SFUND-2003-0009-0084 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET

Name ofSite: Peters Cartridge Factory EPAIDNo.: OHD987051083
Contact Person Site Investigation and Documentation Record: Jeanne Griffin (312) 886-3007 NPL Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V· 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 22202 Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored Ground Water Pathway Although there is some evidence of a release to ground water at the site and a significant possible target population, the present information is insufficient to satisfy the HRS requirements for scoring. Thus, the ground water pathway has not been scored as part ofthis HRS package. Soil Exposure Pathway Basedonthe lack ofdata and a limitednumber ofdocumentedtargets, the soil exposurepathway has not been scored as part ofthis HRS package.

. Air Migration Pathway

There is insufficient documentation to satisfy HRS requirements for scoring, and this pathway minimally impacts the listing decision. As such, the air migration pathway has not been scored as part ofthis fIRS package.

### 1 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Peters Cartridge Factory Date Prepared: November 8, 2002, Revised September 2012 EPA Region: Region 5 Street Address of Site*: 1415 Grandin Road (south side of the Little Miami River) City, County, State, Zip Code: Kings Mills, Warren County, Ohio 45039 General Location in the State: In the southwestern portion of the state, north of Cincinnati and south of Dayton Topographic Map: South Lebanon, Ohio Quandrangle Latitude: 39o 

### 21' 2.5" North Longitude: 84o 

### 14' 32" West Ref: Refs. 3; 4, Figure 3. (Measured from Building I) *The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. 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.

Scores Air Pathway Not Scored Ground Water Pathway Not Scored Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway 100.00 HRS SITE SCORE 50.00

# -----------------------------------------------------

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE**~** 

# ...s:... l. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) (from Table 3-1, line 13) .' 2a. Surface Water OverlandIFlood Migration Component (from Table 4-1, line 30) 100.00 10.000
2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component (from Table 4-25, line 28) 2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw Enter the larger oflines 2a and 2b as the pathway score. 100.00 10,000
3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S, (from Table 5-1, line 22) 4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) (from Table 6-1, line 12) 5. Total ofS 2 

### + S 2 

### + S 2 

### + S 2 gw sw 5 a 

### lQ.,QQQ 6. 

### HRS Site Score :Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 50.00



### 2**~---.-----**TABLE 4-1 SURFACE WATER OVERLANDIFLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET
Value Assigned Maximum Value Factor Categories and Factors DRINKING WATER THREAT Likelihood ofRelease 550 550 1. Observed Release 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow 2a. Containment 10 2b. Runoff 25



## - 25 2c. Distance to Surface Water



# - 2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a x [2b 

### + 2c]) 500



# - 3. Potential to Release by Flood 3a. Containment (Flood) 10



# - 3b. Flood Frequency 50


# - 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3ax3b) 500



## - 4. Potential to Release (lines 2d 

### + 3c, subject to a maximum of500) 500



## - 5. Likelihood ofRelease 550 (higher oflines I and 4) 550 Waste Characteristics 

### 6. Toxicity!Persistence 10,000 a 

### 7. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 

### 8. Waste Characteristics 32 100**Target~** 

### 9. Nearest Intake 50


# - 10. Population 10a.Level I Concentrations b


# - lOb.Level II Concentrations b

3b 10c. Potential Contamination



# - 10d. Population (lines lOa 

### + lOb 

### + 10c) b



# - 5 5 11. Resources b 5 Factor Categories and Factors 12. Targets (lines 9 

### + lOd 

### + 11) Value Assigned DRINKING WATER THREAT (Concluded)

_

Drinking Water Threat Score Maximum Value

13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([lines 5 x 8 x 12]182,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 1.07 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT Likelihood ofRelease 14. Likelihood ofRelease (same value as line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 2 x 108 a 15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 100 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 1,000 320 Targets 17. Waste Characteristics

45 18. Food Chain Individual 50 19. PopUlation 19a.Level I Concentrations b



## - 0.03 19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination 19b.Level II Concentrations b b


# - 19d. Population 0.03 (lines 19a 

### + 19b 

### + 19c) b
20. Targets (lines 18 

### + 19d) 45.03 Human Food Chain Threat Score b



### 4



# ------=------ -----------_.-,,- -_. -----..**-~------** 

# ----­**--.--------"~**21. HumanFood Chain Threat Score ([lines 

### 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500, subjectto a maximum of 100) 100 96.06 Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned**E~RONMENTALTHREAT** Likelihood ofRelease 22. Likelihood ofRelease (same value as line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 23. Ecosystem ToxicitylPersistencel Bioaccumulation a 2 x 108 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320 Targets 26. Sensitive Environments 26a.Level I Concentrations b



# - 26b.Level II Concentrations b 50 26c. Potential Contamination b



### - 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a 

### + 26b 

### + 26c) b 50 27. Targets (value from 26d) b 50.00 Environmental Threat Score 28. Environmental Threat Score ([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 60) 60 60
SURFACE WATER OVERLANDIFLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED 29. Watershed Score (lines 13 

### + 21 

### + 28, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 SURFACE WATER OVERLANDIFLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE

5-,.j



### 30. Component Score (SoJo, 

### (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 aMaxlmum= value apphes to waste charactenstics category. bMaximum value not applicable. "Do not round to nearest integer.

6**--------.--------~---------------------------.--------------------~--~--~--------~------~.**

REFERENCES Ref. No. Description ofthe Reference 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [Office ofthe Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration (OFRNARA)],December 14, 1990,40 CFRPart300,HazardRanking System (HRS). 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. June 1996. (Excerpt of64 pages). 3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle (South Lebanon, Ohio Quadrangle); and Latitude/Longitude Verification Worksheet (1 map and I page). 4. Ohio EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Divisionof Emergency & Remedial Response. Expanded Site Inspection Report. September 29, 1999. 103 pages. 5. Floppe Thelen Group, Inc. Report on Septic System Remediation, LensCrafters Kings Mills Technical Center, Kings Mills, Ohio. November 4, 1993. 236 pages. 6. PRC Environmental Management, Inc. Screening Site Inspection Site Evaluation Report, Peters CartridgeFactory (also Known as KingsMills Technical Center), 1915 GrandinRoad, Kings Mills, Ohio 45034. September 30, 1994. 50 pages. 7. PRCEnvironmentalManagement, Inc. ScreeningSiteInspectionReport, Peters CartridgeFactory, 1415 Grandin Road, Kings Mills, Warren County, Ohio. December 20, 1996. 67 pages. 8. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Traffic Reports and Chain ofCustody for 05/05/99 and 05/06/99 Peters Cartridge E.S'!. Site, OHD 987051083, Case Number 26980. 36 pages. 9. Ohio EnvironmentalProtectionAgency. TrafficReports and ChainofCustody for 05/12/99 Peters Cartridge E.S.1. Site, OHD 987051083, Cases # 26980 and 27007. 8 pages. 10. U.S. EPA Region 5. Analytical DataReview, Case Number 26980. 1999. 68 pages. 11. U.S. EPA Region 5. Analytical DataReview, Case Number 26980. 1999.21 pages. 12. U.S. EPA, (EPA, 1996), Using Qualified Datato Document an ObservedRelease and Observed Contamination (OSWER Directive 9285.7-24FS). November 1996. 18 pages. 13. QsourceEngineering, Inc. Environmental Site Assessment, Kings Mills Technical Center, Kings Mills, Ohio. December 1987. 68 pages. 14. U.S. EPA Region 5 Central Regional Laboratory. Analytical DataReview, Case Number 26980, SDG MEBRL4. 1999. 14 pages. 15. U.S. EPA Region 5 Central Regional Laboratory. Analytical DataReview, Case Number 27007, SDG MEBRW6. 1999. 30 pages.

7

---. -- -- .-._...-......................."'

.... -----1

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

### 16. Martin, Steve, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Telephone Conversation with Ryan Peterson, Wildlife Officer, Division ofWildlife, Ohio Department ofNatural Resources. Subject: Fishing in Little Miami River. May 18,2001. 1 page. 17. Martin, Steve, Ohio EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
. Maps with 1999ESI Sample Locations and Area Estimates ofLead, Mercury and Copper Soil Contamination at Peters Cartridge Factory. 5 pages. 18. Gannon, Loren, S. Jr., Historian. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, National Park Service: National Register ofHistoric Places Inventory-Nomination Form (prepared for Peters Cartridge Factory). March 1, 1985. 9 pages. 19. Ohio EPA, Division ofEmergency and Remedial Response. Sensitive Environments Map. 1999. 2 pages. 20. Ohio Department ofNatural Resources. Little Miami State and National Scenic River. Web site accessed 10/5/01: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/dnap/sr/lmiami.htm

..3 

### pages. 2i. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems. River Milage Classifications for Components ofthe National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems. Web site accessed 10/5/01: http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildlriverstable.html

. 2 pages. 22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EnviroMapper: web site accessed 10/30/01. 8 pages. 23. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary ofMajor Changes Made to the Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration Organic Analytical Statement ofWork (OLM03.2 to OLM04.2) (OWSER Publication 9240.0-33FS). January 2000. 4 pages. 24. Martin, Steve, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Correspondence to Josephine Williams, DynCorp; Telephone Conversations with Joe Tussey, City ofLebanon, and John Luallen, Village ofLebanon; and 1 map. April 2002. 4 pages. 25. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Non-Sampling Screening Site Inspection Kings Mills Army Reserve Center. May 16,2002. 282 pages. 26. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Investigations and Sampling Logbook, Peters Cartridge ESI, Case 

### # 26980 SED Samples. May 4, 1999. 16 pages. 27. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Investigations and Sampling Logbook, Peters Cartridge ESI, Case 

### # 26980, Soil. May 4, 5, 11 1999. 24 pages. 28. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Investigations and Sampling Logbook, Peters Cartridge

.ESI, Case 

### # 26980, Ground Water, Soil, Sediment Samples. May 4,5, 1999. 14 pages. 29. U.S. EPA Region 5 Central Regional Laboratory. Analytical DataReview, Case Number 26980, SDG ECHJ6. 1999. 68 pages. 30. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Introduction to the Contract Laboratory Program, EPA 540-R-99-005, OSWER 9240.0-34P. February, 2000. 43 pages.

8

--**--~-----** - .._-------**----~.** 

# ---­

### 8a REFERENCES, continued

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Peters Cartridge Company, a/k/a Kings Mills Technical Center. July 7, 2004. 74 pages. 32. Geosyntec Consultants. Remedial Investigation Report, Former Peters Cartridge Facility. February 25, 2009. 1965 pages. 33. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami River

– Peters Cartridge Area. November 1, 2007. 36 pages. 34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. Record of Decision, Peters Cartridge Facility. September 2009. 140 pages. 35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. Administrative Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action, Peters Cartridge Facility Site. April 4, 2012. 33 pages.

### 9 Site Summary The Peters Cartridge Factory formerly operated on a 10

-acre parcel of land at 1415 Grandin Road, on the south side of the Little Miami River in Warren County, Ohio. The facility is bordered by the Kings Mills United States Army Reserve Center (USARC) [formerly part of the Kings Mills Ordnance Plant] to the southwest, the Little Miami Scenic Trail and the Little Miami River to the north and west, and rural areas to the east and south (Figure 1 of HRS documentation record; Ref. 4, p. 1, Figure 2; Ref. 3; Ref. 25, p. 4). The Peters Cartridge Factory operated as a manufacturer of semi

-smokeless cartridge ammunition, including shotgun shells and rifle and pistol cartridges (Ref. 4, p. 2; Ref. 18, p. 4). The company expanded north across Grandin Road during World War I due to increased demand for ammunition from the European Powers and the United States (Ref. 7, p. 10). After the war, the frame buildings erected to keep up with the war demands were demolished, and the company was consolidated back to its original buildings at the present site location. Remington Arms purchased Peters Cartridge Factory in 1934 and continued to manuf acture rifle and shotgun ammunition until near the end of World War I1 (Ref. 4, p. 2; Ref. 18, pp. 4, 5). In 1944, the facility was closed as part of a consolidation by Remington (Ref. 18, p. 5). The Columbia Records division of RCA occupied the facility f rom 1944 to 1948, mixing plastic materials and manufacturing phonograph record disks. Seagrams Distillers used the facility as a bonded warehouse during the 1950s. A small cabinet company used a portion of the facility around the 1970s (Ref. 18, p. 5)

. In 1979 the facility was purchased by Landmark Renaissance Corporation and is currently known as the Kings Mills Technical Center. LensCrafters leased the property from January 1987 to December 1991. LensCrafters utilized chemicals such as Freon 113, surfactants, phosphoric acid, n

-hexane, paints, tints, and dyes in the manufacture of eyeglass lenses and frames. Several other companies owned or leased the present facility, but they did not use chemicals in their operations (Ref. 6, p. 11; Ref. 7, p. 10, 11; Ref. 13, p. 6). In 1987, as part of an environmental assessment for the Kings Mills Technical Center, lead contamination was discovered at the site (Ref. 13, pp. 4,5,9, 12, 13). On

-site soils were sampled at depths of 1,4, 8, and 12 feet, and lead was found at concentrations reaching 33,500 ppm at a depth of 4 feet (Ref. 13, pp. 4,12). Fill materials including boiler ash and slag were found buried in layers from 7 to 12 feet thick on the property (Ref. 6, p. 12;Ref. 13, p. 17). Monitoring wells were installed on-site in December 1987and were sampled and analyzed for lead and total organic content. Lead was detected in well W

-3 at 0.52 mg/l, well above the action level of 0.015 mg/L (Ref. 6, p. 11; Ref. 13, p. 15). In 1993, operational portions of the facility were paved to prevent direct contact with lead contaminated soil (Ref. 4, p. 2; Ref. 6, p. 12). An Expanded Site Inspection was conducted on May 4, 5, and 1l, 1999 by the Ohio EPA. Soil, sediment, ground water, and fish tissue samples were collected (Ref. 4, p. 1). Contaminated ground water was discovered in on

-site monitoring wells (Ref. 4, pp. 7, 8, 11). An observed release to the Little Miami River was documented. The Little Miami River, which is threatened by contamination from the site, is a fishery, State and National Scenic River, and home to several State

-designated endangered species (Refs. 19; 20; 21)

. From 2005 through 2007, field work for a Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted at the Site by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into by DuPont and EPA on July 7, 2004 (Refs. 31 , pp. 1

-5; 32, pp. ES

-1, ES

-2). Environmental samples were collected from potential areas of concern (AOCs), grid locations, off

-property background locations and the Little Miami River (Ref. 32, p. ES

-2). Ohio EPA also independently conducted a study of the river in the vicinity of Peters Cartridge (Refs. 32, p. ES

-3; 33). The study included the collection of fish, macroinvertebrate and sediment samples at each of five sampling locations in the river. The sediment sampling results indicated a level of lead in the shoreline sediment in the depositional area adjacent to the facility that, while below the Ohio Sediment Reference Value, was more than three times the background sediment level (Ref. 33, pp. 13

-15). A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by the EPA on September 28, 2009, with concurrence from the State of Ohio. The ROD delineated the cleanup option selected for the Site, which was excavation and on

-site consolidation of contaminated soils and sediments adjacent to the facility outfalls, with institutional controls such as zoning and use restrictions, soil management plans, restrictive agreements, public notices and posted signs (Ref. 34, pp. vi

-viii)

. Subsequent to the ROD, the EPA and the responsible parties for the Site held extensive negotiations to develop a consent decree for remedial design/remedial action, but no agreement was reached. On March 30, 2012, the EPA Region 5 signed a unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action for the Site (Ref. 35, pp. 1, 33)

.i I I i**,~----~,-------------,--------------------------------------------------------~-------------------**



### 2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Source Number: 1 Source Type: Contaminated Soil Description and Location ofSource (Figures 2 and 3 ofHRS documentation record; Ref. 4, Figure 3; Ref. 25): Lead, copper, and mercury contaminated soils were discovered inareas neareach of thebuildings atthe site; just across Grandin Road; and in vacant areasjust south ofthe Peters Cartridge Factory. The approximate areas ofcontaminated soils were determined using GIS plotting and the area within samples from the XRF results from the 1999 ESI sampling event (Ref. 4, Appendix G, pages 1 to 3; Ref. 17, pp. 1-5). This contaminated soil source is associated with the ammunition manufacturing activities at the Peters Cartridge Factory. The Peters Cartridge Factory manufactured semi-smokeless cartridge ammunition, including shotgun shells and rifle and pistol cartridges (Ref. 4, p. 2; Ref. 6, p. 10; Ref. 18, p. 4). Lead shot ammunition was manufactured by pouring lead into the shot tower, near Buildings 2 and 3 at the site, and letting it fall through a screen in order to form pellets. Building 6 was used to prepare volatile fulminate of mercury primers. Copper and mercury fulminate, were also used inthe lead shot ammunition preparation (Ref. 6, p. 11; Ref. 18, p. 2). Contaminated soil was discovered in areas near each ofthe buildings at the site; just across Grandin Road; and in vacant areas just south of the Peters Cartridge Factory (Ref. 4, Appendix G, pages 1 to 3). In 1987, as part of an environmental assessment, lead contaminated soil was discovered at the Peters Cartridge Factory site (Ref. 13, pp. 9). Nine trenches were dug, and samples were collected at a depth of 1, 4, 8, and 12 feet. Duringtrenching, 7 to 12 feet offill material was also found at seven ofthe nine trench locations. The fill was believedto be slag andboiler ash deposited during ammunition manufacturing (Ref. 6, p. 12). Lead concentrations reaching 33,500 ppm were detected in soils adjacent to the shottower (Ref. 6, Figure 2). Due to the extent oflead inthe soil, some areas ofexposed soil were pavedin 1993 to prevent direct soil contact (Ref. 4, p. 2; Ref. 6, Figure 2). In 1999, an expanded site inspection (ESI) was conducted by the Ohio EPA. Source soil sampling was conducted intwo phases. The first phase consisted of53 samples collected using stainless steel spoons and a Geoprobe sampler. These samples were placed in plastic bags and analyzed for metals using a portable X-ray fluorescent (XRF) machine (Ref. 4, p. 4, Appendix G; Ref. 17). TheXRF results were used to select locations for the second phase ofsampling in which 9 soil samples (PC-SaX-os; PC-SO-09; pc-sa-os; Building 3; #6 Bunker; PC-SOX-I7; Hearth Area; PC-SOX-42; PC-SO-26) were collected for analysis using U.S. EPA's contract laboratory program (CLP) methodology (Ref. 4, pp. 4, 6, Figure 3, Appendix E pp. 1 to 3; Ref. 27, pp. 2 - 21). A soil sample (PC-SO-Ol) was collected from the grassy area east of Building 6 and was analyzed for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis by Ohio EPA Division of Environmental Services (DES) laboratory. The soil background sample (pC-SO-26) was also analyzed for VOCs by Ohio EPA DES laboratory (Ref. 4, pp. 4, 6). Lead, copper, and mercury contaminated soils can be associated with site activity. The approximate areas ofcontaminated soils were determined using GIS plottingandthe areawithin samples from the XRF results from the 1999 ESI sampling event. These areas are shown in Reference 17. Semivolatile, volatile, and

10

### pesticide organic compounds were also detected in the 1999 ESI soil samples (Ref. 4, Appendix A, pp 1 to 9). Acenapthene, Anthracene, Carbazole, Di-n-butylphthalate, Dibenz(a, h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Fluorene,Methylene chloride, Naphthalene,Phenanthrene, alpha-BHC, alpha-Chlordane, gama-Chlordane, delta-BHC, Heptachlor Epoxide, 4,4-DDE, and Endosulfan Sulfate are among the organic compounds detected 

### inthe contaminated soil samples, buthave not beendocumentedto be associatedwiththe processes atthe Peters Cartridge Factory facility; these hazardous substances may be present as a result of the asphalt paving applied over parts ofthe source to avoid direct contact with the high levels ofmetals in this source.
2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLE: PC-SO-26 

### The soil background sample was collected on May 5, 1999 approximately 500 feet northeast ofthe site outside the influence ofthe manufacturing activity conducted atthe site, but within the vicinity ofthe local environment ofthe site (Ref. 4, Figure 3 and AppendixE, p. 3, Appendix G, page 3; Ref. 27, pp. 7, 8, 9). This sample was collected at 0 to 6 inches ofdepth and consisted ofbrownish black silt and clays, slightly moistened, with an organic odor (Ref. 27, pp. 7,8,9).

Antimony 2.31 19.6 4, Appendix A, p. 9; 14, pp. 2 to 8 and 10; 30,9. A-4 

### Arsenic 11.8 3.3 4, Appendix A, p. 9; 14, pp. 2 

### to 8 

### and 10; 30,9. A-4 

### Cadmium 0.33U 1.6 4, Appendix A, p. 9; 14, pp. 2 to 8 and 10; 30,9. A-4 

### Copper 40.8 8.2 4,Appendix A, p. 10; 14 pp. 2 to 8 and 10 30,9. A-4 

### Lead 1491** 0.98 4, Appendix A, p. 10; 14, pp. 2 to 8 and 10; 30,9. A-4 

### Mercury 0.741** 0.03 4, 

### Appendix A, p. 10; 14, 

### pp. 2 to 8 

### and 10; 30,9. A-4 

### Silver 0.65U 3.27 4, Appendix A, p. 10; 14, pp. 2 to 8 and 10; 30,9. A-4 J 

### Value is estimated (Ref. 4. Appendix A, p. 11; Ref. 14, p. 8). 

### U 

### Analyte ,was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit. (Ref. 14 p. 8). 

# ** While some ofthe values were qualified during QC review, the qualifiers only effectthe accuracy ofthe quantification; the presence ofthese substances is not in doubt. The hazardous substances are listed to document the presence ofthe substance at the source. SQL estimated for inorganic analytes using the following equation: SQL 

## = CRDL Ilg/L x 200 ml (final volume) 

### x 1000 Ilg/mg x Dilution I 

### 1000 mIlL 

### x 1 gm (sample weight) 

### x 1000 gm/kg 

### x (%solids/l00) A fmal volume of 100 ml was used for mercury.

11

# ------------------------------------------

CONTAMINATED SOILSAMPLES: Building3;#6 Bunker; PC-SOX-17; HearthArea;**PC~SOX** 

### 42; PC-S-01 The contaminated soil source samples were collected on May 5, 1999 and May 11, 1999 during an Expanded Site Inspection. The sample depthranged from

# ° to 8 inches below ground surface. All samples were collectedina similarmanner as the background sample collected onMay 5,1999 (Ref. 27, p. 1to 21). The contaminated soil source samples consisted ofone ormore ofthefollowing descriptions. Blackloamy, dark grey; brown, sandy gravel, slightly moist; brown/dark loam; silver grey clay, and grey gritty black material.

", ;JI"

.. !."'l·,;·

.. 1 

# tSQL":,Ji ;Haiardoiis,:'

.. 

### I:;l.'/k+::;:· 

### "Sf' t·,·" ...,1.:"

# (~~.~f~t~~~~!:~~;i;j·}f\;;il·;?;kj:f:;;"Y;l·;;

# ..**:.~'::~~;;t~:lf:'!:W;bi}:J~~**

# :,.~::~:;~.~~jW~~;III::~~:l;;~~l::::: 1· ubstli'ncerr·,;**.~,.::g.1** (i , , •. , '1**~'** 4, Appendix A, p. 9; 15, pp. 2, 12; 27, p. 13; 30, pp. 8, A-4 7,920 (pC-SOX-l7) Antimony 52.9 (Bunker 6) 18 14.7 15,pp.2, 13; 27, p. 16; 30,pp. 8,A-4 10,200 (Hearth Area) 15, pp 11; 27, pp. 16,17; 30, pp. 8, A-4 109 (!>C-SOX-42) 15.0 15, p. 2, 14; 27, p. 19; 30, pp. 8, A-4 15.5 4, Appendix A, p. 9; 15, pp. 2, 13; 30, pp. 8,. A-4 Arsenic 2,550 (PC-SOX-17) 3.0 4, Appendix A, p. 9; 15, p. 

### 13; 27, p. 16; 30, pp. 8, A-4 Cadmium 4.7 (pC-SOX-17) 1.5 4.3 (Hearth Area) 1.3 15, p. 

### 11; 27, pp. 16, 17; 30, pp. 8, A-4 15, p. 14; 27, p. 19; 30, pp. 8, A-4 1.6 (PC-SOX-42) 1.3 Copper 186**(pC~SOX-42)** 4, Appendix A, p. 10; 15, p. 2, 14; 27, p. 19; 30,jlQ. 8, A-4 6.5
Lead 56IJ** (Bldg. 3) 0.65 4, Appendix A, p. 10; 14, p. 10; 30, pp. 8, A-4 1,790 (Bunker 6) 15,pp.2, 12; 27, p. 13;30,pp.8,A-4 294,000 (PC-SOX-17) 0.89 15,pp.2, 13; 27,p. 16;30,pp.8,A-4 301,000 (Hearth Area) 0.73 15, p. 2,11; 27, pp. 16, 17; 30, pp. 8, A-4 13,200ffC-SOX-42) 0.75 15, pp. 2, 14; 27,j). 19; 30, pp. 8, A-4 0.77 Mercury 16.6 (Bunker 6) 0.029 4, Appendix A, p. 10; 15, p. 2, 12; 27, p. 13 5.9 (PC-SOX-17) 0.024 15, pp., 2, 13; 27, p. 16; 30, pp. 9, A-4 5.2 (Hearth Area) 0.025 15, pp. 2, 11; 27, p. 16; 30, pp. 9, A-4 15, pp. 2, 14; 27,p. 19;30,pp.9 A-4 17.8 (PC-SOX-42) 0.026 Silver 11.5 (pC-SOX-17) 3.0 4, Appendix A, p. 10; 15, pp. 2, 13; 27, p. 16 12.5 (Hearth Area) 15, pp. 2,11; 27, pp. 16, 17; 30, pp. 9, A-4 2.5 J Value is estimate (Ref. 

### 4. Appendix A, 

### p. 11; Ref. 15, 

### p. 4). ** While some ofthe values were qualified during QC review, the qualifiers only effect the accuracy ofthe quantification;, the presence ofthese substances is not in doubt. The hazardous substances are listed to document the presence ofthe substance at the source. 

# + SQL estimated for inorganic analytes usingthe following equation: SQL = CRDL f.1g/L 

### x 200 m! (fmal volume) x 1000 f.1g1mg x Dilution/1000 mIlL x 

### I gm (sample weight) x 1000 gm/kg x (%solidsll00) A fmal volume of 100 ml was used for mercury.

12



# _._._---------­2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

,

# .~:*~;t~~~~f~'rf#~?~~f~{;;::~i}i~.:~:::':~:,;.~·;:::~;,:::l',:;i:i'::':·j~!~l\r:;::(;Jr!:~:!,;.::;·il;;i\"~i.**'::!:~'! i':F~~~;;~!l:\:** 

# :::',**~~~i~~~~~~~!;E**

Gas release to air: not scored particulate release to air: not scored Release to ground water: not scored Neither ofthe following are present: (1) maintained engineered cover, or (2) functioning and maintained run-on control system and 10 Ref. 1 Table 4­ 2, p. 51609; Ref. 

### 4, p. 

### 1,2, 22, 23, and Figure 3; Ref. 3; Ref 6, p. 10, Figure 2 _runoffmanagement system.

2.2.4 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Description Insufficient information is available to evaluate Hazardous Constituent Quantity. Sum (pounds): Not available (NA) Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value (C): NA 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Description Insufficient information is available to evaluate Hazardous Wastestream Quantity. Sum (pounds): NA Sum ofWastestream Quantity/5,boo (Table 2-5): NA Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value (W): NA

132.4.2.1.3 Volume 

### Description Insufficient information is available to evaluate Volume.
Volume Assigned Value (V): 

### 0 2.4.2.1.4 Area 

### Description The exact dimension ofthe contaminated soil has not been determined. An 

### estimate ofthe copper, lead, and mercury contaminated areas were made using the 1999 XRF sampling data (Ref. 4, pp. 4, 6, Appendix G; Ref. 17). While the exact area ofcontaminated soil is unknown, it is known to be greaterthan zero based on 10 soil samples showing the presence oflead and other hazardous substances above background levels (Ref. 4, pp. 4, 6). Therefore, an area hazardous waste quantity ofgreater than zero is assigned. Sum (iP) : (greater than zero) >0, but exact amount is unknown Area Assigned Value (A): >0 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value 

### The source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 1is >0 for Tier D - Area (Ref 1, Table 2-5). Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0

14**~~~~-'~·~t--~----------------------------·-----------------------------------**



### 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Source Number: 2 Source Type: Contaminated Soil Description and Location of Source (Figure 4 ofHRS documentation record; Ref. 5, Figures 2 ,3, 7, and 8, Appendix B, p. 6; Ref. 4, Figure 3): This contaminated soil area is between Buildings 3 and 6 at the Peters Cartridge Factory. It consists of a septic system leachfield contaminated with organic compounds from the manufacture ofeyeglass frames and the coating ofoptical lenses (Ref. 5, pp. 1, 2;.Ref. 6, p. 12). LensCrafters, Inc. occupied a portion ofthe Kings Mills Technical Center at 1413 Grandin Road, Kings Mills, Ohio from 1986 to December 31, 1991 (Ref. 5, p. 1). LensCrafters' operations include the manufacture ofeyeglass frames and coating ofoptical lenses within Buildings 3 and 6 at the Kings Mills Technical Center (Ref. 5, p. 1). LensCrafters' processes utilized Freon 113 (1,1,2-Trichloro-l,2,2­ Trifluoroethane), surfactants, phosphoric acid, n-hexane, paints, tints, and dyes. Freon 113 was used Tn the Molded Frames' operation to dry eyeglass frames and in the Specialty Koatings' operations to dry optical lenses. Both ofthese operations were conducted in Building 3. A lens dryer was operated about 6 hours perday and used approximately 1 gallon ofFreon 113 per day to dry lenses. The Freon 113 used in the lens dryer was recycled through the system and replaced as it evaporated over time. Water, displaced from the lenses, was decanted from the recycled Freon 113 inawater separatorwhich was built into the system. The top water phase ofthe separator was at one time discharged into a floor drainwhich was piped to an on-site septic tank. In the Spring of 1990, after Freon 113 was detected in the septic tank, this connection was closed. The top phase of the separator was collected thereafter for off-site disposal (Ref. 5, p. 1). LensCrafters moved from the Kings Mills Technical Center on December 31, 1991 (Ref. 5, p. 1). The original design and permit to install the septic system was issued by Ohio EPA, but the septic system was not installed according to the permit. The permit accounted for atwo-compartment, 2000 gallon septic tank, a flow diversion box and three leach lines, each 125 feet long (Ref. 5, p. 8, Figure 5). During an onsite inspection, the septic tank and the flow diversion box where found to be installed south ofthe area shown on the original design plan (Ref. 5, p. 8). Also, at some point, a second influent line was connected to the septic system for wastewater from Building 3.(Ref. 5, p. 8). This influent line was installed near the northeast corner of Building 3 and enters the septic tank from the side and into the second (effluent) chamber of the septic tank, not theinfluent chamber (Ref. 5, Figure 6). 

### The discharge ofthe influent pipe from Building 3 into the septic rank was found to be approximately 17 inches below the normal operating

, level ofthe tank and only approximately 4 inches above the effluent baffle (Ref. 5, p. 8).

The septic tank 

### and the diversion box discharged to two 200-foot leach lines located east ofthe septic tank (Ref. 5, p. 15, Figure 6). Due to the under capacity ofthe septic tank, the septic system periodically had surface discharges ofsewage around the leach field area (Ref. 5, p. 15). Source samples characterizing this source includes samples collected at depth in 1990,1991,1992, and 1993 (Ref. 5, pp 5, 6, Appendix G, p. 2, Appendix I, p. 2). Attempts were made by LensCrafters to remediate the influent line, diversion box, septic tank, and the leach fields (Ref. 5, 

### p.1). Based on soil samples, the leach fields and the surrounding soils still contained Freon 113 after the initial response efforts (Ref. 4, p. 7; 5, pp 8 to 20, Figures 2,3,7, 8, and 26). Ground water samples collected in the 1999 ESI documented Freon 113 in on-site monitoring wells (Ref. 4, pp. iv, 6, 7, 12).

15**------~~"~~----** -.--- .-- .. -"._'--


### -- ­**-~~~~,----------------~----------------~-------------------~-**

Freon 113, the associated hazardous substance for this source, is man-made and is notnaturally occurring. A background sample, PCSO-26, for Source 1 did not document Freon 113 as ubiquitous inthe area (Ref. 14, p. 10; 29, 

### pp. 41, 50, 64). 

### 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE ,"" ',,'.,,:: 

### . <.",' ,;• .1'" ,:(.,;,

.. ,. '1;.""" 

## :Hlitard6us ", i ::'< .:' 

### CRQL :

## '!lJe~t~:",.,,:\;,:::

# ~.**'·::;~J\!;,:E~;,t~nic~Ji!.;,':** ?/l::f

# t~~ter~~f~**,;r,;:li~:.,: '>I'~i.;~~;'** **>:~ (f~e!J.**  

# .**:~**

# . i**';l~** 

### I:'; <:::ij;:,j;!;lf:'

# .:1~ 

# .**~y"~s~m~tp** 

# ':**~:;~!~\: '.~:;i**  " . "., " ,j-I, 10 j.tg/kg 5 AppendixF, pp. 8, 12 1,2,2­ 13.5

- 15.5 1,1,2-Trichloro­ SB-9 19 J,Lg/kg 5 Appendix F, pp. 8, 13 Trifluoroethane SB-l1 15 J,Lg/kg 4.5

- 6.5 5 AppendixF, pp. 8, 14 (Freon 113) SB-ll 9 

### -11 13 Jlg/kg 5 Appendix F, pp. 8, 15 Cas. No. 76-13-1 SB-ll 13.5 15.5 182 J,Lg/kg 5 Appendix F, pp. 8, 18 (See Ref. 5, SB-lO 12 J,Lg/kg 13.5

- 15.5 5 Appendix F, pp. 8, 19 Appendix B, p. 6) SB-lO 13.5 15.5 14 Jlg/kg 5 Appendix F, pp. 26 SB-8 4.5

- 6.5 12 J,Lg/kg (November 1992) 1,1,2-Trichloro­ 5, Appendix I, pp. 2,5 1,2,2­ SB15 17

- 19 10 Jlg/kg 10 Jlg/kg 5, Appendix I, pp. 2,8 Trifluoroethane SB-15 24.5

- 26.5 11 flg/kg 5, Appendix I, pp. 2, 9 (Freon 113) 7-9 SB16 23 flg/kg 5, Appendix I, pp. 3, 10 Cas. No. 76-13-1 SB-16 17

- 19 39 flg/kg 5, Appendix I, pp. 3, 11 (See Ref. 5, Figure SB16 24.5

- 26.5 77 flg/kg 5, Appendix I, pp. 13, 16 8) SB-19 12.9Jlg/kg 17

- 19 5, Appendix I, pp. 13, 18 (February 1993) SB-18 7-9 76.3flg/kg 5, Appendix I, pp. 13, 19 SB17 SB-18 24.1j.tg/kg 12

- 12.5 5, Appendix I, pp. 14,20 SB17 9.5 - 11.5 48 flg/kg 5, Appendix 

### I, pp. 14,21 SB17 14.5

- 16.5 142 Jlg/kg 5, Appendix 

### I, pp. 14,22 SB17Dup 340 J,Lg/kg 17

- 19 5, Appendix 

### I, pp. 14,23 23,p.4 328j.tg/kg 17

- 19
Dup Duplicate SB Soil boring


### 2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

I

I Gas release to air: ,not scored Particulate release to air: Release to ground water: not scored not scored Neither ofthe following are present: (1) maintained engineered cover, or (2) functioning and maintained run-on control system and runoffmanagement system. 10 Ref. 1 Table 4­ 2, p. 51609; Ref. 5, pp. 4, 15 and Figure 5

16

# ______________________________________**~--~J-------------------~-----------------------------**



### 2.2.4 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity
i Description Insufficient infonnation is available to evaluate Hazardous Constituent Quantity. Sum (pounds): Not available (NA) Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value (C): NA 

### 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Description Insufficient infonnation is available to evaluate Hazardous Wastestream Quantity. Sum (pounds): NA Sum ofWastestream 

### Quantity/S,OOO (Table 2-5): NA Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value 

### (W): NA 

### 2.4.2.1.3 Volume Description Insufficient infonnation is available to evaluate Volume.

Volume Assigned Value (V): 0 

### 2.4.2.1.4 Area Description The exact dimension ofthe Freon 113 contaminated soils have not been detennined. While the exact area ofcontamination is unknown, it is known to be greater than zero based on soil boring samples showing the
I presence ofFreon 113 (Ref. 5, Figures 2 ,3, 7, and 8). Therefore, an area hazardous waste quantity of

greater than zero, but extent unknown, is assigned. Sum 

### (ff) : (greater than zero) >0, exact amount is unknown Area Assigned Value (A): >0 

### 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value The sourcehazardous waste quantity value for Source 2 is >0 for TierD - Area (Ref. 1, Table 2-5). Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0



### 17SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS



### 1 >0 N NS 

### 10 NS NS 

### NS 10 2 >0 N 

### NS NS NS 

### NS

.', " 

### NS Not scored
Other Possible Sources at the site: Peters Cartridge Factory manufactured lead shot ammunitionbypouringlead out ofa shottower, andletting it fall through a screen in order to form pellets (Ref. 7, p. 10; Ref. 13, p. 14). The shot tower is near Buildings 2 and 3 at the site (Ref. 5, Figure 3; Ref. 18, p. 2). The shot tower was not sampled during the 1999 ESI (Ref. 4, pp. 8 to 10, Figure 3). However, based on the use of the shot tower during the ammunition manufacturing process, it may be a possible source at the site.

18i 4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 4.1 OVERLANDIFLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT The topography ofthe facility varies from approximately 620 to 730 feet above sea level (Ref. 3; Ref. 4, pI). Drainage at the facility is towards the Little Miami River, whichis adjacentto the north and west side ofthe facility. Three swales convey runoffwater from the facility down the steeply sloping valley into storm sewers that run beneath the main buildings (Ref. 4. pp. 1,2; Ref. 6, p. 10, Figure 2; Ref. 13, p. 17). These storm sewers drain directly into the Little Miami River (Ref. 4, p. 22; 6, p. 10). Culvert 1 is the most upstream culvert discharging drainage from the site to the Little Miami River (Ref. 4, Figure 3; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5). Ditch 3 is considered the most downstream discharge from the site to the little Miami River. (Ref. 4, Figure 3; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5). The discharge location of Culvert 1 will be considered the most upstream

. probable point ofentry (PPE) for the surface water migration pathway, and the surface water migration

. pathway continues for 15 miles downstream ofDitch 3 in the Little Miami River (Ref. 4, Figure 3; Ref.

17, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 19). 4.1.1.1 Defmition ofHazardous Substance Migration Path For Overland/flood Component 4.1.2.1 Likelihood ofRelease 4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release Seven sediment samples were collected by Ohio EPA as part ofan Expanded Site Inspection onMay 4, 5, and 11, 1999 (Ref. 4, pp. 1,4,6, and Appendix E, pp. 4 to 6; Ref. 26, pp 1tol6; Ref. 28, pp. 13, 14). Six ofthe seven sediment samples were collected from the Little Miami River, and one (Ditch 2) was collected from a ditch leading from the site to the Little Miami River (Ref. 4, Appendix E, p. 4; Ref. 28, p. 13). The sediment samples were collected intheLittle Miami River and are named according to the general location ofthe sample in the River (See Reference 4, Appendix E, pages 4 to 6). Thebackground sedimentsample, UpstreamBridge, was collected intheLittleMiamiRiver, approximately 120 yards upstream ofthe GrandinRoadBridge (Ref. 4, p. 6 and AppendixE, p. 6; Ref. 26, pp. 2, 3). The background sample, UpstreamBridge, was collected approximately 300 feetupstream ofthePPE at Culvert 1, but approximately 1.6 miles downstream ofa waste water discharge to the Little Miami River. The City ofLebanon has an NPDES permit to discharge waste water to the Little Miami River (Ref. 22 pp. 1 to 

### 7). Mercury is suspected 

### as a hazardous substance in this discharge (Ref. 22, pp. 1 to 

### 7). Mercury has also been**~dentified** as hazardous substance in the Little Miami River that may not necessarily be attributable to the Peters Cartridge Factory site (Ref. 4, p. 10). For these reasons, mercury is not evaluated as part of the observed release for Peters Cartridge Factory surface water migration pathway. The samples were analyzed by EPARegion 5 using contract laboratory program (CLP) methodology (Ref. 4, pp. 4, 7; 11, pp. 1, 2). Hazardous substances were documented in the five sediment samples (Downstream Culvert 1, Downstream Culvert 2, Ditch 3, Downstream Steel Pipe, and Little Miami River) collected in the Little Miami River downstream ofthe background sample (Ref. 4, Figure 3, Appendix B, pp. 1 to 11, & Appendix E, pp. 4 to 6; Ref. 26, pp. 5 to 16). A sediment sample collected from a ditch leadingfrom the siteto the LittleMiami River (Ditch2 sample) also documented the presence ofhazardous substances (Ref. 4, Appendix B, p. 11; Ref. 11, pp. 2, 4,5, 18; Ref. 28, p. 13). For purposes ofHRS scoring for this site, two samples met observed release criteria. The Little Miami River is a fishery (Ref. 4, Appendix F, p. 4; Ref. 16). A wildlife officer ofWarren County, Ohio has frequently observed people fishing in the Little Miami River, adjacent to the Peters

19**~~~--------------------------------------.--------------------------------------------------**
CartridgeFactory (Ref. 

### 16). TheLittleMiami Riveris also a National and State designated scenicriver and the habitat of several State endangered species (Ref. 4, pp iv; 

### 22; Refs. 

### 19,20,21), An observed release ofcopper, a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation factor value 

### 50,000, has beendocumented in the Little Miami River (Ref. 

### 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1; Ref. 4, Appendix B, p. 

### 10; Ref. 

### 12, p.lS). Level I contamination inthe Little Miami River was notdocumented. The zone ofLevel II contaminationextends from the most upstream PPE at sample location Downstream Culvert 1 to the most downstream sample. documenting an observed release inthe Little Miami River atthe location ofsediment sampleDitch 3 (Ref. 

### 17, 19). Chemical Analysis The samples documenting an observed release were collected onMay 

### 4th, 1999 during an Expanded Site Inspection. The background sample was collected in 2 feet ofwater, andthe observed release samples were collected in depths of 6 inches to 2 feet of water. The sample medium consisted of a range ofmedium brown/grey or greyish fine silt or silty clay, some with fine sand or pea size gravel (Reference 

### 26, pp. 2 to 

### 13). Back2round Sediment Sample

Upstream Bridge (Ustr. 57.3 2 

### ft. water Medium 

### 05/04/99 4, Figure 3 & Bridge) brown/grey Appendix B; 

### 12, p. IS; silty clay and Ref. 

### 26, pp. 2 to 4 fine grain sands Ct· t d S d' t S

on amma e e Imen amples 

### :i;**(;;~':** 

### ": ': ;::t:: '. ,"''­**$~nitpH~** 

## 'm ,',:'

. ,,:;:::,,':: :;!' \'**\:'.~:, '~'.**  " : ' '0/,0

.. .',: ;:;;8J1I(18:;:,**~ ;~** **r:.:~:. I~**  

### " D 'il::',: ,', ' ,ept ,,':' ,',;: i; ,':' ;";'. ::,D:e8cfljifidn'; ,



### .. 1'**F.::l"::::~::::;** 

### ;';'**:,;.::,~**

## /t, :,1".;;, :,',

### ,'9:f1~e. 1;:;,:,**~** ;. ':', ;: , , . "',j' ::i,. :',,:' ",,' , :; ,', ::' >References

,": ,', :::. " ", Downstream Culvert 

### 2 (Dstr. Culvert 

### 2) 64.2 

### 6 inches to 

### 1 feet water; top 3 inches (sediment) Medium brownish grey-fine sands, silty clays, pea size gravel 

### 05/04/99 4, Figure 3 & Appendix B; 

### 12, p. IS; 

### 26, pp. S to 

### 10

Ditch 3 

# LJ Top 3 inches (sediment) Medium brownish-fme sands, some silt 

### 05/04/99 4, Figure 3 & AppendixB; 

### 12, p. IS; 

### 26, pp. 

### 14 to 

### 16

20

### Copper 8.73 mglkg 12.2mglkg 7.22 mg/kg 45.7 mglkg Ditch 

### 3 

### 4, Appendix B, p. 10; 11 

### p.18; 30, 9. A4 Lead 1.05 mglkg 11.8b 

### mglkg 0.935 mglkg 192Jmg/kg (133.33 mglkg)a 

### Dstr. Culvert2 

### 4, Appendix B, 

### p. 10; 11, pp. 4,18, 19; 30.9. A-4 mglkg milligrams per kilogram J Value is estimate (Ref. 4. Appendix B, p. 11; Ref. 11, p. 7). 

## Oa Original concentrationis bias high. Concentrationin parenthesis represents adjusted value according to Reference 12, (EPA, 1996), 

### Using QualifiedData to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination (OSWER 9285.7-24FS). b 

### Background concentration biased high. No adjustment necessary (Ref. 12, p. 8) SQLinorganic Sample quantitation limit (SQL) is estimated using the following equation (assuming a final volume of 200 milliliters and a sample weight of 1 gram; a final volume of 100 millimeters is assumed for mercury): SQL =' 

### CRDL (ug/L) x 200 ml x 1,000 ug/mg x dilution /1,000 mIlL xl g x 1,000 glkg x (% 

### solids/IOO) Attribution: 

### The Peters Cartridge Factory formerly operated on a 10 acre parceJ ofland located at 1415 Grandin Road, on the south side ofthe Little Miami River in Warren County, Ohio. The property is currently known as the Kings Mills Technical Center (Ref. 4, pp. 1,2;Ref. 5, p. 4; Ref. 6, p. 1). An area ofcontaminated soil, a contaminated septic system, and contaminated ground water have been identified at the site (Ref. 4, pp. 7,9; Ref. 5, p. 4, Figure 8). Peters CartridgeFactory operated from around 1880to 1944 andmanufactured ammunition for military and sporting uses (Ref. 4, p. 2). After World War I, the factory was sold to Remington Arms, which continued

. to manufacture ammunition. Remington Arms continued to operate the facility until 1944, at which time

The ColumbiaRecords Division ofRCA occupied the facility, mixingplastic materials and manufacturing phonograph records (Ref. 4, p. 2). Several small businesses occupied portions ofthe property over the years, among which was LensCrafters. LensCrafters leased the property from 1987 to 1991 (Ref. 4, p. 2; Ref. 5, p. 1). As part ofan environmental site assessment for the Kings Mills Technical Center, ground water and soil were sampled, identifying contamination at the site (Ref. 13, pp. 4, 9 to 17). Peters CartridgeFactory manufactured lead shot amm'unitionbypouring lead out ofashottower, andletting it

### fall through a screen in orderto form pellets (Ref. 6, p. 11; Ref. 7, p. 10). Copper and mercury fulminate were also used in the lead shot ammunition preparation (Ref. 6, p. 11). Building 6 was used to prepare volatile fulminate ofmercury primers (Ref. 18, p. 2). The residual lead, remaining after the pellets were removed, is responsible for the lead contamination found at the site; much ofthe site appears to have bee used for disposal ofboiler ash, slag, etc. overthe operating life ofPeters Cartridge Factory (Ref. 6, pp. 11, 12; Ref. 13, pp. 17, 18).

21**-----~----~---** 

## ..........**~_T··~~"_~..............** 

## . _ _ __.......**~**

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

## ._ ...**~_.~** 

## __...____**~_'**A 1987 environmental assessment identified lead contaminated soils and lead contaminated ground water. Nine trenches were dug and these trenches were sampled at 1, 4, 8, and 12 feet depths. Soil lead concentrations were as high as 33,500 ppm and ground water concentrations are above the drinking water action level of0.015 mgIL (Ref. 13, pp. 4, 9 to 15). The Little Miami River is adjacent to the site. Site topography and drainage culverts to the Little Miami River provides a direct overland flow for hazardous substances from the site sources to the Little Miami River (Ref. 3; Ref. 4, pp. 1,2; Ref. 6, p. 10, Figure 2; Ref. 7, pp. 50 to 54). An expanded site assessment conducted by the Ohio DES in 1999 continued to confirmed the presence ofhazardous substances in 2 sources atthe site, and documented contaminated sediments in the Little Miami River (Ref. 4, pp. 

### 3 to 10;

, Refs. 26, 27, 28).

Copper, lead, and mercury have beenidentified in sediment samples from the Little Miami River adjacent to the facility. Organic hazardous substances were also identified in sediment samples from the Little Miami River as well as in site source samples. Included among these organic substances are 2-Buteonine, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene, Pyrene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene, and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (Ref. 4, AppendixB, pp 1,6,7; 10, pp. 36,49,50). Copper and lead are evaluated as observed release hazardous substances in the HRS score for Peters Cartridge Factory. Mercury is suspected as a hazardous substance in this discharge (Ref. 22, pp. 1 to 7). Mercury has been identified as a hazardous substance in the Little Miami River that may not necessarily be : attributable to the Peters Cartridge Factory site (Ref. 4, p. 10). Forthese reasons, mercury is not evaluated

, as part ofthe observed release for Peters Cartridge Factory surface water migration pathway.

TheKings Mills United StatesArmReserve Center (USARC) is located approximately 1000feet southwest

, of thePeters CartridgeFactory site. TheUSARCproperty covers approximately 16 acres andwas formerly part ofthe 110 acre Kings Mills Ordnance Plant. Currently, this facility houses several buildings and an AMSA (Army maintenance sport activity) vehicle maintenance facility (Ref. 25, p. 4). The activities atthe

, vehicle maintenance facility involvethe use ofsolvents, fuels, and antifreeze. Inthe past, waste may have

, been disposed ofonthe ground (Ref. 25, p. 5). At the USARC, surface water and storm water drainage is

to the south, ontothe adjacentproperty, and thento the west, downthe bluffto the Little Miami River (Ref. 25, p. 6). Discharge from the USARC is south and downstream ofthe observed release evaluated for the

, Peters Cartridge Factory site.

Hazardous Substances Released: Copper Lead Observed Release Factor Value: 550 

### 4.1.2.1.2 Potential to Release Potential to Release by overland flow was not evaluated because an observed release has been established (Ref. 1 Section 4.1.2.1.1, p. 51609).

22

### 4.1.2.2 Drinking Water Threat Waste Characteristics

Antimony 1 10,000 1 Ref. 2, B-2 Arsenic 1 10,000 Ref. 2, B-2 Copper 

### 1 1 Ref. 2, p. B-6 Lead 1 10,000 

### 1 Ref. 2, p. B-13 Mercury 1 

### 10,000 0.4 4,000 Ref. 2, p. 

### B-13 Silver 1 100 1 

### Ref. 2, p. B-17 The hazardous substances with the highest ToxicitylPersistence Factor Value are antimony, arsenic, and lead. ToxicitylPersistence Factor Value: 1 x 10 4


### 4.1.2.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity The hazardous constituent quantity for the sources atthe site has not been adequately determined. Because the Little Miami Riveris afishery and sensitive environment subjectto Level II concentrations, ahazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2). Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 (Ref. 1, 

### Table 2-6)

23

### 4.1.2.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value ToxicitylPersistence Factor: 1 x 104 

### ;Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

:ToxicitylPersistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor (subject to a maximum of 1 x 108) 

## = 1 X 

### 106 

### Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32 (Table 2-7)

: 4.1.2.3 Drinking Water Targets

. No drinking water intakes were identified within the IS-mile target distance limit.

: 4.1.2.3.3 Resources

, The Little Miami River is designated for recreational use (Ref. 4, pp. iv, 22; 20). Resources Factor Value: S

24

### 4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics 4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

1, 1,2-Trichloro- 2 

### 1 0.4 50 20 Ref. 2, p. B1,2,2-Trifluoroethane 

### 19 Antimony 10,000 1 0.5 

### 5 X 103 Ref. 2, p. B2 Arsenic 1 10,000 1 

### 5 5 X 104 Ref. 2, p. B2 Copper 1 50,000 Ref. 2, p. B6 Lead 10,000 1 50 

### 5 X 105 Ref. 2, p. B13 Mercury 1 10,000 0.4 50.000 2 X 108 Ref. 2, p. B

### 13 Silver 1 100 1 50 

### 5 X 103 Ref. 2, p. B17 The hazardous substance with the highest Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value is mercury. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 108

25

### 4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity The hazardous constituent quantity for the sources atthe site has not been adequately determined. Because targets are subjected to Level II concentrations, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned (Ref. 

### 1, Section 2.4.2.2). Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value ToxicitylPersistence Factor: 4,000 Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 50,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 :roxicitylPersistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor (subject to a maximum of 1 

### x 108) = 

### 4 X 

### 105 

### roxicitylPersistencelHazardous Waste Quantity Factor x Bioaccumulation Factor Value (subject to a 2 X 

### 10 10 

### maximum of 1 x 10 12) = 

### Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 (Table 2-7) 4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat-Targets Actual Human Food Chain Contamination :rheLittle Miami River is 

## afishery (Ref. 4, AppendixF, p. 4; Ref. 16). A wildlife officer of Warren County, Ohio has frequently observed people fishing in the Little Miami River, adjacent to the Peters Cartridge Factory (Ref. 16). Level I Fisheries No Level I Concentrations are scored. Most Distant Level II Sample Sample ID: Ditch 3 (Sample is Adjacent to Ditch 3 in the Little Miami River.) Distance from probable point ofentry: approximately 800 feet (Ref. 17, p. 5) References: Ref. 4; Figure 3; Ref. 16; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5. Level II Fisheries Actual contamination ofthe Little Miami River was documented with Level II concentrations ofobserved release hazardous substances having a bioaccumulation potential factor of 500 or greater (copper) in $ediment samples Ditch 3 and Downstream Culvert 2. This fishery is subject to Level II concentrations (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.3.3.1).



### 26

### l(lelltltyof**.fishe~< :~;:**  f
C**~ ~c.~~~~.~**  . . . - - ­ ., .­**·E~tentofthe** 

## LriellIFisflcry**~(RelatlYeto~PE),** ,**~** 

### R.eferences 

# i}.**~~CC, .~.** **.~. ~**  ,:"**.~:.~.~:** <C



### .**~** C .'**C~ ~** **~** . Little Miami River**~** . approximately 800 feet Ref. 4, Figure 3; Ref. 16; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 9; Ref. 19**~U.3.3.1** Food Chain Individual**~ctual** contamination ofthe Little Miami River was documented withLevel II concentrations ofobserved**~elease** hazardous substances having a bioaccumulation potential factor of 500 or greater (copper) in Isediment samples Ditch 3 and Downstream Culvert 2. This fishery is subject to Level II concentrations;

## ~herefore, a value of45 is assignedto the HumanFoodChainIndividual FactorValue (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.3.3.1). Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 45 14.1.3.3.2 Population 4.1.3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations There are no fisheries subject to Level I concentrations in the study area. Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0 14.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations Actual contamination of the Little Miami River was documented withLevel II concentrations ofhazardous isubstances in sediment samples collected in the Little Miami River at a location adjacent to Downstream !Culvert 2 andDitch 3. 

### An observedrelease ofcopper, a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulationfactor !value 50,000, has been documented inthe Little Miami River (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1; Ref. 4, Appendix iB, p. 10; Ref. 12, p.18). The zone ofLevel II contamination extends from the most upstream PPE at sample IlocationDownstream Culvert 1tothemostdownstream sample documenting an observedrelease intheLittle IMiami River at the location ofsediment sample at Ditch 3 (Ref. 17, pp. 4,5; Ref. 19).

! A wildlife officer ofWarren County, Ohio has frequently observedpeople fishing inthe Little MiamiRiver, adjacent to the Peters Cartridge Factory (Ref. 16). ActUal contamination ofthe Little Miami River was documented withLevelII concentrations ofhazardous substanceshaving a bioaccumulationpotential factor 

### l0f500 or greater (copper) in sediment samplesDitch 3 and Downstream Culvert 2. The annual production
1 for Little Miami River has not been documented, but this segment is a known fishery (Ref. 4, Appendix F, p. 4; Ref. 16). Therefore, a minimum value ofgreater than 0 to 100 pounds is assigned as the human food I chain production (Ref. 1, Section4.1.3.3 .2.2). For an annual production ofgreaterthan 0 to 100pounds per :year, a Human Food Chain Population Value of0.03 is assigned for the fishery (Ref. 1, Table 4-18).

27**--~--~--** 

## - - - ­Sum ofLevel II Human Food Chain Population Values: 0.03 Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03 4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Potential human food chain contamination is not evaluated.
4.1.4.2 Environmental Threat Waste Characteristics 14.1.4.2.1 Toxicity IPersistencelBioaccum**~la** tion

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2­ Trifluoroethane 2 1 0.4 50 2 x 10 1 Ref. 2, p. B19 Antimony 100 1 5 5 X 102 Ref. 2, p. B-2 Arsenic 1 10 1 500 5 X 103 Ref. 2, p.B2 Copper 1 100 1 50,000 5 X 106 Ref. 2, p. B

### 6 Lead 1 1,000 1 5,000 5x 106 Ref. 2, p. B13 Mercury 1 10,000 0.4 50,000 2 x 108**Re~.** 2, p. B

### 13 Zinc 1 10 1 500 5 X 103 Ref. 2, p. B20 rThe hazardous substance with the highestToxicitylPersistenceiBioaccumulation Factor Value is mercury ToxicitylPersistenceiBioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 108



### 28

### 4.1.4.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Thehazardous waste quantity for the sources atthe sitehas not been adequately detennined. Becausetargets are subject to Level II concentrations, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2). Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 (Ref. 1, Table 2-6) 

### 4.1.4.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Valne Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor (lead) : 4,000 Bioaccumulation.Factor Value (lead): 50,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Ecotoxicity/Persistence 

### x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor (subject to a maximum of 1 

### x 108) = 4 

### x lOs Ecotoxicity/PersistencelHazardous Waste Quantity Factor 

### x Bioaccumulation Factor Value (subject to a 

### maximum of 1 x 10 12 ) = 2 X 10lD Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 (Table 2-7) 

### 4.1.4.3 Environmental Threat Targets Level I Concentrations No Level I targets are scored.

/ Level II Concentrations

Most Distant Level II Sample Sample ill: Ditch 3 (Sample is Adjacent to Ditch 3 in the Little Miami River.) Distance from the probable point ofentry: approximately 800 feet. References: Ref. 4, Figure 3; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5; Refs. 19,20,21. 

### 4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments 4.1.4.3.1.1. Level I Concentrations Sensitive Environments No Level I targets are scored.'

29



# -------- -, 

# ._- ... . 

## -­

## ~.1.4.3.1.2. Level II Concentrations I

, Sensitive Environments ;The Little Mianrl River is a National and State designated scenic river (Ref. 4, p. iv, 22; Ref. 20; Ref. 21). iAn observed release ofcopper and lead have been documented in the Little Miami River (Ref. 1, Section

### ~.1.3.3.1; Ref. 4, AppendixB, p. 10; Ref. 12, p.1S). The zone ofLevel II contamination extends from the**~ost** upstream PPE at sample location Downstream Culvert 

### 1 in the Little Miami River to the most**~ownstream** sample documenting an observed release in the Little Miami River at the location ofsediment**~ample** at Ditch 3 (Ref. 17, 19).

Little Miami River 

# o Ref. 

### 4, p. iv, 50 (National designated 22; Ref. 20; scenic river) Ref. 21 i

### ~um ofLevel II Sensitive Environments Value: 50 lwetlands I

### ~here is insufficient information to determine the wetland frontage subject to actual or potential pontamination. Not scoring this factor does not impact the site score.

### ~um ofLevel II Sensitive Environments Value 

### + Wetlands Value: 50 Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 50 I I

### ~.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination Sensitive Environments I frhere are several endangered species identified along the surface water migration pathway, but evaluation

## ~f these sensitive environments for potential contamination does not impact the HRS score for the Peters**~artridge** Factory site (Ref. 19).
I

30

### lOCO E3 

### E3 E3 

# o 1- 

### it: i: :: 

### 1000 

### 2000 : 

### ;;;;:.:;::a:: 

## 3000 :::::: : : I 

### 4000 

## 0000 ii:::: li; :: "Salt:: :::: 

### 6OC'tO --' 

### 7000 

### Scale in Feet 

## Figure 1: Peters Cartridge Factory Site Location Map l 

### From USGS South Lebanon, Ohio Quadrangle

# I 

# r·............. -O'·'·,!'

-­...**~---------.--.-------.** 

## )**~** r-" r-"



### s 

# +

fC.SOX-17 flSunk« 

# ,-­ CULVERT 

### LEGEND 

# ..­ MW-F1 MONITORING WELL OR GEOPROBE LOCAllON 

### $ SMOKESTACK @) SEWAGE PUMP STATION 

## Figure 2: Peters Cartridge Factory WOODS 

## Source 1Location Map @ SEDIMENT SAMPliNG LOCA11ON Dttd13 @ SOIL SAMPUNG LOCAll0N PC«).Ot --"
........... Environmental Protection SOURCE, MODIFIED FROM PRC 1996 NOT TO SCALE

•

______ •••

__**·~ 0~_** 

### Figure3: Peters Cartridge Factory Source 1 Location Map

# -~~==================================~;

# -------

1" :.: 40' 

### Sump­

..

# --) 

# \ Pali I ,

# ~ I I I I I I I 

### Molded 

### Frames

I I , , I 

### Building I I I I 

## #3 SIH4-IIYI1/92 

# '" 

# -- '-'- ./ ./ / 

### -.-

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

# --- -"­**~'---"**
;l


# -

# ~~~ ,,,t,,,.,,,

# "~_ "'---"" Bnlsh Q 

### l.ine

# ~~,-~",,,,,,, .'___

# DovB~~""**'~""_"** L.... ',jf-.-/\ 

### \S",'

- 11/16/92


## . __ .... ; II :: / 

### '-, \\ Light 0 --. --- 

### I

___

# ~ach._t'ie!L_ , -:."_III_ ."." 

# /

.,D

..

# ":':'-!l!l=.:;!~.J!!.Il" :

# l'-~ /" \ '

# ~Ole SU 13

# ~ _ Seplic Li Illd

# 'T

II

# -~---- ,_. __ .

# ~ 1-" 

# ii1,f'IIEON .J'!"--j [
... _._ 

### :] \/

__ J /T

... k 

# """'''-

-

# ~.---- ...

# -.~SB7 _

# .~ __

# ._~.~_ o 

# II '

- W ,

# ~

. 

# -'.

--- SOli 230 007 m _ ", \

# ' -."-\, "\ \

... ':1,1

# SUI.~

# _~. •. ", .' S611 

## #6

# ~**\~Pole** CJ'!

# ~r-~ Building

# ~t**~:::;'"** 

# "

...

.....ui"' / lighl '-,.;,s6Jk\ !O!!

.. , - ..

# ~m '<../ \ " ' Pol. 'U"Ui!L 

## .-==--

# ~ 0 

## ......,

# S~9 \ c:xbllllU

### ~II

# UliIily~**'-----.~** . 

# 'Si,,".'" P"le _'

_____ ......_'---....

.. .....

# ~._. '-'-.."

# GraSS~.~II) fiGrilvel

__

### J.
...,.

# ~ ____ 

## --'iI3Q _. 

# '(° 1



## . ",. '"

.. 

# ..n.".

. .... maL>L. 

### iI'i !.

- - .. '" .- U".. 9.0-11.&._ '(-00-05 ms/kS 

### Approximate 

### ...EPT
..

# '''LI-!RE

..

# ~k-'.-----Ai 2 0'
0034 

### n,,- .. .../ s0 II 0-23.0

_ II 6 m« Ikl.

. Soil 21. 0.699 mil. 

### Scale

# ~_Ill.!! ______ ._ I 0.177 mllli I

### "~llid LEGEND 

## Figure 4: Peters Cartridge Factory

61 Pre;:violls Uurillll, LOCtlliOIl::i 

## Source 2 Location Map**~** May, 1993 Monilol'ing Wells 

## - .-- r ----·OEPTII(U) t-_!_R_ 

### -;k&./

- ­ " - . 

### o729 I -
---­