NCD982096653_20011026_Ram Leather Care Site_FRBCERCLA RISK_Draft Screening-Level Steps 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment-OCR

7·
I ~ • CDM Federal Progra1ns Corporation. ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
October 26, 2001
Draft Screening-Level
Steps 1-2
Ecological Risk
Assessment Report
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
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-WS-0022. The material contained
herein is not to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person or persons for any reason without the prior expressed
approval of a responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
DRAFT
SCREENING-LEVEL STEPS 1-2
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
RAM LEATHER SITE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
OCTOBER 29, 2001
. U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W5-0022
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 936-RICO-0419
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. 3282-936-RT-RISK-12033
P,ep,nedBy~
MbrrayWade
Project Ecologist
F:,r_ ..
Approved By:--"--_:!__-"--'-'.,.L\.A,,e-;l-,L..L./---!--------
Mike Profit
Project Manager
n-:J;L
Approved By:_•._.'---./--------------
/,,-Brend Beatty .
Tech ical Reviewer
Prepared by:
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Date:
Date:
Date: /t> / l ·; I () J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
Section 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process ................... 1-2
1.2 Project Objectives .................................................. 1-4
1.3 Organization of the Document ...................................... 1-4
Section 2 Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological
Effects Evaluation ......................................................... 2-1
2.1 Screening-Level Problem Formulation ................................ 2-1
2.1.1 Environmental Setting ...................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Past Contamination and Remediation at the Site ................ 2-8
2.1.3 Contaminant Fate and Transport ............................ 2-17
2.1.4 Potential Ecological Receptors ............................... 2-19
2.1.5 Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints ......... 2-19
2.2 Screening-Level Ecological Effects Evaluation ........................ 2-20
Section 3 Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation ...... 3-1
3.1 Screening-Level Exposure Estimates ................................. 3-1
3.2 Screening-Level Risk Calculation .................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Surface Soils ............................................... 3-7
3.3 Uncertainty Analyses ............................................. 3-10
3.3.1 Uncertainties Associated With the Collection of Data ........... 3-10
3.3.2 Uncertainties Associated With the Exposure Assessment ....... 3-10
3.3.3 Uncertainties Associated With the Effects Assessment .......... 3-10
3.3.4 Uncertainties Associated With the Risk Characterization ....... 3-11
3.3.5 Uncertainty With Non-detected Chemicals ................... 3-11
3.3.6 Uncertainty With Reference or Background Concentrations ..... 3-11
3.4 Conclusions ................... , .................................. 3-11
Section 4 References ....................................................... 4-1
Appendixes
Appendix A Ecological Screening Tables
Appendix B Checklist for Ecological Assessment/Sampling
Appendix C Plzoto Log
COM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027/32B2-936J1 026
ii
I
I Figures
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2-1 Area Location Map ................................................ 2-2
2-2 Site Vicinity Map .................................................. 2-3
2-3 Site Features Map .................................................. 2-4
2-4 Private Wells in Site Vicinity ........................................ 2-5
2-5 Site Habitat Map .................................................. 2-7
2-6 Bold Research Labs Sample Locations ............................... 2-10
2-7 EPA Technical Assistance Team Sample Locations .................... 2-12
2-8 Soil and Water Sampling Locations (April 1999) ...................... 2-14
2-9 Surface Soil Samples (April 1999) ................................... 2-15
2-10 Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Ram Leather ....................... 2-18
CDM Federal Programs Corporntion
01-027/3282-Q3611028
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tables
3-1
3-2
Screening of CO PCs for Soil, Ram Leather ............................ 3-2
Summary of COPCs Retained from the SERA .......................... 3-8
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027/3282-931!1(1 026
iv
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ams!
AST
BERA
BNA
CCME
CDM Federal
CERCLA
CFR
COPC
CSM
DQO
EC
EPA
ERA
ETAG
HQ
NCP
ORNL
PCB
PCE
SAP
SERA
SMDP
svoc
T&E
TAT
TCE
USFWS
USGS
voe
above mean sea level
above ground storage tank
baseline ecological risk assessment
base/ neutral/ acid extractable compound
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CDM 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
hazard quotient
National Contingency Plan
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
polychlorinated biphenyl
perchloroethylene
sampling and analysis plan
screening-level ecological risk assessment
scientific/ management decision points
semivolatile organic compound
threatened or endangered
Technical Assistance Team
trichloroethylene
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
volatile organic compound
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027/3282-93611 026
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
CDM Federal Prograrris Corporation (CDM Federal) was tasked by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the potential for ecological risks
at the Ram Leather site under EPA Contract Number 68-WS-0022. Ecological risk
assessment (ERA) 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 Ram Leather
site following past remediation actions.
The EPA' s Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: 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 Potter Company Site. The Process Document provides the latest
EPA guidance on the steps for designing and conducting technically defensible ERAs
, 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 ERAs and describes the basic elements of a process for scientifically
evaluating adverse effects of stressors on ecosystems and ecosystem components.
The ERA 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 obtaining
input from the Region 4 EPA Ecological Technical Assistance Group (ETAG).
COM Feder□! Programs Corporation
01-027/J28:M3B/1020
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I.
Section 1
Introduction
The screening-level ERA consists of the following elements:
■ Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects (Toxicity)
Evaluation
Screening-Level Problem Formulation
Environmental setting
Site contamination
Contaminant fate and transport
Potential ecological receptors
Complete exposure pathways
Preliminary assessment and measurement endpoints
Screening-Level Ecological Effects Evaluation
-Preferred toxicity data
-Selection of ecological chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)
■ Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
Screening-Level Exposure Estimates
Screening-Level Risk Calculations
Uncertainty Analyses
· 1.1 Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process
ERA is a process for scientifically evaluating 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:
■ 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.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027'3282·93611 026
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
Current EPA guidance recommends an 8-step process for designing and conducting
consistent and technically defensible ERAs 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, a SMDP is reached. At this point, all involved
parties meet and discuss whether:
■ the risk assessment is proceeding in a direction acceptable to the risk assessors
and the risk manager,
■ whether the SERA indicates further effort at a site is warranted, and
■ whether risk management decisions regarding actions at the site are appropriate.
For example, if the SERA determines the available data are adequate to perform an
ERA, but data do not indicate adverse effects, the SERA would recommend not to
proceed further. However, if at the end of Step 2, the SERA indicates potential
ecological risks are likely, the SERA would suggest further effort at a site.
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 CO PCs, 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 the 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.
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.
Step 5 is the field verification of the Step 4 sampling design. This consists 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 the summary and analysis of the data, and prediction of the likelihood of
adverse effects based on the data analysis, which is presented as the risk
characterization. It also includes consideration of uncertainties and ecological
CDM Federal Prograins Corporation 1-3
01 ·02713282-936J 1 026
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
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 ERA are as follows:
■ To determine whether unacceptable risks are posed to ecological receptors from
site-specific environmental contamination.
■ To provide the information required to make risk management decisions
regarding the need for additional remedial actions.
1.3 Organization of the Document
This document includes components of steps 1 and 2 in EPA' s 8-step process for
conducting ERAs. 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 2 also
includes the screening-level ecological effects evaluation, which presents the
ecological benchmark values that represent conservative thresholds for adverse
ecological effects. Section 3 presents the Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk
. Calculation, as well as a discussion of uncertainties. Section 4 presents references
cited throughout the document.
The SERA indicated that there is the potential for adverse effects to ecological
receptors due to exposure to contamination in soil at the Ram Leather site. Based on
the results of this SERA, a SMDP meeting between the risk manager and risk
assessment team will determine whether the ERA should continue into the
refinement of COPCs, or Step 3a of the eight-step ERA process.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
0 1·02713262-931311026
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem
Formulation and Ecological Effects
Evaluation
The Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
represents the initial step in the screening-level process. The results of this step will
be used in conjunction with exposure estimates determined in the Preliminary Risk
Calculation (Step 2, Section 3).
2.1 Screening-Level Problem Formulation
The Screening-Level Problem Formulation· presents the following information:
■ Environmental setting,
■ Site contamination,
■ Contaminant fate and transport,
■ Potential receptors,
■ Complete exposure pathways, and
■ Preliminary assessment and measurement endpoints.
2.1.1 Environmental Setting
The Ram Leather site is located at 15100 Albemarle Road (Route 24/27) in a rural area
of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, just west of the Cabarrus County line (see
Figure 2-1). The site is located at 35' 13' 41" north latitude and 80" 36' 24.5" west
longitude. The site is a former dry cle.aner that operated from 1977 to 1993. The
10-acre parcel is surrounded by residential property (see Figure 2-2).
To the south of the site is a 14-acre parcel owned by Mr. Cliff Worley, former
owner/ operator of the site. Mr. Worley's property does not contain a house but it
does have a small pond used for fishing. To the east is the 8-acre Glosson property at
15208 Albemarle Road. To the north is the property formerly owned by the Parnell
family at 15115 Albemarle Road. To the west is the 18-acre Scoggins property at
14998 Coble Road. A small gravel road east of the site provides access to the Ivey and
Beaver residences, at 15148 and 15155 Albemarle Road, respectively. The interior of
the one-story cement block former dry cleaning facility is now a flea market on
Saturdays and Sundays, and an open air flea market on weekdays. A site features
map is provided as Figure 2-3.
2.1.1.1 Drainages
The total relief on the site is about 13 feet, ranging from a basin in the northwest
corner at 717.2 ft above mean sea level (ams!) to the highest point of 730.4 ft amsl in
the south. There are two major overland flow paths for site drainage (see Figure 2-4).
COM Federal Programs Corporation
01•027/3282•93611026
2-1
-----------·--------
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
. ' ' RAM LEATHER SITE "'
Area Location Map
'.
......._
NOTTO SCALE
Figure No.
2-1
10/01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Legend
D
\
\
Septic Drain Field
Property Boundary
Railroad
200 400
Scale in Feel
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
\ / \ /.
\ /
\ /
\ /
/
\ //
\ /
><
/ " / ·,
/ "
// "·, ·,
. ""'
V Glosson I
I
I
/
/
./
/
/
/
/
/
Adaptad from: httpJ/maps.co.macklanburg.nc.usll.axgis/disclaimm:htm
Figure No. Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina Site Vicinity Map 2-2
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 10/01
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NEW
WELL
0
0MW-1
ALBEMARLE ROAD
SEPTIC
TANK
WELL~ OLD ~
0MW-2
DRUM
AREA
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING .,---I-;--TO UNDERNEATI-1
PAD
0MW-3
CONCRETE
PAD EXISTING BLDG
,,_ ___ _J----;1.. .... -SEPTIC LINE
PRESUMED
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
SEPTIC
DRAIN
FIELD
EXISTING
CRUSHED STONE
PARKING
SEPTIC
DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
2CY
CRUSHED STONE
ROAD EXISTING
~"rt~-~ ,,.
LEGEND
0 MONITORING WELL
11111 11 RAILROAD
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
COM Federal Programs Corporation
0 33' 66'
Site Features Map
~ ~"' " ~ o"' " ~~ ' ~,.
SOORCE · NCDEHNR 1996
Figure No.
2-3
10/01
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOWELL'S MAIN FACILTTY
□ □ HOWELL'S DAYCARE FACILTTY
WATSON HOME
NEW WELL
FUEL TANK
DEMOLITION LANDFILL
ON ADJACENT PROPERTY
LEGEND
:::::=::::.::: GRAVEL ROAD
~)---~ SURFACE WATER DRANAGE
0 MONITORINGWEU.
11111 11 RAILROAD
0 LOCATION WITHWEU.
NOTTO SCALE
6 rr WATSON BODY SHOP
(!
1/
D
I □
TUCKER HOMES
' ,:
//
fl
H+t-t+t+H Ht+H+H+H+H
□GLOSSON
SEPTIC HOLDING TANK
PILE OF DEBRIS, SOIL
□ /VEY
RAM LEATHER PROPERTY LINE
SOURCE; NCDEHNR1996
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
Figure No.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Private Wells
in Site Vicinity
2-4
10/01
2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
The northern pathway flows through culverts under the railroad tracks and
Route 24/27, enters an intermittent stream behind the Parnell residence about 500 feet
north of Route 24/27. ,This intermittent stream continues for 1,500 feet until it joins a
perennial stream. This perennial stream continues north for 1,000 feet and flows into
a pond that is 800 feet long. The outfall from this pond is an unnamed tributary to
Caldwell Creek.
Runoff from the southern portion of the site flows south and enters a pond 1,000 feet
to the south. The pond is 200 feet long. Several springs eII).erge along the overland
flow pathway and in other areas between the site and the pond. The outfall from this
pond flows 1,200 feet where it enters a larger pond. Outfall from this pond enters
Wiley Branch which leads to Clear Creek.
Shallow groundwater movement in the area is assumed to somewhat follow the
topography. Based on a USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map of Midland, North
Carolina [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1980], ground surface at the site slopes to
the southeast and to the northwest, creating a groundwater divide. Given the
complexity of the bedrock at the site, the direction of groundwater flow depends
primarily on fractures, faults, bedding planes, etc.
The Ram Leather grounds are made up mostly of lawns and gravel driveways. The
surrounding area is forest, and as discussed before, there are two creek systems that
run on either side of the site. To identify the ecological population most at risk, an
ecological species and habitat survey was conducted in September of 2001. A
summary of this survey is provided in Section 2.1.1.2 below. No threatened or
endangered (T &E) species were observed or are expected to use the Ram Leather site.
A list of state and federally listed species for Mecklenburg County is included as
Appendix A. It is worth noting that most of the species listed in the county are
dependent on wetland type or wetland edge areas. This type of habitat is not present
on the Ram Leather site.
2.1.1.2 Summary of September 19, 2001 Observations
Ecological observations were made at the Ram Leather Site on September 19th, 2001.
The site is bordered by the railroad tracks and Albemarle Road to the north, and
wooded residential areas to the south and east. The west boundary is dominated by a
mixed pine/hardwood woodland. The site is approximately 10 acres of mostly areas
of mowed grass and old field vegetation along with one main building. There is quite
a bit of debris, tanks, steel, and other various items directly behind the building and
to the south of the building area. There is a drainage pattern that leads from the site
to the southeast and eventually leads to a small pond. No freshwater wetlands were
identified on the site, however. A habitat map is shown as Figure 2-5.
The wooded and old field portions of the site include Virginia pine (Pinus
virgininnus), sumac (Rhus sp.), blackberry (Rulm1s sp.), mimosa (Mimosa speciosn),
eastern redbud (Cercis cnnndensis), grape (Vih1s sp.), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), September
elm (Ulmus serotinn), black cherry (Pnmus serotinn), flowering dogwood (Cornus
CDM Fcdcr.:il Programs Corporation
01-027/3282-936(1028
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Legend
++++t-
o
D
CJ
CJ
Septic Drain Field
Property Boundary
Railroad
Pathway
Weeds/Grass Area
Old Field Area
Grass Area
Wooded Area
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
0
i
\
i
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
200 400
Scale in Feet
Adllpled from: hllp:1/mape.oo.mecltlenbutp.nc.~.Mn
Figure No.
Site Habitat Map 2-5
10/01
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
florida), hickory (Can;a sp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), honey locust (Gleditsia
tricanthos), osage orange (Madura pomifera), southern red oak (Quercus Jalcata), red oak
(Quercus rubra), blackjack oak (Quercus mariandica), white oak (Quercus alba), and
, various wild flowers and weeds. Typical bird species of wooded residential areas
were heard and observed on September 19th including American crow (Corous
brachyrhynchos), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern phobe (Sayomis phoebe),
northern mockingbird (Mimus ployglottos), northern grackle (Quiscalus quiscula),
eastern bluebird (Sia/is sialis), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), barn swallow(Hirunda
rustica), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Signs of other types of wildlife were not
obvious. This may be due to the presence of many domestic dogs in the area. "··
Approximately 3/ 4 of a mile to the south there is a small pond. This pond is
apparently owned by the same person who owns the former Ram Leather property
and has a dock with a sitting area. The vegetation surrounding this pond was
dominated by floating vegetation to north, rushes, sedges, American sycamore, and
speckled alder (A/nus rugosa). The vegetation changes as you go up from the pond to
grasses and a mixed woodland. The dominant species here include cherry (Prunus
sp.), dogwood (Camus sp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sumac (Rims sp.), oak
(Quercus sp.), hickory (Can;a sp.), sweetgum, and September elm. Birds identified at
the pond include eastern bluebird, northern cardinal, eastern phoebe, northern
mockingbird, swallows, and rufous-sided towhee (Piplio en;throphthalmus). A turkey
vulture (Catltartes aura) was also seen flying over the pond area. It seems that fish are
in the pond as fishing equipment was present. A medium-sized mammal trap was
seen on the edge of the pond, indicating that mammals may be present.
2.1.2 Past_ Contamination and Remediation at the Site
Ram Leather operated from 1977 to 1993, specializing in dry cleaning and restoring
leather goods. The company used chlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals (mainly
perchloroethylene [PCE] and petroleum hydrocarbons [mineral spirits]) in the
cleaning process.
Shortly after the site was discovered in April of 1991, the state and the owner
sampled drums and surface soil in the drum storage area. Composite analyses of
drum contents showed PCE, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and phthalates. Soil
samples showed phthalates, vinyl chloride, 1,1-DCE, 1,2-DCE, trichloroethylene
(TCE), PCE, and acetone. Subsequently, the state sampled the boiler blowdown area
and found 77 ppm PCE in the soil. The on-site well ( depth unknown) was sampled
and found to be contaminated (4,690 ppb PCE). The county sampled off-site wells
within one-half mile of the site. Two wells, Parnell (19 ppb PCE) and Beaver (3.9 ppb
PCE); were found to be contaminated (see Figure 2-4).
In 1991 it was also discovered that wastes had been put into a metal dumpster on site
prior to disposal in a landfill from 1977 to 1984. After 1984, 55-gallon drums were
used to store the spent solvents. The drums were pumped out regularly by Safety
Kleen from 1986 to June 1991, after which time the drums were no longer used.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027 /3282·93611026
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
g
0
0
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
Starting in 1984, waste mineral spirits were stored in an above ground storage tank
(AST) on a concrete pad located on the west side of the building. This AST was
periodically pumped out by Safety Kleen. Unused mineral spirits were also stored on
the pad.
On January 30, 1992, the county again sampled area wells. At this time it was
suggested that the Ram Leather owner provide point of entry filters for two
contaminated wells. In another sampling event August 26, 1992, the county
discovered another contaminated well. PCE was recorded at 6.5 ppb for this well.
The State requested that EPA evaluate the site for possible removal action on
February 16, 1994. On March 16, 1994, EPA collected soil and private well samples to
determine if a removal action was warranted.
During 1994 and 1995, Parnell installed a new well (250 feet deep, cased to 41 feet).
The state sampled the new well September 29, 1995, with results showing 204 ppb
PCE. The State asked EPA to re-evaluate the potential for an emergency removal
action.
2.1.2.1 Bold Research Labs Investigation
In July 1991, Bold Research Labs undertook an investigation on behalf of the site
owner. The investigation was designed to identify a possible source of the
chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination and to define the extent of soil and
groundwater contamination. Seventeen soil borings were drilled in the locations
shown in Figure 2-6. The soil investigation showed PCE contamination extended to a
depth of 24 feet (the deepest sampling point) in Boring 1 (B-1) near the tank pad; to
10 feet (the deepest sampling point) in B-10 along the northerly surface water runoff
pathway; and to 20 feet in B-2 near the dumpster (see Figure 2-6). 1,1)-TCA was
found in B-2 at 25 feet and in B-3 at 7 feet (the deepest sampling point) near the septic
tank drain box.
Monitoring wells were completed in three of the borings (see Figure 2-6) .
. Groundwater samples were collected from the three monitoring wells and boreholes
B-1 and B-2; these samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and mineral spirits only. PCE was found at 50,060 g/L in B-1 (hole depth= 24 feet)
near the drum storage area and boiler blowout. 1,1,1-TCA was found at 6,697 g/L
and TCE at 830 g/L in the same borehole. PCE was found at 1,201 g/L in B-2 (hole
depth= 25 feet) near the dumpster. Trace quantities of 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, and TCE
were found as well. Monitoring well MW-RL-1 (total depth= 31.79 feet; static water
level= 13.68 feet) had 1 g/L PCE. Monitoring well MW-RL-2 (total depth=
31.65 feet; static water level= 11.98 feet) had no volatile constituents. Monitoring
well MW-RL-3 (total depth= 20 feet; static water level= 12.3 feet) had 3 g/L PCE and
no other volatiles (J. Stanley 1996).
Also during this investigation, water samples were collected from boiler blowout,
septic tank, and the pond south of site. In the boiler blowout, the following
contaminants were detected: PCE at 66 g/L, chloroform at 9 g/L, and 1,2-DCA at
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027/3282-93611026
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
n
D
R
ALBEMARLE ROAD
NEW
WELL
0
IIIMW-1
(B-11)
s.16 B·1 • DRUM
AREA • B-
B-9
B-2 •
CONCRETE
PAD
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
PAD
lilMW-2
(BW-12)
EXISTING BLDG
~-SEPTIC LINE
EXISTING
CRUSHED STONE
PARKING
PRESUMED ,"1------4-----------,
IIIMW-3
LEGEND
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
e BORE SAMPLES
Iii MONITORING WELL
11111 11 RAILROAD
DRAIN
FIELD
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
B-7 •
CDM Federal Programs Cc>rpomtion
• B-5
SEPTIC
DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
0 33' 66'
Bold Research Labs
Sample Locations
2fJ
CRUSHED STONE
ROAD EXISTING
SOURCE· NCDEHNR1993
Fib•1ue No.
2-6
10/01
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
1 g/L. The septic tank had 540 g/L chloroform, 171 g/L isopropyl ether, 29 g/L
toluene, 21 g/L cis-1,3-dichloropropene, and 12 g/L 1,2-DCA. No PCE was detected
in the septic tank and no contaminants were detected in the pond-.
2.1.2.2 EPA Emergency Removal and Response Branch Investigation
In March 1994, EPA' s Technical Assistance Team (TAT) performed a site
' investigation to further assess the extent of surface soil and groundwater
contamination on-site and in several private wells in the site vicinity. The TAT
collected four surface soil samples from the locations shown in Figure 2-7. The
samples were analyzed for priority pollutant metals, as well as VOCs, and
semivolatile organic compounds (Johnson 1994).
Surface soil samples showed trace quantities of PCE and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in
55-01 (near the former drum storage area) (see Figure 2-7). Higher quantities of
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were found in 55-04 (in the surface water runoff pathway
just before the culvert). The levels of contamination were not sufficient to trigger a
soil removal action. No inorganics were found at levels of concern.
The TAT also collected groundwater samples for VOC analysis from the three
existing monitoring wells, the old well on-site, and eight off site private wells. The
old on-site well (no longer used) had 2,500 g/L PCE, 98 g/L TCE, 590 g/L cis-1,2-
DCE. Three of eight private wells (Parnell, Beaver, and Glosson) had detectable
quantities of VOCs, but the levels did not exceed EPA' s removal action level, 70 ppb.
· The following wells had no detectable VOCs: Ivey, Tucker, Watson Body Shop,
Harrah, and Scoggins.
2.1.2.3 North Carolina Superfund Section Investigation
In September 1995, the North Carolina Superfund Section sampled the new Parnell
well (installed sometime between the EPA investigation in 1994 and this date), the
Tucker well, the new on-site Ram Leather Care well, and the Howell facility well (the
closest community well, about 3/ 4 mile north of the site, serving 430 people). Each
well was sampled for VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals.
No metals above levels of concern or SVOCs were detected in any of the wells. The
only private or community well that was found to be contaminated was the Parnell
well where PCE was detected at 204 g/L. Based on this finding, Mrs. Parnell was
advised to discontinue use of her well for drinking, and the North Carolina
Superfund Section requested that the EPA re-evaluate the site for a removal action.
The Ram Leather well had PCE at 1,091 g/L, c-1,2-DCE at 724 g/L, TCE at 254 g/L,
and t-1,2-DCE at g/L.
North Carolina also investigated surface water in the north and south drainage
pathways for Hazard Ranking System purposes. Four surface water and sediment
sample pairs, two from the northern draina·ge route, one from the southern drainage
route, and one background from a pond west of the site, were collected. Each sample
CDM Federal Pro~rams Corpora[ion
01-027/3282-936/l020
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
ALBEMARLE ROAD
e SS-04
0MW-1
SEPTIC
TANK
0MW-2
WELL WEL~Lr-_..;..-, NEW OLD SS-c: ~
0 e FLOOR DRAIN
SS-02 FROM BUILDING ,,---I-;--TO UNDERNEATH
LEGEND
DRUM
AREA
0MW-3
PRESUMED
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
SEPTIC
DRAIN
FIELD
e SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
0 MONITORING WELL
11111 11 RAILROAD
CONCRETE
PAD
PAD
EXISTING BLDG
--SEPTIC LINE
EXISTING
CRUSHED STONE
PARKING
SEPTIC
DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
o_..,.3c3·=:=i66'
2fJ
CRUSHED STONE
ROAD EXISTING
SOORCE: NCDEHNR 1996
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
Figure No.
CDM Federal Programs Corporn1 ion
EPA Technical Assistance
Team Sample Locations
2-7
10/01
2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Leve/ Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. No VOC or SVOCs were detected in
any samples, except for acetone which was attributed to laboratory contamination.
Sev.eral metals were detected in the surface water and sediment samples; however,
the concentrations were within typical ranges found in the area and were not
attributed to a release from the site.
2.1.2.4 EPA Emergency Removal and Response Branch foBow-up
investigation
EPA's Emergency Removal and Response Branch conducted a follow-up
investigation to verify the findings of the State's 1995 investigation. Private wells in
the vicinity were sampled and the results indicated that the levels of contamination
exceeded the removal action level. Thus, in February 1997, point of entry carbon
filtration units were installed on the Parnell, Glosson, and Beaver wells. Each of these
wells has consistently shown chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination.
2.1.2.5 EPA remedial investigation: 1999
In 1999, the EPA's SESD in Athens, Georgia conducted an RI at the site. The goals of
the RI included:
■ Assess the areal extent of contaminated surface soil at the site,
■ Assess the areal and vertical extent of contaminated subsurface soil at the site,
■ Determine whether additional potable wells adjacent to the site are contaminated,
and
■ Assess the areal and vertical extent of groundwater contamination in the shallow
aquifer at the site.
Study Design
The study focused primarily on chlorinated solvents in the soil and groundwater;
however, samples for pesticides, base/neutral/ acid extractable compounds (BNAs),
full scan VOCs, and metals were also collected. An authoritative sampling design
was chosen. Under an authoritative sampling design, locations are selected where
there is a good probability of finding high levels of contamination. Authoritative
samples are not intended to reflect the average characteristics of the site.
Surface soil and subsurface soil, potable water, and groundwater samples were
collected. Grab and composite samples were collected from locations shown in
Figure 2-8 within the Ram Leather Care site and the adjacent properties. In addition
to four potable wells adjacent to the site (Parnell, Glosson, Beaver, and Ivey) several
additional potable wells within approximately one mile of the site were sampled.
These wells were chosen to allow for a representative sampling of the area.
Figure 2-9 illustrates surface soil samples that were collected both on the site and in
the site vicinity.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02113282-938/1 026
2-13
I
I :I .,/
Tucker~ ~ \ PW0089 \ ~ I .,/ • .,/
\ .,/ \ .,/ .~ v -N. \ .,/ •l' ,' ( ~ .,
.,/ "
,,_o
I \ \ \ .,/ " \
I \ / \ " I \ .,/ \ " /'-
\ \ .,/ \ " V ,.,Y \
i \ .,/ \ " \ •" \ .,/ f2.0,\\{0 " Parnell I .-/ s~"•"' ) \ py,./()()11 .• ..,.......... l > /\ ~10\~ 1-.,/ ,:lO
\ .,/ -/ \ .,/ I 7 I I / \ .,/
.,/ VGlosson I I .,/ -\ PW0113
I I I .,/ .
I ,, -· 0 ,,,,\
I I I \ (Masse~ 0 · .,/. \ MW0022 I 0 I I j I ,,.,/ . .,/ ':i.-. I --I \W0011050011A -J --0 • I / ---OW0011 ,,, -•• ~ \ osr;3Ae / -...-
I 050022A
\ / 0 200 400
< Scale in Feet
I / " Legend
\ • 0S0076A / " • Soil Sample
I (approx, location)
\ " " Monitoring Well ··--· • Private/Drinking Water Well
\ SS0033A " I 4A <> @ Septic Drain Field
,,.;0◊ " -·-·-Property Boundary \ {] " 1111 I Railroad
I \ PW00312 " • Note: DS0037A is a split of DS0022A /
I \ / Ram Leather Figure No.
/ Charlotte, North Carolina Soil and Water Sampling Locations 2-8 0 200 400 (April 1999) .,. / CDM Federal Programs Corporation I Scale in Feet 10/01
I 2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
ND0011A •
\
I
I
.SS0021A
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\ • OS0076A \
\
{approx. location)
\
Legend
\
\
~ Septic Drain Field
Property Boundary
+H++-Railroad
\
\
\
Monitoring Well location
• Soil Sampling Location
\
Note: 0S0037 A is a split of 0S0022A.
\
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
\
\
\
CDM Federal Programs Cnrporntion
\
\
(approx. 18 ft
from parking)
• SS0033A
4A
\
\ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0
/
/
/
200 400
Scale in Feet
Adapted from: http://maps.co.meck/anburg.nc.usltaxgisldisclaimer.htm
Surface Soil Samples
(April 1999)
Figure No.
2-9
10/01
2-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conclusions
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
Based upon the data collected during the RI, the following conclusions were drawn:
■ Chemicals of Concern: The primary chemicals of concern are chlorinated
solvents. BNAs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals do not appear to
be a significant concern.
■ Potable Water: Potable water contamination (primarily PCE and TCE) appears to
be limited to the four residences adjacent to the site and in the on-site deep
(510 foot) well. PCE results were: Parnell (70 g/L), Glosson (100 g/L), Beaver
(14 g/L), Ivey (1 g/L), and "new" deep (510 feet) on-site well (4,000 g/L). The on-
site well had provided drinking water for Ram Leather employees; however, it is
no longer in use. None of the other potable wells showed evidence of
contamination.
■ Groundwater: VOCs were not detected in the three on-site shallow monitoring
wells (well depths 20 to 32 feet). PCE contamination was detected in the surface
and subsurface soil in the former drum storage area to a depth of 45 feet. The
groundwater in the former drum storage area is probably highly contaminated.
The deep aquifer has not been sufficiently investigated to determine the extent of
PCE contamination. Limited information on the depth of several contaminated
potable wells indicates that contamination of the deep aquifer is a problem. The
known depths of three of the contaminated potable wells are 250 feet (Parnell),
270 feet (Glosson), and 510 feet (on-site deep well).
■ Surface Soil: Data generated during this investigation indicate that chlorhiated
solvent contamination of surface soils is generally concentrated in the former
drum storage area. Low levels of PCE were detected in five samples collected in
the former drum storage area. Pesticides were detected in surface soils in the
drum storage area and northern portion of the site. The highest pesticide
concentration detected was in the former drum storage area.
■ Subsurface Soil: The primary location of contaminated subsurface soil is the
former drum storage area. The chlorinated solvent contamination appears to be
concentrated around the drilled hole in the drum storage area. TCE, vinyl
chloride and other known PCE degradation products were detected in this area.
The highest concentration of PCE (78,000 g/kg) detected was at the 10 feet depth
from the drilled hole in the drum storage area. Adjacent to the drilled hole,
20,000 g/kg of PCE was detected at the 25 feet depth.
In the drum storage area, chlorinated solvents were detected in the soil down to
the deepest sampling depth of 45 feet. In several locations, the PCE level was
higher at the 45 feet depth than the 20 to 30 feet depth. Drilling activities in
August 1999 indicated that the depth to bedrock in the former drum storage area
is approximately 45 feet.
CDM Federal Pmgrams Corporation
Ot--02713282·938/1 026
2-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
The data collected from the surface soils in this investigation has been used in this
SERA.
2.1.3 Contaminant Fate and Transport
{ An examination of contaminant fate and transport is an integral step of the
screening-level ERA 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).
A complete exposure pathway must exist for an ecological receptor species to be
exposed to a COPC. A complete exposure pathway consists of the following
elements: (1) a source and mechanism of contaminant release to the environment,
(2) an environmental transport medium for the released contaminant, (3) a point of
contact with the contaminated medium, and (4) a route of entry of the contaminant
into the receptor at the exposure point. An examination of sources, releases, fate and
transport mechanisms, exposure points, and exposure routes is conducted to
determine the complete exposure pathways that exist at the site. If any of these
elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete and is not considered further.
For this SERA, an CSM (Figure 2-10) w_as developed to illustrate current exposure
pathways for the ecological receptors identified at the Ram Leather site. Complete
exposure pathways are represented in the CSM diagram (Figure 2-10) a dot in the box
designating the potential receptor for that pathway.
Aquatic Exposure Pathway
As a result of previous sampling events and investigations there does not appear to
be an exposure route of potential concern to aquatic receptors. Samples from both
north and south drainages and from the pond to the south of the Ram Leather site,
did not contain CO PCs; therefore, it seems there is no complete exposure pathway to
aquatic receptors.
There is also no documentation of a connection between the groundwater and an area
where the groundwater comes in contact with surface water. This is probably due to
the fractures in bedrock.
Terrestrial Exposure Pathway
Terrestrial receptors may have been exposed to site contaminants through incidental
ingestion of contaminated soil, ingestion of contaminated prey, or plant uptake. As
noted in the aquatic exposure pathway discussion above, the soil contamination does
not seem to be moving into other areas due to runoff into intermittent streams or
ponds in the area. The potential for ecological risks is shown on the CSM and
evaluated using soils data. Other factors that may be taken into consideration in the
interpretation of potential ecological risks a_re discussed in the risk characterization
section of this SERA.
CDM Federal Progrnms Corporation
01-02713282-llltl/1026
2-17
- - --· - - - - - - -·-- - - - - - -
0 (') Ii I ICJ 3:
;p ~ ~ n e.
" 0 a ~ n ~ C a §·
Figure 2-10. Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Ram Leather
"
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 discharge to surface waters. No potential
exposure pathway exists.
-Direct Con_tacU Surface Water Runoff From Soils Creeks/Ponds Ingestion
Surface Soil Surface Soil Direct ContacU • • Contamination Ingestion
Surface
Soil Surface Soil Contaminated Ingestion of
Contamination Prey Contaminated • •
Prey Items
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
2.1.3.1 Primary sources of contamination
On-site and off-site contamination have occurred as a result of historical site
operations of disposing chemicals into the dry well behind the former leather
cleaning facility. These operations resulted in groundwater contamination as well as
contamination in at least three private wells. In addition, it has been found that
limited soil contamination is present at the Ram Leather site.
2.1.3.3 Environmental media impacted
Environmental media that were impacted by the release of contaminants include:
■ soil
■ groundwater
2.1.3.4 Exposure routes
Potential exposure routes consist of the following pathways for terrestrial ecological
receptors:
■ incidental ingestion of contaminated soil
■ dermal exposure to contaminated soil
■ ingestion of contaminated prey
■ plant uptake of contaminants from contaminated soil
Potential exposure routes to be evaluated at the site include:
■ plant uptake of contaminants from residual contamination in soils below fill
■ ingestion of contaminated soil ·
■ ingestion of contaminated prey
2.1.4 Potential Ecological Receptors
■ terrestrial mammals
■ terrestrial birds
■ terrestrial reptiles
■ terrestrial plants
Potential ecological receptors for this study are defined as the plants and animals that
inhabit or use the habitats present at the Ram Leather site.
A site survey was conducted on September 19, 2001 (see Appendix B). During the
site survey, no spedes of special concern (e.g., threatened and endangered species) or
their habitats were identified in the area of the Ram Leather site.
2.1.5 Preliminary Assessment and-Measurement Endpoints
A preliminary identification of assessment and measurement endpoints is required
for a screening-level assessment. These endpoints will be further defined if the
screening-level process demonstrates the need to complete a BERA. In a
screening-level assessment, assessment endpoints are considered to be any adverse
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
OI.OZ713282·93ll/1 026
2-19
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 Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
effects from site contaminants to any ecological receptors at the site. The
measurement endpoints proposed for this assessment are screening-level benchmark
values presented in Section 2.2. ·
2.2 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.
These screening value are then compared to maximum contaminant concentrations
found in site-related media. If the contaminant concentration exceeds the
conservative screening value, then the contaminant is typically retained as an
ecological COPC. Designation as an ecological COPC alone does not indicate that a
constituent poses an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. Rather, the
conservative nature of the ecological screening values means only that those
constituents designated as ecological COPCs require additional evaluation. The
screening-level values selected as conservative thresholds for comparison to current,
post-remediation site media concentrations are discussed below.
Soil Screening Values
Terrestrial assessments are one of the least developed aspects of the ERA process.
Unfortunately, screening values have not been published by EPA for a large number
of chemicals. However, EPA has provided a compilation of soil screening values,
taken from numerous sources, and these screening values will be used for
comparison with post-remediation maximum detected soil concentration values in
Section 3.2.1 of this SERA. Sources for soil screening values listed and recommended
by EPA Region 4 include values published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), the Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment (CCME), and the Dutch Ministries (EPA 2001).
If no conservative benchmark was available in the list recommended by EPA
Region 4, and a constituent in soils was detected at least once in the samples
collected, then the constituent would typically be retained as an ecological COPC for
further consideration in a BERA.
CDM Fcdcrnl Programs Corporation
01-02713282-9313/1026
2-20
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate
and Risk Calculation
The screening-level exposure estimates and risk calculation comprise Step 2 in the
screening-level ERA for a site. Screening is conducted by comparing maximum
detected exposure concentrations for constituents in site media with the ecotoxicity
screening values from Step 1 to provide a conservative estimate of risks to ecological
receptors at the site.
3.1 Screening-Level Exposure Estimates
Per EPA guidance (EPA 1997), the exposure estimate for this assessment was based
on the highest detected soil concentrations detected in the post-remediation
confirmation sampling results. No screening-level exposure estimates will be made
for surface water bodies and groundwater at the site because (1) no detections were
found in the surface water drainages from the site, and (2) no complete pathway
exists to ecological receptors from groundwater.
3.2 Screening-Level Risk Calculation
A quantitative screening risk value was calculated by comparing maximum detected
soil values to the screening-level benchmark values identified in Section 2.2. 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: \
HQ=
where:
EC
sv
EC = exposure concentration (e.g. mg/L, µg/kg, etc.)
SV = ecotoxicity screening benchmark (in units that match the EC)
An HQ greater than one is interpreted as a level at which adverse ecological effects
may occtir; however, there is no indication of the magnitude of those effects.
Table 3-1 shows the screening-level evaluations for soils at the Ram Leather site. This
table shows the maximum detected residual soil concentration of each chemical, the
Region 4 recommended screening-level value (and its associated source), the resultant
HQ, and whether the constituent was identified as an ecological COPC. If no
screening-level benchmark value was found in the literature reviewed, an "NV" (No
Value) occurs in the HQ column. These constituents are typically identified as
ecological COPCs and then carried through to a BERA.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01 -027/3282-936'1 026
3-1
--------
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
Detects/ Detected
Chemical Samples Concentration
Aluminum 14114 21000
Antimony 0/14 ND
Arsenic 13/14 5.8
Barium 14/14 92.0
Beryllium 14/14 1.0
Cadmium 0/14 ND
Calcium' 14114 4400.0
Chromium 14114 130.0
Cobalt 14/14 69.0
Copper 14114 82.0
Cyanide 0/14 ND
Iron 14114 73000
Lead 13114 160
Magnesium' 14114 4100.0
Manganese 14114 560.0
Nickel 14/14 15
Potassium1 14114 790
Selenium 1/14 0.8
Silver 14114 4
Sodium1 14114 370
Thallium 0114 ND
Total Mercury 0114 ND
Vanadium 14114 270
Zinc 14/14 140
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-DDD) 5114 540
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE) 4114 24
4,4'-DDT (p,p'-DDT) 0114 ND
Total DDD, DDE, DDT 589
Aldrin 0/14 ND
Alpha-BHC 0114 ND
Alpha-Chlordane 0/14 ND
------
Beta-BHC 0114 ND
Defta-BHC 0114 ND
Dieldrin 1/14 3
'-Endosuffan I (alpha) 0/14 ND ~ Endosulfan II (beta) 0/14 ND
Endosulfan sulfate 0114 ND
----
Table 3-1
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Sample ID of
Detected Maximum
Concentration Detected
Qualifier Range Concentration
Jnomanics (mnlkg)
-7800-21000 SS0055A
ND ND ND
J 1.7-5.8 DS0022A
-34-92 DS0037A
J 0.28-0.98 DS0011A
ND ND ND
J 420-4400 DS0022A
-1~130 DS0011A
-3.S-69 DS0076A
-23-82 550055A
ND ND ND -28000-73000 SS0055A
-11-160 DS0022A
-710-4100 DU0012
J 8(;-560 S5002/A
-4.3-15 DS0022A
J 160-790 5S002/A
J 0.78-0.78 SS0021A
-1.f;-3.6 5S0055A
-160-370 DS0076A
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
-94-270 SS0055A
J 1~140 DS0022A
Pesticides (µg/k r)
C 4.7-540 DS0037A
-1.S-24 DS0037A
-ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND2.200
-ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND
J 2.S-2.8 DS0054A
-ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND
-------
Sample ID of EPA Region 4
Maximum Maximum Chronic
Detection Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
-ND ~ 420.00 Yes-
0.650 DS0043A 3'5 -0.19 No
2.100 DU0012 .,..10-0.58 No
-ND _u,5-0.56 No
-ND ... 1~1-0.89 No
0.100 DU0012 j.6---0.06 No
-ND NV NV Yes
-ND 0.4----325.00 Yes
-ND 20· 3.45 Yes
-ND 40-2.05 Yes
-ND .0,9" NV Yes
-ND 200-365.00 Yes
-ND _so--3.20 Yes
-ND NV NV Yes
-ND .1DIY"' 5.60 Yes
-ND -30-0.50 No
-ND NV NV Yes
0.850 ND0011A 0.81-0.96 No
-ND -2---1.80 Yes
-ND NV NV Yes
1.400 SS0055A .--1--1.40 Yes
0.100 S50055A .0,1-1.00 Yes
-ND .Y 135.00 Yes
-ND so' 2.80 YeS
4.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
4.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
25.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
•2.5-235.60 Yes
2.200 SS0044A .2,5-0.88 No
2.200 SS0044A (NvJ NV Yes
8.500 SS0044A NV NV Yes
2.200 SS0044A (!!'JJ NV Yes
2.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
41.000 SS0044A 0.5-----82.00 Yes
2.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
4.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
4.200 SS0044A NV ·NV Yes
-
C")
C :ii:
-- -
Chemical -'E.ndrin·
----'Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
'-.. Gamma-BHC (lindane)
-Gamma-Chlordane ~ Heptachlor
·Heptach/or epoxide
Methoxychlor
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
Toxaohene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benza(b)fluaranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
(3-andlor 4-)Methylphenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 2-Dichlorobenzene
- ---
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
-Detects/ Detected
Samoles Concentration
0114 ND
1/14 1
0/14 ND
0114 ND
3114 12
1114 3
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
·0114 ND
338.0
.2/14 1300
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
1114 63
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
1/14 43
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
1/14 45
5191
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
-·-- -
Table 3-1 (continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Sample ID of
Detected Maximum
Concentration Detected
Qualifier Ranae Concentration
Pesticides '·-lie
-ND ND
J 1.4-1.4 ND0011A
-ND ND
-ND ND
-4.3-12 DS0065A
-3.3-3.3 DS0065A -ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND -ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND -ND ND
-ND ND
-360-1300 DS0037A
PAHs (''"/kn1
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
J 63-63 ND0011A
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
J 43-43 DS0011A
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
J 45-45 DS0011A
Semivolatiles t11nfk,...1
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
-·---- --
Sample ID of EPA Region4
Maximum Maximum Chronic
Detection Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
4.200 SS0044A __.v-4.20 Yes
4.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
4.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
2.200 SS0044A -0.05-44.00 Yes
2.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
2.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
2.200 SS0044A NV NV Yes
22.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
86.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
~ 16.90 Yes
220.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A .20000 0.02 No
420.000 SS0033A 20000 0.02 No
420.000 SS0033A .100· 4.20 Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 100_ 4.20 Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A -100-0.43. No
420.000 SS0033A 30000~ 0.01 No
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A ;oo-4.20 Yes
420.000 SS0033A .rno---0.45 No
1000· 5.19 Yes
'
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
- - ---
Chemical
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-0initrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2, 6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methy/-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methy/phenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Ch/oroaniline
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
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
---
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
Detects/ Detected
Samnles Concentration
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
3/14 2400
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
- - --
Table 3-1 (continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Sample ID of
Detected Maximum
Concentration Detected
Qualifier Ranne Concentration
Semivolatiles '·--/k-'
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
-610-2400 DS0022A
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
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 EPA Region 4
Maximum Maximum Chronic
Detection Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A 4000 0.28 No
420.000 SS0033A -10000· 0.04 No
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A .20000 0.06 No
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A -10-42.00 Yes
1100.000 550033A NV ( NV Yes
-420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000. 5S0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
-ND NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A .7000-0.16 No
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 5S0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV/ NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 100000 < 0.01 No
420.000 SS0033A 200060 < 0.01 No
420.000 SS0033A 200000 < 0.01 No
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 2,5-168.00 Yes
420.000 550033A N~ NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A ,10000 0.04 No
420.000 550033A 'NV NV Yes
--- -----
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
. Detects/ Detected
Chemical Samnles Concentration
lsophorone 0114 ND
Naphthalene 0114 ND
Nitrobenzene 0/14 ND
N-Nitrosodi-n-propyfamine 0/14 ND
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine 0/14 ND
Pentachlorophenol 0114 ND
Phenol 0114 ND
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0/14 ND
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0114 ND
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 0114 ND
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0114 ND
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0/14 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 0/14 ND
1,2-0ichlaroethene (total) 0114 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 0/14 ND
Acetone 0114 ND
Benzene 0/14 ND
Bromodichloromethane 0114 ND
Bromoform 0/14 ND
Bromomethane 0114 ND
Carbon disulfide 0/14 ND
Carbon tetrachloride 0/14 ND
Chlorobenzene 0/14 ND
Chloroethane 0114 ND
Chloroform 0/14 ND
Chloromethane 0/14 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0114 ND
Dibromochloromethane 0/14 ND
Ethyl benzene 0/14 ND
Methyl butyl ketone 0114 ND
Methyl ethyl ketone 0/14 ND
Methyl isobutyl ketone 0114 ND
Methylene chloride 0/14 ND
Styrene 0/14 ND
Tetrachloroethene 5114 110
Toluene 0/14 ND
- -- -
Table 3-1.(continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Sample ID of
Detected Maximum
Concentration Detected
Qualifier Ranne Concentration
Semivolatiles t11n/k,.,
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
VolaU/es ('~'kg)
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND. ND ND
-2-110 DS0054A
ND ND ND
-- - ----
Sample ID of EPA Region 4
Maximum Maximum Chronic
Detection Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 100· 4.20 Yes
420.000 SS0033A 40000" 0.01 No
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 20000 0.02 No
1100.000 SS0033A -2../ 550.00 Yes
420.000 SS0033A sq/ 8.40 Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A .400-0.03 No
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A 7000□0-< 0.01 No
13.000 SS0044A NV__, NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A 50 0.26 No
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A 10000~ < 0.01 No
13.000 SS0044A _so 0.26 No
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A 1 13.00 Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV. Yes
13.000 SS0044A 50 0.26 No
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A 100-0.13 No
13.000 SS0044A 10 11.00 Yes
13.000 SS0044A ·50-0.26 No
-
'f 0,
---·-
Chemical
Total xylenes
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Vinv/ chloride
Acronyms:
ND = Result was not detected
NV No Values
NR = No result reported
µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Footnotes:
1 Essential nutrient
Qualifiers:
J Estimated Result
---
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
Detects/ Detected
Samoles Concentration
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
N = Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
-- --
Table 3-1.(continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Sample ID of
Detected Maximum
Concentration Detected
Qualifier Ranae Concentration
Volatiles 1 • -lkl",
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
----
Sample ID of EPARegion4
Maximum Maximum Chronic
Detection Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value
13.000 SS0044A -so-
13.000 SS0044A NV
13.000 SS0044A (§Sf,/
13.000 SS0044A <10-
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.
-- -
HQ COPC
0.26 No
NV Yes
0.26 No
1.30 Yes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
3.2.1 Surface Soils
3.2.1.1 Metals
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
There were nineteen inorganic metals detected at the Ram Leather site. Of these,
fourteen were retained as COPCs. Ten of these had HQs that exceeded one while
there was no EPA Region 4 screening value available for the other four chemicals.
The maximum detected concentration of lead was in two samples from the same
sample location (DS0022A and D50037 A) (Figure 2-9), and exceeded the Region 4
value for lead. The other 12 samples had lead detections below the Region 4
screening value and the average detected concentrations were below the Region 4
screening value.
The only detected concentration of cobalt to exceed the Region 4 value was in one
sample (DS0076A) (Figure 2-9). The other 13 samples had cobalt detections below the
Region 4 screening value and the average detected concentrations were below the
Region 4 screening value.
Three non-detected metals were retained as COPCs. Two (total mercury and
thallium) were retained as their detection limits exceeded the EPA Region 4 screening
values. Cyanide was retained because there was no available Region 4 screening
value.
A total of seven metals were eliminated and will no longer be considered CO PCs. A
total of seventeen metals were retained for further consideration in the ERA process.
Of these, there are four essential nutrients (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
sodium). The maximum concentrations of five of the metals (aluminum, calcium,
manganese, potassium, and sodium) were well below the average national
concentrations (Shacklette et al. 1971). ·
A list of metals retained following the screening process is provided in Table 3-2.
3.2.1.2 Pesticides and PCBs
There were seven pesticides and no PCBs detected at the Ram Leather site. Most of
the detections were just to the west of the main building, near the old and new wells.
A few detections were also just to the north of the main building and in the vicinity of
septic drain field (Figure 2-9). Of these, all were retained as COPCs. Two (total DDD,
DDT, DDE and dieldrin) were retained because HQs exceeded one. The others were
retained due to the lack of a EPA Region 4 screening value.
Most of the pesticides listed in Table 3-1 were retained even though they were not
detected. In three cases [endrin, gamma-BHC (i.e., lindane), and total PCBs], the
chemicals were retained due to the detection limits exceeding the Region 4 screening
values. The other non-detected compounds retained were because of the lack of a
Region 4 screening value.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01·027/3282-93611026
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/nor anics
Aluminum--
Calcium11-
Chromium-
Cobalt-
~'-c__fy.fil!k!e::-,
Iron-
Lead-
MagnesiumL
Manganese-
Potassium11-
Silver-
Sodium~
Thallium-.:_;f.
Total Mercury
Vanadium
Zinc
Pesticides
Endosulfan I (alp a ✓
Endosulfan II (beta)/
Endosulfan sulfate-
Endrin_,,
Endrin alde~~Cle)
Endrin keJ. e...,
gamma-BHC (lin"dane(
gamma-Clilorcla _,,
--....:.:· ::_e,ptachl
Heptacli ore
'---Melli
• Essential nutrient
Notes:
Bold -Detected Compounds
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
Table 3-2
Summary of COPCs Retained from SERA
Compounds Sorted by Media-Soil
Ram Leather
PCBs
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
( PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221) I PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232) I PCB-1242 (f-roclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254/(Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Total PCBs
PAHs
Anthracene'
Benz(a)anthracene
Benz(a)pyrene_..,,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene/
Benzo(k)fluoranthene✓
Chrysene-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene/
lndeno(1,2,3'c,d)pyrene_...,
Phenanthrene/
Total PAHs-
voes
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane..--
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane-
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane-
1, 1-Dichloroethane _...,✓
1, 1-Dichloroethene..--
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)✓
Acetone-
Bromodichloromethane/
Bromoform ,_,,.
Bromomethane/
Carbon disulfide✓
Chloroethane ✓
Chloroform/
Chloromethane/
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene_,.,
Dibromochloromethane/
Methyl butyl ketone/ '
Methyl ethyl ketone-
Methyl isobutyl ketori.,.....
Methylene chloride/
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)/
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene....-
Vinvl Chloride_.....
SVOCs
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol,...
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene/
1,2-Dichlorobenzene/
1,3-Dichlorobenzene_..
1,4-Dichlorobenzene/
2,4-Dichlorophenol-
2,4-Dimethylphenol,,-
2,4-Dinitrotoluene/
2,6-Dinitrotoluene_,.,✓
2-Chloronapht_halene/
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-,,·
Benzyl butyl phthal~te-'
bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane_..,
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ethe,,-,
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether/
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate--✓
Carbazole-
Dibenzofuran/
di-n-Octylphthalate_.,
Hexachlorobenzene (HCBr''
Hexachlorobutadiene_,,
Hexachloroethane_..,-
lsophorone__..
Napthalene-
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine/
Pentachlorophenol/
Phenol -
3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
A list of pesticides and PeBs retained following the screening process is provided in
Table 3-2.
3.2.1.3 P AHs
Only three PAHs were detected at the Ram Leather site in one sample at the same
location (DS0011A) (Figure 2-9). Two (fluoranthene and pyrene) of these chemicals
were eliminated from further consideration in the ERA process as their HQs were
below one. Benzo(b)fluoranthene was retained as a eope because there is no
Region 4 screening value .available.
No other PAHs were detected, however, nine additional individual PAHs were
retained as eOPes (Table 3-1). This is because three had detection limits which
exceeded Region 4 values and six had no Region 4 screening values. Total P AHs
were also retained as the total exceeded the Region 4 screening value.
A list of PAHs retained following the screening process is provided in Table 3-2.
3.2.1.4 SVOCs
Only one SVOes was detected at the Ram Leather site. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
was detected in samples DS0022A, DS0054A, and DS0065A, all behind the main
building to the west (Figure 2-9). ·Most SVOes, even though not detected, were
retained as eoPes. In a few cases detection limits exceeded screening values,
however, by and large the majority of the non-detected SVOes were retained due to
the lack of an available Region 4 screening value (Table 3-1).
A list of SVOes retained following the screening process is provided in Table _3-2.
3.2.1.5 voes
The Ram Leather site has been thought to be the source of tetrachloroethene (i.e.,
PeE) contamination in the groundwater of the area. The only voe detected turned
out to be PeE. It was detected in five (DS0011A, DS0022A, D50037 A, DS0054A, and
DS0065A) out of fourteen samples, with the highest concentration being found at
DS0054A (110 µg/kg) (Figure 2-9). This maximum detection resulted in an HQ of 11
when compared to the EPA Region 4 screening value of 10 µg/kg. All four of the
other samples that detected PeE were at levels below the_lO µg/kg screening value.
Besides PeE, no other voe was detected in surface soil at the Ram Leather site.
Many other voes were retained, however. Two chemicals were retained as their
detection limits exceeded the Region 4 screening value while numerous other
chemicals were retained because there were no screening values available. A total of
ten chemicals were eliminated from further consideration because detection limits
we!e below screening values resulting in HQs below 9ne (Table 3-1).
It is interesting to note that there were no detections of PAHs, SVOes, or voes at
sample point DU0012, the area near where the dumpster was thought to have been
(Figure 2-9).
COM Federal Programs Coi'pOration 3-9
01 ·027/3282·93e.'1026
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
A list of VOCs retained following the screening process is provided in Table 3-2.
3.3 Uncertainty Analyses
This section discusses uncertainties associated with each stage of the ecological
screening process; from the soil data collected on-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.
3.3.1 Uncertainties Associated With the Collection of Data
Whenever 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 each sample,
variability due to sample changes during transportation, variability in the analytical
measurements made on the samples obtained, and uncertainties associated with the
adequacy of representation of the contaminated media. These uncertainties may
result in an over-or under-estimation of risks.
3.3.2 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.
Treatment at the well head of three private wells near the site has been employed.
However, it is assumed that groundwater does not discharge into surface water in the
area, due to the depth of the groundwater and the fracturing of the underlying
bedrock.
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. It is also possible that risks are under-estimated for some
ecological COPCs because of the small sample size used to characterize (via
laboratory confirmation sampling) any current, post-remediation, and residual soil
contamination.
3.3.3 Uncertainties Associated With the Effects Assessment
For surface soils, sdeening-level values that were selected as benchmarks are overly
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, may have been derived to be protective of
the most sensitive species tested, and may therefore result in an overestimate of risk.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02713282·93!1/1 D28
'
3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
3.3.4 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.
3.3.5 Uncertainty With Non-detected Chemicals
Even though a great number of non-detected chemicals were retained for further
evaluation in Step 3a of the ERA 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 screening values. By retaining
these non-detected chemicals, it is assumed that the chemical is present, when it is
likely not to be present. This may result in an over estimate of ri~k.
3.3.6 Uncertainty With Reference or Background Concentrations
Many metals have been retained for further consideration in the ERA process. It is
unfortunate that reference or background surface soil samples were not collected. It
is uncertain whether the detected metals are at naturally occurring levels for the area,
or if there is elevated metal concentrations at the Ram Leather site.
3.4 Conclusions
This report comprises the first two steps of EPA' s eight step process for conducting
ERAs (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.
Although there are many COPCs that have been retained, most of the detected
CO PCs are metals (Table 3-2). It is uncertain whether these metals values are
naturally occurring for this part of North Carolina or if they are elevated due to a
chemical release at the site.
Very few pesticides, PAHs, SVOCs, or VOCs have actually been detected at the site.
These are identified in Table 3-2 . Ram Leather is thought to be the source of PCE
contamination in the area. This chemical was detected in five samples at four
locations. Only at one location (DS0054A) did the detected value exceed the EPA
Region 4 screening value. Since this chemical is of a volatile nature, the
concentrations will decrease over time. It has been demonstrated in more than one
sampling event, that these chemicals do not appear to be migrating off the site via a
surface water pathway. In addition, the ecological survey did not identify any
threatened or endangered species or any habitats of concern in the vicinity of the site.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02713282-113&'1026
3-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
Since the time (1999) when the samples have been collected that were used in this
SERA, it seems that there is a housekeeping problem at the site. Behind the main
building, on the west side of the property, there are numerous tanks and drums
(some leaking) and debris. This is documented in Appendices B and C.
A SMDP meeting is recommended to be held after EPA Region 4 representatives have
reviewed this Ram Leather Step 1-2 document.
COM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027/3282-93a.'1 02i,
3-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
1.
I
I
I
Section 4
References
North Carolina Department 'of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) 1996. Combined Preliminan; Assessment/Site Inspection, Ram Leather
Care, Vols. I and IL March.
Shacklette, H., J. Hamilton, J. Boerngen, and J. Bowles 1971. Elemental Composition of
Surficial Materials in the Coterminous United States, Geological Survey Professional
Paper 574-D, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Stanley, J. 1996. Combined Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Ram Leather Site,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management, Superfund Section. March.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1990. National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingenet; Plan; Final Rule. 55 Federal Register, No. 46,
March 8, 1990, pp. 8666-8865.
EPA 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, EPA,
Washington D.C. February.
EPA 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. EPA, Environmental
Response Team, Edison, NJ. June 5.
EPA 2000. Remedial InvestigationjFeasibilihJ Study, Ram Leather Site, Mecklenburg
Counh;, North Carolina. March 14.
EPA 2001. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletins-Supplement to RAGS. Website
http://www.epa.gov/region04/waste/ ots/ ecolbul.htm. October 16.
Johnson, W.R. 1994. Technical Assistance Team (TAT), Memorandum to Michael
Taylor, OSC, EPA Region 4. Subject: Ram Leather Care Site, Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. May 23 .
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
0 1-02713202-93611026
,.
4-1
I
I
I . .
I
I
I .
I
I
I
..
I
••
I
I
I dix I
I A
I
0
I
--- -- -
Search Criteria: Mecklenburg, All
Search Results: 40 Records Found
Major Group Scientific Name
Mammal Condylura cristata pop 1
Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus
-
Bird Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus
Fish Carpiodes velifer
Fish Cyprinella zanema pop 1
Fish Etheostoma collis pop 1
Mollusk Alasmidonta robusta
Mollusk Lasmigona decorata
Mollusk Villosa delumbis
Mollusk Villosa vaughaniana
Insect Triaenodes marginata
Moss Rhachithecium perpusillum
Vascular Plant Anemone ber1andieri
Vascular Plant Anemone caroliniana
Vascular Plant Aster georgianus
Vascular Plant Aster mirabilis
Vascular Plant Baptisia albescens
Vascular Plant Botrychium jenmanii
Vascular Plant Cardamine dissecta
Vascular Plant Carex projecta
---
Common Name
Star-nosed Mole -Coastal Plain
Population
Bald Eagle
Loggerhead Shrike
Highfin Carpsucker
Santee Chub -Piedmont
Population
Carolina Darter-central Piedmont
Population
Carolina Elktoe
Carolina Heelsplitter
Eastern Creekshell
Carolina Creekshell
a caddisfly
Budding Tortula
Southern Anemone
Prairie Anemone
Georgia Aster
Piedmont Aster
Thin-pod White Wild Indigo
Alabama Grape Fem
Dissected Toothwort
Necklace Sedge
- --- ---- -
Stale Federal State Rank Global County Status Status Status Rank
SC S2 GST2Q Historic -Mecklenburg -MAP -HABITAT
E LT-PDL S3B,S3N G4 Current -Mecklenburg
~-HABITAT
SC -S3B,S3N GSTS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
SC -S2 G4GS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SR S3 G3T3Q Obscure -Mecklenburg -~-HABITAT
SR FSC S3 G3T3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
EX -sx GX Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
E LE S1 G1 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SR -S3 G4 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SC FSC S2 G2 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SR -S3 G Current -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
C -S1S2 G3 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
C -S1 G4 Histo~c -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
C -S1 G5 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
T FSC S2 G2G3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
C -S2 G2G3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SR -S2 G4 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP -HABITAT
SR -S1 G3G4 Historic -Mecklenburg
~-HABITAT
C -S2 G4 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
C -S1 GS Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
------- ----
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State
Status
Vascular Plant Cirsium carolinianum Carolina Thistle C
Vascular Plant Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur E-SC
Vascular Plant Desmodium sessilifolium Sessile Tick-trefoil C
Vascular Plant Oodecatheon meadia var meadia Eastern Shooting Star SR
Vascular Plant Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower E-SC
Vascular Plant Gnaphalium helleri var helleri Heller's Rabbit Tobacco SR
Vascular Plant Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower E
Vascular Plant Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot SR
Vascular Plant lsoetes virginica Virginia Ouillwort C
Vascular Plant Lotus helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil C
Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac E-SC
Vascular Plant Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant SR
Vascular Plant Silphium terebinthinaceum Prairie Dock C
Vascular Plant Solidago rigida ssp glabrata southeastern Bold Goldenrod SR
Natural Community Basic Oak-Hickory Forest --
Natural Community Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest -(Piedmont Subtype) -
Natural Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial --Forest
Natural Community Upland Depression Swamp Forest --
Natural Community Xeric Hardpan Forest --
Special Habitat Wading Bird Rookery --
Notes:
NC NHP database updated: September 1, 2000. Search performed on Tuesday, December 12, 2000.
Do NOT bookmark this search results page, instead bookmark: www.ncsparks.neVnhp/county.html
-- -- - ---
Federal State Rank Global County Status Status Rank
-S1 GS Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
FSC S1 G3 Historic -Mecklenburg
Mae-HABITAT
-SH GS Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
-S2 GSTS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
LE S1 G2 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
-S2 G4GST3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
~E S2 G2 Current -Mecklenburg
Mae-HABITAT
-S2 GS Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
FSC SRD G1 Historic -Mecklenburg
Mae-HABITAT
FSC S3 GST3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
LE S2 G2 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
-S1 GS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP HABITAT
-S2 G4GS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP -HABITAT
-S2 GST4 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
-S3 G4 Current -Mecklenburg
Mae
S4 GST5 Current -Mecklenburg -Mae
SS GS Current -Mecklenburg -MAP
-S2 G3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
-S3 G3G4 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
-S3 GS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
\
. ~ -.. - - - --· -.iiii liiiiiil == ,!!!!!! OIi - - -·--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Checklist for Ecological Assessment/ Sampling
Ram Leather, Mecklenburg County, 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
!IA. Wooded
IIB. Shrub/Scrub
!IC. Open Field
!ID. Miscellaneous
III. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Non-Flowing Systems
IV. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems
V. Wetlands Habitat Checklist
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-0.2713282-9:W\026
8-1
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
I. Site Description
1. Site Name: Ram Leather
Location: Albemarle Road
County: Mecklenburg City: N/A State: North Carolina
2. Latitude: 35° 13' 41" N (deyminfsec) Longitude: 80° 36' 24.5" W (deyminfsec)
3. What is the approximate area of the site? 10 acres
4. Is this the first site visit? ra' Yes D No
previous site visit(s), if available.
If no, attach trip report of
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? ra' Yes D No
If yes, please attach any available photo(s) to the site map at the conclusion of this
section.
7.
Photos are in the Photo Log, Appendix C. In addition, an aerial photograph is
included in the body of the text as Figure 2-3.
The land use on the site is:
% Urban
50 % Rural
10 % Residential
40 % Industrial (light)
% Agricultural
(Crops:
% Recreational
(Describe; note if it is a park, etc.)
___ %. Undisturbed
___ %. Other .
The area surrounding the site is:
One mile radius
% Urban
20 % Rural
10 % Residential
% Industrial (light)
% Agricultural
(Crops:
% Recreational
(Describe; note if it is a park, etc.)
___ % Undisturbed
% Other ---
)
CDM Federal Progrnms Corporation
01•027/3282·&36/1026
B-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
~ Erosion
□ Mining
D Other
Please describe: The site has been disturbed from grading operations, which
has led to some minor erosion.
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.
No. The site was checked for wetlands and none were identified. In the area to
the south of the site is a pond.
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 on-site visit and maps.
10. What type of facility is located at the site?
D Chemical
D Waste Disposal
~ Manufacturing D Mixing
~ Other (specifi;) Current use of the site is for a
weekend flea market.
11. What are the suspected contaminants of concern at the site? If known, what are
the maximum concentration levels?
Chemicals associated with the treatment of leather products, namely PCE.
12. Check any potential routes of off-site migration of contaminants observed at the
site:
[if Swales
[if Runoff
D Depressions
D Windblown Particulates
D 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 approximately 12 feet below ground surface.
COM Federal Programs Corporation
01•027 /3282-93611026
B-3
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. Is the direction of surface runoff apparent from site observations? il!l' Yes D No
If yes, to which of the following does the surface runoff discharge? Indicate all
that apply. ·
il!l' Surface Water
D Sewer
D Groundwater
D Collection Impoundment
15. Is there a navigable waterbody or tributary to a navigable waterbody?
□ Yes il!l' 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 IV: Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems.
il!l' Yes (Approx. distance-0.75 mile) □ No
17. Is there evidence of flooding? D Yes il!l' 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.]
Harlow, W.1978. TextbookofDendrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, New York. 520 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 Society Nature Guides.
Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. 640 p.
19. Are any threatened and/ or endangered species (plant or animal) known to
inhabit the area of the site?
D Yes il!l' No If yes, you are required to verifiJ 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: _fu:ptember 19. 2001
80 Temperature ("C/'F)
5 mph From West Wind
None Cloud Cover
COM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027/J262-936/ 1 026
85-90 Normal Daily High Temperature
NIA Precipitation (Rain, Snow)
B-4
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
IA. Summary of Observations and Site Setting
Observations at the Ram Leather Site were made on September 19th, 2001. The site is
bordered by the railroad tracks and Albemarle Road to the north, and wooded
residential areas to the south and east. The west boundary is dominated by a mixed
pine/hardwood woodland. The site is approximately 10 acres of mostly areas of
mowed grass and old field vegetation along with one main building. There is quite a
bit of debris, tanks, steel, and other various items directly behind the building and to
the south of the building area. There is a ~rainage pattern that leads from the site to
the southeast and eventually leads to a small pond; however, no freshwater wetlands
were identified on the site.
The wooded and old field portions of the site include Virginia pine (Pinus
virginianus), sumac (Rhus sp.), blackberry (Rubrus sp.), mimosa (Mimosa speciosa),
eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), grape (Vitus sp.), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), September
elm (Ulmus serotina), black cherry (Prunus serotina), flowering dogwood (Camus
Jlorida), hickory (Carya sp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), honey locust (Gleditsia
tricanthos), osage orange (Madura pomifera), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), red oak
(Quercus rubra), blackjack oak (Quercus mariandica), white oak (Quercus alba), and
various wild flowers and weeds. Typical bird species of wooded residential areas
were heard and observed on September 19th including American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern phobe (Sayomis phoebe),
northern mockingbird (Mimus ployglottos), northern grackle (Quiscalus quiscula),
eastern bluebird (Sia/is sialis), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), barn swallow (Hirunda
rustica), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Signs of other types of wildlife were not
obvious. This may be due to the presence of many domestic dogs in the area.·
Approximately 3/ 4 of a mile to the south there is a small pond. This pond is
apparently owned by the same person who owns the former Ram Leather property
and has a dock with a sitting area. The vegetation surrounding this pond was
dominated by floating vegetation to north, rushes, sedges, American sycamore, and
speckled alder (A/nus rugosa). The vegetation changes as you go up from the pond to
grasses and a mixed woodland. The dominant species here include cherry (Prunus
sp.), dogwood (Camus sp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sumac (Rhus sp.), oak
(Quercus sp.), hickory (Can1a sp.), sweetgum, and September elm. Birds identified at
the pond include eastern bluebird, northern cardinal, eastern phoebe, northern
mockingbird, swallows, and rufous-sided towhee (Piplio enjlhrophthalmus). A turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura) was also seen flying over the pond area. It seems that fish are
in the pond as fishing equipment was present. A medium-sized mammal trap was
seen on the edge of the pond, indicating that mammals may be present.
Completed By: _Murra_µ...Wad.~-----
Site Manager: Mike Profit. CDM Federa_l __ _
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02713282-93611021!1
Affiliation: _CT2M___
Date: 9/l.9f_-01 __ _
B-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
II. Terrestrial Habitat Checklist
IIA. Wooded
1. Are there any wooded areas at the site? g Yes O No
Section IIB: Shrub/Scrub.
2. What percentage or area of the site is wooded? (10% 1 acre)
If no, go to
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.
Site inspection, maps, and aerial photograph.
3. What is the dominant type of vegetati~e wooded area?
(Circle one: Evergreen/ Deciduous/~) Provide a photograph, if available.
See Photo Log, Appendix C.
Dominant plant, if known: ____ O=awk.,_,__P~inwe~------
4. What is the predominant size of the trees at the site? Use diameter at breast
height.
0 0-6in. g 6-12 in. 0 >12in.
5. Specify type of understory present, if known. Provide a photograph, if available.
The understory is dominated by various vines, grape vine, and sumac.
IIB. Shrub/Scrub
1. Is shrub/scrub vegetation present at the site? g Yes O No
If no, go to Section !IC: Open Field.
2. What percentage of the site is covered by scrub/ shrub vegetation? (30%
3 acres) . Indicate the areas of shrub/scrub on the site map. Please identify
what information was used to determine this area.
Site inspection, maps, and aerial photograph.
3. What is the dominant type of shrub/ scrub vegetation, if known? Provide a
·photograph, if available.
Old field dominated by sumac, sweetgum, cherry, wildflowers, and weeds.
CDM Federal Progr::i.ms Corporation
01 ·021/3282-93&1 026
B-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
4. What is the approximate average height of the shrub/scrub vegetation?
□ 0-2ft [i( 2-5ft □ >5ft
5. Based on site observations, how dense is the shrub/ scrub vegetation?
D Dense l:i3' Patchy D Sparse
IIC. Open Field
1. Are there open (bare, barren) field areas present at the site? l:i3' Yes D No
If yes, please indicate the type below:
D Prairie/Plains D Savannah □ Old Field
l:i3' Other (specifi;): ----"olill:"'---------------
2. What percentage of the site is open field? --\(4~D~0~Vo~4~a~crue~s,.,_) __
Indicate the open field on the site map.
3. What is/ are the dominant plant(s)? Provide a photograph, if available.
Mixed grasses. See Photo Log. Appendix C.
4. What is the approximate average height of the dominant plant? <6 inches
(mowed)
5. Describe the vegetation cover: D Dense l:i3' Sparse D Patchy
IID. Miscellaneous
1. Are other types of terrestrial habitats present at the site, other than woods,
shrub/scrub, and open field? ·
l:i3' Yes D No If yes, identify and describe them below.
Weed and wildflower habitat adjacent the railroad tracks.
2. Describe the terrestrial miscellaneous habitat(s) and identify these area(s) on the
site map.
Weedy areas near the railroad tracks.
3. .What observations, if any, were made at the site regarding the presence and/ or
absence of insects, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
No tracks, signs, or fish habitat was observed. Various birds and insects were
heard and seen.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
0t,027/3282°93611026
B-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
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
Note: Aquatic systems are often associated witlt wetland ltabitats. Please refer to Section V,
Wetland Habitat Checklist.
1. What type of open-water, non-flowing system is present at the site?
[if 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.)?
Recreational fishing.
4. What is the approximate size of the waterbody(ies)? __ _..1.=-... 2,..a..,cru.e""s'~--
5. Is any aquatic vegetation present? [if Yes D No
If yes, please indicate the type below:
D Emergent D Submergent [if Floating
6. If known, what is the depth of the water?. __ ..,.U.,,nwko..n"'o.,_wn.unc_ _______ _
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)
□ Silt (fine)
D Marl (shells)
[if Clay (slick)
[if Muck (fine/black)
[if Debris
D Detritus
D Concrete
D Other (specifiJ) _____________________ _
8. What is the source of water in the waterbody?
[if River/Stream/Creek
D Industrial Discharge
D Groundwater
[if Surface Runoff
D Other (specifiJ) _______________ _
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01,027/3282·93611026
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
9. Is there a discharge from the site to the waterbody? [il Yes O No
If yes, please describe this discharge and its path.
Intermittent surfa.ce runoff to the south.
10. Is there a discharge from the waterbody? [il Yes O No
If yes, and the information is available, identify from the list below the
environment into which the waterbody discharges.
·[i( River/Stream/Creek □ On-Site [il Off-Site Distance
□ Groundwater □ On-Site □ Off-Site
□ Wetland □ On-Site 0 Off-Site Distance
□ Impoundment □ On-Site □ Off-Site
1 mile
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 depu._ ____ )
Other (specifiJ) ------------------
12. Describe observed color and area of coloration.
Light brown.
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.?
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-02713282-936J1026
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
IV. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems
(Not Applicable)
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 D Artificially Created
(ditch, etc.) D Other (specifiJ) -----------
2. If known, what is the name of the waterbody?
3. For natural systems, are there any indicators of physical alteration (e.g.,
channeling, debris, etc.)?
D Yes D 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) □ Muck (fine/black)
□ Boulder (> 10 in.) □ Silt (fine) □ Debris
□ Cobble (2.5-10 in.) □ Marl (shells) □ Detritus
□ Gravel (0.1-2.5 in.) □ Clay (slick) □ Concrete
□ Other (specifi;)
5. What is the condition of the bank (e.g., height, slope, extent of vegetative cover)?
6. Is the system influenced by tides? D Yes D No
If yes, please describe indicators that were observed.
7. Is the flow intermittent? D Yes D 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? D Yes D No
If yes, please describe the discharge and its path.
9. Is there a discharge from the waterbody? D Yes D No
If yes, and the information is available, please identify what the water body
discharges to and whether the discharge is on-site or off-site.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
01-027/3282-93611 026
B-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist far Ecological Assessments/Sampling
10. Identify any field measurements and observations d 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 reaqing was taken)
pH
______ Dissolved Oxygen
_____ Salinity
_____ Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque)
(Secchi disk depuL _____ )
_____ Other (specifi;) ------------------
11. Describe observed color and area of coloration.
12. Is any aquatic vegetation present? D Yes D No
If yes, please identify the type of vegetation present, if known.
D Emergent D Submergent D Floating
13. Mark the flowing water system on the attached site map.
14. What observations were made at the waterbody regarding the presence and/ or
absence of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?
V. Wetland Habitat Checklist (Not Applicable)
1. Based on observations and/ or available information, are designated or known
wetlands definitely present at the site?
D 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.
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?
D Yes D No If yes, proceed with the remainder of the wetland habitat
identification checklist.
CDM Federal Programs Corpormion
01-02713282-936/1 025
8-11
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 type(s) of vegetation are present in the wetland?
D Submergent
□ Shrub/Scrub
D Emergent
D 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.
5. Is standing water present? D Yes D No If yes, is this water.
D Fresh D Brackish
What is the approximate area of the water (sq. ft.)? _______ _
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 D 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
□ Flooding
D Other (describe below)
D Surface Runoff
8. Is there a discharge from the site to a known or. suspected wetland?
D Yes D No If yes, please describe.
9. Is there a discharge from the wetland? D Yes D No
If yes, to what water body is discharge released?
D Surface Stream/River
D Lake/Pond
D Groundwater
D Marine
10. If a soil sample .vas collected, describe the appearance of the soil in the wetland
area. Circle or write in the best response .
. Color (blue/ gray, brown, black, mottled) _____________ _
Water content (dry, wet, saturated/unsaturated) ___________ _
11. Mark the observed wetland area(s) on the attached site map.
CDM Federal Pr~gram~ Corporation
01·027/3282·931311026
B-12
I
I
·1
I .
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
·I
I ndix I C I
••
·1
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-3. Ram Leather property from the east.
Photo C-4. MW-2 with railroad tracks in the background.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-5. The rear of Ram Leather building from MW-1 .
Photo C-6. View of tfte rear of the main building from MW-1.
COM Federal Programs Corporation
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-7. Old well behind Ram Leather building.
Photo C-8. New well behind Ram Leather building.
CDM Federal Prn!(rams C'.,orporarion
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-9. Tanks behind building on the west side of the property.
Photo C-10. Diesel fuel spill.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM Federal Programs Corporation
Photo C-11 . Leaking tank.
Photo C-12. Debris near MW-3.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM Federal Programs Corpomtion
Photo C-13. Debris and mobile trailer.
Photo C-14. Flatbed trailer with steel debris.
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-15. Abandoned tanks behind Ram Leather building.
Photo C-16. Abandoned tanks on west edge of property,
adjacent to pine/hardwood forest.
COM Federal Programs Corporation
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-17. South side of Ram Leather building.
Photo C-18. From southeast, looking at the Ram Leather site.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
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
Photo C-19. A weed and old field area on the east side of the site.
Photo C-20. View of the driveway at the front (north) entrance.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Appendix C
Photo Log
C-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-21. View of the northern portion of the site with railroad to the right.
Photo C-22. View of current operations looking west.
Appendix C
Photo Log
COM Federal Programs Corporarion C-11
I
I Distribution List
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Region 4 Remedial Project Manager/Beverly Hudson
USEP A Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
[phone]
COM Federal Project Manager/Mike Profit
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
[phone]
COM Federal Project Ecologist/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