HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DO CUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET

Name of Site : Clinch River Corporation

EPA ID No. : TND987768587

Contact Persons

Documentation Record : Jennifer Wendel, National Priorities List Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11 th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 562-8799

John Nolen, Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11 th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 562-8750

Wendy Robinson, Ecologist Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 1955 Evergreen Boulevard, Ste. 300 Duluth, Georgia 30096 (678) 775-3082

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The ground water migration, soil exposure, and air mi gration pathways were not scored in this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation record because the surface water migration pathway is sufficient to qualify the site for the National Priorities List (N PL). These pathways are of concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and ma y be considered during a future evaluation.HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Clinch River Corporation

EPA Region: 4

Date Prepared: September 2012

Street Address of Site*: 728 Emory Drive

City, County, State, Zip: Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee, 37748

General Location in the State: Eastern portion of state

Topographic Map: Bacon Gap, TN 1980; Cave Creek, TN 1989; Elverton, TN 1990; Harriman, TN 1980

Latitude: 35° 55' 55.02" North

Longitude: 84° 32' 21.77" West

The coordinates above for Clinch River Corporation (CRC) were measured from soil sample CR09 0709SF, collected west of the former paper and pulp mill building and within Source No. 1 of this HRS documentation record (Refs. 4; 8, p. 30; 16, p. 4).

* The street address, coordinates, and contamin ant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area where the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers part of the site based on the screening in formation EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the know n “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, and not on precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as an area where a hazardous substance has been “d eposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located.” Generally, HRS scoring and the subse quent listing of a release represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the ti me of scoring will be refined as more information is developed about where the contamination has come to be located.

Pathway Pathway Score Ground Water Migration NS Surface Water Migration 96.06 Soil Exposure NS Air Migration NS
HRS SITE SCORE 48.03

Note:

NS Not scored

1WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

S Pathway S 2 Pathway Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) NS NS Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S
sw ) 96.06 9,227.5236 Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S
s ) NS NS Air Migration Pathway Score (S
a ) NS NS

S 2 gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a 9,227.5236 (S 2 gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a ) / 4 2,306.8809 √

(S 2 gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a ) / 4 48.03

Note:

NS = Not scored

23 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 NS
2b. Runoff 10 NS
2c. Distance to Surface Water 5 NS 2d. Potential to Release by 2a(2b + 2c)] Overland Flow [lines 150 NS

3.Potential to Release by Flood:
3a. Containment (Flood) 10 NS 3b. Flood Frequency 50 NS
3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) 500 NS
4. Potential to Release maximum of 500) (lines 2d + 3c, subject to a 500 NS

5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550
Waste Characteristics: 6. Toxicity/Persistence (a) N S
7. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) NS
8. Waste Characteristics 100 NS Targets:
9. Nearest Intake 50 NS 10. Population:
10a. Level I Concentrations (b) NS
10b. Level II Concentrations (b) NS
10c. Potential Contamination (b) NS 10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) (b) NS
11. Resources 5 NS 12. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) (b) NS Drinking Water Threat Score: 13. Drinking Water Threat Score [(lines 5x8x12)/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100] 100 NS
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) 500,000,000
16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100
17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320 Targets:
18. Food Chain Individual 50 45Table 4-1 –Surface Water Overland/Flood Mi gration Component Scoresheet (Continued)

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned
19. Population
19a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0
19b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.03
19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b)
NS 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 14x17x20)/82500, subject to maximum of 100] 100 96.06
Environmental Threat
Likelihood of Release: 22. Likelihood of Release (sam e value as line 5) 550 550
Waste Characteristics: 23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) NS 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) NS
25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 NS Targets:
26. Sensitive Environments
26a. Level I Concentrations (b) NS
26b. Level II Concentrations (b) NS

26c. Potential Contamination (b) NS 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c) (b) NS 27. Targets (value from line 26d) (b) NS
Environmental Threat Score: 28. Environmental Threat Score [(lines 22x25x27)/82,500 subject to a maximum of 60] 60 NS 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
sw ) c (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated; subject to a maximum of 100) 100 96.06

Notes:

a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category
b Maximum value not applicable Do not round to nearest integer NS Not scored

4 c

## Clinch River Corporation Emory River Emory River

TDD No.: TDD Name: United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4

State: County: City:

8/6/2012 Date:

ray.yeager Analyst: Legend

Clinch River Corporation property boundary

Map Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map: Harriman, TN 1980.

File: C:\GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0128_Clinch_River_Corporation\GIS\MXDs\Site Location\Fig1_Facility_Location 6-29-12 RY.mxd FIGURE 1

TTEMI-05-003-0128 Clinch River Corporation Facility Location

Tennessee Roane Harriman Roane County KY

AL GA MS NC

SC IL

MO VA

TENNESSEE 

# /

0 1,000 2,000
Feet

1:24,000

5L e g e nd 

### CD Ma i n office @ Train i ng bu i ld i n g 

## ® Clar i fi er @ T i me keep i ng bui l d i ng Forme r l ocat i o n of 

# Lt bo il er house

Steam ge n erat i on a n d 

## ® turb i ne bu i lding

Forme r l ocat i o n of t h e pape r 

# A
a n d p ul p mil l b u ildi n g Fo r mer l ocat i on of ch i ppe r

### ~ shed ( dr u m storage ) 

## ® 600

, 000-gallon AST @ Black l i quo r pond

Forme r l ocat i o n of 

# A coal ta r pond @ Scale house 

### [!] Waste paper p i l e

Ra i l road 

### I•:::::J 

# I Cl in ch R i ver Co r po r at i o n p r

operty boundary



## _.,.. F l o w d i rect i on Approx i mate locatio n of sout h

### m~u w aste paper i mpoundment

Parcel bou n dary 

## CJ [I] Process a r ea 1 5ft X 30ft X 6in 

## 1M! Excavated A r ea

0 1 25 250**~~~~~ Feet**  13,000

N ot es : AST- Aboveground storage tank
structure numbers have been reVised for this
HRS documentat i on record

.
Map Source: Bing Maps Aeria l i magery , 2012; Re f erences 7

, pp

. 2

, 5

, 10. 12 ; 8

, pp

. 28

, 29 ; 10

, p

. 6 ; 14, pp

. 13, 14; 45

, p

. 2; 61, pp

. 2

, 3

. 

# ® United States

• Envirormenta ! Protection Agency

ot Region4

FIGURE 2

Fac i l i ty Layout

TOO Na m e: Cl i nch River Corporation

TOO No

. :**TTEM I** **05-00~ 1** **28** City : County: State : Harriman Roane Tennessee

Date 

# ( 1\:) TETRA TECH Analyst ray. yeage r

F i le:**C:\GlS _Wortsp.ac:e** **\TT EM** **l- 05~~** **28 Clnch** **ver_Corporabon GIS\MXOs\Si1e** **layout\F~~g2 Faciity** **layoutl>29- 2**  RY 1 1 x 1 7 .mxd 71512012Map Source: Bing Maps Aerial Imagery, 2012; Refs. 3; 8, pp. 30; 11, pp. 15, 21, 22, 116, 118, 120; 16, pp. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; 57, p. 2; 61, pp. 2, 3.

File: C:\GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0128_Clinch_River_Corporation\GIS\MXDs\Source and Observed Release Maps\Fig3_Source_and_Observed_Release_Samples 8-14-12 RY.mxd FIGURE 3

TTEMI-05-003-0128 Clinch River Corporation Source and Observed

Release Samples

TDD No.: TDD Name:

Tennessee Roane Harriman Sample Identification Notes: 0 to 1 foot below ground surface Sample number

Area number

Clinch River Clinch River Corporation Brownfields

Sediment Sediment duplicate

Surface soil Surface soil duplicate

Surface soil 00-01

##

A#

CR

CRCB

SD

SDD

SF

SFD

SS USACE TDEC

8/14/2012 Date:

ray.yeager Analyst:

State: County: City: United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4



# /

0 150 300

Feet Legend

2009 TDEC Site Reassessment 

### ! ( Observed Release Sediment Sample 

### ! ! ( 

### ( Background Sediment Sample
" ) Source Sample 

### " " ) 

### ) Background Soil Sample
2005 USACE Phase II Investigation 

## # * Source Sample 

# # # * 

# * Background Soil Sample

" ) Emory River Mile Marker

Process Area

Flow direction

Source No. 1

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers



## # * # *

# *

# * # *



# # # * 

# *

CR02 0709SD 

### ! ! ( 

### ( River Mile 11.4 " ) 15ft x 30ft x 6in Excavated Area

Emory Dr Clify St ￿ Sewanee St

Queen Ave Clinch St Crescent Ave Cumberland St Clinton St Virginia St

Tennessee St

Walden Ave Trenton St

Morgan Ave Georgia St

Carter St

Emory Heights Rd Carter Ave CR13 0709SF

CR09 0709SF

CR08 0709SF CR06 0709SD CR03 0709SD

CR06 0709SDD

SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 SS-CRCB-A2-05-00-01

SS-CRCB-A4-27-00-01 SS-CRCB-A2-34-00-01 SS-CRCB-A2-03-00-01

SS-CRCB-A4-26-00-01



### " " ) 

### ) " ) " )



### ! (

! ( Clinch River Corporation Property Boundary Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

Area of Fishing for Human Consumption 15ft x 30ft x 6in Excavated Area8 REFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, 55 Federal Register 51532. December 14, 1990. 138 pages.

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). January 2004. Updated March 2012. Excerpt, 55 pages. A complete copy of SCDM is available at: http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm

.

3. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech). 15

- Mile Target Distance Limit, Clinch River Corporation . Source of Map: U

. S

. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangles: Bacon Gap, TN 1980; Cave Creek, TN 1989; Elverton, TN 1990; Harriman, TN 1980. Scale, 1: 24,000

. August 6 , 2012. 1 page.

4. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: Coordinates for the Clinch River Corporation property. Attachment: Google Earth Map. March 7, 2012. 2 pages.

5. EPA. Envirofacts Warehouse, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Site Name: Clinch River Co rporation. Data Extracted on January 11, 20121. Accessed on January 26, 2012. 1 page. Accessed on

- line at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclisquery.get_report?pgm_sys_id=TND987768587

.

6. EPA. Envirofacts Warehouse, Facility Registry System (FRS), Facility Detail Report. Site Name: Clinch River Corporation. Accessed on March 26, 2012. 2 pages. Accessed on

- line at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=T ND987768587& pgm_sys_acrnm_in=CERCLIS

.

7. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: Property Assessment Data Records and Parcels Maps for the Clinch River Corporation. Attachments: Property Assessment Data Records and Parcel Maps obtain ed from Roane County Property Assessor. January 23, 2012. 13 pages.

8. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Remediation (DOR)

- Knoxville Field Office. Site Reassessment Report. Clinch River Corporation, 728 Emory Drive, Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee. September 17, 2009. Modified by Tet ra Tech to link analytical laboratory identities. Excerpt, 465 pages.

9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Wood Creosote, Coal Tar Creosot e, Coal Tar, Coal Tar Pitch, and Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles. September 2002. 392 Pages.

10. Shaw Environmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Tennessee Division of Remediation, Site ID# 73

- 505, Clinch River Corporation, 728 Emory Drive, Harrima n, Roane County, Tennessee 37748. May 2, 2005. 325 pages.

11. U

. S

. Army Corp s of Engineers (USACE). Target ed Brownfield Assessment. Phase II Investigation Report for the Clinch River Corporation Brownfields Site, Harriman, TN. March 2006. 141 pages.

12. TDEC DOR

- Knoxville Field Office. Expanded Site Investigation Report. Clinch River Corporation, 728 Emory Drive, Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee. June 2, 2011. 274 pages.

13. Halliburton NUS for Black & Veatch Waste Science, Inc. Expanded Site Inspection. Clinch River Corporation, Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee, EPA ID No. TND987768587. February 28, 1994. 161 pages.

14. TDEC Division of Superfund. Potential Hazardous Waste Site

, Site Inspection Report/Clinch River Corporation. June 11, 1991 . 481 pages.9 15. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation between Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, and Charlie Appleby, EPA Region 4, Quality Assurance Section, SESD, Management and Technical Services Branch. Subject: Definitions of Minimum Repor ting Limit, Minimum Quantitation Limit, Contract Required Quantitation Limit, and Sample Quantitation Limit. July 9, 2008. 1 Page.

16. TDEC DOR. Field notes from July 20 and 21, 2009: Clinch River Corporation Site Investigation Sampling. July 20 and 21, 20 09. 8 pages.

17. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination. Quick Reference Fact Sheet EPA

- 540

- F

- 94

- 028. November 1996. 18 pages.

18. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: Summary of J

- Qualified Data. Attachment: J

- Qualified Data Adjustment Calculations. June 7 , 2012. 3 p ages.

19. Tennessee V alley Authority. OE&R

– ER&S Geographic Information Engineering. Clinch, Emory, and Tennessee River Miles map. April 24, 2009. Accessed on

- line February 7, 2012

, at https://www.tva.gov/kingston/images/river_map.pdf . 1 page.

20. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural R esources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey, Roane County. 2005 USACE Background Sampling Location. Accessed March 19 , 2012, and June 28 , 2012 at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

. 7 pages.

21. East Tennessee River Valley Geotourism. TVA Watts Bar Dam and Reservoir. Accessed on

- line February 7, 2012

, at http://www.tennesseerivervalleygeotourism.org/content_detail.php?uid=ten96913350C0FF88E03 . 1

p age.

22. U

. S

. Geological Survey (USGS). Water Data Report 201 1 for 03540500 Emory River at Oakdale, TN. Accessed on

- line June 25

, 2012

, at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2011/pdfs/03540500.2011.pdf

. 3 pages.

23. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Map for Roane County, Tennessee. Map Number 47145C0091F. Panel 91 of 335. Effective Date September 28, 2007. 1 page. The map was modified by Tetra Tech to show the approximate location of the Clinch River Corporation facility . Modified July 26, 2012.

24. FEMA Map Service Center. Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations. Accessed on

- line February 7, 2012

, at https://msc.fema.gov/ webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/info?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=

- 1&content=floodZones&title=FEMA%20Flood%20Zone%20Designations . 2 pages.

25. USACE. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Clinch River Corporation, Harriman, Tennessee, Brownfield Site Investigation. Prepared September 2005. Approved February 2006. 7 5
pages.

26. EPA. Letter from Ms. Beverly William, EPA Brownfields Project Manager, to Mr. Steven Bath, Environmental Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District

, regarding Final Approval of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Revision 2, dated February 13, 2006, Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment [ Reference 25 of this HRS documentation record] ; and the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report dated December 22, 2005, for the Clinch River Corporation Site, Harriman, TN

, with attachments. February 27, 2006. 3 pages.

27. Severn Trent Laboratories, I nc. (STL)

, Analytical Report, Clinch River Corporation Site, Lot # H5I300 111

. October 21, 2005

. 1,52 1 pages.10 28. USDA, NRCS, Web Soil Survey, Roane County. Clinch River Corporation. Accessed February 12

, 2012, and June 28 , 2012

, at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

. 7 pages.

29. Ng Su Nie, Annie. Characterization of Recovered Black Liquor and Isolated Lignin f rom Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch Soda Pulping f or Semichemical and Chemical Pulps. June 2008. Excerpt. 3 7
pages.

30. National Park Service, Water Resources Divisions, Water Operations Branch, Fort Collins, Colorado. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. Coal Tar Entry. July 1, 1997. 27 pa ges.

31. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: EPA Envirofacts Facility Detail Reports for facilities located within a 1

- mile radius of the Clinch River Corporation property

. Attachments: List of EPA Regulated Facilities in Envirofa cts near the CRC property; Search Results for NPL site in Roane County, TN; Facility Detail Report for Master Wood Products; Detailed Facility Report for Master Wood Products; Google Earth image; Google Map; Yellow Pages online directory listing . February 22, 2012 and April 5, 2012

. 1 2 pages.

32. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation between Wendy Robinson, Ecologist, Tetra Tech and Tom Moss

, Deputy Director

, Tennessee Division of Water Supply . Subject: Drinking W ater I ntakes A long the Emory River

. Attachments: E

- mail correspondence with the Tennessee Division of Water Supply; Figure of Drinking Water Intakes near Harriman, TN. February 24, 2012. 4 pages.

33. Tetra Tech. Electronic correspondence between Sandra Harrigan, Tetra Tech, and Erin Sutt on, TDEC . Subject: Clinch River Corporation (re: f ishing on the Emory River ) . October 4, 2011. 2

pages

.

34. Obed Watershed Community Association. The Watts Bar N

- Waste Reservoir. October 2008. Accessed on

- line February 15, 2012, at https://4310b1a9

- a

- 0bc753c7

- s

sites.googlegroups.com/a/obedwatershed.org/ho me/Res ources/docs/08_10_watts_bar_waster_reserv oir.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crDjMYo0Jrh7ciswGXgFWizGYQ2FbyvPrtDTrzXIUoHCtdwWIYmmJ nnhAYB3ltG5xC5_VmH__lyooWenhPrYvmkljTLZppnInaP7AgkMheYjpZmWprWVQW6Cw3QX 11VY

- gpNT9gE3QPBgoFWgysYZGNv4gtPMnpdTN8DP

AZQepOxXoauGCgf65tw Dlo4N1g6dOQh4Q6P8sryB4FUgDeEdiHXq6QSHDPC8fvl1RYEaP17CJ UAqCKiVoRJQvbBTHHKtAdwWi&attredirects=0 . 5 pages.

35. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: Distance from Water Data Station 03540500 near Oakdale, Tennessee to the Clinch River Co rporation property . Attachment: Google Earth Map. June 26 , 2012. 2 pages.

36. Reference reserved

.

37. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency ( TWRA ) . Contaminants in Fish. Accessed on

- line February 24, 2012

, at www.tn.gov/twra/fish/contaminants . 3 pages.

38. Tetra Tech. Electronic C orrespondence B etween Sandra Harrigan, Tetra Tech, and Robert Todd, TWRA . Subject: Endangered Mussel Species that Inhabit th e Emory River in Harriman, Tennessee. Attachments: TDEC Interdepartmental Memo randum Re: Clinch River Corporation Site, Emory River, Harriman, Roane County, dated April 20, 2011. October 24, 2011. 4 pages.

39. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation between Sandra Harrigan, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech and Erin Sutton, Project Manager, TDEC DOR. Subject: Information about TDEC 2009 and 2010 Sampling Events. March 5 and 29 , 2012. 1 page.

40. Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. (STL)

, Analytical Report, Clinch River Corporation Site, Lot # H5I300134. October 18, 2005. 1, 659 pages.11 41. USDA, NRCS, Web Soil Survey, Roane County. 2009 TDEC Background Sampling Location. Accessed May 29 , 2012

, and June 28, 2012, at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

. 7 pages.

42. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation B etween Wendy Robinson, Ecologist, Tetra Tech and Mark Thurman , Program Manager, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency . Subject: Fishing P ractices and P roduction of F ish A long the Emory River in the V icinity of the Clinch River Corporation. Attachments: E

- mail C orrespondence with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. March 16, 2012. 3 pages.

43. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: Wetlands Map for the Clinch River Corporation P roperty. Attachments: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map. March 16, 2012. 2 pages.

44. Paper on Web. Grades (Types) of Pulp. Accessed on

- line March 23, 2012

, at: http://www.paperonweb.com/gradepl.htm . 15 pages.

45. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation B etween Sandra Harrigan , Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech and Erin Sutton, Project Manager, TDEC DOR. Subject: Information about the 2009 TDEC Site Reassessment I nterior M ill S ampling. March 16 and 29 , 2012. Attachments: Remaining Structures Map; Field Reports from June 3 , 2011, December 15, 2011, February 14, 2012, February 15, 2012, and February 17, 2012. 27 page s

.

46. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: Summary of Criminal Prosecution for Clary P. Foote. Attachments: Summary of Criminal Prosec ution for Clar e y [sic] P. Foote . March 27 , 2012. 2 pages.

47. Environment, Health and Safety Online. Polluters (and Other Violators) of the Week 2002. Accessed on

- line March 27, 2012

, at: http://www.ehso.com/prevpollutors2002.php . 14 pages.

48. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: TVA Watts Bar Reservoir

. Attachments: TVA Panel 4 Tiles F06, F07, G06, and G07, and Watts Bar Reservoir Land Management Plan Alternative B “Preferred

. ” Modified by Tetra Tech to show tile connections and facility location. March 29 , 2012. 6 pages.

49. British Columbia Coast and Marine Environment Project: 2005. Industrial Contaminants. Accessed

on

- line March 30, 2012

, at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/bcce_temp/02_industrial_contaminants/technical_paper/ind ustrial_contaminants.pdf . 5 1 pages.

50. Friends of the Earth. Briefing: The Environmental Consequences of Pulp and Paper Manufacture. Alan Stanley. 1996. Accessed on

- line March 27, 2012

, at http://www .foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/consequence_pulp_paper.html . 20 pages.

51. Reach for Unbleached Foundation. What We Know about Sludge, Grate Ash and Lime Dregs

, Working Document . March 12, 1997. Accessed on

- line March 30, 2012

, at http://www.rfu.org/cacw/pollutionSludge1.htm#What We Know about Sludge . 12 pages.

52. EPA. Pollution/Situation Report (POLREP) No. 2

. November 28, 2011. 5 pages.

53. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation B etween Wendy Robinson, Ecologist, Tetra Tech and Erin Sutton, Project Manager, TDEC DOR. Subject: 2011 EPA Removal Action

. April 2

, 2012. Attachments: OTIE Figure 4 Draft Sample Location Map . 2 pages.

54. EPA , Office of Water . Final Report: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Detailed Study, EPA

- 821

- R

- 06

- 016. November 2006. 208 pages.12 55. EPA , Office of Water . Fact Sheet: Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollut ants for the Production of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard

– Overview, EPA

- 821

- F

- 93

- 001. November 1993. 6 pages.

56. EPA. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA540/R

- 94 /01 3

. February 1994

. 45 pages.

57. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation s B etween Sandra Harrigan, Environmental Scientist

, Tetra Tech

, Erin Sutton, Project Manager, TDEC DOR , and Lee Barron, Project Manager, TDEC DOR . Subject: Information about the Surface Water Migration Pathway . May 15 and 16 , 2012. Attachment: Map Depicting Area of Fishing for Human Consumption

. 2 pages.

58. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation B etween Jessica Vickers, Chemist, Tetra Tech and Jamie McKinney, Project Manager, Test America, Inc. Subject: STL Analytical Data Package s H5I300111 and H5I300134

. March 26 , 2012. 1 page.

59. Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises (OTIE). Removal Investigation and Response Letter Report, Clinch River Corporation Site, Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee. January 26, 2012. 165 pages.

60. OTIE. Removal Assessment Letter Report, Clinch River Corporation Site, Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee. April 20, 2012. 278 pages.

61. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation between Wendy Robinson, Ecologist, Tetra Tech and Ben F ranco, On

- Scene Coordinator, EPA. Subject: EPA Removal Activities in 2011 and 2012

. Attachments: Annotated Facility Layout figure; Summary of Comments on Facility Layout figure; ALS Environmental analytical data sheets for sample PKL05. June 6 , 2012. 8 page s

.

62. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 4, Fiscal Year 2002 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Report. Accessed on

- line June 25, 2012, at http://www.epa.gov/region4/ead/attachments/2002_accomplishments_report.pdf . 20 pages.

63. Tetra Tech. Electronic C orrespondence B etween Sandra Harrigan, Tetra Tech, and Brad Bingham

, State Private Lands Coordinator, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office. Subject: Fishing on the Emory River in Harriman, TN,

- River Mile 12 downstream to River Mile 10 (also addresses e ndangered m ussel s pecies that i nhabit the Emory River in Harriman, Tennessee )

. October 4, 2011, through July 5, 2012

. 4 pages

.

64. TDEC . Contract Laboratory Program

, Organic Traffic Report and Chain of Custody Record for 2009 TDEC S ampling Event. July 2009. 5 pages.

65. TDEC . Contract Laboratory Program , Generic Chain of Custody for 2009 TDEC S ampling Event. July 2009. 3 page s

.

66. TDEC . Contract Laboratory Program. Ino rganic Traffic Report and Chain of Custody Record for 2009 TDEC S ampling Event. July 2009. 3 pages

.

67. Tetra Tech. Electronic Correspondence Between Sandra Harrigan, Tetra Tech, and Erin Sutton, Project Manager, TDEC DOR

. Subject: Sample CR03 0709SD

. July 22

- 23, 2012

. 2 pages

.SITE DESCRIPTION

Clinch River Corporation (CRC) is located at 728 Emory Drive in Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee (References [Refs.] 5; 6, p. 1; see Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record). More specifically, the geographical coordinates, as measured at sample CR0 9 0709SF, collected within Source No. 1 and west of the former paper and pulp mill building, are latitude 35° 55' 55.02" north a nd longitude 84° 32' 21.77" west (Refs. 4; 8, p. 30; 16, p. 4). The EPA iden tification number, as recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili ty Information System (CERCLIS) database, is TND987768587 (Ref. 5).

The CRC property is an inactive paper and pulp mill with several entrances along Emory Drive at Walden Street, Queen Street, and Tennessee Street (Ref. 8, p. 1). The CRC property consists of four parcels of land covering an area of about 29 acres (Refs. 7, pp. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12; 8, pp. 1, 28). Several railroad tracks and easements traverse the CRC property from north to south (Ref. 8, p. 1; see Figures 1 and 2 of this HRS documentation record).

Parcel 001.00, located in the southwestern portion of the property, covers 1.3 acres and includes a scale house (Refs. 7, pp. 1, 2; 8, pp. 28, 29; 45, p. 2). Parcel 002.00, located in the northwestern portion of the property, covers 5.3 acres and includes a clarifier, a main office building, a training building (also referred to as a bath house), and a waste paper pile (referred to as “waste paper pile 4” in this HRS documentation record) (Refs. 7, pp. 3, 5; 8, pp. 28, 29; 10, pp. 6, 28; 45, p. 2; see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record).

Parcel 003.00, located in the northeastern portion of the property, covers 10.48 acres and includes the former location of the paper and pulp mill buildi ng, the former location of an unlined surface impoundment (coal tar pond [ash pond]), a chipper sh ed and associated drum storage area, a steam generation and turbine building, a time keeping bui lding, several aboveground storage tanks (AST), including a 15,000-gallon AST, a waste paper pile (referred to as “waste paper pile 1” in this HRS documentation record) located about 525 feet north of the former paper and pulp mill building, a waste paper pile (referred to as “waste paper pile 3” in th is HRS documentation record) located about 100 feet northwest of the former paper and pulp mill building, and a concrete surface located north of the former paper and pulp mill building and near w aste paper pile 1 (Refs. 7, pp. 6, 10; 8, pp. 28, 29, 34, 39; 10, pp. 5, 6, 51, 52, 55, 60; 45, pp. 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11; 61). The area where the former paper and pulp mill operations occurred will be referred to as the “process area” throughout this HRS documentation record (see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record).

Parcel 003.01, located in the southeastern portion of the property, covers at least 12 acres and includes the former location of the boiler house, the former lo cation of a south waste paper impoundment, a 600,000­ gallon AST, an unlined surface impoundment (black liquor pond), and a waste paper pile (referred to as “waste paper pile 2” in this HRS documentation record) located adjacent to the black liquor pond (Refs. 7, pp. 11, 12; 8, pp. 28, 29; 10, p. 6; 45, p. 2; see Figures 1 and 2 of this HRS documentation record).

The CRC property is overgrown with dense vegetation in some locations and is not secure (Refs. 8, p. 1; 10, p. 8). Land uses surrounding the CRC property are predominantly residential and light industrial (Refs. 8, p. 28). The CRC property is bordered to th e north by industrial properties, to the east and south by the Emory River, and to the west by Emory Drive and residential properties beyond (Ref. 8, pp. 1, 28; see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record).

For HRS scoring purposes, the site consists of one source and associated releases to the surface water migration pathway. Source No. 1 consists of contaminated soil from di screte operations (e.g., disposal practices) around the process area (Refs. 8, pp. 2, 14 th rough 21, 28, 29; 10, p. 6; 11, pp. 33, 38 through 42, 47, 48, 49; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Hazardous substances including anthracene; benzo(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; benzo(k)fluoranthene; carbazole; chrysene; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; fluoranthene; fluorene ; indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ; 2-methlynaphthalene; naphthalene; phenanthrene; pyrene ; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzodioxin (HpCDD); 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF); 1,2,3,4,7,8-hex achlorodibenzodioxin (HxCDD); 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD;

13 Site Description1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD; cadmium; chromium; copper; lead; manganese; mercury; nickel; silver; and zinc have been detected in Source No. 1 (see Section 2.2.1 of this HRS documentation record).

These hazardous substances have also been documented in sediment samples collected from the Emory River, which receives runoff from Source No. 1, indi cating that a release has occurred to the surface water migration pathway (see Section 4.0 of this HRS documentation record).

OPERATIONAL AND REGULATORY HISTORY

From 1929 to 2002, a paper and pulp mi ll operated on the CRC property (Refs. 8, p. 2; 10, pp. 4, 5; 14, pp. 22, 315). The following companies owned and/ or operated the paper a nd pulp mill throughout its operational history: the Mead Corporation, Inc.; the Harriman Paperboard Corporation; the Clinch River Corporation; the Gibson Group; Mid-So uth Cogeneration, Inc.; Power Pape r, Inc.; Power Paper, Limited; Power Paper Recycling, Inc.; and American Kraft Mill s of Tennessee, LLC (Refs. 10, pp. 4, 5, 6, 7, 286 through 298; 14, pp. 190, 196, 200). Of the f our parcels that make up the CRC property, three are currently owned by the Gibson Group and one is currently owned by Dr. Clary P. Foote (Ref. 7, pp. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12).

Former operations on the CRC property included manuf acturing nonbleached corrugated containers using paperboard from pulp production (Ref. 14, pp. 8, 256, 280, 315). The manufacturing process included partially digesting raw hardwood chips with sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, and live steam. The wood chips were further refined using a mechanical pulping process (Refs. 10, p. 6; 14, pp. 8, 211, 280, 400; 44, p. 10). The virgin paper stock was then mixed with recycled paper stock at a rate of 75 percent virgin to 25 percent recycled. The blended paper stock was a llowed to dry in mats that were cut into customerspecific widths (Ref. 14, p. 211).

By-products of the paper manufacturing process incl uded paper waste, black liquor (spent processing waste), and coal tar constituents (Refs. 10, p. 6; 11, p. 6; 14, p. 8). The treatment of the paper waste consisted of primary clarification after the material was screened through a 3-millimeter mesh screen. One half of the waste stream (sludge) generated by the clarifier was recycled back into the plant, while the other half (mill effluent) was discharged to the Tennessee River through the Harriman Sewage Treatment Plant system. Skimmer waste from the clar ifier was disposed of on the CRC property (Ref. 14, pp. 211, 216). Waste paper was also disposed of in piles throughout the CRC property (Refs. 10, p. 6; 11,

p. 7; 14, pp. 8, 169 through 178, 182, 183, 185).

Black liquor can be composed of phenols, sodium hydroxide, sodium oxide, and sulfur; as well as metals, such as calcium and magnesium (Refs. 10, p. 6; 14, p. 8). Coal tar consists of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), phenols, heterocyclic oxygen, su lfur, and nitrogen compounds (Refs. 9, p. 220; 14,

p. 8; 30, pp. 9, 21). Dioxins, furans, PAHs, and metals, such as chromium, copper, and manganese, can also be produced as by-products of the paper manufacturi ng process (Refs. 49, p. 7; 51, p. 10; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-11; 55, pp. 1, 2). Black liquor and coal tar wastes were disposed of on the CRC property in two unlined surface impoundments (the black liquor pond and the former coal tar pond) and in drums (Refs. 10, p. 31; 11, pp. 7, 11; 14, pp. 8, 155).

Paper and pulp mill processes gene rated effluents from pulp operati ons, paper board operations, and supporting auxiliaries. The pulp operatio ns waste stream received only the dilute solutions of constituents extracted from the wood that could be reused in th e pulping operations. The paper board operation waste stream consisted of excess white water (filtrate) from the paper machine water slurry. The supporting auxiliary waste stream consisted of chemicals used for conditioning boiler feed water by the ion exchange method (Ref. 14, p. 316).

Wastes from paper mill operations were disposed of on the CRC property (Refs. 10, p. 6; 14, pp. 155, 156, 157, 169 through 183, 185). Multiple waste area s have been identified on the CRC property. These areas include: (1) an unlined surface impoundment (black liquor pond), located on the southern portion of the property; (2) an unlined surface impoundment (form er coal tar pond), located on the northeastern side of the property; (3) waste paper pile 1, located a bout 525 feet north of the former paper and pulp mill

14 Site Descriptionbuilding; (4) waste paper pile 2, located adjacent to the black liquor pond; (5) waste paper pile 3, located about 100 feet northwest of the former paper and pul p mill building; and (6) waste paper pile 4, located on a concrete slab inside a fenced enclosure on the sout hern portion of Parcel 002.00 (Refs. 8, p. 29; 10,

p. 6; 14, pp. 155, 169 through 183, 185). Waste pa per pile 3 was removed in the 1990s and its former location was subsequently paved with concrete. The fencing around w aste paper pile 4 was removed and the pile was covered with soil (Ref. 10, p. 6).

The Emory River was the source of fresh water for mill operations. The receiving streams were the Emory and Tennessee Rivers (Ref. 14, pp. 315, 337, 338). In 1957, Mead Corporation began discharging effluent through the City of Harriman’s sewer system (Ref. 14, pp. 278, 400). In 1971, Mead Corporation maintained 12 outfalls into the Emory River and one outfall into the Tennessee River (Ref. 14, pp. 303 through 306). Outfall 001 received process effluent that was mixed with the Harriman’s Utility Board Waste Treatment Plant effluent and discharged through a diffuser into the Tennessee River, approximately 15.7 miles downstream of the CRC propert y (Refs. 3; 14, p. 304). Outfall 002 (surface drains in debarking area), Outfall 003 (drain from small laboratory), Outfall 004 (septic tank outfall), Outfall 005 (drain from chemical storage area), Outf all 006 (bearing and machine cooling water), Outfall 007 (emergency overflow from mill process water), Ou tfall 008 (storm water runoff from the mill area), Outfall 009 (turbine room roof drainage), Outfall 010 (boiler feed water conditioning area), Outfall 011 (sand filter backwash), Outfall 012 (boiler house area), and Outfall 013 (boiler mud drum) discharged into the Emory River (Ref. 14, pp. 304, 305, 306).

In June 1974, Mead Corporation was issued Nationa l Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit TN0001627 from EPA as well as a temporary discharge permit from the State; however, the details of the permits are not known (Ref. 14, p. 277). In June 1974, just prior to receiving this permit, Mead Corporation stated that it had already tied Outfalls 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006 to Outfall 001, and planned to tie Outfalls 010, 011, 012, and 013 to Outfall 001 by 1976. Furthermore, Outfall 007 was no longer in use, and Outfalls 008 and 009 were storm drains that Mead did not intend to connect to Outfall 001. Mead also stated its intention to install a pr imary clarifier on the CRC property by 1976, in advance of the date on which the City of Harriman’s secondary treatment system would be completed (Ref. 14, pp. 300, 301).

The NPDES permit was renewed in 1983 and allowe d sanitary and process wastewater from Outfall 001 to be discharged to the City of Harriman sewage treatment plant system (Ref. 14, pp. 268, 270, 337, 338). In 1988, CRC was issued NPDES permit TN0062383 au thorizing discharge of noncontact cooling water and storm water runoff to the Emory River at mile 11.4, which is about 250 feet from Source No. 1, and about 211 feet from the observed release (Ref. 14, pp. 236, 237, 250, 257, 261; see Figure 3 and Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). An estimated 400,000 gallons of effluent was discharged into the Emory River per day (Ref. 14, p. 259). Pr eviously, process wastewater was discharged to the Tennessee River through NPDES permit TN0001627; however, NPDES permit application TN0062383 stated that the process wastewater would be recycled (Ref. 14, pp. 249, 250, 261, 268, 270). The permit did not require monitoring of specific constituents (Ref. 14, pp. 237, 238).

Several spills, releases, and NPDES permit violations have been documented throughout the facility’s operational history. Between 1988 and 1989, the facility illegally discharged process water, cooling water, and waste paper wash runoff into the Emory River (Ref. 14, pp. 345, 354, 357, 359, 361, 367). Discoloration (black and gray) of the Emory River directly adj acent to and downstream of the CRC property was also documented during this period (R ef. 14, pp. 354, 360, 362). The CRC property flooded in 1990, and as a result, waste paper, black liquor, an d coal tar wastewater were deposited into the Emory River (Ref. 14, pp. 8, 159 through 161, 164 through 166, 186, 187). During the 1991 TDHE site inspection, TDHE observed (1) black liquor and co al tar leaching into the Emory River from the CRC property below the water line, and (2) that the s outh waste paper impoundment had partially collapsed into the Emory River, dumping waste paper and waste paper rolls into the river (Ref. 14, pp. 8, 14, 16, 165 through 168, 186, 187). In June 2002, the owner of Parcel 003.01 was convicted of intentionally releasing approximately 500,000 gallons of process liqui d containing black liquor and solids, the contents of an AST, onto the ground and into the Emory Ri ver on February 14, 1999, during a period of heavy rains (Refs. 7, p. 11; 46, p. 1; 47, p. 11; 62, p. 17).

15 Site DescriptionPaper and pulp mill effluent can contain PAHs; dioxins a nd furans; and metals (Refs. 49, p. 7; 51, p. 10; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-7, 3-8, 3-11). PAHs are contained in coal tar (Refs. 9, p. 220; 14, p. 8; 30, pp. 9, 21). Dioxins and furans accumulate in the pulp and are ch emicals of concern in wastewater treatment sludge and in liquid (re-pulped) effluent (Ref. 50, pp. 6, 10). Metals, such as cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc can be cont ained in effluent and in pulp mill sludge (Refs. 50, p. 10; 51, pp. 1, 2, 3; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-11).

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

From 1984 to 2012, numerous investig ations were conducted at the CRC property. Table 1 lists some of the previous sampling investigations, including the paper and pulp mill-re lated hazardous substances detected in the samples collected.

TABLE 1: Summary of Previous Investigations

Agency Investigation Date Samples Collected Chemicals of Concern Detected References

TDHE Acute Toxicity Study 1984 Process
waste water discharge Phenols 14, pp. 9, 211 through 214, 218

TDHE Site Investigation 1991 Soil, surface water, and sediment Chromium Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Zinc 14, pp. 6, 16, 63, 64, 80, 81

Halliburton NUS Corporation for EPA Expanded Site Inspection 1993 Surface and subsurface soil, sediment Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b,k)fluoranthene Carbazole Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Zinc 13, pp. 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16 through 20, 22, 24, 25

Shaw Environmental for TDEC DOR Phase I ESA 2005 None None 10, pp. 1, 38 through 41

16 Site DescriptionTABLE 1: Summary of Previous Investigations

Agency Investigation Date Samples Collected Chemicals of Concern Detected References

USACE TBA Phase II Investigation 2005 Surface and subsurface soil Cadmium Chromium Copper Manganese Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc 11, pp. 4, 13, 14, 38, 39, 47

TDEC DOR Site Reassessment 2009 Soil, surface water, and sediment Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Carbazole Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc 8, pp. i, ii, 3, 14, 15, 17 through 21

TDEC DOR Expanded Site Investigation 2010 Fish tissue Chromium Copper Zinc 12, pp. i, 1, 3, 6, 7, 15

OTIE for EPA Emergency Response 2011 Waste Benzo(a)pyrene Naphthalene 52, p. 3; 59, pp. 1, 4, 5, 6

OTIE for EPA Removal Assessment 2012 Surface and subsurface soil Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 60, pp. 1, 3, 4

17 Site DescriptionNotes:

CRC Clinch River Corporation DOR Division of Remediation ESA Environmental Site Assessment HpCDD Heptachlorodibenzodioxin HpCDF Heptachlorodibenzofuran HxCDD Hexachlorodibenzodioxin OTIE Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compounds TBA Targeted Brownfield Assessment TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
TDHE Tennessee Depa rtment of Health and Environment USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

In 2005, the Tennessee Department of Environmen t and Conservation (TDEC, previously TDHE) Division of Remediation (DOR) tasked Shaw Envi ronmental, Inc. (Shaw) with conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at CRC (Ref. 10, p. ES-1). During site reconnaissance activities, about 106 damaged, leaking, or open containers ( 55-gallon drums and two 250-gallon totes) containing various oily liquid wastes were observed in and arou nd the chipper shed. The oily liquid wastes were suspected to contain lubricant oils, white paper and black paper liquor waste, water, and other waste. Notable dark staining was observed in the area near the leaking containers (Ref. 10, pp. 39, 51, 52). Erosion of the concrete surface near waste paper pile 1 revealed layers of dark staining in the soils underneath the concrete surface. This area of concre te erosion and staining borders the Emory River and is prone to flooding (Refs. 10, p. 39; 23; 24, p. 1). In addition, distressed vegetation was observed near waste paper pile 1 (Ref. 10, pp. 40, 59; see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). Shaw recommended that a Phase II ESA be conducted (Ref. 10, p. 40).

In 2005, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U SACE) was tasked by EPA to conduct a Targeted Brownfield Assessment (TBA) Phase II Investigation at the CRC property (Ref. 11, p. 4). Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected throughout the CRC property (Ref. 11, pp. 11, 13, 14). The samples contained semivolatile organic compounds (S VOCs), including PAHs; dioxins and furans; and metals (Refs. 11, pp. 38 through 42, 47, 48, 49; 54, pp. 3-7, 3-8).

In 2009, TDEC DOR conducted a site reassessment at the CRC property (Ref. 8, p. i). Surface soil, surface water, and sediment samples were collected during the reassessment (Ref. 8, p. 3). Surface soil samples contained dioxins and furans ; PAHs; and arsenic at concentrati ons above background levels (Ref. 8, pp. 9, 15, 18, 20, 21). The same constituents were also detected in sedimen t samples collected from the Emory River directly adjacent to the CRC property (Ref. 8, pp. 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20).

In September 2010, TDEC DOR c onducted an expanded site inves tigation (ESI), which involved collection of 32 fish (four largemouth bass, 25 sunfish, and three carp) from the Emory River at three locations downstream of the CRC property (Ref. 12, pp. i, 3). A fish tissue sample was not collected upstream of the CRC property; however, analytical data from the fish tissue samp les were compared to average concentrations from the Watts Bar Reservoir, obtained from a biological database maintained by the Division of Water Pollution Control within TDEC (Ref. 12, pp. 4, 6). The fish tissue samples contained polychlorinated biphenyls, benzaldehyde, chro mium, copper, and zinc (Ref. 12, pp. 6, 15). Copper and chromium levels in the collected fish tissue both exceeded the historical average background levels, with copper exceeding three times the historical average background concentration (Ref. 12, pp. 6, 7).

In August 2011, EPA conducted an assessment of the l eaking drums in the drum storage area and of the 600,000-gallon AST located on parcel 003.01 (Ref. 52, pp. 2, 3). Field testing indicated that the drums contained liquid acids, liquid and solid bases, flammable liquids, and natural liquids (Refs. 52, p. 3; 59, pp. 3, 4). Approximately 20 cubic yards of spilled material were observed in the drum storage area (Ref. 52, p. 3).

18 Site DescriptionIn September 2011, EPA initiated an emergency removal action to stabilize the leaking drums located in the drum storage area. The drums were stabilized and disposed of in February 2012 (Refs. 45, p. 22; 52,

p. 3; 53, p. 1; 59, p. 5). Stained surface soil directly surrounding the drums located in the drum storage area was removed (Refs. 53, p. 1; 59, pp. 5, 28; 61, p. 1). No other areas on the CRC property were excavated (Ref. 61, p. 1).

EPA removal activities continued in February 2012 and included removing all drums and containers, excavating an underground storage tank (UST), colle cting surface and subsurface soil samples, and advancing borings to install temporary monitoring wells (Refs. 45, pp. 19, 22, 26; 53, pp. 1, 2; 60, p. 3; 61, p. 1). The UST, located southeast of th e former paper and pulp mill building, contained approximately 38,500 gallons of black liquor. Once the UST was removed, black liquor and associated sludge were observed in the tank pit. This material was removed; however, about 6 inches of water containing black liquor was noted seeping into the excavat ed tank pit (Refs. 45, pp. 19, 21, 22, 24, 26; 53, pp. 1, 2). Surface soil samples were collected from 21 locations throughout the CRC property. Specifically, samples were collected near waste pape r pile 1, north and southeast of the former mill building, near the chipper shed, near the black liquor pond, near waste paper pile 2, and in the wooded area of parcel 003.01 (Ref. 53, pp. 1, 2; 60, p. 9; see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). A soil boring was advanced through the concrete at the former location of the coal tar pond to a depth of 35 feet bgs. Black liquor was observed in the boring (Ref. 45 , pp. 1, 19, 21). The surface and subsurface soil samples contained PAHs and arsenic. More specifically, benzo(a)anthracene was detected up to 2,300 μg/kg (micrograms per kilogram); benzo(a)pyrene was detected up to 2,000 μg/kg; benzo(b)fluoranthene was detected at 2,200 μg/kg; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene was detected up to 440 μg/kg; and arsenic was detected at 54 mg/kg (milligrams per kilograms) (Ref. 60, pp. 4, 10).

As of June 2012, the emergency response actions ar e complete; however, the removal action is on-going. No drums containing waste remain on the CRC property. The chipper shed is no longer standing. Three empty ASTs remain on the CRC property. EPA is in the process of working with Dr. Foote and other potentially responsible parties to empty and disman tle the 600,000-gallon AST and to conduct further soil testing. An expected completion date has not been established (Ref. 61, p. 1). Samples evaluated for Source No. 1 were not impacted by EPA removal activities (Refs. 53, p. 1; 61, pp. 1, 2, 3), and no removal has occurred at the zone of contamination in the Emory River (see Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). At the time this HRS documentation record submittal, the status of the removal action remained unchanged.

19 Site DescriptionSource No: 1

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Number of source : 1

Name of source : Contaminated soil resulting from discret e operations (e.g., disposal practices) around the process area

Source Type : Contaminated Soil

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of site):

Source No. 1 is an area of contaminated soil resulting from paper manufacturing operations (e.g., disposal practices) around the process area. Specifically, com posite samples used to characterize Source No. 1 were collected in the vicinity of (1) waste paper pile 1 (north of the former paper and pulp mill building), (2) waste paper pile 3 (northwest of the former pape r and pulp mill building), and (3) the western wall of the steam generation and turbine building (Refs. 8, pp. 9, 14 through 21, 29, 30; 10, pp. 6, 47; 11, pp. 15, 16, 21, 38 through 42, 47, 48, 49; see Figures 2 and 3 of this HRS documentation record). Soil samples contained overlapping hazardous subs tances related to facility processes, each sample was collected from within the paper manufacturing operations process ar ea and from the same source type (contaminated soil) and containment features, and each sample drains into the same surface water pathway (Refs. 8, p. 6; 8, pp. 1, 2, 6, 30, 33, 34, 35; 10, pp. 6, 33, 39, 40; 14, pp. 164 through 174, 1 86, 187; 39; see Figure 3 and Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of this HRS documentation record).

From 1929 to 2002, a paper and pulp mill facility operate d on the CRC property (Refs. 8, p. 2; 10, pp. 4, 5; 14, pp. 22, 315). By-products of the paper manufacturing process included black liquor (spent processing waste), coal tar constituents, and waste paper (Refs. 10, p. 6; 11, p. 6; 14, p. 8). Black liquor can be composed of phenols, sodium hydroxide, so dium oxide, and sulfur; as well as metals, such as calcium and magnesium (Refs. 10, p. 6; 14, p. 8; 29, p. 19). Coal tar consists of PAHs, phenols, heterocyclic oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds (Refs. 9, p. 220; 14, p. 8; 30, pp. 9, 21). Dioxins, furans, PAHs, and metals, such as chromium, coppe r, and manganese, can also be produced as byproducts of the paper manufacturing process (Refs. 49, p. 7; 51, p. 10; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-7 through 3-11; 55, pp. 1, 2). These by-products were disposed of on the CRC property (Ref s. 10, p. 31; 14, pp. 8, 155, 169 through 181).

Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from Source No. 1 during the 2005 USACE TBA Phase II investigation and the 2009 TDEC site reassessme nt (Refs. 8, pp. 9, 29, 30; 11, pp. 4, 13, 14). The samples contained PAHs; dioxins and furans; and metals at concentrations greater than background levels (Ref. 8, pp. 15, 18, 20, 21; 11, pp. 38 through 42 , 47, 48, 49; 40, p. 3-8) (see Tables 2 and 3 of this HRS documentation record). Samples evaluated for Source No. 1 were not impacted by EPA removal activities (Refs. 53, p. 1; 61, pp. 1, 2, 3).

20 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

2005 USACE TBA Phase II Investigation

USACE collected the surface soil sa mples listed in Table 2 during the 2005 TBA Phase II Investigation (Ref. 11, pp. 15, 16, 17). Composite surface soil sample SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 was chosen to represent background conditions because (1) the soil type at sample location SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 (loam) was similar to the soil types at the locations of samp les collected from Source No. 1 (loam), and (2) this sampling location (a community center) appeared to be minimally affected by past facility operations (Refs. 11, pp. 17, 22; 20, pp. 1, 4; 28, pp. 1, 4; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Source No. 1 samples were collected from the process area (Ref. 11, pp. 15, 16, 21). Specifically, three composite surface soil samples (SS-CRCB-A2- 03-00-01, SS-CRCB-A2-05-00-01, and SS-CRCB-A2-34­ 00-01) were collected adjacent to waste paper pile 3 located northwest of the former paper and pulp mill building, and two composite surface soil samp les (SS-CRCB-A4-26-00-01 and SS-CRCB-A4-27-00-01) were collected near the western wall of the steam generation and turbine building (Refs. 10, p. 47; 11, pp. 15, 16, 21). The samples were collected using stainless steel hand augers (Refs. 11, p. 13; 25, pp. 28, 34). The background and contaminated composite surface soil samples were collected at a depth of 0 to 1 foot below ground surface (bgs) (Refs. 11, p. 13; 25, p. 40).

Background and Source No. 1 surface soil samples were collected during the same sampling event, from the same depth (0 to 1 foot bgs), from similar soil types (loam), and in accordance with the same sampling procedures (Refs. 11, pp. 4, 13, 15, 16, 17; 20, pp. 1, 4; 25, pp. 28, 31, 40; 28, pp. 1, 4). The surface soil samples were collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assura nce Manual (EISOPQAM), Ma y 1996, including 1997 revisions and the EPA approved the quality assurance proj ect plan (QAPP) (Refs. 11, pp. 4, 12; 25, p. 37; 26, p. 3).

The samples were analyzed for trace inductively co upled plasma (ICP) metals (EPA Method 6010B) and mercury (EPA Method 7470/7471) by Se vern Trent Laboratories, Inc. (STL) (Refs. 11, pp. 130, 131, 132, 141; 25, p. 32; 27, pp. 1, 1A, 2, 3; 40, pp. 1, 2, 3). Bhate Environmental, subcontractor for USACE, reviewed all data in accordance with the EPA Nationa l Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA 540/R-99/013 (Refs. 11, pp. 12, 18).

The reporting limits (RLs) are listed on the analytical data sheets in References 27 and 40. Each RL is sample-specific and analyte-specific and corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepar ed and any dilutions performed, as well as for percent moisture. The RLs are equivalent to SQLs as defined in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions (Refs. 1, Section 1.1; 58). Logbook notes are provided in Reference 11, Appendix B. The chain-of-custody records are provided in Reference 11, Appendix C. The locations of the samples are depicted in Reference 11, pages 21and 22, and are described in Reference 11, pa ges 15, 16, and 17 (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

TABLE 2: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 Samples – 2005

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration RL References
Background Surface Soil Sample

SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 Chromium 34.7 mg/kg 1.2 mg/kg 11, pp. 114, 132; 40, p. 1299

SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 Copper 22.2 mg/kg 3.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 114, 132; 40, p. 1299

SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 Manganese 836 mg/kg 1.8 mg/kg 11, pp. 114, 132; 40, p. 1300

SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 Mercury 0.37 mg/kg 0.041 mg/kg 11, pp. 114, 132; 40, p. 1300

21 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

TABLE 2: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 Samples – 2005

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration RL References

SS-CRCB-A9-39-00-01 Silver ND 1.2 mg/kg 11, pp. 114, 132; 40, p. 1300

Contaminated Surface Soil Samples

SS-CRCB-A2-03-00-01 Chromium 988 mg/kg 1.7 mg/kg 11, pp. 106, 131; 27, p. 1195

SS-CRCB-A2-03-00-01 Copper 131 mg/kg 4.2 mg/kg 11, pp. 106, 131; 27, p. 1195

SS-CRCB-A2-03-00-01 Manganese 9,400 mg/kg 25.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 106, 131; 17, pp. 8, 18; 18, pp. i, 1; 27, p. 1196; 56, p. 17

SS-CRCB-A2-03-00-01 Silver 18.6 mg/kg 1.7 mg/kg 11, pp. 106, 131; 27, p. 1196

SS-CRCB-A2-05-00-01 Silver 9.3 mg/kg 1.5 mg/kg 11, pp. 106, 130; 27, p. 1192

SS-CRCB-A2-34-00-01 Copper 122 mg/kg 6.2 mg/kg 11, pp. 106, 130; 27, p. 1189

SS-CRCB-A4-26-00-01 Copper 126 mg/kg 3.0 mg/kg 11, pp. 109, 130; 27, p. 1173

SS-CRCB-A4-26-00-01 Mercury 1.4 mg/kg 0.039 mg/kg 11, pp. 109, 130; 27, p. 1174

SS-CRCB-A4-27-00-01 Copper 131 mg/kg 6.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 109, 130; 27, p. 1171

Notes:

00-01 0 to 1 foot below ground surface (Ref. 11, p. 13) ## Sample Number A# Area Number CRCB Clinch River Corporation Brownfields
ID Identification mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram ND The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit (Ref. 40, p. 3) SS Surface soil
RL Reporting limit

22 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

2009 TDEC Site Reassessment

The surface soil samples listed in Table 3 were co llected by TDEC during the 2009 site reassessment (Ref. 8, p. 9). Composite surface soil samp le CR08 0709SF was chosen to represent background conditions because (1) the soil type at sample location CR08 0709SF (loam) was similar to the soil types at the locations of samples collected from Source No. 1 (loam), and (2) the sampling location (a baseball field) appeared minimally affected by past facility operations (Refs. 8, pp. 9, 30, 36, 359; 28, pp. 1, 4; 41, pp. 1, 4; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation reco rd). Source No. 1 samples were collected from the process area (Ref. 8, pp. 28, 30, 359). Specifically , one composite surface soil sample (CR09 0709SF) was collected west of the former paper and pulp mill building near waste paper pile 3; and one composite surface soil sample (CR13 0709SF) was collected near w aste paper pile 1 (Refs. 8, pp. 9, 29, 30). The background and contaminated composite surface soil samp les were collected at a depth of 0 to 2 inches bgs (Ref. 39). In September 2011, EPA initiated an emergency removal action. Stained surface soil directly surrounding the drums located in the drum storage area was removed, which affected sampling location CR11 0709SF from the 2009 TDEC site reassessment (Refs. 53, p. 1; 59, pp. 5, 28; 61, p. 1). This sampling location is not used in this HRS documentation record.

Background and Source No. 1 composite surface soil sa mples were collected during the same sampling event, from the same depth (0 to 2 inches bgs), from similar soil types (loam), and in accordance with the same sampling procedures (Refs. 8, pp. 9, 27, 359; 28, pp. 1, 4; 39; 41, pp. 1, 4). The background and contaminated composite surface soil samples were co llected in accordance with the EPA approved TDEC sampling and analysis plan (SAP) and QAPP, speci fically the EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures (FBQSTP) for Soil Sampling, SESDPROC-300-R1 (Refs. 8, pp. 327, 346, 359; 39).

The background and source samples were analyzed for S VOCs, dioxins, and metals (Ref. 8, p. 3). SVOC analysis (EPA Methods 8270D and 8270SIM) was conducted by the EPA Region 4 SESD Analytical Support Branch (ASB) in accordance with the ASB Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance Manual (LOQAM) (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 95). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed SVOC data in accordance with the ASB LOQAM, EPA methods and guidelines (Refs. 8, p. 95). Dioxins were analyzed by SGS Environmental Services in accordance with the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Statement of Work (SOW) DLM02.0 (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 50, 51). Tota l metals were analyzed by CompuChem, currently known as Liberty Analytical Corporation (Liberty), in accordance with the EPA CLP SOW ILM05.3 (Ref. 8, pp. 272, 273, 304, 306, 316). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed dioxin and total metals data in accordance with the contract SOW and EPA guidelines (Refs. 8, pp. 3, 50, 51, 272, 273).

The minimum reporting limits (MRLs) are listed on the an alytical data sheets in Reference 8, Appendix 1. Each MRL is sample-specific and analyte-specific a nd corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sa mple prepared and any dilutions performed, as well as for percent moisture (Ref. 15). The MRLs are equi valent to SQLs as defined in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions (Refs. 1, Section 1.1; 8, pp. 53, 98, 2 77; 15). Logbook notes are provided in Reference 16. The chain-of-custody records are provided in Refere nces 64, 65, and 66. The locations of the samples listed in Table 3 are depicted in Re ference 8, page 30, and are described in Reference 8, page 9 (also see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

TABLE 3: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 Samples –2009

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration MRL References
Background Surface Soil Sample

CR08 0709SF Anthracene 3.8U μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 120; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Benzo(a)anthracene 7.3 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

23 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

TABLE 3: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 Samples –2009

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration MRL References

CR08 0709SF Benzo(a)pyrene 6.6 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.2 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Carbazole 3.8U μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Chrysene 8.9 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 3.8U μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Fluoranthene 12 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Fluorene 3.8U μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3.8U μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF 2-Methylnaphthalene 17 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 120; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Naphthalene 11 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 121; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Phenanthrene 11 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 122; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF Pyrene 11 μg/kg 3.8 μg/kg 8, p. 122; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 2

CR08 0709SF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 52 ng/kg 4.3 ng/kg 8, p. 66; 16, p. 3; 65, p. 1

CR08 0709SF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 6.6 ng/kg 4.3 ng/kg 8, p. 66; 16, p. 3; 65, p. 1

CR08 0709SF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.57J (5.7) ng/kg 4.3 ng/kg 8, p. 66; 16, p. 3; 17, pp.8, 9; 18, pp. i, 1; 65, p. 1

CR08 0709SF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.4J (14) ng/kg 4.3 ng/kg 8, p. 66; 16, p. 3; 17, pp. 8, 9; 18, pp. i, 1; 65, p. 1

CR08 0709SF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.4J (14) ng/kg 4.3 ng/kg 8, p. 66; 16, p. 3; 17, pp. 8, 9; 18, pp. i, 1; 65, p. 1

CR08 0709SF Cadmium 0.52J (0.73) mg/kg 0.57 mg/kg 8, p. 304; 16, p. 3; 17, p. 8, 18; 18, pp. i, 1; 66, p. 1

CR08 0709SF Chromium 15 mg/kg 1.1 mg/kg 8, p. 304; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 1

CR08 0709SF Copper 12 mg/kg 2.9 mg/kg 8, p. 304; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 1

CR08 0709SF Lead 30 mg/kg 1.1 mg/kg 8, p. 304; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 1

CR08 0709SF Mercury 0.11U mg/kg 0.11 mg/kg 8, p. 304; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 1

CR08 0709SF Nickel 8.7 mg/kg 4.6 mg/kg 8, p. 304; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 1

CR08 0709SF Zinc 50 mg/kg 6.9 mg/kg 8, p. 304; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 1

Contaminated Surface Soil Samples

CR09 0709SF Benzo(a)anthracene 100 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Benzo(a)pyrene 110 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Benzo(k)fluoranthene 110 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Carbazole 37 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Chrysene 140 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

24 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

TABLE 3: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 Samples –2009

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration MRL References

CR09 0709SF Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e 26J (26) μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 17, pp. 8, 14; 18, pp. i, 1; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Fluoranthene 140 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Fluorene 5.2 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 83 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF 2-Methylnaphthalene 110 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 123; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Naphthalene 84 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 124; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Phenanthrene 94 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 125; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Pyrene 150 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 125; 16, p. 4; 64, p. 2

CR09 0709SF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 710 ng/kg 3.9 ng/kg 8, p. 67; 16, p. 4; 65, p. 1

CR09 0709SF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 150 ng/kg 3.9 ng/kg 8, p. 67; 16, p. 4; 65, p. 1

CR09 0709SF Copper 45 mg/kg 3.2 mg/kg 8, p. 306; 16, p. 4; 66, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Lead 290 mg/kg 1.3 mg/kg 8, p. 306; 16, p. 4; 66, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Mercury 0.37 mg/kg 0.14 mg/kg 8, p. 306; 16, p. 4; 66, p. 2

CR09 0709SF Zinc 760 mg/kg 7.7 mg/kg 8, p. 306; 16, p. 4; 66, p. 2

CR13 0709SF Anthracene 290J (290) μg/kg 25 μg/kg 8, p. 135; 16, p. 3; 17, pp. 8, 14; 18, pp. i, 2; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Benzo(a)anthracene 530 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Benzo(a)pyrene 560 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Benzo(k)fluoranthene 780 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Carbazole 68 μg/kg 25 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Chrysene 800 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 98 μg/kg 25 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Fluoranthene 730 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Fluorene 25 μg/kg 25 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 330 μg/kg 25 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF 2-Methylnaphthalene 520 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 8, p. 135; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Naphthalene 270 μg/kg 25 μg/kg 8, p. 136; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Phenanthrene 210 μg/kg 25 μg/kg 8, p. 137; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF Pyrene 780 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 8, p. 137; 16, p. 3; 64, p. 3

CR13 0709SF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1,000 ng/kg 4.7 ng/kg 8, p. 72; 16, p. 3; 65, p. 2

CR13 0709SF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 180 ng/kg 4.7 ng/kg 8, p. 72; 16, p. 3; 65, p. 2

CR13 0709SF Copper 57 mg/kg 4.6 mg/kg 8, p. 316; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 2

25 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

TABLE 3: Analytical Results for Source No. 1 Samples –2009

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration MRL References

CR13 0709SF Zinc 160 mg/kg 11 mg/kg 8, p. 316; 16, p. 3; 66, p. 2

Notes:

( ) Although not required by the HRS for source data, concentration shown in parentheses was adjusted based on bias in accordance with References 17, p. 8, and 18, pp. i, 1, 2, to show the relative increase over the background level. CR Clinch River
ID Identification HpCDD Heptachlorodibenzodioxin HpCDF Heptachlorodibenzofuran HxCDD Hexachlorodibenzodioxin J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate (Ref. 8, pp. 53, 98, 277)
MRL Minimum reporting limit μg/kg Micrograms per kilogram mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram ng/kg Nanograms per kilogram SF Surface soil SFD Surface soil duplicate U The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit (Ref. 8, pp. 98, 277)

26 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Source No. 1 is an area of contaminated soil resulting from discrete operations (e.g., disposal practices) around the process area (Refs. 8, pp. 9, 14 through 21, 29 , 30; 10, pp. 6, 47; 11, pp. 21, 38 through 42, 47, 48, 49; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation reco rd). Source No. 1 samples contain anthracene; benzo(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; benzo(k)fluoranth ene; carbazole; chrysene; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; fluoranthene; fluorene; indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene; 2-methlynaphthalene; napht halene; phenanthrene; pyrene; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF; 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD; 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD; 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD; cadmium; chromium; copper; lead; manganese; mercury; nickel; silver; and zinc (see Tables 2 and 3 of this HRS documentation record).

During the 2009 TDEC site reassessment, no examined portion of the CRC property, including Source 1, contained a functioning and maintained run-on cont rol or runoff management system (Ref. 39). Therefore, a containment factor value of 10, as noted below in Table 4, was assigned for the surface water migration pathway (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1, and Table 4-2).

Analytical results for sediment samples collected from the Emory River, which receives runoff from Source No. 1, indicate that a release of hazardous s ubstances has occurred to the surface water migration pathway, as documented in Section 4.0 of this HRS documentation record.

TABLE 4: Containment Factors for Source No. 1

Containment Description Containment Factor Value References

Gas release to air NS NA

Particulate release to air NS NA
Release to ground water NS NA
Release via overland migration or flood: no engineered maintained cover or functioning and maintained run-on control system or runoff management system is present. 10 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1; 8, pp. 1, 2, 30, 33, 34, 35; 10, pp. 6, 33, 39, 40; 14, pp. 164 through 174, 186, 187; 39

Notes:

NA Not applicable NS Not scored

27 Source CharacterizationSource No: 1

2.4.2.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

The mass of CERCLA hazardous substances contained in Source No. 1 is not known. The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier A, hazardous constituent quantity, as required by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

The mass of CERCLA hazardous substances, pollutant s, and contaminants contained in Source No. 1 cannot be adequately quantified or verified. The informa tion available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity, as required by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2.

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

The depth of the contaminated soil source is not known and the extent of the source has not been determined. The information available is not suffi cient to evaluate Tier C, volume, as required by Reference 1, Table 2-5.

Volume Assigned Value: 0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Source No. 1 contains multiple discrete areas of c ontaminated soil where facility operations and/or disposal occurred; however, the extent and continuity of contamination between discrete areas in Source No. 1 is not known (Refs. 8, pp. 15, 18, 20, 21, 30; 11, pp. 21, 38 through 42, 47 through 49; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Therefore, the ar ea of Source No. 1 is undetermined, but greater than

zero.

Sum (square feet [ft 2 ]): >0 Equation for Assigning Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-5): Area (A)/34,000 Area Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

Source No. 1 is assigned a source HWQ value that is u ndetermined, but greater than zero (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5).

Source HWQ Value: >0

28 Source CharacterizationSUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

TABLE 5: Summary of Source Descriptions

Source No. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Source Hazardous Constituent Quantity Complete? (Yes/No) Containment Factor Value by Pathway

Ground Water (Ref. 1, Table 3-2) Surface Water Overland/ Flood (Ref. 1, Table 4-2) Air

Gas (Ref. 1, Table 6-3) Particulate (Ref. 1, Table 6-9)

1 >0 No NS 10 NS NS

Notes:

NS Not scored Also see Table 4 and Section 2.4.2.1. 5 of this HRS documentation record.

Sum of Source Hazard Waste Quantity Values: >0

Other Possible Sources

Black Liquor Pond: Wastes from paper mill operations were dumped on the CRC property into an unlined surface impoundment (black liquor pond), located on the southern portion of the property (Refs. 8, p. 29; 10, p. 6; 14, p. 155). The CRC property fl ooded in the fall of 1990 and washed black liquor and coal tar waste water into the Emory River (Ref. 14, p. 8). From May 1990 to March 1991, TDHE collected surface water samples from the surface impoundment (black liquor pond). The samples contained arsenic, acetone, toluene, and xylenes (Refs. 8, p. 29; 14, pp. 13, 16, 63, 64, 113, 114). In 2011, TDEC observed liquid in the pond; however, it is not known if this liquid is black liquor (Ref. 45,

p. 1).

Former Coal Tar Pond : Wastes from paper mill operations were also dumped on the CRC property into an unlined surface impoundment (former coal tar pond), located on the northwestern side of the property (Refs. 10, p. 6; 11, pp. 7, 11). The CRC property fl ooded in the fall of 1990 and washed black liquor and coal tar waste water into the Emory River (Ref. 14, p. 8). From May 1990 to March 1991, TDHE collected surface water samples from the surface im poundment (former coal tar pond). The samples contained arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead , manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc, acetone and phenols (Refs. 14, pp. 14, 16, 63, 64, 113, 114). In the late 1990s, the property owner (owner’s name unknown) paved the northern portion of the CRC property, including the coal tar pond (Refs. 10, p. 6; 39; 45, p. 1). In 2012, during the EPA removal action, a soil boring was advanced through the concrete at the former location of the coal ta r pond to a depth of 35 feet bgs. Black liquor was observed in the boring (Ref. 45, pp. 1, 19, 21).

Waste Paper Piles : Wastes from paper mill operations were dumped on the CRC property in multiple waste paper piles, including: (1) waste paper pile 1, located about 525 feet north of the former paper and pulp mill building; (2) waste paper pile 2, located ad jacent to the black liquor pond; (3) waste paper pile 3, located about 100 feet northwest of the former pape r and pulp mill building, and (4) waste paper pile 4, located on a concrete slab inside a fenced enclosure on the southern portion of Parcel 002.00 (Refs. 8, p. 29; 10, p. 6; 14, pp. 169 through 183, 185). Fr om May 1990 to March 1991, TDHE collected surface soil samples from waste paper pile 1 and waste paper pile 2. The samples contained arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, zinc, aldrin, acetone, benzene, methylene chloride, MEK, and xylenes (Ref. 14, pp. 16, 63, 64, 80, 81, 113, 114).

Residual Releases from Tanks and Containers: In 2005, Shaw observed about 106 damaged, leaking, or open containers (55-gallon drums and two 250-gallon totes) containing various oily liquid wastes in and

29 Source Characterizationaround the chipper shed. The oily liquid wastes were suspected to contain lubricant oils, white paper and black paper liquor waste, water, and other waste. Notable dark staining was observed in the area near the leaking containers (Ref. 10, pp. 39, 51, 52). In 2009, TDEC personnel observed the same drums observed by Shaw in 2005 as well as several large tanks, in cluding a 600,000-gallon AST, on the CRC property (Ref. 8, pp. 1, 3, 29, 37). In September 2011, a waste sample was collected of the liquid within a 15,000­ gallon AST located southeast of the former paper an d pulp mill building. This sample contained PAHs, specifically benzo(a)pyrene, which exceeded its National Recommended Water Quality Criteria value (Refs. 59, pp. 3, 5, 6, 11; 61, p. 1). In Februa ry 2012, EPA removed all drums and containers from the CRC property and excavated a UST, which contained a pproximately 38,500 gallons of black liquor that was located southeast of the former paper and pul p mill building. Once the UST was removed, black liquor and associated sludge were observed in the tank pit. This material was removed; however, about 6 inches of water containing black liquor was noted seeping into the excavated tank pit (Refs. 45, pp. 19, 21, 22, 24, 26).

Mill By-product : During the 2005 TBA Phase II investigation, two samples were collected from the interior of the paper and pulp mill building (Ref. 11, p. 16). One composite sample (SS-CRCB-A5-21­ 00-01) was collected from material located on the floor of the paper and pulp mill building, and one composite sample (SS-CRCB-A5-22-00-01) was collected from a sump (Ref. 11, pp. 16, 21, 83 through 86). These samples contained arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, and zinc (Ref. 11, pp. 26, 27, 50).

In 2009, TDEC observed a by-product from facility op erations, which appeared to be a dry, powdery, dark brown to gray, extremely fine-grained material that was approximately 3 inches thick, overlying the concrete floor of the paper and pul p mill building (Ref. 39). This same by-product was observed within 1 to 2 feet outside the paper and pulp mill building along the eastern side of the building, adjacent to the Emory River (Ref. 45, p. 1). A composite sample (CR10 0709SF) was collected and contained PAHs; dioxins and furans; PCBs; and metals including an thracene; benzo(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; benzo(k)fluoranthene; carbazole; chrysene; dibenzo(a, h)anthracene; fluoranthene; fluorene; indeno(1,2,3­ cd)pyrene; 2-methlynaphthalene; naphthalene; phenant hrene; pyrene; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ HpCDF; 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD; PCB-1242; PCB-1254; cadmium; chromium; copper; lead; mercury; nickel; and zinc (Refs. 8, pp. 9, 68, 87, 126, 127, 128, 308; 39). The paper and pulp mill building was demolished in 2010 (Ref. 45, p. 1). The demolition debris was not removed from the property but was pushed into vats inside the former paper and pulp mill building (Ref. 45, pp. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10). By-product on the floor inside the building was not removed before demolition (Ref. 45, p. 1). By-product is still present on the ground surface at the location of th e former paper and pulp mill building and in surrounding areas (Refs. 8, pp. 36, 39; 45, p. 1). No functioning and maintained run-on control or runoff management system was observed in the vicinity of the former paper and pulp mill building during the 2009 TDEC site reassessment (Refs. 39; 45, p. 1).

30 Source Characterization4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT – Emory/Clinch Rivers

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

The hazardous substance migration pathway includes bot h the overland segment and the in-water segment that hazardous substances would take as they migrat e away from sources. The overland segment begins at the source and proceeds downgradient to the probabl e point of entry (PPE) to surface water. The inwater segment at the PPE continues in the dir ection of flow (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.1.1).

Surface water runoff from Source No. 1 follows land t opography, which slopes east and south, and enters the Emory River along the CRC property’s eastern bounda ry between the two observed release samples (CR03 0709SD and CR06 0709SD); this area generally co rresponds to the area of the property described as the “drainage” area (Refs. 8, p. 6; 11, pp. 11, 17 , 88; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). From the southern corner of Source No. 1 (SS-CRCB-A4-27-00-01), surface water runoff flows about 230 feet southeast to the western bank of the Emory River. From the central portion of Source No. 1 (CR09 0709SF), surface water runoff fl ows about 270 feet southeast to the western bank of the Emory River. From the northern corner of Source No. 1 (CR13 0709SF), surface water runoff flows about 90 feet east to the western bank of the Emory River (see Figures 1 and 3 of this HRS documentation record). The PPE extends about 250 feet along Emory River between the two observed release samples (CR03 0709SD and CR06 0709SD) (see Figures 1 and 3 of this HRS documentation record). Samples CR06 0709SD/CR06 0709SDD and CR03 0709SD were each coll ected at the confluence of drainage ditches originating on the Clinch River Corporation property and the Emory River, and are located within the PPE (Ref. 8, p. 7; 67, p. 1).

The surface water migration pathway target distance limit (TDL) begins at sample location CR03 0709SD, which is the downstream boundary of the PPE. From this portion of the PPE, flow continues in a northerly, then southeasterly direction for about 11 miles and empties into the Clinch River. Flow continues in the Clinch River for about 4 miles, where the 15-mile surface water migration pathway TDL is completed (Refs. 3; 19; 21; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). The Emory River and the Clinch River are part of the Watts Bar Reservoir, which w as constructed in 1942 (Refs. 34, p. 1; 48, p. i). The flow rate for the Emory River at Oakdale, Te nnessee, located about 6.9 miles upstream of the CRC property, is 1,469 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Refs. 22, pp. 1, 3; 35). The CRC property is located within the 100-year floodplain of the Emory River (Refs. 23; 24, p. 1).

31 SW-Overland/Flood Migration Component4.1.2.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Direct Observation

Evidence of observed release by direct observation includes:

 Several spills, releases, and NPDES permit viola tions have been documented throughout the facility’s operational history. Between 1988 and 1989, the facility illegally discharged process water, cooling water, and waste paper wash runo ff into the Emory River (Ref. 14, pp. 345, 354, 357, 359, 361, 367). Discoloration (black and gray) of the Emory River directly adjacent to and downstream of the CRC property was also documente d during this period (Ref. 14, pp. 354, 360, 362).

 The CRC property flooded in 1990, and as a resu lt, waste paper, black liquor, and coal tar wastewater were deposited into the Emory River (Ref. 14, pp. 8, 159 through 161, 164 through 166, 186, 187).

 During the 1991 TDHE site inspection, TDHE observed (1) black liquor and coal tar leaching into the Emory River from the CRC property below the water line, and (2) that the south waste paper impoundment had partially collapsed into the Emory River, dumping waste paper and waste paper rolls into the river (Ref. 14, pp. 8, 14, 16, 165 through 168, 186, 187).

 In June 2002, the owner of Par cel 003.01 was convicted of intent ionally releasing approximately 500,000 gallons of process liquid containing black liquor and solids, the contents of an AST, onto the ground and into the Emory River on February 14, 1999, during a period of heavy rains (Refs. 7, p. 11; 46, p. 1; 47, p. 11; 62, p. 17).

Paper and pulp mill effluent can contain PAHs; dioxins a nd furans; and metals (Refs. 49, p. 7; 51, p. 10; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-7, 3-8, 3-11). PAHs are contained in coal tar (Refs. 9, p. 220; 14, p. 8; 30, pp. 9, 21). Dioxins and furans accumulate in the pulp and are ch emicals of concern in wastewater treatment sludge and in liquid (re-pulped) effluent (Ref. 50, pp. 6, 10). Metals, such as cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc can be cont ained in effluent and in pulp mill sludge (Refs. 50, p. 10; 51, pp. 1, 2, 3; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-11).

Chemical Analysis

Background Sample

The background sediment sample listed in Table 6 (CR02 0709SD) was collected during the 2009 TDEC site reassessment (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 7). Backgroun d sediment sample CR02 0709SD was collected from the Emory River adjacent to the CRC property at a depth of 0 to 4 inches below the surface water-sediment interface (bsw), upstream and outside the influence of Source No. 1 (Refs. 8, pp. 7, 30, 32, 358; 39; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). The sample was collected using a ponar dredge device (Refs. 8, p. 358; 39).

Background and observed release sediment samples were collected during the same sampling event, at the same depths, from similar soil types (silty sand with gravel and organics), and in accordance with the same sampling procedures (Refs. 8, p. 358; 16, p. 6; 39; 57, p. 1; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

The background sediment sample was collected in accordance with the EPA approved TDEC SAP and QAPP, specifically the EPA Region 4 SESD FBQSTP for Soil Sampling, SESDPROC-300-R1 (Refs. 8, pp. 327, 346, 359; 39). Logbook notes are provided in Reference 16. The chain-of-custody records are provided in References 64 and 66. The location of the sediment sample presented in Table 6 is depicted in Reference 8, page 30 (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

32 SW-Observed ReleaseTABLE 6: Background Sediment Sample – 2009

Sample ID Sample Location Distance from PPE Depth (inches bsw) Date Sampled References

CR02 0709SD Along the western bank of the Emory River, and south of Source No. 1 600 feet upstream of
PPE 0 to 4 07/21/2009 3; 8, pp. 6, 7, 30; 16, p. 7; 39; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record

Notes:

bsw Below the surface water-sediment interface CR Clinch River
ID Identification
PPE Probable point of entry SD Sediment

33 SW-Observed ReleaseBackground Concentrations

The background sediment sample listed in Table 7 was collected during the 2009 TDEC site reassessment (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 7). The background sediment sample w as analyzed for SVOCs and metals (Ref. 8, p. 3). SVOC analysis (EPA Methods 8270D and 8270SIM) was conducted by the EPA Region 4 SESD ASB in accordance with the ASB LOQAM (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 95). EPA Region 4 SESD verified SVOC data in accordance with the ASB LOQAM, EPA methods and guidelin es (Refs. 8, pp. 95, 98). Total metals were analyzed by CompuChem, currently known as Li berty, in accordance with EPA CLP SOW ILM05.3 (Ref. 8, pp. 272, 273, 284). EPA Region 4 SESD revi ewed the total metals data in accordance with the CLP SOW and EPA guidelines (Refs. 8, pp. 3, 273).

The MRLs are listed on the analytical data sheets in Reference 8, Appendix 1. Each MRL is samplespecific and analyte-specific and corresponds to the lo west quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared and any dilutions performed, as well as for percent moisture (Ref. 15). The MRLs are equivalent to SQLs as define d in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions (Refs. 1, Section 1.1; 8, pp. 53, 98; 15). The analytical data sheets are provided in Reference 8, Appendix 1.

TABLE 7: Analytical Results for Background Sediment Sample – 2009

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration MRL References

CR02 0709SD Benzo(a)anthracene 5.9 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.2U μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Carbazole 4.2U μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Chrysene 9.7 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4.2U μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Fluoranthene 16 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Fluorene 5.1 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4.2U μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD 2-Methylnaphthalene 56 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 99; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Naphthalene 27 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 100; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Phenanthrene 28 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 101; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Pyrene 12 μg/kg 4.2 μg/kg 8, p. 101; 64, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Chromium 4.4 mg/kg 1.3 mg/kg 8, p. 284; 66, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Copper 3.5 mg/kg 3.3 mg/kg 8, p. 284; 66, p. 1

CR02 0709SD Manganese 54 mg/kg 2.0 mg/kg 8, p. 284; 66, p. 1

Notes:

CR Clinch River ID Identification μg/kg Micrograms per kilogram mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
MRL Minimum reporting limit SD Sediment

34 SW-Observed ReleaseContaminated Samples

Sediment samples listed in Table 8 were collected duri ng the 2009 TDEC site reassessment (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 7). The samples were collected at a depth of 0 to 4 inches bsw along the western bank of the Emory River (Refs. 8, pp. 7, 30, 358; 39; see Figur e 4 of this HRS documentation record).

The samples were collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 SESD FBQSTP for Sediment Sampling, SESDPROC-200-R1 (Ref. 8, p. 358; 39). Logbook notes are provided in Reference 16. The chain-of-custody records are provided in References 64 and 66. The locations of the sediment samples presented in Table 8 are depicted in Reference 8, page 30 (see Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record).

TABLE 8: Contaminated Sediment Samples – 2009

Sample ID Sample Location Distance from PPE Depth (inches

bsw) Date Sampled References

CR06 0709SD Along the western bank of the Emory River, east of the former paper and pulp mill building 0 feet from the PPE 0 to 4 07/21/2009 3; 8, pp. 29, 30; 16, p. 8; 39; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record

CR06 0709SDD Along the western bank of the Emory River, east of the former paper and pulp mill building 0 feet from the PPE 0 to 4 07/21/2009 3; 8, pp. 29, 30; 16, p. 8; 39; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record

CR03 0709SD Along the western bank of the Emory River, northeast of the former paper and pulp mill building, about 250 feet downstream from CR06 0709SD and CR06 0709SDD 0 feet from the PPE 0 to 4 07/20/2009 3; 8, pp. 29, 30; 16, p. 6; 39; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record

Notes:

bsw Below the surface water-sediment interface CR Clinch River
ID Identification
PPE Probable point of entry SD Sediment SDD Sediment duplicate

35 SW-Observed ReleaseContaminated Concentrations

The sediment samples listed in Table 9 were collected during the 2009 TDEC site reassessment (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 7). The sediment samples were analyzed for SVOC s and total metals (Ref. 8, p. 3). SVOC analysis (EPA Methods 8270D and 8270SIM) was conducted by the EPA Region 4 SESD ASB in accordance with the ASB LOQAM (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 95). EPA Re gion 4 SESD verified SVOC data in accordance with the ASB LOQAM, EPA methods and guidelines (Refs. 8, pp. 95, 98). Total metals were analyzed by CompuChem, currently known as Liberty, in accordance with EPA CLP SOW ILM05.3 (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 272, 273, 290, 298, 300). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed the total metals data in accordance with the CLP SOW and EPA guidelines (Refs. 8, pp. 3, 273).

The MRLs are listed on the analytical data sheets in Reference 8, Appendix 1. Each MRL is samplespecific and analyte-specific and corresponds to the lo west quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared and any dilutions performed, as well as for percent moisture (Ref. 15). The MRLs are equivalent to SQL as define d in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions (Ref. 15). The analytical data sheets are provided in Reference 8, A ppendix 1 (Refs. 1, Section 1.1; 8, pp. 53, 98).

TABLE 9: Analytical Results for Contaminated Sediment Samples – 2009

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration MRL References

CR03 0709SD Benzo(a)anthracene 38 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10 μg /kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Carbazole 35 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Chrysene 110 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 5.7 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Fluoranthene 120 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Fluorene 40 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD 2-Methylnaphthalene 1,600 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 108; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Naphthalene 1,100 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 109; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Phenanthrene 690 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 110; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Pyrene 110 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 110; 64, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Chromium 18 mg/kg 1.4 mg/kg 8, p. 290; 66, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Copper 14 mg/kg 3.4 mg/kg 8, p. 290; 66, p. 1

CR03 0709SD Manganese 200 mg/kg 2.0 mg/kg 8, p. 290; 66, p. 1

CR06 0709SD Benzo(a)anthracene 38 μg/kg 4.4 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Benzo(k)fluoranthene 15 μg /kg 4.4 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Carbazole 31 μg/kg 4.4 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Chrysene 110 μg/kg 44 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 5.7 μg/kg 4.4 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

36 SW-Observed ReleaseTABLE 9: Analytical Results for Contaminated Sediment Samples – 2009

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration MRL References

CR06 0709SD Fluoranthene 130 μg/kg 44 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Fluorene 37 μg/kg 4.4 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 14 μg/kg 4.4 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD 2-Methylnaphthalene 1,400 μg/kg 44 μg/kg 8, p. 147; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Naphthalene 980 μg/kg 44 μg/kg 8, p. 148; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Phenanthrene 590 μg/kg 44 μg/kg 8, p. 149; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Pyrene 110 μg/kg 44 μg/kg 8, p. 149; 64, p. 4

CR06 0709SD Manganese 210 mg/kg 2.0 mg/kg 8, p. 298; 66, p. 3

CR06 0709SDD Benzo(a)anthracene 39 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8.6 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Carbazole 33 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Chrysene 120 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.0 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Fluoranthene 110 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Fluorene 43 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.5 μg/kg 4.3 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD 2-Methylnaphthalene 1,700 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 150; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Naphthalene 1,100 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 151; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Phenanthrene 720 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 152; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Pyrene 110 μg/kg 43 μg/kg 8, p. 152; 64, p. 5

CR06 0709SDD Manganese 250 mg/kg 2.0 mg/kg 8, p. 300; 66, p. 3

Notes:

CR Clinch River ID Identification
MRL Minimum reporting limit mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram μg/kg Micrograms per kilogram SD Sediment SDD Sediment duplicate

37 SW-Observed ReleaseAttribution

From 1929 to 2002, a paper and pulp mi ll operated on the CRC property (Refs. 8, p. 2; 10, pp. 4, 5; 14, pp. 22, 315). Former operations included manufactu ring corrugated containers using paperboard from pulp production (Ref. 14, pp. 256, 280, 315). The manufacturing process included partially digesting raw hardwood chips with sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, and live steam. The wood chips were further refined using a mechanical pulping process (Refs. 10, p. 6; 14, pp. 8, 211, 280, 400; 44, p. 10).

By-products of the paper manufacturing process incl uded paper waste, black liquor (spent processing waste), and coal tar constituents (Refs. 10, p. 6; 11, p. 6; 14, p. 8). Black liquor can be composed of phenols, sodium hydroxide, sodium oxide, and sulfur ; as well as metals, such as calcium and magnesium (Refs. 10, p. 6; 14, p. 8; 29, p. 19). Coal tar c onsists of PAHs, phenols, heterocyclic oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds (Refs. 9, p. 220; 14, p. 8; 30, p. 9). Dioxins, furans, P AHs, and metals were also produced as by-products of the paper manufacturing process (Refs. 49, p. 7; 51, p. 10; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-3, 3­ 4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11; 55, pp. 1, 2).

Waste paper, black liquor, and coal tar wastes were disposed of on the CRC property (Refs. 10, p. 6; 11,

p. 7; 14, pp. 8, 155, 156, 157, 169 through 183, 185). The black liquor and coal tar wastes were placed in two unlined surface impoundments (the black liquor pond and the former coal tar pond) and in drums (Refs. 10, p. 31; 11, pp. 7, 11; 14, pp. 8, 155). W aste paper was placed in piles located in various places around the process area (Refs. 10, p. 6; 14, pp. 169 through 181, 185).

Paper and pulp mill effluent can contain PAHs; dioxins a nd furans; and metals (Refs. 49, p. 7; 51, p. 10; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11; 55, pp. 1, 2). PAHs, such as fluoranthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and pyrene are contained in coal tar (R efs. 49, p. 7; 51, pp. 6, 10). Dioxins and furans accumulate in the pulp and are chemicals of concern in wastewater treatment sludge and in liquid (repulped) effluent (Ref. 50, pp. 6, 10). Metals, such as cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc can be contained in effluent and in pulp mill sludge (Refs. 50, p. 10; 51, pp. 1, 2, 3; 54, pp. 1-1, 3-10, 3-11).

Several spills, releases, and NPDES permit violations have been documented throughout the facility’s operational history. Between 1988 and 1989, the facility illegally discharged process water, cooling water, and waste paper wash runoff into the Emor y River (Ref. 14, pp. 345, 354, 359, 361, 367). Discoloration (black and gray) of the Emory River directly adj acent to and downstream of the CRC property was also documented during this period (Ref . 14, pp. 354, 357, 360, 362). In 2011, pipes and seeps that discharge into the Emory River were observed along the eastern boundary of the CRC property (Ref. 45, pp. 12 through 18). The northern portion of the CRC property (near waste paper pile 1) flooded in 1990, and as a result, waste paper, black liquor, and coal tar waste water were deposited into the Emory River (Ref. 14, pp. 8, 159 through 161, 164 through 166, 186, 187). During the 1991 TDHE site inspection, TDHE observed (1) black liquor and co al tar leaching into the Emory River from the CRC property below the water line, and (2) that the s outh waste paper impoundment had partially collapsed into the Emory River, dumping waste paper and waste paper rolls into the river (Ref. 14, pp. 8, 14, 16, 165 through 168, 186, 187). In June 2002, the owner of Parcel 003.01 was convicted of intentionally releasing approximately 500,000 gallons of process liqui d containing black liquor and solids, the contents of an AST, onto the ground and into the Emory Ri ver on February 14, 1999, during a period of heavy rains (Refs. 7, p. 11; 46, p. 1; 47, p. 11; 62, p. 17).

Surface water runoff from Source No. 1 follows land t opography, which slopes east and south, and enters the Emory River along the CRC property’s eastern boundary between observed release samples CR03 0709SD and CR06 0709SD, which is the PPE for the surface water migration pathway (Refs. 8, p. 6; 11, pp. 11, 17, 88; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

Surface and subsurface soil samples collected fro m Source No. 1 (contaminated soil resulting from discrete operations (e.g., disposal practices) around th e process area) contained PAHs; dioxin and furans; and metals (Refs. 8, pp. 67, 72, 123, 124, 125, 135, 136, 137, 306, 316; 27, pp. 1171, 1173, 1174, 1189,

38 SW-Observed Release1192, 1195, 1196; see also Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Specifically, the samples contained benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, naphthalene, 1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ HpCDF, cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, and me rcury, among others (see Tables 2 and 3 of this HRS documentation record). Analyses of sediment samples collected from the western bank of the Emory River (which abuts the CRC property) w ithin and downstream of the PPE contained dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, naphthalene , chromium, copper, and manganese, among others, at concentrations above background levels (see Tables 8 and 9 of this HRS documentation record). The presence of these hazardous substances in Source No. 1 and in sedimen t samples collected from the western bank of the Emory River, and the lack of a functioning and mainta ined run-or control and runoff management system indicate that Source No. 1 is not contained (Refs. 1, Table 4-2; 39).

Current property uses do not suggest another source of contamination to the Emory River in the vicinity of the Clinch River Corporation property (Ref. 57, p. 1). No NPL sites are located within a one-mile radius of the CRC property (Ref. 31, pp. i, 3). Master Wood Products (MWP), also known as the Christmas Lumber Company Truss Shop, is locat ed approximately 0.91 mile upstream of the CRC property and the CRC PPE and background sediment samples (Ref. 31, pp. i, 5, 9, 10, 11). MWP produces non-upholstered wooden household furniture (Ref . 31, p. 4). As of September 2, 2000, MWP was listed as an inactive RCRA facility (Ref. 31, p. 4).

The hazardous substances listed below have been doc umented in Source No. 1 as well as in sediments of the Emory River, indicating that a release has occu rred or is occurring at the CRC property (see Tables 2 and 3 in Section 2.2.2 for Source No. 1, and Table 9 in Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed Release, of this HRS documentation record).

Hazardous Substances in the Release:

Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Carbazole Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Chromium Copper Manganese Surface Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550

39 SW-Observed Release4.1.2 DRINKING WATER THREAT WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

No drinking water intakes are located on the Emory River or on the Clinch River within the 15-mile downstream TDL (Refs. 3; 32, pp. i, 4). The City of Harriman provides municipal water to area residents from a surface water intake located on the Emory Ri ver about 1.33 miles upstream of the CRC property (Refs. 3; 32, pp. i, 1, 2, 4). The drinking wate r threat was not scored because it is not expected to contribute significantly to the overall site score.

40 SW-Drinking Water Threat4.1.3.2 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persi stence/Bioaccumulation

Table 10 lists toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulati on factor values for hazardous substances that were detected in the source samples and have containment factor values exceeding 0. The combined toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation factor values are assigned in accordance with Reference 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1. Table 9 of this HRS documentation reco rd previously identified those hazardous substances associated with observed release.

TABLE 10: Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Source No. Observed Release? (Yes/No) Toxicity Factor Value Persistence Factor Value 1 Bioaccu

mulatio n

Value 2 Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumu

lation Factor Value (Ref. 1, Table 4

- 16) Reference

Anthracene 1 No 10 0.4000 50,000 2E+5 2, p. BI-1

Benzo(a)anthracene 1 Yes 1,000 1 50,000 5E+7 2, p. BI-2

Benzo(a)pyrene 1 No 10,000 1 50,000 5E+8 2, p. BI-2

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 Yes 100 1 50,000 5E+6 2, p. BI-2

Carbazole 1 Yes 10 0.4000 500 2,000 2, p. BI-2

Chrysene 1 Yes 10 1 5.0 50 2, p. BI-3

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e 1 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5E+8 2, p. BI-4

Fluoranthene 1 Yes 100 1 500 5E+4 2, p. BI-2

Fluorene 1 Yes 100 1 500 5E+4 2, p. BI-6

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 Yes 1,000 1 50,000 5E+7 2, p. BI-8

2-Methlynaphthalene 1 Yes 1,000 0.4000 50,000 2E+7 2, p. BI-9

Naphthalene 1 Yes 1,000 0.4000 50,000 2E+7 2, p. BI-9

Phenanthrene 1 Yes 0 0.4000 5,000 0 2, p. BI-9

Pyrene 1 Yes 100 1 50,000 5E+6 2, p. BI-10

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1 No 10,000 1 50,000 5E+8 2, p. BI-6

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1 No 10,000 1 50,000 5E+8 2, p. BI-7

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1 No 10,000 1 50,000 5E+8 2, p. BI-7

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1 No 10,000 1 5,000 5E+7 2, p. BI-7

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1 No 10,000 1 50,000 5E+8 2, p. BI-7

Cadmium 1 No 10,000 1 5,000 5E+7 2, p. BI-2

41 SW-Human Food Chain ThreatTABLE 10: Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Source No. Observed Release? (Yes/No) Toxicity Factor Value Persistence Factor Value 1 Bioaccu

mulatio n

Value 2 Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumu

lation Factor Value (Ref. 1, Table 4

- 16) Reference

Chromium 1 Yes 10,000 1 500 5E+6 2, p. BI-3

Copper 1 Yes 0 1 500 0 2, p. BI-3

Lead 1 No 10,000 1 5.0 50,000 2, p. BI-8

Manganese 1 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5E+8 2, p. BI-8

Mercury 1 No 10,000 0.4000 50,000 2E+8 2, p. BI-8

Nickel 1 No 10,000 1 0.5 5,000 2, p. BI-9

Silver 1 No 100 1 50 5,000 2, p. BI-10

Zinc 1 No 10 1 5.0 50 2, p. BI-12

Notes:

1 Persistence factor value for rivers

2 Bioaccumulation factor value for fresh water HpCDD Heptachlorodibenzodioxin HpCDF Heptachlorodibenzofuran HxCDD Hexachlorodibenzodioxin

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5E+8 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1.4)

42 SW-Human Food Chain Threat4.1.3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

TABLE 11: Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Contaminated soil resulting from discrete operations (e.g., disposal practices) around the process

area Undetermined, but greater than zero

Source No. 1 contains multiple discrete areas of c ontaminated soil where facility operations and/or disposal occurred; however, the extent and continuity of contamination between discrete areas in Source No. 1 is not known (Refs. 8, pp. 15, 18, 20, 21, 30; 11, pp. 21, 38 through 42, 47 through 49; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Therefore, the ar ea of Source No. 1 is undetermined, but greater than

zero.

The Source HWQ value for Source No. 1 is undeterm ined but greater than zero. Because actual contamination at Level II concentrations is present in a fishery, and the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined, the hazardous waste quantity receives a minimum factor value of 100 for the surface water migration pathway (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2).

Sum of Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Values: >0 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2)

4.1.3.2.3 CALCULATION OF HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

The waste characteristics factor category was obtaine d by multiplying the toxicity/persistence and HWQ factor values, subject to a maximum product of 1 x 10 8 . Then, this product was multiplied by the bioaccumulation potential factor value, subject to a maximum product of 1 x 10 12 . Based on this product, a value was assigned in accordance with Reference 1, Table 2-7.

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1 x 10 6

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value × Bioaccumulation Factor Value (50,000): 5 x 10 10

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7)

43 SW-Human Food Chain Threat4.1.3.3 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT TARGETS

Level I Concentrations

No Level I concentrations have been documented.

Level II Concentrations

Level II concentrations have been documented in the Emory River. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), TDEC, and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), the Emory River is fished adjacent to the CRC property and w ithin the PPE. This area receives runoff from Source No. 1, and the fish are consumed (Refs. 33, p. 1; 42, pp. 1, 2; 57, p. 1; 63, p. 1). During the 2010 TDEC ESI, several fishermen were observed fishing on the Emor y River adjacent to the facility (Refs. 33, pp. 1, 2, 3; 63, p. 1). Sediment samples CR03 0709SD, CR06 0709SD, and CR06 0709SDD were collected within the extent of the PPE which is within the fi shery (Refs. 8, p. 7; 57, pp. 1, 2). The sampling locations are shown in Reference 8, page 30 ( see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

Most Distant Level II Sample

Investigation: 2009 Site Reassessment Sample ID: CR03 0709SD Sample Medium: Sediment Hazardous Substances: Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Carbazole, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Chromium, Copper, and Manganese Location: Emory River, 0 feet from the PPE References: 3; 8, pp. 30, 109, 290; see Tables 8 and 9 of this HRS documentation record

TABLE 12: Level II Fishery

Identity of Fishery Extent of Level II Fishery (Relative to PPE) References

Emory River The extent of the Level II fishery is about 250 feet as measured from CR03 0709SD to CR06 0709SD; both samples were collected within the extent of the PPE 3; 8, pp. 30; 33, p. 1; 42, pp. i, 1; 57, pp. 1, 2; 63, p. 1 (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record)

4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual

As noted in Section 4.1.2.1.1, an observed re lease of hazardous substances having a bioaccumulation factor value of 500 or greater is documented in perennial surface water body within a fishery (Emory River) (see Tables 9 and 11 and Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). The Emory River (Watts Bar Reservoir) is used for recreational and subsisten ce fishing, and recreational activities such as boating and swimming (Refs. 21; 33, p .1; 42, pp. 1, 2; 48; 57, pp. 1, 2; 63, p. 1). According to the USFWS, TDEC, and TWRA, the Emory River is fished in the vicinity of the CRC property, which receives runoff from Source No. 1, and the fish are consumed (Refs. 33, p. 1; 42, pp. i, 1; 57, pp. 1, 2; 63, p. 1; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). During the 2009 and 2010 TDEC sampling events, several fishermen were observed fishing on the Emory River between the observed release samples (Refs. 33, pp. 1, 2; 57, pp. 1, 2). The types of fish caught and consumed from the Emory River include catfish, crappie (black, blacknose, and white), and bass (largemouth, rock, smallmouth, striped, spotted, white, and yellow), bluegill, redear, and redbreast (Refs. 42, pp. 1, 2, 3; 57, p. 1). A fish consumption advisory for mercury is currently in effect for the Emory River; however, the limits of this advisory (upstream of river

44 SW-Human Food Chain Threatmile 12.4) are located upstream from the CRC property (a t approximately river mile 11.5) (Refs. 19; 37,

p. 2).

Sample ID: CR03 0709SD Level I/Level II/Potential: Level II Hazardous Substances: Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Carbazole, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fl uorene, 2-Methylnapht halene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Chro mium, Copper, Manganese Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000

Sample ID: CR06 0709SD Level I/Level II/Potential: Level II Hazardous Substances: Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Carbazole, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Manganese Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000

Sample ID: CR06 0709SDD Level I/Level II/Potential: Level II Hazardous Substances: Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Carbazole, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Manganese Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000

Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 45 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1) 4.1.3.3.2 Population

4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations

No Level I concentrations have been documented.

4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations

The Emory River is evaluated as a Level II fishery. According to the USFWS, TDEC, and TWRA, the Emory River is fished adjacent to the CRC property and within the PPE. This area receives runoff from Source No. 1, and the fish are consumed (Refs. 33, p. 3; 42, pp. i, 1; 57, pp. 1, 2; 63, p. 1; see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). Information is not available on the annual production of fish caught in the Emory River within the TDL. Therefore, the annual production for the water body is undetermined but greater than zero because the Emory River is a fishery (Refs. 33, p. 1; 42, pp. i, 1; 63, p. 1).

Identity of Fishery Annual Production (pounds) Population Value (P i ) (Ref. 1, Table 4-18) References

Emory River >0 0.03 3; 22, pp. 1, 3; 33, pp. 1, 2, 3; 57, pp. 1, 2; 63 p. 1

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.2.2)

45 SW-Human Food Chain Threat4.1.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

No wetlands are located in the immediate vicinity of the CRC property (Ref. 43, p. 1). No sensitive environments or sensitive species are located on the Emory River within the 15-mile downstream TDL (Refs. 38, p. 1; 63, p. 1). The environmental threat was not scored because it is not expected to significantly contribute to the overall site score.

46 SW-Environmental Threat