NCD000813592_20020503_GA-Pacific Corp Hdwd Saw_FRBCERCLA RISK_Screening Level Steps 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment Report-OCR

I I
I
I
I
U.S. Environmental Protecti
CDPJI
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
May 3, 2002
Mr. Ken Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsytl1 Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Project:
DCN:
RAC Contract No. 68-W5-0022
Work Assignment No. 927-RICO-04RF
3282-927-RT--RISK-14297
Subject: Screening-Level Steps 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Plymoutl1, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Mallory:
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION (COM) is pleased to submit three
bound copies of the above referenced document. COM is pleased to assist EPA with
this assignment, and we look forward to providing further technical assistance on this
project. If you have any questions concerning tl1e attached, please call.
Sincerely yours,
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
,, ,,,f I .__;_~~
Terence Chuhay
Project Manager
Attachments
cc: Robert P. Stern, EPA Project Officer w / o attachments
Gary Clemons, COM Federal Region IV Program Manager w / o attachments
Document Control (Golden) w / attachments
Project File (Atlanta) w / attachments
consulting· engineering· construction· operations
n
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL SITES
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 -· --··----·-,_ ----·-
;> [!~ (G lE ~ ~ij ~ \ ,:~\ \
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-WS-0022!,T~e material contained · · \ \) '
herein is not to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person or persons for any reason J~thout the prior expressed ! '.
approval of a responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ; ' l ' MAY 2 Q 2003 J,i 1
SCREENING-LEVEL STEPS 1-2
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
GEORGIA-PACIFIC SITE
PLYMOUTH, NORTH CAROLINA
MAYl, 2002
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-WS-0022
cl l. .. _, j
r • , .. , -~I ~.-;·;1 ~-~-;~:~;· I
' . • I l.' ' I ' ,.'
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 927-RICO-04RF
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. 3282-927-RT-RISK-14297
Prepared By:
~ Project Ecologist
Approved By: __ JJ__, __ L_~ __ -----✓-_,,,.--:::;z---,;z.-___ ·--·_· __ _
Terence Chuhay V.
Project Manager
"'11 . () . ;//; ,,111
Approved By: l/\ ( };l,l '11 /L-0/ ,.
Mike Profit I
Technical Reviewer
Prepared by:
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Date:
Date:
Date: I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Distribution List
EPA Region 4 Remedial Project Manager/ Ken Mallary
USEP A Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
[phone]
COM Federal Project Manager/Terence Chuhay
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 490
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
[phone]
COM Federal Ecological Risk Assessor/Murray Wade
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Suite B-200
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
[phone]
COM Federal Project Files
1526 Cole Boulevard, Building 3, Suite 150
Golden, Colorado 80401
[phone]
3 copies
1 copy
1 copy
1 copy
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I.
I
:I
I
Contents
Figures ........................................................................... iii
Tables ............................................................................ iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................ v
Section 1 Introduction .......................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process ................... 1-3
Project Objectives .................................................. 1-5
Site History ....................................................... 1-5
Remedial Investigation and Confirmation Sampling Summary .......... 1-6
1.4.1 Soil ....................................................... 1-6
1.4.2 Surface Water and Sediment ................................. 1-8
1.4.3 Groundwater .............................................. 1-8
1.4.4 Data Quality Assessment .................................... 1-8
Organization of the Document ..................................... 1-10
Section 2 Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formation ........................... 2-1
2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Site Description ............................................ 2-1
2.1.2 Land Use .................................................. 2-1
2.1.3 Climate ................................................... 2-2
2.1.4 Geology ................................................... 2-2
2.1.5 Hydrology ................................................ 2-2
2.1.6 Hydrogeology ............................................. 2-2
2.1.7 Wildlife and Natural Resources .............................. 2-3
2.2 Georgia-Pacific Site Contamination .................................. 2-4
2.2.1 Contaminant Fate and Transport ............................. 2-4
2.2.2 Potential Ecological Receptors ............................... 2-7
Section 3 Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation ....... 3-1
CDM
3.1 Screening-level Exposure Estimates .................................. 3-1
3.2 Screening-level Risk Calculation ..................................... 3-1
3.3 Screening Level Ecological Effects Evaluation ......................... 3-1
3.3.1 Surface Water Screening Values .............................. 3-2
3.3.2 Sediment Screening Values .................................. 3-2
3.3.3 Soil Screening Values ....................................... 3-2
3.4 Screening-Level Risk Results ........................................ 3-2
3.4.1 Surface Water .............................................. 3-2
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
Sediment .................................................. 3-3
Surface Soil ................................................ 3-3
Off-Site Surface Soil ........................................ 3-4
Summary of Step 3a CO PCs by Media ........................ 3-4
02-0 1713262·927 /0426
I
I
I·,
' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5
3.6
Contents
Screening-Leve/ Steps 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment
Uncertainty Analyses .............................................. 3-4
3.5.1 Uncertainties Associated With the Collection of Data ........... 3-5
3.5.2 Uncertainties Associated With the Exposure Assessment ........ 3-5
3.5.3 Uncertainties Associated With the Effects Assessment .......... 3-5
3.5.4 Uncertainties Associated With the Risk Characterization ........ 3-5
3.5.5 Uncertainty With Non-Detected Chemicals .................... 3-5
Conclusions ....................................................... 3-6
Section 4 References ............................................................ 4-1
Appendixes
CDM
Appendix A Ecological Screening Tables
Appendix B Checklist for Ecological Assessment/Sampling
Appendix C Photo Log
Appendix D Ecological Screening Tables for Off-Site Soils
02-017/32B2·92711M26
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures
1-1 Site and Surrounding Properties ..................................... 1-2
1-2 On-Site Soil Sampling Locations ..................................... 1-7
1-3 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Locations ...................... 1-9
1-4 Groundwater Sampling Locations .................................. 1-10
2-1 Conceptual Site Model ............................................. 2-6
CDM iii
02-017/3282-927/0426
u,
fl Tables
g, Appendix A
B
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
A-1
A-2
A-3a
A-3b
A-4
A-5
A-6
Appendix D
D-1
D-2
D-3
COM
02.01713282-927/0426
Screening of cores for Surface Water .............................. A-1
Screening of cores for Sediment .................................. A-6
Screening of Dioxins and Furans for Sediment ...................... A-11
Screening of Dioxins and ·Furans for Sediment Summary ............. A-11
Screening of COrCs for Soil ...................................... A-12
Screening of Dioxins and Furans for Soil ........................... A-17
Summary of cores Retained from the SERA ....................... A-18
Screening of cores for Off-Site Soil ................................ D-1
Screening of Dioxins and Furans in Off-Site Soil ...................... D-6
Summary of cores for Off-Site Soils Retained from the SERA ......... D-7
iv
I
D Acronyms and Abbreviations
0
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BERA
bis
COM Federal
CERCLA
CFR
COPC
CSM
DQO
EC
EPA
ERA
ETAG
GP
HQ
NCP
PAH
PCB
PCDD
PCDF
PRP
QA
RI
SAP
SERA
SESD
SMDP
SVOC
voe
CDM
02..01113282-927/0426
baseline ecological risk assessment
below land surface
COM Federal Programs Corporation
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
Code of Federal Regulations
chemicals of potential concern
conceptual site model
data quality objectives
exposure concentration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ecological risk assessment
Ecological Technical Assistance Group
Georgia-Pacific
hazard quotient
National Contingency Plan
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
polychlorinated dibenzo dioxin
polychlorinated dibenzo furan
potentially responsible party
quality assurance
remedial investigation
sampling and analysis plan
screening-level ecological risk assessment
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
scientific/ management decision point
semivolatile organic compound
volatile organic compound
V
I
I
D
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
COM Federal Programs Corporation (COM) was tasked by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the potential for ecological risks at the
Georgia-Pacific (GP) site in Plymouth, North Carolina, under EPA Contract
Number 68-WS-0022 (Figure 1-1). Ecological risk assessment addresses the
objectives set forth by the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 300, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 for the protection of the
environment from current and potential threats posed by an uncontrolled
hazardous substance release (EPA 1990).
This Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SERA) (i.e., Steps 1 and 2 of the
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA)] identifies the current potential for
adverse biological effects to occur to ecological receptors in direct or indirect contact
with any potential residual contaminated environmental media at the GP site
following past remediation actions.
The EPA' s Ecological Risk Asse,ssment Guidance for Sllperfimd: Process for Designing
and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (Process Document) (EPA 1997) was
used for determining potential ecological risk associated with any potential residual
contamination at the GP site. The Process Document provides the latest EPA
guidance on the steps for designing and conducting technically defensible
ecological risk assessments for the Superfund Program. It is intended to promote
consistency and a scientifically balanced approach within the Superfund Program
and is based in large part on the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
(Framework Document) (EPA 1992). The Framework Document provides a basic
structure and a consistent approach for conducting ecological risk assessments and
describes the basic elements of a process for scientifically evaluating adverse effects
of stressors on ecosystems and ecosystem components.
The Ecological Risk Assessment Process follows eight steps (discrete actions) and
several scientific/management decision points (SMDPs) (meetings between the risk
manager and risk assessment team to evaluate and approve or redirect the work up
to that point). This process is discussed further in Section 1.1 below.
The screening-level approach is used as a cost effective way of focusing on those
constituents identified in various media at the site that are likely to be risk drivers
and to ensure that any chemicals eliminated from further consideration will cause
no risks. If no constituents are identified as potential risk drivers, then the process
will stop after completion of the screening-level assessment. If risk drivers are
identified, then those constituents will be carried through the BERA process after
COM 1-1
02-0 17/3262-927/0426
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Roanoke
River
0 250 l""'."w--SC/\L[ IN IT[!
I
500
, ,
Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods
Plymouth, North Carolina
CDNI
rootbollR◊
Field~
LEGEND,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PROP[RlY 130UND/\RY
INl ERMll-1 ENT DRAINAGE
RIVER
~ wooorn W[ll/\NOS
-t--1-l~AILROAD
Site and Surrounding
Properties
rir,ure No.
1-1
04/02
1-2
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 1
Introduction
obtaining input from the Region 4 EPA Ecological Technical Assistance Group
(ET AG). The screening-level ecological risk assessment consists of the following
elements:
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
■ Screening-Level Problem Formulation
Environmental setting
Site contamination
Contaminant fate and transport
Potential ecological receptors
Complete exposure pathways
Preliminary assessment and measurement endpoints
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
■ Screening-Level Exposure Estimates
■ Screening-Level Risk Calculations
■ Uncertainty Analyses
■ Selection of ecological chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)
1.1 Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process
Ecological risk assessment (ERA) is a process for scientifically eval_uating the
adverse effects (i.e., death, lack of successful reproduction, or impaired growth) of
"stressors" on ecosystems and components of ecosystems (EPA 1997). Anything
(i.e., chemical, physical, biological) that can adversely affect the environment is
known as a stressor. ERA is defined as the process used to evaluate the likelihood
that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to
one or more stressors (EPA 1992). An ecological risk does not exist unless:
■ The stressor has the inherent ability to cause one or more adverse effects, and
■ The stressor co-occurs with or contacts an ecological component (i.e.,
organisms, populations, communities, or ecosystems) long enough and at
sufficient intensity to elicit the adverse effect.
The Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1992) established the current
protocol for performing ERAs. This general guidance has been supplemented with ·
more recent documents (EPA 1997); however, the general protocol for performing
an ERA has not been altered. The objectives of an ERA (EPA 1997) are to:
1-3
02.017/3282·927/0426
0
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 1
Introduction
■ Document whether actual or potential ecological risks exist at a site,
■ Identify which contaminants pose an ecological risk, and
■ Generate data to be used in evaluating cleanup options.
Current EPA guidance recommends an 8-step process for designing and
conducting consistent and technically defensible ecological risk assessments for the
Superfund Program (EPA 1997). Steps 1 and 2 constitute a SERA, which compares
existing site data to conservative screening level values to identify those chemicals
which can confidently be eliminated from further evaluation, and those for which
additional evaluation is warranted. At the end of Step 2, an SMDP is reached. At
this point, all involved parties meet and discuss whether:
■ there is adequate information to conclude that ecological risks are negligible and
therefore no need for remediation on the basis of ecological risk;
■ the information is not adequate to make a decision at this point, and the
ecological risk assessment process will continue to Step 3; or
■ the information indicates a potential for adverse ecological effects, and more
thorough assessment is warranted.
If further evaluation is warranted, Step 3 of the 8-step process is initiated as the
planning and scoping phase for implementing a BERA. Step 3 includes several
activities, including refinement of the list of COPCs, further characterization of
ecological effects, refinement of information regarding contaminant fate and
transport, complete exposure pathways, ecosystems potentially at risk, selecting
assessment endpoints, and developing a conceptual model with working
hypotheses or questions that the site investigation will address. The refinement of
the list of CO PCs is referred to as Step 3a, and is typically submitted to ET AG for
review and comment before completing the remainder of Step 3. In Step 3a,
additional types of information are considered to further refine the list of chemicals
to be carried through the BERA, so that the chemicals most likely to result in risks to
ecological receptors remain the focus of the evaluations. At the end of Step 3a, an
SMDP is reached. And it is possible that the ERA process may be completed at this
point, and Steps 4 -8 do not have to be comple~ed.
In Step 4, a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) is developed and used to gather
further data to support the BERA. The SAP contains both the data quality
objectives (DQOs) and the work plan developed for the field effort.
1-4
02-017/3262-927 10426
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
Step 5 is the field verification of the Step 4 sampling design. This cons_ists of a site-
visit to determine that the field activities can take place as outlined in the Step 4
work plan and SAP .
Step 6 of the process is the actual data collection for the BERA, which results in
another SMDP that documents the results of the field effort.
Step 7 is tl1e summary and analysis of the data, and prediction of the likelihood of
adverse effects based on tl1e data analysis, which is presented as the Risk
Characterization. It also includes consideration of uncertainties and ecological
significance of risks in view of the types and magnitude of effects, spatial and
temporal patterns, and likelihood of recovery.
Step 8 results in a SMDP discussing significant risks, recommended cleanup (if
any), and future efforts.
1.2 Project Objectives
The objectives of an ecological risk assessment are as follows:
■ To determine whether unacceptable risks are posed to ecological receptors from
site-specific environmental contamination.
■ To provide the irlformation required to make risk management decisions
regarding the need for additional remedial actions.
1.3 Site History
The GP site was originally owned and operated by the Atlas Plywood Company.
There is no information regarding Atlas's operations and waste management
practices. GP reportedly bought the facility in 1950, and operated the facility until
1980. Site operations involved debarking, sawing, and planing rough hardwood
timber from logs. Surface treatment of some finished lumber took place using a
conveyor belt and dip vat. The sawmill facility was permanently closed after a
1983 fire destroyed the sawmill. GP sold the property to Decatur Partnerships, and
the site was leased to Outerbanks Contractors who used a portion of the site as an
asphalt plant.
The wood treating process at the site involved passing wood through a dip vat
located on a conveyor system, where the wood was surface coated with
preservatives and/ or insecticides. After treatment, the wood was reportedly
allowed to drip dry directly onto the ground or onto concrete pads before being
CDM 1~
02-0 17/3262-927 10426
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 1
Introduction
placed in the lumber storage areas. The dip vat solutions contained
pentachloropheneate, sodium metaborate, lindane, and other chlorophenol
compounds. Other process wastes associated with the facility included spent oil
containing metals (D00l-ignitable, D007-chromium, D008-lead), spent halogenated
degreasing solvents (F00l), spent non-halogenated degreasing solvents
(F003/F005), and bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from
the wood treating process (K00l ). The amount of waste generated on a_ yearly basis
by GP was estimated to be 20,000 pounds of D001/D007 /D008 waste, 375 pounds
of F001/F003/F005 wastes, and 16,300 pounds of K00l waste.
In 1998, EPA' s Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD), Environmental
Compliance Branch, Hazardous Waste Section conducted a remedial investigation
(RI). The goals were to:
■ Determine the nature of, and the areal and vertical extent of contamination
(waste types, concentrations, and distributions) in soils, sediments, surface
water, groundwater, and local biota at the GP site;
■ Locate the source(s) of contamination associated with the site;
■ Determine the hydraulic characteristics and contaminant transport mechanisms
of the underlying aquifer at the site;
■ Evaluate the potential migration routes and pathways of site contaminants; and
■ Determine the potential receptors of groundwater contamination by performing
a well/ water use survey within a I-mile radius of the site.
1.4 Remedial Investigation and Confirmation Sampling
Summary
Data used in this ecological risk assessment were obtained from the RI conducted
by the EPA in the summer and fall of 1998 and the confirmation sampling
conducted by the potentially responsible party (PRP) following the removal action.
The removal action took place from August through November 1999. Summaries
of these investigations are presented below.
1.4.1 Soil
EPA collected surface soil samples from 55 on-site grids (Grids 1 through 13 and
Grids 15 through 56) and 14 off-site grids. These samples represented an interval
from 0 -6 inches below ground surface and were collected as five point composites.
All samples were analyzed for volatile and extractable organic compounds,
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and metals. Approximately 80 percent
of the surface soil samples were analyzed for dioxin/ dibenzofuran. Sample
locations may be found in Figure 1-2.
1-6
02-017/3282-927/0426
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(~ ~ Avf;~
~kc;-t .e...l
Roanoke
River
SCALE IN FEEl
Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods
Plymouth, North Carolina
CDNI
Fool boll
Field -
• io9-.
O'"~,~-
l1lo '
D
D
D
D
IJ
D
D
\]
D
IJ
m-::.i.~■ SURF ACF. SOIi_
SAMPLE LOCATION
0
~
-+-+-
On-Site Soil Sampling
Locations
GRID
RIV[R
WOODED W[[LANDS
RAILrW/\0
figure No.
1-2
(14/02
1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
Following the evaluation of the analytical results, GP planned and implemented an
EPA-approved removal action. Several site structures were demolished and 13,096
tons of soil and demolition debris were disposed of off-site at RCRA Subtitle C or D
land disposal facilities. A description of the work may be found in the Removal
Action Summary Report, Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site, Ply111011th, North Carolina
(BBL Environmental Services 1999).
Among the areas that were excavated were Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, and 49.
Samples were collected from the surface of each excavated grid and analyzed for
the constituents of concern in that grid. The following is a list of the analyses that
were performed:
■ Grid 39-arsenic, chromium, and hexavalent chromium
■ Grid 40-polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins/ polychlorinated dibenzo furans
(PCDDs/PCDFs) and pentachlorophenol
■ Grid 41-PCDDs/PCDFs
■ Grid 44-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
■ Grid 46-PCDDs/PCDFs and lead
■ Grid 47 -arsenic
■ Grid 49-arsenic
The excavations were backfilled with clean soil after the analytical results indicated
that the soil in the bottom of the excavated grid did not contain constituents
exceeding the site-specific removal action levels based on human health criteria.
1.4.2 Surface Water and Sediment
Sediment and surface water samples (where present) were collected at seven
locations from the drainage ditch that surrounds the site. Samples were collected at
600 foot intervals as shown in Figure 1-3. Sediment samples were analyzed for
volatile and extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs, metals, and
dioxin/ dibenzofuran. Surface water samples were analyzed for volatile and
extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs and metals.
1.4.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was collected from five temporary wells and nine permanent
monitoring wells as shown in Figure 1-4. Samples were analyzed for volatile and
extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs, and metals.
1.4.4 Data Quality Assessment
The SESD of EPA conducted an RI in the summer and fall of 1998. This
investigation was designed to gather information to:
COM 1~
02-017/3282-927/().126
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Roanoke
River
WOODS
SCALE IN FEET
c:::::i
PUMI) / HOUSED
;f... "'~ C) GP-007-SD
--,,,,,.,,,,,,,.0 <:>
', (}
SHRUB PILES \ o er_;;; ,
G >_\
() '
GP-006-SD 'l I
◊
BUILDING
• I' "' ~
'
GP-005-SD ! j
600
□
0
D
LEGEND:
CP-D01-S[I C:)
□
0
D D
D
0
Cl
0
0
□
0
0
□
0
SEDIMENT AND SURFACE
WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
-···-RIVER
~ WOODED WETLANDS
PllOP[RTY BOUNDARY
INTERMITTENT DllAINAGE
Figur(' No. Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods
Plymouth, North Carolina
CDM
Sediment and Surface Water
Sampling Locations
1-3
04/02
1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Roanoke
Ri'ver
WOODS
SCALE IN f"E[f
600
Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods
Plymouth, North Carolina
CDM
0
TMW-29
MW-3
€)
c:::=i
' I' ~ •
! j
□
□
0
00
'~
□ □
0
D
LEGEND
f..lW-10
~
D □
0
0
0
D 0
EXISTING MOeJIIORING
WELL LOCATIOfl
0
0
D
TEMPORAllY MONI fORINC
WEU_ LOCATION
RIVER
wooorn WETLANl)S
----PROP[RTY [..;QUND/\RY
----INT(Rl~ITIENf DRAINAGE
Figure No.
Groundwater Sampling
Locations
1--4
04/02
1-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 1
Introduction
(1) define the nature and extent of soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater
contamination, and
(2) aid in the development of remedial alternatives that may be necessary to
address any threat identified by the investigation.
To achieve these goals, a quality assurance (QA) plan was implemented, beginning
in the planning stage and continuing through sample collection, analyses, reporting
and final review. The RI report (in draft) discusses the QA protocols that were
followed to insure that_ samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with
standard operating procedures. Through these efforts, it may be concluded that the
data that were obtained are of sufficient quality to use in a baseline risk assessment.
1.5 Organization of the Document
This document includes steps 1 and 2 in EPA's 8-step process for conducting
ecological risk assessments. Section 2 presents the screening-level problem
formulation step, which includes a discussion of the environmental setting, site-
related contamination, contaminant fate and transport, potential ecological
receptors, complete exposure pathways, and preliminary assessment and
measurement endpoints. Section 3 also includes the screening-level ecological
effects evaluation, which presents the ecological benchmark values that represent
conservative thresholds for adverse ecological effects. Section 3 also presents the
screening-level exposure estimate and risk calculation, as well as a discussion of
uncertainties. Section 4 presents references cited throughout the document.
Appendix A includes the ecological screening tables, Appendix B includes the
ecological checklist, and Appendix C is the photo log of the site survey.
The SERA indicated that there is the potential for adverse effects to ecological
receptors due to exposure to contamination in soil, surface water, and sediment at
the GP site. Based on the results of this SERA, a SMDP meeting between the risk
manager and risk assessment team will determine whether the ecological risk
assessment should continue into the refinement of CO PCs, or Step 3a of the eight-
step ERA process.
1-11
02-017/3282-927/0426
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem
Formation
An exposure assessment identifies pathways whereby receptors may be exposed to
site contaminants and estimates the frequency, duration, and magnitude of such
exposures. Exposure assessment involves (1) characterization of the environmental
setting; (2) identification of exposure pathways; and (3) quantification of exposure.
These topics are presented below.
2.1 Environmental Setting
Much of the information in this section was excerpted from the following
document:
U.S. EPA, 1998. Remedial Investigation Work Pinn, Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods,
Plymouth, North Caro/inn. August.
2.1.1 Site Description
The GP site is approximately 24 acres in size, and is bounded to the north by the
Roanoke River, to the west by Atlantic Coast Railroad property, to the east by
residential properties, and to the south by the Plymouth High School and the Boy
Scouts of America property (Figure 1-1 ). The site terrain is flat, low-lying with
elevation increasing south of the site. Portions of the site are exposed hard packed
dirt, gravel, asphalt, or concrete, while other areas are overgrown with grass, trees,
and heavy vegetation (Figure 1-1). The site is presently unoccupied.
2.1.2 Land Use
The principal land use in the immediate vicinity of the site is residential and
institutional. The estimated population within a 4-mile radius of the site is 7,002.
The nearest residence is located approximately 700 feet east of the site. The
Plymouth High School is located 0.27 miles south of the site. A Boy Scouts of
America facility is located adjacent to the Plymouth High School (Figure 1-1). The
land to the north of the site, and immediately north of the Roanoke River, is
classified as wetlands.
Access to the site is restricted by a gate; however, there are no fences around the
property. A zone of dense woods separates the site from the Plymouth High School,
the Boy Scouts of America facility, and residential properties. There is visual
evidence that people trespass on-site and use the docks for recreational fishing in
the Roanoke River.
2-1
02.017/3262-927/0426
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formation
2.1.3 Climate
The climatological data for Washington County, North Carolina is representative of
the climate in the Plymouth area. Northwestern Washington County has a mean
annual precipitation of approximately 50 inches and a mean annual lake
evaporation of 41 inches. Therefore, the net annual precipitation is 9 inches.
2.1.4 Geology
The regional geology of Washington County is characterized by complexly
interbedded sediments. The sediments are unconsolidated and consist primarily of
sand, silt, and clay transported by streams from the adjacent uplands of the
Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces. The surficial sediments at the site are
approximately 25 feet thick, and are underlain by a confining layer which is 25 feet
thick. TI1e primary geologic units in the Plymouth area are the Yorktown and
Duplin Formations. The Yorktown is generally characterized by fine-grained sands
interspersed with varying amounts of silt, clay, and shell beds, and sandy and silty
limestones, while the Duplin Formation contains fossiliferous sand, sandy
limestone, silty limestone, and calcareous silty sand.
On-site soil is described as Tarboro sand. The soil in the adjacent wetlands is
described as M uckalee loams.
2.1.5 Hydrology
The site is located immediately to the south of the Roanoke River. The Roanoke
River receives surface water from the GP site through direct runoff from several on-
site drainage ditches, as well as a drainage canal which encompasses the areas
previously used for the sawmill, wood treatment, and wood storage. The Roanoke
River flows in an northeasterly direction for approximately 6 miles, where it flows
into the Albemarle Sound, and ultimately, the Atlantic Ocean.
2.1.6 Hydrogeology
The surficial aquifer in the area of the site is comprised of approximately 25 feet of
surficial deposits, underlain by a 25-foot confining layer. Recharge to the
unconfined surficial aquifer is from precipitation, while water discharges from the
surficial aquifer as seepage into nearby ditches, streams, estuaries, or the Atlantic
Ocean. Depth to the water table in the surficial aquifer at the site typically varies
from 3.5 to 5 feet below land surface (bis). The surficial aquifer and the 25-foot
confining layer are underlain by 40 feet of sand and marl of the Yorktown
Formation. The Yorktown Aquifer is a confined aquifer which serves as a major
source of water for portions of Washington County. The Yorktown Aquifer is
underlain by the confined Pungo Aquifer, which can be reached 90 feet below the
land surface. The Yorktown Aquifer is underlain by a 25-foot confining layer.
2-2
02-(117/3282-927/0426
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formation
Below this confining layer, the Castle Hayne Aquifer can be reached at a depth of
approximately 115 feet bis.
TI1e Castle Hayne Aquifer serves as the principal source of groundwater in the
Plymouth area, and consists of porous and permeable limestone, sandy limestone,
and sand. Hydraulic conductivity values in the Castle Hayne Aquifer range from
15 feet/ day to 200 feet/ day. The Castle Hayne Aquifer in the Plymouth area can
be reached from 150 to 180 feet bis.
2.1.7Wildlife and Natural Resources
The Roanoke River is classified as a "Class C" river with an "Sw" supplemental
designation. Class C waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. A fish consumption
advisory has been in effect for a period of years along the lower Roanoke River due
to elevated levels of dioxin in fish tissue.
Observations at tl1e GP site were made on May 8th and 9th, 2001. The site is
bordered by the Roanoke River to the north, Plymouth High School to the south, a
residential area to the east, and an early successional woodlands to the west. The
site it self is 24 acres of mostly paved and barren ground dominated by grasses and
weeds. Near the gated entrance is an office house. There are piles of debri, gravel,
and bricks near the middle of the site. One remaining stack still stands along with
one large and one smaller fuel tank, in the north central portion of the site. A metal
maintenance building is located to the southeast. Throughout the site signs of
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and dogs were noted.
On the river bank itself are a dock, some large bolders, and some old creosote piling
poles. The sou them boundary is edged by a ditch which carries water from the
southwest corner of the site to the Roanoke River on the northeast corner of the
property. This area includes a slow moving body of water surrounded by marginal
wooded wetlands. The forested wetlands (sometimes as wide as 30 yards) along
the ditch include red maple (Acer nibnm1), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), mimosa
(Mimosa speciosa), alder (A/nus sp.), willow (Salix sp.), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), pine (Pi1111s sp.), and elm (Ulmus sp.).
The understory is dominated by privet (Ligustrum sp.), grape vine (Vitus sp.),
honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), wild rose (Rosa sp.), bamboo (Polygonum sp.), common
reed (Phragmites communis), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
There are also some large sycamores along the Roanoke River. It is noted that
native bottomland hardwood forests are located on the north side of the Roanoke
River. The northeast areas of the site which seem to have been cleared, look as if
will revert to a hardwood forest.
2-3
02-017/3282-92710426
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Leve/ Problem Formation
Typical bird species of residential areas and wooded areas were heard and
observed on May 8th and 9th including fish crow (Corvus ossifragus) and American
ciow (Corvus braclzyrlzynclws), white-eyed vireo(Vireo griseus), indigo bunting
I (?iasserina cyanea), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), prothonotary warbler
(?irotonotaria citrea), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), common grackle
(<:Quiscalus quiscula), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), northern mockingbird (Mim11s
' ployglottos), grey catbird (Ou111etella carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida 111acro11ra),
dbwny (Picoidcs pubescens) and red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes caro/inus),
E~ropean starling (St1m111s vulgaris), chimney swift (Clzaetura pelagic), Carolina
I chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Carolina wren (Tlzryotlwrus liulovicimws), killdeer
I (Clzaradrius vociferus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sit/a carolinensis), barn
slvallow(Hirunda rustica), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), northern parula (Panila
a\uericana), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern flicker (Colaptes aura/us), tufted
I titmouse (l'arus bicolor), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), American robin
I (rfurdus 111igratori11s), and great-crested flycatcher (Myiarc/zus tyra111111l11s): Frogs and
ilirtles were seen in the wooded wetlands along the ditch. Along the adjacent
I Roanoke River, osprey (Pandion /zaliaetus), great-blue (Ardea /zerodias), and green
l\erons (Butorides stria/us), along with turtles and fish were observed.
I -
A visit to the Fish and Wildlife Service office at Lake Mattamuskeet National
I Wildlife Refuge on May 8th revealed that this area of North Carolina, including the
I Plymouth area, has a high density of black bear (Ursus americanus). These bears are
I for the most part dependent on the agricultural crops of the region. Biologists at
I the NWR also stated that the species of concern in the area would be peregrine
I falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus le11coceplzalus), and osprey. Habitat is
hot present for any of these species on-site; however, the adjacent Roanoke River
~rovides ample habitat for bald eagles and osprey (these were seen flying over the
!river during the site survey).
For the most part, the site is devoid of good quality wildlife habitat. The exception
to this would be the wooded wetlands along the ditch. Areas to the northest of the
site adjacent the residential area may undergo succession to good forest habitat in
the future.
2.2 Georgia-Pacific Site Contamination
2.2.1 Contaminant Fate and Transport
An examination of contaminant fate and transport is an integral step of the
screening-level ecological risk assessment problem formulation. This section
illustrates the sources of contamination, routes of migration, and exposure
pathways for site contaminants through the use of a conceptual site model (CSM).
CDM 2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formation
A complete exposure pathway must exist for an ecological receptor species to be
ex~osed to a COPC. A complete exposure pathway consists of the following
elJments: (1) a source and mechanism of contaminant release to the environment,
I (2) an environmental transport medium for the released contaminant, (3) a point of
cohtact with the contaminated medium, and (4) a route of entry of the
cdntaminant into the receptor at the exposure point. An examination of sources,
I releases, fate and transport mechanisms, exposure points, and exposure routes is
cdnducted to determine the complete exposure pathways that exist at the site. If
aJy of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete and is not considered
I further.
FL this SERA, a CSM (Figure 2-1) was developed to illustrate current exposure
phthways for the ecological receptors identified at the GP site. Complete exposure
pl.thways are represented in the CSM diagram by a dot in the box designating the
pbtential receptor for that pathway.
2-5
,,~,m"'-"'T'
1!11!!1 ------- - - --- - --- - -
i------FIGURE-2-1.-CONCEe_T._UAL SITE MODEL (CSM) FOR GEORGIA-PACIFIC
POTENTIAL RECEPTOR
Exposure Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial
Medium Release Mechanism Media Affected Pathway Plants Animals Plants Animals
Groundwater Direct Contamination Creeks/Ponds Groundwater does not appear to discharge to surface waters. This
pathway will be assessed via the surface water route.
Direct Contamination Ditch Direct Contact/ • • • Ingestion
Surface Water Ingestion of
Direct Contamination Contaminated Contaminated • • Prey Prey Items
Soil Transport Direct Contact/ (erosion, runoff) Ditch Sediment • • • Ingestion
Sediment
Soil Transport Contaminated Ingestion of
Contaminated • " (erosion, runoff) Prey Prey Items
Surface Soil Surface Soil Direct Contact/ • • Contamination Ingestion
Surface
Soil Surface Soil Contaminated Ingestion of
Contaminated • Contamination Prey Prey Items
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formation
2.2.2 Potential Ecological Receptors
Od-site contamination has occurred at the GP site as a result of historical site
op~rations. These operations resulted in groundwater, surface water, sediment,
aJd soil contamination. As shown on Figure 2-1, the groundwater pathway will be
ev1aluated by assessing impacts in surface water where the groundwater meets the
sdrface water in the on-site ditch.
I 2.2.2.1 Aquatic exposure pathway
Ab a result of previous sampling events and investigations there appears to be an
elposure route of potential concern to aquatic receptors. Surface water and
sJdiment samples from the perimeter ditch contained detectable concentrations of
I COPCs. Exposures to aquatic receptors could occur from direct contact to or
i1{cidental ingestion of contaminated surface water or sediments, and ingestion of
cbntaminated prey or aquatic plants (Figure 2-1). This represents a complete
I h . lposure pat way to aquahc receptors.
2.2.2.2 Terrestrial exposure pathway
I Terrestrial receptors may be exposed to site contaminants through direct contact or
ilicidental ingestion of contaminated soil, ingestion of contaminated prey, or plant
Jptake. In addition, terrestrial animals may be exposed to contaminants in surface
-!vater via drinking water or ingestion of aquatic organisms that contain
tontaminants from surface water or sediments. The potential for ecological risks is
~hown on the CSM (Figure 2-1). Other factors that may be taken into consideration
I in the interpretation of potential ecological risks are discussed in the risk
~haracterization section of this SERA.
I •2.2.2.3 Environmental media impacted
Environmental media that were impacted by the release of contaminants include:
■ Soil
■ Groundwater
11 Ditch surface water
■ Ditch sediment
2.2.2.4 Potential ecological receptors
Terrestrial mammals
Terrestrial birds
Terrestrial reptiles
Terrestrial plants
Aquatic reptiles and amphibians
Aquatic invertebrates
Aquatic birds
Aquatic plants
2-7
02-0H~282-927r26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Leve/ Problem Formation
Potential ecological receptors for this study are defined as the plants and animals
th~t inhabit or use the habitats present at the GP site.
A ~ield survey was conducted in the Spring of 2001 (May 8"' and 9"') to identify
gdneral habitats, potential exposure pathways, and potential ecological receptors.
TI\is site offers habitat for a variety of fauna due to the forested areas, the adjacent
R6anoke River, and the ditch areas to the south and east of the site. During the site
sJrvey, an effort was made to look for occurrences of species of special concern
(e1.g., threatened and endangered species) or for habitats that may support such
sJecies. No endangered or threatened species were identified on the GP site.
2J2.2.s Preliminary assessment and measurement endpoints
~ preliminary identification of assessment and measurement endpoints is required
f6r a screening-level assessment. T11ese endpoints will be further defined if the
sbreening-level process demonstrates the need to complete a BERA. In a screening-
1bvel assessment, assessment endpoints are considered to be any adverse effects
f~om site contaminants to any ecological receptors at the site. The measurement
dndpoints proposed for this assessment are screening-level benchmark values
Jresented in Section 2.3.
2-8
"~""'"'"'j"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate
ahd Risk Calculation
Je screening-level exposure estimates and risk calculation comprise Step 2 in the
sc~eening-level ecological risk assessment for a site. Screening is conducted by
cdmparing maximum detected exposure concentrations for constituents in site
m'edia with the ecotoxicity screening values to provide a conservative estimate of
rikks to ecological receptors at the site.
~-1 Sc,eening-level Exposme EsHmales
Per EPA guidance (EPA 1997), the exposure estimate for this assessment was based
0~1 the highest detected soil concentrations detected in the post-remediation
cbnfirmation sampling results. No screening-level exposure estimates will be made
fbr groundwater at the site because (1) surface water data from the ditches was
dollected and will be evaluated in this document, and (2) no complete pathway has
&een demonstrated to connect the groundwater to the on-site ditches.
I 3.2 Screening-level Risk Calculation
~ quantitative screening risk value was calculated by comparing maximum
~etected values to the screening-level benchmark values identified in Section 3.3. If
I !there were no detections of a particular chemical, the maximum detection limit was
used instead. This ratio of the maximum concentration detected in an
environmental medium to the ecotoxicological screening value is termed a hazard
quotient (HQ) and is calculated as follows:
where:
HQ= EC sv
EC= exposure concentration (e.g. mg/L, g/kg, etc.)
SV = ecotoxicity screening benchmark (in units that match the EC)
A hazard quotient equal to or greater than one is interpreted as a level at which
adverse ecological effects may occur; however, there is no indication of the
magnitude of those effects.
3.3 Screening Level Ecological Effects Evaluation
The screening-level ecological effects evaluation is the establishment of contaminant
exposure levels that represent conservative thresholds for adverse ecological effects.
3-1
"~"°'"T'""'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I COM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
ese screening values are then compared to maximum contaminant
doncentrations found in site-related media. If the contaminant concentration
Jxceeds the conservative screening value, then the contaminant is typically retained
Js an ecological COPC. Designation as an ecological COPC alone does not indicate
fuat a constituent poses an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. Rather, the
tonservative nature of the ecological screening values means only that those
tonstituents designated as ecological COPCs require additional evaluation. The
~creening-level values selected as conservative thresholds for comparison to current
~ite media concentrations are discussed below.
I 3.3.1 Surface Water Screening Values
I EPA Region 4 screening values for surface water (EPA 2001) have been compared
\vith the maximum detected concentrations on the site in order to calculate HQ
ralues and identify ecological COPCs. Region 4 screening values for freshwater
rere used and compared for this site.
B.3.2 Sediment Screening Values I EPA Region 4 screening values for sediment (EPA 2001) have been compared with
lthe maximum detected concentrations on the site in order to calculate HQ values
and identify ecological COPCs.
3.3.3 Soil Screening Values
EPA Region 4 screening values for soils (EPA 2001) have been compared with the
maximum detected concentrations on the site to calculate HQ values and identify
ecological COPCs. Since there are no Region 4 dioxin screening values for soils, the
sediment values were used in the soil screening table.
3.4 Screening-Level Risk Results
The screening-level ecological risk assessment process for surface water, sediment,
and soil is shown on Tables A-1 through A-5 in Appendix A. Many chemicals are
being retained either because the detection limits were above screening values or
because there was no EPA Region 4 screening value available. A list of chemicals
retained following the screening process is provided in Table A-6 in Appendix A.
3.4.1 Surface Water
Table A-1, in Appendix A, shows the screening-level evaluations for surface water.
As shown on this table, only metals and one volatile organic compound (VOC)
(acetone, a common laboratory contaminant) were detected in surface water
samples at the GP site. Of these detected chemicals, zinc was eliminated as a
potential CO PCs and not carried through to refinement, Step 3a, for surface water.
3-2
02~'70292-927126
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
e calculated HQ for zinc was below one. Some metals were retained for Step 3a
I because either there was no available Region 4 screening level or because the HQ
I exceeded one.
I Even though not detected, many pesticides, P AHs, semivolatile organic compounds
I (SVOes}, and voes were retained because either the detection limits exceeded the
kcreening level or screening levels were not available for the particular chemical.
I re surface water eoPes retained for Step 3a are listed in Table A-6, Appendix A.
B.4.2 Sediment
I ~able A-2, in Appendix A, shows the screening-level evaluations for sediment. As
shown on this table, metals, pesticides, PAHs, and two each of SVOes and voes
rere detected in sediment samples at the GP site. Of these detected chemicals, only
nickel was eliminated as a potential eoPes and not carried through to refinement,
I Step 3a, for sediment. The calculated HQ for nickel was below one. Some metals
were retained for Step 3a because either there was no available Region 4 screening
level or because the HQ exceeded one. Even though there were few detections,
many pesticides, PAHs, SVOes, and voes were retained because either the
detection limits exceeded the screening level or screening levels were not available
for the particular chemical.
As shown on Table A-3, total dioxin/ furan equivalents found in sediment were
retained for further consideration in the ecological risk assessment process. The
' HQs for mammals (272), birds (184), and fish (183) were all well above one.
The sediment eoPes retained for Step 3a are listed in Table A-6, in Appendix A.
3.4.3 Surface Soil
Table A-4, in Appendix A, shows the screening-level evaluations for soil. As
shown on this table, metals, PAHs, pesticides, and a few svoes and voes were
detected in soil samples at the GP site. Of these detected chemicals, only beryllium,
cadmium, cobalt, flourene, and naphthalene were eliminated as potential eoPes
and not retained for further consideration in the ecological risk assessment process.
The calculated HQs for these five chemicals were all below one. Some metals were
retained for Step 3a because either there was no available Region 4 screening level
or because the HQ exceeded one. Pesticides, PAHs, SVOes, and voes were
retained because their HQ exceeded one, they were not detected and their detection
limits exceeded the screening level, or screening levels were not available for the
particular chemical.
3-3
02-0""'"·"' I ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Leve/ Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
' As shown on Table A-5, total dioxin/ furan equivalents found in soil were retained
I for further consideration in the ecological risk assessment process. The HQs for
inammals (222) and birds (180) were well above one.
I The soils COPCs retained for Step 3a are listed in Table A-6, in Appendix A.
I 3.4.4 Off-Site Surface Soil I Table 0-1, in Appendix D, shows the screening-level evaluations for the off-site
!urface soil. As shown on this table, metals, P AHs, four pesticides, four SVOCs,
hnd two VOCs were detected in off-site soil samples at the GP site. Some inetals
lvere retained for Step 3a because either there was no available Region 4 screening I .
level or because the HQ exceeded one. Pesticides, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs were
~etained because their HQ exceeded one, they were not detected and their detection
I limits exceeded the screening level, or screening levels were not available for the
~articular chemical. For the most part, pesticides were found less frequently in the
bff-site soil samples when compared to the pesticides detected in the soils on the GP
bite itself. The exception to this is DOE and DDT, which were found more
~requently in the off-site soil samples.
As shown on Table D-2, total dioxin/ furan equivalents found in soil were retained
for further consideration in the ecological risk assessment process. The HQs for
mammals and birds were just above one, 6 and 5 respectively. These HQs are
significantly lower than those calculated for the onsite soils (see Section 3.4.3
above).
The off-site soil CO PCs retained for Step 3a are listed in Table D-3, in Appendix D.
3.4.5 Summary of Step 3a COPCs by Media
The COPCs retained for Step 3a refinement are listed in Table A-6 for surface
water, sediment, and surface soil. These chemicals, as agreed upon by the EPA
Region 4 BT AG, will be considered further in ecological risk assessment process.
Table D-3 lists the COPCs retained for the off-site surface soil.
3.5 Uncertainty Analyses
This section discusses uncertainties associated with each stage of the ecological
screening process; from the data collected in vicinity of the GP site, through the
assessment of exposure and toxicity, to the final assessment of potential risk.
Uncertainties associated with each stage of the process are discussed below.
3-4
02-0Hmo,.o,,i,e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
CDM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Leve/ Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
3.5.1 Uncertainties Associated With the Collection of Data
I rhenever data collection is undertaken at a given site, certain uncertainties exist
that are inherent in sampling variable environmental media. Such uncertainties
Include, but are not limited to, variability associated with the media collected for
~ach sample, variability due to sample changes during transportation, variability in
lthe analytical measurements made on the samples obtained, and uncertainties
associated with the adequacy of representation of the contaminated media. These 1uncertainties may result in an over-or under-estimation of risks.
3.5.2 Uncertainties Associated With the Exposure Assessment
No food-chain modeling was conducted for individual receptor species, and no
tissue samples were collected to demonstrate actual exposure to residual site
contaminants. This may result in an over-or under-estimate of risk.
There is also uncertainty associated with the use of maximum concentrations for
comparison to ecological benchmarks. Most environmental data are not normally
distributed, and the maximum values used for screening-level purposes probably do
not represent reasonable maximum exposures. While this is appropriate for a
screening-level assessment, the use of maximum values may result in an over-
estimate of risk.
3.5.3 Uncertainties Associated With the Effects Assessment
For surface water, sediment, and soil screening-level values that were selected as
benchmarks are conservative to ensure that any potential for ecological risk is not
overlooked. While this is appropriate for a screening-level evaluation, these
benchmarks may have uncertainty factors incorporated into them, and may
therefore result in an overestimate of risk.
3.5.4 Uncertainties Associated With the Risk Characterization
Uncertainties in risk characterization are influenced by uncertainties in exposure
assessment and effects assessment, as discussed above.· Site-specific chemical data
are subject to concerns of representativeness, and conservative toxicity data may
not be completely applicable to the site under investigation. Finally, the screening-
level risk calculations rely on single screening-level benchmark values. These
uncertainties may result in an over-or under-estimate of risk.
3.5.5 Uncertainty With Non-Detected Chemicals
Even though a great number of non-detected chemicals were retained for further
evaluation in Step 3a of the ecological risk assessment process, many are retained
because there is no available Region 4 screening value. For other non-detected
chemicals, retention was due to the detection limits exceeding the Region 4
3-5
02-01' ""'·""j"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
screening values. By retaining these non-detected chemicals, it is assumed that the
hhemical is present, when it is likely to not be present. This may result in an over
I . f . k estimate o ns .
b.6 Conclusions I This report comprises the first two steps of EPA' s eight step process for conducting
ecological risk assessments (EPA 1997). Inherent in this process is a set of SMDPs,
for communication between the risk assessors and risk managers. In accordance
with this process, this screening-level risk assessment demonstrates the potential for
risk to ecological receptors from exposure to soil contamination at the site.
It should be noted that although there are many COPCs that have been retained,
very few SVOCs and VOCs have actually been detected at the site. These are
highlighted in Tables A-6 and D-3. As a result of guidance from EPA Region 4, the
next document for the Georgia Pacific site will be the Refinement of CO PCs (i.e.,
Step 3a).
3-6
02-0H02''·'2r'26
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 4 I
References
I BBL Environmental Services 1999. Removal Action Summary Report, Georgia-Pacific
Hardwood Site, Plymouth, North Carolina, December.
U,S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990, "National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Rule," 55 Federal Register, No. 46,
March 8, 1990, pp,8666-8865.
EPA 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum.
Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-92/001. February.
EPA 1997, Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designi11g
and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final, June 5.
EPA 1998. Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods, Ply111011tlt,
North Carolina. August.
EPA 2001. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assess111e11t Bulletins-Supplement to RAGS.
Website [http://www,epa.gov/region04/waste/ ots/ ecolbuLhtm]. October 16,
National Geographic Society. 1983, A Field Guide to the Birds of Nor/It America.
Washington, D. C.
4-1
0
u
•
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
ii
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
Appendix A
Ecological Screening
Tables
- - ---- -.. --
Table A-1
Screening of COPCs for Surface Water
G f S h C eorgia-Paci ,c ite, Plymout , North aro ina
Number of_
Detects/
Chemical Samples
lnorganics (µg/L)
Aluminum 2/3
Antimony 0/3
Arsenic 3/3
Barium 3/3
Beryllium 0/3
Cadmiumn 0/3
Calciumr 3/3
Chromium" 0/3
Cobalt 0/3
Copper" 0/3
Iron 3/3
Lead" 1/3
Magnesiumt 3/3
Manganese 3/3
Nicker 0/3
Potassiumr 2/3
Selenium 0/3
Silver"" 0/3
Sodiumr 2/3
Thallium 0/3
Total Mercury 0/3
Vanadium 0/3
Zinc0 2/3
Pesticides (µg/L)
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD) 0/3
4.4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE) 0/3
4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT) 0/3
Total DDD, DDE, DDT
Aldrin 0/3
Alpha-BHC 0/3
alpha-Chlordane 0/3
beta-BHC 0/3
CDM
Max.
Detected Detected
Cone. Qualifier Cone.Range
1000 -770-1000
ND ND ND
310 -27-310
260 -49-260
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
89000 -18000-89000
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
14000 -7600-14000
4 -4-4
12000 -3400-12000
3000 -360-3000
ND ND ND
13000 -8400-13000
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
21000 -13000-21000
ND ND ND
·No ND ND
ND ND ND
36 -24-36
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
---- -
Sample ID of Maximum EPA Region 4
Max. Detected Detection Chronic
Cone. Limit Screening Value HQ COPC
GP004SW 50.00 87 11.49 Yes
ND 10.00 160,...-0.06 No
GP004SW -i90,., 1.63 Yes
GP004SW -NV N'(_..--Yes--u-::.2...n
ND 1.00 ~ -1:89 Yes
ND 1.00 9 0.40 No
GP004SW -.NV NV Yes
ND 2.00 <46923) <0.01 No
ND 3.00 ·NV' NV Yes
ND 4.00 '27..I!J 0.14 No
GP003SW -1000-14.00 Yes
GP004SW 3.00 @=) 0.35 No
GP004SW -NV NV Yes
GP004SW -NV NV Yes
ND 4.00 (367 J> 0.01 No
GP004SW 3900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 5.00 5-1.00 Yes
ND 2.00 &@ 0.09 No
GP007SW 8900.00 NV' NV Yes
ND 7.00 4,.-1.75 Yes
ND 0.10 0.012 -8.33 Yes
ND 4.00 NV-NV Yes
GP004SW 5.00 (247.1]> 0.15 No
ND 0.10 0.0064 15.63 Yes
ND 0.10 10..5---0.01 No
ND 0.10 Q.001 100.00 Yes
0.30 NV-NV Yes
ND 0.05 0:3-0.17 No
ND 0.05 500' <0.01 No
ND 0.01 @ffe3J 2.32 Yes
ND 0.05 !;l)OO,.,-<0.01 No
A-1
- ---I!!!!!! em liilia iiiii iiill ·iiiii -----
Table A-1
Screening of COPCs for Surface Water
Geo · Pacific s·te Plymouth North Caror a rg1a-I ' ' m
Number of Max. Sample ID of Maximum EPA Region 4
Detects/ Detected Detected Max. Detected Detection Chronic
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Cone. Range Cone. Limit Screening Value HQ COPC
Pesticides (µg/L)
delta-BHC 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.01 <0.08-' 0.06 No
Dieldrin 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.01 0:0019---5.26 Yes
Endosulfan I (alpha) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.05 0.056-0.89 No
Endosu/fan II (beta) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.10 0.0~ 1.79 Yes
Endosulfan sulfate 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.10 ·NV NV Yes
Endrin 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.10 0,0023 -43.48 Yes -Endrin aldehyde 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.10 .NV NV Yes
Endrin ketone 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.10 NV_,,., NV Yes
gamma-BHC (lindane) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.05 0,08-0.63 No
gamma-Chlordane 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.05 (o,U043, 11.63 Yes
Heptachlor 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.05 0.0038-13.16 Yes -Heptachlor epoxide 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.05 0,0038 13.16 Yes
Methoxychlor 0/3 ND ND ND ND 0.50 9.03_. 16.67 Yes
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 1.00 0.014 71.43 Yes
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 2.00 0.014 142.86 Yes
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 1.00 0.014 71.43 ·Yes
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 1.00 0.0~~ 71.43 Yes
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 1.00 0.014 71.43 Yes
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 1.00 0.0114 71.43 Yes
' PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0/3 ND ND ND ND 1.00 0.014 71.43 Yes
' Total PCBs 8.0 NV NV Yes
Toxaphene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 5.00 a.0002-25000.00 Yes
PAHs (µg/L) -
Acenaphthene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 J~ 0.59 No
Acenaphthy/ene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
Anthracerie 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 . NV NV Yes
Benzo(a)anthracene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
Benzo(a)pyrene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
Benzo(b and{or k)fluoranthene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
Chrysene -0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
Dibenzofa,h)anthracene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
CDM A-2
--I!!!!!!
Table A-1
Screening of COPCs for Surface Water
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Number of
Detects/
Chemical Samples
PAHs (ug/L)
Fluoranthene 0/3
Fluorene· 0/3
lndeno (1,2,3:cd) pyrene 0/3
Phenanthrene 0/3
Pyrene 0/3
Tota/ PAHs
Semivolatiles (µa/L)
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenot 0/3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0/3
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0/3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0/3
1,4-0ichlorobenzene 0/3
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0/3
2,4,6-Trichtorophenot 0/3
2,4-Dichlorophenol 0/3
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0/3
2,4-Dinitrophenot 0/3
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0/3
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0/3
2-Chtoronaphthalene 0/3
2-Chlorophenol 0/3
2-Methyt-4,6-dinitrophenot 0/3
2-Methylphenol 0/3
2-Nitroaniline 0/3
2-Nitrophenol 0/3
3,3'-Dich/orabenzidine 0/3
3-Nitroaniline 0/3
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0/3
4-Chloro-3-methytphenol 0/3
4-Chloroanillne 0/3
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0/3
4-Nitroaniline 0/3
CDM
== Ii/ill i'iiii -
Max. Sample ID of
Detected Detected Max. Detected
Cone. Qualifier Cone.Range Cone.
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 ND ND ND
-----

-
Maximum EPA Region 4
Detection Chronic
Limit Screening Value HQ COPC
10.00 39'1l 0.25 No
10.00 NV NV Yes
10.00 NV NV Yes
10.00 NV NV Yes
10.00 NV NV Yes
140 NV NV Yes
10.00 -Nv-NV Yes
10.00 44< 0.22 No
10.00 '\5'.8---0.63 No
10.00 50:2· 0.20 No
10.00 t1-:2-0.89 No
25.00 ,J!.V/ NV Yes
10.00 -3:2-3.13 Yes
10.00 38'.5 0.27 No
10.00 ,2-1,2_.., 0.47 No
25.00 6,2'' 4.03 Yes ---10.00 .310 <0.01 No
10.00 ,NV' NV Yes
10.00 ,NV-NV Yes
10.00 43:8-0.23 No
25.00 2,-3--10.87 Yes
10.00 NV-NV Yes
25.00 NV-NV Yes
10.00 3500-<0.01 No
10.00 .·NV-NV Yes
25.00 NV--/!t NV Yes
10.00 ~"!A~-0.82 No
10.00 -:-NV Yes
10.00 tJJt--NV Yes
10.00 NV-NV Yes
25.00 -NV-NV Yes
A-3
iiii iiii ---liil
Table A-1
Screening of COPCs for Surface Water
Georgia Pacific Site Plymouth North Carolina -' '
Number of
Detects/
Chemical Samples
Semivolatiles (µg/L)
4-Nitrophenol 0/3
Benzyl butyl phthalate 0/3
bis(2-Ch/oroethoxy) methane 0/3
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 0/3
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 0/3
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0/3
Carbazole 0/3
Di-n-butylphthalate 0/3
Di-n-octylphthalate 0/3
Dibenzofuran 0/3
Diethyl phthalate 0/3
Dimethyl phthalate 0/3
Hexachlorobenzene 0/3
Hexachlorobutadiene 0/3
Hexachtorocyctopentadiene 0/3
Hexachloroethane 0/3
lsophorone 0/3
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0/3
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine 0/3
Naphthalene 0/3
Nitro benzene 0/3
Pentachlorophenol 0/3
Phenol 0/3
Volatiles (µg/L)
1, 1 , 1-T richloroetha ne 0/3
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/3
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 0/3
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0/3
1, 1-Dichloroethene (1, 1-dichloroethylene) 0/3
1,2-Dichloroethane 0/3
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 0/3
1,2-Dichloropropane 0/3
CDM
Max.
Detected Detected
Cone. Qualifier Cone.Range
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
- -- - -- ---
Sample ID of Maximum EPA Region 4
Max. Detected Detection Chronic
Cone. Limit Screening Value HQ COPC
ND 25.00 82'.8" 0.30 No
ND 10.00 ·22.-0.45 No
ND 10.00 ----NV Yes
ND 10.00 6'l80-<0.01 No
ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
ND 10.00 <0:3-NV Yes
ND 10.00 NV-NV Yes
ND 10.00 9~4-1.06 Yes
ND 10.00 @i), ~ NV Yes
ND 10.00 !;!Yj:: NV Yes
ND 10.00 621 0.02 No
ND 10.00 330-0.03 No
ND 10.00 1:w----NV Yes
ND 10.00 Q.93-10.75 Yes
ND 10.00 _g,,__07..-142.86 Yes
ND 10.00 ,9:8-1.02 Yes -ND 10.00 1,1-70 0.01 No
ND 10.00 NV-NV Yes
ND 10.00 58,5-0.17 No
ND 10.00 .62" 0.16 No
ND 10.00 2~ 0.04 No
ND 25.00 ,13-1.92 Yes
ND 10.00 _25_6.---0.04 No
ND 10.00 '528" 0.02 No
ND 10.00 240 0.04 No
ND 10.00 940--0.01 No
ND 10.00 NV-NV Yes
ND 10.00 303-;.,----0.03 No
ND 10.00 2000-0.01 No
ND 10.00 ~ 0.01 No
ND 10.00 -o25" 0.02 No
A-4
== iiiiii iiil liii - - -- -
Table A-1
Screening of COPCs for Surface Water
G ·a p T s·t Pl th N rth C r eorgI -acI Ic I e, ymou ' 0 aroma
Number of Max. Sample ID of Maximum EPA Region 4
Detects/ Detected Detected Max. Detected Detection Chronic
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Cone.Range Cone. Limit Screening Value HQ COPC
Volatiles (µgll)
Acetone 1/3 160 ND 160-160 ND 20.00 NV" NV Yes
Benzene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 .ss-0.19 No
Bromodichloromethane 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 ,NV-NV Yes
Bromoform 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 _gg:,...-0.03 No
Brornomethane 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 1.w-0.09 No
Carbon disulfide 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV-NV Yes
Carbon tetrachloride 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 362-0.03 No
Chlorobenzene 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 1-95-0.05 No
Chloroethane 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 N'v---NV Yes
Chloroform 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 289,.... 0.03 No
Chloromethane 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 5500-<0.01 No
cis-1,3-0ichloropropene 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 24,4-0.41 No
Dibromochloromethane 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 uv-NV Yes
Ethyl benzene 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 (!}Y'f.S~ NV Yes
Methyl butyl ketone 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 _Ny-NV Yes
Methyl ethyl ketone 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
' Methyl isobutyl ketone 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV NV Yes
Methylene chloride 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 1930-0.01 No
Styrene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 ~Nv-NV Yes
Tetrachloroethene (tetrachloroethylene) 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 84 ..... 0.12 No
Toluene 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 p-5-0.06 No
Total xylenes 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 J:1,V,,..---NV Yes
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 24:4-0.41 No
Trichloroethene (trichloroethylene) 013 ND ND ND ND 10.00 r-N.V--NV Yes
Vinvl chloride 0/3 ND ND ND ND 10.00 NV-NV Yes
Acronyms: Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result. ND -Result was not detected
NV -No values
NR -No result reported
µgfl -Micrograms per liter
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
R -QC indicates that data unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resamp!ing and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
Footnotes:
t -Essential nutrient n -The EPA Region 4 Chronic Screening Value has been adjusted for hardness based on Sample GP004SW.
an -Th_~ value listed as the EPA Region 4 Chronic Screening Value is an acute value that has been adjusted for hardness based on Sample GP004SW.
CDM
--
A-5
-----------------
Table A-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
____ G=e=orgia-Pacific Site,_~lymouth,_North_Carolina, __________________________________________ _ ---.
Number of Maximum Sample ID of Maximum
Detects/ Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
lnorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum 1n 21000 -3000--21000 GP001SD -NV NV Yes
Antimony on ND -ND ND 20.00 ,n.,,. NV Yes
Arsenic 6n 300 J 3.7-300 GP004SD 1.10 7,24-41.44 Yes
Barium 1n 330 -13-330 GP002SD -JIV'.,,. NV Yes
Beryllium on ND ND ND ND 1.00 ,NV NV Yes
Cadmium 0/7 ND ND ND ND 0.91 ,,1.....--0.91 No
Calclumr 1n 13000 J 620--13000 GP004SD -NV-NV Yes
Chromium 717 22 -4.2-22 GP003SD -62'.3 0.42 No
/ NV Yes Cobalt on ND ND ND ND 20.00 ·NV
Copper 4n 64 -27-64 GP001SD 20.00 J.8,7 3.42 Yes
Iron 1n 95000 -3200--95000 GP002SD -NV NV Yes -/ Lead 6n 94 J 5.7-94 GP004SD -30:2 3.11 Yes /
Magnesiumr 1n 4900 -170--4900 GP001SD -NV NV Yes
Manganese 1n 960 -18-960 GP002SD -NV· NV Yes
Nickel 5/7 15 J 1.6-15 GP001SD 10.00 15,9' 0.94 No
Potassiumr -,
1n 3800 -3800--3800 GP001SD 3000.00 NV NV Yes ✓
Selenium on ND ND ND ND 3.90 ,NV NV Yes
Silver on ND ND ND ND 2.30 2,, 1.15 Yes
Sodium' on ND ND ND ND 930.00 NV,, NV Yes
Thallium on ND ND ND ND 6.60 NV/ NV Yes
Total Mercury on ND ND ND ND 0.28 _o..1i 2.15 Yes
Vanadium 3n 43 -9-43 GP003SD 40.00 NV" NV Yes
Zinc 1n 340 J 12-340 GP004SD -12/ 2.74 Yes
Pesticides (ug/kg)
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD) 1n 540 -540--540 GP002SD 18.00 3.3' 163.64 Yes , ,,
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE) 1n 150 -150--150 GP002SD 18.00 3:3 45.45 Yes
·----4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT} 1n 190 -190--190 GP002SD 18.00 -3.3_,..-57.58 Yes
Total DDD, DDE, DDT 880 ,.3:3.,,,..-266.67 Yes
Aldrin on ND ND ND ND 9.30 ,NV_,,..--NV Yes
alpha-BHC on ND ND ND ND 9.30 NV NV Yes
alpha-Chlordane on ND ND ND ND 9.30 NV-NV Yes
beta-BHC on ND ND ND ND 9.30 NV..-NV Yes
CDM A-6
-- ---- --- - - - - --- ---
Table A-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
---Oeorgia-Pacific-Site,Plymouth,North-Carolina,--------------------------------------------
Number of Maximum Sample ID of Maximum
Detects/ Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
Pesticides (ug/kg)
delta-BHC 017 ND ND ND ND 9.30 _NV': NV Yes
Dieldrin 017 ND ND ND ND 18.00 .3.3;-5.45 Yes
Endosulfan I (alpha) 0/7 ND ND ND ND 9.30 NV NV Yes
Endosulfan II (beta) 117 6 6.1-6.1 GP001SD 18.00 NV -NV Yes -
Endosulfan Sulfate 017 ND ND ND ND 18.00 ~NV" NV Yes
Endrin 017 ND ND ND ND 18.00 3c3' 5.45 Yes
Endrin aldehyde 017 ND ND ND ND 18.00 .NV.,,-NV Yes
Endrln ketone 017 ND ND ND ND 18.00 NV~ NV Yes
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 017 ND ND ND ND 9.30 (Di.L-:J---2.82 Yes
gamma-Chlordane 017 ND ND ND ND 9.30 t@---h"r-NV Yes
Heptachlor 017 ND ND ND ND 9.30 NV NV Yes
Heptachlor epoxide 017 ND ND ND ND 9.30 NV,. NV Yes
Methoxych/or 017 ND ND ND ND 93.00 NV/ NV Yes
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) 017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV. NV Yes
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221) 0/7 ND ND ND ND 370.00 67" 5.52 Yes
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232) 017 ND ND ND ND 180.00
ll
NV Yes
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242) 017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) 0/7 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV. NV Yes
Total PCBs 1450 \33 43.94 Yes
Toxaphene 017 ND ND ND ND 930.00 'Nv-NV Yes
PAHs (µg/kg)
Acenaphthene 217 330 J 110-330 GP001SD 6900.00 330 1.00 Yes
Acenaphthylene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 330 20.91 Yes
Anthracene 117 650 J 650-650 GP001SD 6900.00 330 1.97 Yes
Benzo(a)anthracene 117 2800 -2800-2800 GP001SD 6900.00 330 8.48 Yes
Benzo(a)pyrene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 330 20.91 Yes
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 1/7 4400 J 4400-4400 GP001SD 6900.00 ,Nv-NV Yes
Benzo( g, h,i)perylene 117 1000 J 1000-1000 GP001SD 6900.00 _NV-NV Yes
Chrysene 117 2900 -2900-2900 GP001SD 6900.00 330 8.79 Yes
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 330 20.91 Yes
CDM A-7
-- - - --- -- - - --- -- -- -
Table A-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
---Georgia0Pacific•site;-Plymouth;-North·Carolina,--------------------------------------------
Number of Maximum Sample ID of Maximum
Detects/ Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
PAHs (µg/kg)
Fluoranthene 317 5600 -160-5600 GP001SD 6900.00 JJo-16.97 Yes
Fluorene 217 340 J 170-340 GP001SD 6900.00 &)33(. NV Yes
lndeno (1,2,3-cd} pyrene 117 1100 J 1100-1100 GP001SD 6900.00 ~ NV Yes
Phenanthrene 317 4800 -71-4800 GP001SD 6900.00 l!.!Y}:i,h, NV Yes
Pyrene 417 4700 -97-4700 GP001SD 6900.00 330-14.24 Yes
Total PAHs 30690 1684--18.22 Yes
Semivolatiles (µglkg) ..,,
(3-andlor 4-)Methylphenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
1,2-D/chlorobenzene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 .NV.-NV Yes -1,3-Dichlorobenzene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV NV Yes
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 .NV-NV Yes
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 017 ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV-NV Yes
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
2,4-Dichlorophenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
2,4-Dimethylphenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
2,4-Dinitrophenol 017 ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV/ NV Yes -2,4-Dinitrotoluene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 .NV NV Yes
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
2-Chloronaphthalene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
2-Chlorophenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 ·iiv_, NV Yes
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 017 ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV-NV Yes
2-Methylnaphthalene 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 330-20.91 Yes
' --2-Methylphenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV NV Yes
2-Nitroaniline 017 ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV-NV Yes
2-Nitrophenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
3,3'-Dlchlorobenzidine 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
3-Nitroaniline 017 ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV-NV Yes
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV_,, NV Yes
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
4-Chloroaniline 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 017 ND ND ND ND 6900.00 .NV-NV Yes
CDM A-8
Im == i= liiliii liii iiii -- ---- -
Table A-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
G . p "f s·t Pl th N rth C r eorg1a-ac1 1c I e, ymou ' 0 aroma
Number of Maximum Sample ID of Maximum
Detects/ Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
Semivolatiles (µg/kg)
4-Nitroaniline on ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV,.,--NV Yes
4-Nitrophenol on ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV__. NV Yes
Benzyl butyl phthalate on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV., NV Yes
bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV" NV Yes
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate on ND ND ND ND 16000.00 182/ 87.91 Yes
Carbazole 1n 540 J 540-540 GP001SD 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
Di-n-butylphthalate on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
Di-n-octylphthalate on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV NV Yes
Dibenzofuran 1n 240 J 240-240 GP001SD 6900.00 NV.,-NV Yes
Diethyl phthalate on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 ,NV. NV Yes
Dimethyl phthalate on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
Hexachlorobenzene on ND ND ND ND 2300.00 NV-NV Yes
Hexachlorobutadiene on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 -NV-NV Yes
Hexach/orocyclopentadiene on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
Hexachloroethane on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV--NV Yes
/sophorone on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 ,Nv--NV Yes
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV-NV Yes
Naphthalene on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 330-20.91 Yes
Nitrobenzene on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 .NV-NV Yes
Pentachlorophenol on ND ND ND ND 17000.00 NV-NV Yes
Phenol on ND ND ND ND 6900.00 NV' NV Yes
Volatiles (µg/kg)
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane on ND ND ND ND 180.00 uv---NV Yes
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane on ND ND ND ND 180.00 .NV' NV Yes
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane on ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV~ NV Yes
1, 1-Dichloroethane on ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
1, 1-Dichloroethene on ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
1,2-Dichloroethane on ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) on ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV.,-NV Yes
CDM A-9
----l!!!!I !!!!!!! liliii iliii iiii -- -- -
Table A-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
G . P T s·t Pl th N rth C eorg1a-ac1 1c I e, ymou ' 0
Chemical
Volatiles (µg/kg)
1,2-Dichloropropane
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1, 3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trich/oroethene
Vinyl chloride
Acronyms:
ND -Result was not detected
NV -No values
NR -No result reported
mg/kg -Milligrams per liter
µg/kg -Micrograms per liter
Footnotes:
· Essential nutrient
CDM
r aro ina
Number of Maximum Sample ID of Maximum
Detects/ Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Samples Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
417 2800 J 420---2800 GP00JSD 16.00 NV· NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV~ NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 .NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV_. NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV_.,, NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV/ NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 .NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 ,NV-NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 ;I NV Yes
317 440 -100---440 GP003SD 180.00 NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV, NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 N,V NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV • NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 l~v NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
017 ND ND ND ND 180.00 NV NV Yes
Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
R -QC indicates that data unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
A-10
-
---------- -
ma iliiil iiili
Table A-3a
Screening of Dioxins and Furans in Sediment
Georgia Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina /' ol
Detection TEF for TEO.for_ -TEF-for -TEQfor--TEFfor TEQ for
Dioxins (~g/kg) ' Concentration tirnit--aua1ifier Mammals Mammals Birds Birds Fish Fish
GP004SD
1,2,3,4,6,7 ,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin 23000
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 2400
1,2,3.4. 7 ,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 150
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 290
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 77
1,2,3,6, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 1000
1,2,3,6,7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 130
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 460
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 120 120
1,2.3, 7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzodioxin 160
1,2,3, 7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzofura n 25
2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 79
2,3,4, 7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 30
2 ,3, 7 ,8-T etrachlorodibenzodioxin 16
2,3, 7 ,8-T etrachlorodibenzofuran 12
Octachlorodibenzodioxin 270000
Octachlorodibenzofuran 4500
Total Dioxin/Furan Equivalents
Table A-3b
Screening of Dioxins and Furans in Sediment Summary
Georgia Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Dioxins (ng/kg)
1 Region 4 I
Screening Value for I Mammals
GP004SD
Total Dioxin/Furan Equivalents I 2.5
TEQs calculated according to the World Health Organization
(Van den Berg et al. 1998).
Sample location GP004SD represents the sample with the
highest total TEO.
NT -No TEF or TEQ provided in the literature reviewed.
CDM
I 680 I
I
0.01 230 0.001 23 0.001 23
J 0.01 24 0.01 24 0.01 24
0.01 1.5 0.01 1.5 0.01 1.5
J 0.1 29 0.05 14.5 0.5 145
J 0.1 7.7 0.1 7.7 0.1 7.7
J 0.1 100 0.1 100 0.01 10
0.1 13 0.1 13.0 0.1 13
0.1 46 0.1 46 0.01 4.6
UR UR UR UR UR UR UR
1 160 1 160 i 160
J 0.05 1.3 0.1 2.5 0.05 1.25
J 0.1 7.9 0.1 7.9 0.1 7.9
J 0.5 15 1 30 0.5 15
J 1 16 1 16 1 16
J 0.1 1.2 1 12 0.05 0.6
0.0001 27 0.0001 27 0.0001 27
0.0001 0.45 0.0001 0.45 0.0001 0.45
680 486 457
I 1 Total TEQ I I Total TEQ I 1 HQ COPC for Birds HQ COPC for Fish HQ
272 I Yes I 486 I 194 I Yes I 457 I 183 I
Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
R-QC indicates that data are unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resampling and
reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
--
COPC
Yes
A-11
== == !I!! --------- - - --- - -
Table A-4
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Number of Max. ·sample·ID·of-1/2-Max.
Detects/ Detect Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Chemical Samples Freq. Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
lnorganics (mg/kg) ff' ' -~
Aluminum 48/48 100% 9300.0 -1300-9300 ~P056Sj,.A -.so., 186.00 · /Yes . r-
Antimony 0/48 0% ND ND ND -mi 0.62 :,,s-' 0.18 No
Arsenic 38/48 79% 58.0 -0.94-58 G~A 0.83 .10/ 5.80 Yes
Barium 48/48 100% 930.0 -8.2-930 G 56 A -165' 5.64 @v
Beryllium 11/48 23% 0.5 J 0.08-0.5 GP 2SLA 0.31 ,1s1' 0.45 No
Cadmium 5/48 10% 1.4 -0.23-1 .4 GP051SLA 0.12 1..6' 0.88 No
Ca/ciumr 48/48 100% 130000.0 -520-130000 G~A -NV NV ~ Chromium 48/48 100% 36.0 -2.2-36 G 056 A -0.4--90.00
Cobalt 44/48 92% 16.0 -0.72-16 G 5SLA 0.36 20 0.80 l'l_o
Copper 44/48 92% 83.0 -2.8-83 GPOJjSLA 1.50 40· 2.08 ·yeS
Iron 48/48 100% 47000.0 -250o-47000 GP 56 LA -200' 235.00
11
. /
Lead 48/48 100% 150.0 J 2.9-150 GP 5.6 LA -50 3.00
Magnesiumt 48/48 100% 9500.0 -270-9500 GP q6, LA -NV NV s
Manganese 48/48 100% 2500.0 -21-2500 GP 56, LA -100 25.00 )
Nickel 17/48 35% 32.0 -0.65-32 GP ss LA 1.84 30,,,, 1.07 s
Potassiumr 47/48 98% 17000.0 J 190-17000 GP~SLA 40.00 NV NV s --Selenium 2/48 4% 1.6 -1.4-1.6 GP032SLA 0.52 0,81 1.98 Yes
Silver 1/48 2% 250.0 -250-250 GP035SLA 0.25 -2---125.00 Yes
Sodium' 8/48 17% 4500.0 -10o-4500 GPef!tLA 51.88 NV' NV ~
Thallium 0/48 0% ND ND ND 0.35 .,,r 2.00 Yes ~
Total Mercury 3/48 6% 0.2 -0.15-0.23 GP051SLA 0.05 .0:1/ 2.30 Yes
Vanadium 48/48 100% 21.0 -4.1-21 GP~LA -✓2-10.50 Cm>
Zinc 46/48 96% 520.0 -8.2-520 GP 1SLA -so----10.40 Yes
Pesticides (µg/kg)
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD) 1/48 2% 3.6 J 3.6-3.6 GP016SLA 0.47 NV NV Yes
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE) 2148 4% 21.0 -0.67-21 GP054SLA 0.44 NV NV Yes
4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT) 1/48 2% 69.0 -69-69 GP019SLA 0.41 NV NV Yes
Total DDD, DDE, DDT 93.6 0.00 2:5-37.44 Yes
Aldrin 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.24 2,5------4.40 Yes , ~
alpha-BHC 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.30 ·2:5...---15.20 Yes -alpha-Chlordane 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.28 -100-✓ 0.25 No
beta-BHC 1/48 2% ·4.0 J 4-4 GP038SLA 0.25 -1------11.00 Yes
CDM A-12
- - --------- - - - --- - -
Table A-4
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
-Number·of· Max. Sample_lD_of 1/2 Max.
Detects/ Detect Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection .EPA Region 4
Chemical Samples Freq. Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
Pesticides (µg/kg)
delta-BHC 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.24 WO' 0.11 No
Dieldrin 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.47 0,5/ 42.00 Yes <E:::-
Endosulfan I (alpha) 1/48 2% 2.2 J 2.2-2.2 GP051SLA 0.24 jOQ 0.11 No
Endosulfan II (beta) 2/48 4% 2.9 J 0.86-2.9 GP045SLA 0.44 100· 0.18 No
Endosulfan sulfate 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.47 100' 0.21 No
Endrin 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.47 -V' 21.00 Yes <=='
Endrin aldehyae 4/48 8% 31.0 -1-31 GP045SLA 0.49 100 0.21 No
Endrin ketone 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 0.47 100· 0.21 No
gamma-BHC (lindane) 1/48 2% 0.5 J 0.48--0.48 GP052SLA 0.24 0.05 9.60 Yes
gamma-Chlordane 1/48 2% 32.0 -32-32 GP054SLA 0.23 400· 0.11 No
Heptachlor 1/48 2% 4.8 J 4.8-4.8 GP052SLA 0.23 100-0.11 No
Heptachlor epoxide 2/48 4% 24.0 -9.1-24 GP054SLA 0.23 -100-0.11 No
Methoxychlor 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 2.42 100' 1.10 Yes &:..::
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 4.71 NV NV Yes
' PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221) 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 9.56 NV NV Yes ' PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232) 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 4.71 NV NV Yes
' PCB-1242 (Aroc/or 1242) 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 4.71 NV NV Yes ' PCB-1248 (Aroc/or 1248) 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 4.71 NV. NV Yes
' I PCB-1254 (Aroc/or 1254) 2148 4% 670.0 -78--670 GP003SLA 4.37 "l'1 NV Yes
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 1/48 2% 78.0 -78--78 GP051SLA 4.98 N.V NV Yes
Total PCBs 2018.0 0.00 w· 100.90 Yes
Toxaphene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 24.23 1110-11.00 Yes <:c:;-
PAHs (µg/kg) I
Acenaphthene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 20000 0.34 No
Acenaphthylene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 20000 0.34 No
Anthracene 7/48 15% 250.0 J 41-250 GP015SLA 126.37 100 2.50 Yes
Benzo(a)anthracene 11/48 23% 1800.0 J 7&--1800 GP015SLA 117.73 NV NV Yes
Benzo(a)pyrene 10/48 21% 1600.0 J 69-1600 GP015SLA 132.29 100 16.00 Yes
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 13/48 27% 2600.0 J 41-2600 GP015SLA 139.51 NV NV Yes
Benzo(g,h,i)pery/ene 9/48 19% 440.0 J 49-440 GP015SLA 129.97 NV NV Yes
Chrysene 10/48 21% 2300.0 -63-2300 GP015SLA 117.73 NV NV Yes
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1/48 2% 75.0 J 75-75 GP017SLA 118.15 I NV NV Yes
V
CDM A-13
- --- -- - - --- - ------ -
Table A-4
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
·Number•of-Max. S.aml)le ID of 112 Max.
Detects/ Detect Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4 ,'
Chemical Samples Freq. Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
PAHs (µglkg) I ~ F/uoranthene 13/48 27% 3900.0 J 40-3900 GP015SLA 129.37 100 ; 39.00 Yes
Fluorene 1/48 2% 41.0 J 41-41 GP038SLA 118.09 30000 0.22 No
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 8/48 17% 540.0 J 68-540 GP015SLA 129.97 NV/ NV Yes
Phenanthrene 11/48 23% 640.0 J 48-640 GP015SLA 125.32 100 6.40 Yes < ,
Pyrene 13/48 27% 7200.0 -46-7200 GP015SLA 121.37 100 72.00 Yes -
Total PAHs 34786.0 ~boo 34.79 Yes -
Semivolatiles (µg/kg) I
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 /!2" NV Yes
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 ro-390.00 Yes '<.:
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 40-390.00 Yes .s:.::::
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 jQ,. 390.00 Yes .,..
~
1,4-Dich/orobenzene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 .1.0.,... 390.00 Yes ~
2,4,5-Trichlorapheno/ 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 292.77 4000" 4.25 Yes -2,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 ~ 0.67 No
2,4-Dichlorophenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 NV Yes 7
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 NV Yes .
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 291.67 20000-0.85 No
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1/48 2% 780.0 J 780-780 GP015SLA 108.85 ~ NV Yes
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 NV Yes 7
2-Chloronaphthalene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 -1~00----6.70 Yes ~
2-Chloropheno/ 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 w-390.00 Yes
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 292.77 ,/!JJ{,-NV Yes -
2-Methylnaphthalene 3/48 6% 91.0 J 43-91 GP051SLA 121.47 "NV' NV Yes
2-Methylphenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 ,&-v NV Yes v~
2-Nitroaniline 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 292.77 w NV Yes
2-Nitrophenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 -;/y-tr NV Yes ? 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 ,NV·,· NV Yes
3-Nitroaniline 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 292.77 {fivfr? NV Yes ✓
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 ;r;; NV Yes
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 NV" NV Yes
4-Chloroaniline 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 ~· NV Yes
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 N"'1 '\. NV Yes --~
CDM A-14
- - -- - - - - -------- -- -
Table A-4
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
·Number·of Max. _Sample ID of 1/2 Max.
Detects/ Detect Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4·
Chemical Samples Freq. Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
Semivolatiles (µg/kg)
4-Nitroaniline 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 292.77 <t!Y!" NV Yes
4-Nitrophenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 291.67 7-000 2.43 Yes '--
Benzyl butyl phtha/ate 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 NV-NV Yes --; bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 100· 39.00 Yes
bis(2-Chloroethy/) ether 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 100-39.00 Yes / 4:---~~ bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 -100 39.00 Yes
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 NV"' NV Yes ?
Carbazole 1/48 2% 74.0 J 74-74 GP016SLA 118.13 NV NV Yes·
Di-n-butylphthalate 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 200000 0.03 No
Di-n-octylphthalate 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 .NV/ NV Yes ,~
Dibenzofuran 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 NV., NV Yes
Diethyl phthalate 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 .. wooou 0.07 No
Dimethyl phthalate 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 200000· 0.03 No 1/ Hexachlorobenzene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 2:5--2680.00 Yes
Hexachlorobutadiene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 400-67.00 Yes
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 40000--0.67 No / -Hexachloroethane 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 100 39.00 Yes
lsophorone 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 -NV-NV Yes I~ n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 ,NV./ NV Yes
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 116.40 ioooo-0.34 No
Naphthalene 2/48 4% 62.0 J 54-62 GP051SLA 105.87 w0-0.62 No _,-
Nitro benzene 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 4.0000 0.10 No
~? Pentachlorophenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 292.77 .2---8500.00 Yes
Phenol 0/48 0% ND ND ND ND 103.15 50/ 78.00 Yes
Volatiles (µglkg)
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0/47 0% ND ND ND ND 1.38 100· 1.20 Yes
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/47 0% ND ND ND ND 1.38 100~ 1.20 Yes £ 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 0/47 0% ND ND ND ND 1.38 ,100., 1.20 Yes
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0/47 0% ND ND ND ND 1.38 ·100~ 1.20 Yes
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0/47 0% ND ND ND ND 1.38 -100-1.20 Yes
1,2-Dichloroethane 0/47 0% ND ND ND ND 1.38 400-0.30 No
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 0/47 0% ND ND ND ND 1.38 11)0---1.20 Yes ~
CDM A-15
lliii,i;I !!!!! - -
Table A-4
Screening of COPCs for Soil
___ _,,G,,eorgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Chemical
Volatiles (µglkg)
1,2-Dichloropropane
Acetone
Benzene
Bro_modichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Acronyms:
ND -Result was not detected
NV -No values
NR -No result reported
mg/kg -Milligrams per kilogram
µg/kg -Micrograms per kilogram
CDM
Number of
Detects/ Detect
Samples Freq.
0147 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0147 0%
1/47 2%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0147 0%
0147 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
1/47 2%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
1/47 2%
4/47 9%
0/47 0%
0/47 0%
1/47 2%
0/47 0%
- -- - - - -- - ---
Max. Sample·ID of-1/2.Max.
Detect Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Cone. Qualifier Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
ND ND ND ND 1.38 .00000-<0.01 No
ND ND ND ND 3.79 NV" NV Yes ? .
ND ND ND ND 1.38 i;o~ 2.40 Yes X.
ND ND ND ND 1.38 too-1.20 Yes )',
ND ND ND ND 1.38 ·NV-NV Yes I? ND ND ND ND 1.38 NV' NV Yes
97.0 J 97-97 GP024SLA 1.93 NV' NV Yes
ND ND ND ND 1.38 1.000000' <0.01 No
ND ND ND ND 1.38 .so-2.40 Yes >(
ND ND ND ND 1.38 100 1.20 Yes 'I,.
ND ND ND ND 1.38 -v" 120.00 Yes I
ND ND ND ND 1.38 .100--1.20 Yes 'f-
ND ND ND ND 1.38 100--1.20 Yes ~ ND ND ND ND 1.38 1.00-1.20 Yes
ND ND ND ND 1.38 .SO' 2.40 Yes 'Y-
ND ND ND ND 1.38 NV. NV Yes 1~ ' 11.0 ND 11-11 GP001SLA 1.38 NV NV Yes • ND ND ND ND 1.38 NV NV Yes
ND ND ND ND 1.47 @> 1.20 Yes 'f.
ND ND ND ND 1.38 WO" 1.20 Yes )(
4.0 ND 4-4 ND 1.38 10-12.00 Yes 'f-
7.0 ND 1-7 GP013SLA 1.40 50-2.40 Yes 9 ND ND ND ND 1.38 so-2.40 Yes
ND ND ND ND 1.38 too., ?fit Yes y:. ---✓? 2.0 ND 2-2 GP005SLA 1.38 -1 I 120.00 Yes
ND ND ND ND 1.38 -10-,11.ooi Yes -,:;_
Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
R -QC indicates that data unusable. Compound may or may not be present.
Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
A-16
- ---- --- -
Table A-5
Screening of Dioxins and Furans in Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Detect TEF for
Dioxins (ng/kg) Cone. Limit Qualifier Mammals
GP037SLA
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin 14000 0.()1,...
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 830 / er.01......--
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 92 G,-01
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 210 .0,.1 ..
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 45 .0,1/
1,2,3,6, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 1300 0,..1-
1,2,3,6, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 37 .0,1/
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 790 u..1~
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 15 15 u 0,1'----
1,2,3,7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzodioxin 110 ~-
1,2,3,7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 28 28 UR UR
2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 23 0:1_..... -2,3,4. 7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 28 28 u 0:1/
2,3, 7 ,8-T etrachlorodibenzodioxin 20 ,1.
2,3, 7 ,8-T etrachlorodibenzofuran 21 -,0,1 /
Octachlorodibenzodioxin 170000 0.0001 /
Octachlorodibenzofuran 2500 1).-0001
Total Oioxin/Furan Equivalents
TEQs calculated according to the World Health Organization (Van den Berg et al. 1998).
Sample 10cation GP037SLA represents the sample with the highest total TEO.
NT -No TEF or TEO provided in the literature reviewed.
Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
TEQ for
Mammals
140.0
8.3
0.92
21
4.5
130
3.7
79
1.50
110
UR
2.3
14.0
20
2.1
17
0.25
555
- - -
Region 4
Screening COPC for
Value HQ Mammals
Region 4
Screening
Value HQ COPC
2.5 222 Yes
R-QC indicates that data are unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
CDM
- - - -- -
,ol
Region 4
.TEQ.for -screening----COPC-for-
Birds Value HQ Birds
0.001· 14
0'°1 8.3
0:01-0.92
0:05" 10.5
0,1 4.5
,O_j 130
0:1 ....... 3.70
.. (M 79
0,1 ..... 1.50
-1---110
UR UR
0~1 ........ 2.3
,1/ 28.0
.1/ 20
-1----21
0.0001/ 17
/ 0.0001 0.25
HQ COPC
451 2.5 180 Yes
A-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table A-6
Summary of COPCs Retained from the SERA
Compounds Sortbd by Media
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina I
' SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT
I Metals
Aluminum Aluminum
I Antimony
A T . rsemc Arsenic
' Barium Barium
Berillium Beryllium
CalciUmc:sN Calcium c:s,v
I -I-
Cobalt Cobalt I-Copper
Iron Iron
Magn1;ium c,:,,w
Lead
Magnesium c.:,,v
I Manganese Manganese
I--
Potassium c.:,ov Potassium c,:uw
S~lenium Selenium I-Silver
Sodiumc.:.r. Sodiumc"""
' Thallium Thallium
I Total mercury Total mercury
V~nadium Vanadium
I -Zinc
I Pesticides
4.4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD) 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD)
I -4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE)
4.4'-DPT (p,p'-DDT) 4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT)
Total IDD=DDE, DDT Total DOD, DOE, DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane alpha-Chlordane
-beta-BHC
-delta-BHC
Dieldrin Oieldrin
-Endosulfan I (alpha)
End9sulfan II (beta) Endosulfan II (beta)
Endosulfan sulfate Endosulfan sulfate
/ Endrin Endrin
E~drin aldehyde Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone Endrin ketone I -gamma-BHC (lindane)
gamma-Chlordane gamma-Chlordane
j Heptachlor Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor Methoxychlor
I Toxaphene Toxaphene
I PCBs
PCB! 1016 (Aroclor 1016) PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCBi 1221 (Aroclor 1221 ) PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCBi 1232 (Aroclor 1232) PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCBi 1242 (Aroclor 1242) PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB;1248 (Aroclor 1248) PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCE\-1254 (Aroclor 1254) PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) I Total PCBs Total PCBs
CDM I
SOIL
Aluminum
-
Arsenic
Barium
-
Ca/ciumc:sN
Chromium
-
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium c.:.,v
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium e.:o,.
Selenium
Silver
Sodiumc""
Thallium
Total mercury
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD)
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE)
4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT)
Total DDD, ODE, DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
-
beta-BHC
-
Dieldrin
--
-
Endrin
--
gamma-BHC (lindane)
-
-
-
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Total PCBs
A-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table A-6
Summary of COPCs Retained from the SERA
Compounds So*ed by Media
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina I
' SURFACE WATER
' ' Acenaphthylene
Anth;acene
I Benzo(a)anthracene
I Benzo(a)pyrene I Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene I. Benzo(g,h,I)perylene
I Chrysene
Oibenz( a, h )anthracene
1-
Fluorene ' lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Phenanthrene
I Pyrene
Total PAHs
(3-and/or 4! )Methyl phenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tl~orophenol
2,4-Dirntrophenol
2,6-Dihit~otoluene
I 2-Chloronaphthalene 1-
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol I -
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline I -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nhroaniline
4-Chlorol3-;ethylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
I 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-rr~niline
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Ch1Jroi;opropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
COM
Carbazole
Dt"n~ofuran
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-bctylphthalate
'
SEDIMENT
PAHs
Acenapthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo( a )pyrene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
SVOCs
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-T richlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
SOIL
-
-
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
-
lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-0ichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
-
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
-
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-0initrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroanillne
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
-
--
Di-n-octylphthalate
A-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table A-6
Summary of COPCs Retained from the SERA
Compounds Sorted by Media
Georgia-Pacific/Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
' SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT
I SVOCs
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
Hexachlhrobutadiene Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclppentadiene (HCCP) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCP)
Hexachloroethane Hexachloroethane
N l = I
lsophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
n-1tros 1-n-propy amine n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine I -n-Nitrosodidiphenylamine/diphenylamine
Pentachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol
I -Phenol
I voes
1, 1 /Dichl~roethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
-1, 1-Dichloroethene
-1,2-Dichloroethane
-1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
-1,2-Dichloropropane
Acetone Acetone
-Benzene
Bromodich!oromethane Bromodichloromethane
-Bromoform
-Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide Carbon disulfide
-Carbon tetrachloride
-Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane Chloroethane
-Chloroform
-Chloromethane
-cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane Dibromochloromethane
Ethyl benzene Ethyl benzene
Methyl butyl ketone Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone Methyl isobutyl ketone
-Methylene chloride
Styrene Styrene
-Tetrachloroethene
-Toluene
Total xylenes Total xylenes
-trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (trichloroethylene) Trichloroethane (trichloroethylene)
/ Vinyl chloride Vinyl chloride
I Oioxins/Furans
I -Total Dioxin/Furan Equivalents
' "Bold'i and "Italics" -Detected compound
.. .., .. Essential nutrient
CL
I
SOIL
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
Hexachlorobutadiene
-
Hexachloroethane
lsophorone
--
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
-
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrach!oroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
-
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
-
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
-
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1,3-0ichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichforoethene (trichforoethyfene)
Vinyl chloride
Total Dioxin/Furan Equivalents
A-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
.I
,1
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
0
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological
Assessment/Sampling
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
Checklist for Ecological Assessmenl/ Sampling
Georgia-Pacific, Plymouth, North Carolina
Introduction
The checklist that follows provides guidance in making observations for an ecological
assessment. It is not intended for limited or emergency response actions (e.g., removal
of a few drums) or for purely industrial settings with no discharges. The checklist is a
screening tool for preliminary site evaluation and may also be useful in planning more
extensive site investigations. It must be completed as thoroughly as time allows. The
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 int his checklist are not universally applicable and that site-specific conditions
will influence interpretation. Therefore, a site synopsis is requested 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. These sections are:
I. Site Description
IA. Summary of Observations and Site Setting
II. Terrestrial Habitat Checklist
IIA. Wooded
IIB. Shrub/Scrub
IIC. Open Field
11D. Miscellaneous
III. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Non-Flowing Systems
IV. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems
V. Wetlands Habitat Checklist
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01 ·026r.l2B2-927/1019
B-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
I. Site Description
1. Site Name: Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Location: Plywood Drive
County: Washington City: Plymouth State: North Carolina
2. Latitude: 35" 52' 27" N (deg/min/sec) Longitude: 76" 44' 27.5" W (deg/min/sec)
3. What is the approximate area of the site? 24 acres
4. Is this the first site visit? @Yes D No
site visit(s), if available.
If no, attach trip report of previous
Date(s) of previous site visit(s): __________________ _
5. Please attach to the checklist USGS topographic map(s) of the site, if available.
6. Are aerial or other site photographs available? D Yes @No
If yes, please attach any available photo(s) to the site map at the conclusion of this
section.
Photos are in the Photo Log, Appendix C.
7. The land use on the site is:
One mile radius
___ % Urban
20 % Rural
___ % Residential
BO % Industrial (light)
___ % Agricultural
(Crops: __________ _
___ % Recreational
( Describe; note if it is a park, etc.)
___ % Undisturbed
___ % Other
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-026/3282-927110 19
The area surrounding the site is:
___ % Urban
___ % Rural
60 % Residential
40 % Industrial (light)
___ % Agricultural
(Crops: __________ )
___ % Recreational
(Describe; note if it is a park, etc.)
25 % Undisturbed
% Other ---
8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
8. Has any movement of soil taken place at the site? @Yes D No
If yes, please identify the most likely cause of this disturbance:
D Agricultural Use
D Natural Events
@ Heavy Equipment
D Erosion
D Mining
0 Other
Please describe: As part of the remediation of the site soils have been exca,vated
and moved, debris and bricks have been stockpiled and buildings have been
removed.
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,
prairie potholes? Remember, flood plains and wetlands are not always obvious; do not
answer "no" without confirming information.
Yes. The Roanoke River is directly adjacent the site to the north. The Roanoke
River is classified as a "Class C" river with an "Sw" supplemental designation.
Class C waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. A fish consumption advisory
has been in effect for a period of years along the lower Roanoke River due to
elevated levels of dioxin in fish tissue. There are extensive wetlands around
the site; however, there are no known critical habitats of federally-listed
endangered species within the vicinity of the site.
Please provide the source(s) of information used to identify these sensitive areas,
and indicate their general location on the site map. '
Information from the previous documents on the GP project, Onsite visit, and
maps.
10. What type of facility is located at the site?
0 Chemical
D Waste Disposal
D Manufacturing D Mixing
@ Other (specifiJ) Abandoned wood treatment
facility.
11. What are the suspected contaminants of concern at the site? If known, what are
the maximum concentration levels?
Contaminants associated with the chemical treatment of wood including coal-
tar creosote compounds, chemicals associated with PCP, metals, solvents, and
dioxins.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02813282·92711019
B-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fi
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
12. Check any potential routes of off-site migration of contaminants observed at the
site:
D Swales
D Runoff
D Depressions
D Windblown Particulates
[it Drainage Ditches
D Vehicular Traffic
D Other (specifi;) ____________________ _
13. If you know, what is the approximate depth to the water table? The surficial
aquifer is from 5 to 10 feet below ground surface.
14. is the direction of surface runoff apparent from site observations? [if Yes D No
If yes, to which of the following does the surface runoff discharge? Indicate all
that apply.
[it Surface Water
D Sewer
D Groundwater
D Collection lmpoundment
15. Is there a navigable waterbody or tributary to a navigable waterbody?
[il"Yes □No
16. Is there a waterbody anywhere on or in the vicinity of the site? If yes, also
complete Section III: Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Non-Flowing Systems and/ or
Section N: Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems.
[il"Yes (Approx. distance-Directly adjacent) □No
17. Is there evidence of flooding? D Yes [if No Wetlands and flood plains are not
always obvious; do not answer "no" without confirming 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.]
Conant, R., 1975. Peterson Field Guides, Reptiles and Amphibians, Eastern/Central
North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 434 p.
National Geographic Society, 1983. Field Guide to the Birds of North America.
S. L. Scott (ed.), National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
The Audubon Society, 1985. Eastern Forests. The Audubon Socieh; Nature Guides.
Alfred A Knopf, New York, New York. 640 p.
The Audubon Society, 1985. Wetlands. The Audubon Society Nature Guides.
Alfred A Knopf, New York, New York. 640 p.
Wofford, B., 1989. Guided To The Vascular Plants of The Blue/Ridge. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 384 p.
COM Feder.ii Programs Corporarion
01-02613282-9271\019
B-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
19. Are any threatened and/ or endangered species (plant or animal) known to
inhabit the area of the site?
D Yes [i( No If yes, you are required to verifi; this information with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. If species' identities are known, please list them next.
20. Record weather conditions at the time this checklist was prepared:
Date: May 8-9.2001
80 Temperature {'C/"F)
5 mph From West Wind
NIA Cloud Cover
N/A
N/A
Normal Daily High Temperature
Precipitation (Rain, Snow)
IA. Summary of Observations and Site Setting
Observations at the Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site were made on May 8th and 9th,
2001. The site is bordered by the Roanoke River to the north, Plymouth High School
to the south, a residential area to the east, and a young woodlands to the west. The
site it self is 24 acres of mostly paved and barren ground dominated by grasses and
weeds. Near the gated entrance is a office house. There are piles of debris, gravel,
and bricks near the middle of the site. One remaining stack still stands along with
one large and one smaller fuel tank, in the north central portion of the site. A metal
maintenance building is located to the southeast. Throughout the site signs of white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and dogs were noted.
On the river bank itself are a dock, some large holders, and some old creosote piling
poles. The southern boundary is edged by a ditch which flow water from the
southwest corner of the site to the Roanoke River on the northeast corner of the
property. This area includes a slow moving body of water surrounded by an
impacted area of marginal wooded wetlands. The forested wetlands (sometimes as
wide as 30 yards) along the ditch include red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), mimosa (Mimosa speciosa), alder (Alnus sp.), willow (Salix sp.),
sweet gum (Liquidambar sn;racijlua), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), pine (Pinus sp.),
and elm (Ulmus sp.). The understory is dominated by privet (Ligustrum sp.), grape
vine (Vitus sp.), honey suckle (Lonicera sp.), wild rose (Rosa sp.), bamboo (Polygonum
sp.), common reed (Phragmites communis), and Virginia creeper (Partlzenocissus
quinquefolia). There are also some large sycamores along the Roanoke River. It is
noted that native bottomland hardwood forests are located on the north side of the
Roanoke River. The northeast areas of the site which seem to have been cleaned, look
as if will revert to a hardwood forest.
Typical bird species of residential areas and wooded areas were heard and observed
on May 8th and 9th including fish (Corvus ossifragus) and American crow (Corvus
brachyrlzynclws), white-eyed vireo(Vireo griseus), indigo bunting (Passerina ct;anea),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea),
CDM Federal Program~ Corporation
01-028/3282-927/ 101 9
8-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), northern grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), eastern
bluebird (Sia/is sialis), northern mockingbird (Mimus ployglottos), grey catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), downy (Picoides pubescens)
and red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagic), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis),
Carolina wren (Thn;othorus ludovicianus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), white-
breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), barn swallow(Hirunda rustica), red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivaceus), northern parula (Parula americana), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), eastern kingbird
(Tyrannus ti;rannus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and great-crested flycatcher
(Myiarchus ti;rannulus). Frogs and turtles were seen in the wooded wetlands along
the ditch. Along the adjacent Roanoke River, osprey (Pandion haliaetus), great-blue
(Ardea herodias), and green herons (Butorides stria/us), along with turtles and fish were
observed.
A visit to the Fish and Wildlife Service office at Lake Mattainuskeet National Wildlife
Refuge on May 8th revealed that this area of North Carolina, including the Plymouth
area, has a high density of black bear (Ursus americanus). These bears are for the most
part dependent on the agricultural crops of the region. Biologists at the NWR also
stated that the species of concern would be peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and osprey. Habitat is not present for any of these
species onsite, however the Roanoke River provides ample habitat for bald eagles and
osprey (these were seen flying over the river during the site survey).
For the most part, the site is devoid of good quality wildlife habitat. The exception to
this would be the wooded wetlands along the ditch. Areas to the northeast of the site
adjacent the residential area may succeed to good forest habitat in the future. ·
Completed By: Murray C. Wade
Site Manager: Terry Chuhay, COM Federal
Affiliation: _C=D°'-M=-----
Date: 5/08-09/01
II. Terrestrial Habitat Checklist
IIA. Wooded
1. Are there any wooded areas at the site? @'Yes D No
Shrub/Scrub.
If no, go to Section IIB:
2. What percentage or area of the site is wooded? (10% 2.4 acres)
Indicate the wooded area on the site map which is attached to a copy of this
checklist. Please identify what information was used to determine the wooded
area of the site.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-026£3282-92711 019
B-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
3. What is the dominant type of vegetation in the wooded area? ·
(Circle one: Evergreen/ Deciduous /(Mixed]) Provide a photograph, if available.
See Photo Log, Appendix C.
Dominant plant, if known: Willow. Red Maple. Sycamore
4. What is the predominant size of the trees at the site? Use diameter at breast
height.
□ 0-6in. Ii( 6-12 in. D >12 in.
5 .. Specify type of understory present, if known. Provide a photograph, if available.
The understory is dominated by privet, grape vine, honey suckle, wild rose,
bamboo, phragmites, and Virginia creeper. See attached Photo Log,
Appendix C.
IIB. Shrub/Scrub (Not Applicable)
1. Is shrub/scrub vegetation present at the site? &Yes D No .Ifno, go to
Section IIC: Open Field.
2. What percentage of the site is covered by scrub/shrub vegetation? ___ %
___ acres). Indicate the areas of shrub/scrub on the site map. Please identify
what information was used to determine this area.
3. What is the dominant type of shrub/scrub vegetation, if known? Provide a
photograph, if available.
4. What is the approximate average height of the shrub/scrub vegetation?
□ 0-2 ft □ 2-5 ft □ >5ft
5. Based on site observations, how dense is the shrub/ scrub vegetation?
D Dense D Patchy D Sparse
IIC. Open Field
1. Are there open (bare, barren) field areas present at the site? D Yes &No
If yes, please indicate the type below:
D Prairie/Plains D Savannah □ Old Field
D Other (specifi;): ___________________ _
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02613282·92711019
8-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
2. What percentage of the site is open field? (80% 19.2 acres)
Indicate the open field on the site map.
3. What is/are the dominant plant(s)? Provide a photograph, if available.
Grasses and weeds. See Photo Log, Appendix C.
4. What is the approximate average height of the dominant plant? <6 inches
5. Describe the vegetation cover: D Dense ra' Sparse D Patchy
11D. Miscellaneous (Not Applicable)
1. Are other types of terrestrial habitats.present at the site, other than woods,
shrub/scrub, and open field? ·
D Yes ra'No If yes, identify and describe them below.
2. Describe the terrestrial miscellaneous habitat(s) and identify these area(s) on the
site map.
3. What observations, if any, were made at the site regarding the presence and/or
absence of insects, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
4. Review the questions in Section I to determine if any additional habitat checklists
should be completed for this site.
III. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Non-Flowing Systems
(Not Applicable)
Note: Aquatic systems are often associated with wetland habitats. Please refer to Section V,
Wetland Habitat Checklist.
1. What type of open-water, non-flowing system is present at the site?
D Natural (pond, lake)
D Artificially Created (lagoon, reservoir, canal, impoundment)
2. If known, what is the name(s) of the waterbody(ies) on or adjacent to the site?
3. If a waterbody is present, what are its known uses (e.g., recreation, navigation,
etc.)?
4. What is the approximate size of the waterbody(ies)? Less than 2 acres.
CDM Federal Programs Corporarion
01-02613282-92711019
B-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
5. Is any aquatic vegetation present? D Yes lit No
If yes, please indicate the type below:
D Emergent D Submergent D Floating
6. If known, what is the depth of the water? ______________ _
7. What is the general composition of the substrate? Check all that apply.
D Bedrock
D Boulder (> 10 in.)
□ Cobble (2.5-10 in.)
D Gravel (0.1-2.5 in.)
D Sand (coarse)
D Silt (fine)
D Marl (shells)
D Clay (slick)
D Muck (fine/black)
D Debris
D Detritus
0 Concrete
D Other (specifiJl----------------------
8. What is the source of water in the waterbody?
D River/Stream/Creek
D Industrial Discharge
D Groundwater
D Surface Runoff
D Other (specify)----------------
9. Is there a discharge from the site to the waterbody? D Yes D No
If yes, please describe this discharge and its path.
10. Is there a discharge from the waterbody? D Yes D No
If yes, and the information is available, identify from the list below the
environment into which the waterbody discharges.
□ River /Stream/ Creek □ On-Site □ Off-Site Distance
□ Groundwater 0 On-Site □ Off-Site
□ Wetland D On-Site □ Off-Site Distance
□ Impoundment D On-Site □ Off-Site
11. Identify any field measurements and observations of water quality that were
made. For those parameters for which data were collected provide the
measurements and the units of measure below: Field measurements were not
taken.
Area
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 (specifi;) ------------------
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
0 1-026/J282-927/1 019
B-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
12. Describe observed color and area of coloration.
Brownish grey throughout the ditch.
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 waterbody regarding the presence
and/ or absence of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
IV. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems
Note: Aquatic systems are often associated with wetland habitats. Please refer to Section V,
Wetland Habitat Checklist.
1. What type(s) of flowing water system(s) is (are) present at the site?
D River
D DryWash
D Stream
D Arroyo
D Intermittent Stream
D Creek
D Brook
D Channeling [ii( Artificially Created
(ditch, etc.) □ Other (specifi;) -----------
2. If known, what is the name of the water body?
The water body is the ditch that rings the south and east borders of the
property.
3. For natural systems, are there any indicators of physical alteration (e.g.,
channeling, debris, etc.)?
D Yes [ii( No If yes, please describe indicators that were observed.
4. What is the general composition of the substrate? Check all that apply.
□ Bedrock □ Sand (coarse) [ii( Muck (fine/black)
□ Boulder (> 10 in.) □ Silt (fine) [ii( Debris
□ Cobble (2.5-10 in.) □ Marl (shells) [ii( Detritus
□ Gravel (0.1-2.5 in.) □ Clay (slick) D Concrete
□ Other (specifi;)
5. What is the condition of the bank (e.g., height, slope, extent of vegetative cover)?
The bank is about 3 feet high and the extent of vegetative cover is along the
bank and in some places covers the canopy over the ditch.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02613282-927110 1 9
8-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
6. Is the system influenced by tides? D Yes ra' No
If yes, please describe indicators that were observed.
On-site observation did not indicate any tidal influence at the site.
7. Is the flow intermittent? D Yes ra' No
If yes, please note the information that was used in making this determination.
8. Is there a discharge from the site to the waterbody? ra' Yes D No
If yes, please describe the discharge and its path.
The ditch discharges to the Roanoke River at the northeast corner of the GP
site.
9. Is there a discharge from the waterbody? D Yes ra' No
If yes, and the information is available, please identify what the waterbody
discharges to and whether the discharge is on-site or off-site.
10. Identify any field measurements and observations of water quality that were
made. For those parameters for which data were collected, provide the
measurement and the units of measure in the appropriate space below: Field
measurements were not taken.
Width (feet)
Depth (feet)
_____ Velocity (specify units): _______ _
______ Temperature (depth of the water at which the reading was taken)
_____ pH
Dissolved Oxygen
______ Salinity
_____ Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque)
(Secchi disk dept•L-----)
Other (specifi;) -----------------
11. Describe observed color and area of coloration.
Brownish grey throughout the ditch.
12. Is any aquatic vegetation present? ra' Yes D No
If yes, please identify the type of vegetation present, if known.
ra' Emergent ra' Submergent ra' Floating
13. Mark the flowing water system on the attached site map.
Figure 1-1 is included in the Ecological Risk Assessment Steps 1-2 document
for which this appendix is attached.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
O 1-026132112-92711019
B-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
14. What observations were made at the waterbody regarding the presence and/ or
absence of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
Please see "Section IA-Summary of Observations and Site Setting." This
section describes in detail what wildlife observations were made of the ditch
and associated wetlands.
V. Wetland Habitat Checklist
1. Based on observations and/or available information, are designated or known
wetlands definitely present at the site?
li!'Yes D No
Please note the sources of observations and information used (e.g., USGS
topographic maps, national wetland inventory, federal or state agency, etc.) to
make this determination.
Onsite observations were to made to determine the presence of freshwater
wetlands along the banks of the onsite ditch.
2. Based on the location of the site (e.g., along a waterbody, in a flood plain) and site
conditions (e.g., standing water; dark, wet soils; mud cracks; debris line; water
marks), are wetland habitats suspected?
Ii!' Yes D No If yes, proceed with the remainder of the wetland habitat
identification checklist.
3. What type(s) of vegetation are present in the wetland?
Ii!' Submergent
ii( Shrub/Scrub
Ii!' Emergent
Ii!' Wooded
D Other (specifi;) -------------
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.
A detailed description of the vegetation in and around the ditch area is
provided in "Section IA-Summary of Observations and Site Setting." Photos
of the ditch wetlands are included in the Photo Log, Appendix C.
5. Is standing water present? Ii!' Yes D No
Ii!' Fresh
CDM Federal Programs Corporarion
01-02613282-92711019
Ii!' Brackish
If yes, is this water.
B-12
I
I
I
n
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
What is the approximate area of the water (sq. ft.)? 80. ooo sq~. f~t~-
Please complete questions 4, 11, 12 in Checklist III, Aquatic Habitat-Non-Flowing
Systems.
6. Is there evidence of flooding at the site? D Yes ra' No
What observations were noted?
D Buttressing
D Debris Line
D Water Marks
D Other (describe below)
7. If known, what is the source of the water in the wetland?
D MudCracks
D Stream/River/Creek/lake/Pond
D Flooding
D Other (describe below)
ra' Surface Runoff
8. Is there a discharge from the site to a known or suspected wetland?
ra' Yes D No If yes, please describe.
It seems that runoff from the site may end up in the ditch and the wetlands
surrounding the ditch.
9. Is there a discharge from the wetland? ra' Yes D No
If yes, to what waterbody is discharge released?
ra' Surface Stream/River
D Lake/Pond
D Groundwater
D Marine
10. If a soil sample was collected, describe the appearance of the soil in the wetland
area. Circle or write in the best response. No soil sample was collected.
Color (blue/gray, brown, black, mottled) _____________ _
Water content (dry, wet, saturated/unsaturated) ____________ _
11. Mark the observed wetland area(s) on the attached site map.
The wooded wetland areas are noted on Figure 1-1 in the body of the Ecological
Risk Assessment Steps 1-2 report.
COM Federal Programs Corporation
01-026/3282-92111019
B-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix C
I Photo Log
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
CDM
Photo C-1. View of wetland vegetation surrounding ditch.
Photo C-2. View of Georgia-Pacific site from gate on the south.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Photo C-3. View of ditch and wetlands looking east from the south gate area.
Photo C-4. On-site maintenance building.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDNI
I
Photo C-5. Central area of site where remediation activities are evident.
Debris piles and tanks in the distance.
Photo C-6. Southern portion of the site looking west. Water tower
and old office in the distance.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-3
ra
a
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Photo C-7. Mixed woods on eastern boundary of the Georgia-Pacific property.
Photo C-8. Grass and tree area with Roanoke River in the distance.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-4
I Appendix C
Photo Log
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I Photo C-9. Northeast corner of the Georgia-Pacific site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-10. View of rubbish and soil piles from the east.
I CDM C-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
•·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-11. View of large debris piles along the Roanoke River.
Appendix C
Photo Log
Photo C-12. Northeast corner of Georgia-Pacific property looking down the Roanoke River.
CDM C-6
f
I
' I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Photo Log
Photo C-13. Pump house adjacent to the northeast corner of the Georgia-Pacific property.
Photo C-14. Roanoke River shoreline on the northeast corner of the property.
CDM C-7
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-15. View of the old dock area and creosote-treated timber.
Photo C-16. View of dock on Roanoke River.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
CDM
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Photo C-18. View from dock looking east on the Roanoke River.
Photo C-19. View from dock looking west on the Roanoke River toward
the Weyerhaeuser facility.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-10
I
I
ff
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Photo C-20. View from shoreline looking south with fence, old office,
and water tower in the distance.
Photo C-21. Rip rap along shoreline with sycamore trees.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Photo C-22. Full view of remaining stack.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...... ,-/
Photo C-23. Mockingbird exhibiting scare behavior.
Photo C-24. View of Georgia-Pacific site from the old office looking north.
CDM
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Photo C-25. View of entrance looking north with old office, stack, and powerlines.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix D
Ecological Screening Tables
for Off-Site Soils
------ -
Table D-1
Screening of COPCs for Off-Site Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Detects/
Chemical Samples
lnorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum 14/14
Antimony 1/6
Arsenic 9/13
Barium 14/14
Beryllium 0/14
Cadmium 0/14
Calcium' 14/14
Chromium 14/14
Cobalt 0/14
Copper 7/14
Iron 14/14
Lead 14/14
Magnesium' 14/14
Manganese 14/14
Nickel 11/14
Potassium' 0/14
Selenium 0/14
Silver 0/14
Sodium' 0/14
Thallium 0/14
Total Mercury_ 0/14
Vanadium 9/14
Zinc 14/14
Pesticides (µg/kg)
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD) 0/14
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE) _ 4/12
4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT) 8/14
Total ODD, ODE, DDT
Aldrin 0/14
alpha-BHC 0/14
alpha-Chlordane 0/14
beta-BHC 0/14
CDM
Detect
Freq.
100%
17%
69%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
79%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
64%
100%
0%
33%
57%
0%
0%
0%
0%
- --
Max.
Detect
Cone. Qualifier
11000.00 -
260.00 J
18.00 J
120.00 -
ND ND
ND ND
21000.00 J
26.00 -
ND ND
17.00 -
13000.00 -
2300.00 J
890.00 -
260.00 -
4.30 J
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
25.00 -
72.00 J
ND ND
17.00 -
12.00 -
32.00
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
---- --- --
Sample ID of 1/2 Max
Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
2900-11000 GP205SLA -50 220.00 Yes
260-260 GP202SLA 1.50 3.5 74.29 Yes
2-18 GP202SLA 0.70 10 1.80 Yes
25-120 GP206SLA -165 0.73 No
ND ND 0.50 1.1 0.45 No
ND ND 0.10 1.6 0.06 No
420-21000 GP203SLA -NV NV Yes
3-26 GP211SLA -0.4 65.00 Yes
ND ND 1.00 20 0.05 No
6-17 GP201SLA 3.00 40 0.43 No
2400-13000 GP205SLA -200 65.00 Yes
7-2300 GP208SLA -50 46.00 Yes
200-890 GP208SLA -NV NV Yes
54-260 GP206SLA -100 2.60 Yes
1-4 GP211SLA 1.00 30 0.14 No
ND ND 300.00 NV NV Yes
ND ND 0.45 0.81 0.56 No
ND ND 0.28 2 0.14 No
ND ND 110.00 NV NV Yes
ND ND 0.75 1 0.75 No
ND ND 0.05 0.1 0.50 No
10-25 GP205SLA 4.50 2 12.50 Yes
12-72 GP209SLA -50 1.44 Yes
ND ND 0.98 NV NV Yes
3.9-17 GP214SLA 4.25 NV NV Yes
3.7-12 GP202SLA 1.00 NV NV Yes
GP202SLA 2.5 12.80 Yes
ND ND 0.50 2.5 0.20 No
ND ND 0.50 2.5 0.20 No
ND ND 3.00 100 0.03 No
ND ND 0.50 1 0.50 No
D-1
-- -- ---
Table D-1
Screening of CO PCs for Off-Site Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Detects/
Chemical Samples
Pesticides (µg/kg)
delta-BHC 0/14
Dieldrin 0/14
Endosulfan I (alpha) 0/14
Endosulfan II (beta) 0/14
Endosulfan sulfate 0/14
Endrin 1/14
Endrin aldehyde 0/14
Endrin ketone 0/14
gamma-BHC {lindane) 0/14
gamma-Chlordane 0/14
Heptachlor 0/14
Heptachlor epoxide 0/14
Methoxychlor 0/14
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) 0/14
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221) 0/14
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232) 0/14
PCB-1242 {Aroc/or 1242) 0/14
. PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) 0/14
PCB-1254 {Aroclor 1254) 0/14
PCB-1260 (Aroc/or 1260) 0/14
Total PCBs
Toxaphene 0/14
PAHs (µg/kg)
Acenaphthene 0/14
Acenaphthylene 1/14
Anthracene 1/14
Benzo(a)anthracene 7/14
Benzo(a)pyrene 7/14
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 8/14
Benzo(ghi)pery/ene 7114
Chrysene 9/14
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0/14
CDM
Detect
Freq.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
7%
50%
50%
57%
50%
64%
0%
-- -
Max.
Detect
Cone. Qualifier
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
3.40 -
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
77.00 J
150.00 J
1800.00 -
1100.00 J
4700.00 -
760.00 -
3900.00 -
ND ND
- - -- - ----
Sample ID of 1/2 Max
Detect Cone. Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Range Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
ND ND 0.50 100 0.01 No
ND ND 1.08 0.5 2.15 Yes
ND ND 0.50 100 0.01 No
ND ND 0.98 100 0.01 No
ND ND 0.98 100 0.01 No
3.4-3.4 GP214SLA 0.98 1 3.40 Yes
ND ND 0.98 100 0.01 No
ND ND 0.98 100 0.01 No
ND ND 0.50 0.05 10.00 Yes
ND ND 0.50 100 0.01 No
ND ND 0.50 100 0.01 No
ND ND 0.50 100 0.01 No
ND ND 5.00 100 0.05 No
ND ND 9.75 NV NV Yes
ND ND 19.50 NV NV Yes
ND ND 9.75 NV NV Yes
ND ND 9.75 NV NV Yes
ND ND 9.75 NV NV Yes
ND ND 9.75 NV NV Yes
ND ND 9.75 NV NV Yes
156.00 20 7.80 Yes
ND ND 50.00 100 0.50 No
ND ND 900.00 20000 0.05 No
77-77 GP214SLA 900.00 20000 <0.01 No
150-150 GP214SLA 900.00 100 1.50 Yes
94-1800 GP214SLA 850.00 NV NV Yes
78-1100 GP214SLA 850.00 100 11.00 Yes
37-4700 GP214SLA 850.00 NV NV Yes
50-760 GP214SLA 850.00 NV NV Yes
41-3900 GP214SLA 850.00 NV NV Yes
ND ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
D-2
--- - - - -
Table D-1
Screening of COPCs for Off-Site Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Detects/
Chemical Samples
PAHs (µg/kg)
Fluaranthene 9/14
Fluorene 1/14
lndena (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 7/14
Phenanthrene 9/14.
Pyrene 9/14
Total PAHs
Semivolatiles (µglkg)
(3-andlor 4-)Methylphenal 0/14
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0114
1,2-Dich/orobenzene 0/14
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0/14
1,4-Dichlarobenzene · 0/14
2,4.5-Trichlorophenol 0/14
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0/14
2,4-Dichlarophenal 0/14
2,4-Dimethylphenal 0/14
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0/14
2,4-Dinitrataluene 0/14
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0/14
2-Chloronaphthalene 0/14
2-Chlaraphenal 0/14
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitraphenal 0/14
2-Methylnaphthalene 1/14
2-Methylphenal 0/14
2-Nitraaniline 0/14
2-Nitraphenal 0/14
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0114
3-Nitraaniline 0/14
4-Bramaphenyl phenyl ether 0/14
4-Chlora-3-methylphenal 0/14
4-Chloroaniline 0/14
4-Chlarophenyl phenyl ether 0/14
CDM
Detect
Freq.
64%
7%
50%
64%
64%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-- - -
Max.
Detect Detect Cone.
Cone. Qualifier Range
9100.00 -72-9100
34.00 J 34-34
790.00 -56-790
1500.00 -57-1500
1300.00 -51-1300
25891.00
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
140.00 J 140-140
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
--- -- - - -
Sample ID of 1/2 Max
Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
GP214SLA 850.00 100 91.00 Yes
GP214SLA 900.00 30000 <0.01 No
GP214SLA 850.00 NV NV Yes
GP214SLA 850.00 100 15.00 Yes
GP214SLA 850.00 100 13.00 Yes
GP214SLA 1000 25.89 Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 10 90.00 Yes
ND 900.00 10 90.00 Yes
ND 900.00 10 90.00 Yes
ND 900.00 10 90.00 Yes
ND 2300.00 4000 0.58 No
ND 900.00 10000 0.09 No
ND 900.00 NV NV. Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 2300.00 20000 0.12 No
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 1000 0.90 No
ND 900.00 10 90.00 Yes
ND 2300.00 NV NV Yes
GP206SLA 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 2300.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 2300.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
D-3
- -- - - - -
Table D-1
Screening of COPCs for Off-Site Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Detects/
Chemical Samples
Semivolatiles {µg/kg)
4-Nitroaniline 0/14
4-Nitrophenol 0/14
Benzyl butyl phthalate 0/14
Bis(2-Ch/oroethoxy) methane 0/14
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 0/14
Bis(2-ch/oroisopropy/) ether 0/14
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0/14
Carbazo/e 1/14
Di-n-butylphthalate 0/14
Di-n-octylphthalate 0/14
Dibenzofuran 1/14
Diethyl phthalate 0/14
Dimethyl phthalate 0/14
Hexach/orobenzene 0/14
Hexachlorobutadiene 0/14
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0/14
Hexachloroethane 0/14
/sophorone 0/14
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0/14
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine 0/14
Naphthalene 1/14
Nitro benzene 0/14
Pentach/orophenol . 0/14
Phenol 0/14
Volatiles (µg/kg)
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0/14
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/14
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 0/14
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0/14
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0/14
1,2-Dichloroethane 0/14
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 0/14
CDM
Detect
Freq.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
- - - -
Max.
Detect Detect Cone.
Cone. Qualifier Range
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
330.00 J 330-330
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
40.00 J 40-40
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
84.00 J 84-84
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
-- --- ---
Sample ID of 1/2 Max
Max. Detect Detection EPA Region 4
Cone. Limit Chronic Value HQ COPC
ND 2300.00 NV NV Yes
ND 2300.00 7000 0.33 No
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 100 9.00 Yes
ND 900.00 100 9.00 Yes
ND 900.00 100 9.00 Yes
ND 1950.00 NV NV Yes
GP214SLA 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 200000 <0.01 No
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
GP206SLA 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 100000 0.01 No
ND 900.00 200000 0.00 No
ND 900.00 2.5 360.00 Yes
ND 900.00 100 9.00 Yes
ND 900.00 10000 0.09 No
ND 900.00 100 9.00 Yes
ND 900.00 ~v NV Yes
ND 900.00 NV NV Yes
ND 900.00 20000 0.05 No
GP206SLA 900.00 100 0.84 No
ND 900.00 40000 0.02 No
ND 2300.00 2 1150.00 Yes
ND 900.00 50 18.00 Yes
ND 6.00 100 0.06 No
ND 6.00 100 0.06 No
ND 6.00 100 0.06 No
ND 6.00 100 0.06 No
ND 6.00 100 0.06 No
ND 6.00 400 0.02 No
ND 6.00 100 0.06 No
D-4
------ -
Table 0-1
Screening of COPCs for Off-Site Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Detects/ Detect
Chemical Samples Freq.
Volatiles {µg/kg)
1,2-Dichloropropane 0/14 0%
Acetone 0/14 0%
Benzene 0/14 0%
Bromodichloromethane 0/14 0%
Bromoform 0/14 0%
Bromomethane 0/14 0%
Carbon disulfide 6/14 43%
Carbon tetrachloride 0/14 0%
Chlorobenzene 0/14 0%
Chloroethane 0/14 0%
Chloroform 0/14 0%
Chloromethane 0/14 0%
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0/14 0%
Oibromoch1oromethane 0/14 0%
Ethyl benzene 0/14 0%
Methyl butyl ketone 0/14 0%
Methyl ethyl ketone 0/14 0%
Methyl isobutyl ketone 0/14 0%
Methylene chlori_de 0/14 0%
Styrene 0/14 0%
Tetrachloroethene 0/14 0%
Toluene 4/14 29%
Total xylenes 0/14 0%
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0/14 0%
Trichloroethene 0/14 0%
Vinyl chloride 0/14 0%
Acronyms: Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
- --
Max.
Detect
Cone. Qualifier
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
95.00 -
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
7.00 J
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND -Result was not detected
NV -No values N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
- - -
Sample ID of
Detect Cone. Max. Detect
Range Cone.
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
2-95 GP207SLA
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
2-7 GP207SLA
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
NR -No result reported R -QC indicates that data unusable. Compound may or may not be present.
Resarnpling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
-
1/2 Max
Detection
Limit
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
mg/kg -Milligrams per kilogram
µg/kg -Micrograms per kilogram U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
CDM
- - - --
EPA Region 4
Chronic Value HQ COPC
700000 0.00 No
NV NV Yes
50 0.12 No
100 0.06 No
NV NV Yes
NV NV Yes
NV NV Yes
1000000 0.00 No
50 0.12 No
100 0.06 No
1 6.00 Yes
100 0.06 No
100 0.06 No
100 0.06 No
50 0.12 No
NV NV Yes
NV NV Yes
NV NV Yes
100 0.06 No
100 0.06 No
10 0.60 No
50 0.12 No
50 0.12 No
100 0.06 No
1 6.00 Yes
10 0.60 No
Footnotes:
' Essential nutrient
D-5
----- - - - -- - - ------ -
Table D-2
Screening of Dioxins and Furans in Off-Site Soil
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
1/2 Region 4 Region 4
Detect TEF for TEQ for Screening COPC for TEF for TEQ for Screening COPC for
Dioxins (ng/kg) Cone. Limit Qualifier Mammals Mammals Value HQ Mammals Birds Birds Value HQ Birds
GP205SLA
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin 540 0.01 5.400 0.001 0.540
1.2,3.4,6, 7 ,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 17 J 0.01 0.170 0.01 0.170
1 ,2 ,3.4. 7 ,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 5 2.5 u 0.01 0.025 0.01 0.025
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 6 3 u 0.1 0.300 0.05 0.150
1,2,3,4,7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 5 2.5 u 0.1 0.250 0.1 0.250
1 ,2.~.6, 7 .8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 13 J 0.1 1.300 0.1 1.300
1,2,3,6,7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 5 2.5 u 0.1 0.250 0.1 0.250
1 ,2,3, 7 ,8,9-Hexachtorodibenzodioxin 11 0.1 1.100 0.1 1.100
1,2,3,7 ,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 5 5 UR UR UR UR UR
1,2,3,7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzodioxin 5 2.5 u 1 2.500 1 2.500
1,2 ,3, 7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 5 5 UR UR UR UR UR
2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 5 2.5 u 0.1 0.250 0.1 0.250
2 ,3,4, 7 ,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 5 2.5 u 0.5 1.250 2.500
2 .3, 7 ,8-T etrachlorodibenzodioxin J 1.000 1.000
2 ,3, 7 ,8-T etrachlorodibenzofuran 2 u 0.1 0.100 1 1.000
Octachlorodibenzodioxin 2700 0.0001 0.270 0.0001 0.270
Octachlorodibenzofuran 66 0.0001 0.007 0.0001 0.007
HQ COPC HQ COPC
Total Dloxin/Furan Equivalents 14.172 2.5 6 Yes 11.312 2.5 5 Yes
TEQs calculated according to the World Health Organization (Van den Berg et al. 1998).
Sample location GP037SLA represents the sample with the highest total TEQ.
NT -No TEF or TEO provided in the literature reviewed.
Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
R-QC indicates that data are unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
CDM D-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table D-3
Summary of COPCs for Off-Site Soils Retained from the SERA
Compounds Sorted by Media
Georgia-Pacific Site, Plymouth, North Carolina
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD)
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE)
4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT)
Total DDD, DDE, DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
gamma-BHC (lindane)
PCBs
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Total PCBs
PAHs
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b and/or k)f/uoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
'.}~i·}Jt::r.:t::::$:m~~Js:Dioxins/F,urans~,t~::k'!ti-?JJt4~1};·
lSi\_~:~i-I~Tota/)DioxinlF,tifan!Equivalents~'~Tk0l-fil
CDM
SVOCs
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-0ichlorobenzene
1,4-0ichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzldine
3-Nitroaniline
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbazole
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
lsophorone
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol.
Phenol
voes
Acetone
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Trichloroethene
D-7