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 S ystem (HRS) evaluation. These pathways/components were not included because a

release to thes e media does not significant ly 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. The se 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

CERC LIS No.: OR0002392793

Street A ddress of Site * : 92134 Front Road, Astoria, Oregon 97103

County and State: Clatsop, Oregon

General Location in the State: North west

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

Latitude : 46 **°** 08 ’ 43.1 13 ” North Longitude: 123 **°** 51 ’ 40. 439 ” West (Ref. 3 as

determined at the location of the covered marine ways )

Scores

Ground W ater 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 threat ened 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. Con tainment 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. Potentia l 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. Hazardo us 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 NSSURFACE WATER OVERLAND FLOW/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENTS SCORESHEET



### 3 Factor categories and factors Maximum Value V alue 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 10 8

16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

17 . Waste Characteristics 1

, 000 320

Targets:

18. Food Chain Individual 50 45

19. Population

19a. Level I Concentration s (b) 0

19b. Level II Concentration s (b) 0 .0 3

19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b) 0.031 0 0 3

19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) (b) 0. 06 10 03

20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) (b) 45

. 0 6 10 0 3

Human Food Chain Threat Score:

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

, 500, subject to max of 100] 100 96.13SURFACE 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 10 8

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) 2 25

26c. Potential Contamination (b) 0

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

27. Targets (value from line 26d) (b) 2 2 5

Environmental Threat Score:

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

, subject to a max of 60] 60 60 .00

29. Watershed Score c (lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maxi mum of 100) 100 100 .00

30. Component Score (S of ) 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 S 2 pathway

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) NS NS

Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S

sw ) 100.00 10,000

Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S

s ) NS NS

Air Migra tion Score (S

a ) NS NS

S 2

gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a 10,000

(S 2

gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a )/4 2,500

**/** (S 2

gw + S 2

sw + S 2

s + S 2

a )/4 50.00

### 6 REFERENCES

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency

, December 14, 1990

, Ha zard Ranking S ystem, 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, Oregon

Washing ton, 1 page.

4. Ecology and Environment, Inc

, June 2010, A storia Marine Construction Comp a n y, Site Inspection Report

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

. 5. Ecology and Environment, Inc

. , March 2008, Final Astoria Marine Construction Compan y, Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan, Astoria, Oregon, 274 p ages. 6. Ecology and Environment, Inc

. , October 2009, Final Astoria Marine Construction Company, Phase II Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan, Astoria, Oregon, 130 p ages.
7. Ecology and Enviro nment, 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. Ecol ogy 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 Do cument
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 Oreg on, 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, memorandu m 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, Volun tary 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 s oil, 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 Constructio n Company (AMCCO) letter to Ms. Mary Wahl, Administrator, Waste Man agement & 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 Envir onment, 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 statio ns 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- MM

DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_f orm=parameter_selection_list accessed on September 2 1, 2010, 3 page s

. 28. United States Geological Survey, USGS, 14246900 Columbia River @ Beaver Army Terminal Near Qu in cy, Oregon, webpage http: //waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?14246900 accessed on September 21

, 2010, 3 page s

. 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 page s

. 30. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, Coho Salmon, webpage http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA- Salmon

- Listings/Salmon

Populations/Coho/Index.cfm accessed on August 31, 2010, 2 pages.

31. National Oceanic and Atmospher ic Administration, Northwest Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, Lower Columbia River Coho ESU - Threatened, webpage http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-S almon

- 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/Salmon

Populations/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/Salmon

Populations/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

o n August 31, 2010, 2 page s

. 37. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fi sheries 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 Ann ual 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&yea r_type=W&format=html_table&date_

format=YYYY

- MM -DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list accessed on September 23, 2010, 2 page s

. 40. Wydoski, Richard S. and Richard R. Whitney, 2003, Inland Fishes of Washington, cover page s , 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 detec tion limit calculations, 4 1 pages. 42. Ecology and Environment, September 2010, Surface Water Migration Pathway Target Distance Limit

– Wetlands Map, 2 page s. 43. Wistar, Gil, March 4, 1997, Voluntary Cleanup and Site Assessment Section, DEQ Northwest Re gion, 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 ket a), webpage http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E0 9Q on December 16, 2010, 4 pages.

49. United States Fish and Wildlife Service , Species Profile, Chinook Salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), webpage http://ecos.fws.gov/s peciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E0 6D 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, Ecolog y 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 SC DM 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 th e 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 L ewis 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 m ajor contracts with the military to construct metal

- armored warships and to refurbish previously mothballed warships (Ref. 15, p. 1).

The AMCC O property includes one ship- sized assembly/maintenance building, storage areas, various work shops, and administ rative 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 Cl ark 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 sm all 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) . AMCC O 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 ot her 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 immediatel y 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 Gri t Storage Area (Source 1) and the Burn Area (Source 2), and

a ssociated releases from AMCCO to the Lewis an d 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 tha t 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 com ponent 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 pat hway 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) wer e 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 indicate d the presence of one organotin (tributyltin), 10 TAL Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc), and two VOCs (tolue ne 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 bu rn 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 (M W02GW) (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)

So urce 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 cu p ric oxide (i.e., a copper compound), lead, and tributyltin ( Ref. 7 , p. 10; Ref. 14, p. 1). In June 1996, it was observed that AMCC O stored spent sandblast grit, which contained paint chip residue, in two distinct piles immediately south of the main bu ilding ( 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 ” an d “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 wit hin 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 the se 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). H owever, 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, n ew grit piles have been placed west of the Former Gr it 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 Sto rage Area.

During the EPA Phase I SI conducted in April and May 2008, s ix 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 gri t (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 w ere 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 chemi st (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, p p. 32, 48, 53 , 323, and 376 ; Ref. 45 ). Results of sam ples from the former grit storage area indicate the presence of several organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride) and several m etals (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 t he former grit storage area is located approximately 1 5 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 t here 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

Limit a Reference

FG01SS ( MJ8 GN1) (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 ( MJ8 GN2) (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 ( MJ8 GN3) (08184107) Soil 5/2/2008 B utyltin

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 ( MJ8 GN4) (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/k g (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 ( MJ8 GN5) (08184109) Soil 5/2/2008 Butyltin

Trichloride 1900 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32, 335, and 390; Ref. 41, p. 3 Dibutylti n 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

Limit a Reference

Nickel 845 JH mg/kg (AC = 626 mg/kg) 4.28 mg/kg

FG06SS ( MJ8 GN6) (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).

M illigrams per kilogram. Micrograms per kilogram.

EPA SI ( Ref. 4) :

- Background Concentrations: F or illust ration 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 collec ted 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

Limit a Reference

BK01SS ( MJ8 GN0) (0 818 4104) 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

Limit a 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 =

m g/kg = ug/kg = Ad justed 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).

M illigrams per kilogram. Micrograms per kilogram.

### 18 List of Hazardous Substances Assoc iated with Source

Butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, tributyltin chloride, chromium, copp er, and nickel.

### 19 S D

– Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No.: 1

2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Available data are i nsufficient 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 Ar ea

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)

Sour ce 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 burn ing waste paint thinner since at least 1997 (Ref. 43, p. 2). During the site visit conducted in 2007 for the SI, the property owne r indicated that AMCC O was still in the practice of applying solvents to this area to help start fires (Ref. 4, p. 20 ; Ref. 4 4, 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 R iver (Ref. 4, p. 20; Ref. 44, p. 3).

During the EPA Phase I SI conducted in April and May 2008 , f our 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 t hese 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, da rk -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

inche s 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 f or organotins ( Krone Method ), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs ; EPA SOM01.2 ), T AL 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 t he 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

Limit a Reference

BA01SS ( MJ8 GM6) (08184100) Soil 5/1/2008 Butyltin

Trichlorid e 440 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32, 191, 327, and 382 ; Ref. 41, p. 3 Antimony 14.6 mg/kg 7.07 mg/kg

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 (A C = 510 mg/kg) 4.71 mg/kg

Zinc 2670 JL mg/kg 7.07 mg/kg

BA02SS ( MJ8 GM7) (08184101) Soil 5/1/2008 Butyltin

Trichloride 530 ug/kg 5 ug/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32, 194, 197, 328, and 383 ; Ref. 41, pp. 3 and 4 Tributyltin

Chloride 630 ug/kg 5 ug/kg

Anti mony 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 J H 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 ( MJ8 G R0) (08184134) Soil 5/ 1 /2008 Antimony 23.5 mg/kg 7.36 mg/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32 and

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

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 m g/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

Limit a Reference

Zinc 17000 JL mg/kg 7.36 mg/kg

BA04SS ( MJ8 GR1) (08184135) Soil 5/ 1 /2008 Arsenic 420 mg/kg 2.04 mg/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32 and

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

Cobalt 61.9 mg/kg 10.18 mg/kg Copper 9430 mg/kg 5.0 9 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).

M illigrams pe r kilogram. Micrograms per kilogram.

EPA SI ( Ref. 4) :

- Background Concentrations: F or 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 Ha zardous

Substance

Concentration Sample Quantitation

Limit a Reference

BK01SS ( MJ8 GN0) (081 8 4104) 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 Dibutyl tin

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 Ha zardous

Substance

Concentration Sample Quantitation

Limit a 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 =

m g/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. 32 6). Low bias (Ref. 4. p. 326).

M illigrams 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 insuff icient 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 ( Re f. 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 describe d by contaminated soil points BA 01SS th rough BA04SS is approximately 24 0 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 Wate r 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, p p

. 51609, 51610, and Table 4

- 2.

2.12 Other Possible Sources

In June 1997, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ( ODEQ ) cond ucted 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, s andblast 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 build ing (Ref. 7, p. 12). These a dditional 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 remain ing two ta nks 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 bi lge waste, and were often used by boat owners without supervision; therefore, some spillage had occurred (Ref. 7, pp. 12 and 13). O ily, 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

stor age 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 approx imately 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 rust

preventive, 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 re ason, 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 previousl y or currently used to store boat engines (Ref. 4, p. 20). Four surface soil s amples (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 a n 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 greas e; 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 m etals (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 m etals (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

- define d 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 M IGRATION 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 C lark 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 t o t he Lewis and Clark Ri ver 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, p p. 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. 6 2). Additionally, habitat for several Federal

- listed

threatened sal mon 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 shorel ines 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 downstr eam to the Pacific Ocean (Ref. 4, p. 61). T he 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 Sloug h (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 south ern 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) . B ecause 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, d uring the EPA 2009 Phase II SI, f ifteen sediment samples (AM01SD through AM15SD) were

collected from the Lewis and Clark River in front (and west) of the AMCC O facility (Ref. 4, p p. 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 fee t 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 wall s of the sampler (Ref. 4, p. 30). Collected material was then homogenized thoroughly in a dedicated stainless steel bowl and placed into prelabele d 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, p p. 29

, 1144, 1158, 1173, 1175, 1179, and 1180: Ref. 46, pp, 4, 5, 15, 16, and 17). All data underwent data validation. Analytical resu lts 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 analysi s 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 ). Base d 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. EPA2008 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

Limit a
(units) References

BK01SD

– Phase II (Background Sample) (M JC1Q7) (09454115) Sediment Lewis and

Clark

River 6 miles 11/11/2009 Ref. 4, p p. 33 and 40 ; Ref. 9 Butyltin

Trichloride Dibutyltin

Dichloride Tributyltin

Chloride

Anti mony 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 ( MJ8 GP0) (08184114) Sediment Lewis and

Clark

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

Ref. 9 Butylti n 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 m g/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

Limit a
(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 ( MJ8 GP1) (08184115) Sedim ent 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 ( MJ8 GP2) (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 ( MJ8 GP3) (08184117) Sediment Lewis and

Clark

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

Ref. 9 Butyltin

Trichloride

D ibutyltin

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, p p. 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

Limit a
(units) References

Zinc 1610 mg/kg 16.35 mg/kg

BK01SD

– Phase I ( MJ8 GM9) (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 m g/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 (M JC1P6) (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 (M JC1P7) (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 (M JC1P9) (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 ( MJ8 GN8) (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 m g/kg

6.60 m g/kg Ref. 4, pp. 32,
337, 394 ; Ref. 41, p. 6

JS02SD ( MJ8 GN9) Sediment Jeffers Slough 0 Feet 5/1/2008 Ref. 4, p. 32;

Ref. 9 Butyltin

Trichloride 17 ug/kg 5 ug/k g 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

Limit a
(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 =

m g/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).

M illigrams per kilogram. Detected concentration is below the method reporting limi t/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 Supporti ng 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 bodi es.

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. 1 4, 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. 1 4 , 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 indica ted 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 Jef fers 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 t he 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 ar e available to migrate to the surface water migration pathway (see Section s 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 Sl ough 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 h ave 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 AM CCO facility whic h 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 th e 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 f alse (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 c ould 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, f ifteen 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 trans ects 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 points38 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 with in the TDL are butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, tributyltin chloride, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc.

Observed Release Factor Value: 55039 SWOF/Food Chain

– Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

4.1.3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Table 7 below p rovides Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics Factor Values for those hazardous substances pre sent 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 Value a Bioaccumu

lation Factor

Value b Toxicity/Pers

istence/Bioa

ccumulation

Value (Ref. 1, p.

51619 Table 4

- 16) Reference

Butyltin

Trichloride c 1, 2

-- -- -- -- --

Dibutyltin

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

Tributyltin

Chloride 1, 2 10 ,000 1 5 0 ,000 5 X 10 8 Ref. 25

Antimony 2 10,000 1 5 5 X 10 4 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 1

Arsenic 2 10,000 1 5 00 5 X 10 6 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 1

Cadmium 2 10,000 1 5 0 ,000 5 X 10 8 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 2

Chromium 1, 2 10,000 1 500 5 X 10 6 Ref. 2 , p. BI

- 3

Cobalt 2 10 1 5,000 5 X 10 4 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 3
Copper 1, 2 0 1 5 0,0 00 0 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 3

Lead 2 10,000 1 5 ,000 5 X 10 7 Ref. 2, p. BI

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

- 8

Nickel 1, 2 10,000 1 500 5 X 10 6 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 9

Silver 2 100 1 50 ,000 5 X 10 6 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 10

Zinc 2 10 1 5 0,000 5 X 10 5 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

ane c 2

-- -- -- -- --

o

- Xylene 2 1 0.4 50 20 Ref. 2, p. B I

- 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 10 8 are tributytin chloride, cadmium , and manganese.

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 X 10 840 SWOF/Food Chain

– Hazardous Waste Quantity

4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantit y

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 → 1 a

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 as signed (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 10 6

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

Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 10 subject to a maximum value of 1 x 10 12 ( Ref. 1, p. 51620)

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value ( Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2

- 7): 32 0

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320

Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2 -741 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 C oncentrations

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 [Ch emical 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. 5162042 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 Concentr ations

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, an d 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 th an 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, Tab le 4

- 18)

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

Sum of Level II Human Food Chain Population Values: 0.0 3

Level I I Concentrations Fac tor Value: 0.0 343 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 prov ides 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

Pound s (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 4 7 13.9 653 16 31.9 510 1

, 16 3

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 4 5

, 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

, 0 30

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

, 30544 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

Pound s (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 Commer cial Chinook and Sturgeon Harvest in

Pounds 347

, 87 1

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 Young s Bay.

Table 1 1 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

Wee k 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 Megler

Astoria 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 medi an weight of 7.5 pounds for estimating purposes (i.e., 264 steelhead x 7.5 pounds).

The nearest Un ited States Geological Survey water gauging station on the Columbia River is at Quincy, Oregon at River Mile 53.8 (Ref. 27 ; 28 ; Ref. 2 9 ). The flow rate of the Columbia River at this location

was approximately 211,600 c ubic feet per second (cfs) for Water Year 2009 , the most recent year on45 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 tribut aries (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 0.0 000 1 [ Ref. 1, p. 51613 (Table 4

- 13)]. The dilution weight for Youngs Bay (large stream to river) is 0.001 [Ref. 1, p. 516 13 (Table 4 -13)]. The potential human food chain target value is calculated in Table 12 below.

Table 1 2 Potential Human Food Chain Target Value

Surface Water Body Type of

Fish Pounds

of Fish a Human Food

Chain Value b Dilution Weight c Dilution Weighted Value Youngs Bay Chinook

and Sturgeon 347

, 87 1 310 0.001 0.31

Coho 245

, 097

Total

Catch for Youngs Bay 592

, 967

Columbia

River Steelhead 1,980 3 0.0 0 001 0.000 0 3

Total TDL dilution weighted human food chain target value 0.310 0 3 / 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 : 0.03100346 SWOF/Environment – Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

4.1.4.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.4.2.1 Eco system Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

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

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

Table 1 3 Environmental Threat Waste Ch aracteristics Factor Values

Hazardous

Substance Source Ecosystem Toxicity

Factor

Value a Persistence

Factor

Value b Environmental

Bioaccumul

ation Factor

Value c Ecosystem Toxicity/Per

sistence/ Environ

mental Bioaccumulation

Value (Ref. 1, p. 51619,

Tabl e 4

- 16) Reference

Butyltin

Trichloride d 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 10 8 Ref. 25

Antimony 2 100 1 5 0 5 ,0 00 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 1

Arsenic 2 10 0 1 5,000 5 x 10 5 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 1

Cadmium 2 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 2

Chromium 1, 2 10,000 1 500 5 x 10 6 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 3

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

- 3
Copper 1, 2 1,000 1 5 0 ,000 5 x 10 7 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 3

Lead 2 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 7 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 8

Mangane se 2 0 1 50,000 0 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 8

Nickel 1, 2 1 ,0 00 1 500 5 x 10 5 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 9

Silver 2 10,000 1 50 ,000 5 x 10 8 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 10

Zinc 2 10 0 1 50,000 5 x 10 6 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 12
Ethylbenzene 2 1 ,0 00 0.0 00 7 50 3 5 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 6

m,p

- Xylenes 2 100 0. 4 50 3.5 Ref. 2, p. BI

- 12
Methylcyclohe

xane d 2

-- -- -- -- --

o

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

- 12

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

b. River persiste nce values (Ref. 2 ; Ref. 2 5; Ref. 52 ).

c. The higher of f resh and salt w ater 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 10 8 are tributyltin chloride , cadmium, and silver.

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 847 SWOF/Environment – Hazardous Waste Quantity

4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Table 1 4

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 → 1 a

a. Ref. 1, p. 51591.

Targets within the surface water migratio n 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 10 6

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

Environmental Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 10 subject to a maximum value of 1 x 10 12

Waste Charact eristics Factor Category Value ( Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2

- 7): 320

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

Waste Characteri stics Factor Category Value: 320

Ref. 1, p. 51592, Table 2 -748 SWOF/ Environment

– Targets

4.1.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL THR EAT

– 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: 049 SWOF/Environmental – Level II Concentrations

4.1.4.3.1.2 Level I I 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 s everal Evolut ionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Federal

- list ed threatened salmon species as demonstrated in Table 15 below. T hese species are subject to Level II concentrations of hazardous substances (see Section 4.1.2.1.1).

Table 1 5 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

– Threate ned

(oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 0 feet 75 Ref. 9; Ref. 35; Ref. 36; Ref.

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

50

Sum of Values 2 25

Wetlands

Not scored.

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

L evel II Concentrations Factor Value: 22550 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 m any miles of wetland frontage exist within the TDL ( Ref. 8; Ref. 42)

.

Potential Contamin ation Factor Value: 0