Mr. Sin-Kie Tjho and Mr. Frank Faranca
June 18, 2010
Page 2(EPA, 2003). This guidance document takes into account the additive toxicity of multiple
PAH compounds with differing relative toxicities to benthic organisms.
In addition to the PAH mixtures model for sediments, PAH concentrations in hydricsoils/sediment samples in wetland exposure areas were evaluated relative to EPA
Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) for total PAHs (EPA 2007). Eco-SSLs
were developed for two PAH classes based on additive toxicity of individual compounds
within each class: low molecular weight PAH compounds (less than four aromatic ring
structures) and high molecular weight PAH compounds (four or greater aromatic ring
structures).
Based on the guidance provided in the above documents, the EI evaluated ecological
exposure to PAHs based on the additive toxicity of PAH mixtures.
NJDEP Example 2: Area use factors (AUFs) used in the Tier II analyses of ecologicalimpacts (0.1) were frequently an order of magnitude less than the 100 % used in the moreconservative Tier I analyses of ecological impacts. BEERA/ETRA considers 0.1
unrealistically low; however, given the lack of substantial quality habitat in the Carneys
Point Area and the Manufacturing Areas of the site, these low AUFs were considered in thisinstance.
DuPont Response 2: Exposure evaluations for wildlife included area use factors (AUFs)
to represent the proportion of time that a receptor may forage in a given exposure area asa function of the typical foraging range of the receptor. Tier I exposure evaluations
conservatively assumed that receptors would forage 100 percent of the time in the
exposure area, regardless of the relative size of the exposure area to the typical foraging
range. Tier II exposure evaluations calculated AUFs as the ratio of the area of the
exposure to the area of the foraging range. A default AUF of 1.0 was assumed forreceptors with home ranges smaller than the exposure area; the minimum AUF applied to
exposure models was 0.01 (1 percent area use). The low AUFs calculated for somereceptors (e.g., great blue heron, mallard, osprey) reflect the low proportion of time thatreceptors with large foraging ranges will be exposed to contaminants in the smaller
exposure area.
NJDEP Example 3: Filtered water sample results (e.g., surface water, interstitial water)
were utilized in the EI. It isn’t known if this was per the approved workplan, but DEP prefers
to have unfiltered results reported as well.
DuPont Response 3: Filtered and unfiltered surface-water samples were collected andanalyzed for metals in the EI as part of the characterization of aquatic exposure areas;organic constituents in surface water were analyzed in unfiltered samples only. Whileboth fractions were reported for metals in surface water, the selection of COPECs was
based on the filtered fraction. The filtered fraction represents the bioavailable fraction
most relevant to evaluating ecological effects of metals and the relevant fraction for the

Summary of Ecological Investigations in
Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Date: June 2010

URS Corporation
335 Commerce Dr, Suite 300
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034

Project No.:18984386.09001

Table of Contents

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Table of Contents
Acronym List ..................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... iv
1.0

Introduction.................................................................................................................1

2.0

Chambers Works Background ....................................................................................2
2.1 Historic Information...........................................................................................2
2.2 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................2

3.0

Previous Carneys Point Ecological Investigations .....................................................4
3.1 Site-Wide Baseline Ecological Evaluation ........................................................4
3.1.1 BEE COPEC Identification ..................................................................4
3.1.2 Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resources .....................................7
3.1.3 Contaminant Migration Pathways ........................................................7
3.1.4 BEE Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................7
3.2 Ecological Investigation.....................................................................................8
3.2.1 EI Activities..........................................................................................93.2.2 EI Assessment Approach....................................................................10
3.2.3 EI Risk Characterization ....................................................................11
3.2.4 EI Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................17

4.0

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation ........................................................................18
4.1 Investigation Approach....................................................................................18
4.1.1 Field Sampling Activities ...................................................................18
4.1.2 Data Evaluation ..................................................................................19
4.2 Investigation Findings......................................................................................21
4.2.1 Metals .................................................................................................21
4.2.2 Organics..............................................................................................23
4.3 Investigation Conclusions................................................................................23

5.0

Carneys Point Ecological Investigation Conclusions ...............................................25

6.0

References.................................................................................................................27
TablesTable 1

List of COPECs Identified in Surface Soil

Table 2Analytes Selected for Investigation in the Carneys Point Area

Table 3

Number of Samples Available for Evaluation in the Ecological
Investigation

Table 4

Assessment and Measurement Endpoint Evaluated for Complete Exposure
PathwaysCWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Fort Washington, PAiTable of Contents

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Table 5

Assumptions for Tiered Exposure Evaluations

Table 6

Summary of Tiered Exposure Evaluations and EI Conclusions

Table 7

List of Target COPECs for Bouttown Creek Ditches

Table 8

Summary of Sediment Results

Table 9

Summary of Sediment Interstitial Water Results

Table 10

Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks for PAH
Mixtures

Table 11

Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Quality Guidelines for NNitrosodiphenylamine
FiguresFigure 1

Site Location Map

Figure 2

Carneys Point Ecological Exposure Areas

Figure 3

Bouttown Creek Drainage

Figure 4

Henby Creek Drainage

Figure 5

Bouttown Creek Drainage

Figure 6

Distribution of Fine-Grained Sediment

Figure 7

Total Sediment Organic Carbon Content

Figure 8

SEM:AVS Ratios

Figure 9

TOC Normalized SEM-AVS Results

Figure 10

In Situ Surface Water and Sediment Interstitial Water Conductivity
Measurements
Appendices

Appendix A

Sediment Analytical Data – Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

Appendix B

Sediment Interstitial Water Data – Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Fort Washington, PAii

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Acronym List

Acronym List
Acronym
AOC
ADD
ASV
BEE
bgs
COPEC
CRG
DuPontEBC
Eco-SSL
ECSM
EI
EPA
EPC
ESB
ESNR
FCV
HQ
LEL
LOAEL
LOEC
MS/MSDNJDEP
NJSWQS
NOAEL
NOEC
NRWQC
ORP
PAH
PCB
PCE
RCRA
REIWP
RI
ROC
SCV
SEM
SQG
SVOC
SWMU
TOC
tPAH
TRV
URS
UTL
VOC

Explanation
Area of Concern
Average Daily Dose
Acid Volatile Sulfides
Baseline Ecological Evaluation
below ground surface
Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
DuPont Corporate Remediation Group
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Ecological Benchmark Concentration
Ecological Soil Screening Level
Ecological Conceptual Site Model
Ecological Investigation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Exposure Point Concentration
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmark
Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource
Final Chronic Value
Hazard Quotient
Lowest Effects Level
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
Lowest Observed Effects Concentration
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standard
No Observed Adverse Effects Levels
No Observed Effect Concentrations
National Recommended Water Quality Criterion
Oxidation-Reduction Potential
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Perchlorethylene
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Revised Ecological Investigation Work Plan
Remedial Investigation
Receptors of Concern
Secondary Chronic Value
Simultaneously Extracted Metals
Sediment Quality Guidelines
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
Solid Waste Management Unit
Total Organic Carbon
Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Toxicity Reference ValueURS Corporation
Upper Tolerance
Volatile Organic CompoundCWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PAiii

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
URS Corporation (URS) has prepared this report on behalf of E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company (DuPont) to summarize the findings of ecological investigations conductedto date in the Carneys Point Area of the DuPont Chambers Works site in Deepwater, New
Jersey (see Figure 1). The findings summarized in this report were reviewed during the
March 17, 2010 site status meeting with the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP). During the March status meeting, NJDEP requested that DuPont
prepare this report to provide a concise summary of Carneys Point ecologicalinvestigations that have been reported in multiple submittals to the agency.
Ecological investigations in the Carneys Point portion of Chambers Works have been
conducted in accordance with NJDEP Technical Requirements for Site Remediation
N.J.A.C. 7:26E and under the oversight of NJDEP and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Consistent with the process prescribed in N.J.A.C. 7:26E for
conducting ecological investigations, the ecological evaluation of Carneys Point has
included multiple phases of investigations. The findings of two of these phases ofinvestigation have been submitted to NJDEP in previous documents; the third phase ispresented in this summary report:

Baseline Ecological Evaluation (BEE) [DuPont Corporate Remediation Group(CRG), 2006b)]



Ecological Investigation (EI) Report (DuPont CRG, 2009)Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation (summarized in this report)

The findings of the BEE provided the basis for the comprehensive EI field investigations
conducted between March 2007 and July 2008. In addition to the recommendations of theBEE, the scope of the EI was developed based on EPA and NJDEP review andsubsequent comments on the BEE and Revised Ecological Investigation Work Plan
(REIWP) (DuPont CRG, 2008).
Overall, the comprehensive EI did not identify unacceptable risks resulting fromexposure to site-related constituents in Carneys Point exposure areas, with the possible
exception of the ditches draining upland areas of Carneys Point to Bouttown Creek. The
greatest potential for risk to benthic invertebrate communities in Bouttown Creek was
associated with sediment constituents of potential ecological concern (COPEC)
concentrations in the ditches; the EI did not identify unacceptable risks to wildlife in the
Bouttown Creek exposure area. The evaluation of potential benthic community impacts
associated with these ditches was limited in the EI to bulk sediment chemistry analyses,
resulting in uncertainty that required further investigation. Based on the recommendationof the EI, further investigations were conducted in October 2009 to address theuncertainty associated with benthic invertebrate exposure in the ditches.
The Bouttown Creek ditch investigation was conducted in October 2009 with theobjective of reducing uncertainty identified in the EI regarding benthic invertebrate
exposure to sediment COPECs. The findings of the investigation indicated limitedbioavailability and toxicity of sediment COPECs to benthic invertebrates. WhenCWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

iv

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Executive Summary

considering the limited bioavailability and toxicity of sediment COPECs in the context ofthe benthic habitat characteristics, including benthic habitat quality and sedimentstability, it is unlikely that COPEC concentrations in sediment are adversely affecting
benthic invertebrate communities. The findings of the ditch investigations adequately
address the uncertainty in the EI and provide multiple lines of evidence indicating theabsence of unacceptable risk to benthic invertebrates. As a result, the findings support therecommendation of no further ecological investigation in the Bouttown Creek ditches.
In summary, the findings of the combined investigations do not indicate unacceptablerisks to ecological receptors in any exposure area evaluated in Carneys Point. Thesefindings are supported by the following:Comprehensive chemical, physical, and biological data collected over multiple
phases of ecological investigations in Carneys Point exposure areasMultiple lines of evidence provided through analysis of these comprehensive
datasets indicating the absence of unacceptable risk to ecological receptors in the
Henby-Bouttown Creek System, the Henby-Bouttown Wetland System, Carneys
Point Ponds and Historic Ponds, and Carneys Point Uplands

Limited benthic habitat quality in the Henby-Bouttown Creek System resulting indepauperate benthic communities on-site and off-site beyond the influence of thesiteA stable sediment environment in the Henby-Bouttown Creek System thatmaintains reducing conditions in sediments that mitigate the bioavailability andtoxicity of metals, which is the primary constituent group of concern

The integrated findings of the multiple ecological investigations described in thisdocument support the recommendation of no further ecological investigation or remedialaction in Carneys Point on the basis of ecological risk.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PAv

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Introduction

1.0 Introduction
URS Corporation (URS) has prepared this report on behalf of E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company (DuPont) to summarize the findings of ecological investigations conductedto date in the Carneys Point Area of the DuPont Chambers Works site in Deepwater, New
Jersey (see Figure 1). The findings summarized in this report were reviewed during the
March 17, 2010 site status meeting with the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP). During the March status meeting, NJDEP requested that DuPont
prepare this report to provide a concise summary of Carneys Point ecologicalinvestigations that have been reported in multiple submittals to the agency.
Ecological investigations in the Carneys Point portion of Chambers Works have been
conducted in accordance with NJDEP Technical Requirements for Site Remediation
N.J.A.C. 7:26E and under the oversight of NJDEP and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Consistent with the process prescribed in N.J.A.C. 7:26E for
conducting ecological investigations, the ecological evaluation of Carneys Point has
included multiple phases of investigations. The findings of two of these phases ofinvestigation have been submitted to NJDEP in previous documents; the third phase ispresented in this summary report:

Baseline Ecological Evaluation (BEE) [DuPont Corporate Remediation Group(CRG), 2006b)]



Ecological Investigation (EI) Report (DuPont CRG, 2009)Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation (summarized in this report)

The primary objectives of this report are as follows:

Summarize the findings of the BEE and EI that are relevant to Carneys Point
ecological exposure areas.

Present the findings of a recent evaluation of ecological exposure in the ditchesdraining upland areas of Carneys Point to Bouttown Creek, which was conducted
as a continuation of the EI.

The scope of this summary report is limited to ecological investigations in the Carneys
Point portion of the site. Additional areas of the site evaluated during the ecologicalinvestigation process at the site are not included. Areas not addressed in this summary
report include the Chambers Works Manufacturing Area, Salem Canal, and Delaware
River.
This report is organized into the following sections:

Section 2.0: Chambers Works Background

Section 3.0: Summary of Previous Carneys Point Investigations

Section 4.0: Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

Section 5.0: Summary of Carneys Point Ecological Investigations

Section 6.0: References

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

1

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Chambers Works Background

2.0 Chambers Works Background
The following sections provide background information regarding the Carneys Point
Area of the site (see Figure 1). A brief description of the operational history of the site isprovided along with a description of the environmental setting of the area; further detailregarding the site is provided in the Preliminary Assessment Report (PAR) (DuPont
CRG, 2006a).

2.1

Historic Information
The DuPont Chambers Works site consists of the former Carneys Point Works and the
Chambers Works Manufacturing Area. The Carneys Point Works operated from 1892 to1978 and produced smokeless gunpowder, nitrocellulose, and related products (DuPont
CRG, 2006a). In the early 1900s, production lines in the Carneys Point Works wereincreased. In 1914, new plants were constructed to supply gunpowder during WorldWar I. Plant 1 in Carneys Point Works operated continuously, making nitrocellulose andsmokeless gunpowder from 1914 until 1977, with increased production from 1938 to1945 during World War II. Spin-offs of nitrocellulose production included nitrate film
(celluloid), carboxymethyl cellulose, lacquer, cellulose acetate, and rayon. Cellulose(cotton or wood fibers), alcohols, and acids were primarily used as part of the
manufacturing process. Production at the Carneys Point Works ceased in 1978, anddecommissioning of the plant was completed around 1979.

2.2

Environmental Setting
The Carneys Point Area consists of approximately 758 acres located in the northernmost
section of the Chambers Works complex. Since operations at the Carneys Point Worksceased in 1978, the area has become increasingly naturalized through the successional
development of vegetative communities on areas previously disturbed by plant
operations. Carneys Point also contains undeveloped areas and water bodies capable ofsupporting aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife.
Bouttown Creek and Henby Creek are the principal aquatic systems within the Carneys
Point Area, representing the primary ecological feature in this portion of the site.
Additional aquatic resources in Carneys Point include the former Bouttown Creek
discharge, known as Helms Basin, and small ponds (Pond A and Pond E) associated withformer operations (see Figure 2).
Potential wetland habitats are abundant along Henby Creek and Bouttown Creek in the
Carneys Point Area. Overall, potential wetland areas occupy greater than 300 acres orgreater than 20 percent of the area in Carneys Point. The hydrology of the potential
wetland areas varies both seasonally and spatially by proximity to the creeks.
The upland portions of the former Carneys Point Works, including areas in the vicinity of
the Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) and/or Areas of Concern (AOCs), aredeveloped, contain roadways and concrete pads of former buildings, or have been
re-graded or otherwise disturbed. Early successional herbaceous or grass species, shrubs,

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

2

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Chambers Works Backgroundand relatively few trees, typify the majority of vegetation that grows in the upland portionof this area.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

3

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

3.0 Previous Carneys Point Ecological Investigations
Ecological investigations in the Carneys Point portion of Chambers Works have been
conducted in accordance with NJDEP Technical Requirements for Site Remediation(Tech Regs) N.J.A.C. 7:26E and at the direction and oversight of NJDEP and EPA.
Consistent with the process prescribed in N.J.A.C. 7:26E for conducting ecologicalinvestigations, the results of previous investigations in Carneys Point have been reported
in the BEE and EI Report submitted to NJDEP.
The following sections summarize the key findings of these previous ecologicalinvestigations and the recommendations for additional investigations based on NJDEP
and EPA review.

3.1

Site-Wide Baseline Ecological Evaluation
The BEE evaluated both the Chambers Works facility and the former Carneys Point site
and was completed according to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-3.11. For the purposes of this summary
document, only results from the former Carneys Point will be presented.
The BEE followed the completion of the Phase IV Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation for the site. The BEE was conducted to characterizepotentially complete ecological exposure pathways between site-related constituents andecological habitats. The objective of the BEE was to identify the co-occurrence ofconstituents of potential ecological concern (COPECs), environmentally sensitive natural
resources (ESNRs) (formerly referred to in the Tech Regs and previously submitted
documents as Environmentally Sensitive Areas or ESAs), and contaminant migration
pathways to ESNRs. The BEE identified areas of the site where no further ecologicalevaluation could be supported without additional investigation and areas where further
ecological evaluation would be appropriate. The following sections summarize the key
findings of the BEE that supported recommendations for further ecological investigations
in Carneys Point.

3.1.1 BEE COPEC Identification
Analytical data from the four Phases of the Remedial Investigation (RI) (DuPont CRG,
1995, 1998, 2002a, 2004) were evaluated to identify site-related constituents that may
represent COPECs.
Data sets used in the BEE consisted of soil, sediment, and surface water from theundeveloped Carneys Point portion of the site. Specifically, data evaluated in the BEE
included the following:Surficial [0 to1 foot below ground surface (bgs)] soil samples from SWMUs andadjacent areas from the Carneys Point portion of the siteSurficial sediment samples from the Bouttown Creek and Henby Creek drainages

Surface-water samples from the Bouttown Creek and Henby Creek drainages

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

4

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

Groundwater data were not specifically evaluated in the BEE; however, potential
groundwater-to-surface interactions were addressed as potential contaminant migration
pathways (see Section 3.1.3). Potential groundwater-to-surface water pathways from thesite to the Delaware River are currently being investigated as part of the Delaware River
RI (URS, 2009).
The maximum detected concentration of constituents in each medium (soil, sediment, andsurface water) was compared to its respective ecological benchmark concentration. A
constituent exceeding its benchmark concentration was further evaluated based on
background concentrations, frequency of detection, and site-relatedness to determine its
designation as a COPEC. Background soil concentrations were compiled from a study by
the NJDEP Division of Science Research & Technology of ambient metals levels in 91
urban Coastal Plain soil samples (Sanders, 2003). Any constituents not detected in asingle sample from a given medium were eliminated from further consideration in the
BEE. The following sections summarize the COPECs identified in the BEE for eachmedium.
Soil
Surficial soil samples collected were analyzed for metals, volatile organic compounds(VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), nitroaromatics/nitroamines, pesticides, and polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs). Table 1 lists SWMUs where surficial soil samples were collected;
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the location of SWMUs in the Bouttown Creek and Henby
Creek drainages, respectively.
In addition to SWMU soil samples, 12 soil borings were taken in an area east of
SWMU 48-6 and 48-7, known as the 40-Acre Parcel. This area was sampled as part of a
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for a potential land transaction (DuPont CRG,
2002b).
Soil collected in 11 SWMUs and the 40-Acre Parcel located within Carneys Point were
evaluated relative to ecological benchmarks and representative backgroundconcentrations. Eleven metals were identified as soil COPECs based on maximum
concentrations exceeding ecological benchmark concentrations and representative
background concentrations (Sanders, 2003; see Table 1). In addition, four organic
constituents were identified in surficial soil from SWMU 52. Soil COPECs were not
identified for the 40-Acre Parcel, as maximum concentrations of constituents were below
background concentrations. A list of COPECs identified for each SWMU/area ofinvestigation is presented in Table 1.
Sediment
Surficial sediment data were collected from Henby Creek (SWMU 42) and Bouttown
Creek (in SWMU 45-9) in 1997 and 2004. A total of 13 sediment samples were obtained
from 10 stations in drainage ditches along the western border of Bouttown Creek during
the Phase II and Phase IV RI investigations (see Figure 3). Analyses of surficial sediment
included metals, SVOCs (including PAHs), and nitroaromatics/nitroamines.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

5

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

The evaluation of sediment data in the BEE supported the following conclusions
regarding ecological exposure to sediment in Bouttown Creek and Henby Creek:Maximum detected concentrations of eight SVOCs exceeded ecologicalbenchmark concentrations and were identified as COPECs (see Table 2).

Eight metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, andzinc) were detected at concentrations exceeding their respective sediment
benchmarks and were retained as COPECs (see Table 2).

Sediment data from the intertidal zone of the Delaware River are not discussed in thissummary report. Remedial actions designed to be protective of ecological receptors in
SWMU 52 were implemented in 2006 and 2007. Based on these remedial actions, nofurther investigation was conducted for SWMU 52 in subsequent ecologicalinvestigations. In addition, sediments in the Delaware River adjacent to SWMU 52 andthe Chambers Works facility are being investigated in a separate, multi-phase study
initiated in September 2009 (URS, 2009).
Surface Water
The surface-water dataset for the BEE consists of eight samples taken in Henby Creek
and Bouttown Creek drainage channels from 1994 to 2004 (see Figures 3 and 4).
Additional surface-water samples were collected for the DuPont semi-annual
surface-water monitoring program (implemented in March 2000) for the earthen ditch
system and pipelines (SWMU 45-9) that conveyed wastes from Carneys Point to theTrade Waste Pit (SWMU 37) or Bouttown Creek. Surface-water samples were analyzed
for VOCs, SVOCs, and total and dissolved metals.
The evaluation of surface-water data in the BEE supported the following conclusions
regarding ecological exposure to surface water in Bouttown Creek and Henby Creek:Maximum dissolved concentrations of lead and mercury were greater than theecological benchmarks; however, lead was detected only once in 10 samples at aconcentration marginally higher than the screening level. Dissolved mercury
concentrations exceeded the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standard(NJSWQS) in six samples, but all detections were below the chronic National
Recommended Water Quality Criterion (NRWQC) established by EPA (EPA,
2002). Surface water concentrations of mercury and lead concentrations in Henby
and Bouttown Creeks were further evaluated in the EI as discussed in Section 3.2.

The single detected concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, a common
laboratory contaminant, slightly exceeded the surface-water benchmark
concentration for this compound but was below the secondary chronic value(SCV) of 32.2 ug/L (Suter, 1996). As such, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was not
identified as a COPEC for surface water.

Surface-water data from SWMU 52 in the Delaware River are not discussed in thissummary report. In 2006 and 2007, remedial actions designed to be protective of
ecological receptors were implemented in SWMU 52. COPEC concentrations in surface
water from the Delaware River adjacent to SWMU 52 and the Chambers Works facility

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

6

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

are being investigated in a separate, multi-phase study initiated in September 2009 (URS,2009).
3.1.2 Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resources
The BEE identified the presence of the following ESNRs in and adjacent to the Carneys
Point Area of the site:Carneys Point Upland Areas: Upland portions of the former Carneys Point Works,
including the vicinities of the SWMUs and/or AOCs, are not considered sensitive
ecological habitats. These areas are dominated by early successional herbaceousor grass species and shrubs with relatively few trees. However, uplands portionsof Carneys Point were identified as ESNRs in the BEE because they may
represent potential exposure areas for mobile animals.



Wetland and wetland transitional areas: Extensive wetland corridors border
Henby Creek and Bouttown Creek.

Surface-water bodies: Surface-water ESNRs in Carneys Point include
jurisdictional water bodies including Henby Creek, Bouttown Creek, site ponds,
and the Delaware River.

Consistent with the revised Tech Regs dated May 3, 2010, groundwater underlying
Carneys Point is also identified as an ESNR.
3.1.3 Contaminant Migration Pathways
As identified in the BEE, potentially complete COPEC migration pathways between
SWMUs and ESNRs in Carneys Point include the following:Historic discharge into the former process drainage system: Historic discharges
from manufacturing areas to Bouttown Creek were via earthen ditches andpipelines. Given that Bouttown Creek discharges to Henby Creek, the former
process drainage structure represents a potential contaminant migration pathways
to Henby Creek as well.



Stormwater runoff: Potential stormwater runoff migration pathways to Henby and
Bouttown Creeks and associated wetland and transitional wetland areas wereidentified for select SWMUs.



Groundwater: Groundwater from the B Aquifer underlying SWMUs 48-1, 48-5,
48-6, and 48-7 may be hydraulically connected to Henby Creek and Bouttown
Creek (DuPont CRG, 2002a). Potential groundwater-to-surface water interactions
between the site and the Delaware River are currently being investigated in the
Delaware River RI (URS, 2009).

3.1.4 BEE Conclusions and Recommendations
The BEE identified the co-occurrence of ESNRs, COPECs, and potential contaminantmigration pathways to environmentally sensitive natural resources in the Carneys PointCWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

7

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

Area. The findings of the BEE supported the following conclusions regarding further
ecological investigations in Carneys Point:Additional ecological evaluation was warranted for select areas of Bouttown and
Henby Creeks and the adjoining wetlands.



Further ecological evaluations would be performed using SWMU surface soil data
to evaluate potential risk to mobile animals in Carneys Point Upland Areas.

The selected remedial actions for SWMU 52 were protective of ecological
receptors; no further ecological investigation was warranted for this area.

The BEE recommended that further ecological data collection in Carneys Point target
on-site ESNRs where contaminant migration pathways were identified. Specifically, theBEE recommended additional investigation to address the following:

3.2



Stormwater runoff and/or erosion and groundwater discharges to surface water in
Bouttown Creek and Henby Creek and the two small ponds located adjacent to
SWMU 45-2

Potential exposure to mobile animals in select upland SWMUs



Additional characterization of surface water and surficial sediment (0 to 6 inches)in Henby and Bouttown Creeks based on COPECs identified in the BEECollection of regional data from Bouttown and Henby Creeks where they enter
the site to determine non–site-related (background) contributions of COPECs tothe creeks

Ecological Investigation
Consistent with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.7, an EI was conducted based on the recommendationsof the BEE to evaluate potential risk to ecological receptors at the Chambers Works site.
The scope of investigation for the EI was developed based on comments provided by the
NJDEP on July 13, 2007 and EPA on August 14, 2007, as well as subsequent discussions
between DuPont, NJDEP, and EPA during a teleconference on September 13, 2007.
The scope of the EI focused on the evaluation of potential ecological risks in the Carneys
Point Area and limited portions of the Chambers Works Manufacturing Area of the site.
For the purposes of this summary document, only investigations of ecological exposurein the Carneys Point Area will be presented. Specific objectives of investigations relevantto the Carneys Point Area include the following:Further characterization of migration pathways of COPECs to ESNRs



Evaluation of potential risk to sediment-dwelling invertebrate communities in
Henby Creek and Bouttown Creek



Evaluation of potential risk to fish, amphibian, and reptilian communities in
Henby Creek and Bouttown Creek



Evaluation of potential risk to wildlife in the Carneys Point area, including mobile
wildlife that may occasionally forage in upland SWMUs

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

8

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

3.2.1 EI Activities
Comprehensive analytical and ecological resource data were available to evaluate
potential risk to receptors associated with the ecological exposure areas identified inCarneys Point.
Field investigations to support the EI were conducted between March 2007 and July
2008. The scope of the field investigations to support EI objectives was outlined in the
Revised Ecological Investigation Work Plan (REIWP) submitted to NJDEP on
February 8, 2008 (DuPont CRG, 2008). The REIWP was developed based on therecommendations of the BEE and correspondence with NJDEP and EPA, includingcomments on the draft EI Work Plan submitted on February 13, 2007. The following data
were collected specifically to meet EI data objectives for Carneys Point:Surface water: Surface-water samples were collected from mid-water column at
co-located sediment sampling stations in the following surface-water features in
Carneys Point: Bouttown Creek, Henby Creek, Helms Basin, A Pond, and E Pond(see Figures 3 and 4). Surface-water samples collected from Bouttown Creek andHenby Creek were analyzed for lead and mercury, the two constituents identified
as COPECs for the creeks in the BEE. For Helms Basin, A Pond and E Pond,
surface-water samples were analyzed for COPECs identified in the BEE from
historic soil, sediment, surface-water, or groundwater samples collected from theCarneys Point Area (see Table 2). Surface-water analyses for metals wereconducted on filtered and unfiltered samples.

Sediment: Further characterization of COPEC concentrations in sediments was
conducted in the following surface-water features in Carneys Point: Bouttown
Creek, Henby Creek, Helms Basin, Pond A, and Pond E (see Table 3). Samples
analyzed for non-volatile constituents were collected from 0-6 inches; samples
analyzed for volatile constituents were collected from 6-12 inches, as prescribedby NJDEP sediment guidance (NJDEP, 1998). Sediment samples were analyzed
for COPECs identified in historic soil, sediment, surface-water, or groundwater
samples from the Carneys Point Area as identified in the BEE, as well as Total
Organic Carbon (TOC), grain size, and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM)
and acid volatile sulfides (ASV) (see Table 2).



Background surface water and sediment: Sediment and surface-water metals
data from off-site background locations were characterized to evaluate thepotential contribution of off-site sources of COPECs to the creeks and theregional distribution of COPECs in surface water and sediment. Backgrounddatasets were developed from two areas to characterize the two types of
surface-water features on-site: 1) Off-site Bouttown and Henby Creek samples tocharacterize background for on-site water bodies not influenced by the tidal
Delaware River (Henby Creek, Bouttown Creek, and on-site ponds) and 2) Cedar
Swamp samples to characterize background for water bodies influenced by thetidal Delaware River (Helms Basin). Representative background concentrations
for metals were calculated as the 95 percent upper tolerance limit (UTL95) (with90 percent coverage) using EPA ProUCL 4.0.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

9Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

Hydric soils: Sediment/hydric soils were characterized in potential wetland areasadjoining Bouttown and Henby Creeks and historic ponds in Carneys Point(B Pond and E Pond). Sediment/hydric soil samples were collected from the0-6-inch interval and analyses for COPECs identified in historic soil, sediment,
surface-water, or groundwater samples from the Carneys Point Area, as well as
TOC, grain size, and SEM:AVS (see Table 2).



Sediment/hydric soil interstitial water: Sediment/hydric soil interstitial water
samples were collected from five co-located sediment/surface-water locations in
Bouttown and Henby Creek and four sediment/hydric soil locations in wetlands
adjacent to the creeks. Sediment interstitial water samples were collected fromapproximately 2 to 6 inches using a PushPoint sampler. At each location, an
unfiltered sample of interstitial water was collected and analyzed for hardness anda 0.2-m filtered sample was analyzed for select metals identified as COPECs in
the BEE for the Carneys Point Area (see Table 2).

Benthic community: Benthic invertebrate community surveys were conducted in
Henby Creek and Bouttown Creek at co-located sediment, surface-water, andsediment interstitial water sampling locations to provide spatially and temporally
integrated information regarding surface-water and sediment quality. Benthic
invertebrate community analyses were collected from four on-site samplingstations in Bouttown Creek and four on-site stations in Henby Creek (see Figures
3 and 4). Samples of reference benthic invertebrate communities were collectedfrom two co-located surface-water and sediment background stations located oneach creek approximately 300 feet within the site property boundary.

Data collected as part of EI field investigations supplemented analytical data previously
collected in the four phases of the RI (DuPont CRG, 1995, 1998, 2002a, 2004). In
addition to data collected for the EI, historic data for COPECs identified in the BEE werecarried forward for additional evaluation in the EI. Table 3 summarizes the data used in
the EI to evaluate potential ecological risk from the various exposure media identified inCarneys Point.
3.2.2 EI Assessment Approach
Based on the detailed ecological site characterization provided in Section 3.0 of the EI
Report, ecological conceptual site models (ECSMs) were developed to describe
contaminant sources, migration pathways, and exposure pathways warranting evaluationin the EI. ECSMs were developed for the following systems in Carneys Point having
similar contaminant sources, migration pathways, and exposure pathways (see Figure 2):Henby-Bouttown Creek SystemHenby-Bouttown Wetland System

Carneys Point Ponds and Historic Ponds



Carneys Point Uplands

Based on the ECSMs developed for each system, receptors of concern (ROCs) andcorresponding assessment endpoints and measurement endpoints were identified for
CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

10

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

evaluation in the EI. Table 4 summarizes the assessment endpoints and associatedmeasurement endpoints evaluated for each system identified above for Carneys Point.
Detailed descriptions of the measurement endpoints used to evaluate the identified
assessment endpoints is provided in Section 5.4.1 of the EI Report.
Potential ecological exposures to COPECs were evaluated in the EI using a tiered
approach. The Tier I Exposure Evaluation quantified potential exposure based on themost conservative exposure scenario; the Tier II Exposure Evaluation quantified potential
ecological exposures based on more realistic, site-specific scenarios. Assumptions for thetiered exposure evaluations are summarized for each receptor category in Table 5.
Potential risks associated with ecological exposure to COPECs were expressed as ahazard quotient (HQ), which represents the ratio of the measured exposure point
concentration (EPC) to the ecological benchmark concentration (EBC) for direct contact
pathways or the calculated average daily dose (ADD) to the toxicity reference value(TRV) for wildlife ingestion pathways:
HQ 

EPC
ADD
or
EBC
TRV

Potential risk may be characterized based on HQs as follows:

HQs greater than 1.0 indicate that exposure exceeds a known threshold of effects,
which could represent no observed effect concentrations (NOECs), no observed
adverse effects levels (NOAELs), lowest observed effects concentration (LOECs),or lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs).



HQs less than 1.0 based on a NOEC or NOAEL indicate that adverse effects are
extremely unlikely because COPEC concentrations result in an exposure that has
been demonstrated not to cause adverse ecological effects.



HQs less than 1.0 based on a LOEC or LOAEL indicate that COPEC
concentrations do not result in an exposure associated with adverse ecologicaleffects.

3.2.3 EI Risk Characterization
Potential ecological risk is characterized below for each ecological exposure area
evaluated in Carneys Point. Table 6 summarizes the findings of the tiered exposure
evaluations.
Henby-Bouttown Creek System
Bouttown Creek and Henby Creek are the principal aquatic systems within the Carneys
Point Area, representing the primary ecological feature in this portion of the site. The
Henby-Bouttown Creek system includes the potential aquatic exposure areas of Helms
Basin, Bouttown Creek, and Henby Creek. The findings of the EI exposure evaluations
support the following conclusions for these three areas:Helms Basin: No unacceptable risks were identified in the Tier I Exposure
Evaluation for ecological receptors exposed to surface water and sediment inHelms Basin. Given that no unacceptable risks to ecological receptors wereCWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

11

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

identified based on worst-case exposure assumptions, potential risks associatedwith Helms Basin were considered negligible. No further evaluations on the basisof ecological risk are warranted for this exposure area.


Bouttown Creek: Potential ecological risks associated with exposure tosite-related media in Bouttown Creek were limited to potential benthic
community exposures to elevated COPEC concentrations in the ditches draining
upland areas of Carneys Point; no unacceptable risks to fish/reptile or wildlife
communities were identified in Bouttown Creek.
Multiple lines of evidence indicate that COPEC concentrations in sediments are
not adversely impacting benthic communities within the Bouttown Creek channel.
On-site benthic invertebrate communities are generally depauparate and similar tocommunities observed outside of the influence of the site. The similarity ofbenthic community metrics at locations BC01 and BC02 with other benthic
community metric values in other areas of Bouttown Creek is particularly
important due to the elevated concentrations of mercury in sediments at BC01 andBC02 relative to other portions of the creek. This finding indicates that thefundamental benthic community structure is not impacted by elevatedconcentrations of mercury in sediment at these locations.
Sediment interstitial water results indicate that sediment metals concentrations
exceeding SQBs are not present in interstitial water at concentrations likely toresult in adverse effects. Because interstitial water is a better predictor of thebioavailability and toxicity of metals in sediments rather than bulk sedimentmeasurements (EPA, 2007; EPA 2005; Di Toro et al., 2005; Ankley et al., 2006;
Hansen et al., 1996; Ankley et al., 1991; Di Toro et al., 1992; Luoma, 1989),
additional weight was afforded to this line of evidence in the risk characterization.
The greatest potential for risk to benthic invertebrate communities is associatedwith sediment metals in the ditches draining Carneys Point. Maximum
concentrations of 11 of 12 metals and multiple organic COPECs were associatedwith the ditches. Evaluation of exposure in the ditches was limited to the analysis
of bulk sediment chemistry; therefore, there is some uncertainty regarding
potential ecological impacts associated with ditch sediment.
Additional investigations of ecological exposure in the Bouttown Creek ditches
were recommended, including an assessment of potential COPEC bioavailability
in sediments. An understanding of potential COPEC bioavailability would reduce
uncertainty regarding potential risks to benthic communities associated with theditches.
Based on the Tier II Exposure Evaluation, no unacceptable risks were identified
for wildlife receptors potentially foraging within Bouttown Creek. Only limited
exceedances of NOAEL doses for methylmercury were identified for piscivorous
mink; estimated doses were lower than LOAEL doses for all receptors evaluated.
The estimated dose of methylmercury to mink was based on the conservative

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

12

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

assumption that mink forage exclusively in Bouttown Creek 100 percent of thetime. Given this conservative assumption and the inherent conservatism built into
the dose rate models, adverse ecological effects are not likely for wildlife exposed
to COPECs in sediments and prey items in Bouttown Creek.
Henby Creek: No unacceptable risks were identified for benthic invertebrates,
fish/reptiles, and wildlife receptors based on the tiered exposure evaluation
conducted in the EI. No further evaluations on the basis of ecological risk are
warranted for the Henby Creek exposure area.
The weight-of-evidence approach used to evaluate benthic invertebrate exposure
in Henby Creek indicates that sediment COPECs are not adversely impacting
benthic communities. Benthic community data indicate that the generally
depauparate benthic communities that inhabit on-site areas of Henby Creek arefound in samples collected outside of the influence of site activities. Multiplelines of evidence indicate that metal COPECs in sediments are not bioavailable atconcentrations likely to adversely affect benthic organisms:
Concentrations of metals in sediment interstitial water were lower thaneither NJSWQS or the NOEC benchmarks.



SEM:AVS ratios were less than 1.0 at three of four stations, indicating thatsufficient AVS is present at most stations to form insoluble metal-sulfide
complexes that are not bioavailable.

Concentrations of organic COPECs in sediment are lower than EqPbenchmarks considered to be protective of benthic organisms.

No surface-water COPECs were identified in Henby Creek; therefore, potential
risks to fish and reptile communities associated with surface-water exposure areconsidered negligible.
Wildlife exposure evaluations did not identify unacceptable risk to receptors
potentially foraging within Henby Creek. Based on the more realistic
assumptions of the Tier II Exposure Evaluation, the estimated dose of
methylmercury to mink was the only exceedance of a NOAEL dose; theestimated dose of methylmercury to mink was lower than the LOAEL dose. As
with Bouttown Creek, the estimated dose to mink was based on the conservative
assumption that mink forage exclusively in Henby Creek 100 percent of thetime. Given these conservative assumptions and the inherit conservatism built
into the dose rate models, adverse ecological effects are not likely for wildlife
exposed to COPECs in sediments and prey items in Henby Creek.
Henby-Bouttown Wetland System
Potential wetlands are abundant in areas adjacent to Henby Creek and Bouttown Creek.
These potential wetlands represent ecological exposure areas along the conceptual
contaminant migration pathway from SWMUs associated with the Carneys Point Works
and the Henby-Bouttown Creek system. The results of the tiered exposure evaluations

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

13

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

conducted in the EI support the following conclusions for the Henby-Bouttown Wetland
System:

Bouttown Creek Wetlands: The tiered exposure evaluation for the Bouttown
Creek Wetlands did not identify unacceptable risks to wetland vegetation, wetland
invertebrate communities, or wildlife potentially foraging throughout the
exposure area. Based on these findings, no further evaluations of the Bouttown
Creek Wetlands are warranted on the basis of ecological risk.
Evaluation of the various measurement endpoints used to assess potential risks towetland invertebrates in the Bouttown Wetlands indicate that adverse effects fromexposure to sediment/hydric soils is unlikely. Concentrations of metals in
sediment/hydric soil interstitial water were lower than either NJSWQS or NOEC
benchmarks identified for sediment-dwelling organisms at all locations except
zinc at BCW03, which resulted in a relatively low HQNOEC of 1.7. These results
indicated that concentrations of metals in wetland substrates, although elevatedabove sediment quality guidelines (SQGs), are not bioavailable at concentrations
likely to result in adverse ecological effects. As previously stated, interstitialwater is a better predictor of the bioavailability and toxicity of metals in
sediments when compared to bulk sediment measurements; therefore, additional
weight was afforded to this measurement endpoint when evaluating potential
invertebrate community impacts associated with metal concentrations.
Wildlife exposure evaluations did not identify unacceptable risk to receptors
potentially foraging within the Bouttown Wetlands. With the exception of
red-winged blackbird exposure to methylmercury, exceedances of NOAEL dosesin the conservative Tier I exposure models generally resulted in HQs of three or
less. In the Tier II exposure models, which retained the conservative assumptionof 100 percent area use by receptors, exceedances of NOAEL doses wererelatively minor and only red-winged blackbird exposure to methylmercury andvanadium resulted in doses slightly exceeding LOAEL doses. Red-winged
blackbird exposure is likely overestimated in the Tier II model by the assumptionthat birds would forage at the EPC 100 percent of the time. Based on these results,
and considering the conservative assumptions of the Tier II models, adverse
effects are not likely for wildlife exposed to COPECs in sediment and prey itemsin the Bouttown Wetlands.

Henby Creek Wetlands: No unacceptable risks to ecological receptors wereidentified in exposure evaluations conducted for the Henby Creek Wetlands;
therefore, no further evaluations of ecological exposures are warranted.
Exposures to COPEC concentrations in wetland substrates are not likely to resultin adverse ecological effects to wetland invertebrate communities. Based on the
Tier II exposure evaluation, wetland substrates are not likely sufficiently
inundated to support a fully aquatic (benthic) invertebrate community. Drier
substrates are likely more conducive to use by terrestrial invertebrates.
Comparisons of metal COPEC concentrations to Eco-SSLs indicate that zinc only
slightly exceeds screening values for soil invertebrates (HQ = 1.8). Given that the
Eco-SSLs are derived as conservative screening values, it is not likely that metals

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

14

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

concentrations are sufficiently elevated to result in adverse effects to theinvertebrate communities that may inhabit Henby Wetland substrates.
The wildlife exposure evaluations did not identify unacceptable risk to receptors
potentially foraging within the Henby Creek Wetlands. With the exception of
red-winged blackbird exposure to methylmercury, estimated doses of COPECs
were lower than LOAELs based on the conservative Tier I model, which assumes
that receptors forage at maximum concentrations 100 percent of the time. Basedon the Tier II models, only slight exceedances of NOAEL doses were observed(HQs generally less than 2.0), and no estimated dose exceeded a LOAEL. Basedon these results, and considering the conservative assumptions of the Tier IImodels, they are not likely to adversely affect wildlife exposed to COPECs insediment and prey items in the Henby Wetlands.
Carneys Point Ponds and Historic Ponds
Potential ecological exposures were evaluated in Carneys Point for two ponds thatcurrently contain surface water (A Pond and E Pond) and three historic ponds that are
vegetated and no longer contain surface water (Historic B Pond and Historic E Ponds –Domestic and Fire Water). The findings of the tiered exposure evaluations support thefollowing conclusions for the ponds and historic pond exposure areas:A Pond: No unacceptable risks were identified in the tiered exposure evaluationof A Pond. The value of aquatic habitat is limited in A Pond by shallow water
depths and highly organic sediments, which result in reduced, low-oxygen
conditions that are limiting to benthic invertebrate communities. Due to its
shallow water depths and low oxygen conditions, A Pond is not likely to support afish community; vertebrate use of the aquatic habitat in A Pond is likely limited toreptile communities. Potential wildlife use of A Pond is likely limited by its small
size (0.007 acres).
Considering the results of the exposure evaluation in the context of the limited
habitat value associated with A Pond, no unacceptable risks were identified.
Potential risks to benthic invertebrate communities are primarily limited toelevated metal concentrations that may be mitigated by high AVS concentrations.
Potential risks associated with reptile exposure to surface water are considerednegligible based on NOEC benchmarks for sensitive life stages of amphibians.
Negligible risks to wildlife were identified based on the most conservative
exposure assumptions including maximum exposure concentrations and 100
percent area use. Based on these findings, no further evaluation of A Pond iswarranted.



Historic B Pond: The Tier II exposure evaluation of sediment/hydric soils in
Historic B pond did not identify unacceptable risks to wetland invertebrate or
wildlife receptors. No evidence of stressed or dead vegetation was observed,
indicating that COPEC impacts to the vegetative community are unlikely.
Wetland invertebrate exposures did not exceed effects-based SQGs for arsenic or
mercury or the Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) value for total(tPAHs). Equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmark (ESB) models for tPAHs

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

15

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

also indicated that substantial impacts to invertebrate communities are unlikely.
Potential wildlife use of Historic B Pond is likely limited due to its inaccessibility
from thick stands of Phragmites, which dominate the vegetative community, andits relatively small size of 0.2 acres. No unacceptable risks to wildlife receptors
were identified from Tier II wildlife exposure models. Based on these findings, nounacceptable risks to ecological receptors are identified for Historic B Pond; nofurther evaluations are warranted for this exposure area.
E Pond – Domestic Water Pond: In the context of the limited habitat value
identified for the Domestic Water Pond, including low-oxygen conditions
resulting from shallow water and highly organic sediments, the Tier II exposure
evaluation did not identify unacceptable risks to ecological receptors. The
Domestic Water Pond provides limited habitat to support permanent aquaticcommunities due to shallow water depths and highly organic sediments, which
limits the available oxygen in sediments and surface water necessary to support
aquatic communities. Elevated AVS concentrations in the sediment are indicativeof low-oxygen, reducing conditions. Oxygen-limiting conditions in highly organic
sediments limit the establishment of a diverse and abundant benthic invertebrate
community.
Considering the limiting habitat conditions identified in the Domestic Water
Pond, the results of the exposure evaluation did not identify unacceptable risks toecological receptors. The evaluation of benthic invertebrate exposure indicatedpotential risk related to metal and tPAH concentrations at one location(EPOND02); however, given the habitat limiting conditions in the sediments, adiverse and abundant benthic invertebrate community is not expected to occur in
the Domestic Water Pond. Potential risks associated with reptile exposure tosurface water are considered negligible based on concentrations not exceeding
NJSWQS, which are generally protective of aquatic organisms. Unacceptablerisks to wildlife were not identified in Tier II wildlife exposure evaluations. Basedon these findings, no unacceptable risks to ecological receptors are identified, andno further evaluations are warranted for this exposure area.
 Historic E Ponds – Fire Water Pond/Settling Basin: The results of the Tier I

Exposure Evaluation indicate negligible risk to wetland invertebrate andwildlife receptors based on the most conservative exposure scenario for theHistoric E Ponds. Maximum concentrations of nitrocellulose exceeded aconservative NOEC concentration for chironomid exposure; however,concentrations of nitrocellulose were not present in soil at concentrations related
to a physical barrier to colonization from nitrocellulose coating of substrates.
Conservative wildlife exposure models indicate negligible risk associated with
exposure to nitrocellulose. No evidence of stressed or dead vegetation wasobserved to indicate potential COPEC impacts to the vegetative community.
These findings indicate that no further evaluation of ecological exposure is
warranted in the Historic E Ponds.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

16

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Previous Carneys Point Ecological
Investigations

Carneys Point Uplands
The evaluation of mobile wildlife exposure to COPECs concentrations in upland soil did
not identify unacceptable risk. Tier II evaluations of exposure to soil COPECs in
SWMU 45-2 did not identify unacceptable risk to any wildlife receptors. Unacceptablerisks associated with soil COPECs were not identified for wildlife in SWMUs 47, 60, and61 based on Tier I exposure assumptions. Based on these results, and considering theconservative assumptions of the overall exposure models, adverse ecological effects are
not likely for wildlife exposed to COPECs in soil from upland SWMUs in the Carneys
Point Area. No further evaluation of these exposure areas are warranted based on
ecological risk.
3.2.4 EI Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, unacceptable risks resulting from exposure to site-related constituents were not
identified in any of the Carneys Point exposure areas evaluated in the EI, with thepossible exception of the ditches draining upland areas of Carneys Point to Bouttown
Creek. The evaluation of potential ecological impacts associated with these ditches waslimited to bulk sediment chemistry analyses, resulting in uncertainty that required further
investigation.
The EI recommended additional investigations to address the uncertainty regarding
ecological exposure in the Bouttown Creek ditches. Additional investigations were
warranted to assess the bioavailability of sediment COPECs, particularly metals, tobenthic invertebrate communities. The greatest potential for risk to benthic invertebrate
communities in Bouttown Creek was associated with exposure to sediments in theditches; maximum concentrations of 11 of 12 metals and multiple organic COPECs
evaluated in Bouttown Creek were reported in the ditches. Because available data for theditches was limited to bulk sediment chemistry analyses, there was uncertainty regarding
potential COPEC bioavailability. An understanding of COPEC bioavailability wasnecessary to reduce the uncertainty regarding potential risks to benthic communities
associated with the ditches.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

17

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

4.0 Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation
As discussed in the previous section, the EI conducted for the Chambers Works site
recommended additional evaluation of ecological exposures in the ditches draining
upland areas of Carneys Point to Bouttown Creek. The greatest potential for risk tobenthic invertebrate communities in Bouttown Creek was associated with sediment
COPEC concentrations in the ditches. Further investigations were recommended toreduce uncertainty regarding potential risks to benthic invertebrate communities
associated with the ditches. The EI did not identify unacceptable risks to wildlife in the
Bouttown Creek exposure area; therefore, no additional evaluation of wildlife exposure
was included for the ditches.
The investigation of the Bouttown Creek ditches was conducted in October 2009. The
overall objective of the investigation was to collect additional data to address uncertainty
regarding benthic invertebrate exposure in the ditches. Based on the risk characterization
presented in the EI, maximum concentrations of 11 of 12 metals and multiple organic
COPECs in the Bouttown Creek exposure area were associated with the ditches;
however, only bulk sediment chemistry data were available to evaluate potential risks tobenthic receptors. Based on the framework established in the EI for Tier II exposure
evaluations, additional data were collected to evaluate the following lines of evidence:The bioavailability and toxicity of metal COPECs in sediment based on measured
concentrations of metals in filtered sediment interstitial waterThe bioavailability and toxicity of divalent metal COPECs (cadmium, copper,lead, nickel, and zinc) based on sediment TOC concentrations and relative molar
concentrations of SEM and ASV (EPA, 2005)



The potential bioavailability and toxicity of PAHs and n-nitrosodiphenylamine
based on equilibrium partitioning to sediment TOC (EPA, 2003)

The following sections describe the investigation approach and present the findings of theadditional ecological exposure evaluation conducted in the Bouttown Creek ditches.

4.1

Investigation Approach
The following sections detail the field sampling activities and data evaluation conductedto support the Bouttown Creek ditch investigation.

4.1.1 Field Sampling Activities
Sampling to support the Bouttown Creek investigation was conducted during October 2022, 2009. Surficial sediment (0-6 inches) and sediment interstitial water samples werecollected from 11 stations within the ditches draining the upland areas of Carneys Point
to Bouttown Creek. Nine sampling stations were approximately co-located with historic
sediment sampling stations; two additional stations were located at intersections within
the ditch system to increase the spatial coverage of the dataset (see Figure 5).

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

18

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

Surficial sediment samples were collected from 0-6 inches using a petite ponar,consistent with sampling procedures detailed in Appendix B of the EI Work Plan
(DuPont CRG, 2008). Analyses of sediment samples focused on COPECs identified in
sediment samples from the Carneys Point area as identified in the EI Report (seeTable 7); additional sediment analyses included TOC, grain size, and SEM-AVS
analyses.
Sediment interstitial water samples were collected using a Push Point sampler, consistent
with the sampling procedures used in the EI (DuPont CRG, 2008). The PushPoint
sampler is a small bore, stainless-steel tube fashioned with a screened zone at the bottom
end and a sampling port at the top. At each sampling location, the sampler was inserted
into the sediments, and interstitial water was extracted using a low-flow peristaltic pump
via dedicated tubing attached to the sampling port. At most stations, fine-grained, clay
sediments adhered to the screened zone of the PushPoint sampler, eventually preventing
the flow of interstitial water through the sampling port before an adequate sample volume
could be collected. In these instances, the sampler was removed, the adhered sediment
was cleared from the screened zone, and the sampler was re-inserted into the sediments tocollect additional aliquots of interstitial water. This process was repeated multiple times
to obtain the requisite sample volume for analysis.
At each location, an unfiltered sample of interstitial water was collected and analyzed for
hardness and a filtered sample (0.2-m filter) was collected and analyzed for metal
COPECs. In addition to the collection of analytical samples, pH, conductivity, andoxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of unfiltered interstitial water and surface-water
samples were measured in situ with a Myron 6P meter. Comparable conductivity
measurements in interstitial water and surface water suggest that overlying surface water
may have been drawn into the interstitial water sample.
Quality control samples for sediment and sediment interstitial water sampling included
equipment blanks, field duplicates, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates samples(MS/MSD). All quality control samples were collected at the frequency detailed in the
REIWP (DuPont CRG, 2008).
4.1.2 Data Evaluation
The evaluation of data collected in the Bouttown Creek ditch investigation was consistent
with the weight-of-evidence framework established in the Tier II exposure evaluations
conducted in the EI. Tier II exposure evaluations used EqP guidance and methodologies
to assess the potential bioavailability and toxicity of sediment COPECs to benthic
invertebrates based on site-specific mitigating factors (e.g., TOC, sulfides). The
following sections summarize the primary elements included in the weight-of-evidence
data evaluation:
Sediment Chemistry: Bulk sediment chemistry results were compared to thegreater value of the lowest effects level (LEL) sediment screening values or the
background UTL95. LELs are generally developed from and applied to a broad
range of sediment conditions and, therefore, may have less relevance to site
conditions. LELs provide little information on the bioavailability or toxicity of aparticular constituent and assume a direct causal relationship between constituent

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

19

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

concentrations and observed effects. Therefore, additional site-specific lines ofevidence, including sediment interstitial water and EqP models were used tofurther evaluate the bioavailability and toxicity of sediment COPECs.


Sediment Interstitial Water Chemistry: Metal concentrations measured infiltered interstitial water samples represent the bioavailable fraction of metals in
sediment. It is generally accepted that the bioavailability and toxicity of metals in
sediments is correlated with the bioavailable fraction of metals in sedimentinterstitial water rather than the total metal concentration measured in bulk
sediment (EPA, 2007; Di Toro et al., 2005; Ankley et al., 2006; Hansen et al.,
1996; Ankley et al., 1991; Di Toro et al., 1992; Luoma, 1989). Therefore, thedirect measurement of metal concentrations in sediment interstitial water is abetter indicator of potential metal toxicity in sediments than comparisons of bulk
sediment concentrations to LELs. Concentrations of metals measured in sedimentinterstitial water results were compared to NJSWQS and/or NRWQC to evaluate
potential adverse effects to benthic invertebrate receptors.



ESB Model for Metals Mixtures: The bioavailability, and thus the potential
toxicity, of divalent metal COPECs can be estimated based on AVS
concentrations in sediment. The combination of AVS and SEM forms insoluble
metal-sulfides that are not biologically available for uptake by benthic organisms(Di Toro et al., 1992; Ankley et al., 1996; Berry et al., 1996). If the ratio of themolar concentration of AVS is greater than the molar concentration of SEM(SEM:AVS < 1), divalent metal COPECs are not expected to be bioavailable ortoxic (EPA, 2005).
Normalizing SEM:AVS results by sediment TOC concentrations provides further
indication of the bioavailability and toxicity of divalent metals in ditch sediments.
Normalization by TOC considers the capacity of sediment organic carbon to binddivalent metals, in addition to the metal-binding of capacity to sulfides. EPA(2005) reported that TOC-normalization improved the ability of the SEM:AVS
ratios to predict toxicity in paired sediment and toxicity testing datasets.
Consistent with EPA (2005), the combined binding capacity of TOC and AVS
was considered based on the following relationship: SEM-AVS/foc. Based on
survival data from sediment toxicity testing, EPA (2005) reported that SEMAVS/foc values less than 130 µmol/goc were unlikely to result in toxicity, while
toxicity was likely to occur at values SEM-AVS/foc > 3,000 µmol/goc; toxicity atvalues in between these thresholds was uncertain (EPA, 2005).



ESB Model for PAH Mixtures: Concentrations of tPAHs in sediment samples
were evaluated based on the additive toxicity of tPAHs to benthic organisms
consistent with EPA guidance (EPA, 2003). The toxicity of 13 individual PAH
compounds was expressed as the sum of equilibrium sediment benchmark toxic
units (ΣESBTUFCV), which represents the sum of the organic-carbon normalized
sediment concentration divided by the organic-carbon normalized final chronicvalue (FCV) developed for each compound (EPA, 2003). For the purposes of
ESBTUFCV calculations, 50 percent of the detection limit was used to estimate theconcentration of PAH compounds below the detection limit. To account for other
PAH compounds that were not measured in the sample, the sum of the toxicity

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

20

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

units for the 13 PAH compounds is multiplied by an uncertainty factor of 6.78,
which estimates the toxicity units of t PAHs with 80 percent confidence. If the
ESBTUFCV calculated for a sample is greater than 1.0, it is concluded that PAH
mixtures exceed levels that are protective of benthic organisms (EPA, 2003).


EqP Sediment Quality Guidelines: As described in detail in Appendix G of the
EI, site-specific sediment quality benchmarks representing NOECs(EqPNOECs)were calculated for n-nitrosodiphenylamine using EqP based on thefollowing relationship (Jones et al., 1997):
SQG  f oc x K oc x WQB,
where:
foc = the fraction of organic carbon in the site sediment (SQGs were
calculated based on exposure area-specific organic carbon concentrations)
Koc = the organic carbon partition coefficient
WQB = water quality benchmarks based on measured or estimatedNOECs; when available, toxicity data for benthic organisms likely tooccur at the site were selected as WQBs

4.2

Investigation Findings
The results of sediment and interstitial sediment sampling are presented in Figure 5. A
summary of sediment results is provided in Table 8; sediment interstitial water analyticalresults are provided in Table 9.
Sediments in the Bouttown Creek ditches were characterized by loosely consolidated,highly organic, fine-grained (silt/clay) material. The distribution of fine-grained
sediments in ditch sediment ranged from 34 to 95 percent silt/clay (passing 64 µm), with
10 of 11 stations containing greater than 50 percent fine-grained sediments (see Figure 6).
TOC content of sediments ranged from 2.5 to 15 percent (see Figure 7), with sediments at
10 of 11 stations containing TOC concentrations greater than 5 percent. Reducing
conditions were observed in sediments at most locations, as indicated by hydrogensulfide odor and dark brown-black color. In situ sediment ORP measurements also
indicate reducing conditions, ranging from -126.8 to -211.6 millivolts (mV).

4.2.1 Metals
The evaluation of benthic invertebrate exposure to metal COPECs in Bouttown Creek
ditch sediments indicates that the limited benthic invertebrate communities present in theditches are not likely adversely affected by sediment metals concentrations. Multiplelines of evidence indicate that metals in sediment are likely bound and, therefore, notbioavailable or toxic to benthic invertebrates. When the limited bioavailability andtoxicity of sediment metals are considered in the context of benthic habitat quality,
adverse effect associated with metal COPECs in sediment are not likely.
Concentrations of nine metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,selenium, vanadium, and zinc) were detected in sediment at concentrations that exceeded
CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

21

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

LELs and background UTL95 concentrations presented in the EI. In general, the northern
two ditches contained greater mercury and PAH concentrations in sediment, while thesouthern two ditches contained greater concentrations of lead and zinc in sediment (seeFigure 5).
An evaluation of SEM-AVS data indicates that divalent metals in the ditches are notbioavailable or toxic to benthic receptors. SEM:AVS ratios were less than 1.0 for all but
two stations (BCD-08 and BCD-09), indicating that a sufficient concentration of AVS ispresent in the sediment to bind divalent metals into metal-sulfide complexes (seeFigure 8). These metal-sulfide complexes are insoluble and, therefore, are not generally
bioavailable to sediment-dwelling organisms (Di Toro et al., 1992; Ankley et al., 1996;
Berry et al., 1996). SEM:AVS ratios at BCD-08 and BCD-09 were 1.2 and 4.7,
respectively (see Figure 5).
Normalizing the SEM:AVS results by TOC concentrations provides further support for
the limited bioavailability of divalent metals in ditch sediments. As previously discussed,
TOC normalization considers the capacity of sediment organic carbon to bind divalent
metals and improves the ability of the SEM-AVS relationship to predict toxicity (EPA,2005). As illustrated in Figure 9, SEM-AVS/foc values were less than 130 µmol/goc at all
11 stations evaluated in the ditch system. As previously discussed in Section 4.1.2, 130µmol/goc is the threshold below which toxicity to benthic invertebrates is unlikely (EPA,2005). Based on the relative concentrations of SEM, AVS, and TOC in ditch sediments, it
is unlikely that divalent metals are bioavailable or toxic to benthic invertebrate receptors.
Sediment interstitial water results provide additional support for the limitedbioavailability of sediment metals. Of the 10 metals evaluated, only nickel, vanadium,and zinc were detected in filtered interstitial water samples; concentrations of all three
metals were below NJSWQS (see Figure 5). These results indicate that metals in
sediments are bound to sediment particulates and are not present in sediment interstitialwater in the free ion form considered to be most bioavailable.
In situ measurements indicate that sediment interstitial water conductivity was generally
greater relative to surface water conductivity (see Figure 10). In cases where comparable
conductivities were measured in interstitial water and surface water, multiple aliquots ofinterstitial water samples were collected due to sediment adhering to the PushPoint
screen. The adherence of sediment to the sampler confirms that the PushPoint wasinserted into the sediment matrix and that the interstitial water was collected from withinthat matrix. The similarity of interstitial water to surface water at these stations may berelated to the loosely consolidated sediments, ranging from approximately 50 to 85
percent moisture, which may contain a higher proportion of overlying water within thesediment slurry (see Table 8).
When the SEM-AVS and sediment interstitial water results are considered in the context
of the benthic habitat characteristics, it is unlikely that COPEC concentrations in
sediment are adversely affecting benthic invertebrate communities in the ditches. As
demonstrated in the benthic community surveys conducted as part of the EI, benthic
invertebrate communities within the Bouttown Creek channel are generally depauperateand similar to communities observed outside of the influence of the site. The ditches
provide lower quality benthic habitat relative to the benthic habitat within the creek
CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

22

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

channel because the ditches are more susceptible to changes in seasonal hydrology (e.g.,
drying) and low-oxygen conditions that are consistent with stagnant, shallow surface
water and highly organic, fine-grained sediments. As a result, it is not expected that theditches would support a more abundant or diverse benthic community than the generally
depauperate communities characterized at on-site and reference locations in the EI.
Furthermore, due to the quiescent, backwater character, Bouttown Creek represents astable depositional environment. Sediments in the ditches are not regularly disturbed byhigh flows, indicating a stability of the reducing conditions that mitigate thebioavailability and toxicity of metals in sediment.
4.2.2 Organics
The evaluation of benthic invertebrate exposure to organic COPECs at select ditch
locations indicates that adverse effects to invertebrates are not likely. The evaluation of
ESBTUFCV for PAH mixtures in sediment at two ditch stations (BCD-01 and BCD-05)
resulted in values ranging from 0.98 to 2.0 (see Table 10). As discussed in Section 4.1.2,
ESBTUFCV values less than 1.0 are considered to be protective of benthic invertebrates;
concentrations greater than 1.0 do not indicate adverse effects but indicate that thepotential for adverse effects cannot be eliminated. Given the limited benthic habitat
quality in the ditches described in the preceding section and the relatively low
exceedance of the conservative ESBTUFCV, it is not likely that tPAHs in sediments atthese locations are adversely affecting benthic invertebrate communities.
The evaluation of n-nitrosodiphenylamine concentrations in sediment at BCD-05
indicates minimal potential for adverse effects to benthic invertebrate communities.
Measured concentrations of n-nitrosodiphenylamine were approximately two orders ofmagnitude lower than TOC-specific EqP sediment quality guidelines calculated based on
methods utilized in the EI (see Table 11; see Figure 5). In the context of the limited
habitat quality in the ditches, it is unlikely that n-nitrosodiphenylamine concentrations in
sediment are adversely affecting benthic invertebrate communities.

4.3

Investigation Conclusions
The findings of the Bouttown Creek ditch investigations described in the previous
sections reduce the uncertainty identified in the EI regarding benthic invertebrate
exposure to sediment COPECs. The findings of the investigation support the following
conclusions regarding benthic invertebrate exposure in the ditches:Based on SEM-AVS measurements and sediment interstitial water results, thebioavailability and toxicity of metal COPECs in ditch sediment are limited bybinding to TOC and AVS.

Based on EqP models, the site-specific bioavailability and toxicity of organic
COPECs are limited by the high-binding capacity of TOC in sediment.



Sediments in the ditches are not regularly disturbed by high flows, indicating astability of the reducing conditions in sediments that mitigate the bioavailability
and toxicity of metals.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

23

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation

Benthic habitat quality is limited in the ditches relative to on-site and reference
locations in Bouttown Creek that were characterized in the EI by generally
depauperate benthic invertebrate communities.

In total, the findings of the investigations described in the preceding sections adequately
address the uncertainty in the EI regarding potential benthic invertebrate exposure in the
Bouttown Creek ditches. These findings do not indicate unacceptable risks and support
the recommendation of no further investigation in the Bouttown Creek ditches on thebasis of ecological risk.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

24

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Carneys Point Ecological Investigation
Conclusions

5.0 Carneys Point Ecological Investigation Conclusions
Ecological investigations in the Carneys Point portion of Chambers Works have been
conducted in accordance with NJDEP Technical Requirements for Site Remediation andunder the oversight of NJDEP and EPA. Consistent with the process prescribed in
N.J.A.C. 7:26E for conducting ecological investigations, three phases of ecologicalinvestigations in Carneys Point have been conducted. The findings of each phase ofinvestigation have been reported in the BEE, EI Report, and this report.
The findings of the BEE provided the basis for the comprehensive EI field investigations
conducted between March 2007 and July 2008. In addition to the recommendations of theBEE, the scope of the EI was developed based on EPA and NJDEP review andsubsequent comments on the BEE and REIWP.
Overall, the comprehensive EI did not identify unacceptable risks resulting fromexposure to site-related constituents in the Carneys Point exposure areas, with thepossible exception of the ditches draining upland areas of Carneys Point to Bouttown
Creek. The greatest potential for risk to benthic invertebrate communities in Bouttown
Creek was associated with sediment COPEC concentrations in the ditches; the EI did not
identify unacceptable risks to wildlife in the Bouttown Creek exposure area. The
evaluation of potential benthic community impacts associated with these ditches waslimited in the EI to bulk sediment chemistry analyses, resulting in uncertainty that
required further investigation. Based on the EI recommendations, further investigations
were conducted in October 2009 to address the uncertainty associated with benthic
invertebrate exposure in the ditches.
The Bouttown Creek ditch investigation was conducted in October 2009, with theobjective of reducing uncertainty identified in the EI regarding benthic invertebrate
exposure to sediment COPECs. The findings of the investigation indicated limitedbioavailability and toxicity of sediment COPECs to benthic invertebrates. Whenconsidering the limited bioavailability and toxicity of sediment COPECs in the context ofthe benthic habitat characteristics, including benthic habitat quality and sedimentstability, it is unlikely that COPEC concentrations in sediment are adversely affecting
benthic invertebrate communities. The findings of the ditch investigations adequately
address the uncertainty in the EI and provide multiple lines of evidence indicating theabsence of unacceptable risk to benthic invertebrates. As a result, the findings support therecommendation of no further ecological investigation in the Bouttown Creek ditches.
In summary, the findings of the combined investigations do not indicate unacceptablerisks to ecological receptors in any exposure area evaluated in Carneys Point. Thesefindings are supported by the following:Comprehensive chemical, physical, and biological data collected over multiple
phases of ecological investigations in Carneys Point exposure areasMultiple lines of evidence provided through analysis of these comprehensive
datasets indicating the absence of unacceptable risk to ecological receptors in the

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

25

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

Carneys Point Ecological Investigation
Conclusions

Henby-Bouttown Creek System, the Henby-Bouttown Wetland System, Carneys
Point Ponds and Historic Ponds, and Carneys Point Uplands

Limited benthic habitat quality in the Henby-Bouttown Creek System resulting indepauperate benthic communities on-site and off-site beyond the influence of thesiteA stable sediment environment in the Henby-Bouttown Creek System thatmaintains reducing conditions in sediments that mitigate the bioavailability andtoxicity of metals, which is the primary constituent group of concern

The integrated findings of the multiple ecological investigations described in thisdocument support the recommendation of no further ecological investigation or remedialaction in Carneys Point on the basis of ecological risk.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

26

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

References

6.0 References
Ankley, G.T., et al. 1991. Acid Volatile Sulfide as a Factor Mediating Cadmium andNickel Bioavailability in Contaminated Sediments. Environmental Toxicology andChemistry. 10:1299-1307.
Ankley, G.T., Di Toro, D.M., Hansen, D.J., and Berry, W.J. 1996. Technical Basis andProposal for Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals. Env. Tox. and Chem.
15:2056-2066.
Ankley, G.T., Thomas, N.A., Di Toro, D.M., Hansen, D.J., Mahony, J.D., Berry, W.J.,
Swartz, R.C., Hoke, R.A., Garrison, A.W., Allen, H.E., and C.S. Zarba. 2006.
Assessing Potential Bioavailability of Metals in Sediments: A Proposed
Approach. Environmental Management. 18:331-337.
Berry, W.J, Cantwell, M.G., Edwards, P.A., Serbst, J.R., and D.J. Hansen. 1999.
PredictingTtoxicity of Sediments Spiked with Silver. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. 18: 40-48.Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J.,
Carlson, A.R. and Ankley, G.T. 1992. Acid Volatile Sulfide Predicts the Acute
Toxicity of Cadmium and Nickel in Sediments. Env. Sci. and Tech. 26:96-101.
Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Carlson, A.R. and Ankley, G.T.
1992. Acid Volatile Sulfide Predicts the Acute Toxicity of Cadmium and Nickel in
Sediments. Env. Sci. and Tech. 26:96-101.
Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Hicks, M.B., Mayr, S.M., M.S
Redmond. 2005. Predicting Sediment Metal Toxicity using a Sediment Biotic
Ligand Model: Methodology and Initial Application. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 24: 2410-2427.
DuPont CRG, 2009. Ecological Investigation Report.
DuPont CRG, 2008. Revised Ecological Investigation Work Plan. DuPont Chambers
Works. February.
_____. 2006a. Preliminary Assessment Report. DuPont Chambers Works Site. December.
_____. 2006b. Baseline Ecological Evaluation. DuPont Chambers Works Site.
September.
_____. 2004. Phase IV RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan. DuPont Chambers
Works.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

27

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

References_____. 2002a. Phase III RCRA Facility Investigation Report. DuPont Chambers Works,
Deepwater, New Jersey.
_____. 2002b. Phase II 40-Acre Parcel Investigation Report For DuPont Carneys Point.
DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey.
_____. 1998. Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report. DuPont Chambers Works,
Deepwater, New Jersey.
_____. 1995. Phase I RCRA Facility Investigation Report. DuPont Chambers Works,
Deepwater, New Jersey.
EPA. 2007. Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of the Science Advisor. EPA 120/R-07/001. March.
_____. 2005. Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks for the Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Metals Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver,
and Zinc). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Science andTechnology and Office of Research and Development. 600-R-02-013. January.
_____. 2003. Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines for the Protection of Benthic
Organisms: PAH Mixtures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of
Science and Technology and Office of Research and Development. 600-R-02013. November.
_____. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.
Hansen, D.J. et al. 1996. Predicting the Toxicity of Metal-Contaminated Field Sediments
using Acid-Volatile Sulfide Normalizations. Environmental Toxicology andChemistry 15: 2080-2094.
Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter, and R.N. Hull. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening
Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota.
1997 Revision, Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. For U.S.
Department of Energy. ES/ER/TM-95/R4.
Luoma, S.N. 1989. Can We Determine the Biological Availability of Sediment-Bound
Trace Elements? Hydrobiologia 176/177:379-396.
NJDEP. 1998. Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection. November.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

28

Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point

References

Sanders, P.F. 2003. Ambient Levels of Metals in New Jersey Soil. New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection. Division of Science Research & Technology.
Environmental Assessment and Risk Analysis Element.
Suter, G. W. II, and C. L. Tsao. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening ofPotential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on Oak Ridge
Reservation. 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
104pp, ES/ER/TM-96/R2.
URS. 2009. Delaware River Remedial Investigation Work Plan. DuPont Chambers Work
Site. July.

CWK_Summary of Eco Investigations in Carneys Point_Final
Ft. Washington, PA

29

TablesAnalyte:

45-2

Manufacturing Area 2

l

45-9

Manufacturing Area 9l47

Area of Fill Deposition

48-1

Carneys Point Storage/Cleaning Area 1

48-3

Carneys Point Storage/Cleaning Area 3

48-5

Carneys Point Storage/Cleaning Area 5

48-6Carneys Point Storage/Cleaning Area 6

48-7

Carneys Point Storage/Cleaning Area 752

Debris Disposal Area

54

Solvent Recovery Units

60

Drum Disposal Area

61

Disposal Area II

40-Acre Parcel

Potential Land Transaction East of 48-6 and 48-7

6/15/2010

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

M
er
cu
ry
N
ic
ke
l
Se
le
ni
um
Si
lv
er
Zi
nc

SWMU Description
A
nt
im
on
A
y
rs
en
ic
C
ad
m
iu
m
C
hr
om
iu
C
m
op
pe
Le r
ad

SWMU/
Investigation Area

l
l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

2,
4D
in
itr
B
ot
is
ol
(2
ue
-e
ne
th
N
-n
yl
he
itr
os
xy
N
l)p
itr odi
ht
ph
oc
en ha
el
la
lu
yl
te
lo
se am
in
e

Table 1
List of COPECs Identified in Surface Soil
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

l
l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l
l

Page 1 of 1l

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 2
Analytes Selected for Investigation in the Carneys Point Area
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey
COPECs Identified in the Baseline Ecological Evaluation
AnalyteVolatile Organic Compounds
Chloroform
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
2,4-dinitrotoluenebis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons1
Acenapthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
PyreneNitroaromatics/Nitroamines
Nitrocellulose
Metals2
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
CopperLead
Mercury
NickelSelenium
SilverVanadium
Zinc

Sediment
Henby and Bouttown
Creeks

Surface Water
Henby and Bouttown
CreeksGround Water
Carney's Point
Area

Surface Soils
Carney's Point
Area SWMUs

EI Analyte List
Carneys Point

l
l
l

l
l
l
l

l

l

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l

l
l
l
l
l
l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

l

Notes:, Analyses of PAHs included the following PAH compounds:
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
PyreneChrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluorene
Benzo(a)pyrenel1Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

2, Analyses for metals in surface water were conducted on filtered and unfiltered samples; sediment interstitial water was analyzed from filtered samples only.

6/15/2010

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 3
Number of Samples Available for Evaluation in the Ecological Investigation
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Area of Investigation

Sediment/Hydric Soil
Interstitial Water

Benthic Community

6

2

4

30 (7)1

2

4

Surface Water

Sediment

Helms Basin

4

4

Henby Creek4
11 (7)

Hydric Soils

Henby-Bouttown Creek System

Bouttown Creek
Henby-Bouttown Wetland System
Henby Wetlands

4

Bouttown Wetlands

65

Carneys Point Ponds and Historic Ponds
A Pond (east of SWMU-45-2)22
2

B Pond (east of SWMU-45-2)
2

2

C Pond (east of SWMU 8)22

D Pond (east of SWMU 8)

2

2

8

8

10 (8)

12 (8)E Ponds (SWMU 44)

4

Manufacturing Area Ponds and B Basin

B BasinBackground Datasets:
Off-Site Bouttown and Henby Creeks
Cedar Swamp

4

Notes:
Bold values indicate total number of combined samples collected during the EI and previous phases of the RI; values in parentheses indicate number of samples collectedduring the EI field investigations in October 2007.
1, Total number of samples includes 10 samples collected as part of the T29 investigation in March/June 2008 (DuPont CRG, 2008).

6/15/2010

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 4
Assessment and Measurement Endpoint Evaluated for Complete Exposure Pathways
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Assessment Endpoint

Measurement Endpoint
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community:
Sediment Concentration vs. Sediment Benchmark (NOEC/LOEC) 1
SEM:AVS
Community Assessment
Sediment Interstitial Water Concentration v. NOEC/LOEC
Fish/Herptile Community:
Surface Water Concentration v. NOEC/LOEC
Avian Wildlife Community: Dose-rate modeling of average daily dose (ADD) v. NOAEL/LOAEL
MallardGreat blue heron
OspreyRed-winged blackbird
American woodcock
American robin
Barred owl
Mourning dove
Red-tailed hawk
Mammalian Wildlife Community: Dose-rate modeling of average daily dose (ADD) v. NOAEL/LOAEL
Mink
RaccoonMeadow voleShort-tailed shrew
Long-tailed weasel
Red foxWetland Vegetative Community:
Qualitative evaluation based on field observations of the vitality of the communities
Wetland Invertebrate Community:
Sediment/Hydric Soil Concentration vs. NOEC/LOEC
SEM:AVS
Sediment/Hydric Soil Interstitial Water Concentration v. NOEC/LOEC

Henby-Bouttown Creek System

Henby-Bouttown Wetland System

E PondDomestic
Water

Helms
Basin

Henby
Creek

Bouttown
Creek

l
l

l
l
l
l

l
l
l
l

l
l

l
l

l

l

l

l

l

l
l
l

l
l
l

l
l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

Henby
Wetlands

Carneys Point Ponds and Historic Ponds

Bouttown Wetlands

l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

A PondHistoric B
Pond

l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

Historic E
Pond
Fire Water

Historic E
Pond
Settling
Basin

l
l

l
l

l

l

Carneys
Point
Uplands

l
l
l
l
l

l

l

l

l
l

l
l
l

l
l

l
l

l
l

Notes:, Sediment exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were evaluated based on the Equilbrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmark (ESB) Model for PAH Mixtures (EPA, 2003);
equilibrium partitioning (EqP) sediment quality guidelines were also calculated for select organic constituents.

1

6/15/2010

l
l
l
l
l

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 5
Assumptions for Tiered Exposure Evaluations
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Receptor Category

Tier I Exposure Evaluation

Tier II Exposure Evaluation

Direct Contact Exposure Pathways
Sediment Chemistry:
Sediment Chemistry:
Benthic Invertebrate Community

Interstitial Chemistry:Community Analysis:
Sediment Chemistry:

Wetland Invertebrate Community
Interstitial Chemistry:
Fish/Herptile Community

Surface Water
Chemistry:[Max] vs. LEL
SEM:AVS ratios[Max] vs. NJSWQS/NRWQC
Comparison with off-site (creeks only)[Max] vs. LEL
SEM:AVS ratios[Max] vs. NJSWQS/NRWQC
Analytical: [Max] vs. NJSWQS/NRWQC

Interstitial Chemistry:Community Analysis:
Sediment Chemistry:

Interstitial Chemistry:
Surface Water
Chemistry:[Max] vs. SEL
SEM:AVS ratios
ESB Model for PAH Mixtures
EqP Sediment Benchmarks[Max] vs. benthic NOECs
Comparison with off-site (creeks only)[Max] vs. SEL (aquatic)[Max] vs. SSL (terrestrial)
SEM:AVS ratios[Max] vs. benthic NOECs[Max] vs. NOEC for amphibians

Wildlife Ingestion Exposure Pathways
Wildlife Community

Dose Rate Modeling:

EPCs: [Max]
AUFs: 1.0

Dose Rate Modeling:

EPCs: UCL95 (n ≥ 8) or mean (n < 8)
AUFs: Expsoure Area/Home Range

Notes:[Max], Maximum concentration
AUF, Area use factor
EPC, Exposure point concentration
EqP, Equilibrium partitioning
ESB, Equilibrium sediment benchmarks for PAH mixtures
LEL. Lowest effects level
NJSWQS, New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards
NOEC, No observed effect concentration
NRWQC, National Recommended Water Qualtiy Criteria
SEL, Severe effects level
SEM:AVS, Ratio of the molar concentrations of simultaneously extractable metals to acid volatile sulfides
SSL, Ecological soil screeing level (Eco-SSL)
UCL95, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean

6/17/2010

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 6
Summary of Tiered Exposure Evaluations and EI Conclusions
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Exposure Area
Receptor Category

Tier I Exposure Summary

Tier II Exposure Summary

Ecological Investigation
Conclusions andRecommendations

Henby-Bouttown Creek System
Helms Basin:
Negligible risk to benthic
invertebrates; Nickel was the only
COPEC identified in sediment at a
maximum concentrationcomparable to the background
UTL95 concentration

No further evaluation conducted

Fish/Herptile Community

Negligible risk to fish and herptile
communities; no surface water
COPECs identified

No further evaluation conducted

Wildlife Community

Negligible risk to wildlife based onmost conservative exposure
scenario

No further evaluation conducted

Benthic Invertebrate Community

No further evaluation warranted on
the basis of ecological risk

Bouttown Creek:

Benthic Invertebrate Community

Fish/Herptile Community

Wildlife Community:

HQs > 1 based on LELs andmaximum sediment concentrationsof multiple metals, total PAHs,
SVOCs, total PCBs, andnitrocellulose

Greatest sediment concentrationsof metals and total PAHs in ditchesdraining Carneys Point
Benthic community and interstitialwater results are not indicative of
impacts to benthos in the creek

Negligible Risk

No Further Evaluation

HQsNOAEL > 1 for multiple metals
based on maximum exposure point
concentrations and maximum area
use factors

HQsNOAEL slightly exceed 1 foravian and mammalian piscivores
exposed to Hg and avian piscivores
exposed to total PCBs

HQsNOAEL > 1 for avian piscivore
exposure to total PCBs

HQsLOAEL < 1 for all COPECs andreceptors

HQs > 1 based on LELs andmaximum sediment concentrationsof multiple metals, 2,4-DNT, nnitrosodiphenylamine

Max Cr, Se, and Hg concentrations
comparable to SEL (HC04)

Ditches: Further evaluate COPEC
bioavailability in the biologically
active zone of ditch sediments to
reduce uncertainty regarding
potential impacts to benthic
invertebrates
Creek: No further evaluation

No further evaluation

No further evaluation based on Tier
II dose rate exposure models

Henby Creek:

Benthic Invertebrate Community

Maximum Cd concentration ininterstitial water exceeds NJSWQS
Benthic community and SEM:AVS
ratios are not indicative of impacts
to benthos in the creek

Fish/Herptile Community

Negligible risk to fish and herptile
communities; no surface water
COPECs identified

Wildlife Community:

HQsNOAEL > 1 for multiple metals(Cr, Se, Hg) based on maximum
exposure point concentrations andmaximum area use factors

3 of 4 lines of evidence are notindicative of impacts to benthos in
the creek:- benthic community analysis- SEM:AVS ratios- interstitial water results

No further evaluation conducted

HQsNOAEL slightly exceed 1 foravian and mammalian piscivores
exposed to Hg

No further evaluation warranted
based on a weight of evidence
evaluation of potential risk

No further evaluation warranted on
the basis of ecological risk

No further evaluation based on Tier
II dose rate exposure models

HQsLOAEL < 1 for all COPECs andreceptors

Henby-Bouttown Wetland System
Bouttown Wetlands:

Wetland Vegetative Community

6/17/2010

No observed signs of stressed ordead vegetation; exposure area isfully vegetated

No further evaluation conducted

Page 1 of 3

No further evaluation warranted

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 6
Summary of Tiered Exposure Evaluations and EI Conclusions
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Exposure Area
Receptor Category

Wetland Invertebrate Community

HQs > 1 based on LELs andmaximum sediment concentrationsof multiple metals, SVOCs, andnitrocellulose
Interstitial water screening andSEM:AVS ratios indicate potential
metal bioavailability

Wildlife Community:

Tier II Exposure Summary

Ecological Investigation
Conclusions andRecommendations

Interstitial water concentrations arelower than NOECs for benthic
invertebrates at all locations except
Zn @ BCW-03 (HQ ~2)

No further evaluation warranted
based on Tier II exposure
evaluation

Tier I Exposure Summary

HQsNOAEL > 1 for multiple metals
based on maximum concentrations
and maximum area use factors

HQsNOAEL slightly exceed 1 foravian insectivore exposure to Cd,
Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg based on UCL95
concentrations

No further evaluation based on Tier
II dose rate exposure models

HQsLOAEL < 1 for all COPECs andreceptors
Henby Wetlands:

Wetland Vegetative Community

Wetland Invertebrate Community

No observed signs of stressed ordead vegetation; exposure area isfully vegetated
HQs > 1 based on LELs andmaximum sediment concentrationsof multiple metals
SEM:AVS ratios indicate potential
metal bioavailability

Wildlife Community:

HQsNOAEL > 1 for multiple metals(Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg) based on
maximum concentrations andmaximum area use factors

No further evaluation conducted

No further evaluation warranted

HQs < 1 or ~ 1 (Cr, Ag, Pb) basedon SELs
Metal concentrations are generally
below SSLs for terrestrial
invertebrates

HQNOAEL slightly exceed 1 for redwinged blackbird exposure to Cr
based on average concentrations

No further evaluation based on Tier
II exposure evaluation

No further evaluation based on Tier
II dose rate exposure models

HQsLOAEL < 1 for all COPECs andreceptors

Carneys Point Uplands

Wildlife Community:

Estimated doses for wildlife in
SWMU 45-2 exceeds NOAEL
doses for multiple metals; minor
exceedances of NOAEL doses inother SWMUs

Minor exceedances of NOAEL
doses in SWMUs 45-2 and 47
HQsLOAEL < 1 for all COPECs andreceptors

No further evaluation warranted on
the basis of ecological risk

Carneys Point Ponds
Carneys Point Ponds:
Exceedances of SELs for selectmetals; SEM:AVS < 1 in A Pondand variable in E Pond; elevatedtPAH concentrations at one locationin each pond

Benthic Invertebrate Community

HQs > 1 based on LELs andmaximum sediment concentrationsof multiple metals, total PAHs;
constituent concentrations greatest
in E Pond

A Pond and E Pond are shallow
with highly organic sediments,
which limits their capacity tosupport benthic invertebrate
communities

No further evaluation based on Tier
II exposure evaluation

Metals in Historic B Pond lower
than SELs (aquatic) and Eco-SSLs(terrestrial)

Herptile Community

6/17/2010

Only A Pond contains surface water
metals exceeding NJSWQS/NRWQC

A Pond: HQsNOEC < 1 based on
amphibian endpoints

Page 2 of 3

No further evaluation warranted

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 6
Summary of Tiered Exposure Evaluations and EI Conclusions
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Exposure Area
Receptor Category

Wildlife Community:

Tier I Exposure Summary

Tier II Exposure Summary

HQsNOAEL > 1 for Hg in E Pond andB Pond based on maximum
exposure point concentrations andmaximum area use factors

HQsNOAEL < 1 based on average
exposure point concentrations andadjusted area use factors
HQsLOAEL < 1 for all COPECs andreceptors

HQsNOAEL < 1 for all otherconstituents and receptors

Ecological Investigation
Conclusions andRecommendations

No further evaluation warranted on
the basis of Tier II dose rate
exposure models

Manufacturing Area Ponds:

Benthic Invertebrate Community

Greater constituent concentrationsand variable SEM:AVS ratios in C
Pond sediment

C Pond does not likely provide
permanent aquatic habitat tosupport an abundant and diverse
benthic community; Exceedancesof SELs for two metals with variable
SEM:AVS ratios

No further evaluation based on Tier
II exposure evaluation

Sediment metals in D Pond are not
likely bioavailable based on
SEM:AVS < 1

Herptile Community

Wildlife Community:

Negligible Risk

No further evaluation conducted

HQsNOAEL > 1 for Hg and Cr in C
Pond and D Pond based on
maximum exposure point
concentrations and maximum area
use factors

HQsNOAEL < 1 based on average
exposure point concentrations andadjusted area use factors

HQsNOAEL > 1 for all other metals
and receptors

HQsLOAEL < 1 for all COPECs andreceptors

No further evaluation warranted

No further evaluation warranted
based on Tier II dose rate exposure
modelsB Basin:

Piscivorous Waterfowl Exposure
Pathway:

6/17/2010

Waterfowl and fish community surveys indicate an incomplete or
insignificant exposure pathway for piscivorous waterfowl potentiallyforaging in B Basin

Page 3 of 3

No further evaluation warranted on
the basis of ecological risk

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 7
List of Target COPECs for Bouttown Creek Ditches
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Target COPECs
MetalsArsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
CopperLead
Mercury
NickelSeleniumZinc

6/17/2010

Select Organics
Total PAHs (tPAH)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPA)

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 8
Summary of Sediment Results
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

AnalytePOLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs)
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENEANTHRACENEBENZO(A)ANTHRACENEBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENEBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
Total PAHs (non-detects 50% detection limit)
Total PAHs (non-detects as zeros)
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINEMETALSARSENICBERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPERLEAD
MERCURY
NICKELSELENIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
SEM-AVS ANALYSESCADMIUM
COPPERLEAD
NICKELZINC
Sum SEMACID VOLATILE SULFIDE (AVS)SEM:AVSSEM-AVS/foc
OTHER PARAMETERSPERCENT MOISTUREPERCENT FINE-GRAIN (<0.064 MM)
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
6/17/2010

BenchmarkSourceBackground
UTL
Concentration

COPEC
Decision

ERL
ERL
LEL
LEL
AET
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
ERL
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL

NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NOAA 2006
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

28343

EqP

DuPont CRG 2008

NA

N

34.4
3.47
16.1
71
911
1020
12.2
52.3
18.3
231
4100

6
NS
0.6
26
16
31
0.2
16
5
NS
120

LEL
-LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
LEL
--LEL

NJDEP 1998
-NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
NJDEP 1998
BC
-NJDEP 1998

16.5
2.641
2.28
79.12
170.2
296.8
0.712
58.64
ND
115.5
1101

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

0.00152
0.03670.04740.01780.372
0.494120.92
0.033966848-161.591

0.00991
0.361
0.449
0.06286.3
7.0937118.4
4.72914101.1520796-------1130-------ESBESB-------USEPA 2005
USEPA 2005

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------Y
N

49.6
34
24500

84.5
95
150000

----

----

----

NA
NA
NA

----

EcologicalMaximum
BenchmarkBenchmarkDetected
Type
Concentration Concentration

Units

Number of
SamplesNumber of
Detections

Minimum
Detected
Concentration

UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2

250
0
270
810
1500
500
630
760
1100
210
1100
580
480
0
170
840
12465
12150

250
0
350
1400
4100
740
1300
1100
2000
210
2500
580
780
0
690
2000
14290
14010

16
44
220
320
1800
170
240
370
340
60
750
190
200
160
560
490
4000
4000

UG/KG

1

1

310

310

MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

11
5
11
11
11
11
11
11
2
11
11

7.91
0.449
0.667
42.8
37.3
75
0.784
20.8
5.79
40.1
194

UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/GOC

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11

%
% PASSING
MG/KG

11
11
11

11
11
11

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 9
Summary of Sediment Interstitial Water Results
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey
ECOBCD-01
10/20/09
AnalyteMetalsARSENICBERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPERLEAD
MERCURY
NICKELSELENIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
Water Quality Parameters
TOTAL HARDNESS AS CACO3

Units

Dissolved/T
otal

ECOBCD-02
10/20/09

Ecological
Benchmark
ResultConcentration1,2

HQ

COPEC
Decision

Ecological
Benchmark
ResultConcentration1,2

ECOBCD-04
10/20/09

Ecological
Benchmark

HQ

COPEC
Decision

ResultConcentration1,2

Ecological
Benchmark

HQ

COPEC
Decision

ResultConcentration1,2

HQ

COPEC
Decision

µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

ND(7.2)
ND(1.4)ND(2)ND(3.4)ND(2.7)ND(6.9)ND(0.056)8.8
ND(8.9)ND(2.5)35.5-------92.9--239.8-------0.09--0.15-------N--N

ND(7.2)
ND(1.4)ND(2)ND(3.4)ND(2.7)ND(6.9)ND(0.056)
3.3
ND(8.9)ND(2.5)ND(8.1)-------95.2-----------0.03-----------N----

ND(7.2)
ND(1.4)ND(2)ND(3.4)ND(2.7)ND(6.9)ND(0.056)
ND(1.8)ND(8.9)ND(2.5)ND(8.1)------------------------------------

ND(7.2)
ND(1.4)ND(2)ND(3.4)ND(2.7)ND(6.9)ND(0.056)
ND(1.8)ND(8.9)ND(2.5)ND(8.1)------------------------------------

MG/L

T

241

--

--

--

248

--

--

--

156

--

--

--

171

--

--

--

HQ

COPEC
Decision

ECOBCD-05
10/20/09
AnalyteECOBCD-03
10/22/09

Dissolved/T
Units
otal

ECOBCD-06
10/21/09

Ecological
Benchmark
ResultConcentration1,2

HQ

COPEC
Decision

ECOBCD-07
10/21/09

Ecological
Benchmark
ResultConcentration1,2

HQ

COPEC
Decision

ECOBCD-08
10/21/09

Ecological
Benchmark
ResultConcentration1,2

HQ

COPEC
Decision

Ecological
Benchmark
ResultConcentration1,2

MetalsARSENICµg/L

D

ND(7.2)

--

--

--

ND(7.2)

--

--

--

ND(7.2)

--

--

--

ND(7.2)

--

--

--

BERYLLIUMµg/L

D

ND(1.4)

--

--

--

ND(1.4)

--

--

--

ND(1.4)

--

--

--

ND(1.4)

--

--

--

CADMIUM

µg/L

D

ND(2)

--

--

--

ND(2)

--

--

--

ND(2)

--

--

--

ND(2)

--

--

--

CHROMIUMµg/L

D

ND(3.4)

--

--

--

ND(3.4)

--

--

--

ND(3.4)

--

--

--

ND(3.4)

--

--

--

COPPERµg/L

D

ND(2.7)

--

--

--

ND(2.7)

--

--

--

ND(2.7)

--

--

--

ND(2.7)

--

--

--

LEAD

µg/L

D

ND(6.9)

--

--

--

ND(6.9)

--

--

--

ND(6.9)

--

--

--

ND(6.9)

--

--

--

MERCURYµg/L

D

ND(0.056)

--

--

--

ND(0.056)

--

--

--

ND(0.056)

--

--

--

ND(0.056)

--

--

--

NICKELµg/L

D

ND(1.8)

--

--

--

ND(1.8)

--

--

--

ND(1.8)

--

--

--

ND(1.8)

--

--

--

SELENIUMµg/L

D

ND(8.9)

--

--

--

ND(8.9)

--

--

--

ND(8.9)

--

--

--

ND(8.9)

--

--

--

VANADIUMµg/L

D

ND(2.5)

--

--

--

ND(2.5)

--

--

--

ND(2.5)

--

--

--

ND(2.5)

--

--

--

ZINC

µg/L

D

ND(8.1)

--

--

--

ND(8.1)

--

--

--

ND(8.1)

--

--

--

ND(8.1)

--

--

--

MG/L

T

102

--

--

--

262

--

--

--

153

--

--

--

109

--

--

--

HQ

COPEC
Decision

Water Quality Parameters
TOTAL HARDNESS AS CACO3

ECOBCD-09
10/22/09
AnalyteDissolved/T
Units
otal
ResultEcological
BenchmarkConcentration

ECOBCD-10
10/22/09

HQ

COPEC
Decision

ResultEcological
BenchmarkConcentration

ECOBCD-11
10/21/09

HQ

COPEC
Decision

ResultEcological
BenchmarkConcentration

MetalsARSENICµg/L

D

ND(7.2)

--

--

--

ND(7.2)

--

--

--

ND(7.2)

--

--

--

BERYLLIUMµg/L

D

ND(1.4)

--

--

--

ND(1.4)

--

--

--

ND(1.4)

--

--

--

CADMIUM

µg/L

D

ND(2)

--

--

--

ND(2)

--

--

--

ND(2)

--

--

--

CHROMIUMµg/L

D

ND(3.4)

--

--

--

ND(3.4)

--

--

--

ND(3.4)

--

--

--

COPPERµg/L

D

ND(2.7)

--

--

--

ND(2.7)

--

--

--

ND(2.7)

--

--

--

LEAD

µg/L

D

ND(6.9)

--

--

--

ND(6.9)

--

--

--

ND(6.9)

--

--

--

MERCURYµg/L

D

ND(0.056)

--

--

--

ND(0.056)

--

--

--

ND(0.056)

--

--

--

NICKEL

µg/L

D

5.7

62.9

0.09

N

ND(1.8)

--

--

--

ND(1.8)

--

--

--

SELENIUMµg/L

D

ND(8.9)

--

--

--

ND(8.9)

--

--

--

ND(8.9)

--

--

--

VANADIUM

µg/L

D

4.1

12

0.3417N

ND(2.5)

--

--

--

ND(2.5)

--

--

--

ZINC

µg/L

D

13.3

162.300.08

NND(8.1)

--

--

--

ND(8.1)

--

--

--

MG/L

T

152

--

--

--

64.5

--

--

--

157

--

--

--

Water Quality Parameters
TOTAL HARDNESS AS CACO3

Notes:
1. NJ DEP Ecological Screening Criteria (2009) Freshwater (FW2) Chronic Criteria
2. Ecological benchmark concentrations for nickel and zinc were adjusted for hardness based on the following formulas referenced in NJDEP Surface Water Quality Guidelines (2006): Ni - WER[eND - Not detected; method detection limit in parenthesis

6/17/2010

Page 1 of 1

(0.846(ln [hardness])+0.0584)]0.846 and Zn - WER[e (0.8473(ln) [hardness])+0.884)]0.95.

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 10
Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for PAH Mixtures
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

PAH Compound

CWK-E-ECOBCD01(0-0.5)
f oc =
0.1100toc

Coc,PAHi,FCVi/
Coc,PAHi,Maxia

Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
PyreneCsed (ug/g)

491
452
594
841
965
979
981
826
707
538
385
596
697

0.25
0.21
0.35
0.81
0.76
1.5
0.63
1.1
2.5
0.58
0.21
0.69
2

Coc (ug/goc)

2.27271.90913.18187.36366.9091
13.63645.727310.0000
22.7273
5.27271.9091
6.272718.1818
S ESBTUFCV,13 =S ESBTUFCV b =CWK-E-ECOBCD05(0-0.5)
f oc =
0.0636
toc

ESBTUFCVi

Csed (ug/g)

0.00460.00420.00540.00880.00720.01390.00580.01210.03210.00980.00500.01050.02610.14550.9866

0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.28
0.15
0.24
0.29
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.27

Coc (ug/goc)

2.35852.35852.35852.51572.83024.40252.35853.77364.55972.35852.35852.67304.2453
S ESBTUFCV,13 =S ESBTUFCV b =CWK-E-ECOBCD05(0-0.5)-DUP
f oc =
0.0512
toc

ESBTUFCVi

Csed (ug/g)

0.00480.00520.00400.00300.00290.00450.00240.00460.00640.00440.00610.00450.0061
0.05890.3995

0.14
0.14
0.27
1.4
1.1
4.1
1.3
2
1.1
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.84

Coc (ug/goc)

2.73442.73445.273427.3438
21.484480.078125.3906
39.0625
21.48442.73442.73443.320316.4063
S ESBTUFCV,13 =S ESBTUFCV b =ESBTUFCVi
0.00560.00600.00890.03250.02230.08180.02590.04730.03040.00510.00710.00560.02350.30192.0471

Notes:
Shaded cells indicate samples with PAH mixtures that exceed concentrations protective of benthic organisms. (S ESBTU FCV > 1.0)
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks for PAH mixtures calculated as:

ESGTU FCV   ESGTU
i C

C OC , PAHi

FCVi

OC , PAHi ,, FCVi

where:ESBTUFCV = Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmark Toxic Unit based on the Final Chronic Value (FCV)
COCiPAHi = Organic-carbon-normalized sediment concentration of PAH i
COCiPAHiFCVi = Critical concentration of PAH i in sediment from USEPA (2000)
f oc = Fraction of organic carbon
a, The lower value of Coc,PAHi,FCVi and Coc,PAHi,Maxi was used in the calculationb, An uncertainty factor of 6.78 was multiplied to S ESBTU FCV,13 to estimate S ESBTU FCV for 34 PAHs with 80% confidence (USEPA 2003).

6/17/2010

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Table 11
Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) Sediment Quality Guidelines for N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

Diphenylamine
Concentration
Sediment
Unit
Sample ID
in Sediment6 TOC (mg/kg)(mg/kg)Default 1% Sediment TOC Concentration:
10000

1

Acute LC502(µg/L)SQB5

ACR

Chronic NOEC4(µg/L)f TOC

3log Kowlog Koc

MW

3.16

3.11

198.23

3506

8.10

433

0.010

SEL
(mg/kg)45

LEL(mg/kg)16NEC(mg/kg)6

CWK BCD

ECOBCD-05

0.21

63600

3.16

3.11

198.23

3506

8.10

433

0.0636285

100

35.184CWK BCD

ECOBCD-05-DUP

0.31

51200

3.16

3.11

198.23

3506

8.10

433

0.0512229

81

28.324

Notes:
1, Molecular weight2, Lethal concentration for 50% of organisms tested based on QSAR in Hermens et al. (1984)
3, Acute-to-chronic ratio based on daphnid LC50:NOEC ratio reported in USEPA 2006 and Gersich and Milazzo (1990), respectively.
4, Chronic no observed effect concentration calculated as the acute LC50 / ACR
5, Sediment Quality Benchmark:SEL - Severe effect level
LEL - Lowest effect level
NEC - No effect concentration
6, Shaded cells indicate that concentration exceeds calculated NEC benchmark

6/17/2010

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

FiguresLegend
DuPont Site Property Line



New York

New York

Pennsylvania

Map
ExtentDelawareRiver

New
JerseyMaryland

Salem
CountyDelaware

§
¦
¨

®

295

0

1,000

2,000

4,000

Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet




De
la

wa

re

Me
m

ori
a

lB






ridge§¦¨

£
¤

295

40











¬
«
49



¬«551













Legend

SWMU 48-3

A PondSWMU 45-1

Walk

SWMU 45-2

er

Av

2002 Shoreline*e.)

HELMS COVE
O
C

.)
O
C

T LE
AS

EM

C

AL

RS

EY

(N

(S

EW

Railroad
SWMU 37

JE

SWMU 45-8

WNE

E PondDomestic Water Pond

SWMU 45-5

SWMU 45-3

Structure

SWMU 45-4
SWMU 61
SWMU 48-2 SWMU 48-4

N

or
th

BOUTT OWN CR EEK

SWMU 44

SWMU 53

Dismantled Structure
BOUTT OWN CR EEKHistoric E Pond
Settling BasinSWMU 44

Historic E Pond
Fire Water Pond

Boundary of Waterbody

Helms Basin

DE
L

AW

AR
E

B PondRoad

BOUTT OWN CR EEK

SWMU 45-9

P

at
ro

Waterbody Area**
lR

oa
d

Wetland Area**
SWMU*Shoreline digitized in GIS from 2002 ortho image.
**Data obtained from NJDEP. Some data adjusted
to 2002 aerial.

SWMU 44

SWMU 45-6

Bouttown Creek

DELAWARE RIVER

SWMU 47O
B

SWMU 52

U

SWMU 45-9TT



O
W
N
R
C
E
E

o ad
er
R

vi

R iv

nn
s

lle

R

oa
d

TT O

WN
CR

EE

K

Bo ulev ard

SWMU 46

BOU

Bo ws erPe

K

SWMU 45-7

ARP
K IN GAR
EA

AR
PK IN GAR
EA

SWMU 13-1®

SWMU 13-2
ARP
K IN G
AR
EA

PA

K
R

IN

A
G

E
R

AR
P
K IN GAR
EA

Henby Creek
Sluice Gate

SWMU 13-3
SWMU 13-4

A

SWMU 48-7

SWMU 48-5
Pe
AR
P
K IN G
AR
EA

s
nn
v il
le
Ro

SWMU 42

SWMU 19


H
IP

G
IN
K

d
oa
"B " L ANDFIL L

SWMU 30

SWMU 4

SWMU 3



oadNeoprene Road



P A R K IN G

"A" LANDFIL L"E"

SWMU 30

Pa

tr o

lR



SWMU 41-1

PA R K I N G

ad
Ro

Sh

SWMU 39-4
SWMU 55-5

tr olEast Road

SWMU 33

Pa

PA R K I N G







oa

d

d
oa

ell
R

PA R K I N G

SWMU 33
PA R K I N G


Sh
d

R oa

lR

Hill

Shinn Road

tr o

SWMU 39-7
Shin n RoadPA R K I N G

SWMU 9Garage Road

Main Roaday

PA R K I N G

SWMU 41-3
SWMU 41-6

SWMU 23

SWMU 8
Kinetic RoadPA R K I N GRiver RoadPA R K I N G
PA R K I N G

PA R K I N G

SWMU 28

dw

Pa

SWMU 62

ad

AM
R
P

SWMU 41-7

Br
oa

Ro




C O R RA L

NG

ad

KI

SWMU 39-2
SWMU 25 SWMU 41-8

O .1

SWMU 55-2

SWMU 21

Sandblast Road

R
PA

Ro

P

tN
la n

SWMU 58.1ad
Clarifier Ro

ell
R

PA
R

etic

d

SWMU 57S

O
tN

SWMU 36
SWMU 36
ad SWMU 39-8oR

SWMU 50

Carbon Road

S

IP

N

Kin

oa

t er
C en

et
tr e

an
Pl

SWMU 55-3
SWMU 56

SWMU 55-4

SWMU 39-6
SWMU 39-6

SWMU 6

SWMU 33

PA R K I N GWSSWMU 17C O R RA L

rf

SWMU 54
SWMU 42

H

O

N

PA
R

E

W
O

T

L

T

Ro
a

IL

T

G

IN

Riv
er

S

IN

N

O

K

P
V

N

P A R K I NG

SWMU 33

ha

SWMU 18

SWMU 12et"F "SWMU 40

W

Pact Roadad

SWMU 27

SWMU 15
SWMU 16

PA R K I N Gt re

SWMU 54

SWMU 14

SWMU 33

R

E

S

P

Y

P rim a r y R o

SWMU 55-1

G ly cerin e SSWMU 39-9

SWMU 42

o ad

E

ad

SWMU 33

SWMU 49NRo

SWMU 26
SWMU 34

2,000

tR

d
oa

etic

SWMU 35

d

R

R

oa

A

on

R

BASI N

Kin

F re

ar
y

"B "

C

d

SWMU 15
SETT LING

1,000

Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet

SWMU 42an
Pl

SWMU 59
SWMU 20
SWMU 34
SWMU 55-4
SWMU 39-3

500

SWMU 42HENBY C REEK

un
d

0

P
AM
R

SWMU 42

SWMU 42Bo

ShAR
PK IN GAR
EA

EK

SWMU 60
SWMU 43ARP
K IN G
AR
EA

E
CR

Henby Creek

SWMU 19
SWMU 19
SWMU 42ARP
K IN GAR
EA

SWMU 48-6
SWMU 48-1

ARP
K IN G
AR
EA

BY

ell
R

oa

d

AR
P
K IN G
AR
EA

ad

H EN

SWMU 42



Legend

Extent Rectangle

2002 Shoreline*

P4-459-2

RoadÌ

Railroad

SWMU 45-9

ÌBoundary of Waterbody
Structure
Dismantled Structure

T29-B-30

T29-B-33

BPOND-1

SWMU 45-1

—

ÌÌ
—
—

SWMU 45-2

BC-2

SWMU 45-8

nt R

P2-459-3

oad

R

i ve

rR

Ì

DELAWARE RIVER
EPOND-1

EPOND-05———

P2-459-9

ÌEPOND-04

SWMU 45-9

BC-3

EPOND-06

D Sampling Location

Sediment and/or Surface Water SamplingÌ Historic
LocationdD

SWMU 45-9

U
O
TT

Ì

D

EK

BC-5

E
R
C

BCW-5

N

o ad

1,000

W

er
R

500




O
B

ÌD

Ì

P4-459-4

BC-6

BO
U

TTO



OFFBC-4
WN
CR
EE
K

Ì

BCW-6

OFFBC-2

D

Ì
OFFBC-3

d

R iv

®






Bo ulev ar

oa
d

250

BC-4

Bo ws erRoad


Ì

lle

lR

Feet
1 inch = 500 feet

Ì

BCW-4

SWMU 45-7

vi

at
ro

SWMU 47

P2-459-14

nn
s

P

0

l

Bo ulev arP2-459-13

Pe

or
th

P4-459-3

Ì
SWMU 52N

BOUTTOWN CREEK



SWMU 45-6

BCW-3

SWMU 46

Wetland Sediment/Hydric Soil and PushPoint

P4-459-1

ExtentRectangle

Ì—Wetland Sediment/Hydric Soil Sampling Location

Plant Roa d

BOUTTOWN CREEKSWMU 44

Bo ws er

SWMU 44

Surface Water, Sediment, Benthic Community,l and PushPoint Sampling Location*Shoreline digitized in GIS from 2002 ortho image.
**Data obtained from NJDEP. Some data adjusted
to 2002 aerial.

SWMU 44

SWMU 53

Surface Water, Sediment, and Benthic Community

P4-459-2
Ì
Ì —
—
—
—
—
—
SWMU 61 —l BC-2BCW-2ÌEPOND-03

Ì Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Location

SWMU 45-9

P2-459-6

SWMU 48-4

SWMU 48-2

Ì— Sediment Sampling Locatione

SWMU 45-3

SWMU 45-4

EPOND-2

Av

Ì Sampling Location

P4-42-1

ÌBCW-1

SWMU 45-5

ÌÌ

SWMU 37

BC-1

ad

Pla

er

HB-3

HELMS BASIN
BOUTTOWN
CREEK

Ì

Wa
lk

HB-2

Ì

HB-4

HELMS COVE

HB-1

Ì

BPOND-2

(S
AL
E

l

SWMU Evaluated for Exposure to Mobile Wildlife

tr eeT29-B28"I"S—

T29-B-31

SWMU
t

T29-B-29

.)

—

—

—

O

T29-SED4—

Wetland Area**

APOND-2

SWMU 48-3

C—

Waterbody Area**

APOND-1

O.
)—

T29-SED3

T29-B-32

C

T29-SED2—

M—

T29-SED1

DE
LA
W
NE
AR
W
E
(N
JE
EW
RS
C
AS
EY
TL
o
E

SWMU 61

Ì
OFFBC-1

Ì



l BC-7







LegendD

Railroad
BÌD SWMU 45-9

Township BoundaryO
TTW

Boundary of Waterbody

RÌ

Structure

E

BC-5

C

D

N
E
K

SWMU 45-7

BCW-5

U

Ì

O

P2-459-13

SWMU 52

Road

P4-459-4

BCW-4

P2-459-14

2002 Shoreline*

SWMU 47

Ì

Dismantled Structure

Ì
er
R

nn
s

vi

lle

R

Wetland Area**
SWMU

BCW-6

d

R iv

Pe

Bo ulev aro ad

Bo ws er

SWMU 46

Waterbody Area**

BC-6

SWMUs Evaluated for Exposure to Mobile Wildlife

D

oa
d

Ì Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Location
Water, Sediment, and Benthic CommunityÌ SurfaceSampling Location
Surface Water, Sediment, and PushPoint

DELAWARE RIVERl Sampling Location

Water, Sediment, Benthic Community,l Surfaceand PushPoint Sampling Location

l

A
P
A

GARE

GARE

R K INR K IN

A
P

BC-7

A

Wetland Sediment/Hydric Soil Sampling Location

SWMU 13-1

Sediment/Hydric Soil and PushPoint
D Wetland
Sampling Location
Sediment and/or Surface Water SamplingÌ Historic
Location

SWMU 13-2

A
P*Shoreline digitized in GIS from 2002 ortho image.
**Data obtained from NJDEP. Some data adjusted to2002 aerial.

AP

R K IN
A

GARE

GARE

R K INASWMU 13-3
PA

R

K

IN

G

A

R

E

SWMU 13-4

A

SWMU 48-7

SWMU 48-5





A
P

Pe

R K IN

s
nn

GARE

®

A

v il
le

P4-42-1

Ro
ad

HC-4

Ì

HEN

Ì

SWMU 48-6

HCW-1

A

A
P
R K IN
GARE
A

HC-3

HC-2

Ì

l

l

P4-42-2

SWMU 42




HC-1
HCW-2

SETTLING
SWMU 15

SWMU 42

ad
Ro

Pact RoadlR

SWMU 16

oa
d

1

Pa

Pl
an

tN

O.

SWMU 55-1

SWMU 36
SWMU 36

SWMU 39-8

SWMU 55-2

tr o

lR

oa
d

Cl

SWMU 18R
oad

SWMU 12Clarifier Road

d
oa

IP
H
S
IP
N
H
W
S
TO WN
TO
LE

IL

SWMU 15

tr o

SWMU 42

fi
ari

er

ell
R

V

IN

S

Pa

Carbon Road

N

PO

N

SWMU 14
SWMU 27

SWMU 34

SWMU 54d

Primary Road

PE

YS

oa

OFFHC-4ad
Ro

SWMU 50

Ì

Sh

E

R

PAR K IN G

N

ar
y

nt

AR

un
d

SWMU 54

PlaSWMU 49
Bo


Ì

TGARE

SWMU 19

HCW-3

"B"

1,000

SWMU 42HENBY C REEK

BASIN

500


R A MPSWMU 42

SWMU 19

SWMU 60

SWMU 34250

Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
SWMU 42

SWMU 19
SWMU 42 SWMU 19

SWMU 59

0K

SWMU 19

SWMU 43

R K INSWMU 48-1

EE

HCW-4

A
P

BY

SWMU 42C

WMU 26

BCW-3

CR

MU 55-4

SWMU 45-6





ÌÌ






OFFHC-1

OFFHC-2

P4-42-3ad
Clarifier Ro



OFFHC-3ÌÌ









Ì

P4-459-2

ECOBCD-04
T29-B-30
SWMU 61

T29-SED1 —T29-B-32—— T29-B-29——
T29-SED3 —— T29-B28— T29-B-31—

T29-SED2

T29-SED4—

T29-B-33

Pla

nt

ad
Ro

P2-459-3
P4-459-1ado
ECOBCD-04
rR
ECOBCD-04
ve
Ri
AnalyteUnits SWMU
BenchmarkBenchmark Type Result
45-5
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
11.3
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.41
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--2.5

ECOBCD-06
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
ARSENIC
MG/KG
16.5
EI BKG UTL
16.8
COPPER
MG/KG
170.2
EI BKG UTLECOBCD-06
190
LEAD
MG/KG
296.8
EI BKG UTL
938
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTLSWMU 440.804
SELENIUM
MG/KG
5British Columbia
18.3
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.24
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--15.0

BCW-1

o ad

ExtentRectangleÌP2-459-9—
D

SWMU 45-9

—
D

—
D
Ì

BC-3

P4-459-3l

SWMU 47

D
—
D
Ì

BCW-4
P2-459-14

P2-459-13—
D

SWMU 45-9
—
Ì
DD

Ì

Pe

vi

lle

R

oa
d

P4-459-4

BCW-5

Ì

BC-5

er

SWMU Evaluated for Exposure to Mobile Wildlife

A

BC-6

—
D

Ecological Investigation and Historic RI
Sampling Locations— Sediment Sampling Location

Ì Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Location

Water, Sediment, and Benthic CommunityÌ SurfaceSampling Location
Water, Sediment, Benthic Community,l Surfaceand PushPoint Sampling Location

Wetland Sediment/Hydric Soil Sampling Location

Sediment/Hydric Soil and PushPoint
D Wetland
Sampling Location

Sediment and/or Surface Water SamplingÌ Historic
Location







0

®

250

500

1,000

Feet

1 inch = 500 feet












ÌÌÌ
OFFBC-3BCW-6October 2009 Sediment and Interstitial Water
Sampling Location

OFFBC-4

OFFBC-2D
ECOBCD-10
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
0.784
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.41
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--7.7
ECOBCD-10

l BC-7
SWMU 13-1

SWMU
Wa
lk

ECOBCD-11
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
1.36
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.54
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
%
--7.1

d

nn
s

Waterbody Area**

ECOBCD-11

D

SWMU 45-7

Dismantled Structure

ECOBCD-08
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
ARSENIC
MG/KG
16.5
EI BKG UTL
16.9
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
1.96
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
1.24
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--9.8

SWMU 45-6BCW-3Structure

ECOBCD-08

BC-4

Ì

Boundary of Waterbodyve
ECOBCD-03
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
ARSENIC
MG/KG
16.5
EI BKG UTL
25.5
ECOBCD-03
CADMIUM
MG/KG
2.28
EI BKG UTL
2.81
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
7.32
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.38
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--6.1

Bo ulev ar

er
R

BC-2

BCW-2
SWMU 44ECOBCD-07
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
ARSENIC
MG/KG
16.5
EI BKG UTL
19.4
SWMU 44
LEAD
MG/KG
296.8
EI BKG UTL
349
ECOBCD-07
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
1.47
SELENIUM
MG/KG
5British Columbia
5.79
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.69
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--12.6

R iv

P4-459-2

SWMU 45-9

Railroad

ECOBCD-05
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
12.2
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.91
Total PAHs (non-detects 50% detection limit) UG/KG
4000
LEL
14290
Total
PAHs (non-detects as zeros)
UG/KG
4000
LEL
14010
ECOBCD-05
PAH ESBTU FCV
ESBTU
1.0
USEPA ESB
2.05
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
UG/KG
28342
EqB
Calculation
310
N
or
th
P
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
%
--5.1
at
ro
lR
oa
ECOBCD-05
ECOBCD-05-DUPdAnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
10.5
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.63
Total PAHs (non-detects 50% detection limit) UG/KG
4000
LEL
2340
Total PAHs (non-detects as zeros)
UG/KG
4000
LEL
1740
PAH ESBTU FCV
ESBTU
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.399
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
UG/KG
35184
EqB Calculation
210
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
%
--6.4

BC-1

Bo ws er

—
D
Ì
—
D Ì

Ì
D
Ì—
D—
—
—
——
—
SWMU 61 ——l

P2-459-6

SWMU 48-4

SWMU 53

ECOBCD-09
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
CADMIUM
MG/KG
2.28
EI BKG UTL
16.1
COPPER
MG/KG
170.2
EI
BKG
UTL
911
SWMU 52
LEAD
MG/KG
296.8
EI BKG UTL
1020
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
2.13
ZINC
MG/KG
1101
EI BKG UTL
4100
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESBECOBCD-09
4.73
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--5.5
INTERSTITIAL WATER - ECOBCD-09
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
NICKEL
UG/L
62.9
NJSWQC
5.7
SWMU 46
VANADIUM
UG/L
20.0
TIER II SCV
4.1
ZINC
UG/L
162.3
NJSWQC
13.3

Plant Roa d

SWMU 45-3

SWMU 45-4

SWMU 48-2

Ì—D

SWMU 37

Road

Wetland Area**l BC-2
SWMU 45-8

2002 Shoreline*

t

—
D

Ì

—
D

SWMU 45-9

LegendSEDIMENT - ECOBCD-02
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
2.75
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.08
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--6.1
INTERSTITIAL WATER - ECOBCD-02
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
NICKELUG/L ECOBCD-02
95.2
NJSWQC
3.3

tr ee

ECOBCD-05

SEDIMENT - ECOBCD-01
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
ARSENIC
MG/KG
16.5
EI BKG UTL
34.4
BERYLLIUM
MG/KG
2.641
EI BKG UTL
3.47
MERCURY
MG/KG
0.712
EI BKG UTL
5.09
VANADIUM
MG/KG
115.5
EI BKG UTL
231
SEM:AVS
MG/KG
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.03
Total PAHs (non-detects 50% detection limit) UG/KG
4000
LEL
12465
Total PAHs (non-detects as zeros)
UG/KG
4000
LEL
12150
SWMU
48-3
PAH ESBTU FCV
ESBTU
1.0
USEPA ESB
0.987
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON%--11.0
INTERSTITIAL
WATER - ECOBCD-01
SWMU
45-1
AnalyteUnits Benchmark Benchmark Type Result
NICKELUG/L
92.9
NJSWQC
8.8
ECOBCD-01
ZINC
UG/LSWMU 45-2
239.8
NJSWQC
35.5"I"S

Extent Rectangle

Ì
OFFBC-1Ì















FIGURE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF FINE-GRAINED SEDIMENTBOUTTOWN CREEK DITCH INVESTIGATIONDUPONT CHAMBERS WORKSDEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY

Silt (2 µm-64 µm)

BCD-01Clay (< 2 µm)

BCD-02
BCD-03
BCD-04
BCD-05
BCD-06
BCD-07
BCD-08
BCD-09
BCD-10
BCD-11
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent of Sediment Sample

70

80

90

100

FIGURE 7
TOTAL SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON CONTENTBOUTTOWN CREEK DITCH INVESTIGATIONDUPONT CHAMBERS WORKSDEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY

BCD-01
BCD-02
BCD-03
BCD-04
BCD-05
BCD-06
BCD-07
BCD-08
BCD-09
BCD-10
BCD-11
0

2

4

6

8

10

Percent of Sediment Sample

12

14

16

FIGURE 8
SEM:AVS RATIOSBOUTTOWN CREEK DITCH INVESTIGATIONDUPONT CHAMBERS WORKSDEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY20ACID VOLATILE SULFIDE

Simultaneously Extracted Metal
Acid Volatile Sulfide(µmol/g)

18

ZINC
NICKEL

16

LEAD

14

COPPERCADMIUM

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
BCD-01

3
4
BCD-02

5
6
BCD-03

7
8
BCD-04

9
10
BCD-05

11
12
BCD-0613
14
BCD-07

15
16
BCD-0817
18
BCD-0919
20
BCD-1021
22
BCD-11FIGURE 9
TOC NORMALIZED SEM-AVS RESULTS
BOUTTOWN CREEK DITCH INVESTIGATIONDUPONT CHAMBERS WORKSDEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY◄Low risk of adverse biological effects when (ΣSEM-AVS)/foc < 130 µmol/goc►
150
100(ΣSEM-AVS)/foc(µmol/goc)

50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200

BCD-01

BCD-02

BCD-03

BCD-04

BCD-05

BCD-06

BCD-07

BCD-08

BCD-09

BCD-10

BCD-11FIGURE 10
IN SITU SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT INTERSTITIAL WATER CONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
BOUTTOWN CREEK DITCH INVESTIGATIONDUPONT CHAMBERS WORKSDEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY
2000
Surface Water
1800

Interstitial Start
Interstitial End

1600

Conductivity (µS/cm)

1400

1200

1000
800

600

400

200

0
BCD-01 BCD-02 BCD-03 BCD-04 BCD-05 BCD-06 BCD-07 BCD-08 BCD-09 BCD-10 BCD-11

AppendicesAppendix A
Sediment Analytical Data – Bouttown Creek
Ditch Investigation

Appendix A
Sediment Analytical Data – Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

AnalyteSemi-Volatile Organic Compounds
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENEANTHRACENEBENZO(A)ANTHRACENEBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENEBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO[A]PYRENE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENEDIPHENYL AMINEFLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
INDENO (1,2,3-CD) PYRENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
MetalsARSENICBERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPERLEAD
MERCURY
NICKELSELENIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
SEM-AVSACID VOLATILE SULFIDECADMIUM
COPPERLEAD
NICKELZINC
Grain Size Distribution
0.001 MM0.002 MM0.005 MM0.02 MM0.05 MM0.064 MM0.075 MM0.15 MM
0.3 MM
0.6 MM
1.18 MM
19 MM
2.36 MM3.35 MM37.5 MM4.75 MM
75 MM
Other Parameters
PERCENT MOISTURETOTAL ORGANIC CARBON

6/17/2010

Location ECOBCD-01 ECOBCD-02 ECOBCD-03 ECOBCD-04 ECOBCD-05 ECOBCD-05 ECOBCD-06 ECOBCD-07 ECOBCD-08 ECOBCD-09 ECOBCD-10 ECOBCD-11
Date
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/21/09
Top (ft)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bottom (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Duplicate
FS
FS
FS
FS
DUP
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS

Units

Total (T)/Diss. (D)

UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

34.4
3.47
2.26 J
60.3
159
130
5.09
52.3
ND (6.13)
231
399

13.6
0.523 J
0.667 J
42.8
51
93.6
2.75
30.8
ND (3.61)
81
207

25.5
1.45 J
2.81
63.7
148
192
7.32
51.2
ND (4.67)
77.1
968

8.05
ND (0.186)
0.888 J
55.3
95.3
223
11.3
20.8
ND (2.68)
40.1
232

13.8
ND (0.297)
0.895 J
71
90.6
163
10.5
31.9
ND (4.28)
73.7
255

14.3
ND (0.288)
0.877 J
69.3
97.1
159
12.2
31.3
ND (4.15)
72.7
242

16.8
0.449 J
1.64 J
46.1
190
938
0.804
33.1
18.3
54.8
616

19.4
ND (0.351)
1.65 J
64.4
157
349
1.47
38.5
5.79 J
73.2
727

16.9
ND (0.273)
1.16 J
53.1
85.6
182
1.96
32.4
ND (4.01)
61.2
404

9.74
0.493 J
16.1
56.2
911
1020
2.13
39.3
ND (1.89)
56.8
4100

7.91
ND (0.244)
0.828 J
47.7
56.7
75
0.784
25.9
ND (3.51)
57
244

14.1
ND (0.267)
0.786 J
52.5
37.3
89.8
1.36
32.2
ND (3.97)
57.6
194

UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G
UMOL/G

T
T
T
T
T
T

18.4
0.00459
0.09660.04740.04440.432

70.00209
0.04890.05630.04360.389

4.1
0.003180.108
0.089
0.03551.32

20.00188
0.103
0.172
0.02640.524

1J0.00182
0.06820.108
0.02250.425

ND (0.63)
0.00171
0.07570.103
0.01780.375

5.2
0.002470.0707 J
0.449
0.02220.72

2.1
0.00295
0.126 J
0.199
0.02741.1

0.92 J
0.00238
0.124 J
0.131
0.02840.854

1.5 J
0.00991
0.361 J
0.36
0.06286.3

1.6 J
0.00179
0.0367 J
0.05440.01930.551

0.92 J
0.00152
0.0427 J
0.05750.0204
0.372% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING% PASSING

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

ND (0.5)
3
9.5
33
49.5
58.5
61.9
70.1
78.5
87.1
96.7
100
98.5
99.1
100
99.6
100

5
11
20
46.5
56.5
59
59.8
66.1
76.5
87.3
92.6
100
93.8
94.3
100
94.7
100

7
18.5
33.5
64.5
77
81
82.6
85.3
88.1
90.7
93.8
100
95
97.5
100
98.7
100

2
4
6
21
31
34
35.1
43.2
61.9
82.3
92.8
100
97.3
98.7
100
99.5
100

7
23
42.5
79
86
87.5
87.9
89.2
90.2
90.7
91.1
100
91.3
96.7
100
99
100

7
24.5
46
82
92.5
95
95.7
97.2
98.4
99
99.1
100
99.2
99.6
100
99.8
100

1
7
15
36
49
52
54.5
63.7
72.2
79.8
87.6
99.9
97.4
98.9
100
99.5
100

3
11
21
47
56
57
57.5
60.3
63.6
68.5
88.1
100
99.3
99.6
100
99.9
100

1.5
19.5
41
69.5
78.5
78
78
84.6
89.7
92.3
93.9
100
94.7
96.8
100
98
100

7
9
16
53.5
72
78
81
86.3
91.8
95.2
97.1
99.9
97.7
98.8
100
99.3
100

12
17
30
72
79.5
81
81.3
84.2
87.4
90.5
93.7
100
97.1
97.8
100
98.3
100

5
10.5
21
59.5
70
73
75.6
80.4
85.7
90.2
95.1
100
98.9
99.6
100
100
100

%
MG/KG

T
T

84
110000

73.4
61300

79
61000

63.4
24500

77.1
63600

76.4
51200

84.5
15000080.6126000

75.8
97700

49.6
55300

72.1
76800

75.3
71400

250 J
ND (210)
350 J
810 J
1500
500 J
630 J
760 J
1100
ND (210)ND (150) ND (140) UJ
ND (150) ND (140) UJ
ND (150)
270 J
160 J
1400
280 J
4100
150 J
740
ND (150)
1300
180 J
1100
240 J
2000
ND (150)
210 J
310 J
290 J
1100
ND (150)
ND (140)
ND (150)780
ND (150)
ND (140)
170 J
170 J
270 J
840
210 J

2500
580 J
480 J
ND (210)
690 J
2000

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310

Appendix B
Sediment Interstitial Water Data – Bouttown Creek
Ditch Investigation

Appendix B
Sediment Interstitial Water Data – Bouttown Creek Ditch Investigation
Summary of Ecological Investigations in Carneys Point
DuPont Chambers Works Site
Deepwater, New Jersey

AnalyteMetalsUnits

Location

ECOBCD-01

ECOBCD-02

ECOBCD-03

ECOBCD-04

ECOBCD-04

ECOBCD-05

ECOBCD-06

ECOBCD-07

ECOBCD-08

ECOBCD-09

ECOBCD-10

ECOBCD-11

Date

10/20/09

10/20/09

10/22/09

10/20/09

10/20/09

10/20/09

10/21/09

10/21/09

10/21/09

10/22/09

10/22/09

10/21/09

Top (ft)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total (T)/

Bottom (ft)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Diss. (D)Duplicate

FS

FS

FS

DUP

FS

FS

FS

FS

FS

FS

FS

FS

ARSENIC

UG/L

D

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

ND (7.2)

BERYLLIUM

UG/LD

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

ND (1.4)

CADMIUM

UG/L

D

ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)ND (2)CHROMIUM

UG/LD

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

ND (3.4)

COPPER

UG/L

D

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

ND (2.7)

LEAD

UG/L

D

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

ND (6.9)

MERCURY

UG/L

D

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

ND (0.056)

NICKEL

UG/L

D

8.8 J

3.3 J

ND (1.8)

ND (1.8)

ND (1.8)

ND (1.8)

ND (1.8)

ND (1.8)

ND (1.8)

5.7 J

ND (1.8)

ND (1.8)

SELENIUM

UG/LD

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

ND (8.9)

VANADIUM

UG/LD

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

4.1 J

ND (2.5)

ND (2.5)

ZINC

UG/L

D

35.5

ND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

13.3 BND (8.1)

ND (8.1)

MG/L

T

241

248

156

162

171

102

262

153

109

152

64.5

157

Total Hardness
TOTAL HARDNESS AS CACO3

6/17/2010

Page 1 of 1

CWK_CP EI Summary Tables_061310