HRS DOCUMENTATION RE CORD REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site: HORTON IRON & METAL CO.

NCN 000 407 480

Contact Persons: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4:

Jennifer Wendel NPL Coordinator (404) 562-8799

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources:

Site Investigation: Melani e Bartlett (919) 508-8480

Documentation Record: Melanie Bartlett (919) 508-8480

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Evaluated:

Ground Water Migration Pathway The ground water migration pathway was not scored because scoring the ground water pathway would have a minimal impact on the site score.

Surface Water Pathway Drinking Water threat/targets: The drinking water threat was not scor ed because there is no drinking water

intake within the 15-mile surface water pathway downstream of the site. Thus, this threat would have minimal or no impact on the site score. Environmental threat/targets:

The environmental threat was not scored as the impact on the site score would be

minimal.

Soil Exposure Pathway The soil exposure pathway was not scored because there are no residents, schools or daycares onsite; the prope rty is fenced and secured; and exposure to workers

stationed on or within 200 feet of the contaminated areas on a routine basis is minimized. Due to this, the soil exposure pathway would have a minimal impact

on the overall site score.

Air Pathway The air pathway was not scored because scoring the pathway would have a minimal impact on the site score.1 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Horton Iron & Metal Co.

EPA Region: 4

Date Prepared: O ctober 2010

Street Address of Site*: 2216 US Highway 421 N

County, State, and ZIP: Wilmingt on, New Hanover County, NC 28401

General Location in the State: Southeast North Carolina

Topographic Map: CASTLE HAYNE, NC

Latitude: 34 o 15’ 59.94”

Longitude: -77 o 57’ 14.70”

Location is within Source 1 just southwest of PPE2 (Ref. 3, p. 1; Figs. 1, 3, 6)

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known “releases or threat ened releases” of hazard ous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not preci sely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been “deposited, stored, placed or othe rwise come to be located.” Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refine d as more information is developed as to where the

contamination has come to be located.

Scores Ground Water Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway 96.06 Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Air Pathway Not Scored

HRS SITE SCORE 

### 48.032 WORKSHEET FOR SITE SCORE

S S 2

1. Ground Water Migration Path way Score Not Scored

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration --

Drinking Water Threat Not Scored

Food Chain Threat 96.06

Environmental Threat Not Scored

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component (subject to maximum value of 100, Ref. 1, section 4.1.5) 96.06 9,227.5236

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score Not Scored

4. Air Migration Pathway Score Not Scored

5. Total of S gw 2 + S

sw 2 + S

s 2 + S

a 2 = 9,227.5236

6. HRS Site Score: Value on line 5. divided by four,
then take the square root 

### 48.03__3 HRS TABLE 4-1 -Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Scoresheet

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum

Value Value

Assigned

Drinking Water Threat

Likelihood of Release:

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow:

2a. Containment 10

-
2b. Runoff 25

-
2c. Distance to Surface Water 25

- 2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow

(lines 2a x [2b + 2c]) 500

-

3. Potential to Release by Flood:

3a. Containment (Flood) 10

- 3b. Flood Frequency 50

- 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) 500

- 4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c, subject to a maximum of 500) 500

- 5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550

Waste Characteristics:

6. Toxicity/Persistence (a)

- 7. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a)

-
8. Waste Characteristics 100

- Targets:

9. Nearest Intake 50

- 10. Population:

10a. Level I Concentrations (b)

-
10b. Level II Concentrations (b)

-
10c. Potential Contamination (b)

- 10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) (b)

-
11. Resources 5

- 12. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) (b)

- Drinking Water Threat Score:

13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100

-

Human Food Chain Threat

Likelihood of Release:

14. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550

Waste Characteristics:

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 5 x 10 8

16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 3204 Factor Categories and Factors Maximum

Value Value

Assigned

Targets:

18. Food Chain Individual 50 45

19. Population:

19a. Level I Concentrations (b)

-
19b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.03

19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b)

- 19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) (b) 0.03

20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) (b) 45.03

Human Food Chain Threat Score:

21. Human Food Chain Threat Score ([lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 96.06

Environmental Threat

Likelihood of Release:

22. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a)

- 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a)

-
25. Waste Characteristics 1,000

- Targets:

26. Sensitive Environments:

26a. Level I Concentrations (b)

-
26b. Level II Concentrations (b)

-
26c. Potential Contamination (b)

- 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c) (b)

- 27. Targets (value from 26d) (b)

- Environmental Threat Score:

28. Environmental Threat Score ([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 60) 60

-

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score

For A Watershed

29. Watershed Score c (lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 96.06

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score

30. Component Score (S of ) c , (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 96.06

a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

b Maximum value not applicable.

c Do not round to nearest integer.5 HORTON IRON & METAL CO. WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, 55 FR 51532. Excerpt. Cover page only. A comp lete copy of the Hazard Ranking System document is available in the Region 4 Docket.

2. USEPA; Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). January 2004. Excerpt. 15 pages. A complete copy of SC DM is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/site s/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm

.

3. US Geological Survey, 7.5-minute topographi c quadrangle maps of North Carolina: Castle Hayne, 1997; Wilmington, 1993; Le land, 1997; Winnabow, 1990; Funston, 1990; and Carolina Beach, 1997. 6 ma ps merged and modified into two. Scale 1:100,000. 2

pages.

4. Bryson, Melanie and Bateson, Jim, NC De partment of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Expanded Site In spection, Horton Iron & Metal Co., NCN 000 407 480, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC. September 17, 2003. 284 pages.

5. Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises. Expanded Site Inspection Report, Revision 2, Horton Iron & Metal, NCN 000 407 480, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC. March 3, 2010. 851 pages.

6. Reference reserved.

7. Reference reserved.

8. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emerge ncy Response, Using Qualified Data to

Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination. November 1996. 18

pages.

9. New Hanover County Tax Depart ment, Property Assessment. Tax Records for 2216 US Highway 421 North, Wilmington, NC. Dece mber 14, 2009. 5 pages. Records are

available at http://etax.nhcgov.com/Main/Home.aspx

.

10. North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State. Co rporation Records for Horton Iron and Metal Company. March 18, 2010. 7 pages. Records are available at http://www.secretary.st ate.nc.us/corporations/

.

11. Carlton, Roger, USEPA, Region 4 Scien ce and Ecosystem Support Division, Quality Assurance Project Plan for Horton Iron a nd Metal Co., Inc. July 29, 2009. 26 pages.6 HORTON IRON & METAL CO. WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC

LIST OF REFERENCES

12. Stanley, Jeanette, NC Superfund Section. Me mo to File, RE: Owner ship history. April 29, 2002. 44 pages.

13. Sanborn Maps of Wilmington, NC dated 1915 and 1951. 2 pages.

14. Stanley, Jeanette, NC Superfund Section. Memo to Staff; RE: Fertilizer Manufacturing Facilities, Contaminants of Con cern. January 29, 1999. 54 pages.

15. Application by Horton Industries, Proposed Dredging on North East Cape Fear River Opposite Smiths Creek, May 5, 1961. 1 page.

16. Bryson, Melanie, NC Superfund Section. Memo to File; RE: Telephone Call Summary, December 11, 2002. 1 page.

17. Bryson, Melanie, NC Superfund Section. Memo to File, Subject: On-site Reconnaissance Field Notes, January 17, 2003. 3 pages.

18. Clayton Environmental Consultants, Phase 1 Environmental Assessment at W.S. Clark and Sons, Inc. Location No. 107, 2400 Highway 421 North, Wilmington, North Carolina, July 23, 1992. 81 pages.

19. Stanley, Jeanette and Bateson, Jim, NC Superfund Section, CERCLIS Site Addition Letter, April 29, 2002. 6 pages.

20. Search Superfund Site Information/ Superf und/ US EPA, CERCLIS info for Horton Iron & Metal Co., Northeast Chemical Company Site, and V.C. Chemical - Almont Works

from web found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0407480

. Accessed March 22 and August 17, 2010. 4 pages.

21. Bryson, Melanie, NCDENR Superfund Sectio n, Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment Checklist, February 11, 2003. 2 pages.

22. Bryson, Melanie, NC Superfund. Memo to F ile, Subject: On-site Reconnaissance Field Notes. March 12, 2003. 2 pages.

23. Bryson, Melanie, NC Superfund. Memo to File , Subject: Well Installation Field Notes Horton Iron & Metal. April 10, 2003. 4 pages.

24. Striggow, Brian, US EPA Region 4, SESD Memo to Ken Mallary, North Site Management Branch, Subject: Horton Iron Well Installation Repor t. March 26, 2003. 9

pages.7 HORTON IRON & METAL CO. WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC

LIST OF REFERENCES

25. Bryson, Melanie, NC Superfund. Memo to File ; Subject: ESI Sampling Trip Report. April 10, 2003. 27 pages.

26. Harrigan, Sandra and Cotton, Ed, Tetra Tech START III to Kevin Misenheimer US EPA Region 4 On-Scene Coordinator Subject: Fina l Removal Assessment (RA) Letter Report. April 11, 2007. 86 pages.

27. Bartlett, Melanie, NC Superfund. Memo to File; Subjec t: Phosphate fert ilizer Industry Description and Practices. March 25, 2010. 4 pages.

28. US EPA Office of Enforcement and Comp liance Assurance, A Guide for Ship Scrappers: Tips for Regulatory Compliance. Summer 2000. 261 pages.

29. Giese, G. L., H.B. Wilder, and G. G. Pa rker, Jr. Hydrology of Major Estuaries and Sounds of North Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2221. Excerpt. 38 pages.

30. Stanley, Jeanette, NC Superfund Section. Me mo to File, Subject: Flow Rates of the Northeast Cape Fear and Cape Fear Rivers. VC Chemical – Almont Works. February 17, 2000. 6 pages.

31. USEPA Region 4. Northeast Chemi cal Company Site Fact Sheet. http://wastenot.enr.state .nc.us/NEFinalEECAFactSheet.pdf . July 2004. 6 pages.

32. Stanley, Jeanette, NC Superfund Section. Me mo to File, Subject: Sigma Recycling aka Wilmington Resources site. March 31, 2010. 202 pages.

33. Kowalski, Stacy, OTIE. Email corresponde nce with Rich Carpenter, Director, NCDENR, Division of Marine Fisheries, Subject: NE Cape Fear river in Wilmington –

Commercial Fisheries. Fe bruary 10, 2010. 2 pages.

34. Goddard, Denise, USEPA. Memo to Roger Carlton, Subject: Final Analytical Report, Project: 09-0495, Horton Iron. June 1, 2010. 6 pages.

35. Bryson, Melanie and Jim Bateson, NC Supe rfund Section. Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan. February 11, 2003. 8 pages.8 HORTON IRON & METAL CO. WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Facility Location Map, Base: US Geological Survey, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map of Castle Hayne, NC, 1997, prepared by NCDWM. March 16,

2010.

Figure 2. Nearby Facilities, pr epared by NCDWM. March 16, 2010.

Figure 3. Source Area, prepar ed by NCDWM. March 16, 2010.

Figure 4. Surface and Subsurface Soil Sample Locations, prepared by NCDWM. March 16, 2010.

Figure 5. Deep Subsurface Soil Sample Locat ions, prepared by NCDWM. March 16, 2010.

Figure 6. Sediment Sample Locations, prepared by NCDWM. March 16, 2010.

Figure 7. Groundwater, Surface Water/Sediment , prepared by NCDWM. February 7, 2003.

Figure 8. Surface Water/Sediments, prepared by NCDWM. February 7, 2003.77°58'0"W 77°57'30"W 77°57'0"W 77°56'30"W



# FacilityNortheastCapeFearRiverNCHwy421 34°16'30"N 34°16'30"N

34°16'0"N 34°16'0"N

34°15'30"N 34°15'30"N

77°58'0"W 77°57'30"W 77°57'0"W 77°56'30"W

1:15,000 Site Name:

Site Number:

Scale: 

# μ

Date:

Prepared by: Facility Location Map

NCN000407480

March 16, 2010 County Location Map Extent: New Hanover County

USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle:

Coordinates of approximate center of Horton Property :
Latitude: Longitude: Castle Hayne, 1997

34 o 15' 59.94'' 77 o 57' 14.70''
77.9541 o 35.2664 o Figure 1 Horton Iron & Metal Co.34°16'30"N34°16'0"N

77°57'30"W 77°57 30 WNC Hwy 421 HORTON IRON & METAL CO.

NCN000407480

SIGMA RECYCLING

NCR000136192 V.C. CHEMICAL-ALMONT WORKS

NC0002178580 NORTHEAST CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE

NCSFN0406973

77°56'30"W 77°56 30 W

77°57'0"W 77°57 0 W34°16'30"N34°16'0"NNortheast Cape Fear River

County Location Map Extent: New Hanover County

This figure includes information from the following:

Ref

Re erence 4

ference 20

Aerial base is 2006 imagery available from New Hanover County, at www.nhcgov.com. Nearby Facilities

Site Name: Horton Iron & Metal Co.

Site Number: NCN000407480

1:12,000 Scale:

Date: March 16, 2010

Figure 2 Prepared by: ' " ' " ' "HI26 HI11 HI12

HI15

HI18 HI20

HI19

HI21 HI22

HI27 HI28 HI29 HI30 HI35

HI36 HI37 HI38 HI39

1:2,400 HI40 HI41

HI16 HI05c

HI06d HI09d

HI12b

HI17b

HI31a HI17c HI20b

HI28b

HI32a HI33a HI34a HI18d HI01BG

179,622 Sq. Ft. (4.12 acres ) 34°16'0"N 34°16'0"N

Aerial base is 2006 imagery available from New Hanover County, at www.nhcgov.com Source area was calculated using the ArcGIS Calculate Geometry Function

Site Name:

Site Number:

Scale: 

# μ

Date:

Prepared by: NCN000407480

March 16, 2010 County Location

Map Extent:

New Hanover County Figure Horton Iron & Metal Co. Legend

Source Area
Sample Locations

! ( Soil

# * Sediment

3 Source Area

This figure includes information from the following: Reference 5, pp. 79 - 237! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( HI26 HI11 HI12

HI15

HI20

HI21 HI22

HI27 HI35 HI16

HI06d HI09d

HI12b

HI17b

HI32a

HI33a HI34a HI18d HI01BG

1:2,400 Site Name:

Site Number:

Scale: 

# μ

Date:

Prepared by: NCN000407480

March 16, 2010 County Location Map Extent: New Hanover County

Figure Horton Iron & Metal Co. Legend
! ( Sample Locations

4 Surface and Subsurface Soil Sample Locations

This figure includes information from the following: Reference 5, pp. 79 - 237 Reference 13, pp. 1 - 2 34°16'0"N 34°16'0"N

Aerial base is 2006 imagery available from New Hanover County, at www.nhcgov.com1:2,400 Site Name:

Site Number:

Scale: 

# μ

Date:

Prepared by: NCN000407480

March 16, 2010 County Location Map Extent:

New Hanover County

Figure Horton Iron & Metal Co. Legend 

# " )

Sample Locations

Fmr. Lead Acid Chamber

5 Deep Subsurface Soil Sample Locations

This figure includes

information from the following:

Reference 5

Reference 11

Reference 13 

# " )

" ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " )

HI11

HI20

HI27 HI12b

HI17b

HI33a HI18d HI01BG

Aerial base is 2006 imagery available from New Hanover County, at www.nhcgov.com 34°16'0"N 34°16'0"N1:2,400 Site Name:

Site Number:

Scale: 

# μ

Date:

Prepared by: NCN000407480

March 16, 2010 County Location Map Extent: New Hanover County

Figure Horton Iron & Metal Co. Legend 

# # * Background Sediment 

# # * Contaminated Sediment 

# # * Sediment

Fmr. Lead Acid Chamber

6 Sediment Sample Locations

This figure includes information from the following: Reference 5, pp. 79 - 237 Reference 13, pp. 1 - 2 

# # *

# *

# * # *

# *

# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *

# * # *

HI18 HI19

HI28 HI29 HI30

HI36 HI17c

HI28b HI37 HI38 HI39

HI31a HI20b HI40 HI41 HI05c

PPE1 PPE2

Aerial base is 2006 imagery available from New Hanover County, at www.nhcgov.com 34°16'0"N 34°16'0"N

# •

:; 

# of 

# :!.



# •

W 

# "

HIM-008-MW Z 

## A

• 

# .



# I

Site: Horton Iron & Metal Figure 7 (Refs. 13, 23, 25)

WlImlngton, New Hanover Coun Drawn By: MDB ApproximateScale: 1"=150' Groun<lwal8r, Surfac<> WaI8r1Sodlmon\$ US EPA ID #: NCN 000 407 480 Date: 217/03

## I ":.-­**-:-~--** 

# ­

--- 

# -­**"-;';:-:-"",~h** 

# .. -**.~--** 

# -­

. 

# -­

-. 

## .. 

# _­ -

•



# AVA Figure 8 Site: Horton Iron & Metal

US EPA ID #: NCN 000 407 480 Date: 0217103

Wilmington, N_ Hanover County D.-nBy:MDB 

# NCDENR

Approximate Scale: 1:24,000 Surface WaIlIrlSedlments Source: Castle Hayne, 1997 7.5­

Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map of North Carolina Refs. 13. 23. 25SITE DESCRIPTION

The Horton Iron & Metal Co. is located at 2216 US Highway 421 N along the west bank of the Northeast Cape Fear River in Wilm ington, New Hanover County, NC (Fig. 1). The property occupies approximately 38 acres and is currently operated as a scrap iron and metal recycler (Ref. 5, p. 77; Ref. 9, pp. 1-4; Ref. 10, pp. 2-5). Horton Iron & Metal Co. is bordered by the VC Chemical – Almont Works site (EPA ID # NC0 002 178 580) to the north, the Northeast Cape Fear River to the east, Sigma Recyclin g (EPA ID # NCR 000 136 192) to the south, and US Highway 421 N to the west (Fig. 2).

For HRS purposes, the site consists of areas of contaminated soils located east of the

railroad tracks on the Horton Iron & Metal Co. property and associated releases (Figs. 3, 6, 7). Samples used for this documentation were collected April 1, 2003 and August 3-5, 2009 and were collected according to the Sampling and Anal ysis Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plans (Ref. 4, pp. 78-89, 283-284; Ref. 5, pp. 78-195; Ref. 11, pp. 1-26; Ref. 35, pp. 1-8).

OPERATIONAL AND REGULATORY HISTORY

The property was owned by the American Agricultural Chemical Company from 1911 until 1949 and by Naco Fertiliz er Company from 1949 through 1954 (Ref. 12, pp. 8, 9, 13, 14). Fertilizer operations began on the propert y by 1915, as indicated by a 1915 Sanborn Map. According to this map, American Agricultural Chemical Company had an acid chamber building

on the northwest corner of the fertilizer operations. A 1951 Sanborn Map does not show an acid chamber at the same property then owned by N aco Fertilizer Company (Ref. 13, pp. 1, 2). During the time of fertilizer operations at the f acility, acid chambers were typically lined with lead (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 2, 12, 13, 29, 53).

W.R. Grace owned the property from 1954 un til 1959, when it sold the property to Horton Iron & Metal. In 1962, Horton Iron & Meta l leased the property to Horton Industries (Ref. 12, pp. 16-21). In the 1960’s, the boat slip s were dredged out and dredged material was placed on the property, along the northern, western, and southern edges of the slips (Ref. 15). During the 1960’s and 1970s, Horton Industries conduc ted ship breaking of WWII Liberty ships in the two slips located on the property. (R ef. 12, p. 1; Ref. 16, p. 1; Ref. 17, pp. 1, 3).

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

In 1988, the U.S. Coast Guard found extens ive oil staining around the metal crushing equipment on the property. A Notice of Violatio n (NOV) was issued in 1989, ordering a ground water investigation and soil rem oval. The oil-stained soils we re removed, and an underground storage tank (UST) removal was conducted in 1996 (Ref. 12, p. 1; Ref. 18, pp. 66, 67).

Based on the facility histor y, potential human exposure to contaminated soil, and the potential of facility operations to release contaminants to the Nort heast Cape Fear River, the NC Superfund Section recommended this site for addition to CERCLIS on April 29, 2002 (Ref. 19, pp. 1-6). The site was added to CERCLIS on July 11, 2002 (Ref. 20, p. 2).

17The Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment (A PA) Checklist for the site was completed by the NC Superfund Section on February 11, 2003. The APA Checklist recommended the site for a higher priority Site Investigation (SI) based on the potential for lead and other contaminants in the site soils (Ref. 21, p. 2). No SI has been identified to have o ccurred at the site (Ref. 20, p. 2). The site was tasked for an Expanded Site In vestigation (ESI) on CE RCLIS (Ref. 20, p. 2).

On January 8, 2003 and March 5, 2003, the NC Superfund Section conducted

reconnaissance activities at the property (Ref. 17, pp. 1-3; Ref. 22, pp. 1, 2). During the week of March 17, 2003 and prior to the ESI sampling event the EPA Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) and personnel from the NC Supe rfund Section installed six monitoring wells on the Horton property. Two wells were installed in the area of the former acid chamber. Three wells were installed directly s outh and southeast of the former acid chamber area, and one well was installed on the property owned by Horton on the west side of Highway 421 (Ref. 23, pp. 1- 4; Ref. 24, pp. 1-9).

The NC Superfund Section conducted an ESI sa mpling event at the property on April 1- 2, 2003. Personnel collected nine surface water and ten sediment samples, including one background surface water sample and two background sediment samples. The sediment and surface water samples were collected from both s lips located on the propert y as well as upstream and downstream of the property along the North east Cape Fear River. Eight three-point composite surface soil samples were collected fro m the area of the former acid chamber and the area of the former ship-breaking operations to determine the presence or absence of contaminated soils and delineate the potential source at the property. A total of eight ground water samples were collected: six from the ne wly installed monitoring wells (including one background well) and two from on-site supply wells (Ref. 4, pp. 6, 13, 20; Ref. 25, pp. 1-27).

Soil samples indicated elevated (as compared to background) levels of metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and pol ychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), as well as

detectible levels of asbestos. Several constit uents also exceeded both federal health-based benchmarks and NC Soil Remediation Goals (NCS RGs). Arsenic was de tected above federal and state benchmark values in seven of the eight samples, with concentrations ranging from 35 to 240 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). All eight samples contained levels of lead above the NRSRG of 400 mg/kg, with con centrations ranging from 1 ,300 to 23,000 mg/kg. In addition, antimony, total mercury, and several PAHs also exceeded their federal health-based screening levels in at least one sample. Cadmium, chromium, thallium, vanadium, total mercury, and

several PAHs exceeded their NCSRG in at least one sample (Ref. 4, pp. 12-17).

Ground water samples indicated elevated leve ls of several metals, as compared to background levels, including arsenic, cadmium, coppe r, lead, nickel, and zinc (as well as some pesticides in one sample). Of these contaminan ts, arsenic and antimony were detected at levels

which exceeded EPA health-based benchmarks in at least one sample, wh ile arsenic and nickel were detected at levels which exceeded NC Administrative Code’s Title 15A, Subchapter 2L ground water standards (Ref. 4, pp. 19-23).

18Surface water samples indicated elevated leve ls (as compared to background levels) of arsenic (4.4 to 5,900 microgram per liter (ug/l)), copper (42 to 9,200 ug/l), lead (87 to 21,000 ug/l), mercury (0.23 to 130 ug/l), a nd zinc (110 to 49,000 ug/l) in several samples. Sediment samples indicated the presence of arsenic (as hi gh as 190 mg/kg), ca dmium (as high as 2.7 mg/kg), copper (as high as 360 mg/kg), lead (as high as 890 mg/kg), and me rcury (as high as 2.7 mg/kg) in more than one sample (Ref. 4, pp. 24-31). Based on the elevated le vels of constituents of concern on the property and in the Northeast Cape Fear River, the site was recommended for further action under CERCLA (Ref. 4, pp. 33, 34).

A Removal Assessment (RA) was conducted by Tetra Tech, the Superfund Technical Assistance & Response Team (START) contractor for EPA, at the propert y in January 2007.

The RA was conducted to delineat e areas of contamination and a ssess the need for a removal action. During the RA, eighty composite surface soil locations (0 to 6 inches below ground surface (bgs)) on the property were screened for arsenic and lead using a X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument, and ten confirmatory samples were shipped to a labor atory to confirm the screening results. Samples were collected from 100’ x 100’ grids cells located in the former lead

acid chamber area and in the northern and southe rn portions of the prop erty. Additionally, ten surface soil samples were collected from the property for PCB analysis (Ref. 26, pp. 1, 2). Results of the XRF screening i ndicated lead concentrations ra nging from 17.2 parts per million (ppm) to 11,800 ppm. Arsenic sc reening results indicated concen trations from less than 13.0 ppm to 474 ppm. Thirty seven locations exceeded the EPA Rem oval Action Levels (RALs) for lead (1,200 ppm) and/or arsenic (160 ppm). Confirmation samples analyzed by the laboratory

confirmed the results and indicated that an addi tional five locations exceeded the EPA RAL for

lead. All of the elevated levels of lead and ar senic were located in the area of the former lead acid chamber and in several grids between the northern and southern boat slips. The ten samples collected for PCB analysis indica ted concentrations ranging from 78J parts per billion (ppb) to 3,800 ppb; however, no samples exceeded the EPA RAL for PCBs (Ref. 26, pp. 2-4, 7, 12-16).

On April 28, 2009, personnel from EPA, EPA ST ART contractor Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises (OTIE), and NC conducted a reconnai ssance at the property (Ref. 5, pp. 75-77). An ESI sampling event, performed by personnel from the same entities, was conducted during the week of August 3, 2009. Sampling for this even t included: 14 ground water samples (eight temporary well samples and six permanent mon itoring well samples), including one background sample for each type of well; 20 surface soil sample s, 15 subsurface soil samples, and eight deep subsurface soil samples, including background samples for each depth interval; and 17 sediment samples, including one background sample (Ref. 5, p.12).

Asbestos was detected in several soil samples located around the slips, and elevated (as compared to background) concentrations of cons tituents were detected in all media collected during the investigation. PCBs, PAHs, volatil e organic compounds (VOC s), lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury were detected in surface and subsurface soil samples. Deep subsurface soil samples (8 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs )) indicated the presence of metals, including lead and arsenic. Sediment samples collected fr om the two slips indicated elevated levels of PCBs, PAHs, mercury, arsenic, and lead. Ground water samples indicated arsenic, cadmium, and lead in the ground water beneath th e property (Ref. 5, pp. 15-18, 26, 29-33, 35-70).

1920 A second ESI report, based on the August 2009 data, was completed by OTIE on March 3, 2010. Based on the data gathered during the ESI, including the release of contaminants to the slips along the Northeast Cape Fear River, a fishery, the site was recommended for further evaluation and possible inclusion on the Nationa l Priorities List (NPL) (Ref. 5, pp. 19, 20).SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2 Source Identification

Number of the Source: 1

Name and description of the source : Contaminated soil

The source is defined as the area of contam inated soils bounded by surface soil samples documented in Tables 1-3 and shown on Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record. Areas comprising this bounded portion include the form er lead acid chamber area, former shipbreaking operations, and areas where materials dredged from the slips were placed during the 1960s (Ref. 12, p. 1; Ref. 13, p. 1; Ref. 15, p. 1; Ref. 17, pp. 1, 3).

In January 2007, the entire eastern portion of the Horton property was gridded and sampled for arsenic, lead, and PCBs. Grab soil samples from 80 grid locations were screened with an XRF unit; concentrati ons at 37 locations exceeded th e EPA industrial removal action levels (RALs) for lead (1,200 ppm) and/or arsenic (160 pm) (Ref. 26, pp. 8, 9, 12-14).

At ten of these locations, soil samples were collected from depths of 0 to 6 inches and analyzed for lead and arsenic for laboratory c onfirmation. Lead concentrations ranged from 720 ppm in sample HIM-SS-10 to 2,400 ppm in sample HIM-SS-04. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 7.3J ppm in sample HIM-SS-10 to 82J ppm in sample HIM-SS-04. Ten soil samples were also collected for PCB analysis in areas where ship-breaki ng operations occurred. PCB-1254 concentrations ranged from 78J parts per bil lion (ppb) in sample HIM-PCB-04 to 3,800 ppb in sample HIM-PCB-10. PCB-1262 concentrations, where detected, ranged from 90 ppb to 1,900 ppb (Ref. 26, pp. 3, 7, 15, 16).

Additional documentation of source hazardous s ubstances is presented in Section 2.4.1 of

this HRS documentation record.

Location of the source, with re ference to a map of the site :

This source is located on the eastern portion of the property, between the railroad tracks and the Northeast Cape Fear River (Fig. 3).

2122 Containment

Release via overland migration and/or flood –

There is no maintained engineered cover or functioning and main tained run-on control system and runoff management system, and contam inated soil is availa ble for continuous and ongoing overland flow (Ref. 1, Tabl e 4-2; Ref. 25, pp. 12, 14, 15, 20-22).

Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this documentation record documents an observed release of site contaminants to the Northeast Cape F ear River (Ref. 1; Ref. 5, pp. 32, 33, 59-67).

Containment factor:

This information, applied to Table 4-2 in Reference 1, yields a containment value of 10

.23 2.4 Waste Characteristics

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

From the early 1900s up until the 1950s, the property was used for fertilizer operations (Ref. 12, pp. 8, 9, 13, 14; Ref. 13, pp. 1, 2). Typically, sulfuric ac id was manufactured by roasting pyrites to drive off the su lfur in gaseous form, which was reacted with water in the lead chambers to form the acid. Where pyrite ore is roasted, there will be a residue (cinders) which may contain a wide range of heavy metals. During this time period, acid chambers were typically lined with lead. Lead-bearing spent acid released from the chambe rs after treatment of the phosphate rock typically resu lted in lead-contaminated, low-pH soils. Some contaminants associated with fertilizer ope rations during this time period include arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, vanadium, zinc, platinum, and asbestos (Ref. 14, pp. 1-54; Ref. 27, pp. 1, 2).

During the 1960s and 1970s, Ho rton Industries conducted ship breaking of WWII Liberty ships in the two slips located on the property (R ef. 12, p. 1; Ref. 16, p. 1; Ref. 17, pp. 1, 3). Typical contaminants associated with ship-b reaking include asbestos , PCBs, PAHs, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel , and zinc (Ref. 28, pp. 22, 47, 65, 83, 114, 150, 170, 171).

During the week of August 3, 2009, personnel from EPA, NC, and OTIE conducted an ESI sampling event at the propert y. Samples were collected accord ing to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) develope d by EPA Region 4 Science and Ec osystem Support Division (Ref. 11, pp. 1-26; Ref. 5, p. 11). Samples were sh ipped to Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories and analyzed for total metals and mercury by ICP-AES by Statement of Work (SOW) ILM05.4 and volatiles, semi-volatile extr actables, and aroclors by SOW SOM01.2 (Ref. 5, pp. 12, 239-259, 263, 264; Ref. 34, pp. 1-6). An EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division Quality Assurance Chemist review ed and validated this data for performance according to the Statements of Work (Ref. 34, pp. 1-6). Source soil sampling for this event included 18 surface soil samples, 14 subsurface soil samples, and seven deep subsurface soil samples. In addition, four background sample s, including two surface soils (HI01BGDSF and HI01BGSF), one subsurface (HI01BGSB), and one deep subsurface (HI01BGDSB), were collected (Ref. 5, pp. 11, 12, 18, 26, 115-195; Figs. 3, 4, 5). Thes e samples are described in

Table 1 of this HRS documentation record.

Of the 39 source soil samples collected, 17 surface, 12 subsurface, and four deep subsurface samples contained at least one operations -related contaminant at an elevated level, as compared to background levels. All surface and subsurface soil samples were compared to both background surface soil samples (HI01BGDSF and HI01BGSF) and the background subsurface soil sample (HI01BDSB) for similarity in soil de pths. All deep subsurface soil samples were compared to the background deep subsurface soil sample (HI01BGDSB) (Ref. 5, pp. 29, 30, 35- 58; Tables. 1, 2, 3).

Metals were detected at elevated levels in surface, subsurface, and deep subsurface soil samples. Mercury (97 mg/kg, highest c oncentration), cadmium (35 mg/kg, highest concentration), nickel (380 mg /kg, highest concentration) , and zinc (6,600 ug/kg, highest concentration) were, in general, detected at higher elevated leve ls in surface soil samples than in subsurface soil samples. Arsenic (540 mg/ kg, highest concentration), copper (3,100 mg/kg,24 highest concentration), and lead (14,000 mg/kg, highe st concentration) were detected at higher elevated levels in the subsurface soil sample s. Arsenic (5.0-9.2 mg /kg), cadmium (1.5-3.1 mg/kg), copper (3.4-610 mg/kg), lead (10-68 mg/kg), and zinc ( 12-340) were all detected at elevated levels in deep subsurface soil samples (Ref. 5, pp. 29, 30, 45-48, 55-58).

SVOCs, including PCBs, were detected at el evated levels, as compared to background levels, in both surface and subsurface soil sample s. For the contaminants of concern for this HRS documentation record, no SVOCs or PCBs were detected in elevated levels in any of the deep subsurface soil samples. Fluoranthene (10,000 ug/kg, highest concentration), pyrene (8,300 ug/kg, highest concentration), PCB-1260 (1,200 ug/kg, highest concentration), and PCB-1268 (550 ug/kg, highest concentration) were detected at higher elevated levels in surface soil samples. PCB-1254 (1,600 ug/kg, highest concentra tion), however, was dete cted at its highest elevated levels in subsurface soil samples (Ref. 5, pp. 35-44, 49-54, 58).

Although there is a large number of contam inants identified in source samples,

documentation of hazardous substances is limite d to the following contaminants which were selected to represent the sour ce: arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, fluoranthene, pyrene, P CB-1254, PCB-1260, and PCB-1268.

Table 1. Source and Background Soil Sample Descriptions

Sample ID Date Time Sample Depth (Feet) Sample Description References

HI01BGDSB 8/4/09 9:53 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located on northwest corner of property just east of railroad and south of power line; light brown wet fine sand. Ref. 5, pp. 170, 171

HI01BGDSF 8/3/09 14:55 0-1.5 Background surface soil sample; same as HI01BGSF. Ref. 5, pp. 127, 128

HI01BGSB 8/3/09 14:50 1.5-3 Background subsurface soil sample; tan sand. Ref. 5, pp. 125, 126

HI01BGSF 8/3/09 14:45 0-1.5 Background surface soil sample; organic soil (0-0.5'), brown sand (0.5-1.5') Ref. 5, pp. 125, 126

HI06dSB 8/3/09 15:40 2-4 Subsurface soil sample in depressed burn pit area, approximately 85' east of railroad switch; very loose light tan sand. Ref. 5, pp. 144, 145

HI06dSF 8/3/09 15:35 0-2 Surface soil sample in depressed burn pit area, approximately 85' east of railroad switch; very loose light tan sand. Ref. 5, pp. 144, 145

HI09dSF 8/3/09 15:10 0-1 Surface soil sample at edge of debris field north of eastern edge of acid chamber area; brown sand mixed

with bricks and debris. Ref. 5, pp. 180, 181

HI11DSB 8/5/09 9:12 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located northwest of

former lead acid chambers ; light brown fine-grained

wet sand. Ref. 5, pp. 188, 18925 Sample ID Date Time Sample Depth (Feet) Sample Description References

HI11SB 8/4/09 8:40 2-4 Subsurface soil sample near northwest corner of property; light tan sand with orange mottling. Ref. 5, pp. 146, 147

HI11SF 8/4/09 8:30 0-2 Surface soil sample near northwest corner of property; light tan sand with orange mottling from 4"-2'. Ref. 5, pp. 146, 147

HI12bSB 8/4/09 10:12 2-4 Surface soil sample located approximately 125' north of two-story shop building; light tan sand with orange mottling. Ref. 5, pp. 150, 151

HI12bSF 8/4/09 10:05 0-2 Surface soil sample located approximately 125' north of two-story shop building; dark brown sand (0-3"), tan sand (3"-2'). Ref. 5, pp. 150, 151

HI12DSB 8/5/09 8:50 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located northeast of former lead acid chambers and existing structures; light brown medium-grained wet sand. Ref. 5, pp. 186, 187

HI12SB 8/4/09 9:15 2-4 Subsurface soil sample north of slab area on northern portion of property; white sand (2-3.5'), tan sand with orange mottling (3.5-4'). Ref. 5, pp. 148, 149

HI12SF 8/4/09 9:05 0-2 Surface soil sample north of slab area on northern portion of property; dark brown sand (0-1'), tan sand with orange mottling (1-2'). Ref. 5, pp. 148, 149

HI15SB 8/3/09 11:14 2-4 Subsurface soil sample in small clearing on northeast corner of property in a wooded area; brown silty fine to medium sand with red clay mixed in from 3-4'. Ref. 5, pp. 156, 157

HI15SF 8/3/09 10:52 0-2 Surface soil sample in small clearing on northeast corner of property in a wooded area; brown silty fine to

medium sand. Ref. 5, pp. 154, 155

HI16SB 8/3/09 13:05 1.5-3 Subsurface soil sample approximately 120' east of railroad tracks and 20' north off roadway; tan sand. Ref. 5, pp. 123, 124

HI16SF 8/3/09 12:50 0-1.5 Surface soil sample approximately 120' east of railroad tracks and 20' north off roadway; organic silty sands

mixed with small rocks and coal. Ref. 5, pp. 123, 124

HI17bDSB 8/4/09 13:20 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located on north side of interior of northern slip; light brown medium sand with

reddish brown sand in bottom 6". Ref. 5, pp. 184, 185

HI17bSB 8/3/09 11:40 2-4 Subsurface soil sample approximately 15' north of northwest corner of northern slip; light tan moist sand (2-3.5'), dark sand (3.5-4'). Ref. 5, pp. 134, 135

HI17bSF 8/3/09 11:25 0-2 Surface soil sample approximately 15' north of northwest corner of northern slip; dark sand (0-1.5'), light tan sand (1.5-2'). Ref. 5, pp. 134, 135

HI18dDSB 8/4/09 13:00 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located along north side of north slip; light gray to white medium wet sand changing to black peaty clay at depth (12'). Ref. 5, pp. 182, 18326 Sample ID Date Time Sample Depth (Feet) Sample Description References

HI18dSB 8/3/09 11:30 1.5-2 Subsurface soil sample 40' north of north side of northern slip, approximately 40' south of middle of cinder block building; fine sand mixed with metals/aggregates. Ref. 5, pp. 121, 122

HI18dSF 8/3/09 11:20 0-1.5 Surface soil sample 40' north of north side of northern slip, approximately 40' south of middle of cinder block building; fine sand mixed with organic silts. Ref. 5, pp. 121, 122

HI20DSB 8/4/09 11:10 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located on northwest corner of property just east of railroad and south of power line; dark brown wet fine to medium sand. Ref. 5, pp. 172, 173

HI20SB 8/3/09 10:55 2-3 Subsurface soil sample along north side of northern slip, as far east as possible to reach; dark silty sand. Ref. 5, pp. 132, 133

HI20SF 8/3/09 10:40 0.5-1.5 Surface soil sample along north side of northern slip, as far east as possible to reach; dark silty sand mixed with organics. Ref. 5, pp. 132, 133

HI21SB 8/3/09 14:10 2-4 Subsurface soil sample locate d south of concrete pad just east of railroad tracks adjacent to area between the two slips; tan sand (24-30"), magenta sand (30-38"), brown sand (38-48"). Ref. 5, pp. 178, 179

HI21SF 8/3/09 13:40 0-2 Surface soil sample located south of concrete pad just east of railroad tracks adjacent to area between the two slips; dark brown sand (0-1'), tan sand (1-2'). Ref. 5, pp. 176, 177

HI22bSF 8/3/09 14:45 0-0.67 Soil sample along north side of pier between the two slips; brown fine silty sand mixed with roots. Ref. 5, pp. 166, 167

HI26SB 8/3/09 12:50 2-3 Subsurface soil sample on promontory of dock between slips; light brown fine sand. Ref. 5, pp. 160, 161

HI26SF 8/3/09 12:36 0-2 Surface soil sample on promontory of dock between slips; brown fine sand. Ref. 5, pp. 158, 159

HI27DSB 8/5/09 10:00 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located southwest of southern slip; light brown fine-grained wet sand. Ref. 5, pp. 190, 191

HI27SB 8/3/09 14:40 2-4 Subsurface soil sample located off southwest corner of southern slip; medium tan sand mixed with glass shards (2-3'), light tan sand (3-4'). Ref. 5, pp. 142, 143

HI27SF 8/3/09 14:25 0-2 Surface soil sample located off southwest corner of southern slip; medium tan sand with glass shards mixed in from 0.5 to 2' deep. Ref. 5, pp. 142, 143

HI32aSB 8/3/09 14:05 2-4 Subsurface soil sample located south of the southern slip, approximately 1/4 of the length from end of slip towards the river and 15' south; light gray sand with orange mottling at 2.5'. Ref. 5, pp. 140, 14127 Sample ID Date Time Sample Depth (Feet) Sample Description References

HI32aSF 8/3/09 13:55 0-2 Surface soil sample located south of the southern slip, approximately 1/4 of the length from end of slip towards the river and 15' south; dark sand. Ref. 5, pp. 140, 141

HI33aDSB 8/5/09 10:20 8-12 Deep subsurface soil sample located south of the approximate middle of the southern slip; dark gray fine sand (8-8.5'), black silty clay (8.5-9.5'), black peat mixed with wood pieces (9.5-12'). Ref. 5, pp. 192, 193

HI33aSF 8/3/09 12:45 0-2 Surface soil sample located south of the southern slip, approximately 1/2 of the length towards the river and 40' south; medium tan sand mixed with organics (0-1'), dark brown sand mixed with roots and wood chips (1- 2'). Ref. 5, pp. 138, 139

HI34aSF 8/3/09 12:25 0-2 Surface soil sample located south of the southern slip, approximately 3/4 of the length towards the river from rear of slip and 20' south; medium brown sand (0-1'), mix of light tan and dark tan sand (1-2'). Ref. 5, pp. 136, 137

HI35SB 8/5/09 8:55 2-4 Subsurface soil sample at tip of land mass on south of southern slip in a slight depression; dark silty sand (2- 3'), stiff black clay (3-3.5 '), dark silty sand (3.5-4'). Ref. 5, pp. 116, 117

HI35SF 8/5/09 8:45 0-2 Surface soil sample at tip of land mass on south of southern slip in a slight depression; dark silty sand. Ref. 5, pp. 116, 11728 Table 2. Source Soil Samples-Inorganic Data

Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg) SQL* (mg/kg) References

Mercury 0.035UJ(0.10U) 1,2 0.10

Arsenic 4.8 1.0

Cadmium 0.28J(0.51U) 1 0.51

Copper 18 2.5

Lead 96 1.0

Nickel 2.4J(4.0U) 1 4.0 HI01BGDSF (Background)

Zinc 23 6.1 Ref. 5, pp. 241, 262-265, 268, 275

Mercury 0.11U 0.11

Arsenic 1.1U 1.1

Cadmium 0.53U 0.53

Copper 1.2J(2.7U) 1 2.7

Lead 3.6 1.1

Nickel 4.2U 4.2 HI01BGSB (Background)

Zinc 7.2 6.4 Ref. 5, pp. 241, 262-265, 268, 277

Mercury 0.11U 0.11

Arsenic 1.4J(2.4) 3 1.1

Cadmium 0.54U 0.54

Copper 6.4 2.7

Lead 28 1.1

Nickel 4.3U 4.3 HI01BGSF (Background)

Zinc 22 6.4 Ref. 5, pp. 241, 262-265, 268, 278; Ref. 8, pp. 8,

18

Mercury 17 0.37

Arsenic 26 1.2

Cadmium 35 0.62

Copper 2,200 3.1

Lead 5,500 1.2

Nickel 380 5.0 HI09dSF

Zinc 4,600 7.4 Ref. 5, pp. 242, 262-265, 282

Cadmium 0.64 0.51

Copper 93 2.5

Nickel 22 4.0 HI11SF

Zinc 100 6.1 Ref. 5, pp. 242, 262-265, 286

Mercury 0.70 0.10

Arsenic 34 0.97

Cadmium 0.60 0.48 HI12bSF

Copper 110 2.4 Ref. 5, pp. 243, 262-265, 29229 Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg) SQL* (mg/kg) References

Lead 440 0.97

Zinc 120 5.8

Mercury 97 2.1

Arsenic 28 1.0

Cadmium 6.2 0.51

Lead 3,300 1.0 HI12SF

Zinc 170 6.2 Ref. 5, pp. 242, 262-265, 289

Mercury 0.31 0.12

Arsenic 33 1.2

Cadmium 1.4 0.60

Copper 200 3.0

Nickel 5.2 4.8 HI15SF

Zinc 280 7.2 Ref. 5, pp. 239, 262-265, 294

HI16SB Mercury 0.76 0.099 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 262-265, 295

Mercury 1.7 0.10

Arsenic 98 1.0

Cadmium 4.3 0.52

Copper 550 2.6

Lead 1,400 1.0

Nickel 14 4.1 HI16SF

Zinc 920 6.2 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 262-265, 296

Mercury 0.62 0.10

Arsenic 63 1.1

Cadmium 1.7 0.54

Copper 450 2.7

Lead 680 1.1 HI17bSF

Zinc 910 6.5 Ref. 5, pp. 239, 262-265, 299

Mercury 1.0 0.12

Arsenic 540 1.2

Cadmium 13 0.58

Copper 3,100 2.9

Lead 13,000 1.6

Nickel 14 4.7 HI18dSB

Zinc 5,400 7.0 Ref. 5, pp. 239, 262-264, 266, 30430 Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg) SQL* (mg/kg) References

Mercury 2.1 0.11

Arsenic 150 1.1

Cadmium 5.7 0.53

Copper 1,100 2.6

Lead 2,600 1.1

Nickel 11 4.2 HI18dSF

Zinc 1,300 6.3 Ref. 5, pp. 239, 262-264, 266, 306

Mercury 0.15 0.11

Cadmium 0.65 0.58

Copper 99 2.9 HI20SF

Zinc 140 6.9 Ref. 5, pp. 239, 262-264, 266, 311

Mercury 0.26 0.11

Cadmium 3.2 0.53

Copper 200 2.7

Lead 1,500 1.1

Nickel 50 4.3 HI21SF

Zinc 1,600 6.4 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 262-264, 266, 314

Mercury 8.6 0.22

Arsenic 56 1.1

Cadmium 20 0.54

Copper 790 2.7

Lead 6,200 1.1

Nickel 170 4.3 HI22bSF

Zinc 6,600 6.5 Ref. 5, pp. 241, 262-264, 266, 315

Mercury 1.0 0.10

Cadmium 0.84 0.52

Nickel 9.6 4.1 HI26SF

Zinc 200 6.2 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 262-264, 266, 317

Mercury 0.36 0.10

Cadmium 3.4 0.52

Copper 150 2.6

Lead 700 1.0

Nickel 34 4.1 HI27SF

Zinc 2,300 6.2 Ref. 5, pp. 241, 262-264, 266, 32031 Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg) SQL* (mg/kg) References

Mercury 1.4 0.11

Cadmium 3.2 0.54

Copper 120 2.7

Lead 800 1.1

Nickel 14 4.3 HI32aSF

Zinc 1,100 6.5 Ref. 5, pp. 241, 262-264, 266, 328

Mercury 0.36 0.11

Cadmium 1.9 0.53

Copper 62 2.7

Lead 490 1.1

Nickel 26 4.3 HI33aSF

Zinc 930 6.4 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 262-264, 266, 331

Mercury 0.15 0.11

Cadmium 2.0 0.54

Copper 270 2.7

Nickel 7.4 4.3 HI34aSF

Zinc 340 6.5 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 262-264, 266, 332

Mercury 0.22 0.13

Arsenic 35 1.3

Cadmium 2.3 0.63

Copper 100 3.2

Lead 360 1.3

Nickel 14 5.0 HI35SF

Zinc 560 7.6 Ref. 5, pp. 244, 262-264, 266, 334

* SQLs are the sample-specific quantitation limits as reported as the MRLs (Minimum Reporting Limits) on the analytical data sh eets. Each SQL corresponds to the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation and is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared, dilution performed, and percent moistu re in the source samples (Ref. 5, p. 268). U – The analyte was not detected at or ab ove the reporting limit (Ref. 5, p. 268). J – The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate (Ref. 5, p. 268). 1 – Result is greater than Method Detection Limit (MDL) but less than MRL. The number shown in ( ) is the SQL. 2 – Concentration reported is less than the lowest standard on calibration curve. The number shown in ( ) is the SQL. 3 – Bias is unknown. Therefore, value is adjusted accordingly per Ref. 8. The number shown in ( ) is the adjusted value.32 Table 3. Source Soil Samples-Organic Data

Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (ug/kg) SQL* (ug/kg) References

Fluoranthene 170J(170U) 1 170

Pyrene 140J(170U) 1 170

PCB-1254 33U 33

PCB-1260 33U 33 HI01BGDSF Background

PCB-1268 33U 33 Ref. 5, pp. 250, 526, 529, 540, 541, 761, 768

Fluoranthene 170U 170

Pyrene 170U 170

PCB-1254 34U 34

PCB-1260 34U 34 HI01BGSB Background

PCB-1268 34U 34 Ref. 5, pp. 249, 526, 529, 546, 547, 761, 764, 770

Fluoranthene 43J(170U) 1 170

Pyrene 41J(170U) 1 170

PCB-1254 33U 33

PCB-1260 33U 33 HI01BGSF Background

PCB-1268 33U 33 Ref. 5, pp. 250, 526, 529, 549, 550, 761, 771

Fluoranthene 1,400 210

Pyrene 1,200 210

PCB-1254 1,200 330 HI09dSF

PCB-1260 1,000 330 Ref. 5, pp. 250, 526, 561, 562, 761, 775

Fluoranthene 460 170 HI12bSF Pyrene 410 170 Ref. 5, pp. 252, 526, 591, 592

Fluoranthene 940 170

Pyrene 860 170 HI12SF

PCB-1260 40 34 Ref. 5, pp. 251, 526, 582, 583, 761, 782

Fluoranthene 4,400 360 HI16SF
PCB-1254 250 35 Ref. 5, pp. 248, 526, 529, 603, 604, 761, 789; Ref. 8, pp. 8, 15

Fluoranthene 5,900 730 HI17bSF PCB-1254 95 35 Ref. 5, pp. 247, 526, 529, 612, 613, 761, 792; Ref. 8, pp. 8, 15

Fluoranthene 3,400 350

PCB-1260 1,000 680 HI18dSF

PCB-1268 110 68 Ref. 5, pp. 247, 527, 529, 633, 634, 762, 799; Ref. 8, pp. 8, 15

PCB-1254 45 38 HI20SF PCB-1260 39 38 Ref. 5, pp. 247, 762, 80433 Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (ug/kg) SQL* (ug/kg) References

HI21SF Fluoranthene 9,200 750 Ref. 5, pp. 249, 527, 529, 657, 658; Ref. 8, pp. 8, 15

Fluoranthene 2,000 180

Pyrene 1,800 180

PCB-1254 780 250 HI22bSF

PCB-1260 1,200 250 Ref. 5, pp. 249, 527, 660, 661, 762, 808

Fluoranthene 270 170

Pyrene 300 170

PCB-1260 890 680 HI26SF

PCB-1268 550 68 Ref. 5, pp. 248, 527, 666, 667, 762, 810

Fluoranthene 750 170

Pyrene 690 170

PCB-1260 1,100 340 HI27SF

PCB-1268 130 34 Ref. 5, pp. 249, 527, 675, 676, 762, 813

Fluoranthene 10,000 740

Pyrene 8,300 740

PCB-1254 250 36 HI32aSF

PCB-1260 180 36 Ref. 5, pp. 249, 527, 696, 697, 762, 820

Fluoranthene 720 180 HI33aSF Pyrene 660 180 Ref. 5, pp. 255, 527, 705, 706

Fluoranthene 230 180

Pyrene 270 180

PCB-1254 71 35 HI34aSF

PCB-1260 110 35 Ref. 5, pp. 248, 527, 708, 709, 762, 824

Fluoranthene 1,900 200

Pyrene 1,700 200 HI35SF

PCB-1254 55 40 Ref. 5, pp. 255, 527, 714, 715, 762, 826

* SQLs are the sample-specific quantitation limits as reported as the MRLs (Minimum Reporting Limits) on the analytical data sheets. Each SQL corresponds to the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation and is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared, dilution performed, and percent moisture in the source samples (Ref. 5, p. 529). U – The analyte was not detected at or ab ove the reporting limit (Ref. 5, p. 529). J – The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate (Ref. 5, p. 529). 1 – Concentration reported is less than the lowest ca libration standard on calibration curve; therefore, result is considered Non-Detect (ND). Th e number shown in ( ) is the SQL.34 2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Sufficient evidence does not exist to evaluate Hazardous Constituent Quantity

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Sufficient evidence does not exist to evaluate Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Sufficient evidence does not exist to evaluate Volume

2.4.2.1.4 Area

For this HRS documentation record, the source is defined as the area of contaminated soils bounded by 16 surface soil sample locations documente d in Tables 1-3 and shown on Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record. Areas comprisi ng this bounded portion incl ude the former lead acid chamber area, former ship-breaking operations, and areas where materials dredged from the slips were placed during the 1960s (Ref. 12, p. 1; Re f. 13, p. 1; Ref. 15, p. 1; Ref. 17, pp. 1, 3). The square footage of the bounded area was dete rmined using Geographic Information System (GIS) software, selecting the Calculate Ge ometry function (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

In January 2007, the entire eastern portion of the Horton property was gridded and sampled for arsenic, lead, and PCBs only. Gr ab soil samples from 80 grid locations were screened with an XRF unit; concentrations at 37 locations exceeded the EPA industrial removal action levels (RALs) for lead (1,200 ppm) and/or arsenic (160 ppm) . A number of these locations support contamination between the 16 sample locations that are us ed to form the boundary of the source (Ref. 26, pp. 8, 9, 12-14).

At ten of the 37 locations, soil samples were co llected from depths of 0 to 6 inches and analyzed for lead and arsenic for laboratory conf irmation. Lead concentrations ranged from 720 ppm in sample HIM-SS-10 to 2,400 ppm in samp le HIM-SS-04. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 7.3J ppm in sample HIM-SS-10 to 82J ppm in sample HIM-SS-04. Ten soil samples were

also collected for PCB analysis in areas wher e ship-breaking operations occurred. PCB-1254 concentrations ranged from 78J parts per bill ion (ppb) in sample HIM-PCB-04 to 3,800 ppb in sample HIM-PCB-10. PCB-1262 concentrations, where detected, ranged from 90 ppb to 1,900 ppb. Three of the samples analyzed for PCBs were collected within the boundaries shown in Figure 3, further supporting contamination wi thin these boundaries (Ref. 26, pp. 3, 7, 15, 16).

Sum (square feet) = 179,622 Area Assigned Value (Ref. 1, Table. 2-5) = A/34,000

Area Assigned Value = 5.28 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4)35 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value The source hazardous waste quantity (HWQ ) value for Source No. 1 is 5.28 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5)

Source HWQ Value = 5.2836 SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Containment

Source No. HWQ Value Ground Water Sur face Water Air/Gas Particulate

1 5.28 NS 10 NS NS

Sum of Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Values = 537 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

4.1 Overland Flood/Migration Component

4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Mi gration Path for Overland/Flood Component

Overland flow from the source drains toward s the two slips protr uding inland from the Northeast Cape Fear River. Flow from the sour ce enters the slips only at their western edges, which are the probable points of entry (PPEs) (R ef. 23, p. 1; Fig. 6). The Northeast Cape Fear River flows in a southerly direction for approx imately two miles from the PPE until it combines with the Cape Fear River. Continuing on to the south, the Cape Fear River combines with the Brunswick River at a point approximately 6.5 mile s downstream of the PPE. The 15-mile surface water pathway ends just north of the intersection of the Intercoastal Waterway and the Cape Fear River (Ref. 3, pp. 1, 2; Ref. 5, pp. 27, 28).

The Northeast Cape Fear River and the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of the Horton facility are both salt water bodies that are tida lly influenced (Ref. 29, pp. 14-19, 23-38). The boat slips adjacent to the fa cility are subject to these same tid al influences (Ref. 25, p. 1). The estimated flow in the Northeast Cape Fear Rive r adjacent to the site is approximately 2,400 cubic feet per second (cfs), making it a large stream to river (Ref. 1, Table 4-13; Ref. 30, pp. 1, 3, 5, 6).38 4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release

4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release

Background concentration – Sediment

Samples from August 2009 were collected acco rding to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) developed by EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosyste m Support Division (Ref. 11, pp. 1-26). Samples were shipped to Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories and analyzed for total metals and mercury by ICP-AES by Stat ement of Work (SOW) ILM05.4 and volatiles, semi-volatile extractables, and aroclors by SOW SOM01.2 (Ref. 5, pp. 239-259, 269-348; Ref. 34, pp. 1-6). An EPA Region 4 Science and Ec osystem Support Division Quality Assurance Chemist reviewed and validated this data for pe rformance according to th e Statements of Work (Ref. 34, pp. 1-6).

Samples from April 2003 were collected according to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) developed by the NC Di vision of Waste Management (R ef. 35, pp. 1-8). Samples were shipped to Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories and analyzed for total metals and mercury, volatiles, semi-volatile extractables, and pesticides/P CBs. An EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division Quality Assurance Ch emist reviewed and validated this data for performance. (Ref. 4, pp. 55-284).

HI40SD, HI40DSD, and HI41SD we re collected in the Northeast Cape Fear River, upstream of the slips but downstream of V.C. Almont and Northeast Chemical (Ref. 5, pp. 81-86; Figs. 2, 6 of this HRS documentation record). HI05cSD was collected at the mouth of an unnamed tributary running along the northern edge of the Horton property (R ef. 5, pp. 79, 80; Fig. 6). HIM-027-SD and HIM-028-SD were collected in Northeast Cape Fear River near Ness Creek, upstream of site. (Ref. 35, pp. 8, 9; Fig. 8). The highest background concentration of each contaminant of concern reported in these back ground samples for each sampling date was used for evaluating the release samples (Tables 5, 6, 8, 9 of this HRS documentation record).39 Table 4. Background Sedime nt Sample Descriptions Sample ID Date Time Sample Description References

HI05cSD 8/3/09 9:50 Grab sediment sample at mouth of unnamed tributary, background sample; some gravel mixed with dark to medium gray, loose clay. Ref. 5, pp. 79, 80; Fig. 6

HI40DSD 8/3/09 11:00 Background sample in Northeast Cape Fear River, duplicate of HI40DSD; clay, medium to dark brown overlaying dark gray to black organic clay. Ref. 5, pp. 85, 86; Fig. 6

HI40SD 8/3/09 11:00 Background sample in Northeast Cape Fear River; clay, medium to dark brown overlaying medium to dark black. Ref. 5, pp. 83, 84; Fig. 6

HI41SD 8/3/09 10:30 Background sample in Northeast Cape Fear, adjacent to mouth of unnamed tributary; unknown composition. Ref. 5, pp. 81, 82; Fig. 6

HIM-027-SD 4/1/03 12:25 Background sample in Northeast Cape Fear River near Ness Creek, upstream of property; silty, organic soil. Ref. 4, p. 19; Ref. 25, pp. 1, 8; Fig. 8

HIM-028-SD 4/1/03 12:35 Background sample in Northeast Cape Fear River near Ness Creek, upstream of property;

dark brown silt. Ref. 4, p. 19; Ref. 25, pp. 1, 8, 9; Fig. 840 Table 5. Hazardous Substances in Background Samples - Inorganic
Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg) SQL* References

Mercury 0.16UJ(0.44U) 1,2 0.44

Arsenic 9.7 4.1

Cadmium 2.1U 2.1
Copper 18 10

Lead 22 4.1

Nickel 9.1J(16U) 2 16 HI05cSD

Zinc 79 25 Ref. 5, pp. 239, 265, 268, 279

Mercury 0.18UJ(0.44U) 1,2 0.44

Arsenic 11 4.3

Cadmium 2.2U 2.2
Copper 30 11

Lead 25 4.3

Nickel 13J(17U) 2 17 HI40SD

Zinc 92 26 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 266, 268, 340

Mercury 0.16UJ(0.44U) 1,2 0.44

Arsenic 11 4.3

Cadmium 2.1U 2.1
Copper 18 11

Lead 25 4.3

Nickel 11J(17U) 2 17 HI40DSD

Zinc 93 26 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 266, 268, 339

Mercury 0.14UJ(0.43U) 1,2 0.43

Arsenic 11 4.2

Cadmium 2.1U 2.1
Copper 19 11

Lead 32 4.2

Nickel 11J(17U) 2 17 HI41SD

Zinc 96 25 Ref. 5, pp. 240, 266, 268, 341

HIM-027-SD Cadmium 0.50U 0.50 Ref. 4, pp. 87, 284

HIM-028-SD Cadmium 0.25U 0.25 Ref. 4, pp. 89, 284

* SQLs are the sample-specific quantitation limits as reported as the MRLs (Minimum Reporting Limits) on the analytical data sh eets. Each SQL corresponds to the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation and is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared, dilution performed, and percent moisture in the source samples (Ref. 5, p. 268). U – The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit (Ref. 4, p. 87; Ref. 5, 268). J – The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate (Ref. 5, p. 268). 1 – Concentration reported is less than the lowest standard on calibration curve. 2 – Result is greater than Method Detection Limit (MDL) but less than MRL. The number41 in ( ) is the SQL.

Bolded values represent the highest levels of detectable contaminants in background sediment samples.42 Table 6. Hazardous Substances in Background Samples – Organic
Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (ug/kg) SQL* References

Fluoranthene 97J(850U) 1 850
Pyrene 130J(850U) 1 850

PCB-1254 160U 160 HI05cSD

PCB-1260 160U 160 Ref. 5, pp. 247, 526, 529, 552, 553, 761, 772

Fluoranthene 150J(730U) 1 730
Pyrene 150J(730U) 1 730

PCB-1254 140U 140 HI40SD

PCB-1260 140U 140 Ref. 5, pp. 248, 254, 527, 529, 732, 733, 762,

832

Fluoranthene 200J(670U) 1 670
Pyrene 190J(670U) 1 670

PCB-1254 130U 130 HI40DSD

PCB-1260 130U 130 Ref. 5, pp. 248, 254, 527, 529, 729, 730, 762,

831

Fluoranthene 200J(740U) 1 740
Pyrene 340J(740U) 1 740

PCB-1254 140U 140 HI41SD

PCB-1260 140U 140 Ref. 5, pp. 248, 527, 529, 735, 736, 762, 833

* SQLs are the sample-specific quantitation limits as reported as the MRLs (Minimum Reporting Limits) on the analytical data sh eets. Each SQL corresponds to the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation and is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared, dilution performed, and percent moisture in the sediment samples (Ref. 5, p. 529). U – The analyte was not detected at or ab ove the reporting limit (Ref. 5, p. 529). J – The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate (Ref. 5, p. 529). 1 – Concentration reported is less than the lowest standard on calibration curve.

Contaminated Samples - Sediment

From the August 2009 sampling event, samples HI17cSD, HI18SD, and HI19SD

document observed releases of site contaminants inside the northern slip. Arsenic and lead are present at elevated levels in all three of these sa mples, while all contaminants of concern used for scoring the site (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, fl uoranthene, pyrene, and PCBs) in this HRS documentation record are present at elevated levels at the PPE in the northern slip (HI17cSD). HI28bSD, HI28SD, HI29SD, and HI30SD document observed releases of at

least one source-related contaminant inside the southern slip. Lead is present at elevated levels in all four of these samples. Fluoranthene and pyrene are present at elevated levels in three of these samples (Tables 7, 8, 9; Fig. 6). All source-rela ted contaminants of concern except mercury are present at elevated levels at the PPE in the sout hern slip. Observed releases of fluoranthene and pyrene are also present along the main river channe l, just south of the s outhern slip (HI36SD) (Tables 7, 9; Fig. 6).

April 2003 samples HIM-022-SD and HIM-024-SD we re collected at the mouths of each of the slips, at the river channel. Cadmium was pr esent at elevated levels in both of these samples (Tables, 7, 8; Fig. 7).43 Table 7. Sediment Release Sample Descriptions
Sample ID Date Time Sample Description References

HI17cSD 8/4/09 13:40 Grab sediment sample at northwest corner of northern slip, PPE; black organic clay mixed with vegetative material. Ref. 5, pp. 109, 110; Fig. 6

HI18SD 8/4/09 14:15 Grab sediment sample along northern slip, just west of barges; unknown composition. Ref. 5, pp. 111, 112; Fig. 6

HI19SD 8/4/09 9:40 Grab sediment sample along northern slip, adjacent to barge; medium brown sand overlaid by black organic clay. Ref. 5, pp. 99, 100; Fig. 6

HI20bSD 8/4/09 10:00 Grab sediment sample along northern slip; unknown composition. Ref. 5, pp. 87, 88; Fig. 6

HI28bSD 8/4/09 8:15 Grab sediment sample at northwest corner of southern slip, PPE; brown sands with slight oily sheen mixed with black organic clay; bottom of sample was lighter brown sand mixed with some gravel. Ref. 5, pp. 93, 94; Fig. 6

HI28SD 8/4/09 8:35 Grab sediment sample along southern slip; fine to

medium black sand with some sheen and mixed

with wood over dark brown medium sand. Ref. 5, pp. 95, 96; Fig. 6

HI29SD 8/4/09 9:00 Grab sediment sample along southern slip; unknown composition. Ref. 5, pp. 97, 98; Fig. 6

HI30SD 8/4/09 11:05 Grab sediment sample along southern slip, adjacent to barge; fine to medium brown sand mixed with some black clay. Ref. 5, pp. 101, 102; Fig. 6

HI31aSD 8/4/09 12:05 Grab sediment sample near mouth of southern slip; black organic clay mixed with fine sand. Ref. 5, pp. 107, 108; Fig. 6

HI36SD 8/4/09 11:20 Grab sediment sample in Northeast Cape Fear River, south of southern slip; medium to coarse brown sand mixed with some reddish gravel and

reddish sand. Ref. 5, pp. 103, 104; Fig. 6

HI37SD 8/3/09 14:00 Grab sediment sample in Northeast Cape Fear River between the two slips; brown sand mixed with gravel and live mussels. Ref. 5, pp. 91, 92; Fig. 6

HI38SD 8/4/09 11:45 Grab sediment sample near mouth of northern slip; black organic clay over brown silty very fine

sand. Ref. 5, pp. 105, 106; Fig. 6

HI39SD 8/3/09 12:10 Grab sediment sample in Northeast Cape Fear River near mouth of northern slip; unknown composition. Ref. 5, pp. 89, 90; Fig. 6

HIM-022-SD 4/1/03 11:32 Grab sediment sample in Northeast Cape Fear River at mouth of northern slip; black, slimy, jello-like substance. Ref. 25, pp. 1, 6, 7; Fig. 7

HIM-024-SD 4/1/03 11:15 Grab sediment sample in Northeast Cape Fear River at mouth of southern slip; very black and slimy with consistency similar to jello. Ref. 25, pp. 1, 6; Fig. 744 Table 8. Hazardous Substances in Se diment Release Samples - Inorganic

Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg) SQL* References

Mercury 1.3 0.46

Arsenic 170 4.5

Cadmium 5.4 2.2
Copper 440 11

Lead 780 4.5

Nickel 28 18 HI17cSD

Zinc 1,200 27 Ref. 5, pp. 244, 265, 301

Arsenic 56 4.4

Lead 220 4.4 HI18SD

Zinc 380 26 Ref. 5, pp. 244, 266, 268, 305

Arsenic 47 3.4
Copper 94 8.6 HI19SD

Lead 200 3.4 Ref. 5, pp. 243, 266, 268, 307

Arsenic 360 1.4

Cadmium 4.9 0.7
Copper 180 3.5

Lead 610 1.4

Nickel 36 5.6 HI28bSD

Zinc 970 8.4 Ref. 5, pp. 242, 266, 322

Mercury 0.17 0.14

Arsenic 38 1.4

Cadmium 0.94 0.7 HI28SD

Lead 580 1.4 Ref. 5, pp. 242, 266, 321

Lead 470 2.1 HI29SD Zinc 560 13 Ref. 5, pp. 242, 266, 268, 323

HI30SD Lead 120 2.2 Ref. 5, pp. 243, 266, 268, 324

HIM-022-SD Cadmium 0.55 0.5 Ref. 4, pp. 78, 80, 87, 283

HIM-024-SD Cadmium 0.67 0.5 Ref. 4, pp. 80, 82, 87, 283

* SQLs are the sample-specific quantitation limits as reported as the MRLs (Minimum Reporting Limits) on the analytical data sh eets. Each SQL corresponds to the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation and is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared, dilution performed, and percent moisture in the sediment samples (Ref. 5, p. 268).45 Table 9. Hazardous Substances Found in Sediment Release Samples - Organic

Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (ug/kg) SQL* References

Fluoranthene 5,900J(5,900) 1 440
Pyrene 4,900J(4,900) 1 440

PCB-1254 230 140 HI17cSD

PCB-1260 160 140 Ref. 5, pp. 253, 526, 529, 618, 619, 761, 794; Ref. 8, p. 8

HI19SD PCB-1260 610 100 Ref. 5, pp. 251, 762, 800

Fluoranthene 720 250
Pyrene 1,200 250

PCB-1254 340 47 HI28bSD

PCB-1260 85 47 Ref. 5, pp. 251, 527, 681, 682, 762, 815

Fluoranthene 930 220
Pyrene 790 220 HI28SD

PCB-1254 45 43 Ref. 5, pp. 251, 527, 678, 679, 762, 814

Fluoranthene 2,400 730 HI29SD Pyrene 2,100 730 Ref. 5, pp. 251, 527, 684,

685

Fluoranthene 770 210 HI36SD Pyrene 740 210 Ref. 5, pp. 252, 527, 720,

721

* SQLs are the sample-specific quantitation limits as reported as the MRLs (Minimum Reporting Limits) on the analytical data sh eets. Each SQL corresponds to the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation and is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared, dilution performed, and percent moistu re in the source samples (Ref. 5, p. 529). J – The identification of the analyte is accepta ble; the reported value is an estimate. 1 – Surrogate recovery is lower than establis hed control limits; therefore, result is biasedlow (Ref. 5, pp. 529, 618, 619). Low biased results for release samples do not require adjustment (Ref. 8, p. 8).

Further Discussion

The April 2003 ESI sampling event, c onducted by NC Superfund personnel, included sediment sampling at the PPE in each slip, the m ouths of each slip, and upstream and downstream along the main river channel. Cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were detected at levels over background at the PPEs into both slips. Arsenic was detected at an elevated level at the PPE in the northern slip, while nickel was detected at an elevated level at the PPE in the southern slip.

Cadmium was detected at elevated levels at the mouths of both slips. Fluoranthene and pyrene were detected at elevated levels along the main river channel, south of the southern slip (Ref. 4, pp. 13, 20, 25, 26, 29-31).46 4.1.2.1.1.1 Attribution from Source to Surface Water

From the early 1900’s up until the 1950’s, the property was used for fertilizer operations (Ref. 12, pp. 8, 9, 13, 14; Ref. 13, pp. 1, 2). Typically, sulfuric acid was manufactured by roasting pyrites to drive off the sulfur in gaseous form, which was reacted with water in the lead chambers to form the acid. Where pyrite ore is roasted, there will be a residue (cinders) which may contain a wide range of heavy metals. Duri ng this time period, acid chambers were typically lined with lead. Lead-bearing spent acid releas ed from the chambers after treatment of the phosphate rock typically resulted in lead-con taminated, low-pH soils. Some contaminants associated with fertilizer ope rations during this time period include arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, vanadium, zinc, platinum, and asbestos (Ref. 14, pp. 1-54; Ref. 27, pp. 1, 2).

During the 1960’s and 1970s, Horton Industries conducted ship breaking of WWII Liberty ships in the two slips located on the property (Ref. 12, p. 1; Ref. 16, p. 1; Ref. 17, pp. 1, 3). Typical contaminants associated with ship-b reaking include asbestos , PCBs, PAHs, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel , and zinc (Ref. 28, pp. 22, 47, 65, 83, 114, 150, 170, 171).

The NC Superfund Section conducted an ESI sampling event at the site on April 1-2, 2003. Eight three-point composite surface soil sample s were collected from the area of the former acid chamber and the area of the former ship-br eaking operations, includi ng drainage paths to each of the slips, to determine the presence or absence of contaminated soils (Ref. 25, pp. 1-27). Soil sample results indicated elevated levels of metals (including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), PAHs, pesticides, po lychlorinated biphenyls (P CBs), and asbestos, as compared to background samples collected from an area expected to be unimpacted by facility operations (Ref. 4, pp. 12-17).

In January 2007, the entire eastern portion of the Horton property was gridded off and sampled for arsenic, lead, and P CBs (Ref. 26, pp. 1, 2). Grab soil samples from 80 grid locations

were screened with an XRF un it; concentrations at 37 locations exceeded the EPA industrial removal action levels (RALs) for lead (1,200 ppm) and/or arsenic (160 pm) (Ref. 26, pp. 8, 9, 12- 14). Laboratory confirmation samples at ten of thes e locations detected levels of arsenic as high as 82J ppm, lead as high as 2,400 ppm, PCB-1254 as high as 3,800 ppb, and PCB-1262 as high as 1,900 ppb (Ref. 26, pp. 3, 7, 15, 16).

During the week of August 3, 2009, personnel from EPA, NC, and OTIE conducted an ESI sampling event at the facility (Ref. 5, p. 11). Of the source so il samples collected, 17 surface, 12 subsurface, and four deep subsurface sample s contained at least one operations-related contaminant at an elevated level, as compared to background levels. Mercury, cadmium, nickel, and zinc were detected at higher elevated levels in surface soil samples, while arsenic, copper, and lead were detected at higher elevated levels in subsurface soil samples. In addition, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were all detected at elevated levels in deep subsurface soil samples (Ref. 5, pp. 29, 30, 45-48, 55-58). SVOCs, and PCBs, were detected at elevated levels in both surface and subsurface soil samples. Fl uoranthene, pyrene, PCB-1260, and PCB-1268 were detected at higher elevated leve ls in surface soil samples. PCB- 1254, however, was detected at its highest elevated levels in the subsu rface soil samples (Ref. 5, pp. 35-44, 49-54, 58).47 The source (Source 1) is contaminated soils bounded by surface soil samples documented in Tables 1-3 and shown on Figure 3 of this HR S documentation record. Areas comprising this bounded portion include the former l ead acid chamber area, former ship-breaking operations, and areas where dredged materials from the slips was placed during the 1960s (Ref. 12, p. 1; Ref. 13, p. 1; Ref. 15, p. 1; Ref. 17, pp. 1, 3). The square footage of the bounded area was determined using Geographic Information System (GIS) softwa re, selecting the Calculate Geometry function (see Figure 3 of this HR S documentation record).

Source 1 drains towards the two slips prot ruding inland from the Northeast Cape Fear

River. Flow from the source enters the western edges of the slips at the probable points of entry (PPEs) (Ref. 23, p. 1; Fig. 6). Ar senic and lead are present at el evated levels in three of the samples collected from inside the northern sli p, while all contaminants of concern used for scoring the source (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lea d, mercury, nickel, zinc, fluoranthene, pyrene, and PCBs) in this HRS documentation record are present at elevated levels at the PPE in the northern slip. Lead is present at elevated levels in all four of the samples collected from inside the southern slip. Fluoranthene and pyrene are presen t at elevated levels in three of these samples (Tables 7, 8, 9; Fig. 6). Observed releases of fluoranthene and pyrene are also present along the main river channel, just south of the sout hern slip (HI36SD) (Tables 7, 9; Fig. 6).

There are three current/former f acilities that are adjacent to th is site – Northeast Chemical, V.C. Almont, and Sigma Recycling (Fig. 2). Th e Northeast Chemical and V.C. Almont sites,

located to the north of the Hort on property, are former phosphate fertilizer manufacturers. Lead

and arsenic are the contaminants most associat ed with these two sites (Ref. 18, pp. 4-8, 45-48, 52- 54, 65; Ref. 31, p. 1, 2). The Sigma Recycling site , located south of the Horton property, is a former ship-breaking operation. While Sigma Recycling contai ned some lead and PCBs, the primary contaminants of concern were petroleum and arsenic. Remediation at Sigma is complete (Ref. 32, pp. 1, 58-61, 201, 202).

Sediment samples were collected from the main river channel immediately upstream and downstream of Horton during both the April 2003 and August 2009 ESI sampling events. Similar contaminants associated with the adjacent pr operties and their former operations were not detected at elevated levels in the upstream samples (Ref. 4. pp. 24, 25, 26, 29-31; Ref. 5, pp. 26, 61-64, 66, 67; Fig. 6). Fluoranthene and pyrene, detected at elevat ed levels in the downstream sample (HI36SD), were also present at elevated levels in the source as well as in the sediment samples collected inside the southern slip (Ref. 5, pp. 26, 59-62; Tables 7, 9; Fig. 6).48 Table 10. Attribution – Contaminant Correlation

Contaminants

Associated with Fertilizer Operations ContaminantsAssociated with ShipBreaking Operations Source Contaminants Observed Release to SW Pathway

Contaminants

arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, vanadium, zinc, platinum, and

asbestos asbestos, PCBs, PAHs, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,

and zinc arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, fluoranthene, pyrene,

PCB-1254, PCB1260, PCB-1268 arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, fluoranthene, pyrene, PCB-1254,

PCB-1260 (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 2, 6,

12, 20, 22, 29, 37, 42-44; Ref. 27, pp. 1, 2) (Ref. 28, pp. 22, 47, 65, 83, 114, 150, 170, 171) Tables 1, 2, and 3 of

this HRS

Documentation

Record Tables 7, 8, and 9 of

this HRS

Documentation

Record

========================= ==================== ===================== Hazardous Substances Released: Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, Fluoranthene, Pyrene, PCB-1254,

PCB-1260

Surface Water Pathway Observed Release Factor Value = 55049 4.1.2.1.2 Potential to Release

4.1.2.1.2.1 Potential to Release by Overland Flow

Potential to release was not evaluated becau se an observed release to surface water was established by chemical analysis (see Secti on 4.1.2.1.1 of this HRS documentation record).50 4.1.3 Human Food Chain Threat

The human food chain threat is evaluated base d on three factor categor ies: likelihood of release, waste characte ristics, and targets.

4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat – Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

An observed release to a fishery has been documented (Ref. 33, pp. 1, 2). The Northeast Cape Fear River and the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of the Horton facility are both salt water bodies (Ref. 29, pp. 23-25, 34, 35, 38). The HRS instru cts that if bioconcentration factor (BCF)

data are available for both fresh water and salt water for the hazardous substance, use the BCF data that corresponds to the type of water body (t hat is, fresh water or salt water) in which the fisheries are located to assign the bioaccumula tion potential factor value to the hazardous

substance. Because the entir e surface water pathway is considered salt, only salt water Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value (BPFV) values are used (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1.3).

Table 11. Source 1 Contaminants Documented in Observed Release to Sediment in a Fishery

Hazardous

Substance Toxicity

Factor

Value PF# BPFV*

Salt

Food Chain T/P Value (Ref. 1, Table 4-12) T/P/BPFV (Ref. 1, Table 4-16)

Arsenic 10,000 1 500 10,000 5 x 10 6

Cadmium 10,000 1 50,000 10,000 5 x 10 8

Copper 0 1 50,000 0 0

Lead 10,000 1 5,000 10,000 5 x 10 7

Mercury 10,000 1 50,000 10,000 5 x 10 8

Nickel 10,000 1 500 10,000 5 x 10 6

Zinc 10 1 50,000 10 5 x 10 5

Fluoranthene** 100 1 5,000 100 5 x 10 5

Pyrene 100 1 5,000 100 5 x 10 5

PCBs 10,000 1 50,000 10,000 5 x 10 8

T/P/BPFV = Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Po tential Factor Values (Ref. 1, Table 4-16). T/p = Toxicity/Persistence Factor Values (Ref. 1, Table 4-12; Ref. 2, pp. 2-8). BPFV = Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Values, Ref. 2, pp. 2-8.

# PF = Persistence Factor Value for Rivers (Ref. 1, section 4.1.3.2.1.2; Ref. 2, pp. 2-8). *Ref. 1, Table 4 - 15, Section 4.1.3.2.1.3; Ref. 2, pp. 2-8. **Benzo(j,k)fluorene (Ref. 2, p. 3)

============================================================= ======== Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value = 5 x 10 851 4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

HRS (Ref. 1) Section 4.1.3.2.2 inst ructs that if any target fo r that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations , and if hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately documented, assign eith er the value from Table 2-6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor va lue for that pathway (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2). A Level II fishery has been documented, as shown in Section 4.1.3.3.2.2 of this HRS documentation

record.

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100

4.1.3.2.3 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Ch aracteristics Factor Category Value

Toxicity/Persistence Value = 10,000 Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value = 50,000

Toxicity/Persistence Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 x 100 = 1,000,000 (1 x 10 6 )

(Toxicity/Persistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity) x Bioaccumulation Potential Value: (1 x 10 6 ) x 50,000 = 5 x 10 10

========================= ==================== ======================== Human Food Chain Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned Value/Human Food Chain Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value = 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2 – 7, Sections 4.1.3.2.3 and 2.4.3.2)52 4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat - Targets

Actual Human Food Chain Contamination

A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation pot ential factor value of 500 or greater is present in a sediment sample in the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed release, and a portion of the fishery is w ithin the boundaries of the observed release. An observed

release to surface water was doc umented in Section 4.1.2.1.1. An observed release to a fishery has been documented (Ref. 33, pp. 1, 2).

4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain individual

A Level II fishery has been documented, as shown in Section 4.1.3.3.2.2 of this HRS

documentation record.

========================= ==================== ======================== Food Chain Individual Factor Value = 45

4.1.3.3.2 Population

4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations – not scored

4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations

Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, ni ckel, zinc, fluoranthene, pyrene, PCB-1254, and PCB-1260 have been documented in source 1 and in sediment in the fishery. The level of contaminants in the fishery is summarized be low (see also Tables 7 and 8 of this HRS documentation record):

Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg)

Mercury 1.3

Arsenic 170

Cadmium 5.4
Copper 440

Lead 780

Nickel 28

Zinc 1,200

Fluoranthene 5,900J(5,900)
Pyrene 4,900J(4,900)

PCB-1254 230 HI17cSD

PCB-1260 16053 Sample ID Contaminant Concentration (mg/kg)

Arsenic 56

Lead 220 HI18SD

Zinc 380

Arsenic 47
Copper 94

Lead 200 HI19SD

PCB-1260 610

Arsenic 360

Cadmium 4.9
Copper 180

Lead 610

Nickel 36

Zinc 970

Fluoranthene 720
Pyrene 1,200

PCB-1254 340 HI28bSD

PCB-1260 85

Mercury 0.17

Arsenic 38

Cadmium 0.94

Lead 580

Fluoranthene 930
Pyrene 790 HI28SD

PCB-1254 45

Lead 470

Zinc 560

Fluoranthene 2,400 HI29SD

Pyrene 2,100

HI30SD Lead 120

Fluoranthene 770 HI36SD Pyrene 740

HIM022SD Cadmium 0.55

HIM024SD Cadmium 0.67

Active fishing in the Northeast Cape Fear River has been documented, and, although the annual human food chain production is unknown, greater than zero pou nds of fish are caught in the Northeast Cape Fear River and consumed (R ef. 33, pp. 1, 2). A Food Chain Population value of 0.03 is assigned (Ref. 1, Table 4-18).

Level II Concentration Factor Value = 0.0354 4.1.3.3.2.1 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination -- not evaluated

4.1.3.3.3 Calculation of Human F ood chain threat - targets factor category value (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.3)

Human food chain threat-targe ts factor category value =

45 + .03 = 45.03 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1 and Table 4-18)

4.1.3.4 Calculation of human food chain threat score

Likelihood of release x waste char acteristics x targets / 82,500 =

550 x 320 x 45.03 / 82,500 = 96.06 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.4)

============================================================= ======= Human Food Chain Threat Score = 96.0655 

### Table 4-1 Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Scoresheet

Human Food Chain Threat

Likelihood of Release: 550

Waste Characteristics: Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

5 x 10 8
Hazardous Waste Quantity

100 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value 320

Targets:

Food Chain Individual Factor Value 45.03

Human Food Chain Threat Score: [550 x 320 x 45.03] / 82,560 = 96.06

Human Food Chain Threat Score = 96.06