NCD982096653_20020412_Ram Leather Care Site_FRBCERCLA RISK_Screening-Level Steps 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ram Leather Site
Mecklenburg County
Charlotte, North Carolina
April 2002
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
I
I
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED ..... .
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISP01.1T;;;St!Et-·if·u·n17-
Prepared for: Ii )) r ---.... ··-l'/ IE ~-J
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC/1 i > ··11
REGION 4 /', ' . APR 2 9 2002 !Ji
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Prolection Agency under Contract No. 68-{.vS~o9di. .. T}l€ µ-t3tepat_contained ... _J
herein is not to be <li~losed t?,_ discussed with, o_r made available t~ any person or persons for any rcJsg_n_~!th~~t' ~e J?~Of -~-~p_?'~S~~ •1,; ON
approval of a responsible off1cial of the U.S. Env1ronmcntal Protection Agency. -· · • "' .'. ___ ... _. :...:/ ::.:..:__J
SCREENING-LEVEL STEPS 1-2
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
RAM LEATHER SITE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL2002
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-WS-0022
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 936-RICO-0419
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. 3282-936-RT-RISK-14250
Prepared B;: ~--1_,__fai ___________ Date:
,Irr Mur(ay Wade
Project Ecologist
''[ G !') 11 Approved By: V ;( V I..... /vv 1~
Mike Profit 7
Project Manager
Prepared by:
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Date:
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 ............................ 2-18
2.1.4 Potential Ecological Receptors ............................... 2-20
2.1.5 Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints ......... 2-21
2.2 Screening-Level Ecological Effects Evaluation ........................ 2-21
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 .......... 3-11
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
COM
Appendix A Ecological Screening Tables
Appendix B Checklist for Ecological Assessment/Sampling
Appendix C Photo Log
Appendix D North Carolina Superfund, 1995 Surface Water and Sediment Sample
Tables
02-01 S/3282-93610403
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures
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 ........................................ 2-6
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 Off-Site Surface Water and Sediment Locations ....................... 2-14
2-9 Soil and Water Sampling Locations (April 1999) ...................... 2-16
2-10 Surface Soil Samples (April 1999) ................................... 2-17
2-11 Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Ram Leather ....................... 2-19
COM iii
02-01 S/3282-936/0,103
,,
I Tables
I
I
,I
,I
,1,
I
I.
:I
I ,,
'I
ii
:1
I
:1
:I
I
cavl
3-1
3-2
02-0I S/3282-938.ICM03
Screening of cores for Soil ......................................... 3-2
Summary of cores Retained from the SERA .......................... 3-8
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ams!
AST
BERA
BNA
CCME
COM Federal
CERCLA
CFR
core
CSM
OQO
EC
EPA
ERA
ETAG
HQ
NCP
ORNL
PCB
PCE
SAP
SERA
SMOP
svoc
T&E
TAT
TCE
USFWS
uses
'VOC
CDM
above mean sea level
above ground storage tank
baseline ecological risk assessment
base/neutral/acid extractable compound
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
COM Federal Programs Corporation
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
Code of Federal Regulations
chemicals of potential concern
conceptual site model
data quality objectives
exposure concentration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ecological risk assessment
Ecological Technical Assistance Group
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
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 1
Introduction
CDM Federal Programs 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 Assess/llcnt Guidance for Supcrfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assess/llents (Process Document) (EPA 1997) was used for
determining potential ecological risk associated with any potential residual
contamination at the Ram Leather 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
Fra/llework for Ecological Risk Assess/llent (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).
1-1
02-01513282-93610403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I COM
Sec/ion 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 end points
■ Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
Screening-Level Exposure Estimates
Screening-Level Risk Calculations
Uncertainty Analyses
Selection of ecological chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)
1.1 Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process
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.
1-2
02-01513262-936/0403
I
:I
I
I
I
,I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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
adve_rse effects based on the data analysis, which is presented as the risk
1-3
02·015/3282-93610403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
:I
I
I
I
COM
Section 1
Introduction
characterization. It also includes consideration of uncertainties and ecological
significance of risks in view of the types and magnitude of effects, spatial and
temporal patterns, and likelihood of recovery.
Step 8 results in a SMDP discussing significant risks, recommended cleanup (if any),
and future efforts.
1.2 Project Objectives
The objectives of an 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 little 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 CO PCs, or Step 3a of the eight-step ERA process.
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem
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 24/271 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 cleaner 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
02.01 51J232-9:l6JO.t03
-------------------
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
CDM
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ~ RAM LEATHER SITE ~
Area Location Map
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '-...
NOT TO SCALE
Figure No.
2-1
04/02
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
\
\
\
/
/
/
\
\
\
/ ----\
/ \
\
\
\
\
\
/ -,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Parnell O \
----------.,,. ,,
\
\
\
/
/ ,. / ..
\
\
\
\
Septic
Tank
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
)(
/
/ "
/
/ " Legend
-t+H-,-
0
Septic Drain Field
Property Boundary
Railroad
200 400
Scale In Feet
/
/
/
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
CDM
~ ..
/
,,. . .•· I
,,, I
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
" " " " "'
0 Glosson
I
L
I
I
I
--
/
/
/
--7
I
I
I
I
.J
/
/
/
Adapted from: htlp.llmaps.co.mecklenburg.nc.usltaxgsldlsclaimer.htm
Figure No.
Site Vicinity Map 2-2
04/02
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALBEMARLE ROAD
0 MW-1
SEPTIC
TANK
NEW
WELL
0
OLD q
WEL-=r---,L I I
LEGEND
DRUM
AREA
0MW-3
PRESUMED
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
0 MONITORING WELL
1111111 RAILROAD
SEPTIC
DRAIN
FIELD
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
CDIVI
I
0 MW-2
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
PAD
EXISTING BLDG
SEPTIC LINE
EXISTING
CRUSHED STONE
PARKING
SEPTIC
DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
O 33' -66'
J
Site Features Map
20'
CRUSHED STONE
ROAD EXISTING
i:: .. ,,/4
"' ~ 0 "· {' .... ... ~ "· I , , ,::j _.,,
"-~ ,.,
SOURCE: NCOEHNR1996
Figure No.
2-3
04/02
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.1.1.1 Drainages
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
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 intermittent overland flow pa ths for site drainage (see
Figure 2-4). 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 fl ows intermittently south and enters,a
pond 1,000 feet to the south. The pond is 200 feet long. Several springs emerge 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 groundwa ter divide. Given the
complexity of the bedrock at the s ite, 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 predominantly forest. 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 w etland 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 mos tly areas
of mowed grass and old field vegetation along with one main building. There is quite
a bit of debris, tanks, steel, and o ther various items directly behind the building and
to the south of the building area. There is an intermittent 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, h owever. A habitat map is shown as Figure 2-5.
CDNI 2-s
02-01513282-93611)403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOWELL'S MAIN FACILITY
□
C)
~ Q'.
C) w i
□ HOWELL'S DAYCARE FACILITY
WATSON HOME
6 □ WATSON BODY SHOP
NEAREST WELL
I □
PARNELL
, I ·, 1 ,_, h Ht--< t It, 1 1 t t , 1---t <-I ~ 1--1-I I I
D
□
TUCKER HOMES
Ni~r:.:~l I ,j} .__'
FUEL TANK \_t-" '-RA □ GLOSSON
:,c
~ ( ) ... ~o.
DEMOLITION LANDFILL // ON ADJACENT PROPERTY
LEGEND \
SEPTIC HOLDING TANK
SEPTIC FIELD
PILE OF DEBRIS, SOIL
□
IVEY
GRAVEL ROAD
INTERMITTENT SURFACE
WATER DRAINAGE
\ RAM LEATHER PROPERTY LINE
-l' MONITORING WELL
I I I I I I I RAILROAD
0 LOCATION \II/ITH WELL
NOTTO SCALE
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
CDNI
Private Wells
in Site Vicinity
SOURCE: NCDEHNR1996
Figure No.
2-4
04/02
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Legend
+t+++-
D
D
D
D
Septic Drain Field
Property Boundary
Railroad
Pathway
Weeds/Grass Area
Old Field Area
Grass Area
Wooded Area
Ram Leather
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Charlotte, North Carolina Site Habitat Map
CDNI
Figure No.
2-5
04/02
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
The wooded and old field portions of the site include Virginia pine (Pi nus
virgininnus), sumac (Rl1Us sp.), blackberry (Rubrus sp.), mimosa (Mimosa speciosn),
eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), grape (Vitus sp.), greenbriar (Smilnx sp.), September
elm (Ulmus serotina), black cherry (Prunus serotinn), flowering dogwood (Cornus
Jloridn), hickory (Cnn;n sp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), honey locust (Gleditsin
tricnnthos), osage orange (Maclurn pomifera), southern red oak (Quercus fnlcatn), red oak
(Quercus rubrn), blackjack oak (Quercus marinndicn), white oak (Quercus nlba), and
various wild flowers and weeds. Typical bird species of wooded residential areas
were heard and observed on September 19th including American crow (Corvus
bmchyrhynchos), summer tanager (Pirangn rubrn), northern cardinal (Cnrdinalis
cnrdinnlis), Carolina wren (Tlm;othorus ludovicianu s), eastern phoebe (Snyornis phoebe),
northern mockingbird (Mi mus ployglottos), northern grackle (Quiscalus quisculn),
eastern bluebird (Sialis sialis), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), barn swallow(Hirundn
rusticn), and blue jay (Cynnocitta cristntn). 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 p ond. This p ond is
apparently owned by the same person w ho 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 (Pru nus
sp.), dogwood (Cornu s sp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifem), sumac (Rhus sp.), oak
(Quercus sp.), hickory (Cnn;n 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;throphtlwlmus). A turkey
vulture (Cathnrtes 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 compan y 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).
2-8
02•015/3282·9W0403
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
In 1991 it was also discovered that wastes had been put into a metal dumps ter 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 u sed.
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
su ggested 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 behali of the site
owner. The investigation was d esigned 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). 1,1,1-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 w ere 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).
CDM 2.9
02-01513282-938/0403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALBEMARLE ROAD
0 MW-1
(B-11)
B-2 •
CONCRETE
PAD I
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
PAD
0 MW-2
(BW-12)
EXISTING BLDG
SEPTIC LINE
EXISTING
CRUSHED STONE
PARKING
PRESUMED./'!----+--------------,
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
0 MW-3 8-6
LEGEND
e BORE SAMPLES
0 MONITORING WELL
I I I I I I I RAILROAD
SEPTIC
DRAIN
FIELD
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
• 8-4.
8-7·
8-3
SEPTIC
DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
0 33' 66'
-I
Bold Research Labs
Sample Locations
20'
CRUSHED STONE
ROAD EXISTING
~ ,.,~/4
0: 0 ~ ~. I .... ~" j ,'\,
"-~ "
SOURCE: NCDEHNR1996
Figure No.
2-6
04/02
2-10
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
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
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 Br~nch 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 (SVOCs) (Johnson 1994).
Surface soil samples showed trace quantities of PCE and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in
SS-01 (near the former drum storage area) (see Figure 2-7). Higher quantities of
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were found in SS-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, 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, cis-1,2-DCE at 724 g/L, and TCE at
254 g/L.
CDNI 2-11
02-015/3282-9JeXM03
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALBEMARLE ROAD
0 MW-1
e SS-04
SEPTIC
TANK
NEW
WELL
0
OLD SS-03 ~ WEL.:L ___ •_..,
• SS-02
LEGEND
DRUM
AREA
SS-01 •---.:....a
0 MW-3
PRESUMED
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
SEPTIC
DRAIN
FIELD
e SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
0 MONITORING WELL
1111111 RAILROAD
I
CONCRETE
PAD I
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carnlina
0 MW-2
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
PAD
EXISTING BLDG
SEPTIC LINE
EXISTING
CRUSHED STONE
PARKING
SEPTIC
DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
0 33' -66'
I
20'
CRUSHED STONE
ROAD EXISTING
SOURCE: NCOEHNR1996
Figure No.
EPA Technical Assistance
Team Sample Locations
2-7
04/02
2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
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 drainage route, one from the southern drainage
route, and one background from a pond west of the site, were collected. The results
from these samples are presented in Tables D-1 and D-2 in Appendix D. Sample
locations are shown on Figure 2-8. Each sample 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. Several 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 follow-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 rem oval 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 d esign, 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.
2-13
02-01513282-93&'0'03
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RL-013-SW/SD #
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
aJM
• RL-010-SW/SD
....
J
RL-007-SW/SD
Off-Site Surface Water and
Sediment Locations
\ \ rt -t
I l
LEGEND
• Surface water/
sediment sample
Railroad
0 5000 1000 1500
~---1 Approx. scale in feet
Figure No.
2-8
04/02
2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
Surface soil and subsurface soil, potable water, and groundwater samples w ere
collected. Grab and composite samples were collected from locations shown in
Figure 2-9 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 2-10 illustrates surface soil samples that were collected both on the site and in
the site vicinity.
Conclusions
Based upon the data coll ected 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 Wa ter: 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 p otable wells sh owed evidence of
contamination.
■ Groundwater: VOCs were not detected in the three on-site shallow mo nitoring
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 d eep aquifer has not been sufficiently investigated to determine the extent of
PCE contamination. Limited information on the depth of several contaminated
potable wells indica tes that contamination of the deep aquifer is a problem. The
known depths of three of the contaminated potable w ells are 250 feet (Parnell),
270 feet (Glosson), and 510 feet (on-site deep well).
■ Surface Soil: Data generated during this investigation indicate that chlorinated
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.
2-15
02.(1 I S/3232-936/'0403
I {
I // /
Tucker c::> ( \ \ ,,_0 l I PW0089 ' -~
/ • / • -.,_<-&q; / ;s-0
\ / \/ / ,l' -1\ -
\ / ,,f
I ( / "
.;t• ,,._oq;, l \ ~
\ \ / " x/ \ <
I \ \ / \ " ,/
\ / \ " \ /'-
\ \ / \ "' I V y \ "' \ / \ \ / ~ei\tosO \ "' Parnell \/ \l\et1' ) I \ PW0011 •/ )'I-',fl\) \__ > /\
/ ~~"'° \ ,// \ / -\
I / I 7
\ / I V \
/ I / VG--I / \
I
PW0113 I /
I I / / 0 ,> I
I MW0022 I I .. ,..,\J o / \ 0 I j I . / ~
I -----\011 DS001'tA_ -J --------• / ---------D'MJ011 ....,,,. ----e DS0043A / ----I \ '. . I -DS0022A -.
\ DS0054A
I / 0 200 400
Scale in Feet
I ~
/ "' Legend
\ • I DS0076A / • Soil Sample
(approx locat,on) "' \ "' 0 Monitoring Well
0 MW0033 • • Private/Drinking Water Well
I \ ' SS0033A "' • <> Septic Drain Field SS0055A SS0044A • ,,.,\)◊ "' \
---Property Boundary
"' I 11 Railroad I \ P'N00312 "' • Note: DS0037A is a split of DS0022A.
/
I \ / Ram Leather Figure No.
/ Charlotte, North Carolina Soil and Water Sampling Locations 2-9
0 200 400 (April 1999) I Scale in Feet / 04/02
I 2-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<
\
\
\
/ / . \--\\Y"
/ . 0(\\ '(\ '
/ / ).-\\\'0' .
/ '
/
\
ND0011A • .ssoo21A
DS0043Ae • DS0022A
\
\ • OS0076A
(approx location)
(approx 18 ft
from par1<ing)
(Oao
0\~"\0\¥-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ • SS0033A
Legend
\
\
Septic Drain Field
Property Boundary
+++++-Railroad
\
\
\
Monitoring Well Location
• Soil Sampling Location
\
Note: DS0037A is a split of DS0022A.
\
Ram Leather
Charlotte, North Carolina
aJM
\
\
.,
SS0055A SS0044A •
\
\
\
\ /
\ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
400 / 0 200
,-~---~Sca-le■i~n ~Fee-I -~~-~
Adapted from: http://maps.co.mecklenburg. nc. uSltaxgisldisclaimer. him
Surface Soil Samples
{April 1999)
Figure No.
2-10
04/02
2-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
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.
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 pa th way 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 2-11) was 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 2-11) as 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 COPCs; therefore, it seems there is no complete exposure pathway to
aquatic receptors.
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
2-18
Figure 2-11. 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.
Surface Water Runoff From Soils Creeks/Ponds Direct Contact/
Ingestion
Surface Soil Surface Soil Direct Contact/ • • Contamination Ingestion
Surface
Soil Surface Soil Contaminated Ingestion of
Contamination Prey Contaminated • •
Prey Items
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
m
I
COM
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
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 are discussed in the risk characterization
section of this SERA.
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 including
contamination in at least three private wells. In addition, it has been found that
limited soil contamination is present at the Ram Leather site.
2.1.3.2 Environmental media impacted
Environmental media that were impacted by the release of contaminants include:
■ soil
■ groundwater
2.1.3.3 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
2-20
02·0\513282-936/0-403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Step 1: Screening-Level Problem Fonnulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
■ 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 species 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
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 values 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 CO PCs require additional evaluation. The soil
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).
Cl)I\/I 2-21
02-01 513282-9l6f0.'03
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
,I
I
I,
I
I
COM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate
and Risk Calculation
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 equal to or greater than one is interpreted as a level at which adverse
ecological effects may occur; however, there is no indication of the magnitude of
those effects. Table 3-1 shows the screening-level evaluations for soils at the Ram
Leather sfre. 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 retained for further consideration in the ERA
process.
3-1
02·0151'32!2•9l6/0<I0J
-
--
-
Table 3-1
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
-
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium'
Chromium
,Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium'
Manganese
Nickel
Potassiumr
Selenium
Silver
Sodium'
Thallium
Total Mercury
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4"•DDD (p,p'-DDD)
4,4'-DDE (p,p'•DDE)
4,4'·DDT (p,p'-DDT)
Total DOD, DOE, DDT
Aldrin
Afpha-BHC
Alpha-Chlordane
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
!!!!I
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
Detects! Detected
Sam[]les Concentration
14114 21000
0/14 ND
13/14 5.8
14/14 92.0
14/14 1.0
0/14 ND
14/14 4400.0
14114 130.0
14114 69.0
14114 82.0
14114 73000
13114 160
14114 4100.0
14/14 560.0
14/14 15
14/14 790
1/14 0.8
14114 4
14114 370
0114 ND
0/14 ND
14114 270
14/14 140
5/14 540
4/14 24
0114 ND
589
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
iiiii, -
Sample ID of
Detected Maximum
Concentration Detected
Qualifier Ranqe Concentration
lnorganics (mg/kg)
-,~OOc-21000 550055A
ND .f,• 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
-3.8-69 DS0076A
-' 23-82 SS0055A
-28000-73000 SS0055A
-11-160 DS0022A
-710-4100 DU0012
J 88-560 550021A
-4.3-15 DS0022A
J 160-790 SS0021A
J 0.78-0.78 SS0021A
-1.8-3.6 SS0055A
-160-370 DS0076A
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
-94-270 SS0055A
J 1/;-140 DS0022A
Pesticides (µg/kg)
C 11 II ,4'.7-540 DS0037A
-I\\\ 1,8'.'.24.--DS0037A
-ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND2.200
-ND ND
-ND ND
-ND ND
----- -
Sample ID EPA Region 4
Maximum of Maximum Chronic
Detection Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
-ND 50 420.00 Yes
0.650 DS0043A 3.5 0.19 No
2.100 DU0012 10 0.58 No
-ND 165 0.56 No
-ND 1.1 0.89 No
0.100 DU0012 1.6 0.06 No
-ND NV NV Yes
-ND 0.4 325.00 Yes
-ND 20 ) 3.45 Yes
-ND 40 2.05 Yes
-ND 200 365.00 Yes
-ND \ 50 3.20 Yes
-ND NV NV Yes
-ND 100 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 SS0055A 0.1 1.00 Yes
-ND 2 135.00 Yes
-ND 50 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 S 0.88 No
2.200 SS0044A (@)l· .022 No
8.500 SS0044A 100 .085 No
2.200 SS0044A <@)I .022 No
2.200 SS0044A 100 .022 No
-_, --· -
Table 3-1 (continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Chemical
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I (alpha)
Endosulfan II (beta)
Endosu1fan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
Gamma-Chlordane
HeptaChlor
Heptachlor 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
Toxaphene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo{k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
-
Ratio of
Number of
Detects/
Samnles
1114
0/14
0/14
0/14
0114
1/14
0/14
0114
3/14
1/14
0/14
0/14
0114
0114
0114
0114
0/14
0114
0/14
2114
0/14
0/14
0114
0/14
0/14
1/14
0/14
0114
0/14
0114
1 /14
l!:!S c;;a
Maximum Detected
Detected Concentration
Concentration Qualifier Ranqe
Pesticides t11n/kr
3 J 2,8....U
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
1 J 1,4-1,4-
ND -ND
ND -ND
12 -I/ J.3-12-
3 -3.3-3.3·
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
ND -ND
338.0 " 1300 -36M3UO
PAHs (µg/kg)
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
63 J 63-63
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
43 J 43-43
----.. -
Sample ID of Sample ID EPA Region 4
Maximum Maximum of Maximum Chronic
Detected Detection Detection Screening
Concentration Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
DS0054A 41.000 SS0044A 0.5 82.00 Yes
ND 2.200 SS0044A 100 .022 No
ND 4.200 SS0044A 100 .042 No
ND 4.200 SS0044A 100 .042 No
ND 4.200 SS0044A 1 4.20 Yes
ND0011A 4.200 SS0044A 100 .042 No
ND 4.200 SS0044A 100 .042 No
ND 2.200 SS0044A 0.05 44.00 Yes
DS0065A 2.200 SS0044A 100 .022 No
DS0065A 2.200 SS0044A 100 .022 No
ND 2.200 SS0044A 100 .022 No
ND 22.000 SS0044A 100 .022 No
ND 42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
ND 86.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
ND 42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
ND 42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
ND 42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
ND 42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
ND 42.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
20 16.90 Yes
DS0037A 220.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
ND 420.000 SS0033A 20000 0.02 No
ND 420.000 SS0033A 20000 0.02 No
ND 420.000 SS0033A 100 4.20 Yes
ND 420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
ND 420.000 SS0033A 100 4.20 Yes
ND0011A 420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
ND 420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
ND 420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
ND 420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
ND 420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
DS0011A 420.000 SS0033A 100 0.43 No
Table 3-1 {continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Chemical
Fluorene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
(3-andlor 4-)Methylphenol
1, 2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
2,4 ,6-T richlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2, 6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4-BrOmophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Ch/orophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroohenol
--
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
Detects/ Detected
Samnles Concentration
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
1/14 45
5191
0114 ND.
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
--- -
Sample ID of
Detected Maximum
Concentration Detected
Qualifier Ranae Concentration
PAHs '""/kal
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
J 45-45 DS0011A
Semivolatiles (µg/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
- ----... -
Sample ID EPA Region 4
Maximum of Maximum Chronic
DeteCtion Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
420.000 SS0033A 30000 0.01 No
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 100 4.20 Yes
420.000 SS0033A 100 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
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A 4000 0.28 No
420.000 SS0033A 10000 0.04 No
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A •.• NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A 20000 0.06 No
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 10 42.00 Yes
1100.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
-ND NV NV Yes
420.000 550033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
1100.000 SS0033A 7000 0.16 No
==
'!' 01
=-· liiil - -
Table 3-1 (continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Chemical
Benzy/ butyl phthalate
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroeth yl) ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis/2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octyfphthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexach/oroethane
lsophorone
Naphthalene
Nitro benzene
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N~Nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2· Trichloroethane
1, 1-Dich/oroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
1,2-0ichloroethane
1, 2-Dich/oroethene (total)
1,2-Dichloropropane
Acetone
Benzene
- - ----
Ratio of Sample ID of
Number of Maximum Detected Maximum
Detects/ Detected Concentration Detected
Samnles Concentration Qualifier Ranqe Concentration
Semivolatiles l11n/k "1
0114 ND ND ND ND
0114 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
3/14 2400 -610-2400 DS0022A
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0114 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0114 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
Volatiles (µglkg)
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0114 ND ND ND ND
0114 ND ND ND ND
0114 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
0/14 ND ND ND ND
- -- --.. -
-Sample ID EPA Region 4
Maximum of Maximum Chronic
Detection Detection Screening
Limit Limit Value HQ COPC
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 NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 100000 < 0.01 No
420.000 SS0033A 200000 < 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 SS0033A NV NV Yes
420.000 SS0033A 10000 0.04 No
420.000 SS0033A NV NV Yes
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 50 8.40 Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 550044A 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 700000 < 0.01 No
13.000 SS0044A NV NV Yes
13.000 SS0044A 50 0.26 No
--
Table 3-1 (continued)
Screening of COPCs for Soil
Ram Leather Site
Chemical
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
trans•1,3•Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Acronyms:
ND Result was not detected
NV No values
NR No result reported
µg/kg
mg/kg
Footnotes:
Micrograms per kilogram
Milligrams per kilogram
1 Essential nutrient
&iii --
Ratio of
Number of Maximum
Detects/ Detected
Samnles Concentration
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0114 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
5/14 110
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
- -- ------
Sample ID of Sample ID EPA Region 4
Detected Maximum Maximum of Maximum Chronic
Concentration Detected Detection Detection ~creening
Qualifier Ranqe Concentration Limit Limit Value HQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Volatiles rua/ka:
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 1000000 < 0.01
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 50 0.26
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 1 13.00
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 50 0.26
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 100 0.13
2-110 DS0054A 13.000 SS0044A 10 11.00
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 50 0.26
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 50 0.26
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A NV NV
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 1 13
ND ND 13.000 SS0044A 10 1.30
Qualifiers:
J Estimated result
N Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
R QC indicates that data unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resampling and
reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
.. -
COPC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
CDM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Leve/ Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
3.2_1 Surface Soils
3.2.1.1 Metals
There were 19 inorganic metals detected at the Ram Leather site. Of these,
14 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 2-10), 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 2-10). 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.
Two.non-detected metals were retained as COPCs (total mercury and thallium) as
their detection limits exceeded the EPA Region 4 screening values.
A total of seven metals were eliminated and will no longer be considered CO PCs. A
total of 16 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 tank (Figure 2-10). Of these, three were retained as COPCs. Two (total DDD,
DDT, DDE and dieldrin) were retained because HQs exceeded one. The third,
toxaphene, was retained due to the lack of a EPA Region 4 screening value. Three
(endrin aldehyde, gamma-chlordane, and heptachlor) were eliminated due to HQs
below one.
Some of the pesticides listed in Table 3-1 were retained even though they were not
detected. Endrin, gamma-BHC (i.e., lindane), and total PCBs were retained due to the
detection limits exceeding the Region 4 screening values. The other non-detected
compounds were eliminated because HQs were less than one.
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ft
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-2
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
Summary of CO PCs Retained from SERA
Compounds Sorted by Media-Soil
Ram Leather Site
lnoraanics
Aluminum
Calcillm"
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron·
Lead.
Magnesiuma
Manganese
Potassium"
Silver
Sodium~
O.liallium
Ctotal~ury
Vanadium
Zinc·
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD (P,P'-000)
4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE)
4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT)
Total DOD, ODE. DDT
Dieldrin
I Endrin
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Toxaohene
• Essential Nutrient
Notes:
Bold -Detected compounds
COM
PCBs
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Total PCBs
PAHs
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benz(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene
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 (tptal)
Acetone
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochlorometharie
Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
trans-1,3-Dichloronropene
~richloroethen"t)
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-0ichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
Benzyl butyl phthalate
bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-Ethythexyl)phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
di-n-Octylphthalate
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
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
CDIIII
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
A list of pesticides and PCBs 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 surface soil sample at
the same location (O50011A) (Figure 2-10). 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 COPC because there is
no Region 4 screening value available. ·
No other PAHs were detected, however, nine additional individual PAHs were
retained as COPCs (Table 3-1). This is because three had detection limits which
exceeded Region 4 values and six had no Region 4 screening values. Total PAHs
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 SVOC [bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate] was detected at the Ram Leather site.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in samples O50022A, O50054A, and
O50065A, all behind the main building to the west (Figure 2-10). Most SVOCs, even
though not detected, were retained as CO PCs. In two cases detection limits exceeded
screening values, however, by and large the majority of the non-detected SVOCs
were retained due to the lack of an available Region 4 screening value (see Table 3-1).
A list of SVOCs 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.,
PCE) contamination in the groundwater of the area. The only VOC detected turned
out to be PCE. It was detected in five (DS00llA, O50022A, D50037 A, O50054A, and
O50065A) out of 14 samples, with the highest concentration being found at O50054A
(110 µg/kg) (Figure 2-10). This maximum detection resulted in an HQ of 11 when
compared to the EPA Region 4 screening value of 10 µg/kg. Only one of the 14
samples had a detected value above the EPA Region 4 screening value. All four of
the other samples that detected PCE were at levels below the 10 µg/kg screening
value.
Besides PCE, no other VOC was detected in surface soil at the Ram Leather site.
Many other VOCs were retained, however. Three 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
nine chemicals were eliminated from further consideration because detection limits
were below screening values resulting in HQs below one (Table 3-1).
3-9
02-015132-'2-936/0403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIVI
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Leve/ Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
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 2-10).
A list of voes 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 fact that sediment and surface
water samples in the drainages detected no site-related chemicals (see Appendix D).
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 eores because of the small sample size used to characterize (via
laboratory confirmation sampling) any current, post-remediation, and residual soil
contamination.
3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Leve/ Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
3.3.3 Uncertainties Associated with the Effects Assessment
For surface soils, screening-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.
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 risk.
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 CO PCs that have been retained, most of the detected
COPCs 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
3-11
02-015132!2-93610403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 3
Step 2: Screening-Leve/ Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
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.
Since the time (1999) when the samples have been collected that were used in this
SERA, it s~ems 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 Band C.
An SMDP meeting is recommended to be held after EPA Region 4 representatives
have reviewed this Ram Leather Step 1-2 document.
3-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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 Preliminan; 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 Contingency Pinn; Finni Rule. 55 Federal Register, No. 46,
March 8, 1990, pp. 8666-8865.
EPA 1992. Frnmeworkfor Ecologicnl Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, EPA,
Washington D.C. February.
EPA 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superftmd: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. EPA, Environmental
Response Team, Edison, NJ. June 5.
EPA 2000. Remedial InvestigationfFeasibilihJ 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.
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix A
I Ecological Screening
I Tables
I
I
I
I
I
B
u
n
11
I
--- - --
Search Criteria: Mecklenburg, All
Search Results: 40 Records Found
Major Group Scientific Name.
Mammal Condylura cristata pop 1
Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus
- - - -
Common Name
Star~nosed Mole -Coastal Plain
Population
Bald Eagle
Bird Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike
Fish Carpiodes velifer Highfin Carpsucker
Fish Cyprinella zanema pop 1 Santee Chub -Piedmont Population
Fish Etheostoma corns pop 1 Carolina Darter -Central Piedmont
Population
Mollusk Alasmidonta robusta Carolina Elktoe
Mollusk Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter
Mollusk Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell
Mollusk Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell
Insect Triaenodes marginata a caddisfly
Moss Rhachithecium perpusmum Budding Tortu1a
Vascular Plant Anemone berlandieri Southern Anemone
Vascular Plant Anemone caroliniana Prairie Anemone
Vascular Plant Aster georgianus Georgia Aster
Vascular Plant Aster mirabilis Piedmont Aster
Vascular Plant Baptisia albescens Thin-pod White Wild Indigo
Vascular Plant Botrychium jenmanii Alabama Grape Fern
Vascular Plant Cardamine dissecta Dissected T oothwort
Vascular Plant Carex projecta Necklace Sedge
- -- - -- ---
State Federal State Rank Global County Status Status Status Rank
SC S2 GST2Q Historic-Mecklenburg -MAP-HABITAT
E LT-PDL S3B,S3N G4 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SC -S3B,S3N GSTS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SC -S2 G4GS Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
SR -S3 G3T3Q Obscure -Mecklenburg
MAP-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 G.4 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 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
C -S1 GS 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
MAP-HABITAT
C -S2 G4 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
C -S1 GS Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
liii ---- - - - - -
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name
Vascular Plant Cirsium carolinianum Carolina Thistle
Vascular Plant Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur
Vascular Plant Oesmodium sessillfolium Sessile Tick•trefoil
Vascular Plant Dodecatheon meadia var meadia Eastern Shooting Star
Vascular Plant Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower
Vascular Plant Gnaphalium helleri var helleri Heller's Rabbit Tobacco
Vascular Plant Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower
Vascular Plant Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot
Vascular Plant lsoetes virginica Virginia Quillwort
Vascular Plant Lotus helleri Carolina Birdfoot•trefoil
Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac
Vascular Plant Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup.plant
Vascular Plant Silphium terebinthinaceum Prairie Dock
Vascular Plant Solidago rigida ssp glabrata Southeastern Bold Goldenrod
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.net/nhp/county.html
State
Status
C
E-SC
C
SR
E-SC
SR
E
SR
C
C
E-SC
SR
C
SR
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -- - -- --
Federal State Rank Global County Status Status Rank
-S1 G5 Historic-Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
FSC S1 G3 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP -HABITAT
-SH G5 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
-S2 G5T5 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
LE S1 G2 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
-S2 G4G5T3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
LE S2 G2 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
-S2 G5 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP -HABITAT
FSC SRD G1 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
FSC S3 G5T3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP -HABITAT
LE S2 G2 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
-S1 G5 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP-HABITAT
-S2 G4G5 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP -HABITAT
-S2 G5T4 Historic -Mecklenburg
MAP -HABITAT
-S3 G4 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
-S4 G5T5 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
-S5 G5 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
-S2 G3 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
-S3 G3G4 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
-S3 G5 Current -Mecklenburg
MAP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
0
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological
Assessment/Sampling
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
CDM
' 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
IIA. Wooded
11B. Shrub/Scrub
UC. Open Field
IID. Miscellaneous
III. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Non-Flowing Systems
IV. Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems
V. Wetlands Habitat Checklist
B-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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 (dcyminfsec) Longitude: 80° 36' 24.5" W (deymin/sec)
3. What is the approximate area of the site? 10 acres
4. Is this the first site visit? @ Yes O 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? @ Yes O No
7.
If yes, please attach any available photo(s) to the site map at the conclusion of this
section.
Photos are in the Photo Log, Appendix C. 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 ifit is a park, etc.)
___ % Undisturbed
% Other ---
The area surrounding the site is:
One mile radius
% Urban
90 % Rural
10 % Residential
% Industrial (light)
% Agricultural
(Crops:
% Recreational
(Describe; note ifit is a park, etc.)
___ % Undisturbed
% Other ---
)
B-2
02-0 1 5J32e2-&J6J0403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
u
E
I-
I
I
I
I
CDM
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
D 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
□ Waste Disposal
@ Manufacturing D Mixing
@ Other (specifiJ) 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:
@ Swales
@ Runoff
D Depressions
D Windblown Particulates
D Drainage Ditches
D Vehicular Traffic
D Other (specift;) _____________________ _
13. If you know, what is the approximate depth to the water table? The surficial
aquifer is approximately 12 feet below ground surface.
B-3
02·01 51:J262·936/0403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
CDIVI
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
14. Is the direction of surface runoff apparent from site observations? @' Yes D No
If yes, to which of the following does the surface runoff discharge? Indicate all
that apply.
@' Surface Water
D Sewer
D Groundwater
D Collection Impoundment
15. Is there a navigable waterbody or tributary to a navigable waterbody?
□Yes @'No
16. Is there a waterbody anywhere on or in the vicinity of the site? If yes, also
complete Section III: Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Non-Flowing Systems and/ or
Section IV: Aquatic Habitat Checklist-Flowing Systems.
@' Yes (Approx. distance-0.75 mile) □ No
17. Is there evidence of flooding? D Yes @' No Wetln11ds n11d Jluotf plnins nre 110/
alwnys obvious; do not nnswer "no" witlzout 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. Textbook of Dendrologi;. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, New York. 520 p.
National Geographic Society, 1983. Field Guide to tlze Birds of North America.
S. L. Scott (ed.), National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
The Audubon Society. 1985. Eastern Forests. Tlze Audubon Society Nnture 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?
□ Yes @' No If yes, you are required to verifi; tlzis information witlz tlze 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: -5evtember a2001..__ __
80 Temperature ("C/'F)
5 mf!h From West Wind
None Cloud Cover
85-90 Normal Daily High Temperature
Jj/.A_ Precipitation (Rain, Snow)
8-4
02-01 5/3282-9l6/0403
Response to Comments dated March 4, 2002
Steps 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment Report
Ram Leather Site, Charlotte, North Carolina
Comments from David Lilley, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), dated November 28, 2001
No. Page/ Reference Comment Response
1. Page 1-1, 1]3, line 4 Change "Potter Company Site" to "Ram Leather Site." The text will be changed.
2. Page 2-17 Aquatic Exposure Pathway: Please describe how it was Sediment and surface water samples were collected by the
determined that there were no COPCs based on previous North Carolina Superfund Section in 1995. No voes or SVOCs
sampling events. Were sediment and surface water were detected in any samples, except for acetone which was
concentrations (or detection limits if there were not hits) attributed to laboratory contamination. Several metals were
compared to the Region IV ecological screening values detected in the surface water and sediment samples; however,
as was done in this report for surface soil? If so, please the concentrations were within typical ranges found in the area
present this data. If not. the statement that there were no and were not attributed to a release from the site. See
COPCs in surface water and sediment is unsupported. Section 2.1.2.3 and new Appendix D.
Please correct.
3. Page 2-17 Aquatic Exposure Pathway: The last paragraph in this The referenced paragraph has been deleted.
section makes no sense. A lack of documentation of a
connection between groundwater and surface water (if
that is what the first sentence is attempting to say) IS .
NOT caused by fractures in bedrock. Also, a lack of
documentation of a connection would not be a valid
reason for eliminating groundwater from the ecological
risk assessment. A connection must be assumed and
groundwater discharge evaluated unless there is
document~tion to prove there is NO connection. Please
correct.
4. Appendix A A review of Appendix A, Analytical Data Tables, showed This comment apparently refers to an Appendix A, Analytical
that the following surface soil samples were collected and Data tables, that was not included as part of CDM's document.
analyzed. Why were they not included in the Ecological All data supplied by EPA to CDM has been considered and
Risk Assessment? incorporated into this Steps 1-2, Ecological Risk Assessment,
voes SVOCs9 Pesticides, lnorganics as appropriate.
BA1J(Y11A 0S011 C
BA0021B DS0133B
DS01410B
BA0011A
BA0021B
5. Table 3-1 The screening value for alpha-BHC is 2.5 µg/kg, and the The referenced screening values will be included in Table 3-1.
screening value for beta-BHC is 1 µg/kg. Please correct.
Page 1
0
Response to Comments dated March 4, 2002 (continued)
Step 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment Report
Ram Leather Site, Charlotte, North Carolina
No. Page/ Reference Comment
6. Table 3-1 The screening value for trichloroethene is 1 µg/kg, not
50 µg/kg as listed in this table. Please correct.
7. Table 3-2 It is claimed that the contaminants that appear in bold
have been detected. In a quick check (inorganics only), it
appears as though almost every contaminant is
mislabeled. Please double check this table and resubmit.
Response
The referenced screening value will be included in Table 3-1.
Table 3-2 has been corrected to reflect detected contaminants
in bold type.
Comments from Linda George, U.S. EPA Region 4, Integrated Laboratory Systems dated November 26, 2001
No. Page/ Reference Comment Response
General
1. General Sediment and surface water screening tables are not Two tables are now included in the document as Appendix D
included in this risk assessment. Although no chemicals (Table D-1 for surface water and Table D-2 for sediment
were detected in surtace water, the maximum detection including the listing of Region 4 screening values). EPA
limits should be compared with screening values to previously directed COM to concentrate on surface soil data
assure that detection limits are not above screening only, as sediment and surface water sampling previously
values. If all samples are of good quality, i.e., sample performed by the North Carolina Superfund Division in 1995,
detection limits are close to CLP quantitation limits, then a detected no VOCs or SVOCs in any samples, except for
discussion of the chemical analyses should suffice to acetone which was attributed to laboratory contamination.
assure that possible exposures are not masked by Several metals were detected in the surface water and
elevated detection limits. It is indicated that some metals sediment samples; however, the concentrations were within
were detected in sediments, but all chemicals that were typical ranges found in the area and were not attributed to a
analyzed, detected and nondetected concentrations, release from the site (see Section 2.1.2.3). Since no
should be compared with screening values. Pesticides, contaminants has been identified in any of the surface water
although apparently not site related, were not analyzed. samples, there is no complete exposure pathway from
This is a data gap, since a few of the soil samples groundwater to ecological receptors; therefore, the focus of this
· contained pesticides. Any other data gaps should be Steps 1-2 document is on surface soil. In addition, the few
discussed. pesticides that are not related to leather cleaning process, that
were detected in the soil, are restricted to the areas in the
immediate vicinity behind the Ram Leather main building.
These pesticides were not identified in soil samples near the
on-site drainages, that could lead to surface water or
sediments.
Page 2
Response to Comments dated March 4, 2002 (continued)
Step 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment Report
Ram Leather Site, Charlotte, North Carolina
No. Page/ Reference Comment
2. General This comment is directed for the refinement of CO PCs
(Step 3a). The toxaphene concentration of 1300 µg/kg
and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalat~ concentration of
2400 µg/kg are the greatest concern. Toxaphene was
detected in 2 out of 14 samples. The maximum
concentration was a split sample. If the other detected
concentration was the other half of the split (i.e., Sample
DS0022A), then these two concentrations may be
averaged together and compared with an alternative
toxicity value. The sample detection limits of the other 12
samples should be discussed. If a local background
sample was analyzed for toxaphene, it could be
compared with the two detected concentrations. For
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, the three detected
concentrations should be compared with an alternative
toxicity value. The maximum concentration was detected
in Sample DS0022A, which was a split sample, so the
other sample (which appears to have been nondetected)
may be averaged with the maximum concentration and
discussed. A soil sample (Sample SS-04) was collected
by EPA's Removal and Response Branch in a surface
water pathway just before a culvert. This sample should
be discussed and any samples farther down the pathway
to determine that this chemical is not of concern. It
appears that the RI sample ND0011A is in the same area
that SS-04 was collected. If this is in the same surface
water pathway, then this concentration could be
compared with Sample SS-04, since it was collected in
1994, and the RI sample was collected in 1999. The
chemical concentration may have decreased over time.
A good discussion of the chemical/metal concentrations in
various locations is found in this report in Section 3.2.1.
This should be included in the refinement of CO PCs. It is
indicated that the essential nutrients are below the
national average concentration. Try to obtain more
Response
Even if the samples and duplicates for detections of toxaphene
and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were averaged, the values of
both chemicals would exceed their respective EPA Region 5
alternative screening values of 925.9 µg/kg for bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate and 119.3 µg/kg for toxaphene. A local background
surface soil sample was not collected (see Section 3.3.6).
Since the exact locations of the samples that were requested to
compare are not known, a comparison of the results from soil
sample SS-04 (collected in 1994) and soil sample ND011A
(collected in 1999)] may not be of much use. Sample SS-04
included detections for 2-butanone, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethene (PCE), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
3,4-methylphenol, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. Sample
ND011A included no detections of 2-butanone, methylene
chloride, PCE, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, or 3,4-methylphenol.
Of the four metals, three out of four were less in Sample
ND011A, with the exception being copper. Copper was
detected at 40 mg/kg in 1994 and 66 mg/kg in 1999.
An attempt to gather more regional values for the essential
nutrients could be obtained, but this does not seem necessary
as the essential nutrients are in no way associated with the
onsite contamination caused by the Ram Leather facility. ,
Soil samples that were collected by Bold Research Labs in
1991 from the septic drain field area are shown on Figure 2-6
as samples B-3, B-4, B-5, 6-6, and B-7. These samples were
collected from between 2 feet and 1 O feet below ground
surface. The samples were analyzed for tetrachloroethene
(PCE), trichloroethene (TCA), and mineral spirits. None of
these samples had detections of PCE and only one of the
samples had a detection ofTCA (16 ug/kg at 4 feet deep and
31 ug/kg at 7 feet deep). For further details on these samples
please see the Final Groundwater Investigation Report, Ram
Leather Sile, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, August 31,
2001.
Page 3
Response to Comments dated March 4, 2002 (continued)
Step 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment Report
Ram Leather Site, Charlotte, North Carolina
No. Page/ Reference Comment
2 regional values for comparison. In addition, please
(cont.) discuss the soil samples collected in the septic drain field.
This could be an area of concern. Also. data gaps should
be identified.
Specific
3. Page 1-2. §1 Introduction: This is a procedural comment. Region 4
has screening values that are to be used in the screening
step. Therefore, the selection of screening values
(preferred toxicity data) that is described in the national
guidance is not needed. Also, the selection of ecological
chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) is actually
Step 2. and is not a part of Step 1, as stated on this page.
4. Page 2-11. §2.1.2.3 North Carolina Supertund Section Investigation: The
North Carolina Supertund Section conducted an
investigation, and collected 4 groundwater samples, and
4 surtace water and sediment samples. These sampling
locations are not identified in any of the figures.
5. Page 2-20. §2.2 Screening-Level Ecological Effects Evaluation-Soil
Screening Values: It is stated that if a screening value is
unavailable, only chemicals that were detected would be
retained as COPCs. Nondetected chemicals that have
sample detection limits exceeding screening values, or no
screening value to compare with, are also retained as
COPCs in Step 2.
6. Page 2-20, §2.2 Screening-Level Ecological Effects Evaluation: Sediment
and surface water screening values are not discussed.
Region 4 screening values should be used in Step 2.
Response
The suggested changes will be made in the discussion of the
procedures for Steps 1 and 2.
The sample locations for the North Carolina sediment and
surtace water samples collected in 1995 will be shown on a
new figure (Figure 2-8) in the document.
The referenced paragraph has been deleted.
The reason that sediment and surtace water screening values
were not discussed is that the focus of this Steps 1-2 document
is on surface soil samples only. Screening tables which include
the sediment and surtace water data from 1995 have been
added in Appendix D.
Page 4
Response to Comments dated March 4, 2002 (continued)
Step 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment-Report
Ram Leather Site, Charlotte, North Carolina
No. Page/ Reference Comment
7. Table 3-1 Screening of COPCs for Soil: The screening value for
organochlorinated pesticides (each), which is 100 µg/kg
may be used to eliminate alpha-BHC, alpha-chlordane.
beta-BHC, delta-BHC, the endosulfans (I, II, and sulfate).
endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, gamma-chlordane,
heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and methoxychlor.
Ba. Page 2-8 Phoebe is misspelled.
Sb. Page 2-17 Aquatic Exposure Pathway: A complete exposure
pathway does exist for ecological receptors in the
drainages and pond. This section states the pathway is
incomplete because no contaminants were found in the
samples. An incomplete exposure pathway is when an
ecological.receptor cannot be exposed to the
contaminant, for example, contamination is underground,
well below the root zone of plants (the majority of soil
invertebrates are found in the root zone). The sediment
and surface water samples that were collected are media
that could cause exposure if the sample contained
contaminants at sufficient concentrations. Therefore,
Figure 2-10, Conceptual Site Model, should indicate that
aquatic plants and animals could be exposed to surface
water contamination.
Be. Page 2-19 Potential Ecological Receptors: No
endangered/threatened species were observed during the
site visit. A statement should be included that the federal
and state natural resource trustees confirmed that no
endangered/threatened species exist in the area. Contact
with the resource trustees is part of the Environmental
Setting in Step 1 (see Page 1-3 of the Process Document,
USEPA 1997).
Response
The screening value for organopesticides (i.e., 100 µg/kg) will
be used in Table 3-1 for the chemicals suggested.
The spelling error for "phoebe" will be corrected.
COM disagrees with the reviewer. An ecological receptor
cannot be exposed to contaminants in the drainages and
ponds, as there has not been any of the chemicals of concern
related to the site operations detected in sediment or surface
water samples. Therefore the aquatic pathway is incomplete.
The contact for the Fish and Wildlife Service that handles
coordination of projects in the Charlotte area is Mark Cantrell,
Asheville, NC, USFWS Office (828-258-3939). CDM has left
messages with Mr. Cantrell, but has yet to hear back from him.
Page 5
..
Response to Comments dated March 4, 2002 (continued)
Step 1-2 Ecological Risk Assessment Report
Ram Leather Site, Charlotte, North Carolina
No. Page/ Reference Comment
8d. Page 3-1 Screening-Level Risk Calculation: An HQ ; 1 should be
included in the sentence "An HQ greater than one is
interpreted as a level at which adverse ecological effects
may occur." If an HQ ; 1, then the chemical is identified
as a COPC, and carried forward to Step 3.
Response
The text has been changed as requested.
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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 drainage 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
virginimws), sumac (Rlzus sp.), blackberry (Rubrus sp.), mimosa (Mimosa speciosn),
eastern redbud (Cercis cnnadensis), grape (Vitus sp.), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), September
elm (Ul111us seroti11a), black cherry (Pninus serotina), flowering dogwood (Cornus
jloridn), hickory (Caryn sp.), red maple (Acer rulm,111), honey locust (Gleditsia
tricnntlws), osage orange (Mac/um po111ifera), southern red oak (Q11ercus Jalcnta), red oak
(Quercus rubra), blackjack oak (Quercus mariandicn), white oak (Q11ercus alba), and
various wild flowers and weeds. Typical bird species of wooded residential areas
were heard and observed on September 19th including American crow (Conms
/Jracl1yrl1y11clws), summer tanager (Pira11gn ru/Jra), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cnrdinalis), Carolina wren (Tlm;otlwrus ludovicinnus), eastern phobe (Sayornis phoebe),
northern mockingbird (Mi mus ployglottos), northern grackle (Quiscnlus quiscula),
eastern bluebird (Sia/is sialis), killdeer (Clzaradrius vociferus), barn swallow (Hinmda
rusticn), and blue jay (Cya11ocitta 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 (Rlzus sp.), oak
(Querc11s sp.), hickory (Caryn 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;tlzroplztlzalmus). A turkey
vulture (Cntlzartes 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: Murray C. Wade
Site Manager: __ M-ik~e-P~ro~f~i=t.~C=D=M=F~e~d~e~r-a-1 __ _
Affiliation: _C=D~M~---
Date: 9f19L=Ol~~-
B-5
02-015/3282-93610403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
II. Terrestrial Habitat Checklist
IIA. Wooded
1. Are there any wooded areas at the site? li1 Yes D 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 vegetation in the wooded area?
(Circle one: Evergreen/ Deciduous /[Mixed]) Provide a photograph, if available.
See Photo Log, Appendix C.
Dominant plant, if known: ---~O=a=k=~P=in=e~------
4. What is the predominant size of the trees at the site?
height.
D 0-6 in. li1 6-12in.
Use diameter at breast
□ >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? [i1 Yes D No
If no, go to Section IIC: Open Field.
2. What percentage of the site is covered by scrub/ shrub vegetation? _(30%
3 acresL 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.
B-6
02-01513282-93610403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
4. What is the approximate average height of the shrub/ scrub vegetation?
D 0-2 ft lil 2-5ft D >5 ft
5. Based on site observations, how dense is the shrub/ scrub vegetation?
D Dense lil Patchy D Sparse
IIC. Open Field
1. Are there open (bare, barren) field areas present at the site? lil Yes D No
If yes, please indicate the type below:
D Prairie/ Plains D Savannah D Old Field
lil Other (specifi;): ---~Gras~---------------~
2. What percentage of the site is open field? _('1fil1-"---4_acr_ei,) __
Indicate the open field on the site map.
3. What is/ are the dominant plant(s)? Provide a photograph, if available.
Mix!!.d_gra&e&..£il!.c_ehQtQWlg,_A1212=dix..C. ________ ~
4. What is the approximate average height of the dominant plant? <6 inches
_(mowe_d)_
5. Describe the vegetation cover: D Dense lil Sparse D Patchy
IID. Miscellaneous
1. Are other types of terrestrial habitats present at the site, other than woods,
shrub/ scrub, and open field?
lil 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.
B-7
02-015/3282-936/0403
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
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.
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 witlz wetland habitats. Please refer to Section V,
Wetland Habitat Checklist.
1. What type of open-water, non-flowing system is present at the site?
@ Natural (pond, lake)
D Artificially Created (la~oon, reservoir, canal, impoundment)
2. If known, what is the name(s) of the waterbody(ies) on or adjacent to the site?
Unknown
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~ac=r=e=s·~--
5. Is any aquatic vegetation present? @ Yes D No
If yes, please indicate the type below:
D Emergent D Submergent @ Floating
6. If known, what is the depth of the water? --~U=n=k=n=o~w=n~--------
7. What is the general composition of the substrate? Check all that apply.
02-01513282-936/0,oJ
D Bedrock
D Boulder (> 10 in.)
□ Cobble (2.5-10 in.)
D Gravel (0.1-2.5 in.)
D Sand (coarse)
D Silt (fine)
D Marl (shells)
@ Clay (slick)
@ Muck (fine/black)
@ Debris
D Detritus
D Concrete
D Other (specifi;) _____________________ _
B-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
8. What is the source of water in the waterbody?
ra' River/Stream/Creek
D Industrial Discharge
D Other (specifiJ)
D Groundwater
ra' Surface Runoff
9. Is there a discharge from the site to the waterbody? ra' Yes D No
If yes, please describe this discharge and its path.
Intermittent surface runoff to the south.
10. ls there a discharge-from the waterbody? ra' Yes D No
If yes, and the information is available, identify from the list below the
environment into which the waterbody discharges.
ra' River/Stream/Creek □ On-Site ra' Off-Site Distance
□ Groundwater □ On-Site □ Off-Site
□ Wetland □ On-Site □ 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 depth _____ )
_____ Other (specifi;) ------------------
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.?
B-9
02-01513282-93610403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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.
D Bedrock
D Boulder (> 10 in.)
□ Cobble (2.5-10 in.)
D Gravel (0.1-2.5 in.)
D Sand (coarse)
D Silt (fine)
D Marl (shells)
D Clay (slick)
D Muck (fine/black)
D Debris
D Detritus
D Concrete
D Other (specifiJ) _____________________ _
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 waterbody
discharges to and whether the discharge is on-site or off-site.
B-10
02·015/3262-113610403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Appendix B
Checklist for Ecological Assessments/Sampling
10. Identify any field measurements and observations of water quality that were
made. For those parameters for which data were collected, provide the
measurement and the units of measure in the appropriate space below: Field
measurements were not taken.
_____ Width (feet)
Depth (feet)
______ Velocity (specify units): _______ _
______ Temperature (depth of the water at which the reading was taken)
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
Salinity
Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque)
(Secchi disk depth ____ ~)
Other (specifij) _________________ _
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.
8-11
02-01513282-1,36/0403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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. ls 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.)? _______ _
Plensc co111pletc q11estio11s 4, 11, 12 i11 Checklist Ill, Aquntic Hnbitnt -No11-Flowi11g
Systenzs.
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 Mud Cracks
D Stream/River/Creek/lake/Pond
D 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 waterbody is discharge released?
D Surface Stream/River
D Lake/Pond
D Groundwater
D Marine
10. If a soil sample was collected, describe the appearance of the soil in the wetland
area. Circle or write in the best response.
Color (blue/gray, brown, black, mottled) _____________ _
Water content (dry, wet, saturated/unsaturated) ____________ _
11. Mark the observed wetland area(s) on the attached site map.
B-12
02-0 1 S/3282-9l6/0403
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photo C-1. Main building of the Ram Leather facility.
Appendix C
Photo Log
Photo C-2. Driveway to Ram Leather with various debris including abandoned vehicles.
CIJM C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Photo C-3. Ram Leather property from the east.
Photo C-4. MW-2 with railroad tracks in the background.
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
CDM
Photo C-5. The rear of Ram Leather building from MW-1.
Photo C-6. View of the rear of the main building from MW-1.
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.
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
CDM
Photo C-9. Tanks behind building on the west side of the property.
Photo C-10. Diesel fuel spill.
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
CDM
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
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
CDM
Photo C-15. Abandoned tanks behind Ram Leather building.
Photo C-16. Abandoned tanks on west edge of property,
adjacent to pine/hardwood forest.
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
CDM
Photo C-17. South side of Ram Leather building.
Photo C-18. From southeast, looking at the Ram Leather site.
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.
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
C-11
:.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix D
North Carolina Superfund,
1995 Surface Water and Sediment
Sample Tables
- -- -- -- - --11!!!!1 l!!!!I l!!!!!I == r=:il liiiil iiiii lilll -
Table D-1
Screening of COPCs for Surface Water
Ram Leather
Ratio of Number Reg 4 Background
of Detects( Max. Detected Sample ID of 1/2 Max Detect Screening (Sample
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Max. Detect Limit Value RL-013-SW) Qualifier HQ
lnorganics (µg/L)
Arsenic 0/3 ND u ND 5 -190 10 u 0.03
Cadmium 0/3 ND u ND 1 0,66" 2 u 1.52
Chromium 0/3 ND u ND 5 .,..1·1'" 10 u 0.45
Copper 0/3 ND u ND 25 .6.54; 50 u 3.82
Iron 3/3 6630 -RL-007-SW -= 7850 6.63
Leacl 1/3 9 -RL-011-SW 2.5 ;,.32 5 u 1.89
Manganese 2/3 1460 -RL-007-SW 15 "NV...._ 28·' NV
Total Mercury 0/3 ND u ND 0.25 0.012 5 u 20.83
PAHs (µg/L)
Acenaphthene 0/3 ND u ND 5 17 10 u 0.29
Acenaphthylene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Anthracene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Benzo(a )anthracene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Benzo(a)pyrene 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Chrysene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Fluoranthene 0/3 ND u ND 5 39.8 10 u 0.13
Fluorene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Phenanthrene 0/3 ND u -ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Pyrene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Total PAHs 170 NV~ -........_, 340 NV -Semivolatiles (µg/L)
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 5 44.9 10 u 0.11
1,2-Dichlorobenzidine 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
1,4-Dichlorobenzidine " 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
2,4, 5-T richlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
2,4,6-T richlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 5 3.2 10 u 1.56
2,4-Dichlorophenol 013 ND u ND 5 36.5 10 u 0.14
2.4-Dimethylphenol 0/3 ND u ND 5 21.2 10 u 0.24
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0/3 ND u ND 25 6.2 50 u 4.03
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0/3 ND u ND 5 310 10 u <0.01
2 ,6-Dinitrotoluene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
CDM Page D-1
------ --l!!l!!!I l!!!!!!!I == liiiiiiiil iiiii. --- -
Table D-1
Screening of COP~s for Surface Water
Ram Leather
Ratio of Number Reg 4 Background
of Detects/ Max. Detected Sample ID of 1/2 Max Detect Screening (Sample
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Max. Detect Limit Value RL-013-SW) Qualifier HQ
Semivolatiles (µg/L)
2-Chloronaphthalene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
2-Chlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 5 43.8 10 u 0.11
2-Methylnaphthalene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
2-Methylphenol 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
2-Nitroaniline 0/3 ND u ND 25 ·NV 50 u NV
2-Nitrophenol 0/3 ND u ND 5 3500 10 u <0.01
3,3'-0ichlorobenzidine 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
3-Nitroaniline 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
4, 6-D in it ro-o-cres al 0/3 ND u ND 25 23 50 u 1.09
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0/3 ND u ND 5 12.2 10 u 0.41
4-Chloroaniline 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
4-Chloro-m-cresol 0/3 ND u ND 5 0.3 10 u 16.67
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
4-Nitroanlline 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
4-Nitrophenol 0/3 ND u ND 25 82.8 50 u 0.30
Aniline 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Azobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Benzidine 0/3 ND u ND 25 25 50 u 1.00
Benzoic Acid 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Benzyt Alcohol 0/3 ND u ND 25 NV 50 u NV
Benzyl butyl phthalate 0/3 ND u ND 5 22 10 u 0.23
Biphenylamine 0/3 ND u C ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane 013 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 0/3 ND u ND 5 2380 10 u <0.01
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0/3 ND u ND 5 <0.3 10 u NV
Dibenzofuran 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Diethyl phthalate 013 ND u ND 5 521 10 u 0.01
Dimethyl phthalate 0/3 ND u ND 5 330 10 u 0.02
Di-n-butylphthalate 0/3 ND u ND 5 9.4 10 u 0.53
Di-n-octylphthalate 013 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Hexachlorobenzene 013 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Hexachlorobutadiene 013 ND u ND 5 0.93 10 u 5.38
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 013 ND u ND 5 0.07 10 u 71.43
Hexachloroethane 013 ND u ND 5 9.8 10 u 0.51
lsophorone 013 ND u ND 5 1170 10 u <0.01
Naphthalene 0/3 ND u ND 5 62 10 u 0.08
CDM Page D-2
--- -- -- -
l!!I!!!! l!!!!!I i:::;;::i liiiiiiiii liiii iiiiiiiil ----
Table D-1
Screening of CO PCs for Surface Water
Ram Leather
Ratio of Number Reg 4 Background
of Detects/ Max. Detected Sample ID of 1/2 Max Detect Screening (Sample
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Max. Detect Limit Value RL-013-SW) Qualifier HQ
Semivolatiles (µg/L)
Nitrobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 5 270 10 u 0.02
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Pentachlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 25 13 50 u 1.92
Phenol 0/3 ND u ND 5 256 10 u 0.02
Volatiles (µg/L)
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 528 5 u <0.01
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 10 240 20 u 0.04
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 5 940 10 u 0.01
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0/3 ND u ND 10 NV 20 u NV
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 15.8 5 u 0.16
1,2-Dichloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 2000 5 u <0.01
1,2-Dichloropropane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 525 trace <0.01
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 11.2 5 u 0.22
1, 1-Dichtoroethene (1, 1-Dichloroethylene) 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 303 5 u 0.01
2-Butanone 0/3 ND u ND 10 NV 20 u NV
2-Hexanone 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
4-Methyl-2-pe nta none 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Acetone 3/3 11 JC RL-007-SW -NV 10 JC NV
Acrylonitrile 0/3 ND u ND 10 75.5 20 u 0.13
Benzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 53 5 u 0.05
Bromodichloromethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Bromoform 0/3 ND u ND 5 293 10 u 0.02
Bromomethane 0/3 ND u ND 10 110 20 u 0.09
Carbon Disulfide 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Carbon Tetrachloride 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 352 5 u 0.01
Chlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 195 5 u 0.01
Chloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Chloroform 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 289 5 u 0.01
Chloromethane 0/3 ND u ND 10 5500 20 u <0.01
Cis-1,2-Dichloropropene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 24.4 5 ·u 0.10
Dibromochloromethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Dibromomethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
COM Page D-3
- -- -- ---!!!!I == liiiiiil liiii liiiil --
Table D-1
Screening of COPCs for Surface Water
Ram Leather
Chemical
Volatiles (µg/L)
Ethyl Benzene
Ethylene dibromide
lodomethane
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trans-1,3-Oichtoropropene
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene {Trichloroethylene)
Trichloroflouromethane
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Acronyms:
ND -Result was not detected
NV -No values
NR -No result reported
µg/L -Micrograms per liter
Footnotes:
' -Essential nutrient.
CDIVI
Ratio of Number Reg 4 Background
of Detects/ Max. Detected Sample ID of 1/2 Max Detect Screening (Sample
Samples Cone. Qualifier Max. Detect Limit Value RL-013-SW) Qualifier
013 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5
013 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5
013 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5
013 ND u ND 2.5 1930 5
013 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5
013 ND u ND 2.5 84 5
013 ND u ND 10 175 20
013 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5
013 ND u ND 2.5 1350 10
013 ND u ND 5 24.4 80
013 ND u ND 40 NV 5
013 ND u ND 5 NV 10
013 ND u ND 5 NV 200
013 ND u ND 100 NV 10
013 ND u ND 5 NV 5
Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
R -QC indicates that data unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resamp1ing and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u u
u
u
u
u
u
u
--
HQ
NV
NV
NV
<0.01
NV
0.03
0.06
NV
<0.01
0.20
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
Page D-4
- ---- --!!!!!! l!!m == == liiiiil iiiii -----
Table D-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
Ram Leather
Ratio of Number Region 4 Background
of Detects/ Max. Detect 1/2 Max Screening (Sample
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Sample ID of Max. Detect Detect Limit Value RL-013-SD) Qualifier HQ
lnorganics (mg/kg)
Arsenic 1/3 5.80 -RL-010-SD 0.95 7.24 1.9 u 0.26
Cadmium 0/3 ND u ND 4.9 1 9.8 u 4.90
Chromium 3/3 65.00 -RL-010-SD -52.3 9.8 u 1.24
Copper 3/3 21.00 -RL-007-SD, RL-010-SD -18.7 21 1.12
Iron 3/3 42000.00 -RL-010-SD -NV 15,000 NV
Lead 1/3 20.00 -RL-01 OSD 10 30.2 20 u 0.66
Manganese 3/3 830.00 -RL-010-SD -NV 82 NV
Total Mercury 1/3 0.09 -RL-010-SD 0.045 0.13 0.09 u 0.69
PAHs (µg/kg)
Acenaphthene 0/3 ND u ND 150 330 330 u 0.45
Acenaphthylene 0/3 ND u ND 150 330 330 u 0.45
Anthracene 0/3 ND u ND 150 330 330 u 0.45
Benzo(a)anthracene 0/3 ND u ND 150 330 330 u 0.45
Benzo(a)pyrene 0/3 ND u ND 825 330 1650 u 2.50
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Chrysene 0/3 ND u ND 150 330 330 u 0.45
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0/3 ND u ND 825 330 1650 u 2.50
Fluoranthene 0/3 ND u ND 150 330 330 u 0.45
Fluorene 0/3 ND u ND 150 330 330 u 0.45
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Phenanthrene 0/3 ND u ND 165 330 330 u 0.50
Pyrene 0/3 ND u ND 165 330 330 u 0.50
Total PAHs 5505 1684 3.27
Semivolatiles (µg/kg}
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
1,2-Dichlorobenzidine 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
1,4-Dichlorobenzidine 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2,4,5-T richlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2,4-Dichlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2 ,6-Dinitrotoluene 013 ND u NO 165 NV 330 u NV
CDIVI Page D-5
--- -
!!!!!I l!!!I == iiiiiil liiiil liiil --- --
Table D-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
Ram Leather
Ratio of Number Region 4 Background
of Detects/ Max. Detect 1/2 Max Screening (Sample
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Sample ID of Max. Detect Detect Limit Value RL-013-SD) Qualifier HQ
Semivolatiles {µg/kg)
2-Chloronaphthalene 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2-Chlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2-Methylnaphthalene 0/3 ND u ND 165 330 330 u 0.50
2-Methylphenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
2-Nitroaniline 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
2-Nitrophenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
3-Nitroaniline 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
4, 6-Di n itro-o-cresol 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
4-Chloroaniline 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
4-Chloro-m-cresol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
4-Nitroaniline 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
4-Nitrophenol 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Aniline 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Azobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Benzidine .0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Benzoic Acid 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Benzyl Alcohol 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Benzyl butyl phthalate 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Biphenylamine 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Bis(2-Ch1oroethoxy) methane 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0/3 ND u ND 165 182 330 u 0.91
Dibenzofuran 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Diethyl phthalate 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Dimethyl phthalate 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Di-n-butylphthalate 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Oi-n-octylphthalate 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Hexachlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Hexachlorobutadiene 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0/3 ND' u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Hexachloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
lsophorone 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Naphthalene 0/3 ND u ND 165 330 330 u 0.50
CDIVI Page 0-6
-- -- - -- - -
111!!!!!1 !Ii!!!!! liiiii -- --
Table D-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
Ram Leather
Ratio of Number Region 4 Background
of Detects/ Max. Detect 1/2 Max Screening (Sample
Chemical Samples Cone. Qualifier Sample ID of Max. Detect Detect Limit Value RL-013-SD) Qualifier HQ
Semivolatiles (1-19/kg)
Nitrobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
N-Nitrosodlmethylamine 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Pentachlorophenol 0/3 ND u ND 825 NV 1650 u NV
Phenol 0/3 ND u ND 165 NV 330 u NV
Volatiles (µg/kg)
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 528 5 u <0.01
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 10 240 20 u 0.04
1, 1,2-Trichtoroethane 0/3 ND u ND 5 940 10 u 0.01
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
1,2-0ibromo-3-chloropropane 0/3 ND u ND 10 NV 20 u NV
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 15.8 5 u 0.16
1,2-Dichloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 2000 5 u <0.01
1,2-Dichloropropane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 525 5 u <0.01
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 11.2 5 u 0.22
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 303 5 u 0.01
2-Butanone 0/3 ND u ND 10 NV 3 JC NV
2-Hexanone 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
4-Meth yl-2-pe fl tan one 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Acetone 3/3 50.00 JC RL-007-SD -NV 28 JC NV
Acrylonitrile 0/3 ND u ND 10 NV 20 u NV
Benzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Brornodichloromethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Bromoform 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Bromomethane 0/3 ND u ND 10 NV 20 u NV
Carbon Disulfide 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Carbon Tetrachloride 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Chlorobenzene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Chloroethane 0/3 ND u ND 5 NV 10 u NV
Chloroform 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Chloromethane 0/3 ND u ND 10 NV 20 u NV
Cis-1,2-Dichloropropene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Dibromochloromethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
Dibromomethane 0/3 ND u ND 2.5 NV 5 u NV
CDM Page D-7
- --- - -
l!!!I!!!!! ~
Table D-2
Screening of COPCs for Sediment
Ram Leather
Chemical
Volatiles (µg/kg)
Ethyl Benzene
Ethylene dibromide
lodomethane
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)
Trichloroflouromethane
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Acronyms:
ND -Result was not detected
NV -No values
Ratio of Number
of Detects/
Samples
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
Qualifiers:
J -Estimated result.
Max. Detect
Cone.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
em li:iiiiiii liiiii liil ---
Region 4 Background
1/2 Max Screening (Sample
Qualifier Sample ID of Max. Detect Detect Limit Value RL-013-SD)
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 10 NV 20
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 5 NV 10
u ND 40 NV 80
u ND 2.5 NV 5
u ND 5 NV 10
u ND 100 NV 200
u ND 5 NV 10
NR -No result reported
µg/L -Micrograms per liter
N -Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
R -QC indicates that data unusable. Compound may or may not be present. Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
U -Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
Footnotes:
' -Essential nutrient,
CDIVI
- --
Qualifier HQ
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
u NV
Page D-8
I
I Distribution List
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
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