HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD REVIEW COVER SHEET Name of Site: Wright Chemical Corp. NCD 024 766 719 Contact Persons: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4: (Name) Jennifer Wendel NPL Coordinator (Telephone) (404) 562-8799 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Site Investigation: (Name) Jeanette Stanley (Telephone) (919) 508-8453 (919) Documentation Record: Jeanette Stanley (919) 508-8453 Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored: Ground Water Migration Pathway The ground water pathway was not scored because scoring the ground water pathway would have a minimal impact on the site score. Surface Water Drinking Water threat/targets The drinking water threat was not scored because there is no drinking water intake within the 15-mile surface water pathway downstream of the site. Surface Water Environmental Threat Environmental targets/threats were not scored because scoring the observed release to the fishery almost maximized the pathway score. The addition of the surface water environmental threat score would have minimal impact on site score. Soil Exposure Pathway The soil exposure pathway was not scored because the soil exposure pathway has a minimal impact on the overall site score. Air Migration Pathway The air pathway was not scored because scoring the air pathway would have a minimal impact on the site score. ------- HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: EPA Region: Date Prepared: Street Address of Site*: City, County, State, and ZIP: General Location in the State: Wright Chemical Corp. 4 March 2010 State Rd. 1878 Riegelwood, Columbus County, NC 28456 Coastal Plain Topographic Map: Acme Latitude*: 34.3284ฐ north latitude Longitude*: 78.2051ฐ west longitude Location is approximate center of denuded area (Source 1) (Ref. 4, pp. 1, 105, 106; Figs. 1, 4) Scores Air Pathway Not Scored Ground Water Pathway Not Scored Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway 96.06 HRS SITE SCORE 48.03 * The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located. " Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description offacility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located. 1 ------- WORKSHEET FOR SITE SCORE 1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score 2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Drinking Water Threat Not Scored Not Scored Food Chain Threat 96.06 Environmental Threat Not Scored Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component (subject to maximum value of 100, Ref. 1, Section 4.1.5) 96.06 3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score Not Scored 4. Air Migration Pathway Score Not Scored 5. Total of Sgw2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2 = 9.227.52 6. HRS Site Score: Value on line 5. divided by four, then take the square root 48.03 S2 Not Scored Not Scored 9227.52 Not Scored 9227.52 Not Scored Not Scored 2 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 WRIGHT CHEMICAL CORP. RIEGELWOOD, COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC LIST OF FIGURES US Geological Survey, Acme Topographic Quadrangle Map, 1984 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1889 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1910 Source Detail Area with Wetland Boundaries Oak Bark Holdings Livingston Creek and Cape Fear River 2007 ESI Sample Location Map Wetlands Acme, NC Wetland Inventory Map LIST OF TABLES Source Soil and Background Soil Samples Source Soil and Background Soil Results Background Sediment Samples Background Sediment Sample Results Sediment Samples Sediment Sample Results Source 1 Contaminants Documented in Observed Release to Sediment in the Fishery Source 1 Contaminants Documented in Source with Containment Factor of 10, not documented in Observed Release to Fishery Sediment 3 ------- WRIGHT CHEMICAL CORP. RIEGELWOOD, COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC LIST OF REFERENCES 1. US Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, 55 FR 51532, 1990. http://www.epa.gOv/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#HRS%20Rule. Table of Contents and Sections 1-6. Excerpt. 75 pages. A complete copy of the Hazard Ranking System document is available in the Region 4 Docket. 2. US Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Directive 9345.1-13. 2004. Appendix BI. Excerpt. 15 pages. A complete copy of SCDM is available at http://www.epa. gov/ superfund/ sites/npl/hrsres/tool s/ scdm .htm. 3. US Geological Survey, 7.5-minute (1:24,000) topographic quadrangle maps of North Carolina; Acme, NC, 1984; point Caswell, NC, 1997; and Freeman, NC, 1986. 3 maps merged and modified into one showing radii and target information. 4. Expanded Site Inspection, Wright Chemical Corp. Site, NCD 024 766 719, Riegelwood, Columbus Co., NC, Jeanette Stanley, NC Superfund Section, May 30, 2008. 579 pages. 5. US EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Multi-Media, Multi- Concentration, Inorganic Analytical Service for Superfund (ILM05.3), February 2004. 4 pages. 6 US EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Multi-Media, Multi- Concentration, Organic Analytical Service for Superfund (SOM01.1), January 2006. 6 pages. 7. Stanley, Jeanette S., Chemist, NC Superfund Section, Memo to File, December 9, 2009. SUBJECT: Source of base maps and elements for Figures 4-9. 1 page. 8. Stanley, Jeanette S., Chemist, NC Superfund Section, Memos (2) to File, December 17, 2009 and December 18, 2009. Bateson, James, Environmental Engineering Supervisor, NC Superfund Section, Memo to File, January 29, 2010 8 pages. 9. Parker, Stuart F. Geologist, NC Superfund Section, Kaiser Acme Farmarket Site Re- Assessment Report, August 13, 2004. 12 pages. 10. Pettergarrett, Stephanie, Environmental Scientist, NC DENR Water Quality Section, email correspondence with Jeanette Stanley, December 17, 2009. 2 pages. 4 ------- MILES api NCDENR Site: Wright Chemical Corp. NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map, Acme Scale: As Shown Date: 09/18/08 Drawn By: JSS Map date: 1984 ------- SOURCE: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Wilmington, NC, sheet 16, 1889 Site: Wright Chemical Corp. NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 2: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1889 Scale: As Shown Date: 02/12/08 Drawn By: JSS ------- ibers SOURCE: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Wilmington, NC, sheet 34, 1910 Site: Wright Chemical Corp. NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 3: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1910 Scale: As Shown Date: 02/12/08 Drawn By: JSS ------- Site: Wright Chemical Corp. NCD 024 766 719 Aerial Photo date 2007 NCDENR See Ref. 7 of HRS Doc Record for figure source information Date: 01/27/2010 Coiumbus Co., NC Drawn By: JTB Figure 4: Source Area Detail with Wetland Boundaries ------- M + International Paper, aka Federal Paper Board OWNER ACRES OAK BARK CORPORATION 23.61 OAK BARK CORPORATION 3.53 OAK BARK CORPORATION 37.62 OAK BARK CORPORATION 81 OAK BARK CORPORATION 78.54 OAK BARK CORPORATION 145 OAK BARK CORPORATION 21.99 OAK BARK CORPORATION 0.95 OAK BARK CORPORATION 34 OAK BARK CORPORATION 15 OAK BARK CORPORATION 60.47 OAK BARK CORPORATION 58.58 OAK BARK CORPORATION 24,15 OAK BARK CORPORATION 137,8 OAK BARK CORPORATION 17.65 Total 739.9 Oak Bark properties shown in yellow (color) or medium grey (black & white) 1 1 . kaisEURCiT' s? i ~ 1/4 mile See Ref. 7 of HRS Doc Record for figure source information Site: Wright Chemical Corp. m NCDENR NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 5: Oak Bark Holdings Aerial Photo date - 2007 Date: 02/12/08; rev. 12/09/09 Drawn By: JSS ------- See Ref. 7 of HRS Doc Record for figure source information Site: Wright Chemical Corp. ncdInr NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 6: Livingston Creek and Cape Fear River Aerial Photo Date: 2004 Date: 05/21/08; rev. 12/09/09 Drawn By: JSS ------- -500' - Sediment = Samples H Soil Samples See Ref. 7 of HRS Doc Record for figure source information Site: Wright Chemical Corp. m NCDENR NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 7: 2007 ESI Sample Location Map Aerial Photo Date: Date: 03/27/08; rev. 12/08/09 Drawn By: JSS / HZ ------- m NCDENR Site: Wright Chemical Corp. NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 8: Wetlands Aerial Photo date - 2007 Date: 02/12/08; rev. 12/09/09 Drawn By: JSS ------- . :x. : . PUE^ V , PEMIFhiC^* >/p FOt/V^ ft ; / V ' / "^ฆpUBHn * - - / - 'V' ฆ BM - .j I J' V "iWฎ ' "^UBHhU '\*yDelufcX t'-'iMA s, Pfoi/Zf' ฆ. yPFOIC < / PFOIA- FOIA / f^lOOO' ' ' * BM> // NCDENR Site: Wright Chemical Corp. NCD 024 766 719 Columbus Co., NC Figure 9: Acme , NC Wetland Inventory Map Scale: As Shown Date: 12/14/09 Drawn By: JSS Map Date: 1994 ------- 2.0 Site Description Wright Chemical Corp is located in Columbus County, NC in an industrial / rural area. The facility and Riegelwood are served potable water by a surface water intake on the Cape Fear River upstream of the site (Ref. 4, pp. 128; Fig. 1). This area of Columbus County is the home of several large industrial facilities surrounded by residential properties, agricultural fields and wetlands. The portion of the facility being evaluated drains to Livingston Creek and subsequently to the Cape Fear River (Ref. 7, p. 1, Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8, 9). The original business on the Wright Chemical Corp. property was Acme Chemical. Acme Chemical was a fertilizer and sulfuric acid manufacturing facility founded in 1883 (Ref. 4, pp. 244, 401; Figs. 2, 3) and was a family-owned company for four generations (Ref. 4, p. 401). The original Acme sulfuric acid plant was a lead-lined "chamber-process" plant which thermally extracted sulfur from pyrite. Pyrite ore commonly contains traces of arsenic, selenium, nickel, cobalt, and thallium. (Ref. 4, pp. 109, 186). "Lead Acid Chambers" are marked on the 1898 and 1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps (Ref. 4, pp. 173-179; Fig 3). A comparison of early Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps with 1961, 1965, 1994, 2004 and 2007 aerial photographs confirms the location of the lead chambers (Ref. 4 pp. 115-117; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5). The second acid plant on the Wright Chemical Corp facility property was a "contact- process" plant, which metal-catalyzed a refined sulfur feedstock. However, due to the corrosivity of sulfuric acid, lead-lined components were typically used in both processes (Ref. 4, pp. 109, 115-117, 161-162). Wright Chemical constructed several surface impoundments on the northern property during the 1970s (Ref. 4, pp. 109, 117, 120, 128). Acid manufacturing occurred on this property until 1991, and the buildings have since been demolished (Ref. 4, p. 109; Ref. 8, pp. 3-5). The Wright Chemical Corp facility property was sold to Oak Bark Corporation in 2004 (Ref.4, pp. 397, 453, 454). The Wright Chemical Corp. site contains denuded, magenta-colored soil primarily on two parcels totaling about 80 acres (Ref. 4, pp. 29-32, 88, 92, 115, 116, 453, 454; Ref. 8, pp. 3-8; Figs. 4, 5). Aerial photos indicate stressed or absent vegetation extending to the creek channel (Ref. 4, pp. 109, 115-117, 180-182; Fig. 4). The magenta soil coloration is characteristic of former lead chamber sulfuric acid manufacturing facilities (Ref. 4, pp. 215). Primary contaminants are lead and arsenic, but numerous other inorganics and some pesticides were detected in this area of denuded magenta colored soil (Ref. 4, pp. 72-81, 215; Ref. 9, pp. 1-12). The HRS score is based on one source denuded, contaminated soil, and a release of site contaminants to sediment in the fishery. While there are extensive wetlands along the surface water pathway (Ref. 7. p. 1; Fig. 9), the environmental threat was not scored because it does not make a significant additional contribution to the site score. Samples used for this documentation were collected on April 10, 2007 and were collected according to the Sampling and Analysis Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP) (Ref. 4, pp. 99-104). 14 ------- SD -Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1 SOURCE DESCRIPTION 2.2 Source Characterization Number of the Source: 1 Name and description of the source: In the 1880s, Acme Manufacturing began operating a lead chamber sulfuric acid and fertilizer manufacturing facility on the property, which operated until the 1960s or 1970s (Ref. 4, pp. 3, 9, 10, 108, 109, 173 - 179, 244). The Wright Chemical Corp. facility includes an area of stressed vegetation and magenta-colored soil (Ref. 4, pp. 3, 88, 92, 116, 117; Fig. 4) characteristic of former lead chamber sulfuric acid manufacturing facilities (Ref. 4, pp. 213 - 215). This magenta-colored soil is primarily on two parcels totaling about 80 acres owned by Oak Bark Corporation (Ref. 4, pp. 453, 454; Figs. 4, 5). A comparison of an early Sanborn Fire Insurance Map with recent aerial photography confirms the former lead chambers location (Ref. 4, pp. 4-7, 173 - 179; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5). Numerous other chemical operations have been and continue to be conducted on adjacent property (Ref. 4, pp. 9, 10); however, the focus of this documentation record is the past lead chamber sulfuric acid manufacturing facility. HRS Source Type: Contaminated Soil The source is contaminated soil as defined by samples WC-011-SS, WC-012-SS and WC-013-SS documented in the Table 1. These samples were collected near the former lead chambers and in the area where both 1) waste materials were placed and 2) overland flow from the former lead/acid chambers on the facility was received (Ref. 8, p. 7; Fig. 4). This area of denuded soil has a purplish/magenta coloration and appears fairly consistent between the three samples (Ref. 8, pp. 1, 3-5). This area remains unfenced and is outside any runoff control features. (Ref. 8, pp. 1, 3-5) It is accessible but there are no signs of recreation. (Ref. 8, pp. 1, 3- 5) The source area was observed to consist of three contiguous subareas. These areas are, from south to north: Area a) an upland area of denuded soils where the former lead chambers had been located, Area b) a wooded slope covered at least in part with bulldozed material similar to that observed in the former lead chamber area a), and Area c) a lowland area of contaminated soils. Source soil sample WC-012-SS was collected from Area a) while source soil samples WC-011-SS and WC-013-SS were collected from Area c), which extends to the probable point of entry (PPE) into Livingston Creek, and coincides, generally, with an area classified as non- HRS qualifying wetland type PUBH (Ref. 8, p. 7; Fig. 4). Area a) was void of vegetation and generally flat, with a discontinuous low berm on its northern edge. Parts of the flat areas and all of the berm area contained bricks, bits of wood, concrete and mortar, and pieces of clinker or slag. Soils in this area were of a magenta color characteristic of lead contaminated soils observed by NC Superfund and EPA project staff at 15 ------- SD -Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1 similar phosphate fertilizer sites under CERCLA assessment or remediation in the southeastern United States (Ref. 8, p. 7; Fig. 4). Area b) borders area a) and is sloped to the north, toward the floodplain of Livingston Creek. Debris and soil similar to that observed in the berm above was visible on parts of the slope. The slope is traversed by a roadbed leading west-northwest down to the floodplain. The slope is not wooded on the east-northeast side of this road. The shadow line of the woods makes the road location visible on Figure 4, located midway between sample locations WC-011-SS and WC-012-SS (Ref. 8, p. 7; Fig. 4). However, there were no samples collected from this area to confirm the presence of site hazardous substances. Area c) contains a roughly circular area completely devoid of vegetation, approximately 200 feet across, visible on Figure 4 as a lighter colored area extending northwest from samples WC-011-SS and WC-013-SS. The lighter colored ground appeared to consist of a number of overlapping or coalescing low waste piles. The material consists of a mix of these larger fragments with magenta colored sand and clay-sized material. It appears this material was trucked down the road and dumped in place (Ref. 8, p. 7). Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: North of railroad tracks and west of chemical manufacturing facility (Figs. 1, 4, 7) Containment Release via overland migration and/or flood Contaminated soil is outside any controlled runoff feature and is available for continuous and ongoing overland flow (Ref. 1, Table 4-2; Ref. 8, pp 1. 3-5). An observed release of site contaminants to Livingston Creek (Ref. 1; Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 41,47, 65, 66; Table 4-9) Containment factor: 10 16 ------- SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1 (Contaminated soil) 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances On April 10, 2007 NC Superfund Section collected three source surface soil samples and one background surface soil sample, as summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below (Fig. 4). Samples were collected according to the Sampling and Analysis Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP) (Ref. 4, pp. 99-104), which was developed in accordance with the NC Superfund Section Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) and Quality Assurance Standard Operating Procedures (QASOP). The QASOP adopts by reference the Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. The Program Plan is derived directly from the EPA-Approved NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources QA Plan for Data, 2004 (Ref. 4, pp. 99-104). Samples were shipped to a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory (A4 Scientific) and analyzed for total metals by ICP-AES and cyanide analysis by Statement of Work (SOW) ILM05.3 and they were analyzed for pesticides per method SOM01.1 (Ref. 4, pp. 34; Refs. 5, pp. 2-4; Ref. 6, pp. 1-6). A US EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division Quality Assurance Chemist reviewed and validated this data for performance according to the Statement of Work (Ref. 4, pp. 33, 34, 67- 69). The depths of the background and source soil samples were all similar (Table 1). The source area was observed to be denuded and the level of contamination in the source area likely prevented growth of any vegetation for years (Refs. 8, pp. 1, 3-5). The purple/magenta coloration in the source samples is indicative of the lead / arsenic contamination (Ref. 4, pp. 215). Tables 1 and 3 contain summary of field observations and references to these observations. 17 ------- SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1 (Contaminated soil) Table 1. Source Soil and Background Soil Samples Source Samples Date; Time Description WC-011-SS 4/10/07; 1410 (Ref. 4, pp. 35, 70, 88, 92, 95, 97) Surface soil sample (0-9") in denuded area in a wetland with purple soils. Purple sand was encountered until 2" - 6" when wet sand was found (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 92; Fig. 7) WC-012-SS 4/10/07; 1345 (Ref. 4, pp. 35, 70, 88, 92, 96, 98) Surface soil sample (0-9") collected on top level by plant area. Purple soils encountered. (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 92; Fig. 7) WC-013-SS 4/10/07; 1420 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 88, 93, 96, 98) Surface soil sample (0-6") in area of purple soil in wetland area. All purple sand. (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 93; Fig. 7) WC-014-SS 4/10/07; 1200 (Ref. 4, pp. 35, 70, 87, 91, 96, 98) Background surface soil (0-9"), Root & organics (0 - 3", silty sand 3 - 6", fine sandy loam 6-9". Refusal at 9" (Ref. 4, pp. 87, 91; Fig. 7) 18 ------- SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1 (Contaminated soil) Table 2. Source Soil and Background Soil Results Units WC-014-SS* mg/kg CRQL WC-011-SS WC-012-SS WC-013-SS (Background) (Ref. 5) Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 57, Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 59 Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 61,62 Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 63 8.3 UJ Antimony** 6 69 J [34.8] 63 J [31.8] 86 J [43.4] (8.3 U) Arsenic** 1 430 J [2471 700 J [4021 900 J [5171 1.4 J* Cadmium 0.5 42 31 40 0.69 U Copper** 2.5 210 J [172] 720 J [590] 890 J [730] 1.9 J* (3.5 U) 3500 J 7800 J 10000 J Lead** 1 [2430] [5417] [6944] 16 J [23] Manganese 1.5 32 27 27 8.9 0.056 J* (0.50 Mercury 0.1 2.4 2.4 35 U) Nickel 4 20 17 19 1.9 J* (5.5 U) Silver 1 18 29 43 1.4 U Thallium 2.5 16 22 28 3.5 U Zinc 6 7500 4700 6700 14 J J = estimated value "U" indicates non-detect. The number adjacent to the "U" or inside () is the MRL. [ ] provides the adjusted value for the estimated (J'd) value as adjusted for bias (Ref. 4, pp. 266 - 283). *() = Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) is shown in parentheses when a trace value is reported below the MRL. The MRL is the analyte concentration which corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve or the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation (Ref. 4, p. 36). Trace levels below reporting limits are treated as non-detect (Ref. 1, Table 2-3; Ref. 4, p. 269). ** Flagging of data in the data reports (Ref. 4, pp 37 - 86) is inconsistent with statements in the data report (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 68). Generally, the narrative indicates some data should be J-qualified while data sheets did not show a J. Where a conflict appeared, the data was treated as J'd and subsequently adjusted as appropriate. Data were adjusted per "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination", to illustrate the relative increase of hazardous substance concentrations of background levels (Ref. 4, pp. 266-283). This is a conservative approach. **Arsenic and copper results are J'd due to high bias (Ref. 4, p. 34). Background is not adjusted; source/release results are adjusted downward by correction factor of 1.74 for arsenic and 1.22 for copper (Ref. 4, pp. 270, 283). Antimony and lead results are J'd due to uncertain bias. Because matrix spike sample recovery for antimony and lead were low, and because performance evaluation sample recovery were "action high" (Ref. 4, p. 34), data was adjusted based on uncertain bias (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 270, 273, 283). Background is adjusted upward and source/release results are adjusted downward by correction factor of 1.98 for antimony and 1.44 for lead (Ref. 4, pp. 270, 283). BOLD = Observed contamination, which is greater than or equal to 3 times background when detected in background, or greater than background quantitation limit (aka MRL) and CRQL if background is non-detect (Ref. 1, Table 2-3; Ref. 4, p. 266). Note that source samples were compared to background soil sample in Table 2. 19 ------- SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1 (Contaminated soil) Soil background hazardous substance and concentration summary Level shown without "U" is level detected above MRL. J'd levels below MRL are treated as non-detect (Ref. 1, Table 2-3; Ref. 4, p. 269). The number shown in parentheses is the higher of MRL or CRQL. Antimony non-detect (8.3 UJ, [8.3 U] mg/kg) Arsenic 1.4 J mg/kg Cadmium non-detect (0.69 U mg/kg) Copper non-detect (3.5 U mg/kg) Lead 23 mg/kg Manganese 8.9 mg/kg Mercury non-detect (0.5 U mg/kg) Nickel non-detect (5.5 U mg/kg) Silver non-detect (1.4 U mg/kg) Thallium non-detect (3.5 U mg/kg) Zinc 14 J mg/kg Source hazardous substances and concentration summary (estimated concentrations adjusted for bias, where appropriate) Antimony ranging from 31.8-43.4 mg/kg Arsenic ranging from 247 - 517 mg/kg Cadmium ranging from 31 - 42 mg/kg Copper ranging from 210 - 730 mg/kg Lead ranging from 2,430 - 6,944 mg/kg Manganese ranging from 27-32 mg/kg Mercury ranging from 2.4-35 mg/kg Nickel ranging from 17-20 mg/kg Silver ranging from 18-43 mg/kg Thallium ranging from 16-28 mg/kg Zinc ranging from 4,700 - 7,500 mg/kg 20 ------- SD-Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 1 (Contaminated Soil) 2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Sufficient evidence does not exist to evaluate Hazardous Constituent Quantity 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Waste stream Quantity Sufficient evidence does not exist to evaluate Hazardous Waste stream Quantity 2.4.2.1.3 Volume Sufficient evidence does not exist to evaluate Volume 2.4.2.1.4 Area Three points were collected in the former lead chamber / surface impoundment area; the area of contaminated soil is determined to be >0 (Ref. 4, pp. 108, 109, 115-117, 120, 128, 161 173-179, 180-182, 186; Figure 3) Area assigned value (Ref. 1, Table 2-5) = A/34,000 = > 0 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value = >0 21 ------- SD-Summary SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Containment Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Ground Surface Air No. Value Water Water Gas Particulate 1 >0 NS 10 NS NS Sum of Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Values = >0 (Rounded to nearest integer, per Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2) 22 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway 4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT 4.1.1.1 DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MIGRATION PATH FOR OVERLAND/FLOOD COMPONENT Source 1 drains northward to Livingston Creek. Historically, there could have been several Probable Points of Entry (PPEs) to the perennial surface water pathway into Livingston Creek (Ref. 4, pp. 18, 228-231); however, the precise location of former PPEs cannot now be determined because buildings and old impoundments have been removed (Ref. 4, pp. 109, 117) Two of the three source samples (WC-011-SS and WC-013-SS) (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 93; Ref. 7, p. 1; Figs. 7, 9) were collected within an area described as a wetland area adjacent to Livingston Creek (Ref. 8, p. 6); however, this area does not meet the 40 CFR 230.3 definition of a wetland due to the lack of hydrophytes, therefore, the source lies along the overland flow pathway and the PPE is the point where the overland flow enters Livingston Creek (Fig. 4). A portion of this source area appeared to consist of low overlapping piles (Ref. 8, p.7) in the wetland area. From Source 1, the overland drainage route flows downgradient approximately 100 feet northward to Livingston Creek, a perennial water body, marking the start of the in-water segment of the surface water migration pathway and the 15-mile target distance limit (TDL) (Figs. 1, 4). Livingston Creek is about 29 feet wide and about 3 feet deep in most locations (Ref. 4, pp. 18, 350). Livingston Creek's flow below the Wright Chemical Corp. facility property is slightly greater than 100 cfs, making it a moderate-to-large stream (Ref. 1, Table 4-13; Ref. 4, pp. 18, 250, 259, 260, 262). Below the PPE, Livingston Creek meanders in a generally northerly direction for three miles through extensive wetlands, and then flows into the Cape Fear River (Ref. 4, pp. 2, 124; Figs. 1, 6, 8, 9). Livingston Creek flows past landfills associated with the International Paper facility (Figs. 6, 8). There is tidal flow reversal in Livingston Creek (Ref. 10, pp. 1, 2). Mill Creek is upgradient and to the northeast of Source 1 and enters Livingston Creek downstream of the PPE from the source. Mill Creek flows past the adjacent Hexion property before entering Livingston Creek and does not receive runoff from Source 1 (Fig. 4, 7). Mill Creek flows from the east, past a road and an iron pipe near the sewer line (as observed during the sample collection event (Ref. 4, pp 88, 92; Figs. 4, 6, 7), and where it is indicated as a pipeline on the USGS topographic map (Fig. 1) then along the northern edge of the Hexion property. The lower part of the source area, the PPE, and the confluence of Livingston Creek with Mill Creek has alternately been mapped as a pond and a wetland (Ref. 7, p. 1; Figs. 1, 8, 9). Below the confluence with Livingston Creek, the Cape Fear flows in an easterly direction for about 6 miles, where the river splits to Lyon Thoroughfare. Lyon Thoroughfare flows easterly and joins with the Black River. The Cape Fear continues to flow in a general southeasterly direction, and 15-mile surface water pathway ends near the confluence of the Black 23 ------- River and the Cape Fear. The entire surface water pathway is within the Cape Fear River basin (which includes the Black River), and is a large stream-to-river system from the point where Livingston Creek enters the Cape Fear River to the end of the surface water pathway (>1000 - 10,000 cfs) (Ref. 1, Table 4-13; Ref. 4, pp. 250 - 265). At the point where Livingston Creek flows into the Cape Fear River, the river is about 300 feet wide and 26 feet deep (Ref. 4, pp. 18, 349). When some of the fisheries being evaluated are in fresh water and some are in salt water or any are in brackish water, the HRS instructs to use the bioconcentration factor (BCF) data that yield the higher factor value to assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1.3). For this reason, the surface water pathway was researched to determine if any part of the 15-mile surface water pathway is brackish or salt water. Lock 1 is about 9 1/2 river miles upstream from where Livingston Creek flows into the Cape Fear River and 37 miles upstream of Wilmington (Ref. 4, pp. 18, 19, 286). The point where Livingston Creek flows into the Cape Fear River is 27 1/2 miles upstream from Wilmington. The point where the Cape Fear joins the Black River is the upstream intrusion limit (200 mg/L chloride), having a 50% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any one year (Ref. 4, pp. 296, 309). Saltwater intrusion may affect water quality as far as 20 miles upstream from Wilmington (Ref. 4, p. 300). Therefore, the first 10 1/2 miles of the surface water pathway is fresh, and the last 4 1/2 miles of the surface water pathway is brackish/salt. 24 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release 4.1.2.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE 4.1.2.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE Chemical Analysis Sediment On April 10, 2007 NC Superfund Section collected five background sediment samples from either Mill Creek or Livingston Creek and six (including one duplicate) downstream sediment samples from Livingston Creek, as summarized in Tables 3-6 below (Fig. 7). Samples were collected according to the Sampling and Analysis Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP) (Ref. 4, pp. 99-104), which was developed in accordance with the NC Superfund Section Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) and Quality Assurance Standard Operating Procedures (QASOP). The QASOP adopts by reference the Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. The Program Plan is derived directly from the EPA-Approved NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources QA Plan for Data, 2004 (Ref. 4, pp. 99-104). Samples were shipped to a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory (A4 Scientific) and analyzed for total metals by ICP-AES and cyanide analysis by Statement of Work (SOW) ILM05.3 and they were analyzed for pesticides per method SOM01.1 (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 68). A Quality Assurance Chemist with the US EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division reviewed and validated this data for performance according to the Statement of Work (Ref. 4, pp. 33, 34, 67-69). 25 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Background concentration Sediment Only those compounds found in a source and a release sample at levels greater than three times background (or greater than background reporting limits when not detected in background) are listed below in the background data. For the listed compounds not detected in the background, only the Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) (Ref. 4, p. 36) and the Contract- Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL) (Ref. 5) values are given. When samples are analyzed by the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, the Hazard Ranking System Final Rule (Ref. 1, Table 2- 3) instructs that when the background concentration is not detected or is less than the quantitation limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds either the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL), or if this can not be determined, the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL) (Ref. 1, Table 2-3; Ref. 4, p. 266; Ref. 5). For inorganic compounds, Reference 5 provides the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL) (Ref. 1, Section 1.1, see definition for CRQL). Table 3. Background Sediment Samples Sample number Date; time Description WC-001-SD 4/10/07; 1250 (Ref. 4, pp. 35, 70, 88, 91,95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample upstream of Old Highway 87 on Livingston Creek; background sample (MS/MSD); Tan sand, no layer or organics (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 91) WC-002-SD 4/10/07; 1310 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 88, 92, 95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample downstream of railroad on Livingston Creek; background sample (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 92) WC-008-SD 4/10/07; 1145 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 87, 95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample downstream of Neils Eddy Road on Mill Creek; background sample (Ref. 4, pp. 87, 90) WC-009-SD 4/10/07; 1120 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 87, 90, 95; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample upstream of iron pipe near sewerline and roads on Mill Creek; background sample (Ref. 4, pp. 87, 90) WC-010-SD 4/10/07; 1515 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 88, 93, 95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample upstream of confluence of Mill Creek and Livingston Creek on Mill Creek; background/attribution (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 93; Ref. 8, p. 1) 26 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Table 4. Background Sediment Sample Results CRQL WC-001-SD WC-002-SD WC-008-SD WC-009-SD WC-010-SD Analyte (mg/kg) Ref. 5 Ref. 4, pp. 36, 37 Ref. 4, pp. 36, 39 Ref. 4, pp. 36, 51 Ref. 4, pp. 36, 53 Ref. 4, pp. 36, 55 bkg bkg bkg bkg bkg Arsenic** 1 1.5 U 3.7 U 1.6 U 2.4 U 2.4 J* (1.7) Cadmium 0.5 0.77 U 1.2 J (1.9 U) 0.78 U 1.2 U 0.86 U Copper** 2.5 29 J 63 J 10 J 13 J 8.6 J Lead** 1 3.7 J [5.3] 26 J [37] 2.4 J [3.5] 5.7 J [8.2] 10 J Zinc 6 18J 130 5.4 J 21 J 38 J = an estimated quantity "U" indicates non-detect, and the number adjacent to U is the MRL. [ ] provides the adjusted value for the estimated (J'd) value as adjusted for bias (Ref. 4, pp. 266 - 283). *() = Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) is shown in parentheses when a trace value is reported below the MRL. The MRL is the analyte concentration which corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve or the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation (Ref. 4, p. 36). **Note that the flagging of some data in the data tables (Ref. 4, pp 37 - 86) is inconsistent with statements at beginning of the data report (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 68). Generally, the narrative indicates some data should have been J-qualified while data sheets did not show a J. Where a conflict appeared, the data was treated as J'd and subsequently adjusted as indicated. **Arsenic and copper results are J'd due to high bias (Ref. 4, p. 34). Background is not adjusted; source/release results are adjusted downward by correction factor of 1.74 for arsenic and 1.22 for copper (Ref. 4, pp. 270, 283). ** Antimony and lead results are J'd due to uncertain bias. Because matrix spike sample recovery for antimony and lead were low, and because performance evaluation sample recovery were "action high" (Ref. 4, p. 34), data was adjusted base on uncertain bias (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 270, 273, 283). Background is adjusted upward and source/release results are adjusted downward by correction factor of 1.98 for antimony and 1.44 for lead (Ref. 4, pp. 270, 283). 27 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Contaminated Samples Sediment The following sediment samples were collected on April 10, 2007. . Table 5. Sediment Samples Distance from PPE (ft.) Fig. 7 Description wc- 003-SD 250 4/10/07; 1440 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 88, 93, 95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample upstream of confluence of Livingston Creek and Mill Creek; sample collected at bend, 0-9", sandy material, all tan (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 93) WC- 013-SD* Same as above 4/10/07; 1440 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 88, 93, 96, 98; Fig. 7) Duplicate of WC-003-SD. See discussion below regarding WC-103-SD / WC-013-SD (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 93) WC- 004-SD 750 4/10/07; 1540 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 88, 93, 95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample downstream of confluence of Livingston Creek and Mill Creek, approximately 75 yards downstream of confluence. Grey silty sand, 0 - 6" (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 93) WC- 005-SD 2650 4/10/07; 1055 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 87, 90, 95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample 30' upstream of second pipeline (36" iron). Little organic on top, mix of sand, clay and organics. (Ref. 4, pp. 87, 90) WC- 006-SD 2800 4/10/07; 1040 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 87, 89, 95, 97; Fig. 7) Grab sediment sample collected 50' downstream of sewer pipeline, sandy clay material under 2" organic layer. (Ref. 4, pp. 87, 89) WC- 007-SD 4000 4/10/07; 1010 (Ref. 4, pp, 35, 70, 87, 89, 95, 97; Fig. 77) Grab sediment sample on Livingston Creek; release sample 0.1 mile wetland frontage, upstream of wooden pier. 0 - 6", grey clay with tan sand (Ref. 4, pp. 87, 89) * Note that field log notes discuss the collection of WC-003-SD (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 93) but do not specifically discuss the collection of the duplicate WC-103-SD. However, the sample plan (Ref. 4, p. 102) lists sample WC-103-SD and the chain of custody shows that WC-103-SD was sample collected at same time as WA-003-SD (Ref. 4, pp. 96, 98). Note also that the laboratory report did not contain results for WC-103-SD, but did show results for WC-013-SD, a sample not listed on the chain of custody. WC-013-SD (as reported by the lab), shows the same date, time and CLP sample ID number as that indicated for WC-103-SD on the chain of custody (Ref. 4, pp. 35, 65, 66, 70, 86). 28 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Table 6. Sediment Sample Results WC-003- WC-013- WC-004- WC-005- WC-006- WC-007- mg/kg CRQL SD SD SD SD SD SD Reference Ref. 5 (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 41,) (Ref. 4, pp.34, 36, 65, 66) (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 43) (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 45) (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 47) (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 49) Sample purpose release release/dup release release release release 2.9 J 320 J 0.95 J (1.3 Arsenic** 1 31 J [17.81 29 J [16.61 1.3 U (3.1 U) [183.9] U) 0.28J Cadmium 0.5 3.5 3.6 0.30 U, J 1.1 U.J 2.4 U, J (0.65 U) 190 J 770 J Copper** 2.5 [155] 150 J [122] 5.4J 73 J [59] [631] 22 520 J** 430 J** 8.2 J** 130 J** 1200 J** 25 J** Lead 1 [360] [300] [5.7] [90] [830] [17] Zinc 6 660 780 5.9J 160 380 36 J = estimated quantity "U" indicates non-detect, and the number adjacent to U is the MRL. [ ] = value adjusted for bias (Ref. 4, pp. 266 - 283). *() = Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) is shown in parentheses when a trace value is reported below the MRL. When an estimated level is reported below Contract Required Reporting Limit (CRQL) / MRL, this value is considered non-detect (Ref. 1, Table 2-3) **Note that the flagging of some data in the data tables (Ref. 4, pp 37 - 86) is inconsistent with statements at beginning of the data report (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 68). Generally, the narrative indicates some data should have been J-qualified while data sheets did not show a J. Where a conflict appeared, the data was treated as J'd and subsequently adjusted as indicated. **Arsenic and copper results are J'd due to high bias (Ref. 4, p. 34). Background is not adjusted; source/release results are adjusted downward by correction factor of 1.74 for arsenic and 1.22 for copper (Ref. 4, pp. 270, 283). ** Lead results are J'd due to uncertain bias. Because matrix spike sample recovery for lead was low, and because performance evaluation sample recovery were "action high" (Ref. 4, p. 34), data was adjusted base on uncertain bias (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 270, 273, 283). Background is adjusted upward and source/release results are adjusted downward by correction factor of 1.44 for lead (Ref. 4, pp. 270, 283). BOLD indicates an observed release An observed release must be either greater than background CRQL / MRL (when non-detect) or three times the level detected in background (Ref. 1, Table 2-3; Ref. 4, pp. 266 - 283). To determine an Observed Release, the highest detect / CRQL of the five background sediment samples was used. 29 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Background sediment concentration summary (highest detected level or the highest quantitation limit of the five background samples) Arsenic 3.7 U mg/kg Cadmium 1.9 U mg/kg Copper 63 J mg/kg Lead 37 mg/kg (adjusted upward due to uncertain bias) Zinc 130 mg/kg Hazardous substances in observed release to sediment summary. Sample WC-003-SD and its duplicate WC-013-SD serve to document the observed release of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc into the fishery. While samples just downstream of the site (WC-004-SD and WC-005-SD) did not show site contaminants, sample WC-006-SD showed higher levels of site contaminants. Given the passage of time since operations ceased, it can be anticipated that various storm and erosion events could cause uneven distribution and migration of contaminants downstream from the source. Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc 320 mg / kg 3.6 mg/kg 770 mg/kg 830 mg/kg 780 mg/kg 30 ------- SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Further discussion: There appears to be some pesticide contamination at this site; however, this information was not used to produce the site score. A nearby upgradient facility manufactured chlorinated pesticides (Ref. 9, pp. 1-12). 4.1.2.1.1.1 ATTRIBUTION The Wright Chemical Corp site was a fertilizer and sulfuric acid manufacturing facility founded in 1883 (Ref. 4 pp. 397, 401). The original Acme plant was a lead-lined "chamber- process" plant that thermally extracted sulfur from pyrite (Ref. 4 pp. 109). Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps dated from 1898 and 1910 confirm that "Lead Acid Chambers" were previously present on the property where Source 1 has been identified (Ref. 4 pp. 173-179; Fig. 3). Denuded, magenta-colored soil characteristic of former lead chamber sulfuric acid manufacturing facilities (Ref. 4 pp. 214-215) has been documented in the vicinity of the former process areas on the property (Ref. 8, pp. 1-8). This magenta colored soil typically contains lead in the 4,000 - 20,000 mg/kg range and depending on the raw materials used in the processes, it can also contain substantial amounts of other metals and contaminants (Ref. 4 p. 215). Source 1 has been documented to contain elevated concentrations of metals including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc (see Table 2 of this HRS documentation record) (Ref. 4, pp. 34, 36, 57-59, 61-63; Fig. 4). Source 1 drains north, downgradient into Livingston Creek (Figs. 1, 4). Sediment samples taken from Livingston Creek directly downgradient from source 1 show elevated concentrations of metals analogous to those found in source 1 (Ref. 4, pp. 35-56, 87-93; Fig. 7). Additionally, sediment samples WC-011-SS and WC-013-SS have been documented as being located in a wetland contiguous to Livingston Creek (Ref. 8, p. 6, Fig. 4). Since samples WC-011-SS and WC-013-SS are located in a wetland contiguous with Livingston Creek, evidence of direct deposition of hazardous chemicals directly into the Creek from source 1 is present. There are three current/former facilities/sites that are upgradient from this site - Hexion, Kaiser Agricultural, and Kaiser Acme Farmarket (Ref. 4, pp. 108, 109-110, 117; Ref. 9, 1-12). There are two nearby facilities/sites that are downgradient from Wright Chemical - International Paper (aka Federal Paperboard) and Holtrachem (Ref. 4, p. 3, Figs. 5, 6). The neighboring Hexion facility was at one time owned and operated by the Wright Chemical Corp. The history of chemical manufacturing on this adjacent 20-acre Hexion parcel included formaldehyde, hexamine, chloropicrin, silicon compounds and pharmaceuticals. There is no history of work with metals (Ref. 4, pp. 9, 129, 397-404). One sample (WC-010-SD; Tables 3, 4) was collected downgradient of Hexion and up gradient from Livingston Creek. This sample documents any 31 ------- impact to Mill Creek that may have occurred from runoff from the Hexion site prior to it entering Livingston Creek. The archived Kaiser Agricultural Chemical site (NCD 980 842 470) adjacent to and south of the lead chamber properties was once part of Acme Chemical and was owned by Wright Chemical. This parcel housed the fertilizer portion of the operation, it was investigated under CERCLA, and was archived from CERCLA in 1989 (Ref, 4, p. 110, 111). The former Kaiser Acme Farmarket (NCD 980 557 847) pesticide facility is about Vi mile to the south. This facility was associated with chlorinated pesticide manufacturing from 1967 - 1971 and subsequently for pesticide retail sales. There is no evidence it had metal contamination (Ref. 9, pp. 1-12). To the north and across Livingston Creek is the 978-acre parcel owned by Federal Paper Board Co., Inc. (aka International Paper) (Ref. 4, p. 452.3; Fig. 5). Adjacent to and east of Federal Paper Board, bordering the Cape Fear River is the former Holtrachem (aka LCP Chemicals; Honeywell; Allied Signal) mercury cell chlor-alkali plant site (NCD 991 278 631), currently owned by Honeywell International (Ref. 4, pp. 452.4, 452.5; Fig. 6). Both of these sites are downgradient from the Wright Chemical Corp site. There is some flow reversal on Livingston Creek (Ref. 10, pp. 1, 2); however, neither the Holtrachem nor the International Paper site are associated with any lead, arsenic, cadmium, copper, or zinc contamination (Ref. 8, p. 2). Holtrachem has high contamination with mercury and PCBs (Ref. 8, p. 2). 4.1.2.1.2 POTENTIAL TO RELEASE TO SURFACE WATER Not scored because observed release to surface water sediment documented by chemical analysis Surface Water Sediment Observed Release Factor Value 550 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.2.1.1) 32 ------- SWOF Human Food Chain Threat 4.1.3 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT The human food chain threat is evaluated based on three factor categories: likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets. 4.1.3.1 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT-LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE The human food chain threat likelihood of release is the same as that for the drinking water threat (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.1). Level II contamination in Livingston Creek from the PPE downstream 2800 feet to Sample WC-006-SD has been documented as a part of a fishery. (Ref. 4, pp.35, 70, 87, 531-533, Fig. 7). 550 4.1.3 .2 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT-WASTE CHARACTERISTICS The waste characteristics factor category for each watershed is based on two factors: toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation and hazardous waste quantity (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2). 4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation The HRS instructs to evaluate the waste characteristics factor category based on two factors: toxicity/persistence and hazardous waste quantity. And, to evaluate only those hazardous substances that are available to migrate from the sources at the property to surface water in the watershed via the overland/flood hazardous substance migration path for the watershed. Such hazardous substances include hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to surface water in the watershed, and all hazardous substances associated with a source that has a surface water containment factor value greater than 0 for the watershed (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.2.2, also see sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 4.1.2.1.2.1.1, and 4.1.2.1.2.2.1). Tables 7 and 8 of this HRS documentation record present those substances documented in the observed release to the fishery, and those substances documented in the source with a containment factor value greater than 0. As discussed above, Livingston Creek (3 miles) and the first 7 V2 miles in the Cape Fear River is fresh, and the last 4 1/2 miles of the surface water pathway is brackish/salt. (See discussion in 4.1.1.1 above; Ref. 4, pp. 296, 300, 309). The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) instructs that if bioconcentration factor (BCF) data are available for both fresh water and salt water for the hazardous substance, use the BCF data that corresponds to the type of water body (that is, fresh water or salt water) in which the fisheries are located to assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance. If, however, some of the fisheries being evaluated are in fresh water and some are in salt water, or if any are in brackish water, use the BCF data that yield the higher factor value to 33 ------- SWOF - Human Food Chain Threat assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1.3). Because the fishery is located in fresh water, only fresh water bioaccumulation values will be used as per the HRS. Table 7. Source 1 Contaminants Documented in O ^served Release to Sediment in the Fishery Hazardous Substance Tox. Factor value PF# BPFV* Fresh Food** BPFV* Salt Food** T/P value (Ref. 1, Table 4-12) T/P/BPFV (fresh) (Ref. 1, Table 4-16) T/P/BPFV (salt) (Ref. 1, Table 4-16) Arsenic 10,000 1 5 500 10,000 5 x 10 E4 5 x 10 E6 Cadmium 10,000 1 5,000 50,000 10,000 5 x 10 E7 5 x 10 E8 Copper 0 1 500 50,000 0 0 0 Lead 10,000 1 5 5,000 10,000 5 x 10 E4 5 x 10 E7 Zinc 10 1 5 50,000 10 50 5 x 10 E5 Table 8. Source 1 Contaminants Documented in Source with Containment Factor of 10, not documented in Observed Release to Fishery Sediment Hazardous Substance Tox. Factor value PF# BPFV* Fresh Food** BPFV* Salt Food** T/P value (Ref. 1, Table 4-12) T/P/BPFV (fresh) (Ref. 1, Table 4-16) T/P/BPFV (salt) (Ref. 1, Table 4-16) Antimony 10,000 1 5 5 10,000 5 x 10 E4 5 x 10 E4 Manganese 10,000 1 50,000 50,000 10,000 5 x 10 E8 5 x 10 E8 Mercury 10,000 1 50,000 50,000 10,000 5 x 10 E8 5 x 10 E8 Nickel 10,000 1 0.5 500 10,000 5 x 10E3 5 x 10 E6 Silver 100 1 50 50,000 100 5 x 10E3 5 x 10E6 Thallium 100 1 500 50 100 5 x 10E4 5 x 10E3 T/P/BPFV = Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Potential Factor (Ref. 1, Table 4-16) **Ref. 2, Appendix BI, pp. 1-15 BPFV = Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value #PF = Persistence Factor Value, Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1.2; Ref. 2 *Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1.3; Ref. 2. Of those contaminants documented in the observed release to the fishery, cadmium has the highest T/P/BPFV freshwater value. Of those contaminants documented in the source but not in fishery sediment, manganese and mercury have the highest freshwater values. Manganease and mercury were used to assign the toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value as per Section 4.1.3.2.1.4 of the HRS. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: = 5 x 10 34 ------- SWOF - Human Food Chain Threat 4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity HRS (Ref. 1), Section 4.1.3.2.2 instructs that if any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations, assign either the value from Table 2-6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that pathway. (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2) Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100 4.1.3.2.3 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: Toxicity/Persistence Value = 10,000 Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value = 50,000 Toxicity/Persistence Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 x 100 = 1,000,000 (1 x 106) (Toxicity/Persistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity) x Bioaccumulation Potential Value: (1 x 106) x 50,000 = 5 x IP10 Human Food Chain Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned Value/ Human Food Chain Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7; Sections 4.1.3.2.3 and 2.4.3.1): 35 ------- SWOF - Human Food Chain Threat 4.1.3 .3 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT - TARGETS Actual Human Food Chain Contamination Observed Release to Surface water sediment (Level II) was documented in Section 4.1.3.1. Livingston Creek, from WC-001-SD upstream of Old Highway 87 until its confluence with the Cape Fear River is a fishery. Brim, bass and catfish are caught in the creek, and catches are cooked and consumed on the creek banks (Ref. 4, pp. 88, 91, 531 - 533). The Cape Fear River is an important fishery (Ref. 4, pp. 291 - 293; 490 - 502; 531 533). Atlantic Sturgeon, Striped Bass and American Shad catches are three of the seven anadromous species found in the Cape Fear River system, along with several nonnative species (Ref. 4, pp. 490 - 502). The Cape Fear River is a commercial fishery (Ref. 4, pp. 289, 291, 293). The estimated 1981 harvest was 1.3 million pounds for the entire basin downstream of Lock 1 (Ref. 4, p. 292); however, the fishery has experienced a decline (Ref. 4, 492). Commercial off-shore shad fishing has been phased out, making the inshore Cape Fear River shad fishery even more important (Ref. 4, p. 492). The Atlantic Sturgeon is a threatened species and the shortnose sturgeon is an endangered species; there is a reproducing population of these two species in this drainage basin (Ref. 4, p. 495). Researchers at the University of North Carolina Wilmington's Center for Marine Science performed a pilot study in 2003-2004 to assess metals and organic contaminant concentrations at three areas in the Lower Cape Fear River system (Ref. 4, p. 476). One of these areas was Livingston Creek, about 40 meters upstream of the confluence with the Cape Fear River (LVC) (Ref. 4, pp. 475, 476; Fig. 6). The clam and bottom-feeding fish tissue concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and Dieldrin exceeded their respective recommended concentration range, indicating potential human health problems (Ref. 4, pp. 476, 480 484). 4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain individual (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1) Level II contamination in Livingston Creek from the PPE downstream 2800 feet to Sample WC- 006-SD has been documented as a part of a fishery. (Ref. 4, pp. 35, 70, 87, 531-533, Fig. 7). "If any fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to Level II concentrations, assign a value of 45. Food Chain Individual Factor Value = 45 36 ------- SWOF - Human Food Chain Threat 4.1.3.3.2 Population 4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations not scored 4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc contamination have been documented in source 1 and in sediment in the fishery. The level of contaminants is summarized below: mg/kg WC-003-SD WC-013-SD WC-006-SD Arsenic 31 J [17.81 29 J [16.61 320 J [183.91 Cadmium 3.5 3.6 2.4 U, J Copper 190 J [155] 150 J[122] 770 J [631] Lead 520 J** [360] 430 J** [300] 1200 J** [830] Zinc 660 780 380 Given the active fishing occurring in Livingston Creek (Ref. 4, p. 531) >0 pounds of fish are caught in Livingston Creek and consumed. A Food Chain Population value of 0.03 is assigned (Ref. 1, Table 4-18). Level II Concentrations Factor Value = 0.03 4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination - not scored 4.1.3.3.3 Calculation of Human Food chain threat - targets factor category value (Ref. 1. Section 4.1.3.3.3) Human food chain threat-targets factor category value = Human Food Chain Individual + Level II concentrations = 45 + (0.03) = 45.03 4.1.3.4 Calculation of human food chain threat score Likelihood of release x waste characteristics x targets / 82,500 = 550x320x45.03 / 82,500 = 96.06 Human Food Chain Threat Score = 96.06 37 ------- SWOF/Environment 4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT Even though there are extensive wetlands along the surface water pathway (Ref. 7, p. 1, Fig. 9), the environmental threat was not scored because it would have had a minimal additional impact on the surface water pathway score. 38 ------- Table 4-1 Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Scoresheet Human Food Chain Threat Maximum Value Value Assigned Likelihood of Release: 550 550 Waste Characteristics: Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 5 x 108 Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100 Waste Characteristics 1,000 320 Targets: Food Chain Individual Factor Value 50 45 Level I Concentrations (b) Level II Concentrations (b) 0.03 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b) Population (Level I + Level II + Potential) (b) 45.03 Human Food Chain Threat Score: [550x320x45.03]/82,500= 100 96.06 (a)Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category (b)Maximum value not applicable 39 ------- |