
PLANTS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name 13. Angiosperms (cont'd) Slinncrv Elm U/mus ruhra
Wino:ed Elm U/mus alata
Hackberrv Ce/1i.1· occidentalis
Sugarbcrrv Ce/tis /aevigata
Red Mulbcrrv Morus rubra
Sweetbav Magnolia virginiana
Yellow-Poplar Liriodendron 111/ioi(era
Pawpaw Asimina tri/oba
Sassafras Sassafras a/ihidum
Redbav Persea borbonia
Sweetgum Liq11idamhar stvraci//11a
Witch-Hazel Hamame/is virf!iniana
American Svcamore Platanus occidenta/is
Southern Crab Annie Ma/us am!llsli(olia
Black Cherrv Przmas serolina
Chickasaw Plum Prunus am!usti(o/ia
Frosted Hawthorn Cratae5!11s pruinosa
Parsley Hawthorn Cralae5!11S marshal/ii
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis
Hercules-Club Zanthoxvlum clava-hercu/i.1•
Shining Sumac Rhus covallina
Poison-Sumac Toxicodendron vernix
Swamp Cyrilla Cvrilla racemi/lora
American Holly flex ovaca
Yauoon /lex vomiloria
Red Manic Acer rubum
Silver Maple Acer saccharinum
Painted Buckeye Aesculus svlvatica
Florida Basswood Ti/ia /loridana
White Basswood Ti/ia heteroohvlla
Flowering Dogwood Cornus /lorida
Alternate-Leaf Dogwood Cornus alterni(olia
Black Tupelo Nvssa svlvatica
Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica
Sourwood Oxvdendrum arbore11m
Mountain-Laurel Kalmia lati(olia
Tree Sparklcberrv Vaccinium arboreum
Devils-Walkingstick Ara/ia spinosa
False-Mastic Sideroxvlon foetidissimum
Common Swcetleaf Svmplocos lincloria
Common Persimmon Diosnvros vir,!iniana
Bigleaf Snowbell Stvrax 5!randi(o/ia
Silverbells Halesia snn.
Fringetree Chionanthus virl!inicus
July 2000 2 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I: ra [ lproj \ 1 0679\2 66091.5 _ rpts \era \appendix\plantstabl e.doc
•
•
APPENDIX C
PLANTS OCCURIHNG OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC Rf/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name
B. Anl!iospcrms (cont'd) Devil wood Osmanthus americanu.\'
White Ash Fraxinus americana
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsvlvanica
Pumpkin Ash f"raxinus profimda
Carolina Ash Fraxinus caroliniana
Elders Samb11c11s snrJ.
Viburnums Viburnum soo.
Common Buttonbush Ceohalanthus occidenta/is
IL GRASSES
Big Blucstem Andropof!on f!erardi
Little Blucstem Androoo£on scooarius
Solitbcard Bluestem Andropof!on ternarius
Broomscdgc Blucstem Andropowm virf!inicus
Green Silkvscale Anthaenantia villosa
Oldfield Thrceawn Aristida olif!antha
Arrowfcathcr Threeawn Aristida ourourascens
Giant Cane Arundinaria f!.if!.antea
Switch Cane Arundinaria tee/a
Common Caroctgrass Axonopus affinis
Mat Sandbur Cenchrus oauciflorus
Seashore Saltgrass Distichlis spicata
Purple Lovegrass Eraf!,rostis spectabilis
Bent-Awn Plumcgrass Erianth11s contortus
Carolina Jointtail Manisuris cvlindrica
Beaked Panicum Panicum anceps
Maidcncanc l'anicum hemitomon
Spreading Panicum l'anicum rhizomatum
Scribner Panicum Panicum scribnerianum
Switchgrass l'anicum virf!.a/um
Fringeleaf Paspalum l'asoalum cilialifolium
Knotgrass l'aspa/um distichum
Florida Paspalum l'aspa/um /loridanum
Brownsecd Paspalum l'aspa/um p/icatulum
Common Recd Phra£mites commzmis
Knotroot Bristlcgrass Setaria f!eniculata
Indian grass Sori!,hastrum nu/ans
Smooth Cordgrass Soartina alterniflora
Big Cordgrass Soartina cvnosuroide.,·
Marshhav cordgrass Sparlina pa/ens
Curtiss Droosccd Sporobolus curlissii
Pincvwoods Droosced Sporobolus junceus
Purplctop Tridens flavus
July 2000 3 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
l:ral\proj\ 1 0679\26609\5 _ rpts\era\appcndixlplantstablc.doc
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
PLANTS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC HI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Common Name Scientific Name
II. GRASSES (con'td) Eastern Gamagrass Triosarnm dactvloide.,·
Broadlcaf Uniola Unio/a latifr,lia
Lone leaf Uniola Unio/a sessi/if/ora
Giant Cutgrass Zizaniopsis miliacea
July 2000 4 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
1:ral\proj\ l 0679\26609\S _ rpts\cra\appcndix\plantstablc.doc
•
•
APPENDIX C
PLANTS OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
VICINITY OF TRIANGLE PACIFIC RI/FS SITE
ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
References
Booth, E. S. 1971. How to know the mammals. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.
205 pp.
13rockman, C. F. I 968. Trees of North America. Golden Press, New York. 280 pp
l3ull, J. and J. Farrand, Jr., 1977. The Audubon Society field guide to North American birds. Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 784 pp.
Conant, A. 1975. Afield guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. Peterson Series. 2°' ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 429 pp.
Leithhead, H. L., L. L. Yarlctt, and T. N. Shiflet. 1976. I 00 native forage grasses in 11 southern
states. Agriculture Handbook No. 389, Soil Conservation Service. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 216 pp.
Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. Afield guide to freshwater fishes, North America north of Mexico.
Peterson Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York. 432 pp .
July 2000 5 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
I :ral \proj\ I 0679\26609\5 _ rpts\ern. \a ppcndi xlp lantstablc .doc
•
•
Appendix D
EPA Technical Review Comments
for the Preliminary Screening-Level
Ecological Risk Assessment and
Baseline Problem Formulation
received August 21, 2001
•
•
•
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
PRELIMINARY SCREENING-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND BASELINE PROBLEM FORMULATION
for the
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/ FEASIBILITY STUDY
at
TRIANGLE PACIFIC SITE
Elizabeth City, North Carolina
In general, tl1c document is well written and provides the reader with a good mental picture of the site and the habitats located on site. However, the following comments were identified during the review and arc presented in the form of general and specific comments.
GENERAL COMMENTS
2.
It is recommended that the title and appropriate portions of this document be changed lo reflect that only Steps 1,2 and COPC refinement (which is only part of Step 3) arc presented in this document. This will make it clear that additional work (SMDP meeting and the remaining steps included in Step 3 of EPA's 8-stcp process) needs to be completed prior to conducting any sampling lo support the ecological risk assessment.
The largest data gap in the ecological risk assessment is the lack of any discussion regarding the
operations that took place at the facilities present at the site. It is recommended that a summary be included that describes all known operational processes that occurred at the site. The summary
should include the following information: (I) a figure should be generated that shows all areas used
by Triangle Pacific in the processes while the facility was active; (2) chemicals and other products
used in the processes; (3) waste streams generated (and estimated volumes) during the processes; (4) waste handling practices; and (5) waste disposal practices (including identifying all on site disposal areas on a figure ). This information is of great use during Step 3 and can be included in the rationale
for, including or excluding CO PCs identified during the abiotic screen that appear to be (or not to be) related to Triangle Pacific operations.
3. It is recommended that for the purposes of the ecological risk assessment, the data generated in separate sampling events be combined into one database for the abiotic screen. While the current
methodology does a good job summarizing the sampling events that have taken place, it is difficult to follow the evaluation of CO PCs as currently presented. The current methodology has led to multiple
discussions of CO PCs that often result in different lists of CO PCs. It is recommended that all the site data be screened at one time (including data from all three sampling events) and one list of CO PCs be developed. The tables provided during the site visit (Table l) containing all the data should make
this change relatively expedient. All background samples could also be pooled to come up with one site reference value for comparison in Step 3 COPC refinement. Once this evaluation has been completed, a list of final CO PCs can be discussed and agreed upon during the SMDP .
4. A review of aerial photographs indicates that numerous potential waste disposal areas around the site have not been adequately sampled [ for example, the area to the south and west of the inactive sewage
treatment plant and incinerator (the wetland area) was used for waste disposal from prior to 1953 through at least I 975 (EPA 1999)]. A closer review of the Aerial Photographic Analysis should be conducted as part of the remaining Step 3 activities. The SMDP for the site should include a
•
5.
companson or the historical write up of process activities and waste disposal at Lhc site, aerial photographs, site ligurcs, and the tables (Table I) handed oul during the silc visil Lo idcnlil'y arcas or potential complete exposure pathways that need further evaluation.
The uncertainty section should include information aboul the uncertainty involved with the data sets. The two mosl notable uncertainties lo be added include Lhc lack of any sample quanlilation limits and the compounds that were lcnlalivcly identified (TICs), or listed as unidcnlif1cd. IL is recommended that the TICs and other unidentified compounds be included in a summary table in Lhis rcporl. Simply listing them in the lcxt docs nol provide the reader wilh adequate information on the magnitude and/or frequency of these contaminants detected during sample analysis.
6. Due to the lack of sample quanlitation limits, it is not technically defensible lo eliminate any contaminants based on frequency or detection.
7. Since most PAHs have similar mechanisms of toxicity, it may be a useful Looi lo evaluate these contaminants as total PAHs for all media at the site.
8. In the refinement of COPC portion of Step 3, it is important to include the original reference for additional screening values and a short description of where the value was identified, how the value was developed, and its intended purpose (What type or threshold docs the value represent?). This discussion should assist in the decision to include or exclude the contaminants as a COPC for the risk assessment.
• SPECIFIC COMMENTS
I.
2.
3.
•
Pai:e-20, Section 2.4.7. This section should contain a discussion of contaminants associated with the Triangle Pacific processes conducted at the site. This discussion will assist with selection of CO PCs during the Baseline Problem Formulation steps conducted later in this document.
Pai:e 26, Section 2,4.9. It is inappropriate to assume a pathway is incomplete based on the habitat quality during a screening level risk assessment. The screen should identify all potentially complete exposure pathways present at the site. Unless a contaminant physically could not reach an ecological receptor, the pathway should be assumed to be complete at this point. In Step 3, after COPC refinement, a re-evaluation of the pathways is conducted to focus the remaining investigation on the most relevant pathways at the site. While it may be appropriate to include site specific details that may make a potential pathway more or less important compared to others, they should not be used lo assume the pathway is incomplete.
Page :27 and 28, Section 2.6. It is recommended for the screening level risk assessment the assessment endpoint remain as it is presented in the first paragraph in this section. Until additional information has been evaluated (Step 3-Baselinc Problem Formulation), it is not possible to accurately identify assessment endpoints. During the SMDP to be conducted to discuss baseline problem formulation, all involved parties (Triangle Pacific, EPA, State, and resource trustees) should develop at a mutually agreeable list of assessment endpoints to focus the remaining steps of the risk assessment .
•
•
•
4. Page 28. Section 2.7. Measurement endpoints do not include estimations of habitat suitability and
should be removed from the text.
5. Pages 48 through 55. Section 4.1.1. 4.1.2. and 4.1.3. Throughout this section (beginning with the evaluation ofVOCs in surface soil), NOAELs arc given (as mg/kg/day), however, no explanation of how this NOAEL was used (or is planned to be used) was included in the text. Some explanation of the mcthodoloi,,y for applying these NOAELs to the analytical results presented in the tables needs lo
be included in this report.
6. Page 51, Section 4.1.1, Based on specific comment number 2, vanadium should not be eliminated
solely on the rationale of exposure pathway. If additional reasons exist to eliminate vanadium, they
should be added lo this section.
Reference
EPA I 999. Aerial Photographic Analysis. Triangle Pacific, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. TS-PIC-
20004462S. November .