HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD – REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Astoria Marine Construction Company 

Contact Persons:

Site Inspection: Ecology and Environment, Inc., June 2010, Site Inspection, Astoria Marine 

Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon. 

Documentation 

Record:

Linda Costello, Ecology & Environment Inc., Seattle, WA 

Ken Marcy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA 

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The ground water migration pathway, ground water-to-surface water component of the surface water 

migration pathway, soil exposure pathway, and air migration pathway were not scored as part of this 

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) evaluation. These pathways/components were not included because a 

release to these media does not significantly affect the overall site score and because the overland 

flow/flood component of the surface water migration pathway produces an overall site score well above 

the minimum required for the site to qualify for inclusion on the National Priorities List. These pathways 

are of concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and may be evaluated during future 

investigations.
This page intentionally left blank.
1 

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Astoria Marine Construction Company 

EPA Region 10 Date Prepared: March 2011 

CERCLIS No.: OR0002392793 

Street Address of Site*

: 92134 Front Road, Astoria, Oregon 97103 

County and State: Clatsop, Oregon 

General Location in the State: Northwest

Topographic Map: Astoria, Oregon-Washington, 1949, photorevised 1984 (Ref. 3). 

Latitude: 46° 08’ 43.113” North Longitude: 123° 51’ 40.439” West (Ref. 3 as 

determined at the location of the covered marine ways) 

Scores

Ground Water Pathway NS

Surface Water Pathway 100.00

Soil Exposure Pathway NS

Air Pathway NS

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00

 NS = Not Scored

*

 - The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general 

area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening 

information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or threatened 

releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as 

where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring 

and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the 

preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where 

the contamination has come to be located.
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND FLOW/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENTS SCORESHEET

2

Factor categories and factors Maximum Value Value Assigned

Drinking Water Threat

Likelihood of Release:

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow:

2a. Containment 10

2b. Runoff 25

2c. Distance to Surface Water 25

2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow [lines 2a(2b + 2c)] 500

3.Potential to Release by Flood:

3a. Containment (Flood) 10

3b. Flood Frequency 50

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

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

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

Waste Characteristics:

6. Toxicity/Persistence (a)

7. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a)

8. Waste Characteristics 100

Targets:

9. Nearest Intake 50

10. Population:

10a. Level I Concentrations (b) 

10b. Level II Concentrations (b)

10c. Potential Contamination (b)

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

11. Resources 5

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

Drinking Water Threat Score:

13. Drinking Water Threat Score [(lines 5x8x12)/82,500, subject to a 

max of 100]

100 NS
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND FLOW/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENTS SCORESHEET

3

Factor categories and factors Maximum Value Value Assigned

Human Food Chain Threat

Likelihood of Release:

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

Waste Characteristics:

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 5 x 108

16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320

Targets:

18. Food Chain Individual 50 45

19. Population

19a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0

19b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.03

19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b) 0.031003

19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) (b) 0.061003 

20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) (b) 45.061003

Human Food Chain Threat Score:

21. Human Food Chain Threat Score [(lines 14x17x20)/82,500, subject 

to max of 100]

100 96.13
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND FLOW/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENTS SCORESHEET

4

Factor categories and factors Maximum Value Value Assigned

Environmental Threat

Likelihood of Release:

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

Waste Characteristics:

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 5 x 108

24. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320

Targets:

26. Sensitive Environments

26a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0

26b. Level II Concentrations (b) 225

26c. Potential Contamination (b) 0

26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c) (b) 225

27. Targets (value from line 26d) (b) 225

Environmental Threat Score:

28. Environmental Threat Score [(lines 22x25x27)/82,500, subject to a 

max of 60]

60 60.00

29. Watershed Scorec (lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum of 

100)

100 100.00

30. Component Score (Sof)

c (highest score from line 29 for all 

watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100)

100 100.00

a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. b Maximum value not applicable.

c Do not round to nearest integer.
5

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

S pathway S2

 pathway 

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) NS NS

Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) 100.00 10,000 

Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS NS

Air Migration Score (Sa) NS NS

S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a 10,000 

(S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a)/4 2,500 

 / (S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a)/4 50.00
6

REFERENCES

Reference 

Number Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 14, 1990, Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, 40 

CFR Part 300, Appendix A, 14 pages excerpted. A full copy of the HRS Rule is available in the 

Regional docket, upon request.

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2004, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM),

Appendix BI, 12 pages excerpted. A complete copy of SCDM is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm.

3. U.S. Geological Survey, 1949, photorevised 1984, 1:24,000 topographic map, Astoria, OregonWashington, 1 page.

4. Ecology and Environment, Inc, June 2010, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Site Inspection

Report, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon, 1206 pages.

5. Ecology and Environment, Inc., March 2008, Final Astoria Marine Construction Company, Sampling 

and Quality Assurance Plan, Astoria, Oregon, 274 pages.

6. Ecology and Environment, Inc., October 2009, Final Astoria Marine Construction Company, Phase II 

Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan, Astoria, Oregon, 130 pages.

7. Ecology and Environment, Inc., April 1999, Astoria Marine Construction Co., Preliminary Assessment 

Report, Astoria, Oregon, 29 pages. 

8. Ecology and Environment, September 2010, Surface Water Migration Pathway Target Distance Limit 

Map, 1 page.

9. Ecology and Environment, September 2010, Zone of Actual Contamination, 1 page.

10. Ecology and Environment, Inc, 2008, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon, Field 

Logbooks for Site Inspection, Logbooks 1 and 2. Logbook 1: 4 pages. Logbook 2: 7 pages.

11. Ecology and Environment, Inc, 2009, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon, Field 

Logbook for Phase II Site Inspection, Logbook 1, 40 pages excerpted. 

12. United States Environmental Protection Agency, November 1996, Using Qualified Data to Document 

an Observed Release and Observed Contamination, EPA 540-F-94-028, 18 pages. 

13. Ecology and Environment, Inc., September 2010, Sources 1 and 2, Areas of Contamination, Astoria 

Marine Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon, 1 page.

14. State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality, June 6, 1996, memorandum to file from 

Rebecca Paul, Northwest Region, regarding Astoria Marine Construction Company, 10 pages.

15. State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality, September 10, 2007, memorandum to Chuck 

Harmon, NWR Site Assessment from Steve Fortuna, NWR Site Assessment regarding Review 

Comments: Astoria Marine Construction Co., Preliminary Assessment Report, Astoria, Oregon, TDD: 

98-10-0006, Region 10 START, Contract 68-W6-008, prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc., 

April 1999, 4 pages.

16. Ecology and Environment, Inc., November 7, 2007, memorandum to Brandon Perkins, Task Monitor, 

EPA, Seattle, WA, Mail Stop ECL-112 from Renee Nordeen, START-3 Project Leader, E & E, Seattle, 

WA regarding current site conditions, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon, 6 

pages.

17. Pedersen, Dick, December 19, 1997, Manager, Cleanup Policy and Program Development, Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality letter to Donald Fastabend, Astoria Marine Construction 

Company regarding Notice to Owners and Operators of Decision to List Contaminated Property on the 

Confirmed Release List (CRL), Astoria Marine Construction Co, 3 pages.

18. DEQ Site Assessment Program, June 25, 1997, Gil Wistar, Voluntary Cleanup and Site Assessment 

Section, DEQ Northwest Region, Strategy Recommendation revision, Astoria Marine Construction 

Co., 2 pages. 

19. Larson Construction Co., Inc., No Date, Invoice No. 6692 documenting services rendered to remove 

contaminated soil, Astoria Marine Construction Co., 1 page.

20. USA Waste Services, Inc, June 30, 1997, Invoice #0147816 documenting the disposal of 233.10 tons of 
7

REFERENCES

Reference 

Number Description of the Reference

material from Astoria Marine, 1 page.

21. Fastabend, Donald F., June 9, 1997, Astoria Marine Construction Company (AMCCO) letter to Ms. 

Mary Wahl, Administrator, Waste Management & Cleanup Division, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) responding to letters received by AMCCO from ODEQ, 6 pages.

22. Smith, D, February 24, 1999, Ecology and Environment, Inc, START, Contact Report for Donald 

Fastabend, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Owner/Operator, Astoria Marine Construction 

Company, 1 page.

23. Smith, D, March 5, 1999, Ecology and Environment, Inc, START, Contact Report for Leonard Hansen,

Fire Marshall, City of Astoria Fire Department, regarding Astoria Marine Construction Company, 1 

page.

24. Limnology and Oceanography, January 1969, Volume XIV, Number 1, article by Clark, Shirley M., 

and George R. Snyder, Timing and Extent of a Flow Reversal in the Lower Columbia River, U.S. 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, 17 pages excerpted.

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 30, 2010, SCDM, Appendix BI for tributyltin 

chloride, 1 page excerpted. A complete copy of SCDM is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm. 

26. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2001 – 2002, Steelhead Harvest Summary, 44 

pages.

27. United States Geological Survey, USGS, Daily Streamflow Conditions, gauging stations map, webpage 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual?referred_module=sw&site_no=14246900&por_14246900_2=54

6919,00060,2,1968,2009&year_type=W&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MMDD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list accessed on September 21, 

2010, 3 pages.

28. United States Geological Survey, USGS, 14246900 Columbia River @ Beaver Army Terminal Near 

Quincy, Oregon, webpage http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?14246900 accessed on September 21, 

2010, 3 pages.

29. United States Geological Survey, USGS, Surface-Water Annual Statistics for the Nation, USGS 

14246900 Columbia River @ Beaver Army Terminal Near Quincy, Oregon, webpage 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/rt accessed on September 21, 2010, 3 pages.

30. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Coho Salmon, webpage http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/SalmonPopulations/Coho/Index.cfm accessed on August 31, 2010, 2 pages.

31. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Lower Columbia River Coho ESU - Threatened, webpage 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Coho/COLCR.cfm accessed on 

August 31, 2010, 2 pages. 

32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Chum Salmon, webpage http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/SalmonPopulations/Chum/Index.cfm accessed on September 22, 2010, 2 pages.

33. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Columbia River Chum ESU - Threatened, webpage http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESASalmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Chum/CMCOL.cfm accessed on August 31, 2010, 1 page. 

34. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Columbia River 

Chum Salmon ESU map, map date February 23, 1999, 1 page.

35. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Chinook Salmon, webpage http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/SalmonPopulations/Chinook/Index.cfm accessed on September 22, 2010, 2 pages.

36. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine 
8

REFERENCES

Reference 

Number Description of the Reference

Fisheries Service, Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU - Threatened, webpage 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Chinook/CKLCR.cfm accessed 

on August 31, 2010, 2 pages.

37. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Lower 

Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU map, map date March 9, 1999, 1 page. 

38. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, Ocean Salmon and Columbia River Program, 

Select Area Commercial, 2010, webpage 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/comm_fishery_updates.asp 

accessed on September 23, 2010, 8 pages.

39. United States Geological Survey, USGS, Surface-Water Annual Statistics for Oregon, USGS 14251500 

Youngs River near Astoria, webpage 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/annual/?referred_module=sw&site_no=14251500&por_14251500_1

=546932,00060,1,1928,1958&start_dt=1958&end_dt=1958&year_type=W&format=html_table&date_

format=YYYY-MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list accessed 

on September 23, 2010, 2 pages.

40. Wydoski, Richard S. and Richard R. Whitney, 2003, Inland Fishes of Washington, cover pages, pages 

V through VIII, pages 74 and 75, 9 pages excerpted.

41. Woodke, Mark, September 24, 2010, START-3 Chemist, Ecology & Environment Inc. memorandum 

to Linda Costello, Project Manager, Ecology & Environment Inc. regarding TDD: 10-08-0004, 

example sample detection limit calculations, 41 pages.

42. Ecology and Environment, September 2010, Surface Water Migration Pathway Target Distance Limit –

Wetlands Map, 2 pages. 

43. Wistar, Gil, March 4, 1997, Voluntary Cleanup and Site Assessment Section, DEQ Northwest Region, 

DEQ Site Assessment Program – Strategy Recommendation, Astoria Marine Construction Co, 5 pages.

44. Ecology and Environment, Inc, 2007, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon, Field 

Logbook for Site Inspection Site Visit, Logbook 1, 4 pages. 

45. Krone, Cheryl A., et. al., December 4, 1988, A Method for Analysis of Butyltin Species and 

Measurement of Butyltins in Sediment and English Sole Livers from Puget Sound, 18 pages. 

46. Ecology and Environment, Inc, May 2008, Chain of Custody Records for the Site Inspection conducted 

at Astoria Marine Construction Company, Astoria, Oregon, 26 pages.

47. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Profile, Coho Salmon, (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 

webpage http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E08A on December 

16, 2010, 4 pages.

48. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Profile, Chum Salmon, (Oncorhynchus keta), 

webpage http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E09Q on December 

16, 2010, 4 pages. 

49. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Profile, Chinook Salmon, (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), webpage http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06D 

on December 16, 2010, 6 pages. 

50. Knutsen, Chris, December 17, 2010, District Fish Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife –

North Coast Watershed District letter to Linda Costello, Ecology and Environment, Inc., regarding the 

Zone of Actual Contamination” for the Astoria Marine Construction Company, 3 pages. 

51. Nordeen, Renee, June 24, 2009, START-3 Project Leader, Ecology and Environment, Inc,

memorandum to Brandon Perkins, Task Monitor, EPA regarding Astoria Marine Construction 

Company Additional Information Search, Astoria, Oregon, 6 pages. 

52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 30, 2010, SCDM, Appendix BI for dibutyltin 

dichloride, 1 page excerpted. A complete copy of SCDM is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm. 
9

ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SUMMARY:

The Astoria Marine Construction Company (AMCCO) is an active marine shipyard located at the 

confluence of Jeffers Slough and the Lewis and Clark River within the city limits of Astoria, Oregon (Ref. 

4, p. 15). A map depicting features at the shipyard follows this section (Figure 1). The facility occupies 

approximately 8 acres of low-lying land adjacent to tidal flats along the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4, p. 

15). 

The facility has been active since 1924 (Ref. 4, p. 16). The shipyard primarily constructed wooden boats 

and ships, except for brief periods during World War II (WW II) and the Korean Conflict, when the 

company had major contracts with the military to construct metal-armored warships and to refurbish 

previously mothballed warships (Ref. 15, p. 1). 

The AMCCO property includes one ship-sized assembly/maintenance building, storage areas, various work 

shops, and administrative offices (Ref. 4, p. 15). Formerly, a large boathouse was located near the center of 

the property; this building burned down in 1962 (Ref. 7, p. 9; Ref. 23, p. 1). Four marine ways (Marine 

Ways 1 through 4) extend from the west side of the property into the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4, p. 15). 

Marine Ways 3 and 4 are covered (Ref. 4, p. 15). A dike adjacent to the Lewis and Clark River begins just 

north of the main building, the covered marine ways, and work space areas, and extends north along the 

river toward Highway 101 (Ref. 4, pp. 15 and 16). The southern side of the property is adjacent to Jeffers 

Slough and has been configured as a dock along the entire south-side frontage (Ref. 4, p. 16). The flow of 

Jeffers Slough into the Lewis and Clark River is controlled through a tide box that closes at high tide and 

allows the slough to flow one way into the river (Ref. 4, p. 16). 

Until 1989, AMCCO used copper-based paints containing tributyltin (Ref. 7, p. 10). Tributyltin is used as 

an anti-fouling agent to keep grass, marine organisms, and barnacles off of the bottom of boats (Ref. 7, p. 

10). Tributyltin is known to be toxic to marine organisms and in approximately 1989, it became illegal to 

use paints containing this compound, except in small quantities (Ref. 7, p. 10). 

Until approximately 1997, a portion of the repair and maintenance operations at the facility consisted of 

sandblasting old paint off ships and boats; the paint typically contained cupric oxide (i.e., a copper 

compound), lead, and tributyltin (Ref. 7, p. 10; Ref. 14, p. 1). AMCCO stored spent sandblast grit, which 

contained paint chip residue, in two distinct piles immediately south of the main building (Ref. 7, p. 10). 

The piles were not lined or covered (Ref. 7, p. 10). 

By the end of June 1997, AMCCO had removed both waste grit piles and disposed of them at the Hillsboro 

Landfill in Hillsboro, Oregon (Ref. 18, p. 1; 19; and 20). However, some grit remained beneath these 

former piles and also was present in several other areas in the middle of the property (Ref. 18, p. 1). 

A burn area (also called a burn pit) is present near the northwest corner of the property where excess 

solvents and waste petroleum have been burned (Ref. 7, p. 13). AMCCO is known to have been in the 

practice of burning waste paint thinner since at least 1997 (Ref. 43, p. 1 and 2). 

The EPA has conducted a site inspection (SI) of the AMCCO facility (Ref. 4). The SI was conducted in 

two field events (Ref. 4, p. 12). The SI Phase I field work was conducted in 2008 and included sampling of 

possible sources on the AMCCO property including the former grit piles area, the current grit pile area, the 

burn area, and areas of petroleum-stained soil; sampling ground water on the property, and sampling 

sediments from adjacent surface water bodies (Ref. 4, pp. 22, 23, and 28). The SI Phase II field work was 

conducted in 2009 and included sampling possible sources of contamination outside of the AMCCO 

property and expanded sampling of sediments immediately offshore of the AMCCO facility as well as 

sediments further downstream (Ref. 4, pp. 23, 24, 25, and 28).
10

The site as scored includes the Former Grit Storage Area (Source 1) and the Burn Area (Source 2), and 

associated releases from AMCCO to the Lewis and Clark River and Jeffers Slough. In relation to targets in 

the surface water migration pathway, it has been documented that fishing is occurring on the Columbia 

River and Youngs Bay within the Target Distance Limit (TDL) (see Section 4.1.3.3.2.3) and that fishing 

occurs within the zone of actual contamination (see Section 4.1.3.3.2.2). Additionally, Federal-listed 

threatened salmon habitat is located within the zone of actual contamination (see Section 4.1.4.3.1.2).

The ground water-to-surface water component of the surface water migration pathway was not scored 

because the overland flow/flood component of the surface water migration pathway generated a higher 

score. However, the ground water-to-surface water component of the surface water migration pathway is of 

concern since it is known that contaminated ground water underlying the AMCCO property is present. This 

contaminated ground water may be impacting adjacent surface water features. The average annual 

precipitation near AMCCO of 66.4 inches per year recharges the alluvial aquifers with fresh water (Ref. 4, 

p. 59). An upper, perched water table exists, which is subject to extremes of seasonal variations in rainfall

(Ref. 4, p. 59). Six temporary well points (MW01GW through MW05GW and BK01GW) were installed 

into the shallow ground water zone for collection of ground water samples during Phase I of the SI (Ref. 4, 

pp. 48 and 60). All ground water samples were analyzed for organotins, Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals, 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Ref. 4, pp. 48 and 60). 

Sample results from the 2008 EPA Phase I SI indicated the presence of one organotin (tributyltin), 10 TAL 

Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc), and two

VOCs (toluene and m,p-xylenes) at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations in 

shallow ground water at AMCCO (Ref. 4, p. 60). Chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc were 

detected at elevated concentrations in all five ground water samples, while arsenic, barium, lead, and 

vanadium were detected at elevated concentrations in four of the five ground water samples (Ref. 4, p. 60). 

The elevated concentrations of organotins and the two VOCs were found in sample MW02GW, collected 

from the burn area (Ref. 4, p. 60). The VOCs detected at elevated concentrations are associated with 

petroleum products (Ref. 4, p. 60). In addition, the highest metals concentrations observed in ground water 

at AMCCO were primarily those detected in this sample (MW02GW) (Ref. 4, p. 60). All of the detected 

contaminants (with the exception of vanadium and toluene) were similarly detected in source samples and 

can be attributed to AMCCO (Ref. 4, p. 60). 
Approximate Scale in Feet

0 25 50

N

Lewis and Clark River

Dredging

Fill Area

Aboveground

Tanks

Machine

Shop

Gas Tank

and Pump

Flow Direction to Youngs Bay

Current

Grit

Storage

Area

Former Grit

Storage Area

Winch House

Work

Shop

Dock

Pipe

Shop

Mooring

Basin/Dredged

Area

Tide Box

Jeffers Slough

Lumber Storage

Drum Storage

Burn

Area

Marine Way 1 Marine Way 3

Marine Way 2 Marine Way 4

New Sandblast Shop

Lumber

Storage

Storage

Property Boundary

Jeffers Slough

(controlled Flow

at High Tide)

Office

Notes: All locations are approximate.

& 

ecology and environment, inc.

International Specialists in the Environment

Seattle, Washington

ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION CO.

Astoria, Oregon

Date:

9/22/10

Drawn by:

AES

Figure 1

SITE MAP

10:START-3\07080005\fig 1

Covered

Marine

Way and

Work

Space

Covered

Marine

Way and

Work

Space
12

This page intentionally left blank.
13

SD – Characterization and Containment

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

Number of the Source: 1 

Name and description of the source: Former Grit Storage Area (Contaminated Soil) 

Source 1 consists of contaminated soil in the former grit storage area. Until approximately 1997, a portion 

of the repair and maintenance operations at the AMCCO facility consisted of sandblasting old paint off 

ships and boats; the paint typically contained cupric oxide (i.e., a copper compound), lead, and tributyltin 

(Ref. 7, p. 10; Ref. 14, p. 1). In June 1996, it was observed that AMCCO stored spent sandblast grit, which 

contained paint chip residue, in two distinct piles immediately south of the main building (Ref. 7, p. 10; 

Ref. 14, pp. 1, 2, 6, and 7). One was an historic or “former” waste grit pile and one was a newer “current” 

waste grit pile (Ref. 4, p. 17; Ref. 14, p. 2). These piles are also referred to as the “old” or “sandblast 

drench pile” and “new” or “sandblast newer material” piles, respectively (Ref. 14, pp. 2 and 4; Ref. 21, p. 

1). The piles were not lined or covered (Ref. 7, p. 10). The lack of a cover can be viewed in photographs of 

the piles taken in 1996 (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 2, 6, and 7).

In June 1996, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality visited AMCCO and collected one sample 

from each of these waste sandblast grit pile for toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP) and 

Aquatic Toxicity tests (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 2, and 3). TCLP results indicated the presence of barium at 0.5 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) and lead at 0.1 mg/L in the sample from the old grit pile (sandblast drench pile 

on the laboratory data sheet); and barium at 0.6 mg/L, chromium at 0.13 mg/L and lead at 0.1 mg/L in the 

sample from the new grit pile (sandblast newer material on the laboratory data sheet) (Ref. 14, pp. 2 and 4). 

The sample from the old waste grit pile failed the Aquatic Toxicity test by killing more than 50 percent of 

the test organisms within 96 hours; and in fact killing 100 percent of the test organisms in that time frame 

(Ref. 16, p. 2). 

In March 1997, AMCCO submitted two waste grit samples to a fixed laboratory for TCLP analysis (Ref. 

21, pp. 3 and 5). It is speculated that these samples were collected as a preliminary step toward disposing of 

this waste (Ref. 21). TCLP results indicate the presence of barium at 1.0 mg/L, cadmium at 0.02 mg/L, 

chromium at 0.03 mg/L, and lead at 0.19 mg/L in the sample from the old grit pile; and barium at 0.7 mg/L 

and chromium at 0.11 mg/L in the sample from the new grit pile (Ref. 21, pp. 1 and 5). 

By the end of June 1997, AMCCO had removed both waste grit piles and disposed of them at the Hillsboro 

Landfill in Hillsboro, Oregon (Ref. 18, p. 1; Ref. 19; Ref. 20). However, some grit remained beneath these 

former piles and also was present in several other areas in the middle of the property (Ref. 18, p. 1). 

Since the grit removal action in 1997, new grit piles have been placed west of the Former Grit Storage Area 

(Ref. 4, p. 20). These piles consist primarily of green diamond grit and mill scale (i.e., removed iron oxide) 

(Ref. 4, p. 20). On Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record, these piles are located in the area labeled 

the Current Grit Storage Area. 

During the EPA Phase I SI conducted in April and May 2008, six surface soil samples (FG01SS through 

FG06SS) were collected from the former grit storage area (Ref. 4, pp. 28 and 53; Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 6). 

Each sample contained visible grit (Ref. 4, p. 53; Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 6). A background soil sample 

(BK01SS) was in an area outside of the operational areas of the facility (Ref. 4, pp. 36 and 48; Ref. 10, 

Logbook 1, p. 4). The samples from the Former Grit Storage Area were collected on May 2, 2008 (Ref. 10, 

Logbook 2, p. 6). The background sample was collected on May 1, 2008 (Ref. 10, Logbook 1, p. 4). 
14

Sampling for the EPA 2008 Phase I SI was conducted in accordance with EPA-approved Sampling and 

Quality Assurance Plans (SQAPs) (Ref. 4, p. 28; Ref. 5; Ref. 6). All surface soil samples were collected 

using dedicated stainless steel spoons (Ref. 4, p. 29). Collected sample material was placed into a dedicated 

stainless steel bowl, thoroughly homogenized, and then placed into a pre-labeled container (Ref. 4, p. 29). 

Samples FG01SS through FG06SS were collected from 0 to 3 inches below ground surface (bgs) (Ref. 10, 

Logbook 2, p. 6). The background sample was collected from 0 to 6 inches bgs (Ref. 10, Logbook 1, p. 4). 

All samples were stored on ice in coolers continuously maintained under the custody of the sample team 

(Ref. 4, p. 29; Ref. 46, pp. 4, 5, 15, and 16). All data underwent data validation. Analytical results were 

validated by EPA chemists and reviewed by an E & E chemist (Ref. 4, pp. 32, 323 through 326, and 376 

through 381). 

Former grit storage area samples and the background sample were analyzed for organotins (Krone Method) 

and TAL Metals (EPA ILM05.4) (Ref. 4, pp. 32, 48, 53, 323, and 376; Ref. 45). Results of samples from 

the former grit storage area indicate the presence of several organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin 

dichloride, and tributyltin chloride) and several metals (chromium, copper, and nickel) at significant 

concentrations with respect to background concentrations (Ref. 4, p. 53). 

Location of the source, with reference to a map:

Contaminated soil in the former grit storage area is located approximately 15 feet south of the covered 

marine way and work space building (Ref. 4, p. 36). 

Containment

Release to Surface Water via Overland Migration and/or Flood: The source consists of contaminated soil. 

The soil is exposed and can be viewed to contain grit (Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 6). Photographs of samples 

collected from the former grit storage area provide evidence that soil at this location is exposed (Ref. 4, pp. 

121, 122, and 123). A surface water containment factor value of 10 is assigned because there is no 

evidence of maintained engineered cover, or functioning and maintained run-on control system and runoff 

management system (Ref. 1, p. 51609, Table 4-2; Ref. 4, p. 53; Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 6).

Containment Value: 10
15

SD – Hazardous Substances 

Source No.: 1 

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

EPA Site Inspection (Ref. 4): 

- Source Samples: Six surface soil samples were collected from the former grit storage area during 

the EPA 2008 Phase I SI as presented in Table 1 below:

Table 1

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

FG01SS

(MJ8GN1)

(08184105)

Soil 5/2/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride

770 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 

32, 331, and 

386; Ref. 

41, p. 2

Tributyltin 

Chloride

330 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Copper 485 mg/kg 2.79 mg/kg

FG02SS

(MJ8GN2)

(08184106)

Soil 5/2/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride

490 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 

32, 332, and 

387; Ref. 

41, p. 2

Tributyltin 

Chloride

160 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Copper 293 mg/kg 2.68 mg/kg

FG03SS

(MJ8GN3)

(08184107)

Soil 5/2/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride

1300 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 

32, 333, and 

388; Ref. 

41, p. 2

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

760 JL ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Tributyltin 

Chloride

430 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Copper 386 mg/kg 2.94 mg/kg

Nickel 754 JH mg/kg

(AC = 559 mg/kg)

4.70 mg/kg

FG04SS

(MJ8GN4)

(08184108)

Soil 5/2/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride

2100 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 

32, 334, and 

389; Ref. 

41, pp. 2 and 

3 

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

3300 JL ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Tributyltin 

Chloride

1500 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Chromium 769 JH mg/kg

(AC = 596 mg/kg)

1.20 mg/kg

Copper 793 mg/kg 3.01 mg/kg

Nickel 377 JH mg/kg

(AC = 279 mg/kg)

4.81 mg/kg

FG05SS

(MJ8GN5)

(08184109)

Soil 5/2/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride

1900 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 

32, 335, and 

390; Ref. 

41, p. 3

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

1300 JL ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Tributyltin 

Chloride

320 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Chromium 1500 JH mg/kg

(AC = 1163 mg/kg)

1.07 mg/kg

Copper 546 mg/kg 2.68 mg/kg
16

Table 1

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

Nickel 845 JH mg/kg

(AC = 626 mg/kg)

4.28 mg/kg

FG06SS

(MJ8GN6)

(08184110)

Soil 5/2/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride

2900 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 

32, 336, and 

391; Ref. 

41, p. 3

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

2300 JL ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Tributyltin 

Chloride

600 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Chromium 984 JH mg/kg

(AC = 763 mg/kg)

1.04 mg/kg

Copper 424 mg/kg 2.60 mg/kg

Nickel 985 JH mg/kg

(AC = 730 mg/kg)

4.16 mg/kg

Notes:

a – The sample quantitation limit used meets the definition provided in Ref. 1, p. 51586 (Ref. 41, p. 1).

Key:

AC =

H =

J = 

L =

mg/kg =

ug/kg = 

Adjusted concentration as per Ref. 12, pp. 8 and 18.

High bias (Ref. 4, p. 326).

The associated value is an estimated quantity (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Low bias (Ref. 4. p. 326).

Milligrams per kilogram.

Micrograms per kilogram.

EPA SI (Ref. 4): 

- Background Concentrations: For illustration purposes, “native” soil samples are presented to 

demonstrate that the levels of naturally occurring metals in the former grit storage area soil samples

are higher than they are in the surrounding surface soils, One background soil sample was collected 

during the EPA SI as presented in Table 2 below: 

Table 2

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Background Sample

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

BK01SS

(MJ8GN0)

(08184104)

Native 

Soil

5/1/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride 91 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32, 330, and 385; 

Ref. 10, 

Logbook 1, p. 4; 

Ref. 41, p. 3

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

65 JL ug/kg

(AC = 650 ug/kg) 5 ug/kg

Tributyltin 

Chloride 38 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Chromium 144 JH mg/kg 1.09 mg/kg

Copper 95.3 mg/kg 2.73 mg/kg

Nickel 71.2 JH mg/kg 4.37 mg/kg
17

Table 2

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Background Sample

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

Notes:

a – The sample quantitation limit used meets the definition provided in Ref. 1, p. 51586 (Ref. 41, p. 1).

Key:

AC =

H =

J = 

L =

mg/kg = 

ug/kg =

Adjusted concentration as per Ref. 12, pp. 7 and 8.

High bias (Ref. 4, p. 326).

The associated value is an estimated quantity (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Low bias (Ref. 4. p. 326).

Milligrams per kilogram.

Micrograms per kilogram.
18

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

Butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, tributyltin chloride, chromium, copper, and nickel.
19

SD – Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No.: 1 

2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Available data are insufficient to document a hazardous constituent quantity (Ref. 1, p. 51590, Section 

2.4.2.1.1). 

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): NS 

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Available data are insufficient to document a hazardous wastestream quantity (Ref. 1, p. 51591, Section 

2.4.2.1.2). 

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (W): NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Available data are insufficient to document a volume measure (Ref. 1, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.3).

Volume Assigned Value (V): 0 

2.4.2.1.4 Area

The area described by contaminated soil points FG01SS through FG06SS is approximately 530 square feet 

(Ref. 13).

The value assigned to the area measure is calculated as follows:

530 square feet / 34,000 = 0.016

Area Assigned Value (A): 0.016 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, p. 51591): 0.016 
20

SD – Characterization and Containment

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

Number of the source: 2 

Name and description of the source: Burn Area (Contaminated Soil) 

Source 2 consists of contaminated soil. A burn area (also called a burn pit) is present near the northwest 

corner of the property where excess solvents and waste petroleum have been burned (Ref. 7, p. 13). 

AMCCO is known to have been in the practice of burning waste paint thinner since at least 1997 (Ref. 43, 

p. 2). During the site visit conducted in 2007 for the SI, the property owner indicated that AMCCO was

still in the practice of applying solvents to this area to help start fires (Ref. 4, p. 20; Ref. 44, p. 3). This area 

was estimated during the SI site visit to measure approximately 50 feet in diameter and was estimated to be

within 30 to 40 feet of the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4, p. 20; Ref. 44, p. 3). 

During the EPA Phase I SI conducted in April and May 2008, four surface soil samples were collected from 

the burn area (BA01SS through BA04SS; Ref. 4, pp. 28 and 52; Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 3). A background 

soil sample (BK01SS) was in an area outside of the operational areas of the facility (Ref. 4, pp. 36 and 48; 

Ref. 10, Logbook 1, p. 4). All of these samples were collected on May 1, 2008 (Ref. 4, p. 32; Ref. 10, 

Logbook 1, p. 4; Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 3). The burn area samples and the background sample were all 

described as consisting of dry, dark-brown or dark gray soil with some organic material present (Ref. 4, p. 

32). 

Sampling for the EPA 2008 Phase I SI was conducted in accordance with EPA-approved SQAPs (Ref. 4, p. 

28; Ref. 5; Ref. 6). All surface soil samples were collected using dedicated stainless steel spoons (Ref. 4, p. 

29). Collected sample material was placed into a dedicated stainless steel bowl, thoroughly homogenized, 

and then placed into a pre-labeled container (Ref. 4, p. 29). Sample BA01SS was collected from 0 to 3 

inches bgs, sample BA02SS was collected from 0 to 2 inches bgs, sample BA03SS was collected from 0 to 

4 inches bgs, and sample BA04SS was collected from 0 to 3 inches bgs (Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 3). The 

background sample was collected from 0 to 6 inches bgs (Ref. 10, Logbook 1, p. 4). 

All samples were stored on ice in coolers continuously maintained under the custody of the sample team 

(Ref. 4, p. 29; Ref. 46, pp. 3, 4, and 15). All data underwent data validation. Analytical results were 

validated by EPA chemists and reviewed by an E & E chemist (Ref. 4, pp. 32, 183 through 189, 323 

through 326, and 376 through 381). 

The burn area had an odor that would be expected from a burn pile (Ref. 4, p. 52). Burn area samples and 

the background sample were analyzed for organotins (Krone Method), semivolatile organic compounds 

(SVOCs; EPA SOM01.2), TAL Metals (EPA ILM05.4), and VOCs (EPA SOM01.2) (Ref. 4, pp. 32, 48, 52, 

183, 323, and 376; Ref. 45). Results of samples from the burn area indicate the presence of three organotins 

(butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride), 11 TAL Metals (antimony, arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc), and four VOCs 

(methylcyclohexane, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylenes, and o-xylene) at significant concentrations with respect to 

background concentrations (Ref. 4, p. 52). 
21

Location of the source, with reference to a map:

Contaminated soil in the burn area is on the northwestern portion of the property near the Lewis and Clark 

River (Ref. 4, p. 36). 

Containment:

Release to Surface Water via Overland Migration and/or Flood: The source consists of contaminated soil. 

Photographs of samples collected from the burn area provide evidence that soil at this location is exposed 

(Ref. 4, pp. 114 and 115). A surface water containment factor value of 10 is assigned because there is no 

evidence of maintained engineered cover, or functioning and maintained run-on control system and runoff 

management system (Ref. 1, p. 51609, Table 4-2; Ref. 4, p. 114).

Containment Value: 10
22

SD – Hazardous Substances 

Source No.: 2 

2.2.2 Hazardous Substances

EPA Site Inspection (Ref. 4): 

- Source Samples: Four surface soil samples were collected from the burn area during the EPA 2008 

Phase I SI as presented in Table 3 below: 

Table 3

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

BA01SS

(MJ8GM6)

(08184100)

Soil 5/1/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride 

440 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32, 191, 

327, and 382; Ref. 

Antimony 14.6 mg/kg 7.07 mg/kg 41, p. 3

Arsenic 112 mg/kg 1.18 mg/kg

Chromium 1410 JH mg/kg

(AC = 1093 

mg/kg)

1.18 mg/kg

Copper 5390 mg/kg 2.94 mg/kg

Nickel 688 JH mg/kg

(AC = 510 mg/kg)

4.71 mg/kg

Zinc 2670 JL mg/kg 7.07 mg/kg

BA02SS

(MJ8GM7)

(08184101)

Soil 5/1/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride

530 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32, 194, 

197, 328, and 383; 

Tributyltin Ref. 41, pp. 3 and 4

Chloride

630 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Antimony 40.2 mg/kg 8.47 mg/kg

Arsenic 412 mg/kg 1.41 mg/kg

Cadmium 6.6 mg/kg 0.71 mg/kg

Chromium 596 JH mg/kg

(AC = 462 mg/kg)

1.41 mg/kg

Copper 60500 mg/kg 3.53 mg/kg

Lead 2170 JL mg/kg 1.41 mg/kg

Nickel 1570 JH mg/kg

(AC = 1163 mg/kg)

0.71 mg/kg

Silver 3.7 mg/kg 1.41 mg/kg

Zinc 11000 JL mg/kg 8.47 mg/kg

Ethylbenzene 1200 ug/kg 69 ug/kg

m,p-Xylenes 43000 ug/kg 69 ug/kg

Methylcyclohe

xane

7100 ug/kg 69 ug/kg

o-Xylene 23000 ug/kg 69 ug/kg

BA03SS

(MJ8GR0)

(08184134)

Soil 5/1/2008 Antimony 23.5 mg/kg 7.36 mg/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32 and 

Arsenic 1450 mg/kg 1.23 mg/kg 345; Ref. 41, p. 4

Cadmium 18.4 mg/kg 0.61 mg/kg

Copper 118000 mg/kg 3.07 mg/kg

Lead 10100 JL mg/kg 1.23 mg/kg

Silver 8.7 mg/kg 1.23 mg/kg
23

Table 3

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

Zinc 17000 JL mg/kg 7.36 mg/kg

BA04SS

(MJ8GR1)

(08184135)

Soil 5/1/2008 Arsenic 420 mg/kg 2.04 mg/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32 and 

Cadmium 7.7 mg/kg 1.02 mg/kg 346; Ref. 41, p. 4

Cobalt 61.9 mg/kg 10.18 mg/kg

Copper 9430 mg/kg 5.09 mg/kg

Lead 545 JL mg/kg 2.04 mg/kg

Manganese 3350 mg/kg 3.05 mg/kg

Nickel 560 JH mg/kg

(AC = 415 mg/kg)

8.15 mg/kg

Zinc 9660 JL mg/kg 12.22 mg/kg

Notes:

a – The sample quantitation limit used meets the definition provided in Ref. 1, p. 51586 (Ref. 41, p. 1). 

Key:

AC =

H =

J = 

L =

mg/kg =

ug/kg = 

Adjusted concentration as per Ref. 12, pp. 8 and 18.

High bias (Ref. 4, p. 326).

The associated value is an estimated quantity (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Low bias (Ref. 4. p. 326).

Milligrams per kilogram.

Micrograms per kilogram.

EPA SI (Ref. 4): 

- Background Concentrations: For illustration purposes, “native” soil samples are presented to 

demonstrate that the levels of naturally occurring metals in the burn area soil samples are higher 

than they are in the surrounding surface soils. One background soil sample was collected during 

the EPA 2008 Phase I SI as presented in Table 4 below: 

Table 4

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Background Sample

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

BK01SS

(MJ8GN0)

(08184104)

Native 

Soil

5/1/2008 Butyltin 

Trichloride 91 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32, 202, 330, and 

385; Ref. 10, 

Logbook 1, p. 

4; Ref. 41, pp. 

4 and 5

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

65 JL ug/kg

(AC = 650 ug/kg) 5 ug/kg

Tributyltin 

Chloride 38 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Antimony 4.5 U mg/kg 4.5 mg/kg

Arsenic 2.2 mg/kg 1.09 mg/kg

Cadmium 0.49 JQ mg/kg 0.55 mg/kg

Chromium 144 JH mg/kg 1.09 mg/kg

Cobalt 16.9 mg/kg 5.46 mg/kg

Copper 95.3 mg/kg 2.73 mg/kg
24

Table 4

EPA 2008 Phase I SI

Background Sample

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Type Date

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita Reference

Lead 116 JL mg/kg

(AC = 167 

mg/kg)

1.09 mg/kg

Manganese 411 mg/kg 2.73 mg/kg

Nickel 71.2 JH mg/kg 4.37 mg/kg

Silver 1.1 U mg/kg 1.1 mg/kg

Zinc 423 JL mg/kg

(AC = 635 

mg/kg)

6.55 mg/kg

Ethylbenzene 3.7 U ug/kg 3.7 ug/kg

m,p-Xylenes 3.7 U ug/kg 3.7 ug/kg

Methylcyclohexane 3.7 U ug/kg 3.7 ug/kg

o-Xylene 3.7 U ug/kg 3.7 ug/kg

Notes:

a – The sample quantitation limit used meets the definition provided in Ref. 1, p. 51586 (Ref 41, p. 1).

Key:

AC =

H =

J = 

K =

L =

mg/kg = 

Q =

U =

ug/kg =

Adjusted concentration as per Ref. 12, pp. 7, 8, and 18.

High bias (Ref. 4, p. 326).

The associated value is an estimated quantity (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Unknown bias (Ref. 4, p. 326). 

Low bias (Ref. 4. p. 326).

Milligrams per kilogram.

Detected concentration is below the method reporting limit/Contract Required Quantitation Limit, but is above the 

method detection limit (Ref. 4, p. 326).

The material was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated value (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Micrograms per kilogram.
25

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

Butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, tributyltin chloride, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 

cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, zinc, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylenes, methylcyclohexane, and oxylene. 
26

SD- Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No.: 2 

2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Available data are insufficient to document a hazardous constituent quantity (Ref. 1, p. 51590, Section 

2.4.2.1.1). 

Hazardous Constituent Quantity (S): NS 

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Available data are insufficient to document a hazardous wastestream quantity (Ref. 1, p. 51591, Section 

2.4.2.1.2). 

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (W): NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Available data are insufficient to document a volume measure (Ref. 1, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.3).

Volume Assigned Value (V): 0 

2.4.2.1.4 Area

The area described by contaminated soil points BA01SS through BA04SS is approximately 240 square feet 

(Ref. 13).

The value assigned to the area measure is calculated as follows:

 240 square feet / 34,000 = 0.007 

Area Assigned Value (A): 0.007 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, p. 51591): 0.007
27

SD – Summary

Table 5

Summary of Source Descriptions

Source Number Source Hazardous Waste 

Quantity Value a

Source 

Hazardous 

Constituent 

Quantity 

Complete? (Y/N)

Containment Value 

for Surface Water b

1. Former Grit Storage Area 0.016 N 10

2. Burn Area 0.007 N 10 a - See Section 2.2 of this document.

b - Ref. 1, pp. 51609, 51610, and Table 4-2.

2.12 Other Possible Sources 

In June 1997, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted a site visit of the AMCCO 

facility (Ref. 18, p. 1). By this time, the two waste sandblast grit piles had been removed (Ref. 18, p. 1). 

However, sandblast grit was noted to still be present in several areas in the middle of the property at 

locations outside of the former waste grit storage area (i.e., Source 1) (Ref. 18, p. 1). In 1999, EPA 

contractors conducting a site visit of AMCCO as a part of a preliminary assessment (PA) also noted some 

residual grit in non-paved areas south of the main building (Ref. 7, p. 12). These additional areas outside of 

Source 1 have not been sampled, but likely are additional sources of contaminated soil. As demonstrated in 

Section 2.2.2, waste sandblast grit contains hazardous substances including butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin 

dichloride, tributyltin chloride, chromium, copper, and nickel. 

During the PA, four aboveground oil tanks were staged near the center of the facility; one tank had a 3,000-

gallon capacity; one had a 1,500-gallon capacity; and the remaining two tanks each had a 500-gallon 

capacity (Ref. 7, p. 12). The tanks rested directly on the ground and had no containment features (Ref. 7, p. 

12). During the PA site visit, the property owner reported that the tanks are used to store waste oil and bilge 

waste, and were often used by boat owners without supervision; therefore, some spillage had occurred (Ref. 

7, pp. 12 and 13). Oily, stained soil was observed underneath the tanks at this location (Ref. 7, p. 13). The 

property owner reported that, under the advice of an ODEQ representative, he removed some of the stained 

soil and burned it in a pit at the northwest corner of the property (Ref. 7, p. 13). The two larger tanks were 

reported to be empty or to hold some residual product (Ref. 7, p. 13). It appeared that the two 500-gallon 

tanks were used to store waste oil and bilge waste (Ref. 7, p. 13). It was reported by the property owner 

that the waste oil was hauled off by a used oil recycler (Ref. 7, p. 13). A 500-gallon aboveground gasoline 

storage tank and pump were also observed during the PA site visit at a separate location east of the “new” 

grit pile (Ref. 7, p. 13). One of the four tanks mentioned above appeared to have leaked. Since soil 

samples were not collected at the time of the PA, and since the other tanks appeared to either be empty 

and/or did not have visual signs of leaking, these possible sources were not included in this HRS 

documentation record.

During the PA, a shed was observed on the north side of the property where approximately 25 drums are 

stored on a dirt floor (Ref. 7, p. 13). The drums appeared to have military markings, which were not legible

(Ref. 7, p. 13). The facility owner identified them as empty Cosmolene (petroleum jelly) drums, a rustpreventive, from the time of the U.S. Navy contract in the early 1960s (Ref. 7, p. 13). Other possibly 

hazardous materials observed during the PA site visit consisted of approximately 250 gallons of solvents 

including lacquer thinner, naphtha, and petroleum distillates; two 55-gallon drums of Protopet lubricant 
28

(petroleum jelly-type product); and two 55-gallon drums of lube oil stored in the pipe shop (Ref. 7, p. 13). 

These containers were present at AMCCO, but are not known to have released hazardous substances. For 

this reason, these containers have not been included as sources in this HRS documentation record. 

Several areas of oil staining were observed around the AMCCO property during the SI site visit (Ref. 4, p. 

20). These areas often coincided with locations previously or currently used to store boat engines (Ref. 4, p. 

20). Four surface soil samples (OS01SS through OS04SS) were collected during the EPA 2008 Phase I SI 

from areas with oil staining (Ref. 4, p. 54). Sample OS01SS was collected from below the valve to an 

aboveground storage tank where oil stains were present; petroleum-related odors were noted at this location

(Ref. 4, p. 54). Sample OS02SS was collected from the soil at the edge of a puddle that had an oily sheen 

on it; no odor was noted at this location (Ref. 4, p. 54). Sample OS03SS was collected from an area that 

was covered in what may be waste oil; a strong fuel odor was noted in this area (Ref. 4, p. 54). Sample 

OS04SS was collected from soil that looked like it was covered in heavy oil or grease; no odor was noted at 

this location (Ref. 4, p. 54). Samples were collected between 0 and 6 inches bgs and analyzed for total 

petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D), SVOCs, and TAL metals (Ref. 4, p. 54). Sample results 

indicated the presence of two TPH-Ds (diesel and motor oil range), 11 SVOCs [acetophenone, nnitrosodiphenylamine, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, pentachlorophenol, butylbenzylphthalate, 

benzo(a)anthracene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene], and six 

TAL metals (antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel) at significant concentrations with 

respect to background concentrations (Ref. 4, p. 54). Since the area of contaminated soil at each of the four 

sample points is not well-defined and since the overland route from these locations to surface water also is 

not well-defined, these sources of contamination were not included in this HRS documentation record.
29

SWOF – Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Path 

4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT

4.1.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Migration Path for Overland/Flood Component 

The land surface at AMCCO is generally flat (Ref. 4, p. 61). AMCCO is located on tidal flats adjacent to 

the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4, p. 61). A dirt berm has been built up on portions of the western shore 

of the property along the river (Ref. 4, p. 61). At the burn area source (Source 2) land is mounded and 

merges with the dike about 10 feet from the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 7, p. 13). The water level of the

Lewis and Clark River often rises, flooding some portions of the property (Ref. 4, p. 61). The property 

drains into either Jeffers Slough bordering the south side of the property or to the Lewis and Clark River 

on the western side (Ref. 4, p. 61). 

Four marine ways (Marine Ways 1 through 4) extend from the west side of the property into the Lewis 

and Clark River (Ref. 4, p. 15). Marine Ways 3 and 4 are covered (Ref. 4, p. 15). During 

annual flood events, the water level of the Lewis and Clark River extends to covered portions of Marine 

Ways 3 and 4 (Ref. 4, p. 20). The southern side of the AMCCO property, adjacent to Jeffers Slough, has 

been configured as a dock along the entire south-side frontage (Ref. 4, p. 16). The flow of Jeffers Slough 

into the Lewis and Clark River is controlled through a tide box that closes at high tide and allows the 

slough to flow one way into the river (Ref. 4, pp. 16 and 26). This tide box is located near the southeast 

portion of the property (Ref. 4, p. 26). 

No drinking water intakes within the TDL are known (Ref. 4, p. 62). The Columbia River and Youngs 

Bay is used for fishing within the TDL (Ref. 4, p. 62). Additionally, habitat for several Federal-listed 

threatened salmon species occurs within the zone of actual contamination present in the Lewis and Clark 

River immediately offshore of the AMCCO facility (see Section 4.1.4.3.1.2). 

4.1.1.2 Target Distance Limit

Surface water runoff from the AMCCO property drains to the shorelines of the Lewis and Clark River 

and Jeffers Slough (Ref. 4, p. 61). Since the property floods regularly, the entire shoreline along the 

Lewis and Clark River and Jeffers Slough is considered to be two long linear PPEs. From the PPEs, the 

surface water migration pathway 15-mile TDL continues approximately 1.25 miles downstream in the 

Lewis and Clark River to its confluence with Youngs Bay, continues in Youngs Bay approximately 1.75 

miles to the Columbia River, then extends approximately 7.2 miles downstream to the Pacific Ocean (Ref. 

4, p. 61). The 15-mile TDL concludes as a 4.8-mile radial arc in the Pacific Ocean (Ref. 4, p. 61; Ref. 8). 

Additionally, the 15-mile TDL extends up the Lewis and Clark River to River Mile 6 due to flow reversal

(Ref. 8). Salinity levels in Youngs Bay, the lower Lewis and Clark River, and in Jeffers Slough exhibit 

diurnal (tidal) and seasonal fluctuations, with salinity levels generally highest at the end of the dry season 

(late summer/early autumn) (Ref. 43, p. 3). 
30

SWOF – Observed Release

4.1.2.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release

Direct Observation

Basis for Direct Observation:

Not scored.

Chemical Analysis

The EPA SI was conducted in two phases (Ref. 4, p. 12). The Phase I SI field sampling event was 

conducted from April 30 through May 2, 2008 (Ref. 4, p. 28). The Phase II SI field sampling event

was conducted from November 9 through 14, 2009 (Ref. 4, p. 28). 

During the EPA 2008 Phase I SI, two sediment samples were collected from Jeffers Slough (JS01SD and 

JS02SD) and five sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River (LC01SD through 

LC04SD and BK01SD) (Ref. 4, pp. 36, 64, and 65). Sample JS01SD was collected from Jeffers Slough 

at 0 to 4 inches near the tide box at the southern end of the AMCCO property (Ref. 4, p. 64; Ref. 10, 

Logbook 2, p. 4). Sample JS02SD was collected from Jeffers Slough at 0 to 3 inches at the southern end 

of the AMCCO property near the dock (Ref. 4, p. 64; Ref. 10, Logbook 2, p. 4). Sample LC01SD was 

collected from the Lewis and Clark River at 0 to 4 inches near the burn area (Ref. 4, p. 64; Ref. 10, 

Logbook 2, p. 3). Sample LC02SD was collected from the Lewis and Clark River at 0 to 3 inches near

Marine Way 4 (Ref. 4, p. 64; Ref, 10, Logbook 2, p. 3). Sample LC03SD was collected from the Lewis 

and Clark River at 0 to 3 inches near Marine Way 3 (Ref. 4, p. 64; Ref, 10, Logbook 2, p. 3). Sample

LC04SD was collected from the Lewis and Clark River at 0 to 3 inches in the area between Marine Ways 

1 and 2 (Ref. 4, pp. 64 and 65; Ref, 10, Logbook 2, p. 4). Sample BK01SD was collected on the Lewis 

and Clark River at 0 to 6 inches from a location approximately 150 feet north of the burn area (Ref. 4, pp. 

29, 36, 64, and 65) for use as a background sample. However, a new background sample (also designated 

BK01SD) was collected during EPA 2009 Phase II SI from a more appropriate location at approximately 

River Mile 6.5 of the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4, pp. 40 and 64). Because of the new background 

sample collected during EPA 2009 Phase II SI, the original background sample collected during EPA 

2008 Phase I SI is considered a release sample (Ref. 4, p. 64). The EPA 2009 Phase II SI background 

sediment sample was collected from 0 to 6 inches (Ref. 11, p. 42).

Also, during the EPA 2009 Phase II SI, fifteen sediment samples (AM01SD through AM15SD) were 

collected from the Lewis and Clark River in front (and west) of the AMCCO facility (Ref. 4, pp. 38 and 

65). Samples were collected from five transects (Ref. 4, p. 65). Each transect ran perpendicular to the 

Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4. p. 65). The transects were spaced approximately 200 feet apart (Ref. 4, p. 

65). Along each transect, three samples were collected from locations spaced approximately 100 feet 

apart extending from the shoreline into the center of the river (Ref. 4, p. 65). All fifteen sediment samples 

were collected from 0 to 6 inches (Ref. 11, p. 42). 

Sampling for both phases of the SI was conducted in accordance with EPA-approved Sampling and 

Quality Assurance Plans (SQAPs) (Ref. 4, p. 28; Ref. 5; Ref. 6). EPA 2008 Phase I SI sediment samples 

were collected from known areas of sediment deposition using dedicated stainless steel spoons (Ref. 4, p. 

29). Collected material was homogenized thoroughly in dedicated stainless steel bowls and placed into 

pre-labeled containers (Ref. 4, p. 29). EPA 2009 Phase II SI sediment samples were collected using a 
31

stainless steel Van Veen ® dredge deployed from an EPA operated boat (Ref. 4, p. 30). The Van Veen®

dredge sampler was dropped multiple times at each sample location in order to retrieve sufficient sample 

volume for the planned analytical suite (Ref. 4, p. 30). Sample material was removed from the center 

portion of the Van Veen® dredge sampler using dedicated stainless steel spoons, taking care not to collect

sediments that were in contact with the walls of the sampler (Ref. 4, p. 30). Collected material was then 

homogenized thoroughly in a dedicated stainless steel bowl and placed into prelabeled containers (Ref. 4, 

p. 30). 

Phase I and II SI sediment samples indicate the presence of elevated concentrations of several organotins 

and several metals (Ref. 4, pp. 73 through 77). These samples were analyzed for TAL metals analysis 

using EPA CLP SOW ILM05.4) and organotins by Krone Method (Ref. 4, pp. 32 through 35, 323, 365, 

376, 499, 500, 501; Ref. 45). Additionally, EPA 2009 Phase II SI sediment samples were analyzed for

grain size using ASTM Method D-422 (Ref. 4, pp. 33 through 35, 1067, 1083, and 1090). All samples 

were stored on ice in coolers continuously maintained under custody of the sample team (Ref. 4, pp. 29, 

1144, 1158, 1173, 1175, 1179, and 1180: Ref. 46, pp, 4, 5, 15, 16, and 17). All data underwent data 

validation. Analytical results were validated by EPA chemists and in most cases were reviewed by an E 

& E chemist (Ref. 4, pp. 32 through 35, 323 through 326, 365 through 368, and 376 through 381, 419, 

499 through 505, 519 through 522, 547 through 550, 1067, 1083, and 1090).

Table 6 below provides information about background sediment sample concentrations and hazardous 

substances present in the Lewis and Clark River and Jeffers Slough sediment samples. The background 

EPA 2009 Phase II SI sediment sample (BK01SD) grain size analysis results had 69.3% of the sample 

material passing through the 75 micron sieve (Ref. 4, p. 1084). EPA 2009 Phase II SI sediment samples 

used in Table 6 had the following percentages of material passing through the 75 micron sieve: AM05SD 

with 79.6%, AM06SD with 67.6%, and AM08SD with 60.1% (Ref. 4, p. 1091). Since these percentages 

are within +/- 15% of the background sample, they are considered to be comparable to the background 

sample. Grain size analysis was not conducted on EPA 2008 Phase I SI sediment samples.

The EPA 2009 Phase II SI background sediment sample (BK01SD) was described as consisting of brown 

with reddish mottling, silty, sandy clay (Ref. 4, p. 33). The EPA 2008 Phase I SI sediment samples (i.e., 

LC01SD through LC04SD; and BK01SD, JS01SD and JS02SD) were described as consisting of light 

brown or moist gray sediment; while the EPA 2009 Phase II SI sediment samples (i.e., AM05SD, 

AM06SD, and AM08SD) were described as consisting of brown or black sandy silt (Ref. 4, pp. 32 and 

33). Based on these descriptions it appears the EPA 2009 Phase II SI background sediment sample 

(BK01SD) may have been more fine grained than the release EPA 2009 Phase II SI sediment samples; 

however the grain size analysis indicates the samples were similar. EPA 2008 Phase I SI sediment 

sample descriptions do not address grain size.
32

Table 6

EPA 2008 Phase I and 2009 Phase II SI

Sediment Samples

Sample ID

Sample 

Medium

Sample 

Location

Distance 

from 

PPE Date References

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(units)

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita

(units) References

BK01SD –

Phase II

(Background 

Sample)

(MJC1Q7)

(09454115)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

6 miles 11/11/2009 Ref. 4, pp. 

33 and 40; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Manganese

Nickel

Silver

Zinc

6.0 U ug/kg

6.9 U ug/kg

4.0 U ug/kg

10.5 U mg/kg

6.6 mg/kg

0.46 JQ mg/kg

12.9 mg/kg

21.2 mg/kg

8.3 mg/kg

339 mg/kg

17.9 mg/kg

1.7 U mg/kg

85 mg/kg

6.0 ug/kg

6.9 ug/kg

4.0 ug/kg

10.5 mg/kg

1.75 mg/kg

0.87 mg/kg

1.75 mg/kg

4.37 mg/kg

1.75 mg/kg

6.56 mg/kg

17.49 mg/kg

1.7 mg/kg

10.50 mg/kg

Ref. 4, p. 33, 

469, and 526; 

Ref. 41, p. 5 

LC01SD

(MJ8GP0)

(08184114)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

0 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Nickel

140 ug/kg

320 JL ug/kg

93 ug/kg

300 mg/kg

42.8 mg/kg

2.6 mg/kg

284 JH mg/kg 

(AC = 220 

mg/kg)

10300 mg/kg

1080 JL mg/kg

215 JH mg/kg 

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

15.04 mg/kg

2.51 mg/kg

1.25 mg/kg

2.51 mg/kg

3.13 mg/kg

2.51 mg/kg

10.03 mg/kg

Ref. 4, pp. 32, 

339, and 396; 

Ref. 41, p. 5 
33

Table 6

EPA 2008 Phase I and 2009 Phase II SI

Sediment Samples

Sample ID

Sample 

Medium

Sample 

Location

Distance 

from 

PPE Date References

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(units)

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita

(units) References

Silver

Zinc

(AC = 159 

mg/kg)

7.1 mg/kg

1650 JL mg/kg

2.51 mg/kg

15.04 mg/kg

LC02SD

(MJ8GP1)

(08184115)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

0 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

Copper

Lead

Zinc

370 ug/kg

740 JL ug/kg

520 ug/kg

273 mg/kg

78.8 JL mg/kg

313 JL mg/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

7.32 mg/kg

2.93 mg/kg

17.56 mg/kg

Ref. 4, pp. 32, 

340, and 397; 

Ref. 41, p. 5 

LC03SD

(MJ8GP2)

(08184116)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

120 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

Copper

Lead

210 ug/kg

830 ug/kg

220 ug/kg

558 mg/kg

46.9 JL mg/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5.98 mg/kg

2.39 mg/kg

Ref. 4, pp. 32, 

341, and 398; 

Ref. 41, p. 5 

LC04SD

(MJ8GP3)

(08184117)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

0 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

Copper

Lead

Manganese

560 ug/kg

3100 JL ug/kg

700 ug/kg

5670 mg/kg

47.6 mg/kg

1850 JK mg/kg 

(AC = 1492 

mg/kg)

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

6.81 mg/kg

2.72 mg/kg

4.09 mg/kg

Ref. 4, pp. 32, 

369, and 399; 

Ref. 41, p. 5 
34

Table 6

EPA 2008 Phase I and 2009 Phase II SI

Sediment Samples

Sample ID

Sample 

Medium

Sample 

Location

Distance 

from 

PPE Date References

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(units)

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita

(units) References

Zinc 1610 mg/kg 16.35 mg/kg

BK01SD –

Phase I

(MJ8GM9)

(08184103)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

0 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

Copper

Lead

44 ug/kg

81 JL ug/kg

32 ug/kg

174 mg/kg

61 JL mg/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

7.13 mg/kg

2.85 mg/kg

Ref. 4, pp. 32, 

329, and 384; 

Ref. 41, p. 5 

AM05SD

(MJC1P6)

(09454104)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

131 Feet 11/13/2009 Ref. 4, p. 33; 

Ref. 9

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

41 ug/kg

12 ug/kg

6.8 ug/kg

3.9 ug/kg

Ref. 4, pp. 33 

and 444; Ref. 

41, p. 6

AM06SD

(MJC1P7)

(09454105)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

206 Feet 11/13/2009 Ref. 4, p. 33; 

Ref. 9

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

9 ug/kg 7.0 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 33 

and 445; Ref. 

41, p. 6

AM08SD

(MJC1P9)

(09454107)

Sediment Lewis and 

Clark 

River

194 Feet 11/13/2009 Ref. 4, p. 33; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

26 ug/kg

40 ug/kg

72 ug/kg

6.1 ug/kg

7.0 ug/kg

4.0 ug/kg

Ref. 4, pp 33 

and 447; Ref. 

41, p. 6

JS01SD

(MJ8GN8)

(08184112)

Sediment Jeffers 

Slough

0 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

Copper

Lead

12 ug/kg

15 JL ug/kg

6 ug/kg

67.1 mg/kg

70.6 JL mg/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

16.49 mg/kg

6.60 mg/kg

Ref. 4, pp. 32, 

337, 394; Ref. 

41, p. 6 

JS02SD

(MJ8GN9)

Sediment Jeffers 

Slough

0 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32; 

Ref. 9

Butyltin 

Trichloride

17 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32 

and 395; Ref. 
35

Table 6

EPA 2008 Phase I and 2009 Phase II SI

Sediment Samples

Sample ID

Sample 

Medium

Sample 

Location

Distance 

from 

PPE Date References

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(units)

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limita

(units) References

(08184113) Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

Tributyltin 

Chloride

34 JL ug/kg

43 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

5 ug/kg

41, p. 6

Notes:

a – The sample quantitation limit used meets the definition provided in Ref. 1, p. 51586 (Ref. 41, p. 1).

Key:

AC =

H =

J =

K = 

L =

mg/kg = 

Q =

U =

ug/kg =

Adjusted concentration as per Ref. 12, pp. 8 and 18.

High bias (Ref. 4, p. 326).

The associated value is an estimated quantity (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Unknown bias (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Low bias (Ref. 4. p. 326).

Milligrams per kilogram.

Detected concentration is below the method reporting limit/Contract Required Quantitation Limit, but is above the method detection limit (Ref. 4, p. 326).

The material was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated value (Ref. 4, p. 326).

Micrograms per kilogram.
36

Additional Supporting Data

Although not used to document an observed release to the surface water migration pathway for this 

documentation record, it is possible that former paint removal activities and contaminated ground water at 

AMCCO is impacting the adjacent water bodies. 

Paint removal from boats over Jeffers Slough has been performed at AMCCO by various methods, 

including grinding overwater (Ref. 15, p. 2; Ref. 22, p. 1). Specific information about the paints removed 

and their constituents has not been documented; however, it is likely that these paints would have 

contained organotins and metals including copper-based paints containing tributyltin and paints 

containing cupric oxide and lead (Ref. 7, p. 10; Ref. 14, p. 1). 

In June 1996, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality conducted an inspection of the AMCCO 

facility which included a site visit (Ref. 14, p. 1). During the site visit, the facility’s owner was reported 

to have stated that during the 1950s AMCCO sandblasted over the water (Ref. 14, p. 2; Ref. 43, p. 1). 

The property owner stated that despite AMCCO’s attempts to sandblast smaller ships’ hulls indoors, 

many of the ships, especially back in the days of peak maritime commerce in the area, would not fit 

within the building (Ref. 43, p. 1). He indicated that AMCCO discontinued that practice in the 1950s and 

sandblasted in the buildings located on the property (Ref. 14, p. 2). In a letter drafted in June 1997, the 

property owner indicated that the earlier statement that AMCCO disposed of grit into Jeffers Slough and 

the Lewis and Clark River was false (Ref. 21, p. 1). 
37

Attribution:

The land surface at AMCCO is generally flat (Ref. 4, p. 61). AMCCO is located on tidal flats adjacent to 

the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4, p. 61). A dirt berm has been built up on portions of the western shore 

of the property along the river (Ref. 4, p. 61). The water level of the Lewis and Clark River often rises, 

flooding some portions of the property (Ref. 4, p. 61). The property drains into either Jeffers Slough 

bordering the south side of the property or to the Lewis and Clark River on the western side (Ref. 4, p. 

61). 

Organotins and metals have been detected in the Lewis and Clark River and Jeffers Slough sediments at 

observed release concentrations from the PPEs to up to 206 feet into the Lewis and Clark River (see 

Section 4.1.2.1.1 and Ref. 9). The hazardous substances detected at observed release concentrations in 

sediment samples are likewise present in sources at AMCCO which are not fully contained and are 

available to migrate to the surface water migration pathway (see Sections 2.2.2 for Sources 1 and 2, and 

Section 4.1.2.1.1 for hazardous substances present at observed release concentrations in sediment 

samples).

Paint removal from boats over Jeffers Slough has been performed at AMCCO by various methods, 

including grinding overwater (Ref. 15, p. 2; Ref. 22, p. 1). Specific information about the paints removed 

and their constituents has not been documented; however, it is likely that these paints would have 

contained organotins and metals including copper-based paints containing tributyltin and paints 

containing cupric oxide and lead (Ref. 7, p. 10; Ref. 14, p. 1). 

In June 1996, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality conducted an inspection of the AMCCO 

facility which included a site visit (Ref. 14, p. 1). During the site visit, the facility’s owner was reported 

to have stated that during the 1950s AMCCO sandblasted over the water (Ref. 14, p. 2; Ref. 43, p. 1). 

The property owner stated that despite AMCCO’s attempts to sandblast smaller ships’ hulls indoors, 

many of the ships, especially back in the days of peak maritime commerce in the area, would not fit 

within the building (Ref. 43, p. 1). He indicated that AMCCO discontinued that practice in the 1950s and 

sandblasted in the buildings located on the property (Ref. 14, p. 2). In a letter drafted in June 1997, the 

property owner indicated that the earlier statement that AMCCO disposed of grit into Jeffers Slough and 

the Lewis and Clark River was false (Ref. 21, p. 1). 

Other Possible Non-Site-Related Sources

In June 2009, a search was conducted on behalf of the EPA for additional potential sources of 

contamination to Youngs Bay from companies that were involved in maritime-related activities that could 

potentially be linked to similar marine contaminants as those found at the Astoria Marine Construction 

Company site (Ref. 51, p. 1). These companies were located adjacent to a body of water that could be 

contributing contamination to Youngs Bay (Ref. 51, p. 1). Seven such companies were identified (Ref. 

51, p. 2). None of the companies were on the Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 51, pp. 2 and 5). 

During the EPA 2009 Phase II SI, fifteen sediment samples (AM01SD through AM15SD) were collected 

from the Lewis and Clark River in front (and west) of the AMCCO facility (Ref. 4, pp. 38 and 65). 

Samples were collected from five transects (Ref. 4, pp. 38 and 65). Each transect ran perpendicular to the 

Lewis and Clark River (Ref. 4. pp. 38 and 65). The transects were spaced approximately 200 feet apart

(Ref. 4, pp. 38 and 65). Along each transect, three samples were collected from locations spaced 

approximately 100 feet apart extending from the shoreline into the center of the river (Ref. 4, pp. 38 and 

65). Analytical results for samples collected at locations upstream and downstream of the contaminated 

sample points documenting the zone of actual contamination did not likewise have contaminants present 

at observed release concentrations (Ref. 4, pp. 36, 38, and 75). The lack of contamination at these points 
38

indicates that the contamination is not migrating from possible upstream sources and that contamination 

is not migrating during tidal reversals from sources that are usually downstream or on Youngs Bay. 

Hazardous Substances Released

The hazardous substances found in observed releases to surface water bodies within the TDL are butyltin 

trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, tributyltin chloride, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, 

lead, manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc.

Observed Release Factor Value: 550
39

SWOF/Food Chain – Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

4.1.3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Table 7 below provides Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics Factor Values for those 

hazardous substances present in sources at the AMCCO facility (see Section 2.2). 

Table 7 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics Factor Values

Hazardous 

Substance

Source Toxicity 

Factor 

Value

Persistence 

Factor Valuea

Bioaccumulation Factor 

Valueb

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 

Value 

(Ref. 1, p. 

51619 Table 4-

16)

Reference

Butyltin 

Trichloridec 1, 2 -- -- -- -- --

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

1, 2 10,000 1 50 5 x 105 Ref. 52

Tributyltin 

Chloride

1, 2 10,000 1 50,000 5 X 108 Ref. 25

Antimony 2 10,000 1 5 5 X 104 Ref. 2, p. BI-1

Arsenic 2 10,000 1 500 5 X 106 Ref. 2, p. BI-1

Cadmium 2 10,000 1 50,000 5 X 108 Ref. 2, p. BI-2

Chromium 1, 2 10,000 1 500 5 X 106 Ref. 2, p. BI-3

Cobalt 2 10 1 5,000 5 X 104 Ref. 2, p. BI-3

Copper 1, 2 0 1 50,000 0 Ref. 2, p. BI-3

Lead 2 10,000 1 5,000 5 X 107 Ref. 2, p. BI-8

Manganese 2 10,000 1 50,000 5 X 108 Ref. 2, p. BI-8

Nickel 1, 2 10,000 1 500 5 X 106 Ref. 2, p. BI-9

Silver 2 100 1 50,000 5 X 106 Ref. 2, p. BI-10

Zinc 2 10 1 50,000 5 X 105 Ref. 2, p. BI-12

Ethylbenzene 2 10 0.0007 50 0.35 Ref. 2, p. BI-6

m,p-Xylenes 2 100 0.4 50 2,000 Ref. 2, p. BI-12

Methylcyclohex

anec 2 -- -- -- -- --

o-Xylene 2 1 0.4 50 20 Ref. 2, p. BI-12

a. River persistence value (Ref. 2; Ref. 25; Ref 52).

b. The higher food chain bioaccumulation value of fresh or salt water (Ref. 1, p. 51617; Ref. 2; Ref. 25; Ref. 

 52).

c. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix values are not available for the analyte.

The hazardous substances having the highest Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Value of 5 X 108 are 

tributytin chloride, cadmium, and manganese.

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 X 108
40

SWOF/Food Chain – Hazardous Waste Quantity

4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity 

Table 8

Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1. Former Grit Storage 

Area Contaminated Soil 0.016

2. Burn Area Contaminated Soil 0.007

Sum of Values 0.023 → 1a

a. Ref. 1, p. 51591.

Targets within the surface water migration pathway are subject to Level II concentrations, and hazardous 

constituent quantity has not been adequately determined (see Section 4.1.4.3.1.2 below). A Hazardous 

Waste Quantity Factor Value of 100 is assigned (Ref. 1, pp. 51591 and 51592).

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, p. 51591, Table 2-6): 100

4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1 x 106

(Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x 

Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 1010 subject to a maximum value of 1 x 1012 (Ref. 1, p. 51620) 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2-7): 320

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 

Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2-7 
41

SWOF/ Food Chain – Targets

4.1.3.3 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN TARGETS

4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual

The food chain individual factor is assigned a value of 45 based on the presence of Level II targets (see 

below) (Ref. 1, p. 51620). 

Level I Concentrations 

Level I concentrations for the Human Food Chain Threat is not being scored. 

Level II Concentrations – 

The Zone of Actual Contamination is within the vicinity of Young’s Bay Select Area commercial gillnet 

fishery for coho and Chinook salmon (spring/summer races) (see Section 4.1.2.1.1 [Chemical Analysis] 

and Ref. 50). It also encompasses an area utilized by recreational anglers for fisheries including coho, 

Chinook, and white sturgeon (Ref. 50, p. 2). These commercial and recreational fisheries are explicitly 

intended to harvest fish for human consumption (Ref. 50, p. 3). 

Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 45 

Ref. 1, p. 51620 
42

4.1.3.3.2 Population

4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations

Not scored.

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations

The Level II Zone of Actual Contamination is delineated by the following samples: LC01SD - LC04SD, 

BK01SD, JS01SD, JS02SD, AM05SD, AM06SD, and AM08SD (see Table 6, Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this 

HRS documentation record and Ref. 9). The Zone of Actual Contamination is within the vicinity of 

Young’s Bay Select Area commercial gillnet fishery for coho and Chinook salmon (spring/summer 

races) (Ref. 50). It also encompasses an area utilized by recreational anglers for fisheries including coho, 

Chinook, and white sturgeon (Ref. 50, p. 2). These commercial and recreational fisheries are explicitly 

intended to harvest fish for human consumption (Ref. 50, p. 3). Fish catch figures for these fisheries are 

not maintained. For scoring purposes, it is assumed that greater than 1 pound of fish per year is 

harvested for human consumption from the Zone of Actual Contamination by commercial fishers and by 

recreational fishers. This fishery is subject to actual contamination (see Section 4.1.2.1.1; Ref. 9). Table 

9 below provides the calculation of the Level II Concentrations Human Food Chain Population Value. 

Table 9

Human Food Chain Population Values

Identity of Fishery

Annual Production 

(pounds) References

Human Food Chain

Population Value

(Ref. 1, Table 4-18)

Lewis and Clark River >1 Ref. 9; Ref. 50 0.03

Sum of Level II Human Food Chain Population Values: 0.03

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03 
43

4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination

Commercial Chinook salmon and sturgeon catch data is available for Youngs Bay for the year 2010 (Ref. 

38). The entirety of Youngs Bay is within the surface water migration pathway TDL (Ref. 8). 

Commercial catch data is reported by season (Ref. 38). Table 10 below provides commercial landings 

data for Chinook salmon and sturgeon harvested from Youngs Bay. 

. 

Table 10

Youngs Bay Commercial Chinook and Sturgeon Harvest 2010 

(Ref. 38)

Season 

and 

Week

Chinook Sturgeon Totals

Number

of Fish

(A)

Average 

Weight 

in 

Pounds 

(B)

Total Weight

of Fish

(A x B = C; 

rounded to 

the nearest 

integer)

Number

of Fish

(D)

Average 

Weight in 

Pounds

(E)

Total Weight

of Fish

(D x E = F; 

rounded to 

the nearest 

integer)

Pounds of 

Chinook and 

Sturgeon (C 

+ F)

Winter (Ref. 38, p. 8)

Week 9 47 13.9 653 16 31.9 510 1,163

Week 10 146 15.3 2,234 11 31.9 351 2,585

Week 11 43 15.0 645 1 27.8 28 673

Week 12 120 12.5 1,500 0 0 1,500

Week 13 410 12.7 5,207 0 0 5,207

Week 14 268 13.1 3,511 0 0 3,511

Spring (Ref. 38, p. 4)

Week 16 3,943 11.6 45,739 5 33.8 169 45,908

Week 17 2,100 10.9 22,890 4 23.5 94 22,984

Week 18 0 0 0 0 0

Week 19 5,177 11.2 57,982 22 29.5 649 58,631

Week 20 4,268 11.6 49,509 15 34.7 521 50,030

Week 21 1,558 11.4 17,761 10 30.6 306 18,067

Week 22 927 12.1 11,217 0 0 11,217

Week 23 606 12.1 7,333 0 0 7,333

Week 24 151 12.2 1,842 0 0 1,842

Summer (Ref. 38, p. 5)

Week 25 215 12.0 2,580 0 0 2,580

Week 26 205 11.4 2,337 0 0 2,337

Week 27 122 13.7 1,671 0 0 1,671

Week 28 62 14.8 918 0 0 918

Week 29 134 15.9 2,131 0 0 2,131

Week 30 87 15.2 1,322 0 0 1,322

Week 31 115 15.0 1,725 0 0 1,725

Fall (Ref. 38, pp. 6 and 7)

Week 32 301 16.7 5,027 9 36.9 332 5,359

Week 33 1,168 16.9 19,739 31 32.1 995 20,734

Week 34 185 14.0 2,590 0 0 2,590

Week 35 1,158 12.6 14,591 0 0 14,591

Week 36 2,100 12.5 26,250 1 55.0 55 26,305
44

Table 10

Youngs Bay Commercial Chinook and Sturgeon Harvest 2010 

(Ref. 38)

Season 

and 

Week

Chinook Sturgeon Totals

Number

of Fish

(A)

Average 

Weight 

in 

Pounds 

(B)

Total Weight

of Fish

(A x B = C; 

rounded to 

the nearest 

integer) 

Number

of Fish

(D)

Average 

Weight in 

Pounds

(E)

Total Weight

of Fish

(D x E = F; 

rounded to 

the nearest 

integer) 

Pounds of 

Chinook and 

Sturgeon (C 

+ F)

Week 37 2,505 12.2 30,561 3 34.4 103 30,664

Week 38 405 10.6 4,293 0 0 4,293

Total Youngs Bay Commercial Chinook and Sturgeon Harvest in 

Pounds

347,871

Commercial Coho salmon catch data is available for Youngs Bay for the Fall 2010 (Ref. 38). As 

previously indicated, the entirety of Youngs Bay is within the surface water migration pathway TDL 

(Ref. 8). Table 11 below provides commercial landings data for Coho salmon harvested from Youngs 

Bay. 

Table 11

Youngs Bay Commercial Coho Harvest Fall 2010 

(Ref. 38, pp. 6 and 7)

Week Coho

Number of Fish

(A)

Average Weight in Pounds

(B)

Total Weight of Fish

(A x B = C; rounded to 

the nearest integer)

Week 32 2 8.6 17

Week 33 42 11.2 470

Week 34 4 11.1 44

Week 35 640 10.1 6,464

Week 36 8,697 10.1 87,840

Week 37 11,815 10.5 124,058

Week 38 2,569 10.2 26,204

Total Youngs Bay Commercial Coho Harvest in Pounds 245,097

Sport fishing occurs within the surface water migration pathway TDL. The most recent steelhead sport 

catch data is from 2001 to 2002, which is presented by zone. The fishing zone within the TDL for 

Steelhead trout is from Buoy 10 located at the mouth of the Columbia River upstream to the MeglerAstoria Bridge (i.e., US Highway 101) (Ref. 8; Ref. 26, p. 27). This zone is completely within the 15-

mile TDL (Ref. 8; Ref. 26, p. 27). It was reported that 264 Steelhead were caught from this zone in 2001 

to 2002 (Ref. 26, p. 27). The average weight of Steelhead is between 5 and 10 pounds (Ref. 40, p. 75). 

The total Steelhead sport catch harvest for 2001 to 2002 from the Columbia River is calculated to be 

1,980 pounds using the median weight of 7.5 pounds for estimating purposes (i.e., 264 steelhead x 7.5 

pounds). 

The nearest United States Geological Survey water gauging station on the Columbia River is at Quincy, 

Oregon at River Mile 53.8 (Ref. 27; 28; Ref. 29). The flow rate of the Columbia River at this location

was approximately 211,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) for Water Year 2009, the most recent year on 
45

record (Ref. 27). The flow rate of Youngs Bay is not maintained by the United States Geological Survey 

nor is the flow rate of its tributaries (Ref. 27; Ref. 29). Historic stream flow data for Youngs River, a 

tributary to Youngs Bay, is available for 1958 (Ref. 39). The average annual stream flow for the Youngs 

River at that time was 185.8 cfs (Ref. 39). It can be assumed that the average annual flow rate of Youngs 

Bay is greater than the flow rate of its tributary the Youngs River of 185.8 cfs, but less than the flow rate 

of the Columbia River of 211,600 cfs into which Youngs Bay discharges. Given this information, it is 

estimated that the average annual flow rate of Youngs Bay is greater than 1,000 cfs to 10,000 cfs. 

The dilution weight for the Columbia River (a very large river) is 0.00001 [Ref. 1, p. 51613 (Table 4-

13)]. The dilution weight for Youngs Bay (large stream to river) is 0.001 [Ref. 1, p. 51613 (Table 4-13)]. 

The potential human food chain target value is calculated in Table 12 below.

Table 12

Potential Human Food Chain Target Value

Surface 

Water Body 

Type of 

Fish

Pounds

of Fisha

Human Food 

Chain Valueb

Dilution 

Weightc

Dilution 

Weighted Value

Youngs Bay Chinook 

and 

Sturgeon

347,871 310 0.001 0.31

Coho 245,097

Total 

Catch for 

Youngs 

Bay

592,967

Columbia

River

Steelhead 1,980 3 0.00001 0.00003

Total TDL dilution weighted human food chain target value 0.31003 / 10 = 

0.031003

References

a 

 - See Tables 10 and 11.

b - Ref. 1, p. 51621, Table 4-18 c 

 - Ref. 27; Ref. 28; Ref. 29; Ref. 1, p. 51613, Table 4-13.

Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.031003 
46

SWOF/Environment – Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

4.1.4.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Table 13 below provides Environmental Threat Waste Characteristics Factor Values for those hazardous 

substances present in sources at the AMCCO facility (see Section 2.2). 

Table 13 Environmental Threat Waste Characteristics Factor Values

Hazardous 

Substance

Source Ecosystem 

Toxicity 

Factor 

Value a

Persistence 

Factor 

Value b

Environmental 

Bioaccumulation Factor 

Value c

Ecosystem 

Toxicity/Persistence/Environ

mental Bioaccumulation 

Value 

(Ref. 1, p. 51619, 

Table 4-16)

Reference

Butyltin 

Trichlorided 1, 2 -- -- -- -- --

Dibutyltin 

Dichloride

1, 2 1,000 1 50 50,000 Ref. 52

Tributyltin 

Chloride

1, 2 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 Ref. 25

Antimony 2 100 1 50 5,000 Ref. 2, p. BI-1

Arsenic 2 100 1 5,000 5 x 105 Ref. 2, p. BI-1

Cadmium 2 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 Ref. 2, p. BI-2

Chromium 1, 2 10,000 1 500 5 x 106 Ref. 2, p. BI-3

Cobalt 2 0 1 5,000 0 Ref. 2, p. BI-3

Copper 1, 2 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 107 Ref. 2, p. BI-3

Lead 2 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 107 Ref. 2, p. BI-8

Manganese 2 0 1 50,000 0 Ref. 2, p. BI-8

Nickel 1, 2 1,000 1 500 5 x 105 Ref. 2, p. BI-9

Silver 2 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 Ref. 2, p. BI-10

Zinc 2 100 1 50,000 5 x 106 Ref. 2, p. BI-12

Ethylbenzene 2 1,000 0.0007 50 35 Ref. 2, p. BI-6

m,p-Xylenes 2 100 0.4 50 3.5 Ref. 2, p. BI-12

Methylcyclohe

xaned

2 -- -- -- -- --

o-Xylene 2 100 0.4 50 2,000 Ref. 2, p. BI-12

a. The higher of fresh and salt water values (Ref. 1, p. 51621; Ref. 2; Ref. 25; Ref. 52).

b. River persistence values (Ref. 2; Ref. 25; Ref. 52).

c. The higher of fresh and salt water values (Ref. 1, p. 51622; Ref. 2; Ref. 25; Ref. 52).

d. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix values are not available for the analyte.

The hazardous substances having the highest Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Environmental 

Bioaccumulation Factor value of 5 x 108 are tributyltin chloride, cadmium, and silver. 

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 108
47

SWOF/Environment – Hazardous Waste Quantity

4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Table 14

Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1. Former Grit Storage 

Area Contaminated Soil 0.016

2. Burn Area Contaminated Soil 0.007

Sum of Values 0.023 → 1a

a. Ref. 1, p. 51591.

Targets within the surface water migration pathway are subject to Level II concentrations, and hazardous 

constituent quantity has not been adequately determined (see Section 4.1.4.3.1.2 below). A Hazardous 

Waste Quantity Factor Value of 100 is assigned (Ref. 1, pp. 51591 and 51592). 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, p. 51591, Table 2-6): 100

4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1 x 106

 

(Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x 

Environmental Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 1010 subject to a maximum value of 1 x 1012

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2-7): 320

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 

Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2-7 
48

SWOF/ Environment – Targets

4.1.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT – TARGETS

Level I concentrations for the Environmental Threat is not being scored. 

4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments

4.1.4.3.1.1 Level I Concentrations

Sensitive Environments

Not scored.

Wetlands

Not scored.

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0
49

SWOF/Environmental – Level II Concentrations 

4.1.4.3.1.2 Level II Concentrations

Sensitive Environments

A zone of actual contamination subject to Level II concentrations is present in Jeffers Slough and the 

Lewis and Clark River as described by contaminated sample points LC01SD through LC04SD, JS01SD, 

JS02SD, BK01SD (EPA 2008 Phase I SI), AM05SD, AM06SD, and AM08SD (see Section 4.1.2.1.1 and 

Ref. 9). This zone of actual contamination provides habitat for several Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs) of Federal-listed threatened salmon species as demonstrated in Table 15 below. These species 

are subject to Level II concentrations of hazardous substances (see Section 4.1.2.1.1). 

Table 15

Species Subject to Level II Concentrations

Sensitive Environment

Distance from PPE to 

Nearest Sensitive 

Environment

Sensitive 

Environment

Value (Ref. 1, 

p. 51624, 

Table 4-23) 

References

Lower Columbia River and 

its tributaries Coho ESU – 

Threatened

(oncorhynchus kisutch)

0 feet 75 Ref. 9; Ref. 30; Ref. 31; Ref. 

47, pp. 1 and 2; Ref. 50

Columbia River Chum ESU 

– Threatened

(oncorhynchus keta)

0 feet 75 Ref. 9; Ref. 32, Ref. 33, Ref. 

34; Ref. 48, pp. 1 and 2; Ref. 

50

Lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon ESU – 

Threatened 

(oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

0 feet 75 Ref. 9; Ref. 35; Ref. 36; Ref. 

37; Ref. 49, pp. 1 and 3; Ref. 

50

Sum of Values 225

Wetlands

Not scored.

Sum of Level II Sensitive Environments Value + Wetlands Value: 225 + 0 (not scored) = 225

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 225 
50

SWOF/ Environment – Potential Contamination

4.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination

Potential Sensitive Environment Targets

Not Scored. 

Potential Wetland Frontages – 

Not Scored. Although potential contamination to wetlands is not included in this documentation record, 

it should be noted that many miles of wetland frontage exist within the TDL (Ref. 8; Ref. 42). 

 

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 0