United States

Environmental Protection 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

# EPA Agency Washington, DC 20460 September 20 12

O ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response



# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule – Peters Cartridge Factory

# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule Peters Cartridge Factory

September 2012

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460Peters Cartri dge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

ii 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary

..................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. iv Background of the NPL ........................................................................................................................... iv Development of the NPL ......................................................................................................................... iv

Hazard Ra nking System ............................................................................................................................ v Other Mechanisms for Listing

................................................................................................................. vi Organization of this Document ................................................................................................................ vi Glossary

.................................................................................................................................................. vii

1.0 List of Commenters and Correspondence ........................................................................................ 1

2.0 Site Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Summary of Comments ................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Defer Listing/Purpose of Listing ................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Site

- Specific Risk .......................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Historic Significance and Remediation Options ......................................................................... 10

3.4 Extent of Site ............................................................................................................................... 10

3.5 Economic Impact of Listing ........................................................................................................ 12

3.6 Stigma Associated with Listing .................................................................................................. 13

3.7 Consideration of Response Actions/Post-Removal Conditions .................................................. 13

3.8 Adequacy of Site Characterization/Source Identification ........................................................... 14

3.9 Observed Release ........................................................................................................................ 16

3.9.1 Observed Release – Background ........................................................................................ 16

3.9.2 Observed Release

– Attribution .......................................................................................... 19

3.9.2.1 Soil Erosion ..................................................................................................................... 21

3.9.2.2 Possible Contributions of Other Sites ............................................................................. 22

3.9.2.3 Fish Tissue – Attribution of Mercury ............................................................................. 30

3.9.3 Observed Release

– Ongoing Release

................................ ................................................. 30

3.10 Potential for Contaminant Migration/Potential to Release ......................................................... 31

3.11 Targets

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................................... 32

3.12 I mpact of Response Action on Scoring ....................................................................................... 34

4.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 38

Attachment A – OSWER Directive # 9345.1-25, April 4, 1997, Revision to OSWER NPL Policy “The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites After Waste Removals,” Publication

No. 9345.1- 03FS, October 1991. 4 pages.

Attachment B – Nally, Scott J., Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Correspondence to Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 5. Subject: Peters Cartridge Site, Kings Mills, Ohio. December 2, 2011. 1 page.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

iii 

## Executive Summary

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States

. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulg ated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that the EPA update the list at least annually.

This document provides responses to public comments received on the Peters Cartridge Factory site, proposed on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2012.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

iv 

## I ntroduction

This document explains the rationale for adding the Peters Cartridge Factory s ite in Kings Mills, Ohio, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides the responses to public

comments received o n this site. The EPA proposed this site on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2012.



### Background of the NPL

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and L iability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq . in response to the dangers of uncon trolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, Aug ust 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by the EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of

hazardous substances , pol lutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), the EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threate ned releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long -term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101 ). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were includ ed in the HRS. The EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score

of 28.50 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on May 10, 2012 (77

FR 27368 ). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 515344 ).



### Development of the NPL

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

v The priority list serves primarily informationa l purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it a ssign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature

and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites the EPA

believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA -financed

remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs the EPA to consider certain enumerated and other ap propriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, the E PA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, the EPA has chosen not to place certain ty pes of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.



### Hazard Rank ing System

The HRS is the principle mechanism the EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations

-- the preliminary assessment and site inspection

-- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which the EPA funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate r esponse for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites str ictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, the EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analy sis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, ba sed on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories.

Each category has a maximum value

. The categories are:

• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment;

• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and

• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

vi • Ground Water Migration (S gw ) - drinking water

• Surface Water Migration (S

sw ) The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, o verland/flood migration and ground water to surface water. - drinking water

- human food chain

- sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure (S

s )

- resident population - nearby population

- sensitive environments

• Air Migration (S

a ) - population

- sensitive envi ronments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using the following root

- mean -square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100 :

If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low

. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even if o nly one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous sites pose thr eats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but

-- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile

-- not surface water or air.



### Other Mechanisms for Listing

There are t wo mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The l ast mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

• EPA anticipates it will be more cost

- effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.



### Organization of this Document

The following section contains the EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal of

the Peters Cartridge Factory site on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094). The site discussion begins wi th a list of 

### 4 S + S + S + S = S 2

a 2

s 2

sw 2

gwPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

vii commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.



### Glossary

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

AOC Area of Concern

APA A dministrative Procedure Act

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Lia bility Act of 1980, 42

U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq ., also known as Superfund

CFR Code of F ederal R egulations

DuPont E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , also USEPA

ESI Expanded Site Inspection

FR Federal Register

HR S Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP

HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 100

HWQ Hazardous w aste q uantity

Lewis Lewis Real Properties Co., LLC

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

mg/kg Milligram s pe r kilogram

mg/L Milligrams per liter

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP

OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emer gency Response

ppm Parts per million

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

QA Quality a ssurance

RD Remedial d esign

RD/RA Remedial d esign/ r emedial a ction

RI/FS Remedial investigation/feasibility s tudy

ROD Record of Decision

RP Responsible PartyPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

viii SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site inspection

SOW Statement of Work

USARC U.S. Army Reserve Center

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

XRF X- Ray FluorescencePeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

1 

## 1. 0 List of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2003-0009-0110 Comment submitted by S athya V. Yalvigi, Principal Project Leader , DuPont Company, with attached comments from URS Diamond on behalf of Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company on June 25,

2003.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2003-0009-0120 Comment submitted by J. Gregory Smith of Ulmer & Berne, LLP, Attorneys at Law on behalf of Lewis Real Properties Co., LLC on June 2 4, 2003.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2003-0009-0114 Comment submitted by Sara Anne Hook on June 23,

2003.



## 2. 0 Site Summary

The Peters Cartridge Factory site (the Site; the Peters Cartridge site) is composed of contaminant releases from the facility operation s . The S ite for HRS purposes includes at least two contaminated soil sources identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal, and a release of copper and lead to surface water. The Peters Cartridge Factory formerly operated on approximately 71 acres of land near Kings Mills in Hamilton Township, Warren County, Ohio. The Site and vicinity are shown on Figure 1 of this support document. Figure 1 also shows that the buildings on the facility, which housed the primary munitions manufacturing operations, are located on the northern portion of the facil ity. The facility property is bordered by the Kings Mills U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC) (formerly part of the Kings Mills Ordnance Plant) to the west and southwest, the Little Miami Scenic Trail and Little Miami River to the north, the Warren County Municipal Water Treatment Plant to the south, and a rural landscape to the east -southeast. The Peters Cartridge Factory operated as a munitions manufacturer from 1887 to its closure in 1944; since that time the property has been used by a variety of non-munitions- related

businesses

.

Drainage at the facility is toward the Little Miami River, which is adjacent to and north and west of the Site and

flows in a west -southwest direction. Three swales convey runoff from the facility into storm sewers /culverts that run beneath the main buildings. The storm sewers drain directly into the Little Miami River. The swales are shown on the attached Figure K-6.

In 1987, Qsource Engineering, Inc. conducted an environmental assessment of the former operational areas of the

f acility , during which soils were sampled at depths of 1, 4, 8, and 12 feet below ground surface (bgs) . Lead, copper, and mercury were found near the buildings in this area, with lead concentrations reaching 33,500 parts per

million (ppm) at a depth of 4 fe et. Fill materials , including boiler ash and slag, were also found buried in layers from 7 to 12 feet thick in the operational areas of the facility (Reference 13 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). According to a 1994 Screening Site Inspection report prepared on behalf of the EPA, based on recommendations from Qsource much of the bare soil in the operational area of the facility was paved after the Qsource report was released (Reference 6, page 3, of the HRS documentation record at proposal).

Le nsCrafters produced eyeglass frames and coated optical lenses in one of the on -property buildings between

1987 and 1991. In 1993, Foppe Thelen Group on behalf of LensCrafters conducted a response action at the facility under a closure plan approved by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) , removing a septicPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

4 system and associated soil contaminated with Freon 113 (Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).

In 1999, the OEPA conducted an Expanded Si te Inspection (ESI) at the facility, collecting soil and ground water samples from the facility

, and sediment and fish tissue samples from the Little Miami River. Results of this investigation documented levels of copper, lead

, and mercury elevated above b ackground in soils at the former operational areas of the facility and in the culverts, an area of Freon-113- contaminated soil ( remaining after the response action at LensCrafters) and a release of copper and lead to the sediment of the Little Miami River. The Little Miami River is a human food chain fishery and a designated National and State Scenic River (Reference 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).

The Site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094). Contaminated soil located near several of the buildings at the Site was designated as Source 1. Contaminated soil between Buildings 3 and 6 at the Site was designated as Source 2. The release of copper and lead to the Little Miami River documented by sediment sampling was also included in the scoring. Source and sample locations are shown in Figures 2 and 3 of this support document.

Sinc e the Site was proposed, an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) w as signed on July 7, 2004, by the EPA and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 1 on behalf of its wholly owned subsidiary, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. The AOC has been added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation as Reference 31. In the AOC, th e facility is described as including two areas: Area A and Area B. Area A includes about 15 acres along the southern bank of the Little Miami River and includes the main buildings of the former Peters Cartridge Factory facility, al ong with the Little Miami Trail . Area B occupies about 56 acres of wooded, sloping land and hills to the south of Area A. Peters Cartridge constructed and used

munitions bunkers and other storage structures in this area. The AOC also specified, in an attached Statement of Work (SO W), the tasks to be included within the scope of the RI/FS for the S ite and vicinity.

From 2005 through 2007, the field work for the RI was conducted at the Site in two phases. Environmental samples were collected from potential areas of concern (AOCs), g rid locations, off -property background locations, and the Little Miami River. The final Remedial Investigation Report has been added as Reference 32 to the HRS documentation record at promulgation.

DuPont, the EPA , and the OEPA agreed that further charact erization in the Little Miami River would be considered separately from the RI/FS, and DuPont, with approval from the EPA and the OEPA, entered into an agreement that the OEPA would conduct a study of the river in the vicinity of Peters Cartridge. This stu dy was conducted in June and August 2007; the results were discussed under separate cover from the RI ( page ES -3 of

Reference 32 , added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation). This report, Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami Ri ver – Peters Cartridge Area, November 2007, is added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation as Reference 33 . The study included the collection of fish, macroinvertebrate, and sediment samples at each of five sampling locations in the river . T wo of the sampling

locations were upstream of the Peters Cartridge Factory facility , one was adjacent to the facility , and two were downstream of the facility. T he sediment sampling results indicated a level of lead in the sediment adjacent to the facility tha t was more than three times the background sediment level (Reference 33 , added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation , page 15).

In 2009, a f inal r emedial i nvestigation r eport for the S ite was completed by Geosyntec Consultants for DuPont.

1 Remington Arms purchased the facility in 1934 and operated it for several years; Remington Arms was subsequently acquired by DuPont (Reference 31 at promulgation, page 6).Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

7 On September 28, 2009, a Record of Decision (ROD), which explains the cleanup option selected for the Peters Cartridge s ite, was issued by the EPA with concurrence from the State of Ohio. The ROD is added as Reference

34 to the HRS documentation record at promulgation. The cleanup option selected for the S ite was excavation and

on-site consolidation of contaminated sediments and soils with institutional controls such as zoning and use restrictions, soil management plans, restrict ive agreements, public notices

, and posted signs (Reference 34, page

vii , of the HRS documentation record at promulgation) . The ROD was issued after completi on of a n RI/FS

. 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. Accordingly, the Agency has

decided to add the Site to the NPL. On March 30, 2012, the EPA Region 5 signed a unilateral Administrative

Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action for the Site. (This document is added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation as Reference 35 .)

The following illustrates significant events related to the facility before proposal of the Peters Cartridge Facto ry site to the NPL :

• 1887-1944 : Peters Cartridge Factory operated as munitions manufacturer.

• 1944: Remington Arms (Remington) close d the facility . (Remington purchased facility in 1934; Du Pont came to own the property in 1980 through its ownership of Remington.)

• 1944-1970s : P roperty used by various manufacturers, and used as a warehouse.

• 1979- present: Landmark purchased facility and currently operates it as Kings Mills Technical Center

.

• 1987- 1991: LensCrafters leased a portion of the property for manufactu re of eyeglass lenses and frames

.

• 1993: OEPA performed preliminary assessment for the EPA

.

• 1993: Freon- contaminated soils and leaking septic tank removed from property on behalf of LensCrafters;

b are soil areas paved over due to detection of lead in soil

.

• 1999: OEPA conducted ESI. Contaminated s oil and ground water at the facility and contaminated

sediments in the Little Miami River w ere documented.

• 1999: OEPA completed study of tissue of fish from Little Miami River adjacent to the facility

.

• 2003: Site proposed to the NPL.

The following illustrates significant events related to the facility after proposal:

• 2004: Administrative Order on Consent between the EPA and DuPont was signed ; a Field Sampling Plan was completed in 2005; sampling for the RI was co nducted in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

• 2007: OEPA completed a biological and water quality study of the Little Miami River in the Peters Cartridge area

.

• 2009: Final Remedial Investigation Report completed.

• 2009: Record of Decision issued.

• 2012: Negotiations for remedial design/remedial action end, Administrative Order issued.



## 3. 0 Summary of Comments

Three parties submitted comments on the proposed listing of the Site :Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

8 • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ( hereinafter referred to as “DuPont” ) submitted comments on June 25, 2003, with attachment prepared by URS Diamond on behalf of Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of DuPont;

• Ulmer & Berne, LLP on behalf of Lewis Real Properties Co., LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Lewis”)

submitted comm ents on June 24, 2003; and

• Sara Ann e Hook submitted comments on June 23, 2003.

DuPont commented that the Site does not meet the HRS criteria for being listed on the NPL, and that listing the Site would serve “no useful purpose” and, in fact, would damage the economic and historical value of the S ite and impede its return to beneficial use. DuPont commented that “the key assumption” used to score the surface water pathway was that “an ongoing release of contaminants was occurring to the Little Miami River, ” and that the “assumption” arises from data that show heavily impacted soils in “select” parts of the Site, not representing the entire property, and that hazardous substances (copper and lead) in storm water drains that discharge water from

the Site could be coming from other sites. DuPont claimed that the HRS score for the S ite fails to consider a number of factors, including a response action in certain open drainage ways and fish tissue studies that it alleges

find no link between detected substances in tissues and sources of pollution in the watershed, among others.

In its comments, DuPont indicated that the storm water culvert system had recently been the subject of certain upgrades by the County. DuPont stated that the County “excavated materials from open drainage ditches and cleaned culverts.” (Excerpted from page 4 of DuPont’s comments.) No information on specific locations was provided by Dupont.

Lewis, a former owner of property adjacent to the Site, object ed to the listing of the Site on the NPL

, alleging that the description of the Site could be interpreted to include some or all of Lewis’ property 2

, and that the listing of the Site would have a negative effect on the value of its property.

A concerned local citizen , Sara Anne Hook, expres sed the hope that site remediation would not adversely impact future productive use and historical preservation of site buildings and grounds.

The individual comments from the three commenters are addressed in the remainder of this support document,

sect ions 3.1 through 3.12.



### 3. 1 Defer Listing/Purpose of Listing

Comment : DuPont commented that it had a written commitment to negotiate with the EPA and the OEPA to develop an Administrative Order on Consent for conducting an RI/FS at the Peters Cartridge Fac tory site. DuPont expressed that , therefore, listing the Site on the NPL would serve no useful purpose.

Response : Listing was initially deferred and an RI/FS was undertaken by Du Pont. The RI/FS was conducted as agreed upon and as described in section 2 of this support document, Site Summary ; the RI report was completed

in 2009 (Reference 32 , added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation). It was the intent of the EPA and

DuPont to enter into a settlement under which DuPont would perform the necessary remedial action and the EPA would not promulgate the listing. However, subsequent negotiations between the EPA and DuPont for the S ite to develop a consent agreement providing for remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) ended with no agreement in place

. On March 30, 2012, EPA Region 5 signed a unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design and

Remedial Action for the Site (Reference 35 at promulgation, pages 1, 12, 33 ). Given that a consent agreement is

2 The property in question is no longer owned by Lewis; it is currently owned by Hamilton Township (Reference 32 at promulgation, page 1

- 5). Additional details are provided in section 3.4, Extent of Site, of this support document.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

9 not in place, listing is a necessary step t o enable the use of CERCLA funds as needed to ensure that Site cleanup

moves forward.

The HRS evaluation and score above 28.50 represent the EPA’s determination that the S ite warrants further action under CERCLA; the S ite has met all CERCLA and NCP listing criteria . In addition, the State concurs with the listing of the Peters Cartridge site

. Given that listing makes a site eligible for remediation under CERCLA, listing is the appropriate next step to ensure the S ite is remediated, and the Site has been placed onto the NPL

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3. 2 Site- Specific Risk

Comment : DuPont identified data that it maintained demonstrate that no significant impact or risk fro m the S ite

exists . DuPont commented that while the OEPA ’s fish tissue data indicated the presence of mercury in fish samples collected near the S ite, previous data indicated mercury in fish may be ubiquitous in the Little Miami

River in the area of the Sit e. DuPont maintained that “present available data,” since it allegedly did not show significant impact to the aquatic environment, provided no indication of imminent threat to the environment.

Response : The local presence of mercury in fish tissue and the lack of lead in fish tissue does not document that

no risk is posed by the Site. Both previously existing and post-proposal data support the possibility of impact due

to the S ite in that a release to the Little Miami River of hazardous substances, lead a nd copper, which are known to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms, remains at the S ite

.

The analytical data from the 1999 ESI, used in the HRS evaluation at proposal

, document a significant increase in lead and copper levels over background levels in both on- site soils and ditch/culvert and river sediments adjacent

to the S ite (HRS documentation record at proposal, pages 20, 21) . The samples collected during the RI from on

site soils and culvert sediment at the point of culvert discharge to the river also contained and verify the presence

of copper and lead at levels significantly above background levels ( Reference 32 at promulgation , Figures 27, 28 and 41). In addition, the 2007 OEPA study of the Little Miami River water quality included collection and

ana lysis of a number of sediment samples; the sediment sample collected from the shoreline adjacent to the S ite ’s depositional area contained lead at 43.7 milligrams per kilogram ( mg/kg ), which is above background levels ( page 15 of Reference 33 , added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation ). This parallels the release of lead documented by the 1999 ESI that was used for HRS scoring purposes in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Lead and copper are known to adversely affect human health; specif ically, lead can cause behavioral and learning impairments in children and copper causes severe digestive effects (Reference 31, added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation, page 6). Remediation of the upland portions of the S ite and the sediments at the outfalls would address possible future risk from these areas posed by future releases.

In addition, DuPont allege d that because “present available data” [as of 2003 ] did not indicate significant impact to the aquatic environment, there is no risk to the environment. However, the HRS does not require evidence of contamination in fish tissue to support scoring of the human food chain threat component of the surface water pathway. Sediment samples from the perennial water body that is a human food ch ain fishery (Little Miami River) with contaminant levels that meet observed release criteria qualify the river in the area of the contaminated samples for scoring as a Level II fishery, per HRS Section 4.1.3.3. This topic is discussed in further detail in section 3.11, Targets, of this support document.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

10 

### 3. 3 Historic Significance and Remediation Options

Comment : DuPont commented that certain stru ctures at the Site are regarded as landmarks with historical significance and that placing the Site on the NPL may impede investigation and remediation of the Site and its

return to beneficial use. A local citizen , Sara Anne Hook, expressed the hope that s ite remediation not adversely impact future productive use and historical preservation of Site buildings and grounds.

Response : While the EPA recognizes that the Peters Cartridge Factory is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the historic significance of a location is not normally a part of the HRS evaluation or NPL

process. Historic significance is considered a factor during a different stage of the Superfund cleanup process

, when determining a remedial action for a site.

The EPA’s listi ng authority in 40 C.F.R. § 300.425(c)(1), and the HRS itself, are part of the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”) (located in 40 C.F.R. Part 300 and appendix A) and were promulgated pursuant to CERCLA § 105(a)(8), 42 U.S.C. § 9605(a)(8). The HRS, in particular, was promulgated pursuant to CERCLA § 105(a)(8)(A), as revised by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, SARA, which provides that the President (through the EPA) shall revise and republish the NCP to include:

. . . (8)(A) criteria for determi ning priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action. Criteria and priorities under this paragraph shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public health or welfare or the environment, in the judgment of the President, taking into account to the extent possible the population at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at such facilities, the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct human contact, the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems, the damage to natural resources which may

affect t he human food chain and which is associated with any release or threatened release, the contamination or potential contamination of the ambient air which is associated with the release or threatened release, State preparedness to assume State costs and res ponsibilities, and other appropriate factors; [See 42 U.S.C. § 9605(a)(8)(A ).]

Thus, CERCLA § 105 (a)(8)(A) requires the EPA to develop criteria for including releases on the NPL and base

th ose criteria on a number of factors, including but not limited t o the possible population at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at facilities, the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct human contact, and the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems . The HRS (last revised on December 14, 1990, 55 FR 51583) codifies or implements such criteria and is the Agency’s tool for deriving a site score based on the factors identified in CERCLA § 105(a)(8)(A).

It can be seen that historic significance is not among the factors mandated by Congress for consideration by the HRS scoring process. Historic importance of the building and grounds will be an importan t factor considered in selecting an appropriate remedial option for the Site; however, remedial design i s a separate stage in the CERCLA process that takes place after the ROD. This stage has yet to occur for the Peters Cartridge site

.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3. 4 Extent of Site

Comment : Lewis commented that the description of the area included in the Site is too broad, and thus the description could be interpreted to include the Lewis property. Furthermore, Lewis claimed that , because “data gathered” from its property are not sufficient to justify listing, its property sho uld not be included in the Site

.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

11 Response : The Site has been appropriately evaluated in the HRS documentation record at proposal, based on the sources and release, as required by the HRS. The Site as sc ored in the HRS documentation record at proposal (the sources and the release) does not appear to overlap the boundaries of the property formerly owned by Lewis. However, the ROD includes provisions for soil excavation on property owned by Hamilton Townshi p (former Lewis property) ( page vii, Reference 34 , added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation) ; this is based on sampling results from the RI. 3

Placing a site on the NPL is based on an evaluation in accordance with the HRS of a release or threa tened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants . However, that the EPA initially identifies and lists the release based on a review of contamination at a certain parcel of property does not necessarily mean that the site

boundaries are l imited to that parcel.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A) requires the EPA to list national priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated

boundaries. Further, CE RCLA Section 101(a) defines a "facility" as the "site" where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located." The "come to be located" language gives the EPA broad authority to clean up contamination when it has spread from the original source. On March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13298), the EPA stated:

HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial [emphasis added] determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA . A ccordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will need to be refined and improved as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be

located.

...

The revised HRS (55 FR 51587, December 14, 1990) elaborates on the "come to be located" language, defining

"site" (in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions ) as "area(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. Su ch areas may include multiple sources, and may

include the area between sources."

And, as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule in which th e Peters Cartridge site was proposed to the NPL (68 FR 23094, April 30, 2003):

In other words, while geograph ic terms are often used to designate the site ( e.g. , the "Jones Co. plant site") in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property ( e.g. , it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property ( e.g. , where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the "site")....The precise nature and extent of the site are typic ally not known at the time of listing....EPA regulations provide that the "nature and extent of the problem presented by the release" will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") as more information is developed on site contam ination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined.

3 The ROD (Reference 34, added at promulgation), on page vii, states that the major components of the selected reme dy

include: ...and excavate surface soil in the Lowland Area and on the Hamilton Township Property to a depth of at least two feet bgs [below ground surface] in areas that exceed the EPA residential standard for lead of 400 mg/kg. The actual areas to be excavated and depths will be determined and evaluated during the remedial design (RD).Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

12 Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination "has come to be located" before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Until the site investigation process has been completed and a remedial action (if any) selected, the EPA can

neither estimate the extent of contamination at a site, nor describe the ultimate dimensions of the NPL site

. Even during a remedial action (e.g., the removal of buried waste) the EPA may find that the contamination has spread further than previously estimated, and the site definition may be correspondingly expanded. In addition, if another, unrelated area of contamination is discovered elsewhere on the property, the EPA may decide to evaluate

that release for the NPL.

The Site, as scored in the HRS documentation record at proposal and in accordance with the definition of “site” provided in CERCLA as shown above, includes at least Source 1, Source 2 and the release to the Little Miami

River. Source 1 is sh own on Figure 2 of this support document, Source 2 is shown on Figure 3 of this support document, and the release to the Little Miami River is indicated by the 1999 ESI samples Downstream Culvert 2 and Ditch 3 that are shown on the aforementioned Figure 2. The Lewis property, according to the RI, was transferred in 2007 to Hamilton Township ( Reference 32, at promulgation , page 1-5). Based on a comparison of Figures 2 and 3 of this support document and Figure K -6 of this support document and Figure 3 of the RI (which

both illustrate property boundaries) , it appears that neither Source 1 nor Source 2 as scored in the HRS documentation record at proposal were located within the boundaries of the L ewis/Hamilton Township property (nor was the release to the Littl e Miami River).

The data from the ROD delineate the extent of the planned remedial action (Reference 34 at promulgation, page vii). The ROD describes the extent of planned remediation as including both contaminated soil in the areas of Sources 1 and 2 as described in the HRS documentation record at proposal, and contaminated soil on the Hamilton Township Property (Reference 34 at promulgation, page vii, Figure 5, page 81).

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3. 5 Economic Impact of Listing

Comment : Lewis objected to listing the Site on the NPL because it would negatively impact the value of Lewis’s

property.

Response : The focus of the CERCLA program is to identify and, where ne cessary, address hazardous substances releases that may pose a threat to health or the environment. In specifying the criteria for listing sites (Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA , excerpted above in section 3. 4, Extent of Site, of this support document ), Co ngress did not identify the possibility that listing may have adverse economic impacts as a factor to be considered; the listing process does not use economic impact as a factor in identifying sites for the NPL. Notably, Lewis did not provide any evidence that NPL listing would have a negative impact on the value of its property.

Further, once cleaned up, the Site will be protective of human health and the environment, and will allow future use that is consistent with its commercial and manufacturing histo ry, thus increasing its value over its current condition. In addition, Hamilton Township now owns the former Lewis property and is committed to managing that land for recreational purposes. In the meantime, values are likely diminished because the Site rem ains a risk to human health and the environment. These risks are present regardless of whether or not the Site is included on

the NPL

.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

13 

### 3. 6 Stigma Associated with Listing

Comment : Du Pont asserted that listing the Site would result in attaching the stigma of Superfund to the property, and this “unwarranted negative” stigma would “complicate” study and remediation of the Site – impeding redevelopm ent efforts by property owners and the community – thus delaying return of the Peters Cartridge facility to “beneficial use.” In addition, Lewis stated that it will be “unfairly prejudiced” unless the NPL listing makes it clear that the Lewis property, “in whole or in part,” is not part of the listing of the Site on the NPL.

Response : Factors of public perception such as those raised by DuPont and Lewis are generally not considered in the assessment of whether a site belongs on the NPL ( see Section 105(a) (8)(A) of CERCLA , excerpted above in

section 3. 4, Extent of Site, of this support document)

. Inclusion of a site or facility on the NPL does not in itself reflect a judgment on the activities of the owner(s) or operator(s), but rather reflects the Agency’s judgment that a significant release or threat of release has occurred and that the site is a priority for further investigation under

CERCLA.

Regarding the inclusion of Lewis’ property in the listing, this comment is addressed above in section 3. 4 , Ext ent of Site, of this support document. The cited section demonstrates that the S ite as defined in the NPL listing does not appear to incorporate the Lewis property , which is now owned by Hamilton Township . However, the ROD

further delineate s the extent of the planned remedial action (Reference 34 at promulgation, page vii). The ROD describes the extent of planned remediation as including both contaminated soil in the areas of Sources 1 and 2 as described in the HRS documentation record at proposal, and contaminated soil on the Hamilton Township Property (Reference 34 at promulgation, page vii, Figure 5, page 81).

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3. 7 Consideration of Response Actions/ Post

- Removal Conditions

Comment : DuPont stated that the storm water system and drainage culverts associated with the Site have been upgraded, and that this involved removal of “potentially impacted” sediments from drainages associated with the

Site. Du Pont maintained that the drainage upgrades and removals indicate that the HRS score for the Site is not representative of “actual” conditions at the Site, and that these conditions do not warrant inclusion of the Site on

the NPL.

Response : The S ite has been appropriately evaluated with respect to the response actions and post- removal

conditions. The removal actions and post

- removal conditions have been considered, and the S ite qualifies for listing based on the finding that further response actions are c alled for to address contamination remaining after the removal of potentially impacted sediments from the storm drainage system

.

R emoval actions are generally considered during the scoring process when the Agency “has documentation that clearly demonstrates there is no remaining release or potential for a release that could cause adverse environmental or human health impacts.” 4 This approach is reasonable as it insures that the risk posed by released hazardous substances not abated by the removal action ca n be properly evaluated by the EPA. For the present rulemaking, DuPont stated that “the County has excavated materials from open drainage ditches and cleaned culverts.” However, DuPont provided no details concerning this action, such as specific locations of excavation or removal, which ditches and culverts were addressed, or documentation of the amount of contamination removed or the amount remaining. DuPont also provided no information indicating any response action or removal of contamination involving t he river sediments. Hence, the release of hazardous substances to the Little Miami River

4 This position is consistent with OSWER Directive #9345.1

- 25, April 4, 1997, titled “Revision to OSWER NPL Policy ‘The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites Aft er Waste Removals’ Publication No. 9345.1

- 03FS, October 1991.”Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

14 that was documented in the HRS documentation record at proposal by contaminated sediment samples from the river itself has not been removed. Therefore, the threat posed by this release has not been documented to have

bee n reduced to acceptable levels. Based on the site

- specific circumstances in this rulemaking, i t is appropriate not to consider the removal in the scoring of the Peters Cartridge site.

In addition, s inc e th e information concerning the County excavation and removal was included in comments dated June 25, 2003, the removal activities took place before that date, whereas the field sampling for the RI took place from 2005 to 2007 (Reference 32 at promulgatio n, page ES-2) . Results from this field sampling revealed significant levels (compared to relevant background, Reference 32 at promulgation , pages 292-294, 305 ) of site

related contaminants in the culverts both on the former operations area and near the loc ations where the culverts empty into the Little Miami River. This is illustrated by contaminant levels of copper (up to 507 mg/kg), lead (up to 2370 mg/kg) and mercury (up to 42.9 mg/kg) in the following RI samples collected from the above- described

locati ons: AOC7 -002, -003 and -004; AOC8-017 and -019; AOC9-001, -002 and -003, as shown on RI Figure 41

in this support document (Reference 32 at promulgation, page 306). This demonstrates that contamination

remains in these locations even after the removal act ion, again indicating that , in accordance with the OSWER directive discussed above, the removal does not qualify to be considered in scoring.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.8 Adequacy of Site Characterization/Source Identification

Comment : In its June 2003 comments, DuPont maintained that the samples collected during the 1999 ESI from “areas of concern” are not representative of typical site conditions, apparently indicating that the sources as scored do not represent the entire property.

Response : The S ite was appropriately identified and characterized, and corresponding factor values were assigned, in accordance with HRS requirements. The HRS does not require that the ent ire facility or property associated with a given operation be represented in the scoring or the entire facility be eval u ated , only that

sufficient information be presented to accurately determine the HRS site score.

The current HRS was promulgated in 1990 (55 FR 51532, December 14, 1990). As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the HRS is a numerically based screening tool that uses limited resources to assess the relative risk of a site compared to other sites. The EPA must balance the need to fully characterize a site with the limited resources available prior to listing to collect and analyze site data. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, the RI, characterizes conditions and hazards at the Site more comprehensively.

Congress, in its Conference Report on the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), stated the substantive standard against which HRS revision could be assessed:

. . . The standard requires the Hazard Ranking System to rank sites as accurately as the Agency

bel ieves is feasible using information from preliminary assessments and site inspections . . . Meeting this standard does not require long

- term monitoring or an accurate determination of the full nature and extent of contamination at sites or the projected levels of exposure such as might be done during remedial investigations and feasibility studies. This provision is intended to ensure that the Hazard Ranking System performs with a degree of accuracy appropriate to its role in expeditiously identifying candidates for response actions. [H.R. Rep. No. 962, 99th Cong., 2nd

Sess. at 199 -200 [1986]]

The NPL is intended to be a “ rough list ” of prioritized hazardous sites; a “ first step in a process

-- nothing more, nothing less” Eagle Picher Indus. v. EPA , 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II). The EPA would like to investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly prior to evaluating a site for proposal to the NPL,Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

16 but the EPA must reconcile the need for certainty before act ion with the need for inexpensive, expeditious procedures to identify potentially hazardous sites. The courts have found the EPA's approach to solving this

conundrum to be “ reasonable and fully in accord with Congressional intent .” See id

.

As such, the same data requirements are applied to all sites that are scored using the HRS. Because this information standard is applied the same across the board, the result is a fair comparison among scored sites.

The information contained in the HRS documentation record at proposal, supported by references, is sufficient to justify the HRS score for the Site as above 28.50, and the EPA has added the Site to the NPL.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3. 9 Observed Release

Comment : DuPont made a number of comments challenging the validity of the observed release to surface water and its attribution to the Peters Cartridge site. Specifically, DuPont alleged that contamination in the sedime nts of

the Little Miami River could have come from soil runoff, other nearby facilities or roadways. It also commented that mercury found in fish caught in the river near the S ite is not attributable to Peters Cartridge, and that because

of current site co nditions, ongoing release to the river is unlikely.

Response : The observed release of lead and copper identified in sediment samples was demonstrated in the HRS documentation record at proposal consistent with HRS requirements. As discussed below

, the HRS has a two

- step process for establishing an observed release by chemical analysis . First

, a significant increase in hazardous

substance concentra t ions in the media being investigated (in this case river sediments) is documented. Second, at least part of th is increase is attributed to the release from the site. That this has been correctly identified and

s pecific comments on this finding are addressed in the subsections that follow:

3.9.1 Observed Release – Background

3.9.2 Observed Release

– Attribution

3.9.2.1 Soil Erosion

3.9.2.2 Possib le Contribution of Other Sites

3.9.2.3 Fish Tissue

- Attribution of Me rcury 3.9.3 Observed Release

– Ongoing Release

3.9.1 Observed Release – Background

Comment : DuPont made a comparison between the observed release sedim ent samples and the background soil samples, alleging that lead and copper concentrations in the two types of samples were similar.

Response : The background sediment levels used for identifying a significant increase in copper and lead were

established c onsistent with HRS requirements because the background and release sediment samples used were

s ufficiently similar to document the significant increase was due to a release f ro m the Site and not differences in sample characteristics. Background sediment sa mples were used to demonstrate a significant increase in contaminant levels in the release sediment samples. The background soil samples identified by Du Pont were not appropriate for this purpose. The observed release sediment samples are composed primaril y of sand, whereas the background soil samples identified by DuPont consist predominantly of silt and/or clay. As such, the release sediments and the background soils identified by DuP ont are not sufficiently similar to permit valid comparison:

the concent ration of contaminants in the samples could be different simply due to these differences

.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

17 HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release

, describ es how an observed release to surface water by chemical analysis is documented:

• Chemical analysis:

o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3).

 Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background concentrations — for example, compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations. [e mphasis added.]

The HRS documentation record at proposal, page 20, provides the following information to illustrate the

compa rison of background and release sediment samples.

Background Sediment Sample Sample ID % Solids Depth Description Date References Upstream Bridge (Ustr. Bridge) 57.3 2 ft. water Medium brown/grey silty clay and fine grain sands 05/04/99 4, Figure 3 & App endix B; 12, p. 8; Ref. 26, pp. 2 to 4

Contaminated Sediment Samples Sample ID % Solids Depth Description Date References

Downstream

Culvert 2 (Dstr. Culvert 2) 64.2 6 inches to 1 feet water; top 3 inches (sediment) Medium brownish grey fine sands, silt y clays, pea size gravel 05/04/99 4, Figure 3 & Appendix B; 12, p. 18; Ref. 26, pp. 8 to 10

Ditch 3 69.3 Top 3

inches (sediment) Medium

brownish-fine sands, some silt 05/04/99 4, Figure 3 & Appendix B; 12, p. 18; Ref. 26, pp. 14 to 16

Pages 20 and 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal document the sign i ficant increase in lead and copper levels in the release sediment samples above that in the background sediment sam p les. Du P ont did not challenge the finding of a significant increase in contaminant levels between the background and release sediment samples.

The information presented above in the excerpt from the HRS documentation record at proposal, and documented in its references, demonstrates that the background and release sediment samples c ollected during the 1999 ESI are sufficiently similar for direct comparison of the contaminant conc entrations. They were all sediment samples ; were collected on the same date, from the same water body, and using the same sampling procedures 5 ; had comparabl e percentages of solids versus moisture ; and were of similar physical composition.

Soil texture has an effect on sorption of metals, i.e., finer-textured soils such as silt and clay that typically have larger surface areas per volume can have higher sorptive capacity for metals. This is one reason for ensuring

5 Reference 4, page 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that the samples were collected according to the

OEPA’s Field Standard Operating Procedures, Quality Assurance Project Plan for Superfund Site Investigation Activities

.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

18 sample similarity between background and release samples – to establish that differences in concentrations of contaminants are due to the influence of the site as opposed to being due to differences in physical characteristics.

The excerpt from the HRS documentation record at proposal shown above illustrates the physical characteristics of the background and release sediment samples collected during the ESI, and that direct comparison of these samples is appropriate. From the ESI field sampling logbook for sediment samples , the description of the background sediment sample is a mixture of silty clays and fine

- grained sands (Reference 26 at proposal , pages 2

- 4). The physical description s of the Downs tream Culvert 2 and Ditch 3 release sample s collected from the river

are predominantly fine sand s with silty clays or some silt (Reference 26 at proposal , pages 8 -10, 14-16).

Even if the background soil sample referred to by DuPont were, for some reason, to be considered representative of background for sediment, this sample would not be comparable to the sediment release samples due to the differences in physical characteristics. F rom the ESI field sampling logbook for soil samples

, the description

revea ls that the background soil sample, PC

- SO -26, was brownish black silt and clay (Reference 27 at proposal, pages 7 -9), a composition notably different from the background sediment samples discussed above as being composed of mainly medium brown/grey silty c lay and fine grain sands

, and the release samples as being composed of medium brownish grey fine sands, silty clays, and pea size gravel or medium brownish- fine sands,

with some silt. In addition, the logbook describes that this sample was collected from soil in a land area south of the river, i.e., not from a water body or area inundated by water. The sand and gravel components in the sediment samples have a smaller surface area per unit volume than the finer -textured silt and clay of the soil sample. On

t his basis, the sediment samples actually have a lower sorptive capacity for released metals than does the soil.

Therefore, the comparison of the release sediment samples with the background sediment samples is appropriate and in accordance with HRS requirements, while the comparison of the release sediment samples with background soil samples is not.

The finding of a significant increase in contamin ant levels in the river sediments is also found in the more rece nt RI sampling. D ata on sediment samples collected in or adjacent to the Little Miami River during the RI also

revealed higher contaminant concentrations and support the observed release demonstrated in the HRS documentation record at the time of proposal

.

The RI background soil samples BSOIL-001 through BSOIL-021 were collected from three off- site areas: northeast, east , and southeast of the Peters Cartridge facility (Reference 32 at promulgation, pages 293, 294). The RI soil boring logs show physical descriptions of the surficial samples collecte d from these 21 borings as about evenly split between clay and silt (Reference 32 at promulgation, pages 683 -704). The background sediment levels used for comparison to release samples were the highest lead and mercury levels among similar background sedim ent samples from areas composed of similar substrates. The highest lead background level was 17.7J mg/kg (sample BSED-002, silty sand and gravel); the highest mercury background level was 0.0201J mg/kg (sample BSED -004, silty sand) (Reference 32 at promulgation, pages 305, 936, 937).

Th ree sediment samples in the RI

, AOC7 -002, AOC8-019 and AOC9-001 collected during the RI were collected at or near the confluence of the three drainage culverts with the Little Miami River (see Figure 41 of this support

docu ment)

, and thus show the influence of the site release. They contain ed site

- related contamination (lead and/or mercury) at levels exceeding background levels (see table below) (Reference 32, added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation, Figures 4 0 and 41, pages 305-306).

The physical descriptions of these three sediment samples indicate that AOC7 -002 and AOC8-019 were composed of silty sand and AOC9 -001 was composed of silt, sand and gravel (Reference 32 at promulgation

, pages 914, 927, 928).Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

19 Selected Sediment Sample Results Exceeding Background (excerpted from RI)

Concentrations in mg/kg AOC7

- 002 AOC8

- 0 19 AOC9

- 001

Lead 138 229 2370 Mercury 0.296 0.0769J 0.274

Th us
, two sets of sampling data show that a sign i ficant increase in sediment sa mple concentrations can be identified as required by the HRS. Use of background soil samples for this comparison is inappropriate, not just

because it would be inconsistent with the HRS, but also because the background soil samples are physically

different from the sediment samples.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.9.2 Observed Release – Attribution

Comment : DuPont made a number of comments regarding the levels of contaminan ts in the sediments of the culverts and the river, alleging the contaminants in these sediments may not be attributable to the S ite, specifically arguing the following:

• the culverts receive water flow and sediment from off

- site areas,

• neighboring sites ar e potential sources of site

- related contaminants in sediments,

• contaminants in sediments could also be from soil erosion and runoff, and

• mercury, although a site contaminant found in fish collected from the river, is not associated with the S ite.

Response : As required by the HRS, the increase in contaminant concentrations in the sediment samples is

attributable to a release from the S ite. The observed release of lead and copper to the sediments of the Little

Miami River is due to erosion or other migrationfrom the sources. It is not due to erosion from background soils. In addition, the lead and copper in the release to the river are not a result of runoff or discharge from other off- site

facilities or features.

HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release , s tates the HRS requirements for establishing attribution when establishing an observed release by chemical analysis, as follow s:

o Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the

observed release , except: when the s ite itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is required. [emphasis added.]

The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 21 and 22 establishes attribution to the Site as follows:

The Peters Cartridg e Factory formerly operated on a 10 acre parcel of land located at 1415 Grandin Road, on the south side of the 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; Re f. 6, p. 1). An area of contaminated 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 Cartridge Factory operated from around 1880 to 1944 and manufactured 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 untilPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

20 1944, at which time The Columbia Records Division of RCA occupied the facility, mixing plastic materials and manufacturing phonograph records (Ref. 4, p. 2). Several small businesses occupied portions of the property over the years, among which was LensCrafters. LensCrafters leased the property from 1987to 1991 (Ref. 4, p

. 2; Ref. 5, p. 1). As part of an 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 Cartridge Factory manufactured lead shot ammunition by pouring lead out of a shot tower, and letting it fall through a screen in order to 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 of mercury 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 of the site appears to have been u sed for disposal of boiler ash, slag, etc. over the operating life of Peters Cartridge Factory ( Ref. 6, pp. 11, 12; Ref. 13, pp. 17, 18 ).

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 of 0.015 mg/L (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 of hazardous substances in 2 sources at the 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 been identified 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 s ource 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

**,** Appendix B, pp 1,6,7; 10, pp. 36,49,50). Coppe r 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). For these reasons, mercury is not evaluated as part of the observed release for Peters Cartridge Factory surface water migration pathway.

The Kings Mills United States Army Reserve Center (USARC) is located approximately 1000feet southwest of the Peters Cartridge Factory site. The USARC property covers approximately 16 acres and was formerly part of the 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 at the vehicle maintenance facility involve the use of solvents, fuels, and antifreeze. In the past , waste may have been disposed of on the ground (Ref. 25, p. 5). At the USARC, surface water and storm water drainage is to the south, onto the adjacent property, and then to the west, down the bluff to the Little Miami River (Ref. 25, p. 6). Discharge from the USARC is south and downstream of the observed release evaluated for the Peters Cartridge Factory site.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

21 Specific comments on attribution are addressed in the following subsections of this support document:

3.9.2.1 Soil Erosion

3.9.2.2 Possible Con tribution s of Other Sites

3.9.2.3 Fish Tissue – Attribution of Mercury

3.9.2.1 Soil Erosion

Comment : DuPont alleged that the copper and lead concentrations found in the release sediment samples could be “representative of background conditions with in site soils,” suggesting that sediment contamination may reflect

soil erosion.

Response : The significant increase in lead and copper concentrations found in the river sediments is attributable to the release from the Site, not to erosion due to runoff carryin g background soils into the Little Miami R iver. This is evidenced by comparison of background soil to sediment from multiple locations in the river. If the background soil was the cause of the increase in metal concentrations, all sediment samples would have similar concentrations, which they do not.

Examination of the sampling results from the 1999 ESI (Reference 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) used to identify a significant increase in lead and copper , show that the background soil is not influencing the river sediment. If the contaminant levels in sediments were representative of background conditions in soils, as DuPont alleged, then it would be expected that all the river sediments would be influenced by background soils, not just the re lease sediment samples. Specifically

, as presented on pages 11 and 21 in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the background soil sample from this investigation referred to by DuPont,

PC

- SO -26, contained higher levels of the observed release contamina nts, lead and copper, than the upstream sediment sample, giv en the name “ Upstream Bridge. ” The background soil sample was located adjacent to the river upstream of the S ite; the upstream sediment sample was located downstream of PC

- SO -26 but still upstream

of the Site. In addition, another of the sediment samples collected during the ESI and located downstream of the background sediment sample, named “Downstream Culvert 1,” also has concentrations of copper and lead that are lower than those in the background soil sample. If soil erosion from background soil actually caused the contaminant levels in the release sediment samples, then the concentrations of copper and lead in “Upstream Bridge” and “Downstream Culvert 1,” which must be passed by the alleged ero ded soil before it reached the release locations, would also reflect influence from the background soils , but they do not. The locations of these

three samples are shown on Figure 2 of this support document; analytical results are presented in the table be low (Reference 4 of HRS documentation record at proposal, Appendix A, p. 10, Appendix B, p. 10). These data show that background soils are not influencing all of the sediments in the river, supporting that the significant increase in lead and copper only f ound in sediments adjacent to the Site’s influence are a result of the Site and its sources.

Comparison of Background Soil

, Upstream and Release Sediment from ESI

PC

- SO

- 26 Upstream Bridge Downstream Culvert 1 Release Concs. Copper , mg/kg 40.8 12.2 10.2 45.7

Lead , mg/kg 149J 11.8 17.1J 192J

J = Estimated value.

In addition, data on sediment samples and background soil samples collected during the RI also support that background soil is not causing increased contaminant levels in river sediments as not all sediment samples collected during the RI have an increase in the lead and copper levels . For comparison purposes, the background soil samples collected near the Little Miami River from the uppermost soil depth interval sampled (0 to 0.5 foot)

are considered ; although there were other background soil samples collected during the RI, they were collected from locations further upland, away from the river. The background soil samples collected near the river arePeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

22 compared to the river sediment samples collec ted from the Little Miami River in the same vicinity. As described in section 3.9.1, Observed Release – Background, of this support document, three sediment samples (AOC7-002,

AOC8 -019 and AOC9- 001) collected during the RI were collected at or near the confluence of the three drainage culverts with the Little Miami River (see Figure 41 of this support document), and thus show the influence of the site release. They contained site

- related contamination (lead and/or mercury) at levels exceeding background levels. If the contaminant levels in sediments were representative of background conditions in soils, as DuPont alleged, then it would be expected that all the river sediments would be influenced by background soils, not just the sediment samples with concent rations exceeding background. However, this is not the case. The background soil sample locations and sampling analytical results are shown on Figures 27 and 28 of the RI, pages 292 and 293 of Reference 32 at promulgation, and the background sediment sampl e locations and sampling analytical results are shown on Figure 40 of the RI, page 305 of Reference 32 at promulgation. The locations and analytical results for sediment samples with concentrations above background are shown on Figure 41 of this support document.

The relevant analytical results are provided below. These data show that background soils are not influencing all of the sediments in the river, supporting that the significant increase in lead only found in sediments adjacent to

the Site’s influen ce are a result of the Site and its sources.

Comparison of Background Soil and Upstream and Release Sediment from RI

Background Soil

BSOIL

- 015 BSOIL

- 016 BSOIL

- 017 BSOIL

- 018 BSOIL

- 019 Copper , mg/kg 21.8 20.3 21.4 75.9 22.9

Lead , mg/kg 28.6 27.5 19.9 41 .6 28.7

Upstream and Release Sediment

BSED

- 001 BSED

- 002 BSED

- 004 BSED

- 006 Highest release

sediment AOC9

- 001 Copper , mg/kg 10.9 10.8 14.4 7.86 NA

Lead , mg/kg 14.1J 17.7J 14.4 16.0J 2370
J = Estimated value. NA = Not applicable (not a release).

Furthe rmore, as shown in Figure 2 of this support document for the ESI, and in the cited figures from the RI, the sources and the operational areas of the Peters Cartridge facility are located between the background soil samples

and the observed release sediment samples in the river, i.e., the sources are much closer to the contaminated sediment samples than the background soils. This proximity indicates also that it is more likely that the significant increase of lead and copper is due to a release from the sources.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.9.2.2 Possible Contributions of Other Sites

Comment : DuPont made a number of comments alleging that the copper and lead in sediment sam ples were not

attributable to releases from the Peters Cartridge site , and were instead due to runoff from upgradient sites. DuPont commented that storm water drains that carry discharge from the Site also carry surface water and eroded

sediments from neighboring sites, including the adjacent U.S. Army Reserve Center , and that one of the drains receives possible drainage from Grandin Road. DuPont alleged that large amounts of sediments are “entrained” in the water that flows from these neighboring sites. Du Pont stated that, as a result, these other sites “are potential sources for the copper and lead detected in sediment samples.” DuPont added that no sediment samples were collected from “these minor tributaries/drains” upstream of the Site.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

23 Response : The significant increases in contaminant levels present in the on

- site culvert and river sediments are appropriately attributed to releases from the Peters Cartridge site . Drainage channel soil sampling upgradient of

the site sources demonstrates the increase in contaminant levels is not due to upgradient releases . Examination of samples collected from areas upgradient of the S ite ’s operational areas but downgradient of the off

- site properties

contain less lead and copper, while samples downgradient of the Site’s operational areas show more lead and copper. See Figures 4 and 41 of this support document for sample locations.

Figure 4 of this support document is an enlarged excerpt of the South Lebanon USGS topographic quadrangle map dated 1955 showing the former Peters Cartridge facility . T hree intermittent drainage ways drain the upgradient southwestern, southeastern and southern areas of the facility property between the facility and other surrounding facilities. These drainage ways direct any upgradient surfac e runoff toward the operational area of the facility property. This is consistent with Figure s 1 and K -6 of this support document, which are excerpted from the RI (Reference 32 at promulgation, pages 269 and 1637) and show drainage features among other fea tures.

The s ite description in the 1999 OEPA ESI report, Reference 4, at proposal , page iv , along with DuPont’s comments (comment attachment page 1) (EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2003-0009-0110) indicate that each of the three drainage ways described above is channeled i nto a culvert that flows under the operational portion of the facility and discharges into the Little Miami River. These culverts are shown on Figure K -6 of this support document, the drainage channel map excerpted from the RI (Reference 32 at promulgation , page 1637 ).

The drainage ways can be described as follows:

• A distinct drainage way appears to originate in the southeast corner of the Peters Cartridge property; for this discussion, this will be designated Drainage A.

• A second distinct drainage way with several branches, designated Drainage B, drains the southern area of

the Peters Cartridge property and portions of the southeastern and southwestern areas.

• A third, less pronounced drainage way, Drainage C, drains a portion of the southwestern area of the Peters Cartridge property.

Each of the four subsections of this support document that follow presents a rationale identifying that the on

- site

contamination did not come from any upgradient sites via these drainages . The subsections are:

• Drainage from U.S. Army Reserve Center

• X- Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Drainage Channel Samples

• No Documentation of Alternate Contamination Sources

• Remedial Investigation Sampling of Drainage Channels

Drainage from U.S. Army Reserve Center

DuPont alleged that con tamination originating from the U.S. Army Reserve Center could be impacting the observed release sediment samples ; if any drainage from that facility were to drain off

- site to the northeast, it could potentially reach Drainage C and a portion of Drainage B as described above ; however, Reference 25 at proposal , page 6, states that surface water and storm water drainage at the adjacent U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC) facility is to the south onto the adjacent property, and then to the west down the bluff to the Little

Miami River. Hence

, no drainage is to the north

- northeast toward the Peters Cartridge facility

. This reference is a Screening Site Inspection of the USARC conducted by the OEPA Office of Federal Facilities Oversight. DuPont has provided no docum entation that this reference is not factual. Therefore, as there is noPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

25 documented drainage from this area, this area cannot be contributing to the contamination establishing the

observed release.

The 2009 RI report indicates that sample location BSED- 007, a sediment sample location downstream of the Peters Cartridge facility in the Little Miami River, may be subject to influence from the USARC (Reference 32 at promulgation , page 4 -31). However, no indication is given for why this is con sidered possible. Furthermore, even

if this sediment sample location were influenced by runoff from the USARC, the observed release sample locations for the Site are upgradient of this location. Thus, any contribution from the USARC at a location downstream of the observed release locations would not cause an increase in contamination upstream at the

release locations . The location of sample BSED-007 is shown on Figure 41 of this support document. As Figure 41 of this support document illustrates, sample BS ED -007 is at least 450 feet downstream of the most downstream of the discharge points from the three Site drainage ways. As shown in Figure 2 of this support document, this means that sample BSED- 007 is even further downstream from the sediment sample loca tions that were used to document the observed release to surface water in the HRS documentation record at proposal.

Based on this distance , even if drainage from USARC were influencing sediment conditions at BSED-007, this influence would not be expec ted to extend such a distance upstream in the river and affect the observed release ESI sediment samples

.

X- Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Drainage Channel Samples

As part of the 1999 EPA ESI, lower contaminant levels in upgradient channels of Drainages A and B document that the significant increase in contaminant levels came from the sampled process areas on the Site

.

During the 1999 ESI, provided as Reference 4 of the HRS package at proposal, soil samples were collected from

the two most distinct drai nage ways (Drainage A and Drainage B) upgradient and downgradient from the operational area of the facility property (Reference 4 at proposal , Appendix G). These samples have been marked on Figure 4 of this support document , and were part of a set of scree ning samples collected for X

- ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis 6 for metals during the 1999 ESI. The locations of the complete set of XRF samples from the ESI are shown on Figure 3, page 33 of the HRS documentation record at proposal. The XRF analytical results discussed herein are shown in the table below this discussion, and were obtained from Reference 4 at proposal, Appendix G.

Drainage A

The eastern

- most of the drainage ways, Drainage A, was sampled for XRF analysis upgradient of the operational

areas d uring the ESI

– sample PC

- SEX -16 was collected just downgradient of the point at which Drainage A crosses under Grandin Road, returning to the Peters Cartridge property (see Figure 4 of this support document). If any off-property influence from the road or other off

- property areas upgradient along this drainage way were entering Drainage A, as alleged by Du Pont, this sample would be expected to reflect such influence. The offproperty area upgradient along this drainage way includes a natural area curr ently owned by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Reference 32 at promulgation , page 1

- 7). The copper and lead levels in sample PC

- SEX -16

6 XRF analysis is an analytical method that was performed in the field during the ESI using a portable device to analyze for metals by examining the wavelength of reflected light from the sample materials. The results are quantitatively similar to those obtained using fixed

- base laboratory analysis methods ( U.S. EPA, 2004. X

- ray Fluorescence (XRF) Instruments Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Technology Innovation Office. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products/xrffaqs.pdf ). The results have been used to select sample locations for confirmatory fixed

- base laboratory analysis. As such, they can be used to screen the potential relative contribution of contamination from the sampled areas.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

26 were found to be below detection and 14.5 mg/kg, respectively 7 . Drainage A was sampled for XRF analysis again after it flows through and under the operational area and sources of the Peters Cartridge facility to the culvert discharge to the river, sample PC

- SEX -14. This sample was found to contain copper and lead at 4.1 and 54.4 mg/kg, respectively . The sample concentr ations indicated that these two contaminants’ presence in Drainage A is primarily resulting from the Peters Cartridge facility’s influence given the increase is after the drainage passed through the operational area of the Site . Notably, the lead concentr ation in PC

- SEX -14 is more than three

times the lead concentration in PC

- SEX -16 (Reference 4 at proposal , Appendix G)

.

Drainage B As Figure 4 of this support document shows, ESI sample PC- SEX -12, the most upgradient drainage soil sample collected during t he ESI, was collected from the central distinct drainage way (Drainage B), from the main branch downstream of the confluence of the branches receiving drainage from the southwestern, southern , and southeastern areas of the facility. If any drainage were to enter the property from off- property areas from these directions, the contributing properties would be: the U.S. Army Reserve Center to the southwest; the Warren County Municipal Water Treatment Plant to the south; and an agricultural/residential parcel t o the southeast. The levels of copper and lead in sample PC

- SEX -12 were 228 and 15.7 mg/kg, respectively. As also shown on Figure 4 of this support document , sample PC

- SEX

- 11 was collected a short distance downgradient of sample PC

- SEX

12, and its copper a nd lead levels were found to be 8.9 and 0.8 mg/kg, respectively. The results of PC- SEX -11 indicate that if any off- property influence upgradient of these two samples could be said to be reflected in sample

PC

- SEX -12, this influence has dissipated in the di stance between the two samples. Therefore, since copper and lead levels increase again downgradient of that point, those levels are due to the Peters Cartridge operations and sources, and not off-property influence. This downgradient increase is evidenced by the ESI XRF sample PC

SEX

- 15, which was collected from Drainage B after it flows under the former Peters Cartridge operational area to the culvert discharge to the Little Miami River. This sample contained copper and lead at 35 and 95.7 mg/kg, respectiv ely, illustrating the increase from the Peters Cartridge facility ; these levels of copper and lead are more than three times the concentrations of copper and lead in upgradient sample PC

- SEX -11 (Reference 4 at proposal

, Appendix G).

XRF Results

– Selecte d ESI Drainage Soil Samples (mg/kg)(Ref. 4, Appendix G)

Drainage A Upgradient Downgradient

PC

- SEX

- 16 PC

- SEX

- 14 Copper ND 4.1

Lead 14.5 54.4

Drainage B Upgradient Downgradient

PC

- SEX

- 11 PC

- SEX

- 12 PC

- SEX

- 15 Copper 8.9 228 35

Lead 0.8 15.7 95.7

7 The detection limit for copper is not provided, but since the lowest detection in the dataset is 4.1 mg/kg, the detection lim it is expected to be equal to or lower than that value.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

27 No Documentation of Alternate Contamination Sources

DuPont stated in its comments that the contamination used to establish observed release came from other off

- site facilities; however, it provided no supporting documentation for any of the three drainage ways . While DuPont

has stated that storm water , including large volumes of sediment and emanating from Grandin Road and neighboring facilities, flows into the drainages on the S ite, DuPont has provided no documentation to show the alleged drainage and en trained sediment flow from other facilities onto the property by way of either Drainage A, Drainage B , or Drainage C, or by any other means. DuPont also stated it has conducted an “ inspect ion of the storm water system” (first page of DuPont’s comment attac hment), but it has not included any evidence of or

from such an inspection. Aside from the off- property facilities and areas that are discussed above under the headings “Drainage A” and “Drainage B” as part of the discussion of drainage ways, no other poss ible contributors to the contamination in the drainage ways or culverts on the Peters Cartridge property or in the Little Miami River have been identified (Reference 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal ; Reference 32 at promulgation, p age 1-7 and Figure 2; Figure 4 of this support document).

Remedial Investigation Sampling of Drainage Channels

As the sections above delineate, the three separate drainage ways present on the Site collect and transport drainage from the southeastern, southern, and southwestern areas of the Site to the northern area of the Site and ultimately to the Little Miami River. DuPont alleged that these drainage ways (Drainages A, B and C) receive potentially

contaminated runoff from off

- site areas.

As further support for the EPA’s conclusion at the time of proposal, sampling information collected during the 2005-2007 RI (Reference 32 at promulgation ) conducted by DuPont’s consultants 8 , provides further confirmation

that the contamination in the observed release was not trans ported from upgradient sources. Samples collected during the RI were collected from all three drainage areas potentially receiving runoff from off

- property areas (Figure 41 of this support document) (Reference 32 at promulgation , page s 2-5 and 306). Analyt ical results from these samples confirm that th e contaminants are not migrating from areas upgradient of the Site and upgradient

areas did not contribute contamination to the release samples.

The data from the RI samples confirm the conclusions drawn fro m the ESI XRF samples discussed above, and

based on samples from Drainage C , also show no significant contaminant contribution from that drainage upgradient of the Peters Cartridge facility . As shown in RI Figure K-6, included as part of this support docum ent (Reference 32 at promulgation , page 1637), the RI also identified the topographic contours of the property and surrounding areas, and the three drainage channels that carry surface water runoff and flow into and through the culverts on the property int o the Little Miami River. Figure K -6 shows that:

• T he drainage feature designated by the RI as AOC9 (Drainage A), with three branches, carries drainage from the southeastern portion of the property, including the border of the property that joins with a pa rcel that appears to be currently occupied by a residence (historically either agricultural or residential) (Reference 32 at promulgation, pages 1 -7, 3-2; Figure 4 of this support document). One small branch of an unnamed stream joins AOC9/Drainage A from the east, then the combined stream passes under Grandin Road and may receive some runoff from the road before re- entering the property as AOC9/Drainage A on the eastern side of the property, upstream of the former operational areas of the property (Figure K-6, Reference 32 at promulgation, page 1637).

• T he drainage feature designated by the RI as AOC8 (Drainage B), with several branches, carries drainage from the southwestern and southern areas of the property, potentially receiving runoff from a portion of

8 The Remedial Inve stigation was conducted by DuPont pursuant to the terms of the 2004 Administrative Order on Consent

between DuPont and the EPA.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

28 the USARC facility and from the Warren County Municipal Water Treatment Plant to the south of the property (Reference 32 at promulgation , Figure K -6, also included with this support document).

• T he drainage channel/intermittent waterway designated by the RI as AOC7 (Drainage C) carries drainage from the southwestern area of the property, including the area bordered by the USARC.

As mentioned above, according to the RI, the property to the east in Drainage A is a natural area owned by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Reference 32 at promulgation , page 1 -7). The previous use of this property is not specified by the RI; the 1955 topographic map provided as Figure 4 of this support document

, shows that it is uniformly vegetated with no visible structures. As such, it is not expected to be a possible source of metals contamination.

Figure 41 of the RI, included in this support document (Reference 32 at promulgation , page 306), illustrates the levels of contaminants in samples collected from D rainage s A, B, and C described above. The samples were analyzed for copper, lead, and mercury (Reference 32 at promulgation , pages 4 -1, 4-2). The background soil concentrations used for comparison are shown on RI Figures 27, 28 and 29 for copper, lead and mercury, respectively (Reference 32 at promulgation , pages 292-294). Soil samples are used for comparison because the upgradient drainage way sample locations were largely dry (Reference 32 at promulgation , Figure 41 and page 2- 5). T he highest contaminant values f rom among the multiple soil background samples for each drainage are presented for comparison.

AOC9/Drainage A

The RI data demonstrate that the significant increase in contaminant levels downgrad i ent of the Peters Cartridge facility in the release sample s in the HRS documentation record at proposal did not originate in the upgradient reaches of Drainage A. The contaminants copper, mercury and lead were detected above background levels in the most upgradient sample from the center of the three branches of the drainage channel (AOC9 -012), and in slightly more downgradient samples from the lower of the three branches (AOC9-007, -014, -015) (Reference 32 at promulgation, Figure 41 , also included with this support document).

Contaminant Levels in AOC9/Drainag e A Samples (mg/kg) Highest Bkg. * AOC9

- 001 AOC9

- 004 AOC9

- 005 AOC9

- 007 AOC9

- 012 AOC9

- 014 AOC9

- 015 Copper 75.9 18.1 21.4 13.8 78.2 456 98.4 199

Lead 88.4 2370 113 79.1 1290 217000 362 6350 Mercury 0.365 0.274 1.35 0.661 0.176 4.89J 0.618 0.723 * = background

J = estimated value Sample locations are shown on Figure 41 of this support document.

The RI notes that the levels of constituents in samples AOC9 -007, -012, -014, and -015 are potentially due to the presence of ash

- like fill materials encountered in the sampling area and trash/refuse encountered adjacent to the swales that were sampled (Reference 32 at promulgation, page 4-29). Given that the off-property parcel from

which the AOC9/Drainage A branches could potentially have received runoff is currently residential and has historically been agricultural/residential (Reference 32 at promulgation , pages 1 -7, 3-2; Figure 4 of this support

document ), it appears unlikely the contaminant levels that were found in the upstream reaches of AOC9/Drainage

A originated from off of the former Peters Cartridge property. Based on notations on the sampling photographs, trash, refuse , and evidence of dumping were encountered while sampling in the upper reaches of AOC9 /Drainage

A (Reference 32 at promulgation , pages 932 -935). The combination of AOC9 and the branch of the unnamed creek that passes under Grandin Road was sampled , and this sample (AOC9-005) (Figure 41 of this support document) was found to contain only a level of mercury slightly above the RI background. Ho wever, the portionPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

29 of AOC9 downgradient of AOC9 -005 was sampled again after flowing through a portion of the former process area of Peters Cartridge and the level of mercury in this sample (AOC9 -004) was more than double that of the first sample (AOC9 -005) (the levels of lead and copper were also higher). T he level of lead was higher still at the confluence of the culvert with the river (AOC9 -001) (Figure 41 of this support document ), indicating that the impact on this segment of AOC9/Drainage A is from the process area of the Peters Cartridge facility

. This is

because the levels of site

- related contaminants were higher in the samples downgradient of the former process area than in the sample AOC9 -005 collected upgradient of the former process area in AOC9/Drainage A.

AOC8/Drainage B The RI data demonstrate that the significant increase in the release sediment samples in the HRS documentation record at proposal did not originate in the upgradient reaches of Drainage B. The farthest upgradient samples from

mo st of the drainage branches in Drainage B contained no copper, lead , or mercury above background levels (AOC8 -001, -003, -007, -008) (see Figure 41 of this support document). However, the farthest upgradient sample

from one branch (AOC8 -009) contained lead at a level just slightly above the RI background level - copper was below the RI background. The level of lead in the next sample downgradient on that branch of D rainage B (AOC8 -010) was considerably below RI background levels. The maximum concentration of lead within the length of AOC8 was detected at the culvert exit to the river, downgradient of the Peters Cartridge former process areas (AOC8 -019) (Reference 32 at promulgation , Figure 41 , also included in this support document ).

Contaminant Levels in A OC8/Drainage B Samples (mg/kg) Highest Bkg. * AOC8

- 001 AOC8

- 003 AOC8

- 007 AOC8

- 008 AOC8

- 009 AOC8

- 010 AOC8

- 019 Copper 75.9 14.9 15.1 15.7 28.7 46.3 19.7 12.3

Lead 88.4 21.2 35.9 45.5 90.9 113 58.3 229 Mercury 0.365 0.0398J 0.177 0.217 0.330J 0.310J 0.278 0.0769J * = background

J = estimated value Sample locations are shown on Figure 41 of this support document.

AOC7/Drainage C

The RI data demonstrate the increase in contamination in the release sediment samples documented in the HRS

documentation record at proposal did not originate in upgradient parts of Drainage C. For AOC7/Drainage C,

contaminants were not detected at levels elevated above RI background soil concentrations in the most upgradient sample (AOC7 -008), indicating that contaminants are likely not entering this drainage channel from off-property

areas. Lead was detected above RI background in the second branch of AOC7 in its farthest upgradient sample (AOC7

- 007), but this sample was collected in an area formerly used by Peters Cartridge (Figu re 41 of this support

document ). According to the RI sampling results for Drainage C , the maximum detected concentrations of contaminants in erosional/depositional areas (i.e., not continuously inundated by water) were detected at the sampling location (AO C7 -003) just upgradient from where Drainage C discharges into the river, downgradient of the Peters Cartridge former process areas (Figure 41 of this support document ), indicating that the primary impact on Drainage C is from the Peters Cartridge site

.

Co ntaminant Levels in AOC7/Drainage C Samples (mg/kg) Highest Bkg. * AOC7

- 003 AOC7

- 007 AOC7

- 008 Copper 75.9 240 19.4 10.8

Lead 88.4 277 370 40.7 Mercury 0.365 42.9 0.156 0.181 * = background Sample locations are shown on Figure 41 of this support document.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

30 Furthermore, regarding all three drainage areas, no human activities are known to have occurred in the southwestern, southern and southeastern areas of the property that involved the disturbance of any of these areas during the time between the collection of the ESI samples documenting the observed release to surface water and the time of the RI drainage feature sampling in the upgradient reaches of AOCs 7, 8 and 9 (2005), i.e., the soil conditions were generally unchanged. Thus, there is no reason to consider that the conditions in the drainage ways would have changed during the intervening time between the ESI sampling and the RI sampling events that would account for any changes in contaminant levels.

In summary, collectively, the results described above demonstrate that the copper, lead, and mercury found in the culvert samples and river sediment samples adjacent to the former Peters Cartridge facility are attributable to the Peters Cartridge site and not to releases from upgradient off-property sites or facilities or Grandin Road.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.9.2.3 Fish Tissue

– Attribution of Mercury

Comment : DuPont recounted that a fish tissue study conducted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency on the Little Miami River documented mercury levels , “a site contaminant,” in all fish samples that were collected near the Site. DuPont stated that previous studies of fish tissue taken from “throughout the Little Miami River” had shown “elevated levels” of mercury, but these were not said to be associated with “obvious” pollution sources in the river watershed, indicating that mercury is not attributable to Peters Cartridge.

Response : Mercury was not used in the HRS scoring for the Site , nor were any fish tissue sampling results used in the scoring ; therefore, whether mercury in fish tissue samples is attributable to the S ite is not relevant to the listing decision.

If DuPont was suggesting that metal contaminat ion other than mercury in the river may have originated elsewhere, it has been clearly demonstrated in this support document (sections 3.9.2.1, Soil Erosion, and 3.9.2.2, Possible Contributions of Other Sites) that the lead and copper in the observed relea se to the river are attributable to the Peters Cartridge site

.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.9.3 Observed Release – Ongoing Release

Comment : DuPont claimed that the key as sumption in the EPA’s scoring of the Peters Cartridge site was that an ongoing release of contaminants was occurring to the Little Miami River. It also commented that most of the former production areas would be subject to limited erosion of impacted sedim ents as these areas were capped

wi th either concrete or asphalt.

Response : The likelihood of release is correctly scored as an observed release of copper and lead, in a ccordance with HRS requirements, based on sampling that occurred in May 1999 ; because an observed release “ has occurred,” the likelihood of future or ongoing releases is not relevant to the scoring.

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release , specifies that:

Likelihood of release is a measure of the likelihood that a waste has been or will be released to the environment. The likelihood of release factor category is assigned the maximum value of 550 for a migration pathway whenever the criteria for an observed release are met for that pathway. If the criteria for an observed release are met, do not evaluate potential to release for that pathway. When the criteria for an observed release are not met, evaluate potential to release for thatPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

31 pathway, with a maximum value of 500. The evaluation of potential to release varies by migration pathway (see sections 3, 4 and 6). [emphasis added]

HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release

, presents the requirement for establishing an observed release by

overland flow to surface water:

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has

released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. [emphasis added.]

* * *

If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this valu e in table 4 -1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.3. If no observed release can be established for the watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 0 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4 -1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.2

.

Page s 19 to 22 of the HRS documentation record at proposal provide the information and concentrations for the background and release samples

, and attribute the sign i ficant increase to the S ite based on samples collected in May 1999. Comments on these finding s are address ed in the above sections of this support document.

Regarding DuPont ’s comment that a “key assumption

, ”

-- that the release was continuing to occur, was made in the scoring of the observed release, the HRS has very detailed requirements that must be met to score an observed

release. There is no requirement that the release be “ continuing to occur. ” As the information excerpted from the HRS documentation record at proposal demonstrates , these specific documentation requirements of the HRS have

been met . The concentrations of lead and copper were significantly higher in the release sediment samples than in the background sediment sample, all collected from the Little Miami River, and the significant increase has been

demonstrated to be attributable to the Pete rs Cartridge site, as discussed in section 3.9.2, Observed Release

– Attribution, of this support document

, based on s amples collected in May 1999.

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of Release , quoted above, states that the likelihood of release “is a measure o f the

likelihood that a waste has been [emphasis added] or will be released to the environment.” HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1,

Observed release , likewise shown above, instructs the scorer to “[e]stablish an observed release to surface water

for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has released [emphasis added] a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed.” As shown above in the excerpts from pages 20 and 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the observed release criteria were met by the sampling conducted on May 4, 1999 . Therefore, the

likelihood of release factor value for the surface water migration pathway is based on whether or not a release “has occurred” or its potential to occur, not on whether it is continuing to occur; no tim eframe is specified by the

HRS . The HRS documentation record at proposal does not attempt to claim, nor does it need to show, that a release is ongoing. Because of this, the likelihood of future erosion of contaminated sediments is not relevant to

the list ing decision.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.1 0 Potential for Contaminant Migration/Potential to Release

Comment : DuPont commented that, except for the production area, all of the Site – and the land between the Site

and the Little Miami River – is covered in vegetation, which maximizes evapotranspiration from the Site and

maximizes infiltration of water into the Site – thus limiting surface water runoff from the Site. DuPon t continued that, as a result of the effects of vegetation across all but the production areas of the Site, there is limited potential for contaminants to migrate from the Site.Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

32 Response : As discussed in section 3.9, Observed Release, of this support doc ument, an observed release of copper

and lead has been documented at the Site, and the likelihood of release category value used in the HRS scoring of the Site is based on that finding. Whether or not the potential exists for contaminants to migrate from “nonproduction” areas of the facility is not part of the HRS evaluation of this site. If DuPont is suggesting that a n HRS potential to release factor value be assigned, this is not necessary, b ecause an observed release has been documented, and thus the po tential to release is not relevant to the HRS scoring of the Site.

HRS Section 4.1.2.1.2, Potential to release , instructs the user to:

Evaluate potential to release only if an observed release cannot be established for the watershed.

Pages 20 and 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, excerpted in section 3. 9.3, Observed Release

– Ongoing Release, of this support document, present the observed release documentation for the Peters Cartridge

site . Page 22 of the HRS documentation record at proposal provides the following information regarding potential

to release:

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).

Because the observed release has been established for the Peters Cartridge s ite in accordance with HRS requirements, the potential to release is not evaluated.

DuPont makes reference to “[a]ll areas of the site (outside the production area) ;” a discussion of the area s that are considered to be part of the S ite as defined for the purposes of listing is presented in section 3.4, Extent of Site, of this support document.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.1 1 Targets

Comment : DuPont indicated that according to fish tissue samples collected from the Little Miami River throughout the site area, mercury may be a ubiquitous contaminant. DuPont also stated that lead, “a primary site contaminant,” w as not “measured in fish tissue above detection limits ,” implying that the studies demonstrate the

S ite has not impacted the aquatic environment in the river

.

Response : The HRS evaluation of this site does not depend on or require detection of contamination in fish tissue samples. As explained below, i n accordance with HRS requirements, actual contamination of a fishery at Level II

has been scored based on the presence of contaminated sediment samples.

HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat- targets

, contains the instructions for scoring the human food chain fishery :

Evaluate two target factors for each watershed: food chain individual and population. For both factors, determine whether the target fisheries are subject to actual or potential human food chain

contamination.

Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the following apply:Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

33 • A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation po tential factor value of 500 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watershed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed

release to the watershed f rom the site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release (that is, it is located either at the point of direct observation or at or between the probable point of entry and the most distant sampling point establis hing the observed release). [Emphasis added.]

* * *

When a fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to actual food chain contamination, determine the part of the fishery subject to Level I concentrations and the part subject to Level II concentrations. If the actual food chain contamination is based on direct observation, evaluate it using Level II concentrations. However, if the actual food chain contamination is based on samples from the watershed, use these samples and, if available, additional tiss ue samples from aquatic human food chain organisms as specified below, to determine the part subject to Level I concentrations and the part subject to Level II concentrations:

• Determine the level of actual contamination from samples (including tissue samples from essentially sessile, benthic organisms) that meet the criteria for actual food chain contamination by comparing the exposure concentrations (see section 4.1.2.3 ) from these samples (or comparable samples) to the health

- based benchmarks from table 4- 17, as described

in section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Use only the exposure concentrations for those hazardous substances in the sample (or comparable samples) that meet the criteria for actual contamination of the fishery.

Page 27 of the HRS documentation record at proposal documents Level II concentrations as follows:

4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations

Actual contamination of the Little Miami River was documented with Level II concentrations of hazardous substances in sediment samples collected in the Littl e Miami River at a location adjacent to Downstream Culvert 2 and Ditch 3. An observed release of copper, a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation factor value 50,000, has been documented in the Little Miami River (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1; Ref. 4, Appendix B, p. 10; Ref. 12, p.18). The zone of Level I1

contamination extends from the most upstream PPE at sample location Downstream Culvert 1to the most downstream sample documenting an observed release in the Little Miami River at the

location of sediment sample at Ditch 3 (Ref. 17, pp. 4,5; Ref. 19).

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). Actual contamination of the

Little Miami River was documented with Level II concentrations of hazardous substances having a bioaccumulation potential factor of 500 or greater (copper) in sediment samples Ditch 3 and Downstream Culvert 2. The annual production 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 of greater than 0 to 100 pounds is assigned as the human food chain production (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.2.2). For an annual production of greater than 0 to 100 pounds per year, a Human Food Chain Population Value of 0.03 is assigned for the fishery (Ref. 1, Table 4-18).Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

34 The above excerpt from the HRS documentation record at proposal documents that Level II concentrations of an

observed release substance exists within a fishery; a Level II fishery can be scored. As presented above, the HRS provides for the documentation of actual contamination in a fishery using sediment samples, and does not require

contamination in fish tissue to score this factor. Becau se the health

- based benchmarks discussed in HRS Section 4.1.3.3 and provided in HRS Table 4-17 that apply to fish and shellfish were not exceeded, the level of actual contamination scored using sediment samples is Level II.

In addition, the 2007 OEPA stu dy of the Little Miami River water quality included collection and analysis of a

numb er of sediment samples; the sediment sample collected from the shoreline adjacent to the S ite ’s depositional

area contained lead at a level significantly above background levels (Reference 33 at promulgation , page 15)

. This finding supports the identification of a Level II fishery, several years after the 1999 ESI data that were used in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Remediation of the upland portions of the Site and the sediments at the outfalls would address possible future risk from these areas posed by future releases.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.1 2 Impact of Response Action on Scoring

Comment : DuPont commented that the storm water system and drainage culverts associated with the Site have been upgraded by the County , and that this involved removal of “potentially impacted” sediments from these drainages associated with the S ite. DuPont alleged the HRS score for the S ite is not based on a representation of “actual” conditions at the Site, that it failed to consider removed materials and cleaned culverts, and that actual

conditions do not warrant inclusion of the Site on the NP L.

Response : The response action and conditions after the response action have been appropriately considered and

the HRS score for the S ite remains the same as at proposal

.

The removal of potentially impacted sediments from drainages can theoretically a ffect the assignment of source hazardous waste quantity values and the list of hazardous substances associated with each source and eligible to

be evaluated for waste characteristics (toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation, in the case of the human food chain

threat as scored for the Peters Cartridge site ) . Each of these possibilities is addressed below. Section 3.7, Consideration of Response Actions/Post-Removal Conditions, of this support document explains the post- SI response actions that are considered when assigning HRS scores.

Hazardous Waste Quantity (HWQ)

For the migration pathways, HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value , provides the following methodology f or assigning a hazardous waste quantity factor value based on the sum of the source HWQ values , and how to consider removal actions in these assignments :

... If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined for one or more sources (or one or more portions of sources or releases remaining after a removal action) assign a factor

value as follows.

• If any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations (see section 2.5 ), assign either the value from table 2 -6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that pathway.

• If none of the targets for that pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations, assign a factor as followsPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

35 ...

o If there has been a removal action :

...

 If the value that would be assigned from Table 2

- 6 without

consideration of the removal action would be 100 or greater, assign

either the value from Table 2 -6 with consideration of the removal action or a value of 100, whichever is greater , as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway. [ Emphasis added.]

Page 14 of the HRS documentation record at proposal assigns the source HWQ value for Source 1 as follows:

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

The exact dimension of the contaminated soil has not been determined. An estimate of the 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 of contaminated soil is unknown, it is known to be greater than zero based on 10 soil samples showing the presence of le ad and other hazardous substances above background levels (Ref. 4, pp. 4, 6). Therefore, an area hazardous waste quantity of greater than zero is assigned.

Sum ( ft 2 ) :(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 1 is > 0 for Tier D

- Area (Ref. 1,Table 2

- 5).

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: > 0

Page 17 of the HRS documentation record at proposal assigns th e source HWQ value for Source 2 as follows:

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

The exact dimension of the Freon 1 13 contaminated soils have not been determined. While the exact area of contamination is unknown, it is known to be greater than zero based on so il boring samples showing the presence of Freon 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 (f t 2 ) :(greater than zero) > 0 , exact amount is unknown

Area As signed Value (A): > 0Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

36 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 2 is > 0 for Tier D

- Area (Ref. 1, Table 2- 5).

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: > 0

Page 26 of the HRS documentation record at proposal shows the assignment of the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway, in accordance with HRS Section 2.4.2.2, excerpted above: 4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

The hazardous constituent quantity for the sources at the site ha s not been adequately determined. Because targets are subjected to Level I1 concentrations, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2).

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

The removal of sediments and soils from drainage pathways has no impact on the HR S evaluation of these

sources. The delineation and characterization of the sources us ed in the HRS evaluation w ere based on sampling locations not impacted by the removal actions.

Furthermore, Du Pont’s description of the removal action specified only that the County had “excavated materials from open drainage ditches and cleaned culverts;” while DuPont did not provide details on which drainage ditches and culverts at what specific locations were addressed, the locations of all of the drainage features and culverts are illustrated on Figure K-6 of this support document. Although the complete extent of Sources 1 and 2 are not known, the minimum extent of each is documented by samples, as shown in Figures 2 and 3 of this support document, respectively.

Even if the removal action had removed some portion of Source 1 and/or Source 2, the source hazardous waste quantity values were already described as “ unknown but >0 ” at the time of proposal , so no reduction in t hese

values would occur because of the removal action if it had reduced the size of the contaminated soil area

.

Furthermore , the following excerpt from HRS Section 2.4.2.2 prevails, even if a removal has occurred

.

HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value , provides the following methodology:

... If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined for one or more sources (or one or more portions of sources or releases remaining after a removal action) assign a factor value

as follows.

• If any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II

concentrations (see section 2.5 ), assign either the value from table 2 -6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity fact or value for that pathway. [emphasis added.]

• If none of the targets for that pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations, assign a factor as follows

...

o If there has been a removal action :

...Peters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

37 This excerpt shows that, regardless of whether a removal has occurred at a site, the assignment of the pathway hazardous waste quantity value is dictated by the presence of Level I or II targets for that pathway at 100 or
greater

. That there are actually contaminated targets (Level II) associated with this site is discussed in section

3.11 , Targets, of this support document. Therefore, the pathway HWQ value would remain as 100 if the remov a l actions did impact the soil sources at the site.

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

For the evaluation of waste characteristics, HRS Section 2.4.1, Selection of substance potentially posing greatest
hazard , provides the following instructions:

For all pathways (and threats), select the hazardous substance potentially posing the greatest hazard for the pathway (or threat) and use that substance in evaluating the waste characteristics category of the pathway (or threat). For the three migration pathways (and threats), base the selection of this hazardous substance on the toxicity factor value for the substance, combine d with its mobility, persistence, and/or bioaccumulation (or ecosystem bioaccumulation) potential factor values, as applicable to the migration pathway (or threat). For the soil exposure pathway, base the selection on the toxicity factor alone.

Evaluation of the toxicity factor is specified in section 2.4.1.1 . Use and evaluation of the mobility, persistence, and/or bioaccumulation (or ecosystem bioaccumulation) potential factors vary by pathway (or threat) and are specified under the appropriate pathway (or threat) section. Section

2.4.1.2 identifies the specific factors that are combined with toxicity in evaluating each pathway (or threat).

HRS Section 2.4.1.1, Toxicity facto r , states:

Evaluate toxicity for those hazardous substances at the site that are available to the pathway being scored . For all pathways and threats, except the surface water environmental threat, evaluate human toxicity as specified below. For the surface water environmental threat, evaluate ecosystem toxicity as specified in Section 4.1.4.2.1.1. [Emphasis added.]

HRS Section 2.2.3, Identify hazardous substances available to a pathway , instructs the following:

In evaluating each migration pathway, consider the following hazardous substances available to migrate from the sources at the site to the pathway:

• Surface water migration

— overland/flood component.

o Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to surface water in the watershed being evaluated.

o All hazardous substances associated with a source with a s urface water containment factor value greater than 0 for the watershed (see sections 4.1.2.1.2.1.1

and 4.1.2.1.2.2.1 ).

Page 25 of the HRS documentation record at proposal assigns the toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation values to

seven hazardous substance s based on their documented presence in Source 1 or Source 2 or in the observed release. The highest scoring substance among these is mercury, which remains associated with Source 1, with an assigned value for toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation of 2 x 10 8

. As discussed above, the available information

indicates that t he removal action did not include removal of the locations of the samples used to delineate andPeters Cartridge Factory NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

38 represent Source 1 or Source 2. On this basis, all of the hazardous substances evaluated for toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation, including mercury, are still eligible to be evaluated as they have not been removed. Therefore, the assigned value remains the same.

Page 26 of the HRS documentation record at proposal combines the pathway HWQ and the t oxicity, persistence

and bioaccumulation values as follows:

4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

Toxicity /Persistence Factor: 4,000

Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 50,000

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

Toxicity / Persistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor (subject to a maximum of 1 x 10 8 ) = 4

x l0 5 Toxicity / Persistence /H azardous Waste Quantity Factor x Bioaccumulation Factor Value (subject to a maximum of 1 x 10 12 ) = 2 x 10 10

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32 0 (Table 2 -7)

As illustrated in this section, the hazardous waste quantity values and the toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation values, as well as the overall waste characteristics values , would all remain the same as at proposal ; therefore

, consideration of the response actions would not change the score for the Peters Cartridge site.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 4. 0 Conclusion

The original HRS score for this site was 50.00. Based on the above responses to comments, at promulgation the

score is 50.00. The final scores for the Peters Cartridge Factory site are:

Ground Water: Not Scored

Surface Water: 100.00 Soil Exposure: Not Scored Air Pathway: Not Scored

HRS Score: 50.00ATTACHMENT A

OSWER Directive # 9345.1

- 25

April 4, 1997.rGc 3'a+. r" d} IJ}IITED STATES ENVIRONME}TTAT PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.20460 tffij

-Ir ApR

- /t !9gT oFPrcE 0F SOLID i{ASTE AND SHERGBICY RESPCSSE ­ OSWER Directive # 93{5.1-25 -uElroB!\D-Ull Rer ision to os\\'ER l*PL Policl. "The Rer ised Hazard Ranking Slstcttt: Evaltrating SUllll:CT: Sifes After Waste RemoYals" Publication No. 9345. 1-03FS, October l99l' ' }:RO\I: Sr.,;rtr.'n D. Lufiig. o,r.-r,oF* L"fttr Ofllce of Entergencl' and Re nredial Response v TO: Director. Oftrce of Site Renrediation and Restcrration Region I Director, Ernergency and Rerlredial Rcsponse Division Region II D irector, I{azardous Wasle lvlaltagernenl Division Regions Ill,lX Director, Waste Managernent Divi sion Region IV Director, Superfund Division Regions V, Vl, VII ' .-i ..rr:l i.1a,j.,.,1r

. j! .-

- .' .,-.. A ssi-stant Regional Adnti nistralor,

- ir I t r j.l jll I-:1.:: '..:'.:.:"'­ Office of Ecosystems Prolection and Rernediation ,:'1.-' iiJt':i. r t'r- 'riJ;-ai! Region VIII Director, Enviroruuental Cleanup Oflice Region X LurBs-ssi Tr-e purpose of this nenrorandurn is to provide gro';er nixib;iity ro the cunirx National Frioriries Liiting (NpL) policy for e|aluating the rnrpact ol'completed removals on the Hazatd Ranking System (lllts) icore (Publication No. 9345.l-03FS, October l99l), Flexibility is u..on-,pIirhed by allou:ing post-Sire Inspection ("post-SI") conrpleted remot'als to be considered in l{RS scoring.B-irqkrrjuld: The ocrober lggl Npr- poricy,,'rhc Revised llazard Ranking s!'stem: E'aruarirrg Sites After $asrc Renlovals,, (pubtication No. 9145.1-03FS) established three requirements for ccrnsidering,.n',ouuiu-.tio,t, *t.n scoring a site using the [tRS' First' atl the rvaste subject to the removal nrust be physically renroved f,om the site' Second' tlte removal action must have occurrcd prior to th;'Si:(SSpi. Sf 567, Decentber 14, 1990)' Third' all *'aste removed must b. disposed or destroyiJu, u ru.iriry permitted under the Resource conservation and Recovery Act'

Toxics substances controt act, oiuy the Nuclear Regulatory commission' QUcsIiyc! Basetl cn e:rpt-riences in appl;-ing lhe ctttrnt NPL policl'' the Agency recogniz-es that Sr*.lr posr-Sl rcnrorial acliorls .o,i iubtri,tially address the thrcat to huntm health and enr ir.rr,lcnt and should be considered up to rile tinre of liPL listing. Therefore. as fl Int-'flns of encouraging earrl, response acrions,..p..iurty by private parties, rvhen sening priorities for the \pr-. Ep,\ can norv consi,Jcr cenein *.pes of post-Sl removal conrpletions (rcmo'als completed -,,r.;1"t. tcli',rc tlrc sitt'is.roposeti to rht \PL) in prtparing l{RS sc"ring packages' Additionall;-, this post-sl consideration hereon nrotlir-rcs'the second oI rhree requirer:rents cited in

rhe'Oclr-rtr"'r l99l NPL ptrlicy" Inrplsrrrsxf-au ithis'considbrati6tronlyapptiesrr,lreretheResionhas.documenta'llqn{e.g.oSC.Remor,al:ii" ,s,ire,,F,ittJ.tnlaining.re sponlibiepanl:rlork planr, *hll.,lt data,,closeout asscssnlen!),thnt +; ,,,cre*1y.,delno,nstratlsl irrioa,ii,i*i+*dxng,r*l.aser.or po_tentiar for a,releasi,,that,sould,cause;;;' tha! u ad+er9Ee1r"i.r,9q!g;-;*ffi+ ;;1t11,iiipacrs'(e'g;;arlrereasesfiave:been,de-q,lrwirh,such , ,h fdoUsisubiihn-ees',arel,not,pres*nt.*t,g1rioliatty.h,+nlffot,levels):":Orli:tvis:'ilb.!!|olqd,;+ ,'llffi*,ffi"f,iHil[t];i'r,1,*ns,o,ei'i 4uantityllly" calculationj .llthersitelsfiRS'score= drops betow zs.s a; a resurt of these changei, and if a[ cost recovery activities have been addressed (a decisio. not to cost recover rias bee,r conrpreted or final pqymentof outstanding oYersight or response costs has been received, etc'), the Region can proceed with archiving the site fronr tt comfr"hensive Environmental Response, compensation and l-iability InformaGon " System (CERCLIi).The atrached post-site Inspection Reuovar sire Example is provided to

,srirt you in implementing this new reform In sumrnary, the Agency believes that this refonn n'ould reduce EPA and private sector lcgal/transa"tion .ort, urrJ.iuttd rvith the listing and subsequent deletion process' Most ir'portantry, this refonn better refiects rhe Agency's priorities for risting only those sites n,tt .',."tf inr -.ting hrtnran health and the envirort:tlenllfyouhavcanl'quesrionsrcgardingthisreform-pleasecontactTirnCill'Offrceof Enrergency anri Remedial Response, at (703) 603'8856' t This refomr is not a rute, and does not creale any legal obligations. The extent to which EPA applies this policy *illdepend on the facts of each case' CC: EPA HQ OSWER/IO OsPSlBrorwrfields OERR.{O OERR Center Dircctors OS\\'r.lO occ,l0 OSRE,IO OFFRO'IO ol'l'E IO EPA Regional Rernoval lvlanagers EPA Regional NPL Chiefs EPA Regional NPL Coordinators EPA Regional Cost Recovery lvlangers ' EPA Regional Counsel Association of State Tenoritorial Solid Waste Oflicials / Kris I'loellenPost-Site lnspection Remoml Site Exanple To lllusrrate the implenrentarion of rhis policy, consider a cERGLIS site that is a candidate for the NpL because of the threat it poses to grornd warir. The site consisrs of leaking transformers and soils conraminateC ,,riti pof>.f,foii*ted blphenyls (PCBs) in a 5.000 square foot area at a former slorage faciliry. f.rg.t include more.tlrin 3,000 people who receive drinking water fronl ground

watei wells within % to I mile of the site' In lggg, EpA conducred a Sire Inspection (sl) at the faciliry ro gather the data necessary to prepare an uns documentation record. pieliminary evaluations by EPA indicate that the site will score BrL,arer than 2g.50 on &e HRS based on the threat ro ground water alone. Ahhough no release ro ground \\.arer $as o;"coiereo. rhe porenrial for a relenie to thc k.'cal drinking rrater aquifer is high and

nrau5' per1pl!' lleat the site use this aquifer' In 1993, the pRp drained flui.Js conrainin-q PCBs front the transfornters and haul"d an'ay the rra[sfornrers and pcB-conraining fluids to an appioved dispo_sar facirity. The soir was exca'ared ro a J",pttr of flfpr(.,xinrsrerl- s feer .n,r ,-ri11 1500 drurns of pcB-ct'rnranrinared srrit rvere taken r.r an approled faciliry for r'he rlisp"-,sal ol PCBs. Posr-ren'lcrlal soil s;rn:ptittg releale.l no PcBs' current pcB contaminarion indorrngradient drinking rvaler and monitoring wells rvithin |l ntile data shorv no

of the site. Afier the renroval n'as complered. EPA devetoped a revised IIRS score. Under EPA's original poticy. the HRS score $'out,J stitt be grfater rhan 28.50 because lhe respome action occurred afier the SI. Under this reYised policy, rhe siri score u'oukl be reduced to 0 because the Hazardous Waste euarrtity value becam. b on.. all hazardous wasle sources were ph1'sically_renroved from the site and disposed of at an *ppropri*nl> pennined. faciliry. The nondetection of PCBs during a resarnpling of t,& nrile downgradient of the site rhe ground *r,r, *oni,lring *iu and drinking water wells -rvithin action rimoved a sufficient quantity of PCBs-to^restrict further ensured EpA rhat,r,"-pnrir.sponse ntigration. EPA began the procedures to archive the site from CERCLIS' "lontanrinantATTACHMENT B

Scott J. Nally, Director, Ohio EPA

Correspondence Re: Peters Cartridge Site, December 2, 2011Environmental

Protection Agency

john R. Kasich, Governor

Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor

Scott J. Nally, Director

December 2, 2011 

## DE' 0 

## 2011

').:'> l-."", .\.L-'·. T ?.-::r?"j",,'/,L,_.'

_ _**"_,,,7J(~::';**



### Susan Hedman Regional Administrator

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

77 West Jackson Blvd Chicago, IL 60604

RE: Peters Cartridge Site Kings Mills, Ohio

Dear Administrator Hedman:

The State of Ohio supports the inclusion of Peters Cartridge in Warren County on the next proposed National Priorities List (NPL). The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study conducted at the site documented threats to public

health and the environment. Listing the site on the NPL will allow your agency to

move forward with implementing the remedy for the Peters Cartridge site in a timely manner.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

# r~ Scott J. Nally

Director