# Coastal Hazardous Waste Site

REVIEWERS Chris Beaverson 1

## , Berit Bergquist2

## , Bejurin Cassady 2


## , Robert N. Dexter2


## , Tom Dillon 1

## , Ken Finkelstein 1


## , Gayle Garman 1

## , Ron Gouguet 1

## , Peter Knight1


## , 

## and Lisa Rosman 1



# GRAPHICS Kimberly L. Stewart 2

1

### NOAA/HAZMAT/Coastal Resource Coordination Branch

2

### EVS Environment Consultants



# NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


# NOS National Ocean Service 

# ORCA Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessmen t 

## HAZMAT Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115

# Coastal Hazardous Waste Site

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


# NOS National Ocean Service 

# ORCA Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessmen t 

## HAZMAT Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 

# December 1997

EDITORS Gayle Garman and Lori Harris
NOAA/HAZMAT/Coastal Resource Coordination Branch


# AUTHORS Berit A. Bergquist, Garrett Gray, Lisa M. Mill, Susan E. McGroddy, James E. Starkes, and Robert E. Stuart
EVS Environment Consultants

# Contents

Introduction

........................................................................................................................... 

## i Sites reviewed since 1984 ................................................................v Acronyms and abbreviations used in waste site reviews.....xviii



# 1 Beede Waste Oil

.............................................................................................................

## 1 Plaistow, New Hampshire



# 2 V&M/Albaladejo Farms

.................................................................................... 

## 11 Vega Baja, Puerto Rico



# 3 Fort George G. Meade

................................................................................... 

## 19 Anne Arundel County, Maryland



# Norfolk Naval Base

............................................................................................... 

## 31 Norfolk, Virginia 

# Salford Quarry

.............................................................................................................

## 43 Lower Salford Township, Pennsylvania



# 4 Brunswick Wood Preserving

............................................................ 

## 51 Brunswick, Georgia 

# MRI Corporation

....................................................................................................... 

## 61 Tampa, Florida 

# Terry Creek Dredge Spoil/Hercules Outfall

........ 

## 71 Brunswick, Georgia

# 4 (cont.)
Tyndall Air Force Base

................................................................................. 

## 81 Bay County, Florida



# 6 Madisonville Creosote Works

........................................................ 

## 91 Madisonville, Louisiana



# 10 Oeser Company

......................................................................................................... 

## 101 Bellingham, Washington

## PLEASE CITE AS:

Garman, Gayle, and Lori Harris, editors. 1997. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews, December 1997.Seattle: Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 138 pp.

### Introduction • i

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • i 

# Introduction This report identifies uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that could pose a threat to natural resources for which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) acts as a trustee. NOAA carries out responsibilities as a Federal trustee for natural resources under theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. As a trustee, NOAA identifiessites that could affect natural resources, determines the potential for injury to the resources, evaluates cleanup alternatives, and carries out restoration actions. NOAA works with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and assess risks to coastal resources from hazardous waste sites, and to develop strategies to minimize those risks. NOAA regularly conducts evaluations of hazardous waste sites proposed for addition to the National Priorities List 1 

### (NPL) by EPA. The waste sites evaluated in this report are drawnfrom the list of all sites, including Federal facilities, proposed for inclusion on the NPL on December 23, 1996 and April 1, 1997.

The sites of concern to NOAA are located in counties bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Great Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico, or arenear inland water bodies that support anadromous fish populations. Not all sites in coastal states will affect NOAA trust resources. To select sites on the National Priorities List for initial investigation, only sites in coastal counties orsites bordering important anadromous or catadromous fish habitat are considered to have potential to affect trust resources. This initial



# 1997

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews

### ii • Introduction

ii • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction selection criterion works better in some statesthan in others, depending on topography, hydrography, and the nature of political subdivisions.

These reports are an overall guide to the potential for injury to NOAA trust resources resulting from a site. NOAA uses this information to establish priorities for investigating sites. Sites that appear to pose ongoing problems will be followed by a NOAA Coastal Resource Coordinator (CRC) in the appropriate region. The CRC communicates concerns about ecological impact to EPA, reviews sampling and monitoring plans for the site, and helps plan and set objectives for remedial actions to clean up the site. NOAA works with other trustees to plan a coordinated approach for remedial action that protects all natural resources (not just those for which NOAA is a steward). Other Federal and state trustees can use the hazardous waste site reports to help determine the risk of injury to their trust resources. EPA uses the site reports to help identify the types of information that may be needed to complete an environmental assessment of the site.

These coastal site reports are often NOAA’s first examination of a site. Sites with potential toimpact NOAA resources may also have a more indepth assessment of potential injury to environmental receptors, called a Preliminary Natural Resource Survey (PNRS). EPA may request a PNRS early in the remedial process to document the rationale for adding a site to the National Priorities List. Eleven coastal sites were identified in 1997 using this selection method and coastal hazardous waste site reports completed for them. The currentreporting brings the total number of sites considered by NOAA to 747. Defense Installation Natural Resource Assessment Guidance Reports, similar to PNRSs, were completed under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Air Force in 1994. NOAA has completed a total of 303 coastal hazardous waste site reviews since 1984 (published in April 1984 2 

### , June 1985 3 

### , April 1986 4 

### , June 1987 5 

### , March 1989 6 

### , June 1990 7 

### , September 1992 8 

### , December 1993 9 

### , June 1995 10 

### , September 1995 11 

### , July 1996 12 

### , and this report). NOAA has completed 140 PNRSs and 3 U.S. Air Force reports since 1988 (see table below).

Several sites have had multiple reviews or PNRSs; these multiples are reflected in the total numbers above. Three hundred sites have been reviewed 

### Year NPL Reports PNRS USAF Reports 1984 74 1985 20 1986 15 1987 33 1988 17 1989 71 33 1990 24 32 1991 16 1992 8 15 1993 18 8 1994 8 3 1995 21 6 1996 8 1 1997 11 4 Total 303 140 3

### Introduction • iii

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • iii (three sites more than once), and 140 sites have had PNRSs (three more than once).

The 1997 Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews contain four major sections. “Site Exposure Potential” describes activities at the site thatcaused the release of contaminants, local topography, and potential contaminant migration pathways. “NOAA Trust Habitats and Species” describes the types of habitats and species at risk of injury from releases at the site. The life stages of organisms using habitats near the site are discussed, as are commercial and recreationalfisheries. “Site-Related Contamination” identifies contaminants of concern to NOAA, thepartitioning of the contaminants in the environment, and the concentrations at which the contaminants are found. “Summary” cogently recaps this information.


# Tables and Screening Values

Most of these reports contain tables of contaminants measured at the site. These tables were formulated to highlight contaminants that represent a potential problem, and to focus our concerns on only a few of the many contaminants normally present at a waste site. Data presentedin tables were screened against standard comparison values, depending on the source of the sample. Screening values used are ambient water quality criteria 14 

### , soil averages 15,16 

### , and Effects Range Low (ERL) values 17 

### . Because releases to the environment from hazardous waste sites can span many years, we are concerned about chronic impacts. Therefore, we typically make comparisons with the lower standard value (e.g., chronic vs. acute AWQC, and ERL vs. ERM). No criteria similar to the AWQC are available for sediment. Thus, sediment concentrations were screened by comparison with the ERL reported by Long et al. 17

### The ERL value is the sediment concentration corresponding to the lowest 10- percentile of biological measurements reported as effects. As such, it represents the low end of the range of concentrations at which effects were observed in the studies compiled by the authors.

Soil samples were compared to selected averages reported in Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the coterminous United States (Shacklette and Boerngen 1984), except for cadmium and silver which are compared to concentrations reported in Hazardous Waste Land Treatment (EPA 1983). These values were averaged from a data set from soil throughout the entire U.S. Ideally, reference values for soil would be calculated on a regional basis, from adata set large enough to give a value representative of the area. In the absence of such data, the national average values were used as a reference for comparison purposes only.

All of the hazardous waste sites considered by NOAA in this review are contained in the Table of Contents, including the name and location of the site and the beginning page number of the site report. Table 1 lists all of the sites at which NOAA has been involved that could potentially affect trust resources, as of December 1997. Table 2 lists acronyms, abbreviations, and terms commonly used in these waste site reports.

### iv • Introduction

iv • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction 1 

### National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.

2 

### Ocean Assessments Division. 1984. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review April 13, 1984

. NOAA/OAD, Seattle, Washington.

3 

### Pavia, R., and L. Harris, eds. 1985. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review June 30, 1985

. NOAA/OAD, Seattle, Washington

4 

### Pavia, R., and L. Harris, eds. 1986. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review: Site Reports April 1986. NOAA/OAD, Seattle, Washington.

5 

### Pavia, R., and L. Harris, eds. 1987. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review: Site Reports June 1987 . NOAA/OAD, Seattle, Washington.

6 

### Pavia, R., and L. Harris, eds. 1989. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review: Site Reports March 198 9. NOAA/OAD, Seattle, Washington.

7 

### Hoff, R., and L. Harris, eds. 1990. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review: Site Reports June 1990. NOAA/OAD, Seattle, Washington.

8 

### Beckvar, N., and L. Harris, eds. 1992. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews September 199 2. NOAA/ORCA, Seattle, Washington.

9 

### Beckvar, N., and L. Harris, eds. 1993. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews December 1993. NOAA/ORCA, Seattle, Washington.

10 

### Beckvar, N., G. Garman, and L. Harris, eds. 1995. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews June 1995. NOAA/ORCA, Seattle, Washington.

11 

### Garman, G., and L. Harris, eds. 1995. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews September 1995. NOAA/ORCA, Seattle, Washington.

12 

### Garman, G., and L. Harris, eds. 1996. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews July 1996. NOAA/ORCA, Seattle, Washington. 13 

### Garman, G., and L. Harris, eds. 1997. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews December 1997. NOAA/ORCA, Seattle, Washington.

14 

### U.S. EPA. 1993. Water quality criteria

.Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

15 

### U.S. EPA. 1983. Hazardous waste land

treatment. EPA/530/SW-83/874. Cincinnati: Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. 702 pp.

16 

### Shacklette, H.T., and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

17 

### Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19(1):81-97.

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • v 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 2( cont .) NJ NJD000606442 Quanta Resources NJ NJD986589190 Raritan Arsenal NJ NJD980529713 Reich Farms NJ NJD070415005 Renora, Inc. NJ NJD980529739 Ringwood Mines/Landfill NJ NJD073732257 Roebling Steel Co. 1984 1990 NJ NJD030250484 Roosevelt Drive-In 1984 NJ NJD980505754 Sayreville Landfill 1984 1990 NJ NJD070565403 Scientific Chemical Processing 1984 1989 NJ NJD980505762 Sharkey Landfill 1990 NJ NJD002365930 Shieldalloy Corp. NJ NJD980766828 South Jersey Clothing Co. 1989 NJ NJD041743220 Swope Oil & Chemical Co. NJ NJD064263817 Syncon Resins 1984 1992 NJ NJD980761357 Tabernacle Drum Dump NJ NJD002005106 Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division) 1984 NJ NJD980761399 Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill NJ NJD980529879 Ventron/Velsicol 1984 NJ NJD002385664 Vineland Chemical Co., Inc. 1990 NJ NJD054981337 Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc. 1990 NJ NJD001239185 White Chemical Corp. 1984 NJ NJD980529945 Williams Property 1984 1992 NJ NJD980532824 Wilson Farm NJ NJD045653854 Witco Chemical Corp. (Oakland Pit) NJ NJD980505887 Woodland Route 532 Dump NJ NJD980505879 Woodland Route 72 Dump NY NYD980780829 93rd Street School NY NYD072366453 Action Anodizing, Plating, & Polishing 1989 NY NYD980506232 ALCOA Aggregation Site NY NYD002066330 American Thermostat Co. NY NYD001485226 Anchor Chemicals NY NYD980535652 Applied Environmental Services 1985 1991 NY NYD980507693 Batavia Landfill NY NYD980768675 BEC (Binghampton Equipment Co.) Trucking 1990 NY NYD980768683 Bioclinical Laboratories, Inc. NY NYD980652275 Brewster Well Field NY NY7890008975 Brookhaven National Laboratory (USDOE) 1990 NY NYD980780670 Byron Barrel & Drum NY NYD981561954 C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump 1989 NY NYD010968014 Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal 1989 NY NYD981184229 Circuitron Corp. NY NYD002044584 Claremont Polychemical NY NYD000511576 Clothier Disposal NY NYD980768691 Colesville Municipal Landfill NY NYD982276933 Cornwall Landfill NY NYD980528475 Cortese Landfill NY NYD980508048 Croton Point Sanitary Landfill NY NYD980780746 Endicott Village Well Field NY NYD981560923 Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision NY NYD091972554 General Motors (Central Foundry Division) 1989 NY NYD002050110 Genzale Plating Co.

### vi • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 2( cont .) NY NYD980768717 Goldisc Recordings, Inc. NY NY4571924451 Griffiss Air Force Base NY NYD980785661 Haviland Complex NY NYD980780779 Hertel Landfill NY NYD980506810 Hooker (102nd Street) NY NYD002920312 Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corp. NY NYD980763841 Hudson River PCBs 1989 NY NYD000813428 Jones Chemicals, Inc. NY NYD980534556 Jones Sanitation 1987 NY NYD980780795 Katonah Municipal Well NY NYD002041531 Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. NY NYD986882660 Li Tungsten Corp. 1992 1993 NY NYD053169694 Liberty Heat Treating Co., Inc. NY NYD000337295 Liberty Industrial Finishing 1985 1993 NY NYD000606947 Love Canal NY NYD013468939 Ludlow Sand & Gravel NY NYD980535124 Malta Rocket Fuel Area NY NYD010959757 Marathon Battery Corp. 1984 1989 NY NYD000512459 Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. 1989 1990 NY NYD980763742 MEK Spill - Hicksville NY NYD002014595 Nepera Chemical Co., Inc. NY NYD000514257 Niagara County Refuse NY NYD980664361 Niagara Mohawk Power Co. (Saratoga Springs) NY NYD980762520 North Sea Municipal Landfill 1985 1989 NY NYD991292004 Pasley Solvents & Chemicals, Inc. NY NY6141790018 Pennsylvania/Fountain Ave. Landfill 3 NY NYD000511659 Pollution Abatement Services NY NYD980654206 Port Washington Landfill 1984 1989 NY NYD980768774 Preferred Plating Corp. NY NYD002245967 Reynolds Metals Co. NY NYD980507735 Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond NY NYD981486954 Rowe Industries Ground Water Contamination 1987 1991 NY NYD980507677 Sidney Landfill 1989 NY NYD980535215 Sinclair Refinery NY NYD980421176 Solvent Savers NY NYD980780878 Suffern Village Wellfield NY NYD000511360 Syosset Landfill NY NYD980509285 Tri-Cities Barrel Co., Inc. NY NYD002059517 Tronic Plating Co., Inc. NY NYD980509376 Volney Municipal Landfill NY NYD980535496 Wallkill Landfill NY NYD980506679 Warwick Landfill NY NYD980652259 Wide Beach Development NY NYD000511733 York Oil Co. PR PRD090416132 Clear Ambient Services Co. 1984 PR PRD980640965 Frontera Creek 1984 1991

3 

### Formerly Pennsylvania Avenue Landfill

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • vii 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 2( cont .) PR PRD090282757 GE Wiring Devices PR PRD980512362 Juncos Landfill PR PR4170027383 Naval Security Group Activity 1989 1991 PR PRD980301154 Upjohn Facility PR PRD987366101 V&M / Albaladejo Farms 1997 PR PRD980763775 Vega Alta Public Supply Wells VI VID980651095 Island Chemical Corp./V.I. Chemical Corp. 1996 VI VID982272569 Tutu Wellfield 1993


### Federal Region 3 DE DED980494496 Army Creek Landfill 1984 DE DED980704860 Coker’s Sanitation Service Landfills 1986 1990 DE DED980551667 Delaware City PVC Plant 1984 DE DED000605972 Delaware Sand & Gravel 1984 DE DE8570024010 Dover Air Force Base 1987 1989 DE DED980693550 Dover Gas and Light Company 1987 DE DED980555122 E.I. Du Pont, Newport Landfill 1987 1991/1992 DE DED980830954 Halby Chemical 1986 1990 DE DED980705727 Kent County Landfill 1989 DE DED980552244 Koppers Co. Facilities Site 1990 DE DED043958388 NCR Corp., Millsboro 1986 DE DED058980442 New Castle Spill Site 1984 1989 DE DED980705255 New Castle Steel Plant 1984 DE DED980704894 Old Brine Sludge Landfill 1984 DE DED980494603 Pigeon Point Landfill 1987 DE DED981035520 Sealand Ltd. 1989 DE DED041212473 Standard Chlorine Co. 1986 DE DED980494637 Sussex Co. Landfill #5 1989 DE DED000606079 Tybouts Corner Landfill 1984 DE DED980705545 Tyler Refrigeration Pit DE DED980704951 Wildcat Landfill 1984 MD MDD069396711 Allied Chemical Corp. Baltimore Works MD MDD980705057 Anne Arundel County Landfill 1989 MD MDD980504195 Bush Valley Landfill 1989 1993 MD MDD980555478 Chemical Metals Industries MD MDD030324073 Dundalk Marine Terminal MD MDD000731356 Hawkins Pt./Md. Port Admin. MD MDD030321178 Joy Reclamation Co. 1984 MD MDD980923783 Kane & Lombard Street Drums MD MDD064882889 Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers MD MD7170024684 Naval Surface Warfare Center 1997 MD MDD985397256 Naval Training Center Bainbridge MD MDD982364341 Ordnance Products, Inc. 1995 MD MDD980705164 Sand Gravel & Stone Site 1984 1990 MD MDD980704852 Southern Maryland Wood Treating 1987 MD MDD000218008 Spectron Inc. 1997 MD MD0120508940 U.S. Agricultural Center Beltsville (2 tenants) 1995 MD MD2210020036 USA Aberdeen - Edgewood 1986 Bush River Watershed 1994 Gun Powder River Watershed 1994

### viii • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 3 ( cont .) MD MD3210021355 USA Aberdeen - Michaelsville 1986 Romney Creek Watershed 1994 MD MD9210020567 USA Fort George Meade 1997 MD MD0570024000 USAF Andrews Air Force Base 19944 MD MD7170024536 USN Patuxent Naval Air Station 1996 MD MDD980504344 Woodlawn Co. Landfill 1987 PA PAD004351003 A.I.W. Frank PA PAD000436436 Ambler Asbestos Piles PA PAD009224981 American Electronic Lab., Inc. PA PAD980693048 AMP, Inc. PA PAD987341716 Austin Avenue Radiation Site 1993 PA PAD003053709 Avco Lycoming - Williamsport Division PA PAD061105128 Bally Ground Water Contamination PA PAD047726161 Boarhead Farms 1989 PA PAD980508402 Bridesburg Dump 1984 PA PAD980691760 Brodhead Creek PA PAD980831812 Brown’s Battery Breaking 1991 PA PAD980508451 Butler Mine Tunnel 1987 PA PAD980419097 Crater Resources/Keystone Coke/Alan Wood 1993 PA PAD981035009 Croydon TCE Spill 1986 PA PAD981038052 Delta Quarries/Stotler Landfill PA PAD002384865 Douglassville Disposal 1987 PA PAD003058047 Drake Chemical PA PAD981740004 Dublin Water Supply PA PAD987323458 East Tenth Street Site PA PAD980830533 Eastern Diversified Metals PA PAD980539712 Elizabethtown Landfill 1989 PA PAD980552913 Enterprise Avenue 1984 PA PAD980714505 FMC Marcus Hook 1996 PA AD077087989 Foote Mineral Co. 1993 PA PAD987332541 Hamburg Playground Site PA PAD002338010 Havertown PCP Site PA PAD002390748 Hellertown Manufacturing Co. 1987 PA PAD009862939 Henderson Road Site 1989 PA PAD980508493 Industrial Drive Site PA PAD980508493 Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting 1989 PA PAD981036049 Keyser Ave. Borehole 1989 PA PAD980508931 Lord Shope Landfill PA PAD014353445 Malvern TCE Site PA PAD046557096 Metal Bank of America 1984 1990 PA PAD982366957 Metropolitan Mirror & Glass Co., Inc. PA PAD980538763 Middletown Air Field PA PAD980539068 Modern Sanitation Landfill PA PAD980508766 Moyers Landfill PA PAD980691372 MW Manufacturing PA PAD107214116 National Vulcanized Fiber PA PAD096834494 North Penn-Area 1 PA PAD002342475 North Penn-Area 2

4 

### U.S. Air Force report.

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • ix 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 3 ( cont .) PA PAD980692693 North Penn-Area 5 PA PAD980926976 North Penn-Area 6 PA PAD002498632 North Penn-Area 7 PA PAD057152365 North Penn-Area 12 PA PAD079160842 Novak Sanitary Landfill PA PAD980229298 Occidental Chem./Firestone 1989 PA PAD002395887 Palmerton Zinc Pile PA PAD980692594 Paoli Rail Yard 1987 1991 PA PAD981939200 Publicker/Cuyahoga Wrecking Plant 1990 PA PAD039017694 Raymark 1996 PA PAD002353969 Recticon/Allied Steel 1989 PA PAD051395499 Revere Chemical Co. 1986 PA PAD091637975 Rohm and Haas Landfill 1986 PA PAD980693204 Salford Quarry 1997 PA PAD980830889 Shriver's Corner Site PA PAD014269971 Stanley Kessler PA PA6143515447 Tinicum National Environmental Center 1986 PA PAD980692024 Tysons Dump #1 1985 PA PAD980539126 UGI Corp. Gas Manufacturing Plant 1995 PA PA6170024545 USN Naval Warfare Center PA PA417002241 USN Philadelphia Naval Shipyard PA PA3170022104 USN Ships Parts Control Center 1996 PA PAD980539407 Wade (ABM) 1984 PA PAD980537773 William Dick Lagoons VA VAD980551683 Abex Corp. 1989 VA VAD042916361 Arrowhead Associates/Scovill 1989 VA VAD990710410 Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. 1987 1990 VA VAD049957913 C & R Battery Co., Inc. 1987 VA VAD980712913 Chisman Creek 1984 VA VAD007972482 Clarke L.A. & Son VA VAD980539878 H & H Inc.-Burn Pit VA VAD988197133 Hampton Roads Welders Site VA VA1170024722 Marine Corps Combat and Development Command 1995 VA VA2800005033 NASA-Langley Research Center 5 1995 1997 VA VA7170024684 Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren 1993 VA VA8170024170 Naval Weapons Station - Yorktown 1993 1997 VA VAD071040752 Rentokil Inc., Virginia Wood Preserving Division VA VAD020312013 Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad 1994 VA VAD003117389 Saunders Supply Co. 1987 VA VAD980917983 Suffolk City Landfill VA VA3971520751 U.S. Defense General Supply Center VA VA6210020321 USA Fort Eustis 1996 VA VA7210020981 USA Woodbridge Research Facility VA VA4570024477 USAF Langley Air Force Base 5 1997 VA VA5170022482 USN Naval Amphibious Base/Little Creek VA VA1170024813 USN Naval Shipyard Norfolk VA VA6170061463 USN Norfolk Naval Base 1997

5 

### USAF Langley Air Force Base and Langley Research Center have been combined into one CERCLA site: Langley Air Force Base/NASA Langley Research Center.

### x • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction VA VA9170022488 USN Radio Transmitting Facility 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 4 WV WV0170023691 Allegany Ballistics Laboratory WV WVD004336749 Follansbee Site AL ALD058221326 Alabama Wood Treating Corp., Inc. AL ALD001221902 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (McIntosh Plant) 1990 AL ALD000604249 Gulf Oil Co. AL ALD041906173 Interstate Lead Co. (Ilco) AL ALD008188708 Olin Corp. (McIntosh Plant) 1990 AL ALD980844385 Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) 1989 AL ALD095688875 Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant) 1990 AL ALD008161176 Stauffer Chemical Co. (Lemoyne Plant) AL ALD007454085 T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition (Montgomery) AL AL0570024182 USAF Maxwell Air Force Base AL AL2170024630 US Naval Outlying Barin Field FL FLD980221857 Agrico Chemical Co. 1989 FL FLD004145140 Airco Plating Co. FL FLD008161994 American Creosote Works (Pensacola Plant) 1984 1989 FL FLD020536538 Anaconda Aluminum Co./Milgo Electronics FL FLD981014368 Anodyne, Inc. FL FLD004574190 B&B Chemical Co., Inc. FL FLD088783865 Bay Drum FL FLD980494660 Beulah Landfill FL FLD052172954 BMI-Textron FL FLD981930506 Broward County-21st Manor Dump 1992 FL FLD980709356 Cabot/Koppers FL FLD080174402 Chemform, Inc. 1990 FL FLD004064242 Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division) FL FLD991279894 Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co. FL FLD980602288 Davie Landfill FL FLD000833368 Dubose Oil Products Co. FL FL984184127 Florida Petroleum Processors FL FLD050432251 Florida Steel Corp. FL FLD000602334 Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) 1986 1990 FL FLD053502696 Helena Chemical Co. (Tampa Plant) 1993 FL FLD980709802 Hipps Road Landfill FL FLD004119681 Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal FL FLD980727820 Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal FL FLD981019235 Madison County Sanitary Landfill FL FLD088787585 MRI Corporation 1997 FL FLD084535442 Munisport Landfill 1984 FL FLD004091807 Peak Oil Co./Bay Drum Co. FL FLD984259374 Peele-Dixie Wellfield Site FL FL9170024567 Pensacola Naval Air Station 1990 FL FLD032544587 Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc. FL FLD980556351 Pickettville Road Landfill 1984 1990 FL FLD004054284 Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water & Sewer FL FLD984169763 Pleasant Grove Landfill FL FLD000824888 Reeves SE Corp. Southeastern Wire Division FL FLD000824896 Reeves SE Galvanizing Corp. FL FLD980602882 Sapp Battery Salvage 1989 FL FLD062794003 Schuylkill Metals Corp.

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • xi FL FLD043861392 Sherwood Medical Industries 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 4( cont .) FL FLD980728877 Sixty-Second Street Dump 1984 1989 FL FLD004126520 Standard Auto Bumper Corp. 1989 FL FLD004092532 Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa Plant) 1993 FL FLD010596013 Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tarpon Springs) 1993 FL FLD000648055 Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds 1989 FL FLD980494959 Taylor Road Landfill FL FL2800016121 USAF Cape Canaveral Air Force Base FL FL7570024037 USAF Homestead Air Force Base FL FL1570024124 USAF Tyndall Air Force Base 1997 FL FL6170022952 USAF NAS Key West (Boca Chica) FL FL2570024404 USAF Patrick Air Force Base FL FL1690331300 USCG Station Key West FL FL5170022474 USN Air Station Cecil Field 1990 FL FL6170024412 USN NAS Jacksonville 1990 FL FL6800014585 US NASA Kennedy Space Center FL FL9170024260 USN Naval Air Station Mayport FL FL2170023244 USN Naval Air Station Whiting Field Site 5 1996 FL FL8170023792 USN Naval Coastal Systems Center FL FLD980602767 Whitehouse Oil Pits FL FLD041184383 Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc. FL FLD981021470 Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator Dump FL FLD004146346 Woodbury Chemical Co. (Princeton Plant) 1989 FL FLD049985302 Zellwood Ground Water Contamination GA GAD095840674 Cedartown Industries, Inc. GA GAD980495402 Cedartown Municipal Landfill GA GAD990741092 Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill GA GAD981024466 Brunswick Wood Preserving 1997 GA GAD008212409 Escambia Wood - Camilla GA GAD990855074 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Albany Plant) GA GAD004065520 Hercules, Inc. GA GAD980556906 Hercules 009 Landfill GA GAD000827444 International Paper Co. GA GAD099303182 LCP Chemicals Georgia, Inc. 1995 GA GAD980838619 Mathis Brothers Landfill GA GAD001700699 Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant) GA GAD980495451 New Sterling Landfill GA GAD982112658 Terry Creek Dredge Spoil /Hercules Outfall 1997 GA GAD042101261 T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition (Albany) GA GA1570024330 USAF Robins Air Force Base (Landfill/Sludge lagoon) GA GAD003269578 Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. MS MSD008154486 Chemfax, Inc. 1995 MS MSD098596489 Gautier Oil Co., Inc. 1989 MS MS2170022626 US Naval Const. Battalion Center NC NCD024644494 ABC One Hour Cleaners 1989 NC NCD980840409 Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage NC NC1170027261 Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station NC NCD980840342 Dockery Property

### xii • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 4( cont .) NC NCD981475932 FCX , Inc. (Washington Plant) 1989 NC NCD981927502 Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant) NC NCD079044426 General Electric Co./Shepherd Farm NC NCD003200383 Koppers Co., Inc. (Morrisville Plant) NC NCD991278953 National Starch & Chemical Corp. NC NCD981021157 New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit 1989 NC NCD986186518 Old ATC Refinery NC NCD981023260 Potter’s Septic Tank Service Pits 1989 NC NC6170022580 USMC Camp Lejeune 1989 SC SCD987581337 Calhoun Park/Ansonborough Homes/Scegco 1993 SC SCD980558316 Carolawn, Inc. SC SCD980846034 Charleston Landfill SC SCD980711279 Geiger (C&M Oil) 1984 SC SCD058753971 Helena Chemical Co. Landfill 1989 SC SCD055915086 International Paper Co. SC SCD094995503 Kalama Specialty Chemicals SC SCD980310239 Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) 1993 SC SCD991279324 Leonard Chemical Co., Inc. SC SCD980558043 Lexington County Landfill Area SC SC0170022560 Naval Shipyard - Charleston SC SC8170022620 Naval Weapons Station - Charleston SC SCD037398120 Palmetto Recycling, Inc. SC SCD002601656 Para-Chem Southern, Inc. SC SC6170022762 Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depot 1995 SC SC1890008989 US DOE Savannah River Site 1990 SC SCD987572674 US DOI Charleston Harbor Site 1993 SC SCD037405362 Wamchem, Inc. 1984


### Federal Region 5 IL ILD000802827 Outboard Marine Corporation MI MID006007306 Allied Paper/Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River MI MID980678627 Cannelton Industries MI MID980679799 Deer Lake MI MID006014906 Hooker Montague Plant MI MID981192628 Manistique River/Harbor Area of Concern MI MID072569510 Muskegon Chemical Co. MI MID980901946 Torch Lake MN MND039045430 St. Louis River - USX Duluth OH OHD980614572 Fields Brook WI WID006136659 Fort Howard Paper Co. Sludge Site WI WID006141402 Fort Howard Steel Incorporated WI WID006073225 Kohler Co. Landfill WI WID039052626 Moss-American Kerr-McGee Oil Co. WI WID980996367 Sheboygan Harbor & River 

### Federal Region 6 AR ARD980496723 South 8th Street Landfill LA LAD000239814 American Creosote Works, Inc. (Winnfield) LA LAD980745632 Bayou Bonfouca LA LAD981916570 Bayou D'Inde LA LAD980745541 Bayou Sorrell Site 1984

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • xiii 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 6 

### (cont.) LA LAD985195346 Bayou Verdine LA LAD980501423 Calcasieu Parish Landfill LA LAD985202464 Devil's Swamp Lake LA LAD985169317 GSU (North Ryan St.)/Utilities Yard LA LAD981522998 Madisonville Creosote Works, Inc. 1997 LA LAD057482713 Petro-Processors of Louisiana, Inc. LA LAD062644232 Ponchatoula Battery Co. LA LAD008086506 PPG Industries, Inc. LA LAD008149015 Southern Shipbuilding, Inc. TX TXD008123168 ALCOA (Point Comfort)/Lavaca Bay 1995 TX TXD980864649 Bailey Waste Disposal 1985 1989 TX TXD980625453 Brio Refining , Inc. 1989 1989 TX TXD990707010 Crystal Chemical Co. 1989 1989 TX TXD089793046 Dixie Oil Processors, Inc. 1989 1989 TX TXD980514814 French Ltd. 1989 1989 TX TXD980748453 Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy TX TXD980745582 Harris (Farley Street) TX TXD980514996 Highlands Acid Pit 1989 TX TXD980625636 Keown Supply Co. TX TXD980629851 Motco, Inc. 1984 TX TXD980873343 North Cavalcade Street TX TXD980873350 Petro-Chemical Systems (Turtle Bayou) TX TXD062132147 Sheridan Disposal Services TX TXD980513956 Sikes Disposal Pits 1989 TX TXD980873327 Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers TX TXD980810386 South Cavalcade Street TX TX0001407444 Sprague Road Groundwater TX TXD062113329 Tex-Tin Corp. 1989 TX TXD055143705 Triangle Chemical Company


### Federal Region 9 AS ASD980637656 Taputimu Farm 1984 CA CAD980358832 Aerojet General Corp. CA CA2170023236 Alameda Naval Air Station 1989 CA CA2170023533 Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base 1990 1992 CA CAD009114919 Chevron USA Richmond Refinery CA CAD063015887 Coast Wood Preserving 1984 CA CA7170024528 Concord Naval Weapons Station 1989/1993 1990 CA CAD055753370 Cooper Drum Co. 1993 CA CAD980498455 Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill CA CAD009212838 CTS Printex, Inc. 1989 CA CAD029544731 Del Amo Facility 1992 CA CAD000626176 Del Norte Pesticide Storage 1984 CA CA6170023208 El Toro Marine Corps Air Station 1989 CA CAD981159585 Farallon Islands 1990 CA CA7210020676 Fort Ord 1990 1992 CA CAD980636914 Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill CA CAD980498562 GBF & Pittsburg Dumps 1989/1993 CA CA3570024288 Hamilton Air Force Base CA CAD980884209 Hewlett-Packard (620-640 Page Mill Road) 1989 CA CAD058783952 Hexcel Corp.

### xiv • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 9( cont .) CA CAD041472341 Intersil Inc./Siemens Components 1989 CA CAD980498612 Iron Mountain Mine 1989 1989 CA CAD000625731 J.H. Baxter & Co. CA CAD009103318 Jasco Chemical Corp. 1989 CA CA9800013030 Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA) CA CAD008274938 Kaiser Steel Corp. (Fontana Plant) CA CAD981429715 Kearney - KPF CA CA3170024381 Lemoore Naval Air Station CA CAT000646208 Liquid Gold Oil Corp. 1984 CA CA2170023194 Long Beach Naval Station CA CAD065021594 Louisiana-Pacific Corp. CA CA7170024775 Mare Island Naval Shipyard CA CAD009106527 McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. 1993 CA CAD982463812 M-E-W Study Area CA CAD000074120 MGM Brakes 1984 CA CAD981997752 Modesto Ground Water Contamination CA CA2170090078 Moffett Naval Air Station 1986 CA CAD008242711 Montrose Chemical Corp. 1985 CA CA1170090483 Naval Shipyard Long Beach CA CA0170090021 Naval Supply Center Pt. Molate Site CA CAD981434517 Newmark Ground Water Contamination CA CA7170090016 North Island Naval Air Station CA CA4170090027 Oakland Naval Supply Center CA CAD980636781 Pacific Coast Pipe Lines 1989 CA CA9170027271 Pacific Missile Test Center CA CA1170090236 Point Loma Naval Complex CA CA6170023323 Port Hueneme Naval Construct. Battalion Center CA CAD982462343 Redwood Shore Landfill CA CAT000611350 Rhone-Poulenc, Inc./Zoecon Corp. 1985 CA CA7210020759 Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant 1989 CA CAD009452657 Romic Chemical Corp CA CA0210020780 Sacramento Army Depot CA CA0170024491 Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station CA CAD009164021 Shell Oil Co. Martinez CA CAD980637482 Simpson-Shasta Ranch CA CAD981171523 Sola Optical USA, Inc. 1989 CA CAD059494310 Solvent Service, Inc. CA CAD980894885 South Bay Asbestos Area 1985 CA CAD009138488 Spectra-Physics, Inc. CA CAD980893275 Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine CA CAD990832735 Synertek, Inc. (Building 1) CA CAD000072751 Tosco Corp. Avon Refinery CA CA5570024575 Travis Air Force Base 1990 CA CA1170090087 Treasure I. Naval Station - Hunters Pt. Annex 1989 1989 CA CAD009159088 TRW Microwave, Inc. (Building 825) CA CAD981436363 United Heckathorn Co. CA CA9570025149 Vandenberg Air Force Base 1994 6 GU GU6571999519 Andersen Air Force Base 1993 GU GU7170027323 Naval Air Station Guam

6 

### USAF Report.

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • xv 

### Report Date 

## State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 9 (cont.) HI HID033233305 ABC Chemical Corp. HI HI3570028719 Bellows Air Force Station HI HID981424138 Chemwood Treatment Co., Inc. HI HID980637631 Del Monte Corporation (Oahu Plantation) 1995 HI HID981581788 Hawaiian Western Steel Limited HI HI8570028722 Hickam Air Force Base HI HI0000768382 Honolulu Skeet Club HI HI4210090003 Johnston Atoll HI HI6170090074 Kahoolawe Island HI HID980497184 Kailua-Kona Landfill HI HID980497176 Kapaa Landfill HI HID980497226 Kewalo Incinerator Ash Dump HI HI6170022762 MCAS Kanehoe Landfill HI HI3170024340 Naval Submarine Base HI HID980585178 Pearl City Landfill 1984 HI HI2170024341 Pearl Harbor Naval Complex 1992 1993 HI HI2170024341 Pearl Harbor Naval Station HI HID982400475 Waiakea Pond/Hawaiian Cane Products Plant 1990 MQ MQ6170027332 Midway Island Naval Air Station TT TTD981622285 PCB Wastes (15 Saipan) WQ WQ0570090001 Wake Island Air field 

### Federal Region 10 AK AK4170024323 Adak Naval Air Station 1993 AK AKD009252487 Alaska Pulp Corp. 1995 AK AK6214522157 Fort Richardson (US ARMY) 1995 AK AK6210022426 Fort Wainwright AK AKD980978787 Standard Steel & Metals Salvage Yard (USDOT) 1990 1990 AK AK9570028705 USAF Eareckson Air Force Station AK AK8570028649 USAF Elmendorf Air Force Base 1990 1990/1994 7 AK AK0131490021 USDOC NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service ID IDD980725832 Blackbird Mine 1995 1994 ID IDD980665459 Stibnite/Yellow Pine Mining Area OR ORD009051442 Allied Plating, Inc. 1987 1988 OR ORD987185030 East Multnomah County Groundwater OR ORD095003687 Gould, Inc. 1984 1988 OR ORD068782820 Joseph Forest Products OR ORD052221025 Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co. 1987 1988 OR ORD009020603 McCormick & Baxter Creosote Co. (Portland) 1995 1995 OR ORD980988307 Northwest Pipe & Casing Co. 1993 OR ORD009412677 Reynolds Metals Co. OR ORD009025347 Rhone Poulence Inc. Basic Chemicals Division 1984 OR ORD009042532 Taylor Lumber and Treating, Inc. 1991 OR ORD050955848 Teledyne Wah Chang 1985 1988 OR ORD009049412 Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment 1990 1990 WA WAD009045279 ALCOA (Vancouver Smelter) 1989 1989 WA WAD057311094 American Crossarm & Conduit Co. 1989 1988 WA WA5170027291 Bangor Naval Submarine Base 1990 1991

7 

### USAF Report.

### xvi • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction 

### Report Date State Cerclis Site Name Review PNRS
Federal Region 10 ( cont .) WA WA7170027265 Bangor Ordnance Disposal 1991 WA WA1891406349 Bonneville Power Admin. Ross (USDOE) 1990 1990 WA WAD009624453 Boomsnub/Airco WA WAD980836662 Centralia Municipal Landfill 1989 1989 WA WAD980726368 Commencement Bay , Near Shore/Tide Flats 1984 8 1988 WA WAD980726301 Commencement Bay , South Tacoma Channel 1984 8 WA WA5210890096 Hamilton Island Landfill (USA/COE) 1992 1991 WA WA3890090076 Hanford 100-Area (USDOE) 1989 1988 WA WAD980722839 Harbor Island (Lead) 1984 1989 WA WA3170090044 Jackson Park Housing Complex (USNAVY) 1995 WA WA5170090059 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (Ault) 1986 1989 WA WA6170090058 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (Seaplane) 1986 1989 WA WA1170023419 Naval Undersea Warfare Station (4 Areas) 1989 WA WAD027315621 Northwest Transformer (South Harkness St.) 1989 1988 WA WAD008957243 Oeser Company 1997 WA WA8680030931 Old Navy Dump/Manchester Lab (USEPA/NOAA) 1996 1995 WA WAD009248287 Pacific Sound Resources 1995 1992 WA WAD009422411 Pacific Wood Treating WA WA0000026534 Palermo Groundwater Contamination WA WA4170090001 Port Hadlock Detachment (USNAVY) 1989/1995 WA WA2170023418 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex 1995 WA WAD980639215 Quendall Terminals 1985 WA WAD980639462 Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Highlands) 1989 1988 WA WAD980976328 Strandley/Manning Site 1992 WA WAD980639256 Tulalip Landfill 1992 1991 WA WA2170023426 USN Fuel Depot Naval Support Center Puget Sound WA WAD988519708 Vancouver Water Station #1 Contamination WA WAD980639280 Washington Natural gas - Seattle Plant 1996 WA WAD009487513 Western Processing Co., Inc. 1984 WA WAD009041450 Weyerhaeuser Co. WA WAD009248295 Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor 1986 1988

8 

### Evaluated in a single Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review.

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • xvii 

### Table 2. Acronyms and abbreviations used in Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews

AST above-ground storage tank AWQC Ambient water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life bgs below ground surface BHC benzene hexachloride BNA base, neutral, and acid-extractable organic compounds BOD biological oxygen demand CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeter COC contaminant of concern COD chemical oxygen demand COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRC Coastal Resource Coordinator DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DNT dinitrotoluene DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOI U.S. Department of the Interior EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERL effects range - low ERM effects range - median ETAG Ecological and Technical Assessment Group ha hectare HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine HRS Hazard Ranking System IRM Immediate Removal Measure kg kilogram km kilometer L liter LNAPL light, non-aqueous phase liquid LOEL lowest observed effects level m meter

m 3 /second cubic meter per second μ g/g micrograms per gram (ppm) μ g/kg micrograms per kilogram (ppb) μ g/L micrograms per liter (ppb) μ R/hr microroentgens per hour mg milligram mg/kg milligrams per kilogram (ppm) mg/L milligrams per liter (ppm) mR/hr milliroentgens per hour NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid NFA no further action NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List OU operable unit PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

### xviii • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction PCE perchloroethylene (aka tetrachloroethylene) 

### Table 2 (cont.)
PCP pentachlorophenol PNRS Preliminary Natural Resource Survey ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million ppt parts per thousand PRP Potentially Responsible Party PVC polyvinyl chloride RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action RDX cyclonite RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SVOC semi-volatile organic compound TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane TCE trichloroethylene TCL Target Compound List TNT trinitrotoluene TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons TSS total suspended solids USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound < less than > greater than

### Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction • xix PLEASE CITE AS:
Garman, Gayle, and Lori Harris, editors. 1997. Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reviews, December 1997 . Seattle: Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 130 pp.

### xx • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Introduction

### Region 1 • 1

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil • 1 

# 1

Beede Waste Oil

Site Exposure Potential

The Beede Waste Oil site comprises two parcelsof land on about 16 ha in Plaistow, New Hampshire (Figure 1). Kelly Brook flows through the site for about 0.6 km and then flows into the Little River approximately 1.5 km downstream from Parcel 1 (Figure 2). From the confluence with Kelly Brook, the Little River flows about 7 km before entering the Merrimack River, which enters the Atlantic Ocean approximately 35 km downstream.

The site was a waste oil recycling and virgin fuel oil storage and distribution facility from 1926 until 1994. Parcel 1 was used for petroleum and waste storage and handling, and Parcel 2 was 

# Plaistow, New Hampshire CERCLIS #NHD018958140

used primarily for commercial sand and gravel operations (Figure 2). There are numerous localized areas on the site where wastes were stored or disposed. The most contaminated areas include a former surface lagoon where waste oils were deposited, surface-water runoff pits where releases of petroleum products were documented, and two interceptor trenches (SH&A 1995; Figure 2). By 1978, 86 aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) with a total capacity of 4.9 millionliters were in use; 38 of these tanks are documented to have contained waste oil, sludge, orwater contaminated with PCBs and trace elements. There are numerous piles of contaminated soil and debris, with an estimated total

### 2 • Region 1

2 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil volume of 15,000 m 3 

### , at the site. Although most of the contaminated soils are located on Parcel 1, PCB-contaminated soils are stockpiled on Parcel 2, also (SH&A 1995). In 1992, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services began maintaining oil-absorbent booms in Kelly Brook because free product oil was observed discharging into the brook east of the older site building. Free product oil samples analyzed from groundwater at the site containcombinations of lubricating oil, kerosene, weathered gasoline, light fuel oil, Fuel Oil No. 2, and diesel oil (SH&A 1995).

Groundwater and seeps of waste oils appear to bethe primary pathways for migration of contaminants from the site to Kelly Brook. The available site documents did not discuss any drainage ditches on-site that lead to Kelly Brook, althoughthis is a possible migration pathway. The topography of Parcel 1 is relatively flat but the northeastern portion slopes towards Kelly Brook. The Newburyport
Plaistow Atlantic Ocean New Hampshire

Massachusetts

495 95 

## N

Beede Waste Oil site 0 2.5 5

kilometers

M

e r r i m

a c k R

i v e

r



### Figure 1. Location of Beede Waste Oil site in Plaistow, New Ham p shire.

Prepared from USGS Boston, MA; NH; CT; RI; ME 1;250,000 scale map 1956, revised 1970 NY

RI CT NH ★

MA VT

Atlantic Ocean

L i t t l e R

i v e r K e l l y

B

r o o k

### Region 1 • 3

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil • 3 **N**

Surface water runoff pit no. 1 Former AST storage area Former lagoon Former 40,000- gallon UST Interceptor trench Surface water runoff pit no. 2

K e l l y

B

r o o k SW-3 SW-2 SW-5 SW-6 SW-7

SW-8

SW-4
Waste oil tanks

Fuel oil tanks

Drum storage area Existing building (newer) AST containment structure O l d C o u n t y R o a d

F r a n A v e n u e

K e l l y R o a d Figure 2. Detail of the Beede Waste Oil site in Plaistow, New Hampshire. 0 25 50 meters K e l l y B r o o k

U n n a m e d C r e e k Sediment and surface water sampling locations SH&A 1995

PARCEL 2

PARCEL 1 Existing building (older)

### 4 • Region 1

4 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil topography of Parcel 2 varies as a result of sand and gravel mining operations (SH&A 1995).The overburden geology in the region is characterized as primarily marine sand containing a few beds of silt and clayey silt with some surficial deposits of glacial sand and gravel, and till. Bedrock has been encountered at 20 to 23 m below the ground surface (bgs). Groundwater istypically found at depths ranging from approximately 1 to 7m bgs; aquifer thicknesses at the site range from approximately 15 to more than 25 m. Groundwater beneath Parcel 1 generally flows east and northeast. The principal zone of discharge for overburden groundwater flowingfrom the site is Kelly Brook. The average volumetric discharge of groundwater from the site to Kelly Brook is an estimated 240 m 3 

### /day, or approximately 4% of the average stream flow (SH&A 1995).



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species riffle stretches of the stream with finer sands inpool environments. The Little River is a moderate-sized, short stream originating in Bayberry Pond, approximately 3 km upstream of the confluence of Kelly Brook, and discharging to theMerrimack River approximately 7 km downstream of the confluence. The Little River is lower gradient with a primarily warm-water fish assemblage. Substrates are likely composed of sands with finer sediments in ponded areas (Ingham personal communication 1997).

Kelly Brook and the Little River have populations of catadromous American eel throughout both streams. Anadromous species do not use these

streams.

The Little River discharges into Reach I of the lower Merrimack River. Reach I is the lower 50 km of the river from the Essex Dam, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, to the mouth. The river in this reach is large, generally between 200 and 400 m wide with pools of 7 m or deeper. Sediments range from large rubble to silts with 65% of the bottom substrate classified as sand and gravel, and 14% as fine silts (USFWS 1982). The confluence of the Little and Merrimack rivers is near the transition between freshwater riverine and tidal estuarine habitat (Ingham pers. commun. 1997).

The Merrimack River has runs of seven anadromous species: Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic salmon,American shad, alewife, blueback herring, rainbow smelt, and striped bass. In addition, the river is within the known distribution of the shortnose sturgeon, but verified collections of this The primary habitats of concern to NOAA are surface water, stream channel bottom, and associated riparian zones of Kelly Brook, theLittle River, and the Merrimack River. Anadromous and catadromous fish species that use the three streams are the resources of concern to NOAA (Table 1).

Kelly Brook is a small, spring-fed stream that flows from its headwaters for approximately 7 km to the Little River. The stream is high-gradient, cold-water with typical riffle-pool habitats for most of its length. Gravel substrates dominate

### Region 1 • 5

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil • 5 Table 1. Major NOAA trust species that use Kelly Brook, Little River, and lower Merrimack River near the site.

protected species have not been made. The catadromous American eel and the anadromous and parasitic sea lamprey are also found in the river. Atlantic sturgeon, rainbow smelt, and striped bass use non-tidal, freshwater segments of Reach I as a primary spawning ground and nursery area. Alewife, blueback herring, and American shad also spawn in Reach I and migrate above the Essex Dam. Atlantic salmon use Reach I as a migratory corridor to spawning grounds in the upper watershed (USFWS 1982).

In 1981, the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA’ s National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Forest Service formed the Policy and Technical Committees for Anadromous Fishery Management of the Merrimack River. The goals of the committees are restoring anadromous fish populations within the basin and restoration of spawning habitat by developing fish passage facilities at key dams. Atlantic salmon and American shad are the target species; the other anadromous species also would benefit from this management program. Since the inception of the program, several formerly impassable damsupstream of the site have had fish passage facilities installed. A major stocking program of juvenile Atlantic salmon and American shad is underway, planting fish in several tributaries and the mainstem Merrimack upstream of the site (USFWS 1982). Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

ANADROMOUS/CATADROMOUS SPECIES Kelly Brook/Little River American eel Anguilla rostrata ♦ ♦

Merrimack River Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus ♦ ♦♦ American eel Anguilla rostrata ♦ ♦ American shad Alosa sapidissima ♦ ♦♦ Atlantic salmon* Salmo salar ♦ Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus ♦ ♦♦ Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis ♦ ♦♦ Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax ♦ ♦♦ ♦ Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus ♦ ♦ Striped bass Morone saxatilis ♦ ♦♦ ♦ * Atlantic salmon use the lower Merrimack River near the site as a migratory corridor to upstream

spawning grounds

### 6 • Region 1

6 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil There are no plans to stock the Little River withanadromous fish because of its small size. However, the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game stocks and manages the river for recreational taking of brook trout, a non-NOAAtrust species. Kelly Brook also contains a selfsustaining population of brook trout (Ingham pers. commun. 1997).

The habitat type and the presence of a recreational brook trout fishery in the Little River indicate that blueback herring and alewife could inhabit the river, although they have not been observed there. These species could use the Little River in the future if restoration activities on the Merrimack River enhance their overall populations in the watershed.



# Site-Related Contamination concentrations, although their presence on- and off-site indicates that contaminants have migrated from the site. VOCs can facilitate environmentaltransport of other, less soluble organic contaminants, such as PCBs, but this is undocumented at the site. Petroleum hydrocarbons may pose a risk to trust resources but screening guidelines are not available for these compounds.

Soil and groundwater data indicate potential sources of contaminants to Kelly Brook and NOAA trust resources. VOCs and TPH in or near the water table were highest in soils near the former lagoon and Surface Water Runoff Pit No. 2 (up to 440 mg/kg total non-chlorinatedaromatic VOCs, up to 210 mg/kg total chlorinated VOCs, and up to 35,000 mg/kg TPH) (SH&A 1995). Maximum concentrations of trace elements and PCBs detected in soils are presented in Table 2. Limited data were available for trace elements in soils. During the Site and Waste Characterization, total PCBs were detected in 10 of 14 soil samples at concentrations of 0.4 to 1.4 mg/kg. In earlier studies, total PCBs were typically detected in soils at concentrations of approximately 5 mg/kg or less, although PCB concentrations as high as 1500 mg/kg were reported (U.S. EPA 1994, as cited in SH&A; NHDES 1995, as cited in SH&A 1995).

A light, non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) floating on the groundwater at ten monitoring wells affects an estimated 0.4 to 0.8 ha. PCBs have been detected in all LNAPL samples, at concentrations of 11 to 80 mg/kg. LNAPL thicknesses typically range from 0.3 to 1.5 m, with the greatest thicknesses found at the former Data on site-related contamination for this reportwere obtained from the Site and Waste Characterization (SH&A 1995), which reported resultsfrom sampling conducted as part of the characterization in 1995, and briefly reviewed results from previous investigations. Based on the Site and Waste Characterization, PCBs and trace elements are the primary contaminants of concern to NOAA. VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons reported as total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) were detected at elevated concentrations in soil and groundwater on-site, and in surface water and sediment of Kelly Brook. However, VOCs are of limited concern to NOAA at their detected

### Region 1 • 7

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil • 7 Table 2. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern to NOAA detected in soil and groundwater at the Beede Waste Oil site compared to NOAA screening guidelines.

lagoon and near the interceptor trenches (SH&A 1995).

Total non-chlorinated aromatic VOCs and total chlorinated VOCs were detected in groundwater at concentrations up to 4.4 and 7.2 mg/L, respectively (SH&A 1995). Table 2 presents maximum concentrations of trace elementsdetected in groundwater. Elevated concentrations of trace elements were correlated with the presence of LNAPL. PCBs were not analyzed ingroundwater during the Site and Waste Characterization. During a previous investigation conducted by Haley and Aldrich in 1994, samples analyzed for PCBs were all non-detect, but detection limits were not reported (SH&A 1995). In general, the highest concentrations of contaminants in surface water and sediment were found in samples collected from between the interceptor trench and Kelly Brook (colocated samples SW-2 and SS-2; see Figure 2). This area was flooded in April 1990. VOCs were detected in surface water at 9 μg/L in sample SW-2 and at 10 μg/L in Kelly Brook. The highest concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in samples SW-2 and SS-2 (88 mg/L in surface water and 1600 mg/kg in sediment). Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected within Kelly Brook in 1995, although discharges of free product into the brook had been observed in 1992. Soil mg/kg Avg. U.S. a mg/kg Groundwater μ g/L Freshwater Chronic AWQC b μ g/L Trace Elements Arsenic N/A 5.2 90 d 190 Cadmium N/A 0.06 c 27 d 1.1 Lead 189 e 16 2,600 d 3.2
Organic Compounds Aroclor 1242 1.0 d NA NDf NA Aroclor 1260 0.4d NA NDf NA Total PCBs 1,500 e NA NDf 0.014

N/A: Not analyzed NA: Not available a: Shacklette and Boerngen (1984) b: U.S. EPA 1993 c: Lindsay (1979; cadmium represents average concentrations in the earth’s crust) d: SH&A (1995) e: NHDES (1995); U.S. EPA (1994) f: Haley and Aldrich 1994; detection limit not reported.

### 8 • Region 1

8 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil Table 3 presents maximum concentrations of trace elements and PCBs detected in surface water and sediment. Trace elements were not detected in sediment during the Site and Waste Characterization, but both the specific trace elements analyzed and the detection limits were unclear. Concentrations of arsenic and lead exceeded their respective ERLs in sedimentsamples collected from a location in the floodplain of Kelly Brook during a previous study(NHDES 1995, as cited in SH&A 1995). During the Site and Waste Characterization, the only samples in which PCBs were detected were SW-2 (15 μg/L) and SS-2 (2.2 mg/kg). In previous studies, PCBs were detected at concentrations of up to 25 mg/kg in sediment and 3300 μg/L in surface water; elevated concentrations were found primarily in the floodplain of Kelly Brook. Contaminants were not detected at concentrations ofconcern in Kelly Brook at SW-8; however, sampling has not been conducted in depositional areas downstream of SW-8.



# Summary

For nearly 70 years, the Beede Waste Oil site was used to store and handle petroleum products and waste oils. Kelly Brook flows through the site to the Little River which discharges to the Merrimack River. Catadromous American eel is the only NOAA trust resource observed in Kelly

Table 3. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern to NOAA detected in Kelly Brook and associated floodplain during investigations at the Beede Waste Oil site compared to NOAA screening guidelines.

Surface Water μ g/L Freshwater Chronic AWQC a

μ g/L Sediment mg/kg ERL b mg/kg Trace Elements Arsenic ND c 190 51 d 8.2 Cadmium 1 c 1.1 1.7 d 1.2 Lead ND c 3.2 130 d 46.7
Organic Compounds Aroclor 1260 15 c NA 2.2 c NA Total PCBs 3,300 e 0.014 25 e 0.0227

NA: Not available. ND: Not detected; detection limits not available. a: U.S. EPA 1993 b: Effects range-low (Long et al. 1995) c: SH&A 1995 d: NHDES 1995 e: Detected during a previous investigation, not identified but reported in SH&A 1995.

### Region 1 • 9

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil • 9 Brook and the Little River. However, alewife and blueback herring may use the Little River in the future if anadromous fish restoration activities on the Merrimack River succeed at enhancing their populations in the watershed. Oily free product has been observed discharging into Kelly Brook from the site; and LNAPL floating on the groundwater contained elevated concentrations of PCBs. Very high concentrations of PCBs have been detected in Kelly Brook surface water.



# References

Haley and Aldrich. 1994. (As cited in SH&A 1995). Underground storage tank program, Phase II environmental site assessment, Beede Waste Oil Site, Seven Kelly Road, Plaistow, New Hampshire.

Ingham, B., Biologist, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, Concord, personal communication, May 5, 1997.

Lindsay, W.L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils

. New York: Wiley and Sons. 449 pp.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19 (1): 81-97. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) 1995. (As cited in SH&A 1995). Site Inspection Report for Beede Waste Oil, Plaistow, New Hampshire.

Sanborn, Head & Associates (SH&A). 1995. Site and waste characterization, Beede Waste Oil/Cash Energy Site, Plaistow, New Hampshire.Concord: The State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, Groundwater Protection Bureau. 113 pp. + appendices.

Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. EPA. 1983. Hazardous waste land treatment. EPA/530/SW-83/874. Cincinnati: Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. 702 pp.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Water quality criteria . Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

U.S. EPA. 1994. (As cited in SH&A 1995).Beede Waste Oil - PCB Testing Results. Memorandum from Peter Philbrook and Dick Siscanaw to Dorothy Girten dated November 23, 1994.

### 10 • Region 1

10 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Beede Waste Oil U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Special report, anadromous fish: Water and land resources of the Merrimack River Basin . Laconia, NewHampshire: The Policy and Technical Committees for Anadromous Fishery Management of the Merrimack River.

### Region 2 • 11

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms • 11 

# 2
V&M/Albaladejo F arms

Site Exposure Potential

The V&M/Albaladejo Farms site is in the Almirante Norte Ward of the municipality of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, 1.6 km west of Route 160. The site consists of four zones (Zones 1 through 4), four burned areas (Burned Areas I through IV), and two suspected burned areas (Figures 1 and 2). The Río Indio flows north approximately 650 m northwest of the site (CDM 1996). About 5 km north of the site, the Río Indio joins the Río Cibuco, which discharges to the Atlantic Ocean about 14 river km north of the site (USGS 1982a & b). The area covered bythe site includes two farms located in the limestone uplands characterized by landforms typical 

# Vega Baja, Puerto Rico CERCLIS #PRD987366101

of karst terrain, including heavily vegetated, steep hills surrounded by small valleys, sinkholes, subsurface channels, and caves (CDM 1996).

Zone 1 (280 m2 

### ) cuts directly into the hillside at the end of a vehicular path and is littered with scrap, wire, and ash. Portions of the site have soil stained green, and surface contamination is estimated to vary in depth from 0.3 to 1 m below the surface (CDM 1996).

Zone 2 covers an area of 186 m2

### and is north of Zone 1. A hand-dug pit is coated with metal shavings and is surrounded by scrap metal. A steep, vehicular path from the site provides a

### 12 • Region 2

12 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms 0 0.5 1

kilometers 

## N R i o C i b u c o

R i o I n d i o 160 2 Rio Ci
b u c o

V&M/Albaladejo

Farms site



### Figure 1. Location of V&M/Albaladejo Farms site in Puerto Rico. Atlantic Ocean Boca del Cibuco

Adapted from USGS Vega Alta, Puerto Rico 1:20 000 scale map 1969, photorevised 1982 V&M site Atlantic Ocean

Caribbean Sea Puerto Rico Vieques Culebra San Juan

### Region 2 • 13

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms • 13 Figure 2. Detail of the V&M/Albaladejo Farms site.

N Not to scale Suspected burned area Burned Area III Zone 2 Burned Area I

Burned Area IV Zone 1
Zone 1A Burned Area II Zone 4 Suspected burned area

Dirt road Dirt road Paved road

Zone 3

Entrance

Karst Hill Karst Hill Karst Hill

Karst Hill Karst Hill

Karst Hill Field Field
Adapted from unscaled, hand-drawn map in CDM 1996 Sinkhole

### 14 • Region 2

14 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms direct route for surface water runoff to flow towards sinkholes located approximately 180 m east of the site (CDM 1996).

Zone 3 is heavily vegetated and is located within a large sinkhole that occupies the center of the site, and reportedly consists of two burn areas. Two smaller sinkholes are located within the large sinkhole. The areal extent of soil contamination at Zone 3 is unknown (CDM 1996).

Zone 4 is located east of Zone 1 across a heavily vegetated ridge. Scrap and wire remnants cover this cleared area of approximately 370 m2 

### . The hillside east of Zone 4 is believed to have beentilled in the past, possibly introducing contamination deeper into the soil (CDM 1996).

The V&M site was used for dumping plasticcoated electric cables, electrical equipment, and car batteries. The wastes were burned to recover copper, aluminum, and lead. It is believed that open burning without containment was used during the burning and recovery process. It is not known when the burning activity began oneither the V&M or the Albaladejo farm properties. Beginning in 1985, trucks that were allegedly working for the Puerto Rico Telephone Company and the Puerto Rico Electric and Power Authority were observed carrying wastes onto the site. Burning reportedly ceased in 1986 when the V&M farm was purchased by its current owner, but continued into 1988 on the Albaladejo farm. The total quantity of waste disposal at the site is unknown (CDM 1996). Groundwater movement is believed to be the primary mechanism of contaminant transportfrom the site. The Aymamon and Aguada Formations together form one of the primary sources of groundwater within the region, comprising the upper, unconfined aquifer system. On a regional scale, groundwater in the Aymamon-Aguada Formation flows northward towards the Atlantic Ocean. Local groundwater flow direction near the site may be to the north-northwest, possibly discharging to the Río Indio (CDM 1996).

Direct infiltration of precipitation on outcrop areas and surface runoff into sinkholes is the primary source of recharge to the water table aquifer. The bedrock/soil interface is probably part of a highly irregular, well-developed karst. This implies that recharge, be it percolation through soil or into sinkholes, follows a complex path of least resistance influenced by joints, bedding planes, and open or sediment-filledsolution channels. Hydraulic conductivity estimates of the upper aquifer range from about 150 m/day to more than 450 m/day.



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

Habitats of concern to NOAA are surface water and bottom substrates of the Río Indio, the Río Cibuco, and their tributaries. Riparian zones, estuaries, and wetlands associated with these

### Region 2 • 15

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms • 15 rivers, including mangrove swamps located at the mouth of the Río Cibuco, also are NOAA trust habitats potentially threatened by the transport of contaminants from the site.

Most of the native fish and shrimp species in Puerto Rico are compulsory migrators, either catadromous or amphidromous, and thus NOAA trust species (Oland 1997; Yoshioka 1997; Table 1). The term amphidromousrefers to predominantly freshwater species in which the life cycle includes a larval phase in marine or estuarinewater. These fish and shrimp mature and reproduce in freshwater, releasing either eggs or larvae which are carried downstream. These species are iteroparous (they do not die after spawning) and can spawn several times during their life cycle. For shrimp, the first-stage larvae are non-feeding and must reach waters containing salinities of approximately 15 ppt in order to molt to a feeding-stage larvae (Oland 1997).

The gobies and most of the shrimp species arecapable of passing large obstacles (high waterfalls, and dams with surface water overflow) in their migrations upstream; they are found in the headwaters, up to the point where flow becomes intermittent (Oland 1997).

The mountain mullet is a popular native game fish that can sustain swimming speeds similar totrout, is very active, and is sensitive to disturbance. High dams and reservoirs have eliminated the mullet from many upland streams. The fat sleeper and spiny-cheeked sleeper are usually restricted to the lower portions of the river near the estuary. Larval sirajo gobies, known as setí, are collected during their upstream migration and eaten as a local delicacy. The catadromous American eel is occasionally taken by fishermen and likely used as bait (Oland 1997).

Bigmouth sleepers and the river goby are found in most rivers as well as some reservoirs. Bothare believed to pass part of their life cycle in saltwater, but may be capable of completing their life cycles in freshwater. Although both species are taken as a food fish, little is known about the life history of the river goby (Oland 1997).

Shrimp are diverse and abundant, and are often the predominant predators, herbivores, and detritivores found in these streams. Shrimp of the genus Macrobrachium provide a popular fishery for both food and bait. Macrobrachium can grow quite large; for example, the big claw river shrimp is over 50 cm long with claws. Shrimp of the genus Atya are also large, and are commonly fished throughout the Caribbean (Oland 1997).

No information was found regarding dams or barriers on either Río Indio or Río Cibuco thatmight prevent migration of NOAA trust resources along the river near the site.

An extensive wetland system exists at the mouth of Río Cibuco. This wetland system includesextensive estuarine mangrove forests and herbaceous wetlands. It is listed by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources as a Critical Coastal Wildlife Area (Oland 1997).

### 16 • Region 2

16 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Nursery/ Juvenile Rearing Adult Forage Comm. Recr. AMPHIDROMOUS/CATADROMOUS FISHES
American eel Anguilla rostrata ♦♦ ♦ Big-mouth

sleeper 1 Gobiomorus dormitor ♦♦♦♦♦

Fat sleeper Dormitator maculatus ♦♦♦
Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola ♦♦♦ ♦ River goby1 Awaous tajasica ♦♦♦♦♦ Sirajo goby Sicydium plumieri ♦♦♦♦ Spiny-cheek

sleeper Eleotris pisonis ♦♦♦

CRUSTACEANS Big Claw River

shrimp Macrobrachium carcinus ♦♦♦♦♦

Cascade River

prawn Macrobrachium heterochirus ♦♦♦♦♦

Cinnamon River

shrimp Macrobrachium acanthurus ♦♦♦♦♦

Shrimp 2 Atya innocous ♦♦♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Atya lanipes ♦♦♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Atya scabra ♦♦♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Jonga serrei ♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Macrobrachium crenulatum ♦♦♦♦♦

Shrimp 2 Macrobrachium faustinum ♦♦♦♦♦

Shrimp 2 Micratya poeyi ♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Potimirrim americana ♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Potimirrim glabra ♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Potimirrim mexicana ♦♦♦ Shrimp 2 Xiphocaris elongata ♦♦♦ 1: There are some reports of populations located in reservoirs; may not be an obligate migrator. 2: No common name provided by USFWS or found in Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates of the United States and Canadapublished by the American Fisheries Society. 

### Table 1. Target species of commercial and recreational interest likely to be found in Río Indio, Río Cibuco, and the estuary. (This table is not a complete listing of NOAA trust resources found in lower Río Cibuco and the estuary.)

### Region 2 • 17

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms • 17 

# Site-Related Contamination

Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, and silver were reported in soils from the site at concentrations exceeding their mean concentrations in soils of the earth’s crust (U.S. EPA 1983). Groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples have not yet been collected at the site or from off-site areas near the site. These data will be collected following completion of a planned removal of the most contaminated soils (Kwan 1997).

Surface soil samples collected during the 1989 site investigation were reported to have elevated concentrations of copper (403,000 mg/kg), antimony (633 mg/kg), and dioxins (110 ng/kg TCDD TEQ). Mercury, silver, toluene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and 4,4’-DDD were also reported in soil samples. Soil samples collected from burn areas during November 1994 had the following average trace element concentrations: aluminum (24,356 mg/kg), antimony (1,363 mg/kg), cadmium (329 mg/kg), copper (57,697 mg/ kg), lead (16,410 mg/kg), and silver (20 mg/kg; CDM 1996). Table 2 presents results of a soil study conducted in 1994.

In a study conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in March 1996, more than 230 soil samples were collected along grids set out in Zones 1, 2, and 4 and analyzed for copperand lead. The maximum reported copper concentration was 214,000 mg/kg, while that for lead was 116,000 mg/kg (CDM 1996).

Table 2. Maximum concentrations of trace elements detected in soils at the V&M/Albaladejo Farms Site in 1994 (CDM 1996) compared to their mean concentrations in U.S. soils (Lindsay 1979; Shacklette and Boerngen 1984).

Trace Element Maximum Concentration, mg/kg Frequency of Detection Location Mean Conc. in U.S. Soils a , mg/kg
Antimony 2,600 16/16 Zone 2 0.5 Arsenic 250 16/16 Zone 4 5.2 Cadmium 40 16/16 Zone 2 0.06 b Chromium 170 16/16 Zone 2 37 Copper 240,000 16/16 Zone 1 17 Lead 68,000 16/16 Zone 4 16 Manganese 2,100 16/16 Zone 2 330 Mercury 0.36 14/16 Zone 4 0.06 Selenium 8.2 14/16 Zone 4 0.3 Silver 20 15/16 Zone 2 0.05 b a: Shacklette and Boerngen (1984) b: Lindsay (1979; cadmium and silver represent average concentrations in the earth ’ s crust)

### 18 • Region 2

18 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / V&M/Albaladejo Farms Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States

. USGS Professional Paper 1270. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1983. Hazardous waste land treatment. EPA/530/SW-83/874. SW-874. Cincinnati: Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. 702
pp.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1982a. Manatí Quadrangle, Puerto Rico . 7.5 minute series (topographic). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1982b. Vega Alta Quadrangle, Puerto Rico . 7.5 minute series(topographic). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Williams, A.B., L.G. Abele, D.L. Felder, H.H. Hobbs, Jr., R.B. Manning, P.A. McLaughlin, and I. Pérez Fartante. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Decapod crustaceans

. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 17. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 77 pp.

Yoshioka, B., Field supervisor, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boqueron, Puerto Rico, personal communication, January 6, 1997. 

# Summary

Studies at the V&M site indicate that site soils are contaminated with trace elements, particularly antimony, arsenic, cadmium, silver, copper, and lead. No investigations examined contamination in on-site groundwater or in surface water and sediments of Río Indio, 650 m northwest of the site (and the nearest identified habitat that could support NOAA trust resources). Groundwater migration is the primary mechanism for potential transport of contaminants off-site to NOAA trust resources, although no studies have yet been conducted to verify this.



# References

CDM Federal Programs Corporation. 1996.Draft work plan: remedial investigation/feasibility study, V&M/Albaladejo Farms site, VegaBaja, Puerto Rico. New York: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2.

Kwan, Caroline, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region 2, New York, personal communication, July 11, 1997.

Lindsay, W.L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils

. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 449 pp.

Oland, J.P., Field supervisor, Caribbean Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boqueron, Puerto Rico, personal communication, January 7, 1997.

### Region 3 • 19

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade • 19 

# 3

F ort George G

. Meade

Site Exposure Potential

Fort George G. Meade occupies approximately 5,500 ha in Anne Arundel County, Maryland,between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. (Figure 1). The Patuxent River, which drains the area, flows along the southern border of the facility. A tributary stream, the Little Patuxent River, flows through the facility and receives runoff from several waste sites (Figure 2). ThePatuxent River enters the Chesapeake Bay approximately 100 km from Fort Meade.

In 1917 Congress authorized Fort Meade as a training facility. In 1988, the U.S. Army Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) mandated the closure and/or realignment of approximately 

# Anne Arundel County, Maryland CERCLIS #MD9210020567

3,600 ha encompassing the southernmost twothirds of the installation (Figure 2). In 1991 the U.S. Army transferred 3,300 ha of the BRACparcel to the Department of the Interior’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center for use as a wildlife refuge (ICF Kaiser 1997).

Table 1 lists waste sites that have been evaluated at Fort Meade, along with information about the dates of use and types of waste disposed at each site (ICF Kaiser 1997). The sites include sixlandfills, the Helicopter Hangar Area, the Defense Reutilization and Management Office (DRMO) Salvage Yard, the Fire Training Area, and the Ordnance Demolition Area. Materials

### 20 • Region 3

20 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade Figure 1. Location of Fort George G. Meade in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Washington, D.C.

Maryland Virginia

C

h
e s a p e a k eB

a y P a t u x e n t R
i v e r O

c c o q uan R i v e r

0 5 10 15

kilometers 

## N

Site boundary Washington, D.C. border

Prepared from Delorme Atlas & Gazetteer, Virginia, 1989, and AAA Road Atlas, 1989. P o to m a c R i ve r

VA MD PA

DE 95

301 495 95 95 270 295

Little Patuxent

River Fort George

G. Meade

### Region 3 •21

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade •21Figure 2. Detail of waste sites at Fort George G. Meade.0 1000 2000meters**N**DRMOSalvageYardInactiveLandfillNo. 4InactiveLandfillNo. 3OrdnanceDemolitionAreaInactiveLandfillNo. 2InactiveLandfillNo. 1FireTrainingAreaHelicopterHangarAreaActiveSanitaryLandfillClean FillDumpLakeAllen

Ba l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n P a r k w a y L i t t l e P a t

u x e n t R i v e r

P a t u x e n t R i v e r S o u t h R o a d T e l e g r a p h R o a dBRAC PARCELFort MeadeCantonmentAreaPrepared from ICF Kaiser 1997295175198198

M

i d w a y B r a n c hFort Meade reservation boundaryWaste siteDam

### 22 •Region 3

22 •Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade Table 1. Description of hazardous waste sites at FGGM.

Site Name Dates History of Use Potential Migration Pathway Inactive Landfill 1 1950-1964 Used as an unlined sanitary landfill. No information has been found regarding the types of material disposed. Drainage is towards the Little Patuxent River. Eastern portions of the site are wetlands in the 100-year floodplain of the river. Shallow groundwater discharges to the wetlands and Little Patuxent River. Inactive Landfill 2 1950s to 1980s Operated as an unlined rubble-disposal facility. Border of the landfill is approximately 75 m from the LIttle Patuxent River and drainage is towards the river. The area between IAL2 and the river includes wetlands within the 100-year floodplain. Groundwater flows radially from the site, following topography, and then towards the Little Patuxent River. Inactive Landfill 3 Late 1940s and 1950s Used as a sanitary and “leaf-dump” landfill. The Tipton Army Airfield was constructed over the fill area in 1963. Runoff is conveyed from the site by drainageways towards the Little Patuxent River. An extensive stormwater collection system beneath the airfield directs water to french drains that lead to the Little Patuxent River. Groundwater flow is generally southwest towards the river. Inactive Landfill 4 1950s to 1970s Used primarily as a rubble disposal area. A low-gradient drainage swale runs through the center of the site, conducting surface water runoff towards the Little Patuxent River. Groundwater flows to the west and southwest towards the Little Patuxent River. Clean Fill Dump 1972 to 1985 Used for disposal of miscellaneous debris such as stumps, trees, logs, concrete, construction debris, old appliances, and soil. Other materials that may have been disposed here include garbage, food wastes, cans, bottles, ash, and possible hazardous materials. Uncontrolled dumping continued in marshy areas outside the main dump perimeter after 1985. Landfill is drained by several unnamed streams and drainage swales, generally toward the Little Patuxent River, about 350 m to the south. Groundwater flows towards the river.

Active Sanitary Landfill 1958 to present Used for disposal of sanitary wastes as well as petroleum wastes, pesticide wastes, and sewage sludges in three unlined cells. Most of the landfill’s surface water runoff flows into two retention ponds at the western boundary. These ponds discharge into a small stream that enters a tributary to the Little Patuxent River about 4 km from the landfill. Groundwater flow follows the topography of the site. Helicopter Hangar Area NA Materials used or stored in this area include JP-4 fuel, hydraulic and lubricating oils, detergents, and solvents. The Little Patuxent River is about 20 m northwest of the site. There are two outfalls from the HHA into the Little Patuxent River. Groundwater flows to the northwest. Defense Reutilization and Management Office (DRMO) Salvage Yard NA Used as a storage area for a variety of equipment, including discarded vehicles, electrical transformers, electronic equipment, heating and cooling units, pipes, dumpsters, and scrap metals. Located about 500 m from a tributary to Lake Allen, and about 1 km from the Little Patuxent River. Information on surface water runoff was not available. Groundwater flows from the site to the east and northeast. Fire Training Area 1979 to present Used for fire training. Fires are set using aviation fuel or gasoline and extinguished with either water or aqueous foam composed primarily of pressurized biological p roteins. Information on surface runoff or groundwater flow pathways from the site was not available. The site is located about 400 m from the Little Patuxent River. Ordnance Demolition Area NA Used for demolition of obsolete ordnance. A stream near the eastern berm of the site flows southward for about 750 m to the Patuxent River. Direction of groundwater flow is to the southwest.

### Region 3 •23

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade •23 used or disposed at these sites included municipaland domestic waste, pesticides, electrical transformers, solvents, PCBs, inert material, and waste oils and lubricants.

Surface water and groundwater are potential pathways for contaminant migration from the site. The Little Patuxent River flows southeast across Fort Meade along a broad, flat river valley with extensive wetlands. In general, much of the terrain at Fort Meade is low-lying. Approximately half of the BRAC parcel has been identified as wetlands, including portions of Inactive Landfill 1 (IAL1), Inactive Landfill 2 (IAL2), and the Clean Fill Dump. The Little Patuxent River flows near the borders of the Helicopter Hangar Area, IAL1, IAL2, and the Clean Fill Dump. Several unnamed tributaries also flow across Fort Meade. Table 1 describes surface water pathways for each of the identified waste sites.

There are groundwater aquifers at Fort Meade within several geologic formations consisting of unconsolidated sands, clays, and silts. There are three distinct aquifers at the site (the upper Patapsco, the lower Patapsco, and the Patuxent) separated by confining layers. Because the underlying formations dip towards the east and are progressively exposed, the surficial deposits vary. The regional groundwater flow is to the southeast, but local flow in the surficial deposits generally mirrors the topography. Soils within the BRAC parcel are primarily loamy and clayey underlain by an unstable clay of low permeability. Groundwater studies at the site indicate that the shallow sands aquifer is probably discharging to the Little Patuxent River (ICF Kaiser 1997).



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

The primary habitats of concern to NOAA are surface water, stream bottom, and associated riparian zones of the Little Patuxent River, its tributaries, and the Patuxent River. Anadromous and catadromous fish species that use the streams are the resources of concern to NOAA (EA Engineering 1992; Table 2).

The Little Patuxent River is a medium-sized, warmwater stream with a warmwater resident fish population dominated by river chub, shiners, and sunfish. The stream is typically 15 to 23 m wide and 0.6 to 2.5 m deep as it traverses Fort Meade. Slow-flowing runs dominate this portion of the stream with smaller areas of riffle/pool habitat. Sediments range from cobble to silty sands. Extensive hardwood wetlands are located along the river on the Fort Meade property. Overcup oak stands dominate in areas submerged for most of the year, while red maple, sweetgum, and red ash are prevalent in areas that are seasonally flooded (EA Engineering 1992).

Several anadromous species use the Little Patuxent River during their spawning runs in the spring, including white perch, hickory shad, alewife, and blueback herring. Before 1991, the

### 24 •Region 3

24 •Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade Fort Meade Dam, located on the facility, was the upstream extent of migratory runs in the river. In 1991, fish passage facilities were constructed, allowing passage to areas upstream of Fort Meade. The catadromous American eel is a common, year-round resident of the Little Patuxent River. In a 1992 fish survey, eels were collected at all Fort Meade stream stations (EA Engineering 1992).

The Patuxent River is a large, warmwater stream typically about 30 m wide and 0.6 to 3 m deep. The river at the site is low-gradient, dominated by slow-flowing runs; bottom substrates range from sands to silts with a few areas of cobble. The riparian zone of the Patuxent River near Fort Meade is dominated by hardwood wetlands ofthe type seen on the Little Patuxent (EA Engineering 1992). The anadromous species that spawn in the Little Patuxent River are also found in the Patuxent River next to the site during Table 2. Major NOAA trust species that use the Little Patuxent River and Patuxent River near Fort Meade.

Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

ANADROMOUS/CATADROMOUS SPECIES

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus ♦ ♦ American eel Anguilla rostrata ♦ ♦ Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis ♦ ♦ Hickory shad Alosa mediocris ♦ ♦ Striped bass Morone saxatilis ♦∗ ♦∗ ♦∗ ♦ White perch Morone americana ♦♦ ♦
* Striped bass are found in the lower Patuxent River and estuary approximately 30 km downstream of

FGGM. They are not found near the site.



### spawning runs. Striped bass, another anadromous species, is abundant in the lower Patuxent River, but is restricted to tidal portions, 30 km or more downstream of the site. American eel are found throughout the Patuxent and Chesapeake basins (Stone et al. 1994).

There are extensive recreational and commercial fisheries in the lower Patuxent River and estuary, but not adjacent to the site. Recreational fisheries in several ponds and small impoundments on Fort Meade are stocked with catfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass. No Federal threatened or endangered aquatic species are present in the Little Patuxent and Patuxent rivers near Fort Meade. There are no consumption advisories for the basin (EA Engineering 1992).

### Region 3 •25

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade •25 

# Site-Related Contamination

This report summarizes results from the mostrecent sampling conducted at each of the hazardous waste sites at Fort Meade. At IAL1, IAL2, IAL3, and the Clean Fill Dump, the most recent sampling was conducted in 1996 as part of a remedial investigation for those areas (ICF Kaiser 1997). A 1995 site inspection contained the most recent results for the Helicopter Hangar Area, the DRMO Salvage Yard, the Fire Training Area, and the Ordnance Demolition Area (Arthur D. Little 1995). The most recent sampling at the Active Sanitary Landfill was conducted in 1993 for the remedial investigation (Arthur D. Little 1994). For IAL4, the most recent sampling results were presented in a 1992 site inspection study (EA Engineering 1992).

Table 3 presents the maximum concentrations of contaminants detected in groundwater and soilsthroughout Fort Meade during the investigations, along with the areas where the maximum concentrations were detected.

The highest concentrations of trace elements in groundwater were in samples collected from the Helicopter Hangar Area, the Active Sanitary Landfill, and the Clean Fill Dump. Groundwater seep samples collected from the Active Sanitary Landfill contained elevated concentrations of a number of trace elements. Soils containing the highest concentrations of trace elements were collected from IAL3 and the Clean Fill Dump.In general, soil and groundwater samples exceeded screening guidelines for trace elements at Fort Meade areas so infrequently and sporadicallythat gradients of contamination were not apparent.

Pesticides were most frequently detected in soils and groundwater at the landfill areas. Explosive compounds were detected in groundwater but not in soils at the Ordnance Demolition Area and at IAL3. PCBs are the primary contaminants of concern at the DRMO Salvage Yard. Aroclor 1260 was detected in five of six soil samplescollected at the salvage yard in 1993 at concentrations ranging from 0.27 to 4 mg/kg (Arthur D. Little 1995). During a previous investigation in 1991, total PCBs were detected at a maximum concentration of 93 mg/kg in the southernmost area of the DRMO Salvage Yard, an area that was not sampled in 1993 (Arthur D. Little 1995). PCBs were not detected in groundwater at thesalvage yard, but detection limits were not available.

Surface water and sediment samples have beencollected from drainages and tributaries associated with the following areas: IAL1, IAL2, IAL3, IAL4, the Active Sanitary Landfill, the Clean Fill Dump, the Helicopter Hangar Area, and the Fire Training Area (EA Engineering 1992; Arthur D. Little 1994; ICF Kaiser 1997). In addition, during the 1996 RI (ICF Kaiser 1997), sediment and surface water samples were collected from the Little Patuxent River along a stretch from the Helicopter Hangar Area to the Clean Fill Dump. Maximum concentrations of contaminants in surface water and sediment detected during those studies are shown in Table 4, along with the areas

### 26 •Region 3

26 •Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade Table 3. Maximum concentrations of contaminants in groundwater and soils detected during recent investigations, locations of maximum concentrations, and water and soil screening guidelines.

Groundwater Location AWQC a Soils Location Mean U.S. b

Trace Elements ( μg/L or mg/kg) Arsenic 270 HHA 190 14 IAL3 5.2 Cadmium 35 HHA 1.1 c 3.0 CFD 0.06 Copper 380 HHA 12 c 70 CFD 17 Lead 220 HHA 3.2 c 1,000 CFD 16 Mercury 1.2 ASL 0.012 1.2 IAL3 0.06 Nickel 1,100 ASL 160 40 CFD 13 Silver ND -- 0.12 3.3 IAL3 0.05 Zinc 8,200 CFD 110 c 750 CFD 48

PCBs Total PCBs ND -- 0.014 93 DSY NA
Pesticides ( μg/L or μg/kg) Gamma chlordane 0.0085 IAL1 0.0043 d 0.21 CFD NA Alpha chlordane 0.012 IAL1 0.0043 d ND -- NA DDT 0.12 IAL1 0.001 1.2 CFD NA DDE ND -- NA 0.26 CFD NA DDD 0.029 IAL1 NA 0.68 IAL3 NA Endosulfan II 0.01 CFD 0.056 e 0.015 CFD NA Endrin 0.039 IAL1 0.0023 0.082 CFD NA
Other Organic Compounds ( μg/L or μg/kg) RDX 84 ODA NA ND -- NA HMX 9.1 ODA NA ND -- NA 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 0.68 IAL3 NA ND -- NA 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 7.8 IAL3 NA ND -- NA 2,4-Nitrotoluene 0.62 ODA NA ND -- NA 4-Nitrotoluene 2.2 IAL3 NA ND -- NA 2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene 0.52 IAL3 NA ND -- NA 4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene 32 IAL3 NA ND -- NA
a: Ambient water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms. Freshwater chronic criteria presented (EPA 1993). b: Shacklette and Boerngen (1984), except for cadmium and silver which represent average concentrations in the earth ’ s crust from Lindsay (1979). c: Hardness-dependent criteria; 100 mg/L CaCO 3 assumed. d: Chlordane value used. e: Endosulfan value used. ND: Not detected; detection limit not available. NA: Screening guidelines not available. ASL: Active Sanitary Landfill CFD: Clean Fill Dump HHA: Helicopter Hangar Area IAL1: Inactive Landfill 1 IAL3: Inactive Landfill 2 ODA: Orndance Demolition Area

### Region 3 •27

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade •27 Table 4. Maximum concentrations of contaminants in surface water and sediment detected during recent investigations; locations of maximum concentrations; and water and sediment screening guidelines. Surface Water μg/L Location AWQC a μg/L Sediment mg/kg Location ERL b mg/kg

Trace Elements Arsenic 2.6 ASL stream 190 14 AL4 drainage swale 8.2 Cadmium ND -- 1.1 c 1.8 IAL3 d 1.2 Chromium 47 CFD tributary 11 24 HHA Little Patuxent R. 81 Copper 36 CFD tributary 12 c 70 IAL4 drainage swale 34 Lead 37 CFD tributary 3.2 c 170 IAL4 drainage swale 46.7 Mercury ND -- 0.012 0.51 IAL4 drainage swale 0.15 Silver 0.149 IAL1 east marsh 0.12 4.8 CFD tributary 1.0 Zinc 145 CFD tributary 110 c 180 CFD tributary 150

PCBs Aroclor 1260 ND -- 0.014 0.51 IAL4 drainage swale 0.0027

Pesticides Chlordane ND -- NA 0.15 CFD tributary NA DDD ND -- NA 2.0 IAL4 drainage swale 0.0016 e DDE ND -- NA 0.14 IAL4 drainage swale 0.0022 DDT ND -- 0.001 0.15 IAL4 drainage swale 0.0016 e Dieldrin ND -- NA 0.015 IAL4 drainage swale NA Endosulfan II 0.0065 IAL2 marsh NA 0.072 CFD tributary NA Endrin ND -- 0.0023 0.022 CFD tributary NA Endrin ketone 0.0093 IAL2 marsh 0.0023 f ND -- NA
a: Ambient water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms. Freshwater chronic criteria presented (EPA 1993). b: Effects range-low; the concentration representing the lowest 10 percentile value for the data in which effects were observed or predicted in studies compiled by Long and MacDonald (1995). c: Hardness-dependent criteria; 100 mg/L CaCO 3 assumed. d: Sampling location at IAL3 was not available. e: Total DDT value used. f: Endrin value used. ND: Not detected; detection limit not available. NA: Screening guidelines not available. ASL: Active Sanitary Landfill CFD: Clean Fill Dump HHA: Helicopter Hangar Area IAL1-4: Inactive Landfills 1-4

### 28 •Region 3

28 •Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meadewhere the maximum concentrations were detected.

For trace elements in surface water, most of the AWQC exceedances were detected in a tributary near the Clean Fill Dump. Concentrations of trace elements in surface water of the Little Patuxent River did not exceed AWQCs. For sediment, the highest concentrations of trace elements were primarily found in a drainage swale at IAL4 and in a tributary near the Clean FillDump. In the Little Patuxent River, concentrations of arsenic (12 mg/kg) and silver (3.4 mg/kg) exceeded their respective ERL concentrations.

Pesticide screening guidelines for surface water and sediment were occasionally exceeded in drainages or tributaries but, overall, pesticides were infrequently detected. Pesticides that exceeded their sediment screening guidelines in the Little Patuxent River were DDD (0.012 mg/kg) and DDE (0.0079 mg/kg). Sediment samples collected from IAL4 and CFD contained the highest concentrations of pesticides relative to ERL concentrations. Gradients of contamination were not apparent. PAHs were not detected at concentrations above screeningguidelines in surface water or sediment. Concentrations of PCBs in sediment infrequently exceeded the screening guidelines. 

# Summary

Several waste sites at Fort Meade have drainage pathways leading directly to the Little PatuxentRiver. Concentrations of a variety of contaminants in streams and wetlands associated with waste sites have been found to exceed screening guidelines, although exceedances were infrequent and sporadic. The Little Patuxent River and Patuxent River near the site are used by several anadromous fish, including white perch, hickory shad, alewife, and blueback herring. These species may be exposed to contamination from waste sites at Fort Meade.



# References

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1994. Draft Remedial Investigation Addendum, Fort Meade FeasibilityStudy and Remedial Investigation/Site Inspection. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Environmental Center.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1995. Final Site Inspection Addendum, Fort Meade Feasibility Study and Remedial Investigation/Site Inspection. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Environmental Center.

### Region 3 •29

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade •29 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1992. Final Fort George G. Meade Base Closure Parcel Site Inspection Study. Aberdeen ProvingGround, Maryland: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency.

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. 1997. Remedial Investigation Report, Inactive Landfills 1, 2, 3 and Clean Fill Dump, Fort George G. MeadeRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Baltimore: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Lindsay, W.L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 449 pp.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97.

Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States

. USGS Professional Paper 1270. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

Stone, S.L., T.A. Lowry, J.D. Field, C.D. Williams, D.M. Nelson, S.H. Jury, M.E. Monaco, and L. Andreasen. 1994. Distribution andabundance of fishes and invertebrates in midAtlantic estuaries. ELMR Rept. No. 12. Silver Spring, Maryland: NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 280 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Water quality criteria . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

### 30 •Region 3

30 •Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Fort Meade

### Region 3 • 31

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base • 31 

# 3

Norfolk Naval Base

Site Exposure Potential

Norfolk Naval Base, part of the Sewells Point Naval Complex, occupies approximately 1900 ha directly northwest of Norfolk, Virginia (Figure 1). Mason Creek borders the area along the base’s eastern boundary; the junction of the Elizabeth and James rivers (Hampton Roads) borders the site on the west; and the remnants of Bousch Creek and a network of ditches drain the central portion of the facility (Figure 2). Willoughby Bay forms the northern border of the site and enters Chesapeake Bay approximately 1.5 km northeast of Norfolk Naval Base.

Norfolk Naval Base began operating in 1917 as a support base for World War I activities. The base 

# Norfolk, Virginia CERCLIS #VA6170061463

provides fleet support for the U.S. Atlantic fleet, shore facilities and support for U.S. military vessels and aircraft, and service and maintenance for ships and aircraft. Many hazardous substances have been used, generated, and discarded at the property. These substances include various chlorinated organic solvents, sludges from metalplating processes, parts cleaning and paint stripping wastes, acids, heavy metals, and pesticides (Baker Environmental, Inc. 1994).

Under the Department of Defense Installation Restoration Program, 22 sites on the base were identified as potentially contaminated. Data were available for four source areas: the Camp Allen

### 32 • Region 3

32 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base 0 1 2 3 kilometers J

a

m

e s R i v e

r H a m p t o n R o a d s

N B

r i d

g e T

u n

nel H

a m

p t o n Ro a d s Prepared from Delorme Mapping Co. Virginia Atlas and Gazetteer 1989 E l i z a b e t h R i v e r

N a n s e m o n d R i v e r NEWPORT NEWS NORFOLK

PORTSMOUTH Chesapeake Bay

Norfolk Naval Base Figure 1. Location of Norfolk Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia. Willoughby Bay

Virginia
NC MD

PA DE 460

64 Mason Creek

### Region 3 • 33

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base • 33 0 500 1000 meters N Willoughby Spit

Q Area

Drum Storage

Yard CD Landfill Camp Allen

Landfill Area Willoughby Bay Chesapeake Bay

Hampton Roads Elizabeth River Building LP-20 site M a s o n C r ee k Prepared from USGS Norfolk North, VA 1:24 000 scale map 1965, photorevised 1986; CH2M Hill Federal Group, Ltd. 1996

564 64 Bay Avenue

337 Figure 2. Detail of Norfolk Naval Base Norfolk Naval Base property boundary

### 34 • Region 3

34 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base Landfill, the Q Area Drum Storage Yard(QADSY), the CD Landfill, and the Building LP20 site. Table 1 lists the dates of use, types of wastes disposed, and remediation activities for these sites. The limited information available for the remaining sites indicated that cleanup was completed on five sites, while ten areas were determined to require no cleanup action (CH2M HILL Federal Group, Ltd. 1996).

Surface water runoff and groundwater migration are the potential pathways for contaminant transport from site areas to NOAA resources and associated habitats. Norfolk Naval Base is located on a nearly level plain, with surface elevations ranging from sea level to about 5 m above sea level at the central portion of the facility. The principal surface drainage feature at the site is thenetwork of drainage ditches rerouting and replacing the Bousch Creek system that once covered most of the base. The outfalls from this drainage system end in Mason Creek, the Elizabeth River,and Willoughby Bay. No diagrams of this drainage system were found in any of the reviewed reports, although Table 1 lists the specific surface water pathways that were identified for each

source area.

Groundwater at the base is present at 2 to 2.5 m bgs in the unconfined Columbia aquifer, whichconsists of thin, discontinuous layers of heterogeneous sand and shell lenses. The underlying Yorktown aquifer is confined by beds of silt andclay, which may be breached or absent in localized areas of the site due to erosion by meandering streams and rivers. Area groundwater is tidally influenced. In the central and northern portions of the base, groundwater flows generally east and northeast. On the east side of the base, groundwater appears to flow west and northwesttoward the main drainage culvert. In the southwestern quarter of the base, groundwater flowssouth and southeast, again toward surface drainage features (Baker Environmental, Inc. 1995a).



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

Habitats of primary concern to NOAA are surface waters and associated bottom substrates of the lower Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads, an estuarine area where the Elizabeth, James, and Nansemond rivers meet Chesapeake Bay. Anadromous fish, estuarine fish, and invertebrates use the estuary and are the resources of concern to NOAA (Table 2). Estuarine waters of this area range from extensive shallow flats generally less than 3 m deep to trenches up to 30 m deep (USGS 1964, 1965). Salinities range from 15 to 20 ppt and sediments range from silts to sands (Majumdar et al. 1987).

The estuary provides nursery and adult habitat for many estuarine and marine fish. Estuarine residents include bay anchovy, oyster toadfish,sheepshead minnow, killifishes, silversides, pipefish, gobies and hogchoker. These species spend all life stages within the estuary; several are highly abundant. Species such as bluefish, mullet, pinfish, butterfish, and the sciaenids (croaker,

### Region 3 • 35

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base • 35 Site Name Dates History of Use Contaminants of Concern Potential Migration Pathway

Camp Allen Landfill early 1940s - 1974 Unlined landfill used to dispose of municipal, solid, and hazardous wastes. Soil removal completed and long-term groundwater pump and treatment being implemented. Most of area capped and revegetated to minimize surface erosion. Chlorinated organic sovents, metals, pesticides, and an estimated 150 kg metals plating sludge, 230 kg parts cleaning sludge, and 1,500 kg paint stripping residue. Surface water runoff is channelled into Willoughby Bay by drainage ditches surrounding the site. Groundwater flows north and northeast towards Willoughby Bay and Mason Creek. The Camp Allen Landfill is 1.5 km south of Willoughby Bay.

Q Area Drum Storage Yard 1950s - present Storage of 55-gallon steel drums including an area for damaged and leaking

drums. Petroleum products (oil lubricants, hydraulic fluid), chlorinated organic solvents, paint thinners, pesticides, formaldehyde, and acids. Surface runoff is directed into numerous open storm drains that lead directly to the Elizabeth River to the west and Willoughby Bay to the north. Groundwater discharge also flows to the Elizabeth River and Willoughby Bay. QADSY is about 350 m from both the Elizabeth River and Willoughby Bay. CD Landfill 1974 - 1987 Unpermitted landfill from 1974 to 1979, used for disposal of ash residues, sandblasting grit, and spent rice hulls. Permitted landfill from 1979 to 1987 for disposal of demolition wastes and nonputrescible wastes. Closure plan submitted in 1988. Capped with thin layer of soil and vegetation.Cadmium- and leadcontaminated sandblasting grit and rice hulls. Possibly, additional chemicals were disposed. Two unlined drainage ditches surrounded by wetlands border the site to the north and south. They flow eastward into culverts beneath the Naval Air Station that convey surface water runoff to Willoughby Bay. Groundwater flow is northwest towards the Elizabeth River and Willoughby Bay. CD Landfill is about 1 km east of the Elizabeth River and 1.8 km south of Willoughby Bay.

Building LP-20

Site (Buildings LP-20, LP-22, LP-24, and U-132) early 1940s - present Aircraft paint shops, testing facilities, blasting booths, cleaning shop, repair shops, hazardous waste storage, and metal plating shops. Heavy metals, acids, chlorinated solvents, VOCs, and petroleum products. Storm sewers are used to drain the area to Willoughby Bay. Groundwater movement in this area is northeast towards Willoughby Bay, although the Bousch Creek culvert beneath the base may affect groundwater flow patterns. The Building LP-20 site is about 750 m southwest of Willoughby Bay. Table 1. Description of hazardous waste sites at Norfolk Naval Base.

### 36 • Region 3

36 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base Table 2. NOAA trust fish and invertebrate species that use the Elizabeth River, Hampton Roads and Chesapeake Bay.

Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

ANADROMOUS/CATADROMOUS Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus ♦ American eel Anguilla rostrata ♦ ♦ American shad Alosa sapidissima ♦ Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus ♦ ♦ Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis ♦ Striped bass Morone saxatilis ♦♦ ♦ White perch Morone americana ♦ ♦

MARINE/ESTUARINE FISH SPECIES Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus ♦♦ ♦ Atlantic herring Clupea harengus ♦ ♦ Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus ♦ ♦ Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli ♦ ♦ Black drum Pogonias cromis ♦ ♦ Black sea bass Centropristis striata ♦ ♦ Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix ♦♦ ♦ Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus ♦ ♦ Cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus ♦ ♦ Gobies Gobiosama spp. ♦ ♦♦ Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus ♦ ♦♦ Killifish Fundulus spp. ♦ ♦♦ Mullets Mugil spp. ♦ Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus ♦ ♦♦ Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus ♦ Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides ♦ ♦ Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus ♦♦ ♦ Red hake Urophycis chuss ♦ Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau ♦ ♦♦ Scup Stenotomus chrysops ♦ Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus ♦ ♦♦ Silversides Menidia spp ♦ ♦♦ Skates Raja spp. ♦ ♦ Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ♦♦ ♦ Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus ♦♦ ♦ Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus ♦♦ ♦ Tautog Tautoga onitis ♦ ♦ Weakfish Cynoscion regalis ♦♦ ♦ Windowpane flounder Scophthalmus aquosus ♦ ♦

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES Bay shrimp Crangon septemspinosa ♦ ♦♦ Blue crab Callinectes sapidus ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ Blue mussel Mytilus edulis ♦ ♦♦ Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica ♦ ♦♦ ♦ 1 Grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio ♦ ♦♦ Northern quahog Mercenaria spp. ♦ ♦♦ ♦ 1
1 : Bivalve harvests in Hampton Roads are restricted in areas surrounding the Naval Station.

### Region 3 • 37

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base • 37weakfish, seatrout, spot, drum) are coastal spawners; eggs and larval stages drift offshore and later juvenile stages migrate into the estuary. Because many of these species are long-lived, juveniles may spend several years in the estuary. Adults ofseveral of the species also use the estuary seasonally. Bluefish, spot, and Atlantic croaker are particularly abundant in the area (Stone et al. 1994).

Several anadromous fish use the estuary as a migratory corridor, juvenile nursery, and adult habitat. Juvenile and adult white perch are abundant in the estuary. The adults spawn infreshwater upstream of the base, and both juveniles and adults reside in the estuary. Striped bass, particularly juvenile stages, are common in the estuary. Adults may spend time in the area as well, but many move seaward. American shad,blueback herring, and alewife spawn in the freshwater upstream of the base. Juveniles use the estuary as a nursery but usually migrate seaward as adults. Atlantic sturgeon are considered rare nearthe base and in Chesapeake Bay. The catadromous American eel is found throughout the Chesapeake basin, and juvenile life stages are present near the site (Stone et al. 1994).

Several invertebrates use the estuary, including blue crab, grass shrimp, eastern oyster, and northern quahog. Juvenile and adult blue crab are abundant; mating and larval stages are also seen in the estuary, although females usually migrate to coastal waters to brood and release eggs. Grass shrimp, oyster, and quahog spend all life stages in the estuary (Stone et al. 1994). There are substantial commercial and recreational fisheries in the Hampton Roads portion of Chesapeake Bay. Popular recreational catchesinclude bluefish, croaker, spot, weakfish, flounder, blue crab, oyster, and quahog (Majumdar et al. 1987). The total landings for 1996 for the Elizabeth River were over 100,000 kg. The bulk of the commercial harvest is for blue crab, butAmerican eel and striped bass also support substantial commercial fisheries (O’Reilly 1997). Bivalves are harvested in other areas of Hampton Roads, but are restricted surrounding the base because of industrial runoff (Wright 1997).



# Site-Related Contamination

Data collected during several site investigations indicate that soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments at the Norfolk Naval Base are contaminated in varying degrees with trace elements, pesticides, and organic compounds, including PAHs, VOCs, and SVOCs. Separate investigations were conducted for each source area. The most recent data used to determine maximum contaminant concentrations for each area came from remedial investigations in 1990- 1993 for the QADSY (Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 1994), in 1992-1993 for the Camp Allen Landfill (Baker Environmental, Inc. 1994), in 1993-1994 for the CD Landfill (Baker Environmental, Inc. 1995a), and 1994-1995 for the Building LP-20 site (Baker Environmental, Inc. 1995b). Table 3 summarizes maximum

### 38 • Region 3

38 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base Table 3. Maximum concentrations of contaminants in soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments at Norfolk Naval Base.

Soils (mg/kg) Location Mean U.S. a (mg/kg)Groundwater

( μ g/L) Location Surface Water

( μ g/L) Location AWQC b

( μ g/L) Sediment (mg/kg)

Location ERL c (mg/kg)

Trace Elements Arsenic 270 QADSY 5.2 340 QADSY 64 CAL 36 590 CAL 8.2 Cadmium 89 CAL 0.06 96 QADSY N A -- 1.1 180 CAL 1.2 Chromium 1,000 CDL 37 1,100 QADSY 300 CDL 11 3,000 CAL 81 Copper 3,100 CDL 17 380 CAL 450 CAL 12 500 CDL 34

Lead 3,200 CDL 16 1,000 CAL 800 CAL 3.2 1,000 CAL 46.7 Mercury 0.84 CDL 0.058 3 CAL 3.9 CAL

0.012 3 CAL 0.15 Nickel 520 CDL 13 430 CAL 250 CDL 8.3 340 CDL 20.9 Silver 180 CDL 0.05 12 LP20 12 CAL 0.12 110 CAL 1.0

Zinc

6,200 CDL 48 1,600 QADSY 2,600 CDL 86 700 CDL 150

Pesticides/PCBs Dieldrin 0.051 CDL N A 0.04 CDL 0.035 CDL 0.002 0.12 CDL N A

4,4’-DDE

0.035 CDL N A ND -- ND -- 14 d 0.18 CDL 0.0016 e

4,4’-DDT 0.010 CDL N A 0.02 CDL ND -- 0.001 0.11 CDL 0.0016 e Total PCBs 3.4 CAL N A ND -- ND -- 0.014 1.5 CAL 0.023

Other Organic Compounds Benzene 0.25 CAL NA 860 LP20 12 CAL 700 d ND -- NA 1,1-dichloroethene 0.42 CAL NA 3,600 LP20 3 CAL NA ND -- NA

1,2-dichloroethene 1.5

QADSY NA 28,000 LP20 46 CAL NA ND -- NA Toluene 3,000 CAL NA

4,400 LP20 ND -- 5,000 d ND -- NA Trichloroethene 3.1 CAL N A 54,000 LP20 45 CAL 2,000 d 0.013 CDL N A Vinyl chloride ND -- NA 15,000 LP20 22 CAL NA ND -- NA

Acetone 5.4

LP20 NA 1,300 QADSY ND -- N A 0.27 CDL N A Dibenzofuran 1.7 CAL N A 7 CAL ND -- N A 8.4 CDL N A Xylene (total) 340 CAL NA 180 LP20 3 CAL N A 0.002 CDL N A

Total PAHs 55

LP20,CAL NA 110 L P20, CAL, CDL ND -- N A 540 CDL 4.0

a: b: c: d: e: ND: NA: CAL: CDL: LP20 QADSY: Shacklette and Boerngen (1984), except for cadmium and silver which represent average concentrations in the earth’s crust from Lindsay (1979). Quality Criteria for Water (EPA 1993). Lowest value was chosen from fresh and marine water criteria because stream is tidally

influenced. Effects range-low; the concentration representing the lowest 10 percentile value for the data in which effects were predicted i

n studies compiled by Long et al. (1995).

Lowest Observed Effect Level (EPA 1993). ERL for total DDT. Not detected; detection limit not available. Screening guidelines not available; data not available. Camp Allen Landfill. CD Landfill. Building LP-20 site. Q Area Drum Storage Yard.

### Region 3 • 39

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base • 39greater than ten times the AWQC, and concentrations of DDT and DDE in sediments exceededthe ERL guidelines. PCBs were found at elevated concentrations in soil and sediment samples taken from the Camp Allen Landfill area. Values for total PCBs represent the sum of Aroclors 1242, 1254, and 1260. The maximumconcentration of total PCBs in sediment exceeded the ERL guideline; there is no screening guideline for total PCBs in soils.

A variety of other organic compounds weredetected in all media. Total PAH results represent the sum of acenaphthene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b) and/or(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. The highest concentrations of PAHs in soils were found at the Building LP-20 site and the Camp Allen Landfill. Maximum concentrations of other organic compounds in soils were from the Camp Allen Landfill, the QADSY, and the Building LP-20 site. There are no screening guidelines for any of the organic compounds detected in soils. Elevated concentrations oforganic compounds were detected in groundwater samples from the Building LP-20 site, the QADSY, and the Camp Allen Landfill. Few organic compounds were detected in surface waters; those detected were found at the Camp Allen Landfill. Existing LOEL concentrations for organic compounds other than pesticides and PCBs were not exceeded in surface water, but were exceeded in groundwater by more than ten times for one contaminant, trichloroethene. Total PAH concentrations exceeding ERL guidelines were found in sediments from the CD concentrations of contaminants, as well as the source area where each contaminant was found in the greatest concentration, along with applicable screening guidelines.

Not all media were analyzed in all of the remedial investigations. No surface water samples were taken in the QADSY investigation, and no surface water or sediment samples were collected at the Building LP-20 site. All surface water and sediment data reported in Table 3 were collected from the Bousch Creek drainage system near the Camp Allen Landfill.

The highest concentrations of trace elements in soils were from the CD Landfill, except for arsenic and cadmium, which were found at the highest concentrations at the QADSY and Camp Allen Landfill, respectively. In groundwater, the highest concentrations were found at the QADSY, Camp Allen Landfill, and the Building LP-20 site. Maximum concentrations in surface water and sediments were detected at the Camp Allen Landfill and the CD Landfill. Maximum on-site concentrations of trace elements were greater than all screening guidelines for soils, surface water, and sediments. Groundwater concentrations were greater than ten times the AWQC for all reported inorganic substances except arsenic.

Maximum concentrations of pesticides in all media were found at the CD Landfill. Dieldrin concentrations exceeded AWQC guidelines by more than ten times in groundwater and surface water. DDT concentrations in groundwater were

### 40 • Region 3

40 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base Landfill source area. All other PAH compounds detected in sediments were also from the CD Landfill, although no screening guidelines exist for these constituents.



# Summary Baker Environmental, Inc. 1995a. Draft final remedial investigation, CD Landfill, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. Norfolk: Department of theNavy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Baker Environmental, Inc. 1995b. Draft final remedial investigation report and baseline risk assessment, Building LP-20 site, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. Norfolk,: Department of theNavy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

CH2M HILL Federal Group, Ltd. 1996. Draft final work plan and sampling and analysis plan, post remediation ecological monitoring, Camp Allen Landfill. Norfolk: Department of theNavy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 1994. Final remedial investigation report, Q Area Drum Storage Yard, Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia . Norfolk: Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Lindsay, W.L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 449 pp.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97. Elevated concentrations of trace elements, PAHs, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, and PCBs have been detected in soils, groundwater, surfacewater, and sediments to varying degrees at Norfolk Naval Base. Several of these contaminants were detected at concentrations that far exceed their screening guidelines. NOAA trust habitats bordering the site include the lower ElizabethRiver and Hampton Roads, both of which support many anadromous fish, estuarine fish, and invertebrate species. The resources of concern use the waterways as migratory corridors, juvenile nurseries, and adult habitats.



# References

Baker Environmental, Inc. 1994. Draft finalremedial investigation report, Camp Allen Landfill, Norfolk Naval Base. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

### Region 3 • 41

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base • 41 Majumdar, S.K., L.W. Hall, Jr., H.M. Austin. 1987. Contaminant problems and management of living Chesapeake Bay resources. Easton, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 573 pp.

O’Reilly, R., Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, Virginia, personal communication, August 7, 1997.

Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States

. USGS Professional Paper 1270. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

Stone, S.L., T.A. Lowrey, J.D. Field, C.D.Williams, D.M. Nelson, S.H. Jury, M.E. Monaco, and L. Andreasen. 1994. Distribution andabundance of fishes and invertebrates in MidAtlantic estuaries. ELMR Rept. No. 12. SilverSpring, Maryland: NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 280 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Water quality criteria . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1964. Newport News South Quadrangle, Virginia, 7.5 minute series (topographic-Bathymetric).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1965. Norfolk North Quadrangle, Virginia, 7.5 minute series (topographic-Bathymetric). Wright, M., Virginia Department of Health, Division of Shellfish Sanitation, Newport News, Virginia, personal communication, August 7, 1997.

### 42 • Region 3

42 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Norfolk Naval Base

### Region 3 • 43

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry • 43 

# 3
Salford Quarry

Site Exposure Potential

The Salford Quarry site covers about 1.2 ha in Lower Salford Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The quarry is excavated into the side of a hill about 100 m east of the West Branch Skippack Creek, which joins themainstem Skippack Creek about 1 km downstream (Figure 2). Perkiomen Creek receives flow from Skippack Creek approximately 13 km downstream from the site and then flows an additional 4 km to the Schuylkill River (Figure 2). The Schuylkill River extends another 45 km to tidal portions of the lower Delaware River,which flows into the Atlantic Ocean approximately 160 km farther downstream. 

# Lower Salford Township, Pennsylvania CERCLIS #PAD980693204

The site was a shale quarry in the early 1900s. In the 1950s, the quarry was used to dispose of twoto five truckloads per day of industrial, commercial, and residential wastes from the Ludwig & Son waste disposal business. In 1963, American Olean Tile (AOT) purchased the quarry to landfill waste from its Lansdale, Pennsylvaniaplant, and began accumulating waste sludges onsite in two 10,000-gallon fuel oil storage tanks (ENVIRON 1990). In 1973, AOT started bringing most of their lead-containing slurries to the quarry. During this time, an undetermined amount of fly ash cinders from a coal-fired power plant also were disposed at the site (Brown et al. 1992). AOT stopped using the quarry for waste

### 44 • Region 3

44 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry **Figure available in hard copy**

### Region 3 • 45

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry • 45 **Figure available in hard copy**

### 46 • Region 3

46 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry disposal in about 1980, and reported that about 6,500 tons of waste had been discarded at the site (Brown et al. 1992). In 1982, a clay cap was installed to reduce infiltration.

Wastes brought to the site include glaze wash-up sludge, settling pond sediment, and fired and unfired scrap tiles. These wastes contain trace elements and boron oxides (ENVIRON 1990; Brown et al. 1992).

Groundwater is the primary pathway of contaminant transport from the site to NOAA resources and associated habitats. Soils around the quarryare generally 0.6 to 1.8 m deep. Soils are underlain by the Brunswick Formation, which consists of shale, siltstone, and mudstone. The Lockatong Formation underlies the BrunswickFormation, and has a similar lithology and structure. The two formations are hydraulically connected, but groundwater within the two formations is restricted to secondary openingssuch as joints and fractures. As a result, waterbearing properties may vary greatly across the formations. At the site, hydraulic gradients of0.01 to 0.03 (vertical/horizontal) to the southwest (Brown et al. 1992) indicate that groundwater flows toward the West Branch of Skippack Creek. Groundwater migration in the Brunswick and Lockatong formations is estimated at 0.003 to 0.55 m/day.

There is no surface water pathway from the site to the West Branch Skippack Creek. A small, standing-water body observed 30 m east of the West Branch may actually be a partially dried-up stream channel (Figure 2; ENVIRON 1990). 

# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

The primary habitats of concern to NOAA are the surface waters, bottom substrates, and associated riparian zones of the Skippack Creek drainage and Schuylkill River. The Skippack Creek drainage is composed of the West Branch of Skippack Creek, the mainstem Skippack Creek, and Perkiomen Creek.

The West Branch of Skippack Creek is a small stream, averaging about 4.6 m wide and less than 1.5 m deep. The mainstem is a considerably wider stream, generally between 17 and 20 m wide and between 0.5 and 2 m deep. Both streams have moderate gradients with typical riffle-pool habitats. Gravel substrates dominate the riffles with finer sands and silts in pool environments. The streams have both warm andcoldwater resident fish assemblages; the mainstem is fairly diverse with trout, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and panfish populations. Perkiomen Creek near the confluence with Skippack Creek is a lower-gradient warmwater stream approximately 30 m wide and 2.5 m deep (Kaufmann 1997a).

The only NOAA trust resource now in the Skippack Creek drainage is American eel. Eel have been documented in Perkiomen and the mainstem Skippack Creek. They have not been documented in the West Branch, but do have access to the smaller stream. There are no other NOAA trust resources found in the two streams because of impassable dams below the confluence

### Region 3 • 47

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry • 47 of Skippack Creek and the Schuylkill River (Kaufmann 1997a).

The Schuylkill River near the Skippack Creek drainage is a large, low-gradient stream, generally about 100 m wide and 1 to 2 m deep. Substrates are predominantly gravel and cobble in riffles, and finer sands and silts in pool environments. Although its upper portions are classified as a scenic river, the Schuylkill receives considerable amounts of agricultural runoff and wastewater, and is generally considered to have low water quality. There are heavy aquatic plant beds throughout the river, with the dominant species being the non-indigenous and nuisance Eurasian milfoil (Kaufmann 1992; Arnold 1993; Kaufmann 1997b).

Four dams on the Schuylkill River downstream of the Skippack Creek drainage prevent anadromous fish from migrating into this reach of the river. The Norristown, Plymouth, Flatrock, and Fairmount dams are respectively located 10, 16, 24, and 36 km downstream of Skippack Creek drainage. A fish passage has been added to the Fairmount Dam. Fish passage construction on the remaining three dams has been delayed by legal and financial complexities, but is planned to begin by the year 2000. Dam restoration would allow alewife and blueback herring to use the Skippack Creek drainage to spawn. Americanshad also would increase their range, but probably would not migrate beyond the Schuylkill River because of their preference for large streams (Kaufmann 1997a). A fish consumption advisory is now in effect forthe Schuylkill River because of high concentrations of PCBs, chlordane, and DDT. This advisory does not affect the Skippack Creek drainage, and the mainstem of Skippack Creek is managed as a recreational trout fishery.



# Site-Related Contamination

The Remedial Investigation Site Operations Plan presents results from sampling conducted by NUS in 1983 and by ENVIRON in 1989 (ENVIRON 1990). These data are compared toNOAA screening guidelines in Table 1. Reported sample analyses indicate that boron and other inorganic substances are the contaminants of concern to NOAA.

In 1983, the highest measured boron concentration in groundwater was 374,000 μg/L (NUS 1986, as cited in ENVIRON 1990). In 1989,the maximum boron concentration in groundwater was 241,000 μg/L. A groundwater plume contaminated with boron extends from the quarry approximately 1.2 km southwest from the site and may be 120 to 300 m wide (Figure 2; Brown et al. 1992). The extent of this plume is consistent with the probable range of hydraulic characteristics at the site area (Brown et al. 1992). No other inorganic substances were detected in groundwater at concentrations greater than ten times their respective AWQCs.

### 48 • Region 3

48 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry Water collected from the spring west of the quarry contained concentrations of boron as high as 139,000 μg/L. An AWQC for boron has not been developed. However, data collected by Birge and Black (1977, as cited in Eisler 1990) indicate that concentrations ranging from 1 to 100 μg/L may cause a reduction in the reproductive potential of rainbow trout, and concentrations greater than 200 μ g/L may impair the survival of other fish species. Maximum boron concentrations in the creek and spring were 480
μg/L in surface water and 53 mg/kg in sediment. There are no ERLs or similar sediment screening guidelines for boron in sediment.Other contaminants that exceeded NOAA screening guidelines are lead in surface water and arsenic in sediment. Table 1. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern to NOAA detected in groundwater, surface water, and sediment during investigations at the Salford Quarry site compared to NOAA screening guidelines.



# Summary

From 1963 to about 1980, wastes from a tile manufacturing company were discarded intoSalford Quarry, about 100 m east of the Skippack Creek West Branch. Data indicate that trace elements, particularly boron, have migrated through the groundwater to the West Branch at concentrations that may pose a threat to NOAA trust resources. American eel is now the only trust species using the Skippack Creek drainage. However, if fish passage facilities are opened on the Schuylkill River, alewife and blueback herring may use Skippack Creek and its tributaries for spawning. Water (μg/L) Sediment (mg/kg)

Trace elements Groundwater Spring Water Creek Surface Water Freshwater Chronic AWQC a Spring Sediment Creek Sediment ERL b

Arsenic 12 c ND ND 190 6 d 12 d 8.2 Boron 374,000 d 139,000 d 480 c NA 53 d ND NA Cadmium ND ND ND 1.1 + 2.2 d 0.3 d 1.2 Lead 16 c 4 c 6 d 3.2 + 120 d 26 d 46.7 Zinc 344 d 43 d 36 d 110 + 380 d 81 d 150

NA: Not available. ND: Not detected; detection limits not available. a: U.S. EPA 1993. b: Effects range-low (Long and MacDonald 1995). c: ENVIRON 1990. d: NUS 1986 as cited in ENVIRON 1990.

+ : Hardness-dependent criteria: 100 mg/L CaCO 3 assumed.

### Region 3 •49

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry •49 

# References

Arnold, D., fisheries biologist, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Revere, Pennsylvania, personal communication, May 4, 1993.

Birge, W.J. and J.A. Black. 1977. Sensitivity of vertebrate embryos to boron compounds. U.S. EPA Report 560/1-76-008. 66 pp. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Brown, K.W., J.B. Robertson, E. Meyer, L.R. Shull, and D.I. Rubin. 1992. Expert report for Salford Quarry site, Lower Salford Township,Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section. 87 pp.

Eisler, R. 1990. Boron hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic revie w. Biological Report 85(1.20). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

ENVIRON Corporation. 1990. Remedial investigation site operations plan and RI/FS work plans, Salford Quarry site, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: U.S. EPA Region III. 100 pp.

Kaufmann, M., area fisheries manager, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Revere, Pennsylvania, personal communication, March 13, 1992. Kaufmann, M., area fisheries manager, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Revere, Pennsylvania, personal communication, May 21, 1997a.

Kaufmann, M., area fisheries manager, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Revere, Pennsylvania, personal communication, July 9, 1997b.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19 (1): 81-97.

NUS Corporation. 1986. Site inspection ofSalford Quarry. Philadelphia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Site Control Division).

U.S. EPA. 1993. Water quality criteria . Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

### 50 •Region 3

50 •Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Salford Quarry

### Region 4 • 51

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood • 51 

# 4

Br unswick W ood Preserving

Site Exposure Potential

The Brunswick Wood Treaters facility covers approximately 20 ha, 5 km northwest of Brunswick, in Glynn County, Georgia (Figure 1). Burnett Creek flows along the western boundary of the site and then continues southwest for 5.5 km before discharging into Cowpen Creek (Figure 2). Cowpen Creek continues 0.75 km to join the Turtle River, which joins the Brunswick River 16 km downstream. The Brunswick River is the major tributary to St. Simons Sound on the Atlantic Ocean. Tidal influence extends into Burnett Creek. Approximately 11 km of wetlands border Burnett Creek, and 27 km of wetlands are present from Cowpen Creek to St. Simons Sound. 

# Brunswick, Georgia CERCLIS #GAD981024466

The Brunswick facility was opened in 1958, under the name Escambia Treating Company, to preserve roundwood for utility poles and marinepilings. Logs were originally treated with creosote and PCP dissolved in diesel oil. Wood treatment with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) was added sometime between 1968 and 1970 (Woodall 1991). In 1986, the property was soldto Brunswick Treating Company, which continued the wood treating operations until the facility was closed in March 1991 (Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 1996).

Escambia-Brunswick Wood has a documented history of waste releases and spills. Large

### 52 • Region 4

52 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood GEORGIA Health Advisory

Area

Brunswick RiverTurtle River

St. Simons Sound

Atlantic Ocean Cowpen Creek Burnett Creek Dixon Swamp

Blythe Island

St. Simons Island Purvis Creek Gibson Creek

Andrews

Island

Prepared from USGS 1:100 000 topographic of Brunswick, GeorgiaEscambiaBrunswick Wood site 

### N



### Figure 1. Location of the Escambia-Brunswick Wood site in Brunswick, Georgia. 0 1000 2000

meters

M a c K a y R i v e r

LCP Chemicals

site

### Region 4 • 53

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood • 53 B u r n e t t C r e e k O ld Jesup R oad Escambia-Brunswick Wood property boundary Contaminated soil Drainage ditch or stormwater drain Direction of surface water flow

Railroad Wetland Area drained by subsurface storm sewer scale is approximate Figure 2. Detail of Escambia-Brunswick Wood site in Brunswick, Georgia. CCA Treatment Area Dixon Swamp Dixon Swamp

PCP/Creosote Treatment Area Prepared from Woodall 1991 and Black & Veatch Special Projects. Corp. 1996

CSX Railroad Lagoon Lagoon

**N** 0 50 100 meters

P e r r y L a n e R o a d

### 54 • Region 4

54 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood amounts of diesel oil were released to Burnett Creek on two separate occasions in 1969; one spilling 1100 to 1500 L and the other spilling 3800 to 7600 L. Other incidents include a 2300to 3000-L spill of PCP solution, of which approximately 100 to 200 L reached Burnett Creek. In 1989, more than 76,000 L of PCP solution was released to a storm sewer leading directly into Burnett Creek.

Following a fire in 1991, EPA began investigating contamination at the site. Several soil samples were found to have extremely high levels of PAHsand dioxins. In response, EPA excavated contaminated soil from the southern portion of thesite down to groundwater for on-site containment. A groundwater pump and treating system was also installed. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division is removing the excavated soil (Farrier 1997).

Surface-water runoff and groundwater are the potential pathways of contaminant transport to NOAA trust resources and associated habitats. The general topography at the site drains to the west. A storm sewer system and a drainage ditch, both of which empty directly into Burnett Creek, collect contaminated runoff from the western portion of the site. Runoff from the northern portion of the site also enters Burnett Creek through a drainage ditch. Runoff from the southern and eastern portions of the site is collected and discharged to Dixon Swamp, which also drains to Burnett Creek (Figure 2). Surface soils at the Brunswick Wood facility are poorly-drained to moderately-permeable sand and sandy loam. The unconfined surficial aquifer is composed of very-fine to fine sands, gravel, thin limestone, and thin clay beds, and extends to about 58 m deep. Recharge comes from direct infiltration of precipitation. There is a slight groundwater gradient to the west, which is altered intermittently by tidal influences and withdrawals from nearby wells.

The Brunswick Wood Treaters site lies within the 100-year floodplain.



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

The primary habitats of concern to NOAA are surface water, bottom substrates, riparian zones, and wetlands associated with Burnett Creek, lower Cowpen Creek, and the Turtle River.Estuarine fish, invertebrate species, and anadromous fish are the resources of concern to NOAA (Table 1).

Burnett Creek is a small, tidally influenced, lowgradient stream with widely fluctuating salinitiesranging from freshwater to about 20 ppt, depending upon the season and the amount of runoff discharging to the stream. Its width varies from less than 10 m near the site to 100 m near its confluence with Cowpen Creek. Depths are generally less than 1 m throughout the stream. Lower Cowpen Creek and the Turtle River also are low-gradient estuarine streams with salinities generally ranging from 15 to 20 ppt. Lower

### Region 4 • 55

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood • 55 Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

ANADROMOUS/CATADROMOUS SPECIES American eel Anguilla rostrata ♦ ♦ American shad Alosa sapidissima ♦ ♦ Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus ♦ ♦ Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis ♦ ♦

MARINE/ESTUARINE SPECIES Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus ♦ ♦ Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus ♦ Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli ♦♦♦ Black drum Pogonias cromis ♦♦ ♦ Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix ♦ Ladyfish Elops saurus ♦ Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus ♦♦♦ Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides ♦ ♦ Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus ♦ ♦ Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus ♦♦ ♦ Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus ♦♦♦ Silversides Menidia spp. ♦ ♦ Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma ♦♦ ♦ Southern kingfish Menticirrhus americanus ♦ Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus ♦ Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ♦♦ ♦ Spotted sea trout Cynoscion nebulosus ♦♦ ♦ Striped mullet Mugil cephalus ♦♦ ♦ Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus ♦ Weakfish Cynoscion regalis ♦

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES Blue crab Callinectes sapidus ♦♦♦♦ Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus ♦♦♦♦ Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica ♦♦♦ Grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio ♦♦♦♦♦ Pink shrimp Penaeus duorum ♦♦♦♦ White shrimp Penaeus setiferus ♦♦♦♦ 

### Table 1. NOAA trust species using habitats associated with Burnett Creek, Cowpen Creek, and the Turtle River near the Escambia Brunswick Wood site.

Cowpen Creek is generally 100 to 150 m wide and 1 to 5 m deep. The Turtle River is 600 m to 1 km wide and 1 to 11 m deep (USGS 1993). The extensive tidal marsh wetlands along the banks of all three streams are largely composed of saltmarsh cord grass ( Spartina alterniflora ) and salt hay grass ( S. patens). Sediments range from high organic silts to sands (Weston 1991).

### 56 • Region 4

56 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood A fish survey conducted in 1991 found killifish and blue crab in Burnett Creek (Weston 1991). Sheepshead minnow, Atlantic silversides, and striped mullet are periodically found both in low salinities and tidal freshwaters within the estuary and in Burnett Creek . Anadromous species have not been found in Burnett Creek (Nelson et al. 1991).

Lower Cowpen Creek and the Turtle River provide deeper, larger, more marine-influencedhabitats for numerous estuarine fish and invertebrates. Estuarine fish that commonly use these two waterways for juvenile rearing and adult residence include Atlantic menhaden, spotted seatrout, weakfish, Atlantic croaker, southern kingfish, black drum, spot, sheepshead, pinfish, and southern flounder. Anadromous species that use the Turtle River as a migratory corridor andjuvenile nursery include Atlantic sturgeon, blueback herring, and American shad. The catadromous American eel is found throughout the basin and uses lower-salinity portions of the Turtle River as a nursery. Invertebrates found in Lower Cowpen Creek and the Turtle River include American oyster, hard clam, brown shrimp, grass shrimp, and blue crab (Nelson et al. 1991).

Five aquatic species that may occur near the site are listed as threatened or endangered under theFederal Endangered Species Act. The endangered West Indian manatee (not a NOAA trust species) frequently forages in the Turtle River during the spring and fall. Four species of sea turtle

—loggerhead, Kemp ’ s Ridley, leatherback, and green

—have been regularly sighted in St. Simons Sound, but sightings in the Turtle River have not been confirmed. On the other hand, Atlantic bottlenose dolphin are commonlysighted in the Turtle River. Though not threatened or endangered, dolphins are afforded certain protections under the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (DOI 1995; NOAA 1995).

Bait shrimp and blue crab are commerciallyharvested from Burnett Creek below the Highway 341 bridge, approximately 1 km south of the site. Both finfish and shellfish are recreationally harvested for local consumption on all parts of the stream. There are also commercial and recreational fisheries in the Turtle River (Weston 1991).

A Georgia Department of Natural Resources health advisory cautions against consumption of recreationally captured seafood for Purvis Creek, Gibson Creek, and the Turtle River extending approximately 800 m upstream and downstream of the mouth of Purvis Creek. Commercialfisheries are prohibited in this area. The advisories and closures posted in the area are the result of mercury and PCB contamination associated with the LCP Chemicals National Priorities List site (Weston 1991). In addition, the harvest of bivalves is restricted in the Turtle River estuary because of contamination from urban runoff originating in the city of Brunswick (NOAA 1995).

### Region 4 • 57

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood • 57 

# Site-Related Contamination

The initial data collected in 1991 were supplemented in 1993 with additional soil and groundwater samples and eleven sediment samples from Burnett Creek. Data collected in the 1991 and1993 site evaluations show elevated concentrations of trace elements, PAHs, dioxins, and furansin surface water, groundwater, soils, and sediments at the facility (Weston 1991; B&V Waste Science and Technology Corp. 1994). Table 2 lists maximum concentrations of the majorcontaminants at the site along with the appropriate screening guidelines for each medium. Data in Table 2 were obtained from the 1993 study, except for surface water data, which were not collected in 1993. Surface water data presented in this table were collected in 1991. Although surface water samples were analyzed for metals, PCP, and creosote compounds, only arsenic, chromium, copper, PCP, and fluoranthene concentrations were reported (Weston 1991).

Various trace elements were detected in surface soils at concentrations exceeding average U.S. soil concentrations; and levels of arsenic, chromium, and copper were greater than 100 times their respective screening guidelines. The highest concentrations of trace elements in surface soil samples came from near the CCA treatment area in the center of the site. Of the trace elements measured in subsurface soils, only silver exceededthe average U.S. concentration. Arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury and nickel concentrations in subsurface soil samples were not reported. All trace elements measured in groundwater were more than ten times the AWQC. The datareported here for inorganic substances in groundwater were collected as background data, although the sampling location was on-site, and concentrations were higher than at any othersampling location reported for the site. Concentrations of chromium and copper in surface water samples from Burnett Creek were both above freshwater AWQC concentrations. Arsenic and copper in sediment samples taken in Burnett Creek downstream from the site were found to exceed ERL screening guidelines.

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were found athigh concentrations in both surface and subsurface soil samples, although no screening guidelines exist for these contaminants in soil. Groundwater samples exceeded AWQC or LOELconcentrations by at least 85 times for naphthalene, phenanthrene, and fluoranthene. Surface waters contained PCP, although there is no screening guideline for this compound in water. For all PAH compounds with sediment screening guidelines, except for naphthalene, measured concentrations were substantially higher than ERLs.

Dioxins and furans were both found in surface soils, and a total toxic equivalency value was calculated. Subsurface soils, groundwater, and surface water were not analyzed for dioxins or furans. 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF were found in sediments. The total TCDD toxicity equivalents in sediments greatly exceeded the

### 58 • Region 4

58 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood Table 2. Maximum concentrations of selected contaminants in groundwater, surface water, soils, and sediments detected on and near the Escambia Brunswick Wood facility.

Water Soil SedimentGroundwater ( μ g/l) Surface a Water ( μ g/l) AWQC b ( μ g/l) Surface Soils (mg/kg) Subsurface Soils (mg/kg) Mean U.S. c (mg/kg) Sediment (mg/kg) ERL d (mg/kg)

Trace Elements Arsenic 420 12 36 8800 NA 5.2 9.5 8.2 Cadmium 79 NA 1.1 1.3 NA 0.06 ND 1.2 Chromium 570 62 11 4000 9 37 24 81 Copper NA 23 12 9800 NA 17 53 34 Lead 47 NA 3.2 41 5.8 16 11 46.7 Mercury NA NA 0.012 0.64 NA 0.058 ND 0.15 Nickel 760 NA 8.3 ND NA 42 ND 20.9 Silver NA NA 0.12 ND 5.4 0.05 ND 1.0 Zinc 1200 NA 8 6 160 8.4 48 36 150

Organic Compounds Naphthalene 39000 NA 620 e 0.17 1800 NA 0.14 0.16 2-Methylnaphthalene 14000 NA NA 180 480 NA 0.18 0.07 Acenaphthylene 370 NA NA 0.31 NA NA ND 0.04 Acenaphthene 560 NA 520 e 460 720 NA 0.62 0.02 Dibenzofuran 9800 NA NA 440 600 NA 0.61 NA Fluorene 12000 NA NA 510 740 NA 1 0.02 Pentachlorophenol 11000 5 NA 5000 650 NA 0.57 NA Phenanthrene 33000 NA 4.6p 1200 1800 NA 3.10 0.24 Anthracene 4000 NA NA 3600 340 NA 2.90 0.09 Fluoranthene 14000 7 16 e 490 870 NA 3.70 0.60 Pyrene 7800 NA NA 320 380 NA 1.60 0.67 Chrysene 1700 NA NA 100 96 NA 0.69 0.38 Benzo(b,k)fluoranthene 1200 NA NA 64 67 NA 0.73 NA Benz(a)anthracene 2400 NA NA 95 62 NA ND 0.26 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NA NA NA 1.20 NA NA ND NA Tetrachlorophenol 2000 NA NA 200 NA NA ND NA

Dioxins/Furans2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin NA NA NA 4.6x10 -6 NA NA 3.8x10 -5 NA2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo -furan NA NA NA 2.7x10 -5 NA NA 1.0x10 -5 NA Total Equivalency Value NA NA NA 1.1x10 -2 NA NA 4.9x10 -4 6.0x10 -5 f

a: b:

c:

d:

e: f: ND: NA: p: Weston (1991). All other data from B&V Waste Science and Technology Corp. (1994). Quality Criteria for Water (EPA 1993a). Lowest value was chosen from fresh and marine water criteria because stream is tidally influenced. Shacklette and Boerngen (1984), except for cadmium and silver which represent average concentrations in the earth's crust from Lindsay (1979). Effects range-low ; the concentration representing the lowest 10 percentile value for the data in which effects were observed or predicted in studies compiled by Long, et al. (1995). Lowest Observed Effect Level (EPA 1993a). EPA toxic equivalency guideline for low-risk to fish from sediment exposure (1993b). Not detected; detection limit not available. Screening guidelines not available; data not available. Proposed criteria.

### Region 4 • 59

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood • 59 may be present near the site include four species of sea turtle.



# References EPA toxic equivalency guideline for risk to fish from sediment exposure (EPA 1993b).

Remedial Investigation data were provided to NOAA in August 1997, before release of the RI report. These new data indicate maximum concentrations of all trace elements exceeding respective sediment ERLs, except nickel and silver. These data also indicate higher sediment concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents (1.2 μg/kg), individual PAHs (1600 mg/kg), and PCP (2900 mg/kg) than previous studies (which are shown in Table 2). The RI data indicate maximum concentrations of PCP (78 μg/L), arsenic (96 μg/L) and zinc (160 μg/ L) above their chronic AWQCs (Farrier 1997).



# Summary

Results from site investigations indicate thatprevious activities at the Brunswick Wood Treaters site have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments with trace elements, PAHs, dioxins, and furans. Surface runoff and groundwater discharge flow directly into Burnett Creek adjacent to the site. Primary habitats of concern to NOAA include surface water, bottom substrates, wetlands and riparian areas of Burnett Creek, Cowpen Creek, and the Turtle River.These water bodies support estuarine, anadromous, and catadromous fish species, and numerous invertebrates. Federally listed threatened or endangered species of concern to NOAA that B&V Waste Science and Technology Corp. 1994. Draft expanded site inspection: Escambia Brunswick Wood, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia. Atlanta: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Waste Management Division. 44 pp.

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 1996. HRS documentation record for Brunswick WoodPreserving. Atlanta: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4.

DOI. 1995. Preliminary natural resource survey, Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Site, Glynn County, Brunswick, GA . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

Farrier, B., Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, personal communication, August 5, 1997.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, andF. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19:81-97.

### 60 • Region 4

60 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Escambia-Brunswick Wood Nelson, D.M., E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, M.E. Monaco, and L.C. Coston-Clements. 1991.Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in southeast estuaries. ELMR Rept. No.19. Rockville, Maryland: NOAA/NOAA Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 177
pp.

NOAA. 1995. Preliminary natural resource survey, LCP Chemicals, Inc. Findings of fact

. Seattle: Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993a. Water quality criteria. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. Interim report on data and methods for assessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin risks to aquatic life and associated wildlife. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.

USGS. 1993. Brunswick West, Georgia. 7.5 minute series quadrangle. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weston. 1991. Final report, preliminary assessment, Brunswick Wood Preserving site, Brunswick, Georgia . Atlanta: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Woodall, S. 1991. RCRA facility assessment: Escambia Treating Company, Inc., Brunswick facility. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Hazardous Waste Management Program. 47 pp.

### Region 4 • 61

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation • 61 

# 4
MRI Corporation

Site Exposure Potential

The MRI Corporation site occupies 2.5 ha in an industrial area of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Drainage from the facility flows 0.35 km southeast to Sixmile Creek. Sixmile Creek flows approximately 2 km to the Palm River, which travels approximately 4.5 km to the west before reaching McKay Bay. McKay Bay extends about 5 km before joining Hillsborough Bay, an embayment of Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1).

From 1971 until 1986, the MRI Corporation operated a scrap metal reclamation and chemical detinning facility, which is now inactive and listed for sale. The detinning process included physical 

# Tampa, Florida CERCLIS #FLD088787585

and chemical treatment of tin-coated scrap steel. The scrap metal was submerged in a series of four heated alkali baths and then sent to washing tanks. Chemical treatment and wash solutions were stored in on-site lagoons to settle solids and collect residual tin. The liquids from the alkali baths were filtered and electrowinned before acid treatment and additional settling in the lagoons. Stormwater runoff also collected in these lagoons. The lagoon bottoms containing mud and process sludges have neither been removed nor contained (Figure 2; NUS 1990).

Waste products generated at the site included scrap metal, process sludges, and treated effluent.

### 62 • Region 4

62 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation TAMPA Sixmile Creek

Hillsborough Bay P a lm R i v e r

Al a f

i a R i v e r McKay

Bay



### Tampa Bay 0 1 2

kilometers S e a b o a rd Co a s t L

i n e T a m p a B y p a s s C a n a l

MRI Corporation



### Figure 1. Location of MRI Corporation in Tampa, Florida. 

## N H

i l l s b o r o u g h R i v e r

676

41 301

45 43 4 400 574

60 60

FLORIDA

●

Gulf of Mexico Tampa

Prepared from USGS St. Petersburg, Florida, 1:100000 scale topographic map 1981 and Delorme Mapping Company Florida Atlas & Gaz etteer 1989 S i

xm il e C

r eek

### Region 4 • 63

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation • 63 

### Figure 2. Detail of MRI Corporation site. 

### N

0 50 100

meters

Scale is approximate

Sludge ponds NPDES Outfall ditch Structure Drainage

Railroad

S i x m i l e C

r e e k 301

43 Stannum Street

Adapted from EPA 1996, NUS Corporation 1990, and Delorme Mapping Company, Florida Atlas & Gazetteer 1989

### 64 • Region 4

64 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation The scrap metal was compressed into 180-kg bales for off-site reuse. Process sludges were filtered, accumulated on-site, and sold for metal reclamation. Approximately 91,000 kg/year of process sludges were reclaimed and sold out of state. In 1974, waste sludge sampling detected copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, sodium, tin, zinc, oil, and grease (NUS 1990).

Wastewater, treated with chlorine to oxidize cyanides, was discharged to an on-site drainage ditch. Discharges to the ditch at rates of up to 19,000 L/week were allowed under a NPDES permit (NUS 1990). However, this facility had adocumented history of NPDES violations. During 1984, for example, effluent monitoring indicated that zinc and mercury exceeded permit limits during January; oil and grease and both total and free cyanide exceeded permit limits during February; and total cyanide and cadmium permit limits were exceeded during March (NUS 1990).

Surface-water transport and groundwater discharge are the potential pathways of contaminant migration from the site to NOAA trust resources and associated habitats. Surface runoff from the site reportedly flows into Sixmile Creek, but no detailed information was available on surface flow. Groundwater at the site migrates to the southwest. The two principal aquifers in the area are the surficial and the Upper Floridan aquifers, which are hydraulically connected near the site. Site groundwater is encountered 2.4 m bgs. 

# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

Habitats of primary concern to NOAA are estuarine surface waters and associated bottom substrates of the lower Palm River and McKay Bay, a shallow embayment within the Tampa Bay estuary. Many estuarine fish and invertebrates use the embayment and are the resources of concern to NOAA (Table 1).

McKay Bay is generally less than 8 m deep and salinities generally range from 22 to 25 ppt, fluctuating throughout the year depending upon rainfall, saltwater intrusion, and runoff (Estevez 1989). Silty sands dominate bottom substrates (Dial and Deis 1986).

The Palm River has low water quality; between 1980 and 1983, annual average dissolved oxygen varied from 1.8 to 3.2 mg/L. In addition, coliform counts, nutrient concentrations, and biological oxygen demand all were elevated. Water-quality conditions tend to worsen toward McKay Bay, where urbanization is greater and more point sources are present (Wolfe 1990).

The lower Palm River and McKay Bay provide nursery and adult habitat for numerous fish and invertebrate species (Kunneke and Palik 1984; Nelson et al. 1992). Most of the estuarine species spawn offshore or in coastal waters. Tidal currents carry the larvae inshore to estuarine water. Juveniles remain in protected estuaries until sexual maturity (Kunneke and Palik 1984). For example, snook and red drum juveniles are

### Region 4 • 65

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation • 65 Table 1. NOAA trust fish, invertebrate, and reptile species that use McKay Bay and the Palm River.
Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

MARINE/ESTUARINE FISH SPECIES Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus ♦ Atlantic thread

herring Opisthonema oglinum ♦ ♦
Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli ♦ ♦ Black drum Pogonias cromis ♦ ♦ Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix ♦ ♦ Crevalle jack Caranx hippos ♦ ♦ Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus ♦ Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus ♦ Gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta ♦ ♦ Gulf killifish Fundulus grandis ♦ ♦♦ Gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus ♦♦ ♦ Lady fish Elops saurus ♦ ♦ Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera ♦ ♦ Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides ♦ ♦ Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus ♦♦ ♦ Sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius ♦ ♦ Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus ♦ ♦♦ ♦ Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura ♦ ♦♦ Snook Centropomus undecimalis ♦♦ ♦ Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma ♦ ♦ Southern kingfish Menticirrhus americanus ♦ Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus ♦ ♦ Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ♦♦ ♦ Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus ♦♦ ♦ ♦ Striped mullet Mugil cephalus ♦♦ ♦ Tarpon Megalops atlanticus ♦ ♦ Tidewater silverside Menidia peninsula ♦ ♦♦

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES Bay squid Lolliguncula brevis ♦ ♦♦ Blue crab Callinectes sapidus ♦ ♦♦ ♦ Common rangia Rangia cuneata ♦ ♦♦ Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica ♦ ♦♦ Grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio ♦ ♦♦ Hard shell clam Mercenaria spp. ♦ ♦♦ Pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum ♦ ♦

MARINE REPTILES Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas ♦ Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmocheyls imbricata Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidocheyls kempi ♦

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea ♦
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta ♦

### 66 • Region 4

66 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation commonly found in brackish streams and canals and tidal freshwater streams, and may be found in the lower Palm River (Gilmore et al. 1983; Peters and McMichael 1987).

Highly abundant finfish species in the Tampa Bay Estuary include Gulf menhaden, sheepshead minnow, tidewater silversides, striped mullet, red drum, bay anchovy, spot, and pinfish (Nelson et al. 1992).

Blue crab are abundant in the estuary. Both juveniles and adults use the estuary, and mating may occur in tidal portions of the Palm River. After mating, the females return to full seawater to brood eggs while the males usually remain in low-salinity waters. Crab larvae are released in full seawater zones, such as upper Tampa Bay, and are transported by currents to McKay Bay and other, lower -salinity portions of the estuary. The larvaesettle and metamorphose to juveniles in the lowsalinity estuary (Nelson et al. 1992).

Grass shrimp are abundant and spend their entire life cycle in the estuary. The bivalves rangia, hard shell clam, and oyster are also commonly found in the estuary (Nelson et al. 1992).

Commercial and recreational fishing activities concentrate in the outer estuaries of Tampa Bayand Old Tampa Bay. Commercial and recreational fisheries are not extensive in either McKay Bay or the lower Palm River. However, blue crab, Gulf menhaden, mullet, pink shrimp, spot, and spotted seatrout are commercially harvested in nearby Hillsborough Bay. Recreational anglers occasionally fish available species in McKay Bay. Species typically sought are red drum, sheepshead, snook, and spotted seatrout. There are no restrictions on these fisheries other than general regulations regarding take limit and minimum size. Periodically, blue crab are also harvested from McKay Bay (McMichael 1992).

The surface waters of Hillsborough and Tampa bays provide habitat for several threatened and endangered species. A non-NOAA trust species, the federally endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) uses these bays as seasonal habitat. Several federally protected species of turtles also are found in the area. These include the threatened green and loggerhead sea turtles, along with the endangered hawksbill, Kemp’s Ridley, and leatherback sea turtles (McMichael 1992).



# Site-Related Contamination

1990 and 1992 site inspections documented elevated concentrations of trace elements in soil, groundwater, and sediment at the site (NUS 1990; EPA 1992). Surface-water samples were not collected in either of these site inspections. Consequently, groundwater concentrations arecompared to EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Table 2).

### Region 4 • 67

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation • 67 Table 2. Maximum concentrations of selected contaminants detected at the MRI Corporation site.

Maximum concentrations of the major contaminants are listed in Table 2 along with the appropriate screening guidelines for each medium. Data reported here for soil and sediment are from the 1992 inspection. None of the samples from the 1990 or 1992 investigations were analyzed for tin.

During the 1990 site inspection, soil and sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs. In 1990, Aroclor 1254 wasdetected in one surface soil sample at a concentration of 1.4 mg/kg. In addition, dieldrin wasdetected in one groundwater sample at a concentration of 0.028 μg/L, which exceeds the AWQC for this compound. 

# Summary

Limited site investigations indicate that previous activities at the MRI site caused trace element contamination of site soils, groundwater, and sediments. Surface water has not been sampled. Surface runoff and groundwater are potential transport pathways from the site to Sixmile Creek, which flows into the Palm River. Habitats of primary concern to NOAA are estuarine surface waters and associated bottom substrates of the lower Palm River and McKay Bay. These habitats support numerous estuarine fish and invertebrate species, as well as threatened and endangered sea turtles. Soil (mg/kg) Water ( μg/L) Sediment (mg/kg)

Inorganic Substance Surface Soils SubSurface

Soils Mean U.S. a Groundwater AWQC b ( μg/L) On-site Sediment ERL c

Chromium 71 38 37 930 11 41 81 Copper 370 90 17 NA 12 69 34 Lead 8700 3800 16 340 3.2 1700 46.7 Mercury 2 ND 0.06 1.4 0.012 2.6 .15 Nickel 80 20 13 160 8.3 21 209 Zinc 1800 590 48 750 8 6 500 150 Cyanide 1.5 1.5 NA 52,000 5.2 0.84 NA

a: b:

c:

ND NA Shacklette and Boerngen (1984) Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Water (U.S. EPA 1993); data presented are lowest chronic marine or freshwater criteria. Effects range-low; the concentration representing the lowest 10-percentile value for the data in which effects were observed or predicted in studies compiled by Long et al. (1995). Not detected; detection limit not available. Screening guidelines not available.

### 68 • Region 4

68 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, C.D. Williams, T.E. Czapla, M.E. Pattillo, L. Coston-Clements, L.R. Settle, and E.A. Irlandi. 1992. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Volume I: Data summaries

. Rockville, Maryland: NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 273 pp.

NUS Corporation. 1990. Screening Site Inspection Report, Phase II, MRI Corporation, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Atlanta: Waste Protection Division, U.S. EPA.

Peters, K.M. and R.H. McMichael, Jr. 1987. Early life history of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Pisces: Sciaenidae), in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries 10:92-107.

Shacklette, H. T. and J. G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270

. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Supplemental Site Inspection Report - MRI Corporation, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Atlanta: EPA Region 4.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Water quality criteria . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp. 

# References

Dial, R.S., D.R. Deis. 1986. Mitigation options for fish and wildlife resources affected by port and other water-dependent developments in Tampa Bay, Florida . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 86(6). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 150 pp.

Estevez, E.D., ed. 1989. Tampa and Sarasota Bays: issues, resources, and management. NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 11. St Petersburg, Florida: Estuarine Programs Office,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Gilmore, G.R., C.J. Donohoe, and D.W., Cooke. 1983. Observations on the distribution and biology of east-central Florida populations of the common snook, Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch). Florida Scientist 46 :313-336.

Kunneke, J.T. and T.F. Palik. 1984. Tampa Bay environmental atlas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(15). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 73 pp.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, andF. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19: 81-97.

McMichael, R. Fisheries Biologist, Florida Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tallahassee, personal communication, September 21, 1992.

### Region 4 • 69

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation • 69 Wolfe, S.H., and R.D. Drew, eds. 1990. An ecological characterization of the Tampa Bay watershed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(20). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 334 pp.

### 70 • Region 4

70 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / MRI Corporation

### Region 4 • 71

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall • 71 

# 4

T

erry Creek Dredge Spoil/ Hercules Outfall

Site Exposure Potential

The Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/HerculesOutfall site is located on coastal estuarine marshlands approximately 1 km northeast of downtown Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia. The site is bordered by Dupree Creek, Terry Creek, and the Back River (Figure 1). Dupree Creek flows south along the western edge of the site into Terry Creek, which continues approximately 2 km east until it merges with the Back River. The Back River then flows 3 km southeast and enters St. Simons Sound approximately 5 km from the site. St. Simons Sound joins the Atlantic Ocean about 5 km farther downstream. 

# Brunswick, Georgia CERCLIS #GAD982112658

From 1948 to 1981, the principal product of Hercules, Inc. (formerly Hercules Powder Plant), located on Dupree Creek, was the pesticide toxaphene. From 1966 to 1972, Hercules discharged 100-140 kg of toxaphene daily to Dupree Creek via a wastewater outfall (Figure 2). In 1972, installation of a wastewater treatment system reduced toxaphene discharges to less than 0.5 kg per day. By 1975, Hercules had obtained an NPDES permit for its Dupree Creek outfall that restricted discharge to a daily maximum ofabout 0.5 kg of toxaphene, and a monthly average of about 0.2 kg toxaphene per day. Subsequent permit renewals gradually reduced permitted discharges. The current permit allowance is

### 72 • Region 4

72 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall GEORGIA B a c k R i v e r Terry Creek site R i v e r L i t

t l e F r e d e r i c a Riv e r Wetlands Escambia Brunswick Wood site

LCP Chemicals

site

Brunswick RiverTurtle River

Saint Simons Sound

Atlantic Ocean Blythe Island

Saint Simons Island

Andrews

Island

Prepared from U.S.G.S. 1:100 000 topographic of Brunswick, Georgia T e r r y C

r e ek 

### N



### Figure 1. Location of the Terry Creek Dredge S p oil Areas/Hercules Outfall Su p erfund site in Brunswick, Georgia. 0 1000 2000

meters

M a c K a y R

i v e r

### Region 4 • 73

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall • 73Figure 2. Detail of Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall site.**N**0 100 200metersSource: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 1997

B

a

c

k R i

v

erBoat DocksDredge spoil area 2HerculesDockHercules001 NPDESDischargeDredge spoil area 3Dredge spoil area 1 T e r r y C r e e k

T o r r a s C a u s e w a yArea of suspected toxaphenecontamination2nd-generation dike1st-generation dikeDischarge weirWetlandsCatwalk

D u p r e eC

r e e k

### 74 • Region 4

74 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall an average of about 0.025 kg per day. There were six documented violations of the NPDES permit between 1988 and 1993 (Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 1997).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began dredging Terry Creek in 1938. Three tracts of land were set aside to accommodate the dredge spoils; these areas are identified as Dredge Spoil Area 1 (29 ha), Area 2 (23 ha), and Area 3 (3 ha; Figure 2). In 1972, Hercules, EPA, and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division agreed to restrict future disposal of dredge spoils to Area 1 following a spill of an unknown quantity of toxaphene into Dupree Creek from a barge at the Hercules dock. While Area 1 continues to receive dredge spoils, Areas 2and 3 have been converted to residential property. Maintenance dredging of Terry Creek occurred in 1940, 1942, 1946, 1972, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1987, and 1988 (Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 1997).

Surface runoff, direct discharge to surface waters, and tidal transport are the contaminant pathways of primary concern to NOAA. When dredged sediments and water are placed into Dredge Spoil Area 1, solids settle out, and the excess water drains into Dupree Creek via three weirs on the north and west sides. Although the dredge spoils are contained by a two-generation, 7-m high dike, the second-generation dike was constructed using contaminated dredge material. Aerialphotos of the impoundment show many complete and partial breaches of the dike, and contaminated water and sediments flowing into Dupree and Terry creeks (Bionetics 1991). Tidal currents have carried toxaphene upstream 1.2 km to the origin of Dupree Creek (U.S. EPA 1997a). There is an unmapped pipeline that extends from inside the southwest corner of the dike to Terry Creek (Taylor 1995).

Areas 2 and 3 have no features restricting surfacerunoff and associated contaminants from entering the waterways. Runoff from Dredge Spoil Areas 2 and 3 flows northeast and north to the Back River and Terry Creek, respectively (U.S. EPA 1997a).



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

The habitats of concern to NOAA are surface water, bottom substrates, wetlands, and riparian zones associated with Dupree Creek, Terry Creek, the Back River, and St. Simons Sound. Estuarine fish, anadromous fish, and invertebrate species are the primary resources of interest to NOAA (Table 1).

Dupree and Terry Creeks are low-gradient, tidal streams of intermediate salinities (15-30 ppt). Both streams are typically 50 to 70 m wide and less than 1 m deep. Near the site the lower Back River is between 200 and 500 m wide and up to 9 m deep, with salinities generally ranging from 20 to 30 ppt. Sediments range from organically enriched silts to fine sands. Vast salt marsh wetlands are next to all three tidal streams. The wetlands near the site are dominated by smooth

### Region 4 • 75

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall • 75 Table 1. NOAA trust species using habitats associated with Dupree and Terry creeks, the lower Back River, and St. Simons Sound near the site. Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

ANADROMOUS/CATADROMOUS FISH American eel Anguilla rostrata ♦ ♦ American shad Alosa sapidissima ♦ ♦ Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus ♦ ♦ Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis ♦ ♦

MARINE/ESTUARINE FISH Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus ♦ ♦ Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus ♦ Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli ♦♦♦ Black drum Pogonias cromis ♦♦ ♦ Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix ♦ Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus ♦♦♦ Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides ♦ ♦ Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus ♦ ♦ Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus ♦♦ ♦
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus ♦♦♦ Silversides Menidia spp. ♦ ♦ Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma ♦♦ ♦ Southern kingfish Menticirrhus americanus ♦ Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus ♦ Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ♦♦ ♦ Spotted sea trout Cynoscion nebulosus ♦♦ ♦ Striped mullet Mugil cephalus ♦♦ ♦ Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus ♦ Tarpon Megalops atlanticus ♦ Weakfish Cynoscion regalis ♦

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES Blue crab Callinectes sapidus ♦♦♦♦ Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus ♦♦♦♦ Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica ♦♦♦ Grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio ♦♦♦♦♦ Pink shrimp Penaeus duorum ♦♦♦♦ White shrimp Penaeus setiferus ♦♦♦♦

MARINE REPTILES Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas ♦ Kemp’s Ridley sea

turtle Lepidocheyls imbricata ♦

Leatherback sea

turtle Dermochelys coriacea ♦
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta ♦

MARINE MAMMALS Atlantic bottlenose

dolphin Tursiops truncatus ♦

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus ♦

### 76 • Region 4

76 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora ) and needlerush (Juncus roemerianus ; U.S. DOI 1995). St. Simons Sound is a small, shallow (generally less than 20 m) coastal embayment that empties into the Atlantic Ocean (USGS 1993).

A variety of estuarine, anadromous, and catadromous fish species and several invertebrates use Dupree and Terry creeks, the lower Back River, and St. Simons Sound.

Species of fish known to use the Terry Creek site and associated salt marsh habitats include Atlantic croaker, red drum, spotted sea trout, tarpon, striped mullet, Atlantic menhaden, killifish, and American eel. Most of these species use the salt marsh and tidal stream habitats as a nursery. Invertebrates include American oyster, panaeid shrimp, and blue crab (U.S. DOI 1995).

Compared to the tidal streams, the lower Back River and St. Simons Sound provide deeper,larger, more saline habitats for numerous estuarine fish and invertebrates. Common estuarine fish that use the area for juvenile rearing and adult residence include Atlantic menhaden, spotted seatrout, weakfish, Atlantic croaker, southern kingfish, black drum, spot, sheepshead, pinfish, and southern flounder. Anadromous species that usethe Back River as a migratory corridor and juvenile nursery include Atlantic sturgeon, blueback herring, and American shad. The catadromous American eel is found throughout the basin using lower-salinity portions of the river as a nursery. Invertebrates found in the area include American oyster, hard clam, brown shrimp, white shrimp, grass shrimp, and blue crab (Nelson et al. 1991).

Five aquatic species that may occur near the site are listed as threatened or endangered under theFederal Endangered Species Act. The endangered West Indian manatee, which is not a NOAA trust resource, has been observed feeding on smooth cordgrass near Terry Creek. Four species of sea turtle

—loggerhead, Kemp ’ s Ridley, leatherback, and green

—have been regularly observed in St. Simons Sound, but sightings in the Back River have not been confirmed. In addition, the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin has been reported near the site. Dolphins are not listed as threatened or endangered, but are protected under the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (DOI 1995).

Commercial crab pots have been observed in both Dupree and Terry creeks (U.S. DOI 1995). There are commercial fisheries for blue crab and bait shrimp, and recreational fisheries for several finfish and crab throughout the estuary. Bivalve harvest is closed in the estuary, prompted bypotential contamination from industrial discharges and urban non-point source contamination from Brunswick (NOAA 1995).



# Site-Related Contamination

Field data collected since late 1995 indicate that soils, surface water, sediments, and biota near the Hercules outfall and the dredge spoil areas

### Region 4 • 77

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall • 77 contain elevated concentrations of site-related contaminants (Black &Veatch Special ProjectsCorp. 1997, U.S. EPA 1997b). The primary onsite contaminants of concern to NOAA are toxaphene and other pesticides, although trace elements and PAHs also were detected in elevated concentrations. Maximum concentrations of these contaminants are summarized in Table 2 along with the appropriate screening guidelines.

Blue crab, mummichog, and larger fish capturedin the spring of 1997 for a screening risk assessTable 2. Maximum concentrations of selected contaminants detected at the Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall.

Soil Water Sediment

On-site

soils (mg/kg) Community soils (mg/kg) Mean U.S. a (mg/kg) Surface water ( μg/L) AWQC b ( μg/L) On-site sediment

(mg/kg) ERL c (mg/kg)

Trace Elements Arsenic 16 19 5.2 13 36 19 8.2 Chromium 43 150 37 11 11 55 81 Copper 84 22 17 79 12 69 34 Lead 97 89 16 3 3.2 70 46.7 Mercury 0.32 0.21 0.058 1.8 0.012 0.59 0.15 Silver 7.3 NA 0.05 NA 0.12 <3 1.0 Zinc 73 120 48 NA 86 160 150

Pesticides Endrin NA NA NA 0.11 0.002 <5.7 NA 4,4' DDD NA NA NA 0.89 0.6 e <5.7 NA 4,4' DDE 0.18 0.008 NA <0.1 NA 0.10 0.0022 4,4' DDT 1.5 NA NA 0.09 0.001 <5.7 0.0016t Toxaphene 330 d 37d NA <5 0.0002 230 d NA

Organic Compounds Total PAHs 0.42 27 NA 5 NA 3 4.02

a:

b:

c:

d:

e: t: ND: NA: Shacklette and Boerngen (1984), except for silver which represents average concentration in the earth's crust from Lindsay (1979). Quality Criteria for Water (U.S. EPA 1993). Lowest value was chosen from fresh and marine water criteria because stream is tidally influenced. Effects range-low; the concentration representing the lowest 10 percentile value for the data in which effects were observed or predicted in studies compiled by Long, et al. (1995). Toxaphene analyses performed by EPA - ESD per method determined by EPA Toxaphene Task Force June 4, 1993. Lowest Observed Effect Level (U.S. EPA 1993). DDT total Not detected; detection limit not available. Screening guidelines not available; data not available.

### 78 • Region 4

78 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall ERL guidelines in sediment samples taken from Terry Creek and the Hercules outfall area. Sediment samples from wetlands to the east of Area 1 contained arsenic, copper, lead, and mercury concentrations at least twice the ERL guideline (Long et al. 1995).

Toxaphene and 4,4 ’ -DDE were detected in both on-site and community soils, with the highestconcentrations in on-site soils. Screening guidelines are not available for these pesticides in soil. Toxaphene was not detected in groundwater or surface water samples. Detection limits for toxaphene in surface water were not stated in the 1995-96 investigation, but a 1987 study reported a detection limit of 0.3 μg/L, far exceeding the AWQC chronic guidelines of 0.0002 μg/L (Costello 1987). On-site sediments contained concentrations of 4, 4 ’ -DDE over 45 times the ERL. Toxaphene was measured at 29 mg/kg in on-site sediments and 31 mg/kg in wetland sediments from the upper reaches of Dupree Creek. A screening guideline for toxaphene in sediment was not available. In a 1995 study, toxaphene was measured at concentrations of 19 and 27 mg/kg in tissues from two fish samples collected in Terry Creek (Parsons and Auwarter 1997). Concentrations above 0.4 to 0.6 mg/kg wet weight may be hazardous to fish (Eisler and Jacknow 1985).

Concentrations of PAHs, including acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b and/or k) fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and ment also show evidence of contamination. Maximum toxaphene concentrations (27 ppm) were found in forage fish collected near the Hercules outfall. In larger fish, contaminants that appear to be toxaphene were found in all samples, with fish from Dupree Creek most affected at concentrations of 3.9 ppm (U.S. EPA 1997b).

All “ on-site ” soil samples were collected from within the boundaries of Areas 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 2). Additional soil samples were collected from nearby areas (some residential) and labeled as

“ community ” soils. These samples were mainly collected to the west and northwest of Area 1 on the opposite side of Dupree Creek and northwest of Area 2. Groundwater samples were collected from three wells in Area 3. Surface water and sediment samples were retrieved from the Back River, Terry Creek, and Dupree Creek, and wetland sediment samples were collected near the banks of these waterways (Black & Veatch 1997).

The trace elements arsenic, lead, mercury, andzinc in on-site soils, and in soils from the community surrounding the site, were found to exceed average U.S. soil concentrations. Copper andsilver were also detected at elevated concentrations in on-site soils, while chromium exceeded the mean U.S. soil concentration in community soil samples. However, mercury was the only inorganic substance detected in groundwater samples at concentrations exceeding the AWQC by a factor greater than 10. In surface water, copper exceeded its AWQC in Terry Creek, as did mercury in Dupree Creek. Arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc concentrations all exceeded

### Region 4 • 79

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall • 79benzo(g,h,i)perylene, were detected in both onsite and community soils, but screening guidelines for PAHs in soils have not been developed.No organic compounds were detected in groundwater samples. PAHs were detected in surface water, but an AWQC guideline for total PAHs has not been developed. Total PAHs were also measured in sediment samples, but did not exceed the ERL.



# Summary Bionetics Corporation. 1991. Site analysis, Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Area, Brunswick GA. Las Vegas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. 16 pp.

Costello, J. O. 1987. Screening site inspection report, Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Area. Atlanta: Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

DOI. 1995. Preliminary natural resource survey, Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Site, Glynn County,Brunswick, GA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

Eisler, R. and J. Jacknow. 1985. Toxaphene hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review

. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.4) . 26 pp.

Lindsay, W. L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 449 pp.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, andF. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19: 81-97.

Nelson, D.M., E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, M.E. Monaco, and L.C. Coston-Clements. 1991.Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in southeast estuaries. ELMR Rept. No. 19. Rockville, Maryland: NOAA/NOA Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 177 pp. Terry Creek, Dupree Creek, the lower Back River, and St. Simons Sound provide important nursery and adult forage habitat for numerous trust species in the area of the Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall site. Soils,surface water, sediments, and fish are contaminated to varying degrees with trace elements,pesticides, and PAHs. Surface water and sediments contain contaminants at concentrations that pose a threat to NOAA trust resources.



# References

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 1997. Final expanded site inspection, Hercules Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Area, Brunswick, Glynn County, GA. Atlanta: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste Management Division, Region 4. 68 pp.

### 80 • Region 4

80 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Terry Creek/Hercules Outfall NOAA. 1995. Preliminary natural resource survey, LCP Chemicals, Inc. Findings of Fact

. Seattle: Coastal Resources Coordination Branch, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division.

Parsons, M. and A. Auwarter. 1997. Characterization and spatial distribution of contaminants in surface water, sediments and fish within the tidal reaches surrounding Brunswick, Georgia

. Athens, Georgia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Science and Ecosystem Support Division.

Shacklette, H. T., and J. G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States . U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Taylor, W. R. 1995. Terry Creek Dredge Spoil site Preliminary Natural Resource Survey. Atlanta: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chief of State Program Section.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Water quality criteria . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1997a. Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall, Brunswick, GA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State, Tribal, and Site Identification Center, National Priorities List. 1 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1997b. Terry Creek ecological screening evaluation, Brunswick GA. Athens, GA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Ecological Assessment Branch. 14 pp. + appendices.

USGS. 1993. Brunswick East, Georgia. 7.5 minute series quadrangle. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Government Printing Office.

### Region 4 • 81

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB • 81 

# 4
Tyndall Air Force Base

Site Exposure Potential Bay County, Florida CERCLIS #FL1570024124

remaining 13 CERCLA sites. Table 1 describes the 16 sites requiring further action; Figure 1 shows their locations.

Tyndall Air Force Base was added to the National Priorities List based on the presence of DDT and its breakdown products in sediments of Shoal Point Bayou, also known as Fred Bayou (EPA 1995). The bayou, designated Site OT-29, is next to the Old Pesticide Building, where DDT and other pesticides were stored, and possibly discarded. Documentation for the start of DDT use at the base has not been found. About 80 drums containing approximately 45 metric tons of DDT were removed from the Old Pesticide Tyndall Air Force Base occupies 11,650 ha at the end of a 26-km peninsula in Bay County, western Florida (Figure 1). The site is surrounded by East Bay, St. Andrew Bay, St. Andrew Sound, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Tyndall Air Force Base is an Air Combat Command facility activated in 1941. Many operationsat the site involved the use of hazardous substances. Of the 29 CERCLA sites identified during the base-wide Installation Restoration Program (IRP), 16 require further action (Rust E&I 1997). EPA and Florida DEP approved determinations of no further action for the

### 82 • Region 4

82 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB Figure 1. Location of Tyndall Air Force Base and IRP sites in Bay County, Florida. 0 1 2 3

kilometers 

### N

Prepared from Rust E&I 1997 Tyndall AFB boundary East Bay

Gulf of Mexico

IRP site location S t

. A

n d r e w S

o u n d Crooked Island Shell Island 98

98 LF-09

LF-10 LF-03

LF-02

LF-05

SS-26 FT-17

OT-27

OT-21

OT-24 LF-12

LF-07 LF-06 OT-04 LF-01 OT-25 OT-29

Shoal Point Bayou Pearl Bayou Freshwater

Bayou Florida AL GA

Gulf of Mexico S t . A n d

r e w B

a y S t

. A

n d r e w B a y



### Building in the mid-1970s. An unspecified number of these drums were leaking. Somewhat later, the Old Pesticide Building either burned down or was demolished, and the remaining debris was buried on the facility at an unspecfied location (EPA 1995). DDT also may have been discarded in two landfills on the facility; the 6000 Area Landfill (Site LF-05) and a waste disposal area near the sewage treatment plant (Site LF-06; EPA 1995).

Surface water runoff and groundwater discharge are potential contaminant migration pathways to NOAA trust resources. The topography of

### Region 4 • 83

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB • 83 IRP Number Description Disposed Materials Date of Operation Site Status LF-01 Wherry Landfill General refuse and mess hall waste landfill. 1943-1948 SI Required

LF-02 Sabre Drive Landfill General refuse landfill. 1943-1965 SI Required LF-03 Beacon Beach Road Landfill General refuse landfill. 1952-1965 SI Required
OT-04 Southeast Runway Extension Burial Site Containers, drums, batteries, and parts. 1945-1965 RI Required

LF-05 6000 Area Landfill Containers, drums, batteries, and parts. 1945-1965 RI Required
LF-06 Sewage Plant Vicinity Landfill Main sanitary landfill. Also concrete-encased asbestos, wrecked drones, and receptacles containing waste oils and solvents. 1965-1973 RI Required

LF-07 Spray Field Vicinity Landfill Main sanitary landfill. Also, other unidentified materials. 1973-1977 RI Required

LF-09 Capehart Burial Site Buried rubble and burned debris from about 40 houses destroyed in the 1962 tornado. 1962 SI Required

LF-10 Capehart Marina Rubble Storage Concrete rubble stored above ground. 1962 SI Required
LF-12 Highway 98 Burial Site Building rubble and debris from burial of demolished base housing. 1960s SI Required
FT-17 Highway 98 Fire Training Area Waste petrroleum, oil , and lubicants stored in two 20,000- gallon tanks and later burned in the burn pit area. Leaks from stored PCB transformers. 1952-1968 RI/FS In Progress

OT-21 Explosive Ordnance Range Burn/Burial Pits Site Buried residue from incineration or detonation of unused ordnance. 1950s1980s IRA In Progress

OT-24 9700 Area Batch Asphalt Plant Asphalt production waste. 1975-1988 RI Required

OT-25 Small Arms Repair Area Waste paints and solvents poured into an open pit and then covered with soil. 1965-1972 RI Required

SS-26 Vehicle Maintenance Area Two 10,000-gallon fuel USTs, hazardous waste accumulation area, waste oil tank, and oil/water separators. Small spills associated with normal vehicle maintenance. 1950spresent RI/FS In Progress

OT-29 Shoal Point Bayou DDT and breakdown products in bayou sediments. 1970s RI/FS In Progress

IRA: Interim Remedial Action RI: Remedial Investigation SI: Site Investigation 

### Table 1. Sixteen CERCLA sites at Tyndall Air Force Base requiring further action.

### 84 • Region 4

84 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB Tyndall Air Force Base is relatively flat with a maximum elevation of approximately 9 m. No detailed information on surface water flow from each of the sites was available. In general, runoff from areas on the north side of U.S. Highway 98 flows into East Bay and St. Andrew Bay, and runoff from the south and west sides of U.S. Highway 98 flows into St. Andrew Sound, St. Andrew Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico (CH2M Hill 1981).

The surficial aquifer near the base is composed ofhighly transmissive, well-sorted, fine- to mediumgrained sands, extending to 34 m deep, where clayey-sand strata are encountered (Rust E&I 1997). No information was available regarding the continuity of this unit. Groundwater depths typically range from 0.3 to 0.9 m bgs. The water table is relatively flat throughout Tyndall AirForce Base, but fluctuates up to 1.5 m in response to seasonal rainfall and tidal cycles. Agroundwater divide beneath Highway 98 separates areal flows to the northeast and southwest, but shallow groundwater flows toward nearby bayous, streams, and ditches. The surficial aquifer is the principal concern with regard to contaminant transport because it is both highly permeable and shallow (Rust E&I 1997).



# NOAA Trust Resources and Habitats Andrew Bay, and St. Andrew Sound are next to the base. Of particular concern are several tidal bayous and associated wetlands that receive drainage from the base. The Gulf of Mexico lies beyond St. Andrew Bay and St. Andrew Sound. The many estuarine fish and invertebrates that use the embayments and nearshore Gulf are the resources of concern to NOAA. Table 2 lists those species most abundant in the area.

East Bay and St. Andrew Bay are protected, shallow embayments generally less than 15 m deep with moderate salinities of 20 to 30 ppt. Shoal Point Bayou, Pearl Bayou, and Freshwater Bayou, which drain from Tyndall Air Force Base into East Bay, range from less than 1 m deep to4 m deep, with highly variable salinities depending upon precipitation and runoff. St. AndrewSound is predominantly shallow, with a maximum depth of 10 m, and more marine salinities of 32-35 ppt (USGS 1982a; USGS 1982b; Schafer 1997).

Sediments in the estuary range from fine sands to silts. Quartz sand sediments predominate next to the beach and dune areas of St. Andrew Sound and lower St. Andrew Bay. Sandy silts to silts predominate in East Bay, particularly in Shoal Point Bayou (Rust E&I 1993; Schafer 1997). There are large salt-marsh wetlands, dominated by Spartina spp., along the East Bay shore of the base (CH2M Hill 1981).

Over 120 species of finfish and invertebrates have been reported in the St. Andrew Bay estuary near the base (Geraghty & Miller, 1991). Table 2 The primary habitats of concern to NOAA are surface water and bottom substrates of the St. Andrew Bay estuary, of which East Bay, St.

### Region 4 • 85

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB • 85 Table 2. NOAA trust species that use the St. Andrew Bay estuary next to Tyndall Air Force Base.

presents the NOAA trust species considered abundant in the estuary. The smaller species of fish, such as bay anchovy, code goby, sheepshead minnow, silversides, and silver perch, spend their entire lives within the estuary. Most of the other fish found in the bay spawn in coastal areas and use East Bay, St. Andrew Bay, and St. Andrew Sound as juvenile nurseries. Non-spawning adults use the estuary seasonally (Nelson et al. 1992). Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

MARINE/ESTUARINE FISH Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus ♦♦ ♦ Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli ♦♦♦ Blue runner Caranx crysos ♦♦ ♦ Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix ♦♦ ♦ Code goby Gobiosoma robustum ♦♦♦ Gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta ♦♦ ♦ Gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus ♦ ♦ Hardhead catfish Arius felis ♦♦♦ Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides ♦ ♦ Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus ♦♦ ♦ Sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius ♦♦ ♦ Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus ♦♦♦ Silver perch Bairdiella chysoura ♦♦♦ Silversides Menidia spp ♦♦♦ Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus ♦♦ ♦ Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ♦♦ ♦ Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus ♦♦ ♦ Striped mullet Mugil cephalus ♦♦ ♦

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES Bay scallop Argopecten irradians ♦♦♦♦♦ Bay squid Lolliguncula brevis ♦♦♦ Blue crab Callinectes sapidus ♦♦♦♦♦ Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus ♦♦♦♦ Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica ♦♦♦♦♦ Grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio ♦♦♦ Pink shrimp Penaeus duorum ♦♦♦♦

### 86 • Region 4

86 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB Both adult and juvenile blue crab are highly abundant in the St. Andrew Bay estuary. Crab mate in low-salinity areas, such as the bayous ofEast Bay. After mating, the males remain in lowsalinity waters, while the females migrate to undiluted seawater zones to brood eggs. Larvae are released in areas of undiluted marine salinities.The planktonic larvae are subsequently transported back into the estuary, where they settle to the bottom and metamorphose.

Grass shrimp, an abundant nearshore species, spend their entire life within the estuary, in salt marshes and oyster reef habitats. Brown and pink shrimp are also abundant, particularly the juvenilestages. Adults use the estuary seasonally. Although not as abundant, eastern oyster and bay scallop also use the estuary (Nelson et al. 1992).

There are two federally threatened or endangered sea turtles near the base. The federally threatened Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ) and the endangered green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas) use the coastal waters of St. Andrews Bay and St. Andrew Sound seasonally (CH2M Hill 1981).

There are both commercial and recreational fisheries for finfish, blue crab, oyster, and scallop in East Bay, St. Andrew Bay, and St. Andrew Sound (Schafer 1997). In 1993, Tyndall Air Force Base posted a catch-and-release advisory for Shoal Point Bayou (EPA 1995). East Bay, along the northeast boundary of Tyndall Air Force Base, is classified by the State of Florida as Class II water, designated for shellfish propagation and harvesting. The waters at the northwest end of the base are a designated Aquatic Preserve. The rest of the estuary around the base is designated Class III waters for recreation and propagation of fish and wildlife (Geraghty and Miller 1991).



# Site-Related Contamination

Site OT-29, Shoal Point Bayou, is the only active CERCLA site for which data were available for comparison with NOAA screening guidelines. At Site OT-29, elevated concentrations of DDT and its breakdown products have been measuredin sediment and surface water. DDT contamination in Shoal Point Bayou was first observed in 1985 during area-wide sediment sampling conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (EPA 1995). One sediment sample composited from five cores taken along the centerline of Shoal Point Bayou contained substantially higher concentrations of DDT (4400 μg/kg) and its breakdown products, DDE and DDD, than did any of the other 36 sediment samples collectedthroughout the St. Andrew Bay estuarine complex.

In 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected an additional 28 sediment samples from Shoal Point Bayou to follow up on the 1985 sediment sampling (Brim 1990). DDT and/or its breakdown products were detected in 54% of the samples at a detection limit of 97 μg/kg, considerably higher than the ERL of 1.58 μg/

### Region 4 • 87

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB • 87 Soil ( μg/kg) Sediment ( μg/kg) Contaminant 1993 a 1992 b ERL c

DDD 1,600 2,600 1.58 d DDE 860 1,100 2.2 DDT 1,200 12,000 1.58 d alpha Chlordane 14 NA NA gamma Chlordane 9.1 NA NA Technical Chlordane 4,200 NA NA

NA: Not analyzed a: USACE 1993 b: Rust E&I 1993 c: Effects-range low concentration; the concentration representing the lowest 10- percentile value for the data in which effects were observed or predicted in studies compiled by Long et al. (1995). d: ERL for total DDT. 

### kg. Measured concentrations ranged from 100 to 1300 μg/kg of DDT and metabolites in Shoal Point Bayou sediments.

In 1992, groundwater samples were collected from six on-site monitoring wells and analyzed for DDT and its breakdown products. None of these pesticides was detected, but the detection limit of 0.1 μg/L was two orders of magnitude higher than the marine chronic AWQC of 0.001
μg/L. Ten soil samples were collected in 1993 and analyzed for pesticides (USACE 1993; EPA 1995). In addition to DDT and its breakdown products, elevated concentrations of chlordanewere detected. Table 3 shows maximum concentrations in soil. Screening guidelines for pesticides in soil have not been developed. A preliminary assessment/site investigation was completed for Site OT-29 in 1992 (Rust E&I 1993). Higher concentrations of DDD, DDE, and DDT were detected in sediment during this study than in any of the previous studies (Table 3). Of the seven sediment samples collected, one sample contained 1,000 to 12,000 μg/kg of DDT and breakdown products; five of the seven samples had concentrations ranging from 62 to 910 μg/kg; and in one sample concentrations were not detected above the detection limit of 26 μg/kg. Surface water samples were collected in 1992, but DDT and/or breakdown products were not detected at the detection limit of 0.1 μg/L, which is two orders of magnitude higher than the marine chronic AWQC of 0.001 μ g/L.

Table 3. Maximum concentrations of pesticides in soil and sediment collected from Site OT-29 at Tyndall Air Force Base.

### 88 • Region 4

88 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB 

# Summary

There are many potential hazardous waste areas at Tyndall Air Force Base although data from only OT-29, Shoal Point Bayou, were available for screening against NOAA guidelines. Very highconcentrations of DDT and its breakdown products were detected in soil and sediment from the Shoal Point Bayou area. Concentrations in bayou sediment, four orders of magnitude higher than screening guidelines, threaten the many NOAA trust species that use the estuary surrounding Tyndall Air Force Base.



# References Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19 (1): 81-97.

Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, C.D. Williams, T.E. Czapla, M.E. Pattillo, L. Coston-Clements, L.R. Settle, and E.A. Irlandi. 1992. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Volume I: Data summaries

. Rockville, Maryland: NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 273 pp.

Rust Environment & Infrastructure (Rust E&I). 1993. Final Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation report, Shoal Point Bayou: Site 29, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida . Omaha: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 43 pp.

Rust Environment & Infrastructure (Rust E&I). 1997. Management Action Plan, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas: Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Environmental Restoration Division.

Schafer, R., Fisheries Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, Florida, personal communication, July 22, 1997.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1993. Test results from soil samples collected at Shoal Point Bayou on March 11, 1993 and analyzed by the Missouri River Division Laboratory. Omaha: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Brim, M. 1990. Environmental contaminants evaluation; sediment DDT concentrations in Fred Bayou, St. Andrew Bay, Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County, Florida. Panama City, Florida: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 pp.

CH2M Hill. 1981. Installation Restoration Program Records Search for Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida: Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Directorate of Environmental Planning.

Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 1991. Final RemedialInvestigation report for Sites OT-4, LF-5, and OT25, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida . Omaha: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

### Region 4 • 89

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB • 89 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Water quality criteria . Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. HRS Documentation Record, Tyndall Air Force Base. Atlanta: U.S. EPA, Region IV. 43 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1982a. 7.5 minute series orthophoto map (topographic/ bathymetric). Long Point, Florida.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1982b. 7.5 minute series orthophoto map (topographic/ bathymetric). Beacon Beach, Florida.

### 90 • Region 4

90 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Tyndall AFB

### Region 6 • 91

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works • 91 

# 6

Madisonville Creosote W orks

Site Exposure Potential

The Madisonville Creosote Works site covers approximately 12 ha in a predominantly wooded, rural area in St Tammany Parish about 3 km west of Madisonville, Louisiana. The facility is 2 km north of Lake Pontchartrain, a coastal tidal water body (Figure 1). Drainage from the site enters an unnamed, intermittent stream that empties into the Black River and farther downgradient into a series of large, perennial wetlands. This wetland is contiguous with Lake Pontchartrain, a shallow estuary which flows into Mississippi Sound approximately 90 km from the site. Mississippi Sound is an embayment of the Gulf of Mexico. 

# Madisonville, Louisiana CERCLIS #LAD981522998

The Madisonville Creosote Works facility was opened in 1956; wood products were treated with creosote at the facility until operations ceased in 1984. From the 1960s to 1984,creosote sludge and wastewater were concentrated by sprinkler evaporation. Residual process waste liquids were stored in two process water ditches and two evaporation ponds (Figure 2). Waste creosote and wastewater drained from the process water ditches into Evaporation Pond No.1. Solids settled in Pond No.1 and water overflowed through a depression in the dike to Evaporation Pond No. 2. The Rainwater Pond provided backup containment of overflow from Evaporation Pond No. 2. The Fish Pond was

### 92 • Region 6

92 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote WorksMadisonvilleL a k e Po n t c h a r t ra i nMadisonvilleCreosoteWorks siteFigure 1. Location of the Madisonville Creosote Works site in Madisonville, Louisiana.LouisianaMSALTXGulf of MexicoPrepared from USGS Madisonville 1:24 000 scale map, 1968 photorevised 1972 and 1979 B l a c k R i v e r22Madisonville CreosoteWorks boundaryWetlandsUnimproved road T c h e f u n c t a R i v e r**N**0 250 500meters Rice Field Canal

### Region 6 • 93

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works • 93 

### Figure 2. Detail of the Madisonville Creosote Works site. 

## N Unimproved road

Wetlands Intermittent stream Drainage ditch Madisonville Creosote Works boundary

0 100 200

meters

B l a c k

R

i v e r 22 Evaporation

Pond #1 Large Process Water Ditch

Small Process Water Ditch

Rainwater Pond Evaporation

Pond #2 Treating

plant Tank farm

Fish pond Ditch #2 Ditch #1 Trapagnier Road Periccoux Road

Prepared from USGS Madisonville, LA 1:24 000 scale map 1968, photorevised 1972 and 1979; Weston, 1997 Pond Pond

### 94 • Region 6

94 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works intended for expansion of the evaporation ponds. Approximately 15 aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) that were used to store creosote andwastewater remain on-site. During a site inspection in 1995, eleven of these tanks still contained liquids.

The four surface impoundments and the processditches were closed as hazardous waste management units in 1986. Closure activities includedthe removal and off-site incineration of contaminated sludge and soil. The units were then backfilled with a 0.6-m clay layer and vegetated. Post-closure sampling indicated the presence of residual creosote contamination in soils collected from these areas (Weston 1996).

Creosote contamination has been measured at thesite in soils, sediments, and groundwater. Primary source contamination is in the form of liquid creosote or creosote sludge. Chemically, creosote consists primarily of PAHs. Past releases of PAHs from site source areas to site soil and groundwater and off-site ditches has been visually observed and confirmed by laboratory analysis. Secondary source contamination is in the form of contaminated soil (dried creosote particles in the soil or soil saturated with liquid creosote), pooled dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) in subsurface soil, and dissolved contamination in groundwater.

Groundwater discharge, DNAPL migration, and surface water runoff are the potential pathways of contaminant transport from the site to NOAA trust resources and associated habitats. A drainage ditch immediately west of the former evaporation ponds (Ditch #1) drains surface water to the south where it joins a second drainage ditch (Ditch #2) to form an intermittent stream that flows from the northwest to the southeast approximately 1.2 km before its confluence with the Black River (Figure 2). After the confluence, the Black River crosses a large, perennial wetland beginning approximately 1.1 km southeast of the site and intersects the Rice Field Canal before continuing to Lake Pontchartrain (Figure 1).

The Madisonville Creosote Works is located on the Pleistocene prairie terrace in poorly drained, gently sloping, loamy soils. There are three aquifers below the site: the Shallow Aquifer, the Upper Ponchatoula Aquifer, and the Lower Ponchatoula Aquifer, all of which are thought to be hydraulically connected. A groundwater investigation at the site showed that creosote contamination was greatest at the center of the site. The groundwater in the upper alluvial deposits was shown to mound and flow radially from the center of the facility (Weston 1997).



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

The primary habitats of concern to NOAA are the downstream surface waters, riparian wetlands, and bottom substrates of the Black River and Lake Pontchartrain. Numerous fish and invertebrate species use the estuary and are the NOAA trust resources of concern (Table 1).

### Region 6 • 95

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works • 95 Lake Ponchartrain is a shallow, enclosed estuary of low salinity (0.5-5.0 ppt). The Lake depths are generally less than 5 m, and sediments range from fine sand to silt (USGS 1968a,b; Gosselink 1984). Drainage from the site runs into the Black River, which empties into a large Cypress-Tupelo swamp. Farther downgradient, the swamp is dominated by bull-tongue ( Sagitaria sp

. ), and eventually saltmarsh hay ( Spartina patens ) before joining Lake Ponchartrain (Day et al. 1989). Table 1. Representative NOAA trust species found in Lake Pontchartrain.

Species Habitat Use Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning Ground Nursery Ground Adult Forage Comm. Fishery Recr. Fishery

ANADROMOUS/CATADROMOUS SPECIES American eel Anguilla rostrata ◆ Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum ◆ Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus ◆ ◆

MARINE/ESTUARINE SPECIES Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus ◆◆ ◆ Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli ◆◆◆ Black drum Pogonias cromis ◆◆ ◆ Code goby Gobiosoma robustum ◆◆◆ Crevalle jack Caranx hippos ◆ Gulf killifish Fundulus grandis ◆◆◆ Gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus ◆ Hardhead catfish Arius felis ◆◆◆ Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides ◆ ◆ Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus ◆ ◆ Sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius ◆◆ ◆ Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus ◆◆ ◆
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus ◆◆◆ Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura ◆ ◆ Silversides Menidia spp. ◆ ◆ Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma ◆◆ ◆ Spot Leiostomus xanthurus ◆◆ ◆ Spotted sea trout Cynoscion nebulosus ◆◆ ◆ Striped mullet Mugil cephalus ◆◆ ◆ Tarpon Megalops atlanticus ◆

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES Bay squid Lollinguncula brevis ◆ Blue crab Callinectes sapidus ◆◆◆◆ Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus ◆◆◆◆ Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica ◆◆◆ ◆ Grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio ◆◆◆ Rangia Rangia cuneata ◆◆◆◆◆ White shrimp Penaeus setiferus ◆◆◆◆

### 96 • Region 6

96 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works The estuary is used by numerous fish for adult habitat, juvenile nurseries, and spawning; and as a migratory corridor to several rivers within the watershed. Small estuarine fish such asbay anchovy, code goby, Gulf killifish, silversides, and sheepshead minnow spend their entire lives within the estuary (Table 1). Larger species are present in the estuary primarily during estuarine-dependent juvenile life stages. Adults of these species are present in the estuary seasonally. Like most of the marine species listed in Table 1, tarpon and crevalle jack spawn along the coast, but the juveniles require estuarine environments for survival (Nelson et al. 1992).

Lake Pontchartrain is a migratory corridor for the anadromous Gulf sturgeon and gizzard shad. Both species migrate up the Tchefuncta River, located approximately 5 km east of the site. The catadromous American eel also migrates to most larger streams that drain into the estuary. Anadromous species are not expected to use the Black River around the site because of its small size (Rogilio 1997).

Blue crab are abundant in Lake Pontchartrain. Juvenile stages of brown shrimp and whiteshrimp are abundant in the estuary on a seasonal basis. After mating, the females return to full seawater zones to brood eggs while the males often remain in low-salinity waters. Larvae are released by females offshore, and are subsequently transported back into the estuary where they settle to the bottom. Grass shrimp spend their entire lives within the estuary and are commonly found in saltmarsh and oyster reef habitats. Juvenile stages of brown shrimp and white shrimp are abundant in the estuary on a seasonal basis. Of the bivalve species, rangia are most abundant, followed by eastern oyster. All life stages of these bivalves are found within the estuary (Nelson et al. 1992).

Several species are commercially harvested in Lake Pontchartrain; the largest fisheries are for brown shrimp, white shrimp, and blue crab. Substantial recreational fisheries are also present in the estuary; the most commonly harvested species include seatrout, croaker, red drum, blue crab, and rangia (Burdon 1997).



# Site-Related Contamination

Data collected in a series of site investigationsshow elevated concentrations of trace elements and organic compounds (PAHs and pesticides) in groundwater and surface soils collected at the site (LDEQ 1993; E&E 1996) and in surface water and sediment samples collected from off-site areas (ESE 1991; E&E 1995, E&E 1996). Creosote contamination in two off-site areas was investigated during a 1991 remedial investigation (RI; ESE 1991). Soils collected from the drainage ditch located north of the facility and the intermittent stream southeast of the facility were reported to be

### Region 6 • 97

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works • 97 contaminated with creosote (Figure 2). The RI identified creosote contamination in 90 m of the drainage ditch and in 700 m of the unnamedintermittent stream south of the site. A subsequent remedial action resulted in the removal anddisposal of substrates from 290 m of the intermittent stream. The remaining contamination has not been removed. Maximum concentrations of the major contaminants at the site are listed in Table 2 along with the appropriate screening guidelines.

Lead concentrations in both groundwater and surface water, and mercury in surface water,exceeded chronic AWQCs (Table 2). Concentrations of arsenic, barium, lead, and mercury in site soils exceeded mean U.S. concentrations.Lead and mercury in sediment from the drainage ditch exceeded the ER-L values for these trace elements. However, concentrations of trace elements in sediment and surface water of the Black River near the site (Weston 1997) did not exceed screening values.

PAH concentrations measured in on-sitegroundwater, surface water, soils, and sediments were high compared to the screening concentrations for these media (Table 2). However, the available data suggest that PAHcontamination is now limited to the site and offsite drainage ditches. The concentrations of PAHs reported in surface water and sediments collected from the Black River in the vicinity ofthe site (Weston 1997) did not exceed screening values for these compounds. Some limited exceedances of screening criteria were observed for pesticides in surface water and sediments in the drainage ditch. The maximum surface water concentration of endrinexceeded the AWQC and the sediment concentrations of 4,4'-DDE in the drainage ditch exceeded the ER-L concentration. However, pesticides were not detected in either the water or sediments of the Black River.



# Summary

A series of site investigations indicate that soil and groundwater collected at the Madisonville Creosote site, and the sediments and surface waters in drainage ditches near the site, are contaminated with trace elements, PAHs, and pesticides. Surface runoff, DNAPL migration, and groundwater discharge are the potential pathways of contaminant transport from the siteto NOAA trust resources and associated habitats. The primary habitats of concern to NOAA are estuarine surface waters, riparian wetlands, and bottom substrates of Black River and Lake Pontchartrain.

### 98 • Region 6

98 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works Table 2. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern at the Madisonville Creosote Works site.

Water Soil SedimentGroundwatera ( μg/L) Surface Water a,b

( μg/L) AWQC c ( μg/L) Surface Soils a (mg/kg) Mean U.S. d (mg/kg) Sediment a,b (mg/kg) ERL e (mg/kg)

TRACE ELEMENTS Arsenic NA 12.3 36 14.3 5 6.5 8.2 Barium 202 650 NA 774 440 376 NA Lead 30.7 54 8.5 273 16 181 46.7 Mercury NA 0.24 0.012 7.0 0.058 0.490 0.150

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

PAHs
Naphthalene 30500 ND 620 f 85.0 NA 4990 0.16 2-Methylnaphthalene 7200 ND NA 8.5 NA 21900 0.07 Acenaphthylene 440 ND NA 180 NA 37.3 0.04 Acenaphthene 8200 5.3 520 f 1260 NA 30900 0.02 Fluorene 6470 ND NA 1450 NA 5300 0.02 Phenanthrene 14800 32.9 4.6p 2360 NA 14500 0.24 Anthracene 1710 2.00 NA 1180 NA 16300 0.09 Fluoranthene 8200 40.1 16f 2190 NA 3010 0.60 Pyrene 5000 31.1 NA 2120 NA 3940 0.67 Chrysene 1610 13.1 NA 1570 NA 2760 0.38 Benz(a)anthracene 1680 1.00 NA 412 NA 834 0.26 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1240 2.00 NA 350 NA 295 NA Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1400 10.1 NA 33 NA 470 NA Benz(a)pyrene 594 1.00 NA 393 NA 242 0.43 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 220 ND NA 57 NA 24 NA Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 250 ND NA 69 NA 31 NA Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 80 ND NA 27 NA 10 0.063

Pesticides
alpha-Chlordane NA ND 0.0043 ND NA 0.038 NA 4,4'-DDE NA ND 0.014 f 0.83 NA 0.058 0.0022 4,4'-DDT NA ND 0.001 0.0073 NA 0.091 0.0016t Endrin NA 0.10 0.0023 ND NA 0.0082 NA

a: b:

c:

d:

e:

f: ND: NA: p: t: Maximum concentrations cited in Weston (1997). Surface water and sediment concentrations reported for off-site drainage ditches.Ambient Water Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA 1993). Lowest value was chosen from fresh- and marinewater criteria because river is estuarine. Shacklette and Boerngen (1984). Effects range-low; the concentration representing the lowest 10-percentile value for the data in which effects were observed or predicted in studies compiled by Long et al. (1995). Lowest Observed Effect Level (U.S. EPA 1993). Not detected; detection limit not available. Screening guidelines not available; data not available. Proposed criterion. DDT total.

### Region 6 • 99

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote Works • 99 

# References

Burdon, J., Fisheries Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, personal communication, July 28, 1997.

Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. New York: Wiley Interscience Publications.

Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. (ESE). 1991. Remedial Investigation of OffSite Contamination Near Madisonville Wood Processing, Inc. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division.

Ecology and Environment (E&E). 1995. Integrated Site Inspection for Madisonville Creosote Works, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Dallas: Emergency Response Branch, EPA Region 6.

Ecology and Environment (E&E). 1996. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Work Plan for Madisonville Creosote Site, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Dallas: EPA Region 6.

Gosselink, J.G. 1984. The ecology of delta marshes of coastal Louisiana: A community profile. FWS/OBS-84/09. Vicksburg: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 1993. RCRA Groundwater CME, Madisonville Wood Preserving. LAD#008171191. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Groundwater Protection Division.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemicalconcentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19:81-97.

Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, C.D. Williams, T.E. Czapla, M.E. Pattillo, L. Coston-Clements, L.R. Settle, and E.A. Irlandi. 1992. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Volume I: Data Summaries

. Rockville, Maryland: NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 273 p.

Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1996. Final Report: Madisoville Creosote, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, LA, November 1996. Edison, New Jersey:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Response Team Center.

Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1997. Draft Final Baseline Human Health and Ecological Screening Risk Assessment, Madisonville Creosote Works, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Dallas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.

### 100 • Region 6

100 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Madisonville Creosote WorksRogilio, H., Fisheries Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, personal communication, July 28, 1997.

Shacklette, H. T. and J. G. Boerngen. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Water quality criteria. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1968a. 7.5 minute series topographic map. Covington, SW, LA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1968b. 7.5 minute series topographic map. Madisonville, FL. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

### Region 10 • 101

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company • 101 

# 10
Oeser Company

Site Exposure Potential

The Oeser Company (Oeser) site is a 9-ha woodtreating facility operating in Bellingham, Whatcom County, Washington (Figure 1). Surrounding land use is mixed residential and industrial. The topography is generally flat with a gentle slope toward the southeast, except due south of the site, where the terrain drops steeply for approximately 12 m to a ravine and LittleSqualicum Creek. Approximately 500 m downstream, Little Squalicum Creek enters Bellingham Bay.

The Oeser Company has had a wood-preserving operation at this location since 1948. From 1948 to 1973, Oeser treated utility poles with creosote 

# Bellingham, Washington CERCLIS #WAD008957243

to retard deterioration of the wood. Oeser began using a pentachorophenol (PCP) in oil treatment in the 1960s, and PCP is the only preservativenow used. The wood treatment processes generate process wastewater and a waste sludge material. Until 1986 waste sludge was accumulated on-site and then transported to an approved landfill. The quantity of sludge generated, the frequency of removal, and the method of on-site storage are not known (URS Consultants Inc. 1994).

Until 1973, wastewater from both the PCP and creosote processes was discharged to gravel percolation beds. From 1973 until 1991, process

### 102 • Region 10

102 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company 

### Figure 1. Location of Oeser site in Bellingham, Washington. Bellingham Bellingham Airport

542

Washington 

### N

0 1 2

kilometers

Adapted from USGS Bellingham, WA 1:100 000 scale topographic map, 1975 Oeser site

S q u a l i c u m C

r e e k 5

5 Bellingham Bay Lummi

Bay L u m m i R i v e r

N o o k s a c k R i v e r

Eliza Island Lummi Island

Sinclair Island Little Squalicum

Creek Sandy Point

Portage Bay Fish Point

Post Point Brant Point

Point Frances Lummi Indian Reservation

H a l e P a s s a g

e P o r t a g e C h a n n e l

### Region 10 • 103

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company • 103 wastewater was discharged to an oil/water separator, and subsequently to a storm sewer under an NPDES permit (Figure 2). Since 1991, a zero-discharge wastewater treatment system has been in use (URS Consultants Inc. 1994).

Two spills of PCP preservative have been reported at the site, one in 1971 and another in 1975. In 1971, 190 L or more of the PCP and oil preservative spilled into Little Squalicum Creek. In 1975, the sump pump for an oil/water separator failed, causing overflow of PCP-oil to a drain field and, ultimately, to Little Squalicum Creek. An estimated 110 L of PCP-oil enteredthe creek from this spill (Ecology and Environment Inc. 1996).

The primary contaminant transport pathways are the storm sewer system, surface water runoff, and groundwater migration. Precipitation that does not infiltrate on-site flows overland to the south or southeast toward Little Squalicum Creek. Excess surface-water runoff is collected by on-site storm drains and subsequently discharged via the Oeser Outfall into Little Squalicum Creek (Figure 2; Ecology and Environment Inc. 1996).

Site geology is predominantly alluvial deposits ofglacial outwash sands and gravels (URS Consultants Inc. 1994). Groundwater is present in several shallow zones and in a deeper, unconfined aquifer. Shallow groundwater is encountered 1.5 to 5 m below ground surface (bgs). This shallow groundwater is situated within deposits consisting of stratified sand and gravel, silt, and clay, which extend to approximately 8 m bgs. The deeper aquifer is encountered 7 to 12 m bgs. Groundwater in this deeper aquifer flows in a southwesterly direction in the northern portion of the site, and south-southwest to south in the southern portion of the site (Ecology and Environment Inc. 1996). Groundwater seeps have been observed downgradient from the site near the banks of Little Squalicum Creek.



# NOAA Trust Habitats and Species

Habitats of primary concern to NOAA are the surface waters and bottom substrates of Little Squalicum Creek and Bellingham Bay. NOAA trust species of concern include anadromous fish that use Little Squalicum Creek and marine species found in Bellingham Bay (Table 1).

Little Squalicum Creek is located in an abundantly vegetated ravine surrounded by industrial and residential properties. Seasonal palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands are found along 0.8 km of the creek, upgradient from the site. The creek ranges from approximately 0.9 to 2.5 m wide. Near the site, the creek is generally less than 0.3 m deep, with a continuous flow ranging from less than 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) to 10 cfs (Ecology and Environment Inc. 1996).

There are no wetlands on the shore of Bellingham Bay near the mouth of Little Squalicum Creek. However, there are a variety of shoreline habitats in other parts of the Bay, including

### 104 • Region 10

104 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company Figure 2. Detail of the Oeser site. 0 100 200 meters

Untreated Pole Storage

Treated Pole Storage Wood Storage

C e d a r w o o d A v e n u e

Bennett Avenue Marine Drive Oeser Outfall

Open Ditch N Prepared from USGS Ferndale, Washington 1:24 000 scale topographic map 1952, photorevised 1972 and URS Consultants 1994 Property line Storm drain Stormwater system Facility Storage area Stream channel is approximate

Bellingham Bay L i t t l e S q u a l i c u m C r e e k

### Region 10 • 105

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company • 105 Table 1. NOAA trust species that use Little Squalicum Creek and Bellingham Bay (Ecology 1992).

Species Habitat Fisheries

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning ground Nursery ground Adult forage Commer cial. Recreational

ANADROMOUS FISH Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki ♦ ♦♦ ♦ Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka ♦♦♦ ♦ Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ♦♦ ♦

MARINE FISH Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ English sole Parophyrs vetulus ♦♦♦ ♦ Lingcod Ophidon elongatus ♦ ♦♦ Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus ♦♦♦ ♦ Pacific herring Clupea harengus pallasi ♦ ♦♦ Pile perch Rhacochilus vacca ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata ♦♦♦ ♦ Rockfish Sebastes spp. ♦ ♦♦ ♦ Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbris ♦ ♦ Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus ♦ ♦ Sculpin Cottus spp. ♦ ♦♦ Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus ♦♦♦

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES Blue mussel Mytilis galloprovincialis ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Butter clam Saxidomus giganteus ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Dungeness crab Cancer magister ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Geoduck clam Panope generosa ♦ ♦♦ Hardshell clam Mercenaria mercenaria ♦ ♦♦ ♦ Horse gaper clam Tresus spp

. ♦ ♦♦ Kelp crab Pugettia productus ♦ ♦♦ Native littleneck clam Protothaca staminea ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ Octopus Octopus dofleini ♦ ♦♦ Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas ♦ Pink shrimp Pandalus spp. ♦ ♦♦ Softshell clam Mya arenaria ♦ ♦♦ Spot shrimp Pandalus platyceros ♦ ♦♦

MARINE MAMMALS California sea lion Zalophus californianus ♦ Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus ♦ Harbor seal Phoca vitulina ♦ ♦ Killer whale Orcinus orca ♦ Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata ♦

### 106 • Region 10

106 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company extensive wetlands surrounding the mouth of the Nooksack River, less than 5 km northwest of the site (Figure 1). The shoreline at the mouth of the Nooksack River consists of fine-grained sands with exposed tidal flats in the eastern channel. From this point south-southeast to the town of Bellingham, the shoreline is primarily a wave-cut platform, with some interspersed areas of gravel/ cobble/riprap, exposed rocky shorelines, and seawalls. The mid-to-lower eastern portion of the bay consists primarily of exposed rocky shorelines or seawalls. From the mouth of the Nooksack River south-southwest along the Lummi Indian Reservation, the shoreline is primarily gravel/ cobble/riprap with sand/gravel beaches located along the southeastern portion of the reservation and along the inner shoreline of Point Frances,just off the southern tip of the Lummi Reservation. Tidal flats are located at the very southern tip of the reservation, as well as surrounding Brant Point at the northern tip of Point Frances (Ecology 1992).

Coho and chum salmon have been observed inLittle Squalicum Creek (Chapman 1997). Juvenile salmonids in Little Squalicum Creek probably use favorable areas in the lower reaches as nursery habitat before migrating to more open marine environments (Steel 1997).

Bellingham Bay also supports numerous NOAA trust resources, including chinook, chum, pink, coho, and sockeye salmon. Juvenile salmonids from the Nooksack River may use habitats along Bellingham Bay, including areas near Little Squalicum Creek, for nursery habitat (Steel 1997).

Bellingham Bay supports a variety of marine species common to Puget Sound. Common demersal residents include English and rock sole; several rockfish, sculpin, and sea perch species; and Pacific cod and lingcod. Pelagic residents include Pacific herring and sablefish. Most of these species spawn within the bay or nearbyareas of Puget Sound and use the bay as a nursery.

The complex habitats within Bellingham Bay also support numerous shellfisheries (Table 1). Dungeness crab are harvested from most of the bay, as well as from areas surrounding the bay. Hardshell clams are harvested from Portage Bay, Portage Channel, offshore along the entire eastern side of Point Frances, from a small area south-southeast of Point Frances in Hale Passage, and along the eastern edge of Lummi Island (Chapman 1997).

There are marine mammals in Bellingham Bay(Table 1). The Washington State Coastal Sensitive Areas Map for Bellingham shows a harbor seal haulout offshore of Brant Point on Point Frances. Two nearby areas have designated marine mammal sightings, east and southwest of Brant Point, respectively. Species observed for these two areas were not identified, but are probably harbor seals or California sea lions. Cetaceans that migrate through the area include minke whale and gray whale (Ecology 1992).

### Region 10 • 107

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company • 107 

# Site-Related Contamination

Investigations at the site indicate that PCP, PAHs, and dioxins/furans are the contaminants of concern to NOAA trust resources. Table 2 illustrates the maximum concentrations of these contaminants from samples collected during a 1996 site inspection. PCPs and PAHs were observed at elevated concentrations in soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments.Trace elements sometimes associated with woodtreating (e.g., arsenic, copper, and zinc) were not reported to have been used at this site, and didnot exceed screening guidelines for environmental media (Ecology and Environment Inc. 1996).

Soil samples were extensivly contaminated withPAHs and PCP. Maximum total PAH concentrations exceeded 1000 mg/kg, while maximum PCP concentrations exceeded 100 mg/kg. Bellingham Bay supports important subsistence,commercial, and recreational fisheries. Commercial fishing and sportfishing areas, set net areas,and reef net areas, are mapped within and surrounding the bay in the Washington State Coastal Sensitive Areas Map for Bellingham (Ecology 1992). A large area in the northern portion of Bellingham Bay is used for set netting; this area extends from the mouth of the Nooksack River south to an unnamed point south of Fish Point and across to Post Point in the east-southeastern portion of the bay. Sportfishing takes place around Lummi Island and within Hale Passage.

Bald eagles are resident species of the Bellingham coastal zone that are federally protected under the Endangered Species Act (Ecology 1992). Bald eagles are not a NOAA trust resource, but are known to feed on migrating salmon and other NOAA trust species.

Table 2. Maximum concentrations of selected contaminants detected at the Oeser Company site (Ecology and Environment Inc. 1996; U.S. EPA 1997).
Water ( μ g/L) Sediment (mg/kg)

Organic Compound Soil (mg/kg) a NAPL (mg/kg) b Groundwater Surface Water Marine Chronic AWQC c Little Squalicum

Creek ERL d

Total PAHs 10,300 92,500 6,200 3.0 300 e 97 4.0
PCP 560 13,000 NR NR 7.9 2.2 0.36 f

Dioxins/ Furans 0.03 NR NR NR NA NR NA

a Screening guidelines for organic contaminants in U.S. soils are not available. b Non-aqueous phase liquid in subsurface soils c Ambient Water Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA 1993) d Effects range-low (Long and MacDonald 1995) e Lowest Observable Effect Level f Apparent Effects Threshold (PTI 1988) NR Not Reported NA Not analyzed

### 108 • Region 10

108 • Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser CompanyPreliminary data indicate widespread contamination, with highest concentrations in subsurface soils south of the treated pole storage area.

PAHs and PCP were detected in both shallow and deep groundwater beneath the site. PAHs and PCP were observed in nine of thirteen wells in shallow groundwater and in all five wells screened in the deeper aquifer. Maximum concentrations of PAHs and PCP each exceeded 10,000 μg/L in the shallow groundwater. Maximum floating NAPL thickness was 2 feet (EPA 1997)

Sediment and surface-water samples collected from Little Squalicum Creek confirmed the presence of PAHs and PCP. Six sediment samples were collected in Little Squalicum Creek downstream of the site; one sample was collected upstream. Downstream sediment stations were 75 to 150 m apart, extending from the storm drain outfall to the mouth of the creek. Total PAHs were observed at all six downgradient sediment samples, ranging from 0.55 to 97 mg/kg. PCP concentrations ranged from 0.039 to 2.2 mg/kg. The highest concentration of PCP was detected in a sediment samplecollected near the Oeser outfall. Three surfacewater samples were collected downstream from the site at locations corresponding to the three sediment stations farthest downstream. PAH concentrations ranged from 0.031 μg/L to 3.04 μg/L total PAH. PCP concentrations in surface water were not reported. The highest PAH concentrations in surface water were at a creek station located near a groundwater seep. 

# Summary

High concentrations of PAHs and PCP were found in soil and groundwater at the Oeser site and in sediments of Little Squalicum Creek. PAHs were found in water samples from Little Squalicum Creek, but PCP was not reported.Adult coho and chum salmon have been observed in Little Squalicum Creek. Juvenile salmon likely use the area for nursery habitat. Numerous additional trust resources use nearby areas of Bellingham Bay. Additional information is needed regarding the extent of contamination in Little Squalicum Creek to determine the threat posed to salmon and to better characterize contaminant sources, and potential contaminant pathways, to other trust resources found in Bellingham Bay.



# References

Chapman, A., fisheries biologist, Lummi Indian Reservation, Bellingham, Washington, personal communication, April 25, 1997.

Ecology. 1992. Washington State Sensitive Areas Mapping Project: San Juan Islands Booklet

. Publication No. 92-27. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology.

### Region 10 • 109

Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review / Oeser Company • 109 Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1996. Site Inspection Report for the Oeser Company. Seattle: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 70pp.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97.

PTI. 1988. The briefing report to the EPA Science Advisory Board: the Apparent Effects Threshold approach. Seattle: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Puget Sound, Puget Sound Estuary Program.

Steel, E., biologist, Bellingham Technical College, Bellingham, Washington, personal communication, May 2, 1997.

URS Consultants, Inc. 1994. Site InspectionPrioritization Report. Seattle: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 40 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Quality criteria for water. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. 294pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Action Memorandum: Request for a Removal Action and Exemption from the Two Million dollar Statutory Limit at the Oeser Company Site, Bellingham, Whatcom County, WA. Beth F. Sheldrake, OSC, to Chuck Clarke, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 10.